Animal styles?"
Dude. What are you asking? Am I getting it right, are you asking:
[QUOTE=falkor;1203595]What is factually known about Shaolin Kung Fu prior to the 20th century . . . ? In other words, without quoting unverified, legendary, mythical source . . . did they include animal styles?[/QUOTE]
r.
[QUOTE=r.(shaolin);1203927]Dude. What are you asking? Am I getting it right, are you asking:
r.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that was my question.
OK, here’s today’s problem with the dicussion we were having yesterday:
If the 5 animal styles were never part of northern Shaolin teachings, say, during the last 200 years then why did “Grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu” Dr. Kam Yuen choreograph them in the pilot episode of David Carradine’s Kung Fu TV Series (1972)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQNBSQmXCE
Dr. Kam Yuen
World famous Northern Shaolin and Praying Mantis Kung Fu master. Also known as the fight choreographer for the original Kung Fu television series. Dr. Yuen is the master of the very practical fighting form of the Grand Ultimate (Tai Chi) Plum flower Praying Mantis that is taught to many bodyguards of many Asian Presidents and World leaders.
The other person involved in Kung Fu TV Series was:
Grandmaster Ark Yuey Wong
Legendary master of the Five Family Style (Ng Gar Kuen) of Sil Lum (Shaolin) and the five Animal System of the Tiger, Snake, Crane, Leopard and Dragon. Ark Wong is known as the first master to open the secret door of Kung Fu to non-Chinese, and the teacher of many famous Kung Fu and martial arts masters around the world.
source: http://www.lvlohans.org/history/lineage
These guys aren’t southern boxing practitioners are they? Dr. Kam Yuen was one of the first masters to teach Kung Fu in the US. If these guys are Shaolin based then why are they showcasing 5 animals if it wasn’t part of Song Shan in fairly recent times? Remember, this was before the animal styles appeared in movies and were popularised by Hong Kong Cinema. And you can’t say they got their inspiration from some old B&W Wong Fei Hung movies from the 1950s.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203849]Because they know that many people have seen all the old HongKong movies from the which contain all the animal stuff. Those are the same movies they got to watch. So they rebranded the southern mythology like it was from SongShan which it isn’t.
Its simple marketing. That is what people expect of Shaolin because of the movies. NOtice the 1982 movie actually doesn’t do the animla stuff. It does the drunken but thats another story.
Actually modern Wushu is a very specific sport. It also doesn’t contain the animals so much. It has famous styles (which include Eagle and Mantis). It is the recent Shaolin Performance stuff that does all the animals.[/QUOTE]
How recent is performance Wu Shu and how did the monks suddenly come to incorporate 5 animals and other southern techniques into one of their four classes of Song Shan teachings? Did the monks suddenly start training under Hung Gar masters or something? Are you sure they weren’t practising this stuff in the north already? Again, how recent is performance Wushu? I got videos of monks performing this stuff from the late 1980s, but you say they wasn’t using it in 1982 (time of Jet Li’s movie)?
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203823]Hahah. My story is far more likely than any other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrLSCa16no
This is master CuiXiQI. He was born in 1922. He lives within 10 miles of Shaolin and always has. Kung Fu was outlawed between 1949-1972. This we know as fact. Do you think he learned this form since 1972? When he was 50? DO you think the 1500 catalogued forms of Song Mountain were all magically created in one go at this time? Who would have such skill. That would be far more impressive and far less believable than thw 1000 years of evolution story. How come ALL the old teachers know this form? Look them up. There are a lot of them.
YOu think that the 10’s of THOUSANDS of people who know shaolin Kung Fu in the Dengfeng area all decided to flee 800 miles south to Taiwan, magically predicting what would befall china under mao?? Who said they weren’t communist, I bet it seemed like a good idea at the time. After all the fighting with Japan and stuff.
Obviously the THOUSANDS who practiced Kung fu stayed in their home villages as rural people from an undeveloped country are prone to do. If some escaped to Taiwan the burdon of proof is with them. I have never seen song shan forms in Taiwanese born styles.
Chairman Mao is up there with the most evil men in all history.[/QUOTE]
That is a very good question, and this is a great debate! 
Right, here’s my new hypothesis for today:
All the surviving Shaolin masters had fled the temple and immediate surrounding villages by 1904, preserving the original Shaolin Kung Fu in other parts of China. I think what survived in Song Shan comes from more suburban villages further out than those that were close-by to the temple. Perhaps Tai Chi Quan had been developed on the outskirts and now those and other internal forms of the same variations are now practised throughout the world and branded as the original Shaolin Kung Fu.
Does Chuantong (traditional) focus on pressure points? If it doesn’t then the southern styles have a better claim to being the real Shaolin Kung Fu.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203936]How recent is performance Wu Shu and how did the monks suddenly come to incorporate 5 animals and other southern techniques into one of their four classes of Song Shan teachings? Did the monks suddenly start training under Hung Gar masters or something? Are you sure they weren’t practising this stuff in the north already? Again, how recent is performance Wushu? I got videos of monks performing this stuff from the late 1980s, but you say they wasn’t using it in 1982 (time of Jet Li’s movie)?[/QUOTE]
From 1949-1972 traditional Martial Arts were banned. Sport like wushu was allowed and started coming into its own about 1960. But traditional techniques could not be taught. In Dengfeng they still taught Shaolin forms, but did them in a way that was for sport.
There was no way at the time to instruct all the rural communities in the same thing. They had to use local teachers and the standard forms although some created about this time could not be easily taught to the whole country as there is no medium to do so (people did not have tvs, a lot didn’t have electricity). ALso the 60’s were a difficult period and no one had enough food to eat let alone enough to give them energy to train wushu.
So Wushu was taught by local masters in the 60’s who taught their art but in a sports-like manner to children.
In 1972 traditional Martial arts were allowed again. This opened the flood gates and all the teachers who weren’t interested in teaching the sport could start teaching again. The mists of the cultural revolution and mass starvation of the ‘great leap forward’ had cleared. People had the energy and will to train again. (most masters had taught in secret anyway, and it wasn’t so much a ban on practice as a ban on GROUP pracitce). unfortunately 23 years is a long time and of course wushu had regressed. The young could no longer meet the old masters.
Anyway after 1972 both contempory wushu and traditional got a lot more interesting again. The modern stuff could expand and traditional could flourish again.
Shaolin was taught properly in DengFeng in the 70’s even at the Shaolin temple by the few remaining old monks. At this time a lot of locals went to shaolin to train.
After the 1982 movie Shaolin regained its name and people from all over China started to come there. Both as tourists and to learn. This created the need for big schools.
Big schools need to compete and do performances to keep their name. So this stuff exploded and most of the performance stuff was developed then.
THere is a marked difference between masters who were trained in the different decades. The largest difference is with those who trained before 1982 and after.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203936]How recent is performance Wu Shu and how did the monks suddenly come to incorporate 5 animals and other southern techniques into one of their four classes of Song Shan teachings? Did the monks suddenly start training under Hung Gar masters or something? Are you sure they weren’t practising this stuff in the north already? Again, how recent is performance Wushu? I got videos of monks performing this stuff from the late 1980s, but you say they wasn’t using it in 1982 (time of Jet Li’s movie)?[/QUOTE]
When it comes to movies anyhow, advanced people probably have an easy time imitating styles, at least superficially. They wouldn’t have to study with a master to do film work. A lot of those films were done with dancers, generally athletic people, or similar. They just needed a coach (action director) on set.
I know of a tradtional teacher in Deng Feng who used to teach performance Wushu for the money. He just made it up, taking the traditional moves and exaggerating them to look more spectacular. People at that level can ham things up, do imitations, and generally horse around with ease. Even lots of teenage students do effortless imitations of other styles (no real substance, but it looks nice). They absorb movements easily. That’s MORE than good enough for HK flicks.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203935]
OK, here’s today’s problem with the dicussion we were having yesterday:
If the 5 animal styles were never part of northern Shaolin teachings, say, during the last 200 years then why did “Grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu” Dr. Kam Yuen choreograph them in the pilot episode of David Carradine’s Kung Fu TV Series (1972)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQNBSQmXCE
These guys aren’t southern boxing practitioners are they? Dr. Kam Yuen was one of the first masters to teach Kung Fu in the US. If these guys are Shaolin based then why are they showcasing 5 animals if it wasn’t part of Song Shan in fairly recent times? Remember, this was before the animal styles appeared in movies and were popularised by Hong Kong Cinema. And you can’t say they got their inspiration from some old B&W Wong Fei Hung movies from the 1950s.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they are southern practitioners. The clue is in their names. This is not mandarin language.
Kam Yuen is from Hong Kong. He did learn ‘northern shaolin’. This is not song shan shaolin. I have seen it. it is clearly related to song shan and from there at some point. All the techniques are identical but the performance style is not. When you remove it from SOng shan you remove the influence of the mountain styles and it stops being song shan kung fu. The forms are different. This guy knew a lot of different kung fu.
Ark wong is also southern from canton. ‘Sil Lum’ is the southern language for Shaolin.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203941]That is a very good question, and this is a great debate! Right, here’s my new hypothesis for today:
All the surviving Shaolin masters had fled the temple and immediate surrounding villages by 1904, preserving the original Shaolin Kung Fu in other parts of China. I think what survived in Song Shan comes from more suburban villages further out than those that were close-by to the temple. Perhaps Tai Chi Quan had been developed on the outskirts and now those and other internal forms of the same variations are now practised throughout the world and branded as the original Shaolin Kung Fu.
Does Chuantong (traditional) focus on pressure points? If it doesn’t then the southern styles have a better claim to being the real Shaolin Kung Fu.[/QUOTE]
Fleeing what? They had no need to run away. Even in 1928 when it was burned down, it wasn’t done so to kill people but to remove the Shaolin temple as a strategic position and also because the guy who did it was an *sshole. He was buried alive for his crime.
When monks left shaolin they simply went back to their families usually a couple of villages over OR if none were around they stayed in one of the many welcoming temples nearby. Song shan has many many temples.
Why go further? No one was hunting them.
Even nowadays some of the villages I visited had no road and I had to walk through the mountains to get there. Some masters had no electricity. Thats now. In 1904? WHo was going around these places hunting monks and teaching them all modern stuff? The traditions in these places don’t change fast. There is no way to make that happen. I learned XiaoHOng quan in one village and they said they hadn’t changed it in 500 years…I saw a 90 y.o old master do it exactly the same as I was taught in the village. And he told me as a boy his 90 y.o master did it the same as well. I believe them. This is the same technique as is practiced in Shaolin now. The same as all the old masters I met practiced. All form different parts of the mountain and some fromt the temple. DOn’t you think it is more likely it that that IS shaolin technique?
you guys realize this guy doesnt actually train any martial arts except from books and dvds? and you just wasted hours giving answers to this guy who replies “no i think you are wrong”
are you posting to help or just for ego, to show your abundance of knowledge? thats not chan. chan is to explain in the simplest shortest form possible.
[QUOTE=bawang;1203961]you guys realize this guy doesnt actually train any martial arts except from books and dvds? and you just wasted hours giving answers to this guy who replies “no i think you are wrong”
are you posting to help or just for ego, to show your abundance of knowledge? thats not chan. chan is to explain in the simplest shortest form possible.[/QUOTE]
Chan is about approaching everything like it is a skill to be mastered. It doesn’t make you follow a set of principles, it asks you to actually train wisdom as though it were a Kung fu technique. To actually meditate on the things that are. To argue everything so you may refine your opinions and strengthen your convictions.
This is training. Explaining it to another clarifies my own knowledge.
Although, in this case I am putting in a lot of effort for little reward. If you can get someone who is set in their opinion to change their mind using patience and logic then it is a wonderful thing.
[QUOTE=rett;1203943]When it comes to movies anyhow, advanced people probably have an easy time imitating styles, at least superficially. They wouldn’t have to study with a master to do film work. A lot of those films were done with dancers, generally athletic people, or similar. They just needed a coach (action director) on set.
I know of a tradtional teacher in Deng Feng who used to teach performance Wushu for the money. He just made it up, taking the traditional moves and exaggerating them to look more spectacular. People at that level can ham things up, do imitations, and generally horse around with ease. Even lots of teenage students do effortless imitations of other styles (no real substance, but it looks nice). They absorb movements easily. That’s MORE than good enough for HK flicks.[/QUOTE]
What you describe is definitely plausible, but sounds a lot like speculation to me.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203970]What you describe is definitely plausible, but sounds a lot like speculation to me.[/QUOTE]
Not much speculation there. (Embarassingly enough) I’ve listened to the commentary tracks of a lot of HK action films, which describe exactly what I wrote, and personally witnessed the other parts I described in China at and around a small traditional school for Northern Shaolin.
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203944]Yes, they are southern practitioners. The clue is in their names. This is not mandarin language.
Kam Yuen is from Hong Kong. He did learn ‘northern shaolin’. This is not song shan shaolin. I have seen it. it is clearly related to song shan and from there at some point. All the techniques are identical but the performance style is not. When you remove it from SOng shan you remove the influence of the mountain styles and it stops being song shan kung fu. The forms are different. This guy knew a lot of different kung fu.
Ark wong is also southern from canton. ‘Sil Lum’ is the southern language for Shaolin.[/QUOTE]
Your explanation sounds a bit sketchy to me. You’ve mentioned all these different types of Wushu and other classes taught at Shaolin, and now you are saying that there is a different “northern Shaolin” style that is different to Song Shan Shaolin with different forms? Could please provide some links to websites or videos to explain these differences? How do these masters enter the Hall of Fame and get given “Grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu” if they are simply frauds? You may be right about their places of birth or upbringing, but then I’m not sure if that’s relevant.
Wen Shu
You have no concept of Wu De do you. You bring dishonor to all who know you. To take the time to construct a pic as you did is childish, immature and nothing but , self seeking. You really need alot of good meds and Psychological treatments. KC
[QUOTE=RenDaHai;1203946]Fleeing what? They had no need to run away. Even in 1928 when it was burned down, it wasn’t done so to kill people but to remove the Shaolin temple as a strategic position and also because the guy who did it was an *sshole. He was buried alive for his crime.
When monks left shaolin they simply went back to their families usually a couple of villages over OR if none were around they stayed in one of the many welcoming temples nearby. Song shan has many many temples.
Why go further? No one was hunting them.
Even nowadays some of the villages I visited had no road and I had to walk through the mountains to get there. Some masters had no electricity. Thats now. In 1904? WHo was going around these places hunting monks and teaching them all modern stuff? The traditions in these places don’t change fast. There is no way to make that happen. I learned XiaoHOng quan in one village and they said they hadn’t changed it in 500 years…I saw a 90 y.o old master do it exactly the same as I was taught in the village. And he told me as a boy his 90 y.o master did it the same as well. I believe them. This is the same technique as is practiced in Shaolin now. The same as all the old masters I met practiced. All form different parts of the mountain and some fromt the temple. DOn’t you think it is more likely it that that IS shaolin technique?[/QUOTE]
Many political events in history have been enough to drive out entire populations from villages or towns depending on the threat. If Shaolin was a closed-door temple, which I am going to argue for next then the surrounding villages need not be affected, but organisation and management of the temple would have broken down with key members leaving the province. If the laymen lost their masters and other key figureheads then they may have been forced to learn new techniques from villages further afield.
Is the 8 Drunken Imortals style still taught in Song Shan? That and attacking pressure points are the only styles that Shahar proved were proper monastery-based–together with Plum Flower Fist–before the 18th century. If Traditional/Chuantong no longer features these then you can bet they were lost from Song Shan during times of upheaval and subsequently preserved in other parts of China (or Taiwan). This would then really be the smoking gun in this whole debate.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203974]Many political events in history have been enough to drive out entire populations from villages or towns depending on the threat. If Shaolin was a closed-door temple, which I am going to argue for next then the surrounding villages need not be affected, but organisation and management of the temple would have broken down with key members leaving the province. If the laymen lost their masters and other key figureheads then they may have been forced to learn new techniques from villages further afield.
Is the 8 Drunken Imortals style still taught in Song Shan? That and attacking pressure points are the only styles that Shahar proved were proper monastery-based–together with Plum Flower Fist–before the 18th century. If Traditional/Chuantong no longer features these then you can bet they were lost to Song Shan during times of upheaval and subsequently preserved in other parts of China (or Taiwan). This would then really be the smoking gun in this whole debate.[/QUOTE]
Perhap, but that sounds like a lot of speculation to me:p
[QUOTE=bawang;1203961]you guys realize this guy doesnt actually train any martial arts except from books and dvds? and you just wasted hours giving answers to this guy who replies “no i think you are wrong”
are you posting to help or just for ego, to show your abundance of knowledge? thats not chan. chan is to explain in the simplest shortest form possible.[/QUOTE]
RDHs stuff makes for great reading.
Why does anyone ever write anything?
[QUOTE=falkor;1203972]Your explanation sounds a bit sketchy to me. You’ve mentioned all these different types of Wushu and other classes taught at Shaolin, and now you are saying that there is a different “northern Shaolin” style that is different to Song Shan Shaolin with different forms? Could please provide some links to websites or videos to explain these differences? How do these masters enter the Hall of Fame and get given “Grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu” if they are simply frauds? You may be right about their places of birth or upbringing, but then I’m not sure if that’s relevant.[/QUOTE]
Look up BSL and northern Shaolin. It is not Song Shan Shaolin. Though it is close. They are not the same forms.
There is a LOT of information on this exact topic.
THey are not frauds, their style IS called NOrthern Shaolin. But it is a branch of Shaolin separated from song shan and then propagated in the south. Hence its name is usually ‘Bak Sil Lum’ which is cantonese for Northern Shaolin. Cantonese means instantly not from Henan.
There are 10000 styles that call themselves Shaolin. To simplify the situation we call ones from the vicinity of the temple ‘Song Shan Shaolin’.
There is not some governing body that gives people the title ‘Grandmaster of Shaolin’ they usually give it to themselves or a student does.
There is no person who can claim to be grandmaster of shaolin.
[QUOTE=falkor;1203974]
Is the 8 Drunken Imortals style still taught in Song Shan? That and attacking pressure points are the only styles that Shahar proved were proper monastery-based–together with Plum Flower Fist–before the 18th century. If Traditional/Chuantong no longer features these then you can bet they were lost to Song Shan during times of upheaval and subsequently preserved in other parts of China (or Taiwan). This would then really be the smoking gun in this whole debate.[/QUOTE]
I don’t remember Shahar proving this, could you quote?
8 Drunken immortals are Taoist gods and have no place in Shaolin.
Attacking pressure points is in every style of Kung fu.