# Shaolin Wushu by EPAK-ers



## nlkenpo (Oct 26, 2006)

Hi All,

In august 2004 my wife and I stayed in a Shaoling Wushu school in Zhengzhou, China for three weeks of training (6 hours a day, 6 days a week). We both are EPAK-ers. In this clip you'll see the form we learned.





 
And please don't hesitate to leave your feedback here or on Youtube!!!

Marcel


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 26, 2006)

Nice.  Thanks for sharing.  Was that your first introduction ot Wushu?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2006)

What is the name of the form, and what shaolin system is it from?  Do you still practice it?  Looks like Northern Longfist stuff, but I'm not familiar enough to identify it specifically.  Interesting stuff.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 26, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> What  Looks like Northern Longfist stuff


 

It does have similarities to the Long Fist I use to do, what is it exactly?


----------



## nlkenpo (Oct 31, 2006)

Sorry for replying so late, but I had forgotten to subscribe to any replies, so I only just found out that there were any.

The form was called something like "Chow Gun Form" and was taught to us by Xie Sifu, who had studied in the Shaolin Temple school.

It was our first introduction to Shaolin Wushu.

My girlfriend (at the time, my wife now   ) had seen a documentary on Discovery about Shaolin and said she wanted to go there to train, so we arranged it. It was a truly great experience, although a little bit too short. Most people who go there, go for at least 2 months. These people often are inbetween a finished study and a first job, so they've got all the time they need. Since we are both working, we couldn't get any more time oof than a month, which resulted in only three weeks of training, and a week and a half of travel.

:bow:


----------



## thewhitemikevick (Nov 22, 2006)

Wow...I'm sure that was an amazing experience. I hope that I can do something like that someday. I have infinite respect for the Shaolin.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 2, 2007)

Not sure how I missed this thread before but thanks for sharing the clip.
So how do you as a kenpo practictioner feel about the form you learned and the training methods vs what you normaly do


----------



## nlkenpo (Apr 2, 2007)

Well, the form I learned....

It was different. The form itself was not that usefull for us, but being that close to the history of the Martial Arts was a great experience, and their training methods have learned me some things too.

The Chinese way of learning something is by doing it a lot of times, most of the times without even knowing what it is you're doing. As long as it looks the same as the master it is good. They place form over function.

Here in the Western world we like to learn smart, by understanding everything we're doing, before rehearsing it, therefore placing function over form.

As allways the truth is somewhere in the middle. Although I still think function is more important then form, somtimes it's functional to start with form, and add function afterwards. Especially when teaching kids and less talented adults that is the case.

There's much more to elaborate on, but I'm at work, and I suppose that's what I should be doing right now, work.

Marcel


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 2, 2007)

thanks,
I look forward to when you have more time to elaborate I am courious to know these things


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2007)

nlkenpo said:


> The Chinese way of learning something is by doing it a lot of times, most of the times without even knowing what it is you're doing. As long as it looks the same as the master it is good. They place form over function.
> 
> Here in the Western world we like to learn smart, by understanding everything we're doing, before rehearsing it, therefore placing function over form.


 
True, but in some of the CMA styles particularly the internal styles if the form is not right there is no function.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> True, but in some of the CMA styles particularly the internal styles if the form is not right there is no function.


 

Yes, I agree.

In my experience, having studied both, there is a very big difference in the approach to teaching and learning a Traditional Chinese martial art, and learning kenpo.

In kenpo, everything is very clearly defined.  All aspects of a technique are explained, how to do it, what the positioning is, what you are doing with every movement, what the results should be, etc.  It can be very detailed and useful.  But it can also create a sort of "tunnel vision", where the student is unable to recognize alternative uses for the same technique.  Material can get kind of pidgeon-holed, and this creates a need for a vast body of techniques to counter every conceiveable attack.

In the TCMA, the movements are a bit more abstract, which opens the door to a wider range of interpretation, and recognition that the same, or similar movements, can be effectively applied under numerous, and widely varied, circumstances.  One is able to get more mileage out of a smaller body of knowledge.  It also assumes a greater responsibility on the part of the student, for his own training.  The student needs to keep at it, and not expect knowledge to be handed to him on a silver platter, or in a Western style lecture.

The problem is, it takes work and effort on the part of the student to learn the form, then study it and begin to understand how it can be useful.  If you never make this effort, then the form will not have much practical use.  But if you make the effort, you might realize dozens of different ways that you can use the same movements in very effective ways.  You can spend a lifetime studying one form, and find that it can meet all of your needs in fighting.

I think these two methods clearly represent examples of the difference in mindset between East and West.  Kenpo is very West, with clear instruction, details, lecture-style passing on of information.  It can be very useful very quickly, but might create some shortcomings down the road, if the individual sticks too close to "the book".

Wushu/kung-fu is very East, more responsibility on the shoulders of the student to learn for himself.  It is slower and perhaps more frustrating in the beginning, but if one perseveres and sticks with it, the long term results can perhaps be greater.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, I agree.
> 
> In my experience, having studied both, there is a very big difference in the approach to teaching and learning a Traditional Chinese martial art, and learning kenpo.
> 
> ...


 
Also agreed

Yang Style taiji - White crane spreads its wings has more than one applications, as do most postures in Yang style

Chen style taiji - Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds Mortar (Jin Gung Dao Dui) has more than one application, as do most postures in Chen style

Hebei style Xingyiquan - piquan is one form of Xingyiquan 5 elements boxing and it has more than one application , as do most forms in Xingyi. 

All quite painful :uhyeah:

But without knowing proper form, or having a proper base, the application is just not there.


----------



## Seabrook (Aug 10, 2007)

nlkenpo said:


> Hi All,
> 
> In august 2004 my wife and I stayed in a Shaoling Wushu school in Zhengzhou, China for three weeks of training (6 hours a day, 6 days a week). We both are EPAK-ers. In this clip you'll see the form we learned.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Marcel!

Just watched the clip.....good stuff.

I love Shaolin forms. 

Three weeks of training and 6 hours per day.....that is dedication!

God Bless buddy.


----------

