# Shaolin-Do Curriculum?



## Doomx2001

Hello everybody,
I was looking for some info into Shaolin-Do. I've heard the controversy and read about it in great length. But, what I'm looking for is actual details about the art itself, and not so much the history. Also, I'm not trying to cause any grief or controversy, I'm just intereseted in the facts. I study martial arts, and I just enjoy learning/practicing different arts. 

Here's my questions: 

*1.)  From White belt to Black, how many self defense techniques are there? 
      As far as I know, white belt - green belt is the only self defense stuff taught (roughly 30 chin na techniques), and the rest is nothing but forms?

2.)  Is the curriculum still growing? With so much alledged material, one would think that more stuff would be added to the curriculum. 

3.)  Is the self defense applications of the forms taught? 
*

Thats it for now. I appreciate any responses.


----------



## Doomx2001

Anybody?


----------



## Domino

Never heard of the art to be fair but youtube has some bits. roll eyes


----------



## clfsean

Seriously? You posted an initial note @1205 & then are out looking for responses @1242. 

Chill.

To answer your questions though... 



Doomx2001 said:


> *1.)  From White belt to Black, how many self defense techniques are there?
> As far as I know, white belt - green belt is the only self defense stuff taught (roughly 30 chin na techniques), and the rest is nothing but forms?*



There's more to it that that, but yes that's about the size of it in a nutshell. This goes along with the continued training of the previous material as you would with any martial art to develop skill with the material.


Doomx2001 said:


> * 2.)  Is the curriculum still growing? With so much alledged material, one would think that more stuff would be added to the curriculum. *



Couldn't answer that. 


Doomx2001 said:


> * 3.)  Is the self defense applications of the forms taught?
> *



With their background & base training yes.


----------



## Tez3

clfsean said:


> Seriously? You posted an initial note @1205 & then are out looking for responses @1242.
> 
> Chill.
> 
> To answer your questions though...
> 
> 
> 
> There's more to it that that, but yes that's about the size of it in a nutshell. This goes along with the continued training of the previous material as you would with any martial art to develop skill with the material.
> 
> 
> Couldn't answer that.
> 
> 
> With their background & base training yes.


 

It was five past five in the morning our time so not many reading at that time lol!


----------



## Flying Crane

Doomx2001 said:


> Hello everybody,
> I was looking for some info into Shaolin-Do. I've heard the controversy and read about it in great length. But, what I'm looking for is actual details about the art itself, and not so much the history. Also, I'm not trying to cause any grief or controversy, I'm just intereseted in the facts. I study martial arts, and I just enjoy learning/practicing different arts.


 
ah, something from my illustrious past...

I trained in this system for a couple semesters when I was in college in the very early 1990s.  The husband of a professor was a Shaolin-do guy and would come onto campus and use gym space to practice.  I hooked up with him and trained for a while.  It was my first experience with "Chinese" material, so I didn't know much how to evaluate it.  I haven't looked at nor played with that stuff in many years, tho I still have the list somewhere at home.



> Here's my questions:
> 
> *1.) From White belt to Black, how many self defense techniques are there? *
> *As far as I know, white belt - green belt is the only self defense stuff taught (roughly 30 chin na techniques), and the rest is nothing but forms?*




that sounds about right, I believe the SD Techs were in the first two belts, maybe 20 and 10 respectively.  then there were other groupings of things called simply "Techniques" and whatnot, that were really similar to the SD Techs.  If memory serves, there might be a grand total of 40-50 of these things if you combine them all.

Then they had a list of "Short Forms" that were brief combinations, but meant to be practiced in a line one after the other.  Individually they could be seen as similar to the "technique" material, but if you link them together they make another form.

THen they had their proper "forms", both empty-hand and weapons.  



> *2.) Is the curriculum still growing? With so much alledged material, one would think that more stuff would be added to the curriculum. *


 
I don't know the answer to that.  The last claims I saw were something like 900 forms.  If they feel they need more than that (or even need that much) then they ought to re-evaluate what they are doing and ask themselves some uncomfortable questions about why they need so much.  



> *3.) Is the self defense applications of the forms taught? *


 
in my case, not very well, not very much.  Very little energy was spent on understanding the fundamentals too.  He was just teaching me the material quickly, and in hindsight it was just movement without much meaning.  At the time I didn't know better.


----------



## Doomx2001

Thanks for all the replies everyone. 
The reason I was asking is because I currently study Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (7yr) and Jun Tong Musool Hapkido (1yr) and I'm considering training in Shaolin-Do. I enjoy learning different martial arts, cross training, the history, different training methods, different workouts...everything. 

I've been interested in Chinese martial arts for a while now, unfortuantly for me there isn't any schools near by where I'm from, except Shaolin-Do which is everywhere in Kentucky. 
I know full well the reputation of Shaolin-Do, but I'm one of those people who see merit in everything.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> Thanks for all the replies everyone.
> The reason I was asking is because I currently study Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (7yr) and Jun Tong Musool Hapkido (1yr) and I'm considering training in Shaolin-Do. I enjoy learning different martial arts, cross training, the history, different training methods, different workouts...everything.


 
That's cool. Just make sure your plate doesn't become too full because then you loose the integrity of what you learned.



Doomx2001 said:


> I've been interested in Chinese martial arts for a while now, unfortuantly for me there isn't any schools near by where I'm from, except Shaolin-Do which is everywhere in Kentucky.
> I know full well the reputation of Shaolin-Do, but I'm one of those people who see merit in everything.


 
There is merit it in. The SD peeps know how to throw down. However... as an ex-SDer myself, spent plenty of time in it, met plenty of different people from schools all over & then moving to TCMA... understand one thing. SD isn't strictly CMA. I'm not knocking what they teach, you will learn things to use. But just keep in mind it's not TCMA. It's SD. It has it's own foundation, which is good because they do everything the same way. However, it also means that a lot of the stuff they do is technically/foundationally incorrect because it's being done the SD way, not the way the style they borrowed the set(s) from originally did because the foundation is lacking/missing to impart those particular skills properly. Again, they make it work, but not the way it was necessarily intended.


----------



## ggg214

it's a little weird to the name of Shaolin-do. because shaoli is buddhism or Zen, while Do is definitely a Taoist thing. it's a two different system. is it a combination of both?


----------



## Xue Sheng

ggg214 said:


> it's a little weird to the name of Shaolin-do. because shaoli is buddhism or Zen, while Do is definitely a Taoist thing. it's a two different system. is it a combination of both?


 
Stranger yet I think it is a combination of the Chinese "Shaolin" and the Japanese "Do"


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Stranger yet I think it is a combination of the Chinese "Shaolin" and the Japanese "Do"


 
Not terribly worse than the Chinese "Jeet Kune" and Japanese "Do"... different, but not really.


----------



## yak sao

Sin The is from Indonesia. He learned Shaolin do from master Ie Chang Ming, who was Chinese and moved to Indonesia. I have heard that the Shaolin was blended with the Japanese karate that was already prevalent there at the time to make it more accepted.
I don't know if this is something that Ie did or Sin The.


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> Not terribly worse than the Chinese "Jeet Kune" and Japanese "Do"... different, but not really.


 
Yes, yes it is....and why is it different...because I say it is :mst:


Good point, I had not thought about that


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes, yes it is....and why is it different...because I say it is :mst:


 
Way to stand your ground!



Xue Sheng said:


> Good point, I had not thought about that


 
Actually it's not but I was just using it as an example. :soapbox:

JKD uses Cantonese Dou6 in speaking & writing but the "u" was left off in English. In Mandarin it'd be Jie Quan Dao.


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> Way to stand your ground!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not but I was just using it as an example. :soapbox:
> 
> JKD uses Cantonese Dou6 in speaking & writing but the "u" was left off in English. In Mandarin it'd be Jie Quan Dao.


 
OK I was trying REAL hard not to go the Southern Devil Speak and the "Northern Language of the Chosen" but I knew that.... I totally forgot about it... but I knew that 

Now... NOW do you see why Southern Devil Speak is just plain WRONG!!!!


----------



## Eric_H

Avoid Shaolin Do at all costs.


----------



## Doomx2001

ggg214 said:


> it's a little weird to the name of Shaolin-do. because shaoli is buddhism or Zen, while Do is definitely a Taoist thing. it's a two different system. is it a combination of both?



*Well, here is the cliff notes version of Shaolin-Do:

It is said that Sin Kwan The' learned over 900 forms from his grandfather who claimed to be THE SHAOLIN GRANDMASTER of all of Shaolin. Sin Kwan The is from Indonesia and it is said that his chinese grandfather immigrated to indonesia (as many chinese did durring the boxer revolution and to many other countries as well such as Korea , Taiwan, and Japan).

In the 60's, Sin The' immigrated to the U.S to study to be an engineer at the University of Kentucky.
At the time the tv series 'Kung Fu' was popular along with Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon. Sin The' made money on the side doing caligraphy and eventually teaching martial arts. He eventually gave up on being an engineer and focused entirely on teaching martial arts. For the first two decades his curriculum was 'hard'/external and later decades he began teaching 'soft/internal' material. 

There are many claims by him that have been refuted for lack of evidence in China and nothing provided by him to back up his claims other than his word. 

Today Shaolin-Do is practiced all over the U.S and is being spread throughout the world. 

To answer the original question, many people were at the time becoming familiar with the word 'Shaolin' because of the tv series 'Kung Fu' and many martial arts at the time ended with 'do'. So he just combined the two. *


Anyway, there is alot more stuff than that to make your head spin. But, to stay on topic, does anyone else have anything to add about the techniques or curriculum of Shaolin-Do? What about Chin-Na techniques?


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> <<deleted party line stuff>>
> 
> Anyway, there is alot more stuff than that to make your head spin. But, to stay on topic, does anyone else have anything to add about the techniques or curriculum of Shaolin-Do? What about Chin-Na techniques?


 

Like what? Their kum na techniques aren't technically kum na. They're reversals & escapes from grabs & locks.


----------



## oaktree

> *Well, here is the cliff notes version of Shaolin-Do:
> 
> It is said that Sin Kwan The' learned over 900 forms from his grandfather who claimed to be THE SHAOLIN GRANDMASTER of all of Shaolin. Sin Kwan The is from Indonesia and it is said that his chinese grandfather immigrated to indonesia (as many chinese did durring the boxer revolution and to many other countries as well such as Korea , Taiwan, and Japan).
> 
> In the 60's, Sin The' immigrated to the U.S to study to be an engineer at the University of Kentucky.
> At the time the tv series 'Kung Fu' was popular along with Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon. Sin The' made money on the side doing caligraphy and eventually teaching martial arts. He eventually gave up on being an engineer and focused entirely on teaching martial arts. For the first two decades his curriculum was 'hard'/external and later decades he began teaching 'soft/internal' material.
> 
> There are many claims by him that have been refuted for lack of evidence in China and nothing provided by him to back up his claims other than his word.
> 
> Today Shaolin-Do is practiced all over the U.S and is being spread throughout the world.
> 
> To answer the original question, many people were at the time becoming familiar with the word 'Shaolin' because of the tv series 'Kung Fu' and many martial arts at the time ended with 'do'. So he just combined the two. *


 

People spend their whole lives just learning 8 mother palm bagua, Wuxing from Xingyiquan and even Lao jia in Chen Taijiquan to think of learning even 100 forms you would miss out on so much martial application your muscle memory would be confused on what to do,
your form would be at a mediocre level at best.


Thinking of someone mastering 900 forms or more is just well let this guy explain it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Sa6Umz8YA&feature=fvst

You can't just combine random Zhongwen because Shaolin-do just sounds retard.



> JKD uses Cantonese Dou6 in speaking & writing but the "u" was left off in English. In Mandarin it'd be Jie Quan Dao.


 
6 tone sends shivers down my spine. At least the Mandarin is a sign of relief. :cheers:


----------



## Doomx2001

For me, what I would get out of learning Shaolin-Do would be to get a basic introduction into chinese martial arts (even if the Shaolin-Do understanding of their source arts is 'skewed') and to experience different 'taijutsu' or body movements to get me 'thinking' and experimenting with new ideas. If I found that after the first couple of classes that it had some merit to it, I'd keep training.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> For me, what I would get out of learning Shaolin-Do would be to get a basic introduction into chinese martial arts (even if the Shaolin-Do understanding of their source arts is 'skewed') and to experience different 'taijutsu' or body movements to get me 'thinking' and experimenting with new ideas. If I found that after the first couple of classes that it had some merit to it, I'd keep training.


 
Where are you at in Ky?


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> Where are you at in Ky?



I'm in the southeastern part. I apologize for being so vauge. Can't never be too careful with your personal info on the net'.


----------



## Doomx2001

Here is an interesting question/thought: Where do you guys see Shaolin-Do in future (the curriculum, future grandmaster, popularity...etc). 

Myself, here is what I think:

Even if Shaolin-Do is based on a lie (which I'm not saying it is or isn't), I think all those that train in it are legit, because they put the 'blood, sweat, tears, and time' into learning it. And nobody can take that away from the practitioners no matter what is found out in the future. 
We can already see what is happening with Shaolin-Do. As it has spread westward, Shaolin-Do students/teachers have compared what they were taught with people who study other TCMA (traditional Chinese martial arts). And doing so, they have incorparated what they have learned from other TCMA's into Shaolin-Do making it more legit (assuming that is, that SD is based on a long series of lies). 

I think over time in about 30 or 50 years, the Shaolin-Do we see today will look entirely different and become more effective, and more authentic with time. There are a few (probably one or two at least) Shaolin-Do teachers who have actually traveled to China to study Shaolin for a short time, so I imagine they would incorparate what they learned into what they do. 

I think, sadly, after Sin Kwan The' dies one day, there will be no grandmaster of the art and it will splinter into rival schools (as it is already happening). 

However, as the optimist that I am, I think Shaolin-Do has done more GOOD than harm in that it has offered many people who have no access to martial art training a chance to train (or at least that is how it is many parts of KY). And, as the more disgruntled serious students of SD move on to other TCMA's they carry with them some basic understanding of TCMA.

What do you guys think?
And please add more of your thoughts about the curriculum.
Thanks for all the replys.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> I'm in the southeastern part. I apologize for being so vauge. Can't never be too careful with your personal info on the net'.


 
That's cool... just gonna help you find possibly something a little more single threaded in training. 

PM me if you feel like it.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> Here is an interesting question/thought: Where do you guys see Shaolin-Do in future (the curriculum, future grandmaster, popularity...etc).
> 
> Myself, here is what I think:


 
Multiparted to provide carlity of thought & topic



Doomx2001 said:


> Even if Shaolin-Do is based on a lie (which I'm not saying it is or isn't), I think all those that train in it are legit, because they put the 'blood, sweat, tears, and time' into learning it. And nobody can take that away from the practitioners no matter what is found out in the future.


 
True enough & they can use it as it's taught. However...



Doomx2001 said:


> We can already see what is happening with Shaolin-Do. As it has spread westward, Shaolin-Do students/teachers have compared what they were taught with people who study other TCMA (traditional Chinese martial arts). And doing so, they have incorparated what they have learned from other TCMA's into Shaolin-Do making it more legit (assuming that is, that SD is based on a long series of lies).


 
Negative. It can't happen with SD because of what SD is. Just the nature of the beast.



Doomx2001 said:


> I think over time in about 30 or 50 years, the Shaolin-Do we see today will look entirely different and become more effective, and more authentic with time. There are a few (probably one or two at least) Shaolin-Do teachers who have actually traveled to China to study Shaolin for a short time, so I imagine they would incorparate what they learned into what they do.


 
Effectiveness is up to the person. As to the China thing... who knows but see above.



Doomx2001 said:


> I think, sadly, after Sin Kwan The' dies one day, there will be no grandmaster of the art and it will splinter into rival schools (as it is already happening).


 
Bad juju to talk about the passing of a present teacher. No comment.




Doomx2001 said:


> However, as the optimist that I am, I think Shaolin-Do has done more GOOD than harm in that it has offered many people who have no access to martial art training a chance to train (or at least that is how it is many parts of KY). And, as the more disgruntled serious students of SD move on to other TCMA's they carry with them some basic understanding of TCMA.


 
Yes & no. Yes that it was instrumental in bringing MA to Ky & surrounding region. 

No in the aspect that the marketing machine went wild & the interwebz has kinda caught it. So much of that has stopped. However the stigma is there. 

As to students leaving for TCMA as I did & at least for me, there's no disgruntlement. I just found TCMA close to me for a change & jumped. I hold my SD in the highest regard & hope him nothing but the best. One of my best friends is still SD & we enjoy crossing hands like we enjoy drinking beer. 

However, the basic understanding of TCMA came AFTER leaving SD. I walked in as an already experienced martial artist, but SD for all it offered, had too many holes & not enough patches. 



Doomx2001 said:


> What do you guys think?
> And please add more of your thoughts about the curriculum.
> Thanks for all the replys.


 
Dude... what are you going on about the curriculum? IF you have questions, ask. I'll answer as best as I can remember, but it's the SD curriculum & the only way to understand it, is to go through it. 

If you're wondering about their kum na, don't. If you've been in the Buj for 7 years, they've got nothing to show you that you shouldn't have seen already & with lots of henka & hands on to go with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Doomx2001 said:


> It is said that Sin Kwan The' learned over 900 forms from his grandfather who claimed to be *THE SHAOLIN GRANDMASTER of all of Shaolin*.


 
And surprisingly there is no record of this at Shaolin where they are known to keep meticulous records.

No one and I repeat no one in CMA learns 900 forms and is taken seriously by any other real live CMA sifu. Sorry it is the way it is in CMA my first sifu now claims to know hundreds among them Wudang and Shaolin and he is far from skilled in them. And I won't tell you what 3 born raised and trained in China sifus say about him.... let&#8217;s just say that all call him a Grandmaster... and they are not being complimentary and that is the nicest thing they say about him


----------



## Flying Crane

Different systems have a very specific methodology in how they train.  This is reflected in how the system is designed and built, and it gets certain types of results, as it is designed for.

Usually you cannot patch things from one system onto another (even tho a lot of people TRY to do so), because their very foundation is different.  These things just do not work well when cobbled together that way.  And the only way to effectively incorporate elements of one system into another, is to seriously train that system and understand it from the ground up.

Patching some legitimate but poorly understood Hung Gar forms into the Shaolin Do curriculum is not going to make the SD better.  It's just going to make the hung gar worse for being patched in and not properly trained.

SD is what it is, and as Sean says, it cannot be changed or improved in that way.  It is what it is and will never be other than that.

My own understanding of Chinese methods also came later, after I left SD.  It took finding a top level instructor in a solid system, with a solid lineage, to get that, and unfortunately those instructors are kinda rare these days.

But SD has some stuff to offer, as long as you understand it for what it is.  I see it as a bit like kenpo.  It's got some good, but that road will not take you to the top levels that are possible thru other methods.


----------



## oaktree

> Here is an interesting question/thought: Where do you guys see Shaolin-Do in future (the curriculum, future grandmaster, popularity...etc).


I honestly do not know since I do not study it. I have seen some of the forms on Youtube some is good some is not to good. I guess depends on the school.:idunno:



> Even if Shaolin-Do is based on a lie (which I'm not saying it is or isn't), I think all those that train in it are legit, because they put the 'blood, sweat, tears, and time' into learning it. And nobody can take that away from the practitioners no matter what is found out in the future.


If the people who train in it are happy with it great more power to them. If someone asks me my opinion on it I will say it. I will point out things that seem odd to me.
I cringe everytime I type the word Shaolin-do though.
So Ie Chang Ming teacher was Su Kong Tai Djin who was well....a character who would definely stand out http://www.shaolin-do.com/history.php
I find it odd there is a photo of him so clear for one. I find it odd that he is wearing western clothings instead of his robe.
 Why is there a photo of him but a painting of Ie Ching Ming his student? 
Maybe someone who is familar with photo's can give a better account.



> We can already see what is happening with Shaolin-Do. As it has spread westward, Shaolin-Do students/teachers have compared what they were taught with people who study other TCMA (traditional Chinese martial arts). And doing so, they have incorparated what they have learned from other TCMA's into Shaolin-Do making it more legit (assuming that is, that SD is based on a long series of lies).


 I don't think that makes it more legit it's just covered with something legit over it. Kinda of like when someone makes something bad and you put cheese over it to make it taste good. I mean why not just go train something that does not have such a questionable line if lineage and pedigree is important to you.




> I think over time in about 30 or 50 years, the Shaolin-Do we see today will look entirely different and become more effective, and more authentic with time. There are a few (probably one or two at least) Shaolin-Do teachers who have actually traveled to China to study Shaolin for a short time, so I imagine they would incorparate what they learned into what they do.


How does it become more authentic? Doesn't it have to start with something authentic already to be authentic?  I will use the Taoist Tai Chi Society to illustrate.
 The Taoist Tai chi society is not martial Taiji its old lady social hour. 

Now if someone trains in Yang Taiji and starts adding Yang Taiji applications to Taoist Tai Chi forms it does not make Taoist Tai Chi authentic martial Taijiquan it simply means someone added applications to it. 

It does not mean Taoist Tai Chi can not be useful for health or self defense with the martial application just means its not authentic Taijiquan.





> I think, sadly, after Sin Kwan The' dies one day, there will be no grandmaster of the art and it will splinter into rival schools (as it is already happening).


Possible sounds messy. It is disrespectful to talk about your teacher who is alive about his death. 



> However, as the optimist that I am, I think Shaolin-Do has done more GOOD than harm in that it has offered many people who have no access to martial art training a chance to train (or at least that is how it is many parts of KY). And, as the more disgruntled serious students of SD move on to other TCMA's they carry with them some basic understanding of TCMA.


 Possible. I mean if you have nothing else or you could travel to the nearest school of what you are looking for. I think most people start off in some Mcdojo or commecialize school nothing wrong with it. Martial talk is a great site to see more seasoned people's views and share opinions on commercial schools or questionable things.



> What do you guys think?
> And please add more of your thoughts about the curriculum.
> Thanks for all the replys.


 
I saw some of the curriculum from one school they added internal arts in their school.
 Which is strange because Bagua, Xingyi and Taiji are not from Shaolin so putting them into Shaolin curriculum is weird.  

Again just my opinions.


----------



## Doomx2001

I just want to say I apologize about talking about if there is going to be a next grandmaster of Shaolin-Do while Sin Kwan The' is still alive. It wasn't anything negative toward him, or wishing him any kind of ill will. Instead I was just pointing out what I feel is a fact of life. There are alot of martial arts that split into rival factions because no clear grandmaster was appointed (American Kenpo, Choi Hapkido, Wing Chun...etc.) 
The reason I brought that into the conversation is that regardless of what people think of SD I would hope that a clear successor would be appointed one day and not see something that Sin Kwan The' invested so much of his life and time broken into pieces. Thats all.

But I really do apologize about the question. No offense meant. 

Other than that I really do enjoy the 'back an' forth' on this subject. There really isn't that much info about SD outside of those who practice the art itself.


----------



## ggg214

i know the name is just a name, although it sounds weird.
but there is a trend thesedays that more and more people like to label a new name on what he practice, in the purpose of making different with others', even his master's, such as Taiji Do, Xinyi Do(&#24515;&#24847;&#36947. do they have any key part different from their oringinal style? 
i do agree with Flying Crane's point:"the only way to effectively incorporate elements of one system into another, is to seriously train that system and understand it from the ground up."
any change made to the style should be completely tested not only in teaching but also in fighting. 
for me, i prefer to learn the original way of my style. and fortunately, my teacher is the one who does in this way.


----------



## Guliufa

Doomx2001 said:


> Here is an interesting question/thought: Where do you guys see Shaolin-Do in future (the curriculum, future grandmaster, popularity...etc).
> 
> Myself, here is what I think:
> 
> Even if Shaolin-Do is based on a lie (which I'm not saying it is or isn't), I think all those that train in it are legit, because they put the 'blood, sweat, tears, and time' into learning it. And nobody can take that away from the practitioners no matter what is found out in the future.
> We can already see what is happening with Shaolin-Do. As it has spread westward, Shaolin-Do students/teachers have compared what they were taught with people who study other TCMA (traditional Chinese martial arts). And doing so, they have incorparated what they have learned from other TCMA's into Shaolin-Do making it more legit (assuming that is, that SD is based on a long series of lies).
> 
> I think over time in about 30 or 50 years, the Shaolin-Do we see today will look entirely different and become more effective, and more authentic with time. There are a few (probably one or two at least) Shaolin-Do teachers who have actually traveled to China to study Shaolin for a short time, so I imagine they would incorparate what they learned into what they do.
> 
> I think, sadly, after Sin Kwan The' dies one day, there will be no grandmaster of the art and it will splinter into rival schools (as it is already happening).
> 
> However, as the optimist that I am, I think Shaolin-Do has done more GOOD than harm in that it has offered many people who have no access to martial art training a chance to train (or at least that is how it is many parts of KY). And, as the more disgruntled serious students of SD move on to other TCMA's they carry with them some basic understanding of TCMA.
> 
> What do you guys think?
> And please add more of your thoughts about the curriculum.
> Thanks for all the replys.




But if you're not learn real martial arts... if you're learning made up forms - what good is all that effort? 

All you have to do is look at the video clip that shows him doing "mantis". He is a fraud. His "mantis" is BS, as is anything else I have seen from any "shaolin-do" that I have seen on youtube. 

The Classical Martial Arts are not random movements put in an order to practice and try to make it work for you. They were developed by Scholars who were versed in healing arts and sciences... the study of anatomy and body mechanics. 

I noticed that no one wants to say that the guy is a phoney. Is it not allowed here? If it is not, I will send it as a PM, but from my experience, Shaolin-Do is made up. 

But go ahead and waste your money if you still want to experience it. One thing is for sure - you will NOT learn, nor gain a foundation in Chinese Martial Arts.


----------



## Kenpo Missle 47

if it works it works , but whos to say ? do style name matter anyways ? 

tiger butterfly shaolin tae bo jujitsu wrestling , crazy name but the style is effective.


----------



## clfsean

Guliufa said:


> But if you're not learn real martial arts... if you're learning made up forms - what good is all that effort?
> 
> All you have to do is look at the video clip that shows him doing "mantis". He is a fraud. His "mantis" is BS, as is anything else I have seen from any "shaolin-do" that I have seen on youtube.
> 
> The Classical Martial Arts are not random movements put in an order to practice and try to make it work for you. They were developed by Scholars who were versed in healing arts and sciences... the study of anatomy and body mechanics.
> 
> I noticed that no one wants to say that the guy is a phoney. Is it not allowed here? If it is not, I will send it as a PM, but from my experience, Shaolin-Do is made up.
> 
> But go ahead and waste your money if you still want to experience it. One thing is for sure - you will NOT learn, nor gain a foundation in Chinese Martial Arts.


 
Because anything can be discussed without resorting to being inflammatory, especially when the general topic has been beaten about like a deceased equine... 

:deadhorse

Trust me... I'm one of the worst critics out there of SD, but I will openly acknowledge the ups to anything when appropriate, SD is not excluded. But I also call ******** in the drop of a hat as well, again when appropriate and NOTHING is excluded.

But please see below ... 

:deadhorse


----------



## clfsean

Kenpo Missle 47 said:


> if it works it works , but whos to say ? do style name matter anyways ? .


 
Yes... actually the name does matter very much as well as the pedigree to go along with it.


----------



## Guliufa

clfsean said:


> Because anything can be discussed without resorting to being inflammatory, especially when the general topic has been beaten about like a deceased equine...
> 
> :deadhorse
> 
> Trust me... I'm one of the worst critics out there of SD, but I will openly acknowledge the ups to anything when appropriate, SD is not excluded. But I also call ******** in the drop of a hat as well, again when appropriate and NOTHING is excluded.
> 
> But please see below ...
> 
> :deadhorse



I meant that I would retract my post and send it as a PM if it was not allowed.  :angel:


----------



## clfsean

Guliufa said:


> I meant that I would retract my post and send it as a PM if it was not allowed.  :angel:


That's cool, no harm no foul.:ultracool There's a general "No Fraud Busting" policy here on MT & it's in the "How to guide", but in general, the topic has been done to death. 

There's a million & one reasons out there to join/not join SD, but ultimately it's the person & what feels good to them. 

For me with a background in SD (only 5 years, not that long) & a TCMA background & current training I answer direct questions with pros & cons. Bashing is long over for me.


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> That's cool, no harm no foul.:ultracool There's a general "No Fraud Busting" policy here on MT & it's in the "How to guide", but in general, the topic has been done to death.
> 
> There's a million & one reasons out there to join/not join SD, but ultimately it's the person & what feels good to them.
> 
> For me with a background in SD (only 5 years, not that long) & a TCMA background & current training I answer direct questions with pros & cons. Bashing is long over for me.





What did you think of the Mantis forms? What are the mantis forms anyway? 
What did you think of the Hsing Yi stuff taught?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Doomx2001 said:


> What did you think of the Hsing Yi stuff taught?


 
Do they teach Santi Shi?

And if they do what is the duration?


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> What did you think of the Mantis forms? What are the mantis forms anyway?


 
After studying Praying Mantis... let's just say it's not the same as other mainline Praying Mantis. As far as the sets, they have a couple of mainline sets but others that are strictly unique to SD.



Doomx2001 said:


> What did you think of the Hsing Yi stuff taught?


 
Same as the question above.


----------



## Doomx2001

Here is another question: *What forms in Shaolin-Do are legitmate CMA forms*? 
The reason I ask is maybe I could search youtube for comparisons.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> Here is another question: *What forms in Shaolin-Do are legitmate CMA forms*?
> The reason I ask is maybe I could search youtube for comparisons.


 
Well... there's the sticky wicket. They have lots of "legitimate" CMA forms, but the crux is the training they don't have the basics of the forms they have. They have SD as their basis & that doesn't work for these forms.

BUT... 


Here's a list of forms from other styles that SD has that I was exposed to in no particular order. I'll give you the form name & style where appropriate.

Tiger Crane Duet (Fu Hok Seurng Ying Kuen) - Hung Ga
Shaolin 5 Animals (Siu Lum Ng Ying Kuen) - Hung Sing Choy Li Fut (Lau Bun)
1st Road New Frame (Chen Xinjia Yi Lu Taiji Quan) - Chen Taiji Quan
18 Step Form - Chen Taiji Quan
Cheng Man Ching 37 Step Taiji Quan
PRC 24 Step Combined Taiji Quan
Jiang Rong Qiao 8 Mother Palms Bagua Zhang
Hua Quan (Roads 1-4 & two matched sets)
Dragon Entwine Stick (Pang Lung Bong) - Tien Shien Pai
10 Road Tan Tui
Xingyi 5 Elements - Xingyi Quan
Xingyi 12 Animals - Xingyi Quan
Xingyi Linking Form - Xingyi Quan Lian Huan Quan
Hua To's 5 Animal Frolic Qigong
Penetrating Fist (Cha Chui) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
White Ape Exits the Cave (Bai Yuan Chu Dong) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
Crushing Step (Bung Bu) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
Three Battles (San He Quan) - Fujianese common with no discernable origin line
That's all I can think of in my time in SD. 

Glad to discuss from there. But understand... what's listed above, taken alone with the proper basics in place for the style, could be easily a lifetime practice to "get it". Not just have the form, but own the form, the function, the meaning & intent, etc...


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Glad to discuss from there. But understand... what's listed above, taken alone with the proper basics in place for the style, could be easily a lifetime practice to "get it". Not just have the form, but own the form, the function, the meaning & intent, etc...


 
This really is the root of the issue.  

The big problem with any style or school that adopts material from outside sources and from other systems is that the foundation and basics are different.  The forms from each style are designed to work with the foundation and basics of that style.  If that foundation is missing, then those forms have very little martial value, they are just movement exercise.

Someone who understands the proper foundation and then has one legitimate form that is built on that foundation, is way way way way way way ahead of someone who has collected 20 forms from 15 styles and does not understand the proper foundation for any of them.

Likewise, someone who has learned every form in one system, but does not understand the foundation, has very little.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Doomx2001 said:


> Here is another question: *What forms in Shaolin-Do are legitmate CMA forms*?
> The reason I ask is maybe I could search youtube for comparisons.


 
I still have the same question 

Do they teach Santi Shi?

And if they do what is the duration?


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> I still have the same question
> 
> Do they teach Santi Shi?
> 
> And if they do what is the duration?


 
Sorry bossy... missed that.

Yes & no... not that long best I remember, but milage may vary between schools & teacher.


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> Sorry bossy... missed that.
> 
> Yes & no... not that long best I remember, but milage may vary between schools & teacher.


 
OK... one more question
bossy as in work superior?
bossy as in demanding?
bossy as in cow?


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> OK... one more question
> bossy as in work superior?
> bossy as in demanding?
> bossy as in cow?


 
No
Yes
Yes

Plus you speak with a sissy lisp.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> No
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Plus you speak with a sissy lisp.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


 
I should have known... typical backwards devil talker 

or to make it easier for you devil talker types to understand

I should have known aaaaaaaaa... typical backwards devil talker aaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> Well... there's the sticky wicket. They have lots of "legitimate" CMA forms, but the crux is the training they don't have the basics of the forms they have. They have SD as their basis & that doesn't work for these forms.
> 
> BUT...
> 
> 
> Here's a list of forms from other styles that SD has that I was exposed to in no particular order. I'll give you the form name & style where appropriate.
> 
> Tiger Crane Duet (Fu Hok Seurng Ying Kuen) - Hung Ga
> Shaolin 5 Animals (Siu Lum Ng Ying Kuen) - Hung Sing Choy Li Fut (Lau Bun)
> 1st Road New Frame (Chen Xinjia Yi Lu Taiji Quan) - Chen Taiji Quan
> 18 Step Form - Chen Taiji Quan
> Cheng Man Ching 37 Step Taiji Quan
> PRC 24 Step Combined Taiji Quan
> Jiang Rong Qiao 8 Mother Palms Bagua Zhang
> Hua Quan (Roads 1-4 & two matched sets)
> Dragon Entwine Stick (Pang Lung Bong) - Tien Shien Pai
> 10 Road Tan Tui
> Xingyi 5 Elements - Xingyi Quan
> Xingyi 12 Animals - Xingyi Quan
> Xingyi Linking Form - Xingyi Quan Lian Huan Quan
> Hua To's 5 Animal Frolic Qigong
> Penetrating Fist (Cha Chui) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
> White Ape Exits the Cave (Bai Yuan Chu Dong) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
> Crushing Step (Bung Bu) - Praying Mantis (not sure which branch)
> Three Battles (San He Quan) - Fujianese common with no discernable origin line
> That's all I can think of in my time in SD.
> 
> Glad to discuss from there. But understand... what's listed above, taken alone with the proper basics in place for the style, could be easily a lifetime practice to "get it". Not just have the form, but own the form, the function, the meaning & intent, etc...



Thanks for taking the time to write all that. It is really helpful on my research of the subject. 
Here's another question: *Are there any other semi-legit tiger/Hung Gar forms in SD? *
Also, what did you think of your training in Xingyi? Was it taught well? How is it different from other Xingyi systems? 

Again, thanks everybody for all the replies/debate on the subject.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> Here's another question: *Are there any other semi-legit tiger/Hung Gar forms in SD? *



Semi-legit tiger: There are SD tiger forms. 
Hung Ga forms:  No but it wouldn't matter if there was since Hung Ga isn't taught there, only a form with SD basics. So it's not Hung Ga, just a series of movements from Hung Ga.



Doomx2001 said:


> Also, what did you think of your training in Xingyi? Was it taught well? How is it different from other Xingyi systems?



Like I said, that varies by the teacher. But my experience was ok, but it just whetted my appetite for TCMA training which I found with Gao Xingyi.


----------



## Orion Paximus

*Master* *Gao San Lun?*


----------



## clfsean

Orion Paximus said:


> *Master* *Gao San Lun?*


 
Dunno... Hung I Mien --> Allen Pittman --> Allen Carroll --> me


----------



## Doomx2001

Earlier when I was talking about the evolution of SD, here is some examples that I think back up what I was talking about:

*Austin Shaolin-Do Kung Fu and Tai Chi*
_Flying Tiger Comes Out Of The Cave,
Giant Bird Spreads The Wings,
Fist Of LuoHan_

_Bai He Chuan Tse (white crane spins wings)
Bai He Chan Tse (white crane jabs wings)
Bai He Chuan Chiao (white crane spins legs_)

Senior Master Tim Nance Sparring Highlights June 2009(_*Chinese Shaolin Center*_/Shaolin-Do)

Chinese Shao-Lin Center Denver, CO Kung Fu

Shaolin Secrets To Success Sparring Strategies & Solutions

Shaolin-Do Arizona

Shaolin Center Atlanta

Anyway, hopefully I entered all the links in right. My impression is that as Shaolin-Do continues to grow and evolve many of its schools will differ from one another like how Hapkido schools do today. 
I'm interested in hearing your alls opinion on the videos. Also, on a side note, I have never trained in SD, but my impression is that SD in Kentucky (based on hearsay)  is nothing but forms for the most part. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Flying Crane

Doomx2001 said:


> Earlier when I was talking about the evolution of SD, here is some examples that I think back up what I was talking about:
> 
> *Austin Shaolin-Do Kung Fu and Tai Chi*
> _Flying Tiger Comes Out Of The Cave,
> Giant Bird Spreads The Wings,
> Fist Of LuoHan_
> 
> _Bai He Chuan Tse (white crane spins wings)
> Bai He Chan Tse (white crane jabs wings)
> Bai He Chuan Chiao (white crane spins legs_)
> 
> Senior Master Tim Nance Sparring Highlights June 2009(_*Chinese Shaolin Center*_/Shaolin-Do)
> 
> Chinese Shao-Lin Center Denver, CO Kung Fu
> 
> Shaolin Secrets To Success Sparring Strategies & Solutions
> 
> Shaolin-Do Arizona
> 
> Shaolin Center Atlanta
> 
> Anyway, hopefully I entered all the links in right. My impression is that as Shaolin-Do continues to grow and evolve many of its schools will differ from one another like how Hapkido schools do today.
> I'm interested in hearing your alls opinion on the videos. Also, on a side note, I have never trained in SD, but my impression is that SD in Kentucky (based on hearsay)  is nothing but forms for the most part.
> 
> Thoughts?



I study the Tibetan White Crane system, and the White Crane material in SD looks nothing even remotely like it.  And I'm not just talking about the choreography of the forms.  I'm talking about the very foundation material.

I've seen only a little of the Fukien White Crane on Youtube.  From what I've seen, the SD material looks nothing like that either.

There may be other White Crane systems out there that I am unaware of.  The SD material could be from those.  I don't know.  But from what I do know of White Crane, and from what I've seen, SD is NOT that stuff.  I don't know where it comes from.


----------



## Doomx2001

Flying Crane said:


> I study the Tibetan White Crane system, and the White Crane material in SD looks nothing even remotely like it.  And I'm not just talking about the choreography of the forms.  I'm talking about the very foundation material.
> 
> I've seen only a little of the Fukien White Crane on Youtube.  From what I've seen, the SD material looks nothing like that either.
> 
> There may be other White Crane systems out there that I am unaware of.  The SD material could be from those.  I don't know.  But from what I do know of White Crane, and from what I've seen, SD is NOT that stuff.  I don't know where it comes from.



It could very well be that half or more of the Crane forms in SD (not mentioning any other supposed CMA forms in SD) could be made up by the grandmaster of SD. Which there is nothing wrong with that as long as the founder of SD is up front about it. 
My main thought is the Shaolin Do practitioners seem to really be making an effort to get the most out of SD curriculum/forms and really add to it in the coming years/decade. Ten years ago, I think Shaolin-Do was strictly forms and sparring, but over time it appears that there is more attention paid to 'technique', and 'application' of the forms than ever before. 
The stances still seem a 'little off', but based on the videos posted, I think they are headed in the right direction training wise. 

However, I think most martial art practicioners are more concerned with the unverifiable history of SD, also the claims made by the grandmaster of SD, and the curriculum that has in the past resembled more karate rather than traditional chinese martial arts.  

For me, I'm more than certain as to the 'actual' history of SD and it's founder/grandmaster. But, in the end whether I believe SD is legit or not doesn't really matter. Because in the end, it's here to stay. And we can look at it in one of two ways:
Point, laugh, and mock those that sincerely invest their life in SD or we as martial artists can say, 'Hey, your stances need to be lower, your forms need more intent, this is how we do our forms, and this is how we train....etc". 

Again, we can either stare in disbelief at the art and the claims of SD, or, as fellow martial artists give positive critisim and advice to those who seek it in SD to improve what they do in SD. 

I know SD is a controversal subject, but I think for once instead questioning the questionable history of SD, It would be a worth wile discussion on the curriculum itself which is so seldom touched upon. 

Anyway, I enjoy hearing everybodies comparison of what they do in their respective martial art as compared to SD and how it differs. I would be interested to hear what it is that they are doing right along with what they are doing wrong, training wise. 

Please keep the replies coming, this been a good discussion. 

P.S: I haven't took a class in SD yet, I'm still training in the other arts that I do, and will continue to so. Maybe in the future, when I do take a class, I'll post how it went.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> It could very well be that half or more of the Crane forms in SD (not mentioning any other supposed CMA forms in SD) could be made up by the grandmaster of SD. Which there is nothing wrong with that as long as the founder of SD is up front about it.
> My main thought is the Shaolin Do practitioners seem to really be making an effort to get the most out of SD curriculum/forms and really add to it in the coming years/decade. Ten years ago, I think Shaolin-Do was strictly forms and sparring, but over time it appears that there is more attention paid to 'technique', and 'application' of the forms than ever before.
> The stances still seem a 'little off', but based on the videos posted, I think they are headed in the right direction training wise.
> 
> However, I think most martial art practicioners are more concerned with the unverifiable history of SD, also the claims made by the grandmaster of SD, and the curriculum that has in the past resembled more karate rather than traditional chinese martial arts.
> 
> For me, I'm more than certain as to the 'actual' history of SD and it's founder/grandmaster. But, in the end whether I believe SD is legit or not doesn't really matter. Because in the end, it's here to stay. And we can look at it in one of two ways:
> Point, laugh, and mock those that sincerely invest their life in SD or we as martial artists can say, 'Hey, your stances need to be lower, your forms need more intent, this is how we do our forms, and this is how we train....etc".
> 
> Again, we can either stare in disbelief at the art and the claims of SD, or, as fellow martial artists give positive critisim and advice to those who seek it in SD to improve what they do in SD.
> 
> I know SD is a controversal subject, but I think for once instead questioning the questionable history of SD, It would be a worth wile discussion on the curriculum itself which is so seldom touched upon.
> 
> Anyway, I enjoy hearing everybodies comparison of what they do in their respective martial art as compared to SD and how it differs. I would be interested to hear what it is that they are doing right along with what they are doing wrong, training wise.
> 
> Please keep the replies coming, this been a good discussion.
> 
> P.S: I haven't took a class in SD yet, I'm still training in the other arts that I do, and will continue to so. Maybe in the future, when I do take a class, I'll post how it went.


 
Ok... just what exactly are you shooting for here?


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> Ok... just what exactly are you shooting for here?



Pretty much just an indepth discussion on the SD curriculum. There is nothing positive that can be found about the system on the internet in forums and such, other than what can be found by SD people themselves.

Also, I'm curious as to what traditional Chinese martial artists think of the video links I posted as traditional Chinese martial artists would have more of an insight in comparing what they do with the Shaolin-Do people. 

Oh, and after rereading my last post, It does come of as passive aggressive, which was not the intent. I was directing my comments at anyone person. I was just jotting down my thoughts as they came to me. 
And even though, this is probably a topic that has been beat to death, I figure it would be interesting just to talk about the SD curriculum itself rather than the hard to prove 'history' of Shaolin-Do.

And one final note, I just want everyone to know that if write anything that sounds 'aggressive', please don't take it as such. When it comes to the internet, it's easy to come across wrong to people because the printed word can be a harsh thing when you can't see or hear the person writing the message. 
 I'm just typing things as I think of them to further the discussion, and I'm not hear to attack anyone or any system of martial arts. 

I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions.


----------



## yak sao

Authentic or not......traditional or not, it has always bothered me how the majority of SD people slop through their forms. They come across as untrained people pretending to know kung fu.
I say this as a former practitioner of this system ( 14 years). My teacher learned from Sin The back in the 60's and left his organization over some various disagreements. 
He had only learned up through 3rd or 4th black and so he didn't have the glut of material that other SD schools had.
He took what he had and was very strict on stances and technique ...to the point that there was barely any recognition between our forms and the other SD schools.
say what you want about SD, but I can say it got me in shape, taught me about body mechanics and power generation, taught me to fight, and gave me a hunger to pursue other CMA when I reached the ceiling of my teacher's material. I went on to study Wing Tsun and it is the foundation I achieved in SD that has helped me to succeed in WT that I have been studying now since 1995.


----------



## Doomx2001

yak sao said:


> Authentic or not......traditional or not, it has always bothered me how the majority of SD people slop through their forms. They come across as untrained people pretending to know kung fu.
> I say this as a former practitioner of this system ( 14 years). My teacher learned from Sin The back in the 60's and left his organization over some various disagreements.
> He had only learned up through 3rd or 4th black and so he didn't have the glut of material that other SD schools had.
> He took what he had and was very strict on stances and technique ...to the point that there was barely any recognition between our forms and the other SD schools.
> say what you want about SD, but I can say it got me in shape, taught me about body mechanics and power generation, taught me to fight, and gave me a hunger to pursue other CMA when I reached the ceiling of my teacher's material. I went on to study Wing Tsun and it is the foundation I achieved in SD that has helped me to succeed in WT that I have been studying now since 1995.



Thats cool that everything worked out well for you in the end, especially becoming a student in Wing Chun. 
On SD, my opinion is that probably alot of the schools differ on how to interpret their SD curriculum just as many Hapkido schools do today.

What forms in SD did you like or really found practical?


----------



## yak sao

Doomx2001 said:


> Thats cool that everything worked out well for you in the end, especially becoming a student in Wing Chun.
> On SD, my opinion is that probably alot of the schools differ on how to interpret their SD curriculum just as many Hapkido schools do today.
> 
> What forms in SD did you like or really found practical?


 
I tended to look at the forms, not as something you took verbatim, and used, rather, they were to be interpreted. Something like a double hand cover that flows into a 2 hand knife hand stike to the throat was  teaching not necessarily that technique, but that concept.... of covering down and then stiking the opening...so a press down with one hand and reverse punch with the other would be an application of that idea taught....maybe not the best example, but, it's been a while.

I always found the forms to be great attribute builders: strength, focus, power, yeilding, stamina, flexilbility......like I said, legit or not, they really served me well.


----------



## clfsean

Doom... Sorry for the snap at you, but here's the thing. 

You're asking about a MA. 

You're wanting to talk about a curriculum that has been discussed for years about validity & veracity. 

Yet you haven't gone to see it for yourself, IIRC. 

Yak already said it, but I'll say it a different way. Forms are a book. They were created to help people remember material & later, for show & demonstration. They aren't used necessarily as played. They are individual motions & movements linked together. Just like a book with individual words linked together. In the end, they are cohesive in nature & present a logical flow, imparting an idea or notion on a topic. You take from that what you need & use as it's needed. 

You won't recite an entire book to give a 2 second answer to a question. You'll rummage through your noodle, find the appropriate information & answer. Same with forms. Albeit in a different manner, the same process. 

The whole issue (from my perspective) with SD is the lack of foundation for the forms they teach. They teach forms without the basics of the style the form came from & then they are on to the next one. Now, the SD created forms... those I have no bone with since the basics of SD are particular to SD. But using a form SD has appropriated from my style (Choy Li Fut), they have the Siu Lum Ng Ying Kuen (Shaolin 5 Animals) in their set list. It's the Lau Bun Hung Sing version of the form... the one I practice from the Lau Bun lineage. By anybody's standards, it's not played right. SD doesn't practice the 10 seeds of CLF. SD doesn't practice CLF horses, bridges, strikes, energies, etc... So with that in mind, how could SD possibly practice the 5 Animals as it was designed? Same the Hung Ga Fu Hok Seurng Ying Kuen (Tiger Crane Duet). And on & on... 

All of that notwithstanding... you will get out of it what you put in it. The forms are just books. You get from it what you put in it to understand it... just like a book.


----------



## Orion Paximus

yak sao said:


> Authentic or not......traditional or not, it has always bothered me how the majority of SD people slop through their forms. They come across as untrained people pretending to know kung fu.
> I say this as a former practitioner of this system ( 14 years). My teacher learned from Sin The back in the 60's and left his organization over some various disagreements.
> He had only learned up through 3rd or 4th black and so he didn't have the glut of material that other SD schools had.
> He took what he had and was very strict on stances and technique ...to the point that there was barely any recognition between our forms and the other SD schools.
> say what you want about SD, but I can say it got me in shape, taught me about body mechanics and power generation, taught me to fight, and gave me a hunger to pursue other CMA when I reached the ceiling of my teacher's material. I went on to study Wing Tsun and it is the foundation I achieved in SD that has helped me to succeed in WT that I have been studying now since 1995.



LOL I think we have the same instructor.  I also trained with another of Sin's students for 5 years prior to being with the instructor I have now, but for me, SD forms offer tons of practical applications if you approach them with a traditional CMA mindset.  Something the typical SD student never does.  I have trained in Xingyi and Bagua outside of SD and within SD and the basics are the same, so Sin The got that stuff from somewhere and got it mostly right.


----------



## Orion Paximus

Actually my issues with SD (and i say this as an SD person) is that the training mindset is all backwards.  These schools are set up with belt advancement in mind, so the "basics"; stances, drills, Fa jing, etc, are all put on the back burner with the assumption that you'll develop this as you progress up the ranks instead of making you learn it before you are allowed to progress.  Horse stance not steady enough?  No prob, you'll have it before you get to black belt, don't worry.  Having trouble with utilizing your hips and rooting?  Hey who cares you have a life time... 

If they would utilize traditional CMA training methods, I think less people would scoff at their material because with a proper foundation, those forms would be truer representations of CMA material.  As it is it just looks sloppy and weak.  Thankfully, due to my training with more traditionally minded CMA masters, I'm able to apply that knowledge to what SD material I have.


----------



## clfsean

Orion Paximus said:


> Actually my issues with SD (and i say this as an SD person) is that the training mindset is all backwards.  These schools are set up with belt advancement in mind, so the "basics"; stances, drills, Fa jing, etc, are all put on the back burner with the assumption that you'll develop this as you progress up the ranks instead of making you learn it before you are allowed to progress.  Horse stance not steady enough?  No prob, you'll have it before you get to black belt, don't worry.  Having trouble with utilizing your hips and rooting?  Hey who cares you have a life time...



True enough there... 



Orion Paximus said:


> If they would utilize traditional CMA training methods, I think less people would scoff at their material because with a proper foundation, those forms would be truer representations of CMA material.  As it is it just looks sloppy and weak.  Thankfully, due to my training with more traditionally minded CMA masters, I'm able to apply that knowledge to what SD material I have.



But see that's the problem. The SD curriculum (as it is) is so diverse, there's no way to build a proper foundation. There's no "real" foundation training, except for the SD basics. Which that's fine for the SD material, but when you start doing things that are decidedly NOT SD forms (see my list), then you start getting picked apart on what's missing or just 'wrong' based on lack of foundation training. Know what I mean?


----------



## Orion Paximus

clfsean said:


> True enough there...
> 
> 
> 
> But see that's the problem. The SD curriculum (as it is) is so diverse, there's no way to build a proper foundation. There's no "real" foundation training, except for the SD basics. Which that's fine for the SD material, but when you start doing things that are decidedly NOT SD forms (see my list), then you start getting picked apart on what's missing or just 'wrong' based on lack of foundation training. Know what I mean?



I completely agree.  I think that they should stop trying to feed everyone everything, and start setting up specialized programs.  Like okay you got to black belt/sash/discipleship so you have the basics, now it's time to specialize in a particular style.  But instead you're expected to know a bunch of crap only partly instead of knowing a few things thoroughly.


----------



## clfsean

Orion Paximus said:


> I completely agree.  I think that they should stop trying to feed everyone everything, and start setting up specialized programs.  Like okay you got to black belt/sash/discipleship so you have the basics, now it's time to specialize in a particular style.  But instead you're expected to know a bunch of crap only partly instead of knowing a few things thoroughly.



Only problem there is... they can't really do that since that's missing!!

But you're right... and it looks like we see about the same on the topic.


----------



## Doomx2001

Orion Paximus said:


> I completely agree.  I think that they should stop trying to feed everyone everything, and start setting up specialized programs.  Like okay you got to black belt/sash/discipleship so you have the basics, now it's time to specialize in a particular style.  But instead you're expected to know a bunch of crap only partly instead of knowing a few things thoroughly.



I'm curious as to how different or how much the same SD will be in 30 years. From the videos links I posted it looks like they are heading in a positive direction. But, in the end it requires leadership from the top to 'tweak' the curriculum and how it's taught, so it can be spread out to the majority of SD practicioners. The only man with the say so to do that is GM Sin, but I don't see him doing that at this point. I think in the end, there will be multiple Shaolin-Do's that differ from each other more and more over time as each instructor interprets the SD curriculum his/her own way.


----------



## Orion Paximus

It's already happening.  My current instructor trained directly under Sin The, my original instructor was twice removed from Sin, and there are many differences between the two.


----------



## Doomx2001

Orion Paximus said:


> It's already happening.  My current instructor trained directly under Sin The, my original instructor was twice removed from Sin, and there are many differences between the two.



What was the fallout between the two about if you don't mind me asking?  
And another similar question: why isn't GM Sins brother with SD anymore? I can't really find much info on that subject.


----------



## yak sao

Doomx2001 said:


> What was the fallout between the two about if you don't mind me asking?
> And another similar question: why isn't GM Sins brother with SD anymore? I can't really find much info on that subject.


 

My teacher was a room mate of Sin The's back in college in the 60's. he said back in the day, Sin The was a total hard ***. They would be in a horse stance and punch for hours. He would test the students and leave the room for a while, come back in and tell them " you all stink, you all fail".... this went on for a while until Sin's brother came over and told Sin to tone it down so he could make money. We Americans couldn't do martial arts anyway.
That's the story as it was told to me back in the early 80's


----------



## Doomx2001

yak sao said:


> My teacher was a room mate of Sin The's back in college in the 60's. he said back in the day, Sin The was a total hard ***. They would be in a horse stance and punch for hours. He would test the students and leave the room for a while, come back in and tell them " you all stink, you all fail".... this went on for a while until Sin's brother came over and told Sin to tone it down so he could make money. We Americans couldn't do martial arts anyway.
> That's the story as it was told to me back in the early 80's



Wow. Thats all I can say about that! Not sure what to say. Its both bad and good. Good that fundamentals were stressed, but bad about the money part. 
There is hardly any information about the early days of SD back in the 60's, so little nuggets of info like this are gold. 
Thanks for taking the time to share the story.


----------



## Orion Paximus

Doomx2001 said:


> And another similar question: why isn't GM Sins brother with SD anymore? I can't really find much info on that subject.


I'd say the only real answer is "it's tough to have two grandmasters".  Sin and "Shawn" were able to act as dual instructors back in the 60s and 70s, but once they started to build up their... uh... lets call it history, there wasn't room for both of them really.  I mean was Shawn going to be content to be a 9th Degree Senior master his whole life?  I dunno.  

Shawn used to be Sin's enforcer.  When someone within the organization was doing something Sin didn't like, it was Shawn that addressed that person/school/whatever.  

I have no idea what Shawn The is up to these days though, I hear he still has schools in and around Lexington.


----------



## Doomx2001

Well, he seems to be doing well with his brand of SD. It has spread out to the surrounding areas of Lexington and a few other places in Kentucky (Cynthia, Danville, Paris, Richmond..etc).

I noticed that GM 'Shawn' in his bio lists him as a master of 'Tai Peng Bird' I think, and it's interested how GM Sin in his bio lists himself as a master of the 'Golden Snake'.

I really haven't looked in detail of both their curriculums, but GM 'Shawns' curriculum seems to have alot more forms in it, especially the 'Tai Peng Bird' stuff.

Here is a link to the News Section of the GM 'Shawns' site:  http://www.centralshaolin.com/cshaolin_pages/news.html

Thanks for the info Orion. This stuff helps understand some of the history SD in 60's and 70's.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doomx2001 said:


> I really haven't looked in detail of both their curriculums, but GM 'Shawns' curriculum seems to have alot more forms in it, especially the 'Tai Peng Bird' stuff.
> 
> Here is a link to the News Section of the GM 'Shawns' site: http://www.centralshaolin.com/cshaolin_pages/news.html
> 
> Thanks for the info Orion. This stuff helps understand some of the history SD in 60's and 70's.


 
Seriously, that curriculum is just way way way too much for anyone to grasp in a meaningful way. I think that's the big problem in my opinion. They are trying to do everything, and it creates a reality where none of it can really be any good. Spread way too thin, and I'd bet a lot of it is even conflicting in some ways, in the practice and foundation methods.

It's a collection of forms, and nothing more.  It cannot be taught properly.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Seriously, that curriculum is just way way way too much for anyone to grasp in a meaningful way. I think that's the big problem in my opinion. They are trying to do everything, and it creates a reality where none of it can really be any good. Spread way too thin, and I'd bet a lot of it is even conflicting in some ways, in the practice and foundation methods.
> 
> It's a collection of forms, and nothing more. It cannot be taught properly.


 
Which translates as 

Shaolin...


----------



## Doomx2001

Flying Crane said:


> Seriously, that curriculum is just way way way too much for anyone to grasp in a meaningful way. I think that's the big problem in my opinion. They are trying to do everything, and it creates a reality where none of it can really be any good. Spread way too thin, and I'd bet a lot of it is even conflicting in some ways, in the practice and foundation methods.
> 
> It's a collection of forms, and nothing more.  It cannot be taught properly.




I think everyone is missing the point here altogether. *I agree totally* that Shaolin-Do in *no shape or form* even resembles *authentic Shaolin martial arts* or training methods, I also agree that Shaolin-Do *doesn't* even resemble in *no shape or form* any *traditional Chinese martial art* for the most part. I'm not really debating that or even discussing that, because there is no point. I also *totally agree* based on lack of evidence and collaberating witnessess that the Shaolin-Do history is *not legit* based on what we know now. 
Again, that horse has been beat to death. But, I feel like I have to say all that because I feel everyone is getting the impression that I am a apologist for Shaolin-Do. I'm just interested in all martial arts whether they are legit or not just for the sheer curiosity of it all. But, I'm having trouble getting info on the net because there is not real 'inbetween' on the subject. 

I really wanted to avoid saying any of that because* I don't want to offend any practitioner of Shaolin-Do* and their beliefs on what they do. I'm not here to pooh on anybody. I just want info that is constructive, helpful, and indepth that is neither a SD terd throwing contest or putting SD on a shrine to be praised. No matter what forum you go to, there is always those two extremes, hate SD or SD is the greatest thing since sliced bread.



The points of discussion that I am trying to get across is this:

 - *SD is not going away*. It's still growing, nation wide, gradually spreading to Europe and the rest of the world. No matter how we shake or scream at the practitioners of SD or scoff at their offense claims to the Shaolin Temple, the art of SD is not going anywhere. 

 - *SD will evolve*. All martial arts evolve to fit the demands of the times we live in. I would wager almost half of traditional martial art schools today do Brazilian Jujutsu for their ground work. Some traditional martial art schools are incorporating Arnis knife/short stick fighting/defense in their curriculum. Brazilian Jujutsu itself evolved from Judo.
 And with all that being said, I feel, I know, that is SD as a whole will evolve. Some schools will incorparate Brazilian Jujutsu in what they do, others will study authentic Chinese martial arts to bring more 'life' to their curriculum, and some SD schools may even refine their curriculum focusing on the basics and building on that, teaching few forms with more applications, and traditional methods. 

 - *The Curriculum of SD* As funny or strange as it may sound, I enjoy learning about martial arts even if some of those arts are scoffed at by others. I have heard all these negative things that have been said about the SD curriculum before.  In some ways, I think the negative criticism (and thats putting it 'nicely') has actually helped motivate (as well as inform) some SD practitioners to study authentic Traditional Chinese Martial Arts outside of SD to make what they do much better and authentic. 

Anyway, much like a forensic scientist, I look at forms and curriculums of different martial arts and think to myself, _"Why do they do that, and what was it originally intended for? Is it modern or ancient? Was the techniques/forms originally done with weapons or empty hand? If this martial art has a bogus history, where did this stuff actually come from?_" The thing is I can't find out much about SD because more people are interested in joining the 'poop on SD' bandwagon than actually having a conversation pointing out the cons and *PROS* of SD. I think sometimes practitioners of authentic Chinese martial arts get so offended at the claims of SD they project their 'hate/distaste' at anything positive or constructive said about SD making an informative conversation impossible. 

So anyway, back on the curriculum topic, there really isn't that much indepth info on SD forms and training on the net. What few videos you can find on SD are short, and really don't explain much. Though the SD curriculum is heavily criticized, myself, and other people, may like to get more indepth info on the forms, training, and self defense methods of SD for no other reason than curiosity. It is my hope with this post that I can get more info on that, and many of you have been very helpful in that regard. Thank you. 

 - *Finding out the 'true' history of SD*. This is also very interesting to me. To find the history of SD we have to have info on GM Sin's life in Indonesia from friends, family, and just people that knew him when he lived there. Also, more information on the formation of SD once he moved to Kentucky, and how it has changed over the past several decades since the 60's. That is not stuff you can look up at a SD site, or I wouldn't trouble anyone with asking here or elsewhere. 


Now, I'm not expecting anybody to agree with me on any of this. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The only thing I want, is just a real conversation about SD that doesn't involve saying, "_Their stuff isn't Chinese martial arts of authentic Shaolin, its not real, and you can't learn nothing from the forms_...etc" or " _SD is real becasue of this or this...blah...blah...blah._..". We've all heard that before. I just want an healthy conversation about SD. Thats all.

Also, one quick note, I took the time to post several videos on how different schools of Shaolin-Do are interpreting their curriculum, but I still haven't heard anyone's thoughts on what they seen in the videos.
Other than that, I thank everyone for taking the time to answer my questions. I do appreciate it.


----------



## clfsean

Multi parted to address topics/thoughts directly.... 



Doomx2001 said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here altogether. *I agree totally* that Shaolin-Do in *no shape or form* even resembles *authentic Shaolin martial arts* or training methods, I also agree that Shaolin-Do *doesn't* even resemble in *no shape or form* any *traditional Chinese martial art* for the most part. I'm not really debating that or even discussing that, because there is no point. I also *totally agree* based on lack of evidence and collaberating witnessess that the Shaolin-Do history is *not legit* based on what we know now.


 
Ok... but from your previous posts, your point hasn't been exactly clear.



Doomx2001 said:


> Again, that horse has been beat to death. But, I feel like I have to say all that because I feel everyone is getting the impression that I am a apologist for Shaolin-Do. I'm just interested in all martial arts whether they are legit or not just for the sheer curiosity of it all. But, I'm having trouble getting info on the net because there is not real 'inbetween' on the subject.


 
Legit or not. Yes legit... it is a martial art & it does teach self defense. Not legit... see above in your statement.



Doomx2001 said:


> I really wanted to avoid saying any of that because* I don't want to offend any practitioner of Shaolin-Do* and their beliefs on what they do. I'm not here to pooh on anybody. I just want info that is constructive, helpful, and indepth that is neither a SD terd throwing contest or putting SD on a shrine to be praised. No matter what forum you go to, there is always those two extremes, hate SD or SD is the greatest thing since sliced bread.


 
You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, no matter how gently you try.



Doomx2001 said:


> The points of discussion that I am trying to get across is this:


 
Let's see how this goes... 



Doomx2001 said:


> - *SD is not going away*. It's still growing, nation wide, gradually spreading to Europe and the rest of the world. No matter how we shake or scream at the practitioners of SD or scoff at their offense claims to the Shaolin Temple, the art of SD is not going anywhere.


 
Ok... what's the point here? That I can recall, there's never been a public uproar & torch bearing hordes trying to eradicate SD.



Doomx2001 said:


> - *SD will evolve*. All martial arts evolve to fit the demands of the times we live in. I would wager almost half of traditional martial art schools today do Brazilian Jujutsu for their ground work. Some traditional martial art schools are incorporating Arnis knife/short stick fighting/defense in their curriculum. Brazilian Jujutsu itself evolved from Judo.
> And with all that being said, I feel, I know, that is SD as a whole will evolve. Some schools will incorparate Brazilian Jujutsu in what they do, others will study authentic Chinese martial arts to bring more 'life' to their curriculum, and some SD schools may even refine their curriculum focusing on the basics and building on that, teaching few forms with more applications, and traditional methods.


 
Again... ok. Again... what's the point? You don't study SD so I'm not getting your direction.



Doomx2001 said:


> - *The Curriculum of SD* As funny or strange as it may sound, I enjoy learning about martial arts even if some of those arts are scoffed at by others. I have heard all these negative things that have been said about the SD curriculum before. In some ways, I think the negative criticism (and thats putting it 'nicely') has actually helped motivate (as well as inform) some SD practitioners to study authentic Traditional Chinese Martial Arts outside of SD to make what they do much better and authentic.


 
That's not possible within the confines of SD. The only way to do that is to exit SD & study a TCMA. You can't paint a zebra brown & call it a horse. It's still a zebra.



Doomx2001 said:


> Anyway, much like a forensic scientist, I look at forms and curriculums of different martial arts and think to myself, _"Why do they do that, and what was it originally intended for? Is it modern or ancient? Was the techniques/forms originally done with weapons or empty hand? If this martial art has a bogus history, where did this stuff actually come from?_" The thing is I can't find out much about SD because more people are interested in joining the 'poop on SD' bandwagon than actually having a conversation pointing out the cons and *PROS* of SD. I think sometimes practitioners of authentic Chinese martial arts get so offended at the claims of SD they project their 'hate/distaste' at anything positive or constructive said about SD making an informative conversation impossible.


 
To a large degree, no. Sure there are some that do that. The uproar about SD & the 70's/80's/90's marketing machine is the *claiming of material as "theirs" and "original"* when clearly it is not, never was & is lacking basic fundimentals of said sets. 



Doomx2001 said:


> So anyway, back on the curriculum topic, there really isn't that much indepth info on SD forms and training on the net. What few videos you can find on SD are short, and really don't explain much. Though the SD curriculum is heavily criticized, myself, and other people, may like to get more indepth info on the forms, training, and self defense methods of SD for no other reason than curiosity. It is my hope with this post that I can get more info on that, and many of you have been very helpful in that regard. Thank you.


 
And you won't find what you're looking for on the Net. You just won't. You either have to go by what ex-SD'ers like my, Yao Sao, Flying Crane or others have to say about it or try it yourself.



Doomx2001 said:


> - *Finding out the 'true' history of SD*. This is also very interesting to me. To find the history of SD we have to have info on GM Sin's life in Indonesia from friends, family, and just people that knew him when he lived there. Also, more information on the formation of SD once he moved to Kentucky, and how it has changed over the past several decades since the 60's. That is not stuff you can look up at a SD site, or I wouldn't trouble anyone with asking here or elsewhere.


 
That's his business & you're not likely to come across it easily or readily. He shares/shared what he felt like & the rest is left up to faith. 



Doomx2001 said:


> Now, I'm not expecting anybody to agree with me on any of this. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The only thing I want, is just a real conversation about SD that doesn't involve saying, "_Their stuff isn't Chinese martial arts of authentic Shaolin, its not real, and you can't learn nothing from the forms_...etc" or " _SD is real becasue of this or this...blah...blah...blah._..". We've all heard that before. I just want an healthy conversation about SD. Thats all.


 
Ok... that's fine. BUT... honestly, truly... how can you have the conversation you want without a) first hand exposure to carry on said conversation, and b) not hear the thoughts of people who have left for TCMA's & then do a comparison to what was taught in SD vs TCMA. 

It'd be like me trying to have a conversation about the military & it's inner workings with a member of the armed forces without having served myself.



Doomx2001 said:


> Also, one quick note, I took the time to post several videos on how different schools of Shaolin-Do are interpreting their curriculum, but I still haven't heard anyone's thoughts on what they seen in the videos.
> Other than that, I thank everyone for taking the time to answer my questions. I do appreciate it.


 
Take the quiet as an answer. :angel:


----------



## Flying Crane

Doomx2001 said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here altogether. *I agree totally* that Shaolin-Do in *no shape or form* even resembles *authentic Shaolin martial arts* or training methods, I also agree that Shaolin-Do *doesn't* even resemble in *no shape or form* any *traditional Chinese martial art* for the most part. I'm not really debating that or even discussing that, because there is no point. I also *totally agree* based on lack of evidence and collaberating witnessess that the Shaolin-Do history is *not legit* based on what we know now.
> Again, that horse has been beat to death. But, I feel like I have to say all that because I feel everyone is getting the impression that I am a apologist for Shaolin-Do. I'm just interested in all martial arts whether they are legit or not just for the sheer curiosity of it all. But, I'm having trouble getting info on the net because there is not real 'inbetween' on the subject.
> 
> ...


 
My comments were not meant to beat a dead horse, and I don't think my comments were really on the same track as what you are saying here.

I was not stating that SD is or is not legit, does or does not have a legit history, or is not at all effective for those who practice it.

I was making observations based on what I saw on a website and based on what I know from my own experience in SD and in other traditional Chinese martial arts.

There is a trend in some schools/lineages/systems, to want to have EVERYTHING in their system.  These people somehow acquire a huge amount of material and incorporate it into what they do.  They borrow from outside sources, they study under many teachers of many different systems, maybe they even "learn" some things from DVD and claim it as their own.  They end up with a huge list of things that are sort of cobbled together like Frankenstein's monster: it's a hodge-podge of unconnected material that is forced together into one "system", but much of it really does not fit together, does not work well together, even directly conflicts with the methods of other components in this "system".

The individual aspects of the system may be legit and fully functional all by themselves, IF they are properly understood, with the proper foundation upon which they were built.  BUT... when too many different things get thrown together, different things that are built upon different foundations, and that fact is not acknowledged, and all the material is practiced as if it actually works on the same foundation, it really starts to fall apart and most of it becomes dysfunctional.

When I see a huge list like what was on that website, and the list includes things that are vastly different from each other, I cannot help but believe it's a jumble and it's gonna cause some serious problems because I cannot believe that people are truly able to learn all those different systems, with the proper foundation and basics for each system, and be good at them all.  It is simply too much material, it's impossible to practice it all to build meaningful and real skills with it all because there are only 24 hours in a day and every day we all need to spend a few of those hours sleeping and eating and ******** and most of us work a job and have some sort of family obligations as well.  With those obligations on one's time, it is impossible to practice hundreds of forms, from dozens of different systems, much less do it with any real quality.  And it is even worse when all those different systems are treated as if they work from the same foundation, and the correct foundation for each system is simply ignored.

I know about one quarter to one third of the formal curriculum of the system that I am studying.  This puts me solidly in the intermediate level of our curriculum.  I practice five empty hand forms plus a couple variations, and five weapons forms.  That alone is a lot of material to work on, I usually feel like I don't have enough time to practice and I'm never satisfied with what I've accomplished.  I hope to learn the entire system eventually, and it does disturb me to realize that having the time to practice it all will be an ever increasing challenge.  But that's what I hope for.

I DO NOT hope for hundreds of forms.  I have studied several other systems along the way, including Shaolin Do, kenpo, wing chun, capoeira, taiji, and some elements of northern shaolin.  If I counted up the forms that I've learned along the way, it would probably reach up in the neighborhood of 60 or 70, depending on how one counts them.  In the past, I've tried to keep up with these, or at least some of these.  It's too much.  None of it is given the justice it deserves and all of it ends up being mediocre at best, and poor if I'm being honest.

One does not get better by learning MORE.  One gets better by working to gain a deep understanding of LESS, and then GRADUALLY learning more, but only at a pace in which one can continue to gain that same deep understanding with all the material.  This process means that over a lifetime, one will have a curriculum that is much smaller, but it will be worth a whole lot more because of that depth of understanding.

When I see a huge curriculum list like on that website, I cannot believe it is possible.

That's really what I was getting at.


----------



## Flying Crane

Additional thoughts:  once I began to really understand my primary system, once it started to really make sense to me and I could grasp what it is that we are working to accomplish in the training, then I realized that I did not need any of the other systems, to continue to practice them was actually a waste of my time and was damaging my practice in my primary system, and I actually did not want to waste any of my time and energy on the others.  Practicing these other systems was not adding anything of value to what I was doing, and was in fact taking away from it.

The fact that the SD curriculum is so large and includes so many different systems, suggests to me that nobody really understands any of it very well.  If they did so, they would realize that they had no need and no use for any of the rest of it, and the curriculum would have become much more focused on that material and the rest of it would be jettisoned.


----------



## Orion Paximus

Flying Crane said:


> The fact that the SD curriculum is so large and includes so many different systems, suggests to me that nobody really understands any of it very well.  If they did so, they would realize that they had no need and no use for any of the rest of it, and the curriculum would have become much more focused on that material and the rest of it would be jettisoned.



There is something to be said for preserving history though.  I mean assuming the forms are historical then they do have a sort of value and should be passed down.


----------



## clfsean

Orion Paximus said:


> There is something to be said for preserving history though. I mean assuming the forms are historical then they do have a sort of value and should be passed down.


 
Not if they are in error in the present state.


----------



## Flying Crane

Orion Paximus said:


> There is something to be said for preserving history though.  I mean assuming the forms are historical then they do have a sort of value and should be passed down.



Clfsean beat me to it.  

Nothing about any of this material, or ANY martial art at all, is divinely sacred.  It was all developed by humans, is practiced and taught and passed on by humans, to other humans.  If it falls out of use, if nobody does it anymore, it won't stop the sun from rising tomorrow morning.

Martial arts is a folk tradition.  It is passed on from generation to generation, thru a teacher-student relationship, and includes a body of knowledge that is not common to the masses.  If the folk tradition is lost, then it is simply gone and cannot be re-created.  The creation of a new system can replace a lost system, but it's not the same as the lost system.

If the SD material is being done poorly and is not understood properly and is not functional, then preserving it simply for historical purposes is meaningless.  It is not an artifact that can be placed in a museum for society to preserve.  It is a skill and body of knowledge.  Once the skill and understanding is lost, then the movements are just hollow mimicry and no longer have meaning or purpose.  It is a waste of valuable time that could be spent in training something that is properly understood.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Nothing about any of this material, or ANY martial art at all, is divinely sacred.


 
Well, except for Xuefu :mst:


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Well, except for Xuefu :mst:



that's so much of a given that I didn't think it required mention...


----------



## rickster

Xue Sheng said:


> And surprisingly there is no record of this at Shaolin where they are known to keep meticulous records.
> 
> No one and I repeat no one in CMA learns 900 forms and is taken seriously by any other real live CMA sifu. Sorry it is the way it is in CMA my first sifu now claims to know hundreds among them Wudang and Shaolin and he is far from skilled in them. And I won't tell you what 3 born raised and trained in China sifus say about him.... lets just say that all call him a Grandmaster... and they are not being complimentary and that is the nicest thing they say about him


I have heard, that there isn't a TCMA word for "GrandMaster"


----------



## rickster

Doomx2001 said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here altogether. *I agree totally* that Shaolin-Do in *no shape or form* even resembles *authentic Shaolin martial arts* or training methods, I



How do you know what is "Authentic Shaolin Martial Arts?


----------



## GaryR

Doomx,



I would reiterate someone else&#8217;s advice to simply stay away. From what I have seen (and I have met an instructor in person and been to a school), its crap. It's very likely based on a hyped up a fraud, but I could care less the origin, I care if its crap. It's also not a very good representation of any of the Chinese arts it purports teach. 

My suggestion from vast MA experience--Run away, far away. Unless of course you just want a martial hobby for the exercise and social aspects, that choice is yours.

Best,

Gary





Doomx2001 said:


> Hello everybody,
> I was looking for some info into Shaolin-Do. I've heard the controversy and read about it in great length. But, what I'm looking for is actual details about the art itself, and not so much the history. Also, I'm not trying to cause any grief or controversy, I'm just intereseted in the facts. I study martial arts, and I just enjoy learning/practicing different arts.
> 
> Here's my questions:
> 
> *1.)  From White belt to Black, how many self defense techniques are there?
> As far as I know, white belt - green belt is the only self defense stuff taught (roughly 30 chin na techniques), and the rest is nothing but forms?
> 
> 2.)  Is the curriculum still growing? With so much alledged material, one would think that more stuff would be added to the curriculum.
> 
> 3.)  Is the self defense applications of the forms taught?
> *
> 
> Thats it for now. I appreciate any responses.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Here is an interesting question/thought: Where do you guys see Shaolin-Do in future (the curriculum, future grandmaster, popularity...etc). 


Your in luck! Madame Ruth, a well-known psychic in my neighborhood was having a half-price special! So of course I asked her. She entered into an alternative dimensional consciousness through complex vortex manipulations using a crystal she bought at wal-mart. So surely this is reliable information: 

At some time in the future a group of renegade SD'rs who between themselves, collectively know all 900 forms are going to lock themselves in an abandoned military base in colorado. Their supplies will include several cases of three by five cards (3000 to the case) and a massive supply of mountain dew, jolt, amp and other high sugar, high caffeine drinks. They will begin writing every posture of every form and its applicaiton on its own card for the 900 forms, along with every self defense technique and all other actions in the system. Then they will start sorting the cards. 

The next step will be to start throwing out duplicate moves. This in itself will take time plus many 32 gallon garbage bags. 


They will eventually reduce the entire SD system down to 55 core techniques and start selling it on the internet. 

Immediate legal proceedings will commence with SD attempting to sue the perpetrators for everything including the shirt off their backs. SD'ers loyal to the traditional system will issue challenges to the folks who bought the abbreviated method. Unfortunately, they get their butts kicked by the new students. 

But all will end well. It will be announced that a secret method, called BTB, known only to the master, will fire up the meridians and dredge the channels. For a mere $6995, and your signature on a legal document saying you will never disclose what you are taught, the secret can be yours. Major american celebrities will flock to the courses, checkbook in hand. 

It will be a complete mystery just exactly what is BTB until it leaks out that it stands for "Become the Bird", and apparently involves making bird sounds while doing the three bird forms in SD. So all will be well, and across the land new students will gather in the major city centers doing their bird forms behind closed doors. Passers by will occasionally here the tell-tale sound: 

KAW! KAW!
KAW! KAW!


----------



## WC_lun

Wow!  Major thread necromancy and is that jazz with words?


----------



## Doomx2001

GaryR said:


> Doomx,
> 
> 
> 
> I would reiterate someone else&#8217;s advice to simply stay away. From what I have seen (and I have met an instructor in person and been to a school), its crap. It's very likely based on a hyped up a fraud, but I could care less the origin, I care if its crap. It's also not a very good representation of any of the Chinese arts it purports teach.
> 
> My suggestion from vast MA experience--Run away, far away. Unless of course you just want a martial hobby for the exercise and social aspects, that choice is yours.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Gary




I think overall I've got the theory or message across about SD that I was trying to say, whether right or wrong. I really do see it just continuing to evolve nation wide as more and more people tweek the curriculum as time goes on, it is human nature. Whether in its current state that it is effective or not, I don't know, I haven't trained in it. 

One quick thing to add though, I have noticed that SD seems to be heavy influenced by Northern Long Fist? All the different animal forms and even the Hsing Yi at times, resembles more Long Fist. What do you guys think?


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> I think overall I've got the theory or message across about SD that I was trying to say, whether right or wrong. I really do see it just continuing to evolve nation wide as more and more people tweek the curriculum as time goes on, it is human nature. Whether in its current state that it is effective or not, I don't know, I haven't trained in it.



Wait... you haven't touched it but you're in essence trying to validate something about it? My head hurts...



Doomx2001 said:


> One quick thing to add though, I have noticed that SD seems to be heavy influenced by Northern Long Fist? All the different animal forms and even the Hsing Yi at times, resembles more Long Fist. What do you guys think?



No. It doesn't. It hasn't.


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> Wait... you haven't touched it but you're in essence trying to validate something about it? My head hurts...



It is not so much about trying to validate something rather than making an observation of the natural flow of things. Its human nature that things change. An example of what I've been alluding to would be: Hapkido. Hapkido started out with low kicks, then Ji Han Jae added high kicks and Ki Exercises. So the Hapkido people practice today is not the same as when it started out. 
As we all know there are several classical jujutsu styles in Japan. Jigoro Kano combined techniques from about 3 different styles of Jujutsu to form Judo. From there Judo instructors went to Brazil, and the Gracies changed Judo into what we now know as Gracie Jujutus/Brazilian Jujutsu. Then you have Karate, which had its start in China, then to Okinawa, then to Japan.
The same can be said for Hsing yi, Tai Chi, Bagua...etc over the centuries. All that I'm trying to say is that its human nature to change things. And that does include martial arts, even ones based on lies (SD). 

I think many people could be making the assumption that I'm trying to validate Sin Kwang The's claims, which I'm not, not at all. Its well documented that the truth and GM of SD don't mix well. But that is not what I was really trying to talk about. I think there is so much hurt feelings and level of hatred toward SD that it may make it difficult for people to have a real clinical look at the style itself, as practitioners are changing SD more and more as time goes on. 

As far as my Long Fst comment, I'm not saying that Sin Kwang The studied long fist, unless he watched a VHS tape in the 60's (lol), but what I am saying is that by looking at alot of the forms, they are all similar, using long stances, and few other things that put me in the mind of Long Fist. That is just the way it looks to me, but I'm not trying to imply that it so. 

That is all. I"m not validating the history SD, I'm not validating the GM of SD, I'm not saying SD is an ancient art, I'm not recommending other people to train in SD, ..etc. And the reason I don't come out and say these things is because I honestly do not want to offend anyone that trains in SD. Just because we operate under the safety of a computer screen doesn't mean that we should act any differently than how we would in person. And that is not being thrown at any particular person. 

My whole conversation has been about the people who study SD, and the changes that come to SD as time goes on. I've seen people that have stripped 75% of the curriculum focusing on the material that suits them best. Others teach the whole curriculum but have made changes for practicality or for 'smoother forms'. And some focus just on one aspect of SD such as Hsing Yi doing research outside of SD to bring more 'life' to Hsing Yi the proper way. But anyway, these are just interesting observations that I have made that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Thats all.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> It is not so much about trying to validate something rather than making an observation of the natural flow of things. Its human nature that things change. An example of what I've been alluding to would be: Hapkido. Hapkido started out with low kicks, then Ji Han Jae added high kicks and Ki Exercises. So the Hapkido people practice today is not the same as when it started out.
> As we all know there are several classical jujutsu styles in Japan. Jigoro Kano combined techniques from about 3 different styles of Jujutsu to form Judo. From there Judo instructors went to Brazil, and the Gracies changed Judo into what we now know as Gracie Jujutus/Brazilian Jujutsu. Then you have Karate, which had its start in China, then to Okinawa, then to Japan.
> The same can be said for Hsing yi, Tai Chi, Bagua...etc over the centuries. All that I'm trying to say is that its human nature to change things. And that does include martial arts, even ones based on lies (SD).
> 
> 
> I think many people could be making the assumption that I'm trying to validate Sin Kwang The's claims, which I'm not, not at all. Its well documented that the truth and GM of SD don't mix well. But that is not what I was really trying to talk about. I think there is so much hurt feelings and level of hatred toward SD that it may make it difficult for people to have a real clinical look at the style itself, as practitioners are changing SD more and more as time goes on.



Ok... but the trick is if you're doing something technically incorrect from day one, evolving doesn't make it right. While you may make it applicable, you're still not correct. And as for hurt feelings, that needs to be addressed to those still in the SD folds, not those that have left. 



Doomx2001 said:


> As far as my Long Fst comment, I'm not saying that Sin Kwang The studied long fist, unless he watched a VHS tape in the 60's (lol), but what I am saying is that by looking at alot of the forms, they are all similar, using long stances, and few other things that put me in the mind of Long Fist. That is just the way it looks to me, but I'm not trying to imply that it so.



Long fist is a descriptive of power generation for striking & other such goodies, not necessarily stance work. 



Doomx2001 said:


> That is all. I"m not validating the history SD, I'm not validating the GM of SD, I'm not saying SD is an ancient art, I'm not recommending other people to train in SD, ..etc. And the reason I don't come out and say these things is because I honestly do not want to offend anyone that trains in SD. Just because we operate under the safety of a computer screen doesn't mean that we should act any differently than how we would in person. And that is not being thrown at any particular person.



Right. So call it as it is. It is what it is. 



Doomx2001 said:


> My whole conversation has been about the people who study SD, and the changes that come to SD as time goes on. I've seen people that have stripped 75% of the curriculum focusing on the material that suits them best. Others teach the whole curriculum but have made changes for practicality or for 'smoother forms'. And some focus just on one aspect of SD such as Hsing Yi doing research outside of SD to bring more 'life' to Hsing Yi the proper way. But anyway, these are just interesting observations that I have made that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Thats all.



So what exactly are you getting at? I'm trying to get my head around that. Change to something incorrect, unless corrected by an acknowledged sourcehead, is still incorrect with changes. What again has your experience been with SD directly or otherwise?


----------



## oaktree

> And some focus just on one aspect of SD such as Hsing Yi doing research outside of SD to bring more 'life' to Hsing Yi the proper way


If you are practicing Xingyi in SD and you are looking outside of SD for Xingyi to do it the proper way then why not just do Xingyi the proper way outside of SD and drop the SD
Xingyi?


----------



## Xue Sheng

OK a couple things



Doomx2001 said:


> As far as my Long Fst comment, I'm not saying that Sin Kwang The studied long fist, unless he watched a VHS tape in the 60's (lol),



First a minor and more silly point

Yuma Shiraishi and Shizuo Takano did not develope VHS tape format until 1971 so no one was watching a VHS tape in the 60s



Doomx2001 said:


> My whole conversation has been about the people who study SD, and the changes that come to SD as time goes on. I've seen people that have stripped 75% of the curriculum focusing on the material that suits them best. Others teach the whole curriculum but have made changes for practicality or for 'smoother forms'. And some focus just on one aspect of SD such as Hsing Yi doing research outside of SD to bring more 'life' to Hsing Yi the proper way. But anyway, these are just interesting observations that I have made that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Thats all.


 
Now the serious bits.....

If people are going outside of Shaolin Do to train Long Fist and Xingyiquan to bring back into Shaolin Do then that says Shaolin Do devolved from a martial art to something that was not a martial art. Now if we look at Chinese Martial history that would then label it a failed martial art and it would likely die off. 

Also since you are talking about something near and dear to my heart (Xingyiquan) I would be interested in knowing what parts of Xingyi are in Shaolin Do and what parts they are allegedly bringing back in


----------



## Doomx2001

clfsean said:


> Ok... but the trick is if you're doing something technically incorrect from day one, evolving doesn't make it right. While you may make it applicable, you're still not correct. And as for hurt feelings, that needs to be addressed to those still in the SD folds, not those that have left.



Again its not about validating the SD, but rather making an observation. Do you agree or disagree that martial arts change and evolve over time? I would think this would be an interesting topic as relates to the very nature of human _ ingenuity_, being able to over time make them most out things others would consider worthless. Thats really is what is at the heart of my post. 



clfsean said:


> Long fist is a descriptive of power generation for striking & other such goodies, not necessarily stance work.



It is really just my best guess if I had to compare SD to a Chinese martial art. 





clfsean said:


> Right. So call it as it is. It is what it is.


 
The fact is, regardless of the well documented origins of SD, if a person in the said style practices kicking, punching, blocking...etc, that is still of value despite SD being based on a mountain of lies. But as far as calling it what it is, there are plenty forums or message boards on the internet that have done that years ago with threads still going to this day. Its been beat to death.  I'm not really  malicious person. Or hell bent on the destruction of any martial art that I find repugnant. There is plenty of that going around when it comes to SD. Like I said before, I honestly don't wont' to offend anyone who practices SD. There is no point in it. Also I'm not interested in any claimed history of SD prior to the 1960's. I just want to take a clinical look at the curriculum as it is now, and where its possibly headed. 
And also, the idea that 'It is what It is', that may not be 100 years from now. Things have a funny way of changing for the better or the worst.



clfsean said:


> So what exactly are you getting at? I'm trying to get my head around that. Change to something incorrect, unless corrected by an acknowledged sourcehead, is still incorrect with changes. What again has your experience been with SD directly or otherwise?



Well as far as experience, I have 0% first hand experience in SD. I have seen it demonstrated. I have seen many videos, but as far as me having the opportunity to train in it myself, no haven't. I actually took the time to search the web and link several videos in this thread for discussion, which no one that I can remember took the time to discuss, LOL, as it relates to the idea that things evolve. 

What I'm getting at, like I mentioned earlier and before that, is, its human nature to change things. I gave a few examples of martial arts that have done just that, within a span of 100 years or less. 
I just want to take a clinical look at the curriculum as it is now, and where it could be years from now. 

And to give you a better idea of how I look at SD, I would say this: I try to look at things with an open mind, objectively, to see not just the bad, but also the good. Not just good, but also the bad. Not just the lies, but also the truth. Not just the truth, but also the lies. I apply this same standard to all martial arts. 
When I see a Hsing Yi form in SD, I don't see Hebei Hsing Yi, Shanxi Hsing Yi or Henan Hsing Yi. I just see SD Hsing Yi. 
When I look at SD Tiger Crane Form, I don't see Hung Gar Tiger Crane, I just see SD Tiger Crane. Have the higher ups' in SD including Sin Kwang The' made false claims that many of the forms they teach are ancient forms from China, yes they have. I'm not debating that one bit, because they have made those false claims. 

But I don't look at the lies, or what the forms are said to be or resemble or any of that. Because SD has done been 'busted'. There is nothing to prove in that field, its done out there, and everybody knows. But what I try to do, is look at SD FOR WHAT IT IS and what it isn't. I try to see what it is that they do well, and not just everything they do wrong. 

And finally, whenever I try to have a discussion on a martial arts as a topic, I try my best to avoid from being like a over zealous martial art busting guy like on Bullshido, and I also try not to be the over zealous can't talk about traditional martial arts taboos guy. I just want discuss where SD is now, and where it's headed, without looking at bogus claims and looking at some of the morally corrupt hierarchy of SD. The thing I think most people are over looking is that the majority of SD practitioners are good people, who are trying to make the most of the training. Some ignore the nay sayers, and others have embraced the truth on things, and have either moved on, or continue to teach a modified version of the  curriculum.

Anyway, thats all I'm looking for, is just a good analytical discussion on the topic.


----------



## Doomx2001

oaktree said:


> If you are practicing Xingyi in SD and you are looking outside of SD for Xingyi to do it the proper way then why not just do Xingyi the proper way outside of SD and drop the SD
> Xingyi?



I don't train in SD. I would love to learn Xingyi though, .


----------



## Doomx2001

Xue Sheng said:


> Also since you are talking about something near and dear to my heart (Xingyiquan) I would be interested in knowing what parts of Xingyi are in Shaolin Do and what parts they are allegedly bringing back in



By looking at a SD site, they have Hsing yi : *fist of five roads, five roads linking form, 12 animal forms, and two man set. *I don't know if they actually practice the five element fist such as Splitting fist, Chopping fist...etc. 
But anyway, there is a growing number of SD black belts and higher rank people in SD that are breaking away from the organization to become independent schools. Some of these teachers go to China to study, while most learn from there fellow martial artist here in the U.S.A. I saw a website just a couple of days ago where a guy in Tennessee is teaching just 8 or 10 forums, half of them are SD forums, and the others are legit Mantis forms that he probably learned from a Mantis school nearby. 

Also there are two instructors that I know of in Kentucky that have broke off from SD, and they have modified and changed there SD curriculum into something different. I figured I mention this stuff as it relates to the discussion. 

Anyway, I might be able to find some online videos (SD Hsing Yi) that I can link here for you if you would like? The reason I ask is because last time, I don't think anyone took the time to examine the last links I posted. LOL!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Doomx2001 said:


> By looking at a SD site, they have Hsing yi : *fist of five roads, five roads linking form, 12 animal forms, and two man set. *I don't know if they actually practice the five element fist such as Splitting fist, Chopping fist...etc.
> But anyway, there is a growing number of SD black belts and higher rank people in SD that are breaking away from the organization to become independent schools. Some of these teachers go to China to study, while most learn from there fellow martial artist here in the U.S.A. I saw a website just a couple of days ago where a guy in Tennessee is teaching just 8 or 10 forums, half of them are SD forums, and the others are legit Mantis forms that he probably learned from a Mantis school nearby.
> 
> Also there are two instructors that I know of in Kentucky that have broke off from SD, and they have modified and changed there SD curriculum into something different. I figured I mention this stuff as it relates to the discussion.
> 
> Anyway, I might be able to find some online videos (SD Hsing Yi) that I can link here for you if you would like? The reason I ask is because last time, I don't think anyone took the time to examine the last links I posted. LOL!



I have never heard of forms called fist of five roads or five roads linking form in Hebei or Shang (Which I do) nor have I seen that listed as forms in Henan or Shanxi but I do not do Henan or Shanxi so.... And I wouild be interested in seeing a video of Shaolin Do's idea of Xingyiquan


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> I have never heard of forms called fist of five roads or five roads linking form in Hebei or Shang (Which I do) nor have I seen that listed as forms in Henan or Shanxi but I do not do Henan or Shanxi so.... And I wouild be interested in seeing a video of Shaolin Do's idea of Xingyiquan



They do the basic linkage that almost everybody does... but their way. Not XYQ way, but the SD way.


----------



## clfsean

Doomx2001 said:


> By looking at a SD site, they have Hsing yi : *fist of five roads, five roads linking form, 12 animal forms, and two man set. *I don't know if they actually practice the five element fist such as Splitting fist, Chopping fist...etc.
> But anyway, there is a growing number of SD black belts and higher rank people in SD that are breaking away from the organization to become independent schools. Some of these teachers go to China to study, while most learn from there fellow martial artist here in the U.S.A. I saw a website just a couple of days ago where a guy in Tennessee is teaching just 8 or 10 forums, half of them are SD forums, and the others are legit Mantis forms that he probably learned from a Mantis school nearby.
> 
> Also there are two instructors that I know of in Kentucky that have broke off from SD, and they have modified and changed there SD curriculum into something different. I figured I mention this stuff as it relates to the discussion.
> 
> Anyway, I might be able to find some online videos (SD Hsing Yi) that I can link here for you if you would like? The reason I ask is because last time, I don't think anyone took the time to examine the last links I posted. LOL!



Yeah... going to China to "relearn" or "correct SD" ... not so much IME & IMO. Where's the website for the guy in Tn you saw? SD has a whole passle of TLQ sets, again... as they do it, not as a TLQ practitioner will learn, develop & work it. 

Again... changing or modifying SD doesn't make it wrong on a base, concrete floor level. SD is SD. It's not XYQ... TLQ... Taiji Quan... Bagua Zhang... etc... It's SD attempting to pull off sets from other styles or even complete systems with no foundation in that system. Doing a few drills that may have been picked up before teaching their version of something does not make it work. It is the SD version of it & it's lacking the core & heart of it. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed from the start. 

The only things they can avoid doing that with, is the things made up by SKT because THAT is what they do.


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> They do the basic linkage that almost everybody does... but their way. Not XYQ way, but the SD way.




thier way :hmm: that does not sound good, but I would still like to see it, I am curious as to what the Shaolin Do way is as it applies to Xingyi

I have seen other groups version of Xingyiquan (most notable the Taoist Tai Chi Society) and it was plain awful and had no root, no power and no MA application


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> thier way :hmm: that does not sound good, but I would still like to see it, I am curious as to what the Shaolin Do way is as it applies to Xingyi
> 
> I have seen other groups version of Xingyiquan (most notable the Taoist Tai Chi Society) and it was plain awful and had no root, no power and no MA application



Heh... have fun with this... 

[video=youtube_share;5kIyh0tgB7A]http://youtu.be/5kIyh0tgB7A[/video]


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> Heh... have fun with this...



Is he Shaolin Do? there is no mention of it on his Webpage

He does have a rather, shall we say "extensive" training background though  

Stance wrong or possibly Shanxi based and still not good if we are talking Xingyiquan...and we are
Hands may vary depending on style and teacher
Arch back when striking...aaaa no no no
Movement wrong, 
Power wrong
Paoquan not good at all

I am going to label it Bad Karate Style Xingyiquan

I am guessing this is The 5 element linking form

Xing Yi Quan 5 Elements and Linking form, done well (Starts @ 1:26)






Or maybe he is trying Ba Shi.. also done well here


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Is he Shaolin Do? there is no mention of it on his Webpage



No... he can't mention it. He's the guy that had the court case recently with SKT & came out on top.

As to the rest... ah-yeup... that'd be the correct of it. For all things SD that they have appropriated.


----------



## Gentle Fist

Sorry didn't read through the 100+ posts on this thread...   What is with the name and uniform choice?  Are they Japanese or Chinese?  After watching the videos on Youtube...not really convinced that it is an ancient martial art...


----------



## Doomx2001

Gentle Fist said:


> Sorry didn't read through the 100+ posts on this thread...   What is with the name and uniform choice?  Are they Japanese or Chinese?  After watching the videos on Youtube...not really convinced that it is an ancient martial art...



I'm getting ready to go to work, but if you read Shaolin Do's wikipedia, I think on there it explains their version of why they use Japanese names and uniforms. Despite the claims of GM Sin and his senior students,  it could just be the influence of the elder master Bill Leonard because I read somewhere that he did Shotokan Karate, and also worth mentioning is that all the forms up to black belt were made my GM Sin Kwang The' despite that fact that for decades he said they were Shaolin forms.  

Personally I don't fault anyone who claims to teach Chinese martial arts who choose to use Japanese uniforms (because they are durable), but it does seem silly and lazy to use terms such as Kumite and Kata instead of Chinese termanology (or maybe even Indonesian since GM Sin is from there). 

I'm not sure if this is been asked before, but I wonder if GM Sin studied karate in Indonesia? I would say probably not, but then again you never know. Interesting though. But be sure to read other message boards where people talk about it in length if that helps with your question.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Greetings everyone, I'm coming late into the conversation. However if I may interject a few of my experiences and insights. Yes Doomx2001, as far as the uniforms there are many reasons. Ultimately they are actually cheaper and easier to get and very well made. Also if you consider the frog button uniforms these are actually based upon normal clothes from what I understand. Some of us Shaolin-Do folks will actually wear the frog buttons, however it's usually the ones that are internal.

I know there was a comment on Hsing-I as far as training differently outside of Shaolin-Do. It really depends on the teacher. Shaolin-Do has over 900 forms. I think I counted once for a standard external school has just 25 forms for black belt. Alot of the material is from seminars. Please bare in mind that Shaolin-Do wants to keep the arts alive. Some instructors may never do all 900, in fact I don't know of anyone who has, to date learn all of them. Which each instructor doing there part to keep a peace alive you'll have differences in training. 

My instructor's Hsing-I is complete, I can't vouch for the other schools as I've not been to them. 

I know there is the talk of the Chinese terms, however we do have both the Chinese terms and the Japanese ones. For example we have what is called the Two-section staff techniques at blue belt level. Often they are called Nunchaku or nun-chucks. why? because everyone knows what they are and we usually buy nun-chucks (at least I did) because they are cheap and easy to get a hold of. Very few people know what "erjie gun" are. In fact I even forgot the name because I've not done the form in class for a while only at home, since I've moved pasted that rank. 

So you'll have the ability to learn the Chinese if you want, but for the mass public you'll often hear more family terms. Also bear in mind that in Japan there is pretty much one language, in China there is at least 7 major variations. So which Chinese name do you want to learn  makes it tricky. Xingyi vs Hsing-I for example. With different spelling and all and a different language it can make it easier to use something easier to pronounce. 

As to the comment about going outside of Shaolin-Do to get Xingyi and bring it back in...I've never heard that and my instructor who has been with Shaolin-Do since 1979 has never went outside to learn Hsing-I, he never had too we have good stuff.

Yes we do learn the 5 elements first with Hsing-I 


I know there has been a lot going on i just wanted to put a few words in and hopefully join in a peaceful debate


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> My instructor's Hsing-I is complete, I can't vouch for the other schools as I've not been to them.



Please define what you mean by complete



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> So you'll have the ability to learn the Chinese if you want, but for the mass public you'll often hear more family terms. Also bear in mind that in Japan there is pretty much one language, in China there is at least 7 major variations. So which Chinese name do you want to learn  makes it tricky. Xingyi vs Hsing-I for example. With different spelling and all and a different language it can make it easier to use something easier to pronounce.



Actually it is a matter of which translation into the English alphabet that you use Pinyin: Xingyiquan or Wade Giles: Hsing-I-Chuan. Pinyin comes from mainland and Wade-Giles comes form the British.



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Yes we do learn the 5 elements first with Hsing-I



Except traditionally with Xingyi you do not learn the 5 elements first, in the beginning of your training yes, but not first


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> Please define what you mean by complete


As far as movements behind the techniques. I believe there are some schools that do it a bit differently, the SD school I attend focuses more on the internal arts and my instructor is AWESOME  When I say complete i mean complete movements, we are taught certain ways to breathing and think on each element. As well as how to borrow energy and use there forward attacking momentum to our advantage. Where the hmmm I dont' know how to spell it only say it but the closest I can think is "wa jing" though I think a lot of people spell it with a fa or something. I was actually having a conversation about Hsing-I recently and out of all the videos on youtube the closest my instructor could find to ours was this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAi3OdD4oQ&feature=related not exact but very close to the way we practice. So all I mean by complete is, though new to the Hsing-I taught in SD I don't see what could be missing. 

Xingyiquan is your main style correct? I would be most interested if I could ever find online a video of SD doing it at our fall gathering to your opinion. I love talking with others about martial arts and I find it fascinating how different it can be from school to school or from family style to family style.





Xue Sheng said:


> Except traditionally with Xingyi you do not learn the 5 elements first, in the beginning of your training yes, but not first


Well maybe I should be more careful how I word it  I remember learning 3 body and foot work, and I remember learning the 5 elements and animals. I've not tested it on it as I'm very new to it, but I believe the first time we test is with the 5 elements and what we call linking form or linking of the five roads. I think I read some where a post from you or another that said this is nothing something you do in Xingyiquan, but please dont' quote me there, I've been on here looking for some conversations to participate in and dont' have a direct quote.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I could ever find online a video of SD doing it at our fall gathering



Here you go... even better... class time... 

http://youtu.be/OOM-xf_QMeQ

http://youtu.be/xn2bCmsOejk


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> As far as movements behind the techniques. I believe there are some schools that do it a bit differently, the SD school I attend focuses more on the internal arts and my instructor is AWESOME When I say complete i mean complete movements, we are taught certain ways to breathing and think on each element. As well as how to borrow energy and use there forward attacking momentum to our advantage. Where the hmmm I dont' know how to spell it only say it but the closest I can think is "wa jing" though I think a lot of people spell it with a fa or something. I was actually having a conversation about Hsing-I recently and out of all the videos on youtube the closest my instructor could find to ours was this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAi3OdD4oQ&feature=related not exact but very close to the way we practice. So all I mean by complete is, though new to the Hsing-I taught in SD I don't see what could be missing.




fajin. 
 Let me give you the best advice I was ever given as it applies to Xingyiquan and striking. Don't tie your breathing to your striking. In other words, Do not exhale at every strike. It should not matter inhale or exhale or anywhere in between... you should still be able to hit and hit hard. 




BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Xingyiquan is your main style correct? I would be most interested if I could ever find online a video of SD doing it at our fall gathering to your opinion. I love talking with others about martial arts and I find it fascinating how different it can be from school to school or from family style to family style.




Xingyiquan is my favorite style but Yang Taijiquan is my main style. I have trained Hebei Xingyiquan with 3 different teachers. Teacher ones form looks a lot like teacher 3's form but teacher 1 has no real idea about applications and teacher 3 probably has a better understanding of Xingyiquan applications that 1 or 2. Teacher 2's Hebei looks very different. he knows applications but some of them are not as good as teacher 3 and some of them are just plain going to get you hit in the face if you are not careful




BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Well maybe I should be more careful how I word it I remember learning 3 body and foot work, and I remember learning the 5 elements and animals. I've not tested it on it as I'm very new to it, but I believe the first time we test is with the 5 elements and what we call linking form or linking of the five roads. I think I read some where a post from you or another that said this is nothing something you do in Xingyiquan, but please dont' quote me there, I've been on here looking for some conversations to participate in and dont' have a direct quote.




Not sure what you are saying here.


I do not take tests nor has any teacher I have had given tests, TCMA has no belt ranks
I know the 5 elements form
I know the 5 elements linking form
I know the 5 elements staff form
I do not know the animal forms (officially) I have been shown tiger.
I did comment on the 5 roads and I do not remember what I said. I did see something that looked a little like Bashi that was being called the 5 elements or 5 roads or something like that


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Here you go... even better... class time...
> 
> http://youtu.be/OOM-xf_QMeQ
> 
> http://youtu.be/xn2bCmsOejk



hmmm that looks different... it's essentially the same moves. but different, hard to explain, but the way I learned three body you have more weight on your back leg, and you sorta sit into it. and the back hand is out in front more, the lead had is about eye level and the back hand is supposed to be half way between your front toe and your lead hand. and those are the same sets of moves for the beginning of linking but when I was shown cannon fist (fire) we do it with our whole body and waste, both hands come up together...

i'm not saying he's doing it wrong...I mean that's Elder Master...it's just a bit different...


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> hmmm that looks different... it's essentially the same moves. but different, hard to explain, but the way I learned three body you have more weight on your back leg, and you sorta sit into it. and the back hand is out in front more, the lead had is about eye level and the back hand is supposed to be half way between your front toe and your lead hand. and those are the same sets of moves for the beginning of linking but when I was shown cannon fist (fire) we do it with our whole body and waste, both hands come up together...
> 
> i'm not saying he's doing it wrong...I mean that's Elder Master...it's just a bit different...



Do yourself a favor... go out to Youtube & look up Xingyi 5 Roads & Linkage... watch everybody else. Let us know what you think then.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> fajin.
> Let me give you the best advice I was ever given as it applies to Xingyiquan and striking. Don't tie your breathing to your striking. In other words, Do not exhale at every strike. It should not matter inhale or exhale or anywhere in between... you should still be able to hit and hit hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xingyiquan is my favorite style but Yang Taijiquan is my main style. I have trained Hebei Xingyiquan with 3 different teachers. Teacher ones form looks a lot like teacher 3's form but teacher 1 has no real idea about applications and teacher 3 probably has a better understanding of Xingyiquan applications that 1 or 2. Teacher 2's Hebei looks very different. he knows applications but some of them are not as good as teacher 3 and some of them are just plain going to get you hit in the face if you are not careful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are saying here.
> 
> 
> I do not take tests nor has any teacher I have had given tests, TCMA has no belt ranks
> I know the 5 elements form
> I know the 5 elements linking form
> I know the 5 elements staff form
> I do not know the animal forms (officially) I have been shown tiger.
> I did comment on the 5 roads and I do not remember what I said. I did see something that looked a little like Bashi that was being called the 5 elements or 5 roads or something like that



Hey thanks for the advice  and yes fajin is the way I've seen it spelled. It's where you have like an live energy shoot through your entire body, so that all of you is in the attack. We've never done sparring with Hsing-I, and we only focus on breath when we are doing the forms, but when we are doing applications, master says not to worry about the breath, you train the breath so that when you do it you forget the breath but your body remembers what to do. That's not a direct quote but that's what I got from what he told us.

Yeah Hsing-I is some cool stuff, I'm not sure on the history with your school. I was told that it evolved from spear fighting and that you can do the 5 elements with a spear in your hand. (or Qiang). Which I thought as cool  The only reason we test on it, is because it's part of the Shaolin-Do curriculum. I don't think they said it was from the temple but directly but as I don't recall the whole origin of the top of my head I'll stop there. 

As far as what I was saying, I mean I have been introduced to Hsing-I and I was present for one of the seminars on it. So though I've been shown it, I've not tested for Shaolin-Do rank with it. If that makes more sense. 

I heard there is a staff form but I've not seen it, there is also suppose to be a spear, and sword form as well. Likewise though I've only heard of these and not seen it yet.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Do yourself a favor... go out to Youtube & look up Xingyi 5 Roads & Linkage... watch everybody else. Let us know what you think then.



Hmmm yeah I can see your point on the differences. I wish you could see the way my instructor does it, I'm not saying Elder Master is doing it wrong, it just seems different. It's hard to put into words. There is an internal flow that I didn't see in those two video links that where posted. I've never met Elder Master, I just know when I watch my instructor do it, it's like a combination of the other videos I see and the way elder master did it in those videos. I know elder master was breaking it down though and showing peace at a time so maybe it would look different if he was doing it full speed. 

I think if you kinda put this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAi3OdD4oQ&feature=related and those of elder master together then i kinda resembles a bit of what it looks like when I see it. It just like trying to explain a car when you've never seen the model, so I try and say two models that look closest to it...

and I guess that is everyone's point that it is different then a lot of the other Xingyi out there.


----------



## Xue Sheng

The only historically verifiable source of Xingyiquan is Dai family Xinyiquan. Li Luoneng learned Xinyi from the Dai family and he developed Xingyiquan what many call Shanxi Xingyiquan. After that you get Hebei[h=1][/h]


----------



## Xue Sheng

I was pressed for time on my last post.



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Hey thanks for the advice and yes fajin is the way I've seen it spelled. It's where you have like an live energy shoot through your entire body, so that all of you is in the attack. We've never done sparring with Hsing-I, and we only focus on breath when we are doing the forms, but when we are doing applications, master says not to worry about the breath, you train the breath so that when you do it you forget the breath but your body remembers what to do. That's not a direct quote but that's what I got from what he told us.
> 
> Yeah Hsing-I is some cool stuff, I'm not sure on the history with your school. I was told that it evolved from spear fighting and that you can do the 5 elements with a spear in your hand. (or Qiang). Which I thought as cool The only reason we test on it, is because it's part of the Shaolin-Do curriculum. I don't think they said it was from the temple but directly but as I don't recall the whole origin of the top of my head I'll stop there.
> 
> As far as what I was saying, I mean I have been introduced to Hsing-I and I was present for one of the seminars on it. So though I've been shown it, I've not tested for Shaolin-Do rank with it. If that makes more sense.
> 
> I heard there is a staff form but I've not seen it, there is also suppose to be a spear, and sword form as well. Likewise though I've only heard of these and not seen it yet.


 
It is very easy to fall into a pattern of exhale strike, it can happen rather naturally. My second sifu was the one that pointed that out and said that if you can only strike on an exhale then that is exactly when he would attack, right after you exhale. Because you cannot strike on an inhale. There for we would breath normally when doing just about everything.

There is some talk about Xingyi being based on the spear and it is possible but the only historically verifiable source is the Dai family. And there is a lot more to Xingyi than you can see in a seminar, Stance training, 5 elements, 5 elements linking, animal forms, animal forms linking, Bashi, two person forms, staff, spear, various bladed weapons, needles and others depending on style and lineage.



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I think if you kinda put this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfAi3OdD4oQ&feature=related and those of elder master together then i kinda resembles a bit of what it looks like when I see it. It just like trying to explain a car when you've never seen the model, so I try and say two models that look closest to it...
> 
> and I guess that is everyone's point that it is different then a lot of the other Xingyi out there.



The style linked is Che Style which comes from Che Yizhai who was a student of Li Luoneng

There are 3 main styles Shanxi, Hebei and Henan but there are multiple sub styles off of these


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> I was pressed for time on my last post.


No worries I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me 




Xue Sheng said:


> There is some talk about Xingyi being based on the spear and it is possible but the only historically verifiable source is the Dai family. And there is a lot more to Xingyi than you can see in a seminar, Stance training, 5 elements, 5 elements linking, animal forms, animal forms linking, Bashi, two person forms, staff, spear, various bladed weapons, needles and others depending on style and lineage.


Hmmm I'm not sure where SD gets it from I'd have to ask sometime... As far as more to it then can be in one seminar, I completely understand. The seminar was only for the animals, and it was just meant as an introduction to the material. Like I mentioned though I am very very new to the techniques. However what I have been taught is awesome stuff I think  I like the stories to. I am told a story about a move we do with the foot work for crushing fist (wood). Please excuse my spelling in advance as I've heard the story from my sifu I didn't read it. There was a man named Quo, (not sure how to spell sounds like ka-woah), and he was a famous xingyi guy, he had mastered crushing fist, he was challenged but I dont' remember the challenger's name, they signed a death weaver saying that if one died it was a test of skill among masters so the other was not held accountable. He fought and ended up killing the man. Someone, student of friend of the dead challenger, hid the document or something and he was arrested for murder. in prison they died a ball and chain to his one hand and one ankle. He worked on his crushing fist in prison and would have to drag up his back foot. this type of drag with the back foot at the moment of punching we call "half step quo" since he developed it  don't know how historically accurate it is, but I believe my Sifu and I think it's a cool story 

May I ask you a question? Seeing as how you are an experienced Xingyi guy. judging just by those videos from BL, What do you think? Is it recognizable as Xingyi to you? What are your thoughts on that?

I mean I do know there is supposed to be 900 forms in our system, i don't know because I've only heard of something like 200 or so, but with all that material I know not everyone in the entire system will learn all of it. So each person kinda picks a fields to study and master so part of it will live on. So I think there will be some differences form school to school and each teacher will be better at one thing then another. 

I know it's unrelated to Xingyi, but I think there was a part talking about long fist. There is a form one of the instructors is doing and the video is called long fist. This Sifu Joe one of the best ones in my area, he runs his own school and I love watching it. just thought I might share, I dont' know this form or how it's supposed to look but I imagin hes doing it the right way, as he's always taking his art extremely seriously and loves it like most of the rest of us.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I know it's unrelated to Xingyi, but I think there was a part talking about long fist. There is a form one of the instructors is doing and the video is called long fist. This Sifu Joe one of the best ones in my area, he runs his own school and I love watching it. just thought I might share, I dont' know this form or how it's supposed to look but I imagin hes doing it the right way, as he's always taking his art extremely seriously and loves it like most of the rest of us.



No sorry... that's not long fist. That's a SD rendition of long fist. The guy is certainly athletic to run the pace he did, but that is long fist is set pattern/sequence only. The basics are SD, not long fist. The power generation is SD, not long fist. The application of technique is SD, not long fist. The understanding of the techniques in the set is SD, not long fist.

Long fist (in most any version) should resemble something like this... 



  There are other versions of long fist so this is by no means "the" definition, but it is a good representation.

Notice how she moves, everything extends, everything finishes, her whole body is involved in generating power & then expressing it. Not rushed, not shortened, not feeling forced.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> No sorry... that's not long fist. That's a SD rendition of long fist. The guy is certainly athletic to run the pace he did, but that is long fist is set pattern/sequence only. The basics are SD, not long fist. The power generation is SD, not long fist. The application of technique is SD, not long fist. The understanding of the techniques in the set is SD, not long fist.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I do see a difference in the videos, I do see a difference in graces, and extension, but I'm not sure as to what you mean but it's SD and not long fist, I don't know long fist. I am assuming you do long fist correct? I am just curious to get some outside perspective. I by no means am going to judge anyone in our out of SD I am just looking for some good conversation and some different perspectives. So I can get a more rounded idea of the differences in style from one school to the next.

thank you


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I do see a difference in the videos, I do see a difference in graces, and extension, but I'm not sure as to what you mean but it's SD and not long fist, I don't know long fist. I am assuming you do long fist correct? I am just curious to get some outside perspective. I by no means am going to judge anyone in our out of SD I am just looking for some good conversation and some different perspectives. So I can get a more rounded idea of the differences in style from one school to the next.
> 
> thank you



Ok fair enough. Let me try this way. The video of the guy you showed is SD. He's done all the SD stuff from beginner to where he's at now... right, wrong or indifferent. He doesn't practice longfist basics, longfist drills, longfist mechanics/methods/theories, etc... he practices SD. All of his basics, drills, mechanics/methods/theories, etc... are focus on the SD core. So with that in mind, it's not a far leap or incorrect position to say, he doesn't do longfist.

The girl in the video however, does. She probably does some White Crane & Taiji too, given who her dad is, but that's not the point. The point is that her longfist is nothing but longfist. Her longfist basics, drills, mechanics/methods/theories, etc... are just that, longfist. She doesn't practice a myriad of "other forms", she does longfist. 

SD has been very well documented & crawled over the carpet for "borrowing" sets from other styles & laying claim as theirs (authentic, original, "from the temple") through some very interesting story telling. You can't take a set from "X" style & lay claim to it & expect to perform it as intended. There's no background or basics involved. Sure, the set can be "done" by anybody (God knows I've seen it happen enough even away from SD). It's obvious using all the little things I mentioned above & more, to figure out who knows what & who just does a bad copy. The video of the SD is guy (again, not knocking athletism or gumption) is just that, a bad copy. It might be really good for SD, but it's not long fist.

Did that help any?


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Ok fair enough. Let me try this way. The video of the guy you showed is SD. He's done all the SD stuff from beginner to where he's at now... right, wrong or indifferent. He doesn't practice longfist basics, longfist drills, longfist mechanics/methods/theories, etc... he practices SD. All of his basics, drills, mechanics/methods/theories, etc... are focus on the SD core. So with that in mind, it's not a far leap or incorrect position to say, he doesn't do longfist.
> 
> The girl in the video however, does. She probably does some White Crane & Taiji too, given who her dad is, but that's not the point. The point is that her longfist is nothing but longfist. Her longfist basics, drills, mechanics/methods/theories, etc... are just that, longfist. She doesn't practice a myriad of "other forms", she does longfist.
> 
> SD has been very well documented & crawled over the carpet for "borrowing" sets from other styles & laying claim as theirs (authentic, original, "from the temple") through some very interesting story telling. You can't take a set from "X" style & lay claim to it & expect to perform it as intended. There's no background or basics involved. Sure, the set can be "done" by anybody (God knows I've seen it happen enough even away from SD). It's obvious using all the little things I mentioned above & more, to figure out who knows what & who just does a bad copy. The video of the SD is guy (again, not knocking athletism or gumption) is just that, a bad copy. It might be really good for SD, but it's not long fist.
> 
> Did that help any?


 
That makes a GREAT deal of sense thank you  I never thought of it that way. Since SD has so many forms of different styles (regardless of how they got them, I understand the issues and concerns with the history that others have) They are still not focusing on ONE pure style, so essentially the influence of doing a mix of styles is showing through. kinda like if someone took TKD and then did karate vs someone who only did karate your gonna see some TKD influence and kicks? Is that what you mean?

Since he does Shaolin-Do and has not had ground up training in only long fist, he doesn't have the root core foundation for it to be "long fist"?


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> That makes a GREAT deal of sense thank you  I never thought of it that way. Since SD has so many forms of different styles (regardless of how they got them, I understand the issues and concerns with the history that others have) They are still not focusing on ONE pure style, so essentially the influence of doing a mix of styles is showing through. kinda like if someone took TKD and then did karate vs someone who only did karate your gonna see some TKD influence and kicks? Is that what you mean?



EXACTLY!!! 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Since he does Shaolin-Do and has not had ground up training in only long fist, he doesn't have the root core foundation for it to be "long fist"?



You sir... win the kewpie doll for today! And also... apply that same thought to everything else that's not SD created.


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> No worries I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm I'm not sure where SD gets it from I'd have to ask sometime... As far as more to it then can be in one seminar, I completely understand. The seminar was only for the animals, and it was just meant as an introduction to the material. Like I mentioned though I am very very new to the techniques. However what I have been taught is awesome stuff I think  I like the stories to. I am told a story about a move we do with the foot work for crushing fist (wood). Please excuse my spelling in advance as I've heard the story from my sifu I didn't read it. There was a man named Quo, (not sure how to spell sounds like ka-woah), and he was a famous xingyi guy, he had mastered crushing fist, he was challenged but I dont' remember the challenger's name, they signed a death weaver saying that if one died it was a test of skill among masters so the other was not held accountable. He fought and ended up killing the man. Someone, student of friend of the dead challenger, hid the document or something and he was arrested for murder. in prison they died a ball and chain to his one hand and one ankle. He worked on his crushing fist in prison and would have to drag up his back foot. this type of drag with the back foot at the moment of punching we call "half step quo" since he developed it  don't know how historically accurate it is, but I believe my Sifu and I think it's a cool story
> 
> May I ask you a question? Seeing as how you are an experienced Xingyi guy. judging just by those videos from BL, What do you think? Is it recognizable as Xingyi to you? What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> I mean I do know there is supposed to be 900 forms in our system, i don't know because I've only heard of something like 200 or so, but with all that material I know not everyone in the entire system will learn all of it. So each person kinda picks a fields to study and master so part of it will live on. So I think there will be some differences form school to school and each teacher will be better at one thing then another.
> 
> I know it's unrelated to Xingyi, but I think there was a part talking about long fist. There is a form one of the instructors is doing and the video is called long fist. This Sifu Joe one of the best ones in my area, he runs his own school and I love watching it. just thought I might share, I dont' know this form or how it's supposed to look but I imagin hes doing it the right way, as he's always taking his art extremely seriously and loves it like most of the rest of us.



That was Gao Yunshen  and except for the death waver part that is a true story and it is actually called half step Beng. Also one of the nicknames of another oldtime Xingyi guy "Hang Yunxiang"  was Half Step Beng he ws also called Iron Arms and Iron Feet Buddha he was a good fighter, very powerful and was only about 5'2" tall

Good sight for history on some of the Xingyiquan masters of the past is XingyiMax 
This is the page of famous figures

As for the BL videos.... Sorry but it is more karate than xingyiquan so looking at it as Xingyi it is rather bad. Xingyiquan 5 elements is based on Santi shi and there is no santi shi there.  This is Xingyiquan






5 Elements Fist - Wuxingquan (woo shing chuan)

Piquan  Chopping Fist  Metal
Zuanquan  Drilling Fist  Water
Bengquan  Crushing Fist  Wood
Paoquan  Canon Fist  Fire
Hengquan  Crossing Fist - Earth

Also look here this is pretty good


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> No sorry... that's not long fist. That's a SD rendition of long fist. The guy is certainly athletic to run the pace he did, but that is long fist is set pattern/sequence only. The basics are SD, not long fist. The power generation is SD, not long fist. The application of technique is SD, not long fist. The understanding of the techniques in the set is SD, not long fist.
> 
> Long fist (in most any version) should resemble something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> There are other versions of long fist so this is by no means "the" definition, but it is a good representation.
> 
> Notice how she moves, everything extends, everything finishes, her whole body is involved in generating power & then expressing it. Not rushed, not shortened, not feeling forced.



A yup...agreed and isn't that Yang Jwing Ming's daughter in the video you posted? 

After watching the SD Long Fist video with my youngest and to quote her after watching the longfist video "he is not good is he" 

Modern wushu versions


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Thank you all for sharing and taking the time to explain, to get back to Doomx2001 original question, (though I think we are still on topic). perhaps it's far to say, though you'll be exposed to forms from different styles they will have a distinct SD influence on them, so the style is unique in and of it's self. If you wanted to really know one style perhaps ask some of these guys on here where you can find a school that just teaches the one style your interested in, be it Xingyiquan or longfist (for recent examples). oh better yet may think of it like SD is like getting an associates or bachelors degree in multiple arts vs a PhD in one  maybe.

From my 4 years with SD I'm very happen, even if all the forms are not practiced as you'll see them in there respective style (I only have videos to compare and they do look different). I still enjoy the mix of things I'm learning, on a more personal note to my school, I will say I have full faith in my  sifu, I believe what he tells me and greatly enjoy learning from him.  Even if there was a school that was purely one style in my area, which there is not (being  as I love Chinese martial arts) I wouldn't leave my instructor. Even  with the understanding from the posts here. That by jumping from crane,  to tiger, to pakua, to tai chi, to hsing-i that I may very well not get  the strong core to do one art, as someone who sticks with only that style, I do  enjoy mixing it up like that  and at least for what I'm looking for from martial arts it's what I want 


xue shang and clfsean, does that seem fair to say?


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Thank you all for sharing and taking the time to explain, to get back to Doomx2001 original question, (though I think we are still on topic). perhaps it's far to say, though you'll be exposed to forms from different styles they will have a distinct SD influence on them, so the style is unique in and of it's self. If you wanted to really know one style perhaps ask some of these guys on here where you can find a school that just teaches the one style your interested in, be it Xingyiquan or longfist (for recent examples). oh better yet may think of it like SD is like getting an associates or bachelors degree in multiple arts vs a PhD in one  maybe.
> 
> From my 4 years with SD I'm very happen, even if all the forms are not practiced as you'll see them in there respective style (I only have videos to compare and they do look different). I still enjoy the mix of things I'm learning, on a more personal note to my school, I will say I have full faith in my  sifu, I believe what he tells me and greatly enjoy learning from him.  Even if there was a school that was purely one style in my area, which there is not (being  as I love Chinese martial arts) I wouldn't leave my instructor. Even  with the understanding from the posts here. That by jumping from crane,  to tiger, to pakua, to tai chi, to hsing-i that I may very well not get  the strong core to do one art, as someone who sticks with only that style, I do  enjoy mixing it up like that  and at least for what I'm looking for from martial arts it's what I want
> 
> 
> xue shang and clfsean, does that seem fair to say?



Yeah you can say that, but please understand when you hear it (and you will I'm afraid) a certain amount of derision & even disdain when talking to people in general. We tend to be very protective & the like about what we do. When somebody comes along & "steals" for lack for a better fitting word material you work hard to earn, it can chap & chaffe pretty quick.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I fully agree with clfsean post and I would like to add that with 900 forms I would not say you are getting a bachelor&#8217;s degree in multiple arts, you simply cannot get that much from anyone or any organizatoin that claims to teach so many forms. I might go with you are getting an overview or a sampling. If you are looking at it as a bachelors, masters, PhD then I would go with Adam Hsu&#8217;s view. He feels Long fist (Changquan) is the basic style of most Chinese martial arts styles and that would be the Bachelor&#8217;s and the masters and PhD would be styles that come off of that in his view.

I mean no disrespect but based on the few clips I ahve seen of SD's Xingyiquan they have no clue as to what real Xingyiquan is and I have not been all that impressed with anything else I ahve seen from then either. 

But the reality is that if you like what you are doing and you are happy there than what we think here really does not matter much.... enjoy the training


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Yeah you can say that, but please understand when you hear it (and you will I'm afraid) a certain amount of derision & even disdain when talking to people in general. We tend to be very protective & the like about what we do. When somebody comes along & "steals" for lack for a better fitting word material you work hard to earn, it can chap & chaffe pretty quick.



Hey that I can fully understand. I just appreciate you guys hearing me out. Granted I've only been with it for 4 years so any of the other black belts would be a better resource, but still I appreciate the courtesy and conversation 

Oh and I was looking up on my schools sight and it has a part on long fist, it says 
Hua Temple (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Hua Si)

Chang Ch'uanChang Quan



Long Fist

I don't know if that means anything as I've not learned it yet, I don't know if that makes any difference as to the differences seen in the video of SD vs the other one you posted.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> I fully agree with clfsean post and I would like to add that with 900 forms I would not say you are getting a bachelor&#8217;s degree in multiple arts, you simply cannot get that much from anyone or any organizatoin that claims to teach so many forms. I might go with you are getting an overview or a sampling. If you are looking at it as a bachelors, masters, PhD then I would go with Adam Hsu&#8217;s view. He feels Long fist (Changquan) is the basic style of most Chinese martial arts styles and that would be the Bachelor&#8217;s and the masters and PhD would be styles that come off of that in his view.
> 
> I mean no disrespect but based on the few clips I ahve seen of SD's Xingyiquan they have no clue as to what real Xingyiquan is and I have not been all that impressed with anything else I ahve seen from then either.
> 
> But the reality is that if you like what you are doing and you are happy there than what we think here really does not matter much.... enjoy the training



That makes sense, but like I was saying to clfsean I appreciate the courteous way the conversation went I got some good perspective and understanding of how some may view SD outside the system. I agree with what you say about the reality of if I am happy that's what counts  but I still enjoy talking about. I know I'm not the best resources but maybe that's good too, to get a perspective of someone new to SD but whos been with martial arts 18 years now. I've always liked mixing the things I've learned from the different styles I've looked at, so at least with SD I dont' have to switch schools lol but still get a good mix.

though with the 900 forms please understand that most will never even see all 900. Just to hit black belt it's only 25 I think, I counted it once. and to hit 5th I want to say it's around 100 forms or more. Many are optional in seminars outside of the ranking material and I'm sure even more is high level stuff when you get above 5th degree that I've not even heard of. I wouldn't mind seeing your opinion of some of the other schools Xingyi, though I am curious though is it the movements that you find incorrect or the execution?

Also I mentioned I would check on the source of our Hsing-I on our sight  I saw this, once again I'm not sure what this means as far as  Xingyiquan or if it makes a difference on style but
Sun Style Hsing-I &#23403;&#27663;&#24418;&#24847;

It's posted on a public page and thought it's worth looking at   it was on a section for the temples and the associated fighting style,  so I'm not sure if that means this is where SD gets them from or if this  is where the style originated. Either way thought I'd share


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Hey that I can fully understand. I just appreciate you guys hearing me out. Granted I've only been with it for 4 years so any of the other black belts would be a better resource, but still I appreciate the courtesy and conversation
> 
> Oh and I was looking up on my schools sight and it has a part on long fist, it says
> Hua Temple (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hua Si)
> 
> Chang Ch'uan
> Chang Quan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long Fist
> 
> 
> I don't know if that means anything as I've not learned it yet, I don't know if that makes any difference as to the differences seen in the video of SD vs the other one you posted.



Your link for Hua temple is to Hua Shan or flower mountain in Shaanxi and I doubt the Changquan came from there since it was historically Taoist and they are not known for their Chanquan. Although it is possible there was a guy there who knew Changquan but I doubt he lived in a temple


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> Your link for Hua temple is to Hua Shan or flower mountain in Shaanxi and I doubt the Changquan came from there since it was historically Taoist and they are not known for their Chanquan. Although it is possible there was a guy there who knew Changquan but I doubt he lived in a temple



I can't answer details, just going off the sight. However perhaps someone learned it and brought it there? a student perhaps, either way thats the only info I could find about SD's long fist. I'm sure some of the black belts who have the records know more detail. Since I don't know figured I'd at least throw it into conversation and compare notes so to speak.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Hey that I can fully understand. I just appreciate you guys hearing me out. Granted I've only been with it for 4 years so any of the other black belts would be a better resource, but still I appreciate the courtesy and conversation
> 
> Oh and I was looking up on my schools sight and it has a part on long fist, it says
> Hua Temple (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hua Si)
> 
> Chang Ch'uanChang Quan
> 
> 
> 
> Long Fist
> 
> I don't know if that means anything as I've not learned it yet, I don't know if that makes any difference as to the differences seen in the video of SD vs the other one you posted.



Yeah... See that's what I mean with SD "borrowing" stuff & missing out the basics.

Hua Quan... Not Hua Mountain anything. It's from Shandong, a cousin or sister to Zha Quan. Go Google ... Wang Zi Peng, Cai Long Yan, Peter Kwok & on YouTube, Air Force Allie

I think you will find the hunt for info & what back Long Yan did.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD. Please excuse typos & brevity of posts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> Yeah... See that's what I mean with SD "borrowing" stuff & missing out the basics.
> 
> Hua Quan...



Not to be confused with hu&#257; quán xìu t&#468;i


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Not to be confused with hu&#257; quán xìu t&#468;i



Correct... Not that...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD. Please excuse typos & brevity of posts.


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Thank you all for sharing and taking the time to explain, to get back to Doomx2001 original question, (though I think we are still on topic). *perhaps it's far to say, though you'll be exposed to forms from different styles they will have a distinct SD influence on them, so the style is unique in and of it's self.
> *



Here's the thing.  It's not the forms that are important, but rather that every movement within the form, is done correctly.  The choreography of the form as a whole doesn't matter.  Every individual technique within the form is what matters, and to do them correctly means you must understand the foundation upon which the particular system, and by extension the forms from that system, are built.  Those techniques are built to work upon a certain kind of foundation, and they do not work well on the wrong foundation.  So mixing different styles ends up putting techniques on the wrong foundation, and they don't work so well anymore.  But this is subtle stuff that isn't often visibly obvious.  On the surface, it can look the same.  But underneath there's a lot lacking.  It's a bit like taking a lambourghini and putting a lawnmower engine under the hood.  It looks great sitting there in the driveway, but if you take it for a drive you know immediately that something's missing, there's none of the performance that is expected with a lambourghini.  That's what happens when you practice the techniques of one system on the foundation of another system that it wasn't designed to work on.

But to be honest, this is all only superficial.  The techniques are really only an expression of the foundation and the principles that the system is built upon.  If you really understand the sysetem you begin to realize that the foundation and principles can be used to drive any and every technique, no matter what movement you do.  The formalized techniques of the system are really just a teaching tool to help you understand how the principles work.  Once you understand that then the formalized techniques don't even matter that much.  But the only way you will understand this is with a good teacher who really really understands the system that he is teaching.  And you will not find that in a mish-mash like Shaolin Do, where material from many systems is thrown together and mixed up as if it is all one and the same thing.  When there is no room for the system to be taught and trained in it's full form, with a deep understanding, all the goods get lost.  When a bunch of stuff gets mixed together, you lose it all.


> If you wanted to really know one style perhaps ask some of these guys on here where you can find a school that just teaches the one style your interested in, be it Xingyiquan or longfist (for recent examples). oh better yet may think of it like SD is like getting an associates or bachelors degree in multiple arts vs a PhD in one  maybe.



It really isn't even a matter of just wanting to know one system, or being "content" with one system.  What one system does is, it gives you a consistent way to execute all of your techniques, no matter what that technique is.  THat consistency is what makes you good, because you are always working to develop the same underlying skill, that drives everything.  That means that one system is very "complete" because it is a singular method that makes everything work.  But if you are scattered between several systems, then you are splitting your efforts among several methods, and that does cause physical confusion and prevents any of those method from progressing very far.



> That by jumping from crane, to tiger, to pakua, to tai chi, to hsing-i that I may very well not get the strong core to do one art, as someone who sticks with only that style, I do enjoy mixing it up like that  and at least for what I'm looking for from martial arts it's what I want



It sounds to me like you are looking at things in terms of a collection: a collection of Crane techniques, a collection of Tiger techniques, a collection of Bagua techniques, etc.  But that's not the right way to look at it, and it indicates a shallow depth of understanding.  As I was saying above, what is important is understanding the foundation and method that drives all the techniques, that one style uses, and not mixing up different methodologies.  Collecting the techniques of many systems just creates clutter.  Understanding the principles that drive a well-designed method, makes for a lean, mean, fighting method without the clutter of memorizing and collecting every technique in existance.


----------



## rickster

Flying Crane said:


> Here's the thing.  It's not the forms that are important, but rather that every movement within the form, is done correctly.  The choreography of the form as a whole doesn't matter.  Every individual technique within the form is what matters, and to do them correctly means you must understand the foundation upon which the particular system, and by extension the forms from that system, are built.  Those techniques are built to work upon a certain kind of foundation, and they do not work well on the wrong foundation.  So mixing different styles ends up putting techniques on the wrong foundation, and they don't work so well anymore.  But this is subtle stuff that isn't often visibly obvious.  On the surface, it can look the same.  But underneath there's a lot lacking.  It's a bit like taking a lambourghini and putting a lawnmower engine under the hood.  It looks great sitting there in the driveway, but if you take it for a drive you know immediately that something's missing, there's none of the performance that is expected with a lambourghini.  That's what happens when you practice the techniques of one system on the foundation of another system that it wasn't designed to work on.
> .



In the case of SD "more" seems to equate "better"

I cant begin to list many schools that I had visited that did not have a lot of forms, but had a lot of moves in the forms they already had.


----------



## Flying Crane

rickster said:


> In the case of SD "more" seems to equate "better"
> 
> I cant begin to list many schools that I had visited that did not have a lot of forms, but had a lot of moves in the forms they already had.



yeah, I spent a bit of time with SD back in the very early 1990s.  I am familiar with what is in the curriculum and the very long lists of forms and systems that they want to claim ownership of.  I also have a Tracy kenpo background which has done some of the same thing, tho in a different way and perhaps not to the same level.  But I am firmly of the opinion that "more is better" is not the best approach to training and learning a martial art, especially when that "more" is just a hodge-podge thrown together without a consistant methodology driving it all.


----------



## WC_lun

Flying Crane, awsome post above.  Too many people want to collect.  Always looking for more, more, MORE!  What is the point if you do not really understand even the first thing in your collection? This is certainly not relegated to martial arts only.

For many years I taught at a school that used various animal styles.  The entire system had a base that connected the animals together.  Very often I would have students tell me that they wanted to be promoted so they could train in this animal or that weapon.  The funny thing to me was, if the student concentrated on the first few forms they would have everything that particular system had to offer.  Instead there was always the next thing.  Now I see many advanced students from that school that have many forms that they can perform flawlessly, yet they cannot bridge the forms to thier fighting, for the very reasons you bring up in your post.


----------



## Flying Crane

WC_lun said:


> Flying Crane, awsome post above. Too many people want to collect. Always looking for more, more, MORE! What is the point if you do not really understand even the first thing in your collection? This is certainly not relegated to martial arts only.
> 
> For many years I taught at a school that used various animal styles. The entire system had a base that connected the animals together. Very often I would have students tell me that they wanted to be promoted so they could train in this animal or that weapon. The funny thing to me was, if the student concentrated on the first few forms they would have everything that particular system had to offer. Instead there was always the next thing. Now I see many advanced students from that school that have many forms that they can perform flawlessly, yet they cannot bridge the forms to thier fighting, for the very reasons you bring up in your post.



It's a funny thing.  People see someone doing something different, and they decide, "I want to learn that, it MUST be valuable because THOSE people are doing it.  I don't have it and if I learn it then it MUST make me better".  This is a flawed way of looking at it.  The question that people don't seem to ask themselves is, "Is there a good reason to have THAT thing, will it actually improve what I am doing?  Is there actually a reason why I SHOULD NOT have that stuff?  Might that stuff actually get in the way of  my development?  Is it compatible, or is it incompatible with the method that I train?"

that is what people never consider and never ask themselves.  They just decide, if there is more out there then I want it, no matter what.


----------



## rickster

Flying Crane said:


> It's a funny thing.  People see someone doing something different, and they decide, "I want to learn that, it MUST be valuable because THOSE people are doing it.  I don't have it and if I learn it then it MUST make me better".  This is a flawed way of looking at it.  The question that people don't seem to ask themselves is, "Is there a good reason to have THAT thing, will it actually improve what I am doing?  Is there actually a reason why I SHOULD NOT have that stuff?  Might that stuff actually get in the way of  my development?  Is it compatible, or is it incompatible with the method that I train?"
> 
> that is what people never consider and never ask themselves.  They just decide, if there is more out there then I want it, no matter what.


People tend not to ask themselves these basic questions.

Complacency is one reason

Ignorance is bliss is another

Another thing, is the "marketing".

Often people are sold unto a name and have their own "idea" what they should be doing.

In the case of said martial org, they are simply providing the service that those whom entertain the "idea"

There has to be more (even if it is non-applicable) in order to hold onto those with the "idea"


Those with the "idea" could never understand "The Cup of Tea"


----------



## rickster

WC_lun said:


> Flying Crane, awsome post above.  Too many people want to collect.  Always looking for more, more, MORE!  What is the point if you do not really understand even the first thing in your collection? This is certainly not relegated to martial arts only.
> 
> For many years I taught at a school that used various animal styles.  The entire system had a base that connected the animals together.  Very often I would have students tell me that they wanted to be promoted so they could train in this animal or that weapon.  The funny thing to me was, if the student concentrated on the first few forms they would have everything that particular system had to offer.  Instead there was always the next thing.  Now I see many advanced students from that school that have many forms that they can perform flawlessly, yet they cannot bridge the forms to thier fighting, for the very reasons you bring up in your post.



This was their "idea"

It is the same with belt ranking....it is the "idea"

In some cases, a "idea" is not bestowed with logical thinking


----------



## Xue Sheng

I am beginning to get the feeling that part of the problem is that there is a lot of information given out by SD, about CMA, claiming it to historic fact when in fact it is not fact at all and easily prove to be erroneous by anyone with any knowledge of CMA and its history


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> I am beginning to get the feeling that part of the problem is that there is a lot of information given out by SD, about CMA, claiming it to historic fact when in fact it is not fact at all and easily prove to be erroneous by anyone with any knowledge of CMA and its history



This all got started before it became easy to fact-check.  Can't un-ring that bell.


----------



## rickster

Flying Crane said:


> This all got started before it became easy to fact-check.  Can't un-ring that bell.



Sure...But you can stop claiming to have a loud ring


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> This all got started before it became easy to fact-check.  Can't un-ring that bell.



But they still seem to tell all comers that it is fact and people believe it to be fact when in fact it isn't.

I just heard a non-MA discussion about propaganda this past weekend and it was rather interesting and applied to American politics. The more you say something no matter how wrong or false it might be, if you say it enough, to enough people, they begin to believe it. Scary actually, but could be the same thing I guess


----------



## Flying Crane

rickster said:


> Sure...But you can stop claiming to have a loud ring





Xue Sheng said:


> But they still seem to tell all comers that it is fact and people believe it to be fact when in fact it isn't.
> 
> I just heard a non-MA discussion about propaganda this past weekend and it was rather interesting and applied to American politics. The more you say something no matter how wrong or false it might be, if you say it enough, to enough people, they begin to believe it. Scary actually, but could be the same thing I guess



yeah it's true, but I think the thing is, after all those decades of telling the stories, suddenly they would be faced with the prospect of retracting most of it.  That would be embarrassing.  I think it's just easier to put on the blinders and assume most of the students won't do their own research.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> The more you say something no matter how wrong or false it might be, if you say it enough, to enough people, they begin to believe it.



I believe that is exactly what the Nazis did, and how they got much of Germany to be complicit with their policies.  And it doesn't work with little lies.  Those are too easy to see thru.  It's the big, outrageous lies that work.  Tell it often enough, scream it loudly enough, and the masses begin to believe it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> I believe that is exactly what the Nazis did, and how they got much of Germany to be complicit with their policies.  And it doesn't work with little lies.  Those are too easy to see thru.  It's the big, outrageous lies that work.  Tell it often enough, scream it loudly enough, and the masses begin to believe it.




Yes they did use that and that is exactly it and it is very possible what is going on here today, but this is the stuff another thread.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> yeah it's true, but I think the thing is, after all those decades of telling the stories, suddenly they would be faced with the prospect of retracting most of it.  That would be embarrassing.  I think it's just easier to put on the blinders and assume most of the students won't do their own research.



I think you are probably right


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes they did use that and that is exactly it and it is very possible what is going on here today, but this is the stuff another thread.



There's a deposition taken in California this past year of SKT. Enlightening... PM me if you want a link to download it.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, I spent a bit of time with SD back in the very early 1990s.  I am familiar with what is in the curriculum and the very long lists of forms and systems that they want to claim ownership of.  I also have a Tracy kenpo background which has done some of the same thing, tho in a different way and perhaps not to the same level.  But I am firmly of the opinion that "more is better" is not the best approach to training and learning a martial art, especially when that "more" is just a hodge-podge thrown together without a consistant methodology driving it all.



you mentioned you did some time with SD did you not find any value in your experience with SD? Just curious not attacking. 

I've found great value from my instructor personally. I mean I've always been of a mind that once you know how to throw a punch you can throw a punch. I've studied boxing, karate, Tien Shan Pai, Tae Kwon Do, and so far my SD has been the best class to date. My Sifu, from my experience seems to have a firm understand of what he teaches, and I'm able to incorporate principles from the styles into what I consider my own personal fighting method. At the end of the day, the amount of forms I've been show are not as important as lessons such as utilizing my qi, and fajin and then tactics which have been invaluable to me personally.

For me martial arts has always been life, it's a way of expressing yourself. I can not accurately comment on comparing SD forms to the styles they come from because when it comes to said forms I've only done SD. I also can't comment on if they are doing it correctly by standards of those other styles. However there seems to be a genuine and useful methodology to SD. I agree and can see from the videos that SD guys dont' do the forms as the styles the form comes from like Long Fist. However I don't personally feel that makes the form worthless or the style comparable to a Lamborghini with a lawn mower engine  maybe more a Camaro engine at least.

This of course is my personal views and experiences. It might be different if I had attended another SD school I don't know maybe I got lucky with a gifted Sifu. All I know is I feel I can honestly say I know martial arts and have no regrets or plans to leave SD.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Also side note, what part of the history are you making reference too? I know there are some stories blown out of proportion, such as the child who was killed by the sandburn teacher, or the poison dagger. However I don't see how these make the entire history bogus...sure questionable, but I mean as far as the line of the GMs. There was a Fukien temple, whos to say the material didn't come from there? Or at least parts of it? Even the fleeing during the boxier rebellion and other suck stories may have some truth to them. I think you will lose facts and get things mixed up the more you tell a story.

Just my thoughts mind you.


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> you mentioned you did some time with SD did you not find any value in your experience with SD? Just curious not attacking.



well, let me put it this way: I was in college at the time, was broke most of the time, and randomly met this guy training on campus whose wife was on the faculty. He would just come up to the athletic center to do his practice and I happened to bump into him. I was a Tracy kenpo shodan at the time, had no instructor since I had moved to college, and was interested in all things martial arts. He agreed to teach me his stuff and I was grateful for it, particularly since he never charged me a dime. I was broke, remember? I was fascinated with the Chinese arts, at least in concept, and this was my first exposure to such. So did I get something positive out of it? Yeah, I did. But in hindsight, after I had gained other experiences to give me perspective, I began to realize that it simply was not what it was presented as.

I believe Shaolin Do is a form of Kuntau. It's an Ethnically Chinese method that was brought over into Indonesia and took root there. It got mixed and influenced by other things, including perhaps some Indonesian methods, and sort of became its own thing. If that was how it had been presented to me, then I'd say there was nothing amiss. But it's the backstory of the Shaolin Temple, and Sifu The being THE grandmaster and such, and the notion that he has mastery of some 900 forms and dozens of systems, it's just not credible. I have a problem with how it is presented as being something more, and other than, what it really is. It seems that there's an attempt to keep cannibalizing stuff from other systems perhaps in order to support the big claims. But it's just kinda overmuch.

I believe there are probably SD people who can fight. Fighting really isn't all that hard and it's not difficult to hurt someone. You don't need perfect technique nor a superior method to do so. But I do not believe that what is being taught is an accurate reflection of what it is claimed to be. 



> I've found great value from my instructor personally. I mean I've always been of a mind that *once you know how to throw a punch you can throw a punch*.



see, I actually do not believe this. There are different ways to throw a punch, and in my opinion they are not all the same. Or rather, different systems have their own methodology for throwing their techniques, including their punches, and that methodology actually does differ from one system to another. The end result may be the same, but the process for developing the skill is different, and that's where it matters: sticking to a method that makes sense to you and works for you, and enables you to realize a high level of skill with your techniques. That's really what the difference between one system and another is: they are really just different approaches to training, which all [should] lead to the same result. But it's important to stick with a systematic methodology or else you just get kinda schitzophrenic with what you are doing.



> I've studied boxing, karate, Tien Shan Pai, Tae Kwon Do, and so far my SD has been the best class to date.



that may well be, and if you are enjoying it, then keep on. I'm not telling you to not do it. But we are kinda trying to get you to see that there's more to the story, and more to what's out there, and more to a style or system than a collection of movements thrown into a jumble and called a "curriculum".



> My Sifu, from my experience seems to have a firm understand of what he teaches, and I'm able to incorporate principles from the styles into what I consider my own personal fighting method. At the end of the day, the amount of forms I've been show hold no bearing as to the lessons I've adapted from applications. Some lessons such as utilizing my qi, and fajin and then tactics and applications have been invaluable to me personally.



could you give me some examples of the principles of the different style that you incorporate into what you do and how you practice? For example, what are the principles of Crane, or Tiger, or Bagua, that you've learned and can identify and explain how they work, and how you use them?

thanks


----------



## WC_lun

I believe one sentence in your post bears repeating; _"But it's important to stick with a systematic methodology or else you just get kinda schitzophrenic with what you are doing."

_Martial arts as a system is a method of teaching another how to apply violence in a self defense situation.  If there is no defining true north for that methodology then you will not be trained effeciently, nor as effective as a system that has that.  That is not to say that a system without that defining methodology cannot be enjoyable or give you what you want in a system, but it does mean that it is lacking something that makes fighting arts what they are.


----------



## Flying Crane

WC_lun said:


> I believe one sentence in your post bears repeating; _"But it's important to stick with a systematic methodology or else you just get kinda schitzophrenic with what you are doing."
> 
> _Martial arts as a system is a method of teaching another how to apply violence in a self defense situation. If there is no defining true north for that methodology then you will not be trained effeciently, nor as effective as a system that has that. That is not to say that a system without that defining methodology cannot be enjoyable or give you what you want in a system, but it does mean that it is lacking something that makes fighting arts what they are.



aye, I've been thinking about this too.  If you come to a crossroads with four choices and you don't know where the roads lead, you need to make a choice.  If you start down one road, then question your decision and go back to the crossroads and choose another, then backtrack to choose the third, then decide to go back to the first again...well you just never make any progress down any of the roads.  You never get anywhere because you keep jumping off the road to start a different one, before you make any progress.

Martial arts training does not have a map nor a GPS.  You just gotta jump on the road and start training, and stick with it long enough to start understanding it and start seeing some progress.


----------



## rickster

Flying Crane said:


> aye, I've been thinking about this too.  If you come to a crossroads with four choices and you don't know where the roads lead, you need to make a choice.  If you start down one road, then question your decision and go back to the crossroads and choose another, then backtrack to choose the third, then decide to go back to the first again...well you just never make any progress down any of the roads.  You never get anywhere because you keep jumping off the road to start a different one, before you make any progress.
> 
> Martial arts training does not have a map nor a GPS.  You just gotta jump on the road and start training, and stick with it long enough to start understanding it and start seeing some progress.



Then there are those who follow the yellow brick road...never realising that the yellow is tainted by urine


----------



## Flying Crane

rickster said:


> Then there are those who follow the yellow brick road...never realising that the yellow is tainted by urine



HA!  that may be, in some cases


----------



## DaleDugas

I am sorry but the concepts of shaolin are not that of baguazhang and they do not mesh.

it is time to put to bed the claims of Shaolin Dohhh.

The ripped peoples material off and tried to pass it off as his own.  enough said.

next.


----------



## Xue Sheng

DaleDugas said:


> I am sorry but the concepts of shaolin are not that of baguazhang and they do not mesh.
> 
> it is time to put to bed the claims of Shaolin Dohhh.
> 
> The ripped peoples material off and tried to pass it off as his own.  enough said.
> 
> next.



So from this I gather that I am not the only one who was thinking 

Shaolin


----------



## rickster

Xue Sheng said:


> So from this I gather that I am not the only one who was thinking
> 
> Shaolin


It would be more untresting to make Homer look like a Shaolin Monk......


----------



## yak sao

rickster said:


> It would be more untresting to make Homer look like a Shaolin Monk......



Like this????


----------



## yak sao

Or This?


----------



## yak sao

yak sao said:


> or this?




d'oh!!!!


----------



## rickster

Couldnt see 'em


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Come on guys your being kinda mean. I like the style, I can't speak for all instructors but mine is awesome and I feel like he really knows his stuff 

I can understand where your coming from but it's not all that bad.

You really don't like any of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXqHBK1Eyw&feature=share&list=PL65D121B689D84C7B


----------



## rickster

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Come on guys your being kinda mean. I like the style, I can't speak for all instructors but mine is awesome and I feel like he really knows his stuff
> 
> I can understand where your coming from but it's not all that bad.
> 
> You really don't like any of it?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXqHBK1Eyw&feature=share&list=PL65D121B689D84C7B



Everybody is in belief that their style/instructor are great


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Come on guys your being kinda mean. I like the style, I can't speak for all instructors but mine is awesome and I feel like he really knows his stuff
> 
> I can understand where your coming from but it's not all that bad.
> 
> You really don't like any of it?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXqHBK1Eyw&feature=share&list=PL65D121B689D84C7B


The problem with it is that the SD techniques are meant to be much more than they are, similar to kata. People are supposed to figure out multiple applications for each SD, not just the obvious one. Unfortunatel, most people don't think of them in that sense, and only go for the obvious application, since "why debate its multiple uses if its a straightforward thing, not a kata?" So, for the people who only think that far in, it gets them to a point, but they cant go past that point, and cant teach it effectively. To someone who is learning from a person who only thinks so far, they have to work much harder to find other applications, and thats if they think they exist, so instead they just think blindlessly that these moves are all they actually need. when those people teach, well, you get what I'm getting at. However, if you are learning from someone who actually understands the (not set in stone) principles of the techniques and the art, and are capable of understanding those (and even if you're not capable of that) it can be an amazing style. However, since most people and most sifu's cant think that deeply, it has a very negative reputation, and learning from a bad student (who still learned everything and so can obtain black) will give someone a bad opinion of the art.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

kempodisciple said:


> The problem with it is that the SD techniques are meant to be much more than they are, similar to kata. People are supposed to figure out multiple applications for each SD, not just the obvious one. Unfortunatel, most people don't think of them in that sense, and only go for the obvious application, since "why debate its multiple uses if its a straightforward thing, not a kata?" So, for the people who only think that far in, it gets them to a point, but they cant go past that point, and cant teach it effectively. To someone who is learning from a person who only thinks so far, they have to work much harder to find other applications, and thats if they think they exist, so instead they just think blindlessly that these moves are all they actually need. when those people teach, well, you get what I'm getting at. However, if you are learning from someone who actually understands the (not set in stone) principles of the techniques and the art, and are capable of understanding those (and even if you're not capable of that) it can be an amazing style. However, since most people and most sifu's cant think that deeply, it has a very negative reputation, and learning from a bad student (who still learned everything and so can obtain black) will give someone a bad opinion of the art.



Very practical and rational response.


----------



## clfsean

Mean?? Not really... just swinging the 2x4 of Truth for the fence. 

Let me ask a question & please if you need to go ask for help, go for it. Quite serious & sincere about this.

Kempodisciple mentioned principles... can you define what the "principles" of SD are? Or maybe a better way to put it, what are the principles used to drive its techniques? I mean in the branch of Lama Pai I study (I put it this way because I've not been exposed to any others), there's a group of 10 key items used to drive how it's used. It covers physical (stepping, striking, bridging, etc) & non-physical (state of mind) to apply the techniques that make it up. Almost every CMA I've come across has its own set of principles to use as foundation & framework. 

Could you define that in SD? I never could...


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Mean?? Not really... just swinging the 2x4 of Truth for the fence.
> 
> Let me ask a question & please if you need to go ask for help, go for it. Quite serious & sincere about this.
> 
> Kempodisciple mentioned principles... can you define what the "principles" of SD are? Or maybe a better way to put it, what are the principles used to drive its techniques? I mean in the branch of Lama Pai I study (I put it this way because I've not been exposed to any others), there's a group of 10 key items used to drive how it's used. It covers physical (stepping, striking, bridging, etc) & non-physical (state of mind) to apply the techniques that make it up. Almost every CMA I've come across has its own set of principles to use as foundation & framework.
> 
> Could you define that in SD? I never could...



I see your point there...at my particular school we focus on the internal paths. Meaning Hsing-I (Xingyi), Tai Chi (Taijiquan) and Pakua (Bagua). For these at least yes we have rules we follow there are 62 for Pakua, I'm new to Hsing-I and barely can do it. Tai Chi there are rules but I've never counted them. I'm not certain about the full system as it's called. I'm sure there is but I don't know off the top of my head.

Yes I'm aware these are not traditional "shaolin" styles.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I see your point there...at my particular school we focus on the internal paths. Meaning Hsing-I (Xingyi), Tai Chi (Taijiquan) and Pakua (Bagua). For these at least yes we have rules we follow there are 62 for Pakua, I'm new to Hsing-I and barely can do it. Tai Chi there are rules but I've never counted them. I'm not certain about the full system as it's called. I'm sure there is but I don't know off the top of my head.
> 
> Yes I'm aware these are not traditional "shaolin" styles.



That's what I'm talking about, but that's exactly not what I'm talking about.

Jiang's 64 rules for his bagua are for his bagua. Other bagua may or may not share those rules. But how would you apply those rule #2 (*Relax the shoulders; sink the elbows. Strengthen the belly; open the chest.)* to say short form #10?
Taiji's 8 energies & 13 postures for are for for taiji. How would you apply Yang "Peng" vs. Chen "Peng" to techniques found in the yellow belt tiger?
Xingyi's Circle of Creation/Destruction are probably the most versitile, but how would you apply "Wood" (not the beng technique, but the element attributes) to the #2 Chin-na?

How are these principles from other styles applied throughout the entirety of SD? I understand what you're saying, but do you understand what I'm getting at? 

Most of us practice one style, maybe two. Not a form from a style, but the whole of the system. We work on getting these principles/rules/foundations/etc... in everything we do. That's what makes what we do, what we do. If I just learn a form from "X" without understanding the very basics, what have I actually accomplished? What if I learn a form from "Y" without understanding the very basics, but then find books/videos/intentionally incomplete information, but then claim to be able to teach it, what am I actually accomplishing?


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> That's what I'm talking about, but that's exactly not what I'm talking about.
> 
> Jiang's 64 rules for his bagua are for his bagua. Other bagua may or may not share those rules. But how would you apply those rule #2 (*Relax the shoulders; sink the elbows. Strengthen the belly; open the chest.)* to say short form #10?
> Taiji's 8 energies & 13 postures for are for for taiji. How would you apply Yang "Peng" vs. Chen "Peng" to techniques found in the yellow belt tiger?
> Xingyi's Circle of Creation/Destruction are probably the most versitile, but how would you apply "Wood" (not the beng technique, but the element attributes) to the #2 Chin-na?
> 
> How are these principles from other styles applied throughout the entirety of SD? I understand what you're saying, but do you understand what I'm getting at?
> 
> Most of us practice one style, maybe two. Not a form from a style, but the whole of the system. We work on getting these principles/rules/foundations/etc... in everything we do. That's what makes what we do, what we do. If I just learn a form from "X" without understanding the very basics, what have I actually accomplished? What if I learn a form from "Y" without understanding the very basics, but then find books/videos/intentionally incomplete information, but then claim to be able to teach it, what am I actually accomplishing?



That makes sense. If I understand SD correctly they introduce you to all of the different forms, there is about 20 or so for black belt after that you pick an area to specialize in. 

I am curious are you familiar with Wudang Chuan? Don't they have Xingyi, Bagua and Tajiquan as well as others. What are your thoughts here?

I do see what your saying, its like learning the movements of many styles without the foundation to make those styles effective. I can't speak for all SD students, and I've only been with my instructor for going on 4 years. However for me at least I've not yet applied the principles cross style like that. when I do bagua I use those rules, when I do taiji I use those rules. when I fight and spar I try and focus on the taji rules. I'm not very good at bagua yet and as mentioned was just introduced to xingyi. 

so though I see the way your coming at it, I question is it really impractical to learn a multitude of styles but focus on one? Or from another perspective is it not possible to take and apply what you learn from the mesh to be effective? take the SD dragon form I posted from youtube. is this not effective martial arts? even if it's not done in the long fist fashion?


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I question is it really impractical to learn a multitude of styles but focus on one? Or from another perspective is it not possible to take and apply what you learn from the mesh to be effective? take the SD dragon form I posted from youtube. is this not effective martial arts? even if it's not done in the long fist fashion?



If you learn more than one system, then you are spreading your time thin by trying to practice these multiple systems.  Mind you, it's not the techniques themselves, but as Sean is getting at, it's the methodology underlying the techniques that matters.  Different systems have their own methodology that makes their techniques work, it's a specific WAY of practicing those techniques that is the meat of the system.  Some systems have a methodology, an approach to the techniques, that doesn't work with other systems, is very different.  So the end result of the  training may be the same: they each can throw an effective punch, for example.  But HOW you develop that skill, the process of practice that gets you there, is what is different.  Consistency in your practice and in your method will get you there faster, and more effectively than trying to do it several different ways.  If you want to develop a devastating punch, practice one method of building that skill and be consistent with that one method.  If you practice five methods of developing a devastating punch, it will take you 50 times as long to get there because you are trying to travel five different roads at the same time.  And you may never get there because you can't stick with one method, you keep jumping around before you really develop something.

People look at multiple systems and they just think in terms of collecting the techniques. They think, "I need to have the Crane techniques and the Dragon techniques and the Tiger techniques and the Bagua techniques...in order to have a full arsenal, to cover all possibilities."  But that's a shallow way of looking at it.  The techniques don't matter if you understand the principles and the methodology underneath the techniques. ONce you understand that, you can apply it to any movement, even if it's not a proper technique, and that movement can become a devastating technique.  The formal techniques of the curriculum are really only useful in that they are an expression of the principles, and help you understand those principles.  They are a training tool, not the ultimate goal.  Once you understand them, the techniques don't really matter.  Sure, they are useful, but they are not ultimately the point of training.  You don't want to train to be able to use the techniques.  Rather, you train the techniques as a way of developing a vision of what is possible, and then you can do anything you want, whether it's a formal technique or something else that you spontaneously do.  Then you are complete, because you can apply the principles in everything that you do.


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> I mean in the branch of Lama Pai I study (I put it this way because I've not been exposed to any others),



How's that going, eh?  are you drifting away from CLF in favor of Lama?


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> How's that going, eh?  are you drifting away from CLF in favor of Lama?



So digging the Lama. Very different from CLF, but y'know not that different. Definitely cousins. I won't really be drifting away from CLF since CTS had both & taught both. But CLF is a minute off for me. The way my sifu has his curriculum set up, we'll be doing some CLF in the spring, but until then, nothing but Lama. 

Gotta say with the Lama, I'm learning a whole new aspect to long arm stuff. With CLF I got a great foundation & learned a lot, but Lama is a different critter. Good times to be sure!!


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I am curious are you familiar with Wudang Chuan? Don't they have Xingyi, Bagua and Tajiquan as well as others. What are your thoughts here?



I'm obviously not clfsean but there is a difference from you or I training Xingyi, Bagua and Taiji a few hours a week and the people who train at Wudang more than 8 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week for 6 years of more. It is all they do, all the time and even then they do not train them all at the same time, the harder side of Wudang is taught first then they get to Xingyi then bagua and then taiji assuming they stay long enough. And even then I can still say Wudang ain&#8217;t what it use to be.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> That makes sense. If I understand SD correctly they introduce you to all of the different forms, there is about 20 or so for black belt after that you pick an area to specialize in.



But that goes back to my question in a round about way... how can you "specialize" if you haven't learned the basics & foundation of whatever "X" is. And not really... that's the party line IMO & IME. You have "X" number of forms you learn to get the next test date. People may claim specialization, but I gotta be honest... unless they go outside to get single source training on a topic, I don't see how it's possible to "specialize" when there's so much not there & that would require starting over for just that. 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I am curious are you familiar with Wudang Chuan? Don't they have Xingyi, Bagua and Tajiquan as well as others. What are your thoughts here?



Disneyland. But even though they have their version of these arts, they have their own foundation & basics laid over these styles. They don't claim to teach Yang or Chen Taiji. They teach Wudang Taiji. They don't claim "X" bagua, they teach their Wudang Bagua, etc... 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I do see what your saying, its like learning the movements of many styles without the foundation to make those styles effective. I can't speak for all SD students, and I've only been with my instructor for going on 4 years. However for me at least I've not yet applied the principles cross style like that. when I do bagua I use those rules, when I do taiji I use those rules. when I fight and spar I try and focus on the taji rules. I'm not very good at bagua yet and as mentioned was just introduced to xingyi.



So you can differentiate the different versions of energies when actively sparring? After four years? 

Yes... that's sarcastic just to keep the topic we're discussing on the forefront. Again how... 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> so though I see the way your coming at it, I question is it really impractical to learn a multitude of styles but focus on one? Or from another perspective is it not possible to take and apply what you learn from the mesh to be effective? take the SD dragon form I posted from youtube. is this not effective martial arts? even if it's not done in the long fist fashion?



How can you focus on one thing if you have all this other different & disparate material going on in your noggin? 

To answer your question about meshing, let me pose a question that might help exemplify it ... Would I be wrong in advertising that I'm selling my Lamborghini for 8k but then when somebody shows up, they see my old Ranger pickup with a Lambo sticker? I mean, they are both motor vehicles, both have four wheels, both have manual transmissions, etc... Just because something looks & functions ok doesn't mean that's necessarily what it is in actuality.


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> So digging the Lama. Very different from CLF, but y'know not that different. Definitely cousins. I won't really be drifting away from CLF since CTS had both & taught both. But CLF is a minute off for me. The way my sifu has his curriculum set up, we'll be doing some CLF in the spring, but until then, nothing but Lama.
> 
> Gotta say with the Lama, I'm learning a whole new aspect to long arm stuff. With CLF I got a great foundation & learned a lot, but Lama is a different critter. Good times to be sure!!



I don't know how much the Lama differs from White Crane, but being close siblings it's gotta be pretty close.  I can't see doing anything else.  It's a very good match for me personally.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know how much the Lama differs from White Crane, but being close siblings it's gotta be pretty close.  I can't see doing anything else.  It's a very good match for me personally.



I think Lama & WC are mostly the same. I the differences are mostly in execution of certain techniques & sets. I know CTS taught some of the Leung WC guys in C'town some stuff on trips out there back in the day. 

Kuhp, Pao, Chuyhn... After that, I think it's window dressing. :bangahead: :bangahead: :bangahead:

I can see staying with Lama easily. It fits a different side of me that CLF didn't. Both are comfortable enough for me I don't see straying much from this path.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> So you can differentiate the different versions of energies when actively sparring? After four years?
> 
> Yes... that's sarcastic just to keep the topic we're discussing on the forefront. Again how...


nope, and that's why I said I try to focus on taiji stuff while sparring. though I think I can to a degree, because if get in a taiji stance my body thinks taiji, if I get in a bagua stance it thinks bagua, if I get in a xingyi stance it thinks xingyi. so I THINK I can...think is key word there.





clfsean said:


> To answer your question about meshing, let me pose a question that might help exemplify it ... Would I be wrong in advertising that I'm selling my Lamborghini for 8k but then when somebody shows up, they see my old Ranger pickup with a Lambo sticker? I mean, they are both motor vehicles, both have four wheels, both have manual transmissions, etc... Just because something looks & functions ok doesn't mean that's necessarily what it is in actuality.



harsh, but I get the image you are going for. the reason I ask, is I've done this for years anyway. my father taught me boxing, I did karate classes at the ymca, I did high school wrestling for less then a year, I did tkd for about 6 years, then did tien shan pai for 2 years, then back to tkd for 2 years then SD for going on 4.

I don't think I'm a bad martial artist. I feel like I've learned stuff and I mix and match the techniques and styles to make my own mix. so when I learn SD it seems about the same as what I've been doing anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> You really don't like any of it?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXqHBK1Eyw&feature=share&list=PL65D121B689D84C7B



I've watched close to ten minutes of this, the first solo form, the spear vs. dao form, the sparring, and part of the taiji fan.  Here's what I see.

I see people moving and hitting "postures" in a robotic way.  They are following a choreography that they have memorized.  They don't know why they are doing it, other than that "sifu said to move like this...".  In the taiji, I see a guy moving slowly, and nothing more.  I don't see anything else going on that defines what Taiji is as a method.  It is done as performance art and not as a training tool.  In the sparring, I see two guys playing hand-and-foot tag, like you can find in any strip-mall family-friendly kuhratty school. 

I train Tibetan White Crane, a sister method to the Lama Pai that CLFSean is studying.  They both are splinters from an older tradition that dates back to around the 14th century, if you believe the oral history.  I'm gonna tell you the secret of White Crane, right here and right now.  Geez, now that I'm thinking about it, I might have already said this stuff in an earlier post in this very thread, but I haven't looked at it in a while, so oh well.  Anyway, here's the secret:  Full Body Engagement.  That's it.  We train to bring the whole body together, to harness the power and strength of the whole body when we deliver our techniques.  That is what White Crane is all about.  But here's the kicker:  I don't believe we are the only ones who do that.  I believe many other systems do that too, or at least strive to, and some do it better than others.  Some BELIEVE They are doing it, but have failed, but that's another issue.  Anyway, what is unique about White Crane and its sister systems is specifically HOW we go about training to make that full-body connection.  We have a specific methodology for teaching and practicing and training and developing that skill.  I won't try to describe it here, but we have various exercises and drills and progressions that help us in this endeavor.  Our techniques are part of that process, and our forms are also part of that process.  But the process begins before all that, with a series of basic exercises, and we then progress to these other things.

What I'm getting at is this: White Crane, and any system that is thoughtfully developed and well put together, has a purpose in everything that we do, it is all designed to aid in the underlying goal of full-body engagement.  All of our techniques and forms and drills and exercises contribute to this.  They are not performance art, they are not something for "artistic expression", they are not a shopping list of requirements for the next belt test.  They are tools that serve a purpose in helping us develop our skills and they were never meant to be put on display and rubber-necked by an uneducated audience.  Because in our approach to training, that full body engagement gives you much more to work with than any collection of techniques or collection of forms will, if you don't understand what drives them.

When I watch the forms in that video, I see people doing memorized choreography, clumsily, and without any concept of why they are doing it.  I see people doing their techniques without any body engagement.  They are relying only on the strength of their arms and shoulders and fail to bring the power of the body into the movement.  And I'm not talking about interpreting X movement into a self defense application, that's easy and shallow and also pointless without understanding the foundation.  I'm talking about the deeper "WHY" are they doing the form?  What foundational skill does that form contribute to?  How does practicing that form strengthen that foundational skill?  I don't see that at all on that video.


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I don't think I'm a bad martial artist. I feel like I've learned stuff and I mix and match the techniques and styles to make my own mix. so when I learn SD it seems about the same as what I've been doing anyway.



Here's something from my past.  I too trained in a few different things along the way.  I felt much like you do.  I collected things from various systems, I was a shodan in Tracy kenpo, I had trained in capoeira and Wing Chun and taiji and learned some Shaolin stuff and I kinda just piled it all together and called it good.  I thought that if I just kept practicing this stuff, kept repeating the choreography of all these the forms (probably some 60-70 or so, if I were to count them up), that someday it would just sort of...come together and "work" for me.  Nobody had really explained it any deeper than that, so that's what I kinda believed, tho honestly for a long time I harbored doubts in the back of my mind, something was kinda missing.  But I didn't know what it was and couldn't describe my feeling very well.

THEN... I was introduced to my current sifu, a very VERY knowledgeable teacher in White Crane. I had been training white crane under one of his students for over a decade, and that man took me to his teacher who is now my sifu.  But I FINALLY got the quality of instruction to begin to understand how mistaken I was.  I FINALLY started to understand what was important, that foundational stuff and not just collecting techniques and forms.  Sticking to a consistent method that makes sense and actually works, and understanding the progression of training to develop that real skill.  I realized how mistaken I was and how much time I had wasted over DECADES, dammit.  I threw everything away, all that other stuff, and only kept white crane because suddenly it made sense, and suddenly I could see how continuing to practice the other methods was actually a conflict in my white crane development.  In kenpo, we train our punches differently than in white crane.  I remember vividly one day, in kenpo class, standing in a lineup and practicing punches. And all the while I was thinking to myself, *"this is damaging my white crane, because the method is different and actually conflicts with the white crane method.  The longer I do this, the worse my white crane will be.  And the longer I do white crane, the worse my kenpo will be"*

I actually had that thought go thru my head as I was throwing punches.  I realized that as an approach to training, white crane made the most sense to me out of everything I had trained. So I dumped everything else and decided to focus.  And life got easier, my training was less cluttered and more streamlined and I began to really understand how everything I do in my training is contributing to that one underlying all-important thing in our training: how to develop full body engagement.

So I know what you are thinking, I was there too.  And unfortunately, the truly great teachers, the ones who can really guide you properly, are few and far between and not easy to come by.


----------



## blindsage

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Come on guys your being kinda mean. I like the style, I can't speak for all instructors but mine is awesome and I feel like he really knows his stuff
> 
> I can understand where your coming from but it's not all that bad.
> 
> You really don't like any of it?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXqHBK1Eyw&feature=share&list=PL65D121B689D84C7B


Flying Crane's assessment is pretty much right on the mark.  But to put it more bluntly, without trying to be mean, no.  I honestly don't like any of it.  The forms look like they are being done by people with less than a year's training, not black belts.  The sparring is only slightly better.  If you take any one of those forms and then go look at people who do them from the styles they are actually from, you will see a remarkable difference.

And as an aside, if you are using Taiji "stances" while you are sparring, you're missing the point.  In reality there are no actual stances when using Taiji, what some teach as stances are just training tools to help people get to a place where they can understand what Taiji actually teaches.  Getting stuck on stances is besides the point.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

blindsage said:


> Flying Crane's assessment is pretty much right on the mark.  But to put it more bluntly, without trying to be mean, no.  I honestly don't like any of it.  The forms look like they are being done by people with less than a year's training, not black belts.  The sparring is only slightly better.  If you take any one of those forms and then go look at people who do them from the styles they are actually from, you will see a remarkable difference.
> 
> And as an aside, if you are using Taiji "stances" while you are sparring, you're missing the point.  In reality there are no actual stances when using Taiji, what some teach as stances are just training tools to help people get to a place where they can understand what Taiji actually teaches.  Getting stuck on stances is besides the point.



fair enough at least I'm getting a better idea of why people say some of the things they do. I don't mean taiji stances I mean principles. Sinking my weight, allow the attack to come in and deflecting there movement by turn with the technique. "listen" skills when it's at full extent and then follow them back to "uproot" them. using the principles of my whole body, as one side collapses the other side expands. keeping my area and turning instead of folding my arms in. and above all else trying to establish fajin. explosive sudden power that comes from my feet and shoots up through my entire body, hard to explain. essentially dropping my weight/mind/qi and then allow it to rise suddenly.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> nope, and that's why I said I try to focus on taiji stuff while sparring. though I think I can to a degree, because if get in a taiji stance my body thinks taiji, if I get in a bagua stance it thinks bagua, if I get in a xingyi stance it thinks xingyi. so I THINK I can...think is key word there.



I can see that & that's a fallacy I encountered in SD. People learned all these 'stances' & things associated with them & immediately think "i'm doing it!!!" . Not so much. Those three don't have stances per se, but postures. There's a a difference, but that's not the thing. The postures go hand in hand with the other things I mentioned earlier. I can't drop into SanTi Shi & think when I throw a Kuhp/Pao/Chyuhn combo from Lama Pai, it's right. It's wrong from both sides. You have to work the basics of "X" & just that with somebody that has invested themselves into "X" to be able to fully develop you with "X". Not literally "this month we're doing this..." then "this month we're doing this..." and so on with NO grasp on the basics of ... 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> harsh, but I get the image you are going for. the reason I ask, is I've done this for years anyway. my father taught me boxing, I did karate classes at the ymca, I did high school wrestling for less then a year, I did tkd for about 6 years, then did tien shan pai for 2 years, then back to tkd for 2 years then SD for going on 4.
> 
> I don't think I'm a bad martial artist. I feel like I've learned stuff and I mix and match the techniques and styles to make my own mix. so when I learn SD it seems about the same as what I've been doing anyway.



I don't think you're a bad martial artist either. I think you are comfortable in what you're doing. Not to sound all snooty or elitist, but it will, it's not the same as picking a single CMA & fully developing yourself. 

Think about it like this... would you rather go to a buffet when you were wanting a steak (aside from the chance of getting food poisoning) where the food is just "meh", or going to Morton's of St Louis & having a steak that literally melts in your mouth because that's all they do? Sure you pay more. Sure you only see beef on the menu. But when you want something specific, is a buffet really the best way to go?


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> nope, and that's why I said I try to focus on taiji stuff while sparring. though I think I can to a degree, because if get in a taiji stance my body thinks taiji, if I get in a bagua stance it thinks bagua, if I get in a xingyi stance it thinks xingyi. so I THINK I can...think is key word there.



Then you&#8217;re a better MAist than I am and I have been at this for 40 years and CMA for over 20 years. When attacked or pushed I tend to do all defense as Taijiquan, it just happens that way, no time to think. When attacking I tend to shift to Xingyiquan, again no time to think, it just happens. 



BlazeLeeDragon said:


> fair enough at least I'm getting a better idea of why people say some of the things they do. I don't mean taiji stances I mean principles. Sinking my weight, allow the attack to come in and deflecting there movement by turn with the technique. "listen" skills when it's at full extent and then follow them back to "uproot" them. using the principles of my whole body, as one side collapses the other side expands. keeping my area and turning instead of folding my arms in. and above all else trying to establish fajin. explosive sudden power that comes from my feet and shoots up through my entire body, hard to explain. essentially dropping my weight/mind/qi and then allow it to rise suddenly.



Real world application you are thinking too much, there is no time to think. The energy for fajin comes from the feet, is directed by the waist and only works properly if you are not tense. Here is the think about taiji in application, you don't look for a place to apply what you know, you wait for it to appear and then apply what you know.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Question

Are there any videos of Shaolin Do taijiquan out there to look at?


----------



## blindsage

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> fair enough at least I'm getting a better idea of why people say some of the things they do. I don't mean taiji stances I mean principles. Sinking my weight, allow the attack to come in and deflecting there movement by turn with the technique. "listen" skills when it's at full extent and then follow them back to "uproot" them. using the principles of my whole body, as one side collapses the other side expands. keeping my area and turning instead of folding my arms in. and above all else trying to establish fajin. explosive sudden power that comes from my feet and shoots up through my entire body, hard to explain. essentially dropping my weight/mind/qi and then allow it to rise suddenly.


Good, sounds better.  I think you would still be better off finding a good Taiji instructor, but it sounds like you're learning good basics.  BTW, good fajin is really dangerous, and can seriously hurt someone.  There really isn't a nice or soft version.  Be careful.


----------



## clfsean

Xue Sheng said:


> Question
> 
> Are there any videos of Shaolin Do taijiquan out there to look at?



http://www.youtube.com/user/shaolindointernal


----------



## Xue Sheng

clfsean said:


> http://www.youtube.com/user/shaolindointernal



Thanks

And I am sorry and do not mean to be harsh but that was pretty awful and as far as I can tell not Chen or Taijiquan


----------



## oaktree

The chen form looks like someone learned from video
Or forgot steps or didnt train long maybe a week or so.
I have seen people with only 2 weeks training look better.
This is one reason it is so important about who studied with who
I feel bad if some one trained with this guy teaching chen taijiquan
For a long time thinking this is taijiquan.  Then again he could
Always look at one of the chen people and ask why his form looks
Different.


----------



## DaleDugas

Horrible and horrendous.

No offence, but SD will never recover since its been shown in court that The made up most of the material and stole much from others.
Mixing all this stuff together and trying to explain why it works is a non issue.

Jack of all and master of none.

Thats SD in a nutshell.

No serious skills 
No Shenfa

SD seems to be all about fabrications and drinking martial arts coolaid.


----------



## clfsean

DaleDugas said:


> Horrible and horrendous.
> 
> No offence, but SD will never recover since its been shown in court that The made up most of the material and stole much from others.



This is also very true. Then to add to that, his main school in Lexington put up a letter saying basically "haters gonna hate, things are as WE said"...


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> Then you&#8217;re a better MAist than I am and I have been at this for 40 years and CMA for over 20 years. When attacked or pushed I tend to do all defense as Taijiquan, it just happens that way, no time to think. When attacking I tend to shift to Xingyiquan, again no time to think, it just happens.
> 
> 
> 
> Real world application you are thinking too much, there is no time to think. The energy for fajin comes from the feet, is directed by the waist and only works properly if you are not tense. Here is the think about taiji in application, you don't look for a place to apply what you know, you wait for it to appear and then apply what you know.



 well I try I said  

I wouldn't say I think as much in application or sparring. I was just breaking down the lessons I've been giving to develop in SD Taijiquan. I get the idea of letting it happen. Fajin is something I can do, just not every time. I'm working on it though


----------



## Blaze Dragon

blindsage said:


> Good, sounds better.  I think you would still be better off finding a good Taiji instructor, but it sounds like you're learning good basics.  BTW, good fajin is really dangerous, and can seriously hurt someone.  There really isn't a nice or soft version.  Be careful.



most certainly, at least with my instructor he focuses on the internal arts, he's done the whole system before but dedicates his study to taiji, bagua and xingyi. From what I can see it, I believe he knows what he is doing. Of course he's being doing it longer then I've been alive :S


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> Thanks
> 
> And I am sorry and do not mean to be harsh but that was pretty awful and as far as I can tell not Chen or Taijiquan



No your fine, I appreciate at least an honest opinion from first hand observation. I'm sorry I can't remember if you do yang or chen, however as far as the Chen goes why is it aweful?


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> No your fine, I appreciate at least an honest opinion from first hand observation. I'm sorry I can't remember if you do yang or chen, however as far as the Chen goes why is it aweful?



I am a Yang guy but I have also studied Chen.

It is too relaxed (actually I call it floppy), not using the waist properly or at all, no root, hand movements that look more like fits than Chen taiji, no upper and lower unity. I have trained some Chen; Laojia Yilu, the 18 form and Chansijin also seen both Laojia Yilu and Erlu done by members of the Chen family and that looks nothing much like any of it


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> No your fine, I appreciate at least an honest opinion from first hand observation. I'm sorry I can't remember if you do yang or chen, however as far as the Chen goes why is it aweful?



The set SD does should look like this... 




But due to already mentioned issues, doesn't.


----------



## Flying Crane

kinda weird how the superimposed the ocean background and stuff.  Distracting.


----------



## blindsage

DaleDugas said:


> No Shenfa





> No Shenfa





> No Shenfa





> No Shenfa



That beared repeating a number of times.

All of those videos were extremely off the mark.  The Taiji looked, as said before, like something someone learned off a video with little to no comprehension of actual Taiji principles.  The bagua and the xingyi, looked liked karatified versions of themselves.  Actual bagua and xingyi (and taiji for that matter) move VERY differently that what is demonstrated in those videos.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> kinda weird how the superimposed the ocean background and stuff.  Distracting.




HA!! I didn't even notice!!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> kinda weird how the superimposed the ocean background and stuff.  Distracting.



As much as I am impressed with Chen Xiaowang and knowing that he is highly skilled.... I have got to agree

so here...use this one....from the younger brother






ahhh that's better


----------



## Xue Sheng

blindsage said:


> That beared repeating a number of times.
> 
> All of those videos were extremely off the mark.  The Taiji looked, as said before, like something someone learned off a video with little to no comprehension of actual Taiji principles.  The bagua and the xingyi, looked liked karatified versions of themselves.  Actual bagua and xingyi (and taiji for that matter) move VERY differently that what is demonstrated in those videos.



They may want to look into the meaning of "Sandao (Shen Yi Shi)" and "Yi Qi Li" too


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> As much as I am impressed with Chen Xiaowang and knowing that he is highly skilled.... I have got to agree
> 
> so here...use this one....from the younger brother
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, this one is much easier to watch.




hey Xue,

tell me what you think of these thoughts.  I have to admit, I never really "got" taiji and I finally stopped doing it altogether.  I think my training with my current white crane sifu has given me some insights that might help me understand what I'm seeing in taiji a bit better than I had before.  

What I'm seeing when I watch this video is all the movements, whether it's a turn, rotation, step, shift, they all begin with the feet and legs.  That is what "drives" the movement, the power of the legs and feet actively engaging to propel.  The difference being, what I believe most people who do not understand taiji well, and who are really just doing it for fun and exercise, they initiate the movement from the top-down, starting with the shoulders they turn and move and shift, and they kinda step "late" to keep a prop under the torso.  This is in contrast to actually driving the movement with the feet.  Visually, it's a subtle distinction and would be overlooked and missed by anyone who isn't clued into it.

Does that make sense?  and I correct in what I think I see?


----------



## blindsage

Flying Crane said:


> hey Xue,
> 
> tell me what you think of these thoughts.  I have to admit, I never really "got" taiji and I finally stopped doing it altogether.  I think my training with my current white crane sifu has given me some insights that might help me understand what I'm seeing in taiji a bit better than I had before.
> 
> What I'm seeing when I watch this video is all the movements, whether it's a turn, rotation, step, shift, they all begin with the feet and legs.  That is what "drives" the movement, the power of the legs and feet actively engaging to propel.  The difference being, what I believe most people who do not understand taiji well, and who are really just doing it for fun and exercise, they initiate the movement from the top-down, starting with the shoulders they turn and move and shift, and they kinda step "late" to keep a prop under the torso.  This is in contrast to actually driving the movement with the feet.  Visually, it's a subtle distinction and would be overlooked and missed by anyone who isn't clued into it.
> 
> Does that make sense?  and I correct in what I think I see?


You are right on FC.  This a major portion of what most people miss is Taiji.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> hey Xue,
> 
> tell me what you think of these thoughts.  I have to admit, I never really "got" taiji and I finally stopped doing it altogether.  I think my training with my current white crane sifu has given me some insights that might help me understand what I'm seeing in taiji a bit better than I had before.
> 
> What I'm seeing when I watch this video is all the movements, whether it's a turn, rotation, step, shift, they all begin with the feet and legs.  That is what "drives" the movement, the power of the legs and feet actively engaging to propel.  The difference being, what I believe most people who do not understand taiji well, and who are really just doing it for fun and exercise, they initiate the movement from the top-down, starting with the shoulders they turn and move and shift, and they kinda step "late" to keep a prop under the torso.  This is in contrast to actually driving the movement with the feet.  Visually, it's a subtle distinction and would be overlooked and missed by anyone who isn't clued into it.
> Does that make sense?  and I correct in what I think I see?



You are correct, power comes from the root and is directed by the waist. I have heard many say the power comes from the waist in Taijiquan but that is not correct and if you watch videos Chen Xiaoxing, Chen Xiaowang, Chen Zhenglei or of videos of Tung Hu Ling (Yang style) you will see this (Power fron the root and directed by the waist) demonstrated rather well. But to get that to work you also need to have a unity between the upper and lower body. and again watch the videos of those listed and you will see that. As for Yang style in general refer to Yang Chengfu's 10 essentials and it is written out as to what is needed.



blindsage said:


> You are right on FC. This a major portion of what most people miss is Taiji.



HEY!!!!! You're not me...you are right...but you're not me.....:hmm: Although I did previously answer a question to you...But that doesn&#8217;t count


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> You are correct, power comes from the root and is directed by the waist. I have heard many say the power comes from the waist in Taijiquan but that is not correct and if you watch videos Chen Xiaoxing, Chen Xiaowang, Chen Zhenglei or of videos of Tung Hu Ling (Yang style) you will see this (Power fron the root and directed by the waist) demonstrated rather well. But to get that to work you also need to have a unity between the upper and lower body. and again watch the videos of those listed and you will see that. As for Yang style in general refer to Yang Chengfu's 10 essentials and it is written out as to what is needed.



This is exactly like White Crane.  And Sifu has always said that they are the same.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Flying Crane said:


> This is exactly like White Crane.  And Sifu has always said that they are the same.



There actually a book my sifu showed me last night but can't remember the name....tai chi shin na? or something...anyway the guy was a crane master and learned taiji and wrote about book applying the two. it was pretty cool from what I gathered from thumbing through it. sifu said that it's not really taiji he's doing in the book but crane movements, but the way he's applying crane techniques to with a different spin seems to work well. or something like that, I'm not directly quoting here.

edit:I think it's Tai Chi Chin na in depth 
http://ymaa.com/publishing/dvd/internal/taiji-chin-na

this is the cover I saw last night out of the few books I got to glance at. can't remember if this is the book with the crane guy or not though.


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> There actually a book my sifu showed me last night but can't remember the name....tai chi shin na? or something...anyway the guy was a crane master and learned taiji and wrote about book applying the two. it was pretty cool from what I gathered from thumbing through it. sifu said that it's not really taiji he's doing in the book but crane movements, but the way he's applying crane techniques to with a different spin seems to work well. or something like that, I'm not directly quoting here.
> 
> edit:I think it's Tai Chi Chin na in depth
> http://ymaa.com/publishing/dvd/internal/taiji-chin-na
> 
> this is the cover I saw last night out of the few books I got to glance at. can't remember if this is the book with the crane guy or not though.



Different White Crane. And I'm sorry, but hearing your teacher said he's really not doing taiji is just pretty freaking funny.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Different White Crane. And I'm sorry, but hearing your teacher said he's really not doing taiji is just pretty freaking funny.



Why? If that's the crane master he was talking about he said the technique looked more crane then taiji. Or maybe it was he said crane applications in a taiji execution. either way what's wrong with that? I couldn't tell, because I don't know what I'm suppose to be looking for and I'm summarizing what I remember of the conversation, but I would imagine that if someone does an art for years and then tries a new one you'll still see stuff from the original. I did TKD for about 6 years, and I still see it in my kicks.

he still said it was a good book and recommend reading it, he loaned it to one of my fellow students and let me borrow cheng man-ch'ing t'ai chi ch'uan a simplified method of calisthenics for health and self defense


----------



## clfsean

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Why? If that's the crane master he was talking about he said the technique looked more crane then taiji. Or maybe it was he said crane applications in a taiji execution. either way what's wrong with that? I couldn't tell, because I don't know what I'm suppose to be looking for and I'm summarizing what I remember of the conversation, but I would imagine that if someone does an art for years and then tries a new one you'll still see stuff from the original. I did TKD for about 6 years, and I still see it in my kicks.



Well... Dr Yang is both highly skilled in Yang Taiji & White Crane (Ming He I think). Of course there's going to be cross pollenation between them, just like most anybody with multiple tools in their general skill set. Taiji is a qinna heavy art. White Crane shares a fair bit of qinna as well. Purist from both styles will say they see the other in his performance of the other. 

I'm just saying that it's funny that your teacher thought to pick out from a book, what he thinks he sees in pictures, as one or the other in a book about a specific topic. We've kinda hit on this topic before about books & their pros/cons.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Well... Dr Yang is both highly skilled in Yang Taiji & White Crane (Ming He I think). Of course there's going to be cross pollenation between them, just like most anybody with multiple tools in their general skill set. Taiji is a qinna heavy art. White Crane shares a fair bit of qinna as well. Purist from both styles will say they see the other in his performance of the other.
> 
> I'm just saying that it's funny that your teacher thought to pick out from a book, what he thinks he sees in pictures, as one or the other in a book about a specific topic. We've kinda hit on this topic before about books & their pros/cons.



Ah gotca, I don't know if I was there for that thread. I dont' recall at least. yeah I think he was just pointing out why the movements might look different to us.

I think this is where we get into schools of thought. Even though you have five schools all doing taiji you'll have differences on understanding and applications to a degree, I THINK at least  I think this is true for any martial art. After all didn't Yang Luchan first learn from Chen family?


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> There actually a book my sifu showed me last night but can't remember the name....tai chi shin na? or something...anyway the guy was a crane master and learned taiji and wrote about book applying the two. it was pretty cool from what I gathered from thumbing through it. sifu said that it's not really taiji he's doing in the book but crane movements, but the way he's applying crane techniques to with a different spin seems to work well. or something like that, I'm not directly quoting here.
> 
> edit:I think it's Tai Chi Chin na in depth
> http://ymaa.com/publishing/dvd/internal/taiji-chin-na
> 
> this is the cover I saw last night out of the few books I got to glance at. can't remember if this is the book with the crane guy or not though.



Dr Yang (who wrote the book you are talking about) is incredibly skilled when it comes to Qinna. I have done push hands with him and he took me out with qinna. He is also highly skilled with White Crane and Long Fist too.

Interesting view of Dr Yang's Taijiquan and the reason I say this is I once showed my sifu a video of Dr Yang doing Taijiquan and his first words, after watching it, were "What style of Kung fu does he do?" He also said that what Dr Yang is doing is not Taiji it is much close to his Whit Crane and Long Fist.


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Ah gotca, I don't know if I was there for that thread. I dont' recall at least. yeah I think he was just pointing out why the movements might look different to us.
> 
> I think this is where we get into schools of thought. Even though you have five schools all doing taiji you'll have differences on understanding and applications to a degree, I THINK at least  I think this is true for any martial art. After all didn't Yang Luchan first learn from Chen family?



Most schools associated with the Chen family are pretty similar in their applications and views of Chen Taijiquan. Most in a traditional Yang lineage are family similar too. However there will be differences based on body types and what the practitioner brings with him from other styles they have trained

But, the underlying principles are the same. 

When talking to Chen Zhenglei about Yang style he said Yang is good but the stance it too high
When talking to my sifu about Chen style he said Chen is good but the stance it too low

There is the big difference


----------



## Flying Crane

Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming practices the Fukienese/Fujian White Crane, which I believe may have been an ancestor of Wing Chun.  That is different from the Tibetan White Crane that I practice.  The origins and history and approach to training, and the techniques are very different.  They don't look anything alike.

I've got the book too, it's interesting, but not what I train in.  It's very heavy on qi-gong training.

And yes, Dr. Yang is also a very highly skilled Taiji instructor.  He is the real deal in both of those systems and he has written numerous books, several on quin-na.


----------



## Jin Gang

Necromancy! 

Lower level : white - green belt (3 months- 6 months)
20 sparring techniques - short combinations of hand strikes, kicks and sweeps performed from a natural fighting stance
30 short forms - short combinations of hand attacks, kicks and sweeps performed from traditional martial arts stances, bow stance, horse stance, cat stance/fake leg stance. Somewhat reminiscent of tan tui in format.
30 "chin na" - escapes and counters of various standing grabs and holds
9 one-step sparring techniques - counters to a single attack performed with the attacker starting at two arms' lengths away.
10 fighting techniques - counters to a single attack performed with the attacker starting at one arm's length away
4 different staff spinning methods
16 different nunchaku/ar jie gun swinging techniques
4 empty hand forms (all very short)
si men dao lian - way of linking four doors - beginning bird/crane form 
fei hu chu dong - flying tiger comes out of cave - short tiger form
tai peng shen quan (sin kune) - great bird expanding fist (spreads wings) - "big" bird form 
luohan chien(quan) - beginning praying mantis form
2 weapon forms (short)
chu ji gun (first level staff), or si mien ba fang bang (four faces eight direction cudgel). Same form, named different depending on which faction you follow
bei fang qi gai bang (northern beggar stick/cudgel - a thigh/waist height stick)

Intermiediate/Brown Belt - exact order of instruction depends on which SD faction you belong to
10 empty hand forms
   San he chien(quan) - three harmony fist (similar to san zhan of southern white crane and five ancestors, but performed with dynamic tension and body testing like the Okinawan version of the same)
   Bai He Zhuan Chi - white crane circling wings
   Bai He Zhan Chi - white crane jabs wings
   Bai He Zhuan Jiao - white crane circling legs
   Luo Tian - descends from heaven ("shaolin bird" system)
   Zhan Yu- spreading feathers ("shaolin bird")
   Yan Ge - performing dove ("shaolin bird")
   Jin Gang Fu Hu Quan - "golden mountain tiger form" (the word for mountain is not in that name, but that is how Sin The translated it)
   Jie Quan - connecting fist (reminiscent of Jing Wu's form of the same name)
   Lian Wu Zhang -linking five palms (reminiscent of a northern shaolin ditang form of the same name)
5 weapon forms
    Si Mien Ba Fang Gun, aka Si Ba Gun (four eight staff - a long tapered/rat tail staff)
    Ye Zhan Ba Fang Dao (night battle eight direction saber/"broadsword")
    Hai Long Zhang (sea dragon cane - a nose/eyebrow height staff)
   Guan Gung Dao (General Guan's big blade)
   Tie Cha (Iron fork - known as sai in Japanese)

1st Black Belt and up the curriculum varies more widely depending on which faction you belong to, not all in the same order or for the same level, and not all forms shared

forms that are common requirements across the board afaik- 
Yang Taijiquan 37/64 posture form (actually Cheng Manqing's 37 posture form)
"classical" Baguazhang (actually Jiang Rong Qiao's original form)
Hei Hu Da Xin - black tiger rips the heart
Hei Hu Zhuan Shen - black tiger turns the body
Hei Hu Fan Shen - black tiger flips the body
Hei Hu Shou Shang - black tiger suffering wounds
xingyiquan five element fists
xingyiquan linking form
xingyiquan 12 animals
xingyiquan two person set
Four Roads of Hua Quan
Tiger Crane Duet (from Hung Gar)
Shaolin Five Animals (from Hung Sing Choy Li Fut)
Eight drunken immortals (eight different forms, at least five of them are in the testing curriculum) 
Praying Mantis Fist (that is the name of the form)
Chen taijiquan (actually chen xinjia yi lu)

4 spear forms 
double saber form
double tiger hook swords
4 straight sword/jian forms (including a yang taijiquan jian form)
chain whip form
shaolin dagger form
taiji saber form
drunken spear, sword, and saber
chen taiji fan form

I know I have left some out, bbl


----------



## Jin Gang

Continued-
buttefly swords
Fu Jia Quan - Buddha Family Fist
24 posture simplified taijiquan

There are a few other assorted weapon forms which may be in the curriculum.

  As for the question about whether the curriculum continues to change, so far it doesn't seem to have changed much since the late eighties or early nineties, when I believe the Shaolin Five Animals form was introduced.  I haven't been in the system since 2006, but I was familiar with the curriculum up to 5th black belt, I was told a few years back that the curriculum for 6th black was "revealed", and it is all praying mantis forms which had been taught out in seminars over the years, like zhai yao, white monkey steals the peach, secret door mantis two person set, etc.  New forms are taught every year by Sin The in seminars.  The claim of 900 forms is a gross exaggeration, however.  There are a lot of forms, far too many, but not nearly 900.  The actual curriculum that is tested on, for someone who spends about 15 years in the system, is around 75 or 80 forms.  That is not including whatever seminar forms a person might attend, which aren't actually reviewed or tested over.

There are currently three main factions within the system - Shaolin Do Association is headquartered in Kentucky and includes most of the eastern and Texas schools.  Chinese Shaolin Center is headquartered in Colorado and used to include all of the western schools.  These two organizations have slightly different curriculums, teach a few different forms from eachother, and practice some forms and techniques different from eachother.  The Chinese Shaolin Center of Georgia was started by a student of the Colorado school, and broke off from them.  Tennessee schools later broke off from Kentucky and joined up with Georgia, and then some of the western schools defected from Colorado and joined up with Ten/Georgia as well.  So far this division appears to be mainly political, there hasn't been much changing of curriculum from those schools' original factions.

I spent four years in a CSC in Colorado.  I came in with 11 years training exclusively Okinawan karate, so I did not get my basics from the CSC.  I don't think the system currently does a great job instilling any fundamentals, of whatever style we think the core curriculm might actually be (I'd say an Indonesian/Chinese Kuntao hybrid system).  Too much material too fast, not enough time spent practicing the material.  Not to mention the critique everyone else has mentioned, that they are not teaching the correct mechanics for most of the styles they claim to teach, particularly the internal styles.  Even when you practice constantly outside of class and spend every hour available in the training hall, as I did, eventually the material catches up to you and there are not enough hours in the day for all of it.  Those who persist in the system necessarily sacrifice depth for quantity of material.  I left and searched for more traditional guidance and instruction in the internal styles, and kept practicing a few of the unique external forms that I liked.


----------



## Josealb

Woa....that is....a lot.

To each hes own i say. I prefer aiming to do one single thing better than anyone, than do 100 things more or less like the average joe.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

So Master Nance is in the southeast / texas faction?


----------



## Jin Gang

TaiChiTJ said:


> So Master Nance is in the southeast / texas faction?



I believe he's in Kentucky somewhere, part of the original Shaolin Do faction.


----------



## Flying Crane

TaiChiTJ said:


> So Master Nance is in the southeast / texas faction?



what is it about him that makes him better than the others?


----------



## Jin Gang

Flying Crane said:


> what is it about him that makes him better than the others?



According to some who have been to his seminars, he is good at teaching how to apply material from forms in a practical way, and he teaches how to think about the movements in order to extract multiple applications for each one.  He is one of a few that I have heard people really were impressed by. I personally wouldn't rejoin the system regardless of the skill of any teacher.  But for someone who insists on sticking with SD, there are some teachers with good reputations for being talented and inspiring.  Of course, everyone thinks their own teacher is talented and inspiring at first.  It takes some distance and more experiences to get some perspective and have a more objective opinion about something like that.


----------



## clfsean

Jin Gang said:


> According to some who have been to his seminars, he is good at teaching how to apply material from forms in a practical way, and he teaches how to think about the movements in order to extract multiple applications for each one.  He is one of a few that I have heard people really were impressed by. I personally wouldn't rejoin the system regardless of the skill of any teacher.  But for someone who insists on sticking with SD, there are some teachers with good reputations for being talented and inspiring.  Of course, everyone thinks their own teacher is talented and inspiring at first.  It takes some distance and more experiences to get some perspective and have a more objective opinion about something like that.



He's a nice guy too. I've spent a little time with him. For the material knows (discounting all existing arguments & facts), he knows it. He can take it apart & apply it as somebody with his years of practice should be able to do. Plus he hits like a train. Been there too for a "love tap" or two & it's one of those things on my "don't repeat this" list. 

Then again, I also see him as an exception, not the rule given all other examples I've been exposed to.


----------



## Flying Crane

Do you guys happen to know if his background is pure SD, or if he trained elsewhere first, perhaps?


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> Do you guys happen to know if his background is pure SD, or if he trained elsewhere first, perhaps?



Nah... He's straight SD. He did a lot of tournament fighting back in the day. As I understand it, in Ky they spent lots (read LOTS) of time on their short forms(30) & sparring techniques(20) which really forms the core of SD. So his understanding of their basics & how to apply them as needed is pretty frikkin rock solid. Oddly enough, those are some of the things that SKT admitted to making up. You gotta wonder what he really got in Indonesia & why it wasn't good enough to stand on its own without all the BS.


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Nah... He's straight SD. He did a lot of tournament fighting back in the day. As I understand it, in Ky they spent lots (read LOTS) of time on their short forms(30) & sparring techniques(20) which really forms the core of SD. So his understanding of their basics & how to apply them as needed is pretty frikkin rock solid. Oddly enough, those are some of the things that SKT admitted to making up. You gotta wonder what he really got in Indonesia & why it wasn't good enough to stand on its own without all the BS.




aye, true that.  And it says something about putting a serious focus on a manageable curriculum, vs. trying to do everything under the sun.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Which leads me to my special announcement: Next week I start teaching TaiXingyiZhangQuanJiDoJutsu Sanda


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Which leads me to my special announcement: Next week I start teaching TaiXingyiZhangQuanJiDoJutsu Sanda



you'll never get any students.  Nobody can remember how to spell that, and they'll never find you on the internet.

besides, Xue-fu beats everything.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> you'll never get any students. Nobody can remember how to spell that, and they'll never find you on the internet.
> 
> besides, Xue-fu beats everything.



It is the new experimental proving ground to find those who are worthy to train Xuefu... because the old way of fighting Salt Water Crocs in Shark infested waters is not working out and I may need to lower the standards.... not for entrance into Xue-fubut for entrance into the fighting Salt Water Crocs in Shark infested waters bitfirst they need to remember the name


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> It is the new experimental proving ground to find those who are worthy to train Xuefu... because the old way of fighting Salt Water Crocs in Shark infested waters is not working out and I may need to lower the standards.... not for entrance into Xue-fu&#8230;but for entrance into the fighting Salt Water Crocs in Shark infested waters bit&#8230;first they need to remember the name



ah, mind-games, is it??


----------



## Blaze Dragon

clfsean said:


> Nah... He's straight SD. He did a lot of tournament fighting back in the day. As I understand it, in Ky they spent lots (read LOTS) of time on their short forms(30) & sparring techniques(20) which really forms the core of SD. So his understanding of their basics & how to apply them as needed is pretty frikkin rock solid. Oddly enough, those are some of the things that SKT admitted to making up. You gotta wonder what he really got in Indonesia & why it wasn't good enough to stand on its own without all the BS.



Well I can't speak for all the schools on how much time they spend on what or where they put there focus. I just know the few instructors Ive met personally seem really good at what they do. Ive only directly learned from 3 my sifu (very impressed and why I stay with SD), the assitant instructor, and one other black belt in the area. I was taught the full system up to brown (as of today), as the foundation needs to be there. Stance training and basic techniques. However 2 things. First my school is one of the few internal schools so we focus on taiji, bagua and xingyi. Me being new mostly taiji and bagua (for the ones who have done a solid liniage system, ill say SD's version of these systems.). In the full system though there is a ton of forms there is under 20 to get to black belt. Alot of the material is extra in seminars. 

Just for the record.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> ah, mind-games, is it??



But of course... these are the things you must do when your the Grand Imperial PooBah, Evil WIzard, and Grand Master of Xuefu


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> Well I can't speak for all the schools on how much time they spend on what or where they put there focus. I just know the few Ive met personally seem really good at what they do. Ive onky directly learned from 3 my sifu, the assitant instructor, and one other black belt in the area. I was taught the full system, as the foundation needs to be there. Stance training and basic techniques. However 2 things. First my school is one of the few internal schools so we focus on taiji, bagua and xingyi. Me being new mostly taiji and bagua (for the ones who have done a solid liniage system, ill say SD's version of these systems.). In the full system though there is a ton of forms there is under 20 to get to black belt. Alot of the material is extra in seminars.
> 
> Just for the record.




when I was in SD, the way the internal stuff was described to me was that taiji was the lowest and easiest method and had the least potential and was a prerequisite to bagua, then bagua was the next level in difficulty and potential and was a prerequisite to xing-i, then xing-i was the top in terms of both difficulty and potential "prowess" of the system.  It suggests that one who practices taiji is a beginner in the internal arts, one who practices taiji and bagua is an intermediate student in the internal arts, and one who practices taiji, bagua, and xing-i is an advanced student of the internal arts.  It gave the message that one needs to practice them all in order to be "complete" in the internal arts, as these are all individually incomplete aspects of on overarching "internal method" something or other.  

I don't know if this is generally how the internal methods are presented in SD, or if this was my teacher's individual take on the subject.  But I'll say that it's nonsense.  Taiji, Bagua, and Xing-i are separate and independent systems (and with different family/schools within each system) with their own training methods and history, and were never specifically meant to be grouped together.  They each offer their own unique potential for what they are and there is no necessity to tie them all together.  If that is how SD is explaining them to the student body, then they are mischaracterizing the internal arts and are doing a disservice to the students.

as far as doing the full SD curriculum to develop the foundation before doing the internal, well no.  If you wish to train taiji, you need to learn and understand the fundamantals and foundation of taiji.  Same with bagua and xing-i.  They each have their own approach to training, and they each have their own fundamentals and foundation and methodology to teaching and training.  Learning the underbelt SD curriculum as a preparation for training in one of these internal methods simply doesn't do it.  The SD underbelt curriculum is not a preparatory course for the internal methods.  The preparatory course for the internal methods is learning the foundation and fundamentals appropriate for those particular methods.  Just like learning any method of Chinese combative system.

That's what the internal system are: they are individual methods of Chinese combative systems, and they stand on their own feet.  They are not adjuncts to something else.

As far as a lot of the material being extra in seminars, well that simply doesn't make any sense at all to me.  Seminars are no place to be learning any material.  Seminars are a brief session in which it is impossible to learn something properly.  Any of this material takes time to learn properly.  It must be revisited repeatedly over a long period of time before it is learned in terms of simply being able to properly remember it all and "do" it without glaring mistakes, and then to develop true proficiency with it, beyond simply being able to recite it reasonably accurately.  This means really understanding it and being able to use the techniques and the methodology upon which the techniques are built.  This is impossible in a seminar.  Doing this requires an ongoing relationship between the student and the sifu, and that is not possible in seminars.  So people learn something too quickly in a seminar, they learn it on a very superficial level, they learn it poorly, and they do not get the ongoing instruction to develop it into something worthwhile.  They end up continuing to practice it poorly and it gets worse over time because there is no feedback and the mistakes amplify and propagate.  And then people try to teach it to their own students, and it's even worse.

Seminars are for making money.  They are not for teaching quality martial arts.  So aside from making money, I don't understand why Sin The would propagate his system thru seminars.  At least not if he had any respect for his students and the material he is teaching.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> when I was in SD, the way the internal stuff was described to me was that taiji was the lowest and easiest method and had the least potential and was a prerequisite to bagua, then bagua was the next level in difficulty and potential and was a prerequisite to xing-i, then xing-i was the top in terms of both difficulty and potential "prowess" of the system. It suggests that one who practices taiji is a beginner in the internal arts, one who practices taiji and bagua is an intermediate student in the internal arts, and one who practices taiji, bagua, and xing-i is an advanced student of the internal arts. It gave the message that one needs to practice them all in order to be "complete" in the internal arts, as these are all individually incomplete aspects of on overarching "internal method" something or other.



What is intersting about that is by some CMA beliefs in China it is backwards. XIngyiquan should be first followed by Baguazhang and at the top sits Taijiquan. And if you look at it from a correct applicatoins point of view and actual SD usage of the 3 XIngyi is quickest followed by Baguazhang with Taiji taking longest. This all tells me SD has no understanding of Xingyiquan, Baguazhang and Taijiquan



Flying Crane said:


> I don't know if this is generally how the internal methods are presented in SD, or if this was my teacher's individual take on the subject. But I'll say that it's nonsense. Taiji, Bagua, and Xing-i are separate and independent systems (and with different family/schools within each system) with their own training methods and history, and were never specifically meant to be grouped together. They each offer their own unique potential for what they are and there is no necessity to tie them all together. If that is how SD is explaining them to the student body, then they are mischaracterizing the internal arts and are doing a disservice to the students.
> 
> as far as doing the full SD curriculum to develop the foundation before doing the internal, well no. If you wish to train taiji, you need to learn and understand the fundamantals and foundation of taiji. Same with bagua and xing-i. They each have their own approach to training, and they each have their own fundamentals and foundation and methodology to teaching and training. Learning the underbelt SD curriculum as a preparation for training in one of these internal methods simply doesn't do it. The SD underbelt curriculum is not a preparatory course for the internal methods. The preparatory course for the internal methods is learning the foundation and fundamentals appropriate for those particular methods. Just like learning any method of Chinese combative system.
> 
> That's what the internal system are: they are individual methods of Chinese combative systems, and they stand on their own feet. They are not adjuncts to something else.
> 
> As far as a lot of the material being extra in seminars, well that simply doesn't make any sense at all to me. Seminars are no place to be learning any material. Seminars are a brief session in which it is impossible to learn something properly. Any of this material takes time to learn properly. It must be revisited repeatedly over a long period of time before it is learned in terms of simply being able to properly remember it all and "do" it without glaring mistakes, and then to develop true proficiency with it, beyond simply being able to recite it reasonably accurately. This means really understanding it and being able to use the techniques and the methodology upon which the techniques are built. This is impossible in a seminar. Doing this requires an ongoing relationship between the student and the sifu, and that is not possible in seminars. So people learn something too quickly in a seminar, they learn it on a very superficial level, they learn it poorly, and they do not get the ongoing instruction to develop it into something worthwhile. They end up continuing to practice it poorly and it gets worse over time because there is no feedback and the mistakes amplify and propagate. And then people try to teach it to their own students, and it's even worse.
> 
> Seminars are for making money. They are not for teaching quality martial arts. So aside from making money, I don't understand why Sin The would propagate his system thru seminars. At least not if he had any respect for his students and the material he is teaching.



I agree with all that, you are absolutely correct Taiji, Bagua, and Xing-i are separate and independent systems and it is not necessary to take anyone of them to support the other.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Flying Crane said:


> when I was in SD, the way the internal stuff was described to me was that taiji was the lowest and easiest method and had the least potential and was a prerequisite to bagua, then bagua was the next level in difficulty and potential and was a prerequisite to xing-i, then xing-i was the top in terms of both difficulty and potential "prowess" of the system.  It suggests that one who practices taiji is a beginner in the internal arts, one who practices taiji and bagua is an intermediate student in the internal arts, and one who practices taiji, bagua, and xing-i is an advanced student of the internal arts.  It gave the message that one needs to practice them all in order to be "complete" in the internal arts, as these are all individually incomplete aspects of on overarching "internal method" something or other.
> 
> I don't know if this is generally how the internal methods are presented in SD, or if this was my teacher's individual take on the subject.  But I'll say that it's nonsense.  Taiji, Bagua, and Xing-i are separate and independent systems (and with different family/schools within each system) with their own training methods and history, and were never specifically meant to be grouped together.  They each offer their own unique potential for what they are and there is no necessity to tie them all together.  If that is how SD is explaining them to the student body, then they are mischaracterizing the internal arts and are doing a disservice to the students.
> 
> as far as doing the full SD curriculum to develop the foundation before doing the internal, well no.  If you wish to train taiji, you need to learn and understand the fundamantals and foundation of taiji.  Same with bagua and xing-i.  They each have their own approach to training, and they each have their own fundamentals and foundation and methodology to teaching and training.  Learning the underbelt SD curriculum as a preparation for training in one of these internal methods simply doesn't do it.  The SD underbelt curriculum is not a preparatory course for the internal methods.  The preparatory course for the internal methods is learning the foundation and fundamentals appropriate for those particular methods.  Just like learning any method of Chinese combative system.
> 
> That's what the internal system are: they are individual methods of Chinese combative systems, and they stand on their own feet.  They are not adjuncts to something else.
> 
> As far as a lot of the material being extra in seminars, well that simply doesn't make any sense at all to me.  Seminars are no place to be learning any material.  Seminars are a brief session in which it is impossible to learn something properly.  Any of this material takes time to learn properly.  It must be revisited repeatedly over a long period of time before it is learned in terms of simply being able to properly remember it all and "do" it without glaring mistakes, and then to develop true proficiency with it, beyond simply being able to recite it reasonably accurately.  This means really understanding it and being able to use the techniques and the methodology upon which the techniques are built.  This is impossible in a seminar.  Doing this requires an ongoing relationship between the student and the sifu, and that is not possible in seminars.  So people learn something too quickly in a seminar, they learn it on a very superficial level, they learn it poorly, and they do not get the ongoing instruction to develop it into something worthwhile.  They end up continuing to practice it poorly and it gets worse over time because there is no feedback and the mistakes amplify and propagate.  And then people try to teach it to their own students, and it's even worse.
> 
> Seminars are for making money.  They are not for teaching quality martial arts.  So aside from making money, I don't understand why Sin The would propagate his system thru seminars.  At least not if he had any respect for his students and the material he is teaching.



I can't speak for other schools. All I know is that at my school it's believed that you should at least have an understanding of martial arts and stances. As from what I can tell the short kata that are taught in SD are great for being a warm up and to understand for example what a front stance/bow stance is and a horse stance. Training as is the case (if I understand it) with any form. The way I was shown our taiji is that the stance is not completely bow or horse but a stance all of it's own, and can easily shift and flow from one to the next. a bow stance is strong from the front but you can be pushed over from the side (if your standing still of course) and the horse stance the side but not the front. the stance we use in our taiji shifts and is strong all around. we don't fight from bow or horse stance but train from it with the kata to build up our legs and balance.

Yes Taiji is taught first, in the full system it's not taught until black belt. at my school the first one taught is our version of yang peking 24. I've never been presented with taiji being the easiest in fact if I recall it's the hardest, which is why we start with it. So we can at least memorize the movements, and once we have the sequences we can then learn how to use them and apply them to applications and pushing hands. All three arts are completely different as they are taught at my school. we dont' use the same stances, or movements. The only thing they all have in common, is that they are internal arts, and our qigong is suppose to help all of them. 

At least that is how I would explain it. None of the above is a direct quote but me putting in to words my understanding of the way we do them. 

I've said a few times the way we do them, and our version. Simply because the more I look at videos and talk to you guys the more I can agree that it's much different with some similarities.


----------



## WC_lun

Not trying to be an ***, but if your training is similiar to any of the Shaolin Do I have experienced in the past, you have no base in either the internal or external Chinese martial arts.  Most of the stuff I have seen more closely resembles Japanese arts than CMA.  Not that there is anything wrong with Japanese martial arts, but it is important that you know what the base is, and the base of Shaolin Do as I have witnessed it, is NOT Chinese Martial Arts.


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> I can't speak for other schools. All I know is that at my school it's believed that you should at least have an understanding of martial arts and stances. As from what I can tell the short kata that are taught in SD are great for being a warm up and to understand for example what a front stance/bow stance is and a horse stance. Training as is the case (if I understand it) with any form. The way I was shown our taiji is that the stance is not completely bow or horse but a stance all of it's own, and can easily shift and flow from one to the next. a bow stance is strong from the front but you can be pushed over from the side (if your standing still of course) and the horse stance the side but not the front. the stance we use in our taiji shifts and is strong all around. we don't fight from bow or horse stance but train from it with the kata to build up our legs and balance.



so why not learn the taiji-appropriate stances thru training taiji?  Why can that information not be part of the regular taiji training, instead of needing to learn other stances (that you recognize as not being the same) thru training the rest of the curriculum?  It's inconsistent and can develop habits that are bad for taiji and need to be un-learned in order to progress in taiji.  This is what we keep saying, that each system has its own foundation and fundamentals on which it is designed to function, and learning a different foundation and then doing taiji, it just doesn't make sense to approach it that way.  Would you train Wing Chun as a prep for taiji?  Wing Chun's stance is very different, it's an extreme example, but it would be a waste to go that route if taiji was your real goal.  Same with SD.


----------



## Blaze Dragon

WC_lun said:


> Not trying to be an ***, but if your training is similiar to any of the Shaolin Do I have experienced in the past, you have no base in either the internal or external Chinese martial arts.  Most of the stuff I have seen more closely resembles Japanese arts than CMA.  Not that there is anything wrong with Japanese martial arts, but it is important that you know what the base is, and the base of Shaolin Do as I have witnessed it, is NOT Chinese Martial Arts.



It's cool, your not being an ***. I'm trying to talk to you guys and ask questions so I can get a better understanding. I am very happy with my training at my local SD. My sifu has my utmost respect. At the same time I'm not going to sit in a little box and wish to talk with the martial arts community at large, especially the CMA community. Alot of you guys have YEARS under your belt. So I'm listening and considering and looking into stuff you all say. I am very grateful we can all have a conversation, it's broadening my horizons a bit.

As mentioned besides SD I have had 2 years in Tien Shan Pai, I can't remember it's teacher's name as he no longer offers CMA classes. However judging by what I learned there, the stuff my sifu is teaching me appears to be CMA. I'm not going to argue that just sharing my personal experience and why I'm a bit insistent  as far as alot of the videos however I can't say they call look like CMA to me, infact I'm starting to wonder if I even know what CMA should look like, or if the Tien Shan Pai I took was classical CMA. 

So I'm hoping to get a better idea of what is what, and what you all are seeing. That's the goal at least


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Flying Crane said:


> so why not learn the taiji-appropriate stances thru training taiji?  Why can that information not be part of the regular taiji training, instead of needing to learn other stances (that you recognize as not being the same) thru training the rest of the curriculum?  It's inconsistent and can develop habits that are bad for taiji and need to be un-learned in order to progress in taiji.  This is what we keep saying, that each system has its own foundation and fundamentals on which it is designed to function, and learning a different foundation and then doing taiji, it just doesn't make sense to approach it that way.  Would you train Wing Chun as a prep for taiji?  Wing Chun's stance is very different, it's an extreme example, but it would be a waste to go that route if taiji was your real goal.  Same with SD.



Indeed, and I can't answer that. Very simply I do not know  However points such as this are excellent things for me to consider and look it. So I am by no means trying to argue, I'm only responding with what I have experienced.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> so why not learn the taiji-appropriate stances thru training taiji? Why can that information not be part of the regular taiji training, instead of needing to learn other stances (that you recognize as not being the same) thru training the rest of the curriculum? It's inconsistent and can develop habits that are bad for taiji and need to be un-learned in order to progress in taiji. This is what we keep saying, that each system has its own foundation and fundamentals on which it is designed to function, and learning a different foundation and then doing taiji, it just doesn't make sense to approach it that way. Would you train Wing Chun as a prep for taiji? Wing Chun's stance is very different, it's an extreme example, but it would be a waste to go that route if taiji was your real goal. Same with SD.



I have seen this with two guys who were trying to learn from my Yang sifu, they both were trying real hard but they could not get the proper stance. One was from uechi ryu and he did finally relax but the stance was still difficult for him. The other was form TKD and Karate and his was always stiff in all movement and he never did get the stance or the movement. He was really trying buy I think he got frustrated and stop coming to class


----------



## Blaze Dragon

Xue Sheng said:


> I have seen this with two guys who were trying to learn from my Yang sifu, they both were trying real hard but they could not get the proper stance. One was from uechi ryu and he did finally relax but the stance was still difficult for him. The other was form TKD and Karate and his was always stiff in all movement and he never did get the stance or the movement. He was really trying buy I think he got frustrated and stop coming to class



What are your thoughts on something like that? I mean if in that case he is learning from a guy who has lineage and is yang style for sure, however is not able to do the stances correctly. Is he still doing taiji?


----------



## Xue Sheng

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> What are your thoughts on something like that? I mean if in that case he is learning from a guy who has lineage and is yang style for sure, however is not able to do the stances correctly. Is he still doing taiji?



My sifu can only show him what the stance is supposed to look like and how to move, he has to practice on his own to get it and it takes a lot of practice. The uechi ryu guy was getting it but it took a long time, and although he was a bit stiff he was a great person to do push hands with. But he had to stop. His wife gave him an ultimatum he could either do one MA and keep living at home or do two and get and apartment, He chose uechi ryu and staying home. The other guy stopped going to class but he did not work at it as long as the gentleman form uechi ryu.

Something else to take into account with an older traditional sifu form China. He will help you if he sees you working at it but if youre not he will not do much for you. The man from Uechi Ryu worked very hard at it and you could tell, the gentleman from TKD/Karate, although a real nice guy, did not seem to change from week to week and I did not think he was practicing much outside of class and if I think that I am pretty sure my sifu knows that and if you do not put in the effort he will not put in the effort either


----------



## Flying Crane

BlazeLeeDragon said:


> What are your thoughts on something like that? I mean if in that case he is learning from a guy who has lineage and is yang style for sure, however is not able to do the stances correctly. Is he still doing taiji?




I'd say he is TRYING to do taiji but is probably not doing it well and will have a difficult time of it.  What works well for Uechi, and the approach that Uechi takes to training, doesn't work well for taiji.  As Xue said, seems he made some progress, but it was more difficult, takes more time, is more frustrating.  And ultimately, until and unless those fundamentals are finally truly corrected for the taiji, it will never be very good, no matter how much he works at it.


----------



## Jin Gang

As I saw it, the SD basic material is not considered a prerequisite of the internal training.  In fact, some schools have an internal only program, their students have the option of doing only the internal arts and nothing else.  For me, learning the taijiquan 24 posture form began simultaneously with the external curriculum, one wasn't prerequisite to the other.  I still think to properly learn any of these arts one would need to go outside of SD.  
Taijiquan is definately a separate art from bagua and xingyi.  But bagua and xingyi do have a history of being taught together, though of course each one is a complete art in itself.  I read that Dong Hai Chuan would only teach baguazhang to people who were already proficient in another martial art.  Yin Fu was an expert in longfist, which flavored his bagua, and Cheng Tinghua was a Shuai Jiao expert, which equally flavored his.  Jiang Rongqiao's main teacher, Zhang Zhaodong was an expert in both xingyiquan and Cheng style baguazhang, and his art blended the two together.  So it's not as if those those two arts haven't frequently fit together and been taught together.  And many traditional Chinese teachers know and teach taijiquan at the same time as their external style.  It isn't impossible to study and practice more than one style, if it is done properly.  Not that this is an excuse for Shaolin-Do, the criticisms of it not teaching proper fundamentals are correct all around.  But it is a mischaracterization to say that they believe their lowerbelt curriculum is a prerequisite for the internal arts, at least the CSC faction doesn't.  They just try to do too many things at once, and don't have the foundation to properly teach most of it.

The point about seminars is exactly correct.  You can't really learn something in only 8 hours, certainly not a form which requires an entirely different framework and collection of techniques from what you have been practicing regularly.  And you will be hard pressed to find someone in the system who is proficient enough with one of those seminar forms to get much instruction after the seminar is over (not to mention the fact that even during the seminar, it probably wasn't taught properly, as Sin The and his students most likely never received actual instruction in those styles).  Another reason I left the system.  In the beginning, I was excited to attend every seminar and learn every form I could.  By the end, I was jaded with the whole thing, and the unrelated and irrelevant forms that seemed to pop up every year.  I was never impressed with Sin The, he just didn't inspire me.  I was learning this stuff alongside my teacher, and he was relying on me to remember the form so we could practice when we got back home.  How was I ever going to improve, if I was the most knowledgeable one about the form, and I barely knew it!  You do get a video of Sin The performing the form...but he isn't exactly the best example in most cases.  When a seminar is put on by one of the other masters, there isn't a video to go with it.  So it gets really bad.  Instructors who learn a form in one  or two days are expected to teach it to their students, and this is how much of the material in the upper black belt levels is taught.  You spend four classes learning something, maybe once every three years.  Then you test over it, and they ask you to demonstrate it at some festival or on the China trip.  I found it all to be pointless.


----------



## clfsean

Jin Gang said:


> As I saw it, the SD basic material is not considered a prerequisite of the internal training. In fact, some schools have an internal only program, their students have the option of doing only the internal arts and nothing else. For me, learning the taijiquan 24 posture form began simultaneously with the external curriculum, one wasn't prerequisite to the other.


But that's the problem it is the way they set it up... at least until recently (10-15 years). You didn't learn any internal unless it was a "seminar" class or you reached 1st black. The CSC "faction" & I'm not even sure of the Western CSC, but the Ga CSC set up an internal program only around '94-ish or so. I know the Ky faction frowned on it for a while until they started doing it as well. Like I said though, until then... you didn't get any of their versions of the Big 3 internal until you got to first black. 


Jin Gang said:


> I still think to properly learn any of these arts one would need to go outside of SD.


Correctamundo!


Jin Gang said:


> Taijiquan is definately a separate art from bagua and xingyi. But bagua and xingyi do have a history of being taught together, though of course each one is a complete art in itself. I read that Dong Hai Chuan would only teach baguazhang to people who were already proficient in another martial art. Yin Fu was an expert in longfist, which flavored his bagua, and Cheng Tinghua was a Shuai Jiao expert, which equally flavored his. Jiang Rongqiao's main teacher, Zhang Zhaodong was an expert in both xingyiquan and Cheng style baguazhang, and his art blended the two together. So it's not as if those those two arts haven't frequently fit together and been taught together.


Truth but at least that I've heard, it was never said "it must done in this order (x,y,z) to be complete..." or the like. 


Jin Gang said:


> And many traditional Chinese teachers know and teach taijiquan at the same time as their external style. It isn't impossible to study and practice more than one style, if it is done properly.


True. My sifu is running us through PRC 24 at the end of every class as a cool down. Not as "taiji" but something to let us lower the jets as it were. Lama Pai (as well a Pak Hok Pai) has its own internal division of training. We both share a form, Min Loi Kuen (Needle in Cotton), but I believe there are differences between them more along the lines of "school" versus "technique". Plus Lama Pai I know has independent hei gung (qigong) training. 


Jin Gang said:


> Not that this is an excuse for Shaolin-Do, the criticisms of it not teaching proper fundamentals are correct all around. But it is a mischaracterization to say that they believe their lowerbelt curriculum is a prerequisite for the internal arts, at least the CSC faction doesn't. They just try to do too many things at once, and don't have the foundation to properly teach most of it.


Like I mentioned above... this more recent than not. 



Jin Gang said:


> The point about seminars is exactly correct. You can't really learn something in only 8 hours, certainly not a form which requires an entirely different framework and collection of techniques from what you have been practicing regularly. And you will be hard pressed to find someone in the system who is proficient enough with one of those seminar forms to get much instruction after the seminar is over (not to mention the fact that even during the seminar, it probably wasn't taught properly, as Sin The and his students most likely never received actual instruction in those styles). Another reason I left the system. In the beginning, I was excited to attend every seminar and learn every form I could. By the end, I was jaded with the whole thing, and the unrelated and irrelevant forms that seemed to pop up every year. I was never impressed with Sin The, he just didn't inspire me. I was learning this stuff alongside my teacher, and he was relying on me to remember the form so we could practice when we got back home. How was I ever going to improve, if I was the most knowledgeable one about the form, and I barely knew it! You do get a video of Sin The performing the form...but he isn't exactly the best example in most cases. When a seminar is put on by one of the other masters, there isn't a video to go with it. So it gets really bad. Instructors who learn a form in one or two days are expected to teach it to their students, and this is how much of the material in the upper black belt levels is taught. You spend four classes learning something, maybe once every three years. Then you test over it, and they ask you to demonstrate it at some festival or on the China trip. I found it all to be pointless.


 
+1 for you on that.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Jin Gang said:


> Taijiquan is definately a separate art from bagua and xingyi. But bagua and xingyi do have a history of being taught together, though of course each one is a complete art in itself.



This started after 1900, prior to that they were separate and there are many Bagua people a well as may Xingyi people that see no reason for them to be trained together. However you are right, they are trained together rather frequently these days



Jin Gang said:


> I read that Dong Hai Chuan would only teach baguazhang to people who were already proficient in another martial art. Yin Fu was an expert in longfist, which flavored his bagua, and Cheng Tinghua was a Shuai Jiao expert, which equally flavored his. Jiang Rongqiao's main teacher, Zhang Zhaodong was an expert in both xingyiquan and Cheng style baguazhang, and his art blended the two together.



True



Jin Gang said:


> And many traditional Chinese teachers know and teach taijiquan at the same time as their external style. It isn't impossible to study and practice more than one style, if it is done properly.



My Yang Sifu would not agree as it applies to Taijiquan and I am not sure I do any longer either, but as little as 6 months ago I would have

Speaking as one who has done this, yes and no; It takes a rather strong minded person to do this but then it depends on the arts. I trained and love Xingyiquan and I trained and enjoyed Baguazhang and I train and enjoy and get frustrated by Taijiquan and even though I do feel I gained an awful lot of understanding of Taijiquan by training Xingyi, Bagua and even Sanda if I truly want to &#8220;know&#8221; and &#8220;understand&#8221; taiji as a martial art I cannot train Bagua and Xingyi. It will take longer to be a proficient fighter but it will be taiji



Jin Gang said:


> The point about seminars is exactly correct. You can't really learn something in only 8 hours, certainly not a form which requires an entirely different framework and collection of techniques from what you have been practicing regularly.



Yup I am in full agreement with you there. The only time a seminar has been of any use to me was if I already knew a lot about the topic before I got there.



clfsean said:


> True. My sifu is running us through PRC 24 at the end of every class as a cool down. Not as "taiji" but something to let us lower the jets as it were. Lama Pai (as well a Pak Hok Pai) has



My Taiji sifu is not even sure that 24 form, as taught, is taiji at all. He has seen some do 24 forms rather well and said they were good, but the majority he feels are pretty awful. He does not know or teach 24 form because it is not part of Yang style. And for the record it did not even come from a person that was highly proficient at Taiji. It mostly came from a guy that was highly proficient at Xingyi that trained some Taiji. But with that said I like the form and I do train it&#8230;however mine looks a lot like a mini-traditional Yang form because All of the postures are rather traditional and not the simplified version I was originally shown


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> But that's the problem it is the way they set it up... at least until recently (10-15 years). You didn't learn any internal unless it was a "seminar" class or you reached 1st black. The CSC "faction" & I'm not even sure of the Western CSC, but the Ga CSC set up an internal program only around '94-ish or so. I know the Ky faction frowned on it for a while until they started doing it as well. Like I said though, until then... you didn't get any of their versions of the Big 3 internal until you got to first black.



Until you guys brought up the factions recently in these discussions, I was completely unaware of them.  I was in college in the very early 1990s when I met my teacher, his wife was on the faculty and he would come onto campus and just practice by himself in the raquetball courts.  I stumbled onto him one day and he agreed to teach me.  It was very informal, but the trend to teach a whole lot very quickly, yeah that was accurate in my case.  In one semester he taught me most of the curriculum thru brown belt.  He never ranked me, but that's how much he taught me, along with a "tai chi" set.  At the time I was vaguely familiar with the notion that there are different schools of taiji, and I asked him which this was.  He just said it is Shaolin Tai Chi.  I didn't know any better, so I accepted it and just assumed that there is a school of taiji that came out of Shaolin Temple or something.  I didn't know enough to press the issue any further than that.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> Until you guys brought up the factions recently in these discussions, I was completely unaware of them.  I was in college in the very early 1990s when I met my teacher, his wife was on the faculty and he would come onto campus and just practice by himself in the raquetball courts.  I stumbled onto him one day and he agreed to teach me.  It was very informal, but the trend to teach a whole lot very quickly, yeah that was accurate in my case.  In one semester he taught me most of the curriculum thru brown belt.  He never ranked me, but that's how much he taught me, along with a "tai chi" set.  At the time I was vaguely familiar with the notion that there are different schools of taiji, and I asked him which this was.  He just said it is Shaolin Tai Chi.  I didn't know any better, so I accepted it and just assumed that there is a school of taiji that came out of Shaolin Temple or something.  I didn't know enough to press the issue any further than that.



Well let's face it... in the early 90's the world was a much bigger place still. The interwebz was still very new. AOL & COMPUSERV were the big one stop services. Andressen hadn't built Netscape yet. blah blah blah

So information was still not as easily accessible as now. It was more so then than it had been 10 year before that but still. We were still very fragmented in terms of info sharing. 

Not a big shocker there. Nowadays, if you don't check something out, you get what you get for not.


----------



## Flying Crane

clfsean said:


> Well let's face it... in the early 90's the world was a much bigger place still. The interwebz was still very new. AOL & COMPUSERV were the big one stop services. Andressen hadn't built Netscape yet. blah blah blah
> 
> So information was still not as easily accessible as now. It was more so then than it had been 10 year before that but still. We were still very fragmented in terms of info sharing.
> 
> Not a big shocker there. Nowadays, if you don't check something out, you get what you get for not.



ayup!!


----------

