Anyone else use Yao Bu?

[Damien]

Shaolin Si is actually one of the most important centers for Daoism too. You could really call the whole Chan tradition mashup of Buddhist and Daoist philosophy.

Honestly, if you want a good, reliable history pick up Meir Shahars book (I think I misspelled him as Mahar earlier...my bad). That was has peer reviewed content, and a great history of how the empty handed styles developed.

If you want a funny take on the tourism pick up "American Shaolin" by Matt Polly. really funny first hand take by someone who actually went to train there for 2 years. Not only a great wake up call to the real training, but it might give some insight on the current situation with the Communists.

In fact that last part (government oppression/corruption and how they milk this ancient lineage) might explain your sifus stance.

View attachment 28877

I'm just reading (well listening) to American Shaolin for the first time. It is very funny. Spot on with observations about starting to train and western perceptions of China/Shaolin.

Shahar's book is also great, if a little drier! One thing I do disagree with is his take on unarmed combat, which he suggests only emerged in Shaolin in the 1600s. This is based on manuals dating to around that time and a lack of direct mentions elsewhere, but most of the mentions in records are of Shaolin staff because that's what they were famous for. Occasionally the entire Shaolin system is referred to as Shaolin staff, even though it covers a lot more.

When you look at the stylistic developments in the area and the history of local villages interactions with the temple in more detail it is clear that hand forms were practiced there for longer than this, even if you disregard ideas such as some fist forms coming from Emperor Taizu in the 900s.

He also talks about how the manuals are presenting duanda (close combat e.g. rotational focussed) techniques (as a pretty complete system) and saying they are superior to long fist techniques. This was very much a stylistic development at the time. But, going back to the video that started this thread, remember how Shaolin had long fist techniques before duanda? So how did Shaolin have time to develop a full long fist system, and then a full duanda system to replace it, along with forms etc. all in the early 1600s. Clearly not the case. Duanda alone must have been circulating for a while before the publication of the hand combat classic in order for the system to develop and then be compared to the pre-existing long fist system it was looking to replace.

Hand techniques were probably practiced for at least a few hundred years prior to the 1600s for all this to develop. Possibly even longer, since hand combat has always gone hand in hand with armed combat. The ancient Greeks practiced boxing and wrestling, and armed forces to this day practice unarmed combat, and now we have guns, tanks etc.

Ultimately duanda is no better than long fist, I imagine someone had an agenda somewhere, and there's always the hot new thing. Perhaps there was something in the larger martial culture which inspired the change in popularity, such as a rise in challenge matches. Ultimately it's better to be able to use both styles and blend them together.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I'm just reading (well listening) to American Shaolin for the first time. It is very funny. Spot on with observations about starting to train and western perceptions of China/Shaolin.

Shahar's book is also great, if a little drier! One thing I do disagree with is his take on unarmed combat, which he suggests only emerged in Shaolin in the 1600s. This is based on manuals dating to around that time and a lack of direct mentions elsewhere, but most of the mentions in records are of Shaolin staff because that's what they were famous for. Occasionally the entire Shaolin system is referred to as Shaolin staff, even though it covers a lot more.

When you look at the stylistic developments in the area and the history of local villages interactions with the temple in more detail it is clear that hand forms were practiced there for longer than this, even if you disregard ideas such as some fist forms coming from Emperor Taizu in the 900s.

He also talks about how the manuals are presenting duanda (close combat e.g. rotational focussed) techniques (as a pretty complete system) and saying they are superior to long fist techniques. This was very much a stylistic development at the time. But, going back to the video that started this thread, remember how Shaolin had long fist techniques before duanda? So how did Shaolin have time to develop a full long fist system, and then a full duanda system to replace it, along with forms etc. all in the early 1600s. Clearly not the case. Duanda alone must have been circulating for a while before the publication of the hand combat classic in order for the system to develop and then be compared to the pre-existing long fist system it was looking to replace.

Hand techniques were probably practiced for at least a few hundred years prior to the 1600s for all this to develop. Possibly even longer, since hand combat has always gone hand in hand with armed combat. The ancient Greeks practiced boxing and wrestling, and armed forces to this day practice unarmed combat, and now we have guns, tanks etc.

Ultimately duanda is no better than long fist, I imagine someone had an agenda somewhere, and there's always the hot new thing. Perhaps there was something in the larger martial culture which inspired the change in popularity, such as a rise in challenge matches. Ultimately it's better to be able to use both styles and blend them together.

I really appreciate you, @Oily Dragon, @JowGaWolf , @Xue Sheng for your hard work useful information on CMA in its various forms. It is very interesting to read. Thank you.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm just reading (well listening) to American Shaolin for the first time. It is very funny. Spot on with observations about starting to train and western perceptions of China/Shaolin.

Shahar's book is also great, if a little drier! One thing I do disagree with is his take on unarmed combat, which he suggests only emerged in Shaolin in the 1600s. This is based on manuals dating to around that time and a lack of direct mentions elsewhere, but most of the mentions in records are of Shaolin staff because that's what they were famous for. Occasionally the entire Shaolin system is referred to as Shaolin staff, even though it covers a lot more.

When you look at the stylistic developments in the area and the history of local villages interactions with the temple in more detail it is clear that hand forms were practiced there for longer than this, even if you disregard ideas such as some fist forms coming from Emperor Taizu in the 900s.

He also talks about how the manuals are presenting duanda (close combat e.g. rotational focussed) techniques (as a pretty complete system) and saying they are superior to long fist techniques. This was very much a stylistic development at the time. But, going back to the video that started this thread, remember how Shaolin had long fist techniques before duanda? So how did Shaolin have time to develop a full long fist system, and then a full duanda system to replace it, along with forms etc. all in the early 1600s. Clearly not the case. Duanda alone must have been circulating for a while before the publication of the hand combat classic in order for the system to develop and then be compared to the pre-existing long fist system it was looking to replace.

Hand techniques were probably practiced for at least a few hundred years prior to the 1600s for all this to develop. Possibly even longer, since hand combat has always gone hand in hand with armed combat. The ancient Greeks practiced boxing and wrestling, and armed forces to this day practice unarmed combat, and now we have guns, tanks etc.

Ultimately duanda is no better than long fist, I imagine someone had an agenda somewhere, and there's always the hot new thing. Perhaps there was something in the larger martial culture which inspired the change in popularity, such as a rise in challenge matches. Ultimately it's better to be able to use both styles and blend them together.

Oh yeah. So much older. I say this all the time.

The Shaolin didn't invent animal Kung Fu. They just saw it and made an art. The Wu Xing blends it.

Imagine anybody claiming they invented any form of hand to hand combat in the second millennium AD. That's just crazy.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Oh yeah. So much older. I say this all the time.

The Shaolin didn't invent animal Kung Fu. They just saw it and made an art. The Wu Xing blends it.

Imagine anybody claiming they invented any form of hand to hand combat in the second millennium AD. That's just crazy.

You mean like mma?

 

[Damien]

I really appreciate you, @Oily Dragon, @JowGaWolf , @Xue Sheng for your hard work useful information on CMA in its various forms. It is very interesting to read. Thank you.

You're welcome! Happy to spread the knowledge

Imagine anybody claiming they invented any form of hand to hand combat in the second millennium AD. That's just crazy.

I know, right?! Like sure, people just never learnt to use their fists for a few thousand years of civilisation. They spent all their time inventing weird weapons instead!

Never mind all the travelling of people around the world who definitely were trained in armed and unarmed combat.

I've heard some people claim that the human hand developed as it did in part to facilitate the making of a fist. This completely misses the fact that our hands are pretty fragile compared to other animals, but very dexterous, and a fist is just squeezing after you've removed an object. But the fact remains that hominids have been violent since forever, and the earliest weapons were just rocks. If you're going to hit with a rock, you need to have a concept of hitting without one.

 

[Oily Dragon]

You mean like mma?

Well the first M means mixed. There is nothing ever new in MMA.

The Romans probably did do it better than PPV.

 

[Damien]

You mean like mma?

I mean MMA is more a ruleset and particular organisation of techniques, it brings in other, older martial arts.

Even BJJ developed out of judo and Japanese jiu jitsu. Everything has antecedents of some type, though new techniques do of course emerge.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I mean MMA is more a ruleset and particular organisation of techniques, it brings in other, older martial arts.

Even BJJ developed out of judo and Japanese jiu jitsu. Everything has antecedents of some type, though new techniques do of course emerge.

Some of the best UFC moments have been Shaolin moments.