Shaolin-Do Curriculum?

Flying Crane said:
what is it about him that makes him better than the others?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Do you guys happen to know if his background is pure SD, or if he trained elsewhere first, perhaps?
 
Flying Crane said:
Do you guys happen to know if his background is pure SD, or if he trained elsewhere first, perhaps?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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 said:
Which leads me to my special announcement: Next week I start teaching TaiXingyiZhangQuanJiDoJutsu Sanda :D
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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…but for entrance into the fighting Salt Water Crocs in Shark infested waters bit…first they need to remember the name
Click to expand...

ah, mind-games, is it??
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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. :)
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Is this place for real?

Previous Thread

Chen Taijiquan

Next Thread

Similar threads

U
Shaolin Kung Fu
Replies
7
Views
2K
clfsean
clfsean
spidersam
Really enjoying Shaolin wushu
Replies
18
Views
3K
Gerry Seymour
Gerry Seymour
T
The styles of shaolin
2
Replies
26
Views
883
Tigerwarrior
T
D
Rou Chan: Qin Na arresting technique(Shaolin)
Replies
0
Views
2K
dre2308
D
B
Traditional Shaolin White Crane Gongfu Training (Indiana)
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
gaoshou
G

Latest Discussions

Back
Top