Shaolin-Do Curriculum?

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doomx2001 said:
Here's another question: Are there any other semi-legit tiger/Hung Gar forms in SD?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Ok... just what exactly are you shooting for here?
 
clfsean said:
Ok... just what exactly are you shooting for here?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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