It would be more untresting to make Homer look like a Shaolin Monk......So from this I gather that I am not the only one who was thinking
Shaolin
Shaolin-Do Curriculum?
- Thread starter Doomx2001
- Start date
Blaze Dragon
Blue Belt
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
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
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
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.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
Blaze Dragon
Blue Belt
Very practical and rational response.
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...
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
Blue Belt
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
Blue Belt
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
All weight is underside
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’t what it use to be.
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.
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...
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...
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
