Describing a school as 'Shaolin'

Discussion in 'Kung Fu' started by belltoller, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. belltoller

    belltoller OffTopic MonstreOrdinaire Supporter

    They did, in fact. Doesn't mean anything. I'm not certain what it was that caused the court to reverse itself - to have a re-look at the case after they'd already ruled in favour of the school.

    I'm not up on it, but in my way of thinking, that implies there were things going on behind the scenes.

    Late for Dinner knew about this case and shared it with me.


    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1201353.html
     
  2. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Hey, you mental toss flycoon, it says "Berry" in the case details you posted a link to...

    Yup. If you think anything will stop the vultures... erm, I mean lawyers, chasing a fee, you are being naive.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2015
  3. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    For a Mod; May I suggest moving any specific posts here about Shaolin to a Shaolin Thread...Thanks
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2015
  4. dormindo

    dormindo Active Member Supporter

    Done. Here is your new thread.
     
  5. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    That site: http://www.shaolin-world.net/home is the same regurgitated Shaolin absurdity that many such schools reference over and over. Speaking of regurgitated references, there are still many Vsing Tsun (Wing Chun) schools still making the same incorrect historical irrationality per it being created by a woman.

    What if it was a Ninja School making other claims, with Cung there, would it still overlooked just to go for the workout on the "Cung's premise"? How far is one looking to give up some morale ground?

    Again I must reiterate, I am not out to belittle. But when people use Shaolin to add intrigue and for commercial gain, makes it deceitful, superfluous, and unsubstantiated
    propaganda. This could have it that no matter who else may endorse it, the morals seem to be challenged by stooping to this level. I view it as why couldn't they not use this and stand upon their own merit of skill? The answer is clear.

    However, that said, if a school has a slight reference to Shaolin per not showing or having a "live monk", wearing monk-like clothing, and have some information as to not commercialize-intrigue to entice, I do not take such a harsh position. I have frequented some Chinese Martial Art schools and websites which merely reference Shaolin by using words/phrases like; "Shaolin, per legend" or "Legendary", "Per Myth", "Unproven", "Supposedly", etc. What this means they (like myself) have accepted Shaolin as part of Martial Art History and Reference, but not as a ultimate-proven lineage or propaganda.
     
  6. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    This is a interesting post that I feel should be moved to the thread "The Shaolin Bandwagon" Mod-what do you think? -Thanks-
     
  7. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    I'll be honest I can't keep up with all the threads! :) But my only point to make there was that in terms of "Describing Schools as Shaolin" is not really a new issue, it's probably at least a few centuries old. But going back to the 18th or 19th century or even early 20th, using "Shaolin" in your school's name etc. was not a big deal because most lay people could probably look for themselves and tell "yep, looks Shaolin to me!" or not. Before it became dangerous to associate with Shaolin in the Ching era, everybody was "representing" Shaolin. That includes quite a few Ming-era generals and officials.

    Fast forward to the modern age and 99.999% of people simply do not have the cultural education or proximity to what Shaolin really was/is to make the same determination. Just as a silly example, if I showed a crowd of 100 people a shadow puppet with my hands and said "this is a Shaolin art", I'll bet I could convince 99 of them. Few people really know until they go to the sources, and even then they have a lot of "elimination" to do if they want to discern facts from legend and so forth. I find in meeting and discussing with people things Shaolin they fall too far into either extreme...either a complete fantasy perception of Shaolin, or at the other end, complete dismissal where they also throw out facts along with what they perceive as myth.

    I have had people argue with me about the "provability" of certain things from the "recent" 17th century China simply because they assume "it's old, so we don't know"...then I retort to them that I have inspected bones with 3,000 year old writing on them that sure enough transmitted information just fine from the distant past. Learning to read cuneiform and hierglyphs, same thing. "We just don't know..." is really a poor man's way of saying "I've not studied the subject".

    Ironically, the "middle way" (pun intended!) is to explore as much as possible, and then start to eliminate things that can be disproven. Many people who enjoy learning about Shaolin seem to be averse to the latter, especially if they have vested a lot of time into an associated martial art. Not being a particularly skilled or dedicated martial artist, I find the best conversations I have about Shaolin occur outside that environment. :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2015
  8. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    INTERESTING-But much of your post is as part of my research decades ago

    Back then it was deadly dangerous to associate with it. Now it became a method to entice, intrigue, and use erroneous propaganda through exploitation for commercial gain
    Per my post#25


    Well, I am not trying to project a attitude of "complete dismissal" (same as with the subject of Qi) Per my post #25...
    But, by the same token, things written long ago was the subject of its own controversy and raconteur exaggerations. To stay on a course regurgitated by others over and over will leave it unchallenged which leads to no new discovery of information thereof


    But to hang onto things for the sake of romanticism and false associations and still making it a commercial gain, seems incorrect. This would be like someone saying Tae Kwon Do Developed the High Flying Kick to knock people off their horses. Those using it to leaving those without motivation to not check the validity. And that "Tim's Tae Kwon Do performs this kick like it was designed"...(something along this)


    And that is where you and they are both at fault. You for misrepresentation or deceit, and they for not challenging the information. Which is no different than how people exploit Shaolin now and no different how people were easily fooled for centuries of past. Things were not challenged. Until one day someone comes along with a scientific method. (Dang, why cant the earth still be flat)

    But, by the same token, things written long ago was the subject of its own controversy and raconteur exaggerations.


    And one last thing, Shaolin does not have a "authentic" proven lineage. Shaolin Monks these days, cannot really prove they are "authentic"
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2015
  9. belltoller

    belltoller OffTopic MonstreOrdinaire Supporter

    Patrick Joseph "Pat" Barry.

    I'll have to admit, that one threw me as well and even I started spelling it Berry for a bit till I checked the records. Not surprising the Court got it wrong. They do that all the time. Can cause massive headaches for people as well. No one bothers to correct anything and it's passed on down the line. Afterall, if a court deemed it thus...
     
  10. belltoller

    belltoller OffTopic MonstreOrdinaire Supporter

    I.E. historians and archeologists.

    I can accept that what's taught is not Shaolin derived/developed Kung Fu; however, it begs the question: If its not of the Shaolin, then who's Kung Fu are they teaching?

    Is there even such a thing as an authentic Kung Fu to begin with?

    I also have to ask: What exactly is Kung Fu? Because once one eliminates there school or sifu's 'historical notes' the answer to that question is not so obvious as it would first appear.
     
  11. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Well, if one is going to skip the whole actual definition of Kung Fu, I would say most people use the term to mean Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of different TCMA's. It is a huge grouping of martial arts styles that originated in China. And they can vary from each other quite a bit.

    Simple broad term. If you compare a Choy Li Fut form, to a Wing Chun form, they are VERY different styles. Hung Gar and Tai Chi Chuan very different. Geez, even Northern Mantis looks different From Southern Mantis. All "Kung Fu."
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  12. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    I think the issue that differentiates it from Ninjitsu is that there is now a tradition of calling styles Shaolin that is over a century old. It is a name that has taken on it's own meaning beyond the temple. Indeed remember most southern styles claim to be descended from a temple that in all likelihood didn't even exist. However if you tell me that a system is Cantonese Sil Lum or Fujian Shaolin or Henan Shaolin it tells me a lot about what that style will be like.
     
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    That is confusing!

    Ah well, sorry about the interruption. I'll just be off along the border, across the fields of dental floss on my small, tiny horse...

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVQzOh8eayQ"]Frank Zappa, Montana - YouTube[/ame]
     
  14. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    where is david ross when you need him, :)

    He wrote this about the head of that gym a few years ago
     
  15. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    A incorrect representation made to entice, intrigue, and use erroneous propaganda through exploitation for commercial gain


    No. Because even the term "Kung Fu is a misnomer

    Again, I will not "completely dismiss" a school that claims or uses the terms Shaolin, Kung Fu, Qi Gong, Ninja-Ninjutsu, etc. It is that I am at odds with the incorrect representation made to entice, intrigue, and use erroneous propaganda through exploitation for commercial gain


    What if Cung endorses Dillman or some other "questionable" associations?
    Do we still say that, well OK he is still worth going to.

    What if Cung was arrested and released from jail?
    Do we still say that, well OK he is still worth going to.

    How far to we bend our scruples?


    Would that be Joe Ancona?


    Why use the name Shaolin at all ? Why not Fujian or Henan, or Northern or Southern?

    And why use a monk and dress the students (or high students looking like monks). If it looks like a McDojo.....
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  16. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Once again, straw man argument.

    The issue isn't endorsements, it is looking at the success and skills of someone trained at a particular place. All over MAP, people always say about MMA gyms "check the record of the fighters there." That is a basic thing MAP members always say when talking about whether a school is worth checking out or not. And I am agreeing with that concept with regards to who has trained with the instructors at this school, even though it is a TCMA and not a MMA gym.

    However, Icefield brings up an issue with regards to this that may be something to look into.

    And another straw man argument. Unless someone does a crime associated with a school, them later being arrested has nothing to do with their training somewhere.

    And Cung Lee hasn't been arrested, nor has Pat Barry, so your just making stuff up.

    Again, No one is saying take something at face value. You can only tell so much from a website. I am only saying it's worth looking into. Taking a tour or a guest lesson or two.

    I think Belltoller has enough experience with MA's to have an idea if the school is decent from checking it out. Even if his experience is a very different style.

    Belltoller, you should ask to be able to watch a sparring session, even if not allowed to participate. You can tell decent footwork and punches from poor ones, right?

    For crying out loud, we aren't talking about signing his firstborn away or a lifetime contract. We are talking about stopping by a school and looking into it further by checking out a class or two.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  17. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Then, this can be applied to "any/every" school out there....Mcdojos and the like :rolleyes:


    Yes. But this is still in a discussion-after all he, is curious
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  18. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    No, you just aren't paying attention.

    Belltoller, here it the breakdown.

    I think the schools lineage and people who they claim trained under instructors there is enough to make that school worth looking at.

    MM47 thinks you should rule it out because of the term Shaolin and the way it is used at the school.

    Some schools can definitely be ruled out by looking at them on the Internet. The Internet can't be used to completely tell if a school is good, but you can sometimes tell if it isn't worth even checking out.

    I see the Internet as a first step in research.
     
  19. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Speaking of not paying attention ("Entirely"- to my posts)

    No, Belltoller;

    Here is the breakdown:
    Again, I will not "completely dismiss" a school that claims or uses the terms Shaolin, Kung Fu, Qi Gong, Ninja-Ninjutsu, etc. It is that I am at odds with the incorrect representation made to entice, intrigue, and use erroneous propaganda through exploitation for commercial gain

    According to the site:http://www.shaolin-world.net/home
    It speaks McDojo IMHO

    There aren't any "Authentic Shaolin Monks Teaching Fighting Methods"-
    (The temple was abandoned for years...those that are coming out the "woodwork" are self-proclaimed with the "blessing/documentation" of the Chinese government to promote. The "Authentic" Shaolin order is about the practice and teaching of Ch'an)
    Someone posing as one is just as bad as someone posing as a Soke
    From their website: The Liu Institute was established under the tutelage of the Great Chan Master and spiritual leader of the Shaolin Temple.

    Now, whereas, someone posing as a Shaolin monk, they should be practicing and teaching "Ch'an"
    That said, I am not going on a limb to state (I do not) that this person does not have any skills
    It isn't the skills that I am at odds with (Ref The Shaolin Bandwagon-Opening Post)

    That said, a lot of Mcdojos have alternative classes (like in MMA) that is not part of their "McDojo-ness"

    If someone is posing as something as they are not, along with a good alternative teacher (like MMA), do we bend our scruples?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  20. belltoller

    belltoller OffTopic MonstreOrdinaire Supporter

    lol...did you see the reactions on the faces when they did the occassional audience shot?

    Just didn't quite get it. Too far ahead of his time. :)
     

Share This Page