Talk:Shaolin-Do/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Perhaps some sources are needed? 67.162.133.212 06:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I have no problem with people questioning the lineage, the story is almost too good to be true. But Wikipedia supports a neutral point of view, and the use of "bull shit" is not a neutral point of view. Nor is it complimentary of the author who wrote it. Cite sources in your rhetoric.

Comment: And before you ask someone to prove that it is, please prove that it isn't...

No, i think it's usually the other way around. Prove that I didn't magically teleport to china and back while you blinked your eyes before you ask me to prove that I did.

Comment: That's a stupid argument... you need more brain power. You need Shaolin Do.

Contents

Destruction of the Fukien Temple

Also, while the Temple was destroyed on several occasions, the most recent destruction occurred in 1927. This can be found on a number of websites, but to cite some sites not associated with Shaolin-Do: xX

"In the 18th century the original Shaolin temple was burned down. Legend has it that five monks escaped and went on to establish the Shaolin temple in Fukien Province." http://www.ussd.com/lineagebegin.asp

"Fukien served as the "headquarters" during times when Honan was either destroyed or under threat. ...the temple was burned during the Boxer Rebellion, and its remains were rediscovered in the early 1980s." http://www.nychinatown.com/shaolin_temples.htm

"Shaolin's influence and power was still feared and forbidden, which led to another burning in 1927 AD, during Chiang Kai Check's reign. " http://www.taijichuan.co.uk/

"As with the previous times, Shaolin influence, power and Kung Fu was stilled feared and forbidden. This possibly led to the 3rd Burning of Shaolin in 1927 AD during Chiang Kai Check’s reign." http://www.americankungfuacademy.com/history/history_01.htm

Finally, I should point out that I majored in Chinese History and Asian Religions. I went on to graduate school where I did some further studies into Buddhist influence on Christianity. Three things I know from my studies:

1) The picture used on Shaolin-Do websites appears in several of the books I read. Who he was, I don't know. But I was very familiar with the picture before seeing any Shaolin-Do websites. 2) The legend of a Dog Monk and Shaolin was one I had heard prior to ever hearing of Shaolin Do. When he lived, I can't say. But I was familiar with the story years ago. 3) The story of Su Kong didn't phase me as questionable, but rather the fact that I had stumbled across a lineage that traced it's origins to that character. To me it would be like stumbling across a political group that said, "We have a verbal history tracing our lineage back to George Washington." Does that make it untrue, no, but it did raise some doubts in my mind.

Balloonman 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Masters Bob Green and Eric Smith

Who ever keeps claiming that Senior Master's Bob Green and Eric Smith are senior students to Elder Master's Sharon and David Soard and Gary Mullins, please remember that seniority in martial arts is not a subject of tenure, but rather rank. The Soards and Gary Mullins are Eight Degree Black Belts, while Senior Master's are seventh degree black belts. As such the eight degree black belts are senior to seventh degree blacks.

Edit: I beg to differ. Seniority refers to time. And statements such as: These are his most senior students, Together they are the second most senior students in the art, is the fourth most senior student in the Shaolin-Do system are outright false. I respect their rank and time commitment, but they will never be 'more senior' than Masters Bob Green and Eric Smith. The updated text does no disservice to any of the mentioned people and should remain.

=Er, when lining up, based on seniority, who would be front row right? Elder Master's Leonard, Soards, and Mullins. The Senior Master's would be to the left. When referring to Senior Blackbelts, who are you referring to the first black who has been in the art for ten years or the 2 and above blacks who were just promoted? When the instructor calls for senior students, is s/he calling for the people who have studied the longest? The permanent white belt? No, s/he is calling for the students with the highest rank. When asking for a Senior Black Belt panel, are you asking for time or rank? When referring to seniority, seniority it based upon rank not tenure. This is the norm in every martial art I've encountered, including those under Grandmaster The! Again, this is no disrespect to any Master, but when listing the most senior students, those are the 4 Elder Master's. Seniority is only measured by time in like classes/categories--rank is the first determinant of seniority. Elder Master Leonard is technically senior to the Soards/Mullins as a result of his being promoted first. Balloonman 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "highest-ranking" could replace "most senior" where appropriate. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Highest ranking would be accurate and acceptable to all parties.

Comment: Rank denotes most senior. No other way about it. It doesn't matter when someone starts the art. What matters is when one advances. It should say something about the fact that someone has advanced passed a student who started before them: capability, continued effort, unbroken training time, ability to absorb of knowledge. How silly to think that because someone started before another but then took a hiatus (or stopped advancing for whatever reason) that they should still outrank a higher belt. "Time" is subjective. And most people don't realize that "10 years in the art" might include nine years sitting at home on the couch with potato chips. Elder Master Leonard (although stopped training very briefly due to a condition -- but the short time off is not even worth mentioning) and Elder Masters Soard have never taken a "hiatus!" They are correctly and appropriately listed with seniority...

From Merriam-Webster website; m-w.com;

Senior 2 a : a person with higher standing or rank ...

Hmm... i agree, remember that people advance at their own pace, just like when we were in white belt there were some who advanced faster than others and although you may have been there longer, the fact remains the same, a white belt does not out rank a yellow belt.

Definition of "Grandmaster"

There is only one problem I have with the page. A "grandmaster" is simply someone who has trained other students until they, the student, became a master. In most other martial arts there is more than one grandmaster and it doesn't make sense when it is stated that it is not publicly known which Elder Master would succeed Sin The when none would be deserving of the title without having completed this particular task. Even Sin The himself wouldn't have been a grandmaster until Bill Leonard was promoted to Master unless he had trained other masters in Indonesia(maybe his estranged brother Hiang aka Shawn?).

Now, mind you, I have been a family friend of the The's since 1975 and have been involved with the martial arts since then as well but this is something that doesn't fit in with the standard terminology and needs to be addressed. I'm sure that it could have something to do with the lineage but this does need to be brought to light.

Comment: A "grandmaster" can be defined in many ways. The way used in Shao-Lin is to identify the leader, overseer, and knowledge holder of the Shao-Lin art who is responsible for passing ALL the knowledge on to the next generation.

Comment: According to the story, Grandmaster The was promoted to Grandmaster by Grandmaster Ie (in the 1960's.) To my knowledge he didn't have any "masters" that directly traced their lineage through him, but was awarded the rank anyway. When grandmaster The passes away or steps down, he may pass the mantel to one (or more) of his senior students. If he passes it on to Master Leonard, then Master Leonard would become Grandmaster and the Soards would have to recognize him (or break away from the tradition.)

Comment: Why that last comment was even made is silly. Likewise, if Elder Master David or Sharon Soard were passed on the title of Grandmaster, Master Leonard would need to recognize or break away as well... doesn't that go without saying? Everyone would need to recognize the new Grandmaster or break away. Let's just hope that Grandmaster The' lives a long and healthy life - ever stop to think that he might outlive all the current Elder Masters...?

Comment: Persons who basically 'purchased' their 8th degree blackbelts are not serious contenders for grandmaster rank. So the above comment of: "If he passes it on to Master Leonard, then Master Leonard would become Grandmaster and the Soards would have to recognize him (or break away from the tradition.)" is valid.

Comment: this discussion goes without saying... but the last comment is uncalled for. NOBODY "basically purchased their 8th degree blackbelts." To say otherwise is libel, assinine, and I dare you to tell that to Grandmaster The!Balloonman 07:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Lineage

There is some controversy in Chinese Martial Arts circles about whether Shaolin-Do is actually derived from the Shaolin temple or not. In fact, pretty much the only sources referring to the Shaolin-Do lineage are from Shaolin-Do itself. This article does not mention this at all.

Also the section on the "The Use of the Gi" is incorrect, the Shaolin Temple did use V-neck type robes but these are different from Japanese Gi, and they have never used different colored belts for rankings, they only used sashes to hold their robes closed, and they are generally yellow or black (sometimes other colors are used), with no ranking attached to them.

Also, it is incorrect to refer to Sin The as a "Shao-Lin" Grandmaster, and in "The Future of the Art" to refer to his successor as the head of the "Shao-Lin art" so I added the "Do" for correctness.

Evilscholar 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The usage of belts is correct. The entry does not state that the Shao-Lin monks purposely used belt colors to denote rank. The colors of the monks' belts were a very natural progression as one trains in the art and never washes their belt. White (untouched), yellow (sweat), blue (dirt and more sweat), green (yellow and blue), brown (obvious), and black (very dirty and denotes much time training), black w/red (high level master/grandmaster - tinges of blood, deathmatches, warfare, etc.)

And to correct -- the monks' belts are depicted in the paintings and murals with more colors than just yellow or black. And if we don't use the murals as accurate, then the author of the above statement must have been there 1000 years ago and have witnessed the belt colors for themselves...?

Response: I'd like to see a source for the progression of the belts relating to time spent practicing and such. I said that sometimes there are other colors, but you are correct in saying that the article does not say they used belts as rankings. One thing I would like to see is any sources for the whole of the "Use of the Gi" section, as I'm sure from personal experience that it is all made up by Shaolin Do proponents.Evilscholar 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Shaolin Do practitioners didn't draw the murals...

Questionable lineages can be applied to virtually any martial arts system out there since virtually all are based upon oral histories. There are a few well established lineages, but for the most part, there are questions with most. As for the addition of Do... good edit.Balloonman 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Comment: And really the only thing that we can use to justify the validity of a lineage is the content of its material.

Comment: Well in that case, the lineage of Shaolin Do cannot be traced to the Shaolin temple, as some of the "staple" forms of Shaolin are not taught in their curriculum. (IE: Xiao Hong Quan, Lian Han Quan...) Evilscholar 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: Feel free to cite your source(s) of these "staple" forms you refer to. And you're assuming that these "Staple" forms are authentic and traceable as well? Hell, if they're associated with the Shao-Lin Temple of nowadays then it's certainly not traditional or authentic. Geez, if it were that easy, this discussion would have ended decades ago. But regardless, I have a feeling that Shaolin Do has more "staples" than any other art claims to have. In fact, I've never seen another organization or school in the world that teaches the entire 49 I Chin Ching postures, the entire Hua To 5 Animal Play, every branch of Praying Mantis, every form from Chen Village, etc.. In fact, I distinctly remember Chen Village mentioning to a group that visited in 1993 that Grandmaster The' had Chen Village's 36 Posture Iron Fan form that was lost around 100 years ago. What a funny coincidence.

When Shaolin Do claims forms or information, opponents scream that it's made up. Then when some non-affiliated master in the world pops up teaching the same exact form or training, opponents scream that Shaolin Do stole it. It's amazing how our Grandmaster and other old Masters in the world coincidentally learned the exact same form, with the same amount of postures (and names), even though they come from entirely different lineages. The only difference is that Grandmaster The' has all of the information and everyone else has bits and pieces, one form here, one there. Amazing how Grandmaster The' is the only one to have it all. And not only the training and forms, but the history & background, the posture names and the names and history of the monk(s) who actually created the form during a certain year. Others only wish they were offered what Grandmater The' gives his students. Shaolin Do practitioners are certainly blessed.

I don't believe that it is Grandmaster The's life-long goal or ambition to convince anyone whether his lineage is authentic or made up. I don't really think he could care one way or the other who believes it. Put Shaolin Do and the Hairy Grandmaster in line after Bodhidarma, Chan San Feng, and every other controversial, unproven historical figure and lineage. The fact remains that the information is still here, regardless of proof of origin. It's incredible and unparalleled in it's concepts, diversity, and depth. And, if one doesn't want to train in it, then they don't have to. But I wish others would PLEASE! train SOMEWHERE that gives them a little bit more material to work on - they have WAY too much time on their hands!

Response to the Response: The issue with Shaolin-Do teaching everything under the sun everywhere is that the Shaolin-Do versions of these forms (for the most part) are wrong as compared to everyone else who does Chinese Martial Arts. Sin The's versions of these forms are like someone who saw them on a video and picked them up only halfway. Shaolin-Do in general only holds together within itself.

Unfortunately I don't have written sources online for my "claims" but I take kung fu and tai chi from someone who is much more closely affiliated with the Shaolin temple and Yang and Chen style tai chi then Sin The. Someone whose lineage includes Shi Su Xi from the Shaolin Temple, and whose Tai Chi lineage includes Fu Zhongwen and Chen Zhenglei.

I didn't edit the article because I didn't have any written documentation to cite on hand, but in numerous online forums (russbo.com) and in magazines such as Kung fu/Tai chi magazine you will find references to the people and forms that I have named. At least, there's more a sense of a community of people who know these things and share (despite having different instructors) rather than Sin The's outlandish claim that he is the only person who knows every bit of Kung fu and Tai Chi knowledge. The fact that he uses the "Shaolin" name is insulting to people who have real lineages that can be traced to the temple. I don't mean to insult you personally, but I would encourage you to do a little reading about Shaolin outside of the Shaolin-Do world.

The Chen story is also only claimed within the Shaolin-Do, never minding that the Chen Village is actually no longer, and is just a tourist trap (I've been there with Chen Zhenglei). Also, the story of him having a plaque at the Temple is somewhat misleading, the Temple as it stands today (a government run tourist business) will give a plaque to anyone who pays for one. Evilscholar 18:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Final Response: You're so content and happy with your lineage and "correct" staple forms that you're here spending so much energy and time trying to argue the validity of someone else's lineage... I'm satisfied with and appreciative of mine. The more you write, the more I feel sorry for you and yours. I think you know in the back of your mind that it is quite possible that Sin The' does have all this knowledge and that he's doing it right and perhaps it is your lineage and others (who perhaps didn't take the training as seriously as the Shao-Lin monks did?) who have somehow messed it all up. How humbling it would have to be for you if that were true. I'm sure that those thoughts bother you to no end. Your own private hell I suppose...


Question Not that I am arguing one side or the other, but who is this teacher that Evilscholar keeps referring to? Pathfinder4x4


Master (Grand Master) Hiang

I don't have any knowledge of what happened between the organization and Master Hiang's group, but in keeping with positive spirit of Shaolin-Do, shouldn't we give him more respect than just a quick blurb that we just gave him on the main page? Considering his contributions in developing and teaching the instructors and masters of both SDA and CSCs and his current contribution to his own students, we should speak of him more repectfully than to say he's a 7th Degree and had a falling out with GMS. I mean, didn't GMS reportedly give him an 8th Degree belt, but he refused to take it? I'm not trying to get into some Shaolin-Do internet-fu battle, but it's not right for Shaolin-Do students to to speak ill of any other students inside or outside of our organization. Considering the wealth of knowledge in our system and the hardwork of all our masters who have taught us, we should be ambassadors of martial arts, not a bunch of internet hooligans knocking down anything outside our sphere. At one point, our organization was one group under GMS and Master Hiang, and realistically, we are also part of a larger Chinese Martial Arts community as well as a larger martial arts community.

There isn't much known about the exact history and lineage of what happened after the suppression of martial arts in China during the end of the Qing and the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. However, what we do know is that we all (Shaolin-Do and Non-Shaolin-Do) have a piece of that martial history when we practice. We should focus more on developing our skills, retaining and developing our art and learning from lessons of masters and practitioners all over the world. When we do all of this petty squabbling, all it does is diminish the efforts of those who worked hard to maintain the various Chinese Martial Arts. This wikipedia page should not be the battleground for every little petty dispute, but the representation and summation of all of our combined efforts in SDA - all of which includes Master Hiang's contribution.

Notability and other reasons for Proposed Deletion

A search of the newspaper archive site http://nl.newsbank.com for the phrase "Shaolin-do" shows 68 newspaper articles about the subject. While the entire articles are paid access, it's clear from the opening paragraphs of the articles that they are a significant number of non-trivial mentions, with local newspaper articles about Sin The teaching or performing book signings at local bookstores, articles about local Shaolin-do fighting tournaments, articles about local dojo having their rank tests, articles about local martial arts groups that include discussion of Shaolin-do. (That's also only among the newspapers archived on that site.) Citing some of those sources might help for WP:Verify/WP:Note.

The unverifiable/controversial background and history can be removed until verified (if ever), but it does appear that the subject does meet the notability requirement of being written about in multiple independent reliable sources (over a dozen local newspapers over a period of well over a decade), and that does push it over the threshold into notability.

--Wingsandsword 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try and see these actual articles, the foremost one, which is the only one that I see is unequivocally significant coverage, may be an events listing. But yes, seems so far to be notable if not verified. I'll presently be making some major revisions, so bear with me until I'm done. I will explain them below. VanTucky (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get into this too much, but the position that I would take is that the group is notable because of it's size. In the martial arts world there are very few large organized systems. Most systems have less than a score of schools located in one state (or if its grown in a few surrounding states.) Shaolin-Do has about 130 schools from around the world and all accross the US. If you do a websearch on the organization you will find thousands of webpages discussing it. Most of these cites are either directly associated with the school or are blogs/talkpages that are not WP:RS---which is probably a good thing as they tend to be very critical (many people in Kung Fu have encountered the group---and like one's religion "yours is always the best." Thus, the blogs tend to be negative---everybody piles onto the big dog because they've all seen it.) But in order to get that type of notoriaty you have to be somewhat notable. Notability, IMHO, is indeniable.
As for newspapers, I did look at several on Factiva. My experience from Factiva's limited articles was that they tended to be newspaper articles that simply amounted to press releases from various schools. Many cited the origin/lineage of the school/system, but so what. They ultimately obtained that from the school themselves. Therein lies the problem with almost all martial arts system---particularly those from China. Very few organizations have independent sources verifying their heritage---it is almost always a matter of oral tradition. When you go back more than 40 years, there is very little in the way of reliable sources. Thus, the problem, IMHO, is WP:RS. So what if Kung Fu Magazine discusses the school and it's lineage---where did Kung Fu magazine obtain that lineage? The school in question. But this is a problem confronting almost all martial arts systems lack of verifiable lineages.Balloonman 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I would compare Shaolin-Do to United Studios of Self Defense---which if you note has the same objections/problems that Shaolin-Do does---but again that is (IMHO) a result of a large martial arts system that people see. Both systems have well over 100 schools and most martial artist are familiar with both. Both have their lineage questioned---but again, that's because very few systems have undeniable written records---it's oral tradition until the past half century. Neither has reliable independent sources---they don't exists.Balloonman 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I removed all the blanket statements of fact about the lineage, and I also removed the irrelevant bios of non-notable individuals. VanTucky (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)