Shaolin Boxing before 1780

[wenshu]

real research

That's very funny.

[LFJ]

Why is that?

[David Jamieson]

Let's ponder some shaolin kung fu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f8zb_QKZEo

[LFJ]

Have that guy ponder some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfHdu2EiWA

[rett]

Have that guy ponder some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfHdu2EiWA

Is there more of this? (on film I mean)

[LFJ]

Fat chance, or at least, if people have it on film, they're not sharing...

[ngokfei]

Shaolin Pre-1780. Plenty of evidence - just read the texts found all over the place from (Histories, Novels, Poets, Painters, etc.)

Shaolin Post 1780 - same answer as above.

Now what was it is always debatable as evidence can be interpreted as pro/con.

And what it is represented as today is also debatable.

you'll always have the the 2 camps always knawing at each other.


Now on the note as a a researcher, yeah we have alot of arm chair researchers who generally depend on others works. They read this or talked to this person or watched this video, etc.

That is all good but eventually you have to go into the field. If you haven't been to Shaolin or its neighboring villages to see and experience what there is then how can you make diffinitive comments or conclusions as to what is or is not.

Personal Agenda's are always involved in all forms of research. I've never met 1 unbiased researcher. which is fine, you just have to be familiar with all sides to make a personal opinion or hypotheses not conclusions as its always embarassing speaking in absolutes then being proven wrong

I look forward to seeing more research evidence made available to support or disprove this subject.

[ngokfei]

OMG David Ross again.

for a guy who spent so many years in search of the "original whatever" and eventually gave up and is now anti-traditional martial arts as more then just Fighting.

you sure spend alot of time on forums LOL.

[wenshu]

Have that guy ponder some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfHdu2EiWA

Why am I supposed to believe that this is somehow a representation of pre 18th century shaolin? Because some villager said so?

Supposing for a second that they are actual unchanged shaolin forms from 500 years ago, why are they so bad at it?

[LFJ]

I don't know if that comment is really looking for a response, but no. There is a lot more to it. What the say doesn't matter as much. The significance is in the movements themselves.

The mechanics and expression of the sets are not like current Shaolin, so naturally you won't see what you might think is well-executed form by current standard without understanding the style and why they move the way they do. If you could see an entire set performed you'd be impressed, and naturally more so if you understood it.

[wenshu]

The mechanics and expression of the sets are not like current Shaolin, so naturally you won't see what you might think is well-executed form by current standard without understanding the style and why they move the way they do. If you could see an entire set performed you'd be impressed, and naturally more so if you understood it.

Oh, I'm impressed in a 90lb, limpwristed, kung fu hipster,"I practice an obscure village style, you've probably never heard of it" way.

There is absolutely nothing to prove that these movements are any more vaguely reminiscent of pre 18th century shaolin than any other movement in generic northern long fist.

if you understood it.

What is this Shaolin-Do? Keep this cop out reasoning in the Wing Chun forum where it belongs.