Is the entirety of Shaolin's history crap? True
Is the current "Shaolin kung fu" nothing more than a rushed fabrication to appeal to the hollywood masses? True
Are 99% of western teachers associating themselves with the word "Shaolin" cashing on the hype at best and outright frauds at worst? True.
I won't deny any of those. However, I wanted to start a thread because I think Shaolin "monks" themselves aren't as full of **** as the industry they have more or less consciously helped to create.
I train "Kung fu" with a Shaolin instructor. He used to be a touring monk, and had quite a bit of training in Sanda. I give to you that the fact he's calling his lessons "kung fu" is misleading, as what we learn is nothing more than half contemporary wushu, half Sanda.
However, the point I'm getting to is that he's perfectly clear on what's useful and what isn't. The wushu part of the class is taught as nothing more than a workout and acrobatics, and he acknowledges that and justifies it as a form of body conditioning. When we step on the Leitai, the rules change. He once kicked my ass (literally) mid-flight because I tried to pull a jump kick, and told me it was useless in a real fight.
I asked him if that's his personal, westernized approach to teaching and the answer was that not at all. Any Shaolin "monk" (note that I'm still using semicolons for the word monk, as they aren't true monks, but rather the "certified" martial artists that represent the Shaolin temple nowadays) will teach making a proper distinction between what's useful for competitions and fights (sanda) and what is just for show (Wushu/forms).
It looks to me like the general consensus around here is that monks pretend or try to convince anyone that form-based combat is useful or even possible. My two cents is that, at least from a "real" monk, this isn't the case.
Another point regarding the Chi Kung demonstrations. Well, Chi is obviously bullshit, and if they defend its existance is because of the lack of scientific education and culture to explain the mechanics a different way, but the "iron" demonstrations are sometimes true and quite impressive. I say sometimes because they're often mixed with bullshit (anyone can break a brick or a board) but some of the "monks" do really condition their bodies to freakish, insane degrees in order to pull off that stuff. So if you're looking to get a permanent deformation in exchange for the ability to take punches to the dick, there's that.
So those are my two cents. The Shaolin industry is crap, so is their history, but the few chinese pseudo-monks that may have leaked to your country may be good, athletic martial artists (and good fighters if their focus was sanda) so I wouldn't rule them out immediately.
Anyway, you're welcome to disagree and flame me to death (not that I'd expect otherwise, given my post count).
Is the current "Shaolin kung fu" nothing more than a rushed fabrication to appeal to the hollywood masses? True
Are 99% of western teachers associating themselves with the word "Shaolin" cashing on the hype at best and outright frauds at worst? True.
I won't deny any of those. However, I wanted to start a thread because I think Shaolin "monks" themselves aren't as full of **** as the industry they have more or less consciously helped to create.
I train "Kung fu" with a Shaolin instructor. He used to be a touring monk, and had quite a bit of training in Sanda. I give to you that the fact he's calling his lessons "kung fu" is misleading, as what we learn is nothing more than half contemporary wushu, half Sanda.
However, the point I'm getting to is that he's perfectly clear on what's useful and what isn't. The wushu part of the class is taught as nothing more than a workout and acrobatics, and he acknowledges that and justifies it as a form of body conditioning. When we step on the Leitai, the rules change. He once kicked my ass (literally) mid-flight because I tried to pull a jump kick, and told me it was useless in a real fight.
I asked him if that's his personal, westernized approach to teaching and the answer was that not at all. Any Shaolin "monk" (note that I'm still using semicolons for the word monk, as they aren't true monks, but rather the "certified" martial artists that represent the Shaolin temple nowadays) will teach making a proper distinction between what's useful for competitions and fights (sanda) and what is just for show (Wushu/forms).
It looks to me like the general consensus around here is that monks pretend or try to convince anyone that form-based combat is useful or even possible. My two cents is that, at least from a "real" monk, this isn't the case.
Another point regarding the Chi Kung demonstrations. Well, Chi is obviously bullshit, and if they defend its existance is because of the lack of scientific education and culture to explain the mechanics a different way, but the "iron" demonstrations are sometimes true and quite impressive. I say sometimes because they're often mixed with bullshit (anyone can break a brick or a board) but some of the "monks" do really condition their bodies to freakish, insane degrees in order to pull off that stuff. So if you're looking to get a permanent deformation in exchange for the ability to take punches to the dick, there's that.
So those are my two cents. The Shaolin industry is crap, so is their history, but the few chinese pseudo-monks that may have leaked to your country may be good, athletic martial artists (and good fighters if their focus was sanda) so I wouldn't rule them out immediately.
Anyway, you're welcome to disagree and flame me to death (not that I'd expect otherwise, given my post count).