My dog is cuter and smarter than yours.
Posted On:5/12/2014 12:39pm
Style: Kodokan Judo
The old sport/street thing...conditioning means nothing, even in the street apparently.
"Q: How is Siu Lum different from other martial arts?
A: Siu Lum is different because we do not do cardio five days a week in order to be able to fight five 3-minute rounds. We use a minimal amount of energy, in a minimal amount of time, while causing significant damage.
A: We do not train with rules in mind. We train to win. We train to be the victor of a real life attack, whatever the cost. There are no tournaments in Siu Lum. There are no referees. There is a winner and a loser.
A: We know what everyone else knows and more! Siu Lum is one of the oldest and most complete systems of martial arts, and many scholars believe that the majority of all other martial arts were derived from Siu Lum. We are the top of the martial arts food chain."
Top of the MA food chain...good grief...
Falling for Judo since 1980
Posted On:5/12/2014 8:27pm
Style: BJJ, FMA
A: We know what everyone else knows and more! Siu Lum is one of the oldest and most complete systems of martial arts
New vs old (consider performance not coolness factor)
Yeah oldest doesn't mean much in my book.
Posted On:5/12/2014 11:53pm
Originally Posted by BKR
Back on topic, now Siu Lum is good for attacks against wild animals.
Maybe that's what all the animal form kung fu is about ?
"True Siu Lum (Shaolin) is not a sport martial art, neither is it for show. Originating from almost 2,000 years ago, the purpose of Siu Lum is to “defeat” your attacker(s) in a minimum amount of time, using a minimum amount of energy.
Fake Shaolin vs the real Shaolin vs the confused: "I am Siu Lum and all your martial art are belong to us 2000 years ago". Sorry Charlie.
What we have with the Canadian school is a mix of a couple types. His lineage appears legitimate if it's true....but many of those website "facts" are obvious bullshido. Intentional or ignorant, who knows. But I'd like to counter just one example definitively.
Referencing Shahar again:
It's easy to prove worldy hand to hand techniques are not rooted in Shaolin, because hand to hand Shaolin techniques are not that old. The EMPTY HANDED Shaolin arts are nowhere near 2,000 years old, but this is a common myth proliferated often, usually to hedge the "origin of all martial arts" claim. The first empty hand arts uniquely identified with Shaolin are only about 400 years old, according to record.
The monastery is about 1500 years old, not 2000. Even if the fist methods are somewhat older than the 15th century, they're still only about as old as CORNISH WRESTLING, and possibly slightly younger than jujutsu.
The Shaolin gained notoriety, land and title for their services to various rulers between the Tang and Ming dynasties but were specifically known for their skill with WEAPONS during that time, not the Five Animals or any other empty handed technique. Records show the Shaolin used hooked spears, tridents, and most famously the staff into combat, which is the real origin source of the oldest Shaolin fighting legends and why the staff is associated with them to this day.
That didn't change until the early 17th century, when the empty hand methods of Shaolin became more dominant and by the Ming/Ching period, had become associated with the temple throughout China. From there you have the 18th/19th century dissemination of various Shaolin influences among the norther folk and southern folk, in the family and village styles that bear hallmarks, to the present day.
Last edited by W. Rabbit; 5/13/2014 12:03am at .
Posted On:5/13/2014 12:15am
Style: Aikido, Muay Thai
*Hugs Rabbit* There there, you did good buddy, you did good. Nice Rabbit.
Posted On:5/15/2014 3:42am
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info