Getting to the bottom of Shaolin-do

**Judge Pen** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 1:18pm

Originally Posted by Pumpkin King

I might add that anything I just posted about burning-sand hand and poison-hand is merely a regurgitation of something that I have read, and that I don't -actually- believe it. I can entertain that it's theoretically possible that someone with lots and lots of time spent with his hands wrist-deep in superheated sand might be able to cause some damage to the skin, etc. of a very small infant and perhaps even cause death. But- that this is likely, or that someone these days even practices something as inane as sticking one's hands in superheated sand until the skin turns to leather and nerve endings shrivel and die to the point that a person could not only find them (the practicioner), but coerce them into proving it, is a different matter altogether.

Pumpkin King: I agree with this. I also appreciate you clarifying you axe to grind with SD's history. I can understand that 100%.

Samuel Browning: As an SD practitioner and one who heard the story first-hand several years ago I can say that Sin The did not use the term "melt" but "burn" when the story was told to me. I don't know if this is true or not. More importantly, you don't either. You don't believe it. I don't either, but I cannot prove the story nor can I disprove it. You can't either. Everything else is speculation.

I can say this. Sin The likes telling stories. He likes to embellish on things. I wouldn't square up on him anymore than I would square up on Cung Le or Ali in his prime. You look at the Indo-Chinese cultural and the arts that went through there and you see three dominant traits: (1) a mix of various and often unrelated styles being merged and taught together; (2) practitioners that have a no-nonsense attitude about fighting; and (3) nebulous and unsupported stories about history and origin--lots of "tall tales." I think that all three traits are present in SD.

**MasterKiller** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 2:19pm

I wouldn't square up on him anymore than I would square up on Cung Le or Ali in his prime.

C'mon, now. Are you honestly saying a 60+ Sin The' is as dangerous as Muhammed Ali in his prime???

**Omar** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 5:35pm

Shaolin Do threads are embarrassing to be seen on. MUCH worse than WC threads. Osirus is right.

I don't think anyone should bring up "inconsistancies" in the stories because with stories and histories that absurd it actually gives them credibility by pretending that there is something to debate instead of just pointing and laughing which is what they really deserve.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 6:01pm

At the feet of the Grand Master Vol.1

GMIE= Grand Master Ie
GMST= Grand Master Sin The'
AMJS= Associate Master Joe Schaffer
AM= Associate Master
MA= Martial Arts
SD= Shaolin-Do

A few people wanted a review and a transcript possibly. Well I'll give a review. I will not sit through this again and try to transcribe. No, I didn't pay for the DVD. Someone used it to try allay my doubts of the Shaolin-Do/Chinese Shao-Lin Center Style of..????

The Dvd starts with some weird techno type music. It has interactive menus for the chapters. Little squares repeating small movements. There are three sayings from GMT written out and surprise he reads them aloud. There is also a scrolling section that tells you to get a pen and paper watch many times, and prepare to be amazed. The DVD begins and AMJS speaking. He is wooden at best. He seems embarrassed, stutters, and they even cut and start filming from a different position. GMT constantly blows his nose and sniffles throughout the lecture. It is always great to hear someone blow or sniff their nose amplified by a microphone. You have people running by the windows which leads me to wonder why not face a different direction. Then there are abrupt breaks in the discussion. The discussion is filmed in the school/gym and then suddenly it shifts to GMT talking to AMJS one on one in a dimly lit room. Why not do the whole video like this? One on One, then you can edit for content. To add on to this point there is some heavy nut riding going on. Now before someone jumps all over me (SD), you charge $45 including shipping there should be better production values. Don't jump on me because some of the topics are told a little out of order. I watched half and realized I could watch a section and type it up. I will do the first 2 out of 8 sections so I will try to summarize each section. If you studied it is a compilation of everything you have ever heard at a festival. The problems are telling. No specific dates are given in these two sections i have watched.

Section 1: Sand Burn (No names are used for the Sand Master or the Barber)

First it talks about how this is new never before discussed stories. Many of the things have only been discussed only with AM and higher. He says Americans grew up with Superman, Batman , and other heroes chinese were MA heroes. GMST starts by telling how he looked and looked and finally found a teacher of sand burn trainer. He used a servant to contact the Sand Burn Master. GMST says the servant watched the people so they knew everything. He talks about the rigors of training. That it takes years and there is severe nerve damage. He also talks about how the hands are destroyed he uses the word swollen petrified and becoming rock to describe the condition. GMST says this is considered on of the dark arts. He said it was himself and a barber studying with the teacher. He started this training as a five year old did it for 6 months. Completed practitioners, of Sand Burn training, wore gloves because repeated handling of animals can kill through repeated touching. Some people say it is cursed. GMST also added that he had to bring cooked pork and wine and wait around until accepted. Then he talks about his dedication as a 5 year old to study this art. Yes, he starts by saying he decided to do this as a 5 year old. GMST also says that the barber quit because of the nerve damage. It caused his hands to shake and he cut a 1/4 guys ear lobe off. He details the baby melting. Yes he says the mom was sick and didn't wake up to the baby's cry guy was in the middle of training picked up the baby and melted the skin off. No, GMST doesn't say it was himself but his instructor melted the baby.

Then suddenly it breaks to AMJS and GMST in a dimly lit room going over the finer points of this discussion. Yes, suddenly, I think it was to start a new chapter but, it cut GMST off in the middle of a word. GMST is cut off in the middle of saying IE and it fades to this dimly lit room. Why stop the discussion to have GMST repeat a story in a little more depth. AMJS repeats a small version of what GMT says about Sand Burn training and adds ,"To start training at 5 you were dedicated" and "I have a six year old daughter I can't imagine this type of dedication." AMJS then says "What makes you think made you have this dedication." GMT says it is genetics. His Great Great Grandfather fought a shaolin monk with Death touch they both died. Then they cut back to the group discussion." I'm still wondering why not do the video this way. AMJS seems more comfortable still a little wooden.

Part 2 Learning from Grandmaster Ie:

Now he goes into the training with GMIE. He repeats the pork, fried pork, (yes he says it this way I'm not repeating myself) and wine for gifts that he did with the sand burn Master. GMST talks about watching the forms and hoping to learn. GMST then talks about the spilling and counting of the rice and the hot tea spilled on him to make sure he was worthy.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 6:03pm

My cheapo DVD player wouldn't finish playing the rest. When I get a chance I will sit through this and finish the review. Unless someone beats me to it.

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 8:07pm

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

Pumpkin King: I agree with this. I also appreciate you clarifying you axe to grind with SD's history. I can understand that 100%.

Samuel Browning: As an SD practitioner and one who heard the story first-hand several years ago I can say that Sin The did not use the term "melt" but "burn" when the story was told to me. I don't know if this is true or not. More importantly, you don't either. You don't believe it. I don't either, but I cannot prove the story nor can I disprove it. You can't either. Everything else is speculation. .

If you read some of the posts of "Is it Fake" you will notice that Sin The has now switched his terms by choice. He is also telling inconsistant stories. This is in addition to the unbelievability of the act that is being claimed. People having to wear gloves so they don't cook their animals? Give me a break. Yet today, no one can demonstrate that skill which had multiple skilled adepts back in the good old days. Lets together repeat that wonderful jury instruction we learned long ago.

"If you wake up in the morning and there is snow on the ground where the ground was clear the night before you can infer that it indeed did snow last night, when you did not see the act yourself."

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

I can say this. Sin The likes telling stories. He likes to embellish on things. (3) nebulous and unsupported stories about history and origin--lots of "tall tales." I think that all three traits are present in SD.

I'd agree with this statement.

**ninjarico** · Posted On: 3/14/2005 8:29pm

it's all bullshido! How do I know? I AM THE BABY NOW A FULLY GROWN MAN! Actually FWIW my sifu made it a point that we realized The's stories were crazy and that our "style" was a hodgepodge of **** mixed together.

**Judge Pen** · Posted On: 3/15/2005 8:14am

Originally Posted by MasterKiller

C'mon, now. Are you honestly saying a 60+ Sin The' is as dangerous as Muhammed Ali in his prime???

No, I'm saying that I wouldn't square up against either one of them. I've seen him move at 60 and don't think I could take him. Ali in his prime could take pretty much anyone imo.

**Judge Pen** · Posted On: 3/15/2005 8:31am

If you will read my statements, you will notice that I'm not arguing the fact that Sin The likes to tell tall tales and stories that are incredulous. But I don't train in an art for story time, Mr. Browning nor do I care about tall tales if the training is good.

Certainly you can, and have, argued that you can call into question GM The's credibility based upon inconsistent statements. However I have personal knowledge of the training in and of itself and while I find the stories and lineage questionable and nebulous I don't require these stories to be true to find value in the training.

As far as the jury instruction for circumstantial evidence, the instruction presupposes personal knowledge that it actually snowed. You are basing all of your assumptions on hearsay upon hearsay. Everything in this forum that you base your assumptions on would be excluded under hearsay. Also, I'm sure your jurisdiction has case law on drawing inferences on inferences as well.

So, what have you proved? Assuming the statements made on an internet forum would be admissible in any court of law (huge assumption there) you have shown that GM The tells tale tales and makes inconsistent statements that can be used to question his credibility. Good job counselor. That evidence must then be weighed against my personal knowledge that the training is solid, that you get into excellent condition and learn to fight with it. If you want me to prove the stories and lineage aren't BS then I can't. You want me to prove that the training is worthy despite the nature of the history then I'm happy with my case.

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 3/15/2005 11:57pm

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

If you will read my statements, you will notice that I'm not arguing the fact that Sin The likes to tell tall tales and stories that are incredulous. But I don't train in an art for story time, Mr. Browning nor do I care about tall tales if the training is good.

Certainly you can, and have, argued that you can call into question GM The's credibility based upon inconsistent statements. However I have personal knowledge of the training in and of itself and while I find the stories and lineage questionable and nebulous I don't require these stories to be true to find value in the training.

That's your right but for someone who considers two schools, lets say a Shotokan and Shaolin Do side by side, the crediability of the founder is one factor in making their decision about which art to pursue. I personally could not trust someone who told such stories and could not therefore put myself under their guidence, but its an individual choice.

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

As far as the jury instruction for circumstantial evidence, the instruction presupposes personal knowledge that it actually snowed. You are basing all of your assumptions on hearsay upon hearsay. Everything in this forum that you base your assumptions on would be excluded under hearsay. Also, I'm sure your jurisdiction has case law on drawing inferences on inferences as well.

Yes, rep incoming, :) I was thinking of the obviousness of the matter and not fully considering the double heresay implications of the example. Your legal fu is strong.

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

So, what have you proved? Assuming the statements made on an internet forum would be admissible in any court of law (huge assumption there)

I believe I stated ealier in the thread that this was not a court of law (my teasing aside) and since Sin isn't writing here, I don't see how this material could be properly admitted. I'd introduce the DVD itself rather than the review posted here. And/or the imaginary deposition in which I would theoretically ask Sin all kinds of questions, not to mention one of his books published under his name which told a different story, then what was on the video tape. Obviously if his story matched the tape almost exactly you could argue that the DVD was repetitive evidence which should not be admitted, however since the stories in the book and DVD differ, at least one of them will be coming in to impeach the witness concerning his previous inconsistant statements.

Originally Posted by Judge Pen

you have shown that GM The tells tale tales and makes inconsistent statements that can be used to question his credibility. Good job counselor. That evidence must then be weighed against my personal knowledge that the training is solid, that you get into excellent condition and learn to fight with it. If you want me to prove the stories and lineage aren't BS then I can't. You want me to prove that the training is worthy despite the nature of the history then I'm happy with my case.

I think the relevent question is as follows, assuming roughly compatible karate dojos, which would the newbie be better served by, the one with the highly questionable stories, or the one that does not tell tall tales. I'd go with the second but you can of course argue that it does not make a difference and there is no cross over negative effect. Incidently this could be called the Chris Cluggston argument :).