oom yung doe. what is this?

[martialarm]

oom yung doe, sounds yummy!

I think its what I had for dinner tonight..

But if its described as showy or flowery then it must be more dance than fighting.

My teaher used to say if it takes longer than 4 seconds its a dance

[fallen_milkman]

The Shaolin-Do I have seen is far from flowery. Elbows, can you find a site calling the style by both names? I really can't find anything at all. If they are separate, I know nothing about the style, but if Shaolin Do is the same art form, I think there must be widely varying arts of the same name.

[White Warlock]

Alright, let's see if i can close this out:

A video report:

http://www.king5.com/perl/common/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.king5.com/ki_021605taichi.wmv

IRS criminal investigation report:

http://www.treas.gov/irs/ci/articles/dockim99.htm

Articles:

http://www.rickross.com/groups/chung.html

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/56d7e6bc362f203?q=%22M.C.+Busman%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&rnum=2

Multiple Yahoo & Google group discussions:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=iron+kim&btnG=Search

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/oomyungdoe_discuss/

[fallen_milkman]

Ok...but none of those links Oom Yung Do to Shaolin Do, like elbows and knees claims. From what I've read, this is definitely a bad martial arts system. But it sounds nothing like the art my teacher knows, Shaolin Do. I am thinking the arts are two different things.

[White Warlock]

Ok...but none of those links Oom Yung Do to Shaolin Do, like elbows and knees claims. From what I've read, this is definitely a bad martial arts system. But it sounds nothing like the art my teacher knows, Shaolin Do. I am thinking the arts are two different things.

Okay, i'll try to touch this as delicately as possible.

From what i've seen of the art, and researched, it's hokey. They purport to teach a multitude of Shaolin arts in one, including tai chi. Problem is, tai chi is not Shaolin. They claim to teach bak mei as part of their curriculum, but bak mei is never taught as 'part of something.' At least not that i know of. Also, bak mei is not Shaolin. They purport to be of Southern origins, yet indicate they teach systems whose origins are northern or southern and weapons that span the breadth of China and Japan (also, i understand that originally, they taught mostly Japanese weapons, so the inclusion of every friggin' Chinese weapon is relatively new).

Shaolin-do practitioners wear Japanese gi, practice with Japanese weapons (nunchaka, sai, naginata etc) in addition to almost every friggin' Chinese weapon (Northern and Southern), and originally (60's to the 80's) all the actions/techniques were presented entirely in Japanese. Indeed, the Japanese weapons are part of their belt-obtainment curriculum. An Okinawan karate practitioner i know recognized much in the system, although buried in odd-flowery actions. He indicated some various Japanese words (which i suspect he thought i knew what the frick he was talking about) to indicate forms or katas that he noted meshed into the system.

The grandmaster claims to know 950+ forms, and claims to have been a master (or grandmaster) of a multitude of shaolin systems by the time he was 25. The claims, and many others, can be found in his book, Shaolin-Do: Secrets from the Temple. Check out the reviews for some rather interesting 'extremes.'

Here's my personal thoughts. The system is hokey, the history is false, the courses are a bit up there in cost, and there are plenty of other red flags. However, and i have to be honest here, students have come out of that style being 'competent practitioners.'

It's just that, to me, i want truth. Sincerity is a big issue with me, as i may have mentioned here before. I don't like to study any system, or under any teacher, that is not sincere... honest. Falsity is something that can eat at the soul, create or encourage an imbalance.

[fallen_milkman]

I understand completely where you are coming from. What I have read of Oom Yung Doe infuriates me. And I hear a lot of trash talked on Shaolin Do, which doesn't bother me, since I don't study it or even have any interest in studying it. I don't know enough to call it hokey, because from what I learned of its lineage, it IS an Okinawan art, brought there by Chinese fleeing the Communists. I also don't know enough NOT to call it hokey, because my teacher usually only teaches it to very young children(most less than 7 or 8 ), who shouldn't be learning the kuntao he teaches anyways. I am not disputing what you said, except one thing.

What I am saying (and I may have just missed something in one of your links, admittedly) is that I don't believe Shaolin Do and Oom Yung Doe are the same artform. Does anyone have any reliable source linking them?

[White Warlock]

No, they are not the same artform, they merely have the same characteristics. I.e., false grandmasters, systems based on falsities, a cult-like atmosphere, excessive expense, a failure to cultivate independent thinking and proper spiritual development, etc.

Also, no... the 'self proclaimed' grandmaster of shaolin-do indicates he escaped from China to Indonesia, or that his master did. Can't recall which, but the point is it was not of the 1400's variety in which Chinese fled China, landed in Okinawa and encouraged the development of kara-te as we know it today and it is not a 20th century version of the same either. The Communist took over China in 1949, after a 3 year civil war, but the Communist Party of China was founded in 1921.

The story of him, or his master, running from the Communist Chinese to Indonesia has not been established. There are no proofs to this claim, nor any evidence to support the existence of his master.

A thought. Kuntao... where did your instructor learn this system?

The reason i ask is that the origins of kuntao are that of Chinese arts being influenced by Indonesian systems, a similar origin as claimed by shaolin-do. However, shaolin-do is not kuntao... so i'm intrigued.

[fallen_milkman]

Actually, my teacher has had two kuntao teachers. One leads back to Willem Reeders, master of the Liu Seong Royal Gong Fu system. Grandmaster Kinkead is his teacher in Shaolin Kuntao, as well as the founder of American Fighting Arts where I study. I am unsure of where he learned the system, if I have ever been told. I am more interested in learning the actual system than lineage at this point but I will try and make a note of asking and get back to you, if you like.

I don't know anything about his Shaolin Do teacher, other than it was neither of those men. He practises quite a few other styles of martial arts as well. He is a very knowledgable man, which is why I have trouble believing there is no value in Shaolin Do despite its shady lineage.

[White Warlock]

He is a very knowledgable man, which is why I have trouble believing there is no value in Shaolin Do despite its shady lineage.

First, i didn't say there was no value. It gives a taste of many different systems, but doesn't provide sufficient, or indepth, training in any particular system, unless a practitioner in that school studied a particular system extensively 'outside' of that school and then offers to the students within that particular school. My feelings are that a multitude of systems, without depth or understanding... is for a resume'.

Second, i believe you are making an erroneous associative judgement on the school based on 'one' person you know who displays 'more' information on these issues than you do. Just as well, someone could say 'eclectics' are knowledgeable about the arts merely by posing me as an example... but that would be mostly incorrect (besides the fact i'm not all that knowledgeable... only talk about what i know, or present info after doing research).

Most of the eclectics i've met were mostly ignorant of anything but the basics of many systems, and horribly confused about ma lineage or history. The "pick what works, toss out the rest," mentality of many eclectics (which also happens to be Bruce Lee's JKD philosophy), cause them to grab the 'obviously' effective, whilst not obtaining knowledge or training in the inobviously effective. As well, just because something doesn't work for someone within a short period of time, is no reason to 'toss it out.' Many of the best concepts in the arts requires long-term dedication in order to grasp, and then later master. I believe this is the same mistake presented at the shaolin-do schools.

What i'm getting at is, just because your instructor has knowledge, or at least more knowledge than you, does not indicate that the systems he studied, or the schools he studied at, or the instructors he studied under, are all that great. An individual is just that, and while they can attempt to represent a style, they ultimately only represent themselves while demonstrating a style.

And my closing point is a reiteration. I do not care for either of these schools of study, oom yung doe and shaolin do (and for that matter, shou shu) because of the dishonesty presented by the founders. It's about peace of mind, spirit, and body... not building a resume'.

• "It's just that, to me, i want truth. Sincerity is a big issue with me, as i may have mentioned here before. I don't like to study any system, or under any teacher, that is not sincere... honest. Falsity is something that can eat at the soul, create or encourage an imbalance."

I thank you for the info about your instructor's kuntao background. It puts my mind at ease. I had recently been hearing of shaolin-do practitioners claiming to be kuntao practitioners, due to shaolin-do's alleged origins (Indonesia/China). However, the two are very different, and have non-coinciding histories.

[fallen_milkman]

I was only calling him knowledgable to assure you he wasn't a sucker taken in by a charismatic Shaolin Do teacher. He must have had a good reason for taking it. His main art is and always will be kuntao, which he is a 5th degree master (7 being Grandmaster) in ranking. He has blackbelts in a few other arts, but I wouldn't call him an eclectic. Any wrong information is my own, based on internet research (obviously on the wrong sites). I appologize for the way I came off, I just wanted to clear up the fact that Oom Yung Doe and Shaolin Do were two separate systems, because another member claimed they were one and the same. I never really asked my teacher much about Shaolin Do because the system is not all that interesting to me, mostly because their forms bore me.

As for Shaolin Do claiming to be kuntao, that is upsetting. I hate when arts take advantage of uninformed people.