Is It Shou' Shu' ?

It's a regular occurrence for people to email me and direct me to a youtube video or something similar and say "See these guys are doing something which looks like Shou' Shu'". I always take a look and am left wondering what it is that makes them think what they see is the same. A lot of these queries come from the same individual. In most cases it's intended to discredit Shou' Shu' by showing the principles elsewhere. However sometimes it is well intended and just a student who hasn't yet grasped the ability to tell. From my own experience I find that those with under five years or so of dedicated study have this problem. Even baby blacks will occasionally have a hard time with it. It's actually a difficult subject and even those with many years of experience can look at a movement and have a hard time defining why it is not Shou' Shu' even though instinctively they know.

One thing I've learned about experts (in anything) is that they can at first make a snap judgment on the subject at hand and then figure out the inner workings of their mind to figure out where that judgment came from. The famous case of the Getty Museum Kouros Is a great example. They Getty museum was about to spend millions on the kouros. It had passed the tests of the scientists proving it's validity. Yet when a few historical experts were brought in within two seconds they said it was a fake. They were able to later figure out why they had their instantaneous judgment.

So I'm sent to these videos and I can instantly look and say no that is not Shou' Shu'. The practitioners may be very skilled at what they are doing and very skilled martial artists but what they are doing is not Shou' Shu'.

So after so many times of looking at these I keep coming up with the why's. This isn't Shou' Shu' because. So I thought I'd create this post to start a discussion on the matter. Essentially the plan is to come up with as few rules as possible to define whether or not a particular motion or technique is Shou' Shu'.

Shouldn't be that hard. Right?

So here goes:

Shou' Shu' is a way of moving. We've heard that for years. but it doesn't really define much. Jumping up and down and flapping your arms is a way of moving.

Rules:

1)It must have flowing focused chi.

When we say this I think we assume we mean completely focused and flowing chi. Meaning if just part of the energy is flowing and focused then it doesn't count. So maybe the rule should read the All of the chi that the body can produce should be flowing and completely focused.

You can see many cases of Chi being flowing but not focused by watching the various forms of Wushu. You can see chi being focused but not flowing in some forms of Karate. So I think this is an easy one and should stick at #1. It will cover the majority of the cases.

Opinions?

2)The motion should serve to take the opponents centerline or to keep the opponents centerline in our control.

I'm pretty certain this rule is necessary. There are cases when rule #1 can be valid yet the motion improper to Shou' shu' principle. A parry thrown to hard or in the wrong direction can right the opponent rather than take centerline. Many of the kempo videos may have what might be considered flowing focused chi (It's a stretch but it's almost there)even if only in the bear.

3) The motion must block the opponents possible weapons. (Protect the centerline)the

Of course we've heard Da' Shifu say this many times "Don't block punches, block possibilities". However I think it might be a necessary rule. I've seen a few cases usually in the art of San Soo where an argument could be made for #1 and #2 yet the weapons are huge swinging motions which leave the practitioner wide open. They are nothing like the tight circled Shou' Shu' motion. So it's my argument that #3 is a valid rule.

In the scientific process a rule is considered valid until proven otherwise. So rule #1 was obvious but didn't cover all cases. #1 and #2 together were necessary. But then #3 seems necessary also to cover the big open weapons such as big swinging hammerfist series, spinning backnuckles, and roundhouse kicks.

I'd love to hear some argument for or against my three rules. Is there something that is not covered. Can it be said in a better and simpler way.

I'd love to hear it. Please post your opinions below.

SSW