Differences & Similarity Between Lung Ying and Bak Mei

[Kevin Barkman]

Please contribute & help myself (and everyone else) understand this a bit better, because I think on first sight, both seem very simliar...

I'll throw a few out for starters:

Lung Ying / Bak Mei

Lower stance / Higher stance
More mobility / More Linear
Regular Fist / P.E. Punch
Softer / Crisper
More hip movement / More shoulder move
No "stomp" ging / Uses stomping ging
Elbow protects ribs / Elbows outward
Right side for. / Left side for.

(of course, there are NO absolutes (ha ha), just trying to flesh out the general differences)

Others would include little details like the Bai Jong movement in Lung Ying is held at more of an angle to Bak Mei's centre.

Bak Mei bow often borrows from LY.

Gow Bo Toy, IMHO, is the principle difference. This amazing method of power generation is unique to Bak Mei (from all I've seen), and gives the whole BM Art credibility on its own.

I love and practice both Arts, but it is hard to keep the principles of both seperate!

Cheers - Kevin

[BIU JI]

Hi , when you said "elbow protects ribs/elbow outwards" are you refering to the straight punch and whether the elbow is kept down as apposed to to it coming out the side like a boxers punch?

[kull]

Differences-

From what i have seen

Higher stances in bak mei, I think so.

More mobility? as oppose to being less mobile in bak mei?- That i don't think is correct. Bak mei also uses regular punch too.

Lung ying uses more hips?- Maybe not correct, b/c bak mei uses 6 external powers, and one of them is waist/hip.

Lung ying is softer/bak mei crisper-
That is one noticeble difference between good practitioners. I knew someone who learned both in HK. His words was bak mei is more sharp and aggressive.

I think the principle difference is bak mei uses TTFC. Dragon seem to maintain a more "hunch" type posture. Lum Wun Quan (Lam Yue Quai son in HK) has a permanent hunch type posture, even when not doing kungfu. A result of his type of training??...

Elbow position of bak mei is also down like dragon.

[lungyuil]

I think the stances depend on the teacher, because i have seen Lung Ying stances exactly the same height and angling as bak Mei. The Lung Ying stance is also circular as compared to Bak Mei's linnear.
Kull is right, you will find that BM's power also generates from the hip.
In YKM, our system is based on BM, some of the forms are the same, our power generation is the same, principles etc. Yet our stances being circular is based on the Lung Ying system.
BM seems a little more direct in its approach to the opponent (just kill)!!!! :)

[MarkS]

In my experiences, the differences between the two "styles" cannot really be summed up easily. In the Lung Ying I study, the standard stance is left foot forward (you mention right side forward),also the Dragon I study is more direct and aggressive than the Pak Mei, certainly to begin with, I think the sharp aggressive nature of Pak Mei only comes after a long time in training but can come very quickly in Dragon. Certainly one of the main differences does seem to be the method of power generation. The Dragon I study is anything but soft, in fact although some of the Pak Mei techniques are certainly 'sharper' the Dragon are much 'harder' literally. Although having said all that,I have also seen Lung Ying that is far more mobile than mine, with more backward and sideward movements in sets.
I think the difference in any art to any other is the teacher, look at any school of anything, each one is coloured by the experiences of each succesive teacher, it cannot fail to be, after all, we are humans not machines. This is not a bad thing, see evolution for the proof of that.

Mark

[meltdawn]

Kevin, thank you for this thread! I am so glad to see you back and active on the board!

I must preface my reply by saying I have never seen bak mei. Only some pictures on the web,
but I know nothing about it except what those of you have generously conveyed in this forum. I am interested in learning more, since most of the discussions on the topic have benefitted my lung ying, and that is my only basis for my opinion that the two arts are probably similar.

I have seen several different branches of lung ying. Since my knowledge pertains to this system,
I can make comparisons between those teachers who practice/teach bak mei (possibly with LY as a
secondary system or incorporating BM principals into LY?) and those who don't (my style). Kevin, I'll borrow your concise format.

Lower stance / Higher stance. Yes, this seems to be the case. My lung ying tends to drop the center of gravity much lower. Incidentally, LYK was a big man. His son obviously has similar
physical characteristics. The hunch the Lam family exhibits, IMHO, is conformational, not a method to/result of the style.

More mobility / More Linear. Well, I don't know. Someone described sarm tone from a teacher
whom also taught bak mei, and there were no corner to corner" moves as in mine.

Regular Fist / P.E. Punch. Obvious.

Softer / Crisper. Having never seen bak mei in motion, I don't know. Does bak mei strive to be
internal at it's highest point also? Or is this a dissimilarity? My lung ying is very flowing,
continuous. Maybe this is why it would, on the surface, not look as devastating. But it is.

More hip movement / More shoulder move, No "stomp" ging / Uses stomping ging. Here is probably the biggest difference. Yes, both make use of the entire body to grab/aim/release power. From what I am gathering, the stomp in bak mei maybe what allows a multiple hit in one strike. In order for the second of the multiple strike to take place, is a shorter route of travel (from only the shoulder out) indicated?

Elbow protects ribs / Elbows outward. I would think it would be a similarity, not a difference.

Right side for. / Left side for. Hmmm. I don't know enough yet. I think lung ying makes equal
use of both sides.

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[Bitter Zen]

I began trianing with my first instructor and studied with him for two years before beging my study with his father. his father taught a little different and that is the key. Neither were wrong Just different.
Ng shifu was short and solid, while his father was taller and more lean and sinewy. I am 6'4" and weigh about 235lbs., thus making my kung fu different from thiers. If I tried to preform the way they did I would be working against my own body type.

The crispness or subtlety of the ging also depends upon the focus of the mind. I have seen both arts preformed in different ways by the same people at different times, the mind set has alot to do with it.

Southern arts as I was taught are a dicotomy of both hard and soft it is up to the practitioner to develop the style for his/her self.

Make it work for you, but do not give up the things that make the style what it is.

Daniel

[handsome]

Lung Ying, Bak Mei, Chu Gar Praying Mantis and Wing Chun are called southern short range combat kungfu. They have some similar concepts about their knees in footworks but there're still many differences in fighting. Among these four styles, Chu Gar Tong Long has most powerful fingers striks I've ever seen, Quite impressed!!! If I wasn't in wing chun and Chu Gar Tong Long ( not Chow Gar or others Tong Long )is my # 1 pick in my list.

[mantis108]

Hi All,

Interesting observatios, Kevin.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lung Ying / Bak Mei

Lower stance / Higher stance
More mobility / More Linear
Regular Fist / P.E. Punch
Softer / Crisper
More hip movement / More shoulder move
No "stomp" ging / Uses stomping ging
Elbow protects ribs / Elbows outward
Right side for. / Left side for.[/quote]

On the stances, I would think so. But it may not be the system per se. I think it depends on the Sifu as well.

Mobility wise, Lung Ying has more of a Zig Zag pattern which makes it both circular and angular at the same time. Not to meet force with force is always stressed. Bak Mei, on the other hand, uses TTFC more even in counting incoming strikes instead of using using footwork to disolve it first. With that in mind, a more linear and rootedness in stance isn't a problem. The argument here would be which one spend more Chi? We have to keep in mind that TTFC to issue Ging does spend more Chi. Lung Ying is very concious about preserving Chi and therefore the fighter. We can see that in the Right forward vs Left side forward.

The fists and the soft/crisp are again about preserve life (the opponents as well). Lung Ying believes in fight if you absolutely have to. Bak Mei fights on occassions to uphold the honor of the style.


Hip or Shoudler. If we are talking spirit of the animals, that would make a lot of sense. Hip/waist is more about the body of the Dragon (body like the snake) which is to strangle the opponent gradually. Tiger style, which Bak Mei is known to base on, issue power from the shoulder. Linear manner of Bak Mei also taken up on the Big feline in its hunting strategy which is to stalk the prey in a stealth mode and then charge violently in a linear fashion.

Stomping is more a Sifu thing and a showy thing. Most of the time, both styles don't exhibit that in fighting.

Elbows in (close to ribs) or Elbows out (further away from ribs as in old style western boxers) is again about preserveing energy. Here, I surmise there is also a different in the physiques factor of the GMs as well. Sigung Lum was a hugh and tall man. The need to protect the head is less urgent than the ribs; whereas, Sigung Cheung's case is a bit different. Just a personal POV. That also reflects in the stances as well.

Right/left side forward. Lung Ying's right side forward is more about not causing direct stress to the heart plus also a strong side forward for most people (not me 'cause I am a lefty). Bak Mei left side forward is because you train to use both side as in balancing the Ying and the Yang. Again there is the preserving the exponent issue in Lung Ying and a Training fighting machine issue in Bak Mei.

Those are my personal observations and don't represent any schools at all.

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[fiercest tiger]

right foot dragon- heart further away from opponent from being struck, plus lam yui gwai fought side by side with clc(he was left foot forward) so the can fight all angles together. what ive seen of dragon is right foot and hand punching more.

left foot forward bak mei- heart closer to the opponent, but gives rear hand attack on the other persons heart side, center and left side. plus rear hand counter balance.

mantis 108 is correct on the animal postures, preserving chi by going angles i dont think so, bak mei usegs rebound shock power of the opponent, so energy doesnt run out. if to much zig zagging i believe you will run out of steam. sooner or later you have to go in and fight.

power is similar but dragon looks more smashing than piercing.

they are both powerful styles and love watching both schools when demostrating. :D

peace

bakmeimonk@hotmail.com

[meltdawn]

I still think lung ying incorporates ambidexterity, but it may be my master's preference to drill that into my head. :)

M108:
I think you've brought up a very valid point in the attitude of the two styles. The dragon is noble, and the practitioner strives to cultivate this spirit outside of the kwoon. However, let LYK's record show that it is a brutal art.

Also, I like your interesting comparison of the two GM's physiques possibly contributing to the styles, even if it has only been proliferated by those seeking to emulate.

Daniel:
Pretty neat insights. See above paragraph. I am not nearly as large as Lam Yiu Kwai, so my lung ying HAS to work off the principals. :)

FT:
"preserving chi by going angles i dont think so, bak mei usegs rebound shock power of the opponent, so energy doesnt run out"
The angles deflect, disburse and redirect all incoming force, therefore preserving chi, because the practitioner has nuetralized the threat without using strength, all while opening for an attack. Lung ying, in doing so, also uses the opponent's energy to catapult into him.

"if to much zig zagging i believe you will run out of steam. sooner or later you have to go in and fight."
The whole movement we are talking about here is the nature of the beast, pun intended. That "zig zag" is our "stomp". Sure, any footwork can be an evasion. But I study lung ying because it "goes in and fights". If I wanted to play around with an opponent, I'd still be studying long fist.

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[fiercest tiger]

i know what zig zag foot work is for, but you can delect and strike without zig zagging. using 3 body shapes, instead of going off angles.

hey! i teach zig zag stepping and mater of fact i did we practised last night. it all works....

can you zig zag at close range? :D

peace

bakmeimonk@hotmail.com

[BIU JI]

You mentioned the angles deflect redirect etc but I'm curious as to how your stances relate to angles."Any footwork can be an evasion" true but how do you use the zig zaging going in?

[meltdawn]

By all means, my opinions are my own, and hopefully will change and grow with the more knowledge I gain. The reason that I referred to the "zigzag" was because of it's outwardly obvious mechanics. If one studies and practices this small bit of kung fu, it will help everything. Maybe I'd be better of likening it to bak mei's 9 step? I don't know.

FT:
"but you can delect and strike without zig zagging."
Uh, of course... what do you want me to say here? There isn't ONE way of footwork, or ONE way of punching, or ONE method of power transmission...

" using 3 body shapes, instead of going off angles"
3 body shapes? Wouldn't that neccessitate an angle in there somewhere?

"can you zig zag at close range?"
Nice bait.

Bui Ji:
"I'm curious as to how your stances relate to angles."
I think we may be straying from the "angles" meaning. It doesn't have to mean that every time lung ying attacks you it comes in from an angle of footwork. Angles are everywhere. Even hidden in minds. I seem to recall having read that you studied some dragon...

"how do you use the zig zaging going in? "
Didn't you learn anything in class last night? :)

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[fiercest tiger]

i think at the end of all this, stances are fun and have many applications. it may vary from teacher to teacher these are my thoughts.

i have never done dragon, but have been around long enough and talked enough with some respected sifu's of this style. at the end of the day as long as you can fight with your stances that is the main thing.

can you zig zag at close range :)

peace

bakmeimonk@hotmail.com

[BIU JI]

You sound abit annoyed by my question , believe me it wasn't my intention.
My question was about angles used with stances, you mentioned deflection etc but nothing of off balancing with those angles. I never assumed lung ying only ever comes from the angles.
I'm not talking about just angles but the stances itself for off balancing not only evasion.
Yeh I learn something every day why?

[MarkS]

Thanks Daniel, well put post yourself. Probably the most important line being:

"Make it work for you, but do not give up the things that make the style what it is"

Much ignored this type of thought, people are often too consumed by intricacies which do not make the style what it is, IMHO and all of the teachers I have ever had.

Meltdawn:-
"The hunch the Lam family exhibits, IMHO, is conformational, not a method to/result of the style."

I agree completely, in fact I have never seen any actual Lung Ying teachers/students with the 'hunch.

Meltdawn:-
"Someone described sarm tone from a teacher
whom also taught bak mei, and there were no corner to corner" moves as in mine."

Quite so, in none of the versions of Sam Tong that I know are there diagonal moves.

Meltdawn:-
"Elbow protects ribs / Elbows outward. I would think it would be a similarity, not a difference."

Again I agree.

Meltdawn:-
"Right side for. / Left side for. Hmmm. I don't know enough yet. I think lung ying makes equal
use of both sides."

Mine (Lung Ying) is definitely more left stance orientated.

Mantis108:-
"Mobility wise, Lung Ying has more of a Zig Zag pattern which makes it both circular and angular at the same time. Not to meet force with force is always stressed. Bak Mei, on the other hand, uses TTFC more even in counting incoming strikes instead of using using footwork to disolve it first. With that in mind, a more linear and rootedness in stance isn't a problem. The argument here would be which one spend more Chi? We have to keep in mind that TTFC to issue Ging does spend more Chi. Lung Ying is very concious about preserving Chi and therefore the fighter. We can see that in the Right forward vs Left side forward."

With respect this entire statement makes no sense to me considering what the Lung Ying I study is like, hence the previous comments about teachers. For instance rootedness in stance is absolutley important according to my LY teacher.
So what does this mean? Now theres a ball of contention.

Mantis108:-
"The fists and the soft/crisp are again about preserve life (the opponents as well). Lung Ying believes in fight if you absolutely have to. Bak Mei fights on occassions to uphold the honor of the style."

Sorry but this makes no sense to me either. Please explain. Are you talking here of self defence or about athletic contest?

Mantis108:-
"Stomping is more a Sifu thing and a showy thing. Most of the time, both styles don't exhibit that in fighting."

Again when you say "fighting" please qualify. It is important.

Fiercest Tiger:-
"at the end of the day as long as you can fight with your stances that is the main thing."

Wise words.

Biu Ji:-
"My question was about angles used with stances, you mentioned deflection etc but nothing of off balancing with those angles."

Aah, Siep Sau :-)

Mark S

[fiercest tiger]

seip sau do you have seip kuil as well. we have a drill with these with the zig zag step.

anyways nice post and good choice of technique :D

peace

bakmeimonk@hotmail.com

[kull]

I am i wrong in assuming Lung Ying doesn't use the TTFC concept?

Meltdawn-
Lum Wun Quan is not a big man like his father; he is probably less than 5'5.

[MarkS]

FT:-
"do you have seip kuil as well"

I'm not sure! The chinese terms are not used a lot where I train, please describe!

"we have a drill with these with the zig zag step."

We certainly do Siep Sau as a stepping drill, and i suppose it could be described as a zig zag step. As a matter of fact I was drilling this with an opponent just last night.

"anyways nice post and good choice of technique"

Ta

Mark S

[meltdawn]

FT:
"can you zig zag at close range?"
Can you please clarify your question? Do you refer to entering an opening or executing a strike? And do you mean me, personally? ;)

Biu Ji:
"You sound abit annoyed by my question , believe me it wasn't my intention."
Please excuse me, our past contacts have tempered my responses.
As to "off balancing with those angles", I believe Mark has answered your question.

Mark:
Good insights! I do not speak for Mantis108, yet I think I understand from whence he comes. I'm sure he will answer your questions succinctly, and appreciate the debate!
"Stomping is more a Sifu thing and a showy thing. Most of the time, both styles don't exhibit that in fighting." (M108) "Again when you say "fighting" please qualify. It is important." (Mark) I think there are differences of opinions on this from someone's environment in which they studied. There are forms, there is sparring, there is fighting and there is defending your life. Some people have been lucky to have experienced the distinctions, or unlucky. A form may be more showy depending upon the sifu's own penchant for style. When fighting, however, flowery isn't what wins and we all know it. My master says "there are forms, and there is fighting; difference, see?" Growing up and studying in China would probably be very different from here. 20 - 50 years ago, fighting was a pass-time. Here (on the other side of the pond) fighting usually means an ignorant street brawl induced by alcohol culminating in a split lip, lost wallet, ****ed off girlfriend and a night on a 2" mattress with flip-flops under flourescent hell. Even my Chinese friends drive around Chinatown saying "oh! don't take HIS parking space, he might know kung fu!"

Kull:
"I am i wrong in assuming Lung Ying doesn't use the TTFC concept?"
Good question! It does, but maybe not to the extent that bak mei does. But I'm not the one to
give accurate insight on this, will someone else practicing both answer?
"Lum Wun Quan is not a big man like his father; he is probably less than 5'5."
I never had the fortune of meeting him. My comment was only upon his similar characteristics, not specifically height. I would be interested to see if his students exhibited the "hunch". That would be an interesting point of discussion regarding it being a conformational trait or a true lung ying characteristic. I'm betting on square shoulders. Anyone who knows #1 son lineage sifus care to comment? ;)


"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[Buby]

MeltDawn - Is there really a difference between fighting and defending your life?


Thanks,
Buby

[This message was edited by Buby on 02-06-01 at 09:00 AM.]

[fiercest tiger]

MT, i have video footage from hongkong of dragon doing forms and stomping with lots of moves. ykm use stomping for foot trapping and ankle breaking techniques as well as for power generation.

the hunch back as a posture for kung fu but to have a perminate hunch from it is not a good thing, thats a problem. also you dont hold that posture all the time when fighting. hum hung batt bou are used only when striking, and gains more power by using it. :)


buby,
good point about fighting and self defence...

whats happening my brother? :D

peace

bakmeimonk@hotmail.com

[meltdawn]

Buby, what's the difference?
Who starts it. ;)

Actually, I'm only trying to - IMHO - put a category on challenges or scuffles. A friend and I talked about this last night. He'd seen video of a match between a middle aged taiji master who was really good, and a younger white crane challenger. He grew to become friends with the white crane guy. When one day he asked him about the fight, the white crane master said "boy, was I young and stupid, I got really hurt!" No one was intending to kill, just prove their martial arts. This isn't unusual in that society.

Granted, LY/BM challengers met different fates.

FT,
Do you know who the dragon guy was?

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[mantis108]

Hi MarkS,

I see trying to jam a few things in short statements doesn't work. We both seem to agree on the different Sifus stress on different flavour. That's why we are here to discuss the difference. Personally, I don't hold the view of who's being right or who's worng. If it works for you, that's all it counts. If I gave the impression that I speak for the styles, then I must first apologize to everyone that I only intend to share from my experience and I DO NOT in anyway represent any school. Have that set aside, I will share this with you.

The zig zag pattern which I was referring to is in the Lung Ying Mor Kiew. For the Bak Mei inclined folks see Ying Jow Lim Kiew.

By fighting, I meant voluntary physical confrontation. You chose to; you don't have to. You don't have to pick a fight to prove the point that you can handle yourself (I know it's not the prevailing thought though.)

By self defense, I meant involuntary physical confrontation. You absolutely have to. Still in a situation as such try to preserve life. Subdue your opponent so that he understands his attempt to harm you is futile. You have a choice tools use the least harmful one - unless... As least that's what I was told.

Having said that the Lung Ying's Buddhist origin and it's signature couplet comes into mind. :)

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[Buby]

I never pick a fight, but have been in plenty. Thanks god, till this day it's always my opponent who seems to be fighting to save his life. Cause i grab him, rip off his arm and try to beat him to death with it, but in the end we were both fighting to save our arse. Ya follow?

FT - Thank you, Thank you....I've been chillen, just chillen. Trying to stay out of trouble.


Buby has spoken :D

[This message was edited by Buby on 02-06-01 at 02:04 PM.]

[BIU JI]

Hows the arm collection heheundefined

[MarkS]

Meltdawn:
"I'm betting on square shoulders"

Me too :-)

FT:
"of dragon doing forms and stomping with lots of moves"

There is definitely some stomping in some moves, goat step gao pek, hanging punch etc.

Mantis:
"Personally, I don't hold the view of who's being right or who's worng. If it works for you, that's all it counts"

I agree.

Mantis:
"By fighting, I meant voluntary physical confrontation. You chose to; you don't have to."

OK

and...."By self defense, I meant involuntary physical confrontation. You absolutely have to"

Thanks for clearing up your definition.

Mantis:
"Subdue your opponent so that he understands his attempt to harm you is futile. You have a choice tools use the least harmful one - unless... As least that's what I was told."

OK but we are in a different ball park here, in fact we are not even playing the same game and its in a different country! If I may mix my metaphors.
Its a nice idea,the trouble is thats all it is, an idea.
If we are talking real world self defence and you have already gone the avoidance route and been through the 'interview' then there is no time to decide on what you do, you just do it, whatever it is.
Sorry I know thats not what we are talking about here, I digress, its just an important issue for me, I've seen the aftermath of martial arts people who think they will do this technique and that technique in the 'fight' thats already happened and its too late.

Mark S

[mantis108]

Masters of the old often held different value than we do. Partly, it is cultural. East and west face different reality and circumstances. There was a time when masters would emphasize on the meaning of learning Kung Fu but not necessary the effectiveness of it. If you ask them how effective is the art, they will recommend you to learn from someone else! To them, the study of Kung Fu is all about bringing balance, structure, and focus to the students' often chaotic lives. Since the dawn of the information age, things changed. These values are no more. Being a technician of a skill is more fashionable than being an artist of life, which in my mind is the animal systems has to offer. Quite frankly, I will not be satify to be limited as a coach, my ultimate goal will be to a master of life; not of people but of life. Lung Ying and Bak Mei both are great paths to guide and help me to achieve that goal. That's the major similarity.

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[Kevin Barkman]

Thanks to everyone for their insights!

I understand that CLC was a Taoist Priest, and therein lies a large difference. LY was directly from a Buddhist monk - the Lam family were devout Buddhist and current lineage holders still are. This would account for the humility of LY style, and its adherence to nonviolence - as compared to Bak Mei - which is more aggressive in character.

I have also heard that LYK was a very large man by Southern Chinese standard - close to 6' tall, and pretty stout to boot. Again, this might account for the more "repelling" emphasis to the style - LYK could afford to be more reserved perhaps.

There was a comment about Sam Tong being linnear - this is a basic technique intro form - but it does indeed contain "zig zag" movement (mor-cup, rise elbow, roll block, etc.) Interestingly, Dragoners frown on stomping as being somewhat primitive and undragon-like, while Bak Mei players seem to love stomping around (I personally love to stomp occasionaly)- exception to this rule found in Dan Bin Gau Jiew.

The TTFC are found equal in importance to both arts. LY is more mobile more in the older session forms - the new sessions lose a bit in the angle stepping. As well, I learned LY as the lead leg always stepping first, wereas BM did not use this movement - which also perhaps makes LY slightly more of a "counteroffensive" art. Also, in LY - more of 1 move, feet move too - BM seems faster hands with hands with legs not moving as much.

LY right side forward in fighting (as a general rule) - BM seems to emphasize left more. The "hunch" I have seen far more with BM players - perhaps due to the greater use / emphases of shoulder movement. However, from everything I've heard this is a misconception of the Art anyway - would negatively affect respiratory process & health.

One key difference in power is that BM uses a sharper snapping power in techniques, by opening and closing the hand in a coordinated fashion, whereas LY prefers much smaller movement - keeping the fist closed and only slighly tensing it before impact. This is illustrated in the turning movement and smash / chop "jing san paan choi".

Interesting that if you trace the age of Dragoners, they all live to ripe old ages (late 80's to 90's) - compare this to other art practitioners (coincidence? - perhaps!).

Gau Bo Toy seems to be the principle seperating the two arts - the unique method of power generation found in BM. Maybe do this form only 1000 times and you have the essence of BM (?).

Anyway, I love and practice both arts - but it is hard to keep the principes of both arts seperate. If you are teaching LY Mor-Kiew to one, and Sap Baat Mor-Kiew to another - how are the principles different in terms of TTFC, breathing, etc.?

Thanks again for the comments and observations!

Cheers - kevin

[kull]

Kevin-
I disagree with you there. The core of bak mei is in ji bo. 9 step, builds on all the foundation set out in ji bo. Ji bo contains moves that are from 9 step but simplified. If ji bo isn't done right 9 step movements can never have "kungfu". If we look at the form it is a very natural progression from ji bo to jiu bo.

LY 1 move feet move too, BM faster hands and legs don't move as much?

I disagree with you here. When i learned BM feet always move very much, covering great distances. Many times when people ask me to demonstrate I say not enough room. They say your "short kiu, short ma"? like wing chun and southern mantis; I tell them no, BM foot movements are lively, sometimes cover more area than arts such as Tsai Li Fo, Hung, and definately wing chun.

In BM hands and feet move at same time, not one before other. Especially during fighting.

[MarkS]

Kevin:
"the Lam family were devout Buddhist and current lineage holders still are."

Where does this information come from?

Kevin:
"This would account for the humility of LY style, and its adherence to nonviolence"

This is subjective to your teacher, is it not?

Kevin:
"There was a comment about Sam Tong being linnear -this is a basic technique intro form"

Can I ask this of everyone who practises Dragon, do you have more than one version of Sam Tong?

Kevin:
"Dragoners frown on stomping as being somewhat primitive and undragon-like"

Not all of them.

"exception to this rule"

There is more than one exception to the rule, certainly in my training.

Kevin:
"LY is more mobile more in the older session forms - the new sessions lose a bit in the angle stepping"

Kevin can you explain what you mean by old and new session.

Kevin:
"I learned LY as the lead leg always stepping first,"

Me too.


Kevin:
"If you are teaching LY Mor-Kiew to one, and Sap Baat Mor-Kiew to another"

I am assuming from this that you teach both styles?

Cheers

Mark S

[meltdawn]

Hi Mantis, Kevin and Mark.

A few notes about what little I know, adding to the great sharing going on here:

First off, there are obviously several different ways sarm tone is (and a few others are) performed. It is my belief that the variances possibly came from 2nd or even 3rd generation
teachers. Or maybe two people were taught slightly different versions, met each other later, and added the other's to their repetoire. Kevin, is that what you mean by differing sessions?

The sarm tone I practice covers much ground, goes in all directions, and has no stomping. Stepping is first with the lead leg.

Kevin:
"Dragoners frown on stomping as being somewhat primitive and undragon-like"
I am not sure how correct "stomping" is used in bak mei, I can only surmise. I have not learned
anything about it's development, and can only relay what I pick up from my art. In my own practice, a stomp is a mechanically incorrect method of power generating. Are we talking lead or following leg stomp? A lead leg stomp defeats the three gates/soft principal by forcing the body to stiffen, bob and throw itself, thus eliminating power continuity and off-balancing the practitioner. A rear leg stomp creates a false root and shallow center. Now this is all my own suppostion; I might be a really crappy martial artist and have it all wrong! I must admit, I look at baji and go "huh?"

Kevin:
"the Lam family were devout Buddhist and current lineage holders still are."
I gotcha about the religious nature of the beast. I don't know that it's straight buddhist
though, because of China's tradition of mixing. And not all pure lineage dragon guys possess
monk-like qualities. ;)

"This would account for the humility of LY style, and its adherence to nonviolence"
Don't we have a couplet that indicates more of a non-confrontational attitude, rather than
a non-violent one? Sort of like... just because we don't pick a fight doesn't mean that we
won't end it.

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[mantis108]

Meltdawn,

Nice post on Sarm Tong and the footwork.

I am mostly in agreement with Kevin. In a way, we have similar experiences. My Sifu was Sifu Chow Fook who was also Kevin's Sigung. We both went on to seek tutorage under mentors from the Late Master Lum Woon Kwong's (the elder son of GM Lum Yui Kwai) Lineage. I went to Sifu Hung Hing Yuen and Kevin went to Sifu Cheung Kwok Tai, who is quite active in transmitting Lung Ying in Hong Kong. Sifu Cheung current contributes to the HK university's Kung Fu Club's website. There we find very interesting information about the history and the style. Before I went on to Sifu Hung my Lung Ying is more linear and ,to be honest, less refine. Stomping was okay according to Sifu Chow since he believed in full force presentations. Sifu Hung on the other hand stresses on the important of agile footwork with angling and circuling movement. Frankly, I have doubts in begining. But lately from what I have collected form the net and the written material about GM Lum's teaching which was given to me by Sifu Hung, I am convinced that Yau (soft/fluidity) achieved by superior footwork is key if not the utmost important. In fact if we look at boxing which is known for its heavy strikes with leverged punching achieved by superior footwork, there even seems to have similar principle and concept in Lung Ying. Again, it is not a question of right or worng. Techniques are developed because there is a time when strength will fail. Many of us began with our youthful exuberance. Like we do our 3 stars conditionings with lots of force and momentum, yet our elders of matured age can easily handle that with ease and grace. There is not force again force, there are techniques even in that simple exercise. Most of the time, we were left to figure out ourselve. With luck we will meet someone who's willing to share that with us. When we figure that out ourselves that becomes our art because it came from within. It may seem different but it is our art nontheless. Our preceptions of the art mostly influence by our Sifus preceptions. Personal intimate knowledge of an art need not be the same as long as the principles, concepts and structure remain in tact. Animal systems are conceptual (no one expect us the fly like the dragon). :) However, techniques may vary to best suit the stylist. To many people there can only be one truth, to me there can be many truths that makes up the one truth. Granted, I don't make sense to many but that's the way I feel and I respect the differences because ultimately, I feel, we all meet at the same point.

Sorry about the long and unorganized thoughts, but that is what I have to say about the matter.


Mantis108

P.S. The more I learn about Lung Ying, the less I seem to know or understand. That's the truth to me. :)

Contraria Sunt Complementa

[Kevin Barkman]

Hi everyone - thanks for your comments / observations. I am throwing a lot of stuff out there which may be right, may be wrong - just my own opinion for the most part.

I don't mean to sound flakey about the nonviolence aspect - this is only a generalization in comparrison to BM. I am assumming slightly different religious underpinnings to these arts, and therefore perhaps a bit different philosophy fighting wise. Yes, perhaps nonconfrontational is a better word.

By new and old sessions - the older Lung Ying sessions (pre Lam Yiu Kwai)are much longer, softer, and more complex with greater use of angular / spinning movements. The newer sessions (forms) are shorter with more concentration on learning specific principles and techniques - this was LYK's genius. The push is to teach the new, but remember the old - slightly different bows, principles, etc. Lung Ying Mor Kiew is newer session, Moi-Fah older session. I wish I understood this better, because this "root" is the key to unlocking the historical roots of LY. I believe Mantis108 calls this root "Sam Bo Tui" - I would love to discuss the roots of LY again- but not on this thread!

Anyway - yes, I do teach both the best I can, but like I say, it is hard to keep the Arts in a pure form and not start mixing up the principles. I'm not sure this matters too much, at this point, with these particular arts - just wondering what everyone else thinks! Still waiting to hear from those who practice both arts, how they keep the principles seperate - and what exactly those principles might be?

Anyway, I'm off to a training seminar - have a good weekend all!

[redevelope]

Hello, You are. :eek: null

[MarkS]

Kevin/mantis,
Wise words both of you.

I am not aware of any pre Lam Yui Gwai 'ways' at all so that explains some of my questions.
The Pak Mei I study comes from Cheung Lai Chun via H.B.Un and the Dragon from LYG's grandson, and I know for a fact there is some 'crossover', so I do not talk from a 'pure' viewpoint at all.
I know a club where three chinese teach claiming 'pure' dragon, but I have yet to attain full informaton as to how exactly their lineage unfolds, however they do say that there is no Pak Mei influence whatsoever in their teachings, and I have noticed some definite differences in their sets, and methods. More to follow when I find out.

Mark S

[triskellin]

>Kevin:
"the Lam family were devout Buddhist and current lineage holders still are."

Mark S:
Where does this information come from?>

It is true, my master is a student of LYG and told me he was a Buddhist, therefore only necessary force should be used, no need to go overboard, etc.

I believe the hunch type posture works well for shorter people, but was told it's used to protect the stomach. I find it difficult to pull off certain moves that requires hunching though because I'm tall, therefore looking and feeling out of proportion! People will always teach differently though, even within the same art, sometimes I can get away with moves because of my body posture, but other times people have it ingrained into their heads that a technique HAS to be executed in a certain way, regardless of body type.

Not much stomping the way I've been taught, but again that could be a personal preference. Some people are more aggressive than others, and may find it a natural reaction to stomp towards an opponent. Someone asked about different versions of Sam Tung being performed? Why would a school have different versions of the same form? The footwork for mine is kinda zig-zaggy/circular as well. We don't enter into an attack from an angle per se, but rather be at an angle in the first place. Kind of difficult to explain in text, but I'm sure some of you understand what I mean.

I also know nothing about Pak Mei except for a few pictures over the net, just like to know if they employ more kicks?

[meltdawn]

Holy crap, there's two of us!!!

"Waiting is bad." - Musashi

[triskellin]

there is?! :eek: everybody run for cover!!!! :D

[CannonFist]

If you are in Sydney then I guess you must be a student of Sifu Chan. Is that right?

[CannonFist]

Trisk: There is not too many kicks in Pak Mei.

Our Pak Mei does not use the stomp, the footwork is more of a glide.

Another differece between Lung Ying and Pak Mei that I notice is that Lung Ying tends to place more weight on the front foot while Pak Mei is more of a evenly balanced weight distribution when the traingle stance is concern.

[MarkS]

Trisk: therefore only necessary force should be used, no need to go overboard, etc.

With respect,
I sincerely hope, that if you agree with this philosophy, you never get yourself entangled in a 'real' fight.

Trisk: Why would a school have different versions of the same form?

Maybe you could ask Yip Wing this, why does he have two versions of Sam Tong?, I'll answer first for the Lung Ying school where I learn. Two versions, one called Sam Tong and one called Sam Tong Gwo Kiu, both taught to the same person by different people. As simple as that.
The second answer from a diferent style and system of teaching where versions of the same set become increasingly 'in depth' so beginners learn the footwork, then the hand positions, and then the hand techniques et al. When this has been learnt the variations on techniques are learnt. Remember that some sets in some styles can be very complex indeed.

Mark S

[triskellin]

Technically they're 2 different forms, Sam Tung and Bic Bo Sam Tung. The latter, if I remember correctly, was created by Chow Fook and Sifu Yip. You are right though, variations of the same form do come from seperate people teaching them. For eg. the way my school performs Sam Tung, and the way Sifu Yip's school performs it is slighty different. I thought you meant just the one form though.

No I personally don't agree with the philosophy, I was referring to the statement about Lung Ying generally being more 'soft' because of the religious beliefs of LYG and current lineage holders.

Cannonfist, yes my sifu is Sifu Chan, don't come stalking me now! :D I'm not sure what triangle stance you're talking about, but I don't think we place that much emphasis on the front leg. We have an equal weighting front stance.

[triskellin]

Ok got the info wrong, Bic Bo Sam Tung was developed by Cho Sam, not Chow Fook and Sifu Yip. Sorry!