My webpage

[nospam]

I finally have breathed life back into my lineage's website.

Buk Hsing Fut Gar (http://members.shaw.ca/naya/)

I'll be updating it on an ongoing basis with lessons and insights into our style.

nospam.
:cool:

[k-no]

Nice page. Your links page is down. Otherwise, you have some very interesting information that I will have to give more attention to outside of being in the office. Keep up the great work brother.

BTW, there is going to be a controversial article my sifu wrote early last month that I have just been asked to post. I'll let you guys know when it's up.

k

[nospam]

Thanks k-no.

I have about 2 dead links...my bio being the second.

I'm going to add some training clips in the near future.

Looking forward to your posting of that article!! BTW, who is your sifu?

nospam.
:cool:

[k-no]

Hey Nospam,

My sifu has got a fire under my ass to update his web site. Seeing as I am the admin for 3 web sites, my day job/night job and training, this is gonna be a doozy.

My sifu is Lay Dai Wei or Sifu Dave Lacey. If I don't screw up the formatting or FTP process, it should be up today.

k

[yutyeesam]

Hi nospam, very nice site. Quite informative. I really like sites like yours and the Ng Family's where it is all about disseminating the CLF curriculum in explicit detail. Great resource to point to when answering some peoples' questions.

Look forward to the updates.

123

[extrajoseph]

"Bak Hsing Fut Gar is a sister-style of Hung Hsing Choy Lee Fut. It is more commonly known as Bak Hsing Choy Lee Fut. The founder of Bak Hsing Fut Gar modified and advanced various concepts within Choy Lee Fut, changing the way in which they were performed. Through continuous study and dauntless trial by fire, a dynamic and yet practical fighting method emerged."

Q1. Who is the founder of Bak Hsing Fut Gar?

Q2. Did he modified and advanced various concepts with Hung Hsing Choy Lee Fut or within Bak Hsing Choy Lee Fut?

Q3. What are these concepts that got modified and advanced, so much so that is no longer warranted to be called Choy Lee Fut? To many people, it is a serious matter to disown your family name unless there is a reason. What is wrong with the name Bak Hsing Choy Lee Fut in the first place? Why drop the name Choy Lee Fut if you are to call it "the sister art of Hung Hsing Choy Lee Fut"? Don't brother and sister have the same family name? Or did she married Fut Gar and take on her husbands name?

Q4. I can undestand where the Bak Hsing came from, why the Fut Gar term? Does it stand for Fut Gar style or for the Shaolin Temple origin or for Buddhist philosophy in general? By replacing Choy Lee Fut with Fut Gar does it mean it is no longer Choy Lee Fut and it is now a Fut Gar style? Or are you saying Fut Gar and Choy Lee Fut are the same thing?

Q5. What kind of dauntless trial by fire did this style went through to become a dynamic and yet practical fighting method? Are you implying at the same time that the other "sister art" within the CLF family is less dynamic and practical?

Just curious, no offence is intented. I am only trying to understand the thinking process behind some of the changes made. The branches of Choy Lee Fut are getting furhter and further away from its roots, I often wonder at what point did the branches dropped off and no longer be called Choy Lee Fut.

JosephX

[anton]

k-no
I can't find the article :(

nospam
nice layout - simple and quick to load, yet effective

extrajoseph
good questions.

[k-no]

Hey guys.

I haven't yet uploaded the article. I was too busy getting laid off yesterday (for non US residents, that means I lost my job). :(
Anyhow, it will be up shortly, perhaps tonight.

k

[nospam]

Q1. Who is the founder of Bak Hsing Fut Gar?

Tam Sam - Bak Hsing CLF

Q2. Did he modified and advanced various concepts with Hung Hsing Choy Lee Fut or within Bak Hsing Choy Lee Fut?

Hong Hsing CLF, then refined these concepts.

I find it interesting that there is even a 'Bak Hsing branch of CLF. But there is. And there is for many reasons. There is history and circumstance that altered the course of Tam Sam's kung fu. The concepts differ. Do they differ enough to warrant a new 'style'? I guess it is like sibling rivalry, we share the same 'parents' but there are distinct differences or individuality.

I do not mind talking about my style, matter of fact I am quite fond of talking about it. But if you want more 'history', then I would direct you to my webpage. That is our history. If you want to talk philosophy and technque, then ask away.

The webpage goes into it a bit. The philosophy is different. More than likely due to a reduced curriculum and greater emphasis on fighting. Plus the progressive thinking of Tam Sam. His test of gung fu was to fight. So he fought. He would also sit afterwards with the people he fought and talk gung fu. He changed much.

There is nothing "wrong" with adding CLF. It was a decision made 2 generations back. I still use the C&L on occasion so pleople have a basic idea.

Q4. I can undestand where the Bak Hsing came from, why the Fut Gar term? Does it stand for Fut Gar style or for the Shaolin Temple origin or for Buddhist philosophy in general? By replacing Choy Lee Fut with Fut Gar does it mean it is no longer Choy Lee Fut and it is now a Fut Gar style? Or are you saying Fut Gar and Choy Lee Fut are the same thing?

Fut because of gung fu's buddhist roots, and Gar means family or style, so Bak Hsing Buddhist Style.

Q5. What kind of dauntless trial by fire did this style went through to become a dynamic and yet practical fighting method? Are you implying at the same time that the other "sister art" within the CLF family is less dynamic and practical?

I would imagine this question can go unanswered at this stage. I realise the history and stories differ from lineage and generation. The history is what has been passed down from my lineage. It was my sigung's (Leung Lap Yau) decision to change the name from Bak Hsing Choy Lee Fut Gar (gar is used or not) to Bak Hsing Fut Gar - again, this info and the reasons can be found on my webpage.

I do not know if the powers that were (at the time) in Hong Kong had a problem with my sigung's name change. Although he had a tendency to shake the establishment. For information purposes I included our lineage's history. What is more important is the gung fu that had been and is today.

We are the only people who refer to our style as Bak Hsing Fut Gar. Everyone else goes by the standard.

nospam.
:cool:

[k-no]

I'm not finished with uploading the pretty pictures that accompany this article, but you I have uploaded the photo-less sneak preview. Please check it out here: NEW ARTICLE (http://www.pantherfist.com/controversy.html)

Nospam, sorry I ended up hi-jacking your thread! :)

k

[anton]

Great article!!

BTW Sorry to hear you lost your job. Good luck finding another one.

[nospam]

k-no,

:)

No problem whatsoever!

A very interesting article. It carries a lot of weight.

It sure goes against the grain of my lineage's history and outlook.

I'd like to meet up with my fellow CLF practitioners to talk and train some day.

nospam.
:cool:

[David Jamieson]

looks good nospam!

gotta love broadband! :D

cheers
peace

[tri2bmt]

Excellent website nospam!
I especially enjoyed the Body Kung article. Made alot of sense and I felt it put things into words that are difficult to do while maintaining the serious quality.
Did you write the article?
If you did it's written very well.

[alecM]

Really good article.
Hope you find your self a job soon, I'm in the same boat as you at the moment.

[nospam]

tri2bmt,

I realise the website is heavy with text, but it is not about me or my classmates or my teacher or even his teacher..etc. There is history for the sake of a little background, but the jist of hte site is to inform the masses about how and why we do what we do.

It is about Kung Fu, not people who do kung fu.

Yes. I wrote everything on the site, besides the interviews with my teacher and the article about Founder, Tam Sam. The Tam Sam bio was also written by me as told by my lineage.

I am just about ready to upload some avi and new pix under the Kwoon. These pix and bites are footage of our training sessions. They are not glam or PR footage. They represent real learning and provides a glimpse into 'seeing' what and a little bit of how we do kung fu.

I appreciate the comments.

nospam.
:cool:

[alecM]

The reason I haven't give you the info on our Yat Moon Kuen form is that I have also been working on putting some video clips togeter of training sessions at my sifu's school for his website.

[nospam]

alecM,

I appreciate you getting back to me on this. I believe I have footage of our Yat Mun Ch'uan - first pattern. I'll see what I have and post it on my website.

I have just added some vid on Gai Bun Ch'uan - intermediate pattern.

Thanks.

nospam.
:cool:

[JAZA]

Hello K-no:

About history I finally realized that everyone will believe their one versions and any discussions about only will finnish in noend discussions. So is better to keep our believes, spread to the followers and be open to the others. I agree with the master Vince Lacey article in these matter.
About Chan family denied Cheung Yim in King Mui, it isn't totally correct, I can tell it because I translate to my language a document where is said that Zhan Yan was of the Tang Xi village in the Xin Hui county, very near to King Mui, so he was there.
I hope that in the end Choy Lee Fut, any branch, spread in all over the world.

Good Luck with your job.

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

Actually the Chan Family has placed a Memorial Stone Tablet in King Mui of the History of CLF & it does include Cheung Yim (Zhang Yan). It says, after Chan Heung accepted Cheung Yim from Tang Xi Village in King Mui County as his disciple in Hong Kong, he sent Cheung to Singapore, Hong Kong, & then to Fo Shan (Fut Shan).

I don't hear much of Chan Heung's eldest disciple Loong Gee-Choi, is there any of his branches in America or around the world?

[extrajoseph]

I read your Sifu Dave Lacey's article with great interest. Could you or your Sifu clarify Cheung Yim's birthday for us? The article says:

"1836 - THE YEAR CHOY LAY FUT TOOK ROOT

It is interesting to note that it was ONLY after Cheung Yim (Cheung Hung Sing) had returned to King Mui village (Chan Village) in 1836 with the martial arts skills he acquired from the Shaolin monk Ng Ging Jung, known by the alias "Ching Cho Wor Seung" (Green Grass Monk) that Choy Lay Fut began to take root."

The Futshan Hung Sing Gwoon 150 anniversary Celebration Journal published last year said Cheung Yim was born in 1824.
The Chui Cheung Chinese Martial Art Gynasium Alumi Association Journal published the year before also said the same. So in 1839, Cheung Yim would have been 12 years old, unless the birth year given by these two authorities was wrong.

Do you or your sifu know for sure when and where was Cheung Yim born and when and where and how did he died? There are so many different versions and it seems the first thing we need to do is to establish clearly is his birth and death. Having just came back from China, I am sure his village will still be around and his grave would be somewhere to be found.

Choy Lee Fut history is only 160 yeards old and I am sure it can be checked and varified so we don't have to keep throwing mud at each other.

With respect and in good faith,

JosephX

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

I wanted to ask this question too, about the date of Cheung Yim's birth? I've heard that there's not much info on his death but there must be info on when he was born, as Joseph said it was only 160 years ago. Also it is interesting that the Futshan Hung Sing Branch published the birth being in 1824, the Futshan Hung Sing Gwoon must have at least recorded their founder's birthday.

I mean no disrespect to the Cheung Yim lineage, at the end of the day we all are CLF.

[extrajoseph]

Another confusion about dates I have is the founding of the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon. We just had a 150 years anniversary celebration and the general concensus in Futsan and Hong Kong was that it was founded in 1851, yet your Sifu Dave Lacey said in his article:

"In 1839 Cheung Hung Sing founded the first "Hung Sing Gwoon" martial arts school in Futsan."

Can you clarify this discrepancy for us? Please do not under any circumstances think that I am trying to stir up trouble for the CLF branches, I am talking about dates here and not personality.

Thanking you in advance.

JosephX

[extrajoseph]

Thanks for answering my questions, so now we have a branch of a branch of Bak Hsing, this time without the reference to CLF. However, I presume you still considered yourself a CLF man, so we are still "tong moon hing dye" as Sifu Dave Lacey puts it, bad "social etiqette" or not.

JosephX

[nospam]

extrajoseph,

The name was changed 2 generations ago. Perhaps things have changed since the name was change, but I am a practitioner of the style under that name. It is explained to me that there is significant difference, moreso than just adding new or changing old punches. Again, was it to a point where a new style was developed or that it removed itself from the realm of Choy Lee Fut philosophy? I guess at least one person thought so.

But, yes...I often use Choy & Lee when explaining the style. Do I consider myself a Choy Lee Fut practitioner? We do not disregard our past, but opine that Choy Lee Fut Gar and Bak Hsing Fut Gar are two very different styles that share a common heritage and through association of that heritage is more easily identifiable to the Chinese martial art establishment/community. I am a product of my environment...hahaha.

nospam.
:cool:

[extrajoseph]

Yes, I guess we are all products of our environment, that is why we now have MacDonald instead of hamburgers, KFC instead of fried chickens, Nike instead of shoes and Starbuck instead of coffee shops, etc.

Everything rests with a brand name, even our heritage. To be an individual is to have a name that sets us apart.

You said "hahaha", but I don't find all this funny, I find it sad but has to accept the fact that the fragmentation of our society is a sign of our time.

At least I know the next time you use the term Choy Lee Fut, you are using it for identification purpose only, you are in fact doing something very different.

JosephX

[nospam]

Yeah - different strokes for different folks.

I think too many people get bent out of shape just cause someone says or does something out of the norm. Look at Temple Kung Fu, for instance. But ya know what? They're still around. What I think about them hasn't had an impact, besides wanting to hurl my two-all-beef-patties-special sauce-lettuce-pickle-unions all on a sesame seed bun, whenever I see their commercial!

:)

nospam.
:cool:

[anton]

When I see CLF in films, or books I recognise everything from my training in the choy lay fut buck sing gwoon in Melbourne (Sifu Dave Lacey). Having said that there are a few things that we were taught that I have not seen at all. But there is not enough difference to call it a completely different system. I find the term Buck Sing Gwoon (taking gwoon to mean school) an adequate description - just a different school of the same system.

[extrajoseph]

So what we think don't matter, what matters is commercial success.

Yeah - different strokes for different folks.

JosephX

[nospam]

extrajoseph,

I'd imagine what matters is definable by the individual alone.

anton,

I hear ya. I say tomato, you say tomatoe...but they're both a vegetable..or is that a fruit?

;)

nospam.
:cool:

[extrajoseph]

Hmm, I got it!

People in the past has been selling the good old fashion tomatoe as vegetable and now you are going to sell it as a piece of fruit and call it to-ma-to.

You can get more money for a piece of fruit. Right? How devilishly clever!

Thank you! Thank you! thank you! Now I can see the true benefit of westernizing Kung Fu.

JosephX

[nospam]

Wow.

Well, I prefer classic coke, myself.

nospam.
:cool:

[extrajoseph]

What I want to know is what we can do with the old fashion water pipe that my sifu used to smoke with? How can we repakage it and what name can we give it to make it sound "modern" and "western"? How about Buddha Pipe or Fut Doe? Anything with Buddha always sells, it has a spiritual ring to it. Have you been to the Buddha Bar in Paris? It is always packed. May be adding the word Classic in front of it will also help. People don't drink Coke any more, they drink Classic Coke (your favourite drink). Classic Buddha Pipe sounds pretty cool for an old fashion water pipe. These days we have to do something out of the norm to make a buck. Don't you think?

JosephX

Just in case you are going to get mad with me like bean curd, this is all a joke, no disrespect is intended, even though there is a bit of sarcasm involved. Hey, if we can not laugh at ourselves, what is the point of humour?

[JAZA]

Joseph you pick the point in actual marketing based high return on investments industries.:D

[nospam]

Who am I to deprive someone of a little good natured humor. Go for it.

:eek:

nospam.
:cool:

[extrajoseph]

After the funny bit, here is the serious part, I can't wait for the abusive replies.

IMHO, a large part of the CLF politics we are witnessing at present is the result of the commercialization of traditional Kung Fu in the west, and CLF is not the only traditional system under assault by the market forces.

To some CLF practitioners, there is a fear that if we acknowledge Chan Heung as the sole founder of CLF, then the Chan Family will be the only one who has the “brand name� and that is not good for business when you are not part of the family lineage. This is not true of course, but the irrational mind of money tells us we cannot let one family dominate the market by a name.

So they have to knock Chan Heung off the pedestal and install Cheung Yim, first as a co-founder and then as the alternative sole founder with Chan Heung as one of the teachers. Since Cheung Yim does not have any offsprings by blood, the smart entrepreneurs can set up their own brands using traditional CLF as a point of lineage/reference. Then everybody wins.

If we are really concerned with the true history of CLF then it is very easy to verify, but they don’t want to do this, it is too easy and would give the game away. Instead the Cheung Yim camp used our belief system (it is politically incorrect to question a person's faith, therefore it will be safe from scrutiny) and group consensus to get around the problem. They tell us we can never get to the bottom of history so we should believe in whatever we want to believe in and then they set up a committee of elders (none from the Chan family or Heroic Victory Hung Sing of course) and put out rulings of what the proper “social etiquette� (meaning what we should believe in) should be and if the students objected then they should go to Hong Kong to face these elders wrath.

What happens to historical research, critical analysis and thinking for yourself?

Before the spread of CLF widely from China/Hong Kong to the west, everyone accepted Chan Heung as the sole founder. Most of the so-called elders now were young members of the Association in Memory of Chan Heung (notice they didn’t have one for Cheung Yim then). They didn’t dare to then and there was no need to rock the boat. But now money is involved since most of the elders now have a lot of students in the west and some of them have migrated to the west themselves. They are now in the driver’s seat and there is only Chen Yong-Fa to deal with, so off you go Chan Heung - he has became a business “liability".

The fight between Futsan and King Mui as the place of origin is also connected with money. Each place wants to become the place of pilgrimage for the rich CLF practitioners from the west who will bring money and prestige. As a result, we will see a continue struggle between the two camps in this front as well. Master Lacey has fired the first shot, and I can see this coming clearly after my trip to China recently.

If I have to bet my money on the outcome, I have to put my odds on the Cheung Yim camp, because money will always win over history and tradition. Sad but that is the sign of out time. Our mind is controlled by brand names and by advertising and propaganda. Nothing is sacred any more, not even our belief and faith - they get manipulated as well. Every thing comes down to money; we can kiss history and tradition good bye.

So, so-long Chan Heung Gong. Long live Money and the New History!

JosephX

[yutyeesam]

Joseph X,
Perhaps I'm not grasping the magnitude of this issue, but I don't think Sifu Lacey speaks on behalf of all folks from the Cheung Yim lineage. It seems that many of the Cheung Yim Lineage folks pay full credit to Chan Heung and dub Cheung Yim as second generation CLF...so I doubt that the CLF enterpreneurs in the west like Tat Mau Wong would be compelled enough by that article to change the history that he's taught for years (ie, Chan Heung being the founder, and Cheung Yim a student).

But again, I may not be grasping the magnitude of this issue. Have you heard rumblings of other CLF sifus (Cheung Yim Lineage) saying that they agree with Lacey and should start rewriting history? If you have, then I concede to your point.

[extrajoseph]

Interesting enough, many of the "new breed" come from the Tarm Sarm's lineage. I hate naming names, but Sifu Chui Kwang-Yuan, son of Chui Cheung is one of the driving force behind the rewriting of history. He has many students in the States and in South America. Of course American Hung Sing is another example.

I doubted if clever entrepreneurs like Wong Tat-Mau would ever show his hands until the coast is clear. He is a very intelligent and pragmatic person and he is not going to give the game away so early.

Of course, there is the other alternative of dropping the name CLF but borrow its brand power by claiming that they have transcended or refined CLF to the point where it is no longer CLF. But still they make sure we can see a close association. Choi Li Ho Fut and Bak Sing Fut Gar are 2 examples I can think of.

I think the magnitude is there and judging from the reactions from this board, it is enough to worry me greatly. I hope my judgement is wrong.

JosephX

[JAZA]

I have all the respect for the fame of sifu Dave Lacey, but I think that this article it is not to diplomatic.
I prefer a lot more his brother, sifu Vince Lacey article on the same matter. It is a very intelligent view of see the things.www.buksing.com/personal_message.html (http://www.buksing.com/personal_message.html)

[urban tea]

Hi there,

You have the wrong use of "HSING" on your title page.

HSING is mandarin such as "HSING YI"
Cantonese for HSING YI would be "xing yi"
It should read " SING"

Buk Sing Fut Gar

Other than that, add some video clips!!

[urban tea]

Nevermind. YOu do have video clips.

I always wanted to put up a general kung fu webpage representing many styles.

I hope to add many video clips as well.

I need to take a dreamweaver html class.

[firepalm]

If you want cool video clips check out this page
http://www.wccma.com/videogallery.htm

[yutyeesam]

JosephX,
Somehow, I don't see the rewriting of history taking over in America. Like you alluded to, it seems to be too much a business risk for the saavy enterpreneurs. Especially when the two biggest camps are Lee Koon Hung/Tat Mau Wong and Doc Fai Wong.

But it is indeed interesting that the Tarm Sarm lineage is the change agent. That being said, my guess is that the rewriting will stay in the Buk Sing world.

Since you are Chan Family, I want to get your perspective on something, and I apologize in advance because I'm sure this has been a discussion thread before. It is the issue of the Green Grass Monk. Doc Fai Wong's school of thought rejects the notion that such a monk ever existed and was not part of CLF development, while the Cheung Yim folks indeed believe. I'm curious to know what the Chan Family thinks.

Thanks a lot,
123

[anton]

Isn't the Chan family version that "green grass monk" was a pseudonym of Choy Fook?

[extrajoseph]

I am not a Chan Family member although my lineage can be traced back to Chan Yiu-Chi.

The issue of Green Grass Monk was discussed extensively on the clfma website:

http://www.clfma.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=80&0

According to the Chan Family manuscript, Choy Fook admitted that he used the name GGM as one of his alias. A photo of the relevant document was shown on the website at one stage but I can not locate it anymore. It seem genuine to me.

JosephX

[extrajoseph]

Not only Sifu Vince Lacey is more diplomatic (a quality I am also lacking), he sees things differently:

“As long as we believe and agree that Great Grandmaster Chan Heung is the Founder and Jeung Hung Sing (Jeung Yim) is the founder of the Hung Sing Kwoon (school) and Tarm Sarm (Tam Sam) is the founder of Buk Sing Kwoon, there is no need to fight among yourselves as to who has the real version of the History of Choy Lay Fut! We are all ONE family-Choy Lay Fut!”
– Sifu Vince Lacey

“CLARIFICATION ON CHOY LAY FUT MARTIAL ARTS
CHEUNG HUNG SING - Chong Pai Jo Si (original founder)
CHAN HEUNG - one of Cheung Hung Sing's teachers....
This CLARIFICATION by the "Choi Lee Fut Kung Fu International Union" was only made after it had received unanimous support from the majority of fraternity members of the different branches."
- Master “General” D. Lacey, Jueng Moon Yan.

How can two twin brothers who studied from the same teacher and belonged to the same union came to different conclusions and air them publicly to contradict each other? Is there something going on we don't know about?


k-no,

I wonder who are "the majority of fraternity members of the different branches" referred to by the "General"? Has anyone got a list? Is the "general" speaking on behalf of the Union or is he just speaking for himself? k-no, do you know, since you posted the article for your sifu? Or are you still busy looking for a job?

k-no, when you are free can you answer my questions, including the ones about the dates? If you can't, please ask your sifu. Thanking you in advance.

JosephX

[JAZA]

Joseph:

I guess K-no won't reply probably because his sifu doesn't permit, due to the critics to this forum in his article.
I also recommend chan family fellows not to follow commenting this article, because is like feeding a fire that we doesn't start, and giving a space to this controversy article.
Regards

[Cody]

I am thinking that k-no is not responding for reasons unknown to you (" I guess ....".), and while it is well for you to advocate a cease fire, yet what you said made no sense. See, if someone wishes to start a controversy in a formal manner (such as writing an article and publicizing it), then the fact that there are critics should in no way violate the terms of the discussion. And, you brought attention to a matter which was already finding its way down the page... .
In fact, we don't know who has shut down or delayed this interaction for sure, or exactly why.

It appears to me that something serious needs to be worked out, but maybe not here or not now. I don't have the information to evaluate the findings, or the resources to trace them back if I was so inclined. Something Feels unfortunate.

Cody

Waking Dragon, stretching.

[premier]

Cody, you see..

there's really nothing to fight about. If D. Lacey wants to claim that Cheong Yim is the founder of CLF and Chan Heung was his teacher, that's allright. That's his point of view and there's really no evidence to support it, so it's nothing to worry about.

I think most of the Chan family guys won't comment on this controversy anymore, because people in high levels have decided not to touch it until there's some real historical facts to support either side. Why? We have fought about this same thing so many times before and there's no new findings since. So why should we go through the same fight again?

[Cody]

and I wasn't addressing either a pro or con re any data, or the history of the disagreement, that has been discussed, or I have read. I think what I am referring to is more a matter of decorum.

I don't like it when other people, who might not be in a position to express themselves further in this type of situation, have excuses made for them in an unflattering way, whether it be true or not. If someone must withdraw either because of illness (like the flu), injury, or any other event or circumstance, it is not a cause for this. No matter what side I would take, if I were to research it myself (complete with original documentation, and access to higher ups -- not likely), I still wouldn't act like that.
It's unkind and unnecessary. I think it's best to let it go. I mean. Really let it go.

Cody

[JAZA]

Sorry Cody if you take my answer as rude, it was not my intentions.
I said, I guess not I'm sure, because is what I think what is a possibility, if is not I don't think it's offensive and it's concordant with the article.
I have nothings against k-no or sifu Dave Lacey, even I have shown my respect to him.
I only don't agree with the way of his article, and I think that discusing it only will end in discordance. Even I don't call a cease fire may be the word fire is not correct, I tried to said specially to Joseph not to follow commenting, I dont tried to bring the article up.
Once again, regrets if I was rude, i'ts never my intentions.

[extrajoseph]

I have a feeling the reason why k-no is reluctant to answer my questions is because his Sifu Dave Lacey has made a couple of mistakes about dates which underpinned his claim that Cheung Yim being the sole founder of CLF. Their evidence do not add up so they decided to shut up.

The Chan Family guys have not bited into this contraversy because they knew the Green Grass Monk / Cheung Yim claim is ridiculous and they do not want to embarrass Sifu Dave Lacey in public and hurt other feelings unneccesarily.

http://www.clfma.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=143&forum=1&21

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Joseph:

Coming from a mixed lineage Chan Hueng & Cheong Yim I have a question for you.

Why does it seem that it is either Chan Family or Jeong Yim's side?

What I mean is Chan Hueng had other notable students besides his sons and in turn his sons had students. In fact Chan Yiu Chi was supposed to have 4 famous students known as the "4 wonders" or something like that. Where are people from these lineages and why don't you hear about any of them. Lung Chi Choy was supposed to have been one of Chan Hueng's original disciples. Has his lineage died off?

Last thing, I don't consider Cheong Yim as a co-founder of CLF, however you have to admit there are a lot of people around today that carry his lineage so he must have been good or why would so many students come from his lineage?

Peace.

[Cody]

JAZA. It's okay.

peace,

Cody

[yutyeesam]

Off the topic a bit, does anyone know of any present day Sifus who is from the Chan On Pak lineage? I understand Doc Fai Wong is, I'm just wondering if there's anyone else...

123

[extrajoseph]

CLFNole,

Q: Coming from a mixed lineage Chan Hueng & Cheong Yim I have a question for you.

Why does it seem that it is either Chan Family or Jeong Yim's side?

What I mean is Chan Hueng had other notable students besides his sons and in turn his sons had students. In fact Chan Yiu Chi was supposed to have 4 famous students known as the "4 wonders" or something like that. Where are people from these lineages and why don't you hear about any of them. Lung Chi Choy was supposed to have been one of Chan Hueng's original disciples. Has his lineage died off?

A: You are right, there are many other lines other than the Chan Family and Jeong Yim. We hear a lot about these 2 sides because there is a debate on at the moment to discuss whether Chan Heung or Jeong Yim was the sole founder of CLF. In reality there are many other schools from mixed lineage like yours and from Chan Heung's disciples other than his family members. They are out there but they don't know this forum exists (and most of them don't speak English), or if they do they chose to remain silent.

Loong Chi Choi's line has not died off. Yuen Hai was one of his students who also studied with Jeong Yim, so was Leu Charn (Tam Sam's teacher), but for some reasons they don't want to acknowledge his contribution at all.

Chan Yiu-Chi's line is also going strong. There are many of his students and their students teaching in China as well as Hong Kong and the west. My father and I are from his line. One of the problem is most of these people are business men and professionals like myself, they don't teach kung fu for a living, therefore they have a smaller student base.

Q: Last thing, I don't consider Cheong Yim as a co-founder of CLF, however you have to admit there are a lot of people around today that carry his lineage so he must have been good or why would so many students come from his lineage?

A: Because, as you said it, Jeong Yim was a really good teacher and he encouraged his students to teach and many of them migrated to the west as well. Contrary to Sifu Dave Lacey's claim, the Chan Family has never tried to put him down. The memorial tablet I saw in King Mui Village clearly acknowledged his contribution to CLF. Personally I don't have any problems with Jeong Yim at all, the issue I have is with people who claimed him to be either the co-founder and now the sole founder of CLF. It is like waking up one morning and find you have a father you don't know about or your mother has slept with two men and now you have 2 fathers! The sad part is we are doing all this for money and for pride and prejudice and not for anything else!

CLFNole, may I ask you a question in return? What do you think of Sifu Dave Lacey's assertion that Jeong Yim was the sole founder of CLF and Chan Heung was just one of his teachers? Do you think Jeong Yim studied with Chan Yeun-Wun and Lee Yau-Shan as well?

JosephX

[extrajoseph]

Chan On Pak was well known for his "luk yum" skills but he did not have any male offsprings. His most famous disciple was Chan Cheung-Mo and his base was in Kong Moon. Many of the modern day practitioners there can trace their lineage to On-Pak.

If you go and study in Kong Moon, you can be one of the few westerners who can claim your lineage to him. Now that is a good selling point! You can get a beautiful Chinese girlfriend at the same time while you teach English there to get by. :-)

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

I think Sifu Lacey's article was a bit forceful to put it kindly. He is entitled to his opinion and I respect that. I don't look at Cheong Yim as a founder of CLF, maybe Hung Sing CLF, however he really didn't create a new style but rather new forms with the same principals so therefore it might not be considered a new system but rather as one puts it a branch.

As far as who Cheong Yim studied with I really don't know. I was told the story with the Green Grass Monk and if I choose to believe it that is my right. The Chan Family side says there was no person, the Hung Sing side there was. The Chinese government says there was a Green Grass Monk for whatever thats worth (probably communist propaganda)

Why is this story so popular? Why was the story written long ago if it wasn't based on some factual data?

Oh yeah as far as the lineages being heard. I didn't mean on this forum I meant more outside in the real world. Most of the CLF sifus I know, have met or heard of are usually Chan Family or Hung Sing. I do know some from the Fong Yuk Shu lineage and Wong Doc Fai claims multiple lineages.

Also, I knew that Lui Chan studied with Cheong Yim, however I didn't know that he studied with Lung Gi Choy. Was it common back then to study from various sifus since in the old days people were taught based on their size and shape and therefore certain teachers had certain things to offer that others might not?

Peace.

[alecM]

Although I am not a member of any of Doc Fai Wong’s organizations, however on the Chan Heung Cheung Yim front, I would say I am in agreement with his article on the CLF history from the recent issue of May 2002 Inside Kung Fu Magazine posted on the An article on CLF history by Sifu D. Lacey discussion on clfma.com. http://www.clfma.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=143&23

[k-no]

Guys,

I haven't the time to explain fully why I haven't the time to address your concerns and comments in a timely manner. Nice try, but I am not afraid of your criticism, and I surely am not avoiding anyone. I have been laid off, and in my last day at home I have been trying to post to no avail. The DSL sucks in my area, what can I say?!? Whoever thought they had the answer to my supposed "reluctance to answer", think again. I haven't been home for over a week by the way. I won't air my personal problems here, suffice it to say that I've been holed up in a hotel room attending to my taxes, jacked up business accounting, dealing with a relationship problem, etc. I do have a life. I HAVE spoken to my sifu regarding the article. He had wanted me to post here and with updates but more important things are at stake for regarding my life than a point of view that has everyone riled up. I'm sorry but me and mines need to eat, and I need to find a way to provide...

I haven't the time as well to read everyone's responses, at least today. I cannot expect you simple minded folk to understand the magnitude of my sudden problems. For those who gave me the benefit of the doubt (Cody), I thank you, honestly.

Let me close with these thoughts until I can get back to you guys.

1. I have been in phone contact with my sifu. I haven't been able to see him because I am WAAAAY out of town. I haven't had time to post updates on the site. Sorry, but THAT is the TRUTH.

2. Sifu Lacey's views are strong convictions that have nothing to do with money. extrajoseph, you should be ashamed of your little innuendos. Sifu Lacey is one of the most generous people I know, who teaches kung fu for his sheer love of the art. He does not benefit monetarily for writing this article. He did it to support the views of the CLF union in HK. He collects no tributes or fees from his other branches, and he is very selective of his students. He has stopped teaching children long ago, and the US gwoon has been a non-profit organization for almost a year now. Are these the acts of someone who wishes to gain money from this? I should now refrain to address you directly should I say something I might regret!

3. Sifu Lacey talked to me extensively via my cell phone while I was having lunch this week, regarding his conversation with Kong Hing Sigung regarding the article. Sigung's comments were staggering. Rather than taking things out of context and butchering what I was told, I urge anyone who has a real grudge to air it with the Choi Lee Fut Union in HK. You might be surprised at what they have to say.

4. Anyone who doesn't have a clue as to the real heart of the matter, read the article again with an open mind and sans animosity for people who are not within your group. Sifu Lacey stresses "free will". He is on his podium, speaking just as people from the Chan family are out there, preaching their "faith". I back my sifu out of pure loyalty as I have no "scientific evidence" on either fronts, and stayed outside the controversy until I saw some of the feedback. You people casting stones argue free will, and now you are showing your true colors by showing that yes, free speech is okay...unless it's from a family outside Chan family. The hypocrisy is appaling.

PS: I just read more from "brother Joseph's" posts.

I don't know what your deal is, but here are some more little factoids for you to consider.

Sifu Lacey was told by Sigung Kong Hing, with the backing of the union, that he "did and said the right thing". Look, I am no one in this organization but a loyal supporter of Sifu Dave, but if I keep pressing him with this, he's gonna say "Who the hell is this guy?" Not to belittle anyone, but really now, are YOUR VIEWS shared by the whole CHAN "CAMP"? Please do regale me with more stories about how the Chan Family is holding back from "Embarassing" my sifu. Are you anyone that holds any prominence in the Chan Family's inner circle? The reason I ask is, if this is so, why don't you take your venomous tongue and do just what he asks and take this up with the CLFIU Ltd in HK? I try not to get involved but I am deeply offended at your comments and subtle suggestions that Sifu Dave does this for money/for himself/that the Union is a farce. I have been with sifu to HK, and the fraternity is alive and well. If you are no one in the organization, as I am, please get someone who is that shares your exact views, and let's SET THIS MATTER STRAIGHT NOW! For the last time....Sifu is sharing his strong convictions, but STRESSES FREE WILL!

I support Sifu D Lacey's views. Sifu D Lacey supports Sigung Kong Hing's views. Sigung Kong Hing is a prominent member of the CLF Union in HK. If you guys think the Union is a farce or shooting a gun with blanks, then make a move and take it up with them as sifu says! As sifu said in his article, "it's time you woke up for it's obvious you have been living in your own corner of the world too long! "

Catcha in a minute.

k

[k-no]

hello premier,

While you and I seem to be on different teams, I applaud your response. This is an open mindedness I respect, and part of the "free will" that Sifu Lacey respects also. I posted the article knowing it might ruffle some feathers, but because my sifu knew I was a techie and wanted me to admin his site. He knows fully well where the Chan family stands and even has a "Part II" drafted that outlines the "Chan Family Version" of CLF history. We are all free to talk. To defame and slander my sifu because they don't agree with his views are simply childish neh? However you stand internally, I sincerely thank you for your mature summary of the matter. In the end of the day, we are all CLF men, and I am proud to stand with you and other CLF practicioners, regardless of family or branch.

k

[extrajoseph]

Whatever I have to say is my personal view point, I am not speaking on behalf of any branches, groups, family or union for that matter. Your Sifu has made a public statement and this is an open discussion forum for individuals as well as for representative of an organisation to discuss these statements.

I knew you are going to say I am from the Chan family because that is how you would expected them to react. Well, you are wrong, they did not reacted at all. It is I, as an individual who raised these questions and I do not support your Sifu's points of view, even though he has the backing of the so called CLF Union.

I have nothing against you personally nor against your Sifu, he is entitled to his view points as well. I am only interested in how he can back up his statements. We can believe any thing we want to believe but if you mentioned dates and facts, they are open to scrutiny.

You still have not answer any of my questions, may be when you have settled down a bit and have a chance to speak to your Sifu you may like to do so.

Thanking you in advance.

JosephX

[Cody]

Have decided to read thru an absolute mess of papers I've copied from some Internet sources on this subject matter.
You mention the Choi Lee Fut Union in HK. Do they have an official website, with English translation? I inquire for reading purposes only.

While generosity is not being questioned, so don't get the wrong idea -- Schools and other organizations claim nonprofit status for tax purposes, and other benefits. It provides a rational way to function economically. No big deal.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/business_inc

hope your situation improves.

Cody

[JAZA]

Hello K-no:

I think that the first part of your post is directed to my post about why you didn't answer. As I answer to Cody, I didn't want to be disrespectful to you, just was what I think that was a possibility that it's not offensive at all.
I hope no resentments.

[nospam]

k-no,

I appreciate your situation but get busy and post PART II :D

Hmm...I forget what this whole thread started as.....oh yes. My website! ;)

Here we go! (http://members.shaw.ca/naya/)

Understanding of any style is individualistic. Something becomes important in a practitioner's learning and it melds itself into their understanding of their style. If this becomes the case, then the thing or premise in question becomes intrinsic to the style, and when transmitting the style, it defines the style or the style as they have developed an understanding.

nospam.
:cool:

[anton]

Sounds like you're in a bad place, hope your situation improves soon.