First Mention of Green Grass Monk

[extrajoseph]

Since there are not many articles and books written in English on Choy Lee Fut (not many in Chinese either), it is not difficult to find out when was the Green Grass Monk first mentioned in English publications.

As far as my research showed, the first mention of the Green Grass Monk in English appeared in 1983 in Lee Koon-Hung’s book “Choy Lee Fut Kung Fu – The Dynamic Art of Fighting� published by Lee Koon-Hung Publishing Co. in Hong Kong.

Two years later (1985), Doc-Fai Wong tried to clarify this misconception in his book co-written with Jane Hallander (who passed away only this year) called “Choy Li Fut Kung Fu� published by Unique Publications. In Chapter 2 of the book, “The Green Grass Monk Misconception�, Doc Fai Wong mentioned 8 errors of facts. So far (again as far as I know), no one has made any serious attempt to refute his arguments, in particular Ching Cho was a fictional character from a popular novel called “Fut Shan Hung Sing Kwoon� written by Nim Fut Shan Yen (a pseudonym) and no historical evidence that the GGM ever existed.

It is interesting to note in 1983 when Chan Kin-Man (son of Chan Hong-Heung who studied with Fong Yu-Shu) wrote “A Brief Introduction to Tsai Lee Fo Chia Chuan� for one of his student Hui Ting-Hing’s book called “Tsai Lee Fo Chin Pao Ping Cheng Chuan�, a bi-lingual book published by Chan Hong-Heung Kung Fu Association of Hong Kong, he did not mentioned the Green Grass Monk at all and acknowledged Chan Yuen-Wu as one of Chan Heung’s teachers.

Yet the following year (1984), in another book written by another two of his students, Wan Yiu- Keung and Yan Sang (a pseudonym) called “Tai Lee Fo Chia Plum Blossom Boxing�, also in bi-lingual published by Yih Mei Book Co. of Hong Kong, they added the Green Grass Monk in the CLF history, obviously with their teacher Chan Kin-Man’s blessing. I wondered what caused the change of heart in the space of one year?

As yet I have not been able to trace any mention of Green Grass Monk earlier than 1983. Has anyone out there have any evidence to show otherwise?

Please note this is not an attempt on my part to stir up the GGM controversy once more, it is my genuine attempt to do some serious research on the subject. Any useful leads would be greatly appreciated, please make them factual and not argumentative. Thanking you all in advance.

JosephX

[premier]

Chan family's manuscripts mention Green Grass Monk being a pseudonym for Choy Fook. I think they were written before 1983.

[Fu-Pow]

While Lee Koon Hung's book might have been the first "American" publication that mentions the Green Grass Monk, I'd venture to guess that it was not the first English language publication that mentioned him.

Just speculation. Good luck in your research.

[alecM]

I have a one of the Bi-lingual Choy Lee Fut magazines, which I believe, were published either in the late sixties or early seventies. With the magazine being dedicated to Choy Lee fut there are articles written by and about the various sifu’s from all the CLF branches such as Sifu Ho Ngau, Sifu Lau Kee, Sifu Tsang Chiu Yu, Sifu Chan Siu Fong (Chan Kin Man’ sister), Sifu Chan Yiu Wun, Sifu Chui and Sifu Lee Koon Hung and not one mention of Ching Cho Wor Sung.

[extrajoseph]

AlecM,

I have a collection of the bi-lingual magazine you spoke about, Both Lee Koon-Hung and Chan Kin-Man have photos and articles in them but no mention of GGM as you said.


Fu-Pow,

I thought that would be the case as well, but I have not been able to track any of them down in Hong Kong or SE Asia, either in magazines or association journals. Anyone else have any clues? In particular people from Lee Koon-Hung and Chan Hong-Heung lineage as they were some of the earliest writers of CLF history in English.

It would be nice to establish a definite date when GGM was first mentioned as a person in CLF history and not as a novel character made up by Nam Futsan Yan. Any help would be appreciated.

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

Good approach Extra Joseph. You are actually trying to identify where this "misconception" started. It might be difficult to attribute to one person but it may be feasible to narrow down to one organization.

I'd hate to think that it started with my branch or with LKH. But my mind remains open.

[diego]

Found this:http://www.plumblossom.net/Articles/Inside_Kung-Fu/May2002/Text.html

[extrajoseph]

I have been thinking (a dangerous thing to do!), LKH was very active in the movie industry at the time and no doubt the script for his movie was based on Nam Futsan Yan's novel "Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon". So it is only reasonable to assume that it would be in his interest to make the story more authentic by writing it down as history.

Don't jump on me now, guys, it is only an assumption! No disrespect is intended. May be LKH got his idea from his teachers before that. What I like to know is where the first written record of GGM as history was made and by whom, either in Chinese or English. I think that is a good place to start to sort out the origin of the GGM.

There are many students of LKH still around, Joe for example and his brother and his wife, they are in a much better position to comment on this line of thinking than me. It would be appreciated if they can, my many thanks in advance.

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

Another possibility is that this novel written about Hung Sing Gwoon had a more exciting story line than the actual story of Chan Heung. So naturally if you were going to make a movie about CLF you would latch onto the story with more entertainment value.

Just speculating. I'm still undecided as to what the "truth" is. Although I am interested to know what that "truth" is.

[Hiram]

Sorry to disagree, but in Fatshan there is no doubt they believe in the GGM.

In Fatshan- his existence is not a moot point. It seems that most of the "controversy" exists only here in the states.

(I mean no disrespect to anyone, only stating my point of view)

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

It is interesting to note that Lee Koon Hung's book does mention the GGM, however he talks about Chan Hueng following him and makes no mention of Cheong Yim so your theory of the movie blows up right there (no offense intended).

Additionally I also have Chan Kin Man's books and his students book and all mention Chan Hueng following Monk Ching Cho at least in the english translation portion. (Books I have Gum Pow Ping Chan Kuen, Bak Mo Kuen and Siu Moi Fah Kuen)

Sifu only made two movies both with minor parts so I would hardly say that he is heavy into the movie scene.

One point that I might raise would be as follows:

When Sifu was young (20s and younger) he followed Poon Dik and after he passed away he followed his two senior students: Leung Sai and Chow Bing. Later when Lee Koon Hung was in his 30s he followed Sifu Poon's sidai So Kam Fook. Maybe the whole GGM thing came after following him? Afterall his books came out some time after that.

My guess would also be that he was the first person with the balls to write something like this. I don't think he was afraid to rock the boad so to speak.

Anyhow we will never know.

Peace.

[Serpent]

Good going, Joseph. This is very interesting. And CLFNole, it's wrong to say that we will never know. If enough quality research is done, then one day we may well know! A little positive thought please! ;)

[extrajoseph]

So the story line from Chan Kin-Man's books is that Chan Heung also followed Ching Cho (GGM) after he was taught by Chan Yeun-Wu, Lee Yau-Shan and Choy Fook, so when and how did the story line changed to Jeong Yim studied with GGM first then came back to teach Chan Heung?

It is also interesting according to your Sifu LKH's book, Chan Heng studied with Choy Fok first then Choy introduced him to Lay Yau-Shan for 8 years before sending him to see the GGM in Bak-Pai Mountain somewhere in central China. There was no mention of Chan Yeun-Wu at all. Your Sifu's story seem to be different to Chan Kin-Man and also to Futsan Hung Sing. I wonder how did it happened and why?

You seem to have a lot of knowledge about your sifu's movies, what was the story line in regard to GGM and Jeong Yim to Chan Heung? Was it the same or different to his book?

So you would agreed that your Sifu LKH was the first to introduce GGM and rocked the boat, so to speak. I agree with you that he has balls, not only mentioned GGM but also put Choy Fook as Chan Heung's first teacher before Lee Yau-Shan and not mentioned Chan Yuen-Wu at all. He rewrote the history of CLF in one broad stroke and the boat is still rocking today!

Why do you think he wants to do it, taking a novel character and turned it into a historical figure? May be GGM is not a novel character as far as your Sifu is concerned, if that is the case, do you know if he has any hard evidence of GGM's existence? Does anyone in your lineage knows where Bak-Pai Shan is? Some say it is in Guangzi and not central China.

All this is very confusing, we have a character that could have been made up in a martial arts novel, then he has been put into various relationship to Chan Heung by different people and they changed over time. Yet all this seems to have started in the early 80's, that is less than 20 years ago. It should be easy enough to find out the truth with some serious research, would it not? Or are we too pessimistic with human nature and should not bother with the truth at all, even though it is only historical truth?.

Your theory that the whole story may have came from So Kam-Fook is an interesting one, do you have any hard evidence to back it up? I am sure there are students of So Kam-Fook still alive
and will be able to give their side of the story.

I have no problem with my theories being blown up in my face as long as we get closer at the end to how the historical events unfolded in time and we can do this without being emotional and argumentative. There are many shades of "beliefs" out there, but if we use the term "theories" instead, we can prove or disprove them by research without violating anyone's belief.

I am sorry if I sounded too harsh in this posting. I am only trying to find out when the misconception first started or whether there is a misconception in the first place. No disrespect is intended, especially to your Sifu LKH, I have every respect for the man and his work and if anything he has make us think.

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

First off about your post being harsh, I could care less. Afterall they are just words they don't hurt and if people don't have thick skin then they shouldn't be here. I enjoy constructive conversation and even arguing but lets keep our heads cool.

The first thing that should be noted is that there were major problems with the english translation for Lee Koon Hung's book. Names of stances were wrong, etc... I don't know if he even wrote the history part it could have been one of his Hong Kong University students that was doing the bas english translation.

The story that Lee Koon Hung told us was that Chan Hueng had learned kung fu from one of his clansman "uncles". He never mentioned his name only that he gave Chan Hueng his early foundation. He then said he followed Lay Yau San and then Choy Fook. The GGM part is a bit confusing because I remember him saying that Chan Hueng followed him briefly and then he set Cheong Yim to follow him later on. This story was later told to us by his brother. The movie has Chan Hueng sending Cheong Yim out to find the GGM. But this is a movie and nowhere in the movie does it say "this is based on actual events".

As far as having any hard evidence no I don't my sifu passed away. He didn't have any special manuscripts lying around the house with the "History of the Green Grass Monk" written on it. His wife and daughters no nothing of this nor do they wish to.

I do not agree that he was the first to talk of th GGM becuase I haven't had the opportunity nor do I wish to track down every book, magazine or paphlet in the world to find out. Truthfully I don't know if there is any "hard evidence" out there checking a couple of books out there would be hardly what I consider "hard evidence" as to who brought about the GGM contraversy. Seriously the Chan Kin Man camp talks of him as do all of the other Hung Sing schools and some Buk Sing schools.

I know you come from the Chan Yiu Chi line and follow his writtings but tell me have you ever questioned there complete validity. I mean can you tell me everything about your grandfathers life especially when he was a young man. I think Chan Yiu Chi did great things for CLF but he was a man and all men deep down inside strive for fame and glory in some shape or form. To write a manuscript about his grandfathers kung fu would give his family the utmost respect in the CLF community even though his kung fu may or may not have been as good as his sihing dai. He would always have the famed "Manual of CLF from Chan Hueng".

I don't mean to rock your boat but what I am trying to get at is every side has a story and truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I don't take everything I know about CLF as fact just as I don't talk everything the Chan Hueng side says as fact. I mean in China itself there are to cities with contradictory CLF stories (King Mui and Fut San).

Without "hard evidence" as you put it written from either Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim this is an exercise in futility. I have been to some banquets with some of the old masters and everyone knows it all and has their own story. Much like what is going on today. To me this is much like religion it all depends on where your faith lies, afterall no one can actually prove to me that Jesus rose from the grave, however this is what I was taught to believe and have faith in.

Peace.

[JAZA]

I think that Chan Heung and Chan Koon Pak leave some manuscripts, but Chan YIu Chi did a scholar work after, so I think it are used as bibliography first and it must be in better conservation, beacuse of the acidity of rice paper. It would be good to know if the Chin Cho mention of Chan Yiu Chi were written before of after to the novel of Foshan.
I congratulate you old brothers for having this discussion in a reasonable way. This is what historicians call petit histoire and it always hard to get to the real facts.

[alecM]

Chan Kin Man’s father Chan Hon Hung was my sifu’s sigung and the history that has been handed down to my fellow students and me has always been the version CLFnole mentions, Chan Heung learning his kung fu from Chan Yeun Wu, Lee Yau San, and Choy Fook with no mention of Ching Cho. Why the Chan kin Man books mention Ching Cho I couldn’t say. One more thing about Chan kin Man, his version of Bak Mo Kuen apart from the beginning a very different from the version we practice.

[Fu-Pow]

Has anyone ever done a family tree of CLF it is so hard to keep all these names straight. Who is Chan Kin Man?

[alecM]

In the books by Chan Kin Man and his students there is family tree that lists their lineage however the tree they compiled left out a few of Chan Hon Hung’s top students and to say it caused a few arguments would be putting it mildly.
So I think if anyone tried to do a CLF family tree would probably be giving him or herself more trouble than it would be worth.

[extrajoseph]

Originally posted by CLFNole
Sisuk Joseph:

CN: First off about your post being harsh, I could care less. Afterall they are just words they don't hurt and if people don't have thick skin then they shouldn't be here. I enjoy constructive conversation and even arguing but lets keep our heads cool.

JX: That is good; lets keep our heads cool and get through this.

CN: The first thing that should be noted is that there were major problems with the english translation for Lee Koon Hung's book. Names of stances were wrong, etc... I don't know if he even wrote the history part it could have been one of his Hong Kong University students that was doing the bas english translation.

JXA: Hmm, that is interesting, so you think your Sifu LKH may not have written the chapter on the history of CLF, that sounds plausible because it is full of mistakes and I would like to think a person of his calibre would have known better. Just the same, his book is very influential and still sells many copies, so the mistakes continued to this day. What a pity.

CN: The story that Lee Koon Hung told us was that Chan Hueng had learned kung fu from one of his clansman "uncles". He never mentioned his name only that he gave Chan Hueng his early foundation. He then said he followed Lay Yau San and then Choy Fook. The GGM part is a bit confusing because I remember him saying that Chan Hueng followed him briefly and then he set Cheong Yim to follow him later on. This story was later told to us by his brother. The movie has Chan Hueng sending Cheong Yim out to find the GGM. But this is a movie and nowhere in the movie does it say "this is based on actual events".

JX: So LKH told his students Chan Heung did studied with his clansman uncle first but didn’t know his name, then Lay Yau-San and then Choy Fook and not Choy Fook first as was written in his book, did he ever thought of correcting the mistakes? As for GGM, it was confusing and LKH could not make up his mind whether Chan Heung did studied with him or not but Chan Heung did sent Cheong Yim to see GGM, but it may not be based on actual events. So this would have tie in with WDF’s theory that GGM was a novel character made up by Nam Futsan Yan.

CN: As far as having any hard evidence no I don't my sifu passed away. He didn't have any special manuscripts lying around the house with the "History of the Green Grass Monk" written on it. His wife and daughters no nothing of this nor do they wish to.

JX: So your Sifu just mentioned GGM and did not even tell his students where this character came from or which teacher told him. Did you ever questioned your Sifu's words? No, I suppose.

CN: I do not agree that he was the first to talk of th GGM becuase I haven't had the opportunity nor do I wish to track down every book, magazine or paphlet in the world to find out. Truthfully I don't know if there is any "hard evidence" out there checking a couple of books out there would be hardly what I consider "hard evidence" as to who brought about the GGM contraversy. Seriously the Chan Kin Man camp talks of him as do all of the other Hung Sing schools and some Buk Sing schools.

JN: My original intention was to find out when was the earliest mention of GGM as a historical figure. In this context the “hard evidence” that I was looking for would be books or articles written about him, especially useful if they were written before the “Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon” story. If they were written after and only in the 80’s then it is not unreasonable to accept WDF’s theory as being correct. The second line of support for the theory would be evidence provided by Chan Yiu-Chi’s manuscript saying GGM being a pseudonym for Choy Fook. Both of them saying GGM is not a real person. By knowing when was GGM first mentioned, we can see get a picture of the reliability of this character GGM. I don’t think this “hard evidence” is too difficult to obtain. So far I can only trace it to 1983, unless other evidence turn up in the future.

You said Chan Kin-Man and ALL of the other Hung Sing schools talked about him, yet according to alecM, Chan Kin-Man’s father Chan Hon Hung never mentioned the GGM at all. So it seems his son added the character in his history round about the early 80’s. Don’t you find this interesting? It took 3 to 4 generations for the history to change and now in the last few years, it began to accelerated to the point where we now have Cheong Yim as the founder of CLF and GGM taught all he knew and Chan Heung was just one of his teachers. The foundation of this claim rest with GGM, yet the existence this person as a historical figure is uncertain

CN: I know you come from the Chan Yiu Chi line and follow his writtings but tell me have you ever questioned there complete validity. I mean can you tell me everything about your grandfathers life especially when he was a young man. I think Chan Yiu Chi did great things for CLF but he was a man and all men deep down inside strive for fame and glory in some shape or form. To write a manuscript about his grandfathers kung fu would give his family the utmost respect in the CLF community even though his kung fu may or may not have been as good as his sihing dai. He would always have the famed "Manual of CLF from Chan Hueng".

A: Chan Yiu Chi did not write his manuscript for fame and glory, otherwise he would have wasted no time in publishing it. He wrote it for his family and close disciples. You have to be very close to the family to get a page or two to look at. So your hurtful remark about Chan Yiu-Chi is just a cheap shot, I am really disappointed at you.

As for the validity of information on both sides, I did do quite a bit of checking the last time I was in China, especially the important things like dates, birth and burial places. Because they say Chan Heung's birthday was lengthen by 10 years, I went to the public library in Guangzhou and I found what the Chen Family said about Chan Heung’s birthday was confirmed in the County Record, I went to King Mui where he was born and saw his gravesite and the Ancestral School where he taught for the first time. Many of his clansmen and descendants were still around. Then I went to Low Fo Shan and met this old tourist guide who told me he took some CLF people many years ago to see the place where Choy Fook’s temple used to stand.

After King Mui I went to Futsan and looked through Cheong Yim’s records. I went to the village where the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon said he was born and no one knew of him and there were no descendants to be seen. I went to the place where they said he was buried and could not find his grave. I asked for evidence of Ching Cho’s existence and they could not produce any and when I tried to look for Bak Pai Shan and I could not find it. So I left without any concrete evidence and I am still wondering what to make of Cheong Yim’s birth and death and the GGM. Even the claim that Cheong Yim started the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon was dubious, because what the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon wrote in 1998 in the local paper was different to what they wrote in their latest commemorative journal.

We have a foreigner called Futsan Dan living in Futsan at the moment, we can ask him where he can find evidence of the GGM and Bak Pai Shan and check out the village where Cheong Yim was born and the place he was buried. I didn’t get any satisfaction, may be he can help us out. I go to China quite often, so tell me where to look and I can go and check it out.

CN: I don't mean to rock your boat but what I am trying to get at is every side has a story and truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I don't take everything I know about CLF as fact just as I don't talk everything the Chan Hueng side says as fact. I mean in China itself there are to cities with contradictory CLF stories (King Mui and Fut San).

JX: I love you rocking my boat because it makes me try harder. You said the truth lies somewhere in the middle, what is this “middle” in your point of view and how do you arrive at that? As for a rivalry between King Mui and Futsan, I saw it coming miles away and it won’t get any easier, that is why we have to be even more cool headed about this history thing.

CN: Without "hard evidence" as you put it written from either Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim this is an exercise in futility. I have been to some banquets with some of the old masters and everyone knows it all and has their own story. Much like what is going on today. To me this is much like religion it all depends on where your faith lies, afterall no one can actually prove to me that Jesus rose from the grave, however this is what I was taught to believe and have faith in.

JX: I have been to many of these “gas-bag” dinners and Yum Cha as well. I always smile to the elders and make up my own mind afterward. History is not religion; it does not require faith to check out some written records. What I am doing is trying to do is to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, not to take sides which is what you think I am doing because I came from Chan Yiu-Chi's lineage.

I believe in CLF but I am also a rational being, like if I am a Christian, I couldn’t care less whether Christ can be proved to have rose from the dead or not. But as a scientist, I would like to know just for the sake of knowing. Whatever the outcome, it should not affect me as a true believer and rock my faith. So whatever the outcome, you will see me doing my gwa, sow, chap and I am sure you will continue to do yours as well!

JosephX


Peace.

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

The bold letters are still giving me a headache. I hope this isn't the cyber version of yelling? Ha!Ha!

All of your points are valid ones. As far as questioning my Sifu about his account of CLF history, at that time I was just starting out in CLF and he passed away about 2-3 years in to my study. The bottom line is I didn't know enough to ask I was more interested in learning the forms & weapons and chinese terms. If I would have known he was going to pass away I surely would have asked him questions but as I am sure that you are aware you must respect your sifu and not go and put him on the spot about his version of CLF history.

As far as the written documentation that is in China may I ask who wrote and when was it written. Because if it was written when Chan Hueng was alive then why wouldn't there be any of Chan Heung's actual writtings still available.

Another thing I find it very convenient that recently it has been discovered the Ching Cho War Sherng was another name for Choy Fook. How wonderfully convenient for the Chan Hueng side to move ahead of the Cheong Yim side. I don't think you are on their side so to speak as I am not on a side. I like to play devil's advocate.

To me this all seems like a power struggle and I can't stand being involved in politics. I love and practice choy lay fut kung fu. My side comes from both Chan Hueng and Cheong Yim but most important originated from Chan Hueng.

I enjoy talking about history and CLF with you but I will admit I would defend my sifu's name until my last breath. Chan Kin Man's CLF book was also published in 1983 so why didn't you mention him as the first and have to bring up my sifu's name. Chan Kin Man is still alive so I would guess being of your CLF stature you could contact him and ask why he mentioned the GGM in his book rather than making accusations at a man no longer with us. I don't know if you have something against him but if you do then keep it to yourself.

Peace.

[kei lun]

It was mentioned before that the story of the Green Grass Monk was from a book called FutShan Hung Sing Kwoon written by Nim Fut Shan Yen. Does anyone know if this book can still be found? Perhaps it wasn�ft a fictitious account, maybe there�fs more truth there than fiction. Just a thought, grasping at straws I guess.

Kei Lun

[Fu-Pow]

You have to be very close to the family to get a page or two to look at.

Let me ask you a question JosephX. Why do you think that this is the case? Why is Chen Yong Fa so unwilling to share the information in the "Manuscript of CLF"? And yet his group continually trumpets this manuscript as the "be all and end all."

I'm sorry but something isn't stacking up here. If these people were really interested in the truth then they would share the information that they have and not hide it away or hold it over other people's head.

One thing that can be said about the late LKH, his students and his organization is that they are very "transparent." They are willing to teach anyone and share what they know with everybody. They have published books, videos and been active in the martial arts community across styles and across the world.

They don't closet things away and then brag about them and then wonder why people get ****ed off.

[JAZA]

let's keep the head cool still:)
You have to see that is a family tradition proud of his treasures with an oriental tradition too, also there is poetry in this material but it have never shown out of the family. Don't you have in your family or a friend family that have an old ascendants member that paints of wrote something that is proud to them, and they have the walls ful of good pictures but they never have done a public exhibition.
Another thing to have accounted is that this are old rice paper documents, so clearing it for everyone would let it to a rappid destruction. What I have deduced from the fourm of CLFma is that master Chen Yong Fa and his secretary Sisuk Howard Choy is a work of restauration and translation of the huge ammount of material. Also there are material in other descendants of CHan YIu CHi, so I think that when Joseph said that you have to be close to the family to get to the documents it's a very rational thing, and it doesn't means that someone is hiding information, we are not talking about cheaps hardcover books.
The document related to Ching Cho doesn't belongs to master Chen Yong Fa, it belongs to one of his uncles ( son of Chan Yiu Chi) that still lives in China and it was take it out just because of the GGM that come out in the last time in this forum. I think that Chan family wasn't worried about GGM after.

Peace to all

[Fu-Pow]

Look I really don't give a rats ass about the green grass monk or the Chan Family manuscripts or any of that.

It really doesn't have anything to do with learning the art of fighting .

As everyone knows kung fu can only be handed down face to face. I can tell you on paper what Sao Choy is, but until I show you what it is and you practice it 1000's of times and practice applying it in 10 different ways......you really won't understand how to do it correctly.

The history and the lineage, while interesting, doesn't say anything about anyone's level of skill. My Sifu puts many so called "masters" of the "purest" lineage to shame.

I've seen Chen Yong Fa's students perform and their stuff looks really good. That's all I need to know.

So no worries here.

JosephX, I don't know anything about you and I've never seen your CLF. You could totally suck. So until the day we meet in person everything you put forth, I take with a grain of salt. I have no idea if you any idea what your talking about.

[extrajoseph]

Siheng CLFNole,

Sorry about the bold letters, I have no idea how it happened.

As far as I know, Chan Heung did not leave any written material. I have been told there were manuscripts by Chan Koon-Pak , On Pak and Chan Yiu-Chi but very few people have seen them.

I am not on anyone’s side, I merely tried to do some research. I get crossed because people made all sorts of claims and have no evidence to back them up. As far as GGM is concerned, there seems to be 2 sources available now to disprove his existence and yet no one has put forward any evidence to support his case so far. Until then, we can only assume he is just a fictititious character.

I thought the Chan family showed a page of the manuscript to throw some light on the subject because of the recent debates. They need not do so knowing DFW already has a good case in Nam Futsan Yan making up the character. I don’t think they were being opportunistic and if it is a power struggle going on then the Chan family is keeping very quiet. I am doing all this because I do care for CLF and I am interested in history and I have time in between business meetings in China.

I agree with you that Chan Kin-Man could have been the first to mention GGM one year earlier than LKH. What I really want to know is there any earlier appearance than 1983? I have nothing against Chan Kin-Man and judging from aleM’s posting I don’t think he really believed in the GGM story either.


Kei-Lun,

The story of Futsan Hung Sing Kwoon was part of the popular trend of having stories written on famous martial artists like Wong Fei-Hung and Hung Hei-Koon at the time. Unless we have proof of GGM’s existence, what he taught Chan Heung or Cheong Yim and where Bak Pai Shan is, etc, we can only assumed he was a fictitious character.


Fu-Pow,

Please keep cool for a bit longer, we are almost through with this debate without turning it into a bun fight.

I am not talking about Kung Fu skill here, I am only talking about when GGM first appeared in writing and whether he was real or a made-up character. CLF lineage and the Chan family manuscript have nothing to do with the topic.

Although I have been doing CLF for a long time, my Kung Fu skill still sucks because I don’t practise hard enough. You should always take what I said (or anyone else for that matter) with a grain of salt, whether I am good or whether you know me personally or not.

JosephX

[nospam]

Fu-Pow

...that is exactly how I feel regarding gung fu. It is passed from teacher to student and is what it is at that time. It is up to us as practising students to make sure we do our best to become our best and honour that which has been transmitted. And none of us would remain with our teacher or style unless we believed.

Yes, off topic on this thread, but we all have interests.

Toodles.

nospam.
:cool:

[extrajoseph]

I am not asking people to be disloyal to their teachers or disrespectful of their lineage. I merely ask people to look at the written evidence. We can criticise a piece of information without being personal.

The situation is very simple to me. The name GGM was mentioned in writing about 20 years ago (it may be more but it is as far as we can gather at the moment) as being a historical figure in the development of CLF. This piece of information came about 140 years after the founding of CLF. All we are trying to do is to figure out the authenticity of this person from available sources.

I think this can be done without calling in or threatening anyone’s faith in his or her CLF.

Thank you for everyone's honesty and sincerity in this debate up to now.

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

You noted that the GGM first appeared in writing about 20 years ago. I would pose the question as when was he first spoken about? I would guess that discussions of this must had come up prior to anyone publishing any books.

One thing that I would like to note about all of the books in english publication. I think they were a means of people making money (my sifu included) afterall everyone needs to make a living and with the martial arts starved english speaking people out there at the time it likely generated a decent amount of income for a sifu. That is not an excuse for anything but rather to me more of a factor why the books were written in the first place.

One thing that you didn't address in my prior post related to the Chan Family recently discovering that Choy Fook was supposedly the GGM. Don't you find this awfully convenient given the current state of things. They always talk about the translation of data. All these people are Chinese and unless I'm mistaken the language hasn't changed so why the difficulty in translation?

Peace.

[JAZA]

May be I'm introducing in your conversation CLFnole, but I tried to answer before.
The manuscript was found it last year in the tour to China in the investigation of Sisuk Howard Choy. Even it was published in the clfma forum, for who want to see it, without disrespecting anyone and saying that people who believe in GGM is a liar or is spreading a fake version, so I don't see a problem in this.
If "all these people" have problem with the translation, I think that's it's not due to simple reason, and it's mainly to the huge ammount of material. You know better than I that a translation of chinese ideograms it's know a black box machine, and Sisuk Howard have a universitary occidental education and several years of personnal investigation of kung fu, feng shuey, tai ji, chinese philosophy in mainland China so he don't do a literal translation of chinese to english like many people do( without disrespect to them). His translation of the Choy Fook's couplets it's very different to the common avalaible version of it in the CLF websites, and he said in one of the clfma thread that he take a lot of time to translate chinese to english. It's good to take account master Chen and sisuk Howard doesn't dedicate all their time to CLF, master Chen it's dedicated mainly to his clinic and Howard Choy is dedicated to his architectural office and his tai chi centre.
Even I think that Chan family doesn't have a big reaction to this and seems to have a passive actitude.

Peace to all

[CLFNole]

Still it is awfully convenient for them that this piece of information recently turned up. Why wasn't in the manual of CLF that the already had. Did it fall out and slip under the ching jong. (just kiding). Something that just pops up recently should always be looked at with a bit of skeptism no matter who brings out the information.

Peace.

[extrajoseph]

Seeing you are as cynical as I am, you just wait until all the newly discovered information on the GGM going to come out from the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon. I KNOW they are working on them. Their version of history changes from year to year and it is all documented in Chinese to be seen. Future researchers are going to have a field day!

I remember reading in the clma forum earlier you did asked Sisuk Howard the same question why the information came out so late and the reply was that particular copy of the manuscript by Chan Yiu-Chi was kept with Chan Wing-Fat's uncle and it was not made available until recently. So you can see even within the family there are secrets, so what hopes do we have!

It is healthy to be cynical and on your guard, all I am asking is for you to look at all the evidence available and make your own judgement and air them here and that is what this kind of forum is good for and we can all do it in a respectful manner.

I am still waiting for your version of the truth always lies in the middle of two extremes. I know you believed that there is a GGM because that is what your sifu told you, please tell us how we can prove his existence, so far we only managed to disprove and it seems it is not good enough. BTW, what do you think of DFW's article on Ching Cho in the latest issue (May) of Inside Kung Fu magazine?

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

extrajoseph-

As I stated on the clfma forum. I don't think that this issue can be resolved with out the research of an outside disinterested party.

Kung Fu teachers in general have something to gain monetarily by saying that their lineage is the most direct or the purest or that they have received the "true" transmission.

If you don't believe me look at the ads for videos and books in the back of martial arts magazines. All the teachers in the video claim to be the most "authentic." People want the so called "real deal."

I applaud your effort to get at the root of this story but I really think it is not going to go anywhere and you may end up offending many people in the process.

Even if it is unintentional.

Kung Fu faces a crisis right now. Because of the quick rise of technology and the advent of modern weaponary, hand to hand or weapon to weapon combat is all but forgotten on the battle field.

Therefore, there is no real weeding out process to test which techniques work and those that don't. This makes it hard to test which techniques and training methods are valid and those that aren't.

As a student we must place faith in our teachers that they are knowledgeable in the art of fighting and that the knowledge they possess was derived from the real world fighting experiences of the generations before them.

The world we live in is full of fraudulent martial arts instructors that can open a martial arts "school" just because they have the money and a uniform.

To me these seem like more important issues to address than who has the "purest" lineage or whether or not the GGM exists?

Obviously all three lineages of CLF are valid ways to fight and build a healthy body. They share so much of the same techniques they are hardly distinguishable as subsystems within a larger system.

Wouldn't we benefit more from discussing ways in which we can promote our art, the true art, than delving into the past to confirm the existence of people that are already dead?

Didn't Chan Heung talk about future generations rather than the ones in the past?

Just some things to think about.

[extrajoseph]

My sentiment is exactly the same as yours.

The way to promote our true art is to have a strong root so the trunk and the branches can grow strong and healthy like we have been doing in the last 160 years.

By introducing the GGM and worse still a different founder, our foundation is divided and weakened. So before this "creeper" can latch onto the old tree and suck out some of its strength, we must examine its origin carefully.

Our strength is in our tradition, by knowing that we have the same root we can grow together. By avoiding the issue now we will have a difficult future.

Chan Heung was mindful of the future when he diliberately avoided calling the new system Choy Lee Chan and called it Choy Lee Fut instead. Fut is for the Shaolin Temple, the source of our tradition and not for a dubious character like the GGM, which some of the more opportunistic promoters would like us to believe!.

You may disagree, but we are on the same side, my brother.

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

I honestly could care less if he did or did not exist. My CLF comes from both sides some it doesn't really matter to me. My main issue was with the fact that on the surface you appeared to be pointing the finger at my sifu for starting the GGM issue. Since he has passed away and cannot answer for himself directly I was angered a bit and therefore entered the post. (the Italian in me likes to argue).

Like Fu Pow said CLF itself is what is most important. As far a DFW's article I really never gave it much thought since I always thought of him as more of a tai chi guy since he never demonstrates his CLF only tai chi.

Peace.

[JAZA]

Certo, you always have to keep skepticism, even in what the pope says.But always Have to keep trust, too:).

[Serpent]

Regarding the "convenience" of the timing of the Chan Family discovering this info about the GGM. Consider this. The Chan Family have never really been much into the whole history argument. Most of their senior sources are remaining uninvolved in this debate. However, they are sure to be aware of the debate. Therefore, on their most recent trip to China, family elders may have been asked about any info they had and subsequently this uncle pulled out his manuscript. Nothing really suspiscious about that. Just a thought.

[CLFNole]

Well as Sisuk Joseph said the GGM monk thing has been around for over 20 years. So why not squash the claim 20 years ago. Why conveniently find it now.

If the GGM was a fictious character has some believe than why was it another name for Choy Fook. Another thing to think about.

Peace.

[extrajoseph]

CLFN: Well as Sisuk Joseph said the GGM monk thing has been around for over 20 years. So why not squash the claim 20 years ago. Why conveniently find it now.

JX: I remembered you asked this question before and the answer given by Sisuk Howard was:

"CLFNoble,

Thank you again for your comments.

It is true that Lee Koon Hung was one of the first to mention Ching Cho in writing and his action sowed the seed for our discussions today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The identity of Ching Cho was not an issue whilst Ching Cho was not portrayed as a co-founder of CLF but only as the head of a branch. It became a divisive issue when some people tried to push the claim further.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure exactly what caused problems between branches, but it is not just about who received more publicity. It is a complex problem and all styles of MA have them. BTW, Chan Heung was not rich, nor was he educated.

I agree with you entirely that Chan Heung deserves all the credit for founding CLF and that all branch fractions should be given credits as well. Without the hard work of the past generations, we would not be as popular and as strong as we are today. A lot of information is available on the second generation, but because they are less controversial we tended to ignore them.

As you said it so nicely, all branches have their differences but they al contained the same “seeds’ as passed down by Chan Heung. So why promote a non-existing Ching Cho and bring unnecessary disharmony into the family?

It would be more constructive for us to study what is available and build a strong foundation of theory and practice for our art, instead of throwing “red-herrings�, like Ching Cho and who is better and more authentic, into the system and keep us apart.

Let me assure you, we all have great respect for Cheong Yim and his contribution to CLF. There is no need to rewrite history to reinforce that. We are intellegent enough to realize that a strong and healthy tree needs nutrient not only from the roots and the trunk but also from the branches and leaves.

I know people only want to believe in want they want to believe but that should not stop us from being true to our heritage.

Howard Choy"

CLFN: If the GGM was a fictious character has some believe than why was it another name for Choy Fook. Another thing to think about.

JX: My guess is that the GGM could have been memtioned orally before and Nam Futsan Yan took the name and turned it into a character in his novel and added some spice to it to make it more interesting. As DFW said it in his article , Nam Futsan Yan was a good friend of Chan Shing, Cheong Yim's disciple, so it is not unreasonable to think that the name Ching Cho could have been mentioned by Chan Heung as a psuedonym for Choy Fook but got skewed somewhere down the line.

I know you don't think much of DFW because to you he is just a Tai Chi guy, but if you read his article, it does make some sense. He also said Chan Heung and Ching Cho could be the same person.

I know whatever Howard Choy or the Chan Family say you will feel they are biased, but if you read Sisuk Howard's reply to you above, it seem pretty reasonable to me and as far as I know there is no official statement from Chen Wing Fat, so he either don't care or don't want to bite into the debate.

I know you don't think much of me either because I am from the
Chan Yiu-Chi lineage, and Fu-Pow don't think much of me also because he hasn't seen my Kung Fu. That is OK by me, all I am asking is for someone intelligent like you and Fu-Pow and others to come up with some information or evidence to show that Ching Cho could be a real person and that he could be either Chan Heung or Cheong Yim's teacher and some of the CLF techniques could have been passed down by him.

He is an important character, because the latest claim, that Cheong Yim is the founder of CLF instead of Chan Heung and Futsan is its birthplace instead of King Mui, all hinged on this mysterious character.

20 years ago, all your sifu said (in his book which you think he may not have written the part on history) was Chan Heung studied with Ching Cho and learned the Budda Palm. Then the story changed to Chan Heung sent Cheong Yim to study with Chin Cho and learned the Buddha Palm. Then it changed to Cheong Yim came back to King Mui and taught Chan Heung the Buddha Palm and co-founded CLF and the latest, asserted by Sifu Dave Lacey on behalf of the Hong Kong CLF Union (so he says), is that Cheong Yim founded CLF and Chan Heung was just one of his teachers.

20 years is a long time in the history of CLF!

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

Ok....

I'd definitely say that we have more than two version of the history here....check it out.

1) According to LKH's book Chan Heung studied with a Shaolin monk named Choy Fook for some time. The monk introduced him to another famous martial artist named Lee Yau Shan. Choy Fook and Lee Yau Shan were satisfied with what he had learned and sent him to study with the Green Grass Monk in the Bak-Pai mountain to learn Buddha Palm techniques. After combining and revising his art he named his art Choy Lay Fut to commerorate his first two teachers. He gave it the name Fut to commemorate the Green Grass Monk who gave up his name when he moved to Buddhist monastery.

2) According to the Book that was published for the Hong Sheng Kwoon 36th Anniversary in Singapore this last year:
Chan Heung was a village martial arts teacher in King Mui Village.
A young martial arts enthusiast by the name of Jeong Yim was taken in by Chan Heung. He was taught Choy and Lee Ga fighting techniques by Chan Heung despite the laws forbidding it in King Mui village. When the village elders found out Chan Heung had to send Jeong Yim to the Green Grass Monk in Bak Pai mountains. Jeong Yim learned chinese medicine and Buddha palming from the Green Grass Monk. He returned to King Mui and dazzled eveyone with his skill and shared his new techniques with Chan Heung. They worked together and synthesized an art that they called "Fut Kar Zheng Zhung." Eventually this style became known as CLF.

3) The Chan Family version:
Chan Heung first taught his art of CLF nearly 200 hundred years ago. From the age of seven, Chan Heung was taught martial arts by his uncle and village elder, Chan Yuen Wu. Chan Heung showed great promise, though only a boy he was strong and quick to learn. He had a natural ability and his uncle recognised this and spared no effort in teaching him all he knew. Chan Heung made such remarkable progress, that he was invited to set up a school for his uncle in town of Sun Wui.

Years later as Chan Hueng’s reputation grew and his school prospered another instructor by the name of Lee Yau San had been to teach in the neighbourhood. Lee was a disciple of a Shaolin monk Ji Sin and his skill was formidable. Chan Hueng after experiencing Lee’s skills first hand realised he could improve his own skills from the tutelage of this teacher. He immediately resigned his post as chief instructor and enrolled in Lee’s school. Chan Hueng was Lee’s disciple for five years and took his skill to new height.

Years later, Lee Yau San and Chan Hueng heard of a recluse monk by the name of Choy Fook, who was living in temple on mount Law Fou. This monk was renowned for his skill in Chinese medicine and Lee surmised that he must also be skilful in martial arts. Chan Hueng and Lee Yau San went to visit the monk. On recognising Choy Fook superior skill Chan Hueng begged him to accept him as a disciple. Choy Fook concluded that the request was a genuine one and so accepted Chan Hueng as a disciple after an initial test. For the next ten years Chan Hueng was taught Kung Fu by Choy Fook and found his skill improved remarkably.

Chan Hueng returned to his village and set up a clinic to treat the sick and help the poor. Later he was persuaded to set up a school in the village ancestral hall. He called the place Hung Sing Gwoon and his clinic Wing Sing Tong. Instead of selfishly calling his brand of Kung Fu the Chan style he chose the name Choy Lee Fut: Choy in honour of monk Choy Fook; Lee in honour of Lee Yau San; and Fut meaning Buddha to commemorate the Buddhist origin of the art, since all his three mentors could trace their lineage back to Shaolin temple.

I'm sure that there are more out there if I searched around the internet a little more. But as you can see LKH's version is not even the same as the one that is being touted by these folks in Singapore.

Some observations:

1) All three stories contain the names Chan Heung, Jeong Yim and the Green Grass Monk. The LKH story leaves out Chan Yuen Woo. The Singapore HSG leaves out Chan Yuen Woo, Lee Yau San and Choy Fook. The Chan Family version leaves out the Green Grass Monk.

2) According to the LKH version Chan Heung learned from Choy Fook first and Lee Yau San secondly. This is reversed from the Chan Family story.

3) The Singapore HSG claims that Chan Heung learned Lee Ga and Choy Ga styles. Are these part of the major 5 family systems of Southern China. Where are these styles now? Why does nobody practice them anymore?

4) Singapore HSG suggests that Chan Heung and Jeong Yim were founders of the style and called it "Fut Ka Zheng Zhung." I have never seen this before. It eventually became called Choy Lay Fut by the layman.

[extrajoseph]

Fu-Pow,

Thank you for your research. Your material has confirmed my theory that the history of CLF underwent a rapid change since the early 1980s. If you check the dates of these publications you will see the chronology clearly.

1) Before the early 80s, Chan Heung was considered the sole founder of CLF and Cheong Yim was one of his outstanding students and there was no mention of the GGM. This version you called the Chan Family version was accepted by all CLF practitioners and was written up in the magazines and the journals of the time.

2) Round about 1983 and 84, Chan Kit-Man and LKH introduced the GGM character but Chan Heung was still considered the founder of CLF.

3) Last year, as you mentioned, Cheong Yim became the co-founder of CLF with Chan Heung, according to Singapore HSG and we are now tied to the Five Families (Hung, Lau, Choy, Lee, Mok)and the Futsan HSG version said we are now tied to the Five Ancestors (Ng Jo)! Both versions were reworks of the one written by Chui Kwong-Chun in his Association Journal the year before. I have a bi-lingual copy of this in my possession.

4) This year, Cheong Yim, by decree of Sifu Dave Lacey and the CLF Union in Hong Kong, became the sole founder CLF and Chan Heung is just one of his teachers. You can check this out in

http://www.pantherfist.com/controversy2.html

So there are at least 3 newer versions (20 years old the most) apart from the original one, all with the GGM character as the Trojan horse. If you look at the dates of the publications, it is very easy to see the gradual attempts in rewriting history. The only problem is that they have put their arguments in a non-existent character. So they have to call on their student’s loyalty, group mentality and pride and prejudice to make it stick. In the end, when reason and evidence failed, they brought in the Union and the Decree!

Fu-Pow I know you don’t care about all this and you just want to get on with your Kung Fu, me too! But somehow I got going because of my sense of fair play and not to be taken as a gullible sucker. Everyday I read the newspapers and the magazines and I feel the advertisers and the politicians are trying to manipulate me. I go to read literature on CLF and I feel I have got the same deals as well! How many wars are fought and how many people were killed because of misplaced loyalty and in the name of faith? So I go off, I am sorry to have bored you guys with all this.

JosephX

PS. "Fut Ka Zheng Zhung" means Orthodox Buddhist School, it is a popular phrase to praise someone or some thing being authentic Buddhist but seldom used as a name but more as a phrase that comes before a name. We can say all styles derived from the Shaolin Temple are "Fut Ka Zheng Zhung" and we often see this phrase used in adverting banners of magazines and journals. There is something funny here.

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

I don't think little of you because come from the Chan Yiu Chi line. I was kind of offended by that remark because I think I have showed you nothing but respect as an elder.

I also don't think little of DFW just that I feel he is more in to tai chi that CLF.

Bottom line I think Chan Hueng was the founder of CLF and Cheong Yim the Hung Sing branch.

Truthfully this topic is getting old and I think that I am done with it. Lets move on the something more productive relating to CLF itself rather than whose version of history is correct because it really doesn't matter that much in the big picture (don't start with history not being important that is not my point).

Peace.

[Fu-Pow]

I think we can all agree that although the history is interesting it should not consume too much of our time.

It is apparent to me that Chan Heung was the true founder of CLF. Both LKH and Chan Family confirm this.

I think it is wishful thinking on the part of some Hung Sing people that Jeong Yim was the founder of the art. This seems to be a myth perpetuated by the Lacey/Kong Hing group and I'm just not buying it. As DFW has pointed out it just doesn't fit in with the existing knowledge about how Chinese culture works.

Futhermore, I don't think that just because Choy Fook and Lee Yau San carried the surnames of Choy and Lee that they practiced Choy Ga and Lee Ga. I believe that they really all practiced "Fut Ka Zhan Zhung" or Shaolin temple boxing. Styles were not as differentiated as they are today.

So this really leaves only a couple questions to be answered.

1) What contribution did Chan Yuen Wu make to Choy Lay Fut? Was his contribution significant? What style did he practice? And why was his name not included in the naming of the art? He was a clansman of Chan Heung after all.

2) Who was the Green Grass Monk? The Chan Family contend it was Choy Fook. This seems reasonable. Although I don't know that we can completely rule it out that the GGM was actually someone else that contributed to the development of CLF. If the GGM existed he contribute to the "Fut" in CLF? Or was the "Fut" just to pay respect to Shaolin in general?

Our lineage on our website (http://www.makskungfu.com/ChoyLayFut.html) shows the teachers of Chan Heung as Choy Fook, Lee Yau San and the GGM. But it clearly illustrates that Chan Heung is the founder. Jeong Yim is listed under Chan Heung as a student.

This is the lineage that my Sifu Mak Hin Fai gave to me to put on the website. It is consistent with the history that is written in LKH's book.

I don't think I'll try to change it for now. As long as Chan Heung is recognized as the founder there should really be no problem. It's when people start claiming that Jeong Hung-Sing is the founder that the controversy ensues.

BTW, what ever happened to Frank McCarthy and his book he was writing?

[extrajoseph]

1) What contribution did Chan Yuen Wu make to Choy Lay Fut? Was his contribution significant? What style did he practice? And why was his name not included in the naming of the art? He was a clansman of Chan Heung after all.

2) Who was the Green Grass Monk? The Chan Family contend it was Choy Fook. This seems reasonable. Although I don't know that we can completely rule it out that the GGM was actually someone else that contributed to the development of CLF. If the GGM existed he contribute to the "Fut" in CLF? Or was the "Fut" just to pay respect to Shaolin in general?

Your 2 questions answered each other.

Chan Heung deliberately played down on his clansman/uncle Chan Yuen-Wu (CYW) because he wanted his followers not to think of their names first but to work for the common goal of reviving the Shaolin Way. His contribution was there but since CYW was Chan Heung’s first teacher and he had 2 other teachers after that and spent the last 10-12 years in Law Fo Shan with Choy Fook, CYW’s teaching would have been largely absorbed into the later lessons. If we look at CYW’s lineage then you can see some of the Hung Gar like movements and names of the form (Yit Ji Ting Tin where you are in si peng ma and push forward with index finger sticking up and Kung Ji Fuk Fu Kuen for example) could have been the remnant of his influence.

Because we don’t hear about CYW, students from later generations wondered where the name Fut came from? So they began to fill in the gap with the GGM when they hear the name mentioned. But in fact, the only real monk was Choy Fook and Ching Cho was only a fictitious name and he made no contribution to the development of CLF at all, apart from adding some spice to our lives.

History always repeat itself, for example, you can see the existence of the GGM is questionable, yet you are not willing to change it or clarify the information on your website. The same happened with LHK, the book was written and published with some mistakes (not only history either as CLFNole mentioned), he had ample time to make the corrections yet he did not do so, as a result they get passed down and caused a lot of confusions for the later generations and now that he is dead, we will never know for sure. It is not an attack on LKH per-se; we all do it because we are only human after all!

We have spent enough time on this topic, I shall sign off for the time being, but mark my words this whole topic will raise its ugly head again in the not so distant future when Dave Lacey or Frank MacCarthy or some other later-day-born-again CLF grandmasters put out their statements to rock the boat and be controversial. It is better to be infamous than not to be known at all. Funny how life just keeps on going on, repeating itself, the good with the bad….

JosephX

[yik-wah-tik]

oh my god,

i leave this forum for some time now, and i take a look into what's happening, and ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!joseph and the rest are still fighting over the validity over the ggm theory...................well check this here out!

your claims that we cannot prove that the ggm actually existed goes hand in hand with the fact that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE the ggm either!!!!!!!!!!!

there are no written records on jeong yim, no photo's, no sketchings, etc. but YOU do not dispute the validity of jeong hung sing himself.......as the devils advocate how can we prove that jeong hung sing actually existed.............we cannot not. but jeong yim and his story will not be denied.

if people would take a look into the political climate and conditions the southern chinese had to live under you may find out that many people had to change their names out of fear of prosecution............dr sun yut sen changed his name many times to escape being arrested. so why can't the green grass monk be an alias that protected him from prosecution? didn't he live during revolutionary times?

to tell the truth, i am glad that i took off from this forum. i will tell all my jeong hung sing lineage brothers that this is not the way to go. they (the chan clan) will never back down until we all get too overwhelming. they will die denying jeong yim his prop's.

josesph thank you for being the fire that burns under all the hung sing people to unite. initially that was my attempt, to bring all hung sing brothers together, but maybe i came on too hard and strong.....kinda like how us hung sing people do things, huh!?

to all my hung sing brothers, continue your research, ask questions from all who were living close to those times, check with you elders and never give up spreading jeong yim's hung sing choy lee fut!!!!!!!!!!!!! the chan family will not dispute our history in public. just tell our stories how they were passed down to us. stop worrying about them. focus on us.

see you
frankie:rolleyes:

[JAZA]

Hello again YWT,
Even we don't have the same version I agree with your sifu.

..it is our belief that ALL BRANCHES and VERSIONS OF CHOY-LEE-FUT ARE GREAT with the capacity to grow,expand,CHOY-LEE-FUT is so neverending that we will forever be trying to figure out all its varible usages and still not be able to,forever.All this without the need to add some other method to it... may the GODDESS OF MERCY BLESS,and LONG LIVE ALL CHOY-LEE-FUT and it's FOLLOWERS.(we must all band together to fend off the unseen foe.) (jew,tien-loong)

[Fu-Pow]

Sifu Frank-


your claims that we cannot prove that the ggm actually existed goes hand in hand with the fact that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE the ggm either!!!!!!!!!!!

If we look this from a scientific perspective then the burden of proof is not upon the Chan Family to prove that the GGM did not exist it is for you to prove that the GGM did not, not exist.

You have to prove the null hypothesis, that the GGM did not exist, is not true.

Furthermore, another scientific premise, Occam's razor , states that the simplest explanation is always true unless you can prove otherwise.

Right now the Chan Clan have the simplest explanation. Yours requires the bending of known facts about Chinese culture.

So go ahead prove that the GGM did not, not exist.......


there are no written records on jeong yim, no photo's, no sketchings, etc. but YOU do not dispute the validity of jeong hung sing himself.......as the devils advocate how can we prove that jeong hung sing actually existed.............we cannot not. but jeong yim and his story will not be denied.

As to Jeong Yim I'm not sure that historical records exist for him or not. However, because there are first hand accounts of people meeting him, training with him, he had schools in Futshan and Hong Kong, etc then we can assume that he did in fact exist.

On the other hand the only account of the GGM is from a fictional novel about Hung Sing CLF. It is not an accepted fact that the GGM existed and so the burden of proof is on you to prove that he did.


Joseph-

I understand what you are saying about propagating misinformation. I think that if I was in the position to open my own school and have my own website I would change things around and make my lineage consistent with the Chan Family. But alas I don't have my own school and the website is not mine. I simply do what my Sifu tells me to do.
I'm not about to get into an argument with my Sifu about which history is correct. The important point is that our family of CLF recognizes Chan Heung as the founder of CLF, so if we are a little bit off on who Chan Heung's teaches were than so be it.

However, I think that there are those in CLF who are propagating lies and misinformation to feed their own egos. These people need to stop and recognize Chan Heung as the true founder of CLF. Whether or not the Green Grass Monk existed is unimportant because ulitmately whoever Chan Heung learned from it all started with him and was passed down from him to other great CLF masters like Jeong Yim, Chan Yiu Chi, Fong Yuk Shu, Lee Koon Hung and the like.

[badfrog666]

WHO CARES!!!!!!! As long as you find training enjoyable, nothing else matters.

[Fu-Pow]

People obviously care our we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[JAZA]

Fu Pow, I see you take the first order logic course :)

[yik-wah-tik]

to jaza,

thank you for the comments towards my sifu. he is a man with a lot of insight. that's why i chose him as a sifu.

and he has let me say what i have said knowing my intentions. he listens to me everynight. i do have a purpose here. i will say this i AM NOT one of those attempting to put out lies and bull****.

i have seen and heard everything that the chan family has put out, and i still believe in the story of jeong yim and the green grass monk. i was not the first to say that the ggm real name was monk ng ging, but a yee's hung ga did. i came second and put that out. and now on sifu dave laceys website he states that ggm's name is ng ging. i thought i had stated previously. but hey no biggie. as long as the work gets done.

to master dave lacey, i will be contacting you soon. but in regards to what you stated about me on your website, i will tell you this.
what i had said was told to me from someone who speaks to your sifu very regularly. what was told to me was .....never mind. i will email it to you. if you feel you must confer with kong hing about this please do so. i will also check with my source. but i will email you about this to clear this up.

frank mccarthy
"To practice in the presence of one's own presence is to be one with yourself"

[extrajoseph]

Your Sifu must be a saint and you are still as "Yeah Meng" (wild and forceful) as ever. However, you did gave me one good insight. Through your behaviour, I can see clearly the source of the world's conflicts through out history - IGNORANCE. I must thank you for that.

JosephX

[extrajoseph]

I am impressed, one puff from the Fire Dragon and Ignorance turned to ashes!

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

Although I planned on ending this discussion our conversation made my do some thinking and research. The book "Kung Fu - History, Philosophy and Technique" written by David Chow and Richard Spangler copyright 1977 mentions Cheong Yim and Ching Cho War Sherng in the history of CLF. It seems the sifu they used for some of their material is Tsang Chiu Yu (not sure if this is mandarin or cantonese).

Here would be an example that predates your 1983 example by my sifu by 6 years. I think that this once and for all exhonorates my sifu as being the person who brought the controversy about.

Looking forward to your response.

CLFNole

[Fu-Pow]

CLF Nole-

Great work. I hadn't even thought to look there.

Sifu Frank-


i was not the first to say that the ggm real name was monk ng ging, but a yee's hung ga did. i came second and put that out. and now on sifu dave laceys website he states that ggm's name is ng ging.

And where does this information originate from? Are there birth and death records for ng ging?

[extrajoseph]

Good piece of research, that is the sort of information I was looking for.

Tsang Chiu-Yu is a Bak Sing practitioner. he studied with Mak Yan and then with Chan On. Chan On studied with Lun Ji first then with Tarm Sarm.

This piece of information do make sense, it is in keeping with some present day elders of Bak Sing, people like Lun Ji, Kong Hing and Chiu Kwong-Yuen to promote Cheong Yim as the alternative founder of CLF using Ching Cho as the Trojan Horse and using Futsan as their base.

Can you tell us what else did the book said about CLF history? I would not imagine they would say Cheong Yim co-founded CLF or that he was the founder as early as 1977.

Lun Ji, Kong Hing, Chiu Kwong-Yeun and Tsang Chiu-Yu were all founding members of the Association in Memeory of Chan Heung Founder of the CLF Martial Arts in 1971. They formed their own CLF Bak Sing Association not long after that. The unrest could have sprang from the politics of the time. It is definitely worth looking into.

JosephX

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

The book I referenced speaks of Chan Hueng being taken by an uncle to learn Hung Gar. It then tells of him following Lay Yau San and Choy Fook. It speaks of Cheong Yim working in the school and learning by watching. It talks of an occucation when the sifu is away of Cheong Yim being bullied by the students and then defeating them. (If this were true I could understand why the Chan Family would try to downplay him since it would kind og look bad that an outsider who wasn't even a student could easily defeat Chan Hueng's students, but lets stay to the topic). It speaks of Cheong Yim being expelled and being sent to Pak Pai San to follow GGM. The date given is 1831. It speaks of Cheing Yim following GGM for 5 years and GGM changing his name to Cheong Hung Sing. It then goes on to say the Cheong Yim returned to King Mui and Chan Heung treated him like his own sidai rather than student since he to followed the GGM. It goes on to say the mutual dedication of Chan Hueng and Cheong Yim produced CLF. It says they 1st officially taught CLF in King Mui in 1836. It then begins to talk about CLF techniques, etc...

Again this was 1977 so it sounds to me that this has been talked about before. My guess is that you wouldn't find GGM mentioned in english before the 1970s since kung fu wasn't popular in english speaking countries. I would venture to guess however that it might be mentioned in some Chinese publications. Sisuk Joseph you would have to get into this because my cantonese is bad enough and I can't read a lick. And forget asking my wife she'll just say "lei ho ma fahn".

Peace.

[extrajoseph]

CLFNole,

I love the phrase “ lei ho ma fahn”, it brings the domestic scene alive!

Thanks for the summary, it looks like the story of the GGM and Cheong Yim being the co-founder came from the Bak Sing circle in the first place after all and DFW’s book was addressing this type of misconception and he was not attacking LKH at all. Now things are beginning to fall into their places.

What I also found out is the CLF Bak Sing Association was formed in 1970 (one year ahead of the Chan Heung Memorial Association) and Tsang Chiu-Yu was its first President.

So they were both formed about the same time and I would imagine the power struggle could have started then.

I will definitely do more research in this area.

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

Wow, this is getting good. Great line of research extrajoseph.

Incidentally, I just checked out Dave Lacey's website again. He's updated some of his info and there are ton of pictures there.

It seems like his message has gotten even wackier. That guy kind of scares me.

Check it out:

http://www.pantherfist.com/controversy.html

Oh yeah, here is the story from the Fong Yuk Shu lineage, which I think is technically part of the Chan Family branch. I pulled this off of Sam and Phillip Ng's website.


Born in 1805, Chan Heung began his martial arts training at the age of seven under his uncle Chan Yuen Woo. Chan Yuen Woo was a Shaolin disciple and a student of the martial monk, Dok Jung. Dok Jung was a practitioner of the Fut Gar method (a predecessor to the Hop Gar style). At the age of nineteen, Chan Heung began his training with a classmate of his uncle, Lee Yau Shan, who himself was also a student of Jee Shim. When Chan Heung turned twenty-five, Lee Yau Shan introduced him to a Shaolin refugee named Choy Fook. Choy Fook was nicknamed Lantau Fook (or “broken head” Fook) as his head was terribly scarred during the burning of the Shaolin temple by the Qing troops. Chan Heung would later name his fighting method Choy Lay Fut to honor his teachers. Choy was for Choy Fook, Lee (or Lay) was for Lee Yau Shan, and Fut (which meant Buddha in Chinese) was for the method taught to him by his uncle (and to honor Choy Lay Fut’s Buddhist origins).

Another thought while I'm thinking about it.

Things are starting to fall into place now if you think about it.

The Bak Sing/Hung Sing people wanted to distance themselves from the Chan Family for whatever reason. So they concocted this buisness about Jeong Yim.

LKH having a mixed lineage did not want to offend either group so he made a history that incorporated both the GGM but did not take such an extreme position as to discount Chan Heung as the founder of CLF.

In other words he acknowledged the existence of the GGM but only included him as one of Chan Heung's teachers.

It makes sense if you think about it.

[Fu-Pow]

Here's another history from a Bak Sing practitioner that is more consistent with LKH's than the current party line.

From Chui Kwok Chung:


Choy Li Fut Kung Fu traces its origins back over 160 years ago to its founder Chan Heung. Chan Heung was born July 10, 1806, in King Mui Village in the Sun Wui district of Kwang Tung province. As a young boy, Chan Heung had begun his training in the martial arts under Chan Yuen Wu, an elder from King Mui Village. Chan Heung trained under Chan Yuen Wu until the age of seventeen when Chan Yuen Wu became seriously ill. Intent on continuing his training, Chan Heung sought out a new master and eventually found tutelage under a Sil Lum monk named Choy Fok. Chan Heung diligently trained under Choy Fok for seven years and, in time, was introduced to a famous martial artist named Li Yau Shan. Under his new mentor, Chan Heung became proficient in the style Li Gar, which was noted for its ferocious attacks and lightning fast movements. He continued to train hard for another four years by which time both Li Yau Shan and Choy Fok decided that he was ready to travel to Bak Pai Mountain in central China and learn from the Green Grass Monk. Chan Heung was accepted under the recommendation of his former masters and begun to train in the deadly Fut Gar (Buddhist Palm) system. Upon his return to King Mui Village, Chan Heung had devised his own system as an amalgamation of Choy Gar, Li Gar and Fut Gar. This new and complete style he named Choy Li Fut in commemoration of his masters.

[extrajoseph]

Fu-Pow,

Chui Kwong-Chung has since changed his story. In last year’s Chui Cheung (his father) Chinese Martial Arts Gymnasium Alumni Association Journal, he published an article called in English “Legend of Hongsheng and Cai-Li-Fo” (full text attached below) whereby he resituated most of the story told in Nam Futsan Yan’s book.

It is interesting to note that there were subtle differences between the Chinese and English text:

1) The Chinese is written as “The Origin and Transmission of Hung Sing (Great Victory and not Heroic Victory Hung Sing)”, where as the English translation is termed a “Legend of…..”

2) The Chinese mentioned Cheong Yim (Zhang Yan) was born in 1824 and died in 1893, whereas the English text conveniently omitted the information.

3) The Chinese text did not mentioned Cheong Yim as the father of CLF (Cai-Li-Fo) whereas the English text did so in the last paragraph. In the Chinese text, the wording was vague and said they worked together and acknowledge their different approach to some of the techniques.

If we look at the dates, they don’t add up. If Cheong Yim were born in 1824, then in 1831, he would have been 7 and not 17, in 1839; he would have been 15 and not 25.

Also it is generally accepted that CLF was founded in 1836, at that time Cheong Yim would have been only 12 years old, so how can he co-founded CLF, let alone being the father of CLF?

Chui Kwong-Chung is now trying to tie Ching Cho up with one of the legendary NG Jo (Five Ancestors) in the character of Choy Dak-Chung (Cai Dezong) and Chan Heung first taught Cheong Yim in the Chen Village Shunde and did not mentioned the King Mui Village in Xinhui. There is no such village in Shunde. Also Lee Yau-Shan (Li Youshan) now teaches Lee Family Boxing and Choy Fook (Cai Yafu) teaches Choy Family Boxing. That is not true either. It is a poor attempt at giving some legitimacy to his story. Chui’s story was adopted and used in the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon 150 Years Anniversary Journal as the history of Hung Sing CLF last year.

The plot thickens.

JosephX

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legend of Hongsheng and Cai-Li-Fo

There are many wushu genres in China. Shaolin Wushu is one of them and has several sub-genres. Here is a legend about Hongsheng and Cai-Li-Fo, one sub-genre of Shaolin Wushu.

Jiulianshan Shaolin Temple, locate in Putian County, Quanzhou, Fujian Province, is a branch of Songshan Shaolin Temple situated in Henan Province. Because there were many monks with master-handed wugong in Jiulianshan Shaolin Temple, it enjoyed high prestige as Songshan Shaolin Temple did and was named South Shaolin. Cai, Li and Fo were three genres of South Shaolin.

After Ming Dynasty’s ruin, many royal clans of Ming, former lieges and patriots fled to South China. They came to Jiulianshan Shaolin Temple and stayed there, exercising wushu with attempt to revolt the Qing Dynasty and recover the Ming Dynasty. Wan Yunlong was one of the patriots. He settled down in the temple, cut his hair and became a monk named Dazong. Later he was elected chief of the temple. And then the position was abdicated and handed over to Xingyin, a Buddhist monk. In order to strengthen the power of the temple, Xingyin went and roamed throughout the country to recruit disciples and talents. He taught all his skill in wushu to Zishan, his preferred disciple. Like his master, Zishan widely recruited monks and common people as disciples among which the eldest disciple, Cai Dezong (with a monasterial name Qingcao monk, shortened as Qingcao), another disciple of Xingyin, Li Shikai (with a monasterial name Qingshen Hu Dedi, also names Qingru), Fang Dahong (with a monasterial name Qingfang) and Ma Chaoxing (with a monasterial name Qingse) were best well-known for their super qualified wushu and were honoured as Five Fathers of South Boxing. Zhishan’s other disciple included Sande, a monk, and ma Ninger, a common disciple. In Qianlong Age of Qing, Ma Ninger betrayed Shaolin and guided Qing troops to burn down the temple. It was the five founders of South Boxing who led Shaolin disciples to break out. Afterwards they were forced to leave the Temple and went on fighting against the Qing Dynasty.

After Jiulianshan Temple ransack, a lot of wushu backbones gathered in Guangdong and brought Guangdong Wushu into a thriving and prosperous period. The most famous genre included Cai and Li boxing. And Cai Yafu and Li Youshan are the respective representatives. Born in Gaoyao, Guangdong, Cai Liyi created the Cai Boxing. He learned to exercise gongfu under the direction of Yi Guan, a Buddhist monk of Shaolin, Cai Yafu and Cai Zhangguang put the boxing into a new stage. The Li boxing was created by Li Sikai, Li Yangkai and Li Shikai, who were all monks derived from Shaolin. Li Youshan, born in Qibao Village, Daze Town, Xinhui, fully developed the Li Boxing.

Chen Xiang (1805–1875) enjoyed the prestige of the originator of Cai-Li-Fo. He was brought up in Mei Villige, Xinhui County, Guangdong. He was a genius in wushu. When he was very young, Chen Xiang exercised wushu with the help of his uncle Chen Yuanhu, a common disciple of Shaolin. He profoundly admired and worshiped Li Youshan and Cai Yafu and asked them to be his coach and exercised hard under their aborative direction. Through hard work and with his talent, he completely understood the genuine essence and soul and digested the gist. No one could contest and defeat him.

At that time, pirates often haunted on shore without scruple in some parts of coastal areas in Guangdong and this compelled people to invite drillmasters to exercise young and strong men in the village for protection of their lives and properties, which resulted in the general custom of exercising wushu. Chen Xiang worked as drillmaster in Chen Village, Shunde. Since he was very young he was envied and hated by other drillmasters nearby. Slandered to be something more in name than in reality, he got into much trouble. Chen Xiang taught a good lesson to those who came for affrays and gained more fame.

Zhang Kun and Chen Xiang were old friends, so Zhang Yan was introduced to Chen Xiang, who was honoured as Chen Xiang Gong by later generations. But because in Chen Village there was a rule that a drillmaster should not recruit a non-family-name disciple to exercise wush, Chen Xiang could only take Zhang Yan as a choreman in his exercise hall, conducting boiling and cleaning. Zhang Yan was then only twelve but had an inborn talent for wushu. He devoted himself to wushu. He pretended to work nearby and peeped, remembered every step while the disciples were exercising. Day after day, he learned a lot. Later Chen Xiang knew this and was moved by his sincerity and ambition. He directed and trained him at deep night. Five years later, Zhang Yan mastered all that Chen Xiang had taught him but no one knew about it.

Some day, Chen Xiang went out to deal with something and the disciples were exercising in the hall for improvement and exchange. They saw Zhang Yan working nearby and wanted to put him to sham. They forced him to compete but were refused by Zhanh Yan. They treated him as a coward and insulted him. Zhang Yan finally flared up and fought bravely with them. Some of them got wounded, others were frightened and ran away. Chen Xiang was then accused to teach a non-family-name disciple real gongfu. He was scolded after he returned. In order to calm down the wave, he arranged Zhang Yan, with his letter, to go to Qingcao monk in Zhajian Temple in Bapaishan for a shelter.

It was in 1831 that Zhang Yan, only 17 years old, carrying the letter, headed for Zhajian Temple, where Qingcao monk accepted him after he presented the letter and explained all the details of his plight. Qingcao monk asked him to perform what he has learned and Zhang Yan did so. Qingcao monk was sure that Zhang Yan, with healthy physique, had talent for wushu and was promising to be something in wushu field, so he adopted Zhang Yan as a formal disciple. He completely imparted Buddhism Palm and Boxing to Zhang Yan. Zhang Yan was also taught to learn medical knowledge and accepted the idea of revolting Qing and recovering Ming.

Time passed quickly. In 1839, Zhang Yan was already 25 years old and mastered what Qingcao taught. Qingcao renamed him Hongsheng and told him to leave the temple contact patriots and comrades to fight for Ming recovery.

Departing from Qingcao monk, Zhang Hongsheng arrived in Foshan where he established an exercise hall, named as Hongsheng Hall, near Yabang Street. Base on the hall, he devoted himself to the recovery of Ming Dynasty and there was a poem describing this in detail.

When Chen Xiang Gong knew Zhang Yan’s achievement, he regarded him as a buddy. Zhang Hongsheng attributed his triumph to Chen’s instruction. He showed great respects to Chen Xiang Gong during their daily association. In return for Chen Xiang’s previous help and training, he taught Chen Xiang what he had learned from Qingcao. Afterwards, they studied those skills and techniques and created much more new actions. They were talent for wushu and exercised systematically, focusing on different attentions plus their respective innovation.

Because their Kungfu were all derived from Shaolin, integrating three boxings advantages, in memory of Cai Yafu, Li Yousahn and Qingcao monk, they named it Cai-Li_fo. And Zhang Hongsheng was worshipped as the father of Cai-Li-Fo. Cai-Li-Fo was such formally founded and became a vital genre in South China, spreading throughout the southern area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[extrajoseph]

I have just re-read Dave Lacey's article again and there is a definite hostility towards the Chan Family. I wondered why before and now I understand it is in keeping with the power struggle between the 2 camps in the past and continued to this day.

I have also found out that the CLF Union was formed in 1977 with people from both the Bak Sing Association and the Chan Heung's Memorial Association attempting to make peace with each other and united under the single name of CLF without the sub-text of Hung Sing or Bak Sing.

Since then, the number from the Chan Heung Memorial Association side has dwindled to nothing because of old age of the original members and no new blood to replace them. The Bak Sing faction is in now complete control and there is no middle ground left, hence it is possible for the Union to make a declaration that Cheung Hung Sing is now the Chong Pai Jung Si (original founder) of CLF.

They have the money and the numbers with support coming from Malaysia and Singapore as well. Looks like Chan Wing Fat is one of the few real obsticles left that they have to deal with, hence the rumour of how Kong Hing told Chan Wing Fat off and that he is brash and impertinent and he is not very popular with the CLF fraternity in Hong Kong. The following are harsh words from Sifu Dave Lacey about Chan Wing Fat, even though they knew each other as friends in Australia.

"A direct descendent and great, great grandson of Master Chan Heung, Sifu Yong Fa started teaching and promoting Choy Lay Fut in Sydney, Australia since 1983. At that time I had already been teaching Choy Lay Fut in Perth, W. Australia for 17 years. It was not till many years later that I found out that in his campaign to propagate Choy Lay Fut and Chan Heung's legacy that he had vigorously denounced Cheung Hung Sing and the existence of the monk "Ching Cho" (Cheung Hung Sing's teacher), and that he had spoken negatively about Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut. He wanted to convince everyone that his great, great grandfather Chan Heung was the true and sole founder of Choy Lay Fut. This made him very unpopular in the Choy Lay Fut fraternity, especially in Hong Kong and Singapore who regarded his character as brash (self assertive) and impertinent."

I just love this two faced bit to follow, Sifu Dave Lacey's word again:

"Just because he is a loyal supporter of the Chan Heung Choy Lay Fut heritage, there is no reason for anyone to show disrespect to him - for like many other masters, past and present, Sifu Chan Yong Fa is also doing his part in teaching Choy Lay Fut in its pure unadulterated form. If any Choy Lay Fut master had made statements that offended others in the fraternity, I assure you they won't get away with it - for the elders of Choy Lay Fut will come down hard on them!"

What a farce, he just slapped the poor chap, then retreated to moral high ground and told others to behave. Wake Dave the "General" baby, we can do our own research and read between the lines! It's a set up if ever there is one!

Listen you so called CLF elders in Hong Kong, I am NOT scare of you and we are NOT going to be manipulated and we are NOT going to fight our follow CLF brothers and sisters just to satisfy your ego! Both Frank MacCarthy and I and others are NOT going to be victims of your ambition.

So take that, you Kung Fu politicians!

JosephX

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

One thing I don't get is: what does buk sing gain from changing history as you infer they might have. I mean Tam Sarm was the founder of their branch and besides the fact that his sifu, Lui Chan followed Cheong Yim I don't see what it does to help their cause.

Another thing I would like to ask you is since you have been involved with CLF for a long time when did you first hear mention of the GGM (not in a book but by word of mouth)?

Peace.

[premier]

This is great, guys. This is exactly the kind of discussion we need.

btw. what do you think.. if GGM was Choy Fook, is it possible that Chan Heung sent Cheong Yim to him to study? Is something that would never happen and does the dates add up?

[JAZA]

Joseph,
I have a question too like CLFNole, it is if you, being chinese, have any records about discussions of history in the Chan Heung Association in the old times, and if the Chan Heung assoc. did exist any member of the Chan Family today?
Thanks in advance

[Fu-Pow]

So the question that CLF Nole put forward was what do the Bak Sing people have to gain from this?

Here's a couple ideas:

1) It satisfies ego.

2) It makes them seem more legitimate than the other CLF branches that lack these "important teachings" from the Green Grass Monk.

3) It brings them more money and fame.
If you can get a group of people in the MA community to declare that you have the "true" style then you have more opportunity to get articles published about you and attract more students. This is the sad state of MA's.

And this is part of the Kung Fu crisis that I alluded to earlier. There is no forum to really test kung fu skills. These so called "elders" would be better off promoting tournaments open to all styles so that we could prove how great our style IS rather than talking about how great we WERE.

The people that compete all the time in San Shou and NHB apparently laugh at Kung Fu because it has degraded to this kind of crap. When you have people attending tournaments in Buddhist Monks robes.....my gosh..... it's god****ed ridiculous.

We should be trying attracting people that really want to learn the art of fighting and not people that want to belong to the "in" crowd. Or people that want to be form historians.

The whole thing really makes me want to zuke.

[extrajoseph]

Things get even more interesting. If anyone has a copy of the year 2000 Bak Sing CLF Association Journal there is an article entitled "After Thoughts" by Sifu Wu So (a student of Chan On) who talked about the growth of popularity of the Association since its conception and how they had a struggle with the Chan Heung Memorial Assocition and is having the upper hand now. Interesting also to note that there is no CLF history written up in the Journal apart from its founder Tarm Sarm.


CLFNole,

Reading Wu So's article and also Dave Lacey, I think some Bak Sing people, especially the ones who fought hard in the streets and in tournaments to make a name for CLF, felt cheated because they have been sidelined by history no matter how good they were. So why not change history? If Cheong Yim is the founder, Tarm Sarm is next in line and Chan Heung would be thrown in the dust bin of history.

I first heard about the GGM also in the 70s but has no idea it was written up in English and guess who supplied the information, the first president of the Bak Sing CLF Association! Using the GGM as the Trojan Horse ridden by Cheong Yim is a master stroke of deception, it would get the Hung Sing people fighting amongst themselves not noticing who is pulling the strings.


Jaza,

I have a copy of the inaugurial journal of the Chan Heung Memorial Association. It was headed by Chan Kit-Fong the daughter of Chan Yiu-Chi who was living in Hong Kong then, I think she was just a figure head. As far as I know, no member of the Chan Family is actively involved with the assocition today except for Chan Kit-Fong's son but he lives in LA with his mother and not in Hong Kong so he would not have any direct influence. They always maintain their version of history as passed down by Chan Heung.


One more thing I would like to say, I am not point my finger at the whole of the Bak Sing people, only the politicians and the manipulators amongst us. There are some very level headed guys like Dave's brother Vince and many people are trying hard to keep peace. Let us keep our heads cool, look at the facts and hold our hands together and don't let this fictitious GGM split us apart! Long live CLF!

JosephX

[yik-wah-tik]

ain't it great?!

i am so glad that i have gotten out of this discussion. and i no longer care to deal with "haterism".

i will say tho' you guys sure do give up a lot of information.

the best defense is the element of suprise.

the info is out there. and now if you look close enough the tables are tipping for ALL Hung Sing Kwoon students are coming together.


thanks guys it's been fun.

frank:p

[extrajoseph]

Hi Frank,

I must apologise for some of the hasty things I said about you in the past, we were all victims of hidden manipulations. Since you are a person of such a long reputation (15 inches?) I am sure you will accept my sincere apology. :-)


CLFNole,

Another motivation I can think of is a more sinister one. It is the idea of "divided and we shall rule". The Bak Sing Association is strong and well organised. They have the control of the Union as well as their own organisation. There is no Cheong Yim Association and the Chan Heung Memorial Association is weak. So if they keep the Hung Sing people divided with the GGM and the promise of a founderhood for Cheong Yim, they will always have the upper hand.

It is a thought worth chewing over.

JosephX

[yik-wah-tik]

i accept you apology. and maybe one day we can go to yum cha.
who knows, maybe you'll actually like the REAL me!

but i do have to say lately you seem to be very upset about the current outcomes. i am sorry you are so upset. but hey remember, it's all for the good of choy lee fut, right? our story deserves to be told right? why would anyone want to stop someones history from being told?

christians believe in jesus, yet there are no records that prove he actually existed. buddhist's believe in buddha, etc, etc. yet no one disputes their beliefs. ( except for those small factions )

we believe in the ggm. so why does it bother you so much? why does it bother any of you who disputes his existance? how does it affect your gung fu today? i wanted to know my history to know why we move the way we do, where our emphasis's come from. and i had already known chan heung's story, but i knew there was more to the story. so i embarked on a mission to learn as much as i could and what i believe in now is a compilation of all i have heard, read, and had asked questions of.

i am always willing to bend to learn more, but it seems like you guys are not willing to bend. all three branches of clf, well 4 actually if you consider chan koon pak's hung (strong) sing as a branch, but regardless, all of our stories are incredible and one day should be told as one amazing story.

but hey, as long as those who won't bend, hey this will never happen. and that's sad too.


frank

[CLFNole]

Sisuk Joseph:

The only problem that I have with your idea is that by changing history all they would accomplish is to make Tarm Sam a second generation practioner rather than a 3rd generation. Seems like it would not be worth the political ramifications.

One thing I would say is that through this conversation we discovered that the 1st written mention of the GGM may have been in 1977 in David Chow's book not my sifu's book in 1983.

The only thing I am still not completely satisfied with is the fact that no one can really disprove the GGM existence or prove it for that matter. The Chan Family now says the GGM was Choy Fook but really didn't elaborate on it. I really don't think they keep complete records of who studied with who back in those days. I read that students moved from teacher to teacher to learn different specialities. Could Cheong Yim have followed a monk, possibly even Choy Fook I mean he was 108 when Chan Hueng followed him and could kick a boulder I would think 10-20 years later he might not be able to move a rock but could still kick some arse. To me it would seem plausible that Cheong Yim could have followed someone else since there are differences in style and forms between the Chan Family and Hung Sing branch.

What do you think?

Peace.

[extrajoseph]

Hi Frank,

I think we went over this before. No one is stopping anyone from their belief, but CLF is not a system of belief, it is a system of MA and as such it can be examined in a logical manner, including its history.

Fu-Pow's post to you earlier is a good lesson in logic and we should leave at that.


CLFNole,

Thanks to your research, we made a break through.

The Bak Sing politicians have a lot to gain if you think about it carefully. There is no political fall out for them since we are fighting in a time before Tarm Sarm, so their hands are clean. If they care about their own history why not do up their Siu Bak Gwoon in Kwangchow? Why promote Futsan and Cheong Yim? Why proposed all these alternative histories when they are third generation? Why single out and get heavy on Chan Wing Fa? In my experience, politicians do not do things just for fun.

Let me ask you this question, "Who has the most to gain by introducing the GGM and get the Hung Sing factions fight against each other?"

To answer your other questions. Again, the onuse is in proving GGM does exist and not to prove the null hypothesis, otherwise I could easily dump a thousand and one hypothesis on you and ask you a to disprove them all and if you can't, then they would be true. That is not fair, is it?

Besides, I think there is a fair arguement for GGM being a fictitious character.

Yes, Cheong Yim could have studied with another teacher or teachers and with follow students as well, but unless we have evidence of it, it remains an hypothesis. But if he did studied with Choy Fook, he would not have let us forget it!

The difference in style is easier to explain, even within the same lineage, we have different styles and forms between generations.

If you ever have a chance to go to King Mui Village, there is a very clear record of Chan Heung's disciples and who studied with who in those days, on the Jo Gwoon wall. Chinese are the best record keepers in the world.

Lei jain hei ho mah fahn! :-)

JosephX

[JAZA]

Thanks for the answer sisuk Joseph, it's a pity that Chan Heung Assoc. don't have actually family members.

[extrajoseph]

I think if I were a Chan Family member, I would stay above the petite politics as well. Why go down to the gutter level when truth can speak for itself?

The sad part is the GGM story has created a lot of in-fighting between the Hung Sing brothers and sisters. A prime example in the west is the perceived animosity between Doc-Fai Wong and Lee Koon Hung (Including Tat-Mau Wong). In fact LKH was not the one who promoted the GGM and DFW was not attacking him at all. The victims are their students.

I hope this types of wounds can heal in the future and we can share this wonderful art of ours as one big family.

Am I too optimistic? Has the poison gone too deep? Only the future can tell.

[extrajoseph]

Whether the GGM existed or not, his character provides an excuse for the negative tendencies in human nature to operate. How can we hate each other if we have a common ancestor? How can we justify our techniques are better or more authentic if they all came from the same source? So I am thinking, if the GGM is not invented, then we have to invent something else anyway, it is the yin and yang of all things. Scarry, isn't it.

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

As someone has written on their on line tag.....

"What we do now echoes in eternity."

[bean curd]

extrajoseph,

you speak allot on this, so my only question is - who do you speak for, what authority are your words coming from

[extrajoseph]

I speak for myself, I am not an authority on the subject as you can see I have to rely partly on other people's research and sense of logic. I do have over 30 years involvement with CLF and it is a life long passion for me. On top of this, I am very proud of my Chinese culture and history and I wish to preserve it the best way possible.

I take responsility for everything that I have said and I invite you to point out the errors of my thinking. This is what the forum is for.

BTW, who do you speak for and what is your authority since you assume that everyone here is an authority and speaks for someone?

JosephX

[bean curd]

extra joseph, you always look at words spoken as if they have hidden meaning behind them, a sorry state - no.

why do i ask the question?

if you re-read your words ( which there are many of ) you state after your assumptions on the buk sing clan ( without any foundation whatsoever ) , that, and i quote you -

quote -

" listen you so called CLF elders in hong kong, i am not scare of you and we are not going to be manipulated and we are not going to fight our fellow CLF brothers and sisters to satisfy your ego "

unquote.

now extra joseph when you right this you go from personal to collective, so i ask again more clear now, since you must forgot your words in above, i ask again who you speak for, for you clearly state WE more than i.

as to who i speak for, i speak for myself, as to my time, does it really matter, and to your comment on i must clearly think that everyone on this matter speak on behalf of someone else, this i don't see your logic, the only person i address in this matter is YOU, since YOU in your words say WE, it is therefore not wrong of me too ask.

by these words alone, and as you clearly understand chinese ways, you understand importance of words, your words dictate therefore " gee ying chim lei " ( hidden logic in shape of words ) or do you only regards this to chinese and not english ??

[extrajoseph]

Now that you have given me a specific quote I can give you a specific answer.

I went from "I" to "we" to express the sentiment that I, personally, am not scare of the threats or cautions given by the so called Bak Sing CLF elders and Dave Lacey, but others might ("That guy kind of scares me"). However, those who agreed with me, that is the "we" in the follow up sentence, will not be manipulated and fight amongst ourselves just to satisfy their ego.

I hope this explanation is clear enough for you now that I speak for myself, even thoughI went from the singular "I" to the collective 'we" in the same paragraph.

Also let me make it very clear once more to you, because you seem only want to read what you wanted to read into what I wrote, I said earlier, distinctly, that I am not pointing my fingers at the "Buk Sing clan" (your quote) as a whole, only at the politicians and manipulators amongst us who tried to change history for selfish reasons. Why do I say "us" and not "them"?, because I consider the majority of Bak Sing people are level headed and they are my brothers and sisters of CLF. I even mentioned as an example, Dave Lacey's twin brother Vince.

If you don't think my assumptions have any foundations then attack what I said, there is not need to mince words trying to give an impression that I act for someone else and have some sort of hidden agenda.

We may be Chinese, but we don't have to play this silly game of "gee ying chim lei", why can't we ( meaning we should do it together and not you and I belonging to the same group) be honest and open to each other?

I am not the one who "always look at words spoken as if they have hidden meaning behind them", you are.

JosephX

[Fu-Pow]

Joseph-

QUOTE]("That guy kind of scares me" [/QUOTE]

I'm not implying scares me in the physical sense. I mean scares me in the "mental" sense. As in what the hell is this guy thinking?

[extrajoseph]

Fu-Pow,

Yes, I was wondering what the hell this guy is thinking as well, especially when we are comparing the public statements of a set of identical twin brothers. One seem to be completely brain washed while the other is level headed. To me, being "mental" is more frightening than being "physical", if you know what I mean.

JosephX

[bean curd]

joseph, first off i not just read what i want, like every converstion one pick up words make clarity than other words, so i not beng specific on just certain words.

the fact is, you speak with strong words on the matter, which i not find problem with one way or other, but from our generation, obligations we take on is not our choice, as you also aware off.

what david write is his teaching what you write is your teaching, differance here is you speak in open forum he write for his site, so only way to read letter is go to his site, mistake made by junior to bring attention on forum of this kind.

if this was intention of david, then be it on his head, if not then be it on his students head, however you are now speaking out of term and you understand what i mean by this, i see no need to expand on this since you and i speak of similair times.

if you care not for correctness, then that your choice for me i disappointed on how this thread was going and you lead the way.

words like " i not scare of you elders " or whatever is sad, do they know where you live, do they know who you are, if so then your words are strong if not then they are meaningless, is this also a reflection on FAMILY and how FAMILY fix problems, show me one time, one time where FAMILY ever talk like this outside - EVER.

you put to much power into david and also into others that they may not have, to elders of any family of CLF respect is expected. what is written by whomever is there right as an elder, you must surely understand this, and if so, it is for this reason i not understand how you talk or act.

you must think little of CLF to think words written by ANYONE, can change personal history, all this does is put wood to fire, on history there is not one side that is hero and other that is villian, it is personal transmission, that decide this.

i talk to much on this and i care to discuss this no longer, as i have said before in the past, when we talk about CLF the enjoyment is there, if we talk like this it gives no purpose.

[extrajoseph]

I agree with you completely, stick with the issue and not the personality. Have respects for each other.

The topic of this thread is the earliest mention of the GGM. You seem to imply that we are of the same generation, then may be you know more due to your exposure and be able to tell us what is your record of the earliest mention of Ching Cho in Chinese or English and by whom?

I am sure your knowledgeable reply will contribute greatly to this debate. A family history is not a personal history, it belongs to the entire family. The founder is the head of the lineage and I for one would like to know for sure who my real great-great-great grandfather is.

You also seem to imply that we should all keep this within the family, that is fine for the olden days, but we are living in the computer age now (on the internet everyone is equal) and we expect the elders to be transparent and accountable, reasonable and unbiased, otherwise the younger generation would not have respects for them.

For the Union to get up and make a public declaration through Dave Lacey that we now have Cheong Yim and not Chan Heung as the founder of CLF is a little too much for a old timer like me to handle. That is not how a family do things and I genuinely want to find out how all this took place. If I say the word "Fan Guak Jiah" you would know what I mean.

I don't think it is out of place for me to comment on what Dave Lacey wrote in his public website (which is open to everyone to read just like this forum), especially when it is in the context of our discussion. He or his students are welcome to join in with the discussion. Whatever I said is my own opinion, I am sure members of this forum will have enough intelligence to make up their own mind as to the relevance of my words.

I am the first to admit that I can be very forceful in my words, I apologise for that, it is my style of talking but I am flexible and I would love to hear your points of view.

JosephX

[Cody]

I think that bean curd was trying to introduce some propriety. I understand that this can be difficult to maintain, maybe impossible at times. If such formal demeanor stands in the way of truthful progress, then to sacrifice it, up to a point, might be worth it for a time, but for that purpose, the further purpose being for the good. the general good. the individual good. Both. I guess we could have a different defintion of these numbering several. It's not the same every time. But, there are similarities. I approach justice with admittedly deficient wisdom. I think it's one of the hardest things in the world to do. It's best if there is some sort of balance, without stagnation.
I do not exempt any person or group, because of station, from the bright light of honest inquiry being shone on their ideas or existence. I would respect the fraility of human nature, and hope to receive such respect as well, but not necessarily expect this.

extrajoseph, I was relieved by your response which followed bean curd's statement. My feeling is that it's best to inquire re historical accuracywith not so much heat, and to understand the burning embers in one's self and in others. just stirring the pot. Can prevent hard feelings that needn't be, maybe. worth a try. An honest attempt to figure out what was, wasn't, could have been, and where it leads.

best,
Cody

[extrajoseph]

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the difficulty in walking the fine line of passion for the truth and respecting others feelings.

Fotunately, everyone in this thread has been supportive and understanding up to now (and no trolls). I spoke so much because it was a thinking process for me from my first posting to now. My views have changed as more information became available and I gained more insight with each valuble input. Special thanks to people like CLFNole and Fu-Pow.

I am now at a point where I feel I have a genuine understanding of what has happened with this character Ching Cho. As far as I am concerned, it was "an honest attempt to figure out what was, wasn't, could have been, and where it leads", I am sorry if I have treaded on some toes on my way, it can't be helped.

Thanking you all and I shall sign off on this topic now unless more information on Ching Cho becomes available.

JosephX

[bean curd]

joseph,
sorry i write again when i said i would not, i do because i can't walk away from your comment. what you say is very hard word, very hard word indeed, and it explain more to me why you talk the way you have.

if this is what you perceive or is happening, and you are correct, then not steady ground for some yearsl

for myself i not see it this way, but who is " fan guak chia "? is it what we have been told of past or is it what we are now hearing. where to draw the line, who should be responsable to clarify such findings ??

what you say is true, this modern age is computors and such, for me i just find it hard starting the thing up hahaha, so i am out of touch, but each to their own.

as the old saying goes " you can take cow to well " .


i will not come back to this, but again thanks for talk

[JAZA]

Wow, what means fan guak jiah.
I'm very curious, if someone could send me a p.m. or an email
I'll thank.:confused:

[Serpent]

Why not just post the meaning here so that we can all share the meaning. After all, little words and phrases, "secrets" shared behind closed doors, differing views not shared and so on are never good. Hmmm, isn't that essentially the subject of this topic?

[yik-wah-tik]

sorry to jump on this topic, but i am giving this to people who have access to a map of southern china.

from what i understand, one of the joseph's had went to china and couldn't seem to find or locate anything on pak pai san.

well, i don't have a map of china, and i wanted to see if someone can take close look at one of theirs. i have been told that pak pai san is just outside quangzhou, it is in a province and can be located on a map.

now can we prove this one wrong or right without drama?

frank

[extrajoseph]

Sorry I should have explained any Chinese terms I used. "Fang Guak Jiah" literally means a kid who turns the bones over. It implies a person who showed disrespect for the dead or for tradition and wants to turn things inside out. A harsher interpretation is that he is a traitor.

Beancurd wants to know, "for myself i not see it this way, but who is " fan guak chia "? is it what we have been told of past or is it what we are now hearing. where to draw the line, who should be responsable to clarify such findings ??"

I say we are all responsible to clarify such things and why draw the line if we have nothing to hide? Hence the debate in the open.

Some people may choose to believe that the world is flat, it is OK with me, because it is what they wanted to believe, but through observation and logical analysis we know that it is not true and it is only healthy for us to know that we would not fall off the edge of the world!

JosephX

[k-no]

Wow....I didn't expect such a turnout...and such bullsh*t. While I don't have the time to spend responding to everyone, I can say that some of you have valid arguments and points, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions....as well as that some of you are a**holes as ever.

I skimmed over some of the responses a few days ago and they are pretty absurd. All I have to say from knowing Sifu Dave Lacey all this time is that...whoever is bringing up money, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Other people that know him know this, I mean, Simo works real hard at her job(s) to make life good for both of them and to bankroll Sifu's trips abroad. The only thing that Sifu is rich from in kung fu is friends! The guy is not even taking new students and is just taking referrals from current students, and even then you'd have to REALLY want to train to get in the kwoon.

Meanwhile, who goes all over the world and holds seminars upwards to the tune of $100 a day per person, while propogating "their version"? Who is it that holds these annual trips to China? I don't even have to say names, just think about it, Joseph, you should know this, Chan family or not. You people who bring up money as my Sifu's motive should really put the pieces together before just nodding and agreeing with each other like parrots.

Anyhow, sifu's long response to the backlash is on the web site. Someone else is doing the updates because I no longer have the time due to my job search.

Frank, between you and me, you've got a lot of nerve implying that Sifu Dave is "crazy" considering you've shown respect for Kong Hing sigung in the past, and that he not only supports the revisions of the CLF Union, he is part of the Union and privy to the changes made before they were made in the first place! Then, because there is no English web site for the Union, Sifu Dave makes his declarations in English on his site, basically just reiterating the Union's words, and all of a sudden he's "crazy"? All it takes is one phone call to Kong Hing. Don't think for one second that Sifu Dave doesn't regularly keep in contact with Kong Hing Sigung as well as the Singapore Hung Sing Kwoon. They all support his declaration. If you're ever curious enough, get a translator and ask Kong Hing himself, you might be surprised at his comments past all the obscenities!

I'm a little confused Frank, because I thought you were a Hung Sing sifu and therefore would be more respectful of Jeong Yim. Your "Long Jeong Dong" post really shows a lack of maturity. You may have a different opinion, and like I said, we are all entitled, but this is quite too much. I don't know what you are being told behind the scenes so I will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your other comments. If you want to pass on a message to Sifu Dave, do it here, e-mail me (flip_dragon@hotmail.com) or maybe we can arrange something. One only has to agree to go to HK and see the Union and Kong Hing himself, personally. To those who want to take him up on it, save up for the trip, believe me, Sifu Dave can't wait to hop on a plane to HK/Tsim Shat Tsui to watch your reactions.

To everyone else, hey, like I said...it's not there to be crammed down your throats. But you can't force your history down ours. Feel free to comment amongst youselves, but the slander is getting tiresome.

k

[TenTigers]

Okay, I hate to break the thread of this dispute, but someone brought up something that I'd like to see addressed. What were these supposedly "Original Eight Forms"?????? I am admittedly not an expert in CLF,I am a Hung-Ga practitioner, but my Sifu also taught me some CLF, and this peaked my interest. I am assuming Fut Jeong is one of them, what are the others? Also someone brought up that the Bak Mo Kuen in the book was different than theirs, how so? I am more interested in technique than politics-something our Hung clan is constantly dealing with, and it gets real old, real fast. Most of us just realize that we are all Hung-Ga and we each do things a little differently. Sure, every once in awhile someone comes out of the mists to reveal that they inherited the original system from God, and everyone else sux. Y'know what? I don't care. I love my gung-fu. Period.

[yik-wah-tik]

after doing some research, i found out that originally there were not sets but techniques. sets came later. techinques such tiger raises its head, panther plays with the ball, tiger snatches the lam the snake comes out of the hole were what they practiced.

the original 8 sets are supposed to be.........

1) tai chee kuen
2) ping kuen
3) tien chee kuen
4) gok gee kuen
5)cheung kuen
6) on ? keun
7) mon jerng
8) nien gee kuen

jeong yim opened his hsk in 1851 which was during the tai ping rebellion. these sets were created with revolutionary sentiments.

ok chan clan, how will you dispute this?

frankie hung loong mccarthy

[yik-wah-tik]

k-no,

i don't remember calling dave lacey crazy, and if i did it wasn't meant as he is mentally crazy. just you don't want to **** with him.

understand me, i have never insulted the laceys, and will not, ev en though dave lacey singled me out on his website without confirming with his sifu on what i said he said. i am also in contact with singapore and know how to get a hold of kong hing. i was in fut san to meet him and you can check out our website and see my photo with your sigung. i inform singapore on what i do here and i have stated to get some messages back to kong hing.

all moves are revealed to those who matters. i am in constant contact with elders throughout asia. so please understand, i have no ill intentions towards sifu dave, even though he blasted me without checking with my sifu or me.

pls don't take me wrong. i never meant to disrespect sifu lacey, if i actually did. pls pass that too him.


frank

oh about the long dong jeong qi gong, man=, it was just to lighten up the place. for a brief moment, a few even made a few jokes. even our boy joseph.

so don't take it seriously....look at it with a sense of humor.

i am sorry you were offended

frank

[extrajoseph]

It's Tripping Joseph speaking :-). The Chan Clan could not be bothered but I would like to ask you a few simple questions about the original 8 sets since you are from the Jeong Yim lineage. I am not disputing what you are saying, just curious.

Have you seen or learned any of these 8 Ba Gee Kuen or have they all been lost? If they have been lost, how did they influenced the later CLF forms from your lineage?

You said they were invented by Jeong Yim in 1851 and according to Dave Lacey, he was suppose to have founded CLF by combining Choy Gar, Lay Gar and Fut Gar into one system, then:

Have you seen any Choy Gar, Lay Gar or Fut Gar Kuen? Do you know what are the characteristics of each of these family styles and which of the Ba Gee Kuen has influence from Choy Gar, Lay Gar and Fut Gar?

You said originally there were no sets but only techniques, what original CLF techniques came from Choy Gar, Lay Gar and Fut Gar?

Look forward to your earliest reply.

JosephX

[TenTigers]

DANG! It's been days and no reply! I am chompin' at the bit here.

[yik-wah-tik]

in regards to you inquiries on the 8 sets. my sifu once learned gok gee. and of course their is ping kuen. and the great doc fai wong knows mon jeurng.
and of course fut san still teaches the real cheung kuen.

and i am sure with a little research theother sets will pop up.

yes i have seen choy gar lee gar but what really convinced me that hung sing choy lee fut has strong fut ga influence was after seeing a fut ga sifu perfoming a fut ga set. it looked pretty clf to me.

ansd do me a favor, save your comments from doc fai's book stating that ping kuen is still around and others made up sets.

thanks frank

[extrajoseph]

I think you mean “Kung Gee� as in “Gung Gee Fuk Fu Kuen� that your Sifu has learned and not “Gok Gee Kuen�. Could you check with your Sifu?

“Ping Kuen� is part of the traditional CLF form but it has nothing to do with the Tai Ping rebellion. I learned this form 30 years ago when I was a beginner, so DFW’s comment may have some truth in it.

“Mon� (I think you mean “Meng�) literally translated as ten thousand and I don’t think the great DFW would know “Mon Jerng� or 10,000 Palms because it is not in any of his lineage. Besides, going by the rhythm of the names, it should have been Meng Gee Kuen and not Mon Jerng, since every other names ended in the term “Gee Kuen� and the term "Jerng" was not mentioned.

Lastly, Cheung Kuen (not “Cheung Gee Kuen�) is a beginner Hung Sing form passed down by Jeorng Yim long before this 8 basic forms based on the Tai Ping rebellion is talked about. I wonder when was this idea of the 8 basic forms based on the Tai Ping rebellion was first mentioned and by whom? Do you know?

If you have seen Fut Gar and it looks like CLF, what do you thing CLF Fut Jerng Kuen would look like? Are you aware that Fut Jerng and Fut Gar Kuen are two different things? Does Choy Gar Kuen and Lee Gar Kuen that you have seen looked like CLF as well? In what way do they look like CLF? I know there is Choy Kuen and Lee Kuen but I don’t know there is such a style as Choy Gar Kuen and Lee Gar Kuen. Where did you seen Choy Gar Kuen and Lee Gar Kuen performed and by whom? Are there any schools of Choy Gar Kuen and Lee Gar Kuen in the States?

We also use the term Choy Gar, Lee Gar and Fut Gar but they referred to Choy Fook, Lee Yau-Shan and the Shaolin Temple respectively. You know you can call your kung fu Mccarthy Gar Kuen if you want to. Gar simply means it belongs to someone’s family. Not necessary has to do with a system of MA.

What happened to Tai Gee Kuen, Tian Gee Kuen, On Gee Kuen and Nien Gee Kuen? Do you think Futsan HSG teaches them? You were there last year, did they do any demo on these forms? It would be nice if you could do some research on this topic to enlighten us, it seems you are sold on the idea.

BTW, are you still the official historian for the America HSG? What is the latest historical research that you are working on? Is it a difficult task when you don't know Chinese? or are you learning Cantonese or Mandarin right now? Chinese is a diffifcult language and I appreciate your effect in getting to the truth of your history.

Personally, I think the whole thing is just a myth, but that is only my opinion. I would love you to prove me wrong and I am always willing to learn something new.

JosephX

[yik-wah-tik]

thanks for your insight, and forgive my whiteness in my mistakes of the names of sets. but it was gok gee that my sifu learned. and ping kuen that you may know may not be the same ping kuen as any other branch. no two branches sets are the same.
according to you there are no revolutionary anything to these sets, so i'll just let you tell it. to tell you the total and honest truth, what can the sets do for you in real life combat? do you think that clf was taught to revolutionary soldiers as sets? or in any military today are there sets being taught or combat techniques?

everyone here has this complex on who knows more sets or what type of sets but what it all comes down to is how you handle yourself in real life combat situations. not all sifu's are REAL sifu's there are a lot of paper sifu's out there, who have never used a sow choy in a real fight, who has never hit someone with a panther fist full blast at someones face. who have never really had their ass kicked.

to tell you the truth i have never heard of a chan family member being a true fighter. but with sifu's like mine-jew tien loong, lee koon hung, dave and vince lacey who have all actually been in real fights. these are the ones i would choose to learn a "martial art" from, and definetly not a paper sifu. a real sifu will make himself known and not hide behind negative comments and pray noone will ever find you.

so honestly if i misname sets, or may not even have one ounce of truth in my history, all that matters is that i am not a paper sifu. i practice every day, not once a week 4 times a month, 365 days of the year i train.

for example, yesterday i was driving in a parking lot and was almost rammed into by another driver who was really angry at something. he almost hit me and i honked my horn. he got out of the car and i thought yes, its time to kick some ass. now i am only 5'7" and this guy was easily 6'2" and he began to yell and i was about to get into a fight with this guy, but here is where the comedy came in........as me and this guy was arguing, his girlfriend,wife or whatever began yelling at me thru her window and suppringly i screamed at her to shut the **** up *****, at that point i knew i was getting into a fight because i normally would never speak to a woman like that, but the guy went back to his car and opened the door and his girl said something else and he looked at her and said "will you shut the **** up *****!!!!!!!!!" and got back into his car. man i wanted to hit him with a sow choy!!!!!!!!! but i started laughing at that and got back into my car.

anyways, i don't care about sets names of sets, all i want to do is keep training in clf. and be the best sifu i can be. and to tell the truth, it already shows in my teaching.

i want to tell a quick story about my students. i have these two students who have never had a street fight or have ever been in a tournament before. i only trained them for 21days straight.
i entered them into their first tournament as beginners, not even white belt level and they were placed against guys who were 5 levels above them. i trained my students hard for that time, and told them to limit their techniques and not to expect to win just show clf moves. from the jump one student kwa choy'd his guy right on the nose sending him out of the ring and the other floored his opponent and i have photo's of this too.
it was a 5 point tournament and for them to get 4 out of 5 points was cool enough for me. and all they did was train for 3 weeks, and did not teach them any sets. just a few basics like kwa sow chop! they did not need the internal, or bak mo, or ping kuen, mon jerng.

choy lee fut rules!!!!!!!!!!!

frank

[extrajoseph]

This KOTS Lao Fu-Pow Tzu I knew said once:

"He who knows does not fight;
He who fights does not know."

Very wise words indeed, worth thinking about.

Hope this helps,

Peace.

[Fu-Pow]

Yes this is very true.....

And Lao Fu-Pow KOTS also says.....

"At the end of the fight, no matter who wins or loses their is really no winner."

In other words, it is better to "win" by other means and never have to fight at all.

Oh..oops..actually I guess Sun Tzu said that.


Yau Sam

[extrajoseph]

Actually, Lao Fu-Pow Tzu KOTS said:

"He who fights does not speak;
He who speaks does not fight."

Hmm interesting, I think Sun Tzu said that also....

Any way, it is best not to fight and if you won by fighting, then best not to brag about it, just in case you want to use the same tactic again.

But then, Sicilians are very different to the Chinese. They are hot tempered, passionate and love to tell you their size and conquests. Our friend Frank is so lovable! (Hmm interesting, lovable sounds the same as laughable...).

[premier]

"to tell you the truth i have never heard of a chan family member being a true fighter. but with sifu's like mine-jew tien loong, lee koon hung, dave and vince lacey who have all actually been in real fights."

Maybe this is because we have better things to do than brag about tournament trophys? like training maybe? Just because we don't hype our achievements and how we kicked someones ass, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Anyway. Kung fu tournaments and competing is propably more popular in USA and most of the Chan family schools are outside of USA.

And as it has been said before, each branch has its own flavour and different things are emphasized, but they're still equal. So no need for chin checking.

Frank, stop picking on Chan family everytime Joseph says something you don't like.

Joseph, stop ****ing Frank off.


Yours truly,

premier

[yik-wah-tik]

i never claimed that fighting was good. i have never bullied anyone. but in light of your comments here, i will re-iterate my comments on PAPER SIFU's............

why learn a martial art if you are not willing to use it if you had to. how many of you are 100% sure that you can defend yourself against an agressive attacker bent on hurting you? what would you do if someone attacked you and your family and your gung fu was not good enough to protect them and your children look up at you and ask "daddy, are you alright? did that bad man hurt you? how can you look into your families faces and know you couldn't use your gung fu that you have trained so long for.

tournaments are good, but they are not reality. maybe some of you live where there is not a lot of street crime and serious gangs, and if you do not then i do not expect you to understand our mentality on fighting. and in that case i am saddened for you.

once again paper sifu's. i refuse to be one. there is no guessing here. some of you need to wake up.

but as far back as i can recall from research, the chan clan has always taken that position while the buk sing and hung sing clans have used their gung fu for protection. it is documented in chinese history.

thanks, and for those paying attention, try not to be a paper sifu.

frank

[Fu-Pow]

Just for the record.....

I know what you are saying Frank....

I've been beat up so badly that my whole face swolled up like a balloon.

I've been in fights where I've gotten bitten, punched and kicked in the ribs.

I've been attacked by a gang of 3 people at a party and had to use my CLF to get out of it.

Until you've been in a real fighting situation you have no idea what its like. It sucks.

But such is life. If your lucky it means you'll never be in that situation.

And once you've had a few encounters you do everything you can to avoid it.

But that doesn't mean your kung fu isn't good. It just means that you shouldn't be ranting on about what a great fighter you are .... because your not battle-tested.

Of course, you can get pretty close to real battle without the threat of death. In sparring I've been kicked in the nuts, punched in the nose I don't how many times, kicked and punched so hard in the head I've fallen down and seen stars.....

Sparring can really teach you alot about real combat.....but for sure, it is definitely not the real thing.

Here's a funny story....

This guy signed up at the kung fu school talking about how he could do this and that. He was always walking up to people and doing fake attacks on them just to get a reaction. Probably stuff he picked up out of kung fu magazines. He would always be talking about how if he got attacked he "do this, this and this." He was a real god**** mouth boxer.

Anyways a few weeks in to training we go up to this small tournament in Canada and this dude sparred in the beginners division. He got three bloody noses in the course of the fight. And all the opponent was throwing was straight punches!!! I could hardly stand to watch, he just kept getting pummeled. It was downright embarrassing.

I guess the bottom line is if you gonna talk the talk you better be willing to walk the walk. And if you haven't had to walk the walk you just better shut the **** up and keep training.

[yik-wah-tik]

thanks for your comments. i agree with you. i for one will never back down from a fight, but if i recognize that if the opponent backs down, then i will also.

i come from san francisco. where street confrontations happy on a daily basis. tournaments are are fun, and good experience. in one tournament i fought this 6'5" guy and i am only 5'7", but we were matched anyway. he was tae kwon do. as i went in to attack him he dropped an ax kick on my shoulder. man it hurt, and that kick is supposed to break your shoulder or drop you but it landed on my shoulder and i dropped into say ping ma and the look from his eyes were "how did this guy take my ax kick?" so i know someone can get hurt.....

but there are all levels of gung fu. one can do forms, weapons, or fighting. but why would anyone want to learn gung fu from a paper sifu. that is my only point. i do not glorify fighting, because where i am from it is a necessity or i would not be hear enjoying everyones comments now.

but hey, oh well.

at least i am not a shadow sifu

[premier]

Frank

I agree with you about the paper sifus and everything you said, but you do realize it sounds like you're implying the Chan clan sifus are paper sifus?

[yik-wah-tik]

hey brother,

i was taking a drive and i was thinking to myself about the comments you make about my training and fighting. and an image of this average sized but really geeky guy who sits behind his computer, takes on an alias, and begins to attack all those that may be physically superior to him. he won't expose himself, but he thrives on attacking from the shadows.

now joseph, dear brother, please say it's not so! i would really hate to think that this distorted vision i have received is correct.

i would hope to think that you would be someone worth your weight in salt when it comes to choy lee fut. that you would be able to easily defend off a number of aggressive attackers. you did say that you have 30yrs plus of gung fu training, right?

pls, share some insight into who joseph really is.

i have some ?'s for you.

why did you begin learning gung fu?

why choy lee fut and not tai chi? tae kwon do? karate? what was it about clf that attracted you?

the literary aspects? the philosophy? maybe even the buddhist aspects of clf?

i'd like to know why you chose a martial art and not badmitten or soccer, or basketball, tennis, chess? why gung fu?

thnks
frank

[extrajoseph]

Hi Frank,

It will be my last posting for a while, I will be disappearing to China for business again. I was trying to teach you some shadow kung fu on the net but it is too subtle for you, may be when you are older you will zen on it.

Remember the shadow is created by the sun and until you can find the sun you will not be able to find me. (Fu-Pow, did Sun Tzu said that too?)

Take care my friend,

JosephX

[yik-wah-tik]

if you happen to stop by fut san, please pass a message to my sifu lok gee hung in fut san that i say hello, and that i miss him.

have fun in china. oh yeah don't forget to pass by guangshi to stop by the pak pai san. pls take pictures.

have a safe trip

frank