PDA

View Full Version : The On-going Internet Saga of the Green Grass Monk.



Fu-Pow
05-08-2002, 08:16 PM
I thought I'd start a new thread since the other one was getting a bit cumbersome.

Here's Dave Lacey's updated thread. Seems that we stirred up a few bees in somebodies bonnet.

http://www.pantherfist.com/newcontroversy1.html

I notice I'm quoted (and misquoted) a few times in there. And my name is Fu-Pow (or LiLoong) god**** it not Yau Sam. Yau Sam is just the way I sign off.

He also incorrectly assumes that I'm from the Chan Clan when in fact I'm Hung Sing (although from a mixed lineage.)

I think that what has gotten people like "General" Lacey so upset is that the internet has democratized information. I can talk to Joseph, CLFNole, Sow Choy, Howard Choy, RAIN, Alec Morris, YutYeeSam, Eddie and others and I've never ment any of you and your located all over the world.

We no longer have to rely on our elders as the only source of information about our style. We can compare information and come to our own conclusions. Its very cool when you think about it. But if you have something to lose, or you are about to be exposed it could be a very nerve racking time.

"General" Lacey fails to address one of the key issues that we discussed on this forum and that is the fact that the Chan Heung Memorial Association in Hong Kong is dominated by Buk Sing people. So we can't really take what "conclusions" they reach as some sort of authoritative consensus as the "General" would have us believe.

Apparently, the Buk Sing people gained control of this organization in the early seventies and you will notice that even Sifu Lacey acknowledges that this was when all the controversy started.

If the Buksing people would simply concede to the fact that Chan Heung is the founder of CLF and Jeong Yim simply a student then we could all just relax. What's wrong with being a newer branch of CLF rather than being an older branch CLF?

Judging from technique it is obvious that the root of all branches is the same but each branch developed and grew in its own way. If there were originally only 8 forms then the Chan Family curriculum obviously grew through subsequent generations as did the Hung Sing curriculum. They evolved in different ways, who's to say which branch is better or worse, or more authentic. Age does not necessarily imply that any branch has greater utility. One feature that the Chan Clan inherited was the internal sets which were not taught outside of the family. These seem to be primarily for health and not so much about martial skills.

The Hung Sing people might benefit greatly from this aspect of the art?

Likewise the Hung Sing side has developed a simplified "no nonsense" approach to the same art.

Might the students of the Chan side benefit from wisdom the Hung Sing teachers?

Until we can put this issue of the Green Grass Monk aside and claim Chan Heung as the true founder then these questions will never be answered.

As far as my own training I would never limit myself to one "side." I will learn martial arts from who ever has good techniques and experience/insights on combat. It think that the truely great martial artists are always open to learning, always humble about their own art and yet at the same time shrewd about what they learn and who they learn it from. Just because something has the Hung Sing CLF stamp on it doesn't mean there isn't a better form or technique out there to deal with the same situation.

Yau Sam (which means "Much Heart")

Yau Sam to all my CLF brother and sisters and all the people who seek to live long, healthy and virtuous life through the study of martial arts and physical culture.

JAZA
05-08-2002, 09:54 PM
I've just read sifu Dave Lacey site, and my impression is that he have something against Chan family. No Chan family members have answer his controversy, so I don't see why he tried to put the things in a way like their history is so unbelievable like mine.
If open minded people from different places of the world, different branches comments his article in this forums, it's not sane to think that they are all Chan family.
If his association want to spread his version is their problem, I don't see why to embarras other people to legitimate his version.
It was different if he dedicated his effort to publish his history all the unrevealed he have. No one could say is rude way even if don't believe his version.
I'm very sad, Choy Lee Fut is big world of knowledge, as Fu Pow said everybody can learn of each other even if have different beliefs. Put the things in attacks because is just fundamentalism that have the world in crisis.

Peace

yutyeesam
05-08-2002, 10:04 PM
wow, fu-pow, he really rails on you! supwitdat! he calls you chan family...i wonder if he realizes who your sigung is...there's a picture on his website of him sitting at a table with LKH.

i'm not even trying to partake in this debate...the junior CLF students, like myself, read this debate with keen interest, b/c we get to see how the CLF seniors do in verbal and scholarly sparring...and we learn from it - the both on technical information and approach.

i just think it is bizarre that he singled you out...over everyone else, that's all...(actually, it is impressive! of all the people, you drew him in)...

123

extrajoseph
05-08-2002, 10:46 PM
Poor Dave Lacey, he wears his heart on his sleeve and got truly manipulated and brainwashed.

He doesn't know the Chinese language nor the Chinese well, and there is no way he could check any of the information first hand nor knowing the subtle games people play. He makes simple mistakes like the one mentioned by Fu-Pow earlier and called Mt. Lo Fo (or Law Fou) Mt. Lo Fu or the Tiger Mountain. He gets the 3 Hung Sing characters all mixed up and thinks Loong Ji- Choi was a student of Jeong Yim. He thinks the elders knows everything but have no way to varify the informations given.

My hunch was right, there is a small group of Bak Sing elders pulling the strings in the background and using the gullible foreigners like Dave Lacey to fragment the CLF family, especially the Hung Sing practitiners. If we are not careful, we will fall into their trap through our pride and prejudice. Be forewarned!

Why are they doing this? Because they felt the Chan Family and the Hung Sing people have looked down on their simple but effective techniques for years! If they can by pass Chan Heung, then non of his legacy will have an effect (all we need is charp-choi!). They want some respect and they are going to get it one way or another!

Sad, really.

k-no
05-08-2002, 11:53 PM
No Joseph, what's sad is someone as purpotedly an "old timer" like you calling Sifu Dave a "gullible foreigner". Who the hell are you in CLF? That's right, keep your discussion in these little forums. If your sifu or sigung wants to have a mature discussion regarding this subject on your behalf, please have them do so, that's if they approve of your ranting and raving.


So sorry that Master Dave Lacey only speaks Cantonese since he was a child, not Mandarin. I guess that makes him unqualified. Forget about his over 40 years in CLF. I guess he has no way of understanding what his peers at the Hung Sing fraternity in Singapore are telling him, gee they are only very fluent in English!
You're the leader in this whole slanderous affair against Sifu Dave.
If you had any ounce of manners, you'd be trying to disprove or look for evidence, instead of making false statements about my sifu.

You're the self righteous piece of **** type with no clout that makes Kung Fu a laughingstock to the outside world!

extrajoseph
05-09-2002, 02:00 AM
Have you ever heard your sifu speaking Cantonese? Law Fou and Lo Fu are 2 very different things and if he does not know what yau sum means, then his Cantonese is very elementary indeed. No one mentioned Mandarin at all.

I suggest you go and listen and see if your sifu can carry on a decent conversation with one of his Cantonese speaking friends for 10 minutes, and then show him a few Chinese characters and see if he can recognise them. That would be your research and evidence and you can make a judgement after on whether I made a poor remark or not.

In my opinion, your Sifu is very gullible because he has made many false statements and slanderous remarks without first checking the facts. One who lives in a glass house should not throw stones....

Let me give you one example, this un-named person your sifu mentioned did not have to go all the way to Guangzhou. The history as written by the Futsan Hung Sing Kwoon was soundly criticised in the local paper. I have a copy of the newspaper in front of me, please ask your sifu to check his facts before dishing out the rumours. I bet he heard this one from of the same elder who told Chan Wing-Fat off last year!

Talking about rumours, I have heard and been warned via email that I should keep my mouth shut and not to let my identity be known, because Kong Hing is a 14K boss and he is going to hurt my family if he ever finds out who I am. Do you believe in that? I don't, but I am not taking any chances. Anyway, my surname is not that difficult to guess, what Cantonese name means extra and has the same sound as fish? Go on, ask your sifu. He should know and he can place me on one of his hit lists! :-)

As for being the leader of this slanderous affair, I think you are making a false hero out of me. Everyone has an equal voice here and everyone is judged by the logic and reasonableness of what he or she is saying. People out there in cyber space don't need a leader to tell them how and what to think.

I can understand why you are so irritated, because I am hiting the right target, ne'st pas?

I know Dave Lacey is your sifu and you are protecting him in any way you can, but you are also a man of education and you should think for yourself without loosing respects for him. When he says Cheong Yim went back to King Mui in 1836 with his newly acquired MA skills from Ching Cho to set up the future foundation for CLF, you can do your sums and realize that if Cheong Yim was born in 1824, he would only be 12 and that would not be possible or likely to happen.

You can also ask yourself these questions, "Why was the claim for Cheong Yim being the Founder of CLF not made earlier?", "Why now?", "Who is behind the push and why?", "What do we gain by having Cheong Yim as the founder and not Chan Heung?". Try to answer these questions and ask yourself, "Is it really neccessary for your sifu to post what he did for the public to ridicule us?"

Sure, I am a nobody and I have no clouts at all but I am not the one who is making Kung Fu a laughing stock to the outside world. Guess who is?

JosephX

extrajoseph
05-09-2002, 03:44 AM
It's unfair! The General has singled you out and not me. I didn't even get a mention. How disappointing! I only got insults from his student and not the Man himself.

Congratulations any way, but watch out for the triads! :-)

JosephX

bean curd
05-09-2002, 05:48 AM
extra joseph you jimo to fu pow, from writing it appears you are.

ngoi keng jung gon is all that can be said of you, you insult easy of david, why you do this, you always talk about keep it to subject, yet EVERYTIME it is YOU who go personal. david, kong hing, when are you going to speak of lun gee. oh yes i know i bring names into this not you eh, another silly comment ready to come.

if you are from time you say you are, you not show anything, you should ging lay sum chung to ancestors, or again is it i come from old times and not good for this days, if so i live in my time, if you are example of changes.

why you say he is foriegner, to what - hong kong ? surely you not bring up his heritage or is this way you show your true character ?? old times you use when you want to, new times when you care too, such a paper tiger.

he write much now disclame what is written, you bring clouds over the mountain - no.

fu pow if ever there was fan guak chia you are it, read what you have written and tell me otherwise, if you ever have clue on what i mean, which i think not.

joseph, since when article in any paper worth more than what it is written on, what weight does it carry ??? if you know so much of what go on, then you know of talks between clans.

what you do here is nothing but to cover up what is now coming out, if good yes, if not no, let us here what you have to say on what david wrote i wait with strong interest

Fu-Pow
05-09-2002, 11:55 AM
Bean Curd-

Sorry I don't speak Cantonese. But I'm assuming this was an insult.

If Sifu Dave Lacey has such an issue then why doesn't he come on the forum himself?

What's the delay? Obviously he has access to a computer and command of the English language.

Why post 8 page rambling essays that hurt my eyes?

The heart of the issue goes back 30 years ago in Hong Kong and the Chan Heung Memorial Association. This much the people on this forum have devised.

Until I see someone addressing that time period none of these purported "dates" and "facts" mean anything.

I want Sifu Lacey to specifically address what happened in Hong Kong at this time.

Just because Hong Kong is overseas is there supposed to be some big mystery. Am I supposed to bow down to people because they are Chinese and I am not? Hong Kong is a place like anywhere else with dates, names, places, historical records and political games. There is a truth here but people gotta start coming clean. There's a lot of dancing going on here on Sifu Lacey's part.

Oh and BTW, here's a prophecy: The outlook of the Chan Heung Memorial Association may change very quickly as it may not be under Buksing leadership for much longer.

Yau Sam

extrajoseph
05-09-2002, 04:51 PM
If you look at the responses so far, we have already started to address your David’s response to the CLF controversy.

Chapter 1 is full of inaccuracies and it sets the tone for the rest to follow.

1) Fu-Pow’s name is not Yau Sum and he is not a Chan family member. If your David can’t even get the present-day information correct, what hope does he have with historical intricacies?

2) The Chan family branches have not instigated any disputes, they only wanted to present their version of the CLF history, please feel free to produce evidence to show me otherwise. Matter of fact they have never responded to any of your David’s earlier insults and I have yet to see any evidence that they are about to do so now.

3) This un-named 5th- generation master your David mentioned did not get “whipped”. The proponents of Futsan and Xinhui took care of their issues in China themselves; I have newspaper evidence to show that.

4) There are no anti-Hung Sing activities with the non-Cheong Yim branches, only a desire to find out what is the truth behind the politics. Increasingly, there is evidence that some of the Bak Sing elders are the instigators of this so called anti-Hung Sing activities and not the Chan Family as accused by your David.

5) The CLF Union in Hong Kong do not represent the majority of CLF practitioners in China or worldwide. It is controlled by a handful of Bak Sing elders and they cannot change history by declaration. May be your David can show us the list of signatory under the declaration and we can all see who they are.

I can go on with the rest of his rambling but why bother? It is not going to change any of your biased views. By exposing the political manipulations going on at the moment, I am doing “ging lay sum chung” to my CLF ancestors.

BTW, when you are demonstrating your Cantonese skill, you should explain what they mean to others because we have nothing to hide, or do we?

Even though I have criticised your David’s writing and the way he approached things, I have nothing personally against him. He is just as much a victim as the rest of us. The only ones that are laughing and rubbing their hands are the manipulative politicians pulling your David’s strings at the moment. It is interesting how his twin brother (is it your Vince as well?) has a very different view to the matter.

Please don’t talk to me about tradition and decorum, you and your David have broken them all already. People in glass house should not throw stones….

JosephX

yik-wah-tik
05-09-2002, 10:27 PM
to sifu dave lacey,

i am yik-wah-tik the one you mentioned on your website. first i would like to say thank you for your firm stand on our history. i once tried to tell them the same thing, but they responded to me the same way they did you.

now, my real name is frank mccarthy, my sifu is dino "tien loong" salvatera and i am from the american and fut san hung sing kwoons. i am NOT afraid to tell who i am and stand by my statements. i stated what your sifu stated about hung sing is the only name allowed in front of clf. i also stated that chan heung and jeong yim were co-founders. and i thank you for your confirming our beliefs.

but on your website your ask the question if the american hung sing knows their history, and about master yuen hai. well doc fai wong was only a short time student of professor lau bun (3 yrs). he may not know the information about yuen hai, but WE do. we just do not wish to plaster it all over this forum so people of the chan family can argue it. in the chan heung memorial association they have yuen hai and jeong yim as notable students of chan heung. but that is a chan heung book, not hung sing.

i am in contact with the same people in singapore as you and if you want to know anything about me you can ask them.

although i have never met you, i have mey maste vince lacey. and since the buk sing lineage is of jeong yims, i support you totally.
i have no ill comments on you. just that you should have confirmed with your sifu before plastering my name and school all over your website. you may contact me through our website if you want to discuss anything.

i hope you are well and long live hung sing and buk sing kwoons.


now, to all of you haters from the chan clan............see, i told you that the information will be coming out. i told you. i told you. i told you! you just can't stop the truth!!!!!!!

everything dave lacey said on his website, i told you a year ago.
keep on hating the fact that you have to change your history to accomadate ours.

no personal disrespect to all of josephs personalities, but you ARE TRIPPIN!

FRANK

all of you email terrorists from the chan clan need to respect all sifu's especially ones like vince and dave lacey, kong hing, and any other notable sifu. your blatant disrespect of master dave lacey because he doesn't subscribe to the chan history shows your gung fu upringing, and that you learned nothing from your sifu's. in turn you have insulted your own lineage and sifu's with your actions.

i'll tell you this, shane lacey whooped the ass of a wing chun stylist under hoover chan live on air of a local radio station for making a stupid comment. i heard it live. now if dave lacey is anything like his brother, then if you were to ever reveal your selves, there would be some more ass whoopin.

email terrorists,.....what a joke

yutyeesam
05-10-2002, 12:09 AM
"the Godfather" -- I hope no on ends up with a horse's head in their bed.

G's up, hoes down! :rolleyes:

123

bean curd
05-10-2002, 01:38 AM
joseph,

"when i demonstrate my cantonese should tell everyone what it means - we don't have anything to hide do we ??.

interesting you say this i was only following your example of when you directed fan guak chai to me in a previous conversation and did i know what it mean "word" not saying, i reply to this like you question it too me, and you didn't explain till later to others on forum, when you oh forgot to say what it was.

on that matter joseph who was playing the game certain not i, you test water with me on that, for your own reason, which i can only imagine, so don't say i am hiding , it is you also playing games.

ngoi keng jung gon ( outwardly strong but inwardly weak ), so what do i have to hide by that saying , nothing, you just like to be seen.

on your reply you keep saying " your ( my ?) david ", why you saying this,i am not sure. is it because i just say david, what if i just say yong fa, or yiu chi or other like this, does then make them mine, if so, then thank you, but again silly play on words, for no reason i understand.

all the points you pick out not to do with ISSUE, which you always say is point of discussion. make it clear to me where and why david or should i say lay dai wai si, ( does that make you feel better ? ) what he say is wrong.

isn't issue about history not about resent time, take out the modern issue's and address the historical being questioned.
everytime you asked to show where errors, you always avoid and bring in issues not warrented.

you say i am baised = to what ?? you like to make implications which arn't there, seem to be a thing of yours, i am interested in knowing what is truth, i hear this new history, now show me why it isn't so.

you once said on previous post, long time ago people belief world was flat, hhmm long time ago people believe chan history, so i ask again what is right what is wrong and how is it proven, if this basic question not answer, no words will ever bring this to rest.

you still not explain also why you call david foreigner, why ???

also show me where i have broken decorum and tradition ??? through this whole thing i bring only issue of edicate, it is you who use hard words then wish to make out that it is not personal. i came and read these about how people ( on forum ) find what is going on, only time i speak up is when you lead and others follow into going personal.

one more thing extrajoseph oh i mean YUEN, how was HK, did the demo you do go well , do you think or do you feel you could have played it better

extrajoseph
05-10-2002, 03:41 AM
Try again, it is not YUEN and I am too old to do any demo in Hong Kong or elsewhere. A classic sneaky throwaway line at the end of your posting but you have failed just the same.

I called David a foreigner in 2 senses:

1) His behaviour showed he is not familiar with Chinese culture and the way the "Cantonese" would manipulate and deal with a “foreigner” (sometimes even a northerner - a bak fong lo). The real "Chinaman", the one that stands behind the crowd and says nothing and then stirs his students to do the bidding, is using him - the gullible foreigner.

2) He is ethnically a “mixie” and he never lived in China and only in a foreign developed country like Australia or the United States of America. He does not speak, nor read or write the Chinese language well.

Now, you are a real "Chinaman" and a "Cantonese" at that and your behaviour showed clearly that you are steep in the art of being Thick and Black.

You have broken decorum and tradition by calling people names without a good reason (Fu-Pow a “fang guak chia” and me a "ngoi keng jung gon" for examples) and then turn around and accuse others of doing the same. You have the hide to cry foul and say how can I be biased? I am only interested in the truth! Bean Curd my fiend, I can see right through you, so please stop flashing your Thick and Black at me; I rather deal with simple and straightforward guys like Frank and k-no any day.

If you read the recent posts, the real issue is not about history now; it is about politics in the last 30 years. Dave Lacey’s history is full of holes and no matter how we argue from a logical point of view (I just named 5 inaccuracies in his Chapter 1 and you behaved as though they are not there); history has been derailed by a simple decoration from the CLF Union in Hong Kong. He said it himself, if enough people believed in something, then the Union can declare it history. We can take a vote on history and tradition, is it not politics at its best?

JosephX

extrajoseph
05-10-2002, 06:01 AM
Just to satisfy your curiosity, let us tackle Chapter 4 for an exercise.

According to Dave Lacey, Choy Lay Fut is a synthesis of Choy Gar Kuen, Lay Gar Kuen and Fut Gar Kuen by Cheung Yim. It makes more sense because if Chan Heung was the founder then he should have used the name Choy Lay Chan to honour his uncle Chan Yuen-Wun.

What kind of argument is that? The whole reason why Chan Heung did not want to use his own family name is to try to discourage his followers not to put their name, hence their own ego, before the name of the system. The word Fut, meaning Buddha, not only represented Chan Yuen-Wun but more importantly, it represented the Shaolin Temple, the Buddhist origin of the art. It has a loftier ideal to Dave’s argument and showed better logic. Chan Heung’s ideal is even promoted by Dave’s teacher, who praised him for calling his school Choy Lay Fut Bak Sing Gwoon and not Bak Sing Choy Lay Fut Gwoon

Dave Lacey admitted in the beginning of the chapter that he got his idea from his elders who can read and write Chinese whereas he can’t. Well, poor Dave, he has been misled.

The elders also failed to point out to him that the name Cheung Hung Sing (Great Victory Hung Sing) is a third derivation from the original Great Sage Hung Sing to Heroic Hung Sing then to his name sake. Just looking at the evolution of the Chinese characters, which Dave is not able to do so, Cheung Yim or Cheung Hung Sing could not have been the founder.

I can do more of these types counter arguments and pull Dave’s misguided history to pieces chapter by chapter, but I am not going to because it is not going to serve any real purpose other than making Dave looked like a fool. After all it is not his fault, he is only a pawn in this game of political one-upmanship.

BTW bean curd, what are you doing in this debate other than making people mad? Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute?

JosephX

kei lun
05-10-2002, 07:49 AM
This is to Chen Yong Fa, Chui Kwong Yeun, and Vince Lacey:

Your contrubutions to Choy Lee Fut over the years is remarkable. And your own quality is definately reflected in all the fine students you have produced over the years. Keep up the great work gentlemen.

Kei Lun

Jamesbond_007
05-10-2002, 09:03 AM
Wow!! This is better than a good soap opera. We have the strong language, the claims, and the threats; all we need now is someone cheating on someone's lover.:D

But on a more serious note, it is kind of sad how seperate the branches of CLF are. Does any other art have this much controversy?

Also I want to point out one very obvious fact. I am not CLF expert, in fighting or in history, but if Cheong Yim IS the Founder of CLF then why aren't his offspring claiming they are the keeper of the style or even promoting CLF? It would only make sense his offspring would carry on the art of their father.

premier
05-10-2002, 09:31 AM
A quote from New controversy article:

I had to, 'cos there has been too much back-stabbing going on over the internet and when Choy Lay Fut people started using e-mail to argue and even insult others I felt a responsibility to help clear up this mess since no one else wants to speak out against the injustices perpetuated by those seeking to discredit and humiliate others in the same martial arts fraternity.

ok.. too much back stabbing? Sifu Lacey is clearing up the mess? someone trying to discredit and humiliate others? I see.. let's go back to Lacey's first article.


I have met with Sifu Yong Fa on several occasions in both Sydney and Melbourne (between 1986-1991) and have personally found him to be a very courteous and hospitable man who respectfully addresses me as "big brother" though he is one generation above me. Whatever opinions others may have of him, there is no denying that as the "Jeung Moon Yun" (keeper of the style or school) of the "Chan Family" Choy Lay Fut, Sifu Yong Fa is a highly gifted martial artist who has inherited a wealth of knowledge on the teachings and philosophies of the martial arts of Chan Heung. 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!

Now.. take another look to the New controversy article, which is mostly about discrediting and humiliating Chan family branch and Chen Yong Fa. So.. let me ask. Who's the back stabber here?

The sad thing is that Lacey's article was obviously inspired by people who he thought were from Chan family branch. Now he wrote 8 pages of propaganda that will surely **** up his relations with the Chan family guys, who concidered him as a friend. In reality, as we all know, there's really not many people from Chan family branch in this forum. like 5 or something? and none of them really are involved in these debates. (ok. I don't know who e-mailed him)

And why is it that Sifu Lacey can't stand the heat when he writes a controversial article? He surely knew the reactions it would create. Instead of stepping in the open conversation he makes false assumptions and writes an article that will propably ruin his relations with a lot of people. Not really smart thing to do.


premier

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 10:23 AM
Guys don't you think this is getting a bit old. No matter how many times we go round and round there is no absolute finality to the topic.

Lets move on a talk more constructively about our great art Choy Lay Fut and leave the bickering to others.

Peace.

Fu-Pow
05-10-2002, 10:42 AM
Wow!! This is better than a good soap opera. We have the strong language, the claims, and the threats; all we need now is someone cheating on someone's lover.

OK...OK...I'M GOING TO COME CLEAN.....I'M HAVING JOSEPH'S BABY!!!! (key dramatic organ music.)


CLFNole-

I agree with you that this is getting old. But do you think that there is anyway to get to the bottom of this? Nobody likes to feel like they are being manipulated, myself included.

And while were on the topic, is there anyway to promote more unity and dialogue between the branches of CLF? It is a small world after all.

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 10:54 AM
Fu-Pow:

To be honest I feel this whole topic is a virtual bottomless pit. I don't think we'll ever find the bottom since there is no real 100% concrete evidence. I'll admit each side has their versions of evidence however I don't put 100% credence on either. The whole family manuscript thing doesn't completely fly with me, nor does the all of the Cheong Yim stuff. Like I always say the truth usually lies somewhere in between, however the in between in this case is miles apart.

The only way the entire CLF will come together is with the newer generations coming up. The elders and older generation are very set in their ways. Many old sifus are very closeminded and refuse to entertain new ideas. This is not a shot at any older generation practioner because this is the way things were traditionally. I know personally that older Hong Kong or China sifus are very traditional and hold on tightly to tradition and the old ways of thinking. This is the year 2002, however and everyone must be willing to listen to each others beliefs without attack since no one can prove their belief is 100% accurate.

If we would all focus on CLF our immediate CLF world would be a much better place. Bottom line is that people are generally going to belief what they were taught by their sifu and to change someone's mind without 100% proof will always be difficult and to some extent futile.

Let's let eveyone have his or her own belief and work to promoting CLF. This would be a more productive use of everyone's time. However this is just my opinion.

Peace.

premier
05-10-2002, 11:09 AM
I would gladly shut up about this and agree to disagree. But can we let the power hungry people spread misinformation and discredit other schools and just ignore it? It looks like someone is on a mission to turn things upside down.

Fu-Pow
05-10-2002, 12:09 PM
Although the issue that keeps coming up is the Green Grass Monk it really is about something else.

And that is that the Hung Sing/Bak Sing people want to claim Jeong Yim as the founder of CLF (or at least a co-founder. However, I think the idea of co-founder has kind of lost footing because of the strict student/teacher relationship in China. )

To claim Jeong Yim as the founder is hugely disrespectful to the Chan Family as they are basically saying that the art they are practicing is not CLF.

If not CLF then what are they doing?

Chan Heung was a real person with birth and death records, offspring in the region and personal accounts of his existence.

I think all the CLF branches should focus their attention to Chan Heung.

The teachers of Chan Heung remain a bit of a mystery. Who are these characters Choy Fook or Lee Yau San or "the Green Grass Monk?" Who was Jeong Yim, where are his birth and death records?

We may never know this. The history of these important people have been lost in time.

So it seems to me that we should focus on things that we know to be real, rather than chasing the "ghosts" of history.

That is why if anyone asked me the origin of CLF I would say Chan Heung, he was the founder.

If someone asked me who has the "true" CLF I would say anyone that has taken the time and effort to learn their art from a qualified teacher.

Yau Sam

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 12:31 PM
One thing I would like to add to this is: I always tell people Chan Hueng was the founder of our style and that the Hung Sing branch was started by Jeong Yim (Jeong Hung Sing) one of Chan Hueng's top students.

One thing I have noticed is the others try to down play Jeong Yim's contribution to CLF and his martial arts prowess. Afterall there are an awful lot of seeds that sprouted from the Jeong Yim tree that are around today.

Peace.

Fu-Pow
05-10-2002, 12:51 PM
Good point!!! Jeong Yim was definitley important to the development of our art.

And there are definitely masters on both sides that have contributed very much to CLF including your Sifu (aka my SiGung.)

BTW, no hard feeling towards anyone including Dave Lacey and even those who have insulted me on this forum.

There is Chinese proverb that says " Make 1000 friends and not 1 enemy."

I hope at the end of the day, even though we've called each other names or beat the crap out each other, that we could all sit down and have a beer and/or a cup a tea and laugh at what a$$holes we all are. :D


Yau Sam

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 01:03 PM
You bring up another good point. I think a lot of people make too much out of Chan Hueng and Jeong Yim, afterall I highly doubt that they created all of the forms the are around today.

There have been too many masters to name that have brought CLF to what and where it is today. CLF as are all martial arts are about evolving and changing somewhat (good or bad). I would venture to guess that the CLF of today looks a bit different from the CLF of Chan Hueng's era. So does all of the bickering really matter?

Peace.

extrajoseph
05-10-2002, 02:09 PM
Nice to hear from young people who can think for themselves and train hard, the future of CLF is in guys like you lot. Reading your posts (not only here), us older generation can rest easier.

JosephX

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 02:22 PM
Extrajoseph:

I just hope that as part of the newer generation we are able to uphold the standards of the past. While we must adapt with the times some of the old traditions need to remain. I hope that all of the politics of today do not destroy or degrade or great art.

Besides you and the other elders of our style have been doing enough over the years. Like with general work in society one needs to work less or retire and enjoy life and let the younger people with all the energy do some of the work for a change. Hopefully all of the younger people can keep level heads and work to better our art.

Peace.

premier
05-10-2002, 03:00 PM
Hmh. Here's a crazy idea.. how about setting up an organisation to promote interbranch relations, diplomacy, good will, brotherhood and collaboration?


premier

CLFNole
05-10-2002, 03:50 PM
It's a good idea, however it will never happen as long as the old guard is calling the shots. They would agrue their 30-50 years experience over those with 10 years and the fact that they are 4th or 5th generation and what does a 6th or 7th generation practioner know.

Bottom line more politics. This is another problem, many people hind behind the fact they are 4th generation or what have you. I could careless what generation you are, do you practice? and is your CLF any good? That's what counts all the rest is secondary.

Peace.

extrajoseph
05-11-2002, 01:12 AM
What made CLF great in the past was the hard working and thinking students, being meng mo serng chun (accomplished in both the literal and the martial arts) they became the future leaders. We need students not only can fight, but can think and plan and organise.

CLF is a complete art and each branch inherited some aspects of the system better than another. It was a conscious effect of the teachers of the past to pass on only what a student is capable of at the time. When the teacher dies, his students have to co-operate with each other to learn each others skills to be complete. When they don't do this, they have to learn from outside the system to make up the difference. Even the family manuscripts were passed down this way, so if one side don't talk to another then they will both lose out.

So it was in Chan Heung vision that we work together, no matter what branch or generation we belonged to. He encouraged competition and cross learning and that is why it was difficult to work out who is who's teacher when one person could have learned from 2 or 3 teachers or siheng or sidai at a time.

It is important for a thinking student to separate politics from his or her desire to learn. That is why I am spending so much time here trying to tell you it is politics and not history that are separating us and you need to be really aware of that and not be manipulated by the politicians.

Dave Lacey is a loyal student, sometime I felt he is too loyal and passed his own thinking cap onto his elders. If he takes time to study the history and teachniques of other branches in any meaningful way, he would not have been so "out there" with his writing. He wears his heart on his sleeve and it is admirable but not too intelligent.

Fu-Pow had the right approach, even though he thinks differently to his teacher regarding the history (after research), he will respect his teacher's wish and when the time is right he can express his own mind and pass on what he believes to be the best for his own students.

On the other hand, Frank is a loyal, hard working and a lovable guy but he doesn't think, therefore he will always be a foot soldier and not a leader.

A good teacher will always encourage his or her students to learn from a better teacher. In the end the glory is with the school and the art. A bad teacher will try to stop you and tell you only they have the true teaching. Be aware and always ask for permission and show respect and don't hurt your teacher's feelings, after all, your teacher is your teacher for life.

We are living in an exciting time, the internet and air travel and modern technology allow us to learn, to record and to compare all aspects of the art from different teachers very easily and cheaply. Use them to your advantage.

I hope you people out there don't mind me naming names and be personal, it is just a few observation from an older guy.

JosephX

bean curd
05-11-2002, 02:05 AM
fu pow, premier and clfnole,
i agree totally with joseph on his comments towards you, it take me time to read and re-read your comments and what you say is very true, i think unfortunatly it will take a couple of passing of generation to bring things back into order, whatever that maybe.

in hong kong in the early 70's the memorial society for chan heung with for example ho ngau si and also the federation of choi li fut assocation was set up,( this one of coarse was internationl commitiee), for just this purpose but now some 30yrs pass, look where we are, is this human nature , who knows.

words have been banter everywhere and i am not backword in saying, yes sometime get out of control, again human nature.

generation and position is a strange thing, and i agree not for the new age, i saying that, i must also say, focus of all generation before has always been to ensure skills of person good, otherwise CLF would not be as strong as it is today.

of all things though three remain no matter what clan, when yuen fok temple, kong moon, futshan open, gung fu became richer because of them.

joseph i will say two thing more to you and i am finished as again when we talk the pai it is more enjoyable.
when you right post above " what made CLF great " i agree with you on all post totally ( twice in one post i must have had good day ).

second, comment to me on thick and black is an interesting one, but why not just use english. i say clearly that what you imply is not true. you not open up on what thick and black mean so i also will do same, you may not believe me, that is your choice of coarse, but i not open up meaning out of respect for you as you have not, i am sure you understand this edicate and it has nothing to do with me hiding anything.

what we both right is from our perspective, as i say before not one hero not one villian, you write what you write and i comment, it is from there, both then our decision on whether reply is forthcoming or not.

you try to make out i am trouble maker, which i am not, not that it worry me one way or other of your thought to me, however all perspective is required and that was my contribution.

if you wish to reply to this post then that your choice, no matter what you write in reply, i will not, it is clear younger ones have correct idea, i will enjoy reading their thoughts.

kei lun
05-11-2002, 10:11 AM
Okay everyone, have y'all bit(hed enough? Get offline and go do some training.
Freaks!

Cody
05-11-2002, 12:17 PM
problem solving, shaking hands, and tryng to envision a beneficial future for all do not constitute freakish behavior.
Besides, you're online too.

Cody

Eddie
05-13-2002, 03:50 AM
Despite of all the fighting, these older masters must have done something RIGHT! Do a search for yourself, you will find CLF on just about every single continent of the planet. From as far north as finland, to as south as Australia, Americas in the West (even Hawai), and Asia in the east, and a whole bunch in between.

Our style lives, and will continiou to live, thanks to all the masters who helped spread the word.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same"

L O N G L I V E C H O Y L A Y F U T ! !

(... and we have largly the 4rth and 5th generations to thank... Choy Lay Fut Elders, We salute you!)

yik-wah-tik
05-13-2002, 10:54 AM
you know, i wrote out something to blast someone with on this forum, but after reading some of the latest posts, i just decided it wasn't worth it.

that disappointed me. because i wrote out some things. but joseph, man, thanks for those comments on me. i am a lovable guy, and if we were to meet i guarantee i am different in person. there are many sides to me, and this forum is no way for me to show those sides. yes, i am a faithful and true follower of the hung sing branch. i am also half sicilian and do have a hot temper. but to say i don't think, well, to tell the truth i have never really divulged anything here or had a real conversation with any of you, so to judge me for who i am on this forum and not to know me in real life doesn't say much. if we were to talk you would see that i am more rational and open to talk if you are.

but i do want to say this. dave lacey is correct when he said that the chan version is not the only truth. somewhere along the lines of all three families lies the truth. and some of it is fiction. for example chan heung in his 60's killing a tiger in san francisco? but if we look at all of the information and pulled together what we know we may someday know the whole truth. but all three sides have to be willing to work together. and that doesn't mean us, that means chan yong fa, ho cherng of fut san hsk, and lun chee from buk sing. only those leaders are to set the whole story of clf straight. until they do?????

and in the end if the hung sing version is the real truth, then as clf members we must accept it. i am totally ready to accept chan heung as founder if it can totally be proven that chan heung was the soul founder. not what the chan family wants me-a hung sing member- to believe.

let's make it work fellas.

for example., i gave an honest request from my clf brothers to assist on an idea from my t-shirt design, and all i got was *******s making stupid comments.

frank

extrajoseph
05-13-2002, 02:41 PM
That is not true, I really tried to help. I thought:

"WELL HUNG, SING!" and

"HAVE YOU CHOY LAY FUT LATELY?"

are pretty cool, don't you think so?

Hope this helps,

Peace.

yik-wah-tik
05-14-2002, 10:57 AM
joseph where are those virgins you promised me

extrajoseph
05-14-2002, 03:22 PM
I can't resist.... You don't mind them slightly used?

JosephX

k-no
05-15-2002, 08:52 AM
You mother****er. Now you've gone too far.


You see everyone, the true character of this Joseph. What is your true agenda!? You try to slander my sifu Dave every chance you get, and create stories which aren't true. This is much too much old timer. You yourself implied that Sifu Dave must be "cut up" about Franco Riggio joining Chan Yong Fa's HSG and not I, and when I make a subsequent post correcting you, you are still making up your own version. You have shown your true colors as a troublemaker and a coward. This internet is a much too convenient place for you to spread your brand of lies and hate. (Please all, see the postings under "???'s on Jimmy Doc Fai Wong", and link it back to the postings under "CLF Literature" from way back and see how this old punk likes to start trouble with my sifu's name!)

For that matter, **** you. I've listened to my Sifu speak Cantonese since I've started training with him 5 years ago and I have gone to Hong Kong with him to meet with the Elders and to visit Si-tai and Si-gung Kong Hing. What the **** do you think he used, English!? How the hell do you think he got around in HK being born there and living there until he was a young adult, you ****ing moron!

See Joseph, I don't have the time to dog your every false comment and correct every single slanderous and libelous mistake you make, but it's pretty apparent that you have been out to defame sifu Dave's name from the start. You ****ing son of a *****, reveal yourself and your true intentions!!!!!!

k

k-no
05-15-2002, 09:04 AM
Just as a short reply regarding all this hub-bub....

I personally don't have a problem with all the discussion occuring due to all these things coming to light, things that Frank McCarthy has illuminated on since last year and was reprimanded by "internet warriors" soundly.

When sifu and I first spoke of this article, he had this twinkle in his eye that made me smile, knowing it meant that he knows all hell will break loose. We never meant it to become personal. Fight about the history all you want, and we can all bring our version to the table and my sifu can discuss it all day if he'd had the time or energy to do so. That's understandable.

What I'm getting worked up about is all this sh*t spoken dragging my sifu's name in the mud, and it's become truly apparent that this "Joseph" is the ringleader in this sordid affair, appearing logical and opinionated in one moment and becoming a forked tongue snake the next, defaming Lay Dai Wei (Dave Lacey) Sifu every chance he gets.

Discuss it all you want. Tell yourselves my sifu is wrong, and bring your own "evidence" to the table. But who are you to call my sifu a "gullible foreigner"? Why, because you are full Chinese blood, because my sifu is part European? Now you've taken to being a racist also? What the f*ck is your agenda, Joseph Fish-head or whatever the hell your name is? Come out with it, you can't seem to stop referring to my sifu negatively, he's all ears, what is it? I'd like to know because he isn't in the habit to engage on internet forums and he really should know about lowlives like you talking about him!

k

Fu-Pow
05-15-2002, 10:13 AM
yawn.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

k-no
05-15-2002, 10:43 AM
Thanks for your 2 cents smart ass. I'm waiting for your sugar daddy's reply. I guess if someone talks sh*t about your sifu without knowing him, you'd go to sleep, p*ssy! zzz yourself!

k

CLFNole
05-15-2002, 10:57 AM
Hey lets everyone try to calm down a bit. I think you will be waiting a while for a response becuase I think I read somewhere that he was going to China for business or something.

Remember all of this nonsense it just words and words on this forum while fun for some of us has no real effect on the real world.

Take everything here with a grain of salt. I too had a confrontation with him regarding my sifu and I took the higher road and didn't yell and scream at him but talk and support my case with facts. Don't let everything that people say get to you.

I too get hot when my sifu is called out and I respect your loyalty.

Peace

premier
05-15-2002, 11:20 AM
OK. This is how it goes.

1. Sifu Lacey publishes a controversial article and it gets posted in these forums.
2. People start to comment on the article, have good points and good discussion, but a lot of things are said that will no doubt get Lacey's students and people who believe him ****ed off.
3. Lacey's students and people who believe him get ****ed off.
4. Those people mistake Joseph, Fu pow etc. Chan family CLF practitioners.
5. Sifu Lacey gets ****ed off at the Chan clan and writes a new insulting controversial article that gets Chan family practitioners ****ed off.
6. The Chan family practitioners calm down eventually.
7. Joseph and Yik-wah-tik can't keep their freaking mouths shut and we get into another fight.
8. Yik-wah-tik implies that the Chan family practitioners don't and can't fight and their sifus are "paper sifus". (Propably enjoys ****ing people off with his inconciderate remarks)
9. The buk sing people get ****ed off about the things said about their sifu.

So this where we are now. Do you think further insults, sarcastic remarks, innuendos etc will make things better? It's a cycle that never ends unless we just end it.

So. Joseph and Yik-wah-tik. SHUT THE FU(K UP, if you can't discuss things without insulting each other and getting everyone else ****ed off too. You're two giants fighting in a sand box, so to speak. You fight, but WE get fu(ked.

I'm so tired of seeing Chan family, Chen Yong Fa and all his students getting insulted because people think it's the Chan family practitioners causing trouble. Yeah. We're not innocent, but I don't appreciate getting fu(ked because people think someone who said something less diplomatic is from my branch.

Just like I don't speak for the whole branch, when I write in these forums, nor does anyone else. So stop talking crap about other branches and their sifus because of something some ******* with total lack of social skills and diplomacy said in these forums.

Feel free to trash me, but leave everyone else out.


premier

Fu-Pow
05-15-2002, 12:30 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................. .........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ ....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z.........huh....what..........did a fly just buzz in my ear?.........ngh.....snort.......................z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............. .................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

Serpent
05-15-2002, 06:05 PM
There seem to be a lot of people with serious anger management problems and a lack of social skills on these forums. They all seem very insecure in their knowledge and history. And they all seem to be connected with Hung Sing or Dave Lacey.

Hmmmmmm.

Cody
05-15-2002, 07:49 PM
I think that most people need to feel that they truly belong somewhere, with some subject matter or like-minded people, or something besides "I am me." Martial arts gives that sense of belonging with the potential of achievement both for the self and as part of a tradition in which a great deal of pride is invested.

It is no surprise when there is anger as the foundations of a tradition are put under a microscrope, and there is so much disagreement. There is some anger management difficulty, but also a lot of pressing of buttons going on. Not pointing fingers, so don't get your fur up. more up. I think it's a combination of disappointment, frustration, not knowing what to do, and the call to defend.......whatever. Men (even women) can get aggressive in such instances.

I'll tell you what bothers me, and it's not confined to this one historical question. I've seen another, modern day one that was quieted. I won't go into it. Only that, in my view, since it was so very modern, and the question so straightforward, it was obvious to me that someone was just plain lying. Which side? I don't know. But the lying is a given imo.

So, here we have a number of different stories. I looked over some of the material, and stopped. I don't know which one is correct, and I doubt that I ever will for myself. Yet given the variations, I would say, yet again, that there might have been lies in the past for the same reasons as these things happen in the present: for personal prestige or gain; for a crack at climbing the totem pole; and other things, possibly culturally connected, that are beyond my comprehension. I am not accusing any of the players in the current debates (students or sifu's) of such behavior. I don't know enough to even think that way. As has been stated, students often follow a sifu's views, feel obligated to do so, and as part of their identity as human beings is tied up in this, the heat of the moment is contagious. The arguments here and alluded to a la email are as the beating of a drum, background music.

What I say does not advocate or criticize any view or person participating in any way. Just a plea to please think about all the volcanic emotional expression which will get no one anywhere. Believe what you will. Research as much as you are inclined. State your cases. Line them up on a timeline or any other sort of arrangement. I think there are others here who would have a better mind for this sort of thiing than myself. I can't do it. I'll admit that.

I think people need to keep their cool. Why? Because finding out the truth, might involve sniffing out a lie first, sniffing out the motivation for why one report might be fishy. It's another orientation. It's tricky. You can't do it if you're fighting like fishwives. If you want to pursue this, or any other KF tradition question that has so much variation, I would search for the lies before I search for the truth. Just a suggestion. Not one that involves name calling or bad feelings. You want to cooperate? Be yourselves and have respect for your fellow students. To do otherwise makes so much noise that you won't get anywhere.

my opinion. not to step on any toes.

Cody

Serpent
05-15-2002, 08:28 PM
For all his verbal diraheoa (sp!?) Cody does make a good point.

The trouble is that with Chinese tradition a great deal of respect is put onto the elders of any given family. Given that this controversy is little more than 30 or 40 years old, at least in it's current incarnation, there is plenty to suggest that the people that made any lies into history are still alive.

And when you get people with the vehemence and convictions of some of the posters on this board suggesting that any elders, from any lineage, might be lying is like a red rag to a bull.

What we really need is for everyone to calm down, think rationally, and accept the fact that all or some of what they take as fact might not be. Again, that can apply to all lineages.

When you get people like k-no ranting and cursing like he is, with absolutely no chance of it producing anything except giggles, then the debate will go no where.

Try to express yourself (everyone, not just k-no) with facts, with a calm mind and with consideration and decent language. After all, if all kung fu has taught you is to attack and destroy, then something is drastically wrong.

And let's all try to stop pushing the angry buttons of the easily wound up people. I'm just as guilty as others of that. Let it stop and let the debate be a constructive one.

(I must have taken a maturity pill this morning! :eek: )

Fu-Pow
05-16-2002, 10:14 AM
If you read back through the posts we did isolate the time and place when this lie was first generated.

It has to be in Hong Kong in the late 60's/early 70's. And yes I think most of the people involved are still alive.

Fu-Pow
05-16-2002, 10:20 AM
If you read back through the posts we did isolate the time and place when this lie was first generated.

It has to be in Hong Kong in the late 60's/early 70's. And yes I think most of the people involved are still alive.

They based their story on a novel written about Hung Sing that was FICTIONAL. Quite clever when you think about it.

But for non-chinese speakers and readers we don't possess the skills to read this book for ourselves. And we don't possess the ability to evaluate Chinese texts. So a lot of what we get is second hand information. So the lie is perpetuated.

But this is a message to all those that speak lies and hide the truth:

YOU WILL BE FOUND OUT!!!! Better to come clean now while you can still do something about it ,while your still alive, or you may be exposed as a liar while you rot in the grave!!! There are 1000's of CLF practitioners out there just like the folks on this forum, voracious for the truth, asking questions, checking facts, taking trips to China.....YOU WILL BE FOUND OUT!!!

k-no
05-16-2002, 02:39 PM
Cody and Serpent,

I think I'll take a well deserved break from this forum. I am flying out to NY and Atlanta for 2 weeks to catch a NHB bout, Blade show, and get a breath of fresh air while looking for employment.

The voices of calm and reason I see. I do admit to being hot tempered at times, but knowing this I can tell you I've curbed it quite a bit.

Serpent, I am not at all insecure in my knowledge of history. I am not arguing with you at all about history. What I am "ranting and cursing" about has nothing to do with history. I am also directing this at one cowardly and evil-tongued person only. What I am "ranting and cursing" about has nothing to do with Chan Heung, Jeong Hung Sing, or the monk Ching Cho, whether you choose to believe in his existence. I am ranting and raving about because of the sullying of my sifu's good name.

Saying the truth about someone, something long ago swept under the rug is only a low blow. Telling outright lies, and twisting words to manipulate emotions and feelings is quite something else. I've already explained how and what was being done, but most of you overlook the truth and choose to read the "curses" and overlook the rest of the content.

The fact is, I haven't the time to "express myself with facts" everytime a dirty coward like Joseph "expresses his lies" about my sifu. It really makes me angry to think that behind everyone's back, he spreads these fallacies in the guise of looking for the truth. The fact is, it is plainly obvious that he wants to defame my sifu for a REASON, and without thinking I intended to find out that REASON by channeling my anger onto this forum, since this coward will never make himself known to give us his good REASON.

I also realize that this place is not the place to get worked up about, so I urge the rest of you to listen to both sides of the story, make your own conclusion, and please don't aid in the mentioning of any more names, people whom most of the stone-throwers know nothing about. This includes people from the Chan family. While I could never apologize for anything my sifu says outright, please know that his intent has always been to propogate the CLF Union's and Singapore HSG's history, NOT as some would exaggerate, talk about the skills of the Sydney HSG. Sifu has always told me that the Sydney HSG and Chan Yong Fa's forms were among the best he's ever seen. He also told me that in fighting skill, his name and other's from our lineage should not be venerated over the Chan family's names over this history dispute, for this is not a contest of skill. He has said this to me personally, in earnest. It is not a cop out from me, but my personal statement on the duality of this conflict.

CLFNole, just a short thank you for your kind words. Your post, as well as Serpent and Cody's (while not being so empathic), really made me think. I also know that Lee Koon Hung Sifu was also talked bad about vehemently. No matter what was said or their reasons, my sifu remembers LKH as a pleasant man, a brother in CLF with very good skills, as is LSH, your current sifu. Along with Tat Mau Wong and Mak Hin Fai sifu he considers brothers in CLF. I hope we see you guys again, perhaps in another memorial tournament.

Frank, perhaps I was quick to judge you as well. Don't worry about what my sifu says regarding Kong Hing. I can assure you he only transmits the truth out of Sigung's very mouth. Sigung is a kind man who treated a medical problem for me, his wife treating me like a son during my stay in HK. Any harsh words are just backlash from what my sifu perceives as misconceptions about his sifu. All this talk about Triads and such should be left in the rumor mill, and people should stick to the subject at hand. Perhaps we can have a drink and laugh about this someday. This is a history talk bro, not a "who can kick who's ass" debate, so I apologize for my harsh stance and leave the bravado at home. Anyway, I toast the Hung Sing Kwoon.

Anyone else thinks a person from a particular "clan" can't fight? We'll see you on the tournament floor. Perhaps I'll see some of you in the NHB circuit, where I intend to use my CLF techniques in the stand up portion of the contest, however long I remain on my feet!

I'm out. Be safe ya'll, and long live Choy Lay Fut.

K

yik-wah-tik
05-16-2002, 02:41 PM
oooooh premier, i love it when you get assertive.

oh, but i never said the chan sifu's are paper sifu's. you did!

i said i will not be a paper sifu. the people here on line that are more intellectual than physical always seeme to down play the fighting aspect of clf.

and i have said, where are the chan family fighting champions?

i never said they can't fight. maybe that's a underlying fault withing your psyche.

and i also said, if there were any chan family fighters, then i would support them as well.

so, shut the fuk up......huh?..................oooooh you are so manly.

yik-wah-tik
05-16-2002, 02:54 PM
thanks for your responce. as i have stated, i have no ill feelings towards your sifu. as you know i attempted to squash the start of them talking about blood family business.

hey man, email me at our website, i have lost your email. maybe we can exchange some ideas for you training on the circuit. i would love to see choy lee fut kick ass out there.

but check this out, i stopped getting mad at the likes of joseph and others. when i took my break for a little while from this forum i came back to check things out. and guess what feeling i had just on the first post i saw. the twilight zone. man it was scary. the people here seem a little loose around the joints. so now, i sit back and watch as internet champions all crouwd around and support and attack each other from the shadows. you know they will always talk **** as long as they are safe from a major ass whoopin!

as you said, i came out and said some things about last year, and now things are finally coming to light. some of our sifu's are actually giving a **** about what the chan family side of things are doing.

k-no, both of our sifu's are above what is happening. they are the smart ones. my sifu will not even acknowledge the bs happening here. but he finds it funny. once we begin to publish our story (hung sing and buk sing) there is nothing they can do to stop it. they can get mad and hate us for all the want. it won't change the truth. what did your sifu say, " a chan family member went to china to try and reverse the fut san history but got turned around". that is what i mean. if the chan side is so sure then they should invite the current jeong mun yan's of all three branches and discuss it with them. i would love to know the turn out. and i would love to see the faces of these shadow warriors when that happens.

email me man, and i will respond, and if you are in the bay area, then maybe you and i should have lunch.

frank

oh, this is for all you internet historians, " let a wild dog run wild and he will" think about that one for a minute.