Dave Lacey Responds...again.

[Fu-Pow]

Kung Fu is not just about balancing the body but finding mental balance as well....

"Like lotuses in the pond we are all developing at different levels."


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

[alecM]

Fu-pow. he seems a bit p#$$£d off with you for some reason.

[Fu-Pow]

Ok I'm gonna address this piece by piece......



That dreaded name "Ching Cho" is what triggered you Chan Clan hardliners to wage a war of words on the net in an attempt to debunk the legacy of Cheung Hung Sing and the history of Choy Lay Fut and the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon.


Ok....I'm not from the Chan Family Branch...I'm from the Hung Sing branch. I've never even met any Chan Family members before, only talked to them on the internet. I don't really know Joseph's story but I don't think he is really intimately tied to the Chan Family.



WHO started this "war of words" on the internet - NOT ME! You people say you want to tell your story but when I tell mine, you don't like it? Someone stated I'm doing it to embarrass others (of the Chan Clan I presume) - why? Don't you like me pointing out the discrepancies in the Chan Clan's own history on CLF and asking legitimate questions and wanting answers? Are you telling me that only the Chan Clan has the right to discredit others (not of the Chan Family CLF) and ask pertinent questions?! Who told you that you have a MONOPOLY on Choy Lay Fut!? CHING CHO, PLEASE DISAPPEAR - YOU'RE RUINING THE CHAN CLAN'S CLF HISTORY!

Actually, he's the one telling us not to talk about it. We are just having an open and honest conversation and comparing notes. Joseph has made some disparaging remarks but for the most part I think everyone's been very civil with exception of Sifu Dave. Even Sifu Frank is taking things with a grain of salt.


I have already answered your questions on the monk Ching Cho (Green Grass Monk) and told you his real name (Cai Dezong), where he came from, who he is and how he got the name "Ching Cho" (Qingcao in Mandarin). Of course you want his name to disappear and erased from your CLF historical records - that would make Chan Heung the only martial arts teacher of Cheung Yim! With the monk Cai Dezong ("Ching Cho") out of the picture it would be easy to convince everyone that Choy Lay Fut martial arts was the sole work of Chan Heung. You'd love that, wouldn't you! Is the Green Grass Monk really the issue? I think not - you are! Read carefully again the paragraph titled "THE MONK CHING CHO IS NO MYTH!" and answer the questions I have given you at the end of the paragraph.

He never answered any questions....I mean not really. We got 8 pages of gobbilty gook and I really couldn't make heads or tails of it. I don't care which side is correct, but I am curious as to the truth. I really have nothing to gain or lose either way. I'm from the Hung Sing branch so actually I guess I SHOULD be supporting the Ching Cho story.




1) By the way, "YAU" means "HAVE" and "SUM" means "heart" in Cantonese! What is Yau SAM? Where did you learn your Cantonese! In Cantonese when someone says, "Nay Yau Sum" it translates "you have heart" but the real meaning behind it is "you're kind hearted". Fu pow is telling everyone that he has "much heart". "Much heart" - what does that mean?

Sorry, I don't speak fluent Cantonese. Sam and Sum are just different romanizations. The phrase was explained to me as "Much Heart."



2) You (fu pow) are definitely not a Hung Sing CLF disciple as you claim to be. I don't think you even know what lineage you belong to! You're one of the many confused, naive and conceited latter generation of CLF followers who think you know more about the history on CLF and it's ancestors than the CLF elders themselves! Afterall, you did say and I quote - "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. It's very cool when you think about it!"- unquote. WOW! What you're telling us is that old timers like Kong Hing, Lun Chee, Chan Yong Fa, Doc Fei Wong, Chia Yan Soon, Poon Sing, Chui Kwong Yuen, Lai Hung, Lee Siu Hung, Mak Hin Fai, Wong Tat Mau and myself can step down and let people of your generation take over the teaching of CLF and it's history so you all can make a mockery of it! Martial artists like you belong in the zoo! You have no respect for your own sifu, your sigung and elders!?

Well I am a Hung Sing practitioner. Disciple..hmmmm...not really sure, I'm definitely not a Sifu yet. As for going against my elders... I'm really not because Lee Koon Hung's version of the history is different than either the Chen Yong Fa version or the latest Hung Sing version. Lee Koon Hung's version places Chan Heung in his rightful place as the founder, although it does mention Ching Cho as a teacher. My Sifu gave me the same lineage. And I believe that Poon Sing also follows the same lineage with Chan Heung as founder. Lee Koon Hung in his infinite wisdom recognized that all branches could only be united when they recognized Chan Heung as the founder. I respect my kung fu elders as martial artists and some of them as upstanding individuals but that doesn't necessarily make them historical experts. And they have a lot more to gain or lose at this at this point making them way less objective.





3) How can it be that the "Chan Heung Memorial Association" in Hong Kong be dominated by the Buck Sing elders?! You mean that the Chan Clan elders are not capable of heading their own association -why? Are you saying that there's not enough authoritative Chan Clan elders to hold all the senior positions of the CHAN HEUNG ASSOCIATION in Hong Kong? I do not believe that and I think it's a personal insult to the Chan Family CLF by you saying that the Buck Sing elders are pulling all the strings! Don't you think that's a ridiculous statement? The Buck Sing elders in Hong Kong have their own association "The Choy Lay Fut Buck Sing Association Ltd." (haven't you read Chapter 1's"Hong Kong Choy Lay Fut Associations"?). If you are implying that the elders of the Hung Sing and Buck Sing branches are the Chiefs of ALL the CLF associations in Hong Kong, then you're not giving much credit to the Chan Clan schools in Hong Kong! Since you know so much, can you tell us who is President of the "Chan Heung Memorial Association" in Hong Kong? If he is not a Chan Clan elder, then WHY? Surely you're not going to tell us that it's because the "hatchetmen" of the Buck Sing triad are controlling all the CLF associations in Hong Kong! I suppose you're going to tell us that in the CLFKFIU Ltd. ALL the senior positions are held by the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders. If that is true - how did that come about? Did I ever say that the Buck Sing branch in Hong Kong gained control of the Chan Heung Memorial Association or the CLFKFIU Ltd. - I didn't! I merely stated that because of it's reputation (in the martial arts conflicts between kung fu schools of different styles) the Buck Sing schools gained enormous fame because they took part in rival martial arts challenge matches to defend the honor of CLF martial arts. This is why the Buck Sing schools became the most powerful and influential of Hong Kong's CLF branches in the 1950's - 1970's. Why didn't people of your branch go out and take on these challengers in defense of Choy Lay Fut's honor?! The Buck Sing pugilists had to do the dirty work for you and all you people can do is to stab us in the back!!?

Yeah who's conceited here. Wow, if Baksing is so much better and more famous than sign me right up. You'll notice he never really addresses the question of who actually controls these organizations. He never refutes that they are controlled by the Baksing people. Who is the president of the Chan Heung memorial association? I'd like to know. Who is the decision making body for these organizations? Spell it out for us Sifu Lacey!!! This was an important point that Joseph brought up and we've never gotten a straight answer in any of these rants.




4) Your statement -"If the Buksing people would simply concede to the fact that Chan Heung is the founder of CLF and Cheung Yim simply a student then we could all just relax." - unquote. Well, that would certainly solve the dispute and rid you of your splitting headache, wouldn't it now? By the way, what is wrong with changing that statement you made (which I just quoted) to - "If the Chan Clan people would simply concede to the fact that Cheung Hung Sing is the founder of CLF and that Chan Heung was simply one of his teachers then we could all just relax"? Now, don't you agree that sounds a lot better!? You a Hung Sing CLF student?! People like you make me sick! You claim to be a Hung Sing CLF student (of mixed lineage) but you denounce Chueng Hung Sing as the "Chong Pai Jung Si" (Originator of the Style) and the existence of Ching Cho (Cheung's teacher). This clearly shows you don't even know the history of your own CLF lineage! You know what you really are? You're a "farn gwat jai" and an ignorant one at that!!!?

Actually, that's your lineage Sifu Dave. Our lineage doesn't recognized Jeong Yim as the founder. The founder of our branch perhaps but not of all of CLF. This is a new assertion based on a god**** NOVEL for godsakes!!!! No one was saying this until the last 30 years. CLF has a 150 year history.


.

More to come....good lord....:rolleyes:

[premier]

Dave Lacey is right about that this thing should be settled on master level and then release an official statement of whatever the outcome is. If the people making the statement were the heads of each main branch then no one would have nothing against it. The problem with that association in HK is that no one has ever heard of it or the people in it, so any announcement they make, doesn't really mean anything. I hope this thing gets cleared out. I just want the truth.

However, I hope people would realize that anything we say here is only our own opinion. If I say something, it's not the official view of the Chan family branch. It's my own opinion and I have all the rights to say it. The same applies to Fu pow as well. He doesn't represent the whole american hung sing branch, when he says something. So he can't really be accused of going over his sifus head, even if Dave Lacey is in the receiving end. After all, when Mr. Lacey writes something in the internet, it's open for discussion. Everyone is equal in internet discussion. Why? most of the time we don't know who were talking to. But once again, this is only my view and people might not agree with me.

Maybe I should make that a disclaimer..

Fu pow:

Good luck and keep it cool =)



premier

[Fu-Pow]

Since you have clearly shown your own stupid ignorance of the Hung Sing CLF martial arts history without even realizing you have disrespected your true lineage (WHICH YOU STATED IS HUNG SING and NOT of the CHAN FAMILY branch) it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when you say you are not of the Chan Clan branch and at the same time you're denouncing Cheung Hung Sing's legacy. How did you get so screwed up in the head?! You really should see a shrink!

Now that your buddy "Yutyeesam" has revealed who your sigung is, I can help sort out your lineage for you. Your sigung is Master Lee Koon Hung, right? Do you know who is his sifu? Koon Hung's sifu is Poon Sing and he also learnt from Poon Sing's father Poon Dik. I know Poon Sing very well and have met him on many occasions (including at his home) in Hong Kong and Singapore. In Hong Kong everyone knows that Poon Sing is of the Hung Sing (Cheung Hung Sing) branch but of course you wouldn't know. Poon Sing is a very close CLF comrade of my sifu Kong Hing and he has been present at every Buck Sing CLF and Tarm Sarm Memorial celebration held in Hong Kong as well as those organized by the Singapore Hong Sheng Koon. If Poon Dik and Poon Sing are not Lee Koon Hung's first original CKF teachers then tell me who is? I've known Lee Koon Hung very well for many years. In fact he told me he was even there at my dueling match with a Wing Chun master in Hong Kong in 1961. I also know his top students Mak Hin Fai, Lee Siu Hung (his brother) and Wong Tat Mau well and we have a close bond of friendship between us. We were all together at the 2001 celebration of the Hong Sheng Koon's 36th Anniversary and Global CLF gathering in Singapore. Master Poon Sing was also there. Where were you guys? By the way, who is your sifu? I like to know if he is backing up your bull****.

Thanks for the insults Sifu Lacey. Wow what a gentleman.

My lineage goes like this.
Chan Heung-Jeong Yim-Leung Guai-Poon Dik-Poon Sing-Lee Koon Hung-?-?.

I'm very aware of my lineage and that's why I'm asking these question and talking about it. I'd tell you my Sifu's name but I'd rather not drag him into this. And I never stated anywhere that I speak for my Sifu or anyone but myself. As to the relationship of Poon Sing and Kong Hing I have no way to verify this. I guess I could ask my Sifu, but again I don't really want to involve him.





I totally agree with "bean curd" 100% about what he said to you and I quote - "fu pow, if ever there was a fan guak chai - you are it!" No truer words have ever been spoken! You know why? Because you are a traitor to your own true martial arts heritage - the Hung Sing CLF martial arts of Cheung Hung Sing! Ask Tat Mau Wong if he's a Hung Sing CLF man. He sure is 'cos he has told me that himself. You not only do not know your own martial arts (Hung Sing CLF?) history, you don't even know what you're implying when you speak you dumb *******!

What's this crap about - "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know". What are you trying to tell us? That YOU fu pow have spoken but YOU don't know ****! You didn't have to tell us that - we already know you're dumb!




Again, what a gentleman.





THE POOR DISILLUSIONED fu-pow

Oh - about this prophesy of yours concerning the "outlook of the Chan Heung Memorial Association MAY change quickly" -unquote. When is that going to happen? I can't wait to celebrate! I hope sifu Chan Yong Fa will get elected as the Association's new President. At least he's a talented and intelligent man and he is the keeper of the Chan Family CLF. Oh no! Don't tell me the Chan Clan is going to elect YOU president - God forbid! Hey, wait a minute - didn't you tell us you're a Hung Sing student!?? Just what are you?! Then why are you so excited about the Chan Heung Memorial Association?! Since you claim not to be of the Chan Family branch and you have also denounced Ching Cho and the Hung Sing martial arts of Cheung Hung Sing and also you're definitely not of the Buck Sing branch - then we must presume you belong to the "Mo Lunn Sing" (which literally means "no f***ing memory") branch! Students like you are a disgrace to their sifu!You claim to be a"Hung Sing" CLF studentthen why are you so ****ed off with the CLF KF IU Ltd.'s clairification on WHO is the true founder of CLF.



Yes Sifu Dave. As I stated before I am from the Hung Sing branch and I am. However, the CLF Family is very incestuous. No one has a "pure" lineage. Part of what makes CLF great is that with so many practitioners and branches there is little chance our art will die out.





Poor fu pow - he doesn't know who he is or where he belongs! You've already been told by "bean curd" and myself who you are - you're a lowdown slimy "farn gwat jai"! As to where you belong - you belong in the asylum with your cellmate joseph! You two deserve each other! Be careful in there - I hear some of the orderlies, psychiatrists and doctors are hatchetmen of the 14K! I guess your mate joseph had already warned you about that! By the way, some staff members at the loony bin in Canada belong to the 14K triad but in the US, the asylums are all run by the Buck Sing triads. You're gonna love the electric shock treatment they give you - it guarantees to soothe your tormented minds!

By the way, do you an joeseph know the history on the Triads - when and how ther originated? Did you know that the monks gave these rebles sanctuary at the Shaolin Temple and that the monks were sympathezers of the Triads? Do you want me to give you the history on that.



Kind of lost me here. The rest is kind of directed more towards Joseph more than me so I'll let him comment when he gets a chance.

The purpose of my posting this link here is that I want to keep things out in the open as much as possible.

Let me state my formal position to clear up any misconceptions.

It is my intention to try to unite, not divide the branches of CLF any further. I have a great interest in learning as much as I can from all branches of CLF. I study CLF....period. I want to know everything about the art regardless of which branch, I want to know it's history, the internal, the external, all the weapons, theories and forms. I feel that others should pursue this same path and not feel constrained to one teacher or one branch. This is why CLF thrives today because of the interplay between all the branches and teachers. If you look at any CLF lineage you will see that no one's lineage is "pure." There is a lot of cross over from many generations.

My Sifu will always be my Sifu and It is important to be respectful to your teacher and your kung fu brothers but this loyalty should not interfere with your ability to think for yourself. Martial arts, like many things in life has a large individual component to it. It is largely up to the individual to get the most out of their chosen art. I'm not going to be the person that says "oh, that guys doing Chan Family CLF, he sucks" or that guy is "buksing" he must be a real *******. I'm not going to hide behind my lineage or my Sifu. When I see another CLF practitioner perform I'll judge the persons kung fu on ......drum roll please....his/her kung fu...his hard work and effort....and thought that he has put into his art.

[CLFNole]

Fu Pow maybe you should email Sifu Dave privately and straighten out this misunderstanding.

I am not really going to get into this discussion since it does not really involve me but I would like to set the record straight: Poon Sing was not Lee Koon Hung's sifu. I know in Fut San it says this however this is not correct and is a bit of a sore spot within our kung fu family.

Lee Koon Hung first followed Poon Dik, so as goes chinese culture Poon Dik is his "sifu". After Poon Dik died he learned very little from Poon Sing instead learning from Poon Dik's top two students Leung Sai and Chow Bing. Later in his 30s he followed his sisuk So Kam Fook (Poon Dik's sidai). Lee Koon Hung had quite a few sifus of CLF as you can see but his true "sifu" for namesake would be Poon Dik.

Now Poon Dik followed Leung Kwai and Wong Fook. Wong Fook followed Chan Koon Pak and Leung Kwai followed both Cheong Yim and Chan Koon Pak, thus this is where our mixed lineage comes from. There was even some suggestion made that Poon Dik may have had some interaction with Tarm Sam, but we are not sure.

Peace.

[Fu-Pow]

I think that the whole thing is funny and ridiculous. You remember in sixth grade when that bully said "meet me after school at the bike racks. I'm gonna beat you up." That's about the level of maturity here.....from a supposed "Sifu." I can't believe any real Sifu would act in this way. Its like the worst kind of contradiction......

And hey, thanks for that info CLF Nole. I know you had mentioned those names before but I hadn't put it all together. The lineage that I have from my Sifu lists Poon Sing as the main teacher of Lee Koon Hung. So that's the one I usually discuss. That's the lineage on our website also. There is an article on Alec Morris's website that talks about LKH learning from the students you mentioned.

I am actually working on a family tree as we speak for all of CLF, putting all the names together. That's how I know there is a lot of cross over from the different branches. People like Sifu Lacey want to draw the lines very clearly when in fact they are really very blurred.

One day down the line I'm hoping to write a book about CLF so all of this really is just preliminary research.

Peace, Yau Sam and love to all my kung fu brothers. Yes, even you Sifu Dave......

[zipper]

What "REAL" fights did the Laceys have when they were in Perth,and who with.?This Franko guy sounds like a real hard ass.!!

[diego]

Hey Fu-Pow, what is the url of your website?, also is thier a main CLF forum out thier for the public, like hungga.net has for thier style?.

[bean curd]

fu pow,

i read what you write, but you not understand what edicate is, this is plain and simple to see. i wish to not go into another debate on such things, but this i will say and i would kindly like your response.

i have read dave lacey sifu writings on his site. fu pow you must look at how thing have been written. through whole writting, and let us not go into strong words used, as you have done same, maybe in different way, but none the less, same intent.

dave sifu ( i call dave - sifu now as i do not wish anyone to think i own him like joseph said in previous discussion ) speaks with elder thinking, this is very clear, much of what he has written comes from faliel piety of elders and ancestors, if you don't understand this then there is noway i can explain it to you, you must seek guidence from your sifu to show you this manner of thinking.

i do not wish to discus the entire writting but wish to point out one thing and one thing only, dave sifu states clearly that you should take yourself, your sifu and sigung if not others to hong kong and discuss in person your issues with dave's version of CLF history. i say daves version only to clarify that discussion is due to dave sifu coming out with version while others have not yet done so, except for frank, but this thread on dave sifu not frank.

what dave sifu ask, this is not a new request, this from old times and clearly show dave sifu complete understanding of decorum required to bring finality to such words being used in open forum

he clearly also understand that this forum is a OPEN forum and as such indicate clearly that witness, protection can and will be forth coming, again this is very traditional design of meetings when things start in open and must stay in open, so nothing can be used or changed if in hidden speaking.

i say now to you, instead of bring such things up, which i now feel clearly you do to cause issue with dave sifu, please do that which is correct and now meet as dave sifu says FACE TO FACE.

if your conviction on finding truth is as strong as you say it is, then this request by dave sifu is corrrect and you have only two choice. 1. do not go and therefore your words are worthless as your action show conviction of your belief, or 2. go and confront,which again show clearly your conviction for truth.

it is very simple and easy to do.

please do not say, " why should i go, what is dave sifu to CLF??"

i will answer this for you. dave sifu comes from very strong/loyal/true and correct lineage. his sifu, sigung and soforth is impecable. dave sifu clearly also understand that the words he use also bring attention to his sifu and elders, if he therefore is not correct in truth or manner, then he not only bring shame to himself, but also his lineage alway back to tam sam

dave sifu understand this but do you fu pow ???

it is for this reason then you must decide to either meet as requested by dave sifu or you must walk away from your words to him.

please remember we are talking gung fu here, not everyone treat gung fu as a game, there is much honour in the art we play, respect is paramount in both words we use and actions we take.

if joseph read this ( are you back from hong kong ?? ) i suggest the same to you, this has gone on far long enough, don't you think ??

also i wish to clarify to everyone who read this, at this point in time dave sifu does not know who i am, so what he write of me, i find pleasing and thank him for his kind words, but to others who may say i am known to him, this is not true.

[Fu-Pow]

Bean Curd-

I appreciate your civilized tone. However, I disagree with you that I have any responsibility to:

a) Reveal my indentity to Sifu Dave

b) Go to Hong Kong to discuss this with anyone

c) Stop talking about issues like Ching Cho.

It's a free world. I can do and say whatever I want and my paths of action are not going to be dictated by Sifu Lacey. Sifu Dave is trying to "trick" me into a face to face encounter by calling me a pu$$y if I don't meet with him "face to face". This is a grade school tactic. What do I gain from a face-to-face encounter?...A scolding from Sifu Dave?

I will agree with Sifu Dave on one point. There needs to be a meeting at the highest level, from all the branches. It needs to be a closed door meeting and it must last until some resolution is passed. We saw the same set of events happen in the Hung Ga family between the Tong Fung and Lam Sai Wing branches. Now all their websites have a joint resolution from Lam Chan Fai and Frank Yee. You can check it out at hungkuen.net.

Even if we never resolve the issue of Ching Cho their needs to be more harmony between the branches. There needs to be a resolution. Come on people.. get it together... I need to learn those internal sets.....:D

[bean curd]

fu pow,

sadly i read a response from you which i thought would come, from what i write, a predictable reply.

from what you write, your theme is clear, why should you meet with dave and what outcome will be of benifiet to you. would all you recieve from dave is a " scolding " you write.

strange words with someone of your conviction. if you go to OPEN discussion, and you are correct, then is it not clear that the scolding would come from you and your family. where would dave and his family hide if they are wrong and you are right.

what he ask you to do is a gamble on his part, pure and simple, so again if you are right, then the lose of face to dave is extreme, so i do not see how you can say what you have.

you say " it is a free world ", where is it a free world. do you not have laws in your country, that tell you what you can and cannot do, do you come from a family that permits you to do WHATEVER you want , please - free world - is not such a thing.

do you compare your free world to that of a country that you percieve to be less fortunate in open thought - what are your examples.

if you speak of FREE WORLD in that you can say whatever you like, in the fashion of how you are now conducting yourself, then let me assure you, for the many years i have played the arts, i have never ever heard an elder, senior, or older brother tell younger ones to not speak their mind, it is only the dictation of decorum that words can be expressed outside, and in what fashion.

you try to make out that your mission is to find the truth and you will not be stopped, again this sort of thing has been around for more years than i can remember, all is discussed, so if you are impling that you are being asked to stop and follow a PARTY line,then you have delusion of thought on this matter.

as to hung kuen and what you write, here again i see things you clearly no nothing about and what you read is from sites. why should i go to a site on net, i just talk to people concerned in the matter - can you ???

you say things in hung kuen over, then explain to me why on many sites still conflict up. you also say the discussion between yee chi wai si and lam chun fai si was from ALL hung kuen family, as you write " tang fong clan and lam sai wing clan ", who was also there when discussion on matter spoken which other family present ???? do you even know how meeting took place ??

what yee chi wai si tried to do is exellent and comendable action on his part, however not all clan was there to discuss matter and lam jo si is not representitive of all hung kuen lam sai wing branch.

you talk so much of things you don't know, why do you do this.

only comparision of choi li fut and hung kuen situation here, is that what lay dai wai si try to do is similiar to what yee chi wai si try to do, only people different and all talk the way they want.

it is apparent that what ever i write to you is on wasted ears or a person who has yet to understand - family, i can only hope one day when you look back at the actions you have taken, you will realise what you wish for is not wrong, but how you have carried yourself is of not correct manner.

with joseph ( yu ) all i will say, is if he is the generation he says he is then he should know better and not lead younger ones astray.

[once ronin]

everyone who is under lam sai wing lineage calls lam jo, si gung or si bak and no less, regardless of what claims that were made he was senior to all under lsw. so all under lsw hung ga lineage is represented thru lam jo.

all others is also respected as hung ga. and claims were put aside.

clf gatherings in hong kong were always in the new territories or remote outside of hong kong. a good percentage the gatherings ended up in big fights about lineage or just too much drinking. this is with the elders of clf.

today the hung ga or clf tradition of bickering continues on the internet. what a shame!

[Fu-Pow]

Enough!!!!

I've had enough. This is a ridiculous conversation that just keeps getting more ridiculous.

There's never going to be any resolution if we just keep tossing back insults and innuendos.

And, bean curd, who the **** are you lecture me about what and what isn't acceptable? To put it bluntly....

bite my shorts!!!!!

[friday]

haha that was pretty immature.

what sifu lacey posts in respect of u fu pow and joseph should be settled between your CLF ppl. the way u guys are going about this is pretty shameful and cowardly and brings alot of bad publicity to your pai.

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

Diego,

There is a CLF Forum at the Chan Family CLF site www.clfma.com

[Fu-Pow]

what sifu lacey posts in respect of u fu pow and joseph should be settled between your CLF ppl. the way u guys are going about this is pretty shameful and cowardly and brings alot of bad publicity to your pai.

Agreed. I should have never posted Sifu Dave's latest response. I encourage other people not to post his stuff here if there are future responses. If he wants to participate in the conversation he should just start posting on the forum. Posting his stuff here just continues to exacerbate the situation.

However, I don't think that we should necessarily stop talking about CLF history or politics on the forum. Its a great way for us to find out whats going on and about our history and compare notes. That was my intention from the begginning, I don't know how this turned into the mudslinging that it is now.

Joseph's goals may differ from mine, so I can't speak for him.

This is my last post on this thread.

[Je Lei Sifu]

Fu Pow,

It is true that this is the internet and we can all speak freely about our thought or ideas. However, if we are to be traditional in our ways and understand the importances of Mo Duk, then it is best that we hold our tongues.

There are many things such as, methods, philosophy and history which we as practioners of our choosen pai obtain from our sifu. It is up to us to uphold that which was passed on to us. But there are times when what you have learned to believe is in contradiction to someone elses belief even though you are of the same pai. This will sometimes cause confusion with some and with others it may cause anger.

This brings up the issue of seniority or generation within your pai. Although you are of a younger generation than Lacey Sifu and Bean Curd, you do not give them the respect that they deserve. You being from a younger generation should not question them no matter what you feelings are. Do you represent your Sifu in your dialogue on this forum? If you do not, it may be a good thing to speak with your Sifu on the matters which you discuss on this forum. Both Dave Lacey and Bean Curd have been apart of the Choy Lay Fut family for an extend amount of time which you are nowhere near their levels of understanding.

I am not writing this to speak in a negative way to you, but to try to enlighten you on your position at this time. Before posting such contraverses on the web, even though it allows free speech, it is best to get the blessings from your Sifu to do so.

Choy Lay Fut has a great history and more than one branch, so it is common that there will be some difference between them. Free speech is one thing, but it is a lower standard than proper ettiquette.

Peace

Je Lei Sifu

[Serpent]

Je Lei Sifu

What you say is true. However, if Dave Lacey is supposed to represent an older and more authoritative view of CLF, then what the h@ll is all that immature rambling on his website all about?!

He won't front up to the discussions here, yet writes these rantings on his own website, insulting and digging like a 12 year old.

Respect is owed, but in this day and age it's also earned. Dave Lacey is not really doing anything to promote respect for himself or CLF.

Quite frankly, Fu Pow and Joseph are showing more maturity and respect than Dave Lacey at the moment.

[Cody]

Je Lei Sifu, I take no side in terms of historical perspective. My eyebrows raise here and there, but I prefer to take a wait and see attitude, and hope that no one gets injured in the historical/political fracas which might approach behind the scenes on more senior levels.

While there has been discourse which might have been better said Differently, on all sides, I think each person has a right to expression for which no permission need be asked, unless that person is clearly speaking for other than himself. If someone chooses to follow the mode of having the Sifu give permission for one to ask certain questions or to state things in a certain way, then that is a free choice. To make things more "correct," it might be preferable to say up front that one is following this way, or coming forward independently. I have seen this done. It is an individual decision, and if one has no problem dealing with his teacher after participating freely on the Internet, I don't think anyone else should either. I think Fu-Pow did well in his last post to this thread, which was probably not easy for him to add.

There have been many discussions on these boards and others re respect and the right to question. even on respect and whether one, as a law enforcement officer, would give a speeding ticket to someone after finding out he/she was your Sifu. I was frankly horrified at the equivalence given to respect and favoritism, sometimes having its basis in fear. The root seems to be in the philosophical and practical subordination of the group to the "respected" leader, as a given. There is a difference between other views of respect and the traditional domination which you seek to enforce on the basis of hierarchy. From an idealistic point of view, this (in terms of not questioning because there is no need to do so, etc.) can be a beautiful thing. However, often there is a need, a necessity, or simply a healthy curiousity to speak or act independently.

I'll tell you something else. I learned from a little girl what respect means. It has nothing to do with who founded or was said to have founded or who can beat up who with fists and spells. It's knowing that everyone (just about) has a heart that can break. That's respect! with it's root in compassion. The rest is a way, a tradition, a very important view of the world by one or by many groups, but not equivalent to this general human definition I have given, which is independent of station.

While I am not Asian, I am well aware that I say here goes against the grain. I don't need a lecture on it. It is likely there will always be leaders, because, for one thing, some are naturally followers. Yet, the nature of the follower needs to evolve, at least for some who wish to follow this way, to allow for creative thinking and questioning without consequence. In fact, it already has. There is a lot of room for growth there, and for hope. If the mere questioning (nevermind anything else) is thought to undermine the leader or power source, I'd say there might be a problem. This is my view.

I am stating how I feel, Je Lei Sifu. I am feeling that the stratification you speak of and support is part of what causes the anger. The confusion can come from many sources. The followers: It can be like standing on a chess board and waiting for the big hand to descend. So, the chess pieces are talking, and looking up, instead of bowing their heads. They're wondering what the previous moves were from very old games, and who made them, why, and how current events follow from them, and who is moving them. This is free will in terms of the human condition.

Whether anyone likes it or not, it's open season.

respectfully,
Cody

[Maestro1700]

man..what BS! higher understanding my ass

I dont have to be a gung fu guru to see that Sifu dave lacey is just a jackoff when it comes to this stuff..

yea maybe his gung fu is good or old or whatever but ..he is no more mature than me..fu pow or anyone else here imo and thats not saying much

i had to stop reading that stuff on his website about halfway through because it was just annoying and dissapointing

higher understanding?? if you people actually believe that you are just ignorant and delluded im sorry but its true..you dont have to insult people or slander them to get your point across..now im not saying i dont do this because i do and have but im 17 years old this guy isnt...and hes been practicing an art that demands(so i thought) high morals, and discipline for a helluva long time acording to him and you guys to

so whatever..higher understanding..yea sure whatever hes obviously just another gimp

[premier]

Cody, Thank you. That was a great reply.

[diego]

GoldenArmor Thanks For The Link!.

[anton]

Originally posted by Cody

There have been many discussions on these boards and others re respect and the right to question. even on respect and whether one, as a law enforcement officer, would give a speeding ticket to someone after finding out he/she was your Sifu. I was frankly horrified at the equivalence given to respect and favoritism, sometimes having its basis in fear. The root seems to be in the philosophical and practical subordination of the group to the "respected" leader, as a given. There is a difference between other views of respect and the traditional domination which you seek to enforce on the basis of hierarchy. From an idealistic point of view, this (in terms of not questioning because there is no need to do so, etc.) can be a beautiful thing. However, often there is a need, a necessity, or simply a healthy curiousity to speak or act independently.



Just relating to the "speeding ticket" thread - I thought most people just didn't see it as much of a moral crisis. I wouldn'
t give my sifu a ticket, not because I consider him particualrly superior or because I am scared of him, but because I wouldn't give a ticket to anyone I knew, as long as I could get away with it. I assumed most people who replied in the negative, had the same sentiments.
If I was a cop, trying to spot speeding cars, I'd have trouble seeing it as anything more than a job. It's just not in my nature to see myself as "upholding community standards", at least not in that particular function.

[Cody]

If you feel the interest to open that discussion again, you can find it in the archives: "hypothetical involving your sifu", posted by ged, on the general forum. You're not saying anything different than you said in that thread and neither am I. No need to rehash here what can be easily read elsewhere, as my comment was pretty clearly tangential to begin with.

take care,
Cody

[BeiKongHui]

Although you are of a younger generation than Lacey Sifu and Bean Curd, you do not give them the respect that they deserve. You being from a younger generation should not question them no matter what you feelings are.

This is an absurd statement. Lacy proved to me that he deserves very little respect and that manifesto he has written, quite frankly, paints him as a nut. If these people want to be treated like members of an old culture who's traditions are dying out because their own people find them obselete then they should stay in HK and not become involved in the modern world. In the current world respect is earned not just given because you joined the club first or have talked to the Grand Poobah more often.

As for not questioning?!? Yeah, that's a real good way to keep CLF alive and vital. Bet the Gracies allow their students to question and that's why their art is relevent. You "elders" (relics is perhaps a better word) had better wake up and smell reality. The fraternity isn't going to be around much longer with this type of baffonery at the top.

[Cody]

The statement you talk of is not absurd. We (you and I) just don't agree with it.

Different ways fill practical and philosophical needs. For instance, if a leader were to be truly compassionate and wise and able to fill the bellies and hearts of his people, the need for questioning or rebellion in many would fade until a change in leadership or circumstance forced even lazy ones up from what had Become an illusion (that what is being done and believed is for the good of all).

There is a biological precedent to the hierarchy frame of reference: the way many animals function in groups. So, it is not surprising that this would be reflected in human group function. Nor are the successes or excesses surprising.

In some ways, it seems to be a utopian solution. But, the rules in force and the training of the mind can temper what one says and does in this less than perfect world.
Many people have affiliations which make demands of them, of the mind, of the actions. These demands suit a Way. They also are a method of order or control. Continual anarchy doesn't work. Occasional anarchy to any degree can plow a field for the next crop.

While I have no binding affiliations along the lines discussed, I would not ghettoize the ones which are evolving, or even apparently dying out. It is not ununusal in life for things to turn ugly, unsmooth, even crazy. I wouldn't tell people who believe diferently than I do to go back where they came from. Where does that end? How would you separate the leaders (well-meaning or not so well-meaning) from each other and from followers, who are doing what they have been taught is right? I like the diversity. I take things from it that suit my nature, and I feel more whole from being exposed to it.

I know what you are saying, specifically. I've made my position clear here and in other posts.

I remember when I bowed for the first time. I didn't understand. Then, I bowed because I worshipped the teacher and the knowledge. I saw something. Not just technique. I saw something, and I participated in it to the degree I could. Then, when I realized that these teachers are just as human as anyone, I was confused, but bowed anyhow. Then, I bowed to the spirit of the arts and to how they were reflected out of the teacher. That wasn't good enough either. Now, I will bow to a person's heart, even to a suffering heart which is not behaving so well. In doing so, I feel happy. If I can find a kernel of goodness, my heart bows. Without exposure to the extreme, to a way I cannot hold to unless under the most "perfect" of conditions, I would not have learned how to bow with my heart. I may not agree with what is going on, but I can't send it all back to Hong Kong and be done with it.

I am thinking that maybe some of the elders, or those immediately below, might implode upon themselves if there is a loss of faith. For if the process escalates, and if enough followers call for a halt to it, over time or acutely, the life energy which makes any art come alive could be affected. Sometimes a decline precedes a resurgence. I don't know. Something honest and compassionate needs to be done, in an objective way.

In terms of respect. I gave my definition in the previous post. I still respect Sifu Lacey. I hope he will be okay.

Cody

[BeiKongHui]

You being from a younger generation should not question them no matter what you feelings are.

It's more than disagreement. Statements like the above are simply wrong and dangerous. It also reeks of cultishness. There is no room left for this antiquated gangsterish type of behavior in martial arts. As I say, keep it up and your art will die. In a time when the usefulness of any style of kung fu is dubious at best this type of manipulative garbage does nothing but drive new blood from the CMA's.
This is exactly how Chung Mo Do and Sin The have been allowed to con thousands of people because they were told not to question and those who did question are called troublemakers or (my favorite) disrespectful westerners. Please, and this Lacy character is so deserving of respect because-why? Not because he's been in "the club" longer and certainly not becasue of that Jr. high tirade he issued to a couple of anonymous net users.

I hope you all don't raise your children with this unquestioning philosophy or the future is very dark.

[Cody]

Fortunately, or unfortunately, there is room for all sorts of behavior in this world. Martial arts is just part of the world. Take it or leave it. MY way is to try to leave something positive to it in any way you can.

I don't know these guys. Yet, sure, I'll agree that there are cultish aspects in some MA situations that begin rooted in one thing and progress. Belief and practice are a matter of individual choice. When that choice is compromised and the self is lost, then I am dismayed. But, just because a person chooses to follow someone, doesn't mean the self is lost. That's as far as I can go with this. I think it is hard for an outsider to figure individual choices over a multitude in every situation, unless there are additional obvious factors, which have been examined by others. Too much generalization is not so good.

As far as bringing up kids. Being a free spirit can be hell on earth. Honesty and a good heart get you nowhere if you don't know how to use power when it comes to you. If you escape bitterness, you cry for yourself and then for the pain in others. When you start thinking and feeling in balance about this, growth can occur. Every child needs to be taught to think for himself/herself, but also to find a way to find peace within the community if that is possible, based on the needs of both. Revolution is an option. Timing is everything. It depends which community you are born into, Sir.

The man next door might have to check his mailbox 6 times in a row in order to assure himself that the mail is in his hands. It is respectful to patiently wait your turn to access your mail, or politely ask to.
In some syndromes, things are said uncontrollably. It is respectful to seek the person underneath, and not ridicule.
A homeless lady needs extra time to drag her stuff across the street. It is respectful not to honk the horn.
A small child falls and scrapes his knee and cries. It is respectful to allow him his expression of pain without criticism, but not to overdo it.
Respect can be given, not in an obligatory way as dictated by station if that offends you. I offered another alternative. This can be learned. I did. You think I was born thinking like this? It took effort. Even fine martial artists have troubles. They're people. It seems to me that in your disappointment in others and in the particulars of cultural standards which you don't believe in, you send shards of disrespect in return. Where does that get anyone? I think that anger of this sort will act as a billow.

I'm tired. over and out,
Cody

[Je Lei Sifu]

I have always believed that what is told to me by my parents and other relatives about the things that have occured in the past to be true within our family, and no one outside of my family can tell me different.

I hold this to be true within my gung fu family as well. If I want to know about things that occured before my times, I would go to one of my Sihing or Sijeh and ask them. But to learn about my particular lineage, I would depend on sifu to explain the history of the style
as well as my Sigung's history.

If what I was told becomes the truth for me, then that is what I will go on to preach. Now someone comes along who practices the same method as I, but is not in the same lin
eage. However, he decides to tell me something that occured in history which does not agree with what I was told. I myself would not question him whether he is more senior or not since this is his understanding. This does not scratch the surface of what cultism is. My responsibility is to consult my Sifu on the difference if I want to question what was told to me.

The ability to hold conversation and understand that there are difference in everyones views/opinions as well as history. For me to say respect is due to Dave Lacey and Bean Curd since they are more senior does not touch cultist beliefs or religious following. What I would like to stress is that no matter what another person thinks or say, it should not affect what you have learned. The only thing that matters in a situation like this is what you were told and what you believe to be true within your on Gwoon.

If we all just concern ourselves with what is transferred to us and not worry about others, it would decrease the number of negative post which have been submitted thus far.

Cody I truly enjoy your words. I also agree that anyone can show you what respect should be, even a young child.

Respect is something that is earned and not given. However I do believe that if I am going to learn gung fu from someone I best respect the knowledge that he has to offer. In doing so, I learn to respect him as an individual.

Peace

Je Lei Sifu

[yik-wah-tik]

fu pow,

i must say that lau buns lineage is pretty **** pure from jeong yim to yuen hai, to lau bun, jew leong, jew tien loong and now me. yours does have a bunch of criss crosses in it.

wow, dave is really kicking alot of your asses on this issue. i am sorry you have to go thru such humiliation. but................i don't mean to say "i told you so" but hey, i told you so. i told you that you people did not want to mess with the laceys. and remember blood is thicker than water, i don't think you want vince lacey and shane lacey on your asses either. but i wouldn't be supprised if they already know and are silently waiting for the right moment to show their faces. man i would not want to be in your position.

i think you guys are feeling that you are losing this fight and that is why you resort to attacking sifu's on this perfect place to hide.

i remember when many of the chan heads on here would claim that they have thousands of students, well where did that help them here?

i told you many times before the same thing sifu dave L has stated on his sight. so why do you act suprised? is it that i may have been telling the truth after all?

now, many people who knew this piece of information about the photo of chan heung being fake, but we didn't perceive it would be dave lacey to unveil it. so be it. the cats out of the bag.

i won't say much more about this, because i have always told you that things are happening, and you didn't believe it. keep your eyes open.

fu-pow, pls pick a lineage. either you are lee koon hung's hung sing lineage or the chan side of his lineage. if you are hung sing then you should follow our history including ching cho. if you look at other hung sing schools even in fut san, chan heungs photo does not hang. not in mine. not in singapore. not in maylasia. but you have both sides. so if you are going to remain neutral, then you must believe both sides of the story and figure it out for your self. your sigung and his teachers were fiercely known hung sing people. it's not going to be easy. but this is the road you chose to travel.

[Cody]

I appreciate your taking the time to explain in detail to us. I like to understand what other people think and accept, and why. Differences of opinion have levels. I think if one ignores a level because it's not part of one's personal world, a rude awakening will take place down the road, or before that.

What worries me is that with such a tight cultural base, there should be more clarity from the beginning, which extends forward. I am wondering whether the same difficulties which plague a less hierarchal society have also operated within a more closed one. The dynamics might be different, but the causes the same: human nature. That worries me.

We disagree on certain ways and from your position, that is not up for debate. That's your right, and I accept it. But, what you describe is not the way I am or want be. For I trust in no one to the degree that is normal for you, and my considerations procede differently. While we disagree, there has been a meeting of the minds, and that, for me, is worthwhile.

peace,
Cody

[JAZA]

Frank,

Where have you see any Chan Head here? Never.
Just free speech people with opinions.

[Maestro1700]

dave is a loser..anyone who would post something like that on his site and truly mean it, and ramble on like a psycho for that long is really in need of help..

i dont care how long that guys been practiceing clf he is just a big 0 in my book

after all the slanders and insults anything he had to say i wanted nothing to do with..

like ive said before on this thread those things dont get you anywhere on forums or in rl, and im still trying to control my feelings towards people on these forums

but you all know im young, and you know hes old..pretty old and suposedly a "good" martial artist..

im sure he'd make a good test subject for the government

[regulator]

"but you all know im young, and you know hes old..pretty old and suposedly a "good" martial artist.. "

you are OBVIOUSLY young and it shows. you speak like someone who needs a good arse kicking.

"
im sure he'd make a good test subject for the government"

you speak ill of the so-called "slanders and insults" you have seen on someone's website, yet you do the same thing here. there is such a thing as righteous anger, and i'm fairly sure you have no clue what it is. but the things you speak of are so far beyond what you understand you make yourself out to be completely ignorant, and do quite a good job at it.

try taking the cotton out of your ears and putting it in your mouth for a change.

[Hiram]

I've sent you a private message.

[Je Lei Sifu]

Cody,

Much respect to you my friend. Peace

Maestro1700,

You're the pot the calls the kettle black. Nuff said. Peace to you.

Je Lei Sifu

[Jamesbond_007]

I don't like getting involed in these things because I feel this threatening and name calling is imature and because Master D Lacey in a well known CLf master, but I have noticed from the postings on Master Dave Lacey's site and Vince Lacey's site they do not agree on the same history.

For example Master D. Lacey says on his site:

Your statement -"If the Buksing people would simply concede to the fact that Chan Heung is the founder of CLF and Cheung Yim simply a student then we could all just relax." - unquote. Well, that would certainly solve the dispute and rid you of your splitting headache, wouldn't it now? By the way, what is wrong with changing that statement you made (which I just quoted) to - "If the Chan Clan people would simply concede to the fact that Cheung Hung Sing is the founder of CLF and that Chan Heung was simply one of his teachers then we could all just relax"? Now, don't you agree that sounds a lot better!? You a Hung Sing CLF student?! People like you make me sick! You claim to be a Hung Sing CLF student (of mixed lineage) but you denounce Chueng Hung Sing as the "Chong Pai Jung Si" (Originator of the Style) and the existence of Ching Cho (Cheung's teacher). This clearly shows you don't even know the history of your own CLF lineage! You know what you really are? You're a "farn gwat jai" and an ignorant one at that!

Master D. Lacey states that Chan Hueng is not the founder of CLF, but this is what Master Vince Lacey says on his site:


There is only ONE Choy Lay Fut, whether it’s the Chan family, Hung Sing or Buk Sing with its roots from the Shaolin Temple, with styles including Hung, Lau, Choy, Lee (Lay) Mok, Fut Gar, etc. The founding father from the beginning, Chan Heung, should be given the credit and respect he deserves. All three branches of Choy Lay Fut have something valuable to offer-no branch is better or superior, only the individuals behind the system. There is only ONE Choy Lay Fut, whether it’s the Chan family, Hung Sing or Buk Sing with its roots from the Shaolin Temple, with styles including Hung, Lau, Choy, Lee (Lay) Mok, Fut Gar, etc. The founding father from the beginning, Chan Heung, should be given the credit and respect he deserves. All three branches of Choy Lay Fut have something valuable to offer-no branch is better or superior, only the individuals behind the system.

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



It seems Master V. Lacey gives credit to Chan Heung as the founder of CLF.

I just wanted to point this out to everyone

[bean curd]

i like how some come on these threads and say " i don't like getting involved but i want to point something out " - interesting.

the clarification of founder of clf depends on when and where one looks at its conception, and although some say history is not important, on this matter unfortunaitly it is, due to the influence both great men had on clf as it directly reliates to how and why clf is played the way it is.

does it affect your gung fu and the way you personally play hands, of coarse not one would be childish to think so, but clarification is important as it leads to what is known as "position'.

now this may not appear a requirment to many, but i assure you with others it is taken seriously and to make little of it, means your understanding of such things is not deep.

007 what you show is such a planned exercise it is laughable. first one need to clarify that the skills of these two brothers is unquestionable and to show variation of idea as you have tried to show is rather poor.

it is without question that chan heung was teacher of hung sing, so from this perspective vince sifu is very true, but when hung sing learn from green grass monk then came back to see chan heung where they formulate clf as we know it today then dave sifu is also very true, so it come down to perspective of when you wish to look at data and also how it is written.

i have read this lately and find it interesting how some wish to play one brother against the other, an exercise which is futile. i also find it interesting how many say " your gung fu is more important than history " well if you do not know the skills of both dave and vince lacey then you are missing out on great skilled players. as to dave sifu it is the same, i read how people talk dave sifu down by the way he has spoken, but if you value skill above words then why do you say such things, is this a reflection of your own skill and understanding ???

the words used by dave sifu is action taken against words used against him first, yes he write article but he not offend anyone directly, but when others directly offend him, what is he to do, nothing, would you do the same ??? what is happening now is called " calling out ",if you understand this then you understand words used by dave sifu, so i don't see what all fuss is about.

we again as i have said many times must walk away from words used and look at what is being said, the task at hand, too historians this is very interesting position, to others you not see point of discussion.

[premier]

bean curd

If Cheong Yim is the founder of CLF, what's the style I'm studying at the moment?

If Cheong Yim is the founder of CLF, why isn't it called Chan Fut after Cheong Yim's teachers?

These questions might have been answered before, but I've missed it =)


premier

[bean curd]

premier,

i do not understand your question. if you answer to this post it appear then you must do CLF ?? if so, then does a name change at start of art affect your skills and your learning proccess, does it affect that what you have gone to learn from very start, of coarse not.

as to hung sing naming the art, how can i answer such a question, was i in the mind of both chan yeung and hung sing when they where there ???

let me reitierate, what is now going on in regards to contoversy has been around for many years, in fact it can even be worse, there was articel written in gung fu magazine which was popular in 70's called " real gung fu ". now we can all say why would you listen to such things, but people who do not know or understand CLF or have transmission on such matters from a personal perspective unfortunaitly relly on such things for information. in this article it was written that chan heung learnt from a family memeber HUNG KUEN for ten years !!!!! if you wish if i can find article i will tell you when it was written.

now fact is did chan heung learn hung kuen for ten years, who is to say?? from our history he did not, so why wasn't it corrected when proof read, magazine was in chinese so not as if would be missed by CLF family????

let me make this clear to all, i have my history which has been transmitted to me, but if other things come up do i just wash them away because they are not to my liking, how is this benificial to anyone??? the point of issue i see is a HISTORICAL one, nothing more nothing less, to many this is not important, but to others from a positional perspective it is very important.

other thing i find interesting is this, some say buk sing clan are trying to split hung sing and chan clan !! how can this be, first and foremost buk sing clan are HUNG SING, the lineage to tam sam is unquestionable and as to naming his variation to buk sing, this was forced apon him due to issues at time, but before this period he say he is hung sing clf. this is not hard to find, transmission on such matters is vast and from many dirrection relatited to and not with tam sam lineage, so to say that buk sing are doing this for hidden reason is laughable and childish to say least.

another thing to remember which again can not be forgotten is buk sing stand ground for all families of CLF in gung sau from hong kong. did they stand up and say " we only fight for buk sing" - of coarse not, they stand up and say they fight for CLF. in this they show no favouritisme for their clan as they are in their mind CLF. this situation when it happen was supported by all clf not just one or two family members, so again to bring up such rediclous thing that buk sing is self promoting and trying to break up family is shameful.

as i hear from speaking to others, the issue is not to talk down chan heung, this was done enough by another clan on hung sing, but to balance where the creation of clf came from.

if one learns two arts from a person and then learns another art from someone else, then those two combine their repspective teachings into a dynamic art, then who is the founder ?? when did it develope and how did it advance ???

what i try to bring here is simply another perspective on how things are handled in older days, if these are not relevent to today way of things, then so beit, for myself in my world i don't have problem with it and i can assure you i am not in cult mind, another laughable word being thrown around, we all live in our worlds, because they differ does it mean we have to be rude !!!

in the end as vince sifu say " if we gwa, sao, charp, bin, pau " then we are CLF, let us not forget this when we speak, if strong words come out, then whoever use them first is answerable not the one who retaliates

sorry for such long post

[premier]

Bean curd,

OK. I thought people, who usually write in CLF threads would already know me and which branch I'm representing =) I think of myself a choy lee fut practitioner first, but if someone likes to know, I'm from the Chan family branch.

So. Like it has been said before, the main reason why people react so strongly to D. Lacey's articles is that it puts my branch in an awkward position. If it was Cheong Yim who created Choy lee fut, what is it the king mui branch is studuying. It can't be CLF because CLF was created by Cheong Yim, the head of Fut san branch, a student of Chan Heung, who was the head of King mui branch? Am I making more sense now?

And my second question. "If Cheong Yim is the founder of CLF, why isn't it called Chan Fut after Cheong Yim's teachers?" I'm asking this, because the usual explanation makes perfect sense, but I can't see the logic of Cheong Yim naming his art after his teacher's teachers. D. Lacey might have explained this in his articles, but I don't want to go read them again. So could you please explain this?


premier

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

It's likely that Chan Heung learnt Hung Kuen from his uncle. In our CLF branch we have the I pattern Gung Gee Fuk Fu Kuen form & a lot of other similarities to Hung Kuen.

[yik-wah-tik]

premier,

i have always known you are chan clan.

now, since d lacey has let the cat out of the bag, i will touch on a few items here. now, there in only one man alive today, not even chan yong fa, that is a living treasure of clf. i am speaking about lun chee from buk sing who is 92,93 yrs old. a direct student of tam sam.

he is a living record of clf back then. and according to him, the chan version of clf is not correct. it is jeong yim who taugh gung fu to chan heung who took him in to hide him for conscription against the government. jeong yim taught him what ever he taught him and in return chan heung taugh jeong yim literature and calligraphy. therefoe earning himself the title of sifu to jeong yim.

premier, you ask for the answer to y didn't he call it chan fut? according to lun chee it was called fut ga zheng jong. as a man who lived during those times, he admitted the name clf was not used by the third generation. it wa by people of other styles who noticed the choy lee and fut styles in what jeong yim was teaching.

now, i have a question for you. if chan koon pak learned from his father and was a successor to his school, then why did he not call his school the exact same as his father. would it not have been the great sage lineage as you claim chan heung had started?

so then why did chan koon pak open a school with a different name other than his fathers name? did he not open a school called hung sing (strong victory) something extremely identical to that of jeong yim? jeong yims couplets when read at top say ying hung right? and we all know that jeong yim was a revolutionary hero. so why did chan koon pak use that name and not what his father passed on to him?

frank

[premier]

yik-wah-tik

Wow. This keeps getting more and more interesting. Why is it you always blame Chan family of changing the history, but you do it yourself? First Cheong Yim was a co founder. Then he became the sole founder. And now he's the teacher of Chan Heung? =) LOL. That's getting a bit absurd.

Please, try to realise. If you criticize Chan family records as historical records and tell us they're biased, how come you expect us to believe everything Lung Chee says? Don't you think he might be biased too? Whatever Lung Chee says doesn't really mean anything to us, just like the family records don't mean anything to you.

But thanks for clearing that name thing out. I'm sorry but I have limited knowledge on this hung sing character thing, so I can't answer to your question. Maybe Joseph can help you when he returns.

PS. I know you knew which branch I was from, but bean curd obviously didn't.


premier

[premier]

So.. May I suggest, since neither of us are going to change our views on this and believe whatever evidence the others present, let's just call it a tie? I don't need to try to convert you and you don't need to try to convert me. You believe what you believe and I try to respect that and I believe what I want and you try to respect that.


premier

[yik-wah-tik]

so i guess the best thing for you to do is not to argue your point then, right? to tell you the truth, the history part of choy lee fut is not everything. it is how good your gung fu is.

i am just one who has done my research, and believe solely in our story.

now i have been told by certain hung sing elders to not to rock the boat, so i gave respect to chan heung by calling him a co-founder. but my knowledge goes deeper than what i am showing you. and i won't spread what i know so willingly.

believe what you believe, but what will you say when it is proven that our story is correct and yours is not? pls answer that!

frank, your clf cousin!

[premier]

I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove this thing one way or another. But if it so happens that Chan Heung is proven to be Cheong Yim's student and calligraphy teacher, I guess I won't have any options but to accept it. But there's definitely more than Lung Chee's words needed to convince me.

Like you said, it's not about the history. It's all about the kung fu eventhough people tend to get passionate about their roots. After all, a lot of americans like to call themselves italian, sicilian, irish etc, though they've lived their whole life in USA. To be proven wrong about your roots hurts and that's why people don't like being proven wrong.

But no matter what happened 200 years ago, it doesn't change the fact that I'm learning an awesome art and it sure feels amazingly martial to be derived from literature and calligraphy. I hope this thing will clear out some day and even us can shake hands and discuss rationally about our art. After all, they do have the same roots, be it Cheong Yim, Chan Heung or both of them.


premier

[bean curd]

premier,

thank you for informing me of your skill, i do not read too much on this forum, only what i need too and wish too. frank has replied to the questions you have put too me, so i thank frank on this matter.

it is clear that much has been said, for myself this was never an issue, i take in everything new and old, good and bad and settle in my own mind that which i feel is in tune with what i know, we all do this and of coarse there is nothing wrong with that, it is only when strong words are used, and emotion takes over logical discussion.

to your question, what people learn in king mui is clf, there is no reason to think otherwise, yes hung sing open branch in futshan, but why would this detract from the great skills of the chan clan if hung sing developed clf ????

i have said over and over, that history does not changed the skill of anyone, be them ancestor, elder, senior or junior, history only clarify linkage to skills used. this is nothing new, each teacher has their favourite moves, the three clans show this, but within these skills there are three truths, each follows the faht, ging and faht ging which makes clf what it is, this is the most important of all things.

regarding chan heung and hung sing, let me put this too you, and maybe it clarify where i stand and come from in thought.

when you see a great speaker and listen to his words and see his character, the amasment is clear to see, but the question also to be asked is did this great speaker do all the writting and thought behind the words you are hearing come out his mouth ??

in most cases a great speaker does not have the skill or skills to do everything and relies on the skills of others to achieve the goal that is being looked for.

so, who is the greater the one who provides the words or the one who shows the skill ?? one without the other does not succeed.

as frank has elluded too, chan heung is the scholar and hung sing is the player of skills, if so, then where does one stand on foundation of CLF ????

where do i stand in all of this, at this point i am still listening and learning, yes as frank has elluded to also there is more to come, how others will take this, it is not for me to say, it is also not for me to talk of these things, but none the less i have yet to make my own mind up on where i stand, but to be black and white and not show respect for either chan heung or hung sing, is very sad indeed, for without either would CLF have become what it is today???

as to the name chosen, what frank has said is acurate, although one has to understand the times when CLF was developed. i find it interesting also, why does the skill have to follow the name of the teacher?? where is such things written in concrete that it has to be so ??

there are many skills and pai that are not named after their creator or that creators teacher, hung fut, fung yen pai, lung ying, chi yin mun, pek gwa, liu he baht faht, tai shing pek gwa mun as quick examples, so why such an issue on how the name was developed, as shakespear once write " a rose is a rose by another name, it will smell just as sweet "