loop holes,//farewell [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

yik-wah-tik

12-28-2002, 11:29 PM

much of the clf history remains a mystery. bits and pieces at best are all we have. in attempting to piece together the puzzle, there remains pieces missing in both the chan and hung sing records.

the fut san hung sing kwoon is the birthplace to hung sing clf and is recognized as such by the fut san gov'mnt. no mention of chan heung is present. the people of fut san may have forgotten much of our history which was always passed down word of mouth, and may have mixed up some dates, but our story has always been the same for generations. and some dates are questionable.

yet the chan family have more loop holes in their story then we do. for example, chan heung going to singapore with jeong yim to spread clf. yet according to the singapore hs no clf has ever flourished in singapore before kwan mun keng. and why did chan heung take jeong yim the young boy instead of his other senior students or his own sons?

if chan heung called his school hung sing 1st, the explain why did his son koon pak use a hung sing similar to that of his fathers student than that of his father? it is said it was jeong yim that taught chan koon pak and not chan heung. so it makes sense that koon pak glorify jeong yim as his sifu.

clf established in 1836 yet an image of chan heungs likeness appears only 134 years later. master dave lacey has proven this point on his website beyond the shadow of a doubt. another is chan heung kicking rocks into the air and crushing them into pieces as the hit the ground, how come none of the chan family members possess this skill today? and what about that tiger chan heung killed? was it with his bare hands, what technique did he use? was chan heung injured in this battle with the tiger, i am sure that was a fierce tiger.

another is jeong yim being sent to hong kong to open a school yet their is no record of him but his students who opened the schools such as yuen hai.

for many years the chan clan explicitly stated that there was no ching cho ever mentioned but now he does?! oh, he is now choy fook the scar headed monk, but there has never been any mention of ching cho having a scarred head. a piece of information not easily left out in ching cho's discription.

according to the fut san gov'mnt the hsk officially organized in 1851-not opened in 1851-organized-during the tai ping rebellion and m entions jeong yim as the founder of the fut san hsk.
it is well documented that the fut san hsk was famous and the largest clf school in all of guandong with over 10,000 students. no mention ever of chan heung.

this controversy has gone far enough. it is safe to say that 99% of you will maintain your anonymity at all costs, resulting in your continued safety. even i believe it is now better to return to our training.

what matters most in the end is that clf is clf. and for the modern day clf fighter we have 3 famous branches to learn from. and in the future someone else will want to know their heritage and will trace their roots. word of mouth was the main way to pass on the history.yet it is crucial that we take into account the eyewitness accounts of how it was in that era.without the personal first hand knowledge the history is left in the hands of individuals more capable of recording the history tipping the scales in their own favor in their quest to control power.

one must take into account the living conditons of when clf first flourished. clf was no doubt very connected to the revolutionary movement. and anyone connected to the movement and were caught or even suspected met with death whether involved or not.

the chan family branch seemed to attract the well educated while fut san contained fierce freedom fighters who could not read or even write their own name. the literate of the chan family wrote the history of the chan family while our history was always spoken to us. yet the fut san freedom fighters could not afford to possess documents linking them to the revolution or the would be beheaded.

it is completely wrong for anyone not to allow their story to be told out of fear of losing thier place in the hierarchy. for some it may make people wonder why the hung sing branches history is being suppressed and disputed. what is their to hide?

it is my intent to tell the history as we have had it passed down to us. in the family of clf there is no "who has the power" because it was never organized as such. we are only a handful people who argue over the pettiness of historical data. if this is what you want, then keep it here on the forum and amongst yourselves.

i'm outta here,

frank mccarthy
jew, hung loong
usa/ fut san hung sing kwoon
yet, we can argue over the loop holes for generations to come, but why?

extrajoseph

12-29-2002, 01:19 AM

First off, let me congratulate you on a fine piece of posting. By not being personal and not saying Chan Heung was not the founder of CLF, you gave us room to discuss the “loop holes” of history (if we want to) and peace to tell each other’s story in a reasonable manner.

I agree with you, there is no one “who has the power” and it is only a handful of unimportant people doing all the talking here. However, the main sticking point in the past was not the “loop holes” but who was the real founder of CLF.

By agreeing on one common heritage (Chan Heung was the founder, he taught Jeung Yim who later founded Futsan Hung Sing, just as Tarm Sarm later still founded Buck Sing), no one branch is being suppressed and we all have a proper place in history.

With this in mind, let us all return to our training.

JosephX

extrajoseph

12-29-2002, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by yik-wah-tik
The fut san hung sing kwoon is the birthplace to hung sing clf and is recognized as such by the fut san gov'mnt. no mention of chan heung is present. the people of fut san may have forgotten much of our history which was always passed down word of mouth, and may have mixed up some dates, but our story has always been the same for generations. and some dates are questionable.

Frank,

Pardon me, but I find it hard to let this one slip by.

Until the Commemorative Journal Published in 2001 to mark the 150 Anniversary of the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon, Chan Heung was not only mentioned by Futsan but he has always been recognized as Jeong Yim’s teacher and the sole founder of CLF.

In the 23rd. March 1997 issue of Guangzhou RenminYibao (Guangzhou Peoples Daily), the present day Director of the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon, Mr Deng Guangmin (he has a photo appeared on page 56, top left hand corner of the said journal) wrote an article entitled “The Largest Martial Arts School in China” and in it Mr. Deng said it very clearly Jeung Yim was not the first person to set up the Futsan school. Some how, they decided to change their story 4 years later.

I have translated the relevant part of the article for your interest; you can ring up Futsan and speak to Mr. Deng to see if this is true.

“Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon was established in 1851, originally it was called Choy Lay Fut Gwoon. Jeong Yim, a disciple of Chan Heung the founder of Choy Lay Fut, took over as the Principal (Gwoon Jeung) in 1875 and changed its name to Hung Sing (Glorious Victory) Gwoon”

Contrary to what you said, the history of Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon is well documented, not just passed down by word of mouth and their story is not always the same as you maintained.

On page 31 of the above mentioned journal, it said Tang Dongchen, one of Chan Sheng's disciples, wrote 2 chapters on the history of Hung Sing Gwoon in 1923. It even has a photo of the hand written manuscript on the same page.

In the reference section of the "Guangdong Wushu Shi" book the researchers gave 2 written source for Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon, one was called "The History of Hung Sing Gwoon and CLF Kuen" written by Wu Jinxiang and the other was called "The Rise and Fall of Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon" written by Chou Yitian.

All these 3 written source quoted acknowledged Chan Heung was the founder and he taught Jeong Yim. It is only in the 2001 Anniversary Journal that the present day Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon changed their tune to say Chan Heung and Jeong Yim co-founded CLF with Jeong Yim teaching Chan Heung what he has learned from Ching Cho!

If you are interested, I can give you my two cents worth on the other “loop holes” as well. There are simple explanations to them if you want to know. May be you prefer to find them out yourself.

JosephX

Jamesbond_007

12-31-2002, 11:06 AM

Frank is right about there being to many holes, but they are in all versions!!!

The one thing I could not let go is how Frank claims the hung sing branch passed down the history by word of mouth and that the Clan clan wrote down their side of history. I mean how acurate can it be if it was passed down by word of mouth?! I bet it changed a hundred times!!! This is proof in China now, how many different dialects does China have? I hear they are in the hundreds. Why? Because many could not read or write the launguage, making a written record of it to reference, so over time it changes. History is full of examples of people leaving, not taking any written records and after many years their lanuage changes completely. So how can you trust a history that has been passed down by word of mouth?

I know we all have played the game where you whisper one thing is someones ear, they pass it to someone else, etc. By the time it is done the original phrase is totally different.

I just don't know.

extrajoseph

12-31-2002, 04:49 PM

I don't know either.

What do you do when someone insisted that oral transmission is more accurate than written evidence?

It is like the guy who started the Chinese whisper wrote down his words, but the chap 6 or 7 down the chain insisted on what he heard is more correct than what was written down.

What do you do?

yik-wah-tik

12-31-2002, 11:47 PM

hold up.

if you do the research, the hung sing branch and buk sing branches are the only ones mentioned to truly be involved in the revolution. as to josephs comment about documented as opposed to verbal. well anything written by mans hand can and will be changed by anyone wishing to control power. for example, in the holy bible, it said that there was to be only one interpretation of the bible, but sure enough there are many different versions of the bible. once again anything written by mans hand can and will be changed.

as to 007's comment it wasn't until chan heungs grandson chan yiu chi documented their history and kept it within their family because if its contents were known like they are now......there would be more controversy. lun chee is "THE" oldest living 4th generation survivor of that time and he says that the chans version is very incorrect. how can you dispute someone who actually lived to see clf flourish. before you discount his experience, interview him before judging him.

for those who care to understand what it was like to be a southern chinese during the 1800's to the mid 1950's there are books such as the hung society that will describe in great detail what it was like to live during that time. to carry or possess any type of information which may connect you to the revolution meant certain death!!!!! even dr sun yat sen would never carry revolutionary documents out of fear of death.

most of the history of clf was written by chan family members and hung sing had never documented their history. if you look into it a little deeper you may find the answers i have.

see, even wing chun calls jeong yim one of the great fighters of southern china. and it is well known that hung sing clf was famous and mau tse tung even had hung sing body guards.
and i do agree there are too many loop holes for anyone to claim victory.

the hung sing kwoon in fut san had been opened and closed since the early 1840's for its involvement in the movement. even master yuen hai who was there long before chan ngau sing escaped fut san and fled to hong kong and opened a hung sing kwoon and later returned to canton when things cooled down.

i want to say this, question everything you read. just because it is written down doesn't mean its true. look at doc fai wongs claim that ching cho didn't exist, but now he does?! i wonder how he feels now since this new revelation. but not everything is so black and white you must take into consideration the whole story before you believe only 1/25 of it.

it is up to you guys to believe what you want but until i started my little quest on the history, our history was always passed down word of mouth and i emailed many hung sing schools we have never met before and compared notes, but every single school of hung sing believe as we believe.

there's too many bitter people on here afraid to lose the power or throne, so that why i try to stay away from here. but i am still watching.

frank

extrajoseph

01-01-2003, 03:15 AM

No one is questioning the great contributions made by Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon to the development of CLF and their heroic role in Chinese history. No one is questioning Jeong Yim being a great fighter and he was an inspiring teacher to a great branch of CLF.

I am only questioning your claim that Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon's latest version of history is correct and Lun Chee's claim that the Chan version was incorrect, namely:

1) Chan Heung and Jeong Yim co-founded CLF, with Jeong Yim teaching Chan Heung what he has learned from Ching Cho.

2) Jeong Yim was the first to open the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon.

I am asking you for some dates and some physical evidence to support your claim, not just what some elders have said. Sun Yatsen was a revolutionary yet we know a lot about him and he has left a lot of documents behind, why is there nothing on Ching Cho?

It is because Ching Cho did not existed as a separate individual, he was the same person as Choy Fook and Choy Fook could not have taught Jeong Yim because he was too young. So Jeong Yim could have only learned from Chan Heung. Lack of evidence, timing and procol made it unlikely that they co-founded CLF.

Written evidence as early as 1923 showed Jeong Yim was not the first to teach in Futsan, yet you choose to believe what some elders said now over the written evidence of much earlier time. What can I say?

You have every right to claim what you want to claim, I am only asking you for evidence to support your claims. If you cannot, then I could only assume that your that claims are not true.

All these debates are not about loosing power or the throne, it is about historical truth. One cannot make history true just because one believes in a particular version of history and CLF history is not the same as the Bible.

Chan Heung being the founder is not going to make my Kung Fu any better and if I lose this debate it is not going to make me fall off my throne, since I am not on it any way.

No one is feeling bitter here and it is nice talking to you again in a civilized manner.

However, we have been going around and around in circles for full 12 months now, it seems we are not getting through to each other, so why don't we stop here and start the new year differently.

Have a Happy New Year!!!

JosephX :D

Jamesbond_007

01-03-2003, 10:07 AM

Frank:
You make a good point about the Chan family not writing down history until the grandson did. And I agree with you on people changing history to favor themselves. Imagine if Hilter won world war 2!! History would be very different, and even Germany's history of what happend during and after World War 1 is different from ours. I have a friend that teaches US history at a college in Kentucy and he says History is a told as it is seen in the writers eyes, and we all see the world in a different view.

Honestly, I am a Hung Sing practioner. When I was younger I trained under a student of Doc Fai Wong and when I became more education (and other reasons) I changed to a different sifu that is from the Hung Sing branch. But even with my experiences I do not bad mouth Doc Fai Wong because that is not right. We need to be unified as a CLF family. We know of your sifu and my sifu has great respect for him, but we also have great respect for Chan Yon Fa. CLF is such a great system because there is so much to learn. I bet I could learn a lot from you, and your Sifu. Chan Yon Fa has a lot to offer and I bet we can learn a lot from him. We can learn a lot from Sifu Lacey, as you could learn a lot from my sifu. We could all bennifit from each other and make out CLF grow. I think we need to drop this history stuff because all sides have so many loop holes and respect both Chan Hueng and Jeong Yim and work on helping each other improve our CLF.

yik-wah-tik

01-06-2003, 03:44 PM

well put 007. i totally agree, it is only when someone suppresses anothers history to protect the integrity of their own is where we have problems. if the choy lee fut family can agree to one version we would all benefit from every master as long as it is all clf, right?
you can email me at sifufrank@hotmail.com and we can talk.

i love your statement about writers seeing history as they see it. not as simple as it should be. i guess nothing is ever so simple.

see, joseph wants evidence from a period when having documents connecting you to the revolution can cost you your head. the truth about hung sing being involved in revolutions suchs as the opium war, tai ping, red turbans, and etc is evident, and when the hung sing kwoon was closed a number of times many of the masters fled to various parts of the world taking much of the info with them-which would explain why masters in such places as singapore, malaysia, hong kong etc all have had the history passed down to them in the fut san hung sing branch because the past masters would never write anything on the history in order to escape prosecution and death. Professor lau bun was a student of master yuen hai-a direct disciple of jeong yim- and professor lau passed the history down as it was passed on to him. he passed it down to jew leong who passed it on to my sifu. that is how the history was passed down. no one ever thought we had to write the history because we never thought anyone would openly dispute it. so, evidence, what evidence? what evidence is there to prove chan heung created choy lee fut by himself? what evidence? his grandsons writings?

any type of evidence found in connection to the fut san hung sing kwoon's actual existance is thought of as rare. i mean we have the actual insense burner of the original fut san hung sing kwoon. in a newspaper article from china they stated that they have found 3 original hung sing kwoons, over 150 years later.
they have always been there, so isn't this evidence? but why didn't they find this out until 150 years later? so to the evidence of how clf was created will never honestly and truly be known, but eye witness accounts during that period are crucial in considering and sifting out the information. we must meet on a common ground with no one in control. unfortunately in the world of gung fu..............no one likes to be controlled so we are back to square one.

Serpent

01-06-2003, 04:21 PM

Frank, you refuse to see what's right in front of you! What about the independant history book that Joseph found and the things it said? What about his answers to the questions that were asked?

Whenever anything is brought out to be discussed you just go on about how the truth will never be known. :rolleyes:

Fu-Pow

01-06-2003, 04:28 PM

Frank-

I thought you were leaving? What happened? We're just too fascinating I guess...lol

You see, Frank, whatever you believe or I believe or what Joseph believes is really irrelevant to our kung fu. Kung fu is about development of the individual to the highest level possible, mentally, physically and spiritually. And that is a personal thing, beyond politics and affiliations and internet nonsense.

And I agree with you we may never know what happened over there in King Mui or Futsan when CLF was created. It was a long foggy time ago when as you said history was not cleanly recorded. In other words, they didn't have www.cnn.com.

But I think that there is one history that has been posited on this forum that can satisfy everyone. It is the history that the majority of the participants here believe to be the true history. Check out my poll if you missed it.

It is the history that says Chan Heung is the founder. Jeong Yim is the famed disciple of Chan Heung and the founder of the Hung Sing branch. And Tam Sarm is the founder of the Baksing branch.

In this version no one's toes get stepped on even if it is not %100 historically accurate. But as you said we will never know the real story, so why not go with the one that keeps everyone getting along?

Imagine a big tree. At the bottom of the trunk are thick roots that reach back into the murky history of military arts in China. As you travel up the trunk you find Chan Heung, where these roots converge. From Chan Heung upwards grow three thick branches, one is Hung Sing, the other Bak Sing and the other Chan Family CLF. At the tips of the branches are the leaves blowing in the wind. We modern day practitioners are the leaves. One day, like our predecessors we will wither and die and fall off the tree but in the mean time we help the tree grow. We must keep in mind that we all share the same root and same responsiblity to help the tree grow.

We all have the same goal , why not get along and help each other get there?

extrajoseph

01-06-2003, 10:56 PM

Fu-Pow,
That is poetry, Amen!

Frank,
How About it?

anton

01-08-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Fu-Pow

But I think that there is one history that has been posited on this forum that can satisfy everyone. It is the history that the majority of the participants here[/b] believe to be the true history. Check out my poll if you missed it.

...so why not go with the one that keeps everyone getting along?
[/B]

Even if we assume that a majoritarian decision regarding the popularity of one history over another is what is needed for CLF to flourish, your argument is flawed:

A) "the majority of the participants here" is in no way representative of the majority of CLF practitioners (not to mention "everyone" as you seem to suggest).

Unless you can cite a poll of all CLF practitioners, favouring the Chan family history, the Frank's version of CLF history remains equally valid, and Frank can just as easily pose the same question to you.

Fu-Pow

01-08-2003, 10:30 AM

[
A) "the majority of the participants here" is in no way representative of the majority of CLF practitioners (not to mention "everyone" as you seem to suggest).

Where did I suggest that? Here's what I wrote:

It is the history that the majority of the participants here believe to be the true history.

And in another thread I wrote:

The purpose of this poll was demonstrate to bean curd that the generally accepted view is that Chan Heung was the founder of Choy Lay Fut.

Now, I don't suppose to know WHY this is the generally accepted view. In fact, it could be the completely wrong view for all we know. Nor do I claim that this poll is in anyway concrete data.

But in this limited sample of kung fu players on this forum it does appear to be the most accepted history.

If we extrapolated this data out to the CLF community as a whole(which is really kind of silly) then it would appear that the Jeong Yim/Chan Heung co-founder theory is a minority viewpoint.

So please tell me how I suggest that my one poll represents the CLF community as a whole? I've quite obviously stated that it doesn't.

However, what it does represent is the views of the people that participate in this forum. A majority of THOSE people believe that history which I outlined above.

So unfortunately for people like Frank they are essentially walking into a "den of wolves" by posting a contrarian opinion.

He'd have about as much luck going over to clfma.com and posting the same stuff.

That's life.

SETANSI

01-08-2003, 01:49 PM

A new year and an old argument
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives"- Abba Eban

extrajoseph

01-08-2003, 04:02 PM

Wise words from Abba Eban but unfortunately it takes a lot of time, energy, pain and human lives to exhaust all the alternatives.

It took an A bomb and millions of lives to stop WWII and if man’s irrationality can deny the Holocaust, Evolution and the earth being round, it can easily deny Chan Heung.

Dave Lacey has no idea the monster he let loose when he preached segregation of CLF, we will pay for his indiscretion for a long time to come. The CLF family will never be the same and when we fight each other we will be like goats taken to the slaughterhouse. No one will win.

A gloomy thought for a New Year of the Goat, but Anton’s posting now (argue for argument sake) and Hiram’s “Jeung Mun” post earlier (a deliberate public attempt to discredit Chen Yong-Fa) doesn’t give us much hope for a peaceful future.

Sadly, that's life too. We'll never learn.

SETANSI

01-08-2003, 05:21 PM

Where has there been a case for the seggragation on clf been made on Sifu Lacey's web site?

This argument started after yik wah tic and Sifu Lacey reprinted the history of the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon as it has been told word of mouth since it was founded in 1839. Afterwards some CLF politicians on this forum said that this history was BS and that the Green Grass Monk did not exist. A position that was then taken 180 degrees around when same politicians said ggm does exist and now is the teacher of Chan Hueng.

The stink of your politics makes me ill please practice diplomacy instead

"Politicians are just like diapers. They need to be changed often--and for the same reason." (unknown)

Fu-Pow

01-08-2003, 05:26 PM

"on, ditty, on, ditty, on...the sh1t don't stop until the break of dawn."

Give it a rest fellas....for God's sake. It's like someone running their fingernails on blackboard....FOR A YEAR STRAIGHT!!!!!!!

Let's make beautiful music instead of keep on blowin' on the same sour note.

It's a new year....a new day...lifes too short to waste it away arguing with ghosts in front of the computer screen.

Carpe diem my friends.

What if today was your last day?

...would you waste it away on such idle chit chat.

SETANSI

01-08-2003, 05:34 PM

I concur; perhaps my last post was not clear. May be this will help-
One more quote for the day
• "A diplomat is a man who thinks twice before he says nothing" ...... Fredk. Sawyer
That said I have nothing else to offer, and now back to ******* and his virtual sow chui

SETANSI

01-08-2003, 05:37 PM

Does ******* Diaz have a stalker here why cant you say ******* on this forum?
Camer0n is that pc?

Serpent

01-08-2003, 08:04 PM

Neal Cameron was a convicted sex offendor that used to post here. In an effort to stop people going on about it, the great KFO censor uberlord added his name to the list of censored words. :rolleyes:

With regard to the debate, much as it pains me to go over it again, the whole GGM thing is a bit out of context.

Originally the "Chan family story" (as it seems to be perceived) was that there was no known entity called the Green Grass Monk. Subsequently new evidence came to light that said that Green Grass Monk was actually a nick name of Choy Fook, so those people took that new evidence on board. The only change to their story was that Choy Fook was also known as GGM, nothing more. Hardly a 180 turnaround as you suggest.

extrajoseph

01-08-2003, 11:24 PM

Frank and your Sifu Lacey are big on “word of mouth” history. If it were only verbal, how would they know that the Futsan vesion of history went as far back as 1839? Just on elders like Lun Gee, Kong Hing and Tsui Kwong Yuan (all Buck Sing) say so?

If you bother to read my earlier posting on this thread, you will find there is a clear written evidence that as recent as 1997, Futsan HSG did not mentioned the GGM or Jeong Yim co-created CLF with his teacher Chan Heung.

A diplomat has to be a politician by definition, so a politician cannot be diplomatic without knowing the politics involved: The new Futsan HSG, with the help of the Cultural Department (Tourism is part of cultural activities in China), was trying to attract the tourist dollars by promoting Futsan as the birthplace of CLF, so they thought they could change history with their new “research” to coincide with their 150 years anniversary and the re-opening of the school in 2001. Frank got feed this information and started to blow his trumpet, we had a go at him, then your Sifu Lacey got onto the bandwagon in a big way and the rest is history and we have not stopped since.

What is so funny is that we fought each other like dogs and cats so they could make a few extra dollars.

So let me say it one last time, contrary to your Sifu Lacey’s assertion, no one at present, or in the past, is trying to put Jeong Yim down, he was a great martial artist and he was one of the best of “open the mountain sifus” (Hoi San Sifu) for CLF. The Chen Family (it seems everyone who is not Buck Sing or Futsan Hung Sing is Chen Family these days) is not trying to take his credits away from him, they couldn't even if they wanted to. BUT there is no evidence whatsoever, either in history or in MA contents, to suggest that he could have co-found, let alone created CLF.

You guys got no legs to stand on except you keep on saying, “This is what was passed down to us by word of mouth”. So why don’t we just agree to disagree and stop this charade right here and right now and get on with our training instead. How about it?

JosephX

Fu-Pow

01-09-2003, 10:45 AM

concur; perhaps my last post was not clear. May be this will help-
One more quote for the day
• "A diplomat is a man who thinks twice before he says nothing" ...... Fredk. Sawyer
That said I have nothing else to offer, and now back to ******* and his virtual sow chui
Report

Who is *******? Ooops...I mean who is Camer0n?

Diamond Talons

01-09-2003, 11:05 AM

Deny evolution. I'm surprised at you XJ & what is there to deny by any but those who preach such nonsense with huge holes in their theory & I don't have but some small school & even I see this thing. If you want to claim monkey as relative you go right ahead & take bunches of bananas for your family & for me I am a man always. Earth is round & we have proofs most would say yes to & Nazi's killed many peoples & we have proofs most would say yes to & evolution just theory, opinion & not fact & for a person who often makes sense it's odd you make this mistake. Maybe you make it in other things too XJ & I touch hands with lots of CLF guys as young man & they ****ed tough fighters & noone says lineage stuffs one just say I go as hard as you go & the other answer back the same & then we do it.

yik-wah-tik

01-09-2003, 03:41 PM

in regards to the green grass monk, he never had anyscars on his head and if he did then someone would have mentioned that same as they did for choy fook.

in regards to written or oral history, once again many of the southern chinese were illiterate so could not write history. they were surviving culteral revolution after cultural revolution from the opium wars to the japanese invasion. the hung sing members were heavily involved in their attempt to overthrow the chings, as well as protect their country.

when it comes to the chan family, they have admitted and publicized that it was chan yiu chi who wrote the family manual, and not chan heung himself. so being said, where are any documented proof from the 1800's that chan heung created choy lee fut. where is the actual physical proof that chan heung used hung sing before jeong yim. all this proof must be written and approved by people of that era. not a couple of generations later.
if generations later wrote the history of their ancestors someone will attempt to glorify their lineage as much as possible in an attempt to keep the memory alive. i was told by some elders that the history of clf as written by au hon chun. much of the history was written by chan family members, and that is why this controversy continues because we have our side and they fight it. but somewhere down the line someone said if you can't beat them......join them and that is why the chan clans stand on ching cho forced them to change their history. i emailed darryl choy himself and he sternly told me their were no mentions ever of ching cho in family scripts. these are family scripts and i am sure someone must have examined them with a microscope. and what almost 200 years late they have found the missing link to ching cho..........it was choy fook all along. SURPRISE!!!!! chan family got one over on us, they were going to tell us someday!

eye witness accounts are crucial in an investigation and everything else must be proven. written history must always be questioned, as well as the writer himself and his loyalties. the history was never recored by unbiased writers. they always are of the chan family. but the hung sing people now have people to tell our story and it will be told with interuption. joseph and his split personailities ask for us to prove our point with evidence.
well, this goes out to each and every chan family member on earth, this is our hung sing story, if you don't like it......."prove us wrong!!!!!" we have nothing to prove. you will not stop our history from being told as we see it. and the only thing you WILL DO is come back to this forum and ***** and complain about what so and so wrote. just like doc fai wongs book got you fools fooled. fools!

so i will take first hand knowledge from grand elder lun chee-student of tam sam and who is still alive today. according to him chan heung only taught jeong yim calligraphy and literature therefore earning the name sifu. but those who are afraid of losing their position will make the most noise. as you all still can tell i have never told you my version of the hung sing history and you will. but you are not my audience. keep your eyes out!!!!!

Fu-Pow

01-09-2003, 04:42 PM

Frank-

You keep claiming that you're gonna come out with this surprise revelation or story or whatever and yet you've never produced a god**** thing for us to look at. Stop with this nonsense...enough... you're just making yourself look worse.

Either tell us "your" history here and now or forever hold your peace.

I'm starting to feel like I'm scolding a 5 year old here:rolleyes: !

Serpent

01-09-2003, 05:22 PM

Frank, who the hell is Darryl Choy in regards to CLF? He's no more authorised a source than you are.

And as the Chan Heung story is the one generally accepted and the one that has been told all along, then you are the one trying to change things and the onus of proof is yours.

You're really making this worse and worse for yourself. :rolleyes:

extrajoseph

01-09-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by yik-wah-tik
so i will take first hand knowledge from grand elder lun chee-student of tam sam and who is still alive today. according to him chan heung only taught jeong yim calligraphy and literature therefore earning the name sifu. but those who are afraid of losing their position will make the most noise.

Frank,

If you ask Lun Chee about the Dong Tay (Eastern Embankment) incidence just before the WWII in Guangzhou, he will tell you he defeated Lee Tao from Boon Tong Ngan Gwoon soundly in front of hundreds of people. Afterward he became very fond of the Ngans and always have a good word to say about Chan Heung because the Ngnans studied with the Chan Family.

Your quote: "eye witness accounts are crucial in an investigation and everything else must be proven. written history must always be questioned, as well as the writer himself and his loyalties. the history was never recored by unbiased writers."

So when it comes to Lun Chee and you, there is only one eye witness to that incidence we should believe in, what was written from other eye witnesses is wrong. So according to you, eye witnesses are not biased only writers are biased, and living people don't tell lies, only dead people do.

You have a sense of logic as good as your sigung Lun Chee when he said Jeong Yim only learned caligraphy from Chan Heung. :rolleyes:

iron_silk

01-09-2003, 08:38 PM

Hung Sing is an off shoot of the original way back during the first generation of students. Any elders or claims they have is heavily potentially bias.

Buk Sing is an incomplete off shoot of Hung Sing couple of generations down. Why would any of the elders be considered an authority on lineage of CLF. Also due to their origin from Hung Sing would heavily influence.

Some Hung Sing branch actually agrees with Chan Family history of Chan Hueng (Despite the theory of GGM)

Surprisingly enough Hung Sing branch has had emotional out bursts over the net over WHAT? considering there was no attack from the net to them.

Also the improper misuse of current masters of Hung Sing branch in America.

The only funny is the Frank wasn't the one abusing the name of well known masters...or has he?

I WANT TO SEE FRANK CLAIM A CHAN FAMILY MEMBER TO FINALLY HAVE ENOUGH AND COME OUT TO SPEAK OUT FOR THE HUNG SING BRANCH AND DENOUNCE CHAN HEUNG AS ORIGINATOR BUT MERELY AN INSTRUCTOR TO JEONG YIM. (I wrote it annoying style)

"Chan Hueng as First master of CLF" what the heck does that even mean? ha ha ha ha

CLFNole

01-09-2003, 09:43 PM

Iron_Silk:

To say that buk sing is an "incomplete off shoot of Hung Sing" is really not a good thing to say. Although I am not a Buk Sing practioner it is not good to denounce their style.

Just because they may not have a vast number of forms doesn't mean they have an incomplete branch. Buk sing is well-known for its fighting effectiveness and Tam Sarm was known to have done a great deal with the use of the chop choy.

"Hate the playa not the game" as Stuart Scott of ESPN says.

Peace.

CLFNole

01-09-2003, 10:30 PM

Another thing I wondered. The die hard Chan Family supporters go back to Chan Yiu Chi's manuscript, while Frank goes back to what Lun Chee states as history.

I have said many times that I feel that Chan Yiu Chi's writings are somewhat biased and is a 3rd generation account of what may or may not have happened. Some things could be true while others hearsay.

Regardless, when it comes to Lun Chee it also made me think. Lun Chee followed Tam Sam who followed Liu Chan who followed Cheong Yim. If Tam Sam learned only a portion of the Hung Sing style what makes you think all of the history of Cheong Yim passed along with it. Also Lun Chee is a few generations removed from the source himself.

The bottomline is No One will ever have the complete truth, so can we all please move on and stop beating this horse that has been dead for over a year now.

Peace.

iron_silk

01-10-2003, 12:01 AM

CLFNOLE you are right!

I didn't mean to say that Buk Sing was incomplete as a system and not affective. I am sorry to have mistakeningly given the impression to all Buk Sing practitionars. What i meant was in term of the original system...as Hung Sing training was incomplete brings into question the direct passing of the system which you have raised.

But obviously Buk Sing is a well developed and affective system and I didn't mean to demean it in anyway what so ever.

extrajoseph

01-10-2003, 02:25 AM

CLFNole,

Lets say both Chan Yiu-Chi and Lun Chee could be biased. One guy (Lun) who is still alive says verbally without committing it to writing that Chan Heung only taught Jeong Yim calligraphy, while the other guy (Chan) who is dead but writes in his manuscript that he knows from his father that his grandfather Chan heung taught Jeong Yim Kung Fu. How do you verify to see which of these two guys are telling the truth? Now I am not asking for the absolute truth, only what did likely to have happened about 150 years ago. Do you think it is possible to find out? Or is it an impossible task?

JosephX

CLFNole

01-10-2003, 08:39 AM

Extrajoseph:

The thing about Chan Hueng only teaching writing seems rather crazy to me personally. Chan Hueng was a kung fu practioner otherwise what are Chan Yong Fa's people and all others coming from him doing, caligraphy?

This party of the history I am with you on. But all the other stuff I have some mixed feelings about.

Peace.

extrajoseph

01-10-2003, 11:46 AM

OK, let us move one gear up and look at what Futsan Hung Sing said about Chan Heung and Jeong Yim. What are your mixed feelings about these two co-founded CLF? Do you think it is an impossible task to resolve? Again I am not looking for the absolute truth, just the likelihood of the following scenario to have taken place. Consider each of them step by step first:

1) Jeong first studied with Chan Heung, but because his surname was not Chan, he has to leave, so Chan Heung wrote him a letter of introduction and sent him to the GGM (we have to assume this only happened to Jeong, other non-Chan students could stay).

2) Jeong learned with the GGM for 8 years while Chan Heung continue to spread his Kung Fu. Then Jeong came back with all this new stuff that was not taught by Chan Yuan-Wu, Lee Yau-San or Choy Fook (we have to assume the GGM stuff was different and better and Chan Heung did not make much progress in 8 years).

3) So Jeong taught Chan Heung all this new stuff then co-founded CLF with his old teacher (we have to assume all the old students accepted this and relearned the new stuff).

Put yourself in Jeong Yim’s shoes, would you learn with someone else for 8 years then come back and tell your old teacher how to suck eggs instead of setting up your own style? Would you bother?

Put yourself in Chan Heung’s shoes, would you send one of your best students away for 8 year then when he came back you learn new stuff from him? What would your students think of you? Why didn’t you go and learn from the GGM in the first place if he was that good?

Put yourself in Chan Heung’s student’s shoes, would you stay with your teacher while he learns new stuff from one of his old students? Why not learn from Jeong Yim direct?

Put yourself in that time frame, do you think the two and the rest of the students will get along under the circumstance and the entire scenario listed above could have happened?

JosephX

CLFNole

01-10-2003, 11:58 AM

Extrajoseph:

My answer is the following:

If in fact there was a GGM (I don't buy the convenience of Choy Fook being this person all of a sudden) and Cheong Yim was sent to study with him for whatever reason. I don't think that it is inconceivable that he could have brought back some good techniques that could have been incorporated into what Chan Hueng already created.

I know my own sifu exchanged things with his collegues and other sifus have incorporated various forms into their ciriculums so whould Chan Heung be so proud as to not take useful information even if was from a student.

Whether or not he would be considered a co-founder that would be up to everyone who wishes to continuing bickering about it but he could have been a significant contributory and later was when he further developed the hung sing branch.

You obviously have been in this a lot longer than me and know more of our history but this is what I think without any 100% answer.

Peace.

extrajoseph

01-10-2003, 04:07 PM

CLFNole,

One thing I learned from reading my history books is critical analysis. It requires us to break down the events into smaller segment and then analyze each part carefully from different angles.

So you don’t want to follow my thinking steps because I think you can sense it could lead to a breakdown in your existing held believes. I can understand that, it is not easy to face up to one’s biases; it requires mental readjustment and that is always painful.

So let us look at how you tried to fend off the challenge. You went back to your old defense, “I don’t buy the convenience of Choy Fook being this person all of a sudden” and Cheong Yim could have contributed something new. I don’t think you would go as far as Cheong Yim being a co-founder but you didn’t want to take sides. So let us confine our inquiry to these two sticking points.

1) Please tell me why it is not possible or even logical to have new information presented at the critical time? It happens to scientific inquiries all the time. We find them at the time when the interest is at its highest because people are being stimulated to find out more about the subject. I did not bother with history before, but now I am finding out new things that I didn’t know were sitting there all the time. One cannot say Chan Yiu-Chi was biased because we only discovered what he wrote years ago now.

2) If Cheong Yim in deed contributed new knowledge to Chan Heung’s already created system, then what would they be? Has anyone done any research on contents? The pro Cheong Yim camp should put forward his contribution as their main point of argument and they must be substantial to qualify him as a co-founder. Otherwise he would not be any more special than the other disciples who could have contributed new knowledge as well.

As usual, I look forward to your comments. I am not looking for a 100% answer, just what would most likely to have happened.

JosephX

CLFNole

01-10-2003, 07:43 PM

OK I do agree with you that new information can become available, however that being said something as important as the whole GGM topic should have been known about in the Chan Family. To hold sternly that he was never mentioned by Chan Yiu Chi and then suddenly a new page that fell out of the manuscript pops up with a convient revelation. I am not saying that it cannot be true, but it makes one think that it could be an attempt to cover their tracks. They speak in great length about Chan Hueng's time with Choy Fook, don't you think there would have been at least a mention of him having the alias Ching Cho War Sheung, afterall they talk about his nickname of "Rotten Head" after having his head scorched in the burning of Sil Lum Gee. Also this guy has a lot of nicknames to begin with.

I can't answer your 2nd question because I do not posses the knowledge or resources for that one. But that being said there are differences in the Hung Sing style of Cheong Yim and the Chan Family style, so he could have added somethings. It would be interesting to compare (although this will never be done due to ego's) forms from both lineages to see if there are things unique to both.

I think you think that I am a Cheong Yim supporter 100%, however the truth is that most of the CLF I learned comes from the Chan Family side. We do have connections to Cheong Yim, but of all the CLF I have seen from various parts of the world, we share the greatest similarity with the Chan Family style.

Also on a side note, you being chinese would know first hand a lot of sifus (this is an american trait as well) have a great tendency to exagerate things and feats of their sifus and thus I think a lot of history from both sides becomes exagerations that people believe is fact.

Peace.

P.S. I do my best to answer your questions but some of them are tough ones.

extrajoseph

01-10-2003, 09:02 PM

CLFNole,

Thanks for the nice chat, that got me thinking a bit more as well.

Just one last remark, the whole GGM topic did not become a critical issue until the last couple of years when Futsan started to change history, so I presume there is no incentive for the Chan Family to publish what was in the manuscript until now.

Ching Cho was just a monk's name so it would not be half as important as "Rotten Head", which linked Choy Fook back to the burning of the Shaolin Temple.

If Frank and his lot didn't push, I would imagine the Chan Family would say nothing at all; they are a secretive lot.

You are right about the exaggeration bit, I have met a few of the Futsan elders and they are nothing like what Frank make them out to be. They will tell you quite candidly in private, the whole history thing is to make some money for the city.

I feel it is important to counter these exaggerations before they become "facts", worse still, before they become part of the westerners belief system.

Take care, nei hai yat gor cho ming jad.

JosephX ;)

CLFNole

01-10-2003, 09:14 PM

I thought the GGM thing emerged in the 70s? Wouldn't they have squashed the idea then?

I know people point to a novel about the GGM but do you know who started talking about the whole thing first?

Was it talked about through the Hung Sing lineage? I know your kung fu comes from Chan Yiu Chi but I would bet that you had friends or people you knew that were from the Hung Sing line. If so did you ever talk about history?

Peace.

extrajoseph

01-11-2003, 07:27 PM

CLFNole,

Since Frank's outbursts I have done quite a bit of research on this “GGM thing” as you put it. I went to Futsan, King Mui, Kong Moon, Toisan, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore and I collected just about all the available information I could find. You asked me, so here is my personal view of history. I am not out here to make trouble and if the Buck Sing studnets are offended by what I am about to say, my apology in advance.

Yes, it first started in the early 70s, just after the Cultural Revolution when all traditional values were questioned. It started with a small number of young Buck Sing practitioners in Hong Kong with the establishment of the CLF Buck Sing Association. It was quickly contained (not squashed) by the elders of the time through the formation of the Chan Heung Memorial Association soon after.

The bad blood went as far back as before the First and Second World War in Mainland China, mainly in Guangzhou. There were two main causes, one was political and the other was personal. Political wise, it has to do with the opposite camps between the Nationalist and the Communist Chinese. Personal wise, it has to do with the continual grudge fights between Buck Sing (who were trying hard to exert themselves as a young and separate group) and the rest of CLF. There were some legendary fights between Boon Tong Ngnan Gwoon and Tarm Sam’s Siu Buck Gwoon.

When the Communists came to power, Hong Kong was cut off from the Mainland and a lot of the Buck Sing practitioners who fled the Communists prospered and flourished in Hong Kong, business and student wise. They began to make a reputation as good street fighters and they felt they have protected the reputation of CLF in a fast growing colony. Again they wanted recognition and appreciation from the rest of the CLF clan. Since they are the youngest off shoot and they have fewer forms, they felt they have to fight their way to legitimacy in the eyes of the other older lineage holders, in particular the lines closest to Chan Heung.

The Buck Sing “Young Guns” were now much better educated than their forebears and realized “the pen is mightier than the sword”. They began to organize themselves and started to push for a “post-modernist” revision of history by using a fictional character, the GGM, first made popular in a pulp MA novel called “The External History of Futsan Grandmaster (Chung Si) Cheung Hung Sing” (in Chinese the term "External History" is a euphemism for fiction). If you can't win with the old history, you change it or deny it.

Their attempt got as far as re-writings mainly done in Hong Kong and in English publications (in fact you helped me with my research here and showed me Lee Koon Hung was not the first to mention the name GGM, but the President of the CLF Buck Sing Association at that time). What they did at the time was unknown to the Mainland practitioners because there were minimal contacts between the two places.

The second push started about 4 years ago after the unification of Hong Kong and with the completely opening up of China to foreign influence. The old guards are now either dead or too old to worry about tradition and history.

When Futsan Hung Sing with a long and glorious history asked for help and support from Hong Kong to rebuild their Ancestral School and to expand local tourism, the same Buck Sing “Young Guns”, who are now matured and rich, jumped at the chance and poured money into the project. Again they can see an opportunity to re-assert themselves through the GGM story, but now with the negotiated backing of the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon to give them a front and a legitimate plateform. Futsan Hung Sing has nothing to lose if Cheung Yim became the co-founder. If you look carefully at who is really behind the scene in Futsan, you will see they are not Hung Sing but Buck Sing people from Hong Kong.

A lot of people were disgusted by the politics and the senseless manipulation of history, the Guangzhou Buck Sing in particular, so they decided to set up their own Chi Jo Gwoon (also with backing from Hong Kong) in Siu Buck District Guangzhou near where Tarm Sam first taught, to be independant of the Hong Kong-Futsan influence.

As a result of all this, Futsan Hung Sing (who needed the money), Frank (who needed the Futsan connection), Dave Lacey (who needed love and recognition) and us (who is bored and curious), all got caught up in this little drama of history in the making.

LET ME STRESS THIS IN UPPER CASE, NOT ALL BUCK SING PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED, MATTER OF FACT ONLY A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF THEM DO AND THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, I DON'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE OR ANY GROUP.

JosephX

PS: The terms used in this forum by Frank are very confusing, when he says Hung Sing, he really means the element of Futsan Hung Sing who is involved with Chan Heung denial, when he says the Chan family, he means anyone who cannot trace their connection to Jeong Yim and those who is opposed to his point of view. Just the way he thinks, he polarizes everything and we get affected by the way he used words, so we need to be mindful of that.

JAZA

01-11-2003, 08:20 PM

I recognize it: I am bored and curious:D

CLFNole

01-11-2003, 08:20 PM

I had heard about the thing you mentioned about the Futsan Hung Sing school and who was behind it more or less. I wasn't sure if it was true or not but I guess it might be.

In any event it is good in a way that the place is recognized.

Peace.

extrajoseph

01-11-2003, 09:27 PM

Futsan Hung Sing had a glorious past, according to the book "The Martial Arts History of Guangdong", in their haydays around 1921 they had over 3000 members and they were very strict with their rules. Many were involved with revolutionary activities, not only during the Ching Dynasty but also during the Taiping Rebillion, the Sino-Japanese war, and the Chinese Civil War between the KMT and the Communist Party.

Contrary to Frank's claim, their history is one of the best documented of all of the CLF branches.

With continual opening up of China and foreign students making pilgramage there in an increasing number every year, CLF is under going a mini-revival at the moment, we will not hear the last of the history debates yet.

The Chan Heung denial camp is feeling the heat at the moment, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Chen Yong-Fa, the great great grandson of Chan Heung. First by Dave Lacey (connected with Kong Hing and Lun Chee of Hong Kong Buck Sing) through his webpage rambling and recently by Chan Kam-Fai (the instigator of this charade on the use of the term "Jeung Mun"), who is a student of Tsui Kwong Yuan, who is Buck Sing from Hong Kong as well, not Futsan Hung Sing or any other Hung Sing.

The irony is Tarm Sam not only studied with Liu Chan, who was a student of Cheung Yim, but he also studied with Chan Koon-Pak for a while, so that made him a Chan Femily member as well, according to Frank's definition.

The bottom line is people don't play with the idea of changing history unless they have some good reasons, look for these hidden factors and they will lead us to a better understanding of historical truth.

CLFNole

01-11-2003, 11:21 PM

Extrajoseph:

Doesn't Choy Kwong Yuen have a hung sing connection since his father Choy Cheung also studied with Tong Shek in additional to Tam Sam.

I also read Choy Cheung studied the pole with Tse She. Was he a CLF practioner?

Choy Cheong also studied with Hung Tak Kong of CLF, which branch was he?

Peace.

extrajoseph

01-12-2003, 12:50 AM

There were 2 Tong Shek, one was Chan Shing's disciple, the other was Wong Cheng and Chan Yiu-Chi's disciple.

Tsui Cheung first studied with Hung Dak Kwong (Lau Chung and Lee Yan's student) and Tarm Sam in Guangzhou, later he did further study with Chan Shing and Chan Shing's disciple Tong Shek in Futsan, so he has connection with both Futsan Hung Sing and Tarm Sam Buck Sing as well as the "Chan Family" because Lau Chung was Yuan Hoi's student and Lee Yan studied with Lung Chee-Choi. Story has it that he opposed Tarm Sam's students calling themselves Buck Sing but lost out.

Tsui Kwong Yuan only studied with his father and in Hong Kong he has strong ties with certain elements of Buck Sing. A little known fact is his wife, Madame Cheung Lai-Ying, studied with Ho Ngeo, who was Ngan Yiu-Ting's disciple, so she was a "Chan Family" disciple as well. You see, when we start looking, everyone can trace their lineage back to the "Chan Family", some closer and some more distant but we are all one family with the same ancestry.

In my previous posting when I said "Hong Kong Buck Sing" I was referring to the small group of people coming mainly from a Buck Sing background and is based mainly in Hong Kong that is pushing for a change in history by using the GGM to position Cheung Yim as the co-founder of CLF. Please understand I am using the term "Hong Kong Buck Sing" in a very narrow and perverted sense, my apology to all other innocent Buck Sing brothers (and sisters).

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 12:06 AM

pong-ping.....

chasincharpchui

05-12-2006, 04:40 AM

pong-ping.....

have something to say Fu-Pow?

everyone is waiting

Eddie

05-12-2006, 05:35 AM

have something to say Fu-Pow?

everyone is waiting

aggghhh, let it go! ;). the rest of us dont care about that whole issue really, take it to PM if it really concerns you.

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 06:33 AM

Fu Pow,

IF you brought back these posts that were from 3 years ago, it seems like you are still trying to start up trouble.

in any case, by now in 2006, the buk sing group has not said anything historically about the green grass monk. But, according to the Fut San HSK manager Huang SHenJiang, at the time of the Japanese Invavsion of the late 1930's the actual ancestral tablet was excavated which has the Green Grass Monks name on it.

In the 1950's Premier Zhou En Lai instructed Hung SIng Kwoon disciple CHen Yilin to write the 100 years from beginning to end of the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon and was also instructed to write about the green grass monk.

now there some information for you.

see, fu pow, you are in the dark about many things.

but come to daddy, i will shed some light on the world for you.

by now with your little kid attitude I am secretly hoping they get to you. sometimes all someone needs is a good ass whoopin for people to change their perspectives.

hsk

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 06:53 AM

fu pow posted this in hopes to draw up some more drama.

when the buk sing people and hung sing people begin to stay quiet, i can assure you that they are staying quiet because something is going to go down.

I know you feel safe where you are fu pow, and i think you are acting like a kid to re-post this, so you will get yours in the end for this drama.

still, the posts are only one sided...chan sided. there is the fut san hsk perspective as well.

so fu pow give us some more. come on dude.

hsk

Eddie

05-12-2006, 09:13 AM

now thats one way to get information out of Frank. Thanks fu pow, you got Frank to give us some clues as to the info he has about the GGM and those tablets and stuff.

Maybe if it continious like this, we might get him to reveal some more.

its been too long now frank. you gotto give us something. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease. :cool:

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 09:55 AM

when the buk sing people and hung sing people begin to stay quiet, i can assure you that they are staying quiet because something is going to go down.

I know you feel safe where you are fu pow, and i think you are acting like a kid to re-post this, so you will get yours in the end for this drama.

hsk

by now with your little kid attitude I am secretly hoping they get to you. sometimes all someone needs is a good ass whoopin for people to change their perspectives.

And who is "they?" Who's comin for me Frank? You? :rolleyes:

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 12:43 PM

fu pow,

trust me. if you and i were to ever mix hands you would know the instant one of my hands drop on you that you would be in a world of trouble. See, i've never approached my CLF from a performers point of view. My forms are not pretty, but they are fast, and you COULD see the power in them as well.

many thugs, and other gung fu people don't like to play hands with me because they say my hands hurt them. and i'm just playing with them. imagine if i were to use full force.

once again. i'm a fighter with chinese martial arts background, not a performer.

but you haven't ****ed me off yet. so you are safe from me for now. LOL.

but its dem buk sing fellers YOU have to worry about.

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 01:40 PM

fu pow,

trust me. if you and i were to ever mix hands you would know the instant one of my hands drop on you that you would be in a world of trouble. See, i've never approached my CLF from a performers point of view. My forms are not pretty, but they are fast, and you COULD see the power in them as well.

Well we've never seen your form so how could we judge?

many thugs, and other gung fu people don't like to play hands with me because they say my hands hurt them. and i'm just playing with them. imagine if i were to use full force.

Like who?

once again. i'm a fighter with chinese martial arts background, not a performer.

but you haven't ****ed me off yet. so you are safe from me for now. LOL.

Oh thank god, I was so worried.

but its dem buk sing fellers YOU have to worry about.

Who's coming to Seattle to see me? Name some names cause Buk Sing is a big fraternity and I want be sure that I have enough tea and crumpets for everyone.

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 02:07 PM

like your moms, fu pow thats who.

I'm laughin' cuz when fu pow gets it, i want to be there to take video.

but guess what, fut pow's toooo pooosie to accept Hung Sing Kwoon's challenge.

i think he wants to compare forms with them tho.

ooooh.......wait ...........compare this.........

ok everybody, i want a consensus on who thinks who is better at perorming forms.

Fu Pow

http://media.putfile.com/Ba-Gua-Saam87 (http://http://media.putfile.com/Ba-Gua-Saam87)

or buk sing

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94056851902076883&q=choy+li+fut&pl=true

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 02:12 PM

It's funny you made the same threats to me 4 years ago and nothing happened.

I think you're living in a little delusional dream world where people fly half way around the world to beat somebody up over something they wrote on an internet message board.

If they did they'd be insane. So are you saying that these supposed Buk Sing people coming to get me are insane?

Now Frank, is that any way to talk about your friends?

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 02:17 PM

ok everybody, i want a consensus on who thinks who is better at perorming forms.

Fu Pow

http://media.putfile.com/Ba-Gua-Saam87 (http://http://media.putfile.com/Ba-Gua-Saam87)

or buk sing

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94056851902076883&q=choy+li+fut&pl=true

Actually, lets compare apples and apples:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=94056851902076883&q=choy+li+fut&pl=true

and

http://media.putfile.com/Mak-Sifu-Won-Hop-Kuen

And now let's take a look at Frank's video.....

Ah well..... I guess we'll just have to take his word that he's really, really good.

FP

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 02:19 PM

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 02:24 PM

oh about my video clip,

you won't see it. The only video clip these people would like to see is my cup choy smashing your nose to pieces.

in fact only the real fighters want to see that. all of you form *****'s are only spectators to the CLF game. Fu Pow i would have asked you to become the mascot but you are already a cheerleader.

Fu Pow, how come you base worthiness on forms and not self defense?

did your sifu teach you that the only way to judge a persons gung fu worth is thru his forms?

Don't you think some one who only wants to compare forms for judgement is more intellectual than a real fighter? it kind of says "PUSSIE" to me.

I will compare usage video clips against yours any day fu pow are you up to that challenge?

i'll blow you away.

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 02:27 PM

hahahahahahahahaha.....

he thinks he could judge my fighting skill based on whether i have a good hand form.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.....he's no fighter.......ahahahahahaha.........he only has forms......because he's safer that way.....hahahahahaha...............he'd probably break those long skinny arms on me if he swung......hahahahahahahaha
.......he doesn't know how to fight.....hahahahahahahahahahaha....

Ok. Sorry about that. Just had to let that out.

sorry.

:o

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 02:33 PM

YESHHHHHH.

The Buk Sing Kwoon People are Psycopathic clf killers whose sole purpose it to irradicate people like you fu pow.

hell, i want the people as my friends. would hate them as my enemy.

But Fu Pow, are you asking if i'm saying they are insane because YOU thin they must be insane to EVER try touch YOU???????

it sounds to me like you are.

That's because you're only semi-literate.

but i'm sure your knee's would be knockin' if you saw dem buk sing cats coming down your street. they would have parade of Mother Effers following dem too.

hahahaha.............HA!

So are you saying that these Bak Sing people coming to get me are going to give me a gang style beat down?

Now...I'm sure that you think you're doing them a favor by making them sound tough or whatever....but think about it really....this is a public forum.

Potential students looking to find out more about kung fu are going to read this and think....should I join Bak Sing? I want to learn kung fu and by the way this hskwarrior is making it sound these guys are a gang. Maybe I'll do something a little safer like Chan Family Choy Lay Fut, those guys are very upfront and stress health and self-defense.

And you see Frank, in this day and age battles are not won by how many people you can beat up....its won by how many dollars you can make. There's always going to be more people that want to do kung fu for fitness and self-defense rather than be some kind of bad ass gang member.

So really in kind of an indirect way.....your doing negative advertising for the Bak Sing Gwoon.

Is that really what you want to do? Is that what any of you want?

Maybe some of you are content to win a battle here and there (by intimidation) but ultimately you will lose the war (economic gain).

Welcome to 2006.

FP

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 02:43 PM

hahahahahahahahaha.....

he thinks he could judge my fighting skill based on whether i have a good hand form.

:o

Ahhh...and that's where you and Bak Sing Gwoon made a fatal flaw in understanding what I wrote. Yes, I think Bak Sing forms look more impractical than what we do. So do many kung fu styles.

But really, all Tao Lu, even what we do or Sifu Mak does is a little bit impractical.

Its up to the individual to find out what in the form is is practical, ie practice-able BY THEM in fighting.

What forms can give you though is a general idea of the condition and shape that somebody is in and also there understanding of body mechanics and movement.

(Personally, I think the Chan Family style reflects a more advanced understanding of movement. Internal arts even a higher understanding.)

They can tell a lot but they won't tell much about how your skill as a fighter and how much you have torn apart that form to make it work for you. Sometimes the simplest things end up being the most effective even though they don't reflect and understanding of the most complex movement principles.

FP

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 03:12 PM

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 03:36 PM

what qualifies you to comment on BUK SIng CLF?

Have you ever studied it?

Have you ever fought a buk sing Guy?

What is your personal experience with Buk SIng Choy Lee Fut?

I'll tell you........NONE.

SO you are not qualified to make such comments because you have no experience to stand on.

I don't need qualifications to write my opinion on a public forum, just like you don't need qualifications to write your retarded version of history.

IF you think Buk SIng CLF is impractical by the way their forms look, and you have not seen any of them actually use it in real life combat, then you are a WANNA-BE who wants ta be heard.

How can you say anything is "IMPRACTICAL" about something you have no experience in?

Well, if I was talking about praying mantis or something that would be different. But CLF is CLF, all the same seeds just executed differently. I'll say it again their forms look very impractical. At least the one that I have seen. And I've seen a lot of Bak Sing form, I've seen all the Malaysia and Singapore videos over the last several years.

Does that mean that Bak Sing people can't fight? Show me where I ever wrote that? I bet some of them can't though, the ones that think that Tao Lu=fighting.

But I'll bet you anything that their fighting doesn't even resemble their forms at all aside from the Sau Chui here and there.

I would never put down Tai Chi and say its impractical because they move so damm slowly. As a fighter I am able to see effective gung fu techniques even in the most garbage of techniques.

Ha ha...Taiji Tao Lu IS impractical. You think you can fight at that speed? Taiji application is fast, faster than Choy Lay Fut in fact. Taiji form looks beautiful, the application is ugly and nasty...mostly joint locking and breaking.

However, you are just a forms guy. you know the one the fighters ingnore because you have no real fighting experience.

Trust me dude you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not claiming to be the grand pooba champion fighter but I've had my fair share of fights both on the street and in competition.

I spar on a pretty consistent basis with Havick01 who posts on this forum. Oh BTW he's a former Golden Gloves boxer. Ask him yourself. Don't let my boyish face and calm demeanor fool you, I will kick out your legs from under you and clock you straight in the face before you hit the ground.

it would truly tell in your forms if you have ever had a real fight before. Only then do you know and realize what it takes in real life combat. and fu pow you move extremely slow. that kind of movement will end your fighting career in a heart beat.

Well which is it Frank? On one hand you want to say that forms don't tell what kind of fighter you are and now your saying that my form is slow so I don't know how to fight?

You can't have both ways. Either form equates to fighting or it doesn't equate to fighting.

Personally, I think it can tell you some things but its definitely not the whole story. For me speed is not the defining factor in whether a form is executed correctly or not.

As for you, we don't have any of the story. Forms or fighting..... just a bunch of claims from a keyboard warrior. Grow a pair and post a video of something....anything.

FP

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 03:47 PM

no i think Tai Chi is faster than YOUR choy lee fut.

at the same time you are no fighter, its painfully obvious, so you are not qualified to comment on what you are observing because you have no experience.

hearing from someone with no fighting experience is like hearing from the Peanut gallerie.

a fighter can tell by looking at your form and the way you execute the techniques whether or not you are a fighter.

your sifu doesn't move like you, and its common for students to move live their sifu's of have some flair like their sifu, what happened to you?

and oh, i guarantee you would never reach my legs, but your legs are really long and break really easily. don't forget, i got you on at least 15 years experience, period.

see, you don't know how i deal with sweepers. you don't know how i deal with a punch or a sow choy. so all you are basing your comments on are theories. " I want to do this, and then do that, but only if frank stands still, maybe then i can get him!!!!!!" NOT. it would never happen.

i told you before, never underestimate me. I'm a sneaky ******* when it comes to fighting.

you wanna fight me fu pow? i need a good laugh.

hski

hskwarrior

05-12-2006, 03:50 PM

like i said, if you wish to post usage video clips then you have a deal.

other than that, i know no matter how good my form could be, you will always be the "HATER" fut pow.

I don't need to hear your comments of judegements on a 'FORM" all i care about is can you use what you got in the streets?

and you are too soft fu pow.

Fu-Pow

05-12-2006, 04:07 PM

Relatively speaking, I don't think I'm the one that's soft Frank. ;-).

What a stupid comment too and just shows how ignorant you are about martial arts. The progression in martial arts is always from harder to softer. The hardness is inside not outside...like steel wrapped in cotton. Doesn't matter the style. Look at Poon Sing, he moves so softly and yet he was at our school folding the heavy bag in half with his chaap chui.

But keep on flexing those muscles through the form Frank, the girls really like it.

Why don't I move like my Sifu? Why don't you move like Shaquille Oneil? Here's a hint, more than a foot of height difference, totally different build and disposition. However, pretty much everything that you've cricized my form on is what I learned from my Sifu. So keep on criticizing because you're criticizing my Sifu as much as me. Talk about foot in mouth.

You never addressed my comment that you claim that form doesn't equate to fighting and now you're judging my fighting capability based on my form.

Ah now it all makes sense.....your basing everything on my form clips....now I see why your so afraid to post your own forms....because to you form is everything.

And you can save your compliant partner usage clips. Show me a public peformance in front of 500 people (which BTW both of my clips were, one of which was in Chinatown and ended up in the Asian Weekly newspaper even though I'm not asian) or show me a clip of you using your super deadly counter Sau Chui techniques in a real fight or ring match.

FP