Hung Ga and Choy Lee Fut

[Falcor]

COuld someone tell me what the fundamental differences between these two really are? I thought I knew, but I am just re-evaluating my knowledge. Since both are descendants of the southern shaolin family of arts (with CLF adding northern elements), is there really a asignificant difference? I guess I am referring to their energies, power development, strategies and tactics for the most part. Also, Hung is well known for incorporating some hard Chikung aspects in their training - does CLF do that too? What is the internal training like in CLF - moredynamic tension-esque like HG or more northern - loose and suuple, etc? Thanks for any input.

[Gwa Sow Chop]

Wow, that would take one heck of a thread to sort out.

Problem is that if you had 6 CLF or GH guys in a room and asked them thos questions....you would have 18 arguements going on.
There are several general diferences between the arts, but the myriad of differences that the seperate schools employ in teachingthe arts compound this phenomena.

The simple fact is that these arts are very dissimilar, but getting agreement on exact specifics is very hard.

Some hung gur guys play on the very edge of the power scale, the hung that I was taught is much softer and relaxed....closer to my clf training. Both are "correct".

Some CLF is extremely crisp, tight and sharp, I have seen others perform an amorphously loose style with no real clear deliniation between technique that I can see.

Very different....yet all valid.
All sons and daughters from the same lines.

train hard
GSC

[Fu-Pow]

eh hem *clears throat*.....where should we start. Speaking as a person who studies CLF but has some limited experience in Hung Ga I can tell you that there are some major fundamental differences.

Firstly, according to my Sifu CLF was originally designed to combat Hung Gar or "Hung Gar"-like styles. Hung Ga predates CLF by at least a few hundred years. What I'm not clear about is who knew these Hung-like styles? Was it the Ching imperial troops?

Anways, eventually the two styles became "friends" and Wing Chun became a source of rivalry for CLF, at least in Hong Kong.

The two styles are not completely different though. CLF draws on a lot of the same frame work that Hung Ga is built on. The founders of CLF must have had some experience in Hung Ga or something like Hung Ga. You see similar stances and some similar hand techs.

However, the major difference I believe is in the "jing/ging" or way that power is delivered. CLF draws on the more Northern inspired theory that hard ging is contained within soft movements.

Hung Ga's ging theory is someting more akin to soft being "carried" by hard and hard being "carried" by soft. So in Hung Ga you will see hard chi gung movements, in CLF not so much. Although some techniques in CLF do require hard external ging.

So what does this mean practically. In CLF you will see little if any tension in the external muscle until the movement is completed. There is a "snap" at the end of the movement, not unlike cracking a whip.

The tension is to stop the movement and release the ging rather than to deliver the force. I think of the waist as an "accelerator" of ging. The movement has already started externally and the the waist adds to the centrifugal momentum that the arms are already generating. At some point after this accleration you just sort of "let go" and the ging is released. The tension at the end is to "snap" and to regain control.

In Hung Gar some external muscle tension is carried all the way through the movement. It doesn't really have this "ballistic" sense of "accelerating" and "launching" your momentum outward. In this sense, Hung players have more control. They develop hard ging by combining the breath, alignment and muscle tension. Some Hung Players might be able to comment more as I have limited experience.

In addition, the complexity and depth of the footwork is different. CLF is known for its mobile, flexible and deceptive footwork. Its very hard to determine which direction a CLF player is going to go next and which direction an attack is going to come from. CLF is the king of scrappy off balance cheap shots.

Hung Ga on the other hand has more solid, rooted footwork. The depth of the stance is lower. The footwork is simpler and more straight forward.

In addition, Hung Ga hand techinique tends to be shorter. Althought they do mix it up with some long range techs, the majority of Hung is inside work, elbows, tiger claws, trips, etc.

So you can imagine why CLF was designed to fight Hung Ga. While Hung Ga would be trying to move inside on the CLF player up root him and hammer him with hard penetrating attacks, the CLF player would be moving around the Hung Ga player, evading, moving upredictably and looking for an opening to launch a continous blitzkrieg -style attack.

As I tell my fellow students....Hung Ga is like thunder, CLF is like lightning.

I hope my appraisal was balanced. I can't help but be biased because I practice CLF.

[Falcor]

Thanks guys, that was some cool a$$ information :)

A couple more questions if you don't mind?

1. Since CLF has more...evasive and mobile footwork, is this akin to how Northern Mantis footwork works?

2. I realize that "real" fights are always "short and close", but there is some theoretical base range that a certain art plays off of. I get the impression CLF is more long to medium, and HG ir more medium to short. Is this accurate?

3. How much emphasis does CLF place on chin-na and shuaijiao type of techniques. AFAIK, in comparison, HG seems to have a lot of Chin-Na (with a "tiger" aspect/flavor to them - ASAIK) and so does Northern Mantis (another northern art).

4. Is there any internal training done in CLF? For instance, HG has their Iron Wire set. Does CLF have anything similar? Does it have aspects of internal work spingled amongst its curriculum like the HG-like arts do?

5. I've heard that CLF has some 100+ forms in its repertoire. How is this really taught? What I mean is, is it really that, a repertoire for variety and interest, and is that 100+ figure a compiled sum of the various different branches of CLF, or do each bracnhes have that many forms? I'd think it'd be pretty tought to really learn and "get" ALL of them, so is there some core sets that are the absolute must - i.e. a core curriculum of 10 hand forms and the other 90 are "elective"?

Last one, I promise :)

6. Does CLF have specific drills and exercises to develop ging that's analogous to pole shaking of Chen Taiji or long spear training of Baji? Or anything like that with or without equipment?

Thanks a bunch folks!

[Gwa Sow Chop]

Fu Pow:

The respectfully disagree with the notion that Hung styles...or hung like styles....Black tiger, sil lum etc. have less mobile or less deceptive footwork. Once again this depends on the school, sifu and not so much the style. Give a good engineer a bunch of metal and he produces a formulae one racer, give another the same raw materials, and he gives you a go kart. I can tell you that many hung based systems are super mobile and can hold thier own with other systems....

Let me tell you about the hung/sil lum I learned.

"Its very hard to determine which direction a Sil Lum player is going to go next and which direction an attack is going to come from. Sil Lum (that I learnt) is the king of scrappy off balance cheap shots. "

See what I mean.

We are only able to make generalizations according to our scope of knowledge at that point in time.
I choose not to make such generalizations.

Train hard
GSC

[SiuHung]

That was a good contrast and comparison Fu-Pow. As a Hung player with extremely limited CLF experience, one thing I can note is that CLF uses more twisting horse stances, where HG will use a bow and arrow or square horse to deliver power. Also in terms of fighting, HG tends to make a bridge and then maintain it, trying to control from the initial point of contact to the finish. From what I've seen this is different from CLF, which in my opinion is much more "busy", less reliance on the bridge and more on reigning down multiple blows. Also, more kicks in CLF, proabably the Northern influence.

Over all Fu-pow, I think the point you make that CLF was designed to combat HG, and /or HG-like styles may be right in some ways. It does seem to be the antithesis of HG from a tactical standpoint.
Mike

[travelsbyknight]

Choy li fut has hundreds of forms...but they all repeat the same movements...just in a different order and depending on what move the form is trying to emphasize. I think this style is going to go toward the dinosaurs if someone doesn't chop it down. Seriously. Who the heck has time to learn all those forms?

I've been reading this hung gar/choy li fut debate and all I can say is that you're all right and you're all wrong at the same time. Hung gar can be short and quick like choy li fut. Choy li fut can be long and powerful. I hardly see any difference in the styles at all besides the enegy. I hardly see a difference between any of the Soutern arts. They're all the same but at different ranges with difdferent gings. Don't kill me.

[Mika]

I am gonna go with GSC on this one, although that's not a good answer to the original question. However, in my case, I have not even sparred with a Hung Gar player, so I am not qualified to answer. Sorry..:o

However, there are differences that relate to the styles in question and not just the person. People with more experience both have and should continue to elaborate on that.

TBK, I must very strongly disagree with you. Yes, CLF is my style, but that's how I also know something about it.

Choy Lee Fut is one of the most widespead styles of kung fu and even one of the most widespead martial arts. It doubt it will die of extinction any time soon.

The approximate number of Kuens or forms in Choy Lee Fut is 200. Considering it takes anywhere from three to five years for a person to really learn a form and to apply it in an exemplary manner, it would be impossible for any one man to master all the forms of Choy Lee Fut. That is not even remotely the intention. The fact that Choy Lee Fut caters to so many different body and mind types is one of the secrets of its success. The huge number of forms further supports this aspect. Historical reasons also explain this philosophy.

One master of Choy Lee Fut once told me that learning 20-30 forms really well (also knowing how to apply them) would be a lifetime well spent :)

TBK, I know you are just kidding. But just in case you or someone reading this thread didn't know for sure...;)

Peace,

Mika

[Ben Gash]

the most number of CLF hand forms in a lineage is about forty. between the lineages, there's still only around fifty hand forms. Within these forms there are systems within the system. So there are 15 longarm sets, 15 animal boxing sets, 8 Bot Gwa sets, Lohan Qigong sets, 3 drunken sets etc.
Most CLF students will learn between 15 and 30 hand forms. This really isn't different to many other styles. The rest of the 100+ forms figure is made up of 2 person hand forms (half a dozen), weapons and 2 person weapon forms.
Travelsbyknight, if you showed me Hongquan and Huaquan I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which.
Why do people always criticise CLF for it's number of forms? 7 star mantis, Mizhong Lohan, Wuzhuquan and many others have just as many forms.
As for learning them all, well, I'm hoping to be training until I'm 80 at least. At a form a year I should manage to learn most of the rest in the next 55 years :cool:
CLF works on all ranges, and contains large amounts of Chin Na and Shuai Jiao applications (after all, the waist twisting lends itself to it).
CLF has several internal sets, both Qigong sets and combat sets with an internal flavour.
Siu Hung, bridging is hugely important in CLF, and if anything CLF tends to be less busy because of all the big hits and closing footwork.

[hasayfu]

This is an interesting discussion.

Fu-Pow, your perception of HG is pretty good though I may nit pick on the mechanics. you say, "It doesn't really have this "ballistic" sense of "accelerating" and "launching" your momentum outward. " You also mention centrifugal force.

This is a great observation. My own studies have come up with the analogy while other systems use centrifugal force to generate power (The rock on string), HG uses centripetal force to generate power (drawing into the center).

This is my own theory and it has holes but here's why I say it. While there are the swinging, ballistic attacks of other systems, the signature moves draw the opponent in while attacking out. This effectively causes your opponent to run into your attack. It lends itself to the inside nature of HG and generates lots of power at short distance. It is also consistent with bridging. Once the bridge is set, there is no letting go until the opponent is made to feel more and more uncomfortable.

Your observation on control is also key. One of the 12 bridges is Lau or reserve. The structure is always maintained. This allows both a sensitivity and the ability to adjust the attack real time. Power is still generated but it's more like fa-jing from tai chi then rock on a string variety. One reminder, the tension that we keep is not muscular tension. It's structural and I liken it to Peng of TaiChi. (though different in it's expression) I've been using the analogy, it's like the tension of a tennis raquet string. Doesn't use a lot of energy to keep it there but it is powerful enough to bounce what it contacts.

For footwork, the rooted stances are really used to aid in this drawing in. In practice, a HG player would only be totally rooted when the opponent is off balance and helpless to escape. (Usually caused by the process of rooting). So I would agree that the foot work is simpler in this sense. There isn't a lot of in and out. Like GSC said, it's hard to tell where a HG player is until it's too late.

Just some of my own discoveries to share. Thoughts?

[Fu-Pow]

A couple more questions if you don't mind?

1. Since CLF has more...evasive and mobile footwork, is this akin to how Northern Mantis footwork works?

FP: From what I've seen of NM it seems to be more linear in nature. CLF adapted the northern techs into a southern frame work so our footwork tends to more around the opponent rather than aim straight through them.

2. I realize that "real" fights are always "short and close", but there is some theoretical base range that a certain art plays off of. I get the impression CLF is more long to medium, and HG ir more medium to short. Is this accurate?

Yes. Every art has strengths and weaknesses. CLF is a bit weaker than Hung Ga in the short range. But that is not it's main strategy.

FP: How much emphasis does CLF place on chin-na and shuaijiao type of techniques. AFAIK, in comparison, HG seems to have a lot of Chin-Na (with a "tiger" aspect/flavor to them - ASAIK) and so does Northern Mantis (another northern art).

Lots of joint locking, some sweeps and some throws.

4. Is there any internal training done in CLF? For instance, HG has their Iron Wire set. Does CLF have anything similar? Does it have aspects of internal work spingled amongst its curriculum like the HG-like arts do?

FP:The only branch I know of that has the internal sets is the Chan Family Hung Sing. What I've seen of them they tend to be very soft on the outside. This is consistent with CLF however which uses hard ging concealed in soft movements.

5. I've heard that CLF has some 100+ forms in its repertoire. How is this really taught? What I mean is, is it really that, a repertoire for variety and interest, and is that 100+ figure a compiled sum of the various different branches of CLF, or do each bracnhes have that many forms? I'd think it'd be pretty tought to really learn and "get" ALL of them, so is there some core sets that are the absolute must - i.e. a core curriculum of 10 hand forms and the other 90 are "elective"?

FP: This varies from branch to branch. I made a compilation list of all CLF forms from all branches with input from around 20-30 CLF players world wide. I came up with about 180 known forms.

My branch probably has on the order of 40-50 forms.

The thing about CLF is that it was really widespread in Southern China. It was an art that was supposed to be desseminated to the people and was not a "family" art really. So that means that depending on where the art was it might absorb different influences and evolve differently. Hence, the great variety in curriculums.

The core hand techniques (the 10 seeds) across branches are pretty much the same though. Although even those might be executed slightly differently.

CLF has a huge amount of weapons forms and in my opinion some of them are not very good. The CLF masters of old tried to incorporate and adapt many weapons into the curriculum. They adapted some of them more successfully then others.


6. Does CLF have specific drills and exercises to develop ging that's analogous to pole shaking of Chen Taiji or long spear training of Baji? Or anything like that with or without equipment?

FP: Not that I know of. The weapons forms like spear and staff help to develop this though.

[Fu-Pow]

The respectfully disagree with the notion that Hung styles...or hung like styles....Black tiger, sil lum etc. have less mobile or less deceptive footwork.

FP: I respectfully disagree also. CLF's footwork is pretty crazy really. I'm comparing Hung to CLF and there definitely is a difference.

[Fu-Pow]

This is a great observation. My own studies have come up with the analogy while other systems use centrifugal force to generate power (The rock on string), HG uses centripetal force to generate power (drawing into the center).

FP: Hmmm...very interesting observation.

This is my own theory and it has holes but here's why I say it. While there are the swinging, ballistic attacks of other systems, the signature moves draw the opponent in while attacking out. This effectively causes your opponent to run into your attack.

FP: This sounds similar to the strategy of SPM.

Your observation on control is also key. One of the 12 bridges is Lau or reserve. The structure is always maintained. This allows both a sensitivity and the ability to adjust the attack real time. Power is still generated but it's more like fa-jing from tai chi then rock on a string variety. One reminder, the tension that we keep is not muscular tension. It's structural and I liken it to Peng of TaiChi. (though different in it's expression) I've been using the analogy, it's like the tension of a tennis raquet string. Doesn't use a lot of energy to keep it there but it is powerful enough to bounce what it contacts.

FP: This is where your knowledge of Hung Ga exceeds mine. I only complete one year of training so I never really got to that level. But I know that Hung has that internal structural component. CLF has "bridging" techniques but because less of the strategy is infighting it seems that component is not as developed. Or at least my knowledge on that aspect of CLF is limited.

For footwork, the rooted stances are really used to aid in this drawing in. In practice, a HG player would only be totally rooted when the opponent is off balance and helpless to escape. (Usually caused by the process of rooting). So I would agree that the foot work is simpler in this sense. There isn't a lot of in and out. Like GSC said, it's hard to tell where a HG player is until it's too late.

FP: Also very interesting.

[Ben Gash]

Fu Pow, surely you do Fut Jeung, I'd say that's a set with a lot of internal flavour.

[Ben Gash]

fu pow, there's no such thing as centrifugal force, the effect you experience IS centripetal acceleration.
Hmm this msiunderstanding is a metaphor for CLF and Hung Gar's percieved differences :cool:

[Fu-Pow]

Main Entry: centrifugal force
Function: noun
1 : the force that tends to impel a thing or parts of a thing outward from a center of rotation
2 : the force that an object moving along a circular path exerts on the body constraining the object and that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation <a stone whirled on a string exerts centrifugal force on the string>

______________________________________________

Main Entry: centripetal force
Function: noun
: the force that is necessary to keep an object moving in a circular path and that is directed inward toward the center of rotation <a string on the end of which a stone is whirled about exerts centripetal force on the stone>


Obviously both arts utilize both principles but the emphasis is not the same.

[Ben Gash]

Hmm, they teach physics differently in the states, clearly.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Are there differences between Hung Fist and CLF...sure...are there similarities...sure. One can definitely see a difference in how the sets are done. What I believe GSC was saying if I understood correctly is that it is how the art is applied in a combat situation that you will see less differences between the two arts. That application is dependant on physics, how he has been taught by his Sifu, his understanding of what he was taught, his own abilities and the art. Also entering into the foray are other arts the person may have learned. Of major NB in any combat situation is the mindset of the individual. To make any art effective, the individual must be suited to it.
The Hung system I do (Black Tiger) has five fighting sets plus two sets designed to enhance ones internal and external strength. Most of what I would use in a self-defense situation comes from these five sets...but I also learned two other arts plus tai chi which also enter into it...oh yes...plus western boxing, karate and wrestling when I was younger.
To recap...there are a lot of flavour differences between HG and CLF sets, but not so many when it comes to application regarding mobility, deceptiveness etc.

GHD

[Mika]

Cool posts, y'all. It is nice to see that in a thread where two styles are discussed, everyone is treating each other with respect :)

I would like to say something about Choy Lee Fut and close-range fighting (I have mentioned this in another thread before). In many Choy Lee Fut schools the emphasis of learning is on long-range at the beginner level. All ranges should be introduced fairly soon in any school, but usually people work their way in, so to speak. The actual advanced grappling and Chin Na take place at much higher levels. Looking at the issue from a motor learning point of view, it makes perfect sense to learn the more difficult (in some respects) long-range techniques first. It is usually easier to learn a short punch after you have learnt a long one than doing it the other way around.

But because this is the order of things in many schools, the close-range fighting of CLF is not often seen. But it does exist, and there are even forms for Chin Na.

The very, very little I have seen Hung Gar, it looks more direct and straight forward in its approach to fighting, also philosophically. I don't mean all techniques are straight or anything like that, but that at least some Hung Gar players move with a lot of power behind them. Also, if I am not mistaken, Hung Gar has always been known for its advanced iron body (hand, legs, etc) work. Didn't Hung Gar always have the reputation as "tough guys"? (Yeah, sure, all martial arts have that, but you know what I mean..;)).

If there was Hung Gar in Finland, I definitely would have wanted to learn some. Brother arts as they are :)

And once again, it really depends on the person and how he uses Choy Lee Fut (or any other martial art, for that matter).

//mika

[Fu-Pow]

I would like to say something about Choy Lee Fut and close-range fighting (I have mentioned this in another thread before). In many Choy Lee Fut schools the emphasis of learning is on long-range at the beginner level. All ranges should be introduced fairly soon in any school, but usually people work their way in, so to speak. The actual advanced grappling and Chin Na take place at much higher levels. Looking at the issue from a motor learning point of view, it makes perfect sense to learn the more difficult (in some respects) long-range techniques first. It is usually easier to learn a short punch after you have learnt a long one than doing it the other way around.

FP: I actually think the shorter range grappling and Chin Na (Kum La) are harder to learn. The body mechanics are more refined and the speed at which things happen is much faster. Quite honestly I don't know whole lot of the inside CLF techniques. I'm drawing on my Chen Taiji experience for comparison.

But because this is the order of things in many schools, the close-range fighting of CLF is not often seen. But it does exist, and there are even forms for Chin Na.

FP: What are the Chin Na forms? The Lion form? I know that is mostly grappling. My branch doesn't have that form :mad:

The very, very little I have seen Hung Gar, it looks more direct and straight forward in its approach to fighting, also philosophically. I don't mean all techniques are straight or anything like that, but that at least some Hung Gar players move with a lot of power behind them.

FP: On the lower levels this is true but like all Chinese MA styles there are Soft and Hard techiques within Hung Ga...as well as Soft within Hard and Hard within soft, yin/yang etc. Its just seems that their definition of soft is much harder than others style definition of soft.

[Falcor]

These are some great replies.

I think someone hear mentioned that CLF lineages outside of the Chan family one do not have any internal training forms. If so, how is internal training implemented in those lineages? Is it worked into the other forms in the curriculum of these lineages, or have other Qi-gong forms been imported in (like the 18 lohans or the muscle-change forms that seem somewhat universally applicable to any style)?

[JAZA]

I can´t give my opinion since I know too little, I only want to share some pictures of Kum La in CLF I've seen in the WST of Spain.
http://www.terra.es/personal/wst.sp/home.htm



http://www.terra.es/personal/wst.sp/cit62.jpg
http://www.terra.es/personal/wst.sp/ci45.jpg
http://www.terra.es/personal/wst.sp/ci27.jpg

[Mika]

Fu-Pow, yes, you are right. That's why I included that "in some respects". You are talking about higher order of things whereas I was referring to beginner level learning. Learning a short punch - as a beginner, when no refining is yet possible - is much easier than learning a long cheung ngan choi (with all the reaching, keeping the front knee in place, etc). This is especially evident with students that have short-range background (will NOT name any styles, okay :)). When we advance, it becomes harder to learn to do the short-range techniques effectively (and things such as timing, agility, etc become increasingly important).

I do not recall the Chin Na Kuen's name (there might be more than one), but I will ask around. I have seen it once and it was complicated. At least to my simple mind...;)

//mika

[Ben Gash]

As I've already said, in my opinion Fut Jeung (a fairly common set across the lineages) is a very internal set. If you pulled out some of the individual movements and showed them to people they'd be just as likely to say they were Chen Taijiquan or Yin Baguazhang. It's just not internal in the Yang Taijiquan kind of way that people seem to think of when you say internal.
The Lee Hin lineage has Fut Gar Kuen, which is a very internal form, and also has Dim Mak sets and relaxed striking sets.
Falcor, Sup Bat Lohan is an integral part of CLF as it is one of the skills that Choy Fook taught to Chan Heung.

[Fu-Pow]

The Fut Jeung set from my lineage doesn't look very "internal."

[Gwa Sow Chop]

Fu Pow:
Agreed that all ranges should be taught in balance from the start.
In our school the emphasis for self defence is in close, in yer' face :-) distance, with full use of all weaponry short and long, usually ending in kum lah, or ground technique (assuming they are still functional/conscious.
In the name of generalization, I would say that the sparring lends more to the use of long range to engage, disorient, and finally finishing with short range technique/cum lah/take down/dim mak or any other finishing "exclamation point" that I can put on my fighting sequence.

GHD:
Agreed.
Up close and personal, it looks kinda similar to me.
Kyokushin reverse punch kinda reminds me (and felt like :-)... that jin choy, or chung choy. The end result is still the same in the end.
And yes all systems are mobile and deceptive etc. I believe none more thatn the other. Still depends on the teaching and scope of knowledge of the sifu laying down the framework.

GSC