Question on Lee Koon Hung lineage

[seisei]

I know the 3 Choy Lay Fut branches of Choy Lay Fut ,mine is Hung Sing, then their is Buck Sing,and Chan Family Village Branch and to a degree I know their background, founder etc.so their roots are fairly clear,now my question is I've read a lot about the Lee Koon Hung groups can someone tell me their roots and branch
or are they an independant group and I ask with complete respect towards them.
m

[CLFNole]

We are a mixed branch but mostly Hung Sing from Chan Koon Pak, which means basically Chan Family but not directly under the family line. My sifu's sigungs were Wong Fook and Leung Kwai both of whom studied with Chan Koon Pak. Leung Kwai also studied with Jeong Yim which is why we are considered a mixed branch.

Most of are sets are from the Chan Family sets but we have some sets I have not seen in their list of sets but that could just be because they don't actually post an entire list of sets anywhere.

[seisei]

CLFNOLE,thank you for the info sad to say i am unfamilar about Leung,Kwai can you tell me a little bit about him.
m

[CLFNole]

Don't really know much about him other than who he studied with as he was well, well before my time. His nephew Leung Siu Keung was alive in the 1970s (maybe into the 80s not sure) and is in some of the old pictures we have in the school and in some old pictures I have at home. I know sifu also learned a bit from him as well as the other people he studied with.

[CLFNole]

We have never nor was I ever taught "this is from Chan Family" or "this is from Jeong Yim". Our sets are very different from what I have seen from Fut San but that being said some elements are similar and I have seen some similar elements to buk sing as well.

We are more of the mindset that we just do CLF.

[seisei]

thank you for the history lesson.I've always thought If it works,it's good
m

[CLFNole]

I feel the same way. To me CLF is CLF I really don't like the politics of it as I think it is a waste of time and only weakens us as a group. Each branch and group has contributed to the growth and development of what CLF is today, so in my eyes we are all CLF.

[stout]

I found this from my recent LKH research...

Wong fo was supposed to be a very senior disciple of Chan Koon Pak. Leung Gwai was supposed to be a very senior disciple of Cheung Yim and later relocated to study with Koon Pak in Canton from Fut San. Koon Pak himself would have studied with Cheung Yim. This is Poon Diks line.

Among others, LKH also studied with So Kam Fook, who is Hung Sing Gwoon.

LKH's stuff is really quite unique. Apart from the first 2 foundation forms, I have not really seen others like it. But what is Chan village material? I was in HK recently and I wanted to know what other lineages there though of LKH's material. So I was in a converstaion with a Sifu(Buk Sing) about this topic. He's said that it's really to do limb extension and the Chan village guys he's seen, seem to play it with little extension and LKH is totally different from this. LKH's material has all characteristics of Fut Ga, big horse and bridge.

[CLFNole]

So Kam Fook was Poon Dik's si dai, so you can't really say he was hung sing kwoon. In fact, the sets sifu told me he learned from him included baat mo kuen, baat kwa sum kuen, sei chak hok ying kuen and others.

In terms of how we play our CLF I would agree, we have the extension of buk sing but with lower stances. The speed and flow I think is more similar to what I have seen from some people from the Chan line though; however that could be attributed to the individual. There are differences within the LKH line when it comes to style and flow although the material is basically the same.

But regarding the sets most if not all are from the Chan line.

Ping Kuen
Ping Jahng Kuen
Sup Gee Kow Dah Kuen
Baat Kwa Sum Kuen
Moi Fah Baat Kwa Kuen
Baat Mo Kuen
Hok Ying Kuen
Fu Ying Kuen

Sheung Garp Dan Tow Kwun
Dai Hung Kay Dan Tow Kwun
Hung Jeh Pang

There are some sets I haven't seen from the Chan side like Fu-Pow Kuen, but that set always had a buk sing flavor to me anyway. However you slice we are a mixed lineage, which is fine with me.

[stout]

I was pretty sure, I saw So Kam Fook's name in the Hung Sing Gwoon, family tree. Didn't realize he came from Poon Diks line. I would view that we have more Hung Sing blood than Chan. I heard that Poon Dik didn't even mention Wong Fook, in his 80th as his teacher and mentioned Leung Gwai only. If we agree then Poon dik is the main source of our material, then Cheung Yim would be the originator of our Style.

The fact of the matter is LKH's line has pretty good genes to begin with. Not sure if this has changed recently but almost all of LKH's prominent students are affliated with Hung Sing Gwoon. Hung Sing Gwoon & other Kung Fu folks in asia(CLF or Non CLF) thinks very highly of LKH, probably more so then here, as he was probably more famous there. When other kung fu folks thinks of CLF they don't think Chan/Buk Sing/Hung Sing, just CLF. I have only encountered Kung Fu eugenics purity, since I started reading this site. So I started doing some research, it appears that most masters in LKH's generation would see him as a Hung Sing man. Infact alot CLF master in HK I found called themselves as CLF then lineage. Who else would know about this fraction stuff apart from us.

I don't like the word 'mixed' becuase it seems to take away the authenticity of what LKH's kung fu is. So are we a mixed Lineage? Just like everything else - Yes & No. It really depends on the observer. Most of this stuff is passed down from the word of mouth anyways. I don't believe that most CLF masters just stick with one Sifu all their lives, as this would be pretty limiting in terms of growth. So if we got some good footwork & Jong from Koon Pak, thats great. The truth I think is really quite simple. Some Sifus learn more then others. Now multiply that factor by 200 years and separation of distance, and now we got youtube to see the results.

I believe like you say, good CLF regardless of source & lineages will have a good deal of similarities. Some of the LKH stuff I have been taught does appear in Buk Sing, but if you want to dissect everything, then how do we know then, it's not Hung Sing Gwoon to begin with? But other stuff is definitely specific to Buk Sing & it's quite different.

Of the forums you mentioned I only learnt Sup jee Kua Da, but where is the similarity with Chan village forum? Is there a Chan version I can see somewhere? Fu Pow is the bomb! Yes, the energy I have been taught to play them is quite different.

[CLFNole]

From the forms I have seen myself:

ping kuen
ping jang kuen
baat kwa sum keun
li ma/ng lun ma
che kuen/ng lun choy
sheung garp dan kwun
hung jeh pang

are almost the same with the exception of a few moves here and there which is to be expected since we are not direct from the family line from Koon Pak's hung sing.

LKH never said Jeong Yim was the founder of our style he always mentioned Chan Hueng 1st and Jeong Yim 2nd but said Jeong Yim was a co-founder so to speak, so I would disagree with you on that point. In fact if you read the history section in sifu's 1st book there is no mention of Jeong Yim at all. I think much of the perception of hung sing is more political than anything else. If you look at who sifu learned from: Poon Dik, Leung Sai, Chow Bing, So Kam Fook, Poon Sing and the fact that we have so many Chan family sets I think you would be hard pressed to say Jeong Yim is the founder of our style.

In terms of being involved with the Hung Sing Kwoon (Fut San) nobody is that involved I know people have gone there (including your dad) but we all know who really runs the show there. The Hong Kong hing dai have gone to both King Mui and Fut San and realized most of our stuff is more like King Mui than anything else.

[stout]

I don't pretend to be an expert but I noticed Some facts or Opinion don't match. So In my research. I recall that even Dave Lacey claim LKH was Hung Sing. I even remember reading an old post by you saying pretty much Cheung Yim was founder of the LKH line. Just wondering whats changed.

Your political orientation is matter choice. this is currently a bit like President George Jr telling the world that George Bush Sr was not really a republican but a democrat at heart while he's at the republican party.

[CLFNole]

I don't think I have ever stated Jeong Yim was the founder of our line I was taught Chan Heung and Jeong Yim.

For many years most of the seniors thought we were hung sing until seeing more of the stuff from King Mui was viewed did they realize that in fact we have more Chan forms than Jeong Yim forms. We don't have any sets from Fut San, Frank has confirmed this. The only thing we share is the L-shaped hoi jong.

[mokkori]

Nice to finally hear a good discussion about this lineage, alot of info I never heard before. Seems there is s strong connection to Jeung Yim via lineage there, but is there any material in this branch that is actually Hung Sing? Being referred to as a "mixed style" may be incorrect but its hard to explain it in other terms. What I see is that most of the forms are Chan Family, and some perhaps unique to this lineage, but I dont think any of the forms at all are from Hung Sing... though I could be wrong.

From what Ive heard is that it was ultimately Poon Sings decision to change the name to Hung Sing (from whatever it was), but I dont know if its known who chopped off the beginnings of the forms and stuck the Hung Sing salute onto them.

I do disagree though with some who say that the Hung Sing part is in the execution of the techniques more than in the material. This style is unique, it moves like no others, and theres alot less variation in the way the individuals move opposed to those of other branches. I dont know why this lineage wants to be labeled as "hung sing", but time has passed and now it clearly stands aside from all others. Whatever was the political reason for it back then most likely doesnt exist any longer.

[CLFNole]

mokkori:

As far as "less variation in the way the individuals move" if you look at enough stuff you will know that this is not correct. There is more variation than you might think but in general I agree you can usually tell that something is from the LKH line.

As far as wanting to be called "hung sing" I don't think that is the case, at least not for us here in FL. It was in sifu's logo so it stays there what we consider ourselves might be a different story. We just like to think of ourselves as plain old CLF. CLF is becoming as bad as hung gar with all the politics and we could care less about politics.

Peace.

[stout]

LKH is an innovator, as it seems that no one seems to know where some of the forms came from. So let's say if LKH modernised some of these forums, does that make them less Hung Sing then the other older Hung Sing forums out there? What if he even made some of them up, does that make it not Hung Sing also? May be you should ask the Hung Sing Gwoon Jeung Mun Yan why, I know I will if I get chance to meet him. Tarm Sam and every other major Buk Sing Master know to man is also listed in Hung Sing Gwoon annuals, so why should LKH be treated any differernt. The LKH standard Hoi Jong where we strike at nose with the palm, I have not seen that in anyother lineage. Chan at this point seems to palm from below to up, Buk Sing seems to strike down too. These forums I have not seen close substitutes:

Sup Jee Ku Da (I have not seen another version like this)
LKH's Siu Miu Fa (LKH made this one world famous)
Leopard Elbow
Tit Jin
Fu Pow (You would normally not see this forum so easily)

Maybe these forms are the most authentic Cheung Yim forms, but who knows as none of this stuff is documented. One thing I know for sure, there aren't any Chan techniques such as "Chan Hueng's Special Fist" in these forums. Other's I don't know, as I haven't learnt them. I started Ping Kuen recently and the bagua footwork is pretty insane, Chan or Hung Sing, it makes me mobile fighting more then one. We hold our Chap choi with thumb all the way back, I don't know other lineages who adovcates that apart from Sifu Frank's Gwoon. The LKH lineage has it's own horse too.

I guess I just have to spend my life learning all three lineages to really know what the hell is going on. But what would that make my kung fu then - good kung fu or just "mixed"?

[Eric Olson]

Whatever the political affiliation is now, many of the forms from LKH line are similar to the Chan Family in terms of their sequence.

However, the "flavor" in which they are executed isn't the same as Chan Family.

Then you've got forms like Siu Mui Fah which is totally different from the Chan Family version and Fu-Pow Kuen which I haven't seen in any other school, let alone lineage (which mean it might come from outside of CLF altogether.)

I think LKH's strategy was the same as all good martial artists. Take what works and discard the rest. CLF is definitely at the core but apparently LKH wasn't afraid to bring in other elements if he thought they were useful.

EO

[nospam]

..way too caught up in the forms buddy. They are a tool. Learn them and learn from them. Learn to use what's in them for what they were meant to do.

nospam
:cool:

[CLFNole]

stout:

For the record the form you called Leopard Elbow is Ping Janhg Kuen (Level Elbow). It is also called Gum Pow Ping Jahng Kuen by some which would be Golden Leopard Level Elbow. In any event it is a Chan Family set, so is the Ping Kuen you are learning, but it really doesn't matter it is slightly different and CLF just the same.

[stout]

Most CLF lineages would have a ping kuen though.

As for Leopard Elbow, have you seen the Chan version? If not it would not surprise me to see a new Chan version on youtube soon LOL

Fu Pow contains contains some advanced fighting techniques, which I haven't seen in the other forms. The L shaped Hung Sing Hoi Jong for here is not just a pretty face to be Hung Sing, it compliments some of the advanced CLF fighting techniques expressed in this form. I can see that same principle in say Buk Sing but they express it differently. Those who know this form inside out, should understand exactly what I mean.

Yes, each form is worth a thousand words and it really depends on the student to see that. LKH curiculum is pretty trad in terms of teachings, so forms are everything in that sense.

[CLFNole]

I have seen about half of the Chan Family version of ping jahng kuen (level elbow) and the beginning sequence is nearly identical. I have also seen a few different people do their ping kuen and it is the same set, the hung sing and buk sing ping kuen is very different not the same form just the same name.

Let me ask you this why would our (LKH) version of baat kwa sum kuen have the L-shaped hoi jong, when the rest of the set is almost the same as the Chan version? Hung sing doesn't have the 9 baat kwa sets they are from the Chan Family. I believe the answer is that sifu added the L-shaped hoi jong to dsitinguish our sets that are considered more advanced like fu-pow kuen, fu ying kuen, hok ying kuen, baat kwa sum and baat mo kuen. Most of the sets at one time or another that straight ahead hoi jong which is characteristic of Chan Family.

As far as fu-pow goes I have known this set for about 8 years and the techiques are very good especially the main continuous chop choy section.

[stout]

I don't know, we wouldn't be always having this discussion if there were definite answers to begin with. the whole truth will probably never be known. the way an LKH player play forms is very different to Chan players or anyone else. There are distinct combos trade marked to LKH.

It's really difficult to be so black and white. I don't know much about Chan. It seems that some of Wong Ha's stuff say is pretty different from other Chan stuff. there are common stuff across the various lineages.

[CLFNole]

I am not saying we play the forms the same as the Chan Family people but rather that our forms come from them. We definately have our own flavor and style that I do not question.

[hskwarrior]

sorry to re-hash this, but ive been away.

i can understand if chan koon pak really did use jeung yims hung sing, then i can see how LKH lineage can use the name.

but, there are telltale elements within both buk sing and hung sing that are missing completely within LKH Hoi Jongs and the endings of the forms.

its not just the L shape pattern.

i've been noticing more and more LKH lineages trying to really claim they are the true hung sing.

[CLFNole]

Well not the main headquarters of the lineage.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I do enjoy watching LKH players do their forms. I think it is safe to say that there doesn't seem to be any other line/school that uses the same forms or plays them the same way...would you all agree??

It may be safe to assume that the forms were created by LKH....that is unless non-LKH schools can be found that do the same forms. I dont' know who they may be, but I'm sure LKH had classmates, no? What forms are they doing?? Does anyone have any youtube clips???

Not causing drama, just stating an observation.

[CLFNole]

Most of our sets come from the Chan Family line and I have seen them played and are very similar with the exception of a few moves. A few I have seen include:

Ping Kuen, Ping Jahng Kuen, Baat Kwa Sum Kuen, Hung Jeh Pang, Sheung Garp Dan Tow Kwun

Sifu Chiu Mun On who is a student of Poon Sing does many of our sets with slight differences as well. LKH studied with other sifus which is why we might have some different stuff.

[stout]

check out the CLF player @ 3:40, well I am assuming he is a LKH player

(courtesy of Mr. Satori)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6d8oGELLs

Anyone know who this player is? Guy was stylin. this will crack me up if he was Chan. Nothing seems Chan to me in this. I can spot two sets of movements that are specific to LKH.

[nospam]

...looks like Chan Gar to me.


nospam
:cool:

[CLFNole]

Not sure who that guy is but he appeared to be doing Ng Ying Kuen.

I wanted to get back more with Lama's question earlier about our style.

First off the forms were not all created by sifu (I am sure he added a few like many sifus do). When my sifu was younger and my current sifu (Li Siu Hung) was a teenager, there were about 6 different schools that did our style so it really isn't LKH style just maybe he made it well known.

The schools back then were:

Poon Dik's school
So Kam Fook's school
Leung Siu Kuen's school
Leung Sai's school
Chow Bing's school
Fung Kei Biu's school

Poon Dik, So Kam Fook and Leung Siu Kuen were sihing/dai. Leung Sai and Chow Bing were Poon Dik's senior students. I am not sure about Fung Kei Biu, all I know is he was older than Poon Sing (Poon Dik's son). All of the above have long been passed away and there teachings did not really continue on a larger scale. LKH was one of the more prominent ones to come off. There are still some of sifu sisuks alive and I saw them perform at Poon Sing's birthday banquet doing various sets from our lineage siu moi fah, sup gee kow dah, ping chang kuen, etc...

Most people have only seen the primary level forms from our line and not much of the advanced stuff.

[Eric Olson]

To second CLFNole that was Ng Ying Kuen.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Not sure who that guy is but he appeared to be doing Ng Ying Kuen.

I wanted to get back more with Lama's question earlier about our style.

First off the forms were not all created by sifu (I am sure he added a few like many sifus do). When my sifu was younger and my current sifu (Li Siu Hung) was a teenager, there were about 6 different schools that did our style so it really isn't LKH style just maybe he made it well known.

The schools back then were:

Poon Dik's school
So Kam Fook's school
Leung Siu Kuen's school
Leung Sai's school
Chow Bing's school
Fung Kei Biu's school

Poon Dik, So Kam Fook and Leung Siu Kuen were sihing/dai. Leung Sai and Chow Bing were Poon Dik's senior students. I am not sure about Fung Kei Biu, all I know is he was older than Poon Sing (Poon Dik's son). All of the above have long been passed away and there teachings did not really continue on a larger scale. LKH was one of the more prominent ones to come off. There are still some of sifu sisuks alive and I saw them perform at Poon Sing's birthday banquet doing various sets from our lineage siu moi fah, sup gee kow dah, ping chang kuen, etc...

Most people have only seen the primary level forms from our line and not much of the advanced stuff.


Thanks for the info,...good to know. I enjoy researching the changes that styles make from generation to generation. Sometimes they are worse, sometimes for the better. Are there any vid clips of these other Sifu??

[CLFNole]

I think there are some clips of Chiu Mun On's school on YouTube. He is Poon Sing's student and was much younger than LKH. I think he teaches at a community center and doesn't have an official school.

As far as clips of the schools in my post above I am afraid I can't help as most of those sifus have been gone for 30 years or more. I have some home videos of some of LKHs sisuks but they are of poor quality and in PAL VHS format, so I am not going through the trouble of converting for internet viewing.

[Satori Science]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zh0c07jv-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1NTHrsCLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xkvv3Tm8o&feature=related

[CLFNole]

If you watch closely enough they are all the same form done with differences attributed to each lineage. The opening is different in the 1st (Sifu Mak) but that is an abbreviated opening developed in our lineage, the tradition opening is very similar to the other 2.

The other difference is lenght as each player can cut it when they want. We have a siu ping kuen (video #1) and a dai ping kuen version, which is closer to #3 but still longer.

[Eddie]

I think arguing over ‘openings’ of the various forms are a little silly. While I agree that there are certain important cultural aspects that needs to be retained in forms, I think the whole aim of any martial arts is to become better and more proficient at fighting.

Our Lee Koon Hung forms contain many valuable fighting techniques and applications, but in the same breath, one needs to be focusing on actual fighting in order to be able to use these techniques properly.

Whether or not Lee Koon Hung made up his own forms, or added from other styles… this isn’t really important to the development of my own learning path. Whether or not we call ourselves Hung Sing, Buk Sing, or whatever, it doesn’t make us any more or any less better fighters than others.

I have just returned from doing a half a month San Shou instructors course in Wuhan again, and I can honestly say that the modern san shou curriculum is so well structured that it produce fighters (instead of forms warriors) in a very short time. While I still value and love the traditional aspects of Chinese martial arts, I think arguing about silly ‘traditions’ and whether or not it makes you more ‘legitimate is silly. This sort of thing shouldn’t even have a place in martial arts.

While the traditional players argue about politics and whos line is better etc, the modern fighters are becoming much better at their game.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I think arguing over ‘openings’ of the various forms are a little silly. While I agree that there are certain important cultural aspects that needs to be retained in forms, I think the whole aim of any martial arts is to become better and more proficient at fighting.

Our Lee Koon Hung forms contain many valuable fighting techniques and applications, but in the same breath, one needs to be focusing on actual fighting in order to be able to use these techniques properly.

Whether or not Lee Koon Hung made up his own forms, or added from other styles… this isn’t really important to the development of my own learning path. Whether or not we call ourselves Hung Sing, Buk Sing, or whatever, it doesn’t make us any more or any less better fighters than others.

I have just returned from doing a half a month San Shou instructors course in Wuhan again, and I can honestly say that the modern san shou curriculum is so well structured that it produce fighters (instead of forms warriors) in a very short time. While I still value and love the traditional aspects of Chinese martial arts, I think arguing about silly ‘traditions’ and whether or not it makes you more ‘legitimate is silly. This sort of thing shouldn’t even have a place in martial arts.

While the traditional players argue about politics and whos line is better etc, the modern fighters are becoming much better at their game.

Great Post Eddie. I couldn't agree with you more.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Great Post Eddie. I couldn't agree with you more.

Ditto, to say the very least.

[jow yeroc]

Another ditto Eddie. Thanks.