PDA

View Full Version : Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut is different to other branches of Choy Lay Fut.



FUJIYakumo
06-29-2000, 11:13 AM
In one of the posts on forms someone said;

"Bak Sing Choy Lee Fut has about 5 sets, Hung Sing close to or more than 100"

is there any conceptual difference between
the two? i think we have one of the head
guys up in sydney (bak sing clf?) i remember
he inherited the 'name' for the kwoon or something.

why does one version have 5 and one many more?

what other differences round out the two versions of CLF?

nospam
06-30-2000, 09:23 PM
FUJIYakumo,

I am a practitioner of Bak Hsing CLF.

"is there any conceptual difference between
the two? "

Yes. Conceptually, the 2 versions are distinct. There are commonalities, but the principles of technique differ. Bak Hsing works on modified concepts originating from Hung Hsing CLF. It really depends on one's lineage within CLF. There are some Bak Hsing folks that seemingly practise what looks like Hung Hsing. This is where lineage plays a great role in how one assimilates their CLF. Truth be told, my exposure to Hong Hsing CLF has sadly been very limited.

"why does one version have 5 and one many more?"

The founder of Bak Hsing CLF was more interested in the fighting aspects of CLF kung fu. Emphasis was thus placed on application and learning through actual fighting and sparring. It has been said that the founder also did not stay long enough under his Hung Hsing sifu to have learned many Hung Hsing patterns. This, in combination with emphasis on fighting, left a legacy of but a few patterns as the foundation of forms work within Bak Hsing CLF. This also speaks to one of the many differences between Hung Hsing and Bak Hsing principles.

"what other differences round out the two versions of CLF?"

I have been told that these differences could fill a book. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hope that helps, some. The differences even within Bak Hsing CLF from kwoon-to-kwoon surprise me to this very day. We do what we each do.

Jimbo
07-03-2000, 11:09 AM
There are around 100 or so forms in the Hung Sing system, but realistically, no one can practice 100 forms and be really good at any of them. Most Hung Sing stylists will learn the the more common basic and intermediate sets, some advanced sets, and that's where they can differ.

Example: Our lineage is Hung Sing, but from two different sources. One is from Sigung John Lem (Chung Lem), who was a lay student of the Wing Foon monastery. In his CLF, the emphasis was on short combinations for 2-person application, and a few short fighting sets, more closely-knit short-hand combinations, and hard qigong. Period. It was strictly based on simple practicality. It is extremely rare.

The other source is from Sigung Howard Lee, a sihing of Doc Fai-Wong under Master Lau Bun. This method has many more sets, long sets, weapons, etc.

These two lineages, though both technically Hung Sing, but due to emphasis/lineage/location, look like almost two different systems.

Not to mention that the Hung Sing of both Sigung Lem and Sigung Lee have little resemblance to the Hung Sing taught by Tat Mau-Wong via Grandmaster Lee Koon-Hung, which came through Hong Kong.

Just wanted to point out that even within the "Hung Sing" system, there are varying degrees of differences, some great.
Jim


[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 07-04-2000).]

CLFNole
07-05-2000, 01:17 AM
I am a practioner of Hung Sing Choy Lay Fut and was a student of Sifu Lee Koon Hung and am currently a student of his younger brother Sifu Li Siu Hung. I have often asked my sifu about differences between hung sing and buk sing and differences between various branches of hung sing. One thing I learned was that buk sing does not use the two-handed poon kue sow choy (block with right hand, block with left hand then sow choy) but rather a single or double poon kue with the left hand followed by the sow choy. Other differences I was told was that the stances were a bit higher because the creater Tam Sam liked fighting and designed buk sing choy lay fut primarily for fighting (another reason for the lack of forms). Hope this helps a bit and would like to know of other differences. In any event both branches are good and were all part of the same family.

mantis boxer
07-07-2000, 04:53 PM
Buk Sing CLF has more of a northern incfluence to it because it combines Hong Sing CLF and northern shaolin. I don't know why one has more forms than the other. More forms does not mean a better style. My style has more than 30 hand forms. Wing Chun has a great style and they only have 3 hand forms. IF the style has more hand forms, it's basically a lot of repeats anyways.

mantis boxer
07-08-2000, 03:46 AM
CLF,

You said

Other differences I was told was that the stances were a bit higher because the creater Tam Sam liked fighting and designed buk sing choy lay fut primarily for fighting (another reason for the lack of forms).


Are you saying that a style with a lot of forms isnt' for fighting? Well anyways Tan Sam fought northern shaolin master.. I think it was Ku Yu Cheong or Yeem Seung Mo. The fight was a tie and they agreed to send their students to the other's school for further training. That's how the 2 styles got mixed. Northern shaolin and choy lay fut = Buk Sing CLF. That's why they wider stances etc.

CLFNole
07-09-2000, 08:08 PM
To Mantis Boxer,

The amount of forms a style has is meaningless. What I was saying is that Tam Sam concentrated more on the fighting aspects of his style rather than make tons of forms that all have the same basic techniques in them. The style of Choy Lay Fut I practise has a lot of forms in it but that doesn't make it any better or any worse than any other style. I feel it all comes down to the practitioner and how hard one works.

TIDAL
07-18-2000, 06:16 PM
Im a buk sing choy lay fut student. From what my sifu has told me is that our system has more use of the charp choi (leopard fist) then the hung sing version and lower stances due to its northern influence.

That's is all I know to date I can probably find out some more info Ill check back here later

TIDAL

gwai-jai
07-20-2000, 12:33 AM
Can anyone tell me the names of the five Bak Sing Choy Lee Fut Forms? I know that one of them is, possibly sup ji, or sup ji kao da, as some of us at our gwoon were having a similar discussion as to the differences between Bak Sing and Hung Sing. My Choy Lee Fut comes from Chan Heung, Chan Koon Pak, Fong Yuk Shu, Chan Hon Hung, Jew Yu Jong, and Ng Hao Tak (Edmund Ng) from Hong Kong. Our Choy Lee Fut is similar to master Lee Koon Hung`s in appearance, but the pattern of the forms are totally different and our biu jong technique is more like the way it is applied in Hung Gar as apparently masters Fong Yuk Shu, Chan Hon Hung, & Jew Yu Jong, all practised Hung Gar as young men before starting Choy Lee Fut. The strange thing is that the only Bak Sing form I have seen is sup ji the techniques were different but the pattern of the form was nearly the same as our sup ji form.

T. Cunningham
07-29-2000, 09:58 AM
Bak Sing (little north) is a variation of Hung Sing. Tam Sam's school was called Siu Bak Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut because of its location. Tam Sam's students changed the name to Bak Sing CLF to shorten the name and also to show respect to their instructor. The variances between Hung Sing and Bak Sing came about in the same manner as the differences between Tang Fung and Lam Sai Wing Hung Ga, the different schools of Wing Chun, and almost all other schools of martial arts. As students spread out to propogate the art, the evolutionary paths of what they are teaching tend to diverge.

molum_jr
07-29-2000, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mantis boxer:
Tan Sam fought northern shaolin master.. I think it was Ku Yu Cheong or Yeem Seung Mo. The fight was a tie and they agreed to send their students to the other's school for further training. That's how the 2 styles got mixed. Northern shaolin and choy lay fut = Buk Sing CLF. That's why they wider stances etc. [/quote]

I'll toss this in... My sihing went to HK over a decade ago and visited Lung, Kai-Ming; son of Lung, Chi-Cheong* (junior classmate of Yim, Sim-Mo). He originally went to question him about Ma, Gim-Fung and also asked him about the infamous fight between Ku, Yu-Cheong and Tam Sam: "IT NEVER HAPPENED," was his response. Isn't that a mindblower? Interesting though...

* Lung, Chi-Cheong was one of the original three students of Ku, Yu-Cheong that was exchanged over to Tam Sam for training in Bak Sing CLF.

Buk Sing CLF
09-06-2000, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TIDAL:
Im a buk sing choy lay fut student. From what my sifu has told me is that our system has more use of the charp choi (leopard fist) then the hung sing version and lower stances due to its northern influence.

That's is all I know to date I can probably find out some more info Ill check back here later

TIDAL[/quote]
Hiya TIDAL,
I practise BSCLF in Perth. Where are you? It's possible our schools are linked?!?

nospam
09-06-2000, 08:14 PM
A.Bey...you said it.

The basic elements remain similar if not the same, but the interpretation differs from teacher-to-teacher.

premier
09-06-2000, 11:20 PM
This is strange. you guys talk about CLF all the time, but nobody ever mentions the Chan Family CLF, the original CLF. (don't take that in a wrong way =))

why is this? don't you have any CFCLF schools in USA?

CLFNole
09-07-2000, 12:32 AM
I believe there is one is California operated by Chan Kit Fong's son Fu Hang Ng.
I don't think that Chan Yong Fa has any school's in the United States.

Buk Sing CLF
09-07-2000, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gwai-jai:
[B]Can anyone tell me the names of the five Bak Sing Choy Lee Fut Forms?

As far as I know there are only three distinct un-armed forms in BSCLF: Sup Se Kuen, Ping Kuen and Kou Da.

Each one is substantially long and complicated, encompassing all aspects of the style.
Tarm Sarm believed it was better to 'master' effective fighting techniques rather than learn many forms and master none, hence the limited number of forms.

The Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut Gwoon in Melbourne has recently opened its web site up again.
I can't remember the address but if you search for BSCLF (spelt the way I spell it) in Australia you'll find it. It has huge amounts of information on BSCLF and, I think, it's a great site.
Let me know what you think. My school is mentioned as a sister school in Perth.

WongFeHung
11-10-2000, 02:02 AM
Could you give me some history on Tam Sam? What is his full name? Where is he from? My fiance' is a Tam, her mother was well known for her gung-fu and her great grand uncle was Tam Jai Gwun,we are interested in Tam's lineage. Also, what are the weapon sets in Buk Sing CLF?

realkungfubrasil
12-09-2000, 01:45 AM
Hi guys, I practice Choy li Fut (Chan Kwok Way's family, with more emphazis on the Tam Sam branch) and Xing-Yi (Xang-Hsi and Hobei branches), I've been in San Francisco in 1992 and what I saw on Tat mau Wong's CLF for me appeared tottaly different from what I've been practicing here, under my si-fu marcello teixeira (a top si-fu and direct student from Chan). I think that the largest northern stances, plus the more emphazis of large and strong leopard fists may be one of the differences between buk-sing and hung sing. I have also a question: what about low kicks? what are the differences in low kicks in the two branches.
Thanks for the attention, Hung Moon Party Heroes are invencible! HUNG-SING!!!

nospam
12-10-2000, 06:40 PM
Technically, I would highly doubt there are many, if any, differences in low kicks from Hung to Bak Hsing CLF, except for when one might apply them.

Traditionally, my lineage within Bak Hsing only had a low front snap kick executed as you engaged. Because of the Northern influence, we do have a full compliment of northern kicks and other sundry aerodynamics.

BukSing
07-18-2001, 01:30 AM
Sorry for the repeat information from my previous topic, but I wasn't sure if anyone would have seen the original inquiry. But I have studied Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut for many years, and I have until recently attempted to gather as much information on this relatively young and rare branch of Choy Lay Fut. So I am interested in any input from anyone who has ever trained in this system, and/or has any information in regards to it, that they would like to share.

Nope

sui-fuw
07-19-2001, 02:26 AM
why?it's crap!

BukSing
07-19-2001, 02:34 AM
Sui-fool,

Care to elaborate?

Nope

sui-fuw
07-20-2001, 02:13 AM
no

BukSing
07-20-2001, 10:01 PM
Well that shouldn't surprise me seeing that your insights to Martial Arts are as about as indepth as your profile states..."nada"

Nope

zen_celt
07-20-2001, 11:53 PM
Last I checked, there was only one style of CLF.
Peace,
Zen_celt

BukSing
07-23-2001, 04:38 AM
Check again... You can start here.
http://buksing.com

Nope

extrajoseph
07-23-2001, 07:34 AM
The Lacey Brothers from Down Under (Dave and Vince) are fantastic fighters and Shane is a chip off the old block. They have impeccable lineage and Buk Sing is a very effective branch of CLF. Stylistic variation is just a storm in a tea cup. Go check them out, you will not be disappointed.

Joseph

BukSing
07-25-2001, 01:32 AM
You are absolutley right about them...no question, they are the real deal. I have witnessed the execution of their techniques, and their is no doubt that there is the elemental form of typical Choy Lay Fut style, but there is also quite a variance with other techniques that had made the Buk Sing branch quite unique and without doubt a fighting art.
I am curios to know if you study Buk Sing or Hung Sing? And also, if you are familiar with a man named Lun Tse who lives in Alberta, Canada?

Nope

extrajoseph
07-25-2001, 09:45 AM
I have not done any Bak Sing but they are from the same root, so I am familiar with some of their techniques which are simple and direct and very effective in fighting.

Lun Tse was one of Tam Sam's "inner chamber" disciples, he started to learn when he was 14. He lived in Hong Kong for a long time and went to Canada in 1979. I am happy to hear that he is still alive and teaching (?). He would be in his late 80s and early 90s now. If you have a chance to see him, go for it, before these colourful old timers all pass away.

I wonder if any of his students or disciples carried on his teaching in Canada.

Jose

nospam
07-25-2001, 03:27 PM
I'm not so sure he is teaching, that I would highly doubt. He had attended at least one tournament back in the late 80's that I recall in Saskatchewan, Canada.

I'm from his lineage. Although I have not had any contact with him.

nospam.

beiquan
07-26-2001, 10:04 AM
i am curious, which of the bak sil lum forms are practiced in bak sing choy li fut and at what level in training are they taught? i have seen some of Vince Lacey's students doing Tun Da(#6) and Moi Fa(#7).

nospam
07-26-2001, 03:31 PM
Depends on one's lineage. So it will vary from none to all 10.

BukSing
07-27-2001, 05:05 AM
My lineage of Buk Sing system does not have any sets that are innately "Bak Sil Lum." we do have an internal set that exemplifies Iron Palm though. But when seen executed, it does have a "Hung Gar" flavor to it.
I am curious though as to what you have seen from the Lacey's. Were the Tun Da and Moi Fa set the same (or similar) to your training in the Bak Sil Lum style? I was of the opiinion that their sets would be more closely Hung Sing, by nature of the name title of their sets (i.e. Siu Moi Fa, Kou Da, Ping Kuen, Sub Tse Kuen, Chueng Kuen)...?

Nope

shaolin_knight
07-27-2001, 06:26 AM
Tam Sam was a friend of Kuo Yu Chong. He incorporated Bak Sil Lum kicks into the Choy Li Fut system. Then called the new branch Bak Sing (north wind). Do you mean Lung Tse Hsiang? He was a student of both Kuo's and Tam's. He is trained in both styles. I didn't know he was still alive though. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those guys do Bak Sil Lum sets, as many were students of both Kuo's and Tam's, they exchanged students.

NorthernShaolin
07-27-2001, 09:46 AM
Shaolin Knight,

Sifu Lung Tzu Hsiang passed away at an early age in 1951. His son is still in HK and has a web-site at www.members.tripod.com/kaimen. (http://www.members.tripod.com/kaimen.)

shaolin_knight
07-28-2001, 08:06 AM
I know that, but one guy that posted on here seems to think he is alive. He is mistaking him for a man in Canada.

BukSing
07-28-2001, 08:58 PM
According to Lacey's web-site they mention a "Lung Tse Cheung" under their lineage text link that also has a picture. The same picture can be found in Lai Hung's web-site and he spells the name "Hsiang." Here is the link to Lai Hung's history with the pic of "Lung Tze-Hsiang."

http://www.htai.com/kungfu/laihung.html

I don't doubt that they probably do practice some Buk Sil Lum sets in their system, but indicative to their branch, they make no mention of any sets as far and as little as I know concerning them. But that doesn't mean that they don't of course know any...

Nope

extrajoseph
07-29-2001, 09:49 AM
Lung did studied CLF with Tarm Sarm. His first teacher was Ku Yu-Jiang (I am not sure about his spelling, but it is the skinny guy you often see in an old photo breaking up a stack of bricks). At that time, Ku and Tarm were good friends, they often exchanbe techniques and students. Lung was a keen student, so he got to study with both of them in Northern Shaolin and CLF. He later became quite a famous teacher on his own right. Naturally, students from his lineage would have some NS mixed up with the BS CLF stuff.

Joseph

nospam
07-29-2001, 06:58 PM
Gee, maybe there just might be two "Lung Gee's"...and one of them, of whom the Canadian reference was made, is still alive and doing quite well. Maybe...just maybe.

BukSing
07-31-2001, 03:15 AM
True the Bak Sing style incorporated more northern element such as kicks, but it was not exclusive to that. Actually it was the Iron Palm techniques that were adopted into the system that held more notariety for the the Bak Sing style. As for Lun Tse Hsiang, I would be pretty sure he is the same person whom I have been told by Si-Fu Vince Lacey is still alive, and was supposed to be at the world Choy Lay Fut Reunion held last month in Singapore.

Nope

extrajoseph
07-31-2001, 05:03 AM
Sifu Vince could have seen Lun Tse (or Gia as a branch of a tree), but if he saw Lung (or Loong as a Dragon) Tse (Tse as a child) Cheung then he would have been drunk or saw a ghost, both are also possible, given he is an Auzzie.

Joseph :)

BukSing
08-03-2001, 03:59 AM
G'Day Mate!
Well...I don't doubt that anyone who had studied from Tam Sam or Ku Yu Cheung, should be...well...dead...? Sifu Lacey did mention though he would be about 90 years old now, if we are all talking about the same man or not. I am curious though if Lun was the surname? I know it is customary for the Chinese name to give a last name first. If anyone knows of the Choy Lay Fut Wolrd Reunion and has any link sites or news article about that event, it should mention this man somewhere...I suppose.

Nope

extrajoseph
08-04-2001, 12:40 AM
How ya going? Mate. Are ya c'ming to die?

What I was trying to say was Lun Tse and Loong Tse Cheung are two different people. They both studied with Tarm Sarm. Lun Tse is still alive and should be in his early 90s, but Loong Tse Cheung is dead.

If you can get hold of a copy of the commemorative magazine for last year's reunion in Singapore, you would have seen photos and CV of these two gentlemen.

I have not learn how to use a canner yet, otherwise I'll post one here for you.

Joseph

BukSing
08-10-2001, 07:00 PM
Concerning the continued discussion on who's who about Lun Gee. What Joseph said I feel is correct. I found this Picture of Lun Chee (presumably "Gee") with Master Dave Lacey:

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

Anyone recognize the picture or the man?
I found this on Dave Lacey's site. Great site, quite informative on Dave Lacey's history and background. Here is the URL:

http://pantherfist.com/

Charp-Chui

extrajoseph
08-12-2001, 06:05 AM
Yes, that's him!

Joseph

beiquan
08-14-2001, 07:38 AM
I saw some of his students doing these forms on a tape of Wing Lam's 25th anniversary (I think). It's been a while since I saw the tapes, but I remember that I recognized the forms immediately as BSL forms, but with a different flavor. I have seen a student of Lai Hung, who was himself a student of Long Zi Xiang, perform #6 and I remember the flavor being similar. If I get a chance to see the tape again, I'll try to say something more about it...

BukSing
08-17-2001, 04:30 AM
Here is a recent photo of Lun Chee who was Tam Sam's inner chamber disciple, at the World Choy Lay Fut Reuinion held in Singapore last June:

http://www.buksing.com/singapore_2001/singapore_neptune_theater.jpg

beiquan,

I would like to hear what you know about those Buk Siu Lum sets that you have witnessed...

Charp-Chui

BukSing
08-17-2001, 04:36 AM
I think I made a mistake assuming that the text link picture above was Lun Chee. from the description given in Vince Lacey's web page about the pic, it sounded like it was one of TWO surviving students of Tam Sam. I think this man's name is Deng Xi.

Charp-Chui

tparkerkfo
12-02-2002, 02:23 PM
Just some generic questions about Choy Li Fut,

I live near San Francisco and have several Choy Li Fut schools near by. I like to understand the relationships a little bit better. Can any one explain the relationship between Hung Sing (The Futsan version) and Buk Sing. I have found several websites from Bak Sing relating to Tan San and newer generations. I read some where, or though I did, that Buk Sing and Hung Sing stemed from the same line prior to Tan San. Are they close?

SF has Buk Sing from Lai Hung and the Lacey and Hung Sing from Lau Bun and Doc Fai Wong among others. I wonder about the similarities and differences.

Also, does any one know where Tat Mau Wong or his sifu fits in? I seem to think they are Hung Sing but am not too sure.

Thanks for any info

Tom
________
MARRIAGE COUNSELING (http://www.love-help.org/marriage-advice/)

monk weed
12-02-2002, 02:35 PM
The futsan Hung sing and Buk sing are kind of related because I think that Tarm Sarm was a disiple of Jeong yim (Hung Sing). I think that's right. Anyway the only differance in my opinion in all choy li fut is minor since they all share the same basic techniques and principles.

choyleefutman
12-02-2002, 04:46 PM
Tam Sarm was a student of Lui, Charn. Lui, Charn was a student of Jeong , Yim.

However, later on, Tam, Sarm also learned from Chan, Heung's 2nd son, Chan, Koon Pak, but people never mentioned this...

Lee, Koon Hung's lineage is a mixed one as he learned from students of Poon, Dik, and Poon Dik learned from Lern, Kwai, who was the Futsan branch. Then after Jeong Yim died, Lern Kwai , along with his students, one of them being Poon Dik, went and studied under Chan, Koon Pak.

So, it's not easy really to distinguish what 'sing' someone is in....I guess all it really matters is it's Choyleefut. That's what it matters.

SETANSI
12-02-2002, 05:10 PM
IN ALL HIS DAYS TARM SARM CONSIDERED HIMSELF TO BE HUNG SING AND FORBID HIS STUDENTS FROM CALLING HIS KUNG FU BUK SING.

I HAVE ALSO BEEN TAUGHT THAT CHAN HUENG SENT ONE OF HIS SONS TO STUDY WITH CHUENG HUNG SING (CHUENG YIM).
BUT PEOPLE NEVER MENTIONED THIS EITHER..

TO tparkerkfo-"SF has Buk Sing from Lai Hung and the Lacey "
LAI HUNG IS "the Lacey"'s SIFU SO THEY ARE THE SAME HUNG SING:)

Fu-Pow
12-02-2002, 05:36 PM
Lee, Koon Hung's lineage is a mixed one as he learned from students of Poon, Dik, and Poon Dik learned from Lern, Kwai, who was the Futsan branch. Then after Jeong Yim died, Lern Kwai , along with his students, one of them being Poon Dik, went and studied under Chan, Koon Pak.

And as you will see our forms have a different flavor than the other Hung Sing schools, this must be the Chan Family influence.

tparkerkfo
12-02-2002, 05:56 PM
Thanks for all the excellent replies. I was aware that Lai Hung was indeed one of the Lacey's earlier teachers. I however was not sure who Tan San and Lee Koon Hung learned from.

For my follow up, I was thinking about joining a CLF school a while ago but I was very nieve. The teacher said they only had three forms. I read Doc Fai Wong's CLF has over a hundred forms, so I figured this guy didn't learn much. But now I think he may have been from a different branch. Any idea which system has only a couple forms?

Tom
________
Free Watch Xxx Movies (http://www.****tube.com/)

anton
12-02-2002, 08:09 PM
When choosing a school, the number of forms it teaches is pretty much irrelevant. Just make sure it teaches CLF, and the main forms that most CLF schools teach.

monk weed
12-02-2002, 08:11 PM
Choyleefutman
thank for the clarification of tarm sarm. I knew that he was tide in with Jeong Hung Sing somehow.

tparkerkfo
I just had this conversation with Arhat of Fury and he informed us that the Buk sing style only had 3 core forms. Maybe he was a Buk sing practitioner. The important thing in finding a sifu is; Is he any good, how will he help you in your study of clf and how is he as a person....i.e. is he a humble person sincere in his teachings. I wish you the best of luck finding a clf sifu because this is truely a great martial art. Also living in San Fran has got to be a big plus in finding a qualified teacher.

iron_silk
12-02-2002, 08:13 PM
I believe the lineage with a few forms belong to Buk Sing.

Something about Tam Sam leaving his school before finishing his study in Hung Sing. Yet I believe some school incorporated Buk Sil Lum's form into their curriculum as well.

choyleefutman
12-03-2002, 12:09 AM
setansi said...

'I HAVE ALSO BEEN TAUGHT THAT CHAN HUENG SENT ONE OF HIS SONS TO STUDY WITH CHUENG HUNG SING (CHUENG YIM).
BUT PEOPLE NEVER MENTIONED THIS EITHER...'

Unfortunately, there have been all kinds of diff stories about CLF, a lot of them being contraditory to their own dates if you read carefully, so it's up to whoever reads them to believe what's true, what's not...

Obviously no one is old enough to have lived from then till now to tell what actually happened and that no records are there, but a lot of times you can judge by applying common sense such as :

if you are a master who could found a style of your own, will you have to send your own son away from home to another city to your own student to learn your art? (unless you are dying....or somehow no longer able to teach him...)


No hard feelings, just a friendly discussion...

Fu-Pow
12-03-2002, 12:32 AM
Obviously no one is old enough to have lived from then till now to tell what actually happened and that no records are there, but a lot of times you can judge by applying common sense such as :

There are some people here who don't think that way. They assume that if their Sifu told them something it is the undeniable truth and to refute it is disrespectful. I disagree with this, all people must decide for themselves and apply critical thinking. Although, you might not want to refute things like this right to your Sifu's face ...that is ,if you want to keep learning from him....but on this forum we are anonymous and you can say whatever you want.

tparkerkfo
12-03-2002, 10:35 AM
Hello again,

Thanls for all the replies. I just want to note that I am NOT looking into learning Choy Li Fut. I would love to at some time, or better yet, befriend a CLF practicioner. It is not that I have a problem with CLF, just that I am committed to other stuff. I do like and respect CLF very much and is why I am asking so many questions. I am not in SF but in Sacramento. SF does indeed have many availible schools in CLF. In my area we have 2 CLF schools. One is from Doc Fai Wong's lineage and the other is from Lai Hung's. I am not to interested in Doc Fai Wong's CLF, except for Lau Bun's lineage. But I was considering Lai Hung's lineage before I chose another school.

Also, I am aware that the number of forms has little to do with ones skills. I come from a wing chun back ground with only three main forms. Now I am in Hung Gar with only four main hand forms. But in my ignorance, I though 3 out of 100 was not good. I didn't realize at the time that there were different lineages. It would have been a good expereince had I gone. One of several martial arts mistakes I have made over the years. LOL.

Tom
________
Old Man Vids (http://www.****tube.com/categories/29/old-man/videos/1)

Fu-Pow
12-03-2002, 11:21 AM
The number of hand forms in CLF is deceptively high because many are composed of the same stances and hand techniques only in different combinations and sequences. As you progress through the forms the combinations and sequences get increasingly complex and difficult.

The form I am learning now( Bagua Sam) is incredibly difficult. The foot work forces some very unnatural transitions and in the words of my Sifu, it is very "co(ky." So the less complicated forms might be more useful in terms of actual fighting but the more advanced forms push your physical limits.

So the question is not that Baksing CLF has less in the way of techniques (all CLF has pretty much the same techs) but they may not have the same level of complexity in their forms.

There are probably benefits and drawbacks to each curriculum.

My thought is that we should try to preserve as much of CLF as we can (ie teach lots of forms) and allow people to select those couple of forms that become their specialty. But if we lose parts of the curriculum then we have no way of getting it back.

choyleefutman
12-03-2002, 11:39 AM
I can't agree more with Fu-Pow on this. I have met one clf student , and their written version of the history of Cheung Yim says he was into his 70's before he died, yet they also mentioned elsewhere that Cheung Yim was ambushed (in his 30s) by more than 20 + people and died afterwards.....

This student just blew up and became rude after being questioned about this discrepancy.......sigh....respect your sifu is one thing, but that should not prevent you from seeking out the truth, or at least, since no one really knows that truth, something that makes sense.

In the old days when information was not efficiently transmitted, someone could make up stories, pass them down to the next generation, and after some more spreading through 'elders', and these lies become truth.....and by merely applying fictitious figures and dates, these become the 'bible'. Or, this master defeated the other one....without any proof, students would blindly take what the 'elders' say and take that as the undeniable truth. How sad...

regulator
12-04-2002, 06:42 AM
while i will agree that of course seeking truth is a good thing, there are also rules and decorum that one must follow if he is to respect tradition and the very 'truth' he seeks.
of course, no one wants to 'blindly' follow their sifu, this implies that the todai is a slobbering idiot with no judgement skills whatsoever. if my sifu told me, for example, "tarm sarm was really a cross-dressing european nun", i'd definately not subscribe to that. however, in certain matters (namely those of gung fu family history, mo duk, and other things), one would do well to trust in the counsel and wisdom of their elders, and your sifu (remember...sifu is as "father" in your gung fu family) is your closest and most precious elder in your gung fu family. defy your sifu? in private, i am sure we have all had thoughts of these things. Openly defy your sifu in public? Not a wise decision, and it shows lack of character and wisdom in yourself to do so. Such an act is quite a grave risk to both your relationship with your sifu, your sigungs, other todai, etc. as well as the relationship of others with the aforementioned ones, for if you cannot maintain the level of trust that is required in a student/master relationship, why are you with your sifu in the first place? Even more pointed, if others see this, your sifu (and gung-fu family) loses face! And for what? So your self-righteous ideals could perhaps be realized? At what cost? Is it truly worth it? The wise man thinks before he acts, and weighs the costs of the decisions he makes, even MORESO when they directly affect his sifu, todai, and their reputation. He thinks of the others his decisions could potentially affect, and his actions/statements regarding his sifu are selfless, for only then is his cup truly empty. We aren't talking about common sense (the Tarm Sarm example above), we are talking about tact and wisdom of choosing when to question and how. The internet is absolutely no exception to this, and those who say "well the internet allows us to air our opinions anonymously" etc are in my opinion just hiding behind their screens. There is a difference in not wanting to be known because you care more about what is being spoken of than the personalities behind it, and posting inflammatory statements directed at certain persons (especially respected elders!) and then when "called out" not responding with the honor and integrity required of your martial arts heritage to answer the challenges! There is also the issue of "chain of command". Perhaps certain people's hands are tied because their sifu does not want them to reveal who they are. This is different from those who do not even consult their sifu when posting on important matters such as the ones that have been slung carelessly around this (public!) forum recently! If I were to post something of such significance, you can bet your a$$ that I would consult my sifu first! NOT because I'm some kind of "mind-controlled slave", mind you, but 1) out of respect and tradition, and 2) because I am humble enough to realize that I may not have all the d@mn answers and could not see some of the far-reaching consequences my reckless actions could cause! Think about it...
in addition, as some have already said, you can (and will!) be held responsible for your actions and statements, as well as your sifu! are you willing to risk such things for speculation? even on "the net"? this is yet another reason to consult your sifu, because if decorum, tradition, and respect are not enough, you are putting it "on the line" every time you open your mouth (or type your post, as the case may be) for both yourself and your sifu, and in a larger sense, your entire gung-fu family!
Think of these things as you go about your business, whether it be the business of your daily routine, or the business of airing matters on a public forum. don't turn around and point the finger at others saying "well what about him/her?", but yet look to yourself, because in the end, as another has already said, "we are all our own masters".

TIDAL
12-05-2002, 07:36 PM
To answer the question as to how many forms Choy Lay Fut Buk Sing contains here is a list:
- 3 Choy Lay Fut Buk Sing forms
- 3 Chow Gar Hand forms/ 1 Chow gar staff form
- Northern Shaolin no.6 and 8
- Northern Shaolin Sword form
- Spear form
- 3piece sectional staff form
- and if you hang around the school for about 10 years youll probably learn drunken


Hopefully that helps


TIDAL :)

Serpent
12-05-2002, 07:50 PM
Is that a standard curriculum for Buk Sing schools globally?

nospam
12-05-2002, 10:44 PM
No. It taint.

You will find varying influences and curriculums at almost any kwoon.

I'm a Canadian Bak Hsing playa - we have a basic 4 fist patterns with one Bak Sil Lum and a variety of weapons. Fighting is the main emphasis..

nospam.
:cool:

Fu-Pow
12-05-2002, 11:26 PM
Regulator-

It's very obvious to see that your comments are a thinly veiled attack on me. Once again you've ingratiated yourself to Dave Lacey and insured that you'll recieve some quotation on his website.

But you've just proven my point. You can't think for yourself.

Whatever you or others may think of me, I still maintain that the anonymity of this forum has allowed things to come to the surface that might not have under other circumstances. Some might think this is good, some might consider it bad. That is very subjective viewpoint.

This forum can either be a good or bad thing depending on the intention of the participants. Fortunately for you, my intention has always been to engage in thoughtful and provoking discussion.
If others wish to censor this kind of discussion (ie Dave Lacey) by making things "personal", well it's just too bad. I won't bite.

We live in a very small world now with the invention of the internet. It is hard to make up stories or propagate an incorrect history without someone calling you out on it. This is the world we live in. Get used to it.

As for being a "representative "for my Sifu I have never made that claim. Being the "critical thinker" that you are you should be able to realize that the views of the student are not always the views of the teacher. But then again, that might be beyond your capability.

regulator
12-06-2002, 08:14 AM
Fu Pow-
i make no "thinly veiled attacks" against you. on the contrary, i freely admit that my previous post was directed primarily at you, and anyone else who displays this same sort of behavior.
you are justyfing some of the things you have done by playing the victim- poor Fu Pow, victimized by Dave Lacey. poor Fu Pow, who was only trying to find "the truth". poor Fu Pow, who had only honest intent at heart when he insulted Master Lacey's own blood. poor Fu Pow, who posts a "thinly veiled attack" at others on the foe-room on this very same thread, and then is amazed when someone responds in turn.
Surely, you are the "misunderstood" good guy here, right Fu Pow? :rolleyes:

don't use the pretense of "free thinking" as an excuse. you should realize that your actions reflect on your sifu and family. whether you like it or not. you ARE a representative of your sifu Fu Pow, and that's how it is! in truth, i have never met nor do i personally know Master Lacey. the comments i make are not "dictated" to me by him or any of his students, nor have i ever corresponded with him or his students. the things i say are my thoughts alone.

you said "the anonymity of this forum has allowed things to come to the surface that might not have under other circumstances"

while this statement is true, and i agree that this has come to pass, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by playing the innocent victim here again. this same sort of argument could be used by, for example, the snipers who had a rampage in the united states recently. indeed, their "anonymity" allowed things to come to the surface that might not have under other circumstances! (don't twist my words around and say i am accusing you of being a sniper or terrorist of some sort, this was merely an example to expand upon your anonymity points)
so, while your much-touted anonymity has it's uses, the reality of the situation is that you do not remain anonymous because you have been asked to by your sifu or elders, nor do you remain anonymous because you do not wish to draw attention to yourself because of your modest heart... you hide under a MASK of anonymity because you are AFRAID to face people face to face when you hurl your accusations. this is the difference i was pointing out in my previous post.
regarding your comment that "It is hard to make up stories or propagate an incorrect history without someone calling you out on it.", i completely concur! but let's be honest here Fu Pow... who has done the "calling out"? it's not you, as anyone who reads both sides of the scenario can clearly see.
one last thing Fu Pow... i'm not really following your line of thought when you say "If others wish to censor this kind of discussion (ie Dave Lacey) by making things "personal", well it's just too bad. I won't bite."
how exactly is "making things personal" a form of censorship?
you lost me on that one.
:confused:

tparkerkfo
12-06-2002, 11:11 AM
Hey you two,

Take your BS else where. You guys have several threads to *****. We can discuss issues without taking lineage shots. Go rant on a differnt thread please.

Others,

Thanks for your information. I would think most Schools would have a similar core set, but as people are different, other stuff would creep in from what ever expereince. From what you guys said, Bak Sing has fewer forms than some other lineages and that they focus on fighting more that forms. Good stuff.

I might be going to Tat Mau Wong's tourny this weekend in SF. If I go, I hope to see some good choy li fut as well as hung gar and other styles.

Tom
________
Maryjane (http://maryjanes.info/)

yik-wah-tik
12-06-2002, 02:09 PM
sorry for messing up your name but i am dino salvateras student and am a sifu under him and now live in antioch, ca less than 60 miles from you. if you wanted to learn some of lau buns hsclf let contact me thru our website hungsing.com
we can hook up sometime.
call me i will go with you to the tat mau tourney.

frank

alecM
12-06-2002, 02:39 PM
tparkerkfo
If your going to watch some CLF in competition try to see if the schools have entered only in the fighting or the forms (some school only do forms because thy can’t fight) or if the school has entered people in both categories because in my opinion a good school should be able to use the CLF fists and footwork in competition and not fight like a kick boxer. Personally, I hope you do see some good CLF.

setansi & choyleefutman
I’m not an claming to be an expert in Chinese culture but I believe it was not that uncommon for kung fu masters to have their sons first taught by their best students.

tparkerkfo
12-06-2002, 03:30 PM
Hello yik-wah-tik.

Thanks for the info. I had a VERY hard choice of martial arts and styles to study under. I am not studying CLF or planing on it anytime soon. But I do respect it very much and would love to have friends in the style. I had a small chance to study what I think may have been Hung Sing or Buk Sing Choy li Fut. Their is a guy in Sonoma in the north bay that taught. I didn't know much and figured he didn't have the full info. Probably a mistake on my part. I am currently happy learning Hung Gar, from the YC Wong lineage(from a student of his, not directly from Wong sigung). I would love to attend an event with you guys though. Do you still go to Marysville?

I have a sihing who studied at Lau Bun's school in china town. I beleive he is Doc Fai Wong's sihing. not sure the relation to Dino Difu though. he is in one of the photos on the hungsing.com web site in the '71 Chinatown photo.


alacM,
I like both fighting and forms. They are part of a whole. I think many people misunderstand forms and either focus too much on the form and forget the fighting, or they focus on the fighting and don't pay much attention to the forms. I think both are very important. Lee Koon Hung was good at forms and fighting, for example. I am not sure if I am going, but hopefully I will see a little of both.

Tom
________
Yamaha v-max history (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_V-Max)

Fu-Pow
12-09-2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by regulator
Fu Pow-
i make no "thinly veiled attacks" against you. on the contrary, i freely admit that my previous post was directed primarily at you, and anyone else who displays this same sort of behavior.
you are justyfing some of the things you have done by playing the victim- poor Fu Pow, victimized by Dave Lacey. poor Fu Pow, who was only trying to find "the truth".

I don't claim to be a victim, but I will not sit by and let my role be defined by some one else.



poor Fu Pow, who had only honest intent at heart when he insulted Master Lacey's own blood.

Obviously that was joke. Kung Fu guys don't have to be all serious regulator. Why don't you take a laxative and laugh once in a while?


poor Fu Pow, who posts a "thinly veiled attack" at others on the foe-room on this very same thread, and then is amazed when someone responds in turn.
Surely, you are the "misunderstood" good guy here, right Fu Pow? :rolleyes:

Wasn't targeted directly at you but the other demon spawn as well.


don't use the pretense of "free thinking" as an excuse. you should realize that your actions reflect on your sifu and family. whether you like it or not. you ARE a representative of your sifu Fu Pow, and that's how it is! in truth, i have never met nor do i personally know Master Lacey. the comments i make are not "dictated" to me by him or any of his students, nor have i ever corresponded with him or his students. the things i say are my thoughts alone.

I noticed by your name that you have posted here a total of 22 times. You obviously have not followed this thing from the beginning and so really have know knowledge of what was said and wasn't said. And yet you go on ad nauseum about how righteous Dave Lacey is and what a ****nut I am? Obviously you have some political affiliation.


you said "the anonymity of this forum has allowed things to come to the surface that might not have under other circumstances"

while this statement is true, and i agree that this has come to pass, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by playing the innocent victim here again.

Again, not a victim but I won't sit idly by and let people attack me. What do you expect. Remember Dave Lacey attacked first. Not the other way around.


this same sort of argument could be used by, for example, the snipers who had a rampage in the united states recently. indeed, their "anonymity" allowed things to come to the surface that might not have under other circumstances! (don't twist my words around and say i am accusing you of being a sniper or terrorist of some sort, this was merely an example to expand upon your anonymity points)

That's a poorly reasoned argument. We're not talking about killing people here, we're talking about history. It's apples and oranges.



so, while your much-touted anonymity has it's uses, the reality of the situation is that you do not remain anonymous because you have been asked to by your sifu or elders, nor do you remain anonymous because you do not wish to draw attention to yourself because of your modest heart... you hide under a MASK of anonymity because you are AFRAID to face people face to face when you hurl your accusations. this is the difference i was pointing out in my previous post.

Please tell me what accusations I have hurled. You claim that I try portray myself as a victim, you would rather portray me as an "accuser"? Your portrayal has no merit. If you had any clue as to the history of this arguing you would know what was up. Ignorance must be bliss.

Trust me I'm not afraid of much. But I'm politically savvy enough not to walk into an ambush.



regarding your comment that "It is hard to make up stories or propagate an incorrect history without someone calling you out on it.", i completely concur! but let's be honest here Fu Pow... who has done the "calling out"? it's not you, as anyone who reads both sides of the scenario can clearly see.
one last thing Fu Pow... i'm not really following your line of thought when you say "If others wish to censor this kind of discussion (ie Dave Lacey) by making things "personal", well it's just too bad. I won't bite."
how exactly is "making things personal" a form of censorship?
you lost me on that one.
:confused:

Dave Lacey wants to adhere to tradition in these matters. I'm saying where has that tradition gotten us? We're all divided up and infighting. If we give these issues room to breathe on an anonymous forum like this then perhaps we can move toward some kind of resolution. Instead Dave Lacey would prefer to make this political. It's not really the political. The students on this forum just want the truth about the history of their art. That is all we've ever wanted from the beginning. Dave Lacey does not want to see this happen....his reasons allude me.

regulator
12-09-2002, 02:06 PM
Fu Pow,
because the originator of this thread has asked us to take it "elsewhere", which you OBVIOUSLY ignored, i'm going to take the high road here and not dignify your post with a response other than this.

Serpent
12-09-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by regulator
Fu Pow,
because the originator of this thread has asked us to take it "elsewhere", which you OBVIOUSLY ignored, i'm going to take the high road here and not dignify your post with a response other than this.

Way to avoid the subject, regulator. You could always take it somewhere else.

Fu-Pow
12-09-2002, 05:40 PM
Serpent-

I was gonna say the exact same thing.

bean curd
12-10-2002, 01:30 AM
you know fu pow i have been in this from the start and what you have said in your last posts is rubbish. you clearly have your own agenda with your friends joe seph and joe sephs alter-ego(s).

if you think that those who have read your words don't remember what you have previously written, then you have a weak mind and need to re- read your stuff.

i have to say i admire you pathetic excuse of how you wish to bring this with a true heart, yet have the audasity to accuse a senior player that his works are not and are politically motivated, which clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

you say you stand up for what you are and what your believes are, yet you only stand in the dark and don't show everyone who you are. david stands upfront and we all know who he is, yet you on the other hand come out with pathetic excuses and reasons to hide your worthless standards.

tparkerkfo
12-10-2002, 10:27 AM
FuPow, Bean Curd, Serpent,

I am not sure why you can't voice this on one of the several OTHER threads devoted to these topics. This is a stupid waste of bandwidth and it basically just ends the original discussion since people will see your silly posts. PLEASE, go find your own thread to bash eachother on and stop hijacking the ligitimate posts.

Tom
________
FRIEND ADVICE ADVICE (http://www.love-help.org/friend-advice/)

jmd161
12-10-2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Fu-Pow
My thought is that we should try to preserve as much of CLF as we can (ie teach lots of forms) and allow people to select those couple of forms that become their specialty. But if we lose parts of the curriculum then we have no way of getting it back.

Fu-Pow,

I don't study Choy Lay Fut although it's a style i've always wanted to learn ,but i agree with that 100%.My Sifu always says that you should pick two forms to master.If you master two forms that would be enough for a lifetime.Even all the great masters and fighters did this.Yes they knew the entire style ,but most only mastered a few forms.

jmd161:)

Fu-Pow
12-10-2002, 11:55 AM
tparker-

Too bad so sad. It's free world and free forum. But fair enough, I've had my say and totally frickin' dominated anyone that tried to argue with me.

bean curd-

Uh...ok...whatever....I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about EVERYTHING you've said for the time being.

jmd161-

Cool, it's seems that you and your Sifu are on the same page as I am. BTW, what is the origin of your style?

monk weed
12-10-2002, 12:38 PM
JMD161

I see by your profile that you study black tiger. Is that the same style that was featured in Kungfu Qi gong magazine awhile back?

tparkerkfo
12-10-2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Fu-Pow
tparker-

Too bad so sad. It's free world and free forum. But fair enough, I've had my say and totally frickin' dominated anyone that tried to argue with me.


Hello

There is such a rich field of information we can discuss. I understand these political issues about lineages and such, I have a Hung Gar, wing chun, and Kenpo background. Trust me, I know. LOL. I don't mean to suggest this is not a free forum or that we should be careful about what we post. What I am upset at is there are several threads devoted to the various topics you guys are discussing. Why must you drag it into ALL your posts, or atleast into this one? It is a waste of resources and ruins the current discusions. So talk away all you want. But out of common curtisy, please keep it to were it is relavant.
________
Asian Movies (http://www.****tube.com/categories/4/asian/videos/1)

Fu-Pow
12-10-2002, 02:14 PM
cool cool:D

jmd161
12-10-2002, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by monk weed
JMD161

I see by your profile that you study black tiger. Is that the same style that was featured in Kungfu Qi gong magazine awhile back?

monk weed,

Yeah my Sihing wrote those articles.

Infact Master Woo in those articles is my Sifu.

jmd161:)

jmd161
12-10-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Fu-Pow
jmd161-

Cool, it's seems that you and your Sifu are on the same page as I am. BTW, what is the origin of your style?

Fu-Pow,

I almost missed your ?

Well everyone says this about their style ,but here i go.

It was created by a Shaolin Monk named Soo Hak Fu.Soo taught his style to another monk who's name i don't really know.That monk taught it to another monk named Fung Ping-Wai.Fung Ping-Wai taught it to my Sigung Grandmaster Wong Cheung.They worked together in Hong Kong. Fung Ping-Wai had returned to living a worldly life at that time.Sigung Wong Cheung then taught my Sifu Master Fred Woo among others.No one person knows the entire style now.Sigung taught it in 1/3 because he thought it was to much for one person to learn.There are over 80 empty hand forms alone.

I along with a friend i met on-line have reunited my Sifu with a Sidai in Texas who will put their 1/3 together.There is another Sihing of my Sifu's in Cali somewhere that we are trying to find that knows the last 1/3.Grandmaster Wong Cheung was a Master of many styles he also Mastered Hung Gar from Wong Fei Hung's discilpe Kwong Ken Chen.

Hope that helps answer some questions?

If you or anyone have anymore ask away.

jmd161

:)

Slade
09-21-2005, 08:02 AM
I am doing research into a school I might be joining soon enough, its Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut, I was wondering what the major differences are.

From what I hear Buk sing is actually a northern style of Choy lat fut which has many high kicks unlike the southern variant, please correct me if im wrong.(as im sure you will :D )

What differences does it have in forms? are the forms the exact same as Hung Sing.

Since I have been doing Wing Chun for 6 years will I find having to fight side on compared to front on difficult?

And one thing just cos im curious, is it normal for Choy Lay Fut to train in full contact as well?

DF
09-21-2005, 08:20 AM
CLF is CLF. BuckSing CLF is named BuckSing because Tarm Sam's school was located in Siu Buck China, thus it was called Buck Sing.

Depends on which branch or sifu of CLF you follow, there will always be some diff. However, if your gwa, sow , charp is there, CLF is CLF.


Buck Sing has fewer forms than the other two families of CLF. As far as are they similar, well the forms are similar but over time, no CLF guys have exactly the same forms.

CLF do attract the fighting mind folks,thus it is not unusual to be training in full contact type fo fighting.
DF

CHAZ
09-21-2005, 08:30 AM
Most CLF schools will train in full contact, one reason its very hard to pull a swinging style strike back when you launch it full speed due to the centrafugal force generated.

hskwarrior
10-03-2007, 08:48 AM
I know i can search then net, but y not ask people here....

does anyone know anything about Lee Chou or Chow as its pronounced?

from what i understand, he and Tsang Chiu Yu were one of those buk sing people who doesn't have the northern flavor to their gung fu..........

Satori Science
10-03-2007, 10:02 AM
Do you mean Lai CHow, Lai Hung's Bak Hsing Sifu.

If so, my Sifu told me that he majorly emphasised on Tam Sam's gwa-sow techniques and expanded on them greatly. His fighting was always geared towards multiple opponents.

Can't speak as to his knowledge of the northern style though.

hskwarrior
10-03-2007, 11:41 PM
yeah its interesting enough.......

from what i understand my sigung used to visit with lai chow alot back in the days....

i wish my sigung was more verbal, i'd ask him what they spoke about....i wonder if they explored their clf together......

southernkf
10-24-2007, 12:07 PM
Hi Guys,

As beeing a CLF idiot, I wanted to learn a bit about it. There is a lot of discussion about the various major branches. So I thought I'd ask for a quick discription that a NON choy li fut person might understand. I am somewhat familiar with different people doing choy li fut and I think I can see some differences, but the nuances are lost on me. For instance, I am some what familiar with the Lau Bun lineage in SF and have seen some of the Lacey's stuff. Some Tat Mau Wong and Doc Fai Wong, as well as some other stuff spread around the net.

My question would be, what differentiates the Chan family, Buk Sing, and Hung Sing CLF? How would you characterize the differences and defend the statement 'a buk sing flavor' as I recently read? What is Buk Sing or any other flavor?

Then of course, what are the core that all Choy Li Fut have in common?

Hopefully this won't get political or too technical. Just enough so an outsider might be able to appreciate the different forms of choy li fut, and at the lest, follow some of these other threads. Perhaps a quick history lesson on how these all relate to each other would be good to.

hskwarrior
10-24-2007, 02:25 PM
Aside from the basic root techqniques, forms and what not changes from branch to branch. even within the same branch there could be material created by the last grand master, or so forth.

Under one father, you can have 10 sons, and each may have a different way, then there will be that one brother who just wants to keep the system together.

What differentiates Chan Fam CLF from the likes of hung sing and buk sing.......

1st thing: Hoi Jongs or sets openings are different.
2nd thing : Chan Heung created and passed down CLF through his family.
3rd thing: Chan Heung's gung fu was based off of the Choy and Lee Ga styles, or suffice it to say the styles taught by Choy Fook and Lee Yau San. The Fut was attached at the end to show their shaolin and buddhist roots. Jeong Yim's CLF was based off of teachings he received from Lee Yau San, Chan Heung, and the Green Grass Monk. for jeong yims branch, he put the FUT in choy lee fut. so the two separately developed their gung fu.

one can watch both and know who is who by watching their movements.

4th thing: i noticed that in Chan Fam CLF they have a lot of barrage strikes in their forms, while Hung Sing is more on the lines of the "one hitter quitters"

5th thing: sets are totally different, even in method of usage.

the lacey family or even just buk sing CLF, has developed a certain flow and energy that is identifiable strictly to them. I think they have set the trend for future generations.

however, in my school under GM salvatera, there is a certain flow that is identifiable to our lineage. heck, one of my senior students made a comment that he can see my hands in another of my students hands. to me that was a compliment. but someone will eventually say, hey, did you learn from sifu frank? yeah? i can tell.

alot of this is hard to articulate......but it will come as others chime in.

Jeong
10-24-2007, 06:56 PM
I'd say that one other place you can see the difference is in the footwork. Chan fam tends to have very intricate footwork, shifting and moving all over the place as you blast them with a combo. Hung Sing has less mobile footwork; the goal is to prepare the stance, clear a path and then destroy them. Buk Sing is much more northern, so the stances are often much higher than Chan or Hung Sing, which both have very southern style stances.

deeperthantao
10-24-2007, 07:45 PM
I don't know if I necessarily agree with bak hsing being more northern than other styles(despite the name), our buk siu lum is northern, but, our southern stuff is very southern..

Several major points in my kwoon's bak hsing flavour:

-We usually fight from a 45 degree angle- the reason for this is to make a much smaller target area, compared to other clf where the chest is partly exposed(correct me if I'm wrong).

- we emphasize a running/ fighting horse/continuous attack method- watch any video, by satori or the buk sing crew and you will see this utilized.
for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kTy06sqPOA

- We focus on the chorp choy/straight punch as our main striking method, we also throw our chorp choy differently than other branches of clf.

I'm sure there are some points I've missed, but these help to distinguish our style.

CLFNole
10-24-2007, 08:00 PM
Yeah I was going to chime in the same on the buk sing as it doesn't really look that northern other than having the northern blending with Ku Yu Jeong. Maybe the lines from that have a more northern flavor say Leung Tze Cheung's line but most buk sing looks southern.

Satori Science
10-24-2007, 09:17 PM
Yeah I was going to chime in the same on the buk sing as it doesn't really look that northern other than having the northern blending with Ku Yu Jeong. Maybe the lines from that have a more northern flavor say Leung Tze Cheung's line but most buk sing looks southern.

Yup, I kind laugh when I hear people say we look northern, we have northern forms but thats about it. In our fighting we heavily emphasise on coordination of punches and kicks but our forms look pretty southern to me,

The difference in the families is flavour and emphsis, my teacher likes these techniques and likes to play them this way, your teachers likes those techniques and uses them like that,

Satori Science
10-24-2007, 09:19 PM
- we emphasize a running/ fighting horse/continuous attack method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kTy06sqPOA

- We focus on the chorp choy/straight punch as our main striking method, we also throw our chorp choy differently than other branches of clf.
.

I assume you must be hanging out with Dave lots, sweet dude, well said!

hskwarrior
11-03-2007, 10:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcH0FC4Xihk&NR=1

Buk Sing Fremont #7

WinterPalm
11-03-2007, 10:49 AM
Nice vid!

I really like the fake giving of the back followed by a spinning backfist or a spinning kick. It's a good manuever against really aggressive guys.


Oh, and the rock and roll at the end was hilarious!

hskwarrior
11-03-2007, 10:51 AM
It seems alot of gung fu teachers turn to music to supplement their gung fu.

some go to traditional chinese music, but i just love Grand Master Vince's talent. How many sifu's on earth do you see rocking out like him!?!?!?!?!

Satori Science
11-03-2007, 12:14 PM
The vid was sick! The second fight was dope!

Yeah my sifu is all about the music, he holds concerts ware he sings with his brothers in the Chinese commuity. He has a whole theroy on gung fu and music as mutually reflective, I mean look at the drumming in lion dance.

I think that was Tat Ma Wong's school, he was the one doing center right?

hskwarrior
11-04-2007, 07:55 AM
if that was Tat Wong's kung fu school, then buk sing wasn't really sparring against a hung sing dude.......

but either way, i think both fighters did well, and neither looked bad at all.

that was a far better match that what i've seen out there though.

nospam
11-08-2007, 08:36 PM
..it has been said to do gung fu well, take up ball room dancing.

nospam
:cool:

Buk&Hung Sing
11-24-2007, 05:27 PM
There was no "style" used by any of these fighters. It was just kick/punch that can be seen used by any fighting art that uses arms and legs. I studied under Tat Mau Wong (Hung Sing) and Michael Chau (Buk Sing). There are differences between the two systems, but none can be seen with this video.
This video does show that people with a common interest can actually cooperate with each other. I wouldn't want people unfamiliar with the respectful relationship between Sifus Wong and Gracie to believe there is any rivalry between the two.

Satori Science
11-25-2007, 05:48 AM
I studied under Tat Mau Wong (Hung Sing) and Michael Chau (Buk Sing).

Who is Michael Chau? I've heard you refer to him before, ware does he teach and what family is he from?

cheers

nospam
11-25-2007, 06:14 AM
http://www.calcompnutrition.com/fast-pain-fix-master-chau.html ;)



nospam
:cool:

hskwarrior
11-25-2007, 08:37 AM
thats Jow Ga's Michael Chow right? Here in San Francisco.......

if its the same guy, i believe sifu V. Lacey had me stop by and pay him a visit. His school isn't far from where my sifu teaches.

Buk&Hung Sing
11-25-2007, 07:25 PM
Michael Chau (Chau Zhizhou) is located on Judah St. in the Sunset District of San Francisco. There may probably be another Chow who teaches Jow Ga, but he is Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut, great grandson of Sherriff Chau Tai. Last I heard he is concentrating on his TCM practice and not taking on any new students, but I'm sure he may change his mind if an advanced student approached him for training. His location is proximal to Tat Mau Wong's school on Clement St.

hskwarrior
11-25-2007, 07:40 PM
he sounds like the same michael chow who is jow ga, and has a famous ten tigers of canton lineage.......he has a school on judah close to the beach. unless he moved.

Buk&Hung Sing
11-25-2007, 07:47 PM
You're right it is Judah, not Laguna (old location)! He never mentioned a Jow Ga lineage, though he has taught students the Hung Gar five animal fist and helped my brother with his Southern Dragon and Mok Gar. He does have a family style called CHAU GAH, which may be adding to the Jow Ga confusion. I hope people visit and pay him his due respect.

hskwarrior
11-25-2007, 07:51 PM
its a sad thing, he's had his school open for a long time, but i never see any students there. i always wondered how he kept it open.....but he is a nice guy.

nospam
11-25-2007, 09:04 PM
CHAU GAH sounds and looks like jow gar to me. They say..if it sounds looks like jow gar and it looks like jow gar then it is chau gah! Lineage solved.:rolleyes:

nospam
:cool:

Satori Science
11-26-2007, 06:39 PM
Michael Chau (Chau Zhizhou) is located on Judah St. in the Sunset District of San Francisco. There may probably be another Chow who teaches Jow Ga, but he is Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut, great grandson of Sherriff Chau Tai. Last I heard he is concentrating on his TCM practice and not taking on any new students, but I'm sure he may change his mind if an advanced student approached him for training. His location is proximal to Tat Mau Wong's school on Clement St.

very interesting, thank you very much.

Buk&Hung Sing
12-01-2007, 05:59 PM
its a sad thing, he's had his school open for a long time, but i never see any students there. i always wondered how he kept it open.....but he is a nice guy.

You should hook up with him. He can tighten any stylists forms, teaches all 18 classical weapons sets and is open to teaching everything he knows. I learned several broadsword forms, but his Chasing the Wind form is my favorite!

CLFNole
12-01-2007, 08:56 PM
Does he teach his grandfather's famous "soul chasing staff"?

hskwarrior
12-01-2007, 09:07 PM
and he is more buk sing than Jow Ga?

CLFNole
12-01-2007, 09:30 PM
I don't think he is Jow Gar like in Jow Biu, Jow Lung, etc...

I think it is more of a family style Chau (Jow) Gar. I thought I heard a story about him losing a fight with Tam Sam and then learning from him. Then again that could just be typical style chest pumping. ;)

hskwarrior
12-01-2007, 09:34 PM
he ain't that old is he?

when did he lose to tam sam?

CLFNole
12-01-2007, 09:35 PM
No not him his grandfather, Chau Tai, he was supposed to be one of the 10 Tigers of Guandong.

hskwarrior
12-01-2007, 09:42 PM
ahhh i see.

chasincharpchui
12-02-2007, 05:31 AM
jow tai was famous for his jui wun gwan(soul chasing staff)

i heard the story of him losing to tarm sarm

Steeeve
12-10-2007, 02:49 PM
A new one Buk sing CLF ...very good two thumbs up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un8sBBdTWt8

Steeve

BUK SING
01-15-2008, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TIDAL:
Im a buk sing choy lay fut student. From what my sifu has told me is that our system has more use of the charp choi (leopard fist) then the hung sing version and lower stances due to its northern influence.

That's is all I know to date I can probably find out some more info Ill check back here later

TIDAL
Hiya TIDAL,
I practise BSCLF in Perth. Where are you? It's possible our schools are linked?!?[/QUOTE]

Hey I Practise Buk Sing in Perth to. Who do you learn from Sifu George, Sifu Vincent, Sifu Lee or someone else.

BUK SING
01-15-2008, 10:24 AM
In Buk Sing we use lots of charp choi because it was Tarm Sarms favourite technique and he because he was also famous for his Lee warn Charp.

Buk Sing was mainly for fighting and not for forms.

Tarm Sarm was into challenging people and street fighting he lost in a streeet fight once and went on to develop his own style.

he originally got exspelled from his hung sing school for fighting another student but he ended up learning the rest of the froms from a freind.

He also went into northern china to learn some kung fu

for information on how the style was developed and other info about the style go in google and type in one of the following. vince lacey, dave lacey, buksing:cool:

chasincharpchui
01-16-2008, 02:45 AM
Tarm Sarm was into challenging people and street fighting he lost in a streeet fight once and went on to develop his own style.



yo dude, think you should go to your sigung's website (buksing.com), read what he wrote and correct yourself on that post, because tarm sarm never lost a fight.

correction: tarm sarm clf has same elements, different execution. more emphasis on extension

sijo tarm sarm(king of southern fist) and sinsi ku yu jeong(king of northern kick) exchanged students because they respected eachothers fighting abilities. and this was the only way they could better their kung fu without bowing down to one or the other.

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 04:50 AM
Can you show us some examples of the same element, different execution between hung sing and buk sing, and they are no longer the same thing?

chasincharpchui
01-16-2008, 05:45 AM
Can you show us some examples of the same element, different execution between hung sing and buk sing, and they are no longer the same thing?

by elements i meant the seeds

gwa sau charp etc

yes buk sing and hung sing are not the same thing
if they were, then they'll be only 2 lineages of clf, not 3

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 06:02 AM
Do buk sing gwa, or sau or charp differently to hung sing? How?

chasincharpchui
01-16-2008, 06:19 AM
ive said it in the past, buk sing charp chui is different to hung sing charp chui, its not juss the shape of a leopard fist that makes ur punch a charp chui, its body mechanics.

that goes for lin warn charp chui aswell, more to it than a left right cross/right left cross

learn off a buk sing master, and u'll know

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 06:48 AM
I have exchanged hands with Buk SWing practitioners and the difference is more of a personal interpretation of basic seeds and nothing more. Have you been to a Hung Sing schools?

Do you know what Buk Sing stood for? It stood for Hung SING CLF as practised by Tarm Sarm and his students from the district of Siu BUK, hence Buk Sing Gwoon.

If you seak to the elders, Tarm Sarm himself was reluctant to change the school name to Buk Sing, it was more widely used only after his death. Also it has always been CLF Buk Sing Gwoon. Putting Buk Sing infront of CLF was considered bad manners in the olden days.

Same seeds do not produce different species of trees and the same family only has one blood or lineage line. They are observational facts. As for someone NEVER lose a fight, is it humanly possible?

chasincharpchui
01-16-2008, 07:18 AM
I have exchanged hands with Buk SWing practitioners and the difference is more of a personal interpretation of basic seeds and nothing more. Have you been to a Hung Sing schools?

Do you know what Buk Sing stood for? It stood for Hung SING CLF as practised by Tarm Sarm and his students from the district of Siu BUK, hence Buk Sing Gwoon.

If you seak to the elders, Tarm Sarm himself was reluctant to change the school name to Buk Sing, it was more widely used only after his death. Also it has always been CLF Buk Sing Gwoon. Putting Buk Sing infront of CLF was considered bad manners in the olden days.

Same seeds do not produce different species of trees and the same family only has one blood or lineage line. They are observational facts. As for someone NEVER lose a fight, is it humanly possible?

We call ourselves clf buck sing gwoon, but we say our style is buck sing for short

it wasn't bad manners in the old days to call it buk sing clf, it was politically incorrect. only hung sing as in jeong hung sing was viewed as correct to be put infrot of clf, coz afterall he was the co-founder of the style.

other southern styles have the seeds that clf has aswell, u do see the difference wen they throw a sau choy right?

and as for the question have i been to other (jeong) hung sing schools. yes several in hk

u exchanged hands with a buk sing practioner? good for you
u didn't see the difference? bad luck

there are some techniques that fighting manuals will never have

hskwarrior
01-16-2008, 07:26 AM
OMG, this year is beginning to freak me out. this is the 2nd time i'm agreeing with ej.....somebody help meh!!!!!:D

True, Tam Sam's lineage "did" start developing methods not traditionally taught in Hung Sing. BUT!!!!! as EJ said, Tam Sam was a Die Hard Hung Sing Man, NOT AS BUK SING.

Tam Sam's original school was called Hung Sing Tam Kwoon, and when the name of Buk Sing Kwoon was brought up, Tam Sam wasn't for it. He didn't want it to change. people like Chui Cheung was one of those that supported Tam Sam NOT wanting to change their name. In Fact, Lun Chee even stated that it was Hung Sing, and NOT Buk Sing at the time.

Tam Sam did his own innovations, and this is understandable since CLF was still in its developmental stages. (the same went for chan fam too)...... so of course it's understandable that Tam Sam as a fighter continued to develop things not passed down to him from the Hung Sing lineage.

To tell the truth, a major part of buk sing is STILL hung sing, and it's found in the forms. Slight modifications have taken place over the years, but the very same elements in buk sing are STILL found in hung sing today.

although i see no connection from Hung Sing to Chan Family, i DO see the strong connection with Hung Sing and Buk Sing.

i'd be more interested in knowing why buk sing feels they need to separate themselves from their mother school. All schools develop material exclusive to their own branch. just look at the chan fam.

but in the end, Tam Sam's teacher was Lui Chun, who was one of the 3 main principal disciples of Jeong Yim. ANYONE from Lui Chun's lineage is high up in the Hung Sing Fut San branch.

hskwarrior
01-16-2008, 07:27 AM
As for someone NEVER lose a fight, is it humanly possible?

yes. if every fight you've had you've won, then yes brother EJ.

hskwarrior
01-16-2008, 07:35 AM
there are some techniques that fighting manuals will never have
Reply With Quote

and this is where the separation between us begins. But, that should be celebrated, and not used as a tool to cut yourself off from the body.

Now, for the clueless folks, when Tam Sam moved up north, he settled in Siu Buk, and was teaching at the Dai Miew Temple. But it was STILL hung Sing Choy Lee Fut then. Since they were up in the north, they felt it was TOO long to say they practiced "Siu Buk Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut" so later it was shortened to Buk Sing.

again, the statement above is true, because within the Yuen Hai lineage is a Seung Kwa Choy executed like a Kwa Cup, instead the Cup Element is actually another Kwa Choy. I haven't seen this in other CLF schools yet. and i said YET!!!!!

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 07:37 AM
OMG, this year is beginning to freak me out. this is the 2nd time i'm agreeing with ej.....somebody help meh!!!!!:D

although i see no connection from Hung Sing to Chan Family, i DO see the strong connection with Hung Sing and Buk Sing.



Hi Frank,

If you want a disagreement, above is one. Hung Sing is Chan Family as passed down through Futsan. Different places, but he same species of trees, to use a metaphor.

I also would like to know why YOUR hung sing feels they need to separate themselves from their mother school. All schools develop material exclusive to their own branch.

:D

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 07:39 AM
As for someone NEVER lose a fight, is it humanly possible?

yes. if every fight you've had you've won, then yes brother EJ.

Then you have not heard the legendary stories about Tarm Sarm from the OTHER side!:D

extrajoseph
01-16-2008, 07:45 AM
Hi Frank,

You should feel better now that we have TWO disagreements out of four and it is not even Chinese New Year yet!

Got to go on my holidays, so you will have all the stage to yourself, it is my new year's present for you.

Cheerio!

EJ

hskwarrior
01-16-2008, 08:06 AM
hi joseph,

please explain why fut san does not teach ANY chan fam forms?

Don't try and say Jeong Yim was in the picture in 1867 like you guys always did try to claim, because as we know, he officially established his school in 1851.....16 years prior to when YOU GUYS SAY HE CAME INTO THE PICTURE.

hskwarrior
01-16-2008, 08:07 AM
EJ,

WHO said WE separated ourselves from our FUT SAN mother school?

WHICH MOTHER SCHOOL? LEE YAU SANS? CHAN HEUNGS? OR CHING CHO'S?

COULDN'T YOUR QUESTION BE APPLIED TOWARDS CHAN HEUNG TOO?

hskwarrior
10-12-2008, 01:19 PM
in the recent past the buk sing members here on this forum have made it known and have discussed the differences that separates buk sing from hung sing.

My question for you is this....."have you examined other hung sing (real fut san hung sing) sets to see where your material changes from ours?

http://hk.video.yahoo.com/video/video.html?id=991265&p=%E8%94%A1%E6%9D%8E%E4%BD%9B

I do know that the 3 main forms of buk sing are that of Hung Sing Kwoon. But buk sing made their changes to the form which identifies it as their own form. especially the opening and closing. but all in all, its still hung sing, because our forms are very very similar. the ending begins at about 1:09 until finsihed, all Hung Sing forms are ended exactly this way. personal movement my be different, but material is all the same.

I can see where the changes are, and thats why i ask.

nospam
10-12-2008, 01:25 PM
..when we do discuss these differences, it is not 'form' related. Altho as I have noted on here before..you can see differences in the forms outside the modified 'hung sing; forms.

gotta split otherwise I'd elaborate more.

nospam
bak hsing kwoon

Infrazael
10-12-2008, 09:18 PM
Are you saying the the Buk Sing differentiates in terms of combat philosophy, and not forms/patterns?

Peace

hskwarrior
10-12-2008, 09:23 PM
infrazel,

i was referring to forms, and although buk sing has its roots in hung sing, and we have the same openings and closings, buk sing's have been altered to fit them. no problem with that. its my passion.....searching, looking for the link, stuff like dat.

what lies in buk sing is found in lau bun's hung sing stuff.

but, based on what satori's put out, and the lacey's, i don't see much difference in usage. we DO share lots of the same philosophies. but then, my sigung and lay chow were friends, and maybe some influence rubbed off. who knows.

Infrazael
10-12-2008, 09:33 PM
No problem frank, I was directing that question to nospam, we are both Hung Sing cats so I'm always trying to learn about Buk Sing also!

Peace :D

chasincharpchui
10-13-2008, 01:22 AM
i've just seen people perform forms so much that i can tell which lineage they are roughly from. (i don't know chan family)

i can tell even within buk sing ppl who are from Ku Yu Cheung's side or who trained under whom. blah blah, by how they execute certain moves.

but what really separates us from you frank, is our fighting, our tui tarn footwork and our use of charp choi.

i've spoken in depth with members of the singapore hung sing gwoon, and even they say that buck sing and hung sing is different

And what fut san hung sing are you referring to? the fut san hung sing of today, or the fut san hung sing prof lau bun taught?

honestly i don't see the similarities that you talk about. do you mind posting up these similarities.

Infrazael
10-13-2008, 01:29 AM
What is tui tarn footwork translate to. Thanks.

nospam
10-13-2008, 05:14 AM
..stepping is a very important skill. There are many aspects of stepping that must be practised and understood to be applied properly. I think one part of our common link is the translation between upper body and lower body or stepping and punching. There is a specific body synergy in CLF that is taught. We all work towards that balance. But one very large difference lies in the movement of this synergy when fighting.

A large portion of my training and teaching was/is on stepping (mobility) drills. The first thing the practitioner 'forgets' when sparring is proper footwork. They stand up and give away much that is otherwise gained. They are pulled out of their most basic fighting strategy because the tempo of the fight increases beyond their ability. So they throw away style so they can have a better sense of (false) control.

We have a variety of nuances in how we develop and apply our body synergy, which also incorporate the dynamic interaction of an opponent(s). This includes a large emphasis on how we develop leg/footwork, strikes, body placement when attacking, and tempo of the engagement. From what I have seen, even our 2-person training is different because of the difference in what we want to achieve from point A-C.

A lot of my 'footwork' training drills mirrors aspects sprinters work on. When I fight I am a sprinter that drives hard and fast..setting the tempo and making sure you are working just as hard to keep up. How does the saying go? Eat my dust.

So, in the end, we share common CLF techniques but how we get to the finish line varies greatly.

nospam
bak hsing kwoon

Infrazael
10-13-2008, 08:28 PM
Do you think Buk Sing has superiority training methods for the various stepping patterns and strategies?

As a Hung Sing player I'm really interested.

Thank you.

nospam
10-14-2008, 04:48 AM
Do you think Buk Sing has superiority training methods for the various stepping patterns and strategies?

I am a proponent of CLF Bak Hsing Kwoon. Of course I am a believer of Bak Hsing Kwoon. Belief is a large ingredient for becoming a Disciple.

nospam
bak hsing kwoon

Buck Sing Gwoon
02-19-2009, 05:34 AM
Buck Sing, Hung Sing, and Chan family all belong to the same Style of Kung Fu - Choy Lay Fut.

Anyone familiar with Choy Lay Fut kung fu is aware that there are 3 branches within the style. The Hung Sing Branch (the Cheung Hung Sing lineage) the Chan family branch (the Chan Heung lineage) which has many kung fu forms in their curriculum and the Buck Sing Branch.

Founded by Grandmaster Tarm Sarm 1873 – 1942 , Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut focuses on direct combat rather than many forms and weapon routines.
Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut is different to other branches of Choy Lay Fut.

Buck Sing CLF generates greater whipping power from the extension of the shoulders waist and hips. It has different fighting techniques, theories, concepts and strategies. It utilizes its Tui Tarn footwork to move in and out swiftly like a snake and places greater emphasis on the usage of the devestating charp chui punch and its vast array of deadly combinations.

Hung Sing and Buck Sing may be from the same lineage if we go all the way back to Grandmaster Jeong Hung Sing but in Buck Sing, our lineage stops at Grandmaster Tarm Sarm, the founder of the Buck Sing Branch. We are not exactly "One and the Same". In our branch we have our own special training drills and fighting techniques that are exclusive and unique to Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut.

The Buck Sing lineage features a shorter syllabus comprising only a handful of forms—Sup Jee Kuen (十字拳), Ping Kuen (平拳), Kau Da (扣打), Seung Gaap Daan Gwun (雙夾單棍)— as compared to the dozens in the syllabuses of the other Choy Lay Fut branches.

Buck Sing techniques are generally more aggressive than their equivalents in other branches of Choy Lay Fut. The moves are slightly longer with a greater emphasis on the whipping power of the shoulders, waist and hips. In fighting the focus is on blitzing the opponent with rapid, advancing movements rather than engaging with him.

Grandmaster Tarm Sarm changed the forms and gave them the Buck Sing Flavour through movement and technique. He kept the salute as we are CLF , however in the salute there are some distinct Buck Sing moves that are obvious to us and represent certain elements that make us THE BUCK SING BRANCH


Grandmaster Tarm Sarm not only refined the Choy Lay Fut he was taught, he developed new fighting strategies and concepts to the point where he was openly recognised as 'founder', unique and distinctive from all others. We are called Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut or as many recognise us as The Buck Sing Gwoon


Nick
Buck Sing Gwoon

Lama Pai Sifu
02-19-2009, 07:01 AM
Buck Sing techniques are generally more aggressive than their equivalents in other branches of Choy Lay Fut.


Grandmaster Tarm Sarm not only refined the Choy Lay Fut he was taught, he developed new fighting strategies and concepts to the point where he was openly recognised as 'founder', unique and distinctive from all others. We are called Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut or as many recognise us as The Buck Sing Gwoon


Nick
Buck Sing Gwoon

How is one school's (style) of throwing any punch...more "aggressive" than another?

A punch is mechanics...physics. Aggressiveness would be HOW you use the punch. How aggressive you use it is up to the practitioner. Maybe you didn't mean to write it like that. It doesn't make any sense. If you're school, the BSG is more aggressive in 'fighting' than a neighboring school, say the XYZ CLF school, then that makes sense. To say you're version of CLF (BS) is more aggressive than other styles of CLF is not accurate. The style isn't aggressive per se, the practitioner is.

And how exactly did GM Tam Sarm 'refine' CLF techniques? I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain it? Where the original CLF punches at bad angles and he 'straightened' them out? Where they originally taught "sloppily" and he made them 'neater'? How exactly have they been 'refined'?

I think possibly you are trying to praise the differences in your own style, which is commendable, however these statements are a bit obtuse and misleading, dont'cha think?

Shaolindynasty
02-19-2009, 08:15 AM
I agree with lama pai sifu

It sounds to me like you are saying other non buk sing choy lay fut schools don't fight?

Sorry but just because I have more than 3 forms in my curriculum doesn't mean I don't fight.

The focus of training in choy lay fut is up to the individual not the system itself.

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 09:04 AM
Buck Sing techniques are generally more aggressive than their equivalents in other branches of Choy Lay Fut. The moves are slightly longer with a greater emphasis on the whipping power of the shoulders, waist and hips. In fighting the focus is on blitzing the opponent with rapid, advancing movements rather than engaging with him.

On this statement, I agree, and disagree.

I agree, because NO, i haven't seen the KILLER in other lineages like we do in buk sing.

I disagree, because MY lineage is filled with street fighters who've used their CLF in real life and death combat on the streets of Chinatown, whether it was during the Tong Wars, or dealing with outside people coming in to cause trouble, all the down to Bruce Lee trying to make a name for himself.

It has always been a rule NOT to openly show outsiders what we do, and how we do it. THAT is the true "Secret" to gung fu, no mystical sheet, just how we train to do what we do.

I'm a couple of years short of 30 years practicing HSCLF. I DO have a good idea of what WE do, and after watching Buk Sing, I see many of the same things. As individual schools, we all have training techniques that may or maynot be unique to anothers school. However, in saying this, ALL gung fu is relative, so I don't think CLF people, chan, hung sing or buk sing, made up anything unique.

I DO however agree with the fact that Tam Sam took HIS HUNG SING CHOY LEE FUT to a new level. yes. And THAT is where it changes. Still, the Ping Kuen, Kau Da Kuen and Sup Ji are HUNG SING forms.

First, the martial artist has to have it in him to fight, as teachers we ALL know this. BUT, if your teacher was NOT a fighter, it is MY opinion, that he can't properly show you how to fight. That is the one great thing about TAM SAM, he didn't sit on his laurels! for that I applaud him.

Still, Tam Sam's sifu was a high ranking HUNG SING sifu, and with saying this, BUK SING's are HUNG SING.........what they did afterwards is all up to them.

But, Lau Bun was a fighter, Jew Leong was a fighter, Dino Salvatera was a fighter, and i'm no square to it either. So i can say, in the Lau Bun lineage for sure, we are aggressive with fighting too.

TenTigers
02-19-2009, 09:21 AM
fighters can be aggressive, but fighting technique and a style's methods can be aggressive as well.
If you teach attack as defense,
if your "defenses" all move forward rather than stepping back and then launching a counter,
if your "blocks" are "defensive strikes,"
If you block and counter at the same time,
If you intercept the oppoenet's intent, rather than chasing hands.
If all your attacks are relentless, non-stop barrages, until your attacker is subdued,
These are all aggressive techniques and methods.
If that is all you know, then that is how you will fight.
-saying that the fighter does not lack the courage to use them
but the techniques and methods themselves are aggressive.

these are the concepts shared by many arts-My Hung Kuen and SPM are two that I am aware of that have this fighting philosophy.
I would be interested in seeing The Buk Sing POV on this.

p.s-if you guys can maintain a dialogue without being condescending and insulting, this thread can get very intersting and informative.

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 09:37 AM
If you teach attack as defense,
if your "defenses" all move forward rather than stepping back and then launching a counter,
if your "blocks" are "defensive strikes,"
If you block and counter at the same time,
If you intercept the oppoenet's intent, rather than chasing hands.
If all your attacks are relentless, non-stop barrages, until your attacker is subdued,
These are all aggressive techniques and methods.
If that is all you know, then that is how you will fight.

The above (IMO) is very important to understand for ANY martial art. AGAIN, imo, the "FIGHT" in today's martial arts got lost when people became SET or FORM whhores, all trying to beat each other in a dance contest. IT is our own fault that GUNG FU has a bad rap. Everyone wanted a "TROPHY" while others systems were more focused on staying alive cause in their respective living area's tend to be more violent than others.

Being aggressive is just ONE aspect. But one of my concerns as a fighter is this........EVERYONE claims that OFFENSE is the best defense. But what happens when both fighters are on OFFENSE? It then just becomes a slug fest. Who can take a punch, or who hits first.

What's the purpose of Yin and Yang if both fighters are in attack mode?

TenTigers
02-19-2009, 10:22 AM
the thing is, many styles do NOT advocate offense as defense.
Look at the applications in their demos on youtube, their websites, books, magazine articles, and in their coneversation.
Too often you see people taking a step back and blocking, sometimes up to three times before striking their one decisive blow, thus demonstrating their interpetation of lau, or reserve. Bah! Humbug!
Also, you see people demonstrating self-defense consisting of several moves before their strike. i.e. opponent grabs wrist, the defender rolls his fist over, then delivers cum jeung to break free and then strikes, when simply hitting the person would have sufficed.
It is this type of mindset, which comes from poor instruction being passed down, that results in the impotence of Kung-Fu. It is not that Kung-Fu doesn't work, but that their Kung-Fu doesn't work.
The thread on two-man sets sheds some light on this as well.
The thread on chi-sao does also.
As do some of lkfmdc's points.
So, once again, it boils down to training.
How was your art passed down? If it is innefective, why? Is it the technique itself, or the method of application that you have been given?
Buk Sing has great extension on their charp choy(taking one strike as an example). But they constantly drill it, drill it, drill it, in many combinations, and can hit from outside your percieved danger zone.
I have seen other people say, "Oh we do that" but do they really? Knowing how to do something and actually training and drilling it are two different things.
That's like someone saying,"Oh we have the jab" yeah, but can they use it with the same effectiveness as a boxer who drills it thousands upon thousands of times?

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 10:29 AM
just the other day i thanked my sifu for what and how he taught me. i said to him that even if he taught me a whole load of BS, i'd be able to MAKE it work cause of the way he taught me.

i completely see your point TT

Shaolindynasty
02-19-2009, 11:47 AM
Buk Sing has great extension on their charp choy(taking one strike as an example). But they constantly drill it, drill it, drill it, in many combinations, and can hit from outside your percieved danger zone.
I have seen other people say, "Oh we do that" but do they really? Knowing how to do something and actually training and drilling it are two different things.
That's like someone saying,"Oh we have the jab" yeah, but can they use it with the same effectiveness as a boxer who drills it thousands upon thousands of times?


This is a good point, if you make the assumption that every practitioner trains exactly the same within that lineage.

For instance, using your boxer analogy, there are plenty of boxers with crap jabs yet they may make up for it in other areas. Choy Lay Fut is the same. You really can't assume just because you practice one line or the other your chop choi is going to be better than the next guy.

It all comes down to the work you personally put into developing the technique.

Then the techniques you emphasize in your training will ultimatlely decide what strategies you employ in sparring.



fighters can be aggressive, but fighting technique and a style's methods can be aggressive as well.
If you teach attack as defense,
if your "defenses" all move forward rather than stepping back and then launching a counter,
if your "blocks" are "defensive strikes,"
If you block and counter at the same time,
If you intercept the oppoenet's intent, rather than chasing hands.
If all your attacks are relentless, non-stop barrages, until your attacker is subdued,
These are all aggressive techniques and methods.
If that is all you know, then that is how you will fight.
-saying that the fighter does not lack the courage to use them
but the techniques and methods themselves are aggressive.


Also true to an extent but if we are talking strickly buk sing vs other clf, Buk sing is not inherintly more agressive than other clf methods since they come from the same base stragies and techniques. They are all Choy LayFut after all. You can argue that specific practitioners are more agressive than others.

TenTigers
02-19-2009, 12:08 PM
Also true to an extent but if we are talking strickly buk sing vs other clf, Buk sing is not inherintly more agressive than other clf methods since they come from the same base stragies and techniques. They are all Choy LayFut after all. You can argue that specific practitioners are more agressive than others.

I think that's what it boils down to. Of course, I am not a Buk Sing practitioner, so I can't give you the history as Nick can, but Tarm Sam was a very prolific fighter, as were several others in his line, so there would be specific methods and strategies that they have developed through their victories, which became their signature technique.
This isn't saying one school is better than another, but it does say that there will certainly be differences from one teacher to another, and BSCLF has made it a point to pass these methods down as a whole in their system. Again, this is my POV as an outsider looking in.

Hey Nick, am I close?

sanjuro_ronin
02-19-2009, 12:16 PM
No system is more aggressive than any other, unless TRAINED that way and tailored that way to certain "personalities".

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 12:17 PM
actually.......KAJUKENBO is one phukkin aggressive system!

sanjuro_ronin
02-19-2009, 12:20 PM
actually.......KAJUKENBO is one phukkin aggressive system!

Now, is it aggressive because it was aggressive or because it attracted aggressive people ??

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 01:22 PM
the teachers are very aggressive, and they take on an "OVERKILL" type of approach.

they were focused on Fight Quest, and really hurt the big bald guy.

oh, and i like the fact that one of the founders of Kajukenbo also picked up a few things from professor Lau Bun directly as well.

Buck Sing Gwoon
02-19-2009, 02:22 PM
This isn't saying one school is better than another, but it does say that there will certainly be differences from one teacher to another, and BSCLF has made it a point to pass these methods down as a whole in their system. Again, this is my POV as an outsider looking in.

Hey Nick, am I close?

Hi TT,

Yes you are right.

In Buck Sing CLF the fighting and aggressiveness has been our main focus and was passed down from generation to generation. We concentrate less on forms and greater emphasis is placed on combat fighting techniques, methods, sparring etc.

Some CLF schools teach lots of fighting, however others slowly water things down and less time is placed on fighting and more is placed on forms. This is obvious in the teachers techniques. When you watch them, the essence/fighting aspect of their CLF is lost and when they demonstrate applications to techniques you wonder if they will actually work.

Also and most importantly you have to ask if the teacher has had any fighting experience at all.... There are many CLF Masters/Sifu's who have never fought at all. If they haven't, all they go by is what they assume will work and the theories and methods they preach are just assumed and hopefull.

In the Buck Sing CLF lineage all the Masters were/are fighters and constant combat drills are what we have always focused on.

sanjuro_ronin
02-19-2009, 02:28 PM
the teachers are very aggressive, and they take on an "OVERKILL" type of approach.

they were focused on Fight Quest, and really hurt the big bald guy.

oh, and i like the fact that one of the founders of Kajukenbo also picked up a few things from professor Lau Bun directly as well.

The "overkill" view of Kajukenbo and kenpo is, well, interesting at best, not very practical in practise.
Ever see any of those "dozens" of strikes being applied in an actual fight or match?
I haven't.

Drake
02-19-2009, 03:49 PM
I don't follow. I study from GM DFW, and I am EXTREMELY aggressive in both fighting and military tactics. My philosophy is to assault through the objective and do not stop until any and all resistance has halted. I believe that hesitation, defensive postures, and staggered attacks all lead to openings for the enemy. My point is, it's all about the person.

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 06:41 PM
sanjuro_ronin

why isn't it practical in practice? And, I'm completely sure any Kajukenbo student would gladly back up the idea of it being practical in practice and in real life combat.

hskwarrior
02-19-2009, 06:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvIO-sQMH04

check out dude's roundhouse kick to the grill on this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4cuW4Zf2Xo&feature=related

diego
02-19-2009, 08:14 PM
The "overkill" view of Kajukenbo and kenpo is, well, interesting at best, not very practical in practise.
Ever see any of those "dozens" of strikes being applied in an actual fight or match?
I haven't.

overkill isn't the practical lesson, using hidden strikes is the key...like in karate you go right punch left punch, in kaju they'd right punch right snap eye strike and follow with a left power punch...Emperado brought the streetfighter mentality to two man drills...dude was on welfare when he made the system and then he worked as a cop in one of hawaii's ruffest neighbourhood I beleive he was of the generation to go out and try it. kaido dissed all the slap happy kajukenbo players before he retired.

David Jamieson
02-20-2009, 09:10 AM
my style is more aggressive than your style.

no arguing about it at all.

It's just the way it is.

seriously.

True Story.

I mean, your style is ok and all, but mine is way more aggressive.


ok, so, how does that sound to you guys? :p

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 09:38 AM
sanjuro_ronin

why isn't it practical in practice? And, I'm completely sure any Kajukenbo student would gladly back up the idea of it being practical in practice and in real life combat.

Ever seen any of those wonderful overkill combiantions in actual combat?
Or does it look more like "kick boxing" ??

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 09:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvIO-sQMH04

check out dude's roundhouse kick to the grill on this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4cuW4Zf2Xo&feature=related

Did you see any of the "set" stiff show up in the actual fight?

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 09:40 AM
my style is more aggressive than your style.

no arguing about it at all.

It's just the way it is.

seriously.

True Story.

I mean, your style is ok and all, but mine is way more aggressive.


ok, so, how does that sound to you guys? :p

My badger style is far more aggressive than your chipmunk style.
I mean, its just nature !

David Jamieson
02-20-2009, 11:14 AM
My badger style is far more aggressive than your chipmunk style.
I mean, its just nature !

clearly you know nothing of the cornered chipmunks ferocity in battle!

to the death!!!!

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 11:34 AM
what i DID see were the basic techniques of the system they learned being used. YES. DID i see some moves from a form? NO, i don't know their material.

However, i can't speak for others, but I KNOW how use MY system. My sifu never allowed us to use KICK BOXING material. always emphasized the strict use of the techniques found within our system.

and if you think that i believe KUNG FU fights or any martial art fights the way we practice forms, you got me completely wrong.

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 11:37 AM
and forget your badger, cause the thing badder than a badger is either a gun, or a badger trap. hahahahaha.......badger! sheesh.....some people!

chusauli
02-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Reminds me of old Shaw Brothers dialogue,

"Hey! Your kung fu isn't bad, but its no match for my ________ style!"

:)

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 12:54 PM
what i DID see were the basic techniques of the system they learned being used. YES. DID i see some moves from a form? NO, i don't know their material.

However, i can't speak for others, but I KNOW how use MY system. My sifu never allowed us to use KICK BOXING material. always emphasized the strict use of the techniques found within our system.

and if you think that i believe KUNG FU fights or any martial art fights the way we practice forms, you got me completely wrong.

First off, ANY fight in which you kick and use a fist is "kick boxing".
:D

Kajukenbo ( not all of them) shares much with kenpo and one of the things is that very charming traning know as "dissecting a corpse".
Some guy throws a punch and the Kenpo guy strikes and kicks all around him, punching , slapping, poaking, kneeing and kicking him over an dover and over ending with a "dead and overkilled corpse" at the end.
That NEVER happens in a fight, any fight you see of kenpo and kajukenbo tends to end up looking like every other striking system.

lkfmdc
02-20-2009, 12:56 PM
My sifu never allowed us to use KICK BOXING material. always emphasized the strict use of the techniques found within our system.



so there are no kicks or punches in your system? :rolleyes:

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 01:05 PM
No :d.....

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 01:06 PM
sanjuro,

i don't box with my feet, so i don't kick box :D


but you are still speaking about usage from the standpoint of forms. They overkill in their forms, but that trains that killer mentality. I don't see too many schools that use that OVERKILL strikes like found in kajukenbo. period.

when we speak of launching a barrage of techniques, as in CLF, what do think we are doing? something from our forms?

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 01:07 PM
sanjuro,

i don't box with my feet, so i don't kick box :D

LMAO !
Can't argue with that.

TenTigers
02-20-2009, 01:10 PM
The kenpo philosophy of "overkill is just enough" trains the practitioner to throw multiple strikes, each one flowing into the other, each action creating a reaction in the body, as well as setting up the next strike(both in the attacker's body and the 'loading' of the kenpo practitioner's) This does not mean that you will throw all these strikes. You can stop at one, if one is all it takes.But, it does give the ability to continue without pause during that,what if stage, or as I call it, the "OSS"-"Oh S*** Scenerio."
The problem is, the kenpo practitioner should be always checking, controlling, trapping, the attacker while doing this, rather than having him stand there with his fist out, while he does his dance of death.
I see this occurring more with the Villari "Shaolin Kempo" and their offshoots, rather than the Ralph Castro/Ed Parker/Tracy/Emperado Kenpo/Kajukenbo styles, that make more hands on use of the live hand.

TenTigers
02-20-2009, 01:12 PM
anyone have any vid footage of Steve Sanders, aka Steve Mohammed? He was one of the few kenpo fighters that they said you could see his kenpo in his fighting.

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 01:13 PM
The kenpo philosophy of "overkill is just enough" trains the practitioner to throw multiple strikes, each one flowing into the other, each action creating a reaction in the body, as well as setting up the next strike(both in the attacker's body and the 'loading' of the kenpo practitioner's) This does not mean that you will throw all these strikes. You can stop at one, if one is all it takes.But, it does give the ability to continue without pause during that,what if stage, or as I call it, the "OSS"-"Oh S*** Scenerio."
The problem is, the kenpo practitioner should be always checking, controlling, trapping, the attacker while doing this, rather than having him stand there with his fist out, while he does his dance of death.
I see this occurring more with the Villari "Shaolin Kempo" and their offshoots, rather than the Ralph Castro/Ed Parker/Tracy/Emperado Kenpo/Kajukenbo styles, that make more hands on use of the live hand.

The problem is that, in a real fight, people hit back and that, to compromise the structure of someone you have to hit them, VERY HARD, and in the right palces, and on a moving target.
And that just doesn't work when trained the way they do.
Look at all the kenpo clips and kajukenbo clips on youtube, what do you see in the full contact ones ( when you can find them)?

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 01:14 PM
anyone have any vid footage of Steve Sanders, aka Steve Mohammed? He was one of the few kenpo fighters that they said you could see his kenpo in his fighting.

Saw some of his tournament clips, those don't count, it wasn't full contact.

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 02:00 PM
sanjuro,

are you saying that since it was semi-contact, although it did well that way, that it wouldn't be effective in FULL CONTACT?

sanjuro_ronin
02-20-2009, 02:03 PM
sanjuro,

are you saying that since it was semi-contact, although it did well that way, that it wouldn't be effective in FULL CONTACT?

"Speed based" techniques work great in tournaments, since you don't have to, nor are allowed, to KO the other person.
Not that Steve couldn't he was very, very good.
Just that those "whippy hands" are better suited for point tournaments than for full contact.

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 02:29 PM
really. OK.

TenTigers
02-20-2009, 02:30 PM
"Speed based" techniques work great in tournaments, since you don't have to, nor are allowed, to KO the other person.
Not that Steve couldn't he was very, very good.
Just that those "whippy hands" are better suited for point tournaments than for full contact.
tis sad but true. It is extrememly difficult to strike fast, say with a quick backfist or jab,and have real power behind it. Dempsey put alot of time into developing the stiff jolt and drop-step lead aka Bruce Lee's straight blast.
One of the hardest things in SPM is developing that lightning speed, backed with power. Too many people are just quick and whippy. (looks easy, but in actual practice, it is extremely difficult to master)

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 02:49 PM
wow, this thread really got hijacked! Please, don't blow us up! i have a lion dance tomorrow :p

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 02:52 PM
anyways, i'm confused to what you refer to as whippy?

Violent Designs
02-20-2009, 02:55 PM
Can we not derail this thread to Kempo/Kajukenpo and get back to CLF?

All non-CLF threads eventually turn into a CLF history/lineage war.

CLF threads turn into Kempo threads.

WTF?

TenTigers
02-20-2009, 03:05 PM
WTF?
WTF as opposed to ATF? I think Sanjuro knows more about this. I practiced Ji Do Kwan, not sure if it is WTF or ATF. In fact, I don't think they even existed in the early-mid seventies.

Drake
02-20-2009, 03:37 PM
anyways, i'm confused to what you refer to as whippy?

You know... whippy... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fuelZ15Cg0)

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 03:43 PM
Whip it good!...........crack that whip!

Buck Sing Gwoon
02-20-2009, 04:20 PM
Lama Pai Sifu,

When a school constantly drills its students for the very reason of fighting only and focuses its attention primarily to totally destroying their opponent by attacking the vital organs such as the throat and groin then thats what we teach.

We dont have a Black Belt Club and give people false assurances based on the colour of the material around their waist. We dont ask you to become a member of a Black Belt Club. We tell you that we are a fighting school and thats it.

Buck Sing CLF schools focus on that.

This does not mean other CLF schools are not good or aggressive but rather that we only focus on that.

That is why I said that BSCLF is generally more aggressive than other CLF.

From beginning to end all you are taught is to attack vital targets and to keep going till you are the last person standing.

We dont have a belt system nor do we grade. We teach combat only and our area of expertise is the charp chui and its vast combination.

My Sifu is not know as the five animal forms kid.... He is the fighting Black Panther of CLF. He is one of the 5 people all of whom were Buck Sing CLF fighters that were selected by the CLF community to fight and represent our CLF style against other styles.

In BSCLF we mentally and physically break down our students and then rebuild them with a mindset to persevere and to totally hurt and punish their adversary.

When you go to a school that primarily focuses on training like this you either stay or go. If you stay your mindset and training is constantly drilled that you must totally obliterate your opponent.

All people are different so some students will be more aggressive than others.... however if you are bred in that enviroment then you will ultimately ( most likely ) pick up those qualities.

At the end of the day all styles are good and it comes down to the person, however the enviroment that you train in makes a difference to the outcome of who you are. In the Buck Sing CLF Style we focus and constantly drill deadly aggressive combat techniques.

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 04:55 PM
dang, i couldn't have said it better nick.

For those who ARE fighting schools, there's no need to impress or even stress the issue. We, you, all do what we do.

I have always stated that my lineage and school is a fighting one. Never backed down from that. So i can completely agree with what sifu nick just said.

TenTigers
02-20-2009, 05:30 PM
Agree with Nick-
There are in fact, techniques and methods that are inherently aggressive.
Just as intercepting someone's intent-meaning, not waiting until their strike is out to block, but to strike before it even gets out. He moves first, I hit first. If you cannot do this, then you cannot say you are honestly doing the system.
The hard truth is, the people that cannot do this, drop out. The teacher tells them "If you can't get this technique, this method, then you won't get the system. It's not for you."
But as Nick pointed out, it's not about belts, and memberships, it's about maintaining the integrity of the style. In this respect, JLSPM is the same as BSCLF.
Of course, there is a danger of the style dissappearing altogether due to this very reason. But that is a risk some teachers are willing to take, rather than it get destroyed.

hskwarrior
02-20-2009, 06:00 PM
now this is sounding good.

Nick and TT is right. people bypassed me too cause i was too aggressive with the style. OUR system ISN"T for everyone. most will drop out when training gets too rough. but my students, they know bumps n bruises and black eyes come with the territory. I want them to KNOW their system, so i train them hard.

Case in point, one of my new students was a student of DFW's lineage. He immediately noticed the difference in method, approach, emphasis, aggression. in fact, he felt what and the way i teach fitted him more than what he was learning over there.

it's all up to the school, and how they approach their realistic training methods. if all you do is play patty cake all day, then you'll never understand fighting. and you will be part of the BAD that gives gung fu the bad name.

David Jamieson
02-21-2009, 02:37 PM
One thing about Tam Sam's kungfu was that it had the 5 sets from Ku yu-cheung included in it due to the exchange of students and mutual respect each of these men had for each other. At least, that's how I've heard the story from a few sources now.

so buk sing has within it, part of a whole other style that the other branches do not have.

Both these kungfu masters are legendary by all accounts.

CLFNole
02-21-2009, 03:46 PM
I would be interested to know to what extent did Ku Yu Jeung influence Tam Sam and vice versa for that matter.

Buck Sing Gwoon, any sight on this?

Drake
02-21-2009, 04:36 PM
now this is sounding good.

Nick and TT is right. people bypassed me too cause i was too aggressive with the style. OUR system ISN"T for everyone. most will drop out when training gets too rough. but my students, they know bumps n bruises and black eyes come with the territory. I want them to KNOW their system, so i train them hard.

Case in point, one of my new students was a student of DFW's lineage. He immediately noticed the difference in method, approach, emphasis, aggression. in fact, he felt what and the way i teach fitted him more than what he was learning over there.

it's all up to the school, and how they approach their realistic training methods. if all you do is play patty cake all day, then you'll never understand fighting. and you will be part of the BAD that gives gung fu the bad name.


PATTY CAKE WITH FISTS!!

am i rite?

David Jamieson
02-22-2009, 06:37 AM
I would be interested to know to what extent did Ku Yu Jeung influence Tam Sam and vice versa for that matter.

Buck Sing Gwoon, any sight on this?

There was apparently a lot of influence.
The two men exchanged students following the 1928 tournament in which they have a story about them as well.

Tam Sam would send his students to Ku yu-cheung and vice versa.
Tam Sam's Choy li fut now has tun ta, moi fa, bot bo, mo i and chum sam in it's curriculum which are all bak sil lum sets.

I woul say that is a pretty extensive influence. I'm sure there are interesting details to the relationship that not many get to hear though. So yes, by all means if anyone has some stories from the old timers that would be cool.

hskwarrior
02-22-2009, 09:13 AM
Tam Sam had alot of students, especially prior to the Ku Yu Jeung situation. However, there was an exchange of 5 students a piece involved with a sort of exchange program. Still, I'd be interested in knowing whether TAM SAM actually learned some of the northern stuff from his students, or was it passed down within their lineage by those 5 students who were sent over to the Buk Siu Lum school.

For myself, this is interesting, because prior to Ku Yu Jeung, Tam Sam was teaching "HUNG SING CLF".........So what i'd like to know, is if there is a split within TAM SAM lineages where one side teaches the HSCLF as it was passed down to TAM SAM, while the other side teaches the Buk Sil Lum material.

Another question........did Tam Sam ever learned the forms that his students brought over, or did he just let those people teach what they learned?

Can you help me with that one Sifu Nick?

Buck Sing Gwoon
02-24-2009, 01:25 PM
Grandmaster Tarm Sarm started his teaching of CLF around mid 1910's. He started teaching in the Tarm Shrine. (At that time, most villages in China had their own shrine to pay respect to their ancestors.) As the number of disciples grew to 60, Grandmaster Tarm Sarm moved his gwoon to Siu Buck (Little North), a region in the Canton city and named his gwoon - Buck Sing Tarm Sarm Gwoon.

There are commonalities in CLF, but the principles of the techniques between Buck Sing and Hung Sing are different.

The founder of Buck Sing CLF, Grandmaster Tarm Sarm did not stay long enough under his Hung Sing Sifu to have learned many Hung Sing forms and techniques.

In order to better himself Grandmaster Tarm Sarm kept thinking of and establishing better ways of using his kung fu. Grandmaster Tarm Sarm modified what he was taught while a Hung Sing student under Master Lui Chan and sparred with the senior students in the school and easily defeated them all. GrandmasterTarm Sarm also sparred with his Sifu, Master Lui Chan knocking him down many times and defeating him. Grandmaster Tarm Sarm left after this incident.

Grandmaster Tarm Sarm spent many years travelling China looking for kung fu masters who could add to his knowledge. He would challenge them to combat and exchange skills. This refined his skill, enabling him to surpass all others.

The Buck Sing name was used for many years by Grandmaster Tarm Sarms students however officially the Tarm Sarm Gwoon was established in 1923.

Grandmaster Tarm Sarm met Master Ku Yu Cheung in 1929 or early 1930's, long after the establishment of the Buck Sing Gwoon.

One note - OUR NAME, BUCK SING, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MASTER KU YU CHEUNG. We already had and used the name Buck Sing Gwoon.

There was an exchange of students between Grandmaster Tarm Sarm and Master Ku Yu Cheung. These 2 Master however did not fight against each other. Buck Sing CLF utilizes footwork of Northern Shaolin.

GrandmasterTarm Sarm is recognised as the 'founder' of Buck Sing CLF, this is for obvious and distinct reasons.

Buck Sing and Hung Sing are not one and the same thing. If they were, then they'll be only 2 lineages of CLF, not 3.

Shaolinlueb
02-24-2009, 01:40 PM
my CLF is better.


ok im just trolling ignore me.

nospam
03-06-2009, 08:38 PM
I would be interested to know to what extent did Ku Yu Jeung influence Tam Sam and vice versa for that matter.

In my opinion the influence was not great for these 2 masters. As we all know Master Tam fought and discussed gung fu with many Masters, and it is well known that Master Tam's philosophy was that the true test of a technique was in combat.

There are many stories and/or versions of what may or may not have happened. It was explained to me by my master that Master Tam and Master Ku fought and Tam got the upper hand. In speaking with Master Ku's lineage, I was told their version is that both masters did indeed fight and Master Ku got the better of Master Tam. In my opinion and considering who Master Tam was and based on his recorded bouts, there was a fight between these two masters. Who won? That is less important than what the outcome was: two renowned masters that exchanged students for the betterment of Chinese martial arts.

From my discussions with my lineage and that of Master Ku's, for the most part the influence was the addition of a few respective fist patterns on both sides that the students learned, not the 2 masters in question, and in the training of 2 different combat philosophies. I would hazard a guess this training exchange had varying individual impacts depending on what each student was able to take from their lessons.

As we all know, we all learn and assimilate experiences differently. In our own kwoons, classmates that may have started at the same time will assimilate their teachings and perform their skill differently. To me, this is the essence or Life of gung fu. It is the unknown factor - we all have light bulbs that turn on to lighten our way but to what is enlightened will be different for each person.

In this regard, and on the subject of the impact this exchange between 2 masters had, at least for their students, it meant techniques were a little different because the influence was varied. But for each exchange student during that period, loyalties were still tight to their original and first teacher/style. I know my lineage of Bak Sing is a little different than others due, in part, to the influence of this exchange and how my great grandmaster Tam Fai Pan assimilated his gung fu - the greatest influence of which was from his father Tam Sam.

The impact this exchange had on the 2 masters? Most likely nothing more than new perspectives and a few new techniques to assimilate as they would. In the end, we are Bak Sing and they are Bak Sil lum - 2 distinct styles.

nospam
:cool:

hskwarrior
03-06-2009, 09:25 PM
good post. and i agree about the light bulb thing. it's happened to me, and i tell my students about it. but its really cool when you SEE your students light bulbs light up.

thanks for your response. ;)

David Jamieson
03-07-2009, 08:10 AM
isn't minimizing their relationship the old face game stuff?

1 side says tam sam defeated Ku and the or side says different.

are the sets tun ta, moi fa, bot bo, mo i and chum sam in buk sing clf or not?
if they are not there, then i agree, not much influence, if they are there, then that is influence.

there are no clf hand forms in Bak Sil Lum however.

Mind you,. the original post seems to seek to separate and not unite. At least at the most cursory level.

nospam
03-07-2009, 10:38 PM
Apparently there are a few CLF hand forms in some BSL lineages. One of Ku's disciples, Lung Tse Chung, was an exchange student that spent years under the teachings of Master Tam Sam. It's said Lung Tse Chung's BSL differed slightly because of this, just as Tam Fei Pan's (son of Tam Sam) BS CLF differed slightly due to his BSL influence.

The BSL patterns that were learned and taught in BS CLF will vary from lineage to lineage. Mine only had one. More may have been taught originally to my Sigung but he only taught one BSL form and it was not shall we say..emphasized. These two styles move distinctly different. One must remember that BS CLF's primary creed is maximising movement (not just in technique alone) and time and that the true test of any technique is in combat, not in how it may look. Why would we need 1-5 or more BSL patterns? We already have enough patterns that better instill our philosophies.

People are very confused when it comes to BSL and BS CLF...especially those that have not trained BS CLF or have not been privy to our history from inside closed doors.

nospam
:cool:

Eric Olson
03-08-2009, 08:09 AM
And we're all CLF we should be one big extend family, branches are different but like 3 brother all from same father.

Violent Designs, are you the poster previously known as Infrazael?

EO

CLFNole
03-08-2009, 08:14 PM
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Eric Olson
03-09-2009, 08:14 AM
no? :confused::confused:

What style do you do and who is your teacher?

EO

hskwarrior
03-11-2009, 05:32 PM
Thank you nospam, that was a good post.

and you know what? the more i think about it, i tend to agree more and more with Nospam's lineage using the Buk Sing Fut Gar instead of Buk Sing Choy Lee Fut. I mean, in the reality of it, compared to Jeung Hung Sing learning from the Green Grass Monk (1841-1849), Jeung Hung Sing didn't learn that much Chan Family CLF (1836-1841). And, when Jeung Hung Sing opened his school in 1851, he didn't do so in the name of Choy Lee Fut. He did so in the name of Fut Ga, since it was the only system he fully completed.

Let me break it down like this:

Chan Heung taught Jeung Ah Yim in 1836 for only 5 years until 1841. Chan Heung's CLF was NOT in it's complete form since it was a brand new system.

And, from 1841-1849 (8 Years) Jeung Ah Yim was learning the Fut Gar system under the Green Grass Monk. Now, during those 8 years, Chan Heung continued to evolve HIS CLF, and Jeung Ah Yim was NOT present to pick up any of the new material from that 8 year period.

When Jeung Hung Sing completed his training under the Green Grass Monk, it was the latter that instructed him to go to Fut San and open a school. This happened in 1849/1850. Now, the question gets asked......"if Jeung Hung Sing didn't learn too much CLF, then what was he teaching in Fut San?"

Well, plain and simple, Jeung Hung Sing knew more Fut Gar than he did of Chan Heung's CLF, and the few years of Lee Gar he picked up from Lee Yau San. So the answer would be FUT GAR. But since Jeung Ah Yim's gung fu consisted of some Lee Gar, early early CLF, and FUT GAR, another name for what Jeung Hung Sing was teaching was "HUNG SING KUEN."

BUT, from the dates of 1841 to (around) 1867, Jeung Hung Sing was busy in Fut San with the Tai Ping Rebellion, and his involvement with the Hung Society and NOT promoting nor TEACHING Chan Heung's Choy Lee Fut. he was promoting the HUNG MUN, and himself.

Certain Chan Family masters have placed Jeung Hung Sing in Fut San in 1867. And at this point it could very well be that Jeung Hung Sing did come back into the picture of Choy Lee Fut. Yet, till this day, NOTHING is taught within the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon that comes from the Chan Family CLF branch. There is NOTHING within our gung fu that says CHAN HEUNG.

So i understand the Buk Sing lineages whole purpose now in expressing their own identity. i can actually appreciate that. but because Jeung Hung Sing was a short time student of Chan Heung, it doesn't mean we are from that lineage. Our essence is different, or emphasis and even forms are completely different.

So it becomes more clear to me, that with the actions of buk sing, maybe the Hung Sing lineage should take a stronger stand in expressing our own identity.

HUNG SING KUEN!

Eddie
03-11-2009, 07:25 PM
I cannot help but wondering. We are making assumptions about the relationship between Chan Heung and Jeung Ah Yim, and based allot of our arguments and bickering on this.

The concept of guanxhi – or relationships are very different in china and form a very important part of Chinese culture. We should not overlook this to try justify our own ideas.

Maybe Jeung Ah Yim was happy for Chan Heung to be credited as founder of CLF, because of this very fact. Frank, you are happy to give credit to Sifu Dino and GM Laubun, don’t you think this is the same?

hskwarrior
03-11-2009, 08:30 PM
i think Jeung Hung Sing could have been happy for chan heung indeed. But, for someone to claim that we all come from chan heung is another story altogher.

However, after all my research, i feel that jeung hung sing was not the "CHOY LEE FUT" disciple like some would like us to believe. He was too busy with the green grass monk, and the revolution. still, if you're not a Fut San Hung Sing disciple, then you wouldn't understand our position.

chasincharpchui
04-19-2009, 01:02 AM
does anyone have/ can upload the black&white videos of Jun Heen Kune fighting:

Hung Fut, Wing Chun, and Tong Long.

they use to be on Youtube, but the person that uploaded them has since had his account suspended. would love to see those fights again

diego
10-13-2011, 03:30 PM
LE: The next questions I have are about the Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut style. Can you tell me about the history of Choy Lay Fut, what makes it unique, and what is special about your own interpretation of the style?

CKC: Choy Lay Fut was founded in the 19th century by Chan Heung, who was born in King Mui Village in the Sun Wui district of Kwang Tung province. It was named after three teachers who taught him different styles: Choy Gar, Lay Gar, and Fut Gar. Chan Heung taught Cheong Hung Sing and Lui Chaun. Lui Chaun in turn taught his student, Tam Sam, who started the Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut school. Unfortunately, there was a rivalry between the different schools. He changed some things from what he had been taught, including the chap choy. Tam Sam was famous for his lian huan chap choy (continuous stabbing strike). Tam Sam taught Lung Chi Cheung, who in turn taught Wong Yuen Lo, who taught me.

The main difference between Choy Lay Fut and other styles is the use of full power, which is generated from long hand movements, strong ma bu and footwork, and whole body turning. Choy Lay Fut practitioners also prefer to enter from the side when they fight, from the outside gate, rather than trying to meet an opponent head-on. It is more open than tighter styles, like Wing Chun or Bak Mei, Nan Tong Long, etc.

The openness is necessary in order to generate the power. The tighter the style, the less the power. Take the idea of the one-inch punch. From a Choy Lay Fut perspective, this is like trying to shoot an arrow by only pulling back one inch on the bowstring. One inch punch, one inch good fight, or one inch longer, one inch more power, is an old saying. Choy Lay Fut generates more power to fight. Killing power.

There are quite a few differences between the Choy Lay Fut styles. The chap choy, for instance, is done differently, based on Tam Sam's modifications. There are also secret differences, of course.

LE: When you say Choy Lay Fut is a more open style, is that because the focus is more on generating a powerful offense that will put an end to a fight quickly, rather than on adopting a careful defense?

CKC: The training is open; if it is applied wrongly in combat one is certainly vulnerable to counterattack. Sometimes students do adopt a position that is too open because they are eager to deliver a powerful blow. In my personal interpretation of the style, I changed some moves from long to middle, and sometimes short. If you have good footwork, with one short step you can enter and win the fight, so my style uses some short moves that other Choy Lay Fut practitioners usually don't. From my experience fighting, I find that many moves are too slow to set up and execute, even though they generate a lot of power if they work. More speed means more power, and you need to find a balance that is effective.

One example of my own innovation is a change I made to the sow choy. When I go back to Hong Kong, the old masters say, that's not sow choy! But I changed it based on my experience. I turn my hand with the knuckles pointing up, rather than to the side - this way you still use the whole arm, but you're not going to break your hand. My Sigung would complain that I was always changing things, but I change the forms to make them better based on my experience.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=996


I turn my hand with the knuckles pointing up, rather than to the side - this way you still use the whole arm, but you're not going to break your hand.

is there any pictures or video showing the different sow Choi's knuckles pointing up vs knuckles pointing to the side?.

hskwarrior
10-13-2011, 03:57 PM
I drew this some time back.....these are how we use them. you'll notice the shaded areas are the striking surfaces.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/23638_1398122682066_1502231503_977227_8236936_n.jp g