Ng Lun Chui

[Drake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R86qar4EQc&feature=related

Step-by-step!

[jdhowland]

Huh. Interesting variation. Lacks the extension and shoulder flexibility i expect to see in basic clf training. It's stylistically close to my version in organization but they leave a lot of unnecessary openings. Nice video, though.

[hskwarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjGTc2NMK_k&feature=related

[hskwarrior]

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

[Drake]

And Tat Mau Wong even has his own variation...

[Violent Designs]

That looks more like Hung Kuen than CLF . . . that charp choy has zero twist, extension and whip . . . . same with their cheun ahn choy . . . and all the other stuff.

[Shaolindynasty]

Same set, same bloodline, totally different.


I'm confused:confused:

I looked at their webpage and our lineages split about 4 generations ago counting me. We are only the same up to Koon Pak

[hskwarrior]

don't be confused. you lineage is Chan Koon Pak......and of course he is the BLOODLINE........regardless of any splits. you practice chan family choy lee fut yes? or is your hung sing a part of Jeung Hung Sing's lineage?

[JAZA]

Is the same core, with some variations. Even the che kuen you posted some time ago Frank, I think it's pretty similar. I have saw Tat Wong and Chan Kam Fai che kuen at live too and I'm pretty sure them evolved from the same form.

The first guys are just practicing step by step in the video posted by Drake. In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8_U-FPuZg you can see the first moves, qwa, cheung nan, loyan chap at full speed do it by a sifu.

[Drake]

Nada!!!!!!! :)

[JAZA]

Drake, it's OK now

[Drake]

Here's another one... very similar to GM DFWs...but I really don't know what to make of his techniques/stances. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh49W9PWnxc&feature=related

[CLFNole]

Don't you know those stances are first rate when you want to chop choy someones kneecap. :D

[Drake]

Don't you know those stances are first rate when you want to chop choy someones kneecap. :D

Excellent defense against yard gnomes, Sifu Lance? :D

[CLFNole]

Maybe that guy doesn't like the travelling gnome from the TV commercials.

[TenTigers]

typical of distance learning-not with DVD's, but when they see their teacher once a year. You can't make any progress that way. You try to correct them, and then they go off and the form drifts away.

[chingjong]

Thank you all for the mostly constructive comments. At the time this was filmed, the 3 students were new yellow sashes and were fairly new to the set. One of the students is calling out the names and some may have noticed a mistake on one of the names. You may also notice that they are not using the Leopard fist for the strikes and instead are using a normal fist. The footwork is also basic, not utilizing the diu geuk or poon loong guek motions that make the footwork more lively. This comes at a latter stage, once they have better grasp of the basic aspects of the form.

Extension, rotation, timing, power are all improving as they continue to work on this form. I teach Ng Lung Choy as one of our foundation forms. We practice it in step by step form as seen in the video, in 3 move sequences to begin working timing and speed/power, and continuously from beginning to end.

We do focus on penetration, extension, full use of the turning of the hips and waist, and other important aspects, but in a progressive, incremental manner.

Peace,

Mario.

[Drake]

We appreciate that this material is available. It's still a good video, and it does show the mechanics of beginners, and how they can be taught in a gradual process of improvement. Keep up the good work!

[Ben Gash]

don't be confused. you lineage is Chan Koon Pak......and of course he is the BLOODLINE........regardless of any splits. you practice chan family choy lee fut yes? or is your hung sing a part of Jeung Hung Sing's lineage?

However, the first form is from the Chan On Pak lineage :cool:

[hskwarrior]

and whom is chan on pak's teacher?:cool:

which brings up the questioin, why is there so many versions of chan heung's ng lung choy?

i understand it could be evolution....who knows?

[Ben Gash]

Chan Heung :confused:

[hskwarrior]

posted by JAZA : Even the che kuen you posted some time ago Frank, I think it's pretty similar.

Yeah i do agree about the che kuen i've posted. In some aspects it looks a little similar to Ng Lung Choy......and in many others its not. however, our che kuen is very very similar to the lau bun lineage Cheung Kuen.

[hskwarrior]

ok....that brings up the question....

Why did daddy teach the same form to his two sons differently? to be different?

[Ben Gash]

Who knows? Maybe when he taught Koon Pak his ideas had changed from when he taught On Pak. Maybe their physiques/attributes/attitudes were markedly different. Maybe he only taught it to On Pak and Koon Pak created his own version, or vice versa, maybe he taught them both the same and it was changed in a subsequent generation, or it was lost in a subsequent generation and they created a new form to replace it. Maybe he was just contrary, I t was 150 years ago and there's no way to know.

[hskwarrior]

you could be right. but, maybe at that time there wasn't too many forms chan heung was teaching, and wanted to focus on each's individual's skills amd created different sets?

but doesn't that kinda mess things up when recording the system for posterity?

[chasincharpchui]

Who knows? Maybe when he taught Koon Pak his ideas had changed from when he taught On Pak. Maybe their physiques/attributes/attitudes were markedly different. Maybe he only taught it to On Pak and Koon Pak created his own version, or vice versa, maybe he taught them both the same and it was changed in a subsequent generation, or it was lost in a subsequent generation and they created a new form to replace it. Maybe he was just contrary, I t was 150 years ago and there's no way to know.

been away from this forum for a while

but i can answer that question

Chan Koon Pak learnt off Jeung Hung Sing, his techniques are combination of "sun wui sau faht and hung sing kuen"

Chan On Pak never learnt off Jeung Hung Sing, his hand techniques are just "sun wui sau faht"

this was told to me by many respected elders of the clf association of hong kong

[hskwarrior]

thanks chasincharp.....

thats what i've heard as well.

[Ben Gash]

The problemn with that theory is that Chan Koon Pak's line has far more in common with Chan On Pak's line than Jeong Yim's.
Also Chan Koon Pak was only 10 when Jeong Yim left King Mui.

[hskwarrior]

ben, according to your knowledge, Chan Koon Pak was 10 yrs old in what year?

oh never mind.............ummmmmm.........

Ben.......jeung yim left Chan Heung in 1841..........from 1863-1867, Jeung Yim was on the run from the government and was in Hong Kong. In 1867 Jeung Yim returned to fut san to re-open his school.

[Ben Gash]

By that reckoning then (I was taking the openning of the Futsan school as the date) Chan Koon Pak hadn't even been born.

[hskwarrior]

well, Jeung Hung Sing's Hung Sing Kwoon was officially established in 1851......and any records claiming jeung hung sing left chan heung in 1867 is only partly correct.

[Shaolindynasty]

don't be confused. you lineage is Chan Koon Pak......and of course he is the BLOODLINE........regardless of any splits. you practice chan family choy lee fut yes? or is your hung sing a part of Jeung Hung Sing's lineage?

All CLF is in essence the same bloodline, but koon pak is the 2nd generation I'm the 6th. There is plenty of time for our respective lines to deviate from each other.

Also I remember my sifu's son at one point saying they made some alterations to our ng lun ma and ng lun choy.

BTW, we use chan koon pak's characters for hung sing as that is our lineage but if you ask my sifu chances are he would say we are fong yuk shu lineage. we don't label ourselves as "chan family lineage" in the way the term is used here on the forums.

[hskwarrior]

If the idea of ALL CLF stemming from the same bloodline were true, then the Lau Bun lineage would also have the Ng Lun Choy or Ng Lun Ma, but NO true HUNG SING FUT SAN lineage has that form in there curriculum.

I truly think that prior to the 3rd generation of CLF practitioners, ALL CLF may have been real friendly. Yet, it is with the third generation that all the drama seems to have begun.

The only thing that IMHO the Jeung Yim lineage shares with CHAN family CLF are the 10 seeds. We don't share forms, however, it's clear to me where some of Jeung Hung Sing's influence on Chan Family CLF appears. Although, i don't see any Chan Family resemblance in any fashion at all in my lineage.

And, shaolindynasty, if you are indeed from the Fong Yuk Shu lineage, then that would also explain your HUNG SING FUT SAN flavor as we have learned that Professor Lau Bun's teacher (Yuen Hai) also taught Fong Yuk Shu for a time.

[CLFNole]

If they didn't share sets why does buk sing have sheung garp dan kwun and ping kuen? Doesn't hung sing have sup gee kow dah as well? Not saying they have to look the same necessarily but to say there is no influence is a bit of a stretch, no?

[hskwarrior]

CLFNOLE,

is buk sing's Ping Kuen the very one and the same as the one taught within the Chan Family? Fut San and Chan Family have two very different Ping Kuen's all together. And, who knows what Tam Sam picked up from Koon Pak when he went to study Dummy techniques there?

Buk Sing came from Hung Sing, and Tam Sam learned the three hung sing forms of the early days.....Ping Kuen, Kau Dau Kuen, and Cheung Kuen. In my opinion, Chan Fam's Ping Kuen is nothing like Fut San Ping Kuen. AT ALL. no resemblance.

[hskwarrior]

CLFNOLE,

a few chan family students have come to our school and stayed with us because they too saw the difference between our lineages. At first they saw no difference, but once their OLD movement was stripped down, they then realized "WOW, this really is different to what i've always learned."

But again, the the staff form the Chan Family's staff form, or is it just similar by name alone?

[Fei Li]

I truly think that prior to the 3rd generation of CLF practitioners, ALL CLF may have been real friendly. Yet, it is with the third generation that all the drama seems to have begun.

And I thought the drama began with you, almighty Hung Sing Branch Historian!
:D

No harm meant, just kidding

[hskwarrior]

HEH!.....none taken.

I really can't wait for MY book to come out. ;):D

The almighty Hung Sing Historian/Researcher has earned himself that title my friend. Can i tell you something? Once i traveled down my current path of research, I SAW THE LIGHT! From this point on, i do NOT find the need to argue over history ANYMORE. I will share, and dispute misleading concepts about my lineage, but, after all i've recently discovered, i'm walking away with a HUGE smile on my face. like this :D

However, when brother joseph said show him something that was in print about the green grass monk prior to 1950, I CAN DO THAT NOW!!!!!!

[CLFNole]

I realize things can be done differently, I am not arguing that. But to say you see Jeong Yim's influence all over the Chan Family stuff but no Chan Family influences in Hung Sing, just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Maybe you only see what you want to see.

With regard to form names and what not why use the same name if the form didn't originally come from the other? If you have a new set why not give it a new name? Forms don't have to look the same to have come from the same origin. Sets have been changing and morphing from the beginning.

Also stories seem to keep changing, didn't you say Jeong Yim created 8 original sets (the list Choy Kwong Yuen uses)? Or were Sup Gee Kuen, Kau Dah Kuen and Ping Kuen the original sets?

Kung fu will always look different and will always be changing. Methods and application can and will be different but CLF is CLF, otherwise it should have a different name.

Peace.

[iron_silk]

I realize things can be done differently, I am not arguing that. But to say you see Jeong Yim's influence all over the Chan Family stuff but no Chan Family influences in Hung Sing, just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Maybe you only see what you want to see.

Peace.

I think what Frank was trying to say was that the similarities between the two major branches can only be attributable to only Jeong Yim's line and not Chan Heung's line.

Which does seem kind of narrow minded. (No offense man)

I mean even if Green Grass Monk existed Chan Heung was a teacher of Jeong Yim's and attributed to his up bringing in kung fu.

I don't think a good student would try to take credit away from an old teacher the second he got a new teacher.

But then you're trying to say Chan Heung learned stuff from Jeong Yim and claim it to be his own...which sounds like "slander" to me or character assasination...

BUT if Chan Family is NOTHING like Jeong Yim's then Chan Heung stole NOTHING from Jeong Yim and therefore is not under any (and i repeat ANY) obligation to give credit to Jeong Yim.

Mystery solved CASE CLOSED!

[CLFNole]

iron_silk:

Honestly if one holds the logic that the two are so completely different then one of the styles really shouldn't be called CLF. (I don't really believe this just trying to make a point).

[iron_silk]

iron_silk:

Honestly if one holds the logic that the two are so completely different then one of the styles really shouldn't be called CLF. (I don' really believe this just trying to make a point).

I needed a distraction from my work.

In all honesty no matter how thorough a historian Frank is there will always be a certain bias. It's too easy to see the pieces fitting together when you already have a goal in mind. It wasn't to prove the actual history of the events as much as proving Jeong Yim's role in developing CLF ergo Jeong Yim deserves co-founder credit ergo Jeong Yim is same level as Chan Heung ergo all you other CLF Chan Family can go take a flying leap!

I must admit though...I kind of like the guy...Frank is honest with how he feels and seems to have strong work ethics with his students. His form flows nicely and I believe him when he says he can kick butt.

BUT back to your post reply...Frank did mention that Jeong Yim's kung fu was at one point not called "CLF" but was called "Hung Sing Jing Jong"? or something other

...I guess at one point CLF name got really popular and somebody wanted a piece of the action...

[hskwarrior]

what i was trying to say to you is, i come from a FUT SAN lineage, with original material handed down directly by jeung hung sing. I don't see chan family essence anywhere in my gung fu lineage, but what i DID say, was i see fut san hung sing influence on SOME of chan family material. I never said, ALL OVER, and if i did, thats not what i meant.

even according to doc fai wong, jeung yim is chan heung's early clf, koon pak is the middle, and chan yiu chi was the newer.

[hskwarrior]

Also stories seem to keep changing, didn't you say Jeong Yim created 8 original sets (the list Choy Kwong Yuen uses)? Or were Sup Gee Kuen, Kau Dah Kuen and Ping Kuen the original sets?


according to MY lineage, jeung hung sing taught In and Out bagua kuen, or internal and external bagua kuen. it was chan ngau sing who broke that set up and created ping kuen, kau da kuen, and cheung kuen.

either way, all three sets contained the same routine movements and Prof. Lau Bun evolved what he felt was more effective. His mindset was why have 3 forms with the same stuff in it?

[hskwarrior]

iron silk,

my whole goal in the historical aspects of my quest was to research, and document my findings. if they were all wrong, i would have walked away, shut my mouth, and just promote the Chan Family. it was NEVER to try and prove Jeung Hung Sing was the co-founder.

Jeung Hung Sing is one of the most famous southern martial artists of his time, and southern china has this documented. He had a very real life, background, and legacy. Yet, people of the Chan Family lineage get their feathers ruffled when the Jeung Hung Sing people tell their side of history. And, obviously, the two sources information does not match. IF we were to ever believe the Chan Family history, then we'd believe Jeung Hung Sing didn't arrive in the pic until 1867. Still, History has recorded Jeung Hung Sing's Kwoon in Fut San being established in 1851. And, till this day, there is NO REAL rebutle to this fact. Just argument. Bitshin, and complaining. Prove it wrong has always been my stance.

Today, I am perfectly happy knowing that whatever the chan family has recorded about Jeung Hung Sing is WRONG. Chan Family is also incorrect about much of their own history to ever tell us we're wrong.

Our brother joseph inspired me to go looking for evidence. And, in regards to this like OUR hung sing name, the green grass monk, and some other things, I GOT THAT. That's why i'm excited about bringing my book out.

The haters and disbelievers will ALWAYS be so, for the rest of their lives. But, when the future generations raise up, they WILL know the true Hung Sing history, and will stand proud.

and yes, we have been told by our elders that CLF was NOT the name Jeung Hung Sing was using in 1851 as the name of his style. HOW COULD HE? at the time (1849) he was more of a Fut Gar disciple under Ching Cho than he was a Chan Family CLF disciple.

[CLFNole]

If he was more of a Fut Gar student why even call the style CLF? Why change it from Fut Gar Jing Jong? Why not honor Ching Cho or have a name more steeped in Hung Mun?

This is the part I don't get.

The one thing I know about history is that people believe that suits them best. I would imagine learning about the Revolutionary War in England differs from how we learned it in the states, the Vietnamese War would be much different from the perspective of a student in Saigon and Japanese student might learn about the invasion on Nanking much differently than a Chinese student.

[hskwarrior]

ok, this is my personal theory......

Now, i've "HEARD" it said that when Jeung Hung Sing was 12, Chan Heung didn't teach him CLF then, but DID teach him how to basically read and write. This was basically backed up by an old article written by the BSK titled "Shocking Revelations."

Now, if the above were true, it would explain why Jeung Hung Sing's material is NOTHING like Chan Family CLF. But, when Jeung Hung Sing opened his gung fu school in Fut San (For Ching Cho, NOT CHAN HEUNG) in 1851, Jeung Hung Sing knew MORE Fut Gar than he did Chan Family CLF. So, when he established his school, CLFNOLE, what do you think he was teaching? CLF? or Fut Gar? Or how about a combination of the Lee Gar he first learned from Lee Yau San, the Choy and Lee styles from Chan Heung, and the Fut Gar from Ching Cho? what would THAT be called?

Any notions of Chan Heung sending Jeung Hung Sing to Fut San would be no more than a lie.

Now, why not have a name more steeped in Hung Mun? The original name given to Jeung Hung Sing was a name Referring to the Hung Mun. In Fact, as i've stated in past posts, the Green Grass Monk had Flags and banners with slogans on them. The name the Green Grass Monk gave Jeung Hung Sing was a synonym for "The Flourishing League is Victorious." "The Flourishing League" is a synonym for the "Hung" Society. The Chinese word for Victory is "Sing" and it becomes clear that Jeung Yim's "Hung Sing" is in direct relation to Ching Cho and the Hung Mun.

So CLFNOLE, i ask you, HOW MORE STEEPED can you get than having a name that secretly refers to the Hung Mun?

another thing.....the original Hung Sing used by Chan Heung only referred to Hung Wu, thereby getting the name Hung Sing (Great Sage Hung). Jeung Hung Sing's name (HUNG VICTORY) was a direct link to his teacher and the Hung Mun.


NOW....the Hung Sing Fut San lineage in regards to Chan Heung.......

-No pictures of Chan Heung on the walls

-No visual connection via forms, or hoi jongs and closings in direct relation to chan heung.

-Hung Mun hand Signals are completely different than Chan Heungs.

-we don't share any forms by name or appearance, or essence.

- the connection to the Hung Sing names are not the same


There is NO OBVIOUS connection to Chan Heung's CLF in any way IMHO. So, with nothing to link ourselves to the chan family with, why should we feel or even dare say that we come from chan heung when there is nothing to prove that?

Now, as the history dictates, Jeung Hung Sing returned to King Mui, and during his visit with Chan Heung they collaborated and out of that a newer CLF was created. This CLF was a collaboration of both Chan Heung and Jeung Hung Sing. But, when Jeung Hung Sing went back to Fut San in 1867, he didn't return because of Chan Heung. He returned to Fut San to re-open his old school.

And, the other matter that makes me believe that Chan Heung had nothing to do with our gung fu, was that when he took over the school of a Chan Heung student, he took chan heung's schools name down, and replaced it with his own. actions like this tell me that he wasn't teaching for Chan Heung.

[CLFNole]

Like I said before ... we all follow history that works best for us. All of this is heresay without any real factual documentation on either side.

[hskwarrior]

believe what you like. i know i do. and I don't dispute chan family history to be a jerk, i dispute it cause what THEY spread about US is WRONG

[iron_silk]

You know I don't think you are a jerk...I think you actually got something and in we will all see what it is.

You it does make sense that Jeung Yim is early CLF (or whatever it was) and really made it his own based on his many combat experiences and teaching his students.

Chan Heung would also further develop his CLF (since Jeung Yim's departure) and so would generations after him.

It would naturally be different. CLF isn't something set in stone as much as it was developed from various styles to begin with.

I mean my style with in the current generations is already different based on instructor. Things change either deliberately or naturally.

History is written by the victors.

I'd check out Frank's book with an open mind personally.

[hskwarrior]

Well, i appreciate that iron silk.

but, the fut san hung sing kwoon isn't in competition with anyone. there is no prize to be won here. all we've done was tell our history as it has been passed down to us. With the re-opening of the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon in 2001, new information not previously known was discovered.

In the end, it is OUR history. And, it is JUST history. Still, when we get accused of lying, or re-writing history, it's upsetting because here are people who have NOTHING to do with our lineage telling US about US. Why couldn't or shouldn't we rely on information within our own lineage? why should we look towards chan heung when chan heung wasn't as influential to jeung hung sing as the green grass monk was?

and again, iron silk, i see an open mind here, and i thank you.

However, i know this forum contains one or two specks of sand on the CLF Fraternal beach.......and its just the same old people over and over again arguing over the history. All i want is for people to tell the Hung Sing history when speaking about the Hung Sing Kwoon.

Others have tried to tell the public our own history, and completely messed things up. We try to clean up their mess, and get accused of trying to re-write history cause the history as WE know it doesn't come from the Chan Family branch, it came from OUR OWN PEOPLE.

and yes, during jeung hung sing's time away from chan heung, the latter would have continued to evolve his system during those 8 years (1841-1849). And, due to this, the new material developed by chan heung wasn't passed down to Jeung Hung Sing. This is the whole reason why the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon doesn't teach ANY chan family material.

Now, it is completely possible, that Jeung Hung Sing re-connection to the CLF family came after he returned to king mui, and paid chan heung a visit. But, all this doesn't explain why Jeung Hung Sing would take down the chan family school name and replace it with his own if he was so dedicated to Chan Heung.

well, yes, our stuff may have well been modified compared to other Hung Sing lineages, but all the important stuff within the forms are there. Now, you can determine what lineage a CLF person is from by the opening they do in their form. We do not share chan family openings in any way, but all Hung Sing lineages around the world DO share the same openings, and meat and pototoes so to speak.

Can the Lau Bun lineage compare itself with the Lee Koon Hung lineage? NO. what about the Chan Yong Fa, or even Doc Fai Wong lineages? NO. why? simply, we don't practice the same things.

[iron_silk]

Well, i appreciate that iron silk.

and again, iron silk, i see an open mind here, and i thank you.

Now, it is completely possible, that Jeung Hung Sing re-connection to the CLF family came after he returned to king mui, and paid chan heung a visit. But, all this doesn't explain why Jeung Hung Sing would take down the chan family school name and replace it with his own if he was so dedicated to Chan Heung.



Hi Frank,

I just thinking about the certain point.

No matter how dedicated the student is I believe at a point they would want to make a name of themselves or march to the beat of their own drums.

I know of a rather big school in our area that initially followed the name of the main branch but eventually renamed it to his own.

I don't think there is a big feud but I think if you do get big enough family on your own then you become the head.

[CLFNole]

Good point - deep down everyone wants to stand out (it's human nature).

[hskwarrior]

My sifu opened his school in the same city as his teacher, while his teacher was still teaching. and, my sifu chose to call his school Tien Loong Kwoon. No matter what it was still a Hung Sing school, and still of the same lineage. My sifu, grew pretty big, and at times, even bigger than his teachers school.

My sifu is the 2nd Successor of the Yuen Hai-Lau Bun lineage. And his school is HUNG SING KWOON. I attach the Hung Sing to my schools name, but just like my sifu, I chose to call my school HUNG LOONG KWOON. Its still a Hung Sing Kwoon, but my sifu is the Head Master of Hung Sing USA. So, while he is alive, i won't call my self hung sing. and the only way i will do that is if i'm appointed the 3rd successor, or if there is no one left to continue our legacy.

We all worship our teachers, and strive to be OUR best to HONOR them. so we teach what was taught all along, and add in our own evolution separately. But, in our lineage, we are the LAST of the Mohikans (sorry about spelling) so to speak. No one else out there like uncles from another of Yuen Hai's disciples.

and we kinda stay clear of people who only want to beat their own drum. We are trying to preserve our legacy since we are the last of our kind. We want the dedicated, and faithful to continue our lineage.

[hskwarrior]

clfnole,

just in case you were in douby, @ 5:55 of this video, you can hear the announcer tell you what the three original forms were called.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-hRnCPuDQA&feature=channel_page

[CLFNole]

My mandarin is mah-mah-dei. But I find it interesting that the 3 sets you refer to as original are different from the 3 sets Tam Sam brought to buk sing.

[hskwarrior]

remind me, what did Tam Sam bring to Buk Sing, and was Chan Ngau Sing alive then?

[hskwarrior]

The two forms Ping Kuen and Kau Da are the same as Fut San HSK, and Sup Ji came later. so, no, Tam Sam must not have picked up Cheung Kuen, but he did have the other two, and sup ji which came later.

taken from the buk sing website:

The main ‘Forms’ (Kuens) in the Buk Sing branch of Choy Lay Fut are ‘Sub Tse Kuen’, ‘Ping Kuen’, ‘Kou Da’

[CLFNole]

Now I am not a buk sing person so don't quote me on this but from what I have read he brought over the following:

Kau Da Kuen
Sup Gee Kuen
Ping Kuen
Sheung Garp Dan Kwun

I believe you have Cheong Kuen interchanged as 1 of the 3 hand sets.

My point is who really knows what is original and what isn't. It is not like there was a flyer found from Jeong Yim's school saying this is my curriculum. Everything is heresay and probably differs from sifu to sifu.

My own personal opinion is that much of the history out there on both sides is highly speculative and somewhat guesswork becuase the truth of the matter is that there is no definative evidence that proves either side. Unless someone jumps in a time machine and goes back to the 1800s it really will be a mystery. Usually the truth lies somewhere in between 2 stories.

Peace.

[hskwarrior]

so what i don't get, is if you are questioning what is original and what is not, wouldn't a comparison of a very old lineage and a younger one prove what's original if the two are virtually the same form? even after all these years?

[hskwarrior]

well, the truth of the matter is this CLFNOLE:

Ping Kuen, Kau Da Kuen, and Sup Ji Kuen of the Jeung Hung Sing lineage all have the same repetitive sections in all three forms. In the Lau Bun lineage we also have Sup Ji Kuen, and since all three sets were very similar, Prof. Lau Bun used his foresight and combined the best out of all three forms into on very good one. In our set, no section of the form is repeated, AT ALL.

We also got our " Seung Garb Darn Tou Gwun" (click here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k44pxXwtdWM) but i don't know how this school got our forms.

[CLFNole]

Tam Sam came from Lui Chan who was Jeong Yim's student and a well-known one at that. You would think the same 3 foundation sets might be taught but maybe not. Maybe cheong kuen came from Yuen Hai or even Lau Bun, as it does have some minor resemblence to ng lun choy.

My point is no one really knows and can prove anything. There is too much "prove I am wrong" from both sides rather than proving themselves right.

Hey I got to go so if I don't respond I'll catch ya later.

[hskwarrior]

But, why would NG LUN CHOY even be mentioned in regards to Jeung Hung Sing's lineage? We have CHE Kuen, which is like a very short version of the Yuen Hai Cheung Kuen. And, we all know that Lui Chun, Yuen Hai, and Lee Yan are the three most senior disciples of Jeung Hung Sing.

Now, because i know where BUK SING changed their forms, I know what to look for. No disrespect, since you don't know buk sing forms, you wouldn't know ours either. Sorry. but, i will always stand strong claiming that buk sing has Hung Sing forms. They are a separate lineage now, so of course the original forms will change to meet their own standards. but the frame work will and should always remain.

Buk Sing does not practice Ng Lun Choy either.

[hskwarrior]

but to me, it doesn't really matter, cause coming from the chan family, you have one form, with tons of different variations to Ng Lun Choy, none of them look the same and all are supposed to be from the same source.

But you must remember CLFNOLE, Jeung Yim learned the most early stages of chan heung's CLF, so that could be the reason for any similarities, but at the end of the day, i still see no relation to chan family CLF in the least. but thats just me.

[CLFNole]

In our line we refer to ng lun ma as che kuen but it is still ng lun choy. I didn't mean to change the topic but I recall seeing Troy D. doing che kuen or cheong kuen I don't recall exactly but it definately had some characteristics of che kuen.

Back to what we were discussing before though. You said Lau Bun created cheong kuen correct, by combining 3 forms. So cheong kuen isn't an original form then is it?

[hskwarrior]

Ng Lun Choy and Che Kuen seem to be different between branches, but i can understand you saying they are similar.....they have a similar frame work, but who knows. I think Yuen Hai could have been the creator of our cheung kuen, but that set could very well be one of the originals. regardless, its a traditional set with a long history in our lineage.

[hskwarrior]

Nah, L, Professor Lau Bun is the creator of what is known today as our Sup Ji Kau Da kuen. It was a combination of Ping Kuen, Kau Da, and Sup Ji.

[CLFNole]

So your line doesn't have sup gee kow da that predates Lau Bun? I thought I read something years ago about Jeong Yim practising sup gee kow dah.

The whole concept of original and traditional forms means very little to me as forms always change over time. I just take pride in what was taught to me and respect the forms other lines have different or not.

[hskwarrior]

I've never heard that one before, and i've heard alot of stories from what others say about my lineage.