Fut Gar Kuen

[hskwarrior]

Enjoy....I did. i saw lots of Fut Gar techniques as found in the Fut San Hung Sing lineage.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/jflqQ2lkPuE/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/jflqQ2lkPuE/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/4IqOeUPsxq0/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/aozKEwyPTcw/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/HkXk-xqCdKg/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/TGlxH7F1g_U/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/iCkWVGiINp0/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/U2_eusz6gFg/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5W0YYOsUZms/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/nlsL-dUtbPo/

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/bVVWn1ee7Us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_0RJ3iLw8&feature=player_embedded#t=145

[Violent Designs]

Sweet post can definitely see the connections there.

[hskwarrior]

yeah, with an open mind....one can see how Fut Ga fits into CLF.

[Ben Gash]

It's Cantonese Kung Fu, it all looks similar because they have a shared history. Depending on the clip you look at you could say it looks like CLF (1st clip) Choy Gar (that was the big surprise, that second clip really looked like Choy Gar) Mok Gar, Hung Gar or Hark Fu Mun.
However, what's REALLY interesting is the fact that he uses a running horse like in Bak Sing Fut Gar.

[hskwarrior]

It was a surprise.....and nice to see the connection. We'll see what we'll see and to some it will be different. but from looking at the fut ga clips from my lineages perspective....even my sifu agreed he saw things in there, it's cool to relate to it.

Which clip did you see the running horse in? too many clips to go back over. lol

[Ben Gash]

In most of them. In about half the instances when you'd use a Ding Ji Ma he uses a running horse.

[bawang]

choy/ li/ fut is choy ga, li ga, fut ga combined
its in the name of your style

[Ben Gash]

choy/ li/ fut is choy ga, li ga, fut ga combined
its in the name of your style

No, it's the northern Shaolin art of CHOY Fook, the southern family art of LI Yau San, and the southern Shaolin Buddhist or FUT art of Chan Yuen Woo

[bawang]

thats what i said :confused:?!??!!?!?
choy ga li ga and fut ga

[Ben Gash]

No, Choy Fook's art was not Choy Gar, it was a northern system, and Chan Yuen Woo's art was not Fut Gar (at least not by our modern understanding) it was a primordial form of Hung Gar (most likely), so you are in fact 1/3rd right ;)

[hskwarrior]

No, Choy Fook's art was not Choy Gar, it was a northern system, and Chan Yuen Woo's art was not Fut Gar (at least not by our modern understanding) it was a primordial form of Hung Gar (most likely), so you are in fact 1/3rd right

That's according to NON Jeung Hung Sing lineages. Ours will always claim fut ga from Ching Cho. But i get confused, because some chan family sources says that it IS Choy Gar, Lee Gar, and in regards to Chan Fam "FUT" represents Shaolin Roots. In our lineage, its said to be Choy Ga, Lee Ga and Fut Ga (via Ching Cho).

[hskwarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4J_PaAfr0k

here's another one i find real interesting.

[Ben Gash]

Choy Fook is the source of the northern element in CLF, so not Choy Gar. I mean really, does this look like it's part of CLF? (beyond the shared Guandong shaolin elements)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U95U8ndHBYc
It's conceptually very different, whereas you can clearly see it's influence on Jow Gar (which does contain Choy Gar and I think may be the source of some of the confusion).

[hskwarrior]

So....Lee Yau San....master of Lee Ga didn't teach Lee Ga to Chan Heung?

[Ben Gash]

How did you arrive there exactly?? :confused:

[hskwarrior]

i'm simply asking the question based on what you said.....

also, was Choy Gau Yee one of Choy Fook's teachers?

[Ben Gash]

On what I said???
Impossible to definitively say about Choy Fook, but probably not. CLF clearly has a northern influence, which obviously didn't come from Li Yau San or Chan Yuen Woo, so it must have come from Choy Fook. The forms which are historically attributed to Choy fook such as the horse form have a very northern flavour, and he is described as being a northern monk. Even if Choy Fook did study with Choy Gau Yee, what he taught Chan Heung certainly was not Choy Gar.

[hskwarrior]

So in your opinion, where did CLF'S Rat Stepping come from? from what i hear, that's connected to choy gau yee.

i found this on wiki too..

In 1836 he formally established the Choy Li Fut system, named to honor the Buddhist monk Choy Fook 蔡褔 who taught him Choy Gar, Li Yau-San 李友山 who taught him Li Gar, and his uncle Chan Yuen-Woo 陳遠護 who taught him Fut Gar, to honor the Buddha from which the art was named.

[Ben Gash]

As the joke goes, Wikipedia is accurate (citation needed).
Rat stepping is not unique to Choy Gar, what makes it special is the emphasis they put on it (kinda like we've all got inch power, but it's the chunners who make a big deal about it). The rat stepping in CLF is not exactly prevalent. Maybe someone saw it once and thought "that's a nifty little trick", maybe someone learned it from a Choy Gar teacher, or a Jow Gar teacher, maybe it was part of the primordial system that became Cantonese Sil Lum Kung Fu (most likely explanation), or maybe a Taoist immortal came to Chan Heung in a dream and taught it to him. We'll never know. However, the fact that none of the rest of Choy Gar's essence is in the system, and the stuff that Chan Heung learned from Choy Fook is really what differentiates CLF from other Cantonese systems, it is highly unlikely that what Choy Fook taught Chan Heung Choy Gar.

[hskwarrior]

the stuff that Chan Heung learned from Choy Fook is really what differentiates CLF from other Cantonese systems

and how do we know what choy fook taught him exactly again?

aside from the dummies, what were the names of the forms Choy Fook taught to Chan Heung? Was that recorded?

[Ben Gash]

That's the kind of thing you're better off asking Joseph TBH. As I said, the horse form is attributed to him, but beyond that I don't know.
But anyway, you're missing the point, we know that he taught him something that wasn't Hung gar and wasn't Li gar, that made CLF look like it does. If you mixed Choy Gar, Li Gar and Hung Gar would you get CLF? Seriously doubt it. Where did all those long, waist driven motions come from, where did all the Tau Mas come from etc etc ?

[nospam]

Getting back to the 'running' horse - we interpret ding ji ma is a static stance taught to beginners (static) and intermediate (single step) students as a foundation prior to moving to the next stage. It is quite effective at both of the above stages and for many practitioners/styles there is often no further progression.

nospam
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

where did all the Tau Mas come from etc etc ?

so are tau ma's strictly northern? i mean hung ga has them....and they're southern right?

[hskwarrior]

No, it's the northern Shaolin art of CHOY Fook, the southern family art of LI Yau San, and the southern Shaolin Buddhist or FUT art of Chan Yuen Woo

But, the Chan Heung lineages never said the FUT in Choy Lee Fut was Fut Gar....they said it was to represent its buddhist origins. According to our belief, it's the inclusion of Ching Cho's Fut Gar via Jeung Hung Sing is where CLF is said to have Fut Ga in it.

the even more confusing part is we got so many writings from Chan fam members saying that Chan Yuen Wu taught Hung Gar.....then in the not so distant past, i've noticed it change to Fut Gar.

[hskwarrior]

Getting back to the 'running' horse

NOSPAM, forgive me since our terminology is different than yours.....but is all your running horses done linear as in regards to the din ji ma like your mentioned? or is the running horse also what we do when we do Running upper cuts?

running horse and Biu ma......same or different?

i just need to understand others terminologies.

[hskwarrior]

ben......

I did some checking, and asked one of my friends from australia under Chan Yong Fa because I felt my questions weren't really answered....no prob there....he answered my questions.

Basically....he stated that Choy Gau Yee was indeed one of the three teachers of Choy Fook and his teachings to Choy Fook are very evident in CLF. He also further explained that aside from Choy Ga....Choy Fook was the keeper of the teachings from northern Shaolin monks Li So, Buk Yu Fong & Gok Yuen Sarn Yan.

So i think it's safe to say....Choy Ga IS found in CLF.......as is Li Gar from Lee Yau San.

now, Chan Yuen Wu was a student of the shaolin monk Known as Doc Kwa Juerng Di See ( Zen Monk) or the walking Stick Monk......his nickname, according to my friend. He was NOT a master of FUT GAR Kuen, but was a master of "FUT JEURNG" and WAS INDEED a master of HUNG KUEN with roots to Hung Hei Goon and Fong Sai Yuk.

[nospam]

Getting back to the 'running' horse - we interpret ding ji ma is a static stance taught to beginners (static) and intermediate (single step) students as a foundation prior to moving to the next stage. It is quite effective at both of the above stages and for many practitioners/styles there is often no further progression.

hskwarrior

I was over simplifying. Let me break down how we look at a strike executed in ding ji ma - the stance is a mold or shell taught to help the student understand & the teacher to instruct proper technique and power mechanics from the the ground up. As such it is static. It is a snap shot in a sequence or series of movements. We emphasize certain movements of the basic (ding ji ma) stance and practise this until it becomes second nature and the student is ready to move to the next step, thus removing the mold: a no-brainer here. Why it's called 'basics'. The next step for the stance is adding dynamic movement. I am not referring to right side stance then turning to left side etc., altho advancing throughout the various stages is obviously systemic.

We do not have a Chinese name for what we call the 'running' horse. Biu ma is an 'advanced' stance in concept (it also has stages of learning) and a transitional movement in effect. We actually call it a 'shuffle' horse. Are biu ma and 'running' horse one and the same? Yes and No. Depends on what I refer to as dynamic interaction. We may initiate movement and face forward or linear as you say using running horse but the movement required may be very brief and biu ma or shuffle was all that was needed or we may have to open up to stick/chase (using the word 'chase' loosely even tho it looks like we are chasing) - using running horse. Thus biu and running horse are both one and the same but distinctly different.

The positioning of the hips, I'm assuming is what you mean when you ask 'is the running horse also what we do when we do Running upper cuts?' goes right back to square one and using ding ji ma and sai ping ma. To sum it up, these two stances are the molds used to shape and train the hips. As one progresses the mold is discarded but still used periodically. If my hip is open to you then I am in essence in ding ji ma. If my hip is closed to you then I am in... If my hip is off to the side at some apparently different angle then I have changed where the centreline is and now you are at minimum 1 move behind me, which is where I always want you, but I remain in one of the above stances. Rarely is the occasion I will now revert to the traditional stance except as a show move or my opponent has been disengaged and/or incapacitated and I have time for that one power move to break 'boards' :)

How we use the various movements and how they may be perceived is based on a founding precept of dynamic interaction...centre line. If our engagement dictates, one technique to employ is moving the center line abruptly..elsewhere. The idea is to have my opponent stuck in the wrong sequence of movement and quickly finding himself now being in the wrong place. Observing this technique of switching out the centre line will often appear as if I am drastically side stepping, when in reality I have changed the centre line and transitioned into a different stance (attack) and if all went well (timing), then my opponent just found himself in the way of some power move such as a sau choi...being one of my favourites.

nospam
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

thanks again nospam.


Observing this technique of switching out the centre line will often appear as if I am drastically side stepping, when in reality I have changed the centre line and transitioned into a different stance (attack) and if all went well (timing), then my opponent just found himself in the way of some power move such as a sau choi...being one of my favourites.


i got you!

[Eric Olson]

I think the confusion is that Choy and Li are common names in Southern China (correct me if I'm wrong.) and Fut is a generic term for Buddha.

So in all likelihood there's going to be multiple styles that share a name....but doesn't mean they have any historical connection to each other.

Not sure about Li/Lay Ga but my understanding is that the Choy and Fut in Choy Lay Fut have no connection to Choy Gar and Fut Gar.

Cheers,

EO

[hskwarrior]

Not sure about Li/Lay Ga but my understanding is that the Choy and Fut in Choy Lay Fut have no connection to Choy Gar and Fut Gar.


right. Lots of people seem to be confused to what CLF really is. But, according to the chan fam writings on the internet, it was Choy and Lee while fut represented their buddhist roots and connection to shaolin. The fut had nothing to do with FUT GAR kuen or FUT JEURNG (Buddhist Palm).

but, the Fut San lineage maintained that Choy was for Choy Ga, Lee for lee ga, and Fut for Fut gar via the Green Grass Monk (Ching Cho). now, we see from the Chan Yong Fa lineage that Choy Ga was indeed part of and evident in CLF. And, Lee Yau San was never said to have learned anything other than Lee Ga.....so how can that get twisted?

[Violent Designs]

Does it really matter, non of these things can be proven conclusively (historically).

There is obvious connection to Fut Ga, even an idiot can tell. Doesn't matter where it came from. Although interesting to discuss. Nobody can prove anything.

Nospam posted good information about Buk Sing stuff.

Fighting ftw.

[hskwarrior]

Nospam posted good information about Buk Sing stuff.


hold on now KANYE!!!!!

[Violent Designs]

hold on now KANYE!!!!!

I dont even know what Kayne did.

What is the big deal about him anyway.

(I don't listen to him or any of that crap they play nowadays)

[Ben Gash]

And, Lee Yau San was never said to have learned anything other than Lee Ga.....so how can that get twisted?
Who's twisting it?
I can buy that a quarter of Choy Fook's kung fu was Choy Gar, but his main contribution to the system was the northern shaolin stuff (which was after all what most of his teachers taught), and that's what differentiates CLF from other Cantonese Sil Lum systems, and the Choy in the system name refers to Choy Fook himself, not Choy Gar (although you know how the Chinese love those little plays on words, so maybe Chan Heung was sowing confusion right at the start :D )

[hskwarrior]

Choy in the system name refers to Choy Fook himself, not Choy Gar

right, we know that. But, you can't say anymore that Choy Ga isn't part of CLF, it is.....and apparent.

[Ben Gash]

right, we know that. But, you can't say anymore that Choy Ga isn't part of CLF, it is.....and apparent.

Is it that apparent? Really? No disrespect to your friend in Australia, but as there's no Choy Gar in Australia, and there's no Choy Gar in Jiangmen, where has he seen it to make such a judgement? He's surely limited to the same Choy Gar resources as the rest of us. As we've discussed here, there's a few things that with the eye of faith you could attribute to Choy Gar over another source, but it's not like there's Choy Gar written all over the style (especially when you compare it to Jow Gar which has a very strong Choy influence).
Anyway, the original point was that the name Choy Li Fut doesn't represent Choy Gar, Li Gar and Fut Gar.

[Ben Gash]

So, been thinking, the problem with these discussions is they tend to ignore 170+ years of development of both styles. For example we know that Hung Gar in the 1830s was somewhat different to now.
Perhaps a clear illustration was provided by a conversation I had with another forum member recently. It transpires that our village Hung systems share a form, but the lineage of the form split to our respective branches over a century ago. Therefore, because I know the form I can identify it as the same form, but it appears quite different, is performed with a different flavour, and if you saw them without knowing them you'd think they were different forms from different styles that maybe shared a common ancestor.
Do we know what Choy Gar, Hung Gar, Li Gar, Fut Gar etc even looked like in 1830? Not really. Can we trace the evolution of techniques and methodologies in Choy Li Fut during it's history through all branches? Not really. So everything is highly subjective, and open to interpretation.
With this in mind, one of Chen Yong Fa's students says that they can see a clear Choy Gar influence on CLF. However we know from Hu Yuen Chou that Chan Yiu Chi placed heavy emphasis in his teaching on rapid light footwork, and when you look at other branches they appear to place much less emphasis on this. So is the perceived Choy Gar flavour from Choy Gau Yee, or is it from Chan Yiu Chi, who was a small and slight man, who would have needed to utilise quick, light footwork and soft hands?

[hskwarrior]

So, been thinking, the problem with these discussions is they tend to ignore 170+ years of development of both styles. For example we know that Hung Gar in the 1830s was somewhat different to now.
Perhaps a clear illustration was provided by a conversation I had with another forum member recently. It transpires that our village Hung systems share a form, but the lineage of the form split to our respective branches over a century ago. Therefore, because I know the form I can identify it as the same form, but it appears quite different, is performed with a different flavour, and if you saw them without knowing them you'd think they were different forms from different styles that maybe shared a common ancestor.
Do we know what Choy Gar, Hung Gar, Li Gar, Fut Gar etc even looked like in 1830? Not really. Can we trace the evolution of techniques and methodologies in Choy Li Fut during it's history through all branches? Not really. So everything is highly subjective, and open to interpretation.
With this in mind, one of Chen Yong Fa's students says that they can see a clear Choy Gar influence on CLF. However we know from Hu Yuen Chou that Chan Yiu Chi placed heavy emphasis in his teaching on rapid light footwork, and when you look at other branches they appear to place much less emphasis on this. So is the perceived Choy Gar flavour from Choy Gau Yee, or is it from Chan Yiu Chi, who was a small and slight man, who would have needed to utilise quick, light footwork and soft hands?


you know something? The Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon DOESN'T have this kind of issue. Which makes me proud to be of Jeung Hung Sing's lineage......



So is the perceived Choy Gar flavour from Choy Gau Yee, or is it from Chan Yiu Chi, who was a small and slight man, who would have needed to utilise quick, light footwork and soft hands?

DID Chan Yiu Chi learn from Choy Fook or was it Chan Heung? Advancement in theory, concepts, applications, and so forth always evolve.......but Chan Yiu Chi did NOT create chan family CLF.

So, lets go back to what CHAN HEUNG learned and taught before his Grandson took over yes?

[hskwarrior]

Anyway, the original point was that the name Choy Li Fut doesn't represent Choy Gar, Li Gar and Fut Gar.

perhaps not in your lineage. But my Fut San Hung Sing lineage is based off of Lee Ga....Chan Heung's early stages of CLF (the 1st 5 years to be exact) and off of Ching Cho's Fut Ga kuen. if you were deeper into the Lau Bun lineage...and interacted with other members of your sifu's former lineage....you'd see the major influence of Fut Gar kuen all over Yuen Hai's lineage.


Jow Gar which has a very strong Choy influence

Is Jow Ga mentioned in having anything to do with Choy Lee Fut? anywhere?


So everything is highly subjective, and open to interpretation.

so what about the writings and teachings of Chan Heung?

[Ben Gash]

You've clearly not followed anything I've said :rolleyes:

[Ben Gash]

you know something? The Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon DOESN'T have this kind of issue. Which makes me proud to be of Jeung Hung Sing's lineage......

what issue??????:confused::confused::confused:

[hskwarrior]

You've clearly not followed anything I've said

i totally agree......I'm not following you. Why? First, cause I'm Hung Sing CLF....and you are Chan Family....CLF. Two, i find it a terrible thing that even Chan Family CLF would dispute what their own history is. seems like "NO, don't believe them, believe us" if you ask me.

[hskwarrior]

what issue??????

You are Chan Family CLF......and here you are indirectly saying that Chan Yong Fa is wrong in regards to what his great grand father created.

Who was on first?

[Ben Gash]

Why does it always boil down to this with you Frank? Try to have a sensible discussion about sensible things and it's the same old bigotted ranting from Mr Social Skills :rolleyes:

[Ben Gash]

You are Chan Family CLF......and here you are indirectly saying that Chan Yong Fa is wrong in regards to what his great grand father created.

Who was on first?

A) No I'm not :rolleyes:
B) Nowhere did you say "Chen Yong Fa said"
C) You overspan the significance of the statement anyway
D) It was not a criticism, it was a discussion of the issues around such statements, because...
E) There is a tendency in Kung Fu circles to tie things up with elegant solutions.

[hskwarrior]

Why does it always boil down to this with you Frank? Try to have a sensible discussion about sensible things and it's the same old bigotted ranting from Mr Social Skills

actually, i'm not ranting, arguing, or anything. don't get upset.

All i'm saying is I see the DFW plum blossom lineage saying that the Chan Yong Fa lineage is wrong. and i find that a bit BIASED maybe, shocking for sure. that's all.


same old bigotted ranting

lemme ask you a question there mr gash.....Have you tried being on the opposite end of what's coming from YOU? See, I have been more passive on this forum lately. partly because I see clearly how Chan Heung and Jeung Hung Sing's roads split and their own legacies took place. I'm not Chan Family, so I'm happy with the developments of the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon.

Biased towards my own lineage? I'd say we ALL are to an extent. Me a "Biggott" the only Biggott in me is that i'm fat LMAO......to tell you the truth.....it's not me who's the biggott in the batch. but that's another issue all in itself.

See, forgive me if you seem to think i'm ranting. I'm honestly not. I've come to see enough to know that i should just keep my mind on my own lineage. it's better to know my own, then to worry about what yours is doing or saying.

[Ben Gash]

I can see how you intended it differently to the way it came across, but contextually it came across like you weren't interested in what I had to say because of my lineage. Like I say, I cans ee how you meant it differently, so cool :cool:
It's hardly shocking or a big disagreement to have a different view on whether or not there's a clear influence of Choy Gar on modern CLF, it is a subjective thing, and like I say, you were overspinning the significance of the statement anyway.
Besides, I'm an individual and your contact in Australia is an individual, I'm sure neither of us wishes to be presented as the unified view of our respective branches :rolleyes:

[hskwarrior]

Ben,

Let me share something with you. The Fut San Hung Sing lineage of Jeung Hung Sing doesn't think we're better, special, or anything of the nature that you assume us to think about ourselves. Neither do I.

it's very unfortunate that our lineages have to suffer over such a silly thing as history.

[hskwarrior]

I'm an individual and your contact in Australia is an individual, I'm sure neither of us wishes to be presented as the unified view of our respective branches

Do you know why I get along with this top student of Chan Yong Fa? Because we show respect for each others lineage. I can openly ask him all of my questions, negative or not, and he'll openly answer me. we've been developing a friendship over the recent months......and i got respect for him. He listens to me as well, and even agree's that there is alot of Jeung Hung Sing history they don't know, so he couldn't discount it. And THAT was the step it needed for that friendship to flower.

if that were to ever happen here....or anywhere else in the world.....our respective branches would share some "RESPECT."

You and I share in part the same lineage via Lau Bun. It would be nice one day to discuss OUR Lau Bun stuff without animosity.

[Ben Gash]

I entirely agree, and I'm entirely willing to discuss history, and I've already said many times what is necessary to make that happen.
If you don't think your branch is special why are you doing it :confused:
There's nothing wrong with being proud of your system, and I'm sure most people here (myself included) are more than happy to recognise you as a member of a great line with a proud tradition.
However, maybe you should re-read some of your old posts and try to view them from the POV of someone else, especially another CLF practitioner.
You've said some bad things Frank, and you've insulted a lot of people. Whatever perceived slights you may have received from various people from other lineages, other people's poor behaviour does not excuse your own.
Maybe you should take a long hard look at what you are trying to achieve, and why you're trying to achieve it.
Why is it so important for you to have Jeong Yim as one of Chan Heung's teachers? Why is it important for you for Jeong Yim to have had primary access to material Chan Heung didn't? If not to make Jeong Yim superior to Chan Heung, and by extension Futsan practitioners superior to other lines, then why?
Because Frank, if you just said "According to the traditions of our line Jeong Yim studied with Ching Cho and this had an influence on the early development of Choy Li Fut" I don't think many people would take offence, we'd respect that as the tradition of your style and that would be that.
However, when you're there going "Chan Heung was just a scholar, he was Jeong Yim's b*tch, Jeong Yim was the real fighter, he showed Chan Heung stuff which was way better than anything he knew, and he was a secret hero of the underground, and I've got proof (which I'm not going to show you) which proves that you're all a**holes, and all you ****ers are going to pay for the disrespect you've shown our great line" (obviously I'm paraphrasing here ;) ) you're understandably going to get people's backs up.

[hskwarrior]

If you don't think your branch is special why are you doing it

Let me clarify. I don't think we're special because of Ching Cho. Plus, I can take karate and kick your arse if i'm good with what i know. right? so, i think we're special in the same sense that chan family clf is special.


Why is it so important for you to have Jeong Yim as one of Chan Heung's teachers? forgive out of order....

When i did my own research ben, initially i was under the impression that Chan Heung was the ONLY one. But, then i wanted to know more about Jeung Hung Sing. Like who was he? what did he do? what did he look like? how did he get the name of Hung Sing? and so forth.

Then as i proceeded to discover more and more, we got to the part where Jeung Hung Sing returned to King Mui (in or around mid 1860's) and visited his former sifu. while there, chan heung was interested in seeing what Ching Cho taught him. at that point chan heung wanted to add in some of the Fut Gar Kuen. So, the concept of Jeung Hung Sing was not one of Chan Heung's teachers but since he provided additional material to Chan Heung's CLF, it was THIS that eanred his the honor as CO-FOUNDER.....just like Lee Yau San is considered the co-founder after Lee Si Hoi created it.

We never intended the chan family to assume we wee saying jeung hung sing was one of Chan Heung's teachers. NOT IN THE LEAST. Only, that Jeung Hung SIng had a part in the development of CHOY LEE FUT. which is apparent to US in the later material taught within the chan family. that's all.


You've said some bad things Frank, and you've insulted a lot of people.

I know i have. I have mended those fences. however, do you know what it feels like when you have been doing something for all of your life, and your lineage is far older than MOST in CLF......for another CLF person or master to tell you that what you are doing is NOT clf? OUR HSCLF can be verified in Fut San.

It's offensive, and hurtful to say the least. But, the late Ngan Jo Kuen (Ngan Yiu Ting's bloodline) told many of even DFW's senior classmates that what we do ISN'T CLF!!!! Of course we are NOT chan family, but we ARE CLF......and that was hugely disrespectful. can you understand where we are coming from?


Maybe you should take a long hard look at what you are trying to achieve, and why you're trying to achieve it.

The only thing i'm trying to achieve is to tell our history, that is still under investigation. As yours should be, (with all due respect).



Why is it important for you for Jeong Yim to have had primary access to material Chan Heung didn't?

if you are referring to Ching Cho, then this is our history. Chan Heung didn't document MUCH about Jeung Hung Sing. So the answers to unanswered questions lay within Jeung Hung Sing's lineage. To be honest, there is more out there about Ching Cho than any southern gung fu system knows about him right now. for Zhou En Lai-the Premier of China-to instruct Chen Yilin to include Ching Cho in our history is pretty awesome to me. Cause even the premier of china knew about him.

also, that book by Nim Fut San Yen, none of us know what's in that book, nor has ever even seen that book. if you were to eliminate that idea from your mind....you may see things in fut san you didn't before.


Because Frank, if you just said "According to the traditions of our line Jeong Yim studied with Ching Cho and this had an influence on the early development of Choy Li Fut" I don't think many people would take offence, we'd respect that as the tradition of your style and that would be that.

that's what we've been trying to say all along. except, that Jeung Hung Sing came around towards the last stages of Chan Heung's life. As you may notice, some of the later material from the Chan Heung lineage does have the L shape pattern hoi jong, similar to that of the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon. and having an "influence" was the same thing to us as co-founder" since he had an actual part in its evolution.


However, when you're there going "Chan Heung was just a scholar, he was Jeong Yim's b*tch, Jeong Yim was the real fighter, he showed Chan Heung stuff which was way better than anything he knew, and he was a secret hero of the underground, and I've got proof (which I'm not going to show you) which proves that you're all a**holes, and all you ****ers are going to pay for the disrespect you've shown our great line" (obviously I'm paraphrasing here ) you're understandably going to get people's backs up.

First, i've never said Chan Heung was Jeung Hung Sing's anything but 2nd teacher. but back then, we were all more heated than we are today.


he showed Chan Heung stuff which was way better than anything he knew

We've never said that, nor thought that, or would even promote that. and i'd be the first to tell a Hung Sing guy to STFU if i heard that.

All we've stated was Chan Heung wanted to include some of the Fut Gar from Ching Cho. i can't see where we say it was anything better.

and to be honest, the animosity stems from the FACT that the Chan Heung line downplays Jeung Hung Sing in a major way (according to our POV). Its' a fact that Jeung Hung Sing was HUGE in southern gung fu...... So it made us (me) wave the flag more than i perhaps should have. that whole situation was ugly, but in my opinion, needed.....cause look.....you and i are having our first civil conversation.

[hskwarrior]

and by extension Futsan practitioners superior to other lines, then why?

in fact, we always felt it was the other way around.

One more thing. We are ALL CLF....we never felt superior. nor claimed to be. just as Chan Heung has his own incredible background....so does Jeung Hung Sing. The same is said for Buk Sing, although they came originally from Hung Sing, they made their own contributions, and therefore IMHO Tam Sam should also be considered a co-founder....contributor....so to speak.

but, please don't forget how chan family lineage people here on this forum past and present all tried to make Fut San look bad cause we don't teach all of your dummies, or your qigong forms, and what not. The fact that Jeung Hung Sing wasn't present during that time explains why he didn't pick up anything but the early Chan Family CLF stuff.

with or without Ching Cho, Jeung Hung Sing's lineage was huge, and got alot of attention. what they went through, developed, experienced is enough to be very proud of. BUT speaking for ALL Hung Sing Fut San Lineages on this one.....NEVER HAD WE EVER THOUGHT, PROMOTED, OR ASSUMED THAT WE WERE BETTER, SUPERIOR, OR SPECIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

We are the lineage of Jeung Hung Sing. And we have our legacy as well. Not better nor superior. We are CLF.....just like you.....with our own story to tell about OUR founder.

[Eric Olson]

You are Chan Family CLF......and here you are indirectly saying that Chan Yong Fa is wrong in regards to what his great grand father created.


Isn't he part of Plum Blossom Federation? That isn't exactly "Chan Family" CLF.

Frank, I guess it's good to be loyal but not when it blinds you to new information and other points of view.

EO

P.S. Was just down in your 'hood recently. You live in Oakland right?

[hskwarrior]

you wasn't in my hood. i live in Daly City.....and am always in San francisco.

My Hood is the Mission District.....16th and Mission to be exact.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7jEh0wk0s&feature=PlayList&p=DABE7C107F9E04D5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

that's where i grew up!!!!!

[Eric Olson]

you wasn't in my hood. i live in Daly City.....and am always in San francisco.

My Hood is the Mission District.....16th and Mission to be exact.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7jEh0wk0s&feature=PlayList&p=DABE7C107F9E04D5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

that's where i grew up!!!!!

My bad. Went to the Mission too...:D.

EO

[hskwarrior]

My bad. Went to the Mission too....


where? n for what?

[Violent Designs]

Serious business.