Differences between Hung Sing & Buk Sing CLF

[hskwarrior]

I erased the other thread cause its main focus was trying to get extrajoseph to answer a question for me. So i decided to keep the last part of that thread going on right here. And i wanted to clear up some things.

Coming from me, both Hung Sing and Buk Sing Kwoons are fighting schools. true, buk sing developed their strategies as well as did the Hung Sing Kwoon. Since we have the exact same basic techniques, groupings or combo's as each other it kind of makes sense that we may have similar evolutionary idea's. My Sigung (Jew Leong R.I.P.) was friends with Lay Chow and reported to have "wicked CLF" according to Buk Sing Sifu Richard Leung.

While Buk Sing focuses on speed, restricted to side stance, and work the successive chop choy's primarily, the Hung Sing lineage focus on elusive but strong horse in which we start out in side stance but move rather easily through different fighting stances and strategies. It's true, at times Hung Sing fighters can be stagnant or IN PLACE rather than all over the place. We would just face you and go toe to toe with you. We DO prefer the power strikes over repetitive successive ones. But that is not to state that we don't work the successive ones as well.

As i pay closer attention to buk sing, i notice there are some different training strategies and at the same time very similar one or exactly the same. for example, the Kwa Chop Sow Choy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywGt0eivZvM&feature=related). we do that as well. we develop that as well. we work that as well. Now in that video you see bag work especially with the lead hand chop choy...well...we do that one too, exept its on the banana bag we use the momentum of the bag too.

Now, the dashing chop choy we do in spurts of three...not like you see in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGHeO47OcSM&feature=related
But I have always trained it in a stationary position and used it in a different fashion while fighting (meaning using lively footwork).

And the reason why i spoke up is because no one has seen Hung Sing fight...scracth that. Buk Sing under Lai Hung has seen my classmates demolish some fools in competition. they were shocked when he used the sow geuk with the arm come crashing down and flipped that guy head over heels...but yeah, there are NO video's (unitl recently) of Hung Sing people fighting, no existing footage known of.

Since the only hubs for Hung Sing up till now was Singapore, Hong Kong, and United States. but there is no video's of anyone fighting. so, i feel its unfair to say HUNG SING fights this way when no one outside of the FUT SAN HUNG SING lineage really knows.

still, Hung Sing and Buk Sing are family, except buk sing has that northern flavor in it too. haha.

open for more discussion.

[hskwarrior]

One difference between hung sing and buk sing, is that we have the same HOI JONG. Hung Sing's Hoi Jong is made up of crane and tiger. Buk Sing's Hoi Jong used to be the same until the took out the crane and went ALL tiger. everywhere you see a crane hand in our lineage you will see a tiger claw with theirs.

[hskwarrior]

IN Hung SIng or Buk Sing there are like 5 Chop Choy's we all share that. we throw the chop choy the same way.

[nospam]

Hi Frank. Always like to chat about Bak Sing...
About the Hoi Jong..we have both tiger and crane. I checked other Bak Sing vids on the Net and I see both..exactly how or very close to how we perform ours.

Someone mentioned tsap choi being similar to boxing lead hand jab...disagree. The post seems to have been deleted. A lead hand jab is thrown at distance and generally to keep one's opponent at distance. Our tsap choi is not played like that. I've seen some thrown like successive baby jabs but I see that as a waste of energy and using the wrong tool for the job. I'm not saying one needs to switch out technique if there is an easy target that remains open..by all means tsap choi the **** out of someone if it's there..but as one gains experience thru proper training and sparring, this should lead the practitioner to a path of maximising movement versus energy output...I'm just say'n.

We don't restrict ourselves to a sidestance but do incorporate it in certain strikes. If one uses their back hand..this cannot be played sideways. The chasing stance, if you will, could be either side or front-facing. We emphasis a certain fighting philosophy that most definitely favours a seemingly side stance look. But again..there is a philosophy on what occurs between points A-B. And I am not just talking about aggressive footwork. Although to me, this is one of the main differences in Hung & Bak Sing. We share root techniques but the application is different. Some folks say a gwa is a gwa or a punch is a punch..of course there are cross-over uses, but look at how many varying ways/styles there are for kicks!

I've started to see some Hung Sing practise videos that impress me in their fluidity and useage of CLF techniques. I think it is the Teacher and his/her influence that is one of the key differences in any style.

My 2 cents. Let's keep the convo open.

nospam.

[hskwarrior]

Hi Frank. Always like to chat about Bak Sing...
About the Hoi Jong..we have both tiger and crane. I checked other Bak Sing vids on the Net and I see both..exactly how or very close to how we perform ours.

Yeah i see that too. its my personal belief that there two types of buk sing..the older one and the newer one enhanced with the northern flavor.


We don't restrict ourselves to a sidestance but do incorporate it in certain strikes. If one uses their back hand..this cannot be played sideways. The chasing stance, if you will, could be either side or front-facing.

agreed. because our running (chasing) heart punches and Running uppercuts are facing head on. but we do use alot of side stance in our stuff too.


And I am not just talking about aggressive footwork. Although to me, this is one of the main differences in Hung & Bak Sing. We share root techniques but the application is different.

this is where i have to disagree because from the stuff on the net from buk sing in regards to application.....we share alot of that as well at least in my lineage we do. although applications will vary from school to school.

If you are not breaking up your stuff, exploring it, constantly searching within the system you are doing it an injustice. fighters, regardless will at one point find out that what they thought was exclusive to them is actually being thought of by other real fighters who know how to fight with their gung fu.


I've started to see some Hung Sing practise videos that impress me in their fluidity and useage of CLF techniques. I think it is the Teacher and his/her influence that is one of the key differences in any style.

true. in my lineage its always been that way. The new generation takes from the old and attempts to evolve it by exploring new ways or being open to something not previously apart of what we do.

Now, in the past i've mentioned that although in forms practice or certain drilling situations the Hung Sing method can be stagnant. IMHO, its done that we to build strength in our foundations. But, in application we are much more mobile. yet, my sifu has always embedded in our minds about the fluidity of our material. He always related to our CLF as Water or Waves crashing on the shore.

In regards to a lead hand chop choy being similar to a boxers jab...i agree and disagree. I agree with the idea because of the "quickest between A and B is a straight line". But, yes, the lead hand chop choy for a number of reasons, but in some aspects is still pretty similar.

Fighting strategies IMHO can overlap because of the fact that again IMHO nothing is exclusive to one system or style. When you have the same root techniques, there will come a point when two separate fighters of the same style to share similar fighting concepts, strategies, and applications. this is life.

Therefore, if you want to break down the Hung Sing method its a little difficult because each individual person has his or her own interpretation of how the system should be used. In our opinion, the usage of our gung fu is not like a cookie cutter that replicates the same cookie after cookie. Lau Bun was the kind of master that understood combat was individual endeavor. This is why he shaped his CLF to the student.

While breaking down the Hung Sing method under the Yuen Hai lineage, our method of usage is definitely fluid, but we also rely on a strong, sturdy horse. Additionally, we love power strikes. In most cases, it was the horse stance that our elders would look at and not your hands. On an alternative note, a strong foundation will lead to other areas of your arsenal to be just as strong because as we understand it power comes from the floor up. Without that connection to the floor, your strikes won't be as effective. This i've shown to my students who had no rooting in their stances. when we do pad work, their strikes wouldn't be as powerful if they weren't using a strong horse.

But, personally, i feel that the stance should be strong, built during the beginner stages of training. with that comes the development of your strikes in conjunction with your stances. once that foundation has been set its time to focus on confidence, mobility, aggression, focus, intent, etc etc.

Alot of our own knowledge comes from the fact that when you are street fighting, you are basically doing so in a relatively small area. We like to focus on whats in front of us and train accordingly. it doesn't require that much room to move around your target. We won't typically bounce around like Bruce Lee did, but we won't just stand there like a rooted tree either.

A Hung Sing fighter trains to take you out with only a few strikes. at least thats what we strive for. just get the job done efficiently and as fast as possible. as a fighter i'll hit you successively with strikes no matter what im using whether its a chop choy or upper cut, elbows, or even sow choy's. its all about the level of aggression (which is slightly different than a ring match).

Now, fighting strategies will vary from person to person. my strategies are not necessarily the same as my teacher. hopefully the newer generations are smart enough to pay attention to the previous approaches from the earlier generations. while some people in our lineage my move all over the place, some of us stand our ground and are prepared to take whatever you got to bring, then dish out some of our own damage.

We use ALL angles of attack and defense. What can be used as a block can also be used as a strike. while we do have lineage motion, we have circular footwork as well. not only do we have long range strikes, we also have very fast linear strikes too.

But in my case, i feel its important to dissect your system, lay it out in front of you and piece by piece clean it up, improve on it or modify it to make it work for you. so, when i teach my beginners, i break down all of the SEED hands, or basic strikes and the various ways to use each one be it offensively or defensively.

to me, today, i look at forms as something my students should learn after they understand what HUNG SING CLF is all about first. seems to me they understand what they are doing much much better that way.

I want to finish by saying, regardless of whatever kind of training we do, if its not against an unwilling target, its only HALF EFFECTIVE. too many martial artists in this world rely on the skills they developed in the studio in a controlled setting. in the studio they can be crisp, precise, and even fierce on someone holding a pad, or just standing there doing pre arranged techniques. But, the most important part of the game is how you deal with a resistant opponent whose intent is causing you as much harm as you intend to do to him.

unless we train accordingly, all of our gung fu goes out the window in two instances: when you get hit and how you react to that. And, when someone fights back just as hard. if you are not prepared for this you will come to an instant realization. YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINING ALL WRONG.

[Violent Designs]

What I meant to say (deleted post due to not saying everything clearly) was that a charp chui CAN become a "boxing jab" if you want it to.

But a jab is not a charp chui, a charp chui by essence is typically much more destructive and I would say more committed, and a charp chui you can use it in MANY different ways and variations.

So can a jab but... the usage of charp chui is encompassing that of the standard jab in boxing.

[nospam]

The best way for any of us to gauge our differences and similarities is face-to-face. There's a few Hung Sing folk in my town and maybe one day I'll be in a spot to do just that.

What we see on the Net is a small seed of one's style. I agree there are only a few ways to play gwa sau, but I thought this thread is suppose to be about CLF differences. So I guess it is a good thang when we disagree.

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

its ok to disagree as long as you're willing to listen first.

[nospam]

And of course the most glaring differences are in the amount of patterns used to teach the style. It boggles my mind to read there are...even more than 10 patterns people use in a style. I understand the martial was beaten by the art, and the longer a student stays the longer they pay, but if you have 10 sets plus..you are focusing your energy in the wrong direction I say (outside of running a business..then your energy is not wasted.

Like Frank said..training against an unwilling opponent is a must. So I'd say that is another difference between many Hung & Bak Sing kwoons. Take my kwoon for instance, when I was actively tournament competing and going to various karate, tae kwon do, and kick-boxing schools..we fought and fought hard: these were fight clubs and we had a blast! We would then shake hands, walk away and discuss what worked, what didn't and why. Then we trained stupid hard, beat our own heads in (with style) then dawned the bag gloves and went to another martial art school in the hood. This is a hugely missing aspect of many kwoons out there. As I see it..another big difference. And I think a difference that is systemic in many a style over-emphasizing in patterns~

nospam
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

oh yeah! there is no need to have 500 forms. most of them have the exact same sections of other forms, repetitious groupings, and what not. this is why i de-emphasized forms and turned to teaching how to first block punch and kick. once they got that down, then we start showing them various combination strikes, drills and applications.

since my students were actually getting into street fights alot, i had to change the way i originally thought and taught. there are only so many ways to upper cut, sow choy, chop choy etc, etc. its how you train and what you do with it that matters.

[hskwarrior]

the one thing in CLF that i don't get is standing on one leg and executing a bunch of moves. i could never do that knowing someone will just push me off my balance.

[TenTigers]

well, speaking as an outsider, (although my previous Sifu taught CLF as well as Hung-Ga, and my Si-Hing is a BSCLF guy..) on comparing the two styles, especially in youtube, I did notice there was actually one glaring difference between BSCLF and HSCLF. Looking at the two side by side, examining all the fine details, subtle nuances, the thing that really stands out is....














wait for it......
















the HSCLF guys usually wear those sleevless tops more often than the BSCLF guys.


no, really. They do.

[hskwarrior]

LMAO....show me a link of those HUNG SING GUYS wearing sleeveless shirts.

[hskwarrior]

Nospam,

two things im curious about in regards to buk sing. one, why was the crane side of the Hoi Jong turned into all tiger? was there any reason behind it?

two, when you bow, you bow to the front, turn kwa choy fu jow right? then turn back to do the third bow. why the kwa choy fu jow? im just curious to why the changes.

[Violent Designs]

When people say that Buk Sing looks "raw" they may be referring to how it looks stripped down. Because this is undiluted, raw fighting techniques... they are not "changed" for the form, they are not "changed" in the drills... we drill how we fight, exactly *AS IS*

I think that is because inn Buk Sing, all of the "unnecessary" movements have been taken away, even in the form taught at my particular school, it does not even represent the three traditional forms of other Buk Sing schools, but the technique as EXACTLY how we use it in a fight.

There is no "extrapolation" of forms because none of the techniques in what we call the "Combat Form" is extrapolated.

The techniques created the form. Not the other way around.

[nospam]

Good point. Although in my lineage we do have our traditional 'encyclopedia' pattern complete with the traditional hoi jong. Outside of that we rely on drills, 2-person training and free sparring. Our form play may not look as perdy as my Aunt Gertrude, but whe puts on her dancing shoes..clear the floor!

hskwarrior - I mentioned before my lineage has not removed tiger from our hoi jong. I never heard about any lineage doing that. Our first 2 moves are fu jau! (I exclaim on that statement because even when I think of fu jau...the beast has no choice but to kick in! it is how we train..ergo..how we think..how we Do). I have seen some variations on the play of tiger in our hoi jong but I still see it.

More later..gotta bolt.

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

hskwarrior - I mentioned before my lineage has not removed tiger from our hoi jong. I never heard about any lineage doing that. Our first 2 moves are fu jau! (I exclaim on that statement because even when I think of fu jau...the beast has no choice but to kick in! it is how we train..ergo..how we think..how we Do). I have seen some variations on the play of tiger in our hoi jong but I still see it.

More later..gotta bolt.

do you mean your lineage hasn't removed the crane? because it was the crane i was referring to that i noticed buk sing had taken out of the Hoi Jong.

As its been explained to me, the Hung Sing Hoi Jong consisted of elements connected to the Crane and the Tiger: For those who don't know what to look for its the beginning of the form and ends at the bow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWPUhNZ5vo


And, at 1:15 secs of the following video you can see the Tiger Claw's im talking about (Nospam this is just for others checking out thread but shoot a comment if you feel).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4ko9RCHTg

Now, nospam, in the Hung Sing Hoi Jong most of those opening hands are CRANE. but as you said the first two moves in yours is Fu Jow. So, my question to you is, since your forms originated from Hung Sing, do you know why the Fu Jow replaced the Crane hands in the hoi jong? i know there are also crane hands he's doing but its those first two fu jow's i'm curious about.

[nospam]

The first vid was marked private so couldn't view. The second vid has two perspectives at the point where you mention and at .53. Both use tiger followed by crane..the same as me. There is more crane than tiger.

I'd imagine this was to establish a Bak Sing distinction..specifically I could not answer you. I understand tiger was a favoured technique of Tam Sam...perhaps~

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

very cool. sorry i forgot i put that video on private.

[CLFNole]

You Frank in the 2nd video the 2nd to last guy that performs (the one before Carey Wong) is buk sing and I could have sworn I saw some crane in his hoi jong. Specifically the hok deng or crane head strike.

[hskwarrior]

So did i. it's just WHERE the FU JOW's are place is what i'm asking Nospam about. In Hung Sing and they are hung sing we have Crane Hands where they inserted Fu Jow. some folks have kept the crane hands while others haven't.

[CLFNole]

Oh I thought you were saying they replaced the crane entirely with tiger. I would imagine things were done to differentiate themselves, as this can even be found in the same lineages sometimes. People tweak bows and moves to their liking.

[nospam]

Here is an interesting point:
Now, fighting strategies will vary from person to person. my strategies are not necessarily the same as my teacher.

This is how gung fu continues to evolve. IMO a good teacher will instruct the core fundamentals of their fighting art but recognise each student will play the style slightly different. In Bak Hsing there is a tried and tested way to approach fighting..one of the most base is to spar and test oneself (not the easiest thing to do today). You learn by failing and the best way for this is sparring hard in the kwoon. One needs to be knocked down to learn to get back up.

Bak Hsing, IMO has a simple and direct approach to fighting. You take the fight to your opponent and give no mercy. We want to set the cadence of the engagement: shock and awe is a good way to describe it. It's easy enough to engage someone..best method is to step toward your opponent and take the fight to them. The reason this works like a charm is if you watch how a fight generally progresses, people are hesitant to commit right off in a fight. It is the unknown that holds 95% of the population back. Advantage the aggressive attacker: advantage Bak Hsing. There is no unknown. We know exactly what we will do as soon as we cross that line - we commit to **** you up hard & fast!

Forward momentum immediately gives us the advantage. It is like fighting from high ground..no word of a lie. Now the opponent is defending or swinging wildly. We have already started to disorient and unbalance, now if the Bak Hsing player has any skill, strikes are up close and personal and causing some damage. Oh, our movement is forward and gaining power while the opponent is back-peddling or trying to side step; perfect because this is exactly what we train for. If they stand still? (ie. large opponent) good enough, we have taken and own or in the least disrupted their centre of balance, and if need be we can change that centre line to work the uper hand.

Forward momentum. Bak Hsing plays their strikes on the fly. We can root if need be but usually only because the opponent is larger, and then we would simply hit and re-engage or keep hitting and switchout the centre line. That's why I have always said we do not take a stand and trade out hits. It goes against the one core philosophy each school has in common. The essence of our gung fu IMO. You bet it's raw to the eye. Because the eye cannot keep up with the dynamic interaction of a Bak Hsing fighter. Because with our movement comes momentum, and it takes skill to control and apply same. Movement in it's infinite power is the greatest Bak Hsing weapon. It is always instilled in everything we do.

Of course an appropriately played successive Bak Hsing tsap choi is a thang of beauty and yes is our hallmark, but there is a time and place for everything and generally speaking we don't simply panther fist away! There is a method to playing our tsap choi.

nospam.
:cool:

[nospam]

Oh, and back to hskwarrior's comment: Now, fighting strategies will vary from person to person. my strategies are not necessarily the same as my teacher. I agree. Tam Sam's son Tam Fei Pan and Lun Gee had different strategies to apply standard Bak Hsing philosophy. Tam Fei Pan preferred to attack more forward facing due to his body composition in combination with kicks, while Lun Gee with long arms and legs preferred to keep both feet on the ground and employ more of a side attack strategy and favoured sau choi! Which makes sense. When you watch him perform patterns his circular arm movement is so insync with his torso the power must have been a force to reckon with...

And of course Tam Fei Pan was one of the exchange students with Master Ku, which changed his strategy as well.

nospam.
:cool:

[TenTigers]

nospam, you would love the "motto," I teach my students:
"When your opponent moves in-you move in.
When your opponent moves out-you move in.
When your opponent stands still-you move in."
I drill "attack sequences," which are forward combinations, bridging techniques-usually a kick followed by a gwa/cup, been/sao, or lien wan.
our defenses are always moving in, or at a forward angle-usually jamming in some way to "occupy their space."
Only after this is "hardwired" into their system, do they learn backward movement-which is usually at an angle to re-engage.
Between CLF and SPM, some might say my Hung Kuen is somewhat, "tainted."
I prefer to see it as a fine wine, or premium cigar, with subtle underlying flavors..

[hskwarrior]

I agree. Tam Sam's son Tam Fei Pan and Lun Gee had different strategies to apply standard Bak Hsing philosophy. Tam Fei Pan preferred to attack more forward facing due to his body composition in combination with kicks, while Lun Gee with long arms and legs preferred to keep both feet on the ground and employ more of a side attack strategy and favoured sau choi! Which makes sense.

EXACTLY!!!!! Me, because of my size intermingled with the confidence i have in my hands mixed with not having any fear of being struck is not the same fighting strategy of my sifu. HE will be all over you and when you think you got him, he's somewhere else. His point of view is "I'm a little guy, i don't want to be hurt!" as he points out the size difference to those around him. He prefers evasion over blocking. but my sifu likes them power moves too and knows how to apply it in a very scary manner when you are with him in person.

Prof. Lau Bun in my opinion was a smart man because of his understanding that all people are not built the same so our gung fu must be shaped for and around the INDIVIDUAL. Although everyone regardless of physical stature learns the form the same way, when it comes to combat, it's modified or tailored to someone specific needs. As the new students come in they are privy to various types of strategies and concepts already set in motion due to the individuality of martial arts.

Because it was embedded early on that although its done one way in the form that we learn to apply it differently through sparring, drilling, pad work and 2 man fighting forms which we do as if we were fighting you in reality. Additionally, one of the reasons for stagnancy in our forms in regards to footwork is when you have very limited space and lots of people training with you you were forced to adapt to the current surroundings and limit your movement. Unfortunately, it got passed down that way and since there were no other CLF schools to compare to, no one really paid close attention to it.

I remember during a Gee Tuk performance my sihing performed one of our basic sets full speed and full of life and hearing some students of my sisook say "OMG that's Cheung Kuen!" They weren't used to seeing it performed like that.
.
For Hung Sing, forms wasn't an indication of fighting unless it was a two man form. it was during these forms that we would take our offense and defense very seriously because a slip up could mean a busted lip, a bruised eye, or something like that. When a strike is aimed at the face, we intend to hit you in the face during the form. if you don't block, evade or whatever and get struck, its YOUR fault, not mine. I did my job.

In regards to fighting strategies, like i said earlier, we got many different ones. i agree with nospam on the bring the fight to them part. one of the rules of hung sing is FIGHT TO WIN. we all know what that takes, so that's what we focus on. But we also like you to bring the fight to us because then we get to attack your limbs and make you regret throwing strikes. if you become afraid to strike cause of the pain, or hesitate because of it, its over for you. I would spar my sihing, he commented on my speed but stated what was more impressive was the shock power i used during blocking. Thats because when i used defense i used it offensively. If you swing wild at me, i'll block that sh!t but make you pay for it as well. that's JUST a strategy.

so, whether someone brings the fight to me or i bring the fight to them, know one thing. a hung sing fighter is going to hurt you, regardless of what techniques we chose to use, our main focus is causing the most damage we can. This is why i think CLF would do good in MMA if we were to pick up ground fighting as a general evolution to the system and alot of schools are actually doing this now. CLF's stand up game is impressive in my opinion.

But i also feel is your entire focus is on offense, then you are neglecting a good part of the system. fighting is one thing, but successful defense is extremely important as well in my book.

[nospam]

TenTigers - a definitely good motto!

hskwarrior - Bak Hsing motto: Best Defense is a stronger Offense.

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

TenTigers - a definitely good motto!

hskwarrior - Bak Hsing motto: Best Defense is a stronger Offense.

Hung Sing Motto: Never back down and Fight to Win!!!!!

[nospam]

Fat San Motto: Kung Fu is pain. Anyone who says differently does Tai chi chuan~

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0BlXy3Roj4

[CLFNole]

Not to be a wise arse but would anyones rule be FIGHT TO LOSE? :p

[hskwarrior]

well, i think that would be "FU POW, and KNIFEFIGHTER"

[nospam]

You will not win a fight with defense. Bak Hsing's defense is being in the right spot and this is why we practise offense because the right spot is through the spot where the opponent is standing. I tell my students walk into that punch! Step into the kick! Be lively about it!

To be truthful, Bak Hsing's offense is our defense. As we step into the punch your chune sau (block) better be dam good. We train the way we fight around the intermediate level - why? because the foundation has just been laid and now the good stuff works (of course certain aspects of the style are never revealed to the un-initiated..this is why there are many thoughts out there on how Bak Sing is played..a lot of people were outside the door but still long time students).

So for a person with some Bak Hsing skill, 'the best defense is a better offense'. There is no distinction as our style doesn't allow it. Of course we go through many a defensive drill as the student learns techniques that are broken into pieces...

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

You will not win a fight with defense. Bak Hsing's defense is being in the right spot and this is why we practise offense because the right spot is through the spot where the opponent is standing. I tell my students walk into that punch! Step into the kick! Be lively about it!

To be truthful, Bak Hsing's offense is our defense. As we step into the punch your chune sau (block) better be dam good. We train the way we fight around the intermediate level - why? because the foundation has just been laid and now the good stuff works (of course certain aspects of the style are never revealed to the un-initiated..this is why there are many thoughts out there on how Bak Sing is played..a lot of people were outside the door but still long time students).

So for a person with some Bak Hsing skill, 'the best defense is a better offense'. There is no distinction as our style doesn't allow it. Of course we go through many a defensive drill as the student learns techniques that are broken into pieces...just like what patterns are. They are complete movements broken down into steps or stages for the newbie. Then as you progress, the movements NEED to be put back in proper 'real time'. They flow together...1-2 techniques turn into 1 technique. Anywho..

correction. you will not win a fight with defense ALONE. However, if you can't hit me your offense won't win the fight either. its a very frustrating feeling when all your stuff gets stopped in its tracks and you can't touch that person. Even in the UFC Machida showed that when he fought Tito Ortiz. and that THERE is ONE fighting strategy. In all actuality, the only true way to know if your martial arts is effective is to either 1) get into street fights 2) enter competition 3) spar alot with different people, styles, strangers....whatever.


To be truthful, Bak Hsing's offense is our defense. As we step into the punch your chune sau (block) better be dam good. We train the way we fight around the intermediate level - why? because the foundation has just been laid and now the good stuff works (of course certain aspects of the style are never revealed to the un-initiated..this is why there are many thoughts out there on how Bak Sing is played..a lot of people were outside the door but still long time students).


if that works for you that's all for the best. But, IMHO, that's a one sided story because it conjures up the idea of "TUNNEL VISION". one focus. The only thing i can say is that I hope you have answer to when the person you're fighting actually fights back as hard as you. A fight is so unpredictable, a moving target is is very hard to strike, and you don't actually know the skill level of the person you're fighting. He or she can be just as aggressive and skilled as you. It's my personal opinion it's best to be well rounded. there are some that will exploit area's where THEY might think you're weak.

Not directed anywhere, but, i feel that its best to always fear that there is someone else better, faster, stronger, and more aggressive than you. This way you will always strive to improve, no ceiling stopping you that way. you train hard with the idea of you always need to train harder cause you don't know when you're going to get your a$$ kicked. (That's funny, the english language. For some reason i just don't get the image of someone kicking you in your a$$ i.e. a$$ kicked - being equivalent to getting beat down to your very last compound.) Rah!


So for a person with some Bak Hsing skill, 'the best defense is a better offense'. There is no distinction as our style doesn't allow it. Of course we go through many a defensive drill as the student learns techniques that are broken into pieces...just like what patterns are. They are complete movements broken down into steps or stages for the newbie. Then as you progress, the movements NEED to be put back in proper 'real time'. They flow together...1-2 techniques turn into 1 technique. Anywho..

I see your point. Still, i've seen the youtube gong sau's, and the ring matches satori science posted i believe, and those from the lacey's buk sing, including the match between Vince Lacey's school vs. tat mau wong's school. And tat mau's school was bringing it to the Buk Sing guy. The aggression is there and clear techniques were shown, but, in the end, what i've watched were the same things i grew up on training in my school.

In regards to defense, i disagree with you in the sense that having a good defense is useless. if you side step a technque you used defense. if you block and strike simultaneously, you've used defense. to be honest YOU USE DEFENSE. you may call it offense. if you use Kwa as a bridging move, and i've seen buk sing do it, then you've used defense. buk sing uses a block and a chop choy simultaneously (same as hung sing)...you've used defense.

I believe in having a great defense for the fact that in real life situations, defense has saved the lives of my classmate and my students. My classmate, drunk off his arse was chopping it up with some girl when her boyfriend suddenly appeared. they got into an argument and the boyfriend left. my classmate was still chopping it up with the girl when he said 'out of the corner of my eye i saw something shiny and i instinctively used one of our blocks. luckily for him he did because the Machete chopped thru his hand right between the middle and ring fingers. if he didn't, he would have been missing a huge chunk of his head. Afterwards, he attributed it to our method of training and usage of defense that it saved his life.

My former student, like i've mentioned many times in the past now has attributed our style and approach to saving his life more than once. When my student got stabbed by the 5-7 guys that was the second encounter he had with those guys. the first one was they thought because they were in numbers that they were going to mob up on my student and his friend. HERE IS A PIC OF THAT NIGHT (http://hlk415.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=101185564) My student is the one with his shirt open and hand bandaged up. as you can see his friend got the most damage. probably cause he didn't train with me LOL.

Because my student whooped some arse that night, these same guys decided to post up near his house waiting for him to come home. when he passed their car they jumped out and had screw drivers and knives. this time they intended to kill him. but because of our training, although he got stabbed a number of times he was able to hold them off till the cops got there. in fact, he was in the middle of effing one of em up when the cops pulled him off.

as his teacher i wanted to know if my student used his gung fu so i asked the witnesses what they saw him do exactly and they physically showed me. it was cup choy's and i was told later that one of those dudes lost the whole front row of his teeth. One of the guys had their eyes swollen shut. I wasn't going to believe anyone but people who were their, and i still didn't trust their word. so thats why i asked them to show me what they saw him using.

See, we all have our approaches to combat. defensively speaking, i'm not going to stand there and JUST BLOCK your strikes. like you, i will block and strike simultaneously, while you may drive forward one way, we have our way of driving forward. And, if i strike and you move in, do you think i'm just going to let you strike me? do you assume i'm not going to move? block and strike back? because if someone was to underestimate me in that manner, they will see the light.


o for a person with some Bak Hsing skill, 'the best defense is a better offense'. There is no distinction as our style doesn't allow it. Of course we go through many a defensive drill as the student learns techniques that are broken into pieces...just like what patterns are. They are complete movements broken down into steps or stages for the newbie. Then as you progress, the movements NEED to be put back in proper 'real time'. They flow together...1-2 techniques turn into 1 technique. Anywho..

we do the same thing brother.

[Violent Designs]

Buk Sing is generally (intrinsically) offensive and aggressive. Everything nospam said is right on, but I think a good "defense" cannot be over rated.

If a guy is better at counter attacking you and making you miss all day then man you're gonna have a hard day at the office.

That is, their defensive skills > your offensive skills.

Someone like Machida as already mentioned, who's better at fighting moving backwards than going forwards.

Juan Manuel Marquez is also better at fighting moving backwards and defensively, than moving forwards and chasing people. This is how he ****ed up Pacquiao, we all know Pac-Man is a ****ing beast, aggressive, offensive, FAST AS ****.

Marquez is... not that fast, not that strong, just not that athletic. But with superior defense, superior timing and a very tactical mind he was able to **** up Pac-Man once he got his timing and stuff down. (this a pure ring-fighting example so only parts of it will translate into a street fight since Pac-Man did knock him down three times in the first round, on the street you're already dead at this point).

Even Floyd Mayweather is a good example (although he's more well-rounded than Marquez), u got somebody like Muhammad Ali, etc, etc.

[hskwarrior]

extrajoseph,

this thread isn't for your kind here. you're a disinformationist.....no one cares what you have to say here.

[extrajoseph]

I erased the other thread cause its main focus was trying to get extrajoseph to answer a question for me. So i decided to keep the last part of that thread going on right here. And i wanted to clear up some things.


Hi Frank,

Looks like you are asking me for an answer, so here is my two cents worth, but you have to bear in mind I considered your so-called Chan family is also HS, Futsan or otherwise, when compared with BS.

Generally speaking TCMA is not jut about fighting and winning, it is also about self-cultivation and self realization (文武雙全).

IMO ("O" for opinion and observation), BS tends to put more emphasis on the martial (or more on the "raw" or the "basic" as some would put it) whereas HS tries to pass on both the martial and the civil, hence there are more forms, more theories, more strategies, more philosophies and more "subtle/internal" movements in HS than in BS.

The traditional Chinese believed thinking is also a part of fighting, to be able to win a fight without fighting is the ultimate goal in TCMA.

So if we want a catch-phrase (or generalization) to describe the differences between the two, then HS is a thinking-man's CLF whereas BS is a fighting-man's CLF. Each to their own.

If you want to see examples of how HS fights against BS, I remember seeing some video of Lacey bros students fighting with Chan Yong Fa's student during a William Cheung's tournament in Melbourne a few years back, but I am not sure if the video are still available.

XJ

[hskwarrior]

Hi Frank,

Looks like you are asking me for an answer, so here is my two cents worth, but you have to bear in mind I considered your so-called Chan family is also HS, Futsan or otherwise, when compared with BS.

Generally speaking TCMA is not jut about fighting and winning, it is also about self-cultivation and self realization (文武雙全).

IMO ("O" for opinion and observation), BS tends to put more emphasis on the martial (or more on the "raw" or the "basic" as some would put it) whereas HS tries to pass on both the martial and the civil, hence there are more forms, more theories, more strategies, more philosophies and more "subtle/internal" movements in HS than in BS.

The traditional Chinese believed thinking is also a part of fighting, to be able to win a fight without fighting is the ultimate goal in TCMA.

So if we want a catch-phrase (or generalization) to describe the differences between the two, then HS is a thinking-man's CLF whereas BS is a fighting-man's CLF. Each to their own.

If you want to see examples of how HS fights against BS, I remember seeing some video of Lacey bros students fighting with Chan Yong Fa's student during a William Cheung's tournament in Melbourne a few years back, but I am not sure if the video are still available.

XJ

i'm sorry what did you say? we don't appreciate your disinformation here dude. sorry....

[extrajoseph]

Hi Frank,

If you think my opinion is disinformation, then I have nothing more to say, even though I have some further opinions on the technical and teaching differences between the two branches.

XJ

[hskwarrior]

Hi Frank,

If you think my opinion is disinformation, then I have nothing more to say, even though I have some further opinions on the technical and teaching differences between the two branches.

XJ

I wish you'd keep your mouth quiet. You don't know the lau bun lineage of Hung Sing CLF and how we do, think, act, or feel. but like you said it is only your opinion and EVERYONE has one of those.

plus, you're a chan family disinformationist once again trying to insert chan heung into the face of Jeung Hung Sing. this thread is about the differences between the Hung Sing Fut San lineage and the buk sing lineage. you don't even belong on this thread as you are the outsider here to the topic.

[hskwarrior]

joseph,

you're really full of yourself. here you are AGAIN from your chan family point of view, trying force feed us your BS and i don't mean BUK SING. How dare you ignore a question i asked you with some honesty, then you come impose yourself all in business you have no right to be in.

In regards to Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut 佛山鴻勝蔡李佛 you are the student I am the master. LOL.....keep your opinions, they have nothing of any kind truthful bearing in regards to my lineage.

[Violent Designs]

So if we want a catch-phrase (or generalization) to describe the differences between the two, then HS is a thinking-man's CLF whereas BS is a fighting-man's CLF. Each to their own.


I am not sure if I agree with you on this. In regards to more philosophical aspects then you are perhaps right, most likely anyhow in the general scheme of things.

But fighting takes much thought in-and-of-itself. It requires astute tactical innovation, psychological reconditioning (getting hit, getting hurt, REALLY hurt and continuing the action), a high level of technique, fearlessness, and even the character to know when to STOP fighting.

I also feel that when fighting, whether it is the ring or street, but in a serious confrontation with an opponent intent on stopping you and hurting you, there is something quite serene or zen-like in that moment.

Perhaps I should say.... hard, painful, contested combat is one of the most truthway ways to express oneself HONESTLY. You can bullsh1t all you want but during the fight, there is only honesty. You either win or lose, survive or die.

[nospam]

IMO BS tends to put more emphasis on the martial whereas HS tries to pass on both the martial and the civil, hence there are more forms, more theories, more strategies, more philosophies and more "subtle/internal" movements in HS than in BS. You know, I'd agree with that statement, Bak Hsing is more focused on the martial (always has) and tends to get to the nitty-gritty sooner or so my teacher explained it.

The traditional Chinese believed thinking is also a part of fighting, to be able to win a fight without fighting is the ultimate goal in TCMA. I'd disagree here. One does not train to fight for years/decades not to be martially capable. I think that may be the ultimate goal for pacifists, not TCMAist. Thinking is obviously part of any MA.

So if we want a catch-phrase (or generalization) to describe the differences between the two, then HS is a thinking-man's CLF whereas BS is a fighting-man's CLF. Each to their own. Again, disagree. You are assuming fighting is not a thinking mans' game. Boxing is a science. If you will, TCMAs originated from observing and analysing nature and its movement. The advancement of martial study occured through advances in technology. Your statement is over-generalised.

I would hazzard a guess that CLF was a marketing argonaut, fueled by its own success...popularity, and partially from the ego of its many masters. CLF exploded throughout southern China. It isn't an old style by general comparison. Lost scrolls were soon found and much was added after associations & fraternities sprung up. I would agree then..this is a thinking mans' style. And Bak Hsing is historically recogised as the fists. Interesting this, even in short historical time many CLF practitioners were becoming ineffectual.

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

Gung fu is too much filled with wierdo's, pacifists, and religious nuts. But, I don't agree that Buk Sing is identified as being the FISTS of CLF, much based on the reasoning that Tam Sam was defeated by a few Hung Sing fighters. So, IMHO, to defeat TAM SAM indicates that Hung Sing were also some serious fighters. And, you cannot FIGHT without evolving unless you're an nincompoop. If alot of schools were not into fighting or evolving, then i give full credit to the Buk Sing lineage.

Tam Sam may have been a great fighter, but he wasn't the only one. Recognized even by other systems in or around fut san Jeung Hung Sing was considered one of southern China's greatest fighters. Chan Ngau Sing himself was one of the most feared fighters. From what i understand Tong Sek was no joke neither. Hung Sing students from fut san were using their CLF in constant battle on the regular back then whether it be defending against gangsters, masters, or foreignors.

Professor Lau Bun was defeated by one of Yuen Hai's students and is the entire reason why he came over to study Hung Sing Kuen. In the USA, Prof. Lau Bun's martial arts abilities impacted almost all of the martial arts in america at that time since no one had even seen it before coming of bruce lee, who, himself found out first hand about the fighters of HUNG SING. who do you think chased him away, the tai chi guys?

From the 1920's till the time of Prof. Lau Bun's passing in 1967 the chinese had some really tough times to exist through. Racism and violence from their own countrymen plagued the lives of my elders. Still, they were tough, not afraid to fight and in some cases even looked for some drama. Knowing how to fight was an unwritten Hung Sing prerequisite and was the reason why afer trying out so many other systems found our personally that Hung Sing under my sifu was a school of tough kids who took their gung fu very seriously.

Till this day we still take it very seriously. So for to say the Buk Sing lineage was the fist of CLF is a purposeful exclusion of the Hung Sing Kwoon who has a proven track record of being fighters. And one of our mantra's is "PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!"

[nospam]

..who do you think chased him away, the tai chi guys? ;) Now that's funny.

Commenting more on the past is moot since none of us were there. Suffice it to say that those kwoons that compiled and created pattern after pattern are from the same mold of those in today's MA world that collect and spend inordinate amount of time on patterns.

There are some Bak Hsing kwoons that delve into the 10 core patterns of Bak Shaolin. I never understood the allure myself as they just execute techniques wrong...well awkwardly IMO. I know of some of the skills that were carried into Bak Hsing from this cross-over but I know too little of that style to assess where some of the fighting technique was melded into ours.

Fut Gar ~ One Love

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

The subject of forms have come up in discussions in the past. He would ask us if we were to give back any forms which ones would we keep. Its always the same three....Cheung Kuen, Sup Ji Kau Da Kuen and Ng Ying Kuen. Those three forms have everything you need in regards to fighting.

I don't see the point of having so many forms that contain the same movements found in more than half of the other forms. In a realistic sense, there's no point in leaning all of the exotic weapons like the kwan do, tiger forks, butterfly knives and so forth because MOST LIKELY you will never use these weapons in real life combat.

Having 100 weapon forms doesn't make sense in the sense of today's type of combat. But, i feel its important to teach core weapon forms that can translate into everyday items. for example:

Daggers: you can use one or two pens in the same manner.

Sword or Swords: you can switch it out for a stick and just change the focus from the edge part to the bashing aspect of the stick. just follow the swords principals.

Sword and Shield: in a jam you can use a garbage lid and a short stick, branch or whatever.

Chain whip: You can use your belt using the buckle to strike with.

staff: you can use a broom stick to replace the staff, spear, kwan do, farmer ho and so forth.

to tell the truth, if we had a choice in the matter i'd like to see more fighting forms than the single person forms. at least we'd get to apply theories and concepts to specific aspects of the system.

In my opinon, fighting is like the yin and yang. the black side being the "YOUTH" and the 'white" being the ELDER. both are a solid entity with a spec of the opposite inside each other. The youth filled to the brim with youthfulness armed with the knowledge passed down by the elders and the ELDERS filled with so much wisdom will always be young at heart. (But that could be the medical marijuana talking LMAO)

[nospam]

There will always be those (proof can be found right here on this forum) that are die-hard traditionalists who do not believe in straying from how and what they were taught and what was passed down. There will always be more who change what they were taught and seek out more or new technology. It is no different than what we see with religion.

Weapon's training has much value. Weapon's are an extension of the body and mimic these techniques for the most part, plus they are a tool to ensure we can harness and control power from greater momentum.

Again, Bak Hsing originally had a limited weapon's selection but today one can find many weapon's in any kwoon's curriculum. Especially today...many of those esoteric weapon's are just cool to learn and play with~

nospam.
:cool:

[Eric Olson]

I always carry a broom stick around with me...just in case ;)

EO

[nospam]

I was watching Shaolindynasty's "Sifu Sam Ng 2010 Legends of Kung Fu" vid on Youtube and commented their tsap choi is fundamentally different in how they play it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/K3hungsing#p/u/12/UB80i412EpQ

nospam.
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

I always carry a broom stick around with me...just in case

EO
Reply With Quote
You wannabe....you will never be a fighter....not in this lifetime. you will be the victim for sure.

[Eric Olson]

You wannabe....you will never be a fighter....not in this lifetime. you will be the victim for sure.

Not as long as I have my trusty broomstick and belt buckle....

EO

[hskwarrior]

Not as long as I have my trusty broomstick and belt buckle....

EO

go back to your tai chi.....you are going to hurt yourself doing real martial arts.

[Eric Olson]

go back to your tai chi.....you are going to hurt yourself doing real martial arts.

So just for the record, you're saying Tai Chi isn't a real martial art?

EO

[hskwarrior]

So just for the record, you're saying Tai Chi isn't a real martial art?


raise your hand before you ask a question. what im saying is that taichi is really where you need to be. it suits you. really. leave CLF alone. its not for you.

[Eric Olson]

raise your hand before you ask a question. what im saying is that taichi is really where you need to be. it suits you. really. leave CLF alone. its not for you.

Right, so you're saying Taiji isn't a real martial art? Is that correct..yes or no?

EO

[hskwarrior]

what im saying is that taichi is really where you need to be. it suits you. really. leave CLF alone. its not for you.

LMAO...and if i was....YOU couldn't do anything about it but run to your tai chi friends and bump your gums. you belong to tai chi now. it suits you.

[Violent Designs]

What about Wing Chun? :D

[hskwarrior]

wing chun is TOO violent for fu pow. he needs something softer.