Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut forms

[crazyfistmonk]

From my research, these are the major forms taught across the various Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut lineages. Keeping in mind that this list does not include the Buk Sil Lum or Chow Gar forms that are occasionally taught within individual Buk Sing schools, and that this list is by no means all inclusive. It should also be noted that Most Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut schools teach only 2-3 forms from this list, preferring instead to focus on fighting applications, physical conditioning, and free sparring over the learning of forms. Keep in mind that individual schools may share a given form in name only, having an entirely different interpretation of that form which may vary from school to school.

Buk Sing forms:
(in no particular order)

Chi Lun Mah
Sub Jee Kuen
Kau Da Kuen
Dai Sub Jee Kuen
Siu Sub Jee Kuen
Sub Jee Kau Da Kuen
Ping Kuen
Siu Ping Kuen
Lin Waan Kau Da Kuen
Cheung Kuen

Weapons:
Seung Gup Dahn Gwun
Cheung Kiu Dang

I would like to hear from other Choy Lay Fut practitioners as to what forms your particular school teaches and to also get a general discussion going concerning the Buk Sing forms listed (and perhaps not listed) above. I look forward to your comments.

[hskwarrior]

Cheung Kuen

buk sing Cheung Kuen is a northern form and not a CLF form.

[crazyfistmonk]

I would have to respectfully disagree. According to information provided at buksing.com:

"Master Tarm Sarm’s students would first be taught the ‘Sub Tse Kuen’ (Ten Pattern Form), which usually took three months to complete. Next, they would learn the ‘Kou Da’ form, which would require another six months to learn. After the students had mastered the first two forms, they began to learn the third set, called ‘Ping Kuen’ (Level Form), which could take a year or more to master. Even today, anyone with knowledge of the various kung fu styles recognizes the ‘Ping Kuen’ salute and form as being from Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut!

Upon mastering the ‘Ping Kuen’, the students would begin to learn and master the ‘Cheung Kuen’ (Long Form), a feat that could take two or more years. During the continuous form training, the students also had to learn the ‘Sub Tse Jong’ (Ten Pattern Wooden Dummy) in which they practice all their basic moves and techniques. There was no set routine or pattern for the ‘Ching Jong’ wooden dummy; the students would go through all they had learned and improve on their reflexes and timing."

This would indicate that Cheung Kuen is in fact an original Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut set. Perhaps you are confusing this with the Buk Sil Lum sets taught within some Buk Sing schools, but these forms are usually those taught by Ku Yu Cheung and include: Tun Da #6, Moi Fah #7, and Bot Bo #8, among others.
Now, is this the same set as Hung Sing's Cheung Kuen? I have no idea, honestly. But I would have to stand by my original statement that Cheung Kuen is a Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut form as taught by GM Tarm Sarm.

[hskwarrior]

Frank...
I would have to respectfully disagree. According to information provided at buksing.com:

bro, i respectfully would like to inform you i was told by GM Vince Lacey (shanes father) face to face that Cheung Kuen in the buk sing branch isn't a choy lee fut form. sorry bro.

I was curious to see it since Cheung Kuen is the first form taught in the Lau Bun lineage. When i paid a visit to GM Laceys school he informed me that their Cheung Kuen wasn't CLF. Could it be exclusive to their direct lineage....sure. But i think i'll trust what GM Lacey told me face to face.

i've been at the history of our lineages for many many years now so i might know a few things. it may not be northern but it could have Jow Ga Kuen influence perhaps. once i learned it wasn't a CLF form they taught i dropped the whole issue.

[hskwarrior]

But i did find a form called Buk Sing Cheung Kuen.......

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTk1MzAwMTY4.html

[crazyfistmonk]

The Lacey's website isn't the only source of information I have on the Buk Sing Cheung Kuen, although it supports my belief that Cheung Kuen is a Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut set considering that Tarm Sarm taught this form to his students. Other references (such as the link you posted) further lead me to believe that Cheung Kuen is a legitimate Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut form. Thus, I listed it along with the other sets which may, or may not, be widely taught within Buk Sing, but are still considered to be authentic Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut forms.
This list is based on my personal research, and is by no means all inclusive or strictly infallible. On the contrary, I am posting this information to foster debate and further research. If it effectively serves that purpose, then I am certainly satisfied.

[hskwarrior]

Cheung Kuen is a Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut set

let me know when u cracked this case....lol

The Cheung Kuen set as taught by the lacey fam is exclusive to their lineage.

[crazyfistmonk]

I did come across something interesting. It's off an old thread here (11-01-08) from a post by Gary Shambrook. When asked about the Tit Jin Kuen (Cheung Kuen, sometimes Tit Jin Cheung Kuen) he teaches, this was Gary's reply:

"There is no iron arrow in buck sing so yes it did come from hung sing, si fu put the techniques in that he liked and i did the ones that i liked, gwar charp sows been choys etc. There is more then enough techniques in the three forms of the buck sing gwoon but when you have been doing it for so long its good to develop things to suit youself it keeps the intrest up and thats the way most schools developed anyway."

This is interesting because it would seem to indicate that not only does Dave Lacey have his own version of Cheung Kuen, but that this version comes from Hung Sing! It makes me wonder if the Lacey's learned this form from the Fut Shan Hung Sing line, or the Poon Sing/Lee Koon Hung (commonly referred to as Hung Sing) line? (I have been told that the two versions are completely different in both content and structure.)

[hskwarrior]

iron arrow

Isn't from hung sing either.

CLFNOLE will even back this up bro. the Lee Koon Hung lineage is more more more chan family than Hung Sing. There's some stories behind this all but no need to post them here. Their lineage contains chan family material. they only share our name cause it was allowed to happen. but like i said ....another place another time.

[crazyfistmonk]

Considering this, I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that when Gary refers to Hung Sing in his post, he means Lee Koon Hung's line, not necessarily understanding that it isn't really Hung Sing, although it is commonly referred to this way. If this is true, it could answer the question posed in my previous post concerning the source of the Lacey's Cheung Kuen/Tit Jin Kuen.
Largely speculation, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

Thanks for the info.

[CLFNole]

Tuet Jin Kuen - loosely translates into Breaking Holds Form in our lineage not Iron Arrow. I believe sifu might have shown Sifu Lacey this set as sifu mentioned it once. I know they were friends as Sifu Lacey told me he remembered seeing my wife when she was a toddler. I have seen Sifu Lacey do some technqiues from it when he performs but I have never seen another buk sing student perform the actual set. So what you heard sounds right in that he took the techniques he liked and used them.

[crazyfistmonk]

CLF,
Enlightening post. Thank you likewise for the info.

[CLFNole]

CFM:

The form has to do with fighting your way out of an ambush or more or less a multiple attacker scenario. It moves in various directions and has number of continuous combo type attacks.

I have never seen Chen Yong Fa/Chan Wing Fat's version of Tuet Jin Cheung Kuen so I have no reference of comparison other that I have never seen the form outside of our line.

[Drake]

CLF has a good number of highly approachable (and eccentric) GMs you can speak to directly on the matter. I'm pretty sure I could call any number of these folks and have a conversation with them (granted they weren't busy knocking down trees with their sow choys).

It's always better, instead of relying on websites, to just take the time and tree fiddy it costs you to make the call, and hear it straight from the horses' mouth.

[iron_silk]

That is the rough translations of the following (since I can't really read Chinese) 醉拳八卦（北胜蔡李佛高级拳种卢思练演示）


http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzI3ODI3NTY4.html

Has anyone ever heard of this form before?

I have heard from a Buk Sing Master that for most part they only have the 3 forms: Sup Jee Kuen, Ping Kuen, and Kou Da Kuen.

They said they use to have "Cheung Kuen" but was lost with time since it was too long and not enough people practiced it to remember.

[hskwarrior]

I can't help but wonder if the Cheung Kuen taught under the Yuen Hai/Lau Bun lineage is the original Cheung Kuen. We've been teaching it since the early 1920's even when Chan Ngau Sing was still alive.

[Jimbo]

I have heard from a Buk Sing Master that for most part they only have the 3 forms: Sup Jee Kuen, Ping Kuen, and Kou Da Kuen.

They said they use to have "Cheung Kuen" but was lost with time since it was too long and not enough people practiced it to remember.

Interesting. Although I'm not Buk Sing, I always thought the longest form in CLF is Sup Ji Kau Da Kuen. I know it's the longest set I have.

[hskwarrior]

yeah Sup Ji Kau Da is indeed one of the longest forms in CLF regardless of branch

[iron_silk]

yeah Sup Ji Kau Da is indeed one of the longest forms in CLF regardless of branch

Aahhh....the one true form they all branches share. :)

[hskwarrior]

Lee Koong Hung, Doc Fai Wong, Chan Yong Fa, Sam Ng and others who are of Chan heung's lineage share the same or very similar Sup Ji Kau Da Kuens. At least, they can identify with the techniques.

Fut San lineages Sup Ji Kau Da Kuen is not the same one taught in chan heung's lineage. sure, they may share the + pattern but the hands inside that cross pattern are not the same.

The only CLF forms buk sing have came from Cheung Hung Sing's lineage, none from chan heung. cheung Hung Sing's lineage does not share a single form with Chan Heung's lineage. our Ping Kuen, Kau Da, Cheung Kuen, Sup Ji Kau Da are shared only BY NAME. The meat and potato's of these forms are not the same. one SJKDK is meatloaf while the other SJKDK is Tri-tip. just like you can have two franks in the room. they share the name but are not the same person.

[iron_silk]

Fut San lineages Sup Ji Kau Da Kuen is not the same one taught in chan heung's lineage. sure, they may share the + pattern but the hands inside that cross pattern are not the same.


I see what you mean.

I noticed with Sup Ji Kau Da definitely the individual moves and intent seem very different despite sharing the same pattern and basic outline structure of form. Obviously it shared the same origin at one point or another BUT clearly evolved into different species.

Since I got you here and just to bring this thread back to the main point...Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut.

Does BSCLF have a Sup Ji Kau Da form?

When I asked a master in BSCLF she said they have a Sup Ji form and a Kau Da form but NOT a Sup Ji Kau Da form.

Any thoughts? Maybe their Kau Da form is Sup Ji Kau Da but just lost the "Sup Ji" in the name?

Thanks!

[hskwarrior]

I noticed with Sup Ji Kau Da definitely the individual moves and intent seem very different despite sharing the same pattern and basic outline structure of form. Obviously it shared the same origin at one point or another BUT clearly evolved into different species.

Anyone from any style can have and share the same patter of the sup ji +. anyone from CLF to Bak Mei who has a sup ji form. the same goes for the character of Ping Kuen (平). so just because a system shares the name and pattern of 平 Ping & + Sup. the name a tool like a pot. what is in the pot is what counts.

IRON SILK, remember when you said this about me?


4) The reason why Frank's history is not believed well is because his history is more ridiculous and force a much greater suspension of belief.

How does your foot taste bruh? hahaha

[iron_silk]

Anyone from any style can have and share the same patter of the sup ji +. anyone from CLF to Bak Mei who has a sup ji form. the same goes for the character of Ping Kuen (平). so just because a system shares the name and pattern of 平 Ping & + Sup. the name a tool like a pot. what is in the pot is what counts.

IRON SILK, remember when you said this about me?



How does your foot taste bruh? hahaha


Wow you really doing history check on me "bruh"? I know you have written a lot and done a lot of homework for the past years but to be honest I have been so removed from following your CLF history debate that...it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say that I have my foot in mouth or not.

To be fair though...based what you said and how you said your stuff back then (you know when I made my comment) it was true! Given that lack of proper evidence (back then) and how the history is presented I made an opinion. I didn't which is true or not but rather which one made most since. Even within Chan Family and Hung Sing lineages the history differs from one to another.

Since then you may have found new and more evidence but that is "new" and does not "change history" since you really didn't have that information then and "frankly" I don't have the interest or time to read it now. Given that I haven't done the appropriate homework on your hard work it would be inappropriate for me to give ANY OPINION what so ever.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the topic of Sup Ji Kau Da...I have to heavily disagree with you based on the videos I have seen of the forms online from the vast amount of different lineages.

Although "yes" many different styles have same "cross pattern" BUT with "Sup Ji Kau Da" after the inital opening the movements (although different in detail) follows the same structure...such as moving into horse stance, repetition of same moves on each side, moving forward with the types of punches, kicks, stances ...and serious of upper cuts etc...are very close in order of movements.

You can try to generalize it by saying plenty of styles and forms have cross pattern and all CLF have same "seeds" and "what not" BUT that only makes the similarities that much more obvious since there are plenty of other CLF forms and etc that may have cross pattern but not the exact combo of movements that are that close.

You can disagree with me. It is your right to do so but...why not let others decide?

Lau Bun Linegae: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8nP9G5-YHo (She is simly fantastic!) and similarities after signature intro.

Doc Fai Wong Lineage (Lau Bun version?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ZvSU_THQc

Mak Hin Fai Student (Lee Koon Hung lineage): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz8UV5RrRUA

Hilbert Yiu's students (Wong Ha Lineage): Start at 2:30min mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRDmzPQt4p0

Sam Ng's student: Similarities after the 30 seconds mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx1It0rc5w but they call it "Da Kau Da Kuen"



ANYWAY....you get the picture and if anyone got time please enjoy. Everyone can watch and list all the moves and at some point or another (in my opinion) it gets scarily similar. I am not saying they are "exact" but rather enough evidence to suggest it started off from the same source but then greatly deviated as all the different lineages (even within families) has regardless of history debate or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To redirect back to the point of this thread though...Frank...i am disappointed.

Despite your thorough research and writing...you have avoided commenting on two questions I listed on this thread.

1) I was curious your take on BSCLF Drunken Fist - since i value your experience and knowledge

2) How come Buk Sing doesn't have a Sup Ji Kau Da?

Thanks bruh!

[hskwarrior]

1) I was curious your take on BSCLF Drunken Fist - since i value your experience and knowledge


The three forms of buk sing CLF come from Cheung Hung Sing. what they did to it after is not my business. The three forms they have are "Ping Kuen, Kau Da and Sup Ji". As far as i know they don't have Cheung Yim's drunken form. I will ask them about their drunken form and get an answer on that.


How come Buk Sing doesn't have a Sup Ji Kau Da?

again, they only had Ping Kuen, Kau Da, and Sup Ji Kuen. i believe their siu forms are of they own arrangement. if some out there actually do have a Sup Ji Kau Da, you would have to ask if it were exclusive to their direct lineage. For example, Doc Fai Wong is of the Lau Bun lineage but he does not have Jo Yau Biu Ser which is exclusive to my direct lineage.

In regards to the links to sup ji kau da.... especially of the Lau Bun lineage, it is exclusive to my lineage. sure the name is the same, but lau bun created this form for our lineage because our Ping Kuen, Kau Da, and Sup Ji share many of the same techniques so he combined all three to form our Sup Ji Kau Da. Therefore it doesn't share the elements outside of the fut san lineage.

[hskwarrior]

ok straight from the mouth of Master Tsang Hin Kuen: "No, no such form in CLF before as I know" then he confirmed with me that IF a buk sing lineage claims to have one then it came from somewhere else or it was made up.


On the topic of Sup Ji Kau Da...I have to heavily disagree with you based on the videos I have seen of the forms online from the vast amount of different lineages.

Although "yes" many different styles have same "cross pattern" BUT with "Sup Ji Kau Da" after the inital opening the movements (although different in detail) follows the same structure...such as moving into horse stance, repetition of same moves on each side, moving forward with the types of punches, kicks, stances ...and serious of upper cuts etc...are very close in order of movements.

You can try to generalize it by saying plenty of styles and forms have cross pattern and all CLF have same "seeds" and "what not" BUT that only makes the similarities that much more obvious since there are plenty of other CLF forms and etc that may have cross pattern but not the exact combo of movements that are that close.

You can disagree with me. It is your right to do so but...why not let others decide?

Lau Bun Linegae: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8nP9G5-YHo (She is simly fantastic!) and similarities after signature intro.

Doc Fai Wong Lineage (Lau Bun version?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ZvSU_THQc

Mak Hin Fai Student (Lee Koon Hung lineage): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz8UV5RrRUA

Hilbert Yiu's students (Wong Ha Lineage): Start at 2:30min mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRDmzPQt4p0

Sam Ng's student: Similarities after the 30 seconds mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx1It0rc5w but they call it "Da Kau Da Kuen"

Lau Bun's is the creator of our Sup Ji Kau Da. so i would expect doc fai wong's Hung Sing Sup Ji Kau Da to look exactly the same. in regards to the other demonstrations, i cannot relate to them as the arrangement of their techniques inside the form are not the same that we teach.

[iron_silk]

ok straight from the mouth of Master Tsang Hin Kuen: "No, no such form in CLF before as I know" then he confirmed with me that IF a buk sing lineage claims to have one then it came from somewhere else or it was made up.



Lau Bun's is the creator of our Sup Ji Kau Da. so i would expect doc fai wong's Hung Sing Sup Ji Kau Da to look exactly the same. in regards to the other demonstrations, i cannot relate to them as the arrangement of their techniques inside the form are not the same that we teach.

So you are saying Fut San CLF doesn't have Sup Ji Kau Da either?

[hskwarrior]

So you are saying Fut San CLF doesn't have Sup Ji Kau Da either?

yes. many lineages of Fut San Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut have their own sup ji kau da kuen's.
ARE THEY ALL EXACTLY THE SAME? NO.

*** do they come from Chan Heung? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[iron_silk]

yes. many lineages of Fut San Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut have their own sup ji kau da kuen's.
ARE THEY ALL EXACTLY THE SAME? NO.

*** do they come from Chan Heung? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

To be honest with you...at this point in life...I don't care which it does come from (Chan Heurng or what not) because I think many of the master since him have contributed and added their brilliance to the system.

That being said I am only interested in pure curiosity...similarities between forms with same name but of different lineages...at which point or degree of similarities can heavily suggest same origin or not. It's been so many years that even IF it did come from that same origin it would only make sense for it to be vastly different given the separation of development. However change still should come from the core aspect of the form. I am fascinated by the prospect.

HOWEVER just to turn this thread back into the right direction...

Sifu Frank you said BSCLF have only the three core forms: Sup Ji, Ping Kuen, and Kau Da Kuen.

My personal experience with BSCLF master said the same thing to me. I was curious though what about "Che Kuen"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0rWQZh9Hdg

Isn't it from Fut San Hung Sing? Shouldn't Buk Sing also have that form since it's the basic foundation form of your style? Or am I wrong?

[hskwarrior]

To be honest with you.....

They are nothing but mere tools. in others a kung fu dance. it's just a hand form. it won't make you levitate nor glow in the dark. still, the CLF between Chan Heung and Cheung Hung Sing was "SEPARATELY" developed. This is common knowledge.

Iron Silk, you are definitely entitled to be curious to everything that peeks your curiosity. However, I have NEVER been proven to be wrong in any my statements since i've been on this forum going back to 2001. Today in 2015, i still say the same things in regards to Chan Heung's gung fu and that of Cheung Hung Sing's.


Isn't it from Fut San Hung Sing? Shouldn't Buk Sing also have that form since it's the basic foundation form of your style? Or am I wrong?

If you know the history of CLF (especially Buk Sing), Tam Sam only learned 3 hand forms from Hung Sing Master Lui Chun. When he left Fut San and moved to Siu Buk, I don't have a clue to what he picked up after he left. Could a classmate of his share any more hung sing forms with him without the knowledge of Master Lui Chun? I would say that has some VERY strong possibilities. In fact, even I have been passed down forms from "HUNG SING" that are not of Yuen Hai's direct lineage. My Sifu (being the keeper of the Yuen Hai lineage) doesn't have that form. I do however and it is being taught in my club. If Sifu makes me his successor, that form will then be a part of USA Hung Sing. Until then, it remains a Hung Sing Hung Loong Mo Kwoon hand form.

Should Buk Sing have Che Kuen? I would say no. Why? Because we don't exactly know "WHEN" the Fut San Hung Sing Che Kuen was created. i will say this tho, Fut San Che Kuen is much like Yuen Hai lineages Cheung Kuen. In fact, i personally believe that the Yuen Hai lineage Cheung Kuen was the original Cheung Kuen since Yuen Hai was Chan Ngau Sing's senior classmate (by 20 years or more). When Lau Bun came to the United States in the early 20's he was teaching Cheung Kuen. Till this day this very form is still passed down via my lineage while the alleged original Cheung Kuen outside of the USA was lost or forgotten. But it has been preserved in my lineage IMO.

Allow me to add this in tho.....if buk sing CLF developed MORE CLF forms exclusive to their lineage, it's still buk sing CLF. based off of Hung Sing CLF. There could possibly be tons of exclusive buk sing forms even between buk sing lineages. we just need to know what the core was and move forward from there to find the answers.

Furthermore, I would like to paint the picture this way. Cheung Hung Sing was a student of Chan Heung from 1836-1841 (five years). There is Zero documentation by Chan Heung of what he actually taught between the years of 1836-1841. Our history states Cheung Hung Sing was 12 years old when he started and was 17 years old when he was asked to leave King Mui (that's five years). We know Cheung Hung Sing was 69 years old when he passed away in 1893. Subtract 1893-69 = 1824. Born in 1824 + 12 years = 1836 (same year CLF was alleged to have been established). Add 1836+5 = 1841. So, what was Chan Heung teaching exactly between 1836-1841? Was it five forms? 10? no one really knows. Being that Lau Bun was an old school teacher and grand student of Cheung Hung Sing and how Lau Bun actually taught, we know that in a five year period you may get anywhere from 2-5/6 hand forms in 5 years depending on how fast the teacher taught his students. therefore, in saying this, not even Lau Bun had Che Kuen in his arsenol which was around the same time Tam Sam was learning and teaching. So, Che Kuen could be a new addition because we picked up the form in 2001 during our trip and dealings with our mother school in Fut San.

[Jimbo]

Just wanted to pop in and say this is a very interesting and cool discussion, guys. Thanks for sharing, Sifu Frank (I'd rather refer tol you as Sifu Frank than hsk, if that's ok with you).

[hskwarrior]

all good bruh. (anything is better than d1khead) lmao

[iron_silk]

To be honest with you.....

They are nothing but mere tools. in others a kung fu dance. it's just a hand form. it won't make you levitate nor glow in the dark. still, the CLF between Chan Heung and Cheung Hung Sing was "SEPARATELY" developed. This is common knowledge.

Iron Silk, you are definitely entitled to be curious to everything that peeks your curiosity. However, I have NEVER been proven to be wrong in any my statements since i've been on this forum going back to 2001. Today in 2015, i still say the same things in regards to Chan Heung's gung fu and that of Cheung Hung Sing's.



If you know the history of CLF (especially Buk Sing), Tam Sam only learned 3 hand forms from Hung Sing Master Lui Chun. When he left Fut San and moved to Siu Buk, I don't have a clue to what he picked up after he left. Could a classmate of his share any more hung sing forms with him without the knowledge of Master Lui Chun? I would say that has some VERY strong possibilities. In fact, even I have been passed down forms from "HUNG SING" that are not of Yuen Hai's direct lineage. My Sifu (being the keeper of the Yuen Hai lineage) doesn't have that form. I do however and it is being taught in my club. If Sifu makes me his successor, that form will then be a part of USA Hung Sing. Until then, it remains a Hung Sing Hung Loong Mo Kwoon hand form.

Should Buk Sing have Che Kuen? I would say no. Why? Because we don't exactly know "WHEN" the Fut San Hung Sing Che Kuen was created. i will say this tho, Fut San Che Kuen is much like Yuen Hai lineages Cheung Kuen. In fact, i personally believe that the Yuen Hai lineage Cheung Kuen was the original Cheung Kuen since Yuen Hai was Chan Ngau Sing's senior classmate (by 20 years or more). When Lau Bun came to the United States in the early 20's he was teaching Cheung Kuen. Till this day this very form is still passed down via my lineage while the alleged original Cheung Kuen outside of the USA was lost or forgotten. But it has been preserved in my lineage IMO.

Allow me to add this in tho.....if buk sing CLF developed MORE CLF forms exclusive to their lineage, it's still buk sing CLF. based off of Hung Sing CLF. There could possibly be tons of exclusive buk sing forms even between buk sing lineages. we just need to know what the core was and move forward from there to find the answers.

Furthermore, I would like to paint the picture this way. Cheung Hung Sing was a student of Chan Heung from 1836-1841 (five years). There is Zero documentation by Chan Heung of what he actually taught between the years of 1836-1841. Our history states Cheung Hung Sing was 12 years old when he started and was 17 years old when he was asked to leave King Mui (that's five years). We know Cheung Hung Sing was 69 years old when he passed away in 1893. Subtract 1893-69 = 1824. Born in 1824 + 12 years = 1836 (same year CLF was alleged to have been established). Add 1836+5 = 1841. So, what was Chan Heung teaching exactly between 1836-1841? Was it five forms? 10? no one really knows. Being that Lau Bun was an old school teacher and grand student of Cheung Hung Sing and how Lau Bun actually taught, we know that in a five year period you may get anywhere from 2-5/6 hand forms in 5 years depending on how fast the teacher taught his students. therefore, in saying this, not even Lau Bun had Che Kuen in his arsenol which was around the same time Tam Sam was learning and teaching. So, Che Kuen could be a new addition because we picked up the form in 2001 during our trip and dealings with our mother school in Fut San.

Interesting stuff...thanks for the reply!

When I was 5 years old I learned "Che Kuen" aka Ng Lun Ma from Wong Ha lineage (which is essentially similar to Chan Heung lineage).

I see a lot of similarities behind the one I learned and the one you presented from Fut San. Both essentially getting the students accustomed to the basic footwork and hand movements with repetition on either side. Obviously there are certain differences with the way we move but end result of stance and order is pretty much the same.

I actually quite like the difference in your Che Kuen.

[CLFNole]

Non futsan branches use the term Che Kuen for Ng Lun Choy at least I know we do (LKH line). We also use Lai Ma for Ng Lun Ma. I recall Che Kuen refers to "practice the fist" whereas Lai Mai refers to "stretching the stance". Think it is more slang usage.

[hskwarrior]

Non futsan branches use the term Che Kuen for Ng Lun Choy at least I know we do (LKH line). We also use Lai Ma for Ng Lun Ma. I recall Che Kuen refers to "practice the fist" whereas Lai Mai refers to "stretching the stance". Think it is more slang usage.

for us it's a pulling and punching thing.

[CLFNole]

Actually similar then because "lai" can translate to pull or stretch. Basically they loosely refer to stance and fist "warm ups".

[hskwarrior]

Fut San Che Kuen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4d7p5JTY0

[hskwarrior]

and

Lau Bun's Cheung Kuen are pretty much identical. Except our Cheung Kuen is a lot longer than Che Kuen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz0w3iQOWSU

[David Jamieson]

Not a Buk Sing guy, but I understand that Ku Yu Cheung and Tam Sam exchanged students and that is how the northern forms got into the Buk sing style. I think the so called 5 lower forms were exchanged to Tam Sam.

dun da - short strike
moi fah - plum flower
bot bo - shuffle steps
mo i - martial art
chum sam - strike to the heart

not sure if they are kept in buk sing today.
just what I heard about the bak sil lum(KYC) and CLF(TS) masters exchange.

[CLFNole]

I have seen some buk sing schools do Tun Da but not the other 4 but perhaps some do and I have just never seen it.

[iron_silk]

Not a Buk Sing guy, but I understand that Ku Yu Cheung and Tam Sam exchanged students and that is how the northern forms got into the Buk sing style. I think the so called 5 lower forms were exchanged to Tam Sam.

dun da - short strike
moi fah - plum flower
bot bo - shuffle steps
mo i - martial art
chum sam - strike to the heart

not sure if they are kept in buk sing today.
just what I heard about the bak sil lum(KYC) and CLF(TS) masters exchange.

CLFNole - Grandmaster Wong Ha referred to Ng Lun Choy as Che Kuen as well.

Frank - Long Fist looks great. Too bad BSCLF lost that form in their lineage.

Northern Shaolin & Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut - I have seen Dun Da & Bot Bo performed before by BSCLF guys.

However...I have heard from BSCLF master that she learned Dun Da & Hoy Moon (which I assume you would refer as "higher" forms)

[David Jamieson]

CLFNole - Grandmaster Wong Ha referred to Ng Lun Choy as Che Kuen as well.

Frank - Long Fist looks great. Too bad BSCLF lost that form in their lineage.

Northern Shaolin & Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut - I have seen Dun Da & Bot Bo performed before by BSCLF guys.

However...I have heard from BSCLF master that she learned Dun Da & Hoy Moon (which I assume you would refer as "higher" forms)

The "lower" is only to describe the progressive method they are taught.
The five I mentioned are the first 5 you will learn in Bak Sil Lum despite them being drawn from the middle of the system.
What I mean by that is that dun da is the 6th form in the system, but it is usually the first of the core forms to be taught.
The order is typically 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 the first 5 being called "lower" and the last five not being designated as higher. At least not as far as I know.

Hoy Moon or Koy Moon (open the door) is set number 1 in the Bak Sil Lum Syllabus.

[iron_silk]

The "lower" is only to describe the progressive method they are taught.
The five I mentioned are the first 5 you will learn in Bak Sil Lum despite them being drawn from the middle of the system.
What I mean by that is that dun da is the 6th form in the system, but it is usually the first of the core forms to be taught.
The order is typically 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 the first 5 being called "lower" and the last five not being designated as higher. At least not as far as I know.

Hoy Moon or Koy Moon (open the door) is set number 1 in the Bak Sil Lum Syllabus.

Thanks for the info! It sounds like you also train in Northern Shaolin?

I thought you were a Black Tiger guy. :) :confused:

Actually I have been learning primarily Bak Siu Lam for the last 10 years so I know what you mean about the system and the way it's taught.

The point of my comment is that BSCLF players might not be limited to only the 5 "lower forms" (I only use for your term for it some we all know we're referencing the same forms).

The first 5 forms students learn because they are the "shorter forms" and slightly less difficult in terms of techniques involved. Full disclosure I have only learned up to #1. I don't think anyone really knows why they number it that way but learn it in a different order other than perhaps...once you learned it all...you should practice it in that sequence.

I have heard of students of Tam Sam who were sent over to Ku Yu Cheung and learned #6 & #1 (at least) which suggest Ku Yu Cheung can be selective to what he teaches.

Also I heard of Master Lai Hung who although is famous for his BSCLF but he actually also learned from student of Ku Yu Cheung and potentially completed the Buk Siu Lam system as well...which would explain how more BSL forms got incorporated into BSCLF over the years.


Sorry...I just kept typing and lost where I was going with this to begin with.

[CLFNole]

Yes I believe you are correct Lai Hung was also a BSL practioner in addition to BSCLF.

[David Jamieson]

Thanks for the info! It sounds like you also train in Northern Shaolin?

I thought you were a Black Tiger guy. :) :confused:

Actually I have been learning primarily Bak Siu Lam for the last 10 years so I know what you mean about the system and the way it's taught.

The point of my comment is that BSCLF players might not be limited to only the 5 "lower forms" (I only use for your term for it some we all know we're referencing the same forms).

The first 5 forms students learn because they are the "shorter forms" and slightly less difficult in terms of techniques involved. Full disclosure I have only learned up to #1. I don't think anyone really knows why they number it that way but learn it in a different order other than perhaps...once you learned it all...you should practice it in that sequence.

I have heard of students of Tam Sam who were sent over to Ku Yu Cheung and learned #6 & #1 (at least) which suggest Ku Yu Cheung can be selective to what he teaches.

Also I heard of Master Lai Hung who although is famous for his BSCLF but he actually also learned from student of Ku Yu Cheung and potentially completed the Buk Siu Lam system as well...which would explain how more BSL forms got incorporated into BSCLF over the years.


Sorry...I just kept typing and lost where I was going with this to begin with.

I just classify as a practitioner. But yes, I have learned from a couple of different styles and BSL is one of them. :) All Kung Fu is good as far as I'm concerned. Style is not really a major concern anymore. Enjoyment of practice is!

[iron_silk]

I just classify as a practitioner. But yes, I have learned from a couple of different styles and BSL is one of them. :) All Kung Fu is good as far as I'm concerned. Style is not really a major concern anymore. Enjoyment of practice is!

I can't agree more with your statement.

I hope to learn for as long as I can in my life.

Style doesn't matter, to me it's all about who I am learning from.

When I found my BSL Sifu I wasn't that crazy about Northern Shaolin (since my only exposure to kung fu was previously CLF and BSL seem to flowery) but the way my Sifu moved and the details he gave in teaching impressed me beyond words.

I wasn't a big fan of BSCLF to honest with what limited exposure I had. Then I was amazed by a BSCLF Sifu in Vancouver. She had the fastest hands I had ever seen and her dedication to kung fu is peerless.

So in short...it's all about who I'm learning from because I have seen same styles from other Sifu's that were less than impressive. :D

[hskwarrior]

I wasn't a big fan of BSCLF to honest with what limited exposure I had.

so what weren't you impressed with in regards to buk sing? the lack of forms?

[iron_silk]

so what weren't you impressed with in regards to buk sing? the lack of forms?

I didn't say whether I was "impressed" or not but rather it wasn't for me. It wasn't the lack of forms but rather the way they moved in the forms. Again only based on my limited exposure.

I am sorry if the way I said it sounded insulting and for that I apologize.

I just meant BSCLF from the way it was presented wasn't something I was very much interested in.

Keep in mind I am a forms guy and didn't get into kung fu for martial arts application. That came later in life...

Ironically enough when I started to want to get more involved in application I met BSCLF master who was simply amazing and made me look at the her (and to some degree the art) in a different light.

What makes CLF, HSCLF, BSCLF is that different teachers do it differently. Some more forms emphasized and others more combat oriented.

I have been amazed in some cases where I had no idea CLF could be done that way.

In the end of the day the teacher makes the art in my opinion. :o

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

[hskwarrior]

I have seen same styles from other Sifu's that were less than impressive.

you said this. im just curious to what it was you were not impressed with


Keep in mind I am a forms guy and didn't get into kung fu for martial arts application.

ok i feel you


Ironically enough when I started to want to get more involved in application I met BSCLF master who was simply amazing and made me look at the her (and to some degree the art) in a different light.



Hope I didn't offend anyone.

not me. i was just curious. i thought you were looking at it from a forms perspective. just wanted to confirm my suspicion

was that rose chan or something like that?

[iron_silk]

you said this. im just curious to what it was you were not impressed with

ok i feel you


not me. i was just curious. i thought you were looking at it from a forms perspective. just wanted to confirm my suspicion

was that rose chan or something like that?

Oops my bad...

I was confused because you quoted my buk sing comment (where I didn't use the word "impressed") with another section where I did.

I was actually referring to some self proclaimed "Sifu" that fell short of the mark. Not about a particular style but rather the quality I have seen of some people who trying to teach. (poor coordination and no power)

Although doing forms well doesn't mean you can fight (at all) HOWEVER I have seen people coming from the same school (both very athletic and young) but one out shine the other.

One guy who was suppose to be their "champion" (in forms) had nice low stance and high jumps but the way he moved had almost zero intent.

His younger brother was fierce...like a bullet train.

When I asked them both it was the "bullet train" who had done a lot of sparring and such while the other did not.

My point being if you know how to fight and apply your stuff...it makes a big difference in your forms. (Not the other way around of course)

I was going to go on and on about seeing different ways of playing a form and how all can be equally impressive in their own way...but that would be going into it way too much.

So...back to the point of the thread...

Yes. BSCLF Grandmaster Rose Chan who is a student of Tam Fei Pang. The way she move when showing application is amazing in terms speed, strategy, and other stuff I don't know how to use words to describe. I can't even see her move until she's there...and so still...and powerful.

[iron_silk]

Frank - I wanted to say that both you and your Sifu is someone I was super impressed with the way you move.

[hskwarrior]

My point being if you know how to fight and apply your stuff...it makes a big difference in your forms. (Not the other way around of course)

My student just mentioned to me today that when he trained under Doc Fai's PB lineage he felt the forms had no life and robotic like. But after training with us, he felt that our way of doing our forms is more geared towards a fight.


Frank - I wanted to say that both you and your Sifu is someone I was super impressed with the way you move.

My sifu, I can understand that. Me, my forms suck. LOL. I used to try to mimic my sifu, some of his own classmates say i do move like him. But i've never really been a forms guy. I do appreciate you saying that tho. The check will be in the mail today. :D

[Jimbo]

In my experience, there is a monumental difference between the forms of someone who focuses almost strictly on forms, and someone who has sparred and fought with his/her art. I prefer the latter. For me personally, it's not about the flash or how pretty someone plays their sets.

My first experience in a Chinese art was in Taiwan at a Long Fist/Mantis school that was forms-oriented. I stayed with that group for a couple of years because I didn't know any better at the time, even though I came from arts that heavily emphasized sparring. Thankfully, I was charged only half as much as most of the other non-Chinese (perhaps due to my being Asian?). That first teacher virtually never showed any applications. And they did almost no sparring. I noticed that many students did the forms (especially the Long Fist) the way they thought "looked best". They'd introduce their own variations that had absolutely nothing to do with usage. So each student did the moves in the forms differently...not just the individual variation that occurs naturally in any school or system, but for 'aesthetics'. That teacher would occasionally say those variations are wrong, but never really explain why, and so the variations continued. Basically, it was 'hua quan/xiu tui' (flowery fist/embroidery leg).

In my CLF school, the usage was taught pretty much from day one. Regarding the forms aspect of training, this does NOT create a flashier or prettier demonstration when someone does their form. It creates clear intent. Meaning you don't want to be standing near that person when they're doing their set, lest you get hurt. Completely different from someone who plays their sets purely for theatrical effect, or to 'wow' others with how high they can jump, or how flexible they are. I find it ironic that those who are less obsessed about forms or how they 'look' as opposed to function, end up being more impressive at them (IMO).

At some tournaments, though, I've caught some older CMA masters ooooohing and aaaaahing performances that emphasized flash over substance.

[iron_silk]

In my experience, there is a monumental difference between the forms of someone who focuses almost strictly on forms, and someone who has sparred and fought with his/her art. I prefer the latter. For me personally, it's not about the flash or how pretty someone plays their sets.

My first experience in a Chinese art was in Taiwan at a Long Fist/Mantis school that was forms-oriented. I stayed with that group for a couple of years because I didn't know any better at the time, even though I came from arts that heavily emphasized sparring. Thankfully, I was charged only half as much as most of the other non-Chinese (perhaps due to my being Asian?). That first teacher virtually never showed any applications. And they did almost no sparring. I noticed that many students did the forms (especially the Long Fist) the way they thought "looked best". They'd introduce their own variations that had absolutely nothing to do with usage. So each student did the moves in the forms differently...not just the individual variation that occurs naturally in any school or system, but for 'aesthetics'. That teacher would occasionally say those variations are wrong, but never really explain why, and so the variations continued. Basically, it was 'hua quan/xiu tui' (flowery fist/embroidery leg).

In my CLF school, the usage was taught pretty much from day one. Regarding the forms aspect of training, this does NOT create a flashier or prettier demonstration when someone does their form. It creates clear intent. Meaning you don't want to be standing near that person when they're doing their set, lest you get hurt. Completely different from someone who plays their sets purely for theatrical effect, or to 'wow' others with how high they can jump, or how flexible they are. I find it ironic that those who are less obsessed about forms or how they 'look' as opposed to function, end up being more impressive at them (IMO).

At some tournaments, though, I've caught some older CMA masters ooooohing and aaaaahing performances that emphasized flash over substance.


Hi Jimbo,

I think we are both in agreement that it's about who is teaching that makes the difference.

The difference can be very apparent in the way we perform our sets. When my Sifus teach me a form they begin with the reason and application behind it which defines the way we would and should execute the move in the form. That would makes sense to me because otherwise...what are we doing?

If the teachers and students are focused on how it looks with zero talk about application then it sounds more like Modern Wushu to me. Then again I have seen a popular student from another school (who normally does well in forms competition) yet despite his low stance and high leaps I can tell there is no power in the moves because he is focused on putting his body in the position rather than fighting an imaginary opponent. His classmates were surprised when he ranked low but I wasn't.

[iron_silk]

My student just mentioned to me today that when he trained under Doc Fai's PB lineage he felt the forms had no life and robotic like. But after training with us, he felt that our way of doing our forms is more geared towards a fight.



My sifu, I can understand that. Me, my forms suck. LOL. I used to try to mimic my sifu, some of his own classmates say i do move like him. But i've never really been a forms guy. I do appreciate you saying that tho. The check will be in the mail today. :D

DFW - he has good standard for mass instruction but a bit move by move like loses something.

Your Sifu is very high quality. The apple shouldn't fall too far from the tree.

I am big guy too so we need to stick together ;)

[hskwarrior]

for me, the majority of his people have some of the strangest movements in gung fu. but hey, to each his own

[Jimbo]

Hi Jimbo,

I think we are both in agreement that it's about who is teaching that makes the difference.

The difference can be very apparent in the way we perform our sets. When my Sifus teach me a form they begin with the reason and application behind it which defines the way we would and should execute the move in the form. That would makes sense to me because otherwise...what are we doing?

If the teachers and students are focused on how it looks with zero talk about application then it sounds more like Modern Wushu to me. Then again I have seen a popular student from another school (who normally does well in forms competition) yet despite his low stance and high leaps I can tell there is no power in the moves because he is focused on putting his body in the position rather than fighting an imaginary opponent. His classmates were surprised when he ranked low but I wasn't.

Hi,

That is a big problem, when the focus of doing a form is getting into various frozen poses/postures. The real focus should be on what's going on (the movements that are occurring) between the postures instead of the postures themselves. Like you say, it becomes like standardized wushu performance routines.

[iron_silk]

Hi,

That is a big problem, when the focus of doing a form is getting into various frozen poses/postures. The real focus should be on what's going on (the movements that are occurring) between the postures instead of the postures themselves. Like you say, it becomes like standardized wushu performance routines.

Definitely.

Wushu guys sometimes don't even have their fist aligned properly for punching.

Jimbo, may I ask if you study Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut?

[Jimbo]

Jimbo, may I ask if you study Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut?

iron_silk,

No, my Sifu's main lineage is through John Lem, who trained as a lay Buddhist monk at the Wing Foon monastery. This lineage has far fewer hand forms than some other CLF lineages, and has a heavy emphasis on 2-person attack/defense combinations. The sets in this lineage are also distinctive, made up mainly of combinations taken from the 2-person application exercises. We also have Hung Sing and Chan Family material as well.

I respect all lineages of CLF.

[iron_silk]

iron_silk,

No, my Sifu's main lineage is through John Lem, who trained as a lay Buddhist monk at the Wing Foon monastery. This lineage has far fewer hand forms than some other CLF lineages, and has a heavy emphasis on 2-person attack/defense combinations. The sets in this lineage are also distinctive, made up mainly of combinations taken from the 2-person application exercises. We also have Hung Sing and Chan Family material as well.

I respect all lineages of CLF.

Hi Jimbo,

your lineage sounds very fascinating. I hope to learn more about it.

Hi Frank,

I was wondering...I read that Tam Sam also learned "Seurng Gap Dan Gwun" Double Single Ended Staff form. Is the Buk Sing staff form same as the Hung Sing? Should be right?

[hskwarrior]

I was wondering...I read that Tam Sam also learned "Seurng Gap Dan Gwun" Double Single Ended Staff form. Is the Buk Sing staff form same as the Hung Sing? Should be right?

I'd have to ask since it's always been said he only learned 3 Hung Sing forms. However, there is one taught in Fut San today that is basically the same as the one lau bun passed down through us

[iron_silk]

I'd have to ask since it's always been said he only learned 3 Hung Sing forms. However, there is one taught in Fut San today that is basically the same as the one lau bun passed down through us

You staff form is something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtUeTjcvdag

[hskwarrior]

Same hoi jong, same opening moves, same sections shared.....yes this is very much like Lau Bun's Staff form. very much so. Except, the performer is NOT Buk Sing CLF. He is Hung Sing CLF.

This is the lau bun single and double ended staff form performed by DFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z_1qvfAwns

the similarities between that form and this one are extraordinary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtUeTjcvdag

[CLFNole]

It's funny I recall reading that Tam Sam may have learned Sheung Karp Dahn Tow Kwun but I can't recall ever seeing a buk sing version of the set. Just from the other branches only. Not saying that doesn't mean some branches don't have it but never seen it performed. I have seen a few buk sing people do a baat kwa kwun staff set though.

[hskwarrior]

From what i was told, Tam Sam may have created his own Single and Double ended staff form per tam fei pang. The other one they have comes from Jow Ga Kuen. the baat kwa kwun they practice is also from Jow Gar Kuen

[iron_silk]

From what i was told, Tam Sam may have created his own Single and Double ended staff form per tam fei pang. The other one they have comes from Jow Ga Kuen. the baat kwa kwun they practice is also from Jow Gar Kuen

Thanks for the replies you guys.

Seem to make sense based on what you saying. I have never seen a BSCLF Staff form that wasn't Baat Kwa or other name and looking kind of made up.

I am very interested in finding that staff form now..

[iron_silk]

Haven't been able to find the Double Single Staff form yet ... but found this form that is exclusive to BSCLF:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMpSwdWZFsQ


This lineage is suppose to be from Tam Fei Pang -> Raymond L Y Leung -> Henry Suen lineage.

Any thoughts?

[hskwarrior]

This lineage is suppose to be from Tam Fei Pang -> Raymond L Y Leung -> Henry Suen lineage.

Any thoughts?

i will find out if this is exclusive to henry suens lineage or all of buk sing

[hskwarrior]

DaiSihingPerez,

I am from Lau Bun's direct Hung Sing lineage under GM Dino Salvatera. Your Hung Sing Cheung Kuen form us.

however, the original thread goes back to 2012. the current part of this is the 2015 responses

[iron_silk]

Hi Guys,

I thought I asked Sifu Frank about shouldn't BSCLF also have "Che Kuen" as part of their curriculum since it's a beginner's form and most likely a form everyone has to learn first in Hung Sing lineage.

Sifu Frank told me that after asking Buk Sing guys there doesn't seem to be a Che Kuen and perhaps it was developed after Tam Sam left the school.

Made sense to me....

Since then however I have spoken with a few masters (my network of contacts are not that big) but for most part people tell me there is no "Che Kuen" in BSCLF except then one master (who is a student of Tam Fei Pang and learned from Lun Chee as well) said actually there is "Che Kuen" as told by Lun Chee. For some reason or another Lun Chee did not want to teach it openly.

Again this is a very drill like form but contains applications very much integral to BSCLF. I then realize...that other BSCLF may not have "Che Kuen" as a form but rather most lineages broke it down and drills they do separately.

So...in my conclusion...everyone's got it...just in a different format. Thought I would share my limited info.

[hskwarrior]

Again this is a very drill like form but contains applications very much integral to BSCLF. I then realize...that other BSCLF may not have "Che Kuen" as a form but rather most lineages broke it down and drills they do separately.

So...in my conclusion...everyone's got it...just in a different format. Thought I would share my limited info.

what is this fascination about Che Kuen? It's a really basic form at eye level. Professor Lau Bun's Cheung Kuen is a beginner form and way more advanced than Che Kuen.

When you mean "EVERYONE'S GOT IT" who are you referring to? The techniques found in Che Kuen are Kwa Choy, Sow/kup Choy, Yum Chop Choy, Reverse Pek Choy, a few different palms and that's it. Yes these individual techniques are found in everyone's CLF.



Again this is a very drill like form but contains applications very much integral to BSCLF

How are the applications of Che Kuen so very intregral to BSCLF since their CLF comes from Hung Sing?

[Satori Science]

There is a basic Buk Sing Che Kuen form, taught by Lun Chee. My Sifu learned it from him and I even inherited a video of LunChee performing it.