CLF same as Lama/Hop Ga/Ba Hok

[ngokfei]

There is some interesting research coming out of China that has these 2 styles being strongly related to each other.

Something about 2 temples where both styles have links to sharing teachers etc.

Anybody heard about this. There is a article in one of the MA Magazines there so am waiting for a copy to provide further info.

Sounds interesting.

[jdhowland]

Interesting that this comes up again. This idea was suggested by GruBianca in the Lama style thread that Cerebus started. Let us know if you hear of any genuine research. Heck, even blunt speculation. It is a worthy topic.

[crazedjustice88]

At some point I wouldn't doubt it, but the styles are too different to talk about them originating in some of the same way or same place. To an outsider some techniques look the same, but if you look at my sifus first form on youtube, Yeah...not even close (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iStiduwjAeo).

[CLFNole]

Personally I don't believe it...history of all southern styles is sketchy at best. All southern styles share similarities...hung gar, jow gar, hung fut, CLF, lama/hop gar/bak hok but there are noticeable differences to. Plus I think lama is much older than CLF.

[jdhowland]

Although we must allow for some deception and incomplete information within the histories of the schools, they don't really match up time-wise. CLF was well developed in the 1830s while Lama was reportedly brought to Gwongdong during the reign of Yi Zhu, the Xianfeng Emperor (1850-1861).

I just see them as sharing some common sources from further back than the 19th century.

[hskwarrior]

CLF was well developed in the 1830s while Lama was reportedly brought to Gwongdong during the reign of Yi Zhu, the Xianfeng Emperor (1850-1861).

CLF was developed in 1830's but in my opinion wasn't well developed since it was a new system at that time. sure, by time chan heung died it may have been well developed by then but not in the 1830's. I see more bagua stuff in CLF than i do Lama style.

[brothernumber9]

Sifu Chan Tai San taught both Lama Pai and CLF. I would think his students, the most prominent of which are, or were, members on these boards, and Sifu in their own right, might know something about that, or at least have more insight than anyone else here about a CLF-Lama connection.

[Primalaxisguy]

Sifu Chan Tai San taught both Lama Pai and CLF. I would think his students, the most prominent of which are, or were, members on these boards, and Sifu in their own right, might know something about that, or at least have more insight than anyone else here about a CLF-Lama connection.

I doubt that this Chan Tai Shan could have really studied both, as there are prohibitions by the clan sects against this sort of thing

[lkfmdc]

meet the new troll, same as the old troll
BUT WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!!!!!!!

[Primalaxisguy]

meet the new troll, same as the old troll
BUT WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!!!!!!!

A wise man once said:

"old trolls live in ignorance under bridges; I walk in bright-knowing amongst the clouds; if you cannot see this, it is because you are an old troll that lives under a bridge"


these are the words of the Hoary Man.

[lkfmdc]

"old trolls live in ignorance under bridges; I walk in bright-knowing amongst the clouds; if you cannot see this, it is because you are an old troll that lives under a bridge"



ok, great, now you are paraphrasing what was written on the wall of the old mineola school, so are you richard? I think you must be.

[Primalaxisguy]

ok, great, now you are paraphrasing what was written on the wall of the old mineola school, so are you richard? I think you must be.

I do not know of this "mineola school" that you speak of; but as you are an old troll living under a bridge, I will leave you in peace to your musings, sir

[lkfmdc]

I do not know of this "mineola school" that you speak of; but as you are an old troll living under a bridge, I will leave you in peace to your musings, sir

Give it up Richard, or as we used to call you ****, with your knotted beard, talking about "empty force" I remember you... .

[Primalaxisguy]

Give it up Richard, or as we used to call you ****, with your knotted beard, talking about "empty force" I remember you... .

I admit, it was a special night...







but I have moved on...

[Primalaxisguy]

There is some interesting research coming out of China that has these 2 styles being strongly related to each other.

Something about 2 temples where both styles have links to sharing teachers etc.

Anybody heard about this. There is a article in one of the MA Magazines there so am waiting for a copy to provide further info.

Sounds interesting.

do you even study Kung Fu?

[Kymus]

you are an old troll

One of these statements may be partly true, but seeing as lkfmdc has promised me a surprise*, I will not comment on which of these comments may be partly true....:D


Dude, Ross, he called you old, you gonna take that?? :eek:



(*that just sounds wrong.............:()

[crazedjustice88]

My sifu, David Chin, is also a CLF man. He studied it under, I believe his unlce when he was young. He just moved on, so when he is teaching Hop Gar he talks about the two systems, but he also brings up how at a point they pretty much leave each other alone and from then on, go their own way. Some of the basics are practically the same. In fact, my sifu actually teaches us some CLF lohorn stepping to get used to "shooting in" before he teaches the white crane stepping since people who don't know the difference get kicked in the crotch a lot. Hahahaha so when sparring I use the lohorn pretty often, but more times than not, I will use different steps with the white crane stance. So yeah. I could believe they might have been at the same temple down the road after initial creation, again, look at Chen Tai San, but as far as origins linked? I'll put it how my sifu does. "There is only so much variation that can be done with two arms and two legs."

[jdhowland]

CLF was developed in 1830's but in my opinion wasn't well developed since it was a new system at that time. sure, by time chan heung died it may have been well developed by then but not in the 1830's. I see more bagua stuff in CLF than i do Lama style.

I don't feel that CLF was really "new" except that it was the methods used by a relatively new organization and headmaster. It would be helpful if we could know something about where Lee Yau San and Choy Fook learned their stuff. Chan family seems to have tried to cover the purpose of the organization by claiming that Chan Heung was a peaceful Buddhist who taught his students to not use their skills unless necessary. Sound familiar?

The differences in tactics and footwork are telling. You wouldn't think they could be related. But you could also explain these differences as adaptations to different uses. Personally, I see CLF as a very good style for group survival (if you consider the weapons work to be essential before the change to the popular "kung fu academy" format after 1875 or so). Lama changed from the escort/bodyguard style to a school style somewhat later and it still has that mercenary feel about it.

Both systems still show strong northern roots. Any thoughts?