Ha Say Fu Ng Ying = Sil Lum Ng Ying Kuen?

are the ha say fu five animals forms the same as the traditional shaolin five animals? characteristics of each? differences? the same?

also, are the fundamental open-palm blocks done when and only when you are facing your opponent? it makes sense that it would be this way, because the opposite hand is positioned to protect the torso. and it is this way, are the closed-hand blocks done from the side (horse stance)?

please elaborate if you can on either or both of these questions. it would be greatly appreciated.
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

For your first question, no. The forms do not look the same (i.e. the shapes of the techniques). There are some historical issues saying that it's closer to original shaolin, but as of yet, this has not been proven. Whatever the case may be, ha say fu and the five animals that we have today are not the same.

For your second question, why dont you mention a form so that the ha say fu practitioners on the board can help you out a little easier.

HSF, separates and practices the animals in greater detail w/ more focus on the particular animal you are working on. Where as the typical canton HG animals work on each animal much more briefly in comparison.

Hand shapes are different as is the way you generate energy is different too.

You wrote:
"also, are the fundamental open-palm blocks done when and only when you are facing your opponent? it makes sense that it would be this way, because the opposite hand is positioned to protect the torso. and it is this way, are the closed-hand blocks done from the side (horse stance)?"


The main reason for the hand to be there is not for protection but for linking power in conjuction w/ your stance (usually Yi Gee Kim Yuong Ma stance) Protection is a convenient bonus.

You answer you own question...techniques are applied to the direction your focus is in.
If I go left my application is in that direction, tis common sense.

"O"

HAY SAY FUT IS FAKE, WING LAM MADE IT UP.

Before Comparing HSF to Siulum/Shaolin 5 Animals. Question what do you refer to when stating the Siu Lum 5 Animals....Which one which system.

Shi Chan Long

Yes,as the original five animals came from the northern temple!

"Weapons are the embodiments of fear,
the wise use them only when they have no choice"
Lao Tzu

no, word, ha say fu is not fake. it's a school that kwong wing lam learned from. even if it was fake, he learned from lam tsai wing for years, and i would consider any forms that he makes as "real" as any others. i mean the original five animals style that came from the shaolin temples (i think there's only one, but i'm not sure). i'm interested mainly in the dragon and snake forms in it.

i'm confussed.

those who know me on the thread will know that i don't do flames, so this isn't, but i'm confussed over your statment, "he learned from lam tsai wing for years".

all i need is clarification who the "he" is in your statment

thanks

Points

1. Hay Say Fu nothing to do with Lam Tsai Wing
2. Wing Lam never study with Lam Tsai Wing (Generation gap here)

NOW regarding 5 animals :
Original Theory : Jue Yuan, Bai Yu Feng & Friends at Songshan Shaolin Temple.
First System : 5 Animal Style/Fist consists of Qi Gong type concepts as an elaboration of the theory above as well as of the Lohan System which was an elaboration on the Yi Jin Jing.
In North : Northern Shaolin did not emphasise 5 animals in movement and system as such.
In South : The 5 animals were a major component of study at Fujian Shaolin Temple and were developed to very high Levels. Most southern styles emphasise some features of either one or a few of the 5 animals.

The System : Hay Say Fu "sounds" correct. I am yet to see and compare ... but concept seems right.
In The Fujian Shaolin Temple 5 Animal System there are Individual sets (Fundamental) and two advanced combined 5 animals sets learned after all individual sets.( Before individual sets there is cross Set to practise basics.)


Regards

Shi Chan Long

1st onto topic,

Ha Say Fu, compared to Sil Lum Ng Ying is just alot tighter and more focused.

SL Ng Ying (like Hung Gar) only briefly touches each animal during a set when compared to HSF.

According to the history as I know it, prior to Gim Sim and Sil Lum revolutionaries bringing thier martial concept to southern China. All the Southern styles were done in this similar fashion:

1 Tight movements and stances (ie Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma)
2 Performed in a vary small area
3 Short to medium killing range
4 Setting bridges
5 Southern kicking concepts
6 ect.
7 ect.

I don't want to give too much cause I really don't need to educate Word. I'm not here for Trolls like him.

Second,
My Sifu (Wing Lam), primarly Learned from Lum Jo, Chiu Wai and Leung Wah Chew as far as HG goes. NOT LAM TSAI WING, my sifu would be like 100 yrs old now if he did.

YC Wong, has a long history in the US and the bay area and I have nothing but respect for the man.

When MY Sifu(Wing Lam) came to america, he found out that he had an older Kung Fu brother living in SF.(ie. YC. Wong) He did as any other Kung Fu brothers of the same family would do. He paid his respects and did some of his own training at YCs Kwoon.

I don't know what you would do WORD, since you seem to be your own sifu.

Perhaps information was shared, big deal. I would share info. w/ any of MY family members.

What is so strange about that word? Since you are so Fond of bringing up MolumJR. You go ahead and ask him. My sifu TRAINED at Lum Jo's and has his student and family photos at the school in HK. YC. is for sure his older brother in his lineage, of that who can deny it. But to say YC is my Sifu's Sifu as you suggest is silly.

Of Course you don't want to ask MJ do you? Because he also knows too much about HSF HG too.

This is No Offense vs you other guys or Plastic Squirl, his facts are just a little off.

For peets sake, I think everyone here is Sick of you (Word) Defaming and bringing up your stupid accusations against Wing Lam.

I only respond when you (Word) say stuff that is just FLAT OUT BULLS#%T.

"O"

i see now... yeah, he would be pretty old. maybe i was confusing him with lam jo, or maybe i read something about lam jo being taught by lam tsai wing. *confused* [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

I am not a practitioner of this method. However, recently, someone gave me a book in Chinese labeled "Hung Kuen" so I was interested. After looking at the book I could tell that this was not the Hung Ga of Wong Fei Hung, what Sifu Wing Lam has taken to calling "Canton" Hung Ga. As it turns out, in the book (published in the mid eighties) it spoke of a 'tiger' form. On close
inspection, this is the tiger form that Sifu Wing Lam shows as the Ha Say Fu tiger form on his videos. This pretty much proves that Sifu Wing Lam did not make the form up himself. His marketing of that information comes after the
publishing of the book (which was printed in China) I don't know what the lineage of the art
shown is, but certain characteristics of Cantonese
kung fu are present in this form. I would bet it is a form of what my Sifu (Frank Yee)would refer to as "Village" Hung, i.e. from Hung Hei Goon but not via Wong Fei Hung

That book is part of the Guangdong Arts Routines Set.

The Form is incomplete and repeated twice if that WL's same then his art is the incomplete (Watered Down) Guangdong Version.

It is the first part of Our Fujian Wu Xing Quan less repetitions. The set presented has four sections. But the Second and Fourth are repetitions of first and third respectively.

In Fujian Wu Xing Quan they form only two sections and and additional different two sections exist. But the basics are the same.

Regards
Shi Chan Long

ShaolinMaster Wrote:

That book is part of the Guangdong Arts Routines Set. The Form is incomplete and repeated twice if that WL's same then his art is the incomplete (Watered Down) Guangdong Version.

"O" = We at Wing Lam have seen this book and it is not the same form. It's different, although it looks as if they use the same concept.
All I can say is what my Sifu has already publicly documented. Leung Wah Chew was a gangster, his lineage was not revealed.(He has passed away already) My Sifu was lucky to gain the opportunity to obtain his HSF knowledge thru his brother in Law as his training partner. One thing is certain, Leung Si Gung and his clansmen were badass.

It is the first part of Our Fujian Wu Xing Quan less repetitions. The set presented has four sections. But the Second and Fourth are repetitions of first and third respectively.


"O" = What you just said is correct. HSF sets always begin a direction w/ a kick. In Tiger we do the 1st section of movements to the Right then repeat on left side. Then we do a section/line that is perpendicular. Upon returning to the starting position more left and right sequences are repeated until you end up at starting point.

In Fujian Wu Xing Quan they form only two sections and and additional different two sections exist. But the basics are the same.

Regards
Shi Chan Long

"O"= Hello, i was interested if you had some publicly available info. on "Fujian Wu Xing Quan"
Is there a web page on it, some photos available or can some videos be purchased?

ease on,
"O"

I looked again at the book in question, and I stand corrected. However, the style of the movements in question is similar enough to dispel the notion that the material on Sifu Lam's videos was made up by him personally, as had been asserted earlier. No insult was intended by my earlier post. I just think that there is too much
flaming going on all the time against everyone else's teachers and my point in that regard still stands.

Peace, G

Goksut