more on clf history

[bean curd]

your pun on my signature i found amusing, i take no offence , why should i we have never spoken, so i will wait to see how you act towards me before i reply in the same fashon.

to your questions, i will not paste because i take it as time wasted but i hope you will look at your questions and see where my answers relaite to them.

1 and 2. this is actually incorrect to say he would not use his last name. why ? first off we have to realise that chan heung was taught by his father first and mostly by his uncle. now there is a question on what he was taught. as extrajoseph tried to point out that the two brothers ( lacey ) differ in their history we also have the same issue here. some chan players say his uncle taught him hung kuen,second some chan players said it was siu lam kuen, and thirdly some chan players distinguished this by saying is was actually fut gar kuen.

now here is the delema - originally it was never known what chan hueng was taught, all it was know was that it was gung fu, it only came apparent in the 70's that we learnt more, allot of things happened in the 70's !!!!

now to the name - it is not uncommon for people to use their respective names of their families or of their sifu to state the pai they are using. examples of this is mok, lau, tai, shei, tan, lay, hon family skills. it is also incorrect to state that if chan used his own name it would take away from his father and uncle. in tradition it is normal for such things to happen that when one looks to the son they see the father etc, and expecially within a martial community. this is evident for example on the hung gar kuen where we have three kin, wong tai, wong kei and wong fei all experts in there skills, consolidated by the famous wong fei hung yet the father wong kei ying was a sup fu canton. so to say that these things would loose their favour and position is not withstanding.

so what in effect clfnole asks is an extremly strong correct question.

i have written much today and do not want to bore you or those who have graced this little thread but i will address two other points quickly and yes i will not spell them out to much as is my way.

ching cho, is not an anomoly, within a book written by a great CLF player who has sadly passed away at a young age, he states clearly the connection with ching cho however in this writting it is stated that it was chan heung who learnt form ching cho after meeting choy fook and lau san. we have another writter who once stated ching cho was made up and now it is found within the chan writtings ching cho was choy fook, yet upto this time ching cho was missed in the writtings of the chan clan !!!

the tiger skin is another good example, here we have extrajoseph say he met someone in chan village that tells him it was there and he sat on it, and that there are also others who know of it, yet this is only knew if such a thing did happen, no others have ever mentioned it from chan village, but i suppose i will have to visit chan village again to see this old man.

now the strange thing is this, it is said that chan heung killed the tiger in old age with his own bare hands and gave it to the chan association,but the chan assocation is not in chan village, the one in question is without doubt outside of the homeland and in america, but there are quite a few chan associations and noone knows which one and what happened to the skin, yet now extrajoseph tells us it has travelled to chan village.

i could go on,but the point in all this is pure and simple, to clarify such issues only takes the elders to talk about it not for us and especially certain people who do not wish to let the issue be addressed in the correct manner that has happened in the past, even if they have not heard of it happening before.

i hope you now take this on, i am not asking you to believe it nor am i asking you to ignore it, the plain and simple fact these are issues and only small ones that have been around for long time, i also hope you don't tell me where my spelling or diction is not correct i would be so disappointed j/k

take care

[extrajoseph]

Hi bean curd,

Obviously you have no intention of stopping, so I will stop it for you. Think whatever you like, I have expressed my feelings clear enough for all to see and I do not wish to waste any more words on someone like you who wants only to argue for argument sake.
There is no pleasure in nit picking for me so let us move on. You can either do this or shiver in the cold.

JosephX

[extrajoseph]

I am afraid bean curd has no idea what he was talking about.

1) His father never taught Chan Heung any kung fu. He was taught by his uncle.

2) Chan Heung was taught Shaolin Kung Fu by his uncle and in those days they don¡¦t have names and that is why it was known at various times as Hung Kuen, Fut Gar Kuen, Sil Lum Kuen and even Hung Fut Kuen. The names stood for Kung Fu from the Shaolin Temple, not names of a particular style.

3) Chan Heung did not called his style Choy Lay Chan because he wanted his disciples not to glorify their own names but to uphold the teaching of Fut or Buddha (Shaolin Temple). By not using his own family name he set an example for us to follow. If Jeurng Yim did studied with Ching Cho for 8 years, you would imagine he would know his teacher's real name and called it accordingly, if he was indeed the founder.

4) Ching Cho was Choy Fook and this was clearly documented in the Chan Family manuscript, which was not made available until recently. The reason was given in clfma.com together with a photo of the relevant page.

With regards to Chan Heung and his life, for example, whether he killed a tiger or not, where and when, why don¡¦t you ask the Chan Family instead of listening to all sorts of rumors? You will get your answer from the horse¡¦s mouth.

If you have the opportunity then go to King Mui and ask them there. Go to Futsan on your way back and then the new Buk Sing Chi Jo Gwoon in Guangzhou as well like I did last week. You can then compare notes and make up your own mind.

I did my research, so I will stand by what I said.

JosephX

[bean curd]

"what happened joseaph Was your previous post a little pre -mature? Are you finally living up to your namesake?"

you know joseph i have read your posts and it is becoming apparent there are more than one of you posting - is this true or do you have split personalities, just look at the two posts above which says it all.

see i put out some stuff and immediatly you say good bye lets leave it as an empasse and get on with it, then you come back with the great statement i know nothing about what i have said lol and what do you then do come out with such dribble.

my answers to your questions -

1. you are wrong totally, i just didn't expand on the time he was with him - you are so funny.

2. this has to be one of the most rediculous statements i have ever read from you, and to actually go into why you are wrong would take sometime, it is so obvious this confirms you do not understand these situations.

3. more dribble do you realise by what you have just stated you have insulted many many pai, how shamefull.

4. how convienent for you, i said the same thing that all of a sudden the once denied ching cho is now stated by the chan clan they have miraculously found it - but you not so long ago stated many times and actually laughed and scoffed at the mere mention of ching cho and even made fun of another person for mentioning his name - you are such a hypocrite. when they come out and say they made a mistake - what will you do them - i think we know.


and now to the tiger skin, how easy you brush it all off, doesn't go your way so you cry, the info i have came from chan players so what now !!!!!!

it is so nice of you to state the great opening in siu buk, what was also happening in futshan too eh. you are a strange one, what by saying this we are to believe you lol, how many knew of this and who else was there, give me some names i mean you always do, i know who went too - please who pathetic.


you did your research and i did mine so we stand the same, again i was more than willing to leave it alone like it should always have been, but as usual you have come back - you are so predictable

need more fire it is getting cold - your call

[CLFNole]

Truthfully I don't buy the whole we will pay homage to two sifus using "choy" and "lay" but we will skip "chan" because it is our own surname and instead us "fut" since we are to glorify buddha. Why not just have four words then and pay respect to all teachers involved.

Too much of the explanations here are just convenient ways to make one's own point. The other thing which i brought up along time ago is the Ching Cho/Choy Fook thing. How convenient that only this year it was discovered (likely under a Kwan Gong statue..hehe just kidding) that Ching Cho was in fact Choy Fook. This are very convenient revelation for people who before said that he was a fictional character in a novel. I though Choy Fook's nickname was Rotten Head Choy because his head was scarred from the burning of Siu Lum Gee. The must have had a lot of nicknames.

I am not of the opinion that Chan Hueng is not the founder and Cheung Yim is, my CLF comes from both lines. Obviously both did a great deal for the style since there are numerous proponents from each today arguing over this rather ridiculous point. To me the underlying thing here is that each side is trying to make out that there side or branch is better.

The Chan side always goes to the internal forms and the number of forms they have and people think that must make them better. But we all no its not the number of forms you know but how well you know them. On the other side a branch with less forms and no internal forms can feel inferior to some degree and focus more on their fighting prowess to gain fame and recognition.

Either way both sides have made huge contributions to the style. No one will ever know whose kung fu was better, Chan Hueng or Cheong Yim. Just because someone created something doesn't mean someone could have been better at it. There is always someone out there that is better than us so arguing about it is futile.

The main thing is that CLF practioners on a whole should group together as one family under CLF not who came up with what and what day was this person born.

Peace.

[Fu-Pow]

Let me make one statement on this argument.

The true history of martial arts in China (CLF included) will never be known. It is filled with secrecy, secret societies, hearsay, fictional stories, ego, politics, fictional novels, religious affiliation and "unaffiliation" and most of the practitioners were illiterate so we don't even have any notes to compare until the last couple of centuries. It is a tangled web that you will never, ever unweave.

If you don't believe me go to the Jeet Kune Do message board. Here we have an art that is only around 40 years old and people are having the same arguments that people are having here. Except that art even had the benefit of a literate creator and a media driven society. Yet the same questions get asked: Who has the "true" art? What happened when? Who was the senior student? How good was Bruce Lee, really?

History is interesting to talk about, it makes for good discussion. It ranks right up there with sex, politics and religion. But much like these topics everyone has there own opinion and very seldomly is there a "correct" view. History is an emotional topic because our history helps to define our place in the world. No one wants to have the rug pulled out from under them. Unfortunately when people start getting emotional about a topic of discussion, the "discussion" quickly becomes an "argument. "

And argument is emotional and emotions are not logical. So the arguing will go round and round as each side tries to "win" the other persons emotion. Words can be very useless things at these times.

If we can learn anything from our kung fu predecessors it is that we must all seek our own "way" or Tao. You must find what works for you and that includes your beliefs.

Our predecessors also believed in becoming and creating well rounded, capable individuals not only in the techniques and strategies of warfare but in terms of spritiual and moral development, calligraphy, dit da healing, herbology, music, etc, etc, etc. We should be instilling these things in our students and classmates and creating the next generation "to uphold and enliven the ways of Shaolin."

[extrajoseph]

I had doubt when this manuscript page first turned up as well, so I emailed a copy to a friend who is a Chinese language expert. I explained the situation to him and asked for his opinion. This is what he has to say:

1) The language used is consistent with someone who had a pre-June 4th education, so it would unlikely to have been written recently.

2) If they want to use this as a way to deny the existence of Ching Cho and make things up they would have said more, instead it was like a throwaway line, so it could be genuine when viewed in this context.

But he cannot say for sure unless he sees the real copy and look at the paper quality and the rest of the writing.

As for the names, most monks have a monk's name as well as their real names and nick names, so it is not surprising that Choy Fook would have a monk's name as well as his nick name and his real name.

I think the Chan Family would have too much to lose trying to make things up. I will give them the benefit of doubt. Well, that is just my opinion.

I agree with you, we should group together as one big family and work together and learn from each other.

JosephX

[iron_silk]

Can none of you write simple point form? Or at least address individuals in separate emails?

I am sorry...I didn't really refer to any points made by Bean Curd b/c I didnot take the time to read numerous (length and number) messages posted between you and Joseph.

What I did say about your signature (I assume you mean "Bean Curd") I do not see how it is a pun...considering it does mean tofu. I believe DF explained it to me on that.

I can help but notice that many of you mix facts with your own fantasy. It would take a long time to go through and proper reply to just so many different messages. That was why I liked making simple points and addressing each one without bringing personal feelings and confusing it with facts.

*takes deep breath*

You believe what you like to believe, but you have all failed to proper address any of my questions or reply.

You merely stated "I don't buy it" well I am sure you would put YOUR own last name but does not mean Chan Heung would. He is paying homage to his sifu and elevating his name to HIS SIFU would not be seemly. Besides it sounds more like a proper name to end with Fut rather than Choy Lay Chan....

All the other styles lack a name...so uses their own as to state his own family style that he created it...but in case of CLF is different b/c of different purpose. Much like comparing oranges and apples...it's still a fruit but different.

OK THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL OF YOUR OUT THERE!

if you have a point...MAKE A POINT (i.e. in point form) and not mess it up like the way aggressive own agenda pushing individuals.

Good luck to you guys cause I am sure there will be more than enough people to reply to you.

[iron_silk]

By the way...the writing of Ching Cho was always there except no one ever checked.

But I am glad to see how you are more than ready to support an nameless CLF or not practicioner.

LOOK WE CAN GO ON AND ON ALL NIGHT LONG AND THIS ISN'T GOING TO STOP...YOU KNOW THAT...EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!

Or else it would have stopped when Frank showed up.

Point form...I might reply

I am sorry to sound like a "hit and run" type but when person is "talking and talking" and not really listening...I'll just step out until they are ready to communicate.

Good Luck...I'll be taking a break.

[iron_silk]

Fu Pow

I shamely did not read your entire post...BUT I have quotedy ou before and found your new approach to be respectable and I agree to the extent of what I read.

Good one man!

[k-no]

Again, the Chan Family's cheerleader (or should I say mascot) rallies forth and opens his big mouth.

Again we see evidence of your word twisting and attempts at brainwash, extrajack-ass.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a complete idiot, that could only mean that with my families supposedly "casting dispersions" with the Chan family history, you seem to be the only one taking offence.

Case in point, here is a quote from you:

"If CLF was established in 1836 and Cheung was the founder (as declared by the CLF Union in Hong Kong and reported by Sifu Dave Lacey) that would mean CLF was founded by a 12 years old kid!

Anyone care to explain?"

YES, I will explain...explain that you are either not even bothering to read the articles or are purposely twisting words to discredit the information given. If YOU HAD READ the articles, you would KNOW that the 12 year old Chan Heung discrepancy was TAKEN from the CHAN FAMILY'S STORY, which WE are casting DOUBTS on. Yet here we have you attempting to change the facts by attributing this discrepancy to something that Sifu Dave Lacey has made up.

This is just one example of your acts of manipulation and trickery.

Does it ever stop Joseph? Don't you want to "know your father"? Would it be so bad to find out that a paternity test was not available back then so you could have been either man's son? If you listened instead of opened your mouth and exposed your forked tongue, you may learn something of value.

I would stay and play more, but I have part II of this article to format and post tonight or tomorrow morning.

Nice of you to ask, I have temp jobs here and there, but nothing permanent that allows me to go to kungfuonline at my leisure, such as yourself.

Ta ta, and let the good times roll.

k

[monk weed]

Fu pow is right! We will never know the true history Choy Li Fut. I have seen and researched all three styles of clf and all are awsome! And the the people who are teaching and passing the art to the next generation are in their own right great men. For what ever anyone thinks of Sifu Lacey or Sifu Chen yun fa, both men have great histories and in my opinion are concidered clf greats. Same goes to Lee koon hung*, Doc fai wong and all the others out there teaching clf. Even though the history would be great to know it still falls way sort of how well you know your clf.(to quote clfnole).

*I realise that lee koon hung passed away some time ago.

[extrajoseph]

Originally posted by Fu-Pow
Let me make one statement on this argument.

History is interesting to talk about, it makes for good discussion. It ranks right up there with sex, politics and religion. But much like these topics everyone has there own opinion and very seldomly is there a "correct" view. History is an emotional topic because our history helps to define our place in the world. No one wants to have the rug pulled out from under them. Unfortunately when people start getting emotional about a topic of discussion, the "discussion" quickly becomes an "argument. "

I agree with you here up to a point. We must not give up searching for the truth even though it may never be found. Much progress has been made in understanding how sex, politics and religion work because we refused to give up even though these things are difficult to handle. I feel we can do the same with history if only we could be less emotional and more rational about the topic. It is tricky but I feel it can be done given the right environment. May be a dicussions forum like this one is not the right place after all. But look at the brighter side, we have no trolls up to date, maybe history is so boring, no one wants to touch it! Lets talk about Chan Heung's sex life, his religion and politics instead! I read somewher he liked Jeurng Yim when he was a young boy (just joking)!

JosephX

[illusionfist]

If you read this thread, just read inbetween the lines. There is a lot being said that is of "generation" importance and it is from this frame of reference where the answers come. Now whether or not this debate is set up in a concise manner, well obviously at first glance it doesn't appear that way. Quite simply JoX, you bring up things and then when you are called on it, you either change the subject, go personal, etc. Bean Curd is just reciprocating the method you are using everytime you post. If you were forthcoming with your ideas and proof, i'm sure BC would be equally as forthcoming with his. Just look at everytime you asked a question of Jeung Yim, a question was asked from BC about Chan Heung. You didn't answer and beat around the bush, so what did you get? Hence the circular argument continues. The argument you purportedly are trying to avoid is the same argument you are propagating.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that you are a 5th generation player of CLF. Well being in that position, you would understand whats going on with posting only what is required for you to know the situation at hand without airing out the dirty laundry. This is good Mo Duk. Doing otherwise is just not proper decorum, especially for someone of higher generation. Then of course there are only a few things that need to be said in order for you to understand because your generation status is used as a benchmark for your knowledge. If these critieria are not evident, than what is to be said about the knowledge gained from supposed 5th generation status? Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

This is from an outsider looking in, plain and simple. Seeing these threads are disconcerting because there are always those involved who are not willing to "put up or shut up" and just want to beat around the bush. Even in your last post JoX, you said you are giving the Chan's benefit of the doubt (i guess in reference to the supposed discovery made by them). Were you even as remotely open minded towards the Hung Sing branch and their history? What about the proposition that was made by Dave Lacey on his site, and his assertsions on the usage of the name Choy Lay Fut? Did you give the same benefit of the doubt or even lend credence to the idea with unbiased eyes, even for just one second? If you did, then good for you, but your stance shows otherwise. So if there is something that makes you think contrary, just illustrate those views and let the people decide for themselves, plain and simple.

Based from your posts in recent months, you are the one at the forefront to discredit the other sides. So in this fashion, you should be the one that should display the "preponderence of the evidence" considering that all of the other CLF lineages (outside of Chan) do not give the same weight to supposed Chan family transmisions and secret documents because there are no outside references that give credence to anything that is stated. From what i have gathered, they (the elders, being 5th gen you should be one, why weren't you there?) have met on this and they are working on a discussion level trying to piece together the history. Is this not a good thing? To me it would seem quite simple to just present your evidence, even for just ACADEMIC sake, and see how it holds under the scrutiny of evidence to the contrary. Its just the proper way to do things and thats the only way BOTH SIDES will learn. Its mutally beneficial for everybody, as long as their is unity and petty lineage squabbles are checked at the door. This is how a system gets stronger. Are you willing to put the advancement of your art before your ego?

Even though i have no vested interest in any of this, i still see these changes in your stance over the past few months as a reader on this board. Please dont take offense to this, i'm just calling it like how i see it. Any clarification is greatly appreciated.

Peace

[Serpent]

Here's an idea. Why don't Bean Curd and Joseph each make a post with no personal information or disparagements at all. Just a list of questions, say 5 each to start?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Just like that, no preamble, no qualification, just straight forward questions.

Then each can post a reply with 5 answers, exactly like that. What do you think? Consider the five most important questions in your mind and list them, then answer with concise, clear, straighforward answers, backed up with whatever evidence you think relevant.

I bet you can't do it!