I feel the discussion over whether the style is "real" is irrelevant. What it boils down to is how the style is taught and learned
Anyone can have studied a traditional style and alter it to be taught in a "non-traditional" way. It is far harder to take a "non-traditional" style and teach it in a traditional way.
The simple fact is that many Lau Gar instructors have been successful tournament fighters and have tailored their teaching to suit their own preferences and to meet the general publics' demand for combat "sports".
However, this change in emphasis makes it very hard to then trace back the traditional roots of the style. Lau Gar has proved very successful for Jeremy Yau so why would he want to "traditionalise" what is a successful brand and take a risk?
Coming from a Lau Gar background, which is now shifting its emphasis onto Hung Gar as AndyM will know, my Sifu has always taught the Lau Gar syllabus in as near a traditional manner as it allows. However, even my sifu recognises that the syllabus has been designed for westerners to achieve success in fighting, which happened to be expressed primarily at tournaments. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. The tournament aspects have been taught as a separate class at my club and emphasis in the "kunfg fu" class has been on developing strong basics as per a "traditional" system.
At the end of the day - the person who is training makes the decision between "traditional" or "non-traditional" by how they approach their training.
It would be very hard for Jeremy Yau to invent the Lau Gar system and for it to stand up for so long if he himself had not been well versed in a traditional system. That the current UK Lau Gar systems origin or lineage is not fully transparent is not that important - however, the underlying attitudes of each classes teacher and the students are far more important.
For info - my club is not affiliated to the BKFA of Jeremy Yau.
"We had a thing to settle so I did him"
Tamai, 43, was quoted by Police as saying.