Lau Gar vs Lau Ga

[Ben Gash]

I've also said this about kung fu in the UK (and elsewhere). There seem to be a lot of guys trading off the fact that they've been around since the seventies, or that they're chinese, or both. For example there is a gentleman who is very senior in the BCCMA who is technically poor and claims to teach a system that no-one's ever heard of with no history or lineage that he learned from his Chinese father in law. Now if I opened up a school like that now I'd be a laughing stock, but it seems if you teach rubbish for long enough then you become respectable.
There is also another gentleman of Malay Chinese origin who goes on about his lineage from one master who is a disciple of a very famous Sifu, yet hardly ever teaches anything that that sifu taught. Instead he teaches a load of other styles completely unconnected and never divulges his lineages for them.
Both these people have a major stake in BCCMA team selections!

[AndyM]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
[B]There's a difference between being the same lineage and having the same root. B]

I think I originally said 'point of origin', but whatever terminology you use, it's very hard to carbon date the facts on either side of the Lau controversy.

As for the BCCMA Ben. Free country, but my own experience of them was uncomplicated and reasonable, which I couldn't say for the BKFA.

[custom156]

I agree that the BCCMA are uncomplicated and reasonable, which is why I am a member. I also agree that most of the directors and executives have what could be deemed dubious martial backgrounds.
As for being a laughing stock, well, it still happens on a regular basis and people still seem willing to fork out their hard earned.
I can't quite figure out why there is a lot of fence sitting regarding what seems to be called the 'Lau controversy'.
It is made up by Yau Sifu and/or his father or grandfather. Just like lots of other styles with hundreds of students, it just so happens to be more popular than most, (anyone remember Wuchia? or Hap Kune Do?) ....and here's that phrase again, so what.

[AndyM]

Originally posted by custom156
.
It is made up by Yau Sifu and/or his father or grandfather. Just like lots of other styles with hundreds of students, it just so happens to be more popular than most, (anyone remember Wuchia? or Hap Kune Do?) ....and here's that phrase again, so what.

The 'so what' for me at least, is whether or not, as you state here, Jeremy Yau and/or his grandfather did indeed manufacture the system, as this is not how the style was pitched to me some 16 years ago. The BKFA syllabus quotes quite clearly, that 'Three Eyed Lau' is honoured as the founder of the system.

[Ben Gash]

But no one can come up with any evidence against Yau's story except for going on about Hung Gar forms or some school in China no-one's ever seen.
You may not like Yau, or you may have fundamental objections to CMA schools doing semi contact, but you can't level unfounded allegations at him.
As for the BCCMA, you pay your money and you take your choice. If you don't want to do sport Wushu competitions then there's probably better organisations for you. If you do, then you'd better hope your face fits (see old thread on main kung fu forum).
I'm not a member and don't do sport wushu competitions, so they don't really affect me, other than having to put up with them in the MA press every month.

[AndyM]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
But no one can come up with any evidence against Yau's story except for going on about Hung Gar forms or some school in China no-one's ever seen.
You may not like Yau, or you may have fundamental objections to CMA schools doing semi contact, but you can't level unfounded allegations at him.

I personally, haven't made any allegations or expressed dislike for Yau as such one way or the other, merely highlighted some concerns I have.

Funny Ben, I can see why this thread might be getting up your nose a bit. I just spent the last two hours reading back to the original posts on the Southern Kung Fu forum. Every so often, up pops 'Lau Gar', with all the same things being said, just by different people, so all credit to you for even bothering to reply to this one having done so so many times in the past.

I know for a fact there are people here who are capable of giving definitive answers to some of these questions, it's just that they choose not to get involved. If I was in their position, I might well be doing the same.

[Sasha]

I'm sure this has been said before, but does it really matter? Surely it makes more sense to judge a style in its own right in the present day than to make obscure claims either for or against it based on its origin?

Personally speaking, having trained in two different kickboxing classes and a few Karate schools, I've found Lau Gar to be the best striking style for me. I'm a bit dubious about the syllabus beyond first degree black belt, since it all seems to get a bit weaponry-oriented around weapons that don't really have any practical use, I think the default level of training intensity is fairly low and openly sport-oriented (but you're encouraged to do whatever level of training you feel capable of), and there's a serious grappling deficiency, but then it's a striking art. If I want grappling (which I do) I'll take up Judo or BJJ in addition (which I hopefully will do soon). But if I can manage it given geographical limitations, I definitely want to train at least as far as first degree black belt, with the primary aim of giving myself a better level of streetfighting ability if I ever need it, because I've known high grades from the system to handle themselves much better than most other high graded TMAists I've seen. And I don't give a **** about how 'authentic' the system is.

Out of curiousity, can any of the high graded Lau Gar practitioners here describe the syllabus from 2nd to 6th degree (and anything unique that you have to learn for 1st degree)?

There's some pretty helpful info for up to brown sash on Brian Nelson's site - http://www.bknlaugar.fsnet.co.uk/ but then it all goes into Chinese. All I really know about the black belt degrees is that there's at least one sword form and some other weapons somewhere along the way.

[AndyM]

Well said Sasha.

If you're happy, I'm happy!

Sorry if you feel we've been hijacking your thread. I hope you never feel the need to question your style. It's good that you have identified areas of weakness, and are taking steps to fill in those blanks.

If I made a Martial Art out of Morris Dancing, everyone would laugh, but if I consistently proved it to be effective, then eventually people would pay heed.

There are good things and bad things in every style. I hope you find more of the former than the latter.

Anyone is free to make up a style and call it what they like, but if you are going to add weight to it by claiming a specific history, then you better be able and willing to back it up.

[phoenix-eye]

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.

[AndyM]

I have to pick some holes in that PE;

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.

Fighting and Tournaments require differing training regimen. I don't feel the Lau syllabus is particularly focussed on either.

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.

To the general public, and the majority of it's practitioners, Lau has stood up. Not everyone feels that way, and I've come across this personally from so many unrelated people, that it makes me look for the fire under the smoke.

That the current UK Lau Gar systems origin or lineage is not fully transparent is not that important

Maybe not to you, and in an ideal world, that's the way it possibly should be.

however, the underlying attitudes of each classes teacher and the students are far more important.

Amen to that.

[dirty cat]

the information seems to be their master yau gives
names,locations and even a mountian with a temple on it, surly somone can make a conection, where's shaolin master

[ironbridge#9]

gar vs ga...its just the r.......i was told as a hung ga practioner the the r is just westernization and actually a mistake that stuck,,but hell who knows a rose by any other name would still smell the same

[tparkerkfo]

Hi All,

facinating thread in many respects. I study wing chun and hung gar. My hung gar includes Lau Gar kuen and some northern stuff. I personally have no problem with the UK lau gar, though I find a lot of stuff interesting.

There were some quibbles early on in the thread regarding us Hung Kuen folks. LOL. That is OK, I think we are just trying to set the record straight and figure out whats going on. Lau Gar is one of the 5 family styles and it seems to be fairly rare. Though I have heard it is still practiced in mainland china. Though most of us arn't from there, we don't see it. So how do we reconcile the obvious distinctions between UK Lau Ga and Hung Ga Lau Ga?

From the stories that talk about Lau Gar, it is close to Hung Gar in some respects. There are only a small handfull of forms. Us Hung Gar folks beleive it is three. One fist set, one palm set, and a pole set. Perhaps there are more. What we know is that Hung Gar did bring in these sets. They ARE Lau Gar. But what we don't readily know is how much were they modified, if at all, and were there any other forms?

The UK Lau Gar is interesting since it has Many, Many forms and from what little I am aware of, doesn't have any of the ones in Hung Gar. I also once saw a website that had pictures of a form that was a wing chun form. Almost verbatum to a Yip Man form...which is distinct and unique to only Yip Man's lineage. If this form was said to be Lau Gar, then this is a lie and a misrepresentation as much as it would be to say Hung Gar's Lau Gar form is pure Hung Gar.

I would like to learn more about Lau Gar in the UK. I haven't researched it on the web lately so I will see what updates have been posted. Any one know of any video clips of any of the forms? I don't think it will be to long before we start seeing Lau Gar from mainland china poping up here and there. Mok Gar has already surfaced as well as another.

Just my thoughts
Tom
________
Amber Trichomes

[AndyM]

Hi Tom, nice to see more input.

The UK Lau Gar syllabus (as laid down in the BKFA syllabus book) is based on the forms;

Kay Boon Sau Fa
Jorn Sau
Charp Choi
Far Kuin
Fai Loong Gee
Lau Gar Luk Hup Kuin
Bac Pye Jurn

According to the book, and I realise the romanizations may be a little dodgy, these translate as;

Basic Hand Movement
Set Hand Movement
Drilling Punches
Flower Fist
Finger movement of dragon
Fist of six coordinations
Palm of the Bac Pye mountain

The second set Jorn Sau is the one you mention as having similarities to Yip Mans SLT, though there are bits possibly from Bil Jee in there too.

The third set, Charp Choi, has many similarities to SPM and I've seen it mentioned in some schools of that system, using phoenix eye strikes primarily.

[phoenix-eye]

AndyM

Are you coming to our tournament on 16 March?

I'll be doing the light continuous as well as the forms so it should be a bit of a laugh.....

Cheers
PE