Hung sing, buk sing, or Chan?

[TenTigers]

the whole issue about separating from others is how ANY of these styles got their names and oral histories to begin with. From what I've gathered, a few generations back, they didn't even bother to have all these different names at all. Siu Lum Fut Ga Lo Han Kuen was a common name for all southern systems.
People don't give their system a special name or history until they have a need to-which is marketing. During the overthrow of the Chings, do you think rebels cared what the name of their Gung-Fu was? Heck no. They just trained to fight. But when the fighting is over, and the country is not in revolution, and people open up schools, well you need to attract students,and you develop New and Improved, over Brand X.
Ever look at the histories? Do you honestly think Hung Hei-Guen combined his wife's crane techniques, etc, or Ng Mui saw a White Crane fighting with a Snake, or Chang Seng-Feng saw a Hawk fighting a snake, or someone else saw a fight between a white ape and a white crane and took the injured ape home?!!(TOOK THE INJURED APE HOME!!!?)-Chris Rock voice
Did you realize that Yang Lu-Chan's story is identical to Chan Heung's?
It goes on, and on. Everyone wants to be Siu-Lum, everyone was an Imperial Guard, Everyone has the system devised to defeat all the other systems.

I am not putting down anyone's art. ALL OUR GUNG-FU IS WONDERFUL, but the 'Traditional Histories"??? I'm just a wee tad skeptical.
You guys need to stop arguing over such trivialities. It's the little things that keep us apart, and this should never be.
Don't sweat the small stuff. you know the rest.
Mo Lum Yat Ga. you guys get this, right?

[Yao Sing]

You forgot to mention how they all extracted only the combat moves (from a system of combat - figure that out) or took only the moves that work (which left what???).

That's one of my favorites.

[tungmojingjung]

Joseph,

Why is it that we, have to make up stuff, could it be possible that the Chan Family made up stuff? We feel about our own as much as you do. I concur Chan Heung was one of the sources, but he was just a source, just as Choy Fook, Lee Yau San, Chan Yuen Woo were sources for Chan Heung.

But on the flip side its not cool that we say our sources are Lee Yau San, Chan Heung and Ching Cho.

Who are the Chan Clan to tell another Clan about their birth and plight, were they there with Jeung Yim, throughout his life to state this or that isn't true? I doubt that very seriously.

Of course we have a connection to Chan Heung that can't be denied, but it also can't be denied the Jeung Yim took what he learned from Chan Heung and others developed it to his liking which was different from what he initially learned.

In the end it truly is about martial skill, the conversation about history will always be a winding road, but I think it its the equivalent to ones family, I don't know the history of your family Joseph, even though based on a christian point of view our collective source if we chose to believe would be Adam and Eve, what transpired between then and now if I wasn't there with your family how could I know their story and likewise for mine.

In the end I think its best that I respect your belief, not necessarily agreeing and likewise, in that fashion I feel the respect comes from fellow martial artist, respecting good kung fu, i've read your post and know you have a wealth of knowledge, that I find quite enlightening, in that sense the respect comes from good kung fu, superceding the great history debate.

[CLFNole]

Personally I don't buy that Jeong Yim followed Lay Yau San. Jeong Yim was said to have been brought to Chan Hueng at age 12 or 13. If in fact he did study with Lay Yau San prior to that he would have been 12 or less. Let me ask you how much at that age could he have really learned and do you think Lay Yau San would actually teach children and not one of his students instead.

I think this was created to make it look like Jeong Yim and Chan Hueng had a common sifu and were hing dai rather than teacher and student. If there is very little documentation about Jeong Yim, a point which has never been disputed, where is the evidence he studied with Lay Yau San?

I look at things like this. Chan Hueng followed three different sifus and created his own style called CLF. If Jeong Yim learned from him then learned from others and created a different style then it should have a different name. If CLF is in the name it means CLF had to come from somewhere 1st (Chan Heung) and thus it is a branch and he (Jeong Yim) is a branch founder.

This is the same with buk sing. Tam Sam altered the CLF he learned from Liu Chan and he is recognized as the creater of another branch of CLF.

If anything is not a branch of CLF then it should not have CLF in the name. Chan Heung's CLF style came first so it should be recognized as such, just the same way two great branched grew from that in the form of hung sing and buk sing.

The fact that hung sing and buk sing came from Chan Heung's CLF in no way shape or form makes it inferior, remember things can be improved and better than the original so I don't understand why some can't grasp this.

[extrajoseph]

Hi Troy,

History is part of a martial arts tradition and without it, we don't have a tradition to speak of. The record of events is independant of what we believe in and it is not about respect yours or mine belief, it is about finding out what went on in the past, so we have a solid past to reach into the future.

There are both private and public, primary and secondary source material to show Chan Heung founded CLF. If you want to argue otherwise, then please show some evidence to support your claim.

I am not questioning your faith, nor seeking your respect or approval, I am simply asking for evidence if you and Frank want to change history and make Jeung Yim the originator of CLF.

I have no problem if you say Jeung Yim contributed greatly to the development of CLF or he founder the Hung Sing branch of CLF, but don't try to replace him with Chan Heung. That is an insult to all of us who are not from the Jeung Yim lineage.

Sure in the end is about individual skills, but individual skill without a tradition anchored in principles (Kuen Li) is worthless. In that case, you don't need the name CLF, just say you do Hung Sing or Futsan Kung Fu and that will do.

XJ

[Eric Olson]

fut san's cheung kuen, ping kuen, kau da kuen, sup ji kuen and any other forms we teach were not passed down from chan heung.

Chan Heung was there first with the name Choy Lay Fut, so if Jeung Yim came along and was doing something completely different then why adopt the name CLF? And if you don't do Chan Heung's art then why don't you call your kung fu something other than CLF, it seems like a huge contradiction...

EO

[T. Cunningham]

No, apparently you don't get it. If one of Lau Bun's students was teaching taekwondo mixed with kenpo but calling it "Choy Lay Fut" and claiming it was from a place called "Queen Mui Village" I think most people in Lau Bun's lineage would be upset.

CTS has a lot of students in the NY area, more than a few have their own schools, with their own school names and different preferences in how they run their schools, no one has any issues with that.

Like I said, your own personal beef and none of my concern. And F.Y.I. the CLF mixed with kenpo has been going on for quite some time.

[hskwarrior]

are u kidding me? both jeung yim and lee yau san came from sun wui..are u telling me its completely impossible jeung yim learned from lee yau san before he was 12? oh, the information on jeung yims sifu's came down from qian wei fang who passed it down within fut san. you can doubt it all u like. but we know our history. we believe our history. most of you here have NO real connection to fut san. we do.

[CLFNole]

Even if he did how much at 12 or less could he really have absorbed and influenced his kung fu?

Lay Yau San was known to have contributed much of CLFs footwork. You have said it yourself that me line (LKH) and the Chan Family's footwork is all over the place. Why isn't this type of footwork seen in hung sing? The footwork seen between the two is a bit different, no?

Just becuase someone says something does it make it true.

[T. Cunningham]

The fact that hung sing and buk sing came from Chan Heung's CLF in no way shape or form makes it inferior...

Well stated. As has been said before, it all comes down to the individual and his/her training. After all, when did lineage ever throw a sau choy???

[cjurakpt]

Let me get this straight, because I'm getting dizzy reading this thread:

Chan Heung "founded" CLF, meaning that he was the first person to use that name as applied to his ostensibly unique fusion of the three distinct styles, correct?

He had 18 disciples, all of who, is it fair to say, had their individual take on the style to different degrees of variability; and I don't know, but obviously some, if not all of them retained the name CLF, either as such, or incontext of their own version of it (Cahan, Hung, Buk and possibly others);

therefore, you have two interweaving "themes":
1) the CLF name: this is the easiest, in a way - if anyone uses the name CLF, in any capacity, then it would seem to me (yeah, and what do I know, ok...) that they technically "owe" allegiance to Chan Heung as founder regardless of what they actually do or who else they studied with (even if it was one of CH's own teachers), because, and this is the important part, he made up the name, so if you are using CLF anywhere, you are necessarily acknowledging him as founder of that term, and by extension, whatever comes under that heading; if, on the other hand, someone studied with him and also some other people and mixed all that stuff together and called it style "XYZ", then reasonably they could argue that CH is not the "founder" per se, because by "creating" their own "style", they are taking credit (and responsibility, he he) for it;

2) the CLF "flavor": let's face it: CLF has a very distinctive "taste" to it - you can't confuse it easily w/other "southern" styles; Hung, Lama, Bok Mei, WC, etc.; at least not the eye of the relatively casual observer which to me, is actually a very good litmus test: meaning that, what would a fairly informed TMAist say watching Buk, Hung and Chan compared to each other, as opposed to Lama, BM, Mok Ga, etc.? obviously someone with no knowledge of MA at all is not a good judge, bec. to them it's all the same chop-sockey; on the other hand, a "CLF specialist" (with which the very air appears to abound at present, LOL) may in fact know too much to be able to be reliable: I mean, come on, when you get into arguing about where someone holds their chambered hand (if I did not read incorrectly in my cursory appraisal of the discussion at hand), isn't that missing the forrest for the trees? therefore, someone with a fair idea about TAsianMA (or specifically TCMA if you prefer, although I think a well-educated TJMA person or similar could be up to the task) would be a prime candidate to not miss major similarities but at the same time not get too caught up in the minutiae of how core techniques like chaap, sau, deng, pon, haut, jong, bin etc. differ from each other; in fact, I would consider myself at least very close to that definition: I studied / practiced / assisted in teaching for several years what amounts to (if I understand correctly), a hybrid of Chan and Hung Sing-CLF; so I am somewhat "in the know", but hardly an expert in CLF by a long shot; as such, to this day, when I look at other variations of it, I honestly couldn't tell you exactly which of the "big 3" is which - but I know that when I look at vids of what Lee Kwon Hung, versus Chen Yong Fa, they are both CLF;

so, maybe I am way of base here, but just my 2¢

[Yao Sing]

most of you here have NO real connection to fut san. we do.

Maybe the issue isn't about who in the past but where?

[Yao Sing]

cjurakpt
About the same here. I've learned a little CLF and I recognize when I see it and can usually pick out the LKH line but it all looks like CLF to me. I really don't get the differences and any I see I chalk up to minor variation based on individuality of the teachers.

I'm sure my version of it looks a bit different but it's still CLF, just bad CLF.

[tungmojingjung]

Joseph. You never heard me state jeung yim was the founder of choy lee fut, I stated my belief acknoledging chan heung as ancestral father and jeung yim building upon that to formulate what we futsan branch have today, that is what i'm saying, to the fact that even chan family will state its clf, but different than what they chan. Family) do.

[extrajoseph]

Dear Troy,

We all learned and very often refined what we have learned with our teacher, sometimes we even do it with our Sisuk and Sibak, but that does not make us different or have a different lineage to our teacher.

When we have a chance to set up a new school in a nearby town, we continue to acknowledge the debt that we owed to our teacher, as we became our own and developed further and gained more experience.

Jeung Yim might have built upon what Chan Heung has taught him and found a new following in Futsan, but he is still considered a student of Chan Heung, not a founder or co-founder of CLF.

I am glad you can see this clearly now.

XJ