Hung sing, buk sing, or Chan?

[Eddie]

Question to Frank.
If you create your own basic form… lets say something like gei boon keun (or I think you once said you created Fut Jeung Kuen?), what style would that then be? Hung Sing, Buk Sing or Chan?

Another question… you guys mentioned SMF isn’t a fut san form. You saying futsan doesn’t have SMF? Which forms are part of futsan again?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I don't get why any of this matters. It's just another example of people trying to create seperatism so that they can be superior. It has happened thoughout the centuries...just look at religion.

So what...some schools have a different fighting strategy, some schools use or favor some different concepts, some schools add in some other techniques from other styles, so what??

If certain branches want to call themselves Fut Ga, or a different branch of CLF, who really cares??? The convienent thing is, that if no one does the same 'ANYTHING', then no one can be compared to anyone else (judged and measured) can they?

Everyone is always about their 'secret' shit that their branch has that no one else has...LOL, it's a riot.

[Eddie]

no, Im with you. Im just getting a little annoyed with all this separation, that’s all. Kinda taking the fun out of being part of the CLF community these days.

[seisei]

Eddie,

If all that sifu Frank learned is Hung Sing as all of his writings suggest, then all he could be is Hung Sing. if he put other branch methods in a made form, it would not be any of the three you mentioned, it would be a hybrid or mixed C.L.F. variation. Futsan primary forms are: Lin Wan, Chung, Ping, Kow Da and a few basic performing and/or excercise forms. anything with Mui Fah "Plum Blossom" in the name is Chan Branch. When Jeong "Yim" Hung-Sing went to Ching Cho to learn that interpretation of Buddhist styles and methods,that he decided to teach him at that time in history forever changed whatever Hung Sing learned beforehand, including what Hung Sing MAY have learned of the Chan Style in the Chan Village whatever it was called at that time . Hence, comes a different way. Our founder is Hung Sing who attributed his new point of view to solely the Ching Cho Monk. The Chan people have Chan as their complete mentor.
We feel some of the Chan people just want everyone to follow them, making people believe all C.L.F. is theirs, "NOT TRUE"! They (the Chan branch) have their ways and beliefs and everyone else has theirs. We do not have any resentment towards anyone, we are just separate. My Sifu Lau Bun has alwas taught us that our founder was Jeung (Hung Sing) Yim and my Sigung (Yeun, Hai) was one of his senior students. So far at least, I agree with sifu Frank in his assesment of our history.

m.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I didn't think that Eddie was disputing anything that Frank has said....did I miss something??

I dont' even think that anyone disputes this story, (Hung Sing story).

I didn't know that the Chan Family (and who might they be exactly or do you mean just anyone who practices the method of CLF from Ging Mui Village??)
was trying to get everyone under their banner...

There are different versions of CLF, no biggie. The version that I learned from my Sifu has elements of both Chan family and Hung Sing. My Sifu learned from a bunch of CLF people, including Chan Sai Mo, who was Chan Goon Bak's student. He also learned from some Hung Sing people, because we have forms that have many elements of Hung Sing sets, both in structure and technique, i.e., "L" shaped hoi Jungs, etc.

Some of our sets are definatly "Chan" like and some "Hung Sing".

To me, it's all CLF, no matter who I credit as the founder(s). I don't worship Chan Heung or Jeong Yim, so what's the difference? People seem so fierce in the convictions when it comes to who founded what. I say, "So What"? It seems more important that you train hard and set a positive example of what real Gung-Fu is. Who it exactly came from, seems kind of secondary. I recognize my teacher's teachings and respect him accourdingly. I teach my students about our styles history, but probably talk more about my training and my teacher, as these are events that I can accurately cronicle...as in, I was there. Everything else, as documented as it is, is up for a bit of speculation. Exact dates, times, places and people are hard to nail down as total facts. Fact is, you write history everytime you put something into print. Someone else copies it and believes it.

I think we should all talk more about where the styles are going, as upposed to where they were 200 years ago. Not that it's not important, but it's not AS important.

Just my opinion...

[seisei]

Lama Pai Sifu,
I myself have been in the United States most of my life and in this manner I understand what you are saying .But, most Chinese are very into and proud of our own history and family roots including kung fu roots. On this forum (no one person in particular) a lot seems to run along the Chan side for being the roots of CLF.As for the seperation of branches that will in my opinionwill always be there even if its below the surface to. I want to thank all Americans for the respect and Dedication to our chinese cultures of Kung fu ,food music ,writings and various other things .Seeings It was not so long ago for some of us still living ,still remember how westerners treated us . But ,to that end we will always be stong in our clan beliefs, that is just the way we are.And from your eyes, westerners, kung fu is kung fu that in itself is a good thing.As I interpet what you are sayng is that you do not wish to get into our roots differences and just keep doing CLF,I agree and say keep up the good work.Finally (just a Thought) some styles or even branches were even invented to fight other branches and styles that they don't trustSo I hope you can see things from a different angle.
m

[hskwarrior]

eddie, my sisook gung is correct, all i know is hung sing clf, so whatever i or my sifu create would always be hung sing clf. now if i added in chan fam stuff, it wouldnt be hung sing anymore. on the other hand i can take a chan fam form and hung singify it.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Lama Pai Sifu,
I myself have been in the United States most of my life and in this manner I understand what you are saying .But, most Chinese are very into and proud of our own history and family roots including kung fu roots. On this forum (no one person in particular) a lot seems to run along the Chan side for being the roots of CLF.As for the seperation of branches that will in my opinionwill always be there even if its below the surface to. I want to thank all Americans for the respect and Dedication to our chinese cultures of Kung fu ,food music ,writings and various other things .Seeings It was not so long ago for some of us still living ,still remember how westerners treated us . But ,to that end we will always be stong in our clan beliefs, that is just the way we are.And from your eyes, westerners, kung fu is kung fu that in itself is a good thing.As I interpet what you are sayng is that you do not wish to get into our roots differences and just keep doing CLF,I agree and say keep up the good work.Finally (just a Thought) some styles or even branches were even invented to fight other branches and styles that they don't trustSo I hope you can see things from a different angle.
m

Seisei,

Thanks for the post, I really appreciate all that you have written. Please don't misunderstand my intentions though; I actually have spent a great deal of time, doing research into both my styles (Lama and CLF) and am well versed in each of their histories. I'm not saying that they are not important, but I believe that we most also be diplomatic in our relationships with styles related and not related to our own.

Although I have my share of disagreements and arguements with people in person and especially on this forum, I believe it is in the best interest of everyone to be focused on the future and not to dwell on the past. It's imporant to honor our founders, respect our elders and embrace out history, but none of that means anything unless we look towards the future.

I'm not really sure what all the fighting between branches is all about anyway; if you want to pay respects to one teacher or another, or acknowledge one person over another,..than what's the big deal? No one has 100% of the history correct anyway...LOL, there has been far too much info lost and/or filled in by others. Why argue over things you can't actually prove 100%? If you have video or certfied docs...then yes, you can prove something. But why fight over stuff that you aren't 100% on???

I say, 'focus on what you are going to do with you CLF, not what you will prevent others from doing with it'.

Take Wong Doc-Fei for a moment; this guy has done more for CLF than any other person, in my opinion.** Whether you like him or hate him (personally, I like him) you have to cheer him on that he has put the style in books, magazines, videos and had an association that is truly international/multi-continental. This guy is not bickering...he's promoting himself and his art. If you ask me, he's the smartest CLF guy out there.



** Don't get yourselves in a tizzy. I think he's done a tremendous amount to promote the art. nuff said!

[seisei]

Lama Pai Sifu,
Nice response, all is good, keep practicing hard and all the good work. All that really counts is block ,stop,disable.. As for Jimmy Wong(Doc Fai) we had the same teacher Lau,Bun.
M

[Eddie]

Seisei,


I say, 'focus on what you are going to do with you CLF, not what you will prevent others from doing with it'.

Can I use that as a signature line?

Sesei,
Im not disputing anything Frank said, Im using him as an example as he is my friend and I know he will understand what Im trying to get at without getting all worked up.

Maybe the point behind my post has been lost.

Thanks for the good post.

[nospam]

Eddie

If the intention of a new form is to show one's style, then in Frank's case he would be showing his interpretation of Hung Hsing.

It is not uncommon in my Gar for the disciple to create their own jeen kuen to better show and help teach that disciple's understanding of the style. Generally these are add-ons. We use the jeen kuen as a training tool..as are the purpose of all forms.

nospam

[hskwarrior]

now to touch on the subject,

yes, if any of us created a new form, it will be of your specific lineage. thats if you relied on what you learned and not others or other systems.

I have created a form or two and passed it down to my students. thats how we evolve.

but i want to say this......to anyone who thinks they are Hung Sing Fut San.

In our gung fu, there are very specific things we look for when you say you are hung sing, or have our L shape pattern.

To be real, its not about the L shape pattern. anyone can put in the pattern. But Hung Sing CLF is not like that of Chan Family except for the 10 seeds. our forms are different, our essence is different, and our approaches are different. just like how buk sing is different in the fact that they developed their gung fu for them.

Yes choy lee fut is CHOY LEE FUT. but what is Choy Lee Fut? is it just the Chan Family? is it Just Hung Sing or Buk Sing? Eff No!

Choy Lee Fut today is comprised of all the schools, methods, approaches, and whatever. Its not Chan Family, Its not Hung SIng and its Not Buk Sing. Choy Lee Fut of old has transformed into the Choy Lee Fut of today.

because i Don't know Chan Family CLF, nor Buk SIng CLF, I can only claim to be a proud member of the Fut San Hung Sing lineage. and when i look at the other systems, other than buk sing, i don't see any connection at all.

But we are still choy lee fut, not under ONE founder but ALL founders of Choy Lee Fut.

[nospam]

Sam Sing Yat Gar!

nospam

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I'm not trying to be adverserial here, at least not today, lol.

That being said, I don't really understand why this is a source of contention for many people on here.

The fact is, NO ONE does anything the same as anyone else. Even if you are from the same teacher, everyone developes their own methodologies, strategies, and tactics when it comes to fighting. What I'm getting at here is...

So what? So what if Hung Sing forms/strategies are different from Chan Family, or Buk Sing? I mean really,....so what? Why is there the constant need to be different from everyone, present in TCMA?

• So what, the forms (patterns) are different.
• So what, they are played differently.
• So what that one styles utilizes a specific techniques or core concept more than another style?
  

All these styles use the same Seeds, no?

So what that each school has different ancestors up on their wall, what's the big deal? Does it change what you do? No it does not. Does it make you better? No - YOU make you better. You can go to the best teacher on the planet and still you may suck. Conversely, you may train with a mediocre teacher and develop some very good skills.

I don't really see why many people on here are always bickering about who was the founder, if there was a co-founder, who got kicked out, how many forms do these guys have, blah, blah, blah.

I can understand why people are proud of their heritage, but I think it gets a little ridiculous. Just do your shit, and stop trying to make everyone see your point of view. Sometimes, it's good to get into it a bit with people on here, when it comes to history, authenticity, etc. But I don't even know what everyone is getting at anymore?

Yes, the styles have some differences, SO WHAT? How long does everyone have to keep saying "I'M DIFFERENT, I'M DIFFERENT!"

What are any of you trying to prove at this point? Doesn't everyone already acknowledge the differences??? And if they don't, does it matter???

I just don't get it....

[seisei]

I believe a lot of other clf teachers and practioners are wishing to distance themselves from the chan clan because since the begining, the rest of clf has went off and grew on their own. All the chan clan can do is claim that their methods are their own, and not try to overshadow everyone else because they some (200?) books that possibly show their sets insinuating they have the most and trues knowledge and you must go to them for the "REAL DEAL"leading people to believe that they are the highest clf around ,not so, that is just a financial business ploy. there are a lot of hung sing and buk sing teachers and students out there that easily overshadow the chan system followers.But a vast majority of us are taught to keep low profiles or stay to ourselves (chinese/asians),as history has taught us, that is our nature
my belief is there is western peoples kung fu and their is chinese kung fu both are good but different the same goes for the clf groups,rember the original name of hung sings cllf was hung sings fist, some of us think we should go back to that and leave clf name. these are just a few of my personal thoughts not meant to slight anyone purposly. hopefully you will come to understand us better. western students are truly sincere in the martial arts quests,that is a good thing,but unfortunatley they got involved in our clanish culture.which we believe is completly valid.
m