Hung sing, buk sing, or Chan?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Unless I'm missing something...

Where is it being said that the Chan Family is telling everyone that they are better? I haven't read any of that at all....

And until the last 75 years ago or so, almost no style had fixed sets; people learned them and transmitted them to others - sometime they added moves, sometimes they subtracted moves.

Only recently, as people became more literate (we all know that going back a 100 years or even less, many chinese couldn't write) and took the time to record their forms through books and other media, did forms get passed down in their unaltered shape.

Hung Ga as we know it today, got created in the early 1900's by WFH, and more additions through LSW in the 20's/30's. Wing Chun was passed on by YM's students, but it seems like he created the sets, no one else does that WC unless they came through him. These styles are now passed on in their 'new' original form.

CLF has always seemed to change, along with almost every other type of KF. And I think that's cool. I also think it's cool to see exactly what CLF people were doing 170 years ago. Is it better, than a more modern version? Actually, I wouldn't think so, but I do enjoy doing some of them older forms.

There is nothing wrong with being different; but CLF schools should stop arguing about what or who is better.

Peace

Am I correct in saying that Lau Bun came from the Hung Sing school in Fut San? If that is so, isn't it true that their forms are different from the forms that Lau Bun taught? See, it doesn't matter if the forms are the same, it doesn't matter if they are different. There are right ways and wrong ways to do techniques. And I'm not talking about individual differences. As long as everyone is doing them right, we are all them same.

[seisei]

Some members of the chan clan Insinuate ,leading some to believe, not nessecarily saying.....My sifu Lau,Bun learned in/at yuen hai's home at his older years and cared for him at his old age and till he passed on ,also learning from yuen hai's wife ,.my sifu orignally came yuen hai's line not chan sing's line yuen hai changed some of his methods in his older years so we differ from f/s.even with in H/S schools they differ somewhat that is not a bad thing he was in the establishing generation.We are not arguing who's better we saying we are different and have nothing to do with them,actually we are very sociable with each other and we only have between 3-5 Main hand sets not 200+
m

[hskwarrior]

actually, fut san of today has lost alot of old material. the lau bun material is original fut san closest to its source. fut san hsk material also changed when chan ngau sing took over. what never really changed was whats in our clf. the lau bun and chui kwong lineages have strong similarities and contain all the elements that are connected to fut san.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

But don't you see, by claiming what you have learned was 'closer to the source', isn't that exactly what the Chan people say?

That is what I don't get, who cares if it's closer to the way it was done 170 years ago? Why does everyone immediately attach themselves to the 'older being better' way??

Who cares if there are differences? THERE ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVERYONE!

It just seems like you Fut San Hung Sing guys are doing the same things that you complain about....

And Frank, to say that in all fairness, 'we have nothing to do with them', is a little bit of a reach, don'cha think??

Face facts everyone, we all do Choy Lay Fut, wether you want to say Chan Heung, his student, his co-founder, or Moses from the mountain, it's still 75% the same all across the board.

The trunk of the tree is the same. It's just the branches that have each grown in their own direction. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to say, as a branch, that you have nothing to do with the tree...well....that doesn't really make much sense now, does it?

Peace

[Lama Pai Sifu]

actually, fut san of today has lost alot of old material. the lau bun material is original fut san closest to its source. fut san hsk material also changed when chan ngau sing took over. what never really changed was whats in our clf. the lau bun and chui kwong lineages have strong similarities and contain all the elements that are connected to fut san.

To be honest Frank, that is your opinion, you don't know that for a fact. In fact, I don't think that it could be proven one way or another at this time. And what is the difference anyway? If you like the stuff you learned, cool. Be cool with it and forget about the CLF drama.

Peace, my brother.

[nospam]

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.

..interesting. Sounds familiar.

It's all good.

nospam

[diego]

But don't you see, by claiming what you have learned was 'closer to the source', isn't that exactly what the Chan people say?

That is what I don't get, who cares if it's closer to the way it was done 170 years ago? Why does everyone immediately attach themselves to the 'older being better' way??

Who cares if there are differences? THERE ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVERYONE!

It just seems like you Fut San Hung Sing guys are doing the same things that you complain about....

And Frank, to say that in all fairness, 'we have nothing to do with them', is a little bit of a reach, don'cha think??

Face facts everyone, we all do Choy Lay Fut, wether you want to say Chan Heung, his student, his co-founder, or Moses from the mountain, it's still 75% the same all across the board.

The trunk of the tree is the same. It's just the branches that have each grown in their own direction. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to say, as a branch, that you have nothing to do with the tree...well....that doesn't really make much sense now, does it?

Peace

just something that popped in my head...the older it is wouldn't it be more related to war...like the flow of the combo's. wfh created it one hundered years ago when dudes had guns...in my mind the monks who he inherited tiger claw from prolly used the method three hundered years prior to wfh put those combo's into forms. so, a monk studied some war tactics added some form to it and taught it to fighting monks who taught it to bodygaurds who taught it to their nephew wfh...the bodygaurds form would be more killer than wong's as he was just a doctor prolly had bar room fights, wheras his uncle the body gaurd prolly use dthe claws to catch thieves and stab them...so it's like the older master is the wiser coach.

everyone could have the basics, but some kung fu schools are sport based like the community meets on sunday for recreation and games...than you have military schools. chen tai chi looks way more powerful than standard yang style at the rec center!.werd

[jdhowland]

I sense two main ideas coming out of this discussion: 1) all "CLF" derives from some serious whoop-ass gung fu and much of it is related to some degree, so we should be proud of our common heritage and recognize other practitioners as acorns from the same big tree. 2) each branch is a separate entity which can be modified at the master's whim without breaking any rules.

To me these are saying the same thing. We like our Buk Hung Sing Fut Ga Kuen and are pleased to share our enthusiasm with others no matter what we call the style. Responses to this thread are good examples of proper use of this forum. Ideas have been placed on the table with honesty and no name calling. I'm proud to "know" you all. (sniff)

To continue with the original question of Buk Sing, Hung Sing or Chan... does anyone think these designations may be less important to future generations (or dropped entirely in some schools)?

Be well,

jd

[Eric Olson]

We like our Buk Hung Sing Fut Ga Kuen and are pleased to share our enthusiam with others no matter what we call the style.

So it seems that, based on the name change, Bak Sing no longer wants to be identified as Choy Lay Fut....any particular reason?

EO

[Eric Olson]

just something that popped in my head...the older it is wouldn't it be more related to war...like the flow of the combo's. wfh created it one hundered years ago when dudes had guns...in my mind the monks who he inherited tiger claw from prolly used the method three hundered years prior to wfh put those combo's into forms. so, a monk studied some war tactics added some form to it and taught it to fighting monks who taught it to bodygaurds who taught it to their nephew wfh...the bodygaurds form would be more killer than wong's as he was just a doctor prolly had bar room fights, wheras his uncle the body gaurd prolly use dthe claws to catch thieves and stab them...so it's like the older master is the wiser coach.

everyone could have the basics, but some kung fu schools are sport based like the community meets on sunday for recreation and games...than you have military schools. chen tai chi looks way more powerful than standard yang style at the rec center!.werd

This is the source of most quarrels in kung fu ie who knows the forms that are "oldest", "most original", "closest to the source", etc. etc. However, as I think we've pretty well established on many levels in the main forum, forms are not really going to make you a great fighter. They are some parts conditioning tool, technique practice and encyclopedia of techniques. But the kung fu form is kind of the "jack of all trades, master of none" training tool.

In additon, as many have pointed out, forms are a relatively recent development. And the proliferation of forms only happened after the invention of the gun when martial arts were less necessary for survival. However, there is an old Chinese cultural prejudice that older=better and so many teachers, I believe, tried to make their forms seems older than they really are, trying to tie them to old religious and revolutionary organizations like the Shaolin Temple, for example.

So what does it all mean for kung fu traditionalists who want to quarrel about whose forms are oldest or most original? I think that there will always be adherents to the viewpoint that there style is the most original, but ultimately its pretty meaningless and the person that will be a great fighter is the one that practices fighting a lot through sparring and realistic two-man drills and is in very good shape from diligent conditioning.

I'm still not sure what role forms can play. In some ways they are a distraction but they also are a great starting material for techniques. So maybe there is a way preserve the techniques without actually having to practice the forms?


EO

[jdhowland]

So it seems that, based on the name change, Bak Sing no longer wants to be identified as Choy Lay Fut....any particular reason?

EO

None that I know of. Perhaps I should have called it "Bak Sing Chan Hung Choy Lay Fut Ga."

My first CLF teacher taught what he called (and spelled) "Buck Sing Choy Lee Fut." He never seemed to mind if we called it simply "Choy Lee Fut."

EO: the "Buk Hung Sing Fut Ga Kuen" designation was a feeble joke, or the name of an all-inclusive secret society, if you prefer.

[Eric Olson]

EO: the "Buk Hung Sing Fut Ga Kuen" designation was a feeble joke, or the name of an all-inclusive secret society, if you prefer.

Haha.....

[hskwarrior]

See,

its ok for you if you don't really care about anything but learning Choy Lee Fut. Thats fine. but there are those of us who DO care about who we are, where we're from, and so forth.

You Mike, you have a few CLF forms here and there, but no real CLF teacher to pass that on to you. No offense by that comment, but my CLF lineage reaches of 150 years or more. No breaks in our lineage. No big time gaps. No read degree of separation for my lineage.

See, Professor Lau took the most originaly material of the Hung Sing Kwoon prior to Chan Ngau Sing and continued to pass it down to us including fighting concepts and what not. the only real change in our gung fu from fut san was that the three main forms at the time all had the same type of techniques in it so Professor Lau combined all 3 into our Sup Ji Kau Da Kuen as it is taught to us today.

as i said, you not really caring about that is okay with me. I care. my sifu cares, and so does all the members of the Lau Bun lineage.

Now yes the chan family CAN have material closest to their source. But Our source is NOT their source. You talk about one tree and roots to that tree. but that one tree has many roots. just like CLF has many founders to it. NOT just chan heung. Those roots are responsible for making CLF what it is today.

oh, and BAK HSing Fut Gar may be an existing link to the truth that Jeung Hung Sing didn't call his original method CLF, but Fut Gar Zheng Jong. So Bak Hsing or buk Sing has their own identity and nothing wrong with that. They can't deny in one way or another their original roots are straight up Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut. They can never change that. But what they did with their gung fu should be commended.

in regards to forms........when it comes to fighters, forms then and forms now are the least important aspect of Martial Arts. They all want to know how to use it right now, and not 10 years from now. So it makes you wonder how one family can claim to be in the revolution, but still have over 200 forms. How and when did they ever find the time to put forms together while fighting in the revolution, and training to use their gung fu?

I was talking with sifu today. I said, you know why there was no written information going back to jeung yim's days? I told him, when you were involved with the streets, did you want anyone knowing anything about you? his response was simply "EFF NO! I didn't want the cops or rivals knowing SHEET about me. Especially the media."

Then i said to him, Jeung Yim was called a gangster cause he was a member of the Hung Mun and fighting all the time. for someone like him labeled as a gangster do you think Jeung Yim wanted anyone to know anything about him? He was wanted by the government, soldiers, other gung fu masters. So when thinking of this, it makes total sense why there are no Kuen Po's or historical records of Jeung Yim's time. They just didn't want no one knowing sheet about them!

To be honest Frank, that is your opinion, you don't know that for a fact. In fact, I don't think that it could be proven one way or another at this time. And what is the difference anyway?

Proof is in the pudding, opinions in my case are made off of pudding proof.
Fut San Has lost alot of old material. My lineage has not. Chui Kwong Yuens' lineage also teaches Hung Sing CLF very very similar to that of the Yuen Hai lineage. when the two can be compared to each this way, then there is one thing between us then. Truth. Truth of what is universal Hung Sing CLF. OUR gung fu, not what you do.

Mike, you don't do fut san hung sing CLF and can't really comment on it, the same way i can't comment on chan family clf. but i can tell you with the utmost confidence in the world.......chan family clf and fut san clf are not the same thing. never was.

Pls don't take offense to wht i said, you know my passion. peace.

[Eric Olson]

oh, and BAK HSing Fut Gar may be an existing link to the truth that Jeung Hung Sing didn't call his original method CLF, but Fut Gar Zheng Jong. So Bak Hsing or buk Sing has their own identity and nothing wrong with that. They can't deny in one way or another their original roots are straight up Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut. They can never change that. But what they did with their gung fu should be commended.

So why refer to CLF at all in your name? Why not call it what Jeong Yim called it and say Fut Gar Zheng Zhong? Wouldn't that be more accurate?

EO

[seisei]

Eric,I would agree with you on the title of the name change except that our usage of the H/S name and clf have been mainstream so long ,that it probably would only confuse people.
m