Buck Sing Choy Lay Fut is different to other branches of Choy Lay Fut.

[David Jamieson]

isn't minimizing their relationship the old face game stuff?

1 side says tam sam defeated Ku and the or side says different.

are the sets tun ta, moi fa, bot bo, mo i and chum sam in buk sing clf or not?
if they are not there, then i agree, not much influence, if they are there, then that is influence.

there are no clf hand forms in Bak Sil Lum however.

Mind you,. the original post seems to seek to separate and not unite. At least at the most cursory level.

[nospam]

Apparently there are a few CLF hand forms in some BSL lineages. One of Ku's disciples, Lung Tse Chung, was an exchange student that spent years under the teachings of Master Tam Sam. It's said Lung Tse Chung's BSL differed slightly because of this, just as Tam Fei Pan's (son of Tam Sam) BS CLF differed slightly due to his BSL influence.

The BSL patterns that were learned and taught in BS CLF will vary from lineage to lineage. Mine only had one. More may have been taught originally to my Sigung but he only taught one BSL form and it was not shall we say..emphasized. These two styles move distinctly different. One must remember that BS CLF's primary creed is maximising movement (not just in technique alone) and time and that the true test of any technique is in combat, not in how it may look. Why would we need 1-5 or more BSL patterns? We already have enough patterns that better instill our philosophies.

People are very confused when it comes to BSL and BS CLF...especially those that have not trained BS CLF or have not been privy to our history from inside closed doors.

nospam

[Eric Olson]

And we're all CLF we should be one big extend family, branches are different but like 3 brother all from same father.

Violent Designs, are you the poster previously known as Infrazael?

EO

[CLFNole]

Yeah, right.

[Eric Olson]

no?

What style do you do and who is your teacher?

EO

[hskwarrior]

Thank you nospam, that was a good post.

and you know what? the more i think about it, i tend to agree more and more with Nospam's lineage using the Buk Sing Fut Gar instead of Buk Sing Choy Lee Fut. I mean, in the reality of it, compared to Jeung Hung Sing learning from the Green Grass Monk (1841-1849), Jeung Hung Sing didn't learn that much Chan Family CLF (1836-1841). And, when Jeung Hung Sing opened his school in 1851, he didn't do so in the name of Choy Lee Fut. He did so in the name of Fut Ga, since it was the only system he fully completed.

Let me break it down like this:

Chan Heung taught Jeung Ah Yim in 1836 for only 5 years until 1841. Chan Heung's CLF was NOT in it's complete form since it was a brand new system.

And, from 1841-1849 (8 Years) Jeung Ah Yim was learning the Fut Gar system under the Green Grass Monk. Now, during those 8 years, Chan Heung continued to evolve HIS CLF, and Jeung Ah Yim was NOT present to pick up any of the new material from that 8 year period.

When Jeung Hung Sing completed his training under the Green Grass Monk, it was the latter that instructed him to go to Fut San and open a school. This happened in 1849/1850. Now, the question gets asked......"if Jeung Hung Sing didn't learn too much CLF, then what was he teaching in Fut San?"

Well, plain and simple, Jeung Hung Sing knew more Fut Gar than he did of Chan Heung's CLF, and the few years of Lee Gar he picked up from Lee Yau San. So the answer would be FUT GAR. But since Jeung Ah Yim's gung fu consisted of some Lee Gar, early early CLF, and FUT GAR, another name for what Jeung Hung Sing was teaching was "HUNG SING KUEN."

BUT, from the dates of 1841 to (around) 1867, Jeung Hung Sing was busy in Fut San with the Tai Ping Rebellion, and his involvement with the Hung Society and NOT promoting nor TEACHING Chan Heung's Choy Lee Fut. he was promoting the HUNG MUN, and himself.

Certain Chan Family masters have placed Jeung Hung Sing in Fut San in 1867. And at this point it could very well be that Jeung Hung Sing did come back into the picture of Choy Lee Fut. Yet, till this day, NOTHING is taught within the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon that comes from the Chan Family CLF branch. There is NOTHING within our gung fu that says CHAN HEUNG.

So i understand the Buk Sing lineages whole purpose now in expressing their own identity. i can actually appreciate that. but because Jeung Hung Sing was a short time student of Chan Heung, it doesn't mean we are from that lineage. Our essence is different, or emphasis and even forms are completely different.

So it becomes more clear to me, that with the actions of buk sing, maybe the Hung Sing lineage should take a stronger stand in expressing our own identity.

HUNG SING KUEN!

[Eddie]

I cannot help but wondering. We are making assumptions about the relationship between Chan Heung and Jeung Ah Yim, and based allot of our arguments and bickering on this.

The concept of guanxhi – or relationships are very different in china and form a very important part of Chinese culture. We should not overlook this to try justify our own ideas.

Maybe Jeung Ah Yim was happy for Chan Heung to be credited as founder of CLF, because of this very fact. Frank, you are happy to give credit to Sifu Dino and GM Laubun, don’t you think this is the same?

[hskwarrior]

i think Jeung Hung Sing could have been happy for chan heung indeed. But, for someone to claim that we all come from chan heung is another story altogher.

However, after all my research, i feel that jeung hung sing was not the "CHOY LEE FUT" disciple like some would like us to believe. He was too busy with the green grass monk, and the revolution. still, if you're not a Fut San Hung Sing disciple, then you wouldn't understand our position.

[chasincharpchui]

does anyone have/ can upload the black&white videos of Jun Heen Kune fighting:

Hung Fut, Wing Chun, and Tong Long.

they use to be on Youtube, but the person that uploaded them has since had his account suspended. would love to see those fights again

[diego]

LE: The next questions I have are about the Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut style. Can you tell me about the history of Choy Lay Fut, what makes it unique, and what is special about your own interpretation of the style?

CKC: Choy Lay Fut was founded in the 19th century by Chan Heung, who was born in King Mui Village in the Sun Wui district of Kwang Tung province. It was named after three teachers who taught him different styles: Choy Gar, Lay Gar, and Fut Gar. Chan Heung taught Cheong Hung Sing and Lui Chaun. Lui Chaun in turn taught his student, Tam Sam, who started the Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut school. Unfortunately, there was a rivalry between the different schools. He changed some things from what he had been taught, including the chap choy. Tam Sam was famous for his lian huan chap choy (continuous stabbing strike). Tam Sam taught Lung Chi Cheung, who in turn taught Wong Yuen Lo, who taught me.

The main difference between Choy Lay Fut and other styles is the use of full power, which is generated from long hand movements, strong ma bu and footwork, and whole body turning. Choy Lay Fut practitioners also prefer to enter from the side when they fight, from the outside gate, rather than trying to meet an opponent head-on. It is more open than tighter styles, like Wing Chun or Bak Mei, Nan Tong Long, etc.

The openness is necessary in order to generate the power. The tighter the style, the less the power. Take the idea of the one-inch punch. From a Choy Lay Fut perspective, this is like trying to shoot an arrow by only pulling back one inch on the bowstring. One inch punch, one inch good fight, or one inch longer, one inch more power, is an old saying. Choy Lay Fut generates more power to fight. Killing power.

There are quite a few differences between the Choy Lay Fut styles. The chap choy, for instance, is done differently, based on Tam Sam's modifications. There are also secret differences, of course.

LE: When you say Choy Lay Fut is a more open style, is that because the focus is more on generating a powerful offense that will put an end to a fight quickly, rather than on adopting a careful defense?

CKC: The training is open; if it is applied wrongly in combat one is certainly vulnerable to counterattack. Sometimes students do adopt a position that is too open because they are eager to deliver a powerful blow. In my personal interpretation of the style, I changed some moves from long to middle, and sometimes short. If you have good footwork, with one short step you can enter and win the fight, so my style uses some short moves that other Choy Lay Fut practitioners usually don't. From my experience fighting, I find that many moves are too slow to set up and execute, even though they generate a lot of power if they work. More speed means more power, and you need to find a balance that is effective.

One example of my own innovation is a change I made to the sow choy. When I go back to Hong Kong, the old masters say, that's not sow choy! But I changed it based on my experience. I turn my hand with the knuckles pointing up, rather than to the side - this way you still use the whole arm, but you're not going to break your hand. My Sigung would complain that I was always changing things, but I change the forms to make them better based on my experience.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/...hp?article=996

I turn my hand with the knuckles pointing up, rather than to the side - this way you still use the whole arm, but you're not going to break your hand.

is there any pictures or video showing the different sow Choi's knuckles pointing up vs knuckles pointing to the side?.

[hskwarrior]

I drew this some time back.....these are how we use them. you'll notice the shaded areas are the striking surfaces.