Lama Pai, Hop Gar, Bak Hok

[darkie1973]

It seems to me that if you learn the basics what you're actually learning is how to move and maintain proper structure and mechanics. If you've learned that properly you don't need to learn each and every set that contains each and every possible move from any angle. You're structure will be correct and you can use your technique efficiently. As you said, they're the same techniques with small modifications

I totally agree,... the longer you've been doing Pak Hok, and IF you give thought to it, without regards to the art of the form, but purely in terms of the application of techniques from a fighting stand point, you start to see a lot of technique cross over. As an example: from kup choi, to fan gok choi, to sow choi, to gok choi,... in terms of angle of attack there's plenty of crossover,... just slight adjustment of hand position, maybe forearm position and perhaps some shoulder rotation and elbow flexion (forget about kwa, bin, or pek preceding for a moment,) and on a rudimentary level, the techniques don't differ that much from one another. When you learn the hook and overhand in boxing,.... they call it a hook and overhand; now there may be MANY different ways (hand positions, angles of attack, ways to generate power, how wide or tight they apply and when), and different coaches/trainers may favor certain ways to teach them,.... but they still just call them: hook and overhand. The poetic chinese on the otherhand (ever read the Art of War? It's a manual on how to succeed at winning a war,... THAT READS LIKE A FRIGGIN' POEM!) decided that every little variation needs its own name. And then its own form. Any now we've got a hundred sets. Basic techniques and Principles are where it's at for me now,.... still love the sets,... but more for the sake of ART.

[CharlesDaCosta]

... based on what I've seen, each set presents a little piece of additional information that wasn't there before, be it: a different footwork, a different combo, a new technique etc..etc...

which I think would just lead to a new way of interpreting what was already acquired.

Some people are very smart ... and quick to elaborate and find important keys way before certain inputs are given, many others are not and that's why I think be exposed to different sets might be useful to open and broaden the mind.

Also another part of the system that I believe is equally important as the basic techniques are are the methods of "strength and power" generation, the propaedeutical exercises that should go along with the sets.

" ... a new way of interpreting what was already acquired."

Yes if I had just one routine, I would practice it several ways, each way would be based on one of our characteristics or principles. Fore example, we have 4 characteristics that have evolved into principles that define the way we execute our techniques:

• Fast and Furious (continuous striking)
• Targeted and Powerful (single strike kill is the goal)
• Seizing and Paralyzing (grabbing)
• Soft and Flexible (Empty and Evasive)
• Low and High coordinate planes
• Attack limb or truck (including head & neck)
• Attack both limb and truck at the same time

I would do the one routine different ways, based on the above list. This would eliminate the need for having a different routine for each principle and principle deviations. Thus putting less strain on the memory and improving/shorting the time it will take to make the techniques instinctive (better approach for fighters).

There are certain technique combos that are considered core (e.g., pek-sau, dan-cup, bean-chow, dow-pow, etc.) they would have to be present.

May be we should use the rest of this thread to try to iron out what are the core techniques and principles, and how they could be put into a single routine.

[CharlesDaCosta]

I totally agree,... a lot of technique cross over. ... The poetic Chinese on the other hand ... decided that every little variation needs its own name. And then its own form. Any now we've got a hundred sets. Basic techniques and Principles are where it's at for me now,.... still love the sets,... but more for the sake of ART.

I would agree too 100%. Technique crossover exist because there are only so many ways you can throw a punch"."

But in Pak Hok, we say the basic are the real secret. For this reason, techniques and principles other than the seed fists are taught through routines. So if you want to at least see all the techniques, you need to see all the routines I think !!! or at least enough routines.

I have learned something like 14 routines, and I still don't know all the palm, elbow, and finger strikes, nor that much grabbing. I am sure there are more kicks and punches than I have seen so far too.

I could just make up my own stuff - This would be a lot easier; but then I could not call it "my family's" Pak Hok Pai, I would have to call it "Charles' Pak Hok" or something like that.

Another approach is for us to discuss what we have learned, extract what we think is "it." We then each go back to our teachers and see what they have to say.

I thinK Pak Hok needs another modernization. The days of the bad-ass are almost over, and those that are left would rather use something like a gun or ... rather than .... so the need for some secrets have disappeared.

[unyma]

But in Pak Hok, we say the basic are the real secret. For this reason, techniques and principles other than the seed fists are taught through routines. So if you want to at least see all the techniques, you need to see all the routines I think !!! or at least enough routines.

I see your point but I'm not sure I agree. Once you've learned the principles, and I'm not minimizing the effort it takes to learn and incorporate principles, the techniques take care of themselves. In my view, techniques flow from principles not the other way around. You've learned 14 routines, I'd venture to say you've done many grabs and pokes and punches and elbows. The principles would allow you to figure out how an elbow strike or finger poke would or would not work from wherever you are. You don't have to see it in a routine anymore.

Again, just my thoughts.

[darkie1973]

I could just make up my own stuff - This would be a lot easier; but then I could not call it "my family's" Pak Hok Pai, I would have to call it "Charles' Pak Hok" or something like that.

How do you think we got so many forms? Each generation of teacher would take it upon himself to catalogue what they thought was their own unique way of combining techniques or applying principles. Anatomically, there's only so many things you can do with the human body. It's only within the last century or so that TCMA's have gotten so precious with the forms. "If it's not in the form,... then it's not part of the system,... then I can't use it!" I mean,...

I have learned something like 14 routines, and I still don't know all the palm, elbow, and finger strikes, nor that much grabbing. I am sure there are more kicks and punches than I have seen so far too.

...what more do think you can do with a palm,elbow, or finger strike?! I'm afraid that (respectfully) I am going to have disagree as well. Also, as Unyma has stated,.... I don't think that there are any 'principles' to be learned in the forms,... that is to say,... there is no direct connection as far as learning is concerned from 'form' to 'principle.'

Be Ruthless,... Be Evasive,.... Penetrate defenses,.... Intercept techniques. Bend your knees,.... torque your waist,.... relax your body,.... whip your limbs. SHHH!!,... I just gave you the secret right there!

[CharlesDaCosta]

But in Pak Hok, we say the basic are the real secret. For this reason, techniques and principles other than the seed fists are taught through routines. So if you want to at least see all the techniques, you need to see all the routines I think !!! or at least enough routines.

I see your point but I'm not sure I agree. Once you've learned the principles, and I'm not minimizing the effort it takes to learn and incorporate principles, the techniques take care of themselves. In my view, techniques flow from principles not the other way around. You've learned 14 routines, I'd venture to say you've done many grabs and pokes and punches and elbows. The principles would allow you to figure out how an elbow strike or finger poke would or would not work from wherever you are. You don't have to see it in a routine anymore.

Again, just my thoughts.

Good point - if Pak hok was a system of principles and not techniques.

I have learned that the principles drive the techniques (give them power), and we have collections of techniques. Therefore you need both.

I was taught techniques first, then when I was considered good, I started learning the principles behind the techniques. Other than that I would agree with you.

A few years ago I went to my school in HK, one of my uncles saw me doing Coperia. He did not consider it Pak hok, this was even though it follows the same principles for the most part (at least I was following Pak Hok Principles). But we do not have a lot of the Techniques I did.

[CharlesDaCosta]

How do you think we got so many forms? Each generation of teacher would take it upon himself to catalogue what they thought was their own unique way of combining techniques or applying principles. Anatomically, there's only so many things you can do with the human body. It's only within the last century or so that TCMA's have gotten so precious with the forms. "If it's not in the form,... then it's not part of the system,... then I can't use it!" I mean,...

Yes, I understand and normally I would agree with you; but the issue here is I want to master the system, and it would be .... if I had not at least learned all the standard routines before jumping off into my own direction and claiming to be a Master of Pak Hok.

...what more do think you can do with a palm,elbow, or finger strike?! I'm afraid that (respectfully) I am going to have disagree as well. Also, as Unyma has stated,.... I don't think that there are any 'principles' to be learned in the forms,... that is to say,... there is no direct connection as far as learning is concerned from 'form' to 'principle.'

This is not a question of if I could do more with an elbow. The issue is do I have all the grammar (principles) and words & phrases (techniques) to say I have all of the style. And, sometimes you don't think of everything. Learning a new routine gives you something different. Therefore before I claim to have known it all, I need to have at least seen "it all!"

Actually, there is a direct connection as far as learning is concerned from 'form' to 'principle.' A good example would be "Needle in Cotton." It depend on your teacher if you learn the principles first or the technique groups first. But they do go together. At least this is how I am being taught (there is a right and a wrong way to do a routine).

Be Ruthless,... Be Evasive,.... Penetrate defenses,.... Intercept techniques. Bend your knees,.... torque your waist,.... relax your body,.... whip your limbs. SHHH!!,... I just gave you the secret right there!

If that was it, Pak hok would look like a lot of other systems --- take some styles of karate. Some Karate styles do the four things extremely well. Yes there is more to Pak Hok than that.

[darkie1973]

This is not a question of if I could do more with an elbow. The issue is do I have all the grammar (principles) and words & phrases (techniques) to say I have all of the style. And, sometimes you don't think of everything. Learning a new routine gives you something different. Therefore before I claim to have known it all, I need to have at least seen "it all!"

Seems akin to me of saying that you cannot attain a Masters Degree in English,... if you don't know the definition of EVERY WORD IN THE DICTIONARY. I understand your point,... but even the Hong Kong White Crane Athletic Assc. set about condensing the forms in the late 80's/early 90's because there is a lot of repetion within the sets. I've got about 18 sets myself (not including the variations of Luk Lek Kuen), but there comes a point when you ask yourself (at least I did,) have I truly 'mastered' any of what I have,.... or am I just looking for more stuff to 'collect.'

[CharlesDaCosta]

Seems akin to me of saying that you cannot attain a Masters Degree in English,... if you don't know the definition of EVERY WORD IN THE DICTIONARY.

You do not have to learn every word in the Dictionary to get the degree; however, you do have to know enough. So the question is, "when is it enough?" Well this is usually predetermined. Now if you want to honestly claim that you know every word in a Dictionary, then by God you should know all them. What I am talking about is knowing Pak Hok under my line. They say we have 24 routines, Therefore to know the "Complete" Pak hok you should have learned the 24 routines.

I understand your point,... but even the Hong Kong White Crane Athletic Assc. set about condensing the forms in the late 80's/early 90's because there is a lot of repetition within the sets.

Yes, they ended up with 24 routines to define the system. And, only a few members learned all 24, and a lesser number also included others they liked.

Plus, those that decided on the 24 routines took the time to learn all of the older ones before they took it upon themselves to repackage the system into just 24 routines.

This is exactly what I am planning: Learn first then change (reduce) it after.

I've got about 18 sets myself (not including the variations of Luk Lek Kuen), but there comes a point when you ask yourself (at least I did,) have I truly 'mastered' any of what I have,.... or am I just looking for more stuff to 'collect.'

Agree with you 100%, been there a long time ago. I was told that I had enough to go off in my own direction a while ago. But, then I began to meet people that have been through all the routines. I just would like to be one of them. And yes, a lot gets forgotten. I have been told that each routine offers something different. It could be as simple as a new kick or as complex as a change to the way you deliver power. This is why I want to learn all the routines.

Bottom line:

• I do not want to have to speculate what is and what is not the style according to a given line.
• Right now I do not really care to "master" any specific techs or routines; I only want to be honest when I say I have learned the whole system; Now, I do not have to be good at it (I only do it for health).

I see martial arts like any other subject - There is a set of core or basic material that the intermediate and advance stuff is built on. And then there are specialties. Many claim there are just 3 to 4 routines that make up the core of the system, and the rest is either preparation or like icing on a cake. Now, it has been declared that the system has 24 routines. I do not see the harm in learning what is the current system in its entirety before considering any changes.

Maybe a more useful discussion would be: "How could we repackage the system?"

[darkie1973]

They say we have 24 routines, Therefore to know the "Complete" Pak hok you should have learned the 24 routines.

Okay,.... gotcha. That i can agree upon,.... I think I felt that you were out to learn "every pak hok set that was ever formulated." Should I go back and read the entire thread again?! LOL!

[Gru Bianca]

I think what motivates many in wanting to know more sets it's also a deep love for the art; to nourish the art not only for the martial purpose of it but also for the artistic aspect of it (and i am not referring to the beauty of a performance)

[friday]

Hi Gru Bianca

Happy New Year! just popped into HK again for some training. Hows things?

you can send me a pm.

Thx
Friday

[CharlesDaCosta]

I think what motivates many in wanting to know more sets it's also a deep love for the art; to nourish the art not only for the martial purpose of it but also for the artistic aspect of it (and i am not referring to the beauty of a performance)

you got it!

[jdhowland]

...Tibetans are not the most forthright people, some will tell you there are no martial arts in Tibet, never were. But do you really think that there was never any fighting art in a distant, hostile land? Or among a people who conquered an empire?

Rereading this thread, I was struck by this comment and it reminded me of a conversation I once had with a Tibetan.

WARNING: The following contains another one of JD's anecdotes thrown in shamelessly to keep this thread alive.

I used to live with a Kagyupa Lama. One day at breakfast we talked about the different military strategies used by Asian and western cultures. Lama Rinchen pointed out that the western approach was to flaunt military capabilities. The Soviet May Day parades and highly visible military exercises typify the "western" approach.

"But in Asia" he said, "we say: 'Oh, we are so poor! So poor! We have nothing! We cannot hurt anyone.' While knowing that there are many caves in the mountains containing missiles."

The way he said this made me think there was something he approved of in the "Asian" approach. Even the dharma is not always taught in a straight forward manner. There is often something of the "Come, let the masters guide you and eventually it will become clear" about Tibetan Buddhism. To those of us more influenced by the Age of Enlightenment this can be distasteful, but I have learned to appreciate the oriental taste for hyperbole and aggrandizement that exists in religion and kung fu as much as anything else. Just know it for what it is.

[Shaolindynasty]

The folowing video is an example of some of the Hop Ga Traininng at my school. The 1st form is called lohan Kuen. Its very similar sequentially to the form siu lohan kuen that i've see the deng hop ga lineage do. The apps and fighting drill is the video are based on the techniques and concepts in that form. The techniques at the end are a section of the form che sin kuen.

Hop Ga Kuen/ Lama Pai Kung Fu forms & fighting drills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmsr_5V62eU


Here is a video of my student doing the form Lohan Kuen.

Hop Ga/lama Pai Lohan Kuen
http://youtu.be/2uNtH8Caru8