Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut forms

[hskwarrior]

I wasn't a big fan of BSCLF to honest with what limited exposure I had.

so what weren't you impressed with in regards to buk sing? the lack of forms?

[iron_silk]

so what weren't you impressed with in regards to buk sing? the lack of forms?

I didn't say whether I was "impressed" or not but rather it wasn't for me. It wasn't the lack of forms but rather the way they moved in the forms. Again only based on my limited exposure.

I am sorry if the way I said it sounded insulting and for that I apologize.

I just meant BSCLF from the way it was presented wasn't something I was very much interested in.

Keep in mind I am a forms guy and didn't get into kung fu for martial arts application. That came later in life...

Ironically enough when I started to want to get more involved in application I met BSCLF master who was simply amazing and made me look at the her (and to some degree the art) in a different light.

What makes CLF, HSCLF, BSCLF is that different teachers do it differently. Some more forms emphasized and others more combat oriented.

I have been amazed in some cases where I had no idea CLF could be done that way.

In the end of the day the teacher makes the art in my opinion.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

[hskwarrior]

I have seen same styles from other Sifu's that were less than impressive.

you said this. im just curious to what it was you were not impressed with

Keep in mind I am a forms guy and didn't get into kung fu for martial arts application.

ok i feel you

Ironically enough when I started to want to get more involved in application I met BSCLF master who was simply amazing and made me look at the her (and to some degree the art) in a different light.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

not me. i was just curious. i thought you were looking at it from a forms perspective. just wanted to confirm my suspicion

was that rose chan or something like that?

[iron_silk]

you said this. im just curious to what it was you were not impressed with

ok i feel you


not me. i was just curious. i thought you were looking at it from a forms perspective. just wanted to confirm my suspicion

was that rose chan or something like that?

Oops my bad...

I was confused because you quoted my buk sing comment (where I didn't use the word "impressed") with another section where I did.

I was actually referring to some self proclaimed "Sifu" that fell short of the mark. Not about a particular style but rather the quality I have seen of some people who trying to teach. (poor coordination and no power)

Although doing forms well doesn't mean you can fight (at all) HOWEVER I have seen people coming from the same school (both very athletic and young) but one out shine the other.

One guy who was suppose to be their "champion" (in forms) had nice low stance and high jumps but the way he moved had almost zero intent.

His younger brother was fierce...like a bullet train.

When I asked them both it was the "bullet train" who had done a lot of sparring and such while the other did not.

My point being if you know how to fight and apply your stuff...it makes a big difference in your forms. (Not the other way around of course)

I was going to go on and on about seeing different ways of playing a form and how all can be equally impressive in their own way...but that would be going into it way too much.

So...back to the point of the thread...

Yes. BSCLF Grandmaster Rose Chan who is a student of Tam Fei Pang. The way she move when showing application is amazing in terms speed, strategy, and other stuff I don't know how to use words to describe. I can't even see her move until she's there...and so still...and powerful.

[iron_silk]

Frank - I wanted to say that both you and your Sifu is someone I was super impressed with the way you move.

[hskwarrior]

My point being if you know how to fight and apply your stuff...it makes a big difference in your forms. (Not the other way around of course)

My student just mentioned to me today that when he trained under Doc Fai's PB lineage he felt the forms had no life and robotic like. But after training with us, he felt that our way of doing our forms is more geared towards a fight.

Frank - I wanted to say that both you and your Sifu is someone I was super impressed with the way you move.

My sifu, I can understand that. Me, my forms suck. LOL. I used to try to mimic my sifu, some of his own classmates say i do move like him. But i've never really been a forms guy. I do appreciate you saying that tho. The check will be in the mail today.

[Jimbo]

In my experience, there is a monumental difference between the forms of someone who focuses almost strictly on forms, and someone who has sparred and fought with his/her art. I prefer the latter. For me personally, it's not about the flash or how pretty someone plays their sets.

My first experience in a Chinese art was in Taiwan at a Long Fist/Mantis school that was forms-oriented. I stayed with that group for a couple of years because I didn't know any better at the time, even though I came from arts that heavily emphasized sparring. Thankfully, I was charged only half as much as most of the other non-Chinese (perhaps due to my being Asian?). That first teacher virtually never showed any applications. And they did almost no sparring. I noticed that many students did the forms (especially the Long Fist) the way they thought "looked best". They'd introduce their own variations that had absolutely nothing to do with usage. So each student did the moves in the forms differently...not just the individual variation that occurs naturally in any school or system, but for 'aesthetics'. That teacher would occasionally say those variations are wrong, but never really explain why, and so the variations continued. Basically, it was 'hua quan/xiu tui' (flowery fist/embroidery leg).

In my CLF school, the usage was taught pretty much from day one. Regarding the forms aspect of training, this does NOT create a flashier or prettier demonstration when someone does their form. It creates clear intent. Meaning you don't want to be standing near that person when they're doing their set, lest you get hurt. Completely different from someone who plays their sets purely for theatrical effect, or to 'wow' others with how high they can jump, or how flexible they are. I find it ironic that those who are less obsessed about forms or how they 'look' as opposed to function, end up being more impressive at them (IMO).

At some tournaments, though, I've caught some older CMA masters ooooohing and aaaaahing performances that emphasized flash over substance.

[iron_silk]

In my experience, there is a monumental difference between the forms of someone who focuses almost strictly on forms, and someone who has sparred and fought with his/her art. I prefer the latter. For me personally, it's not about the flash or how pretty someone plays their sets.

My first experience in a Chinese art was in Taiwan at a Long Fist/Mantis school that was forms-oriented. I stayed with that group for a couple of years because I didn't know any better at the time, even though I came from arts that heavily emphasized sparring. Thankfully, I was charged only half as much as most of the other non-Chinese (perhaps due to my being Asian?). That first teacher virtually never showed any applications. And they did almost no sparring. I noticed that many students did the forms (especially the Long Fist) the way they thought "looked best". They'd introduce their own variations that had absolutely nothing to do with usage. So each student did the moves in the forms differently...not just the individual variation that occurs naturally in any school or system, but for 'aesthetics'. That teacher would occasionally say those variations are wrong, but never really explain why, and so the variations continued. Basically, it was 'hua quan/xiu tui' (flowery fist/embroidery leg).

In my CLF school, the usage was taught pretty much from day one. Regarding the forms aspect of training, this does NOT create a flashier or prettier demonstration when someone does their form. It creates clear intent. Meaning you don't want to be standing near that person when they're doing their set, lest you get hurt. Completely different from someone who plays their sets purely for theatrical effect, or to 'wow' others with how high they can jump, or how flexible they are. I find it ironic that those who are less obsessed about forms or how they 'look' as opposed to function, end up being more impressive at them (IMO).

At some tournaments, though, I've caught some older CMA masters ooooohing and aaaaahing performances that emphasized flash over substance.

Hi Jimbo,

I think we are both in agreement that it's about who is teaching that makes the difference.

The difference can be very apparent in the way we perform our sets. When my Sifus teach me a form they begin with the reason and application behind it which defines the way we would and should execute the move in the form. That would makes sense to me because otherwise...what are we doing?

If the teachers and students are focused on how it looks with zero talk about application then it sounds more like Modern Wushu to me. Then again I have seen a popular student from another school (who normally does well in forms competition) yet despite his low stance and high leaps I can tell there is no power in the moves because he is focused on putting his body in the position rather than fighting an imaginary opponent. His classmates were surprised when he ranked low but I wasn't.

[iron_silk]

My student just mentioned to me today that when he trained under Doc Fai's PB lineage he felt the forms had no life and robotic like. But after training with us, he felt that our way of doing our forms is more geared towards a fight.



My sifu, I can understand that. Me, my forms suck. LOL. I used to try to mimic my sifu, some of his own classmates say i do move like him. But i've never really been a forms guy. I do appreciate you saying that tho. The check will be in the mail today.

DFW - he has good standard for mass instruction but a bit move by move like loses something.

Your Sifu is very high quality. The apple shouldn't fall too far from the tree.

I am big guy too so we need to stick together

[hskwarrior]

for me, the majority of his people have some of the strangest movements in gung fu. but hey, to each his own

[Jimbo]

Hi Jimbo,

I think we are both in agreement that it's about who is teaching that makes the difference.

The difference can be very apparent in the way we perform our sets. When my Sifus teach me a form they begin with the reason and application behind it which defines the way we would and should execute the move in the form. That would makes sense to me because otherwise...what are we doing?

If the teachers and students are focused on how it looks with zero talk about application then it sounds more like Modern Wushu to me. Then again I have seen a popular student from another school (who normally does well in forms competition) yet despite his low stance and high leaps I can tell there is no power in the moves because he is focused on putting his body in the position rather than fighting an imaginary opponent. His classmates were surprised when he ranked low but I wasn't.

Hi,

That is a big problem, when the focus of doing a form is getting into various frozen poses/postures. The real focus should be on what's going on (the movements that are occurring) between the postures instead of the postures themselves. Like you say, it becomes like standardized wushu performance routines.

[iron_silk]

Hi,

That is a big problem, when the focus of doing a form is getting into various frozen poses/postures. The real focus should be on what's going on (the movements that are occurring) between the postures instead of the postures themselves. Like you say, it becomes like standardized wushu performance routines.

Definitely.

Wushu guys sometimes don't even have their fist aligned properly for punching.

Jimbo, may I ask if you study Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut?

[Jimbo]

Jimbo, may I ask if you study Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut?

iron_silk,

No, my Sifu's main lineage is through John Lem, who trained as a lay Buddhist monk at the Wing Foon monastery. This lineage has far fewer hand forms than some other CLF lineages, and has a heavy emphasis on 2-person attack/defense combinations. The sets in this lineage are also distinctive, made up mainly of combinations taken from the 2-person application exercises. We also have Hung Sing and Chan Family material as well.

I respect all lineages of CLF.

[iron_silk]

iron_silk,

No, my Sifu's main lineage is through John Lem, who trained as a lay Buddhist monk at the Wing Foon monastery. This lineage has far fewer hand forms than some other CLF lineages, and has a heavy emphasis on 2-person attack/defense combinations. The sets in this lineage are also distinctive, made up mainly of combinations taken from the 2-person application exercises. We also have Hung Sing and Chan Family material as well.

I respect all lineages of CLF.

Hi Jimbo,

your lineage sounds very fascinating. I hope to learn more about it.

Hi Frank,

I was wondering...I read that Tam Sam also learned "Seurng Gap Dan Gwun" Double Single Ended Staff form. Is the Buk Sing staff form same as the Hung Sing? Should be right?

[hskwarrior]

I was wondering...I read that Tam Sam also learned "Seurng Gap Dan Gwun" Double Single Ended Staff form. Is the Buk Sing staff form same as the Hung Sing? Should be right?

I'd have to ask since it's always been said he only learned 3 Hung Sing forms. However, there is one taught in Fut San today that is basically the same as the one lau bun passed down through us