Hung Gar Theory

[Baritsumaster]

I'm putting this down, not as a manifesto, but a theory I would like to have discussed by Hung Gar-ists of all schools. Granted that Lam Sai Wing was known to alter and add forms during his lifetime, but would he have done so during Wong Fei Hung's lifetime? Would that not have been perceived as an insult? I refer to the three books LSW set down around 1917. Logic would suggest that these forms would have been as close to WFH's as possible in order to garner his support. I would even wonder if anyone would have accepted them without some public acknowledgement from his Master that these forms were genuine. Thoughts?
And please, this is no attempt to suggest that one school is better than another.

[jdhowland]

... Granted that Lam Sai Wing was known to alter and add forms during his lifetime, but would he have done so during Wong Fei Hung's lifetime? Would that not have been perceived as an insult?

...some public acknowledgement from his Master that these forms were genuine.

I think the concept of what was genuine is more a modern, conservationist concern. I'm not sure that it was a big concern then. As long as the training was good and the teacher is legitimate the headmaster may be satisfied with changes to the curriculum. No school developed in isolation from other elements.

Perhaps WFH saw it as a natural evolution.

When I started kung fu training I had the idea that the sets were sacred and unalterable (this idea is still passed on in some karate lines). I soon learned otherwise. Students were originally taught different curricula depending on their needs or the needs of the instructor. The result is still the same lineage, just different methods.

Two quotes from two of my Chinese teachers:

"Every generation changes it a little."

"Once you learn something, it's yours."

[PM]

- the books were not published in 1917, but in 1926 (FHSYK), 1936 (GJFFK) and 195? (TSK). common misconception, written ages ago and repeated again and again. none of the books was written by Lam Saiwing of course.

- we westerners care about "tradition" much more than the old timers - they cared if it WORKS for them and their students. every generation changed a lot, both Wong Feihung, Lam Saiwing and others

[sanjuro_ronin]

Traditional MA of the past had more in common with modern sport combat guys or security/military personnel than they did with the typical self-proclaimed TMA.
Sure some were also doctors or even scholars but most were not.
Those that did MA as a career were typically security or military.
Those that did MA and had "full time" jobs were villagers or merchants.
Nothing other than the principles of any system were set in stone and even THOSE could be revised for the individual.
I think that is soemthing that we tend to forget but it seems that the MA teachers of the past had no issues in customzing their art and their forms to the individual student.

[lance]

- the books were not published in 1917, but in 1926 (FHSYK), 1936 (GJFFK) and 195? (TSK). common misconception, written ages ago and repeated again and again. none of the books was written by Lam Saiwing of course.

- we westerners care about "tradition" much more than the old timers - they cared if it WORKS for them and their students. every generation changed a lot, both Wong Feihung, Lam Saiwing and others

PM , so if Lum sai wing
did ' nt write these books , who wrote it then ? the resources that I found out was that Donald Hamby Sifu who learned from both Lum Chun Fai and GM Bucksam Kong translated the chinese translation into english , with the help of
Lum Chun Fai sifu . Unless what you ' re really saying is Lam sai wing just narrated what he wanted in the materials while someone else wrote the materials for him ? Well PM you can explain to me and the people of this forum thread .

[Chris m]

Always thought the actual writing in the three books was done by Chu Yu Jai, one of Lam si-tai-gung's to-dai and writer of the original Wong Fei Hung novels...

As for people talking about Traditional arts and MMA, some of Hung Gar's techniques are for ripping off peoples balls, attacking the throat-or in Hak Fu Jow's case BOTH-or sticking your fingers into people's eyes, but if you try to use these techniques in a Ring (MMA or otherwise), you'd be disqualified, as MMA is a sport....genuine kung fu is nasty stuff....amazing how fast people stop fighting when their victim tries to tear off their nut-sack, speaking from experience...put Hung Gar in a ring and it's emasculated immediately.

[PM]

who wrote the books? Jyu Yujai, Jeung Sibiu, Lei Saifai and others

i like the GJFFK and FHSYK book, although there are many typos and a lot of inaccurate info, thy are still very interesting and useful. Tit Si Kyun book is almost useless (the main text - the forewords are interesting), it was written after Lam Saiwing has already passed away.

student of Don Hamby sifu has translated the books, but not with the help of Lam Chun Fai and not the original books, but the new edition with completely new (ie. completely different) text written in 199? by Leung Daat, non-Hung Kyun practitioner and basicaly a fraud - that is what i have been told on Gwongjau by many local Hung Kyun sifus.

i have been working with the original texts since 1997, and have discussed them extensively with my teachers in Hong Kong, my sihings and other masters in China, so trust me on this a bit:-)

[sanjuro_ronin]

who wrote the books? Jyu Yujai, Jeung Sibiu, Lei Saifai and others

i like the GJFFK and FHSYK book, although there are many typos and a lot of inaccurate info, thy are still very interesting and useful. Tit Si Kyun book is almost useless (the main text - the forewords are interesting), it was written after Lam Saiwing has already passed away.

student of Don Hamby sifu has translated the books, but not with the help of Lam Chun Fai and not the original books, but the new edition with completely new (ie. completely different) text written in 199? by Leung Daat, non-Hung Kyun practitioner and basicaly a fraud - that is what i have been told on Gwongjau by many local Hung Kyun sifus.

i have been working with the original texts since 1997, and have discussed them extensively with my teachers in Hong Kong, my sihings and other masters in China, so trust me on this a bit:-)

Well...one wonders how much complete info was ever put in MA training manuals of the past.
I have heard a mirad of tales about the TSK book, how the moves are out of order, missing parts, incorrect descriptions and sounds, etc.
And yes, from what I have seen based on my OWN experience that MAY seem to be the case.
The people that put out the book don't seem to have any issues putting it out and Sifu Hamby is a very highly regarded Hung Ga Sifu under Bucksman Kong
and I have seen his TSK on DVD and well, it is like the TSK of the book ( as much as one can compare any DVD with that book).
Of course one thing that I have found is that there is more than one version of the TSK, so...

[SouthernGungFu]

Donald Hamby Sifu is the real deal. Nice, knowledgeable and nimble. Only a fool would want to tangle with him. And a few fools recently have in their forums and through email. Eh Mercer?!?

[PM]

of course Don is the real deal, that's not my point. All I'm saying is that according to the people who I spoke with, Leung Daat rewrote the books almost completely out of his own imagination (using the original pictures), without so much as ever having actually learned Hung Gar

[SteveLau]

would he have done so during Wong Fei Hung's lifetime?

According to the time of these books were published, the handsets had been developed as such years before. Wong Fei Hung passed away in ~1925, and Lam Sai Wing passed away in ~1943. So WFH should aware of changes were made to the techniques he had taught LSW. LSW had his own school in Hong Kong and Guangzhou City when WFH was very much alive. It is not necessary wrong or being perceived as an insult to the teacher when the student alters, and adds stuff to what he has learnt from the teacher. It was also quite possible that LSW had his teacher's blessing when he made the changes.


KC
Hong Kong

[once ronin]

KC,

These times these masters like Wong Fei Hung, Lam Sai Wing, Chan Hon Chung would turn their face black should their student change or add forms to their curriculum.

Chan Hon Chung told me this 1st hand and so did his senior student Master Cheung.

[David Jamieson]

KC,

These times these masters like Wong Fei Hung, Lam Sai Wing, Chan Hon Chung would turn their face black should their student change or add forms to their curriculum.

Chan Hon Chung told me this 1st hand and so did his senior student Master Cheung.

why? All is in a state of flux. How we duel is different now from then. How we engage in sport combat is different now.

Why would someone disparage the growth of a system and insist it fall further into obscurity?

I know this for sure. The shape of Kung Fu changes when you move beyond the form and into the practical use of the art.

[Golden Arms]

Depends on the system. I agree most of the time that applies.

[Chris m]

Without innovation in Hung Gar, we wouldnt have Kung Gee, or Fu Hok, or Sap Ying, or Mo Ying Gerk, or Fu Hok Kuen Chak, or Tit Sin Kuen....

My teacher says that usually once every other generation, one master-usually lineage holder-is innovative, and the next generation is Square Minded...although BOTH Wong Fei Hung and Lam Sai Wing were open minded, and both introduced new methods into Hung Gar...my si-gung Chan Hon Chung was close-mind but his Sau To Kong Pui Wai is the opposite and introduced Fung Gar into His Hung Gar training.