Hung Fut

[nospam]

Sifu Michael Parrella

"LISTEN TO ME NOW: That was NEVER what Kung-Fu was about. You learned stuff from your teacher, then you practiced....made it yours. You made your contribution to the current generation. THAT IS WHAT THE TEACHERS OF ALL OTHER GENERATIONS HAVE DONE (except the last few)."

Precisely. As far as I am concerned, once a style is mastered and the student recognized, that person is the style. I could make all new patterns if I thought it was needed to better teach the style. I could teach the style without patterns, although they are a great teaching tool. They are one way in which we pass the knowledge down to the next generation and one way in which that generation can maintain skill. And as we all realise there is never only ONE WAY.

In my style, each teacher has modified or added or created new patterns. The reason being, they thought it would better serve in teaching the spirit of the style.

Some people hold credibility through certain patterns known - what's with that!? My gung fu isn't defined by any one pattern I may or may not have been taught. Patterns are tools. Tools do not necessitate style although they can be unique to any given style. Patterns will keep me sharp if I have no one else to practise with. Patterns will pass down movements and techniques that show application. It is 'written' history of techniques and possible applications.

We are the style Today. If you have been recognized by your teacher, then the style is yours to honor, teach as best you can, and ensure it continues to live.

nospam

[secretgecko]

I guess I am not saying that forms and styles must evolve and change from generation to generation. One would fully expect that within a particular style that techniques would evolve and change with new information, knowledge and technology. I am sure that in certain styles forms are blended and synthesized from other styles, techniques , etc.

Likewise, certain things become obsolete. Traditional weapons have no modern application but they remain as part of the tradition martial arts for their intrinsic value.

The five main southern shaolin styles of hung, choy, li, mok, and fut have been synthesized in to many various styles including choy li fut, hung fut and others.

Certain sects of hung gar have incorporated pek kwa broadsword and the crushing step (bong bo) form of praying mantis.

There is obviously nothing wrong with evolving, changing, whatever.

The point I was trying to make was that one might expect that within a particular branch or school that there would be some consistency and accuracy of forms.

I guess what started this debate was the comments regarding the one armed form that was posted on youtube. (Which has since been taken down) There seemed to be some debate as to whether it was authentic because it perhaps did not look similar to a from practiced by another branch school.

One must first take into consideration that some branches may drastically alter forms for public demonstrations so as not to divulge closely guarded techniques. Video is too easily shared. With the advent of youtube forms, techniques and information are flashed around the globe.

However, It would seem to me that if, in fact, practitioners of this particular style (hung fut) were to have a international festival, for example, that the one armed form from one school would be very similar if not identical to the form from a school half way around the world. They have, after all, named forms such as the four grand master's form - which one might expect to also look the same from school to school regardless of whether they are in the US, HK, or Down Under.

If you go to hung gar schools around the world you will find that whether it is Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen, Gung Gee Fook Fu, or Teet Sin Kuen - the forms will be nearly identical from school to school.

These traditional forms are the genesis of the style and have remained somewhat standardized for the sake of passing on, from generation to generation, the core techniques and principles of the style. I would only guess that this is true for other styles as well.

It really has nothing do do with new and evolving aspects of a style but rather how the traditional information is kept pure.

This is just my humble opinion and perhaps I am completely wrong in this assumption. Please correct me if I am way off base.

[Yen-Wang-Yeh]

You are not wrong. You are held of a traditional belief. If that tradition is to pass forms down as they were, or as close to as possible then that is how your style teaches its system. Some styles remain unchanged for sake of honoring the founder and/or system, or as a proven method of teaching. Other styles feel that once a system is mastered, these masters will improve on what they learned, refine what they learned, continue to develop what they learned, make it their own. Some believe the true masters of a system create something new from what they are given so that their system never stagnates, never weakens, always moving for they understand there is no end.

What is the definition of tradition - is it best described as a continuing pattern of culture, beliefs, or practices? Did not many of these true masters, themselves, learn multiple styles, synthesize same, and made them uniquely their own? What was once tradition is born again new: the new then becomes tradition. Did true masters of systems believe it was complete and that they new all?

Neither way is necessarily wrong or better. Gung fu is oft a belief in teacher, of self, and in the way of the system. Not every generation generates Saints, so to speak. The Way is always there and will always be there to be discovered new again. To become traditional again.

Yen-Wang-Yeh

[Lama Pai Sifu]

It really has nothing do do with new and evolving aspects of a style but rather how the traditional information is kept pure.

What is pure? What exactly does that mean?

I don't think anyone here can debate the fact that 'forms' or exact patterns or sequences have always changed. It's just the last generation or so that feels they SHOULDN'T.

That is NOT the spirit of tradition in TCMA. The one thing that has always been constant (until recently) is that CMA is never stagnant.

I was learning Bok Mei from my Sifu one day, and Seung Fung Teui was in the form. I was like "what the hell is Jumping Inside Crescent Kick doing in a style that is such close range?" I asked my teacher, who answered either metaphorically or literally, "Bok Mei got hit with it one day, and decided it was a good technique to put into his style." Who knows weather or not it's true, but it does help to illustrate my point; CMA always changes.

The fact that it hasn't changed in the last 50 years or so, is part of the testimant why it is the most scarcely practiced and taught martial art around the globe.

CMA people: Wake up and realize that your exact patterns have very little to do with how good your Kung-Fu is. If you switched up all your patterns from front to back, it wouldn't make you worse - heck, it might even make you better.

If you taught those 'untraditional' patterns to new students, guess what would happen? The same exact thing that would have happened it you taught them the other way; they would either get good or not. Doesn't matter what the pattern is, but that is always the result, isn't it.

If CMA people actually started to embrace the true traditions of TCMA, they would learn BJJ or Sambo or anything else that their style lacked; instead of condeming it. They would absorb it into their style (LIKE TCMA ALWAYS DID BEFORE) and make their style better. That is how it had always been done until today/recently.

TCMA people, wake up and smell the rear naked choke. The rest of the MA world is evolving and they are laughing at us (as a whole). We have such wonderful techniques that I feel are so much more sophisticated that Jab, Cross, Clinch, Knee. But we are so hung up on 'what is from what style' and so resistant to other training methods, that our fate is almost surely sealed.

Take what you will from this.

[secretgecko]

What is pure? What exactly does that mean?

Pure means that a particular style or form remains basically unchanged, unaltered and unadaulterated. It remains free from anything that is extraneous. Free from inappropriate admixtures or elements. It remains clear and true without any discordant quality. Being what it is and nothing else. Ceremonially or ritually clean.

I don't think anyone here can debate the fact that 'forms' or exact patterns or sequences have always changed. It's just the last generation or so that feels they SHOULDN'T.

That being said I would tend to agree wholeheartedly with you. Forms and patterns and roads may in fact change. But I think you would also agree with my earlier post in which the point I was trying to make is that there are some core elements or forms from a particular style such as Hung Gar's Teet Sin Kuen which have remained in their unaltered and pure form for generations - as it probably should.

That is NOT the spirit of tradition in TCMA. The one thing that has always been constant (until recently) is that CMA is never stagnant...

...CMA people: Wake up and realize that your exact patterns have very little to do with how good your Kung-Fu is.

Again, I would agree with you that your skill in patterns may have very little to do with how good your kung fu is - for example - there may be a student in a particular school who has perfect routines but because he has no guts or courage could not fight his way out of a paper bag.

If CMA people actually started to embrace the true traditions of TCMA, they would learn BJJ or Sambo or anything else that their style lacked; instead of condeming it. They would absorb it into their style (LIKE TCMA ALWAYS DID BEFORE) and make their style better. That is how it had always been done until today/recently.

TCMA people, wake up and smell the rear naked choke. The rest of the MA world is evolving and they are laughing at us (as a whole). We have such wonderful techniques that I feel are so much more sophisticated that Jab, Cross, Clinch, Knee. But we are so hung up on 'what is from what style' and so resistant to other training methods, that our fate is almost surely sealed...

Again, I am not disagreeing with you. If one's goal is to become the best fighter they can be one must study many different styles. If you were to go up against a well rounded and highly trained MMA fighter such as in the popular Ultimate Fighter Cage fights than you would also need to be well rounded in your skill of stand-up, kick boxing, take-downs, shoot, wrestling and jiujutsu otherwise you would stand little chance.

So, if your goal is to become an Ultimate Fighter than your point is very well taken.

Fortunately or unfortunately - depending on your politics and goals - some schools of martial arts have remained pure and will therfore possibly - as you say - become stagnant. But isn't it this purity part of the traditions that some particular styles are trying to hold onto by keeping forms and patterns relatively consistent? Isn't this a good thing?

Other schools - Modern WuShu in particular - have become nothing more than "rhythmic gymnastics" and have lost all or nearly all of their martial quality. Isn't that a bad thing?

I guess it really comes down to what the goals are of the individual person studying the martial art. Different people come to a martial arts school for different reasons -whether it is to get some exercise, live out some kung fu movie fantasy, or become a ultimate fighter. Ulfortunately - some schools try to be all things to all people - but that its an entirely different topic that I have wondered off into - haven't I?

Keep up the livelly and friendly debate - your comments are greatly appreciated!

[secretgecko]

Here is a verse that was posted on another Hung Fut thread.

Anybody want to take a stab at it?

Kyuhn wai jow, gwan wai si, sun dao wai fu mo.
Fist is seed, staff (pole) is teacher,
sun and moon blades are mother and father.

Can anybody tell me what it means?

Any other verses that anyone would like to share?

[TenTigers]

a few thoughts:
1-Wong Fei-Hung created modern day Hung-Ga by combining methods of Hung Kuen with Hop-Ga, and reformatting the sets. Therefore, it would be in Hung tradition to do the same. No, I am not advocating every Hung player play jigsaw puzzle with their sets and change them, but "Gwok Si,Gwok Faht" each Sifu has his own method. Each teacher will emphasize different aspects and perhaps modify the way it is played. In SPM, once you learn the forms, they are never played the same way twice, as each time, it is a spontaneous expression of the self through the form. If you are doing it the same each and every time, you are not doing SPM.
2-as far as Tiet Sien Kuen, I have seen many variations on this set. Check out youtube.com. This is only two generations from LSW, where most of these versions came from. I have seen others,especially some TF variations that are extremely different, yet still Tiet Sien Kuen. Concepts,core techniques, theories-sum-faht remains the same.
3-Ok, I'll take a stab at it-
Fist is seed-sum-faht-core concepts,techniques. This makes up what your system IS.
Staff is Teacher-the staff teaches power generation,and develops structural alignment and rooting, which makes it possible. This is then applied to the seed. Without it, you have no Gung-Fu.
Not sure what Sun and Moon Blades are, but from what I have seen of other systems, sometimes specific weapon sets actually contain specific techniques-when practiced with empty hands, that are not taught openly, and are not seen in the other sets. The "Empty Jong" is but one example. Without these "secrets," the system although still effective, is not being played at its highest level. These "secrets" breathe life into the system and give birth to the ability to express oneself and grow through the system.
-um, or I smoked way too much weed as a teenager.

[gabe]

[QUOTE=TenTigers;768186]a few thoughts:
1-Wong Fei-Hung created modern day Hung-Ga by combining methods of Hung Kuen with Hop-Ga, and reformatting the sets. Therefore, it would be in Hung tradition to do the same. No, I am not advocating every Hung player play jigsaw puzzle with their sets and change them, but "Gwok Si,Gwok Faht" each Sifu has his own method. Each teacher will emphasize different aspects and perhaps modify the way it is played. In SPM, once you learn the forms, they are never played the same way twice, as each time, it is a spontaneous expression of the self through the form. If you are doing it the same each and every time, you are not doing SPM."


If people understood this, especially the SPM folks, there would be so much less politics. Differences in forms are usually the basis of mudslinging. That's low level understanding in my opinion.

[cjurakpt]

from the perspective of fighting, it really doesn't matter what order you put the forms in, since it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that you can be an excellet fighter and have never practiced a form in your life;

if to consider the rationale for forms, there are several likely possibilities: facilitating teaching large numbers of people simultaneously; having something to practice when you were by yourself; passing on the various techniques in "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" manner; identifying the "flavor" of your style / performance aspect; while these can all be peripherally related to fighting, they are not the primary means by which fighting skill is developed

the only instance in my experience where the order of the form can be important, is if you are trying to do something physiologically related: for example, many qigong "forms" follow a specific methodology (at least according to TCM principles, which you may or may not buy in the first place); it seems that sanchin or tit sin are two examples these types of forms, that if you do it in the "wrong" order you get a bad effect; in reality, if you understand the actual physiological principles behind what you are doing (basically creating specific changes in intra-abdominal, intra-thoracic and intra-cranial pressure in order to stimulate various types of autonomic responses), you could change things around "safely"

[secretgecko]

Very interesting to a beginning student such as myself.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on how you use physiological principles (creating specific changes in intra-abdominal, intra-thoracic and intra-cranial pressure) to bring about autonmonic responses?

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Very interesting to a beginning student such as myself.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on how you use physiological principles (creating specific changes in intra-abdominal, intra-thoracic and intra-cranial pressure) to bring about autonmonic responses?

Oh please, don't get him started! I don't think the forum has enough bandwith left...

[cjurakpt]

Very interesting to a beginning student such as myself.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on how you use physiological principles (creating specific changes in intra-abdominal, intra-thoracic and intra-cranial pressure) to bring about autonmonic responses?

Oh please, don't get him started! I don't think the forum has enough bandwith left...

LOL! so true, so true...

anyway, this is one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valsalva_maneuver

[TenTigers]

I thought Valsalva was Viking Heaven....

[cjurakpt]

I thought Valsalva was Viking Heaven....

well, do the first for long enough, you'll end up in the second (if you are a Viking of course);

All hail Odin the All-Father!!

[secretgecko]

I thought Valsalva was Viking Heaven....

LOL!

Valhalla is Viking Heaven.

Valsalva is a maneuvre which can be performed either to clear the ears, arrest tachycardia, diagnose certain heart conditions, diagnose inguinal hernia or to diagnose certain orthopeadic conditions such as vertebral disc involvement.