Pak Hok vs Choy Lee Fut

[Joe McGinty]

Are Pak Hok and Choy Lee Fut similar? They look alot alike, I dig the wide powerful punches. I do not like high kicks though.

[seisei]

I beleive that Bock Hock and Choy lee fut are similar in appearance and nature they are both southern styles and very useful in self defense in my area ,the san francisco,bay area we have a few variations of choy lee fut which is what i have and still practice and we have the Leung's white crane avery good system .as you say they both like to use wide powerful swinging punches extremely effective
m

[lkfmdc]

in an article in "the other kung fu magazine" Doc Fai Wong now says he has uncovered evidence that at least one of the influences in CLF comes from the Ding Wu Jih, ie the same monastery Sing Lung of Lama Pai hung around.... interesting if true (who knows?)

[TenTigers]

If you look at the timelines when Wong Yun-Lum was around, Hop-Ga, Hung-Ga, CLF-These styles were all around at the same time. Wong Yun-Lum had a profound influence on these styles. I know some may not choose to recognize this, and instead create wonderful stories about Hung Hei- Guen and Fong Wing Chun etc, but if yuo look at it from purely a technique based point of view, it seems(at least to my novice eyes) pretty obvious.

[lkfmdc]

Southern martial arts also seem to be incredibly incestuous

Hung Hei Goon, Luk Ah Choi and Fong Sai Yuk all running around the same time. If you believe some of the legends, Fong Sai Yuk is related to both Miu Choi Fa, Miu Tin at the temple and Fong Wing Chun....

Tit Kiu Saam also studied with Sing Lung

and of course Wong Yan Lam being around during the 10 tigers period

[Shaolindynasty]

I don't know if I would call it incestuous. when you get a bunch of martial artists together they are going to have an inluence over each other and exchange ideas and techniques. Wong Yun lam probally commanded alot of respect since he was the "leader" of the ten tigers. I get the idea that it was less about style in those days and more about who could kick the most ass.

[lkfmdc]

I get the idea that it was less about style in those days and more about who could kick the most ass.

2 for 2 this morning

What a concept, caring about EFFECTIVENESS! Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days

[Shaolindynasty]

Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days

I should also note that there are those of us today that still only care about effectiveness and train with that in mind. IMO that's the true tradition

[CharlesDaCosta]

Boy, this is my 2nd time trying to apply. Is there an auto time-out connected to posting?

[CharlesDaCosta]

Hi all,

It has been a long time since I posted to this forum so please forgive me for butting in.

Back in 97 I met a Spainard in Barcellona that taught HG and CLF (he was the top student of some famious Chinese and HG stylest - I can't remember). We .... and came to the conclusion that both styles are fruits from the same tree.

The Spainard told me that one of the styles used to develop CLF was a style whose name could be translated meaning "Monk's style," And, today we have no clue which monk or style it ultimately was. We agreed the monk had to be a Buddhist and probably not Shaolin because a more descriptive name would have been used.

We compared and contrasted PK and CLF. We ...

I don't want to get kick out again so I am going to try and post this much.

[CharlesDaCosta]

Back in 97 I met a Spaniard in Barcelona that taught HG and CLF (he was the top student of some famous Chinese HG stylist living in Barcelona too - I can't remember their names). We compared and contrasted PHP (T. White Crane) and CLF, and we came to the conclusion that both styles are fruits from the same tree.

The basis for our conclusion was not only because of the similarities between LR and CLF.

The Spaniard told me that one of the styles used to develop CLF was a style whose name could be translated as meaning "Monk's style," and today we have no clue which monk or style it ultimately was, we speculate that it was a Shaolin monk, but this did not seem likely.

We agreed that the monk had to be a Buddhist and probably not a Shaolin monk (as many believe) because a more descriptive name would have been used and not a catch-all phrase like "The Monk's Style." This name implies the monks name and style was unknown to the student (the actual ancestor of CLF).

Another point made was that, maybe the monk was so famous that he was the only "Monk with a style that was totally unique and so new that it did not have a name yet," so every other local person would know who and what style was being talked about (this was to justify why it still could have been Shaolin monk or any other type of monk or hermit, guru, what ever. We felt this was a little far fetched, so we dropped it.

It was also obvious that this monk's style had a big influence on CLF because it is the most evident in non-weapon sets.

Over time I had learned that the Southern Chinese, like most of the world, even today, tend not to like foreign influence. This forced many members of the LR systems to give their versions of LR acceptable Chinese names and histories ... This is also why there was a trend by Chinese to claim that "All Chinese MA was invented at the Shaolin Temple and then later migrated to other Temples and lay people ."

The Spaniard and I also discussed some of the differences and concluded that most are more of a variation (to me holding back to strike more times faster - I saw in CLF) and the more extreme differences could have come from one of the other styles the ancestor of CLF learned.

So in conclusion, "The Monk" was ultimately Sling Long (poor spelling) or one from his line of students.

[CharlesDaCosta]

2 for 2 this morning

What a concept, caring about EFFECTIVENESS! Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days

Boy, guys just give up all MAs and buy a couple of oozies (or other automatic weapons) and some granades. Then learn how to used them ---- EFFECTIVENESS!

Chill out and have some fun!!!

[Lama Pai Sifu]

So in conclusion, "The Monk" was ultimately Sling Long (poor spelling) or one from his line of students.

And you are trying to suggest, with no historical evidence whatsoever (other than you and your 'Spaniard' hypothesizing...) that the "Faht /Fut" in CLF was either "Sing Luhng" (which you obviously unsure of the pronunciation, not just spelling) or a Sing Luhng student/classmate?

Wow. I guess you have just solved a long standing question. Excuse me while I throw out all of the other history and evidence (you know, like conflicting dates and all) that does NOT support that.

Just because CLF has things in common with Lama (Bok Hok and Hop Ga as well), doesn't mean it had to be Sing Luhng or someone in that line that made up the Buddhist Style. Sing Luhng was a Tibetan Monk.

CLF has a handful of techniques in common with Tibetan styles. So? The style is completely different in strategy, fundamentals, theory, etc. They are not similar. People who don't know them very well will always think they "look" alike. Although they share some tech in common they are not similar.

[CharlesDaCosta]

... with no historical evidence whatsoever ... hypothesizing ... that the "Faht /Fut" in CLF was ...

... all of the other history and evidence (you know, like conflicting dates and all) that does NOT support that.

Just because CLF has things in common with Lama (Bok Hok and Hop Ga as well), doesn't mean it had to be Sing Luhng or someone in that line that made up the Buddhist Style.

CLF ... is completely different in strategy, fundamentals, theory, etc. They are not similar. People who don't know them very well will always think they "look" alike. Although they share some tech in common they are not similar.

I am sorry to say no one seems to have real historical evidence because (well you know why). I consider my source reliable enough to share the thought that the possibility of one of the systems that CLF was built from was LR or one of its decendents.

In terms of conflicting dates: which style is the oldest?

It is interesting that of the main schools of southern styles CLF and PHP look more alike then any of the others - this is what makes it reasonable to hypothesize about a shared ancestry.

Now if you have info which support they have no common links then share it, this is why this tread was created in the first place.

[boh]

hi,

Sorry, but I will be throwing some spanners here.

But firstly, some of my background. I have been pracricing Ngor Chor Kun (NCK, or WuZu Quan or Five Ancestors Fist) under the Chee Kim Thong lineage for 30+ years. As you may know, White Crane is also one of the components of NCK and I also practice Fujian White Crane.

As 'Lama Pai Sifu' mentioned: Just because styles and technique 'look' similar does'nt mean so; principals, theory, internal Qi work may differ vastly.

Charles DaCosta said: "It is interesting that of the main schools of southern styles CLF and PHP look more alike then any of the others - this is what makes it reasonable to hypothesize about a shared ancestry." Not True! I think you are basing your ideas on only ONE sub-set of White Crane (WC) that you have seen. There are MANY.

Also, let me state that White Crane as a style is far from ****genous! Even among the few Crane practioneers that have posted here in the past, we have our differences. I believe the Crane style you are refering to, with the wide swings resembling CLF is Lama Pai Crane. This (I think) is a Cantonese style, and is very different from Fujian White Crane!

Therein lies the problem with Chinese Martial Arts and W Crane in particular. China is a big place, with diverse cultures and a long history. Hence tracing a lineage thru more than a few generations can be difficult, confusing and speculative, especially when a lot of this are not documented. Furthermore, the last 2 centuries was a time of great turmoil in China, with mass movement of people, rebellions, wars, famine, foreign occupation, Cultural Revolution... you get the picture. People get uprooted, families split, docuements get destroyed etc... so history gets muddled. Some styles like CLF have documented their lineage well despite all this, but most others have not, hence we fall prey to heresay....

However, one can infer about the 'cross-fertilization' between the various styles based on the forms (physical movements, hand, footwork...) and or the internal techniques (power-generation, qi-gung techniques). On this basis, my opinion is that Fujian WC has little 'connection' to Lama Pai WC.

The movements are entire different. The WC that I practice has a very wide variety of techniques, long to very short movements (it is a Southern style, after-all, meant to fight in a phone booth ;-), and uses combinations of palm, back-palm, elbows, phoenix-eye, various finger-thrust but seldom fists. Movements could be linear or circular, but the arms are kept very 'tight' (close to the body), one of the principal is to always keep the elbows 'in' and low.

Even among the Fujian styles, and there are at least 5 (Crying, Flying, Feeding,.. (can't remember the rest) ) there are a lot of variations, some are very 'hard', done with a lot of dynamic tension, others of varying degrees of 'softeness'. But there are some common traits, closed-in and low elbows, 'toon-kap' a Fujian term that literally means 'vibrating the shoulders', and breathing techniques and vocalisations... that give various (Fujian) Cranes some similarity.

This last, 'Toon Kap' is a common and very important principal for Fujian WC, as it is used to develop Qi, and allows a profficient practioneer to generate explosive power (like the whipping of wings) at long and short ranges, with very small movements (don't need to build up moentum as in a swing).... what makes the '6-inch punch' possible. Fighting principles rely quite heavily on power-blocks. These are used for defense and offense, ie: by using the block to create openings for counter-attacks and also 'destroy' oppoents arms/legs. Fighting distances can be arms-length to almost grappling distances (attacks with elbow and finger-thrusts to pressure pts.) and my style takes the direct approach when facing and attack, ie: block, create an opening and go in. Whereas I have met other Fujian crane that advocate a indirect attack.

At the very advanced level, our WC has a technique & form called "Needle in the Cotton", wwhich is used for Qi training and also has combat applications. Most of the WC acknowledge this, but many are not exactly sure what it is.

Based on the little I know of Lama Pai Pak Hok, and as a Southern Crane practioneer, these 2 have little similarities. I don't know what the history of Lama Pai is, but I don't think it has much mixng in with Fujian Crane.

Also, I think, there are probably larger numbers of Fujian Crane practioneers than Lama Pai PH. Hence I would like to make the point that Lama Pai Pak Hok is not representative of White Crane...

If we are making the assumption that CLF & WC is similar because of Lama Pai Pak Hok (LPPH), looking at the forms/techniques, I would agree, BUT, BOTH CLF and LPPH have little in common with Fujian WC, the WC that I know and probably have a larger number of practioneers out there. And I think they will agree with me....

PS
I do not mean to be over-bearing here, but would like to take this opportunity to explain about a style, White Crane, that I love, as not many may be aware of what its 'essence' is; aside from the supercial movements and the fact that there are many varieties of WC.

Boh-heong Yap