ATTN: Gwa Sow Chop

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
21

Sadly, this Junior College report is compiled from several Internet sources and is full of misconceptions. The “author” of the site seemingly is a young British programmer.

The references to Fu Jow Pai are probably from a Fu Jow site, which is okay, but not meant to be an historical reference.

There’s a difference between compiled reports from a variety of sources(anything can be posted on the Internet) and the history of a System from within a tradition.

The fact is no Traditional System would tread on another’s turf or allude to a superiority, or insinuate a derivation. There’s no real Hung Ga site that points out that the founder of Fu Jow/Hark Fu was a student of Wong Fei-Hung before he mysteriously learned this style from an unknown “mysterious” monk and set out on his own. Of course, THIS sounds more like Fu Jow/Hark Fu came from Hung Ga fairly recently doesn’t it?

In order not to offend any more Hung Ga people, that particular reference to their system should be taken down…

22

Wong Moon Toy’s anniversary book says it came from Hung Gar but is a little different. MOQ, I agree with you that you can’t rely on internet sites as references. I agree wtih your kempo things as well.

23

People seem to have a “concept” of Black Tiger being the original Shaolin Tiger Boxing style and maybe thats true.

The confusion comes from the fact that Fu Jow Pai hasn’t much real history and only certain factions of it are simply CALLED “Black Tiger” for some extremely obvious reasons.

Whoever called this unfortunate attention to these details should not have boasted against the well esablished Hung Ga.

24

Hi-

There has been NO boasting AGAINST any “established art”.

hung gar is a great Traditional Martial Art.
In it’s current state,There is one set remaining from it’s founder that is based historically, orally, traditionally and otherwise in Shaolin Tiger system. All other sets came later such as Tit Sen Kuen added later, fu/hok added later and so on.

so the point of the article was that who is to say which was the predecessor. In all likely hood in many opinions, Tiger Systems and Black Tiger systems were being propogatd from Shaolin Temple Monks before the emmergence of The Hung Gar style as it is taught today most definitely and as well as the Shaolin Tiger based system which was the Original Hung Ga.

The system that I practice also includes original five animals or Four Lower Tigers system.
As a precursor to learning this system we are taught Hak Fu Pai, (not the Sou Hak Fu) but Black Tiger system of the Toisan district as well as Bak Sil Lum.

Admittedly, there are several very well established styles of CMA particularly those based in Shaolin methodologies and principles.

But because a system is well established does not give it any more validity as a system than any other system that owes it’s heritage to Shaolin in a true sense.

This is where history differs. Once again Hung Gar is a great and formidable martial art derived and developed from a foundation of Shaolin Tiger.

The same is true of Hak Fu.

As well Fu Jow Pai has strong foundations by all measures in the systems of the Shaolin temple.

I think to discount any of these by rising any above the other is to lose something overall.

Perhaps any of them could be a derivative of each other or something else entirely.

The key word being “perhaps”.

Rumination upon a line of study is not a waste of time.

peace

Kung Lek

25

the post although i find it of interest, in the respective opinions of all those that have spoken, i must say that i find it of most interest that the origin of hung gar is being relaited to hak fu mun, or fu chau pai.

it is easy to say that these systems are reliated, due to there closeness with the use of fu ying, and that chee sin sim si was also a player of fu ying, however the history of hung gar is rather clear in its lineage down to the present day sifu’s.

the inferance that hung gar has been changed due to the developement through wong fei hung, and for this reason hung gar (of canton, which i again have never heard being used until the late 90’s)is not similiar to what it used to be, is most concerning.

the mou (postures) and faht (techniques), of the style where known to wong fei hung from his father, who it is genereally agreed to was trained mainly by lok ah choi.

however before hung hsi gwan passed away at the age of 90, in hua sien county, in kwantung province, lok ah choi was also trained with and by hung as well as chee sin sim see.

wongs meetings with many sifu’s of differing styles due to his fathers’ great ability, is also to be mentioned, then to say that wong fei hung would have changed the art so much that it would not or did not relate to the original style from both hung hsi gwan and lok ah choi, both having the same teacher chee sin sim si, is absurd due to the tradition of the day, and the respect to the art that wong fei hung would have had, for the art and the chinese tradition of respect.

this idea, seems to be a growing issue these days,how unfortunate.

lam tsai wing made it perfectly clear that what he taught was from wong fei hung and the sui lam gee , and those forms that he brought into the style later, when he opened his own gwoon and with the jin wu association where an addition, not a change of direction.

tang fang was also of the same calabire of thought, to that end, he was known to have said he would not teach what he had not learned from wong fei hung.

tang fang only went to lam tsai wing out of curiosity to see what he was doing, and learned some of these extra additions that lam tsai wing was doing , but also made it clear that they where not from the original siu lam gee carriculm that wong fei hung had taught. others also taught by wong fei hung, like dang yi , are known likwise to have made similiar comments.

lets not get confused with the thought process of modern day thinking people,and the ways of the elders,and there belief structre and processes they did in those days.

yes wong fei hung created extra forms, but no he did not create the postures of faht that are in these forms, they came from siu lam gee and witht the name of hung gar, but there origins are from chi sin sim si.

the postures of tit sien kuen, even though differing from those of tit kiu sams lineage, are still with the same intent, movement and postures.

to that end, if the issue of what came first, the chicken or the egg, then speculate on this, if you wish; but do not bring the names of the elders into question, and there contribution to the arts

peace

[This message has been edited by bean curd (edited 08-27-2000).]

26

My First Report,
“Hark Fu/Fu Jow Moon/Pai and it’s relations to Hung Ga”

The history of the Hark Fu Moon or Black Tiger System is hidden in secrecy and has been passed down to us without any written documentation as with most kung fu systems.

Its name remained unexposed to the outside world until the establishment of the C.Y.A.C. Inc. in the City of New York in 1957.

One day Wong Bil Hong(Born in 1841, Wong Bil Hong studied Hung Gar Kung Fu with Wong Kay Ying and later Wong Fei Hung, eventually becoming a master of this system) met a monk who had separated from Shaolin and entered Hoy Hong Temple, who taught him Shaolin Black Tiger style.

Unfortunately this Monk’s name was never divulged. The Monk’s anonymity was the result of the Manchurian’s hostility toward those monks in the Shaolin Temple.

Wong Bil Hong worked hard to master the Black Tiger System and he eventually became a master in this powerful kung fu system. In his lifetime, Wong Bil Hong taught this system to only 2 individuals, his servant and his nephew Wong Moon Toy.

The Black Tiger System of Kung-Fu that originated in “Shaolin Temple” and was preciously kept by the monks was RENAMED by the First Generation Grand Master Wong Bil Hong to the Fu-Jow Pai before his death on 1934.

On the death of his master, Wong Moon Toy came to America and brought this system with him. In 1957, Grand Master Wong Moon Toy was asked by his disciples to expose the system to the public. With his authorization and supervision, the Chinese Youth Athletic Club, Inc. was formed but only Hung Gar and Mi Chung I were taught. The doors to Fu Jow Pai were still not open to anyone.

When Wong Moon Toy passed away in 1960, he left seven disciples, one of whom he designated as his successor which he had taught Fu Jow Pai. Grand master Wai Hong, the Third Generation Successor, is considered the “Father of Fu Jow Pai”…

This is as close as Hark Fu Moon/Fu Jow Pai is ever going to come in claiming precedence over Hung Ga.

All info from various Hark Fu Moon/Fu Jow Pai Websites.

[This message has been edited by MoQ (edited 08-27-2000).]

27

Ok i know that i said i would not post anymore about this, but some things have to be said.

There are a lot of things in hung gar that are still intact when referring to shaolin teachings. Just because we have gung gee fook fu kuen as the oldest form that does not mean that any of the other sets are not based in deep traditions. It is quite well known that Wong Fei Hung developed the Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen, but it was not anything new. Wong Fei Hung had CONSOLIDATED all of the techniques that he had been taught and made it into Fu Hok, that’s it. They were there the whole time.

Kung Lek, even on your own website there is a statement that refutes your whole argument which i have posted earlier, buy yet you haven’t commented on it.

The point is this- BLACK TIGER IS NOT A OLD SYSTEM THAT IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO ORGINAL SHAOLIN (whatever that is) AND IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A PREDECESSOR OF HUNG GAR. Given the description that you have put on your website in regards to the forms being able to be performed in the space of an ox lying down, almost no system could abide by this. Gung gee fuk fu kuen is one of the oldest forms out there and it does not abide by this rule. If that rule was the case, only wing chun and possibly bai mei would be considered “original.” Not even ha say fu fits this description, no matter how close it may be.

You stated in regards to hung gar, “In it’s current state,There is one set remaining from it’s founder that is based historically, orally, traditionally and otherwise in Shaolin Tiger system. All other sets came later such as Tit Sen Kuen added later, fu/hok added later and so on.” Do you practice hung gar? IF you had, you would know how dumb a statement that just was. All the forms in hung gar are built upon one another. The beginning section of gung gee is found in Sup Ying Kuen and Tiet Sin Kuen. Many parts are replicated with different intents. So all of the forms have gung gee in them, in some way, shape, or form. All of the forms have deep roots and THEY ARE CONNECTED traditionally, historically, theoretically, etc etc. So please, don’t be the spokesperson for hung gar unless you know what you are talking about.

Simply and clearly there is no argument. As was stated earlier by bean curd, hung gar has a clear lineage history all the way up to it’s present day sifus and lineage holders. There is documented proof, nuff said.

Ok i am done with my rant…

To each his own

[This message has been edited by illusionfist (edited 08-27-2000).]