I don’t feel I have to answer anyone that is only asking me a question to try and prove me wrong.
If you do the research then you would understand what i’m talking about.
but i will try to copy some text from their info.
Taken from DFW’s Website.
Chan Koon Pak (1857-1916) was the second son of Chan Heung , founder of Choy Li Fut Kung Fu . After his elderly brother Chan On Pak passed away, he carried on the banner of the system. In the beginning, Chan Koon Pak wanted to become a merchant in the city of Kong Moon (modern day Jiang Men).
I still don’t see where it says koon pak did not learn kung fu from his father.
If someone wants to become an engineer, does that mean he could not have learnt kung fu?
Where is the chan records that said jeong yim was assigned to take care of koon pak?
Where is the chan records that say koon pak did not learn kung fu from his father?
You gave only a quote from an internet website and it still didn’t say koon pak did not learn kungfu from his father. Being a merchant doesn’t mean you could not have learnt kung fu. Wong fei hung was said to be a doctor, so does that mean he could not have learnt kung fu from his father?
What are these chan records? Where did you access them and do you have a copy?
Can you post the original chinese of chan records? Can you read chinese?
Here is a quote (also from an internet website) from an article:
"Chan Heung put considerable emphasis on power training, which is essential in jong techniques because one must have a strong and solid stance and tough limbs. It is not an easy task to send a heavy sandbag flying or to smash a solid piece of timber with a heavy weight attached swing from end-to-end like a yo-yo.
Chan Heung’s son, Chan Koon-Pak, also made jong techniques one of his specialities and received full instructions from his father. While teaching in Guangzhou, Koon-Pak was approached by Choy Kwai-Yuan and his two sons to teach them the wooden dummy techniques. They had the space required for installing the various jongs in their home. Chan Koon Pak accepted their request and gave them the specifications to construct the jongs."
The article can be found here:
http://www.tai-chi-centre.com/woodendummies.htm
actually after you introduce yourself, then maybe i will go further.
My conversation was with those i know. you i don’t know and don’t know what your purpose of jumping in on this conversation. I don’t even know if you do CLF.
so until you introduce yourself..i’ll keep my mouth shut for the moment.
You seem to have a lot of proding questions for me.
however, i refuse to argue about CLF with someone i am not even sure does CLF.
IF you do CLF, then what is your stake in questioning me the way you are?
I’ve never met you before, and the same goes for you.
Spit it out.
and by the way, do you have any Chan Family records to refer to to see if i am bs’ing?
but for you info, I have written each branches history based on the available info out there from CHan Yong Fa’s account, to DFW’s account, and Fu Hang Ng’s.
It is possible i made a mistake or even it could have been my own misunderstanding. But as i said, i have emailed the Fu Hang Ng school and am waiting for their responce.
peace.
Check this one out,
and then you can respond to this.
http://members-central.optushome.com.au/meanstreets/clf/clfkhint.htm
hey Frank how are ya bra, That was an interesting read and obviously comes from Chan Yun fa’s Camp. Unfortunatly there is no evidence to back up this claim and is definatly desighned to pump CYF’s lineage, since he claims to be the keeper of the system.
What a bunch of crap, everyone knows who ever follows the traditions is the keeper of the style.
Frank dude!
You always seem to be turning defensive whenever someone come up with points you simply have no answer for…this is definitely a pattern with you.
If you don’t want to discuss it with these guys you don’t know then don’t…but this constant half answer, half ignoring…doesn’t really help your case…seems a tad immature or simply out of answer when the heat is up.
This is getting predictable. It sucks that when it comes time for you to step up and support your points you find any excuse to demean the person by claiming they are not worth your time. That is weak!!!
I don’t see much value in the link you posted. Seems like nothing more than biased heresay with no evidence.
Sounds ridiculous the way it puts chan heung is not a kung fu master but a scholar. How could chan heung not be a kung fu master if he spent more than 20 yrs gathering and refining his skills. Longer than jeong yim did with his teachers.
How could all “followers of tradition” be keeper of the style if not all of them received the complete contents of the style in the first place? Ridiculous.
If Jeong yim is founder of clf, then how come his branch does not have all the deep internal clf and elaborate complex wooden dummy techniques?
Green Cloud,
Remember Frank is a friend of Chen Yong Fa I believe. Also Chen Yong Fa never claimed that title on his students have. Furthermore if he did claim it, it is only to the Chan Family lineage of which he is the direct male descentant and bound by tradition is only rightfully named as keeper.
Though ultimately he himself has not claimed it.
to tell you the truth…
i’ve seen some of the wooden dumm sets, and other wooden dummy sets out the and in the 25 years or so of my CLF training, i haven’t seen ANYTHING that was so intricate, out of the ordinary, or complex as you claim CLF dummies to be.
and iron silk, i’ve been decent with you up until now. but when you start making false claims that i am friends with Chan Yong Fa, thats when i have to put you in check. Don’t put my name in your mouth unless you know of what you are talking about. THere are more CLF elders that know about me than you. so don’t be a hater.
if you have something to say, then speak up little biatch.
Gus,
what the EFF are you talking about?
Now you are jumping on their band wagon?
what keeper of what style?
do you realize that Chan Yong Fa is not the keeper of the style. Someone in CHina by the name of Sun is said to be the keeper of the style.
how can there be so many keepers of one style?
I quit this boring arse forum,
when most of you read something, and the names of the people who were interviewed were printed at the top, then for you dumb arse’s to bring in CHan Yong fa’s name into this is rediculous. you have no clue.
so are all you fools telling me that Kong Hin is a Chan Yong Fa disciple?
were any of you there to prove first hand that Chan Heung was a gung fu man and not a scholar?
IF all you have on Chan Heung is based off of CHan Family writings, then keep it in the chan family. there are two other well known famous branches to focus on here.
Don’t dispute me, if you have the balls big enough, dispute Kong Hing, however i don’t think either of you will ever raise an eyebrow when it comes to him. i believe you ALL will tuck your tails and run after trying to dispute him.
The chan Family doesn’t have anyone living who is almost literally 100 years old.
however, there are two buk sing people one in canada and one in china (almost 100 years old) still living that in reality are buk sing people but were hung sing people when training under Tam Sam. They actually lived thru much of the history, and they have a very different story to tell when it comes to CLF.
but don’t worry stick to the chan side of things, i feel most of you are better off that way. ignorance is bliss.
iron silk,
i purposely don’t get involved too much when it comes to the chan side of things.
chan family supporters are so blind to see what’s around them i’ll let them stay blind.
everyone on the chan side of things dispute Jeong Yim and what he has done for CLF. Why do you think everytime some Hung Sing stuff comes up, people like joseph, iron silk and so on say "no, let’s talk about Chan Heung and his 8 internal bagua forms.
any one in their own organization can come up with new things to practice. just as the way Chan Heung did, his lineage did, and so on. If you guys think Chan Heung came up with every single thing the chan family does, and Chan Yong Fa, Chan Yiu Chi, or whoever never added in things to take the system further than i think you guys are great chan family supporters. keep up the good work.
let the Hung Sing People who know about their own founder tell the story and stop trying to obscure Jeong Yim’s history with that of CHan Heung’s.
I still don’t see where it says koon pak did not learn kung fu from his father.
If someone wants to become an engineer, does that mean he could not have learnt kung fu?
Where is the chan records that said jeong yim was assigned to take care of koon pak?
Where is the chan records that say koon pak did not learn kung fu from his father?
You gave only a quote from an internet website and it still didn’t say koon pak did not learn kungfu from his father. Being a merchant doesn’t mean you could not have learnt kung fu. Wong fei hung was said to be a doctor, so does that mean he could not have learnt kung fu from his father?
What are these chan records? Where did you access them and do you have a copy?
Can you post the original chinese of chan records? Can you read chinese?
You also said you have seen some of the dummy sets. What were the wooden dummy sets you saw and where did you see them? Do you have links to videoclips of the sets you saw? Who performed them? I don’t think they are widely known in the states.
http://www.3famclflinks.zoomshare.com
as well on a chan yong fa site where bak mo was performed, the dummy set, a fan set.
Is that all you’ve seen? So the only dummy sets you have seen are the ones released on the vcds? Did you see anyone of the dummy sets in real life and not just on video?
What about the breaking hand dummy, the horse dummy, the penetrating dragon dummy, the copperman dummy, the plum blossom dummy, the pole dummy, the fan dummy, sword dummy, and the rest of the ( if I’m not mistaken) 18 dummies of clf ?
I think a lot of people would have seen those vcds, and so that would not put you on any special position to comment on the chan dummies and other materials shown on the vcd sets?
to tell you the truth, the dummy sets created by the chan family branch is great, its wonderful for them.
However, i’ll stick to Hung SIng Kwoon dummy sets. IF i was going to go into battle using my staff, then it’s possible i may check out chan family stuff to compare.
Sa bau jong, not too hard to put together on the bag that hangs in my school. same concept.
Possibly one day, i will learn a few Chan Family dummy sets, a few Buk Sing ones too.
but for now, i’ll stick to what we got.
Just because the chan family has many forms, it doesn’t mean they are better than any of the other branches. as i’ve said, i haven’t been impressed by hub bub about Chan Family this and that. I don’t find it any different than what any other CLF branch has put out.
Remember, what was passed down within the CHan Family stayed within the Chan Family. The other branches teach their own stuff and passed that down within their own branches.
For sure, the Chan Family DOES NOT teach ANY of the techniques that Tam Sam created and passed down within his branch. IF you can dispute this, then please be my guest. I implore you to prove that wrong.
The Chan Family doesn’t teach the sets and concepts and such that the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon passes down within their branch. The Chan Family doesn’t teach Joy Yau Biu Sei which was passed down within Lau Bun’s branch.
For those reading, and want to know why Jeong Yim doesn’t teach anything of the Chan Family branch it’s because how far do you think in 5 years Chan Heung developed Choy Lee Fut? Jeong Yim stopped learning from Chan Heung after 5 years and then went on to learn from Monk Ching Cho (the Green Grass MOnk).
According to OUR history (not theirs) Jeong Yim returned to Chan Heung and “shared” with Chan Heung some of the new stuff Jeong Yim learned. Regardless of culture, if someone created something and then someone came along and said “let’s add some of this to make it better” into the mix isn’t at all impossible for Jeong Yim to achieve that.
again, the Fut San Hung SIng Kwoon doesn’t teach Chan Heung material except for the 10 seeds. Set wise, their material is different from each other.