There’s a booklet of the 2004 gathering of the “Choy Lee Fut Chui Cheung Kung Fu Students Association” that has a lot of teachers and clubs under that lineage in there.
I’d say that you have to include TMW out in San Fran by any measure of ‘leading teacher’. Sam Ng to me also seems to be a ‘leading teacher’, though his school isn’t as large as TMW’s.
[QUOTE=mokkori;809328]If its Hung Sing that your talking about TMW (Wong Tat Mau) and Sam Ng are not Hung Sing, with all due respect to them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I didn’t put down any specific branch because I thought that might be controversial. All I’m saying is that if you’re compiling a list of current leading CLF teachers, these guys should be on there.
I think I remember hearing that TMW (and really from what I hear most of LKH) is really sort of a combination of Chan and Hung Sing, right? Maybe he would fit under a miscellaneous/hybrid section.
I didn’t realize that the Ng fam wasn’t pure Hung Sing. Is it mixed with another family of CLF or what?
I think I remember hearing that TMW (and really from what I hear most of LKH) is really sort of a combination of Chan and Hung Sing, right? Maybe he would fit under a miscellaneous/hybrid section.
[/QUOTE]
I think it was Poon Dik’s or Poon Sing’s decision to attach the “hung sing” name to his style, and in the past he and his people did so much positive promotion that it was left alone. Feelings are definately different now days, but the damage is done and I doubt anyone would be willing to change the name of the style that was attached so many generations before them… though imho it would be a good idea.
There is no Hung Sing in the LKH branch, and it is not a hybrid style. They simply took the signature opening of the Hung Sing branch and attached it on their Chan Family CLF forms, but they dont have any Hung Sing forms or material other than that.
That is interesting as I have never heard that before. I always felt we were mainly hung sing (Chan Koon Pak’s) and while I think we don’t have much hung sing (jeong yim) in our lineage (LKH) I do believe there is some influence (such as extensive use of chop choy’s and fu pow kuen, which has almost a buk sing feel to it). Also only a few forms have the “hung sing” L-pattern hoi jong, whereas most have the straight ahead Chan Family style hoi jong albeit slightly different.
One of Poon Dik’s sifu’s was Leung Kwai and he studied with both Chan Koon Pak and Jeong Yim, so the influence is there. Most of our sets are definately from the Chan Family side but some of our sets are quite different from their’s maybe just a result of time and passing generations.
It’s funny years ago I was having dinner with Poon Sing and I asked him about his father and he said that his fathers kung fu came from Chan Koon Pak. Years later Poon Sing’s picture was going in the Fut San Kwoon and people were talking Jeong Yim’s hung sing, which I never bought into becuase our stuff is very different.
that kinda makes sense when you say you are perhaps the Koon Pak line of hung sing…at one point Koon Pak may have used jeong yim’s hung sing , then changed over to the one used by his lineage today?
Look at your lineage, Sam Ng is from Chan Koon Pak’s line, which is hung sing of the Chan Family, no relation to Jeung Yim’s Hung Sing is what Im saying.
clfnole:
I think that LKH’s CLF has its own unique flavor of its own, but how clf is played varies from teacher to teacher and has nothing to do with the lineage anyway.
Im just talking bout material, Hung Sing from Jeung Yim has 8 original forms and Ive never seen any of them in LKH Style curriculum, just the opening. Fu Pau Keun isnt a Hung Sing form, its from Chan Family CLF, cool form though.
Ive seen Poon Sings picture in Futshan, like I said the decision were made in the past and since the 2 people who made that decision are still living it remains as is.
Funny I have never heard Fu Pow Kuen mentioned as one of the Chan Family sets. I have tried to research my line as much as possible and most things came back to Chan Koon Pak. Some of my sihings in Hong Kong and current sifu have come to the same conclusion. It is a shame my wife and mother-in-law don’t know more.
As far as the 8 original sets, I guess you are referring to tai, ping, tien, etc… I have read that those were supposed to be the original 8 sets from Chan Hueng, which really wouldn’t make sense since most are not seen unless names changed. Are they then the 8 forms from Jeong Yim?
Fu Pau Keun was taught by Wong Ha as I remember, and Im pretty sure Ive seen it come up from Chen Yong Fa too. They also have a Lung Fu Keun too I think, those start after the separate 10 animals forms, and then the Ng Ying Keun and last the Sup Ying Keun.
The 8 original sets are:
taai ji keun
ping ji keun
tin ji keun
gok ji keun
sup ji keun
cheung keun
fut jeung keun
lin wan kau da keun
The only forms that share the same names with Chan Family forms are Ping Keun, Sup Ji Keun, and Fut Jeung Keun. But Ive seen these 3 performed by DFW, LKH, and Yong Fa branches and theres no resemblance at all.
Ive heard too that they were Chan Heungs original 8 too, but none of his lines teach them so guess that info wasnt accurate. Doc Fai Wong downplayed them in his book way back (the orange one) saying they weren’t original but created by later generations, but my sifu traced them all back through several lines within Hung Sing to find that they were from the beginning.
Its pretty hard to find them all intact but it exists, at least in my lineage anyway.
I know and have seen Lung Fu Kuen a few times, but I have never heard Fu Pow ever mentioned only in Buk Sing in Kong On’s line from his Jow Ga beginnings. DFW’s list of sets also doesn’t mention Fu Pow, it could be an oversight but I think I once asked XJ (Xtrajoseph on this forum), who is close to the Chan line and I don’t think he had heard of it either.
Ping Kuen in my branch (LKH) and Chan Yong Fa’s are very close if you watch. Yes there are some differences but you can tell its the same form.
As far at Fut Jurng or Fut Gar Jeurng I agree 3 completely different forms.
