I am a student of one of LKH’s student. 
Though I only trained hard in CLF quite late, after an awaking event in life…maybe it was fate afterall that I was to learn CLF.
Left-coast and I am guessing San Fran, correct?
[QUOTE=CLFNole;809884]Mokkori:
I noticed your list of 8 sets differs slightly from the 8 forms I have read about:
Tai Gee Kuen
Ping Kuen
Tien Gee Kuen
Kwok Gee Kuen
Cheong Kuen
On Gee Kuen
Man Gee Kuen
Nien Gee Kuen
Just curious as to why yours is different and why no other hung sing schools appear to have these 8 sets outside of maybe ping kuen and cheong kuen?
Also I have never heard of 8 original hung sing sets ever being documented. Frank has always maintained that Jeong Yim learned a long form called in and out baat gwa to which he broke up into sup gee kuen, ping kuen and cheong keun.
Any insight on this?[/QUOTE]
Guys, I gots to clear this one up! “taai ping tin gok” was the peaceful heavenly kingdom and the name of the revolution, the additional “cheung on man lin” was just an extension to make the war cry. “faan ching fuk ming” also had a longer verse but its seldom seen. So people are just assuming that “cheung on man lin” must be connected but thats just an ass-umption made recently and was never brought up in the past and has no relevance at all!
Its not just my school that has these forms either, my sifu traced them from Chan Ngau Sing and one other student of Jeung Yim passed them down in his lineage too. It seems like Jeung Yim didnt really break out the forms part of his teachings until his later years, and that was when Chan Ngau Sing was in charge. Ive seen them performed by several lineages before, and way back Jow Ga adopted a couple of them like Gok Ji Keun.
Its just a matter of understanding though, taai ji keun, ping ji keun, tin ji keun, and gok ji keun are the representative sets of the peaceful heavenly kingdom. Also, they represent north, south, east, and west (or the 4 lakes or something like that), and are connected by “sup ji keun” which is the cross having 4 corners leading to the 4 forms. Cheung Keun and Kau Da were early fighting forms and got some kind of meaning that I forget. Fut Jeung is supposed to represent the techniques that GGM taught Jeung Yim!
Mokkori:
I am not saying you are wrong but the list I have of the 8 sets came from a Chan Koon Pak Hung Sing sifu’s book. It was written in Chinese and translated by my wife. He lists the 8 sets I mentioned as being the early 8 sets of Chan Hueng so who knows.
By the way, how long have you followed Choy Sifu?
[QUOTE=CLFNole;809884]Mokkori:
I noticed your list of 8 sets differs slightly from the 8 forms I have read about:
Tai Gee Kuen
Ping Kuen
Tien Gee Kuen
Kwok Gee Kuen
Cheong Kuen
On Gee Kuen
Man Gee Kuen
Nien Gee Kuen
Just curious as to why yours is different and why no other hung sing schools appear to have these 8 sets outside of maybe ping kuen and cheong kuen?
Also I have never heard of 8 original hung sing sets ever being documented. Frank has always maintained that Jeong Yim learned a long form called in and out baat gwa to which he broke up into sup gee kuen, ping kuen and cheong keun.
Any insight on this?[/QUOTE]
Guys, I gots to clear this one up! “taai ping tin gok” was the peaceful heavenly kingdom and the name of the revolution, the additional “cheung on man lin” was just an extension to make the war cry. “faan ching fuk ming” also had a longer verse but its seldom seen. So people are just assuming that “cheung on man lin” must be connected but thats just an ass-umption made recently and was never brought up in the past and has no relevance at all!
Its not just my school that has these forms either, my sifu traced them from Chan Ngau Sing and one other student of Jeung Yim passed them down in his lineage too. It seems like Jeung Yim didnt really break out the forms part of his teachings until his later years, and that was when Chan Ngau Sing was in charge. Ive seen them performed by several lineages before, and way back Jow Ga adopted a couple of them like Gok Ji Keun.
Its just a matter of understanding though, taai ji keun, ping ji keun, tin ji keun, and gok ji keun are the representative sets of the peaceful heavenly kingdom. Also, they represent north, south, east, and west (or the 4 lakes or something like that), and are connected by “sup ji keun” which is the cross having 4 corners leading to the 4 forms. Cheung Keun and Kau Da were early fighting forms and got some kind of meaning that I forget. Fut Jeung is supposed to represent the techniques that GGM taught Jeung Yim!
Really? Thats kind of interesting. Weird though since they never showed up on the Chan side, but weve had them from the beginning.
I dont follow Chui, just from his lineage.
Yeah I found it interesting as well that is why I brought it up as I have never really come across any schools with names using those sets except for ping kuen, cheong kuen and mahn jee kuen.
I learned a mahn jee kuen set from one of my sihings in HK and I think it comes from your line.
Nope, Man Ji Keun isnt ours. I think that brought out alot of confusion about those assumed latter 4 forms too, but its a Chan Family form and was never in Hung Sing. Ive confirmed that before with several lineages too.
Theres alot of lineages that never really came into the public so its not surprising that these forms arent so well known. My sifu is friends with a guy from the former HSK of Thailand through a unique student of Jeung Yim that isnt related to Chan Ngau Sing or the others, and he backed things up. Too bad hes ill and cant teach cause his contribution would clear up alot of doubts that are still hanging around. Futshan maintains most of these forms too and their lineage from Jeung Yim is different from mine.
Man Gee Kuen must have come from someone else, for some reason I thought he mentioned Choy Kwong Yuen but my cantonese is “mah mah dei” especially when people are talking fast. I know the set isn’t from our line as it has some different earmarks.
Never heard Frank mention those sets but then again he isn’t always specific about curriculums. Isn’t Choy Kwong Yuen quite involved in what is taught at the Fut San school. Not sure if that is the case but it is what I heard.
Its a curious form alright. I wondered about it before but all sources said it aint ours so I dont know.
Most of the group in Futshan learned (or relearned) from CKY, but there are alot of sifus there representing several different lines so its not all the same material. Personally I think it would be hard to run a school with 10 different teachers in charge, but I guess they have that worked out already.
i’ve always been pretty selective with what i share publicly.
Same here just I never heard you mention anything about the 8 sets Mokorri listed thats all.
[QUOTE=mokkori;809947], and way back Jow Ga adopted a couple of them like Gok Ji Keun.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an interesting statement…
Jow Ga (Chow Gar) does not go all that “way back”.
I know Chow Gar’s Gok Ji Kuen. My understanding is that Chow Lung and his brothers created all the Chow Gar forms and did not “adopt” any. However, as is often the way in southern kung fu, two totally different CLF and Chow Gar forms may well share the same name.
Do you have any footage of CLF’s Gok Ji Kuen? I would like to see that to see if there is any resemblance between the two forms.
[QUOTE=CLFNole;809961]Man Gee Kuen must have come from someone else, for some reason I thought he mentioned Choy Kwong Yuen but my cantonese is “mah mah dei” especially when people are talking fast. I know the set isn’t from our line as it has some different earmarks.
[/QUOTE]
Nole,
Don’t know about the Man Gee Kuen in CLF that you are referring to, but Man Gee Kuen (in Chow Gar) is one of Chow Gar’s most famous signature forms.
Well, Im not an expert on Jow Ga no, I just know that there was alot of history with it and CLF. The Gok Ji Keun in Jow Ga is perhaps just a similar base and not the same form, otherwise what would the meaning of it be? In CLF that form is pretty high level and isnt performed publicly, though Im sure itll find its way out sometime.
I didnt know Jow Ga had a Man Ji Keun, the clf one is on youtube and is pretty interesting. Im not trying to make any statements about Jow Ga, just looking for historical links and thats one of them.
Maybe you could share some of Jow Ga’s history and connection to CLF so that I can be more clear and not make ignorant statements.
Mokorri:
Most Jow Gar people will tell you that they have no connection to CLF at all except for the Choy Gar aspect. Whether or not this is completely true I don’t know but there are a heck of a lot of similarities with both hung gar and CLF when I look at Jow Gar sets, which could be a result that most southern Kwantung styles have similarities.
Never seen the Man Gee Kuen clip on Youtube, do you have the link?
Peace.
[QUOTE=CLFNole;809937]Left-coast and I am guessing San Fran, correct?[/QUOTE]
My teacher is not in the US. I don’t currenty have a CLF sifu, thats why I read this form. My teacher would have recieved teachings from other CLF greats, just like anyother who seeks. I know our line has some koon pak style, i don’t speak for my teacher but he would probably argue that chueng yim taught koon pak. All CLF at the end of the day originated from Chan Hueng & as far as I know and see, Cheung Yim added alot more spice. The teachings I recieved were always in the context of Cheung Yim and buk sing for the chap. Sau is always done with Green Grass monk, lama principles. The direction and body alignments which we executes technique and forms were always all the way, in the context of cheung yim. As far as I know some “weak” techniques has removed, some modified. Although I have only learnt just a over a handfull of CLF forms…so far, if anyone ask me which lineage I came from, I would no doubt say Cheung Yim and thats not becuase of the forms I do but the principles I have recieved.
I would agree with the principles part becuase afterall Leung Kwai did study with Jeong Yim, which is why I still contend we are a mixed lineage. Someone said Jeong Yim might not have taught forms which might explain why we might not have their forms.
I have always felt we had some buk sing influence as well and sifu confirmed this (I guess either he or one of the people he learned from had some buk sing experience). Sifu once mentioned that we were somehow connected with Lui Chan, Tam Sam’s sifu but didn’t really expand as to how.
People can say and believe whatever they want but if you learn enough and dig deep enough you can figure it out for yourself.
Like I said before I contend we are a mixed lineage. One thing that is interesting if you pay attention to sifu’s 1st book CLF: Dynamic Art of Fighting, the history section in the front makes no mention for Jeong Yim, for whatever that is worth.
another thing I want to add is. When I was learning forms & techniques. I was constantly reminded of body alignment and the way a technique is executed… the subtitle corrections that were made to a technique to make it work, as such is the Fat San Hung Sing way and such would not be. So the lineage you come from has alot more to it then Hoi Jeongs or forms.
Guys, the principles cant be defined by the lineage, only by the teacher. Ive seen Buk Sing guys who train hardcore on only forms, and Ive seen Chan Family guys who only learn 1 form and train the fighting techniques of it to perfection. You think you can determine which 1 of the 3 main branches by seeing a couple techniques? Bull!
CLF and the way its played is determined by the practitioner only, and not by the branch it came down. Some say that Hung Sing is very extended and Chan is bent arms but haven’t we all seen the opposite as well?
How come the Singapore, Malaysia, and Futshan all play the same Hung Sing forms completely differently?
How come the Laceys, Jun Chiu Yue, and Wong Gwai Cheun all do their Buk Sing at different stance heights, different speeds, different extensions, etc.?
How come Chen Yong Fa, Wong Ha, and Wong Doc Fai play differently in forms and functions and applications?
The principles set aside the branches? Bull, that has never shown to be true. Its the practitioners and how they were taught or how they want or how they interpret how things are done. Anybody give any example of something like a principle or way that they thinks is solely found in only 1 of the branches… and Ill bet I can find the same examples in the other 2 done the same way.