It’s updated
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;1035475]It is passed down from our lineage in fut san, specifically by Qian Wei Fang that Jeung Hung Sing’s first teacher was Lee Yau San.
how do you know tis isn’t true? chan family records of Jeung Hung Sing is very very thin. are you saying this because is wasn’t recorded in chan family records?[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying that because is wasn’t recorded in Chan Family records, I’m saying it’s not very plausible because it wasn’t part of any tradition, including Fut San until recently. Just when old masters like Hu Yuen Chou passed away all this new information came out.
I got you. however, this is the history of my lineage. There are lots of things that are coming from fut san that were never known before. like jeung hung sing being married and having two kids thats new info. the fact that chan ngau sing’s direct bloodline still existed and his great grand daughter is still practicing CLF was never known until 2001.
Although, personally, i find it plausible because Jeung Hung Sing was from Sun Wui and that’s where Lee Yau San was teaching. Another thing was, its always been suspected that Jeung Hung Sing had martial arts experience prior to arriving in King Mui in 1836. This would explain why he was able to pick up Chan Heung’s gung fu relatively easy.
Until i come across something concrete that can prove other wise, i’d say i’m going to stick to what our elders tell us about the founder of our system (fut san hung sing CLF). 
Hi Frank,
You think new information only came out from Futsan, here is a new piece from the Chan Family archive for you, (as far as I can see what is in my hands, quite a few pages were written about Jeung Ah-Yim but the public will never see them - too controversial. Also Jeung never studied with Lee Yau-Shan, otherwise it would have been written down):
Jeung Ah-Yim’s father was a stone mason working in Hong Kong when he met Chan Heung (Chan Heung was invited there by the Guangdong Village Association), he was impressed by Chan Heung’s skill after he defeated a Russian boxer and wanted his son to study with Chan Heung.
Jeung Ah-Yim’s father gave him the nick name Hung Sing (Victorious Hung) very early on and was never used as a CLF branch name like you insisted, because he taught his boy Hung Kuen very young and wanted him to grow up to be a winner with his Kung Fu study.
I can understand you won’t believe me because this is written in Chan Yiu-Chi hand writing and not by his father Koon-Pak or by Chan Heung himself (I don’t have these records). You are going to say it is just made up by Chan Yiu-Chi.
I’ll leave at that.
XJ
BTW, you just turned 43 and I just turned 63, so happy birthday!
see how you always tell lies joseph. i just turned 42 and not 43. stop wishing me to be older and joseph, you old man, we went through all of that back in 2001.
eung Ah-Yim’s father gave him the nick name Hung Sing (Victorious Hung) very early on and was never used as a CLF branch name like you insisted, because he taught his boy Hung Kuen very young and wanted him to grow up to be a winner with his Kung Fu study.
At least you are admitting that jeung hung sing was using [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] in the beginning. about the rest.. nice try…FULL OF BS but NICE TRY 
no thanks joseph. you can keep chan yiu chi’s version of our history. i’m sure not even FUT SAN wants to listen to that mess hahahaahahha
I will trust my own lineages accout of our history.
The history behind the name
Jeung Ah Yim’s 3rd and most influential teacher (Monk Ching Cho or Green Grass Monk [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]) was a co-founder to the Hung Mun[SIZE=“3”] [/SIZE]. And, the Hung Mun has many flags with various sayings or slogans on them. There is a common slogan found on the flags of all 5 Hung Mun lodges. one of them has four little characters that hold the key to the Hung Sing name[SIZE=“3”][/SIZE]. In fact, [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] was also the name of a Tian Ti Hui tong found in Guangxie.
Within the same manner of thinking, the Green Grass Monk wanted to immortalize the Hung Mun by giving Jeung Ah Yim a nickname that reflected one of its strongest sentiments. by nicknaming him the hung mun legacy will not be forgotten. When breaking down the 4 word slogan, you get the words [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE].
Joseph, Jeung Hung Sing’s martial arts is primarily Fut Gar Kuen, this is evident when comparing the Yuen Hai lineage. which would explain why NO sets from the Chan Family branch are practiced by the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon lineages. Yuen Hai was one of the original student of Jeung Hung Sing and he passed that on to Professor Lau Bun who came to the United States where he preserved what was taught to him.
From Hoi Jong patterns, to hand signals, everything found in the Fut San Hung Sing lineages point all their fingers to Monk Ching Cho and the Hung Society. Jeung Hung Sing was only a student of Chan Heung from 1836-1841. He may have come back to CLF but he didn’t do so till much later.
So from 1841 to roughly between 1867-1875 Jeung Hung Sing missed two or more decades of Chan Fam Choy Lee Fut evolution. He was busy with his own school and fighting in the revolution, hiding from the authorities and so on. He returned to his former teacher (Chan Heung). Although, Chan Heung MAY have been instrumental with the new name Jeung Hung Sing chose to use[SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] once he changed the original one [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE].
And i thought you might want to know that the new Hung Sing [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] also contains a secret reference but this time its directly to the lodge founded by the Monk Ching Cho in Guangxie.
[SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] =[SIZE=“3”] [/SIZE] Hung Mun wins the victory. Who wins? the [SIZE=“5”] does. and how do you say VICTORY in Chinese? SING
[/SIZE] Therefore, you get the name of [SIZE=“3”][/SIZE] Hung Sing.
So there you go joseph. oh wait got a question for you…
[SIZE=“5”] or [/SIZE]
both say Green Grass Monk. Can you tell me the difference between the two names and what it means?
Joseph are you losing your mind? hahaha
Brother Joseph, for one, i turned 42, not 43. see how your info isn’t accurate?
also, here, let’s see if you can answer this. i would be a big surprise if you could a nice one too. do you know what this is " " ?
i’ll give you a hint, it’s connected to Monk Ching Cho’s lodge.
Hi Frank,
There you go, when a westerner turned 42, we say in Chinese he turned 43 because we go by the lunar year.
You said Hung is for Hung-men and Chan Yiu-Chi said Hung is for Hung-kuen, it is your words against his and since he is dead, I can only go by his writing, take it or leave it.
XJ
Chan Family lineage has nothing to do with Jeung Hung Sing’s branch. aside from minor sections, our material, name and so forth have nothing to do with Chan Family. Aside from the name of “CHOY LEE FUT” there is no visible connection between our branches joseph.
but, YES, the Hung in the Fut San lineage is for Hung Mun. It is NOT for Hung Kuen. it may be so for the Chan Family, but definitely not Fut San Hung Sing. = Hung Mun[SIZE=“5”] ()[/SIZE] wins the Victory SIZE=“5”. [/SIZE] = [SIZE=“5”][/SIZE]
Still, as i stated earlier, and as you know already, I am from the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon lineage, not from any Chan Family line at all. As far as I know, all of the Chan Family attempts at trying to get anyone from the Jeung Hung Sing line to believe Chan Yiu Chi’s history fell on deaf ears. Now, if my elders wouldn’t accept CYC’s account then why should I? or anyone else for that matter?
Question for you joseph
Joseph,
It’s not that I don’t want to believe Chan Yiu Chi’s account of my branch’s history. I would have been more open to your lineages account if it actually came from Chan Heung. The Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE] was established in 1851 and the only mention of Jeung Hung Sing by Chan Heung is that the former returned to Fut San in 1867. And why did he do that? to re-open his own school!
As you can see there is a 16 year gap between the time Jeung Hung Sing opened his [SIZE=“4”][/SIZE] and the first mention of him in Chan Heung’s personal records.
So here is my dilemma. the founder of MY branch is a well known former student of Chan Heung, a wanted revolutionary, and a great fighter yet there’s basically nothing recorded about him by neither Chan Heung nor Chan Koon Pak. Now, Jeung Hung Sing had Yuen Hai, Lui Chun, Lee Yan, and even Chan Ngau Sing continuing the legacy that Jeung Hung Sing started. Why shouldn’t we believe them?
I don’t understand joseph why would you want me to believe the 3rd generation leader of a different branch about our founder over the actual students and inheritors of the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon?
Why would Chan Yiu Chi’s version have more weight over the actual lineage?
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;1036664]Joseph,
Why would Chan Yiu Chi’s version have more weight over the actual lineage?[/QUOTE]
Hi Frank,
At least I can get hold of a written record from his time (Chan Yiu-Chi 1892-1965), can you get hold of a written record from someone of his position and time (say before 1949) to say otherwise? It is not that long ago.
XJ
Nah, I don’t have to rely on that. How about you trying to go to fut san Hung Sing and push that on them. i’m curious to know the outcome of that.
I’m not going to go on like i did in the past about this joseph. In regards to the history of Choy Lee Fut, i’ve read enough to know that i am better off relying on my own lineage when it comes to our own founder.
See, your branch somehow believes Jeung Hung Sing arrived onto the Choy Lee Fut scene in 1867. Your branch has made comments that Jeung Hung Sing was jealous that he wasn’t the CLF Kung Mui Branch inheritor, that Ching Cho is Choy Fook, that Chan Heung sent Jeung Hung Sing to Fut San when it really was Ching Cho, and so much more.
Question. Where did Chan Yiu Chi get his information about Jeung Hung Sing if his (Chan Yiu Chi) own father and Grand Father didn’t have anything written about him?
At least I can get hold of a written record from his time (Chan Yiu-Chi 1892-1965), can you get hold of a written record from someone of his position and time (say before 1949) to say otherwise? It is not that long ago.
QUESTION: WHAT YEAR DID CHAN YIU CHI WRITE THIS IN HIS OWN HAND WRITING?
Now, i know that you are old, but you are not blind. You copy and pasted my question about Chan Yiu Chi, and gave me some dookie.
can you please ANSWER the following question:
WHY SHOULD CHAN YIU CHI’S VERSION CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN ANY OR ALL ACCOUNTS COMING FROM THE DIRECT BRANCH IN QUESTION?
As much as I love to watch you 2 argue I will offer my 2 cents (not that anyone cares).
It seems to me that by offerring up Jeung Yim having studied with Lee Yau San it gives the appearance of trying to get more on an equal level with Chan Heung. Does Jeung Yim really need that? His kung fu should just speak on its own and no matter what he was Chan Heung’s student so that can’t me diminished in any why.
My biggest propblem with Jeung Yim having studied with Lee Yau San is this…Lee Yau San is acknowledged with brining in the active footwork to CLF. This is one thing I have always noticed as a difference between Chan style (if you will) and Jeung Yim’s Hung Sing. Frank even you yourself have made point of the active footwork. This is in no way trying to say active footwork is better or worse but if in fact Lee Yau San was the source of this it would make sense that if Jeung Yim followed him it would be seen more in his hung sing line.
There are differences in the two lines that is certain; however I personally think that is attributed to lines morphing as they move ****her and ****her from the original source. I would wager that Chan Hueng’s and Jeung Yim’s kung fu was more close back then than what we see from each side now. That goes for both sides not just one.
As far as the Chan Yiu Chi history I don’t what to beat that horse to death but just because he wrote stuff down doesn’t make it entirely accurate as I can’t completely document the life of my grandfather so I would imagine he would be the same. At the same time at least there is something documented which really can’t be said for the hung sing side which lacks documented evidence.
Peace out.
[QUOTE=CLFNole;1036760]There are differences in the two lines that is certain; however I personally think that is attributed to lines morphing as they move f-a-r-t-h-e-r and f-a-r-t-h-e-r from the original source. I would wager that Chan Hueng’s and Jeung Yim’s kung fu was more close back then than what we see from each side now. That goes for both sides not just one.[/QUOTE]
Truth. I would say that applies to all branches of CLF; and not just the two being discussed. Things tend to change (or morph, as you put it) over time.
A Quick Comparison
I am only doing the following because i really do think it’s important that others understand that if you want to know the truth about the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon, then you should go to the source and study the history prior to speaking up. it is not intended to offend anyone, but this is my lineages history we are talking about.
Chan Heung Branch founders version of Jeung Hung Sing’s History:
Q: When was Jeung Ah Yim born? A: Not Recorded.
Q: When did Jeung Ah Yim first start learning from Chan Heung? A: Not Recorded
Q: How long did Jeung Ah Yim train with Chan Heung? A: Not Recorded.
Q: When did Jeung Ah Yim pass away? A: Not Recorded
Q: What did Chan Heung teach Jeung Ah Yim? A: Not Recorded
Q: Who Gave Jeung Ah Yim the Hung Sing name? A: Not Recorded
Q: Who was the Green Grass Monk? A: Not Recorded
Q: What is documented about Jeung Ah Yim by Chan Heung? A: Jeung Hung Sing returned to Fut San to re-open his Hung Sing Kwoon.
Now, it’s well known that Jeung Ah Yim (Jeung Hung Sing) was a famous former student of Chan Heung. In one corner of your mouth you say Jeung Hung Sing was one of Chan Heung’s favorite students. So in saying, Jeung Hung Sing was a well known figure in southern Chinese martial arts. Yet there is nothing documented about him by Chan Family Choy Lee Fut founder Chan Heung.
The following would be answers coming from the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon, the source of our lineage:
Q: When was Jeung Ah Yim born? A: 1824.
Q: When did Jeung Ah Yim first start learning from Chan Heung? A: in 1836 at the age of 12 years old.
Q: How long did Jeung Ah Yim train with Chan Heung? A: for 5 years from the age of 12-17 years old (1836-1841).
Q: When did Jeung Ah Yim pass away? A: 1893 at the age of 69.
Q: What did Chan Heung teach Jeung Ah Yim? A: The earliest stages of Chan Heung’s Choy Lee Fut as it was far from completed in its evolution.
Q: Who Gave Jeung Ah Yim the Hung Sing name? A: Monk Ching Cho
Q: Who was the Green Grass Monk? A: A former Shaolin Monk, and co-founder of the Hung Mun Secret Society.
Q: What is documented about Jeung Ah Yim by Chan Heung? A: Jeung Hung Sing returned to Fut San to re-open his Hung Sing kwoon.
After leaving Chan Heung in 1841, Jeung Hung Sing spent the next 30 plus years developing Hung Sing Kuen which was a combination of the Lee Gar he learned from Lee Yau San, the early Choy Lee Fut and Fut Gar Kuen. Then sometime in the early to mid 1860’s Jeung Hung Sing returned to his former sifu and this is where Chan Heung’s CLF changed a bit due to Jeung Hung Sing’s Fut Gar Kuen contributions to Choy Lee Fut evolutionary path.
While Choy Lee Fut in King Mui developed on its own course, the same was happening with Jeung Hung Sing’s Hung Sing CLF. the two branches developed their martial arts separately. I know it has to make you wonder why there are no chan family forms found in any true hung sing branch. and there definitely is a reason to it too.
One day, i do hope the history issue can rest peacefully, but it looks like we still have a ways got go.
It seems to me that by offerring up Jeung Yim having studied with Lee Yau San it gives the appearance of trying to get more on an equal level with Chan Heung. Does Jeung Yim really need that? His kung fu should just speak on its own and no matter what he was Chan Heung’s student so that can’t me diminished in any why.
Does he NEED it? how about it just being true? why does it have to be a lie? why isn’t it possible? is there anything concrete enough to debunk it? This information didn’t come from me, it came from Fut San. Since that is my lineage, its what i’m focusing on.
Jeung Hung Sing was a small child (under the age of 12) when he learned from Lee Yau San, and there’s no telling what he learned from him whether it was a little or alot. what is common in the history is that Jeung Hung Sing was thought to have been trained already because he picked up chan heung’s gung fu so quickyl. and the whole reason jeung hung sing went to chan heung is because his parents were killed and his uncle couldn’t take care of him any longer. anyways, since jeung hung sing was so young i really don’t think it should be such an issue.
Now the footwork in the forms are not the same footwork i see in CHOY LEE FUT when it comes to fighting. i have yet to see a chan family member move around in combat like they do in their forms. and who is to say that it was FOOTWORK that Jeung Hung Sing focused on? Lee Gar is far more than just foot work.
There are differences in the two lines that is certain; however I personally think that is attributed to lines morphing as they move ****her and ****her from the original source.
Jeung Hung Sing moved from CHOY LEE FUT’s original source in 1841 to learn Fut Gar Kuen.
I would wager that Chan Hueng’s and Jeung Yim’s kung fu was more close back then than what we see from each side now
what are you basing this on?
At the same time at least there is something documented which really can’t be said for the hung sing side which lacks documented evidence.
IF chan heung was able to document whatever he did, then why is Jeung Hung Sing left out of it? Just because Chan Heung didn’t document Jeung Hung Sing does that mean the latter didn’t exist, have his life, teach his students, fight in the many revolutions he was known to fight in, or even have a legacy today?
people are too busy worrying who is on top, who is trying to blah blah blah. The history of CLF does not make any branch better than the other.
Oh…CLFNOLE…
If you and the entire Lee Koon Hung lineage were wanted criminals whose sentence would be death for sure, would you worry about documenting your history? I would answer no cause they were actually LIVING it till death. being in possession of documents that would lead to your death i highly doubt you would have.
The Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon founder and students were wanted by the police and government for their activities with the Hung Mun and the many revolutions they participated in.
Sorry, recording their own history would be the last thing on their minds IMHO.
Oh, and about the footwork, fut san’s primary system is Fut Gar Kuen over Choy Lee Fut and Lee Gar. So thats where our foot work comes from. Not the Lee Gar System.
CLFNOLE,
To a certain extent i agree with you about it changing as it gets further away from the source. It reminds me of Yuen Hai (Lau Bun’s teacher) and Chan Ngau Sing, two very important focal points in the history of Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut.
Being that Yuen Hai was there from the beginning and was one of the three original students of Jeung Hung Sing, Lau Bun was taught the way Yuen Hai got it from Jeung Hung Sing. But, Hung Sing Kuen (Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut) under Chan Ngau Sing was taken to the next level for a new generation.
Since Lau Bun wasn’t a student of Chan Ngau Sing, he never picked up the new stuff that was being created by him. He just taught what he learned from Yuen Hai. From what i’ve noticed is there are some major changes in the Chan Ngau Sing lineage, but there is still alot that is the same as found in my lineage.
Hi Frank,
The question is not whether who has more weight, who is on top or not, the question is whether there are written documents or records to support one’s claim. That is what historical research is all about.
You can change your history as much as you like, but to be convincing there has to be supporting evidence. If not it is just a theory or a hearsay, that is all, and that goes for stories or legends about our grandfather or great uncles.
XJ