Myself personally I prefer not to get into this CLF lineage dispute, for the most part I think its rather silly, however I found this pic on Sifu Lacey’s site very interesting http://www.pantherfist.com/catout.html
In the CLF school where I trained as a youngster there were three pictures; Chan Heung, Chan Koon Pak & Chan Yiu Chi. I always thought it odd that Chan Heung & Chan Koon Pak were positioned at exactly the same angle. Sifu Lacey’s assertion makes sense as the image of Chan Heung is said to produced by Li Yiu Ling who was also known for his abilities as an artist / calligrapher.
You seem to know Sifu Lee Yiu-Ling, do you know he is still alive and living in Sydney Australia? He is definitely not the painter. How do I know? I actually asked him once while I was living in Hong Kong and he knew a lot about the history of CLF.
If you want to see the original charcoal drawing kept by the Chan family, then go to the following webpage. One would expect the son to look a little like the father and three quarter face was the most acepted angle for a formal protraiture in the olden days.
If I were you, I would take what Dave Lacey says with a grain of salt. In an attempt to change the history of CLF, he tries very hard to discredit the Chan family. Fortunately, the other side is not biting, while we all got hot under the collar…
I don’t think the pictures prove anything, in my families photo album there are three separate is a photos of my grand father my father and me from when each of us were children.
Because of the strong likeness between the three of us and even my half brother, most people make the mistake when they see the three photos together and assume its the same child playing dressing up in old cloths in all three of the photos. The only way you can tell who’s in the picture is by the cloths; my grand father is wearing Victorian cloths, my father is wearing early 20th century cloths (1920’s) and I am wearing kids clothing from the mid 1960’s. So as Joseph has said one would expect the son to look a little like the father
I understand what you mean. Yet, being personally removed in time and relations from a painted or photographed image makes a difference. True? However, if and when deception occurs, there is a breach of trust; so, it’s nice to know if what we see, hear, and are led to believe (by Anyone) is intentionally truthful or the result of bulls lifting their tails.
“If you want to see the original charcoal drawing kept by the Chan family, then go to the following webpage. ] One would expect the son to look a little like the father and three quarter face was the most acepted angle for a formal protraiture in the olden days”
You can’t make this assumption for everyone. I know people who don’t look anything like their father or mother.
The words I used - “one would expect” - means it is only an expectation. Of course some children don’t look anything like their parents.
In Chan Heung’s case, if we look at photos of his 3 children, they have similar features to each other and people in the family said they all looked like their father, so I was told.
In my case also, if I put on my father’s glasses, people often thought I am my father. But life is full of surprises, so I used the words “one would expect”.
As for the photo used by Sifu Dave Lacey, I can not find out its author, may be some else out there can tell us. Sifu Lee Yiu Ling only has an oil painting done by one of his students who studied painting in Paris, he said it was based on a drawing kept by his techer Chan yiu-Chi.
You know the thing about CLF is it is not like the Wong Fei-Hung’s case as compared by Dave Lacey. The tradition and the lineage are very much alive. There are documents and there are living people who can varify the stories we tell. If someone said so and so happened in CLF, it happened less than 260 years ago and we should check them out before we take them as the gospel truth.
But people think seeking the truth is being disrespectful and lack of Mo Dak, well that is only their expectation, not mine. Because of that I get to be called many things, all I can say is “a thousand sentences do not make one word of truth”.
So don’t take my words for it either, go and ask Lee Yiu Ling if you think the drawing was faked by him and ask Chan Wing Fat if you don’t think Chan Koon Pak look like his father. They are still alive today and they should know.
I think we are agreeing with each other and that is a child does not have to look like his or her parent, although we may have an expectation that it would most likely be the case.
This brings up an interesting point in Dave Lacey’s argument about Choy Fook’s age. In his article, he has argued that the history of CLF as told by the Chan family must be false because one would not expect a person like Choy Fook could have lived to an age of 120, let alone teaching Kung Fu at 90.
But if we ask a biologist, us mammals in theory should live up to 5 or 6 times of our age of growth. The sign of us stopping to grow is when our wisdom teeth finish growing at about 20 – 25 years of age, so that would mean, in theory any way, we should be able to live to an average age of 100 – 120 years old. We don’t do this because of our life style but that does not mean it is not possible, if we take care of our health and life style in a different environment.
So it is quite possible that what Chan Yiu Chi wrote about his Grandfather could also be true, even though we might expect Choy Fook not to have lived to 120. The other possibilty, of course, is that the Chinese tend to exagerate their age and that does not mean Chan Yiu Chi is not telling the truth.
On the other hand, we would expect that the Chan Family would know more about their family history than Dave Lacey, but then again, it is only an expectation on our part. It may not be true that all families know their history well and may be Dave Lacey knows more than Chan Yiu Chi in this case.
We have to make these judgements for ourselves after looking at all the facts and arguments. I would say this is the way to respect each other’s history.
No I don’t know Lee Yiu Ling personally, was aware that he migrated to Australia but not sure if he is still alive. Only know of him via other CLF sifu & the CLF & New Martial Hero publications of the seventies. I have had the pleasure of meeting several of those older generation masters (Law Kay, Chan Yiu Wun, etc…) of that era but unfortunately not Lee Yiu Ling.
Regarding the picture of Chan Heung of course it proves nothing even if the image is a fake, I simply found it very interesting from my perspective of remembering how similar the images were in terms of the angle of the faces. If you look at what Lacey has on his site objectively it is interesting the photos lay over on another exactly and the eyes, nose & mouth are not only the same angle but the exact same dimension. Having read & heard that Lee Yiu Ling was an artist and per Lacey’s comments associated with the image I thought it made sense that he may have done it himself. Honestly it’s not that important just provides food for thought!
My father was in the older masters group you mentioned, so I know them well. Lee Yiu Ling is my Sisuk and he is quite a character but I don’t think he can draw well.
The photo in question was probably done in the late 60s and early 70s by someone in Hong Kong knowing there is a drawing around somewhere because the Chan family apart from Chan Kit Fong was still in Canton and communication between Hong Kong and the mainland was very difficult especially during the Cultural Revolution.
Dave Lacey accused the Chan Family to have produced the fake and that is not true because they have a much older drawing of their ancestor already. He also accused the Chan family being secretive and that is not true either, it was just that they couldn’t communicate with the rest of the world at the time.
Dave Lacey also accused me and Fu Pow being foot soldiers for the Chan family and that is again not true. I don’t speak for the Chan family and we are not the Trojan horse used by them to attack Futsan Hung Sing and Jeong Yim. Just because my lineage can be traced back to Chan Yiu Chi does not mean I am a running dog for the family.
The whole firework started when I first asked the question, “when was the GGM first mentioned?” I asked that question because when I first started to train in CLF I have never heard of his name but I do know Jeong Yim was a great CLF master and as far as I know no one tried to put him down in my circle of acquaintance. So I don’t know what Dave Lacey is on about apart from me coming to some conclusions that contradicted his points of view and I had some run ins with his supporters. For some reasons he has a bee in his bonnet about the Chan family and especially Chan Wing Fat, but that is his business.
So let us forget about his web address and move on.
“FORGET ABLOUT HIS WEB SITE AND MOVE ON”
EXTRA JOFISH,
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO HYJACK THIS THREAD? THE FIRST POST WAS IN REFRENCE TO WWW.PANTHERFIST.COM, SOMTHING INTERESTING FROM SIFU LACEYS SIGHT.
ALSO SIFU LACEY NEVER SAYS SIFU LEE YIU LING PAINTED THE FAKE PICTURE OF CHAN HEUNG HE SAY HE PRODUCED IT. MEANING HE PRESENTED IT TO THE KUNG FU COMUNITY,"I HAVE THIS PAINTING WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT?" WHEN NO ONE NEW OF IT'S EXISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS. SO SIFU LACEY NEVER SAID LEE YIU LING WAS THE ARTIST.
FURTHER MORE THE" FIREWORKS STARTED WHEN I FIRST ASKED THE QUESTION ""WHEN WAS THE GGM 1ST MENTIONED?""!! I KNOW THERE ARE SEVRAL HUNDRED PAGES TO GO OVER BUT I SUGGEST YOU READ THEM OBJECTIVLEY FROM THE BEGINGING.
YOU HIDE OUT IN CHNA FOR A MONTH AND IT WAS SO PEACFUL IN THE SOUTHERN FIST FORUM WHY DID YOU COME BACK. TO START THIS 5H!T AGAIN
What Dave Lacey produced was a drawing and what Lee Yiu Ling showed in Hong Kong was an oil painting by one of his students. If produced is the same as showed then I guess a drawing is the same as an oil painting.
The net is full of noise and some people who don’t listen, think a dog can moo and a cow can bark. This forum sure is an interesting place.
Joseph joseph joseph…and you started all respectful in the beginning of the thread too. I guess one can’t hope for too much.
SETANSI…relax man. I understand your anger. Let’s just calm down and go to the “tea house” in SF and have some tea. You know which one.
I know it’s hard to just let some people ramble on…but as for the cows on the thread, they seem pretty harmless don’t ya think? I say let the cow moo.
And as for the original poster…yes, quite interesting isn’t it? Please, do remember the web address, someone else should be working on it so the content should change sometime.
I have yet to receive reply to logical debate in regards to the questions I previously raised.
Instead I get rambling of pictures looking alike…of course the funny thing is people then get going from that.
I know I haven’t been around here much but the whole picture business seems reaching far for more conspiracy based evidence since what does it really mean?
let stop the pickering and really try to listen?
Thanks!
K-no I know you’ve mention something before, am I right?
The morphing pictures of Chan Heung and Chan Koon Pak has to be the most stupid attempt at proving Chan Heungs portrait a fake that I have ever seen. Even my 7 year old could make a better effort, for one thing look at the back of the heads, they don’t match, different shape, look at the ears they don’t match, but wow two peoples eyes and nose match so it must be a fake. Well I would think people in the same family should have similar facial characteristics. So then the question you have to ask is, what sort of moron would even put this on there web site and call it proof. What sort of jaded over the hill, lost in his own megalomania pee brained mongoloid would even think of such a thing. I don’t know, maybe I’ve already answered my own question… :o
