Hung Ga Family Joint Statement

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
1

There have been numerous debates in the past months over the Internet, in magazines and in private, among the various Hung Ga lineages, concerning the matter of who was more senior or sifu to whom. This joint public statement is being made to clarify the history of Wong Fai Hung’s Hung Ga as it happened.

· Tang Fong was a disciple of Wong Fai Hung.

· Chiu Kao and Siu Ying were disciples of Lam Sai Wing.

· Chan Hong Chun was a disciple of Lam Sai Wing.

· Lam Jo’s version of the so-called lineage chart was made up in the 1950’s by themselves, years after Grand master Lam Sai Wing had passed away. This alumni association is only composed of members of Lam Jo’s own people and is not acknowledged by any other of Lam Sai Wing’s disciples. The lineage chart was composed and edited by this association and does not reflect actual history. In addition, since its release, this lineage chart has been pointed out as being different from actual history by Lam Sai Wing’s disciples across multiple generations.

· The Ng Long Bat Qua pole set was not brought in by Grand master Lam Sai Wing and only taught to Lam Jo, as Mr. Hamby claimed in his IKF article. This pole set has always been part of the Wong Fai Hung system.

· Mr. Hamby accepted Lam Jo’s information as valid, assuming that Lam is the last survivor from the time of Wong Fai Hung, as Mr. Hamby stated in his article. Lam Jo is not the last survivor. Tang Fong’s disciple Wong Jo and Lam Sai Wing’s disciple/Chiu Kau’s wife Siu Ying are also alive and well in Hong Kong.

· Mr. Hamby made his claim that Lam Jo is the sigung of the entire Hung Ga system. Lam Jo may be the sigung of his own lineage but definitely NOT of everyone else. We do NOT recognize Lam Jo as the head of our lineages.

Lam Jo’s lineage will probably ask for proof for the statements being made today. The documentation and historic pictures will be furnished in the coming publications.

The purpose of this statement is to let the public know that the Hung Ga family is very united in pointing out false claims. We all know what the history of our family is. We will not allow this great history of our family to be twisted and distorted for personal gain. Therefore, we feel it is important for us to put out this public statement at this time, with a more in depth publication in the future, so that our future generations will not be fooled by people who spread false claims.

Tang Fong Branch
Wong Jo, Disciple of Tang Fong
Yuen Ling Alumni Association
Yee’s Hung Ga Kung Fu Academy
Lam Sai Wing Branch
Chiu Chi Ling International Hung Ga Kung Fu Association
Chan Ka Wang/Chan Hong Chun Lineage

2

Hear, hear

I am very glad with this clear Hung Ga Joint Family Statement.

Addition: To my information Tang Fong’s disciple Chao Wing Tak is still alive in Hong Kong.

South Paw

3

It is interesting to note that those words in the ikf article (which I finally got to read at the newstand last night) are Don Hamby’s interpretation of what was said and not to many direct quotes from Lam Jo or his son.

However, in the end “all Hung families are united as one”.

That phrase holds more importance than any other imho.

peace

Kung Lek

4

DF,
Thank you for setting an honorable example by the composed manner and validation of facts within your succinct reply, as representative of the Hung associations.

Kung Lek,
“However, in the end “all Hung families are united as one”… That phrase holds more importance than any other imho.”
Yes, it is important, but it must have intent, and the intent of those in question has been proven otherwise.

“Waiting is bad.” - Musashi

5

Excellent well! Stand tall with integrity, Hung families!

…It’s all good…

6

hi-

Meltdawn, I’m not sure i understand how the “intent” of the Lam Jo lineage has sullied other Hung families.

please let me know of an article or book I should read that will define with clarity what Lam Jo himself has stated about the Hung system.

to the best of my knowledge, it has always been all hung families are united as one.

to the best of my knowledge it is not the masters of Hung Family fist who are wagering this war of words but various students of hung family fist who are doing so.

i am interested in this strictly from a standpoint of curiousity and knowledge.

peace

Kung Lek

7

clarification

Kung lek, I am not in any way stating that one line “sullies” another.

I was merely pointing out that “all Hung families are united as one” is not the true intent of someone who “…allow(s) this great history of our family to be twisted and distorted for personal gain”.

F. Sifu and the Hung associations should gain the credit for honorable intent - “The purpose of this statement is to let the public know that the Hung Ga family is very united in pointing out false claims.”

And students DO represent the family, in honor as in deceit. Just as your deeds reflect upon your master. Especially in a national publication and public forum.

Peace, O Finder of Short Butterfly Swords for Small Sisters. :slight_smile:

“Waiting is bad.” - Musashi

8

:slight_smile:

point taken meltdawn.

still, do you have a source where I can read more on the situation?
thanks

peace

Kung Lek

9

sorry

sorry df but lam jo and his son say that chiu kao nor his wife ever studied under lam but went to a school named after lam but was run by a student of his.

10

kung lek- this is where it started pretty much www.hungkuen.com

Most of it is in response to a comment that was made by Chiu Chi Ling.

As a member of two of the lineages in “question”, i wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. We must not allow the history to become tainted just so that one (or a few) can leave their mark(s) on the system. The main concern should be propagation of the art, not propagation of oneself.

The so called research and evidence that was presented in Mr. Hamby’s article is far from conclusive. Its shoddy research to base an entire history on one persons account of it, especially when other integral members of the art are still alive. This also pays them a huge disrespect. If hung gar is to be a united family, then you must have a multi-lineage perspective, which would entail speaking to the other lineages (most of which who have key members still alive and also teaching).

Peace :smiley:

11

Oh so true!

The comment of Chiu Chi Ling was his response on the Lam Family’s claim that his father Chiu Kau, Chan Hong Chung and others were portrayed as students of Lam Jo instead of Lam Sai Wing.

This claim can also be found in Buck Sam Kong’s book ‘Gung Gee Fok Fu’ in which some parts of the ‘Memorial Book’ of 1951 are translated.

South Paw

12

Thanks for the information illusionfist! :slight_smile:

peace

Kung Lek

13

should it matter?

i know everyone cares about leanege or what ever but that won’t help you become a better martial artist there are three reasons to practice gung fu

1)to maitain health
2)to defend your self when needed
3)to defend others who are not as skilled as you

even thou knowing the leanege of your style is good it should not bother you and you should focus more on your training.

14

I think that’s pretty obvious Black Tiger.
But some people also find the history of their style interesting and want to learn the truth about it. It doesn’t mean that they do that instead of training.

15

Lets put it this way, how would you feel if your parents lied to you and they said they weren’t really your parents? Now your sense of identity has been thrown for a loop.

Peace :smiley:

16

Black Tiger

Hi Black Tiger,
I’m just curious what is your lineage?
I mean who is your Hung Gar Sifu?
Thanks
D. :slight_smile:

17

Black Tiger

I seen Black Tiger post stuff on this forum and he has a tendency of saying things he doesnt know about and has challenge other people in this forum. so try not to pay mind to what he says in this thread. he does not know what he speaks of.

18

Its just idle curiosity.
Tiger you still there?

19

father analogy

I’m pretty neutral in this discussion but as far as illusionfist’s analogy, I’d offer an amendment.

It’s more like if you’re dad makes his living because he had a PH.D from John Doe University and then another guy says he has “proof” that your Dad didn’t get a PH.D from there.

But your dad has this sheepskin that says in plain letters JDU. Oh, it came from a sister University that could use the name on the diploma but it’s not the same.

To further complicate matters, lots of people seem to treat your dad like his PH.D. is legit but the proof this guy has is also convincing.

Now you have a dilema. Or do you? He’s still your dad. That never changed.

Maybe you question what he has taught you. Maybe you question his character. Maybe he’s just telling you what he was told and there is no real deception in his version so in the end it doesn’t matter.

These are not issues to be aired online. It’s good that the guy brought up the proof. It gives you context but his-story is a matter of perspective. Look at the Qing/ming thread.

20

Hasayfu’s analogy is better (way better). Thanks for clearing that up. The one thing that i was trying to express with mine is just the mere shock of the statement.