Reply 1
Wow, I got mentioned again but Doc Fai Wong and not Chen Yong Fa got the Guernsey this time. Here are some of my replies:
¡§… It was against such a background that the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon (founded by Cheung Hung Sing in 1839) flourished and the Hung Sing martial arts known by its original name ¡§Fut Gar Jing Jung¡¨ (but later adopted the popular name Choy Lay Fut)…"
I still have trouble with Sifu Dave Lacey’s maths. If Cheung Hung Sing Founded the Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon in 1839 (as claimed in the quote above by Sifu Dave Lacey) and he was born in 1824, that would make him 15 years old when he set up the school there.
If CLF was established in 1836 and Cheung was the founder (as declared by the CLF Union in Hong Kong and reported by Sifu Dave Lacey) that would mean CLF was founded by a 12 years old kid!
Anyone care to explain?
Reply 2
¡§¡K. Is it because after Doc Fei Wong had studied under Wu Yuen Chou and other Chan Clan CLF teachers he got brainwashed by their Chan Family propaganda and therefore ¡§switched camps¡¨ in the hope of carving a notch for himself under the Chan Clan Family tree of hierarchy?¡¨ ¡V Sifu Dave Lacey
It is interesting that Wu studied with both Cheung Yim and and Chan Yiu-Chi, yet he never mentioned Cheung being the Founder of CLF and not Chan Heung. Matter of fact, none of Cheung¡¦s students ever mentioned that their teacher was the founder or the founding father of CLF. Have they all been brain washed by the Chan Clan in the olden days as well?
Talking about carving a notch for oneself, by having Cheung Yim as the founder and sidelining Chan Heung, everyone from his lineage, including all the Bak Sing people gets upgraded by one notch ¡V very convenient indeed!
Reply 3
¡§*It is very interesting however, to note that all their so-called ¡§historical facts¡¨ derived from ONLY ONE SOURCE ¡V the CHAN CLAN! Other than that, there¡¦s been no ¡§OUTSIDE¡¨ records or evidences to support their claims ¡V WHY?!¡¨ ¡V Sifu Dave Lacey.
Obvious Sifu Lacey has not seen the Official History of the Xinhui County published by the local government body, nor he has read the Official Martial Arts History of Guangdong Province published by the provincial government in China.
Sifu Dave Lacey thinks Hong Kong is the hub of CLF, he should pay a visit to Mainland China and realize Xinhui and not Futsan is the birthplace and CLF. Cheung Yim was born in Xinhui from the same county as Chan Heung, Futsan was not his home town.
Reply 4
¡§*¡§Regulator¡¨ was right when he said to joseph and the other ¡§panochas¡¨ (my internet critics) ¡V ¡§Quite simply, you¡¦re all pu$$ies. All this crap about ¡¥all talk and no action¡¦ is what I see YOU doing. What have you got to lose if you are SO CORRECT?¡¨ I suppose ¡§Regulator¡¨ is now in joseph¡¦s ¡§Hate List¡¨!¡¨ ¡V Sifu Dave Lacey.
I do not have a ¡§hate list¡¨, nor do I think ¡§face to face action¡¨ will find the historical truth. I simply present my side of the argument and if Sifu Dave Lacey has a different viewpoint then he should argue his case with some evidence and facts.
We all have our critics, beating up anyone who do not agree with you is not going to resolve the issues. It is not about who is winning or who is losing, it is about what is correct or incorrect.
Reply 5
¡§If loud mouths like joseph really want to ¡§seek the truth¡¨, then being a (5th generation) die hard Chan Clan elder, he must be prepared to dispute the true historical facts behind CLF¡¦s history with the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders of the 5th generation FACE TO FACE.¡¨ ¡V Sifu Dave Lacey
Again, I would like to say I am not a Chan Clan member, let alone an elder of the clan. I don¡¦t speak for anyone except myself and I have no wish to meet any other elders face to face.
The same goes for Doc Fai Wong, I don’t think he speaks for the Chan Clan either, I think he speaks for himself. This is a public discussions forum and we are all entitled to our opinions in a democratic way. If I want to have a “face to face” then I would contact the other person privately, thank you.
XJo,
Where does the 1824 date of Cheong Yim come from? Is that an agreed on date by the CLF Union?
pardon my ignorance,
123
Hi 123
For many years, Cheung Yim was known to be born in 1824 and this was written up in the Journal to commemorate the 150 years anniversary of the founding of Futsan Hung Sing Gwoon published by the Futsan Choy Lee Fut Hung Sing Gwoon published last year in China. I was given a copy when I was in China last year. If it was a 150 anniversary celebration, that would mean the Futsan HSG was established in 1851 and not 1839 as claimed by Sifu Dave Lacey.
I don’t know what the CLF Union in Hong Hong says but I would like to think the mainland Chinese would know more than their Hong Kong counterpart. However, there is a recent atempt by some people like Tsui Kwong-Yuan to put his birth year forward by 10 years to 1814. I think it is a typing mistake on Chan Kam-Fai’s (one of Tsui’s top student) webpage to say Cheung Yim lived from 1714 - 1893, that would make him 179 years old when he died.
http://www.americanhungsingkwoon.com/history.htm
The history contraversy has made me take a keen interest in the development of CLF and I welcome any clarification from others.
Peace,
JoX
uh huh…
Once again, another pathetic attempt by the punk loudmouth Joseph to discredit a real practicioner of the arts. Of course, he would never argue this in PERSON, because he is too much of a coward and his word twisting would not work so well in front of a live audience. Keep sitting behind your computer while the real CLF men gather and speak in Malaysia.
k
…yawn…What? How’d I get in here??
nospam.
k-no,
Instead of attacking me, how about attacking the facts and figures?
I posted this question on the dates to you a couple of times before but never had an answer from you or your Sifu. History is about looking at a pile of documents and talking to eye witnesses and checking out dates and places, it is not about arguing and fighting in person. It won’t get us any where by yelling at each other face to face.
nospam,
Sorry to be boring, history does interest me a great deal, but it may not be everyone’s cup of tea. I hope this thread will not deteriate into a series of personal attacks like the others on history always do. At least it showed we are passionate about our past. On the other hand, I am sure this thread will die out very quickly if no one is interested or care about our ancestry.
JoX
I don’t know
Dave Lacey (and other’s who agree with him) still leaves much questions unanswered from when I posted months ago.
Unfortunately Lacey has shown his behaviour in less than respectable light given the numerous website comments.
Joseph stop doing this…you are just giving more fuel to the flame. Especially when no one is starting to complain yet. Why don’t we just get some of my answers answered first?
If they don’t…then ignore them.
Here are the questions I posted months ago…of course there would be more questions but this would be a start.
Let’s try not to bad mouth anyone.
"I took a look at Sifu Lacey’s site and his interpretation of the history. There are certain things that I have noticed in the past after reading so many different stories trying to promote Cheung Hung Sing as co-founder.
-
They seem to always ignore Chan Yuen Wu involvement with Chan Hueng. Especially since it was Chan Yuen Wu that taught Chan Hueng Fut Ga Kuen.
-
Choy Fook did not teach Choy Ga Kuen. I am not sure if style of Choy Ga is around but if it is then I am sure we could get some more info from them.
-
Though not in all the cases they encourage the “Chan clan” theory even though there was documented history of students outside of this clan.
***4) When ever a style is created rarely if even at all would there be known to have more than one creator. In general when a style is created it is usually based on the belief of the one. Any more would create conflict. ***
5) Therefore even if Ching Cho Monk exists Chan Hueng has already created his style, and therefore Choy Lay Fut. Why would Chueng Hung Sing want to get in on what his Sifu has kindly and graciously has worked so hard on? Once he is his teacher forever will he be. Never would Cheung Hung Sing be willing to accept a Co-founding title. Each would have their own style then.
-
Chan Family is documented. Compared to word of mouth is likely be more believed especially in cases where the truth is hard to be found.
-
Only the Hung Sing lineage have been publicly aggressive with their history.
I am not saying what is true or not since it isn’t possible. But like Fu-pow has said here (or else where) much belief must be suspended in order to accept the co-founder theory.
My points from 1 to 5 ties into a belief that Chan Yuen Wu is ignored in order to make room for Ching Cho and Cheung Yim’s connection, and is assuming he is willing to take co-founder credit.
Thanks for reading!"
Good Luck!
iron silk
hey iron_silk,
I don't check this web site daily. I asked you to e-mail me those questions and you said you would, but you never have. Let's just get this straight; Sifu does not visit this site. This is all transmitted through us, and if we find something particularly disturbing, we will inform him.
If you still want answers, I'll print this page out and give it to him. Since early this year, he has been to Hong Kong, Canada, etc and is even now once again out of the country, so I'll have to direct the questions to him when he returns.
As for his behaviour...he is a human being, as are you and I. We aren't in sales or politics; we are kung fu men. If someone directs personal assaults at someone's character, they should be prepared for a response. If anyone is sticking up for anyone in particular, then let the ones spoken of respond if they find something offensive, not these rabble rousers. Every response I have placed here on the forum have been discussed with Sifu Lacey first and approved before making it to this public forum. However, he did tell me to control my anger enough to curb my language. =)
k
interesting times again
joseph been awhile, how are you ?? i still see you say much but with little content - why is this ???
you use the futshan commemorative book as a foundation of time, so does this now mean we can use the dates being used this very minute in futshan where the commemoration is happening and with the same people, and actually more elders and seniors there?? the other thing i find interesting is in one post you say we should look at the birth place for the truth and next you use the above ( futshan ) as another point of referance, which goes totally against your first main point by saying that if we want the truth look at xinhui not futshan.
so which is it, what will you use ?? the one that fits ??
you say allot of people didn’t say this and didn’t say that regarding training and dates, who are these people ??? when did they say this or that ?? and as you know in mainland as well as Hong Kong and also malaysia the stuff you are saying regarding the history is not accepted, the stuff that is/was being written for the west is not what is known at home !! the propagation of the 70’s for the west was not for local consumption !!
i find it very interesting you address some basic writtings of david and yet give little back in response - no depth of answer, come on show foundation !!
now as to goverment records - please - are you going to use these ?? the very same people stated just last year that the wong fei hung memorial birthday was in its 145th year, which means he was born in 1856 hahaha how wrong is this!!! so your saying we can use their referance as being totally accurate - we can work it out for ourselves !!
again you come in with the buk sing name and the generation skip, i don’t see the relation to that comment - are you implying that buk sing is a different CLF ??? why ??? then also can you explain to me why tam sam called himself hung sing for all his days !! now i know you are aware of why the name buk sing came up, but i don’t see buk sing being somewhat seperate to hung sing - please explain, i would love to hear why, so you can educate me further and correct me for my misunderstandings.
jeurng hung sing birth/death - please - pretty poor effort on your part to say he is 179 yrs old hahaha, you are much better than this to bring a typo error into a discussion, lets also remember the old saying " don’t point to a deer and call it a tiger "
nospam - it is thong time coming here - how was yours lol 
Hey k-no
Sorry man! I thought I did…but now…recalling you are probably right.
So sorry and thanks!
Well to tell you the truth Lacey had see to be a representation of the reasonable side of Hung Sing Lineage given the bad after taste of “Frank.”
I don’t know how jo and fu pow insulted him, but instead of critizing and rebuking their claims in reasonable manner he seemed somewhat emotionally out of control and stooped to insults and slurs as well.
You made a good point that we are all human and make mistakes, but it just seem that much more unseemly from a reputable master. Especially when how reasonable he seemed previously.
On that note…no one who is part of this dispute (at this forum) hasn’t been unreasonable or unnecessarily insult when arguing.
Thank you for always replying calmly and reasonably with me. I just hope you are able to do with others.
Good Luck!
Hi bean curd,
Long time no cross swords, how are you?
You know, I did not use the Futsan commemorative book as a ¡§foundation of time¡¨ as you put it, I said they wrote it up in their book last year what was known for a long time. Cheung Yim¡¦ birth year has always been written as being 1824 and he was about 20 years younger than Chan Heung. He was born in Xinhui County, exactly in which village is still uncertain. His death is also clouded in mystery, so if we want to known more about the man, we should go and look at Xinhui instead of Futsan. That is all I was saying.
People in China who promote Futsan HSG and Wong Fei Hung are not related to the Sports Department governing the martial arts. They belonged to the Cultural and Tourist Department, with the aim to promote Futsan as the birthplace of CLF and WFH to attract tourists, so i agree with you their ¡§research¡¨ and ¡§documentation¡¨ should be taken with a grain of salt. What I was referring to was the County Record and the Provincial Record, which were written with no axe to grind.
As far as I am concerned, Buk Sing is part of the CLF family. It came through the Cheung Yim line and Cheung Yim¡¦s Hung Sing is also part of the CLF family derived from the King Mui Hung Sing line, so in my eyes, we are all one big family with a common ancestry in Chan Heung. By making Cheung Yim the founder of CLF and deny Chan Heung his rightful place, we will cut ourselves off from the main trunk of the family tree and we will fall apart. I am sure you don¡¦t want to see this to happen.
Seeing you are very knowledgeable in matters relating to CLF, it would be enlightening to hear from you what you would consider to be Cheung Yim¡¦s time of birth and death and place of death and reasons for his demise. It would be good to hear from you how you arrive at your conclusions as well.
To you, my answers lack depth in their content, I hope you can demonstrate to us how to do it properly. I look forward to your reply.
Warm Regards,
JoX
Has the history ever been questioned before?
I was curious, on Sifu Lacey’s site their history has Choy Ga, Lee Ga & Fut Ga combined. These are all southern systems ,where does the northern influence come from? From what I’ve seen of CLF there definately is a northern influence.
Hey bean curd…twas a wonderous time of year. I can’t count the times I put the “grrrr” in swinger baby, yeah!
Now that the green is gone and the snow is maken me wanna eskimo, time to find me a little…ho..ho..ho 
nospam.
jox ( i like that, easier to write ) your mincing words - again, i get more dizzy on your writting than i do on roundabout, but then roundabout makes more sense .
your writing to 123 - first para - says as you have indicated, yet first sentance of second para - tells where your intention lay - maybe you need to read it again!!
chan heung and jeurng yim had much incommon - their history depends on who you wish to speak too, not who wrote words in a book. when you speak to someone personally the answers to questions come quick plus as you know eyes and actions say more than words spoken or written, so to your question on what i believe and why is very simple - it is within the tradition of my lineage and what has been transmitted to me by my family and sibuks. the writtings of people outside although interesting lay little foundation if we are not aware of the intention behind them.
to lay foundation on any goverment records or writtings is rather interesting considering the way things have been for many many years, but this is another issue - no !!! and to the county records you also know as well as i, how inacurate let alone untrustworthy they are. why look at these when we have even now still partiarchs we can ask personally on such matters - why go to books that are written by people of questionable understanding !!!
on the buksing CLF see again you say onething now to cover up what you actually wrote, don’t you read what you have written, proof reading is such a good thing on most occasions it takes away the errors, especially if you can write as good as how you can, so clarity is and would be much better on your part than mine.
on the quote with jeurng yim and chan heung, this is what i see as a contradiction. there is - as you well know, and for what reason you are not acknowledging these is a mystery to me - is that there has always been within the family ( CLF ) the issue of these two men, yet you immediatle fall on the chan heung foundation, maybe it is you who is concerned about position ??? does it mean that much to you ???
on the words you said regarding these two men isn’t it a double edge sword, what if it is true that jeurng yim was as it is being said he is - founder of CLF and not chan heung then who is being cut off the tree !! could not the tree be actually hindered in its growth because the vertile ground it is in, is not being given the correct nutrients ( truth ) ???
you are so one sided on your thoughts, you will not look at what is being said, i find it interesting that you question the WHATS of jeurng yim yet what about all the discrepancies about chan heung, if we reflect inwards to our own knowledge and look into the hearts of our own belief - what will we find - is that why you are not doing such athing - only questioning the other side - not a very historical perspective research on your part.
for myself i see two stories, the question is easy yet complex and it is only complex in the personalities of pride and predjudice.
can the chan clan have their history, and also the hungsing clan have theirs ?? do they have to agree on who is write and who is wrong ?? is it one thing to say your history but another in so doing - caste dispertion on anothers, and as you know as well as i, this is what the chan clan has been doing for many many year!!!
you also ask me what my believe is and how i have come to this conclusion and to enlighten you hahaha, how unfortunaite for you, and sad of me that i can not do this, you are your own man and you have your on teachings/traditions and also sifu, and as you know how can i seek the study for another without first asking the sifu, i know give me your sifu’s name and i will ask in the correct manner
we are all bystanders in such matters and although it is good to debate such things, unfortunaitly you have been less than forthcoming in your character and face ( you know what i mean eh ). i know my history, but i also know that of others, who am i to tell others to not say and believe in what they do - again who are the chan clan to do this also !!! and even worse not in face but in writtings - how weak is this ???
to finish till next time - if you say we are crossing swords, i have changed mine to butterfly’s - it is more southern and more akin to my liking
B/C