Are Pak Hok and Choy Lee Fut similar? They look alot alike, I dig the wide powerful punches. I do not like high kicks though.
I beleive that Bock Hock and Choy lee fut are similar in appearance and nature they are both southern styles and very useful in self defense in my area ,the san francisco,bay area we have a few variations of choy lee fut which is what i have and still practice and we have the Leung’s white crane avery good system .as you say they both like to use wide powerful swinging punches extremely effective
m
in an article in “the other kung fu magazine” 
Doc Fai Wong now says he has uncovered evidence that at least one of the influences in CLF comes from the Ding Wu Jih, ie the same monastery Sing Lung of Lama Pai hung around… interesting if true (who knows?)
If you look at the timelines when Wong Yun-Lum was around, Hop-Ga, Hung-Ga, CLF-These styles were all around at the same time. Wong Yun-Lum had a profound influence on these styles. I know some may not choose to recognize this, and instead create wonderful stories about Hung Hei- Guen and Fong Wing Chun etc, but if yuo look at it from purely a technique based point of view, it seems(at least to my novice eyes) pretty obvious.
Southern martial arts also seem to be incredibly incestuous
Hung Hei Goon, Luk Ah Choi and Fong Sai Yuk all running around the same time. If you believe some of the legends, Fong Sai Yuk is related to both Miu Choi Fa, Miu Tin at the temple and Fong Wing Chun…
Tit Kiu Saam also studied with Sing Lung
and of course Wong Yan Lam being around during the 10 tigers period
I don’t know if I would call it incestuous. when you get a bunch of martial artists together they are going to have an inluence over each other and exchange ideas and techniques. Wong Yun lam probally commanded alot of respect since he was the “leader” of the ten tigers. I get the idea that it was less about style in those days and more about who could kick the most ass.
[QUOTE=Shaolindynasty;876068]
I get the idea that it was less about style in those days and more about who could kick the most ass.[/QUOTE]
2 for 2 this morning
What a concept, caring about EFFECTIVENESS! Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days :rolleyes:
Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days
I should also note that there are those of us today that still only care about effectiveness and train with that in mind. IMO that’s the true tradition
Boy, this is my 2nd time trying to apply. Is there an auto time-out connected to posting?
They are fruits from the same tree
Hi all,
It has been a long time since I posted to this forum so please forgive me for butting in.
Back in 97 I met a Spainard in Barcellona that taught HG and CLF (he was the top student of some famious Chinese and HG stylest - I can’t remember). We … and came to the conclusion that both styles are fruits from the same tree.
The Spainard told me that one of the styles used to develop CLF was a style whose name could be translated meaning “Monk’s style,” And, today we have no clue which monk or style it ultimately was. We agreed the monk had to be a Buddhist and probably not Shaolin because a more descriptive name would have been used.
We compared and contrasted PK and CLF. We …
I don’t want to get kick out again so I am going to try and post this much.
Back in 97 I met a Spaniard in Barcelona that taught HG and CLF (he was the top student of some famous Chinese HG stylist living in Barcelona too - I can’t remember their names:D). We compared and contrasted PHP (T. White Crane) and CLF, and we came to the conclusion that both styles are fruits from the same tree.
The basis for our conclusion was not only because of the similarities between LR and CLF.
The Spaniard told me that one of the styles used to develop CLF was a style whose name could be translated as meaning “Monk’s style,” and today we have no clue which monk or style it ultimately was, we speculate that it was a Shaolin monk, but this did not seem likely.
We agreed that the monk had to be a Buddhist and probably not a Shaolin monk (as many believe) because a more descriptive name would have been used and not a catch-all phrase like “The Monk’s Style.” This name implies the monks name and style was unknown to the student (the actual ancestor of CLF).
Another point made was that, maybe the monk was so famous that he was the only “Monk with a style that was totally unique and so new that it did not have a name yet,” 
so every other local person would know who and what style was being talked about (this was to justify why it still could have been Shaolin monk or any other type of monk or hermit, guru, what ever. We felt this was a little far fetched, so we dropped it.
It was also obvious that this monk’s style had a big influence on CLF because it is the most evident in non-weapon sets.
Over time I had learned that the Southern Chinese, like most of the world, even today, tend not to like foreign influence. This forced many members of the LR systems to give their versions of LR acceptable Chinese names and histories … This is also why there was a trend by Chinese to claim that “All Chinese MA was invented at the Shaolin Temple and then later migrated to other Temples and lay people :rolleyes:.”
The Spaniard and I also discussed some of the differences and concluded that most are more of a variation (to me holding back to strike more times faster - I saw in CLF) and the more extreme differences could have come from one of the other styles the ancestor of CLF learned.
So in conclusion, “The Monk” was ultimately Sling Long (poor spelling) or one from his line of students:cool:.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;876074]2 for 2 this morning
What a concept, caring about EFFECTIVENESS! Glad TCMA moved beyond those old days :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Boy, guys just give up all MAs and buy a couple of oozies (or other automatic weapons) and some granades. Then learn how to used them ---- EFFECTIVENESS!:eek:
Chill out and have some fun!!!
[QUOTE=CharlesDaCosta;876325]
So in conclusion, “The Monk” was ultimately Sling Long (poor spelling) or one from his line of students:cool:.[/QUOTE]
And you are trying to suggest, with no historical evidence whatsoever (other than you and your ‘Spaniard’ hypothesizing…) that the “Faht /Fut” in CLF was either “Sing Luhng” (which you obviously unsure of the pronunciation, not just spelling) or a Sing Luhng student/classmate?
Wow. I guess you have just solved a long standing question. Excuse me while I throw out all of the other history and evidence (you know, like conflicting dates and all) that does NOT support that.
Just because CLF has things in common with Lama (Bok Hok and Hop Ga as well), doesn’t mean it had to be Sing Luhng or someone in that line that made up the Buddhist Style. Sing Luhng was a Tibetan Monk.
CLF has a handful of techniques in common with Tibetan styles. So? The style is completely different in strategy, fundamentals, theory, etc. They are not similar. People who don’t know them very well will always think they “look” alike. Although they share some tech in common they are not similar.
[QUOTE=Lama Pai Sifu;876332] … with no historical evidence whatsoever … hypothesizing … that the “Faht /Fut” in CLF was …
… all of the other history and evidence (you know, like conflicting dates and all) that does NOT support that.
Just because CLF has things in common with Lama (Bok Hok and Hop Ga as well), doesn’t mean it had to be Sing Luhng or someone in that line that made up the Buddhist Style.
CLF … is completely different in strategy, fundamentals, theory, etc. They are not similar. People who don’t know them very well will always think they “look” alike. Although they share some tech in common they are not similar.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry to say no one seems to have real historical evidence because (well you know why). I consider my source reliable enough to share the thought that the possibility of one of the systems that CLF was built from was LR or one of its decendents.
In terms of conflicting dates: which style is the oldest?
It is interesting that of the main schools of southern styles CLF and PHP look more alike then any of the others - this is what makes it reasonable to hypothesize about a shared ancestry.
Now if you have info which support they have no common links then share it, this is why this tread was created in the first place.
Pak Hok & Choy Lay Fut not the same
hi,
Sorry, but I will be throwing some spanners here.
But firstly, some of my background. I have been pracricing Ngor Chor Kun (NCK, or WuZu Quan or Five Ancestors Fist) under the Chee Kim Thong lineage for 30+ years. As you may know, White Crane is also one of the components of NCK and I also practice Fujian White Crane.
As ‘Lama Pai Sifu’ mentioned: Just because styles and technique ‘look’ similar does’nt mean so; principals, theory, internal Qi work may differ vastly.
Charles DaCosta said: “It is interesting that of the main schools of southern styles CLF and PHP look more alike then any of the others - this is what makes it reasonable to hypothesize about a shared ancestry.” Not True! I think you are basing your ideas on only ONE sub-set of White Crane (WC) that you have seen. There are MANY.
Also, let me state that White Crane as a style is far from ****genous! Even among the few Crane practioneers that have posted here in the past, we have our differences. I believe the Crane style you are refering to, with the wide swings resembling CLF is Lama Pai Crane. This (I think) is a Cantonese style, and is very different from Fujian White Crane!
Therein lies the problem with Chinese Martial Arts and W Crane in particular. China is a big place, with diverse cultures and a long history. Hence tracing a lineage thru more than a few generations can be difficult, confusing and speculative, especially when a lot of this are not documented. Furthermore, the last 2 centuries was a time of great turmoil in China, with mass movement of people, rebellions, wars, famine, foreign occupation, Cultural Revolution… you get the picture. People get uprooted, families split, docuements get destroyed etc… so history gets muddled. Some styles like CLF have documented their lineage well despite all this, but most others have not, hence we fall prey to heresay…
However, one can infer about the ‘cross-fertilization’ between the various styles based on the forms (physical movements, hand, footwork…) and or the internal techniques (power-generation, qi-gung techniques). On this basis, my opinion is that Fujian WC has little ‘connection’ to Lama Pai WC.
The movements are entire different. The WC that I practice has a very wide variety of techniques, long to very short movements (it is a Southern style, after-all, meant to fight in a phone booth ;-), and uses combinations of palm, back-palm, elbows, phoenix-eye, various finger-thrust but seldom fists. Movements could be linear or circular, but the arms are kept very ‘tight’ (close to the body), one of the principal is to always keep the elbows ‘in’ and low.
Even among the Fujian styles, and there are at least 5 (Crying, Flying, Feeding,.. (can’t remember the rest) ) there are a lot of variations, some are very ‘hard’, done with a lot of dynamic tension, others of varying degrees of ‘softeness’. But there are some common traits, closed-in and low elbows, ‘toon-kap’ a Fujian term that literally means ‘vibrating the shoulders’, and breathing techniques and vocalisations… that give various (Fujian) Cranes some similarity.
This last, ‘Toon Kap’ is a common and very important principal for Fujian WC, as it is used to develop Qi, and allows a profficient practioneer to generate explosive power (like the whipping of wings) at long and short ranges, with very small movements (don’t need to build up moentum as in a swing)… what makes the ‘6-inch punch’ possible. Fighting principles rely quite heavily on power-blocks. These are used for defense and offense, ie: by using the block to create openings for counter-attacks and also ‘destroy’ oppoents arms/legs. Fighting distances can be arms-length to almost grappling distances (attacks with elbow and finger-thrusts to pressure pts.) and my style takes the direct approach when facing and attack, ie: block, create an opening and go in. Whereas I have met other Fujian crane that advocate a indirect attack.
At the very advanced level, our WC has a technique & form called “Needle in the Cotton”, wwhich is used for Qi training and also has combat applications. Most of the WC acknowledge this, but many are not exactly sure what it is.
Based on the little I know of Lama Pai Pak Hok, and as a Southern Crane practioneer, these 2 have little similarities. I don’t know what the history of Lama Pai is, but I don’t think it has much mixng in with Fujian Crane.
Also, I think, there are probably larger numbers of Fujian Crane practioneers than Lama Pai PH. Hence I would like to make the point that Lama Pai Pak Hok is not representative of White Crane…
If we are making the assumption that CLF & WC is similar because of Lama Pai Pak Hok (LPPH), looking at the forms/techniques, I would agree, BUT, BOTH CLF and LPPH have little in common with Fujian WC, the WC that I know and probably have a larger number of practioneers out there. And I think they will agree with me…
PS
I do not mean to be over-bearing here, but would like to take this opportunity to explain about a style, White Crane, that I love, as not many may be aware of what its ‘essence’ is; aside from the supercial movements and the fact that there are many varieties of WC.
Boh-heong Yap
The Bak-Hok they were referring to is Northern Bak-Hok,Tibetan White Crane (Lama P’ai) and Hop-Ga, all of which are considered to be White Crane styles. They are not referring to Fukien Bak Hok P’ai.
I also believe that Northern White Crane, and Lama P’ai also have Needle in Cotton set, so now it becomes curious once again.
Hi Boh-heong Yap, thanks for throwing in some spanners, we are still waiting for the other guy to finish what he started, but I guess he is too busy.
I am a little familiar with NCK and FWC, and they are different birds all together from PHP (Although I have met other PHP stylist who considered elements of NCK and FWC exists at advance levels of PHP – Using jing from the feet up through the hands into the target, and two handed techniques when at the level of Met. Hands). My PHP teachers did explain to me that PHP evolves and is broader then I can imagine, and few if any learned the whole system, so … “who am I to say what is and what is not! – no body”
[QUOTE=boh;877445]
As ‘Lama Pai Sifu’ mentioned: Just because styles and technique ‘look’ similar doesn’t mean so; principals, theory, internal Qi work may differ vastly.
[/QUOTE]
There is truth to what you are saying but if one style develops in the same area that an other exists and at basic levels they look like variations of each other, it is reasonable to believe that one got the techniques from the other. Especially, when the history of the younger style is not clearly specified.
Now by shared Ancestry I don’t mean they have the same parents, CLF has 3 and PHP has many. But what I am saying is that one (1) of the parents of CLF also new a variation of PHP, which is very reasonable to assume.
To give you some idea of my main systems, I have spent a lot time with PHP, Shaolin Chaun and Wudang Chuan back in the 70’-90’s. Today I only teach PHP, but quite often I use something from one of my other systems to help get a point across. My teachers, teachers warned me to stop calling the techniques/forms PHP because they were not, and this is even though I will do the other techniques with a PHP flavor (i.e., principles, strategies, etc.). Now that I have to teach Wushu also, my PHP will more then likely get contaminated by it. This will mean that my students will have a variation of PHP that has Wushu as a parent – Therefore 10 years from now, the students under my line will have a shared ancestry with the other styles I will have to teach them, I am not saying they are the same styles or systems, just that they have a great, great, grand parent in common. And that does not mean that either got everything that distant parent had to offer, nor does it mean that they maintained that parent’s teachings in a pure form. Kungfu/Wushu does tend to evolve.
Hence tracing a lineage through more than a few generations can be difficult, confusing and speculative, especially when a lot of this are not documented. Furthermore, the last 2 centuries was a time of great turmoil in China, with mass movement of people, rebellions, wars, famine, foreign occupation, Cultural Revolution… you get the picture. People get uprooted, families split, documents get destroyed etc… so history gets muddled. Some styles like CLF have documented their lineage well despite all this, but most others have not, hence we fall prey to heresay…
This above is very true but often hearsay, i.e. legends, are all we have. A good example is Karate. I spent several years studying O.GoJuRyu and I was taught one history. In the last 2 decades, the current leaders of the OGF have dug into the legends and known history of OGJR. And they have uncovered that the styles they thought (or taught to me) were the ancestors of OGJR were really not. Based on similarity of technique and location they have trace their roots too …
BY THE WAY
the other two crane styles are: Shaking and Jumping. There are some who believe that the connect between our systems was the original Flying and Feeding cranes styles. The Shaolin temple - origin of Feeding Crane; Lions Roar - Origin of Flying Crane. However, the southern Chinese had these systems for so long that the styles became more and more like the styles of the best fighters of the day (the other cranes).
And THANKS for posting so much about the principles of the 5 … it is amazing how much one can forget, and refreshing when one hears them again.
POINTS you might find useful:
— In the 5 cranes - the 6-inch and no-inch palm comes from a concept called joint expansion.
— The cotton represents the skin, muscle,… (soft like a cotton/cloud)
— The needle represents the bone and qi force (hard yet flexible, and invisible - hidden in the cotton).
Hi Charles,
Always nice to talk White Crane with someone who knows his subject matter., and even a bit on my favourite styles ;-). I see that you are from Denmark, Copenhagen? If so, our NCK Chee Kim Thong has a school there under someone by the name of Jan (dunno his full name, but I can find out…) I have never met him, but I’m close to our Swedish NCK brothers. He is under Sifu Henry Ho, in Malmo, Sweden and he has another senior instructor Kjell Knutsson also with classes in Malmo.
Now by shared Ancestry I don’t mean they have the same parents, CLF has 3 and PHP has many. But what I am saying is that one (1) of the parents of CLF also new a variation of PHP, which is very reasonable to assume.
Point taken, yes having shared ancestry may not mean its the same thing! Aslo as mentioned by Ten Tigers, the context of White Crane in this thread seems to be Northern White Crane
“…Northern Bak-Hok,Tibetan White Crane (Lama P’ai) and Hop-Ga,..”
- and I have to admit I am quite ignorant of, and from what I have seen (from You Tube!) do resemble CLF! BUT (again IMHO) totally different from FWC! Charles, when you say PHP, do you mean the above?
But yes, despite all that from what you & Ten Tigers say, some of the commonality in techniques do indicate either a shared ancestry or a “cross-fertilisation” between styles, that got absorb and adopted!?
Another spanner I’m gonna throw in the works… and although may be classified as heresay (I apologise beforehand, but it makes for interesting discussion…) but comes from a rather authoratative source -
is that WC may not have a clear lineage, nor is it one style, but rather an heterogenous collection of styles! This came about during the tumultous time when WC (along with later Shaolin arts, NCK being one of them…) evolved, the change between Ming & Ching (Manchu) dynasties. A lot of Martial Artist joined the rebellion against the Manchus, and Shao Lin became a focus for the rebels, (which got it destroyed by the Manchus, resulting in the growth of the Southern Saholin temple… buts that’s another story…) A lot of the rebel’s tyles then may have been ‘Family Styles’. If you are a rebel and you got captured, you might be forced to divulge your lineage and hence (Grand) Master, resulting in his arrest and excecution of not only him, but his family, and also grandsons/daughters and their families etc… (yes, those was bad times in China). So they united under a mythical name “White Crane” that did not have a real ‘lineage’ (Founding Master or family of techers). So this ‘umbrella’ of the rebel’s styles could have resulted in the establishment of White Crane’s popularity and spread, and I can be pretty sure there would have been a lot of cross-fertilisation!
Yes, there could have been a real WC style, and there are some that say WC was founded by a lady who observed a Crane fighting… but not in my history ;-).
My 2-bits worth, and again from the same source, is that WC was derived from Wu Mei (Ng Mui - in Cantonese) a legendary Shao Lin nun. And since I do also practice Wu Mei (under GM Chee Kim Thong’s lineage) I do find many similarities, especially with the internal aspects, with WC being a sub-set of WuMei! That’s my opinion anyway. So much for heresay, many versions, some more intersting/plausible than others… pick your favourite!
Hi Boh-heong Yap,
I agree that it is always nice to talk White Crane (and for me martial Arts in general). I live close to the center of Denmark, near a city called Odense, 2 hours from Copenhagen. I am an ex-American. I know Jan and his former teacher but I never met Henry. I think that Jan has a relatively new school and they may lean more towards kickboxing since his son is on the national Kickboxing team.
In Denmark traditional Martial Arts seem to be dieing out and MMA and kickboxing schools are popping up instead.
When I talked to Jan, I didn’t make a connection to White-crane. I guess I still connect them to their old teacher and kickboxing more so.
Now, when ever you see the term “Pak Hok Pai” know that this is Cantonese, so it relates to White Crane out of Canton (Hong Kong). Most schools of Fuzhou/Fukien have a different spelling. The other difference is in the English translation.
One other point, The Northern Crane/Stork style is different too. Some believe this was the Ancestor to what you call Feeding Crane. Its techniques where mainly derived from kicking and the hands with the finger tips together. I think this is one of the “old (-est)” lost or almost lost arts from the Shaolin/Wudang monasteries.
And, yes, commonalities in techniques do indicate either a shared ancestry or “cross-fertilization" between styles. This was my whole point.
You are right about both Southern and Tibetan White-Cranes being heterogeneous collections of styles. In the case of Tibetan WC, it was founded that way. All the different versions of legends I read, have its founder/creator and expert in several other systems of martial arts spanning the silk-route before he created the system. So far, the best I have herd yet has the founder only uncovering a new strategy and the essence of all martial arts. This strategy and the essence could be applied to all arts, thus making it easer for his art (a blending of what he and others already new) to evolve. By evolving and preserving this “True essence” one would have a superior/invincible style.
And, then you have the mess you spoke of, surrounding the Manchus and Shaolin. And also, new boxers popping that want to make their styles famous the easy way (claim it came from the holy mountains or it was … of a known system).
Now, Cranes were popular in China, and they inspired many DIFFERENT people, thus yielding similar in some respects to totally different styles with the same name. Each of the original 5 cranes has a different creation/inspiration story with a different founder.
So yes, one of the 5 was founded by a lady who observed a Crane fighting (The Feeding Crane). And yes again, “So much for hearsay, many versions, some more interesting/plausible than others… pick your favorite!” I would add, “pick what inspires you.”
boh
could you explain the needles in cotton set?
needles in cotton seems to be purely a tibetan white crane thing, i never heard of FWC having it