Has anyone else read the Pak Mei book by S L Fung?
I thought it was a great read, full of good, useful and interesting information.
Yes I thought it was a interesting read in that the author came from a fresh angle of content (compared to other published pak mei books) and evidently had done his own share of research.
I too found the book to be well researched. The overall feel was that of an academic thesis on the subject. Well worth the hefty price tag($35.00).
My only real problem with it is the fact that he deviates for no reason just to bash my lineage and then goes back into what he had already been discussing. That and the fact that he claims that Pak Mei is nothing more than Jook Lum SPM.
[QUOTE=ittokaos;940349]… That and the fact that he claims that Pak Mei is nothing more than Jook Lum SPM.[/QUOTE]
Codswallop! Everybody knows its nothing more than Loong Ying…
Bak Mei couldnt practice jook lum properly because he had a goofy foot, so he called it Bak Mei Kung Fu.
These are fact that I made up and decided are true.
I should write a book too.
[QUOTE=TongLongFoo;940499]Bak Mei couldnt practice jook lum properly because he had a goofy foot, so he called it Bak Mei Kung Fu.
These are fact that I made up and decided are true.I should write a book too.[/QUOTE]
White Tiger have a great template…
This just goes to show the different things different people cherry pick from a book then!
For my part, I can’t say I saw any ‘bashing’ nor can I say that there was any summary of a claim of Pak Mei to be anything more than Jook Lam.
But there you go.
There were parts of the book that could and indeed will be be considered contentious but this is par for the course in this ball park.
Have you read the book Yum Cha? I ask because (apart from the obvious jesting) you are one on here to whom I am interested to communicate with.
No, not read the book.
Which one is it, I mean, who is the author and what’s in it? Is it that young guy from Canada?
What does he have to say? I heard there’s one with 15 patterns in it?
How about a little book review?
Last time we had a go round on the genesis of Pak Mei, we kind of took it down to Southern White Crane for the sam chen skills that evolved into some of the core skills common in SPM, PM and ?, some chi gung / meditation with taoist breathing works in too, and a mish mash of southern family styles for hand technique and skills to bind together with the internal skills. All boiled together in the mind of a particularly nasty fighter, with a hard core temprement struggling through tough times.
Its all meaningless cause those guys are dead now. It is what lives today. Its choice gear, hard to get on top of, but mad when you work it. Its like an orchid, you keep it for years, then one day it just blooms. Whatever they did, they did something a little bit better knocking this one together.
It’s the book by one of Kwong Man Fong’s indoor guys - S L Fung.
If I was writing a synopsis I would tell you that its life as we know it Jim but in greater detail.
Stories are good sometimes, as long as we keep grounded.
After all the majority of books on this subject have been nothing but Un’s with uneccesary flourishes.
This one has a little more than that.
Oh, and don’t be so silly, there are only four, as well you know.
You are on the button though, whats what is what’s now.
Genisis Myth
What does he have as the origins of the art, i.e. who was “Pak Mei” and how does he play with the 5 Ancestors. And, does he bite into that white tiger stuff with Fund do duk?
Haven’t read it… do you know where it can be purchased?
Its hard to find decent books or any books at all on Pak Mei, except a few I’ve found in little bookstore (Chinatown) etc…
[QUOTE=Yum Cha;941462]What does he have as the origins of the art, i.e. who was “Pak Mei” and how does he play with the 5 Ancestors. And, does he bite into that white tiger stuff with Fund do duk?[/QUOTE]
Well, he pretty much herds all the stories together and then comments one at a time on all of them. Far too much to repeat here (that is without me doing an awful lot of typing!) and thats not a cop out.
It is certainly worth ‘a read’, although whether or not it is worth the money is another matter. Depends ultimately on what you already think.
For example, there is certainly a marked tipping of the cap to debunking the ‘only hakka have the real thing’ deal. Thats certainly the first time I have seen that in print. Refreshing it is to see too.
You can buy it online all over the place as far as I know, try the Kwong Man Fong website.
I didn’t buy it, one of my students did.
All the myths together, an appropriate approach, for sure.
As for Hakka, that’s another story. If you follow the metaphor of the skills being the tools, but the pak mei being the workmanship, then the Hakka difference starts with the tools, even if the workmanship may be the same. There’s a personality thing too.
History and background are fine and fun to talk about.
Its rather controversial to write about the art still. His master copped a lot of flack for his videos back in the day.
[QUOTE=Yum Cha;941843]All the myths together, an appropriate approach, for sure.
As for Hakka, that’s another story. If you follow the metaphor of the skills being the tools, but the pak mei being the workmanship, then the Hakka difference starts with the tools, even if the workmanship may be the same. There’s a personality thing too.
History and background are fine and fun to talk about.
Its rather controversial to write about the art still. His master copped a lot of flack for his videos back in the day.[/QUOTE]
Yes another ‘story’ indeed, and in that one I’m not keen on the metaphor myself. 
I think in all that there is a lot to be had and said with reference to CLC’s teaching skills improving and advancing over the years.
Strange that, like buses, these things arrive all at the same time. There is yet another book just released on the subject too! With further ‘instructional’ in the pipeline so I understand.
I find no issue in new writing, but I’m sure that some of the old school still raise eyebrows (pun .. etc). I find it also interesting that both books although from different parts of the world follow a very similar outlook and both source essentially from the root.
In the latter new book a point is raised about why it may be that there is so much spitting (oops, I did it again.. ) and venom around the ranks.
An archetypal double edged sword here though, after all books are written to sell copies.
There is some interesting and in depth background on KMF’s training in the S L Fung book. I think he could handle the flak, sold an awful lot of videos as well!
[QUOTE=Lai See;940699]This just goes to show the different things different people cherry pick from a book then!
For my part, I can’t say I saw any ‘bashing’ nor can I say that there was any summary of a claim of Pak Mei to be anything more than Jook Lam.
But there you go.
There were parts of the book that could and indeed will be be considered contentious but this is par for the course in this ball park.
.[/QUOTE]
Ok,well when I get the book back from my sifu I’ll be sure to put quotes in. I recommend you re-read it. And while I do have a bias for things that involve bashing my lineage(calling it fake and/or not PM. Robert Yandle’s book does the same. My lineage bashing actually leads into a chapter where he discusses fake linages) the Jook Lum thing really stands out as there is several pages(like 2) discussing it as well as a section showing the similarites.
What’s your understanding Ittokoas?
Are you interested in other opinions?
[QUOTE=ittokaos;942183]Ok,well when I get the book back from my sifu I’ll be sure to put quotes in. I recommend you re-read it. And while I do have a bias for things that involve bashing my lineage(calling it fake and/or not PM. Robert Yandle’s book does the same. My lineage bashing actually leads into a chapter where he discusses fake linages) the Jook Lum thing really stands out as there is several pages(like 2) discussing it as well as a section showing the similarites.[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, I don’t need to re-read it.
Perhaps I should be clearer in the conviction, after all at the end of the day what you saw as ‘bashing’ could have been a lot worse!
You admit that you have bias towards the subject in general and thus may be a little over sensitive (my words), perhaps?
To be clearer still, my personal opinion (and that of the respective authors) is that the Foshan Pak Mei is nothing at all like Cheung Lai Cheun Pak Mei, and so from that perspective is simply a different thing. And that is what comes through from the text in the book.
A different thing. No more no less.
There are similarities with everything (even the Foshan Pak Mei ) but that doesn’t make them the same thing. I could personally give you example of many Pak Mei crossovers with techniques of other systems but at the end of the day there is a BIG difference in the method and the result.
I see no lineage bashing in the books…
Keep in mind that your post also states that Foshan Pak Mei is not “original”/CLC Pak Mei. Where you say “different”, the books say “not genuine pak mei”. “Genuine” is referred to as CLC’s version. You yourself can also say “CLC lineage is not genuine foshan pak mei” etc.
My 2c.
You know, we have a thread that covers this topic, which pretty well closed the book on it.
The Futsan lineage say "we don’t know’ which monk, but it wasn’t CLC.
(The teacher was Har Hon Hong, which many of Pak Mei Pai have put down for various reasons. He was a student of CLC.) This is from first hand discussions with Futsan Pak Mei Pai by a practicing member of Futsan Pak Mei in Sydney.
The futsan lineage does forms created by CLC and taught to HHH
Futsan lineage has a significantly different take on Pak Mei than Hong Kong. Get into value judgements if you wish, but I’m happy to say “different”.
It simply looks to me like Futsan is telling HK to F-off for rubbishing their Di Sigung HHH. And, it appears HK is just fine with that…
But, if you really want to understand Pak Mei, its evolution and its history, you should be aware of this. Pak Mei as we know it was created by CLC, end story. There are no recognisable alternative lineages.
There’s even a tome in Guangzhou about southern kung fu that says he studied under a praying mantis sifu, not a monk at Gwong How Gee… So, take it from there.
Just remember, they’re all dead now. Take it with a grain of salt. Futsan is so different, it is somewhat practical to consider it another art, but, its certainly nothing new on the horizon.
My Sifu grew up having dealings with Futsan Pak Mei. He said they have a better relationship with Guangzhou than Guangzhou has with HK. So, on the mainland, there is no bad blood.
There were a couple of yanks in Kansas carrying on about how they had the only real Pak Mei in the states (and you could buy the video$$$) and it was Futsan style. Lineage war with Eddie Chong I think. Zhong Luo has stayed out of it for the most part, doing his thing and setting the standard higher, good on him.
A classic example of how the art travels with the man, not the style.
[QUOTE=ThatGuy;942681]I see no lineage bashing in the books…
Keep in mind that your post also states that Foshan Pak Mei is not “original”/CLC Pak Mei. Where you say “different”, the books say “not genuine pak mei”. “Genuine” is referred to as CLC’s version. You yourself can also say “CLC lineage is not genuine foshan pak mei” etc.
My 2c.[/QUOTE]
To whom is your 2 cents directed? Who is ‘you’ in your context, myself or ittokaos?
Confusion enough already no?