Pak Mei Book

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
21

[QUOTE=Yum Cha;942926]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]

Fair points, wasn’t my intention to go in this particular direction but then that’s a forum for you!

Although I hadn’t seen the previous thread anyway.

Let’s all step forward. Well, some of us. <groan> :slight_smile:

22

[QUOTE=Lai See;943034]Fair points, wasn’t my intention to go in this particular direction but then that’s a forum for you!

[/QUOTE]

Its the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about…<grin>

23

Ok, well all good points but all take away from what I was actually getting at. I said that I had 2 issues with the book. Lai See said that my issues are silly because these “so called” parts of the book aren’t actually in there and then I rebuttled with “yes they are and if you didn’t see them then re-read the book.”

That’s all. As for me being overly sensitive, perhaps I am. But that isn’t really the reason that I had issue with that particular section. My problem with it is that there is no real reason to put that fact it there at all. It takes away from what is otherwise a very well written book and really just seems like a waste of space in an otherwise academic look at the art itself.

Obviously this is one person’s opinion and yes I do like other opinions and that is why I purchased said book. I knew it would be all about CLC (one of the reasons I bought it)however there is really no need to discuss lineages other than those that are “genuine.” Things of this nature seem childish and have no business being in a book that has the backing of a cultural association.

My 2 cents.

24

I’ve been going nuts for a few days trying to find a very old issue of “new martial hero” that stated that CLC, the dragon founder and one of the main jook lum people all had the same teacher who taught a style called “three step”

I can’t find the magazine, but have any of you heard this before?

25

hi Ittokaos,
Could you point me in the direction of the pages that you take issue with,I am reading the book now for the second time but cannot find that to which you refer.

Does not Robert Yandle just make the point that he could find factual evidence only of clc, nothing before it or different to it and so suggests that anything else may or may not be true but like every body’s lineage prior to clc comes solely via word of mouth.

Is this the part to which you take exception

26

in response to david

i have heard that before. it was written in an article by F. Blanco on Southern Mantis?

It would be nice to see that article, then it would bring a lot of things into light regarding the three hakka styles.

27

[QUOTE=htowndragon;944018]i have heard that before. it was written in an article by F. Blanco on Southern Mantis?

It would be nice to see that article, then it would bring a lot of things into light regarding the three hakka styles.[/QUOTE]

Stop that already.

28

[QUOTE=esox;943871]hi Ittokaos,
Could you point me in the direction of the pages that you take issue with,I am reading the book now for the second time but cannot find that to which you refer.

Does not Robert Yandle just make the point that he could find factual evidence only of clc, nothing before it or different to it and so suggests that anything else may or may not be true but like every body’s lineage prior to clc comes solely via word of mouth.

Is this the part to which you take exception[/QUOTE]

Sorry, still haven’t gotten a chance to pick up my copy from my sifu’s so I can’t give you the exact pages. The stuff about Jook Lum is in the section about Jook Fut Wan’s name hiding the real meaning of the style. Dont quite remember which section my line is mentioned but I do recall there being no actual build up to it and when it was said the chapter went on as it was already going. The only reason I think I noticed was because it had to do with this particular lineage and I was suprized to see it in a CLC book.

As for Robert Yandle’s book he also goes on to say that the majority of this claim(in which he only specifically points out our lineage) is based on the videos that he has seen and nothing more. The only videos out there are the ones of Sifu Chong doing the forms(apps on Youtube) and one of Sifu Li put up by the Komudokwan guys(also on youtube). I believe that the Luos(Mai yu Qiang and Zhong) are apart of our lineage as well and they have a couple as well as that fasanpakmeikune(youtube) guy. With such little research done I really dont see how a whole lineage is now not White Eyebrow. Then goes on to say our forms dont look like his and the movements are done at different times so that is his grand proof(SL Fung uses this one too).

I take exception with a great deal of Mr. Yandle’s book as he contradicts himself several times. He thanks those that taught him Pak Mei but then speaks (indirectly) about how his former sifu(H.B. Un) didn’t understand the style and taught him incorrectly. He says that the lineages should stop arguing about who is fake and real and learn from each other so that we as a community can improve but then proceeds to call “us” fake and say that the “buyer should beware.”

As for Mr. Blanco’s article, I have heard from several Hakka(not just PM) teachers that his articles are rehashes and composites of several other articles that came before his. I personally wouldn’t put too much faith in said article but I got the link from the wiki on SPM.:wink:

29

[QUOTE=htowndragon;944018]i have heard that before. it was written in an article by F. Blanco on Southern Mantis?

[/QUOTE]

the article I had was written by a Chinese person, Blanco must have used it as a source

30

Ross,
Remember a couple of years back, there was this ‘government’ financed ‘scholarly’ work done on the history of southern TCMA, published in Chinese? Somebody got a copy and was reading out the bits and pieces about different masters?

I believe there was some connection there as well to SPM. But, I seem to recall, it wasn’t clearly cut and dried - the relationship between SPM an BM. I think it was something along the lines that the same guy taught several stylists, including an SPM biggie and CLC.

The curious thing is, that this book was promoted as being the best research, with no agendas, but it counter-claimed so much as told by the various styles it discussed, that people soon lost interest in it, and It hasn’t been referenced, here at least, since.

FWIW

31

I’m skeptical of gov’t financed stuff, and of all stuff really

but the tone of the article was so positive, just a recounting of facts and praise for everyone, it didn’t strike me as an agenda piece

I did Lung Yihng (Dragon) before I did Pak Mei with sifu, to me the relationship seemed just obvious. Later we saw jook lum and Yau Gung Mun, etc…

but I don’t really keep up on these issues…

32

[QUOTE=lkfmdc;944552]I’m skeptical of gov’t financed stuff, and of all stuff really

but the tone of the article was so positive, just a recounting of facts and praise for everyone, it didn’t strike me as an agenda piece.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I agree, I’m skeptical of anything in the MA world, generally speaking… LOL

Like the old racer says, “The older I get, the better I was.”

33

[QUOTE=ittokaos;944329]Sorry, still haven’t gotten a chance to pick up my copy from my sifu’s so I can’t give you the exact pages. The stuff about Jook Lum is in the section about Jook Fut Wan’s name hiding the real meaning of the style. Dont quite remember which section my line is mentioned but I do recall there being no actual build up to it and when it was said the chapter went on as it was already going. The only reason I think I noticed was because it had to do with this particular lineage and I was suprized to see it in a CLC book.

As for Robert Yandle’s book he also goes on to say that the majority of this claim(in which he only specifically points out our lineage) is based on the videos that he has seen and nothing more. The only videos out there are the ones of Sifu Chong doing the forms(apps on Youtube) and one of Sifu Li put up by the Komudokwan guys(also on youtube). I believe that the Luos(Mai yu Qiang and Zhong) are apart of our lineage as well and they have a couple as well as that fasanpakmeikune(youtube) guy. With such little research done I really dont see how a whole lineage is now not White Eyebrow. Then goes on to say our forms dont look like his and the movements are done at different times so that is his grand proof(SL Fung uses this one too).

I take exception with a great deal of Mr. Yandle’s book as he contradicts himself several times. He thanks those that taught him Pak Mei but then speaks (indirectly) about how his former sifu(H.B. Un) didn’t understand the style and taught him incorrectly. He says that the lineages should stop arguing about who is fake and real and learn from each other so that we as a community can improve but then proceeds to call “us” fake and say that the “buyer should beware.”

As for Mr. Blanco’s article, I have heard from several Hakka(not just PM) teachers that his articles are rehashes and composites of several other articles that came before his. I personally wouldn’t put too much faith in said article but I got the link from the wiki on SPM.;)[/QUOTE]

FWIW, I’m slightly torn between answering and getting into a ‘tit for tat’ here as it <again> wasn’t the intent, however when one understands that more people read forums such as this and then go on to form opinions than read the actual books in question, I think fair needs to be made fair.

And so with respect, I suggest that it is you who ought to re-read both books before further comment.
Mr Yandle’s original Pak Mei Sifu was not Un Ho Bun. It does not say this in the book nor does it say directly or indirectly that which you suggest.
S.L.Fung’s book suggests many different possibilities for all the now dead monks that we can’t ask. Not just one.

34

Lai See,
I agree with the last you say. I do have and read both books. Leave the Yandle book or just put it on your bookshelf and go for the S.L.Fung book! It is really good.

35

[QUOTE=Fung Ngan;944844]Lai See,
I agree with the last you say. I do have and read both books. Leave the Yandle book or just put it on your bookshelf and go for the S.L.Fung book! It is really good.[/QUOTE]

Fung Ngan
what is it about S.L Fung’s book you prefer, for me whilst they concentrate on different aspects, there essence of opinion seems much the same.

36

[QUOTE=Fung Ngan;944844]Lai See,
I agree with the last you say. I do have and read both books. Leave the Yandle book or just put it on your bookshelf and go for the S.L.Fung book! It is really good.[/QUOTE]

I think that you have taken a different meaning from my last sentence than was intended.
Allow me to clarify, I refer to the inference by ittokaos that S.L. Fung’s book states clearly and only that Pak Mei comes from Jook Lam via Juk Fat Wan.
It does not only state this.
It suggests a plethora of different possible stories involving those ‘monks’ that we cannot verify the ‘information’ with. That’s all.

I enjoyed both :slight_smile:

37

Lai See

Ok, thanks for your comments. As for me rereading the books, you are correct, I should because according to you, I have missed quite a bit. But as far as my original statement goes(which was restated several times)I was correct. You too have now stated that SL Fung states that Pak Mei stems from Jook Lum. Regardless of the other theories that he provides, I stated that this one was in the book and I took issue with it. Nothing more.

The reason that I take issue with it is the fact that regardless if it is true or not doesn’t matter as much as the fact that people believe there to be 3 hakka styles and he now gives them reason to believe there have only ever been 2. Perhaps not the intent but intent is ultimately meaningless to the individual once put into written word. Then it is merely interpretation and damage control hence the reason why this thread turned into what it is and not into what it was intended for.

But I digress.

As for Yandle’s mention of learning from HB Un. Perhaps I didnt read it as thoroughly as I had thought. Perhaps in glancing I missed it completely but I’ll be sure to look again. However, regardless of the Sifu, the disrespect and contradictions remain the same. That much I can be sure of.

–peace:D

38

[QUOTE=ittokaos;945580]Ok, thanks for your comments. As for me rereading the books, you are correct, I should because according to you, I have missed quite a bit. But as far as my original statement goes(which was restated several times)I was correct. You too have now stated that SL Fung states that Pak Mei stems from Jook Lum. Regardless of the other theories that he provides, I stated that this one was in the book and I took issue with it. Nothing more.

The reason that I take issue with it is the fact that regardless if it is true or not doesn’t matter as much as the fact that people believe there to be 3 hakka styles and he now gives them reason to believe there have only ever been 2. Perhaps not the intent but intent is ultimately meaningless to the individual once put into written word. Then it is merely interpretation and damage control hence the reason why this thread turned into what it is and not into what it was intended for.

But I digress.

As for Yandle’s mention of learning from HB Un. Perhaps I didnt read it as thoroughly as I had thought. Perhaps in glancing I missed it completely but I’ll be sure to look again. However, regardless of the Sifu, the disrespect and contradictions remain the same. That much I can be sure of.

–peace:D[/QUOTE]

ittokaos
with respect it appears that not only have you mis read the book you have also mis read lai see’s last post, he is trying to say here that yandle gave not only jook lum but also other theories as to the possible origin of pak mei. You appear to be blinkered in some of your reading,

39

[QUOTE=esox;945673]ittokaos
with respect it appears that not only have you mis read the book you have also mis read lai see’s last post, he is trying to say here that yandle gave not only jook lum but also other theories as to the possible origin of pak mei. You appear to be blinkered in some of your reading,[/QUOTE]

Ittokaos

myself and my friend jack daniels just re-read your post and realised you’d covered this point, appologies

40

[QUOTE=ittokaos;945580]Ok, thanks for your comments. As for me rereading the books, you are correct, I should because according to you, I have missed quite a bit. But as far as my original statement goes(which was restated several times)I was correct. You too have now stated that SL Fung states that Pak Mei stems from Jook Lum. Regardless of the other theories that he provides, I stated that this one was in the book and I took issue with it. Nothing more.

The reason that I take issue with it is the fact that regardless if it is true or not doesn’t matter as much as the fact that people believe there to be 3 hakka styles and he now gives them reason to believe there have only ever been 2. Perhaps not the intent but intent is ultimately meaningless to the individual once put into written word. Then it is merely interpretation and damage control hence the reason why this thread turned into what it is and not into what it was intended for.

But I digress.

As for Yandle’s mention of learning from HB Un. Perhaps I didnt read it as thoroughly as I had thought. Perhaps in glancing I missed it completely but I’ll be sure to look again. However, regardless of the Sifu, the disrespect and contradictions remain the same. That much I can be sure of.

–peace:D[/QUOTE]

Ittokaos,
What I take particular issue with is underlined in bold above together with what is in blue below.
I do realise that you are trying to say that you take issue with a part of what is contained in your sentence, however all we have on an internet forum are the pixels typed before us, and to this end you say 'SL Fung states that … ', whereas in actual fact he ‘suggests that…’ as one of several possibilities… etc.
There is world of difference, and pedantic it is, but there you go. It’s important in this context.
If we are going to analyse then we must use what is actually there to analyse.

As for the Un Ho Bun mention in Yandle’s book, he says that he trained with one of Un Sifu’s students for a while. No mention of which one.
Again though, a small detail perhaps but a detail worth mentioning nonetheless as it was inferred originally by yourself that this teacher (in your own understanding Un Ho Bun) did not understand Pak Mei correctly. You can see how this misunderstanding could easily cause upset, no?

As for the original styles thing, well, personally I am not interested in this at all. Just so we know where we are :slight_smile: