Shaolin Master-Priceless:)
FT-I’m tired on the way to bed,what and where does “lo maan pai” fit in?
Warm Regards to you both
what, some new info to this old thread?
Hi guys, lots of familiar “faces”.
…did I say just how jealous I am that SM is off plundering the knickers of TCMA in China… Its obscene. If we find out you’re just holed up in a cubicle in HK, you’re toast. <grin>
SM, sounds like some of your getting the good oil. Nothing like “the hourses mouth” with all due respect to the parties involved…
As you know, I agree with you, but more from an intuitive perspective than anything else. It seems to me, from everything I’ve heard, that it was Great Grandmaster Chang who captured the raw “ingredients” crafted the art we call Pak Mei. The “Temple” was the finishing school, where the pieces all came together. And he never finished trying to perfect the art for the next 60 odd years? Why not?
You mentioned that you had met someone that had two patterns from the temple, one with “subtle similarities” to PM, and one internal. Sounds like the “primordial stuff” if you know what I mean, add 100 plus years as well…
We’ve spoken about “layers” before, no need to belabour the point. It all makes sense to me.
Now, what happens if you/we get our hands on some “primordial stuff”? What can you do with it? Is it anything like tickling the dragon’s tail?
BTW, we had 24 on the grass last Saturday.
Just to add,
I have heard there is a form of Bak Mei that is taught in Futsan/foshan that is not directly related to CLC. I don’t know much about it other than seeing a little hear and there. I think it has many forms, some of which are similar to CLC. These I think are called treasure forms. Like I said, I know very little about it, but thought I would bring it up here. Any one know any more about this branch?
Tom
Yes, the lineage through Chong, Yin Chueng si gung who’s lineage is up through Lau, Siu Leung from Futshan does not claim any direct lineage from CLC branch. Seems we share a number of the same form “names”, though I know some of these to have variations from the CLC format. I believe the greatest commonality (from conversations or public lists I’ve seen) would be the sup gee, sup baat mor kiew, kow bow toi and fu bo forms. There may be others.
The problem is Lau Siu Leung’s history.
Which I will not elaborate here, as I’ll keep that for the Bak Mei Masters Secrets Manual 2004/5 Edition if I ever write one. 
How?
How can a system have sub ji and not trace its lineage to CLC?
. yes its not plausible is it, …
I don’t do BM but the “History of Guangdong Martial Arts” says Lum Hop created BM and passed it onto CLC and others. May be the book is wrong but CLC’s teacher(s) must have influenced his BM.
Read: Emei Bai Mei
Check out the old thread I just put to the top of the list. It has a lot of this same stuff.
So, if I am following this correctly, I am to understand that according to Shaolin Master and Oldyela (and others?), that all roads lead to CLC or they are not Bak Mei ? And does that also imply that only one individual learned this “style” and only passed to CLC who then embelished it with his own influences to therefore create Bak Mei ?
Hi Mac,
First of all, this is an exploration of a theory by examination of what meager facts we have to work with. SM has had some direct experience in some of the areas and opinion plays a role too. We’re not carving history into stone here.
Originally posted by MAC
So, if I am following this correctly, I am to understand that according to Shaolin Master and Oldyela (and others?), that all roads lead to CLC or they are not Bak Mei ?
Add me to that list too. In my humble opinion, GM CLC created the art from many pieces, but he was the glue that added the value that made it different to say, SPM, or LY or other Hakka arts, or other temple arts. He chose the name. He could have called it Chang Gar and it would have been no different. It has roots going back much further, sure, but, as in evidence from SM, the roots haven’t grown into the same kind of tree.
And does that also imply that only one individual learned this “style” and only passed to CLC who then embelished it with his own influences to therefore create Bak Mei ?
I think it is a natural conclusion that there were others that learned what CLC learned, the question appears to be, what did they do with it? Remember CLC was not just “another kung fu guy” He was a ferocious and proven fighter, a champion, a resistance fighter, a legend in his own lifetime. It’s a far reach for me to believe that a man like that learned everything that made up his “style” from one place, one person.
Mind you, that is not to say that “Pak Mei” from “other lineages” are frauds. SM has experienced that they are real arts (is that correct SM?) only different. So, the term “Real” isn’t perhaps the correct term to debate.
Does that make any sense?
I guess in summary it is :
If a person teaches Bak Mei and the content is similar or the same (less the variations existant in itself during development or non disclosure phases) as that of CLC, then it is none other than CLC’s Bak Mei. [Irrespective of any alternative lineage claims]
If a person teaches Bak Mei that is completely different to the ‘globally’ acknowledged Bak Mei (ie CLC) but it is a complete art it is also possible to be a different art of the same name. This typically is found in regional areas where it seems white eyebrows where popular amongst old folk and often not necessarily attributable the novel imposed legend of the 5 southern masters Bak Mei.
If a person teaches a differently named art that claims origin in the Bak Mei of legend. Then this again must be evaluated on its own merits. Because based on legend as an example a type of Lee family MA was exclaimed as being passed on by the legend Bak Mei. As were some arts on Emei such as BabuHuZhang etc…
However, the Bak Mei known and acknowledged spread, popularised and famed for its ferocious no nonsense combat approach is CLC Bak Mei!
Regards
Wu Chan Long
Ok, I’m with you so far … and I know that CLC acquired (at least) 18 schools by defeating their owners/leaders. So it’s been said that these schools were transitioned into Bak Mei schools BUT many still manitained influence of whatever their original style was. My understanding is that this created some of the variations in CLC lineages own form sets and practices, including individual form techniques, content, sequence, number of forms and weapons. Would this be accurate?
I’m compelled to ask because as one reviews what’s available on the grand www you can see that even within this lineage there exist many differences, but among them there are a “core” group of forms that all tend to maintain the common bond. What I can’t tell is if the actual forms of the same name are identical to one another (within reason). Of those I have seen, there are considerable differences, so… just clouds the issue to me.
I am not familiar with Chan Hop. Do any of you that are closer to the subject know of him or his claim?
And finally, what of the older gentleman that was referenced who stated “that was not his Bak Mei” or something to that effect. Any more information regarding his perspective or knowledge?
I’m sure you fine folks have nothing better to do than answer these questions ! Serioulsy though, I appreciate the fact that each of you are willing to impart your knowledge and experiences upon those of us on the seeking path.
Originally posted by MAC
Ok, I am not familiar with Chan Hop. Do any of you that are closer to the subject know of him or his claim?
My mistake, it should be Lum Hop, CLC’s uncle, who was his first teacher. Lum Hop started a famous MA school in 1862, where he taught some of the pioneers of Guangdong MA, include his brother’s son Lum Yiu-Gwai. Both CLC (Bak Mei) and LYG (Lung Ying) were cousins. CLC was born in 1880 and LYG in 1878 and they lived next to each other and grew up together.
After Lum Hop, CLC went and studied with an old monk called Jeug from Wah Lum Temple for 3 years. He then set up his first school in Guangzhou called Dai Tung Wui Mo Gwoon where he started to teach BM. BM was not created by the Daoist Monk Bak Mei from Emei, he was just a fictional character from a novel called “Meng Nian Ching”. The main ingredients for BM came from Lum Hop and Monk Jeug.
After Lum Hop, LYG went to Law Fo Shan to study for 4 years with Abbot Dai Yuk before he statred teaching LY in Guangzhou, so LY, like BM has influence from Lum Hop as well.
Both CLC and LYG became famous in the 1920-30s as two of the Five Tiger of the South, yet very few people talked about Lum Hop, their uncle who first taught them Kung Fu.
Lum Hop (b 1831) was a native of Wai Yeung and he started Kung Fu early at 14. From 17 he followed Wong Lin-Giu (an ex-Fujian Shaolin Temple monk) for 10 years before openning up a Kung Fu school in his village Leung Fa. He was brave and skilful and was offerred government positions, but he knocked them back and went to Law Fo Shan to study with Abbot Gwong Jen (WLG’s Sihing) for 3 more years instead. He continued to teach in Leung Fa until his death in 1908.
I mentioned Lum Hop because I think he deserved a credit for instigating not one but two home grown MA styles from Guangdong. IMO, Lum Hop was a humble but influential man.
Hi EJ
This must be the “alternative” history I’ve heard mentioned a couple of times. It appears to go against the “published” history in the book by HB Un. Are you quoting from that “History of Guangdong Martial Arts”?
Besides the differences concerning the temple (perhaps not as significant as at first glance), it indicates that he had but one “early” teacher, his uncle. Whereas, taking from the sources of the patterns that make up the style, the saying is that there were 3 early inspirations. Keeping in mind that “family” styles were quite popular in those days…
Lam Sek?
Mind you, I only surmise this from “the book” and other gossip passed about on-line, so any new information is always welcome, but perhaps some confirmation or attribution is in order?
Re: Hi EJ
Originally posted by Yum Cha
This must be the “alternative” history I’ve heard mentioned a couple of times. It appears to go against the “published” history in the book by HB Un. Are you quoting from that “History of Guangdong Martial Arts”?
Yes, my information came from the “History of Guangdong Martial Arts”, which talked about Lum Hop, his school, his brother, his students/relatives like CLC and CYG. Also information on all the major Guangdong styles like Hung, Lau, Choy, Lee, Mok, CLF, Hop Gar, Fut Gar, WC, BM, LY and the Hakka styles etc.
I guess it is “alternative” history because it came from the mainland China written in Chinese by Chinese experts and historians. I only do CLF and Tai Chi so I am not in a good position to judge its accuracy, but as far as CLF is concerned the information from this book is guite good. The book was funded by the government after years of research so I pessume it would have a minimum standard. The advantage of being in China is one can easily varify the names, places and dates, a little harder when one is overseas.
Lum Hing-Yun, Lum Hop’s younger brother and father of Lum Yiu-Gwai also taught at the Leung Fa school, so he would have exerted some early influence on CLC as well.
Hi EJ
Well, hard to argue with “alternative” history like that. <grin> I have heard this book mentioned before here, and it certainly sounds scholarly… The other is the “family” story.
We all know that vested interests have a habit of changing history, and exaggeration as well as humility can colour a story. Good marketing, is likewise, nothing new. So, perspective is always a great tool in understanding the past. Thanks for the input.
I’ve found Shaolin Master to be pretty knowledgeable in this area, So SM old buddy, you got any comments on this book? I know you hold Lum Hup in high regard…
<respect>
Mind you, I still feel that wherever it came from is moot, as Grand Master Cheung Lai Chun was the one who brought it together as it is today, and it is in his name it carries on.
</respect>
Is there any SPM history interwoven here with the BM and LY? Gee, this is getting interesting…
spm and bak mei
I have read and been told by some bak mei teachers that clc did study SPM at one stage when CLC and LYG as well as lau soi (spelling) was friends and practised together i think thats the mantis guy maybe wrong name…lol
ft
Well put Yum Cha. Though I don’t think that anyone argues the credit that CLC receives for the proliferation of the bak mei around the world or his personal abilities and accomplishments, there are grey areas within the history surrounding the early origins and propagation of this style, aren’t there ?
Grey areas
Grey areas? Well, perhaps we can answer that two ways. One, that there has never been anything but grey areas, and that part of the puzzle is seeing through the grey.
Or, you could say that there is a family history, and a government/academic history now. I would not say they are as yet inconsistant at such a superficial examination, though I am hardly a scholar in historical matters. Names in different dialects, romanisations, nicknames, propernames, its quite often too hard for me to follow.
It would be nice to have a more thorough examination. Is that quote complete and more or less verbatium Extra Joseph? Did you do the translation?
I think the key lies in the pedigree of the pattern Gau Bo Twi, and perhaps Sub Bat Mor Que as well.
FT, someone once said that the GM’s of PM, LY and SPM all came from the same town. We know CLC and LYG did…