As for Leopard Elbow, have you seen the Chan version? If not it would not surprise me to see a new Chan version on youtube soon LOL
Fu Pow contains contains some advanced fighting techniques, which I haven’t seen in the other forms. The L shaped Hung Sing Hoi Jong for here is not just a pretty face to be Hung Sing, it compliments some of the advanced CLF fighting techniques expressed in this form. I can see that same principle in say Buk Sing but they express it differently. Those who know this form inside out, should understand exactly what I mean.
Yes, each form is worth a thousand words and it really depends on the student to see that. LKH curiculum is pretty trad in terms of teachings, so forms are everything in that sense.
I have seen about half of the Chan Family version of ping jahng kuen (level elbow) and the beginning sequence is nearly identical. I have also seen a few different people do their ping kuen and it is the same set, the hung sing and buk sing ping kuen is very different not the same form just the same name.
Let me ask you this why would our (LKH) version of baat kwa sum kuen have the L-shaped hoi jong, when the rest of the set is almost the same as the Chan version? Hung sing doesn’t have the 9 baat kwa sets they are from the Chan Family. I believe the answer is that sifu added the L-shaped hoi jong to dsitinguish our sets that are considered more advanced like fu-pow kuen, fu ying kuen, hok ying kuen, baat kwa sum and baat mo kuen. Most of the sets at one time or another that straight ahead hoi jong which is characteristic of Chan Family.
As far as fu-pow goes I have known this set for about 8 years and the techiques are very good especially the main continuous chop choy section.
I don’t know, we wouldn’t be always having this discussion if there were definite answers to begin with. the whole truth will probably never be known. the way an LKH player play forms is very different to Chan players or anyone else. There are distinct combos trade marked to LKH.
It’s really difficult to be so black and white. I don’t know much about Chan. It seems that some of Wong Ha’s stuff say is pretty different from other Chan stuff. there are common stuff across the various lineages.
I am not saying we play the forms the same as the Chan Family people but rather that our forms come from them. We definately have our own flavor and style that I do not question.
I do enjoy watching LKH players do their forms. I think it is safe to say that there doesn’t seem to be any other line/school that uses the same forms or plays them the same way…would you all agree??
It may be safe to assume that the forms were created by LKH…that is unless non-LKH schools can be found that do the same forms. I dont’ know who they may be, but I’m sure LKH had classmates, no? What forms are they doing?? Does anyone have any youtube clips???
Most of our sets come from the Chan Family line and I have seen them played and are very similar with the exception of a few moves. A few I have seen include:
Ping Kuen, Ping Jahng Kuen, Baat Kwa Sum Kuen, Hung Jeh Pang, Sheung Garp Dan Tow Kwun
Sifu Chiu Mun On who is a student of Poon Sing does many of our sets with slight differences as well. LKH studied with other sifus which is why we might have some different stuff.
Anyone know who this player is? Guy was stylin. this will crack me up if he was Chan. Nothing seems Chan to me in this. I can spot two sets of movements that are specific to LKH.
Not sure who that guy is but he appeared to be doing Ng Ying Kuen.
I wanted to get back more with Lama’s question earlier about our style.
First off the forms were not all created by sifu (I am sure he added a few like many sifus do). When my sifu was younger and my current sifu (Li Siu Hung) was a teenager, there were about 6 different schools that did our style so it really isn’t LKH style just maybe he made it well known.
The schools back then were:
Poon Dik’s school
So Kam Fook’s school
Leung Siu Kuen’s school
Leung Sai’s school
Chow Bing’s school
Fung Kei Biu’s school
Poon Dik, So Kam Fook and Leung Siu Kuen were sihing/dai. Leung Sai and Chow Bing were Poon Dik’s senior students. I am not sure about Fung Kei Biu, all I know is he was older than Poon Sing (Poon Dik’s son). All of the above have long been passed away and there teachings did not really continue on a larger scale. LKH was one of the more prominent ones to come off. There are still some of sifu sisuks alive and I saw them perform at Poon Sing’s birthday banquet doing various sets from our lineage siu moi fah, sup gee kow dah, ping chang kuen, etc…
Most people have only seen the primary level forms from our line and not much of the advanced stuff.
[QUOTE=CLFNole;857521]Not sure who that guy is but he appeared to be doing Ng Ying Kuen.
I wanted to get back more with Lama’s question earlier about our style.
First off the forms were not all created by sifu (I am sure he added a few like many sifus do). When my sifu was younger and my current sifu (Li Siu Hung) was a teenager, there were about 6 different schools that did our style so it really isn’t LKH style just maybe he made it well known.
The schools back then were:
Poon Dik’s school
So Kam Fook’s school
Leung Siu Kuen’s school
Leung Sai’s school
Chow Bing’s school
Fung Kei Biu’s school
Poon Dik, So Kam Fook and Leung Siu Kuen were sihing/dai. Leung Sai and Chow Bing were Poon Dik’s senior students. I am not sure about Fung Kei Biu, all I know is he was older than Poon Sing (Poon Dik’s son). All of the above have long been passed away and there teachings did not really continue on a larger scale. LKH was one of the more prominent ones to come off. There are still some of sifu sisuks alive and I saw them perform at Poon Sing’s birthday banquet doing various sets from our lineage siu moi fah, sup gee kow dah, ping chang kuen, etc…
Most people have only seen the primary level forms from our line and not much of the advanced stuff.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info,…good to know. I enjoy researching the changes that styles make from generation to generation. Sometimes they are worse, sometimes for the better. Are there any vid clips of these other Sifu??
I think there are some clips of Chiu Mun On’s school on YouTube. He is Poon Sing’s student and was much younger than LKH. I think he teaches at a community center and doesn’t have an official school.
As far as clips of the schools in my post above I am afraid I can’t help as most of those sifus have been gone for 30 years or more. I have some home videos of some of LKHs sisuks but they are of poor quality and in PAL VHS format, so I am not going through the trouble of converting for internet viewing.
If you watch closely enough they are all the same form done with differences attributed to each lineage. The opening is different in the 1st (Sifu Mak) but that is an abbreviated opening developed in our lineage, the tradition opening is very similar to the other 2.
The other difference is lenght as each player can cut it when they want. We have a siu ping kuen (video #1) and a dai ping kuen version, which is closer to #3 but still longer.
I think arguing over ‘openings’ of the various forms are a little silly. While I agree that there are certain important cultural aspects that needs to be retained in forms, I think the whole aim of any martial arts is to become better and more proficient at fighting.
Our Lee Koon Hung forms contain many valuable fighting techniques and applications, but in the same breath, one needs to be focusing on actual fighting in order to be able to use these techniques properly.
Whether or not Lee Koon Hung made up his own forms, or added from other styles… this isn’t really important to the development of my own learning path. Whether or not we call ourselves Hung Sing, Buk Sing, or whatever, it doesn’t make us any more or any less better fighters than others.
I have just returned from doing a half a month San Shou instructors course in Wuhan again, and I can honestly say that the modern san shou curriculum is so well structured that it produce fighters (instead of forms warriors) in a very short time. While I still value and love the traditional aspects of Chinese martial arts, I think arguing about silly ‘traditions’ and whether or not it makes you more ‘legitimate is silly. This sort of thing shouldn’t even have a place in martial arts.
While the traditional players argue about politics and whos line is better etc, the modern fighters are becoming much better at their game.
[QUOTE=Eddie;857772]I think arguing over ‘openings’ of the various forms are a little silly. While I agree that there are certain important cultural aspects that needs to be retained in forms, I think the whole aim of any martial arts is to become better and more proficient at fighting.
Our Lee Koon Hung forms contain many valuable fighting techniques and applications, but in the same breath, one needs to be focusing on actual fighting in order to be able to use these techniques properly.
Whether or not Lee Koon Hung made up his own forms, or added from other styles… this isn’t really important to the development of my own learning path. Whether or not we call ourselves Hung Sing, Buk Sing, or whatever, it doesn’t make us any more or any less better fighters than others.
I have just returned from doing a half a month San Shou instructors course in Wuhan again, and I can honestly say that the modern san shou curriculum is so well structured that it produce fighters (instead of forms warriors) in a very short time. While I still value and love the traditional aspects of Chinese martial arts, I think arguing about silly ‘traditions’ and whether or not it makes you more ‘legitimate is silly. This sort of thing shouldn’t even have a place in martial arts.
While the traditional players argue about politics and whos line is better etc, the modern fighters are becoming much better at their game.[/QUOTE]
