Relationships between different Southern styles.

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

No worries Joy. That statement isnt deragatory. H.K WCK IE Yip Man branch, does not include many of the traditional Kung Fu training methods. Thats not a negative, simply fact.
Yip man did in fact stream line the WCK system, and is aknowledged by most students, for doing so. By traditional methods i refer to Training methods and implitments. For example use of Chop Sticks, Paper, Candles, Jars, were not taught by Yip Man. Some students of Yip have reintroduced these ideas, most do not. Another traditional training method…the Tang Huen. Yik Gan training is not included in any branch i have encountered. This isnt a judgement call on Traditional training methods and implements. It is simply stating the fact. Bamboo Jong is found in almost all Mainland WCK, as is Gwun Jong. Which is also not found in the H.K system.

Many who use H.K WCK, as there point of referance do not see as strong of White Crane characteristics, as they have gradualy been streamlined into smoother angles, with the bridges. Your branch is one of the few in H.K that retain the older shaped Tan. True YKS WCk, Kulo, Cho Gar, Lo Kwai faimly are more similar in appearance to White Crane. This doesnt mean its better. Again simply fact.

Yip Man produced many fighters. So again, please dont project something negative onto my statement. I would never think to make a value judgment on the Yip Man system in relation to other Mainland branchs. Nor make a value judgment on older training methods vs. more progressive training methods. Facts are simply facts.

22

“Many suggest WCK comes from Hung Gar or other “Chi Shim” arts, but that couldnt be from the truth, based on mechanics, Jing Manefestation, Ancestral methods of organizing material, Kuen Kuit, Application, Hand structures, training methods, concepts, principles, which all substantiate Oral tradition as well as the simple fact that WCK isnt a “Kiu Sau” type art, and is a “Conceptual/Jing based Art” (Just like Weng Chun County White Crane).”

I think this is because many people have a mistaken impression of what kiu-sao actually is. People see the movies, see the forms and decide that Hung Kuen uses the kiu-sao in only the hard way it is demonstrated. Hung-Kuen is not played any more like the forms than wing chun fights like siu nim tau, or tai gik kuen fights in slow motion . Separate “gung-faht”, from “kuen-faht.” Kiu-sao is alot more complex than simply a hard bridge. There is listening ging, and sticking,trapping,running,leaking concepts within the kiu-sao faht. Again, look towards the opening movements of the "pillar forms"to see the similarities, and you will see a completely different art.

23

Hi 10 tigers

I dont disagree with your defintion of Kiu Sau, nor do i train using that methodology. Nor do i disagree that Jing is used in ALL Chinese Martial arts, which would include a Kiu Sau art, which i didnt equate to simply “Hard Arms”. I thought Kiu Sau meant each bridge hand had a differant jing or energy attached to it, as well as traditional position.

That is completly differant though , to being a Conceptual based system that uses Jing Fatt as the base. There are very very few systems that could be considered Conceptual. Most of them are systems classified as “Internal” such as Tai Chiu Kuen, Ba Gwa, Hsing i, Yi Chuen, White Crane, and Wing Chun. This isnt an exhaustive list by anymeans.

Sad thing is i see some WCKer attempting to fight with Siu Lien Tao, using the system as a technique based method instead of a conceptual based method.

24

“I thought Kiu Sau meant each bridge hand had a differant jing or energy attached to it, as well as traditional position.”
That is the way we usually see it described,demonstrated in articles, books, etc. That is not the way (the Hung Kuen that I practice)is played. Ok,well yes and no. Each “bridge” has a different ging(jing), but it isn’t,“Oh, now I use this bridge, like this.” The bridge encounters energy, and naturally reacts accordingly. If you were to ask, “Which bridge did you use?” there is no answer. I just went. It is all based on sensitivity,reaction, and the internalization of the structures and concepts. The “traditional positions” are simply the structures-and there are of course variations within the structure, that create proper, or ideal alignment for each.
Herein lies the problem-the more you try to explain this, the more complicated-overcomplicated you make it, until you are tangled up in your own terms. Trying to explain in words, pictures, etc something that needs to be felt to be understood. Gung-Fu-real Gung-Fu is taught from Sifu to student in direct transmission, hands-on. “You need to steal your Sifu’s hand” is what my Sifu and Si-Hings have always told me.

25

[QUOTE=htowndragon;746357]honestly the most “unique” of the chinese MA styles, and by unique i mean has a unique way of moving and fighting principle, as well as focus, are the tibetan styles,[/QUOTE]
How so?
I find Lama Pai, Pak Hok, and Hop Gar to be similar to Choy Lay Fut in some ways. They both have lots of long arm techniques that use whipping power. The main difference I see is that the stances are narrower. That and there seems to be more of an emphasis on the closed fist in the Lion’s Roar arts.

26

i would say it would be the footwork and training methods/concepts.

but i do agree they are similar to CLF in lots of ways.

the thing that surprised me after trainign in hop gar though, was that other than the “obvious” in the application, etc. hop gar is a very very sophisticated and complex style. sure u can take the hands and just brawl with them, but you can brawl at a different level as well.

27

also the composition of the system is unique. what i mean by that is the separation of the “different lines” of attack.

look at the different lions roar arts. the one thing that u can see remained consistent is the idea of “fist seeds”, in which most of them are still the same. add or subtract a few numbers, some different names, but its still there.

the division of the “long arm” (first line attack) techniques, short hand techniques, etc.

pak hok
law horn
wei to
daat mo

the four divisions of my hop gar. sets have never been an emphasis in the style.

you ask a choy lee fut guy, show me kao da, cheung kune, etc.
wing chun guy, show me sil lum tao, chum kiu, bil jee
hung gar, show me gung gee fook fu, fu hok seurng ying
bak mei, gow bo tui
lung ying, mor kiu
fukien white crane, san zhan
tong long, sam bo gin or variants

etc. etc. each style has a “core” set that defines it.

some hop gar/lions roar lines have totally eliminated sets all together.

show me chune, pao, kup.

28

Or that Fut Ga is a more flowery, indirect, less efficient method - It all lies in the eyes of the beholder, or what the eyes of the beholder have been trained to see.

There is nothing better than a good old beimo to clean up misconceptions!

:smiley:

29

[QUOTE=htowndragon;750325]also the composition of the system is unique. what i mean by that is the separation of the “different lines” of attack.

look at the different lions roar arts. the one thing that u can see remained consistent is the idea of “fist seeds”, in which most of them are still the same. add or subtract a few numbers, some different names, but its still there.

the division of the “long arm” (first line attack) techniques, short hand techniques, etc.

pak hok
law horn
wei to
daat mo

the four divisions of my hop gar. sets have never been an emphasis in the style.

you ask a choy lee fut guy, show me kao da, cheung kune, etc.
wing chun guy, show me sil lum tao, chum kiu, bil jee
hung gar, show me gung gee fook fu, fu hok seurng ying
bak mei, gow bo tui
lung ying, mor kiu
fukien white crane, san zhan
tong long, sam bo gin or variants

etc. etc. each style has a “core” set that defines it.

some hop gar/lions roar lines have totally eliminated sets all together.

show me chune, pao, kup.[/QUOTE]
I didn’t know that any of the Lion’s Roar folks got rid of sets altogether. I was under the impression that most just condensed the material. I heard that Lama Pai, for example, has tons of sets. However, many of them are repetitive so they were condensed by a lot of the Pak Hok and Hop Gar masters. And aren’t certain sets sort of the “cherry on top” for the style? Like the Min Loi Jam almost being to Lion’s Roar what the Tid Sin Kuen is to Wong Fei Hung-Hung Gar? Which would mean that getting rid of all sets would be getting rid of that “cherry”. And other styles (Choy Lay Fut included) also have fist seeds.

30

yeah all styles have seeds.

but “sets” are not emphasized in the lions roar as much as other styles. mostly drills.

31

[SIZE=“4”]Fojiaquan has no true similarities with yongchunquan; fojiaquan uses the mabu (horse footstep) were as youngchunquan uses bazibu (eight character footstep).

Honestly, southern styles boxing (nanshiquan) can be dived into two regions, i.e., Guangdong and Fujian:

Guangdong styles have the inclination to favor longer arm method (changshoufa), i.e., hongjiaquan, cailifoquan, etc., were as Fujian styles favor shorter arm method (duanshoufa), baihequan, baimeiquan, etc. [/SIZE]

32

[QUOTE=htowndragon;751449]yeah all styles have seeds.

but “sets” are not emphasized in the lions roar as much as other styles. mostly drills.[/QUOTE]
I thought that was true of Pak Hok and Hop Gar but not Lama Pai. From what I understand, Lama Pai has tons of forms many of which repeat themselves. What I thought that Hop Gar and Pak Hok did was trim the repetitive stuff. Not saying any are superior to the others, they all emphasize the same concepts, conditioning, and techniques if I am not mistaken.

33

[QUOTE=Mulong;751497][SIZE=“4”]Fojiaquan has no true similarities with yongchunquan; fojiaquan uses the mabu (horse footstep) were as youngchunquan uses bazibu (eight character footstep).

Honestly, southern styles boxing (nanshiquan) can be dived into two regions, i.e., Guangdong and Fujian:

Guangdong styles have the inclination to favor longer arm method (changshoufa), i.e., hongjiaquan, cailifoquan, etc., were as Fujian styles favor shorter arm method (duanshoufa), baihequan, baimeiquan, etc. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I would add a third category for Hakka styles. I should mention (if I already hadn’t) that I see many similarities between Hakka Kung Fu and Fujian Kung Fu. And from my understanding, Hung Kuen from the Wong Fei Hung Line got more longarm techniques from the Lion’s Roar fighter Wong Yan Lam but other Hung Kuen lineages are more focused on shorthand.

34

[SIZE=“3”]Indeed, Fujian styles are heavy influence by the Hakka culture, i.e., short hand method; were as the Guangdong styles have a cosmopolitan quality to them, i.e., i.e., potpourris of styles intermixing; this is mostly based upon Guangzhou, i.e., Canton, being a major harbor city.*

*The first harbor open to Western nations to trade with China. [/SIZE]

35

i heard a story that a travelling monk from Tibet came to the southern shaolin temple and taught a few people, such as Bak Mei, Ng Mui, some tibetan style martial arts. Could this be a possible influence as to where these Fujian/Hakkanese Martial arts seem to have a Tibetan influence. I could be getting my facts messed up, but the message is this: travelling tibetan monk, southern shaolin students –> new systems.

36

Xia writes,“I see many similarities between Hakka Kung Fu and Fujian Kung Fu. And from my understanding, Hung Kuen from the Wong Fei Hung Line got more longarm techniques from the Lion’s Roar fighter Wong Yan Lam but other Hung Kuen lineages are more focused on shorthand.”
Very true, and may I also add, the opening sections of all the pillar sets-most obvious in Fu Hok Seung-Ying Kuen, are all Fukien/Hakka influenced,short bridge,small horse.

37

[QUOTE=bredmond812;756627]i heard a story that a travelling monk from Tibet came to the southern shaolin temple and taught a few people, such as Bak Mei, Ng Mui, some tibetan style martial arts. Could this be a possible influence as to where these Fujian/Hakkanese Martial arts seem to have a Tibetan influence. I could be getting my facts messed up, but the message is this: travelling tibetan monk, southern shaolin students –> new systems.[/QUOTE]
I never heard that before. The closest thing to that I know of would be the Lama Pai influence on Wong Fei Hung Kung Fu.

38

Choy Lay Fut, another art with Southern Shaolin roots, is a long arm style.
Oh and before anyone says that Choy Lay Fut is more then just long range techniques, of course it is! Long arm doesn’t mean only long range. Long arm can be done in close range combat.
That being said, I have no idea what Mok Gar and Fut Gar are. But I dont know of any Choy Lay Fut being influenced by Lion’s Roar. Therefore, my guess would be that Southern Shaolin did have long arm being practiced there. Thoughts anyone?

39

My guess is that long fist existed in Guangdong by the beginning of the 19th century. The monk Choy Fook is the earliest historic source I know of for what was probably an atypical style and must have been a northern import.
Similarities between Siu Lam styles and the Lion Roar tradition are hard to judge at this late date but I’m sure it’s not a simple matter of one stemming directly from another. There was a complicated interchange of ideas as these styles developed in the late 1800’s. Lama styles are often taught with twisting punches that were not part of the original system. Tibetan White Crane has sets such as Kau Da, Mui Fa, and Ng Ying Kyuhn that are completely different from forms of the same names in Hung Gar or CLF, but the names show that a cultural continuity was important. At the end of the Ching period Lama arts had to become Chinese arts in order to survive.
According to Quentin Fong, most TWC teachers were former Hung Gar men. Some were CLF as well. Those who studied under GM Ng Siu Chung or his students Au Wing Nin and Tang Jok Ming (there may be others) learned “non-shaolinized” Lama.

40

Fut Ga video

I always thought Fut Ga was a Southern short fist, this proves me wrong. I also see the similarities in the Wai video between Hung Sing CLF, but not so much with the Buk Sing. When taught by Master Chau, Buk Sing didn’t do alot of big swinging movements or overhead blocks like Hung Sing. The opening salutation also is more like Hung Sing. Use of the Kai Lo Ma by Buk Sing instead of the Gwai Ma by Hung Sing sets them apart.