Personally I think this is all an exercise in futility. Kind of like a dog chasing it’s own tail.
Don’t get me wrong I think its great to trace one’s history; however that being said finding out the history is difficult to say the least and sources of information questionable at best. There is very little documented material on the founding of many of the southern styles; however some how or another they typically have roots in Siu Lam Gee and hence the similarities between southern systems.
Think about it, since much of CLFs history was not kept or secret than how can you get reliable information about it. Some people believe the Chan history but I think thats a rather one-sided version from the grandson’s perspective.
My point is CLF is a great art and our history is clouded. The past is of little importance now, what is important is the future and how CLF is spread and taught. We should focus more on our own kung fu and how to improve it rather that get too caught up in history.
Knowing your history will allow you to know where you are going.
As of now, there are no “Modern Choy Lee Fut” schools in existance. Everyone still focuses on what CLF used to be.
But Tell me, why should our history be forgotten just to strengthen our fighting skills. At this point, i don’t care if anyone believes the history, there will always be someone that does.
At this point, although, the Chan Family will have bigger problems trying to disprove this one. See, there are web sites out there not CLF that mention Green Grass Monk, so i’m not tripin’ makin up some stories for the glory of hung sing.
But Nole, you may not care about the history, fu pow may not care, but one of your students will want to know. And as teachers of our style, i feel that it is important to know our roots so that we ourselves and not someone else can pass on our tradition. It is people who don’t care about the history that allow our history to be forgotten. Then, who is to blame for misinformation emerging when you had to opportunity to learn about and continue with the transferrance of our great story.
But if you don’t care, then why make the effort to even comment? That was not meant in any ill fashion, just a sincere honest question. Don’t get me wrong bro, but history is just one small aspect of learning.
Nole I agree. All I think we can really say is that there are certain"Super Families" (not to be confused with the “Super Friends” of Sat morning cartoon lore) that share similar characteristics. Everyone in the fam ****ly should all learn and share with each other rather than get caught up in the politics.
In Southern China we have the “horse riding” styles which I’ve already mentioned. There is a lot of similarity.
Then you have the southern Hakka derived styles, Fukien White Crane, Southern Praying Mantis, Lung Ying, Bak Mei, Wing Chun, etc.
In Northern China you see the Long Fist styles, Tai Tzu, Hong Quan, Cha Quan, Chang Quan, Pao Chui, Eagle Claw, etc, etc.
Then you have the internal arts like Ba Gua, Xing Yi, Taiji Quan, Liu He Ba Fa, etc.
Of course, there are always going to be those hybrid arts that don’t fit into any super family.
My point is that all of these “Super Families” share similarities on all significant levels including intent, form, body mechanics and strategy. Instead of battling it out over who has the real deal or what the true history the respective styles we should promote and share with our Super Family…
Sorry to rant but the history stuff sometimes gets to me. This whole thread started about what styles make of CLF. We all have ideas but no one has any concrete evidence.
Everyone is always talking about where did CLF come from : some say choy gar, lee gar, etc…, to others Choy is Choy Fook and lets not even start with the Fut thing. My point was we can all talk about this until we are blue in the face but the bottom line is none of us really know. No one was alive that far back to know.
Just look at other styles like hung gar and wing chun and how they bicker about history. I just think we should talk about CLF whether its fighting concepts, techniques, forms or weapons.
Don’t get me wrong I commend your efforts its just that I think you will always here conflicting stories.
As far as hung gar and CLF…easy many of the early CLF sifus had hung backgrounds and some hung sifus CLF backgrounds and therefore the similarities.
You are right nole, but not even the Chan Family can back up their story outside of their own account of the history.
See, my POV is “let us tell our story, don’t tell me i’m wrong just to try and ensure your position. Our version of the history deserves to be heard, as well as the other branches. If we all could agree on the history then the history will no longer be an issue.”
But there are things too inevitable to escape and history is one of them. I agree, history holds no weight when it comes to someone attacking you and you are going to hit him with a kwa sow chop. Still, if history is so unimportant, then why do we even call CLF…CLF? why not just Gung fu? By saying we practice 'CLF" we are saying this is how we do it.
Then why is it so wrong to say this is who we are?
I never said history isn’t important or that I don’t care about our history. I just don’t get that caught up in it. You and I are alike in a lot of ways, ask Joe I was always the one that looked into our school’s history, the history behind certain sets and how sifu taught them in his early years, etc…
Over time and due to various things in my personal I realized it all doesn’t matter that much. I can have my take on history, you another take, Fu-Pow another and so on. You know what though none of us would be able to prove our version is the right one. When students ask me about the history of CLF I always begin with…“well there are a few different versions.” I tell them the various stories and leave it with do your own research and believe what you want. That is the beauty of a free society, you can say and believe whatever you want.
Regarding Cai Dezhong, I remember reading somewhere that they thought he might have a connection to Wing Chun. If thats the case and he is also the GGM they why don’t we have more short-hand techniques. See with all of the various holes in Chinese kung fu history we will never know the real truth. I have heard different stories as to who the 5 master that escaped the burning of the temple. Others say that these people are part of folklore much like Robin Hood. Some people believe Fong Sai Yuk and Wing Chun were real peolple others think they were made up. Who can say for sure?
I think history is great but the best we can typically do is to get the hstory of the generation before us like the history of our own schools and sifus.
This can all come to a rest if the Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon is allowed to tell our story uninterrupted, and without the Chan Family saying we’re wrong. As we all know, their version is only 1/3 to the CLF system as a whole today.
For example, if a non-CLF guy got onto the forum and asked about the histories of all 3 branches and we “All” tell our stories without a quarrel, then CLF was done justice.
I personally fell that as long as you don’t argue about the history, then it will lay silently, and we all could be proud to “CHOY LEE FUT PEOPLE”, and get back to training.
