Nospam
Ping kuen and sup ji kuen are two different forms 
Like CLFNole said
Here the beginning look like ping kuen (the Siu ping kuen Like I saw perform by Sifu Shane Lacey ) but after the form is different maybe sup ji kuen …Look like a compilation of different forms for demo …Who know
Steeve
Ps Frank very good jow ga (Fu pow ) form Thank you
so does anyone have the answer to my question?
What’s with the “siu” in Siu Ping Keun, Siu Subje keun, Siu Moi Far keun?
Siu Ping Keun and Ping keun seem to be the same, while Moi Far Keun and Siu Moi Far keun are not.
The three traditional patterns are sup tse kuen (big frame about 200 movements and small frame about 125) kow da kuen, and ping kuen, all three are very classical, are supposed to be preformed on a deep horse but use a pattent bak hsing fighting stance called the triangle horse which is a taller modified bow stance.
Tam Fei Pang, only taught (or at least emphsised) di & sui sup tse kuen, and then his own modified fighting Jeen Kuen patterns. So my sigung never taught ping kuen of kow da.
Lung Jee on the other hand also taught my Sifu Ping Kuen and a foundation form called Che kuen but it is a completelty different pattern then the one Sifu frank posted. Ours is much less advanced pattern in terms of movemnts. Its actually like a post standing routine ware you hold each strike for about a minute in deep stance.
I’m not sure what form that was Steeeve posted, it was a classical style pattern, one of the three. But not in any order that I ever learned. It was awsome though, very unique the combinations of swinging punches. For the most part though, my Sifu has always told me that the only form that matters is the big frame sup tse. There wasn’t a single movement in this vid that isn’t in di sup tse. There are of course endless differnt ways to play them, coordinate them and syncronize them, but really if you’ve learned the basic movemetn in a sequence already you don’t “need” the other forms. Like I said i really liked the way he played this form( i’de probably learn it if i had a chance), but in our school we only teach 4 southern forms, foundationf form, sup tse jeen kuen, lien whan jeen kuen and Sup Tse. When I teach I include one or two more foundation forms, but thats it for patterns. After that its fighting, performance, understanding and gung with our CLF.
Vilmore:
Siu just means small as in a smaller version. Siu Ping Kuen - Small Level Fist, etc…
Also:
Che Kuen is another name we use for Ng Lun Choy. A primary set that focuses on repetition of stances and basic hand patterns.
As I said, some ping chuan are apparently others’ sap ji chuan so I have seen of late. Lineages within Bak Sing teach different patterns (and different movements within same ‘named’ patterns). And as I have said, I do not know why there was a name change in at least one of the patterns as pointed out earlier. Although watching the various patterns performed…change is quite common and is nothing new.
My lineage teaches:
sui yat mun chuan
yat mun chuan
gai bun chuan
sap ji chaun
sap ji gin chuan
lin won jin chuan
..of course for teaching purposes there are many many variations for most of the patterns especially when training the 5 animals.
Regardless, they are just patterns and thus one of many teaching tools.
nospam
Do you translate yat mun kuen as one door fist? Do you pronounce the mun like moon? Or is it Yahp Mun Kuen - Inner Door/Chamber Fist?
Gay boon kuen translates to basic/fundamental fist.
Were these sets introduced by your sifu or sigung? My sifu created some basic starter sets as well to make learning a bit easier.
thx clfnole
and gai bun keun means basics… makes sence now 
My Sifu set up our gai boon kuen, and yat mun kuen was my Sigung’s pattern. My Sihing, Sifu Curtis Taylor also taught me a longer gai boon kuen that has more tiger claw and sweeps.
yut mun ch’uan - mun pronounced moon - is first door form and was created by my sigung after he immigrated to Canada to more easily introduce power to entry level practitioners. This pattern is similar to traditional karate kata although not performed slow. It serves the beginner many purposes and is short in length.
gai bun ch’uan - martial source - has its origin from Lung Gee. I have no idea if our pattern resembles the original Heep Wui Gai Bun Ch’uan as taught at the HK Chinese Martial Arts Union in the mid-40s. My guess is there is similarity; regardless, this form sets the foundation or the flavour of our bak sing. I have seen a gai bun ch’uan performed and it did not look anything remotely familiar to bak sing’s and seemed very ‘basic’. Gai bun ch’uan is my favourite form. It is very dramatic when performed well.
again, goes to show the differences at play in our little CLF world 
nospam
this is fut san ping kuen…
how much different is it from a buk sing ping kuen…
The intro seem to be pretty much the same then all hell breaks lose between brances and lineages. There are pieces and ‘phrases’ that are similar but it is most definitely different.
At 1:26 into the video is ping or sap ji (what is performed I was taught as Sap ji ch’uan). And again by another sifu at 5:25 and it is different (and also in the way it is performed) than the first sifu’s from the 1:26 mark. Notice the opening line and some are similar - this seems to be the constant. My lineage has a little of the first and a little of second etc. I;ve seen some others and they all were different.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1466817336172334030&q=Pak+Sing+Koon
nospam
forgive me nospam,
the performer at 5:25 is carey wong again. but in my singapore hsk video he does basically the same form and they announced it as kau da.
now, i have a question, are that set and the one done at 1:26 completely different?
the only think i noticed was everything up to the bow was the same but after that i saw a completely different set. but ALL hsk lineages have that pattern opening.
are my eyes giving out on me?
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;768344]here’s buk sing clf’s Carey Wong doing a jow ga set…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp8gNLQxY9Q[/QUOTE]
hsk,
Thanks for sharing.
I should point out, however that the form in this video is not the Chow Gar (Jow Ga) Fu Pau Kuen form. It looks very Jow Ga flavoured in the techniques shown, but it is not the Chow Gar, Fu Pau Kuen as practiced in Chow Gar. Unfortunately I cant get my hands on one to show as comparison though.
I realise of course that Master Kong On was originally a student of Chow Lung (founder of Chow Gar), and that some of his Chow Gar came into his BS CLF lineage. This leads me to ask, as I have always been curious to know, if the Chow Gar in this particular lineage of BS CLF is (a) taught as a separate art, or (b) fused in with the CLF as a blended art? It is very rare to see any of it on the net, so I have always been curious? The comments at the bottom of that video clip suggest that the Chow Gar (Jow Ga) forms taught are the more blended sort, with names such as Jow Ga Kuen #1 Jow Ga Kuen # 2 etc.
Perhaps Nick or anyone else from that lineage, knows the answer to that one?
Cheers
hskwarrior
No idea. I’m watching these from video and am not an expert on patterns outside my family. We have 2 patterns that start the same as in the patterns shown, and as I have posted in this thread, then branch out to different ‘phrasing’. I see similarities after (for the most part) the common opening line and thus make my assumptions on the patterns.
In the end it doesn’t matter besides to acknowledge and confirm we’ve all learned our gung fu a little different, which is also quite common. I’d wager the one single commonality, as can be seen in all the pattern variations, is the bak sing fighting philosophy. Discard the patterns and engage in either 2-person training techniques or sparring and this is when bak sing shines.
In the end it is all one glorious bak sing family which puts a smile on my face.
nospam
I think my original point was that it doesn’t really matter which form it was or what the form was called.
Forms, and their endless variety are just that. A variety of differnent ways to play the same basic tequniques and concepts. Even look at my Sup Tse and Nospam’s and you will see several differences even though our teachers were from the same school. But I can always tell a bak hsing form from another CLF family style.
When I see masters that age preform, I assume the techinques they demonstrate are the one they like and are good at. That is usually the way forms get set up. Even Carey Wong’s kow da looks very differnet from my sifu’s version.
My point was, if I cared to I could easily take movemnts from sup tse and/or our jeen kuen patterns and set up five new forms. they would all look different but would there be anything “unique” about them? Once when I was getting really excited and asking questions about the exact order of movements in Sup tse my sifu told me that, “when I was 25 the order of the movements was very important to me, but by the time I was 35 I didn’t really care anymore, what is the difference a gwa-chop is a gwa-chop why does it matter when I do it”
I’m usally more interested in how well they play their form and perform their family’s hoi jong.
Alot of the time a sifu isn’t even going to demonstrate his family version of any form. Even Sifu wong’s kow da looks to short to me, maybe a sui kow da kuen, but when i showed my sifu that video, he asked me “Was there a single movement in that form that isn’t in your sup tse?” and of course the awnswer was NO.
re:
nospam, Satori Science…
…couldn’t have said it better myself. At the end of the day I just wanna chun-sow-gwa-charp somebody/something. I cross-train to bridge fighting environments, that is all. I’m not really interested in common threads, I just want to train what I’ve learned, Buck Sing.
embrace diversity.
I would add that my Sifu started learning Bak Hsing at the age of 12 in Hong Kong. He told me he didn’t learn his first form until he was almost 18. He did five years training basics, drills and fighting.
I read somthing on one of the Lacey sites along those same lines. That for the first several years GM Kong Hing only taught them basics and fighting , no forms.
Sihing told me that when discussing forms with SiGung he said, “Martial first, art later!”
re:
When I was asking to learn forms as others were in our class, my Sifu told me that he had been well into his fight training until he started learning forms. When I asked to learn a particular form a few years ago, he knew my goals and told me this, and he also said “As long as you know how to use your Buck Sing quickly and effectively, don’t worry about forms. Keep drilling your techniques and just concentrate on fighting.”
I’m on the line with my Sifu right now, he just told me after all the years he had rounded down to about 12 core forms. My Sigung Kong Hing told him “Why the hell do you have to learn so many forms for!!?”
k
re:
When I was asking to learn forms as others were in our class, my Sifu told me that he had been well into his fight training until he started learning forms. When I asked to learn a particular form a few years ago, he knew my goals and told me this, and he also said “As long as you know how to use your Buck Sing quickly and effectively, don’t worry about forms. Keep drilling your techniques and just concentrate on fighting.” It wasn’t until I mentioned my interest in teaching that my Sifu gave more encouragement in learning forms. From the start, our Buck Sing curriculum was clearly designed for fighting.
I’m on the line with my Sifu right now, he just told me after all the years he had rounded down to about 12 core forms. Even at this lower number, my Sigung Kong Hing told him “Why the hell do you have to learn so many forms for!!?”
k
nospam