Hey Michael-
I have a whole slew of writings from Howard Choy that someone compiled from when Chan Family website forum before they shut it down. He’s got all kinds of stuff about CLF theory, animal forms, etc. If you want I can send you the whole thing via email. What’s your email again? You can send it to me via PM if you want.
FP
Hi frank,
I have only done research on CLF history, I don’t know anything about your history and your art, why don’t you tell us how Fut Gar Jing Jung was found and what is in in your Futsan Hung Sing Kuen and where they came from?
If your founder Jeong Yim learned from Ching Cho, what did he passed down apart from the “in and out Bagua”? (stange name, how is it writen in Chinese?) If he also learned from Lee Yau Shan, what did he passed down and what was his specialty? I have heard he learned from our founder Chan Heung too, what did he passed down to your style?
You don’tseem to do anything like CLF, so it would be good to compare notes with us, that is if you want to.
EJ
Hi EJ,
Do you think if we told Frank what Lee Yau San’s art was like, the info will be re-invented as something Lee passed down to Jeong Yim of hung sing kuen, from fut gar jing jung??
Jeong yim learnt a short time with CLF founder Chan Heung. How did it affect hung sing kuen from fut gar jing jung??
joseph, you should go and ask fut san hsk.
why are you relying on me?
is this just a personal attack because i say your chan family history on Jeong Yim is a crock?
You know i don’t make it a personal thing to down the Chan Family and their history. I have a problem when chan family members try to tell the world that Jeong Yim didn’t come into the picture much later that when he did, was much lower that he actually was, and so on with all of the deception.
If no one spoke up about that, then everyone would still be going to the chan family about Fut San HSK.
Your branch says chan heung used the hung sing name first. but we’ve come to realize that they were two completely different characters and meanings.
Your branch doesn’t mention (now they do as Choy Fook) Ching Cho, but the Fut San HSK does.
Your branch doesn’t mention Jeong Yim previously learned from Lee Yau San, but Fut San HSK where the lineage still runs strong does.
Your branch says CHan Heung sent Jeong Yim to Fut San. However, Jeong Yims branch doesn’t say Chan Heung sent him there. His branch says Monk Ching Cho sent him there to hook up with the Fut San Hung Mun headquarters. Jeong Yim and his disciples (some are named) were known to be hardcore revolutionaries.
I could go on and on about what your branch says about us, and what our branch says about us. You haven’t told us why we should believe chan heung about Jeong Yim over the descendants of Jeong Yim.
You say you have not seen any chan heung writings, but you still believe what the grandson tries to say about Jeong Yim instead of going to Chan Ngau Sing, Yuen Hai, or Lee Yan’s or eve Lui Chun’s people. according to you we should only go to and believe the chan family about Jeong Yim and Fut San HSK.
you still haven’t explained why our openings in the forms are different that each other when Jeong Yim was supposed to be a long time descendant of Chan Heung. why fut san and buk sing don’t practice chan family clf. you haven’t explained why Jeong Yim changed the name of the school your branch says he went to take over. If Jeong Yim was such a chan Family member, why did he change the name to use his own? Plus, now what can you say about Jeong Yim’s name? where did he get that Hung Sing name? From Chan heung? or Chan Heung’s great sage hung sing?
can you explain why Jeong Yim’s new character (wild geese) and the Hung character has the same 3 ticks on the left side of the character if he wasn’t involved with the Hung Mun?
As the Fut San HSK we have said that Jeong Yim stayed with Chan Heung for only about 5 years. However, your branch cannot effectively tell us how long Jeong Yim studied and what he learned from Chan Heung. it’s probably not in Chan Family records.
So you tell me, with so many holes in the chan family account of Jeong Yim…"why should anyone wanting to know about Fut San Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut go to Chan Family Choy Lee Fut?
can you explain that?
with some many discrepancies between all of our branches when it comes to history, you fail to realize it all doesn’t really matter.
The reason why Jeong Yim’s HSK doesn’t teach Chan Family CLF is because
What is this Fut Gar Jing Jung I’ve been hearing so much about. Is it a style related to Choy Lay Fut? 
now,
I understand the chan family clf was documented by chan Yiu chi, and have a great wealth of history of Chan Heung’s Choy Lee Fut.
But the don’t have a great history of Jeong Yim and his Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon.
For whatever reasons being they were illiterate or whatever, the gung fu of the HSK is not that well documented. I am not afraid to say that.
but chan Family CLF is no better just because they wrote their own history down.
As 've said, I’ve never said the Chan Family isn’t well documented. Yet, that is the Chan Family of CLF.
According to our histrian Frank here, Fut Gar Jing Jung was founded by Jeong Yim after studying with Chan Heung, Lee Yau Shan and Ching Cho. It is also called Futsan Hung Sing Kuen with its birthplace in Futsan.
They have a sexy form called In and Out Bak Gwa in which they made it really long and last for hours. Apart from that, we are waiting for Frank to tell us more about its history and system, but it is definitely different to Chan Family CLF because it is not CLF.
Hi Frank,
If Futsan Hung Sing Kwoon is not very well documented how did you come to the conclusion that Jeong Yim founded the Fut Gar Jing Jung School with Futsan Hung Sing Kuen? Could it be you just made it up, like you are telling a liar?
If it is that easy to write your own history, why didn’t Fursan Hung Sing Kwoon do the same, I am sure there were hundreds and thousands of memebrs and not all of them were illiterate or whatever.
If they can come up with a name like In and Out Bak Gwa, may be they were!
:eek:
Anyone know the translation of in and out bagua?
XJ:
Define what a “sexy” form is. :eek: Anything like the infamous CLF 3/4’ Staff Form
Good point EJ!
If not well documented, then just heresay?? MADE UP ANYTHING??
Frank goes on about how he knows his branches history, yet why does he need to rely on the biased (?) heresay (with no evidence) of an elder from another branch (buk sing?) to support his claims about his “lineage history”?
Yet on the link he posted, We can see this quote: “For the record, we, The Buck Sing Gwoon, maintain Chan Heung as the founder of Choy Lay Fut”
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41441&page=10
joseph,
actually this is not my thought. I only echoed it.
I personally feel that Jeong Yim called his art what ever he wanted to.
However, according to the elders who are still in their 90’s now, who lived during a time when CLF was striving, that Jeong Yim didn’t call his art CLF. It was other sifu’s who recognized Jeong Yim’s art as having elements of Choy Ga, Lee Ga, and Fut ga.
You want to believe in words that were written by a dead guy, but here we have a living CLF legend in two places who recount the history. According to one of them it was a possibility that Jeong Yim’s art since it was a combination of Lee Yau San, Chan Heung, and Monk Ching Cho…that his art was in its original state was “possibly” (i say possibly-not them) that Jeong Yims art was called Hung Sing Kuen.
You don’t research Jeong Yim’s history Joseph. I do. When It comes to what the elders say about my lineage I will listen. it doesn’t mean i will believe everything i hear, but it doesn’t mean i will discount it. For example, if someone in the Fut San HSK tried tell me that Jeong Yim created the jongs then I would have to tell them that is wrong because even I think Koon Pak had a big thing to do with the promotion of CLF jongs.
But like the bible and GOD, there is more to Jeong Yim than is really known. It is up to us to figure out what is missing.
see, I still see Chan Heung as starting CLF. But he kept his real CLF for his bloodline. Jeong Yim took what he learned from Chan Heung, and based his gung fu off of the latters gung fu as well as ching cho’s and Lee Yau sans. But i also see Jeong Yim as the founder of FUt San Hung Sing Choy Lee Fut. Something not taught in Chan Heung’s branch. so with the roots being with chan Heung’s gung fu there is no way for you to expel him and not say he isn’t CLF.
Jeong Yim’s name and CLF are synonymous.
You ask me about what Lee Yau San passed down to Jeong Yim, but then again you have not seen in the whole of your 50 years in CLF “NO” wriitings from Chan Heung, so how do you know what Lee Yau San passed down to Chan Heung
How will we know without the actual writings of CHan Heung what was passed on from choy fook, Lee Yau San, and Chan Yuen Wu. even within your own branch its not known whether Chan Yuen Wu taught Shaolin, Hung Ga or Fut Ga. I’ve seen everyone of those stating that Chan Yuen Wu was a master of those ones i just mentioned.
Hi Frank,
This is where you have to learn a little bit about the Chinese culture.
To the Chinese, especially the older generations, knowledge is power, literally.
So the founder of a system, no matter who or what, will always keep something for his bloodline, it is a proven strategy for survival in Chinese history.
He will always make sure he has someone in the family to continue his art and then pass the remaining secrets to them, then he makes sure there is an inner circle of disciples who will protect his bloodline and his art…
From this, we can see where Jeong Yim stands.
Go and read more books on Chinese history and philosophy and you will know what I am talking about.
EJ
A link where you can see supposedly a dvd about Frank’s “um ying kuen”.
i know what you are talking about. i’ve been raised around chinese all my life.
i just don’t try and live like a chinese.
and i think bloodline and secrets go for more than just chinese. I would do the same for my sons or daughters as well.
So, now, I hope you can see why there is a stand off.
Chan Heung first created his CLF and passed it down through his bloodline.
Jeong Yim wasn’t his bloodline. So regardless, he would never have gotten CHan Heung’s most intimate CLF. that was meant for his bloodline.
However, Jeong Yim with all the gung fu he had in his background started his own lineage and we all see him as you see Chan Heung.
According to the FUt San HSK, not me, Jeong Yim had more than just Chan Heung as his teacher. It’s always been said that before CHan Heung Jeong Yim already had some gung fu. then He learned longer with Ching Cho than he did with Chan heung.
Joseph, as long as the Chan Family has something to say about Jeong Yim’ branch, this argument will never end. look at you and me, we go back now for a few years.
let us have our story, you have yours, tam sam has his and we are all one big happy CLF family.
so joseph,
when you act like you have to knowledge, does that mean you have to act like you have all the power?
Just because Chan Yiu Chi happened to write down the history of his grandfather and of the style his grandfather created, that doesn’t mean that the Fut San HSK doesn’t have a worthy story to be told.
Frank,
By my long absence from this forum you know I don’t come here often until someone tells me that you are bad mouthing Chan Heung again.
My old man had a long association with the Chan Family so I have a duty to present their side of the story, even when I know Chen Yong Fa gave instruction to his students not to say anything in this forum.
You can glorify and tell stories about Jeong Yim and Futsan Hung Sing as much as you like, but not at the expense of Chen Heung and his descendants through your ignorance.
I have nothing to say about Jeong Yim except he is not and could not be the founder of CLF, which I have been doing all my life.
If you can understand this, then you will not hear from me at all. Otherwise I’ll pop up everytime you push my button.
Until then…
EJ
you want to exchange numbers, i’ll call you to ***** and complain about your Chan Family CLF to your personally? :rolleyes:
Now, I will never try and down play Chan Heung. He is one of Jeong Yim’s sifu’s.
However, our lineage differs than yours, and all we want is to tell our history.
If our history conflicts with yours, then we should have a conference again and this time iron out only the discrepancies. on both ends.
because you and i both know there are major discrepancies on both ends.
as you have your duty, I have mine. If you can respect that, than i can respect your position. I don’t want to argue over history. Once all the drama ceases, our problems will too. Then and only then can we become one great Family.
GET IT!!!
And oh…
I never Said Jeong Yim was founder of CLF, just co-founder.
But for his own branch he is a founder.
There’s no need to argue anymore. if we don’t know then we don’t know. we have ours you have yours and we can all live peacefully.
In the words of the immortal Rodney King…
CHoy Lee Fut people…Can we all just get along???:rolleyes:
For those interested, Chan Heung in his work “Choy Lee Fut pai lian kuen hung kung bei yil” or The secret essentials of training the style of Choy Lee Fut provides much knowledge and guidance for the training of the practitioner of CLF. l
Chan Heung broke down the training of his system into 2 main stages, each of which has 3 sub-stages…culminating in complete mastery of the systems foundation as well as nei jin or internal power, and the weapons and art of sand bag and jongs.
For lian kung, Chan Heung listed sup yil or 10 essentials of which number 7 and hei cheung and number 8 faht heung indicates the importance of breathing in the art of Choy Lee Fut.
Chan Heung says “Mei lian kuen sik ji chin, sihn jarp ma bo” and the kuet lian ho sao but yue lian ho jou indicate the importance of the footwork training in CLF. The system contains two types of stances, both koh jong and dai jong.
I think the koh jong is for application, but for initial training the dai jong is more beneficial.
As the founder has indicated, the system of CLF stresses great importance in stance and footwork training, and this is also reflected in that the first form one should learn is the ng lun ma or five wheel stance. Here you practice all the basic stances and footwork of the system…and as early as possible the internal training is initiated through breath control to try and harness some of the power of the chi. Such that the exercise is not purely ngoi kung but also includes noi kung. Of course that is if you train the form correctly and with understanding.
But the footwork training does not stop there. You can see at the intermediate level there is the sei mun kil jow sarng ma form which should be, if I’m not mistaken, originally two separate forms. the sei mun kil contains good bridging techniques.
The jow sarng ma is for training the “running the live horse” footwork and stance transitions. It is important to develop balance in conjunction with explosive bil ma, and in application will allow you to explode and bridge the gap in distance quickly and suddenly.
Further footwork training includes the wooden stakes mui fah jong, and indeed the penetrating dragon dummy will put your stance body connection, and strength of footwork under pressure and challenge and train you to improve these.
In the ping kuen, you learn the sliding horse and the tun ma or swallowing horse and the tol ma or spitting horse.
Of course there is also the baat gwa training in the baat gwa forms.
If you are interested in fighting but don’t want to learn many forms, there is the see lo sarn sau which is a series of extremely effective combinations of the baat gwa hands/fighting techniques. It is like a crash course in CLF fighting, and I think intensive drilling of them will quickly build your skill for fighting application.
Those who like a good balance of hands and foot training may like the jor yul darn geuk kuen which explores the harmonious interplay of hand and foot techniques.