I believe when GFM taught in NYC, he first taught a White Crane set to develop the student’s foundation.
Does anyone know which set this was?
I believe he learned from Luk Chi-Fu, and Chan Hak-Fu and Kong Bon-Fu.
Does anyone have a list of the White Crane forms taught by them???
I have no complete lists but the most suitable forms for introducing the power structure would probably be the beginning level long hand drills.
Luk Chi Fu taught:
- Luhk Lehk Kyuhn – six powers boxing
- Chyut Yahp Bouh – advancing and retreating fists
- Tit Lin Kyuhn – iron chain boxing
- Dei Saht – ground striking
- Baahk Hok Kyuhn – white crane fists
From what I have seen of Kwong Bun Fu’s students in Canada, they have a similar list of basics.
I once saw a list of sets from a Chan Hak Fu school in Austrailia. It had the Luhk Lehk and Chyut Yahp Bouh but I don’t recall anything else that I recognized.
Tit Lin Kyuhn is long and was broken into four smaller sets to make it more manageable. Some schools only use certain portions of this.
Chyut Yahp Bouh, as you know, is the first long set taught and is often used for demonstrations or as an introduction to the style to non-specialists.
Hi jdhowland,
Do you know if this is the whole Chut Yup Bo form from Luk Chi Fu?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=V1tAgZoJbaQ
The reason I ask is that the form that I have seen stemming from most lineages is much longer. This seems like just a quarter of the form.
You have asked John…
But if I may…
No, it’s not all the form it’s only part of it, what we call Lao Xing Kune the other part of the Chut Yat Boh being what we call Fei Hok Kune.
Regards
I used to correspond with the late Pete Robinson who was a long time student of Gin Foon Mark specializing in GFM’s Hung Kuen rather than his SPM.
From the emails he sent me (which are now lost…I deleted the email account we used to correspond on…I should have saved everything) there were detailed stories of Mark’s training back in those days. Pete said Mark used to do some demonstrations of White Crane and was fond of demonstrating Pao Choi (long arm uppercut) that would leave Pete and all the other students shaking in their boots as to the power it produced.
Tony Galvin would ask Mark for his White Crane (amongst other students) but Mark refused to teach it, making the comment the students needed to be “very strong” in order to learn Crane. Tony was later given a letter and shipped off to the West Coast where he later trained under Harry Ng, my sifu David Chin, and George Long.
Pete commented that he did learn a set from Mark, but was not given a name of the set. Henry Poo Yee has also commented that Mark was fond of demonstrating/using White Crane back in the NYC days. Other than that, I don’t know of a single student of Marks who “specialized” in his Crane. Hung Kuen yes, Crane, no.
Thank you Gru for helping me out.
Is this White Crane “Charge Set” also just the 1st half? They say they are from the lineage of George Long and Ron Dong. May I ask who exactly were these individuals and who did they study with?
[QUOTE=taichi4eva;1187268]Thank you Gru for helping me out.
Is this White Crane “Charge Set” also just the 1st half? They say they are from the lineage of George Long and Ron Dong. May I ask who exactly were these individuals and who did they study with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmOLZJ_iBI[/QUOTE]
Most Welcome.
If you pay attention the “Charge set” is the Lao Xing Kune I mentioned in my previous post and not fully performed, so basically half of the half..so to speak.
As per the lineage, honestly I am not that familiar with it, if I am not mistaken they go back to Tan Chank Fu
[QUOTE=htowndragon;1187266]I used to correspond with the late Pete Robinson who was a long time student of Gin Foon Mark specializing in GFM’s Hung Kuen rather than his SPM.
From the emails he sent me (which are now lost…I deleted the email account we used to correspond on…I should have saved everything) there were detailed stories of Mark’s training back in those days. Pete said Mark used to do some demonstrations of White Crane and was fond of demonstrating Pao Choi (long arm uppercut) that would leave Pete and all the other students shaking in their boots as to the power it produced.
Tony Galvin would ask Mark for his White Crane (amongst other students) but Mark refused to teach it, making the comment the students needed to be “very strong” in order to learn Crane. Tony was later given a letter and shipped off to the West Coast where he later trained under Harry Ng, my sifu David Chin, and George Long.
Pete commented that he did learn a set from Mark, but was not given a name of the set. Henry Poo Yee has also commented that Mark was fond of demonstrating/using White Crane back in the NYC days. Other than that, I don’t know of a single student of Marks who “specialized” in his Crane. Hung Kuen yes, Crane, no.[/QUOTE]
Pete was a good friend of mine…he also practiced SPM. He was close to Mak sifu.
[QUOTE=taichi4eva;1187268]Thank you Gru for helping me out.
Is this White Crane “Charge Set” also just the 1st half? They say they are from the lineage of George Long and Ron Dong. May I ask who exactly were these individuals and who did they study with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmOLZJ_iBI[/QUOTE]
George Long was originally Harry Ng’s Hop Ga student, and would have been my Sifu’s only senior in America if he and Harry hadn’t…parted ways.
I’ve heard the story two ways. One, he was originally a student of Chan Hak Fu (heard this from Tony Galvin in a phone conversation about five years ago), or he “bai si-ed” under Chan Hak Fu in order to use the “White Crane” name (he wasn’t allowed to use the “Hop Ga” name). Outside the sets his students do, their fighting hands/drills are essentially from Harry Ng’s line.
Politics aside, hardcore fighters by all accounts.
Hope this helps.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1187400]------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete was a good friend of mine…he also practiced SPM. He was close to Mak sifu.[/QUOTE]
He will be missed.
I essentially got a hold of him when he was looking to get a hold of Tony a few years back. We got to talking and corresponded a lot through email. The stories he shared of Lum Sang, Mak sifu and the old days back in NYC were pure gold. I really wish I hadn’t deleted my old email account before I saved his stories.
Thanks everyone. Does anybody know what Ng Yim Ming exactly taught? There was some footage of Sifu Lai in Hong Kong doing a single wing flip form. Both Ku Chi Wai and Sifu David Chin teach essentially the same 1 form, which I have heard referred to as 28 stars.
Most mainland lineages of Hop Gar (i.e. Deng family) teach siu lohan, dai lohan, and fu hok seung daau. Is that just a mainland thing?
which footage of sifu lai?
harry ng did teach pok yik sau.
To htowndragon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyusJIIFCi4
Looks like a basic form and unlike any form attributed to Harry Ng Yim Ming in the US.
oh i’ve seen it. that’s not harry ng’s pok yik…
this is harry ng’s pok yik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIKstOPa9Sw&feature=player_detailpage
As far as “sets” go.
Hop Gar kung fu as taught by my sifu David Chin has “gone back to the roots” so to speak. We mostly train drills, spar, and things of that sort.
forms are an after thought since most of our school trains to fight in san shou and MMA (or are military special forces guys).
In the David Chin lineage, do you practice only 1 form then? I like the 1 form, 1 style concept.
we more or less just did away with the forms and do drills. there are more sets for sure. the seniors like Chris Heintzman know them (like plum flower fist, our most advanced set as well as others).
[QUOTE=taichi4eva;1187420]Thanks everyone. Does anybody know what Ng Yim Ming exactly taught?..
Most mainland lineages of Hop Gar (i.e. Deng family) teach siu lohan, dai lohan, and fu hok seung daau. Is that just a mainland thing?[/QUOTE]
Ng sigong seems to have taught different curricula at different times. He knew some of the Wong Hen Wing sets. He taught some things in Hong Kong that apparently weren’t taught in his short-lived San Francisco school. He taught one type of fighting to Hung members and another to the youth gangs. David Chin used to claim eight sets of Hop Gar.
My sifu claims to be Ng Yim Ming’s senior representative in the U.S. but his Hop Ga is from before Ng’s arrival here. We have five fighting sets and some weapons.
I don’t know what remains in the mainland other than Deng family style. Deng Ga Hop Kyuhn seems to be pretty conservative but uses some Hung Ga terminology and it is difficult to separate the Siu Lam from the Lama style in what I have seen of their sets.
Hi jdhowland,
May I ask who your sifu is? What are the Wong Hon Weng sets?
I noticed that most of the Tibetan White Crane branches share at least names of sets in common (chut yup bo, tit lin kuen, luk like kuen, etc.), while with Hop Gar and Lama, there doesn’t seem to be many forms in common. Apart from the Chan Tai San lineage, I haven’t heard anyone claiming to practice lama.
=taichi4eva;1188416]Hi jdhowland,
May I ask who your sifu is? What are the Wong Hon Weng sets?
My sifu is Tse Cheuk Tong who has taught White Crane and Ng Yim Ming’s Hop Ga in the U.S. since 1963, about eight or nine years before Ng, himself, arrived.
WHW, as you seem to know from your alternate spelling of the name, was Wong Yan Lum’s #1 representative for some years. I don’t know who, if anyone, still preserves that branch or what was taught in those days. But we do know that Harry Ng learned Lama boxing before becoming a student of WYL.
I noticed that most of the Tibetan White Crane branches share at least names of sets in common (chut yup bo, tit lin kuen, luk like kuen, etc.), while with Hop Gar and Lama, there doesn’t seem to be many forms in common. Apart from the Chan Tai San lineage, I haven’t heard anyone claiming to practice lama.
There are a number of teachers from Choy Yit Gung’s lineage who call their system “Sai Johng Maht Jung Lama Paai.” We also use the term “Lama Kyuhn” to refer loosely to the White Crane/Hop Ga systems in general and to pre-Republic era versions in which sets and names were not so standardized.