Tibetan White Crane

[sanjuro_ronin]

Originally Posted by TenTigers

yes, I've heard this as well.
Here's the mystery; Some say that the Lamists were not involved in Fan Ching Fuk Ming, but obviously Wong Yun-Lum was. Perhaps the info to the contrary came more from bad Kung-Fu movies...

I once read a website that stated the official history of Bak Mei.
It was the story from "Executioners from Shaolin".
So, you may be more right than you know.

[Gru Bianca]

Can't speak for the other two traditions (Lama and Hop Gar) but in the Pak Hok that I know or seen so far the Kiu Sao is present only in Siu Ng Yin Kune and for few movements really.
Some one in Hong Kong told me that in the 80's or 90's came out an article on a local magazine saying that the Lama tradition was a "new" invention made out to stand out of the "crowed"
Regardless of the historical issue it's truly a wonderful system

[once ronin]

records from the Deng family in guangzhou show Wong Yan lam was a rebel fighting the ching.

In Hong Kong Choy Yee Kung walked with a limp because he was trying to escape with Wong Yan Lam from Ching Govt soliders and got stabbed in the leg.

The poems for Cotton in the needle from white crane and Noi Baht Moon hop ga form has hung moon theories in it.

[madhusudan]

I've seen articles on the web mentioning the 'long range techniques' of Lama. From my own evaluation of what would make sense, it has always seemed that the waist twisting in lau sing kyuhn and other basic techniques are meant to be delivered from close in. Stance breaking, disrupting space, shoulder bashing, destroying bridges, then either delivering a knockout blow unseen from an angle or taking balance and throwing.

I just really couldn't imagine throwing a bin cup, pau choi or chyuhn choi from jabbing range or from a range where the opponent would have a chance to see it and react. I see all these techniques, and most of the others I know, being used close in, almost from standing clinch range or a little further apart. I do understand this is the 'lowest' level of Lama and that there are more advanced short hand techiniques I am unaware of.

I'd be interested to hear comments on this from people who have access to a sifu, as I'm practicing on my own with what I remember.

[jdhowland]

Originally Posted by Minghequan

Okay, perhaps you could get the ball rolling by telling us about the beginnings of Tibetan White Crane!

Does it owe any of it's beginnings to the Fuzhou variety?

Was it's origins strictly in the realm of Fighting Arts?

No origin story can be verified. The official story is that it began in the fifteenth century during the reign of the third Ming emperor. This tale might be designed to identify some parts of its history with a Han Chinese culture--or it might be simple truth. The "lama" styles were mostly passed down through Hung societies and share a lot of symbolism.

As far as I know, no Chinese system is strictly about fighting. The fighting schools were also political and commercial organizations that supported special groups. Add the religious and cultural trappings and you get a unique group identity.

All of the first three or four generations of teachers in Southern China were known fighters, though. Had to be. Ng Siu Jung no less than the others.

[Gru Bianca]

Originally Posted by once ronin

records from the Deng family in guangzhou show Wong Yan lam was a rebel fighting the ching.

In Hong Kong Choy Yee Kung walked with a limp because he was trying to escape with Wong Yan Lam from Ching Govt soliders and got stabbed in the leg.

The poems for Cotton in the needle from white crane and Noi Baht Moon hop ga form has hung moon theories in it.

That's really interesting, if that is the case, who is to be assumed to be the creator of the Min Loy Cham poem?

[jdhowland]

Originally Posted by TenTigers

I noticed that from the small exposure I had in TWC, there were some short hand techniques similar to Fukien/Hakka/Siu-Lum crane. Bong-sao, gaun-sau, and also the hooking and crane's beak strike-nearly identical to Siu Lum Hung Kuen.
I understand that there was some trading in the system, and some TWC systems have a variation of the five animal fist from Siu-Lum Hung Kuen. (Deng family Hop-Ga also uses the Kiu-sao single finger hand)
What can you add to this?

Quentin Fong's TWC comes largely from Deng Jak Ming, although he initially learned from Lok Chee Fu. It includes the Ng Ying Kyihn. So did Ng Yim Ming's Hap Ga, although they were somewhat different. Fong emphasized that any long hand technique has a short version, (e.g.: chyun cheui becomes "jin cheui" or arrow punch, fired from in front of the chest or face rather than from the sides). Some "lama" groups call the short punch jihk cheui, the same term as in some SPM systems.

I know the kiu-sao as "gam gong jih" or adamantine/diamond finger. It is prevalent in both the White Crane and Hop Ga that I learned. It occurs at the end of our Iron Chain set as a hand signal--not a fighting technique and in our first Hap Ga form as both fighting technique and as a part of an opening tension exercise.

[jdhowland]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

How many types of TWC is there and how does Lama Pai / LionsRoar fit into it?

One way to look at it is that there are versions that were taught to practitioners of other systems, and versions that used only lama style methods. This gives us at least a few major branches and lots of smaller offshoots.

Hong Kong Pak Hok Athletic Association style. These folks had the impossible task of trying to standardize and regulate the style while also trying to preserve it by modifying it.

Chan Hak Fu style. Reportedly different--his own style with a pared down syllabus.

Luk Chee Fu branch. His son, Luk Chung Mau (Michael Lok) continues to teach. I think there were schools influenced by them in Malaysia, Britain and the Philippines. Should be very close to Ngai Yoh Tong and the P.H.A.A. style.

Kwong Bun Fu style. He was one of the senior representatives of Pak Hok when he died a few years back. Left students in Asia and Canada. Some of them claim he should have been the gate keeper of the style but many in Hong Kong disagreed.

Au Wing Nin style. Learned lama style from at least four different teachers. Apparently became the senior disciple of Ng Siu Jung. Au went along with the name change to White Crane but seems to have taught the Lama system more or less as he learned it, without the tendency for expansion that happened in later decades.

Please add others to this list as you think of them.

In regards to the second part of sanjuro_ronin's question: In the past, some have suggested that White Crane resulted from a specialization in one aspect of the Lion Roar curriculum and that systems using the names Lion's Roar or Lama Paai must reflect older versions of the tradition. I don't see it this way at all.

If you look at the origins of systems now calling themselves Lion's Roar or Lama Pai you find that they stem from blends of White Crane and Hap Ga as much as anything else. White Crane and Hop Ga were established before most Lama Pai schools. This reflects political changes in China that allowed the older names to be used again. They were no longer so politically incorrect, and, as Gru Bianca mentioned in a previous post, allowed for a name brand recognition that set them apart from other Chinese arts.

[taichi4eva]

I have seen videos from the Hong Kong Pak Hok Association, and in my opinion, there is really not much difference between forms. The techniques are just strewn in a different order.

Which makes me believe that sets in Pak Hok or Lama is a very recent invention...

[Gru Bianca]

Originally Posted by jdhowland

One way to look at it is that there are versions that were taught to practitioners of other systems, and versions that used only lama style methods. This gives us at least a few major branches and lots of smaller offshoots.

Hong Kong Pak Hok Athletic Association style. These folks had the impossible task of trying to standardize and regulate the style while also trying to preserve it by modifying it.

Chan Hak Fu style. Reportedly different--his own style with a pared down syllabus.

Luk Chee Fu branch. His son, Luk Chung Mau (Michael Lok) continues to teach. I think there were schools influenced by them in Malaysia, Britain and the Philippines. Should be very close to Ngai Yoh Tong and the P.H.A.A. style.

Kwong Bun Fu style. He was one of the senior representatives of Pak Hok when he died a few years back. Left students in Asia and Canada. Some of them claim he should have been the gate keeper of the style but many in Hong Kong disagreed.

Au Wing Nin style. Learned lama style from at least four different teachers. Apparently became the senior disciple of Ng Siu Jung. Au went along with the name change to White Crane but seems to have taught the Lama system more or less as he learned it, without the tendency for expansion that happened in later decades.

Please add others to this list as you think of them.

In regards to the second part of sanuro_ronin's question: In the past, some have suggested that White Crane resulted from a specialization in one aspect of the Lion Roar curriculum and that systems using the names Lion's Roar or Lama Paai must reflect older versions of the tradition. I don't see it this way at all.

If you look at the origins of systems now calling themselves Lion's Roar or Lama Pai you find that they stem from blends of White Crane and Hap Ga as much as anything else. White Crane and Hop Ga were established before most Lama Pai schools. This reflects political changes in China that allowed the older names to be used again. They were no longer so politically incorrect, and, as Gru Bianca mentioned in a previous post, allowed for a name brand recognition that set them apart from other Chinese arts.

John,

You summed it up pretty well I would say; only an addition in regard to Au Wing Nam, you are right in what you say (or at least so I have heard too) but he actually did not only study Lama prior to Pak Hok he actually studied Pak Hok with Ng Siu Chang more than he studied with Ng Siu Chun. But he showed great respect non the less to Ng Siu Chun

[Gru Bianca]

Originally Posted by taichi4eva

I have seen videos from the Hong Kong Pak Hok Association, and in my opinion, there is really not much difference between forms. The techniques are just strewn in a different order.

Which makes me believe that sets in Pak Hok or Lama is a very recent invention...

I'll have to desagree with you on this; surely the techniques are the same (to be politically correct) or else it wouldn't be the "same" style, but their execution and how the forms have been reconstructed after being forgotten really underline differences between different lines of origine.
Just my opinion of course

[jdhowland]

Ten_Tigers:

The foundation in a larger frame boxing style develops the "engines" for a more compact system.

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

Very much so, going from "big to small" really develops the engine much better than diving it at "small".
I am sure some can make it work from the start of course.
The commonality of many southern systems is that, start big and end small.

Good observations. I've often wondered whether the descriptions of TWC in popular media as a truly long range style were fostered by the featured instructors who didn't want to give too much away. Many of our techniques are designed for body-to-body contact, even those performed at full extension.

I've had some training in Chu Ga and SPM and find great similarities. Even the fung ngan cheui/phoenix eye strikes are common in TWC and Hop Ga.

Long range TWC methods "open the chest" to allow waist rotation and side power for full momentum. The short hand techniques are done differently, with a "closed chest, open back" and the common flurries of three to five short hand techniques are done with power from trunk muscles, but with little waist rotation. My teacher even described a waist folding and extending technique in our Kau Da Kyun as "eating and spitting."

[jdhowland]

Originally Posted by Gru Bianca

John,
... in regard to Au Wing Nam, you are right in what you say (or at least so I have heard too) but he actually did not only study Lama prior to Pak Hok he actually studied Pak Hok with Ng Siu Chang more than he studied with Ng Siu Chun. But he showed great respect non the less to Ng Siu Chun

Agreed. I was taught that he learned from both brothers but bowed to Ng Siu Chan as the senior.

[jdhowland]

Thought this might be interesting to some. It's the list of fourteen basic training methods called the Foundation Course (approximately the first year of training) as posted in Quentin Fong's Mason Street school in San Francisco, circa 1973.

Foundation Course

1. waist loosening exercise
2. pushing palm
3. arrow punch
4. ascending punch
5. descending punch
6. fist and finger push ups
7. chop stick twisting
8. leg stretching exercises
9. front stiff leg kick
10. front snap kick
11. front push kick
12. roundhouse kick
13. sand bag practice
14. six strength fist set

[Gru Bianca]

I think the "label" of the Tibetan systems as being long range mainly derives from the theory of not engaging in bridges and in avoiding contact till the right moment, i.e. the finishing one.
It was discussed in a thread opened by Ross the principle of 手去身离 whereby basically is stated to move out as soon as you launch a technique hence hinting to certain "disdain" for extended contact.
But then again, if we look at Siu Ng Yim, Min Loy Cham, Siu/Da KamNa etc...it's full of short range techniques, shuaijiao and so on so forth.
From my very limited and inexperienced perspective I'd argue that by virtue "the style" preaches unprolonged contacts with the opponent hence "long distance" but at the end of the day I believe it to be highly dependent on the skills of the pratictioner and his mastering of Sim (a quality I was told Wang Lam Hoi had very well developed)