Dunna Dunna,

Thanks for the web site post. This is Lorne Bernard's web site. He has sent me a couple of pictures which I have put on the www.fujianbaihe.com web site, and been most helpful in my questions.

From the pictures, I would suspect that there is a different body tension which will affect much of what i practice, but it is difficult for me to know without seening it in motion.

I would love to see a part of one of your basic forms for comparison. May be you could ask your teacher at the club to do this so I can see or put me in contact with him so I could ask directly. I have tried in the past to contact Augustine Gnu directly to find out more about his crane but with no response.

Best Wishes,

Martin Watts

Hi to all,

i teach Taizhu White Crane in the UK...
our basic form is Sanzhang....

website is ukbaguainstitute.com

white crane clips will be up pretty soon...

thanks

DunDunna,

I am currently a student of Sifu Augustin Ngu and I know quite a bit about Lorne Brenard as well though I have never met him.

The style that Sifu Ngu teaches is called Feihequan or flying crane boxing. I beleive Lorne Brenard also teches the same Moy Yat Ving Tsun that my Sifu does.

I can understand that many of the same principles are present in Feihequan and Ving Tsun; including power generation and simultaneously blocking and striking, but they also have some vastly different principles, such as Feihequans reliance on evasion with ving tsun focusing on counterstriking, its use of fast footwork and mobility where ving tsun focuses more on the front line or gate, white cranes groundfighting (I don't know about ving tsun), the 18 shaolin weapons in white crane vs the butterfly swords and staff of ving tsun...

Both arts have had over 2 centuries to desseminate, change and grow. The Lee style of Feihequan is likely very different from Fujian Baihequan.

Next time I'll try to make sure we're all talking about the exact same style before I chime in.

As for norhtern and southern shaolin, the defining line is really that the southern styles are more compact, relying on explosive short power; while the northern styles rely on long power.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin watts:
DunDunna and Iaiken,

I would be most interested who your teachers are and where you club is, then I can see the crane you are doing. Even better I would be interested to see an avi of one of your forms and then I would know more about what you are doing. If you are with YMMA or kungfu-taichi whilst they are both crane they are not crane from Yong Chun - I have yet to find anyone teaching Crane from Yong Chun county or town else I get in contact and visit them.
[/QUOTE]

I have trained with the Fujian white Crane clubs in London, headed by Sifu Dennis Nong. They are the people who run the Kungfu-Taichi.com site and they tell us that their kung fu style is from yongchun town its self. I know that the students do alot of research going regularly to china to gather info for the site etc. I'm curious as to why (assuming we are taking about the same people) you dispute the claim of their linneage?

Also I was under the impression that though derivative of Crane Kung fu, Wing Chun was in fact a made up of Snake kung fu and Crane Kung fu combined, hence it. As I understood it the most direct offensive elements and the least strength based defensive elements were extracted from both styles and combined to form an efficient easily learned and applied fighting system that uses speed over strength to defeat other fighters, hence the finished system bears little or no resemblance to either style as major elements of both were left out as they were either unnecessary or they took too long to learn.

Of course this is just what I heard, I dont study wing chun and I'm sure I'm probably mistaken.

[This message has been edited by Shonuff (edited 02-10-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Shonuff (edited 02-10-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FooChow Crane:
Hi all,

Just want to share these:-

• In my part of the world, S E Asia, there is this general White Crane family tree chart that we use. In this chart, you will find Ng Mui Shi Tai (a nun) listed as a 4th generation descendant of Fang Chi Niang – the founder of White Crane. Yim Wing Chun is recorded as a student of Ng Mui Shi Tai. Yim subsequently brought her kung Fu to Fushan and there it proliferated among the Cantonese. Her Kung Fu was renamed “Wing Chun” in her honor.
[/QUOTE]

Just to add to this to provide further depth to the discussion -

Fang Qi Niang learned her boxing from Chen Jin Nan and Fang Qiang Guang. Chen Jin Nan was a general from the late Ming dynasty.
Fang Qi Niang's surname is originally "Chu". She was a daughter of the last Ming Emperor. She would have been called "Chu Gu Niang" (Princess Chu). Because Chen Jin Nan ordered Fang Qiang Guang to protect her, she adopted the name "Fang". Because the Fujian speak a different dialect, "Chu" is pronounced like "Qi", so she became known as "Fang Qi (Chu) Niang" The "Gu" dropped since she is out of the palace.

Regarding Ng Mui, there is debate as to whether or not it's a code/given name vs. the actual name of the person. Fujian White Crane (from my understanding) has a term that echos the Ng Mui's identity to relate to Fujian White Crane. The term says Sam (three) Dim (points) Ng (five) Miu (plum) Fa (flower)or Three points five plum flower.

Yim is also thought not to be an actual name, but rather an alternate name for an actual person, possibly hailing from Weng Chun village or weng chun hall (two seperate, actual places). The term wing chun itself is believed by some to be a shortened version of "Wing Yun Chi Jee; Mo mong Hon juk; Dai dei wui chun", which translates as "Always speak with determination; Don't forget the Han nation; Again will return Spring."

Regarding the link to "Ng Mui", some branches record Ng Mui's actual student being a Miu Shun (Miao Shun). Miu Shun was said to have been from Guangxi province. More on Miu Shun below.


[QUOTE]
• If you look into Southern Kung Fu systems, only Wing chun and White Crane share the vertical punching method albeit in White Crane, the vertical punch is done with the phoenix eye.[/QUOTE]

Some wing chun linneages use the phoenix eye as well.


[QUOTE]
• Like I described when I started this thread, there is another stream of Wing Chun that is found primarily in SE Asia wherein there is only one long form instead of 3. This form appears to be all the 3 forms done in one go. I am a White Crane teacher and I got to tell you that this particular form reminds me of White Crane.[/QUOTE]

That would be Cho Ga Wing Chun Kuen. Cho Ga comes from Yik Kam who left the red boat and eventually taught the Cho family in Panyu, Guangdong. Eventually a member of the Cho family, Chon On, left for Penang, Malaysia and taught it there.

Their single long form is called Siu Lien Tao (Little First Training).

The story that Cho Ga teaches (with thanks to Hendrik Santo), which is also common in the Yuen Kay Say/Sum Nung Wing Chun Kuen system, states that "Ng Mui" left the Bak Hok Jee (White Crane Temple) in Sichuan's Emei mountains to wonder the countryside. Eventually, she ventured to Guangxi where she taught her newly created Bak Hok Kuen (White Crane Boxing) to Miu Shun. Miu Shun mixed the style with his own techniques, distilling and unifying from both a highly effective martial. Miu Shun later passed along the newly created art to his disciple Yim Yee.
In the Cho family version, Miu Shun combined Ng Mui's White Crane Boxing with Emei Sup Yee Jong (Twelve Posts) to create Siu Lien Tao (Little First Training). His role in the creation myths blending the established Fukien White Crane Weng Chun Kuen with his own Sichuan system (perhaps Twelve Posts) provides an interesting explination on how the Wing Chun Kuen system developed as it did.

Certainly though, Wing Chun is tied to Fukien Bak Hok Weng Chun.

By the way, regarding your previous statement :
[QUOTE]Both Wing Chun & Eng Choon means "Always Spring". Seen his form and appears very White Crane.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that's not quite true - that depends on what characters are being used. While the characters for weng and wing are pronounced the same, they differ in meaning. For english romanization we use Weng and Wing to differentiate between the two seperate characters, even though they are pronounced the same. The character (which we use the english romanization weng for) does indeed refer to Always. The character (which we use the english romanization wing for) however means "to praise".

Here's a good article on the differences - http://www.wingchunkuen.com/why/columns/ritchie/pages01_gettingstarted.html

The problem has been that the two characters have been freely swapped over the years by people in the wing chun family.

Hope this helps some of your questions.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin watts:
- My feeling , and that of some other crane players I know in asia, is that Wing Chun is yong Chun White Crane developed in a special direction.[/QUOTE]

Martin, hopefully my aboved post helped lend credence to your feeling and sheds some light on to the how's.

I'd be interested in further dialog with you and FooChow regarding the links between the two. There's a lot of research going on with it in our (wing chun) side of the fence too and it's always nice to crossreference and share.

I believe the simularities of the two styles end when you bring Chi Shou (Sticky Hands) into the picture. Please correct me if I am wrong. But I have not heard that the Crane style incorporates this technique in their practice.

Sho nuff,

long time - old thread.

The Crane in london taught by Dennis is from Singapore though originally probably from Yong Chun. There are several form names the same. There is nothing to question in the lineage of the Nam Yang association crane for this is what they are I think learning. There are I think 4 lineages currently in Yong Chun. I have only seen 2.

The breathing and movement of the Nam Yang crane is similar but yet different. To take the basic stance, the front foot is turned in. In the 2 lineaged I have seen ( pan which I study and Su Yin Han whom Dennis's clugs are now training with ) this is not the case. I have only seen the other 2 lineages on clips but still there is a lot of difference. In addition, the breathing emphasis is completely different.

So what I am saying about the Nam Yang clubs is that it must be from Yong Chun but via quite a bit of change.

There are quite a few people who have come back from Yong Chun from your club's last training trip over Xmass last year so they are best to ask for the differences. I think your fellow students are now training in the 2 different styles, and trying to maintain the difference. This is probably quite difficult to do but a good way as well.

However, the kungfu-taichi people are very secretive about anything to do with lineage so it is all quite difficult to trace through. The other reasons I question the extent to which this sytem is practiced is that at least in my branch and probably all in Yong Chun there are certain rules we are meant to adhere to. I have put a copy of these on the www.yongchunbaihechuen.com web site. But if you read the rules of Dennises clubs as I am sure you have then they are very different indeed - and more to do with running a large commercial organisation than with the behaviour of a Crane practioner.

However, I would also say that they are practicing some of the best kung fu I have seen in the UK, and I have always found your clubs sessions to be very good. I would also recommend if you are interested in your clubs lineage visiting Ian Armstrong of www.namyang.co.uk. Although his name is a bit tabboo I think in your organisation when I say him 10 years ago I was very impressed and he has kept strong links with the Singapore organisation. I have heard bad criticisims of his form in the Kung Fu Tai Chi clubs, but I would certainly not believe them on the basis of what I have seen on him until I see him again.

I will be in Yong Chun in a couple of weeks, and one of the things I would like to do is see the other 2 lineages. May be that will cast more light on the issue.

Martin Watts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by martin watts:
Sho nuff,

long time - old thread.

The Crane in london taught by Dennis is from Singapore though originally probably from Yong Chun. There are several form names the same. There is nothing to question in the lineage of the Nam Yang association crane for this is what they are I think learning. There are I think 4 lineages currently in Yong Chun. I have only seen 2.

The breathing and movement of the Nam Yang crane is similar but yet different. To take the basic stance, the front foot is turned in. In the 2 lineaged I have seen ( pan which I study and Su Yin Han whom Dennis's clugs are now training with ) this is not the case. I have only seen the other 2 lineages on clips but still there is a lot of difference. In addition, the breathing emphasis is completely different.

So what I am saying about the Nam Yang clubs is that it must be from Yong Chun but via quite a bit of change.

There are quite a few people who have come back from Yong Chun from your club's last training trip over Xmass last year so they are best to ask for the differences. I think your fellow students are now training in the 2 different styles, and trying to maintain the difference. This is probably quite difficult to do but a good way as well.

However, the kungfu-taichi people are very secretive about anything to do with lineage so it is all quite difficult to trace through. The other reasons I question the extent to which this sytem is practiced is that at least in my branch and probably all in Yong Chun there are certain rules we are meant to adhere to. I have put a copy of these on the www.yongchunbaihechuen.com web site. But if you read the rules of Dennises clubs as I am sure you have then they are very different indeed - and more to do with running a large commercial organisation than with the behaviour of a Crane practioner.

However, I would also say that they are practicing some of the best kung fu I have seen in the UK, and I have always found your clubs sessions to be very good. I would also recommend if you are interested in your clubs lineage visiting Ian Armstrong of www.namyang.co.uk. Although his name is a bit tabboo I think in your organisation when I say him 10 years ago I was very impressed and he has kept strong links with the Singapore organisation. I have heard bad criticisims of his form in the Kung Fu Tai Chi clubs, but I would certainly not believe them on the basis of what I have seen on him until I see him again.

I will be in Yong Chun in a couple of weeks, and one of the things I would like to do is see the other 2 lineages. May be that will cast more light on the issue.

Martin Watts[/QUOTE]

Hi Martin

Thanks for replying that was very informative. I didnt realise how old the thread was when I posted on it as someone had dredged it up from the past.

I am relatively speaking a beginner so I'm just asking out of curiosity, also since I posted my teacher has left Dennis for reasons of his own, so any new things they are doing is unknown to me. One point you made caught my attention about the lead foot 'not' being turned inward in Dennis's linneage? (I may have misread this) In all that I've been taught and witnessed of the style we do keep the lead foot turned in and the rear foot turned out.

From what my teacher tells me, Dennis and Ian Armstrong come from the same linneage and that what they do is pretty much the same. He doesnt go into detail about the politics or disbarage NamYang at all, which I am grateful for. I have to agree with you about the rules, what I remember of Dennis's rules was far less idealistic (not that I bothered to learn dennis's rules, but thats just me).

Thanks again for the reply, and any myths I may be extolling please feel free to clear them up!