Hmm I could not open any of the forms links on the website... when did you last access them? No link found when I googled the site for vids. Any ideas? thanks powchoy
I accessed a few moments ago. I was referring to the Empty Hand Crane form in particular: http://www.hungkuen-leeds.co.uk/video/kaicrane.wmv All the videos on that page work for me except the Knife and Broadsword videos.
Without the benefit of practicing myself, just what I've seen just about everywhere (ie: Yee's Hung Ga, Chiu Chi Ling etc.) this is NOT Hung Kuen. I took some Kempo and Shotokan and I kept thinking to myself, "This looks like nothing but bad karate". Then I saw the video for grading and saw that it was indeed "Bad Karate"! :jawdrop: Gave me the Heebi Geebies!
Knowing Wong Kiew Kit isn't much , of a reccomendation, lol - but I trained with Master Cheong on a few occasions - and he is absoloutely the real deal, authentic, traditional hung gar, and his training is iron wire extreme. As for Master Ang - he tells you once to do it properly, and if you don't, then you're just left to be lazy. I'm not saying that's good - in some ways, his way is good because it gives people freedom to explore their own style, as opposed to training with Master Chen in Manchester who is like the opposite - total attention to every slightest detail - he'd have you straighten your ears out to be more perfect if he could, lol. I enjoyed training with both, and Master Ang's hung gar is easily as traditional as Manchester Lau Gar, lol. And Master Ang himself was quite a martial artist, and an athlete, and personally a very tough guy. Master Ang and Master Chen have my utmost respect as martial artists.
Shouldn't stances be taught first, technique second, and the pillars third? So horrendous stance training. Followed by learning the basic hands, how to strike, and how to destroy a strike (limb destruction and such). And lots, lots, lots, lots of conditioning . . . Then from what I understand traditionally Gung Gee **** Fu is taught little by little, this is so the student can buildup the internal strength through the various breathing methods while at the same time integrating stance/root, bridging, then applying one's gung fu (skills/techniques). Just my 2 cents, I'm no Hung Kuen expert but if the "belt testings" before black say doesn't even teach you basic Hung Kuen fundamentals . . . . then I question the method of teaching. With Hung, IMHO, you MUST build an incredibly solid foundation first. It is the quintessence of the meaning of "Gung Fu."
When I trained with Master Ang, there was a serious amount of stance training and basic technique training - the difference is, if you're not motivated to do it properly, he won't keep telling you, he'll just figure that you're not a serious trainer and leave you to it. Me and my kung fu brother trained very seriously, so our experience training there was probably different to a lot of other people's. I wouldn't say it was a strictly Hung Gar class by any means, but it was a good martial arts class. We often said, he should have called it 'Ang-Kuen'. Having studied both ways - the kind of freedom to find your own style way of Master Ang, and the absoloute Chinese perfectionism of Master Chen, I'd have to say that something in between is probably best. Master Chen takes provides top quality coaching that will bring the absoloute best out of any serious student, and inspires you with the sense that you are training for greatness, while Master Ang was constantly coming up with ingenious new training ideas that left you with the impression that you were training for some unspecified mission that would require a very adaptive skill base. Both were great classes. If you trained Master Ang's properly, it was a serious work out. If you trained Master Chen's properly i.e. until you almost needed hospital, it still wouldn't be any near good enough, and your kung fu would still make him cry in his heart even though he was laughing, heh.
Master Ang's Hung Kuen I trained with Master Ang for about four years. At the time I enjoyed it. It was a useful form of exercise for getting me in shape. the atmosphere in classes was friendly and supportive and I found Master Ang to be a friendly and helpful instructor. However, the gradings are more about the length of time that you train and how well you know the syllabus rather than about your level of skill. The sparring is based on Olympic style tae kwon do rules but with light contact; padding being used in competition. Some of the other students have very strange ideas about what will work in reality based self defence situations and what the applications of the forms actually mean. I understand that the style is a fusion of modern wu shu, Hung Kuen and Tae Kwon Do (ie a lot of flashy kicks are taught). I was told by an ex student of Master Ang's who had moved on to proper Hung Gar that the origin of the 5 separate animal forms lies in 20th century Malaysia and a time when martial arts were effectively banned (possibly during Japanese occupation). I can't verify that account however, although it might make sense as the forms are relatively short so could be practised less obviously than something like Tiger Crane. I learnt Tiger/Crane from Master Ang and part of Five Animals and Five Elements. I also overheard him once talking to someone about teaching Iron Wire. In short , go and watch a class and do it if you think you'll enjoy the classes. However, if you want reality based self defence go to someone affiliated to British Combat Association or Self Defence Federation. If you want to do mainstream Hung Gar, keep looking. If you want something which combines combat sport with some basic fighting skil, do MMA, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ or something.
Master Ang is absolutely first rate. I trained with for 3 years back in the early 1990s. he does leave you to learn some things for yourself, which is great on reflection. But his dedication, technical skill and importantly, room for creativity and adapability is what make him amazing. He is also very positive minded and low profile, never seeking to blow his own trumpet. His instructor is the very top lineage of shaolin kung fu, and i think Hung gar is probably what describes his teachings best although he has added sportiness and fun into the regime. Once again, having 20 years of experience now, I am certain he is top line.
Another Ang student Greetings, I am also a student of Master Ang (I spoke with Giuseppe briefly at our last tournament, although I am from the Leeds club). In relation to the pillars. I believe these are taught at black belt level although I am unsure how much of these Master Ang personally teaches. I remember someone once telling me that Master Ang had taught them part of Tiger Crane and the rest was learnt at the Grandmaster's school in Malaysia. In the Leeds club, I know at least 1 of our black belts has learnt Taming the Tiger and 5 Animal Fist and another knows Tiger Crane. This is just from what I've seen so they may know more and the other black belts may know these as well. I also know one of the students from Manchester knows Iron Wire. The first 2 Tan Tui forms are definitely indicative of a more Northern style (I have seen videos of the 2 practiced by an Eagle Claw school) and am unsure of number 3. However, Tan Tui 4 (which I have yet to learn, but have seen many times) seems to start taking on elements of the five animals and looks to be a mix of snake and crane. As for the five individual animal forms, I'm sure someone told me that they had to learn the Dragon form to get their blue belt. Although I can not verify whether these are traditional forms or not but they are taught by Grandmaster Cheong Wing Kwang so they are definitely not an invention of Master Ang's. As for flashy kicks, I have never seen any flashy kicks being taught and at times Master Ang himself has stated his distaste for a lot of flashy kicks and unnecessary gymnastics. And I'm fairly certain nothing like modern wushu has ever been taught in our syllabus. I am fairly new to the style and martial arts in general so I apologise for any errors on my part. I can only tell you what I have done, seen and researched to the best of my understanding. I hope some of you find this useful and as some have said, come a long and give it a go. I can tell you it's good all I like, but it's up to you in the end to make up your own mind about it. All the best, Al Smith
I've been away from Master Ang's clubs for a long time now, but I vaguely remember a website I found when I was training with Master Ang (6-10 years ago) which mentioned the grandmaster's connections to modern wu shu. PS I guess it depends on what you consider to be flashy kicks, but cyclone kicks, spinning back kicks and bas ck swings (aka spinning reverse crescent kicks) were all very much part of the syllabus when I was training with Master Ang. as well as I peculiar cicrling kick which was used to facilitate a stand-up from ebign on the floor on one's back
Hey Wotan, I've just done a quick search for 'Cheong wing kwang wushu' and come across a website (http://www.wushumalaysia.com.my) for Wushu Malaysia where he is listed under the affiliates as a research officer. So there is some connection but most of the teaching I have seen tends to focus on the more traditional kung fu and I've pretty much never seen any trace of modern wushu. As for kicks. When I think of flashy kicks, I tend to think of things used more in the tricking community (the really fancy kicks) but we do use some of the kicks you've mentioned. I have seen butterfly kicks being used but have never seen Master Ang personally teach or use them himself. We do train stuff like back swing kicks and back thrust kicks but these have never really been that important (I can barely manage a back thrust kick). Finding stuff on the net for Grandmaster Cheong is difficult. The only 2 things I have ever found (outside of our Hung Kuen branch ie. our website etc) is the link I've mentioned aboved and the Wong Kiew Kit Q&A which I think someone posted earlier in this thread.
I might be wrong in this assumption but one way in which I think there is a connection with wu shu is in the ethos of training. I remember talking to a senior black belt who had been to Malaysia a couple of times who said they did very little sparring. Similarly in a typical 90 minute class we would rarely spend more than 10-15 minutes sparring. Similarly, there are the applications of tan tui and the one step sparring routines all of which are highly stylised choreographed moves which would be unlikely to work in a self defence situation
Master Ang where to start .... He took me to Malyasia to meet his famous master but then he told me I couldn't meet him , and basically he had something else in mind for me. You can guess what. He is a bad bad man and I have never wanted to train since my illusions were shattered.
"True, LSWHG includes the pillar sets. However, LSWHG does not include individual sets for each of the 5 animals. Other "village" HG might, as does Ha Say Fu HG via Wing Lam's videos. Hey, Wing Lam also has Tam Tui on video." According to the lineage tree on our website, it does look apparent that Grandmaster Cheong had learned "village" Hung Kuen before training under Song Siu Bo. One of my seniors also had a theory that he may have at one time practised a northern style though I can't find much info on this. In terms of modern Wushu, I have heard that he is currently involved in Wushu but I think this has been a more recent venture of his and doesn't impact on his Hung Kuen training. As for the teaching. Master Ang mostly teaches at universities in the North of England. I think it's difficult to apply traditional training methods to a university club. One of our black belts had initially trained in Hung Gar at a different school but had not continued it, having been put off by the traditional components (such as gradings consisting of nothing but horse stance). I personally would love to train in a traditional way but for all intents and purposes if I had begun training in a traditional way, I would have probably never gone back. So maybe traditional training has better results overall, but is possibly not that good for introducing people (especially those like myself with no prior knowledge or experience) to martial arts.
ooh cool, kung fu, what style is it. i take pai lum dragon kung fu, and i study under sifu decino and he studied under sifu gaoeno (i bet i spelled it wrong) and he studied under doctor pan, so our system is very traditional (and fun . yeah as the other people said just go take the intro courses and see what you think. -Collin
P'ai Lum is actually a new system,created by D. Pai in the latter half of the 20th century.So the term "traditional" which is fairly ill defined anyway,may not apply. Not meant as a criticism or anything. "I think it's difficult to apply traditional training methods to a university club. " Probably TS-that's why I rarely had more than a half dozen students at any one time-but then, I'd rather only teach serious people anyway.Sans gradings. And of course- the term "traditional"= actually usually means how things were done after the turn of the century or thereabouts.
Master Ang Unfortunately trained for several years with KK Ang. Was good but now very poor and lacklustre. Lots of kids chatting to Master Ang but not much training goes on. Regarding Weilliquans comments, is he the hardest man in the world or what! Must be talking about the kids when he mentions beating everyone in the club (Might need to grow up a bit). Master Ang gives black belts out like sweets now, and as long as you pay, you will get you belt regardless of skill. Not on for those who really train hard. Sorry, but I would look elsewhere if I where you.
