Hi All, I thought I’d make my maiden post at Martial Arts Planet by kicking off a subject that’s close to my heart. I’ve read a few of the threads here which mention Lau Gar and I’m struck by how unpopular it seems to be amongst practitioners of other kung fu styles. I’ve seen a lot of comments such as how Lau Gar is ‘karate-like’ or how it is very different from other kung fu styles. To be honest I partly agree with some of the comments but I strongly feel there is no fault with the style itself but rather some of the people that have taught it. Lau Gar is a classic southern kung fu style. The problem is that during the 80s Lau Gar grew really fast and was highly successful in the semi-contact competition arena. This lead to a proliferation of Lau Gar clubs with instructors that concentrated on semi-contact and really only paid lip service to the traditional syllabus so that students could pass grades. What resulted is bad form (hence ‘karate-like’) and experiences such as being in classes that do a lot of kicking. To make things worse there are several groups that have split from the BKFA and set up on their own. These people still claim to teach Lau Gar but are frankly making it up as they go along. In the BKFA changes are afoot. Master Yau has instituted a Council of Guardians who, amongst other things, are responsible for setting standards throughout the BKFA. If you are lucky enough to train in a club run by a Guardian you will be getting top-notch classic kung fu training. Semi-contact is still there for those that want it but should be treated as a separate and I think quite distinct activity from traditional training. I have also noted that some people have junked Lau Gar in favour of other styles because they wanted more ‘internal’ training. Again, this type of training does feature strongly in traditional Lau Gar but not if you are unlucky enough to have found yourself in one of the semi-contact clubs. I have a little story that might illustrate my point. I trained briefly with Wong Shun Leung (the late great Wing Chun master) at his club in Jordan, Hong Kong. On the first day I was there he looked at me quizzically and commented that my style was very good. I’m not blowing my own trumpet here but rather pointing out that my ‘style’ was Lau Gar and it was good enough for Wong Shun Leung. Comments?
Of course the Guardians have been through the 80's and some were top-level semi-contact fighters, such as Neville Wray (by definition a Guardian must have at least 20 years experience). Other Guardians have always been traditionally focused. I didn’t mean to imply that semi-contact is a bad thing. It’s a fantastic compliment to so called traditional work. What is important is that Lau Gar has always been a classic southern Chinese kung fu style but that semi-contact sport-oriented fighting overshadowed it. With any luck the Guardians will re-establish the balance.
I'd point out that one interpretation of your post might seem to junk several of the members here practicing Lau Gar, just because they are not members of the BKFA. The varying standards of Lau Gar found up and down the country are more to do with previous inattention to quality control, than the success of Lau on the mat IMHO. The majority of the Scottish Lau Gar people on this forum are non BKFA, but the standard of many is extremely high. The Cheif Instructor was 3rd Degree John Gwilt, who no doubt would be a Guardian now were he still with th BKFA. Through the 80's the most succesful branch of lau Gar, which for most of it's life was in the BKFA, produced high standards in both traditional syllabus and in points fighting. Should you seek verification of that, get in touch with Sean Viera, Lloyd/Phil Allen etc, who were hosted every year up north.
Yes, for a short time. My job prevented me from training seriously. He was a very nice guy and I'm glad I met him.
For my part, I really don't think that Lau Gar is or ever has been 'unpopular' per se with practitioners of other Chinese styles. The problem, as I see it, is to do with the semantics and origin. It has nothing to do with the techniques or sets or strengths or weaknesses of Lau Gar, and this is where its practitioners can and often get upset, by mistaking comments regarding its stated lineage and history as attacks on its very fabric. They are not one and the same. Is Lau Gar a classic Southern Kung Fu style as you state? In my opinion, no, just the same as other 'kung fu' systems that have been around in the UK for as long and in some cases longer than Lau Gar are also not classic kung fu styles. Does this make them bad martial arts systems? No, not necessarily. When in the point sparring arena (many moons ago I might add) I was easily and soundly trounced by Lau Gar fighters, I didn't try to get the decision reversed because I thought that Lau Gar wasn't 'proper' Kung Fu, because it didn't matter. However, in the traditional forms competition I can see why those performing a Hung Gar or Choy Li Fut or Chen Taiji set might complain that the Lau Gar set presented should not be in that particular category.
I agree completely that one of the problems with Lau Gar has been quality control. However, this problem is actively being addressed (for example there is a fund raising exercise to establish a dedicated Centre of Excellence). Partly what I am saying is that I think that it is up to Lau Gar students and instructors to play their part. Be critical and bring your traditional work into line. As to the spilt away Lau Gar organisations I think they are impolite at best to claim to teach Lau Gar. The idea of leaving the BKFA as a 3rd degree black sash and thinking you have learned sufficient to set up an association on your own baffles me. At that stage you have learned very little of the style and by claiming to teach Lau Gar you are adding to the confusion and misrepresentation surrounding it. Let me illustrate. When Bruce Lee went to the States and started teaching kung fu he didn’t setup a Wing Chun school. He setup as Jun Fan Gung Fu, his own brand if you like. No confusion; no disrespect to his Wing Chun teachers. I am also confused as to why anyone would think that a Lau Gar form is any less traditional or valid than a form from another style: I suspect the comment refers to the lineage question and/or that some (if not all) of the Lau Gar forms originated from other styles. My initial reaction to that is so what? All martial art styles are informed by and borrow from each other. Over the years we all do a bit of this and that and I’ve dabbled with the odd Hung Gar form, a bit of Choi Lui Fut, Wing Chun and even some Wu Shu. I don’t see any fundamental difference between them and Lau Gar; at least, not in the sense that Lau Gar is any less traditional or valid. I dabbled with Choi Li Fut and Wing Chun in Hong Kong. I couldn't see any difference apart from a grading system. I suppose I should say that I really don’t think that Lau Gar is the be all and end all of martial arts. It has strengths and weaknesses like any other. I just feel there are some unjustified and possibly ill-informed opinions floating around.
Andy Murray :Why? Because Lau Gar is not in the same category as those arts that can trace and display lineage and history with records and photos at altars and associations in China or Hong Kong in a traditional sense, as far as some (see below) were concerned. "Has that ever happened that you know of?" Yes.
"I am also confused as to why anyone would think that a Lau Gar form is any less traditional or valid than a form from another style:" I didn't mention that it would be any less valid. "I suspect the comment refers to the lineage question and/or that some (if not all) of the Lau Gar forms originated from other styles. My initial reaction to that is so what? " I agree, and thats was most of the point of my post. If, for some reason, offence has been taken due to a perceived 'dissing' of the martial art Lau Gar Kung Fu then I apologise as that was not my intention.
No offence taken. I'm enjoying the banter! That’s not the same as saying it is just as valid. Leaving that aside you seem to imply that it is less traditional. That interests me. Why is Lau Gar less traditional than something else?
Because lau gar is one of the five southern families, and because jeremy yau claims the lau gar he teaches comes from that lau gar ,people would like to think they are being taught an ancient traditional style of kung fu, which well might be the case, their seems to be enough info,a temple on a mountain two masters and a grandfather, i think what is lacking here is that,are their any people out there that have lernt or even seen lau gar other than the J.Y. system to compere with, no disrespect to lau gar in u.k. it looks a complete solid and even traditional system, oh and by the way, as i put on this forum before the lau gar forms found in hung gar are nothing to do with the lau gar of the five southern families
"That’s not the same as saying it is just as valid." OK, for the sake of clarification I think that it is as valid. Hows that?! "Why is Lau Gar less traditional than something else?" To be fair, I suppose this comes down to the definitions of traditional. To me, some examples of traditional Chinese boxing styles, would be, for instance Hung Gar, Lung Ying, Chow Gar, Choy Lee Fut, Wing Chun, Mok Gar, Pak Mei, Chen and Yang Taiji. The simple reason behind my definition being comprehensive traceability. Thus I cannot include Lau Gar, as well as many other arts in my definition of traditional. Now, unless that sort of thing is important to 'one', as you have said, so what.
Good to see that the Guardians are there to keep it real. It's sad to see some names missing (Andy mentioned a couple, such as Sean Viera, Lloyd Allen, etc.) Glad to see Neville Wray there - I studied under Neville Wray for about 5 years way back in the 80's. Lordy, that was well over a decade ago! I think there's a lot of argument for and against the whole "credibility" of UK Lau Gar as a "traditional" system - I believe a search through these very forums will turn up a lot of discussion. Other forums too. However, no matter what opinions are held, if the Guardians are keeping the system together and ensuring an adherence to traditional methods and not just point-sparring and "kung fu kickboxing" then that's a really good thing. Out of interest - does anyone know whatever happened to Kevin Brewerton and his Stormtroopers!?
Well, you just confirmed the insult to all non BKFA practitioners in Scotland. Your grade/experience is? At the time john was graded to 3rd Degree, there was no higher rank to be had. Subsequently, more syllabus appeared out of nowhere. Do you think it's common for a 3rd Degree Black Sash in any system to have learned 'very little' of it?
No, I just said is baffles me. They may be highly skilled. I've never met them so I don't know. But don't you think taking what you've learned and setting up on you own is at least disrespectful to your original teacher? At least, if you claim to be teaching an authentic (here we go again) version of the original system? I've been training for well over 20 years. I don't want to give my grade because I don't think airing this stuff would be appreciated within the BKFA (let alone elsewhere) and I want to keep my head down. I like my head where it is. Attached to my body. You can take that any way you want. All I know is that I felt like I had just started learning after reaching black. I feel the same today. There's just more and more of it to learn. Greater and greater subtleties. It's a hoot!
Let me remind you what you said; You make that statement, yet you've never met them, so you don't know? In some cases I'd agree. As I'm in posession of the facts involving my particular split, then certainly not. The Guardians are hardly breaking news mate. The re-invention of Lau Gar's been going on for a while now, but with approaching 30 years on the shelves, I don't think it is productive to market it based on elitism.
Hello! I haven't posted in a wee while. Yet another thread for the same argument. I'm one of those people who was there when we went thru the split (Scotland Lau Gar btw see my sig).I agree with everything Andy has said so far...iin a rush so can't post much. Personally my views on Lau Gar is that like modern day karate, it was created this centuary. This does not detract form it being a good, solid system. and i don't quite understand ninesteps argument about traditional styles and apperance in forms sections of tournements. As for organisations breaking away, i don't think it's impolite. and as andy said jon had the highest grade possible at the time. if i was a black smith and broke away form my master when i had attained his highest grade of craftmenship possible and called my slef a blacksmith......would that be inpolite?
