So apparently, one of his students was used as a reference for the fighting techniques in the kung fu video game Sifu. I tried looking up what I could about the line because it is apparently Bak Mei, which I thought was interesting, but apparently, Sifu Lao Wei San learned from his father, and his father claimed his teacher was a monk. I've tried to look at the lineage to see what I can find and so far I'm not turning up much. One of his students, Sifu Ben Collusi, currently runs an online school to teach Bak Mei, but I can't find much linking the content of the online school to the Bak Mei styles I have read about prior (such as his lineage being the only one I see claiming a '10 principles' form). I'm wondering if anyone here, more educated on the matter than I, could answer me. My knowledge is Bak Mei is a Hakka style, related in part to Southern Mantis and Southern Dragon.
Bakmei is CLCs art, he created it from his experience and expertise no matter what the marketing says. If you are teaching bak mei and can't trace your art back to him I'd question what is being taught. Regardless of what I think of his lineage claims or what I think of his videos learning bakmei on line is near impossible for anyone
My understanding is he codified Bak Mei but he did not invent it. I'm more curious about where this line originates and how it comes to have the name. I'm aware of a Fushan branch as a seperate thing to CLC's art but I can't seem to get much info on their curriculum and if this specific lineage is even connected to them.
What sounds better for selling an arts purpose "I've created a new art based upon my previous experience in Hakka arts and numerous fights and real life encounters" or "I was taught something special and unique by a mysterious monk after being beaten and humbled by his only other student" Which is going to attract more students? A monk shockingly no one else has ever heard of, and there are no records of. Which is more likely? Nearly all Chinese arts have this mysterious monk somewhere in their line or the other favourite is "I watched a monkey fight with a crane and created my new art that way." There are no other lines of bakmei all can be traced back in some form to CLC if they admit it or not. Or if the above isn't correct it's amazing that a taoist martial arts looks so similar to the Hakka arts you mentioned and which CLC learned in his youth. And all the Hakka arts have at their core a very similar form, hand shape and body shape not found in most other styles or regions.
So I suppose the Fushan branch, which claims back to the legendary figure, probably is a separate art from the CLC line and just picked up the name along the way? That or it's somewhat removed from legit Bak Mei? My curiosity if this is one of those 'traditional' Hung Ga/'Village' Hung Ga situations or if it's just a mutated version that went off and did it's own thing. The 'monk' teacher thing certainly casts suspicion, but I've often found it's a flavour story in other arts where a more logical story comes in where someone claimed 'a monk taught me' when in reality they learned something else or they are embellishing the story of where and what they learned from who for wow factor.
Could be a totally different art which simply happened on the same historical name for marketing purposes as you say with the whole hung ga name being found in multiple areas and regions. Could be someone learned a little of the art, never finished it and added other things to it then went and taught it as a different lineage, this too isn't unheard of. The problem with the Chinese arts is they are not codified or written down like the Japanese or Korean arts it's transmitted word of mouth Add to this china was completely closed off from the west until the mid 90s The above made it easy in the days before the internet for people to claim all sorts off lineages and names for their arts which couldn't be tested or investigated (doo wai's white tiger is a classic example of this in the USA and Lau Gar here in the UK)) Now we have the internet it's easier to track some arts, but the whole cultural Revolution distraction of records and the dieing off of the old guard who knew the truth make it hard still in some cases. But if the art calls itself bak mei and uses the PE fist, and the same body structure as what CLC taught (which is classical hakka Kung Fu) then the odds are it came from him somewhere down the line and not a monk. In the early days when if your Kung Fu worked was all that counted then where the art came from was less worried about, after the west turned up with guns and real Kung Fu skill declined then lineage and what the art was called became more important
Have to agree. I've studied a line of Ziranmen since 2020, and found it more strongly resembles the Xingyi and neijia arts I've been exposed to than the Liu He Ziranmen curriculum I see attributed to Sifu Liu Deming, not to claim falseness of either. I've tried to do more digging on this specific line and found what they call the '10 principles form' is, in one video of the form, called Sup Gee Gung, which I am aware is a form in several Bak Mei lines, and while I'm no expert it certainly resembles what I can see of others performances of the form, so that at least leads me to believe there may be some weight to authenticity. Where this came from however I cannot locate a teacher going back more than 3 people, which as a former bujinkan student, has me curious as to where this curriculum came from. For reference:
From what I remember sup gee was kept in bakmei to honour CLCs first teacher who taught him the wonder or hakka art be based some of bakmei on. So if they have the same form they didn't get it from a monk they either got it from CLC or managed to train in the same hakka base art as he did as well as train with the mysterious bak mei monk ... Nice old discussion about it for reference Yum Cha is an indoor student of a very well known bak mei sifu in Australia Sup gee
Yeah that the thing, as soon as I saw 'my dad never told me much other than a monk taught him' I was wondering either his dad said that as a joke or a response to add mystique/dismiss further questions/wow his son or he didnt want to disclose the truth for some reason. Stories like that always make me suspect and I like to see if I can find a line back to a source where I see claims. Sets off the old fruadential suspicion alarm
That's the dichotomy of the Chinese arts, lineage matters but not for the reason most think. In the old days lineage history ie the historical foundations of the art didn't matter as much as can the guy teaching this new art beat the cr@p out of everyone and can he make you a good fighter so you can survive and make a living in the caravan, escort or robbing industries. if so great he can say anything he likes about where he got the art from no one cares. And to be fair it's normally second generation students that name an art and push for it's historical lineage. Now with the way the vast majority of Chinese arts are taught your lineage to the first named person teaching that art publicly matters, it matters a heck of a lot for very practical reasons. And the history of Chinese arts is littered with people learning a bit of an art not completing it so adding stuff to it and calling it a different branch or a related style etc
That's what I find really interesting about the subject. Sometimes there are arts I will only look up just to try to find how they came to be what they are. At the end of the day, fighting skills are one thing, but tying the history and culture back together to find how it came into existence as it is is just as educational and fulfilling to me
