I’m glad to see I’m having the desired effect; a good old fashioned debate (even if some posters are getting a bit upset). This is clearly a sensitive subject and I didn’t want to appear to be having a go at anyone in particular. I suppose it was inevitable that that’s what would happen though. A better analogy applied to this arena would be: If I were a blacksmith working for John Smith & Sons and broke away from my master when I had attained his highest grade of craftsmanship and called myself a blacksmith working under the name John Smith & Sons would that be impolite? I think it would. Set up as a kung fu school – fine. Set up as a Lau Gar school? Okay, that statement was not well thought out and I retract it. Or rather, I agree that we are all engaged in a creative process and are all making it up as we go along to some extent. The BKFA included. Let’s be contentious again: I think what I really meant was that Master Yau is the holder of the core style known as Lau Gar. No one else. I’m not saying for one moment that Master Yau is a super human. Not at all. What I am saying is that if a style is to lay claim to some form of authenticity then in Lau Gar’s case it must come directly from Master Yau. Anyone following on after him must either have learned absolutely everything he has to teach or they must, by definition, move on with a partial knowledge of the core style. Augmenting a style with additional content is absolutely necessary for progress and I have no problem with that. I don’t think my argument is one of elitism it is one of branding. If I sold cola under the name Coka-Cola don’t you think consumers would be a tad confused? My version might have 90% of the same ingredients as the original but at the end of the day it would not be Coka-Cola. It would be another cola. Makarov-Cola. There was a comment earlier on in this thread about ‘syllabus appearing out of nowhere’ which has direct relevance. It is my understanding that what happened was that Master Yau found the standard of weapons training to be suffering under the old 3 black sash grade system. Too much crammed in to too short a time frame etc. The 3 black sash grades were subsequently separated out into 6 to allow greater time for training each individual weapon. I also suppose it is worthy of note that by definition the whole syllabus appeared out of nowhere. The idea of a grading system is a relatively new and undoubtedly non-traditional construct. I return to my starting point. Is Lau Gar misunderstood and misrepresented? I believe it has been not least because of problems with the BKFA but now compounded by breakaway organisations. Just my opinion.
The sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. It's yet to crawl out of Master Yau's butt, but keep on wishing.
1/ I look at it this way. You join this forum with a particular 'axe to grind', you refer to other posts on the subject without substantiating your comments with specific examples, and whether intended or not, you cast aspersions on a not insignificant percentage of the member base here. I'd also point out that this forum is owned by an ex Scottish Lau Gar practitioner. 2/ That's a poor analogy. You'll be saying the guy couldn't call himself a Blacksmith next. 3/ The old Yau is the 'keeper' of the holy flame nonsense again. This is where you get to explain why the Beijiing University of Chinese Martial Arts has never heard of Lau Gar. This is where you explain why the Hung Gar people believe that three Lau Gar forms were absorbed into their system so they wouldn't be lost, yet these forms aren't taught or practiced in UK Lau Gar. 4/ Making it up as you go along? 5/ You misunderstand what I mean by elitism. The common theme kicking about right now, is a load of you pro-BKFA people blowing smoke up everyones ass, claiming that Yau deliberately taught a load of Baloney to everyone up to BB as a test of loyalty, despite some of these people having trained in the system for 20 years or more. You seek to distance yourself from the semi-contact/kick boxing clubs, without whom there would never have been a BKFA, and no-one would have heard of/cared about Lau Gar. I see some of the websites now have a 'TM' trademark stamp next to Lau Gar. This is sad IMHO, and shows insecurity. 6/ So therefore a 3rd Degree Black Sash is incapable of teaching the rest of the system? 7/ Maybe it'd be more productive to get in touch with some of these despised breakaway groups and ask them some questions. Like why did you breakaway from the BKFA Now understand me clearly. It bothers me not one iota what you say, except for the fact that you seek to use this discussion forum as a vehicle for your 'axe grinding' My Instructors in LG originally hailed from Stoke, and for years drove 250 miles to Scotland every week to promote the BKFA, surviving three car crashes in the process, before eventually re-locating their families to continue the process. In 12-15 years, Jeremy Yau visited Scotland twice, falling asleep on a table during our Nationals on the first occasion. After 12 years I with some other members of Scottish clubs, hired a car and drove to Birmingham to sit my BB under Jeremy. We arrived at 9am, with a grading supposedly at 10am. Jeremy first spoke to us at 12pm, telling us to come back at 2pm. The grading eventually started at 4pm. We were then told that while we could sit our gradings, we wouldn't be awarded certificates and sashes until we returned at a later date for a Brown Sash course, to the tune of a further £60 on top of the £135 for the BB grading. The end result of this, was out of the 16 bright eyed, hard training loyal exponents of Lau Gar, I was the only one who asked for their money back! This was largely instrumental in the departure of the Scottish clubs from Lau Gar. What was discovered about the style afterwards was even more interesting. All I'll add, is that I'm glad I crosstrained, and had my eyes open a little wider than some. Just my opinion!
1/ Fair point. But I do get the feeling one of us is grinding harder than the other. 2/ No, you’ve taken the point completely the wrong way. I was expanding on Sub Zero’s analogy. It would be absolutely fine for the guy to call himself a blacksmith. That was my point. It would not be right to set himself up as Jones & Sons. Ergo set up a kung fu school but by setting up as Lau Gar is throws the whole thing into confusion. 3/ You’ve missed my point again. I don’t for one minute subscribe to the view that Master Yau is some sort of mystic with hidden powers; quite the reverse in fact. Maybe you and I have more to agree on here than you’re allowing for. I’m talking more about intellectual property rights, for want of a better description. 4/ Absolutely. I retracted my original statement which was quite wrong. My fault. 5/ Again you’ve missed my point and are putting words into my mouth. In fact I think I stated somewhere that semi-contact (and I include kickboxing) is a fantastic complement to traditional work. I wouldn’t distance myself from that at all. Quite the contrary, a good portion of my training includes it. 6/ Lost me; but never mind. I'm sure it was a good point. 7/ Fair point again. But then when I started this thread I asked for comments. And that is exactly wheat I am getting. I’m sorry to hear you had a bad experience with you black sash grading. It wasn’t any different for me. I can’t remember how much the grading cost but I have a vague recollection it was £70. At the time I was working for the Manpower Services Commission (one of Maggie’s good ideas to keep us off the streets) and my monthly wages were £70. I was also kept waiting all day. At the end of it though I took the experience with as good grace as I could and cracked on. As for the brown sash course that always was a prerequisite. I’m surprised you were allowed to take the black sash grading at all without it. Now as for cross-training I agree with you again. Completely. I’m glad I did too. It is in the light of other experiences that lead me to conclude that the BKFA has made and is making great strides and that more quality is becoming available. I think you have been working very hard to take my comments in the worst possible light and maybe I’ve been at fault for rising to the bait. I’ll be more careful in future. At the end of the day I haven’t read anything that contradicts the opinion that by taking the Lau Gar name into separate split-away organisations there have been no benefits to any of the organisations involved. In fact there have been negative effects. People are still going to be totally confused (hence ‘Lau Gar – misunderstood and misrepresented’).
1/ I've been on this forum for a few years now, and never felt the need to grind my axe. That said, you're not the first BKFA trumpet blower to shower your opinion here as you'd know if you read all the related threads. 2/ Can you give us a working example of said confusion? 3/ So you're saying he invented and subsequently patented Lau Gar? 4/ Thank you. 5/ Again, I'll quote you; 6/ Refers to your earlier comments about 3rd Degrees; 7/ Then act on it. 8/ We'd never been informed of a Brown Sash course in the first place. Either way, it was highly unprofessional to bring this up prior to a grading, no fault lying with the candidates. 9/ Indeed, it might one day acheive a reputable status. 10/ You could maybe have soft-started by posting an intro, and getting to know people here a little before kicking off? 11/ You've said nothing to substantiate your point of view IMHO.
Andy, thanks for your time. The way I have been responding to you is genuinely bothering me. I don’t think I believe some of the things I’ve posted and I’ve been doing it for some reason I can’t quite fathom. Something I’ll have to sort out myself. I really didn’t mean to kick off, as you put it; it just blurted out. Maybe it was a poor expression of my own frustrations. I retract anything I said that might have insulted you, your teachers or fellow practitioners. Your comment that I should have ‘soft-started by posting an intro, and getting to know people here’ is quite right. Please accept my apologies for my poor judgment. It is inexcusable.
hey.don't worry makarov.as i think i sadi previously i joined this forum and my first post was to pretty much the opposite effect of your first post. ne way. I'd still like to continue this discussion..........but possibly in a less personal way. How about i tell you a little bit about how Scotland Lau Gar (SLG not the same organisation as Andys btw) does things nower days and you comment on themask questions whatever, and i'd quite like to ask you some questions if you don't mind about the way how the BKFA system is taught at present. ok.no1. our syllubuses are pretty much the same i believe (up until black belt).all teh same forms altho i'm sure practiced in a slightly different way.altho we don't do any wood breaking ne more, not as part of the syllubus.ive don't it a few times but it's not really concentrated on.how's it for you? SLG subscribes to the hung garversion of lau gar after black belt. for example we practice the lau gar kune form.i know that the BKFA do not practice this form.but i was wondering if oyu could tell me what the BKFA syllubus involves after black sash?In the way of hand forms, weapons forms whatever. another thing. on the BKFA site i see somethign about tai chi in the BKFA aswell.will this be braught into the LG syllubus partly aswell? Oh and SLG practice Hung gar aswell.but asfar as i know only the dundee club has a sperate hung gar class.not 100% on that. if Pauls shows up he'l know. there might be one in paisely.......oh well. ne way sorry about all the questions. just interested.
It's not a problem makarov. Despite the depth of my response, I wasn't offended, I've seen all this stuff before so many times is all. The first Lau Gar war (now deleted) on this forum actually resulted in a series of phone calls threatening me and my family, with the police being called as a result. In the meantime, there's a wonderful forum here, where you can learn about other people, countries, styles and philosophies. Get stuck in.
Andy: Thanks for your kind response. I certainly hadn’t realised things got so heated in the past. I am going to take the opportunity to learn some about other associations. Sub Zero: Thanks for your response too. You both seem like straight up guys and I appreciate it. Wood breaking is still there. You definitely have to do it for your black sash and I think you do for brown. I wouldn’t say it was concentrated on though. It’s just something you have to prepare for pretty much on your own. We certainly don’t devote a lot of time learning it. I had heard that some of the Scottish practitioners had included the Hung Gar forms. That interests me. After black sash things become quite (although by no means exclusively) weapons-based. What I have found though is you learn a lot of extra things that force you to revisit all the stuff you learned before. I don’t think I’m giving away any trade secrets when I say you learn broad sword, sticks (including the tapered stick which I believe features in Hung Gar), butterfly knives, spear, tiger fork etc. but the pace of training is dictated by the grading sequence. There is a move to introduce Tai Chi. I think it is a move to make the association a bit more inclusive (offering an alternative to pure ‘fighting’). I think it is an interesting idea. At least as tings stand the association is looking to gain experience with an established and widely practiced form of Tai Chi (so called ‘Beijing form’ widely taught in China). I don’t know much beyond that. Thanks again.
Excellent debate and subsequent "settling" guys. Welcome to MAP makarov - I hope you continue to share your knowledge in the spirit of your last few posts. {{{{Lau Gar Group Hug}}}}
I agree, it's been great. lots of different opinions over, well 'the same thing'. Glad its all sorted and i've been keeping up with it as i'm one of the London Lau Gar people. If I do ever go up to Scotland I will have to pop into 1 of the classes. Thanks
Hi Makarov I'm a Scotland Lau Gar student and will offer a bit more info on the Hung Gar side as Sub zero mentioned. I won't offer any opinion on the whole BKFA side of things as there are others here that know far more than me (and I've already fallen into that particular minefield before....eh Andy....l ) Before reading on please note that I write without the express permission of my sifu and anything said here is only my limited knowledge/opinion and shouldn't be taken as the word of SLG (just so's ye know.....) Anyways - Scotland Lau Gar has incorporated Hung Gar's "Lau Gar Kuen" form into the syllabus at first degree. This Hung Gar form contains many movements that are analagous (and certainly not contrary to)any of the preceding LG forms. SLG's chief instructor is a student of Hung Gar's Kwong Wing Lam and has been certified to teach the early Hung Gar syllabus. However, Hung Gar is taught as an entirely separate class starting with Gung Gee Fook Fu Kuen (taming the tiger). In a traditional Hung Gar school there are 4 pillar forms (Gung Gee Fook Fu Kuen, Fu Hok Serng Ying Kuen, Sap Ying Kuen and Tid Sin Kuen). Lau Gar Kuen is seen as a "non-pillar" or precursor set which introduces some of the main principles of Hung Gar but is a non-essential or supplementary form. However, introducing this form (HG's LG Kuen) into the Lau Gar syllabus at first degree introduces/reinforce basic Hung Gar principles to those experienced black belt level LG practitioners and therefore provides an ideal form to "bridge" the small gap between Lau and Hung styles. HG's LGK is a widely recognised Hung form and is certainly not making it up as you go along. This, to my knowledge, is the only change to the syllabus at this point. Further Hung Gar forms are introduced later on but it is clear that these are from Hung Gar and are not passed off as standard Lau Gar forms (as taught by BKFA). There should therfefore be no confusion as to what a student is being taught and where it originates from. IMO, Scotland Lau Gar hold very true to the core syllabus of Lau Gar and, in my experience, it is taught in a very traditional manner and I have heard no malice towards Master Yau or the BKFA in all my time of training. It is true that as the Hung Gar influence grows then the Lau Gar may become or seem more "Hung-ified" but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Both systems are from the same root and are therefore compementary. Just one point about the validity of breaking away to teach Lau Gar and still calling yourself Lau Gar. Just take a look at the rest of the Chinese martial arts world. In Hung Gar alone you have Tang Fong and Lam Sai Wing lineages (both called Hung Gar), then there is HaSayFu Hung Gar. There are a myriad of Wing Chun lineages and Choy Lee Fut lineages. All are southern Shaolin. As is Lau Gar. Many will have internal disputes as to whether they are the complete/traditional/modified systems. Many borrow forms from each of the other styles (as LG is said to have done). All I can say is that if you are ever up in Scotland please PM me or Subzero and you can come along to one of our classes. I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised at the way Lau Gar is taught up here, Hope this helps. Cheers Paul
All I'd add to Pauls post, is that his Sifu exemplifies everything that the organisation in Scotland tried to do, being as he was, a top points fighter, and applauded example of forms performance. The closest example I've ever witnessed to the standard of syllabus performed by Paul's Sifu would be Graham Abdullah, himself one of the BKFA Guardians. There are inevitably, minor modifications made to BKFA Lau Gar in Scotland, the reasons for which can be discussed. I personally, took outside influences to provide points of reference to teaching, before officially retiring from teaching last year! More on that if, it's of interest.
Please do. I'm interested to hear your reasons for that. As for the Lau Gar/Hung Gar thing and the right to the name, I think it's quite reasonable that the SLG has referred to themselves as Scottish Lau Gar. Already that makes a point of issue about them. Perhaps one day they might rename if their system develops so far from the BKFA syllabus that it seems necessary. Hung Lau Kung Fu perhaps?
Bit like Hung Fut? A combination of Hung Ga and Fut Ga? My own reasoning was discovering parallels with other systems not acknowledged in UK Lau Gar. Like it's second form, and the similarities with WC's first form, leading me to seek out a good WC Sifu, finding a myriad of explanation for movement not found in LG. Tip of the iceberg though.
Exactly. If the two systems start to blend into a system not entirely Lau gar or Hung Gar, then why not call it like it is. I wondered if it might be like that. So how do you consider your training now? Are you currently a wing chun student? Feel free to reveal more of the iceberg!
1/ Personally, I do. In 1999, I set out a working ethic (Three Dragons) that encompassed any form of practice I/others chose in future. SLG can speak for themselves. I'm not part of it. 2/ I spent a period intensively training Wing Chun. I no longer do so. 3/ In time, and as appropriate, I will.
Fair enough. So, are you studying in a formal environment at the moment? Any particular style? Or are you just practising on your own? The reason I ask is that I'd be interested in what/how you actually practice now. You studied Lau Gar up to black, right? Then "intensive training" in Wing Chun, as you put it. Have you studied anything else? Now, do you practice Lau Gar and Wing Chun and whatever, or do you try to combine what you know into a singular practice, etc.? Interested in your perspective.
