NaamKyun.com Discussion Forum

Greetings venerables,

I'm glad a new forum has been created that solely focuses on our wonderful art of Hung Kuen.

To help get the ball rolling, I wanted to ask the group about what they feel are the defining characteristics of Hung Kuen? The reason why I ask this is because, we now have a phenomenon on our hands called youtube, which is both a blessing and a curse in many ways, but, there have been many clips coming from the mainland, and other areas like malaysia, etc, that display a variety of arts from fukien, canton, etc, and a common sentiment that is expressed is, "That looks like Hung Kuen", even if the art being displayed is mainland wing chun, or a short hand system like white crane, etc.

Now, it is obvious that Hung Kuen is largely jaap ga (mixed style/family), but there are obvious differences between what you'll find in Hong Kong and what you'll find on the mainland, or in other areas like Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Some have proposed a more "regional flavor hypothesis", which basically says that the region is more important than the individual style, and that the arts of a specific region will generally display certain traits, and those are the traits worth noting.

If we follow this line of reasoning, Hung Kuen presents a problem, because it includes skills from the fukien region and the canton region. However, some say that its primary flavor is that of the canton region.

Either way, we have distinct regional differences with the Hong Kong variants and the mainland variants, and we also have differences between non-WFH line Hung Kuen and WFH Hung Kuen. Some draw lines between Tang Fong and Lam Sai Wing, where others who practice the mainland variations say that, in reality, there isn't much difference between the LSW and Tang Fong lines when you look at the body methods. So the essence is the same, because they have the distinct Hong Kong flavor, regardless of the aesthetic differences and nuances.

So, what defines "Hung Kuen" these days? What makes it what it is?

Peace

OK I'll bite....

The 12 bridges, 5 animals & 5 elements and the "pillar forms".

But even there cracks are surfacing, different interpretation of the Lau bridge, differences in ng ying/sap ying.

I guess in another 100 year or so we'll have branches that are so different they warrant a new name?

hello Chris,

thanx for interesting topic. just couple of thoughts

- the question is - what is really Hung Kyun? not so long ago it was just called Siulam Kyun.... gjffk is Siulam Jing Jung, fhsyk is jaap ga, nyk is jaap ga, syk is jaap ga, tsk is Siulam/old Hung kyun, weapons come from many different families

- i would not define Hung Kyun by curriculum, as there are many branches with different curriculum. in China i often heard about Fu Hok Hung Kyun (Wong Feihung's/Lam Saiwing's branch), Ng Ying Hung Kyun, Saam Jin Hung Kyun, Lou Hung kyun... we have many branches in Malaysia, Singapure, they just do not call themselves Hung Kyun, but Siulam

so, i would define it from

a) historical perspective: there should be some "Hung" connection - Hung Heigun, Hung Mun... otherwise, why call it Hung Kyun?

b) technical perspective: yiu, kiu, ma, ie. use of the waist, bridges and stances/footwork

in other words - there are Siulam systems that we can regard to be Hung Kyun grfom teh b) pount perspective (Hung Kyun is one of the closest heirs of Southern Siulam kyun seut); on the other hand there are so called Hung Kyun systems that are not Hung Kyun at all (a) point perspective is questionable, b) perspective is obvious)

Chris, to your last post: 12 bridges are imho one of the oldest parts of HK, even if it was incorporated by the time of Wong Keiying/Wong Feihung; 2 different Southern Siulam lineages were interconnected again. also, as my sigung said, gjffk is definitely not jaap ga. although it definitely underwent some modifications, it is one of the eldest parts of our system (meaning our branch).

Asmo: oh man, i hate the "village Hung Kyun" term.

OK, I play advocate of the devil here... (actually I do not see myself qualified to tell what is Hung Gar and what not, but I do find the discussion interesting)

I said once when people started to teach Hung Gar for money instead of pure need for survival the number of forms greatly increased.

If once HG consisted of GGFFK minus Fu Hok (as we know it today) Ng/Sap Ying and Tit Sin, and many of those masters that are in the lineage dating back from siulam practiced Hung Gar, how does that Hung Gar stand to the Hung gar we know today?

In other words, is the definition of Hung Gar changed because of the added (jaap ga) information? If so, then the definition of what Hung Gar is that the lineage must flow through WFH.

Continuing playing the advocate of the devil, if the old masters without the jaap ga did practiced Hung Gar, is that not the same as telling the jaap ga did not changed the definition? If that is so, then why is it added in the first place? Like Chris H said, its a major part of our curriculum, adding considerably to the time to learn the art we know as Hung Gar.

I know this post doesn't really help answer anything, but are additional questions that rise up to me when thinking about the question Chris H asked the forum.

most of the TCMA are MMA (jaap ga). the idea that somebody has created a system (like Hung Kyun, CLF, Wingcheun etc.) and it was passed down generation from generation, and at some point the pure system has started to change, is nice idea, but not true. everybody was and is changing, 150 years ago or today. the thing is - the reasons today and 150-50 years ago are different. as for the influence from other systems - why this or that was added? because it worked (for this or that guy).

Hung Kyun back in the old days was about saan sik, saan sau, strengthening and conditioning (like most TCM systems) - actually, in the Orthodox Hung Kyun schools the training still is like that.
but - it has no value to argue how the system looked like before (this set, or this set?) and how does it look like today, anything pre-Lam Saiwing/pre-Wong Feihung is just speculation. the important is not the curriculum, but concepts, if it works or not.

(btw., grammatically speaking, you cannot say "without jaap ga", it means that it is not just one certain family, but mix of different families, Hung Ga included).

i do not agree that Hung Kyun = Wong Feihung and later. certainly he was the most influential person in the development of what is today known as Hung Kyun, but...

last thing that i would like to say, and it is really important, Hung Kyun is a system, not just bunch of techniques put together, the concepts - stances (long, short), bridges (long, short), waist and body movement - are what make our system our system

Very clear PM

Personally I never gave this a lot of thought as I have way to much to explore that directly affects my personal knowledge of Hung Gar. Simply too new to have much time left to answer these questions. I'm curious what others have to add.

I tend to agree with Pavel's points in general, especially the points about having both the historical connection to Hung, and the basics of the system.

I would like to add though that to me the lowestc-common denominator has got to be Gung Gee Fuk Fu kuen. We come from siu lam, yes, but if we believe the claims so do other arts such as Wing Chun, Choy ga, Li ga, Mok ga, Lau ga etc. Just because they are Siu-Lam, no one would claim that they are Hung, though there may be connections...

Also there are other Hung styles that completely unrelated - ie the Northerrn Hung Gar (Hong Jia) that is from Tong Bei from Song dinasty. We are not the same as they, and I would argue we are not the same as modern Siu Lam's Xiao Hong Quan / da hong Quan.

So to further define the system - Hung started as a southern siu lam animal style, and more specifically with Gee Sin's/ Hung Hei Gwoon's tiger. So Hung must be an animal style, and I would further add that it must contain either gung Gee fuk Fu Kuen, or some older version: Seung Gong Fuk Fu, Daan Gong Fuk Fu, etc, and more importantly the skillsets contained within: Strong stances, strong waist, use of back for power, etc, use of bridging (regradless of wether it was formalized or not).


Lastly to get back to Pavel's point about historical conncection to Hung: many other arts have "absorbed" some hung sets - many kenpo schools for example teach FHSYK. Obviously they are not Hung.

Interesting topic. As to the question at hand…
... I have no idea.