Good points ... but IMO there is a difference in this case.
Yes, many Chinese styles (Wing Chun, Tai chi, etc.) have origin myths that are probably just myths.
But here's the thing ... at least they are without a doubt 100% Chinese styles and still have a reasonable history and provenance to them.
With Splashing Hands however, there appears to be the suggestion that it's not even a Chinese style and was made up in the 20th century in the USA.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I made a suggestion a few days ago that often more than one system ends up with the same name. White Crane comes to mind, as well as Preying Mantis. Several systems use these names, and they are completely separate and were never connected to each other.
It's entirely possible this also happened with Splashing Hands. there may well be a historical Chinese system known as Splashing Hands. Apparently Mr. Lefiti also used the term to describe what he was doing at one point, but there may actually be no connection to the Chinese system that went by that name. These things happen. The name is useful and descriptive so it gets applied in more that one case.
I don't know the truth of it, I'm just suggesting another reasonable possibility.
Doc
Senior Master
What I'm saying is you wouldn't know either way. You place a lot of faith in what others have told you, and assume they are true, unless of course they "heard" differently than you. I'll leave you with this thought from Lefiti.
"Assumptions are the mother of all f**ck ups." and I heard him say it myself.
Doc
Senior Master
You just proved my point. Your point of reference is a movie. That's happens to be an old Marine Corps saying that predates the movie. Tiny passed away before the movie was made, but he was in the Marines you know. But then again, I guess you really don't. If you take everything as gospel, there is no reason to have a discussion because sooner or later things will contradict each other and you'll believe what you want. So what you should do, is just believe what you want and leave others out of the discussion you're having with yourself.
jus_dann
Blue Belt
and i thought it was a chi kung set
chris lomas
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
As far as the history of this system goes, I have gone as far into it as I care to, I have nothing objectively conclusive (either way). However, I am happy with the system, have learn't plenty of others to compare and contrast it with and it comes out very favourably. As a method of learning to fight and continue to evolve as a fighter I find it second to none.
However regarding the GM Chiao Chang Hung occurance, I was not there however I have spoken to several Kung Fu brothers who were (and have no vestage in the system) and they all confirm that it happened. However Chiao did not know it as Splashing Hands but as by a different name (I forget what he called it).
I am absoulutely sure that GM Huame Lefiti with (as Seeming Ma recently told me) Ark Yue Wong's help, expanded, eleborated on and stripped the system down and surely added some of his previous martial arts in as well as a large dollop of his soul (anyone who practices a system hard and long enough understand this!). However Chiao probably recognised certain core motions.
I tend to think the Browns, sections & four corner form come from Taiwan, the advances and other forms show a switch in tactics and stresses and I feel (am actually pretty sure) come from GM Ark Yuey Wong.
As I said earlier I have learnt some Mok Gar from other sources and cannot see similarities however we are again talking about labels. If anyone can point me to Mok sources similar to Splashing Hands I would be fasinated (the closest I have seen is the Choy-Mok style, which has a few (a very few) similar moves). Also Ark Yuey Wong taught a Mok form, but it was nothing like Splashing Hands, can anyone who believes it was Mok derived explain this? (genuine questions).
As for sparring, Docs right on. All the very old timers I have met did not stress this. If you are unsure about this do a little research of 99% of asian martial arts prior to the 60s. I spent years stressing sparring and still find it a useful training tool, however it can also develop deficiencies in the spirit/immediacy of the response. It took me years to realise this so I do not expect everyone to agree.
Best
Chris
However regarding the GM Chiao Chang Hung occurance, I was not there however I have spoken to several Kung Fu brothers who were (and have no vestage in the system) and they all confirm that it happened. However Chiao did not know it as Splashing Hands but as by a different name (I forget what he called it).
I am absoulutely sure that GM Huame Lefiti with (as Seeming Ma recently told me) Ark Yue Wong's help, expanded, eleborated on and stripped the system down and surely added some of his previous martial arts in as well as a large dollop of his soul (anyone who practices a system hard and long enough understand this!). However Chiao probably recognised certain core motions.
I tend to think the Browns, sections & four corner form come from Taiwan, the advances and other forms show a switch in tactics and stresses and I feel (am actually pretty sure) come from GM Ark Yuey Wong.
As I said earlier I have learnt some Mok Gar from other sources and cannot see similarities however we are again talking about labels. If anyone can point me to Mok sources similar to Splashing Hands I would be fasinated (the closest I have seen is the Choy-Mok style, which has a few (a very few) similar moves). Also Ark Yuey Wong taught a Mok form, but it was nothing like Splashing Hands, can anyone who believes it was Mok derived explain this? (genuine questions).
As for sparring, Docs right on. All the very old timers I have met did not stress this. If you are unsure about this do a little research of 99% of asian martial arts prior to the 60s. I spent years stressing sparring and still find it a useful training tool, however it can also develop deficiencies in the spirit/immediacy of the response. It took me years to realise this so I do not expect everyone to agree.
Best
Chris
Doc
Senior Master
Smart man who uses his energy wisely, and concentrates on his art and lets the incidentals playout as they will. I bet you're pretty good too.
For the record there's sparring, and then there's "sparring." The sparring we did in the old days was a focused street technique sparring that forced you to concentrate on skills, where points were not a part of the equation. Point Competition sparring promotes and teaches bad habits and ineffective applications. Ark Wong called these sparring techniques "dances."
I think these things ... browns, sections, 4 corners ... are the key. It would be great to somehow trace these techniques back to Taiwan and possibly even find someone still practicng them today.
Other points that would be interesting to explore are:
- Who was the general in Taiwan?
- What did the general call his style?
- Who else did he teach it to, and are any of them still around today?
- What was the general's connection with Ark Y Wong?
I don't think anyone is implying that Tiny Lefiti was a fraud... however, what Doc rememebrs from the time he spent training with Mr. Lefiti seems to contradict the stories now being told... and as far as I know only one person in this thread has first hand experience with any of the principles. I don't think it has to come down to "Doc is right or McNeil is a liar" although that seems to be where you want to take it...
So, since I don't think anyone wil ever be able to prove conclusively, to the satisfactiopn of everyone involved, I've decided, for me, that it is completely useless (for me) to pursue that line of conversation any more. Your Mileage May Vary.
It would indeed be nice if this were so ... However, unfortunately there are too many things that Doc says that are directly contradictory to what James McNeil says.
Check out this FAQ for example:
http://www.manchesterkungfu.com/FAQ/FAQ Splashing Hands.html
Here are just a couple of things that are directly counter to what Doc says. I have underlined the parts that are contradictory.
Is Splashing Hands a traditional style as I have never heard of it?
Yes it is a traditional style. See historyfor more information. If one compares it to other styles of Kung Fu the hands resemble some Tongbei/piqua systems, the power generation is similar to Baji crossed with white crane, the footwork is similar to Northern Preying Mantis systems. The shuffle is, as far as I know, unique to the system though it has similarities to the 'twisted cat stance' and the 'goat catcher' stances found in some systems.
Like any good system it is a 'complete' theory with a response to any attack stemming from a few basic concepts (ie it is not just a hash of many techniques but a method of power generation structure round unique usage of Kung Fu principles). Many systems of Kung Fu were relatively unknown, and many have died out. Whether a system survived was often not based on whether it was effective or not but whether historically a Master opened a school or not . Indeed often systems died out because a Master felt they were too effective to pass on to students.
Splashing Hands was learn t by Huame Lefiti in Taiwan from a former General. Upon completion of his training he was sent to Ark Yuey Wong to continue training. It is a relatively unknown style as Master Lefiti was the first person to openly teach the style to the general public opening his school in the early 60s. At the time he taught he would have gained nothing saying it was Kung Fu as this was before the West had been widely exposed to Chinese Martial arts and the term meant nothing to over 99% of the population. For the most part it was often known as Lefiti Kung Fu as he name was well known in the area so it sold on that basis - not the 'Kung Fu' aspect. His teaching and awesome skills are reported to have had quite an affect on Ed Parkers developing American Kempo and the Association of Martial Artists who eventually formulated the Lima Lama system.
In his lifetime Huame awarded seven black sash grades in Splashing Hands, however several of those individuals died and the others no longer practice the system. To our knowledge Master McNeil (my teacher) is the last teacher to know and teach the complete system.
Is it a complete system?
Yes it contains unique Kung development skills, short fighting patterns, slow and fast forms, sinew strengthening exercises, hard qigong methods, sensitivity drills/patterns and much more. It is based on very simple ideas yet opened out to become a very comprehensive, all encompassing, system. See syllabus
Why do you use the western term for the system? Why not the Chinese?
This is for several reasons. The first is that it is simply easier. Nowadays most practitioners are Western and the name has meaning to us in English. If I were practicing tiger style I would be more likely to refer to it as 'Tiger' then "Hu Chuan"
The other reason in that Splashing Hands translates as Zan Shou which is distinct from Henry Woos art of San Soo (different intonation) which was also taught in LA and distinct from the Chinese for San Shou ('Free fighting'). However without using the characters
(which most westerners cannot read, and are tricky to reproduce electronically) great confusion would ensue if we used the Pinyin (western Character translation). So it is simpler to use the Western; only this has become a double edged sword as people now tend to believe that we mistranslated the term. Some people think that a Chinese name validities a system, this is ridiculous as Chinese-English dictionaries have been around for some time!
As I have said several times, I am NOT necessarily saying that Doc is wrong. For all I know, he could be 100% right.
The point I am trying to make is that Doc and James McNeil cannot BOTH be right simultaneously. There are just too many direct contradictions.
It would be good to know who is right and also to understand where any untruths (if any) originated from.
"Splashing Hands was learn t by Huame Lefiti in Taiwan from a former General. "
Well, it's got to be one of these 3, just by pure logic:
Tiny's training in Taiwan was secret (at the time, although eventually he told it to McNeil and gave him permission to tell the whole world), so he just pretended for the benefit of the students at Wong's that "Splashing Hands" was something they just developed based on the Mok Gar they were doing at Ark Wong's, when really it was the Art of the Shaolin Temple Guards. Not the monks, who were deadly enough, but the Guards, who, I presume, were even _more_ badd a$$ than the monks.
Or, Tiny made up all THAT and told it to McNeil for some reason he wanted him to believe it.
Or McNeil made it up in order to make his style sound more legitimate and authentic.
It would be very hard to prove any of these
Well, it's got to be one of these 3, just by pure logic:
Tiny's training in Taiwan was secret (at the time, although eventually he told it to McNeil and gave him permission to tell the whole world), so he just pretended for the benefit of the students at Wong's that "Splashing Hands" was something they just developed based on the Mok Gar they were doing at Ark Wong's, when really it was the Art of the Shaolin Temple Guards. Not the monks, who were deadly enough, but the Guards, who, I presume, were even _more_ badd a$$ than the monks.
Or, Tiny made up all THAT and told it to McNeil for some reason he wanted him to believe it.
Or McNeil made it up in order to make his style sound more legitimate and authentic.
It would be very hard to prove any of these
Doc
Senior Master
Doc
Senior Master
Tiny didn't tell me anything.
However, Tiny's student, James McNeil, has written that Tiny learned Splashing Hands froma general in Taiwan and that the style originated with the Shaolin Temple guards in the 1700s.
Either he is right or you are right about the origin of Splashing Hands (and indeed its very existence as as style.)
Doc
Senior Master
You said, that he said, that he said, so you say, one of us must be wrong. I submit to argue such a definitive point from so vague a position is counter-productive and borders on fanaticism or cultism.
Some have given you a plausible explanation that avoids such a "if he is right, then he must be wrong" position that you have no rational reason to assume.
Be careful arguing the correctness of undocumented history of which you have no first person knowledge, especially when they occurred before you were born. You take the chance of soiling the integrity of many people who have more credibility in these matters than you do sitting on the sidelines of history, pointing fingers for your own reasons or agenda.
Or put another way, I was there and personally knew Sifu Lefiti and many of his students, met James McNeil, studied with Ark Wong, Ed Parker, and I still don't know or have a definitive answer, just personal memories of what was said and done through the filters of my own eyes and experience of the time. If I'm unwilling to take that stance, than you should be working on your art in quiet and hushed tones of humility, before we stop wondering about McNeil, and start looking at you.
