Splashing Hands

[Doc]

Let me be more clear: I am talking about the characteristic moves that you'll see if you watch one of James McNeil's classes or his videos.



Regardless of the whole "They're all the same" philosophy, there ARE certain characteristics that make styles easy to recognise.

You see someone doing bong sao, using a wooden dummy or doing siu lum tao, it's a pretty good guess that it's wing chun. You see someone with hand position resembling a praying mantis ... well it's probably because he's doing praying mantis style. You see someone walking the circle doing palm changes, probably baguazhang.


You can knock me down so that I'm looking up at you, but that still doesn't make Baguazhang the same as Xingyiquan, or Wing Chun the same as Choy Li Fut.

What are some of the things that I would call characteristics of Splashing Hands? well, these are the techniques or the ways of moving which I have only seen in that style.

Example are:
- Shuffling footwork
- Shuffles and drills inside a painted box on the floor
- Slapping the shoulder or side of body while the other hand strikes
- Practicing strikes with relaxed, open hands which look like you are shaking water off the hands.
- Stiff legged front kick
- Donkey kick
- The Browns
- The Advances
- The Sections
- Four Corners Form (and other forms)

These are some of the things I have never seen in any style except James McNeil's Splashing Hands, and it would be interesting to see if they are present in Mok Gar.

P.S.

And what if the characteristics you recognize are not in someone else's assessment of these arts? What if someone teaches Wing Chun without any of those things, because he chooses a different teaching method? What if the "Splashing Hands" I remember doesn't look like what McNeil is doing? Is it still Splashing Hands? What makes your definition gospel to anyone but you?

I understand the necessity for some to be married to styles for identity sake. But you miss my point. All of these "styles" evolve and change over time predicated on who teaches it, and their personal preferences. THEY think they're still doing Wing Chun, so who are any of us to tell them different? People older in the arts than I, (and I'm over 60) taught me its all the same, with philosophical exceptions of who teaches what. I'll stick with that, and continue to grow while others argue about style identities that won't improve their performance. At my age I don't have the energy for useless information, that will not help me physically.

 

[kal]

Here are some examples of the style that is today called Splashing Hands.

Here are the 10 Browns:

And here is the 4 Corners form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZqIiavozk&mode=related&search=

Notice how in the 4 conrners form, there is a lot of shuffling on the spot, where the upper body and spine do not really move, but the feet shuffle on the (imaginary!) axes of a cross on the ground.

And here is a description of the syllabus of the Splashing Hands style:
http://www.manchesterkungfu.com/syllabus/oldsyllabus.html

You can also see the cross and box painted on the floor.

It definitely looks like a style.

 

[kal]

What if someone teaches Wing Chun without any of those things

Then he's probably a fraud!
(Yes I'm aware that there are some non-Yip Man lineages of Wing Chun around such as nanyang or yuen kay sang , but trust me, none of the frauds I've seen were teaching anything connected to genuine Wing Chun.)

What if the "Splashing Hands" I remember doesn't look like what McNeil is doing?

That would definitely be interesting, and I certainly would like to understand where the differences came from.

What makes your definition gospel to anyone but you?

What the head/lineage holder of the system says.

All of these "styles" evolve and change over time predicated on who teaches it, and their personal preferences.

Yes I agree with you ... for example look how many different styles of taijiquan or even xingyichuan there now are.

But the thing is that I believe even when styles evolve or branch out, they still retain the core or essence of what made them what they were. call it the "operating system" if you like. No matter how much personal preferences a Bagua instructor has, I doubt his Bagua will ever evolve into Hung Gar.

 

[Doc]

Then he's probably a fraud!
(Yes I'm aware that there are some non-Yip Man lineages of Wing Chun around such as nanyang or yuen kay sang , but trust me, none of the frauds I've seen were teaching anything connected to genuine Wing Chun.)


That would definitely be interesting, and I certainly would like to understand where the differences came from.


What the head/lineage holder of the system says.



Yes I agree with you ... for example look how many different styles of taijiquan or even xingyichuan there now are.

But the thing is that I believe even when styles evolve or branch out, they still retain the core or essence of what made them what they were. call it the "operating system" if you like. No matter how much personal preferences a Bagua instructor has, I doubt his Bagua will ever evolve into Hung Gar.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, whatever you choose to base it on. But what it really comes down to is, "that's the way you feel." Some/many may feel different with more years, experience, and knowledge than you. Than what? I feel it isn't important in reality, you do. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has at least two, right & wrong.

 

[kal]

Ok, fair enough.

Back to the original topic, these links should illustrate what James McNeils style the he calls Splashing Hands looks like.

I would be interested to hear if any of these look like what you saw Tiny Lefiti doing.

Here are the 10 Browns:

And here is the 4 Corners form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLZqI...related&search=

Notice how in the 4 conrners form, there is a lot of shuffling on the spot, where the upper body and spine do not really move, but the feet shuffle on the (imaginary!) axes of a cross on the ground.

And here is a description of the syllabus of the Splashing Hands style:
http://www.manchesterkungfu.com/syll...dsyllabus.html

 

[Doc]

Ok, fair enough.

Back to the original topic, these links should illustrate what James McNeils style the he calls Splashing Hands looks like.

I would be interested to hear if any of these look like what you saw Tiny Lefiti doing.

Nope! Tiny looked like Ed Parker only bigger and faster. But that is only a point of reference for those that didn't know them both. Truth is, Parker looked like Tiny only smaller. Tiny was his senior.

 

[chris lomas]

Doc,
Thats certainly interesting as I have some footage of Huame doing some basics whilst teaching a class, as well as my Kung Fu brother Frankie Fick having searched out another Huame black Sash to compare the four corners, and as I have said Sifu McNeil has quite a bit of footage of him and his borthers doing the browns, advances short cross and combination, and they all seem similar in approach? Names are names, but differences are actualities which can be explained, perhaps you could help me out.
C (doing the browns) is only a learner (my student) as I presume is D, (the four corners) who learns under Langdon (my Kung Fu brother in Canada) both could do with more extension and waist mobility, and they are going fast (too fast) for the camera and therefore messing up a bit with the balnced and rooting, but the basic movements seem right to my understanding?
I understand what your saying about martial arts, I always hope to get to the point where I call myself a martial artist rather then 'a chinese stylist' or whatever, however I do not want to be accussed of misrepresenting Huame's approach so I would like to know differences...?
PS www.Manchesterkungfu.com is my website so any inaccuracies I would be especially interested in.
PPS I likes the Huame quote, anymore decent ones

*****Opps sorry you modified your post as I did mine and put more information down! However I would still be interested in a little more info*****

 

[kal]

Hello Doc,
I don't think I did a good job of explaining the characteristics of Splashing Hands and especially the shuffling on the cross.
This article I found does a much better job than I could:
http://littlenineheaven.com/gallery/1984/index.html

Another interesting point is that Grandmaster Chiao Chang Hung from Taiwan saw Splashing Hands being taught when he came to visit James McNeil's school in the UK and recognised it. He told James McNeil that he thought it was an extinct style and was surprised to see it being practiced in USA of all places!!! He then told him to look after the system.

 

[DavidCC]

PS www.Manchesterkungfu.com is my website so any inaccuracies I would be especially interested in.

I am curious how you can trace it back to the 1700s at the Shaolin temple, specifically the "Northern Shaolin Temple". If the "Splashing Hands" taught now is indeed a derivative of Mok Gar, (which clearly it is based on the posts from Doc and also from the histories at your website and others) how does that reconcile with Mok Gar being known as a "southern system"? Maybe my geography is bad, is the northern shaolin temple in southern china? It's a big place I suppose that could be possible.

thanks!
-david

 

[kal]

This "Mok Gar" thing is just a theory. It's not proven.

Lefiti's Splashing Hands teacher, a Nationalist General in Taiwan, told him that the art originated with the Shaolin Temple where it was used to train the temple guards and was kept as a secret or elite art.

 

[chris lomas]

Also the 'Northern' thing is a webmasters mistake (therefore my responsibility!) as I often say that although the style is southern its footwork (particularly in the later forms) is more Northern in appearance, this has been misinterpreted. This will be rectified as soon as the updated website is up (unfortunately the text is embedded in pictures so, aparrently, can't be simply changed).
Best
Chris

 

[DavidCC]

Thanks, kal, and Chris.

 

[kal]

I also found this more recent article which does clearly state that the Splashing Hands style is from the northern Shaolin Temple.

http://littlenineheaven.com/gallery/magazine articles 2003/index.html

It's a great article. Very informative.

I quote:

"Splashing Hands is truly a system of Shaolin origin. During the 1700s, it was developed and founded at the original Temple, which is located on the north summit of Shon Shanin Hunan province, China."

Doesn't say anything about Mok Gar.

 

[DavidCC]

LOL I've asked about what looks like some confused information on that guys web site, and in order to support what it says you point to a magazine article by the same guy. Just, from a logical perspective, that doesn't really help.

 

[Doc]

LOL I've asked about what looks like some confused information on that guys web site, and in order to support what it says you point to a magazine article by the same guy. Just, from a logical perspective, that doesn't really help.

My bugaboo is we're really discussing "names." What you call something is just not as important as some want it to be. I realize identities are tied up in these names, but if we spent as much time on trying to do what what we do well, as what we call it, we all might be better. Look at you Dave, you are in Shaolin, yet employ elements of SL-4. In your school I don't think they make a distinction. Something either works or doesn't. But the I can see the point for those "artisitic styles" where identity is important, as opposed to pragmatic self-defense styles where what works is the most important thing.

 

[kal]

LOL I've asked about what looks like some confused information on that guys web site, and in order to support what it says you point to a magazine article by the same guy. Just, from a logical perspective, that doesn't really help.

John Winnen has a website??????

 

[DavidCC]

I was referring to Winnen's quoting of McNeill...


And of course you remind us of the more important take on it all Doc... works or not works? that is the question.

 

[Doc]

I was referring to Winnen's quoting of McNeill...


And of course you remind us of the more important take on it all Doc... works or not works? that is the question.

Well historically in the Ark Wong, Kwai Sun Chow, Haumea Lefiti, Ed Parker lineage, this is what the Kenpo's, Combat Mok-Gar, Combat Limalama's/Splashing Hands, are supposed to be about. Ark Wong was a maverick traditionalist, in that he taught traditionally but he would share the information others would not. So he embraced a Tiny, or Ed parker, or even a young black kid, and taught us. But it took the original Chow, Tiny, and Parker to make a modern break in tradition to concentrate on functional self-defense. Much like the originators of the Mog-Gar off-shoot scrapped the cultural acoutrements in favor of pure fighting skills. No meditation, just how to fight effectively. Studying with Ark Wong taught me much, but it was Ed Parker who brought it into focus I could understand and apply. Parker opened up that information for me, defined its application, and made it make sense to me outside of its purposely schrouded historical context.

 

[Flying Crane]

My bugaboo is we're really discussing "names."...

Keep in mind, folks, that often several separate, distinct systems ended up with the same name in the Chinese arts.

Just for starters, I can list off Tibetan White Crane, Fukien White Crane, and White Crane of Omei, all of which share a similar name but are completely different from each other. They have a different history, different development, and different technical approach. I suspect that the originators of these arts focused on different aspects of the animal, developed their techniques on those aspects, and gave it a name that happened to be similar to other methods even tho the arts themselves are not related.

I suspect something similar of Northern Preying Mantis and Southern Preying Mantis. They are not simply variations of the same art. They are separate and distinct and do not share a history.

It's entirely possible that there was something known as "Splashing Hands" that comes from the Northern Shaolin Temple around the 1700s, and that could be entirely different from what Doc is referring to that was taught by Ark Wong and Mr. Lefiti, which sounds like it was never really a concrete name of a system but rather a description of what was happening.

Just wanted to add perspective, as some might be comparing apples to oranges...

 

[Doc]

Keep in mind, folks, that often several separate, distinct systems ended up with the same name in the Chinese arts.

Just for starters, I can list off Tibetan White Crane, Fukien White Crane, and White Crane of Omei, all of which share a similar name but are completely different from each other. They have a different history, different development, and different technical approach. I suspect that the originators of these arts focused on different aspects of the animal, developed their techniques on those aspects, and gave it a name that happened to be similar to other methods even tho the arts themselves are not related.

I suspect something similar of Northern Preying Mantis and Southern Preying Mantis. They are not simply variations of the same art. They are separate and distinct and do not share a history.

It's entirely possible that there was something known as "Splashing Hands" that comes from the Northern Shaolin Temple around the 1700s, and that could be entirely different from what Doc is referring to that was taught by Ark Wong and Mr. Lefiti, which sounds like it was never really a concrete name of a system but rather a description of what was happening.

Just wanted to add perspective, as some might be comparing apples to oranges...

Yeah much like we all know that all "kenpo" with the same name is the same isn't it?