Splashing Hands

[Flying Crane]

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

Aye, and the Mitose/Chow/Parker rooted kenpo variations are not the only arts that use the name. How about Okinawan Kempo and Shorinji Kempo for starters? I think you'd have to look pretty hard to find a concrete link between these, yet there's that pesky word again, makes one think they are all the same thing...

 

[kal]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain which parts of Splashing Hands look like Mok Gar.

Does anything in any of the video clips or articles I posted resemble Mok Gar?

 

[Doc]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain which parts of Splashing Hands look like Mok Gar.

Does anything in any of the video clips or articles I posted resemble Mok Gar?

All of the punches, kicks, strikes and footwork, and none of the punches, kicks, strikes, and footwork.

I remember sitting on a Kata Panel at a traditional Karate-do tournament. One of the participants announced a Shotokan form. He was grade poorly by one of the judges. I later asked him why, and he said his punches looked more Kyokushikai than Shotokan. Please! Why are we trying to pick fly sh**t out of pepper?

Let's see now. You want us to compare similarities to 1; and art admittedly that may have the same name but be entirely different depending upon family branch and teachers. And 2; compare that to an art that admittedly has a nebulous origin, and in fact may not be an actual style at all but, simply a slang term for a derivitive of a style that had no real paramters, that turned out to not actually be that style at all, taught by someone who ultimately changed its name at least twice, to another name and style. All of this on top of the muddied origin and characteristics of ancient arts in general.

Clearly the so-called differences between arts and their names is important to you. It would appear it is not as important to others. My lineage is one of pragmatism. I think in modern terms, there are those that study a martial art for artistic sake, and those that study for practicallty. I'm from the practical school, and don't find these discussion, once they get to a certain point, productive. That is why I haven't answered, but perhaps others will engage you in what I feel is a discussion that has run its course. I hope you find whatever you're looking for sir.

 

[kal]

Let's see now. You want us to compare similarities to 1; and art admittedly that may have the same name but be entirely different depending upon family branch and teachers. And 2; compare that to an art that admittedly has a nebulous origin, and in fact may not be an actual style at all but, simply a slang term for a derivitive of a style that had no real paramters, that turned out to not actually be that style at all, taught by someone who ultimately changed its name at least twice, to another name and style.

Well, yes!

I'm not the one who said that it was Mok Gar. The person who identified it as Mok Gar is the one that needs to explain how and why he came to that conclusion.

If it's as hard to compare similarities as you say, then how did someone come up with the idea that it was Mok Gar in the first place?

All of this on top of the muddied origin and characteristics of ancient arts in general.

We're not really talking about ancient history here. We're talking about a person (Lefiti) who was alive and teaching only 40 years ago. So if he really created his Splashing Hands out of Mok Gar it should be easy to verify.

Clearly the so-called differences between arts and their names is important to you. It would appear it is not as important to others. My lineage is one of pragmatism. I think in modern terms, there are those that study a martial art for artistic sake, and those that study for practicallty. I'm from the practical school, and don't find these discussion, once they get to a certain point, productive. That is why I haven't answered, but perhaps others will engage you in what I feel is a discussion that has run its course. I hope you find whatever you're looking for sir.

Pragmatism is one thing.

But there is also the question of integrity and honesty here. You see, when the origin of Splashing Hands and its existence as a style is being questioned, by extension that means that the honesty of either James McNeil or Tiny Lefiti is also being questioned.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It may be that you are quite right that Splashing Hands never existed. But what I am trying to say is that the answer to the question is important for some people because of the honesty issue.

 

[Doc]

Well, yes!

I'm not the one who said that it was Mok Gar. The person who identified it as Mok Gar is the one that needs to explain how and why he came to that conclusion.

If it's as hard to compare similarities as you say, then how did someone come up with the idea that it was Mok Gar in the first place?



We're not really talking about ancient history here. We're talking about a person (Lefiti) who was alive and teaching only 40 years ago. So if he really created his Splashing Hands out of Mok Gar it should be easy to verify.



Pragmatism is one thing.

But there is also the question of integrity and honesty here. You see, when the origin of Splashing Hands and its existence as a style is being questioned, by extension that means that the honesty of either James McNeil or Tiny Lefiti is also being questioned.

I'm not saying you are wrong. It may be that you are quite right that Splashing Hands never existed. But what I am trying to say is that the answer to the question is important for some people because of the honesty issue.

Consider that people represent things as they understand them. In the Ed Parker Kenpo lineage(s) you can talk to 10 of his first generation students on almost any topic and get 10 different answers. None of them are necessarily wrong or dishonest, but are expressing views as they understand what was presented to them through the filters of their own experiences.

Having been in the arts just over 50 years has led me to a point where much of what people have to say about their history is irrelevant. It doesn't take long to determine the validity of their background and the efficacy of their ability.

Bruce Lee was essentially a legitimate couple years student having began his training at 15/16 and arrived in America in the Pacific Northwest at the are of 19 as his own master. Not being knowledgeble, but physically gifted, he continued to learn from everyone he came in contact with. At the tender age of 24 he was giving demos and wowing the traditionalist at Parker's 1st tournament, and few challenged his capabilities. On paper, Lee should have been a bust. In reality he was impressive if not yet knowledgeable.

My point is in the combat arts, honesty is determined by skill and knowledge, not by certificates or lineages. I know people with legitimate exposure to Ed Parker teaching, with genuine rank certificates, and on paper are "honest" to their lineage. In reality, they are awful as martial artists. Unless you're entering into a business contract, I'd take the "honesty" a person shows me on the training floor over "honesty" on the wall any day. Its the nature of the arts. If "paper honesty" is your only barometer, you might miss some really good opportunities to expand on your only knowldge and ability.

There is no such thing as pure ... when pure knuckles meet pure flesh, that's as pure as it gets. - Ed Parker

Notice he didn't mention the name of a style or its origin. Life's short - study and train while you can, argue about names and their origin later. But then, that's an old man perspective. If you want to be a history student of the arts, just do that and leave the fighting to the "pure." That was Sifu's perspective and so it was Ed Parker's. Perhaps that is the true origin of what you seek. It didn't matter as much to those who came before you, as it does to you. Maybe you should take their lead.

"That's my take, but then I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

 

[kal]

Consider that people represent things as they understand them. In the Ed Parker Kenpo lineage(s) you can talk to 10 of his first generation students on almost any topic and get 10 different answers. None of them are necessarily wrong or dishonest, but are expressing views as they understand what was presented to them through the filters of their own experiences.

Doc, I see what you are saying, but I think that in this case things are different. It's not a matter of interpretation or filters ... either Lefiti learned SH from General Wong in Taiwan or he didn't. I don't see where there is room for filters.

My point is in the combat arts, honesty is determined by skill and knowledge, not by certificates or lineages. I know people with legitimate exposure to Ed Parker teaching, with genuine rank certificates, and on paper are "honest" to their lineage. In reality, they are awful as martial artists. Unless you're entering into a business contract, I'd take the "honesty" a person shows me on the training floor over "honesty" on the wall any day.

Once again I see what you are saying. But let me ask, where do you draw the line? What about frauds like Shaolin-Do or Ashida Kim? If they are good teachers does that mean people should overlook the fact that they're fakes and lied about their backgrounds?

 

[Doc]

Doc, I see what you are saying, but I think that in this case things are different. It's not a matter of interpretation or filters ... either Lefiti learned SH from General Wong in Taiwan or he didn't. I don't see where there is room for filters.

No you don't. Because I knew Sifu, and his abilities, I could care less. Clearly he knew something when he showed up to Ark Wong's because Sifu Wong accepted him at an advanced level. What it was or where he learned it has no impact on me whatsoever.

Once again I see what you are saying. But let me ask, where do you draw the line? What about frauds like Shaolin-Do or Ashida Kim? If they are good teachers does that mean people should overlook the fact that they're fakes and lied about their backgrounds?

I don't draw a line, people like you do. There has always been and always will be frauds in the arts. There is nothing you can do about it. We have a plethora of them in kenpo, a few calling themselves "succesor and Grandmaster." Got an email from an old friend Grandmaster Sifu Doo Wei today who is experiencing the same thing with people using his name and lineage.

There is nothing you can do about it. Credibility begins and ends with the individual. Some will embrace the frauds, some won't. Either way, it will show up in the end. I remember at Mr. Parker's 1st International Tournament. He invited someone who was considered to be one of the biggest frauds of the time. This guy had wrote books as an expert on just about every art, and therefore had pissed everyone off really good. The "legitimate" guys were outraged at Parker for inviting him. "How could you?" they all asked. "This guy is a fraud and you know it." Parker told them, "Yes this guy may be a fraud but he has a considerable following. And, how is anybody going to know the difference if they don't have anyone to compare him to? He's here and so are his followers. Now, go show people how good you are compared to him."

Either you can get all worked up over something you can't do anything about, or you can get better and smarter at what YOU do. It's a choice. I made my choice a long time ago.

-30-

 

[kal]

What it was or where he learned it has no impact on me whatsoever.

Ok, let me put it a different way.

Let's say (hypothetically) that some people arrive here from China and announce that they knew Ark Y Wong from China and they say that they never ever remembered him learning any form of kung fu in China. They say that he invented the whole Ng Ga Kuen system while he was in America, and then fabricated a story about having learned it in China.

Wouldn't you, as a student of his, feel the slightest bit curious to know if this was true or not?

You are right that it's not going to affect your ability. I agree with you totally. But you mean you wouldn't feel just a bit curious or interested to know what the story behind it was?

 

[beknar]

Here's something I thought about a while back. If the system is as effective as one thinks it is, if it really is as awesome and the training will make you a Certified Bad-***, why lie about it?

If there was one lie told about it, could there be others? Could the effectiveness of the system also be in question? What about the training methods of the teacher? Does that explain why the teacher never spars with his students? Maybe it explains why the school NEVER goes to competitions or why they never ever fight other schools of the more 'traditional' brand.

There might be something to the old saying 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

 

[Doc]

Here's something I thought about a while back. If the system is as effective as one thinks it is, if it really is as awesome and the training will make you a Certified Bad-***, why lie about it?

If there was one lie told about it, could there be others? Could the effectiveness of the system also be in question? What about the training methods of the teacher? Does that explain why the teacher never spars with his students? Maybe it explains why the school NEVER goes to competitions or why they never ever fight other schools of the more 'traditional' brand.

There might be something to the old saying 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

Sparring? Competition? None of the old masters believed in either. Both are modern products, and have never been indicative of any system except those created for that purpose. If that is where you are, then what you're studying is suspect in the tradition.

 

[beknar]

Sparring? Competition? None of the old masters believed in either. Both are modern products, and have never been indicative of any system except those created for that purpose. If that is where you are, then what you're studying is suspect in the tradition.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Doc]

You're kidding, right?

Funny, I thought you were. But then I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

 

[kal]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Chiao Chang Hung recognised Splashing Hands if it was not a style???

He saw it being trained in USA and expressed surprise because he recognised it from Taiwan, but thought that it had died out.

So if it really was not a style, how do you explain GM Chiao recognising it?

 

[kal]

Still waiting ...

Isn't it funny how people are happy to go around saying that Splashing Hands was not a style (i.e. implying that Tiny Lefiti or James McNeil are frauds), but then have no answer when presented with a fact like Chiao Chang Hung recognising the system.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sparring? Competition? None of the old masters believed in either. Both are modern products, and have never been indicative of any system except those created for that purpose. If that is where you are, then what you're studying is suspect in the tradition.

I believe DOC is absolutely correct in this.

Old China certainly had it's share of challenge matches and whatnot, but they had very little in common with today's tournaments and sloppy flailing competition style sparring that so many people seem to think is the grand pinnacle of martial arts training. Back in old China, a challenge match often meant the loser was either maimed for life or outright killed, and his school was closed permanently in disgrace. His students might become students of the winner. In short, the fighting that went on in these challenges was absolutely for real, and the consequences were also. It was not a game. And I am sure none of them ever even thought about winning a plastic trophy painted to look like gold...

But for most people, they never took part in these matches. They simply practiced their art with the purpose of having an effective method of defending themselves from the local criminal element. This was also often life-and-death serious.

 

[Flying Crane]

Here's something I thought about a while back. If the system is as effective as one thinks it is, if it really is as awesome and the training will make you a Certified Bad-***, why lie about it?

Time for another check on perspective.

Chinese martial arts in particular are sort of interesting for the oral history that they pass on. If you look at the traditions passed down in various of the arts, they make for some pretty impressive claims, so far as legacy and lineage and events go.

But I think much of this oral history is subject to being taken with a grain of salt. Seems like everyone wants to link the origins of their art to either a famous person or a mystic of some kind. They all trace their roots to the Shaolin Temple, or a famous General from 1000 years ago, or a wandering and mysterious daoist monk who appeared out of the mists to pass on his knowledge before disappearing again, never to be seen. And nobody thought to get his name before he went...

Nobody wants to consider the possibility that their art was actually developed by the local butcher. Or the trash collector. Or the tax collector. Or a simple soldier in the army. The fact that the art is very effective should be enough, but often that is not the case. So they make up these stories that really cannot be verified or disproved, and it lends a certain mystical respect to their art. And once these stories have been passed on for a few generations, it becomes "truth".

In short, people have reasons for lying. The funny thing is tho, that doesn't exactly make it untrue either. Again, it's just a matter of perspective.

So give this some thought, and think about all the fantastic stories you have heard over the years. It might add perspective to some things...

 

[Doc]

Still waiting ...

Isn't it funny how people are happy to go around saying that Splashing Hands was not a style (i.e. implying that Tiny Lefiti or James McNeil are frauds), but then have no answer when presented with a fact like Chiao Chang Hung recognising the system.

Don't know McNeil. Did know Lefiti. Any implication that I suggested he was a fraud would be a serious stretch and damages the little bit of credibility you had left. Now you have none. McNeil I don't know one way or another, and don't care. He doesn't teach me.

Isn't it funny how people like to treat things they HEARD as facts that favor their postition? Didn't know you were such good friends with Chiao Chang Hung, and that he told you personally he "recognized the system."

Up to this point I've been rather benign in this discussion, stating my positions clearly without casting aspersions at, or on anyone and leaving you to your own delusions and predilictions of preference and beliefs. I ignored you because no matter how many ways you ask the question, the answer is not going to favor your position. You however, continue to want to force your position on others, and appear to not be satisfied with answers and want to restate questions over and over until you get the answer you want, that's fine. I have grand children who do the same. But now that you've drifted into inferring that I've said something I haven't about someone whom I've had great respect, you have placed yourself squarely in the kook camp of credibility. Now, that is probably as important to you, as the convoluted history of a bunch of splinter-off-shoot-interpretations-and personal preferences- arts are to me. If you want to prove the credibility of your teacher, (and I say your because I already know of the others, only YOURS is in question), do so on the training floor by being credible. If you can't do that, then the rest doesn't matter in my opinion. If that's not your preference, then the next time you're confronted physically, recite your teachers history and lineage, and badger the guy until he agrees with you that your teacher is one hell of a swell guy.

 

[kal]

But now that you've drifted into inferring that I've said something I haven't about someone whom I've had great respect, you have placed yourself squarely in the kook camp of credibility.

LOL!

First of all I wasn't only referring to you. I am referring to all those people out there that keep on claiming that Splashing Hands isn't a genuine style and state that it is actually Mok Gar or Lima Lama or Hawaiian Lua or Prof Chow Kempo or god knows what. The theories just never stop coming ...

But when you actually ask these people (not just you) to explain and back up their hypotheses then they never do.

And no, you never actually directly explicitly said that Tiny Lefiti was a fraud. But when you say that Splashing Hands was never a real style then that contradicts what Lefiti said. And by extension, that would mean he was lying.

Did know Lefiti. Any implication that I suggested he was a fraud would be a serious stretch

Remember, he said that he learned the style in Taiwan from a KMT general. You can't BOTH be right!

Either Lefiti was telling the truth, in which case you are wrong, or Lefiti was lying, in which case you are right.

There is a name (Zan shou quan) and Chinese characters for the system, as well as a history dating to the Shaolin Temple guards. If you are right about Splashing Hands not being a style, then this would mean the name, Chinese characters and the history were all fabricated by someone, yes or no?

Finally, please stop bringing the whole "prove it on the training floor" story into it. This is a strawman -- nobody's physical ability is being discussed here.

 

[Doc]

But when you say that Splashing Hands was never a real style then that contradicts what Lefiti said. And by extension, that would mean he was lying.

I didn't know you knew "Tiny," or are you using "hearsay" again?

Finally, please stop bringing the whole "prove it on the training floor" story into it. This is a strawman -- nobody's physical ability is being discussed here.

You still misunderstand. I'm not questioning anyones ability or knowledge at all. I just think energy is better spent on the things that really matter in what the "martial" arts are all about. Thanks for your civility. I appreciate it.

 

[Flying Crane]

LOL!

There is a name (Zan shou quan) and Chinese characters for the system, as well as a history dating to the Shaolin Temple guards. If you are right about Splashing Hands not being a style, then this would mean the name, Chinese characters and the history were all fabricated by someone, yes or no?

Going back to my post earlier post, Shaolin Temple Guards, as well as Imperial Guards is another common story in the history of many arts. Sounds impressive, don't it? That's why they like to work that into their history somewhere...

I dunno anything about splashing hands or mok gar, or lima lima or lua or Mr. Lefiti or any of the other things being tossed around here. But I have tried to give some perspective in a couple of posts, I suggest you go back and re-read them and give them some contemplation. you might start to see the bigger picture.

You may be truly practicing something known as "Splashing Hands", and it may have nothing to do with Mr. Chapel or Mr. Lafiti or any of the others. I don't think you are gonna sway anyone here one way or the other, and it really doesn't matter 'cause at some point you are just trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. Maybe it's time to let it go.