Some major problems with the Moh system

Some major problems with the Moh system
I am a former TKF, KFC, PHS student and I have the following to say: The foot-work is horrible. Sure, stances are great and all, but the way it was taught was a recipe for disaster. Way too static. Terrible for defence since the stances that are taught are way too committed. Sure, in sparring, they teach u to shorten the stances...but where is the bobbing, where is the weaving, where is the ducking???? No, you have to rely on the static stances to move. No way..the stances leave u way open to be taken down with either a shoot, single or double leg take down The blocks are WAY TOO committed. The sweeping palm block will work on one jab...but after that, ur wayyyy too open for another jab, or a cross. The high-rising block??? hehehe again, wayyy too committed. OHHHH how about the PHS block? Again, horrible for jabs....it's basically a one-hit block. The PHS block is horrible against any boxing punch....the PHS block is hard and somewhat quick..but very crappy against a jab...the jab is simply too fast. And when the PHS block is executed, the face and body is open for another jab or cross The kicks are ok.... The ground game is horrible ....any BJJ dude can rock a PHS guy..."breathe and lung 1,2,3" all you want...BJJ will destroy PHS guys. Heck, a wrestler could do the same....sure u may say "i would let a bjj guy go near me"....right.....all i can say is, jab, jab, cross, uppercut, roundhouse, and shoot--good luck blocking all that with a PHS block The workouts are ok... But overall, a PHS guy won't stand a chance against a BJJ guy, or a wresteler with "some" sort of striking ability. PHS is great against overly committed guys who don't know anything....so, maybe PHS is useful....but it's not gonna be any good in an MMA fight

"OHHHH how about the PHS block? Again, horrible for jabs....it's basically a one-hit block. The PHS block is horrible against any boxing punch....the PHS block is hard and somewhat quick..but very crappy against a jab...the jab is simply too fast. And when the PHS block is executed, the face and body is open for another jab or cross " I assume you are talking about the sweep with the high punch You couldn't have been in PHS long brother, because there is a lot more to it than that. What you say about ovecomitting is true for a beginner, but with a lot of application experience a good praticioner at TKF (or anywhere else) would know the difference. Can't say much about the footwork issue, I'm fairly young in my new style (Xingyi) and the footwork is as basic as it gets. I agree about the ground fighting though, What TKF teaches is mostly anti-rape amatuer stuff or vs untrained attakers, it's not for the ring versus a well trained BJJ student. But if two dudes faught on the street and didn't know the other guys style but were good at theirs (one BJJ & one PHS) it would all be about the first move. I wouldn't want to bet on that.

the PHS set-up, alone is full of holes. Not saying that there is a setup that is 100% protecting the body., but the setup is way too committed, even b4 a PHS guy is defending or attacking. On the street, a guy with any good MMA or MA experience would size up their opponent...testing him out first....but what TKF and PHS teaches is to "defend" right away, being wayyyy too committed....i'd put my money on any MMA guy agaist a TKF/PHS guy

This is one of the eternal arguements, My style is better than your style, his style is better then their style. I love it, that's what a forum is all about. I agree with you to a point. It really depends on the situation, the individual and the style. One vs one if the fight went on very long I probably vote for BJJ style too, but if the PHS guy was good and accurate, maybe not. 2 or more vs 1, I would vote for the well trained PHS guy to defend better than the BJJ guy. 2 BJJ vs 1 PHS would suck for PHS 2 PHS vs 1 BJJ would suck for BJJ So MMA would cover all the bases, but then would you have to train longer to become proficient in all the variations to be prepared for every situation? For some yes, for others no. There is so much more to this arguement. In the early years of UFC, BBJ ruled all, but now not as much. It really is more the man than the style. Train what you enjoy and what suits your personal goals and body type. That's my opinion. For what it's worth I don't think 2 PHS would ever attack one person. But would 2 BJJ attack a single opponent? That would depend on the individuals/ philosophy of their training...

it's not about whether bjj is better than PHS, it's about many other styles are more superior than PHS. The fact is that KFC/PHS is way too static. Even the training itself, is static. A Boxer (not even a MA style) can easily take out a KFC/PHS guy, and he would not need to take 7 years of training and $5000 to achieve an effective skill. A boxer's setup is compact, efficient and quick. PHS? u think about it. Even the footwork is polar opposite. Does TKF even teach how to faint? If u don't know what i am talking about....well, another reason why these forums exist, and your school no longer does

Again formerstudent I agree with you to a point, but you make it sound like what you learned at TKF has no benefit at all. You are right about the static training, but you could say the same about many traditional MA styles. Especially when learning the basics, that's all you do. Not sure when you started or left TKF but the 'sparring" elements taught there went through many transitions, some good/ some bad. Also a big problem with directives from "head office" was to not allow PHS to spar with non-PHS which was a huge mistake. The best sparrer I had the pleasure of being walked around by was Master Piercey, and when he was around the training was a lot different. Also your comment about a boxer easily taking out a KFC/PHS guy is crap. Unless you are talking from your OWN personal experience. YES an experienced PRO heavyweight boxer would be a tough match up for anyone, but joe boxer vs joe TKF student would be different. Don't confuse what I am saying... In the last decade or two TKF has catered a lot to the meak type of student, people who don't have a lot of "fire" in their belly, but a lot of desire to build it. The training brings it out of them to a point, some it really changes. A boxing club generally attracts a different type of student, people who want to throw a punch at someone and don't mind being punched, people who already have that "fire". In any fight that "Fighting instinct" is worth more than any training. So in that case your arguement would hold true. I'm talking about the other type of TKF student. Yes I do know how to faint. Most of the training before PHS is to defend a committed attack, and PHS was really about striking before the opponent did. Different philosophy than boxing...

"Also a big problem with directives from "head office" was to not allow PHS to spar with non-PHS which was a hug mistake." Old owners, old rules. Under current Alberta owners, PHS can and do attend sparring classes. BTW, the nature of sparring has also changed. The level of contact has been increased, especially between the more senior members. You can now do most things which were prohibited before, such as knees, elbows, locks, breaks, sweeps, tiger's tails, takedowns, flying techniques, etc. Really, anything goes now except eye strikes, as long as control is maintained. Furthermore, only strikes that will work are now acknowledged. So, if your strike has little power because it's over-extended or jammed or at a bad angle or you're moving back at the same time, it won't count. If the target is ineffective (e.g. hip, shoulder, abs, etc.) it won't count. If you are taken down, you keep fighting until someone strikes a finishing blow. This makes sparring way more realistic than it ever was, and way more realistic than the point sparring in most tournaments.

"I agree about the ground fighting though, What TKF teaches is mostly anti-rape amateur stuff or vs untrained attackers, it's not for the ring versus a well trained BJJ student." If TKF didn't do much grappling in the past, it's probably because most instructors didn't know much, which is the fault of the master responsible for teaching them, and not the style. The current instructor in the Edmonton studio is an expert wrestler/grappler, and teaches grappling defences on a regular basis. For example, in one class we had he taught us how to do the various common types of shoots, and then how to defend against them. The defences often involved throat strikes, neck breaks, etc., which he showed to be way more effective than the common grappling vs grappling approach which is taught in most other places. Another time he did the same thing with various types of hip tosses. Another time it was what to do from various positions on the ground, and how to escape from various grappling holds. Another time we had a week of sparring classes where all the attacks had to be grappling attacks. So, while I agree that very little grappling was done before, the fault was not with the style.

"The fact is that KFC/PHS is way too static." Static has many advantages as well: 1.) You're not wasting energy needlessly. 2.) Way less chance of tripping and falling, especially when it comes to applying the stuff on gravel and ice. 3.) You know very well all the strengths and vulnerabilities of your stance, so defending becomes so much easier. 4.) You spend most of your time in a solid stance rather than in a transition. If an attack comes suddenly and you're in a transition, your balance and power are compromised and your attacker runs you over. 5.) If you are constantly bobbing or weaving or whatever, you're actually way more predictable because a lot of those motions tend to be done with a fairly regular rhythm which your attacker can take advantage of. The worst is if you're jogging or hopping up and down, because then all the attacker needs to do is time it so that he engages you while you're in the air, where you're not able to evade and have no power on your strikes. BTW, TKF isn't completely static either. Remember the "no stance remains the same" theory in sparring?

"On the street, a guy with any good MMA or MA experience would size up their opponent...testing him out first....but what TKF and PHS teaches is to "defend" right away, being wayyyy too committed..." I know what you mean about "testing" the opponent. When I spar other students, we often throw out a couple of kicks or punches just to test how the opponent would respond, and then quickly disengage before committing or accomplishing anything. Often, we might spar for a minute or more without anybody scoring a point. On the other hand, when I spar one of the masters or third degree black belts, then as soon as I make a move they come in for the kill, and it's a wonder if I'm still on my feet a few seconds hence. If I try to disengage, they run me down. (And that's not just me, but everybody else in the studio as well.) Rather than being "wayyyy too committed", I find that they are "wayyyy more effective". Furthermore, testing them out by throwing a casual kick or punch at them often results in my leg or arm being "broken" or "destroyed".

"A Boxer (not even a MA style) can easily take out a KFC/PHS guy." I agree with grasshopper that this might happen because of the different type of people who train the one and the other, and also because boxers tend to train with more intensity and are way more used to giving and receiving hard punches. However, this is way different than saying that the TKF style doesn't teach how to effectively defend against boxers. In the new Edmonton studio, we have had skill classes geared specifically towards dealing with boxing style attacks. And even apart from that, a well aimed kick to the groin or knee, which a boxer has no experience dealing with, will very likely disable the boxer before he ever gets into punching range. If it ever came to a fight between a boxer and a TKF person, the outcome would probably depend more on the person than on the fighting style (which goes for any fight). However, everything else being identical (e.g. body build, amount of hours training, character and confidence, etc.) I would bet on the TKF person.

My $0.02
Okay, Boxer vs. TKF guy. I believe the boxer will win most every time. Here is why. Let's assume two guys of similar skill with equal time and dedication to each discipline. For the first 1-2 years the boxer gets my vote hands down. Simply because the boxer has less to learn. You spend a lot more time w/ the basics. Generally boxers work out more aggresivelly w/ the goal of doing as much sparring as possible. After the tkf guy has a couple of years under the belt (the more the better) he has a better chance because of the more diverse arsenal they may have, and a little time in to figure out how it works. I still believe tkf isn't optimal for sparring, bu tif you have cross-trained you can overcome limitations. J.K.

Good post TKFBS, we will continue this debate I'm sure... Liked most of your points Vortex too, except... "If TKF didn't do much grappling in the past, it's probably because most instructors didn't know much, which is the fault of the master responsible for teaching them, and not the style. The current instructor in the Edmonton studio is an expert wrestler/grappler, and teaches grappling defences on a regular basis." It was not the fault of the old masters. Ground work is/was a very weak aspect of Moh Kempo, there is just not much of it in the style. You learn some basic moves that if you perfected could get you out of most situations if you were fast, but vs. a trained ground fighter forget it. There are no arm bars/submissions or anything like that taught etc, it's not part of the style or GMS's 'philosophy". That is competition training, 1 on 1 stuff which goes against a lot of the TKF concepts (defend against multiple attackers etc.). Did you ever see the old TKF knowledge sheets - ground work is minimal. The only difference is if an individual TKF studio instructor had previous judo/ wrestling experience then they would teach that on their own, which is exactly what is happing now in Edmonton. The owner/chief there has a strong wrestling/judo backround, if the new TKF incorporates that into the general knowledge, teach it to all junior instrutors and make it part of the regular curriculam thats good for you... But don't blame past teachers for not teaching that, it was never part of the Moh system, and if your present instructors are telling you that it was the fault of past masters that this was never taught, then shame on them!

"Ground work is/was a very weak aspect of Moh Kempo..." The knowledge sheets are there to provide the "keys" to the system, but they in no way represent the entire system and what it offers. When we learn a new motion, we are shown a few of its applications, and are expected to come up with more ourselves. We can't possibly be shown all the applications because there are an infinite number them. Beyond a certain level, the style can't be spoon-fed to us. We have to explore it ourselves. I certainly agree with you that a wrestling/judo background would give a tremendous advantage when grappling. However, the stuff we have been shown is definitely not wrestling or judo. If the Edmonton chief tried any of it in a wrestling tournament, he would be kicked out within a few seconds. Furthermore, the defenses which he shows us are all motions from forms or out of the knowledge sheet. For example, in one of our black-belt clubs, we learned a "tiger playing with ball" application to defend against a shoot attack. Extremely effective. Did it come out of his wrestling? Of course not. Is it part of the Moh style? The motion comes right out of the knowledge sheets. The application is, I admit, a creative one, and easier to come up with if you do understand wrestling. However, it's still the Moh style applied. (I have even heard that GMS has received an honorary third degree in Judo. However, as I'm sure many of you will challenge its existence, and as I haven't seen it myself, I would prefer not to argue about it here, especially since it's not the right place on the forum to do so.) I guess what I meant about the masters is that by their level they should have "mastered" the system. Meaning, they should have explored it and worked with it enough to achieve a thorough understanding of how it can be applied against any type of attack. This includes grappling. (I doubt too many wrestlers or BJJ fighters would enjoy grappling with master Piercey!) If we didn't do much grappling in the past, it was either thought not important/wanted, or else the understanding of it somehow failed to come down the line. In any case, even though grappling hasn't been emphasized enough in the past, the style itself is certainly not at fault.

View Full Version: Some major problems with the Moh system