"Vortexx, if a strike were to hit me in the chest/belly, I would. 1. try to absorb the force of the blow by directing it down my spine and spiralling it down my hips into my legs and into the ground, a very difficult thing, higher skill then I possess." No offence, but to me that sounds like some of the mysticism from an old Chinese movie. I'm not saying that there isn't some 80 year old Chi Gong grand master that might actually be able to do this, but you or me? If I were you I would be very sceptical of this approach. "2. try to absorb a fraction of the blow, allowing it to turn my waist in the direction of the incoming force and at the same time allowing the bulk of the force to " fall into emptiness", also very difficult." At TKF we often use a body turn to remove the target and turn a straight-on strike into a glancing blow. However, this must be done BEFORE the strike makes impact. If it has already hit you, it is too late. The hand moves much faster than your body. Between the time that the strike makes impact and the time that you have a broken rib or bruised organ, there won't even be enough time for you to think of turning your body, let alone doing it. And even if you're fast enough, a body turn may not always save you, depending on the target, angle of the strike, and your initial body position. As you pointed out, both approaches are very difficult (and I would say almost impossible) to do. On the other hand, locking in the breath is very simple, and a matter of a fraction of a second. It is also very effective, as I personally experience during every Kung Fu class. "It also depends very much on who is hitting me!" When you suddenly get into a fight, your muscle memory is going to kick in, and you won't get a chance to adjust your approach depending on who you're fighting. You should always train as if you're getting hit by a powerful opponent in a solid stance with the full force of his arm and body directed straight at you.

"I'm glad you see my point. Now apply it to many styles of Kung Fu not just wrestling." Ahh, now here's where the problem comes in. One style teaches you to keep your hips locked, another teaches you to keep them open. One teaches you to keep your arm slightly bent, another teaches you to straighten it. One teaches you to lock in your breath, another teaches you not to. One teaches high stances, another teaches low stances. One teaches not to move without a reason, another teaches to move all the time. One teaches you to always maintain good body structure, another teaches you to bob and weave... These are just some of the differences in styles that have been discussed on this thread. There are many many more which have not been mentioned. When you train two styles with such contradictory approaches, you have two choices: 1.) Keep them separate. This is very hard to do, since you're developing muscle memory in contrary ways, and will have to consciously keep on thinking which way you should be doing things depending on the style you're trying to apply at the moment. 2.) Try to combine the styles. Again, this is very difficult because of the internal consistency of each style which you compromise by introducing elements not designed to work within that framework (I discussed this at length in an earlier post). North, if you personally succeed in mixing styles because of the experience and time you possess, then congratulations to you. But the majority of people will end up with a mish-mash as they try to resolve the various contradictory approaches which are not meant to be resolved. Hence, I think that most people would do much better to pick a good style and stick to it.

"Yes the stances transfer but the movements are too sublte and the distance travelled is not enough." TKF forms do have stepping, and if you can step once, you can step several times to travel a greater distance. Besides, a major principle of the Moh system is "least effort for maximum result". Excessive movement is a waste of energy. If your attacker is too far away to engage, then you have nothing to worry about; let him come to you. If your attacker is upon you, then deal with him right there rather than running away from him. Since you're more vulnerable in a transition than in a stance, every time you move you create an opportunity for your attacker. Furthermore, traveling large distances continuously may be OK in the studio or an open field, but try applying it on loose gravel and ice, with curbs and other obstacles in your way, while you're wearing tight jeans and bulky footwear.

"What looks flashy to you in many cases is not gymnastics but is practical Kung Fu." Yes, some of it might work, but it won't be the most effective way of doing it. TKF has cut the fluff out of traditional Kung Fu, leaving only what is most efficient. If trained properly, there are no wasted motions. Every single inch of movement has a specific purpose. Once again, I wouldn't want to try applying the acrobatics on loose gravel, ice, curbs, etc.

"Sticky hands does have the sense of touch and snaking arm motions that chi sao or push hands uses but it's like comparing addition to multiplication." A lot more snake-style applications are being taught now than ever in the past.

"Some brutal weaknessess of Moh? -Skilled grapplers. (Granted Edmonton students may take advantage of Swanstroms previous training when he teaches them)" As I demonstrated at length in an earlier post, Swanstrom is applying the Moh style against grappling attacks. His previous training helps him come up with the grappling-related applications, but the applications themselves are still directly out of forms or other parts of the Moh system. Therefore, the weakness is not in the style itself. "more practical weakness? The point sparring only with no after point developes a habit of not continually striking" As I specifically stated in an earlier post, we now only acknowledge points after a finishing blow or series of blows has been landed. In other words, we don't stop until the opponent becomes totally incapable of hurting us, and there's no possible after-point to speak of. Strikes that do not land on vital targets or land with insufficient power or wrong angle are not acknowledged. "A larger weakness compared to other styles? If a Wing Chun stylist gets into your half distance range you are going to be in trouble. Moh does not prepare students properly for free flow fighting at that distance." We practice half-distance techniques and sparring all the time. I don't see what's improper about our preparation. On the other hand, Wing Chun practitioners are not prepared to deal with powerful direct assaults, which drive through them rather than remaining uncommitted and maintaining a constant distance.

"TKF is like a very average, antiquated elementary school with less half the courses of other schools and the masters/ students spend their enitre life trying to perfect grade 1-8 knowledge, all the time refusing to believe university/ Phd degrees and courses are wrong and have nothing to offer..." Actually, you have it backwards. Switching styles is like attending elementary school over and over again for each style. Sure you may pick up something useful the second or third time around that you've missed before, but you'll still be nothing but an elementary-level student. If you want that university degree, you have to pick a good school and stick with it for a couple of decades.

What you think is of little interest to me Vortexx, I can see your background and your future has 2 possibilities. 1. You come to the realization that you have been mislead and leave temple 2. You continue to live in your bubble! You were right about the muscle memory stuff though. I predict that you will hold your breath and tense up for years to come, a very bad habit! That muscle memory takes a long time to correct!

Why does this guy insist on posting over and over and over again...? Am I the only one who finds it annoying? I suspect if this were the old forum those posts would all have different names attached...and maybe a couple of posts agreeing with himself thrown in for good measure... How hard is it to contain your thoughts in one post?!? :roll:

"Why does this guy insist on posting over and over and over again...? Am I the only one who finds it annoying? I suspect if this were the old forum those posts would all have different names attached...and maybe a couple of posts agreeing with himself thrown in for good measure... " Agreed :idea: Though to be fair in the last few months it was more the anti-TKF tribe on the old forum that seemed to agree with themselves...

He is answering alot of questions from alot of different people. Vortexx try opening a second window while viewing the forum then you can cut and paste to form a single message. I know you likely want your liittle messageboard rank to grow to black belt or whatever but your methods are basically cheating. As to would I punch with my arm locked out? No, never. Even my hammerfists end with a subtle bend that allows me to use strength to aid to the defence against arm breaks and not just the structure of my arm. Anyhow, first off this is important: Wing Chun practitioners are not prepared to deal with powerful direct assaults, which drive through them rather than remaining uncommitted and maintaining a constant distance. You seem to not know Wing Chun at all based on that statement. Direct frontal attacks are the very focus of the entire Wing Chun Style. That is what students of Wing Chun do and defend BEST against. Protect the centerline, attack the opponants. Ahh, now here's where the problem comes in. One style teaches you to keep your hips locked, another teaches you to keep them open. One teaches you to keep your arm slightly bent, another teaches you to straighten it. One teaches you to lock in your breath, another teaches you not to. One teaches high stances, another teaches low stances. One teaches not to move without a reason, another teaches to move all the time. One teaches you to always maintain good body structure, another teaches you to bob and weave... These are just some of the differences in styles that have been discussed on this thread. There are many many more which have not been mentioned. Your two options presented show a limmited way of thinking of the art. So long as you do not harm yourself (Locking out elbows / tennis elbow) you can train everything. By doing so you stop having a single style. You can adapt, change or even invent on the spot during sparring or fighting. You have tried so many different things to understand what you are learning that you can adapt to any situation without surprise and yet with something effective as it has been tested. These most effectinve techniques are not drawn from a single style and a single way of thinking but from many styles with larger infuences and testing pools. Styles that have millions of students testing worldwide instead of small pockets scattered (now) few and far between. Even at it's peek TKF had at most 4-5000 students if you count every school. If every school of Kung Fu is like a science lab working on perfecting the science of hand to hand combat and body developement, then TKF is a small and not well respected lab. Business aside judging only the style the overwhelming response is that it is not liked. TKF claims to have trained hundreds of thousands of students, and I believe it, however the amount of students that quit is a number above and beyond what other schools are losing, and many, almost every dedicated student or instructor who leaves TKF later informs the public that other styles are better. Some of us are very polite and say TKF isn't horrible stuff, but trust me other Kung Fu is better. Already you are making changes to your structure so you are apparently listening to us. As for stance transfers. Yes, Position Play While Fighting. You remember it. The environment in general is going to afford similar pros and cons to both attacker and defender. The theory is still worth consideration from time to time but rather than just saying your style teaches you the best way to deal with these things actually spend more time considering them and practice with this in mind. Kick a bag with your shoes on. What? You cannot hit with the ball of the foot because your shoes are too stiff? Well what ever shall you do? I know! Strike with the toes! But wait... you don't do that in training, your foot isn't conditioned to strike that way. So suddenly you whip out a front kick with enough force to destroy your underdeveloped ankle and unconditioned toes. I know, you would likely say something like "We would never do that, we would use our heel." But in reality you are trained to use front kicks. Toe kicks are great, but you have to train them over years to be able to use them properly. I think the best comment to describe TKF so far on this forum was that it is like masters of the 8th grade in school. You guys know everything there is to know about grade 8, you could teach it well! But there is grade 9-12 and University that you guys are just pretending is "Alternate" not something you should be advancing into. Look at the knowledge sheets and the teaching you guys use. How many years before a student is giving full consideration to some concepts that would make them develope into far better martial artists? How come the training had to be slowed down to the point where students got a private lesson sometimes months apart? Sadly at a private lesson (Or new knowledge lesson) a week which is what a student is capable of learning at in a good school, the entire TKF system could be learned in 1 year with equal skill to TKF brown belts. Anyhow, go take a look at the content "fluff" as you call it that was cut out of your style as you claim. Personally I think it was forgotten or never learned, but believe what you will. I have been where you are now. Nobody wants to think their time has been wasted or their product is inferior. But an open mind leads to a greater martial artist and possibly one day a greater school. Overcoming it's poor reputation is going to be hard though. It does sound like the sparring and stick hand training has become alot better for conditioning a student. That is good to hear. I hope it's true. You have already found flaws in your stlye that needed to be overcome, doesn't it stand to reason there could be more? Actually, you have it backwards. Switching styles is like attending elementary school over and over again for each style. Sure you may pick up something useful the second or third time around that you've missed before, but you'll still be nothing but an elementary-level student. If you want that university degree, you have to pick a good school and stick with it for a couple of decades. That is simply not true. A good teacher who doesn't keep secrets that require red jackets to learn will see your skill and teach you at the rate you are capable of learing at. If you did 10 years consitantly at TKF then you should be able to absorb another style much much faster. Any teacher that holds you back is not one you wish to train with. It is like going to a school where the teacher knows Grade 8 also, but wants to test you to see how well you know it and if there are any differences you should consider. (See above your list of contradictions) Train everything and seek an even greater understanding is my advice. Anyhow this new teacher who also knows grade 8, knows 9-10 and say 11. Others know all of that and even 12. Some are so knowledgeable in such diverse styles that they represent university courses. That is how education truly works best, and Kung Fu is no different. Just trust us. We are not asking you for money, we, as your brothers are trying to help you along, even if some have harsh personalities in how they try to inform you.

"Why does this guy insist on posting over and over and over again...? Am I the only one who finds it annoying?" The reason you find it annoying is because you don't agree with what I'm saying. You wanted a balanced discussion, now you have one. I'm simply responding to all the style issues brought up by other people. With maybe one or two exceptions, my posts are all direct replies to other people's comments. "I suspect if this were the old forum those posts would all have different names attached...and maybe a couple of posts agreeing with himself thrown in for good measure..." For the record, I never posted anything on any of the other TKF forums. "How hard is it to contain your thoughts in one post?!?" Many of my posts tend to have quite a bit of substance to them and to be quite lengthy. If I put everything into one humongous post, it would be very hard to read. By separating my comments into different posts, usually by the points they address or the people I'm replying to, I maintain at least some kind of organization and readability. As I apologized earlier, I often don't get the opportunity to reply to posts as they come up, so that when I do get the opportunity, I reply to everybody all at once. That's why my posts tend to be grouped together as opposed to following the individual posts they address.

I do believe you may have been writing your last message at the time I posted my last message and thus you possibly missed it. If you look back you should find it. "Many of my posts tend to have quite a bit of substance to them and to be quite lengthy." Indeed I am enjoying the discussion, I don't find you at all annoying. I honestly suspect I know who you are. I understand why you make the claims you do and responses you make because I was once there myself. My intention is not to harm TKF or to just spout crap. If I was looking for some semblance of fame or school promotion I could use my real name. I only wish to help.

"Some of us are very polite and say TKF isn't horrible stuff, but trust me other Kung Fu is better." That is really a matter of personal opinion, as it is the atypical arguement. "Is your Kung-Fu better than his?". There is almost nobody who has trained under Simon or at TKF for a LONG time that says the style is horrible or would generalize about how one style is better than another, most Masters agree that it is most beneficial to train a variety of styles over time. Heck that's how Simon started. Moh has some weekenss but all individual styles do. However Moh kempo/ Pai hu Shih (In my opinion), is definately in the top half of MA styles/ systems available to train in the North America, probably a lot higher...(I'll probably get fried for that one!) Many of the top past masters still teach Moh Kempo or elements of it. Do not let the arguement of how Simon lied and treated past masters, be confused with the arguement about his actual skill or style. Most of the real detracters of the style are people who trained 3-7 years at TKF, long enough to either get tired of putting up with the crap and/ or felt like they are being held back (which you were). Most who got high up in PHS would never say these things, even those who had trained before or have moved on to new styles for years. Also Moh Kempo/ pai hu Shih has become more watered down and soft over time. Most of the best Masters (again my opinion) were probably the early ones, back when SKS was tough as nails, competed and really made a name for itself. This was also before most of the wierdness like the 23rd Successor, heir apperant stuff. Now over time with all the most knowledgeble and experienced masters being fired or quiting and the newer masters never being truly tested in competiton as a black belt it is hard to compare them. I am not sayingt they wouldn't have done well, I'm just saying that we don't know. Ths same applies to me, I am a secoond degree black belt, but I've never trained for the ring or competed in one. Until then I will never really know. However I, ,like many people might not have joined TKF or especially become a teacher as I didn't want to get in the ring and that was one reason why I loved TKF. The system is not necissarily worse now, it is just different. Simon's style had changed so much in the last 40 years that if you took a snapshot of SKS in 1970 and compared it to TKF today you would barely recognize it. As I write this I also realize that some of the present TKF masters and owners have been training at TKF since before the last wave of masters (Mr. Duholke, Mr. Parnell) and actually trained in a much tougher TKF in their early years. I'm not saying they are better than the previous bunch (the whole teaching hours vs student hours arguement), I'm just saying the TKF system was "harder" back then. Guess it's hard to have that type of MA school these days when you are trying to get a larger market share. :wink: