"A Laundry List of Kicks from the Early 80’s" We seem to do almost all of those kicks, but I'm unsure about your terminology for some of them. What's a "Spinning wheel kick"? What do you mean by "prone" kicks? Are they the same as combative kicks? We also have a few moves you have not mentioned, but not too many.

I agree that buggy eye avatar is irritating, I have fixed it (though it may come back again... I thought originally I put it somewhere else) Post Master! Post master Vortex! Hise! :lol:

Hello Vortexx, A spinning wheel kick is like a spinning reverse roundhouse kick except the kicking leg is held straight. Prone kicks are those kicks done from the takedown position. Going from the high back through the low back to the takedown position used to be called collapse of the position. I looked back over my list and I missed a few. Crescent kick with 4 follow up kicks. Upper body evasion with 4 follow up kicks. Side kick catch with follow up tiger tail. I was taught that a tiger tail worked best against the support leg of a high kicking attacker Iwhile he wa kicking).

Your missing quite a bit more than that actually, front thrust kick, flying scissors, reverse tigers tail just to name a few. But it all depends on what level you trained to.

Yes, I did miss the front thrust kick. I also did not mention the long front thrust kick. I saw Phillip McAndrews demonstrate the flying scissors kick to great effect but as a takedown technique, not a kick, per se. It made for a great demo. As for the reverse tiger tail, I know what it is but it wasn't taught as part of the system back then. When I saw it used it was weak, easily defeated and left the user vulnerable when he need not have been. On the whole, I personally find that flying kicks tended to be more flash and less substance than other kicks anyway. Even the concept of "low flying kicks" tended to put the user at unnessesary risk. My point in posting the laundry list was to open a dialog about the differences and similarities in past and present systems of Moh. As for the level that I trained to, I quit concentrating on rank or levels of training long after I had received my second degree black belt. Concentrating on the efficacy of my art became a priority and I didn't have time for flash.

Shin kick, spinning round house kick, flying tiger's tail, tiger roll with tiger's tail, and flying spinning hook kick, to name a few more. We also train more kick combinations, such as devil's hook, various versions of the switch kick, and various Ching Kung (sp?) techniques. I totally agree with you that the flying kicks are not particularly practical, but I've seen senior students and teachers use them to great effect, even in sparring. Although the flying scissors, flying spinning, and reverse flying scissors are indeed takedowns, when done combatively they can do a lot of damage at the same time as well.

Vortexx, You posted," Shin kick, spinning round house kick, flying tiger's tail, tiger roll with tiger's tail, and flying spinning hook kick, to name a few more. We also train more kick combinations, such as devil's hook, various versions of the switch kick, and various Ching Kung (sp?) techniques." I do know these (and use some of them) under slightly different names. You also posted about the senior students and teachers using dazzling kicks and takedowns to great effect. I have too, however, using these things in the street on concrete and uneven surfaces is not wise or safe Uh, I have a question for both Vortexx and Current Student. Do you guys currently train together?

"I have too, however, using these things in the street on concrete and uneven surfaces is not wise or safe" I agree completely. "Uh, I have a question for both Vortexx and Current Student. Do you guys currently train together?" We both train in the new Edmonton studio.

Vortexx and Current Student, You posted, "We both train in the new Edmonton studio." Thank you for your forthrightness. I have another question for either of you. At zenshack I have seen a slow version and a fast version of Kempo 1. Which is taught at TKF today?

"At zenshack I have seen a slow version and a fast version of Kempo 1. Which is taught at TKF today?" The fast version. Kempo I has always been taught, even according to those who have learned it before Shergold left, as a very hard and fast form. Perhaps Shergold is doing it slowly only for the purpose of focusing on his technique or of demonstrating the individual motions? Or perhaps he has modified it himself since he left? The current version of the Kempos, though similar, isn't quite the same as the one on the fake Fu Yen video. Last year we standardized the Kempos to an older version from the eighties that was taught directly by the Simons to one of the current masters, who has never trained under anyone else, and who has kept the form pure from all the modifications which, either inadvertently or on purpose, have been introduced over the years.

Vortexx, Thank you for your concise answers regarding the forms. What are the new rules regarding the use of safety equipment? I have trained in Moh (a long time ago) both using gear and practicing with no gear. The advantages of gear allowed me to train harder and fiercer than I otherwise would have. The main advantage to practice with no gear was that feeling of vulnerablity I get. I build greater power and speed when I know I'm in danger (even simulated). Your take on this?

"What are the new rules regarding the use of safety equipment?" We usually (but not always) wear arm pads (between wrist and elbow) and leg pads (between ankle and knee) to allow us to train greater power on blocks. Sometimes we also wear hand-guards (that have padding on the back of the hand and striking knuckles) which allow us to make greater contact on body strikes. We don't train with any kind of body padding or helmets because they tend to restrict movement and give one a false sense of confidence (which goes back to your point about the feeling of vulnerability). In my opinion, a major problem with many schools that use gear is that they often ignore targets not covered by their gear (because they can't go for them under their full-contact sparring rules), or under-emphasize blocking altogether (because they feel safe under their padding). At TKF we use the heavy bag and focus pads for practicing powerful strikes in order to develop wrist/ankle strength, proper angles and distance, etc. Although we don't make as much contact on each other as we could if we had gear, we still make enough contact (especially at the higher levels) to condition the body and get us used to being hit. At the lower levels our students are likely not as tough as those in schools which use gear and train full contact sparring from the start. However, those places tend to attract "tougher" people to begin with, and they also tend to have a higher level of injury, for which reason I would not choose to train at such a place.

Hello Vortexx, I agree with your analysis about pads, sparring and training in general. For example, when I first trained in Edmonton I used a cup. Then I moved back to the Vancouver studio and cups were not allowed. Six months later I could finnaly guard my groin. I have another question. When I first trained I praticed with the Japanese idea of "sun dome" in mind. To arrest the strike before contact was made. I struck close but essentially I struck to miss. I found this created all kinds of bad habits and eventually it had to be cast aside. Yet I ran across it regularly, for awhile. My question: Do you have trouble with any of your students having to unlearn this bad habit?

"I have another question. When I first trained I praticed with the Japanese idea of "sun dome" in mind. To arrest the strike before contact was made." When someone is training a technique and is unable to make (much) contact with the opponent without hurting him, there are generally 3 options: 1.) He can do a full-motion strike with the correct aim but be far enough from the opponent not to make contact. 2.) He can do a full-motion strike from the correct distance but change his aim so that he misses the opponent. 3.) He can do a strike from the correct distance and with the correct aim, but cut the motion short of making contact. Whichever way you train, you're getting a bad habit, and there's really no way to avoid that (unless you wear gear and go full contact, which has its own disadvantages, as we agreed on in our previous posts). So the question is, what's worse: training bad distance, bad aim, or strikes which are cut short? TKF believes that #3 is the least evil (and therefore the best approach). Why? Because we train full-motion strikes all the time in the air and on heavy bags and focus pads, whereas aim and distance can be trained to only a very limited extent without a live opponent. In addition, cutting a motion short only creates that single bad habit, whereas the other options (aiming to miss and staying out of range) also affect the opponent's blocking, and may possibly alter what happens in the rest of the engagement/technique. When we get into a real self-defense situation, the muscle memory developed by doing millions of full-motion strikes during workouts, combined with adrenaline, would kick in to counteract any slight habit we may have of stopping our motions short, while our aim and distance would automatically be correct because we always practice to be on target and in range for our strikes. We had one of our street clubs yesterday, and the different environment, combined with the excitement, intensity, and realism, made it hard to pull punches, and many people got hit.

Hello Vortexx, You posted, "3.) He can do a strike from the correct distance and with the correct aim, but cut the motion short of making contact." I also came to this conclusion and train in a similar fashion. In the old days we did something similar but we did not place the same kind of emphasis on it that I do today. About your street clubs, it reads like you had a lot of fun.