Nice post, MrE2Me - and much more diplomatic than mine... :oops: 8)

"Just knowing a little extra grappling isn't going to prevent a GOOD grappler from taking you down." J.K., I think we're arguing here about the relative importance of grappling. I think you'll agree with me that grappling by itself isn't versatile enough for all situations, since it only works in close contact, which may be hard to achieve on someone who is very fast. On the other hand, I agree with you that some grappling knowledge definitely complements regular MA stuff, since no martial artist can avoid being taken down occasionally. Previously, I posted that TKF does more grappling now than in the past, but grappling is still not the main focus of the training. Are you trying to argue that it should be emphasized as much or even above the regular MA stuff? As to the outcome of a fight between Master Piercey and an expert grappler, we will stick to our differing opinions, since that is all we have. However, I believe we were kind of arguing the same point: somebody who's an expert in what they do can apply it in almost any situation and be dangerous to their opponent.

"The problem with static stances, is a loss of range of motion... Static after all can mean stiff" When TKF stances are trained properly, they should be not stiff but solid. Relaxed enough to turn or move quickly, but firm enough to maintain stability and allow greater power. In any case, I think this is a debate that has been going on for ages before us. Many styles include bobbing/weaving/ducking for the advantages you've stated, while many others exclude them for their disadvantages. TKF belongs mainly to the latter group. Some say this is a weakness in the Moh (and other) styles, others say it's a strength.

"Only in my dreams would my opponent just stand there, trying to block everything from 'a solid stance'!" Who ever said that you always have to stay in one stance and never move? If your opponent moves, of course you may also have to adjust your stance. If your opponent comes in with a lot of force, of course it makes more sense to evade than to block. And when you're sparring, a solid stance should never prevent you from being quick on your feet. What I meant by my post is that you shouldn't be in movement and transition ALL THE TIME. A solid stance is useful for doing a solid block or a powerful strike. Other times it may be necessary to block or strike while moving. When a stance no longer serves you, transition into another solid stance.

"I was taught to think of stances and movement differently than you." Actually, from what you seem to be saying, MrE2Me2, we have the same views on stances. I never said that a stance should be permanent (see my post above). That's why I mentioned the "no stance remains the same" concept. I believe movement has to be an important part of any martial art. The amount of movement, though, may depend on the actual style (e.g. tiger vs panther), body type, or practitioner.

TKF style
Wow...I just can't simply believe how many people still defend TKF's style. I have been around for a long time and went to full contact. I was destroyed by just about everyone. TKF just plain sucks. If you think that it is so great then go to any legitimate school that actually spars for it's regular curriculum and see how you fare even against their white belts.

seriously...have u ever seen a boxer just stand there--oh sorry, i mean be in a "solid" stance? Or any top athelete in MA competitions just be in a "solid" stance???? I think most people who defend the moh style are those who only see their style in a vacuum. DP is great! But he's only a master against his own students. Sure, there are times to hold on to a stance for a bit...but u gotta be light on ur feet...something that the moh system does not teach (cat leaping is NOT what i am talking about--nor is slide stepping). Wake up guys....the only good thing about the moh system is leaving everyone with "Moh" money

When TKF closed down a lot of the instructors went to other martial arts schools to check it out. I have seen one of the current "Masters" completely and utterly destroyed by one of the instructors in my school. It was actually quite pathetic because my instructor was just playing with him.

"I have seen one of the current "Masters" completely and utterly destroyed by one of the instructors in my school." Which master was it? Please don't make a claim like that without backing it up. Also, what school do you train at, and what was the level of your instructor? There are instructors who are 5th degree black belts or higher, with 25 or more years experience, and then there are instructors with less than a year experience. Please be more specific.

"I have been around for a long time and went to full contact. I was destroyed by just about everyone." Maybe that says something about you, not the style? Sorry, no offence intended... :wink: I have heard of many having the opposite experience with those from other styles. I have personally sparred people who came to TKF from full contact schools, and they were no challenge to beat. Grasshopper mentioned somewhere (on the gray forum I think) that when switching to a new school, it takes some time to adapt to their ways of sparring and doing things. Switching from no contact to full contact is quite a change. (BTW, I'm curious as to what you are and aren't allowed to do when sparring at your school. For example, how do strikes to the groin or throat work in a full contact environment?) As I posted earlier, when the new studio opened up in Edmonton, the level of contact and sparring intensity greatly increased, and the training became way more thorough and realistic in many ways. It was a steep learning curve for everyone. The style itself didn't change, but the way it was taught and the experience of instructors has. Your experience may have been very different if you had trained under the conditions we have now.

"The Vortexx doth protest too much, methinks." What you don't seem to realize is that even 25 years of experience of being a big fish in a small pond won't help that fish in the ocean. Only by keeping themselves and their students away from the ocean can TKF maintain the illusion that they're big fish. Another point - I was a dedicated TKF student - often training 5 days a week, and so were several of the students I was close to - we worked together often and continued our training outside of the halls. We were all quite athletic and coordinated, and while I was asked several times to become an instructor and turned it down (I was starting my own business...), some of my friends did become instructors. We weren't exactly Bruce Lee, but we were considered fairly high-level students. We all left TKF around the same time (soon after Piercey left), and we all went on to train different arts. The one thing we all experienced was that allthough we each had about a decade of TKF training, we were being taken apart by students in other clubs who had far less training than we did, but who knew how to range, work angles, stay mobile, take a punch, etc. The standard TKF supporter response is something to the effect of Vortexx's comment; Maybe that says something about you, not the style? -- well guess what? We've emptied our cups, checked our egos, and learned about our vulnerabilities in an effort to work past them, not plugged our ears screaming "We're the deadliest" over and over again... It seems more important at TKF to foster the belief that you're an effective martial artist than it is to put that belief to any kind of test.

"The one thing we all experienced was that allthough we each had about a decade of TKF training, we were being taken apart by students in other clubs who had far less training than we did, but who knew how to range, work angles, stay mobile, take a punch, etc." I understand your experience, DrunkenMonkey, but you still can't blame it all on the style. As I pointed out in my previous post, the training methods and instruction at TKF has greatly changed. You talk about range, angles, and footwork. These are now the focus of almost every single class at TKF. We still don't practice taking hits to the head, but I don't think I'd keep training there if we did, since health and well-being is more important to myself and most students than the "toughness" aspect. On the other hand, we practice going for targets such as groin and throat, which is hard to do in a full contact sparring situation but is very applicable to practical self-defense. Over the years at TKF, there has always been an influx of students from other styles. Most of them were easily outsparred by TKF students. People from full contact schools may have been better able to take a punch, but on the other hand they had no concept of covering their groin, etc. We have had black belts from other styles with the skill of our green or blue belts. I have also seen a number of demos put on by various martial arts schools to advertise themselves. Nothing I've seen so far has impressed me. Most of the sparring I've seen by black belts of other styles has been very lame and unrealistic. Then you have the old posts by students in the sixties, all of them saying that they used to dominate tournaments back then, as well as Simon outsparring multiple black belts from various styles, him being much better than other 5th degree black belts, and his breaking demos. Then you have the cases of former TKF practitioners using their knowledge to save their lives (the latest case being the Canadian National Police Association's Excellence Award given to a former TKF instructor who, without drawing a weapon, disarmed and subdued a robber armed with 4 knives). Finally, you have all the other schools (many of which are listed on grasshopper's site) which teach the Moh style and are considered very respectable in the martial arts community. My point is that although the training at TKF hasn't seemed to work for you or your friends, many others have had a very positive experience with the Moh style.

Over the years at TKF, there has always been an influx of students from other styles. Most of them were easily outsparred by TKF students. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? If that is true, then I can only assume it's because nobody who trained an effective style would ever switch over to TKF - the weaknesses would be obvious to them... BTW: I've heard the same rhetoric about TKF's style over and over again - maybe they didn't train it that way when YOU trained there, but NOW we train <fill in the blanks> ground fighting, footwork, proper sparring, whatever. TKF has NEVER been willing to acknowledge it's own weaknesses - they always just say "uh, we have that in our style - it's always been there, I guess you just weren't taught it..." or something to that effect. Gimme a break - has the style really changed that much, or is it only now in the last year or so that the style is being taught properly? What are you claiming here? That we were taught differently than you? That new material has been added? What?

"What are you claiming here? That we were taught differently than you? That new material has been added? What?" I'm claiming that the current instructors in Alberta are some of the most skilled, knowledgeable, and experienced instructors we ever had. For many years prior to the opening of the new studios, the level of instruction, at least in Edmonton (and from what I hear in most other places too), has been on a significant decline. Everybody who was very good quit because of low wages, and we were left with nube instructors who lacked the experience and understanding of the style to teach it properly. The instructors admitted to receiving very little training from their masters, and sometimes receiving it over the phone. Some even had to resort to learning from martial arts books. The new Alberta owners were shocked to see some of the things that had been taught incorrectly, and to find out how much the training had been lacking. Even the bow stance had been taught wrong, and had to be retaught! The old instructors did not know all the minute details which make a block or strike effective. The better ones knew enough to do them correctly, but lacked the understanding of what they were doing to teach it to others successfully. Many students, including myself, are still trying to unlearn some of the bad habits we picked over the last few years. Sparring in the old studios was unrealistic. Grappling was almost missing altogether, because the instructors were not experienced enough to know how to apply the Moh style against grappling attacks. The training was too static (as somebody pointed out above) because instructors did not realize the importance of training blocks and counters in combination with movement. In short, certain aspects of the Moh style were either taught incorrectly or not at all. All these things and more have been rectified by the people who are now in charge. I'm not blaming the instructors of the past. I'm sure they did their best, and I liked most of them, but there is big difference between someone who's trained for 2, 5, or even 10 years (and there were very few of the latter), and someone who's trained for a couple of decades or more and were around before the teaching started to decline. Think of this analogy: A kid and a literature professor read a good book. The kid understands the main plot, but misses what's underneath. He simply lacks the world experience which allows the professor to understand the book on a much deeper level. Both have read the exact same words, but the professor gets much more out of the book than the kid. The professor might see in the book a social commentary, an analysis of the nuances of human feeling, philosophy, psychology, etc., while the kid simply sees an entertaining story and is excited by all the action. In the same way, the Moh style has not changed much over the years, but the understanding of those who are teaching it has. The kid says: "it's not there", but the prof replies: "it's there, you just didn't see it". I'm not saying that all previous instructors were kids (although some of them were close), but many of them were "kids" as far as experience in the style goes.

Hey Vortexx Nice posts! I especially liked the analogy about the kid and the professor. It is heartening to hear that the new school is a lot like the old school (from what you said in your last post). Good Luck in your training!