I just find it unfortunate that TKF isn't open to the idea of adding other styles of Kung Fu to their training. I think it is a decent school but to be recognized, respected and able to keep senior students they need more than "a million applications of Moh." They limmit themselves. Simple can be good but being able to condition the body to do the complex makes the body more of a powerful and versatile weapon. From there a person can choose to keep things simple or not but to never taste complex is to never advance to that level. if you are happy, awesome. I will leave you with this: You will never understand Moh as well studying it from the inside only as you would if you could see other styles and find the ways in which they compare to Moh. Seeing forms from another style is not studying it. If you did indeed study multiple styles and found Moh to be the best then you would know why you find it the best and thus understand it better. At the moment you simply take the word of your Instructors / Masters etc and their experience. Their word is contradicted by many others who have logged enough hours teaching or training at TKF to warrent some respect. In such a situation it would seem wise to take matters into your own hands and truly "study Kung Fu" as opposed to having what some call blind faith. Swanstrom is great, amazing guy, i've sparred with him myself several times back in the 90's and even then he was great. Bassinet had/has an amazing understanding of the style. Piercey was amazing, so were tons of others. But some of the people I have met outside TKF? It was very obvious to me that they were training on an entirely different level of understanding. In terms of practicality many were superior to the best I ever saw at TKF. If you believe me or not makes no difference to me and my training. The only person who can have an advantage from this post is you. No need to argue, no need to even respond just give it some thought.

Hello North, I agree that a student should eventually cross train in other styles. I have read that Masatoshi Nakayama crossed trained between JMA and CMA. He did this during his time at the University of Beijing. http://www.jkavic.com.au/tribute_nakayama.htm However, first a student should have a solid foundation in one style (any style). Without that solid foundation, gallivanting from style to style can be very bad. You posted about simple being good but complex can be better. I agree that to never taste complex is truly unfortunate. However, it is my preference to train simple.

This arguement about MMA is being repeated on thousands of forums across the planet at this very moment. It's not a new thing it's been going on a long time. So I don't expect you change your mind here. I'll just present my point of view on the subject. You guys believe a person has to be exposed to many styles and cherry pick from all they see in order to become well rounded. I have the opposite position. Though I do agree one should take one's time to select the system he/she trains in, it's in your best intrest to stick with one and give it your all. If you plan to train in a system and not just a collection of techniques you will find more than one system will hamper your progress. For illustration only, one system teaches you to be constantly moble(bouncing), to power through your target when you strike and step forward afterward. The other to remain fluid but static(no-bouncing), to control strikes and step back afterwards. How do you suppose it will be training a few days a week under one philosophy and the rest of the week one the other? You'll spend a lot of time changing gears. Now I agree it is possible to find 2 systems that have a similar philosophy there are usually fundimental differences on some level. If you felt there was some good to be learned from each it's best to do them one at a time and only switch when you feel that the first has taken you as far as you can. I've heard it said as, 'better to be good at one system than to be so-so in or more than one.' If you move to a system with a very differnt philosophy you may find you may have to unlearn some things in order to progress in the new system.

Hello Current Student, I can see that I haven’t made myself clear. Allow me to do so now. You posted about the mma debate. To me this means, “mixed martial arts”. Usually mma concerns arts that are grappling dominated. And the mma debate is something quite different than what I was talking about. What I was talking about was cross training in an art similar to mine. For example; When I was a black belt under Wayne, he brought in a new instructor. Sifu Fred Whiting of Pak Sing Choy Lay Fut (and later Wu Shu). Now Freddy was an okay guy but his kung fu was NOT Moh. Nor was he hired to learn or teach Moh. He was hired for the expertise he had already acquired in other styles. We all definitely got to try what each other knew. But it was all primarily striking based kung fu. Much more to the point, Freddy primarily shared his knowledge with ADVANCED students and instructors of Moh. I agree that one should have a solid base in one art. A hodge podge of techniques with little or no structure is of very little use. Similarly, as you posted, contradictory tactics can add confusion where none need exist. None the less, it is an old custom to look outside your art and see what is there. I once read an interview with the Nakayama Sensei I mentioned in an earlier post. He had looked at kung fu for several years before returning to his Shotokan roots. He was glad he looked but glad to be back too. He had looked outside his art but only after he had established his core. You posted, “I've heard it said as, 'better to be good at one system than to be so-so in or more than one.” Yet you yourself have a breadth of experience. You posted about having studied with Tony Blauer. I train in an art that is primarily Moh based. But unlike Nakayama Sensei, I have done it different. I made certain changes that I felt warranted a name change as well. In the end, I couldn’t have grown without looking outside Moh.

No I think you made yourself clear I think it was me that was not articulate enough. I think the root of the contention here is my definition of MMA is what you call cross training and I have a completely different idea about what cross training means to me. It seems like we agree on most points. Yes I have had a breadth of experience as you eloquently put it. The difference I had mine before I joined TKF and you had your after I guess. Yeah I think if a person feels he/she is reaching their limit or are not getting all of what they want from one art they should look somewhere else. I'm still not a fan of dabbling not sure if that's what you were suggesting, I don't think so. I think if one feels they need to train in Judoka you should jump in with both feet and train it hard with concentrated effort until you are satisfied you get what you felt you were lacking...maybe you stay there. But I completely agree with you very important to get a solid foundation in one system before you train in something else, you waste too much effort and time jumping around cherry picking several systems.

Hello Current Student, Yes, I see what you are saying now. To rephrase it, a student studies a single art to a level of competency. Then he looks around, finds another martial art and studies it alone. He “jumps in with both feet”. AHA! You are right, we do approach this differently. I looked around for 12 years before finding Moh (a perennial yellow belt). Then I studied it until I had achieved a serious level of competence. It was at that point that I studied other Martail arts. But I did so from the framework of Moh. So we did arrive at similar places from different paths. I had “wasted too much effort and time jumping around cherry picking several systems” before I found Moh. So we are agreed, that a solid foundation is an absolute must here. Regards, MrE2Me2

Yeah I agree the cherry picking of techniques wastes a lot of time. That foundation of solid knowledge in one system is so important. You could probably still become good by starting off jumping around but I bet it would take a long time. I bet you'd have an interesting personal style by the end of it however.

Sorry I meant if you started off your training by cherry-picking. A little here a little there before you have a solid foundation in one system. Well we are pretty sure GMS did borrow from many sources and he did invent his own system. But how much of each comes from what sources is up for debate and I guess only GMS can answer that.

Grappling verses Striking
Grappling verses Striking The style of Mo that I practice is primarily non grappling. So the whole emphasis is on striking and moving into a better position to strike. Now it took me a long time to realize that grappling could hurt, maim or kill me. In some ways I was a slow learner and this lesson was very costly. I learned that grapplers can be VERY dangerous. But it took awhile to learn this. . I also learned that I could strike very hard but I was only a poor grappler. I learned that my best defense against grappling was not to be touched. And if someone was going to touch me, I’d hit and be fully justified in doing so. I also looked carefully at other defenses, in case I was grabbed. The old blue belt was full of defenses against grappling attacks. Some were very effective, others less so. In my research on this subject I have found some interesting tidbits. During the 20th century boxing came to rely on the referee when it came to clinches. Also, martial sports like competition karate also came to rely on the ref in the clinch. In martial sports, it took Royce Gracie to bring home the point that grappling was dangerous. A fight that ended in a clinch or on the ground was not addressed enough in training. Often this is because strikers will hesitate before striking a grappler. Sometimes it is because the striker does not recognize the danger. He allows himself to get too close. He will allow the grappler to get set, etc. And sometimes the striker is unable to defend himself. Either he does not know how to fend off a grapplers attack. Or he is unwilling to cause damage to the grappler until it is too late. In my training of Mo, I had to learn not only how to strike and when. I had to learn where, why and how hard. More importantly, I had to ingrain this knowledge at a reflex level. (The Muscle Memory Pattern.) Defending against a grappler has changed somewhat since I first started training. Then, striking was the primary concern. Now, defending against striking and grappling attacks are of more equal importance. But then so is weapons defense, multiple attackers and the threat of AIDS. I usually strike in self defense (when I have to defend myself at all). Regards, MrE2Me2

I have moved this post from its original place in the "PInkie of Death". To all, I found this while surfing “YouTube” Gracie vs Delucia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6PvPCrStI&mode=related&search= Now I have only the greatest respect for the participants here. Both are truly outstanding athletes. They are tough, smart and trained. That, I’m stating up front. The rest of this post is a critique of how the striker failed. The grappler is in all white and the striker is in yellow trunks. 23 seconds into the video, the striker is taken down. He is unable to stop a simple tackle. (BTW, my art is called “Simple and Effective”, so no disrespect is meant here.) I find that it is this point of entry that is most debated between strikers and grapplers. It is the old, “I’ll keep him at a distance verses I’ll get too close for him to hit.” That being said and onto the vid: I see all the wrong moves to defend against a grappler once he has made his “Shoot”. Among other things, the striker backs straight up in a futile attempt to keep distance. On his way down, and when he is down, the striker flails. They are not good strikes and he has no solid base from which to strike. The striker’s limb alone strikes are simply not enough to deter the grappler. They are too few and too weak. They are also to the wrong spots. He is unable to cause the damage necessary to stop the grappler. Worse, he leaves the grappler in a position to continue attacking. How often has the striker ever practiced striking while backing up or falling? How often has he practiced striking while on the ground? I know that I used to practice striking only where I was at my most powerful. Striking chest to chest and on the ground used to be foreign concepts. About 43 seconds in (and for several seconds) the striker is pummeled. So much so that he lets go of his hold on the grappler. Then it quickly becomes obvious that he is toast. But notice the position of the grappler, at the point of takedown. He does not have a solid base from which to punch. In point of fact, he is in a solid front headlock! This places him shoulder to chest with his opponent. At this point, the grappler’s punches are definitely limb alone. Yet he is able to land them where they will do the most good (the ribs). They may be weak but they get the job done (because there are so many). During the first 45 seconds of the vid there is some interesting narration. The striker is a kung fu guy and he is 185 lbs and undefeated. The grappler (Royce Gracie) is 15 lbs, lighter. The narrator states, “It is almost impossible for an expert, trained in punches and kicks to avoid being wrapped up and taken down by a Gracie Jiujutsu expert.” He also states that Royce will establish his position on the ground before striking. (So that position shown by the grappler, when he is on top, is obviously deliberate.) And that is pretty much what happens. The grappler uses strikes to soften up the striker. Then he dominates the match and is ultimately victorious. Again, this is not a criticism of either contestant. It is a good example of how a grappler can seize the advantage over a striker. It shows how a grappler can capitalize on the weak points of a striking art. Your comments? Regards, MrE2Me2 p.s,, When I can find example of knockouts by strikers, I show them too.

To all, Last time I posted a match where Royce Gracie defeated Jason Delucia. He did it by closing the distance from kicking range to kissing range effectively. This time I couldn’t find what I was originally after. So this will have to do (for now). It is a compilation of knockout strikes from the U.F.C. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B99-QRkHXJA In it, there are many examples of people getting knocked out. They usually are at punching or kicking range. . The vid does not show the maneuvering for position beforehand. Nor does it show the unsuccessful attacks prior to the knockout. Mostly they knock each other out at punching and kicking range, Usually it is a strike or kick to the head and it’s over in an instant. The strike lands and the fight is over, Often the guy is out before he hits the canvas. Now most of these guys are quite large. This is, after all, a promotional clip. Still, if a striker can hit a grappler at punching or kicking range, The grappler can be knocked down or out instantly. Regards, MrE2Me2 p.s., when I can find what I was originally after, I will post it (and yes, I have seen it).

Very interesting. I do find that a lot of strikers say that they train on how to stop grapplers. But, they have their striking buddies try and come in and take them down. That's a complete joke since since these stikers posing as grapplers do not have any clue how to prepare or come in for a PROPER takedown. So the anti-grappling training turns out to be quite useless.

Hello Temple Brotherhood, Yep! Most people who have never grappled have little or no idea of how to do it properly. More to the point, especially where untrained or poorly trained people are concerned: Most people are not aware of the danger posed by someone initiating a grappling attack. It is deceptive and by the time one is aware they are in trouble, it is too late. I have found that the best way for me to train against a grappling attack is with strikes. But then with me it is not a sport either (No Rules when my life is on the line.) On a slightly different note, When I was first training, the rules of martial sports were different than now. (I am speaking mainly of North America here.) Grappling was generally separate from striking. The rules for certain types of striking competitions varied considerably. There was semi contact point sparring. The “Blood and Guts” days eventually gave way to other things. (This was some years before Muy Thai was brought over.) Full contact was just coming into its own. Bill Wallace would go on to dominate this sport. He never worried about attacks to his legs or ground fighting. Benny “The Jet” fought all over the world in a different type of full contact. Well, actually, several different types of full contact. He dominated them all. (I understand he still gives seminars for the U.F.C. today.) They had their own promotions going. And it worked well or it got changed until it did work well. The same promotion still goes on now. Let’s face it, “The Ultimate Fighting Championship” sells! And it sells much better than, “Another Fighting Challenge”. “No Holds Barred” sells! And it sells much better than “Some Holds Barred”. This is not a sneer at this (after all, I’m a fan). But it is a clear look a Sport that has Rules. If it did not have rules I would not watch it, as a sport (and neither would others). Regards, MrE2Me2

"It is a compilation of knockout strikes from the U.F.C." To me this video speaks very poorly for the skill in U.F.C. Even half-decent blocking would prevent most of those knockouts. But I guess blocking is not "popular" these days. I agree with you, though, that a well placed strike can often disable a grappler before he has a chance to get into clinching range. I think one important point about being able to do that effectively is to move sideways to get out of the line of force of the grappler, rather than trying to back up to maintain your distance (which takes away all your power).