In a nutshell, I think what people are saying is that there is more too it then what is shown in the books. A lot more. What you learned (and what I initially learned) was certainly good enough to pull me through some sticky situations, but there is more. Karate has the potential to teach you how to protect yourself in almost all empty handed self defense situations. It has the potential to be the only empty handed art you need to know. KUL may be a skilled tangsoodoin, but from the outside looking in, and from the perspective of having intensively cross trained in other styles and in other styles of karate, there are many misconceptions that were passed down through the lineage and passed off as tradition. Some of these misconceptions are down right dangerous when it comes to self defense. I am positive that there are things that you do in class that you would NEVER attempt in a real fight. I can look at that TSD book or any TSD book for that matter and find the same things ubiquitously spread among the texts. This is where the bogus history comes in. If you really understand where TSD comes from, who learned what from who, and for how long, you'll understand why it looks the way it does today. These answers are completely obfuscated by the "2000 year old fantasy" and provide one of the largest roadblocks to change in this art. Most KMA dojangs I know operate piecemeal willy nilly when it comes to curriculum. There is no organizing structure and most teachers pull in from other sources to create a package that they think will meet their objectives. They know that the organization's material just doesn't cut it in all cases and are sensitive to the need to supplement. TSD doesn't have to operate this way. TSD's roots lie in a complete self defense system that people trusted to protect themselves in all situations. The first step lies in tossing away the 2000 year old and really understanding the Founder's and/or grandmaster's CV for the first time.