# That's a lot of forms



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

So...I have 9 *new *forms for my next test.

My school does the Kibon (basic) and Palgwe (advanced) forms.  We also do the KKW required black belt forms, and alternate versions of those (usually with some minor differences in the beginning and end, and some extra stuff added in the middle).

Our belt system means that we typically have 1-2 new forms per test.  A few tests have no new form (but other stuff added to compensate).  

Well, my Master has decided Taegeuks are going to be a thing now.  We're not getting rid of the Palgwes or Kibons, and there will still only be a maximum of 2 new belts per form.  We're also staggering the release so its not a shock to our higher ranking students.

However, as an instructor, I don't get the luxury of a staggered release.  So in addition to the alternate Taebaek, I have to learn all 8 of the Taegeuks for my next test.  I also need to pay closer attention because "Tae___k" is not enough to hear.  

That's 9 forms total.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 29, 2019)

- You want to grow tall. You don't want to grow fat.
- Going through the elementary school 5 times won't get you a PhD degree.

You have to be able to tell which form is beginner level, intermediate level, and advance level. IMO, one form in each level should be enough.

Some systems define those levels as:

1. Beginner level - offense skill.
2. Intermediate level - defense skill.
3. Advance level - combo skill.

Some systems define those levels as:

1. Beginner level - speed training.
2. Intermediate level - body unification power training.
3. Advance level - integration training.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Apr 29, 2019)

That is a lot of forms.  

You must not have enough instructors laid out in a sufficient way to stagger it so one only has to learn say 2 at a time.  Always a pest when you change the cirrculem.


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You want to grow tall. You don't want to grow fat.
> - Going through the elementary school 5 times won't get you a PhD degree.
> 
> You have to be able to tell which form is beginner level, intermediate level, and advance level. IMO, one form in each level should be enough.
> ...



Your systems have a completely different philosophy than Taekwondo does.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 29, 2019)

Is there a reason he is adding this series?


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

Rat said:


> That is a lot of forms.
> 
> You must not have enough instructors laid out in a sufficient way to stagger it so one only has to learn say 2 at a time.  Always a pest when you change the cirrculem.



Have you started taking classes yet?


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Is there a reason he is adding this series?



They're the official Kukkiwon forms, which superseded the forms we use quite a while ago.  We just like the Palgwe forms better, is why we haven't used them until now.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> They're the official Kukkiwon forms, which superseded the forms we use quite a while ago.  We just like the Palgwe forms better, is why we haven't used them until now.


What do you like better about Palgwe?  I am familiar with the fact that there are several series, but don’t know anything about them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> They're the official Kukkiwon forms, which superseded the forms we use quite a while ago.  We just like the Palgwe forms better, is why we haven't used them until now.


Are your ranks not considered valid by the kukkiwon until he adds those?


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> What do you like better about Palgwe?  I am familiar with the fact that there are several series, but don’t know anything about them.



The Palgwe forms typically use deeper stances, and (at least in the versions we do at my school) have a steeper learning progression, where the first few are easier and the last few are harder than their Teageuk equivalents.  My Master likes the Palgwe forms especially because of the deeper stances, and his experience with Hapkido and Tuk Kong says that being used to deeper stances is better.

It's not that I don't like the Taegeuk forms.  I just like the Palgwes better.  And if we're only doing one set of forms, I agree with my Master that I'd rather do the Palgwes.  I don't mind doing both sets, however.



kempodisciple said:


> Are your ranks not considered valid by the kukkiwon until he adds those?



I have a certificate from KKW, which should be valid.  I'm not going to pretend to know the details or the politics beyond that.  I also don't know if the change is political in nature, or if it's so that we can be prepared with the Teageuks if a student moves and has to go to a new school, or for "World Class" forms competitions in tournaments.

My stake in it is that I was told we're doing it, so I'm learning it.  That's as much as I need to know.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I have a certificate from KKW, which should be valid.  I'm not going to pretend to know the details or the politics beyond that.  I also don't know if the change is political in nature, or if it's so that we can be prepared with the Teageuks if a student moves and has to go to a new school, or for "World Class" forms competitions in tournaments.
> 
> My stake in it is that I was told we're doing it, so I'm learning it.  That's as much as I need to know.



I wasn't complaining bout the decision btw or considering what stake you had in it, or any of that. I wasmore curious if, if you aren't certified, once you learn the forms if that would change anything. Since you are already certified, the points moot anyway.


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I wasn't complaining bout the decision btw or considering what stake you had in it, or any of that. I wasmore curious if, if you aren't certified, once you learn the forms if that would change anything. Since you are already certified, the points moot anyway.



I'm just letting you know that we've reached the extent of my knowledge on the politics of the subject.  I don't know if would affect my ability to get my 4th Dan.  My Master may also be looking into my future when I go and take the Master's course, what they'll think if I don't know the Taegeuks.

It may also be that while it hasn't affected us so far, it might affect future black belts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Your systems have a completely different philosophy than Taekwondo does.


I assume TKD has similar philosophy. For example,

1. Beginner level - side kick, ...
2. Intermediate level - flying side kick, ...
3. Advance level - side kick, spin back fist combo, ...


----------



## Jaeimseu (Apr 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm just letting you know that we've reached the extent of my knowledge on the politics of the subject.  I don't know if would affect my ability to get my 4th Dan.  My Master may also be looking into my future when I go and take the Master's course, what they'll think if I don't know the Taegeuks.
> 
> It may also be that while it hasn't affected us so far, it might affect future black belts.



It would be interesting since they only train the Taegeuk and yudanja poomsae at the Kukkiwon Master course. I’d guess you’d have a hard time completing the course without that knowledge. 

I doubt it will affect your dan rank unless your master says so. Kukkiwon has up until now trusted certified masters’ recommendations for dan promotions. I suppose that could change, but it would be a hassle, I think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Apr 29, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume TKD has similar philosophy. For example,
> 
> 1. Beginner level - side kick, ...
> 2. Intermediate level - flying side kick, ...
> 3. Advance level - side kick, spin back fist combo, ...



It's not broken up into only "beginner, intermediate, and advanced."  For example, we have:

Roundhouse kick
Jumping roundhouse kick (pop jump)
Jumping roundhouse kick (bicycle jump)
Step and roundhouse kick
Slide and roundhouse kick (kind of like bicycle, but lower to ground)
Switch feet and kick
Speed roundhouse kick (halfway between slide and switch feet)
Double roundhouse kick (roundhouse into bicycle jumping roundhouse kick)
Step-turn roundhouse kick
Tornado kick (turn and bicycle jumping roundhouse kick)
And that's just the practical ones moving forward.  There's also things like Pop 360 roundhouse, 540 roundhouse, and other variations I didn't list.  

We're also talking about forms, not techniques.  These are memorized patterns that are 20+ techniques long.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 30, 2019)

When you do martial arts you are not just learning a skill but committing to changing yourself. 

So it is not just about learning new forms. But developing into a person who can learn new forms. 

And do MMA.


----------



## Buka (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So...I have 9 *new *forms for my next test.
> 
> My school does the Kibon (basic) and Palgwe (advanced) forms.  We also do the KKW required black belt forms, and alternate versions of those (usually with some minor differences in the beginning and end, and some extra stuff added in the middle).
> 
> ...



That's a lot of forms, but Skribs, you got this. You love Martial Arts, you really do. You love Tae-Kwon-Do, you teach Tae-Kwon-Do and you have  great resources in Tae-Kwon-Do, not just in your school, but right here on the forum you hang out on. You got this, brother.

Heck, ten years from now you'll have eight more years of knowing these forms under your belt. You got this.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So...I have 9 *new *forms for my next test.
> 
> My school does the Kibon (basic) and Palgwe (advanced) forms.  We also do the KKW required black belt forms, and alternate versions of those (usually with some minor differences in the beginning and end, and some extra stuff added in the middle).
> 
> ...


Welcome to the party. We have all the forms you listed plus 5 Pyong Ahn forms and an assortment of older MKD BB forms. There are so many things traditionally wrong with the Taeguek forms I am not very interested in them but do know them for matters of teaching them.


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> They're the official Kukkiwon forms, which superseded the forms we use quite a while ago.  We just like the Palgwe forms better, is why we haven't used them until now.


If a person wants to compete in sanctioned USTKD tournaments they have to know and perform Taeguek forms. I don't have a problem with uniformity in this respect. It is an attempt to bring all TKD under one banner. And to make the judging more uniform and consistent. However, there is so much valuable technique and application that would be lost if all TKD were to standardized it would be tragic. 
The Taegueks are forms for children, intended to be easy to learn, but there are some many moves that just do not make any sense. Having already known the Palgew's, you will pick up on these moves as you learn them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 30, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The Taegueks are forms for children, intended to be easy to learn, but there are some many moves that just do not make any sense. Having already known the Palgew's, you will pick up on these moves as you learn them.



What moves in the Taegeuk poomsae would you say make no sense?


----------



## dvcochran (Apr 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> What moves in the Taegeuk poomsae would you say make no sense?


Mostly turns and footwork. I will work on a list.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Mostly turns and footwork. I will work on a list.



I don't have any issues with the turns and footwork.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

Buka said:


> That's a lot of forms, but Skribs, you got this. You love Martial Arts, you really do. You love Tae-Kwon-Do, you teach Tae-Kwon-Do and you have  great resources in Tae-Kwon-Do, not just in your school, but right here on the forum you hang out on. You got this, brother.
> 
> Heck, ten years from now you'll have eight more years of knowing these forms under your belt. You got this.



Well we started a few months ago, and I've got 7 3/4 of them down so far.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So...I have 9 *new *forms for my next test.


If you can category your techniques as:

What techniques can I use

- when my opponent has right (or left) side forward.
- from my opponent's 4 sides and 2 doors.
- on my opponent's head, upper body, lower body, leg.
- to enter, and to finish.
- ...

You may not pay too much attention on your forms.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can category your techniques as:
> 
> What techniques can I use
> 
> ...



You're looking at Taekwondo forms through the lens of Kung Fu, and there are many differences between the two that make it difficult to compare them.


----------



## WaterGal (Apr 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Are your ranks not considered valid by the kukkiwon until he adds those?



Kukkiwon doesn't have any procedure to actually _verify _that schools in other countries are really teaching the Taegeuk forms, but they are part of the official 1st dan requirements.



skribs said:


> I'm just letting you know that we've reached the extent of my knowledge on the politics of the subject.  I don't know if would affect my ability to get my 4th Dan.  My Master may also be looking into my future when I go and take the Master's course, what they'll think if I don't know the Taegeuks.



.Yeah, that could trip you up. My other half said that there were some folks who clearly didn't know the Taegeuks that well when he went - I imagine they were in your boat. But that's certainly less than ideal, since the forms are part of the course.


----------



## WaterGal (Apr 30, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> I doubt it will affect your dan rank unless your master says so. Kukkiwon has up until now trusted certified masters’ recommendations for dan promotions. I suppose that could change, but it would be a hassle, I think.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I think that was probably part of why they were talking about having certified dan examinars and panel testing for a while. That seems to have gone away in favor of offering the Master's course internationally more often.


skribs said:


> It's not broken up into only "beginner, intermediate, and advanced."  For example, we have:
> 
> Roundhouse kick
> Jumping roundhouse kick (pop jump)
> ...



FWIW, we teach roundhouse kick & front leg slide roundhouse kick (possibly what you call a "speed" roundhouse?) in our beginner class; the step roundhouse, switch feet & kick, and double roundhouse in our intermediate class; and the jumping roundhouses, step-turn roundhouse, and tornado kick in our advanced class.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> I think that was probably part of why they were talking about having certified dan examinars and panel testing for a while. That seems to have gone away in favor of offering the Master's course internationally more often.
> 
> 
> FWIW, we teach roundhouse kick & front leg slide roundhouse kick (possibly what you call a "speed" roundhouse?) in our beginner class; the step roundhouse, switch feet & kick, and double roundhouse in our intermediate class; and the jumping roundhouses, step-turn roundhouse, and tornado kick in our advanced class.



The speed roundhouse is the more advanced version, once you're familiar with the others.  What's the motion?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> Well we started a few months ago, and I've got 7 3/4 of them down so far.


Yeah, but there's learning the forms, and learning the forms. Two very different things-you could learn a form in a week if you wanted, but it would take way more than a week for you to learn it. 
PS I purposefully avoided italics or bolding, or using a different word, for my own entertainment.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Yeah, but there's learning the forms, and learning the forms. Two very different things-you could learn a form in a week if you wanted, but it would take way more than a week for you to learn it.
> PS I purposefully avoided italics or bolding, or using a different word, for my own entertainment.



My opinion on Taekwondo forms is that there isn't much of a distinction.  They're more about performance and dexterity than teaching applicable concepts.  Most of the differences are different styles of footwork than the other forms (but I'm used to those footwork already from other training I've done), and the difference in the stances (which we've already been working on in the black belt forms).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> My opinion on Taekwondo forms is that there isn't much of a distinction.


As I have stated, you don't want to grow fat. You want to grow tall.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 30, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As I have stated, you don't want to grow fat. You want to grow tall.


Can you explain what you mean by that? I've never heard that phrase before, and the first part is pretty obvious but the second part confuses me.


----------



## skribs (Apr 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Can you explain what you mean by that? I've never heard that phrase before, and the first part is pretty obvious but the second part confuses me.



I think what he means is, depth of your understanding instead of breadth of your understanding.  Like it's better to train one art for 3 years than to train a dozen arts for 3 months each.  If the form isn't teaching me anything new, then there's not much point.

However, @Kung Fu Wang ignored the rest of that post, which also said why I think the forms are that way.  He's also ignoring that I'm learning these as an instructor to be able to teach these new requirements to the curriculum.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Can you explain what you mean by that? I've never heard that phrase before, and the first part is pretty obvious but the second part confuses me.


To grow fat:

- This is a book.
- That is a chair.
- This is not a pen.
- I love you.
- You love me.
- ...

To grow tall:

Beginner level - This is a book. That is a pen.
Intermediate level - If I had had ..., I would have had ...
Advance level - Crow weeps in the dark. Tide bellow in the north wind. How lonesome the world.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> However, @Kung Fu Wang ignored the rest of that post, which also said why I think the forms are that way.  He's also ignoring that I'm learning these as an instructor to be able to teach these new requirements to the curriculum.


Today, you still train for your style. You have not started to train for yourself yet.

There is a difference between:

- Your style tells you what to do, vs.
- You tell your style what to do.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> My opinion on Taekwondo forms is that there isn't much of a distinction.  They're more about performance and dexterity than teaching applicable concepts.  Most of the differences are different styles of footwork than the other forms (but I'm used to those footwork already from other training I've done), and the difference in the stances (which we've already been working on in the black belt forms).


I believe (and may be wrong), that the taeguk forms are the same as the pinyon form's that I've learned. I vaguely recall watching a video of the first few half a decade back and thinking it was the same thing. If they are the same, then there is a lot of applicable concepts that can be learned from them, and depth you can learn. It would be a disservice to your own students to ignore that possibility, since they won't get to learn the depth of the forms as well.

Not saying you have to learn them all at once, the movements come first, but it's important to continue studying them afterwards if the goal is for you to teach them.


----------



## JR 137 (Apr 30, 2019)

@skribs Basically, what I gather from your OP is that you as an instructor need to learn them pretty much all at once, while the students will learn them at various ranks. Correct?

I'm not a fan of more (as in total) kata personally. I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.

But I'm no expert.


For the Kyokushin and offshoot guys, and anyone else that knows these kata, at the kyu ranks we do:

Taikyoku 1-3
Pinan 1-5
Seido 1-4 (our founder's own kata, Seido 5 is at 1st dan)
Sanchin
Gekisai Dai
Yantsu
Tsuki-No
Tensho
Saiha

If I were to start my own organisation, I'd eliminate the Taikyoku, Pinan, and Seido katas, and do the rest in order starting at white belt. I'd have to double up at one rank though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.


Agree with you 100% on this.

I have combined 10 long fist forms into 1 form. I call it the "long fist summary" form. It contains 84 moves (longer than most forms). The only concern is instead of to train 10 long fist form, the future long fist generation may have to train 11 forms. Instead of doing something good, I may do something bad for the long fist system.

For some MA students, they may have more interest in those ancient forms than the modern form. Of course 1000 years from today, my modern form will become ancient form too.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Today, you still train for your style. You have not started to train for yourself yet.
> 
> There is a difference between:
> 
> ...



I am an instructor at a school, under my Master.  What is in his curriculum, I need to know, so I can teach it.  I am not doing this for me, for the art, or for my Master.  I'm doing it for the kids I teach, so that when they are training under me, they learn my Master's curriculum as best as I can teach it to them.  There is nothing more than that.  It's not about my journey.  It's about my job, and it's about my students journey.

I am not learning these for selfish reasons.



kempodisciple said:


> I believe (and may be wrong), that the taeguk forms are the same as the pinyon form's that I've learned. I vaguely recall watching a video of the first few half a decade back and thinking it was the same thing. If they are the same, then there is a lot of applicable concepts that can be learned from them, and depth you can learn. It would be a disservice to your own students to ignore that possibility, since they won't get to learn the depth of the forms as well.
> 
> Not saying you have to learn them all at once, the movements come first, but it's important to continue studying them afterwards if the goal is for you to teach them.



I can't comment on pinyon.  I can say that a lot of what I've learned in the Palgwe forms and KKW forms falls into one of several traps:

The movements are chosen for form over function (pardon the pun), in some cases changing a technique from what is practical to what is more aesthetically pleasing
The movements reinforce concepts that were learned several belts ago, instead of introducing new concepts
The movements are looked back on with hindsight, and application is found, but the application is not taught by the form
The application takes one technique from the form and adds a bunch of extra stuff that's not in the form
On #1, there are several techniques I've brought up on this forum, and never gotten a clear answer about.  The best answer people can come up with is that these are more aesthetic versions of techniques that would look different if done practically (things like double blocks).

On #2, there are several concepts, like the idea of going from back stance to front stance in a block and punch, that we do at yellow belt in the basic drills, but we don't cover in a form until purple belt.  So if the form is to teach it, the form is backwards.

On #3, I've watched several videos of how to do Bunkai in Karate (since it's not as common in Taekwondo).  Most of those rely on you knowing how to use a technique already, and then go back and apply it to the form, or rely on you already knowing the other technique.  For example, if I do a high block and punch in a form, and someone says I can do the high block and wrap their arm and lock their elbow before I punch, unless the instructor says "high block, and then you would wrap their arm", I don't know it from the form.

And on #4, I've seen other Bunkai videos where they take a single block or two moves, and add on a ton of other stuff that's not in the form.  That would be like me teaching you how to play a G chord on the guitar, and then expecting you to be able to play a song with a chord progression of G-D-C-D7.  Unless the form also teaches D, C and D7, it's hard to say the application comes from the form.



JR 137 said:


> @skribs Basically, what I gather from your OP is that you as an instructor need to learn them pretty much all at once, while the students will learn them at various ranks. Correct?
> 
> I'm not a fan of more (as in total) kata personally. I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.
> 
> ...



It depends on what the form is doing and how it is constructed.  For Taekwondo, the forms serve several purposes that I can tell:

Discipline - to not only memorize the form, but also the attention to detail in order to recreate accurately what your Master does
Muscle Memory - to get used to the stances, footwork, and timing when using techniques, and to develop the stabilizer muscles that will help in your stances and techniques
Mental Memory - we've had older people at my dojang who have found that doing the forms has helped keep their cognitive abilities intact
Exercise - my Dad has worn a heartrate monitor during class, and aside from sparring, the highest his heartrate got was during forms
So, when I criticize them, I'm not saying they're useless.  I'm saying that it's hard to find a practical fighting application for a lot of the motions _as they are done in the form._

If these are not important to you, and you want to only use what will directly translate into a practical application, I understand that.  If I were to make up my own art that wasn't Taekwondo (and I'm a long way off from even trying that), I would do something like:

No forms - just teach the techniques and concepts without forms
Forms that are individual practice routines for partner drills - this way you can practice on your own
Forms that are open-ended.  For example, a core concept is covered (like a simultaneous block and palm strike) by the form, but that is used as a discussion point for what you can do after that
Forms that are used to retain the techniques and combinations taught at that level
I don't feel the Taegeuks, Palgwes, or KKW Black Belt forms do any of these, but that's not their point.  They get me to focus on details, which helps me work on my other techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> So...I have 9 *new *forms for my next test.
> 
> My school does the Kibon (basic) and Palgwe (advanced) forms.  We also do the KKW required black belt forms, and alternate versions of those (usually with some minor differences in the beginning and end, and some extra stuff added in the middle).
> 
> ...


What's the value of having both sets of forms? Personally, when I was working on forms to add to NGA, I started with the idea of two per belt, but cut it back to one per belt. It just seemed people were spending too much time on the forms, and not enough learning to use the movements for something.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What's the value of having both sets of forms? Personally, when I was working on forms to add to NGA, I started with the idea of two per belt, but cut it back to one per belt. It just seemed people were spending too much time on the forms, and not enough learning to use the movements for something.



Sort of depends on the forms. The forms he's talking about are pretty short. Think 20 steps.


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

It amazes me how different a persons perspective can be. For the most part, we are all like minded on this forum having had at least a limited MA experience. To be certain, there is a lot of variance in styles. TMA, FMA, open handed, weapons, etc... each have their own uniqueness. To take this further, within each MA category each system is different. And this continues on to each style, and then even further to each school and finally to some instructors individuality. 
Even with all this grouping of the MA's there are constants. For example, the large majority of styles teach fighting in some form. We do learn a MARTIAL Art so naturally this is at the core. The approach to teaching fighting is as varying as there are brands and models of cars but, ultimately the intent is the same. To save oneself or prevent bodily harm. And then, even this intent is somewhat inconsistent when you think of the FMA's in a sports format. 
Most, not all, systems use some type of Forms to supplement or compliment their teaching. There is a healthy amount of overlap in form names, numbering, meaning, and application. There is likely more that is unique regarding forms within different systems. This is a dynamic element, being changed over and over as forms and form set get changed and refined by styles and individual instructors. Most of the time it is a graceful fluidity. 
One of the most consistent absolutes I have ever heard it that one of the intended purposes of forms is so an individual can practice their kibon and technique on their own. It is an incredibly common sense idea. Not so prevalent today, but 100 years ago it is easy to envision someone who only get input from an instructor intermittently so individual practice was paramount to protect themselves and possibly their village. 
Forms, or their semantic partners,  are a logical way to present subject matter to a student. They are necessary for organization for both the student and instructor. In my MA experiences and travels I have been exposed to dozens of form sets. Each satisfies the intended purpose of technique, footwork, stance, balance, strength, mental, and much more. It is really cool to see the variety in the approaches used to teach these concepts. 
@skribs ,  Your last bullet jumped is confusing. It is one of the base purposes of practicing in a form format. Much of your post is confusing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> PS I purposefully avoided italics or bolding, or using a different word, for my own entertainment.


You're a jerk, KD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Triple post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Double post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Can you explain what you mean by that? I've never heard that phrase before, and the first part is pretty obvious but the second part confuses me.


Depth over breadth. Or, in my version, depth before breadth...except where breadth breeds depth.

(See, I can be confusing, too. )


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Today, you still train for your style. You have not started to train for yourself yet.
> 
> There is a difference between:
> 
> ...


When you teach - as part of an organization - both happen at the same time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> @skribs Basically, what I gather from your OP is that you as an instructor need to learn them pretty much all at once, while the students will learn them at various ranks. Correct?
> 
> I'm not a fan of more (as in total) kata personally. I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.
> 
> ...


The Shorin-ryu folks at the school where I teach have a bajillion forms. I think I counted 14 weapon forms. I don't understand how a person can develop usable skill if they have to spend that much time or rote repetition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sort of depends on the forms. The forms he's talking about are pretty short. Think 20 steps.


To me, that's a "long form" - about the same length as the 5 forms I teach. ("Short forms" to me are like what some styles call "one steps".)


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What's the value of having both sets of forms? Personally, when I was working on forms to add to NGA, I started with the idea of two per belt, but cut it back to one per belt. It just seemed people were spending too much time on the forms, and not enough learning to use the movements for something.



We like one, the other is required.  They have different stances and some variations in their techniques and pacing, even if at a quick glance they may look similar.

For example, in the Palgwe forms, a back stance is a deep, wide L-shaped stance with both knees pointed out.  In the Teageuk forms, a back stance is narrower and shorter, with a more pronounced bend on the back leg and a slighter bend on the front.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> @skribs , Your last bullet jumped is confusing. It is one of the base purposes of practicing in a form format. Much of your post is confusing.



The important part being "at that level".  We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt.  These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already.  Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.

One thing that I've had to keep in mind, when I'm struggling to understand a form, is that a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics.  There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good.  Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics.  There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good.  Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.


Do you want TKD to be a fighting art, or a performance art? What's your goal (not your TKD style goal)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> We like one, the other is required.  They have different stances and some variations in their techniques and pacing, even if at a quick glance they may look similar.
> 
> For example, in the Palgwe forms, a back stance is a deep, wide L-shaped stance with both knees pointed out.  In the Teageuk forms, a back stance is narrower and shorter, with a more pronounced bend on the back leg and a slighter bend on the front.


I have to admit I'm surprised they are that standardized. I'd have assumed the depth of stance would vary by instructor, rather than by form set.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> The important part being "at that level".  We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt.  These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already.  Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.
> 
> One thing that I've had to keep in mind, when I'm struggling to understand a form, is that a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics.  There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good.  Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.


Ignoring the rest of this (the aesthetic choices, etc.), I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form. I think forms best support techniques we already know (and do reasonably well). Given too early in the learning process, they provide too much opportunity to repeat and ingrain mistakes.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Ignoring the rest of this (the aesthetic choices, etc.), I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form. I think forms best support techniques we already know (and do reasonably well). Given too early in the learning process, they provide too much opportunity to repeat and ingrain mistakes.



I don't understand this, and maybe you could explain it to me.  If forms are a teaching tool, then what are they doing if they're only teaching things you're already supposed to know?


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you want TKD to be a fighting art, or a performance art? What's your goal (not your TKD style goal)?



My goal is to learn everything my Master has to teach me.  My goal is also to teach to my students what my Master wishes them to learn.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form.


I always teach application first. For example,

- Step in left leg with left hand parry down opponent's right leading arm.
- Left arm wrap his right arm.
- Right hand push his throat.
- Right leg cut his right leading leg.

This is the minimum amount of move to apply a "front cut" (Osoto Gari - large outer reap). If you teach this way, there is no way that any performance element can be added in.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I have to admit I'm surprised they are that standardized. I'd have assumed the depth of stance would vary by instructor, rather than by form set.



There might be subtle variations, but they are that standardized.  What I've found is that there's less variation in the definition of the stance from master to master, and more of a variation in when they pay attention to your stances.

At my old school, you learned the stance 100% from day 1.  You learned the proper angle of your knees, width and length of your step, and where your toes, hips, shoulders, and eyes pointed.  At my current school, you learn the very rough definition, and it gets refined as time goes on, to the point where a black belt should know all of the above.

So while at the old school, the stance of most of the orange belts looks different than those at my new school, it's because of a difference in teaching style than a difference in the material.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I always teach application first. For example,
> 
> - Step in left leg with left hand parry down opponent's right leading arm.
> - Left arm wrap his right arm.
> ...



Forms are done solo.  You can do an exact copy of the technique or a stylized version.

And you can always add more performance elements.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> My goal is to learn everything my Master has to teach me.  My goal is also to teach to my students what my Master wishes them to learn.


Everything start to make sense now. In your mind, your master's wish is more important than your wish.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Forms are done solo.  You can do an exact copy of the technique or a stylized version.


Today, my solo drill is the partner drill without partner.


skribs said:


> And you can always add more performance elements.


Why do you want to do that for. The performance has no part in combat.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Everything start to make sense now. In your mind, your master's wish is more important than your wish.



As an instructor, I am his subordinate.  It is his dojang, his curriculum, and his rules I must follow.  I do some things a little bit different, but for the most part my job is to be a tool and a resource for him to use to execute his curriculum.  
If I challenge this and do things my own way, I'm creating dysfunction in the dojang.

As a student, I am learning what he teaches.  If I get to the point where I feel like I've stagnated, then I'll bring it up.  As it stands, I'm learning plenty from him, so I have no room to complain.  Classes have 15-20 people in them, so I can't make the class all about what *I *want to learn.  I've trusted in his methods so far and its gotten me where I am, so I'll keep trusting him that his curriculum will give me what I need to progress.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you want to do that for. The performance has no part in combat.



Fun, entertainment, advertisement, exercise, expression, there's tons of reasons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Fun, entertainment, advertisement, exercise, expression, there's tons of reasons.


The performance can be a 2 edged sword. Many years ago (1977) I gave a MA demonstration in Austin local TV station. I did a "Little tiger and swallow" form. The TV reporter said, "Kung Fu is like dancing ..." Even today, I still hate that comment.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The performance can be a 2 edged sword. Many years ago (1977) I gave a MA demonstration in Austin local TV station. I did a "Little tiger and swallow" form. The TV reporter said, "Kung Fu is like dancing ..." Even today, I still hate that comment.



Man, you'd really hate Capoiera then.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't understand this, and maybe you could explain it to me.  If forms are a teaching tool, then what are they doing if they're only teaching things you're already supposed to know?


They are a drill, for repetition.  You may have learned the technique before you see it in a form, or the form may be the first time you see the technique.  The form may have the same technique done under several different movement circumstances.  But regardless, it is a tool for repetition, which builds skill with the technique.  In my opinion, you should view it as something like hitting the heavy bag.  It is not something you do once, or you take one lesson from.  Rather, it is something you do over and over, over time, to develop skill, which is a gradual progress.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Man, you'd really hate Capoiera then.


I don’t hate capoeira.  But I do hate how it is mischaracterized as a dance.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The Shorin-ryu folks at the school where I teach have a bajillion forms. I think I counted 14 weapon forms. I don't understand how a person can develop usable skill if they have to spend that much time or rote repetition.


14 weapons forms, for how many different weapons?  Is each form for a different weapon, or does each weapon have several forms?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> To me, that's a "long form" - about the same length as the 5 forms I teach. ("Short forms" to me are like what some styles call "one steps".)


Long form?  Have you seen the video I recently posted?  Chuit Yap Bo Kuen.  That is a long form.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> They are a drill, for repetition.  You may have learned the technique before you see it in a form, or the form may be the first time you see the technique.  The form may have the same technique done under several different movement circumstances.  But regardless, it is a tool for repetition, which builds skill with the technique.  In my opinion, you should view it as something like hitting the heavy bag.  It is not something you do once, or you take one lesson from.  Rather, it is something you do over and over, over time, to develop skill, which is a gradual progress.



But if I've been drilling them already for several belts, what does this new drill accomplish that the old ones did not?


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t hate capoeira.  But I do hate how it is mischaracterized as a dance.



I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of it.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> But if I've been drilling them already for several belts, what does this new drill accomplish that the old ones did not?


I don’t know your forms, so I cannot comment specifically on them.

However, from my own experience, I will say this:  we drill our techniques on a fundamental level, sort of in a void, without distractions. That is the easiest way to do them, and develops their foundations without distractions.

We also drill our techniques within the context of moving, which is more challenging than doing them on their most fundamental level.  The movement is a distraction, it includes transitions and stepping and is more challenging in terms of keeping the foundation strong in that context.

We also do forms, which contain the techniques within the context of combinations of other techniques and other kinds of movements.  This is more challenging yet, as the combinations and the wider variety of movement provide for more distractions and more transitions, and you work on keeping every technique with the foundations as strong as you can, within that dynamic context.

This is a progression which, when done together, improve your skills over time.  It also serves to give you a wider vision of what is possible with the different techniques.  They do not contain all possibilities, that would be impossible.  But they give you enough variety that you begin to understand the range of what is possible, and your own use can become spontaneous and creative.

And we keep drilling at every level, from the most basic level to the moving level to the forms level.  Just because we train forms does not mean that we stop drillin the lower levels. Reinforcement is always appropriate and necessary.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t know your forms, so I cannot comment specifically on them.
> 
> However, from my own experience, I will say this:  we drill our techniques on a fundamental level, sort of in a void, without distractions. That is the easiest way to do them, and develops their foundations without distractions.
> 
> ...



You can do all of that without forms.  I'd argue even better without forms, because you're not limited to one footwork or one combination.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> You can do all of that without forms.  I'd argue even better without forms, because you're not limited to one footwork or one combination.


Yes, you can.  

Some people do not like forms, and they have a lot of derision for them.  I always say you don’t need them so if you do not like them you should practice a method that does not use them.  Other methods can work just as well.

I find forms to be a useful approach.  Our forms are long, they contain combinations and variety that I would not come up with myself.  If I was taught that variety as separate segments, outside the context of a form, I would need to keep a list in order to remember to practice them all.   They are easier to remember within the context of a form.  A form is a block of knowledge, and as such it is usually easier to remember the form, than to remember every piece in isolation if taught that way instead.  But I know the form so I can break it down into the separate segments if I wish to.  A form is a tool and you can do with it what you want, you can get creative and pull pieces out to work on specifically, etc.  that is what makes the forms useful.  Not just an exercise in memorization.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> 14 weapons forms, for how many different weapons?  Is each form for a different weapon, or does each weapon have several forms?


Several forms for staff. I think two each for the other weapons, but I'd have to go back and look at the list.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Long form?  Have you seen the video I recently posted?  Chuit Yap Bo Kuen.  That is a long form.


I know, that's why I clarified my usage. To me, 20-30 moves is something a student can learn fairly quickly (part of several classes), and can then use as a tool. The really long forms seem to me like they become the focus, rather than techniques and principles having focus.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I know, that's why I clarified my usage. To me, 20-30 moves is something a student can learn fairly quickly (part of several classes), and can then use as a tool. The really long forms seem to me like they become the focus, rather than techniques and principles having focus.


That that can happen, which is why it is important to have the right mindset, and the right instruction.

Sifu would say (accurately, I might add) that people rush through the forms because they are too focused on “doing the form” and not on making sure every technique and every part of the form is done correctly.  I recognized that fault in myself, once he pointed it out. 

This results in technique execution being rushed and incomplete because I was focused on what comes next before I had correctly completed what I am doing now.  Racing through the form to completion is not the point.  Doing every part of it correctly, and ingraining that movement, is the point.  The form is an opportunity to do every movement to completion, in an ideal way.   It is not the chaos of sparring where technique tends to break down.  So use that opportunity to practice the complete technique.

But yeah, it’s a mindset.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Several forms for staff. I think two each for the other weapons, but I'd have to go back and look at the list.


Interesting.  

We sometimes have one or as many as three I suppose, per weapon.  If you want to become a real expert on a weapon, you might have several.  For general understanding and basic proficiency one can be enough.  This assumes you have a solid foundation on the weapon fundamentals. And a good way to practice them.


----------



## WaterGal (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> The speed roundhouse is the more advanced version, once you're familiar with the others.  What's the motion?



Back leg slides up to join the front leg, front knee comes up, back foot pivots, front leg whips out to do the roundhouse kick.


----------



## WaterGal (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> The important part being "at that level".  We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt.  These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already.  Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.



Is that a problem with the form, though, or with your curriculum? (I think it's neither, it's just a mismatch. There's no reason why you can't teach the back stance block -> grab -> front stance punch combo in Taegeuk 3 at the same belt where you learn Taegeuk 3, for example. What you teach when is totally arbitrary.)


----------



## WaterGal (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I have to admit I'm surprised they are that standardized. I'd have assumed the depth of stance would vary by instructor, rather than by form set.



It's not so much that they vary by form set, as that they vary by _era_.

Kukkiwon/WTF has specific international standards. The current standard is for stances to be more high and narrow, like what he's describing for the Taegeuk forms, which are the current forms of the organization. 

The old way of doing stances were deeper, wider, more karate-like stances. That's how I originally learned the Taegeuk forms, and I guess how the Palgwe forms were taught (I've never learned them). From what I understand, which could be wrong, the Palgwe forms were discontinued by KKW _before _they made the switch to higher stances, so when the Palgwe forms are still taught it's with the old stances.


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> The important part being "at that level".  We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt.  These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already.  Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.
> 
> One thing that I've had to keep in mind, when I'm struggling to understand a form, is that a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics.  There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good.  Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.


I am having a really hard time NOT clicking disagree on this one. Please read @Kung Fu Wang 's posts directly below. Could not have been said better.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> Back leg slides up to join the front leg, front knee comes up, back foot pivots, front leg whips out to do the roundhouse kick.



That's a little bit different than what I'm talking about.  It's also one I hadn't considered that I need to add to my list.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's a little bit different than what I'm talking about.  It's also one I hadn't considered that I need to add to my list.



Since I already read and responded to that post, I'll only assume you're here to tell me you disagree without following through and clicking "disagree."


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> It's not so much that they vary by form set, as that they vary by _era_.
> 
> Kukkiwon/WTF has specific international standards. The current standard is for stances to be more high and narrow, like what he's describing for the Taegeuk forms, which are the current forms of the organization.
> 
> The old way of doing stances were deeper, wider, more karate-like stances. That's how I originally learned the Taegeuk forms, and I guess how the Palgwe forms were taught (I've never learned them). From what I understand, which could be wrong, the Palgwe forms were discontinued by KKW _before _they made the switch to higher stances, so when the Palgwe forms are still taught it's with the old stances.



I've never seen the older version of the Taegeuks.  I do hear they change periodically.  Is it possible that they were originally with higher stances, but the masters that first taught them taught them with the stances they had trained with for years?


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> There might be subtle variations, but they are that standardized.  What I've found is that there's less variation in the definition of the stance from master to master, and more of a variation in when they pay attention to your stances.
> 
> At my old school, you learned the stance 100% from day 1.  You learned the proper angle of your knees, width and length of your step, and where your toes, hips, shoulders, and eyes pointed.  At my current school, you learn the very rough definition, and it gets refined as time goes on, to the point where a black belt should know all of the above.
> 
> So while at the old school, the stance of most of the orange belts looks different than those at my new school, it's because of a difference in teaching style than a difference in the material.





skribs said:


> There might be subtle variations, but they are that standardized. What I've found is that there's less variation in the definition of the stance from master to master, and more of a variation in when they pay attention to your stances.


This is incorrect. Can you speak for the whole of TKD? Of course not. There is a great deal of variation, in stances among many other things. The greater the Okinawan influence the wider but shorter the stances will be. The greater the Chinese influence the longer the stances will be. Is this a constant? Of course not. A good example is the addition of walking stances in the Taegueks forms. They are both narrow and short. I have read in more than a couple books that this was an attempt for Korea to put their own stamp on something within the form set.


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What's the value of having both sets of forms? Personally, when I was working on forms to add to NGA, I started with the idea of two per belt, but cut it back to one per belt. It just seemed people were spending too much time on the forms, and not enough learning to use the movements for something.


It is a legitimate concern. A person is required to learn only 1 form per progression until the later gups where 2 are required. Some of the more active students may learn 16-18 forms by 1st Dan. The remainder of our forms come through the BB levels. I see them as an advantage to reduce the risk of burnout as a person waits years for the next Dan testing. Others have mentioned that there is overlap, multiple forms having the same or similar techniques. A value for the repetition of learning.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is a legitimate concern. A person is required to learn only 1 form per progression until the later gups where 2 are required. Some of the more active students may learn 16-18 forms by 1st Dan. The remainder of our forms come through the BB levels. I see them as an advantage to reduce the risk of burnout as a person waits years for the next Dan testing. Others have mentioned that there is overlap, multiple forms having the same or similar techniques. A value for the repetition of learning.



Can you speak for the whole of TKD?  Don't ask me that and then spout off this nonsense.  

At my old school, each colored belt had around 4-5 forms, and each test had 1-2 forms.  At my current school, there are 2 forms in almost every test, and if you consider belt color then it jumps to about 6.  Your progression is not the same as everyone else's.


----------



## paitingman (May 1, 2019)

I don't like having too many forms. 

I don't really hold the Taeguk forms in very high regard, but I can't say too much about it because I wasn't in the gym when they were being put together. A lot of the movements seem misinterpreted to me.

I still train a few Palgwe and BB forms. Many of those movements and combos are direct copies from Tang Soo Do and Karate forms I learned, but with a unique flavor. 

But I only train and teach the forms I see the most value in. The time saved just gets used to focus on other things.

However, some parents and students want structure, curriculum, CONTENT for their time and money. It's just not my style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is a legitimate concern. A person is required to learn only 1 form per progression until the later gups where 2 are required. Some of the more active students may learn 16-18 forms by 1st Dan. The remainder of our forms come through the BB levels. I see them as an advantage to reduce the risk of burnout as a person waits years for the next Dan testing. Others have mentioned that there is overlap, multiple forms having the same or similar techniques. A value for the repetition of learning.


An interesting take. We're talking about most of the same issues, but you see it from the other side as a positive. Maybe it's just a personal preference thing.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 1, 2019)

Well hey, what do you know?  There IS variety within TKD.  Who wudda guessed it?


----------



## paitingman (May 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is a legitimate concern. A person is required to learn only 1 form per progression until the later gups where 2 are required. Some of the more active students may learn 16-18 forms by 1st Dan. The remainder of our forms come through the BB levels. I see them as an advantage to reduce the risk of burnout as a person waits years for the next Dan testing. Others have mentioned that there is overlap, multiple forms having the same or similar techniques. A value for the repetition of learning.


My school also had a lot of forms taught during black belt, such as Palgwe and Pyung An. 
I think it can help for there to be more content like forms after black belt to help students physically see that there is much more to be learned and it gives them something to focus on. Something more to do.
A lot of people quit at black belt because they feel there is nothing left to learn and don't want to keep repeating the same things. 
More content can help keep them interested. 
It's all more good training of technique and great physical exercise when done earnestly and having a good time.


----------



## WaterGal (May 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've never seen the older version of the Taegeuks.  I do hear they change periodically.  Is it possible that they were originally with higher stances, but the masters that first taught them taught them with the stances they had trained with for years?



That's possible. I really don't know. I originally learned the Taegeuks with deeper front & back stances, and some minor variations on some of the techniques that I can't recall off the top of my head. I don't know if that was an actual older version of the forms, or if it was, like you suggest, older teachers teaching them through the lens of the TKD they did before. 

I did quickly look in a TKD book I have from 30 years ago, and the front stance they show does look wider/bigger than the current one, but the back stance doesn't. More interestingly, to me, the middle block they show has the hand end basically at the opposite shoulder, and the low block has the hand end in front of the belt knot.


----------



## paitingman (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> That's possible. I really don't know. I originally learned the Taegeuks with deeper front & back stances, and some minor variations on some of the techniques that I can't recall off the top of my head. I don't know if that was an actual older version of the forms, or if it was, like you suggest, older teachers teaching them through the lens of the TKD they did before.
> 
> I did quickly look in a TKD book I have from 30 years ago, and the front stance they show does look wider/bigger than the current one, but the back stance doesn't. More interestingly, to me, the middle block they show has the hand end basically at the opposite shoulder, and the low block has the hand end in front of the belt knot.


I have an older Kukkiwon textbook somewhere above my dad's garage. They did show and describe the stances with a deeper spacing. As well as very cool descriptions of various hand techniques and knuckle punch type strikes. 
I'll try and find it and post images.

PM me if anyone is interested in seeing the book


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> That's possible. I really don't know. I originally learned the Taegeuks with deeper front & back stances, and some minor variations on some of the techniques that I can't recall off the top of my head. I don't know if that was an actual older version of the forms, or if it was, like you suggest, older teachers teaching them through the lens of the TKD they did before.
> 
> I did quickly look in a TKD book I have from 30 years ago, and the front stance they show does look wider/bigger than the current one, but the back stance doesn't. More interestingly, to me, the middle block they show has the hand end basically at the opposite shoulder, and the low block has the hand end in front of the belt knot.


Hopefully someone else will chime in, being the newest of TKD forms, I am not aware of newer/older versions. Only one version. We do some slight modifications where we spin instead of just walk from transition to transition. Roundhouse turn around roundhouse, instead of roundhouse walk roundhouse. 



skribs said:


> Can you speak for the whole of TKD?  Don't ask me that and then spout off this nonsense.
> 
> At my old school, each colored belt had around 4-5 forms, and each test had 1-2 forms.  At my current school, there are 2 forms in almost every test, and if you consider belt color then it jumps to about 6.  Your progression is not the same as everyone else's.


Never claimed it was.
As I said, OUR forms, OUR school. I certainly did not claim to speak for anyone but myself. And your math makes no sense; each belt has 6 forms but only 2 at testing? This supports @gpseymour 's assertion of too many forms causing confusion for the student.


----------



## WaterGal (May 1, 2019)

More from my book from 1989.... It instructs you to literally yell "ki hop!" at the end of the forms. I've met people who did this, and always wondered why they did that, but apparently this was actually what they wanted at some point??

Taegeuk 4, the bird form neck strike (open hand high block with knifehand neck strike at the same time).... the knifehand strike wasn't neck level, it's over the guy's head, with the hands almost touching. The one in Taegeuk 3 was like ear level, too.  Taegeuk 5, there was no backfist with the side kick on the middle line. Just high block, side kick, elbow strike. In Taegeuk 8, the double jump front kick near the beginning was just a single jump front kick.

Most of it's still the same as today, though, which surprised me a little. None of the actual old stuff is what I learned as the "old way", other then the wider front stance.

Also, this book includes some self-defense techniques, which are all kind of like... the attacker is this guy with this like Freddy Mercury mustache and a bandana and these really over the top dramatic facial expressions, which is cracking me up. Apparently if a guy tries to stab you downwards with a knife, you should grab his arm and continue the circle until he stabs himself in the groin and goes .

Then there's a code of conduct for Taekwondoists, which is mostly fine and kind of normal stuff like speak respectfully in the dojang and bow when getting on the mat, but does have some... odd things, like that if you're travelling in the car with your instructor you should always open the car door for them, you should not talk during meals, and you should avoid visiting people on holidays or during bad weather.


----------



## dvcochran (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> More from my book from 1989.... It instructs you to literally yell "ki hop!" at the end of the forms. I've met people who did this, and always wondered why they did that, but apparently this was actually what they wanted at some point??
> 
> Taegeuk 4, the bird form neck strike (open hand high block with knifehand neck strike at the same time).... the knifehand strike wasn't neck level, it's over the guy's head, with the hands almost touching. The one in Taegeuk 3 was like ear level, too.  Taegeuk 5, there was no backfist with the side kick on the middle line. Just high block, side kick, elbow strike. In Taegeuk 8, the double jump front kick near the beginning was just a single jump front kick.
> 
> ...


One "old school" directive I still practice; walk behind you GM and do not even walk in their shadow. Just feels right.


----------



## skribs (May 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> More from my book from 1989.... It instructs you to literally yell "ki hop!" at the end of the forms. I've met people who did this, and always wondered why they did that, but apparently this was actually what they wanted at some point??
> 
> Taegeuk 4, the bird form neck strike (open hand high block with knifehand neck strike at the same time).... the knifehand strike wasn't neck level, it's over the guy's head, with the hands almost touching. The one in Taegeuk 3 was like ear level, too.  Taegeuk 5, there was no backfist with the side kick on the middle line. Just high block, side kick, elbow strike. In Taegeuk 8, the double jump front kick near the beginning was just a single jump front kick.
> 
> ...



It makes sense to yell "ki hop."  It's a good kihap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> It makes sense to yell "ki hop."  It's a good kihap.


I've seen Karate instructors teach "kiai" for use as a kiai, as well. I've always preferred "ha" (and "roy" for softer kiai, where there's no hard start or stop - more a practice technique than for common use).


----------



## dvcochran (May 2, 2019)

I never learned it as a specific word or pronunciation. That was never its intended purpose. To help people learn how to use it I will tell them it literally means "expulsion of air". I know this isn't correct per the definition but it is for the purpose. I use the comparison of the sound we make when lifting something really heavy off the ground. More in the category of a grunt. It is using the deep, alveoli air from the lungs.


----------



## skribs (May 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I've seen Karate instructors teach "kiai" for use as a kiai, as well. I've always preferred "ha" (and "roy" for softer kiai, where there's no hard start or stop - more a practice technique than for common use).





dvcochran said:


> I never learned it as a specific word or pronunciation. That was never its intended purpose. To help people learn how to use it I will tell them it literally means "expulsion of air". I know this isn't correct per the definition but it is for the purpose. I use the comparison of the sound we make when lifting something really heavy off the ground. More in the category of a grunt. It is using the deep, alveoli air from the lungs.



I actually prefer something that ends in a T because it gives a finished effect.  A lot of the kids will let their "ha" turn into "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".  Or they get the initial burst of air for half their kiyhap, but then the second half just trails off.

I think it's good when people develop their own kiyhap.  But sometimes it helps to have a standardized sound so people know what's expected.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I never learned it as a specific word or pronunciation. That was never its intended purpose. To help people learn how to use it I will tell them it literally means "expulsion of air". I know this isn't correct per the definition but it is for the purpose. I use the comparison of the sound we make when lifting something really heavy off the ground. More in the category of a grunt. It is using the deep, alveoli air from the lungs.


The translation I learned was "spirit breath". I always thought that's what you had after too much whiskey.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> I actually prefer something that ends in a T because it gives a finished effect.  A lot of the kids will let their "ha" turn into "haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".  Or they get the initial burst of air for half their kiyhap, but then the second half just trails off.
> 
> I think it's good when people develop their own kiyhap.  But sometimes it helps to have a standardized sound so people know what's expected.


When taking falls, you want to keep it open-ended, so air doesn't stay in. For rolls, you want to be able to compress the body, so the "HAAaaaa..." keeps the airway open so air can escape, rather than getting compressed and making the roll harder. When using it with a strike, I tend to close hard on the end of it (either with a silent "t", or just an abrupt closing of the airway), but I teach the open-ended version because it's more important in the falls and rolls.


----------



## dvcochran (May 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The translation I learned was "spirit breath". I always thought that's what you had after too much whiskey.


Is that literal or figurative? Works either way.


----------



## JR 137 (May 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> It makes sense to yell "ki hop."  It's a good kihap.


If Koreans yelled “shout” when they were supposed to yell during an American activity, how would you react?

You’re doing the same thing if you’re yelling “kihap.”  Just saying.


----------



## JR 137 (May 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I've seen Karate instructors teach "kiai" for use as a kiai, as well. I've always preferred "ha" (and "roy" for softer kiai, where there's no hard start or stop - more a practice technique than for common use).


I’ve told this story before, but it’s worth re-telling here...

At my first dojo we had a group of 5th and 4th kyu young adult students who were saying “kiai” when they were supposed to kiai. My teacher at the time was at the height of his split up and custody stuff with his ex, and he wasn’t doing well with her using their daughter as something to hold over his head. Needless to say he had a VERY short fuse.

So we’re warming up with kata, and these guys are yelling “kiai” when they’re supposed to kiai. He stops everyone and explains it’s like yelling “yell.” They immediately do it again. And you can see the look in his eyes while he explains it again. Then they do it again. It’s a habit for them, and it’s like trying not to laugh when someone’s yelling at you because you’re laughing.

He lines up like one of those Mas Oyama mass workouts, just standing in place and kiai’ing with every single technique. Kicks, blocks, punches, etc. For a solid 30 minutes straight. Then it was sparring time and it was basically brawling for the next half hour or so.

One of my most memorable classes. A group of us used to try to get each other to yell “kiai” during class, but no one had the balls to go through with it. To this day, whenever I hear someone say kiai, I chuckle inside.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 3, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> If Koreans yelled “shout” when they were supposed to yell during an American activity, how would you react?
> 
> You’re doing the same thing if you’re yelling “kihap.”  Just saying.


Well, if they were listening to Tears for Fears while training, it might make sense.


----------



## dvcochran (May 3, 2019)

Great song! Love me some 80's music.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 3, 2019)

Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.

As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.

(I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 3, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.
> 
> (I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)


It worked well for Jean-Claude Van Damme, too.


----------



## skribs (May 3, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.
> 
> (I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)



The forms in Taekwondo are quite often a snapshot of the technique.  The pacing is to pause after each technique or combo in order to show exactly what the technique should be.

We generally use 1-syllable kiyhaps at my school, but that syllable is drawn out in forms or in our demonstration team.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.
> 
> (I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)


Yeah, I’ve seen especially egregious examples in the performance-focused systems, XMA and such.  Some of those guys hoot like howler monkeys, dragging it on for several seconds.  And they just do it throughout the entire performance.

I am not a fan.


----------



## gorilla2 (May 3, 2019)

KKW forms 1 per belt rank are fine!


----------



## skribs (Aug 1, 2019)

So my original post was inaccurate.  In addition to the 9 unarmed forms, I also have a sword form (we do kumdo in our black belt classes) and a double-nunchaku form.  The nunchaku one was easy for me.  The sword form I just had this look of "wtf" while my Master was demonstrating it.  I'll get it, but not yet!


----------



## Buka (Aug 1, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.
> 
> (I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)



Made me laugh in a nostalgic way, that did.

Yes, that exaggerated Kiai when a point was scored was big in tournaments back in the day. But where we were, it wasn't usually accompanied with the extended punch hanging, but rather with a raised fist overhead - I imagine the practitioner wanted the ref to see his deadly karate punch that scored said point.

But we were the ugly Americans. And we had "The Karate Dictionary" at our disposal. We looked up what that raised fist and accompanying long Kiai actually meant. 

Translated, it meant "Bet you can't make me face plant." We always acted accordingly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 1, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aside from the linguistic meaning, the two-syllable, drawn out shout that I've seen some karate and TKD practitioners use (whether it's "Ki-aaiii!" or "Hi-yaaa!" or whatever) makes no sense to me from a functional combative perspective. Any given strike should only take a small fraction of a second after which you should be moving on to the next technique. A kiai which drags out longer than that (and I've seen people stretch it out for a full second or longer) will run over into the time you should be using for your next move or two or three and will not be helpful in executing them properly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this extended shout may be useful for point fighting tournaments where you get to pose and call attention to "look at this great punch I just threw, that should be worth a point" or for kata competitions to add drama and impress the judges. Either way, it seems to often be associated with leaving an extended punch hanging out dramatically in a way you would never want to do in a real fight.
> 
> (I am aware of at least one koryu art where the practitioners practice shouting continually like some sort of maniac berserker. Presumably this is intended for psychological effect and differs in function from a normal kiai.)



Reminded me aof a very old joke, I will give the reader digest versoin
Guy gets beat up
Guy decides to study karate
Guy finally gets black belt
Guy decides to go show off his skill
Guy gets see a truck cut off another car
Guy chases truck down and finally truck pulls over
Guy jumps out of his car (wearing his Gi of course) and yells HI-YAAAAA!!!!!
Truck drive jumps out and yells "MONKEY WRENCH!!!!"


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 1, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> Reminded me aof a very old joke, I will give the reader digest versoin
> Guy gets beat up
> Guy decides to study karate
> Guy finally gets black belt
> ...


----------



## skribs (Aug 1, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> Reminded me aof a very old joke, I will give the reader digest versoin
> Guy gets beat up
> Guy decides to study karate
> Guy finally gets black belt
> ...



A brand-new soldier goes to war.  The quartermaster gives him a stick and a carrot.
"What is this?  I need a gun and a knife!"
"That's a magic gun and magic knife.  You point the stick and say 'Bangety-Bang-Bang-Bang' to shoot, and you use the carrot and say 'Stabbety-Stab-Stab-Stab' to use the knife."
The soldier doesn't believe it, but sure enough when he points the stick at the enemy and yells "BANGETY-BANG-BANG-BANG" the enemy falls over dead.  He takes out several more, clearing a path towards his objective.  The enemy are closer, so he pokes them with the carrot and yells "STABBETY-STAB-STAB-STAB" and they too, fall over dead.
Near his objective, the soldier spots one last enemy.  He points his stick and yells "BANGETY BANG BANG BANG" and nothing happens.  The enemy turns towards him and comes closer.  When he's in range, "STABBETY STAB STAB STAB!"  Still no effect.
The enemy bumps into the soldier, and he falls over, dying.  The last thing he heard was the enemy saying "TANKETY TANK TANK TANK."


----------



## skribs (Aug 1, 2019)

gorilla2 said:


> KKW forms 1 per belt rank are fine!



We average about 2 per belt rank.  The bunch I have to learn is mostly to catch up on additions to the curriculum.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> We average about 2 per belt rank.  The bunch I have to learn is mostly to catch up on additions to the curriculum.


All KKW forms?


----------



## skribs (Aug 1, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> All KKW forms?



1 KKW form, 1 of our school's forms.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> We average about 2 per belt rank.  The bunch I have to learn is mostly to catch up on additions to the curriculum.



How long is your school’s testing cycle?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Aug 2, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> How long is your school’s testing cycle?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



We do tests every 2 months.  I would say the average student tests every 4 months.  Some every 2, some 6.  Some of the really young students it's more, same as the students with less consistent attendance.

At red belt, you have to wait 4 months, but we test red belts at every testing period. 

Black belts have to do intermediate tests between dan ranks (i.e. 2 gups before 2nd dan, 3 gups before 3rd dan), which can also be done at any of the testing periods.

Dan tests are only done twice a year (with a few exceptions, like if a student is moving before the next dan test or if you were injured and unable to make your dan test).  There's also the KKW time-in-grade restrictions on those.

Edit-to-add: When I say I'm catching up, I'm catching up on the stuff that's been added to our curriculum from green-red.  That's 8 of the forms right there.

The other 3 are a variation of Taebaek (which is still 60% Taebaek), a double nunchaku form that I already knew the techniques for and just need to memorize the order, and a sword form that's currently a doozy.


----------

