Create a new form that meet those requirements

[JowGaWolf]

Can you create a new form that meet the following requirements?

1. Move 1 set up move 2, move 2 set up move 3, ...
2. All basic punches are included.
3. All basic kicks are included.
4. All basic blocks are included.
5. No duplicated technique.
6. Between 16 to 20 moves.

The 1st requirement could be the most challenged. The 5th requirement can also be challenged. Would you like to try to create one and share your creation here?

Is this punching basics or Fighting sytem basics. The reason why I'm asking is because Jow Ga has basic Jow Ga Strikes but they aren't basics punching.

The other problem is that. The basics become advanced when used in combination.

Basic Wheel Punch = one direction.
Advanced Wheel Punch = jab + Wheel punch. Things become advanced techniques after 2 punches.

 

[skribs]

Very cool and interesting.

Would you be willing to share a video of your new forms? Or written version of them?

Sometime in the future. For now, they're still a WIP.

Depends on your definition of "block." If someone first attacks with a wrist grab, you can counter grab and pull him into a punch right off the bat. Is the counter grab considered a block/defensive move? I see it as part of the counter-attack.

One thing is that these are my rules for my forms. Often based on issues I had with other forms. In my experience, TKD forms are focused on blocks and strikes. I haven't gone into grappling applications in any school I've been to, nor have I seen grappling applications in the official curriculum material published by the organization. So I think of it in terms of blocks and strikes.

Start on a block, end on a strike come from two different places.

• Start on a block is symbolic of the idea that martial arts is for self-defense. Each form of mine has 4 lines (left-right, forward, right-left, backward). Out of 36 lines, 3-1/2 start with a strike, the rest start with a block. (The half is a block with the left and strike with the right at the same time). The first line that starts with a strike is in Form 7.
• End with a strike is because it simply doesn't make sense to me to have a line end on a block. You blocked the punch, but the guy is still there? In every set of forms I've learned, there are lines that end on blocks, or even forms that end on blocks, and it never made sense to me. There are two lines in my Form 9 that end on blocks, every line in Forms 1-8 ends in a strike. Those two lines in Form 9 are mountain blocks that really work well if they're held, so it's an artistic license I took with my own rules.

Why? This is generally only important with many students practicing in a small space or for competition aesthetics. Such things were only important starting 100 years ago. I don't think this was important to the creators, at least not as an imperative. Traditional katas often end 1-3 steps off the starting point unless later modified.

It's something I've heard quite often. It's true of a lot of the forms I've learned. One thing is it shows consistency if you are able to match your stances each direction. It's also easy to tell if you screwed up, because you're not on the right spot.

My forms are 4 lines, typically 16 steps. 2 to the left, 2 to the right, 4 to the front, 2 to the right, to the left, and 4 to the back. At my main school, we would typically do 20-step forms, which added 2 more left and right at the end. Because of the way you turn during these steps, it meant you would end up 2 stance widths behind your starting spot. I thought I'd take off the last 4 steps, so I could end up on the starting spot.

Then I went to a new school (which I mostly didn't like) and found he had done the same thing - 16-step basic I-shape forms. In biology, I believe they call this convergent evolution.

Why? Isn't this rather arbitrary? My traditional forms usually have two kiai somewhere. I have never understood why they were placed exactly where they are, except being done on a strong attack as a rule. I've noticed on sound videos of many old masters doing kata, kiai are often not performed. IMO they should be done when it serves a tactical purpose and feels right for you. I rarely kiai, but once in a while I will.

Mainly an aesthetic choice. I kind of view the kiyhap as a punctuation mark. Compare a basic 16-step form with a 20-step form:

16-step:
Block, punch, block, punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!
Block, punch, block punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!

20-step:
Block, punch, block, punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!
Block, punch, block punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!
Block, punch, block punch,

That last one is just kind of hanging there. You end on a comma, not an exclamation mark.

There's nothing wrong with any of the ideas expressed in this thread. We can practice anyway we like. I'm just challenging some of the conventions and regimentation that have crept into forms in this "modern" age of TMA.

Hence why I say my rules for my forms. A big piece for me is that I connect with what I'm teaching. If I teach it in a way that you or @wab25 or @Dirty Dog says is correct, but it's not what I connect with, then I'm not going to be a good instructor, and my students are going to be worse off for it. And I'm picking on them because we've had disagreements about forms in the past.

I'm going to teach what I find useful in the way I find it useful, and that's what's going to be the most useful for my students.

As for me making up a new form, I already know 19 and regularly practice 13. Got plenty to work on as it is.

This is actually part of why I've created my own forms, and why they're all simple I-shape patterns. The school I recently attended had 5 Kibon forms, 8 Palgwe forms, 8 Taegeuk forms, official and alternate versions of all of the Kukkiwon black belt forms, 5 sword forms, 2 bo staff forms, a knife form, and a double nunchaku form. This is on top of all of the combinations and one-step defenses we had to memorize.

I was able to keep up with all the memorization. I actually think I passed what my Master could keep track of, because he was very inconsistent in showing me the 4th degree test requirements. The other guy going towards 4th degree with me said that he wanted to stop learning more forms and learn more application. Many of the black belts complained that they couldn't become instructors because there was too much to keep track of.

I want to limit the amount of memorization, especially after black belt, and focus more on breadth and depth of knowledge.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

End with a strike is because it simply doesn't make sense to me to have a line end on a block. You blocked the punch, but the guy is still there? In every set of forms I've learned, there are lines that end on blocks, or even forms that end on blocks, and it never made sense to me. There are two lines in my Form 9 that end on blocks, every line in Forms 1-8 ends in a strike. Those two lines in Form 9 are mountain blocks that really work well if they're held, so it's an artistic license I took with my own rules.

I agree pretty much with everything you've said here, except for this. Admittedly the forms I know are not TKD forms, so how the particular forms you're talking about end may affect this. I'll also go with the assumption grappling is not involved.

But I've seen forms end on blocks and strikes. And a form ending on a block and just standing there doesn't make sense. But you don't have to end with a strike for the end to make sense. A pretty common idea is to get to a place where you can escape. If I end in a block, where I'm behind the other person, yeah I can throw another strike, but if I move properly, I can also run away. A simple conversion to that into a form is a left hand middle block, or a fan block, while doing a t-stance and landing past (also heard it referred to as a cross-and-cover..not sure the TKD word for it. you cross your back leg behind or over your front while you block, then follow with your front in the same direction). That ends with a block, me on the other side of the final attacker, and with distance between us. If we assume multiple attackers (as most kata's do in the systems I've trained), then having distance between all of them and them facing the opposite direction is the perfect opportunity to end, as it allows you to escape. If I were to follow up with a strike on that person, it gives the others more time to catch up

 

[isshinryuronin]

End with a strike is because it simply doesn't make sense to me to have a line end on a block. You blocked the punch, but the guy is still there? In every set of forms I've learned, there are lines that end on blocks, or even forms that end on blocks, and it never made sense to me.

Me either. When doing traditional kata and I come to a series that seems to end with a block I look at it closely in context with the preceding moves and recall the old principles of kata as stated by the masters. It usually turns out that the "block" is actually an offensive move of some kind and is a shadowed bunkai whose original intent faded over time. Now it makes sense. The masters knew better than to leave a threat standing.

It's also easy to tell if you screwed up, because you're not on the right spot.

As long as you end up at the same spot each time it doesn't matter if it's the same as the beginning spot. You have still shown consistency.

If I teach it in a way that you or @wab25 or @Dirty Dog says is correct, but it's not what I connect with,

What? You do it the way we say it should be!

I want to limit the amount of memorization, especially after black belt, and focus more on breadth and depth of owledge.

I agree that's a better use of time. We usually learn more than enough techniques by brown belt to spend the next 20 years digging deeper into them.

 

[skribs]

Me either. When doing traditional kata and I come to a series that seems to end with a block I look at it closely in context with the preceding moves and recall the old principles of kata as stated by the masters. It usually turns out that the "block" is actually an offensive move of some kind and is a shadowed bunkai whose original intent faded over time. Now it makes sense. The masters knew better than to leave a threat standing.

I think that's more true of Karate katas than Taekwondo forms, which are often (in my opinion) made more to be "not Japanese" than to teach bunkai.

As long as you end up at the same spot each time it doesn't matter if it's the same as the beginning spot. You have still shown consistency.

It's the easiest way to track what should be the same spot. Especially if the forms are designed that way.

I agree that's a better use of time. We usually learn more than enough techniques by brown belt to spend the next 20 years digging deeper into them.

My philosophy is:

• Beginner belts build muscle memory by being shown a move and then doing it a bunch of times in class.
• Advanced belts build muscle memory by memorizing combos and practicing it a bunch of times on their own.
• Black belts already have muscle memory, it's time to learn how to use it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

facing the opposite direction is the perfect opportunity to end, as it allows you to escape. If I were to follow up with a strike on that person, it gives the others more time to catch up

My system (and I'd guess most other Okin. and Jap. styles for the most part) has no forms that include multiple attackers that I know of. But if they did, your strategy would only work if you're a faster runner than any of the opponents. I'm OK at middle distance (well, used to be) but not a good sprinter. Many of kenpo's forms end with a crossover step and cover, but the last technique performed is a strike.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I think that's more true of Karate katas than Taekwondo forms, which are often (in my opinion) made more to be "not Japanese" than to teach bunkai.

If true, I find it a little sad. TKD stressing form and power in execution has its value though.

It's the easiest way to track what should be the same spot. Especially if the forms are designed that way.

If MA was easy, everyone would be a black belt. It is easier for judges in open tournaments who may not know where the form was designed to end. What I did was bow center in front of the judges then move to a starting point designed to end me up back at that center spot. But evolving TMA to suit competitive sensibilities is another topic.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

My system (and I'd guess most other Okin. and Jap. styles for the most part) has no forms that include multiple attackers that I know of. But if they did, your strategy would only work if you're a faster runner than any of the opponents. I'm OK at middle distance (well, used to be) but not a good sprinter. Many of kenpo's forms end with a crossover step and cover, but the last technique performed is a strike.

My experience is with kenpo and kempo forms. I've very limited experience with others. Many end with the crossover step and cover, but there are a few that don't, or at least it's a ceremonial end rather than a necessary one.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I would not try to create a kata. I have enough to do with the kata of our style of karate.

I agree. I think this is a fun topic, but I have no interest in actually creating my own kata.

I think that the important thing to remember is that most of the kata that originated in Okinawa or China were developed based on actual fights that the originators had been in. These originators also lived prior to modern justice systems, where they could maim someone in mutual combat, and still go on about their day like nothing happened. And do it again the next day.

No person living in a modern society today is going to have that kind insight that those who lived in 18th and 19th century Okinawa had. That said, even if I created my own kata, I'd keep it to myself.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why??? Most arts that train with forms already have forms.... Most arts already have their techniques defined. If all the techniques for an art are already defined.... why do I need to define them again?

All the words are defined in dictionary. You still have to make a sentence out of those words.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Is this punching basics or Fighting sytem basics.

This thread has nothing to do with MA style. You have a toolbox that contain N tools. Instead of polishing tool 1, tool 2, ..., tool N, you link it into a logic sequence so you can polish all of your tools in 1 sequence.

Please notice that I use the word polish instead of train. IMO, you can polish your tools solo, but you need a partner to train.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was mainly hoping to get KFW to explain what he was hoping we would get out of this exercise....

Trying to image this:

1. You throw a right hook punch. Your opponent dodges under it.
2. You change your right hook into a right back fist on top of his head. Your opponent raises his right arm to block it.
3. Your left uppercut to his chin. Your opponent uses left arm to block it.
4. You then follow a right jab to his face.

Now you can link hook-back fist - uppercut-jab into a logic sequence.

 

[Hot Lunch]

My system (and I'd guess most other Okin. and Jap. styles for the most part) has no forms that include multiple attackers that I know of. But if they did, your strategy would only work if you're a faster runner than any of the opponents. I'm OK at middle distance (well, used to be) but not a good sprinter. Many of kenpo's forms end with a crossover step and cover, but the last technique performed is a strike.

If a kata consists of attacking in one direction, and turning in another direction to block and/or attack, it was designed for multiple attackers. Of course, the realism of it actually working like that can be debated, but that was the design.

 

[wab25]

Trying to image this:

1. You throw a right hook punch. Your opponent dodges under it.
2. You change your right hook into a right back fist on top of his head. Your opponent raises his right arm to block it.
3. Your left uppercut to his chin. Your opponent uses left arm to block it.
4. You then follow a right jab to his face.

Now you can link hook-back fist - uppercut-jab into a logic sequence.

You mean I couldn't link those techniques together until I learned a new form?

All the words are defined in dictionary. You still have to make a sentence out of those words.

A grammar book does not have every combination of words that create valid sentences for a language. First, it does not have all the words from the language. Second, the book would be so long that you would never be able to get to the paragraph and essay part... you would be stuck learning the sentences. However, people are able to learn to say sentences and use words, not found in their grammar books, and still communicate effectively.

Kata / Forms are not a dictionary.... they are not designed to contain every move or technique. They are like grammar books, where the idea is to teach you how to use the words. The idea is that you will be adding more to your vocabulary, beyond just the words contained in the book. Further, it should teach you how to construct sentences with all these new words.... even sentences that were not contained in the grammar book. All the grammar books I ever had, would then go on to discuss how to write a paragraph, how to write an essay, how to write a story.... The better you learn the rules, the more effectively you can communicate.... even if you break the rules.... sometimes that can get your point across even better.

Forms / Kata are like grammar books. They are not to restrict you to just these words and these sentences, found in this book. They are rules for how to use and apply all the words you could ever learn, and to be able to apply them effectively. The goal is for the student to go beyond the grammar book. That is why it is important that the grammar book move from vocabulary to sentences, to paragraphs, to essays.... I think that too often we get stuck learning vocabulary and memorizing sentences that only make sense in one specially crafted situation. Even though we have not learned all the words or practiced every possible sentence that could be made with those words.... we need to get past the constructing a sentence chapter in our martial arts.

 

[skribs]

If true, I find it a little sad. TKD stressing form and power in execution has its value though.

If MA was easy, everyone would be a black belt. It is easier for judges in open tournaments who may not know where the form was designed to end. What I did was bow center in front of the judges then move to a starting point designed to end me up back at that center spot. But evolving TMA to suit competitive sensibilities is another topic.

Beginner stuff should be easy.

 

[wab25]

Beginner stuff should be easy.

I disagree. Beginner stuff should be the foundational core of what they want to do. Until they start do get the foundational core... they will never become anything other than a beginner.

I took ballroom dance in high school and college. When you start ballroom dance, you learn the Foxtrot: slow, slow, quick, quick. That is easy. (until you go to a master class for 8 hours and realize that 7 of those hours are that basic step...) Then you learn Swing: slow, slow, rock step. Then you learn Waltz: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3... The lead and follow mirror each other.... you can learn the basic step in 2 minutes, practice for 5 minutes and you are ready and able to learn different moves. People get used to this. You go to the club, you get a 45 minute lesson before the band comes out: 5 minutes basic step, 30 minutes new tricks. People get the impression that the basic step, that you learn first, is taught first because it is easy.

Then you try Lindyhop.... After an hour, you might be able to sort of make it through 1 basic step: the swing out. The lead and follow do not mirror each other, but take different steps.... there are 8 counts and 10 steps syncopated in those 8 counts... you go from a 1 hand lead to a closed position and back to a 1 hand lead.... you and you partner make a 360 circle around each other.... The recommendation is that you do just the basic step (swing out) for at least a month before trying to learn moves. People get frustrated, because the basic step is so hard. One of my instructors stopped the class and explained.... the basic step is the basic step because it is the foundation of the rest of the dance. The dance is built on top of the basic step. If you never get the basic step down, you will never be doing Lindyhop.... the rest of the moves will not work, because the foundation is not there. People don't like that... they like the other dances, where the basic step is easy.... but even in those dances the basic step is the basic step, not because it is easy, but because the rest of the dance is built on it.

If you never learn the core foundation of the martial art you want to study.... you will never learn the art and never be anything but a beginner. Beginning stuff should be the core foundation of the art. It should be the stuff that makes the art work.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This thread has nothing to do with MA style. You have a toolbox that contain N tools. Instead of polishing tool 1, tool 2, ..., tool N, you link it into a logic sequence so you can polish all of your tools in 1 sequence.

Please notice that I use the word polish instead of train. IMO, you can polish your tools solo, but you need a partner to train.

I was only addressing the "basic parts" common strikes are not the same as basic strikes. Basic strike are based on the system.

What's basic striking in Wing Chun is not basic striking in Hung Ga or Tai chi. If I were to teach you basic Jow Ga only the jab would be included. Hooks, uppercut, crosses are not considered basics in Jow Ga

 

[HighKick]

20-step:
Block, punch, block, punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!
Block, punch, block punch,
Block, punch, punch, punch!
Block, punch, block punch,

That last one is just kind of hanging there. You end on a comma, not an exclamation mark.

There is no rule that says you cannot punch twice or more at the end.
All the Taegueks end with an offensive movement. Have you noticed that the first five Yudanja Poomsae end with an offensive movement and the last four end with a defensive movement?

I'm going to teach what I find useful in the way I find it useful, and that's what's going to be the most useful for my students.

I see value in that, but have you considered you could be wrong?

 

[isshinryuronin]

If a kata consists of attacking in one direction, and turning in another direction to block and/or attack, it was designed for multiple attackers. Of course, the realism of it actually working like that can be debated, but that was the design.

Completely wrong! Once again you proclaim things with limited understanding of them. In Okinawan kata (and by extension, Japanese, though to a lesser extent) half the time one is turning the opponent is being pulled around or taken down completely. (I'll grant that this application is almost completely lost in TKD). The other half of the time the turn serves to practice the other side or the biomechanics of pivoting.

You are correct is doubting that fighting multiple attackers in kata would actually work. Unlike the movies, attackers do not patiently wait their turn to move in. Certainly, knowing how to turn into an attack can be used against a second attacker, but as a rule, kata was NOT designed to fight four or five guys. The tactics for this are unique and rarely illustrated in traditional kata. They are simply a series of individual attack scenarios linked together.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Completely wrong! Once again you proclaim things with limited understanding of them. In Okinawan kata (and by extension, Japanese, though to a lesser extent) half the time one is turning the opponent is being pulled around or taken down completely. (I'll grant that this application is almost completely lost in TKD).

It's really not.

The other half of the time the turn serves to practice the other side or the biomechanics of pivoting.

Yup.