I have a love/hate relationship with the I-shape forms

[skribs]

I've spent the last several years trying to develop my own set of colored belt forms. I've learned my school's version of the Palgwe forms. I've learned the Taegeuks. Looked through the original versions of the Palgwes. Looked at other styles of Taekwondo. Looked into older inspirations such as TSD and various styles of Karate. There's a lot to like out there. But nothing out there has really truly grabbed me as "the one." There's always something about a set of forms that makes me pause and reconsider. Sometimes it's almost everything about them (I'm looking at you, Taegeuks). But even the forms I spent the most time training and have the fondest memories with...I still don't know.

One of the issues I have with creating my own set of forms is that I don't want them to all look the same. The Palgwe forms all follow the basic I-shape pattern. In fact, most forms seem to. Those that abandon it often barely do so (such as Koryo). The Taegeuk forms at least have a middle line to break up the pattern, although that leads to a different flavor of sameness. The shorter stances benefit the Taegeuk forms in making it easier to flow while breaking up the vertical lines. But I'm not a fan of those stances, so that doesn't help me.

I keep coming back to the I pattern, because it's so easy to write for. It's a perfect template. You can plug-and-play a couple of short combinations and a couple of long combinations. It's like a haiku or limerick. The structure is there. The structure works. But that structure doesn't really offer much room to deviate. Small deviations and it just comes off as a mistake. Too far off, and the forms start to feel random.

I want to make forms that will fit me, my curriculum, and what I'm trying to do with it. It's proving to be much more challenging than I ever would've thought. I understand now why none of these sets are perfect, or at least perfect to my standards. I have a lot more respect now for the people who initially created them.

For what it's worth, I'm currently back to the drawing board. Several years in and I've got bupkis.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Maybe there's no need to reinvent the wheel...

 

[skribs]

Maybe there's no need to reinvent the wheel...

If that were true, we'd all be doing Kung Fu.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If that were true, we'd all be doing Kung Fu.

Maybe, but not really. You're not developing a new art.

 

[skribs]

Maybe, but not really. You're not developing a new art.

No, but a lot of what I'm doing is not limited to what I've learned in the TKD dojang.

The overall design of what I'm doing is very different from the way I was taught TKD. Much less focus on rote memorization. (Except for the forms).

 

[isshinryuronin]

I was practicing kata in a TKD school, and the instructor asked me, "Why don't your forms end up on the same spot they started?" "Well," I thought, "why should they?" Some of them do, some don't. From a purely functional or combat application point of view there is no reason they need to. There are reasons why this convention has been adopted, none of which have anything to do with the effectiveness of the techniques contained within. I'll leave this point aside for this post and deal with the general patterns of this or that form which I believe is your concern.

The main original principle, IMO, is that the pattern (embusen in Jap.) is application driven. If one needs to move to the side to make a technique/combo work (maybe you're pulling the attacker off balance for a takedown), then you step and pivot off to the side. If it entails an evasion, moving on a 45-degree angle may be the thing. Other considerations can be overlaid.

Some sort of pattern is helpful for a student learn how to move back and forth, angle to angle, left and right, all the while keeping balance and posture and positional awareness. A basic pattern is good for basic students, a more advanced and complex pattern for advanced students. But my style has Chinto, a fairly complex brown belt kata that's performed back and forth along one straight line. There is also Naihanchi kata that's just goes side to side, although in actual combat application one works off this line (one of the "secrets" of this kata).

A reasonable pattern should not be too extreme in any one direction less one runs into a wall or fellow practitioner. Some patterns are asymmetrical (at least in Okinawan styles), others are perfectly symmetrical. But then, Okinawa has always been a laid-back kind of place, not demanding the formal structure that is part of the Japanese culture. I think this is reflected a bit in the kata. What "feeling" do you want to project in a particular form? I've found that different kata give me a different feel. - loose and flowing, concentrated and tight, quick and manic, etc. The techniques are a big part of this, but so is the footwork and pattern. Are you doing a waltz, the tango or the twist?

Most form patterns consist of a main straight line with short branches in T or X and/or Y directions. If you want to be original, how about a form in a triangle or square pattern? There's a variety of considerations in developing a pattern. Good luck and have fun!

 

[Earl Weiss]

If that were true, we'd all be doing Kung Fu.

To a Certain extent we are. T K D in Various machinations has deep roots in Shotokan, ---rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin.

Now, when General Choi created his forms, unlike many of his predecessors he often stated reasons for s parameters like the pattern Diagram ( "I", "+" etc. ) as well as often stating reasons stance length, limb position, starting and ending on about the same spot to as a way to measure accuracy, etc.

Point being - I think the starting point should be the reason for the diagram, and technical parameter, and then use the sequences to reinforce those purposes.

I, agree that there are plenty of forms out there. And if you "Pee; the onion" about what they contain they have plenty to offer. Further, offering unique forms may reinforce what you want to convey, it destroys any portability of your curriculum unless it is an add on to a widely accepted system. .

 

[skribs]

"Pee; the onion"

That was an unfortunate typo.

 

[SirKicksAlot]

If you want to invent/develop your own forms to express your flavor of martial arts then first figure out what you want to express. Just because TKD has a certain type of form doesn't mean you have to also. I mean, most forms originate in Okinawan karate, were slightly reworked to fit the Japanese style, then were taken by TSD/TKD with a slightly different flavor. You could either continue to bastardize the most used katas (Pinans) or make something completely your own. Pinans, Heian, Pyong Ahn, then Palgwe is just moving the Pyong Ahn forms around. Why do you feel you NEED forms? If you can't think of forms to develop, then don't. My point is, don't just make up forms for the sake of having forms. Look at Judo, there are no forms like in karate, they are more just learning a particular move then pressuring testing that move in randori. Maybe just have a list of specific moves you teach, then pressure test them in sparring. Isn't this was kata was anyhow? Just a bunch of techniques that some old masters decided to link together rather than keep them separate.

 

[skribs]

I was practicing kata in a TKD school, and the instructor asked me, "Why don't your forms end up on the same spot they started?" "Well," I thought, "why should they?" Some of them do, some don't. From a purely functional or combat application point of view there is no reason they need to. There are reasons why this convention has been adopted, none of which have anything to do with the effectiveness of the techniques contained within. I'll leave this point aside for this post and deal with the general patterns of this or that form which I believe is your concern.

If the form is designed for it, then it's a good measuring stick. If you're way off, it means you messed something up bad. If you're slightly off, it means your stances weren't consistent.

Of course, this is a problem if your form appears to end in the same spot, but really doesn't. For example, most of the TKD forms I have learned will actually end a few feet behind the starting position. It's assumed that you will end up in the same spot because for every 2 or 4 steps in one direction, you take 2 or 4 steps in the other. However, it doesn't account for the stance width and how it's affected by having two lines at the top and only one line at the bottom.

This is one of the reasons I'm not super happy with the design of the Palgwe forms. Although in this case, it would be relatively easy to get around, because the Palgwe forms usually repeat the lateral movements, so I'm just taking out a repetition if I drop them down to a beginning and middle set.

The main original principle, IMO, is that the pattern (embusen in Jap.) is application driven. If one needs to move to the side to make a technique/combo work (maybe you're pulling the attacker off balance for a takedown), then you step and pivot off to the side. If it entails an evasion, moving on a 45-degree angle may be the thing. Other considerations can be overlaid.

Some sort of pattern is helpful for a student learn how to move back and forth, angle to angle, left and right, all the while keeping balance and posture and positional awareness. A basic pattern is good for basic students, a more advanced and complex pattern for advanced students. But my style has Chinto, a fairly complex brown belt kata that's performed back and forth along one straight line. There is also Naihanchi kata that's just goes side to side, although in actual combat application one works off this line (one of the "secrets" of this kata).

I do believe this to be a fundamental difference between TKD and Karate forms. I think the TKD forms were largely created to be "Korean, not Japanese" but using the techniques (not combos) from the Japanese kata. I've been to three different TKD schools with very different approaches to forms and to techniques, and none of them have even tried to put any effort into bunkai. There's also no effort in the Kukkiwon official videos describing their forms.

For example, in Taegeuk 7, there's a line by the narrator, "Bojumeok. Is a move to envelop the right closed fist with the left hand." No reason why you would envelop your fist. No explanation of what situation to use it or how. There's a bunch of details of the starting position and ending position, including hands related to each other, hands related to your body, and how bent your elbows should be.

The only "authoritative" source I've found on any application in the Taegeuks is a book called The Taegeuk Cipher where the author went to The Phillipines (not even Kukkiwon headquarters or even anyone in Korea) and learned the supposed original intention of the forms. Even the 8th degree grandmaster who was heavily focused on forms didn't use the Taegeuks to guide the application portion of his curriculum.

A reasonable pattern should not be too extreme in any one direction less one runs into a wall or fellow practitioner. Some patterns are asymmetrical (at least in Okinawan styles), others are perfectly symmetrical. But then, Okinawa has always been a laid-back kind of place, not demanding the formal structure that is part of the Japanese culture. I think this is reflected a bit in the kata. What "feeling" do you want to project in a particular form? I've found that different kata give me a different feel. - loose and flowing, concentrated and tight, quick and manic, etc. The techniques are a big part of this, but so is the footwork and pattern. Are you doing a waltz, the tango or the twist?

This is a consideration. It's actually a reason for everyone to follow the same pattern - if some people are moving left while others are moving right, they may run into each other.

A similar vein is I only want feet on the ground during the forms. No kneeling poses. No rolls or breakfalls. For the simple reason that if you add those in, it becomes a lot harder for people to practice in the kitchen, in the parking lot, on the tile floor in their office, etc. I've been relearning my old forms, and there's a few spots I simply imagine doing the move because I don't want to throw myself down on a non-padded surface.

Most form patterns consist of a main straight line with short branches in T or X and/or Y directions. If you want to be original, how about a form in a triangle or square pattern? There's a variety of considerations in developing a pattern. Good luck and have fun!

I do think having a pattern is important. I think if a form is seemingly random, it can be more difficult to connect with. At least for me. And if it's difficult for me to connect with it, how well am I going to teach it?

 

[skribs]

Further, offering unique forms may reinforce what you want to convey, it destroys any portability of your curriculum unless it is an add on to a widely accepted system. .

Yes and no. It's easier to learn new forms if you already know how to do forms. Even if that style is different. You already know what a front stance is and back stance is, so it's easy to learn the parameters of a new one. You already know what most of the techniques are, and the general principles of how to chamber and execute a technique.

If Taegeuk 1 is your first ever form, then you have to learn what a stance is, how to make a walking stance and front stance, how to control your feet length and width relative to each other, how to control the angle of your feet, hip, and shoulders, how to focus when chambering for a technique, how to chamber for a technique, the twisting and snapping motions of executing a technique, etc.

If you know Palgwe 1 and then learn Taegeuk 1, you have to learn new placement for the front stance, learn the walking stance, learn the new placement for chamber and technique, and learn a slightly different way of moving your hips while doing your forms.

It's the difference between learning how to drive and adjusting to a new car.

 

[skribs]

Why do you feel you NEED forms? If you can't think of forms to develop, then don't. My point is, don't just make up forms for the sake of having forms.

I do find there are benefits to forms. The main issue I had with the schools I attended is the sheer volume of them. This is something I think is very common in Korean martial arts (including TKD, TSD, HKD) in that things tend to be memorized.

As a kid, I attended a school that had around 30-40 in-house "Exercises (mini-forms), the Kibons, Palgwes, and Taegeuk forms to get to black belt. The main school I attended as an adult had the Kibon and Palgwe forms, but also had you memorize a number of punch, kick, and jump kick combos, as well as punch, kick, grab, and a few other defenses. By black belt, you would have learned 35 combos, 13 forms, and 96 defenses, although you only needed to perform 22/3/26 to test. I'm getting ready for my 4th Dan test, and even though I can ignore much of what I needed to get to black belt, the items I will be tested on total 65 combinations, 17 forms, 50 self-defense, as well as a number of forms and techniques for several different weapons.

I feel there's great value in having a small number of forms, but not much value in having 50+ forms, 100+ techniques and combinations, and 100+ self-defense combinations that are rote memorized by everyone involved. It makes it difficult to actually learn the forms you're learning, to pick specific techniques that you're deficient in and need to develop, and to have someone come in from outside the school able to drop in and learn them.

I'm in the camp that I don't really see the point in forms after black belt. For the most part you're not learning anything new with them. It doesn't take a 3rd degree black belt 3 years to learn Taebaek, in which 80% of the form is things they already know. It doesn't take a 4th degree black belt 4 years to learn Pyongwon. I remember a friend of mine (who's been taking martial arts for 30 years by this point) was tired of learning forms and wanted to focus more on application. And then my BJJ professor talking about how the purple belts and up aren't going to get much from the drilling portion in class. All this is swimming in my head when I look at how I want to use them.

I do find tons of benefits to forms. They're great for physical exercise and coordination. They're great for mental exercise and building discipline and attention to detail. They're a good way to loosen up after a hard grappling session. It's something you can practice at home. They have meditative qualities to them. It's something very objective for grading purposes. They look good, especially when done together as a group.

But I can reap those benefits with 10 forms. I don't need 20+ or more.

 

[SirKicksAlot]

but not much value in having 50+ forms

I absolutely agree with you here. It seems like the old masters would focus on a form or 2 for years totally exhausting all of its meanings. Whereas today, most of those meanings are either lost or totally imposed on the movements. So, you have schools just superficially learning as many forms as possible without any substance whatever.

They have meditative qualities to them

This makes me think of Tai Chi and how there is 1 long form that encompasses the whole art. Maybe make 1 long form you test at black belt that is just 5 sections combined that you teach through the colored ranks? I do like the thought you are putting into this.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Now, when General Choi created his forms, unlike many of his predecessors he often stated reasons for s parameters like the pattern Diagram ( "I", "+" etc. ) as well as often stating reasons stance length, limb position, starting and ending on about the same spot to as a way to measure accuracy, etc.

As you trace the general evolution of karate throughout the 1900's, in addition to its geographic migration from Okinawa to Japan to Korea, one finds a decreasing emphasis on self-defense combat and an increasing emphasis on technical execution - form, precision and accuracy as a way to physical development - The root purpose of the art changing with the demands of the time. Each approach gives one certain benefits. It can be seen as a spectrum and the style/school can decide where it wants to position itself.

I do believe this to be a fundamental difference between TKD and Karate forms. I think the TKD forms were largely created to be "Korean, not Japanese" but using the techniques (not combos) from the Japanese kata.

You've hit the nail on the head. The older traditional Okinawan kata's basic unit is the combo or phrase, designed to deal with a specific attack such as wrist grab. Over the decades as described above, the emphasis moved from dealing with the wrist grab situation to the individual moves used to deal with the grab. Eventually, the wrist grab purpose (phrase) was lost and only the individual techniques (letters/words remained.

More recent forms have been developed strictly to practice the individual techniques, without much regard to a situational context. My first dojo had a simple "dojo kata" like this for new students, a way for them to remember the basics to practice and get them used to some footwork. In other styles, this is carried into higher belts.

 

[skribs]

You've hit the nail on the head. The older traditional Okinawan kata's basic unit is the combo or phrase, designed to deal with a specific attack such as wrist grab. Over the decades as described above, the emphasis moved from dealing with the wrist grab situation to the individual moves used to deal with the grab. Eventually, the wrist grab purpose (phrase) was lost and only the individual techniques (letters/words remained.

The thing is, every school I've trained in has had these applications...just not part of the forms. I plan on doing similar applications, just take it a step further and not bother with the memorization of them at all. As I've said in other threads, I think it works better if you approach a concept from different angles instead of forcing it through the same way every time.

We don't have those memorization elements in BJJ or Muay Thai and it seems to work fine there.

 

[Haruhiko]

I've spent the last several years trying to develop my own set of colored belt forms. I've learned my school's version of the Palgwe forms. I've learned the Taegeuks. Looked through the original versions of the Palgwes. Looked at other styles of Taekwondo. Looked into older inspirations such as TSD and various styles of Karate. There's a lot to like out there. But nothing out there has really truly grabbed me as "the one." There's always something about a set of forms that makes me pause and reconsider. Sometimes it's almost everything about them (I'm looking at you, Taegeuks). But even the forms I spent the most time training and have the fondest memories with...I still don't know.

One of the issues I have with creating my own set of forms is that I don't want them to all look the same. The Palgwe forms all follow the basic I-shape pattern. In fact, most forms seem to. Those that abandon it often barely do so (such as Koryo). The Taegeuk forms at least have a middle line to break up the pattern, although that leads to a different flavor of sameness. The shorter stances benefit the Taegeuk forms in making it easier to flow while breaking up the vertical lines. But I'm not a fan of those stances, so that doesn't help me.

I keep coming back to the I pattern, because it's so easy to write for. It's a perfect template. You can plug-and-play a couple of short combinations and a couple of long combinations. It's like a haiku or limerick. The structure is there. The structure works. But that structure doesn't really offer much room to deviate. Small deviations and it just comes off as a mistake. Too far off, and the forms start to feel random.

I want to make forms that will fit me, my curriculum, and what I'm trying to do with it. It's proving to be much more challenging than I ever would've thought. I understand now why none of these sets are perfect, or at least perfect to my standards. I have a lot more respect now for the people who initially created them.

For what it's worth, I'm currently back to the drawing board. Several years in and I've got bupkis.

Do you know why the forms were created in the first place? Their heritage and philosophy?

Unless you're Taekwondo Jesus, what makes you so sure that your endeavour is necessary let alone more complete than the forms your predecessors, who I assume by all accounts, are more familiar with modern and traditional Korean martial arts, language, and culture?

Those that abandon it often barely do so (such as Koryo)

Koryo is the first form that cho-dan-bo are introduced to. It's the "here's where it gets more involved" form, and the first that doesn't begin with ch/jumbi.

But nothing out there has really truly grabbed me as "the one."

That's a you thing, not a system thing.

But I'm not a fan of those stances, so that doesn't help me.

The taeguks are for preparing the coloured belts for more involved poomsae, and to help them learn about fundamental body movements required at higher levels. I wouldn't expect them to help you.

I want to make forms that will fit me

By all means do so, and exhibit them to people who are interested. Do seminars and demos and show off - many TKD black belts do this at competitions for entertainment. But don't create an entirely different form curriculum... it'll create problems, least of which is rank recognition depending on your affiliation with Kukkiwon or other official grading federations.

 

[skribs]

Do you know why the forms were created in the first place? Their heritage and philosophy?

Unless you're Taekwondo Jesus, what makes you so sure that your endeavour is necessary let alone more complete than the forms your predecessors, who I assume by all accounts, are more familiar with modern and traditional Korean martial arts, language, and culture?



Koryo is the first form that cho-dan-bo are introduced to. It's the "here's where it gets more involved" form, and the first that doesn't begin with ch/jumbi.



That's a you thing, not a system thing.



The taeguks are for preparing the coloured belts for more involved poomsae, and to help them learn about fundamental body movements required at higher levels. I wouldn't expect them to help you.



By all means do so, and exhibit them to people who are interested. Do seminars and demos and show off - many TKD black belts do this at competitions for entertainment. But don't create an entirely different form curriculum... it'll create problems, least of which is rank recognition depending on your affiliation with Kukkiwon or other official grading federations.

One thing I've learned in BJJ is not to put people on a pedastel. Especially people I've never met.

I'm not Taekwondo Jesus. But I also don't believe anyone else is, either. I don't see why I can't do what the people before me have done.

 

[skribs]

Do you know why the forms were created in the first place? Their heritage and philosophy?

As I said in my OP, these were created to be "Not Japanese". From all of the research I've done, that is the best I can find. The Koreans needed to make forms that were "Taekwondo forms" and not "Karate forms" because they wanted to make it Korean.

Unless you're Taekwondo Jesus, what makes you so sure that your endeavour is necessary let alone more complete than the forms your predecessors, who I assume by all accounts, are more familiar with modern and traditional Korean martial arts, language, and culture?

I did comment on the "Taekwondo Jesus" part in the other reply, but what does familiarity with "modern and traditional" language and culture have to do with teaching people how to punch, kick, and grapple?

I would argue I have a much better grasp of modern martial arts than those who created the Taegeuk forms, with my experience in BJJ, Muay Thai, and MMA. If we're putting people on a pedestal, then that would be my claim to it.

Koryo is the first form that cho-dan-bo are introduced to. It's the "here's where it gets more involved" form, and the first that doesn't begin with ch/jumbi.

There's a lot to unpack here. I wouldn't nitpick, except you're being incredibly condescending about it. So let's nitpick:

1. Cho dan bo isn't a term I'm familiar with in Kukkiwon schools. Looks like it's a Tang Soo Do term. In Kukkiwon we typically use the term "1st keub" (or similar) to refer to the belt before black belt.
2. Kukkiwon requires this form for 1st degree black belts (or 1st dan/1st poom if you want to be technical). Not for the 1st keub rank.
3. Every time I've done Koryo, we've started from the normal ready position. When given the command "choonbi", we move into the second ready position. There is a choonbi, it's just not the same as the ones before.
4. A different choonbi position doesn't make this something super secret and only for black belts. There are many form sets that have different ready positions at colored belt.

That's a you thing, not a system thing.

If I'm teaching it, it is a system thing.

The taeguks are for preparing the coloured belts for more involved poomsae, and to help them learn about fundamental body movements required at higher levels. I wouldn't expect them to help you.

What I meant was: I like that the Taegeuks have a different pattern than just the I-shape. There are 3 fundamental patterns in the Taegeuks. Taegeuks 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 have a top, middle, and bottom set before coming all the way back. Taegeuks 4 and 5 have a top and bottom set, before adding a middle set on the way back. Taegeuk 8 goes all the way down before coming back with a middle and end set. This is different from the palgwe forms that are always just an I shape, with a top set, bottom set, and end set.

However, I don't like the Taegeuk stances compared to the deeper stances I've trained. The Taegeuk stances are shallow and narrow. I don't feel that they help students develop leg strength, flexibility, or balance as well as the deeper stances. If I'm going to teach forms, half of the benefits to my students are gone if I go with the Taegeuk style over deeper stances.

And I can't simply adapt the Taegeuk forms to the deeper style of stances, because deeper stances don't work with the Taegeuk forms. The turns and steps become much more awkward (especially for beginners) if your stances are long and wide. So it doesn't help me to create a curriculum based on the Taegeuk forms with deeper stances.

By all means do so, and exhibit them to people who are interested. Do seminars and demos and show off - many TKD black belts do this at competitions for entertainment. But don't create an entirely different form curriculum... it'll create problems, least of which is rank recognition depending on your affiliation with Kukkiwon or other official grading federations.

I'm planning on going unaffiliated. This is a non-issue.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I was practicing kata in a TKD school, and the instructor asked me, "Why don't your forms end up on the same spot they started?" "Well," I thought, "why should they?" ...................................

The main original principle, IMO, is that the pattern (embusen in Jap.) is application driven. If one needs to move to the side to make a technique/combo work (maybe you're pulling the attacker off balance for a takedown), then you step and pivot off to the side. If it entails an evasion, moving on a 45-degree angle may be the thing. Other considerations can be overlaid.

Some sort of pattern is helpful for a student learn how to move..................

If a form is designed to start and finish on the same spot then that is what should happen. There are lots of technical specifications for pattern movements. This provides a metric for the student to achieve and a way for the observer to determine if the student knows and has achieved the metric.

There are schools of thought on "Application driven" IMO any stated application is but a tool to help the student how to move ("Wax on, Wax Off") with practical power and efficiency and providing a point from which the move can be morphed in any number of ways to be applied with practical power and efficiency.

 

[HighKick]

No, but a lot of what I'm doing is not limited to what I've learned in the TKD dojang.

The overall design of what I'm doing is very different from the way I was taught TKD. Much less focus on rote memorization. (Except for the forms).

@Dirty Dog is correct. I would say you are looking at the problem form a certain, narrow perspective. And to be honest, a rather selfish one as well. No offense meant, just being honest.

Question: Do you want to make this form set to satisfy you own, personal ego (to check some mental box) or do you want them to be something function, teachable/learnable, that can be of value to your students? Something that is Not incredibly hard to grasp early on and that teaches them the movements they need to learn as they progress?
The number One thing to reflect on; think back to when you first learned the patterns. How much of a blank slate everything was how very little made sense beyond following someone else doing the movements. This varies in degree from person to person, being easier for some than others. If your forms are too complex from jump, the student will spend all their time just learning the movements and gain zero depth from learning the forms.

We are back to asking/learning about the 'why' in a certain part of your style. Regardless of the patterns you learned, there is much more reason to them then I feel you have grasped. Again, no offense.
All this said, if you want to make your own set of forms, go for it. If you are looking for ideas that do not heavily use the I-pattern they are out there. Of course, the Taeguek's follow the trigram patterns, which is one of the few things I feel is pretty cool about them.
There are a very few exceptions, but TSD relies heavily on the Palgwe forms, with slight variations system to system. But the TSD black belt forms are the most unique of all the Korean and Japanese styles and a close second to CMA's patterns. It would be worth looking at them and possibly grabbing parts and pieces to make your patterns.
They are even more fundamental, but the Pinon's do have value. They are I-pattern, but there is nothing to say you cannot move groups of the form to move in a different direction and less linear.
If you plan to integrate your other MA's knowledge and integrate BJJ, then think about how to take the current patterns to the ground and back to standing.
It does not have forms or even stances Perse' but Kali has very cool 'what-if' movements going to the ground, fighting from a prone position and back to standing. In my limited Kung Fu training, I remember some movements like that.

All the best in your endeavor. I hope you share your patterns are the develop.