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

I used to think that you had to teach it perfect from the start.
I submit there is a difference between Teaching something perfectly and expecting it to be done perfectly.

I do agree that even a thirst man can't drink from a fire hose and that the most essential elements be communicated first with finer details to follow.
 
I submit there is a difference between Teaching something perfectly and expecting it to be done perfectly.

I do agree that even a thirst man can't drink from a fire hose and that the most essential elements be communicated first with finer details to follow.
But what is perfect? Which version of the technique, and why? Does the status of one version being perfect make the others less desirable, even in the situations in which they would be better?

I can vary my kicks for speed, power, or form. For the height or range I'm kicking. For how my opponent deploys their defenses. One thing that's been very clear in my training is that in a fight, searching for the perfect technique often leaves you with missed opportunities to have taken a "good enough" technique.

I don't agree that there is a perfect version of the technique for me to pick, which would then be a requirement for my students. I believe I can teach what's right for the given situation. And if that situation is that they are a white belt, there's not much to worry about.
 
I believe there are a few different factors that can affect whether a technique is "right" or "wrong".
  1. Based on the specified details in the form or kata.
  2. Based on the drill that's being performed.
  3. Based on the rules that you are operating under.
  4. Based on objective improvements of what works and what doesn't.
  5. Based on the pros and cons of the current read.
  6. Based on the individual, such as their rank, ability, etc.
Can you elaborate on these? I am not certain I understand.

1.) Seems reasonable, but poomsae/kata are a bit more static in movement.
2.) Are we talking line drilling or sparring drills, etc...?
3.) This takes the conversation in a different direction, and a good one IMHO. Kicks do change in a dynamic environment, and person to person as well.
4.) This gets to the point of the matter to me. There is an objective standard for every kick A model. However, from person to person, nearly every kick may 'look' different. We are not identical lemmings.
5. Please clarify.
6. Please clarify.
 
Can you elaborate on these? I am not certain I understand.

1.) Seems reasonable, but poomsae/kata are a bit more static in movement.
2.) Are we talking line drilling or sparring drills, etc...?
3.) This takes the conversation in a different direction, and a good one IMHO. Kicks do change in a dynamic environment, and person to person as well.
4.) This gets to the point of the matter to me. There is an objective standard for every kick A model. However, from person to person, nearly every kick may 'look' different. We are not identical lemmings.
5. Please clarify.
6. Please clarify.
1 - Based on the specified details in the form or kata.
As you said, pretty self-explanatory. Not much information needed here. It's usually spelled out in a kata the details of a technique. For example, if you watch the Kukkiwon videos, they'll tell you how many fist lengths your hands should be from your belt in a number of techniques. That's a detail that matters primarily for the form.

2 - Based on the drill that's being performed.
Either. Or both. For example, if we're doing a double-tap kick of side kick - hook kick, which is designed to check the body and strike the head. The side kick needs to be a check or a quick snap with little follow-through. You can't do the Bruce Lee launch-a-guy-20-feet pushing side kick and then follow up with a head kick in the same motion. So the pushing side kick is wrong in this drill, even if it's a good technique in other contexts.

3 - Based on the rules that you are operating under.
I do mean a few things by this:
  • In TKD, a kick with the shin is often not allowed (or if allowed, doesn't score) where a kick with the instep is a scoring kick. So kicking with the instep is better in TKD, even if the shin is better or more correct in other arts (Muay Thai, MMA).
  • In TKD, our opponent isn't going to punch or elbow us in the face. The aggressive style of footwork and general lack of a high guard that's common in TKD works because we're mostly dealing with kicks. The same type of footwork and handwork can be very problematic in Muay Thai, where folks stand their ground to check kicks, and can throw short range attacks with relative ease.
4 - Based on objective improvements of what works and what doesn't.
As I said in a previous post, there are a lot of "right" kicks depending on the current situation. Let's take a roundhouse kick. Some are more of a chamber, some more of a swing. Some travel more diagonal, some go up and across. Some even come up and then down.

It's going to be generally bad to kick with your toes (unless you're wearing hard boots). It's going to be generally bad to do a roundhouse kick with the ridge of your foot or your calf. It's going to be generally bad to swing a straight leg, or to just let your foot freefall after executing the kick.

I can spell the word "color" or "colour", but I can't spell it "kulur". I'm not going to get wrapped up in if I teach "color" and my other instructor teaches "colour", but I will if they teach "kaewhtgrulllajaeghrrr".

If my instructor were to teach that you start a roundhouse kick by bringing your foot up straight behind you, and then swinging your leg in a wide circle to hit with the inside of your knee, that would be wrong just because it's bad technique. If my instructor were teaching a roundhouse kick with the ball of the foot, that's different than what I do, but not necessarily incorrect.

5 - Based on the pros and cons of the current read.
A simple example is the back kick (which travels straight back) vs. the turning side kick (which comes around at an angle). If my opponent is square to me, then kicking straight back works better. If my opponent is in a bladed stance, kicking at a slight angle (turning side kick) works better. It works better with the angles of the armor.

It can also be for things like what range they're at, where their guard is, what direction they're moving. If people do a high guard to block head kicks, I will do a roundhouse kick that starts angled high (to get their hands up) and then turns sharply in (to hit the ribs). It's not as fast or as strong as a dedicated body kick, but it's a lot more effective than a "correct" body kick that just hits the arm.

6 - Based on the individual, such as their rank, ability, etc.
Some folks just aren't going to do head kicks. So there isn't a version of a head kick that is going to be "correct" for them. But as part of a Taekwondo curriculum, they at least need to know the theory of how to do them, so that they can teach others.

Generally there are different levels of execution that are considered appropriate at different belt levels. For example, in my system:
  • A solid belt must be able to demonstrate the move step-by-step.
  • A white-striped belt must be able to demonstrate the move comfortably.
  • A black-striped belt must be able to demonstrate the move with speed, power, and precision.
Another example is forms, where the difference in a front stance is:
  • White belt - long stance, front knee bent, back leg straight, don't cross your feet
  • Blue belt - long stance, front knee bent directly over the foot, back leg straight, hips pointing forward, feet shoulder width apart
  • Black belt - feet shoulder width apart and double shoulder width long, front knee bent over the front foot, knee and foot pointed forward, back foot pointed 30 degrees, back knee straight, hips and shoulders at a 15 degree angle, shoulders relaxed, chin at a neutral level.
It's like clay. Start with the general shape, and then refine the details as you get closer to a finished product.
 
But what is perfect? Which version of the technique, and why? Does the status of one version being perfect make the others less desirable, even in the situations in which they would be better?
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
 
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
"Perfect" may be subjective, based on the observer's criteria (whether well-informed or not). A more combat oriented objective view of it may be:

1. Proper form, which leads to...
2. Proper biomechanics, which lead to...
3. Proper power, speed and overall execution, which lead to:
4. Combat efficacy of the technique for the intended purpose.

Expectations for #1 in some schools do not necessarily lead to #2. While this may be aesthetically "perfect" and require skill, IMO is not relevant in an MA context, placing form over function. It depends on the style's or school's particular goals in teaching the art.
 
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
My solution is anything with a metric goes in a form. If it's not in a form, it's not worth being as specific at the curriculum level. A big reason I want to create my own forms, and why I'm agonizing over how they're done.
 
"Perfect" may be subjective, based on the observer's criteria (whether well-informed or not). A more combat oriented objective view of it may be:

1. Proper form, which leads to...
2. Proper biomechanics, which lead to...
3. Proper power, speed and overall execution, which lead to:
4. Combat efficacy of the technique for the intended purpose.

Expectations for #1 in some schools do not necessarily lead to #2. While this may be aesthetically "perfect" and require skill, IMO is not relevant in an MA context, placing form over function. It depends on the style's or school's particular goals in teaching the art.
What's really funny about this is that your first three steps are basically what I spelled out in my previous post in this thread.

And then #4 is something that will come out over time in sparring.
 
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
Fully agree. To you and @skribs, a move can be technically correct and look very different from person to person, e.g. a 20-year-old 6'5" person doing a side kick versus a 4'-8" 50-year-old with arthritis. Some things just are not apples to apples.
It is part of the job of an instructor to ensure a technique, however it is performed is as effective and technically correct as the student can perform it (effective being of a higher order).
 
What I ended up deciding to do is my own versions of the Palgwe forms. It's what my Master did (or at least what someone else did and he uses).

I couldn't take the Taegeuks and make them fit my style and design requirements, but I could do so with the Palgwes. Simple things like taking Palgwe 1 and replace the inside blocks to the left and right with a elbow strikes, and I'm no longer ending the line on a "block". Take off the last 4 steps and so I end on the right spot, end on a kiyhap. The last 4 steps were a repeat anyway, you can practice those more by simply practicing the first 4 steps again.

Other forms have fewer changes, some have more drastic changes. I've tried to keep the spirit of the form (or at least what I think meets the spirit of the form) while making my own. But I have a much stronger connection with my versions than I do the others.
 
What I ended up deciding to do is my own versions of the Palgwe forms. It's what my Master did (or at least what someone else did and he uses).
I don't think there's anything wrong with this plan, but please change the name; don't call them Palgwae, because they're not.
 
What I ended up deciding to do is my own versions of the Palgwe forms. It's what my Master did (or at least what someone else did and he uses).
Did your Master specify the origin of this version for the form? Does he specify the rationale for the changes? Is there a written memorialization of this version that is provided to the students?
 
Fully agree. To you and @skribs, a move can be technically correct and look very different from person to person, e.g. a 20-year-old 6'5" person doing a side kick versus a 4'-8" 50-year-old with arthritis. Some things just are not apples to apples.
It is part of the job of an instructor to ensure a technique, however it is performed is as effective and technically correct as the student can perform it (effective being of a higher order).
It also depends how you define things. For example, in my first school, a front stance was defined as 1 shoulder width wide and 2 shoulder widths long. It's a rule of thumb with quite a bit of wiggle room.

If you define a front stance as "front foot pointed forward, back foot slanted slightly outside" that's different than "rear foot at a 15-degree angle".
Did your Master specify the origin of this version for the form? Does he specify the rationale for the changes? Is there a written memorialization of this version that is provided to the students?
He spoke in parables a lot. For example, every test he'd say "3 people failed" and on 95% of the tests, nobody failed. (On the 5% of the tests that did have a failure, it was less than 5% of that testing group that failed). There's some things that at some time he says he created and other times says his Master created. I'm not sure how much was him and how much he brought in. There were a few students there when I started who had trained under his previous Master with him, and I believe a lot of it was carried over.

He has written versions, but I don't know if they were his notes or someone else's. They were descriptions of the technique, but not further information about the history of the forms. They were rarely provided to students. He was very concerned about copyright and people stealing his curriculum.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with this plan, but please change the name; don't call them Palgwae, because they're not.
Different Karate styles have different versions of the same form (by name).

In the entertainment industry, you have changes whenever someone makes something their own. Adaptations and reboots, cover songs, even retcons in prequels and sequels.

I don't see how this is any different from all of that.
 
Different Karate styles have different versions of the same form (by name).

In the entertainment industry, you have changes whenever someone makes something their own. Adaptations and reboots, cover songs, even retcons in prequels and sequels.

I don't see how this is any different from all of that.
Regarding the karate styles: It's easier to identify. If I say as a student I know pinan 1, from X style, it'll be fairly easy for someone to guess that it's different than pinan 1 from y style. Much less so if I say I know palgwe 1 from TKD, and you know palgwe 1 from TKD, we'd assume we're referencing the same thing.

Regarding why it matters vs. the entertainment industry, it's a level of importance for that uniformity. If I hear a song, and sing it at karaoke or for a vocal audition or something, no one's going to care all that much if I sang the original or a reboot. Even then though, people often feel a need to specify which one they're referring to if there's significant different songs/movies. However, if I learn a form, and I think that will transfer over to a different school (because they have the same form), that can be an issue. I'd go from having a clean transfer of rank to going back and relearning their versions of the forms. Which is ultimately not a huge issue if I know about it in advance, but if I don't know (or have a reasonable expectation to know) that could suck.

The other part would be if students want to enter any forms tournaments those could be rough, they say they're doing X form and all the judges think they're doing it wrongly.
 
Regarding the karate styles: It's easier to identify. If I say as a student I know pinan 1, from X style, it'll be fairly easy for someone to guess that it's different than pinan 1 from y style. Much less so if I say I know palgwe 1 from TKD, and you know palgwe 1 from TKD, we'd assume we're referencing the same thing.

Regarding why it matters vs. the entertainment industry, it's a level of importance for that uniformity. If I hear a song, and sing it at karaoke or for a vocal audition or something, no one's going to care all that much if I sang the original or a reboot. Even then though, people often feel a need to specify which one they're referring to if there's significant different songs/movies. However, if I learn a form, and I think that will transfer over to a different school (because they have the same form), that can be an issue. I'd go from having a clean transfer of rank to going back and relearning their versions of the forms. Which is ultimately not a huge issue if I know about it in advance, but if I don't know (or have a reasonable expectation to know) that could suck.

The other part would be if students want to enter any forms tournaments those could be rough, they say they're doing X form and all the judges think they're doing it wrongly.
The Palgwe forms are deprecated. They were in place for about 2 years before the Taegeuks were released and became the official standard, and those have been in place for over 50 years. If you go to a tournament, you typically have the option of doing the official form for your belt (if you're a KKW/WT school) or you can do your school's forms (whatever they may be).

In fact, my Master's advice is that because tournament judges don't know our specific forms, if you make a mistake to the left, make the same mistake to the right, so it looks like that's just how our forms are designed. (Different from testing, where the judges will know you made a mistake).

I don't see why you would say that it's normal in Karate but wouldn't work in TKD. I'm not going to be part of any organization, so it's not like I'd be expected to uphold their standards.
 
Different Karate styles have different versions of the same form (by name).
Yes, but most of these variations were made by MASTERS (and I'm not talking about TKD 5th degrees) who directly learned from other MASTERS and had an understanding of the deepest elements of the form and the art in general.
 
I don't see why you would say that it's normal in Karate but wouldn't work in TKD. I'm not going to be part of any organization, so it's not like I'd be expected to uphold their standards.
Simply that it's more known in karate that different styles are different. People (assuming base knowledge of how karate works) don't go into a shotokan dojo and expect to learn kyokushin or goju-ryu. So it's expected those forms are variations. It'd be comparable to having someone go to a WT school and not expecting the forms to be the same as in an ITF school or TSD.

If I was looking at two shotokan dojos, one which is part of the ISKF, and one where the owner was a part of iskf then branched off, I'd be expecting to learn the same form. Which I think is a closer comparison for your plans.
 
Yes, but most of these variations were made by MASTERS (and I'm not talking about TKD 5th degrees) who directly learned from other MASTERS and had an understanding of the deepest elements of the form and the art in general.
Unless those elements don't exist in your system, or at least aren't published by the organization or taught in certified schools.

Then you're in a catch-22.
Simply that it's more known in karate that different styles are different. People (assuming base knowledge of how karate works) don't go into a shotokan dojo and expect to learn kyokushin or goju-ryu. So it's expected those forms are variations. It'd be comparable to having someone go to a WT school and not expecting the forms to be the same as in an ITF school or TSD.

If I was looking at two shotokan dojos, one which is part of the ISKF, and one where the owner was a part of iskf then branched off, I'd be expecting to learn the same form. Which I think is a closer comparison for your plans.
I'd expect the other one to do things different if they branched off. You don't branch off if you want to do things the same.
 
I'd expect the other one to do things different if they branched off. You don't branch off if you want to do things the same.
I'd expect some things to be different, sure. But unless it's outright stated, a technique or form with the same name, I'd expect to be the same. There are many reasons to leave an org that aren't related to being dissatisfied with how the forms go.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as long as you're transparent to your students that the form is not the same as other versions of the form.
 
Back
Top