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

[skribs]

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.

I don't plan to hide it, but I don't plan to advertise it either.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

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?

There's some things that at some time he says he created and other times says his Master created.

There lies the problem. From the Chang Hon perspective I spent time with some of the most senior instructors in the world and their progeny before we had reference works from the founder. Their versions were in fact a carryover of habits, errors in interpretation, and sometimes stuff of their own creation.
Some Seniors mad us crazy by claiming their respective versions were the standard.
Their students all thought they were following some universal standard. Fortunately when a text came out I had an instructor who agreed that we would follow the specs in the text unless there seemed to be an obvious error. When I went to courses with founder and he would say something different than what I learned a little voice inside my head would scream "That's wrong" but a review of the texts showed he was consistent and how things changed as they got passed from person to person.
I have heard stories where someone at a KKW course in Korea questioned the Instructor on the "Standard" he learned versus what the instructor was teaching to which that instructor replied "I am the standard" Point of all this is don't mistake what some senior teaches as a Change - it may in fact be a mistake.

 

[skribs]

There's some things that at some time he says he created and other times says his Master created.

There lies the problem. From the Chang Hon perspective I spent time with some of the most senior instructors in the world and their progeny before we had reference works from the founder. Their versions were in fact a carryover of habits, errors in interpretation, and sometimes stuff of their own creation.
Some Seniors mad us crazy by claiming their respective versions were the standard.
Their students all thought they were following some universal standard. Fortunately when a text came out I had an instructor who agreed that we would follow the specs in the text unless there seemed to be an obvious error. When I went to courses with founder and he would say something different than what I learned a little voice inside my head would scream "That's wrong" but a review of the texts showed he was consistent and how things changed as they got passed from person to person.
I have heard stories where someone at a KKW course in Korea questioned the Instructor on the "Standard" he learned versus what the instructor was teaching to which that instructor replied "I am the standard" Point of all this is don't mistake what some senior teaches as a Change - it may in fact be a mistake.

It's very clear from some of the forms that these are definitely his versions, and not just errors or habits. Some of the forms have a very similar set of movements, some there's maybe a handful of movements that even resemble each other. I think his Palgwe 7 is probably the most removed from the Palgwe forms, in that there's 1 or 2 combinations that look remotely similar.

Another question is...are these errors in interpretation? Or are these differences in interpretation? For example, I've seen a number of differences between how different schools perform Palgwe 1. They all match the general hand positions of every technique.

1. Different schools do a different ratio of back stances to front stances. My school (and a few other versions) are all front stance except for the double knife-hand block. Other schools are a back stance for every block and a front stance for every strike. Others are in-between, with a back stance on the low blocks or a back stance when moving left-right and front stance forward-back.
2. Some schools replace some or all of the inside blocks with outside blocks.
3. Some schools have a more traditional style of stance, some a more modern Taegeuk style of stance.
4. Variations in how you step, chamber, etc.

Even some simple like the step-and-punch. I've seen a number of ways to step.

1. Sine wave from ITF
2. Flat C-step (feet together, knees bent so that your head level does not change, then out into front stance)
3. Natural C-step (feet together, legs straight or comfortably bent, then out into front stance)
4. Flat straight step
5. Natural straight step
6. Check-step (I can't remember which style I've seen this in, but each step involves tapping the other knee with your foot, as if you were raising your foot for a leg check or stepping over someone)

Every instructor has an explanation for why they step a certain way. For those who do (the Korean equivalent of Bunkai), the specific movements in the forms aren't necessarily important for the application. I don't see why a specific movement in a form matters so much.

I think forms were more useful as a means of transferring information before we had rampant literacy and modern communication systems. Now that everyone can read the books, talk online, make videos, etc., I think the value of forms as a specific list of techniques to preserve the art has diminished.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Some schools replace some or all of the inside blocks with outside blocks

If the form serves only as a way of practicing individual techniques, this will not matter.

If the form serves to practice situational self-defense, such changes can destroy the form's integrity. Executing an inside or outside block will result in you ending up on the opponent's inside or outside. This, in turn, will open up a whole different set of targets requiring the next moves to be different to attack them. It's a chain. Changing one move will necessitate changing the following moves as well.

 

[skribs]

If the form serves only as a way of practicing individual techniques, this will not matter.

If the form serves to practice situational self-defense, such changes can destroy the form's integrity. Executing an inside or outside block will result in you ending up on the opponent's inside or outside. This, in turn, will open up a whole different set of targets requiring the next moves to be different to attack them. It's a chain. Changing one move will necessitate changing the following moves as well.

TKD forms don't.

This is based on what I've seen at 3 different schools, in every official forms video I've seen from the organization, and what I've seen of videos from people taking the Master's course.

 

[ButchN]

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.

Why does your school have their own versions of Palgwe? Palgwe is 8 forms. Anything else is a different form all together.