Robot poomse or forms

[Earl Weiss]

If one takes seriously the idea that there are multiple fighting applications embodied in the forms worthy of being analysed and then practiced, one also has to reject any standardized method of performing them.
.

I think the first thing would be to reject any notion that forms are designed for a singular purpose (i.e. singularly for fighting, sparring, as a technical syllabus, artistic performance, teaching breath control, balance, speed, power, athleticism, efficiency, attacks, defenses, etc.)

If you can accept that perhaps the learning of forms serves multiple prurposes, than perhaps we can accept that there is no perfect recipe for ccombining all these elements and that is why forms are not the only training we do.

 

[dancingalone]

I think the first thing would be to reject any notion that forms are designed for a singular purpose (i.e. singularly for fighting, sparring, as a technical syllabus, artistic performance, teaching breath control, balance, speed, power, athleticism, efficiency, attacks, defenses, etc.)

If you can accept that perhaps the learning of forms serves multiple prurposes, than perhaps we can accept that there is no perfect recipe for ccombining all these elements and that is why forms are not the only training we do.

Sure, I can accept that. But I'm only going by what you've posted above... it seemed to be a fairly strong argument for exacting & mandatory instructions on how each form should be performed.

If you're saying you do promote and advocate practicing forms differently at times, I have no disagreement with you.

 

[Balrog]

Everything you mentioned is all part of technique and the flow is not removed. If the form calls for a walking stance and you are in a middle to long stance then it is incorrect. How does doing any of what you stated make things robotic?

Let's say that you are doing a form that requires you to start by stepping into a front (walking) stance with a high block, then following it with a reverse punch. Competitor A executes these two moves by stepping and blocking, then chambering and punching. Click-click. Competitor B comes along and executes these two moves as a block and counter, where the reverse punch flows from the high block in a smooth combination.

That's what I'm thinking of. If, as you say, the form calls for a walking stance and you are in a middle stance, then you're just plain messing the form up and it doesn't matter how smoothly you got into the stance in the first place.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Mr. McPherson, since you only need to do what your instructor says then you are adhering to "The Standard".
However your post highlights an issue and this is in no way directed to you, your GM or anyone else in the KKW becuase I am not a KKW guy, but I bet dollars to donuts the same issues exist in the KKW circles.

After 18 years of training with some of the top ITF guys in the country I went to a course with General Choi. When he would teach something different than what I was taught my brain would go "That's wrong". Of course it could not be wrong since he was the definitive authority on the forms. Checking the text reference I saw that he was doing what the text said 90+% of the time. The other 10% was either an issue of interpretation or in a few cases a text error. There were over 150 things I needed to fix.

I have heard a similar story from a KKW course wheer someone told a KKW instructor about how his Instructor taught him waht the KKW taught at which point the KKW instructr said "Who do you think I am?" apparently he was the final KKW authority.

so, no matter who the GM is they are certainly fallible. In sme cases they were simply not as good / accurate as they would like you to think.

I agree with all you have said. We certainly do adhere to a standard at our club, but its the same standard set by our GM 40 years ago. What he expected then is exactly what he expects today, he hasnt changed the forms we do, how they should be done, how we spar or anything else. Our GM is also available to his students to answer any questions and because the buck stops with him we dont have to worry about people higher up than him changing the rules, standards, costs etc. The reason I said in my original post that "I can only shake my head" is because I cant imagine training at a club where my GM has to attend seminars on what he should teach, how it should be taught etc. In my opinion (and it is only my opinion), I look at tkd the way it was done 30 years ago and compare it to today and its a shadow of its former self. Our GM says "if it aint broke dont fix it" and in his opinion many changes that have been made have been to the detriment of the art and therefore removed himself from any affiliations to larger orgs that would make him change his standards.

 

[ATC]

Let's say that you are doing a form that requires you to start by stepping into a front (walking) stance with a high block, then following it with a reverse punch. Competitor A executes these two moves by stepping and blocking, then chambering and punching. Click-click. Competitor B comes along and executes these two moves as a block and counter, where the reverse punch flows from the high block in a smooth combination...

I understand. Many of the forms have this as you describe and if done incorrectly by pausing from block to punch then it should be marked as a deduction. That is why you perform from Il to Taebaek. To demonstrate multiple techniques. The new poomsae format is pretty good. They did try to build in for exactly that of what you speak of.