dvcochran
Grandmaster
Mostly turns and footwork. I will work on a list.
That's a lot of forms
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
I don't have any issues with the turns and footwork.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
Well we started a few months ago, and I've got 7 3/4 of them down so far.
If you can category your techniques as:
What techniques can I use
- when my opponent has right (or left) side forward.
- from my opponent's 4 sides and 2 doors.
- on my opponent's head, upper body, lower body, leg.
- to enter, and to finish.
- ...
You may not pay too much attention on your forms.
Last edited:
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
You're looking at Taekwondo forms through the lens of Kung Fu, and there are many differences between the two that make it difficult to compare them.
Kukkiwon doesn't have any procedure to actually verify that schools in other countries are really teaching the Taegeuk forms, but they are part of the official 1st dan requirements.
.Yeah, that could trip you up. My other half said that there were some folks who clearly didn't know the Taegeuks that well when he went - I imagine they were in your boat. But that's certainly less than ideal, since the forms are part of the course.
I think that was probably part of why they were talking about having certified dan examinars and panel testing for a while. That seems to have gone away in favor of offering the Master's course internationally more often.
FWIW, we teach roundhouse kick & front leg slide roundhouse kick (possibly what you call a "speed" roundhouse?) in our beginner class; the step roundhouse, switch feet & kick, and double roundhouse in our intermediate class; and the jumping roundhouses, step-turn roundhouse, and tornado kick in our advanced class.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
The speed roundhouse is the more advanced version, once you're familiar with the others. What's the motion?
Yeah, but there's learning the forms, and learning the forms. Two very different things-you could learn a form in a week if you wanted, but it would take way more than a week for you to learn it.
PS I purposefully avoided italics or bolding, or using a different word, for my own entertainment.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
My opinion on Taekwondo forms is that there isn't much of a distinction. They're more about performance and dexterity than teaching applicable concepts. Most of the differences are different styles of footwork than the other forms (but I'm used to those footwork already from other training I've done), and the difference in the stances (which we've already been working on in the black belt forms).
As I have stated, you don't want to grow fat. You want to grow tall.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I've never heard that phrase before, and the first part is pretty obvious but the second part confuses me.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
I think what he means is, depth of your understanding instead of breadth of your understanding. Like it's better to train one art for 3 years than to train a dozen arts for 3 months each. If the form isn't teaching me anything new, then there's not much point.
However, @Kung Fu Wang ignored the rest of that post, which also said why I think the forms are that way. He's also ignoring that I'm learning these as an instructor to be able to teach these new requirements to the curriculum.
To grow fat:
- This is a book.
- That is a chair.
- This is not a pen.
- I love you.
- You love me.
- ...
To grow tall:
Beginner level - This is a book. That is a pen.
Intermediate level - If I had had ..., I would have had ...
Advance level - Crow weeps in the dark. Tide bellow in the north wind. How lonesome the world.
Last edited:
Today, you still train for your style. You have not started to train for yourself yet.
There is a difference between:
- Your style tells you what to do, vs.
- You tell your style what to do.
I believe (and may be wrong), that the taeguk forms are the same as the pinyon form's that I've learned. I vaguely recall watching a video of the first few half a decade back and thinking it was the same thing. If they are the same, then there is a lot of applicable concepts that can be learned from them, and depth you can learn. It would be a disservice to your own students to ignore that possibility, since they won't get to learn the depth of the forms as well.
Not saying you have to learn them all at once, the movements come first, but it's important to continue studying them afterwards if the goal is for you to teach them.
JR 137
Grandmaster
@skribs Basically, what I gather from your OP is that you as an instructor need to learn them pretty much all at once, while the students will learn them at various ranks. Correct?
I'm not a fan of more (as in total) kata personally. I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.
But I'm no expert.
For the Kyokushin and offshoot guys, and anyone else that knows these kata, at the kyu ranks we do:
Taikyoku 1-3
Pinan 1-5
Seido 1-4 (our founder's own kata, Seido 5 is at 1st dan)
Sanchin
Gekisai Dai
Yantsu
Tsuki-No
Tensho
Saiha
If I were to start my own organisation, I'd eliminate the Taikyoku, Pinan, and Seido katas, and do the rest in order starting at white belt. I'd have to double up at one rank though.
I'm not a fan of more (as in total) kata personally. I'd rather do less and repeat and explore those more. We have 18 kata for the 10 kyu/colored belt ranks. To be totally honest, if I were to start my own organisation and curriculum, I'd do 1 kata for each solid colored belt rank. There's a bit too much redundancy in our 18 kata IMO. The ones I'd do are distinct enough from each other while covering the basics.
But I'm no expert.
For the Kyokushin and offshoot guys, and anyone else that knows these kata, at the kyu ranks we do:
Taikyoku 1-3
Pinan 1-5
Seido 1-4 (our founder's own kata, Seido 5 is at 1st dan)
Sanchin
Gekisai Dai
Yantsu
Tsuki-No
Tensho
Saiha
If I were to start my own organisation, I'd eliminate the Taikyoku, Pinan, and Seido katas, and do the rest in order starting at white belt. I'd have to double up at one rank though.
Agree with you 100% on this.
I have combined 10 long fist forms into 1 form. I call it the "long fist summary" form. It contains 84 moves (longer than most forms). The only concern is instead of to train 10 long fist form, the future long fist generation may have to train 11 forms. Instead of doing something good, I may do something bad for the long fist system.
For some MA students, they may have more interest in those ancient forms than the modern form. Of course 1000 years from today, my modern form will become ancient form too.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
I am an instructor at a school, under my Master. What is in his curriculum, I need to know, so I can teach it. I am not doing this for me, for the art, or for my Master. I'm doing it for the kids I teach, so that when they are training under me, they learn my Master's curriculum as best as I can teach it to them. There is nothing more than that. It's not about my journey. It's about my job, and it's about my students journey.
I am not learning these for selfish reasons.
I can't comment on pinyon. I can say that a lot of what I've learned in the Palgwe forms and KKW forms falls into one of several traps:
- The movements are chosen for form over function (pardon the pun), in some cases changing a technique from what is practical to what is more aesthetically pleasing
- The movements reinforce concepts that were learned several belts ago, instead of introducing new concepts
- The movements are looked back on with hindsight, and application is found, but the application is not taught by the form
- The application takes one technique from the form and adds a bunch of extra stuff that's not in the form
On #2, there are several concepts, like the idea of going from back stance to front stance in a block and punch, that we do at yellow belt in the basic drills, but we don't cover in a form until purple belt. So if the form is to teach it, the form is backwards.
On #3, I've watched several videos of how to do Bunkai in Karate (since it's not as common in Taekwondo). Most of those rely on you knowing how to use a technique already, and then go back and apply it to the form, or rely on you already knowing the other technique. For example, if I do a high block and punch in a form, and someone says I can do the high block and wrap their arm and lock their elbow before I punch, unless the instructor says "high block, and then you would wrap their arm", I don't know it from the form.
And on #4, I've seen other Bunkai videos where they take a single block or two moves, and add on a ton of other stuff that's not in the form. That would be like me teaching you how to play a G chord on the guitar, and then expecting you to be able to play a song with a chord progression of G-D-C-D7. Unless the form also teaches D, C and D7, it's hard to say the application comes from the form.
It depends on what the form is doing and how it is constructed. For Taekwondo, the forms serve several purposes that I can tell:
- Discipline - to not only memorize the form, but also the attention to detail in order to recreate accurately what your Master does
- Muscle Memory - to get used to the stances, footwork, and timing when using techniques, and to develop the stabilizer muscles that will help in your stances and techniques
- Mental Memory - we've had older people at my dojang who have found that doing the forms has helped keep their cognitive abilities intact
- Exercise - my Dad has worn a heartrate monitor during class, and aside from sparring, the highest his heartrate got was during forms
If these are not important to you, and you want to only use what will directly translate into a practical application, I understand that. If I were to make up my own art that wasn't Taekwondo (and I'm a long way off from even trying that), I would do something like:
- No forms - just teach the techniques and concepts without forms
- Forms that are individual practice routines for partner drills - this way you can practice on your own
- Forms that are open-ended. For example, a core concept is covered (like a simultaneous block and palm strike) by the form, but that is used as a discussion point for what you can do after that
- Forms that are used to retain the techniques and combinations taught at that level
What's the value of having both sets of forms? Personally, when I was working on forms to add to NGA, I started with the idea of two per belt, but cut it back to one per belt. It just seemed people were spending too much time on the forms, and not enough learning to use the movements for something.
Similar threads
