That's a lot of forms

[Dirty Dog]

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.

Sort of depends on the forms. The forms he's talking about are pretty short. Think 20 steps.

 

[dvcochran]

It amazes me how different a persons perspective can be. For the most part, we are all like minded on this forum having had at least a limited MA experience. To be certain, there is a lot of variance in styles. TMA, FMA, open handed, weapons, etc... each have their own uniqueness. To take this further, within each MA category each system is different. And this continues on to each style, and then even further to each school and finally to some instructors individuality.
Even with all this grouping of the MA's there are constants. For example, the large majority of styles teach fighting in some form. We do learn a MARTIAL Art so naturally this is at the core. The approach to teaching fighting is as varying as there are brands and models of cars but, ultimately the intent is the same. To save oneself or prevent bodily harm. And then, even this intent is somewhat inconsistent when you think of the FMA's in a sports format.
Most, not all, systems use some type of Forms to supplement or compliment their teaching. There is a healthy amount of overlap in form names, numbering, meaning, and application. There is likely more that is unique regarding forms within different systems. This is a dynamic element, being changed over and over as forms and form set get changed and refined by styles and individual instructors. Most of the time it is a graceful fluidity.
One of the most consistent absolutes I have ever heard it that one of the intended purposes of forms is so an individual can practice their kibon and technique on their own. It is an incredibly common sense idea. Not so prevalent today, but 100 years ago it is easy to envision someone who only get input from an instructor intermittently so individual practice was paramount to protect themselves and possibly their village.
Forms, or their semantic partners, are a logical way to present subject matter to a student. They are necessary for organization for both the student and instructor. In my MA experiences and travels I have been exposed to dozens of form sets. Each satisfies the intended purpose of technique, footwork, stance, balance, strength, mental, and much more. It is really cool to see the variety in the approaches used to teach these concepts.
@skribs , Your last bullet jumped is confusing. It is one of the base purposes of practicing in a form format. Much of your post is confusing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

PS I purposefully avoided italics or bolding, or using a different word, for my own entertainment.

You're a jerk, KD.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Triple post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Double post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Depth over breadth. Or, in my version, depth before breadth...except where breadth breeds depth.

(See, I can be confusing, too. )

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

When you teach - as part of an organization - both happen at the same time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@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.

The Shorin-ryu folks at the school where I teach have a bajillion forms. I think I counted 14 weapon forms. I don't understand how a person can develop usable skill if they have to spend that much time or rote repetition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sort of depends on the forms. The forms he's talking about are pretty short. Think 20 steps.

To me, that's a "long form" - about the same length as the 5 forms I teach. ("Short forms" to me are like what some styles call "one steps".)

 

[skribs]

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.

We like one, the other is required. They have different stances and some variations in their techniques and pacing, even if at a quick glance they may look similar.

For example, in the Palgwe forms, a back stance is a deep, wide L-shaped stance with both knees pointed out. In the Teageuk forms, a back stance is narrower and shorter, with a more pronounced bend on the back leg and a slighter bend on the front.

 

[skribs]

@skribs , Your last bullet jumped is confusing. It is one of the base purposes of practicing in a form format. Much of your post is confusing.

The important part being "at that level". We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt. These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already. Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.

One thing that I've had to keep in mind, when I'm struggling to understand a form, is that a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics. There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good. Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics. There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good. Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.

Do you want TKD to be a fighting art, or a performance art? What's your goal (not your TKD style goal)?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We like one, the other is required. They have different stances and some variations in their techniques and pacing, even if at a quick glance they may look similar.

For example, in the Palgwe forms, a back stance is a deep, wide L-shaped stance with both knees pointed out. In the Teageuk forms, a back stance is narrower and shorter, with a more pronounced bend on the back leg and a slighter bend on the front.

I have to admit I'm surprised they are that standardized. I'd have assumed the depth of stance would vary by instructor, rather than by form set.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The important part being "at that level". We have some techniques that don't show up until the blue and red belt forms, which are techniques we teach at white and yellow belt. These are "new" as far as the forms are concerned, but something we've been training for ages already. Which means the form is not retaining the part of the curriculum associated with the form.

One thing that I've had to keep in mind, when I'm struggling to understand a form, is that a lot of what goes into a form (in Taekwondo) is aesthetics. There are choices in some of the movements and positions that are not made for practical application, but because they look good. Performance is a big part of Taekwondo.

Ignoring the rest of this (the aesthetic choices, etc.), I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form. I think forms best support techniques we already know (and do reasonably well). Given too early in the learning process, they provide too much opportunity to repeat and ingrain mistakes.

 

[skribs]

Ignoring the rest of this (the aesthetic choices, etc.), I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form. I think forms best support techniques we already know (and do reasonably well). Given too early in the learning process, they provide too much opportunity to repeat and ingrain mistakes.

I don't understand this, and maybe you could explain it to me. If forms are a teaching tool, then what are they doing if they're only teaching things you're already supposed to know?

 

[skribs]

Do you want TKD to be a fighting art, or a performance art? What's your goal (not your TKD style goal)?

My goal is to learn everything my Master has to teach me. My goal is also to teach to my students what my Master wishes them to learn.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm generally in favor of a significant delay between learning a technique and getting it in a form.

I always teach application first. For example,

- Step in left leg with left hand parry down opponent's right leading arm.
- Left arm wrap his right arm.
- Right hand push his throat.
- Right leg cut his right leading leg.

This is the minimum amount of move to apply a "front cut" (Osoto Gari - large outer reap). If you teach this way, there is no way that any performance element can be added in.

 

[skribs]

I have to admit I'm surprised they are that standardized. I'd have assumed the depth of stance would vary by instructor, rather than by form set.

There might be subtle variations, but they are that standardized. What I've found is that there's less variation in the definition of the stance from master to master, and more of a variation in when they pay attention to your stances.

At my old school, you learned the stance 100% from day 1. You learned the proper angle of your knees, width and length of your step, and where your toes, hips, shoulders, and eyes pointed. At my current school, you learn the very rough definition, and it gets refined as time goes on, to the point where a black belt should know all of the above.

So while at the old school, the stance of most of the orange belts looks different than those at my new school, it's because of a difference in teaching style than a difference in the material.

 

[skribs]

I always teach application first. For example,

- Step in left leg with left hand parry down opponent's right leading arm.
- Left arm wrap his right arm.
- Right hand push his throat.
- Right leg cut his right leading leg.

This is the minimum amount of move to apply a "front cut" (Osoto Gari - large outer reap). If you teach this way, there is no way that any performance element can be added in.

Forms are done solo. You can do an exact copy of the technique or a stylized version.

And you can always add more performance elements.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My goal is to learn everything my Master has to teach me. My goal is also to teach to my students what my Master wishes them to learn.

Everything start to make sense now. In your mind, your master's wish is more important than your wish.