TKD/TSD/Karate Heresy!

[dancingalone]

So, it would seem that it is not an issue of standards that are empty but rather instructors who teach empty standards.

This is a flaw in the instruction, not the standard.

Depends I guess on what we mean by "standard".

Does a front stance for example have both feet facing the front or does the rear foot point out to a 45 degree angle? Or any angle in between those two extremes?

Some systems and teachers would have you adhere to one specification. I consider this detail unimportant, so while I teach a 45 degree angle since that is what my teacher taught me as the initial guideline, I'm truly not troubled at all if any of my students works within the range above.

The point is that if there are standards and there is no physical impediment to performing in accordance with those standards, than the student should in fact be executing according to those standards. However, if you do not have a standard, than you have no idea if the student is performing how they were taught or even if they are performing how they think they should be performing.

It's just a different way of seeing the same thing. You like the artifact of 'standards' since you see it as a way of enforcing good form and technique. I'm more focused on outcomes of stability, fluidity, and power. You don't achieve those characteristics without having good, sound technique to begin with, so naturally I teach correct form (er, 'standards'), but I am not overly concerned if my students do not perform things precisely the way I do or precisely the way I teach it to beginners. So long as they are effective - that's really the #1 thing.

 

[dancingalone]

IMO, it isn't necessarily the amount of kata that you teach. That will just determine how deeply one delves into each one. More important, are the basics. These set the stage for kata practice. They tell you what you are going to be seeing when you analyze the kata. If you want to utilize your kata beyond low block, high block and front punch, you've got to have a different set of basics.

Up to shodan, I teach pyung ahns 1-5, passai dai and sho, and naihanchi shodan.

I agree. So what do you think about dumping the pinan forms in favor of teaching kusanku, perhaps divided into thirds?

 

[Omar B]

Me too , but as already noted, the Seido kata and Taikyoku kata are 2 different kata sets. I knew what you meant though

Jim! I was waiting on you to respond being the one other person (I think) who's spent time training with Nakamura. I know that many peopel around here love and admire their grandmasters but I think our dude's awesome.

No offense Hatsumi, you rule too.

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree. So what do you think about dumping the pinan forms in favor of teaching kusanku, perhaps divided into thirds?

That works for me. I like the pinan kata, however. They are pretty easy to understand in regards to bunkai and they act as a primer for passai and eventually kusanku. Naihanchi rounds out your kata with its focus on grappling.

I can see an entire system of kata including Pinan 1-5, Passai Dai and Sho, Naihanchi 1-3, Kusanku, and possibly Chinto. This is twelve kata, a reasonable number. Dropping the Pinan would put you at seven, which is still more then many of the old masters knew and/or practiced.

You'd need to teach a well rounded set of basics in order to access all of those applications.

 

[dancingalone]

You'd need to teach a well rounded set of basics in order to access all of those applications.

My own teacher sometimes taught the bunkai as standalone techniques ahead of teaching the kata. I remember practicing a particularly nasty sidechoke for weeks before it was finally shown as an kata application.

 

[Makalakumu]

My own teacher sometimes taught the bunkai as standalone techniques ahead of teaching the kata. I remember practicing a particularly nasty sidechoke for weeks before it was finally shown as an kata application.

That is how I like to teach applications.

One point I'd like to make about having more kata, lets say more then 15. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because it lets you pick and choose your applications and create a robust set of basics that is based off of your own abilities. Rather then being hemmed in by a few kata, having more gives you more options. Of course, if you only practice a few kata and those kata are really diverse, then problem is solved!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Do you think there are too many patterns in TKD/TSD/karate today with duplicating movements? Perhaps even some of those patterns are too 'basic' for the type of students you teach?

Would you remove any of those forms from your lesson plans? Which ones?

(I'm fully aware many if not most will say they wouldn't remove any of the forms, nor would they presume to as that would be 'second guessing' the masters who came ahead of them.)

========================================================

As for me, I would be tempted to teach only 1 Naihanchi form, the first one. And I wouldn't be heartbroken about losing the Pyung Ahn/Pinan forms entirely or leaving out the Kibon/Kicho/Taikyoku patterns.

You can teach the applications contained inside the forms without the forms themselves after all. And if you take that approach, then it makes sense to preserve only the 'better' forms. Teach Kusanku proper since it contains the majority of the techniques in the Pinan forms...

I'll stick with Kukki taekwondo, as that is the TKD org that I am certified with.

One kibon form and eight Taegeuk forms, Koryo and Keumgang are what I was taught where I currently train. No, I would not remove any of them.

Firstly, the standard is not empty. The techniques within the form are to be performed a specific way for a reason: because that it the correct way to do them. The movements and shifts in stance aid the student in learning to move and to fight in the the style of TKD.

Secondly, while you can teach the applications within the forms without teaching the form itself, the forms provide an effective way of teaching, particularly with a larger number (more than three) students.

Thirdly, the forms are designed to give the student techniques at specific levels. Having the forms assembled as they are insures that the techniques of the style are effectively communitcated to your students as they were to you.

Yes, you could teach the style without the forms. In hapkido, we do not use forms and have a different means of transmitting the material. That said, the forms are an effective teaching tool, serve as the foundation for various SD techniques (via bunkai), and allow you to say to an incoming student with a black belt on, 'show me your taegeuk forms' and then sit back and watch, rather than calling out a host of specific techniques.

Also consider that the forms, the Taegeuk forms at least, are based on Chinese characters that represent different things. This leads into the more philosophical side of taekwondo.

Is what you propose heresy?

No, but it would be Dancing Alone Kwan Taekwondo or Dancing Alone Kan Karate, depending on which direction you went. You'd be the soke, as you would be essentially establlishing your own curriculum. What you teach may be effective for SD, but it would also somewhat isolate your students in the world of TKD.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Firstly, the standard is not empty. The techniques within the form are to be performed a specific way for a reason: because that it the correct way to do them. The movements and shifts in stance aid the student in learning to move and to fight in the the style of TKD.

I think some here have misunderstood what I mean by 'empty standard'. Consider what I said above about the angle of the rear foot in the typical front stance or climbing stance. There's a range where you can point your toes in this stance and still be stable and strong. As long as my students remain within it, I simply don't care how my students perform it even if it doesn't match what I do myself or what I teach the white belts to do.

An empty standard would be if I required everyone to do the same as me, even if their efficiency is just as good doing it their way.

Secondly, while you can teach the applications within the forms without teaching the form itself, the forms provide an effective way of teaching, particularly with a larger number (more than three) students.

I'll respectfully disagree. The forms are a memory device for you to remember the applications when you are practicing by yourself. They actually are a relatively poor way of teaching bunkai since movements in kata tend to be stylized and formal. The best way to teach bunkai if you are concerned foremost with practical use is to teach it outright in partner drills.

Thirdly, the forms are designed to give the student techniques at specific levels. Having the forms assembled as they are insures that the techniques of the style are effectively communitcated to your students as they were to you.

You could accomplish the same by just teaching the techniques themselves at the right levels. As I said, forms are only convenient memory devices or walking encyclopedias. They are useful as a teaching tool, but even as a kata enthusiast I think there is a lot of misconception about their use and practice today.

Yes, you could teach the style without the forms. In hapkido, we do not use forms and have a different means of transmitting the material. That said, the forms are an effective teaching tool, serve as the foundation for various SD techniques (via bunkai), and allow you to say to an incoming student with a black belt on, 'show me your taegeuk forms' and then sit back and watch, rather than calling out a host of specific techniques.

I agree with this. I often use Wonhyo or Pinan Yondan or Gekkisai Dai Ni (depending on which class I am in!) as a rough gauge for color belts in my mind to separate the technically stronger students from the rest.

Also consider that the forms, the Taegeuk forms at least, are based on Chinese characters that represent different things. This leads into the more philosophical side of taekwondo.

A good point. If you take this aspect seriously, then naturally you would want to teach all the ideograms.

No, but it would be Dancing Alone Kwan Taekwondo or Dancing Alone Kan Karate, depending on which direction you went. You'd be the soke, as you would be essentially establlishing your own curriculum. What you teach may be effective for SD, but it would also somewhat isolate your students in the world of TKD.

Oh, this is just a stray thought. I have no immediate plans to drop forms. I do think it's an interesting idea though, particularly if you practice a form set that has heavy duplication across them.

 

[jim777]

Jim! I was waiting on you to respond being the one other person (I think) who's spent time training with Nakamura. I know that many peopel around here love and admire their grandmasters but I think our dude's awesome.

No offense Hatsumi, you rule too.

Yeah, Kaicho is soooo THE MAN it's ridiculous. And you really couldn't meet a nicer guy, either. His son Akira is a really nice guy as well; really all the Seido folks are nice. It's a honor to study with those men at the Honbu, and study with all the black belts there. How often do you get to take a class where there are 5th, 6th, and 8th degree black belts lining up for the same class you're taking?

 

[Omar B]

Well not often for me since I've been in FL for almost a year.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think some here have misunderstood what I mean by 'empty standard'. Consider what I said above about the angle of the rear foot in the typical front stance or climbing stance. There's a range where you can point your toes in this stance and still be stable and strong. As long as my students remain within it, I simply don't care how my students perform it even if it doesn't match what I do myself or what I teach the white belts to do.

An empty standard would be if I required everyone to do the same as me, even if their efficiency is just as good doing it their way.

Empty means that the standard either holds no meaning or has no relevance. I think the word you are looking for is, "arbitrary," which fits what you describe above.

I'll respectfully disagree. The forms are a memory device for you to remember the applications when you are practicing by yourself. They actually are a relatively poor way of teaching bunkai since movements in kata tend to be stylized and formal. The best way to teach bunkai if you are concerned foremost with practical use is to teach it outright in partner drills.

Never said that they were a good way of teaching bunkai. Just that they are an effective teaching tool when dealing with a larger quantity of people. I was in no way implying that they should be the only teaching tool or that they are the most effective. But if you want to get a large group of people to remember techniques in sequence and to have the memory device (which I agree with you about) to use when on their own, forms work quite well.

Daniel