Asking To Test

[skribs]

That was my point exactly. Videos are for reference, not teaching. Of course people should practice at home; it should be what they’ve been taught by their teacher(s).

And teachers give feedback. Videos don’t. Can I learn a kata from a video? Sure. Can I get really good at it without feedback from a teacher? Depends on the kata and me. A beginner’s kata? Sure. An advanced kata? Nope.

Depends on the video. When I learned Pyongwon, I watched videos of someone getting instruction during the Master's course, so I got all of the corrections vicariously.

 

[JR 137]

Taekwondo forms are primarily about replicating the technique of your Master or instructor. Of any art's forms, these are the ones that are easiest to practice on your own and get good at.

I will agree with @Dirty Dog (for once), that knowledge of the forms and the general concepts of Taekwondo forms does help. I will also say that it depends on several things:

1. Your ability to learn visually
2. Your attention to detail
3. The quality of the video you're watching
4. The accuracy of the video you're watching

I'm also not saying it's better or just as good as learning them in class (I actually think having both is the best), or that people should learn them this way. But if I can watch several videos on Pyongwon Hyung and get 99% correct, that saves time in class. Which is especially useful when I am one of two black belts that needs to learn the form, and we've got another 15-20 people in each class who need their forms.

Practice what your teacher teaches you is what I was saying. Video doesn’t give feedback. Teachers do.

I practice my kata at home. But they were taught to me in the dojo. And I won’t practice them until I have them fully memorized. I made the mistake of practicing a kata at home that I learned that day. I did about 100 times. And I was wrong all 100 times. It took a good 500 times the right way to stop me from making the same stupid mistake.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'd argue there are some more subtle differences than that. We are just introducing the Taegeuks, and my Master has had to explain to our black belts that grew up with the Palgwes:

1. What a walking stance is ("no, that's not a cat stance")
2. Some of the footwork, especially in Taeguek #1
3. Variations between the traditional style of our stances in Palgwe and the modern stances used in Taegeuk (for example, the Taegeuk back stance is narrower, shorter, and the front leg is straighter).

I wouldn't consider those particularly subtle. And they're absolutely things you can learn from video, assuming you're familiar enough with the related forms, and observant enough to note the differences in the stances. Or smart enough to look at videos that teach the stances before you start looking at the ones that teach the forms.

 

[JR 137]

Depends on the video. When I learned Pyongwon, I watched videos of someone getting instruction during the Master's course, so I got all of the corrections vicariously.

Which kata is that? Comparable to Pinan 1? It’s a beginner’s kata, so if you’ve got a bit of experience it’s fine. If you’re self taught, chances are pretty high you’re doing things wrong.

My former teacher started learning weapons through video. He was revamping the syllabus and basically threw out the old weapons stuff. Being a 4th dan with about 20 years experience, he still made mistakes. He met up with a teacher under the person who made the videos. His mistakes were minor corrections/adjustments and it was more fine tuning than anything else, but he was making mistakes. Video doesn’t correct, teachers do.

 

[skribs]

I wouldn't consider those particularly subtle. And they're absolutely things you can learn from video, assuming you're familiar enough with the related forms, and observant enough to note the differences in the stances. Or smart enough to look at videos that teach the stances before you start looking at the ones that teach the forms.

This is one of those things where because of an assumption I had (that I knew a back stance) I did not assume I needed instruction in how to do a back stance.

You're reminding me of a conversation I had with an old supervisor of mine (I promise it will come back to what you said).

Situation: Customer had asked for a service to be done in a timeline we couldn't deliver. Wanted to drop something off just before COB on Friday and wanted it done before the weekend. They had a mobile phone, which worked as a mobile phone, but they needed company email on it as well. I told them if it was dropped off COB on Friday, they could get it Monday at noon, or they could keep it over the weekend to at least have the phone features, drop it off on Monday, and then get it back Monday afternoon. They said they'd drop it off Monday.

Ten minutes later, my boss comes into my office yelling at me. The customer (who had left smiling and agreeable) went to my boss and said "Skribs wouldn't help us and he wouldn't tell us why!" My boss, assumed the customer was completely correct, and started berating me. Apparently, even though the issue appeared to be handled, I should have escalated the issue to her to deal with.

Circling back: this is why your post reminded me of it. I didn't think there was an issue with my back stance, just like I didn't think there was an issue with this customer.

I do agree that if I am making videos on forms, the first thing I cover in each form would be the stances you would see. Then I'd cover the techniques as we get to them.

 

[skribs]

Which kata is that? Comparable to Pinan 1? It’s a beginner’s kata, so if you’ve got a bit of experience it’s fine. If you’re self taught, chances are pretty high you’re doing things wrong.

My former teacher started learning weapons through video. He was revamping the syllabus and basically threw out the old weapons stuff. Being a 4th dan with about 20 years experience, he still made mistakes. He met up with a teacher under the person who made the videos. His mistakes were minor corrections/adjustments and it was more fine tuning than anything else, but he was making mistakes. Video doesn’t correct, teachers do.

That's the 4th degree black belt form. Not comparable to a beginner's kata.

 

[JR 137]

That's the 4th degree black belt form. Not comparable to a beginner's kata.

The weapons forms weren’t all 4th dan stuff. Most were colored belt (separate weapons ranks) stuff. Edit: kata, solo drills, and partner drills.

Or if you’re referring to Pinan 1, it’s typically the first form taught to adults in Shotokan at white belt.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The weapons forms weren’t all 4th dan stuff. Most were colored belt (separate weapons ranks) stuff. Edit: kata, solo drills, and partner drills.

Or if you’re referring to Pinan 1, it’s typically the first form taught to adults in Shotokan at white belt.

I believe he was refering to Pyongwon, which is the form learned by 4th Dans in KKW TKD, or 3rd Dans in MDK TKD.

 

[dvcochran]

Not really. The taeguek poomsae can be learned from video IF you have a background in similar forms. I did it, in a couple weeks. Because they're all built on the same underlying principals. By the same token, someone who has been properly taught the taeguek forms could learn those other form sets from video.
The taegeuk forms are not really any simpler than the palgwae, turtle, or yudanja forms. You may not personally care for them, but that doesn't change their utility.

You make my point that someone with experience can learn the Taegueks in a short amount of time. There is very little footwork and stance/base taught by them. Little to no balance and strength training them. They have value for people who compete in WT tourneys by virtue of having no other choice. There is a ton of fundamental material not taught by the Taegueks. If an unknowing student never experiences anything other than a purely WT school they have no way of understanding what they are missing.
Do I know the Taegueks? Yes, as a school with WT/Kukkiwon on the windows we teach them. Fortunately we are much deeper in our base of training.

 

[dvcochran]

I believe he was refering to Pyongwon, which is the form learned by 4th Dans in KKW TKD, or 3rd Dans in MDK TKD.

@Dirty Dog , are there any differences in the 3rd MDK version?

 

[dvcochran]

Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't.

Have no idea what you are saying; just like the issue you had with a customer, you need to work on your communication skills.

 

[skribs]

Have no idea what you are saying; just like the issue you had with a customer, you need to work on your communication skills.

Ha. Hahahahahaha!

My communication skills (as voiced by my coworkers who were present for both interactions) were fine. The problem was that the customer went and stabbed me in the back after we'd agreed to a solution to his problem.

So I'll spell it out for you - I was able to learn the Palgwes by watching them, with no instruction on how to do them (it was a little bit different than watching them on Youtube, but basically the same as what I experienced). You say it's impossible, and yet here we are. I did it. It is not impossible.

The only thing I can think of, then, is that you were unable to do it, and thus deemed it impossible. Even though it is possible.

 

[skribs]

You make my point that someone with experience can learn the Taegueks in a short amount of time. There is very little footwork and stance/base taught by them. Little to no balance and strength training them. They have value for people who compete in WT tourneys by virtue of having no other choice. There is a ton of fundamental material not taught by the Taegueks. If an unknowing student never experiences anything other than a purely WT school they have no way of understanding what they are missing.
Do I know the Taegueks? Yes, as a school with WT/Kukkiwon on the windows we teach them. Fortunately we are much deeper in our base of training.

Aside from deeper stances, there's not much different between the Palgwes and the Taegeuks, and I'd argue the Taegeuks are more particular about the stances and footwork than the Palgwes are.

 

[dvcochran]

Ha. Hahahahahaha!

My communication skills (as voiced by my coworkers who were present for both interactions) were fine. The problem was that the customer went and stabbed me in the back after we'd agreed to a solution to his problem.

So I'll spell it out for you - I was able to learn the Palgwes by watching them, with no instruction on how to do them (it was a little bit different than watching them on Youtube, but basically the same as what I experienced). You say it's impossible, and yet here we are. I did it. It is not impossible.

The only thing I can think of, then, is that you were unable to do it, and thus deemed it impossible. Even though it is possible.

Never said, whatever you are talking about, is impossible. Misspeaking what someone else says because it fits your incorrect version of the truth is part of your poor communication skills

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See i have seen a lot of duality for practicing at home. Both encouraging beginners and discouraging beginners from doing it at home. I think the ones discouraging it just assume/presume you cant do it right. Not really relevant but i just thought i would mention the duality of opinions on doing it at home, most people who are good practice a lot in their spare time however.

Just for the sake of knowing, can someone explain the utility of the mentioned forms? Or quote me a post here if it exists on the utility of the forms.

Your closing question in this section is part of the key. Another - as folks have noted here and in other threads where this came up - whether you already have related experience. I can learn throws from Judo videos, because I have relevant similar experience (I know the principles involved and can already apply them). With forms, it also depends whether the form is just for forms' sake, or is being used functionally. I could probably manage some Karate forms from a video, and someone without experience in Karate forms might think I'd learned them well. But I might entirely miss the principles the form is meant to teach/support/practice, and would thereby have just memorized some dance moves. Now, take one of these guys who have done similar forms, and they are more likely to be able to figure out/see the principles intended in a form.

That is all quite different from a beginner - without a proper foundation to work from - trying to figure it out.

 

[skribs]

@dvcochran so you never said this?

Yes, the Taegueks are so simple they could almost entirely be learned from video. Not true for other color belt forms (Pyang Ahns, Palgwe)or the Yudanja poomsae.

 

[dvcochran]

@dvcochran so you never said this?

Where in that does it say impossible? Again, you are trying very childishly to make reality fit your incorrect version.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You make my point that someone with experience can learn the Taegueks in a short amount of time.

No. I make the point that anyone familiar with one set of forms can learn a related/similar set easily, and even from video. Someone trained in the taegeuk poomsae would have no difficulty learning the palgwae or pyong ahn forms from video in a very short time.

@Dirty Dog , are there any differences in the 3rd MDK version?

No. The forms are just learned sooner. In KKW TKD, you start Koryo after reaching 1st Dan. In the MDK you learn Koryo in order to reach 1st Dan. Actually, you learn it to reach Chodanbo, but are graded to a high standard to reach 1st Dan. So all the black belt forms are learned one rank earlier.

 

[dvcochran]

No. I make the point that anyone familiar with one set of forms can learn a related/similar set easily, and even from video. Someone trained in the taegeuk poomsae would have no difficulty learning the palgwae or pyong ahn forms from video in a very short time.



No. The forms are just learned sooner. In KKW TKD, you start Koryo after reaching 1st Dan. In the MDK you learn Koryo in order to reach 1st Dan. Actually, you learn it to reach Chodanbo, but are graded to a high standard to reach 1st Dan. So all the black belt forms are learned one rank earlier.

Does that mean you do not use Batsai Dai for 1st Dan testing?

 

[skribs]

Where in that does it say impossible? Again, you are trying very childishly to make reality fit your incorrect version.

You didn't say the word "impossible." But when you say you can do one thing, and it's not true for another thing, that means the other thing is impossible.