Are forms necessary for TKD?

[skribs123 143]

If the question were: "are forms necessary for martial arts", the answer would be 100% that they aren't. There's tons of martial arts that are very successful in producing quality fighters that don't have forms.

But are forms necessary for Taekwondo? Could I still call it Taekwondo if all I teach are the kicks and footwork that Taekwondo sparring is known for?

In previous threads, I've discussed what is truly the core of Taekwondo, and I think the general answer was (outside of programs specifically aimed at national-level or international-level competitors), you can expect at any Taekwondo school to:

• Learn forms
• Learn how to kick, and spar with those kicks
• Test for a belt and break boards on testing day
• Possibly any number of other things (hand strikes, grappling, weapons, self-defense, fitness, philosophy, etc.)

So the question is if a school were to:

• Learn forms
• Learn how to kick, and spar with those kicks
• Test for a belt and break boards on testing day give you a stripe or belt whenever the instructor determines you're ready
• Possibly any number of other things (hand strikes, grappling, weapons, self-defense, fitness, philosophy, etc.)

Would this still be Taekwondo?

 

[Gyakuto124 133]

There's tons of martial arts that are very successful in producing quality fighters that don't have forms.

Your measure of martial art quality is the ability to fight? TMA are about beauty, a dynamic museum of techniques, tradition and culture. I think you’re really taking about combat sports.

But are forms necessary for Taekwondo? Could I still call it Taekwondo if all I teach are the kicks and footwork that Taekwondo sparring is known for?

Is TKD a TMA? if so, then you need to teach its whole curriculum. If you don’t, you have something else.

Would this still be Taekwondo?

No. In the absence of their distinctive practise wear, it’d be indistinguishable from a plethora of other takes on modern combat arts, Ameridote, in particular.

 

[drop bear123 62]

Your measure of martial art quality is the ability to fight? TMA are about beauty, a dynamic museum of techniques, tradition and culture. I think you’re really taking about combat sports.

Which TKD kind of is.

I mean they are in the Olympics.

 

[Gyakuto124 133]

Which TKD kind of is.

I mean they are in the Olympics.

That’s not TKD

 

[Earl Weiss120 20]

If the question were: "are forms necessary for martial arts", the answer would be 100% that they aren't. There's tons of martial arts that are very successful in producing quality fighters that don't have forms.

But are forms necessary for Taekwondo? Could I still call it Taekwondo if all I teach are the kicks and footwork that Taekwondo sparring is known for?

As a wise man once said - Before an intelligent discussion can take place peple must first agree on how terns are defined.

First we need to define terms like "Martial Art", Tae Kwon Do (TKD, Tk-D etc. ) " Fighter" Good luck with that.

Food for thought-

Martial Art - Does it need elements of not only physical conflict but sport, Philosophy, Aesthetic components.? Is Tae Bo a Martial art? Would somethings be better classified as Martial Exercise, Martial Sport or something else?

T K D. Anyone whose system has a link to a Korean who was Kicking and Punching? Even those now doing Hwanf Kee's system who seem to hve adopted the moniker notwithstanding his rejection of it?

Fighter / Fighting - Sport, Combat, Personal protection. (Bodyguard) ?

 

[ap Oweyn26 2]

In my opinion, yes you could still call it taekwondo. Is that going to pass muster with any taekwondo organisation? I couldn't say. I haven't trained in taekwondo in a very long time. And I'm not even sure that I was officially a member of ITF back then.

But if you set organisations aside, then yes. Your techniques come from taekwondo. And you're choosing to focus on how those techniques are applied in real time against someone who doesn't especially want them applied on them. They'll be trying to prevent that using other taekwondo techniques.

As precendent, take a look at Dutch karateka Jon Bluming, who famously eschewed kata, claiming it had very little to do with actual application. Now, there are obviously famous karate teachers (Iain Abernathy for instance) who believe very strongly that kata has strong ties to applicable. At the same time, I doubt too many people would have been willing to tell Jon Bluming he wasn't doing karate anymore. It's a valid choice.

To play Devil's advocate to my own point, you're trying to teach commercially. So you're also contending with people's expectations. While I abandoned forms ages ago, I have two things going for me when I teach:

1) Forms (what are variously called sayaw or anyo in FMA) are not universal in FMA to begin with. So, while I may be rejecting something from my original FMA school, I'm not running contrary to the majority of FMA schools. That means that students seeking out FMA instruction aren't necessarily anticipating (and have often rejected) forms.

2) I'm not teaching commercially. Even when I was teaching, it was for damn near free. So I wasn't too worried about attracting new students.

If I were teaching anything based on taekwondo again, I would probably jettison the forms myself. I've always felt there was too much disconnect with how poomsae (or the term we used in ITF, which I forget now) were practiced and how the referenced technique was performed in real time. As Jon Bluming pointed out, it may give students something to do ("to keep the money coming in" in his words), but the ROI isn't great.

I don't really get behind the beauty / aesthetics argument either. That's not how the word "art" is being used in this context. And, even if it were, my sense of aesthetics is more triggered by someone pulling off a really smooth slip of a punch (for example) than it is by going through perfect motions in isolation.

If your students are okay with focusing on application over forms, though, then yes I think it's valid to continue calling it taekwondo. Your job is to be able to stand by that decision, describe your reasoning, and accept that not everyone is going to like it.

And you don't need them to.

 

[skribs123 143]

In my opinion, yes you could still call it taekwondo. Is that going to pass muster with any taekwondo organisation? I couldn't say. I haven't trained in taekwondo in a very long time. And I'm not even sure that I was officially a member of ITF back then.

Well, I'm going to be unaffiliated, so not too concerned with what the organizations think.

But if you set organisations aside, then yes. Your techniques come from taekwondo. And you're choosing to focus on how those techniques are applied in real time against someone who doesn't especially want them applied on them. They'll be trying to prevent that using other taekwondo techniques.

As precendent, take a look at Dutch karateka Jon Bluming, who famously eschewed kata, claiming it had very little to do with actual application. Now, there are obviously famous karate teachers (Iain Abernathy for instance) who believe very strongly that kata has strong ties to applicable. At the same time, I doubt too many people would have been willing to tell Jon Bluming he wasn't doing karate anymore. It's a valid choice.

To play Devil's advocate to my own point, you're trying to teach commercially. So you're also contending with people's expectations. While I abandoned forms ages ago, I have two things going for me when I teach:

1) Forms (what are variously called sayaw or anyo in FMA) are not universal in FMA to begin with. So, while I may be rejecting something from my original FMA school, I'm not running contrary to the majority of FMA schools. That means that students seeking out FMA instruction aren't necessarily anticipating (and have often rejected) forms.

2) I'm not teaching commercially. Even when I was teaching, it was for damn near free. So I wasn't too worried about attracting new students.

If I were teaching anything based on taekwondo again, I would probably jettison the forms myself. I've always felt there was too much disconnect with how poomsae (or the term we used in ITF, which I forget now) were practiced and how the referenced technique was performed in real time. As Jon Bluming pointed out, it may give students something to do ("to keep the money coming in" in his words), but the ROI isn't great.

To be clear, I'm not saying that forms are bad. An analogy would be if I were to start a company producing martial arts uniforms and I were to start by producing TKD v-neck uniforms. That doesn't mean I'm saying crossover uniforms are bad. That doesn't mean I'm saying other styles of uniform (i.e. Judo or no-gi) are bad. It's just not what we're doing here, because it doesn't fit the business model.

In my particular case, there are a few benefits to running a gym this way.

• While not mentioned in the OP, this may be a gym that includes other martial arts, such as BJJ. This would fit better with the culture of a BJJ gym than including forms and self-defense.
• If I am creating my own style and my own forms, then it will take a long time before anyone else can really cover a class for me. If the art can be boiled down to "hit them in the chestguard, kicks score points, and no grabbing" then it's much easier for me to get coverage from anyone who knows how to kick.
• Moving away from a broad curriculum and focusing on specific techniques makes it easier to have students come in to cross train, whether they're cross-training between arts in the school or coming over from other martial arts schools to learn how to kick.
• Moving away from forms and formal testing would allow me to spend more time on class.

I don't really get behind the beauty / aesthetics argument either. That's not how the word "art" is being used in this context. And, even if it were, my sense of aesthetics is more triggered by someone pulling off a really smooth slip of a punch (for example) than it is by going through perfect motions in isolation.

If your students are okay with focusing on application over forms, though, then yes I think it's valid to continue calling it taekwondo. Your job is to be able to stand by that decision, describe your reasoning, and accept that not everyone is going to like it.

And you don't need them to.

Funny thing is I do get behind these arguments. But I also see the disconnect you're speaking of. When I was an early black belt in TKD, I figured I could open a school and teach the forms and call it Karate, the sparring and call it Taekwondo, and the self-defense and call it Krav Maga, and nobody would know that I learned all these things from the same Taekwondo class.

Of course it would be dishonest to do that and I wouldn't do that...but it wouldn't be difficult to.

 

[skribs123 143]

In my particular case, there are a few benefits to running a gym this way.

• While not mentioned in the OP, this may be a gym that includes other martial arts, such as BJJ. This would fit better with the culture of a BJJ gym than including forms and self-defense.
• If I am creating my own style and my own forms, then it will take a long time before anyone else can really cover a class for me. If the art can be boiled down to "hit them in the chestguard, kicks score points, and no grabbing" then it's much easier for me to get coverage from anyone who knows how to kick.
• Moving away from a broad curriculum and focusing on specific techniques makes it easier to have students come in to cross train, whether they're cross-training between arts in the school or coming over from other martial arts schools to learn how to kick.
• Moving away from forms and formal testing would allow me to spend more time on class.

One more advantage is I wouldn't really be locked in to a specific belt count based on forms. I could have as many or as few belts as I want. As many or as few progress milestones (i.e. stripes, mixed color belts, etc.) before black.

 

[ap Oweyn26 2]

Well, I'm going to be unaffiliated, so not too concerned with what the organizations think.

I remember. We discussed it a while back.

To be clear, I'm not saying that forms are bad. An analogy would be if I were to start a company producing martial arts uniforms and I were to start by producing TKD v-neck uniforms. That doesn't mean I'm saying crossover uniforms are bad. That doesn't mean I'm saying other styles of uniform (i.e. Judo or no-gi) are bad. It's just not what we're doing here, because it doesn't fit the business model.

I didn't take it as you saying forms were bad. And, for the record, I wouldn't say that either. (I'm very clearly not Jon Bluming.) But you make decisions about your training modalities based on your priorities. Then you make decisions that support those decisions. That's pretty normal.

People like Iain Abernathy have made decisions, then supported those decisions with the way they teach. And that's cool. Forms don't support the way I think and teach.

In my particular case, there are a few benefits to running a gym this way.

• While not mentioned in the OP, this may be a gym that includes other martial arts, such as BJJ. This would fit better with the culture of a BJJ gym than including forms and self-defense.
• If I am creating my own style and my own forms, then it will take a long time before anyone else can really cover a class for me. If the art can be boiled down to "hit them in the chestguard, kicks score points, and no grabbing" then it's much easier for me to get coverage from anyone who knows how to kick.
• Moving away from a broad curriculum and focusing on specific techniques makes it easier to have students come in to cross train, whether they're cross-training between arts in the school or coming over from other martial arts schools to learn how to kick.
• Moving away from forms and formal testing would allow me to spend more time on class.

That all makes sense. Particularly the part about having a consistent culture across different styles and classes.

Funny thing is I do get behind these arguments. But I also see the disconnect you're speaking of. When I was an early black belt in TKD, I figured I could open a school and teach the forms and call it Karate, the sparring and call it Taekwondo, and the self-defense and call it Krav Maga, and nobody would know that I learned all these things from the same Taekwondo class.

We'd need to get into more detail about what those arguments are before I could respond helpfully to that. If we're saying that a martial art has to have some aesthetically pleasing elements to it, then we get into the definitions game (which has already been introduced in this thread, along with "fighter," "martial," etc.).

Of course it would be dishonest to do that and I wouldn't do that...but it wouldn't be difficult to.

But what would be the point, if you learned them all from taekwondo? You'd be reinforcing a narrative in which taekwondo is incomplete and not applicable to self-defense. To me, it would read like a lack of confidence in the merits of either its forms work or its potential for application. I get the idea of "plugging into" what the public recognises and knows (or think it knows). But you obviously feel strongly about taekwondo, so lean into that role of educating them.

You're colouring outside the lines a little bit here, which means opportunities AND obligations. But you've got this.

 

[skribs123 143]

But what would be the point, if you learned them all from taekwondo? You'd be reinforcing a narrative in which taekwondo is incomplete and not applicable to self-defense. To me, it would read like a lack of confidence in the merits of either its forms work or its potential for application. I get the idea of "plugging into" what the public recognises and knows (or think it knows). But you obviously feel strongly about taekwondo, so lean into that role of educating them.

To make more money by selling people 3 different products.

 

[ap Oweyn26 2]

To make more money by selling people 3 different products.

Huh. You think? I don't know. I've never run a school. I guess that could be a draw for some people.

 

[Buka38 13]

That’s not TKD

Sure it is.

 

[Earl Weiss120 20]

I don't really get behind the beauty / aesthetics argument either. That's not how the word "art" is being used in this context. And, even if it were, my sense of aesthetics is more triggered by someone pulling off a really smooth slip of a punch (for example) than it is by going through perfect motions in isolation.

I understand your perspective. I simply do not share it. Frankly, if all someone wants to do is 'fight" in whatever context a traditional Martial Art which requires form practice is a huge waste of time and energy.

 

[Gyakuto124 133]

Sure it is.

Really?

This is just **** kicking like kids do in the playground!

The TKD I see in various dojang is completely different and very impressive.

 

[skribs123 143]

Really?

This is just **** kicking like kids do in the playground!

The TKD I see in various dojang is completely different and very impressive.

You're not the first to mock Olympic Taekwondo. Didn't work out for this guy.

Oh, and this style does work in Muay Thai. Check out Mona Kimura:

 

[Earl Weiss120 20]

But are forms necessary for Taekwondo? Could I still call it Taekwondo if all I teach are the kicks and footwork that Taekwondo sparring is known for?

Perhaps you could call it Taekwondo. I will leave it to others who operate in that universe to argue any relevant point.

To call it Taekwon-Do would be a misrepresentation.

 

[Earl Weiss120 20]

You're not the first to mock Olympic Taekwondo. Didn't work out for this guy.

Oh, and this style does work in Muay Thai. Check out Mona Kimura:

>>>Mona Kimura "Oh, and this style does work in Muay Thai. Check out Mona Kimura:"
You lost me on what that style has to do with Taekwondo. Those hands? Lead Leg kicks? IMO not hallmarks of Taekwondo.

 

[skribs123 143]

You lost me on what that style has to do with Taekwondo. Those hands? Lead Leg kicks? IMO not hallmarks of Taekwondo.

The style that Gyakuto was saying is just silly (in more offensive terms). The style typical of Olympic Taekwondo sparring.

 

[ap Oweyn26 2]

I understand your perspective. I simply do not share it. Frankly, if all someone wants to do is 'fight" in whatever context a traditional Martial Art which requires form practice is a huge waste of time and energy.

And that's fine, mate. I didn't really anticipate that many would. Obviously, the same can be said of me in reverse. I can absolutely respect your viewpoint on this.

That said, I do think it's worth thinking about the phrasing here. "If ALL someone wants to do it fight..." signals something that I question. To me, the ability to apply your training in real time IS the art of it. I don't see it as a glorification of fighting. But as the realisation (or as close as you'd really want to get to the realisation) of what you've been practicing.

Being able to perform your art in idealised environments is one thing. It's important. But it's not the destination. The world is full of martial artists who look brilliant doing forms, drills, etc. And I'm not targeting taekwondo here. I've been to muay thai matches where you watch a fighter shadowbox ahead of time and think "wouldn't want to tangle with that guy." Then the actual match begins and it looks very, very different. (Though I still wouldn't want to tangle with them, to be clear.)

I'm not saying they were bad nak muay either. I'm saying that looking good in that more controlled environment isn't "the thing." The thing is trying to embody your practice amid the chaos.

How do you keep your head "in the pocket"? How do you contend with unpredictability, fear, fatigue, pain... ? Again, it's not a question of glorifying the fight. It's the things that really challenge us in real life. And the value of a martial art is that it brings us into contact with things (experiences, feelings, etc.) that we often don't encounter elsewhere.

A person could go their whole life without standing opposite someone whose actual intent in that moment is to stuff their fist into your face. And the experience of that is different from the experience of other situations, even conflicts. A tense conversation at work is different. It triggers different things and calls upon different resources.

So "all someone wants to do is fight," I feel, misses the point. The ability to embody (in this case) taekwondo when someone else is actively trying to prevent you from doing so is actually a higher cultivation of the art, in my view.


p.s. I know the different spelling variations mean a thing. And, when I trained in this style back in the 80s and 90s, we used "tae kwon do." I'm sure the spelling signifies organisational and stylistic alliances, etc. But don't read anything into my default spelling. It may be more associated with WTF and Olympic style (which I've never practiced). It's just the spelling I've settled on for whatever reason.

 

[philwhite49 4]

I have a light forms curriculum compared to most. I think its important to know but I focus more on the combat and self defense side. I have students that want to compete in form so I make sure they are prepared the best I can.

I think most tmas just use forms for belt tests. It’s an easy marker. Its harder to judge sparring performance.

As for various interpretations of what form moves really mean I’m not so sure I buy into that. In tkd I see them as more of a performance art. I don’t think this is a bad thing either. Sometimes certain moves look better together.