skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
One thing I was thinking lately - do forms need to be static? By "static" I mean how the Taegeuks have gone relatively unchanged over several decades. If you were to join a school in the 1990s and progress to blue belt, you will learn Taegeuk 4. If you are teaching at that school in the 2000s, 2010s, 2020s, and so on, then you will be teaching blue belts Taegeuk 4, and it will be the same Taegeuk 4 that you learned as a blue belt.
From the perspective of what the student will learn or benefit from the form (in other words: absent bureaucracy and testing requirements), is it needed to always be this way? As an example of what I mean, what if instead of doing Taegeuk 4 as written, I were to teach a form that is:
One thing I'm thinking is that forms could be built dynamically. In the example above, let's start this form in May. First week, we cover the first 6 moves. Second week, we add in the spinning hammerfist and punch. Third week, we add in the next set. And fourth week we finish the form. Let's call this May Form.
Then in June, we start building June form. This form may be built from pieces of forms, or from combining techniques together in different ways. We refine the May form and build the June form. In July, we start building the July form. We practice the May form, refine the June form, and build the July form. In August, we drop the May form. Those techniques may get taught in the August form. Or those techniques may wait a bit before coming back into rotation.
In the schools I've been a part of, most people only retain what is needed for testing, and often that's not all of the forms. So I've seen it work in this way from the student's perspective. It also means anyone coming in from outside is on relatively equal footing as those who are learning the forms in-house, because everyone is learning something new. And students can remember the forms they really connect with and continue to practice on their own if they so choose.
From the perspective of what the student will learn or benefit from the form (in other words: absent bureaucracy and testing requirements), is it needed to always be this way? As an example of what I mean, what if instead of doing Taegeuk 4 as written, I were to teach a form that is:
- Moving left and right: Double knife block, spearhand (from Taegeuk 4)
- Moving forward: Double knife block, spearhand, spinning hammerfist, punch (from Palgwe 4)
- Moving right and left: Low double knife block, double out block, kick, double punch (from Palgwe 6)
- Moving backward: Double knife block, spearhand, spinning backfist, arc strike (modification of the second set)
One thing I'm thinking is that forms could be built dynamically. In the example above, let's start this form in May. First week, we cover the first 6 moves. Second week, we add in the spinning hammerfist and punch. Third week, we add in the next set. And fourth week we finish the form. Let's call this May Form.
Then in June, we start building June form. This form may be built from pieces of forms, or from combining techniques together in different ways. We refine the May form and build the June form. In July, we start building the July form. We practice the May form, refine the June form, and build the July form. In August, we drop the May form. Those techniques may get taught in the August form. Or those techniques may wait a bit before coming back into rotation.
In the schools I've been a part of, most people only retain what is needed for testing, and often that's not all of the forms. So I've seen it work in this way from the student's perspective. It also means anyone coming in from outside is on relatively equal footing as those who are learning the forms in-house, because everyone is learning something new. And students can remember the forms they really connect with and continue to practice on their own if they so choose.