skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
I've attended 3 different Taekwondo schools, and I've seen the same thing at pretty much all of them. I realize this is a small sample size, but I've seen the same from some other folks I've talked to online. It seems that Taekwondo is (in general) highly focused on how much a student can memorize in terms of what their progression is. And while different schools have a different level of quality control for what is tested, it's almost always been "Do you know your form and your XYZ #1-#3? Then you're ready for testing."
In my experience, there are 4 types of items you will perform during testing:
I've spoken many times before about my main school, but for the sake of this thread I'll bring it up again. The school I was at for 9 years and got to 3rd degree black belt. This was mostly memorized curriculum, and there was a lot of it. Memorized punch, kick, and jump kick combos. A few forms per belt. Lots of one-steps. Called techniques were more common in the beginner level (advanced level meant more memorization). There were a few dynamic displays, and specific belts had a small amount of creative content (adult blue belts created 2x one-steps, you needed to create a form for 3rd degree black belt).
It was also expected by the Master that you focus a majority of class time on testing requirements, because he thinks that's what people expect when they come to class. So for example if I notice a lot of people are struggling with back kicks, and so instead of doing Kicking #1-8, I do a back kick workshop, I get told I should've done Kicking #1-8, because that's what helps them get ready for testing.
The school I attended most recently (around 3 months, then left because it was such a mcdojo I felt I was losing ability by being there) had less memorization than either of my previous schools, but it was chaotic and so tightly controlled in how it was taught, but the quality control wasn't there. You learn your form (enough to get through it with instructor help), you get your form stripe and don't practice your form again in class, because now you learn one-steps. The students at this school had such bad understanding of the forms and techniques that I had teach green belts how a basic block works to stop a punch (simple things like "push the punch away from your face, don't pull the punch into your face", against a punch that was just hanging out there). Testing was a couple of called techniques, form, memorized one-steps, and then called board breaking. I don't even remember if they sparred during testing, but I know there was no other dynamic and no creative content.
Then there's the discussions I had in the recently closed thread, which I want to be very careful with what I discuss from there. There are two schools that the one responder mentioned, the one he learned at, and the one he teaches. From the one he learned at, you get the sense that the memorized curriculum was the measure of the student, based on the statement that there was no new content past a certain level (I think it was 3rd dan), so everything else is just a formality. Similarly, when he was suggesting learning from him, the start was "You should know these forms and my whole curriculum is on Youtube for free."
Overall, it seems very common to me that Taekwondo is heavily curriculum-driven. When I do open my school, I'd like to follow a similar template as the Taekwondo I've learned (forms, kick-heavy sparring, self-defense, weapons), but I'm wondering if an approach that has less of an explicit curriculum is too far removed from what every other Taekwondo school is that I shouldn't call it Taekwondo at that point.
Are there schools where testing is more than just "Memorize XYZ and learn these details on them"?
In my experience, there are 4 types of items you will perform during testing:
- Called techniques or combos - "Show me reverse punch!"
- Memorized curriculum - Forms, one-steps, memorized combos
- Dynamic displays - Sparring, other spontaneous performances
- Creative content - anything the tester has prepared in advance (i.e. new form, creative one-steps)
I've spoken many times before about my main school, but for the sake of this thread I'll bring it up again. The school I was at for 9 years and got to 3rd degree black belt. This was mostly memorized curriculum, and there was a lot of it. Memorized punch, kick, and jump kick combos. A few forms per belt. Lots of one-steps. Called techniques were more common in the beginner level (advanced level meant more memorization). There were a few dynamic displays, and specific belts had a small amount of creative content (adult blue belts created 2x one-steps, you needed to create a form for 3rd degree black belt).
It was also expected by the Master that you focus a majority of class time on testing requirements, because he thinks that's what people expect when they come to class. So for example if I notice a lot of people are struggling with back kicks, and so instead of doing Kicking #1-8, I do a back kick workshop, I get told I should've done Kicking #1-8, because that's what helps them get ready for testing.
The school I attended most recently (around 3 months, then left because it was such a mcdojo I felt I was losing ability by being there) had less memorization than either of my previous schools, but it was chaotic and so tightly controlled in how it was taught, but the quality control wasn't there. You learn your form (enough to get through it with instructor help), you get your form stripe and don't practice your form again in class, because now you learn one-steps. The students at this school had such bad understanding of the forms and techniques that I had teach green belts how a basic block works to stop a punch (simple things like "push the punch away from your face, don't pull the punch into your face", against a punch that was just hanging out there). Testing was a couple of called techniques, form, memorized one-steps, and then called board breaking. I don't even remember if they sparred during testing, but I know there was no other dynamic and no creative content.
Then there's the discussions I had in the recently closed thread, which I want to be very careful with what I discuss from there. There are two schools that the one responder mentioned, the one he learned at, and the one he teaches. From the one he learned at, you get the sense that the memorized curriculum was the measure of the student, based on the statement that there was no new content past a certain level (I think it was 3rd dan), so everything else is just a formality. Similarly, when he was suggesting learning from him, the start was "You should know these forms and my whole curriculum is on Youtube for free."
Overall, it seems very common to me that Taekwondo is heavily curriculum-driven. When I do open my school, I'd like to follow a similar template as the Taekwondo I've learned (forms, kick-heavy sparring, self-defense, weapons), but I'm wondering if an approach that has less of an explicit curriculum is too far removed from what every other Taekwondo school is that I shouldn't call it Taekwondo at that point.
Are there schools where testing is more than just "Memorize XYZ and learn these details on them"?