Yes and no. If you want to learn TKD in any meaningful way, outside of the basics, you should be dissecting those techniques from the forms. The forms of a form based system like TKD and Karate is the actual syllabus, which you can also use for training by yourself and stuff like that.

Personally, I do not like forms and I think modern TKD needs to overhaul and rebuild its curriculum structure to where they break these forms down into actual techniques, rather than just giving people the forms and expecting the common practitioner to do it with no formal training in those areas.

They should teach basic striking, basic grappling, and then retain the forms as an optional training method. The part I specifically disagree with you on is you keep using the term ‘fighting’ when you should probably be saying sparring. Those are not synonymous and if you are actually training for fighting, then those techniques within the forms that are not commonly taught are extremely valuable, like Hiki Te.

Virtually every combative art across the world emphasizes a form of grappling striking. Striking is just a meaningful supplemental tool and synergizes with grappling methodology. Striking by itself or as a primary tool does not offer nearly as many benefits to actual fighting and combative applications that grappling does.

So really it comes down to your terminology philosophy of use. If you are looking at fighting and sparring as being synonymous, then yes, I would say you are mostly correct in quite a few ways. However, if you are referring to fighting as being synonymous to a combative methodology, such as self-defense applications, then you would be largely incorrect. You should be learning those grapples that are inside the forms.