<< Click to Display Table of Contents >> Navigation:  Forms and Sets > Long Form 3 > Execution > "Standard"

The first question one might be prompted to ask when first reading this chapter, other parts of this book, and even the other form books, is: "Why is the word standard always in quotes?" This is purposely done to reinforce the fact that although these books do, in fact, illustrate a "standard" way of form execution, that is only one part of the entire reality. In no way are these books intended to force a specific execution onto others. Quite the opposite. They are primarily for reference, learning information about the forms, and historical documentation.

 

The next questions one might ask, are: "Why is laying out a standard even necessary?" and "Shouldn't there be only one standard?" What is usually implied with the last question is, that their specific "standard" is, of course, "The Standard". In order to answer these types of questions, some historical perspective and understanding of human nature is warranted.

 

First, one must consider how martial arts are taught. They are conveyed from instructor to student, until such point that the student becomes the instructor, and the cycle repeats itself. Another way to look at it is: one person teaches another person everything they know about something. Then that person teaches everything they know about that same subject to someone else. An endless cycle. This sounds pretty secure, right? I'm sure the first person taught their student everything, and the student absorbed everything, without any errors or any misinterpretations. Unfortunately, this simple scenario only further highlights the true nature of the conundrum.

 

Without one iota of doubt, there will be human error, miscommunication, misinterpretation, forgetfulness, purposeful omission, or just normal human imperfections that impact the complete and unaltered transfer of information between the generations of instructor to student. Because of that simple fact, a "standard" is needed. One which anyone can reference. One that is unalterable. One that is fair and unbiased. One that is immune to the ravages of time and the human mind. This guide is an attempt to fulfill those essential needs.

 

Now, imagine if there was no guide such as this. Carry out the generations of instructor to student, 10, 20, 50, 100 times. How many inadvertent changes could have slipped into the "standard"? How many sub-branches from the original instructor would swear that their version is the exact original? Entirely unaltered. All information fully intact. All physical motions exactly as originally executed. Now, be completely honest with yourself. How many would be correct in their assertion?

 

So, why is this such an issue? Some changes may have worked their way into the form(s) over the years. Big deal. Yes, a very big deal: once one understands the primary purpose of American Kenpo forms. They are NOT imaginary fights. They are NOT flowery and dramatic demonstrations of our art. They ARE critical and focused information pertaining to the fundamental principles of the art, executed physically. And if that execution is altered, almost always, so is the information. And, what if an instructor forgets or purposely doesn't teach information about a single or series of physical motions of the form? In the perspective of the American Kenpo system - a very big deal. Because if that information is lost, American Kenpo begins to be lost. Down a slippery slope that does not end well for the system. Will the system survive? Probably. But will it survive intact as originally intended? Most definitely not.

Why so many "Standards"?

In the specific case of Long Form Three, there is a legitimate reason for multiple "standards", and that has to do with its history during SGM Parker's life. The period consisting of the formative years of American Kenpo. During that time, SGM Parker created the form, taught it, got feedback about the form, decided to modify the form, and finally taught the new rendition; then did not insist that everyone incorporate the changes. Couple that with the fact that SGM Parker might, on occasion, teach the form differently to a specific individual or group of individuals. In other words, purposely make select modifications to a given form - a.k.a., give the form a signature.

 

But why would SGM Parker do this? One reason for this is so that SGM Parker could easily determine the origin of that particular rendition. So, if a new individual approached him, asking to be taught and informing him of their lineage, SGM Parker could ask the person to perform a specific form and quickly determine if the person was in-fact from the lineage he professed, or not. And therefore, have a greater degree of confidence about this individual's integrity.

 

By modern day norms, this may seem like a very curious methodology for teaching. Without any context, one might quickly come to the opinion that was an odd situation. But before making any hasty judgments, one must put their perspective back to this era. Martial arts were not very commonly nor openly taught. It was a fairly tight nit and selective, almost secretive, group.

 

In order to learn a martial art, one would usually be taught by a relative or maybe sent to a known instructor. A group of people more closely resembling a private or exclusive club, rather than a commercial studio. One in which you had to be accepted into in order to learn and train. And, not very many people had that privilege.

 

SGM Parker, and most instructors of that era, were very closed; and felt it necessary to hide information from the casual student. They were concerned that a student might take their information, move on, and attempt to teach it to others, claiming it to be their own. This did happen and it was a real concern. Also, they believed that one of the worst things that could occur is that a student learns everything you have to offer, take it, and leave to teach it on their own, diminishing your ability to make a living and stealing your livelihood and your art.

 

This was the very beginning of commercial martial arts studios. Instructors of all types had the conundrum of teaching and spreading their art, but not just giving away its secrets. Not just handing their art's value over to anyone who paid them money. So, they would often omit specific information, change the information, or just water it down for the public. SGM Parker was a pioneer in his field. He started the first self-owned commercial martial arts studio in the United States. And he, like other instructors, needed to protect his investment. From that perspective, all these measures might now appear very understandable.

 

But practices like these have a serious, long term, side effect - the signature(s) become(s) the "standard." This is because the practitioner can now claim that this is how they learned it from SGM Parker. And, if SGM Parker taught it to them that way, it must be correct and how he wanted them to perform it. Right? Now, who wants to admit that the rendition of the form they learned and practice is not the "real" one. Rather, just a signature version. That there really is a different version - one that their lineage didn't learn and doesn't practice. And further yet, one that just might be slightly more complete in information or not.

 

But, from a historical preservation of the art perspective, this is a nightmare. How does one get to the truth? How does one weed out the changes or come to a conclusion that a particular rendition is a signature? Who is willing to put in the effort to admit that they might not have learned it the "right" way, and take the time to determine the "standard" version?

 

So, if one commits to accomplishing this task, how do you do it? One must first learn the system and its history, learn what each of the maneuvers mean, learn that there are different versions of the maneuvers, learn these variations from other sources (and possibly their history), and work out which rendition makes the most sense from a systematic perspective. And finally, incorporate those decisions back into the "standard".  Easy.

 

But again, this is one of the goals of this guide. Taking a hard look at the various "standards", distilling the form to its essence based upon the form's purpose, its complete history, and allowing the information to determine the "standard". All this while navigating the internal politics of the many students who swear, and are justified in saying, that they have the "real standard" way to execute the form.