Form variations arise from a number of factors, and in the case of Long Form Three, some of which are historic in nature. As stated elsewhere throughout this series variations generally fall into one of two categories: permanent and non-permanent - and are further broken down into destructive or non-destructive. Non-permanent variations are ones that are done for a limited time (such as for tournament execution) and are not designed to replace the given execution of a form. In contrast, permanent variations are designed to be just that - permanent.
Moving into the sub-category; destructive variations alter, modify, and/or eliminate some information that the form is designed to convey; and non-destructive are modifications that are a physical adjustment that can be performed without changing the intended information a form is designed to convey.
To contrast the two groupings, one can mentally visualize these characteristics as: amount of time a variation will last for; and what effect the variation has on the form, from an informational perspective.
Due to Long Form Three's history, there is another category of variation that now needs to be considered. This variation is classified as historic. This nomenclature arises because this type of variation is an official, permanent, and destructive modification to the form that was sanctioned after the initial form was created. This new classification of variation came about because Mr. Parker was presented with alterations to the form that made sense, better illustrated the objectives of the form, and added new information to the form. Therefore, he concluded it was best to officially include the revision into the form's execution.
But it is also important to understand that Mr. Parker did not demand that individuals that had already learned the form, prior to the amendment, were not mandated to change how they executed the form. In other words, they were allowed to execute the form as originally taught to them, but all subsequent instruction of the form was done with the revision. While many individuals accepted the change, there were others that maintained their original execution pattern. Because of this, this manual highlights this fact and therefore preserves the original sequences for historic measures, but also places this original execution as a variation of the "new" standard. Thus, striking a middle ground of history and evolution.
Moving on to non-historic variations, typically permanent variations to a form arise from either an error in understanding, mis-interpretation of execution, personal preference, and/or learning the form with the variation already in place (with a potential signature). Irrespective of origin, permanent variations are directly attributed to idealized execution of the form, and a modification to that idealized execution. This type of variation is called permanent because there is no intention, from the practitioner's perspective, to do the form any other way. In other words, permanent variations have the intention of not being removed, nor may even be regarded as a variation; from the practitioner's point of view.
This situation is usually due to the fact that, from their view, that is how the form is and should always be executed. Typically, this is how the form was taught to them (to the best of their memory) and this is how it is to be performed. And most commonly, this perception of the form is arrived at from a lineage standpoint, not an analytical one. In other words, the form is performed the way it is due to how the individual was taught the form from a more senior practitioner, and not arrived at from a systematic nor logical inquisition of the form's themes and goals.
But, on occasion, alterations to the form are purposely made, due to one's personal decision making. The change is made because of either personal preference or an ostensibly sensible change made to "improve" the form in some way. After this point, any student that practitioner teaches the form to will now contain that, now permanent, variation. And furthermore, from those student's perspectives, this execution will be the proper way, with anything else being a variation.
Nevertheless, Long Form Three is an example of a form that is very prone to permanent variations. One major reason for this is because of its relation to Short Form Three. Without question, Long Form Three has a more staccato quality in contrast to Short Form Three's more flowery disposition. Added to this is the form's relative position in the system as a whole.
If one were to stop and quickly examine some the discernible differences between a short form and a long form, one might come to the following observations: First there are no isolation sequences in the short forms, they are only in the long forms. Second, the short forms tend to have a slightly smoother disposition to them (one might say stylized); where the long forms (up to Long Form Three) tend to be less smooth (one might say idealized). And thirdly, the short forms tend to have more "practical" movements; where the long forms (again up to Long Form Three) lean slightly more toward "ineffective" (in combat) or physically impossible (in terms of the self-defense technique on another individual) maneuvers.
This last assessment, and to a certain degree each of these determining factors, has the tenancy to compel the less experienced or less informed practitioner to compensate for this seeming discrepancy by changing the form into being more physically "correct". Often this is done only for tournament or other competition purposes (non-permanent), but sometimes these "corrections" can find their way back into one's lineage (permanent).
From another perspective, as practitioners in American Kenpo acquire more physical sophistication in the art, they then tend to prefer the more flowery movements over the more rigid one's. And, the system's overall format and outwardly visual manifestation emphasizes this physical evolution. As one learns Short Form Three, they tend to like the feel and flow of the form. Then they learn Long Form Three, which is also classified as an intermediate form; bordering on the advanced. Naturally, practitioners intuit that because of its advanced placement and apparent systematic form progression, Long Form Three should be more flowery than it actually is. And because of this inclination, some allow this prejudice to influence their execution of Long Form Three; which then may result in the infusion of variations.
And although this supposition seems logical, there are some glaring omissions to this conclusion. These omissions include: form purpose, form theme, and type of form (i.e. Long vs Short). Each of these factors, along with others, has a major influence on the form's execution, the self-defense techniques and basics contained within it, how they are artfully combined together to create the form, and even how and why they are intended to be executed.
As stated elsewhere, in the Coordination section of this volume, Long Form Three's disposition is heavily influenced by the themes and goals of the form, and one major theme is the study of lines and circles and an inquiry into the transitions between them. Unfortunately, this salient piece of information is missed, glazed over, or not emphasized enough when being taught in an open (and sometimes personal) environment. And the result of this shortcoming is that, minus this knowledge, practitioners are more inclined to "fix" the form.
This specific deficiency of information, and numerous more like it, can be traced directly back to Mr. Parker himself, and more directly, to our teaching protocols as a whole. Many times, Mr. Parker did not have the opportunity to make an overt effort to ensure students he interacted with were informed of the totality of the relevant information within the system.
This dilemma typically arose due to two major reasons: time and overstepping bounds.
First, because Mr. Parker usually interacted with practitioners in a seminar format. This format mostly did not allow for in-depth review of a form. Rather, a seminar usually only allowed time for physical review with some scant elements of information. And, when dealing with the odd private situation, Mr. Parker tended to concentrate more on general information and global concepts, over minutiae and details. This is because he needed ensure a broad understanding of the concepts contained in the system. To him, it didn't matter as much if you did a particular move a particular way, it was more about whether one understood the "big picture" of American Kenpo. In other words, he was more about spreading the word of American Kenpo over slighting someone because they didn't perform Long Form Three the "right" way.
Secondly, Mr. Parker relied on his students and affiliates to convey this type of information to their pupils. Furthermore, it is not proper protocol to publicly (or even privately) question or call out problems, mis-understandings, or shortcomings to one's students' students or even fellow practitioner's students. This custom allowed for (and still promotes) variations that are tolerated or overlooked basically because of etiquette and decorum. Without question, one of the quickest ways to alienate a fellow instructor is to partake in these verboten issues to or in the presence of their student(s), in public, or (sometimes) even to them (in public or private). And although this is socially proper and reasonable, it does have its obvious downside.
Within that vein of thought, this book series does not intend to create controversy, insult, demean, nor belittle. And antithetically, it is also not intended to be arrogant, patronizing, nor self-aggrandizing. Instead, it is simply intended as a historical reference with precise, researched, and carefully culled information. A reference that is aimed solely as a chronicle of how and why Long Form Three is to be performed, from a systematic standpoint. It is aimed entirely at the idealized performance and doesn't discourage any variety of stylizing or personalizing of the form's execution. Rather, it encourages one to examine avenues of personal exploration and study using the form and its themes as their muse. What it does not encourage is then folding those discoveries back into the historical "standard" of the form's execution.
And finally, to transition this discourse back into the book and its overall layout; it is useful to sub-divide variations by other characteristics, such as how pervasive it is in relation to the form as a whole. What is meant by the term pervasive is; does the variation occur at a specific location (i.e., such as changing a specific defensive or offensive maneuver), or is it something that occurs throughout the form (i.e., such as adding kiai's throughout the form). A variation that occurs at a specific location will be referred to as a Specific Variation. A variation that is more general in scope will be referred to as a General Variation. And, because Long Form Three has a history of sanctioned modifications, those specific modifications will be highlighted by their own section of the same name; Historical. It is Hoped that this is section will provide the reader with a deeper appreciation of the influences that went into how the form was ultimately finalized into its current state.