Forms and Sets > Long Form 3 > Variations

One interesting aspect of Long Form Three, although not completely unique to this form, is the subject of historic variations. This is due to the fact that unlike some of the other forms in American Kenpo, Long Form Three was altered after its original inception; not only in execution, but also in internal nomenclature. And, these changes were put into place well after it was commonly taught to a number of prominent students and their lineage.

This historical fact brings up a philosophical dilemma. Are the sanctioned changes to the form a variation, or does the original execution become a variation? At first, one might consider the alterations a variation. But over time, and as more and more practitioners learn and perform the form this new way and many have forgotten or never learned about the original execution, these updates supplant the original execution to become the new standard. At this point, the original execution then becomes a variation from that standard.

From a historical perspective, this shift in Long Form Three's execution standard probably solidified by the late 1960's to early 1970's. After that point in time, the original execution was generally only discussed by older practitioners and only from a historical perspective. And by the 1980's and 1990's (after Mr. Parker's death), the vast majority of practitioners where not even aware that these changes had occurred.

Therefore, from the perspective of this guide, it will consider the modern execution to be the de facto standard and treat the historic execution as a variation to this standard. But these original executions will be annotated as such for historical preservation.

Historic Variations - Contributing Factors

During the early implementation of the forms, over time there arose a situation which had not fully been resolved: how to handle isolation sequences? In the lower forms isolation sequences were not a concern, because these forms (and sets) are composed of tightly integrated sets of maneuvers. And, although these groups of maneuvers somewhat resembled self-defense techniques, they were deemed not to be independent enough to be considered or taught as such. Instead, these collections of maneuvers were purposely compiled together to teach specific information that was not entirely tuned towards self-defense. Rather these maneuvers were composed to teach defensive/offensive information for a more idealistic and non-realistic purpose - therefore, not a self-defense technique.

Furthermore, self-defense techniques as we know them today did not have names. Instead, they had numbers and level designations. Then, in the early 1970's, the idea was incorporated to name these collections of maneuvers; which is how we learn and teach them today. At this point an issue became apparent: What to do with the isolation sequences of the upper forms?

Long Form Three is the first form where this issue became a point of contention, since it is the first long form to be composed of self-defense techniques. Short Form Three is also constituted of self-defense techniques, but it does not have isolation sequences. This is because short forms of the system do not have isolation sequences; and therefore, not a concern.

At first, it was decided to either fold the extra motions into the self-defense technique proper or give these extra sets of movements their own names. And, there was a rationale for this decision: the form is composed of self-defense techniques and these motions resembled a self-defense technique and should be given a name, even though these movements were never to be considered self-defense techniques, from a systematic standpoint. These maneuver groupings more resembled what might be considered a self-defense technique-lette. Not really a self-defense technique, but rather a small number of movements that could be part of a larger self-defense technique. And a self-defense technique could, in many cases, be considered a part of a larger combat situation.

So, with that (non-permanent) decision, the pieces of the form that could not be easily construed as an "extension" to a self-defense technique were given names. Later, by the 1980's, this decision was reversed, the names were dropped and the isolation sequences of Long Form Three just became known as the isolation sequences.

At this point another historical fact must be taken into consideration. The nomenclature of the system was also developing within that same time line. For example: Like the naming of the self-defense techniques, the term isolation was a later (late 1970's - early 1980's) nomenclature adoption. At first, these same isolated maneuvers of the forms were called exercises. This term was dropped and the term isolation supplanted it.

This history leads to yet another significant consideration: When and how did the existing practitioners incorporate these changes? Mr. Parker was very lenient about implementation and adoption of these alterations. He would often tell students that were already taught previous incarnations that they were not required to incorporate these advancements into their existing curriculum. Or, that they should fold these modifications into their teachings over time, not immediately. In other words, these senior practitioners were grandfathered from enforcement of these modifications. Therefore, some earlier students decided to fold these adjustments into their teachings and some did not, and never fully have.

These historic truths, although most times not an issue within the larger scope of things, do become problematic from a prospect of standardization and preservation. And since this guide is, by definition, a form of standardization and preservation, contentions may arise with some of the decisions that have been made. This cannot be avoided. But every effort has been made to make rational and pragmatic choices, arrived at from a systematic and impersonal perspective. And where these decisions were made, give historic and alternate conclusions to these determinations. Allowing the reader to understand these choices and still appreciate both historic and alternate viewpoints.