Hey, wait! I thought there were no set moves in Systema! Is the knife different?
This may be something of a misconception about Systema -- and not through any fault of those trying to understand Systema here. Many students of Systema likely shared this question.
I practice primarily Ryabko Systema from Vladimir Vasiliev, and I have also studied videos from the other major teachers.
Primarily Ryabko Systema is not focused on specific techniques, favoring strong (extreme?) emphasis on the four principles: (always) Breathing, Relaxing, Moving, Maintaining Form.
It does have some recognizable "methods" or "mechanisms" (my words) which are taught as general tactics, e.g., ways of affecting the form by striking or leveraging joints, ways of using relaxation to "take hits" or avoid being hit (with force), ways to disrupt balance and form by interfering with the opponents steps, and of course methods of striking with deep force (and usually without committing body weight) either ballistically or using a whip like motions.
When shown against specific attacks these may take on the appearance of technique (as we know technique in other arts) in the students' minds.
On several of the DVDs Vlad half-apologetically shows a series of 'techniques' with the explanation that this is due to popular request and not the essence of Systema -- the value of such beside interest is to serve as EXAMPLES of how the 'principles' can be combined with the 'methods' for combat effectiveness.
Kadochnikova Systema is arguably more technique oriented (in the videos) but the real difference in my mind is that this Systema is more 'engineering' based and that again the 'techniques' are more about examples.
This also is likely true for what Scott Sonnon teaches as Systema (he also teaches a lot of Sambo and grappling which is much more technique oriented.)
Then there are many of the Systema instructors (e.g., under Vlad Vasiliev) here in the west (US, Canada, Europe) who came to Systema from other arts and who use and train Systema now as their primary art, but continue to include (useful) techniques from their prior experience to varying levels of Principle vs. Technique.
When you look at Boxing and Jiu-Jitsu instructors who explicitly proclaim the four principles given above as primary to those combat arts, (even if they use slightly different names, e.g., Form might be called Stance and Posture in boxing or moving my be expressed in BJJ as a necessity to keep your 'hips moving').
Even in other arts which don't expressly describe these four principles as such (e.g., Aikido, karate) it is fairly easy to find them embodied in much of the training and there certainly is no conflict between the principles and the techniques of other arts.
So what is the distinction? In Systema the principles are PRIMARY, the methods are secondary, and the technique is merely an example or artifact of following the principles and using the methods.
In other combat arts, technique is emphasized, perhaps equally with the principles (e.g., Boxing and BJJ.)
It is NOT that principles are unimportant in BJJ, but rather that the majority of the class training is spent demonstrating and teaching technique so that it LOOKS to be entirely technique focused to the casual observer. Similarly for boxing.
But anyone who has seriously studied boxing or BJJ knows that instructors are constantly encouraging their students to adopt these principles when sparring or practicing.
(If I had a dollar for every time I have been told to relax, move, breath, or maintain good form, structure, or posture OUTSIDE of Systema then I would be rich indeed.)
Another relatively minor reason for 'technique' in Systema is the need to generate realistic attacks for our partners who will presumably face 'street fighters' or those trained in some other art if they are attacked.
Unless we can deliver typical attacks there is not way to practice realistic defense, whether that defense is purely principle or partially technique based.
A frequent criticism of some insular martial arts is that th practitioners don't know how to deliver a proper punch, kick, armbar or whatever and so the defenses are unrealistic against inferior attacking techniques.
Systema makes a point of using (almost) random attacks and taking advantage of (any of) the martial skills the students bring from other arts to provide realistic attacks.
This idea of 'random' attacks is in contract to the initial training in many other arts: You provide me a set attack and I provide a set technique to defend. (This a technique is born.)
Most martial arts proceed from the set technique to the generalization and principle based methods at the advanced level.
Systema STARTS the other way around and proceeds from the principles (and a few methods) to teach the student how to invent the technique as a defense to each unique attack in the moment.
Part of the thinking is that even when we attempt to peform the exact same technique, each attempt will be at least slightly different (speed, force, distance, resistance etc) and as soon as you substitute different people into the equation what works for a small woman against an equally sized opponent may be totally useless against a heavyweight sized man.
And of course, Systema is designed to be useful against multiple opponents, weapons attacks, and even specifically when amongst a crowd such as the historic battlefield or even a modern day urban riot.
(Not saying that other arts aren't useful in such situations, nor even making a comment about the relative merits, just that Systema is literally a System intended to deal with all of this. No matter what the ultimate effectiveness of Systema it is indeed intended to deal with such chaotic environments.)
So Systema endeavers to use those principles to always be adapting to the combat situation presenting in the moment.
Yes, technique creeps in and some of us don't see this as a bad thing, but most serious Systema practitioners don't feel it is primary.
We tend to get the biggest thrill when a success against one or more attackers is both unique (never seen before) and as near to being effortless as possible.
Does this help?
--
HerbM
.
