Beyond Systema, or not?

[Franc0]

From what I've seen and who I've met, a good portion of the advanced Systema practitioners have come from extensive and varied Martial Arts backgrounds. I myself have trained in quite a few different systems, including Systema. What I feel I've learned more from Systema than others is to keep an open mind when it comes to learning. One of the MA'ists I look up to most is Dan Inosanto, the reason being he considers himself a never ending student who always continues to train and excel in other arts, even at age 67 he recently earned his black belt in Machado JiuJitsu.
I'm thinking that what led some of the afore mentioned Systema practitioners was their open minds also. Not having "Style Blinders" in thinking that where they were at before Systema was the end all be all style. But now I've seen some these Systema practitioners say clearly that they "need go no further" and that "Systema gives me all I need". Now I hope I'm not taken incorrectly in this question, but to some, that would seem as if that were a declaration of Systema being the "end all" in their training, is that how some feel? Have the "Systema Blinders" been put on as to possibly learning other systems in the future? Keep in mind, I still believe Systema has very much to offer all martial artists, but this question was brought to me by one of my students, and I think it's a good one. :asian:

 

[Furtry]

That would depend on two things. Where in their journey they are and for what purposes they are studying.
For my self it is how I want to be traveling on my path, yet I find nothing wrong with any other paths some may chose, as they chose them for the same reasons that I've chosen mine.

 

[BoxANT]

in my personal experience/opinion, systema is not so much a "style" or a system of self defense. but instead i feel it is more a system of self discovery.

imho, the principles that one follows in systema (although obviously applied to the martial) tend to ripple out and effect more and more systems in life.


as for someone feeling that systema is the "end all" style of MA... this (imo) run counter-current to the feeling of systema. that is to say, we have no end. we are always moving.

but saying that, i also feel that once you experience the system, you will find it hard to go back to a life with out it.

 

[analyst]

systema is such a different approach...

To make an analogy. Say a man wished to learn how to build cars. He could go to someone who would say "you attach this to this, screw this in, (etc.) and now you've built a car!" and the man could do that as long as the pieces conformed to the steps he had learned. Eventually he could do this assembly very adeptly, but would be stymied if the pieces differ.

Or the man could find an engineer who understood cars. The engineer would say "the engine produces power, which is transferred by the transmission, etc." And then man could then build a car out of any parts, intuitively understanding how it all fits together.

If the man from the second example wanted to learn how to build a different style of car, his learning time would be far reduced over the first man. He would need only to see enough of the car to understand it in terms of the principles he already knew.

so in a sense Systema people don't really "study" other arts. At most we watch people demonstrate it and get ideas. We might see something and go "hey that's cool, I will remember that," or "hey I did something like that the other day." But when all movement is improvised, there's no motivation to return to a cookie-cutter technique approach to MA.

 

[Franc0]

Thanks guys, all good replies. :asian: I pretty much said close to the same things to my student, but advised him to read what was said here. And like I said to him also, you'll find almost the same replies, but eloquently explained differently by each individual, just like the applications of Systema itself. They may not "leave" Systema per se, but they will be open to different things, as long as it "flows" with what they're doing.
This reminds me of when Furtry did a workshop with some of my guys. Afterwards they said that he covered everything I've shown them before, but in a different light, in which I replied, "Yeah, you'll get that pretty much with every Systema'ist you meet. Now go out and buy your own damn computer numbnuts." :whip: Thanks.

Franco

 

[Furtry]

Thanks guys, all good replies. :asian: I pretty much said close to the same things to my student, but advised him to read what was said here. And like I said to him also, you'll find almost the same replies, but eloquently explained differently by each individual, just like the applications of Systema itself. They may not "leave" Systema per se, but they will be open to different things, as long as it "flows" with what they're doing.
This reminds me of when Furtry did a workshop with some of my guys. Afterwards they said that he covered everything I've shown them before, but in a different light, in which I replied, "Yeah, you'll get that pretty much with every Systema'ist you meet. Now go out and buy your own damn computer numbnuts." :whip: Thanks.

Franco

Franc, that same week you showed me a few knife moves, to this day I catch people with them :supcool: .

 

[arnisador]

you showed me a few knife moves, to this day I catch people with them

Hey, wait! I thought there were no set moves in Systema! Is the knife different?

 

[erich]

Frank was probably showing him something from one of the gazillion other arts he knows. Furtry took it and made it his own.

I think this is a great example of why some people don't feel the need to train "beyond" systema. Sometimes I think that systema is more of a training "system" or method than a style. Relax/breath/smile/move... use that thing that Frank just showed you to catch somebody with a knife

It all fits and you can do what you want. Once you get used to this method it is easy to lose patience with the rigidity, abstraction, repetition and bloat in the way many other styles are taught. The techniques that are taught in other styles can usually be incorporated without the accompanying stylistic hoopla.

Within systema training you can do just about anything, including things that you pickup from outside of systema.

 

[Furtry]

Hey, wait! I thought there were no set moves in Systema! Is the knife different?

There are no set moves. Franc showed me how to cut continuously using circular/corkscrew motions.
IE. Starts at the throat continue to the arm then the groin, up to the other arm and into the neck or collarbone, instead of an 'in and out' type of stuff that I learned in the army. Mind you Vlad showed this kind of stuff in his knife fighting video but I didn't 'see it' until Franc explained it in one simple circular cut %-} .

 

[arnisador]

Ah, OK, I see what you mean--more of a concept than a move per se.

We call that "sticky blade" in FMA, if I understand you correctly.

 

[Franc0]

There are no set moves. Franc showed me how to cut continuously using circular/corkscrew motions.
IE. Starts at the throat continue to the arm then the groin, up to the other arm and into the neck or collarbone, instead of an 'in and out' type of stuff that I learned in the army. Mind you Vlad showed this kind of stuff in his knife fighting video but I didn't 'see it' until Franc explained it in one simple circular cut %-} .

Thanks Furtry, makes me happy that you had the open mind to assimilate it, realise the comparison and use it. Your views on this would fit perfectly into another thread where the argument of comparison and analysis is being debated .
As we have thrown back and fourth a few times, U da man broham! :ultracool

 

[Franc0]

Ah, OK, I see what you mean--more of a concept than a move per se.

We call that "sticky blade" in FMA, if I understand you correctly.

Again! Another good example of the usefullness of comparison and analysis. Though I'm not exactly sure what "sticky blade" is, it's the open mind that can see comparisons, rather than surrenduring to the illusion of any martial concept being indigenous to any system or style.

Franco

 

[HerbM]

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

 

[HerbM]

in my personal experience/opinion, systema is not so much a "style" or a system of self defense. but instead i feel it is more a system of self discovery.

imho, the principles that one follows in systema (although obviously applied to the martial) tend to ripple out and effect more and more systems in life.


as for someone feeling that systema is the "end all" style of MA... this (imo) run counter-current to the feeling of systema. that is to say, we have no end. we are always moving.

but saying that, i also feel that once you experience the system, you will find it hard to go back to a life with out it.

BoxAnt, I personally agre with YOUR approach to Systema, but there are a large percentage of Systema practitioners (mabye more than half) who do think of it as complete unto itself and (literally) the be-all and end-all.

The worst of this (in my opinion) is the tendency among some instructors and students to adopt the "not invented here" mind set.

I have frequently heard it said, "Vlad doesn't do it, or think about it, that way." but I have NEVER heard Vlad himself adopt such thinking. In fact, an additional principle (not on of the big four) is that no one must do Systema the same as anyone else -- that each person should be able to use the principles to fit the system to his or her own body, abilities, or limitations. Too many people overlook this principle in my opinion.

This Systema as everything approach seems to be positively correlated with the belief that Systema is primarily about self-discovery or about healing the spirit and psyche.

Nothing wrong with these benefits in my opinion, but many of us still see Systema primarily as a fantastic combat art, i.e., a set of practices that will allow us to defend ourselves from violent encounters, to survive extreme environmental disasters, and perhaps as an additional effect rehabilitate our bodies and bring joy to our life.

To some it is a philosophy first, and combat art second. For others (myself included) the combat effectiveness is first.

When I took up boxing, BJJ, and AMOK! (all after becoming a 'Systema guy') I made what I believe was rapid progress (in contract to MY progress in other martial arts prior to Systema) specifically by applying the four Systema principles to all of my training.

I continue to do this explicitly in literally every practice, and in almost every exercise, as well as when helping or teaching other students -- this is much of what I share in addition to the specific techniques.

--
HerbM

 

[Jackal]

I think the only major flaw in application rests when you actually try to "do the technique" in a live situation. Even masters of taiji, aikido and ninjutsu will tell you that the techniques were just created to illustrate certain principles and not to get too hung up with them once you understand the "why" behind them.

I've also found that many schools use "techniques" as a shortcut to get around the time consuming study of anatomy, physiology and biomechanics (giving out fish = quicker). Personally, after a decade of not concerning myself with techniques in Systema, I decided to throw myself into a few schools which emphasize them simply because I remembered how much fun some of them can be. It's all a matter of "are you getting what you want to or need to out of your school?"