Talk:Systema/Archive 1

History

I'm just going to ramble on a little bit. If some of this is useful for a main topic somewhere, then there is where it should go. Bits could probably go into Russian martial arts. (some notes were absorbed into Russian martial arts)

• Many would argue that the communist machine researched and developed Systema from thin air, or from pieces of many other ideas and arts. There is quite a lot of history which reveals that this kind of research has happened. The example most in the limelight is Sambo, which was recently confirmed to have roots with old Judo (and vice versa with Sport Judo having influences by Sambo)
• History is a difficult thing to research because of the newness of Russia in the global community. Foreign access to research tools was very limited. On top of that, the best history is always written in the native language.

Interesting points:

• There is an interesting "sameness" to the cultural nuances and martial practices of a number of russian martial arts. This is a spectacular coincidence, or it is evidence of a cultural heritage which many arts share.
• Interestingly, breathing practices have been likened to those found in areas of the old russian orthodox church. It is said that they perfected the techniques.
• There are many interesting historical tidbits to be found within religious works. In old russian, communities formed first around the church. Like elsewhere, scholarship and literacy in general was focused there as well.

Well.. just noting some thoughts.. anyone can feel free to add, or be bold and make better use of these notes. -- Sy / ^(talk) -Undated

Pronnouncing

's' as in set
'ee' but short
's' as in set
't' as in Tet
'e' 'Yay!' but short 
 m 'm' as in 'met' 
 a 'Ah!' but short 

Popov's System, and categorizing the various arts

Popov's System appears to be completely unrelated to Systema. While a special forces art and a russian martial art, it doesn't seem to share any of the history of the other arts described in this article. Maybe I'm wrong and that article needs to be fleshed out a bit.

It's likely that in the future things would have to be clarified, to describe the various arts in the Russian military's past and present. Quite a number of arts seem to have been trained throughout the military and special forces. The Soviet military machine seems to have had interest in using pieces of arts for specific units or circumstances, and to have experimented with combinations.

There seem to be a number of themes:

• Ancient styles (family styles)
  • See russian martial arts for an incomplete list
• Styles which have roots in ancient styles but may have evolved for various reasons
  • Systema (family, evolved by the Soviet military)
• Arts which were manufactured from scratch from pieces of other arts
  • Sambo, Combat Sambo, etc (Judo, russian styles, etc)

Now the distinction I have between what's being called "Systema" here and Popov's style might only be minor. Maybe Systema is a good category for these types of arts, but this would mean that a lot of the content here would need to be migrated to Ryabko's Systema to make things more generic. Ryabko's Systema in particular is reaching back to its old roots. I don't know what can be said about the other styles.

One thing I wanted to stress was that there are various arts of various names with various histories throughout the russian military and even throughout special forces units. Things cannot be easily lumped together. Maybe everything needs "Russian martial arts" as a top-level category, and traditional arts need their own category. -- Sy / ^(talk) 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation template

I have placed the template on this page because it is lacking sources. Please do not construe this as an attack upon the knowledge-bases of those who have contributed towards the page; it is because I believe that forcing references on a page not only improves its validity, but may even cause authors to find further information that is relevant to the subject. Besides this, it can bring in external links that act as a portal for those looking into the subject.

In short, they make an article much more useful. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 17:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've also added it to Ryabko's Systema. For that page, there is an English-language booklet and book by Vladimir Vasiliev. There is some media exposure etc. I'll need to research how citation works, and how it works here. -- Sy / ^(talk) 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Ryabko's stuff can be cited, but Systema generally is harder to cite, largely because most of the Kod. stuff is still largely in Russian and not a exsposed to the west. --Mista-X 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Flow Fighting?

Why is Scott Sonnon's Flow Fighting listed as being infuenced by Kadochnikov's Systema? According to Scott Sonnon here, his techniques have nothing to do with Systema, at one point, he says: "I have no idea what any Systema teaches, and frankly I don't care". He says many other things about Systema, and his style in that interview. So apparantly, Scott Sonnon's system is not in any way linked to Systema (according to him). So I will remove "Flow Fighting" from the infuenced by Kadochnikov's Systema section.. 70.17.132.73 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

At one point, someone was claiming Sonnon was the influence for Systema, I have also read from sources that Sonnon was the first to be taught ROSS in the United States, but in reality I don't know much about who Sonnon really is, what he teaches, etc. So unless real sources are provided it should be kept away from this article. --Mista-X 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

ROSS was founded by someone who was trained by Kadochnikov (along with 5 Sambo coaches) so there was some influence there. ROSS was partnered with the Kadochnikov system, but they parted ways prior to Sonnon being trained in ROSS. Sonnon has since parted with ROSS too (though I'm not sure if it was before or after the development of Flow Fighting). So it is correct to say that there was probably some influence, though I can't really say how much. It's like... if you are trained in TKD, and then develope a new martial art merging Fencing with Kendo, having trained in TKD concepts doesn't mean you've incorporated them into your new sword art. Same logic applies here, Sonnon likely has some training based in Kadochnikov's Systema but that doesn't mean it has been incorporated into Flow Fighting. That's something people have to judge on their own, and I certainly can't because I don't know the first thing about either one of these systems... yet... *cackle* Tyciol (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I have removed links to Google and Youtube search results as per WP:EL. The section "Links normally to be avoided" includes the following:

10. Links to search engine results.

Linking to Youtube content is also questionable under the following guideline:

11. Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)

Videos on Youtube rarely indicate copyright information, and many are undoubtedly infringing on copyrights. fbb_fan 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Kadochnikov.org isnt the official A.A. Kadochnikov website. It is not even related to AA Kadochnikov. This website is owned by Vadim Starov and his team, who arent officially related to Kadochnikov. Please remove this link and any other link from this source (easy to spot, this is the same text (cut and pasted) on all website run by Starov's team) -Unsigned

Scott Sonnon's RMAX

I removed "Scott Sonnon's RMAX" from the Influenced by Kadochnikov's Systema section. Sonnon himself said his fighting systems are not related to or based on systema, he even went as far as stating: "I have no idea what any "Systema’ teaches and, frankly, I don't care" see here. So none of his fighting systems ("RMAX", "Flowfighting", "soft work") should be mentioned in this article. Though, I do find it suspicous that he claims to know nothing of what Systema teaches, and yet his styles are almost identical to Systema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.135.140 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I removed RMAX again because of this additional evidence: Sonnon himself stated in the above linked interview that "RMAX is not "Russian Martial Art" and its materials are unique and my own creation". If RMAX is not a Russian Martial art, and is Sonnon's "own creation", it therfore should not be mentioned in the Systema article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MasterGreenLantern (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I think his wishes should be respected, whatever the opinions may be. Until some media can be cited, this relation should be left out. I still find it curious though... from the Scott Sonnon article (see below) -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"With extensive combat and sport Sambo as his background, he was given the opportunity to become the first Westerner to study in Russia the martial art of R.O.S.S. (also known as "Combat Sambo Spetsnaz") and spent many years learning from Distinguished Master of Sports in Sambo and Judo Alexander Retuinskih[1], founder of R.O.S.S., himself a student of Alexey Kadochnikov, founder of Russian martial art or Kadochnikov Systema. In 2001, at the 10th Anniversary National Festival for Russian martial art's revival, he performed at the world-famous Bol'shoy Theater to an audience of thousands including an introduction from Russian President Vladimir Putin. He was the first American to teach Russian martial art in Russia. Coach Sonnon was made the North American Director of R.O.S.S. in 1996, until he resigned from Russian martial art in 2002."

After the cold war?

I thought it was after the fall of Communism that things became known.. -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Monastic traditions

I always found this phrase interesting. But perhaps it can't be added back without better references. I think this probably belongs in the main russian martial art topic though. -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this style has its roots in the Russian Monastic Tradition, perhaps dating from as early as the 6th Centuary AD

Rescuing another good bit -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Although there is some controversy over historical proof, Systema's Russian martial arts heritage is believed to date back to the 10th century. There are family and traditional styles which have existed in Russia, some of which are becoming more visible. It's possible that Systema's roots go deep into family styles which were never named or taught openly and kept as closely guarded secrets during the Soviet reign. Many believe that the early practitioners of Systema are the Bogatyr (Russian heros/knights). -Unsigned

No-touch work

Rescuing this phrase, for discussion. -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another explanation for this is simply that we all have the natural tendency to flinch in response to a perceived attack. Experienced practitioners with a sound knowledge of body mechanics as well as vulnerable areas of the body, can demonstrate neutralization of attacks with deceptive body movements, and with very light or no contact with an opponent.

Revolution of Systema in each practitioner

Somehow this sort of phrasing needs to be worked back in. Because there aren't scripted lessons and because there isn't a lesson plan of any sort, learning ends up being individual. Can we form a logical argument for this which doesn't need citing? -- Sy / ^(talk) 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Systema is a strong influence in serious practitioners, and because training often prompts the practitioner to revisit how they train, there may be an evolution of Systema happening in each practitioner.

Also, because of the individuality of expression it is not accurate to place Systema in the 'grappling arts' category on the bottom of the page - this may be true for some but definitely not all. Ryabko for example seems to focus much more on striking.

Popular controversies concerning Systema

While I disagree with the advertisement tag, this deletion was without discussion. I'm adding it back and hoping to discuss it. There are some significant social issues with describing this martial art, mostly by people who are themselves new to a martial art and/or haven't actually tried any of the work they comment on. If properly cited, a section such as this would definitely improve the quality of this article. -- Sy / ^(talk) 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Section I removed

I guess this was discussed a few weeks ago. Anyway, I'm removing this section because it seems unlikely to me that reliable sources could ever be found describing the reaction to Systema on martial-arts message boards. I realize some of this content is only tangentially related to that so maybe some of it could be brought back in under some different organization, I don't know. Anyway, here it is:

Popular controversies concerning Systema

Due to the widespread online availability of excerpts from Systema training videos and DVDs, a number of controversies have erupted on various martial arts message boards and forums. Most of these controversies are based on interpretations of what is being presented in the video excerpts, which, according to the proponents of Systema, typically appear out of their original context.

Amongst the most common criticisms are that:

Systema consists of a compilation or curriculum of defined fighting techniques

In fact, Systema offers a pedagogical system of largely improvised training exercises rather than the more common hierarchy of techniques and pre-set training drills .

Many of these exercises are designed to reinforce the fundamental biomechanical attributes of breathing, movement, form (or posture) and relaxation. The exercises alternate between movement, sensitivity and conditioning drills and many different types of controlled sparring. Students are encouraged to use these exercises creatively, to experiment with a wide range of tactical and technical options. There are no set moves in systema, thats why the practitioners train slow so they can come up with a variety of techniques, they can see what works and what does not. .

Systema consists entirely of "slow motion, compliant sparring"

Systema training uses improvised slow-motion sparring-type exercises to allow students to safely experiment with various techniques and strategies, as described above. The systema students practice their techniques slow so they can gain more skill in strikes/takedowns/pressure points etc, they can also see how the body reacts in certain situations e.g. when the head is twisted. These exercises become progressively harder, faster and more realistic as the student develops the skill to handle more dangerous training situations safely

Systema advocates psychic knock-downs or other forms of ostensibly magical fighting techniques

Systema training exercises include some movement and sensitivity drills that have often been taken for demonstrations of telekinesis. The proponents of Systema argue that the actual objective of these exercises is for the student to respond to very subtle visual cues from their partner by collapsing or otherwise moving away from a "threat", which is represented by the instructor gesturing towards the student's body with an open palm or similar action. Divorced of their intended context, this creates the illusion of a telekinetic push or throw. The practitioners are also taught to be soft when training to prevent injuries and because systema is mostly trained slow, therefore it looks like the fighters fall 'magically' when really they are just responding to each others attacks.

P4k 03:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This section should be moved to Ryabko's Systema anyways, since most of this is centered around Vasiliev/Ryabko videos. --Mista-X 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there anyone else who would like to discuss this? -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see this article improved

I would really enjoy seeing this article improved and moved up in MA quality scale. Unfortunately I am not very knowledgable. Tkjazzer 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section and advert tag

I removed the criticism section because the tone of it was mainly negative towards the subject and definitely POV. Some non-notable person was also quoted in this. I removed the advert tag as I think the article has been pretty well cleaned of that tone, if anyone disagrees they are welcome to point it out in the article. --Mista-X (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I should have come here before adding that section, so I apologize. I do however feel that the issue needs to be addressed regarding the questionable nature of systema. The rest of the article is highly positivistic with regard to the subject, and much speculation surrounds whether the martial arts history is valid, or elaborate marketing. (note lack of sources that dont sell systema related services/gear). If A section is going to be removed regarding rejection and critisism of the art for bieng biased, then the rest of the article that is decidedly 'pro' systema (and has no sources) ought to equally be removed. The section I added was in hopes of establishing some neutrality.--Davou (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, and I agree with you that Systema's history is questionable, and that should be noted in the article. I don't think that wikipedia is a good place to question how effective the art is, etc. however. I am a former Systema practitioner, and I will say that IMO Systema is a great martial art, but has it's flaws like any other art. My point is, that if we look at other martial arts articles on wiki, they don't really have criticism of the art it's self, but possibly about history our controversies surrounding "masters", etc. I think it would be to unfair for any article to allow this sort of thing, because it would be really hard to keep the writing neutral. Also, we have to consider that there are more than one "Systema" arts, and some criticisms might be better included in the relevant article about the specific system, such as Ryabko's, etc. --Mista-X (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • True enough that the other martial arts don't have the section that I added to the systema article, but the reason I feel this one deserves it is because the suggestion is out there (which isn't the case with say, muay thai or BJJ). In order to keep this article neutral, this issue MUST be addressed. I also agree that this isn't the place to question whether an art is or isn't effective, thats why I didn't do so... But this is where 90% of people wondering about systema will come, and they ought to know that it is an issue floating around. The removed section is important, even if its unflattering. No one removes the section 'history-(1933-1945)' from the article on Germany after all. The issue exist, and while its true it should not be argued here, the fact that it does exist ought to be addressed (which is what my contribution aimed at)--Davou (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly there are martial arts here with criticism sections, e.g. Aikido (Aikido#Criticisms) and Karate (Karate#Potential_negative_issues). Such a section here is merited in my opinion, but should be balanced. JJL (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It might be quite difficult to establish even a perceived neutrality. Unbaised'ness was my intention with the original contribution, which is why I tried to convey any opinion (both positive and negative) as coming from sources that could be cited. Any ideas on how we can collectively work towards creating a section that both illustrates the oppinion, potential and scope of the issue that is to be its subject? --Davou (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So thats where this dies? The edit is undone, then no discussion is made? One might expect that the editors of this article are jaded to a bias if that were the case.--Davou (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you offering a remedy, or just criticizing everyone else? One might think you are too lazy to actually contribute yourself. ;-) --Mista-X (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I beleive I did offer a remedy. This article NEEDS to address criticism brought against the topic. I added a section in the hopes of doing that, but it was rejected and removed with no discussion. Now I suggest the article be tagged for neutrality until a proper debate is started regarding addressing the afforementioned issue. 90% of anyone wondering about systema will first end up on the parent page, and providing a complete image of the issue is important. --Davou (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the criticism section to be perfectly relevant and quite productive. I don't, however, think it belongs in this article but instead should go in the Ryabko's Systema article, since the vast majority of English-speaking participants to the discussion would only have knowledge of or references for that flavour. ->

I also don't think any of the senior practitioners would do more than grin a little at the idea of a section like that. Most discussions I've seen or heard of have ended with "well, try it" and the most heated I have heard of ended with an offer to pay a flight to come train with the Systematist. ->

I feel that laying out the common concerns (about the art, not the history) is an acceptable thing to do. Line things up and everything can be knocked down one by one in a constructive way. Not a real art? Bodyguards, police officers and military give big kudos, and there's even a military-focused training program.[2] As long as sources are cited we're good for the next topic. Line up the next one and knock it down, and so on. -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article does not properly address concerns and critisim that exist about the topic in martial arts professional and recreational circles. A section was added but promptly removed that had been created in hopes of presenting those concerns. In neglecting to present opinions from people who aren't involved in the martial art [but have experience in the field of martial arts], the article stands incomplete.--Davou (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we need to dig up the old arguments in the Bullshido forum. As I understand, things were thoroughly argued and some well respected participants in that forum ended up thinking quite highly of Ryabko's systema. I wasn't a participant and I don't have much knowledge of their forums, plus I'm biased .. but I can help point people towards that. It represents a lot of non-Systematists really grilling the art.

So what's the best way of going about this? How does one recognize an unbiased review from mere opinion or recognize the seniority of the opinions of someone? Can we perhaps look at some writings (published or personal) from critical reviewers? Can we cite magazines and newspapers, or should there be a focus on contemporary and respected neutral+martial reviewers giving their opinions?

A lot of what's here is definitely POV-biased because practitioners were the main contributors. They/we cite sources we know, which could in turn be biased. It's trivial, but time consuming, to dig up references for everything -- from interviews and articles -- but that's doable if it helps. -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sibirskiy Viun

Who/what is "Sibirskiy Viun"? I saw it on YouTube when I searched Systema. Should we add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.198.198 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched YouTube and found a video of it. It seems to have some similarities I think. Maybe it is another Russian martial art sharing a similar heritage as the Ryabko/Kadochnikov Systemas. I think many Russian martial arts look a little similar until a person is very good with one and can see differences. =) -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Capital letter?

Is it Systema or systema? Karate, after all, is karate, not Karate; same for judo (not Judo). And so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In all the books I've ready it's capitalized. Also, terms like Russian Health System or Russian Martial Art were also capitalized. I don't think there's an official position either way.. but it's a title so it probably gets capitalized by the editors without much thought. -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be used either way, referring to different things. Lowercase, they are both broad terms meaning essentially the same thing, a system of martial arts in Russia in various schools. I believe the uppercase terms may be copyrighted associated with a specific school (but I'm not sure on this...) Tyciol (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally referenced

Since the article was denounced to a start level due to an almost complete lack of references, I referenced the whole article. P.S. And it was easy, is it that hard to write Systema in Google? All the sources are in English, there are alot of sources in English. Next time you bring a claim, please reference. Kostan1 (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the problem, most of the sources are circular. There are no independent sources and no sources that come from any sort of scholar, researcher or journalist independent of Systema, with the exception of Aikido journal. However, in terms of historical there is no real proof of the 11th century claim. We only have the word of Systema people about that. --Mista-X (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I haven't wrote it as a fact, but that "Some people claim". Are there arguments about the fact that some people claim it? No, and that sentence doesn't claim more then that. I also referenced the second version that it was done in Dynamo Moscow. Kostan1 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Other names in Systema

While I was clearing up a question on Sonnon's talk page, there was this article where he mentions a bunch of names that he remembered in relation to Systema while he was involved with ROSS. I thought it would be appropriate to mention them here, since perhaps information on some of these names could be researched to help expand the article. Currently only 2 schools are mentioned, probably because they have been exported to North America, whereas there are probably some other notable schools in Russia that don't have articles yet. I don't know if that's something that should be left for Russian Wikipedia or not, but I figure if it would be something notable there it would also be here, for the benefit of people in Russia who speak English reading this. Anyway the ones mentioned are "Kadochnikov, Belov, Spas, Skobar, Sobor, Buza, Golitsin, ROSS, RRB, Kolo, Rukopashni Boi, Ryabko, Sidorov, Slavyano Goretskaya Bor'ba". The two bolded ones are already included in this article, does anybody have a clue who the other ones are?

I also found a couple others: Starov/Specter has some YouTube and Lutz comes up on google. I don't know who they studied under, possibly some of the previously mentioned by Sonnon, or maybe others. I imagine since this was taught in the military a lot of people will be teaching it. As for who is doing so with rank, I only know of Ryabko who is still serving, and at a higher rank. I am not sure of the ranks of the other names mentioned here. Tyciol (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

COI tag - User:Pacificasystema performing edits

User:Pacificasystema is performing edits to this article with Pacifica Systema appearing as an editted item. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tagged 2010-06-11

Non-notable links exist within this article, potentially linkfarm and spam. The Refimprove and Primary Sources tags were introduced which not require citations to accompany additions. Non-notable links without articles on Wikipedia will be removed. If the problem cannot be alleviated, the section should be removed. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is everything removed?

I wanted to read something about this subject but it seems that a lot of (referenced!) information is taken down by some "haters", or i don't know who. Don't make readers browser for the information in history section, it is really time consuming. 188.167.63.212 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)