08/08/2014
Dallas Combat Lab
Another babble from 5 years ago or so....
"On Systema. Part 1.
If only I had the time… And desire. If I only cared.
To get involved into pointless and endless “discussions” with countless “experts” (often with credentials and often more than willing to throw around their background as a proof that they know what they are talking about) about the S….. S….Systema. Here- I said the “S” word.
As a student of violence one should be able to look at the new concepts, ideas and approaches from a neutral position, without being affected by preconceived notions. As a serious student of violence (an “expert”), one should not rush to pass judgment about something one has no substantial experience with. Experience with another serious student (an “expert”) of the method in question.
Questioning it is OK. Taking a close and lengthy look is better- preferably hands on…
The countless dogmas that are called “truths” by many zealous adherents of these dogmatic methodologies (xyz systems), have brought the state of combatives training to the point where ANY deviation from widely accepted “truth” (for example flinch response being presented as a constant, or clinch engagement as unavoidable “truth”) is being looked at as unrealistic approach, stupid fantasy, marketing ploy or outright dangerous lie. Without due process of investigation, research and training.
Inability to question the most fundamental beliefs about all things related to violence leads to dogmatic stagnation. MMA has exposed to general public in the West this troublesome trend in the world of self defense and combatives training. Many adherents of MMA today are just as much, if not more stagnant and unable (or unwilling) to question their own fundamental beliefs, as many think that their truth, which replaced the previous one, is the ultimate and final one. Is it really?
Aside from people driven by agendas and chronic trend followers (what’s the next big thing?), most students of violence are fairly set in their ways of doing things related to preparing for violence. Often it is much more than finding the method “that makes sense and works”… Sometimes it has to do with almost religious fervor of idolizing specific individual expert and everything that the expert does.
Sometimes it’s finding a niche that gives an individual just enough challenge to feel good about working on improvement, but does not break the bubble of relative safety for ones fragile EGO egg…
Often it is cosmetic make up of the training methodology. Appearance of training “hard” is enough to convince many that their chosen path leads to almost foolproof ability to control the chaos of true violence. Contorted facial expressions, posturing (both physical and psychological), sick amount of excess tension in almost anything they do (for reasons not understood by most)…
The need, almost pathologic desire for gratification. Yes- on many levels that is what drives many students of violence. What the hell am I talking about???
Over the years I have talked with many practitioners commenting on the fact that Systema strikes inflict so much more intense, lasting and often will-to-fight destroying pain without looking like they could… Accepted aesthetics of violence? Does ability to deliver punishment via the physical movement has to conform to any one certain blueprint?
Interestingly, some of the same people some time later, while in the process of developing that ability to strike very hard without outwardly appearing like doing so, commented that they don’t feel like they are hitting hard… And were puzzled by the fact that their training partners were experiencing the revelation of potentially fight ending strike without any substantial biomechanical feedback being delivered back to the striking individual. They were not receiving the customary confirmation, not getting the gratification of knowing they have “hit hard”…
Systema… It is a combat method for adults in combatives. Like very few other methodologies in modern combatives/martial disciplines realm, this Russian born combat method has generated much discussions, heated arguments and is often ridiculed, laughed at and not taken seriously by many self proclaimed “reality based combatives” experts and adherents.
While for the serious and truly skilled proponents of Systema this criticism seems to matter very little, let’s try to examine some of the issues and take a deeper look at misconceptions, misrepresentations and the outright BS.
Systema is far more than martial art. As one saying goes- “it’s the fighting system created in a moment…for that moment”. Ambitious statement? Stupid cliché? Impossible task?
Let’s take a look at it.
Majority of methods and systems are mainly focused on development of skill sets for relatively specific environments and situations. It goes something like this:
“One needs to be strong and have endurance to sustain rigors of close quarters fight…”
True statement. Let’s continue on… What it means to be strong in the context of combat?
Traditional recipe, containing weight lifting, running, some calisthenics, heavy and speed bag work, prolonged grappling bouts with dose of new trends- kettlebells, crossfit, etc.- thrown into the mix- is it the answer to develop physical attributes that best addresses realm of combative environment? Is it?
I submit it is not. There is very profound difference (especially in combat context) between using strength and being strong. Above mentioned approach develops fighters capable of using strength- more often than not- dependant on using it to higher degree than their opponent is capable of. Focus on development of large muscle groups, required for gross motor skill based movements and techniques, usually leaves significant gaps in developing connective tissue and smaller, deeper seated muscles that can and should perform significant portion of basic work from which the “fighting” work projects itself as an extension of the base movement.
In Systema, conditioning work (often referred to by Systema practitioners as “breathing work” or “warm up”) is very different and most of the time even well conditioned non-Systema trained fighters have very hard time performing even relatively basic Systema conditioning exercises. Those exercises tend to immediately expose and address the imbalance that is so common in fighters coming from different disciplines.
Of course there is much more to it than I’m willing to spent time on in this post.
The basic attributes needed by combatant: speed, power (both explosive and sustained), ability to generate both from less than perfect and often- not advantageous- positions, and while moving. Good body structure (posture), ability to take severe impact (repeatedly) and remain functional for continued combat. Ability to maintain psychological equilibrium and awareness during the extreme chaos of true violence and while potentially sustaining various degrees of punishment- both from physical confrontation itself and indirectly- from own physiological body responses (epinephrine dump and all the side effects that follow, etc.).
All of this and much more should be addressed by serious student of violence. Just knowing which muscles are involved in specific work (movement, technique) and then proceeding to strengthen those muscles by the way of mostly linear and one dimensional weight lifting exercises is not nearly enough. Studying HOW those muscles work (the sequence, involvement of connective tissue, primary-secondary movers, limitations imposed by unnecessary tension in peripheral muscle groups, understanding of physiology of vascular function and it’s effects on performance, understanding of neurologic processes involved, in depth study and experimentation with structure of movement and search for efficiency…
Heavy bag swinging wildly and loud, dull thud upon impact of your hand…
Does it mean something in context of combat? What is the difference between knock down power and inflicting serious injury to the tissue- even deeper seated tissue. As in internal trauma that affects ones vital functions. And before someone goes there- it has nothing to do with chi, ki, “internal” energy and all that… Just pure physics, kinematics and mechanics.
Let’s talk tension. And it’s less understood opposite- relaxation. To paraphrase one of the zealous followers of “status quo” combatives camp- “there is no way you can relax under the stress of true all-out fight…”
Nobody does anything to be uncomfortable, no one intentionally walks awkwardly, intentionally throws a ball well or poorly (if they are genuine in their purpose to do it well), or fights you in a way which is uncomfortable to the individuals biomechanical structure or psyche. Even through these actions may be born out of stressful situations no-one intentionally makes themselves more uncoordinated or clumsy than they naturally are or have trained themselves to be (certainly more common up to the point of panic taking over ones mind). They will work in the most efficient a way that their memory, subconscious or conscious, and mechanical physiology allows for. In essence- our body naturally seeks comfort.
Tension is inevitable. We stand and move (in all forms- including fighting) due to constantly changing and adaptive tension. It is triggered by our CNS via the efferent and afferent neurological transmissions, guided and directly linked to so called “muscle memory”- memories and experiences of our life, whether those experiences have been good or bad, right wrong or indifferent. Training is one of such experiences that shapes our movement (in all forms) during the fight. Depending on how long we have trained to move certain ways, preconditioned responses to stimulus will manifest itself. If the “dogma” states that sprawl is THE response to double leg takedown attempt and your training reflects that, your ability to just get out of the way will be severely limited. In reality it does not take any more time to move in 4 or 8 o’clock direction than it does to sprawl, and it gives you a lot more options without “marrying” your attacker.
So then- how you train- whether following the dogmatic truths or seeking to free your movement and responses from ANY limitations- both psychological and physical, will determine the amount of tension (limitations) inevitably present in your work. And by tension I mean more than just physical tension.
Training to operate under stress of combat with minimal tension necessary gives one the freedom to instantly adapt to changing situation, while following the preconditioned response path can force one to be totally reactive fighter. Surviving instead of prevailing.
Lets talk speed.
Real speed generally comes from 3 sources: fear, knowledge (skill would be more accurate probably), and relaxation. Any one of these three gives the perception of "speed".
Fear makes you jerk out autonomically, that is a fast automatic reflex type of action. Then- what is wrong with fear?.. After all, if fear gives rise to speed and if speed is desirable, then is fear something we really want to reduce? Seems counter-intuitive… The issue is that fear driven speed is uncontrollable. It is reactive by nature and as such, movements permeated by such speed are very far from being the most efficient, effective and reflective of the situation at hand. Knowledge simulates speed because you know exactly the perfect move to make, regardless of your physical speed, it represents the one perfect path to solve the problem. It is a good transitional stage, that only comes with training. And time… Finally, relaxation allows you to move fast. Relaxed movement (again- please realize- when saying relaxation I use the term in much broader sense than just physical relaxation) is free of extra baggage and unattached. IMHO one can not get to this point without going through the previously mentioned stages. Furthermore- only strong body (and mind) can afford to be relaxed.
Most methodologies operate from the premise that fear based speed is a constant and can not be replaced by anything. Enhanced through training and gaining skills (knowledge driven speed)- yes. Yet the very core of such speed is fear. Hence we have default flinch responses training advocated by many experts. It is good for what it is- fear based response training. Does the buck stops here??? I submit not…
Are all things and responses we call reflexive truly natural? Or most of it is learned responses based on experiences and interpretations of thereof? Is it possible that family, society and cultural norms had enormous influence on our perceptions of so many things. All the way from infancy forward… Pain, danger, emotional responses to stimulus… IMHO we take a lot of things and attributes for what they are not- natural and thus impossible to change. And with this fundamentally flawed dogma, without ever questioning it, we progress (maybe in the wrong direction based on the starting premise…) in our preparation to deal with violence. Basing the training concepts on foundation that accepts flawed dogma as its core…
On expectations… Anything we do in the fight (as well as other realms of life) has to be goal oriented… Is it true?
One goal at the time or one big goal. The big picture?
When you launch a strike towards your adversary- what is expected? First and foremost- for that punch to land. Hopefully precisely on intended target. Then- what will that punch do to the adversary? Hopefully- something substantial.
Most think that it is mostly dependant on their ability to generate power and speed. Forgetting the issues of good mechanics (sound, solid and structurally robust), proper timing, absent or limited telegraphing, etc. and etc. Even if we do consider ALL of it and train accordingly…
I submit its only 50% of the equation.
Other half will be determined by your adversary- by his actions, movement, tension, etc.
In the fight it’s not “me” and “you”. It’s “us”.
Most people train to do what they feel is needed to overwhelm and subdue (or more) their opponent(s). Others (like substantial segment of modern aikido practitioners) go to other extreme and recite the dogma of “using your attackers energy against themselves”.
One of the issues, IMHO- fundamental issues at that- is that we tend to isolate “techniques”, extract them from more general realm of “movement”. Training becomes technique-centric, instead of attribute oriented. As we do so, more often than not the “technique” is confined in definitions- being trained, perfected as “stand alone” solution to very complex and unpredictable environment. In essence- we loose the sight of “big picture”, replacing it with detailed “technique” approach. Every aspect of such “technique” can be “what if’ed”, and often is. As a result it is being simplified to the level of “caveman simplicity”, with some being outright rejected under the charge of not being robust enough. On the surface- very logical progression and makes sense…
The problem is that attributes should be subjected to such scrutiny. Not the snapshots of the fight progression (which is what techniques are), often taken out of context.
If we approach the attributes with such detailed examination, each individual practitioner with time and effort can develop ability to “create” endless “techniques” for the situation at hand. In real time. In the moment- for that moment."
Sonny Puzikas