PDA

View Full Version : sfgoon , systema



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ralphg
11/29/2007 2:27pm,
goon, can you explain to the difference in [pardon my spelling] raykobo and kadinokov systema? is the system one and politically split? or is there technical differences between the two? if so how technical of a difference, carl clint and i attended a weekend seminar with scott sonnon several years ago, it was bayonet , staff and unarmed felt like a mix of internal chinese boxing, silat and aiki ju jitsu, scott called rma, but looking on you tube rma looks very much like systema---both look nothing like combat sambo--thanks, ralph g

Tom Kagan
11/29/2007 2:49pm,
The reason you thought it looked like Systema was because it is Systema from Alexander Retuinskih.

ROSS = Rossijskaya Otechestvennaya Systema Samozashchity

ralphg
11/29/2007 2:54pm,
tom , so is there a major difference in these styles? or if you put them all in one room teaching, you will see much of the same. in some clips, it looks like aikido, in others a softer version of sambo/judo or sometimes old bare knuckle/white crane--very confusing---ralph g

HANKtheTANK
11/29/2007 3:12pm,
in a nutshell, systema ppl will distinguish the learning styles by this

Ryabko utilizes instinctual approach
Kadochnikov utilizes scientific approach

ralphg
11/29/2007 3:17pm,
hank, one works on natural reaction, the other possibly on a scientific yielding? also, over the years of research, which was found to provide results faster [ not judging as sometimes faster is not better]?--ralph g

HANKtheTANK
11/29/2007 3:24pm,
I don't have the answers to which one is better. I say go with what u prefer.
Some ppl, who have a background in biomechanics, or whatever, will probably find the structure of K-sys a bit easier to understand.

I myself, with my experience in other arts, prefer the instinctual way right now. It allows me the freedom to explore what i already know and use it within the systema principles

I can't speak for the the mechanical approach, since i haven't done it, but i like the instinctual approach because IMO it helps you flow and adapt to changing environments or different body types

ralphg
11/29/2007 3:28pm,
do you think instinctual requires a past martial arts background?---ralph g

melk
11/29/2007 3:32pm,
Kadochnikov System- In its initial incarnation developed by Alexey Kadochnikov, Sergey Shvets, Viktor Zavgorodnij, and A. I. Retuinskih based Spridinov Sambo mixed with a smattering of Traditional RMA but primarily developed through the science of Biomechanics with Biomechanically effecient movement as its primary goal. All books initially written were co-authored by either Dr Shvets or Viktor Zavgorodnij. In its later incarnation, after Kadochnikov broke with his primary researchers and Students/Co-Founders, it became highly stylized and nationalistic, making so far unsubstantiated claims of ancient lineage and the like(in packaging a lot like current Systema including the high emphasis on Orthodox Christianity), but in product still much the same only with a lack of teachers.

ROSS- Developed by Alexander Retuinskih. Was orignially called Kadochnikov System Retuinskih Style. Blended and recreated more Traditional Russian Martial arts. Was highly concerned with biomechanically efficient movement, but also strove to include ethnically Russian Arts. Blending in Asian arts to fill the gaps.

Ryabko/Vasiliev Systema- It initial incarnation was a free form derivative of ROSS and Kadochnikov until a number of lawsuits both in the US and Russia put a stop to that. Hence Vasiliev and the first generation of instructors(mostly Russian) look a lot like those systems. Currently it is solely the invention of the Ryabko and Vasiliev with a little blending of Kadochnikov when Konstantine Komarrov teaches as he holds Instructor 1st Class third Rank(in other words he has passed with ability to teach the first three tests of Kadochnikov System).

That pretty much sums it up. All three pretty much have origins in Buza, Samoz and Skobar as a base, to which they then add their own unique twists.

ralphg
11/29/2007 3:41pm,
pretty complicated, do you think any aikido or paqua may have been absorbed? i have several jiu jitsu books from 1900, which indicate that smaller japanese got the better of larger russians in h2h, articles in turn of the century magazines insist that this spurred russians to create their own system [true or false?] if true in your opinion than issambo/systema is less than 100 years old? or do you consider local wrestling systems like armenian khok, mongolian wrestling to be original russian systems?--ralph g

DdlR
11/29/2007 3:41pm,
I would agree with Hank re. the technical/"instinctual" split. Kadochnikov was a professional engineer and the principles of his system (biomechanical leverage, equilibrium, momentum etc.) are explained through very complicated mathematical formulae. Ryabko's system is based on experimenting with the same principles but more intuitively, without the formal maths and physics.

I've taken a few classes in the Ryabko style and IMO the intuitive approach works fine if the participant has an open mind and considerable prior experience in other styles. It's a good way to practice thinking, reacting and moving "outside the box". I think that it would take longer to develop real skill using this method if the participant didn't have a solid prior MA background.

DdlR
11/29/2007 3:43pm,
That pretty much sums it up. All three pretty much have origins in Buza, Samoz and Skobar as a base, to which they then add their own unique twists.

Is anyone still teaching "pure" SAMOZ?

melk
11/29/2007 4:23pm,
pretty complicated, do you think any aikido or paqua may have been absorbed? i have several jiu jitsu books from 1900, which indicate that smaller japanese got the better of larger russians in h2h, articles in turn of the century magazines insist that this spurred russians to create their own system [true or false?] if true in your opinion than issambo/systema is less than 100 years old? or do you consider local wrestling systems like armenian khok, mongolian wrestling to be original russian systems?--ralph g

If you do a search on the forum for Samoz or Spirdinov you will find a historical sketch that I did on Sambo/Samoz... focusing more in Samoz. Sambo is definitely less than a hundred years old(they didn't really start developing it until after 1917). Samoz was a later development of that. Then Systema, in all its variants are a later development. Kadochnikov didn't start until 1954. Ryabko and Vasiliev later.

Kadochnikov himself was never much of a teacher. The books he co-authored(as in added his name to after they were written) with Victor are not as heavey mathematically and much more practical.

In my opinion having studied systema after ROSS, I found it rather wanting in its current incarnation. The problem then arises that ROSS, at least in the US is dead(though there is a holdout in Millerville PA who has managed to avoid Sonnon's lawsuits) and Retuinskih now believes Americans to be back-stabbing theives, Kadochnikov does not take US students any longer and has reverted to his anti-US stance, Victor and Sergey only take advanced students, and while both are unbelieveable Martial Artists, they don't consider Ryabko or his system worthe their time, and unless you live near Atlanta GA or Olympia WA, there is really no one in the US doing PraMek(a derivative of Kadoch by Matt Powell under the guidance of Sergey and Victor).

So as far as Systema goes if you have a previous background and are willing to spend a good deal of time developing proficiency go for it. However bear in mind that instructors are how should we say easily made, so be careful in picking your school if they charge. Otherwise either make arrangements with Matt Powell in Atlanta or bring him up for a Semmy(IMO they are very decently priced).

melk
11/29/2007 4:26pm,
Is anyone still teaching "pure" SAMOZ?

Actually yes, in Russia at least. They even have a website, though I can't remember the address right now.

halfcut
11/29/2007 4:41pm,
Actually yes, in Russia at least. They even have a website, though I can't remember the address right now.
To elaborate on this further I'm not sure it would be worth you time to find it. Matt trained in some of it while he was in Russia and didn't like it that much and after showing me some Samoz I could see why. It didn't really make sense from a mechanical stand point and I believe that Kadochnikov was probably the first person to make any sense of it.

DdlR
11/29/2007 4:46pm,
I'm more interested in it from the historical point of view.

melk
11/29/2007 5:06pm,
To elaborate on this further I'm not sure it would be worth you time to find it. Matt trained in some of it while he was in Russia and didn't like it that much and after showing me some Samoz I could see why. It didn't really make sense from a mechanical stand point and I believe that Kadochnikov was probably the first person to make any sense of it.
He was the only one screwed up in the head enough to make sense of it.

Sorry I just got done slugging through the only two books he actually wrote... and hearing an author thank God for himself as if his birth were a separate act of Grace is just a little much.

From a historical perspective it is interesting. Equally so and just as valuable is the Manual on Sambo entitled well CAMbO or Sambo by Oschepkov, which contains a detailed training regimine as well as full sections on Combat Sambo and Samoz, detailing technique differences and such. Unfortunately it is only in Russian, and no I don't plan to translate it anytime soon I have my hands full right now, pitching a MA to a government, finishing a video and finishing a couple of translations I have been working for about two years.