# Opinions on Russian Systema



## Natitude (Jul 20, 2016)

Hello. New to MT and looking to start training. My goal is to train for self defense. Not looking to become a back belt, compete, etc. . I've been looking at studying mma, kindai-ryu jiu jitsu, and Russian Systema. I'm leaning toward Systema because it looks like it might be geared specifically for self defense. Does anyone have any experience with this style? Thoughts on it?  Thanks for any info!!


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 20, 2016)

I like the style, but there is an element of no touch knock out stuff in one of the branches I have little use for. However the other training I have seen is impressive, and I like its approach to training SD scenarios in multiple locations outside of the school. If I had a chance I would give it a try.

There is a Systema guy here on MT, hopefully he will see your post and be able to give you more info


----------



## Natitude (Jul 20, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> I like the style, but there is an element of no touch knock out stuff in one of the branches I have little use for. However the other training I have seen is impressive, and I like its approach to training SD scenarios in multiple locations outside of the school. If I had a chance I would give it a try.
> 
> There is a Systema guy here on MT, hopefully he will see your post and be able to give you more info



The school near me offers a free class so I thought I'd try it out and see. Have nothing to lose... Thanks[emoji1303]


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## Brian King (Jul 20, 2016)

I like it. 
Where are you located? 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Natitude (Jul 21, 2016)

Brian King said:


> I like it.
> Where are you located?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



I'm in Virginia. Near Virginia Beach. 


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## HW1 (Jul 21, 2016)

Natitude said:


> Hello. New to MT and looking to start training. My goal is to train for self defense. Not looking to become a back belt, compete, etc. . I've been looking at studying mma, kindai-ryu jiu jitsu, and Russian Systema. I'm leaning toward Systema because it looks like it might be geared specifically for self defense. Does anyone have any experience with this style? Thoughts on it?  Thanks for any info!!
> 
> 
> "Protected by Shield"



My opinion of Systema from a limited point of view:
I train with a Systema guy. I like the scientific concepts of the style and a lot of the techniques shown to me are very good.

Cons and criticisms:
I don't know what flavor of Systema he's got but there are a few things I didn't like that kept me from considering training it.

1. They emphasize too much on relaxation, as in, most techniques will only work if you are completely relaxed. In a self-defense scenario, you are anything but relaxed. So he can flawlessly execute a technique in demonstration but all the soft pivoting and ballistic punching goes out the window when we spar (I get close and use FMA or Wing Chun) and I put the pressure on.

2. They train too much on getting hit, "This is how you absorb a punch," or "This is how to move your body to minimize damage of a knife stab," but man, how about focusing more on how not to get punched or stabbed. And again, these rely on relaxation and have never seen it in sparring.

3. Like Krav Maga (which I prefer over Systema) they steal stuff from other styles and call it their own. You won't know it unless you're familiar with styles like Silat or Wing Chun and their version of the technique is not better than nor improve on the original.

4. Very little weapons training (which is OK because it's not a weapons based style) but they pride themselves on knife and gun techniques which, from what I've seen, will get you killed.

This is just my opinion and I realize I may be a blind man describing an elephant.


----------



## Brian King (Jul 21, 2016)

Natitude said:


> I'm in Virginia. Near Virginia Beach.



Enjoy your class. I do not know the instructor there so will be interested in hearing your opinion on the class.

Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 21, 2016)

Natitude said:


> I'm in Virginia. Near Virginia Beach.
> 
> 
> "Protected by Shield"



Please let us know how it goes.


----------



## Natitude (Jul 21, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Please let us know how it goes.



Will do[emoji1303]


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## Natitude (Jul 21, 2016)

Brian King said:


> Enjoy your class. I do not know the instructor there so will be interested in hearing your opinion on the class.
> 
> Warmest Regards
> Brian King



Thanks! I'll let you know how it goes!


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jul 21, 2016)

Any martial art will help you with self defence anythings better than nothing that's how I always see it


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Jul 21, 2016)

No idea about the system but at the end of the day a punch is a punch a kick is a kick a block is a block (or a strike as in kenpo but anyway) all styles have different names for the moves but in stand up fighting the basics your punches kicks, blocks and stances will be similar so as long as your instructor knows his stuff and you enjoy you're all good.


----------



## Natitude (Jul 21, 2016)

HW1 said:


> My opinion of Systema from a limited point of view:
> I train with a Systema guy. I like the scientific concepts of the style and a lot of the techniques shown to me are very good.
> 
> Cons and criticisms:
> ...



Interesting stuff. Thanks for the insight on it. I don't have a wing chun studio close to try out. Nearby I have access to Systema, kindai-ryu jiu-jitsu, bjj, mma, and Muay Thai. Any thoughts on those?


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## marques (Jul 21, 2016)

I tried Systema a few months, with a known master, in France.

Good points:
- Relaxing and health
- Slow training (so I can understand something) before go fast
- Punches (to the body) without gloves

Bad points:
- Ridiculous sort of attacks
- Ridiculous knife defense (and attack) (edit after reading the other post: I trained many weapons, often. Online videos shows they keep on that way. Systema is many things) 
- Longer distance traveled for some defenses than for the attack (and hidden by 'tricks').

Didn't work under little 'pressure' for senior students.

Usually I use softer language, but there are things... On the other hand Systema guys say "it is 4 principles". So you may find many things under the same name, different organizations...

Reviewing your options:

- MMA; if it includes wrestling, good. You will learn takedown defense. If not, you will still learn a bit of everything. But probably you will spend too much time on the ground. Little room for fancy things. Physical training.
- BJJ: Even more time on the ground. But it is great if you find yourself there (which is not the best position in self-defence).
- Kindai-ryu jiu-jitsu: No idea what is is. But I am always attracted by 'jiu-jitsu' (which is almost meaningless, anyway).
- Muay Thai: A lot of 'weapons', short distance and clinch included, as well as takedowns. Would be my first choice.

*Go and try*. At the end it depends on your preferences as style and training and pedagogy and training group... I guess you can try the 4 this month and start next month on one of them.


----------



## marques (Jul 21, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Any martial art will help you with self defence anythings better than nothing that's how I always see it


There are things really bizarre / dangerous (for yourself) out there, actually. 

Anyway for self-defence, 90% is avoidance, not to be there, and seeing things coming before the 'fight' itself. The other 10%, they are for fun...


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2016)

Geared specifically towards self defence is kind of a misconception.

Self defence is more of a tactical issue rather than a technical one.

It is like a rugby player taking wrestling classes to learn to tackle better.


----------



## Natitude (Jul 21, 2016)

marques said:


> I tried Systema a few months, with a known master, in France.
> 
> Good points:
> - Relaxing and health
> ...



Thanks for your thoughts. I think that's the best route to go... Trying them out first to see. I feel Muay Thai is the best option, but the Systema threw me a curve when I discovered it the other night. The kindai-ryu jj is a style offered at a place near by. Here is a link to info on it. 

Founder of Kindai-Ryu - Kindai Ryu

Thanks again[emoji1303]


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## marques (Jul 21, 2016)

I understand your interest / curiosity by Systema. Why do you think I went there a few (3?) months? I also found it special. At the beginning.

Just try and think what is better for you.

For exemple, I like Muay Thai, but not the current Muay Thai training where I am (were?) going. It is 20 min warm up, 20 min being kicked (with pads), 20 min useful time (my turn). No sparring. Not very fun...

Try them all and come back with your feelings / conclusions...


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 21, 2016)

Natitude said:


> Hello. New to MT and looking to start training. My goal is to train for self defense. Not looking to become a back belt, compete, etc. . I've been looking at studying mma, kindai-ryu jiu jitsu, and Russian Systema. I'm leaning toward Systema because it looks like it might be geared specifically for self defense. Does anyone have any experience with this style? Thoughts on it?  Thanks for any info!!
> 
> 
> "Protected by Shield"



I've never tried it but I've seen it. It seemed..."odd", I guess. Had some gymnastics type stuff in it and stuff like a 1-inch punch type thing.

You might look into Krav Maga instead (if you haven't already)

Just my 2 cents.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 22, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Any martial art will help you with self defence anythings better than nothing that's how I always see it



Iaido.
Kyudo.
Kendo.

Just three of a very long list that have nothing to do with self defence at all… for the record… 



Kenpoguy123 said:


> No idea about the system but at the end of the day a punch is a punch a kick is a kick a block is a block (or a strike as in kenpo but anyway) all styles have different names for the moves but in stand up fighting the basics your punches kicks, blocks and stances will be similar so as long as your instructor knows his stuff and you enjoy you're all good.



Actually, quite the opposite is true, mainly because there's only so many ways to move a human body, the techniques themselves (individual punches, kicks, blocks etc) are rather meaningless and unimportant. What is far more important is the training methodology. Simply learning kicks and punches is like learning individual notes on a piano and nothing else… you need to learn how to put them together.



Natitude said:


> Interesting stuff. Thanks for the insight on it. I don't have a wing chun studio close to try out. Nearby I have access to Systema, kindai-ryu jiu-jitsu, bjj, mma, and Muay Thai. Any thoughts on those?
> 
> 
> "Protected by Shield"



Visit the schools, and see which one gels with you. It's honestly the only real, practical advice that can be given… with the caveat that not all arts/systems are what they seem to be, or claim to be… if it was me, there's one on that list that immediately gets tossed out the window… 



drop bear said:


> Geared specifically towards self defence is kind of a misconception.



That depends on what's being put forth as "geared specifically towards self defence", honestly. It can certainly be geared towards self defence very accurately and effectively… or it might be pure lip service because the person saying it doesn't get the difference between "I hit people when they attack, that's self defence, and I hit people in my martial arts, therefore they're the same thing"… 



drop bear said:


> Self defence is more of a tactical issue rather than a technical one.



Yes, but of course the technical has to match the tactical… and the contextual realities.



drop bear said:


> It is like a rugby player taking wrestling classes to learn to tackle better.



How so? Are you simply assuming that a martial art class that has a focus on self defence doesn't really have one, because you can't see how it can happen?



Natitude said:


> Thanks for your thoughts. I think that's the best route to go... Trying them out first to see. I feel Muay Thai is the best option, but the Systema threw me a curve when I discovered it the other night. The kindai-ryu jj is a style offered at a place near by. Here is a link to info on it.
> 
> Founder of Kindai-Ryu - Kindai Ryu
> 
> Thanks again[emoji1303]



Cool. I'm going to head over to your thread on Kindai Ryu in a moment to give my thoughts there… one thing that intrigued me, though was the line at the end of your posts:


Natitude said:


> "Protected by Shield"



Is there a meaning to that? This is just me being curious, of course…. and I'll also offer some advice. If you want to end each of your posts that way, you may consider going into your user profile and making it your signature… saves typing it out each time!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> That depends on what's being put forth as "geared specifically towards self defence", honestly. It can certainly be geared towards self defence very accurately and effectively… or it might be pure lip service because the person saying it doesn't get the difference between "I hit people when they attack, that's self defence, and I hit people in my martial arts, therefore they're the same thing"…
> 
> Yes, but of course the technical has to match the tactical… and the contextual realities.
> 
> How so? Are you simply assuming that a martial art class that has a focus on self defence doesn't really have one, because you can't see how it can happen?



Have you ever had to engage in self defence?  Do you know anything at all about it? 

How many fights.  Weapon attacks have you been in?  How many have you deescalated? 

Is it fun to be routinely dismissed as a novice without engaging any of your actual arguments?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 22, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Have you ever had to engage in self defence?



Yes.



drop bear said:


> Do you know anything at all about it?



Yes.



drop bear said:


> How many fights.  Weapon attacks have you been in?



Depends on how you count it, but if we're limiting to physical encounters only (hardly the only definition that could be applied), about half a dozen, including group situations.



drop bear said:


> How many have you deescalated?



That's harder to tell… I can think of a couple of dozen situations off the top of my head, I would think it's a lot more taking everything into account.



drop bear said:


> Is it fun to be routinely dismissed as a novice without engaging any of your actual arguments?



Ah, so you were trolling… cute.

Here's the thing… I answer the questions when asked. And your answers have always shown a very limited, single-sided, blinkered view which doesn't take into account what self defence is actually recognised as (in training forms and reality) by the many experts in the field. So, until you show some understanding, you may find that you keep getting questioned… of course, you are always free to question back, but I do recommend you actually listen to the answers.

Oh, and you may want to look to who has backing from whom as well… that's a bit of an indication as to who actually does know what they're talking about…


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok come back to me when you have done hundreds. Then you can be the definition of what self defence is.  

Ok.  Geared specificaly for self defence is not an endorsement in itself.  You can be geared towards anything you like.  Fighting martians on the moon if you like but it does not determine the best tool for the job.  There is no criteria that geared for self defence ever has to work anywhere. Anyone can say it and nobody ever has to prove it. 

The technical only has to achieve the tactical which is a bit different. So tactically you may want to escape a grab and run away. Should i hit the guy with a boxing left hook. Which is not designed as a grab release in boxing, but will work quite well to release a grab.  Rather than a specific grab release which may not work very well at all.(and there are quite a few of those out there.)

A martial art that focuses on self defence does not determine whether it is any good at it.  It has to be good at self defence based on its own merits. 

And i could care less who has the backing of what.  To be honest that is your hang up. Not mine.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 22, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok come back to me when you have done hundreds. Then you can be the definition of what self defence is.



No, then I'd be experienced in fighting… and likely only in a fairly limited context.  



drop bear said:


> Ok.  Geared specificaly for self defence is not an endorsement in itself.



Agreed. Which is why I said it can be either genuinely (and accurately) geared towards it, or it can be lip service. Figuring out which is which isn't easy, particularly for a beginner, which is the real catch… those paying lip service can often be more convincing than those who are genuinely understanding of the situation and reality.



drop bear said:


> You can be geared towards anything you like.



Sure.



drop bear said:


> Fighting martians on the moon if you like but it does not determine the best tool for the job.



Which is why you need some education, and the ability to critically assess. Both the person presenting, and the one looking.



drop bear said:


> There is no criteria that geared for self defence ever has to work anywhere.



Really? I'd disagree with that… but the problem you (and others, such as Steve) have is that you only accept a single form of "proof"… one that has little providence in this area.



drop bear said:


> Anyone can say it and nobody ever has to prove it.



Frankly, that's garbage. It's just that you don't understand how the proof actually works.



drop bear said:


> The technical only has to achieve the tactical which is a bit different.



Not really. I think we're both actually saying the same thing there. It's the same as when I talk about the (specific) techniques not being important.



drop bear said:


> So tactically you may want to escape a grab and run away. Should i hit the guy with a boxing left hook. Which is not designed as a grab release in boxing, but will work quite well to release a grab.  Rather than a specific grab release which may not work very well at all.(and there are quite a few of those out there.)



Are you under the impression that a "self defence system" would rely on your hypothetical "grab release" over a straight left? Really? As with everything, it would depend entirely on the context… personally, I'd be more likely to apply both… the strike to begin with… followed by the release if they haven't let go already… but this is getting into a different area.



drop bear said:


> A martial art that focuses on self defence does not determine whether it is any good at it.  It has to be good at self defence based on its own merits.



Once again, you're not exactly saying anything I haven't said many times before… in fact, I've gone so far as to say that there are no martial arts that are designed (specifically) for self defence (today)… and yes, the "self defence" curriculum does have to have it's own merits to stand on. This hasn't ever been disputed. But, and here's where it gets into complex relationships between them, the martial art is often a very good technical and physical (mechanical) basis for the self defence approach… 



drop bear said:


> And i could care less who has the backing of what.  To be honest that is your hang up. Not mine.



Not a hang up, mate. Simply a recognition of the reality.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> No, then I'd be experienced in fighting… and likely only in a fairly limited context.



Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.

self-defence
_noun_

the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
"he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge"
There are softer more liberal definitions. But that is the heart of it.



Chris Parker said:


> Really? I'd disagree with that… but the problem you (and others, such as Steve) have is that you only accept a single form of "proof"… one that has little providence in this area.



The single form of proof is it has to work somewhere other than in tales of grandeur. So if I say a a move works. I have to make it work. Or show somebody else making it work. There is no in the street,on the battlefield,my linage,you should trust me because i have a black belt proof.

That is not proof. And never will be



Chris Parker said:


> Frankly, that's garbage. It's just that you don't understand how the proof actually works.



Which is convenient as you don't understand how self defence actually works.



Chris Parker said:


> Are you under the impression that a "self defence system" would rely on your hypothetical "grab release" over a straight left? Really? As with everything, it would depend entirely on the context… personally, I'd be more likely to apply both… the strike to begin with… followed by the release if they haven't let go already… but this is getting into a different area.



Not the point. It dosent Matter if a self defence system uses a punch or not. A system that never used a grab release is still training an effective grab release. This is important when we discuss specificity of training.




Chris Parker said:


> Once again, you're not exactly saying anything I haven't said many times before… in fact, I've gone so far as to say that there are no martial arts that are designed (specifically) for self defence (today)… and yes, the "self defence" curriculum does have to have it's own merits to stand on. This hasn't ever been disputed. But, and here's where it gets into complex relationships between them, the martial art is often a very good technical and physical (mechanical) basis for the self defence approach…



But again we come across this idea of technically sound. Which in my opinion falls under the idea of has to work somewhere other than tales of grandeur.



Chris Parker said:


> Not a hang up, mate. Simply a recognition of the reality.



Why is that important to you?

And largely the rest I agree with.


----------



## Natitude (Jul 22, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Iaido.
> Kyudo.
> Kendo.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback. One question for you... Which on the list would you toss out? And my signature  "protected by shield", I carry a smith & wesson shield for my edc gun, that's where I got that. Thanks again!


"Protected by Shield"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 22, 2016)

Natitude said:


> Nearby I have access to Systema, kindai-ryu jiu-jitsu, bjj, mma, and Muay Thai. Any thoughts on those?


*Systema*
 My only first hand exposure to Systema was with some low-level practitioners who were learning from seminars and practicing what they learned in a small local club. Most of what I've gleaned about the art comes from videos of senior instructors. From those videos, I see some good concepts, some useful body mechanics, some interesting drills, and definite skilled movement on the part of the senior instructors. I also see a lot of crappy training methods, unrealistic attacks by training partners, and flashy but impractical techniques demonstrated against those unrealistic attacks.

If I had a good Systema practitioner in the area who was interested in trading knowledge, I would probably give it a try to see what useful elements I could glean - but I have a lot of experience to work with. Most of the instruction I've seen online I wouldn't recommend to a beginner.

That said, I'd still recommend checking out your local school. Perhaps they have a more practical focus.

*Kindai-Ryu*
I listed a couple of concerns I had in your other thread.

*BJJ*
Depending on the school, the instruction may be focused on sportive competition, street application, or some combination of the two. Either way, you will get in shape and learn to protect yourself on the ground. If it's a pure sport school, you probably won't get much for stand-up self-defense purposes.

*MMA*
Assuming the instruction is competent, you'll get in shape and develop a solid foundation in unarmed fighting skills - both striking and grappling. A large percentage of MMA gyms are focused on competition, so you probably won't get much on the mindset or tactical requirements of applying those fighting skills in a self-defense context.

*Muay Thai*
Pretty much what I said for MMA, except the focus is entirely on stand-up striking (clinching included). You won't get any ground-fighting skills.


----------



## marques (Jul 22, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.


Rory Miller says they are opposite, even if they look similar. Fighting is illegal. Self-defence, by definition, is legal.
Fighting is a voluntary engagement. Self-defence is the last resource, after you have failed prevention, awareness, avoidance, de-escalation when applicable... and no chance to run away. Aaaaannnd you used reasonable force. (It seems like everything is against the distracted and good guy )

I understand self-defence as a pre-fight. That finishes the fight before it starts.

Just to give a different perspective and a bit of entropy. I don't know the context of your discussion.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2016)

marques said:


> Rory Miller says they are opposite, even if they look similar. Fighting is illegal. Self-defence, by definition, is legal.
> Fighting is a voluntary engagement. Self-defence is the last resource, after you have failed prevention, awareness, avoidance, de-escalation when applicable... and no chance to run away. Aaaaannnd you used reasonable force. (It seems like everything is against the distracted and good guy )
> 
> I understand self-defence as a pre-fight. That finishes the fight before it starts.
> ...



I don't understand the fixation on self defence.  It is a part of a concept called use of force. 

Self defence is not the start and end of legal use of force.  There are other motivations where force is acceptable.

And none of that covers basic personal safety. Like locking doors or not getting into fights in the first place.

So i just dont get why people have this issue with what is or isnt self defence.  It is like fighting over a chocolate trophy.

Oh and fighting is legal.  That is what all those sports guys do. 

Amicable contest.  A legal use of force that is not self defence.


----------



## marques (Jul 22, 2016)

He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.  
It is a endless (pointless?) discussion. I just don't like the mixture self-defence, fighting, sport... They overlap somewhat, but far from being the same if you want to be rigorous. As criquet is not baseball. But this is an endless, pointless discussions...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 22, 2016)

marques said:


> He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.



Neither does Chen Xiaowang



> But this is an endless, pointless discussions...



agreed


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2016)

marques said:


> He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.
> It is a endless (pointless?) discussion. I just don't like the mixture self-defence, fighting, sport... They overlap somewhat, but far from being the same if you want to be rigorous. As criquet is not baseball. But this is an endless, pointless discussions...



Rory miller isn't a dictionary.

Even a street fight is kinda sorta not assault if you have consented to it. Here you can still be done for affray though if you are two gimps on the street fighting.

And yeah the distinctions get misused by people quite a bit.

Here we go camels. Makes it easy to remember.




*The defences to assault are*

CAMELS Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence



*CAMELS - Consent is*
A person freely consents (you can not consent to serious injury)



*CAMELS - amicable contest is*
Generally associated with sports



*CAMELS - Misadventure or accident*
Pure accident



*CAMELS - execution of law*
police action



*CAMELS - lawful correction or chastisement*
smacking



*CAMELS - self defence*
Only if they feel threatened and only until the threat is over

Assault Flashcards | Quizlet


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.



No, it isn't. Not even in the single definition you present, actually.



drop bear said:


> self-defence
> _noun_
> 
> the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
> "he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge"





Well, that's a legal definition… which is actually different from a contextually based training paradigm definition (one is after the event, one is before… which changes things)… and is only saying that that particular definition states "especially through the use of physical force", not "explicitly" or "exclusively"… so… you know… reading and all… 



drop bear said:


> There are softer more liberal definitions. But that is the heart of it.



No, it's the heart of a legally applied definition within court cases etc… so, no.



drop bear said:


> The single form of proof is it has to work somewhere other than in tales of grandeur. So if I say a a move works. I have to make it work. Or show somebody else making it work. There is no in the street,on the battlefield,my linage,you should trust me because i have a black belt proof.
> 
> That is not proof. And never will be



We've covered this again and again, but no, that is not the definition of proof. Proof is evidence presented to support and validate a claim, and can be anything from anecdotal, to expert testimony, to expressions of previously validated principles, to thought experiments, to reasoned arguments, to witnessed accounts, to secondary sourced evidence, to corroborating evidence, to, well, about another dozen or two forms that you consistently ignore at best, and remain wilfully ignorant of at worst, due to your inability to see anything that you don't already think.



drop bear said:


> Which is convenient as you don't understand how self defence actually works.



Please. The day you show anything beyond a base level, superficial grip on a single aspect I'll start listening to comments you make about what you think my understanding is.



drop bear said:


> Not the point. It dosent Matter if a self defence system uses a punch or not. A system that never used a grab release is still training an effective grab release. This is important when we discuss specificity of training.



I have no idea what you're talking about here, with the double talk of "it doesn't matter if they don't train in grab release, they still use grab releases" (?), but maybe, just maybe, you could try answering my question before you get into your non-sequiteurs again?

The question was, were you under the impression that "fancy grip releases" are what is relied upon in "self defence training", as that is the implication in your post.



drop bear said:


> But again we come across this idea of technically sound. Which in my opinion falls under the idea of has to work somewhere other than tales of grandeur.



Technically sound is important, tactically sound is more important (but both are necessary)… and, as far as evidence, it really doesn't matter if you accept it or not, evidence is more than you seem to want to recognise. Additionally, it might be important to realise that the only person bringing up "tales of grandeur" as any form of evidence is you, you understand… mainly due to your lack of ability to recognise the vast majority of the forms that evidence can take… 



drop bear said:


> Why is that important to you?



"And you shall know them by the company they keep"… 

In other words, when the subject matter experts all tend to agree with my take on things, when I use said subject matter experts to check against my own understanding, and find it matching, when my education has been in line with said subject matter experts, then it's important as a form of corroborating evidence as to what is actually genuine and correct… and, when those same persons do not agree with someone else, and the only people who do agree tend to have a similarly limited grasp, it also shows the understanding on that side.

You do get what corroborating evidence is, yeah?



drop bear said:


> And largely the rest I agree with.



Sure.



drop bear said:


> I don't understand the fixation on self defence.  It is a part of a concept called use of force.



Firstly, you don't understand the fixation on the concepts of self defence? On a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Secondly, no, self defence is part of the legal concepts of use of force (and vice versa), but that is only in application to the usage of the term as a legal definition, and not what is meant when talking about training, teaching, and practicing self defence methods (part of it, yeah, but that's not the context and definition here).



drop bear said:


> Self defence is not the start and end of legal use of force.  There are other motivations where force is acceptable.



You're looking at things backwards here. 



drop bear said:


> And none of that covers basic personal safety. Like locking doors or not getting into fights in the first place.



What doesn't cover that? The legal definitions of self defence as applied to a use of force application? Or self defence training methods and systems? Do you really think it's the latter? That no self defence system deals with things such as "avoiding conflict" in the first place…?



drop bear said:


> So i just dont get why people have this issue with what is or isnt self defence.  It is like fighting over a chocolate trophy.



Er… you do know that we are pretty fine with what is or isn't self defence… it's when false ideas, and limited understandings try to insist on their own views being the correct ones… especially when the people insisting on those views also profess to not be overly interested in the topic themselves, or have it as part of their training paradigm… 



drop bear said:


> Oh and fighting is legal.  That is what all those sports guys do.
> 
> Amicable contest.  A legal use of force that is not self defence.



What's your point? There's lots of things that are related to one area, but are different things… I mean… basketball is a ball game, but it's not football… which is where the issue comes up with you having things backwards earlier… 



drop bear said:


> Rory miller isn't a dictionary.



No, he's a subject matter expert.



drop bear said:


> Even a street fight is kinda sorta not assault if you have consented to it. Here you can still be done for affray though if you are two gimps on the street fighting.



Which is relevant because…?

Look, you're hung up on a single context definition, without grasping that what is meant by self defence training takes into account the legal definition, but is not the same thing at all.



drop bear said:


> And yeah the distinctions get misused by people quite a bit.



Yes, we're seeing that… 



drop bear said:


> Here we go camels. Makes it easy to remember.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One more time, this only applies to a legal definition, and, while certainly part of the understanding and basis for any reasonable self defence system, it's hardly the entirety of the concept, and is not the definition of self defence training. That's where you're still completely off base.

Okay, now that that's done...



Natitude said:


> Thanks for the feedback. One question for you... Which on the list would you toss out?



I'm quite often described as somewhat of a purist, particularly when it comes to Japanese arts… and anything that shows such an overt lack of understanding, or (more often) an overt co-opting of the image of something they have no business being associated with, I'm not going to be overly generous towards… again, I'd direct you to my comments in your "Kindai Ryu" thread… 'cause it's that one… 



Natitude said:


> And my signature  "protected by shield", I carry a smith & wesson shield for my edc gun, that's where I got that. Thanks again!



Okay.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2016)

Ok.  So more multiquote mayhem. 



Chris Parker said:


> No, it isn't. Not even in the single definition you present, actually



When you just say stuff and expect people to just accept it.  Makes you really hard to converse with. 

Defence against assult.  Or fighting.

Pretty simple.



Chris Parker said:


> Well, that's a legal definition… which is actually different from a contextually based training paradigm definition (one is after the event, one is before… which changes things)… and is only saying that that particular definition states "especially through the use of physical force", not "explicitly" or "exclusively"… so… you know… reading and all…



Ok.  But that is your made up definition. When you say contextually based training. That is your training yeah? 

So when you are suggesting that someone does not understand self defence. You mean they don't understand the Chris parker version of it.  Not any sort of universal version.

Of course nobody understands that.



Chris Parker said:


> No, it's the heart of a legally applied definition within court cases etc… so, no.



It is the only definitive version. You either have your own version and then have to accept another version is as legitimate or go to the defined version.



Chris Parker said:


> We've covered this again and again, but no, that is not the definition of proof. Proof is evidence presented to support and validate a claim, and can be anything from anecdotal, to expert testimony, to expressions of previously validated principles, to thought experiments, to reasoned arguments, to witnessed accounts, to secondary sourced evidence, to corroborating evidence, to, well, about another dozen or two forms that you consistently ignore at best, and remain wilfully ignorant of at worst, due to your inability to see anything that you don't already think.



Again no.  You have taken this as to mean you are some self affirming source.

So you say it.  You say you are an expert so therefore an expert has validated what you said.  Thefore merely by saying something you have provided proof. 

(it is a bit nuts dude)





Chris Parker said:


> Please. The day you show anything beyond a base level, superficial grip on a single aspect I'll start listening to comments you make about what you think my understanding is.



Unlikely you are your own proof.  You dont need external justification.



Chris Parker said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about here, with the double talk of "it doesn't matter if they don't train in grab release, they still use grab releases" (?), but maybe, just maybe, you could try answering my question before you get into your non-sequiteurs again?
> 
> The question was, were you under the impression that "fancy grip releases" are what is relied upon in "self defence training", as that is the implication in your post.



It wasn't the implication of my post.  I did not imply anything. I said outright that a method not trained for a specific purpose can be better at that purpose than one that is. 

And as self defence training is a great big fuzzy concept the answer is yes. No. Sometimes.
(exept in the chris parker definition.  And god knows what that entails)



Chris Parker said:


> Technically sound is important, tactically sound is more important (but both are necessary)… and, as far as evidence, it really doesn't matter if you accept it or not, evidence is more than you seem to want to recognise. Additionally, it might be important to realise that the only person bringing up "tales of grandeur" as any form of evidence is you, you understand… mainly due to your lack of ability to recognise the vast majority of the forms that evidence can take…



Ok and this is back to you being your own proof. Otherwise as technically sound and tactically sound are fuzzy concepts. Yes.  No. Sometimes.



Chris Parker said:


> "And you shall know them by the company they keep"…
> 
> In other words, when the subject matter experts all tend to agree with my take on things, when I use said subject matter experts to check against my own understanding, and find it matching, when my education has been in line with said subject matter experts, then it's important as a form of corroborating evidence as to what is actually genuine and correct… and, when those same persons do not agree with someone else, and the only people who do agree tend to have a similarly limited grasp, it also shows the understanding on that side.
> 
> You do get what corroborating evidence is, yeah?



I thought corroborating evidence would have to exist though. I mean there is mention of your super team of experts but they haven't exactly surfaced. 

Are you your own peer group as well as being your own source here? 



Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, you don't understand the fixation on the concepts of self defence? On a martial arts forum? Seriously?
> 
> Secondly, no, self defence is part of the legal concepts of use of force (and vice versa), but that is only in application to the usage of the term as a legal definition, and not what is meant when talking about training, teaching, and practicing self defence methods (part of it, yeah, but that's not the context and definition here).



Yeah.  You are welcome to come up with your own version of self defence as am i. 

It is when you try to make your version the version that you come unstuck.

(is that fundementalism? Maybe that is the sticking point of the whole issue)

But because your friends agree with you does not make you right. That is silly. 



Chris Parker said:


> You're looking at things backwards here.





Chris Parker said:


> What doesn't cover that? The legal definitions of self defence as applied to a use of force application? Or self defence training methods and systems? Do you really think it's the latter? That no self defence system deals with things such as "avoiding conflict" in the first place…?



They do.  As do non self defence systems.  It is not defined in that manner.



Chris Parker said:


> Er… you do know that we are pretty fine with what is or isn't self defence… it's when false ideas, and limited understandings try to insist on their own views being the correct ones… especially when the people insisting on those views also profess to not be overly interested in the topic themselves, or have it as part of their training paradigm…



False gods.  I mean ideas.  Ok.  I see where you are heading.



Chris Parker said:


> What's your point? There's lots of things that are related to one area, but are different things… I mean… basketball is a ball game, but it's not football… which is where the issue comes up with you having things backwards earlier…





Chris Parker said:


> No, he's a subject matter expert.



He doesn't have to be a dictionary to be a subject matter expert. He doesn't even need to have the right terminology.



Chris Parker said:


> One more time, this only applies to a legal definition, and, while certainly part of the understanding and basis for any reasonable self defence system, it's hardly the entirety of the concept, and is not the definition of self defence training. That's where you're still completely off base.
> 
> Okay, now that that's done...


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 24, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Any martial art will help you with self defence anythings better than nothing that's how I always see it


Personally, I disagree a bit. Only because a false sense of security in some inadequate fighting skills is probably not better than simply running away scared. Trying to fight and getting killed is not better than realizing you don't know how to fight and just running away like a frightened gazelle.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> just running away like a frightened gazelle.



Absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's good self defence.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 24, 2016)

You really have an aversion to listening, don't you?



drop bear said:


> Ok.  So more multiquote mayhem.



Not that I think it'll do much good, but sure… 



drop bear said:


> When you just say stuff and expect people to just accept it.  Makes you really hard to converse with.



Are you completely unable to follow an argument? I mean… not only do I point out that your definition isn't accurate (or, in your words, "in pretty much every definition of the term"), I then go on to demonstrate that your own example doesn't fit… how is that me just expecting people to accept it? I mean, I backed up my comment straight away… 



drop bear said:


> Defence against assult.  Or fighting.
> 
> Pretty simple.



Again, you're talking about a legal definition of self defence as an applied action and legal justification/claim. That's not what is meant when talking about training for self defence. And you seem unable to listen when you're informed of that, no matter how many times we try.

I mean, this line of conversation started when you said that "(training specifically) geared up for self defence (was) a misconception"… the concept of self defence being discussed is the training paradigm, not the application in the act. That's the concept you were addressing, and that you've consistently shown a lack of ability to grasp.



drop bear said:


> Ok.  But that is your made up definition. When you say contextually based training. That is your training yeah?



My "made-up definition"?!? Dude, what exactly are you smoking? No, my definition of self defence (in the context of teaching and training the concept) is pretty much the same as anyone else's who actually knows about the topic. That includes people I would consider subject matter experts, such as Rory Miller, Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri, Dave Grossman and more, as well as (on this forum alone) JKS, Tony Dismukes, paul_d, marques, Brian R Van Cis, and more. Are we subject matter experts? That's up to others to decide for themselves… but we are certainly a hell of a lot more informed on this subject than you seem to be.

And no, it's not just my training… it's the same type of training in every self-defence oriented system around. It's the same methodology followed by those subject matter experts I mentioned, as well as many, many others.



drop bear said:


> So when you are suggesting that someone does not understand self defence. You mean they don't understand the Chris parker version of it.  Not any sort of universal version.



No, I am saying that they don't understand the concepts involved, the training practices, the actual aims, the parameters, and so on, based upon the fact that they continually argue against it and demonstrate their ignorance time and time again.



drop bear said:


> Of course nobody understands that.



Well, maybe if you listened a bit more… 



drop bear said:


> It is the only definitive version. You either have your own version and then have to accept another version is as legitimate or go to the defined version.



I'm going to try once more… the definition you gave is a legal definition. The definition that we are discussing on the forums is less about the act, and more about the training paradigm and concept. That's where the definitions split.

To act in self defence is one thing… but training for self defence is a different application of the concept again. And when you're asking for "proof" of "self defence" in what is taught, that's the context you're entering into… so your definition is out of place.



drop bear said:


> Again no.  You have taken this as to mean you are some self affirming source.
> 
> So you say it.  You say you are an expert so therefore an expert has validated what you said.  Thefore merely by saying something you have provided proof.
> 
> (it is a bit nuts dude)



Garbage. What I'm saying is that you are so blinkered, so poorly educated in the very concept of what does and does not constitute evidence or proof that you are unable to identify evidence when it's planted in front of your nose.



drop bear said:


> Unlikely you are your own proof.  You dont need external justification.



Er, what? Are you saying that you don't need to provide external proof to me that you know what you're talking about, or that I don't need external proof because I am my own evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, or… huh?

You know that lack of logical structure I was talking about in the other thread? Yeah… that… 



drop bear said:


> It wasn't the implication of my post.  I did not imply anything. I said outright that a method not trained for a specific purpose can be better at that purpose than one that is.



You can't even follow your own posts, can you?

You spoke about using a punch to get someone to release their grip… then went on to say talk about using it instead of "a specific grab release which may not work very well at all"… that's about a clear-cut an example of implying that a "self defence system" (which is what was being discussed) would rely on some kind of special technique that you feel is going to be ineffective just as a result of it being a self defence system… and now you're saying you weren't implying anything at all?

Dude, you invented a situation, invented a response, and decided that the invented response (trained) was not effective, based on nothing but your own imagination of the entire event… 



drop bear said:


> And as self defence training is a great big fuzzy concept the answer is yes. No. Sometimes.
> (exept in the chris parker definition.  And god knows what that entails)



I have no idea what the hell you're on about. Self defence training is not a "great big fuzzy concept". You know how I can tell? Because, frankly, everyone else who knows what they're talking about can identify it pretty easily. The only ones who can't don't have an alternative, by the way, other than "sports work because they work in competition"… okay, but that's not what's being discussed… and is really besides the point.



drop bear said:


> Ok and this is back to you being your own proof. Otherwise as technically sound and tactically sound are fuzzy concepts. Yes.  No. Sometimes.



None of that, son, none of it was in any way me being my own proof (which is, again, a concept you've remained wilfully ignorant of as well… it's not a matter of being your own proof, it's a matter of being your own source… but explaining that to you is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog, it seems). But no, tactically sound and technically sound are not "fuzzy concepts" either… they aren't immutable, sure, and there is a lot of variation that can be found, as well as much of it being situationally particular, but that's it.



drop bear said:


> I thought corroborating evidence would have to exist though. I mean there is mention of your super team of experts but they haven't exactly surfaced.



Read a damn book. The corroborating evidence is absolutely there… I mean, it's been referenced a number of times in this thread alone… but it seems (again) that any form of evidence other than a sporting contest is simply not one you can get your head around.



drop bear said:


> Are you your own peer group as well as being your own source here?



You're kidding, right? No one can be this unable to follow what's being said… I mean, this is only two pages long, can you really need to go back and re-read it all again?



drop bear said:


> Yeah.  You are welcome to come up with your own version of self defence as am i.



What on earth is that in reference to?



drop bear said:


> It is when you try to make your version the version that you come unstuck.
> 
> (is that fundementalism? Maybe that is the sticking point of the whole issue)
> 
> But because your friends agree with you does not make you right. That is silly.



No, mate, it's how you can tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.



drop bear said:


> They do.  As do non self defence systems.  It is not defined in that manner.



What? You talk about aspects of personal safety, including avoiding fights in the first place as not being, saying that "none of that covers (these ideas)"… I asked what doesn't cover those ideas, thinking you meant the concept/definition of self defence as you presented it, and went on to point out that self defence oriented systems do cover such things… asking if you thought they didn't… and you respond with "they do. As do non self defence systems". Honestly, none of this makes any sense as there is no context for what you're saying… I mean… what is not defined in "that manner"? What manner?

What are you talking about?



drop bear said:


> False gods.  I mean ideas.  Ok.  I see where you are heading.



You do get that I was talking about you, yeah?



drop bear said:


> He doesn't have to be a dictionary to be a subject matter expert. He doesn't even need to have the right terminology.



What?

Dude. Make sense. Please.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2016)

Multi Quote Mayhem....lol!

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> You really have an aversion to listening, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you don't understand almost half of what I am trying to say and are still trying Io say am the one that is limited.

Sorry. The concepts you raise get more complicated and less defined the closer you look at them. So if you want to have a massive broken down conversation about every aspect of something you have to think more laterally about the subject.

I can't give you dogmatic rules to follow just conflicting ideas.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 24, 2016)

Gentlemen,
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the last page or two has to do with "opinions about Russian Systema."  Perhaps we can bring things back on track, and take the other stuff to a more relevant thread?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Is there a meaning to that? This is just me being curious, of course…. and I'll also offer some advice. If you want to end each of your posts that way, you may consider going into your user profile and making it your signature… saves typing it out each time!



It's a gun thing apparently. He mentioned it somewhere.

I thought he was a nick fury fan.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok come back to me when you have done hundreds. Then you can be the definition of what self defence is.


HUNDREDS of street fights?!
If that's what you're looking for then you really only want to hear from police officers with several years experience. That's what it sounds like you're saying.

Either that or some very hard criminals who probably aren't reading this thread anyway because they don't have Internet in Ad Seg in the state pen.



"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> If that's what you're looking for then you really only want to hear from police officers with several years experience



There's a few on MT but he doesn't listen to them either, posting for him and this is his own words, is 'sparring' with him looking to win.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 25, 2016)

Back to Systema,

I love the emphasis on relaxing that Systema promotes.  This is an attribute that is essential for martial practice.  Let's look at some movement of Martin Wheeler emphasizing this in an interview video:


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> There's a few on MT but he doesn't listen to them either, posting for him and this is his own words, is 'sparring' with him looking to win.



Yes. I am not a fan of the dogmatic style conversation that I was just having. And that you approve of.(providing of course you are being the one laying out the wisdom)

I verbally and actually spar all my instructors. And I spar to win. This is how I discern they have an honest approach to training. The trick is there is no loss of respect when you fail.

This relates to systema a bit because one of the criticisms levelled at systema is this non adversarial aproach they advocate creating a non realistic training environment.

So the tez version of communication can be described pretty much as you see on this video.






To preserve the instructors ego. The student does not realistically defend himself he presents an image of defending himself which the instructor will always win. This compounds until the instructor is training the student to collapse and fail.

It makes conversations like an infomercial. Where my respectful questioning are only asked because I know they already have the answers.


So you may not always get a nice conversation from me. But I at least try to have an honest one. None of it is about looking good. Or being cool in the peer group.

More like this.






Which is where the "you only like mma" comments come from.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

Oh dear, conversation as sparring and he has to win. Says it all. No wonder you don't debate anything, you argue. Debate is where everyone listens, puts their puts and we all win. Arguing is where one person is trying to win by putting everyone else down and we all lose. Try debating.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear, conversation as sparring and he has to win. Says it all. No wonder you don't debate anything, you argue. Debate is where everyone listens, puts their puts and we all win. Arguing is where one person is trying to win by putting everyone else down and we all lose. Try debating.



Not at all what i said.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not at all what i said.



No I said it which shows you will argue with anything that's said.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> No I said it which shows you will argue with anything that's said.



Are you really the best person to be lecturing on how to debate?

 I mean kind of the pot calling the kettle black at the moment.


----------



## Brian King (Jul 26, 2016)

@Brian R. VanCise 
Love Martin's work, it is very honest and free. Hadn't seen that video clip before. It looks like part of one of the Discovery or Military Channel shows. Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps the mods can split off all the nonsense off topic stuff?

Regards
Brian King


----------



## konann (Aug 11, 2016)

I don't understand


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Self defence is fighting


As has been explained innumerable times, it isn't.  It is clear that you will never understand this, no matter how many times and how many different ways it is explained, and that in itself is not a problem.  The problem comes when you try to tell the people who do understand that they are wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> As has been explained innumerable times, it isn't.  It is clear that you will never understand this, no matter how many times and how many different ways it is explained, and that in itself is not a problem.  The problem comes when you try to tell the people who do understand that they are wrong.



I love this sort of thing by the way. It is so primary school. 

No it has been explained inumerable that it is fighting and you will never learn. (so on and something about me being automatically right due to my own bias. )


----------



## KangTsai (Aug 14, 2016)

The sport-oriented arts [boxing, muay Thai, MMA] will get you fit, and the techniques are generally designed to be as fail-safed and technically refined against similar conditions and is generally the ones I recommend even as a gateway into other martial arts, MMA in particular. From MMA training I seemed to develop the Bruce Lee mindset: absorb what you like, bash them together and see what happens.


----------

