Another good MA blog:
http://montrealsystema.blogspot.com/
July 17, 2010
Combat Systema: Principle vs. Technique
There is a popular descriptive used to distinguish Russian Systema from other martial arts that goes like this:
"We're principle-based. We don't believe in technique."
This is a classic example of something getting lost along the way in translation. Granted, this notion varies a bit from camp to camp. Kadochnikov and Retuinskih for example are scientifically precise and extremely technical in everything that they teach. How they interpret those principles varies significantly, with Retuinskih exhibiting far more pressure testing through jacketed wrestling, modified boxing and generally more contact and Kadochikov floudering in my opinion somewhat in the excesses of soft and slow exploration. Ryabko Systema by comparison has migrated increasingly away from any structured specifics, committing more fully to an intuitive path of self-exploration. Verily, the distinguishing factors between Ryabko Systema and Kadochnikov is the difference between faith and science. But does this need to be the case? Does creating a matrix for learning based on sound principles necessarily mean that technique must be shunned like a leper at a game of twister?
Why does a style stray from teaching technique? Is it a question of instructors teaching at their current level and forgetting the steps they took to get there? Is it a question of laziness? Is it a question of intentionally burning bridges to prevent students from understanding how to acquire the fullest possible ability--the ancient habit of hiding secret knowledge? Perhaps it's a combination of many motives. Even if it were nothing more than the pure belief that technique in any form were some form of distraction from true adaptability and learning, we are left with Infinite Monkey Theory--eventually a room full of monkeys, typing on an infinite number of typewriters, should logically create a work of literature equivalent to that of Shakespeare.
The problem with this approach is that we do not have infinite amounts of time or resources. If I need to teach someone how to use a gun and I put 5 people in one room and let them play and 5 in another room and teach them basic safety procedures, handling skills and the finer points of shooting, I am likely to not only have a faster learning curve in the instructed room, I am also far more likely to have 5 people come out alive. The fact is, some degree of technique is necessary. So often, I encounter Systema people who don't know the first thing about applying a lock who in return spout: "If you lock another, you lock yourself". That's true. There is a risk in lockng that you become static and prone to multiple attackers, but if you are a law enforcement officer or security agent or simply a civillian concerned with less than lethal control options, you need to know how to put on a few basic locks, a basic choke etc. Once you have the foundation, then you can focus on continuous movement, when to abandon it, how to intensify it, etc. I see Systema practitioners practicing ground defense against people who couldn't earn a white belt in BJJ, practicing kick defense against people who have trouble standing on one leg and working against "boxers" who are simply their chums wearing boxing gloves. There needs to be a little more concrete in the foundation in my opinion otherwise we'll soon find ourselves posting fights with our drunken uncles on youtube.
Technique is not a bad word. There are best ways to throw a punch, specific nuances that should be known about locks and holds, tactics that work best against specific situations. To simply float on the current of "principality" is to hide from the need for specificity and certainty. I have seen across the world what only investing in flow at the expense of core technique can do--it can create a mass of delusional individuals who think that wiggling and breathing is enough. You wouldn't trust a surgeon to just follow their intuition. You would expect that they had learned specific techniques and approaches but then transcended to the point where they can adapt. You would expect a musician to know how to play basic notes and riffs, perhaps cover other songs, before they could jam. You would expect a pilot to understand basic operating procedures before you would expect them to be able to handle a crisis. Why should we expect anything different from something as essential as the skills needed to protect our own lives.
Some degree of technique will always be necessary. Principles are the glue that holds them all together in one coherent direction, that explains how they work and deepens our understanding of them. Techique is the bridge to trancendence and the path to intuition. Balancing both the intuitive with the specific, faith with fact, technique with principle, is the key to excellence.
