Systema and Tai Chi – similarities and differences

[cloudz]

But at the same time then why play both sides Rob ?
You are saying things exactly like those seeking to defend 'a Mizner' or an empty force artist.
Yet you go our of your way to reveal how chi tricks work.

These are tricks too. psychological, somatic. These are very hard to separate in fact
Western reductionism tried and failed.

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

We brought up the Yang TCC guy in New York, you brought up the demo you did about the eye poke and flinch demo you did.

Indulge me and describe that to me like I'm an 8 year old. If it was a demo, by you; what did you demonstrate? If it was a training exercise, what would you be training if you got the class to train that exercise ?

If I came to you, can you demonstrate the MR work on anyone?
Can MR demonstrate this at any time, any place against anyone ?

I'm guessing you would want to answer no to that - you know, on his behalf.
There was a thread a little while back, where i found myself having to repeat to Wayne the truth about fall guys.

[RobP3]

But at the same time then why play both sides Rob ? You are saying things exactly like those seeking to defend 'a Mizner' or an empty force artist.
Yet you go our of your way to reveal how chi tricks work.

But what we do is not "chi tricks."

These are tricks too. psychological, somatic. These are very hard to separate in fact Western reductionism tried and failed.

Yes, which is how we explain them

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

I thought I'd answered the question

We brought up the Yang TCC guy in New York, you brought up the demo you did about the eye poke and flinch demo you did.
Indulge me and describe that to me like I'm an 8 year old. If it was a demo, by you; what did you demonstrate? If it was a training exercise, what would you be training if you got the class to train that exercise ?

The training exercise was about how to get a person to flinch by making a movement towards their eyes. Step one, see how people flinch when you make a movement towards their eyes as theY walk towards you. Step 2, 3 etc, how do we apply that into our regular work. If we can get a person to flinch, then what? Does it break their structure? Does it create tension that we can take advantage of, etc

If I came to you, can you demonstrate the MR work on anyone? Can MR demonstrate this at any time, any place against anyone ?
I'm guessing you would want to answer no to that - you know, on his behalf.

It's not the MR work, it's just work. I can demo what I can demo - but the point is not really to demo, it is to integrate and use it.
When you say "this" what do you mean? Make someone flinch? Make them lose balance with little or no contact? Well, it's all a part of his general work, so yes. He's not showing party tricks, he is showing training methods. He doesn't go round pointing at people to see if they fall over. But if you come into him, he may use a slight feint or body movement to throw you off course slightly, or make you hesitate, etc as part of his response.

There was a thread a while back, where i kept having to repeat to Wayne the truth about fall guys.
I don't know what that means. Unless you are assuming that every single person any of us ever worked with is a "fall guy?

Cheers
Rob

[origami_itto]

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

I thought I'd answered the question

yes that was a perfectly acceptable answer.

How I would approach it based on what I've been exposed to is "one steps" turn based sparring. You stand within range, pick an attack, make one movement in that attack, your partner then has one movement to respond, then you have one movement to respond, repeat till you want to stop. I feel like this approach gives something useful to both sides of the exercise.

Like many people I see systema and it just doesn't look like something my mindset would jive with. Doesn't mean it isn't good.

I don't think they are enough alike to really merit drawing a line. They are both "soft" arts, I suppose. They get there different ways though.

[RobP3]

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

I thought I'd answered the question

yes that was a perfectly acceptable answer.
How I would approach it based on what I've been exposed to is "one steps" turn based sparring. You stand within range, pick an attack, make one movement in that attack, your partner then has one movement to respond, then you have one movement to respond, repeat till you want to stop. I feel like this approach gives something useful to both sides of the exercise.
Like many people I see systema and it just doesn't look like something my mindset would jive with. Doesn't mean it isn't good.
I don't think they are enough alike to really merit drawing a line. They are both "soft" arts, I suppose. They get there different ways though.

Thanks. Yep, that would pretty much be one of the next stages. And I agree with the rest too.
Cheers
Rob

[cloudz]

so training 'blending with and interrupting movement' needs empty force theatrics added in because ..... ?
It might have been a good answer (to me) if training to run fast, specifically needed the addition of a man running behind you poking a spike in your back.

[cloudz]

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

I thought I'd answered the question

yes that was a perfectly acceptable answer.

How I would approach it based on what I've been exposed to is "one steps" turn based sparring. You stand within range, pick an attack, make one movement in that attack, your partner then has one movement to respond, then you have one movement to respond, repeat till you want to stop. I feel like this approach gives something useful to both sides of the exercise.

Like many people I see systema and it just doesn't look like something my mindset would jive with. Doesn't mean it isn't good.

I don't think they are enough alike to really merit drawing a line. They are both "soft" arts, I suppose. They get there different ways though.

you see, I thought you were asking about the contents of the clip
like the one using empty force mind control and what that was specifically training

weird how I got that so wrong.
on one had I was waiting for a psychology answer, but the answer was just basic contact martial arts stuff all along.

evade and interrupt movement... silly me, how did I not realise !!

we may as well train everything with some coolio no touch blended in, seeing as the benefit of that kind of training has been so clearly and well explained..

[cloudz]

Doesn't mean it isn't good..

yes of course.
hardly the point at all

[origami_itto]

Itto, asked a timely and perfectly legit question, about this "work".. hmm, you sound surprisingly like David (WW), when you put it like that.
I don't think wanting or expecting an honest, clear and succinct answer to a question like that is asking too much.

I thought I'd answered the question

yes that was a perfectly acceptable answer.

How I would approach it based on what I've been exposed to is "one steps" turn based sparring. You stand within range, pick an attack, make one movement in that attack, your partner then has one movement to respond, then you have one movement to respond, repeat till you want to stop. I feel like this approach gives something useful to both sides of the exercise.

Like many people I see systema and it just doesn't look like something my mindset would jive with. Doesn't mean it isn't good.

I don't think they are enough alike to really merit drawing a line. They are both "soft" arts, I suppose. They get there different ways though.

you see, I thought you were asking about the contents of the clip
like the one using empty force mind control and what that was specifically training

weird how I got that so wrong.
on one had I was waiting for a psychology answer, but the answer was just basic contact martial arts stuff all along.

evade and interrupt movement... silly me, how did I not realise !!

we may as well train everything with some coolio no touch blended in, seeing as the benefit of that kind of training has been so clearly and well explained..

I was talking about the one, specifically, where the student is "attacking" and the teacher is "defending" and puts his hand in a vulnerable place on the attacker's body. Systema is not a ring fighting system. It's for dealing with unpredictable situations. The teacher has an empty hand, but what if an attacker has a knife? Evasion of that incoming weapon may involve putting yourself in some awkward and uncomfortable positions that you need to be able to maneuver within and recover from. In this case the attacker needs to be able to correctly interpret where the attack is coming from and what it is attacking and avoid that attack while maintaining an ability to respond skillfully.

"Oh but it's not FIGHTING!" Neither is speed bag work, jump rope, forms, etc... it's isolating a skill and focusing on it to develop it. You do that in a safe environment with as many irrelevant variables stripped away as possible. Other exercises develop other skills. Then you put them together.

These are fundamental concepts in a well-constructed system of physical development.

They say everything looks like a nail to a hammer. Real time self defense, particularly that faced by law enforcement, security, and military personnel has damn little to do with what happens in a sporting arena.

[cloudz]

ok...

I was specifically looking at the clip before that one. In Marvins post before yours.
but it really doesn't matter it's the same kind of game being played. I thought specifically to question the "empty force' aspects of it.

the attacker looks suspiciously the same.

if these are the only way to train good responses then I think it may pose a problem. So for example if your man did have a knife these kind of responses might mean a lot of claret being shed, trained "as is".

so please remind me, what is the SKILL exactly that needs empty force theatrics to be trained better ?

[origami_itto]

I don't think anybody here is really trying to train "empty force". As Rob is saying, they're trying to capitalize on flinches and reactions. Try reading what's written instead of what you want to argue against.

As far as the effectiveness of the drill, it's been clearly stated that this is the beginning and the end of systema training and that once mastered the student will become a beerless poxer against which no can defend.

[origami_itto]

And taijiquan ALSO uses flinches and reactions, moreso as you progress. We try to do it so that the victim doesn't even realize they're reacting. It sucks to receive.

[RobP3]

so training 'blending with and interrupting movement' needs empty force theatrics added in because ..... ?
It might have been a good answer (to me) if training to run fast, specifically needed the addition of a man running behind you poking a spike in your back.

But it isn't empty force. I don't get the second part.

[RobP3]

ok...

I was specifically looking at the clip before that one. In Marvins post before yours.
but it really doesn't matter it's the same kind of game being played. I thought specifically to question the "empty force' aspects of i

if these are the only way to train good responses then I think it may pose a problem. So for example if your man did have a knife these kind of responses might mean a lot of claret being shed, trained "as is".

so please remind me, what is the SKILL exactly that needs empty force theatrics to be trained better ?

It's a very simple, base level drill, that's all.

[cloudz]

ok grass hopper (Itto)
thanks for your help figuring it out.

Rob was trying to argue against it being Live Action Role Play, now you are telling us it is exactly just that.
and i am the one not paying attention.

who should we believe now I wonder.
the grasshopper or the expert?

[cloudz]

so training 'blending with and interrupting movement' needs empty force theatrics added in because ..... ?
It might have been a good answer (to me) if training to run fast, specifically needed the addition of a man running behind you poking a spike in your back.

But it isn't empty force. I don't get the second part.

Or would it just be easier, as well as more correct, to say you just don't call it that ?
seeing as "the question" remains unanswered maybe it's not surprising you don't get the second part.