Systema and Tai Chi – similarities and differences

[GrahamB]

I had a great visit to The System Academy in Wiltshire last week where I enjoyed a bit of 1-1 Systema coaching from my old friend and owner of the Academy, Matt Hill. I also recorded a podcast episode with him for The Tai Chi Notebook Podcast, which will be coming out in November. Matt trained Aikido in Japan and served as a Captain in the British army, as well as working in crisis management before he became a full time Systema instructor, so he’s got a lot of experience of different types of martial arts and working in pressure scenarios. Because Matt and I live quite close to each other I had the opportunity to get a bit of hands-on work in before we sat down to record the episode. It was great to experience some Systema myself this time, and I particularly enjoyed the striking aspects, which is something I’ve put on the back burner a bit as I’ve got more into grappling over the last few years.

One of those eternal questions that pop up on discussion boards a lot is, ‘how close is Systema to Tai Chi?’, and this was one of the things I’ve been mulling over since I had the lesson. Both these arts stress what Systema calls the Four Pillars – breath, posture, relaxation and movement – but on a basic level I think one of the immediate differences between Tai Chi and Systema is that Systema seems to only exist in relation to something you are doing, whereas Tai Chi has this weighty set of philosophical principles that exist independently to the art, like Taoist philosophy and yin and yang, as well as concepts from the Tai Chi Classics regarding posture, movement and strategy. Tai Chi can certainly be talked about in terms of these abstract concepts and ideas, but in contrast, Systema needs to be shown. When you’re not doing Systema, then where does it go? It’s a bit like your lap – when you sit down you can point to your lap, but when you stand up, it vanishes!

Systema seems intrinsically tied to what you are doing, not what you are thinking. Of course, you can argue that even when you’re doing nothing and not moving, say, just sitting there, you are still doing something, so perhaps Systema is always there: You still have a posture, and you are always breathing, and that means some movement is happening in the body and you can still relax, which is a kind of a movement in itself. But there doesn’t seem to be an underlying theory, comparable to something like Tai Chi’s theory of yin and yang, that underpins it all.

Another interesting difference is that when Systema teachers talk about embodying the 4 pillars – they really mean it! They’re not just paying lip service to the ideas – they are living them. Even outside of the martial art practice, Systema seems to have the potential to pervade everything you do. In Systema you tend to lead movement with your breath, you breathe the tension out of your body as you work and you try not to muscle anything. And that can be applied to anything, not just fighting.

Of course, you could say the same thing is true of Tai Chi, but there’s so much other ‘stuff’ to worry about in Tai Chi – like a form,(and getting the form just right), dantien, and the 6 harmonies or the 8 co-ordinations, etc, etc.. I think inevitably, with so much on your plate, some things slip. But with only 4 principles to keep in mind, you can spend a bit more time really digging into them.

And then there’s the amount of physical discomfort you experience. Tai Chi can be really hard on the legs for sure, but push ups, leg raises, sit ups and squats are the meat and potatoes of Systema, none of which you’ll find in a bog-standard Tai Chi class. Not to mention learning to give and receive strikes. Even more martially inclined Tai Chi classes don’t tend to work on actively standing there and learning how to receive strikes.

Adopting any sort of ‘martial arts pose’ is frowned on in Systema. Again, you can argue that there are no fixed shapes in Tai Chi either, but Tai Chi does put a lot of emphasis on structure – keeping a connection to the ground through a relaxed frame, and there are ‘kung fu’ style postures. Systema seems to prefer you trust in your relaxation and let gravity do its work. For a Tai Chi person, it’s quite freeing and fun not to have any fixed shapes you’re expected to adopt. The emphasis in Systema seems to be on not trapping yourself into patterns of tension that you first have to exit before you can move freely. Fighting somebody else is hard enough already – you don’t want to have to fight seven battles within yourself just to move freely before you even begin!

So yes, Systema is different to Tai Chi. But I think the two work really well together. The Tai Chi practitioner can take from Systema the idea of not being trapped in ‘postures’ – fixed shapes (Ward off, Diagonal Flying, etc) and the value of removing as much tension from your body as you can while still working on moving with an opponent. Also, breathing tends to get only a cursory mention in Tai Chi, but focusing more and more on keeping your breathing smooth and continuous, and noting how that relates to tension in the body, is a great addition to any Tai Chi form, and I think that has to help make your Tai Chi better, by any objective measurement.

For more on Systema have a listen to my chat with Rob Poyton again, and look out for my interview with Matt Hill in the next episode of The Tai Chi Notebook Podcast, coming in November.

Original article with links and pics:

https://thetaichinotebook.com/2022/10/2 ... fferences/

[everything]

you mean we can't talk philosophy? we have to go do? great review.

[yeniseri]

I have a sense that they are compatible with each other if we take the admonition of "2ozs overcoming 5lbs".
Stance taking can alert your opponent to your level of 'something' so he pulls out a gun instead and runs away after he takes your belongings!

And there are times where one cannot take a stance but you have to respond almost immediately to snap back from the encounter, or, you get a glimpse of something gone wrong and you need to respond yesterday, which may be too late

Anything one can use to supplement deficient taijiquan conditioning providing you see benefit, and a fit for functional utility.

[cloudz]

definitely can and do work well together.
Have enjoyed myself some good sessions with Rob P in the past.

the main difference I found was structure and posture
the kind of flow work/ slow sparring they do is a good addition to tai chi/ IMA practices

[Bao]

Interesting post with good points.

Both arts seem to strive to developing naturalness and freedom of movement, as well as learn how to naturally adapt and use an opponent's movements. They seem to want about the same things and have similar goals in mind.

Sometimes, Systema seems to take a more direct and practical approach. Tai Chi has a deeper meditative quality and focus more on the Mind.

I appreciate the slow learning approach of Tai Chi and the attention to precision and detail. But sometimes it impedes or constrain spontaneity.

The exercises and different ways to practice in Tai Chi that I appreciate the most, are always those that encourage experimenting, personal reflection and spontaneity.

I am not convinced that these two arts lead to the same goals, far from it actually. But if you believe that they really are striving towards the same goals to achieve the same things, I am not sure why you would want to practice Tai Chi and Systema at the same time. You only need one oven to bake a cake.

[Fubo]

I trained Systema for a couple years in the late 90s to early 2000s, and again in the mid 2000s for little bit of time... this was after a number of years of training at a few very traditional Tai Chi schools.

I found that Systema shared a number of principles with Tai Chi, not using force against force, borrowing force, posture, relaxation, breathing etc. but those principles were trained through a lot of different exercises, and the exercises would be switched up regularly to avoid creating stagnant patterns in the body... the reason being that repeating the same patterns over and over can lock you into them, mentally and on a muscle memory level, which was seen as a hinderance in a fighting situation where the goal is to spontaneously adapt to the situation, as opposed to relying on preconceived techniques that have been drilled. Tai Chi on the other hand almost works from a different direction, using the form as a vehicle to build structure, relaxation, the principles etc. using certain strategies and techniques as a jumping off point for getting more "formless".

I will say I really enjoyed the Systema training and got a lot out of it. I feel like it "opened" the Tai Chi I had trained up in ways that were very beneficial. It was very good at using training methods to remove mental blocks. The idea of not trying to do "techniques" but just applying the principles and movement is similar in Tai Chi, but the drills in Systema, were just as psychological as they were physical, and I feel they not only "allowed" me to go outside of the physical framework that was more strict in my Tai Chi training, but "allowed" me to mentally go outside of that frame work, which was probably even more important. There was a lot of stuff where you're "allowed" to look stupid or not "correct" without judgement, which presented a certain amount of freedom to allow yourself to explore movement, ideas and transitions you may not have done otherwise, or may not have even thought possible or "legitimate".

I found Systema placed focus on understanding and exploring "tension" just as much as relaxation, again though various drills... And one of the most beneficial things I found was the "soft sparring", which really allowed you to explore various spontaneity in a very productive way... the slowed down, semi cooperative nature of it, and the encouragement to just move based on the principles and have "techniques" come out of that, was very productive in that the lower stress levels helped prevent the practitioner from closing down mentally, creatively, getting stuck in "preconceived" responses etc. while still providing a certain level of honesty feedback. I found the more I did the soft sparring, the more effective I was at applying my training in sparring with greater stress, speed and resistance.

Saying all that, the Systema groups I trained at were mostly made up of pretty experienced martial artists, a lot from Bujikan, Silat, Aikido, Bagua and a few Tai Chi guys... there were only a few beginners. It seemed like people with experience in other arts typically managed to function "better" in the more "formless" system that is Systema, cause the people without any previous training seemed to get lost, and despite the goal of not getting stuck on preconceived "technique", the people with no previous experienced seemed to get a lot more stuck in repetitive patterns compared to the more experienced guys... Regardless of the fact that Tai Chi or other martial arts are built on a more structured format with repetitive forms and movements, I found that the movement and attributes I had trained allowed me to explore the "formless" to a greater degree... I found it to be more a matter of mindset than the physical. There was a lot of "allowing" myself to do things and move in different ways, but the attributes and development from Tai Chi really went a long way to facilitate that. I'm not saying people who do Tai Chi are better off in Systema compared to those who don't (after all, all the top people in Russia didn't learn Tai Chi), but I do think it was a much smoother transition for me and allowed me to function in the Systema context in a very short period of time.

I found that a lot of people joined systema initially as a supplement to their previous arts, but ended up dropping their previous arts as they felt it was an hinderance to fully embracing the Systema training and goals. I eventually dropped Systema because I found that what I was training in Bagua, Tai Chi was really all I desired and need, and I preferred the frame work, but learned to not treat is as a crutch. At the end of the day I find that the Bagua and Tai Chi I train develops the body, mind and function in a way that allows me to be functional... I feel the balance of structure and formlessness unique to CMA is my preference and does a good job, and I don't feel the need to supplement it, but I do appreciate when Systema offers and can offer any martial arts practitioner.

[Bao]

Good post Fubo, I enjoyed reading it.

and the exercises would be switched up regularly to avoid creating stagnant patterns in the body... the reason being that repeating the same patterns over and over can lock you into them, mentally and on a muscle memory level, which was seen as a hinderance in a fighting situation where the goal is to spontaneously adapt to the situation, as opposed to relying on preconceived techniques that have been drilled.

Interesting, I like this approach.

Completely different training, but it reminds me about it what Arnold Schwarzenegger has pointed out in his own training, the importance of "shock the muscles". When he had done routines for a while, he wanted to do something opposite, or complete different than what his body was used to, to shock the muscles. As you said, "mentally and on a muscle memory level".

I feel like it "opened" the Tai Chi I had trained up in ways that were very beneficial. It was very good at using training methods to remove mental blocks.

Training something different but related can be very valuable, IME. I learned a lot about my Tai Chi from studying Xingyi and Bagua. They allowed me to look at things in my Tai Chi from other angles. Again, I am not sure why people would want to practice both, but otoh, I am sure one your main style could benefit from learning things from another one.

[Fubo]

Good post Fubo, I enjoyed reading it.

and the exercises would be switched up regularly to avoid creating stagnant patterns in the body... the reason being that repeating the same patterns over and over can lock you into them, mentally and on a muscle memory level, which was seen as a hinderance in a fighting situation where the goal is to spontaneously adapt to the situation, as opposed to relying on preconceived techniques that have been drilled.

Interesting, I like this approach.

Completely different training, but it reminds me about it what Arnold Schwarzenegger has pointed out in his own training, the importance of "shock the muscles". When he had done routines for a while, he wanted to do something opposite, or complete different than what his body was used to, to shock the muscles. As you said, "mentally and on a muscle memory level".

I feel like it "opened" the Tai Chi I had trained up in ways that were very beneficial. It was very good at using training methods to remove mental blocks.

Training something different but related can be very valuable, IME. I learned a lot about my Tai Chi from studying Xingyi and Bagua. They allowed me to look at things in my Tai Chi from other angles. Again, I am not sure why people would want to practice both, but otoh, I am sure one your main style could benefit from learning things from another one.

Thanks Bao, I appreciate that.

That's very interesting to hear about Arnold Schwarzenegger's training ideas, it's makes sense.

I agree that cross training certain arts can be very valuable. From my experience, the Systema training was very valuable for the time I spent in it, and how it opened my mind about my previous training, but on a whole I don't feel the need to train it any more.

[johnwang]

CMA trains body unification. Does Systema train body unification?

[Fubo]

CMA trains body unification. Does Systema train body unification?

I'm sure people with much more experience than me can better answer this, but from the couple years a long time ago I trained Systema, the way I understood it was that they don't try to maintain body unification in a continuous way like in CMA. There are moments where they body is unified when the situation calls for it, but they also place emphasis on isolating body parts to generate force from individual parts too... the idea behind that is if part of your body is immobilized for some reason, or caught up reacting to something else, you should be able to deliver power from a different part of your body in an isolated way. I think it's important to consider the context that Systema came out of, the special forces, which means the consideration that one would need to function from a wide variety of situations such as being seated, crawling, standing, disadvantageous positioned etc. which means some times your strikes, movements etc. can't comes from a unified body in the CMA sense, but needs to be able to work in an isolated way at times... but I did find that the focus on posture, breathing, wave power etc. helped to unify the body, just not really through forms or continuous repetition.

[Bao]

John Wang really brought up something fundamental.

I think it's important to consider the context that Systema came out of, the special forces, which means the consideration that one would need to function from a wide variety of situations such as being seated, crawling, standing, disadvantageous positioned etc. which means some times your strikes, movements etc. can't comes from a unified body in the CMA sense,

I can't really agree with these conclusion about CMA. First of all, we must consider military training, as using long weapons. As if you deal with a long spear, then you really need to have a very good posture and use your legs. You can't change and move the spear swiftly if you don't have a good base.

Well, the second thing is that people back then, several hundreds of years ago, used their bodies much more in daily life. They didn't have machines that did the hard work, did the lifting, pushing, pulling etc. TCMA training is really about learning how to use your body in various "disadvantageous positions", as well as how to use your body and strength more efficiently using various tools (which can be weapons as well as every day tools). Whole body coordination and "body unification" is a big part of this practical knowledge.

And with that said, there's another difference between TCMA and much other martial arts, and this is that when we connect to an opponent, we connect to him as he was a tool, and use our body in the same way as we use a tool. The opponent becomes more something like an object, a tool, and stops being something that is separated and disconnected from us. This is why "bridging" is an important concept in much TCMA. We want to connect with the opponent as fast as possible and use our body, structure and alignment to build a whole structure together with the opponent. This way of thinking is very different from most Western arts, including Systema. Maybe common roman greco wrestling comes closest to this kind of attitude.

[marvin8]

In an interview, Menamy Mitanes touches on previous mentioned: repetition, structure, breath, etc. I don't agree with everything he says. Menamy also teaches BJJ as well.

FrancoisHagdorn
Mar 4, 2020

On January 27th 2020 another world-class SYSTEMA martial artist came to Thorstens BALANCE ATHLETICS (BA) headquarter in Frankfurt/ Germany.

Menamy Mitanes, official Systema Instructor, located in Los Angeles, gave a seminar and then the interview with deep thoughts about his personal growth and path in the world of martial arts.

Thorsten Schoo, professional martial arts instructor, did the interview. Thorsten is the founder of Balance Athletics.

What I personally like about Menamy. He is a sympathetic, open-minded person. Not showing-off. Physically he is not build like Arnold Schwarzenegger. BUT the way he moves is special. He has an outstanding sense for timing and position. Thus he most of all times finds his ideal position permitting him to remain in the driver seat.

Menamy creates an harmonious training atmosphere and he is able to explain the learning steps in the Systema martial arts in a clear and easily understandable way. Nice!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbwFEp99Ywo

Starting at 10:57, a friendly sparring, RMA vs MMA:

陳宇飛 台灣格鬥解說員
Aug 24, 2022


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj4PmDwpPQs

[wayne hansen]

It saddens me to see people who think these two arts are similar
What it shows me is the lack of knowledge of the basics of tai chi
Systems is no closer to tai chi than TKD is

[Fubo]

John Wang really brought up something fundamental.

I think it's important to consider the context that Systema came out of, the special forces, which means the consideration that one would need to function from a wide variety of situations such as being seated, crawling, standing, disadvantageous positioned etc. which means some times your strikes, movements etc. can't comes from a unified body in the CMA sense,

I can't really agree with these conclusion about CMA. First of all, we must consider military training, as using long weapons. As if you deal with a long spear, then you really need to have a very good posture and use your legs. You can't change and move the spear swiftly if you don't have a good base.

Well, the second thing is that people back then, several hundreds of years ago, used their bodies much more in daily life. They didn't have machines that did the hard work, did the lifting, pushing, pulling etc. TCMA training is really about learning how to use your body in various "disadvantageous positions", as well as how to use your body and strength more efficiently using various tools (which can be weapons as well as every day tools). Whole body coordination and "body unification" is a big part of this practical knowledge.

And with that said, there's another difference between TCMA and much other martial arts, and this is that when we connect to an opponent, we connect to him as he was a tool, and use our body in the same way as we use a tool. The opponent becomes more something like an object, a tool, and stops being something that is separated and disconnected from us. This is why "bridging" is an important concept in much TCMA. We want to connect with the opponent as fast as possible and use our body, structure and alignment to build a whole structure together with the opponent. This way of thinking is very different from most Western arts, including Systema. Maybe common roman greco wrestling comes closest to this kind of attitude.

You're right, and I think I didn't explain the idea in Systema very well. I'll leave it to people who have a lot more experience in it than me.

[cloudz]

Excellent post Fubo, very well summed up.

on a style basis an IMA only really needs bjj as a supplement, and or self defence that address groundwork.. but for system they need also a 'fight training' approach.

best combo mix for me in terms of 'arts'
is
tai chi
boxing
wrestling
bjj

but you can get ideas and inspiration as well as specific trainings from other martial arts; all/any of them!
ultimately there is only so much you 'need' or can do justice to; as you pointed out.