Greetings from Systema Spetsnaz (Russian Martial Art)!

Okay then. This is your quote:

You don't agree with the statement that everything effective must be in MMA. Your quote. So who said it?

 

It all depends on your data pool, doesn't it?

If you train with people who have had the opportunity to experiment with maiming techniques for real, and they have the technical knowledge to impart what makes them work, then why should you dismiss that?

All training involves pulling technique. How many BJJ guys have actually broken an arm? But they've all got to the point whereby they could break an arm, and I have no doubt that if the situation warranted it and they had the intent, that they would.

For instance, biting is not something you can train everyday, but it is a time-honoured way of breaking restraints. Eye attacks also work well for the same reason - they tend to invoke instictual flinch responses and induce panic in the recipient.

For example:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zuwu0GxHw"]2014 ILEETA - How to defend a Knife on the Ground - YouTube[/ame]

See how even a simulated bite can freeze a guy up?

I doubt any of us regularly mess each other up and maim each other in training. But, as had been said many times here before, it is about training the platform from which you can seriously mess people up.

That is the difference between the video above and the kind of compliant "too deadly to spar" kind of training - the people who have never trained against resisting opponents will be unlikely to ever get to use their eye gouges or bites, they'll be out cold on the deck.

 

Apologies if I came across a bit strong there. I do not discount the effect of these techniques but I do question the logic of basing a strategy around them when there are other techniques that you can drill and perfect that can be implemented. Relying on "instinctual flinch responses" when there are higher % techniques is poor strategy.

There are some methods to train highly damaging techniques. My post you quoted was in response to crowzero who stated in post #150 that he does not employ any such training. Without appropriate training and drilling all techniques are flawed.

 

No apologies necessary, Jeff. It's just an interesting point of discussion for me

I would ask how far you go in your techniques in training.

Do you regularly break limbs and spark-out your training partners with punches?

All training is simulation. If you have the control to gently go for someone's eyes or pretend to bite them in resistant training, you will see a very real panic response very often (not always, as nothing is 100%).

If the level of pressure is high enough, you will start to get an understanding of what you might do when things aren't going your way and you see flashes of what techniques your intent might motivate.

Pressure testing is not fighting, but you can certainly elicit some very similar emotional/endocrine responses.

 

Me personally I train in boxing with a few rounds of contact sparring each session and the occasional judo session. The boxing is near full (occasionally 100%) contact and the judo throws are full contact, submissions are not at 100% but as per usual done until a tap.

I do not train RBSD but have never claimed to. Once upon a time I did jjj (tjf) where scenario and pressure training were implemented. I however felt it was done poorly and I was learning more from simpler techniques done at 100% hence moving back across to judo and boxing.

 

I should point out that I don't claim to teach RBSD either, but rather a non-competitive martial, or fighting, art.

I also don't "teach" biting, nor would I particularly like to ever be in a position where I had to, but I don't doubt its effectiveness.

I don't think it's coincidence that you found simple techniques to work best under pressure. Again, it is about the platform, or delivery system (as Hannibal is wont to say).

Personally, I like to give students a broad tool set and allow themselves, and pressure testing, to see what approaches suit them and what comes out of them under pressure.

It's just as much about finding out about yourself as it is trying to impose new behaviour patterns, IMHO.

 

Knowing how to deliver a strong punch might be enough to win one opponent, but not the other. Person have to know striking techniques, kicks, takedowns, defensive techniques, speed, reaction.. It all depend on the situation and on the opponent.

No contact combat is one of the “techniques or tools” that student can master and incorporate in his self-defense. No Contact combat includes also words, destructive signals, the way you look at your opponent, ability to “capture his breath”, his speed etc.

 

Can we ban this troll already?

 

You were asked in the other thread you started about 'chi' to clarify what you mean by 'destructive signals' and 'capture his breath' you provided no answers. If you can explain them now then please do until then please accept my dismissal of your entire concept of no contact combat.

It is not a tool or technique it is a lie told to nieve people in order to make the predatory 'masters' a lot of money. Whilst I admire the enthusiasm you have for your 'style' I and many other think you are deluded. Unless you can find some real proof that any of the 'techniques' (for want of a better word) exist then please do not carry on posting about them.

 

To completely change tack, when did Systema ret-con it's history? What happened to KGB agents sent out to study the world's deadliest fighting arts and committees evaluating what methods were effective to create the ultimate martial art? When did it become a medieval folk art?

 

When the former was shown to be utter crap they needed a more plausible back story

 

I'd believe that if your said Sambo ;p

 

I think that was their problem really, when people started to see spetsnaz training combat Sambo rather than Systema it was problematic for them. However completely changing your origin story?