# systema and tai chi biomechanical similarities and overlaps consider the biomechanical similarities and overlaps between systema and tai chi; videos added for visual interest // video here there often seem several possible functional internal similarities - or at least useful theoretical connections and parallels -between systema (система) and tai chi chuan-fa (太極拳) personal note: as far as martial arts / bullshido generally goes robert is now leaning towards apatheism - that is perhaps ir's starting to realize ey no longer quite gives an angela lansbury flying scissor-kick about style methodology principles - ie. all the necessarily attendant conceptual baggage martial artists seem to love carrying about in ridiculous / aggressive fashion - while pretending to be eg. 'bruce lee' / 'hard to kill' / "like kane in kung fu" there (/seems) to be some (fairly) skilled 'kung-fu' going on in this clip (now deleted) **+** "zhong ding" - always "seeking central equilibrium" **+** search for optimal biomechanical alignment-movement (under pressure) **+** chest + waist lines kept roughly in parallel **+** that tai-chi 'melting inside' heaviness-connectivity ('top-to-bottom one-chi') **+** sunken elbows; that 'wave movement' systema practitioners talk about **+** not interrupting momentum - using it to feedback strikes **+** gaining understanding of critical 'maai' (distance-interval) through development of active relationship to-w/ the training partner - in tai chi this is done through / from the 'listening' instant contact-connection is made (through that odd whole-body-spring / spiral thing) **+** breathing developed as an art there's an acute delicacy of deep physical understanding here which researchers get the feeling few here in the west are able to adequately and accurately describe using scientifically solid descriptions of the actual biological-physics / dynamics of the body you've personally witnessed few people more than adequately demonstrate these skills themselves - but when directly questioned they unfortunately say something amazingly vague like "train longer and harder and then you'll naturally understand" - and even awesome mystical phrases like "(/the secret master key to tai chi is that) the eight trigrams are in the fist and the five elements in the feet" any of course might well result in direct personal insight of.. whatever it seems is being taught - but you always feel there's few elements of the puzzle missing here even for willing students consider for instance the words 'internal' or 'biomechanical'. your now convinced that the vast majority of (/traditional) martial arts teachers really have anything more than fleeting grasp of what's really going on when the human body moves - let alone how to clearly explain it nothing too mystical or too inherently mysterious - at least something is often being communicated through ir often limited models of the 'internal' sure.. but still things need great deal of improving clarifying - "even within ir own field of expertise" good must always win over evil one good thing about systema seems the ceaselessly practical (if that's even remotely the right word?) nature of the classes; you're always moving always actively actively relating with another person. you're forced to think on your feet - the 'intent' and the 'form' are worked out in realtime in contrast with 'tai chi' (whatever it is) you often get the strong impression that even actually teaching the form and playing 'push (sensing) hands' are themselves mere interim stop-gap measures and explanations forced on us by those who - even if they are able to demonstrate (/what they tell you is) a high level of 'internal skill' are still only able to (linguistically) paint picture of how-to-do-x or what-y-in-taiji-means through highly limited methods - ie. those ones called traditional methods.. thing is - when that old man places faces you in tai chi class gently places both ir hands on the outside of your forearms - and you suddenly can't move an inch and feel that as soon as you do you'll instantly be at 'distinct martial disadvantage' (to say the least) - but then ey simply says "wait a few decades and you'll get it" - how do you respond mentally aand philosophically - that is apart from eg. "guess i'll just go practice more" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqz3xn-umji some emails on tai chi / systema from: robert what subject: systema & tai chi : optimal power-generation biomechanical parallels and other internal similarities hello i'm a (very) amateur taiji player based in the uk and was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on the discussion i've been having recently with a systema practioner i've noticed that you've tried to incorporate aspects of tai chi into your systema - generally i feel that (in the uk at least) people are highly tuned to the fact of ir similarities. my friend the systema practitioner seems to disagrees however specifically i'd like to hear your views on (what i think are) any obvious parallels between them here's our discussion thread so far http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxejd4n5300 hi robert first can i correct you - i'm not incorporating any aspects of tai chi into systema. in fact the reverse happened originally i was trying to incorporate systema into tai chi. (isn't that the exact same thing? -rhd) i view the movement principles of each as radically different in addition i don't really regard systema as martial art so can draw very few parallels with any style aside from obvious "we all have two arms and two legs" factors i'm afraid i don't really have time at the moment to read through all the posts below you might be better to raise the points on our forum and see if any of the guys are interested in responding best wishes my response: standard martial obsfucation witnessed many times before in the community - justified by time constraints but tooo often also meaning "my not-style is far too practical / deadly / brilliant / all encompassing for purely academic / abstract philosophical discussions and analytical dissections" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfhfua9ku4s hello just dropping by to say i'm really enjoying your blog and its clear explanations of systema's principles i often play cheng man ching (37-step) style tai chi chuan-fa myself and in lot of the systema videos i've seen recently i see systema practioners 'doing better tai chi' than most of the tai chi players i've met in real life! this is funny - and somewhat tragic at the same time perhaps this has something to do with the inability of traditional martial artists to explain core biomechanical principles in plain language and through simple physical motion - the "why(s)" that leads to the various "whats" and "hows"as you put it still i think there's great potential for organic growth whenever systema & the 'internal' martial arts meet i'd really like to hear your general thoughts about this keep up the good work robert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bos_4kfha8 -> first of all thank you for your kind words. they mean lot to me and i suspect most bloggers out there - it's one thing posting one's thoughts and another knowing that people actually read them -> although i have studied "systems" of martial arts in the past i find myself now not at all attracted by the idea of martial arts "style" ie. system including strategies tactics techniques and the specific teaching methods for all those because i believe it is in the nature of system to focus upon specific things and leave others out thus becoming somewhat limited i prefer to focus upon the universal problems of combat and the concepts and principles used to solve them. this way i found out that fist-fighting for example is mechanically almost identical to stick-fighting so one might attempt to drastically reduce the time for mastering both by focusing on the common non-context-specific biomechanical elements. in sense this seems in accordance with n.a. bernstein's definition of dexterity which is focal in all modern systems of russian martial art -> for me then there is no systema or "internal martial arts" to meet. there is only movement optimization (context-free) and application according to tactical needs. honestly whenever i find myself dealing with the idea of "martial arts style" i feel strangely claustrophobic :-) and that is whe i have stopped teaching systema for some time now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74r-golaw00 hello again and thanks for your reply 1. like so many things in life after time you start to see the same things being discussed - just with different temporary labels attached actually i tend to think 'systema' and 'tai chi' are practically identical. when tai chi players hear people in the russian martial arts talking about 'waves' i think ir ears prick up like dogs. it seems to be happening lot here in the uk 2. it's interesting you consider tai chi 'style' in strict sense.. taken as whole however i'm not so sure it is.. both systema (let's not get too hung up on the name for now ;-) and tai chi seem 'styles or flavors of training applicable martially' rather than strict 'styles of fighting' by this token we could call what we do jeet kune do another definitely 'not-a-style' martial art? **+** the thing is being founded on holistic taoist philosophy i'm pretty sure tai chi also "(..) focuses upon universal problems (..) and the concepts and principles used to solve them" that is - the flowing aspects the yielding overall 'softness' non-aggressive approach the 'emergent' techniques elongated and upright spine the 'splitting' of the opponent's energy and general relaxed or 'sunk' appearance i see in 'systema' - seem all but virtually identical to 'tai chi' as i said - different labels for similar (or at least parallel) organic process or approach 3. as for "common non-context-specific biomechanical elements" and "movement optimization (context-free) and application according to tactical needs" - yes the realtime optimization of one's movement and the 'application' occur simultaneously in systema the problem with tai chi (i'll stop using air quotes for now) is that many - especially with the tai chi martial community - mistake the 'thirteen principles' for the 'form' one sees old people do in china.. and therefore think these mean actual martial (movement-specific) techniques finally here's too great clips i found on youtube (now deleted) a. notice the way ir right arm comes up at 0 :40. i'd certainly consider that an (unplanned) 'movement optimization' b. a discussion of taijiquan fighting tactics by some people 'being systema(tic)' - or even 'dynamic'! **+** robert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeqrdrae2uy -> robert hi -> 1. in my point of view labels influence perception and understanding and are used to describe things by what they are not just as much as what they are. there's probably huge difference in perceiving what is known in its country of origin as "the system" and what's known as "the great ultimate" don't you think? -> the wave is biomechanical principle which applies in boxing judo javelin throw table tennis or what have you - it is the optimum way of generating power. it is not some mystical secret martial art "trick" that happens to be used by systema and tai chi experts thus making systema and tai chi identical. it is the structure and function of the body that are identical -> 2. "taoist holistic philosophy" is not something universal - it is culturally specific. since i come from very different culture (but one just as old i am greek you see) although i spent quite few years training in cma i was always rather indifferent to either buddhist or taoist philosophy and so i gravitated towards san shou competition and then away from cma altogether since i found them full of cultural elements i had no use for -> rma and tai chi are in no way identical for at least two reasons one cultural and one technical : first one rma is way for common people to learn how to fight - historically those people that had very little time for martial arts training since they were farmers craftsmen etc. thus it is folk-style martial art unlike tai chi which is a scholarly martial art. second reason in rma there is the concept of "floating center of gravity" and the "torso hourglass movement" unlike in tai chi where people train to use rooting and stand ir ground -> regarding the upright elongated spine once again it is not systema or tai chi-specific. tennis players need good posture too and so do footballers. elongating the spine is way to activate the core muscles so that the power from the ground can be transferred to the limbs through stable center with no energy leaks! as for the emergent techniques check out avideo of high-level judo competition and tell me if you think the judo people are using techniques out of manual as opposed to systema and tai chi people who improvise… -> regarding the clips : in a i don't understand what you mean about the instructor's right arm coming up. keep in mind that movement optimization according to modern rma is not something generic or vague - it is the result of training in very specific exercises aimed at freeing degrees of freedom in the joints process that targets all types of movement not combat-specific movements. in video b all i see is guy who's attended couple of systema seminars or even worse watched couple of rma dvds - the wrong ones that is. ey is doing joint manipulation and ey does it wrong because ey does not create fixed points in ir partner's body (ignores the pendulum principle) and does not use rotation in ir shoulder to maximize the power and effect of ir action. i don't know if this is tai chi at all but it is mediocre rma what usually happens when someone is trying to build the art from the outside in by imitating that is :-) -> what i mean by all this is that i personally need to approach martial training and practice in way that can explain and enhance tai chi systema kali and mma at the same time (maybe ice hockey and rugby too) and not choose specific point of view and exclude others because we must find reasons to exclude what we don't understand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywa6vrjb0e hello again -> in my point of view labels influence perception and understanding and are used to describe things by what they are not just as much as what they are. there's probably huge difference in perceiving what is known in its country of origin as "the system" and what's known as "the great ultimate" don't you think? not only labels - perhaps even language itself directly structures perception and understanding.. -> the wave is biomechanical principle which applies in boxing judo javelin throw table tennis or what have you - it is the optimum way of generating power. it is not some mystical secret martial art "trick" that happens to be used by systema and tai chi experts thus making systema and tai chi identical. it is the structure and function of the body that are identical that's exactly what (i thought i was) saying before - that they're both (despite the limited usefulness of ir temporary - cultural - labelling) 'exactly the same' precisely because they both seek to embody 'realtime optimal power generation'. i might be wrong -> "taoist holistic philosophy" is not something universal - it is culturally specific. (0_o) i'd say if it wasn't holistic or universal it would hardly be philosophical - let alone taoist. but i think i understand where you're coming from - -> since i come from very different culture (but one just as old i am greek you see) although i spent quite few years training in cma i was always rather indifferent to either buddhist or taoist philosophy and so i gravitated towards san shou competition and then away from cma altogether since i found them full of cultural elements i had no use for 1. can you have one thing without the other? for example the book of five rings is an amazing book of 'martial philosophy' - if indeed there is such thing 2. see one of the reasons i got out of the cma was precisely because of the seething unexamined socio-political / ideological undercurrents expressed by by the people and clubs i was part of - simple aggression dressed up in the polite language and ideology of seemingly universal principles strongly implied underlying sense of so-called 'spiritual' development etc -> rma and tai chi are in no way identical for at least two reasons one cultural and one technical : first one rma is way for common people to learn how to fight - historically those people that had very little time for martial arts training since they were farmers craftsmen etc i'd say the sheer number of people practising it today - and historically - make it very common 'folk' art indeed. i don't have any firm numbers on this however -> thus it is folk-style martial art unlike tai chi which is scholarly martial art i'd always assumed the ancient taoists (small t) were humble peasants who lived in the misty mountains and had to fight off tigers and bandits on ir way to pick berries for breakfast. as for strictly 'scholarly' martial arts - i can't name any. confucian sword fighting perhaps? i've watched too many wuxia to be able to fully separate fact from fiction ;-) -> second reason in rma there is the concept of "floating center of gravity" and the "torso hourglass movement" unlike in tai chi where people train to use rooting and stand ir ground "moreover the social prevalence of squatting and kneeling positions in the orient cultivated differing perception of the body's center as residing just below the navel. by comparison european conditions were less demanding on stability. the potential for higher center of gravity alternately residing between the base of the navel and the solar plexus (what the russian's term "floating center of gravity") encouraged pendulum-like use of the torso with footwork that resembled the movements found in ice-skating" 1. apart from the (somewhat dubious) anthropological research the concept of 'floating centre of gravity' seems extremely similar (or parallel) to cheng man ching's concept of "swing and return". two arms two legs.. (facetious - apologies rob) 2. as for 'rooting' this is simply common training method in tai chi to develop lower body strength and differentiate 'positive' & 'negative' movement-potentiality in the 'kwa' area (inguinal groove) 3. it's interesting that you mention hourglass movement. the movement of the arms in tai chi follow a 'figure 8' -> regarding the upright elongated spine once again it is not systema or tai chi-specific indeed - like i (/think i) stated previously - they are 'the same' because they both have these non-art-specific features or movement-properties. labels are certainly tricky creatures -> regarding the clips (..) forget the clips - your completely right they're poor and utterly de-contextualized /contextualizng examples of anything -> what i mean by all this is that i personally need to approach martial training and practice in way that can explain and enhance tai chi systema kali and mma at the same time (maybe ice hockey and rugby too) and not choose specific point of view and exclude others because we must find reasons to exclude what we don't understand generally speaking i'd agree - except to add that perhaps such search itself might not be quite as seemingly neutral non-partisan or 'tabula rasa' as we might assume it is or wish it to be.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgje-zm9mqe hey robert hope you're doing all well. sorry about the late reply but the things i have to do lately make me feel as if i'm running on the spot never arriving anywhere but still putting lot of effort :-) of course language influences perception and understanding that is precisely what i mean so the solution i suggest to this is using neutral mostly scientific language. if i call my breathing practice "buteyko breathing" or "systema breathing" i'm basically empowering someone's claim on this practice. if i call it "hypercapnic breathing" i only make the purpose of my practice clear (that is increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in my lungs) so i can judge the effectiveness of my practice based on whether the results are the desired ones. by the way systema breathing (a b.s. term if you ask me is hypercapnic) now if systema and tai chi are exactly the same why wouldn't we take step back and look at the big picture that includes both? why would we insist on using the "labels"? i can't see the reason for that unless we study history and tradition - i don't it is the intention of philosophy to be universal - not it's product :-) you're practising the cheng man ching style yourself. what was this man if not a scholar? and since you are empowering ir claim on your practice by following ir lineage i feel that what you are practising is indeed scholarly martial art.. i know practically nothing about the style you're practising but i have feeling that the "swing and return" principle is what in boxing is known as "in and out" fighting. that is specific tactic and not the biomechanical principle of loading and unloading the tissues to store and release elastic energy which is described (not that well i admit) by the term "pendulum like movement". i cannot be positive but i believe we are not referring to the same thing what i claim is that it is my duty to be neutral - i try to study combat (to the degree i choose of course - i am not interested to study the use of firearms for example) and not tai chi bjj muay thai or pencak silat. i have to take cultural influences into account so that i am aware of them when it's time to clean the slate. if i am in any way biased... well i am who i am after all :-) thank you for the stimulating conversation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me11couegek // republic of bob