Talk:Systema/archive

merge

Kadochnikov System

Grigoryan Grigoriy - Leader of Moscow Branch
email: grizli64@mail.ru
Website: www.kadochnikov.com
Taught at the A. A. Kadochnikov School in Krasnodar, Siberia.

Hmm.. why is this information different than from here? Vladimir Vasiliev, of Ryabko's Systema is listed as an affiliate. Maybe I'm missing something. -- Sy / ^(talk) 19:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I merged Kadochnikov's Systema, the above is from its talk page. Sam Spade 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also merged Ryabko's Systema. Sam Spade 13:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be in seperate catagories, but if you are going to merge them it has to be more organized. --Mista-X 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Mista-X, you are right. Kadochnikov's Systema and Ryabko's are so significantly different in approach, to include them as part of the same entity is a serious mistake. --Charlie Evatt 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I thought I did a pretty good job. Sam Spade 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your intent was good, but the main article was still messy, i.e. the links to Kadochnikov's Systema which redirected back to the main article, and no links to Kadochnikov, Rybko, etc... --Mista-X 22:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back to basically what you had with a few small changes. If people don't like it, just RV. The one thing I'm not sure of is the "Founders" section. It seems to have to do with Kadochnikov and maybe should be merged into that section? --Mista-X 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is how it went. I had never heard of systema, but came across a messy stub @ Kadochnikov's Systema while researching William E. Fairbairn. I put a merge header on, but later I thought that was lazy of me, and did the work myself. Not knowing anything about the subject (except what I learned), I may have made an error or three, and am greatful for any cleanup. Sam Spade 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have left alone what you didn't know about!--Charlie Evatt 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people did that we wouldn't have a wikipedia, we'd have a nupedia (which failed, btw...) Sam Spade 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on this thread. Sam Spade copied my Kadochnikov note from Talk:Kadochnikov's Systema. I did not make that comment here and I did not make this merge section. In this context, it might appear I made this "merge" talk topic and added that note to start discussion when in fact I did not. (proof) -- Sy / ^(talk) 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold (again)

[edit]

At its face, it looks as though these pages were merged without following procedure. Discussion to get authorization is required. So I'm going to do the work and break this topic back up into its components. I'm not asking for permission, these changes were wrong in procedure and wrong for the quality of these articles. I hoped these topics would stay separate without the need to have this discussion, but see my old notes from the history of this talk page. I was the guy who broke apart these topics and for very good reasons:

quote:

I carved this topic into a few pages, because they are all distinct topics with their own history and following, and should not be lumped into one page. I believe that now that the topics have been separated, they will more readily blossom on their own.

There are also distinct interpretations of history which should be separated now before things get messy later. =) -- -- Sy / ^(talk) 04:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to reinforce the fact that there are two distinct student bodies for these two distinct arts. They happen to share a name and a lot of fuzzy details. Because there appears to be much more representation for Ryabko's Systema, including from myself, I didn't want that bias to diminish the uniqueness of Kadochnikov's teachings.

Also regarding those fuzzy details.. these arts are just emerging, and most of what is known isn't something that's translatable into the wikipedia. For example, there is a significant amount of original research done by practitioners, none of which is appropriate here. There is a lot of history and understanding that is in Russian language resources, which many of the "bookish" students don't understand (but some do). There is a lot of understanding kept within people (military, practitioners, priests or whoever..). Most importantly, there is a lot of knowledge housed within the art itself, which most say isn't translatable to text.

It's very important that these topics get off on the right foot, so they're not diluted by opinions, and especially the opinions of young students and non-students when it comes to comparing things too closely. I have been told by those who have seen them one after the other in demonstrations, that Ryabko and Kadochnikov look very different.. that they're both amazing, but very different. These two deserve their own little corners. Compare this need for the need for Karate pages to have various individual pages. "But they're all called 'Karate' and should be merged!" is wrong. "They're all called 'Systema' and should be merged!" is also wrong.

Indeed it may become more appropriate over time to further-separate things by creating individual pages for teachers, because teaching styles and philosophies are unique to each practitioner. Hopefully things won't need to get that complex.

I thank you all for your interest.

-- Sy / ^(talk) 15:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I began this restoration, I added notes to the talk pages of to any users who were involved in it. I mentioned for them to come here to discuss the issue. User:Sam Spade immediately began reverts. I noted him on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: [1] and repaired his vandalism.

I don't feel bad about putting things right again because merging these topics was wrong in my opinion and performed incorrectly -- same-day mergers aren't appropriate without discussion. Now if people want to open discussion on merging these topics together, I'm fine with that. However, my position is clear, and to help keep the various topics stay separate and avoid bad karma I've written a bunch more to elaborate the distinctness of these individual pages.

This entire affair was stupid and I saw it coming. I shouldn't have removed [my original comment when I made the separate topics.

-- Sy / ^(talk) 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systema in Rocky IV?

[edit]

Dolph Lundgren studied Systema while rehearsing for the role of Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV".

This is an intriguing statement since this movie was released in 1985. I'm removing it from the main page until it can be clarified. -- Sy / ^(talk) 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read on Dolf's website that he has studied many martial arts, but none of them Russian, let alone Systema. If this is incorrect I would also like to see the source. --Mista-X 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just some general comments to shoot down the idea: Wasn't 1985 during the cold war? Wouldn't this art and its practitioners be a carefully-guarded secret? How many movies back then had legitimate martial training for a big-screen movie? Does Systema look even remotely like boxing? Does any Russian martial art? -- Sy / ^(talk) 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]