Two ranges of combat?

[Merryprankster]

I've been doing some serious thinking on this subject, and I've come to the conclusion that there are, at the most basic level, two ranges of empty hand combat: standing and groundfighting.

Why do I say this? Well, I got to thinking about some things, specifically w/regards to grappling styles vs. striking. Bear with me, I'm not trying to make this into a giant flame war.

Close enough to kick is close enough to shoot, for instance, and close enough to punch is close enough to clinch. Which leads me to my thought that standing is standing, not kicking or punching or clinching range--it's just standing. A grappler isn't concerned with anything but "close enough to engage" Anything else is just "not close enough to engage." I suppose you could argue that this is "two ranges," but I think that would be splitting hairs.

Anyway, I got to this point because I've been having a miserable time maintaining proper distance boxing. I make no distinction as to range when I grapple---it's all just standing. That mindset is something I'm having a difficult time untraining. I don't mind if I get too close, because in grappling, it just doesn't matter if I work from one area of engagement to another. This tends to lead to eating a lot of shots :) My trainer finally said "don't get any closer than the closest you would shoot from." Progress.

Now, I think range is an important concept if you are sparring STAND-UP only--obviously there's a distance where I am too close to punch properly and a distance where I won't hit the person, but if you start taking away technique restrictions, the lines become more and more blurred until you've got "stand-up... because it's not punching or kicking or clinching range... any more than it's shooting or throwing or bodylocking range it's just "engaged while standing up." (sounds like a bad art film). They ESPECIALLY get more blurred the more disparate the body types of the combatants, which makes it all fuzz together even more.

Perhaps the use of ranges is a useful teaching tool, but in the end, is something that should be "unlearned," once understanding is acheived.

Thoughts? Comments? Dirty looks?

[Sam Wiley]

There is only one range of combat, and that is the range where fighting happens. Standing, groundfighting, you have to be in range for all of it.

[Braden]

MP - What you outlined is exactly how I've always felt about the situation. Glad to see I'm not crazy, or at least I have company. ;)

[Wingman]

I agree with Sam. There is only one range in fighting. That is when you are in contact with your opponent. If there is no contact, there is not fight.

The moment of contact is the moment of truth.


Merryprankster said,

A grappler isn't concerned with anything but "close enough to engage"

That is also true for a striker.

[red_fists]

I cast my vote along Sam and Wingman as well.

[Braden]

One of the things I don't like about the popular cross-training model (and there are certainly things I DO like) is that, more and more, people are losing sight of 'how to fight', and reducing the concept of 'combat' to mean only a series of technical interactions. I believe this comes from the fallacy of believing in several ranges - and the idea of adopting a different approach to each range, and putting it together piecemeal in a confrontation. People taking this approach seem to be 'ready for everything' as they so often claim, but don't seem to have any game plan. Their fighting style looks very broken - according to the old chinese metaphors, we might say there's leaks or cracks in their movement. On a related note, I think that the idea of the supremecy of conditioning has evolved to fill these cracks, and has largely replaced the idea of 'how to fight', which most people don't seem to be able to concieve of independant of technique any more. And I don't mean to sound anti-conditioning anymore than I want to sound anti-crosstraining, as both have always been and will always be important. However, we're in a situation now where the common belief among 'leading' practitioners of 'martial arts' in our society is that conditioning isn't just important, it's the MOST important thing. I think this is terribly unfortunate, but has evolved honestly enough from the gaps created by this range of fighting concept, and from crosstraining within this paradigm.

The common line from this camp is that you have to be prepared to play anyone's game - in other words, the game of every range. I've posted a couple threads here before suggesting that this isn't true - you just have to have your own answers to whatever someone throws at you. Just as a simplified example, a wrestler doesn't need to take up boxing, he just needs to find some [wrestling style] answers to what a boxer does. Not surprisingly, I haven't heard any agreement from proponents of the typical crosstraining/many ranges model.

In my own training, just for example, I don't feel any need to aquire skills in what people might call 'kicking' or 'long' range. In many ways, like a wrestler might, I'd rather practice closing techniques that let me deal with someone who wants to play that game by forcing them to play mine.

[Braden]

Just commenting on what other replies have alluded to... I don't think a grappling/striking distinction has any validity, any more than a long/short range distinction does. Although I believe a standing/ground distinction DOES.

I _think_ this is what MerryPrankster was saying in his post.

[Leonidas]

I don like using ranges. Its alll irrelevant in a fight. Would long range be the same for a 5'0 person as opposed to a 6 or 7 footer. It's all about positioning and direction of techniques. I like the way that Filipino Martial Artist classify movements. Outside, Inside, High, Low, Diagonal, Circular, Linear.........etc. or a combinations of those. It's easier to use for me than classifications like punching, kicking, trapping, grappling, long, medium, close......ranges. I've heard more ranges than i can remember but it's limiting because some ranges overlap.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--that's exactly what I am saying. I believe that groundfighting and stand-up are significantly different enough that they could be considered two seperate ranges in my mind. I say that because they are SO different.

As to the striker only caring about being "close enough," or "not close enough," as well, that's absolutely true in an unrestricted environment... that's precisely what I was trying to say. I would have to say the reason I think grapplers pay less attention in their restricted environment is that no fundamental adjustments are necessary... a low sweep single is not fundamentally different at its core than a penetrating double leg. The finishes are different, but that's more or less it. On the other hand, there is a very different way of moving between a kick and a punch--two VERY different tools. It becomes more of an issue the more methods of attack that are taken away. But for "fighting," purposes, it's either standing or not.

[Water Dragon]

MP
IMO, it's not that it's two ranges of fighting. It's that you need to learn two different ways of moving.

[Tigerstyle]

"Perhaps the use of ranges is a useful teaching tool, but in the end, is something that should be "unlearned," once understanding is acheived."

I think I agree with that one :) , but I think it should only be "unlearned" to a point where you no longer say something like "I'm in the kicking range." You should know what distance you need to be in for certain (types of) attacks to work effectively against your opponent (is he "in range" for my flying guillotine attack?), and how to change your distance relative to your opponent as needed.

Didn't we all discuss this a little while ago, and the topic actually became about not what/how many ranges there are, but about what everyone's personal definition of "range" is? That's probably why most of us will have differing opinions on the topic (which is great), no one opinion being more correct than another (except Sam Wiley. He'll have you tapping out from too much reading if you argue with him :p ).

My personal opinion: Range is distance to my target. I have different techniques/principles based on how far away I am from my opponent(s). The "ranges" blend together as the distance changes, but I still try to differentiate what is more effective based on the distance. For example, I probably wouldn't try to land an elbow from too far away (when a side kick or front kick might be more effective given the "range" to my target).

I also try to learn (emphasis on try) how to change the distance (or range) using footwork, environment, etc. when needed, and how the opponent(s) might do the same. That does blur the different ranges a bit, but it also shows that there is an understanding that a different techniques/principles are more effective at a given range (or distance). Merryprankster, you know how far away you can shoot in from. You know approximately when your shot will feel the most comfortable, or when you need to be closer/further. You know when you are "out of range" to shoot in effectively.

That's just my opinion. I use that definition because it makes it easier for me to factor in weapons (knives, sticks/clubs, sword, staff, guns), but that's a whole different game to learn :eek:. I just don't want to face a guy that's using a staff and say we are in the same range :) .

[shaolinboxer]

There are two ranges.

Mental Contact

Physical Contact

[Sam Wiley]

Have any of you guys ever seen that movie IQ with Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins? She explains to him that if you take the distance between two people and keep dividing it in half, those two people can never touch, mathematically speaking. Immediately thereafter he leans in and kisses her.

That scene, in my opinion, is a perfect display of the two theories of range; that there are several and that there is only one. The several ranges problem is what keeps people from closing and finishing successfully because they are always training at different ranges and using too much theory and thought to work out a process that doesn't need to be thought about. The other theory, that there is only one range, defined by him simply leaning in and kissing her, is the same as the real fighter, who simply fights when he is in range without care as to how far apart or how close he is; he just fights.

Hehehehe...it's nice to know that I'm still the king of Long Wind Fu.;)

[Chris McKinley]

It's great to see such a high content-to-noise thread in this forum, at least so far. Notice also that you've got guys from modernist approach agreeing with traditional guys on...well, ANYTHING. :)

I think this serves as a nice model for useful communication, with each side showing some reserve in their approach. My modernist friends are easy to talk to about these concepts because they don't have any sacred cows and they question everything. Formality and ceremony don't stand in their way of talking about something analytically. The problem comes when they can't or don't tone down or learn to control that approach. That's when their take on things turns from the positive of being willing to look at anything objectively and critically to the negative of framing everything traditional as useless and deriding it.

On the other hand, my traditional friends are easier in other ways to talk to than the modernists in that, while you have to choose your topics a bit more carefully, they are generally a little more respectful and courteous in the way they interact with other people. The problem for them comes when they get so busy respecting each other's views that political correctness creeps in and prevents any meaningful discussion and their martial arts methods are no longer subject to constructive analysis. This is when these methods are at risk for becoming institutionalized to the point where they are no longer questioned and consequently are no longer able to evolve or improve.

In contrast to those examples of what happens when a side's strength is maximized to the point of becoming a weakness, what we've seen on this thread is the POSITIVE aspects of both sides coming together to create a greater understanding and a deeper perspective on the subject of range in fighting. I can't express how strongly I'd like to reinforce this kind of communication on these forums. There's such a treasure trove of knowledge among practitioners of all kinds here, and this thread shows what can happen when everybody keeps just a little bit of flexibility in their thinking and their approach to communicating with each other. Hat's off to everyone involved in this thread. You guys would make a nice think-tank for other such questions in the future. :)

[KC Elbows]

Its the "We Are the World" of KFO.:D

Ha. Not one of you is in range to hit me.

[Tigerstyle]

Still in range for a virus :p

[shaolinboxer]

Have you fellas (and ladies) ever heard the term maai?

It means something like "proper distance".

I think there are two ways to look at proper distance in technique...one is to say: here is a distance, what techniques can I use at this distance. The other is: here is a technique (or theory or genral application) at what distance can it be effective. Perhaps the results are the same, but the teaching method is a bit different.

Mental range can over lap with physical. A good example is a simple feint. You need to be in punching range to fake a punch, kicking range to fake a kick, etc. In this way, you don't touch your opponent but use the impression of intent to control the situation.

Also, the state of "no-mind" (which is not the same as no mind) can be a very powerful tool. It can give you the feeling of being a child, scared to death of his/her looming and angry parent. this can be applied outside of physical range. However, you do need to be able to access your opponent's senses. So, I suppose in a way it is still physical.

But as for dividing the pysical ranges...I discussed this one with shi yan ming, who is a very talented striker. He stood in front of me at kicking range, then took a wicked fast step forward, then back and said "there is no range, it's too easy to change". I see his point.

[KC Elbows]

Regarding range...

hold on, the fed ex guy is here.

OK, who sent me the package full of white powder?

Just one more reason not to believe in range.

I'll talk to y'all later, I'm feeling a little woozy...

[Braden]

Hrmm... maybe I should rant about how this concept of ranges thing evolved from an over-emphasis on ringfighting; which, contrary to the classic argument, varies dramatically from streetfighting in ways independant of 'but you can/can't do technique X!'

Particularly when you consider things like 'where' rangewise, the fight starts, and the differences in hesitancy and knowledge of the opponent, it's not surprising to actually see defined ranges in the ring, but not be able to sort them out even vaguely from the chaos of the street.

Maybe I should say that the ideal training for one paradigm would clearly be quite different than the ideal training for the other, but this has nothing to do with the 'overly dangerous techniques' argument that most people bring up.

Nah... don't want to rock the boat...

[Tigerstyle]

I meant a computer virus, KC :p

'He stood in front of me at kicking range, then took a wicked fast step forward, then back and said "there is no range, it's too easy to change".'

shaolinboxer,
If there was no range, then he wouldn't need to step at all :p (sorry to stir the pot. I'm bored). He can change ranges relatively easily, but that doesn't eliminate ranges altogether. Can he step fast enough to negate the reach advantage of a longe range weapon (staff, spear, gun, etc.)?

I sometimes move like a lumbering oaf when covering distance, so I need to be aware of what options are available to me based on my distance to the target. If I become faster as I get better, I still feel IMO that ranges still exist. The difference would be that I can now move between ranges more efficiently.

While I use my personal definition to suit my needs, I do still agree with everyone else's personal views regarding "range".

[shaolinboxer]

"If there was no range, then he wouldn't need to step at all "

Very true, hence my statement "I see his point" rather than "I agree with him".

Here's a word problem.... your opponent is standing at arms length. You know he will move as soon as you do, but you don't know in which direction. Your attack will land in accordance with his movement. Which range is he in?

[Tigerstyle]

:eek: Man, I mentally freeze up enough as it is. Don't add to my worries :) .

In my little "ranges" world, I would consider treating the scenario as a short to medium range (not that I classify ranges like that, but you know.) The reason being is that if he were to move laterally, he would be within the edges of a "medium range" approach. Towards me would put him at a shorter range, and away from me would be a longer range. The longer range being a lesser threat at the moment, because there is less risk of an attack coming from someone moving backwards (that's usually when I eat a kick to the face from Dhalsim (sp?) in Street Fighter II, though :mad:).

When I move, I try to apply forward pressure while trying to stay a little defensive. Not too eager, not too timid. If we both move forward, then I guess we grapple :).

[Merryprankster]

Braden--I don't know about range being an outgrowth of ringfighting but I certainly agree with you that "range," is more important the fewer techniques you are limited too.