Contact Ranges

[Sihing73]

Hello,

There is some discussion regarding different ranges and what one needs to do to close the gap in order to fight.

While there are different attributes which can be used when one is closer or further away from an opponent, I think that sometimes people get caught up in trying to do the right thing based on the "range".

I would like to propose that in reality there are really only two ranges that matter;

CONTACT and NON-CONTACT

No matter what style someone practices, in order to apply that system or approach they must first be in a position wherein they can make contact. Whether it be grappling, boxing or some type of kicking. No matter what the opponent does, if they cannot make contact they are not a threat.

So, how many ranges are there that really matter?

[sanjuro_ronin]

There is really no such a thing as range per say, you said it best:
There is contact and no-contact.
You can kick from "kicking range", form punching range or from clinch range, juts like you can grapple from ANY range in which you can make contact.
Sure the "distance" matters to HOW you do something ( kicking from 4 feet away and kicking from 1ft away requires different ways of kicking) but it doesn't matter in regards to WHAT can be done.

[Vajramusti]

Well!! We agree on something!!

joy chaudhuri

[hunt1]

Think I am going to disagree a bit. I agree with the general contact no contact but I think there is more to it.

A person needs spatial awareness. You need to know when someone is close enough to you that they can do an effective shoot,kick,punch. You also need to know your effective range. At what distance can you shoot kick punch effectively. Not talking about a wild hope for the best strike of shoot but where you can be truly effective. These ranges are different for everyone.

If you are not aware of the the distance where some one can shoot effectively on you then you will likely fall victim. One needs to go no further than the fist wing chun guy in the early UFC where he stood in a nice square on man sau pose unaware he was already able to be taken down by any person that knew how.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Think I am going to disagree a bit. I agree with the general contact no contact but I think there is more to it.

A person needs spatial awareness. You need to know when someone is close enough to you that they can do an effective shoot,kick,punch. You also need to know your effective range. At what distance can you shoot kick punch effectively. Not talking about a wild hope for the best strike of shoot but where you can be truly effective. These ranges are different for everyone.

If you are not aware of the the distance where some one can shoot effectively on you then you will likely fall victim. One needs to go no further than the fist wing chun guy in the early UFC where he stood in a nice square on man sau pose unaware he was already able to be taken down by any person that knew how.

I remember the fist lesson in range I got and it wasn't in WC, it was in TKD and NOT in the way you may think.
Some of us were chatting about kicks being limited because of their range, our instructor came up, fixed one of my friends dobok (Gi) lapels and from that distance, round kicked him in the head !
He was about a foot away, if that.
To think there is an optimal range for anything is to get yourself surprised.
A take down cam happen from 6 ft away, from 3 feet and from so close that you'd think the person was inside your pants.

Ranges are limitations and MA are all about overcoming limitations.

[YungChun]

I think there is a tendency to over simplify but range/distance/space does effect the fight and is an important dynamic... Especially true in street confrontations where you must manage space/distance and the threat..

One must learn through experience, how to use space/distance/position and time, to one's advantage in fighting through fighting.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Standup
Clinch
Ground

...are the three basic ones within fighting, but there are sub divisions within each, and what happens very often is that people try to use the wrong weapon or defense for the range that they're in at any given moment - and they get into trouble.

But as far as standup is concerned, to say that there is simply contact and non contact is a fair guide at first - but a closer look will reveal that there's more to it than just these two standup ranges/distances.

For example, I could be close enough to actually make contact with your extended lead arm with my lead arm - but that doesn't mean that I'm close enough to actually hit your body or your head with either of my hands - without taking a step (or a half step).

Or I could be close enough at the moment of arm-to-arm contact to be able to hit a target with my lead arm only - without having to take any more steps...or perhaps even closer to you at the moment of contact so that even my rear arm could hit a target...

without having to take any more steps toward you.

(In TWC, William Cheung refers to the five stages of combat, the first three being non contact stage/contact stage/exchange stage...with the "exchange" stage being when you're close enough to actually hit a target with your rear hand without having to take any more steps).

So for example if you do a pak with your lead arm against his lead arm (or punch) - but your rear hand is not close enough to hit a target without having to take any more steps - you're not in the exchange stage yet.

So the exchange stage means that you're both now close enough to hit each other with either arm without having to move any further in; hence, in theory you both could "exchange" (trade) blows at any moment without any more footwork being required.

Now of course at times perhaps a very slight move toward the opponent might be required, depending upon your height and arm length vis-a-vis his - but I hope you get the point: for all intents and purposes you both are in the "exchange" stage.

(Btw, the other two stages of combat William Cheung refers to are "Pursuit" and "Retreat", but I digress).

And in fact, you don't have to subscribe to the TWC labels at all - because the range/distance issues will still remain the same - regardless of how they are labeled or who is doing the labeling.

So when Hunt1 wrote this, I couldn’t agree more:

“A person needs spatial awareness. You need to know when someone is close enough to you that they can do an effective shoot, kick, punch. You also need to know your effective range. At what distance can you shoot kick punch effectively. Not talking about a wild hope for the best strike of shoot but where you can be truly effective. These ranges are different for everyone. If you are not aware of the the distance where some one can shoot effectively on you then you will likely fall victim.”
..............................

***FURTHERMORE, I also have personally added dimensions to “contact” and “non contact” range/distance in my way of thinking: kicking range - and too close for kicking range.

Perhaps a knee could effectively be thrown at a certain distance – but not an effective kick. Or the reverse.

Or perhaps you're close enough to land a kick with just a slight move forward - but you're not close enough (with just a slight move forward) to hit a target with either of your arms.

So I’m glad that Hunt1 used the word “effectively” – because that’s a big key to all of this.

[Matrix]

I think there is a tendency to over simplify but range/distance/space does effect the fight and is an important dynamic... Especially true in street confrontations where you must manage space/distance and the threat..

One must learn through experience, how to use space/distance/position and time, to one's advantage in fighting through fighting.I agree Jim.
I would also say that it is not a binary situation. I think there's more than Contact vs. Non-Contact. I can have contact in the sense that I have bridged the opponent, but that does not necessarily mean that I can hit them cleanly yet. I need to either find or create the conditions that let me hit. Otherwise we're probably just going to trade shots or wrestle, which is less than desirable.

I also agree with Hunt1 on the need for spatial awareness. Again, as you get closer to the opponent, you will tend to heighten that awareness. It's not a light switch that is either off or on. More like a rheostat that varies over the range.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Bill

[Pacman]

No matter what the opponent does, if they cannot make contact they are not a threat.

So, how many ranges are there that really matter?

with all due respect, i think you are assuming that if your opponent can make contact and is a threat, that you too can make contact and are a threat.

this is where reach comes in.

[hunt1]

Sanjuro I do not think you understood my post. The point is you need to know what can happen at what distance. At 3 feet everything can happen. At 10 ft nothing can happen. A wrestler than knows what he is doing can take you down from about 7 ft away from you give or take. As you move close spin kicks and skip kicks come into play also flying punches etc. Move closer other kicks closer still the jab, A bit closer everything else.

[SAAMAG]

Eh, too much conjecture over a simple matter.

Contact / Non-contact is the bottom line, once in contact there are all those ranges discussed like kicking, striking, trapping/clinching, ground...blah blah blah.

Just friggin glove up and fight. Everything else works itself out.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro I do not think you understood my post. The point is you need to know what can happen at what distance. At 3 feet everything can happen. At 10 ft nothing can happen. A wrestler than knows what he is doing can take you down from about 7 ft away from you give or take. As you move close spin kicks and skip kicks come into play also flying punches etc. Move closer other kicks closer still the jab, A bit closer everything else.

I understood and my point is you are making assumptions based on range.
Not a good way to go IMO and IME.
Assuming that nothing can happen at 10 ft away is great, until something happens and then what?
I agree that you need to be aware what can happen from every distance and that "what" is that contact MUST be made before ANYTHING can happen.
Beyond that, it is pure speculation and while that may work in a limited rules environment, it doesn't always work outside of that.

[SAAMAG]

At 10 feet I could pick up a rock and chunk it and hit you in the face! Then contact will have been made at 10 ft! Then, impressed with my rock chunking accuracy I may run another five feet back and do it again for good measure. Then I'm 15 ft and making contact!!! Rock on!!! (No pun intended with that last statement).

[m1k3]

Are we headed towards baseball as a form of self defense. Run fast for up to 90 feet and throw stuff real hard. Works for me, but then again it would probably be classified as a combative sport and therefore not valid for the streetz.

[sanjuro_ronin]

At 10 feet I could pick up a rock and chunk it and hit you in the face! Then contact will have been made at 10 ft! Then, impressed with my rock chunking accuracy I may run another five feet back and do it again for good measure. Then I'm 15 ft and making contact!!! Rock on!!! (No pun intended with that last statement).

Rock-Fu !
The First ever weapons MA !!

[sanjuro_ronin]

An average human can cross 7.33 yards in one second.
Of course going from standstill to movement takes time, but for argument sakes lets look at the 7.33 yards per seconds.
The = 21.99 feet per second.
Even walking at 3 mph would = 4.4 ft in one second.

[Sihing73]

There is a LE Video that Dan Inosanto did showing just that. I will try to find it.

Hello,

I believing you are referring to the Surviving Edged Weapons Video. If so this included more than Dan, it had Leo Gaje as well.

The premise is not so much that an officer could not draw and fire his weapon, just that it is most likely that the average officer would be unable to draw and fire two shots accurately before a knife wielding opponent could cross 21 feet and stab the officer.

Bottom line on the proposed distance of 21 feet (the original estimate) was that within that distance even if the officer managed to shoot the attacker they would still be stabbed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hello,

I believing you are referring to the Surviving Edged Weapons Video. If so this included more than Dan, it had Leo Gaje as well.

The premise is not so much that an officer could not draw and fire his weapon, just that it is most likely that the average officer would be unable to draw and fire two shots accurately before a knife wielding opponent could cross 21 feet and stab the officer.

Bottom line on the proposed distance of 21 feet (the original estimate) was that within that distance even if the officer managed to shoot the attacker they would still be stabbed.

The Dog Brothers have shown this over and over, they even showed how, in MOST cases, the actual complete draw is not possible.
People close that distance VERY FAST !
The notion of safe distance is still valid, to a limited extent.
But the notion of "this range is for this so I have to watch out for this", that is not a good one to have.

[SAAMAG]

I remember the edged weapons video in LE class. I think I was the only one in there who knew who Dan Inosanto was!

I especially like the sword through the cracked open door technique.

[YungChun]

The premise is not so much that an officer could not draw and fire his weapon, just that it is most likely that the average officer would be unable to draw and fire two shots accurately before a knife wielding opponent could cross 21 feet and stab the officer.

Bottom line on the proposed distance of 21 feet (the original estimate) was that within that distance even if the officer managed to shoot the attacker they would still be stabbed.

Well if they are not trained.. At the Lethal Force Institute they train you to give ground as you draw the weapon, assuming it is holstered...

[Sihing73]

Well if they are not trained.. At the Lethal Force Institute they train you to give ground as you draw the weapon, assuming it is holstered...

Hello,

Interesting concept to me:

Backing up away from the opponent while attempting to draw and fire your weapon. I imagine they teach you to be aware of your surroundings as you won't be able to see where you're going while backing up.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In the DBMA video series,. Die less often, the show over and over how "moving back" is NOT the way to go, for a variety of reasons.
The guy moving forward will close the gab faster.
You are on the defensive.
The environment and obstacles are unknown.
And more.

[YungChun]

Well what is the alternative?

As far as I know this was well regarded by LEOs and adopted by many.. I seem to recall a Canadian LEO trainer (Rory Miller...?) talking about this, but it's been years I forget who said what... The only way that you will be able to deploy and get off a well placed shot in time is to give distance...assuming you have enough space to start. I don't recall them talking about cases where there was no room to retreat.. They pointed out the failing in many cases was trying to hold ground.

I think there are lots of videos out there on this as well but I couldn't find any just now..

[sanjuro_ronin]

Jim,
The DBMA view is that you create the distance by neutralizing the attack, not by running backwards.
H2H skill is obviously required, but not to take the guy out as much as to create distance and time to access the firearm.
They also address the triangular evasive footwork that is better than going back,but the fact is, many times you won't be able to move around (or back) and many times you won't have the time.

[YungChun]

Jim,
The DBMA view is that you create the distance by neutralizing the attack, not by running backwards.
H2H skill is obviously required, but not to take the guy out as much as to create distance and time to access the firearm.
They also address the triangular evasive footwork that is better than going back,but the fact is, many times you won't be able to move around (or back) and many times you won't have the time.

So assuming you have space...say a parking lot.. You would advise closing empty handed against an EW??

[sanjuro_ronin]

So assuming you have space...say a parking lot.. You would advise closing empty handed against an EW??

EW?
Not sure what that is...
If you have space I advice triangular footwork over moving backwards, that foot work can turn into a run when the speed increases as opposed to moving back that turns into a stumble when speed increases.

[YungChun]

EW?
Not sure what that is...
If you have space I advice triangular footwork over moving backwards, that foot work can turn into a run when the speed increases as opposed to moving back that turns into a stumble when speed increases.

I don't recall the exact tactic they used.. But so then an alley you'd have to go back... I would assume..as opposed to closing on an EW (edged weapon).

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't recall the exact tactic they used.. But so then an alley you'd have to go back... I would assume..as opposed to closing on an EW (edged weapon).

Ah, EW, got it.
I have to be honest, I don't like going backwards, I just don't.
I see too much going wrong by going backwards.
What would I do?
If I couldn't get the **** out of there I would guess that I would probably attack,

[Lee Chiang Po]

It is a very simple matter. Turn and run like hell, all the time drawing the weapon. You are less likely to trip, and even if he can outrun you, it will take longer then it takes to draw and fire the weapon. BTW, if you enter into an alley after someone, it would be wise to have your weapon drawn and ready to fire. He may be much closer and could be on you before you could even turn to run.

[Sihing73]

It is a very simple matter. Turn and run like hell, all the time drawing the weapon. You are less likely to trip, and even if he can outrun you, it will take longer then it takes to draw and fire the weapon. BTW, if you enter into an alley after someone, it would be wise to have your weapon drawn and ready to fire. He may be much closer and could be on you before you could even turn to run.

My approach was a little different:

Spending hours on the range practicing to draw and fire three shots center mass at 7, 15 and 21 feet as quickly as I could. I got to be pretty good and accurate. Of course, in a real life encounter there are too many variables to consider.

Still, as a uniformed Police Officer, the option of "running away" or "backing down" is not really an option.

I can honestly say that the idea of backing down or running away was never really presented as a viable option in any of the LE Training I had, and I graduated two Police Academies and numerous State Sponsored training classes.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My approach was a little different:

Spending hours on the range practicing to draw and fire three shots center mass at 7, 15 and 21 feet as quickly as I could. I got to be pretty good and accurate. Of course, in a real life encounter there are too many variables to consider.

Still, as a uniformed Police Officer, the option of "running away" or "backing down" is not really an option.

I can honestly say that the idea of backing down or running away was never really presented as a viable option in any of the LE Training I had, and I graduated two Police Academies and numerous State Sponsored training classes.

In a few of the DBMA video series that show, in graphic detail, what happens when people try to run.
From video security cameras and from photos from emergency rooms.
Facts is, if someone is intent on stabbing you, running is a fine option, if you are a very fast runner.
Remember, you have to turn and run, while the attacker only has to run AND he is already coming at you when you decide to turn and run.
It 'can be almost as big a gamble as "staying and fighting".

[Lee Chiang Po]

In a few of the DBMA video series that show, in graphic detail, what happens when people try to run.
From video security cameras and from photos from emergency rooms.
Facts is, if someone is intent on stabbing you, running is a fine option, if you are a very fast runner.
Remember, you have to turn and run, while the attacker only has to run AND he is already coming at you when you decide to turn and run.
It 'can be almost as big a gamble as "staying and fighting".

This is the very reason I would recommend having the weapon drawn and ready to fire, or at least have it unsnapped and your hand on it ready to draw and fire. If running is not an option, and it very well could or couldn't be, being ready to shoot the guy is the only thing that will save you. Sometimes just good old common sense trumps all the physical training you can get. If someone is intent upon cutting you, you really have very little chance of preventing it if the guy has any brain at all.
As I mentioned about running, if he is within the 30 feet you might have time to turn and run. You can be much faster than you might think when you are pumped. Not only does he have to equal your speed, but he has to exceed it to catch up to you. If you hold a short lead long enough to draw the weapon and fire you have managed to pull it off. It should only take a second or less to draw and fire. However, in most cases you might not know his intentions until you are right up on him.