3 Ranges in Fighting???

[Water Dragon]

What do you think? Here's my analysis: The three fighting ranges are

1. Distance fighting (anything that involves moving in and out of range to attack, most kick/punch systems)
2. Clinch fighting (anything that involves maintaining caontact with the opponant while on your feet i.e. standing grappling/ Muay Thai elbows & knees from the plumb, etc)
3. Ground fighting (Anything where you are both on the ground. Him on the ground, you on your feet doesn't count)

A distance fighter needs the ability to control the range as his primary skill, a way out of the clinch as his secondary and escapes from the ground as his tercary skill.

A clinch fighter needs to control the clinch as his primary skill, move into range as his secondary, and escapes/controls on the ground as his tercary.

A ground fighter needs controls/positional dominance as his primary skill, takedowns/throws from the clinch as his secondary, and moving into range would be third.

What do you guys think?

[KC Elbows]

It seems to me that, within distance fighting, there are more ranges. The kickers I have practiced with seem to try to maintain an "outside" range(long range, I guess), in order to deny me any medium range action(fists and short kicks, which I'm better at than the long range stuff), and they definitely try hard to deny me close range, where I can get all the elbows and short range hand techniques in.

However, this short range almost coincides with your "clinch range". Complicated stuff, this fighting!

[DelicateSound]

I try to think of it in terms of body parts. "What are the things this guy can reach me with now?" etc.

Just my 2 pence

[Wu-Xing]

"what do you guys think?"

I think a skilled enough martial artist should be able to apply his systems principles regardless of if its on the ground,close or long distance, otherwise he/she is lacking and needs to practise more.

DelicateSound;i find myself thinking that quite alot.But i see it as a distraction.I try and stay focused on whats happening and without thinking it, my mind automatically knows what is possible to be hit with.Thinking too much is a distraction, relax and keep your mind clear and the things you thought about will come naturally without the distraction of thinking.Maybe you know what im talkin about and im just taking your post at too much face value.if thats the case then sorry for wasting your time man.

merry christmas and a happy new year to all

[DelicateSound]

I know what you mean Wu-Xing.

Although I think it's imp to be aware of the opponants arsenal at different ranges. I've seen loads of grapplers get headbutted to the floor. :eek:

[Wu-Xing]

headbutts on the floor are nasty.no room for your head to bounce away, nose just gets crushed
*rubs his nose with the thought*

[MonkeySlap Too]

There is only one range.

[Tigerstyle]

I agree with KC about the long/medium range distinction. I usually think of the ranges this way*:

1. Outer/Long range (aka: kicking range):
- many of the kicks
- a few "long arm" or flying punches.

2. Medium Range (aka: punching range):
- Many kicks
- many punches.
- some "lunging/flying" knees/elbows
- possibly a big lunging takedown
- some locks/breaks

3. Inner/Short Range (aka: "trapping/clinching" range):
- many punches
- some kicks
- takedowns
- trapping, clinching, locking/breaking
- knees/elbows

4. On the Ground (aka: grappling range):
- I usually break this one down a little more because of the positioning variations (one person standing, both down, one on top, etc), but for the most part I feel that most of the tools are available from the inner range (effectiveness based on positioning) and some from the medium range (based on position, blah blah).


The way I see the ranges causes them to blend with each other, that way I don't forget that I can still get kicked from the trapping range if I don't pay attention for example.


* This is just my way of dealing with it. Doesn't really matter though, because I always manage to get punched in the head anyway. :mad:

[DelicateSound]

Yes, my malleable putty-like head now has a ridge of knuckle marks over it.

Anywho, I'm off to bed.

[NorthernMantis]

Hey you forgot midair range:D

[Wingman]

I agree with MonkeySlap Too. There is only one fighting range. That is the contact range. If there is no contact, there is no fight. Long range, medium range, short range, etc. all these ranges will have to make contact with the opponent.

[Cyborg]

I agree with the hypothesis that there are three ranges. But I call them; kicking, punching, and grappling. Obviously they overlap and you should be proficient at all of them.

[SevenStar]

"I think a skilled enough martial artist should be able to apply his systems principles regardless of if its on the ground,close or long distance, otherwise he/she is lacking and needs to practise more."

If the only system you have ever trained is a stand up style - even if it invludes chin na - you will likely get fu(ked up if a grappler gets you on the ground. same thing goes for a grappler that is forced to play the standup game. That's where cross training comes in.


As for the ranges of fighting, I agree, there can be 3 or 4 , depending on whether or not you combine the punching and kicking ranges.

Wingman, you and MonkeySlap are looking at two different things I believe. It sounds like you are saying that the only range is contact because at some point in the fight, you have to make some kind of contact, be it kick, punch, throw, etc. MonkeySlap on the other hand is a brutal b@stard that likes to throw people around, so to him, the only real range of fighting is clinch. kicking and punching are not really ranges, but merely a means of getting into the "real" range. I like that theory. :)

[Water Dragon]

Thus, MonkeySlap is a clinch fighter. Look at me primary through tercary skills.

He can punch and kick hard as hell, but that's not a primary skill. It's a tool to get into range. The difference would be a boxer who steps, throws a combo, moves out of range, steps back in and throws a combo until the other guy is out. e also has ground skills, but that's only for if he screws up and ends up down there. Primary skills are trained chest to chest.

Personally, I don't think one can be an expert in all three, the strategies contradict each other. You can definately have solid skills in all three. But ho can you be a stick and move guy and a clinch guy at the same time? You move OR you clinch.

[Water Dragon]

I think Muay Thai is an excellant example. Muay Thai has solid distance AND solid clinch skills. But most Thai boxers are known for 1 of two things: They are good outside fighters who will destroy you with the roundhouse and use their hands to back it up, or they are clinch fighters who will shred you with elbows and knees. Thai boxers are proficient in both, but excel in one or the other.

[rogue]

Some of you are confusing tactics(punch, kick, etc...) with range(distance).

[KC Elbows]

But not all tactics apply equally well to all ranges, and some are very range specific. I'm not disagreeing, Rogue, but it seems to me that an elbow is something that is specific to range, and if a definition of range does not take this into account, then the definition might be faulty.

[Water Dragon]

Range determines tactics. Range is the skill, tactics are just the afterthought.

[rogue]

I'll agree KC, but still people shouldn't generalize too much by saying elbow, punch or kick, etc... range, IMO it should be more dynamic.
For example, A front snap kick using the ball or toe (shoes on) works fine at long range but in close is useless, unless I use my shin as the striking surface. Same exact execution with just a minor difference.
Same with elbows, I can use an outside to inside elbow to your neck at close range but I can also use the same elbow as a gunting at punching range if it's the nearest weapon, once again same basic movement.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Essentially determination of range in combat is determined by the doctrine your school follows. The JKD model of Kick, Punch, Trap, grapple is similar to Ti, Da, Na, Shuai or kick punch lock throw.

How you interpret this again is based on your schools doctrine. Your doctrine must then translate into viable strategies and tactics that fulfill that doctrine.

This construct determines how you 'see' the fight and how you then train to acheive those goals.

There is no universal answer. There can be as many interpretations as there are skilled practitioners.

For instance, the doctrine of my school is that there is only one range. Ironically I learned this from several different arts: Shuai Chiao, Kun Tao, Baji (limited experience, but I love it), Xing-Yi and Silat Serak ALL espouse this doctrine.

Some do it in different ways. (The Serak guys seem to make the most use of it and effectively translate it. But I think this has a lot to do with Victor DeThouras who is an organizational genius when it comes to IMA training. I'm junior in Serak, so no offense if I've got this wrong in any way...)

You can see things how you want, but what does that then mean to how you train and what you get out of your training. Is your doctrine verifiable through practice or just something you 'think'?

[Tigerstyle]

"...people shouldn't generalize too much by saying elbow, punch or kick, etc... range, IMO it should be more dynamic."

I agree with that. That's why I tried to use generic terms when listing possible attacks from the ranges and why I have them blend together so much. I also agree with KC about certain attacks being more likely to happen at a certain distance.


"Hey you forgot midair range."

Northern Mantis,
I included a couple of "flying attacks" within my ranges :) .


"There is only one fighting range. That is the contact range. If there is no contact, there is no fight. Long range, medium range, short range, etc. all these ranges will have to make contact with the opponent."

That's a copout answer, Wingman :p . Wouldn't you agree that some attacks become more or less likely to land at different distances?


"MonkeySlap on the other hand is a brutal b@stard that likes to throw people around, so to him, the only real range of fighting is clinch. kicking and punching are not really ranges, but merely a means of getting into the "real" range."

When I grow up, I want to be just like MonkeySlap :) .

[Water Dragon]

So would you say, according to the above, that there are three generic styles?

Thos who fight from the outside, those who fight from the inside, and those who fight from the ground?

[MonkeySlap Too]

This also would be determined by your schools doctrine. Different schools LOOK at thier relationship rto thier opponent differently. How they view it determines thier strategies and tactics. (More often than not, how they fail to have a doctrine results in a lack of true strategies and tactics and wasted training time).

You can choose to look at it that way. Or you can break it down a dozen other ways. In an excellent article on this same topic by Scott Sonnon, he compared the training philosophies of BJJ and ROSS. How each art interprets thier doctrine determines thier training methodology. To paraphrase, BJJ wants you in the gaurd. This is viewed as one of several dominant positions they seek. Ross / Sambo wants to be in the gaurd, as thier doctrine is based on breaking legs. Which is best? That is really determined on the purpose the arty was developed for. BJJ is for winning mano a mano street fights and ring matches. Sambo is for special forces ops (you break a guys leg, it takes two soilders to out of the fight. The injured guy, and a guy to carry him.)

To each practitioner is the job of understanding why thier school teaches the way they do, and see how that improves thier results. But Doctrine varies. What is good for one school is not really going to work for another - because of the different strategies and tactics, plus the guiding purpose of the school.

Schools and styles are much more than just a collection of techniques and forms you've got to memorize to 'get' it. Identifying the doctrine of the school in which you train can help you better understand what is taught, teach you to understand how to use it to fight other schools training doctrines and give purpose to the material.

[Steven T. Richards]

'Range' is a variable of distance, not of techniques. The technique to range calssifications are fundamentally flawed - category errors.

It would be like saying in medieval times: 'How far to the next village?' Reply: 'Four bow shots' Response: 'What kind of bow... Long-Bow, Cross-Bow, Composite Bow etc etc...?'

Not at all accurate and in fact very misleading.

There are two 'ranges' when contextualised to combat:

Non-Contact and Contact.

Technique classifications are really 'Dimensions Of Combat' and, just as with physical space, they all exist 'together' to make up the rich environment that is real fighting.

[swmngdragn]

Hi, y'all.


My two cents, eh? Two ranges is appropriate. Except I call 'em thumping range, and running like hell. heh, heh, heh. :D

[Tigerstyle]

Steven T. Richards,
I went to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) for this one :) . Range has many different definitions, including (but not limited to):

1 - The area or sphere in which an activity takes place.

2 - The full extent covered: within the range of possibilities.

3 - An amount or extent of variation: a wide price range.

4 - The maximum extent or distance limiting operation, action, or effectiveness, as of a projectile, aircraft, radio signal, or sound.

5 - The distance between a projectile weapon and its target.

6 - A stove with spaces for cooking a number of things at the same time. :)


In response to your medieval times situation, it would probably be more like asking, "What's the range to the next village?" and expecting some unit of distance as the answer. For the most part I think you would want to know the range to a specific point if you intend to send something over there (like maybe an arrow or a missile)

I think the definitions I pasted here could show that there can be more to fighting range than "contact" and "non contact". Range classification is my (personal) way of learning what my "high percentage" (ie. more likely to land) techniques are based on my distance to the opponent.

Besides, it also lets us big talkers feel important by letting us "know" martial arts instead of having to "do" martial arts ;) .

[MonkeySlap Too]

You hit it on the head. It is your way of looking at it to help you train the way you train. It is your training doctrine that determines the meaning. You see a need to determine how your weapons land from based on your relative position to your opponent. If thats your schools approach, great. But it is not an absolute and as a theory does not apply to all schools.

Drake - I am adding 'running like hell' to my curriculum. I can't beleive I forgot THAT one...

[Wingman]

Tigerstyle, it is very nice of you to look the word "range" in the dictionary. In our discussion of fighting ranges, I think, definitions 1, 4 & 5 will apply.

If we take definition#1 - The area or sphere in which an activity takes place.
I would say that there is only one fighting range-- the contact range. An "activitiy" will only take place if there is contact. If there is no contact, of course there will still be a "fight" (shouting insults to your opponent?). But that's not my idea of a fight.

If we take definition#4 - The maximum extent or distance limiting operation, action, or effectiveness, as of a projectile, aircraft, radio signal, or sound.
I would say that there are many ranges as there are techniques. Each technique is effective on a particular range(distance).

If we take definition#5 - The distance between a projectile weapon and its target.
We are talking of distance here. So I would say there are 3 ranges. Long, medium and short range.

Therefore, the number of fighting ranges depends on how you define it.

[Water Dragon]

OK Cool, this is helping me. Here's where I'm coming from. I have a set amount to train. For everything I train, there's another I can't. Therefore, I have a need to train intelligently for maximum efficiency. Since I like to throw and fight body to body, I need to determine what is going to give me the best bang for my buck.

Let's say I can train either a kick or an elbow, but not both. Since I like extreme closeness, the elbow is going to the most beneficial thing for me. Once I have developed enough solid weapons from there, do I move into long range or ground? What is most likely to be effective for me?

I need to figure where I can best put my effort to get the best results.

Any thoughts?

[MonkeySlap Too]

Yeah, but not here man.

[fa_jing]

Jump rope. Work up to 15 minutes a day (or more), make sure you do the important variations. Your feet take you there, they take you back. I found it made a huge difference in my footwork and the ability to close. I've been slacking since I moved in October, but I'm gonna get back on the program.
-FJ

[Tigerstyle]

lol, fa_jing. At first I thought you were posting in the wrong thread. :)

BTW, I'm clumsy and oafish when it comes to jumping rope, but can you tell (or show) me the "important variations"? I really need to do more work with that cursed piece of rope (that never seems to pass under my feet when I want it to. :mad: ).


Wingman,
Good response. I just wanted to show that it wasn't neccessarily flawed to to think about the effectiveness of different techniques based on range(distance). I just went to Dictionary.com because I didn't want to sound like a total moron when I replied. I guess we're all supporting MonkeySlap's theory. ;)

[fa_jing]

Okay, bear with me, because this is going to be difficult to describe without a visual aid. First and foremost, stay smooth and light on your feet. Training to be light on your feet is the focus of the exercise, it's not as beneficial to do 5 more minutes if you're clunking it.

Time aspects: My Sifu started us out with 3 minutes. At first this was very difficult to complete, because I lost energy from lack of form, and I guess my calf muscles weren't in this kind of shape. Then he worked us up to 3 X 3 minute rounds, with 1 min rest in between the rounds. Now this is no longer difficult for me. On my own, I worked up to 16 minutes straight, Sifu says he used to jump rope 15-30 minutes a day, eventually he decided to replace some of this time with different footwork drills.

Form aspects: keep the hands low, only move the wrists, not the arms, with arm held loosely. The wrist work is good exercise, and good for our Wing Chun circling wrists. Don't jump high, the rope should just skim under your feet. The rope shouldn't be too long either, it should just pass over your head by a few inches. If you find yourself missing alot, put both ends of the rope in one hand and swing it around, while you keep jumping. This is to get your rythym and get used to the jumping. Oh yeah, one more thing, very important - in most variations, you stay on your toes and never put weight into the heel, play with it and you'll see.
Foot variations:

1. Principle variation, easiest: jump off alternate feet in place L-R-L-R etc. You jump off one foot, you land with your weight on the other, but the toe of your jumping foot also hits the ground right afterward
2. More difficult: jump off both feet in place.
3. Still more difficult: jump off both feet, but move feet back and forth so that one is at least one foot (30 cm) in front of the other each time you jump, and switching on each jump. This one will really help your footwork, but it took a few weeks before I could get the timing right. The rope goes under your feet as they are passing each other, once again keep your feet close to the ground. If you can extend the distance front-to-back between your feet, it becomes a good exercise for the thighs. In this variation, the lead foot is flat on the ground while the rear foot stays on the toes.
4. To get some blood flow to your hamstrings, try variation 1 except you try to kick yourself in the butt (almost) everytime you jump. You may put your foot flat on the ground for this one, too.
5. Same as above, except you kick forward slightly.

Once you get the flow and the technique down with one variation, you keep playing with it until you get the others. It takes a couple months to really get it.

I find it's easier to get through it if I listen to some music while I jump. Also, for variation, trying jumping jacks. Do 200 or more. I think they're nearly as good as jumping rope.

-FJ

[Tigerstyle]

fa_jing,
Thank you very much! I appreciate you taking the time to type all of that out. However, could you explain number 2. "More difficult: jump off both feet in place"? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding that one.

Thanks again.

[fa_jing]

Um, you want to look at that again?
Just jumping in place like you did in elementary school Gym class.
Landing on the same two feet. Try not to let you heels touch the ground. Maybe I confused you with the "more difficult" part, I meant more physically demanding, not a harder skill.
-FJ

[Tigerstyle]

LOL! Yes, it was the "more difficult" part that threw me off. :o

I was starting to think of crazy possibilities of what you might have meant, "Maybe he means keeping both feet parallel to the floor while jumping..."

Once more, thank you.