Two ranges of combat?

[Tigerstyle]

Still in range for a virus

[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

'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 (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]

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 ).

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.