What do you think? Here’s my analysis: The three fighting ranges are
Distance fighting (anything that involves moving in and out of range to attack, most kick/punch systems)
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)
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.
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!
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.
I agree with KC about the long/medium range distinction. I usually think of the ranges this way*:
Outer/Long range (aka: kicking range):
many of the kicks
a few “long arm” or flying punches.
Medium Range (aka: punching range):
Many kicks
many punches.
some “lunging/flying” knees/elbows
possibly a big lunging takedown
some locks/breaks
Inner/Short Range (aka: “trapping/clinching” range):
many punches
some kicks
takedowns
trapping, clinching, locking/breaking
knees/elbows
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:
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’?
