Maestro

I would agree say that it is much easier to get close and maintain close range than a distance--and as warlock said, this does make it seem that there's an intrinsic advantage to being skilled in the lower ranges. An interesting idea. But, in the spirit of debunking... I must disagree with this to some extent. To me, if I land a solid roundhouse to the knee or sidekick to the solar plexus (from far range), that's likely to be the end of the fight as far as I'm concerned. Basically if it has come to the point where I can walk away without being chased down, I win--and that I can certainly do without getting in close. But then, you did say "destroy him" and I know that's not quite the same. But something to think about. Also there has been an argument floating in my mind against the idea of moving in/forward forward as advantageous/easier and it hasn't quite cohered yet, but I'll try to get it down here, so bear with me. Delta1 mentioned footwork and Warlock said (in effect) that moving forward is a more natural and unconscious motion than backwards motion. In the broadest sense of just walking around in normal life, I would agree with this. However, in a combat situation I think it is quite the opposite. Maybe this is my comfort in range 3 talking, but for me when I?m in a fighting stance, moving backwards is perhaps MORE natural that moving forward and not a 'thinking' process by any means. Another element of this is that moving back is simply moving back. You can move straight back or back on a diagonal without really having a strategy. On the other hand, if you try to move forward on a guy without some sort of plan, chances are you get a jab in the nose. As a side effect, if you move back and your opponent wants to move in, every time you move back you're forcing him to re-strategize, and giving yourself another opportunity to read his movements and intentions. Also, even with good footwork, moving forward seems like a more committing motion. If you try to move quickly from range 3 to 1 or 0, even with a good plan and execution, you may quickly find you opponent behind you. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that moving in is less natural and maybe inherently more dangerous? (note this is in the spirit of debunking, haven't thought this out enough yet to be sure exactly what I actually think about it, but there seems to be a sensible argument in there somewhere. ) On another,non-debunking note...Lately when I've worked on staff sparring with my buddies, we've been devoting a lot of time to working our way from what would be 3-5 ranges by Warlock's scale (though obviously with the staffs, we're in contact range.) into ranges close enough to use the elbows, the idea being that when you're fighting someone with a staff, you expect them to stay X feet away from you, not get nose to nose, so if someone can smoothly make that move, it's a great advantage. That's our theory anyway. What do you guys think of this concept of "expected" ranges? To me it seems much more applicable in a weapons situation, as in open-hand I don't really "expect" any particular range, and IMO it would be foolish to do so considering the speed with which they can change, but any thoughts on this? Perhaps lulling your oponent into thinking you like range 2 when really you're just waiting to go to 0 on 'em?

Good points Delta1. The fact that ranges can change so fast was what I was considering when I was saying to stay as far away from your least comfortable range as possible, but you said it much more succinctly than I did. And like you said, we can really only use natural weapons to signify their "basic" distance, not an effective range. But for the sake of discussion it's a useful mechanism just to know what we're talking about. Interesting point about the Bjj guys. So here's a question: Do you (everyone, not just delta1) think it's easier to close range and stay close or to open range and stay at a distance? Obviously this will change from individual to individual, and it's hard to open distance when you're in an arm-lock, but in a general sense, do you see strengths/weaknesses of a fighter who prefers range 0 or range 4? I'm not looking for arguments of grappling versus non-grappling, (lord knows there are enough of those around here ) but from the persective of opening and closing ranges?

I would agree completely and have spent a good deal of time lately devoted to these ideas. As you said, it's about fighting "your" fight. To fight your own style fight, you have to know 'where' your fight is, and where your opponent's is as well. My training has made me quite comfortable in ranges 3-2 and--to a much lesser degree--1. As such, I certainly would not want to be locked in a 4 foot square closet with a win-chun guy. I would like to further discussion on one point in particular, that "the trick is in maintaining the furthest range of advantage" I think this would only be correct about half the time, so I just want to add another layer of complexity to this idea. Take you and me sparring for instance. You are comfortable at the closer ranges, myself at the further, while we overlap at 2. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we spar together all the time, and know each other's ranges. Would it not be to your advantage to keep to your closest range of comfort? Say we are at range 2. Let's also say you are better than me at this range. It seems at first that this is a perfectly good range for you to stay in. However, while you're better at the moment, you keep me only one step away from range three, where I am comfortable but you are not. So it would seem far better for you to stay in range 1 or even 0 as much as possible, so as to keep me as far away from my areas of proficiency as possible. Likewise, if it was me who was better at range 2, it would still be desirable for me to keep the fight at range 3 or even dance around in 4, to keep you away from 1 and 0. As you said, a big part of it is mastering the transitions between ranges. So make these necessary transitions as large as possible for your opponent. If there are a range of ranges (not trying to confuse I swear!) where you're equal, you might as well keep them furthest from wherever they're best. As you said, for the sake of a good discussion, I would also very much like to see a challenge to these ideas/concepts ::Edit::IMO, there really aught to be another range number to divide forearm/backfist ranges from elbows. Two very different ranges in my opinion. For my part, I would be comfortable in, say 1.5 (forearms) but not in 1 (elbows). Seems trivial, but once you're that close, those 8-10 inches make a difference.

Hey everybody! I haven't posted on the forums in like 6 months, but I'm making my triumphant return to leech information off you guys! So, I'm confused on what exactly a Daito is. What is the difference between the Daito and the Katana? Or does Daito refer to Japanese long-swords in general, 'cause I have seen swords that look exactly like Katanas called Daitos. Is there a subtle difference I'm missing?

Oh man, you just made my week. You are confusing cannabis and cannibalism. Cannabis is a drug, AKA marijuana. I think everyone here probably agrees that Cannibalism a bad thing. Certainly you will get no argument from me, but well, that is another thread entirely.

Gosh, where to even start. It's pretty much impossible to even make a logical reply to that, it was just that ridiculous. The video was just plain funny--well made, but ludicrous just the same. As for the article, that was probably the most outlandish thing I have ever read. I do hope that you know the video was edited, and that you don't actually prescribe to the stuff said in that article. And then if you don't believe any of that, I would have to echo Ken and ask what the point is? Just to show how deluded some people are?

I also don't see how you can make the comparison between these videos and something like napster. There's stuff on TV all the time where people get into all sorts of crazy situations (like RealTV), exept they only show the tapes where everything comes out OK. It's just video of stuff that's actually happened. Napster, on the other hand, promoted the piracy of people's artwork. I don't see how they are in the least bit related.

I'm in the dochang 12-18 hours a week, weightroom about 4-6. You need 70/30, 30/70 options up there!

I think it all depends on what you're looking for, and how you train karate. If you train extremely rigorously in Karate, then adding a weight workout on top of it may quickly lead you to overtraining and burning-out. If you think you have sufficient sleep and energy to do both, then by all means, do both. But if you do both and overwork your body, both will sufer. I used to do a lot of TKD and a lot of weightlifting, but I found that I stopped making much progress in either, so I cut back on the weightlifting and I started progressing again. You've just gotta find your own perfect combination.

1. Poetry 2. Friends and family 3. Silence

gosh MA, I dunno, whatever could you be talking about...

I think it is dangerous to assume that he will not or cannot use them. Such an assumption could cost a lot of lives on the battlefield. Hopefully he won't, but we cannot project our rational thoughts onto Saddam.

That is why they can be so darn hard to figure out. It would take all the fun out of it if all girls dug the same stuff.

nathanjusko, I have never seen a TKD sidekick before with the knee facing down. Matter 'a fact, I have never seen any kick properly executed with the knee facing down. That would mean your toes would also have to be pointing to the ground. I don't see how that could work, unless maybe you're kicking straight behind you? Help, I'm confused.

You have obviously taken your signature to heart a bit too much Diamondick. You have certainly found the ridiculous here.