Ranges, "the Magic Pill" - let's talk

[White Warlock]

I request open discussion on this. In fact, i request an effort to debunk and/or challenge these perceptions.

 

I have acclimated to a personal belief that the magic pill for 'fighting your fight' lies within understanding your ranges and the ranges of your adversaries, then choosing the most advantageous range for you, which contrasts the most disadvantageous for your adversary.

 

Now, the trick of this, as i see it, is to master the ability to transition between ranges. To be able to remove oneself from a disadvantageous range without retreating (angling, pushing, reversing, circling, etc), and to enter an advantageous range without charging or advancing recklessly.

 

Also, as i see it, there needs to be a strong understanding of the various systems that dominate specific ranges... for without this knowledge it would be hard to recognize the antagonist's range of advantage, to prevent them from entering their range of advantage, and to maintain or enter your range of advantage.

 

As a foundation to these beliefs, I have adopted a structure that is broken up into five ranges:

 

0 = torso-on-torso contact (wrestling, takedown),

 

1 = short-range (elbow/forearm/knee distance)

 

2 = mid-range (full-arm distance)

 

3 = long-range (full-leg distance)

 

4 = distance (communication)*

 

I can comfortably say that my ranges of comfort are 0-2, and that if i were to oppose an antagonist, i would enter one of these three ranges. Knowing my ranges in advance, i am able to decrease the amount of variables that i should be concerned with, as well as clearly recognize those ranges i definitely do not want to be in.

 

Now, were i placed in a situation where i must decide which of the three ranges to choose from, i would have a dependency on understanding the strengths of my antagonist, without being foolish enough to enter, and become entrapped in, their range of advantage. All i need now, is to ensure he stays within one of the ranges that i am comfortable with, while ensuring that he does not enter a range that he is comfortable with.

 

The answer to this, as i see it, is recognizing the efforts of my antagonist to pass ranges. I.e., if he is attempting to travel from range 2 to range 1, then either he feels he has the upper hand in either range 1 or range 0. If he is attempting to travel from range 1 to range 0, then it is rather obvious where he feels his advantage lies.

 

Again, the trick is in maintaining the furthest range of advantage, until it is recognized that such a range does not pose sufficient advantage, or that range is, in fact, more advantageous to my antagonist. I.e., because my furthest range of comfort is 2, i start on range 2. If my antagonist feels comfortable maintaining range 2 and/or is more skilled at range 2 than i, then i should change to range 1... and so on.

 

Clearly, this contradicts the training i've experienced in some systems. I believe the reason for this is that certain systems dedicate themselves to 'owning' a particular range... which, although simplifies their shopping efforts in a confrontation, it also limits their options.

 

Again, please post your thoughts.

 

*On a side, I have come to the belief that someone should not endanger themselves by entering into discussion, with the hopes of de-escalating, on a threat that has entered into ranges 0-3, and that if there is any hope of having a reasonably 'safe' opportunity to de-escalate, it should be done at range 4 or beyond. However, i have also found that i've successfully de-escalated confrontations at ranges 1-3 and even de-escalated confrontations 'after' the confrontation has already entered into a physical altercation. Translated, i'm saying it's a judgement call, but advise on an increasing degree of caution in de-escalation efforts the shorter the distance you are to your antagonist.

[Maestro]

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.

[delta1]

You both request debunking, but I have to agree with your assesments. Understanding range is essential in a fight. You have to consider your strengths and weaknesses as opposed to his, and adjust as necessary.

 

The problem with useing range to control the fight lies in depending too much on it. Range can be altered amazingly quickly, and you don't want to get caught being too comfortable in your zone. Also, a lot of fighters get the idea that certain natural weapons are to be use in certain ranges. Knees may be primarily a close weapon, but don't get taken by surprise by a flying knee from 'kicking range'. Same with elbows- it only takes a quick foot maneuver to deliver one from further out. And kicks can be thrown effectively from in close, as well as at distance. So, understand and use range theory, but don't depend too much on it.

 

Another point, you need a strategy, or a goal. You are fighting toward a logical conclusion. Just trying to control range and exchanging blows leaves too much to chance. Not a 'pre-planed fight', but use of range and other factors to dominate and control your opponent to either control, dissuade or destroy him.

 

By the way, the BJJ guys only have three ranges: free movement, clinch, and the ground. And they are good at getting you to their range of proficiency. Those sorry buggers are all too good at going from 'out of range' to 'down and dirty' faster than you can figure just what range they are at. It is a good idea to not only know your own range theory, but the other guys as well. The trick is getting your theory to deal with his in practical application.

 

Good discussion!

[Maestro]

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?

[delta1]

Maestro, I didn't really say anything that the two of you didn't touch on- just expounded a bit.

 

As to your question, it is far easier to close distance than to maintain it. The trick is to do it effectively. Someone who just charges in is easily dealt with positionally by a simple side step. Someone who moves in with a coordinated attack as part of an overall game plan is a different matter.

 

At the extremes, where one fighter only likes it in close and one only at kicking range, I give the in close fighter the edge. It is likely that the fight will probably, at some point, end up in close. I've destroyed some TKD guys who were more experienced than me, and really better martial artists also, by getting inside their comfort zone. And, it really is a shame, since TKD does have in close moves in its techniques. You just have to look and extrapolate them.

 

As to fighting a grappler, count on it getting close. There are ways to deal with them, but odds are they will eventually get inside your zone of comfort. The wrestling cross face, hook and sprawl, ridge hand to the groin, angles and elbows (they like to use elbows to open you up, so you should return the favor is how I look at it ), ... whatever you use, it will definately be in close. One of their weaknesses is that it takes a lot more energy to try and take you down than it does to defend. And, obviously, a stand up artist is better at kicking and striking. But most of them know how to deal with that and close the distance to their range.

Edited March 15, 2004 by delta1

[delta1]

I guess, when I think about it, I'm more interested in position than range. I like to fight at medium to close range, where I can use all my offensive and defensive weapons. Either inside and open him up, occupy his space and take his will- or outside and on a close oblique, where I have all my weapons but nullify one side of his. Understanding and useing range theory is important to get you there, but it is all part of an overall strategy to win. Your purpose in getting there is not just to hit him, it is to totally dominate him. To do this, you have to understand and use all ranges. A kicker might use his feet to injure or set up his opponent, but realistically, you are going to have to close with and destroy him at some point.

[Justfulwardog]

All of these posts are so insightful, I had to print a copy.

[White Warlock]

glad you could gleen from this justfulwardog.

 

Maestro, you brought up a very good point, which is that ... rather than choosing the furthest range and inching closer as you determine your adversary's preference, that you should instead opt to be furthest from your weakest ranges. I.e., develop a buffer zone. I agree and will make the correction to my perceptions.

 

Delta1, i do agree with you as well, in that range is merely one aspect of the whole. Although, i do believe... at least at this juncture, that it is the most important aspect, as it relates directly to fighting 'your fight,' as opposed to 'their fight.' I do, however, also agree with you that one should not depend on range management as the end-all. Doing so, in and of itself, exposes a weakness. Instead, improvisation and adaptability must always be in the mix. And, as you stated, a large degree of exposure to other systems (although i consider this primarily as a means to decrease the 'surprise' factor of being subjected to a technique or action that you've never dealt with before and have not developed a reasonable counter to).

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?

Good question Maestro, and it ties to one of my other 'beliefs,' which is that moving forward is better, therefore traveling from ranges 5 to 0 is more advantageous... which, in turn, infers that those skilled in the lower ranges have an innate advantage.

 

I base this on common sense. When you walk, you walk forward. When you look, you look in front of you. When you focus, you focus in a linear path... in a direction oftentimes (although not always) congruent to your line of vision. Also, your body is anatomically designed for 'forward' motion. Contrastly, when you walk backwards, your focus is disrupted, your sight is challenged to view both what is in front of you and that which is behind you, and ... of course, your body is simply not anatomically designed for backward motion. Granted, it can be performed, and with relative ease... but clearly this is a 'thinking' process, rather than an autonomic process.

 

Which falls into my next thought... and that is... those systems which rely on dominance of the distant ranges, must also incorporate into their training program a significant degree of time and energy in practicing reverse motion (i.e, moving backwards). To the point where the practitioner's body processes such actions autonomically. It won't be a full suit, but will significantly enhance their overall effectiveness in maintaining their range of advantage.

 

Last thought, maintaining your range does not necessarily require that you be the one to traverse the distance, only that you illicit the effect. I.e., force or lead to effect the change of distance by manipulation or encouragement of your adversary. Aikidoists do it all the time, by redirection of energy that prevents the adversary from 'closing the distance,' although that is only one way to make it happen.

 

Agreed, good discussion. More debunking please.

[delta1]

Oh goody! Now I can debunk!

 

Concenntrating too much on range is just a game of tag. You don't want to get caught up in this, unless you arejust trying to score points. Range is too unstable to hinge your entire strategy on. Important to understand and use, but not as important as position. A fighter who gets to your back or side has a significant advantage regardless of range, and that includes the ability to adjust and maintian range.

 

Also, it is important to become proficient moving in any direction. Footwork is primarily what will save you against a better in close fighter, like the aforementioned BJJ @#^*'s (I call them that with toungue in cheek, and with all due respect- but anyone that wants to slam me to the floor and twist my bod is a @#^* ).

 

Excellent point about your not having to be the one to adjust the distance. That also applies to position. For example, if your 'block' (recieve, don't block) primarily forces a kick to plant where you want him, you've used his move to adjust position. It's all relative.

[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...

A kicker might use his feet to injure or set up his opponent, but realistically, you are going to have to close with and destroy him at some point.

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?