Ranges of Combat

[tallgeese]

I've been working through Henzo Gracie's manual "Mastering Jiu Jitsu", which is a fantastic book. On a quick side note, this book gets panned by reviewers on Amazon and other sites due to its perceived"basic" technique. I'll skip on the argument that this is the most important aspect of anything and move on to my main counter to the poor review. Over half of this book is the thoughts of one of the great jiu jitsu players and mma innovators on combat. It's the history of a modern art which traces roots back to the classic arts of Japan. It's fantastic on so many levels beyond the smaller sections of technique. Read it.

One of the most intriguing points he makes is that the idea of ranges of combat as traditionally conceived; kicking, punching, in fighting, grappling, ect., are ineffective conceptually. His argument is that modern mma competition has shown us that effective striking (kicking or punching) can occur at any range and that ranges can be closed so quickly that the traditional delineations are immaterial. He argues that one will (and should) seek tactics that one's physiology and skill set can make work, not based on what "range" one is in.

He views three phases of combat as more important. Free movement, the clinch, and grappling. These constitute a realistic look at unarmed combat more than the concept of ranges. Of this, only the free movement phase relies on any concept of ranges.

I think it's an interesting concept. One I had not thought of. I, like most people I would assume, came up considering the concept of ranges as a model of combat. After a couple of days of deliberation, I can see this. It at least deserves contemplation.

I tend to agree with his hypothesis after testing it and thinking about it. However, I do think that keeping up the idea of ranges as they pertain to the free movement phase is important not just for training in the outer phase of combat but for training methodology.

Any thoughts?

[Groinstrike]

I was vaguely familier with this idea that anything outside of your grappling range is a "free movement area".

It is an interesting take on the idea of combat ranges and in my opinion definately shows a grappling bias. For sure something you should think about when dealing with control tactics, if a guy can't move freely, he can't hurt you.

[sensei8]

Free movement is the only "phase" that requires intentional thought. One has to have the "Wants/Needs" within oneself to move effectively within free movement because when ones in the "clinch" or "grappling", one must choose an effective solution before ones opponent does. Outside of the "clinch" and "grappling" one can choose to either fight or flight. Thoughts on not only how to close the distance, when required/necessary, but how to increase/open the distance as well.

Inasmuch, free movement needs to understand and appreciate the many different angle transitions as well, and in that, each aspect of free movement, for the good of the cause; the defense/offense, needs to remain in concert.

[tallgeese]

I would argue that that is also true in the other two phases as well. You still need that same hierarchy in grappling and clinch range as well. It's what's called positional dominance. Fight or flight is also a choice, depending on how you structure your strategy from the clinch (break, grapple standing, or takedown) and the ground (work for position and leave or position and fight).

I'm a big proponent of grappling looked at thru a positional dominance lens. Reading Renzo's work make me look at it out in the clinch and free motion as well.

I initially thought it was a slight grappling bent GS; however, the more I think about it, I'm not so sure. For instance, the theory clearly indicates that why ranges in and of themselves aren't a cohesive theory of combat is because striking can occur in clinch and grappling as well. For instance, punching clearly functions in the clinch, not just elbows. And strikes while grappling has evolved into it's own sub form of mma. Likewise, grappling can be induced during free movement's kicking range simply by an extended range shot without dealing with intermediary striking weapons.

[MasterPain]

I think that your thought process needs to be ahead regardless of range, hopefully enough that it's not a surface thought but an instinct.

Ranges as separate entities I believe are useful as a beginning aid to understanding, but the dynamics involved in flowing between them become more important later on. It's a matter of what weapons can reach what targets, both ways. In free movement, there are different ranges, too. The range where I can't reach you, the range where I can reach your lead hand, and the range where I can reach your face. Now take into account that I'm 5'7" and you may be 6'5" or have a warhammer or a handgun, things get complicated. Then we get into attitudes of using range- my main 3 are Crush your enemies, Stand your ground, and Burnt earth policy. Now it's really complex.

I think if I have a point, its that ranges "blur" for lack of a better word. Is that why he comes up with "phases" as opposed to "ranges", or have I missed the point?

[Groinstrike]

I think that your thought process needs to be ahead regardless of range, hopefully enough that it's not a surface thought but an instinct.

Ranges as separate entities I believe are useful as a beginning aid to understanding, but the dynamics involved in flowing between them become more important later on. It's a matter of what weapons can reach what targets, both ways. In free movement, there are different ranges, too. The range where I can't reach you, the range where I can reach your lead hand, and the range where I can reach your face. Now take into account that I'm 5'7" and you may be 6'5" or have a warhammer or a handgun, things get complicated. Then we get into attitudes of using range- my main 3 are Crush your enemies, Stand your ground, and Burnt earth policy. Now it's really complex.

I think if I have a point, its that ranges "blur" for lack of a better word. Is that why he comes up with "phases" as opposed to "ranges", or have I missed the point?

Warhammer is becoming on of the most overused words in the Bujin lexicon. LOL

Ranges definately get complicated when we have a difference in body type, and they get really complicated or really simple(depending which side your on) when i have a M1A1 at 500 yards

[ps1]

I actually posted about this a few years ago. I think this book is one of the most insightful when it comes to overall strategy and understanding the jiu-jitsu approach to fighting. The people who don't like it are just those that want tons of pictures of moves.

Renzo simplifies it so that you are more aware overall. He points out that, with things like jumping knees, superman punches, and jumping kicks, you can often get hit with weapons that you felt were out of range. Examples:

turning side kick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CIKOxf6_gM superman punch

flying heel hook

jump kick

flying knee

The overall point of his work is that the Jiu-Jitsu philosophy is to take an opponent where you have the advantage. Anderson Silva has a black belt in BJJ. But he rarely goes to the ground because his stand up is so air tight. That's just smart fighting. That's jiu-jitsu, positional dominance.

[WolverineGuy]

This is something I was trying to explain yesterday to someone, and I pointed them to Renzo's book. I think, even though it is basic, its a fantastic resource, if nothing else than due to that philosophy. It was a huge paradigm shift for me, really.

[sensei8]

It's still, imho, a matter of choice to engage or not during free movement, while in the clinch/grappling, it's either engage or suffer.

[MasterPain]

It's still, imho, a matter of choice to engage or not during free movement, while in the clinch/grappling, it's either engage or suffer.

What's wrong with disengaging? If I can't enter to a clear-cut advantage, I'd just as soon back up and start over. Hopefully causing damage on the way out.

The suffering part is a simple truth of existence.