If You Only Had One Range

[John McNabney]

I vote for none of the above!



Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney

[JKDBrando]

John McNabney Wrote:
I vote for none of the above!



Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney

So its the art of fighting without fighting?

[Garland]

I'd go with guns, knives, improvised weapons, incendiary devices, environmental "weapons", edc's, etc....

[Razinghell]

Now this is a great thread! Thanks Michael! I would have to say that weapons range is what i would choose. I allows for more flexiblity in movement and more options to attack and defend.

[Ghost]

silent killer attack trained hamster range

[Michael Wright]

Ha ha ha. My kind of cage fighting. Nice one

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Gotta go with weapons if I'm only allowed one range. That leaves a lot more room, and a lot more effective tools to work with.

LOL Define "weapons"? Tactical nuclear devices?

Okay... personal combat?

If I recall (and I do) Mike once said; "Long range marksmanship and surveillance skills. Beats Bjj every time."


I like my karambit and I also like Judo. I can't pick just one range. The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?



Seriously? I pick "weapons" range. lol

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by Tant01

I can't pick just one range.

Then don't answer the thread Tant my friend

Originally Posted by Tant01

The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?

....like you...

[fire cobra]

Originally Posted by Tant01

LOL Define "weapons"? Tactical nuclear devices?

Okay... personal combat?

If I recall (and I do) Mike once said; "Long range marksmanship and surveillance skills. Beats Bjj every time."


I like my karambit and I also like Judo. I can't pick just one range. The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?



Seriously? I pick "weapons" range. lol

How about Judo with a Kerambit!

[JKDBrando]

Can I get a gladiators thumbs down for Tant for not being social.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by JKDBrando

Can I get a gladiators thumbs down for Tant for not being social.

............. LOL

2BZ these days to play here with you guys.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

Then don't answer the thread Tant my friend



....like you...

Exactly! LOL

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by fire cobra

How about Judo with a Kerambit!

Now you're talking!

[Sagacious Lu]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

If you took weapons away, I'd have to change my answer to clinch range, though. Even if the other guy has a weapon, I can't hope for a disarm outside clinching range (assuming running away isn't a "range" but a tactic). So it's odd that as soon as weapons are absent, trapping range or clinch range becomes the most valuable tactical choice. Other opinions?

I have a different opinion. I haven't posted in a long time but, and I pretty much never post in the JKD forum since my experience with JKD is limited to having read (and enjoyed) Bruce's book but I'll throw my two cents into this. Obviously a weapon is the best choice if you're trying to win in a life and death situation so I agree with Mike about that range. However, my choice is punching range because in the real world I am extremely unlikely to need to defend myself and boxing is IMHO much more fun than any of the other options. I live in Atlanta and even though it ranks at the top of the list in the U.S. when it comes to crime this country is safe enough that statistically the average citizen here will never need to defend themselves from violence. Since only the military, law enforcement and private security professionals really need to be good in a "real" fight I may as well pick the one I enjoy the most. I'm not discounting the other ranges, nor do I ignore the but in this thread my choice is based solely on the basis of what gives me personally the most satisfaction. Since I do not need to use violence in my professional life I think I would have to be paranoid to put my priorities anywhere else.

[Michael Wright]

Thanks for the post. The question is completely an open one, so each person's motivation for their choice and their study is entirely their perogative.

You make some interesting points. I too focus I'd say 90% of my training currently on a ring sport, boxing, because I really love and enjoy it. I agree with you that your training time and indeed your mentality should not be infected by the constant fear of a street attack. One of my teachers once said that the average person doesn't need to spend their whole life worrying about something that may never happen, and if it does will be over in ten seconds, thats a waste of life.

However, from my own point of view I don't think that allocating training time to good self-protection is "paranoid". It is inherent in human nature to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The reality is, or sorry my reality has been, that these situations can occur regardless of all your efforts to avoid them. I'm a peaceful guy, but I have been forced into a range of violent confrontations over the years. Where as I agree that they should not monopolise your motivation, I don't believe self-protection can be ignored.

I always teach a concept called "The Core", which is that 10% of absolute nitty gritty, full on, all out, worst case scenario material for defending your life. If you have that, if you maintain and enhance it, if it is always there in your back pocket - then you can just relax and enjoy your training. When I see the guys in the gym who stand around constantly moaning and questioning their art - I just think they are insecure about whats in their back pocket, should the shit ever hit the fan.

I guess overall you made a good point in that all of this depends on your environment, line of work, area, lifestyle choices etc. These have influenced your views, my background influences my views. All interesting stuff, thanks.