If You Only Had One Range

[fire cobra]

I think building up an awarness to your suroundings the enviroment,the people around you the things around you that you could use for defence/offence etc is fun to,as much fun as a round on the pads or sparring to me.
Just this morning i was using a small stool,a wallet,and pair of shoes against a blade attack,it was great fun.
I can imagine some people turning this into paranoia,but i prefer to think of it as good awareness and great fun,especially when im the one with longer bigger weapon!

[Sagacious Lu]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

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 didn't intend to say that training with an eye for self-defense was paranoid, nor did I mean to say that I ignore self-defense personally. I wrote my post that way because so far people have been citing the tools and advantages of their chosen range as the reason for their choice- for good reason- but I wanted to approach the question from a different angle. Don't get me wrong, I keep a shotgun handy for home protection (target practice is fun too), and I wouldn't focus so much on boxing if it weren't one of the best ways to develop practical fighting skills. However, I don't ask myself what the absolute optimum way to train is for self-defense when deciding what to work on. The reason being that the more I enjoy my training the more I train, and thus the better I get. When I decide to work on something just "because it's good for me" I start to lose my enthusiasm and when that happens my work outs start to be less productive. Obviously for a training program to be effective one MUST be disciplined and that means doing certain things whether you enjoy them or not, even if you aren't in the mood for it on a given day but what I'm getting at is, I think, what you're talking about here:

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.

The point that I'm making is that for the over-whelming majority of us if we're honest with ourselves we don't train because we HAVE to we train because we love doing it. Sometimes in the process of trying to find the most bad ass way to train it's easy to lose sight of that fact- I think that mentality is the reason many of the people you're talking about in the quote above are insecure in their training.

[bodhisattva]

I choose weapons, because, obviously "Guns Are Better."

Wait, that's kind of obvious, it would be kind of dumb to post the obvious.

---

I couldn't pick one range. They all blend together. It's a whole unit that we subdivide for sake of communication and instruction.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Sagacious Lu

I didn't intend to say that training with an eye for self-defense was paranoid, nor did I mean to say that I ignore self-defense personally. I wrote my post that way because so far people have been citing the tools and advantages of their chosen range as the reason for their choice- for good reason- but I wanted to approach the question from a different angle. Don't get me wrong, I keep a shotgun handy for home protection (target practice is fun too), and I wouldn't focus so much on boxing if it weren't one of the best ways to develop practical fighting skills. However, I don't ask myself what the absolute optimum way to train is for self-defense when deciding what to work on. The reason being that the more I enjoy my training the more I train, and thus the better I get. When I decide to work on something just "because it's good for me" I start to lose my enthusiasm and when that happens my work outs start to be less productive. Obviously for a training program to be effective one MUST be disciplined and that means doing certain things whether you enjoy them or not, even if you aren't in the mood for it on a given day but what I'm getting at is, I think, what you're talking about here:



The point that I'm making is that for the over-whelming majority of us if we're honest with ourselves we don't train because we HAVE to we train because we love doing it. Sometimes in the process of trying to find the most bad ass way to train it's easy to lose sight of that fact- I think that mentality is the reason many of the people you're talking about in the quote above are insecure in their training.

Couldn't agree more.

I like training Boxing/Clinch/Wrestling/Bjj adjust for MMA. I like doing that because it has already shown it's utility.

I could walk around class talking about "the street" all night. And I could paint grim depressing scenes all night. And I could describe and train grim, depressing tactics, all night. But that's pretty stupid. Why not just train what has utility, and throw out the stupid, grim, depressing stuff.

Practice only what has utility, but then throw out all that depressing talk and just enjoy practicing.

It's funny how so many guys who train techniques that are "only for the street" can't seem to pull those techniques off "in the street" or "on the mat."

Likewise with all the people doing "knife training." I can't fathom a more dangerous person with a knife than a man who has trained unarmed boxing, clinch, and groundfighting for a few years with dedication, to a high level of skill. Now the knife is in his cross or jab hand. Now the knife is part of his neck tie and part of his underhook. Now the knife is part of his strangle and part of his arm bar and will come into play in all kinds of situations aside from those.

Guys who train primarily for the mat, always seem pretty good at pulling off their techniques "in the street" and "on the mat."

That's why I like the Straight Blast Gym stuff so much. It has all the utility it needs, without much of the stupid, grim, or depressing.

http://www.straightblastgym.com/store.htm

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I can. Butchers. Slaughterhouse workers. Oh, and people who train to use knives to kill people.

There's a lot more to knife work than poking holes in people. In my admittedly limited opinion, real knife training doesn't start until you realize that all the vital targets are on the inside and begin using the tool specifically to reach and damage them. A good jab with a knife in the thigh isn't the same as an educated jab right to the abdominal aorta or the cluster of veins and arteries in the hip cradle.

Specific education should not be undervalued.

Actually, I don't know if any of the Sayoc guys are reading this, but I'd love to get Sun Helmet's take on the matter. He can most assuredly speak with far greater experience and intelligence on the matter than I can.

Yeah, and the actual SKILL to hit those points is within the boxing, clinch and groundfighting.

As far as studying "where to hit," honestly, it does you little good until you develop the "skill to hit." "Where to hit" can be learned in a week or a months study. "Skill to hit" is a never ending cycle of training.

Same as "skill to control." Gotta train clinch and ground to have that.

If I can take a man's back in the clinch, then I can take his back when I have a knife - too. And when I'm behind him, I don't have to be a Fillipino knife master to know that the kidneys and the throat make great targets - or that I can reach his heart from behind almost as easily as from the front. ETC.

If I can wrestle a man down, and strangle him easily - then I can just as easily cut his throat. If I know where the tendons are for pain controls, and I know where the blood vessels are for compression, then why would I not know where to stick my knife - as well? Cut the tendon - destroy the arm. I have a good liver shot - I developed it boxing. If I have a knife in my hand, my livershot becomes horrific. If someone simply says "twist the knife as you yank it out" to me, I don't need trained to do it if I already have the boxing skill to set up and complete a good livershot.

However, if I don't have the boxing skill to set up and deliver a good livershot, then putting a knife in my hands won't magically give me that skill, nor will telling me the liver is a good place to sink and twist a knife.

The "skill" takes a lot longer to learn - and is the truly important element. And that skill is to be found in boxing, clinch, and groundfighting.

[bodhisattva]

Mike - I don't have to talk to a wisened Kali master to learn where the large nexus of arteries are within the body, nor do I need ask him where the nerves or tendons are located. I learned all that in High School Anatomy I & II and University Level Anatomy 101 and 103.

Maybe there are STILL a lot of fine points I don't know, but, jesus, Mike, a person doesn't have to know every stab target and every slash target and every nerve plexus.

A person SHOULD however know some of them, and be able to attack them effectively.

And that is easily learned while boxing, and working submission grappling skills on the ground and in the clinch.

--

I don't really figure a butcher would be a "most dangerous man" with a knife, any more than I figure a karateka "board breaking champion" is the most dangerous man with his fists.

[bodhisattva]

If you don't have the skill to deliver the technique, the technique is pretty much useless.

What would be the point in over specializing in knife tactics before someone even has the skill or ability to control a man in the clinch or to strangle him on the ground?

I mean, if I were some TV black ops soldier in a movie who sneaks up behind sentries and kills them with a blade - SURE!

But as a guy training to be as well rounded and strong as he can be in ALL ranges, why on earth would I focus in and specialize on all of the subtleties of knifing people? Why would I need that level of specialization there? Why would I let my clinch suffer or my ground game suffer or my striking game suffer so I could learn 300 subtleties of knifing, instead of just 20 or so?

--

A good example - I like to train with sticks, and I like sparring with them.

And I consider that enough. I don't, then, go learn to use swords, as well. I know my stick knowledge, should I (UNLIKELY!) find myself defending myself with a sword - will be *enough*

So I don't overspecialize, and learn the adjustments to stick fighting that applies only to swords. Why over specialize on the minutiae?

Unless you intend to be a "ninja" or something stupid like that, boxing/clinch/grappling give enough info to make someone awfully scary with a knife in their hands. No need to bother the Sayoc master - let him teach the men that truly need to use a knife as a tool in human flesh (for whatever reason a man would need to do that.) I am not looking for his instruction as I'd just be a waste of his time. I'm not sticking people with knives, ever, in my future.

And if I am sticking someone with a knife in the future, he's probably screwed, even if I don't have the knife masters training. He probably doesn't wake up early on Saturday monring just to train boxing, clinch and ground as his favorite hobby, he probably hasn't ever fought with a stick in a live setting, and he probably doesn' t know that I do all of those things.

And if he has received the training from some knife master, and he carves me up into tiny bits of steak and kabob's me on a grill, I'll make certain he passes on a small note to you, Mike that says "Dang, dude, you were right. My flashlight didn't work, my steel boots were too cold and I was standing on ice, the guy was a knife master and I was just this dork with boxing and clinch and ground and no gun."

And then you guys can show your knife collections off to each other and trade your favorite code words that mean "I'm going to fight."

--

And, Yes, Mike. Definitely! That is totally what I was saying. I believe! in the invincibility of fitness.

And you're right, hanging out with athletes is probably a bad idea. What was I thinking? They gots my heads all screwed up believing in dumb concepts like "health" and "exercise" and "performance" and "nutrition."

What was I thinking! I should return to the basement and buy a bong, instead!

[Tant01]

Weapons range is just vague enough to work for me. If my weapon is effective at 800 meters or if my weapon is a strangulation technique...

:-) LOL

[Happy Cat]

At some point, some of these posts sound like they are being written by actual or want to be killers. In my humble opinion that is not what JKD is about.

Bruce and James Lee were not killers and they did not generaly practice the arts in order to Kill. Kali was designed for tribal fighting. If you can adapt it for the street (as in self defense), great. But if you want to kill people on the street, perhaps some counseling would be a good idea

[Michael Wright]

You carry a gun. Does that make you a want to be killer? No, you are just aware that prevention is better than cure, or that extreme situations may call from extreme measures. That's all we are discussing, so watch that slippy high ground there.

[Happy Cat]

Ya, the high ground is slipery. There is just something about all that Kali slashing that I don't like. Maybe I am a Martial arts prude. Just don't slash in my direction.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

.....If JKD is about truth in combat, then it must include an understanding of firearms - at least if you live someplace where firearms can be used. And once you understand firearms, it doesn't take long to realize they are terribly effective. By virtue of the JKD ideal of "using what is useful," guess what conclusions you can now draw about your training?

I think this tendency for people to fall in love with the idea of "duelling" is responsible for a lot of the attitudes that mischaracterize people this way. You seem to have this idea that fighting is somehow an honorable thing, and that there's some kind of code of behavior or fair play involved. Playing by those rules is how martial artists get shot by bad guys who don't care about the rules.

It could be worse than that... If ignorance is the enemy you could be shot by "accident" or by virtue of being in the (exact) wrong place at the wrong moment.

Bullets are nothing but a dumb projectile. They go where they go.

I always get a cautionary "feeling" when I shoot things at (point blank) short range. Yes I use eye protection, for what it's worth(?)

Anything less than 10 or 15 feet away has a greater chance of deflecting fragments of stuff straight back at you.

It doesn't happen often but it does happen. PEOPLE don't always follow the rules, by ignorance or by design.

Lets face it, PEOPLE do stupid things with guns ALL the time.

I'm just saying...

Education about the weapons can't hurt...

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

All,

Just wanted to get some training discussions going. A question I have always been interested in. If you could only train and function in one of the above ranges of combat, which one would you choose? Note that you can only train in and perform in that specific range, no crosstraining, pick one and stick with it.

Please offer your thoughts, and your rationale as to why you picked that option.

Thanks

MW

Hey Michael, how's it going? Happy belated New Year....

Anyway, I'd have to saying Boxing Range. Though I continue to train in the various ranges, nothing beats knocking a guy out and then standing there, looking down at him! Or simply messing with his mind with some nice sharp jabs and footwork! Or being clocked by the guy and feeling that rush of adrenalin as you grin and get back in there....Boxing is also the easiest to train in to effeciency as it's a very compact art and has some great science behind it. It looks good, too. It's also great against kickers, very few can effectively trap it, and, to some degree, it can work against grapplers, as well. It's a great self-defence art. It's not the be-all, but you did say one range. Best of all, one of my great passions is helping others less fortunate to learn how to defend themselves quickly: boxing is easy to teach to others in need of efficient self-defence in a short time.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

All,

Just wanted to get some training discussions going. A question I have always been interested in. If you could only train and function in one of the above ranges of combat, which one would you choose? Note that you can only train in and perform in that specific range, no crosstraining, pick one and stick with it.

Please offer your thoughts, and your rationale as to why you picked that option.

Thanks

MW

If I had to pick ONE range, I'd pick the Clinch - hitting, throwing and takedowns.

The clinch decides whether the battle stays up or hits the ground.

It has striking and it has throws and it has takedowns.

It controls your opponents arms in case he is a better striker than you are - you can take some "oomph" out of his punch by controlling his shoulders.

It leads to quick knockouts - knees, elbows, headbutts and then also hooks and uppercuts..

It has loads of "dirty tricks" - gouges, biting, stomping..

It can keep a groundfighter from getting you down..

It can keep a boxer from hitting you as much (boxers that work the clinch are an exception to this.. of course..)

It has several submissions (standing triangle choke, guillotine, etc.)

Lots of pathways to the man's back

The throws alone can finish a fight if the guy breaks a clavicle, hurts a shoulder, lands on his face / neck, breaks an arm catching himself as he lands, lands crooked or stupid or some other way you wouldn't think a guy could actually land, but still does it anyway in total defiance of physics and grace..

We've all seen it.. guy goes "splat" and, wincing, you are thinking "Could you have fallen any WORSE?..."

Oh yeah, and another good reason - IF it DOES go to the GROUND - I can at least arrive in a dominant position..

--

that's my pick. Clinch.

--

And I'm not sure what range "Weapons" range is these days. It's an old JKD term, I know. But after dog brothers showed us all the filipino stick grappling in the clinch and on the ground, it gets kind of confusing deciding where "weapons" range is..

As well as when you consider hand guns and the open minds most of us here have about hand guns.

I mean, if you bring hand guns in, the only sane answer would be "weapons" range - because as we all know - Gun beats steel-toed shoe.

Just some thoughts on the current view of "ranges" in JKD and MMA fighting.

[Michael Wright]

Good points Bodhi, I agree with all the strengths of Clinch Range.

What I was defining as Weapons range is the distance, space and time to draw and use a weapon of choice, be that edged, blunt or ballistic. For many I appreciate that puts it right to the top of the list, but some people have no experience/training in weapons or no legal right to carry them. So I wanted to leave it open for all.

Anyway, good points again, thanks.