If You Only Had One Range

[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

[JKDBrando]

If I had to stick with the one range Trapping/Clinch range would be it. I train Wing Chun with my JKD and have found myself looking for the inside angles more and more. This range leaves for room for explosive elbows, fast hands, Killer knees to the thighs, ribs and over all mid section as well as the occasional knee to face reception. I believe it also to be the hardest range to do combat in because your opponent most likely owns the same tools you do.

Big props to Mookie(wooden dummy) for letting me have my way when ever I want.

[Knuckles&Knees]

For me it's a toss up between punching and ground fighting. I ultimately picked punching though.

Rationale. I'm not sure it's the right or wrong choice or the better or worse of the choices, but I fear that close range more, and I come from a culture of hands, plus I simply have confidence in what good hands can accomplish.


Best case though... you're well rounded. Or in other terms... a JKD badass. (I'm convinced Jason Borne is the baddest man on the planet, by the way)

[fire cobra]

Long range,though my fav range is clinch,against a bigger man,armed or multiple opponents i would choose long range.

[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.

[Michael Wright]

Thanks for the responses guys, and yeah you are absolutely right Mike, I'm forcing a commitment on one range. I know its in all of us to say "flow through the ranges" or " there is only one range", but I guess I'm provoking thoughts of strengths and weaknesses.

I started the poll off with my vote of weapons range. If I only had on range to specialise in, I would make it that, purely because if offers the luxury of choice be that evasion, escape, knife, handgun or whatever. Just my personal preference.

[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?

[fire cobra]

Such a hard question to answer really isnt it? how big is your opponent?,how experienced? etc etc,however being a hypothetical question we can have some fun thinking about it.

Here are some of my whats and whys.

I love clinch range,i like elbows, knees, ,and throws mainly from Muay Thai,i have done a long study on my trips to Thailand of the clinch(plam)range and techniques and as i said earlier i love that range,however if my opponent is more than 2 stone heavier than me i struggle to make a lot of the technique work,head control however has never(yet!) failed me on any size man.

That weight/strength ratio is why i would have to chose long range first as i could try to use the space to evade/avoid and strike vunerable targets of bigger stronger men.

Weapons and multiple opponents obviously add a very different set of variables and dynamics,if i had a blade then i would want to be close on that same big guy i wanted to stay away from earlier!.

I have a good friend who is a veteran of many scraps(street) and he has a saying "confidence is king" and i belive that to be 100percent correct,attitude very definately maks the difference.

This is a fun thought provoking thread and surely that very thinking process helps us all to learn.

Have a great Holiday season guys and gals,

Peace.

[Michael Wright]

What got me thinking about the thread, is that we are all spoilt with cross training in this day and age, so only one range is not something we need to worry about. But I remember when I first started martial arts I did Tae Kwon Do, and at that time I genuinely thought that in a street fight I would dance around in kicking range throwing spinning crescent kicks. I didn’t know any better (I soon found out). The same with Wing Chun, I thought I would just wander in and do all my trapping, again I soon found out. So that’s why I got thinking, if I had to go back and only function in one range (I didn’t want to say one art, imagine that debate!) what would that range be?

Again my choice was weapons range only if anything goes. If you take the weapons away, I would have to agree with clinch. It is the most ballistic, where all tools fly, and it is also a very common range for dialogue and confrontation.

[fire cobra]

What whaaat! Michael are you trying to tell us Tae Kwon Do isnt good for the street! and that you really cant pak sau someone to near death! oh man looks like im guna have to re-think my training!.

[Ghost]

i dont/wont carry a weapon so id opt for one of the hand to hand ranges.
its between punching and clinch range for me. Its very hard choice

In favour of boxing its my best range and therefore an obvious choice, on the other hand clinch is a close second and much harder for the average guy to defend against who has no training in it. Most people can throw something resembling a punch but clinch them and its like taking someone to the ground that doesnt know any ground technique, they just dont know what to do. This gives clinch range a huge advantage and chance to be a successful range.

Boxing gives me more chance to move and run than clinch does and is better for striking at multiple attackers at the same time it also gives me better situational awareness due to its range, this is where clinch really is let down and it ties up your defense very much even if you manage to use one guy as a human shield, its not the same as having both hands up.

so for me it boils down to
Boxing:
better situational awareness
better defense against multiple attackers
more chance to move and/or run

Clinch:
more chance of success against 1 opponent as not many people know how to deal with it.
strikes are more devastating ie elbow, knee, standing chokes with knee strikes etc


SO i have to choose 1, and i choose clinch, here is why.
The times i have been in a "real" fight its always been the other person starting it and they have either been muggers with 1 other person or lone or, and most commonly, drunks.
When its been drunks in a crowded pub/bar, 1 guy getting brave and having a pop and possibly 1 of his mates half backing him up while his other mates are too pissed to notice.
The fight happens, main guy is taken down, then the other guy might have a go, mates are too pissed to really react.
Thats happened quite a few times to me not exactly like that of course but you could say that that is a rough blue print for what happens.

So the reason i chose clinch, is because its less obvious than boxing, doenst even look like you are having a fight at times in a crowded place as opposed to trading punches. grabbing someone round the neck and throwing a couple of really hard knees is surprisingly unnoticeable compared to squaring off.
No one ever knows what to do when you clinch them and the fight, 1 on 1 is won easily.

Against muggers its a similar deal, id rather take them somewhere they really dont know and arent expecting.

its a close call though, in the situations i describe although they are only blueprints ive always used punches as well.but if i think through in my head to own experiences its the clinch work that i opted to push for most and has worked for me.

there end of waffle

[fire cobra]

Originally Posted by Ghost

i dont/wont carry a weapon so id opt for one of the hand to hand ranges.
its between punching and clinch range for me. Its very hard choice

In favour of boxing its my best range and therefore an obvious choice, on the other hand clinch is a close second and much harder for the average guy to defend against who has no training in it. Most people can throw something resembling a punch but clinch them and its like taking someone to the ground that doesnt know any ground technique, they just dont know what to do. This gives clinch range a huge advantage and chance to be a successful range.

Boxing gives me more chance to move and run than clinch does and is better for striking at multiple attackers at the same time it also gives me better situational awareness due to its range, this is where clinch really is let down and it ties up your defense very much even if you manage to use one guy as a human shield, its not the same as having both hands up.

so for me it boils down to
Boxing:
better situational awareness
better defense against multiple attackers
more chance to move and/or run

Clinch:
more chance of success against 1 opponent as not many people know how to deal with it.
strikes are more devastating ie elbow, knee, standing chokes with knee strikes etc


SO i have to choose 1, and i choose clinch, here is why.
The times i have been in a "real" fight its always been the other person starting it and they have either been muggers with 1 other person or lone or, and most commonly, drunks.
When its been drunks in a crowded pub/bar, 1 guy getting brave and having a pop and possibly 1 of his mates half backing him up while his other mates are too pissed to notice.
The fight happens, main guy is taken down, then the other guy might have a go, mates are too pissed to really react.
Thats happened quite a few times to me not exactly like that of course but you could say that that is a rough blue print for what happens.

So the reason i chose clinch, is because its less obvious than boxing, doenst even look like you are having a fight at times in a crowded place as opposed to trading punches. grabbing someone round the neck and throwing a couple of really hard knees is surprisingly unnoticeable compared to squaring off.
No one ever knows what to do when you clinch them and the fight, 1 on 1 is won easily.

Against muggers its a similar deal, id rather take them somewhere they really dont know and arent expecting.

its a close call though, in the situations i describe although they are only blueprints ive always used punches as well.but if i think through in my head to own experiences its the clinch work that i opted to push for most and has worked for me.

there end of waffle

Nice Waffle Ghost!.

[Ghost]

lol thanks, i had a hard time seeing what i was typing cos i did it in the quick reply section and now i see i repeated myself a few times and many sentences dont actually make sense, not helped by the fact its 2am nearly hmmm.

But you get the idea of what i mean

[Michael Wright]

Great post Ghost, really enjoyed reading that, and I agree 100% with what you say. It is such a tough call, but empty hand if I absolutely had to pick one, then its clinch.

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by fire cobra

What whaaat! Michael are you trying to tell us Tae Kwon Do isnt good for the street! and that you really cant pak sau someone to near death! oh man looks like im guna have to re-think my training!.

ha ha. When I was 16 or 17, I was a blue belt in TKD at the local YMCA club in Wakefield - which basically meant I thought I was Jean Claude Van Damme. I was walking home with a girl one night (this is completely true, you couldn't make it up) and she asked me to show her some moves. I said I could kick way above her head and would show her a reverse crescent kick (my forte at the time). She stood still, I prepared myself......not realising that it was November, it was Yorkshire, and it was slippy. I LAUNCHED my special ninja move...........not only did my supporting foot give way and I fell flat on my back, but in the process I kicked this poor girl in the face with my DM boot!!

And guess what, she stayed with me for 4 years! So when people say high kicks don't work.....in your face mate! (literally)