Range Training

[Thai Bri]

The "concept" of range was useful insofar as it reminded us of the need to be able to fight at all distances. But, once we had got the reminder, it became harmful. Why? Because it creates artificial barriers which we then struggle to overcome. We do a bit for boxing....then a bit for grappling......then a bit for......etc etc. And then we invent ranges that don't actually exist, i.e. Trapping. This isn't a range at all. There are plenty punches and plenty grappling attacks that can come from the so called "trapping" range. They just shoved it in their to make it sound as if it fits. And I personally think trapping is a waste of time anyway, but thats another thread.

Fighting is fighting, and you're either in range or not. The rest is a distraction.

[Drew Howe]

The "concept" of range was useful insofar as it reminded us of the need to be able to fight at all distances. But, once we had got the reminder, it became harmful. Why? Because it creates artificial barriers which we then struggle to overcome. We do a bit for boxing....then a bit for grappling......then a bit for......etc etc. And then we invent ranges that don't actually exist, i.e. Trapping. This isn't a range at all. There are plenty punches and plenty grappling attacks that can come from the so called "trapping" range. They just shoved it in their to make it sound as if it fits. And I personally think trapping is a waste of time anyway, but thats another thread.

Fighting is fighting, and you're either in range or not. The rest is a distraction.

I guess that might depend on who your instructor is. I could see instructors with a fixation on the range. Obviously, if that is given the importance in training it could become a barrier. When I first learned about ranges in JKD it was no more than just an explanation of "this can be done here and not here" etc. Don't try a hip throw when you are in kicking range. Kind of common sense I guess. Other than that there was no major significance given. Sure I was taught the tools kicking, punching, grappling, and trapping.

Trapping is a range but it is also a bridge where all the tools can be used. A lot of people discount trapping. I've even seen people use boxing as an example to demonstrate why trapping doesn't work. Trapping is limb immobilization, therefore the clinch in boxing is effectively trapping. I think that what some feel is ineffective are the trapping techniques from wing chun, and not trapping in general. I agree that some of the more complex trapping scenarios of wing chun are pretty useless in actual application. But the sensitivity and interception tools that are gained by training in JKD style trapping can be very beneficial.

For instance, Lin Sil Die Dar (simultaneous attack and defense) relies pretty heavily on some of the basic trapping techniques from modified wing chun. Both leg and arm immobilization can be used in conjunction with attack. Basically creating a jamming attack against the bad guy. You initiate your attack while nullifying the other guys attack and/or defense.

A basic example of this would be a straight lead punch to the face with the rear hand (left) pinning the other guys elbow against his body. A little more advanced version would be to have your lead leg penetrate just inside the other guys center line shin to shin while simultaneously doing all of the above. This would be the order that you would teach it. Obviously in execution you would do the whole package. Keep in mind this is by no means a complete attack. It is just the opening. You could write a whole chapter on Lin Sil Die Dar, so I'm not doing it justice in just a brief explanation here. Hopefully I'm getting the idea across though.

[brokenelbow]

I hate to agree with TB yet again but he is spot on. There seems to be a difference between true combative theory (keep it simple get it done) and what most civilians think are combatives(theory, theory and more theory). TB is right about it becoming harmful, people will gravitate toward the range which they feel comfortable in. Also your perspective Drew seems to be of two guys squared off and starting out even.

[Drew Howe]

I hate to agree with TB yet again but he is spot on. There seems to be a difference between true combative theory (keep it simple get it done) and what most civilians think are combatives(theory, theory and more theory). TB is right about it becoming harmful, people will gravitate toward the range which they feel comfortable in. Also your perspective Drew seems to be of two guys squared off and starting out even.

Not at all. I don't believe in squaring off or being even. But I know alot of people have this perspective of JKD..that people square off. I wasn't trained that way. I was trained in the common tools of JKD but also in fighting as unfair as possible. If you are squared off, you are automatically at a disadvantage. Surprise is king in my book. That and a heavy brick.

[gungfuhero]

Range theory teaches that there are distances that are more ideal for particular tools and that if you can manipulate the spacial relationship between you and your opponent (i.e. range) then you can better determine when you and your opponent engage. You CONTROL the fight with RANGE by deciding when you and your opponent engage in combat. It is a pleasing alternative to toe-ing the line and slugging or lumbering forward, jamming your attacks or getting intercepted. This is a basic theory of Jeet Kune Do, but good boxers, kickboxers and grapplers use it too.

Also, Long, Medium and Close are better ways of describing range in my opinion, and choosing different arts for different ranges (rather than assimilating them into one whole) is a good way to get jacked up while you are choosing what art you do instead of adapting and reacting.

[brokenelbow]

Range theory teaches that there are distances that are more ideal for particular tools...

Why a theory for what is obvious? Over thinking?

...and that if you can manipulate the spacial relationship between you and your opponent (i.e. range) then you can better determine when you and your opponent engage. You CONTROL the fight with RANGE by deciding when you and your opponent engage in combat. It is a pleasing alternative to toe-ing the line and slugging or lumbering forward, jamming your attacks or getting intercepted. This is a basic theory of Jeet Kune Do, but good boxers, kickboxers and grapplers use it too.

You seem to be assuming unlimited time, adequate space to move and a less than determined opponent. Many of us will never get closer to real combat than sparring or sport fighting. This is OK as long as sports are not taken to be the final word on combat. If you had to face someone and had 15 seconds or less for either of you to win how would range theory work?

[Drew Howe]

Why a theory for what is obvious? Over thinking?


You seem to be assuming unlimited time, adequate space to move and a less than determined opponent. Many of us will never get closer to real combat than sparring or sport fighting. This is OK as long as sports are not taken to be the final word on combat. If you had to face someone and had 15 seconds or less for either of you to win how would range theory work?

Agreed. Range theory and the 5 ways of attack are interesting and should be studied and explored. But at the end of the day, the advantage of offensiveness and a combination attack are the two chief elements to being the victor.

[Thai Bri]

Drew - I know the theories, and know of all this simultaneous attack and defence etc. I just reject them. I have never seen them used in an effective way in a real fight. Same as for Chi Sao. Though, occasionally, a very brief and simple limb immobilisation does work. But not these silly complicated ones that are great against willing partners or thin air. They are a distraction to real fighting.

[Drew Howe]

Drew - I know the theories, and know of all this simultaneous attack and defence etc. I just reject them. I have never seen them used in an effective way in a real fight. Same as for Chi Sao. Though, occasionally, a very brief and simple limb immobilisation does work. But not these silly complicated ones that are great against willing partners or thin air. They are a distraction to real fighting.

I basically agree with that. However, a Lin Sil Dee Dar can be done against anyone. If you are offensive you could easily pull it off. You think it's about to get a little hairy with someone, so grab an arm and hold it, and pop the dude in the nose with the other. That is a basic simultaneous attack and defense. Provided you keep in with your assault, it is still a simultaneous attack and defense. Because by keeping the presure on you are also keeping the other guy from attacking back. That is Lin Sil Dee Dar.

[Thai Bri]

When people refer to simultaneous attack and defence they usually mean the "one arm blocks and the other arm strikes" techniques. But grabbing and striking are not really the same thing. Also, I can raise my hands to protect myself whilst, at the same time, kicking someone in the cojonnes. If things like this qualify as "simultaneous attack and defence" then fine! It works. But it would be a bit like grabbing someones arm in a fight and calling it Chi Sao.........

[Drew Howe]

When people refer to simultaneous attack and defence they usually mean the "one arm blocks and the other arm strikes" techniques. But grabbing and striking are not really the same thing. Also, I can raise my hands to protect myself whilst, at the same time, kicking someone in the cojonnes. If things like this qualify as "simultaneous attack and defence" then fine! It works. But it would be a bit like grabbing someones arm in a fight and calling it Chi Sao.........

Perfect, because the Lop Sao (grabbing hand) is one of several JKD/Wing Chun techniques that is done in Chi Sao. But, Chi Sao is a sensitivity drill not a technique to be done in a fight. However, you can simultaneously lop sao and punch or kick or finger jab someone in a fight until the cows come home.

[Thai Bri]

I naturally use a few grabs prior to attack...... and I get them in too. Does that make a Sticky Hands expert? I hope so!

[v65sabre]

i thik trapping sux and wouldnt even try it in a fight.as for parry and strike at same time has worked for me quite well

[akja]

I naturally use a few grabs prior to attack...... and I get them in too. Does that make a Sticky Hands expert? I hope so!

My traps quite often start with some type of grab. The more I'm in control, the better the results.

I think a lot of people confuse trapping as just defense against attackers but if "we" know the fight is inevitable. Initiating on "our" part is better and safer to end it quickly. As soon as he begins to raise his hands, I'll attempt to re-direct them in some way and follow with something appropriate.

[Thai Bri]

My point is this - all that silly patta cake stuff where you roll your arms trying to create "sensitivity" is morework than it is worth. And I have never seen it used in a real fight.

But, for example, pulling down one of his guard hands with your left, and then smacking him square in the chops through the gap? Thats simple common sense. Easy to learn and apply, as well as quite natrual.

So, the real question is, what do we mean by "trapping"?