PDA

View Full Version : Distance Theories



CEB
30th April 2003, 19:46
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I've spent some small amount of time sparring with people who have had extensive boxing training. The one thing I came away with is that if you keep them at kicking distance you can beat them. The last thing you want is let one of those guys close with you so he can start nailing your guts with jabs.
...

:beer:


Is it easier to close with somebody that want to maintain kicking distance than it is to maintain kicking distance with somebody who really wants to close? I've got some opinions on the subject based on personal experience but I have seen exceptions to these ideas occur so maybe is really does depends entirely on the matchup of the two fighters. In the case of evenly matched individuals is one easier than the other.

Gene Williams
30th April 2003, 22:22
I do not consider kicks long range weapons...they are short range weapons. Your feet and legs are long range transport, but your hands are long range weapons. Try this: place a rokushaku bo on the floor and have uke stand at one end in hachiji dachi, and you stand in the same stance at the other end. Train so that, using the spring in your legs and hips, you can hit him with oi zuki... powerfully and with a good zenkutsu, not leaning forward and unbalanced. Or, do the same but have someone hold a one inch board and break it from that distance. Start from a shorter distance if you need to and work up. Most untrained people do not think you can hit them and hurt them from 5 or 6 feet away in one move. That is the other thing, no stutter stepping or two-stepping...lunge from a standstill. Some TKD types can do this with kicks, but they are completely vulnerable to counters and unbalanced. Hands are long range weapons. When I have sparred with boxers, my impression is that they are not used to someone lunging and crawling all over them karate fashion. But, you cannot fight their fight and try to out jab and outcombo them. Boxers like to get off first, but they are really good at that and so it is often a mistake to wait and try to counter. I guess my philosophy is to close with the enemy no matter what, or lure him to close with you. Gene

Shitoryu Dude
30th April 2003, 23:07
Your school doesn't teach closing from 6 feet away (or more) for punches? It's not that hard to learn - though you should never be in a standstill. A punch from what is usually considered "kicking distance" can be quite effective because it is typically unexpected and you can deliver hard blows to the midsection without any resistance.

As for "long range" or "short range" - I would say that depends on your personal definition, but you cannot execute an effective kick when you are too close, but your elbows, knees and hands are quite effective at those distances. Likewise, an effective kicker can keep someone trained to use only their fists out of range of getting hit. In practical terms, the difference between long and short range may only be a matter of six or twelve inches for a lot of people. The fact that most people train for kicks at too far a distance from their opponent should be considered.

:beer:

gmanry
30th April 2003, 23:43
I agree completely. The advent of fully extended kicks in kata for aesthetic purposes has completely destroyed most MAs understanding of proper kicking range, energy transfer, and follow through.

On the rare occassion that I ever competed in a point tournament, I usually mopped up with oi tsuke (lunge punch) ala Taikyoku kata. I usually got negative points because no matter how loose I kept my hand, my opponents would have their heads snap back due to the simple presence of my extended skeleton passing through their centerline. This is the vital lesson of Taikyoku, distance training.

When training against multiple opponents, this sort of thing comes out naturally. It is only in one-on-one "duels" that people seem to want to become stand-still turtles with no sense of distance or timing. That is why I am loathe to let students take place in "open" sparring without controlling the practice sessions with particular goals for the training. Rarely will a professional fighter just "goes at it" in their sparring. It is a purposeful, controlled affair.

Of course, stutter steping and other cheats are all within the pacing of basic oi tsuke. I used to practice the center line of taikyoku with a broken rhythm step that really throws people off of their footwork and timing, not unlike stutter stepping in TKD. Experimentation is the key to getting this concept beyond the basics.

Front kick is not a long distance weapon, it is a disrupting and punishing short "punch" with the foot. If you turn it into a thai style push kick that is fine, but then that is a variation very different from the karate basic. Not wrong, but more like a distant cousin. Pinan yondan shows us that front kick is a bladder kick or an attack to the shin, hip, or pelvic girdle. If you try to extend it, the rest of the possible combinations totally disappear. What I typically see is neither a proper front kick nor a good push or stomp kick ala Muay Thai or Taijutsu (all three of which are very effective for their proper purposes).

Even the high front kick is often taught as a thrusting extension, but it is, IMHO, better executed as an upward swing of the hip with the knee kept bent at impact, extension occurs through the opening of the hip and a little knee extension. This allows the toes and ball of the foot to dig into the right targets. Words fail me.

Because all kicks should impact around 75% to 80% of full extension, the actual range of the kick is much less than appearances would indicate. Full extension is impossible with most kicks against a full sized and weighted target, and the attempt to extend represents follow through and not the range to target.

This is one of my biggest gripes of most commercial MA. The instructors have no clue how the body actually works through the muscular/skeletal system. This seems to be a pretty important thing, but apparently is not required by most MA programs.:mad:

I get tired of having to completely break down the bad habits of the typical Take Your Dough student. I feel bad for them, but at the same time, I dread working with them. Unfortunately, the only schools in my new place of residents are Take Your Dough schools, and I have seen what they have to offer.:rolleyes:

CEB
1st May 2003, 03:31
Good stuff so far.

My kicks are pretty close range but then again I'm like 6 foot tall but I wear 28 inch inseam pants. My legs are like a couple of fire plugs. The low butt is good for Judo but I'l never make the National Tae Kwon Do Team.

Just to let you know my karate training perspective. We don't point spar. We do a type of continous sparring in our dojo. We hit hard to the body but we to control the head contact somewhat. Enough head contact to let you know you've been had but still it is limited. In a point type situation a kick that some people may consider overextended is OK if it tags a scoring area because it stops play. I don't give squat about tag, but it seems to be an important piece of some people's training. Maybe some people's long strecthed out kicks can pack a lot of power. I guess as long as you don't allow the body command and control (head) to get taken out I' a skeptical about these long stretched out kicks, but it may provide a good chance for a nice kuchiki taoshi.

I like to close. People have tried to keep me outside my maiai but I usually don't have a problem getting in. Sometimes I'll just protect the head and eat one (or two) to the body but I always seem to get my range. If I can get a little bit of elbow or forearm on their attack it seems to go quite a ways in taking stream off the body shot. So I guess I should clarify what I mean by eat. I'm not as big into self abuse as I might have sounded.

I've seen guys sucessfully use kicking techniques to fight an outside game. The example that comes to mind is a fight I saw between Marco Ruas and some really big boy named Paul Varelans (UFC 6 or 7). Ruas was about half the size of Varelans but just stayed outside his zone and kept using a reaching low round kick to the big guys lead leg. Eventually the big guy's leg collasped.

This sort of example is why I hestitate to come right out and say point blank, it easy easier to force a close distance fight than to maintain a long distance relationship. I really want to say this, but my fight experience is limited to just karate, judo and honky tonks. The world is a much bigger place. I thought the topic would be a good change pace for the group. Harvey inspired me with his post in the other thread. Thanks guys good night.

gmanry
1st May 2003, 04:07
Something to remember about that fight is that Varelans knew Ruas has a ground game, so closing wasn't necessarily a good idea. Psychologically he couldn't move in and that was always his game, big dude, move in crush, destroy, Hulk smash, me make holes in teeth, etc...:D

However, I definitely agree, some people can pull it off. Superfoot Wallace did for years. Granted the rules were very limited but he ate people alive with his feet.

I think what I am so consternated about in todays atmosphere of MA is that even though people are learning multiple ranges and such, I still don't see much fluidity of movement between the ranges. Now I am in boxing mode, now I am in wrestling mode, kicking mode, etc.

Not that I have the type of fluidity of range and movement I am thinking about mind you, but I am working on it.

To answer your very most firstest question, imo, it is easier to close on the kicker than to fend off the closer. The reason is that to close you can just keep moving forward, to fend you have to eventually STOP to plant and hit, kick, etc. This by its very nature breaks your desired distance, it is built into the blueprint, so to speak.

Even Bruce Lee, who by far was one of the most fluid fighters I have seen on film (real film not movies) could not escape that simple rule. An exception to this would be when he would use a finger jab to the face, you can do this with floating footwork and it does not require much connection with the ground for power. Even Ali when he KO'd people moving backwards timed it such that his opponent was planting when he did so he kept the rythm even and then broke it on the half-beat. Not too many of us have that sort of skill, or, we don't know about it to train it. I can talk about it real good though. ;)

Goju Man
1st May 2003, 04:21
I've seen guys sucessfully use kicking techniques to fight an outside game. The example that comes to mind is a fight I saw between Marco Ruas and some really big boy named Paul Varelans (UFC 6 or 7). Ruas was about half the size of Varelans but just stayed outside his zone and kept using a reaching low round kick to the big guys lead leg. Eventually the big guy's leg collasped
Now now Ed, you're going to be known as MMA man.:D
I responded to this on another thread. The problem boxers have is they don't train for kicks or train kicking. Kind of like when I was a kid, you could throw any kick and it was like wow! No one ever saw much kicking in those days. Now, everyone's a kicker. You can take a good boxer, set him up with a good trainer for a few months and that kicking strategy can change really quick. There are some mma fighters who have learned to kick, like Matt Hughes for one. Wrestlers who have learned to box like Randy Couture. ;)

Goju Man
1st May 2003, 04:26
Something to remember about that fight is that Varelans knew Ruas has a ground game, so closing wasn't necessarily a good idea. Psychologically he couldn't move in and that was always his game, big dude, move in crush, destroy, Hulk smash, me make holes in teeth, etc..
I must disagree with you on this Glenn. Although Ruas has a ground game, it was not the level as the Gracies. It was Ruas who did not want to get tangled up with the big guy. Ruas is an excellent striker. His protege, also an excellent striker can not get his ground game together and is the reason he hasn't won the champoinship. (Pedro Rizzo)

Kimura
1st May 2003, 05:44
I think everyone here has brought up some great analogies & theories.
One theory that I have on making all of these ideas work for real is to constantly step outside the comfort zone and test these theories out with good practicioners from other disciplines.

Too many times I hear practicioners make analogies about certain styles,strategies or game plans in order to defeat a particular style,I think we all have well thought out game plans.The only way to put yourself in a position to find out if these things work or not is to train with competent practicioners from other disciplines.

I have heard karate practicioners make analogies about defeating the guard without ever training with a competent bjj guard player inorder to understand the full mechanics of how it works.I am a true believer in learning how to defend against something by learning how it really works offensively.

Case in point,if you want to learn how to defend against leg kicks you better learn exactly how it works,how it is properly executed and only then will you really comprehend the technique good enough to defend against it.


I like to use this combat strategy for every situation.in order to defend against boxing go and study boxing when you learn all the ins and out of boxing one is automaticaly gaining the knowledge needed to defeat that boxing strategy,it's really as easy as that.same thing goes with judo or wrestling,How many times have we heard a martial artist make a statement like this.....Oh he will never throw me,I will do this or that first.My friends the best defense against judo or wrestling is to learn judo or wrestling.you will learn the trajectory along with the defensive balance of the throws,guess what?......... your going to be that much harder to throw.




It's very easy to speculate or come to the conclusion that all boxers can be kept at bay with kicks.It will always come down to who is fighting who and what each participant brings to the table.There are some nasty boxers out there that although they might have never trained in any kicking art understand the trajectory motion of kicks and even if you happen to nail them with a good shot,they might take that shot inorder to put themselves right were they want to be.

The boxer is also not immune to this theory he must also pay the consquences if he did not prepare himself for something from outside the boxing world,there are to many variables and no absolutes.Benny urquidez golden phrase fits to a tee KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

Hector Gomez

Goju Man
1st May 2003, 12:14
Talking about leg kicks, Pete Spratt won his match at the UFC last week with a great inside leg kick on Robby Lawler. Who was that guy at ringside?? :) Was that an E-Budo notable??

gmanry
1st May 2003, 14:00
You may well be right Manny. However, I do believe the psychological element of fighting "Ruas" played a part in Varelans defeat. Of course, neither of us will ever know the whole truth. I will have to watch that fight again. Until then, I may well be talking out my butt. :D

I think Ruas wanted to avoid the clinch and take down not because of a deficiency in skill but because it does burn a lot of energy. Against a larger opponent even more so, and Varelans is not without ground skills. Varelans' ground game is not so polished as he wants to go to the ground with a seasoned champion though. Who really knows...all just thoughts and theories as Hector pointed out.

Seeing as I am in Wyoming in a town of 15,000 with only Take Your Dough and very poorly taught Judo to play with, I don't have much opportunity to test things against other seasoned fighters anymore. My wife and I practice a lot of drills and I work on a lot of feeling solo drills to simulate certain situations. We apply our judo knowledge, Kyokushin, and limited but drilled ground skills to try things out from time to time.

I do spend a lot of time tearing apart certain things to get a better understanding of them. At the moment I am tackling a whole new art, that takes a lot of time, but then it is a new perspective on the same old stuff: distance, timing, rhythm, fluidity,etc.

From a purely analytical/mechanical point of view, holding all other things constant, the "closer" will have an easier time closing distance than the "fender" will in maintaining it. Eventually the defender runs out of room, must make adjustments or defend, necessitating a break in the flow of movement away from the attacker. If the attacker is consistently moving forward towards the defender, he or she will naturally close the distance.

Broken rhythm, angles, mistakes, etc. will delay this and possibly allow for the defeat of the closer. But if you "run the numbers" without that happening, the closer will always "win" the distance fight. Think about it analytically first, then come up with the strategies given the base inevitabilities. This is where skill, experience, and adaptability do come into play.

For the truly geeky, one could even set this up in an excel spreadsheet and run iterations, you will get the same base results over and over.

As Hector pointed out, this is a theory, but this is where training starts, from basic facts. Then one can run the variations coming out of those basic facts. Good discussion so far. :cool:

Goju Man
1st May 2003, 22:39
I think Ruas wanted to avoid the clinch and take down not because of a deficiency in skill but because it does burn a lot of energy. Against a larger opponent even more so, and Varelans is not without ground skills. Varelans' ground game is not so polished as he wants to go to the ground with a seasoned champion though. Who really knows...all just thoughts and theories as Hector pointed out.
I think you are right. Going to the ground with a guy your weight is one thing, going to the ground with a guy who is 100 lbs. more than you is another.

From a purely analytical/mechanical point of view, holding all other things constant, the "closer" will have an easier time closing distance than the "fender" will in maintaining it.
I don't think that's necessarily the case IMO, sometimes the defender has an advantage with an overly agressive fighter in taking him down. But it's really about awareness. When you train regularly against people good at takedowns, you will develop an awareness for the sprawl, for example, as does Chuck Lidell.
Broken rhythm, angles, mistakes, etc.
Someone quoting Bruce Lee, excellent. Bruce was the first to talk about the different ranges and addressed grappling to some extent. He even showcased it at the begining of Enter The Dragon. He was way ahead of his time, we've just caught up.:)

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 01:27
I don't think that's necessarily the case IMO, sometimes the defender has an advantage with an overly agressive fighter in taking him down. But it's really about awareness. When you train regularly against people good at takedowns, you will develop an awareness for the sprawl, for example, as does Chuck Lidell.

I don't disagree with you here, but you are introducing more variables than I am in my assessment. Sorry, it is the geek in me to break things down like one would in a lab, but then, that is what sports specialists should do too, and we are all amateur sports or athletic specialists.

If we are talking about closing distance and not success or lack of success of any other factor, just the likelihood of closing to the point right upto where the closer would land a blow, take somebody down, etc., then it is easy to show that the advantage goes to the closer. Even if the defender takes the closer down, it doesn't change the fact that the closer has an easier time closing than the defender does maintaining distance on the whole, all other things being equal. It seems nitpicky, but from a scientific testing standpoint, it is very important.

The outcome of this situation is still in the air due to the other variables, but the distance will be closed more than it will be maintained. That is all I meant. However, this fundamental issue needs to be known by fighters and understood so that strategies can be best formulated and tested.

Overall, I agree with you, the entire outcome will be determined by other factors, but I think a fighters inherent or conscious perception of this initial principle is crucial. Until we get a lab or a reasonable computer simulation though, I could be wrong. I am not quite geeky enough to build a spreadsheet that will adequately demonstrate this.

If we, for the sake of argument, accept this fundamental principle, then the first overall strategy for a fender to use is deception, imo.
Knowing that this distance will be more likely to be closed than not, a fighter needs to use a strategy that misrepresents the available distance. (This is why I like Budo Taijutsu, it is an art that has this strategy actively cultivated in its techniques from the get go.)

This sort of thing becomes crucial when one is fighting with Bo or Spear. In empty hand fighting, it is accomplished in distances of less than foot. Boxers have exceptional skill in this. Some karateka get it, most do not. The Gracies really understood this IN their closing game, though. Adding that to the basic advantage of closing, and well, you get a lot of people on the ground before they know it.

P.S.

I have no idea whether or not this makes any sense outside my own head...

Gene Williams
2nd May 2003, 04:33
Glenn, Show us the results of your "scientific testing", and when is the last time you fought someone with a bo or spear? Too much talk. Gene

Sochin
2nd May 2003, 05:45
Excuse me, let's walk softly here,

this is an internet forum and all we can do here is talk, right?

If you don't want to listen, stay out of the thread, no?

But I also would like to hear about the scientific testing part.

Goju Man
2nd May 2003, 11:47
You know guys, that's the thing about theories, just about every theory is good on paper, actually putting it to the test is another matter. I understand what Glenn is saying and agree with some of it. However, in actual fighting, there are many variables added to the mix that cannot be accounted for. Bruce Lee had many theories on paper that eventually turned out to be Jeet Kune Do. Jeet Kune Do, Bruce Lee's version anyway is still evolving today. Bruce took his theories and actually put them to the test. But the thing is, someone figures out a defense for that strategy, so then your strategy has to change, looking for a new edge. This is seen a lot in Judo at the high levels. You have different twists for throws thought up by different competitors such as "cuban seoi nage". Someone will figure out a counter to it and so on.

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 14:47
Gene,

I appreciate your skepticism. Basically, it is a mathematical problem. Like any theory, it does start with assumptions about the nature of the environment. Like any experiment or simulation it does start with certain scope conditions. This is the scientific method, and yes its results are always susceptible to correction following more study. I will keep this simple.

To answer your second question first, I was doing shinkengata work with my wife Bo vs. Bokuto last weekend. Sure, we weren't killing each other, but lets be real here. The last time I worked with a spear was in January doing one man vs. three man line crasher combat drills. I hope this answers your question.

If memory serves me, (que smoke, symphony and choir ;) ) the original question in this thread was...


Is it easier to close with somebody that want to maintain kicking distance than it is to maintain kicking distance with somebody who really wants to close?

Discounting the type of distance, as distance is distance, we have the question, "Is it easier to close with somebody that wants to maitain distance than it is to maintain distance with somebody who really wants to close."

So we are dealing with issue of one fighter who wants to reduce distance, the "closer" and one who wants to keep distance the "defender."

That is all we are discussing here, closing distance and keeping distance, clinches, guillotine chokes, etc. really aren't a part of this particular question, as you have to close to do those in the first place. Those are all strategies for winning or losing the conflict. I am stripping this down to the scope conditions of the original question.

Here we go.

1. We assume each second (time mark) they can move one foot forward or back or to either side or non-cardinal compass point. This is an arbitrary rate of movement, changing it will not change the overall outcome unless you make one a cripple or a super-athlete in relation to the other.

2. Closer starts 5 ft. from defender and time mark is zero. Both fighters are in a 15 ft. by 15 ft ring (this constraint is an assumption, but show me a fight that has infinite space). Given this constraint, we have five seconds before we hit a rear barrier given constant movement forward in 1 second intervals. I am making these assumptions to keep the math simple, but I can't see other speeds changing the overall outcome.

3. The goal is to maintain five feet or more of distance or prevent contact for grappling or in fighting (infered from question).

4. Time mark one, closer moves in one foot, defender moves back one foot. Four feet to edge of ring. Five feet of distance maintained.

5. Time mark two, closer moves in one foot, defender moves back one foot. Three feet to edge of ring. Five feet of distance maintained.

6. Time mark three, closer moves in one foot, defender delivers feint to deter closer, moves back .5 feet. 4.5 five feet of distance maintained. At this point less than the optimal five feet has been maintained due to the defenders actions, the closer has "closed"
and due mainly to the actions of the defender. 2.5 feet to the edge of the ring. This is the most simple iteration.

7. We can continue like this until, as I am sure everyone sees, the defender runs out of room. This is the "tight rope" model. Fighters move in a straight line.

8. Some fighters can actually cut angles!!! So, we have closer who moves in one foot and defender who moves back at say 135 degrees to his right-rear by one foot. This requires some geometry guys, but I will keep it visual. Closer moves straight in, defender fades off.

By cutting the angle, the defender actually decreases the linear distance to under 5 ft. whereas if he moves straight back he can maintain it. So, the closer has closed. Moving anything less than 180 degrees to the rear allows the defender to close to under 5ft. In fact, by my eyeballing the vectors on paper it decreases by about 6 inches for every 135 angle he cuts on each time mark. So, on the next mark the closer will be at 4 ft. distance, the next 3.5ft if the defender keeps cutting 135 degree angles to the rear right.

9. Eventually, the defender gets cornered. If he cuts 90 degrees or less he really cuts that distance. Again distance is closed.

You can run through any permutations you like using this, get out the scientific calculator (geeks :D ). Play with it all you want. In combative theory the closer has the advantage on distance management.

My wife and I calculated that to maintain distance a person would have to be able to move 3 ft. to every 1 ft on the 135 degree angle. So by doing 3 times the work you can maintain distance. Once again, the closer has the advantage. We did this on the fly, but the relationship will hold while the numbers may change with more accurate calculations.

So, in response to the original question, it is easier to close than it is to maintain distance, unless you are using that "New" math.

There is my scientific theory Gene. The next step is for you to come up with the mathematical scenario that disproves my model. There may be one, but it is not obvious to me. I went through maximum retreat of 180 degrees and I even discussed differing movement rates, all of which led to the same conclusion. The closer has the advantage. This is why the Gracies dominated, because the stand-up fighters did not understand this.

Are there strategies to use to defeat a closer, of course, never said there weren't if you go back and look. What this indicates as a baseline is that it doesn't pay to just run for most people in a confined arena (ie most situations). Strategic retreat, ok, give ground to draw, ok, that will provide a chance for victory, but that is waaaay beyond the initial question. We weren't asked for the path to victory or the best way to deal with a shoot in. We were asked who has the advantage in keeping or closing distance. The answer is, the closer.

Any strategy you come up with had better be informed by this little tidbit of information or you are just guessing. Most good fighters do have an intuitive understanding of this, the ones who survive that is. A good coach, instructor, trainer had better really understand this as an underlying principal or reality of fighting.

Whew!!!!

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 14:52
Manny,

Absolutely, strategies are crucial to victory and that comes from experimentation which involves the accumulation of experience.

Just to reiterate, I am not discussing a strategy of victory in my model I am talking about distance closing. I think the math holds on its own and shows that strategies must abandon constant running. You will probably lose if you bet on that completely counterfighting game. Eventually, to land "The blow" you have to stand and fight.

Sure, Ali did X and X and such, sure Superfoot wallace was known for x and y. However, Ali has neural damage from his strategies, and Superfoot was very aggressive with his kicking at times having to plant and do a stop hit (see Tao of JKD) to knock out his opponent. Also, if you do the math, neither of these examples disproves my model. :D

Start from the ground up in understanding the situations at hand, that is my point.

It is too much work to maintain distance with a determined closer and doing so will only delay the inevitable.

Gene Williams
2nd May 2003, 15:01
Glenn, I don't disagree with you.. I think every warrior intuitively understands this in individual combat. It changes, though, in battles between armies where the "closer" (attacking defended positions) needs a three to one advantage. I just think there is a tendency in many of these forums to over analyze everything. Gene

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 15:31
Oh yeah, battle field combat is a slightly different thing.

You all will have to forgive me. I am in a real sports-science phase right now. My wife and I are studying Thomas Kurz's training research, amazing stuff. So, that is what I have to contribute to the forum at this time.

However, I think that such an approach has a lot of merit. I mean, Olympic athletes don't suck. :D

I don't want to give the impression that I just sit and analyze this stuff. I am in the gym every morning at 5 am except Sundays. I train taijutsu 2-4 times a week depending on my need for rest (sport science again which has shown that more rest, not less gets better results). I even still do some karate kata and keep up on my Kyokushin fighting drills from time to time, also judo throws, but I am certainly not an expert Judoka.

I will admit that I don't spar much in the last couple of years. However, I do some controlled randori type drills and I work a lot on timing issues. So, I think that I would do ok against most opponents.

Largely I concentrate on how to best teach this to beginners, since I am establishing a Shibu here in Sheridan. This requires that you analyze things quite a bit, and taijutsu is not second nature to me quite yet as is karate or TKD. So, I really am doing a lot of homework.

No offense taken Gene, by the way, once I had my coffee ;)

hector gomez
2nd May 2003, 17:30
Gmanry,

Although your analysis may very well be great thought out ideas and strategies,fighters and fight trainers in general due not overanalyze fight situations so much(it kind of distorts the mind into thinking way too much)that usually confuses your intuition.


Most good trainers use simple catch words phrases to get the fighters to responds to certain simple situations like ,cut him off,shoot in,sprawl,go after him now,etc.

The proper footwork of how to move in and out of distance correctly has already been developed long ago,when to actualy move in or out is really based on feel and intuition. Efficiency in movement has already been established(not on paper thru theory)thru years of YES scientific proven data from the playing field.


Going back to the original Question..... Is it easier to close in on a kicker or is it easier to keep him away with kicks?Too many tangibles and too many unknown variables ,if we knew the answer to this,it would take all the fun out of the fight.That is one of the reason they have to go thru with the fight in the first place to find out who has the best attributes to impose their will and skill.

Glenn,I agree with your hypothisis,it's just that I think simplicity will set us all free.


Hector Gomez

CEB
2nd May 2003, 17:30
Originally posted by Goju Man

Now now Ed, you're going to be known as MMA man.:D
...

No way, I could never spar wearing nothing but a pair of speedo bikini briefs. I am much too bashful to do that in front of people. I guess we all should feel sorry the lady fight fans but I'm afraid that is just the way it has to be until I can overcome my shyness.


I guess I didn't know that this stuff was that complicated. But then again I'm the guy that drives the analytical type mudansha crazy. I'll do something they'll ask how did you do that and I'll say something like. "I don't know. What did it look like? I don't know what I do half the time when I'm on the floor especially after 8:00pm. My mind really starts to go when it gets close to bed time.

So what I am gathering so far is that the Japanese karate stylist thinks that punching maiai is longer than kicking maiai because they are taking into consideration the distance the footwork covers when they do their kama tzuki or oi tzuki lunging techniques. In kendo Tatsumi Sensei discusses maiai as being the striking distance is usually just when the tip of the shinai meet because that is where you can score from with out any great foot movement. I guess I sort of applied the same logic and considered kicking distance a little farther than punching distance. But I see everybody's points. The kicks I really like are kensetu geri to the knees, kick to the shins and the legs. One thing I know is when I beat on a bag the kick have to come up because the length of the bag. The distance I need to kick with my feet is further than the distance my hands can reach. I wish I had a bananna bag so I work the longer striking plane. It looks like it would be a really good tool. Good comments, I don't know if I understand it all but it good to see the positive exchanges.

hector gomez
2nd May 2003, 19:15
Dammit Ed,I was just finishing up trying to figure out Glenn mathematical equation problems and now all of the sudden I have to figure out all this Japanneese terminology.

I am going back to karate 101


:confused:


Hector Gomez

CEB
2nd May 2003, 19:23
Originally posted by hector gomez
Dammit Ed,I was just finishing up trying to figure out Glenn mathematical equation problems and now all of the sudden I have to figure out all this Japanneese terminology.

I am going back to karate 101


:confused:


Hector Gomez

Sorry, I'll repost after I fix this SQL server problem.

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 19:31
I agree that when coaching somebody, keeping it simple is usually best, especially if it is new to the fighter.

The best warriors and generals of old and today were/are schooled in mathematics and other analytical sciences. The war in Iraq was fought mostly with mathematics applied through human soldiers. I mean, what is a smart bomb? When those supply convoys were too thin, guess what happened. It's all math. Where mistakes were made, you can bet that tactics diverged from protocol. It may also be true at the same time that protocol does not cover all the bases, but then a war is much more complex than a fight in a ring.

Instinct and intuition are just names for mathematical computations that you are not aware of in your conscious mind (additions, subtractions, multiplications, estimations of probability, etc.). Attributing fighting success to these things is just like attributing it to KI. I agree, for simplicity sake it makes it easier, but at some point one had better get a handle on it, or try real hard.

I don't think there are too many variables to analyze fights in this manner, but I don't think everyone needs to do it. Some people will to some degree I hope, like me, and share it with everyone else. Certainly more knowledge and perspective is not a bad thing, just filter it.

Kinesthetic analysis is very useful. Eventually it does become "what it is," this is known as "integration." However, I can better duplicate my results in students as a result of my analysis, even if I do use more collective terms to describe it to them. I have a better understanding of it. I mean, mastery is mastery of it all right, and no I am not saying I have mastered anything. I just strive for it.

In the long run, whatever works for YOU. There are many ways to learn. I am just having fun with this one.

Thanks for the comments.

gmanry
2nd May 2003, 19:38
Yes, I am such a geek that I drew pictures of these things to help me figure this stuff out so I could describe it as briefly as possible...(is that collective groaning I hear?).

Do you want me to post them? It may be later today before I can, as I would have to clean them up a little and scan them. You know, I was not this geeky in school...what has happened....

hector gomez
2nd May 2003, 20:52
Guys,I apoligize for it has taken me almost 2 years to finally figure out that I am lurking & surfing in the wrong forum.yes I know,I know It has taken me this long to finally figure this thing out.

I guess I am trying to hold on to that last little bit of karate nostalgia left in my bones and I don't know how to give it up.Anyway it makes no sense whatsoever to debate or disscuss fighting principles if one person is coming from a japanneese karate's point of view as opposed to some one else,who is coming from a more eclectic hybrid MMA perspective.

Both parties are seeing the same end result from a different training aproach methology.No wonder we sometimes get into silly fueds,We are always trying to intepret two different physical body mechanics with the same mathematical equation.

Both Hypothisis are always very sound in theory but the proof will always be in the pudding,IT'S ALL GOOD.



Hector Gomez

Goju Man
2nd May 2003, 23:05
Whew! I just finished reading the posts. Trouble is, I started at 8 a.m.:D Just kidding. There is some good reading here. If you want to strip it down to the bear essentials, action is faster than re-action. But even this simple equation has variables in it unless you state that uke cannot move until moved upon, otherwise there are way too many variables involved in this equation. If there is nothing else added to the equation, action will always beat re-action. Now, when you start throwing in the uke's reflexes, training, etc, things go out of whack. I've seen the closer come up short many times in pure submission wrestling. Fighting has to be less complicated than figuring out a scenario with a quadratic formula. For example: Hector and I were training a guy last year in what we call it's all good. We combine striking, grappling, and clinching ranges, (what we call no mans land). While explaining basic techniques in either striking or grappling, we would frequently get bombarded with questions ranging from how do you do this when the barometric pressure falls to twenty to should my foot be at forty five degrees or thirty seven and two thirds degrees. We told him to just "do it" and made the corrections accordingly, and once he got the "feel" of it, everything was fine. And keep in mind this guy is a yudansha. Once we got the over analyzing to stop, he was good.

So what I am gathering so far is that the Japanese karate stylist thinks that punching maiai is longer than kicking maiai because they are taking into consideration the distance the footwork covers when they do their kama tzuki or oi tzuki lunging techniques.
You know Ed, kicking distance is still the longer because, IMO, you don't need a step to close the distance when kicking, yet to strike from the same distance, you would not reach the target without taking a step or shuffling to close the distance. Do I know of guys who oi tsuki faster than a kick? Yes. But the range for kicking is still longer.;)

Gene Williams
2nd May 2003, 23:58
But, if you are trying to hit someone who is five feet away, a lunge punch is faster and allows you to maintain balance and zanshin much better. Try my drill:D Gene

gmanry
3rd May 2003, 02:41
Actually sine and cosine are what are needed here, not quadratics.

Owww! (me ducking the objects being hurled.)

Yes, once you have this basic issue resolved then you can start adding in other variables, that is what training is all about.

I have to agree with Gene on this, I have stopped many a roundhouse kick with a lunging punch and literally blown through their position taking more space than their entire kicking range. You don't really even have to punch that hard, your skeleton and body weight just rams them off center. Everything else on top of that is a bonus.

I think that what is important from my thought experiment is that the use of deceptive movement and body angling is needed for most people to defang the closer. Feints are actually excellent for defeating most closers as long as you don't move straight back and are truly spontaneous with them. Doesn't always work, of course. The lesson is that most of the time running is not a good idea unless you are, much faster, much more experience, etc. I mean if the guy is a chump, you can probably dance all day. My model is definitely an all things being equal one, you are right Manny.

Moving straight back will get you clinched though, period. You can always sprawl, but I'd rather not let it get that far. You can always use a guilliotine (sp?) style tomoe nage or sumi gaeshi, Captain Kirk stomach throws for the non-Japanese enthusiasts. I have used this very successfully on some state champion wrestlers in the past. Throw in the nastiness with it and the fight ends pretty quickly. They don't seem to like their heads and faces getting plowed into the mat or the instant choke or possible neck dislocation (yes theory here). Of course, it only works once or twice in a sparring setting.

Something I have always wondered and not gotten a chance to do is to fade back, draw them with an opening and then uppercut scooping low down the center to catch them as they drop in, possibly with an Oi change of lead in place or moving slightly forward. Has anyone been able to land something like this? It seems pretty obvious, but this is DEFINITELY an untested theory. Probably time for a new thread.

Goju Man
3rd May 2003, 15:40
Gene, I agree with you on that. I know guys who have great lunge punches.

Glenn, remember, action vs reaction are the only constants. Everything else is a variable. Hey, who threw that tomatoe?:D

Kimura
4th May 2003, 04:03
In order for you to hit your opponent with any effective strike you have to be within striking range(unless running away is an option) and whenever you are within striking range your opponent is definitely within in clinching range.


This fact alone is what makes grappling knowledge so important.I realized this when I started sparring with clinches and takedowns allowed.It changes your whole perspective on striking,unlike karate,boxing or kickboxing in which there is no worry at all about being taken down.Sparring with takedowns and clinch all of the sudden add a new striking dilema.When should I strike?and more importantly, how should I strike?

Counterstrikers have faired a little better in NHB and MMA only because they have familiarized themselves with sprawling tactics along with reducing the higher percentage of being clinched,while the offensive attacking striker is more prone to mistakes that can end up in a clinch,Maurice smith and Chuck liddel are good examples of counterstrikers.

Both offensive striking and counterstriking are effective forms of delivering blows but when the clinch and grappling is added to the equation the offensive striker must make every strike count or risk the chance of getting clinched.


Years ago I decided to test this theory against my judo friends that by in large were primarily grapplers with limited only striking in their arsenal.Well,I will tell you this much my striking did help me out alot that day but I soon discovered how easy it is for a grappler with no striking knowledge to get you into a clinch situation unless my strikes get their full attention.

PS: Gotta go now...Delahoya is on.


Hector Gomez

Budoka 34
4th May 2003, 21:38
Last year I attended a class taught by a high ranking instructor of Ryukyu Kempo(I believe), at a Symposium in Columbia S.C.. He said, "I don't worry about running into a grappler or going to the ground, because Karate has ground skills built in.". He then demonstrated a series of kata based take downs and controls that have proven very effective, even in my jiu-jitsu classes.

I know Funakoshi Sensei recognised and taught something like nine traditional karate throws, but he was probably taught more.

Only in the last decade or so has the average karateka really started looking at the possible takedown and control applications in traditional Okinawan/Japanese Karate kata.

In our school we work close in, medium range, and long range. By mid-ranks we start to develop an understanding of kawashi(blending) and kazushi(off balancing)and how they relate to each range.

I didn't really see the importance until I began competeing in Olympic style kumite(with takedowns worth three points).
Now even in my Judo and Jiu-jitsu I can apply effective strikes at mulitple ranges and still effect or counter throws and controls.

Well........at least on those less aware of the possibilities. :D


:smilejapa

Goju Man
5th May 2003, 03:37
"I don't worry about running into a grappler or going to the ground, because Karate has ground skills built in.".
We've had this debate before. Having it in there and becoming proficient at it are two different things. Practise in those techniques in formal kata is useless IMO. Pulling a technique off against a joe blow is one thing, I think we all agree that most any karate training will help you most of the time, but let me see it against a grappler. Where were all these guys in the early UFC days?

On another note, I watched K-1 the other night. I'm disappointed that kness and clinching are not allowed. Has anyone ever watched a san shou match? Pretty nice. Although Big Daddy Gary Goodrich looked in pretty good shape, he still lost. Can this guy get a win somewhere? Well, at least he lost to last years Gran Prix winner.:)

Budoka 34
5th May 2003, 12:17
Manny,

Like I said, "only in the last decade" (since the first UFC) have most karateka even started to relize these skills may be there and needed.

Thats why so many of us practice Jiu-jitsu as well, to help develop those skills. ;)

Goju Man
5th May 2003, 12:32
It's all good my man. Train on.:)

CEB
5th May 2003, 17:22
Originally posted by Kimura

...

Counterstrikers have faired a little better in NHB and MMA only because they have familiarized themselves with sprawling tactics ....

Hector Gomez

Here is a silly question. I hear the term 'the sprawl' quite a bit. What the sprawl? Is it when somebody goes for a pickup throw like maraote gari and you react by laying your weight on them and pulling the legs out of reach buying the the time you need to do whatever it is you are going to do in response, choke or suplex ect... Or is it more general like a the typical defensive response in Judo when guys huncker in Jigotai?

In Goju Ryu the sprawl is what your opponent does on the floor when you hit him upside the head. :)

Thanks for your support.

hector gomez
5th May 2003, 18:23
Ed,

Yes,I would have to go with your first sprawl definition.It is a defensive reaction to avoid a pickup,takedown or tackle.stepping back with one foot and dropping weight are definite characteristics of a good sprawl.


I believe a very important aspect of the sprawl is to get the inside position with your arms inside your opponent arms as you step back.This lowers your center of gravitiy and avoids your opponent from being able to wrap his hands completely around you.


The sprawl,I believe is basically a wrestling move,sort of like a Anti defensive strategy built in on reflex to counter the single leg,doubleleg(morote)or any type of shoot.

The Vale tudo or MMA fighters have taken this wrestling move one step further and have started to drill quick strikes from all sorts of angles right after the sprawl,which have shown to be very effective since the attacker is preocupied with the action of the takedown.


An extreme sprawl can sometimes be so fast that both feet of the defender jumps back as both the attacker and the defender can sometimes simotaneously hit the ground with their stomachs(one attacking while one is defending) actually very funny to watch.


Hector Gomez

hector gomez
5th May 2003, 19:09
Ed,Now that we are on this topic of the sprawl.I would like to open up a can of worms with this question.......Is it better to sprawl first or to strike first as soon as your opponent tries to executes a quick takedown?

Hector Gomez

Goju Man
6th May 2003, 01:40
Ed,Now that we are on this topic of the sprawl.I would like to open up a can of worms with this question.......Is it better to sprawl first or to strike first as soon as your opponent tries to executes a quick takedown?

Well, as a mma or grappler, you have to go with the highest percentage move which is defend the takedown and then strike. I say this because, although you might knock him out with a well placed blow, the chances of knocking him unconcious are far less. Let me put it this way, James Warring which has "proven" to be world class when it comes to striking could not land the knock out blow to keep Renzo Gracie from taking him to the ground. Wether you say he isn't a karateka but a boxer/kick boxer, but the fact is I don't know of or have seen a karateka be as precise as he when it comes to striking. Todays mma strikers have learned to defend the takedowns and then counter attack with striking techniques when they are in an advantageous position.

CEB
6th May 2003, 03:01
I don't know anything about MMA but my vote is for defending against the take down first. Marote Gari is one of my favorite throws. I know when I work the technique I work it for street applications. What I mean is when I work it in a randori or uchikomi type of situation I think about street application. I stay aware of how vunerable I am to the head. I protect the head when I shoot in. My hands don't go for the legs until my shoulder is driven into his mid section. Hit him like you hit a blocking sled. A quick KO I think maybe harder to get than some may think. If you go down on that throw you are in serious trouble. Uke falls flat on his back and Tori has a leg in each hand. You are looking at a kick to the nads a stomp to the bladder and some serious knee damage if tori knows what to do with those legs he is holding on to. Performing the takedown may have some risk but I guess that is why they call it a fight. I think it is a great throw.

I also like to defend against the double leg in a Judo situation because I also like to counter it with tawara gaeshi. From what I gather from Hector's description I 'sprawl'(I guess). I take the legs away and as he come under I sort of lay on his back and grab the back of his belt and around his waist or whatever I get a grip on then I sac taking him over. It sort of looks like a suplex from WWF. I guess cause I spent quite a bit of time working that technique I am fairly comfortable on either side.

Somebody mentioned the Gracies come in high. I would like to see that. That would seem to make you less vunerable to eating a knee strike but my arms are pretty short and I would think the kuzushi wouldn't be a strong. But if the Gracies do that way it certainly has to have its strong points.

Goju Man
6th May 2003, 12:24
Ed, the double leg has advanced quite a bit. they don't come in that low anymore. Some like to come in higher and perform a ko soto gake I blieve it is in Judo. When you come in low, you have to make sure your head is in his mid section, otherwise you leave yourself vulnerable to the guillotine.

Goju Man
6th May 2003, 12:48
Well, if you are a Shorin Ryu guy, you just do the jumping 360 in a melee defense. It's actually in the kata.:D

Speaking of which, do you think Chow Yun Fat (Crouching Tiger..) could be taken down with his flying skills?? :D

Mike Williams
6th May 2003, 12:52
Exactly.

Also, the ideal with the high double leg is to lift your opponent and turn him so that you land in side control (and then ko soto gake if you don't quite get the lift). In contrast to the judo version where you clip the legs while pushing straight back, which lands you in your opponent's guard.

Is twara gaeshi the rice-bale throw? I love that! Lots of fun if you can time it right.

Cheers,

Mike

CEB
6th May 2003, 13:30
Originally posted by Mike Williams
Exactly.

...

Is twara gaeshi the rice-bale throw? ...

Mike

Yes

hector gomez
6th May 2003, 14:08
Ed,I have to agree with you,I would also opt to defend the takedown first,especially if my opponent has already initiated foward movement towards me for a takedown.

Once this happens the KO counter strike can happen but the percentage is very unlikely.This is one of the problems a lot of the strikers faced when they first appeared in the UFC.

The grappler would end up having his hands wrapped around the strikers body and the striker would still be trying to throw what ended up to be rabbit punches as he came crashing down to the mat.

An effective sprawl takes care of your imediate problem so that you can counter effectivley with strikes once you have stopped his attempted takedown.




Hector Gomez

CEB
6th May 2003, 16:12
Originally posted by Mike Williams
Exactly.

Also, the ideal with the high double leg is to lift your opponent and turn him so that you land in side control (and then ko soto gake if you don't quite get the lift). In contrast to the judo version where you clip the legs while pushing straight back, which lands you in your opponent's guard.

....

Cheers,

Mike

We have the same kinds of things in Judo with concern to the guard. That is if I under stand the term 'The Guard' correctly. I think I do. Tokon turned me on to a guy named Walt Bayless and I have some of his groundwork stuff on tape. I thought it was real good but I'm just an old Judo and Karate guy. Your opinions may be different. My teacher never referred to the guard. He called getting around the legs because any sort of scissor negates a pin in a randori or Shiai situation. Getting around the legs is something you work on quite a bit.

My question is, In MMA are kicks and stomping techniques legal if you are standing and your opponent is on the ground? If it is I would think the guy on his back wanting to play from the guard postion would be dead meat if his opponent had control of his legs and was standing above him between his legs? I guess I don't see the value of being in the guard in a fight. It looks like an, Oops I ****** up position.

That is a good point about the transition into the side mount. If you don't get the ippon you would be in better position for the osaekomi waza.

The BJJ lingo is starting to grow on me a little. I find it a whole lot easier to talk to my boy about side mount instead of Yoko Shiho Gatame. Right now that is his favorite pin. I've worked with him on striking to the ribs using your knees while maintaining the side mount.

My boy does Shorin Ryu. He likes it but they don't do any 360s. Goju has one in Suparunpei. In the scuffles he has had in school it is his Judo background that won his fights. At his age throws hurt more than strikes in my opinion. I've worried about him busting open a kid's melon. But that didn't happen and now everybody leaves him alone. It doesn't look as bad to be throwing or pushing an attacker off from you as it does if you get caught pinging another kid with a punch. Also I teach him to shout 'stop it!, leave me alone! as he defends himself. That I think also looks better than shouting 'I am going to kick your ***!'

Oops sorry for the drift.

hector gomez
6th May 2003, 18:24
Ed boyd Quote:My question is, In MMA are kicks and stomping techniques legal if you are standing and your opponent is on the ground?

Ed,I am pretty sure that in this country events like the UFC,Hook n Shoot,King of the cage, etc,kicking a down opponent is a no no.In Japan and Brazil it's a different story,kicks and knees are allowed on a downed opponent.


Hector Gomez

Goju Man
8th May 2003, 12:46
Ed,I am pretty sure that in this country events like the UFC,Hook n Shoot,King of the cage, etc,kicking a down opponent is a no no.In Japan and Brazil it's a different story,kicks and knees are allowed on a downed opponent.
Hector, do you think they have a different "formula" in their rules "calculations"? :D

CEB
8th May 2003, 14:33
Here is a formula.

Mass X Velocity = Amount of Hurt

CEB
8th May 2003, 15:00
It isn't the amount of Dog in the fight it is the amount of fight in the dog.

X=amount of fight in Dog measured in ferocity
Y=Amount of Dog in fight measured in pounds
Z=fight performance

.85x + .15y = z

Example
A = 175 pound dog with ferocity factor of 20

.85(20) + .15(175) = 43.25

B = 50 pound dog with a ferocity factor of 85
.85(85) + .15(50) = 79.75

Therefore Dog A kicks Dog B's butt.

If you can't run with the mean dogs better stay on the porch.

CEB
8th May 2003, 15:19
If you have 1000 pound rock rolling down hill at a speed of 2 miles per hour and at the bottom of the hill is a 2 pound chicken and water boils at 212 degrees F.

How much damage does the rock do to the chicken?

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 15:33
1)Pain is just weakness leaving your body.

2)If it get's too hot get out of the kitchen.

3)2nd place is for 1st place loser's

4)30x30ft Octagonal fence = dangerous A&* whipping ahead.

5)24x24ft ring area =Probable A&* kicking coming soon.

6)Your mind can make you train,Your body can createpower,but only your heart can make you a champion.

7)Don't box ugly people they have nothing to lose.


8)The only thing brutal about boxing is losing.

9)I have three real good friends,Blood,sweat and tears.


10)Sensei was right,I should have gotten into classical music instead of rock & roll.



Hector Gomez

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 15:39
Ed,

Just to think that I missed a Benny urquidez match in south Fla in 1980 and opted instead to go to a Van Halen concert.


Were are my priorities:cry:


Hector Gomez

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 15:58
About your rock & chicken exam.I think you have Fried chicken on your hands.


Hector Gomez

CEB
8th May 2003, 17:47
In 1980 I would have chosen to go to the Van Halen show too.

CEB
8th May 2003, 17:49
In 1980 I would have chosen to go to the Van Halen show too.

Oh yeah, Manny mentioned a Cuban Seionage earlier. What do the cubans do differently in their shoulder throw?

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 18:35
The Cuban Women team does a version of a drop seionage were they grab both of ukes sleeve ends and drop almost on two knees before completing the throw.


Maybe that is what Manny was taking about,anyways anytime cuban women drop to their knees they definitely get my attention. :D




Hector Gomez

CEB
8th May 2003, 18:44
I have to be careful. My sister-in-law is Cuban. She seems to have a pretty quick temper. Are most Cuban women like this?

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 18:56
I would go a step further and say that it's not only Cuban women but the whole Cuban race that has a temper problem,could be in the genes.

I think it's that damm cuban coffee.I never drink the stuff but the last couple of days,I have been picking up coladas on my way back from lunch.........boy I doing jumping jacks right now, as I type.


Hector Gomez:p

gmanry
8th May 2003, 19:00
Now, now gentlemen,

Just because I have a different approach that breaks with yours, is that any reason to act like that? It was a simple thought experiment.
Now who is sticking to their traditions without looking at other methods, hmmm. But that is ok, its not like I train with a slide rule and a chalk board.

Heck I thought that problem out the night of the first post and it took me 10 minutes on paper.

Tank Abbot has a ton of heart, but he loses waaaay more than he wins in the UFC. His training sucks in comparison to his opposition. All the heart in the world amounts to squat against the better trained fighter.

Come on you guys might as well start talking about ki at this point. :rolleyes:

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 19:12
Gmanry,

I actualy don't have any thing bad to say about your analysis.I just don't no what the Main point was.

A) Is it that you should be the attacker all the time?
b)Should you be the defender with kicks?



When all is said and done the circumstance & situation is what should dictate the action to take!


Hector Gomez

gmanry
8th May 2003, 19:30
Well that is simple enough to answer:

If you take that analysis as some sort of baseline then:

1. Attempting to maintain distance is less efficient than trying to close.
2. Maintenance of distance should be used to set up the timing of your eventual and inevitable close with the opponent, because you probably can't prevent the close.
3. A purely defensive fight or counter fight is not your best option, unless you are a)MUCH more skilled than your opponent b)very lucky (bad to count on this) c)dominate in some physical aspect, ie reach or speed.

To answer your question further, in an even fight (weight class, yrs. of experience, speed etc.) and you were a betting man, you should bet on the closer to be able to close the distance 99% of the time.

Here is an example from "real life:"

In the Maurice Smith vs. Coleman fight, Maurice did win, he had waaay more experience overall in knock-down fighting. However, Coleman did agress and make the close almost everytime. Even when he failed to complete a takedown at the end, he closed the distance and touched Smith with his hands. Smith couldn't prevent that. This refers directly back to my analysis. Smith recognizing this fact, used a game plan that actually capitalized on the fact that he couldn't escape Mark Coleman's closing tactics. Smith is quite the kicker, and he didn't unleash them until he had blown Coleman's steam. When you have an opponent hugging his knees in exhaustion, well the analysis sort of falls apart, because one opponent isn't moving at all. :D

If he is the same Maurice Smith that I think he is, I had the opportunity to train with him at a seminar in Atlanta back in '89 when he was training under Francis Fong in Muay Thai and Wing Chun. He was very, very analytical about his training. Thus, he picked Coleman's strategy apart, got the right coaches to address the problem and it worked. Seems to work for him. I suppose that is why so many professional fighters watch so much film...

gmanry
8th May 2003, 19:44
Hector,

I agree with your statement about circumstances and action. However, in any given moment there are really only a few probable outcomes. What you do most in your training is likely to come out. If you constantly fend in your sparring, then you will do that, and I am just not willing to endorse that type of strategy (not saying you do or anyone else here does).

It was a simple thought experiment, but I think those types of things can be very productive for a fighter or coach. No, it can't be all you do, of course not. Like I said, I train every day of the week in some aspect, and I train hard, but my training is not, "Hey let's work on this today because it sounds fun." My training is based on a progression of sorts most of the time.

Sometimes I do things just because they are fun...;)

For example, the type of bridge I work from the bottom, I spent a lot of time just working on getting my neck, spine and shoulder to fold back under to the mat to create kazushi in my mounted opponent, then the legs, then the roll. With the limited number of bodies I had, I noticed it worked better than the way it was originally explained and taught to me, starting with the legs (by people who admittedly hadn't thought it through).

At the same time, this approach is dangerous, as it leaves your neck exposed to a strike, so you better have it set up to go before hand. What are the pros and cons of a particular approach? Not just standard counters, what is really happening. That is how I analyze my technique. Constantly checking back in and asking what is happening, why is this working/not working. It is a much more fine level of analysis than I typically see. Does it work? Well, it has in the past pretty well. I never totally got my ass handed to me in the last ten years, when I had regular sparring partners. Sure I "lost" but I never got knocked out. I submitted some, submitted others. That is reality. However, the ones who beat me typically had a much more focussed training system.

Then again, I don't really care at this point. I live in a small town, there isn't much danger of confrontation here. The local martial arts here pretty much suck (except me :cool: ) I can play with this stuff all I want. I'm 33 years old, hopefully my boyhood insecurities have been dealt with by now.

CEB
8th May 2003, 19:50
Originally posted by gmanry
Now, now gentlemen,

Just because I have a different approach that breaks with yours, is that any reason to act like that? ...

Act like what? :) Not us! :)

Sorry, just being a big goof.

gmanry
8th May 2003, 19:57
I understand everyone's aversion to my analysis. It definitely is possible to get too into it sometimes and over analyze. I just thought it was an interesting problem to examine in a different way. We are MAs we like to get out and do it.

Very rarely do I take things down to a mathematical level

I did break down roundhouse kicks according to style, TKD, Kyokushin, Muay Thai and look at the various relationships of angles in the leg and the angles of entry. I did this a few years ago, and it was very helpful in deciding what my basic kick would be. I decided to go with something very close to the Kyokushin, Ashihara, Enshin style with a little more muay style wind up. However, that is for my body type and flexibility. That was still by feel and eyeballing angles though.

Ashihara's books are very analytical, and they helped me a great deal in this exercise.

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 20:04
Glenn,

Your right,that was a superb gameplan used by Maurice smith and this was a great matchup,the great striker & kicker against the great grappler and takedown artist known as mark coleman.


The thing is that in this particular fight things are not egual,especially in the closing dept as that belongs to coleman, so yes I have to agree with you coleman will be able to close distance a higher amount of time in the fight.

Now if Maurice smith tried to employ this same theory of closing the gap it would probably fail on him because all things are not equal he is not a great closer of distance not that he plans to be,so even if it is a sound theory that closing is easier than maintaining........It must be acknowledged that the closer must be very skilled in this tactic.This theory although true does not work for the average joe blow.



But In MMA there are way too many factors and scenarios.Example,a good closer of distance only gets him close to the opponent,that's only part of the puzzle if he runs into a fighter that is terrible at closing but his forte is a up close striking/grappling & submissions
what good was the strategy for the closer if it ended up putting himself right were the opponent wants to be and trains to be.


Yes for the closer(experienced closer) it is easier to close than it is to stay away but then that is why we have great sprawl masters like chuck liddel who thrive on someone closing that gap so they can defend and counter with strikes.




Hector Gomez

gmanry
8th May 2003, 21:18
Those are all excellent points.

Something that has always struck me about closers is that they are, of course, all good at getting the opponent to post up on their toes or to plant, or somehow break their rhythm. They make the striker do what the striker wants most desperately to do, then they move into the open space.

So far, I have not seen any strikers who are good at getting the closer to do what the closer so desperately wants to do and capitalize on it. I am not familiar with Lidell, so maybe this is what he does, but then he uses a grappling defense first.

Are there any strikers who can draw the closer to close out of rhythm and then still rely on striking movments? (At this point, it becomes obvious that Glenn stopped seriously watching MMA about 5 years ago due to various issues). I guess what I am saying is that grapplers seemed to find the weaknesses in strikers games turning to grapplers strengths, why haven't strikers found the weaknesses in grapplers games and turned to strikers strengths. To some degree, I think this brings me back to my analysis, grapplers can apply their strengths against strikers much more easily than strikers can against grapplers.
Not saying this is gospel truth, just want to hear some other opinions or examples.

Goju Man
8th May 2003, 21:58
Ed, it's definitley the coffee.:D

Glenn, Tank has more than enough heart. As for his training, he did very well considering his regimine was employed in a bar. In mma, it's not the closer vs whom ever, there have been guys who have tried to shoot in and not made it due to his pre occupation to the right hand or having eaten a knee on the way in previously. Igor Vovchanchyn was pretty good at baiting guys to close the distance, but his game plan was to sprawl and get his opponents' back or in the gaurd, where he was lethal in either. It worked well until a guy named "Rampage" Jackson picked him up, sprawl and all and slammed him down on his back. There are no real constants in this equation. There are different equations to be used on different situations with different fighters. If the closee wanted to keep distance and not fight, he could do so. But then, he would recieve a yellow card.;)

hector gomez
8th May 2003, 22:21
Glenn,

I think one of the realities that MMA or NHB proved to those that cared to listen,was that real fighting is fought at different ranges.

The actual misconception that real fights can be fought and maintained at striking distance at all times,is a very shallow hypothisis.Even today there are practicioners that don't believe that they will have to deal with the grappler on his terms because they will just keep them at bay with superior striking.

The thing is...if you don't put yourself in a position to test these theories you can end up training in the arts for 30 yrs and not have to ever believe it,test it,or prove it,not that anyone ever has too.

Face it,we are all pretty civilized human beings(atleast I hope we are)so Looking for fights to test a certain theory is unethical and using 2 or 3 unavoidable fights that might only happen in a lifetime against who knows who,is not a good barometer of what really happens in a fight.


That is not only a miscaculated way of thinking but a very dangerous one.Fighting is not what I want it to be or what ED wants it to be or even what you want it to be."It is what it is" and we all have to learn to deal with the many facets that a real fight can present.

Has anyone been able to keep distance and employ striking without grappling?Sure,but those fights are few and far between.It could happen in one fight,maybe twice but eventually you are going down or grappling in someway and then we must all deal with that scenario.

There are people out there that still believe they will not be taken down,just like the Jackie chan or the Stevan Seagull movies they believe they can end all fights from the striking range and then ride into the sunset and live happily ever after........It could happen just don't put the theory to the test.




Hector Gomez

gmanry
9th May 2003, 00:39
I agree with these points. Fighting is an alive issue, but one cannot and should not train by just getting in the ring and having a go. I don't think that is what you guys are suggesting either.

In the construction of drills, scenarios, and techniques, one has to start with assumptions. One of the ones that I use is that, in general, the closer will have an easier time of it than a defensive fighter. Of course, other possibilities exist and one should systematically deal with these as they arise, but if you don't define your starting point, then you are pretty much just doing things willy-nilly, imho. That is just my approach, and it seems to work for me.

I would be interested in learning about the strikers who you all feel are at the top of their game in the MMA, NHB arena. Primarily those who have learned to really adapt their striking to the grapplers weaknesses and approaches. I feel this is something I have missed from watching MMA and NHB in the past. I want to at least hang something on that peg in terms of what has worked or not at least more than once. I have my own ideas, but a certain lack of good opponents to really test against.

I have worked with the sprawl fairly extensively agains some good judoka and wrestlers (not ultra world class, of course, although one had been to the olympics for Israel or was it France). It is of course a logical and effective counter to a lot of closing situations.

I am working on my core of ground work, the mount, the guard, the buck and roll, some submissions, chokes, etc.

My current art has a lot of areas to study, so my time in each area of interest has to be maximized through efficiency of training. I like to get down to the heart of the issue and build out from there.

It is obvious that a studious person can cover a lot of bases in a short amount of time if he is willing to be honest (a point you guys make often and I agree) about training. Given that, I am working on attempting to master the core basics of a ground game so that I will always have that working reference. Foundation is sooo important.

Anyway, I see your points. Talk to you all later.

Gene Williams
9th May 2003, 03:04
Glenn, I like a roundhouse kick that is a little JKA and a little Kyok, with maybe a little bit of a Shito-ryu front kick and a half twist to the left...no, the right. I like to always have my attacker wait so I can use my tape to measure the distance. I have found an old fashioned slide rule works well in the street, because if I use only kicks I can work the trig with my free hands, but a calculator is o.k. in a pinch as long as it isn't one of those solar things because the stored sunlight interferes with my ki flow. I like to wait until my attacker is exactly one half meter and 6 centimeters away, then I estimate the footpounds of energy I will need to close the gap ( I have to use the scientific calculator for this). I push off in JKA fashion with my rear foot, glide along Shito-ryu style for a millisecond, then end with a Kyokushinkai punch while using Goju breathing. I factor the whole damned thing by the square root of 19, unless I am using Chinese techniques, in which case I factor it all using Pi. Gene

gmanry
9th May 2003, 04:09
But you forgot to use your weights derived from the national average of distance coverage. If you go to the census page you can find that data.

Also, I find the log based 10 works better than inverse powers in my calculations, but then my leg length may differ from yours.

And the abicus is much better because you can also smack people with it, although the calculator can be used as deadly shuriken.

All kidding aside, certainly you have gone through your technical base and refined it in certain ways. That's what I am talking about here, but to each his own.

I don't know, in the end, when I kick people and land it, they have tended to stop or at least slow down quite a bit. That's all I know and my results got better after I refined the kick. My kick is now definitely my kick and I just do it, but for a while I played with different ideas and theories about the kick. I don't take anybody's word for it. If I don't make it mine then it won't work for me.

The funny thing is that your brain does do all those calculations while you are fighting, that is the most amazing thing. You are an organic calculator. I just like to refine the data pool I guess. Training is science, when you finally fight it is art, because you do have to go off the cuff and put together something new on the spot. However, all your pieces come from the training, which had better be organized in some sort of logical fashion.

I am sure the great martial artists of our most recent history all did a lot of silly looking feeling and testing and measuring of some sort with whatever method they used to come up with their answers. I don't think they just got in and pounded and said, "that worked, let's keep it." Sure that happened too, but at some point they said, I prefer this over that, and here is why, X, Y, and Z given A, B, and C. Am I like those guys? Well, I sure won't be if I don't learn from how they got where they were going.

When I have a student, I have to start from my experience and give them the tools to figure it out for themselves. Analytical tools are a part of that.

I suppose that is about as much as I can say about this. Some of you guys get what I am saying, some of you want to put more into it than I am saying, and some of you are still scratching your heads. The world goes on. It has been a good thread though.

hector gomez
9th May 2003, 16:16
Gene,

You crack me up that is some funny stuff,I actually had a student like that once,he wanted to ask questions about every little thing including the wind factor of 15knots as opposed to 10 knots and it's relationship to fighting .LOL


I also see Glenn point of view as far as doing comprehensive research and getting the right training methods available inorder to avoid wasting valuable time & effort in training.


Everyone has a great method for attaining great results but are those results tainted in anyway from giving us the correct and right answer we need for solving a fighting dilema?


Example,some people might evaluate the sport of boxing as it pertains to self defense .One methods of evaluating boxing might be just to simply observe boxing from outside the ring ropes and come to the conclusion that the techniques seen or viewed are very raw compared to the picture perfect techniques that one can attain when punching the air.


One may also come to the conclusion that boxing being primarily a sport with rules has very little to offer the person interested in personal self defense.



The above 2 methods or formula of analyzing a fight dilema "IMO" are very shallow and lack the true essence of searching for the truth,Both above methods or theories are tainted with a wrongful perception without any real practical testing.


Now I am not advocating that everyone join a boxing gym and start duking it out with top proffesional ring fighters just to train for self defense but to even remotley think that boxing is just two people going at it wildly without proper technique is also incorect ,besides they don't call it the SWEET SCIENCE for nothing.


Hector Gomez

Gene Williams
9th May 2003, 16:29
When I was a boy, I used to box at the Y, and we had trainers and Golden Gloves guys there. I learned a lot and did it until about the tenth grade, when baseball got all my time. It was rough, at times, and I got busted up some, but I busted some people up, too. I know that in boxing, the guy who gets off first and is the most aggressive is usually rewarded. My coach always told me to go in punching and don't be afraid of getting hit because it won't hurt near as much if you are moving in as it will if you are just standing there. I still believe in that strategy alot in karate. Muhammed Ali, my hero in boxing and the finest heavyweight that ever lived IMO, was able to use defense as an offense better than anyone I have ever seen. Can you imagine him with karate and grappling training also? Jeez! He'd be like an X-Man. Gene

gmanry
9th May 2003, 17:25
Ali was The Greatest. You just have to like him, even if you hated him.

He had such a fluid and natural understanding of distance and timing. I study his movement when I can, because I think he was a master of taijutsu, without having studied it! He knew how to use his legs.

It is interesting to note that he was asked how he would do against a "karate-man." He said something to the effect that it would be no contest and he would lose. :eek: He pointed out that karate used all the body weapons and boxing only the hands. Of course, at that time, he had met Oyama, Bruce Lee, etc. certainly exemplary specimens of people who trained very seriously to be effective with their chosen disciplines. I think that showed The Champs amazingly true sense of modesty, despite what people thought of him. I also think he would have handed most karateka their asses in a heartbeat.

Boxing and Judo are excellent arts for young people. They are focussed on a very concise range of skills. Most karate for kids is a complete waste of time other than for entertainment. Unfortunately for kids in this town, Take Your Dough and very lame Judo are all that are offered currently. I have not had the time to craft a quality kids program, much less get adult classes swinging yet.

CEB
9th May 2003, 19:24
Originally posted by gmanry
...
Boxing and Judo are excellent arts for young people. They are focussed on a very concise range of skills. Most karate for kids is a complete waste of time other than for entertainment. Unfortunately for kids in this town, Take Your Dough and very lame Judo are all that are offered currently.

Why is the Judo very lame? I have never seen very lame Judo. It must be due to isolationism. Judo in its very nature tends to promote those who practice it to performance with some sort of competence. If you don't perform well you get slammed or tapped. I've seen different styles of Judo and different appraoches but they all have been good training. If seen individuals whose performance wasn't the best but I have never seen Judo suck as a collective.

You should join the Judo club if you aren't training with anybody. If your abilities exceeds the norm your addition to the fold should bring up everybody else performance level. If not, well its always good to play with full resistance from time to time and Judo provides a good framework for doing that and keeping all your body parts in tact at the same time.

Gene Williams
9th May 2003, 19:43
Ed, I think he meant that the judo offerred there was lame, not judo as an art. I wish I had had access to judo somewhere along the line..it is the best complement to karate, in my opinion. Gene

CEB
9th May 2003, 20:03
Yes I know. I was wondering why he thought this particular Judo offering was lame because I have never been unfortunate enough to have seen a lame judo dojo. I've seen sport oreinted coaches and old style Judo teachers but all have been good training.

gmanry
9th May 2003, 20:05
Sorry Ed,

Let me clarify. The particular school of Judo here is not very good. It is in fact, as you stated, an isolated group that belongs to, imo, a shady "national" organization that I will not name, but it is Korean. They don't do shiai against other clubs, aren't affiliated with any of the major judo/jujutsu orgs., etc. That isn't to say that some of their people don't have some skills, but as a whole the training is lack luster and more about strutting around in their uniforms and never seen a drop of sweat black belts.

I have an immense respect for Judo. In Tampa, FL where I grew up, Ed Mailey has had a Judo school since before the dawn of time. I could kick myself for never studying with him, but I was young and enjoying TKD at the time. He produced some excellent competitors.

I also had the opportunity to train with some very good Judoka in Pullman, WA, as well as a very good Russian Sambo player (he was amazing at 66 years of age!)

As for joining, the current instructor is in my opinion not the kind of person I would want to associate with. Lots of ego, not much in the way of good training methods, and some very shady goings on that I don't want to drag through the mud.

Hope that clears things up. Like Judo, don't like lame wannabe Judo.

gmanry
9th May 2003, 20:22
Ed,

Send me a PM if you want to know more, I just don't like to sling mud online if I can avoid it.

hector gomez
9th May 2003, 20:26
Ed Maley was and is a badass.My Judo instructor likes to recount the days they use to compete against eachother back in the day.Those were the days when the tatami area had no extra out of bounds area and landing outside the regulation area was a true possiblity.


Hector Gomez:eek:

gmanry
9th May 2003, 20:35
Yeah,

I really, really, really regret not training with him. Of course, you do stupid things when you are 15. He definitely knows his stuff. Of course, he has two fake hips now, so...but he can still coach.

If I ever do move back near my family, I am going to walk into that dojo and get my ass handed to me to learn some better judo. He had the best school, bar none, in that whole area of Florida.

CEB
9th May 2003, 20:54
Originally posted by gmanry
Ed,

Send me a PM if you want to know more, I just don't like to sling mud online if I can avoid it.

No biggie I was wondering why you didn't like the Judo dojo. I've never seen anything like that in Judo around here. Judo or Yudo doesn't seem to be viewed as being a very glamourous art. This may be one of its strong suits when it comes to not attractting so many bullshitters. Too bad that is the way those people practice ( or not practice) over there.

gmanry
9th May 2003, 21:07
Apparently, these people had a different, Korean instructor a few years ago, who was pretty good, but he moved away. The current instructor, apparently, seems to be in it for different reasons $$$, imo. It is a shame, but maybe, over time, I can raise the bar in this town, not in Judo ('cause mine isn't that great), just in terms of overall quality of MA.

Steve Williams
14th May 2003, 18:02
Ok people......


Just done a little "spring clean" and cleared the rubbish at the end of the thread.

Lets get it back on track eh.....


The original question was
Is it easier to close with somebody that want to maintain kicking distance than it is to maintain kicking distance with somebody who really wants to close? I've got some opinions on the subject based on personal experience but I have seen exceptions to these ideas occur so maybe is really does depends entirely on the matchup of the two fighters. In the case of evenly matched individuals is one easier than the other

A little thread drift is OK, but try to keep to the topic.


It is not a thread worthy of Bad budo, as it has a lot of good arguements/information (potentially), so it can go in Gendai budo.

Goju Man
15th May 2003, 00:32
Overall, I agree with you, the entire outcome will be determined by other factors, but I think a fighters inherent or conscious perception of this initial principle is crucial.
Glen, it goes back to action vs re-action. Everything outside those constants are variables. That is all there is to that. A person that wants to keep distance can keep it in many different ways. In Pride, you would get a yellow card for doing it, and in the UFC, you would be boo'ed out of the building. This experiment I have already performed on the mat. (sorry, no lab available) You have to take each situation differently.

Jock Armstrong
16th May 2003, 03:56
In Zen Goshu Goshinjutsu we work on five ranges;

grapple range, close range [elows head butts et al] , middle range [ straight rights, etc] long range.[ rounhouse kicks, side kicks] and out of range. There is a fair bit of overlap from each section but it gives us something to work with and helps explaining to new students. The thing to remember is that range is relevant to the fighter. Some guys have long arms/short legs etc so what they can throw at a particular range may be different. What may be out of range for me may not be out of range for my opponent. One biggie is training guys to move smoothly between the ranges and using the tech relevant to them.

Anyway, my two cents worth!! Have fun.:beer: