Distance Theories

[CEB]

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.
...

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]

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]

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.

[gmanry]

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.

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.

[CEB]

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]

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...

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]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Goju Man]

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]

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]

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]

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.