# Ranges?



## Hand Sword (Mar 28, 2006)

During my training with "karate" (Japanese/Okinawan) influenced, and "Kung Fu" (Chinese) influenced systems, the topic of ranges differed. The "Karate" way seemed to involve 4 ranges : Kicking, Striking, Felling, and Grappling. The "Kung Fu" way involoved 5 ranges: Kicking, Striking, Trapping, Felling, and grappling. I was wondering for those that have trained in both of theses scenarios, and had to use the knowledge for real, what ideology was preferred? Is it necessary to trap? Or, should someone just destroy the oncoming strike, and go right in?


----------



## Franc0 (Mar 28, 2006)

There has been some argument as to whether trapping is an actual range as opposed to a technique employed within the striking/grappling range. Personally, I follow the thought of 3 ranges - Kicking, Striking & Grappling. A JKD instructor I used to train with said that trapping is done in between the striking & grappling range, thus making it it's own range, while another JKD instructor beleived in the same train of thought as myself. The over emphasis on ranges can be somewhat confusing since while in the clinch (grappling range) you can still employ elbow & knee strikes, as well as body shots & uppercuts. So you can strike in grappling range, but not vice versa.

"Is it necessary to trap? Or, should someone just destroy the oncoming strike, and go right in?"
Yes Actually, trapping is more of a skill taught in certain systems, that can be employed when the opportunity presents itself. Trapping can be associated with Chi Sao (Sticky hands) in which the practitioner develops a sensitivity towards reading an opponents weakness or opening in their guard. As to whether you should trap or destroy the incoming limb/strike, thats pretty much a matter of reactive response towards a certain attack. I feel it is a mistake to "plan" on what your reaction to an incoming strike will be. Like I mentioned before, I personally feel it's a matter of what opportunity presents itself.

Franco


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 28, 2006)

I was taught the ranges were, roughly,  "Kicking" "Punching", "Knees & Elbows", "Clinching", "Ground"


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 28, 2006)

I agree. I was just focussing on the differences that each side was stressing and how the opinions on both sides varied. It could be seen as both right, and both wrong, if you get what I'm saying. I was just curious as to how those that have trained both ways, and used it for real, thought of it. I hear you about the 3 ways, they all seem to overlap, kicking in striking range etc.. I heard it even simplified, as to only being 2 ranges--close or far!


----------



## still learning (Mar 28, 2006)

Hello, "Ranges" are just words to described distances. Every system/schools will have there own description.  Not everyone will agree?

Do you agree on this?   If you can reach with a kick...you are close enough, reach with a punch..you are close enough, elbow strike reach...you are close enough.   But if you can...so can THEY!

Make a range-ments to stay clear of getting hit too?  Farther the way..the better.........at least 2 miles........Aloha


----------



## green meanie (Mar 28, 2006)

I've been taught both 4 and 5 range systems. I teach mine that there's 3 ranges: free movement, the clinch, and ground work; with trapping falling into the clinch range.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 28, 2006)

Hmm, I know what you guys are saying but I don't think I subscribe to the theory of "ranges"... only space needed to execute an attack or defense.

I have seen guys in our art pull off kicks no one would think there was room for, and ive seen other guys do the same with punches... clearly well off of the correct "range" to make that type of attack, but their understanding of the space they needed to utilize was better.

I myself can execute some good kicks in "grappling range" as long as I am in the right space in relation to my attacker.

I think maybe locking yourself into the idea of "range" for punching, or "range" for kicking, or "range" for grappling MIGHT limit your responses based on a perception that you CANT do it because you are in the wrong range...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 28, 2006)

I agree Technopunk, you can certainly kick from within clinching range.  It was more a general waly of illustrating awareness of where you are in relationship to your opponent, then a way of saying only certain techniques would be used from 'ranges'

Being aware of where you are is being aware of where they are as well.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 29, 2006)

it's more of a spectrum, anyway. on one end, you've got 'real far', on the other 'real near'.

some arts will break it down into real far, pretty far, pretty near and real near.

others might add kinda far, kinda near

others might remove pretty near.

then all three will spend a lot of time and energy talking about how their version is the only real version.


----------



## MJS (Mar 29, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> During my training with "karate" (Japanese/Okinawan) influenced, and "Kung Fu" (Chinese) influenced systems, the topic of ranges differed. The "Karate" way seemed to involve 4 ranges : Kicking, Striking, Felling, and Grappling. The "Kung Fu" way involoved 5 ranges: Kicking, Striking, Trapping, Felling, and grappling. I was wondering for those that have trained in both of theses scenarios, and had to use the knowledge for real, what ideology was preferred? Is it necessary to trap? Or, should someone just destroy the oncoming strike, and go right in?


 
I've always categorized them as kicking, punching, clinch, grappling.  I've always put that 'trapping' in the clinch category.  

As for which is preferred?  I'd have to say it would depend on the situation being presented at the time.  Someone who is good at punching, I'd prefer to not stand and trade punches, but instead try to work some destructions, setting myself up for some in-close work.  Reverse that for a grappler...work on setting up strikes to keep the person at a distance.  

Just because we break these down into seperate categories, certainly does not mean that we can't get in some kicks, knees, and stomps while working the grappling phase.

Mike


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree with everyone about the situations, and how the ranges overlap. I guess what I was getting at is... Some styles ignore trapping altogether, as it was said to me Trapping is due to soft blocking not removing the striking limb. It was better to always hard block (strike) the attacking limb, thus removing it as you closed in to finish. What I'm gathering thus far is that you all follow the use trapping theory, and have made it work for real.


----------



## still learning (Mar 29, 2006)

Hello, Biting range....is either 1 or 4/5?  Um?   ...Aloha


----------



## stone_dragone (Mar 29, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hmm, I know what you guys are saying but I don't think I subscribe to the theory of "ranges"... only space needed to execute an attack or defense.
> 
> I have seen guys in our art pull off kicks no one would think there was room for, and ive seen other guys do the same with punches... clearly well off of the correct "range" to make that type of attack, but their understanding of the space they needed to utilize was better.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with the argument against the mindset of ranges and the possibility of it limiting your own creativity and personal expression of @$$kickery.  

That being said, I personally use the concept of six ranges (projectile, hand-held weapon, long striking, medium striking, close striking and grappling ranges) as a non-restrictive tool to visualize the area of conflict in relation to the enemy.  I teach that there are tools that work best in certain ranges for certain people and that each person needs to identify their strengths in each of those ranges.  Not everybody will be Bruce Leroy in every range, but it is a definite asset (almost a prerequisite) to be familliar/comfortable in each "range" and capable of transitioning from one to the next relatively seamlessly.

My two bits.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 30, 2006)

Anyone for 10 ranges, and we'll call it even? -LOL!


----------



## still learning (Mar 30, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Anyone for 10 ranges, and we'll call it even? -LOL!


 
Hello,  Can I get a RANGE check on that?    ....(raincheck).....Aloha


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 30, 2006)

Sure, why not!


----------



## Suntail (Mar 30, 2006)

I've learned four ranges: offensive, counter-offensive, critical distance, and out of range.  I like the way they feel, at least in sparring.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 30, 2006)

shooting range, driving range, electric range, gas range?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 1, 2006)

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello,  Can I get a RANGE check on that?    ....(raincheck).....Aloha



ouch.

i always do appreciate your outRANGEous sense of humor.


----------



## Robert Lee (Apr 9, 2006)

In todays aspect You have stand up clinch then ground as ranges befor You could look at kicking punch trapping and grappleing ranges. But to look at that you seperate distances. Easy to have 3 ranges Then think of several. Trapping is only a by product for hitting. Remove the obstruction to hit. If you can hit with out haveing to trap allways just hit. A trap either pins or controls The obstruction to just after the strike contacts and retracts. Or on ground work stops the next phase and helps lead to a better postion for you. Most people have there strong range and the others should at least be workable ranges for them.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 15, 2006)

The problem with defining ranges is most become limiting due to the way they named and are defined. Kicking, punching, and so on. I personally like long, medium, close. All encompassing; all intergrateable. 

Danny T.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Standup, clinch, and ground for empty hands imo.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 17, 2006)

Sounds sensible.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 17, 2006)

For BASICS we teach 3 ranges, 3rd range-long kicks, 2nd range-thrusts-punches, 1st range knees, elbows, clinch, locks, grappling. We consider this part of our "relative positioning" training. In upper training the ranges _BLUR _in that the ranges so overlap that it becomes impossible to classify.


----------

