CMA and body type

[theneuhauser]

theres a lot of variety in the CMA's. ive often heard that the northern long range styles are best for tall folks, and the southern close combat systems are ideal for shorter practitioner's.
do you think this is true. It seems to make sense to me for practical, reasons. if you have a reach advantage over the majority, why not learn to exploit that advantage? for a shorter person, it makes sense to get in close because the mechanics of a short arm or leg allow for quicker and shorter attack motions, right? However, i am 6'3" tall and a feel more comfortable at medium to close range. my studies have been in both short and long distance styles with the majority leaning towards the "northern" systems. So is this a complete misconception?
What's your experience and feeling on this? what's most comfortable or awkward for you and how does it relate to your particular natural attributes?

 

[arnisador]

I've heard the same things and to some extent it matches with my anecdotal experience--the people I know who do northern styles tend to be taller and thinner. It does make some sense given how the styles are constructed--their fighting philosophies. I certainly believe some arts are better for bigger/smaller, thinner/heavier, faster/stronger people.

I'm slow but relatively strong--not the FMA type at all, in my opinion, but it's what I like!

 

[7starmantis]

I believe that to a point, but if they are truly norther and southern systems, there had to have been people of all body types in both areas when the systems were created. So I think it can be adapted, however I do feel it compliments those said people very well. (North = tall, South = short). However, I'm 6'2" 215 pounds and I feel most comfortable in medium to very short range. I think another thing that may come into play is that "long range" to a CMA may not be the same as we are thinking as "long range" like compared to TKD or other well known systems. Ok, maybe I'm just rambling now, but I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I consider myself a tall person yet I'm very comfortable in short range. Most of my training would be considered northern, but I haven't seen alot of what I would consider long range in my training, so maybe it is just a myth.
At any rate, good topic, I'm going to go ponder it now.


7sm

 

[theneuhauser]

you really think long range boxing is very different from say, TKD range or Karate? that's an interesting question. what is close and what is long range? i would theorize that any style that moves predominantly straight forward into an opponent would be close range. while long range styles use medium and high kicks as well as alot of diagonal and sideways movement. i dont know whether "mid-range" is a recognized term, but if an art uses kicks above the knees and also moves more often straight forward then it would be awkward in close, but also need to be close enough for effective"rushing" (kickboxers often clinch in close). maybe this is a better way to delineate between styles, especially when identifying CMAs. oftentimes the terms internal and external or northern and southern style have exceptions.
so are there 3 basic categories that we can better identify and explain alot of the methodology from here?

 

[7starmantis]

Hmmm.....I think I would agree with you. high kicks and such would deffinatly be a long range. 3 basic categories, but are there many CMA that use high kicks and long range?


7sm