Controlling Ranges of Combat.


Controlling Ranges of Combat.
Original Poster: The BadBoy
Forum: Jeet Kune Do Jun Fan Bruce Lee Forums
Posted On: 06-12-2004, 07:10

Orginal Post: The BadBoy: Over the years the JKD family and many others have been pushing the idea of ‘fighting ranges’ to the forefront.

One of the major ideas in the art was the idea of interception, of using the stop-kick and the jab to stop someone’s advance. Also a lot of the ideas behind controlling range were based on the ideas of using footwork, feints and counterstrikes to control the distance in which you were fighting. Using the idea of avoidance, and avoiding ranges you don’t want to be in through using the above listed ideas to keep the fight where you wanted it.

Then came along MMA and the concept of ranges became muddled. It seemed that the wrestlers and Jiu Jitsu people could impose their will of infighting and grappling on other experienced fighters very easily.

Interception and counter striking against someone to keep range didn’t work as well as advertised. Fighters waded through hard punches and kicks, ducked under jabs and front kicks and generally closed the distance with little trouble.

So the question is: Does the idea of controlling range really exist?


Distance training IMO should be an integral part of every martial art training. There are many ranges you can work from but the 5 basic and known are, Full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 and 0. Full range and 0 range are pretty much self explanitory, but I’ll still touch upon it a little.

Full range: basically is keeping your opponent just outside your front kick extension. You can look at it as the personal space you have when in a confrontation.

0 range: Is basically the Clinch or grappling, point 0 distance, where there is no space between you are your opponent.

3/4 range: is basically your opponent being just inside your full extension of your front kick, or just out side your jab (with punches)

1/2 range: is basically keeping your opponent at around your front knee extension

1/4 range: is basically keeping your opponent at your elbowing distance

A good figher will always use distance knowledge when fighting. Like for instance a TKD figher will more than likely keep you at full to 3/4 distance, a boxer will
keep you in 1/2 to 1/4 distance, and a grappler will love you to be at 0 distance. In arts like Kung Fu, Karate, JKD, Aikido they would like to utilize full knowledge of distance training. They incorporate all ranges into their training and fighting, *however it is always up to the practitioner to decide what distance he/she feels comfortable.

So this long winded answer to you question summed up is yes range controll does exist and is essential to everyone’s knowledge of fighting. A good fighter shoudl
know all ranges but also when you’ve found your prefered range of fighing is where you feel comfortabe and where you excel.>

Post: The BadBoy:

But how effective are you at controlling a range. thats what I’m getting at. Like I cited in my post above with MMA as an example. People seem not to have te ability to control a range. One persective is that the answer may lie in the ability to negate a range rather than to be able to control the one in which the excell.

I’ll give you an example, a striker and grappler. the striker wants to keep the range at strking or 3/4 as you put it. The grappler wants it at 0. Now from research and personal experience I can safely say that unless the striker gets a quick knockout then range 0 will sooner or later be achieved.

Now what I feel is that if the striker should be training to survive at 0 and geting back to 3/4 rather than saying my stop hits etc will be able to keep him away.

In other words. You cannot control range but you can negate one range to transit back to another.>

Post: zefff:

This is a huge area of interest to me! :mrgreen: I have seen grapplers who learn a bit of stick and destroy a lot of good eskrimadors in full contact stick sparing. But I have witnessed true adept eskrimadors who have amazing footwork and fluidity from one range to the next and are comfortable to go anywhere and keep dishing the pain out. :mrgreen: …but without the rattan its another story.

I think I agree with what you say badboy, I am a striker but feel it is neccessary for me to be comfortable in all ranges.>

Post: Gong||Jau:

I think the difference is that it’s very easy to hold someone in grappling range compared to how hard it is to hold someone at a longer range. You can evade a grappler all you want; at some point he’s going to close in on you and if you don’t at least have enough grappling training to get back out you’re pretty much done.

Everyone has a range at which they’re most comfortable. Some people are good enough that, despite having a preferred range, they’ll fight wherever they end up, but everyone is ultimately trying to move into the range they’d like to fight in. For example, if I’m sparring with someone, I’ll be trying to get into a close enough range to be able to easily use my Wing Chun. If they take me down I may grapple with them, but I’m going to be looking for an opportunity to get back to my feet, unless I see an opening for a quick submission first.

Here’s my take on the whole thing, and you can call it sport vs. street rhetoric if you want, but I honestly don’t think it is: most “real” fights are going to be attacks. If this is the case, you don’t need to knock your opponent out; you need to keep him from hurting you until you can secure an advantage (drawing a knife, getting away, having the fight broken up, etc.). In a ring, if you don’t like grappling you basically have no choice except to score a knock out. That’s great, but if you’re a better striker than your opponent, you’re going to spend the length of the round avoiding him and trying not to be taken down, and you’re almost certainly eventually going to end up grappling him (see: CroCop vs. Noguiera).

As always, just my $.02.>


i like throwig in a feint or two when the other is advancing. i like working between medium to short range. like to strike them move in for the grapple or clinch. some times from the clinch push back and strike. but i also think that this interation between ranges should also tye in with different types of rythem of attack and broken rhythem to. this make for good use of ranges.>

Post: EastMeetsWest:

use the jab to keep distance.>

Post: lakan_sampu:


We modern Arnis practitioners learn police techniques wherein a large part of it has counters to grappling people. Just keep in mind that when a joint is stopped when grappling, most probably it will never be accomplished (the grappling). I good grappler once attempted to take away my rattan stick and after minutes of countering his efforts we stopped and he said “wow, that I can’t comprehend”. Stick grappling is very,very effective while combining it with simple strikes (empty handed or not) and I reccomend to the vital points you know. executing an abaniko-dublete-punjo combo on a grappling dude was what I did in the very beginning of his attempt; he was last year’s grappler’s cup champion at our university. I did it of course with a padded stick so as not to hurt him. Range is a very good thing to comprehend and handle. We Kombatan practitioners are taught to “flow” in a different range in combat>>>armed, unarmed, trapping, grappling.>

Post: zefff:

li_siao_lung – respect mate but I wasnt saying “once you have been stripped of your rattan.” I meant general emptyhand sparing with no weapon involved in the first place. I understand that transition between ranges is the key to success for eskrimadors. But on an equal footing how do you fair with the champion grappler?

I’ve trained with many men who dont care about jabs and feints and will simply steam in and try to get their hands on you regardless of the punishment you give. Thats why I feel I have to be comfortable with the fact that without the extended range a stick gives, I am gonna get caught out at some point. Not that I run from the ground or anything! :roll: :mrgreen:>

Post: NeverMan:

[quote=EastMeetsWest use the jab to keep distance.[/quote 

I agree. I think it is possible for a talented boxer, or the like, to force the opponent to keep distance, or to make him pay dearly for coming in.

The problem with MMA, and especially alot of the early UFC stuff, is that most of these guys were not talented boxers, also they had no idea what to expect, so when they got their butt handed to them by a grappler they were amazed.

Others watching this thought, “I need to learn grappling”. Nowadays, if you are in a MMA competition, chances are you know grappling, so it’s not really an issue nowadays.

I think it is possible to control range, however, it takes skill, talent, and a mindful fighter. Also, I think the MMA analogy needs more light to be shed upon it before taken for fact.>

Post: The BadBoy:

This then leads us to another concept. “The scenario dictates the strategy (therefore, the flow of fighting ranges).”

In other words, would it also be fair to say that ranges are not solely concerned with the actual physical exchange of techniques (kicks, punches, etc) but also refers to the range where the altercation has already started.

For example, if I become aware of a threat, I can put my hands up in the “fence”. Assuming where you place your hand in relation to your opponent; that’s your range. You can slip in and out of different ranges during a fight but at exact point in time – the range is being decided or has already been decided.

Now this leads to the problem of the arts that define ranges. Subconsiously becuase you have been taught techniques for various ranges do you then start hunting for a range where your favourite techniques lie ratehr than go with where the fight takes you?

Did any of that make sense?>

Post: NeverMan:

Yes it makes sense.

I think it’s important to do both, if that makes sense.

Your art might have a fav (or designed) range.

It is nice to know how to fight in all ranges, and invariably, a good style or fighter can do this, or allows for this, however, this isn’t to say that the styles or fighters most comfortable range is what is happening at all times during the fight. For this, the fighter is usually working to get in his “ideal” situation, that is, his “perfect setup”, that is, his most comfortable range.

So the whole fight you take what is given, but also continuously attempt to get back into that comfortable position. I think this happens naturally, without effort from the fighter due to natural instincts and fighting practices.>


the gab is effective if you and opponent are kinda not moving round. if you have some one steaming towards you a good frontal kick normally gets tem or makes tem slow. but be warned a skilled grappler can some times read this and ten your on your back with him on top. :? not a good potition to be in.>

Post: The BadBoy:

I recieved this response from MrApollinax in a PM:

Re: Controlling distance myth or fact?

Distance control is a fact of life when it comes to fighting. If you can sucessfully keep a person in the range yo specialize in or can easily move into that range you will win the fight. So the question is raised, why didn’t it work in the early MMA events like UFC? Why couldn’t WC guys etc use their concepts to intercept, redirect etc (I’m only using WC as an example not a rule)? How could grapplers move into range quickly and bring the fight to the ground?

I think that the answer is really simple. Grapplers train this movement constantly against each other and anyone they train with. The footwork and movement involved is designed to work agaisnt a majority of fighters. Why? because there are only so many ways to try to stop a person from getting into in-fighting range. Once you understand those delievery systems understanding how to change your movements to maximize the success rate is easy.

The shoot is probably the best example of this. Lets look at stop kicks, jabs etcs vs the shoot. when done correctly there are few ways to defend against a shoot. When performed by someone well versed in the footwork and movement involved, the person being shot doesn’t even know they are going down until contact is made. The shoot is done so quickly it is very difficult to get a stop hit to be successful, also things like body mechanics and such factor into the success rate of striking vs a good shoot but we’ll leave that alone for another time.

The most sucessful defense against the shoot is the sprawl, a defense that grapplers invented (i’m generalizing here of course). Grapplers understanding the delievery system of the shoot came up with a defensive move to nullify all the factors that the shoot uses to take someone down. Instead of trying to root down and strike etc (newtonian physics come into play there) grapplers go with the motion so to speak and use their entire body weight vs the body weight coming at them using the combined weights of the two people (plus gravity) to stop the shoot.

Also we can look at grapplers being able to bait for the opponent to react and then shoot for the takedown etc etc etc.

So again why didn’t more people know how to defend against grapplers also many people seemed to know how to sprawl but they did it horribly. Why would that be the case? Those people trained against people who are not known for their shoot technique. Example: Two TMAs want to train their shoot defense. So they pair up and one shoots and the other defends. It seems to work well against each other. One of the TMAs gets into a barfight against a college wrestler. The wrestler shoots and the TMA guy trys his defense and ends up on his back. Why did this happen? Because the TMA guy wasn’t prepared to deal with someone who trains to shoot correctly. TMAs are not known for their abilities to shoot, so to practice against someone who doesn’t know how to shoot doesn’t not show you if your defense is valid or not.

So the short version is this. Grapplers train to close the gap in ways that should be successful against all fighters. Standup guys usually (in my experience) train against other standup guys pretending to be grapplers to test their techniques against people closing the gap. When it comes to fighters trying to close the gap with striking they probably have the best tools against that, jabs, stop hits, interception etc but they do not really train for a real grappler trying to close the gap for a takedown. Distance controling is not a myth but it takes an understanding of the delievery system behind attacks as well as testing yourself against those well versed in those delivery systems to really prepare yourself to defend against them.>

Post: ap Oweyn:

[quote=The BadBoy So the question is: Does the idea of controlling range really exist?[/quote 

Great question!

NHB was a real eye opener for me too. It seems to me that a “fight” will go to whatever the closest range is allowed by the ruleset and the experience of the fighters. So in a kicker vs. boxer match, it’ll go to boxing range. The kicker won’t be able to keep the boxer away.

If it’s a boxer vs. a grappler, same logic applies. We’ve seen those scenarios play out dozens of times.

I think the bottom line is that the margin of error is two small. A guy can come forward at a very fast rate of speed. And a lead side kick or jab would have to be perfectly timed and placed in order to stop that. That’s a very select opportunity. And it only lasts for a fraction of a second, if that.

So no, I guess I don’t necessarily believe in controlling the range. It’s possible to a degree but not reliable. The concept of ranges now is more that someone is going to be able to take you where you don’t want to go. So you’d better have SOME idea what to do when you get there.


Post: Godfather:

I agree with what The BadBoy is saying. I think it is better for a striker to learn to survive, and hold his own at grappling range. This way the striker can at least negate the grapplers intentions, and bring the fight back up into a comfortable striking range. This is not controlling the range, by stop hits etc, and attempting to stop other ranges in the fight from ocurring. Instead, it is going where the fight takes you, and looking for openings and working to bring the fight back to a comfortable striking range.>

Post: Italian Monk:

Great thread topic, and great posts . . .

IMHO, A fight/confrontation is in constant flux … therefore one with the ability to constantly adapt and transition will be effective by ‘flowing with’ the range the fight goes …. and ending it (the confrontation) accordingly.

Sometimes some will be able to control the actual range … sometimes some wont. This depends on the skill/experience of both individuals as well as other factors involved (multiples for example). This is never a constant. What IS a constant is your ability to again … adapt and transition. It is best to be well ‘versed’/skilled in all ranges … again … adapting and transitioning . . .

This is applicable to one on one …. mult vs one … no matter. This sounds easy … but in short … it is a lifestyle of training. The path never ceases … but always continues.


Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=The BadBoy So the question is: Does the idea of controlling range really exist?[/quote 

Of course the idea exists. If it didn’t, how would we talk about it?

But to answer the issue, not the improperly formed question, keeping the range is less important actually than keeping the position. For instance, I submit for your approval the case of Tito Ortiz. Tito is, or maybe was, famous for pushing people into the cage, pinning guys in and limiting their mobility. If you are a long distance striker or a close up grappler, it doesn’t matter. If they’re pinned down to a single spot and can’t move as well as you can, you win.

The issue of range was so interesting, originally, to the JKD people because they started in a world where the two most popular martial arts were Tae Kwon Do and Karate, with the only essential difference being the importance of kicking, and thus introducing the idea of range differentiation as a factor in offensive capabilities. Now that all the styles in the world are free to be used interchangeably, and everyone is aware of tools that work at different ranges, range is less important while mobility is a prime factor again.

Outside of the Octagon, mobility is even more important because you need to be able to escape at any moment.>

Post: jlambvo:

Quick story: I wasn’t able to witness this, but someone at my dojo saw a street fight a few years ago at the neighborhood bus stop by the school. Neither person appeared to have much if any training, although one was a clear aggressor that was really pounding away at the other guy, who had been standing unprepared holding a jacket in one arm.

The “aggressor” made some effective evasive attempts and made a few jabs at the more wild dude, who was ignoring these small blows until he slowed his flurry of attacks, staggered back, and crumpled. His opponent calmly walked away.

The guy turned out to be perforated with small stab wounds, from a knife that was hidden under his opponent’s jacket.

Then came along MMA and the concept of ranges became muddled. It seemed that the wrestlers and Jiu Jitsu people could impose their will of infighting and grappling on other experienced fighters very easily.

The point is that there’s one major issue I take with this phenomona.

Most TMAs–not 20th century nationalistic inventions but those that were “discovered” through warfare–were developed in the context of armed combat. Many armed martial art systems might train empty-handed but still account for weapons; I know my own system (budo taijutsu) assumes the possibility or presence of concealed/visible weapons, and this also seems to be the case with most Japanese koryu and Indonesian blade arts. I can only assume this is the case with many other older arts as well.

I don’t know if this is forgotten by a lot of students of such arts or what, because in NHB examples they don’t seem to acknowledge the change in dynamics in a straight unarmed fight. Wading through punches and shooting for leg takedowns is a stupid idea if your opponent has a blade of some kind, but that is obviously not an issue in the ring and so those tactics are overwhelmingly successful, so we constantly see TMAs and pure strikers get trounced.

Put knives, or better yet the possibilty of concealed weapons, into the equation and I gaurantee there would be a shift to more focus on controlling range, etc., as that is much more demonstratably vital in weapon-based systems. Of course blades are still not one-hit kills on contact you still need placement, but fewer people are willing to get cut than take a jab to the face. I’m also not suggesting that you cannot effectively close to grappling range and control the weapons, but you certainly can’t be such a maverick about it… it’s ALL about controlling range and acting as you cross over.

I agree with Des to an extent about mobility, but I do think the two are not mutually exclusive but related.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

[quote=jlambvo I agree with Des to an extent about mobility, but I do think the two are not mutually exclusive but related.[/quote 

It’s been a while since I’ve had my head in this thread. What “two” are you referring to? Mobility and range are related?

Absolutely, I agree. If somebody is farther away from you, you have less obstruction to your mobility. If somebody is farther away from you, you have a greater need of mobility to perform effectively.>

Post: MA dude:

I think you can keep a fight in a range you want. the key is learning that that you prefer less and learn how to escape from it. For example Silva and cro crop both have excelent takedown defense and can keep the fight standing quite a bit. Couture is incredible in the clinch and can decide wether he want to box or ground and pound the guy. However controlling the range is quite difficult.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:


I’m not disagreeing with you, but asking for clarification. How does the concept of controlling ranges with kicks and punches apply to weapon fighting?

The argument is that when you are fighting unarmed you can’t control the range with a straight kick or a jab because a grappler will just wade in.

But if you had a knife or even worse a gun…why would you ever be throwing jabs and kicks to control the range? If I have a knife and I really think you are a threat, I’m going to be using my knife to keep you at a range, or else I’m going to let you come in so I can stab the hell out of you.

I guess my question is: Do people really try throwing kicks and punches to control range when they are holding a knife, or in the instance of an ancient battlefield art, a sword? If someone were trying to get into grappling range and I had a sword, wouldn’t I just slice them up? Why risk my balance by lifting up one foot?>

Post: jlambvo:

Erm, I mean that from the perspective of the person willing to wade through attacks, the opponent might have a weapon. Now instead of absorbing a few jabs and kicks you are getting sliced to ribbons. It’s important to consider when looking at NHB as a “testing grounds” for combat effectiveness, because some of the most common tactics are rather poor when weapons might be present… many of which might lead us to the perception that control of range is a futile effort, etc.

In any case, yes on the ancient battlefield you would use anything at your disposal to control the space/distance between yourself and the opponent including punches and kicks of need be. Many larger weapons were often used as grappling/trapping tools as much as anything (such as the big two-hander swords). But the point is that if either or both you and your opponent/s have weapons, well… there is more caution involved and control of distance more critical.

My .02 anyway :)>

Post: lakan_sampu:

great thread..unfortunately I am outdated with it..

Zeff…great question there…hmmmm…….
If he’s already in 0 range with me holding a rattan…then I’ll try flowing to a punjo(butt) range with my stick…striking his vital points…
In equal footing? I have no stress whatsoever right now with grappling as in GROUND but…maybe I’ll avoid his takedowns/shoots as much as I can and strikes some vital points as much as I can without really getting into his range. Maybe pulling some hair…that’s not prohibited in a fight, right?lol…

Pugay, mga kaibigan!>

Post: lakan_sampu:

I agree with 8limbs…most probably I’ll stab or slice if I have a weapon of any sort instead of striking barehandedly. Of course I’ll use that weapon to complement my barehanded skills inasmuch as I can and not solely rely on the weapon itself.>

Post: jlambvo:

I agree with 8limbs…most probably I’ll stab or slice if I have a weapon of any sort instead of striking barehandedly.

Grrr….Sorry if my clarification after 8limb’s comment was unsuccessful. I am trying to describe the reverse situation, where YOU are barehanded and the OPPONENT has a weapon. Or he COULD have a weapon…. you never know. In such a situation, it would be unwise IMO to wade through punches and shoot for takedowns.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

Yeah but the whole argument on this thread is that the convention of controlling ranges with strikes is ineffective. That entire set of techniques pretty much goes away when you introduce weapons, because neither side will be attempting to control range in this manner.

At least I would never be trying to throw jabs and straight kicks against a guy swinging a knife.

Therefore you are basically reinforcing Badboys original point. If we introduce knives into the equation, controlling ranges with strikes becomes even LESS effective because a knife wielder will be even more likely to crash through a barrage of punches or kicks in order to get in and stab/slice you to death. If you both have knives, then neither person will even be attempting to control range through kicks or punches.

Do you see what I’m saying? Like your point is valid (basically that what works in MMA might not be the best for the street in all situations) but I’m not sure it works in this particular instance.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

situation a, the original argument: Person X wants to control the range of the fight with strikes. His opponent pulls a Mark Coleman, takes some shots in the face and sucks in a double leg for the takedown. Situation A shows us that controlling range is impossible.

situation b, Lambvo’s position: this is not the UFC and Person X may have a blade and therefore disregarding defense and going straight for the takedown will get you killed.

situation c, neo-8Limbs: if Person X has a blade, he will not just stand there, he will most likely charge you with little regard for defense.

Correct me if I’m wrong with the above.
Possessing a blade won’t necessarily make that person the agressor in a fight, they may expose little to attack and simply wait for an opportunity you give them, like trying to shoot for a takedown. Possessing a blade does not necessitate skill with a blade and therefore certain techniques can and will still work with great effectiveness on somebody weilding a blade. Furthermore, in a fight, disarming an armed opponent is your first priority and therefore, you should take the aggressive stance to keep the enemy from finding targets, but that blade is serious trouble and so controlling range is still very important. Jamming the enemy’s attacks, seizing and taking control of the weapon hand and using natural terrain in conjunction with angles of attack are paramount to defeating an enemy weilding a knife. Controlling range in this situation is not only effective, but almost necessary.>

Post: jlambvo:

Yeah but the whole argument on this thread is that the convention of controlling ranges with strikes is ineffective. That entire set of techniques pretty much goes away when you introduce weapons, because neither side will be attempting to control range in this manner.

Hmm, perhaps I partially misunderstood because I didn’t necessarily think that the idea of controlling range was limited to doing so with kicks and jabs, but keeping your opponent at a desired range with a combination of movement, deception, and long range weapons (which in an unarmed context is punches and kicks). You can still “strike” with a knife. See the below quote from the original.

Also a lot of the ideas behind controlling range were based on the ideas of using footwork, feints and counterstrikes to control the distance in which you were fighting. Using the idea of avoidance, and avoiding ranges you don’t want to be in through using the above listed ideas to keep the fight where you wanted it.

But if the discussion is strictly about using jabs and kicks, I guess I’m using a bad example :)

Des, you have it pretty much right on, thanks for the clarification. I assumed in my example that the person with the knife is on the defensive.

One consideration missing however is the high probability that the knife is not in plain sight, it is either concealed or not deployed yet. Many people would agree that a knife is best not revealed until you are at least close enough to use it if not already cutting. This goes both ways of course…

I dunno, I guess what I’m saying is that vying for control of range is going to be most common between cautious fighters (it is stressed more in ‘soldierly’ arts), and I wouldn’t say that the original examples by Badboy which disregard this strategy are realistic because participants KNOW some more dangerous factors are not present.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

Basically, I agree with JLambvo and Des’s posts, but I’m just saying that we are talking about different things. Unless I’m wrong and Badboy wasn’t talking about controlling ranges by any means. Keeping opponents at certain ranges with footwork and a slashing blade is obviously a good strategy.

But what I thought Badboy was trying to dissprove was the idea that you can control range with teeps and jabs, etc. I don’t think Badboy meant that if you had a knife you shouldn’t try to maintain range by slashing your opponent. The idea is that most TKD, JKD, MT schools teach you to throw a front snap kick or a jab or something whenever you see your opponent coming in. Badboy is saying that if that guy wants to come in, throwing a teep at him isn’t necessarily going to stop him. Now, once you bring up weapons, then its a whole different ballgame.

The thing is, regardless of whether concealed weapons are present or not, it doesn’t change the effectiveness of controlling ranges with unarmed strikes. For instance:

1. Guy A has a knife, Guy B is unarmed. Guy A shoots in, Guy B throws a front snap kick, Guy A plows through it and gets the takedown and then stabs the hell out of B.

2. Guy A is unarmed, Guy B has a knife. “A” shoots in, B tries to through a front snap kick, but A ignores it and gets the takedown. B pulls out his knife and stabs the hell out of A.

In either instance, the presence of the knife proved deadly to the other guy, but controlling ranges with kicks and punches was equally ineffective in either situation. If anything it proves that you shouldn’t shoot in on people when they might have a knife, and if you have to then at least be aware of what his arms are doing.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

8Limbs: I think your argument is true with low force strikes. Controlling ranges is still possible with more forceful push-strikes, redirections, et Al.

For instance: Person A has a knife, Person B does not, A shoots for a double leg take down and B uses a common sprawl to redirect the advancing A into the ground. B does not get stabbed and can stand to escape or launch a savage head kicking spree.>

Post: Irish_Blood:

If I had a knife, and someone went to kick me, tackle me, punch me or push me.. Why wouldn’t I attack the closest limb?
I believe a few knife-oriented arts study to do this exact thing.
Expanding on this…
If someone performed a “teep” to keep the knife weilding attacker away, he could simply cut downward and cut a vital part of their body. Ex: Achillie’s tendon, femoral artery (if the attacker moved in) or even sliced accross the kicker’s kneecap…
Or what if they slashed the jabbing defender’s wrist? Or what if they cut the tendons in the elbow joint? Or cut off a few fingers?
What if the defender tried to attack with a takedown ala doube leg for example. The knife weilding attacker could stab them multiple times in the head, chest, throat and armpit before the fight hit the ground.

How can you keep an advancing attacker with a knife away with strikes when he cuts whatever you throw at him?>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

When I did my AMOK! seminar we actually drilled this very thing over and over again. Any attack my opponent did, I was taught to slash the opponents limb. While we were only working with knife against knife, and unarmed defense against knife and we never used kicks, I’d assume its the same thing.

But I think what Des is referring to is where the knife wielder is attempting to crash the line. In this case, while an unskilled striker won’t be able to keep him out with jabs and teeps, you can use other tactics, like a sprawl (perhaps) to keep the opponent from getting into the position HE wants you to be in. Also, I can definately see a very powerful man being able to use a jab or teep against a smaller or weaker opponent. If you’ve ever been teeped by a guy who’s bigger and taller than you, you know it can send you stumbling back pretty easily, and only a really skilled knife fighter would be fast enough to slice that foot before it cannons into you.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

That’s exactly my point, 8Limbs, you can still control ranges and positioning. Unfortunately, the typical methods deployed by MMA-bound strikers are inferior against dedicated attackers (armed or unarmed) when compared to styles dedicated to dealing with position dominance. Unfortunately, no position-dominanting styles really state what they are and many of them fall into the category of TMA, which is slightly less likely to make it to a modern school’s curriculum.>


About Author