Based on another thread, I'm thinking that there is some differences in opinion on what are the functional ranges in unarmed combat.
Let me start in controversial manner by stating there is only one functional range in unarmed combat, and it is associated with close combat. This range overlaps between medium clinch and medium punch ranges.
I call this area the red zone and is a sort of sweet spot for striking.
What defines it is two factors I believe are true for this range:
1) Ease of learning to be good at this range.
2) Where the most damage is done typically in unarmed combat.
Of particular emphasis is the ease of learning. People naturally gravitate to this range for learning power and speed with striking. If not taught otherwise, fights could end up at this range in a slugfest. What this means for a skilled fighter is that to stay in this range is very dangerous because even if you are a master in martial arts, any opponent in this range could be equally as good or better than you since it is a natural range to strike at.
Martial arts develop to avoid long exchanges in this range because anyone can come out on top and trade blows at this range... it is dangerous.
Some martial arts emphasize moving in closer than this range, where it takes more skill to be good. Moving closer tends to take the power and leverage away from opponents that aren't as skilled. Some martial arts emphasize moving away farther than this range, when it takes more skill to be good at the longer ranged striking.
Here is an example of boxer's strategy against a wrestler. A wrestler will build up skill in grappling, but more than likely the punching skill of the wrestler will be best only in that red zone. The boxer would avoid long exchanges in the red zone where the wrestler's punches could be as good as the boxer's punches. Instead move further out where the wrestlers punches won't be as good as the boxer's or move closer in where the wrestler's punches won't be as good as the boxers. Of course if the range ends up closer, the boxer will need good takedown defense and will want to know some wrestling themselves.
Alternatively, the wrestler's strategy is about the same, only more extreme on the ranges. Wrestler wants to avoid that red zone because even a bad boxer can have good punches in the red zone. The wrestler wants longer range outside of punches or even closer range, inside of clinch. If the wrestler punches, it will most likely be in the red zone where they naturally have better punches, but still a skilled wrestler would not want to say in the red zone for long.
The only ones that seem to want to stay in the red zone are either those that want to exchange blows. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, I'd like to know why being in the red zone would be preferred by any skilled martial artist.
Thoughts?
Let me start in controversial manner by stating there is only one functional range in unarmed combat, and it is associated with close combat. This range overlaps between medium clinch and medium punch ranges.
I call this area the red zone and is a sort of sweet spot for striking.
What defines it is two factors I believe are true for this range:
1) Ease of learning to be good at this range.
2) Where the most damage is done typically in unarmed combat.
Of particular emphasis is the ease of learning. People naturally gravitate to this range for learning power and speed with striking. If not taught otherwise, fights could end up at this range in a slugfest. What this means for a skilled fighter is that to stay in this range is very dangerous because even if you are a master in martial arts, any opponent in this range could be equally as good or better than you since it is a natural range to strike at.
Martial arts develop to avoid long exchanges in this range because anyone can come out on top and trade blows at this range... it is dangerous.
Some martial arts emphasize moving in closer than this range, where it takes more skill to be good. Moving closer tends to take the power and leverage away from opponents that aren't as skilled. Some martial arts emphasize moving away farther than this range, when it takes more skill to be good at the longer ranged striking.
Here is an example of boxer's strategy against a wrestler. A wrestler will build up skill in grappling, but more than likely the punching skill of the wrestler will be best only in that red zone. The boxer would avoid long exchanges in the red zone where the wrestler's punches could be as good as the boxer's punches. Instead move further out where the wrestlers punches won't be as good as the boxer's or move closer in where the wrestler's punches won't be as good as the boxers. Of course if the range ends up closer, the boxer will need good takedown defense and will want to know some wrestling themselves.
Alternatively, the wrestler's strategy is about the same, only more extreme on the ranges. Wrestler wants to avoid that red zone because even a bad boxer can have good punches in the red zone. The wrestler wants longer range outside of punches or even closer range, inside of clinch. If the wrestler punches, it will most likely be in the red zone where they naturally have better punches, but still a skilled wrestler would not want to say in the red zone for long.
The only ones that seem to want to stay in the red zone are either those that want to exchange blows. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, I'd like to know why being in the red zone would be preferred by any skilled martial artist.
Thoughts?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire