This post is kind of a spin off of Sing's post because he got me thinking. 
Most of the FMAs we see here in the states emphasize mid and close range tactics. I don't know whether that's because these are the most popular styles that have the most followers, or because they are flashier and attract more attention, or because that's the ranges that most people feel are the most important. Most of what I've trained has been at middle range, next would be close range, but long range only got kind of a "passing mention." You don't see many guys really emphasizing long range methods. Do a survey of the videos available on the market. You won't find much dealing with long range. Even in a system like Lameco that is supposed to incorporate all 3 ranges, what you usually see demonstrated is middle range. Why is that? I am reaching the conclusion that long range is extremely important and the most effective of the three. Why isn't it trained more? Watch the Dog Brother fights in their videos. They primarily stalk from long range, look for or create an opening, clash quickly, and then disengage or go to the ground. You see very little of the mid & close range exchanges that so many of us spend countless hours developing. You don't see any but the most basic of disarms. Think about it....how much time do you spend working on long range tactics and closing the gap vs. time spent doing sinawalli drills, sumbrada, disarms, hubud, etc.? Yet what is going to be the most effective in a real exchange? Watching Eric Knaus fight reminds me much more of western swordsmanship than it does of what we usually think of as FMAs. Western martial arts seem to put their emphasis at long range and work on evasiveness and timing more than defensive techniques. Maybe we should be reconsidering some of the tactics we have learned in our FMA studies. Long range methods seem to be simpler and more direct than working at the other ranges. Perhaps that is why they are being neglected. It takes much more time and training to do the mid to close range tactics well. They are "flashier" and fun to work on with a partner. They also translate the most directly to empty hand applications. But my feeling is that for serious weapons fighting, long range methods are safer, easier to develop, simpler, and more likely to work. So, to tie into Sing's thread....I think that a simplified method based on long range would be in no way inferior to the more complicated methods that have lots of drills and training at mid & close range. So as an informal poll, how much time do you all spend seriously training at long range in your systems? Thanks for any feedback.
Keith
------------------
Attitude Is Everything!
Most of the FMAs we see here in the states emphasize mid and close range tactics. I don't know whether that's because these are the most popular styles that have the most followers, or because they are flashier and attract more attention, or because that's the ranges that most people feel are the most important. Most of what I've trained has been at middle range, next would be close range, but long range only got kind of a "passing mention." You don't see many guys really emphasizing long range methods. Do a survey of the videos available on the market. You won't find much dealing with long range. Even in a system like Lameco that is supposed to incorporate all 3 ranges, what you usually see demonstrated is middle range. Why is that? I am reaching the conclusion that long range is extremely important and the most effective of the three. Why isn't it trained more? Watch the Dog Brother fights in their videos. They primarily stalk from long range, look for or create an opening, clash quickly, and then disengage or go to the ground. You see very little of the mid & close range exchanges that so many of us spend countless hours developing. You don't see any but the most basic of disarms. Think about it....how much time do you spend working on long range tactics and closing the gap vs. time spent doing sinawalli drills, sumbrada, disarms, hubud, etc.? Yet what is going to be the most effective in a real exchange? Watching Eric Knaus fight reminds me much more of western swordsmanship than it does of what we usually think of as FMAs. Western martial arts seem to put their emphasis at long range and work on evasiveness and timing more than defensive techniques. Maybe we should be reconsidering some of the tactics we have learned in our FMA studies. Long range methods seem to be simpler and more direct than working at the other ranges. Perhaps that is why they are being neglected. It takes much more time and training to do the mid to close range tactics well. They are "flashier" and fun to work on with a partner. They also translate the most directly to empty hand applications. But my feeling is that for serious weapons fighting, long range methods are safer, easier to develop, simpler, and more likely to work. So, to tie into Sing's thread....I think that a simplified method based on long range would be in no way inferior to the more complicated methods that have lots of drills and training at mid & close range. So as an informal poll, how much time do you all spend seriously training at long range in your systems? Thanks for any feedback.Keith
------------------
Attitude Is Everything!
