When I take a layman’s perspective on effective distance, it is easy to conclude that for arts such as TKD, the sweet spot seems to the longer range. With Jiu-Jitsu, obviously the close range. But Arnis has significant set of techniques at all three ranges, from a long range with the sticks, to medium with open hand and some of the kicks and finally the close range. So is there a sweet spot in arnis? Are all ranges the sweet spot(s)? Or is it really up to the practitioners to find their own.

Personally, I think it is really up to the practitioner and my personal sweet spot is close and just to the outside of my opponent’s side. This is just a matter of the x-pattern forward to the left or right. I find this spot to be the most uncomfortable for most partners since 1) I’m on the outside and 2) I’m at an uncomfortably close range. This is the space bubble people talk about. This is the space that people on the street show their bravado with by getting into people’s faces and people pushing people out of this space. But this is also where, to me, the arnisador is most comfortable, not only with being on the outside, but this close range. This is where one has the advantage, because we can maneuver in these close confines and also manipulate the opponent’s body.

So lately I’ve been teaching my students that, as always, if the option exists, run away (more on this later), but if you have no choice and the combat is empty hand, then close in. Preferably to the sides, but even straight in because this is where most people do not have a significant arsenal of techniques. Close in and from there determine whether the situation calls for an arm lock or a throw or a break.

I was demonstrating a move to my students today and I had a slightly difficult time executing it. The move was basically an armbar to a backwards throw, changing the opponents momentum from one direction to another. At first I thought that perhaps it was the size of my students who are larger and stronger than others I have worked with. But then again, I’ve worked with a wide range of shapes and sizes in my own training and haven’t had problems with this technique. After watching a few of my student try to execute the technique as well as some trial and error, I came to the conclusion that this had worked in the past because I wasn’t teaching it, I was practicing it. The subtle difference being that when showing the technique to students, one generally tends to be gentler and slower than when practicing the same technique. Since this technique really depended on an opponent’s reaction to the armbar and their tendency to want to go the opposite way as a reaction to it, there was a need to make the armbar slightly painful. This elicited the right reaction to make the technique flow and make it effective. At some point in the future I’ll write about the need for realism in practice through sparring and senario evaluation, but even outside of these types of training, executing a technique to a level of discomfort is not only crucial to you learning how the technique will execute in more realistic circumstances, but also make you more adept at executing the techniques. While I think it is important for students to go slowly at first with a cooperative partners, there are benefits to a slightly opposing partner and execution of technique with controlled speed and power.

One of the unfortunate aspects of learning/training is that we learn the movements of the upper body separately from the movements of the lower body. So we learn to block first then step then punch and rather than treating these as one fluid set of movements, we are drilled into executing three separate moves for three specific purposes… 1) eliminate the immediate threat, 2) close in, and 3) Counter. Until I started teaching and watching my students, I never realized that for a long time, I executed things as distinct steps with distinct purposes. While these distinct steps may work perfectly well in a real-life situation, what they tend to do is add time to the completion of the end goal, eliminating the opponent–every distinct maneuver adds a small amount of time, a split second, that gives the opponent an opportunity to think and react. When the body moves in unison, when the step is block, step and counter are happening almost simultaneously. The step is not only to get closer to the opponent but is angling the body to block while allowing the other hand to counter. The step isn’t distinct but part of the block and counter.

I was teaching the #3 disarm today–this is where an opponent swings a stick with the right hand to your left rib area, with the disarm being a post block with your stick, and then reaching out with the left and, snaking around the opponent’s hand and disarming the stick. As I was showing this the back and forth motion of the left hand stood out to me. As much as the hand needs to extend to reach around the opponents hands to disarm, this motion also serves the function of misdirecting and disorienting the opponent because the hand basically flies out close to their face, then comes back it close to your chest and then shoots back out for the disarm. It manipulates the focus of the opponent as they are being disarm by rapidly changing the distance of the disarming hand. Even in close quarters, the back and forth movement can be an effective way to keep your opponent disoriented. Of course on a larger scale, this is much more visible when an opponents energy is redirected from a punch to a backwards throw, but I was delighted to notice the same type of redirecting happening, perhaps at a mental level if not a purely physical level.