Space, Distance and Time

Space, Distance and Time.

The three integral and interlocking principles which dictate the success of any violent action.

To measure the efficiency of any technique or concept you can and should first apply the "three in", "three out" methodology. i.e. if any one of the three elements are not present and are not measured and understood then you have a recipe for disaster and should consider your basis for success to be significantly compromised.

Your focus in any violent action should be to either control the space (the location), the distance (the proximity) and the time (the moment where a successful attack can be launched). If any of these three supportive and interlocking points are removed then your focus should be on recovering those three elements. If your opponent has successfully gained control of where and when the altercation takes place then you are tasked with recovering that measure of control as the basis for a successful platform of attack.

Training should also take these elements into account. These are the keys to interrruption of pattern and non symmetrical training. Force students and training partners to manage the space, distance of time of the interaction at all stages and ranges. The concept of the fence for example certainly aids in this but you also need to integrate this training methodology into "worst case" training where the key is in recovery and response. Work drills where distance is stuffed and space is unexpectedly closed or compromised. Work drills where timing is pushed off and out. Sparring is a good tool but has limitations in that it can easily slip into a "give and take" symmetrical exchange which doesn't fully test the abiilty to control space, distance and time. It also fails to incorporate the necessary training for pre-emptive strikes that should be a keystone of all good self protection training.

There are books to be written on this topic but I'm interested to hear how you adopt these controls within your training. Certainly, the discussion around "walk-ups" is wholly contained in an understanding of them.

Aren't Space and distance the same? Or do you mean the actual area around yourself?

I'm of the school of thinking that you can't control these elements and therefore to train in such a way that you have an effective weapon no matter the space distance or time. Hence I do a lot of palm strikes which can be delivered with little of each.

I did used to train myself with as little of the three as possible. I used to stand in narrow places and make the pad holder place the target in deliberatly akward places (such as on the end of my nose and the like)
to make it difficult to deliver the blow. Also I make a point of telling people off when they adjust the pad location to make it easier to hit...

I am also of the opinion that one has no control over these "elements" except the attacker, but sometimes good self protection means you should be the attacker, so the principles should be part of the plan of action.....great post Chris.

Good point mate but I suppose you could say assume you can't

When I've done traditional stuff (mostly karate and capoeira) I have emphasised that the circumstances dictate the move as I suippose one of the bigg differences in trad stuff and the RBSD is the wider varaiety of techniques (for me at least) and I was constaly telling people that the distance and location of the target indicates.

In which case I found myself telling people off for holding the pad in the wrong place.. the polar opposite for RDBS lol (" No we're doing side kicks and I had something I was kicking there I'd use a front kick")

space and distance are different aspects of self-protection/self-defence.

Space is what you work with to allow you to move around, such as if YOU have your back against a wall.. you will have 180 degrees of SPACE, the distance may be (just as an example) 1.5 metres away from each other.
Your opponent will have the same 1.5 metres distance, but if he is that far away he will have 240 degrees of SPACE.
he can also move backwards, you cant...... lots more examples of that are there to work out

Dave is the one who switched me on to these concepts. There is a depth to how Dave teaches them which is disguised by their simplicity.

here are some very brief examples I use when trying to explain the underlying principles.


Imagine you are in a room faced with an aggressive opponent ten feet away from you.

You step forward and engage. He moves two feet towards you but you move four in that same space of time.... BANG. YOU are in the red zone first. In HIS mind.. you are there twice as fast as he is. Control of distance and time.

Alternatively, you step backwards into a doorway which only allows space for one person. He engages. YOU have dictated the SPACE of the engagement.

You both move towards each other. You slide inside a 45 degree angle opened up by his front leg. Hitting as you go. Catching him as his front foot is dropping into place. SPACE, DISTANCE and TIME.

it's the cornerstone of all violent action and the key to success. Pattern interruption et al.

[quote="Jagunco"]Aren't Space and distance the same? Or do you mean the actual area around yourself?

Space and distance are different. Controlling the Space means a possibility to avoid altercation (Awarenes/avoidance). Space means the surrounding area where you are in. 360 degree scope. Spotting a threatening situation in advance, provided you are in code yellow, will allow you to apply the principle of a sound management of your Space .

Distance is the small space that separates you from your would be opponent, when you are already dealing with a face to face. Using the Fence while adopting an assertive behaviour is an effective management of the Distance.

David Turton wrote:space and distance are different aspects of self-protection/self-defence.

Space is what you work with to allow you to move around, such as if YOU have your back against a wall.. you will have 180 degrees of SPACE, the distance may be (just as an example) 1.5 metres away from each other.
Your opponent will have the same 1.5 metres distance, but if he is that far away he will have 240 degrees of SPACE.
he can also move backwards, you cant...... lots more examples of that are there to work out

.

So SPACE can be narrowed. Ok. Very good to know.

Chris wrote:Dave is the one who switched me on to these concepts. There is a depth to how Dave teaches them which is disguised by their simplicity.

here are some very brief examples I use when trying to explain the underlying principles.


Imagine you are in a room faced with an aggressive opponent ten feet away from you.

You step forward and engage. He moves two feet towards you but you move four in that same space of time.... BANG. YOU are in the red zone first. In HIS mind.. you are there twice as fast as he is. Control of distance and time.

Alternatively, you step backwards into a doorway which only allows space for one person. He engages. YOU have dictated the SPACE of the engagement.

You both move towards each other. You slide inside a 45 degree angle opened up by his front leg. Hitting as you go. Catching him as his front foot is dropping into place. SPACE, DISTANCE and TIME.

it's the cornerstone of all violent action and the key to success. Pattern interruption et al.

.

Thanks Chris for the drills. Good additional techniques worth applying.

Strangely enough this topic was covered in 1599 by a Mr George Silver ...as 'explained' in his Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence;:



Of Times
1. The time of the

hand
foot
hand & foot
foot & hand. naught

Of place space, strength, & time

1. The time of the hand is when you strike from a ward or stand in place to strike.

2. The time of the foot is when you step forward to strike or when you gather towards your own right side.

3. The time of the hand & foot is when you tread your ground in course to strike rather that pressing forwards, or when you slide back or go back, your hand & foot being then of equal agility.

4. The time of the foot & hand is when you handle your guardant play using then a slow motion in both.

There is but 1 good way to gather upon your enemy, guardant. All other are dangerous & subject to the blows on the head or thrust on the body.

For no way can ward both but as aforesaid.

Your hand & feet in good play must go together, whether it is in quick or in slow motion.

In gathering forewards or towards your right side your hand falls from your place, space, time, & strength, & so falls out the loss of time.

When you gather & suffer that govern your fight, defend only. When you do, be single, or not fixed towards any single lying, but also the quickness of your hand in its proper place carried.

In breaking the thrust when you lie aloft single or guardant & space your arm somewhat bowing in warding the blow, have respect to your place of hand & strength, your arm straight. This course in your time is best performed, the one of these with your hand aloft your point down the other your hand in place your more high your space less curious.

II. Time is chiefly to be observed in both actions upon which place 93re or space waits.

Upon these 3 the 4 following, upon these 4 the first 3, upon these the latter 3.

To hurt or defend, a time in both is observed to the furtherance of which place is to be gotten, without which time will be too long to perform that which is intended, the space is to be noted between 2 opponents & in respect of touching, or in regard of saving as also for preserving of time, by the small way it has either to the body, or putting by the weapon.

The next 4 must be used together to perform the other 3 rules, for the hand being nimble & quick of itself may else be hindered in the want of any of these, the weapon must be framed & inclined to serve the agility of the hand either in hurting or defending.

4. The body upright or leaning to the weapon, that it hinders not the disposition of the other 2 the foot answerable to them plying the hand & ward all in straight space, the ward with the hand high with the point down, the arm straight out as ready for both actions

The way under the ward withdrawing the body from harm, the motion slow that the action of the hand is not hindered.

The rest are the dispositions of the placed displaced handlings

Silver was a genius ... and as always "There's not much new under the Sun"

That's fantastic Dave C, I'm going to have to sit down and decode what he was saying though!

He was,Dave, at least I think he was....as Chris has found...it's like reading Shakespeare, you tend to think, 'hey that's brilliant...but what the fuck does it mean??'

And the 'Brief Instructions' is the easy one to read!!! But his principles are interesting, especially for this thread, he bases his approach to long edged-weapon combat, which has literally no room for error, on four grounds and four governors, a bit like space, distance and time (at least part of that is the concept of 'measure' in Silver's combat). I think Dave's example earlier is an example of what Silver would call 'wide spacing' your adversary, which effectively means putting him in a position where you can twat him before he can twat you. I've studied something of Silver but it's a bit clever for my little brain...Terry Brown's arguably the expert.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/brief.html

The four grounds or principals of that true fight at all manner of weapons are these four, viz. 1. judgement, 2. distance, 3. time, 4. place.

The reason whereof these 4 grounds or principals be the first and chief, are the following, because through judgement, you keep your distance, through distance you take your time, through time you safely win or gain the place of your adversary, the place being won or gained you have time safely either to strike, thrust, ward, close, grip, slip or go back, in which time your enemy is disappointed to hurt you, or to defend himself, by reason that he has lost his place, the reason that he has lost his true place is by the length of time through the numbering of his feet, to which he is out of necessity driven to that will be agent.

The 4 governors are those that follow

1. The first governor is judgement which is to know when your adversary can reach you, and when not, and when you can do the like to him, and to know by the goodness or badness of his lying, what he can do, and when and how he can perform it.

2. The second governor is measure. Measure is the better to know how to make your space true to defend yourself, or to offend your enemy.

3. The third and forth governors are a twofold mind when you press in on your enemy, for as you have a mind to go forward, so

4. must you have at that instant a mind to fly backward upon any action that shall be offered or done by your adversary.

I would like Martin's take on the Silver stuff ...

I'm going to jump in on this in a bit...just busy doing taxes right now.

Nick

I am always interested in hearing (reading?) Nick's take on topics .. stuff the taxes Nick.Ha Ha

also, with regards to these three concepts... dont forget as well as you trying to control them, your opponent/s will also be trying to control them

you have to take that control away from him/them and make them your own

Loving reading what you're all putting forward here. Eagerly waiting Nick also!

Chris its an interesting topic but I feel has to be over simplified to be conferred via words.

One of our core principles is that you can't be effectively struck if the opponent has no solid base to deliver the blow from or they're not already moving towards you.
So you can use timing to take their base from them, I.e. in that split second as weight is transferred from one foot to the other
And/OR you distract/manipulate them to remove their base/stability where upon you can deliver blows with no real concern about substantial returns.
Or
Am I completely missing what you're referring to

I'm trying to figure out why Jagunco and Govinda don't think they have any control over these elements and that they only belong to the enemy? Not having a dig by the way...seriously interested.

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote:I'm trying to figure out why Jagunco and Govinda don't think they have any control over these elements and that they only belong to the enemy? Not having a dig by the way...seriously interested.

Nick

Well for me, I'm talking about if you get attacked, I'm guessing you don't walk around all tactical 24/7, I know I don't, how is one prepared IE, in bed, in a Que, in the pub etc, in these instances how do you have control...

you MAKE IT .. you get what you can by first 'accepting the attack'... that is the FACT that you are being attacked and take what you are given and change it to something else

It's not simple, it's incredibly complex but it is fundamental to success. (in ANY physical endeavour... not just combat sport)

At the most straight forward level, ensure that your drills are all subject to realistic movement from the opponent. Make them asymetrical and not reciprocal exchanges. Even worse, if you catch yourself or anyone else playing "statues" during training then immediately call a halt and assess what you are trying to achieve. Unless it is to successfully defend against stationary attackers then open your eyes and work more realistically.

You "cannot" replicate a "fight" in the gym. Not unless you are prepared for injury and potential fatality. You CAN replicate elements of the real fight. The stress, physical exertion, random variables etc. It's harder, makes it harder for the instructor/coach as well but it's the only way to train.

Nick Hughes wrote:I'm trying to figure out why Jagunco and Govinda don't think they have any control over these elements and that they only belong to the enemy? Not having a dig by the way...seriously interested.

Nick

Past exerpeince perhaps Nick. I did go to a Mick Coup seminar in which he indicated that certain moves were ineffective because they required too much control. Or tat's whatI understood from what he said.

Also bad experiences when I was told the you should always keep 2 meters away from someone in a fight.. try doing that n the dance floor when someones charging at you

Also over the ages I tended to train people and myself to react to what they have rather than trying to get into a positions to use a certain technique. As in someone with a fetish for side kicks would always be back peddling or whatever to get to that side kick distance.

Also I used to train with an idiot that told us that we should always maintain a distance of about two meters away from an opponent.... which looked great when he wanted to demo a defence and the poor sod would have to sail accross two metres of empty space into his waiting knuckles. He was a showboat and an idiot that makes me opposed to the things he did even when they did make sense and frankly that two meter thing made no sense unless it was in a controled enviroment.

Other than that I have to concede that I did forget that it is possible to maintain some control. You can train to close in, you can change position in accordance to the opponent by side stepping or somesuch. You can put up a fence. So my fault there didn't consider the question 100%

I guess that after ten years of trying to use a low karate stance to cover two meters and knowing full well that whatever happened was going to reeeeeally hurt made me a bit jades to the subject.

And lets face it we all know there are going to be those times when we're suprised and have to react and that can happen so just because its possible to exercise some control its still a good idea to sometimes train on the premise that you don't....

David Turton wrote:you MAKE IT .. you get what you can by first 'accepting the attack'... that is the FACT that you are being attacked and take what you are given and change it to something else

To easy, probably some of the time it could work like that,.......maybe, depends who's attacking I guess, for someone who knows how to rob you (career predator, seasoned street fighter) I doubt you'd have a chance to blink never mind re-position yourself..........no doubt though someone will have a dvd on this very subject