Jump to content

The Reach Advantage


DieAndBeMetal

Recommended Posts

I was just wondering what everyone's opinion was about this. Here's a few questions, and i'll answer them myself as well.

 

1. How important is having a reach advantage over an opponent? I believe in the stand-up portion, it can be huge TO A POINT. I also believe if you have too long of a reach, unless you know how to use it very well, can be a disadvantage. In the ground game, a longer reach=a longer target=more leverage=more pain= tapout. Enough said.

 

2. Instead of measuring to the fingertip, would it not seem more realistic to measure from the fist? I believe so. It's more accurate, because some people have longer fingers than others, thus resulting in a "longer reach". But, that is from a stand-up point of view. I can understand why they do to the fingertip though because of the grappling aspect.

 

3. Who uses their reach to their best ability in your opinion? Hmmm... Anderson proved to me in the Forrest fight he knows his reach well. But, there are many more good ones.

 

I thought I'd ask something different from once, compared to the "WHO IS TEH BEST FIGHTER EVERS???" threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering what everyone's opinion was about this. Here's a few questions' date=' and i'll answer them myself as well.

 

1. How important is having a reach advantage over an opponent? I believe in the stand-up portion, it can be huge TO A POINT. I also believe if you have too long of a reach, unless you know how to use it very well, can be a disadvantage. In the ground game, a longer reach=a longer target=more leverage=more pain= tapout. Enough said.

 

2. Instead of measuring to the fingertip, would it not seem more realistic to measure from the fist? I believe so. It's more accurate, because some people have longer fingers than others, thus resulting in a "longer reach". But, that is from a stand-up point of view. I can understand why they do to the fingertip though because of the grappling aspect.

 

3. Who uses their reach to their best ability in your opinion? Hmmm... Anderson proved to me in the Forrest fight he knows his reach well. But, there are many more good ones.

 

I thought I'd ask something different from once, compared to the "WHO IS TEH BEST FIGHTER EVERS???" threads.[/quote']

 

I think reach is important if you know your reach. I also think having a longer reach is probably more beneficial if you are fighting a pure stand up guy.

 

I don't think it really matters how you measure the reach as long as they are consistent. what's an inch or two gonna do for you anyway?

 

I have no clue who uses their reach the most effectively. Tim Sylvia... j/k...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reach advantage can he a huge advantage, but seeing as almost nobody in MMA throws a decent jab, it means little. In boxing, it is a huge factor and can be the sole determining factor of a fight. In MMA, it seems to matter very little because of the dynamic nature of MMA. Reach can be neutralized in a split second in MMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if u have ever been in a fight or fought before you know what a ***** a reach advantage is' date=' if they have a reach and speed advantage... your screwed...[/quote']

 

reach advantage is only advantageous if they can throw a punch before I kick them in the groin. either way they are doubling over and catching something to their nose... either I win the fight via flawless victory or I win the fight with minor damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reach advantage is a very big factor in the stand up game.

 

This is definitely true but the measurement numbers of reach are over-hyped. Fighters who stand square to their opponent have less reach than fighters who have a more perpendicular stance, I don't care how long their arms are. Guys who roll their shoulders forward extend their reach where guys who punch with more arm strength only decrease their reach. Fighters that lunge or duck in with their heads in the box have way more reach than guys who backpeddle and counter. There's way more involved than what the measuring tape says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely true but the measurement numbers of reach are over-hyped. Fighters who stand square to their opponent have less reach than fighters who have a more perpendicular stance' date=' I don't care how long their arms are. Guys who roll their shoulders forward extend their reach where guys who punch with more arm strength only decrease their reach. Fighters that lunge or duck in with their heads in the box have way more reach than guys who backpeddle and counter. There's way more involved than what the measuring tape says.[/quote']

 

very true. never really thought of it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely true but the measurement numbers of reach are over-hyped. Fighters who stand square to their opponent have less reach than fighters who have a more perpendicular stance' date=' I don't care how long their arms are. Guys who roll their shoulders forward extend their reach where guys who punch with more arm strength only decrease their reach. Fighters that lunge or duck in with their heads in the box have way more reach than guys who backpeddle and counter. There's way more involved than what the measuring tape says.[/quote']

 

Good analysis here. Nicely said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reach is an definately an advantage in striking sports, but only if used correctly. If you can use your reach to keep an opponent on the outside you can strike without being struck. It is very important not to allow the fighter with less reach to get on the inside. Naturally the fighter with less length MUST get inside the longer fighters range or else they do not stand a chance at all. They will just be picked apart with very little offensive opportunitues.

 

However, not all long-limbed fighters know how to use their reach effectively. An obvious example is BJJ fighter Stevan Struve. Skyscraper is 6'11 with obviously very long limbs. However his striking is pretty terrible so his length is easily defeated by a fighter who can get inside and throw bombs. Roy Nelson made him look silly. The kid's young though so hopefully he learns how to use that length better in the future.

 

Also, in MMA reach can be more readily neutralized than in pure striking sports such as boxing and kickboxing. In MMA a good shot or takedown and or clinch can stop the longer fighter from staying on the outside.

 

The best examples I can think of, of how to use range effectively are both outside of MMA. In boxing former HW champion Lennox Lewis knew how to keep guys on the outside. He used his range masterfully most of the time. My favorite example of using reach, is in the case of former K1 HW champion Semi Schilt. This guy is like 7' tall, and throws very nasty long kicks and punches that give his opponents virtually no chance of getting on the inside. Schilt was a master at using range and length.

 

Conversely there are guys who aren't long enough to use reach. Mike Tyson knocked out a lot of guys by getting in on the inside and throwing power shots like hooks and uppercuts from point blank.

 

So to summarize reach is an advantage in striking when used correctly; More so in non grappling combat. But it can be neutrailzed by an intelligent gameplan, just like most techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, when they talk about a reach advantage of 2", it's actually only 1" per arm, it's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

Think about this when you look at those measurements. Uriah Faber vs. Mike Brown 2; Faber breaks his hands and fights for 3+ rounds using nothing but elbows in the standup. By measurement, he was giving up about TWO FEET of reach by not using the bottom half of his arms yet he still landed strikes. He took risks and got in very close to throw those and closed the gap. Reach is what it is, some guys use it very well and some don't but it has little to do with length of arms in most cases.

 

A Kendall Grove or Stefan Struve type of length absolutely can make a difference but when the measurements are close, styles dictate the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also' date=' when they talk about a reach advantage of 2", it's actually only 1" per arm, it's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

Think about this when you look at those measurements. Uriah Faber vs. Mike Brown 2; Faber breaks his hands and fights for 3+ rounds using nothing but elbows in the standup. By measurement, he was giving up about TWO FEET of reach by not using the bottom half of his arms yet he still landed strikes. He took risks and got in very close to throw those and closed the gap. Reach is what it is, some guys use it very well and some don't but it has little to do with length of arms in most cases.

 

A Kendall Grove or Stefan Struve type of length absolutely can make a difference but when the measurements are close, styles dictate the advantage.[/quote']

 

 

more than styles I would say gameplan...

 

Faber (in the Brown fight) completely changed his gameplan once he broke both his hands. WOuld he have done that if his hands were not broken, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reach is an definately an advantage in striking sports' date=' but only if used correctly. If you can use your reach to keep an opponent on the outside you can strike without being struck. It is very important not to allow the fighter with less reach to get on the inside. Naturally the fighter with less length MUST get inside the longer fighters range or else they do not stand a chance at all. They will just be picked apart with very little offensive opportunitues.

 

However, not all long-limbed fighters know how to use their reach effectively. An obvious example is BJJ fighter Stevan Struve. Skyscraper is 6'11 with obviously very long limbs. However his striking is pretty terrible so his length is easily defeated by a fighter who can get inside and throw bombs. Roy Nelson made him look silly. The kid's young though so hopefully he learns how to use that length better in the future.

 

Also, in MMA reach can be more readily neutralized than in pure striking sports such as boxing and kickboxing. In MMA a good shot or takedown and or clinch can stop the longer fighter from staying on the outside.

 

The best examples I can think of, of how to use range effectively are both outside of MMA. In boxing former HW champion Lennox Lewis knew how to keep guys on the outside. He used his range masterfully most of the time. My favorite example of using reach, is in the case of former K1 HW champion Semi Schilt. This guy is like 7' tall, and throws very nasty long kicks and punches that give his opponents virtually no chance of getting on the inside. Schilt was a master at using range and length.

 

Conversely there are guys who aren't long enough to use reach. Mike Tyson knocked out a lot of guys by getting in on the inside and throwing power shots like hooks and uppercuts from point blank.

 

So to summarize reach is an advantage in striking when used correctly; More so in non grappling combat. But it can be neutrailzed by an intelligent gameplan, just like most techniques.[/quote']

 

 

Well said, Struve and Schilt are great examples, I wish Stefan would fight more like Semmy, maybe throw a front kick sometimes. Pat Barry is another example of having a short reach but KOing guys, he absolutely mauled Hardonk who is like 7" taller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be careful with long limbs from grappling. Trust me, I know from experience. Your armspan HAS to be kept in close at all times, especially on the bottom. Once a guy with long reach has his arm pinned all the way down, look out! Here comes trouble. A guy with a shorter span can get the arm up easier (He has less distance to go, doesn't he?), than a guy with a longer reach.

 

Striking, yes, a guy with better reach can have an advantage. But just because a shorter guy with less reach gets inside of you does not make you helpless. In fact, it can make you even more dangerous. All it can take is a couple of good uppercuts to the chin. Lennox Lewis could knock guys out with vicious uppercuts to the chin on the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely true but the measurement numbers of reach are over-hyped. Fighters who stand square to their opponent have less reach than fighters who have a more perpendicular stance' date=' I don't care how long their arms are. Guys who roll their shoulders forward extend their reach where guys who punch with more arm strength only decrease their reach. Fighters that lunge or duck in with their heads in the box have way more reach than guys who backpeddle and counter. There's way more involved than what the measuring tape says.[/quote']

 

very good point! :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if my memory's good Silva didn't have any reach avantage against Griffin.. anyways..

In the standup it is definitly a huge advantage. And I too think a long tall dude probly is disadvantaged on the ground because he's less strong and gives more leverage. On the other hand, if you're tall enough compared to your opponent you can use a body triangle... and that becomse a great advantage cuz when you have the reach it's kinda straight forward as soon as the guy gets in your guard..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reach advantage is only advantageous if they can throw a punch before I kick them in the groin. either way they are doubling over and catching something to their nose... either I win the fight via flawless victory or I win the fight with minor damage.

 

we are talking about sparing here and nut shots aren't legal in any sparing that i know of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...