Reach Debate

[RedRover]

Out of my own inquisition I did a search on this reach vs height thing, found a few threads, but then I realize there is some commentary that I've always wanted to provide on the discussion/debate.

Considering myself to be somewhat of a self-proclaimed expert on the science and physics of the fighting world, here are a few things I want to address regarding reach:
Arm Length / Shoulder Width, Hand Size (fingers/palm), the way we measure reach, and finally Armspan:Reach ratio.

1.) Arm Length vs Shoulder Width:
Assume you have two fighters with equal reach, one is longer armed and narrower shouldered, the other vise versa. The argument of a long armed guy having a "real" reach advantage over a wider shouldered guy with comparatively shorter arms is invalid. We are all familiar with kinetic linking, and how the power that comes from our punch comes from our whole body (legs>hips>core>chest>arms). When punches or combos are thrown, we torque our torso into the punch. Therefore at the point of impact our upper bodies are perpendicular to our target. Many fighters turn their shoulder even when throwing the jab. This action of turning nullifies the difference in reach bias attributed to either arm length or shoulder width, since the pivot point is in the center of the torso.
MATH: 2 guys with 70" reach: A guy with 27" arms who's shoulders' width 16"(27+27+16=70), has the same reach as a guy with 24" arms who's shoulders measure 22" wide(24+24+22=70). "Actual" reach [from center of torso] = (27+8=35 SAME AS 24+11=35)

2.) Hands
Although I will admit a person with unusually large palms and short fingers will have a slight (~1inch) edge on a person with unusually long fingers and small palms, this isn't the only thing to consider in MMA.
In MMA we use our hands for more than hitting with closed fists. Take downs, clinch, and ground game all benefit from longer reach. A guy with a measured reach advantage will have a take down range advantage obviously(think double leg/muay thai clinch).

3.) Method of Measurement
Measuring from the armpit to the closed knuckle is pretty much a worthless measurement, how is measuring from the flesh under your arm accurate? If a man pushes the tape measure into your side, he's gonna gain an inch or so. Also depending on much you're leaning to one side, or where the arm's connective tissue meets your torso will all affect this flawed measurement. I know when I'm places and people want to compare reach they always want each of us to make a fist and square up with each other. This is also irrelevant, largely to the center point pivoting I mentioned earlier, and also, the depth of peoples chest, if they roll their shoulders forward or push out their chests(which they never will) can all affect this shoddy way of "measuring" reach. The best way is and always will be, finger tip to finger tip.

4.) Wingspan : Height
I have searched this so many times and can't find a large statistical pool for it, what I did find was a college stats project Body proportions. With their pool, the mean relationship was Reach = 1.023 of Height. In other words, average reach is 2.3% greater than height. So an average 6'(72",183cm) tall guy should have a ~73.5"(187cm) reach. So you Miguel Torrez types with a reach of +10% over your height are very rare.

With all this analysis, it's obvious that reach is still only one determining element of a fight. Nelson vs Struve proved even the biggest reach advantages can be overcame!
-Cheers

 

[RedRover]

You know what, for some reason I was under the impression I would have to defend my points made, odd. Clearly what I claim here is not in agreement with many of the things I have read on these forums in the past, Thoughts?

 

[Da Speeit]

If youre punching correctly, youre exerting force from my back and shoulders.

 

[John Paul Borders]

Take downs, clinch, and ground game all benefit from longer reach.[/B]

Wrong

 

[RedRover]

Wrong

Woah... what an elaborate response.

Reach most definitely increases the range of a take down. Look at Jon Jones, with a freakishly long reach, he can grab someone's leg while in his striking stance. How about when you lunge in to secure a muay thai clinch, you're saying longer reach doesn't help to accomplish one easier? On the ground (lets say with someone in your guard), longer reach doesn't help to set up a triangle? In someone else's guard you can't strike effectively from a more distant position? The answer is obvious, reach helps in all of these circumstances.

 

[Cannon_6]

Woah... what an elaborate response.

Reach most definitely increases the range of a take down. Look at Jon Jones, with a freakishly long reach, he can grab someone's leg while in his striking stance. How about when you lunge in to secure a muay thai clinch, you're saying longer reach doesn't help to accomplish one easier? On the ground (lets say with someone in your guard), longer reach doesn't help to set up a triangle? In someone else's guard you can't strike effectively from a more distant position? The answer is obvious, reach helps in all of these circumstances.

I can't answer the grappling parts, but in MT "lunging in" to clinch is a really bad idea.

A grab+knee, on the other hand, is technically sound and definitely easier for guys with long arms.

 

[hustles]

Stopping in from the grappling forum to browse threads and stumbled into this one. Reach in pure grappling has both advantages and disadvantages..... shorter stockier limbs can make defending certain submissions like armbars easier while longer limbs can make setting up certain submissions like triangles easier....

 

[scarecrowbar]

I think for the most part fighters height/reach differences are irrelevant unless there is a drastic difference. If it's only a few inches difference it shouldn't be considered an "advantage" in MMA.

Watch Jones (6'4", 84.5") vs Matyushenko (6'1", 74") for a good recent example of how significant reach advantage can be beneficial offensively against a shorter stockier fighter.

Watch Struve (6'11", 83") vs Nelson (6'0", 74") for a good recent example of how significant height/reach advantage can be irrelevant (and possibly even detrimental) against a shorter stockier fighter.


Also; Mike Tyson only had a 71" reach and he still managed to bite off Holyfield's ear.

 

[Deleted member 256494]

I think arm length is important when counter-striking. often times a fighter has to snap a punch from an awkward angle which makes more of an arm punch than anything else. thus arm length can become a serious factor.

your example of jon jones v matyushenko highlighting the advantage a long man can have is quite absurd since it was really highlighting how insanely awesome bones is. it's not like he picked him apart by using distance well or anything. he just whooped his ass.

takedowns, clinch work, and the ground game do not necessarily favor the longer reach. in fact saying they all benefit the guy with the longer reach is just wrong. it leads me to believe you have never grappled or studied grappling.

 

[RedRover]

takedowns, clinch work, and the ground game do not necessarily favor the longer reach. in fact saying they all benefit the guy with the longer reach is just wrong. it leads me to believe you have never grappled or studied grappling.

I wrestled for 4 years(high school), learned a little Judo/Aikido from a Kenpo Karate club i was in for about a year, and also did BJJ nights at a DMMA. There are only 2 disadvantages I can think of right now by having longer arms(reach): defending the arm bar, and kimura defense(the longer arms works to a disadvantage because of increased leverage).
I can think of many times where it IS an advantage.
Takedowns: (1.)double leg - longer reach secures a hold on the back of the opponents knees with less effort. (2.)single/high crotch - you can secure a grip on the leg sooner, and without committing as hard as you would with a shorter reach. (3.) head/hip throw when stepping in on an opponent, the needed secure grip(clasping of the hands) is achieved sooner/easier/from a longer range..., allowing you to cinch in and commit to and finish the throw more often.
Clinch: ...perhaps not a definite advantage in the over under position but is an advantage in the: (1.)Muay Thai clinch - (a.)longer reach gives a longer range at which to secure this from, (b.)allows a greater range of motion to pull an opponent down or to the side further to get them off balance, pulling them closer to your knees(more power), (c.)or allowing for a MTclinch throw. (2.)Any around the torso grappling maneuver, like a bear hug for example. Another example of "around the torso"; when you have an opponent's back standing, your increased reach provides greater range of motion for fluctuations which allows you to do more from this position as well.
Ground Game (1.) Setting up the triangle(while they're in your guard) - allows you to grab your ankles and feet and opponents head from further away. (2.) GNP - punches can come from further away, while still holding pressure on their hips (more power). (3.) grabbing the head from bottom or top in a BJJ sense benefits from a longer reach(I learned this as a set-up for many other moves/transitions, I believe we called it the can opener?)
This list goes on and on... But I must be missing something because you claim this concept is: "just wrong".
So please, enlighten me on your superior grappling abilities and knowledge, on some ways in which reach burdens, not benefits.

 

[The_observer86]

I wrestled for 4 years(high school), learned a little Judo/Aikido from a Kenpo Karate club i was in for about a year, and also did BJJ nights at a DMMA. There are only 2 disadvantages I can think of right now by having longer arms(reach): defending the arm bar, and kimura defense(the longer arms works to a disadvantage because of increased leverage).
I can think of many times where it IS an advantage.
Takedowns: (1.)double leg - longer reach secures a hold on the back of the opponents knees with less effort. (2.)single/high crotch - you can secure a grip on the leg sooner, and without committing as hard as you would with a shorter reach. (3.) head/hip throw when stepping in on an opponent, the needed secure grip(clasping of the hands) is achieved sooner/easier/from a longer range..., allowing you to cinch in and commit to and finish the throw more often.
Clinch: ...perhaps not a definite advantage in the over under position but is an advantage in the: (1.)Muay Thai clinch - (a.)longer reach gives a longer range at which to secure this from, (b.)allows a greater range of motion to pull an opponent down or to the side further to get them off balance, pulling them closer to your knees(more power), (c.)or allowing for a MTclinch throw. (2.)Any around the torso grappling maneuver, like a bear hug for example. Another example of "around the torso"; when you have an opponent's back standing, your increased reach provides greater range of motion for fluctuations which allows you to do more from this position as well.
Ground Game (1.) Setting up the triangle(while they're in your guard) - allows you to grab your ankles and feet and opponents head from further away. (2.) GNP - punches can come from further away, while still holding pressure on their hips (more power). (3.) grabbing the head from bottom or top in a BJJ sense benefits from a longer reach(I learned this as a set-up for many other moves/transitions, I believe we called it the can opener?)
This list goes on and on... But I must be missing something because you claim this concept is: "just wrong".
So please, enlighten me on your superior grappling abilities and knowledge, on some ways in which reach burdens, not benefits.

All of the reach mentioned about grappling actually applies to arm length only. (not reach) Having wide shoulders won't help with grabbing the head as much as long arms would, no?

 

[Inquisitus]

Reach in striking is obviously very important. Shorter reach means you have to close distance and expose your important bits to counter strikes. You'd have less time & distance to react.

If you want to see the advantage of reach (& height) in striking and how you must know how to us it, watch Semmy Schilt vs Badr Hari 1 & 2.



Guy w/ reach being overcome with aggression, higher activity rate, and movement.



Guy w/ reach learning making changes to deal with aggression movement.

Hari, Schilt, & Overeem are currently the cream of K-1 and are pretty evenly matched.

 

[thirteen]

Wrong

If you don't mind I'll expand on this:

It's not your bloody arms that matter when your shooting a double - it's the drive of the legs (penetration through the target) that will make-or-break your 'shot'.

You could have the longest arms in the world - don't get in deep enough and there's no chance in hell you're gonna get a grip strong enough to bring a sprawling opponent in to take his base away.

 

[RedRover]

I never said having long arms or reach is a definite win ! But it does give you an edge, even in double leg take downs. I agree, having the power in your legs to drive through a shot is of up-most importance, more important than reach. But when you can get your hands on the back of the guys knees sooner, you can make his window for a sprawl a fraction of a second smaller.
To the guy that said everything i mentioned is only about long arms: When you shoot a single leg your body is perpendicular, negating the shoulder/arm bias.

 

[fourfif**]

I can't answer the grappling parts, but in MT "lunging in" to clinch is a really bad idea.

mt clinch is grappling, imo.

but in wrestling, shoulders should be making impact and hips should be underneath you.

that's why it's called a "shot" and not a "reach".

 

[xilliun]

Good post sir, some interesting points there. I personally think your reach should be measured from knuckle to half way between shoulder/neck because you pivot into your punches.

 

[Connoisseur]

Interesting points. I tend to think that arm length is the more important aspect of reach, but in all honesty it's how you use your reach that counts.

Take a look at Petrosyan, he generally enjoys a reach/ height advantage over his opponents, and uses that reach very well. But then when he fights a guy like Sato who has a larger reach than him, he fights very well in that role as well. And that's important. HOW you use the reach you have, relative to your opponent.

 

[SAAMAG]

Footwork trumps reach in both offense and defense. Reach means nothing when your footwork is off or your opponent has better footwork, because you'll never be in the right place to use your reach.

For example...on Saturday I was at the MT gym coaching. One guy was doing a teep drill with one of my private training partners. He said "the guy's arms are too long and I can't teep him without getting hit". I said "you're just going to have to figure it out"...wanting to see how he'd come up with a solution on his own (if at all).

After a bit, I told them to stop. I went in and illustrated that with someone who has a longer punching reach (almost to the point that it's longer than one's leg reach) that one solution was the teep kang vs the teep trong. The turning of the kick at the end of the standard teep motion allowed for a bit more reach and penetration.

The other problem he was having was timing. He didn't study his opponent--never looked for clues as to when the punch was coming. He was always a beat behind from that respect. Against a good puncher--relying on reaction after the punch is fired will typically end in getting punched when trying to use a kick to counter it.

He also never took his body off the line when he teep'd. I showed him that you can lean your body away and to the side a bit as well--especially with the kang version.

In the end--good footwork and spatial awareness--and using the right tool for the job will always neutralize general reach disparities.