[quote=@Armed Forces]
<Snipped quote by Techspert>

No evidence, but it makes sense. Controlling the situation from up close affords the opposition equal opportunity to exert their control. From afar, those who seek to control the battle through their limited distance can be easily outmaneuvered by someone of equal physical capability who utilizes ranged combat. It sacrifices little on one end to allow the opponent minimal opportunities, and simultaneously grants one on the other end far more.
[/quote]

That doesn't affect personal control in the situation. It may be more effective in some cases, yes, but physics itself proves that the closer to you, the more control you have. For instance, projectiles are subject to both the elements, their own strength as you can no longer accelerate or add force, and the target, who may easily be able to stop it for the aforementioned reason. Large swords or poles extend past your body and your grip act as a fulcrum. The apparent weight is multiplied, requiring increased strength and energy to actually move it according to the way you wish because of concepts of angular movement and other such concepts of physics that won't be discussed now. Overall, it leads to decreased control of the situation. Even metaphorically, it makes sense. A leader who is present exerts significantly more control over his subjects than one who is absent or transmits commands via a medium. The closer to the object of control, the greater control exerted.