Hi All Having taught self-protection for almost 30 years, it is always refreshing to see how creativity and hard training can produce something worthy of serious consideration. Enter 'The Approach' by Eddie Quinn.' I first met Eddie over 15 years ago and have always been very impressed by his speed, power, focus and total dedication to the martial arts. Highly respected within the Muay Thai, Silat and Filipino Martial Arts communities, Eddie has developed a masterclass in self-protection. In a 3 DVD set recently released, Eddie demonstrates accuracy and clarity in performing and discussing the core techniques, training methods and strategies of The Approach. With clear demonstrations, Eddie reviews technique evolution, body mechanics, explosive power development and using The Approach for multiple striking methods against a variety of common and less common attacks. Check out the website at http://www.the-approach.com/ for something new that could benefit all of us. Stay safe Peter
If you are someone who has attended a seminar with Eddie Quinn on 'The Approach' or have the set of DVds etc, could you please inform me of the following: Is the 'Approach' a principle or a technique-orientated system? If relevant, what are the basic principles of 'The Approach' and are they easy to learn/ use? What makes this system different from other 'self-defence' orientated products? If I invested in the series what do you feel would be the main thing (s) I would gain from it/ them? Your answers greatly appreciated.
I trained in Muay Thai with Eddie, hes a top bloke, always threw a little bit of his silat into the lessons somewhere, great bloke, relaxed and knowlegeable, i dont know about the approach, but having trained under eddie i can vouch for his abilities in Muay Thai and for him as an instructor. If your tempted id say go for it.
well i would say get the dvd's and check it out for yourself, there not very expensive. i would say from my limited understanding that it seems to be using a figure 8 movement with the hands like you would in knife work to strike the head and neck with forarm/hammerfists and also you use the same technique to attack income punches ect, so your whole deffence, offence is largely based on one simple gross motor skill.
Reading an article in MAI I'd say Blanker is about right. What was stressed in the article was forward pressure. You're not just stood there doing a figure of eight with your arms but aggressively moving into the guy while using your forearms and hammer fists to blast whatever is in the way. Here's a clip... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B27VHHSY3U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B27VHHSY3U[/ame]
your right and i failed to mention forward pressure until you k.o your attacker with the hammerfist/ forarm strikes or get close enough to clinch and use knees elbows headbutts head rips and other takedowns. another thing i think needs a mention is that your breaking your oponents balance by driving there strikes and there for there bodyweight offline.
Looking at the videos reminds me a lot of the SCARS system. It also emphasized circular strikes, moving forward aggressively and trying to overwhelm with a continous series of strikes. Its more gross motor than SCARS so it betters IMO for real fighting. On the other hand it shares the same weakness as SCARS in that it will relatively ineffective against a trained fighter with a good defense. Also the lack of defensive capability predicates you taking the first shot. That is a problem both tactically and legally. Unless the opponent is armed or you are facing multiple attackers legally its an uphill battle to justify first strike for self defense (although its a good fighting strategy). Tactically its hard to use a first strike methodology if thats the same strategy opponent your opponent uses.
your allowed to make a pre emptive strike if you feel threatend so theres not to much of a problem especially as people seem to threaten to kill you as a fight escalates. most rbsp systems work from a pre emptive strike. i dont think you have read the previous post right if you think it would be inafective against trained fighters, as the attack and defence are the same thing. say someone for example threw a jab which most trained persons would, you would use a inward hammer strike at the incoming arm both attacking the arm and defending from the strike then you would circle the same hand outward and attack with a forarm/hammer fist to the head/neck this outward motion can also intercept the cross if the pain and unbalancing from the first strike dosnt stop the cross before its thrown also as soon you have finished the figure 8 movement with the lead hand you do you same with the rear which can intercept strikes and attack without you even having to react to the cross.
First of all circular strikes are generally easier to defend against than straight blows because the arc presents more opportunity to defend vs the a linear strike. Secondly circular strikes tend to leave one more open to counter punching. Finally in his demonstration he was leaving himself totally open to counter striking. He had no protection for his vital areas. SCARS did this to and they pretty much got creamed by good fighters. Using something such a 3 point cover would pretty much neutralize his attack IMO and allow one to counterstrike and/or move to clinch range. The system has its merits like most systems, probably worth looking at but one would need to build in some good defensive elements IMO
i dont know what scars is but thats what you seem to be basing your opinion of the approach on. its hard to get a feel for it from that clip and to be honest its not a very good example. i would suggest that you get the dvd's as your whole premis seems to be mistaken.
SCARS system wasn't a system that was supposed to be about 'duelling' with 'trained fighters' though. It was about causing definite objective injury in an asocial situation (as in it's broken, that's ruptured etc) against someone intent upon Criminal Violence. The systems that have sprung from/ gained momentum from SCARS have a similar ethic, hence why they use the Combatives perspective of Forward Drive/ Pressure. With regards to the pre-emptive striking route, I'll ignore the moral/ legal issues, as they are a quagmire. The point, I feel, is not to face off with somebody and see who is the 'best fighter' by testing each other, having a duel etc, but rather to break them into pieces by taking the immediate advantage gained by consistent forward pressure (take ground, occupy their space etc). I don't want to find how good a fighter they are. I want to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. (obviously I'd much rather not even be there at all). That said, I know that is all academic, as the scary thing for most martial artists is that injury can occur to anyone at any time, including you/ me/ them. I might attend a 'The Approach' seminar to get a better idea. Thanks all.
The problems with SCARS and its successors are on several levels. First it is preemtive strike based. So you have to have compelling evidence for striking first. Unfortunately in our country lawsuits are very common and so you can win the battle but lose the war. Secondly their premise is that their strikes will 1) hit the target 2) that effecti will be enough to temporarily stop the opponent from acting against your act, whether attacking you or trying to escape etc. In high stress situations fine motor skills degrade significantly so accurracy becomes more of problem. Also in high emotions such as anger, fear, drug ingestion and psychotic states may make responses to said blows reduced or absent all together Finally SCARS has no defense. Miss the first shot whether from your own inaccuracy or due to defensive maneuvers of your opponent and you are open to counter attack. Not to mention does not train an individual to fend off trained combination attacks. If anything it opens them to such an approach. Early in the UFC there was a SCARS based fighter who was quickly dropped in the first round when his attack was blocked and then he was counterpunched and that was the end of the story. Granted if some guy comes running up to you screaming and yelling some gibberish you cant understand and you react by poking him the eyes then kicking him in the nads because he now raised his hands, then hammer him over the back of his neck when he bends over you probably win the that event. However when you find out he is a foreign immigrant speaking a language unknown to you and that he is coming to you pleading to help his child that is in trouble you will lose the war! SCARS like most systems has some good points especially its focus on striking "vulnerable areas". However IMO there was way to much hype that made and continues to make a lot of money for its proponents. Its stands a system adopted for a short time by the Navy for select units but has since been dropped from the program. It has never proven its effectiveness.
These are all very valid points. Unfortunately they are not what I am talking about. I am not talking about styles and their merits (even in relevance to 'The Approach'). When we start to talk about styles, arts etc, things tend to degenerate into a battle of vested interests. I am talking about intent. That of the initiator and that of you, the reactor. To me the definition of self-protection is using violence against asocial criminal intent. That is the protection of myself and or other people against asocial criminal intent. That's the only time it's ever of any use and that's about 1 percent of the time. The 'problem' that most martial arts have is that they are passive, in that they are behind the curve waiting to react to 'an attack' and they are technique-orientated. If he goes to do this, I'll do this this and this. The mindset needs to change when dealing with real violence (not chinning someone in the pub because they spilt your pint). Just to point out, that whether or not someone can hit a target under duress applies to anyone protecting themself under duress, regardless of what they profess to practice/ teach/ train in etc. Adrenaline works the same in pretty much all of us. Thanks.
i will explain it again, the approach is not scars. there are no fine motor skills involved and the targets for the hammer is anywere from the collar bone, the neck or head so theres a massive target area , you want to aim at the jaw/chin but the neck temple or collar bone are likely to get hit if you miss, you also have a massive area to strike with, any thing from the hammerfist the forarm elbow so an average man has about a foot of attacking area that can hit to maybe a foot and a half of target. there is no defensive motion as everything is both an attack and defence i have explained how this works in a previous post so want go over it again but you are basicely intercepting any punch with a forarm hammer fist so again you have a massive striking area and target area so as you can see there is both offensive and deffensive options but thay just happen to be the same thing. to answer your comment about trained oponents i feel it its a little to focused on trained oponents as in the dvd's it is shown against someone in a boxing stance throwing jabs crosses hooks uppercuts along with shucker punches headbutts ect and combo's.
Interesting to see other people working with the Figure 8 approach. I've always found it a good method, the Russian styles use it a lot, some say because some empty hand aspects are based on weapons work - like in this clip. I'm guessing the same is true of the Silat styles? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UNMPbUXtTo"]YouTube - SYSTEMA WORKSHOPS - Stick Drills[/ame] cheers Rob
its based on weapons i believe and is explained in the dvds by using knifes and other weapons to show the right movement. its not really like the systema stuff though.
I don't know, how different can figure 8 movement be? Granted the Russian stuff tends to be very fluid but I can't see a lot of difference
well thats the thing, you cant really make a fair esement from youtube clips. i dont really know that much about systema and your the same with the approuch.
Yep I see what you mean, that's why I asked how different the things can be. In Systema the figure 8 is one way of working and it works well at either cutting through a guard or attack or going round it at "odd" angles. Much the same as they work the knife, and I gather that kerambit and similar work along the same lines. It's also good work for in a crowd and for getting out multiple hits from one movement
