# Eddie Quinn "The Approach"



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 5, 2014)

Here is a post on my blog a while back on a UK based martial practitioner Eddie Quinn.
Eddie is a Muay Thai instructor as well as an instructor in Silat Fitrah.

The Instinctive Edge

I like the simplicity to his approach as it reminds me of a Pekiti Tirsia system developed
by Tim Waid as well as a sub-system within my own Instinctive Response Training.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 5, 2014)

Good approach to defence and counter attack.

The first video - When I saw that video my first thought was, 'makes sense', my second thought was 'watch out for a possible back elbow'.

The second video - Looks very similar to what we were doing in class on Friday last week.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2014)

Second video look at the left hand of the attacker with the pads. It is cocked and ready to go. As soon as the defender is ready to pop a shot off the attacker is also ready to pop a shot off. It becomes a fifty fifty.

This could be solved with much more aggressive footwork or striking with the left hand.  Left hook or elbow. The right hand needs to go back to the face.


----------



## geezer (Jun 6, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is a post on my blog a while back on a UK based martial practitioner Eddie Quinn.
> Eddie is a Muay Thai instructor as well as an instructor in Silat Fitrah.
> 
> The Instinctive Edge
> ...



Thanks for posting this. The approach is not unlike the empty-handed FMA we train ..._Latosa Escrima Concepts_ and _Direct Torres Eskrima_(DTE). The off-lining and angling in the first clip is very like DTE. The downward hammering figure-eight fists in the second are seen a lot in Latosa's cadena de mano. Both systems have a heavy boxing influence.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 6, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Good approach to defence and counter attack.
> 
> The first video - When I saw that video my first thought was, 'makes sense', my second thought was* 'watch out for a possible back elbow'.*
> 
> The second video - Looks very similar to what we were doing in class on Friday last week.


 
Perhaps not such a worry after all when you see how 'Nigel' is placed off banance.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 6, 2014)




----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps not such a worry after all when you see how 'Nigel' is placed off banance.



Nigel is flinching.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps not such a worry after all when you see how 'Nigel' is placed off banance.



Not a huge worry but something to watch out for none the less and just because Nigel is placed off balance doesn't mean that another person would not have their rear foot planted and not be as much.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 7, 2014)

In the first video when Nigel is placed in that position it is really, really, really hard to counter.  Many Silat systems (though of course not all) call this "opposite lever" where you have cork screwed your opponent.  Why it is hard to counter is that there is always pressure on them so that they will be off balance.  Thus if they try to counter they will literally be throwing themselves.  Of course they only have a microsecond before they are being thrown, swept, etc.  Very hard to counter during that micro second when you are off balance and being moved.  In slow teaching motion it looks like you could counter.  In real time very, very, very, very hard.

Here I am teaching from one of my DVD's showing how to get to this position in a slightly different manner than Eddie Quinn.




When I say during the video I let him recover that is his opportunity to counter. (so that I could continue teaching)  When he is trying to recover also is his time to counter.  Very, very, very hard to do at that point!  Best to counter before they get to that position.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 7, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> In the first video when Nigel is placed in that position it is really, really, really hard to counter.  Many Silat systems (though of course not all) call this "opposite lever" where you have cork screwed your opponent.  Why it is hard to counter is that there is always pressure on them so that they will be off balance.  Thus if they try to counter they will literally be throwing themselves.  Of course they only have a microsecond before they are being thrown, swept, etc.  Very hard to counter during that micro second when you are off balance and being moved.  In slow teaching motion it looks like you could counter.  In real time very, very, very, very hard.



That's why going to the outside is usually preferable than going to the inside, because it is harder for your opponent to counter, as you say.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 7, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That's why going to the outside is usually preferable than going to the inside, because it is harder for your opponent to counter, as you say.



Absolutely!!!


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Second video look at the left hand of the attacker with the pads. It is cocked and ready to go. As soon as the defender is ready to pop a shot off the attacker is also ready to pop a shot off. It becomes a fifty fifty.
> 
> This could be solved with much more aggressive footwork or striking with the left hand.  Left hook or elbow. The right hand needs to go back to the face.



I don't see the left hand as much of a threat in the 2nd video, because of Eddie's aggressive foot work and the downward motion of his smashing hands.  As the jab comes the defender moves in smashing downward on his lead hand, he closes distance and smashes downward with the rear hand on the aggressors rear hand turning his body towards his left.  This puts his (the aggressor's) balance off so he doesn't really have a good counter with the left hand since he is punching across his body and his hips are turned toward the left and he can't rotate them to get his power and reach for the left hand punch.

The defender also is striking with his left forearm to the right side of the aggressor's neck putting more pressure towards his left again helping to shut down the counter attack with the left.

Rather than staying out at boxing type range the defender is moving in very aggressively and it is that aggressiveness that turns that guys body and keeps him off balance.   In the video because of the control you see the guy trying to maintain his balance by shifting his weight several times as the instructor is talking, that's because of how close he is to him.  I would imagine that "in real" the instructor would have taken him to the ground through the strike to the side of the neck and his compromised position (balance).


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 9, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> In the first video when Nigel is placed in that position it is really, really, really hard to counter.  Many Silat systems (though of course not all) call this "opposite lever" where you have cork screwed your opponent.  Why it is hard to counter is that there is always pressure on them so that they will be off balance.  Thus if they try to counter they will literally be throwing themselves.  Of course they only have a microsecond before they are being thrown, swept, etc.  Very hard to counter during that micro second when you are off balance and being moved.  In slow teaching motion it looks like you could counter.  In real time very, very, very, very hard.
> 
> Here I am teaching from one of my DVD's showing how to get to this position in a slightly different manner than Eddie Quinn.
> 
> ...



Brian

Thanks for the videos.  While both entries are the similar, they both show very different results.

Your video shows the classic way off of the cross moving in on a straight line slightly off balancing the person to the side, Eddie's shows what it looks like when it's dirty so to speak.  I mean with real power and intent (but still with control) behind it thus showing how much the person can be rotated and how different you end up.  You end up with your foot along side of your opponent's and he ends up with his foot 90 degrees to his opponent because of the way he (the defender) turns his (attacker's) body and how the person adjusts his footwork to compensate for the entry that has overwhelmed him.

GM Remy use to use the same entry but do it more from the position that Mr. Quin ends up.  Not the same entry but footwork/position wise I mean.  SM Dan Anderson has taught this and broken it down in a couple of seminars I've attended with him and I always thought it was rather awkward throw.  However after watching Mr. Quin's videos I see how this can be applied and this position achieved and actually have a new appreciation for it.  I've always taught it more along the lines you show it.  (I've looked for it on you tube but didn't see it just for comparison sake.)

This is what struck me in the 3rd video (the take down video), in that one Mr. Quin gets the guy so far off balance that had he 
1) Stepped on the guys lead foot and applied slightly more upper body pressure he would have knocked the guy over.
2) Brought his foot back like you did (like GM Remy and Dan taught) he would have swept him.

All of which to me was a better and quicker take down that the head twist.  Not that the head twist isn't a good take down.  But since his entry placed the guy in such an off balanced position in the first place, I figure it is better to continue with what was already started rather than switching gears and going for that particular TD.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That's why going to the outside is usually preferable than going to the inside, because it is harder for your opponent to counter, as you say.



Its longer though. And harder to get if the other guy is fighting back. For us going inside would be changing levels and going low. Which is a high percentage takedown.

So both have their merits at the right time.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2014)

Mark Lynn said:


> Brian
> 
> Thanks for the videos.  While both entries are the similar, they both show very different results.
> 
> ...







But it again depends on how the other guy reacts. So both are legitimate. You can foil a foot sweep by hopping out of it. You can foil a head twist by attacking the arm and good head control.

But as you are foiling the sweep. You are not thinking about your head and vice versa.

Now the question. In all of this is am I planning to defend foot sweeps or head twists while being on the receiving end of hammer blows? And yes I actually am. And I train like he is going to as well. Because if he is any good he will be trying to stop me at every turn while getting as much of his own hurt in as well.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2014)

Mark Lynn said:


> I don't see the left hand as much of a threat in the 2nd video, because of Eddie's aggressive foot work and the downward motion of his smashing hands.  As the jab comes the defender moves in smashing downward on his lead hand, he closes distance and smashes downward with the rear hand on the aggressors rear hand turning his body towards his left.  This puts his (the aggressor's) balance off so he doesn't really have a good counter with the left hand since he is punching across his body and his hips are turned toward the left and he can't rotate them to get his power and reach for the left hand punch.
> 
> The defender also is striking with his left forearm to the right side of the aggressor's neck putting more pressure towards his left again helping to shut down the counter attack with the left.
> 
> Rather than staying out at boxing type range the defender is moving in very aggressively and it is that aggressiveness that turns that guys body and keeps him off balance.   In the video because of the control you see the guy trying to maintain his balance by shifting his weight several times as the instructor is talking, that's because of how close he is to him.  I would imagine that "in real" the instructor would have taken him to the ground through the strike to the side of the neck and his compromised position (balance).




Only provided he is a sloppy fighter or if you have really broken his structure.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 12, 2014)

Mark Lynn said:


> Brian
> 
> Thanks for the videos.  While both entries are the similar, they both show very different results.
> 
> ...



Yes, minor differences to get to the same spot.  If you look at how I move there is a slight movement off line but Eddie is moving with a bigger more pronounced movement.  He is going in deeper while I am working to a spot slightly farther out so that I can do a foot sweep.  Similar positioning and slight variation on getting there but the end result is being in the "opposite lever" position where you can sweep, send the guy flying, takedown, etc.  Very, very hard for the opponent to counter once you are in the opposite lever.  Particularly if you hit them on the way in.  It is not like once you are there you are taking a break.  No, once they are off balance you are sweeping, executing a takedown, etc. immediately!  The danger is if they counter as you are coming in.  

The following video shows Eddie Quinn utilizing "The Approach" at a seminar.  He ends up deep and executes what I would call a High/Low Takedown from our system in IRT.  Enjoy:


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Only provided he is a sloppy fighter or if you have really broken his structure.



But that was my point going by the video, which is what I was writing about.  His entry breaks the person's structure (balance).  I don't think Mr. Quinn is promoting this as the way to fight in tournaments, or the Octagon or any sporting event, so I think this is more about an encounter outside of the sporting realm.

So the chance of him dealing with someone who is a sloppy fighter, or a person who squares off and has one to many drinks etc. etc. and using this entry effectively as he describes I think is legit.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But it again depends on how the other guy reacts. So both are legitimate. You can foil a foot sweep by hopping out of it. You can foil a head twist by attacking the arm and good head control.
> 
> But as you are foiling the sweep. You are not thinking about your head and vice versa.
> 
> Now the question. In all of this is am I planning to defend foot sweeps or head twists while being on the receiving end of hammer blows? And yes I actually am. And I train like he is going to as well. Because if he is any good he will be trying to stop me at every turn while getting as much of his own hurt in as well.



You are right about hopping out of a foot sweep, but next time at the dojo with your workout partners, get to the same position as Mr. Quinn gets his partner in the 3rd video, where he is off balance over past his outside of the foot and you try and hop out.  Ain't going to happen, if you can please post a video.

Once again from the video Mr. Quinn's attacker is way off balanced with both arms off to the side, so his trying to attack/control Mr. Quinn's arm as Mr Quinn goes to take him down I don't see is very likely or effective either.  Sure it can be done but in the big scheme of things I think Mr. Quinn has the upper hand in the encounter.  However as he turns the guy and goes to step back he gives the guy his balance back momentarily and there he might have a chance.  This is why I wrote that he should have just continued with the off balancing.

I wasn't writing my comment from the standpoint of how his partner could have defeated it, I was analyzing what Mr. Quinn could do from that point when he started the head twist TD, and I felt that he had the guy so far off balance that if he continued in that direction the guy had less of a chance to counter than when he switched gears and went for the head twist TD. 

All of this is really just speculation on our parts anyhow.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 12, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes, minor differences to get to the same spot.  If you look at how I move there is a slight movement off line but Eddie is moving with a bigger more pronounced movement.  He is going in deeper while I am working to a spot slightly farther out so that I can do a foot sweep.  Similar positioning and slight variation on getting there but the end result is being in the "opposite lever" position where you can sweep, send the guy flying, takedown, etc.  Very, very hard for the opponent to counter once you are in the opposite lever.  Particularly if you hit them on the way in.  It is not like once you are there you are taking a break.  No, once they are off balance you are sweeping, executing a takedown, etc. immediately!  The danger is if they counter as you are coming in.
> 
> The following video shows Eddie Quinn utilizing "The Approach" at a seminar.  He ends up deep and executes what I would call a High/Low Takedown from our system in IRT.  Enjoy:



Brian

When I first saw this type of a sweep years ago I didn't think it was real effective, especially done the way you showed it, because done in demo mode it looks cool but.....

Over time I have learned to appreciate it a lot more.  Same thing with the take down the way GM Remy did it, it looked cool but.......   When Dan Anderson explained it (the mechanics behind it) I still thought yeah but.......  Watching Mr. Quinn's video, I saw the connection between the techniques and had the "Wow I could have had a V8" moment.  That was an interesting way to get into that take down.  I think what it boils down to is the intensity on how the technique is applied and why it looks so "cool but...... ".  Because often times when it is shown (even as in your video) broken down in slow motion (or by the #s so to speak) it looks cool but ........ can't someone counter by stepping here or hopping here etc. etc.  As a viewer you lose the jolting, the body ramming, the feel of your being twisted and your foot not being able to move to regain your balance as you fall etc. etc., plus the hits you might take on the entry etc. etc.  That makes you appreciate the move.

Once again thanks for the videos


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 12, 2014)

Yes it is a whole lot easier to counter some thing shown in a teaching moment than when someone is crashing in hard!  I like Eddie Quinn's movement and crashing in.  It is some thing that we do in IRT as well.  I'm glad that in posting a few videos it helped turn the light bulb on!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 12, 2014)

Oh and Mark if you have learned from my friend Dan he breaks things down in a fantastic way!  Love Super Dan!


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 14, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes it is a whole lot easier to counter some thing shown in a teaching moment than when someone is crashing in hard!  I like Eddie Quinn's movement and crashing in.  It is some thing that we do in IRT as well.  I'm glad that in posting a few videos it helped turn the light bulb on!



Yeah I liked his approach and his entry, I believe he neutralized the aggressor.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Oh and Mark if you have learned from my friend Dan he breaks things down in a fantastic way!  Love Super Dan!



Yeah I do too.   Super Dan is very deceiving in his teaching style.  I mean it looks so simple you are thinking OK when is he going to get to the cool stuff, when in fact he is really showing you what you need to know which is the "cool stuff".  In my school/classes in Modern Arnis we are (I am), using more and more of his drills to teach the fundamentals, the building blocks of our Modern Arnis.  

Once again thanks for posting the videos and for the discussion.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2014)

Mark Lynn said:


> You are right about hopping out of a foot sweep, but next time at the dojo with your workout partners, get to the same position as Mr. Quinn gets his partner in the 3rd video, where he is off balance over past his outside of the foot and you try and hop out.  Ain't going to happen, if you can please post a video.
> 
> Once again from the video Mr. Quinn's attacker is way off balanced with both arms off to the side, so his trying to attack/control Mr. Quinn's arm as Mr Quinn goes to take him down I don't see is very likely or effective either.  Sure it can be done but in the big scheme of things I think Mr. Quinn has the upper hand in the encounter.  However as he turns the guy and goes to step back he gives the guy his balance back momentarily and there he might have a chance.  This is why I wrote that he should have just continued with the off balancing.
> 
> ...



The other guy is static though so for the point of the demonstration you don't always go for the best thing. You need to teach a range of options. You can't take those drills/demos too literally. Otherwise you are teaching the defence to a jab cross where the guy just hangs out waiting for you to clamp him.

But I will give the foot sweep a play and see.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes, minor differences to get to the same spot.  If you look at how I move there is a slight movement off line but Eddie is moving with a bigger more pronounced movement.  He is going in deeper while I am working to a spot slightly farther out so that I can do a foot sweep.  Similar positioning and slight variation on getting there but the end result is being in the "opposite lever" position where you can sweep, send the guy flying, takedown, etc.  Very, very hard for the opponent to counter once you are in the opposite lever.  Particularly if you hit them on the way in.  It is not like once you are there you are taking a break.  No, once they are off balance you are sweeping, executing a takedown, etc. immediately!  The danger is if they counter as you are coming in.
> 
> The following video shows Eddie Quinn utilizing "The Approach" at a seminar.  He ends up deep and executes what I would call a High/Low Takedown from our system in IRT.  Enjoy:



Lol.

You found vingitiva.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17-general-martial-arts-talk/115017-ring-throw.html


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jun 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The other guy is static though so for the point of the demonstration you don't always go for the best thing. You need to teach a range of options. You can't take those drills/demos too literally. Otherwise you are teaching the defence to a jab cross where the guy just hangs out waiting for you to clamp him.
> 
> But I will give the foot sweep a play and see.



I get that you should show a range of options, but again that didn't appear to be the point of what was shown, he did the same take down over and over again.  Like that was the main entry and TD.  It's not like he was going "Ok you can do this, or if he moves here you can do that etc. etc." 






Such as like is shown here in this video at about 30 seconds in.


----------

