Quadrant Theory

[thingy]

I could write everything I know about this on a postage stamp.

What I know (or what I think is the case) is that quadrant theory says you divide the torso/head/whatever) into 4 quarters .
if you hit the upper right quarter, then it's no bad thing to follow with a strike to the lower left quarter. Or, at the very least make strikes to the right be followed by strikes to the left and visa versa.

When I first heard about this theory I thought it was based on general 'basic' hitty hitty stuff. Now I'm wondering it is based on TCM.

Please may I be enlightened as to the subject of Quadrant Theory?

[Andy]

You get this in Wing Chun, what they refer to as 'four gates', with certain blocks or deflections applied to these quarters.
I'll see if I can dredge up some material for you later.

[Andy]

OK, this might be interesting reading for you;

www.sungjado.org/Information/wing_chun_theories.htm

[thingy]

Thanks Andy.

This wasn't quite what I was looking for, or at least not what I thought I was looking for. Having said that, this seems to be the other side of the same coin so good stuff any road.
Just like Blazin' Squad, you have "flip reversed it".

This article talks of attacks to the "forward area" being dealt with by the front hand, and attacks to the "rear area" being dealt with by the back hand. Since I'm assuming they're not talking about someone punching you on the bottom, anyone know what this means? If someone is punching you, they intend to hit you so their hand would travel through the forward area, through the rear area and finally into your nose? I feel I'm missing the point.

This article dealt with the idea of avoiding attacks to the 4 quadrants. I'm also interested in the idea of making attacks on the 4 quadrants/corners.
Anyone know why it is that hitting to one side and then hitting to an opposite side is considered to be a great thing to do?

[AngelaG]

Ok, I'll try and explain what I know about quadrant theory.

As an example, pretend I have put the opponent's right hand in a centre lock. I then number the 4 quarters of their body thus:
Top right = 1
Top left = 2
Bottom right = 3
Bottom left = 4

You then have yet another 4 quadrants on the back of the opponent.

Top back right = 5
Top back left = 6
Bottom back right = 7
Bottom back left = 8

Basically if I apply the centre lock in to those quadrants I will get varying levels of pain response from the opponent, with number 1 being the most comfortable, to number 8 being the most painful. You can then play with jumping from quadrant to quadrant for some interesting effects.

Striking wise quadrant theory is basically that if you strike front top right, then for a good effect your next strike should be back bottom left. Basically you try and get the next strike as far away from the point of the previous strike. The mind seems to have a hard time adjusting to the change in pain location.

This then seems to contradict the fact that if you strike someone on the same level of dermatones twice it also gets a nice effect.

Dermatome is a Greek word which literally means "skin cutting". A dermatome is an area of the skin supplied by nerve fibers originating from a single dorsal nerve root. The dermatomes are named according to the spinal nerve which supplies them. The dermatomes form into bands around the trunk but in the limbs their organisation is more complex as a result of the dermatomes being "pulled out" as the limb buds form and develop into the limbs during embryological development.

[whitewarlock]

Ugh, the quadrant theory is just that. It is essentially an unapplied concept running on a belief that things work better a certain way. In this particular case, it runs on the belief that the nerve center can be overwhelmed by receiving signals of pain from differing parts of the body, virtually simultaneously. In this, the mind will shut down.

In 'theory,' it sounds reasoned, but pain to any part of the body can cause the mind to shut down. It is amount of pain that determines, not the extent of pain. A thousand scrapes has no effect, whilst a resounding blow to a nerve cluster can have an immediate effect. So, the theory is flawed in the idea that it incorporates a perception of 'multitude of strikes' as a means to illicit the same effect as one grand sucker punch.

In truth, a multitude of strikes can help to 'open up' the opponent so as to ensure you can get that one grand punch. I.e., each strike causes injury, and it is these injuries that can help to weaken an opponent, and in turn encourage them to 'drop their guard,' thus leaving vulnerable targets exposed.

Oh, and yes, i've successfully overwhelmed opponents with multiple strikes. I even thought i knocked a person out by doing so in one competition. In truth, however, after thinking back on this... what i did was overwhelm him with a multitude of strikes, which caused him to go on the defensive and also drop his guard to targets i was not giving much attention to. In this, my previous training helped me to recognize this and thus, i exploited it. I targetted his vulnerable targets "AFTER" a multitude of strikes had been implemented.

Changing targets helps in competition and can, in some cases, help in real encounters. However, if you have the opportunity to strike 10 times... and you strike the exact same target 10 times, you're being foolish. Eventually your opponent will 'learn.' This is part of the idea behind the theory of quadrants, as well as i understand it.

[pasmith]

There's a RBSD guy doing the rounds at the moment called Mick Coup. A couple of theories that he advocates for the street (his particular field) is indexing and multiple strikes to one target. These theories kind of go against this four quadrant theory stuff. I'm not 100% up to speed on this so I'll probably explain badly.

Indexing means that you control with one hand then use that attachment to help inform where the other hand strikes, I *think* using a "hand finds hand" type situation. Grab back of neck and punch into your own hand and a part of him will be in the way kind of thing.
He also advocates striking multiple times to an open target. When that target becomes unavailable switch to another target and keep repeating that until the conflict is over (for better or worse).

Not sure if that makes much difference to this discussion but it does go to show that no matter how good a theory sounds someone somewhere will have another theory that says the opposite and says it just as well.

[AceRimmer]

Does Russell Stutley use the 4 quadrant theory?

[AngelaG]

acerimmer said:

Does Russell Stutley use the 4 quadrant theory?

It is one of the principles used, yes.

[AceRimmer]

Well I was at a seminar recently that both Russell and Mick Coup were teaching at. Whilst training with some of the other instructors I noticed that they were talking for some time and seemed to be getting on fine!

So I am sure there is plenty of room for both theories

Personally if I get a target I like to keep hitting it until I can't anymore (they fall down or cover it), then I'll move on to something else.

Still interested in training with Russell, Angela, so let me know when he's down next (obviously I'd like to meet you as well )

[AngelaG]

Will do. He'll be at SENI in May. I'll be at SENI on the Sunday.

Oh and I believe Russell is down at our dojo on 8th October too.

As fo quadrant theory, it does seem to work. It's one of the tools in the toolbox, however we also use other tools (such as hitting the same spot twice, hitting on the same layer of dermatones etc) and sometimes the two theories seem to contradict each other. (At least to my brain lol). I guess the most important thing is to develop a powerful strike, and then it won't matter so much where you strike.

[AceRimmer]

Can't make Seni, bit pricey in my opinion anyway.

If you have a toolbox I'd use the crowbar

You have hit the nail on the head with your last sentence Angela, if you can hit hard and keep hitting, you should hopefully get home OK!