Centerline Theory!

[Andy Murray]

If you permanently occupy the centerline thru your offensive techniques, you force your opponent to take the longer/less direct route.

What say you?

[YODA]

In theory, yes.

Unless your opponents targets are the very things you're occupying centreline with - your limbs.

Another consideration is whether or not your opponiont can offset your CL and cut into the angle - if he can then HE will have the direct line across what is now the new CL.

Actually - centreline is the wrong term here - what we should be discussing is the "Central Line". Ther are 3 "lines" that exist on or around your central axis. Mother Line, Centreline & Central Line.

[Andy Murray]

I sense that theory is about to explode all around us here, so I wanted to start off simple so we could carry some people along with us Dave.

The idea is basically that;

The shortest distance between point A. and point B. is a straight line. If my offense permanently occupies that plane, then I force my opponent to take a less direct route in their counter.

Dave is suggesting that my opponent may attack the very limbs I am using to apply my theory, though an experienced player should be aware of this possibility.

The other possibility is that you opponent relocates themselves, so that you are no longer firing directly at their centerline, in effect turning you from the aggressor, to the defender.

Is that fair so far Dave?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

The shortest route is not always the quickest.

Besides, the shortest distance between two points thing only applies in Euclidean geometry. :p

I have to wonder how you deal with people trained to work off the centreline, moving at an angle to your techniques?

[YODA]

Yep - that'll do for starters Andy :D

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
The shortest route is not always the quickest.

Besides, the shortest distance between two points thing only applies in Euclidean geometry. :p

I have to wonder how you deal with people trained to work off the centreline, moving at an angle to your techniques?

"The shortest route is not always the quickest."
In the example I'm talking about, it most definitely is!


"Besides, the shortest distance between two points thing only applies in Euclidean geometry."

Not in my Geometry it doesn't! (p.s. I kicked speccy Euclides' ass)


"I have to wonder how you deal with people trained to work off the centreline, moving at an angle to your techniques?"

Yup, you guessed it.....this thread is in the Kung Fu forum, and aimed at Kung Fu practitioners. In answer though, the practitioner constantly moves their sights to the opponents centerline. This in fact is a core ethic of the centerline theory!

[Spike]

Forgive my ignorance here, please, but what do you mean by centreline? In relation to your body where is your centreline?

[YODA]

Spike - basic "Line Theory"

* Disclaimer: I'm speaking from a Wingh Chun / Jun Fan Gung Fu perspective here. Other systems may vary in their definitions.

Mother Line - A vertical line through your body from the top of your head down through the floor - as if you've been impaled on a spike, errrr...Spike :D

Centerline - A line that runs down the front of your body between your eyes, down your nose ond down to the floor. The difference between the two is that if the opponent is not facing you, and you are using straight punches, you are punching into his Mother Line not his Centerline. You can, however, hook into his Centerline from the side.

Central Line - This is the vertical plane that runs between you and the opponent - it extends from your Mother Line, passes through your Centerline (usually). This is the line that your straight punches travel down, and the line on which his come to you - it is therefore the line you occupy to protect your Centerline.

Angling off and punching into his Mother Line whilst protectinh your own Central Line is a key to many doors.

..... and some people think I just twirl sticks LOL

[pgm316]

Wing Chun is based upon several principles. The first is the Centre Line Theory, which can be thought of as an imaginary line drawn from between one's eyes, through the centre of the body, to the feet. In Wing Chun, the fighter must defend his own centre line whilst attacking his opponent's - a blow directed past the centre line is easy to deflect, whereas a blow directed directly at the centre line is difficult to deflect. The second principle is based on incorporating the first, by the use of Simultaneous Attack and Defence, usually with one hand attacking the opponent's centre and the other held back to defend your own. Use of both arms and legs, independently of each other is also a fundamental principle. Finally, the attack and defence of certain "power points" must also be observed, the points being primarily the elbow and the knee but also the wrist, shoulder, hip and ankle.

[Spike]

Gracias Yoda and pgm.

In that case, in response to Andy`s original post, and hoping that my geometry is up to scratch, I`d say someone constantly working through their centre line is employing a technique very much suited to what an aikidoka would want you to do (yes I know this is the Kung Fu forum just be
ar with me) since the centreline is also your weak line with regards to balance, so forcing your power along this line allows a great many aikido techniques to be done very effectively.
apologies for bad geometry, maths was not my strong suit

[Andy Murray]

Which is where the sensitivity training in Wing Chun comes in very handy.
If you are fast enough to read and catch a Wing Chun punch, it still just might be the very worst thing you could have done.

[YODA]

Another "pause for thought" that kinda relates to this whole issue. I got this "little nugget" from chatting with Original Bruce Lee student Steve Golden....

"What matters is not how fast it travels, but how soon it gets there!"

:D

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Yup, you guessed it.....this thread is in the Kung Fu forum, and aimed at Kung Fu practitioners. In answer though, the practitioner constantly moves their sights to the opponents centerline. This in fact is a core ethic of the centerline theory!


Sorry, didn't mean to sound combative, I was just curious.

[Andy Murray]

No problem Jimmy, we'll allow for your curiosity ;)

One of the interesting things about attacking the centerline, is that the opponent is made uncomfortable. With no obvious arc to intercept, and no easy choice of move left/move right, the very hesitation created allows for yet another attack along the same line.

Should the opponent angle off, he is further disturbed to find the attacks still attacking the same line. Using the very analogy that Spike mentioned (quoting Aikido), which is disrupting your opponents balance. At the same time, proper grounding of footwork, correct body posture and biomechanics, make it difficult to be caught off balance in return, as the system doesn't propogate the overextension of striking weapons, and the speed of the minimalistic attacks can be hard to track relying, as they do, more on feel than visual stimulous.

[Joseki]

that a nice one yoda......

[Joseki]

I was once told its not the speed you send the strike but how fast you can pull it back.....same as running i surpose haha but the problem with that is you probably wont hit as hard as you want to

[TkdWarrior]

joseki u can MAXIMISE the effect even in that kind of punch...
no punch is aimed at surface...they go deep within
-TkdWarrior-

[pgm316]

I find the centre line theory works best against straight punches. Keeping control of the centre line is no good when somebody is using swinging hook punches. I find you have to modify the original techniques to make them effective in these circumstances, by either throwing blocks out to your side of shifting your body weight to change the direction of your centre line.

[Spike]

Quote:
"Which is where the sensitivity training in Wing Chun comes in very handy.
If you are fast enough to read and catch a Wing Chun punch, it still just might be the very worst thing you could have done."

If an Aikidoka is fast enough to catch that punch then vice versa applies as well

Apologies if a sound like a stylit snob, I don`t mean to

[pgm316]

Spike, I think the original comment was about how the wing chun person would respond once you've caught there arm, and not just the speed of it. Do you do wing chun spike? I do, but I know very little about Aikido.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I've seen Wing Chun punches occasionally Spike. If there's an Aikidoka fast enough to catch them and hold them then you've not really got much chance against him anyway.

[Joseki]

TKD WARROR i know what you say is true for i do a bit of wing chun myself (still no good at it though hahaha)

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by pgm316
I find the centre line theory works best against straight punches. Keeping control of the centre line is no good when somebody is using swinging hook punches. I find you have to modify the original techniques to make them effective in these circumstances, by either throwing blocks out to your side of shifting your body weight to change the direction of your centre line.

I've never practised any Wing Chun but what little observation I've done did suggest that, as you say, controlling the centre line is of questionable value when dealing with hook punches. So what's best do you think? To modify the Wing Chun technique (as you suggest) or to use a blocking/intercepting/evading strategy from another art?

Mike

[Andy Murray]

I think a Wing Chun Purist might point out that a strike delivered along the centerline would nullify a circular or hooking strike, making it somewhat redundant, as it would get there a week earlier.

Not to say that WC doesn't have other ways of dealing with these attacks, but that'd be telling ;)

[TkdWarrior]

i think controllin one's center is a good idea...if u r in control then u hav max chances of getting hits, u can set trappin lots of option... in TKD we use Lead hand as in WC so My stance which Looks like much WC n TKD mixture i found my punching effective n powerfull with lots of speed...
-TkdWarrior-

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
I think a Wing Chun Purist might point out that a strike delivered along the centerline would nullify a circular or hooking strike, making it somewhat redundant, as it would get there a week earlier.

Fair point. Its a tactic I've used successfully many times myself.
But what about the times when, for whatever reason, you haven't acted quickly enough and their punch is already well on the way.


Not to say that WC doesn't have other ways of dealing with these attacks, but that'd be telling ;)

OK, so tell us then.

Mike

[pgm316]

You can modify the traditional blocks quite easily to stop a hook punch, by throwing the block out sideways. Although it can be against the principles of wing chun, that involve thrusting the block down the centre line to delfect it.

I think its the same with most martial arts, none seemed to have trained with hook punches, but they still have suitable blocks.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan


Fair point. Its a tactic I've used successfully many times myself.
But what about the times when, for whatever reason, you haven't acted quickly enough and their punch is already well on the way.



OK, so tell us then.

Mike

Ah, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you, for these are CMA secrets :D

Seriously though, Wing Chun reads angles, and uses them, so although you say hooking punches, there are many variations of these as you well know. I'll try and describe some things using non-WC Terminology so all can follow. Options include;

For Haymaker type swings, intercept with the outside edge of the hand, striking outwards to the inside of the wrist/forearm (this hurts).

For the more technical, boxers hook, either move towards the hook, shifting your weight back, and Bong Sau (rising block?), or move away from the hook, checking it with Tan Sau (outwards block). In each of the above, a strike would be directed at the centerline simultaneously

The thing with Wing Chun is that initially, it is hard to restrict yourself to the purist theory of the system, you'll tend to revert back to bobbing n weaving ( I think all Trad arts would have the same problem), or absorbing hooks. Yet if you go see someone real good in the system, and throw hooking strikes at odd angles, you'll get cut down every time.
My WC Sifu gave me the opportunuty one night to try out different things on him, now bear in mind I've been training for around 16 years, represented my country in matches, kickboxed and done a fair bit of reality based training. I was struggling to touch him, yet his movement was minimal. I threw hooks, I kicked, I feinted, you name it.

If you are going to check out WC, then you must see someone good, not just someone who has played with the system. IMHO

[Mike Flanagan]

Thanks Andy

Originally posted by Andy Murray

For the more technical, boxers hook, either move towards the hook, shifting your weight back, and Bong Sau (rising block?), or move away from the hook, checking it with Tan Sau (outwards block). In each of the above, a strike would be directed at the centerline simultaneously


Bong Sau is the block where the elbow ends up higher than the hand, right? Which I suspect is a more appropriate response to a tight boxer's hook than a karate rising block, which finishes with the hand higher than the elbow.

I find it interesting that a lot of karate people (including myself) end up using rather sloppy versions of bong sau, even though no-one has ever taught them the technique. I often use it to feed the incoming limb to my other hand so that I can blindside and control the attacker.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
Thanks Andy



Bong Sau is the block where the elbow ends up higher than the hand, right? Which I suspect is a more appropriate response to a tight boxer's hook than a karate rising block, which finishes with the hand higher than the elbow.

I find it interesting that a lot of karate people (including myself) end up using rather sloppy versions of bong sau, even though no-one has ever taught them the technique. I often use it to feed the incoming limb to my other hand so that I can blindside and control the attacker.

Mike

Yeah, you'll even see ole George Foreman use something similar in his old battles a fair bit.
Getting waaay off topic, but I think Bong Sau is one of the most useful movements ever, and all styles would do well to incorporate it in some way, if they don't already.
If you look at it, the misconception is that it is intended to lift an attacking limb, like the rising block in some systems, where in reality it rolls and redirects , maintaining contact for tactile awareness. The movement from guard is more like flicking up the elbow while throwing the palm forward than raising the whole bent arm using the shoulder. The shoulder rotates as opposed to raises.

[fluffydoc]

I wish I'd read this thread earlier cos Andy's said everything I was going to say!
Another feature of bong sau I like is that the rifling action that Andy describes reduces the impact felt on your arm. Good when you don't have much muscle in your forearm!

Lynn.

[Spike]

hear hear, well said

says the bloke who has less muscle than fluffydoc :-(

[Andy Murray]

Hey Lynn,

thanks for that, but you've been into WC longer than me. Anything to add to the centerline debate, especially with your Aikido background?

Andy

[Red5angel]

You could argue what technique beats what technique until you are blue in the face. The centerline is important to a wingchun person because we seek to control it for several reasons. The idea that a straight line is almost always the quickest way to go. The idea that if we have control of the centerline, then we need not worry about the rest. You want to throw a hook or haymaker, I am already there, destroying you through control of your centerline.
You must also remember its about the artist. Sure Aikido might appreciate a wingchun person going for the center line, but if the aikido person isnt up to par, it doesnt matter ;)

Also, Spike, you made a comment and I would like you to clarify if you dont mind? - "since the centreline is also your weak line with regards to balance, "

In wingchun, if your structure and root are good, that is where you wil be most balanced.

[Spike]

If I have interpreted the lines correctly, by centreline I think, and I may very well be wrong here, it is meant, the line perpindicular to a line drawn from foot to foot.
This line is your weak line, it is possible to be very well rooted and balanced, but this line is still your weakest in relation to any other line on that plane

[Red5angel]

Correct that would be the centerline. Now what fo you mean by weakest line? What is it that makes it weak?

[Spike]

It is the line, along which, it is easiest to break someone`s balance.

[Red5angel]

Technically speaking I suppose but that may be more happenstance then anything since the line runs the entire length of the body. However, a good wingchun person with structure and root learns to make it very hard for that balance to be broken. What you say may be why wingchun people so chose to attack this line, because once its structure is broken, once you are off your centerline, then you begin to resist, trying to regain your center.

[pgm316]

Isn't that the central line Spike? the one that runs perpendicular to the feet, up the centre of the body. To me, the centre line is any line from the centre of somebodies body that runs to the centre of the other persons body. Unless thats what you meant. But, I don't think it even needs to run horizontally to the other persons central line.

It is possible possible to knock the other person off balance by either pushing/striking the outside of the persons elbow, causing their centre line to head off in another direction, or pull on their oposite arm. But it shouldn't cause a good fighter much problems. One solution is to fight not using the centre line theory once knocked off balance. Although the traditional way is to use a counter and your sensitivity training to slip the attack and grab or strike putting your opponent straight into a bad situation. In theory ;)

[Red5angel]

OK, Spike, did some homework last night in class with my instructor and I think I know what you are getting at. The centerline is indeed the easiest place to get someone off their balance, its why we train to control our own so much, as well as destroying the other persons. Probably much like Aikido people do.
A good demonstration for anyone wondering what we are talking about, would be to have someone push first on your shoulder. You will notice it is easy to deflect the blow and twist around it. Now have someone push on your sternum and see if it is as easy ;)

[Spike]

Yes Aikido and Kung Fu are very similair in principle, that`s why I practice both, they compliment each other very well

[Red5angel]

makes sense to me my friend! You have convinced me ;)

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Red5angel
A good demonstration for anyone wondering what we are talking about, would be to have someone push first on your shoulder. You will notice it is easy to deflect the blow and twist around it. Now have someone push on your sternum and see if it is as easy ;)

Thats not really what the centre line is about. Although what you say in your example is true. many martial artists including wing chun people attack the centre, but mainly because it is the shortest distance to attack and it has some weak points.

[Red5angel]

pgm316, what you refer to is the FIGHTS centerline. That is the shortest distance between two combatants and can be different from your own center line.
thats exaclty what the center line is about. Like spike said it is the 'easiest place ot get someone off target, especially if they arent expecting it or arent training for it. Try my demo, you will see what I mean.

For an idea of the difference between the two centerlines, take a tan punch as an example. Tan sau is always on your centerline, if it leaves it weakens, so you turn with it to deflect energy. At the same tie you tan and turn you can punch. the tan stays with YOUR centerline, while the punch travels down the FIGHTS centerline.
Understand?

[pgm316]

I've been doing wing chun for a number of year, i still don't concentrate on hitting the centre line of the opponent. I'd have thought hitting to a side is more likely to knock them off balance, but a shot to the centre line is likely to be shorter distance and harder to block.

I remember practising the example you gave a few years ago, in a way its harder to stop a punch coming in from the side because your covering two angles of attack compared to the one central line. One thing I noticed with each sparring partner, if you looked at the opposite shoulder just before striking the other, nearly every time without fail they'd turn the wrong way into the jab.

But then again your not likely to be targeting shoulders, it works a lot better with floating ribs. And thats possibly where the central line would target if your opponent has a more side on stance.

[Spike]

I've been doing wing chun for a number of year, i still don't concentrate on hitting the centre line of the opponent. I'd have thought hitting to a side is more likely to knock them off balance, but a shot to the centre line is likely to be shorter distance and harder to block.


It would if someone was solid, but a person`s body will bend and twist from an attack to that area, motion aimed at their centre means the can only bend backwards or forwards which moves your centre of gravity out side your base

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Spike

It would if someone was solid, but a person`s body will bend and twist from an attack to that area, motion aimed at their centre means theh can only bend backwards or forwards which moves your centre of gravity out side your base

So that's a good thing then Spike???

[Red5angel]

thats exactly why we aim for the center, its much hard to defend and the damage done to an opponent is maximized.

[pgm316]

Unless the person is covering there centre well, in which a case a hook punch will be more effective.

[Red5angel]

Hooks arent really a part of the wingchun repertoire, and break several principles. There is one in the third form but it is not encouraged.
Thats where wingchun trapping, sensitivity and redirection come in. If you are covering your center then I try to get you to uncover it.
Ultimatley it is also a question of level of ability. If someone is better then you and is covering themselves well you may have some trouble getting to them.

[pgm316]

Wing Chun is a big part of what I do, but I'm not limited by it. Hook punches are a usefull part of anybodies offence. When I spar with a good Wing Chun person I find it more effective to attack off their centre line because they will have it well defended.

[Red5angel]

I understand your point pgm316, absolutely, any good wingchun perosn is going to protect their centerline, BUT a good wingchun person is also not going to neglect the rest!
Here is my take on this...many people make broad assumptions about different arts. Some are true and some arent and some have their reasons. In this case the idea that wingchun is weak on the outside, OR that a wingchun person is going to pay more attention to his center is supposed to be incorrect. Now, if pgm316 is running into wingchun guys who are focusing on their centerlines then I owuld have to say that these people are not training properly or of low skill.
Any good art has all the bases covered to some degree. In wingchun we have a fighting strategy, thats to generall attack the centerline, for reasons above, take the shortest most economical route, and to not match power with power.
The assumption is made, and frequently by people who practice wingchun, that the centerline is particularly vulnerable and that it must be protected at all times.
I would say however that proper sensitivity training and the right mindset allows a good wingchun person to protect all of his lines, yes?
Now pgm316, I am not picking on you in particular but your comment is especially frequent among people who study wingchun part time. That of course is a whole nother thread!

[Andy Murray]

Seeing as this thread is about centerline theory, this discussion is becoming most wholesome :)

To Pgm316 though;

Surely by initiating a hooking punch, you open up your centerline to attack?

[Red5angel]

AndyM, that was sort of my point a while back but I wasnt making it very well! thanks!
For everything you do you sacrifice something, the key is balance, and the reason why we study martial arts. Most martial arts have determined a fighting strategy that works for them, and tries to cover the bases as best as possible

[LilBunnyRabbit]

It would if someone was solid, but a person`s body will bend and twist from an attack to that area, motion aimed at their centre means theh can only bend backwards or forwards which moves your centre of gravity out side your base

I'd've thought that a more effective way to dodge direct straight attacks would be to move to either side, since moving forwards would just get you hit, and moving backwards would allow your opponent to move in, unless I've miss understood something here.

[Red5angel]

Actually, wingchun teaches that rotating that energy around your core, like rotating around the spine etc... Taichi also does this effectively by teaching you to rotate incoming energy around the dan tien. You hae to remember wingchun is about efficiency, why step to the side when you can just turn slightly?

[Andy Murray]

OK, my take on this is;

If you have control of the centerline, then any straight line attack, can be felt/read and therefor deflected off that line without body movement. Applying forward pressure further inconveniences your opponent.

Should the attack be very strong then it would still be better to move forwards, but even yet, this would be at say 45 degrees, with the WC practitioner re-aligning their centerline to the now further disadvantaged opponent.

Moving to the side (90 degrees) creates room for things like hooks :) or kicks.

[pgm316]

Wing Chun is the main art I study, along with xing yi & ba gua. I wasn’t saying Wing Chun is defensively weak, although I find xing yi & ba gua stronger and weaker in various areas. My point is more about offence. As part of out attack we train with hooks, uppercuts, jabs, faints etc, which go away from the traditional style. Ok we may have gone away from tradition, but only to try and make ourselves better. Even if you want to stay with the unchanged traditional ways, I still believe its valuable to train against none traditional Wing Chun attacks. This is we’re many practitioners are weak, and where I’ve been able to frequently catch people off guard.

Maybe it does make your centre line more vulnerable. Unless the hook has found its way round the gaurd to its target. Obviously your other hand is still back covering and the striking hand will soon be in a forward position capable of blocking again soon.

Does it really go against wing chun? you could still be aiming at the centre line, just not travelling along the central line. I use it because I find it works, doesn't seem popluar though ;)

[Red5angel]

pgm316, I agree, it is definitely a good thing to train against non conventional attacks etc....

"just not travelling along the central line" thats generally why it isnt wingchun. I am not saying it cant be used, like I said in the third form there is a slight hook. the problem is generally efficiency, if you try to hook punch me you will definitly find me occupying your center and well within any real effective range of your hook.

[Andy Murray]

pgm316 raises a good point though.

I think every WC practitioner needs to train application of the system against people from other disciplines.

Training WC purely by itself and only against other practitioners of the system, can leave you vulnerable to attacks from other systems, with unexpected angles, and variances in the depth of field. Crosstraining WC with other systems can bring a whole new meaning to your practice, yet the object is still to learn to apply it's beautifully simple principles.

Some WC guys I trained with were arrogantly going on about a Tournament they had been invited to. They reckoned they would annhilate everyone. I didn't see the black eyes, but I heard about them later.

[Red5angel]

AndyM and pgm316, while I would agree that this cannot hurt, I also think (And AndyM you may be familiar with this rant :) ) that training in the basics is essential and, over time, can even give you the ability to adapt and overcome even surprises you may come across from the unpredicteable situations we face on the streets everyday!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Actually, wingchun teaches that rotating that energy around your core, like rotating around the spine etc... Taichi also does this effectively by teaching you to rotate incoming energy around the dan tien. You hae to remember wingchun is about efficiency, why step to the side when you can just turn slightly?

My fault, should've made it clearer. By moving to the side I meant anything from stepping round your opponent (very nice for countering, particularly when someone's used to linear movements) to dipping a shoulder or tilting your head.

[Red5angel]

no problem ckd student, do you study wingchun? If so do you do turning drills? When we do ours we make sure that we are spinning around our spine as tightly as possible. Sort of like your spine is stuck in the ground and you turn around it. This is what I am talking about. When there is pressure applied to your center you turn and deflect a little, it doesnt take much to do this but you have to be sensitive enough for it.

[Andy Murray]

Like the little drum in Karate Kid 2 ?

[Red5angel]

uh, suuuuuuuuurrrreeeee.

Actually I have no idea what you are talking about... :)

[Andy Murray]

Where you been all your life Red5.
Call yourself a serious Martial Artist and you never seen Karate Kid 2?
It'd lose too much in the explanation, but if you ever see the film, you'll know what I mean ;)

[Red5angel]

I may have seen it a very long time ago but I can barely remember the first karate kid and that was a 'classic'!!!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

We tend to turn from our hips, or to slip, other than that its fairly standard movements, weaves, slips, dodges, and so on.

No, I don't study Wing Chun. Although it's nice that you might think so. :)

We have someone who used to study something along the lines of Wing Chun (not sure if it was or not) until they transferred though.

[ladyhawk]

I've been following this thread to gain some insight.
Found this article awhile ago that may be of interest
to the discussion.

ABC's of the Center Line Punch
by Ed Cruz

Just as one thinks of sticky hands along with Wing Chun, you can also add the center line punch to that as well. Understanding and perfecting the center line punch is a must for those who want to improve in the art. The center line punch is not just a way of hitting an opponent but the mother of all motions in Wing Chun. Its key to get this motion correctly or risk damaging your joints if you punch wrong. Through my experience I'd say 95% or more of the Wing Chun community end up popping there punches. Therefore, I'll explain the ABC's to doing it correctly, so you can be on your way to mastering it.

When you think of the motion of center line punch, imagine yourself sawing a piece of wood. Thus, its simply a push and pull motion. The key thing to remember is that the elbow is doing all the work, nothing else. Elbow power is from pushing and pulling, elbow leads the motion. Chair kuen means pull and punch.

In the beginning, we normally start the beginner by placing his fist
roughly 6 inches away from the sternum. There are 2 reasons for this. First of all, this gives the beginner a sense of awareness of where his centerline is. (Eventually, this will not be necessary once you know where your center is located). Second, if the fist is to close to the sternum, then the elbow cannot be behind it, in order to push. (Thus, the rough distance of 6 inches from the sternum.

Prior to the punch, the fist is in a relaxed state. In addition to that the fist that you are making is at a slight 45 degree angle. The beginner should not be fixated on having a clenched fist. As Sifu Fong had instructed me, "the more power you do the less power you'll get, you just want the hand naturally in place. If you force it in the beginning you won't develop that snapping power." In other words, the power is not going to be generated from tension or muscle. It is the push and the follow through that creates that explosive energy. What happens when you use muscle. Picture this, if I'm going to run someone over with a car, at the moment I hit him, I don't hit the breaks, instead I keep accelerating through him. When you use muscle at the end of a punch, its like putting the brakes on before the hit.

While the punch originates at the sternum level, it will travel on an
incline at the same height of your shoulder. Now this is very important to remember. Failure to do the punch properly can lead to injury to the tendons or joints by the elbow. Remember, when you push with the elbow your simply stretching the joints. If you punch at the same level, you'll end up popping your elbow. Obviously, that's bad, thus the path is from the sternum and a rise to the shoulder once you fully extend. At the same time, while the fist begins at a 45 degree angle, it ends with a 1/4 turn from the starting point.

The rise in the forearm when punching allows for an uprooting motion, when directed towards the opponent.

Now remember that the punch has 2 drilling motions in one. There is the horizontal turn in the punch, as well as the vertical motion of the wrist. When done properly both interconnect with one another. A common mistake by most individuals is to over emphasize the vertical wrist motion. Keep in mind if you do the motion correctly, you don't need to emphasize the drill motion of the wrist. When you over emphasize the wrist snap, instead of punching through your opponent your energy then sails upward and unfocused.

The final hit may seem as if the bottom three knuckles are making the contact on the target. But in reality, the entire fist hits the opponent, the main force is coming from the 3 bottom knuckles. To better understand, imagine a nail by itself, if laid onto of a chair, its pretty unstable. However, surround the nail with cotton and then it becomes stable. Thus, your fist when it hits is also relaxed, the knuckles represent the nail, and the fist is the cotton surrounding it. When the fist hits the target, the fingers naturally squeeze in through the force, while the knuckles then drive through to the opponent. You might be asking why the entire fist? Well, imagine the fist as a triangle, if you were to hit the target with anything but the flat surface of the triangle, the side without the support would collapse. However, if the triangle hits
the target flatly, then both sides would be supported.

Here's a list of common mistakes to watch out for:

1) Popping the elbow, this is the number one mistake and serious
cause for injury

2) Over emphasis in the wrist snap, its a natural motion

3) Punch is elbow lead, not shoulder or hand

4) When standing in YGKYM, using the entire body to do the punch, and not just isolating the arm to do the punch

5) Fist is to tight before the punch and after the punch

6) Over extending the punch and not keeping square

7) Too much emphasis on the punch, it comes out naturally. If you
try to hit hard, you'll end up using muscle.

Copyright 2002 Windy City Wing Chun Gung Fu Federation, Inc.

[Spike]

Quote from Andy Murray:

So that's a good thing then Spike???

No, I was simply illustrating what the weak line is.

[Andy Murray]

Spike, I'm not picking on you mate, but you said;

"It would if someone was solid, but a person`s body will bend and twist from an attack to that area, motion aimed at their centre means the can only bend backwards or forwards which moves your centre of gravity out side your base"

It looked to me like you had identified something positive about attacking the centerline here, but if I read you right, then you are saying the very fact that the opponent twists or bends is more inconvenient to the WC player???

[pgm316]

I find Wing Chun much more effective if you don't limit yourself by tradition. For some good progression in the art get hold of "The Jun Fan JKD Textbook (Chris Kent & Tim Tacket)" a good book, also recommended by Yoda recently!

Good article ladyhawk, the punch is usually done in a static front on stance with a few punches thrown in a sequence. With each punch dropping down after reaching the target and returning in a arc under the next punch. Effective in a close combat situation definitely, but arguably not good as an entry technique when instead sliding in with a more side on jab is more effective or feints etc.

[Andy Murray]

Hi Folks,

I was really hoping we could restrict ourselves to discussing the centerline on this thread. While it is interesting to hear from people who reckon they've comprehended the whole concept, and how they would negate it, I'd also like to hear from people to whom this is an alien concept, or those that simply want to learn about the idea.

As the thread title says 'Centerline Theory', I want to emphasize the word 'theory' once more. It's no absolute rule for all situations, just another tool in the box after all.

Try to hold back the negativity and have a good think about how you would/might apply centerline theory to your own art/practice.

I do just want to take up on something pgm316 has said there though;

"I find Wing Chun much more effective if you don't limit yourself by tradition."

What do you mean by Tradition here pgm316, Wing Chun is a living breathing animal, less caught up in the classical mess than most purist arts. There is no excessive movement, only constant study of biomechanics. Once you have learned the principles, surely you can take these and apply them to anything? Even JKD?

In short I personally find the potential applications of the Traditional WC system as limitless, or rather limited only by my own ineptitude.

[Red5angel]

Spike and AndyM - One thing I would like to point out spike is that if you have been training the right way, even a centerline shot can be deflected. With a good root you can absorb some of this energy an dthen turn when you finally have to. Turning in the most minute and accurate way can disperse even a good centerline punch.

"In short I personally find the potential applications of the Traditional WC system as limitless, or rather limited only by my own ineptitude."

this is a very good point AndyM, most people outside of a system or who have failed to really understand the depth of a system, in this instance wingchun but it can be many many others, tend to see the restrictions in wingchun.
pgm316, dont get me wrong, I respect your belief here but at the same time traditional to me is again.....I had better start a new thread so we can stay on the centerline!

[pgm316]

Sorry if I went off thread, we should stick to discussing the centreline theory. I do comprehend the concept, but I certainly don’t negate it. I was playing devils advocate, trying to highlight weaknesses in the theory. I was hoping to discuss strengths and weaknesses with other WC practitioners to try and reduce weaknesses in what we do, sorry if I sounded negative.

I agree with you Andy, what you say about WC being less caught up in the classical mess is so true and when used realistically, WC techniques can be effectively applied to anything.

Some people train in a more classical way then others. I have the same view point as you, it is just a theory, and it’s a big part of how I train but I don’t live by the theory. To me that is the weakness of being too traditional.

The centreline theory really is a theory of economy of motion and that’s why I like WC. That’s what I believe the real strength of WC is. Arguably this makes it more effective than some arts because its faster to get blocks and punches in. With only the use of necessary movement and strength WC really is an efficient and aggressive style.

[Andy Murray]

On Lady Hawks post;

The abbreviation YGKYM is short for Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma, or 'Goat Clamping Stance' This is the basic/static stance employed in Wing Chun, and does inded look like you are holding a goat between your knees:)

The remainder of LadyHawks post has more to do with the basics of the Wing Chun punch, than with Centerline theory, but serves to give a perfect example of the type of attack used along this line nonetheless!

Interestingly enough, I believe LadyHawks core style of Isshin Ryu Karate actually employs this punch, though I am not sure if that Karate style employs Centerline theory.

[Red5angel]

AndyM my first adventure into the martial arts was in Isshin Ryu and there was a 'centerline' punch of sorts.

Also, the article Ladyhawk posted has some good info in it, something to take note of!

[pgm316]

The punch is still based on the center line theory. Of attacking the opponents centre line, using the most direct route ?

[ladyhawk]

Andy,
I believe you are referring to Seiken tzuki, our straight punch.
This is usually delivered to the solar plexus. I get the impression
that you guys target further up on the chest area but I may be
wrong.

[pgm316]

For a high body shot in WC I was always taught to either hit solar plexus or slightly higher on the chest bone, to wind somebody.

[Red5angel]

Yep pgm316, and ironically the very same technique Ladyhawk is talking about, I used for that purpose, to knock the wind out of osmeone larger then me in high school.

[Black and Blue]

To interupt, one of the things we focus on at Kamon Wing Chun is the fact our relationship to the Centerline is always changing.

We have a drill.... :)

Arrow walk towards your training partner with your hands in Man Sau and Wu Sau, so you facing his center. Your opponent, in whatever stance/position he/she wants to use, knocks away your lead hand (Man Sau) and punches (hook, jab, staight).

The only way you are allowed to defend at this point is to shift, turn, step, etc and let your Wu Sau become Man Sau, and the hand you've had knocked away become Wu. In essense you're changing guard.

This way, the only method of stopping the opponent's attack is to move, and use Man Sau like a Biu Sau. In short, when your partner moves and knocks away your lead hand you've lost the line. To regain the line you must shift position and immediately replace your lead hand.

The variations are endless. As you advance in the drill you can mix and match. Maybe the attacker will punch without knocking away the man sau in his face, maybe you'll go with his force when he knocks the man sau - and attack with an elbow, maybe when he moves his arm in the first instance you change the line in that split second and make his attack redundant - nulifying it before it's even managed to advance more than an inch or so.

The point of the drill (sometimes called Asking Hands in other lineages), is to understand the Centerline and how it rapidly changes. The smallest shift is sometimes all you need. It seems to me that Wing Chun is all about slight shifts in angle.

[pgm316]

Sounds a good excercise Black & Blue, I've never done it just like that. Might be worth a try though! Its also a good example of how the man sau is the feeling hand, as you react once you feel contact with it.

[R0D]

I never heard off 3 differnet centerlines, thats really intressting. Centerline for me is the line going between the eyes and straight down, but the same line comes out from the body pointing agains a oponent. Conserning defending agains an attack outside my own centerline I would just keep my hands in the centerline and turn towards incoming attack and block (deflect) it that way, with what ever technique is suited.

If I attack a WC/WT studend I would not attack his centerline (to protected), insted I would try to attack his centerline from a 45 degree angel. I saw a webbsite about WT's version off the centerline, they have one vertical line and then they have a horizontal line crossing the vertical line. The place the both lines meet is called center point if I remmeber it correctly.

(going to look for that URL and post it in here asap)

[Andy Murray]

Hi ROD,

Welcome to the forum!

Nice to see another WC player here.

Post an Intro in the 'Kung Fu register' thread if you could please.

[R0D]

Thanks Andy, I expect to learn a lot from this forum, even if Ive been practicing Wing Chun for a long while I hardly know notting. All the theories is notting we really talk about in our organisation. We do klassisk wing chun and a flexible version off it (still wing chun techniques) and a sport version for it that is based on wing chun but dosen't look much like wing chun.

I think wing chun is a great style to learn without putting other styles off. There are some styles I wan't to try on, but don't have time for it.

[PantherFist]

I personaly have only dabbled a little in Wing Chun, and have only a limited amount of knowledge concerning the centre line. It is a very good concept a works very well, but it is not infallable. In some cases a good circular punch, used by a competent fighter will simply find a way through it.

My own style is Choy Lee Fut, and for thoughs of you who don't know what this style looks like, think of a kung fu style the exact opposite to Wing Chun. It uses primarily circular techniques as apposed to Wing Chun straight, it prefers long range fighting, Wing Chun close range, it has a huge number of hand and Weapon form, Wing Chun has five, it has at least Six(some lineages a lot more) wooden dummies, Wing Chun has only one.

It was because of these major differences that back in the 50's and 60's in Hong Kong these two styles fought each not beleving that a style so unlike there own was effective. The result was that many, many secret illegal fights took place on the roof tops of buildings with the idea of proving there styles concepts were the best.
The result was that both styles won some and lost some. If you fight against a certain style over and over again you will find its weakness and learn to exploit it, but at the same time you also will have to learn to combat your own weakness which the other style will find.
The point I am getting at is that the centre line concept and straight linear techniques do work, and work well but a well rounded martial artist will also learn circular techniques.

The late grate Bruce Lee is a perfect example of this, he was quoted to of saying that under certain conditions circular techniques worked best for him.

One of the reasons that Bruce Lee left Hong Kong for the U.S was that he hurt a Choy Lee Fut fighter in one of these roof top fights and had to leave because of the trouble. One of his first students Jesse Glover wrote in his book that Bruce had a great deal of respect for the Choy Lee Fut style.

This feud is all in the past, its ancient history in Hong Kong. Me personaly I'm thinking about starting Wing Chun again to improve my close range fighting.

Hope this dosn't offend anyone!

[Andy Murray]

No-one should be offended Chaz,
your post seems to highlight that confrontation is more about the practitioner than the style.

[Sonshu]

I find the WCKF center line works great if you are duped to fighting on it.

I find if I go down that route I am in trouble and can often get ****ted but if I stick to my fight which I would do its a different game and the centre line is fairly easy and open to attack.

How do the others find this?

I would like to improve my centre line fighting so I can play with the good sticky hands people but its a slow come'r!

SONSHU

[pgm316]

Many seem to the think WC people that train with the centre line theory will struggle against hook punches, its not trully the case. WC was developed largely for this situation with the idea of the centre line theory to beat their techniques because WC will attack via a shorter route. My strategy isn't just to defend the line of shortest distance between me and my attacker, but to attack through that line, its easy to keep on the inside and block the swinging roundhouse punches, the problem is when WC people don't bother to train against any other punches........

Theres probably more similarities between Choy Lee Fut and WC than you'd expect, at the end of the day a blocks only a block when it works!

[PantherFist]

I agree that it is easy to move in a block a roundhouse punch, but there is more than one way to throw a circular punch. In the Choy Lee Fut system we have a punch called a Deng Sow Choi, it is a swinging almost straight arm strike that uses the fist to forearm as a striking area and comes across from a high angle to a low angle. It is known as the knockout punch of our style and uses full waist and body movement to power it. The main targets are the jaw and neck. Beleve me when I say that you don't want to try and block it, because we know first hand that it will simply smash thru all blocks. The only way to beat it is either if you are quick enough you can move forward Wing Chun style down the centre line and get in first, or simply get the hell out of the way.
The punch is designed to cut all the way thru the target from neck to hip toppling the opponent the ground.
Like all curved punches they are slower than straight ones, that is why we never use this to start off an attack, it is used as finishig move after a set up has been used, either using kicks or straight punches. The good thing about curved punches is that in the heat of combat they can come in from your opponents blind side and suprise them.
No matter how much we like to use the circular punches we also love to use straight line attacks like charp choi's(panther fist strikes) from the high gate to the low gate. In fact one of the Choy Lee Fut styles(the Bak Sing Branch) is well known for using this technique. Like Wing Chun this style of Choy Lee Fut only has three hand forms as the originator of this branch (Tam Sarm)was more interested in fighting than in learning many hand and weapons forms.

[Sonshu]

Going from my very limited CMA experience is not a great one or not that bad a one either.

You can block a punch easy from there, its more the attacks when people step off your centre line of as the stance seems to be narrow it might cause a knockdown fairly easy - not 100% on this so let me know what you think?

SONSHU

:woo:

[pgm316]

I didn't know the stance was an issue, in WC where I train its just a relatively natural high stance, more kickboxing style than classical low Kung Fu.

Chaz the punch you mention is similar to a forearm one we do, it works well when its not expected, for some of the centre line ppl that have a 2 dimensional way of fighting, but I wouldn't call it unstoppable! :)

[Andy Murray]

YGKM stance in WC is for training purposes only!

It means you can work both sides symetrically, and gives you extra sensitivity to feel pressure.

Not to say that WC can't be applied from any old stance, as that would in fact be the whole point!

Depending on the type of arc, in some cases, circular blows will be struck at, rather than blocked.

There is no blocking in WC, only deflection!

[Sonshu]

I prefer the parry types than blocks and Taijitsu does a lot of striking the offending arm.

SONSHU

[PantherFist]

Because we do alot of arm conditioning the punch is like in principle attacking someone with a baseball bat, you wouldn't want to stand there a try to block that swing, you would either move into the arc of the swing before it (cutting into the centre line) built up too much force, or you would move back let the swing go past and then move in. Like I said I would only use it as finishing technique due to its easy telegraph.

I have just started Hapkido and I suppose like Akido you could try and enter into the swing of that punch and become one with it and the opponent before throwing them.

[The Prodigy]

I have a question 4 the wing chunners How do you gain control of the centerline when your opponent doesn’t keep their centerline static, for instance keeping their side towards you with the centerline say at a 90 degrees angle from you and using continuous footwork to walk around you.

[Andy Murray]

Depends how you think about it.

You're describing the cenerline from the perspective of the opponent, rather than you're own.

In terms of a moving target, you would follow!

Let me know if that's not clear enough. It can be confusing to describe and comprehend in text.

[YODA]

Sounds like he's confusing Centerline and Central line.

[The Prodigy]

I am the opponent.

[YODA]

It doesn't matter - you can occupy the central line no matter which direction the opponent is facing.

[The Prodigy]

Technically, if you are targeting the Central line wont I have the advantage of reach.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by The Prodigy
Technically, if you are targeting the Central line wont I have the advantage of reach.

Can you give us a bit more to go on please, describe the scene if you would?

[YODA]

You don't target the central line - you occupy it or strike down it.

I'll repost what I said earlier in this thread for those too lazy to look :D

* Disclaimer: I'm speaking from a Wing Chun / Jun Fan Gung Fu perspective here. Other systems may vary in their definitions.

Mother Line - A vertical line through your body from the top of your head down through the floor - as if you've been impaled on a spike, errrr...Spike

Centerline - A line that runs down the front of your body between your eyes, down your nose ond down to the floor. The difference between the two is that if the opponent is not facing you, and you are using straight punches, you are punching into his Mother Line not his Centerline. You can, however, hook into his Centerline from the side.

Central Line - This is the vertical plane that runs between you and the opponent - it extends from your Mother Line, passes through your Centerline (usually). This is the line that your straight punches travel down, and the line on which his come to you - it is therefore the line you occupy to protect your Centerline.

Angling off and punching into his Mother Line whilst protecting your own Central Line is a key to many doors.

[The Prodigy]

OK from what you are saying is that from a Wing Chun / Jun Fan Gung Fu perspective you should attack you opponent from either the front centreline or controlling central line and attacking the motherline. I mean doesn’t that limit you considering that when someone is being attacked an opponent can come from any of the eight other gates or directions as well as the upper, middle and lower gates.

[YODA]

The key to your question is where you ask...

you should attack.......

The key is SHOULD. It's an ideal not an absolute.

[The Prodigy]

Andy Murray
Get someone to stand facing you square on with their centre line, then stand side on with your central line facing them and extend your arm towards them, then see who’s reach is longer.
I never was a believer in the one punch principal to take someone down, however it is sometimes the one who lands the first hit is most likely to gain the upper ground as it were in a fight.

[pgm316]

Nothing stopping you moving into a side stance as you hit, often done just for the hit. The prob with the side stance means the other arm has very little reach, so it may become two arms against one....?

[Andy Murray]

If someone stands side on, that person has restricted their available weapons by half.

Yes, they will have slightly more reach, but not many weapons are available that can be used with full bodyweight behind them.

The WC player can more easily 'quarter', which is to say move either side of the opponents front edge at 35 to 45 degree angles.

[The Prodigy]

I agree the WC player can move either side of the opponents front edge at 35 to 45 degree angles which is what I would do against any style that uses a static stance However I am using my footwork to keep on the move, no guarantee that you will stay on my blind side.
In addition, some styles such as northern kung fu, some of the Tibetan hop gar for instance or choy lay fut systems use spinning techniques against you when you enter what can appear to be a blind side.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way if you are thinking about using tan sau and striking my back at my centre line or bong and lop or kicking the legs or even pushing, you are already fighting the fight my way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PantherFist]

A side stance can still be very effective, if proper footwork is used, for instance turning from a side on horse stance to a twisted horse stance, the power you can generate with proper waist movement has to felt to be beleved.

[The Prodigy]

pgm316
As you say there’s nothing stopping you moving into a side stance as you hit, often done just for the hit and the problem with the side stance is the other arm has very little reach, and may become two arms against one.
Against an experienced WC practitioner who really knows their stuff a very major problem, against a inexperienced WC player who only spouts dogma and has no experience of how other styles generate their power and apply their techniques not that much of a problem.

Fighting = Chess
Chess = Fighting

[pgm316]

Funny you say that, my main instructor spent 20 mins with us Friday night, getting into some techniques and saying how it was all like chess, especcially the centre line theory!

When using Wing Chun and the centre line theres often a fine line between it being very effective or not working, skill is the only difference. I could show you one thing, but my main instructor really takes it to a new level, when you see him fight you don't question he can do it! ;)

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by The Prodigy
pgm316
against a inexperienced WC player who only spouts dogma and has no experience of how other styles generate their power and apply their techniques not that much of a problem.



Just say 'beginner', it's easier for everyone. :D

[The Prodigy]

pgm316
Exactly if someone is skilled & quick enough to gauge your ability, such as being defensive when you should be attacking the next thing you know you are in checkmate.
I mean why wait for the fist to come to you and turn & block with a bong sau when you should be kicking the leg away before the fist arrives.

[jimmytofu]

Great thread.. still reading all the responses, but thought I would try and resurrect it.

[wcrevdonner]

Some good responses, but Im not sure if I agree with some of the information.

Someone mentioned that there aren't any blocks in wing chun. I would counter to that, (no pun intended!) that what would you call a basic jum sao? Although we don't block excessively, we definitely try and kill the energy of some strikes, especially those coming through the centre.

I started a previous thread about countering a hook. (Not a circle punch.) In a way, that thread was a misnomer, because hooks as far as I know are countering punches themselves, although are used in combinations as well. Someone, also mentioned countering with a taan. Surely the biomecanics of a hook negate all possibility of countering a hook with taan - you would get clobbered! imho...

Centreline theory is great, as long as someone doesn't read it, and counter off centre to you. Prime example being a hook again...
And against other WC exponents fighting for the centre just becomes about neutralisation - not striking back; so, ironically, you have to break the centeline at times, to be able to control someone. This is where real skill comes in, and is something I've yet to get to grips with in chi sao...

Practically, if you have great confidence in your WC ability, or big balls, attacking down the centre is the way to go in general. However, if someone starts milling, or starts throwing co-ordinated hand combinations, (like boxers) and you are not used to it then it don't matter how much centreline theory you try to take, you'll get beat - hence definitely try to train WC against varied opponents, and see where the principals take you, with the techniques!
(As an example, I've been told by friends/teachers/other MA's that high kicks aren't very practical in a fight. But I've been caught by them numerous times recently, as I only just started encountering them. What I should have been told was that friends/teachers/MAists find them easy to deal with because they have dealth with them, as opposed to just talking about dealing with them.)

[jimmytofu]

..
Practically, if you have great confidence in your WC ability, or big balls, attacking down the centre is the way to go in general. However, if someone starts milling, or starts throwing co-ordinated hand combinations, (like boxers) and you are not used to it then it don't matter how much centreline theory you try to take, you'll get beat - hence definitely try to train WC against varied opponents, and see where the principals take you, with the techniques!
..

I think I would always attack on my centreline regardless. Why would you get beaten by co-ordinated hand combinations?

[Jik Cheung]

Which is where the sensitivity training in Wing Chun comes in very handy.
If you are fast enough to read and catch a Wing Chun punch, it still just might be the very worst thing you could have done.

that's the best way i've heard it put so far. a blind man could use it to maximum efficiency. haven't started sticky hands yet, but can't wait.

[Andy Murray]

Good luck JC.

Shouldn't be long till your doing Chi Sau.

'Good for you', for reading over old threads before posting. ;)

[Nevada_MO_Guy]

If you permanently occupy the centerline thru your offensive techniques, you force your opponent to take the longer/less direct route.

What say you?

Yeah, the theory makes since.....

Now I know Jet Li's movie "The One" was a movie, but.... the bad Jet Li fought center line and in the end the good Jet Li won with circuliar movement....attacking from off center.

This say I.

[wcrevdonner]

Id always attack on my centreline as well. However, its not guarunteed that you will hit; if you are blocked/countered on every strike then there is a possibility of being hit back, and thats where my point about well co-ordinated hand combinations come in.
To echo this point, I was training with two of my fellow association colleages, on separate occasions over the weekend. We were doing a drill, which involved firstly dealing with straight centreline punches coming at you. We then added in low punches to the body, and then more rounded strikes to the head. One partner was as experienced/more experienced in WC than me, the other was a student below my level. BOTH got caught from strikes with horizontal fists coming from around. At this was at slow to medium pace. NB we were only blocking at the time, and not countering through the middle; however, both were notably surprised that they didn't block them easier. The point being is that if you're not aware of these sorts of strikes then you will get caught regardless of how much centreline you know, simply because they are counter strikes, as opposed to simple block and hits.

The point about chi sao is a good one to make, but unless you are WELL versed and experienced with it, it does not make a huge difference when coming across someone milling, because they end up tying your arms up anyway. (As boxers do on occasion.) Touching a WC guys hands could be the worst thing you do - but it could also be the best thing you do if the WC guy/gal thinks he can do more than he actually can. Thats why you mustn't buy into the hype, but make sure it works yourself, as opposed to theory.

[g0b]

wcrevdonner,

I don't quite get your point (sorry, my english is very bad - that might be the reason) when you say "Thats why you mustn't buy into the hype, but make sure it works yourself, as opposed to theory." Do you mean by theory the centreline theory or the theories in generell that are taught in Wing Chun?

As far as I understand WC (I am pretty much a noob so forgive me, if i got it wrong) centreline alone is not enough, but also permanent forward tension. In a case where the opponent does round movements he creates a gap in the centreline. With the forward tension you would then automatically run through him and hit him before he hits you. You will still have to react visually with a jut-sao, a noi-bong or what ever to block that round attack. But I think that's not opposed to theory, is it?

[wcrevdonner]

You see, thats theory if you have never practised it. Its still theory if you don't practice it with a non wc man/woman.

getting hit by a fellow wc prractitoner is one thing; getting hit by a random person who knows nothing about MA's is another. Getting hit by a boxer is something else. Round strikes are easy to counter if you are used to seeing them. But I know loads of people who freeze, (including myself still) when they see someone launching into a huge haymaker. Its the psychology of dealing with the strike thats the issue really.

I mention about not buying into the hype because your teacher can tell you that this works if you do that. And it does in class, with someone drilling at you.
Working it at a random pace changes things though especially in a non crontrolled environment, be that (shudder) 'the street,' a boxing ring, or mucking around with friends. thats when you have to rely on your own skills rather than the ones you think you have in your ma class. If you get caught whilst drilling counter strikes with other people, then it doesn't matter!! Its better that you understand your own limitations rather that enforcing a false sense of security about your self defence skills.

In this way, this is a psychological aspect of centreline theory - cut out what you think will work, and use what you know works.

Sorry, didn't mean to ramble...

[g0b]

I think I got your idea now, thanks a lot. :)

[Sandy]

Hello everyone,

Is it only wing chun and JKD that use centre line theory? Do any other styles? If not, why do you think this could be? In these days of MMA and cross training, I'm curious why the theory doesn't appear to have been widely picked up outside wing chun circles.

[Andy Murray]

Hello everyone,

Is it only wing chun and JKD that use centre line theory? Do any other styles? If not, why do you think this could be? In these days of MMA and cross training, I'm curious why the theory doesn't appear to have been widely picked up outside wing chun circles.

It definitely is used by other systems.

Just not neccessarily made a meal of. ;)

[Sandy]

It definitely is used by other systems.


Ah ha!

Which other systems use it then? Philipino arts? I promise I won't tell anybody ;)

[Andy Murray]

Which other systems use it then? Philipino arts? I promise I won't tell anybody ;)

Personally, I've observed it in Shotokan and Shuko Kai Karate. FMA as you said, as well as various other TMA's/CMA's, and indeed primarily grappling systems.

[aikiMac]

Personally, I've observed it in Shotokan and Shuko Kai Karate. FMA as you said, as well as various other TMA's/CMA's, and indeed primarily grappling systems.

Aikido would be one of those grappling systems.
It's also in Japanese sword work.

[animalguy]

sorry for the long one but i haven't been on in a while.not a wc practitioner but here is my 2 cents anyway.
yes i believe that attacking the cl forces your opponent to take the longer route.

Another consideration is whether or not your opponiont can offset your CL and cut into the angle - if he can then HE will have the direct line across what is now the new CL.

this is true but if he has to cut the angle than he has to take the longer route. if you continue to make his cl the prize you will always force him to take the longer route.

Actually - centreline is the wrong term here - what we should be discussing is the "Central Line". Ther are 3 "lines" that exist on or around your central axis. Mother Line, Centreline & Central Line.

lets not forget the other two at the shoulders and the mid section (usually at or just above the waist but can change with different postures like in hung gar tiger) they all work together and must be maintained or else strikes and stances get weak.

I've never practised any Wing Chun but what little observation I've done did suggest that, as you say, controlling the centre line is of questionable value when dealing with hook punches. So what's best do you think? To modify the Wing Chun technique (as you suggest) or to use a blocking/intercepting/evading strategy from another art?

if you are turning your centerline with your block it will be strong and use that energy into a punch to his centerline with the other hand or repel off of the hooking punch if he is throwing the other hand. these blocks are really hard when you shift this way.

if i am understanding the elbow blocking technique (what really helped was the foreman reference) it is similar to white cranes blocking techniques. am i right?
hooks can be done using the cl theory but your body has to be turned toward the punch to begin with.

Now I know Jet Li's movie "The One" was a movie, but.... the bad Jet Li fought center line and in the end the good Jet Li won with circuliar movement....attacking from off center.

sure but he was attacking on the new central line to attack the motherline of bad jet li using his strikes in line with his own centerline.

this also has to do a lot with distance in the central line. straight weapons tend to work better as andy pointed out "the shortest route" and all that also because of the telegraphing that occurs with hooking weapons.

[wcrevdonner]

From what I've been told, centreline theory is based in a lot of the southern cma's, including preying mantis and pak mei. If Im wrong, please correct me...

[dustIn credible]

I always thought the centerline theory was based on the medial line of the body. After all, the chinese are the ones that first thought of the imaginary line down the center of the body that divides the body into 2 asymetrical halves. Atleast I think it was the chinese.

[g0b]

Central line, centreline...this is confusing. Did I get it right, that the "central line" starts approximately at your solar plexus and ends at the opponent's, i.e. the shortest route to your opponent? If that is so, what's the centreline for? Just a line where the weak spots of humanbeings are?

[dustIn credible]

the Centerline theory is based on the Medial Line in the human body (its an imaginary line that can be draw down the center of the body, making 2 asymetrical halves). Almost all major organs, except kidneys, have atleast a portion of the organ on or very near the center. Thats about all i know, ima WC newbie.

[Andy Murray]

Aikido would be one of those grappling systems.
It's also in Japanese sword work.

Aikido's a very good example.

[animefreak88]

since i have no real kung fu experience, this is my first time really hearing these concepts. so, in a one on one fight, there are 5 lines? two motherlines, two centerlines, and the one joining central line? so, wouldn't the opponent be most vulnerable if his centerline doesn't line up with the other 4?

please, let me know if i'm on the right track here.

[CFT]

since i have no real kung fu experience, this is my first time really hearing these concepts. so, in a one on one fight, there are 5 lines? two motherlines, two centerlines, and the one joining central line? so, wouldn't the opponent be most vulnerable if his centerline doesn't line up with the other 4?AF88, I think you are on the right track here. All these three 'line' terms are used extensively in the TWC organisation of William Cheung. Other Wing Chun lineages do not always employ all 3 terms.

My understanding is that the motherline is an imaginary line running through the top of the head, down through your anus; roughly along your spine I guess.

The centre-line is the line that bisects your body into two symmetrical half, if viwed from the front.

The central-line is the line that connects the motherlines of two opponents. I think that in TWC this is extended to include the fan-like area swept between your arms and the central-line.

The ideal in combat is that your own centre-line faces the central-line so that you can bring both your hands (or legs) to bear; so this covers the situation where you and your opponent are face-to-face or if you face your opponent from another angle. Preferably your opponent has not been able to face onto the central-line like you have been able to do - this would just return us to the face-to-face situation.

[Late for dinner]

Now I have only skimmed the thread so excuse me if I am being repetetive.

The idea of facing and engaging with both arms is not primary in all kung fu systems. Long arm systems can use a line connecting between your motherline through the side of your body (ie with the arms out sideways) connecting with motherline of the opponent. Doesn't matter which part of his body you are engaging.

A crane style punch or a pow choy can be performed with the body pivoting to extend your reach so that you are connectiing with the opponent (body/arm or whatever target) before they have the ability to connect with your body.

The wing chun approach might be to use a jum sao or jut sao to engage the arm and use these movements to disengage the persons technique from your own motherline while trying to counterattack.

Sounds like it should be easy enough to do (stop the crane punch that is) but Choy li fut practitioners were no slouches on the rooftops of Hong Kong when brucie was about. Certainly there are stories about how these guys were not easy to tag down with short arm techniques.

Something to consider...(hope all the jargonese makes some sort of sense).

Cheers,
Pow Choy

[mckayb]

Hi Pow Choy,

Can't say as I disagree with you.

The side on punch also exists within WC.

Its in the practice sets of the Pole form.

Too many WC people stop too short in the training time line to look beyond First or Second form.

Both are important but not everthing in the system.

Bill

[Mr.Gordo]

In the beginning of the third form, Biu Gee, the punch does not start out being aligned at the solar plexus as in siu nim tau and chum kiu. The vertical punch starts from the side and crosses the center line. This is also an example of a deviation from centerline principle.


Mr. Gordo

[Swordsikan]

This might sound completely stupid...but what if you were facing sideways...they wouldn't be able to attack your centreline...

This is probably a bad comment...but well I don't do wing chun and was just wonderring...

[wcrevdonner]

Its not a stupid comment, no comment is stupid if you don't know an answer. Its when people ask questions just for attention...

If you face side on, its a lot harder for you to you both hands; we use both hands constantly to control and strike. Id imagine, (I don't know cause I've never sparred with someone from side on, this is just theory - Id like the chance to try it out at one point!!) we'd control the one hand and strike using the other.

Like I said though, theory...

[g0b]

but what if you were facing sideways...they wouldn't be able to attack your centreline

Why not? The alignment ist still: WC-guy is pointing his centre-line to his opponent's. Just the one facing sideward is turning his away. The head for instance is still an available target. In elbow drills you also have your opponent faced 90 degrees and you do the elbows with a turn into your opponents centre-line for example.

[mckayb]

Gracias Yoda and pgm.

since the centreline is also your weak line with regards to balance, so forcing your power along this line allows a great many aikido techniques to be done very effectively.
apologies for bad geometry, maths was not my strong suit

This would be truth if

1. The weight distribute was forward and
2. If we were as you say "forcing your power along this line".

For WC exponents neither are true.

We do not force power along the centreline. We strike along it. Proper WC should never over commit 'anything', balance, reach etc. We fish, if this one doesn't get there the next one will so we are not desperate about things.

Weight distribution is from 50/50 backwards, without leaning, as long as it isn't transferred forwards. The front leg act as as a break and the ability to move to the next point of balance is always there.

There is an arguement in the WC world that the strength of the WC stance is in its mobility not necessarily in its stability.

The ability to move the horse as oppose to accept any unecessary energy delivered to it. Simply getting out of the way as driven by any increase in presseure to the overall structure.

I have a few 2nd and 3rd Dan Aikido students in my classes and they really love WC as a compliment to what they do.

The directness and immediacy of what we do is what they find the thing they want. It negates most secondary movement.

If it isn't hitting me, or it is moving left of right, up or down, in front of me then I enter and just hit.

I agree with Yoda to some degree. Ideally the strike should be to their core (motherline) but anything that causes them pain and disruption on the way in will do.

Bill

[sliver]

Dealing with hooking and other round punches isn't really out of the realm of centerline theory. The key here is something someone mentioned earlier. The movements are minimalistic. A punch deflected to miss by an inch is as good as one that missed by a foot. Or a punched absorbed by the hard parts of the arms does extremely little (just ask a Thai boxer). The key is you don't have to keep your arms only in the central line, you just have to avoid being pulled far enough off of it that it is quicker for your opponent to reach it with a devistating blow than it is for you to return your gaurd to the line. Also, something should always be covering that central line. I really can't think of a situation where you would have to leave it completely. Unless you happnen to be fighting a commando octopus, in which case, you're sunk.

When I first started lung ying, I was a blackbelt in Knepo. One of the things that impressed me about the style is the first day I walked in, the instructor, stood about two feet from me, in easy punching distance, and just said "hit me". No restrictions, no requirement to move at half speed, nothing. The only thing lacking was we would both stay in one spot rather than move around as in a sparing match. I knew then, as I do now that I'm faster than him. Age was on my side. Amazingly to me, despite the advantages of being 20 years his junior, in easy striking range, faster, and having a large repitoire of hand strikes and combinations built up from dojo training and lots of ring fighting, I couldn't hit him. Seriously, I didn't land one of two hundred punches. Not because I didn't use hooks (and uppercuts, and crains wing, and hammer strikes...and everything else but the kitchen sink and a crowbar) but because his gaurd covered his center line making the best targets unhitable with a direct attack, and the combinations involving round punches he didn't seem to have to move very far to stop or deflect. When the tables were turned, lets just say I didn't fare so well. My new instructor didn't even have to try to move fast to hit me. He moved like he was in a swimming pool on a warm day and still got me. No my defenses didn't suck, it's just it wasn't hard for him to lure me off my centerline defense, so my blocking was constantly exposing new holes that were quicker for him to reach than for me to cover. It was my first (and most dumbfounding) example of centerline theory well applied. So in my experience, no controling the centerline isn't of questionable value when dealing with round punches, it just needs to be properly applied.

[sliver]

Can't speak for wing chun, as I've never practiced it myself, but really dealing with a side facing opponent (such as in a side horse stance) doesn't change much, and makes some things easier. as wcrevdonner mentioned, facing side on, though it does reduce your strikable profile, also has the disadvantage of severly reducing the further back side limbs of your body. Any punch or kick from the rear hand or leg must either be well set up with jabs or leading movments, or they telegraph badly. This being the case if the centerline player does a good job keeping his centerline covered, immobilizing the side-on opponents forward deployed arm and leg makes them just about defensless. About the only thing they can do from that point is try to escape and regroup. I did have one fight where a "side horser" managed to tag me in the back of the head with a spining hook kick while we were engaged, but hey, that's fighting. I'm not superman and I do get hit. Plus, it only worked once. The value of that attack was it was creative and supprising, and came from a position I didn't think my opponent could launch such an attack from. What we sometimes get away from around here is any style works. How well it works depends on the player much more than the style. All the same, I've done prety well against people fighting from a side horse or a variant of it, so I don't think it limits the efectiveness of the centerline principal.

[Bjoern_VT]

OK, I did not read the whole 10 pages, just a few quick comments, for here are a lot of IMHO very wrong assumtions about WC and centerline fighting...

1.) We hit over the centerline, but due to stance and footwork we are allways behind out hit with the whole body as unit and "locked" to the ground so you move your whole (how is the center position of a pendulum called in english) weight center as a unit, which makes you rather stable and flexible since you move through your feet only and never get out of balance at any moving point
this you achieve due to not turning your body (rotating or bending for- or backwards) away from your point of balance, but making your body structure a unit with using a constnatly pushed forward hip, using your elbows to create your punching power over the stablity of your center.. this makes a 1" punch possible though you rather hit from distance of maybe 10 inches if you are in distance, or overcome a longer distance with still havin no more need for moving your arm

2.) hooks, swinging techniques, standart straight punches or Ving Tsun attacks are easily considered as the same, since in the moment you can be hin you too can hit
either you use the short straight distance and hit from your front arm (leave out the thought of using tan, **** or anything as a security block, for most boxing styles would use fakes attacks if they move quicker) or you step back, let thew arm pass and controll it with the real meaning of the techniques, by deflecting and controlling the arm, yo umove the opponents arm away so you attack his side havin two arms fighting one... you are straight to him wit h YOUR centerline and attack through the center of his body so to maximise the result of your hit (since a hit in your center as one guy explained will not allow you use your body turning as a bumper)
jut sao, lap sao, bong sao (which I would see rather as an emergency technique since it makes you vulnarable and needs corrective moves afterwards), huen sao, gaan sao and jum sao are to achieve this position (nearly only, othe ruseage of these techniques are rather "by chance")

3.) to Spike: to use any move bringing a Ving tsun fighter (that knows his footwork) from his centerline is difficult, not only due to his not steady hands as was described, but mainly, because you do not have any weight moving with stiff forearms or wrists, therefore which part ever you get to grip of his arms you can move a long way before you get any resistance from the bodyweight, while the other arm is free for hitting you from a stable stance
the main problem, which I guess is the reason for your assuption, is a bad stance, footwork OR guys that do not trust in their Ving Tsun punches and want to increase power through moving there body like the standart fighting styles do... as soon as a Ving Tsun fighter does that, you need not more than a step to the side to bring him off balance of course

last thing from my point for now:
In Ving Tsun you NEVER EVER want to attack through the center of your opponent (meaning if he is stnading face to face with you and you have both arms in the center and he both outside) !!! for this makes you deal with two arms able to hit you as much as you can hit him... this is the worst position except with the arms on your back of course ;)
you always attack ONLY if you can hit freely and safely being able to control both arms, else you use your chi sao training to get your fixed two vs two arms situation turned into a one against two for you
you do NOT shift your own weight out the center an around to be able to attack him form the side, but move his arms int oa position and keep your own stablity line stable towards him without turning (if that is not possible for whatsoever reasons you rather step back and reattack)
sticking hands does not teach you to keep hands sticking but to get rid of sticking hands! (same as washing fingers after touching marmalade ;) )

[mididoctors]

since i have no real kung fu experience, this is my first time really hearing these concepts. so, in a one on one fight, there are 5 lines? two motherlines, two centerlines, and the one joining central line? so, wouldn't the opponent be most vulnerable if his centerline doesn't line up with the other 4?

please, let me know if i'm on the right track here.

no....

using the definitions here on this thread (they seem reasonable) it is impossible to hit someone centerline to mother or centerline unless both shoulders are equa-distant to the motherline of your opponent at the moment of impact...

this will force you to take LONGER routes with your punches if you are not in the position of centerline to motherline at all moments of the fight... which trust me is very very very very very... (lots of very later) very unlikely.

for one fist to reach the opponents motherline (or strike into) requires your centerline faces the hand you are trapping with.

this is a fundamental truth of all hit and traps in any style including hair grabs etc etc by brawlers... why because MOST peoples arms are the same length..

the variation in exactitude of this principle will be modified by the relative difference in arm length between you and your opponent.. the more the same you are the more exact this will be...

not adearing to this principle is

A) almost impossible to do!

and

B) will result in awkard constricted striking techniques of dubious use.

the principal will work for elbow strikes and hooked punches

this is not a WC thing as boxers obey this rule as does everyone else..

it also applies to non trapping situations but that is really an extension of the above

centerline to motherline facing is a special case that fits the above... grab someone's hair and punch them in the head you will find your self square to the target facing the same point you are trying to punch.. this is because you ar trapping on the motherline.

as you grab/trap a point further from the motherline(a limb) your centerline will progressively rotate away from the impact point and all the time will track the position of the trapping hand/arm/POC

if the trapping point is on the central line a you will face the point of impact as this is another special case

there is more if people show an ability to digest this

Boris
london

[clockman75]

------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ving Tsun you NEVER EVER want to attack through the center
of your opponent (meaning if he is stnading face to face with you
and you have both arms in the center and he both outside) !!!
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent post man, I could learn from you, definitely.
That is exactly what I had a hard time with learning
from combat chi sau. Which is why it can be a very
deadly mistake to only guard hoi and not ngoi mun.

Here's some of my limited knowledge about lines I've learned.

Centerline
-----------
There's alot of different lines in Wing Chun, or Kung Fu in general.
though I would have to say that the only two lines that matter
are center (jung) and sin.

Feild, gate or range, system
----------------------------
Mun is the word for area, and hoi (oi) is outside area
and also ngoi which means inside area....

Blocking line
-------------
Fong sau wai- is the term used for the line of impact in which
you will use to block attacks anywhere in or out of your mun.

Attacking line
--------------
Gung gek wai- is the term for the line with which you throw attacks.
I wish I could remember the term for intersecting lines, but It's not
on my vocab list....I do my homework :)

The "wang kuen", or doi gok kuen (serious terminology here) is the technique of attacking from the opponents hoi into his ngoi mun. This is an example of using the "outside in" technique and also works vice versus..

[Bjoern_VT]

I am very sorry, I am not very familiar with the chineese language and most of these expressions, except the basics...
I am still a beginner from my point of viewin Ving Tsun, so the amount of things that you could learn is rather limited.... and of the things that I learned, I am in a lot of terms more able to explain, than to proof truth, since my knowledge is still bigger than my abilitiy to put this int oa fight, though I feel improving the more I do understand... I just wished I would have had a teacher like mine form the beginning....

[mididoctors]

We do not force power along the centreline. We strike along it. Proper WC should never over commit 'anything', balance, reach etc. We fish, if this one doesn't get there the next one will so we are not desperate about l

blind adearance to the idea that you should strike along the centerline or force along it or in general always move you striking hand along it is

1) not true even for WC VT WT or any other variation of WC and all those schools that claim they do it

and

2) almost certainly lead you to take a longer route than you need..ie breaks the notion of economy of motion if you always ry to commit in this fashion

centerline theory basically in the simple form it is described on 90% of this thread is total non-sense.


Boris
london

[clockman75]

He means the way you should train.

Learning form and applying it, are two different things.

Yet another difference in developement of Wing Chun, is modified, vs form. Believe it or not, there is also a method of teaching that allows the student to learn "collapsible structure", this is mostly in conjunction to, the theory of which lines are important solely as a discipline of application.

My observations of form
-------------------------
Form, is a very, very important tool. Not just to teach discipline
within in the students class practice, but for developement of
individual training. Form is just a frame. In a sense, only an
outline. However, without some type of form, there can be
no applicable structure.....

use of lines
------------------
There is not much you can do, in a split second that will determine
which line(s) you choose. Giving in, is a technique you must learn in
order to absord knowledge. Practice is what gives your memory
adherence to remember.

When your opponent attacks down your centerline. There are no lines.
It's like a big train. If your fighting a Wing Chun student, then thats
different. Depending on what he knows, he will most likely know some
hip movement.

There's really only two directions you can go on line. Centerline,
and diagnal. Of course, impact, is there, but it's not dependant
upon the line. It is dependant upon the individual. And I haven't
met any Yim Wings lately though she would probobly kick me in
the head, if we sparred, had I lived in her era..... :cool:

No criticism here, I just think it is necessary, to teach others
what a line is. In Wing Chun the line is imaginary. Though you
can draw them on the floor, you have to remember your training
to develope real life defense. Never assume your opponents arm
(shorter than yours) won't get inside your ngoi and totally
rearange your lung capacity..

To me, lines are for posture and form, not structure....

[bcbernam777]

blind adearance to the idea that you should strike along the centerline or force along it or in general always move you striking hand along it is

1) not true even for WC VT WT or any other variation of WC and all those schools that claim they do it

and

2) almost certainly lead you to take a longer route than you need..ie breaks the notion of economy of motion if you always ry to commit in this fashion

centerline theory basically in the simple form it is described on 90% of this thread is total non-sense.


Boris
london
so you say, have you trained in it have you studied it indepth in theory and application or are you like so many other experts on WC who in reality know nothing

[wcrevdonner]

I love the way you talk as if you are an all fountain of knowledge of WC BCbernam777.

How long have you actually studied Wing Chun?
Who have you studied with? you mention Jim Fung but is he your sifu, or is it someone else?
Have you ever used WC in real application? (IE ring or unfortunate altercations?)

If you have a decent amount of experience you would understand where he is coming from. (Although I think 90% is a bit harsh Boris. ;), and maybe a little reasoning with why you think you don't agree!)

Instead of disrespecting others, why don't you try listening and actively contribute to the thread? At least give reasons why you disagree with Boris, such as the comment that you don't always move your hand along the centreline?

Boris, for what reasons would you ever use Bill sao (or jee which is probably more appropriate for this argument) if you're not a fan of centreline theory?

[simonlarcombe]

That bong sau looks very dodgy to me BCbernam777

[mididoctors]

so you say, have you trained in it have you studied it indepth in theory and application or are you like so many other experts on WC who in reality know nothing

I can demonstrate the reasons why if you are open minded...

Does your WC have a tan sao turning punch combo in it?

if it does you will find you are facing the tan sao block and not your opponents centreline..

as you do if you execute a lap sao and numerous other techniques in WC of all flavours..

if this is the case you will discover your blocking/trapping/parry hand is not on the central line... it can not be

what follows next is a demonstration of how little is generally understood by WC practitioners.


if you conduct some technique that results in your hand NOT ending on the central line the shortest distance to your opponent with that WILL NOT be down the centreline but will be a straight line off axis to the central from where your hand is to your opponents motherline

if you execute some tan sao turning punch and then punch with the tan sao hand... returning it to the centreline/central line is A LONGER route than just throwing a short cross or hook from where the hand is!

WC is applicable within a cone defined by your stance and torso position... not a single axis that is a special case only if your hands are on it and they are in the main NOT on this line as the techniques of fighting in all the different types of WC require you move of this line..

anywhere two hands can coincide without over committing your feet is a better definition of fighting in a non committed fashion....

Boris
London




]

[bcbernam777]

I can demonstrate the reasons why if you are open minded...

Does your WC have a tan sao turning punch combo in it?

if it does you will find you are facing the tan sao block and not your opponents centreline..

as you do if you execute a lap sao and numerous other techniques in WC of all flavours..

if this is the case you will discover your blocking/trapping/parry hand is not on the central line... it can not be

what follows next is a demonstration of how little is generally understood by WC practitioners.


if you conduct some technique that results in your hand NOT ending on the central line the shortest distance to your opponent with that WILL NOT be down the centreline but will be a straight line off axis to the central from where your hand is to your opponents motherline

if you execute some tan sao turning punch and then punch with the tan sao hand... returning it to the centreline/central line is A LONGER route than just throwing a short cross or hook from where the hand is!

WC is applicable within a cone defined by your stance and torso position... not a single axis that is a special case only if your hands are on it and they are in the main NOT on this line as the techniques of fighting in all the different types of WC require you move of this line..

anywhere two hands can coincide without over committing your feet is a better definition of fighting in a non committed fashion....

Boris
London




]
I tell you what answer my questions first then I will answer yours

[bcbernam777]

I love the way you talk as if you are an all fountain of knowledge of WC BCbernam777.

How long have you actually studied Wing Chun?
Who have you studied with? you mention Jim Fung but is he your sifu, or is it someone else?
Have you ever used WC in real application? (IE ring or unfortunate altercations?)

If you have a decent amount of experience you would understand where he is coming from. (Although I think 90% is a bit harsh Boris. ;), and maybe a little reasoning with why you think you don't agree!)

Instead of disrespecting others, why don't you try listening and actively contribute to the thread? At least give reasons why you disagree with Boris, such as the comment that you don't always move your hand along the centreline?

Boris, for what reasons would you ever use Bill sao (or jee which is probably more appropriate for this argument) if you're not a fan of centreline theory?
Again with the fountain of knowledge, must of missed the thread where I said that, also you have obviously missed previus posts where I have stated that I dont know it all, but I know what I do know.

My Sifu is Dereck Fung (Fung Ping Boi) who studied under Yip Man.

Have I had to use WC, no, because I dont fight, I dont want to fight, I avoid fighting because I have nothing to prove, I have however engaged in numerous full contact sparring sessions with practicioners of both WC and other styles. I also have had fighting experiance in the past when studying other forms of MA.

As I said to Mididoctors when he answers my questions I will answer his.

My disrepect is warranted, the amount of times I have read posts by other MA'st who dont do WC or have only done WC for 6 months or so and think that they are adequatly informed enough to diss the skill set, the principles, concepts, hell even the history of WC.

Finally this is the second time you have responded to me with such a post, how about you let others respond to their posts that I have directed to them, not you, as I dont recall asking you a single question, unless you feel that they cant fight their own battles.

[bcbernam777]

That bong sau looks very dodgy to me BCbernam777
I guess you better tell Yip Man that ;D

[Bjoern_VT]

@mididoctors though if you have done that Tan sao, Punch combo, using turnung stnace, probaply you should rather count on how many mistakes oyu already did for a reasonable fight...
you offer him two arms in front, you have both hands unavailable for a punch unsing your body structure, instead you have to do hooks and such t oreturn to the center, so correct your move
you are extremly open for fake atacks this way, cuz you start hunting arms, instead of using your front hand, whis is already in close punching position you use two arms fighting against one arm and have a second arm coming... this works, as long as the other guys doesn't know what he is doing.... or you are very lucky..
this kind of wing chun interpretation of the Wooden Dummy shows, that ppl think in techniques and 1:1 application... if you go deeper, you will find, that this kind of interpretation is exactly the problem, why so many people feel Wing Chun could be incomplete....
you can do these things and might with a reasonable percentage succeed, but there are in Wing Chun other ways, that stick with the principles.... but these things you cannot easily fit inot words on here.. you'l lhave to see...

I do not think, that BC's Avatar is doing a false bong sao, also the Wu sao ist perfectly right infront of his left shoulder... ;)

[mididoctors]

I tell you what answer my questions first then I will answer yours

I started learning WC in 1987 maybe 86 i can not remember and before that Karate from 1983

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

@mididoctors though if you have done that Tan sao, Punch combo, using turnung stnace, probaply you should rather count on how many mistakes oyu already did for a reasonable fight...
you offer him two arms in front, you have both hands unavailable for a punch unsing your body structure, instead you have to do hooks and such t oreturn to the center, so correct your move
you are extremly open for fake atacks this way, cuz you start hunting arms, instead of using your front hand, whis is already in close punching position you use two arms fighting against one arm and have a second arm coming... this works, as long as the other guys doesn't know what he is doing.... or you are very lucky..
this kind of wing chun interpretation of the Wooden Dummy shows, that ppl think in techniques and 1:1 application... if you go deeper, you will find, that this kind of interpretation is exactly the problem, why so many people feel Wing Chun could be incomplete....
you can do these things and might with a reasonable percentage succeed, but there are in Wing Chun other ways, that stick with the principles.... but these things you cannot easily fit inot words on here.. you'l lhave to see...

I do not think, that BC's Avatar is doing a false bong sao, also the Wu sao ist perfectly right infront of his left shoulder... ;)

ok one step at a time

if you conduct some technique that results in your hand NOT ending on the central line the shortest distance to your opponent with that hand WILL NOT be down the centreline but will be a straight line off axis to the central from where your hand is to your opponents motherline

is that true or false..

how you got your hand there is irrelevant at this point you can argue about that later... just experiment for a few minutes to see if the above holds then get back to us.

Boris
London

[Bjoern_VT]

of course, and Wing Chun does not forget these issues.... they are implemented in the principles of the third form... the shortest and quickest way (if free) is always a straight line from the starting to the ending point.... thats what you use, and at the same time try to corrrect these bad positions to a better one...
so if we say Wing Chun hits always crossing/over the centerline, it means this is our goal way of hitting, where you make use best of your structure and physics of your style... if you use a different method, you are forced to correct yourself, so you have ways to do that without stopping your attacks...
but your first message was giving the impression, that you were/are in doubt of the sense of the principles which make you use chiefly the centerline as long and constantly as the situation allows....
mistakes, special situations, etc will also allow a headbutt, roundhouse kick or the use of a chair behind you, but that is not MEANT to be the first solution, that is (at least from MY point of view) what I wanted to say, I of course cannot speak for others, but from all that I read, at least my understanding of Wing Chun goes quiete conform with what bcbernham states, so I suppose he spoke about the same stuff...

because many lines seem to have not understood the need and function of the principles tought in the forms and rather look at the techniques and make up a 1:1 interpretation to a fight situation, which makes wing chun rather semi efficient

*edit* (to what it could have been)

[mididoctors]

of course, and Wing Chun does not forget these issues.... they are implemented in the principles of the third form... the shortest and quickest way (if free) is always a straight line from the starting to the ending point.... thats what you use, and at the same time try to corrrect these bad positions to a better one...



I will take that as a yes..

why is having your hand off the central bad if it is the end point of a technique? and more importantly if it is how can you insure you keep your hands on it?

Boris
london

[Bjoern_VT]

to get your hand to the outside of the centerline, like in your tan-punch exsample makes oyu attack the opponents arm, which is away from your goal (his head)... so to continue striking you have to work with the less optimal hitting position from the outside, which means you loose hittin power, structure AND you loose protection during your strike
If you use stuff like huen, bong, jut, lap and what so ever saos to remove arms from the centerline (meaning from the line your [hopefully] knock out hit) you still keep you hand without correction in the optimal position to throw the next punch, crossing the centerline, making you strike as secure with ellbow in and so on, and you are at once in the wished position with both his arms flanked to one side of yours and yourself turned with your centerline to him, while he is tunred away from you..this gives you the advantage of fighting wit htwo arms agaisnt only one of his

so instead of moving one hand form the center to the outside, to block his attacking arm, going for the 2 arms agaisnt 2 arms situation, bringing yourself into a position where you have both arms to the front at the same time, giving upyour saftey wu sao position, you just throw a punch (like a boxer does with a jab only using your ving tsun principles and positions of hitting)) or if you overlsept the right timing, you step out of his attacking range.. use your differnet tecniques like jut,lap huen and so on to move his arm to one side so you can witout giving up your position attack him from his "side"

[Martial One]

Spike - basic "Line Theory"

* Disclaimer: I'm speaking from a Wingh Chun / Jun Fan Gung Fu perspective here. Other systems may vary in their definitions.

Mother Line - A vertical line through your body from the top of your head down through the floor - as if you've been impaled on a spike, errrr...Spike :D

Centerline - A line that runs down the front of your body between your eyes, down your nose ond down to the floor. The difference between the two is that if the opponent is not facing you, and you are using straight punches, you are punching into his Mother Line not his Centerline. You can, however, hook into his Centerline from the side.

Central Line - This is the vertical plane that runs between you and the opponent - it extends from your Mother Line, passes through your Centerline (usually). This is the line that your straight punches travel down, and the line on which his come to you - it is therefore the line you occupy to protect your Centerline.

Angling off and punching into his Mother Line whilst protectinh your own Central Line is a key to many doors.

..... and some people think I just twirl sticks LOL

isnt the central line more horizontal?

[bcbernam777]

@mididoctors though if you have done that Tan sao, Punch combo, using turnung stnace, probaply you should rather count on how many mistakes oyu already did for a reasonable fight...
you offer him two arms in front, you have both hands unavailable for a punch unsing your body structure, instead you have to do hooks and such t oreturn to the center, so correct your move
you are extremly open for fake atacks this way, cuz you start hunting arms, instead of using your front hand, whis is already in close punching position you use two arms fighting against one arm and have a second arm coming... this works, as long as the other guys doesn't know what he is doing.... or you are very lucky..
this kind of wing chun interpretation of the Wooden Dummy shows, that ppl think in techniques and 1:1 application... if you go deeper, you will find, that this kind of interpretation is exactly the problem, why so many people feel Wing Chun could be incomplete....
you can do these things and might with a reasonable percentage succeed, but there are in Wing Chun other ways, that stick with the principles.... but these things you cannot easily fit inot words on here.. you'l lhave to see...

I do not think, that BC's Avatar is doing a false bong sao, also the Wu sao ist perfectly right infront of his left shoulder... ;)
You are spot on, the whole Idea of Bui Jee was to use principals that had to fit into "unusual prediciments" some people refer to these as emergency techniques for when you have lost the centre and need to regain it not through the usual way. This is part of the reason why their is a focus in Bui Jee of the development of the dynamic "whirpool energy" (name chosen because I cant think of a closer spot).

[mididoctors]

to get your hand to the outside of the centerline, like in your tan-punch exsample makes oyu attack the opponents arm, which is away from your goal (his head)... so to continue striking you have to work with the less optimal hitting position from the outside, which means you loose hittin power, structure AND you loose protection during your strike

well that can not be true if you have blocked off the central line his hand must have a offset angle to your mother line..ie it will and does not need to come down the centraline either.. reciprocity... think about it if the shortest distance for you is from your hand to his motherline the same is true for him...

neither of you have to gain by going BACK to the centreline except lost time


If you use stuff like huen, bong, jut, lap and what so ever saos to remove arms from the centerline (meaning from the line your [hopefully] knock out hit) you still keep you hand without correction in the optimal position to throw the next punch, crossing the centerline, making you strike as secure with ellbow in and so on, and you are at once in the wished position with both his arms flanked to one side of yours and yourself turned with your centerline to him, while he is tunred away from you..this gives you the advantage of fighting wit htwo arms agaisnt only one of his

neither of you lose the two arm use until you try and attack to the offside of the direction of your feet.. ie anywhere with a arc defined more or less by the direction your feet are pointing... this area is open to both hands without transferring weight onto either leg greater than 50% ie raising on your toes so as to throw substantial weight onto one of those legs so your legs can turn your torso to face the opponent like a boxer does

there is slack in the hip, knee and ankle joints for both arms to have the same reach in this area and not purely along the centre line/central line... it is true for this relation ship but the area is much wider than most WC practitioners think. if you claim you have to lock your legs into one shape then your options compared to his decrease dramatically ie to punch you need some special structure then really you are offsided at the moment he attacks or shifts off your facing as you have only one discreet beam you can operate on. is bill jee recapturing this position or just an admission you don't fight on it anyway?

if structure depends on a fixed leg position then your universe is the central line does the structure of your punch depend on that? if it does you are in one narrow universe?

does a WC punch really have to be thrown down the centreline?



so instead of moving one hand form the center to the outside, to block his attacking arm, going for the 2 arms agaisnt 2 arms situation, bringing yourself into a position where you have both arms to the front at the same time, giving upyour saftey wu sao position, you just throw a punch (like a boxer does with a jab only using your ving tsun principles and positions of hitting)) or if you overlsept the right timing, you step out of his attacking range.. use your differnet tecniques like jut,lap huen and so on to move his arm to one side so you can witout giving up your position attack him from his "side"

you have to explain the relative feet positions here as gaining his offside is largely a problem of where you are standing rather than if your hands are on the central line...

i can be offside with or without having my hands on the central line...

i think we are in some trouble here as terms of reference in this discussion seem inadequate to the task. where are your feet in relation to his?

you need more definition in your statements

edit add: everything I discussed so far is for two opponents who have not moved (they can rotate in place) one step at a time

Boris
london

[bcbernam777]

well that can not be true if you have blocked off the central line his hand must have a offset angle to your mother line..ie it will and does not need to come down the centraline either.. reciprocity... think about it if the shortest distance for you is from your hand to his motherline the same is true for him...

neither of you have to gain by going BACK to the centreline except lost time



neither of you lose the two arm use until you try and attack to the offside of the direction of your feet.. ie anywhere with a arc defined more or less by the direction your feet are pointing... this area is open to both hands without transferring weight onto either leg greater than 50% ie raising on your toes so as to throw substantial weight onto one of those legs so your legs can turn your torso to face the opponent like a boxer does

there is slack in the hip, knee and ankle joints for both arms to have the same reach in this area and not purely along the centre line/central line... it is true for this relation ship but the area is much wider than most WC practitioners think. if you claim you have to lock your legs into one shape then your options compared to his decrease dramatically ie to punch you need some special structure then really you are offsided at the moment he attacks or shifts off your facing as you have only one discreet beam you can operate on. is bill jee recapturing this position or just an admission you don't fight on it anyway?

if structure depends on a fixed leg position then your universe is the central line does the structure of your punch depend on that? if it does you are in one narrow universe?

does a WC punch really have to be thrown down the centreline?




you have to explain the relative feet positions here as gaining his offside is largely a problem of where you are standing rather than if your hands are on the central line...

i can be offside with or without having my hands on the central line...

i think we are in some trouble here as terms of reference in this discussion seem inadequate to the task. where are your feet in relation to his?

you need more definition in your statements

edit add: everything I discussed so far is for two opponents who have not moved (they can rotate in place) one step at a time

Boris
london
You speak of narrow as if it is a bad thing, you see this is where your fundamenntal understanding of WC fails Mididoctor, Centerline theory states very simply that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, is this untrue???? the only law that supersedes this is the law of the wormhole which has never ever been successfully attempted so therefore until it is the straight line theorum remains King Richard. Now where does WC fit in all of this straight line stuff, very simply, WC utilises rotational force to overcome the opponants larger (if it is) and more powerful force, it is this rotation which then enables the WC praticioner to occupy the central line, it is the central line (now in this instance I am talking about the opponants centreline), where lies all of your oponants weak points. One of the fundamental concepts of WC is economy of motion, why would I take ten years to enter a persons most vulnerable points through the side when I can learn how to redirect force to capture and control my opponants most vulnerable areas on his body???? and as for techniques being short or lon, do you think the one inch punch was simply a crowd pleaser, no it actually exist and it exist's because a WC man learns h ow to create devestating power from a very close rance, that is one of the internal aspects of WC.

You are trappped in a technique orientated rather than principle centerd WC and that is your error, (hey I call it as I see it as others have done to me).

By the way I havent fully answered you because you havn't fully answered me how long have you been doing WC not when you started.

[mididoctors]

You speak of narrow as if it is a bad thing, you see this is where your fundamenntal understanding of WC fails Mididoctor, Centerline theory states very simply that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, is this untrue????

no... its perfectly true.. however blocking off the central line which you do will mean returning to the central line will not adear to the above premise

You simply either fail to understand the point i made OR are stuck in some delusional cult mentality



the only law that supersedes this is the law of the wormhole which has never ever been successfully attempted so therefore until it is the straight line theorum remains King Richard. Now where does WC fit in all of this straight line stuff, very simply, WC utilises rotational force to overcome the opponants larger (if it is) and more powerful force, it is this rotation which then enables the WC praticioner to occupy the central line, it is the central line (now in this instance I am talking about the opponants centreline), where lies all of your oponants weak points. One of the fundamental concepts of WC is economy of motion, why would I take ten years to enter a persons most vulnerable points through the side when I can learn how to redirect force to capture and control my opponants most vulnerable areas on his body???? and as for techniques being short or lon, do you think the one inch punch was simply a crowd pleaser, no it actually exist and it exist's because a WC man learns h ow to create devestating power from a very close rance, that is one of the internal aspects of WC.


well if you want to talk in terms of principles...

what on earth does that all mean..why would you take time to enter by the side? well why wouldn't i? if my hand was off the line.. the principle .of directness is from where you hand is and it is a principle.. it apples on or off the central line it does not demand any structure/technique what so ever.

i can explain this with no reference to any WC technique its true of all fighting styles and you think i am bogged down in technique! extraordinary lack of self awareness demonstrated on your behalf... that is a judgment


You are trappped in a technique orientated rather than principle centerd WC and that is your error, (hey I call it as I see it as others have done to me).

i think if you stop and think about that you will discover it is infact the complete opposite. the notion the shortest distance from where your hand is to the motherline which is true on or off the central line as opposed to your technique based theory that demands you return your hands to the centreline... because its better no explanation why it just is.

really? STOP TIME OUT which of those two worlds is really addressing reality with a principle for ALL POSSIBLE HAND LOCATIONS RELATIVE TO THE OPPONENT



By the way I havent fully answered you because you havn't fully answered me how long have you been doing WC not when you started.

21 yrs I guess? ... waiting for your complete answer

Boris
london

[Bjoern_VT]

I think that this discussion leads to nothing, as long as you continue to not listen and just pick a few parts out of what we say and turn them to the understnading oyu might have seen in other Wing Chun lines sometimes...
Yet if you just take what was written and think about it, you have more than enough information to get the point.. else you will have to find someone that is able to show it to you in real....
But who that might be, you will have to figure yourself... I am not the right adress, since I am still a beginner......
Enjoy oyur discussion!

[mididoctors]

I think that this discussion leads to nothing, as long as you continue to not listen and just pick a few parts out of what we say and turn them to the understnading oyu might have seen in other Wing Chun lines sometimes...
Yet if you just take what was written and think about it, you have more than enough information to get the point.. else you will have to find someone that is able to show it to you in real....
But who that might be, you will have to figure yourself... I am not the right adress, since I am still a beginner......
Enjoy oyur discussion!

then explain what it is I do not understand?

are you saying you don't know what it is I don't know! but it must be something because..... because what?

as for thinking I am picking on some small aspect of WC/VT/WT theory and blowing it out of proportion... I have two points to say there

1) even if that was true why is that irrelevant

and

2) if centerline theory is not a large component of the total rubbish regurgitated in WC theory chat then I don't know what is

centerline theory is a bogus term more than a actual set of principles of use.. it bounces around these discussions as thou just using the term is an explanation and it is not... its nothing, the emperors new clothes or old clothes more like. there is no universal meaning to it and what meaning it has is really just a definition of relative positions rather than some tactical priority or insight.

Boris
London

[wcrevdonner]

Again with the fountain of knowledge, must of missed the thread where I said that, also you have obviously missed previus posts where I have stated that I dont know it all, but I know what I do know.

My Sifu is Dereck Fung (Fung Ping Boi) who studied under Yip Man.

Have I had to use WC, no, because I dont fight, I dont want to fight, I avoid fighting because I have nothing to prove, I have however engaged in numerous full contact sparring sessions with practicioners of both WC and other styles. I also have had fighting experiance in the past when studying other forms of MA.

As I said to Mididoctors when he answers my questions I will answer his.

My disrepect is warranted, the amount of times I have read posts by other MA'st who dont do WC or have only done WC for 6 months or so and think that they are adequatly informed enough to diss the skill set, the principles, concepts, hell even the history of WC.

Finally this is the second time you have responded to me with such a post, how about you let others respond to their posts that I have directed to them, not you, as I dont recall asking you a single question, unless you feel that they cant fight their own battles.

i) Your posts are extremely patronising at times - if you recall, I don't like posts that blatantly patronise others, (and just in case you don't get it, Im refering to your conversation with KE once. Im no mod, but Ill make a comment when something really gets to me.)

ii) If Im being honest, then your perceived lack of experience shows through when you write posts - which is all the more aggravating when you patronise others.

iii) Boris definitely doesn't need me to defend him - he (seems! ;)) knows a lot more about the principals explicitly than I do - simply because he can explain them better. (I have actually gone away, thought about what he said and tried it, and have come back with my own specific questions, which I think have been relevant.) and the point he mentions about centreline theory being bandied about is well made, since if you honestly have used it religiously then you should have got creamed. At least by someone who is half decent.

BTW (just in case you ask), I know the first two forms and part of the dummy form. I also have been training form over 6 years and instruct in WC. I also try to cross spar with other styles as often as I can, (hoping to go into a competition at some point) and have ALWAYS tried to see what does and doesn't work, always with a practical mind. I have had my ass kicked, and have also kicked some ass. this is no a boasting statement, (and I don't think it sounds egotistical), just a statement of my experience as it stands.

there is no universal meaning to it and what meaning it has is really just a definition of relative positions rather than some tactical priority or insight

Maybe maybe not but I think we'll get into semantics...For me, if I can attack the opponents centreline without compromising my own then Im a happy bunny. Personally I would prefer that close up, being at a 45 degree angle to my opponent with one of my hands in contact with his, (preferable left on left if I am on their right side, or right on right if I am on their right side.)
Centreline theory defines, afaik, being able to attack the opponents centreline as well as defend my own. however, I see no explicit statement of attacking down my centreline, just attacking my opponents centreline. I also don't think any WC pract. worth his/her salt would directly attack straight down their centreline unless

i) The attack is coming that way and you have no choice but to defend that way, or

ii) You're intercepting at any time and any place.

[mididoctors]

Maybe maybe not but I think we'll get into semantics...For me, if I can attack the opponents centreline without compromising my own then Im a happy bunny. Personally I would prefer that close up, being at a 45 degree angle to my opponent with one of my hands in contact with his, (preferable left on left if I am on their right side, or right on right if I am on their right side.)
Centreline theory defines, afaik, being able to attack the opponents centreline as well as defend my own. however, I see no explicit statement of attacking down my centreline, just attacking my opponents centreline. I also don't think any WC pract. worth his/her salt would directly attack straight down their centreline unless

i) The attack is coming that way and you have no choice but to defend that way, or

ii) You're intercepting at any time and any place.

your really stating that you attack his motherline (i use the term axis myself less wc Bs involved) as centreline has a component of facing... of the three centreline defines a direction hence facing is better

virtualy all styles including natural brawling strike to the mother line

there are exceptions but that is what it comes down to catching someone square on is pretty mush a blow directed to a line extending up and down your spine...


the centerline being on the surface is better defined as facing as it use requires that your soulders are 90 degrees to it...

Central line is well defined in yodas post as a plane from one motherline to the other

so we have

motherline=AXIS=your spine (roughly)

centreline = facing or a right angle straight out from your sternum

and

central line which is just a plane/line from one opponents axis to the other.

because the shoulders will in a stand up situation always be a set width and the central line is independant of facing (centerline) the determination of when you actually strike down the centerline is when you face down it..

blocking in the main occurs off the central line this will mean the facing centerline will turn off the central line and face the block if the other shoulder is able to project to the target...

a failure to turn into the block results in lack of range for the other arm as the shoulders rotate around the axis.

you can be standing more or less anywhere in relation to the opponent the above applies.

as for defending your own axis by positional advantage then really you need to be standing in the best posable location relative to his feet..

you both have identical stances roughly a pretty bog standard 50/50 fighting stance .. say

if the central line passes

from his body and then to outside of his lead foot but on the inside of your lead foot

AND

a line from his rear foot to your axis (motherline) passes either though his front foot or the outside of it

AND

the central line lies with the arc of your feet (you basically must have your left foot forward if he has his right and vice versa)

you have offsided your opponent

he is restricted in using both his arms and rear leg and trapping/grabbing his front arm results in neutralising his ability to move and use his front leg

you can use both of your legs and arms.

Boris
london

[Bjoern_VT]

I actually have no clue, what your posting means.. English is not my mother language.... you lost me somewhere in thsi posting :(

let me try to get to my point a last time....
to get to attack him in an angle through his (as you call it) motherline you can either attack from there, or "turn" him or his arms in a way, that you can do that, with doing steps more ro less around him, so you move in from the side by some kind of circle step, you can use a turning stance (where it is important to use the VinG Tsun version where you turn in your motherline so you do not shift your weight center to the outside, but use structure to create power) or you do the Leung Ting Version, where you move your weight center away from his centerline so you stnad turned towards him in the same distance with your hitting side (whereas in the first version you moved towards him)
or depending on the distance you make a step diagonal towards him use your pak/jut, something sao and the footwork to cut of his moveing and so turn his arms away form you restricting (something like trapping, though you do not"hold them fixed") his arms with your pak, lap jut... and hit with the free hand
all these methods bring you where you want to be, some IMHO better than others, but that is an other story...
but if you do the tan-punch thing, you have gained nothing, for oyu still are in a distance, where you have no advantage, except he was not protected and you managed really to hit with your punch.... else both of you are still able to continue both in the same way, hitting straight from where they are and/or turn in to hit with another arm... there is nothing restricted and who manages to hit faster and more efficient is leaving a big portion of luck,while the other method brings you in a position where you can use your full hitting power with ellbows in and so on in a rather safe way, for he is at least for a short moment "immobelised" in terms of fighting back

I interpretate your posting, as far as I could understand it, that you too seek this situation.... why I do not approve the tan punch exsample to show that a centerline princuiple is not valid for ving tsun fighting, or restricting.. hwo do I bring this to a point...
what I and I guess bcbernham too mean by attacking over the centerline should be, that you use your ellbows in, hit from an ellbowmovement and generate the "famous" 1" punch power while you are protected against attacks from the front (when you use the methodes I described above to get rid of his arms)
this way you have your hips, footwork behind your punch very well, it is very safe and powerfull an stable...
there are situations where in a fight by accident OR mean you might have to give up this way of fighting, having your arms cross your own centerline and so on, then you use the priciples you did decribe, you hit straight from where oyu had to move your hands using the BT priciples whioch allow you to at the same time regain the safe powerful positions....


OK so far for now...

The last thing.. I will from now on keep myself reading on here, but reduce my writing to a minimum regarding any technical issue, for both time reasons (I will travel to Ireland from 3rd May for a year and have there only my company account to the www over a modem that I cannot us extensively too) and also because this discussion showed me clearly, that either my English is not well enough to understand properly or make myself understandable...
Sorry if I misjudged you, for I had the feeling, that you did not want to understand my point, but I guess I just cannot bring it to the point using words properly...
might be a language or an experience problem, who knows...

[mididoctors]

I actually have no clue, what your posting means.. English is not my mother language.... you lost me somewhere in thsi posting :(

fair enough

If i can be bothered and have the time i will get some pictures that may help



let me try to get to my point a last time....
to get to attack him in an angle through his (as you call it) motherline you can either attack from there, or "turn" him or his arms in a way, that you can do that, with doing steps more ro less around him, so you move in from the side by some kind of circle step, you can use a turning stance (where it is important to use the VinG Tsun version where you turn in your motherline so you do not shift your weight center to the outside, but use structure to create power) or you do the Leung Ting Version, where you move your weight center away from his centerline so you stnad turned towards him in the same distance with your hitting side (whereas in the first version you moved towards him)


this is all confused we need some pictures...

the motherline does not turn...it has no direction at all its just a AXIS or "pole" your body moves around and is roughly equivalent to a imaginary line running through the top of head down your spine and out straight into the ground... your mother line could be stationary while you rotate around it



or depending on the distance you make a step diagonal towards him use your pak/jut, something sao and the footwork to cut of his moveing and so turn his arms away form you restricting (something like trapping, though you do not"hold them fixed") his arms with your pak, lap jut... and hit with the free hand
all these methods bring you where you want to be, some IMHO better than others, but that is an other story...

yes forget moving instead think of a situation where you already in place if you want to get into footwork fine but first get into the idea of just understanding relative postion..its the web hard to communicate this



but if you do the tan-punch thing, you have gained nothing, for oyu still are in a distance, where you have no advantage, except he was not protected and you managed really to hit with your punch.... else both of you are still able to continue both in the same way, hitting straight from where they are and/or turn in to hit with another arm... there is nothing restricted and who manages to hit faster and more efficient is leaving a big portion of luck,while the other method brings you in a position where you can use your full hitting power with ellbows in and so on in a rather safe way, for he is at least for a short moment "immobelised" in terms of fighting back

the advantage of position or technique is not so much the issue as the realisation that centerline theory basically doesn't exist! even if your (rather confusing) example is correct about one superior technique over an other the fact remains you have had to make a comparasion between techniques that obey a constricted set of rule and ones that don't.

furthermore the techniques you try and explain away as inferior also exist in the fighting system you train in.

there is a contradiction here and in many other applications in WC between what practitioners say they do and the actual application in reality...

the reason why this is so is that centerline theory as presented by so many different schools of WC never makes it off the runway..

its just non-sense that serves no real purpose except to obstruct seeing reality.. more over a better view or model of positional relationships in stand up fighting being presented to you now (totally free of charge) does not invalidate the special relationship of attacking down the central line as this possibility is contained with-in my discription anyway...


why I do not approve the tan punch exsample to show that a centerline princuiple is not valid for ving tsun fighting, or restricting.. hwo do I bring this to a point...
what I and I guess bcbernham too mean by attacking over the centerline should be, that you use your ellbows in, hit from an ellbowmovement and generate the "famous" 1" punch power while you are protected against attacks from the front (when you use the methodes I described above to get rid of his arms)

well ok but it does not really advance the case for the centerline central line quickest route hypothesis as a universal truth as you have to be there to start with.. moreover even if you are there you will discover that facing down the central line means that both your shoulders are equidistant to your opponents motherline... why is this an issue you might ask?

well if he is not so restricted and turns his facing/centerline off the central line (he does not move his feet) he now out ranges you and in effect can get to you faster! he gains the extra distance of his neck to shoulder line adding to the distance of his punch... you on the other hand have throw away this extra reach by creating a equidistant relationship with your shoulders

even if you are able to contain the confrontation to this central line plane there are issues to overcome


this way you have your hips, footwork behind your punch very well, it is very safe and powerfull an stable...
there are situations where in a fight by accident OR mean you might have to give up this way of fighting, having your arms cross your own centerline and so on, then you use the priciples you did decribe, you hit straight from where oyu had to move your hands using the BT priciples whioch allow you to at the same time regain the safe powerful positions....

well maybe..maybe not but that isn't really my beef with centerline theory at the moment



Sorry if I misjudged you, for I had the feeling, that you did not want to understand my point, but I guess I just cannot bring it to the point using words properly...
might be a language or an experience problem, who knows...

no we are cool... don't fret it

i may post some pictures and diagrams in a week or two...depends

Boris
London

[bcbernam777]

i) Your posts are extremely patronising at times - if you recall, I don't like posts that blatantly patronise others, (and just in case you don't get it, Im refering to your conversation with KE once. Im no mod, but Ill make a comment when something really gets to me.)

ii) If Im being honest, then your perceived lack of experience shows through when you write posts - which is all the more aggravating when you patronise others.

iii) Boris definitely doesn't need me to defend him - he (seems! ;)) knows a lot more about the principals explicitly than I do - simply because he can explain them better. (I have actually gone away, thought about what he said and tried it, and have come back with my own specific questions, which I think have been relevant.) and the point he mentions about centreline theory being bandied about is well made, since if you honestly have used it religiously then you should have got creamed. At least by someone who is half decent.

BTW (just in case you ask), I know the first two forms and part of the dummy form. I also have been training form over 6 years and instruct in WC. I also try to cross spar with other styles as often as I can, (hoping to go into a competition at some point) and have ALWAYS tried to see what does and doesn't work, always with a practical mind. I have had my ass kicked, and have also kicked some ass. this is no a boasting statement, (and I don't think it sounds egotistical), just a statement of my experience as it stands.



Maybe maybe not but I think we'll get into semantics...For me, if I can attack the opponents centreline without compromising my own then Im a happy bunny. Personally I would prefer that close up, being at a 45 degree angle to my opponent with one of my hands in contact with his, (preferable left on left if I am on their right side, or right on right if I am on their right side.)
Centreline theory defines, afaik, being able to attack the opponents centreline as well as defend my own. however, I see no explicit statement of attacking down my centreline, just attacking my opponents centreline. I also don't think any WC pract. worth his/her salt would directly attack straight down their centreline unless

i) The attack is coming that way and you have no choice but to defend that way, or

ii) You're intercepting at any time and any place.
You mean the way your patronising me now?

My reponse to KE was in regards to the disrepectful way that he spoke about Yip Man, I respect my Sifu who has nothing but the greatest respect for Yip Man for what he did for a bunch of kids from HK who by and large where headed down the wrong track, YM did not deserve it and I was defending his honour as the Grand Master of my chosen style

If I am so inexperianced why dont you cite where this inexperiance comes through on my posts.


I did honestly use the centreline theory, and I didn't get creamed, this is against people who have more MA experiance than I do, maybe you just want it to be so, so that you can say "ha ha centerline theory doesn't work". It works, in principal and in reality or maybe we had better go back to HK 1950's and tell Yip Man "sorry you better stop teaching cause that centreline stuff dont work"

If you dont like my posts then its easy dont read them, and if you want to level any more attacks on me then at least do me the courteousy of PM me instead of splashing out in a public forum.

[wcrevdonner]

Understood. However, 'He who throws stones should not live in glasshouses.'

But Im not wasting anymore time on posting etiquette.

Tell me how you used 'centreline theory' to overcome an opponent - which is much more relevant to the post on hand.

[Bil Gee]

Tell me how you used 'centreline theory' to overcome an opponent - which is much more relevant to the post on hand.

Recently I had the opportunity to informally spar with a Muay Thai (not sure about the spelling) student (relatively inexperienced like myself) who had been doing it for just over nine months, and a TKD blackbelt with five years experience.

They both did some amazing kicks that were fast and very powerful, I held the pad while they practiced and I'm still nursing a bruise from were one missed and contacted my arm.

The speed and control of the kicks was impressive and MT man leapt up really high in the air and did some really fancy spinning kicks.

I completely expected to be beaten, but as it was all friendly didn't mind too much.

When it came to my turn to spar I relaxed and decided to just try out the WC principals, since I'd only ever put them into practice against (nearly always) much more experienced WC students.

Both times I immediately stepped in close and attacked down the centreline. Both times I was stunned by the fact that as I attacked instead of the painful clashing of arms that I'm used to trying unsuccessfully to find a path through, there was absolutely nothing. I had a clear path to the head and neck and was able to rain small slaps on them that in a real situation would have been chain punches, finger strikes and palm strikes. They were too concerned with what was happening around their heads to even think about kicking me.

In no way am I criticising the other two martial arts the TKD chap had stopped training after an injury four years ago and had focused on the sports side just for tournaments. The MT guy had been training for less than a year. Neither would lay claim to being expert. Neither had any knowledge about WC. When I seem them again in a couple of weeks they may both have re-thought their strategies and be able to whoop me good style.

What I did learn was that by understanding where the centreline was and how to protect and attack along the centreline, in a real fight I would have been able to devastate both of them before they had time to think about hitting back.

So whilst there may be flaws or differences of opinion about its exact nature (that go over my head), I can confirm that it was a very useful and applicable piece of theory. I don't care whether its right or not, if it gives me a chance of pumelling someone so that don't want to try to hit me or they can't , its good for me. :)

[Bjoern_VT]

OK, another short post of mine....
the trouble about him turning towards me and outranging me, does occur as long as you leave him the space to do that, thats why I cannot talk about only the centerline theory thing without the footwork and moving
I guess what you atlk about is, the (IMHO false) predictment, that you MOVE along your centerline even if have your arms on the INSIDE of his, (some WC branches seem to think that hitting this way is good.. even saw some, that used huen sao to get both arms to the inside of the opponents)
that is stupid and dangerous of course and makes you vulnarable to all you described
I as described HIT pushing my arm forward along the centerline using my ellbow, at the same time I use my other hand to make the way free and getting myself to the outside (EITHER left or right) of his
this way my centerline is straight towards his motherline and I can attack that way, my hand that made the way free did not need to move out further than slightly across my centerline so I can hit further from there with the next attack again
due to my move using my second hand to get hisarms out the way, he is restricted and will need to move away to get back into a hitting position, for I now have to stand very close preventing him from turning back towards me
If I made a mistake of course there are methods to just do an emergency block, what so ever and fight on from there
you do ONLY use your centerline to gain structure and power IMHO the shorter way applies due to that, if you do not have the postion in the perfect "centerline" you will loose so much power, that you cannot hit hard enough to use your advantage

when I said turning "in" your motherline I actually wanted to say turning around your motherline, in terms of not shifting your weight

Hope that clarified my posting a bit.. I do not have any explaining pictures though :(

[mididoctors]

OK, another short post of mine....
the trouble about him turning towards me and outranging me, does occur as long as you leave him the space to do that, thats why I cannot talk about only the centerline theory thing without the footwork and moving

well this is the problem... you have to be there to start with..

you have really enforced one of my points for me.


I guess what you atlk about is, the (IMHO false) predictment, that you MOVE along your centerline even if have your arms on the INSIDE of his, (some WC branches seem to think that hitting this way is good.. even saw some, that used huen sao to get both arms to the inside of the opponents)
that is stupid and dangerous of course and makes you vulnarable to all you described

some of what you say is true but

he can hit you with either arm until you control him through a grab or trap

being inside or outside his lead arm is meaningless...

being offside his stance is entirely different however as his arm positionis les important


I as described HIT pushing my arm forward along the centerline using my ellbow, at the same time I use my other hand to make the way free and getting myself to the outside (EITHER left or right) of his

this is all very well but is just a entry technique by another name... it means little in the discussion we are having.. and again highlights bridging a zone he out ranges in by voluntarily throwing away reach.

your really making the case against your self as your moves are asymmetrical to his in a way to overcome the disadvantages you have created for yourself.


this way my centerline is straight towards his motherline and I can attack that way, my hand that made the way free did not need to move out further than slightly across my centerline so I can hit further from there with the next attack again

which you are now facing


due to my move using my second hand to get hisarms out the way, he is restricted and will need to move away to get back into a hitting position, for I now have to stand very close preventing him from turning back towards me

well another topic..


If I made a mistake of course there are methods to just do an emergency block, what so ever and fight on from there

why is it an emergency block off the central line...

if you adopt a fight from anywhere premise the priority to get back to facing the central line ceases to be the dilemma you have created for absolutely no reason at all


you do ONLY use your centerline to gain structure and power IMHO the shorter way applies due to that, if you do not have the postion in the perfect "centerline" you will loose so much power, that you cannot hit hard enough to use your advantage

this is not true there is no priority for power creation to be down the centerline another topic.

http://www.wt-alexandersingh.de/wtbilder/bild019.jpg

http://www.nazworld.f9.co.uk/images/cruz2.jpg

Boris
london

[Bjoern_VT]

OK now I see exactly your fault...... you assume the LT version of using techniques... ifyou apply these pictures...

IF the right WT guy did what I explained, doing a step (like in CK) using a BonG Sao against the others punch arm and as supposed to (as in CK) retract his WU Sao hand which is an easy thing you learn already in SNT the attacker would be in serious trouble....

why does the right guy have his hand so far aside??? how did this situation occur?

What dod you want to say about the boxers?

[Jasonds23]

As far as form and lines are concerned, the top picture is all wrong.

The student on the left, should be facing into the opponents mun,
which he is apparantly not doing in any way.

A)Look at the direction his waist is pointing.
B)Look at the direction his footwork is facing.
C)His thumb is being used.
D)He looks like he didn't really trap the opponents arm...

In my opinion, the blonde guy (on right) in the neutral position, getting hit,
is in better condition as far as form, than the attacking student.

Mostly this is because the attacker has failed to control the opponents
elbow. That is why the victims arm is not against his body. In this case,
he is setting himself up, reguardless of the footwork.

The boxing picture is all wrong too, the guy getting hit, has turned his mun away. I know they don't teach mun (field/gate) in western boxing, but the guy in the green could get his kidney or rib busted very easily, by turning that much into the strike.

The reason centerline is important, is because it is a forward line.
Not because mastering an imaginable line is stronger than not imagining any lines during practice.

These are not good examples of centerline theory, maybe I should re-read...

[E.E.N.S.]

I love martial arts!
I trained in Wing Tsun and Hung Fa Yi (among many many other styles/concepts), and I also trained in Hakutsuru - we were discussing something similar to this topic, and some things to best overcome the "triangle" - the punch used was similar in effect to a chain punch - but the body, and the power behind the punch is very different, it was not as chain-able but it had much more stopping/penetrating power - and when used in this case (even though both were occupying centre line) it was easily able to dominate this space effectively...

[mididoctors]

OK now I see exactly your fault...... you assume the LT version of using techniques... ifyou apply these pictures...

IF the right WT guy did what I explained, doing a step (like in CK) using a BonG Sao against the others punch arm and as supposed to (as in CK) retract his WU Sao hand which is an easy thing you learn already in SNT the attacker would be in serious trouble....

why does the right guy have his hand so far aside??? how did this situation occur?

What dod you want to say about the boxers?

there is no need to hit down the centreline

forget about LT or anyone else... when you use lap sao FOR EXAMPLE do you punch facing down the central line...?

Do the boxers face down the central line? does the fact one of them is getting knocked out invalidate the notion you need to punch on the centre to central line axis to be valid?

if the WC had done what you said is not the point.. if he had done that I wouldn't have used the picture would I.....!!!!!!!! ?>@£$%!!!! :bang:

stop being so stupid

you don't get it

it doesn't matter what you think they should or shouldn't have done.

so completely missing the point its painful.

the point is WC contains the provision for not punching on the centreline facing... even if you think his WC is naff. why has it this proviso is IT HAS NO CHOICE BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS HAVE ANATOMY THAT DICTATES WHAT IS POSSIBLE

nothing to do with LT nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing..

I am not presenting some LT inner knowledge nonsense it has nothing to do with lineage even when you are conducting techniques as you insist you are STILL abiding by the relationships i have outlined.... that is what you don't understand... its not a either or...its an ALL

for instance there is no type of WC that can execute lap sao while holding someones wrist in any reasonable way and face down the centraline

question

when could you hit down the centreline facing and lap sao?

what conditions allow that?

answer that and you will undrstand something about relationships in standup... (hint arm length)

what i am telling you is universal to ALL fighting styles in stand up..
repeat ALL boxing thai savate whatever.. it is not an isolation in any style..

stop thinking like that its moronic!

forget WC for the present and look at the reality of human beings standing and hitting and grabbing/trapping in relation to each other.

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

As far as form and lines are concerned, the top picture is all wrong.

WRONG the picture is completely correct for the point i am making please rearer the thread before adding something of no use what so ever



The student on the left, should be facing into the opponents mun,
which he is apparantly not doing in any way.

'snip"

loads of pointless words later


The boxing picture is all wrong too, the guy getting hit, has turned his mun away. I know they don't teach mun (field/gate) in western boxing, but the guy in the green could get his kidney or rib busted very easily, by turning that much into the strike.

that is Prince Nazeem and i think he has it all well in hand and as for over committing his flank I am of the opinion he has committed rather correctly since the other guy goes to sleep



The reason centerline is important, is because it is a forward line.
Not because mastering an imaginable line is stronger than not imagining any lines during practice.

These are not good examples of centerline theory, maybe I should re-read...

yes i think you should

Boris
London

[Jasonds23]

Calm down man, no one is saying you don't know your stuff.

As far as arm length goes, there IS a reason to hit down
the center line.

Lets say your opponent throws a straight lead. You should parry with
a straight lead, reguardless of arm length.

A)pointing mun in correct alignment to the attack.

1-does not require a line determination.
2-does not require measurement of length.
3-does not require specific technique.

B) The guy in the picture who is attacking does not know his basic fundamentals, like Bjoern said..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why does the right guy have his hand so far aside??? how did this situation occur?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say the blonde guy on the right is undertrained.
Though I know this is just a demonstration photo.....
You shouldn't leave your arm off the center to begin with.

The attacker is wrong too...here's why
----------------------------------------
1-a rule of thumb in Wing Chun "Never use the thumb"
2-When trapping always use every advantage.
3-Never seperate both arms, especially, one to the side.
4-When you trap, make sure, you trap.

This attacker (were he not demonstrating sloppilly) would get
the snot knocked off of him in a spar with a good Wing Chunner.
Not to criticize, The blonde guy, would too, because he is not in
form at all. These guys are definitely practicing "modified"
Wing Chun, thats my opinion.

Which means the photo is useless. However, the boxing photo looks real :D

[mididoctors]

Calm down man, no one is saying you don't know your stuff.

snip=irrelevant even if correct and a inner circle kung fu secret

thats my opinion.

I don't care if all that is valid or not you might as well be talking about how they did their laces up

I give up

Boris
london

[Jasonds23]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IT HAS NO CHOICE BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS HAVE ANATOMY THAT DICTATES WHAT IS POSSIBLE"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point, and I also know that you can hit me off
guard in just about any which away if you are quick enough. But,
we are talking about Wing Chun here, not free style sparring.

Even though form is nothing in a real confrontational fight, it is
important to teach it the way it is. Your kung fu maybe greater
still, but nobody's kung fu is undevelopable, and thats just why
it means "to do". How you do that is up to you.

So Yes, it is possible to knock the crap out of somebody,
even with a bucket of water, or a flower pot... :)

[Jasonds23]

Reguardless of what is possible, look at this in form.

Siu lim tao, the first 5 movements are...

1-Attention.
2-hands point forward.
3-close fist, turn over, chamber.
4-CROSSBLOCK low
5-crossblock high

I rest my case...

[bcbernam777]

When I was fighting I used the principles from chi gerk to trap and gain entry (if they where kicking) get in close and dominate the centreline, being shure theat I was employing the ideals of Chiu Ying (ie facing [if i have the cantonese wrong I apologise]) as is highlighted through Sui Lum tao and maintained my wrists and forward pressure via wedging with the stance to redirect any incoming attacks, making sure that I utilised the phasic bent knee to protect my groin, any of my opponants hand i redirected to the central line where I knew i could control and dominate them. To be fair most of the people i trained with di not have as much infighting experiance as myself because their art either does not train them to or is ineffective intraining them so. The point is ensure that my attacking hands where dominating the centre and to feel for the gaps created therein as well as utilise the effectiveness of the simultaneous offence/defence principle, basic centreline theory but it worked, against several different styles as well as against an untrained fighter.

[Bjoern_VT]

you can ALLWAYS hit cross the centerline while doing lap sao with the other hand.. you must forget about what that guy does, moving arms, grabbing wrists and tugging wildly.. you need no more than a few inches, the lap sao is not tugged, it is hit to give you like 2 inches space
the problem is, that you do not know the principles that lead oyu to the point where you can forget about what you think is valid.. therefor you must forget a lot of the crap you saw and start thinking dynamically.. you cannot fight standing in one spot.... and as soon as you apply the principles of snt and ck you lost the problems that you talk about and act freely without caring about the others actions, for all actions have more or less the same way of answer, if you missed the time before he already attackes...
but oyu ar eright, it is pointless to discuss this, as long as you never saw the way of wing chun that I talk about... I met a lot of good fighters that discussed the same way like you, but when they came to my teacher and had their own look and test, they were extremly surprised how easy it is to aplly all this centerline, ellbows in and so on stuff if you just get the initial point...
we do not do chi gerk, but else I can completely approve bcbernhams statements about fighting.. boxers, muay thai, karate, tkd or wing chun... it is allways the same way and it works, I never had any trouble using what I described, even though I am not what I would consider a good fighter, but rather untalented in comparison with my trainings partners

[bcbernam777]

The problem with pictures is that they freeze a moment of space time wich can create an if/and situation, if/and freezes you into a way of thinking which says I must use this technique against this attack, the whole purpose of Wing Chun is to free you from the entrapments of if/and situations and free you to employ principles through your techniques, not inspite of them.

[mididoctors]

you can ALLWAYS hit cross the centerline while doing lap sao with the other hand.. you must forget about what that guy does, moving arms, grabbing wrists and tugging wildly.. you need no more than a few inches, the lap sao is not tugged, it is hit to give you like 2 inches space

this is untrue...

you can not grab someones wrist and hit facing down the central line

You will not be in range

go and try it you will find your centreline will turn to face the grabbing hand

as for tugging..that is irrelevant you could just be touching his wrist with your finger and you would still need to turn your facing to hit him




the problem is, that you do not know the principles that lead oyu to the point where you can forget about what you think is valid..

no that is not the current problem


therefor you must forget a lot of the crap you saw and start thinking dynamically.. you cannot fight standing in one spot....

this may well be true but is not the issue at the moment because ifstepping leads you to a spot where you insist you have to be is still abiding by the principles I outline as is stepping to anywhere else!

i don't care where you step what i said is true. you are under the delusion that stepping down the central line invalidates the relationship i defined.

your still in the ball park no matter where you step

even if we all jointly conceed your technique is the best in the universe your still abiding by the premise i outline.

do you understand?


and as soon as you apply the principles of snt and ck you lost the problems that you talk about and act freely without caring about the others actions, for all actions have more or less the same way of answer, if you missed the time before he already attackes...

well this is just more irrelevance.. do you have a desire to embrace knowledge? stop trying to add components to the discussion to somehow make what i outline to you untrue.... we are not talking about mobility it could all be valid but in the present it adds nothing but a veil of Bs that clouds the issue and allows you to pretend that insights into WC and other styles are not true and moreover WC 'theory" is often a maze of twisted half truths that lead to inefficient forms of fighting.


but oyu ar eright, it is pointless to discuss this, as long as you never saw the way of wing chun that I talk about...

WRONG It would be true if you were using peruvian karate and I had never even seen the style before


I met a lot of good fighters that discussed the same way like you,

i very much doubt that


but when they came to my teacher and had their own look and test, they were extremly surprised how easy it is to aplly all this centerline, ellbows in and so on stuff if you just get the initial point...

you have no point that is what you dont accept. all you explanations lie with-in a domain of possible relationships i have already defined and are not some separate reality.

you have already conceeded that hitting and blocking takes place off the facing in the style you train in.


we do not do chi gerk, but else I can completely approve bcbernhams statements about fighting.. boxers, muay thai, karate, tkd or wing chun... it is allways the same way and it works, I never had any trouble using what I described, even though I am not what I would consider a good fighter, but rather untalented in comparison with my trainings partners

Dont dismiss what i am saying to you...absorb and understand it. this is the real stuff.

we can not go on until you understand the notion that rotation to the blocking/trapping/grabbing hand is a truism...

note it applies facing down the central line..

Boris
london

[bcbernam777]

"Dont dismiss what i am saying to you...absorb and understand it. this is the real stuff"

Sorry Midi, but that smacks of arrogance,

If Wing chun principles are half truths as you purport then maybe you had better go back in time and tell Ng Mai to stop the lies.

"this is untrue...

you can not grab someones wrist and hit facing down the central line"

Actually you can etiher grab or redirect, and I know because I have done it
The most effective way is to redirect (e.g "Jut Sau") and then use that same hand on the centreline to strike, you should know midi that if the Wing Chun hands are used true to form then you can redirect the opponants force and their inertia, to bring them even closer into you and therby entering their "confined area" thus shortening you centreline attack, infact if the WC hands are persdformed with exactly the same structure as found in the 3 forms then you have an excellent chance of shortening the gap, and thereby increasing your centreline advantage (you have the advantage because you control your opponants inertia)

[mididoctors]

The problem with pictures is that they freeze a moment of space time wich can create an if/and situation, if/and freezes you into a way of thinking which says I must use this technique against this attack, the whole purpose of Wing Chun is to free you from the entrapments of if/and situations and free you to employ principles through your techniques, not inspite of them.

well thats a whole lot of nothing

A) the point of the picture was to highlight why a specific technique was irrelevant.

B) so this freeing yourself includes the principle of not noticing the truth of two completely different styles not hitting down the centreline including WC ...fantastic insight that is

to be frank you don't deserve this attention.

because you should be saying

'thats interesting I never realised that"

or

'you know your right.. i will go and think about this"

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

http://www.tar.hu/wchk/images/technique/movies/dl-tape1a.jpg

http://www.wingchun.opol.pl/others_pics/brucelee_yipman/6th.jpg

http://www.kkc-stadthagen.de/jkd/PakSao.jpeg

heres a intersting one (i think the momentum of the assailant in real life would make this technique unworkable. ignore that the technique is silly) look at the facing and the hand position. here he is facing the trapping hand and is also facing down the central line.. why is this the case here nd not for some of the traps above?

http://www.defenceclub.de/webakademie/qdverzeichnis2/u35/a__35hoherPak_iFSPrax2.jpg

the answer relates to where on the arm you trap... as you move up the arm from the wrist the direction of the punch starts to coincide more and more with a centreline facing down the centraline situation.... when you get to the elbow the two roughly meet. as in this pic

EDIT; note if he had blocked lower on the arm he would have had to reverse hands....try it out

what happens if you grab above the elbow?... answer your weapon ceases to be a straight hand shot and is replaced by elbows or hooked punches forearm strikes etc (style irrelevant)

Boris
London

[bcbernam777]

"to be frank you don't deserve this attention"

To be frank if you spoke to me like this in real life I would show you how this technique works,

Why dont you come down this way and show me how useless Wing Chun is instead of talking about it big man. bcbernam777@ozemail.com.au I will supply you with my home address

I know I am kicked of but boy it was worth it

[mididoctors]

"to be frank you don't deserve this attention"

To be frank if you spoke to me like this in real life I would show you how this technique works,

Why dont you come down this way and show me how useless Wing Chun is instead of talking about it big man. bcbernam777@ozemail.com.au I will supply you with my home address

I know I am kicked of but boy it was worth it

I have spoken to you like that in real life

what are you going to do about about it except issue a stupid challenge to someone 12000 miles away?

Why dont you look at the points I raised and think about that instead heh?

Boris
london

EDIT; if you do think of going down this road with people i would advise against giving your address away to potential challenges and instead agree on some neutral ground so reducing the chances of comeback.

[bcbernam777]

I have spoken to you like that in real life

what are you going to do about about it except issue a stupid challenge to someone 12000 miles away?

Why dont you look at the points I raised and think about that instead heh?

Boris
london

EDIT; if you do think of going down this road with people i would advise against giving your address away to potential challenges and instead agree on some neutral ground so reducing the chances of comeback.
like I said big fella theres my email address, I have considered your points and I dont care if you say you have trained 20+years in WC, you have trained incorrectly, but since you know better than Yip Man, Ng mai, Yim Wing Chun, Wong Shung Leung, Choy shung teng, William Chueng, Augustine Fong, Randy Williams, etc etc etc, infact maybe you had better demonstrate to the other hundreds of thousands of people that their style of Wing Chun is crap, go on since you know better than us all Midi, you know what I think, you have already made your mind up about Wing Chun and it doesn't matter what anyone else has said or will say, if you think Wing Chun is crap fine, go take up BJJ, Karate, TKD, JKD, whatever and go leave the rest of us in peace to get on with constructive critique of Wing Chun, that will enhance our training.

And I dont issue stupid challenges Boris, everytime I open my mouth, I mean what I say.

[mididoctors]

like I said big fella theres my email address, I have considered your points and I dont care if you say you have trained 20+years in WC, you have trained incorrectly, but since you know better than Yip Man, Ng mai, Yim Wing Chun, Wong Shung Leung, Choy shung teng, William Chueng, Augustine Fong, Randy Williams, etc etc etc, infact maybe you had better demonstrate to the other hundreds of thousands of people that their style of Wing Chun is crap, go on since you know better than us all Midi, you know what I think, you have already made your mind up about Wing Chun and it doesn't matter what anyone else has said or will say, if you think Wing Chun is crap fine, go take up BJJ, Karate, TKD, JKD, whatever and go leave the rest of us in peace to get on with constructive critique of Wing Chun, that will enhance our training.

And I dont issue stupid challenges Boris, everytime I open my mouth, I mean what I say.

I have no idea if some of those people understand my points already or not.

they could well know what i have outlined and still practice WC.

your a bit thick

as for not issuing stupid challenges i think you just did you know.

do you really think there is any kudos if offering out somebody who doesn't want to fight you the option of splashing out on a ticket to the otherside of the world? i am booking a flight right now.

your so keen you come here.



Boris
london

[wcrevdonner]

EDIT; if you do think of going down this road with people i would advise against giving your address away to potential challenges and instead agree on some neutral ground so reducing the chances of comeback.

:D

And there maybe speaks a voice of experience...

I don't suppose you were involved in the KF wars when you were younger Boris?

Better off, don't answer that! Im just needling for no good reason.

Regarding laap sao.

Boris, You can, biomechanically laap and punch both down the centreline. Im not sure if it would be a workable technique, but it can be done...just not very sensible...

In your first pictured example, its an inside laap, and so reiterates your point.
However, you don't need to turn and laap, you can just laap and redirect their arm, with your strike ending in their motherline, and in the direction you are looking.

However, the point about not punching directly down the centreline is a truism for the majority of the time - I think that people here are misunderstanding what a centreline strike is - the fact that you end your strike on their 'centre' (motherline, etc etc) may be mistaken as thinking that they strike directly down their centreline, which as you stated before is not economy of motion, (nor common sense!)

But, if you are facing your opponent first off in a guard to guard position, ie both vying for the centreline then you can laap their arm off centre and strike with your rear hand directly diwn the centreline. And this is a viable technique imho.

In fact, I would always strike directly down my centreline if my rear hand was not in contact with their hand but had returned to an initial guard position AND the front hand technique (whatever it is) had not involved a turn on my part AND their arms were not blocking the path of the centreline strike. Much like your last example, (which I don't think is that silly if the cross wasn't that commited and the paak would have to have been very well timed, much like a WC turning punch gone wrong - but that would be for another thread...:D)

[mididoctors]

Regarding laap sao.

Boris, You can, biomechanically laap and punch both down the centreline. Im not sure if it would be a workable technique, but it can be done...just not very sensible...

if you do i think you will be pretty much punching over your own hand? yes?

this is what i meant when i asked what conditions allow you to lap and face?



In your first pictured example, its an inside laap, and so reiterates your point.
However, you don't need to turn and laap, you can just laap and redirect their arm, with your strike ending in their motherline, and in the direction you are looking.

can you... that means you are in range with the stricking shoulder to start with... reassess that scenario it is so contrived as to be almost impossable.. unless he was square and you both end up with all three lims invilved on the centraline?

go thru instances where you can lap and face the central line where does the lap hand finish? (there is a special case her concerning the length of stricking weapon)


However, the point about not punching directly down the centreline is a truism for the majority of the time - I think that people here are misunderstanding what a centreline strike is - the fact that you end your strike on their 'centre' (motherline, etc etc) may be mistaken as thinking that they strike directly down their centreline, which as you stated before is not economy of motion, (nor common sense!)


But, if you are facing your opponent first off in a guard to guard position, ie both vying for the centreline then you can laap their arm off centre and strike with your rear hand directly diwn the centreline. And this is a viable technique imho.

the asymmetry in body position implied by this is odd describe where your hands are at the moment of impact and his?


In fact, I would always strike directly down my centreline if my rear hand was not in contact with their hand but had returned to an initial guard position AND the front hand technique (whatever it is) had not involved a turn on my part AND their arms were not blocking the path of the centreline strike.

well thats because it would now be the shortest route... you are already there point. its a very simple premise the shortest distance is from where your hand is... returning your hand to a guard is fine if the tactical situation requires this.. somesort of disengagement and the such like.. but this really is a provence of your style... you could return your hands to a thai boxer guard and shortest distance is still from where you hand is.

where would you place your wu sao hand if you were offside to your opponent... back on your centerline?


Much like your last example, (which I don't think is that silly if the cross wasn't that commited and the paak would have to have been very well timed, much like a WC turning punch gone wrong - but that would be for another thread...:D)

do you understand the sliding relativity of block to arm postion?

how the body rotates in relationship to the block/trap?

Boris
London

[clockman75]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) the point of the picture was to highlight why a specific technique was irrelevant.

B) so this freeing yourself includes the principle of not noticing the
truth of two completely different styles not hitting down the
centreline including WC ...fantastic insight that is
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the pictures, they are self explanatory.
Like bcbrnam was saying, pictures are like form
Form can only solidify what was once fluid.

However, that does not rule out training. Form is very
relevant in training, which these pictures are definitely
showing what these people doing.

Is it possible to learn these theories your saying from what I gather?
1)centerline is only applicable if,...
2)length, determines technique options.
3)form does not apply in reality.
If you say these are off the chalk, I need to re-read.

Pictures again
------------------
The top one is good, but the guy on the right dropped his Wu, that is
why he got hit. Also back to the rule of thumb, the attacker on the
left is not doing Wing Chun formally. Yet, he has effectively hit.
However, he is not doing Wing Chun, he is now doing "eagle claw"
forgive me if I'm wrong, that is what I was taught.

The other pictures are most irrelevant in my opinion to this argument.
Except the bottom one. The bottom picture is an adult hitting a
teenager with a faan sau punch. However, I haven't seen ANY
trapping yet. Why is this adult using his Wing Chun to hit kids?
thats because he's not, they are acting, or posing for camera.

Also, you say....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT; note if he had blocked lower on the arm he would have had to reverse hands....try it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarilly though, you should only switch sides if you want to.
Thank you for correcting yourself, these are examples of blocks, not traps.
However, position on the arm is not as important as timing and movement.
There are guys with shorter arms (like my sifu) who can get inside your
ngoi real quick, and deliver some devastation...reguardless of technique.

The thing to remember is ballance. Form is important as a whole,
formless is not important as a whole, and if you teach it specifically
for that, it becomes what we know to be "modified" wing Chun.
There are reasons....

The only good formless wing chun we know of is JKD.
All the other ones Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, etc,...are
completely authentic and traditional stuff.
Except Wang Chun, thats a dancing one.

Hitting is more important in reality, not how. I agree with you Boris.
However, the technique is important. Showing them how, you
punch, block, kick, etc,...is how, it should be practiced.

Anything is possible :cool:

[mididoctors]

Is it possible to learn these theories your saying from what I gather?
1)centerline is only applicable if,...
2)length, determines technique options.
3)form does not apply in reality.
If you say these are off the chalk, I need to re-read.

i dont say any of that

when one hand/arm is in contact with an opponents arm and you wish to hit with the other hand your facing (centerline) will face the block/trap/parry/contact/grabbing hand


Pictures again
------------------
The top one is good, but the guy on the right dropped his Wu, that is
why he got hit. Also back to the rule of thumb, the attacker on the
left is not doing Wing Chun formally. Yet, he has effectively hit.
However, he is not doing Wing Chun, he is now doing "eagle claw"
forgive me if I'm wrong, that is what I was taught.

he could be executing a style based on the movements of extinct dinosaurs if you like...


The other pictures are most irrelevant in my opinion to this argument.
Except the bottom one. The bottom picture is an adult hitting a
teenager with a faan sau punch. However, I haven't seen ANY
trapping yet. Why is this adult using his Wing Chun to hit kids?
thats because he's not, they are acting, or posing for camera.

and?



Also, you say....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT; note if he had blocked lower on the arm he would have had to reverse hands....try it out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for correcting yourself, these are examples of blocks, not traps.
However, position on the arm is not as important as timing and movement.
There are guys with shorter arms (like my sifu) who can get inside your
ngoi real quick, and deliver some devastation...

the degree of contact is totally irrelevant.. he could be just touching his opponents arm



The thing to remember is ballance. Form is important as a whole,
formless is not important as a whole, and if you teach it specifically
for that, it becomes what we know to be "modified" wing Chun.
There are reasons....

reasons for what?


Hitting is more important in reality, not how. I agree with you Boris.
However, the technique is important. Showing them how, you
punch, block, kick, etc,...is how, it should be practiced.

Anything is possible :cool:

lost in translation

Boris
london

[clockman75]

Sorry to misinterpet here...

The validity of those pictures is dependant upon what they show. Anything is plausible, but what is there is there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"when one hand/arm is in contact with an opponents arm and you wish to hit with the other hand your facing (centerline) will face the block/ trap/ parry/ contact/ grabbing hand"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I agree, and there are distinctions for each block, parry, trap, grab.
I was saying the validity of the picture is not correct, because, the basic fundamentals were off...Sorry if I came across too arrogantly though, that is one of my downfalls when it comes to pharaphrasing....

Centerline is a theory of form. All lines that can be drawn or imagined with a movement or position, are based on form. And there is a difference between trapping, and blocking...isn't there :confused: Though I can understand if that was not the point you were coming across with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the degree of contact is totally irrelevant.. he could be just touching his opponents arm."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason the limits and bounds of form are set, are not to withhold you from free expression of movement, but to increase control of an attack or defense. When I don't trap (to trap) I have not trapped, and then the opponents arm gets loose and I have compromised the situation.
Back to the first 5 movements...

The ballance things was sort of off the wall :o

I meant you should explain (teach) others the correct way first and not all the possibilities...However, its not my place to dictate. The people who teach "modified" wing chun, teach a collapsible style that has no root, or foundation in the fundamental basics.... it is supposed to cause a students structure to collapse...

Lastly, I was not saying that you are showing us "modified" wing chun, I just didn't quite understand what basis you were coming from, because of the stuff being shown in the pictures...

Where did you get them anyways?

[Bjoern_VT]

sorry Boris,
but you wanna say that everything I do in training and fighitng is untrue and does not work... you speak about two contradicting systems... everything that oyu described is a NONONEVER in the wing chun that I learned, it does go a complete different approach, so do NOT tell me, that I do not know what I desribe...

I do not speak about things that I do not know, and I do not pretend to have senn or done things that I have not...

Lap btw means CROSSING..... anyway this discussion is definatly pointless...
you have no clue about Wing Chun in the way my teachers Master learned it, and you try to deny its principles, so forget about it....
You talk about a thing that only Leung Sheung and Leung Ting (maybe very few others that I had no contact with) do and expect this to be the truth about fighting WinG Chun.. it is not... it works, but there are different aüpproaches, that go in many points the complete opposite way...
If you think I would believe, that my way is the only way, than you understand nothing... I know others go different ways... I tried to explain very much of the woring principles of MY Wing Chun style, that obviously has nothing to do with your style, if anything on that picture has to do with your style, for I cannot find any appropriate part in the position, which of course is not the complete move.. but I do find it hard to find a reasonable move to end like this.....
I now definatly will keep you dicussion alone this point.. I start believing this is waste of time.... sorry....

[Bjoern_VT]

oups my computer first did not show the new pictures...
first one does more or less what I said ;) he did not tug the lap further than just across the line between his and his opponents motherline, he stnads turned towadrs his oponent with his left shoulder, so he hits cross the line with his arm, his "lap" hand is stopped in a position where without trouble he can continue to his cross the centerline (which is indeed not facing 90° from his shoulders now, but towards his oponent, due to the turned in body.. hard to explain, it is about force directions)
the right guy missed to keep his wu sao up, so he got hit

the second (very small) picture shows the lap sao "drill" (my teacher will kill me for the word drill) very good and giving a good exsample of my descriptioons too

the next two do not show wing chun, at least not that I could recognize it...

the last shows Martin Dragos doing somesthing silly... because after he turned the oponents armalready away from him he hit underneath it, so that he easily could be trapped if hte other guy did not loose balance.... I guess he did the same mistake like I used to, leaving his wu sao too low so he hwas not able to cross his line above the oponents arm and so control both arms with one move.. THAT is Leung Ting system, the have drills to exactly teach this version......
BTW Martin is one of the former Kernspecht students that now do their own stuff, called Masters Academy where he shows advanced pupils the Leung Tinng system for good money but very quickly .. his explanations of Wing Chun are very good, from the point of Leung Ting Wing Tsun, but htey have nothin at all to do with what we do....

Specially on the first picture it is important to see how he got where he is, and the meaning of the turning stance
And I start seeing your point... ut you miss the point that Martin is NOT hitting down the center (line through both motherlines in this context) but from the right straight...
I thought that is what you talked about all the time

If you do what is done on the top picture without turning stance, it could work too, if you are not stepping forward but stand more or less parallel , yet doing the turning stance in this situation is nessaccary to genrate power for the lap and for the punch, also you close distance, the next move would be turning straight towards him, doing jut sao withyour left hand and a punch straight forward crossing the central line (the line between both motherlines) wit the lap hand, since hte hit before oyu might have to do a step to keep control and hitting position of course
but in no point any talk about cneterline theroy is broken, but he did exactly everything that we spoke about the whole time...

[mididoctors]

sorry Boris,
but you wanna say that everything I do in training and fighitng is untrue and does not work... you speak about two contradicting systems... everything that oyu described is a NONONEVER in the wing chun that I learned, it does go a complete different approach, so do NOT tell me, that I do not know what I desribe...

no that is not what i am saying..

I am saying the positional references you use obey a wider principle that all stand up styles use



I do not speak about things that I do not know, and I do not pretend to have senn or done things that I have not...

Lap btw means CROSSING..... anyway this discussion is definatly pointless...
you have no clue about Wing Chun in the way my teachers Master learned it, and you try to deny its principles, so forget about it....
You talk about a thing that only Leung Sheung and Leung Ting (maybe very few others that I had no contact with) do


where on earth do you get this idea from...? in no way what so ever have i favored any particular form of wc or any other style over an another. and certainly not LT.. this is where you are sick in the head because you think its about one type of wc over an another...and that is not the point


and expect this to be the truth about fighting WinG Chun.. it is not... it works, but there are different aüpproaches, that go in many points the complete opposite way...

there is no opposite way.. it would be called "misses the target by facing the wrong direction"


If you think I would believe, that my way is the only way, than you understand nothing... I know others go different ways... I tried to explain very much of the woring principles of MY Wing Chun style,

i have tried to explain a principle for all stand up styles there can be including yours but its gone completely over your head


that obviously has nothing to do with your style, if anything on that picture has to do with your style, for I cannot find any appropriate part in the position,

centerline definition AS USED IN THIS THREAD: the centerline extends down the middle of the front of the torso from neck to groin... it can rotate around the motherline and in doing so is the definition of facing.

no go look at the pictures or any pictures if you like...

grab someone by the hair and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

grab someone by the wrist and hit them in the head....which way does your centerline point to?

grab some one by the elbow and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

what do you notice as your grabbing hand moves further from the mother line?


which of course is not the complete move.. but I do find it hard to find a reasonable move to end like this.....
I now definatly will keep you dicussion alone this point.. I start believing this is waste of time.... sorry....

forget WC for the moment try and understand

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

oups my computer first did not show the new pictures...
first one does more or less what I said ;) he did not tug the lap further than just across the line between his and his opponents motherline, he stnads turned towadrs his oponent with his left shoulder, so he hits cross the line with his arm, his "lap" hand is stopped in a position where without trouble he can continue to his cross the centerline (which is indeed not facing 90° from his shoulders now, but towards his oponent, due to the turned in body.. hard to explain, it is about force directions)
the right guy missed to keep his wu sao up, so he got hit

the line from one motherline to one mother line is defined in this thread AS the CENTRAL LINE not centerline...

his centerline is always at 90 degress to his shoulders and in that picture is facing the lap hand CENTERLINE is ALWAYS 90 degrees to shoulders

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

that is the definition I am using and have outlined that a zillion posts ago

with this in mind go back and re read the entire thread from when i entered the conversation

Boris
London

[mididoctors]

Sorry to misinterpet here...

The validity of those pictures is dependant upon what they show. Anything is plausible, but what is there is there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"when one hand/arm is in contact with an opponents arm and you wish to hit with the other hand your facing (centerline) will face the block/ trap/ parry/ contact/ grabbing hand"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I agree, and there are distinctions for each block, parry, trap, grab.
I was saying the validity of the picture is not correct, because, the basic fundamentals were off...Sorry if I came across too arrogantly though, that is one of my downfalls when it comes to pharaphrasing....

Centerline is a theory of form. All lines that can be drawn or imagined with a movement or position, are based on form. And there is a difference between trapping, and blocking...isn't there :confused: Though I can understand if that was not the point you were coming across with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the degree of contact is totally irrelevant.. he could be just touching his opponents arm."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason the limits and bounds of form are set, are not to withhold you from free expression of movement, but to increase control of an attack or defense. When I don't trap (to trap) I have not trapped, and then the opponents arm gets loose and I have compromised the situation.
Back to the first 5 movements...


I haven' t got a clue what you are talking about... sorry

your posts are pretty incoherent.


I meant you should explain (teach) others the correct way first and not all the possibilities...However, its not my place to dictate. The people who teach "modified" wing chun, teach a collapsible style that has no root, or foundation in the fundamental basics.... it is supposed to cause a students structure to collapse...

it has nothing to do with any form of wc... there is an assumption by many responding to my posts this is about different WC styles/lineages.... not so

here is a picture of a different style that also shows how you face the grabbing hand with your centerline

http://www.bambootemple.com/l1800005.jpg

the image above isn't any "lineage" of WC yet it still follows

below is another example below of elbow grab resulting in trap occuring on central line which results in the centerline facing down the central liner

http://www.vingshun-escrima.de/sifu-pak-chan-power-2004.jpg

facing the block

http://www.kick-fit.co.uk/images/pictures/classes/jkd6.jpg

facing the contact

http://www.newmexicoboxing.com/fights2004/nov13-santana/images/mma-bates003.jpg

do you understand... i doubt that

Boris
london

[clockman75]

"grab someone by the hair and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

grab someone by the wrist and hit them in the head....which way does your centerline point to?

grab some one by the elbow and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

what do you notice as your grabbing hand moves further from the mother line?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say the answer is, the line is constantly changing....and it is not at all realistically predictable, to assume your attackers lines of contact or position. However, you can observe how he is positioned, but form is what teaches you where "you" are.

This is too vague to be kung fu. However, I'm not understanding the point your making. Something about switching positions because of distance.
I'm not without some curiosity, so let me guess your vague demo here...

Technically, this is what I gather your describing
-----------------------------------------------
jung sum wai (sin)= vertical motherline
wang kuen=diagnal punch, or faan kuen=block/punch
churng wai= regaining the line
jau sau=technique of changing lines

[mididoctors]

"grab someone by the hair and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

grab someone by the wrist and hit them in the head....which way does your centerline point to?

grab some one by the elbow and hit them in the head...which way does your centerline point to?

what do you notice as your grabbing hand moves further from the mother line?"


This is too vague to be kung fu. However, I'm not understanding the point your making. Something about switching positions because of distance.
I'm not without some curiosity, so let me guess your vague demo here...



forget kung fu...

repeat the above experiment

YOU CAN NOT STEP but you can rotate on heels ball of foot etc.

EDIT for the hair grab move in thou its a reference thing

Boris
London

[wcrevdonner]

if you do i think you will be pretty much punching over your own hand? yes?


(RE: Centreline laap and centreline punch.)

Yes, exactly, your punch would be over the laap - but this is the case where BOTH are in the centreline.


this is what i meant when i asked what conditions allow you to lap and face?

can you... that means you are in range with the striking shoulder to start with... reassess that scenario it is so contrived as to be almost impossible.. unless he was square and you both end up with all three limbs involved on the centreline?


(RE: Laaping and not turning so laap was out of centre, though punching to the opponents motherline/through your centreline.)

I wouldn't say the situation was contrived as such - its an interception laap of sorts, (although it may be considered contrived if the situation only happens between two WC people); it might even be considered as a 'classical' trap.
I also know it as a short laap, ie one to only clear the hand/arm enough to be able to strike. The laaping limb and the limb being laaped would have been pulled off my centreline.
The conditions for laaping and facing...For me, I KNOW that Im going to laap rather than REACT and laap, (the idea of the interception laap again, I grab the hand before the technique my opponent executes gets anywhere into full swing.)
Also their arm would have been pulled across my centreline.

Go through instances where you can lap and face the central line where does the lap hand finish? (There is a special case her concerning the length of striking weapon)

I think I’ve answered this above, but I maybe wrong.


the asymmetry in body position implied by this is odd describe where your hands are at the moment of impact and his?

I meant a typical WC stand off with both opponents touching guard to guard.


Where would you place your wu sao hand if you were offside to your opponent... back on your centerline?

If there was no where else to hit them or control them then yes I think I would. However, this would be down to my limited experience and knowledge of WC rather than what ‘ought’ to happen.
I didn’t address anything else Boris to stop any ideas not pertaining to th centreline on this thread, (all the posts seem confused enough as it is! :D)

[mididoctors]

(RE: Centreline laap and centreline punch.)

Yes, exactly, your punch would be over the laap - but this is the case where BOTH are in the centreline.

your nearly there.... when the trap ends on the central line the centerline and central coincide.



(RE: Laaping and not turning so laap was out of centre, though punching to the opponents motherline/through your centreline.)

I wouldn't say the situation was contrived as such - its an interception laap of sorts, (although it may be considered contrived if the situation only happens between two WC people); it might even be considered as a 'classical' trap.
I also know it as a short laap, ie one to only clear the hand/arm enough to be able to strike. The laaping limb and the limb being laaped would have been pulled off my centreline.
The conditions for laaping and facing...For me, I KNOW that Im going to laap rather than REACT and laap, (the idea of the interception laap again, I grab the hand before the technique my opponent executes gets anywhere into full swing.)
Also their arm would have been pulled across my centreline.

think about this.... can any punch/ hand strike cross much past the centerline including hooks or any other style of strike and still be reasonable effective... note torso rotation changes the facing of the centerline so total body movement is ignored in calculating whether a strike has crossed the centerline... the centerline moves with you but the central does not



I think I’ve answered this above, but I maybe wrong.

I meant a typical WC stand off with both opponents touching guard to guard.



If there was no where else to hit them or control them then yes I think I would. However, this would be down to my limited experience and knowledge of WC rather than what ‘ought’ to happen.
I didn’t address anything else Boris to stop any ideas not pertaining to th centreline on this thread, (all the posts seem confused enough as it is! :D)


since the centerline can rotate independantly of the central line you could end up guarding a direction that makes no sense..

but placing a guard on the central line will always mimic facing your opponent even if you were not... yes/no?

my centreline could be facing off in a direction that does not cross his body at all... but if i place a guard on the central line (motherline to motherline) i could end up with a guard that as for all intense purposes identical to one if i was facing centerline down the central line... that is independent of how sensible guarding access to your motherline in this fashion is.. some people would argue a thai guard is better or some such... thou interestingly they would benefit in moving their guard relative to their centerline as well.

Boris
london

[wcrevdonner]

your nearly there.... when the trap ends on the central line the centerline and central coincide.

Im not sure how effctive this would be as you would be pulling them into you rather than away from you? (Not sure how relevant this is full stop!)


think about this.... can any punch/ hand strike cross much past the centerline including hooks or any other style of strike and still be reasonable effective... note torso rotation changes the facing of the centerline so total body movement is ignored in calculating whether a strike has crossed the centerline... the centerline moves with you but the central does not.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here: The laaping hand has crossed my centerline, and my punching hand would be down my centreline and the central line because I would be facing him in this instance. therefore the strike would never cross my centerline or indeed the central line. I should have been more defined with lines!!! (Its all too much, Id still rather keep just my centreline and their centreline!)


since the centerline can rotate independantly of the central line you could end up guarding a direction that makes no sense..

but placing a guard on the central line will always mimic facing your opponent even if you were not... yes/no?

Ha ha, :D. Yes, and its called side stance as far as I know, (forgot the Catonese for it.)


my centreline could be facing off in a direction that does not cross his body at all... but if i place a guard on the central line (motherline to motherline) i could end up with a guard that as for all intense purposes identical to one if i was facing centerline down the central line... that is independent of how sensible guarding access to your motherline in this fashion is.. some people would argue a thai guard is better or some such... thou interestingly they would benefit in moving their guard relative to their centerline as well.

Aaahh, the wonderful hook, Wc's worst enemy!!! :D

Generally, Im sure thats also dependent on how much off center you turn your body. In general, Im sure its more sensible to be always facing your opponent, (shoulders facing) than not. (Because you can potentially block with both hands and turn into both as well, with a minimum chance of showing your back. Maybe this is 'centreline' theory? :))

Boris
london[/QUOTE]

[mididoctors]

Im not sure how effctive this would be as you would be pulling them into you rather than away from you? (Not sure how relevant this is full stop!)

Basically the same for pak sao? we are not talking about any particular technique just any two handed grab/block/trap and hits



I think we may be talking at cross purposes here: The laaping hand has crossed my centerline, and my punching hand would be down my centreline and the central line because I would be facing him in this instance.

if the trap was not on the central line the centerline would move to face it

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

the punch would just go straight to his motherline from where ever it started from.

infact if the trap was on the central line the centerline would face it!

http://www.vingshun-escrima.de/sifu-pak-chan-power-2004.jpg

thou in this case centerline=central line



therefore the strike would never cross my centerline or indeed the central line. I should have been more defined with lines!!! (Its all too much, Id still rather keep just my centreline and their centreline!)

no that is not what i am asking... can any hand strike pass (much) across the center line.... irrespective of everything else?

very simple question... you do not need to move your body to test this as doing so moves your centerline



Generally, Im sure thats also dependent on how much off center you turn your body. In general, Im sure its more sensible to be always facing your opponent, (shoulders facing) than not. (Because you can potentially block with both hands and turn into both as well, with a minimum chance of showing your back. Maybe this is 'centreline' theory? :))


what determines the ability of both hands to reach the same spot without moving your feet?

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

in this picture the guy on the left could reverse hands without moving his feet thou his centerline would turn..

the strike could come back and cover the elbow and the lap could turn into a punch...

the centerline would turn to face the hand coming back to the elbow

there is loads of this type of combo on the dummy is there not?

moving off the centerline does not mean the other hand can not reach

boris
london

[mididoctors]

BONUS QUESTION

if he did reverse his hands but covered the elbow is there a picture of that close at hand on this thread?

boris
london

[wcrevdonner]

if the trap was not on the central line the centerline would move to face it

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

In this particular scenario it would. But the centerline doesn't necessarily have to turn and face it. I haven't seen you address the idea of laaping whereby your centerline doesn't turn to face it. (The arm comes from your centreline and out, but your body stays where it is.)

http://www.vingshun-escrima.de/sifu-pak-chan-power-2004.jpg

As a side note, I try not to 'trap' on the central line because I would strike down there as well, and its far to easy to get your own hands 'trapped' that way. I may 'monitor' or 'cover' the hands in the central line.

no that is not what i am asking... can any hand strike pass (much) across the center line.... irrespective of everything else?

It can do - but only in certain situations effectively.

what determines the ability of both hands to reach the same spot without moving your feet?

A neutral stance, (or a side stance if turned in either direction.)

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

in this picture the guy on the left could reverse hands without moving his feet thou his centerline would turn..

the strike could come back and cover the elbow and the lap could turn into a punch...

the centerline would turn to face the hand coming back to the elbow

Not if he had one leg forward - he would have to step, and the way his hips are turned in this case Id think he'd be lucky to brush the guys chin. (Obviously this is a demo photo as this is Sifu Chan! :D)

there is loads of this type of combo on the dummy is there not?

To be honest I wouldn't know - I only know the first two sections.

moving off the centerline does not mean the other hand can not reach

It does if you have one leg forward.

If I don't respond to anything else till Monday, its because I have loads of work to do and I don't have access to the internet at the weekends!

[mididoctors]

[In this particular scenario it would. But the centerline doesn't necessarily have to turn and face it. I haven't seen you address the idea of laaping whereby your centerline doesn't turn to face it. (The arm comes from your centreline and out, but your body stays where it is.)

get me any picture of that

your would have to be in range with your shoulders SQUARE ON from the get go... go and try that out at your next training session

As a side note, I try not to 'trap' on the central line because I would strike down there as well, and its far to easy to get your own hands 'trapped' that way. I may 'monitor' or 'cover' the hands in the central line.


cover=trap=block=parry=touch with little finger=grab the relationship is the same


It can do - but only in certain situations effectively.

like?



A neutral stance, (or a side stance if turned in either direction.)

why is a front stance not a neutral one?



Not if he had one leg forward - he would have to step, and the way his hips are turned in this case Id think he'd be lucky to brush the guys chin. (Obviously this is a demo photo as this is Sifu Chan! :D)

a front stance=side neutal but your waist is facing different direction....

stand in a side neutral place both hands out to max reach head height and move your arms until they are over your lead foot?
that entire arc can be covered by both hands as moving at the waist is a function of your kness and hip sockets and not your feet

if having one foot forward does not stop the reversal

he would go from

http://www.kamonwingchun.com/images/Lap%20Sao.jpg

to

http://www.vingshun-escrima.de/sifu-pak-chan-power-2004.jpg

the guy in the bottom photo could lap with the stricking hand and punch with the elbow cover hand and end up where chan is no?and the guy in red looks to have a foot forward to me as does chan


It does if you have one leg forward.

this is not true. go and try it out..allow your waist to move



If I don't respond to anything else till Monday, its because I have loads of work to do and I don't have access to the internet at the weekends!

shame about the work thing but have a good weekend anyway and a pleasure talking to you

Boris
london

[Bjoern_VT]

what use is the CENTERLINE like it was defined in this threat BTW?
it has nothing to do with what I learned about wing chun, for it is rather useless IMHO....
It is the central line that you work with.... and of course in boxing range you have the same rules like every other boxing style... you just use a different approach of solving the problems of the others arms
and center (central) line theory is very valid, but of course not if you try and stick with your CENTERLINE to your opponent... that is rather exceptional, but I never heard about that kind of theaory anyway...
and when you stick on the central line with your ellbows in, you will find that this way is working fine and makes as I explained in the beginning nearly unnecassary to take your arms out for blocking techniques....
Idisagree about the dummy showing you combos.... but that is a way of interpretation that does not belong in here....

[mididoctors]

what use is the CENTERLINE like it was defined in this threat BTW?

it helps defines facing in relation to the central line


it has nothing to do with what I learned about wing chun, for it is rather useless IMHO....
It is the central line that you work with.... and of course in boxing range you have the same rules like every other boxing style... you just use a different approach of solving the problems of the others arms
and center (central) line theory is very valid, but of course not if you try and stick with your CENTERLINE to your opponent..

so you agree?


. that is rather exceptional, but I never heard about that kind of theaory anyway...
and when you stick on the central line with your ellbows in, you will find that this way is working fine and makes as I explained in the beginning nearly unnecassary to take your arms out for blocking techniques....
Idisagree about the dummy showing you combos.... but that is a way of interpretation that does not belong in here....

you have just contradicted yourself without realising it. if you always block on the central line you will always face him with your centerline which contradicts your earler assertion that centerline is a poor definition that is not valid?

which is it?

Boris
London

[Bjoern_VT]

Yep I do agree...

No I do not contradict myself.. but to explain that, I do have a problem.. I will try though...

because we stick exactly with what I said, and the centerline as defined in this threat does not exist, or better it does not have any meaning for my Wing Chun understanding...

OK, first I have a problem with the term "block" for I would call any kind of block rather an emergency solution, even if combined with an attack

So what you call contradiction..hmmmm OK, lets try it like this:

what ever move (Pak, Jut, Bong, Lap, Huen Sao,etc) you use to get a position where both his arms are oin either side of the central line and you have your punching arm ON the central line ENDS close to the central line, or returns there while you hit with the other arm freely, therefore you keep yourself being able to continue to hit over the central line
due to this kind of moving you will find both situations in the pictures above reasonably well explaining, what I mean how you wish to hit....
It depends on the situation, if you use turning stance like the above move, or if you use a forwards/sideward step to close the gap frontally, which way you use is rather intuitivly decided than by logic I think
If you HAD to move one hand "far" away from the central line (now not talking about the centerline anymore) as in case of a block or so, then you of course use the straight way to hit the opponent and can recover your rather safe situation afterwards
OK, I am not sure if I will be able to access this site form my company modem connection, so I might be away for longer from tomorrow on.. with a bit of luck I might have a little time on Monday, so fare well for now everybody!

[mididoctors]

Yep I do agree...

No I do not contradict myself.. but to explain that, I do have a problem.. I will try though...

because we stick exactly with what I said, and the centerline as defined in this threat does not exist, or better it does not have any meaning for my Wing Chun understanding...

OK, first I have a problem with the term "block" for I would call any kind of block rather an emergency solution, even if combined with an attack

So what you call contradiction..hmmmm OK, lets try it like this:

what ever move (Pak, Jut, Bong, Lap, Huen Sao,etc) you use to get a position where both his arms are oin either side of the central line and you have your punching arm ON the central line ENDS close to the central line, or returns there while you hit with the other arm freely, therefore you keep yourself being able to continue to hit over the central line
due to this kind of moving you will find both situations in the pictures above reasonably well explaining, what I mean how you wish to hit....
It depends on the situation, if you use turning stance like the above move, or if you use a forwards/sideward step to close the gap frontally, which way you use is rather intuitivly decided than by logic I think
If you HAD to move one hand "far" away from the central line (now not talking about the centerline anymore) as in case of a block or so, then you of course use the straight way to hit the opponent and can recover your rather safe situation afterwards
OK, I am not sure if I will be able to access this site form my company modem connection, so I might be away for longer from tomorrow on.. with a bit of luck I might have a little time on Monday, so fare well for now everybody!

well you are there or there abouts.. it really doesn't matter how you got to where you are by stepping turning etc the relationships between your hands centerline and central line will behave as set above.

have a nice weekend (and bank holiday if your in that part of the world.)

Boris
london

[Longfusan]

The nexus of this is motherline, centerline, and centralline.