# Centerline and Turning



## izeqb (Sep 12, 2010)

Hi everyone...

A few years back, I trained Leung Ting Wing Tsun. One of the "trademarks" of WT is the 0/100 stance.

When a WT fighter turns, he shifts ALL his bodyweight to the rear leg and therefor his centerline moves as well.

I've recently started to train again and one of the things that's different in the new club, is the stance. They keep the weight 50/50 and therefore there centerline remains in the same spot when they turn...

I remember from an old Leung Ting promotional video I once saw that the reason for the 0/100 turn, is to move your centerline away from the punch.

What's your take on this?


----------



## Nabakatsu (Sep 12, 2010)

I just got back from an EBMAS seminar, so I'm pretty much practicing the LT system.. I really really like what we do.. this is kind of a lineage war type topic though, I don't want to put other systems down, especially because I don't really know enough about my own to know with certainty anything else.
I do think that the 100% weight on the back leg for the turns you speak of is very very efficient for not getting hit, give in to the greater force, but not give up.
I don't understand how you could be 50/50, than turn, and have your center line in the same spot. I have been sweating a lot and not sleeping well for weeks.. anyways.. I think I would find it next to impossible to change from LT/EBMAS footwork to a 50/50 lineage. Best of luck.


----------



## izeqb (Sep 12, 2010)

Nabakatsu said:


> I just got back from an EBMAS seminar, so I'm pretty much practicing the LT system.. I really really like what we do.. this is kind of a lineage war type topic though, I don't want to put other systems down, especially because I don't really know enough about my own to know with certainty anything else.
> I do think that the 100% weight on the back leg for the turns you speak of is very very efficient for not getting hit, give in to the greater force, but not give up.
> I don't understand how you could be 50/50, than turn, and have your center line in the same spot. I have been sweating a lot and not sleeping well for weeks.. anyways.. I think I would find it next to impossible to change from LT/EBMAS footwork to a 50/50 lineage. Best of luck.



Check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDDSVaBXvg&feature=channel


----------



## geezer (Sep 12, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everyone...
> 
> A few years back, I trained Leung Ting Wing Tsun. One of the "trademarks" of WT is the 0/100 stance.
> 
> ...



From my perspective you've nailed it. A 50-50 weighted stance, turning on the heels will result in the center (vertical mid-line in LT terminology) remaining stationary ...just as the presenter in this video demonstrates. But as you noted, one of the advantages of the back-weighted stance in the systems stemming from LT is that you move your center aside when you turn, evading the force of the oncoming attack. The classic analogy is that of the bullfighter sidestepping the charge of the bull. 

Looking at the video I'd say that the stances used are _not compatible_ with a "WT" approach. WT is by nature yielding. You borrow your opponent's force. And the back-weighted stance is essential to that approach. This guy is coming from a very different perspective, which is OK. But I don't buy his reasoning about the 50-50 stance being more natural, "like walking", or that it's the "correct" stance. When you walk, you do, in fact, shift your weight from foot to foot and your center does sway. And besides, what does ordinary walking have to do with your WT/VT/WC stance? Not much, I'd say. Another, often overlooked aspect of the "WT" stance is that you turn one foot at a time, pivoting on the center of the foot. Most other WC systems turn both feet simultaneously pivoting either on the heels or toes. The simultaneous pivot is easier to learn, but I really like the WT approach because one foot is always rooted. Finally, I didn't see any attention given to adduction in this video. In the WT groups, the adduction in Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma is very important in giving strength and stability or "rooting".


----------



## cwk (Sep 12, 2010)

one of the first things I was taught was shifting in chor ma, 70-30 weight distribution, turning the centre away and giving you a longer reach at the same time, perfect for counter strikes. 
I agree with geezer about the clip, what has walking normally got to do with using wing chun to fight? I usually move around shifting from jee ng ma left to right and then shift into chor ma as the strike comes in ( if I want to start from the outside gate) not walking at them in a natural posture.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 13, 2010)

izeqb said:


> Hi everyone...
> 
> A few years back, I trained Leung Ting Wing Tsun. One of the "trademarks" of WT is the 0/100 stance.
> 
> ...


 
In the TST lineage our weight is 50/50 and our feet are equal distance from the opponent ( YCKYM or SLT stance ) and we use economical gliding steps that are similar to walking , picture Groucho Marx walking with a guard up.

With this stance we have a vertical axis running straight down through the centre of the body and the weight is always centred which means it takes very little effort to move speedily in any direction I wish to.

Also with the weight being distributed 50/50 on either leg and the feet squaring up and being equal distance from the opponent , I can kick from either leg with equal power and both have equal opportunity to strike the opponent without telegraphing.

Now onto pivoting , nothing changes the weight is still 50/50 pivoting through the centre of the feet.
Remember the vertical axis I spoke about earlier well instead of moving through space in a forward , back , side ways or diagonal direction it is now rotating.

Picture a spinning top or some type of large machinery like a fly wheel , it will be most energy efficient and rotate with the most speed and power when the axle is through the centre , by comparison an axle that is offset will spin slower , be unbalanced and inefficient.

This rotational force is very important in producing power in attack and defence applications particularly from Chum Kiu and Bil Gee , the faster and more efficient my rotation the greater ability I will have to produce more power in striking or turning away force.

With the rotational axis in the centre I have stability and resistance to force in any direction .
There is certainly some advantage to having weight on one leg when you pivot so you are denying the attacker the target , but you are also altering the axis so that it is now offset and balance is compromised.

In our lineage that loss of balance and stability is too high a price to pay, we prefer to stay centred and when a force enters our space it is spun off to the side by an appropriate hand structure , the stability of our stance and the speed and power of the rotation , think of a big leather ball rotating in space horizontally  at very high speed , you try to touch it in the centre but your hand is redirected away and off to the side , it is the same principle.


----------



## cwk (Sep 13, 2010)

For me, the 70-30, 100-0, whatever is just a training guideline to get you used to the concept of shifting. In application it all depends on what energy  my opponent gives me and then I react accordingly, be it 50/50, 60-40, 70-30,etc,etc.  In my lineage, our jee ng ma is wieghted 50/50 but our torso is turned off to the side with a slight torqued feeling in the kwa. for me it just feels better to be like this as I feel better protected with my groin closed off to snap kicks and my centre line weak points harder to hit.
I don't think anyway of doing it is wrong, as long as it works for that system.
different horses for different courses as they say.


----------



## izeqb (Sep 13, 2010)

cwk said:


> For me, the 70-30, 100-0, whatever is just a training guideline to get you used to the concept of shifting. In application it all depends on what energy  my opponent gives me and then I react accordingly, be it 50/50, 60-40, 70-30,etc,etc.



Do you mean you sometimes shift 30/70 and other times 50/50, depending on what energy your opponent is giving you?




cwk said:


> In my lineage, our jee ng ma is wieghted 50/50 but our torso is turned off to the side with a slight torqued feeling in the kwa. for me it just feels better to be like this as I feel better protected with my groin closed off to snap kicks and my centre line weak points harder to hit.
> I don't think anyway of doing it is wrong, as long as it works for that system.
> different horses for different courses as they say.



This is very interesting... How do you do that and can you keep your balance?  If you change your point of gravity more to either side, my guess would be that you'd have most of the weight on that side... if that makes sense?
Like 30/70 or something...

Could you please elaborate


----------



## cwk (Sep 13, 2010)

really hard to put into words.
if you stand in a neutral stance and then turn one foot in towards the other so your feet are making a T shape and turn your hip and torso to that side, one leg will be slightly bent toes facing forward while the other will be almost straight toes facing the inside of the other foot, weight 50/50. This would be the stationary position, but when moving around you would never be in this position for more than a split second as you would be shifting from side to side, as would your weight distribution as you walk forwards. 
sorry if this doesn't make much sense but it really is hard to put into words as there are lots of little details that would have to be shown to be understood.


----------



## wtxs (Sep 13, 2010)

cwk said:


> For me, the 70-30, 100-0, whatever is just a training guideline to get you used to the concept of shifting. In application it all depends on what energy  my opponent gives me and then I react accordingly, be it 50/50, 60-40, 70-30,etc,etc. * In my lineage, our jee ng ma is wieghted 50/50 but our torso is turned off to the side with a slight torqued feeling in the kwa. for me it just feels better to be like this as I feel better protected with my groin closed off to snap kicks and my centre line weak points harder to hit.*
> I don't think anyway of doing it is wrong, as long as it works for that system.
> different horses for different courses as they say.



Is it possible that your Sifu and mine share the same family tree?  Our weight distribution is closer to 40/60, turning is like an really tight whipping action, the amount of torgue is unbelievable.


----------



## izeqb (Sep 13, 2010)

cwk said:


> really hard to put into words.
> if you stand in a neutral stance and then turn one foot in towards the other so your feet are making a T shape and turn your hip and torso to that side, one leg will be slightly bent toes facing forward while the other will be almost straight toes facing the inside of the other foot, weight 50/50. This would be the stationary position, but when moving around you would never be in this position for more than a split second as you would be shifting from side to side, as would your weight distribution as you walk forwards.
> sorry if this doesn't make much sense but it really is hard to put into words as there are lots of little details that would have to be shown to be understood.



I think I understand what you mean... In the LT system, we "drag" our rear foot (kinda like a zombie ) when moving and standing... That's the technical correct way, anyway (in the LT system)...

It seems like there's a lot of different ways to do it and I guess that in the end it all depends of the force you're getting form your opponent...


----------



## geezer (Sep 13, 2010)

izeqb said:


> I think I understand what you mean... In the LT system, we "drag" our rear foot (kinda *like a zombie* ) when moving and standing... That's the technical correct way, anyway (in the LT system)...
> 
> It seems like there's a lot of different ways to do it and I guess that in the end it all depends of the force you're getting form your opponent...


 
Hopefully, your advancing step is a little more explosive than _"a zombie"._ I've seen LT teach this many times and he really does emphasize the "dragging" rear foot... but if you ever watch him burst forward, you can see that it's a very dynamic movement. Same goes for other skillful practitioners who trained under him, such as Keith Kerspecht and the EWTO guys, Emin Boztepe, and so on. I really think LT hits that "dragging foot" thing so hard just to make a point. Later, he shows you how to put forward intent back into the step through use of the adductor muscles, the hip, spine and so forth. Just my take on it.


----------



## CRCAVirginia (Sep 13, 2010)

Speaking from a CRCA Wing Chun only perspective: We are 50/50 weight distribution in YJKYM. We shift on our heels, shifting on our heels adds power and length to our Yang motions.  Shifting creates Centrifiugal and Centripetal forces.  Our motherline does not move during shifting.


----------



## Blankdoor (Sep 13, 2010)

This is one thing I have always wondered my self, I have even seen people think its 100/0 on the back foot, but your rear foot is on the balls of the feet not the heels.

I study the Foshan Wing Chun (Lun Gai) system from the International Shaoling and Wushu association, and I am taught 50/50 in every stance. This is taught for reasons stated before i.e. freedom of movement, equal kicking powers ect.

I really want to see how people develop this topic, since I have been studying for just over a year and don't fully understand the conflict, I usually stand in 50/50 and then if in an emergency use this as a base to shift my weight onto my back leg if needs be, I don't personally feel much different standing 50/50 to 100/0 I just find it harder to keep a good level of relaxation in my legs at 100/0.

~Just my lack of two cents


----------



## cwk (Sep 13, 2010)

wtxs said:


> Is it possible that your Sifu and mine share the same family tree?  Our weight distribution is closer to 40/60, turning is like an really tight whipping action, the amount of torgue is unbelievable.



What's your lineage wtxs?


----------



## BloodMoney (Sep 13, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> With this stance we have a vertical axis running straight down through the centre of the body and the weight is always centred *which means it takes very little effort to move speedily in any direction I wish to.*
> 
> Also with the weight being distributed 50/50 on either leg and the feet squaring up and being equal distance from the opponent , *I can kick from either leg with equal power and both have equal opportunity to strike the opponent without telegraphing.*
> 
> ...



My *Bold. *Put very well indeed. A non committed 50/50 stance and posture is integral to the whole system in my opinion.

We at VCK train 50/50 stance for those exact same reasons, not much more I can add.


----------

