# Let's discuss TWC's central line.



## Marnetmar (Jan 16, 2018)

Without getting into politics, what do you think of TWC's central line theory?






Does it work? What are its advantages and drawbacks?

My two cents: isn't this just what regular WC schools learn in Chum Kiu? KPM, can you clarify?


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 16, 2018)

WingChunPedia | WCP / WilliamCheungTWCLineage browse

The more I read about TWC, the more I like it.  Some good info in link above comparing.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 16, 2018)

The central line is just the shortest distance between your opponent and yourself. The ideal thing in WC is to align your center line with the central line while keeping your opponent from doing the same.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 16, 2018)

so do the TWC folks think this "central line" idea is special and unique?


----------



## Eric_H (Jan 16, 2018)

Seems to be the idea of facing. Isn't that largely covered by Deui Ying/Jeui Ying?


----------



## KPM (Jan 16, 2018)

Marnetmar said:


> My two cents: isn't this just what regular WC schools learn in Chum Kiu? KPM, can you clarify?



I agree.  Not to open decades old wounds, but way back when.....in those initial magazine articles that William Cheung wrote to declare himself "Grandmaster" and the "true and sole" inheritor of the actual "Traditional" Wing Chun from Ip Man, this was one of the major points he tried to say distinguished it from "modified" Wing Chun.  He explained "modified" Wing Chun as always facing completely square to the opponent and always operating on a centerline that cut the Wing Chun person in half symmetrically.

 At the time I was learning Augustine Fong's version of Ip Man Wing Chun and I distinctly remember being confused and surprised by what Cheung wrote in that article.   Because I had learned that there was first a "motherline" that runs through the center of the body from the top of the head and down through to the floor....like the line that a ballerina spins around.  Then there is the centerline that extends from your motherline to the opponent's motherline.  If you are facing each other squarely, then it cuts both people in half symmetrically.  But if you are facing at an angle, then the centerline is also at an angle.  Next there is the attacking line and the defending line.  Since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, typically the attacking line will go straight from your center to the opponent's center and ends up on the actual centerline.  The defense line extends from your motherline to the center of the oncoming weapon/attacking limb of the opponent.  In the end, this is pretty much  what Cheung was saying with his "central line"  theory.

So yeah, I think its all semantics.

But I'm just a fake and charlatan and don't know anything.  So don't listen to me.


----------



## geezer (Jan 16, 2018)

KPM said:


> ....So yeah, I think its all *semantics.*



^^^^Pretty much. We use the terms _vertical mid line, horizontal mid line_, and _centerline, _all  intersecting at a _centerpoint_ (like an x, y, and z axis superimposed over the body), and then there's the _connecting line_ that links your center with your opponent's center.

http://www.povray.org/documentation/images/tutorial/handed.png

The basic idea is too face your opponent so the your centerline tracks his center while_ his _centerline is deflected and not aligned with your center!


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 17, 2018)

^ thats how it was explained to me.  Where I go they stress fighting from the blind side a lot.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 17, 2018)

Motherline = Core
Centerline = vertical plane emanating from the core forward. We have a single centerline. 
Central line = vertical plane running from my motherline to my opponent’s motherline.
Facing = positioning my body so that my centerline and central lines are aligned at an angle to my opponent’s centerline. This allows me to have 6 major gates attacking into the opponent’s 3.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 17, 2018)

IMO, the principle of "front door - between arms" and "side door - outside arms" can fit MA principle better than the center-line principle. When you are in your opponent's

- front door, you can separate his arms away from his body.
- side door, you can guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm.

Example of "front door" attack.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 17, 2018)

In TWC,there is both.  Through center and on blindside. (outside of arms).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 17, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> In TWC,there is both.  Through center and on blindside. (outside of arms).


Do you think both are needed, or one can include the other?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think both are needed, or one can include the other?


Well, you can move straight into the center or you can angle into the inside on a 1/4 line.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think both are needed, or one can include the other?


 
I'm still new to WC, but it appears that TWC likes to move to the outside (blindside) preferably when you can.  So I'd want to have my center line on my opponents shoulder area.  Sort of like a "T" shape.  Other forms of WC seems to stress going up the middle.  I'm always of the thought that you shouldn't limit yourself to any one way of doing things.  My .02.


----------



## geezer (Jan 17, 2018)

Danny T said:


> ...Centerline = *vertical plane* emanating from the core forward...



_We_ call it a "line", but technically you are absolutely right, Danny. If you are talking geometry, it functions like a _plane. _I think we use the term line kind of generically,  just to keep things simple. 

Personally I really dislike the TWC terms centerline and _central line_ because when said quickly, they sound the same to my old ears . I guess I should just shut up and be happy everybody isn't speaking Cantonese!


----------



## Danny T (Jan 17, 2018)

geezer said:


> _We_ call it a "line", but technically you are absolutely right, Danny. If you are talking geometry, it functions like a _plane. _I think we use the term line kind of generically,  just to keep things simple.
> 
> Personally I really dislike the TWC terms centerline and _central line_ because when said quickly, they sound the same to my old ears . I guess I should just shut up and be happy everybody isn't speaking Cantonese!


Yeah, when I'm explaining it I slow down and emphasize 'central line' sometimes I refer it as the action line or combat line.

What do you call the line from your core to the opponent's core when not in facing?


----------



## geezer (Jan 17, 2018)

Danny T said:


> ...What do you call the line from your core to the opponent's core when not in facing?



I've been calling it "the connecting line".

For me, that's a really important concept to work with since in our Escrima we blade our bodies. On the other hand, in our lineage of VT (coming from "WT") we normally fight facing our opponent's core. The VT plan is to either get off-line or deflect his centerline so he isn't facing our core.


----------



## geezer (Jan 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *- front door*, you can separate his arms away from his body.
> *- side door*, you can guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm.



If you can get to their side-door, that's safer than the front door.

...Now if you are really sneaky, you can get around to their back door!


----------



## Danny T (Jan 17, 2018)

geezer said:


> I've been calling it "the connecting line".


Thank you. Make sense.



geezer said:


> For me, that's a really important concept to work with since in our Escrima we blade our bodies. On the other hand, in our lineage of VT (coming from "WT") we normally fight facing our opponent's core. The VT plan is to either get off-line or deflect his centerline so he isn't facing our core.


Same.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 17, 2018)

geezer said:


> facing our opponent's core. ... he isn't facing our core.


So you want to move to a spot that

- both of your hands can reach to your opponent.
- only one of your opponent's hands can reach you.

You can only do this when you are on your opponent's "side door". WC also enters through the "front door". If your center line merges with your opponent's center line, whoever can control

- inside, and
- on top

will have advantage.


----------



## KPM (Jan 17, 2018)

geezer said:


> _We_ call it a "line", but technically you are absolutely right, Danny. If you are talking geometry, it functions like a _plane. _I think we use the term line kind of generically,  just to keep things simple.
> 
> Personally I really dislike the TWC terms centerline and _central line_ because when said quickly, they sound the same to my old ears . I guess I should just shut up and be happy everybody isn't speaking Cantonese!



Yeah...a plane.  That's what I meant by saying that is "cuts you in half."   I also don't particularly like using both centerline and central line at the same time because it is too confusing for people.  And I've been told that there is no distinction in Cantonese between the two terms and that the names only work in English.


----------



## KPM (Jan 17, 2018)

Danny T said:


> Yeah, when I'm explaining it I slow down and emphasize 'central line' sometimes I refer it as the action line or combat line.
> 
> What do you call the line from your core to the opponent's core when not in facing?



To me that's still "centerline."  It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 17, 2018)

KPM said:


> To me that's still "centerline."  It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.


So your centerline moves around your body as you angle therefore when in a multiple opponent scenario you have multiple centerlines?


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2018)

Danny T said:


> So your centerline moves around your body as you angle therefore when in a multiple opponent scenario you have multiple centerlines?



Yes.  That is how I would look at it.  You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 18, 2018)

KPM said:


> Yes.  That is how I would look at it.  You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.


Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 18, 2018)

KPM said:


> Yes.  That is how I would look at it.  You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.


Against multiple opponents, the hay-maker is more effective than the straight punch. When you use double hay-makers and swing your arms in big circle, the center-line principle will not make any sense at that moment.


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2018)

Danny T said:


> Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.



I didn't say that.  I said you can only engage one opponent at a time.  Unless you want to do one of those goofy Leung Ting things where you use the Fak Sau motion from the SNT form to strike an opponent on either side of you at the same time!


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2018)

KPM said:


> I didn't say that.  I said you can only engage one opponent at a time.  Unless you want to do one of those goofy Leung Ting things where *you use the Fak Sau motion from the SNT form to strike an opponent on either side of you at the same time!*



In truth, _Leung Ting_ used to ridicule that idea as totally impractical and _"stupid",_ whether applied to SNT fak sau, or any other double move against multiple attackers ...like a TKD jumping split kick. He told us that stuff was strictly for the movies ...But then again, he was such a ham that I can imagine him demonstrating it somewhere just to grab some attention. 

What he _actually_ taught his own students re multiple attackers was to be highly mobile, to try to engage each one positioning yourself so as to place their body between you and the others, to locate an exit or direction of escape, and _"to fight as you are getting away"_ (his exact words).

Like a lot of those guys from the Hong Kong WC scene, LT had been in more than a few scraps as a kid and had a pretty good sense for how things like this went down.


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2018)

Danny T said:


> Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. *Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent* when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.



Yeah, you are right, but I don't think that's what Keith meant. He mentioned "engaging" one at a time, not fighting one and forgetting about the others.

Personally, with the tunnel vision effect that adrenalin can cause, I think effectively defending against multiple attackers in a _real_ assault is a pretty tall order for _most people_.  ....er by that I mean me


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Against multiple opponents, the hay-maker is more effective than the straight punch. When you use double hay-makers and swing your arms in big circle, the center-line principle will not make any sense at that moment.



More specifically, if you mean _surrounded_ by multiple attackers, I agree that using controlled "flailing" techniques can be your last resort. In the WC repertoire, wide flailing_ fak-saus_ and when closed in on, wide flailing elbows can work this way.

Still, if you can't break out of the middle, your chances are not good.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 18, 2018)

"You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time."
Ok...I read this as you can only pay attention to one opponent at a time. If that is not what you meant I stand corrected.
I agree with doing all you can to engage only one opponent but you had better be attentive to where the others are and what they are doing. Do your best to use one as a blocker so you are engage with only one at a time.


----------



## VPT (Jan 19, 2018)

Is "fak sau" different from fuk sau/fu shou/伏手, or is this a case of personal transliteration?


----------



## KPM (Jan 19, 2018)

VPT said:


> Is "fak sau" different from fuk sau/fu shou/伏手, or is this a case of personal transliteration?



Fook/Fuk Sau is "subduing hand".   You know it from the Chi Sau exercises.   Fak Sau is "whisking hand" and is the wide sweeping motion to the sides with both hands found in the 2nd section of most people's Siu Lim Tao form.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 19, 2018)

Fook Sao

 Sot Sao in SNT

 Fak Sao from Bil Jee


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 19, 2018)

To the OPs point.  For the broad principles the terms used in TWC really are semantics but this doesn't apply to everything.  Note the following is based on my short time studying WSLVT many moons ago, so this might not apply to other WC styles.

Where I see TWC as having a difference is the "blind side"/flanking/"side door" focus.  In WSLVT you essentially try to force your opponent to give you his blind side/flank by your attack.  In TWC you move yourself there and your actions once there help to maintain the position.

Now there are debates on this.  The WSL person may say "in moving to the flank you lose power because you are moving on an angle and not straight in".  

The TWC person will say "that's a marginalized loss, if it's a loss at all and it gives you the advantage of your opponent having to either only being able to attack and defend with one hand or they have to waste action on reorientation."

The WSL person will then say "with proper simultaneous attack and defense you don't have to worry about the former, and as for the later you just end up in a circular dance where both of you waste actions constantly on reorientation."

The TWC person will then say "..."

The cycle continues lol.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 19, 2018)

KPM said:


> To me that's still "centerline."  It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.


See, I was taught centerline is the plane bisecting the body horizontally where the soft targets are and where the structure is strongest, while the central line is what you describe. 

Getting your center aligned to central while his is not allows you to Wing Chun (yes I just used it as a verb) while he can not. To use these terms interchangeably leaves one of these concepts without a word to describe it, which seems a bit counterproductive


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 19, 2018)

To me, the centerline idea is much simpler. 
Centerline = I protect mine; I destroy his.


----------



## KPM (Jan 20, 2018)

Martial D said:


> See, I was taught centerline is the plane bisecting the body horizontally where the soft targets are and where the structure is strongest, while the central line is what you describe.
> 
> Getting your center aligned to central while his is not allows you to Wing Chun (yes I just used it as a verb) while he can not. To use these terms interchangeably leaves one of these concepts without a word to describe it, which seems a bit counterproductive



Well, that ties into the "theory of facing" and "maintaining the centerline."   I can have my center aligned to an opponent in a way that allows me to take advantage and use my weapons while his center is not aligned with mine in a way that allows him to do the same.  I would be "maintaining the centerline" while he wouldn't be!  The only time making a distinction between "centerline" and "central line" is useful is when you are training solo.  We seldom face an opponent "square on" where your definition of "centerline" would happen.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 20, 2018)

KPM said:


> I can have my center aligned to an opponent in a way that allows me to take advantage and use my weapons while his center is not aligned with mine in a way that allows him to do the same.


Your center-line definition is the same as mine that you want to move to a spot that

- both of your hands can reach to your opponent.
- only one of your opponent's hands can reach you.

Do you agree?


----------



## KPM (Jan 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your center-line definition is the same as mine that you want to move to a spot that
> 
> - both of your hands can reach to your opponent.
> - only one of your opponent's hands can reach you.
> ...



Yeah John, I agree.  Or....where neither of his hands can reach you!  ;-)   This goes along with the idea of "flanking" or to use TWC terminology....getting to the "blind side."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 20, 2018)

KPM said:


> Yeah John, I agree.  Or....where neither of his hands can reach you!  ;-)   This goes along with the idea of "flanking" or to use TWC terminology....getting to the "blind side."


I believe my definition of WC center-line is much easier to be understood in general.

When you are on your opponent's side door (blind side), you can guide his leading arm to jam his back arm. Since you have to use one hand to guide his leading arm, you have 1 free arm left to attack him.

IMO, this is the major difference between CMA and boxing.

- In boxing, you have 2 free hands and your opponent also has 2 free hands. 
- In CMA, you want to have 1 free hands and your opponent has no free hands.

This idea is also the same as the difference between Judo and Chinese wrestling.

- In Judo, both you and your opponent want to have 2 hands to grab on each other.
- In Chinese wrestling, you want to have 1 hand to grab on your opponent while your opponent has no hand on you.

In the following clip, A's left hand controls B's left leading arm. A's right hand punches at B's face. B's right hand is jammed by his own left arm and cannot reach to A.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 20, 2018)

KPM said:


> Well, that ties into the "theory of facing" and "maintaining the centerline."   I can have my center aligned to an opponent in a way that allows me to take advantage and use my weapons while his center is not aligned with mine in a way that allows him to do the same.  I would be "maintaining the centerline" while he wouldn't be!  The only time making a distinction between "centerline" and "central line" is useful is when you are training solo.  We seldom face an opponent "square on" where your definition of "centerline" would happen.


Wing Chun happens square on though.  I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square'  can happen a lot in a fight. 

But this is about WC, not pure fighting.

Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 20, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Wing Chun happens square on though.  I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square'  can happen a lot in a fight.
> 
> But this is about WC, not pure fighting.
> 
> Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.



Not all WC.  TWC specifically focused on you getting out of the "front door" so to speak, you want to flank, or as TWC says fight on "the blind side." I can't imagine this is entirely unique, though the amount of focus TWC puts on it may be


----------



## Martial D (Jan 21, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Not all WC.  TWC specifically focused on you getting out of the "front door" so to speak, you want to flank, or as TWC says fight on "the blind side." I can't imagine this is entirely unique, though the amount of focus TWC puts on it may be


I think you might be misunderstanding me.  I'm not talking square to square, in fact the opposite. Square to square is neutral ground. The advantage is you being square(where you can chain punch and use your structure) and the other guy off of square (or off the central line,if you will).

Or as KFW put it; where you can hit him with both hands and he can not.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 21, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I think you might be misunderstanding me.  I'm not talking square to square, in fact the opposite. Square to square is neutral ground. The advantage is you being square(where you can chain punch and use your structure) and the other guy off of square (or off the central line,if you will).
> 
> Or as KFW put it; where you can hit him with both hands and he can not.



Ahh I see now, my bad.  I also agree with your view of a Tan or a Bong but I think that is true of most defenses dealing with a straight attack.  The shoulder is a ball and socket joint.  The more you "open" that joint the weaker it becomes and it becomes easier to "open" it further.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 21, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Ahh I see now, my bad.  I also agree with your view of a Tan or a Bong but I think that is true of most defenses dealing with a straight attack.  The shoulder is a ball and socket joint.  The more you "open" that joint the weaker it becomes and it becomes easier to "open" it further.


The difference is amazing. If tan is aligned to center(elbow/ wrist), it becomes nearly impossible to collapse inward, regardless how strong the other guy is. Now take that same structure a couple inches to the left or right and it can be collapsed quite easily.

Weird how that works.


----------



## KPM (Jan 21, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Wing Chun happens square on though.  I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square'  can happen a lot in a fight.
> 
> But this is about WC, not pure fighting.
> 
> Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.



In my Wing Chun, even if we find ourselves directly in front the opponent, we would spend very little time with our shoulders "square on" to the opponent so that the centerline would bisect us symmetrically.  Even when directly in front of the opponent we are pivoted to some extent in a "side body" position.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 21, 2018)

KPM said:


> In my Wing Chun, even if we find ourselves directly in front the opponent, we would spend very little time with our shoulders "square on" to the opponent so that the centerline would bisect us symmetrically.  Even when directly in front of the opponent we are pivoted to some extent in a "side body" position.


Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?

I guess that's why my Wing Chun is basically just the playbook for the trapping range square on position, just as BJJ is for when I'm on my back, and boxing is for a distance square off. At least insofar as how I personally train it.


----------



## KPM (Jan 21, 2018)

*Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?*

---A "blast" or series of "chain punches" is probably about the only time we would be "square on"!  But how do you even do a good Bong, Pak, or Tan without pivoting?  ;-)


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 21, 2018)




----------



## Martial D (Jan 21, 2018)

KPM said:


> *Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?*
> 
> ---A "blast" or series of "chain punches" is probably about the only time we would be "square on"!  But how do you even do a good Bong, Pak, or Tan without pivoting?  ;-)


Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.

I'm just saying that if you are throwing out WC stuff straight out the central line while your center is cocked 45 like a boxer it's not structural, and you won't get the same low elbow power. There's much better stuff to do from there anyway.


----------



## KPM (Jan 22, 2018)

*Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.*

---True.  But when you pivot and execute a technique on your own center with squared shoulders...this is the defense line I mentioned.  But your center (motherline) is still aligned with the opponent's center with an attack line.   If you consider the attack line to be the "centerline", then it is no longer cutting you in half symmetrically.   So which is the actual "centerline"?  The line that you have aligned your defensive technique upon?  Or the line that you use to strike the opponent? 

*I'm just saying that if you are throwing out WC stuff straight out the central line while your center is cocked 45 like a boxer it's not structural, and you won't get the same low elbow power.*

---Not true!  I suspect we just aren't getting what each other is saying.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 22, 2018)

KPM said:


> *Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.*
> 
> ---True.  But when you pivot and execute a technique on your own center with squared shoulders...this is the defense line I mentioned.  But your center (motherline) is still aligned with the opponent's center with an attack line.   If you consider the attack line to be the "centerline", then it is no longer cutting you in half symmetrically.   So which is the actual "centerline"?  The line that you have aligned your defensive technique upon?  Or the line that you use to strike the opponent?
> 
> ...



Again, I distinguish these two concepts as center and central. Centerline is your center, central is the direct line to the opponents center. 

What isn't true? That WC tends not to execute like boxing? If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC. Maybe WC boxing, as to get any power like that would require a boxing power engine.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 22, 2018)

Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 22, 2018)

Martial D said:


> If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC.



Wow. Interesting perspective. What wc family are you training in? (Sorry if you have already previously stated it)


----------



## KPM (Jan 22, 2018)

*Again, I distinguish these two concepts as center and central. Centerline is your center, central is the direct line to the opponents center.*

---No problem.  I just think that can get confusing.

*What isn't true? That WC tends not to execute like boxing? If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC. Maybe WC boxing, as to get any power like that would require a boxing power engine.*

---I can get lots of power in a strike when I pivot and end up with my body "cocked 45" in relation to the opponent.  No real need to bring the boxing engine into it.   Why do you think your shoulders have to be square to the opponent to generate power....or to consider it Wing Chun?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 22, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?


If certain WC fundamentals are maintain as you do so it certainly could be.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 22, 2018)

Thanks Danny.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 22, 2018)

KPM said:


> Why do you think your shoulders have to be square to the opponent to generate power....or to consider it Wing Chun?


Agree! If your shoulder is

- square, you will have "2 50% powerful punches". If all your punches end with square shoulder, your punch will never be the maximum power.
- not square, you will have "1 30% powerful punch (jab) and 1 70% powerful punch (cross)".

When you throw jab and extend your body to the maximum, you can have the 100% powerful cross after that. You only need 1 powerful punch to knock your opponent down.


----------



## Callen (Jan 22, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?



Many WC groups focus on “structure” differently, so it is important to keep that in mind during your investigations. Sometimes the lines between structure and positioning are blurred.

Structure is a complete concept that includes the functionality of several core WC components. Ultimately there is more to structure than singling out stance, position or angle relative to the opponent. Linking your body, driving from the elbow, chasing center, moving as a unit to generate power, traveling and understanding proper footwork are also some of the things that need to be trained for proper structure.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 22, 2018)

KPM said:


> *Again, I distinguish these two concepts as center and central. Centerline is your center, central is the direct line to the opponents center.*
> 
> ---No problem.  I just think that can get confusing.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I find it confusing to use the same term for two different concepts. If the centerline is the line between you and your opponent, then what do you call the line that bifurcates your own body? If your punches do not travel down that line how do you chain punch? If your hand techniques do not end on that line what of structure? 

Again, I am not talking about aligning with the opponents center. When you shift and punch the punch could very well end up travelling diagonally in relation to your opponent, but still end on your own center where it's strongest.

I wasn't aware there were strains of WC that didn't use centerline theory.


----------



## KPM (Jan 22, 2018)

* If the centerline is the line between you and your opponent, then what do you call the line that bifurcates your own body?*

---The "self" centerline.  Only really an issue when training solo.

* If your punches do not travel down that line how do you chain punch?*

---They do!  Because at that point it is the "attacking line."

*Again, I am not talking about aligning with the opponents center. When you shift and punch the punch could very well end up travelling diagonally in relation to your opponent, but still end on your own center where it's strongest.*

---But you still have to hit the opponent!  

*I wasn't aware there were strains of WC that didn't use centerline theory.*

----Are you saying that my Wing Chun doesn't use centerline theory?   Obviously there are different interpretations of what that means!


----------



## Martial D (Jan 22, 2018)

KPM said:


> * If the centerline is the line between you and your opponent, then what do you call the line that bifurcates your own body?*
> 
> ---The "self" centerline.  Only really an issue when training solo.
> 
> ...


So in your WC say, a tan executed on the shoulder line or on an obtuse angle to the body is fairly standard? This seems weird to me as it both isn't covering your center and would be easiest collapsible. If the punches/strikes aren't delivered down the middle it seems to me you'd lose a lot of power.

Yes, you need to hit the opponent, but I don't see how that ties in to anything. You can hit with an arm punch or a punch driven by your core. Either way you can connect.

Lastly, it seems your WC ignores a large part of the centerline theory I was taught, especially if you ignore your own center if not training solo.

Then again we might be losing something in communication. 5 seconds of training with you and you would understand what I am saying here I guarantee.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 22, 2018)

Sifu Sergio put it best, “all the lineages have a piece of the puzzle and it is up to you to put it together.”    It is almost as if you have to find your true Wing Chun self and use what works best for you, your experiences, and your body type


----------



## Eric_H (Jan 22, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Sifu Sergio put it best, “all the lineages have a piece of the puzzle and it is up to you to put it together.”    It is almost as if you have to find your true Wing Chun self and use what works best for you, your experiences, and your body type



Just a bunch of nonsense salesman talk. He's repeating that lie so his chop suey approach to training WC and now other stuff seems more palatable.


----------



## TMA17 (Jan 22, 2018)

“*19)  After being in Wing Chun for so long what have you learned that stands out the most?*

There are a number of things that really stand out about Traditional Wing Chun (TWC). To begin, what stands out very heavily is the concept of the CENTERLINE, and that there are SEVERAL "centerlines" to be employed; and furthermore, that at longer (non contact) ranges - the most important centerlines are DUAL; ie.- the lines that run vertically down the opponents' body at his shoulders. That is why when I box at long range I'm always making sure that whatever punches I throw are covering those lines (or paths) - so that he can't hook or throw long range round bombs around me - since I'm now using and occupying the TERRITORY that he needs in order to hit or grab me. He HAS to deal with my attack - he can't bypass it.

This often leads to limb-to-limb contact, which means that now ANOTHER important TWC principle comes into play: the strategies and techniques and contact reflexes that come out of all chi sao and chi sao related drills. So I'm making him play into my strength as a wing chun man.”

KI Martial Arts Studio: 21 Questions with Traditional Wing Chun Master, Master Victor Parlati


----------



## KPM (Jan 24, 2018)

*[So in your WC say, a tan executed on the shoulder line or on an obtuse angle to the body is fairly standard? This seems weird to me as it both isn't covering your center and would be easiest collapsible. If the punches/strikes aren't delivered down the middle it seems to me you'd lose a lot of power.*

---I don't think you are picturing what I'm saying.  Like this:    http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9576&d=1441097191

*Lastly, it seems your WC ignores a large part of the centerline theory I was taught, especially if you ignore your own center if not training solo.*

---You clearly aren't getting what I'm saying.    "Center" and "Central" mean essentially the same thing.  They also look alike/sound alike.  That's why I said it can be confusing to use both terms.  I doubt anyone used the term "central line" prior to William Cheung.  He came up with that term just so what he was doing would seem distinct from what everyone else was doing.  The "centerline" is simply the line that connects your center to the opponent's center....whether that is the center of his body or the center of his technique/attacking limb.  It sometimes will divide you equally into two halves, but sometimes does not.  When doing a simultaneous defense and strike that Wing Chun is so famous for, there is a "centerline" aimed at the center of the opponent's technique/attack limb and there is a "centerline" aimed at the opponent's core.  Both are the "centerline."  To make them more specific, the first is the "defense line" and the second is the "attack line."  I find this much less confusing than saying "centerline" and "central line."


----------



## VPT (Jan 24, 2018)

I was once explained all the "center/central lines" in Wan Kam Leung's branch of Wing Chun. I think there might have been four or five, if not more of them. Since I only really trained with those guys maybe three times and that was soon to be four years ago, I can't unfortunately give much more insight to this matter.


----------

