# Centerline Theory and Wing Chun Mindset: Where it works and doesn't?



## Argus (Aug 3, 2016)

So...

I am a strong proponent of/believer in center-line theory as it applies to Wing Chun, and even related Martial Arts. I believe that this is what makes Wing Chun work as a cohesive and viable system, and it's something that should not just be talked about in theory, but put into habitual practice. Centerline theory, which, I might to some degree be conflating with "facing" (chiu-ying? Not confident that I am remembering or spelling correctly the chinese term), describes a focus on, and occupation of the central line between myself and the opponent, and any force, as much as possible, should be towards my opponent on this line, not outwardly or inwardly past it. In this sense, every movement, and force, is directly threatening my opponent. This makes simultaneous attack and defense, and concepts such as lat-sao-jik-chung viable and automatic, and it tends to keep one safe from linear, and in many cases circular attacks that an opponent might launch.

I've found this utter and unrelenting insistence on chasing and occupying the centerline to be of huge advantage, both in an empty hand context, and in a historical fencing context. People have a natural tendency to over-react and want to "swat the flies" if you will, and I've had great success playing with other martial artists by simply yielding to any outwards force and entering as the center is opened for me by my opponent, or simply claiming the center first and hitting or thrusting while remaining on the line.

But there seems to be a middle ground where this insistence on the centerline, and on facing, doesn't work so well, and that is when short weapons, particularly short bladed weapons, are involved, and all the more so when an opponent is armed with a weapon of that description and you aren't. This is the realm of FMA, and, while centerline theory certainly is present there, I notice that it isn't always adhered to quite in the same way or with the same strictness as it is in Wing Chun.

Here's a concrete example. I have a very deadly habit of, even after all of the knife tapping and related training that I've done in FMA, habitually trying to use an inside gan-sau to cover wide low-line thusts against a knife wielding attacker. And, it never works. But it's such a habit for me, because I sense that I am on the centerline and have the advantage in position and facing, which I would in an unarmed context. Unfortunately, the added extension of a knife, and the consideration that forceful impact is not needed to cause severe damage, as with a punch, means that the opponent can simply thrust right around/through my defense. The much safer way of defending this, which is generally taught in FMA, is to use an outside gan-sau of sorts. But when the opponent is coming from such a wide angle, this means that you have to completely give up the centerline and turn to face the attack. Even a sideways step is not nearly enough (or quick enough, in many cases) to reorient your center such that you can bring the opposite hand into play to achieve an outside parry.

Now, I would never, ever turn my entire body to face and chase the hand if someone were throwing a wide, open punch in Wing Chun. I'd just enter, and, if necessary due to timing, put up a hand to intercept their attack. That is an ingrained habit at this point. But, one can see how it doesn't quite work when a knife is involved.

So, one winds up having to completely change facing, give up the centerline, and in effect "chase hands" to effectively defend from some attacks when there is a knife. Not to mention that having the hands themselves be cut is now a pertinent concern which, again, makes many Wing Chun habits potentially dangerous.

Interestingly enough, Wing Chun's principles and theories work excellently where long bladed weapons are concerned - especially those with developed hand-guards which can be safely used in a very linear fashion, as is the case in historical fencing however. Again, at this point, both practitioners have reach and matched weapon sets such that a focus on the core/centerline is once again possible. The hands are of course vulnerable, but staying outside of measure and attempting to snipe the hands is not the goal; one might as well with draw the hand or disengage entirely from such an opponent, and such attempts can be used to gain leverage on the strong of your sword, bind, and enter with a direct thrust regardless. Wing Chun and fencing are so similar in principle and function, in fact, that I consider them to be utterly the same in concept and principle, just with slightly different weapons and mechanics involved.

So, how does one deal with this awkward mismatched middle ground that knife defense occupies, where my habits and mentality from Wing Chun seem to hinder rather than help? Is there a way to rectify these discrepancies without compromising my habits for one or the other?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

Argus said:


> So...
> 
> I am a strong proponent of/believer in center-line theory as it applies to Wing Chun, and even related Martial Arts. I believe that this is what makes Wing Chun work as a cohesive and viable system, and it's something that should not just be talked about in theory, but put into habitual practice. Centerline theory, which, I might to some degree be conflating with "facing" (chiu-ying? Not confident that I am remembering or spelling correctly the chinese term), describes a focus on, and occupation of the central line between myself and the opponent, and any force, as much as possible, should be towards my opponent on this line, not outwardly or inwardly past it. In this sense, every movement, and force, is directly threatening my opponent. This makes simultaneous attack and defense, and concepts such as lat-sao-jik-chung viable and automatic, and it tends to keep one safe from linear, and in many cases circular attacks that an opponent might launch.
> 
> ...


This description has me wanting to find someone nearby who is experienced in WC to explore this principle. It sounds interesting, and I'd like to understand how it become such a focus in WC.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This description has me wanting to find someone nearby who is experienced in WC to explore this principle. It sounds interesting, and I'd like to understand how it become such a focus in WC.


I think I get it. I am big into CLT, for how I do Kenpo, and it all boils down to how you move. If you are in the habit of trying to squeeze all your motion between two worlds, left an right side of center, you move differently than someone that is trying to take your head off with a haymaker. Not to mention, your full body weight is always behind the shot. Most people are only backing straight shots with a quadrant. It hurts, just watching.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 3, 2016)

IMO, for the "center line" theory,

PRO: If your hands are in your opponent's straight line striking path, all his straight line striking will be interrupted by your arms.

CON: Since your opponent will have hard time to use his straight line punches at you, he will use circular punches such as hook or hay-maker. The reality is the hook or hay-maker can have much more knock down power than the straight line punches have.

The following clip show how you can use circular hay-makers to deflect straight line punches. It uses the ancient Chinese spear strategy that to use "circle to deflect straight line".

The "double spears" theory that you "protect your center from outside in" is the "opposite" of the "center line" theory that you "protect your center from inside out".


----------



## Argus (Aug 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, for the "center line" theory,
> 
> PRO: If your hands are in your opponent's straight line striking path, all his straight line striking will be interrupted by your arms.
> 
> ...



Circular shots like that can be countered or simply avoided if you develop the sensitivity to do so, because, while they might knock your hands off of center, they are otherwise not a threat. This means that you don't have to leave your arm there to take them and can either quickly yield, or pre-emtively circle around and continue down the centerline. Being on the center also means that if you have the right timing, you can sometimes beat wide/circular shots to the punch without having block them necessarily.

If you remain stiff, however, you cannot recover quickly enough to counter those kinds of circular attacks. And sometimes, you need to pre-emptively remove your hand and deny him contact/impact on your arms, if you see that he is aiming to beat your arms away and not actually hit you.

In fencing terms, this is the same or worse in terms for the person who uses wide/circular motions; it is very easy to slip around someone who is trying to beat your sword away, and thrust them elsewhere; or conversely, to claim the center and bind with superior leverage while delivering a simultaneous limited cut or thrust on the center-line.

To me, the main difficulty comes in when a knife is involved, because your opponent no longer needs to connect with impact to do damage, plus he has several inches of blade that can get around your defenses in ways that you might not be used to dealing with. Moreover, the exchange is terribly unequal; in a hand to hand engagement, I only risk getting punched, whereas versus a knife, I risk be stabbed or cut, and with far less effort needed by my opponent to do so in comparison to if he had to rely on impact mechanics.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 3, 2016)

Here is a theory. If he hooks, get out, or follow his center with your center, like a dance move.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 3, 2016)

Argus said:


> while they might knock your hands off of center, they are otherwise not a threat.


If your arms are knocked off the center, your opponent will take over your centerline and move in between your arms. The "threat" is you may lose your centerline.

The "double spears" theory is also called "downward separate hands". The intention is to separate your opponent's arms away from his body so a "clinch" can be established. It's used more often in the grappling art than in the striking art.


----------



## Argus (Aug 3, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your arms are knocked off the center, your opponent will take over your centerline and move in between your arms. The "threat" is you may lose your centerline.
> 
> The "double spears" theory is also called "downward separate hands". The intention is to separate your opponent's arms away from his body so a "clinch" can be established. It's used more often in the grappling art than in the striking art.



I can see how that sort of thing can be useful and indeed effective, but my point is that you can avoid having your hand "beat away," or else still regain center before your opponent, if you are skilled.

Here is an example of the "beating away" technique in Capo Ferro, and its counter:





Of course, the closer you are, the less easily your opponent can avoid or recover the center, so I can see how that could be more useful in a grappling context.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This description has me wanting to find someone nearby who is experienced in WC to explore this principle. It sounds interesting, and I'd like to understand how it become such a focus in WC.



I think this speaks volumes about your openness and curiosity dude. Well done. I hope you find a WC'er to explore it with. A quick google search of your area reveals a handful of WC folks...let us know how it goes!


----------



## KPM (Aug 3, 2016)

_But there seems to be a middle ground where this insistence on the centerline, and on facing, doesn't work so well, and that is when short weapons, particularly short bladed weapons, are involved,_

---Exactly!  And not just FMA, but Indonesian systems as well.  Silat is based on the knife.   So while Wing Chun will typically seek to control center and strike along the center, Silat will seek to control the attacking limb.  Deflecting an attack and punching up the center is not good enough because it is typically assumed that the attacking limb is holding a weapon.  A deflected weapon that is not under complete control can easily turn and cut you with small motions that would be insignificant with empty hands.  Hence, Wing Chun people often accuse Silat and FMA of "chasing hands" because they don't understand this control feature.  This is also why Wing Chun people typically fail miserably when they try to derive "self defense against a knife"  movements from Wing Chun. 


_Here's a concrete example. I have a very deadly habit of, even after all of the knife tapping and related training that I've done in FMA, habitually trying to use an inside gan-sau to cover wide low-line thusts against a knife wielding attacker. And, it never works._

---It can work if you immediately convert it to an elbow lock before the knifer can retract.  A few years back Marc Denny of Dog Brother's fame came out with a knife defense method.  He called it the "Dog Catcher."  He was somewhat secretive about what it really was because he wanted you to buy his video.  So I bought the video and guess what?  His "Dog Catcher" is simply a Wing Chun Gan/Jum!   And he makes it work very well against a knife.




_Now, I would never, ever turn my entire body to face and chase the hand if someone were throwing a wide, open punch in Wing Chun. I'd just enter, and, if necessary due to timing, put up a hand to intercept their attack. That is an ingrained habit at this point. But, one can see how it doesn't quite work when a knife is involved.

So, one winds up having to completely change facing, give up the centerline, and in effect "chase hands" to effectively defend from some attacks when there is a knife. Not to mention that having the hands themselves be cut is now a pertinent concern which, again, makes many Wing Chun habits potentially dangerous._

---This, my friend, is almost the same as the age-old debate in western circles...."which is better, the cut or the thrust?"  But in this case it is "which is better, to take center or to control the attacking limb by leaving center?"   With the thrust one keeps center, but  with the cut one departs from center and uses angles.  Much the same effect!



_So, how does one deal with this awkward mismatched middle ground that knife defense occupies, where my habits and mentality from Wing Chun seem to hinder rather than help? Is there a way to rectify these discrepancies without compromising my habits for one or the other?_

---Yes, that's the million dollar question!   Silat guys will simply tell you that Wing Chun is woefully inadequate for edged weapon defense.  So you if you are getting "mismatched" messages from your trained reflexes and are finding yourself confusing things trying to convert from a empty hand defense to a knife defense, then the answer may be a hybrid-type system.  See the thread I started on hybrid arts.  Your dilemma is exactly one that I mentioned there.


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2016)

_Argus_, I've noticed the same deeply rooted tendency to use inside gaun-sau (or gaun-da, etc.) against a low inward-hooking stab or slash with a knife. This same instinctive response that works so well empty handed can cause grave difficulties defending against a knife. As you say, the more typical FMA-ish approach of using an outside gaun-sau to pass the knife means abandoning center-line and chasing hands. We _can_ do this, but only at the risk of breaking down our core WC/VT/WT training. So what else is there?

Well, here are a couple of ideas to play with. One, use a really _hard, _chopping gaun-sau extended well forward in front of your gut. You can also suck your mid-section back at the same moment, creating more distance between your gut and the blade, as well as causing your shoulders and chest to drop, actually adding force to the gaun-sau. This will be more effective at keeping the blade away from your gut and if explosive enough, may even result in a disarm. 

Or if the knife wielder drives through the gaun-sau, use the other hand like a gaun-sau to pass the blade.

More typically, what I encounter is that the knife wielder's blade hand just rebounds and circles _over _the gaun-sau, hooking inward towards your neck. If you follow his energy your gaun will lift straight up into a tan-sau deflecting the high attack (kind of like an inside gate version of the guat sau-lau sau sequence in SNT). If the knife wielder continues pressing inwards forcefully, use your other hand to pass it over as in hubud... 

The problem is none of these scenarios give you control of the blade!  But they can. One thing I've been playing with is _scissor blocks _that lead to a grab. In WT terms, start a modified scissors high-low gaun from Biu Tze instead of a simple low gaun-sau and then grapple and roll the arm over into a elbow or shoulder lock.

I imagine you've already tried stuff like this, and still found it wanting. Well, IMO, most of those sweet passing drills you see in some FMA groups are even more flawed against determined resistance. The short of it is that empty hand vs. knife is a usually loosing proposition.


----------



## KPM (Aug 4, 2016)

geezer said:


> The problem is none of these scenarios give you control of the blade!  But they can. One thing I've been playing with is _scissor blocks _that lead to a grab. In WT terms, start a modified scissors high-low gaun from Biu Tze instead of a simple low gaun-sau and then grapple and roll the arm over into a elbow or shoulder lock.



Exactly what I was talking about above.   Here is where Wing Chun vocabulary varies so much it fails us......the Gan/Jum.....lower arm in Gan Sau, upper arm in "inward Tan Sau" or "upper gate Gan Sau" or whatever your lineage choses to call it.  This is Marc Denny's "Dog Catcher."  It forms a "scissors" structure to catch the incoming limb.  If the blow is a little high or low, no matter because it funnels to the center of the Gan/Jum.  At the instant that the attacking limb is in the center you convert the lower Gan to an "inward Lan Sau" to trap the limb and keep the weapon away from you.   If the opponent is doing a "sewing machine" attack with repeated thrusts, you simply keep your Gan/Jum between you and him and meet each thrust with it until the timing allows you to get the trap.    If the blow is forceful and is going through your Gan/Jum structure before you can do the trap you simply convert to the opposite Gan/Jum by sweeping the top hand forward, down, and across.....your "outside" Gan Sau....to pass the blade.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> Exactly what I was talking about above.   Here is where Wing Chun vocabulary varies so much it fails us......the Gan/Jum.....lower arm in Gan Sau, upper arm in "inward Tan Sau" or "upper gate Gan Sau" or whatever your lineage choses to call it.  This is Marc Denny's "Dog Catcher."  It forms a "scissors" structure to catch the incoming limb.  If the blow is a little high or low, no matter because it funnels to the center of the Gan/Jum.  At the instant that the attacking limb is in the center you convert the lower Gan to an "inward Lan Sau" to trap the limb and keep the weapon away from you.   If the opponent is doing a "sewing machine" attack with repeated thrusts, you simply keep your Gan/Jum between you and him and meet each thrust with it until the timing allows you to get the trap.    If the blow is forceful and is going through your Gan/Jum structure before you can do the trap you simply convert to the opposite Gan/Jum by sweeping the top hand forward, down, and across.....your "outside" Gan Sau....to pass the blade.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
wing chun vocabulary can fail but wing chun timing skills can help.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 4, 2016)

I think the entire post from Argus depends on how one defines (and uses) the idea of the centerline(?); and not to mention fighting with angles. Just my .02


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 4, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I think the entire post from Argus depends on how one defines (and uses) the idea of the centerline(?); and not to mention fighting with angles. Just my .02


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of folks dont understand centerline principles very well.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of folks dont understand centerline principles very well.



I agree, to an extent I guess(?). I mean, the idea / concept of the CL can be so broad that perhaps multiple definitions could possibly fit(?) 
I don't know...
But I think some folks tend to have a strict and narrow view of CL...others have a broader more looser view...but each may have (what they perceive to be) a good understanding of centerline principles.


----------



## Argus (Aug 4, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I agree, to an extent I guess(?). I mean, the idea / concept of the CL can be so broad that perhaps multiple definitions could possibly fit(?)
> I don't know...
> But I think some folks tend to have a strict and narrow view of CL...others have a broader more looser view...but each may have (what they perceive to be) a good understanding of centerline principles.



That's certainly a possibility. 

The thing is, to me, a focus on the centerline has to become a habit to be functional. If you're really willy-nilly with it, I don't think it works very well or is likely to come out. But, I may be wrong; perhaps one can fluidly switch between a more strict centerline approach, and a more flexible one depending on what is needed.

I'm very much a creature of habit, though. What I do in training absolutely becomes habit, and comes out, along with everything else, but not necessarily in a compartmentalized manner. Basically, I'm programmable spaghetti. 

My understanding of the centerline is very much in-line (did I just make a joke there?) with the nature of geezer and KPM's comments. Both are familiar with FMA and what I'm referring to when I say "abandoning the centerline," though.


----------



## Argus (Aug 4, 2016)

> KPM, geezer

Great replies! I guess it really is just a matter of training and figuring out how to adapt your habits/methods in the best way you can.

I've seen the "dog catcher" technique, I think, and I have tried it with good results. I had forgotten about it, actually. I find that structure tends to keep the knife out, but also control the limb, whereas I usually find a single gan-sau inadequate to do so; don't push out far enough, and you still get it (as is usually the result for me.) Push out too far, and the knife simply comes over the top, as you already mentioned.

There is also the option of a tertiary parry with a strike, slap, or eye-jab, transitioning to the outside. Can still be really awkward to do with wide shots, though, and requires more precision.

Of course, the key is finding what works and is most consistent with (at least, my current understanding of) center-line theory, and making that habitual. Or else, see if I can't maintain or rectify two different sets of habits.

As for mixing WC and Silat/FMA, I don't believe I'm anywhere near skilled enough in either to achieve that. But, I'm interested in your method, KPM, and I can see how they could meld together into something cohesive. Interesting that we share the same concerns.

As an additional thought: One thing that I find to be curious about FMA, particularly the Lameco/Illustrisimo system, is that it makes curious use of centerline theory. It makes... what I might call "intermittent" use of it? It has a tendency towards linear attacks and deflections, and most strikes are delivered down the center or are intended to clear the center, but of course, your hands/weapons don't stay on the center. It's transient. And it isn't afraid to violate the center-line in seemingly awkward ways at times.

It's neither entirely contrary to, nor in line with WC's methodology. To some extent, perhaps it's the similarities that make the differences so difficult to deal with.


----------



## KPM (Aug 5, 2016)

Argus said:


> >
> As an additional thought: One thing that I find to be curious about FMA, particularly the Lameco/Illustrisimo system, is that it makes curious use of centerline theory. It makes... what I might call "intermittent" use of it? It has a tendency towards linear attacks and deflections, and most strikes are delivered down the center or are intended to clear the center, but of course, your hands/weapons don't stay on the center. It's transient. And it isn't afraid to violate the center-line in seemingly awkward ways at times.
> 
> It's neither entirely contrary to, nor in line with WC's methodology. To some extent, perhaps it's the similarities that make the differences so difficult to deal with.




Many arts have a good understanding of the centerline, they just don't use it in the same way as Wing Chun.  You don't have to occupy the center to defend it, or attack along it.   SPM is a good example as well as the arts you mentioned.   To me there seems to be two basic approaches:   Occupy the centerline by keeping your hands on it (ala Wing Chun's Man Sau/Wu Sau guard position).  This closes the centerline and more or less forces attacks to go around it.  So you mostly end up working from the  "inside outward" when defending so that you open the path along the centerline for your strike.   The other approach is to keep the hands relatively wide and leave the center open.  This invites an attack to come right along the centerline, and then you trap or smother it to create the timing and opportunity for your own return blow.  So you mostly end up working from the "outside inward."  From what I've seen, this is the main way that SPM uses centerline theory.   This is what I have seen primarily in FMAs as well.

Silat, (at least Serak) seems to smoothly switch between either approach and combines them well. 

The additional consideration is that when dealing with weapons, the weapon itself becomes the thing you must focus on.....because not controlling the weapon means that even if you get in your blow, the weapon can still tag you and do major damage.  The classic "double kill" scenario from western martial arts.   So your centerline focus must shift from being directed at the center or torso or core of the opponent to being directed at the center of the attacking limb or weapon.  FMA and Silat does this well because they are weapons-based arts.   Wing Chun is not.    Silat tends to have a stronger empty-hand focus than FMA.  Too often in FMA empty-hand applications are an after-thought.  This is why Silat seems to shift back and forth between the two centerline methods smoothly and easily. 

To be able to shift back and forth between these two centerline approaches would just take some practice.  You should be able to spot a weapon and automatically shift your focus to the weapon.  In fact, its hard not too!  ;-)   The problem comes when the knife is small and you don't see it.  Then you may respond with Wing Chun like you would if it was a punch and end up regretting it!  This is why typically the "default setting" for Silat is to act as if the opponent had a weapon until proven otherwise.  Its safer that way!


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> Many arts have a good understanding of the centerline, they just don't use it in the same way as Wing Chun.  You don't have to occupy the center to defend it, or attack along it.   SPM is a good example as well as the arts you mentioned.   To me there seems to be two basic approaches:   Occupy the centerline by keeping your hands on it (ala Wing Chun's Man Sau/Wu Sau guard position).  This closes the centerline and more or less forces attacks to go around it.  So you mostly end up working from the  "inside outward" when defending so that you open the path along the centerline for your strike.   The other approach is to keep the hands relatively wide and leave the center open.  This invites an attack to come right along the centerline, and then you trap or smother it to create the timing and opportunity for your own return blow.  So you mostly end up working from the "outside inward."  From what I've seen, this is the main way that SPM uses centerline theory.   This is what I have seen primarily in FMAs as well.
> 
> Silat, (at least Serak) seems to smoothly switch between either approach and combines them well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 5, 2016)

Disagree on a fuill understanding of the centerline principles/ Also, few understand the knives of wing chun.
Individual demo can show that better than cherry picking through FMA, SPM and other arts.A good wing chun person certainly would/should  take the weapon and the weapon hand
I understand- a knife into account. The wu/sao/ma n sao posture described in the above post oversimplifies and focusses on techniques rather than concepts.
I understand that one  cannot underestimate a knife wielder.


----------



## KPM (Aug 5, 2016)

No.  I actually think you understand little about defending against a knife if you are belittling my prior comments.  The "knives of Wing Chun" have nothing to do with what we were talking about.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 5, 2016)

Occupying the center can be done from the outside as well as the inside.
As to the "Man Sau/Wu Sau guard position"...There is certainly a time for using that structure but to enter a fray holding a man sau/wu sau guard is an excellent way to get cut vs a blade and is why many get hit in the head vs a striker. For most that I've seen it is being used at the wrong range and wrong time.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> No.  I actually think you understand little about defending against a knife if you are belittling my prior comments.  The "knives of Wing Chun" have nothing to do with what we were talking about.


------------------------------------------------------

We?
My posts are to the list rather than directly addressed to you.


----------



## KPM (Aug 5, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> We?
> My posts are to the list rather than directly addressed to you.



"We" being Argus and I.   I find it very interesting that any time I have posted something you feel the need to make a negative comment about it without even elaborating on what your own thoughts are.   You wrote  "cherry picking through FMA, SPM and other arts.A good wing chun person certainly would/should take the weapon and the weapon hand", which certainly seemed to be directed at me since I was the only one that mentioned SPM and Silat.


----------



## KPM (Aug 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Occupying the center can be done from the outside as well as the inside.
> As to the "Man Sau/Wu Sau guard position"...There is certainly a time for using that structure but to enter a fray holding a man sau/wu sau guard is an excellent way to get cut vs a blade and is why many get hit in the head vs a striker. For most that I've seen it is being used at the wrong range and wrong time.



I agree!  But we certainly seem to see that a LOT in Wing Chun circles!   

As far as occupying the center...I don't see that as being done from the outside or inside.  You have to be on the center in order to occupy it.  And from there one typically moves from the center outward.   Now granted, doing a Pak Sau is moving from outside to center.  But you depart from your occupying of the center in order to do it.

So really, its not different that comparing a western boxer's guard and a Thai Fighter's guard.  The boxer tends to keep his hands in tight on the center to "occupy" it and close it off to protect against straight punches.  This results in his opponent tending to throw wider round punches.  The Thai Fighter tends to keep his hands wide to defend against high round kicks.  This can result in his opponent tending to throw straighter shots up the middle.   Not a hard and fast rule, but just looking at generalities.   If you defend wide and leave the center open (unoccupied) then blows are more likely to come down the center.  If you leave the outer gates open by putting the hands near the center and "occupying" it, then blows are more likely to come wide.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> You have to be on the center in order to occupy it.


You may not need to be "on the center" in order to occupy it.

For example, even if your arms are not exactly "on your center", as long as both of your opponent's arms are "outside of your arms", your arms are more on your center than your opponent's arms are. You arms can still be considered as "on your center".

This is why the concept of the "separate hands" should be addressed. If you can "separate" your opponent's arms away from his body (as A does in the following picture), you truly occupy his centerline.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 5, 2016)

Quite different things going on in this thread.  Mostly noise.
It takes about 6 to 8 years of sustained instruction from a good wing chun instructor
for wing chun to be well embedded in in ones structure, motion and reflexes.

In my own development---while I have done different martial activities for a long long time-

1. Wing chun Ip Man-Ho Kam Ming wing chun is my main art. It involves an integrated conceptual approach
to martial activity and not a collection of techniques- allowing for adjustment to different contexts.

2. After Ho kam Ming- WSL provides good standards of wing chun it seems to me.

3.Wingchun is NOT the only way to fight

4. But one does not need to dilute wing chun to use it imo

5. Its better imo to learn another art well than to learn and use wing chun badly.

6.Only the word wing chun is common to many.Wing chun as a whole right now is a mess.... full of contradictions on structure, function, power, dynamics and development.

7. Folks are usually doing a wide variety of fundamentally different structures and motions.

8.U tube is a source of great confusion.


----------



## JPinAZ (Aug 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may not need to be "on the center" in order to occupy it.
> 
> For example, even if your arms are not exactly "on your center", as long as both of your opponent's arms are "outside of your arms", your arms are more on your center than your opponent's arms are. You arms can still be considered as "on your center".
> 
> This is why the concept of the "separate hands" should be addressed. If you can "separate" your opponent's arms away from his body (as A does in the following picture), you truly occupy his centerline.



This is a really basic/simlpified idea of what WC Centerline is & leaves far too many unanswered questions.

In my experience 'occupy center line' can have no other definition other than you occupy the space directly one the line between you and your opponent (the A-to-B or 'shared' centerline). While there are surely variatious & different levels of understanding of what WC Centerline concept is, this is one constant that cannot be changed - it's universal. 

Now, no one is saying one has to_ follow _idea. And, there are many instances where your hands will need to move off the 'shared centerline'. But the more you veer from this idea, the less efficient you may become.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> In my experience 'occupy center line' can have no other definition other than you occupy the space directly one the line between you and your opponent (the A-to-B or 'shared' centerline).


In the following clip, from a WC guy's point of view, it can be just

- a left Tan Da (left Tan Shou, right punch) followed by
- a right Tan Da (right Tan Shou, left punch).

From a wrestler's point of view, this is also "centerline attack" that you enter through your opponent's "front door" and keep both of his arms away from his center.

Your own arms may not be exactly in your own center. But as long as your arms are more center than your opponent's arms are, that's good enough.


----------



## KPM (Aug 5, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Quite different things going on in this thread.  Mostly noise.
> .



And your post added absolutely nothing to the discussion other than more "noise."  We are talking about how the centerline is understood and used.  That doesn't seem to be what you were talking about.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 7, 2016)

I may be misunderstanding but I believe there is a misunderstanding of the centerline concept here, at least in my lineage it would be a misunderstanding.  In my lineage (YM via GM William Cheung) we use centerline theory but also strive to attack from the "blind side."  To explain this I think I should explain how the centerline is taught to me.  It is basically 3 parts.

1. *My Centerline*.  Picture a rod passing through the top of my head straight down to the ground.  This is not only defining my center of balance but my rotational axis.  Next visualize my gates, the area where I can attack and defend with both hands simultaneously.  I wish to defend that centerline because if it is violated not only am I getting injured, the attacks are disturbing my center, hence my structure hence my ability to attack and defend.

2. * My Opponents*.  Same as the above.

3. *Connecting my center to the opponent's*.  This is where it gets tricky sometimes.  Often people think of attacking the opponent's "center" as that area where they too can attack/defend, in essence people draw then line from the top of the forehead, down the nose and chest etc.  This is not where you are connecting with your opponent.  You are connecting with that central axis.  As such you are still following centerline theory if you use zoning to get to a flank (blind side) and continue to attack.  In essence getting out of your opponent's kill box while keeping him in yours.  The centerline plane (for lack of a better term) starts with me and goes to what ever part of my enemy I am facing.  If I am behind my enemy but attacking that axis passing through his head I am still attacking his centerline from mine.

Now I study both WC and FMA as well (Lacoste-Inosanto Kali specifically).  Maybe because I study both under the same instructor I then look at the "knife" issue as follows. I know the guy has a knife.  Since he has a knife I am not thinking _gan sau_, I am thinking _lap sau_ to the outside, similar to "chasing" in Kali.  I do this because if I am going to strike I want that knife trapped, even if but for a moment so my striking arm doesn't get cut.  When I strike it is to my opponents centerline and I am zoning.  Additionally  the _lap_ can also easily be turned into a wrist lock if I think I have a legit chance to disarm the opponent.  All of this is, due to my training, still following centerline theory.


----------



## KPM (Aug 7, 2016)

_I may be misunderstanding but I believe there is a misunderstanding of the centerline concept here, at least in my lineage it would be a misunderstanding. _

----I don't know about others on the thread, but I understand exactly what you described.  That is how I view the centerline as well.

_Since he has a knife I am not thinking gan sau, I am thinking lap sau to the outside, similar to "chasing" in Kali.  I do this because if I am going to strike I want that knife trapped, even if but for a moment so my striking arm doesn't get cut.  When I strike it is to my opponents centerline and I am zoning.  Additionally  the lap can also easily be turned into a wrist lock if I think I have a legit chance to disarm the opponent.  All of this is, due to my training, still following centerline theory._

----But this is a bit risky as well.  You won't have nearly as good control over the weapon compared to using both hands/arms.  There are many times when facing an edged weapon where you want to face fully towards the oncoming attacking limb and use both hands.  Now you are not directed at the opponent's centerline as you described it and so many would say you are now violating Wing Chun's centerline theory.  I think that is the crux of the issue that Argus was talking about when he started this thread.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm not an FMA guy, but I have done a reasonable amount of Hoch Hochheim style knife work and defense.

The basics of knife to counter a garn/bil/bon are to cut the block, "bounce" off and attack on another line, or push/pull/pin the blocking hand with the free hand and cut again.

Single larp, you are taught very early on to use an inside or outside twirl to cut the larping arm.

This is BASIC knife work. These students EXPECT you to use those types of defences.

You might be way faster at garn or larp than them, but if they've done some training as well I'm betting on your arms being turned into pulled pork PDQ.

I want two hands on that arm like KPM if there's no possibility at all of getting away ASAP.

My first form of training against knives is interval sprints. A distant second is La Canne.

My Jiu Jitsu coach got a black belt in Arnis about fifteen years ago and still teaches it today. When he started he was mainly interested in learning unarmed defence against weapons. All the Filipinos laughed and said, "Why? Did you forget your knife?" 

His attitude to it now is if you can't get away you're probably going to die, but then have nothing to lose, so you might as well have a go. One of his students has successfully defended himself against a knife attack and against another with a baseball bat. My WC instructor has survived five knife fights, but been stabbed seven times. He was a wild lad.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 9, 2016)

anerlich said:


> This is BASIC knife work. These students EXPECT you to use those types of defences.



I'd stop short of saying they'd HOPE you try those defenses; but not by much.


----------



## KPM (Aug 9, 2016)

anerlich said:


> I'd stop short of saying they'd HOPE you try those defenses; but not by much.




Absolutely!  That's why I always point out to Wing Chun guys that think they know how to defend against a knife with their Wing Chun, that they have no idea until they have actually done some real knife training themselves!


----------



## geezer (Aug 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> Absolutely!  That's why I always point out to Wing Chun guys that think they know how to defend against a knife with their Wing Chun, that they have no idea until they have actually done some real knife training themselves!



I fear this is equally true of a lot of TMA people.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 11, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, for the "center line" theory,
> 
> PRO: If your hands are in your opponent's straight line striking path, all his straight line striking will be interrupted by your arms.
> 
> ...


Centerline theory IMO doesn't nessasary mean "putting your hands in you opponent straight line striking path". That's just a generic way of looking at it. It has many layers. The snake engine operates in many ways jk..

But really there is way more to it. Than just drawing a centerline on the opponent and positioning you hands on center.. That would be only fighting hands.. What about using the centerline theory with your whole body? What about slipping a punch using that same "theory". I can.. I can angle and maintain my CL.. It's not magic.. Or maybe it is? All I know is the problem with WC both people that do it and people that are looking in. They fail to look past the top most obvious layer of a concept or idea and take things only at face value.. I haven't read anymore comments so maybe some else already touched on this.. If so oops! Your post made me reply... Cause if what you said is what people think to be true . Then WC would suck and be limited to only straight line attacking and defending.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 11, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> This is a really basic/simlpified idea of what WC Centerline is & leaves far too many unanswered questions.
> 
> In my experience 'occupy center line' can have no other definition other than you occupy the space directly one the line between you and your opponent (the A-to-B or 'shared' centerline). While there are surely variatious & different levels of understanding of what WC Centerline concept is, this is one constant that cannot be changed - it's universal.
> 
> Now, no one is saying one has to_ follow _idea. And, there are many instances where your hands will need to move off the 'shared centerline'. But the more you veer from this idea, the less efficient you may become.


I think we share the same concept for the most part.. I think most these guys are only thinking of fighting arms/hands. I believe in order to control the CL you need to occupy it. There's more than one way to occupy that space though.. Not just by controlling hand positions..For me I'm always striving to occupy that space through "position before transition". Controlling the CL and COG of my opponent by way of CL theory and forward intent.. For me forward intent is just another layer of the CL theory..Or so I've heard lol..


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 11, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may not need to be "on the center" in order to occupy it.
> 
> For example, even if your arms are not exactly "on your center", as long as both of your opponent's arms are "outside of your arms", your arms are more on your center than your opponent's arms are. You arms can still be considered as "on your center".
> 
> This is why the concept of the "separate hands" should be addressed. If you can "separate" your opponent's arms away from his body (as A does in the following picture), you truly occupy his centerline.


In this drawing what if you were clinched .. So Fig A has fig B's neck who would have center? Figure A since he occupies the CL or appears to? No Fig B could just as easy occupy and control the CL.. Ask me how


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 11, 2016)

With a forwadly angle-in collapsing and crumbling FigA structure and taking the CL and occupying it. Couldn't help myself. Oh look CL and forward intent at play go figures.. You notice I didn't say pak the arm punch this or that.. Cause I'm taught to fight the body not arm.. Now I have the CL occupied I cans do what I want. I could elbow, throw, knee what ever I like. Cause I have position.. Chi Sao teaches this


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 11, 2016)

Man I just can't help myself today. I'm posting like a mad man.. Ok so here's a PB vid he angles off quite a bit. Actually in kind of the same way I just described from the clinch.. Problem most non WC MMA OR good grapplers have with what he's doing is.. He keeps pushing the opponent away.. For a Good fighter they look at that like he's just setting them up for an over hand or they'll just grab him and clinch him up..IMO He's putting himself in the wrong range for WC to effectively work against someone other than another WC guy.... My problem with it, is WC is a close range art. If I can get a bridge why push you away and have to start all over again? Once I have a bridge it's time to go to work and end it? I have an open mind so maybe he's training a specific skill? What I described earlier (which is similar to what PB is doing) from Kung fu wangs drawing is actual application.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 11, 2016)

Jake104 said:


> With a forwadly angle-in collapsing and crumbling FigA structure and taking the CL and occupying it.


What's your solution for this "double over hooks"?


----------



## talktalk (Aug 12, 2016)

WC center line - stand square and it easily target .

Side ways and cut in center line 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Aug 12, 2016)

_My problem with it, is WC is a close range art. If I can get a bridge why push you away and have to start all over again? Once I have a bridge it's time to go to work and end it? I have an open mind so maybe he's training a specific skill? _

---I agree with you!  And this is the approach of the Silat I have studied...... 1. enter/close/bridge, 2. disrupt/damage, 3. put him on the ground, 4. finish him  (step 1 &2 may happen at the same time and step 3 & 4 may happen at the same time).   Too many in WC never seem to get past step 1, at least not in the way they train.  They bridge and hit....do lots of Chi Sau focused on bridging and hitting....but few actually work to manipulate the body and balance to disrupt and proceed to an actual finish.  They count on their lightening fast chain punches to put the guy down.    Reality doesn't always work that way.    Now granted, many WC people will tell you that they actually do what I have described in Silat, and some probably do.  But there is no denying that most of the training clips we see and instructional videos we sell don't go past step 1. 

---But Jake go back and read earlier in this thread.  We started out talking about how the use of the centerline differs when facing an unarmed opponent rather than an opponent armed with a knife.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2016)

The reasons that you want to build a bridge are to:

1. pull your opponent's body toward you while you punch him to achieve a head on collision.
2. guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm so when you punch him, he has no arm to block you.
3. create a clinch and take him down.

Will there be any other reason that you want to build an arm bridge?


----------



## Argus (Aug 13, 2016)

Okay, played a little more with this (knife defense) thing yesterday.

I still couldn't get the traditional U-shape knife tapping thing to work well. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I simply miss or take too long with my parries. The cross-side tan/gan is still just awkward for me. Going to keep practicing and see if I can't make it functional, though.

What I _did_ have success with was simply grabbing the knife arm/hand in any way possible, and then transitioning into a lock or disarm. And I'm not even good at locks/disarms 
I also used the "dog catcher" technique... At least, I think that's what it is. I'm assuming it's basically the same as the Gracie technique shown here? 




I tried looking up the "dog catcher" and didn't find much. I did see someone using a reverse tan in conjunction with a gan, even for your standard high line thrusts, and cutting down into the traditional U-pattern to get to the outside. That's very similar to the gracie technique, and I could see how it would potentially easier to intercept with.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 13, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will there be any other reason that you want to build an arm bridge?



Because it looks totally cool and because Donnie Yen does it. [emoji13] 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Argus (Aug 13, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reasons that you want to build a bridge are to:
> 
> 1. pull your opponent's body toward you while you punch him to achieve a head on collision.
> 2. guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm so when you punch him, he has no arm to block you.
> ...



I can think of a few more:
4. feel where your opponent's arm is and feel when a hole (opening) is created, or when his body swings around for the opposite hand to come in.
5. use a technique to remove his arm in order to make room for your own attack. This can be done with more techniques than just pulling, obviously; you can slap, press, jerk, jam, lift, etc.
6. transition into various locks and arm-locks that may not fit your definition of "clinching"
7. immobilise your opponent's arm should it contain a weapon
8. disarm your opponent, should he have a weapon
9. pin his arms while you attack, so that he doesn't have a chance to retaliate. This is similar to your second point, but can can be done in many more ways than just jamming the back arm with the front.

etc. etc.

I'm sure you can think of many more advantages yet, if you think broadly enough. Honestly, most true reasons are too broad and inter-related to be accurately represented in a numbered list. These are, at best, _examples_, rather than _reasons._


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> _I may be misunderstanding but I believe there is a misunderstanding of the centerline concept here, at least in my lineage it would be a misunderstanding. _
> 
> ----I don't know about others on the thread, but I understand exactly what you described.  That is how I view the centerline as well.
> 
> ...



First, against a blade, you accept the STRONG possibility you will get cut.  Second, at least how I am taught, you initially face fully of course but you get out of that killbox ASAP.  You "chase" the blade (_lap sau_ in my example) and zone to the side of the arm that holds the blade, basically help them move the blade and get the heck out of the way at the same time. By "zoning" I mean moving on an angle IN towards my opponent, roughly 45 degrees to the appropriate flank.  I am still fully facing my opponent capable of attacking his center. 

As for the the lock I also don't see how it violates because my Lineage (via Grand Master Cheung) has Chin Na.  Here are a few things you can do which I think would be compliant... but again this is only if you dang well confident to get the lock.  Note all of these are risky but it's always risky to fight a knife wielder open handed. (note this is still using the zoning noted above)

1. strip the knife.  If the blade is large enough you can simply slap/palm strike the flat of the blade and it will drop.  Then attack as normal.  Riskest unless you train it a lot, I wouldn't even think about this without my Kali training on top of it.
2. strip the knife safer.  Using both hands control the wrist and elbow.  He will try to pull the arm free, usually back towards his body/center.  Let him but keep control then direct the blade to his torso or leg and then push the blade hard against him stripping it (you can do this with the flat or the point or the edge and cut him even.)  I have done this full speed in training, it's easier than it sounds once you get used to applying the locks correctly. 
3. You can also simply lock the arm and then kick him in the knee, or if you lock the wrist perform an elbow break, (I prefer elbow strikes for that).  The video I will link below will actually give unarmed examples that I think are WC complaint.

I think I missed one thing in my description btw.  In my WC it is not limited to attacking my opponent's center, it's also about disrupting it.  So If I control the enemies arm and with a kick to the knee get him down on one knee, why punch to his center when I can stomp his ankle and maintain control.  Now maybe it's because my Sifu teaches WC he has used operationally in real world fights but I think, sometimes, WC practitioners can become almost obsessed with attacking the opponent's center and forget that sometimes the fight can be won faster simply by disrupting it and then taking advantage of the opportunities that provides.






(not the best video but I think it gets the points across better than my meager descriptions.)


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 13, 2016)

Argus said:


> Okay, played a little more with this (knife defense) thing yesterday.
> 
> I still couldn't get the traditional U-shape knife tapping thing to work well. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I simply miss or take too long with my parries. The cross-side tan/gan is still just awkward for me. Going to keep practicing and see if I can't make it functional, though.
> 
> ...



That is what I was describing before.  I think the issue you may be having, in the WC mindset is that you are focused on what we do in empty hand.  Those techniques will simply get you cut BUT WC has other techniques that follow what FMA says regarding an open hand vs a knife..."the hand chases the blade".  Since I study both, my mind rather quickly takes the Kali mindset to WC.  Here is an example of how Kali may deal with a knife attack (there are a lot more) and I think the principles are more easily adapted to WC techniques than BJJ.


----------



## Argus (Aug 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> That is what I was describing before.  I think the issue you may be having, in the WC mindset is that you are focused on what we do in empty hand.  Those techniques will simply get you cut BUT WC has other techniques that follow what FMA says regarding an open hand vs a knife..."the hand chases the blade".  Since I study both, my mind rather quickly takes the Kali mindset to WC.  Here is an example of how Kali may deal with a knife attack (there are a lot more) and I think the principles are more easily adapted to WC techniques than BJJ.



Yep. I have done some FMA as well. Actually, I think I need to work on my knife tapping in an FMA sense also, as I haven't quite got it to be functional. It is still awkward and slow for me. 

One thing Tim Waid does in that video is he really uses his footwork to get completely off-line. That's something I don't do enough of, perhaps. But seems like a double-edged sword; I can't move my whole body nearly as quickly as my opponent can redirect the knife, so it's very hard to keep up. 

I just made a thread on this topic in the FMA forums, actually, so feel free to respond there 

I definitely am in the habit of "less is more"/"subtle movement" from WC, where we don't use as big of motions to get out of the way or redirect something, but those large motions seem to be more necessary when weapons are involved. That presents a whole new challenge of actually getting where you need to be in time, though; I usually wind up resorting to smaller motions to keep up with an opponent, but they won't quite be enough to stop or redirect the knife in that case.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 13, 2016)

KPM said:


> 1. enter/close/bridge, 2. disrupt/damage, 3. put him on the ground, 4. finish him  (step 1 &2 may happen at the same time and step 3 & 4 may happen at the same time).   Too many in WC never seem to get past step 1, at least not in the way they train.  They bridge and hit....do lots of Chi Sau focused on bridging and hitting....but few actually work to manipulate the body and balance to disrupt and proceed to an actual finish.  They count on their lightening fast chain punches to put the guy down.    Reality doesn't always work that way.    Now granted, many WC people will tell you that they actually do what I have described in Silat, and some probably do.  But there is no denying that most of the training clips we see and instructional videos we sell don't go past step 1.
> 
> ---But Jake go back and read earlier in this thread.  We started out talking about how the use of the centerline differs when facing an unarmed opponent rather than an opponent armed with a knife.




Exactly.  I think however your first point is responsible for the second.  I once heard a Wing Chun Sifu morn that WC has become a "Chi Sau culture."  People get focused on Chi Sau, which leads to focusing on being "nose to nose" with your opponent, open a path and chain punch.  They don't zone to the "blind side" of the opponent, which is actually a core tenet in the WC school I study in.  Because of this they may not see but they act as if the opponent's center line runs down the front of their body instead of through the body.  Just my 2 cents on a possible reason.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 13, 2016)

Argus said:


> Yep. I have done some FMA as well. Actually, I think I need to work on my knife tapping in an FMA sense also, as I haven't quite got it to be functional. It is still awkward and slow for me.
> 
> One thing Tim Waid does in that video is he really uses his footwork to get completely off-line. That's something I don't do enough of, perhaps. But seems like a double-edged sword; I can't move my whole body nearly as quickly as my opponent can redirect the knife, so it's very hard to keep up.
> 
> ...



One of the things I find most interesting about FMA footwork is how it changes.  When both are unarmed it is little different than my Wing Chun.  When moving between Largo, Medio and Corto, as different weapons get adding into the mix etc the foot work "opens up".  The angles are still largely the same the "size" of the steps do indeed change.  The weapon adds range and since a well balanced weapon, especially a knife, can change direction as quickly as a fist you need the bigger steps.  In my experience though you have to keep the hand motions tighter though because like Tim notes in the video, there is still the other hand that can be coming at you and you have to be prepared to cover it.

I will definitely check out your other thread btw.


----------



## talktalk (Aug 13, 2016)

When talking about weapons such as knife it is dangerous no nonsense don't go against it just look at this clip will explain a lot reality means a lot why what you have trained did help out or useless ... Think over again 











__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1022028564513440


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 13, 2016)

talktalk said:


> When talking about weapons such as knife it is dangerous no nonsense don't go against it just look at this clip will explain a lot reality means a lot why what you have trained did help out or useless ... Think over again
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In real life you may well find yourself having NO CHOICE.  If you are training for honest to goodness self defense and not simply for love of the Martial Arts you need to prepare for this.  Knives are everywhere.  I would say over 50% of the people I encounter (and have a legal reason to pat down or arrest) had either a knife or one of those folding "box cutters" on them.  So the point is to make sure you are training hard and realistically to address the issue.  The other issue to accept the fact there is a DAMN good chance you are going to get cut regardless of how hard you train.  The trick is to make sure you "just" get cut.  

I have arrived on scenes where people have "just" been cut and are walking around, talking etc.  They go to the hospital, get some stitches and are home in a couple hours.  In a real fight there is a good chance you won't feel a "cut" until after the adrenaline wears off.  However I also have been on a particular scene where a person got stabbed in the femoral artery.  They tried to mug an immigrant from a "knife culture" said immigrant stabbed them.  The suspect sure as heck felt that one (inner thigh, near the groin?!?!?) and ran.  The suspect made it less than 50 feet before he dropped due to blood loss and was dead on our arrival.


----------



## KangTsai (Aug 14, 2016)

In my MMA/boxing/kickboxing context, that kind of fight behaviour would have me pounded the hell out of me. I see a centreline as a vulnerable position that I should be avoiding staying in. Every technique I use has some sort of thing to protect me from the threat of the centre, whether it be a basic jab to my favourite spinning hook kick, swivelling shoulders and leaning outward respectively. Wing chun is good but I think sticky hand fighting never worked for me ever. To me, "simultaneous attack and defence" is reflected in something like a diagonal hand trap/parry to a big hook punch, or a roundhouse leaning to the side.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> In my MMA/boxing/kickboxing context, that kind of fight behaviour would have me pounded the hell out of me. I see a centreline as a vulnerable position that I should be avoiding staying in. Every technique I use has some sort of thing to protect me from the threat of the centre, whether it be a basic jab to my favourite spinning hook kick, swivelling shoulders and leaning outward respectively. Wing chun is good but I think sticky hand fighting never worked for me ever. To me, "simultaneous attack and defence" is reflected in something like a diagonal hand trap/parry to a big hook punch, or a roundhouse leaning to the side.


See that is the thing.  The opponent's center line is NOT their front.  Some people do see the centerline as running down the front of the opponent but is doesnt.

The center line is an axis that goes through the top of the head through to the ground.  So you can attack their center from their flank, their rear etc.  As this also represents their center of balance and axis of rotation attacking it and disrupting it inhibits their ability to attack and defend.  You always want to try to get to "the blind side."

Your personal centerline has an added concern for you, you want to keep yourself faced to your opponent in such a way that you can attack and defend the same target with both hands.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 14, 2016)

Yep...Attack the Core, attack the core, attack the core.


----------



## KPM (Aug 14, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Yep...Attack the Core, attack the core, attack the core.



Unless he has a knife!!!


----------



## Danny T (Aug 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Unless he has a knife!!!


Ok.
My training is to still attack the core if distance can not be created. It may not the very first action but the attack or counter attack will be to the core. May be direct or through the attackers limb but still directed at attacking the core in some manner. Strike it, displace it, turn it, twist it, off balance it the core still is being attacked.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 14, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> My training is to still attack the core if distance can not be created. It may not the very first action but the attack or counter attack will be to the core. May be direct or through the attackers limb but still directed at attacking the core in some manner. Strike it, displace it, turn it, twist it, off balance it the core still is being attacked.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KPM and may others imo do not understand wing chun well enough IMO. One should not be a fool in facing a knife. The chances are great that some injury will take place when the other guy only has a knife. Each situation is different. I have to deal with a knife in the other guy's hand in two differnt countries.
Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Wing chun involves among many other things-body unity, timings, footwork repertoire,great alertness, focus and adaptaion to circumstances.
This post is just to state my premises- not to argue with KPM.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> See that is the thing.  The opponent's center line is NOT their front.  Some people do see the centerline as running down the front of the opponent but is doesnt.
> 
> The center line is an axis that goes through the top of the head through to the ground.  So you can attack their center from their flank, their rear etc.  As this also represents their center of balance and axis of rotation attacking it and disrupting it inhibits their ability to attack and defend.  You always want to try to get to "the blind side."
> 
> Your personal centerline has an added concern for you, you want to keep yourself faced to your opponent in such a way that you can attack and defend the same target with both hands.



Let me clarify something.  I think the confusion for someone that doesn't practice Wing Chun gets confused by the following.

I want to attack the Centerline of my opponent as I noted above, you simply want to attack the "core" regardless of what quadrant you are attacking from .  

I want to defend my centerline by always keeping my opponent in a position where I can defend (and attack) with both hands.  

There is a funny consequence of this.  Sometimes, in free sparing, you will see the combatants appearing to walk in circles in circles as each tries to get to the others flank while keeping their centerline facing the opponent.  Now if you actually look at the footwork it's linear, you would be drawing triangles on the mat, but if you just look at their upper bodies it looks like a circular dance of sorts.  This doesn't happen all the time of course but when it does it is fascinating to watch.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> My training is to still attack the core if distance can not be created. It may not the very first action but the attack or counter attack will be to the core. May be direct or through the attackers limb but still directed at attacking the core in some manner. Strike it, displace it, turn it, twist it, off balance it the core still is being attacked.



and @Vajramusti I think KPM was talking about the original premise of this thread.  The problem the OP seemed to have was that he was TOO focused on "the Core" and so was, in essence, facing and then eating the knife.  We thus started to compartmentalize things for simplicity's sake in order to try and more clearly explain the difference between addressing a knife vs empty hand via various techniques and footwork.

Indeed if you strike, displace, turn or twist an armed limb to deal with a weapon, these actions are attacking the core (to attack the core does not necessarily mean punching for the torso/head).  The problem was the OP was going "straight" in to address the knife as we would a punch and so was "eating" the knife.  So breaking it into two steps, address the knife then counter, seemed the easiest way to explain the issue.  Sometimes when people see "attack the core" they are picturing "go straight in" which was the problem the OP had in the first place.

I believe KPM's comment was simply returning to the original problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Quite different things going on in this thread.  Mostly noise.
> It takes about 6 to 8 years of sustained instruction from a good wing chun instructor
> for wing chun to be well embedded in in ones structure, motion and reflexes.
> 
> ...


Was there an actual point to this post?


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Was there an actual point to this post?



I was trying to figure that out.  I assume he did not read the OP.  EVERY Martial Art shares the "...is not a collection of techniques. <insert Martial art here> involves among many other things-body unity, timings, footwork repertoire,great alertness, focus and adaptaion to circumstances.

The problem is that certain techniques, in any martial art, are ill suited to addressing a knife attack and the OP was having an issue because he was using a methodology that works great when dealing with empty hands but falls short and almost ensures injury when dealing with a knife wielding attacker. I can only assume that he had not read the responses in complete context because he basically said what we have been saying all along.  The OP was stuck in a certain mindset and was failing to adapt to the different circumstances of a knife fight.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Was there an actual point to this post?


------------------------------------------------

If the post was not clear-let it go.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> If the post was not clear-let it go.



It was clear, it was simply responding to something that was never said or claimed.  As such it was, to an extent, a non sequitur and those have little point.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> KPM and may others imo do not understand wing chun well enough IMO. One should not be a fool in facing a knife. The chances are great that some injury will take place when the other guy only has a knife. Each situation is different. I have to deal with a knife in the other guy's hand in two differnt countries.
> Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Wing chun involves among many other things-body unity, timings, footwork repertoire,great alertness, focus and adaptaion to circumstances.
> This post is just to state my premises- not to argue with KPM.



I understand Wing Chun just fine.  IMO...you don't understand the realities of dealing with someone with a knife.  Do you have anything actually constructive to contribute to this thread.....like maybe how you would use your Wing Chun to deal with an attacker with a knife?  Or not?  Both posts you have made so far have contributed nothing other than....in your words....noise.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> My training is to still attack the core if distance can not be created. It may not the very first action but the attack or counter attack will be to the core. May be direct or through the attackers limb but still directed at attacking the core in some manner. Strike it, displace it, turn it, twist it, off balance it the core still is being attacked.




I agree!  But this is all AFTER you have positive control of that knife!


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> But this is all AFTER you have positive control of that knife!


I can agree 'IF' the situation is such that I can not create distance First.
I do not want to engage if I can have distance therefore I would 'Evade' creating distance in doing so.

If the situation is such that I must defend immediately then 'Evade, Stun/Disrupt, Distance' are my primary actions. Within the Evade action my primary tactic is to 'Knock the hell out of the attacker or to disrupt his core through the attacking limb' and create Distance.
Then and only then; 'IF' I must stay engaged my tactic is to control the weapon limb. It will always be situational.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH1JqKdfC24
In the video; Take note with the first example of the footwork to evade with a left hand pass as the right eye jabs then the weapon arm is taken control of.
At 043 he clips the elbow and attacks the shoulder and head prior to having positive control of the weapon arm.
At 1.05 on the inside counter there is a secondary hand check of the attacking limb while attacking the head/eyes with the primary prior to the primary arm passing and the following stun/disrupting attacks to the shoulder and the neck/head while continuing to creating distance. All creating a disruption of the opponent's core.
At 1.42 there is a stun to the attacking arm, a parry with an attack to the head as he takes control of the wrist. It is the disrupting head attack that allows the wrist control to be maintained.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2016)

_I can agree 'IF' the situation is such that I can not create distance First._

---Well, yeah.  If you can keep your distance and don't have to engage the opponent at all, that is best!


_I do not want to engage if I can have distance therefore I would 'Evade' creating distance in doing so._

---But unless your plan is to turn and run, you have to close and engage the opponent at some point.  If you don't have positive control of his weapon arm when you do so, then you are at a much higher risk. 


_If the situation is such that I must defend immediately then 'Evade, Stun/Disrupt, Distance' are my primary actions. Within the Evade action my primary tactic is to 'Knock the hell out of the attacker or to disrupt his core through the attacking limb' and create Distance._
---Sure.  But you can't rely on that.  If his knife is still in hand his knife is still a threat.


_In the video; Take note with the first example of the footwork to evade with a left hand pass as the right eye jabs then the weapon arm is taken control of._

---In every example on that video he is addressing the weapon arm before the core.  Even when he makes those quick strikes on the way to gaining control of the arm he has not significantly attacked the core yet.  I'm sure he would tell you that those quick strikes cannot be relied upon to stop the opponent.  They are only a distraction to help gain control of that weapon arm.  A means to "soften him up."  

---And I never see him rely on "stunning" the arm alone as his defense.  He always gains positive control of the weapon arm before he proceeds to significantly affect the opponent's core in a manner to "take him out." 

---Nice video, BTW.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

He parries the weapon arm yes and uses body displacement to not be in the arc of the blade as he disrupts. 
And I agree the eye jabs or the strikes will not be even thought of as a stopper. Even if I were to strike someone empty handed I wouldn't consider any one strike as a stopper... you would?
Never stated anything about any stunning alone as a defense. I said Evan, Stun, Create distance. I also said to attack the core previously and that the attack to the core could be through a limb. Strike it, turn it, off balance it, twist it is still attacking the core. The strikes, controls, etc all affect the core.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> I understand Wing Chun just fine.  IMO...you don't understand the realities of dealing with someone with a knife.  Do you have anything actually constructive to contribute to this thread.....like maybe how you would use your Wing Chun to deal with an attacker with a knife?  Or not?  Both posts you have made so far have contributed nothing other than....in your words....noise.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think that you have an integrated understanding of wing chun. Good integration of wing chun means that the person 
can use the environment- space, time, angles, distance, understanding velocities to control the situation, the knife holder and the knife.Of course there are risks in encounters.And each encounter has some unique variables. But the skill of the wing chun person is the key variable.
Ip Man has faced  a knife, so has WSL. so have several of HKM's students.Many others have not.

Others can use FMA  etc.. but that is not my cup of tea-ina wing chun forum.I dont expect you to agree with me and that is ok.


----------



## marques (Aug 15, 2016)

Can someone explain me the obsessi... definition of centerline theory in little words?
Most of the (T)KO come from a lateral blow. So, or I misunderstand the concept or you are neglecting the paramount relevant "lateral lines"...


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 15, 2016)

marques said:


> Can someone explain me the obsessi... definition of centerline theory in little words?
> Most of the (T)KO come from a lateral blow. So, or I misunderstand the concept or you are neglecting the paramount relevant "lateral lines"...





marques said:


> Can someone explain me the obsessi... definition of centerline theory in little words?
> Most of the (T)KO come from a lateral blow. So, or I misunderstand the concept or you are neglecting the paramount relevant "lateral lines"...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
little words? jung sin is  a key  centerline in front of you. ngoi jung sin is the inside line.. but....the jung sin changes as you move.
The most important line is the jung sum sin-the motherline. I once wrote an article published by the the now defunct journal of Asian Martial arts
titled- Defending the Mother line.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

marques said:


> Can someone explain me the obsessi... definition of centerline theory in little words?
> Most of the (T)KO come from a lateral blow. So, or I misunderstand the concept or you are neglecting the paramount relevant "lateral lines"...


Core of the body = motherline, this is the center of the body head to floor
Center line or center plane = imaginary plane derived from the motherline through the center of the chest forward.
Central line = the line from my motherline to my opponent/s's motherline.

This is my understanding.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2016)

^^^^^  But Joy is likely to tell us we have an incomplete and superficial understanding of centerline.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I dont think that you have an integrated understanding of wing chun. Good integration of wing chun means that the person
> can use the environment- space, time, angles, distance, understanding velocities to control the situation, the knife holder and the knife.Of course there are risks in encounters.And each encounter has some unique variables. But the skill of the wing chun person is the key variable.
> Ip Man has faced  a knife, so has WSL. so have several of HKM's students.Many others have not.
> ...



More noise.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^  But Joy is likely to tell us we have an incomplete and superficial understanding of centerline.


If your understanding is as I stated, what constitutes 'attacking the core'?


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> I once wrote an article published by the the now defunct journal of Asian Martial arts
> titled- Defending the Mother line.


An informative short read. Thank you for referring it.http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/defending_the_motherline.pdf

If anyone may be interested 
http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/defending_the_motherline.pdf


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^  But Joy is likely to tell us we have an incomplete and superficial understanding of centerline.


I may but non the less it is what my understanding is at this time. I continue to research, practice, and develop. In doing so I may well gain a deeper understanding. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I know and understand what I know and understand. We all have different perspectives and that is ok.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 15, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I may but non the less it is what my understanding is at this time. I continue to research, practice, and develop. In doing so I may well gain a deeper understanding. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I know and understand what I know and understand. We all have different perspectives and that is ok.


------------------------------------------------
ok for sure


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I dont think that you have an integrated understanding of wing chun. Good integration of wing chun means that the person
> can use the environment- space, time, angles, distance, understanding velocities to control the situation, the knife holder and the knife.Of course there are risks in encounters.And each encounter has some unique variables. But the skill of the wing chun person is the key variable.
> Ip Man has faced  a knife, so has WSL. so have several of HKM's students.Many others have not.
> ...



Again you are talking about stuff we understand and really what you say amounts to providing the general theory of the art without giving constructive analysis of the OPs issue.  The OP stated that he had a specific problem addressing a specific drill. A couple options, among countless options, were given in order to address a specific issue, to open the mind.  Addressing a knife is very different than addressing empty hands.  

Simply responding the way you isn't actually constructive in pointing out the difference and then pointing out the direction the mind has to turn to in order to address the different dynamics.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Core of the body = motherline, this is the center of the body head to floor
> Center line or center plane = imaginary plane derived from the motherline through the center of the chest forward.
> Central line = the line from my motherline to my opponent/s's motherline.
> 
> This is my understanding.



Yeah I remember reading one person say that they think the founders of Wing Chun wanted to play a joke and confuse us with using the term centerline to refer to 3 different things.

The only thing I would, add, because a couple people have already made the mistake on this thread, is that the centerline plane does not have to connect with the opponent "nose to nose", it connects to their core regardless of whether we are on a flank or to the rear.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Yeah I remember reading one person say that they think the founders of Wing Chun wanted to play a joke and confuse us with using the term centerline to refer to 3 different things.


LOL.


Juany118 said:


> The only thing I would, add, because a couple people have already made the mistake on this thread, is that the centerline plane does not have to connect with the opponent "nose to nose", it connects to their core regardless of whether we are on a flank or to the rear.


It connects to the opponent's core when using facing no matter where you are.
A wing chun person can attack the core along the central line when not using facing.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> An informative short read. Thank you for referring it.
> 
> If anyone may be interested
> http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/defending_the_motherline.pdf



Yes.  A good article.  I remember reading this when it first came out.  It appears Joy has made a constructive contribution to this thread in spite of himself!


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> If your understanding is as I stated, what constitutes 'attacking the core'?



From a Wing Chun perspective, I see attacking the core as focusing a strike into the motherline of the opponent, or moving through the motherline of the opponent with your footwork.   I see now that you have referred to manipulating an arm  as also attacking the core.  While I agree with this in essence, I don't think it is how most Wing Chun people would view it.  After all, any Jiu Jitsu or Chin Na technique ever devised also "attacks the core" because they are going to off-balance the opponent in some way and make him move his motherline.  Every Judo throw or Silat sweep is also "attacking the core" for the same reason.  So really, seen from such a broad perspective, there are very few techniques that wouldn't "attack the core." 

So focusing on the weapon arm to control it while off-balancing the opponent in some way definitely attacks the core.  But it is indirect.

Unless I have misunderstood what you mean by "attacking the core"?


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I may but non the less it is what my understanding is at this time. I continue to research, practice, and develop. In doing so I may well gain a deeper understanding. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I know and understand what I know and understand. We all have different perspectives and that is ok.




Oh yes!  I agree with you!  But then again, you aren't the one whom Joy has said doesn't have a "full understanding of centerline" and that does not have a "integrated knowledge of Wing Chun" or said that an explanation of dealing with a knife is just "noise."  So evidently not everyone here believes that "different perspectives are ok."


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> Oh yes!  I agree with you!  But then again, you aren't the one whom Joy has said doesn't have a "full understanding of centerline" and that does not have a "integrated knowledge of Wing Chun" or said that an explanation of dealing with a knife is just "noise."  So evidently not everyone here believes that "different perspectives are ok."



I think the problem is some people get wrapped up in theory and philosophy.  What can happen when this happens?

A person noted hey have having an issue countering a specific kind of attack.  It appears the issue is with the person's mindset so someone posts a single alternative simply because that alternative is representative of the mindset change needed.  It is not THE solution, simply a single representation.

This however gives a person wrapped up in the philosophy a problem because it is, for lack of a better term, using the KISS principle.  Sure one could have gone on for paragraphs about all the different methods, or given no concrete assistance and just written philosophical noise.  However neither of these is helpful.  Sometimes all need to say is "why don't you try widening your foot work and 'chase' the blade" as both are consistent with WC philosophy and techniques exist to do so.  Sometimes to see all of the various possibilities all it takes is to see one to turn on the light bulb.

What kills me is his only issue appears to be with semantics, how suggestions were made, because he said this...



> ..Wing chun involves among many other things-body unity, timings, footwork repertoire,great alertness, focus and adaptaion tocircumstances.



These aren't Wing Chin principles these are Generic Martial Arts principles.  I really don't understand his line of logic at all because as much as he is arguing some don't understand Wing Chun he hasn't actually noted anything that is particular to Wing Chun.

While I don't know him I am sure he is knowledgeable but I simply see his arguments on this thread, to this point, to be unconstructive and simply looking to argue and I don't know why


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

^^^^ I could be misinterpreting things....and it may even be something that Joy doesn't realize or recognize himself.....but it sure seems lately that anytime I have posted something on various threads he feels the need to make a comment implying that I don't know what I am talking about and don't really understand Wing Chun.  You may think I am paranoid.  But all you have to do is look up his posts on his profile page and see how many of them have been negative responses to something I have posted.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> ^^^^ I could be misinterpreting things....and it may even be something that Joy doesn't realize or recognize himself.....but it sure seems lately that anytime I have posted something on various threads he feels the need to make a comment implying that I don't know what I am talking about and don't really understand Wing Chun.  You may think I am paranoid.  But all you have to do is look up his posts on his profile page and see how many of them have been negative responses to something I have posted.


If that is the case there is always a motive.  At first blush a possible motive would be the back and forth on the thread regarding learning Martial Arts from videos?


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I may but non the less it is what my understanding is at this time. I continue to research, practice, and develop. In doing so I may well gain a deeper understanding. I've never claimed to have all the answers. I know and understand what I know and understand. We all have different perspectives and that is ok.


-------------------------------------------- Danny comes from a good Jiu Wan background if memory serves.
I have not criticized Danny's posts.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> If that is the case there is always a motive.  At first blush a possible motive would be the back and forth on the thread regarding learning Martial Arts from videos?



No.  That was just one of several.  It started before that.   Not sure what the motive is.  Joy seems to have something against me I guess.   It may be because I have chosen to study other arts than Wing Chun.  So I am a "defector" from the family.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> From a Wing Chun perspective, I see attacking the core as focusing a strike into the motherline of the opponent, or moving through the motherline of the opponent with your footwork.   I see now that you have referred to manipulating an arm  as also attacking the core.  While I agree with this in essence, I don't think it is how most Wing Chun people would view it.  After all, any Jiu Jitsu or Chin Na technique ever devised also "attacks the core" because they are going to off-balance the opponent in some way and make him move his motherline.  Every Judo throw or Silat sweep is also "attacking the core" for the same reason.  So really, seen from such a broad perspective, there are very few techniques that wouldn't "attack the core."
> 
> So focusing on the weapon arm to control it while off-balancing the opponent in some way definitely attacks the core.  But it is indirect.
> 
> Unless I have misunderstood what you mean by "attacking the core"?


My understanding of wing chun is all actions are to attack the core in some form or fashion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> there are very few techniques that wouldn't "attack the core."


Agree! If you don't attack the core, where else will you attack?  If "centerline" = "attack the core" then all MA systems are using that principle.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> My understanding of wing chun is all actions are to attack the core in some form or fashion.



Ok.  Then like I said....ALL techniques that disturb the opponent's balance in some way could be seen as "attacking the core." So that designation begins to lose any kind of special meaning.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2016)

This is "attacking the core".

You

- push your opponent's neck (the core) down, and
- kick his legs (the core) off the ground.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2016)

To say that

- a punch on the nose (center of the body) is "attacking the core", but
- a punch on the heart (not at the center of the body) is not "attacking the core",

will make little sense.

IMO, to attack on the

- core may force your opponent's body to move back.
- non-core may force your opponent's body to spin.

Both will have purposes. Unless you believe that the WC "centerline" theory is not to allow your opponent's body to "spin". If that's the case, you still cannot prevent your opponent's core from shifting to the side.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

Danny T said:


> My understanding of wing chun is all actions are to attack the core in some form or fashion.



I think KPM is asking is do you mean one must directly attack the core or is displacing someone also counts.  As an example someone is coming with a knife, you manage to control the limb with Chin-Na, then take them down to the ground by whatever technique.  You clear have attacked their "center" because they are now on their butt or face BUT you did not directly attack their core with a strike.  KPM can correct me if I am wrong on this point.


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2016)

^^^^^ Exactly!  But Danny didn't clarify that with post #95 at all.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2016)

What action/s within wing chun are designed or utilized for not attacking or disrupting the motherline?
.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What action/s within wing chun are designed or utilized for not attacking or disrupting the motherline?
> .



The problem is, in other threads (not you) have said that if you say disrupt with the chin na you learn you weren't doing WC because WC is about striking and attacking (typically the two "usual" suspects on that one.)


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What action/s within wing chun are designed or utilized for not attacking or disrupting the motherline?
> .



True.  But the same question could be asked of Silat, Filipino Marital Arts, Japanese Jiu Jitsu, etc.   So it loses value as a descriptor when viewed so broadly.  That was my point.   I don't view it so broadly.  Hence when you said always "attack the core" I was thinking of directly attacking the core....which is in many cases would be suicide against someone with a knife if you have not first gained positive control of that knife.  That should have been obvious from all my prior posts on this thread.  This whole exercise in "what do you mean by attacking the core" was unnecessary.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem is, in other threads (not you) have said that if you say disrupt with the chin na you learn you weren't doing WC because WC is about striking and attacking (typically the two "usual" suspects on that one.)


I understand what others say...


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I understand what others say...



I know you do, I just don't think KPM was getting it.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> True.  But the same question could be asked of Silat, Filipino Marital Arts, Japanese Jiu Jitsu, etc.   So it loses value as a descriptor when viewed so broadly.  That was my point.   I don't view it so broadly.  Hence when you said always "attack the core" I was thinking of directly attacking the core....which is in many cases would be suicide against someone with a knife if you have not first gained positive control of that knife.  That should have been obvious from all my prior posts on this thread.  This whole exercise in "what do you mean by attacking the core" was unnecessary.



Not really because you have to look at the Centerline theory from all three points, yours, theirs and the centerline plane, in conjunction with proper structure.  Simply looking at the one component removes the context and creates an false vision.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> True.  But the same question could be asked of Silat, Filipino Marital Arts, Japanese Jiu Jitsu, etc.   So it loses value as a descriptor when viewed so broadly.  That was my point.   I don't view it so broadly.  Hence when you said always "attack the core" I was thinking of directly attacking the core....which is in many cases would be suicide against someone with a knife if you have not first gained positive control of that knife.  That should have been obvious from all my prior posts on this thread.  This whole exercise in "what do you mean by attacking the core" was unnecessary.


Ok.

I then can only assume if I were to perform... uh... say a qua sao action deflecting a mid to low line thrust attack while also punching the opponent with the Jum or Jop action punch prior to having gain positive control of the weapon... that would be completely inappropriate. 

I'll have to remember that next time... it there is ever a next time (hopefully not).

Now this is a technique specific example that did occur.


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Not really because you have to look at the Centerline theory from all three points, yours, theirs and the centerline plane, in conjunction with proper structure.  Simply looking at the one component removes the context and creates an false vision.



No.  Using Danny's definition,  "attacking the core" doesn't necessarily have to do with all three centerlines.  The context is simply making the opponent's motherline move so that he is off-balanced.  No false vision there.


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> 
> I then can only assume if I were to perform... uh... say a qua sao action deflecting a mid to low line thrust attack while also punching the opponent with the Jum or Jop action punch prior to having gain positive control of the weapon... that would be completely inappropriate.
> 
> ...



I never said that.  I said that this would be a potentially risky move because you don't have positive control of the knife.  Someone with even a little bit of knowledge of the knife could simply redirect and do you major damage whether your punch lands solidly or not.  Personally, I'm not willing to take that kind of chance if I know I'm dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon.  Maybe it worked for you in one situation.  That's great!  But any number of other even riskier things might have worked for one specific situation as well.   Doesn't mean I would want to gamble my life on it in the future.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> I never said that.  I said that this would be a potentially risky move because you don't have positive control of the knife.  Someone with even a little bit of knowledge of the knife could simply redirect and do you major damage whether your punch lands solidly or not.  Personally, I'm not willing to take that kind of chance if I know I'm dealing with someone carrying a deadly weapon.  Maybe it worked for you in one situation.  That's great!  But any number of other even riskier things might have worked for one specific situation as well.   Doesn't mean I would want to gamble my life on it in the future.


Uh...
Post #59 I stated  “Yep...Attack the Core, attack the core, attack the core.”
In #60 You quoted my post #59 and stated: “Unless he has a knife!!! 

In my example I am attacking the core. I can attack through the arm to the neck/jaw/chest or directly to the targets. 
It's is like doing a pak to an attackers arm; do you pak down, to the side of the opponent or to disrupt the core?


----------



## anerlich (Aug 17, 2016)

You would be far better to control of that weapon, or be well out of range IMO. Assuming techniques that are reasonably safe against empty hands will necessarily be safe against a blade is a major mistake.

If the knife is sharp, he can redirect and cut your blocks. It requires little to no effort on his part. You could end up with a significant bleed or severed tendons, making it difficult to perform that follow up punch, which he could also cut. And if the punch doesn't do significant damage, you've not gained much. Much harder for you to damage him seriously than the other way round.

A trained knife fighter is EXPECTING, or HOPING, you are going to use defences like tan, garn, bon, quan, etc. You are effectively presenting him with an arm for him to cut. "Cut the block" is a basic counter in the knife system I learned. Grabbing the arm is marginally better, though all he has to do there is twirl the wrist and cut you again. You might be really good at chi sao and all, but your margin for error is way smaller than his. Knife fighting systems have similar types of drills, and assuming your skills are better than his might be overly optimistic.

Two hands on the knife arm is really the only chance of controlling that weapon. And your chances of that aren't all that great if the other person is trained. Anyone, trained in Wing Chun or not, going into a knife fight  unarmed has a greater than zero chance of dying.

IMO this is similar to grappling. You don't have to invest a huge of time learning enough to increase your chances of survival against the untrained, and also to realise how dangerous a competent grappler or knifefighter can be.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Uh...
> Post #59 I stated  “Yep...Attack the Core, attack the core, attack the core.”
> In #60 You quoted my post #59 and stated: “Unless he has a knife!!!
> 
> ...



And, once again....you were the one that came back with "how do you understand 'attack the core?'" and we went through this whole pointless exercise when all you had to do was clarify right after my post #60 what YOU meant in that  statement in post #59.   And you totally avoided my last point in post #110.   Turns out this is another one of those discussions that is going nowhere.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2016)

There is an old saying in FMA circles:   You have a 1 in 3 chance of surviving a knife fight.   If you are better than him, you live.  If he is better than you, you die.  If you are equally skilled, you both die.    Now imagine that same sentiment when the attacker has a knife and you don't!   To think that you can reliably and consistently defend against an attacker armed with a knife without training a system that teaches about actual knife fighting, and by using a system that wasn't initially designed to deal with small knives (thinking you can just use your same or similar empty-hand skills) is, shall we say, a bit misguided.     And the responses so far in this thread seem to prove that point.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 18, 2016)

Are you referring to your comment on redirecting ?

That is why I am attacking through the attacking arm to the core. If there is a redirection of the attack that will be picked up by my attacking arm and body positioning. Yes I will have to abandon my attack to pick up the redirected weapon attack.


In a bladed weapon attack:
I do not want to engage but as a last resort.
-  If I realize there is a knife I’ll quickly create space, get away, or get something between myself and the bad guy.
-  If I realize too late to just get away then Evading with a stun or disruption is my focus. It is to buy the time to safely get away.
-  If I have to engage and maintain engagement of some sort then Yes I will want to secure positive control of the weapon arm/hand.

I f I have to control the weapon arm/hand and get control of it I am NOT GOING TO LET GO OF IT until I know I can safely do so and get away.

My First choice is to evade and get away never having engaged to begin with.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2016)

^^^^ Well alrighty then!    That didn't seem to be what you were saying in prior posts.  So all along you have been agreeing with me, but waited until now to say so??


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2016)

So what's so special about "attacking the core"? All MA systems does that. When you

- swing a hay-maker,
- throw a roundhouse kick,
- lift your leg between your opponent's groin,
- ...

you are attacking your opponent's "core".

To me, the "centerline" theory is to "attack through the "front door" - attack between both arms".


----------



## Danny T (Aug 18, 2016)

KPM said:


> ^^^^ Well alrighty then!    That didn't seem to be what you were saying in prior posts.  So all along you have been agreeing with me, but waited until now to say so??


Post 71


----------



## talktalk (Aug 18, 2016)

There is nothing special about core attack when talking about knife if gets cut that all is unpredictability neither this way nor that way there are too much ways here and who to believe. Styles become crystallization 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Aug 19, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Post 71



Well, this:

*I then can only assume if I were to perform... uh... say a qua sao action deflecting a mid to low line thrust attack while also punching the opponent with the Jum or Jop action punch prior to having gain positive control of the weapon... that would be completely inappropriate*

Certainly doesn't seem to  be the same as this:

*- If I have to engage and maintain engagement of some sort then Yes I will want to secure positive control of the weapon arm/hand.

I f I have to control the weapon arm/hand and get control of it I am NOT GOING TO LET GO OF IT until I know I can safely do so and get away*.

And you have been argumentative rather than acknowledging that you agree with the points I have been making and explaining how what you do is much the same.


----------



## KPM (Aug 19, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So what's so special about "attacking the core"? All MA systems does that. When you
> 
> - swing a hay-maker,
> - throw a roundhouse kick,
> ...



Here is where we will part ways John.  Because I don't think you have to be between the opponent's arms to be using centerline theory.  In an empty hand vs. empty hand situation, if I have grabbed one of his wrist/arms with a Lop Sau to turn him away from me and disrupt his balance while exposing his flank......and at the same time throwing a drilling punch into his ribs with the force focused directly into his motherline.......I have used centerline theory without staying between his arms.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 19, 2016)

Keith I started this with attack the core.

You say unless he has a knife.

I stated my training is to still attack the core if distance can not be created.

You agreed but only after having positive control of that knife.
(If I have positive control of the knife why would I create distance? If I have Positive Control I’m not letting go if I do I’m back to where I can get damaged. If I have positive control of the weapon arm that also means I am still engaged and in a fight with the attacker. That is not where I want to be.)

It comes down to this: My number 2 tactic is; I would engage while using footwork and body positioning to evade while attacking the core (in some manner) to stun or disrupt the opponent and continue to create distance to get away from the blade if possible. I would only go for positive control of the weapon arm IF I CAN NOT CREATE DISTANCE.

You disagree and would First obtain positive control of the weapon arm.
Ok, that is your position.  Mine is, I don't want to be there unless I have no other course of action.

I'm not attempting to be argumentative.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Here is where we will part ways John.  Because I don't think you have to be between the opponent's arms to be using centerline theory.


^^^^ Yep.


----------



## KPM (Aug 19, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Keith I started this with attack the core.
> 
> You say unless he has a knife.
> 
> ...



Ok.  Fair enough!  Thanks Danny!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2016)

If both of the following situations can be considered as "centerline attack" then what's so special about "centerline attack"?

When you are in your opponent's

- front door, you separate his arms away from his body and take his center.
- side door, you guide his leading arm to jam his back arm and take his side.

By using the common "4 sides" strategies, your arm (such as Tan Shou) can contact the

1. outside of your opponent's left arm.
2. inside of your opponent's left arm.
3. inside of your opponent's right arm.
4. outside of your opponent's right arm.

All MA systems on this planet apply these strategies.

Example of your "Tan Shou" contacts the inside of your opponent's right arm (the 3rd side).









Example of your "Tan Shou" contacts the outside of your opponent's left arm (the 1st side).


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 20, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If both of the following situations can be considered as "centerline attack" then what's so special about "centerline attack"?
> 
> When you are in your opponent's
> 
> ...



It's not the theory itself but how the particular adherence to it effects everything.  That's why earlier I said you can't just take one part of the centerline theory in isolation.  Now the following is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing.

You have centerline theory, along with body structure and then the actual techniques.  The body structure is designed so that you are using skeletal structure vs muscles as the prime "mover" of many techniques (tan and bong as examples).  Part of what makes this work is that even these defenses utilize forwarding energy along the practitioners centerline, which is very different (imo) than many of the blocks I learned when studying Karate.  The same goes for strikes.   

So in a way, it's not the centerline theory that is unique, it's how centerline theory doesn't simply define what you defend and what you attack but how it directly influences the techniques used to achieve these goals.  At least that's my take.  More experienced people like Danny T etc can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It's not the theory itself but how the particular adherence to it effects everything.  That's why earlier I said you can't just take one part of the centerline theory in isolation.  Now the following is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" thing.
> 
> You have centerline theory, along with body structure and then the actual techniques.  The body structure is designed so that you are using skeletal structure vs muscles as the prime "mover" of many techniques (tan and bong as examples).  Part of what makes this work is that even these defenses utilize forwarding energy along the practitioners centerline, which is very different (imo) than many of the blocks I learned when studying Karate.  The same goes for strikes.
> 
> So in a way, it's not the centerline theory that is unique, it's how centerline theory doesn't simply define what you defend and what you attack but how it directly influences the techniques used to achieve these goals.  At least that's my take.






Juany118 said:


> More experienced people like Danny T etc can correct me if I am wrong.


LOL. Not sure about 'more experience' however, what you describe above is much my understanding. I would add; when angling and facing I'd prefer an advantage of my six gates to the opponent's 3 vs 6 to 6. This would be whether being inside or outside of his guard.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 20, 2016)

Danny T said:


> LOL. Not sure about 'more experience' however, what you describe above is much my understanding. I would add; when angling and facing I'd prefer an advantage of my six gates to the opponent's 3 vs 6 to 6. This would be whether being inside or outside of his guard.





Danny T said:


> LOL. Not sure about 'more experience' however, what you describe above is much my understanding. I would add; when angling and facing I'd prefer an advantage of my six gates to the opponent's 3 vs 6 to 6. This would be whether being inside or outside of his guard.



I am fairly certain, in terms of specific WC execution you are lol.  I very well understand the theory and concepts, don't get me wrong but I certainly consider myself a novice in terms of execution.  When I qualify to be called a "senior" in my school, then I MIGHT consider myself a journeyman. I took a bit of time off between Ryuskinkan and my WC/Kali school.

As for the last bit absolutely.  The idea is for me to get outside of my opponent's gates enough so they can only effectively attack and defend with one side of their body while keeping them in a positions where I can still attack and defend with both halves.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2016)

A very important "centerline" theory is to be able to advance your leading leg between your opponent's legs. This way, you can take over your opponent's center as your own center.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 20, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A very important "centerline" theory is to be able to advance your leading leg between your opponent's legs. This way, you can take over your opponent's center as your own center.


Can be.
Note in the drawing the person to the left is on the outside of the other's guard not the inside.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 21, 2016)

Remember, the theory is not a law. If you have the ability to punch your opponent do not overanalyze it, just punch.

Reason I am saying this is because all theories can be interpreted in many different ways and when we try to enforce a specific meaning to it we are not improving our style but rather limiting ourselves to rules that will not lead to us winning fights easier but rather to occupy our mind too much in fighting causing us to miss the fact that our opponent will not follow the same rules nor wants to play our game.

Are we advanced enough to make the opponent play our game? Depends, but a boxer for instance is trained to never play someone else's game neither in rhythm(sp?) nor in tactics. They are trained to the core to play their own game and find predictability and patterns in their opponent. So following strict rules would be a disadvantage if it makes us predictable.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's your solution for this "double over hooks"?


 What's a wrestlers answer? It really depends doesn't it? In that video the overhook'ee is giving the overhook'er quite a bit of forward aggression and locks his arms around his body to attempt his own throw. so overhook'er just takes that energy and uses it to throw him.. So it obviously would depend on what 'energy' I get and how far the overhooks get sunk in?.. There's always that point of no return. Once a lock or choke gets to that point it's pretty much over.. So the counter was in the fight for position or before that 'point of no return'. At DTE we do train from behind the count, meaning we don't use or substitute speed for bad technique..We train as if we're  either fighting someone faster and, or stronger. We use a direct approach. So to answer your question how would I deal with? Chi Sao!

DTE Chi Sao.. Which you'd find to be very similar to what any good WC fighter like Alan Orr or any good Grappler/ Wreslter would use.. Similar methods just different ways of achieving the same result.. My teacher always says " it's all the same crap".. For some reason people just don't get that.. They get to caught up with styles and being carbon copies of their teacher/coaches. I fight the way I fight because of certain physical circumstances I've been dealt and what works for me. My fighting has changed as I get older.. I'm currently being taught to do things smarter not harder.. I really like this approach. It's like magic


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Aug 25, 2016)

The so choih is the one punch I found that gives the wing chun people I've sparred  the most issue. 

The one that angles down is the one in particular. 






Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2016)

Jake104 said:


> What's a wrestlers answer?


The wrestler's solution is to use

- under hook to counter over hook.
- over hook to counter under hook.

My question is, "How to apply centerline principle during clinch?"


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The wrestler's solution is to use
> 
> - under hook to counter over hook.
> - over hook to counter under hook.
> ...


Centerline theory doesn't change in the clinch. So you apply it exactly the same. You are thinking in terms of fighting hands and arms I'm not. I'm fighting the whole body not the limbs. So my centerline doesn't change because hand or arm position does.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The wrestler's solution is to use
> 
> - under hook to counter over hook.
> - over hook to counter under hook.
> ...


Sounds like chi sao inside outside enough said.


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2016)

What do people think the rolling trains???? Pak punch, laap strike? Is it for a set routine of abc 123?? Not the way we train it. Is chi sao in the clinch that much different than pummeling/swimming? Not the way we train it. Just saying.. This is why we use chi sao in fighting. I'm not going to pak punch you. When people try that on me. I smother them clinch up and it's over. None of that stuff works. I can take a punch or a throat faak as I collapse you. While still maintaining my centerline and completely disrupting and collapsing yours


----------



## Jake104 (Aug 25, 2016)

Problem is WC people turn chi sao into game.. I just touched the surface of what chi sao trains. I continue to learn that it's alway in play and the 'drills' do help if you can recognize and move past what a 'drill' is training, and not get caught up with just the top surface layer of what it may look like it teaches.

An example is: I never really did the laap bong punch drill previous in my training. We do it where I train now constantly. But we don't do the typical drill with switching and laaping and punching. We do that at a basic level.. But later we take a drill and make it work in fighting. Right now we are working the clinch.. Same drill. It's just in DTE we move past the drill into fighting application. Others train that drill and just ad extra techniques and punching and mattresses. They never quite get to the fighting application that the drill is suppose to train. After all the goal is fighting? Not mastering a drill.


----------

