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

[Vajramusti]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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