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

[Danny T]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Was there an actual point to this post?

 

[Juany118]

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]

Was there an actual point to this post?

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

If the post was not clear-let it go.

 

[Juany118]

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

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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"...

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]

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]

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

 

[KPM]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

More noise.

 

[Danny T]

^^^^^ 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'?