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

[KPM]

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

 

[Danny T]

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

 

[Juany118]

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]

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]

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]

I understand what others say...

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

 

[Juany118]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

^^^^ 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]

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]

^^^^ 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]

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]

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.