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.
Centerline Theory and Wing Chun Mindset: Where it works and doesn't?
- Thread starter Argus
- Start date
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
Senior Master
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 Iām not letting go if I do Iām 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.
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 Iām not letting go if I do Iām 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.
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).
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).
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
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).
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
Senior Master
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
Senior Master
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.
Last edited:
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
Senior Master
Can be.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.
Note in the drawing the person to the left is on the outside of the other's guard not the inside.
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.
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
Black Belt
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
Last edited:
ST1Doppelganger
Brown Belt
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
The one that angles down is the one in particular.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
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
Black Belt
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
Black Belt
Sounds like chi sao inside outside enough said.
Jake104
Black Belt
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
Black Belt
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.
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.
Last edited:
