Someone just mentioned that when you are in your opponent's right side door, a right roundhouse kick toward your opponent's chest can be a good technique to meet that requirement.
Last edited:
Getting the Angle
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
I have a hard time visualizing this.
If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:
You draw a line out of the center of your chest. When that line goes through your opponent, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".
By using this definition, that technique does meet the "WC centerline theory".
If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:
You draw a line out of the center of your opponent's chest. When that line goes through you, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".
By using this definition, that technique does not meet the "WC centerline theory".
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
Hi John,
I understand what you are describing here, but wouldn't say that it is WC centerline theory by my definition. In my branch centerline is an imaginary line that divides the opponent left & right from center. What you describe is what we call the inside line and has more to do with distance & timing than flank or blind side. It's said whomever controls the inside line, controls the fight. In my branch centerline (which is an integral component of the motherline) has to do with back & front, power & balance, which are best controlled by flanking, though moving out of range (inside line) is also a way to achieve this. However, moving is only effective until distance is closed by you or opponent & can leave you vulnerable. Flanking can still align with opponents centerline and adds the advantage of opportunity to control their power or balance. Anyways, that's how I view centerline vs. insideline, others may have a different opinion.
Martial D
Senior Master
I was taught that there are actually 3 center lines.
The mother line, which is like a broomstick straight down your spine.
The central line, which is the shortest distance between the mother line and the opponent.
The center line, which is the line down your own center, facing forward.
I mean I have a hard time visualizing the kick that is being used to counter someone moving off center.
It's similar to this except using the right roundhouse kick.
- You move into your opponent's right side door.
- You use your left hand to push his right elbow joint to your right,
- You then use right hay-maker to strike on his chest.
DanT
2nd Black Belt
That was me
DanT
2nd Black Belt
Immagine if in the original video, Phil threw a right roundhouse kick into the opponents chest or stomach as the opponent moved to the left (and tried to circle around Phil).
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Ok.
I throw a right hand.
You counter by slipping to the outside.
I counter by right kicking you in the face.
Thanks for the examples. The angle that I train wouldn't allow a kick which is why I was having difficulty in visualizing. I looked at the OP's video after I read your comments and now I see what you guys are talking about.
Exactly! So ideally, you want to face an opponent such that your centerline is aligned directly at his motherline, without him doing the same! For example.....you are behind him....your centerline is aimed at his motherline and he can't use his arms at all because he is facing the opposite direction! Conversely, if you are standing directly in front of him (like doing Chi Sau) then you have your centerline aimed at his motherline, but he can do the same. This is actually the least ideal situation because he has the opportunity to use both of his arms freely. A better situation is to be on the "blindside" so that your center is facing his motherline but his center is facing away from you. He then has to then pivot or move to be able to effectively use his rear hand. Now, of course, he CAN do that! He CAN move! But then he is one step or beat behind you and you have the advantage.
"Getting the angle" like this can be done without stepping to the outside as well. You can use your techniques to disrupt the opponent's balance or base and actually pivot or turn him in front of you. This accomplishes the same thing. So...you either move yourself with footwork to get an angle, or you make the opponent move. This is far better than standing "toe to toe" with an opponent. So why a Wing Chun guy would "poo poo" this idea and call it "dogma" is beyond me!
How come in the OP video he tells the guy "you try to turn", instead of "try to counterpunch"?
His attack is straight on and he doesn't step off until the guy turns.
But there is no reason for the guy to turn. He could just intercept with his own counterstrike.
The whole thing is based on the guy unnecessarily turning and not counterattacking directly.
Dang!, there I go agreeing with LFJ again. But he's absolutely right. If the guy Phil is attacking would just move forward and counterpunch following Phil's centerline, the whole equation would be changed. Instead he freezes, locking up his man-sau or tries to force it into a tan-sau. Either way he just gives Phil a handle to use to turn him and get an angle on him.
Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students). It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counterpunches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.
Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.
Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students). It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counterpunches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.
Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.
Last edited:
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
There's plenty in that clip I don't agree with. For starters, I don't see the need to establish a bridge on the Man Sau, nor a need for the Lat Sau, a simple long robe step to the outside to flank while counter attacking with your right would be sufficient IMO, and negate his left counter, especially if you pivot (triangle step) to continue the attack with the left (higher percentage of achieving his back). That being said, everyone has a method that works for them. I can't speak to Mr. Redmond' s reasoning for the unnecessary (IMO) movements, but believe what he was trying to emphasize in that clip was attacking the right flank from a right sided attack. I see nothing wrong with the concept, only the means from which it was carried out. But to each their own, if it works at an acceptable percentage your OK with then good.
A personal pet peeve. I really find it counterproductive to use so many confusing terms for what is, in fact, a very simple concept. I'm talking about terms like mother-line, centre-line, central-line. father-line, brother-line, lower-littlle-sister-line, mother-in-law line, second-cousin-once-removed-line and so forth.
My lineage, coming from WT uses very simple and direct terminology based on the X-Y-Z axis from geometry. Essentially we work with:
1. the vertical mid-line or Y-axis that runs from the top of your head vertically down through your body to the ground sort of like the wick of a candle.
2. the horizontal mid-line or X-axis that runs across the body intersecting the Y-axis at the base of the sternum, and...
3. the centerline, or Z-axis that extends directly forward from the intersection of the X and Y axis (centerpoint) at the base of the sternum to intersect the opponent's vertical mid-line or Y-axis.
4. To this we add the concept of a connecting-line which is the line linking your centerpoint (intersection of the X,Y, and Z axis) to your opponent's center.
Please refer to the diagram below:
Now imagine the WC/VT practitioner's body standing with the Y axis running up the spine, the X axis running across at the level of the base of the sternum (parallel to the collarbones but lower) and the man sau extending out like a "sensor" on the Z axis or centerline.
This Z axis always tracks your opponent's center. When you "get an angle" as KPM noted, you either step off-line, or wedge forward and turn you opponent off-line, so that your centerline tracks your opponent's center, but his centerline is turned aside. This gives you an advantage. Without such an angle, you often end up just trading punches!
My lineage, coming from WT uses very simple and direct terminology based on the X-Y-Z axis from geometry. Essentially we work with:
1. the vertical mid-line or Y-axis that runs from the top of your head vertically down through your body to the ground sort of like the wick of a candle.
2. the horizontal mid-line or X-axis that runs across the body intersecting the Y-axis at the base of the sternum, and...
3. the centerline, or Z-axis that extends directly forward from the intersection of the X and Y axis (centerpoint) at the base of the sternum to intersect the opponent's vertical mid-line or Y-axis.
4. To this we add the concept of a connecting-line which is the line linking your centerpoint (intersection of the X,Y, and Z axis) to your opponent's center.
Please refer to the diagram below:
Now imagine the WC/VT practitioner's body standing with the Y axis running up the spine, the X axis running across at the level of the base of the sternum (parallel to the collarbones but lower) and the man sau extending out like a "sensor" on the Z axis or centerline.
This Z axis always tracks your opponent's center. When you "get an angle" as KPM noted, you either step off-line, or wedge forward and turn you opponent off-line, so that your centerline tracks your opponent's center, but his centerline is turned aside. This gives you an advantage. Without such an angle, you often end up just trading punches!
Dang!, there I go agreeing with LFJ again. But he's absolutely right. If the guy Phil is attacking would just move forward and counterpunch following Phil's centerline, the whole equation would be changed. Instead he freezes, locking up his man-sau or tries to force it into a tan-sau. Either way he just gives Phil a handle to use to turn him and get an angle on him.
---But Phil is on the attack in this particular clip. When they start neither is close enough to land a strike. Phil is stepping in, getting the angle, and immobilizing the opponent's lead arm all in one beat. His opponent has to reface Phil before he can launch any kind of attack, because...Phil has the angle!
Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students). It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counter-punches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.
---Of course! But in this example Phil is the aggressor. He is moving before the opponent does and forcing him to react. If the opponent then tried to follow Phil's center and counter-punch he is already a beat behind because Phil is angling off to the blindside, which is the most difficult area for an opponent to "re-face." That's the whole point! Really Steve, starting to think like LFJ is not at all an asset!
Given a longer clip and more time, Phil might have been facing off with his opponent and stepping out to the outside to circle his opponent watching for a reaction. If the opponent doesn't react, and his "re-facing" is a bit slow, THEN Phil moves in with the technique in the clip as an attack. Why does everyone always try and criticize a short video clip? You can only show so much in a short clip.
Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.
---Now you are sounding like Joy! There are no "trick moves" here. This is a basic and central concept in TWC. Nothing Phil is doing in that clip is "tricky" or particularly difficult. There is no WCK maxim that says you have to charge up the center!
---But Phil is on the attack in this particular clip. When they start neither is close enough to land a strike. Phil is stepping in, getting the angle, and immobilizing the opponent's lead arm all in one beat. His opponent has to reface Phil before he can launch any kind of attack, because...Phil has the angle!
Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students). It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counter-punches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.
---Of course! But in this example Phil is the aggressor. He is moving before the opponent does and forcing him to react. If the opponent then tried to follow Phil's center and counter-punch he is already a beat behind because Phil is angling off to the blindside, which is the most difficult area for an opponent to "re-face." That's the whole point! Really Steve, starting to think like LFJ is not at all an asset!
Given a longer clip and more time, Phil might have been facing off with his opponent and stepping out to the outside to circle his opponent watching for a reaction. If the opponent doesn't react, and his "re-facing" is a bit slow, THEN Phil moves in with the technique in the clip as an attack. Why does everyone always try and criticize a short video clip? You can only show so much in a short clip.Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.
---Now you are sounding like Joy! There are no "trick moves" here. This is a basic and central concept in TWC. Nothing Phil is doing in that clip is "tricky" or particularly difficult. There is no WCK maxim that says you have to charge up the center!
BTW I just grabbed that diagram off Google Images. The term "sensor direction" on the Z axis was already there, and seemed appropriate enough to describe what man-sau does, but if I were making up my own diagram for WC/VT, I'd prefer to describe that axis as "direction of intent" or "direction of pressure".
....Really Steve, starting to think like LFJ is not at all an asset!
Dang you to heck, Keith. Now I have to wipe the coffee off my desk.
Basically, I do like the concept of off-lining, like what Phil demonstrates. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to counter the movement as demonstrated by 1. letting the man-sau flex with the attack so that you are not turned aside, and 2. simultaneously counterpunching with the rear hand.
Yes, if Phil is the attacker, he will be a beat ahead, and you have to adjust to match his movement. That puts you a bit behind. But if you respond offensively with forward intent, striking at your attacker's center, you can recover and take over the offense. Or, like the guy in the demo, you can stiffen up, be turned aside, and end up a sitting duck.
Of the two, I prefer the first option. But actually, I would prefer to be on the offense, and let the other guy worry about trying to catch up!
