Let's discuss TWC's central line.

[KPM]

We call it a "line", but technically you are absolutely right, Danny. If you are talking geometry, it functions like a plane. I think we use the term line kind of generically, just to keep things simple.

Personally I really dislike the TWC terms centerline and central line because when said quickly, they sound the same to my old ears . I guess I should just shut up and be happy everybody isn't speaking Cantonese!

Yeah...a plane. That's what I meant by saying that is "cuts you in half." I also don't particularly like using both centerline and central line at the same time because it is too confusing for people. And I've been told that there is no distinction in Cantonese between the two terms and that the names only work in English.

 

[KPM]

Yeah, when I'm explaining it I slow down and emphasize 'central line' sometimes I refer it as the action line or combat line.

What do you call the line from your core to the opponent's core when not in facing?

To me that's still "centerline." It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.

 

[Danny T]

To me that's still "centerline." It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.

So your centerline moves around your body as you angle therefore when in a multiple opponent scenario you have multiple centerlines?

 

[KPM]

So your centerline moves around your body as you angle therefore when in a multiple opponent scenario you have multiple centerlines?

Yes. That is how I would look at it. You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.

 

[Danny T]

Yes. That is how I would look at it. You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.

Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes. That is how I would look at it. You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time.

Against multiple opponents, the hay-maker is more effective than the straight punch. When you use double hay-makers and swing your arms in big circle, the center-line principle will not make any sense at that moment.

 

[KPM]

Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.

I didn't say that. I said you can only engage one opponent at a time. Unless you want to do one of those goofy Leung Ting things where you use the Fak Sau motion from the SNT form to strike an opponent on either side of you at the same time!

 

[geezer]

I didn't say that. I said you can only engage one opponent at a time. Unless you want to do one of those goofy Leung Ting things where you use the Fak Sau motion from the SNT form to strike an opponent on either side of you at the same time!

In truth, Leung Ting used to ridicule that idea as totally impractical and "stupid", whether applied to SNT fak sau, or any other double move against multiple attackers ...like a TKD jumping split kick. He told us that stuff was strictly for the movies ...But then again, he was such a ham that I can imagine him demonstrating it somewhere just to grab some attention.

What he actually taught his own students re multiple attackers was to be highly mobile, to try to engage each one positioning yourself so as to place their body between you and the others, to locate an exit or direction of escape, and "to fight as you are getting away" (his exact words).

Like a lot of those guys from the Hong Kong WC scene, LT had been in more than a few scraps as a kid and had a pretty good sense for how things like this went down.

 

[geezer]

Being aware of and knowing how to defend against multiple opponents is a skill one has to work. Getting caught up and focusing on a single opponent when there are multiples is a good way to get hurt.

Yeah, you are right, but I don't think that's what Keith meant. He mentioned "engaging" one at a time, not fighting one and forgetting about the others.

Personally, with the tunnel vision effect that adrenalin can cause, I think effectively defending against multiple attackers in a real assault is a pretty tall order for most people. ....er by that I mean me

 

[geezer]

Against multiple opponents, the hay-maker is more effective than the straight punch. When you use double hay-makers and swing your arms in big circle, the center-line principle will not make any sense at that moment.

More specifically, if you mean surrounded by multiple attackers, I agree that using controlled "flailing" techniques can be your last resort. In the WC repertoire, wide flailing fak-saus and when closed in on, wide flailing elbows can work this way.

Still, if you can't break out of the middle, your chances are not good.

 

[Danny T]

"You can only really pay attention to or engage one opponent at a time."
Ok...I read this as you can only pay attention to one opponent at a time. If that is not what you meant I stand corrected.
I agree with doing all you can to engage only one opponent but you had better be attentive to where the others are and what they are doing. Do your best to use one as a blocker so you are engage with only one at a time.

 

[VPT]

Is "fak sau" different from fuk sau/fu shou/伏手, or is this a case of personal transliteration?

 

[KPM]

Is "fak sau" different from fuk sau/fu shou/伏手, or is this a case of personal transliteration?

Fook/Fuk Sau is "subduing hand". You know it from the Chi Sau exercises. Fak Sau is "whisking hand" and is the wide sweeping motion to the sides with both hands found in the 2nd section of most people's Siu Lim Tao form.

 

[Danny T]

Fook Sao

Sot Sao in SNT

Fak Sao from Bil Jee

 

[Juany118]

To the OPs point. For the broad principles the terms used in TWC really are semantics but this doesn't apply to everything. Note the following is based on my short time studying WSLVT many moons ago, so this might not apply to other WC styles.

Where I see TWC as having a difference is the "blind side"/flanking/"side door" focus. In WSLVT you essentially try to force your opponent to give you his blind side/flank by your attack. In TWC you move yourself there and your actions once there help to maintain the position.

Now there are debates on this. The WSL person may say "in moving to the flank you lose power because you are moving on an angle and not straight in".

The TWC person will say "that's a marginalized loss, if it's a loss at all and it gives you the advantage of your opponent having to either only being able to attack and defend with one hand or they have to waste action on reorientation."

The WSL person will then say "with proper simultaneous attack and defense you don't have to worry about the former, and as for the later you just end up in a circular dance where both of you waste actions constantly on reorientation."

The TWC person will then say "..."

The cycle continues lol.

 

[Martial D]

To me that's still "centerline." It goes from your center or core to the opponent's center or core, whether you are facing square or at an angle.

See, I was taught centerline is the plane bisecting the body horizontally where the soft targets are and where the structure is strongest, while the central line is what you describe.

Getting your center aligned to central while his is not allows you to Wing Chun (yes I just used it as a verb) while he can not. To use these terms interchangeably leaves one of these concepts without a word to describe it, which seems a bit counterproductive

 

[wckf92]

To me, the centerline idea is much simpler.
Centerline = I protect mine; I destroy his.

 

[KPM]

See, I was taught centerline is the plane bisecting the body horizontally where the soft targets are and where the structure is strongest, while the central line is what you describe.

Getting your center aligned to central while his is not allows you to Wing Chun (yes I just used it as a verb) while he can not. To use these terms interchangeably leaves one of these concepts without a word to describe it, which seems a bit counterproductive

Well, that ties into the "theory of facing" and "maintaining the centerline." I can have my center aligned to an opponent in a way that allows me to take advantage and use my weapons while his center is not aligned with mine in a way that allows him to do the same. I would be "maintaining the centerline" while he wouldn't be! The only time making a distinction between "centerline" and "central line" is useful is when you are training solo. We seldom face an opponent "square on" where your definition of "centerline" would happen.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I can have my center aligned to an opponent in a way that allows me to take advantage and use my weapons while his center is not aligned with mine in a way that allows him to do the same.

Your center-line definition is the same as mine that you want to move to a spot that

- both of your hands can reach to your opponent.
- only one of your opponent's hands can reach you.

Do you agree?

 

[KPM]

Your center-line definition is the same as mine that you want to move to a spot that

- both of your hands can reach to your opponent.
- only one of your opponent's hands can reach you.

Do you agree?

Yeah John, I agree. Or....where neither of his hands can reach you! ;-) This goes along with the idea of "flanking" or to use TWC terminology....getting to the "blind side."