Let's discuss TWC's central line.

[Kung Fu Wang]

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."

I believe my definition of WC center-line is much easier to be understood in general.

When you are on your opponent's side door (blind side), you can guide his leading arm to jam his back arm. Since you have to use one hand to guide his leading arm, you have 1 free arm left to attack him.

IMO, this is the major difference between CMA and boxing.

- In boxing, you have 2 free hands and your opponent also has 2 free hands.
- In CMA, you want to have 1 free hands and your opponent has no free hands.

This idea is also the same as the difference between Judo and Chinese wrestling.

- In Judo, both you and your opponent want to have 2 hands to grab on each other.
- In Chinese wrestling, you want to have 1 hand to grab on your opponent while your opponent has no hand on you.

In the following clip, A's left hand controls B's left leading arm. A's right hand punches at B's face. B's right hand is jammed by his own left arm and cannot reach to A.

 

[Martial D]

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.

Wing Chun happens square on though. I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square' can happen a lot in a fight.

But this is about WC, not pure fighting.

Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.

 

[Juany118]

Wing Chun happens square on though. I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square' can happen a lot in a fight.

But this is about WC, not pure fighting.

Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.

Not all WC. TWC specifically focused on you getting out of the "front door" so to speak, you want to flank, or as TWC says fight on "the blind side." I can't imagine this is entirely unique, though the amount of focus TWC puts on it may be

 

[Martial D]

Not all WC. TWC specifically focused on you getting out of the "front door" so to speak, you want to flank, or as TWC says fight on "the blind side." I can't imagine this is entirely unique, though the amount of focus TWC puts on it may be

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not talking square to square, in fact the opposite. Square to square is neutral ground. The advantage is you being square(where you can chain punch and use your structure) and the other guy off of square (or off the central line,if you will).

Or as KFW put it; where you can hit him with both hands and he can not.

 

[Juany118]

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not talking square to square, in fact the opposite. Square to square is neutral ground. The advantage is you being square(where you can chain punch and use your structure) and the other guy off of square (or off the central line,if you will).

Or as KFW put it; where you can hit him with both hands and he can not.

Ahh I see now, my bad. I also agree with your view of a Tan or a Bong but I think that is true of most defenses dealing with a straight attack. The shoulder is a ball and socket joint. The more you "open" that joint the weaker it becomes and it becomes easier to "open" it further.

 

[Martial D]

Ahh I see now, my bad. I also agree with your view of a Tan or a Bong but I think that is true of most defenses dealing with a straight attack. The shoulder is a ball and socket joint. The more you "open" that joint the weaker it becomes and it becomes easier to "open" it further.

The difference is amazing. If tan is aligned to center(elbow/ wrist), it becomes nearly impossible to collapse inward, regardless how strong the other guy is. Now take that same structure a couple inches to the left or right and it can be collapsed quite easily.

Weird how that works.

 

[KPM]

Wing Chun happens square on though. I of course agree that is a bad place to hang out, but transitions in and out of 'square' can happen a lot in a fight.

But this is about WC, not pure fighting.

Anyway, even when not square to the opponent, tan and bong are very easily collapsed if not placed on your own centerline. It just seems to me a weird thing to ignore.

In my Wing Chun, even if we find ourselves directly in front the opponent, we would spend very little time with our shoulders "square on" to the opponent so that the centerline would bisect us symmetrically. Even when directly in front of the opponent we are pivoted to some extent in a "side body" position.

 

[Martial D]

In my Wing Chun, even if we find ourselves directly in front the opponent, we would spend very little time with our shoulders "square on" to the opponent so that the centerline would bisect us symmetrically. Even when directly in front of the opponent we are pivoted to some extent in a "side body" position.

Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?

I guess that's why my Wing Chun is basically just the playbook for the trapping range square on position, just as BJJ is for when I'm on my back, and boxing is for a distance square off. At least insofar as how I personally train it.

 

[KPM]

Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?

---A "blast" or series of "chain punches" is probably about the only time we would be "square on"! But how do you even do a good Bong, Pak, or Tan without pivoting? ;-)

 

[TMA17]

 

[Martial D]

Well, I guess your WC training differed from my own in some significant ways. Punching, bong, pak,tan, etc for me are square on techniques as they structurally just work better. How do you even do a blast if you aren't square?

---A "blast" or series of "chain punches" is probably about the only time we would be "square on"! But how do you even do a good Bong, Pak, or Tan without pivoting? ;-)

Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.

I'm just saying that if you are throwing out WC stuff straight out the central line while your center is cocked 45 like a boxer it's not structural, and you won't get the same low elbow power. There's much better stuff to do from there anyway.

 

[KPM]

Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.

---True. But when you pivot and execute a technique on your own center with squared shoulders...this is the defense line I mentioned. But your center (motherline) is still aligned with the opponent's center with an attack line. If you consider the attack line to be the "centerline", then it is no longer cutting you in half symmetrically. So which is the actual "centerline"? The line that you have aligned your defensive technique upon? Or the line that you use to strike the opponent?

I'm just saying that if you are throwing out WC stuff straight out the central line while your center is cocked 45 like a boxer it's not structural, and you won't get the same low elbow power.

---Not true! I suspect we just aren't getting what each other is saying.

 

[Martial D]

Square on to yourself, ie executing on your own center. Pivoting(or shifting) is how you get angles.

---True. But when you pivot and execute a technique on your own center with squared shoulders...this is the defense line I mentioned. But your center (motherline) is still aligned with the opponent's center with an attack line. If you consider the attack line to be the "centerline", then it is no longer cutting you in half symmetrically. So which is the actual "centerline"? The line that you have aligned your defensive technique upon? Or the line that you use to strike the opponent?

I'm just saying that if you are throwing out WC stuff straight out the central line while your center is cocked 45 like a boxer it's not structural, and you won't get the same low elbow power.

---Not true! I suspect we just aren't getting what each other is saying.

Again, I distinguish these two concepts as center and central. Centerline is your center, central is the direct line to the opponents center.

What isn't true? That WC tends not to execute like boxing? If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC. Maybe WC boxing, as to get any power like that would require a boxing power engine.

 

[TMA17]

Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?

 

[wckf92]

If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC.

Wow. Interesting perspective. What wc family are you training in? (Sorry if you have already previously stated it)

 

[KPM]

Again, I distinguish these two concepts as center and central. Centerline is your center, central is the direct line to the opponents center.

---No problem. I just think that can get confusing.

What isn't true? That WC tends not to execute like boxing? If you aren't at least squaring up at the moment of attack I'm not sure you can call it WC. Maybe WC boxing, as to get any power like that would require a boxing power engine.

---I can get lots of power in a strike when I pivot and end up with my body "cocked 45" in relation to the opponent. No real need to bring the boxing engine into it. Why do you think your shoulders have to be square to the opponent to generate power....or to consider it Wing Chun?

 

[Danny T]

Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?

If certain WC fundamentals are maintain as you do so it certainly could be.

 

[TMA17]

Thanks Danny.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why do you think your shoulders have to be square to the opponent to generate power....or to consider it Wing Chun?

Agree! If your shoulder is

- square, you will have "2 50% powerful punches". If all your punches end with square shoulder, your punch will never be the maximum power.
- not square, you will have "1 30% powerful punch (jab) and 1 70% powerful punch (cross)".

When you throw jab and extend your body to the maximum, you can have the 100% powerful cross after that. You only need 1 powerful punch to knock your opponent down.

 

[Callen]

Just a question as a noob...when I step off to my opponents blindside at say 45 degrees, then turn and face his shoulder so my centerline is now facing his shoulder, isn’t that considered WC structure?

Many WC groups focus on “structure” differently, so it is important to keep that in mind during your investigations. Sometimes the lines between structure and positioning are blurred.

Structure is a complete concept that includes the functionality of several core WC components. Ultimately there is more to structure than singling out stance, position or angle relative to the opponent. Linking your body, driving from the elbow, chasing center, moving as a unit to generate power, traveling and understanding proper footwork are also some of the things that need to be trained for proper structure.