Understanding Wing Chun's Centre Line

[Flying Crane]

That's cool. I thought you said you didn't know what Plum Flower had to do with Wing Chun. I've been going over my books all weekend long trying to be helpful.

Maybe in retrospect you'll get my jokes about Mount Kunlun, flowers, and kung fu.

I don’t know if plum flower poles have anything to do with wing Chun or not. I only say that I am aware of what it is.

If you are making jokes, I am not getting them. Maybe that is why I am bewildered by what you are trying to say here. I am reasonably well versed in Tibetan white crane. That is what I spend my time and efforts on. I have an interest in the history of the system, and I hold a reasonable level of skepticism for the stories and oral traditions that get passed down in the context of martial arts history and origin of systems. I’ve done a bit of my own research in non-martial sources to verify the likelihood that our own creation story might be true. I am satisfied that the elements of our story exist in the real world and our story could have happened, but I am in no way convinced that we have certainty that it DID happen. That’s good enough for me. So I am a curious fellow, but there are limits on how much time and energy I am willing to give it, because when the dust settles it doesn’t really matter and doesn’t affect my training or make me more skilled. I am not an expert on the history or methods of all the other styles that exist. I’ve trained in a few and have some knowledge of their history and methods, but I don’t claim to know it all. If you are making jokes based on Chinese martial history and esoteric topics in Eastern philosophy, they are going over my head.

I don’t know what else to say. I feel like to want me to engage in a discussion about which I don’t have the background to contribute. Maybe I’ll learn something from reading this thread, and maybe I won’t.
I’m kinda throwing up my hands here.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I don’t know if plum flower poles have anything to do with wing Chun or not. I only say that I am aware of what it is.

If you are making jokes, I am not getting them. Maybe that is why I am bewildered by what you are trying to say here. I am reasonably well versed in Tibetan white crane. That is what I spend my time and efforts on. I have an interest in the history of the system, and I hold a reasonable level of skepticism for the stories and oral traditions that get passed down in the context of martial arts history and origin of systems. I’ve done a bit of my own research in non-martial sources to verify the likelihood that our own creation story might be true. I am satisfied that the elements of our story exist in the real world and our story could have happened, but I am in no way convinced that we have certainty that it DID happen. That’s good enough for me. So I am a curious fellow, but there are limits on how much time and energy I am willing to give it, because when the dust settles it doesn’t really matter and doesn’t affect my training or make me more skilled. I am not an expert on the history or methods of all the other styles that exist. I’ve trained in a few and have some knowledge of their history and methods, but I don’t claim to know it all. If you are making jokes based on Chinese martial history and esoteric topics in Eastern philosophy, they are going over my head.

I don’t know what else to say. I feel like to want me to engage in a discussion about which I don’t have the background to contribute. Maybe I’ll learn something from reading this thread, and maybe I won’t.
I’m kinda throwing up my hands here.

Didn't mean to badger you, bud. I'm just here to share notes!

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think you're derailing anything. The topic is "understanding", that's not limited to how any one of us trained in particular. That's a rich historial fabric you and I are both a part of.

If we really wanted to boil the ocean about lines, we could start discussing Chinese geomancy. I'd prefer to stick to kung fu.

Well, if this stuff is all part of Wing Chun centerline theory, i am not knowledgable about it. Threads often get derailed here, and it isn’t automatically a bad thing. Some very interesting discussions often come out of those derailments. But in this case I was just done because I didn’t really intend to get into the discussion. I’m no expert on wing Chun, the topic of this thread. I only meant to step in to point out that our fifth brother staff fits the description that you gave, of what fifth brother staff is not. I was only saying, I don’t think we can trace hard connection lines so much, as lots of systems like to claim a connection to famous historical or mythological figures. Often I believe these connections are fabricated and cannot be substantiated. So I am not at all surprised that multiple forms from different systems and displaying very different techniques, would have a similar name. I don’t see that as a bad thing or something to criticize. These things simply represent a source of inspiration.

Regardless of how well the Chinese liked to document things, I am unconvinced that one can adequately trace a particular sequence of physical movement back a thousand years or more. Written description and drawings of techniques only get you so far. Without something like video, or at the very least a tight sequence of progressive images that I find unlikely to be drawn by hand, I don’t think documentation can get you there, you just cannot describe the form clearly enough. Lineage lists of who learned what from whom, over many generations, can be enlightening, but can also be prone to error. Something can get named incorrectly, or things can get changed, or introduced from other sources under the same or similar name, there are just many many opportunities for error. So I remain very skeptical of these claims of certainty in this kind of history. But again, that is not an indictment because what really matters is, is this stuff effective and functional. Weather or not we can trace the history back a thousand years, or examples of very different things that have a similar name, these things don’t matter.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Well, if this stuff is all part of Wing Chun centerline theory, i am not knowledgable about it. Threads often get derailed here, and it isn’t automatically a bad thing. Some very interesting discussions often come out of those derailments. But in this case I was just done because I didn’t really intend to get into the discussion. I’m no expert on wing Chun, the topic of this thread. I only meant to step in to point out that our fifth brother staff fits the description that you gave, of what fifth brother staff is not. I was only saying, I don’t think we can trace hard connection lines so much, as lots of systems like to claim a connection to famous historical or mythological figures. Often I believe these connections are fabricated and cannot be substantiated. So I am not at all surprised that multiple forms from different systems and displaying very different techniques, would have a similar name. I don’t see that as a bad thing or something to criticize. These things simply represent a source of inspiration.

Regardless of how well the Chinese liked to document things, I am unconvinced that one can adequately trace a particular sequence of physical movement back a thousand years or more. Written description and drawings of techniques only get you so far. Without something like video, or at the very least a tight sequence of progressive images that I find unlikely to be drawn by hand, I don’t think documentation can get you there, you just cannot describe the form clearly enough. Lineage lists of who learned what from whom, over many generations, can be enlightening, but can also be prone to error. Something can get named incorrectly, or things can get changed, or introduced from other sources under the same or similar name, there are just many many opportunities for error. So I remain very skeptical of these claims of certainty in this kind of history. But again, that is not an indictment because what really matters is, is this stuff effective and functional. Weather or not we can trace the history back a thousand years, or examples of very different things that have a similar name, these things don’t matter.

Well all I can say is that it depends. Chinese records are pretty meticulous in detail, including pictures. And, the generational lineages do go back more than 1,000 years. We're talking father to wife to son to daughter transmission for better or worse. Inside that network of people, there are veins of people who became famous for kicking butt, healing, teaching, and so on.

As far as evidence, you have the extant styles today. Wing Chun for instance didn't "spring" up, pun intended, out of nowhere. Dr. Judkins for instance has traced it's lineage to dozens of styles, and hundreds of people, which is why any time you see claims of a single source claim in the lineages themselves for anything, you should doubt it. It's rare to find any style that "owns" something special, center line included.

There are still people willing to get into fist fights over Ip Man being the only source for Wing Chun. On the other side of the spectrum, there's us.

 

[wckf92]

I have always wondered if Yip Man might have learned about the plum flower stuff at Dai Duk Lan alley? Perhaps cross-training or exchanging skills for skills with other kung fu peers? Just a thought...don't know for sure of course.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I have always wondered if Yip Man might have learned about the plum flower stuff at Dai Duk Lan alley? Perhaps cross-training or exchanging skills for skills with other kung fu peers? Just a thought...don't know for sure of course.

There's a whole section in "Creation.." that has that stuff. I'll try to summarize it later. As usual it's a mix of fact and gossip.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well all I can say is that it depends. Chinese records are pretty meticulous in detail, including pictures. And, the generational lineages do go back more than 1,000 years. We're talking father to wife to son to daughter transmission for better or worse. Inside that network of people, there are veins of people who became famous for kicking butt, healing, teaching, and so on.

As far as evidence, you have the extant styles today. Wing Chun for instance didn't "spring" up, pun intended, out of nowhere. Dr. Judkins for instance has traced it's lineage to dozens of styles, and hundreds of people, which is why any time you see claims of a single source claim in the lineages themselves for anything, you should doubt it. It's rare to find any style that "owns" something special, center line included.

There are still people willing to get into fist fights over Ip Man being the only source for Wing Chun. On the other side of the spectrum, there's us.

Fair enough. I do believe this stuff can be traced back a good ways, but I also believe we need to be open to the possibility that there are errors (perhaps many) in that history. And yes, lots of influences along the way. And yes, any “new” system was created on top of something that existed prior. As we have both said, none of this exists in a vacuum.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Fair enough. I do believe this stuff can be traced back a good ways, but I also believe we need to be open to the possibility that there are errors (perhaps many) in that history. And yes, lots of influences along the way. And yes, any “new” system was created on top of something that existed prior. As we have both said, none of this exists in a vacuum.

Of the four pillars of Bak Hok, it's the sim in Tibetan White crane and derived styles that mostly deals with centerline, and it's closely related to Plum Flower Pole stepping. You can see here the style of circular stepping around a central pole (4+1) or even in ancient tradition, 20+ poles. I'm not the person most critical of Wing Chun here, but I will say that this is one of my pet peeves about a lot of Wing Chun, that lack of 360 degree awareness and obsession with go STRAIGHT AHEAD, before we even get to level changes, stuffing shoots, and dragon sprawls.

Same forms have been around in southern China since the Ming Dynasty or so, when this sort of stuff started to get more analytical and categorized. Prior to then, most of these styles were simply not openly documented. Our loss, but there's still plenty to work with to connect the dots.

Like, if I saw this picture and didn't know Hung Ga Kuen, I'd think it was Tibetan Hop Gar the rest of my life. But it's really not...

 

[Flying Crane]

Of the four pillars of Bak Hok, it's the sim in Tibetan White crane and derived styles that mostly deals with centerline, and it's closely related to Plum Flower Pole stepping. You can see here the style of circular stepping around a central pole (4+1) or even in ancient tradition, 20+ poles. I'm not the person most critical of Wing Chun here, but I will say that this is one of my pet peeves about a lot of Wing Chun, that lack of 360 degree awareness and obsession with go STRAIGHT AHEAD, before we even get to level changes, stuffing shoots, and dragon sprawls.

Same forms have been around in southern China since the Ming Dynasty or so, when this sort of stuff started to get more analytical and categorized. Prior to then, most of these styles were simply not openly documented. Our loss, but there's still plenty to work with to connect the dots.

Like, if I saw this picture and didn't know Hung Ga Kuen, I'd think it was Tibetan Hop Gar the rest of my life. But it's really not...

View attachment 28265

How does “dodge” in TWC relate to centerline theory in wing Chun?

What are you saying about those pictures? You feel they are hung ga and not hop ga? I am not clear on what you are saying.

 

[Oily Dragon]

How does “dodge” in TWC relate to centerline theory in wing Chun?

What are you saying about those pictures? You feel they are hung ga and not hop ga? I am not clear on what you are saying.

They're definitely Hop Ga, with Hung Ga in it.

Because Hung Ga is older, and "gar" is overemphasizing the "r" at the end. Brrr.. Even older, are the Tibetan styles that they hoovered up.

This is why I like the southern Five Animal system that sums all of this up into 5 animals, 5 elements, 12 bridges, 18 trigrams, 36 chambers, 108 whatever. There are infinite directions, dude, I think we can all agree on that.

But the Plum Flower is the most advanced thing I've ever seen in Wing Chun centerline theory. Willing to go the distance, here.

 

[wckf92]

But the Plum Flower is the most advanced thing I've ever seen in Wing Chun

Might explain why Yip Man either dropped it, or didn't teach it? Or just why it is basically unknown to today's wing chun folks?

 

[Oily Dragon]

Might explain why Yip Man either dropped it, or didn't teach it? Or just why it is basically unknown to today's wing chun folks?

That's just it, it's not unknown to all Wing Chun schools. Just some.

 

[Oily Dragon]

This is a great article. I think the important takeaway is the so what, the styles split and recombined later on, before splitting again. That's how it all works, people mix it up with other people. So take "distinct" with a big pinch of pink Himalayan salt.

Lama (martial art) - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

While today the martial arts known as Lama Pai, Tibetan White Crane, and Hop Gar exist as relatively distinct lineages andor organizations, all originated with a single figure known as Sing Lung who arrived in Guangdong Province during the Qing Dynasty and taught a martial art then known as Lion's

alchetron.com

Bonus points if you spot Master Ross.

Double bonus points if you spot Fe Kiu Saam.

Triple points if you can do both, and give an essay on Wing Chun centerline.

By points, I mean love.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is a great article. I think the important takeaway is the so what, the styles split and recombined later on, before splitting again. That's how it all works, people mix it up with other people. So take "distinct" with a big pinch of pink Himalayan salt.

Lama (martial art) - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

While today the martial arts known as Lama Pai, Tibetan White Crane, and Hop Gar exist as relatively distinct lineages andor organizations, all originated with a single figure known as Sing Lung who arrived in Guangdong Province during the Qing Dynasty and taught a martial art then known as Lion's

alchetron.com

Bonus points if you spot Master Ross.

Double bonus points if you spot Fe Kiu Saam.

Triple points if you can do both, and give an essay on Wing Chun centerline.

By points, I mean love.

Ok, so the topic of this thread has been changed to Tibetan martial arts, I guess..?

 

[Old Happy Tiger]

If you want to see an awesome weapon... Wing Chun Dragon Pole.

 

[O'Malley]

If you want to see an awesome weapon... Wing Chun Dragon Pole.

That pickup line got me in trouble.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Ok, so the topic of this thread has been changed to Tibetan martial arts, I guess..?

Hear me out partner. Wing Chun centerline theory discussions are often about as fruitful as as wax bowel of them. It's always a bit of the same thing. It often ends poorly if there are any other arts in the room.

Wing Chun students always seem to hate to be told their exotic, Ming-era "theories" are really from much older arts (other than Shaolinquan), and in those arts when you see the webwork of lines they use for their theories, it undermines the idea that Wing Chin's is special or unique.

All these arts interacting with each other and sharing material, yet for some reason certain schools of Wing Chun seem to get far less than others, and worse will get locked into a pattern of centerline thinking and spend all their time on thoughts rather than building Wing Quan fa.

Worst of all, those people are the ones filling up the internet with videos about Wing Chun theories. No need to name any, they sort of stick out to people who train alive.

 

[Oily Dragon]

If you want to see an awesome weapon... Wing Chun Dragon Pole.

Yeah! We discussed the 6.5 point pole earlier if you go through the older posts. Dragon pole is basically a variant of Yang family (Song Dynasty, not Tai Chi) Fifth Brother Eight Trigram staff and some northern/western staff techniques, with some minor changes.

Because of that shared DNA, If you weren't told it was Wing Chun staff you could mistake it for others. I mistook Flying Crane's Tibetan White Crane staff video for Fujian White Crane because I leaned both in other styles that combined them 100 years ago, and they are more alike than different (only a relative handful of staff techniques that stand the test of time).

Centerline takes on a whole new meaning with a long staff, not to mention it becomes three dimensional. And again I wonder why sooo many Wing Chun "sifus" either won't show their staff skills, or simply can't. They learned some hand forms and the Character 2 Adduction stance, and from there to YouTube.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hear me out partner. Wing Chun centerline theory discussions are often about as fruitful as as wax bowel of them. It's always a bit of the same thing. It often ends poorly if there are any other arts in the room.

Wing Chun students always seem to hate to be told their exotic, Ming-era "theories" are really from much older arts, and in those arts when you see the webwork of lines they use for their theories, it undermines the idea that Wing Chin's is special or unique.

All these arts interacting with each other and sharing material, yet for some reason certain schools of Wing Chun seem to get far less than others, and worse will get locked into a pattern of centerline thinking and spend all their time on thoughts rather than building Wing Quan fa.

Worst of all, those people are the ones filling up the internet with videos about Wing Chun theories. No need to name any, they sort of stick out to people who train alive.

I don’t know wing Chun well enough to verify any of that. But I don’t see how posting a link to a Wikipedia entry about Tibetan martial arts is relevant. Particularly without any commentary on how you believe it relates to wing Chun. If you think it does, then make your case. You are just posting up stuff without any explanation.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I don’t know wing Chun well enough to verify any of that. But I don’t see how posting a link to a Wikipedia entry about Tibetan martial arts is relevant. Particularly without any commentary on how you believe it relates to wing Chun. If you think it does, then make your case. You are just posting up stuff without any explanation.

That last link wasn't Wikipedia dude, it's a beautifully rich and detailed Alchetron article on what we've been discussing, and my explanation is right there.

I'm being pretty concise, what is confusing you? No shame in asking questions, I've been writing essays in good faith.