WELCOME TO THE GUNGFU BROTHERHOOD FORUM!

Created 2001/11/29 by Franck "WCSoy"

Confusions about the "centerline" theory... I've been reading a lot about WC these last days. I discovered that if all lineages emphasise a "centerline theory", what is actually called the "centerline" may vary from a lineage to another! In some WC systems, the "centerline" is a line that runs from the top of the head down to the ground (aligned with the meridians). It's the main target for attacks in WC, and often a pivot for rotation movements (in systems favoring pivoting on the heels). In other lineages, the "centerline" is the shortest distance between two opponents... a geometric guide for defensive and attacking movements. A complete theory I came across (and that I personnaly adhere to) includes these two concepts to form the "centerline theory". The first "centerline" (vertical line passing through one's body) is, in this theory, called the motherline. The second "centerline" is named the centerline (actually, it's not a line but a plan , as it joins the two motherlines of the opponents... but the actions along this plan do follow lines...) Each move is then considered from its position relative to this centerline: on the side of it (example: a punch to the shoulder - that we don't use in WC of course), along it (like in the Sun punch or in Fook Sau), across it (like in Pak Sao)... Personnaly, I don't care how is called each concept, "motherline" or "centerline". I think, though, that it's a real problem that almost all WC practitioners refer to a "centerline" theory without actually considering that they may well use the same word for different concepts... That's one more side effect of the controversies between lineages... It's a pity that we can't decide of a global and common terminology for our concepts! So in discussing the "centerline theory" in the future, it would be nice if each participant using the word "centerline" could rapidly precise what he/she actually calls the "centerline" to avoid misunderstandings...

Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... I study the lineage through William Chueng. The way I was taught is that the central line is the line that runs from the top of the head down the center of the body. It is an internal line. The center line is an external line and may have mutliple definitions (at this point what I know of the theory is part Wing Chun part Kosho Ryu as I cannot honestly remember which system taught me which part). When your opponent attacks, they typically seek to strike delivering force towards your central line. The most direct route has a mid point, which is the center line. All attacks will pass through a center line and learning how to read an attacks starting point will help you determine where that attack must pass through (the center line). For me, the central line came from William Cheung. The centerline came from a mix of William Cheung and James Mistose's teachings to Hanshi Juchnik. Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory...

Hello again Wow, it starts to get confusing! What I call centerline - no correspondance in what you explain What I call the motherline - what you call the central line OK Nothing I know of - What you call the center line For me, the central line came from William Cheung Not likely: it exists even out of the Yip Man lineages. The most direct route has a mid point, which is the center line. All attacks will pass through a center line and learning how to read an attacks starting point will help you determine where that attack must pass through (the center line). I never heard of this one. Some sort of a borderline, then? You are making me feel like reading some of William Cheung's books to know more about his WC approach. I realise it's the one I know the less, and it's funny because he's actually the most well-knowned still alive grandmaster! Cheers Franck Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... You are spot on about the confusion that arises out of the term 'centreline'. The pivot line for heel swivels passes directly through the centre of the body but only works when weight is distributed evenly between the feet. Otherwise there is a weight shift and a lateral movement (less than in the flat foot swivel but there all the same). An imaginary triangle can be drawn from the torso and head which points directly out from the centre of the chest. This is also often called the centreline and is used as a basis for dominating position (I'll call this the triangle point). Attacking only the central points of an opponent is not what centerline theory is about. I don't usually say something is definately wrong as there is no such thing as black and white in W.C. but on this occassion I will. I will clarify this with some examples: 1. Sitting horse position in Chum Kiu demonstrates entering an opponent's space and deflecting their centreline away. 2. The dummy form has many attacks to the outside gate. 3. Limb destruction is seen in all of the forms at some point. In my opinion the most useful and practical way that centreline theory can be used is by pointing the 'triangle point' closer to (not always at) your opponent's centreline than his or hers is to yours. That way you always have an advantage of position i.e. your strong position can only be moved towards the target.

Dave Blackley. Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Welcome back Dave OK... I (roughly) get your points. Now it's something else.. again! An imaginary triangle can be drawn from the torso and head which points directly out from the centre of the chest I have difficulties to visualise this one. Would you please explain it in a different way, so I may be sure of what you are referring to? Attacking only the central points of an opponent is not what centerline theory is about. I don't usually say something is definately wrong as there is no such thing as black and white in W.C. but on this occassion I will. Hem... Sorry, but there is something wrong in your sentence too. It comes from writing "THE" centerline theory.... (you don't write the "the" but you do mean it, no? ) What I mean it it's obvious that there are several "centerline theories".... - sadly. Personnaly, my interest is in understanding the concepts behind each "centerline theory", and (I'm probably dreaming ) clarifying the vocabulary used in those. As there is no "definitive" authority in WC, it's gonna be quite difficult... but why not try? Cheers Franck

Edited by: WCSoy

at: 12/27/01 4:46:02 pm

Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Franck, Yes, it is what you called 'the centreline' in your first post . A principle that I can't agree with. A beginner is taught the basics of attacking from the centre (think of chain punching) but not always to the centre (outergate). As you advance there are many attacks that do not come from the centre or are linear. 'Triangle point' extend your arms directly out parallel with the chest and touch your palms together. It draws a line from the centre of the chest and forms a triangle from the top of the head and navel. Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Dave , Yes, it is what you called 'the centreline' in your first post . A principle that I can't agree with. If you read well, you'll see I wrote "main" target, not "only" target. The difference is important. To use this "line" as a guide for attacking strikes is emphasised by many teachers in different lineages, and is

very logical to my sense. What do you think is wrong with it? The fact that attacks may be momentarily directed to the "outer gates" or to limbs doesn't change the main target: weak points. Before one learns Biu Jee, many of these weak points are difficult to strike properly, but those localised along this "line" (in my vocabulary "motherline") are easier to target. Furthermore, striking to this "line" prevents the deflection consecutive from the pivoting of the body according to the strike... You seem to imply that what is taught this way to beginners is not the "real" thing. I then have to say that if something may be applied with success by a beginner, it does have a meaning of its own. Later on, you extend your knowledge and skills, you don't change your former knowledge and skills, do you? So this concept must be valuable, don't you think? 'Triangle point' extend your arms directly out parallel with the chest and touch your palms together. It draws a line from the centre of the chest and forms a triangle from the top of the head and navel It then applies only to the upper gate???? This reminds me of the "pyramids" concept I came across some time ago (I think it was from Moy Yat's lineage but I'm not sure at all)... Cheers Franck Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Sorry, missed a bit, getting tired now it is 1.45am! No, the same princilple to the triangle line can be applied to the legs, I'll save all the footwork stuff for now it will take too long. However, the upper gate domination can still be applied even if the leg positions are neutral. Another often used misconception is that you can't rotate the waste in W.C. You can! (45 degree swivels become 90 degree due to upper body rotations [Chum Kiu] ) Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Sorry, missed a bit, getting tired now it is 1.45am! And here it's 3:27 AM , so I'm going to bed! - I think there is a little misunderstanding between us

I'm eager to resume this discussion tomorrow Dave about the "center" target Sleep well my friend Franck

Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... I'm just getting started wth my day here, I'll have more to add later as this is definitely a rich topic. For now I just want to say that Threelions and what he said about the triangulation point is exactly what I was getting at. My problem was, I looking at the triangulation point from the wrong side and trying to describe it from the attackers side. The moment I read the word triangulation, I knew what I had done wrong, thanks. 3lions says what I wanted

to, just much more clearer. Edited by: Khahan Gunn at: 12/28/01 5:24:12 am Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Centerline and Doy Ying I really can't keep straight all the names everyone has for this stuff. In Wing Chun the Centerline is what you must FACE. Facing or Doy Ying (face the ball) is critical in Wing Chun and is the basis for the system. For the WC practitioner the Centerline is the line that runs from the center of his body to the center of mass of his opponent and it's what he faces. At range he must attempt to face this center of his opponent and indeed attack this center in order to protect himself using Wing Chun Techniques. Wing Chun concepts like hand unity, hand replacement and occupying the centerline etc. cannot be done optimally without Doy Ying or facing the opponents centerline, since this makes each of the Wing Chung practitioners hands equidistant to the opponent, so both hands can be used as one unit.. As the opponent moves around him so does the centerline and he must follow, stick and face. In one of William Chungs books he advises facing the attacking limb or fist and he states that the modified Wing Chun fails when facing the centerline of the opponent instead of the limb since the limb can sneak around the Tan Sao that is facing the wrong way. This is just plain silly since it would be quite impossible to face each weapon thrown at a person e.g. a fist, foot hand elbow etc coming from various directions. The missing piece in Williams example is Lin Sao Di Da or The freed hand hits so when the opponents limb leaves the center to attack AROUND the Tan Sao or what have you, instead of facing the limb one remains facing the opponent and the free limb simply hits him. Jim Edited by: James Hawkins at: 1/9/02 12:55:42 am Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Welcome James Id' appreciate if we could avoid that this place becomes a place to fight between William Cheung and nonWilliam Cheung lineages, please. I don't think this "plain silly" can be applied to a WC system you certainly don't know as well as its practitioners. Understand me: From my own WC lineage, many things William Cheung teaches seem very strange too, but it doesn't mean that it's silly. I think in each system, it's the complete picture (the way techniques and principles work with each other to form a whole) that may be judged, not this or this part. As I stated in the forum rules, we are free to criticise, but not to judge. About the center line, you state that what YOU call the centerline IS the "centerline in WC". You seem to forget that there are several (not to say many) WC systems, and none may claim to have anything like "orthodox" knowledge. If you believe that WC as you know it is "THE" WC, wisen up: you are reproducing the same mistake as the one you claim that Cheung's students make. The purpose of this forum is to get over these clan wars and arguments of authority, to get better knowledge by exchange of ideas, not to prove one school's superiority. I have the utmost respect for Moy Yat (I've read you posts on other forums ), wich I consider as a very talented WC master (one of my favorites actually), but as I wrote to Kahan Gunn in another thread, one should learn not ot take EVERYTHING one's master taught him as ultimate truth...

Personally it's the first time I read about "the center of mass of the opponent" as being related to the "centerline", which is certainly not what i've learned in the three WC lineages i've been studying until now. Very interesting. How does one determine the location of his opponent's center of mass (= what to face) in a fight? Franck Edited by: WCSoy at: 1/9/02 2:20:53 pm

Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Okay I will refrain from using words like silly. However I have read over the years much of what William has said, I have his books and he *has* been to my school. I find the claims he makes to be at least as 'inappropriate' as using the word silly, perhaps more so. Saying things like "I am the only one who he (Yip Man) taught the 'real' system to" back when William was 14 years old is well let's say highly controversial. If I said such a thing about my late teacher I would fully expect to find some of my Si Hings cracking their knuckles and waiting for me outside the kwoon. Not to mention what he says about facing the attacking hand 'thing.' Well regarding the center of mass, this is just how I decided to address the Centerline here. If I am not mistaken almost all variations of WC except William Cheung's use the same line I am talking about. So to be clearer: The Centerline is an imaginary line that runs from the center of your body directly to the center of the opponent's body (which by default is the center of his mass vertically) irrespective of how he is facing, like so, looking from above: 0----0 Should the location of the opponent change then the WC man must change his facing so that he is again facing the opponent's center: 0 | | 0 Facing is generally taught as a prerequisite for Chi-Sau and is called in Cantonese Doy Ying. An interesting side point in Doy Ying (Wing Chun Facing) is that this facing theory is exactly the opposite of Aikido. Where Akido retreats into a circle backwards Wing Chun follows turns to face while going forward ('follow as he goes.') So if an opponent tries to flank (go around your hands) you he must move a greater distance to do that than you must move to face since you are the hub in the center of the wheel and he is further out near the rim of the wheel. In the Siu Lim Tao of course the Tan Sao etc moves up and down the Centerline but in this case the Centerline is static since there is no opponent, clearly, it is assumed that if there was an opponent while you were doing the form he would be directly in front of you would he not? When you do the punch or palm in the form you would be hitting the opponent directly down the Centerline and hitting him in the center of his body, vertically, correct? As I wrote before Wing Chun techniques and theory are designed to function when both the Wing Chun man's

hands are equidistant to the opponent, the hands must be able to assist each other and move as a unit, moreover, certain techniques cannot be done unless you squarely face the opponent's center. In Wing Chun you must occupy the Centerline and that means having both hands doing that simultaneously. The only way you can do that is to face him squarely. In Chi-Sao the integrity of one's structure is clearly stronger when facing the opponent squarely. In the case where you are facing the opponent but he is not facing you, this means you are flanking him and have an advantage one advantage is that you can use two hands and he cannot. Also another important point: Forward energy When issuing energy in the form of forward energy the direction of the energy is critical to the sucess of the technique and the direction this energy radiates in is directly at the center of the opponent, which is also the vertical center of his mass, which is why an opponent often goes flying backwards during a WC attack. If the Centerline as I have described it here is different from what you were taught then I would be interested in hearing what you were taught. Jim Yat means One. Moy Yat Sifu, you were a man who was first in many things. So now as we remember your vivid presence we can all truly say you are number one in our hearts. Rest in peace dear teacher, dear friend, dear brother, and dear father: Moy Yat Edited by: James Hawkins at: 1/9/02 9:39:33 pm Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... OK - nice you agree to cool down The Centerline is an imaginary line that runs from the center of your body directly to the center of the opponent's body (which by default is the center of his mass vertically) irrespective of how he is facing, like so, looking from above: 0----0 Vertically OK so you and me talk exactly about the same thing. Just that in my terminology the "center of the opponent body" (or of one's self body) I call the "motherline" (just because it's handy to have a single word to talk about it..). It's nice that you explain that this "center" stands regardless of the way one is facing, as it was the missing piece in my talk with Dave: he seemed to assume that this "center" I talked about was only located at the front of one's body, which is not the case. Even if facing an opponent's side (or back), we still aim at his ("motherline")/("center of mass"). Do you get it this way, Dave? I would have liked to make a drawing but I still haven't got room to host images promise. - sorry - I'll do this soon

Wing Chun techniques and theory are designed to function when both the Wing Chun man's hands are equidistant to the opponent, the hands must be able to assist each other and move as a unit, moreover, certain techniques cannot be done unless you squarely face the opponent's center

This is something I haven't been teached yet, though it makes sense in the WC system I learn... Fits perfectly. In TWC (Cheung) it's indeed quite different, as you mention it. From what I now about Cheung's system (I've only been into it for +/- 20 courses), one's also generally facing the opponent's center when striking, but not always for other moves... So this equidistance doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite in Cheung's system... Dave? Kahann? Am I wrong? Cheers Franck Edited by: WCSoy

at: 1/10/02 9:58:42 am

Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Yes! Interestingly WSL stressed that one should generally avoid direct attacks to either side of a line that runs down the centre of the body i.e. like a spike through the top of the head, through the body and into the ground directly between the legs. This is because an opponent can pivot to deflect other attacks more easily. Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... ??? WSL = Wong Sheun Leung I presume? Sorry if I mixed things up, I thought you were from William Cheung's lineage? This is because an opponent can pivot to deflect other attacks more easily. Sure, thus my funny sentence in another thread about "punching at the shoulders", which is considered as antiWC in all lineages I think, because of this rotative deflection... How about the equidistance between the two arms? Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Yes Wong! but I'm not from either lineage. For info I have trained under the lineages of Ip Chun, Lee Shing, Koo Sang, and a little of Lun Jie. I have attended many seminars, read widely and regularly visit the clubs of other lineages (I think one should be open and receptive to all aspects of WC). I have had students of Wong, William Cheung, Moy Yat, Ip Ching, Leung Ting lineages and others train with me. Believe me when I say that sometimes the differences in ideas can be startling. Sorry Franck, can you clarify your last point please. Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Aviod attacks to either side of the Line? So I assume then the attacks should be ON the Line? That is basic Centerline Theory as I understand it. It supports 'The attacking hand defends' idiom. Jim

Yat means One. Moy Yat Sifu, you were a man who was first in many things. So now as we remember your vivid presence we can all truly say you are number one in our hearts. Rest in peace dear teacher, dear friend, dear brother, and dear father: Moy Yat Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Towards the line! It is inside i.e. you can attack from front , side, back etc. I also said 'generally' there are many techniques that you can use to other areas (see Bil Tze). Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Well again I don't think that we're talking about the same line as in earlier posts in this thread. One of the most basic tenents of WC is Centerline occupation, it is the basis for Chi-Sao exercises and WC. Jim Yat means One. Moy Yat Sifu, you were a man who was first in many things. So now as we remember your vivid presence we can all truly say you are number one in our hearts. Rest in peace dear teacher, dear friend, dear brother, and dear father: Moy Yat

Comment Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... In my last post I was addressing the centre of mass comment. I agree that dominating the central position is a key factor in W.C. However, this is more about being in a better position than always occupying the centre. If you have deflected an opponents thrust away, you may hold a position where your centre (traingle point...see earlier) is not directed at your opponent. This is OK because it is still dominant i.e. you can cut back but the opponent can not. Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Dave, You asked me to clear my question about "equidistance". I was referring to James Hawkin's point: Wing Chun techniques and theory are designed to function when both the Wing Chun man's hands are equidistant to the opponent, the hands must be able to assist each other and move as a unit, moreover, certain techniques cannot be done unless you squarely face the opponent's center. As -from what I know- this equidistance is not applied in William Chueng's lineage, in which one doesn't face squarely the opponent most of the time but in a 45 fashion (once again I'm not sure it's the case in all the W. Cheung's schools), I was wondering what Cheung's students had to say about this. Now I know I've mixed things up and you're not from Cheung's lineage, so the question was not directed

at you... So maybe Kahan Gunn could comment on this? How do GM W. Chueng's techniques apply in a 45 fashion, to coordinate both arms nicely in relation to the opponent's center? For example, is there an overall more "attacking" hand (closer to the opponent) and a more "defensive" one (further from the opponent) while dealing with the fight? (what I write may sound 100% stupid , but it's only to "open" the point ...) Cheers Franck Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Franck, The 45 degree thing is not uncommon in other lineages. From my experience this angle is most often used to fill a space. Imagine your opponent with left leg forward and also at an angle (not totally square), you would slide forward into the gap directly infront of him (with your left leg forward) bringing you both square to each other and at W.C. distance (the hands could then be used together as a unit if appropriate). The slides after the first kick in Chum Kiu suggest this type of movement. The bong sau is to the space i.e. in sitting horse position rather than the forward position. You might not have meant this at all in your post, if so sorry for the misinterpretation Dave Blackley Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... I practice William Cheung's lineage, but I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with the 45 degree deal, or what you're trying to ask me. I'll attempt to give an answer, and if it doesn't make any sense, then please try and reword your question. In our lineage, we have three different stances, one of which being a intermediate stance that is only using while switching stances so that the practitioner has maximum capability of interrupting their current plans incase of a change in attack from the opponent. The neutral side-stance you are all familiar with, as it is in all of the lineages. I would hope that each lineage also has some variation of the forward stance, which is when one foot is infront of the other. For example, in the left forward stance, the left foot would be infront of the right foot. Now, I've seen a couple of different variations of the forward stance. The one that I personally practice is where both feet are parallel to each other, pointing 90 degrees out from the body. I have seen a forward stance in which the front foot was turned to face the opponent, or direction of movement. The T-stance is a stance in which the feet are close together, about 75% of the body weight is put onto the rear leg, the front leg is put up somewhat like a cat-stance which provides for easy and quick kicking and side-stepping. Again, this stance is generally not held for a long period of time. It is more of a stance to be used inbetween footwork to ensure safety of the Wing Chun practitioner. One would use a T-stance while shifting from the neutral side-stance to the forward stance. .

As far as the 45 degree angle deal, there really isn't room for one with the above stances. I'm not sure exactly how to explain how we perform. Again, you'd have to reword part of your question to fit what I have not yet answered (if anything.) Randall Cranex Mindful Wisdom "Enjoy every second of your life and take some risks! Do whatever makes you feel alive, because you are." Re: Confusions about the "centerline" theory... Hi all, I'm new to this so I'm not sure if this is correct (as in how to post). First about myself, I study the Yip Man Lineage of WC probably falling under the WSL branch (after reading some posts here I really need to get a clearer picture on this have to clarify with my Sifu). I have been studying WC for around 5 years. To my understanding the centreline is more like a wall that cuts you in half going back to front or front to back. From my interpretations of what I have been taught, you defend your centreline and attack your opponents centre. When you first start WC this is done in a straight line (the shortest route between two points) as in you attack in a straight line, later on you start learning about moving around their defences (hence off the straight line, using the outside gates), but you still attack their centre while defending of your centreline, the moving has repositioned your centreline to a better attacking position in regards to their centre, oh btw Im a believer that the best form of defence is attack. (A) --o---o-(B) --o--(A) Shows two people facing each other square on (B) Shows what happens when one person moves off the line and repositions themselves, moving their centreline into a better attacking and also better defensive position. I hope people can understand what I am trying to say.