Centerline, what is it?

[snakebyte8]

This has probably been beaten to death here, but I would like your input on this. Yip Man wing chun lineages speak of the centerline as a "concept",a "principle" or is it "principal" and also a "theory". Please help get to the bottom of this. Ive included the definitions of these below for your reference. All views are appreciated including non Yip Man forum members. Please include your feelings on it, not simply "cuz my sifu sez so"! Personally, I can see it from all the defs below, hence the confusion! :confused:

Concept
Function: noun
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
synonym : IDEA (perhaps, Little Idea!)

Principal
Function: noun
a matter or thing of primary importance: as a (1) : a capital sum placed at interest, due as a debt, or used as a fund (2) : the corpus of an estate, portion, devise, or bequest b : the construction that gives shape and strength to a roof and is usually one of several trusses; broadly : the most important member of a piece of framing.

Function: adjective
1 : most important, consequential, or influential : CHIEF
2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal

Principle
Function: noun
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : ORIGIN
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality

Theory
Function: noun
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject.

Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both adjective and noun.
Taken from http://www.m-w.com

[anerlich]

A concept, I think, as in that no one (or very few) have an actual line tatooed down the front or back of their bodies. It doesn't exist as a physical object.

Also a principle, as in protecting/attacking along/not crossing the centreline.

Some styles have more definitions of centreline than others, but of course greater numbers of definitions do not necessarily a better style make.

Nor is centreline unique to WC, many KF styles pay homage to it. Heck, even BJJ has a centreline principle.

[stuartm]

Neither is it the be all and end all of WC's focus....! :eek: :)

[snakebyte8]

A concept, I think, as in that no one (or very few) have an actual line tatooed down the front or back of their bodies. It doesn't exist as a physical object.


Also a principle, as in protecting/attacking along/not crossing the centreline.


Thnx for the reply anerlich. Looking at it from your perspective then, one could boil it down to centerline being a "theory" as it is made up of concepts and principles. Does this sound reasonable to you?
For those afraid to be shot down or feel they are walking into a trap by replying, I wan't simply to have a clear concise answer to give students. Maybe the answer isn't so clear! As for having a line tatooed on you, you would have to have one tatooed on every degree of rotation on your body! :eek:

[snakebyte8]

Neither is it the be all and end all of WC's focus....! :eek: :)
Of course not stu, but lets take it one step at a time bro! :)

[Tom Kagan]

Main Entry: anal·y·sis
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·y·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, from analyein to break up, from ana- + lyein to loosen -- more at LOSE
1 : separation of a whole into its component parts
2 a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture
3 a : proof of a mathematical proposition by assuming the result and deducing a valid statement by a series of reversible steps b (1) : a branch of mathematics concerned mainly with functions and limits (2) : CALCULUS 1b
4 a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations b : a statement of such an analysis
5 a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse
6 : the use of function words instead of inflectional forms as a characteristic device of a language
7 : PSYCHOANALYSIS

Main Entry: pa·ral·y·sis
Pronunciation: p&-'ra-l&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pa·ral·y·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from paralyein to loosen, disable, from para- + lyein to loosen -- more at LOSE
1 : complete or partial loss of function especially when involving the motion or sensation in a part of the body
2 : loss of the ability to move
3 : a state of powerlessness or incapacity to act

:rolleyes:

The only thing I'll add is both "center" and "line" in "centerline" should be construed as verbs in this instance, not as an adjective prefix to a noun. This is a tiny bit harder to visualize if a practitioner subscribes to using "centralline" to describe what is ultimately only a rule of thumb.

[Ultimatewingchun]

WHAT IS THE CENTERLINE?

(For purposes of simplicity and clarity I will take the liberty of introducing a terminology of my own that I use to help understand the centerline and all other related wing chun concepts (ie.- the central line). Whatever direction you are facing, call that north...south is therefore behind you...east is to your right , and west is to your left).

Also: cut-the-body-in-half = c-t-b-i-h

The CENTERLINE in TWC and in every other wing chun system I am familiar with is FOURFOLD: the imaginary vertical line that runs down the exact center of your body when facing north (ie.- the line that cuts your body into two equal halves)...

the vertical cut-the-body-in-half line that runs down the center of your opponents' body THAT HE IS FACING YOU WITH, (ie. - regardless of how he lines up in front of you)...

the vertical c-t-b-i-h line running down the side of your body THAT YOU ARE FACING HIM WITH (which may or may not be the first line I described - for it depends upon how you choose to face the opponent at any given moment)...

and the imaginary HORIZONTAL c-t-b-i-h line that connects you and your opponent at any given moment (ie. - the horizontal line you might use to travel along to hit your opponent with several straight chain punches from a close distance)...

But from the TWC point of view, it all starts with the CENTRAL LINE theory, which defines the area a practitioner, without pivoting his hips, can cross his wrists evenly at the lower, middle, and upper gates when in a neutral stance. The very first movement you make with both arms after opening up your stance in any of the three forms - and immediately before throwing the vertical punch with your left hand - is the move that defines the central line. Recall the X-like movement (or scissor-like) motion your arms make when they go down from the chambers to the lower gates...

now freeze that movement for a moment. In other words, before rotating the X/scissor position up toward the higher gates - while still in the down position...start moving both arms to your right...

Remember not to pivot your hips (or shoulders), and when the hands and fingers would start to no longer reach to the exact same distance evenly if you were to continue to move them to the right (because your right arm and hand would now be extending further than the left)...you've just reached the eastern border of your central line.

Move the X/scissors to the left (west) until you reach the same position just described. You have now totally defined (or traced) an imaginary horizontal line...put that another way, an east-west plane known as the central line. And if you position your body vis-a-vis your opponent so that all blocks, parries, lops, and strikes only travel within the perimeters of this central line AREA...

You will always maximize the use of both arms for simultaneous attack and defense, and minimize the target area you present to your opponent. With this position, you the practitioner have the straight line path available for attack, while the opponent has only the outside path, an increased distance.

When using the central line theory, the practitioner almost always tries use footwork that enables him to FACE THE POINT OF CONTACT with his vertical, middle-of-the-body when facing north CENTERLINE when blocking or parrying blows coming in at him, while "returning the fire" in simultaneous (or hopefully simultaneous) attack on SOME OTHER POINT along the east-west horizontal central line.

And then at some point in your wing chun life you forget about all of this (consciously) and just let your zen-like live-in-the-moment intuition take over and simply beat the crap out of the guy! :p ;) :D :cool:

[snakebyte8]

Thnx UWC thats a great great way for identifying where your lines are in relation to your opponent. So, when you are asked by a student what the concepts, principles and theorys of wing chun are where do you place "centreline"?

[Nick Forrer]

The Centre Line
The centre line is the two dimensional plane that interconnects via a straight line my central axis with that of my opponent. It is like a compass needle that always points magnetically north irrespective of which way I am facing. Thus no matter which way my opponent or I are oriented the centreline always describes the shortest distance between our respective central axes. So there is not MY centreline or HIS centreline- there is only THE centreline.
By way of illustration: If I and my opponent are facing each other and then my opponent turns to the side the centreline does not shift- it remains the same- thus i do not run around to the front of him to hit his 'centre'- i hit it from where I am, taking the shortest route to his central axis- consequently in this scenario my point of contact will be either his ribs, his shoulder or the side of his head but in each case the target is still the same - namely his central axis.
Thus in Wing chun we always aim to attack our opponents central axis in the most efficient manner possible.
There are three main reasons for attacking the opponents central axis and by extension their centre of gravity: Firstly it ensures that all the force goes ‘into’ the enemy rather than being dissipated by any natural rotation of the torso via the spine (like a snooker ball- hitting it on the centre with the cue will mean, all other things being equal, that it travels the furthest distance), secondly the majority of vital organs, sensitive/vulnerable points are located on or aound there (the nose, chin, throat, sternum, solar plexus, groin etc.) and thirdly it uproots the opponent thus frustrating any possible counter attack which they might otherwise try and launch.

[anerlich]

a "theory"

Not "a theory" as that would imply it was an explanation backed up by evidence of why phenomena occur in a certain way.

But "theory", as in a collection of concepts and principles, yes.

IMO you can talk about "centreline theory", but not "the centreline theory".

This discussion is more about semantics and linguistics than WC, not that that's a big deal, but I'd point out there's unlikely to be many who are experts in both fields (though of course some regard themselves as experts on every subject ;) )

[stricker]

My definition of the cL is the same as Nick Forrer's above. Im not 100% convinced about the reasoning behind it though. I think the reason the centreline is important in wing chun has to do with simultaneous attack and defence, simplified that if we attack down it we are defended. Its a lot more complicated than that i know but i think thats the whole reasoning behind wing chun geometry really.

I think i can explain why point by point, here goes :

NF : Firstly it ensures that all the force goes ‘into’ the enemy rather than being dissipated by any natural rotation of the torso via the spine (like a snooker ball- hitting it on the centre with the cue will mean, all other things being equal, that it travels the furthest distance).
>> I like the analogy of the snooker ball, but take a thai boxer who jabs crosses long knees round kicks etc they attack the centre of the opponent but dont go down the centreline.

NF : secondly the majority of vital organs, sensitive/vulnerable points are located on or aound there (the nose, chin, throat, sternum, solar plexus, groin etc.) and
>> This ones a bit weak. Eyes, knees, elbows, ribs, jaw loads of tasty things to attack are off centre too.

NF: thirdly it uproots the opponent thus frustrating any possible counter attack which they might otherwise try and launch.
>> yeah but attacks dont have to go down the centreline to do this, they could just as easily not.

sorry nick dont take that as an attack, i agree with the rest of your post. it really helps using different terms for centreline and central axis too avoid confusion and mix ups.

ps i enjoy bits of your blog nick dude keep it up.

[Liddel]

I like Nick Forrer's post, :) and have experienced the following in other schools in my area.

Some refer to the centerline being the imaginary line on YOUR OWN body that is a reference for actions/direction etc.

Then the straight line that connects your body/action to your opponents closest object (shoulder if side on, face if front on etc) as the meridian line.
(the shortest distance between two points)

I think two different names seperate these two 'concepts' well.

IMO One can be a basis for stucture and movement and the other a path of the least amount of distance, which will always eb and flow depending on your position reletive to your opponent. (its always changing)

I agree with the fore mentioned... "This discussion is more about semantics and linguistics than WC"
However i do find this interesting :cool:

[snakebyte8]

Hey guy's thnx for all the great answers. FYI i'm aware of what the centreline is but I was trying to categorize it as either a principle, concept or a theory.
But "theory", as in a collection of concepts and principles, yes.

I like this answer. Of course it begs the question, which concepts and principles make up the theory? ;)

[Matrix]

FYI i'm aware of what the centreline is but I was trying to categorize it as either a principle, concept or a theory. Why limit things by trying to place everything in a nice tidy box? You may end up leaving a few interesting things out.......

Of course, in the beginning you need to be able to explain these ideas to students, but at some time it may be better to free yourself from the those limitations while remaining true the core value. Something like taking the training wheels off of a bicycle.

Just a thought, or was that theory? Maybe it's a concept. :confused: :D :D

[snakebyte8]

Where is the limitation? Did you limit yourself by learning Wing Chun? Of course some will say that you can apply these "core values" to anything that you could possibly think of! I personally need the "nice tidy box" to help explain and to teach people the "core values". :)

[Nick Forrer]

My definition of the cL is the same as Nick Forrer's above. Im not 100% convinced about the reasoning behind it though. I think the reason the centreline is important in wing chun has to do with simultaneous attack and defence, simplified that if we attack down it we are defended. Its a lot more complicated than that i know but i think thats the whole reasoning behind wing chun geometry really.

Hey Stricker. I have no problem with your disagreeing. However what you say does not contradict what I have said since I was referring to why we hit the central axis, not why our attacks follow the centreline. There is a subtle but important difference between these two things. As you correctly note it is possible to hit the central axis without following the centreline.

So to be clear the reason why we attack along the centreline is first and foremost efficency- the quickest route between two points being a straight line.

However to defend and attack simultaneously along the centreline requires more than just ensuring that you attack along it. Think of a jab. This can follow the centreline easily. However because the elbow is not pointed to the floor you are not covering the centre at the same time. Thus to defend and attack simultaneously we need to do more than just attack along the centre: our elbow must also be down. This has the added effect of course of connecting our arm to our stance making it structurally stronger since it channels the equal and opposite force (by newtons 3rd law) into the ground and back out again.



ps i enjoy bits of your blog nick dude keep it up.

Cheers. Haven't stopped training. Just lazy/busy at the mo.

[Nick Forrer]

The simplest way to say it would be:

We hit the central axis (3 reasons) , in a straight line (1 reason) with the elbow down (2 reasons).

[Matrix]

Where is the limitation? I mean the limitation of labeling it as theory, principle or concept. Kind of like Shakespere's famous line, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I think it's a concept that we use as a principle, but that's only a theory. ;)

[snakebyte8]

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Isn't that a JKD theory. :)

[Matrix]

Anything is possible I guess.
BTW, I've sent you a PM.

[Airdrawndagger]

If you are trying to explain the centerline theory to students then I would assume that they are beginners, no?

You dont want to confuse beginner students because their minds are probably already flooded with information.
Also, your explanation needs to stick with the level of their training.
SLT is of course the first form and the drills will revolve around it so there will most likely not be alot of sparring applications being taught to them if you teach with a more traditional approach.
Training in the beginner level is a one on one interaction with both practicioners faceing each other with a neutral horse stance used.
The center line theory you explain to them should follow the confines of this type of training until the graduate to chum kil level in which a deeper more 3 demenstional explanation can follow.
This way they can remain focused on what the exact lessons being taught are at that level and they can develop good strong habits that can carry over to the next level.

Good luck

[stricker]

Nick,

Ok it seemed like your logic was :

We attack/defend the centreline because <reasons to attack the central axis>

which we agree is wrong!

cheers!

[snakebyte8]

You dont want to confuse beginner students because their minds are probably already flooded with information

The confusion begins when a sifu cannot properly explain the principles and theories which the Wing Chun system is comprised of. What better time to set your students on the right path than from day one! :)

[IRONMONK]

to me the centreline is the shortest straightline to my opponent

so if my opponent is to the side of me(shoulder -shoulder) i would use a fak sao because this is now the shortest straightline

[Airdrawndagger]

The confusion begins when a sifu cannot properly explain the principles and theories which the Wing Chun system is comprised of. What better time to set your students on the right path than from day one! :)


Your right,
If you (you in general, not directly saying YOU)are a sifu and you cannot explain something so simple yet undenyably important like the center line theory to your students then I would hate to think what other kind of great explanations this sifu would explain.
When you learn many techniques and applications in VT you first learn that these techs., principles, applications, are to not be broken and to follow them strickly to the T. Later on in your training when you reach a more advanced level these same techs, principles, and applications become more abstract and the "rules" that you were following so precisly can and will be broken.
If you were to explain all of this to a beginner than you will definetly confuse them and they will develop bad habits based on your explainations because they will stray from what is important at the beginner level which is to develop a strong base from which to grow from.
If you explain the centerline theory with the beginner mentality in mind then you will be keeping the explaination simple with all the points that are important at that level expressed in a clear consise mannor. You will not be wrong. So why would you try to go into great detail about the centerline theory when it is not nessisarry? Why explain the concepts of breaking the centerline, off centerline attacks, and centerline redirection at that level? Not nessisarry. Keep it simple.

[snakebyte8]

Whoa doggies! :rolleyes:
Obviously you can't deliver the whole system the first week! Centreline theory is the basis for the whole system. Thats pretty much it. OK you have a straight line theory as well but big deal. If you can't figure that one out your never gonna get it anyway! The system we have chosen simply relies on chi sao to teach the other things you mentioned. We have no principles only "idioms". Show me a book or magazine article outlining the principles of Wing Chun. Tell me of a Sifu who teaches the principles. Does your Sifu teach the principles and if so kindly enlighten me and the others on this forum of them. I have been trying to figure out what principles make up the centreline theory and so far have come up empty. :confused: Remember, those beginners of which you are refering to will not always be beginners, what then? Who knows maybe i was nursing a hangover the day the principles were taught at our school! :eek: Loy Lau Hoi Sung, Lut Sau Jik Chung, is that a principle, cuz if it is then all my prayers have been answered. Hallelujah! :)

[Airdrawndagger]

Well not that I dont detect a certain amount of sarcasm in your response, but I seriously hope you are joking, right?
Just in case you are not I guess ill take a little stab at your inquisition:

Wing Chun Principles as examples by sifu's and/or noted authors:

"The combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung" by David Peterson page 17

"Wing Chun stipulates the use of concepts and principles, and there are techniques to follow these 'ideas'". -Wong Shun Leung

page 35

'sticking to the hands' "will cause such bad habits as 'chasing the hands' of the opponent, and thus totally contadict one of Wing Chun's most basic fighting principles". -Wong Shun Leung


"Wing Tsun Kuen" written by Leung Ting
Page 126
In this system the strightline punches are the most important attacking technique, for they are formulated according to the principle that "the shortest distance between two points is the straight line joining them"-- Leung Ting

Other refferences to principles in this book and many others is:

"simultanious attack and defense"
"To stay with what comes, follow through as it retreats, thrust forward as the hand is freed."
"move before the opponent moves"
"attack instead of defending"

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35
"Our basic philosophy is that if something requires excessive movement, strength or effort, then it is not something we wish to waste time practising if a more practical method exists."
-David Peterson, 2nd paragraph

Here, try these articles...

http://www.mainewingchunkungfu.com/article16.htm

http://www.wingchun.org/viewpt/one/4/vp1-4d.html

I can do this all day long but I think ive made my point.

I guess you need to catch up on a little reading. BTW hows that hang over?

[snakebyte8]

"Wing Chun stipulates the use of concepts and principles, and there are techniques to follow these 'ideas'". Wong Shun Leung

HMMM :confused:

'sticking to the hands' "will cause such bad habits as 'chasing the hands' of the opponent, and thus totally contadict one of Wing Chun's most basic fighting principles". -Wong Shun Leung

Which principle is this one? Don't stick to peoples hands?

In this system the straightline punches are the most important attacking technique, for they are formulated according to the principle that "the shortest distance between two points is the straight line joining them"-- Leung Ting

As I mentioned this is straight line theory. Hardly a principle.


"simultanious attack and defense"
"To stay with what comes, follow through as it retreats, thrust forward as the hand is freed."
"move before the opponent moves"
"attack instead of defending"

Umm these are a few of the idioms! :)

"Our basic philosophy is that if something requires excessive movement, strength or effort, then it is not something we wish to waste time practising if a more practical method exists."
-David Peterson, 2nd paragraph

Philosophy is a good way to sum this up.

"I can do this all day long but I think ive made my point."

OK! ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

snakebyte...after reading through this thread - I've come to the conclusion that you're trolling. :p

You had me goin' there for a while, I must admit :rolleyes: ....since your bio says you're a 14 year wing chun guy who actually teaches as part of his "career".


So therefore I have a few questions for YOU:

1- As a wing chun instructor - how do YOU explain the centerline to your students?

2- Do you consider the centerline to be a principle, a concept, a strategy, the Mason-Dixon line, a line that separates the country's wing chun exponents in half - running along the Mississippi River, or what? :cool:

[snakebyte8]

snakebyte...after reading through this thread - I've come to the conclusion that you're trolling. :p :

Nope, just friendly discussion. But after reading the posts between you and foofighter I can see how you might think that! :p

So therefore I have a few questions for YOU:


1- As a wing chun instructor - how do YOU explain the centerline to your students?

I actually liked your explanation it's pretty much the same as my view and thats Basically how I explain it to students.


2- Do you consider the centerline to be a principle, a concept, a strategy, the Mason-Dixon line, a line that separates the country's wing chun exponents in half - running along the Mississippi River, or what? :cool:

I've stated here that I now beleive this to be a theory or even better now that airdrawndagger pointed out David Peterson's quote (not in reference to centreline) but that perhaps its simply a philosophy. :)

[snakebyte8]

How long have you trained?:
30 years
Biography:
Direct student of William Cheung since August, 1983. Direct student of Moy Yat from May,1975 to May,1983. Has been teaching in NYC since September,1984

UltimateWingChun youv'e trained for a long time. You could put this issue to rest. Would you mind stating how many principles there are in the Yip Man WingChun system and what exactly are they? :)

[mexenergy]

If you've been in WC for so long, you should already have the principles. Idioms become principles when someone can explain them to you with their hands. Otherwise they stay as idioms to you because you cannot see the simplicity. That's the thing about principle. It's the little things that make all the difference. The little things that people don't pay attention to because they think it doesn't matter or apply. The principle of the thing is what makes it important.

(Loy Lau Hoi Sung, Lut Sau Jik Chung, is that a principle, cuz if it is then all my prayers have been answered. Hallelujah)

They are principles. Knowing the idioms mean nothing. Can you apply them in your WC besides reciting? Now you're cooking with principle.

[snakebyte8]

The idioms are the principles? To me they sound more like strategy. But perhaps you are right Mexenergy. I'll post more later on why i dont really agree and give examples why. Gotta run for now. :)

[SimonM]

A concept, I think, as in that no one (or very few) have an actual line tatooed down the front or back of their bodies. It doesn't exist as a physical object.


Besides which such a line would be misleading. After all the center line shifts as the two bodies move in relation to each other.

[snakebyte8]

The entire system of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun is based on just twelve principles which are embodied in twelve key words: Kuen (fist), Kiu (bridge), Jeung (palm), Bong (wing), Jee (finger), Chi (stick), Mor (touch), Kou (hook), Lap (grab), Dop (ride), Tang (slant), and Dong (sway). Taken from an article by R. Chu

The Chi Sim Weng Chun uses 6 1/2 principles: Tai (raise) Lan (press or take space from your opponent, make space for oneself) Dim (point- hard or soft) Kit (deflect, short rotational force connected to opponents centreline) Got (cut downward, sink) Wan (Circle, absorb) Lau (flowing continuously). Taken from Mastering Kung Fu by Garret Gee, Benny Meng, Richard Lowenhagen.

This might be the key to the answer I was seeking. I think that perhaps our "Principles" were replaced with technique names. The above excerpts were the reason why I don't beleive our idioms were principles but were based on principles such as those listed above. Now when I said "We don't have principles only idioms" perhaps that was a little overboard but hopefully you can now see where I was coming from. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think that perhaps our 'Principles' were replaced with technique names. The above excerpts were the reason why I don't believe our idioms were principles but were based on principles such as those listed above."


***I THINK you've got it, snake. :cool:


Like I said in my previous post, sometimes the line that "separates" principles, strategies, and techniques gets blurred into invisibility; so lop, for example, is both a principle and a technique.

[Matrix]

This might be the key to the answer I was seeking. I think that perhaps our "Principles" were replaced with technique names. The above excerpts were the reason why I don't beleive our idioms were principles but were based on principles such as those listed above. I can't really agree. Techniques are techniques, and the art is more than a sum of a list of technique names. The principles are imbedded in the forms and chi sao, so the more you play them the more you can learn to see in them.

And the idioms serve to add some insight into these principles. They are open to some interpretation, which really helps to muddy the waters.

Just my 2 cents,

[n.mitch]

The centerline is a principle, it is one of the most important in wing chun most if not all attacks and deflections should come of it. if your centerline is no good ie open not covered, then its easilly attacked and if you cant get your elbows in to cover your centerline you have to use more body pivoting which against some one who has good centerline and attacks your centerline catches up on your timing each move you make then their relaitive speed gets faster and you get overpowed and get hit or jammed or trapped,which everway you look at it your in trouble

[snakebyte8]

Techniques are techniques, and the art is more than a sum of a list of technique names.
Absolutely, the idioms are there to guide us and as we all know chi sao is the forum in which we learn to apply these techniques, techniques that should be based on certain principles.

The principles are imbedded in the forms and chi sao, so the more you play them the more you can learn to see in them.
Sure the principles must be embedded in the forms, but which principles and where they are must surely be one of the keys to a better understanding of the forms. (not to mention getting the hell off the internet and practicing). ;) Every technique must be accompanied by one or more principles and for my own personal development (and the students) I would like to be able to identify them.

And the idioms serve to add some insight into these principles. They are open to some interpretation, which really helps to muddy the waters
:rolleyes: See above :rolleyes:

Perhaps Yip Man Wing Chun simply does not rely on "key words" to identify the principles it uses. This thread has had over 800 viewings by forum members and it hasn't exactly been flooded by members naming any principle names. I figure someone here must be dying to list them to show me what a poor student I've been all these years. :D (If i gotta keep typing "PRINCIPLES" anymore I'm gonna croak) :eek: Hope nobody's offended by what I'm saying, just sorta feel like an old dog chasin my tail!

[sihing]

Principals of Wing Chun:

1) Close Range fighting system- easier/faster to learn and apply, harder for opponent to counter and recoup from properly executed attacks.

2) Contact Reflex Development- faster reaction mechanism to enable close range fighting system to work more effectively

3) Observation of Certain points- watching elbows and knees allows faster reaction time concerning opponent’s movements. Since the elbows and knees need to be moved to attack/advance/kick, etc..., and since they move slower than fists or feet, watch these points (and use peripheral vision to observe everything else) to forecast the opponent intentions and actions towards you.

4) Protection of Central Line- Protecting ones Central area (central core area, ranging from head area to the solar plexus line) creates a barrier to which the opponent has to enter, cross or destroy, go around to employ his weapons upon us, thereby slowing his attack down and allow us more time to defend/attack simultaneously or otherwise..

5) Use of Both limbs simultaneously- the facing principal of WC allows the simultaneous use of both arms/hands at the same time, meaning more efficient use of ones offensive weapons and defensive tools.

6) Fighting from a flanking line or Blindside- When facing and or attack/defending, do so from a flank rather than facing/fighting the opponent from dead on center, having to deal with all his weapons. You can do this by stepping to the side of your opponent or forcing him to the side as well. Although this is not always necessary or needed it does allow one a safer position.

7) Straight line hitting- using straight lines in attack means more efficient and faster movment. So if the practitioner is not very fast physically, they can still move fast using fast movements, whereas using slower movements requires more practice and "sharpening of the tools" to gain and maintain speed in delivery of their weapons.
Just a few principals for ya to get the ideas flowing around here...

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun PRINCIPLES:

1- Centerline(s)...Central line, etc.


2- Straight Line Striking & Kicking


3- Forward Pressure by Sticking to the Opponent


4- Deflection or Avoidance of the Opponent's Force


5- Simultaneous Attack & Defense


6- Low Line Kicking


7- Protection of Six Gates


......................

Now you guys fill in the blanks as to what particular strategies and techniques are used to implement PRINCIPLES 1-7....and add whatever "PRINCIPLES" you think I left out.

[DRleungjan]

Hi Ultimate,

To the above I would just add: Footworks. It is the last component that binds the above together if I were to compile the list.

Or would this fall under one of the above categories as a strategy to the principles?

[Matrix]

Sure the principles must be embedded in the forms, but which principles and where they are must surely be one of the keys to a better understanding of the forms.No doubt about it. That's why I said in my previous post that you must play the forms over and over, in order to gain a better understanding of the principles you already "know" and perhaps discover a few additional pieces of information along the way.

Besides, your understanding of the principles will change/evolve over time. When you first learn about the center line, it's in a static position, with no footwork or shifting. I think that Airdrawndagger made this point earlier in the thread.


This thread has had over 800 viewings by forum members and it hasn't exactly been flooded by members naming any principle names. I figure someone here must be dying to list them to show me what a poor student I've been all these years. :D I doubt that you're a poor student. I seems that traditionally the art has been passed along through the forms and chi sao, etc and that tradition continues. You can write down a list, and I'm willing to bet someone will want to add something ( like Body Unity) or change one, or expand on another. When you boil it down to a list it is necessary to bring it down to a level of abstraction that will undoubtably require some details to be lost or misunderstood. I'm not saying that such a list is without value, just that it may not be the end all and be all that we might think. Wing Chun is so highly dependent on feel and sensitivity that it may be difficult to encapsulate in a few words. However, I'm certainly open to taking a shot at it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hey Doc, I would say that FOOTWORK (in general) falls under STRATEGY in terms of implementing all of the PRINCIPLES, and specific types of footwork, ie.- full side step, half front step forward, full front step forward, triangle steps, shuffle steps, etc. are TECHNIQUES.

What do you think?

[DRleungjan]

Hey Doc, I would say that FOOTWORK (in general) falls under STRATEGY in terms of implementing all of the PRINCIPLES, and specific types of footwork, ie.- full side step, half front step forward, full front step forward, triangle steps, shuffle steps, etc. are TECHNIQUES.

What do you think?


Aaah, that makes all the sense in the world, thanks Ultimate. :)

[snakebyte8]

Thnx go out to all who replied to this thread. This turned out to be a great discussion. If you guys choose to keep it going, even better. I got alot out of it in the form of the different views of the system we all have. We all seem to view principles, concepts, theories etc a little differently but I'm sure if we were all in the same room doing "this thing of ours" it would be relatively the same. :)

[Matrix]

Hey Doc, I would say that FOOTWORK (in general) falls under STRATEGY in terms of implementing all of the PRINCIPLES, and specific types of footwork, ie.- full side step, half front step forward, full front step forward, triangle steps, shuffle steps, etc. are TECHNIQUES.

What do you think? Sounds too vague to me. We've had a lot of discussions about footwork, and the lack thereof. If I use the example above then it seems to me that everything can fall into the Strategy category. There needs to be at least one principle relating to footwork, such as Body Unity.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun PRINCIPLES:

1- Centerline(s)...Central line, etc.
2- Straight Line Striking & Kicking
3- Forward Pressure by Sticking to the Opponent
4- Deflection or Avoidance of the Opponent's Force
5- Simultaneous Attack & Defense
6- Low Line Kicking
7- Protection of Six Gates


ALL OF THE ABOVE, it seems to me, need certain types of footwork strategies in order to be implemented.

Clearly protection of the centerline, returning to it if you're tken off, taking the centerline (or central line) away from your opponent, attacking on it once you've occupied it....ALL OF THIS requires various types of footwork and shifting (still considered footwork, imo)...in order to do these things successfully....and when you break down the various aspects (pieces) of the wing chun footwork used to do this - you are looking at SPECIFIC FOOTWORK TECHNIQUES.

2- requires certain angles by use of FOOTWORK strategy (and other things) in order to acquire an open line in order to deliver a straight punch or kick.

3- requires that straight-ahead-driving-with-the-hips type of footwork

4- the whole parallel side entry TWC employs (which is FOOTWORK) to get to the blindside is one excellent way to implement the "avoidance of the opponent's force" principle because if done properly this type of FOOTWORK STRATEGY (which employs a very specific hopping "technique")...will help get you to a point where you have AVOIDED having to deal with his rear hand.

(Just one example of a strategy that can be used to avoid force...)

5- Using footwork in such a way such that both your hands/arms are always in play is, again, a STRATEGY.

6- This type of kicking requires specific types of footwork (strategies and techniques) in order to be implemented...as opposed to, say, other types of footwork strategies and techniques used in TKD to deliver a jumping spinning back kick.

7- again...this requires a certain kind of tightly structured FACING strategy which requires specific footwork strategies and techniques (that go hand-in-hand with 'facing") in order to adequately implement the defense of the six different gates principle.

[Airdrawndagger]

I found this article and wanted to share it with all of you...

Yip Man Ving Tsun Eight leg principles(Bot Gerk Faat)


1. Lifting(Dung)
2. Nailing(Dan)
3. Sweeping(So)
4. Scooping(Tiu)
5. Stomping(Chai)
6. Circling(Huen)
7. Snapping(Jut)
8. Skipping(Tio)

"It is apparent leg principles are contained within various kicks for the leg must be manoeuvered when kicking. Yet it is by combining kicks and principles that various tekhniques are discovered. Hence, a Front Kick(Jing Gerk) point is combined with a Circling principle(Huen Gerk) to create the Wing Chun "slant" Front Kick. One may use Skipping(Tio Gerk) with many kicks to create Skipping Front, Side or the Outside Snap Kick. The Instep can be used with Lifting(Dung Gerk) and Scooping(Tiu Gerk) to produce a pwerful Instep Kick."

Taken from
http://www.wingchun.com/SecretWingChunLegManeuvers.htm

Comments?

[Matrix]

5- Using footwork in such a way such that both your hands/arms are always in play is, again, a STRATEGY..Yes, footwork is a crucial part of strategy, but so are hand techniques. The STRATEGY must be consistent with an overarching principles of the artform. When you say "In such a way" , it begs the question "In what way?".
The Principles provide the fundamental reasons that guide the strategy, otherwise you can end up with haphazard motions that are less than effective. Hand, foot and body must be coordinated to deliver the maximum level of effectiveness.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the principles listed so far, nor the associated explanations. I just have the feeling that something is missing. But what the heck do I know???

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think what's missing, Bill...are MORE principles (and their corresponding strategies and techniques)...that haven't been mentioned yet on this thread. Perhaps a closer look at the idioms are in order.

As to this:

Using footwork in such a way such that both your hands/arms are always in play is, again, a STRATEGY....I'll give an example of one such way:

I'm in a right front stance and someone does lop to my lead right arm - and really brings my arm far across my centerline (central line) - thereby turning my body to my left - which also takes my left hand/arm completely out of play...giving him a two-on-one hand advantage.

The step beginning with my left foot and the turn back to my right that I may decide to use to regain a better facing of my centerline (and therefore bringing my left hand back into play) would be such an example..

or I could have been more vigilant and used tan against his lop and avoided the whole situation. :p

[Matrix]

I think what's missing, Bill...are MORE principles (and their corresponding strategies and techniques)...that haven't been mentioned yet on this thread. Perhaps a closer look at the idioms are in order.Victor,
Yes, that's what I'm looking for. A principle with respect to footwork or body unity seems to be in order here. The footwork is incorporated in the forms - Chum Kiu and dummy - so the lessons are there.


Using footwork in such a way such that both your hands/arms are always in play is, again, a STRATEGY....I'll give an example of one such way:. I'm totally in agreement with the strategy perspective. Yes the footwork can be used to take the opponents space and balance or regain my our space and allow me to square off. No problem there....

And yes, in a perfect world you would never have allowed the Lap to put you that situation, but we all know that in reality things do always go as planned. So we must be prepared to deal with that as well. :cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Victor,
Yes, that's what I'm looking for. A principle with respect to footwork or body unity seems to be in order here. The footwork is incorporated in the forms - Chum Kiu and dummy - so the lessons are there." (Matrix)


***FOOTWORK PRINCIPLES? Yes, I buy that. For example:

1- The idea of the feet being approximately just slightly more than shoulder width apart - as it is practiced in the forms, the dummy, chi sao, etc. - would be one such principle, I suppose. The body unity and balance in motion gained by keeping the feet directly underneath the body and approximately shoulder width apart certainly constitutes a major principle, imo.

(And I suppose the Yuen Kay San people would say no to this, since their stance is much more narrow than shoulder width)...but I don't buy the narrow stance, quite frankly. I think it doesn't provide the same amount of mobility or overall balance.

And in TWC, there are other footwork principles in play also - that other wing chun styles don't adhere to...but should be mentioned...

2- (almost) ALWAYS placing your parallel leg foot to the outside of the opponent's lead leg (ie.- my left foot on the outside of his right foot - (almost) NEVER to the inside...and placing the cross leg to the inside of the opponent's leg (ie.- my left foot to the inside of his left foot)...

the Principle being that in this manner the opponent will not be able to turn you around and take your back (flank).

And of course here's another example of footwork principles that various wing chun styles adhere to:

3- .....50/50 weight distribution....100/0...60/40...etc.

Now just to be really picky :cool: ...I think that the PRINCIPLE in #1 is the importance of strong balance and ease of mobility...and the STRATEGY for carrying that out is the placement of the feet at approximately shoulder width apart.

And the PRINCIPLE in #2 is never to give your opponent the opportunity to outflank you by taking your back...and the STRATEGY for carrying that out are the rules of foot placement I just mentioned.

And if your particlar wing chun style advocates 50/50, for example...(as mine does)...then the PRINCIPLE in #3 (for me) would be BALANCE...and the "rule" of 50/50 weight distribution would be the STRATEGY for carrying out that PRINCIPLE.