Just a simple question from a simple person.I read somehwere a few days ago about William Cheungs Wing Chun (this is not a troll!) and the supposed “modified” Wing Chun.I seemed to understand pretty much most of the article but I couldn’t understand what was the difference betwwen the two.Can someone please help me have a greater understanding of these two?Thanks in advance.
“Always be ready”
what’s your question mate? if it is “is there any different between the centreline and central line?” i would say no, unless the “central line” is not the vertical axis line that goes tru us all 
“Spectacular immaculate raps massacre cats like dracula bats, I’m snappin yer back cos I’m attackin the wack, duckin yer rapid attack, **** packin a gat, the mechanic of rap’ll give you panic attacks with his Satanical raps.” - Guess who.
Do you mean the difference between centreline and central line or the difference between William Cheung’s WC and other branches? If the latter, it depends on which of the other branches you’re talking about, since some of them are quite different too…
Well that’s the part that I’m confuesd with.He said that the “modified” version only used the center line and his Wing Chun used both the centerline and the central line.He showed an illustration with him and his student.His student was covering and striking simultaneously and seemed to cover well his abdomen and thorax while,wich claimed to be the modified version, William Cheung on the other hand covered the middle with one hand and seemed to punch to the side a bit ( couln’t tell since he seemed like he was facing a different ange,probably so the technique wouldn’t be copied).The two illustartions confused me a bit.
Let me rephrease it.Can someone tell me the theory of the center line and the central line?I thought I knew but when Isaw both of these I got thown out of whack.
“Always be ready”
The Centerline as most people know it, is the line that divides the body in half when facing someone. The central line is any straight line that moves towards the anyone’s centerline. This coincides with the straightline principle. Hope this helps you.
You are partly correct.
Before anyone flames me, please read to the end:
According to William Cheung,
“modified Wing Chun only uses the centreline, which concentrates on a single line in front of the centre of the body. modified Wing Chun’s defence movements come from the centre using the centreline system and so force the exponent standing square on in front of his opponent to expose maximum target area. Also the defense technique does not work effectively if it is not applied at the correct angle relating to the attacking arm or leg. Also, the WC system insists on counter attack simultaneously. The centreline system does not allow that in most situations.”
“In the central line system the exponent in fact uses dual central lines - one for defence and one for counter attack. The defence central line applies at an optimal angle so that the exponent must face the point of contact [with the attacking limb]. The counter attack is placed on another central line coming out from the shoulder of the exponent [of the exponent’s striking arm] to the target of the opponent.”
– From “My Life with wing Chun”, by william Cheung, published around 1996.
What this implies is that, against say a swinging hook punch, rather than facing the opponent square on and simltaneuosly bil sao’ing the hook and punching the guy, you instead turn so that your bil sao is directly in front of your centreline (really the “sagittal plane” through your body) and your centreline faces the point where your bil sao and his arm contact. Your retaliatory strike does not follow the sagittal plane, but instead travels at an angle to it towards the opponent’s body/head/whatever, as you are no longer facing him directly (because you are facing directly towards the point of contact with his incoming weapon, not towards the target).
I was graded to instructor level in the WWCKFA in 1996, so I do know what I am talking about.
OK, so much for the party line. This approach works fairly well for inside blocks against wide, like the situation described, where your left arm is blocking his right on the inside, or the opposite side. Not so well for the situation where you are toe to toe (him in southpaw you in orthodox) and you are pak saoing his lead arm and striking his body simultaneously. In this case, “facing the point of contact” means you are at the WRONG angle to be able to hit him with power, as you have to punch across your body. This this is probably the first technique taught to most beginners in the WWCKFA, and in order to do it effectively you have to violate the central line principle (as stated above, anyway).
“Central line” is a bit of a misnomer, anyway. In practice, what you are trying to do is keep the guy in a zone roughly 45 degrees each side of the sagittal plane , in which you are able to attack and defend using both sides of the body simultaneously - a zone which can be measured by crossing your wrists as per the start of SLT, and seeing how far you can turn to each side without changing stance or uncrossing your wrists.
That’s “central line” in a nutshell.
The article the original poster was reading is arguably one of the most politically motivated ever published about Wing Chun. William Cheung’s argument is that Leung Jan taught Chan Wah Shun a modified style and only taught his sons the “true” style, and deliberately filled modified Wing Chun with weaknesses that those who practiced the “true” style could exploit.
It takes an extraordinarily one-eyed attitude to accept such an argument. The questions begged and inconsistencies raised by this proposition are legion. Arguably it is the major reason for the fragmented nature of YM WC in the world today.
Take the article with a whole truckload of salt.
You are partly correct Abman. The modified Wing Chun system may only use the centrelone theory, however I am unfamiliar with this style as it was taught by Bruce Lee. In the Ip Man system both methods I spoke of earlier are taught.
The Zone
<AbMan> - a zone which can be measured by crossing your wrists as per the start of SLT, and seeing how far you can turn to each side without changing stance or uncrossing your wrists.</AbMan>
A visual of this zone is illustrated at: Wing Chun - Principles
Notice that the only thing that changes is the position of the arms.
You are partly correct Abman.
Yeah, whatever. I’ve been doing TWC, William Cheung’s style, and variants of it for 12 years with his principal student up to 1997, but if you think you know more about it than me, you must be right.
The modified Wing Chun system may only use the centrelone theory, however I am unfamiliar with this style as it was taught by Bruce Lee.
Considering that the “modified” system as referred to in the article is a political construct made up by William Cheung, most people are unfamiliar with it. It’s hard to be familiar with something that is largely a “straw man” construct of someone’s imagination.
My system is the Ip Man system. I am Unfamiliar with both the Bruce Lee’s modified Wing Chun system and as you say the WIlliam Cheung Modified Wing Chun system. Apologies if you misunderstood my response. Remember that Traditional does not mean unmodified or Original.
I am Unfamiliar with both the Bruce Lee’s modified Wing Chun system and as you say the WIlliam Cheung Modified Wing Chun system.
So you knew nothing about the subject under discussion, but presume to tell me I’m only partly correct?
Apologies if you misunderstood my response.
You don’t need to apologise for my alleged misunderstanding … though I’m not sure the error was mine.
Remember that Traditional does not mean unmodified or Original.
You’re stating the bleeding obvious. Don’t patronise me.
After pontificating on this thread about subjects about which you admit you know nothing, and erroneously stating on another thread that William Cheung’s Bil Jee contained the Entry Technique (which you call a “hop”), I would counsel you to stick to substyles on which you know what you are talking about.
I think you have given good advice to others on this forum and I don’t doubt that you have a good understanding of your own system.
But you spoil this by stating misinformation about William Cheung’s Wing Chun, a subject about which you have admitted you know little. Please don’t do this any more!
Abman
Relax bro!!!
The Ip Man System , has both centreline and central line theories. The centreline theory teaches that most vital points are located on this line which are most important to protect.
The Central Line Theory is the lines that travel towards this centreline.
Ip Man system?
Hi Roy,
As I’m sure you know, Yip Man sifu had many outstanding students from whom now descend several (in some cases visibly/tactily different) versions of Wing Chun. When you refer to Ip Man system, to which do you refer? (ie. to the version taught by which of his students).
Rgds,
RR
Center/Central Line
Hi Roy, Abman,
I believe the original question referred specifically to William Cheung’s usage of the terms (please correct me if I’m wrong there), and referenced the unfortunate use of “traditional” and “modified” that Cheung sifu used to refer to his system and the system(s) passed on by Yip Man sifu’s other students (in that order). In that context, Abman passed along the (literal) “by the book” explination.
Further, as I understand it, there’s no center line vs. centeral line in (Y)ip Man or any other branch of WCK beyond the English-ization of Cheung sifu’s teaching approach (he made up distinct English words for what, in essance, is a singular Chinese word). Yip Man sifu, like the other masters of WCK in Foshan, learned the art in Cantonese, where you simply have Jung Sien. (not Jung Sien vs. Jung-al Sien
Within Jung Sien, of course, are various aspects you can classify (in English) as self-center, opponent-center, and mutual center (or whatever other words float your boat), as well as Sien Mien (the angles on either side of the center in which you can employ both hands without major body adjustment such as turn or step), and other concepts, but Chinese tends to be wholistic at times 8)
Rgds,
RR
Rene,
That was my understanding of the context of the thread, viz. the article published by William Cheung quite a while ago about the contrasts between his (“Traditional”) WC system, which he allegedly learned alone and in secret from Yip Man via Leung Bik, and the “modified” WC system, which Yip Man supposedly taught all his other students. It is a fairly blatant attempt at self-aggrandisement and the denigration of the sincere efforts and achivements of other worthy YM students.
The article is full of unsubstantiated, unverifiable and (except to the beholden and uncritical) unbelievable and inaccurate claims. I’m from that lineage, but that fact has not resulted in the suspension of my critical faculties.
Sharky, thanks. I’ve taken a valium 
I think it is important, though, to challenge those who state as fact assertions one knows to be incorrect. As I did with the Cheung article.
I guess, Rene, that Mr Anthony’s “Ip Man” Wing Chun has the same legitimacy as my “Traditional” WC system
The Centreline and central line theory was an offering of our method of definition. It was not in referrence to the article.
The Ip Man version does have both Ideas, however many Ip Man students did not learn the whole system , even according to Ip Ching in the Ip Man Biography. Therefore not all have understood these concepts. However these are concepts that are taught.
Apologies for this misunderstanding!!!
Hey thanks guys
“Always be ready”
You’re quite welcome NorthernMantis.
No sweat, always glad to give the inside info on that damn article.