TWC 'Central' Line & T stance (Sparring w/ WC branch)

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Couple of things from the ‘Sparring with Wing Chun’ thread that probably deserve their own discussion so as to avoid a hijacking.

Ultimatwingchun writes -

and MOST important: OUR CENTERLINE IS NOT DIRECTLY FACING OUR OPPONENT…it is at a 45% angle to the opponent.. therefore showing less target…we only square up the centerline after making contact with his arms.

Can you explain the ideas behind this? I am confused as to the point of showing less of a target when you’re going to square up after contact. Do you find that because you now have an off-side that you can be taken advantage of? Do you find that taking the time to square up after contact disadvantages you in lost time? Why 45 degrees, when you could turn completely side on in a TKD/karate stance and present even less of a target?

Phil Redmond writes -

We, in TWC believe that putting all or most of your weight on the rear leg is contrary to our concept of being centered, (Ying/Yang) . . . We do put weight on our rear leg in our T stance.

Avoiding the general 0/100 vs. 50/50 issue which has been discussed to death, what is a ‘T stance’, and why is it acceptable to put your weight on your rear leg when you’re in it, but not any other time?

Please wait for answers to the above questions before you start discussing why they’re wrong :).

2

Rill,

I’m a TWC guy, student of Rick Spain.

While I realise the poster on the other thread is a senior instructor in the WWCKFA, I have to say that my Sifu and his students don’t do things quite according to what is said in that post.

Simply (and probably simplistically, which will result in my being flamed, but I couln’t give a rats) the central line theory allows you to operate within a zone within 45 degrees of the standard vertical line (the sagittal plane I think? Anatomy ain’t something I study incessantly). That zone is bounded, if one faces directly forward, roughly by how far on each side you can cross your wrists and move your arms without uncrossing them, i.e. so that both hands can still be brought into play.

The theory of facing is that one faces the point of contact when meeting the opponent’s force, rather than facing the opponent’s centreline with your own.

Like most lineages (WT being an exception, though they still use 50/50 in that stance if not others), we stand with one arm and leg presented to the opponent, for purposes of reach. I don’t want to go into too much here to avoid internecine TWC arguments, but my sifu at least still tries to keep the upper body reasonably frontal to the opponent. You shouldn’t go past 45 degrees as that breaks central line theory, but “right at 45” probably isn’t ideal either, as you are right on the edge of the central line. Mentally, the upper body faces directly frontal even if physically it doesn’t, if that makes any sense :confused: Just looking at my basic stances in the mirror, my hips are probably 20 or 25 degrees off dead straight, certainly not 45. If their 45, I can’t hold a proper side neutral stance, TWC’s preparatory stance (which, FWIW, my Sifu no longer uses or teaches).

The T stance is generally used to move to the side and/or to prepare for a kick. It is a transitional stance only, not static. You move one foot behind the other in a rough T, and put your weight on the back foot prior to stepping off again or kicking with the front foot.

why is it acceptable to put your weight on your rear leg when you’re in it, but not any other time

Realistically the weight is always adjusting. You can’t step or kick unless you go 100/0 for a short time. The guideline is to stay balanced, which means 50/50 is a good rule of thumb … but “not any other time” is too extreme and physically impossible.

3

A continuation of the sparring thread??? LOL> This place is getting good.

You can face anywhere prior to contact, but as soon as you get close, make sure you’re directly forward facing.
The ideal is you want oyur center line facing your opponent, and have his NOT facing you.

4

New thread

I gave an example on another thread. Well here it is again.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/form.asp

5

Hello anerlich

I also study ‘TWC’ and my sifu also has a distinct preference for the front stance in W.C. He does still teach the side neutral in the forms although the majority of our training and applications are done in a front stance. Are you able to expand on sifu Spains orientation towards this approach. Is the side neutral still included in the forms at your kwoon?

6

More on the central line

Why not turn completely to the side,as in TKD/Karate? - Because your rear hand would be too far out of play. What is the purpose of the 45 degree angle if we are going to square up after contact? Provides less target to your opponent while you are bridging the gap..THIS IS THE TIME WHEN YOU ARE MOST VULNERABLE! As to anerlich’s post about preference for the front stance: this is a more useful stance than the neutral side stance because it is quicker to use when attacking- and the best defense is always offence. That said: it is easier to side step and counter someone who is attacking straight at you with a deep penetration move of some kind when you are in the neutral side stance. Also: as regards the comment about not being at exactly 45 degrees because your too close too having your rear hand out of play - I agree with this WHEN YOU ARE IN A CROSS ARM, CROSS LEG POSITION vis-a-vis your opponent. The explanation for this would be very long but a TWC man should be be able to figure this out after a little thought!

7

Two Man Saw,

Interesting. Who is your Sifu, If I may ask?

We have versions of the forms and dummy sets which do not use the side neutral stance, but rather mostly front stance and exchange steps. Our Advanced SLT now has considerably more footwork than it used to.

According to Rick Spain, GM Cheung never actually formally showed him the forms in this way, but Sifu used to live in the Melbourne school, and occasionally when he was cleaning the school or whatever, Sigung would come in and do one or other of the forms with different footwork, all in front stance, and then walk away and pretend nothing had happened. Sifu would play around with the foot and stance work in the forms on his own, and Sigung would inidicate either yea or nay without actually telling him what to do.

I realise this sounds as far fetched as many WC stories, but I can’t see why my Sifu would lie about this, he’s never been one for tall tales.

While there is no question that Sigung can use side neutral stance with great effectiveness, my Sifu has never particularly cared for it and believes that it not the best tactic for the majority. Many years of his and his students’ watching TWC in tournaments indicate that just about everyone who assumes such a preparatory stance either moves to a front stance almost immediately the opponent presses or rushes in, or gets forced back into the ropes at a rate of knots. As I said, Sigung is a very significant exception to this rule, but he seems to be in a small minority.

Not trying to start any arguments here, just giving info.

8

Hello anerlich,

My sifu is C.Douglas, he trained at the academy between 1988 and 1996. It is interesting you note sifu Spains experience and observation of ‘TWC’ in tournaments and the tendency to use front stance almost immediately. My sifu’s W.C teachings are heavily influenced by his love of boxing, kickboxing, tournament and fighting experience in which he predominantly uses a frontal stance.

The major emphasis on using the front stance is because nearly all our training takes place at a much closer range, this range would make the S.N stance useless.( this could begin another thread about unrealistic distance training)

Could you expand on the footwork included in your adv S.L.T so that we could share? One of the interesting things about being in melbourne and its vicinity to the academy is that we get alot of students from the various ‘TWC’ schools coming to visit, and it appears so far that my sifu’s forms (s.l.t, adv s.l.t, c.k, b.j and dummy) contain the most footwork when comparing them to other ‘T.W.C’ kwoons

Would you also be able to describe the exchange step?

9

KenWingJitsu writes -

A continuation of the sparring thread??? LOL> This place is getting good.

Branch. No-one said anything about a continuation.

anerlich - thanks for the technical points, I appreciate it. I am fairly sure I understand central line theory, and combining your explanations with the web page Phil Redmond provided it made things a lot clearer as to how you guys stand.

Couple of things… all of these are asked having looked at the pictures on Phil Redmond’s site, if there are discrepancies please point me to a new photo that illustrates the alternate method (I am aware of the standard disclaimer regarding photos on the web).

Why not turn completely to the side,as in TKD/Karate? - Because your rear hand would be too far out of play.

Okay - but here’s the thing. When you move into a side neutral or a front stance, you’re turning your waist, and hence your shoulders, away from your opponent. This is reducing your reach on your rear hand, so if you suddenly found yourself in a position where you hadn’t turned back to a square position and had to strike with that rear hand, you wouldn’t get as much reach. My point is, once you start turning the waist in any direction that is not facing your opponent, you’re getting into this problem of having to compensate for a lack of reach, time that you could be using to do something more productive.

What is the purpose of the 45 degree angle if we are going to square up after contact? Provides less target to your opponent while you are bridging the gap..THIS IS THE TIME WHEN YOU ARE MOST VULNERABLE!

This is something I’m confused about. Providing less of a target sounds like someone is shooting at you (and not in the grappling sense). If you want to provide less of a target, then turning side on would provide minimal target, but at the expense of one hand being all that way back. Turning to a 45 degree angle (or even a 20) would still mean you might be providing less of a target at the expense of an attacking weapon, but what’s the point since you’re planning on squaring up when you get into contact anyway?
Likewise, if you do start turning to an angle, you’re providing an opportunity for an opponent to get behind you that is moreso than at a square on position.

It just seems weird to me that you would give them this opportunity to get behind you by moving to your forward side, and limiting the use of one of your weapons, when seconds later you’re going to negate it by squaring up (which is going to take time and creates a less powerful strike if you’re hitting with your forward hand due to the arc your fist will take because of the movement at your waist).

However, I’m hoping someone will explain something I’m missing here.

Additionally, in regards to the t-step - in what situations do you use it that are not covered by the normal footwork? It almost sounds like bong sau, but for the feet - i.e. you can’t do anything with it, but it allows you to get to other positions.

10

Rill- I am not in TWC but some comments on your post follow in brackets. I hope that they are clear and relevant.

((My sincere impression is that the TWC foot positions make for the need for greater space than someother foot positions))

It almost sounds like bong sau, but for the feet - i.e. you can’t do anything with it, but it allows you to get to other positions.

((Not do anything with bong sao? i dont understand this characterization. IMO bong sao has its own unique characteristics-
but is not limited to only for getting to other positions))Joy

11

Hi Rill

You wrote:
>>Okay - but here’s the thing. When you move into a side neutral or a front stance, you’re turning your waist, and hence your shoulders, away from your opponent. This is reducing your reach on your rear hand, so if you suddenly found yourself in a position where you hadn’t turned back to a square position and had to strike with that rear hand, you wouldn’t get as much reach. My point is, once you start turning the waist in any direction that is not facing your opponent, you’re getting into this problem of having to compensate for a lack of reach, time that you could be using to do something more productive.<<

In the first part of SLT we place our hands down in front of our bodies ad then bring them upwards. These movements define the TWC “Central line”.
In these movements the finger tips on both hands are even to each other. This teaches us to maintain a position whereas both hands can reach the same point in space without telegraphing by moving the shoulders. The fact that the “rear” hand looks as though it can’t reach the same point in space is an illusion. We can strike with the “rear” hand as effectively as the lead hand.
We never turn so much that our hand can’t strike equally fast to the same target. Also, we NEVER face an opponent square on. When facing square on you have to deal with both your opponent’s arms. We prefer to use our two arms against the other guys one arm from the outside.
I hope this helps you to understand our “central line” system.

12

TwoManSaw

I understand that some people have trouble fighting from the Side neutral stance. But I do have to say that GM Cheung himself teaches that the side neutral stance is better to start off in. After contact is made then a front stance can be used. Myself and my students have no problem with the side neutral stance because we practice it diligently. After a while it becomes second nature. Also, maybe the guys you saw in Melbourne from other ‘TWC’ kwoons weren’t very accomplished.

13

Hello sifu Redmond

To clarify my post a little further, yes most of out training is done in the front stance although all of our forms have the side neutral stance in them and are trained in this manner. Lack of Competency in the side neutral stance is not the reason for its lesser use (because it always being trained in the forms) and reinforced in application, its just not done as much from the pre-contact stage and more so when we are in contact and utilizing the pivoting from different side neutrals to gain power through torque.

Also There was no mention of level of accomplishment with regards to the guys that visit us from the other’TWC’ kwoons, the statement was in regards to the amount of footwork contained in the forms. there was no mention of skill level with relation to amount of footwork used between 'TWC" practioners.
hope this clears it up

14

TwoManSaw,

Our revised forms only started getting taught to the general student body and not instructor-level students late last year, so I feel I should check with my Sifu before I go into great detail about them outside our organisation.

Also I feel it may appear disrespectful to others in the TWC lineage and to Sigung if I go on about this publicly at great length. I’ll check with Sifu today and make sure it’s OK with him. If it is I’ll PM you and do it offline.

The exchange step is simply a means of moving from one front stance to another, from left foot forward front stance to right foot forward front stance. It’s like an abridged T-step - from a left front stance, take the left foot back behind the right (like a T-step) then step forward with the right foot so you’re in a right T-stance. You can of course introduce various angles.

It’s in the canonical second dummy set: entry technique on the left side, then exchange step to right front stance, larp sao and neck grab/snapdown, followed by a left palm to the face.

15

Hello anerlich

I understand your position and look forward to your reply either way.

Fully understand and use the exchange step, thankyou for your explanation.

On another note one of my mates i train with, has a friend who trains in your sydney school, i’ll find out his name and PM you to see whether there is an extended mutual friend.( could be a very small world).

16

yuanfen - I think I understand what you mean by your first comment. Assuming I am right, I also got that impression. I’d PM you to verify, but you don’t have that function :stuck_out_tongue:
My apologies about the bong sau comment - I was being rushed out the door by my girlfriend, and I’m sure you know how the ladies don’t like to be kept waiting :).

What I meant was that the t-step seems to be a purely transitional movement, in much the same way that one application of bong sau is also a transitional movement (naturally bong sau allows you to deal with the incoming force along the way, but I can’t make judgements like that about the t-step since I’m not too familiar with it). I just couldn’t figure out why a transition step is needed for a kick, or to move to the side (for whatever reason, be it to get out of the road of someone or move to their side) that standard stance and footwork (shifting and/or pivoting) wouldn’t accomplish. I guess this is the essence of the differences in footwork between our lineages that I’m trying to work out.

In these movements the finger tips on both hands are even to each other. This teaches us to maintain a position whereas both hands can reach the same point in space without telegraphing by moving the shoulders. The fact that the “rear” hand looks as though it can’t reach the same point in space is an illusion. We can strike with the “rear” hand as effectively as the lead hand.

When you’re in the neutral stance I’d agree, but when you’re in the side neutral or front stances, you may be able to use your rear hand, but surely you can’t make it reach as far as your lead hand without turning? Isn’t that less effective?

We never turn so much that our hand can’t strike equally fast to the same target. Also, we NEVER face an opponent square on. When facing square on you have to deal with both your opponent’s arms. We prefer to use our two arms against the other guys one arm from the outside.

Again, if your shoulders are turned - i.e. you’re not facing your opponent squarely, then for any given point in a straight line between you and your opponent your rear hand will have ****her to travel than your lead hand - the only way this is not the case and both your hands have equal reach is when you’re square on. How do you turn, but still maintain that equal reach that allows the equal strike speed?

Additionally, I’m curious to know how you deal with opponents where you can’t take the outside line - other Wing Chunners, for instance, where you have no option but to deal with both arms? This brings me back to my point from before, in that if you don’t manage to take the outside line and square yourself up (although Ultimatewingchun says you square up after contact, and Phil Redmond says you never square up - I’ll assume that’s until you contact), then you’re already in a bad situation because you’re at such an angle (even if it’s only 20 degrees) where that side on stance can be taken advantage of - basically you’re being exploited for the weakness you sought to exploit. Isn’t this something you find you can exploit if you stand like this in chi sao? We train to use every single movement to our advantage, including if our opponent starts to turn - we give them a helping hand (or fist).

I was really hoping for an explanation of the ‘smaller target’ concept, too… anyone?

I hope this helps you to understand our “central line” system.

I’m getting there :). And look, no-one’s thrown any insults yet!

17

Rill- <joy@azwingchun.com> should work.

Joy
The Stranger to Shaolin

18

Rill writes:

I’m curious to know how you deal with opponents where you can’t take the outside line - other Wing Chunners, for instance, where you have no option but to deal with both arms? This brings me back to my point from before, in that if you don’t manage to take the outside line and square yourself up, then you’re already in a bad situation because you’re at such an angle (even if it’s only 20 degrees) where that side on stance can be taken advantage of - basically you’re being exploited for the weakness you sought to exploit. Isn’t this something you find you can exploit if you stand like this in chi sao? We train to use every single movement to our advantage, including if our opponent starts to turn - we give them a helping hand (or fist). R

From my perspective, our opponents tell us how to defeat them; or to put it another way: everything we do against an opponent, at any given time, should be based solely on what he does, not on what we feel like doing (or want to do). As every opponent we meet will be a little or a lot different from every other opponent, we must learn to mold our approach and/or tactics to fit each opponent personally. Rigid tactics like always running up the middle with jik chung chois or always trying to get to the “blindside” are doomed to eventual failure IME. WCK prizes above all flexibility (noncommittment) in its tactics, and if we look at WCK we can see how our (square-on) facing, power generation without rotation, and everything else in WCK supports this tactical flexibility. In keeping with that, if my opponent gives me the center, I take the center, and if he give me the flank, I take the flank. I must be able to deal with both situations, to flow between them as required by the demands of the moment, etc. to best be able to capitalize on my opponent’s mistakes and movements. TN

Terence

19

t_niehoff is correct. This is the difference in the ‘giving a WCK person a fish’ approach vs. the ‘teaching a WCK person how to fish’.

20

Rill writes:

“I’m curious to know how you deal with opponents where you can’t take the outside line - other Wing Chunners, for instance, where you have no option but to deal with both arms?”

Then you have to deal with both arms. Getting the outside is preferable because it restricts the opponent’s options, but it’s hardly an all-or-nothing deal

"This brings me back to my point from before, in that if you don’t manage to take the outside line and square yourself up, then you’re already in a bad situation because you’re at such an angle (even if it’s only 20 degrees) where that side on stance can be taken advantage of - basically you’re being exploited for the weakness you sought to exploit. "

As I said before, this is not what my school attempts to do. We don’t attempt to keep our upper body on the angle. Though we may turn to avoid or dissipate the impact of a blow.

Terence is largely correct, bu I think there are higher and lower percentage tactics and strategies. To say your strategy and techniques are guided purely by your opponent’s is very Zen, but if you can take the initiative and dictate the flow of the fight you will have the advantage. I think some sort of basic game plan is essential; under real duress it is arguably better to follow a simple but effective strategy with full commitment then attempt to constantly analyze and evaluate.

We prefer to go to the outside. We try to create openings. We would like to cross up the guy’s arms and trap him.

The ideal IMO is somewhere in the middle between intention and reaction; we seize the advantage when it is presented to us, not try to force it onto a chaotic situation. The old grappling maxim “take the gift, don’t seek the bounty” applies. The smart fighter will recognise that some tactics or skills work better (maybe just for him) and take full advantage of a situation which allows him to apply them.

Of course this doesn’t always happen; and the wise practitioner will prepare for all eventualities, be it being forced to take the inside line or having to fight from the floor, to give just two examples.

IMO “teaching a person how to fish” would involve providing basic info on how to recognise good locations, good bait, etc. Strategies more likely to lead to success.