# Wing Chun from Western Boxing?



## paitingman (Dec 7, 2017)

Jon Nielson of Wing Chun Hall presents an interesting theory of WC origins. 
He has posted various videos based on his scholarly research into Southern Chinese history and culture. 

Various figures in WC history and today have drawn connections between the two disciplines. Could early boxing have influenced WC?

What are yals thoughts?


----------



## KPM (Dec 7, 2017)

Well, one point.....he implies that western boxing of the 19th century included wrestling.  That isn't entirely accurate.  Western boxing of the 18th and early 19th century allowed some limited throws and sweeps because a round only ended when one fighter hit the ground...whether thrown down or knocked down.  But it did not include any ground-fighting, as you would expect from wrestling.  But otherwise it is a good theory....that Leung Jan was influenced to some extent by early western boxing.


----------



## KPM (Dec 8, 2017)

I haven't watched his other videos yet, but on this one he seems to be assuming that Wing Chun started with Leung Jan.  But the Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun system does not trace its lineage through Leung Jan.  Of course, lineage histories are not all that reliable!


----------



## paitingman (Dec 8, 2017)

KPM said:


> I haven't watched his other videos yet, but on this one he seems to be assuming that Wing Chun started with Leung Jan.  But the Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun system does not trace its lineage through Leung Jan.  Of course, lineage histories are not all that reliable!


He does go into that in some other history videos. I think he chooses to focus on LJ since he is the earliest, verifiable figure with WC as a formal approach/system. At least under his scrutiny. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 8, 2017)

Yeah .. WRONG. Leung jan did not create wing chun or organise the movements into three forms "to be presentable to people". If it was leung jan creating it then how does he explain yuen kay san? Sum nung wing chun?  On top of that Wing chun and boxing are two very different arts in theory and application. Its more likely to assume they had nothing to do with each other rather than one coming from the other.  I dont see why all of a sudden the ng mui story is so hard to swallow like its some big conspiracy. We have unrecorded history from before leung jan, fung siu ching and fok bo chun. But ng mui and jee shim origin stories are passed down word of mouth by multiple lineages that have been split since then. Id say thats more reliable evidence than speculating that perhaps it was "created" from boxing by 1 ancestor who had nothing to do with the other anscestors in his time period (fung siu ching, fok bo chun) because boxing used to also punch with a vertical fist. Sorry but im calling BS.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 9, 2017)

Why couldn't Wing Chun be a fusion of Hakka arts like Bak Mei and Southern Mantis? I find that much more plausible than any other theory put out there.

Jon Nielson seems to be saying that he favors the boxing hypothesis because it allows your WC training to become more flexible, but that doesn't make it true. Why would you need history as a reason to diversify your Wing Chun training when you should be training that way anyway?


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 9, 2017)

paitingman said:


> Jon Nielson of Wing Chun Hall presents an interesting theory of WC origins.
> He has posted various videos based on his scholarly research into Southern Chinese history and culture.
> 
> Various figures in WC history and today have drawn connections between the two disciplines. Could early boxing have influenced WC?
> ...


Pseudo history


----------



## VPT (Dec 11, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> Why couldn't Wing Chun be a fusion of Hakka arts like Bak Mei and Southern Mantis? I find that much more plausible than any other theory put out there.
> 
> Jon Nielson seems to be saying that he favors the boxing hypothesis because it allows your WC training to become more flexible, but that doesn't make it true. Why would you need history as a reason to diversify your Wing Chun training when you should be training that way anyway?



Bak Mei is younger than Wing Chun.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 11, 2017)

Just to make it easier for anyone interested, here are some of the other videos of his I stumbled upon. He references some of the points he makes here in the first video I posted. 
No matter how you feel about the connection between WC and Western Boxing, I think you'll find this digging into oral history interesting.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 11, 2017)

Watched them and still just a bunch of guessing as far as im concerned. No better really than taking the word of mouth story. A story mind you that is preserved by multiple lineages not just yip man and leung jans. The proof is in the kung fu itself. Hung gar also has the anscestor jee shim and they also have a 6.5 pole form. Some Hung gar lineages will also say that the original shaolin kung fu taught by jee shim had narrow stances, the foot work could be practiced in the space on 4 floor tiles and that there were not many techniques. Sounds familiar, and thats just some historical and content similarities between wing chun and ONE southern style. Let alone the other many lineages of wing chun that dont involve leaung jan or yip man at all and other southern styles that share anscestors from the same story. Government might have been "good at recording things" like he said but they are sure as hell good at wiping things out too.


----------



## paitingman (Apr 22, 2018)

He's back with more.





I know WC history and lineage debates can get heated and there's much disagreement, but MA history is so interesting, right??


----------



## pdg (Apr 22, 2018)

Marnetmar said:


> Why would you need history as a reason to diversify your Wing Chun training when you should be training that way anyway?



Because in an area so reliant on lineage it's going to make it much easier to promote "forgotten original techniques" and gain acceptance compared to "here's a new idea"...

Because - reintroducing forgotten ideas is restoration, introducing new ideas is meddling.


----------

