Forget it let's do it all here, since you like block quote gish galluping.
So let's look at your claim that all are flawed or just wrong.
His 8 "points" first.
- "There is little evidence that the founding masters of wing chun ever existed. In no recorded history do we find the mention of the Buddhist nun Ng Mui developing the wing chun system." This seems to be a true statement. There don't seem to be any actual recorded documents of Ng Mui creating Wing Chun which predate modern Wing Chun's own oral history.
Ng Mui is a legendary figure, so what? There are hundreds of non-legendary figures.
- "There is much confusion concerning the actual places in the history of wing chun. Every master has a different location for the various wing chun temples..." This also seems to be true with various Wing Chun histories giving slightly different locations or contradicting others.
That's an opinion, "every master" is a giveaway. Again, the recorded history illustrates a webwork of Wing Chun expansion from interior southern China to the coast.
- "There is no confirmed chronological order of events in wing chun's history. Different masters claim the art is anywhere from 150-300 years old, making dates given by Yip Man incorrect when compared to historical data." This also appears to be true. There, again, is no corroborating history outside of Wing Chun's own internal oral histories.
There's plenty of corroborating history. In books.
- "Wing chun lacks the ceremonies and formalities so common to the traditional systems. Rituals do not exist in the art. In pure wing chun, there are no salutations at the beginnings of its kuen (forms), as in the traditional kung fu systems." Frankly, I don't know. There are a LOT of different Kung Fu systems and a comprehensive comparison would be challenging. Maybe this statement is true and maybe it isn't. I don't think we'll be able to say one way or another.
It's not true, unless someone believes Wing Chun was made up outside of China. Wing chun sun toi? No oranges? Lion dance? Come on.
- "Wing chun has little technical similarity to other Chinese martial arts. The system is revolutionary in almost all aspects. Most Chinese arts bear at least slight resemblance in technique because of common origins. The punches and kicks of wing chun, however, are structurally and theoretically different from those other kung fu styles." Again, there are a LOT of other kung fu styles to compare against. At a certain level, fighting is fighting. I'm not sure that is the evidence that he's suggesting. OTOH, most of the most popular kung fu styles do have a markedly different appearance in general technique and strategy, so maybe...
"little technical similarity"..."revolutionary"..."different from those other kung fu styles", all wrong. Wing Chun is a cousin system to the Five Family styles, Southern Dragon, Fujian Crane....and on and on.
- "The pacifist-type tradition found in most kung fu systems is practically nonexistent in wing chun. In the shaolin tradition there is the phrase 'Check rather than hurt, hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill, for all life is precious, nor can any be replaced.' In wing chun, there is little regard for the opponent's well being; it is either don't fight, or kill. All or nothing." This really seems to make an over-broad claim about all of the rest of chinese martial arts. Not all come from the Buddhist tradition, never mind specifically Shaolin. There are plenty which are considered "military" arts or come from a Taoist tradition and the like.
The big difference between Shaolin Si, and Wing Chun, is hundreds of years of warfare and philosophical development. Keep in mind that by the time Ip Man learned Wing Chun, there might have been about 30 practitioners total left alive (Judkins).
- "It is odd that a kung fu system can be learned in a short amount of time." This may or may not be "odd" but it does seem to buck the standard for many kung fu systems which seem to commonly incorporate long and complex forms which instructors say will take years to learn properly. So, maybe... Or maybe not.
No kung fu system is learned in a short amount of time. That includes boxing and Wing Chun. I know people who learn a little boxing often thing they're good at it, but we both know that's not true. Hence, all the Wing Chun people who can't fight. They haven't paid their dues.
- "No weapons are native to the wing chun system. Most kung ful styles have weapons which originated in the the system, but winch chun did not have any weapons until the butterfly swords and the long pole were introduced from another style." To this I would say, "so what?" While not having weapons, per se, are points of commonality between 19th Century English Boxing and Wing Chun, it's not a whole lot to hang your hat on. As a minor point in support of other points, maybe. But there are lots of martial arts which don't have weapons specifically integrated into them. Interestingly, often they are sporting/competitive.
This is also totally untrue. Wing Chun is not a 100% empty handed art. None of them are. And arguing about when weapons were introduced
"butterfly swords being introduced from another style" made me chuckle. The person writing this is basing his knowledge on his own class notes, or something. Hence no actual reference.
So, of his "8 Points," some appear to be well founded and others seem to be on a bit more shaky ground.
All 8 points are fallacies.
Moving on to his 6 "facts."
- "Fact one. In his book, Leung Ting states that wing chun was developed by the residents of coastal southeast China. This was also where the introduction of Western boxing occurred. It was introduced by the sailors and developed as wing chun by the coastal Chinese." This actually contains two facts and one conclusion. Do you deny that Leung Ting writes that Wing Chun was developed in coastal southeast China? Do you dispute that Western boxing most likely was first exposed to the Chinese there? No? Good. His conclusion is likely better stated as a proposed thesis.
Wing Chun was not developed by the "Coastal Chinese". And again, all of Wing Chun is contained in older Chinese styles (which include every "Western" boxing technique").
- "Fact two. In the book by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith, there is reference to the introduction of Western boxing in China during the 19th century. It must be stressed that Western boxing at this time was quite different from the modern sport. The bare-knuckle boxing of the old days was far more lethal than its modern counterpart. The lack of gloves made any blow potentially deadly. The later addition of gloves drastically changed the body positions and techniques of boxing." There is a lot to unpack in this one. Do you deny that Draeger writes that Western style boxing was introduced to China in the 19th Century and that the general time period correlates with what you can factually trace the beginnings of Wing Chun to? No? Good. While Mr. Godwin is right that 19th Century boxing was quite different, his claims that the punching was more deadly because it was bare fist is not entirely right. It's really not any more or less deadly. It's just different. I could write a whole chapter about how gloves & wraps make boxing different and why as well as the attitudes about gloves ("mufflers" or "mittens" historically). It is indisputable that the English considered Boxing to be both a sport and a very capable self defense system in the bare-knuckle era. But the short version is, no, it's not more deadly, just deadly in different ways.
Boxing was nothing new to the Chinese when the British decided to start partying off the Chinese coast.
- "Fact three. Wing chun is considered the quickest art to learn in terms of time. A student can purportedly gain proficiency in a year. Boxing is really the only other martial art that can be learned adequately in that amount of time." The first part of the statement that Wing Chun can be learned in a year is very consistent with what Winch Chun folks have been telling prospective students for ages. The supposed simplicity, efficiency, and ease of learning has always been one of their top selling points. There's really no disputing this as a claim. Many also claim that dedicated practice of boxing can bring you to acceptable proficiency in a very short time. So if one of his supporting points is that both claim a short learning curve, well, there's really no arguing that. They do.
That's not even a fact.
- "Fact four. Wing chun is more similar to boxing than any other Chinese martial art. Pictures of the great early European fighters like John L. Sulivan show stances strikingly similar to those found in winch chun. The techniques of wing chun also seem to be realated. Both use straight punches, and both use shuffling steps to advance..." Yes. It is very true that the most common stance of 19th Century pugilism from the London Prize Ring era is strikingly similar to the base Wing Chun stance. The 19th C. boxing's Lead-off, Straight Left and Straight Right are exceptionally similar to bread-and-butter techniques in Wing Chun. The footwork, however, is a bit more sophisticated than "shuffling." ...in both arts. So, as with some of his other statements, yes there does seem to be a correlation or similarity. On the other hand, as I've written, at a certain level, fighting is fighting and a case can be made for parallel evolution as easily as one can be made for a common ancestral source. But, yes, superficially anyway, the bread-and-butter stance/techniques look very close to each other.A
Also not a fact. This statement suggests a very shallow understanding of southern Chinese kung fu.
- "Fact five. Wing chun and boxing possess may of the same strategies. Winch chun is known for being an aggressive system. In early boxing, it was believed that the best defense was a good offense. The wing chun principle of sil lin die dar (simultaneous attack and defense) is a common characteristic of boxing." Again, this is 100% true. Wing Chun does promote itself as being an aggressive system on attack. Techniques like the "straight blast" are promoted as being both aggressive and highly effective. And 19th Century boxing was replete with both aggression and single-time counters such as the Cross-Counter. But single-time counters aren't particularly unique to boxing. They're quite common in Fencing, as an example. And fighting is fighting. Still if his primary point is that Wing Chun looks/acts remarkably similar to some common forms of London Prize Ring boxing, then, yes, it does. It may not be proof but it is an interesting correlation. ...and those non-proof-interesting-correlations are stacking up, by the way.
"Aggressive system". Seriously, why do you think Wing Chun is more aggressive than other systems? It's not. There are throat ripping techniques in many CMA.
- "Fact six. In a 1920 book by Marshal Stillman, there is a chapter written for small people to defend themselves against larger opponents. The principles and techniques in the chapter are exactly like those found in wing chun. Why would the Chinese develop a system at this time what would be most effective against taller people? The answer could be that the Chinese used this system to defeat the taller Europeans in boxing bouts." You don't dispute Stillman's chapter as a fact do you? No? Good. Past that, OK, well, so what if the Chinese developed Wing Chun to fight taller people? That doesn't man that Wing Chun was developed from Boxing. Frankly, I don't know why he included this point. Even if true, ti doesn't actually support his claim that Wing Chun was developed from 19th Century Boxing.
I sure do dispute it.
So of his 6 "facts," most of the things which he says are facts actually are.
No.
How well they prove that Wing Chun is derivative of Boxing is, well, a much more open question.
It's pretty open and shut.
In my estimation it doesn't offer definitive proof at all but it does lay out a plausible theory that Wing Chun is derivative of Boxing.
It's not a plausible theory, according to historians.
However, your claim that "All 8 of his points are flawed or just wrong wrong, as are all 6 'facts'," is conclusively inaccurate. A few of his claims/points are have some flaws. Many of them are rock solid.
The entire article is BS.
speculations-in-bronze.blogspot.com
