Similarities Between Boxing and Wing Chun

[ReverendTim]

Hey, all...

I was at the library today, trying to get some writing done away from my wife cleaning house and my baby boy hollering about it, and while taking a break and wandering the stacks, I came across a nice little boxing instruction manual.

I've never formally boxed Western-style, though in the distant past, I studied at more than one MA school where no matter what techniques you practiced, it all ended up as half-a$$ed boxing in the end. My point is, I'd never stopped to really consider the mechanics of the boxer (yes, I know I should have read The Tao of Jeet Kune Do more closely).

I was immediately struck at some of the similarities between the footwork of boxing and the footwork I've practiced under my wing chun sifu. Obviously, the basic foot position is a little different, and the knees aren't bent inwards, but the basic principles of movement were the same. Ditto for the mechanics of punching. This particular writer stressed not winding up, keeping the arm relaxed, and so on. Even some of his fist positioning was reminiscent of the wing chun punch.

I'm inclined to think that the similarities come from the fact that both systems seek efficiency, and that because of that, the principles, and therefore the motions, will be similar.

Any thoughts?

--
Rev. Tim

[anerlich]

What was the name of the manual?

IMO Jack Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" has a great deal in common with WC as taught by my Sifu. Significant parts of Tao of JKD were lifted from this book.

[ReverendTim]

It's called "Boxer's Start-Up: A Beginner's Guide to Boxing" by Doug Werner, published by Tracks Publishing, San Diego CA.

--
Rev. Tim

[yuanfen]

Boxing and wing chun (in most Yip man lines) are quite different things---sure there is striking and footwork involved. So what.

[ReverendTim]

Uh, okay.

First off, my lineage isn't through Yip Man, and secondly, I was just pointing out some similarities I noticed in passing. Thought it might spark some discussion, is all.

--
Rev. Tim

[yuanfen]

Lots of differences. In boxing punches, the shoulders are
"loaded", in wing chun they are not. On boxing footwork you are often on atleast one ball of a foot. Not the case in wing chun.

[anerlich]

yuanfen is stating his opinion, which while I respect it, I do not share in this case.

[straight blast]

I did a bit of boxing before I started Wing Chun and I would have to say that I think the similarities are there, more so in principles than actual physical execution of movement. Anyone can see the right cross is different from the straight punch, but the one punch that most boxers neglect in the ring (and is one of the most important) is the jab. And the principle behind the jab is not that far removed from the principle behind a WC lead hand punch.

I even remember an old boxer telling me that before gloves became the norm that boxers hit with a vertical fist.

I can't pick the similarity in the footwork though. My boxing footwork was "bouncy" in the extreme, whereas my WC footwork is teaching me rooting. The two have been mutually exclusive in my training at least. I suppose the similarity could be in the principle of using good footwork to achieve the end result? Mind you, all MA's claim that, so it's not exclusive to boxing & WC.

Good thought provoking (for me anyhow) thread. :)

[ReverendTim]

Excellent points, straight blast.

Well, bear in mind that I'm getting this out of a book and not from any coach, but the basic footwork the author describes is on the surface similar to some of the wing chun footwork I've practiced. For example, he describes moving forward by taking small steps with your lead foot and pushing off your back foot in a bit of a slide, which is *exactly* like a footwork drill my sifu has us do. Ditto moving a little to the side. Maybe I'm just bringing my wing chun experience to it and am interpreting these pictures in a totally different way than a coach would have me do it.

Now, I think you're right, because obviously I've seen enough boxing to recognize the very bouncy footwork, but underneath it seems to be some of the same principles as wing chun, namely not crossing your feet, trying to stay balanced with a neutral distribution of weight, and so on...I think it's the fact that boxers are so bouncy that made me surprised to see that the foundation might very well be similar to wing chun.

On top of that, he describes the "correct" way to throw a hook as mostly using your body's torque and structure to deliver the power, rather than the arm. Now THAT strikes me as a wing chun principle, too. I've never thrown a wing chun hook, obviously, but using your whole body's twisting power to deliver a blow? That's as wing chun as it gets, ain't it?

--
Rev. Tim

[yuanfen]

I respect Andrew's opinion- but our perspectives are different.
My contrasting between boxing and wing chun is not based on
abstract distinctons but on experience. Of course experiences can vary. For those who need a sense of what it means to be hit and react to it, boxing has its moments. Spending time on boxing is time taken away from further wing chun development. While boxing has its striking combinations it lacks the versatility, flow and redirection of capabilities of wing chun. Again as we know there are some major differences in "stepping" between several
key wing chun lineages. My impression from seeing folks whose roots are or have been in TWC- their footwork seems to require a
little more bouncing than mine does. Bouncing boxers are easier to take down than wing chun people who dont bounce.Boxers need more coaching than some wing chun folks on handling grapplers. Wing chun also is double sided whereas boxers with rare exception(Jones, Hagler) are comfortable on ony one side.
Dempsey was great. But many of the modern boxers can/could have taken the boxers of the past...specially in the heavy division. Weight makes a huge difference in boxing- less so in wing chun. The richness of wing chun allows continued devlopment to compensate for difference of wieght, gender and age. Many admire Dempsey's definition of the straight punch. Actually Tunney had the better jab by far- beat dempsey with it.

[ReverendTim]

Please don't misunderstand...I never meant to imply that boxing was better than wing chun at all. I certainly never meant to imply that I thought that wing chun had any deficiencies. I was just surprised by the similarities I saw. I love wing chun and have no plans to abandon it for boxing whatsoever, though I must admit, the boxer's workout is a thing of beauty.

--
Rev. Tim

[yuanfen]

no worry. On lists you will practically any opinion that you like.

[Chango]

Hello all! I just had to weigh in on this topic. My uncle used to own a boxing Gym and was a pro trainer. He trained the Davey Moore. one of boxings greats. he now trains my cousin who is now a pro boxxer. He will be on ESPN this year his name is Billy Young out of Dayton Ohio. well any ways as a kid I used to have to go to his gym after school until my parents got home from work. So I've been around boxxing most of my life.

before we compair the two we must understand that boxing is a a combative Sport. Wing Chun is a combat system. So when dealing with combative sport. we tend to isolate only a few key aspects of combat and form rules to discourage the application of other aspects. In a combat system we look to address every aspect of combat at all ranges. Now having said that I would have to say that yes there would be some simularities.You have to use the same human structure to stike another human. Applying stratagies and tactics with the fist. But this logic would dictate that there would be huge diffences when you can do anything in real combat! you also do not have the restriction of gloves and the bare knuckle is used as well as kicks. So I have to say that I agree with both of you on this subject. If I was to put on boxing gloves and fight by boxings rules. I would have to take on the boxing postures and use the boxing tactics. However the stratagies that WCK offers would be universal in all forms of combat be it sports or anything else. I think this is a great topic. I personally think it is a good idea to show people boxing's basic punches as a basic vocabulary of punches to the begginers. so they can see why the WCK way is so unique and speacalized. I also think it gives the begginer a view of what alot other martial artist and fighters tend to use. But that is just me personally. This is huge part of my back ground. :cool:

[Akuma]

Originally posted by anerlich
yuanfen is stating his opinion, which while I respect it, I do not share in this case.

So are you saying that boxing and WC do have lots in common?

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Wing chun also is double sided whereas boxers with rare exception(Jones, Hagler) are comfortable on ony one side.
Dempsey was great. But many of the modern boxers can/could have taken the boxers of the past...specially in the heavy division. Weight makes a huge difference in boxing- less so in wing chun. The richness of wing chun allows continued devlopment to compensate for difference of wieght, gender and age. Many admire Dempsey's definition of the straight punch. Actually Tunney had the better jab by far- beat dempsey with it.

Hi Joy,

While I agree with part of your assertion I am curious as to what you base the presumption that many of todays boxers would be able to beat the boxers of yesteryear. In the past boxing matches could and did last for up to 30 even 40 rounds. Often there were elements of grappling incorporated in these mathes. In addition there are numerous accounts of old time boxers fighting on with serious injuries, broken wrists, jaws etc. Seems to me that boxers if today lack some of the "heart" of those past pugilists. Thus, I would not be so quick ot say todays fighters/boxers would be able to beat those of the past, and definetly not with ease.

Bareknuckle boxers used a jab which was very similiar to the Chung Keun. However, they do train to fight from a prefered side, most being right handed. The footwork is also a bit different, at least on the surface. Still, boxing as a combative art, rather than the sport version, can be useful for a Wing Chun stylist to examine.

Peace,

Dave

[Nichiren]

I agree with 73.

You can't compare the boxers before gloves with the ones existing today. I'm shure that e.g. a Jim Corbett would hypotetical "kill" Mike Tyson in a fight without gloves 9 times out of 10.

It is also hard to compare boxing with WC. There is big differences between different WC lineages. I practised WT for a couple of years and I wouldn't say that it is close to boxing but the WC I train now is very close.

/Cheers...

[anerlich]

So are you saying that boxing and WC do have lots in common?

Read my first post. That's what I'm saying, viz. that Jack Dempsey's boxing is IMHO like the WC that I learned and am still learning. Tunney beat Dempsey, a few of the "modern elders" of WC lost the occasional fight in HK as well depending on who is telling the tale. Defeat is not the sole privilege of non-WCers.

Do you have an opinion on the subject? If yes, let's hear it.

If you want to argue, read the **** book first.

[Akuma]

Originally posted by anerlich


Read my first post. That's what I'm saying, viz. that Jack Dempsey's boxing is IMHO like the WC that I learned and am still learning. Tunney beat Dempsey, a few of the "modern elders" of WC lost the occasional fight in HK as well depending on who is telling the tale. Defeat is not the sole privilege of non-WCers.

Do you have an opinion on the subject? If yes, let's hear it.

If you want to argue, read the **** book first.

Sorry anerlich, i accidently missed your original post. Truth be told I've read a lot of your other posts in various threads and found them to be quite informative--hence why I asked because I didn't see much explanation except that you disagreed with yuanfen but I've found your original post in the thread now.