No, I am seeing the obvious very large parrallels and convergence as well as the differences.
Your use of the nonsense term 'boxing parries' and 'WC parrries' shows this most clearly.
You narrowly and wrongly set up a very fixed and limited criteria, then attempt to label everything through that lens and miss the larger principles and engine on which it is running.
Such as when you tried to say boxing only uses the palm to parry when actually, like WC they can use forearm also.
I am quite sure in the pure boxing world we will find examples of many boxers who do a low elbow parry as well as from close range.
So for you they will now be doing 'WC parries'...then 'boxing parries'...it is an unecessary and confused way of thinking.
In the modern cross training era when everyone looks for common principles in arts this way of thinking is even more strange.
We can see yes there are significant difference in WC and boxing in the training methods and way of developing attributes and some mechanics. But there is much overlap also and parrying is one area they converge alot because the principals of parrying are universal regardless of the underlying 'style' the person is employing.
The overall intent and execution of the moves is basically the same in the majority of examples of how they parry.
I have highlighted some examples of the differences- that WC has the low elbow and that the 'chicken wing' position would be considered wrong for a huen sau parry. These are also primarily for close range yes.
But you seem to think that WC cant be adapted for medium range which is not true. There is gor sau and sparring for that. When this happens, there is a natural evolution of which methdos are used and when they are adapted for longer range and for different types of punces they will end up varying from what you'd see in chi sau.
No one said the entire system and all possible movements are in the forms , that would be impossible and would assume we were accounting for every possible attack like a Hung gar swinging punch or a looping overhand.
When these alternate attacks are met the WC training you have done and principles will adapt to create a solution.
So for example keeping a low elbow is always preferred. But it is also much easier against centreline vertical fist punches where the elbow of the incoming punch is also low.
If say your right arm is on the outside and a left straight punch comes with a horizontal fist and high elbow and you need to parry it to your outside, the movement will need to be adapted as the position will not allow for you to maintain a fully low elbow. You would have to 'flare' or at least raise your elbow a bit to make the parry work but this does not mean mean you are now doing a 'boxing parry' you are still using your chi sau sensitivity and other WC attributes you have developed to make the parry work in that position and you would immediately try to revert to a low elbow position on the follow ups.
In fact this is why the elbow is flared in the boxing vid example. Against a low elbow punch I doubt they would flare it up like that and they wouldn't need to.
You are mistaking the WC methds which are principles in action, for 'fixed techniques' which is a wrong understanding.They almost always show WC vs WC in the forms and in chi sau but against other styles or ways of punching the techniques will vary although the common principles remain.
You really seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing and to defend the indefensible.
"No, I am seeing the obvious very large parrallels and convergence as well as the differences."
Other than the practically useless factoid that they are all parries in the very broad sense that they use the hand to deflect punches, I have already established using your own example of huen sau vs circular boxig parry that they have different body mechanics and structure and uses. So there is no real convergence nor parallel.
"You narrowly and wrongly set up a very fixed and limited criteria"
I dont know what to say if body mechanics, structure and combative use are considered to be fixed or limited criteria?!!! If you disqualify where and how it moves and how it drives its energy from, how and ahwre it gets its support and strength and ability to.withdtand pressure from and what is it used for - there are no other meaningful criteria left! Whixh may be apparently what you want in your quixotic quest to argue for wc's use in sports fighting without needing to totally revise the art and retool it...
"Such as when you tried to say boxing only uses the palm to parry when actually, like WC they can use forearm also....."
Any use of the forearm would be secondary in nature to the hand and operate according to similar principles as when the hand is used so what is the difference?!
"But there is much overlap also and parrying is one area they converge alot because the principals of parrying are universal regardless of the underlying 'style' the person is employing."
I have already shown you that the principles are entirely different and to treat them as if they are the same or substitutes for each other in use is just wrong.
"The overall intent and execution of the moves is basically the same in the majority of examples of how they parry."
I have already demonstrated using the precise examples you cited why the intent and execution are entirely different.
"These are also primarily for close range yes.
But you seem to think that WC cant be adapted for medium range which is not true. There is
gor sau and sparring for that. "
Gor sau just neans free sparring so you used the terms gor sau and sparring giving the wrong impression as if they are referring to two things
when they just refer to the same thing.
Saying that sparring can adapt techniques that you admit are designed for close range is not reasonable and doesnt work. Its like saying I just learned boxing and I will now spar to learn how to use those techniques on how to use a sword. We drill techniques to get our muscle memory ingrained with the technique and how to use it for the purpose and range it is designed for and hen we spar to do it in real time against a resistant opponent. But it is not reasonable to expect that we can transform a close range technique into a long range with free sparring when we dont even know how to do it iin long range n the first place. What is going to happen 99 per cent of the time is that we will violate the structural limitations of that technique because it was predicated on a different range and end up with a weak and ineffective move that turns into a bad habit that you use in a fight and it gets you countered and ko in the ring - which is probably a good description actually of why wc fighters usually fail in the ring or octagon.
"So for example keeping a low elbow is always preferred. But it is also much easier against centreline vertical fist punches where the elbow of the incoming punch is also low."
This is precisely one of.the reasons why I am saying that wc needs to be restructured and re built from ground up. Its mechanics are designed to fight other CMA that tend to strike to the core and that stay in the same range. It is not designed for eg to fight boxing where most of the intent is to KO by striking the head and therefore the punches are chambered and loaded and launched higher up from the shoulder because the head is the primary target. But adapting wc without rethinking the entire biomechanical paradigm won't cut it because bolting on a adjustment without finding a way to change the underpinnings of the system will result in a solution that fails in a fight because it does not really work.
"If say your right arm is on the outside and a left straight punch comes with a horizontal fist and high elbow and you need to parry it to your outside, the movement will need to be adapted as the position will not allow for you to maintain a fully low elbow. You would have to 'flare' or at least raise your elbow a bit to make the parry work but this does not mean mean you are now doing a 'boxing parry' you are still using your chi sau sensitivity and other WC attributes you have developed to make the parry work in that position and you would immediately try to revert to a low elbow position on the follow ups.
In fact this is why the elbow is flared in the boxing vid example. Against a low elbow punch I doubt they would flare it up like that and they wouldn't need to.""
The elbow is flared in a boxing parry because boxing does not use the immovable elbow as a vital structural pillar in the skeleton of wc stance so to speak and does not employ the elbow aa the vital conduit of force between the body and the limb. Western boxing uses the shoulder for the conduit and does not require the elbow to be down all the time for structure. Flaring he elbow in wc however will completely destroy the integrity of the whole system and the wc stance will collapse under heavy pressure from the opponent and he cannot resist a heavy strike without his parrying limb collapsing because the limb is supported by the elbow that is downward projecting. Reputations aside - if any wc exponent flares or chicken wings his elbow while doing any wc move, he has bad wc technique and is likely using his athleticism or strength or size to get away with it but against better opponents he will come a cropper. This is an absolute given. Internal power and solidity in wc comes from real mastery of the 3 unarmed forms of wc which include stance and technique. From correct structure comes complete power. Why do I need to even repeat this basic tenet of wc if you say that you are already having a higher level knowledge of wc?
. Let’s ask his (and his fellow practitioners from Canada) opinion on Dave Leduc’s performance. 
