# Other than my conclusions, what other conclusions are possible without contradicting my references?



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Other than my conclusions, what other conclusions are possible without contradicting my references?

-Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate cause he saw Korean hand strikes by being a Korean. He taught a better hand strike to Karate for Tameshiwari/Breaking purpose.

The referenced facts are:
1. Karate didn't have the hand strike that rotates shoulder and stacks speed & power without implosion & explosion. Kamesuke Higashioona 1933 Hand Breaking without shoulder-rotation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._1933_Hand_Breaking_without_shoulder-push.jpg

2. Karate had it after Mas Oyama.
3. Korean always has had that hand strike, including before Mas Oyama.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtgeqsmWwAE9by-.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jaTY5Zr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png

My conclusion is: Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate.

-Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known in Japan by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul; Korean always has had Breaking.

The referenced facts are:
1. Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known in Japan by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul.
Mas Oyama in America, by Graham Noble

2. Korean always has had powerful Breaking including Hand Breaking. I referenced many Korean Breaking events from history in any era. (400 years ago, 100 years ago.)
https://i.imgur.com/UqPLaLW.png
https://i.imgur.com/GqgCXfa.png
https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png
https://i.imgur.com/d3vM6SR.png

The conclusion is:
Karate started Breaking/Tameshiwari as a modern practice of Karate by Mas Oyama. This was done by either copying Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul or by copying Iron Palm's Breaking culture. (I suppose Karate copying Iron Palm is also possible although Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu was well known in Japan including 1940's Judo player Masato Tamura doing Breaking under the name Kiaijutsu, not Karate.)

What other conclusions are possible in these situations?

Also, it's Ad Hominem fallacy to attack my motive, motivation, credibility, agenda rather than attacking the substance of my argument itself.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

The obvious conclusion, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that you're wrong. You've deluded yourself into believing a bunch of nonsense, most likely because of your racism and self-loathing.

You've also refused to answer straightforward questions. Since you want to be considered an authority on Korean Martial Arts history, you'll need to answer some questions.
What training do you have in history? What training do you have in research methodology? What training do you have in logic? What training do you have in any Korean martial art? Under whom? To what rank?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Just because you whine "self-loathing" doesn't mean **** in the real world, especially to me. Also, just because you claim nonsense to legitimate facts doesn't make them so.

I'm not an athlete. I already said this. I'm a nerd, amateur sports historian. Being trained in sports and being trained in sports history are two different things. It doesn't matter how much you are trained in sports; you don't know anything about its history by training sports.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because you whine "self-loathing" doesn't mean **** in the real world, especially to me. Also, just because you claim nonsense to legitimate facts doesn't make them so.



And no matter how many times you repeat the same racist, delusional nonsense, it won't become fact.



> I'm not an athlete. I already said this. I'm a nerd, amateur sports historian. Being trained in sports and being trained in sports history are two different things. It doesn't matter how much you are trained in sports; you don't know anything about its history by training sports.



I notice you didn't answer the questions. I suspect other people also noticed that you didn't answer the questions. 
What impact do you think that has on your credibility?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

You do realize posting pretty much the same thing over and over again is not going to change the outcome..... it just gets you one step closer to crossing that MT rule not to be broken line


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I only need to connect to objective people & historians. I don't need the rest of the people telling themselves whatever nonsense.

I don't have any background. I said I'm not an athlete. No training. I also said that my sources & references have authority in history. I also said people who trained in sports have no authority in sports history.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

You also said Koreans come form Scandinavia and Mesopotamia and that Korean wrestling existed before Chinese wrestling and the country of Korea


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

My primary topic focus is Breaking. That's the topic I'm focusing on. I also covered many topics including Taekkyeon-Yetbub VS Taekkyeon, Subak's real rules & motions, Taekwondo originating from 9 gyms in 1960's, etc.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Well, I'm saying the same thing because it is correct and I am spreading the truth. What other conclusions are possible from those referenced facts?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I only need to connect to objective people & historians.



But you are neither objective nor a historian. 



> I don't need the rest of the people telling themselves whatever nonsense.



So stop telling yourself nonsense. Move past the racism and face reality.



> I don't have any background. I said I'm not an athlete. No training. I also said that my sources & references have authority in history. I also said people who trained in sports have no authority in sports history.



So you're not a martial artist. You're not a historian. You're not a researcher. You're not a logician. 

You basically just puke up a lot of nonsense and then think people should believe you.

Pardon me while I join others in laughing.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

Without getting into value of the posts, I will just point out that assertions and references aren't the same thing.  What I see in your post are insubstantiated assertions.  Actual references to reliable sources would help.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Well, I'm saying the same thing because it is correct and I am spreading the truth. What other conclusions are possible from those referenced facts?



Well, no, you're spouting a bunch of nonsense that you've deluded yourself into believing is true.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I showed referenced facts. I showed my conclusions. If there cannot be any other possible conclusions, my conclusions are the facts. As for the referenced facts, they are the facts by the authority & authenticity of the sources. If both my referenced facts & my conclusions are true, then I'm spreading the truth. I don't need to convince anyone other than objective people & historians.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Steve said:


> Without getting into value of the posts, I will just point out that assertions and references aren't the same thing.  What I see in your post are insubstantiated assertions.  Actual references to reliable sources would help.



I showed references already. I didn't feel the need to repeat my references, but I edited the thread anyway. They now have links.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

So, @Steven Lee, do you have any education or training at all, that might salvage some shred of credibility? Anything? Bueller?

Because what you've posted doesn't make it seem that you do.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I showed referenced facts. I showed my conclusions. If there cannot be any other possible conclusions, my conclusions are the facts. As for the referenced facts, they are the facts by the authority & authenticity of the sources. If both my referenced facts & my conclusions are true, then I'm spreading the truth. I don't need to convince anyone other than objective people & historians.



I think you entire approach and attitude would put off objective people and historians.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> So, @Steven Lee, do you have any education or training at all, that might salvage some shred of credibility? Anything? Bueller?
> 
> Because what you've posted doesn't make it seem that you do.



Well remember it is rather early in the morning...tomorrow... in Korea


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I showed referenced facts. I showed my conclusions. If there cannot be any other possible conclusions, my conclusions are the facts. As for the referenced facts, they are the facts by the authority & authenticity of the sources. If both my referenced facts & my conclusions are true, then I'm spreading the truth. I don't need to convince anyone other than objective people & historians.



When your approach is biased, your sources sketchy (to say the least) and your conclusions ludicrous, do you really think people who are objective and/or historians are going to take them seriously?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

My references are reputable & authoritative. My conclusions follow from the references. If you cannot show what other conclusions are possible from those references, then those conclusions are true.

Well, yeah. Objective people without agenda, bias, goals would agree with my conclusions and my references cause my sources are reputable. For the same reason, historians should agree me. They should at least agree with the referenced facts cause they are reputable. On top of it, my conclusions follow from the references. If you claim some other conclusions are possible, talk.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My references are reputable & authoritative. My conclusions follow from the references. If you cannot show what other conclusions are possible from those references, then those conclusions are true.



Not really. They're not. And you're not. 

And you didn't answer the question. Again.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 31, 2019)

Okay, I'm willing to put aside considerations of any bias you might have for the moment and discuss your "references" and the conclusions you draw from them. Let's start with your first argument ...


Steven Lee said:


> 1. Karate didn't have the hand strike that rotates shoulder and stacks speed & power without implosion & explosion. Kamesuke Higashioona 1933 Hand Breaking without shoulder-rotation.
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._1933_Hand_Breaking_without_shoulder-push.jpg


First, it would be helpful if you defined your terms. I've been studying martial arts for over 37 years and I have no idea what you mean by "_hand strike that rotates shoulder and stacks speed & power without implosion & explosion_." This is not standard terminology.

Perhaps you can provide a precise, concise description of a strike that "rotates the shoulder" vs one that doesn't, a strike that "stacks speed & power" vs one that doesn't, and a strike that uses "implosion and explosion" vs one that doesn't. Better yet, find some video to illustrate strikes that have these properties vs ones that do not.

Once you have done that, you can provide some sort of evidence  that no style of Karate contained the type of strike you describe. What you've provided is one still picture of one karateka performing a break. I'm not sure how you can tell much of anything about the body dynamics of the strike from that one photo, but feel free to explain. After that, you can explain how that you know that one photo is representative of the entire curriculum of the schools of Karate that were extant at the time the photo was taken.



Steven Lee said:


> 2. Karate had it after Mas Oyama.



To establish this, you'll need explain your terms as I asked above, then it should be easy to find some video of karateka using the strike you mention.



Steven Lee said:


> 3. Korean always has had that hand strike, including before Mas Oyama.
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtgeqsmWwAE9by-.jpg
> https://i.imgur.com/jaTY5Zr.jpg
> https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png



The illustrations in your links do absolutely nothing to clarify what sort of strike you are talking about. Perhaps the text contains some explanation that might help. If so, feel free to provide a translation of those parts.



Steven Lee said:


> My conclusion is: Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate.



Even if you clarify what you are talking about and provide evidence for your assertions above, that still leaves room for alternate conclusions. Perhaps Oyama learned this "shoulder-rotating, speed/power stacking, non-implosive/explosive" strike from a Chinese system. (We know he studied in China, but there is no evidence he ever studied in Korea.) Perhaps he came up with it on his own. (We know that he was an innovator.)

If you are able to address my questions above, I'd be happy to read your arguments and consider your evidence. I will suggest that you don't start with the conclusion you want to reach and search for things you imagine might support that end goal. That doesn't usually end up being very productive or convincing.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

My references are scholarly sources & news organization sources that haven't been damaged in reputation. They are reputable sources by academic standards. As for me, I'm just following from my references.

You are not very smart, aside from what your agenda is. I said I have no sports training. Keep it simple.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 31, 2019)

Admin Note:

Thread locked pending staff review.

jks9199
MartialTalk Administrator


----------

