# Karate's Breaking/Tameshiwari has lineage to Korean Breaking Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu



## Steven Lee (Jan 22, 2019)

==Korean Breaking predating Karate's Breaking==
In 1934's reputable Korean newspaper, there's a sport called Yuk-ki breaking soft shingles (roof tiles) with fist strike.

https://i.imgur.com/UqPLaLW.png

There are many reputable & old Korean newspaper records that show the derivations of the name Charyuk (like Yuk-ki) as well as the explicit name Kihapsul together.

https://i.imgur.com/GqgCXfa.png

In 1692, Korean Ikmyung Yang broke a stone with hand strike using Yongryuk (stacking speed, power, mass in the entire body

https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png

400 years ago, there were many Korean history books all recording the same event of Korean Hand Breaking a large stone as big as a Soban table.

https://i.imgur.com/d3vM6SR.png

Korean had martial arts (or Fight Game, pseudo-martial arts) like Subak which had frontal slap & punch like Taekkyeon (including Yetbub), Gwonbeop, Gitssaum (Flag Fight), Pyunssaum, Sibak. However, Breaking's strikes were created in the power circus Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu by trial & error trying with common sense strikes from everyday-life. The strikes improved; they started teaching what's already been created & improved (from common sense hitting, techniques are developed & more variety is added) including various hand shapes like Knife Hand. They teach the power circus (including Breaking's strikes) already created & improved without starting over the creation process at each generation. Strikes are learned by learning power circus including Breaking; martial arts were not involved. This is how Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu have worked in Korean society anyway regardless of how it was for some other sport which copied Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu.

As for the difficulty of this creation process which some people object (they claim Breaking must have gotten its strikes from martial arts), the difficulty level is about the same whether people invent powerful strikes in martial arts then adopt them in Breaking or whether people invent powerful strikes in Breaking/Tameshiwari power circus. The process & the difficulty of creating powerful strikes are the same whether it's done for martial arts or for circus. In the early 20th century, Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul was popular in Japan. Later in the middle 20th century, this Korean Breaking was formally adopted by Karate through Korean Mas Oyama including specific Korean traits like Yongryuk stacking speed, power, mass for strikes & pushing shoulder for hand strike. "Among Mas Oyama’s many accomplishments, he is perhaps best known for introducing tameshiwari or “stone breaking” into the practice of modern karate."

https://www.kyokushinkan.org/en/?page_id=2122

Mas Oyama is also famous for using dogs & cows as a target of Breaking/Tameshiwari, which doesn't necessarily involve Karate for hitting or fighting animals.




==Summary of Breaking/Tameshiwari predating Karate==

Breaking objects with strikes predates the introduction of karate in the 1920s. William Bankier, the strongman "Apollo", wrote about some Jiujitsu people breaking stone with hand strike his 1905 book "Jiu-Jitsu. What It Really Is". He also described how the heel or the side of hand was developed for this show.

https://seinenkai.com/articles/noble/noble-oyama.html
Before the time of Karate, Breaking/Tameshiwari already existed, but it was not related to striking martial arts but correlated with Qigong, circus performance art, wrestling. In 1940 the "Japanese American Courier" reported the Tacoma (judo) dojo holding its annual tournament Sunday afternoon at the Buddhist Church auditorium. Masato Tamura's rock breaking demonstration via the ancient Japanese art of "kiai jutsu" was shown. Tamura was a well known judoka in 1938 (third dan during Jigoro Kano's visit to America in 1938).

https://seinenkai.com/articles/noble/noble-oyama.html

Japanese Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari was not invented by Karate but existed before that as Korean Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu (also called Charyuk) & Mas Oyama (Choi). Kiaijutsu is pronounced as Kihapsul (also called Charyuk) in Korean by using the same 3 Chinese letters.

https://i.imgur.com/S9CskZL.png
Bob Hoffman, the founder of "Strength and Health" magazine, saw Japanese sidewalk performer performing Breaking before the time of Karate during World War 1.

https://seinenkai.com/articles/noble/noble-oyama.html
Such kind of sidewalk performance art (power circus, power magic show) is the Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu/Charyuk, which was the original Breaking/Tameshiwari predating Karate. Breaking/Tameshiwari originally had no relation to striking martial art. Strikes were created in the power circus by trial & error trying with common sense strikes from everyday-life to improve, then to teach what's already been created & improved (from common sense hitting, techniques are developed & more variety is added) including various hand shapes like Knife Hand. (No relation to striking martial art in concept nor techniques before the time of Karate.) Charyuk/Kihapsul Breaking typically uses everyday-life motions like headbutt, punching, Knife Hand (like massaging), stomping (no special kicking), etc rather than martial art exclusive motions such as roundhouse kick. After striking martial arts adopted Breaking/Tameshiwari from power circus, they added Breaking objects with more various moves which are not done in typical power circus Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu/Charyuk today or before.

For hundreds of years, Korean has had a power circus (power magic show, power performance art) called Charyuk/Kihapsul which is pronounced Kiai-jutsu in Japanese for reading the same 3 Chinese letters in a different dialect. This predates Karate Breaking. Breaking Game already existed before Karate in the category of power circus performance art, not a part of striking martial art but correlating with wrestling, circus, Qigong (also called Kooksundo, Seonsul).

https://i.imgur.com/A0Qli9C.png
Mas Oyama (Choi) introduced Breaking/Tameshiwari into the modern Karate culture.

https://www.kyokushinkan.org/en/?page_id=2122
https://i.imgur.com/sFqQGhB.jpg

Karate also testified that Breaking/Tameshiwari is a form of personal trial like mountain climbing. "It isn't Karate, Kung Fu or Tae Kwon Do, but it is the same kind of personal trial that is Tameshiwari."

https://i.imgur.com/udcZlFZ.jpg
Mas Oyama also introduced pushing shoulder and stacking speed & power (as opposed to traditional Karate's implosion & explosion) in frontal hand strike for extra mass & strength like traditional Korean strikes in his teaching and in his book "Mas Oyama's Essential Karate" for his Tameshiwari/Breaking diagram. (Yong stacking speed & power in the entire body including arms. Shoulder-push for frontal hand strike like the following footnotes linked.)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtgeqsmWwAE9by-.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yJFsJWN.png
https://i.imgur.com/jaTY5Zr.jpg
In 1934's reputable Korean newspaper, there's a sport called Yukki breaking soft shingles (roof tiles) with fist strike.

https://i.imgur.com/UqPLaLW.png
There are many reputable & old Korean newspaper records that show the derivations of the name Charyuk (like Yuk-ki) as well as the explicit name Kihapsul together.

https://i.imgur.com/GqgCXfa.png


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

What you've shown shows two things I can see:

Breaking has been an activity in Korea for quite a while.
Funakoshi may have introduced a new activity to Karate.
The latter isn't conclusive, and neither provides direct evidence the latter comes from the former.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

I uploaded a new thread to Karate category. Maybe there are new proofs I didn't show you on this thread that I don't really remember. 1940's Japanese Breaking testified that Breaking/Tameshiwari was not Karate but Kiai-Jutsu/Kihapsul, which seems to be a solely Korean sport. Also, some Karate people did Breaking before Mas Oyama's era like in 1933. But it wasn't a regular culture or curriculum. Mas Oyama introduced Breaking to modern Karate as a common practice. I quoted Black Belt magazine & Kyokushin Karate. Also, Mas Oyama taught rotating shoulder for hand strike. Korea had that technique; Mas Oyama was a Korean; Karate didn't have that technique including in 1933's Karate Breaking. Also, Oyama taught stacking speed & power instead of implosion & explosion. Korea also had that technique; Karate didn't strike in that way.

In any case, today's Karate's Hand Breaking/Tameshiwari uses traditional Korean strike techniques. Also, Karate adopted Breaking/Tameshiwari as a common practice because of Mas Oyama (not Funakoshi). Also, Japan was exposed to the culture of Tameshiwari from Korean Kiaijutsu.

History of Korean Breaking before Karate started Breaking

Breaking/Tameshiwari's source & history before Karate started Breaking as a culture/curriculum


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Funakoshi didn't add Breaking to Karate. Mas Oyama did in mid 20th century. Also, they got the idea of Breaking/Tameshiwari from Kiaijutsu. The question is whether Kiaijutsu is solely Korean or whether Japan also had it historically. The most important proof is 1940's testimony that Breaking/Tameshiwari is Kiaijutsu, not Karate.

Many sports including Judo & Karate sometimes imitated Kiaijutsu's Breaking. Not because it is their curriculum and culture but by dabbling in Kiaijutsu. In 1933's Karate's Breaking, shoulders were stationary & square in his hand strike. In any case, Mas Oyama copied Korean hand strikes (rotating shoulder, stacking speed & power) into Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking. Also, it's questionable whether Japan had Kiai-jutsu because they don't have it today. What happened to it if Japan also had had Kiaijutsu historically?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

I smell an agenda.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Don't care nor mind my motivations. I obviously have hostility against Japan. But what's more important is that I don't want me, my background (Korea), Korea to share any credit nor lose any cultural historical wealth. I don't want to share Breaking nor its powerful strikes with Japan when Korea had had them already before Karate & Mas Oyama copied Korean striking techniques. (Today's Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking uses hand strikes different from 1933's Karate Breaking's hand strike with square stationary shoulder not being rotated. The hand strike Mas Oyama taught Karate has Korean origin in Muyedobotongji Gwonbeop & Gitssaum Flag Fight.) Also, Japan got the idea of Breaking from Kiaijutsu which already existed before Mas Oyama introduced Breaking to Karate.

"Among Mas Oyama’s many accomplishments, he is perhaps best known for introducing tameshiwari or “stone breaking” into the practice of modern karate."

Sosai Masutatsu Oyama, The Founder of Kyokushin Karate - Kyokushin-kan International Honbu

Focus on my scholarly sources & news organization sources that haven't been damaged in reputation. In academic standard, that means reputable. Don't focus on my motivations. Regardless of my motivations or your motivations or their motivations, facts are facts anyway. It's just a happy coincidence when what we want happens to be rightful.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 30, 2019)

Meh...your research shows that "breaking" was NOT part of *any* martial art until Mas Oyama added it to karate demonstrations.  

Here is the problem.  Mas Oyama was born in Korea and moved to China at a very early age, he studied chinese kempo at age 9 in China.  He moved to Japan around age 15 and lived there the rest of his life.  He changed his name to a Japanese name and was a citizen of Japan.  He turned down Gen. Choi's offer to combine TKD and Kyokushin because of his life and roots in Japan and wanted to stay true to his karate roots.  Mas Oyama was a showman and did tours in the US as a professional "wrestler".  He took a street performer art and added it to his own karate for demonstration purposes and others did as well.  You are trying to tie this in with Korean martial arts and there is no direct link until Oyama and ANY martial art.  I would not call this "Korean" in origin since Oyama did not live and grow up in Korea, and always claimed Japan as his home.

Iron Palm has also been a documented art for over 1500 years and includes breaking in it's practice.  The breaking was a byproduct of the training, which was kept secret for many years.  It wasn't really until the 1930's that more sifus started to showcase their art.  For example, the famous picture of Gu Ru Zhang breaking around 12 bricks in 1932.

You still have not shown that "breaking" came from Korean martial arts.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Yes, Breaking/Tameshiwari was historically recorded to be Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul/Charyuk, which is a sidewalk performance art, not a striking martial art. Iron Palm is also not a Kung Fu; it's more Qigong. It doesn't have fighting moves, right? In old Korean newspapers 100 years ago, Kiaijutsu was correlated with Seonsul which means Taoist Qigong. It wasn't from Taekkyeon, Sibak, Gwonbeop or Subak. At least by the people's perception back then, Breaking was a form of circus. Also, 1933's Karate Breaking's hand strike was different from Oyama's Hand Breaking pictures. Shoulder not rotating vs shoulder rotating for hand strike, which was a Korean technique historically recorded in Gwonbeop & Flag Fight (Gitssaum).

Mas Oyama showed detailed explanation of Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeob in his book "1 million's Karate". He probably learned Korean Gwonbeop, not the original Chinese Gwonbeop/Quan-Fa/Chuan-Fa. Also, whether Mas Oyama himself learned any Korean martial art or not, Mas Oyama should be familiar with Korean martial art motions by seeing them in fighting games and Breaking/Tameshiwari street performance. You are saying that although Mas Oyama taught new hand striking techniques to Karate identical to Korean techniques historically recorded, Korea shouldn't be credited? Korea should share its traditional striking techniques with new (started by Kyokushin Karate, the strongest Karate) Karate? Why? Mas Oyama didn't have to learn Korean arts to know how those motions look like; it takes seeing them, not learning them. Also, Mas Oyama could have learned Korean Gwonbeop before or after he went to China. He became black belt in Gwonbeop on his second year in middle school. Did Chinese have black belt system back then? Probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.

I said Korea didn't invent Breaking. I said Japan became aware of Breaking via Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul, not via China. I also said Mas Oyama taught hand strike techniques not from Karate but from Korean arts. Korean arts were historically recorded to rotate shoulder and stack speed (& power) for hand strikes. In 1933's Karate Breaking's hand strike, the shoulders were square and stationary.

Taekwondo is irrelevant. Taekwondo is a mix of Karate & Gwonbeop gyms (9 Gwans/gyms united for Taekwondo to start.) It's tainted cause of Karate. Korean has had other Fight Games like Taekkyeon which included punching in Yetbeob/Sibak/Nanjangbaksi. Even Subak had frontal slap and punches whether in Tagwon or in general Subak. Also, I'm saying Breaking is not from striking martial art but from power circus. It's just that the techniques correlate with the martial arts in the same ethnicity. One guy invents a technique, it spreads to all the sports in that ethnicity. Also, my contents get upgraded upon reputable counter-evidence and counter-logic. For example, before, I believed that Taekwondo had strictly Gwonbeop lineage. Now, I say it has both Karate & Gwonbeop lineage (9 Gwans united for Taekwondo in 1960's).

I'm fine with "Japan and Korea both had Breaking Game; Korea had punching techniques with shoulder rotation; Japan copied this trait through Mas Oyama who introduced Breaking to Karate's modern practice as well as introducing new hand strike to Karate identical to the Korean hand strike". It's just that, I (& Korea) don't have to nor want to share credit when it's not deserved. That's why I'm pushing Japan got the idea of Breaking from Kiaijutsu. The question is whether Japan had Kiaijutsu in the medieval time. I saw some people claiming that Japan had Kiaijutsu although their focus was more on Kiai/Kihap rather than Breaking. I can't seem to find good references that Japan had Kiaijutsu in the medieval era. Also, aside from whether Japan also had had Kiaijutsu or not, Oyama's hand strike is identical to the Korean hand strike historically recorded in 3 references I showed. I don't want to share this strike. Korea deserves the full credit to that identical hand strike Mas Oyama (Korean) taught Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Iron Palm is also not a Kung Fu; it's more Qigong. It doesn't have fighting moves, right? .



Wrong.

Iron palm was trained by fighters to use in fights. It is not a qigong.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Does Iron Palm have fighting moves? That's what I meant by it's more like Qigong. Also, Korean Kihapsul is historically recorded (I showed a newspaper screenshot) to correlate with Korean Qigong. And Kihapsul was historically recorded to do Breaking/Tameshiwari. Iron Palm isn't exactly a fighting art; it doesn't have fighting move.

Also, Kung Fu didn't do Breaking in general. It wasn't a part of their culture & curriculum.

Also, whether Kung Fu did Breaking in fighting arts or not, Korean did Breaking as circus Kihapsul. So did Japan. 1940's Judo Japanese black belt testified Breaking was Kiaijutsu to their perception. It wasn't Iron Palm nor Karate.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yes, Breaking/Tameshiwari was historically recorded to be Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul/Charyuk, which is a sidewalk performance art, not a striking martial art. *Iron Palm is also not a Kung Fu; it's more Qigong*. *It doesn't have fighting moves, right?* In old Korean newspapers 100 years ago, Kiaijutsu was correlated with Seonsul which means Taoist Qigong. It wasn't from Taekkyeon, Sibak, Gwonbeop or Subak. At least by the people's perception back then, Breaking was a form of circus.
> 
> Mas Oyama showed detailed explanation of Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeob in his book "1 million's Karate". He probably learned Korean Gwonbeop, not the original Chinese Gwonbeop/Quan-Fa/Chuan-Fa. Also, whether Mas Oyama himself learned any Korean martial art or not, Mas Oyama should be familiar with Korean martial art motions by seeing them in fighting games and Breaking/Tameshiwari street performance. You are saying that although Mas Oyama taught new hand striking techniques to Karate identical to Korean techniques historically recorded, Korea shouldn't be credited? Korea should share its traditional striking techniques with new (started by Kyokushin Karate, the strongest Karate) Karate? Why? Mas Oyama didn't have to learn Korean arts to know how those motions look like; it takes seeing them, not learning them. Also, Mas Oyama could have learned Korean Gwonbeop before or after he went to China. He became black belt in Gwonbeop on his second year in middle school. Did Chinese have black belt system back then? Probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.



No, actually iron palm IS a kung fu (hard earned skill) and was one of the 72 consumate arts of Shaolin.  Yes, it does have fighting moves and that was the whole purpose of iron palm, iron body etc.  to train your body and hands as weapons.

Since Oyama was in China when he was age 9 and Gwonbeop was the korean rendition of quanfa, it is reasonable to assume that he was learning the Chinese martial arts and not a Korean art while he was living in China.

The illustrations of Oyama breaking objects and comparing it to how Koreans broke things and saying that those motions are not in Japanese karate are ridiculous.  Those motions are ALL in the chinese arts and in Goju-Ryu that he also studied.  Again, there is no direct link that Koreans were the sole source of this.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Does Iron Palm have fighting moves? That's what I meant by it's more like Qigong. Also, Korean Kihapsul is historically recorded (I showed a newspaper screenshot) to correlate with Korean Qigong. And Kihapsul was historically recorded to do Breaking/Tameshiwari. Iron Palm isn't exactly a fighting art; it doesn't have fighting move.
> 
> Also, Kung Fu didn't do Breaking in general. It wasn't a part of their culture & curriculum.
> 
> Also, whether Kung Fu did Breaking in fighting arts or not, Korean did Breaking as circus Kihapsul. So did Japan. 1940's Judo Japanese black belt testified Breaking was Kiaijutsu to their perception. It wasn't Iron Palm nor Karate.



Did you read punisher73's post?

Iron palm is "Part" of fighting systems and it is also trained specifically for fighting purposes
Iron palm is not qigong

Also note: Qigong is not always stationary, there are moving forms and there has bee some speculation that Baduanjin had fighting applications at one time


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Unless Chinese Quan Fa had Dan system (Oyama became first dan at the second year of middle school), Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeob.

Also, the point stands. Oyama don't have to learn Korean arts to know how they look like. He must have seen them at some point of time instead of creating a hand strike with shoulder rotation just like the Korean way by coincidence.

Jumping rope can be a part of fighting systems, that doesn't really make it "fighting". Iron Palm is more of a training whether we call it Qigong or not. Also, Korean Kihapsul was recorded to correlate with Seonsul (Kooksundo, Korean Taoist Qigong) regardless of Iron Palm's nature. Also, Kooksundo (Seonsul) also moves body a lot; it's not stationary.

I haven't seen a Kung Fu style that rotates shoulder when punching. Also, shouldn't Karate be consistent? If Goju-ryu Karate rotates shoulder when punching from the start of that school without learning it from Kyokushin Karate, how come other Karate schools particularly Shotokan Karate don't do it? The important point is that Korean Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu was already well known and seen in Japan at the time. They have seen Koreans do it. If Mas Oyama has seen Koreans do it then copy it afterward, Korea should be credited.

(But I'm fine with "both Korea & Japan had Hand Breaking; Mas Oyama introduced better hand strike to Japanese Karate; this hand strike happens to be identical to Korean hand strikes historically recorded by coincidence. I'm playing like devil's advocate here.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Does Iron Palm have fighting moves? That's what I meant by it's more like Qigong. Also, Korean Kihapsul is historically recorded (I showed a newspaper screenshot) to correlate with Korean Qigong. And Kihapsul was historically recorded to do Breaking/Tameshiwari. Iron Palm isn't exactly a fighting art; it doesn't have fighting move.
> 
> Also, Kung Fu didn't do Breaking in general. It wasn't a part of their culture & curriculum.
> 
> Also, whether Kung Fu did Breaking in fighting arts or not, Korean did Breaking as circus Kihapsul. So did Japan. 1940's Judo Japanese black belt testified Breaking was Kiaijutsu to their perception. It wasn't Iron Palm nor Karate.


Do stances have fighting moves?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What you've shown shows two things I can see:
> 
> Breaking has been an activity in Korea for quite a while.
> Funakoshi may have introduced a new activity to Karate.
> The latter isn't conclusive, and neither provides direct evidence the latter comes from the former.


You actually read all that stuff?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

The sports or arts teaching stances also teach strikes. Iron Palm is a complete art by itself, isn't it? Also, how is it relevant whether Iron Palm is a fighting art or not? Kung Fu doesn't have Breaking in its culture & regular curriculum. Breaking's the culture of power circus & Iron Palm. Whether Kung Fu also trains Iron Palm or not, it's a separate culture within Iron Palm. As for Japan & Korea, Breaking wasn't about Iron Palm but Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul (Kihap/Kiai Techniques).


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

I'd appreciate if you read everything I wrote including the references. Then you can agree or provide counter-evidence. I don't need regular people. I'm just reaching out to objective people and scholars (historians).

Also, it wasn't Funakoshi but Mas Oyama that introduced Breaking to modern practice of Karate. That included a new strike identical to traditional Korean hand strike (shoulder rotation in Gwonbeop & Flag Fight Gitssaum punches, Ikmyung Yang's Hand Breaking also mentions Yong stacking speed & power). Before Mas Oyama, Karate didn't emphasize playing Breaking/Tameshiwari. Also, it was Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu that was doing Breaking/Tameshiwari.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> You actually read all that stuff?


Yes. Sadly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> The sports or arts teaching stances also teach strikes. Iron Palm is a complete art by itself, isn't it? Also, how is it relevant whether Iron Palm is a fighting art or not? Kung Fu doesn't have Breaking in its culture & regular curriculum. Breaking's the culture of power circus & Iron Palm. Whether Kung Fu also trains Iron Palm or not, it's a separate culture within Iron Palm. As for Japan & Korea, Breaking wasn't about Iron Palm but Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul (Kihap/Kiai Techniques).


As far as I know, the arts teaching Iron Palm also teach strikes - it's part of the point of Iron Palm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I'd appreciate if you read everything I wrote including the references. Then you can agree or provide counter-evidence. I don't need regular people. I'm just reaching out to objective people and scholars (historians).


In the past, your definition of "objective" was "agrees with my conclusion".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I don't need regular people. I'm just reaching out to objective people and scholars (historians).


But you aren't objective yourself.  So this statement isn't true.  Your statement below is reflected in your posts.  If you were really trying to attract or look for objective people and scholars then your writing would be very neutral and would have very little bias.  In addition it would also mean you have to have the ability accept that you are wrong at times. It also requires you have the ability to accpet truth regards of how distasteful it is to you personally. 

If you actually cared about the "History of breaking" then your writings wouldn't have such an aggressive tone.  And your first statement would have been along the lines of. "The earliest record of breaking, according to (source) was...   Unfortunately you don't take that route and you start offf with "Korean Breaking predating Karate's Breaking"




Steven Lee said:


> I obviously have hostility against Japan.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I haven't seen a Kung Fu style that rotates shoulder when punching.


  You really gotta "step out of your box." How can you not know of any Kung Fu styles that rotates the shoulder when punching.  If you are going to be honest about your research into "breaking" then you really need to just let go of the Korean vs Japan stuff go and just focus on the history of "breaking" regardless of where  or who created it first.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

The stench of agenda is strong with this one.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

There's no bias in my writing. I pretty much just provide reputable references then just translate them. My conclusions and inferences follow directly from my scholarly sources. That's very neutral & objective. As for my tone of voice, I can't help it. I do have hostility against Japan and everything that's been going on around me. (I'm not hiding it. I don't deny it. Just focus on the contents, not on the tone of my voice.) When counter-evidences are provided, I accept them including Taekwondo. You people should too. As for my motivations, it's a happy coincidence with my contents. It's irrelevant in terms of fact finding. My intention is to find and spread the truth. If that fact happens to be good for me or Korea, that's a happy coincidence. If not, I just accept the facts then move on.

Yeah, Kung Fu styles that rotate shoulder when punching? Not common. Do you really claim Oyama taught Karate shoulder rotation by observing it from Korean arts or from such uncommon Chinese arts? That sounds like a wish, bias.

I'm focusing on Breaking itself as well as all the other topics I've covered. Let's say Japanese Karate started Breaking without having seen it already from Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu. Let's pretend Karate started Breaking from its Iron Palm lineage. I don't believe it (cause there are proofs of Kiaijutsu being popular in Japan), but I don't have a problem with it. (I also don't have a problem with Japan also having had Kiaijutsu. I can't seem to get much historical proofs on it, but some people seem to claim Japan had Kiaijutsu even during medieval Japan.) But Mas Oyama added a hand strike to Karate that's different from Karate; it is identical to Korean hand strike recorded historically. I want Korea to be credited for it.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Don't focus on my motivations nor so called "agenda". Either some fact is referenced or it isn't. Either the source of the reference is reputable or it isn't. My sources are reputable scholarly sources & news organization sources. It's a happy coincidence. My motivations don't take away anything from my writings just like my angry tone of voice doesn't take away anything from my contents.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 30, 2019)

@Steven Lee 
When are you going to accept the true fact that practically EVERY Korean art is repackaged from Japanese arts?

TKD and TSD are from karate 
Hapkido is from Aikido and Aikijiujutsu
Yudo is from Judo 
Gumdo is from Kendo/Iaido 

They’ve taken those Japanese arts and repackaged them, sometimes adding a made up history like soldiers have used them on the battlefields for 2000 years, etc.

I’m sure you’re going to tell me they all originated in Korea, and the Japanese stole them and falsified their history. 

For everyone else, consider the pot stirred.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Those sports are all entirely Japanese except Taekwondo which is half Gwonbeop (whatever that is) & half Karate. Other than those Japanese sports, Korean has had traditional sports including Breaking/Tameshiwari (Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu), Gwonbeop, Subak, Taekkyeon, Sibak, Bongookgum, etc. Many traditional Korean sports are still taught even today.

Because Korea's recent history was the Japanese occupation of Korea, South Korean upper class is closely tied with Japan unfortunately. North Korea is more intact with traditional Korean sports including North Korean Gyuksul (started as Subak, upgraded to Sibak similar to Nalparam). South Korea is tainted by Japanese cultures. It's an unfortunate fact. But there are still traditional Korean sports even in South Korea. That includes Breaking/Tameshiwari which was Charyuk/Kihapsul for Korea.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Those sports are all entirely Japanese except Taekwondo which is half Gwonbeop (whatever that is) & half Karate. Other than those Japanese sports, Korean has had traditional sports including Breaking/Tameshiwari (Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu), Gwonbeop, Subak, Taekkyeon, Sibak, Bongookgum, etc. Many traditional Korean sports are still taught even today.
> 
> Because Korea's recent history was the Japanese occupation of Korea, South Korean upper class is closely tied with Japan unfortunately. North Korea is more intact with traditional Korean sports including North Korean Gyuksul (started as Subak, upgraded to Sibak similar to Nalparam). South Korea is tainted by Japanese cultures. It's an unfortunate fact. But there are still traditional Korean sports even in South Korea. That includes Breaking/Tameshiwari which was Charyuk/Kihapsul for Korea.


I see a lot of Korean dojangs adding Krav Maga. I wonder how long it’ll be before they change the name of it and you start with your “scholarly evidence” supporting the BS claim that it too came from an ancient Korean art.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

That's plain offensive, it means nothing. All my sources are reputable scholarly sources & news organization sources. (& most of them are old historical records before any motivation for manipulation or agenda. & none of my sources was damaged in reputation.) I'm not making any BS claim. They are referenced facts. As for what those facts mean, such conclusions can either make you happy, or sad & angry. I don't care. I obviously have hostility. I am just trying to find the truth & facts, then spread the truth & facts to the objective people & historians (scholars).

Also, there are plenty of historical records for traditional Korean sports other than those Japanese sports. This includes Breaking/Tameshiwari.

South Korea's main problem is Japanese connections. South Korea's upper class was historically corrupted and pro-Japanese; these guys became rich and powerful, which is a problem for Korea. That corrupted upper class likes easy money and they like Japan, which is one of the reasons why there are a lot of Japanese sports in South Korea today. As for the pronunciations of sports, Korea, Japan, China all have different pronunciations for the same Chinese characters.

Some Japanese sports in South Korea probably ("if", that is, I'm not familiar with it) make up false history of lineage cause Japan is disliked in general in Korea. They want to recruit students, so they want to avoid being Japanese sports. At the same time, they like Japan; they want to make easy money. I think that's how such people's minds work. But there are many non-Japanese sports in Korea as well including Sibak (Taekkyeon-Yetbub, different from regular Taekkyeon), Subak, Gyuksul, Bongookgum, etc.


----------



## paitingman (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Don't focus on my motivations nor so called "agenda". Either some fact is referenced or it isn't. Either the source of the reference is reputable or it isn't. My sources are reputable scholarly sources & news organization sources. It's a happy coincidence. My motivations don't take away anything from my writings just like my angry tone of voice doesn't take away anything from my contents.




Respectfully, I think you should abandon these comparisons. 

Your posts would be much better if you just shared what you have to share about Charyuk, a mostly unheard of piece of Korean culture and history. And you seem to have only brought it up so you could argue your views with everyone rather than share Korean history.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

I'm not just trying to share Korean history. I don't want Korean cultural wealth shared nor lost any one bit. Why do I have to share or lose traditional Korean hand strikes (or Breaking/Tameshiwari) to Karate? There are historical pictures & writings that Korean hand strikes rotated shoulder and stacked Yongryuk (speed & power). Also, Korea always has had Breaking/Tameshiwari. I don't want to share or lose anything Korean just because Karate has done bigger marketing for a long time. My motivations are simple. I have a lot of hostilities against Japan; I don't like losing or sharing anything Korean.

So far, we already established that Japan also had had Kiaijutsu just like Korea. Or, we established that Japanese Karate's Breaking started by following Iron Palm's Breaking. As for Oyama's hand strikes identical to Korean and different from Karate, how is it going to be? I don't want to negotiate facts. Mas Oyama obviously saw the better hand strikes before teaching it to Karate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> As for my motivations, it's a happy coincidence with my contents. It's irrelevant in terms of fact finding.


It is neither a happy coincidence, nor irrelevant. Your bias is obvious in your description of why you draw your conclusions. That you aren't aware of this bias makes it harder for you to understand the reactions you receive.

Your linking of evidence and conclusion shows that you started with a predetermined notion, accepting any evidence that might support that notion, without regard to whether that evidence might _also_ support other conclusions or whether there might be evidence that directly contradicts your conclusion.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

If it is a happy coincidence, it is irrelevant. I don't have a bias. I referenced all my facts. Either the references are correct or incorrect, but there is no bias on my side.

I obviously favor some conclusions, but my inferences come from the references I provided. If those references can infer some other conclusions, talk about it rather than making wishes what facts should be.

Be specific which of my references are supposed to infer what. (I might check tomorrow since I am running out of time, unless some people flood this with nonsense and I don't want to bother.)


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My conclusions and inferences follow directly from my scholarly sources. That's very neutral & objective.


Your writing is in the format of Korean Martial Arts vs Japanese Martial Arts which is influenced by your extreme dislike of Japan or anything Japanese.  You may not think you are being biased but it's really coming out in the messaging of your writing.  When I read what your posts, I always feel as if someone has done wrong to another person and that you are trying to set things straight.  I know it's not just me because other people are picking up on it as well.  If you were really writing in a neutral manner then we wouldn't be picking up this feeling that you have an agenda.

You could easily just talk about the history of breaking in Korea, the influences, the creations, the impact, and how long it's been practiced in Korea.  But you don't.  It's always Korea vs Japan.   I used to read and listen to many black Americans who wrote and spoke with the same agenda that you have "the perspective that someone did me wrong!"  That perspective becomes very tiring because every little thing becomes a battle and instead of just correcting history, it becomes "us vs them" and "black vs white." and very little meaningful history.

As a black American if I had the same chip on my shoulder that you have, then many of the people in this group would be my enemy just because their skin is white.  I would be spending all of my energy being pissed off at everything thing that I think is "white."  You are on a similar path, because I have never seen anyone make as big of a deal about "Breaking" stuff as you have.  For the millions of martial artists out there.  "breaking" isn't a historical error.  "Breaking" is all about "Can I break this board or brick without breaking my hand, foot, or toe."  Not once in my life have I ever wondered who invented breaking.  



Steven Lee said:


> As for my tone of voice, I can't help it. I do have hostility against Japan and everything that's been going on around me. (I'm not hiding it. I don't deny it.


  The key phase here is "*I can't help it*."  Which is exactly why there is bias in your writing, your research, and assumptions.  If you want to be neutral about what you are posting then you have to drop all of that anger and hate that you have towards the Japanese.



Steven Lee said:


> When counter-evidences are provided, I accept them including Taekwondo. You people should too.


 I don't have any interest in breaking so it's not a matter of accepting or not accepting what you say.  I don't have an opinion on breaking.  Knowing who invented breaking ranks right up there with who invented the shoe strings. 



Steven Lee said:


> My intention is to find and spread the truth.


 If this was true then you dropping your anger would be easy.  Just like I don't go on a rant about slavery in America and how my ancestors were treated or how I've  been treated because of the color of my skin.  I can easily talk about it from a point of view of just stating facts.  I often prefer to do so because it keeps my emotions out of the conversation by only focusing on the facts.  But the moment I begin to focus on how I was "done wrong" is the exact same moment that I begin to let my personal experience get in the way of truth.



Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, Kung Fu styles that rotate shoulder when punching? Not common. Do you really claim Oyama taught Karate shoulder rotation by observing it from Korean arts or from such uncommon Chinese arts? That sounds like a wish, bias.


There are a lot of kung fu systems where rotating the shoulder is considered basic punching. Hung gar, Choy li fut, Jow Ga, Choy Ga, Tai Chi, Northern Shaolin, Suthern Shaolin, and others have punches that are done by rotating the shoulder. 

I don't know who Oyama is and I have never mentioned his name other than to say this statement.  Oyama is totally irrelevant to me in the context of "Kung Fu doesn't have punches that rotate at the shoulder."  What does Oyama or karate have to do with your statement about what kung fu does or doesn't do? This is another example of your bias getting in the way.  One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> When are you going to accept the true fact that practically EVERY Korean art is repackaged from Japanese arts?


ha ha ha.  That's about the right size


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I obviously favor some conclusions


That is bias, right there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence.


  hmmmm let me put this through the black American equality calculator.

"Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents.  It's a happy coincidence." 
 "Just because I hate black people doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence."
"Just because I hate white people doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence."
"Just because I hate Koreans doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence."

Wow.  Congrats on your promotion.  You are are no longer bias.  I think for you it's a much bigger issue.

That hate is going to eat your soul


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Unless Chinese Quan Fa had Dan system (Oyama became first dan at the second year of middle school), Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeob.
> 
> Also, the point stands. Oyama don't have to learn Korean arts to know how they look like. He must have seen them at some point of time instead of creating a hand strike with shoulder rotation just like the Korean way by coincidence.
> 
> ...



Jumping rope is for cardio. Iron palm is "specifically" for striking. Big difference there. And there is a difference if you call it qigong or not because if you call it qigong you are wrong.

There is no Dan system in China, there was no belt system in any Traditional Chinese martial art, until recently. The Duan system but that came much later with the Communist regime.

Saying "Kung Fu" is not talking about a specific style, it is a label for a whole lot of different styles. See here for a partial list in addition, Kung fu us basically a translation error, it means hard work, not marital arts. The Chinese for martial arts is Wushu.

As for shoulder rotation, since I have no idea what you are talking about I cannot be sure, but due to the number of Chinese martial arts styles, I would not be surprised if, whatever you are talking about, was not found in at least one of them, possibly a whole lot of them.

Might I recommend you stick to things Korean, you are having enough trouble convincing folks there. Try and bring in China and it will likely not help support the case you are trying to make it will undermine it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence.



Actually it does most certainly show that there may very likely be a bias, which is neither a coincidence or happy.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence. Whether there is a bias or not is decided by logic (& specific fallacies), not whether I have hatred. Hence the phrase, happy coincidence. The same goes for me favoring some conclusions. If that happens to be true, happy coincidence. As for whether certain conclusions must be drawn from certain references or not is up to the logic.

Favoring conclusion is not a bias. It "can" create a bias. Bias is a simple matter of logic. Provide counter-evidences or counter-logic instead of claiming bias because of my obvious hatred to Japan (including half-Japanese or whatever). Bias is not provided by emotions but by logic. Can favor certain conclusions while those conclusions are still true anyway without any bias.

If there was no Dan system in Kung Fu, then what was the Gwonbeop which Mas Oyama learned? He became 1st Dan in his second year in middle school.

Sit up in boxing is specifically for taking hits. It's not specifically for boxing though. That's what I meant when I said Iron Palm isn't really like a regular Kung Fu. I don't care really. Let Iron Palm be a Kung Fu. What difference does it make? Let's say Karate's Breaking/Tameshiwari culture started by Iron Palm's Breaking culture. Now, as for the specific hand strike Mas Oyama taught, how is it? Rotating shoulder means your shoulder moves in to front when you are punching. So, when you punch, the shoulder on that side is moving to front. That creates bigger mass in motion, which results a bigger impact. Also, there is an extra strength & speed coming from shoulder to the fist on that side.

"There may very likely be a bias" is not a bias logically analyzed. It's a wish made.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Ok, what’s next?  Who likes ice cream?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence. Whether there is a bias or not is decided by logic (& specific fallacies), not whether I have hatred. Hence the phrase, happy coincidence. The same goes for me favoring some conclusions. If that happens to be true, happy coincidence. As for whether certain conclusions must be drawn from certain references or not is up to the logic.
> 
> Favoring conclusion is not a bias. It "can" create a bias. Bias is a simple matter of logic. Provide counter-evidences or counter-logic instead of claiming bias because of my obvious hatred to Japan (including half-Japanese or whatever). Bias is not provided by emotions but by logic. Can favor certain conclusions while those conclusions are still true anyway without any bias.
> 
> ...


You call yourself a scholar????  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

So.  Who likes ice cream?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Laughing doesn't change logic. Can favor certain conclusions and still be right without bias. Can have hatred against opponent yet still be right without bias. I can conclude conclusions against my favor despite me favoring (& hatred towards opponent) the opposite conclusion. Also, the conclusion in my favor can be the correct one regardless of me favoring that conclusion anyway. The opponent I hate can be the bad one. Happy coincidence in such cases.

Yeah, I see myself as an amateur historian. And I'm trying to persuade objective people & historians (scholars). I don't care for the rest of people. They don't move anything in the reality anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Laughing doesn't change logic. Can favor certain conclusions and still be right without bias. Can have hatred against opponent yet still be right without bias.
> 
> Yeah, I see myself as an amateur historian. And I'm trying to persuade objective people & historians (scholars).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 

Here is an idea:  enroll in a reputable, accredited colllege and take some classes in Research Methods and in Statistics.  These courses will help you understand legitimate research and problems such as bias.

Research Methods is often offered within the appropriate department for the major topic.  For example, i studied Social Science and I took two semesters in Research Methods through the Sociology Department.  People majoring in psychology will take Research Methods through the Psychology Department, and the course will be tailored to the methods used in psychological research, which will be different from those used in Sociology.

For you, I suggest you look in the History Department.  
And take some classes in Asian History with a focus in Japanese and Korean history, just to round out your education.

Youve got a lot to learn.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

My research is fine. There are tons of references from scholarly sources & news organization sources that weren't damaged in reputation. Those are typical reputable sources by academic standards. There's no bias. No one is naming any specific fallacy. You wish there was a bias. Just because I favor some conclusion doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly. Just because I have a hatred doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly.

Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). Also, accusation doesn't do anything in reality. I can say "distortion & denial VS proofs". Did that do anything for you? That's what you are doing to me. Except that I'm the right one with actual backed up evidences. Also, I'm not the one with goals & agenda (I reject all such people).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My research is fine. There are tons of references from scholarly sources & news organization sources that weren't damaged in reputation. Those are typical reputable sources by academic standards. There's no bias. No one is naming any specific fallacy. You wish there was a bias. Just because I favor some conclusion doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly. Just because I have a hatred doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly.
> 
> Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars).


Regardless of your sources, your reputation is damaged.  Nobody takes anything you say seriously.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). If anyone takes what I say seriously, he would know I make sense.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Just because I hate Japan doesn't mean bias in contents. It's a happy coincidence. Whether there is a bias or not is decided by logic (& specific fallacies), not whether I have hatred. Hence the phrase, happy coincidence. The same goes for me favoring some conclusions. If that happens to be true, happy coincidence. As for whether certain conclusions must be drawn from certain references or not is up to the logic.
> 
> Favoring conclusion is not a bias. It "can" create a bias. Bias is a simple matter of logic. Provide counter-evidences or counter-logic instead of claiming bias because of my obvious hatred to Japan (including half-Japanese or whatever). Bias is not provided by emotions but by logic. Can favor certain conclusions while those conclusions are still true anyway without any bias.
> 
> ...



Since you brought Iron palm into this, I assumed you cared. 

As for Mas Oyama and Gwonbeop, couldn't tell you. there are no belt ranks in traditional Chinese martial arts. There is student, senior students and teacher (Shifu) that is pretty much it..until you hit Chairman Mao, then a belt ranking system appears called the Duanwei (Duan) system.

As for bias, the very fact you refer to it as a "Happy Coincidence" is not making a case for you as not being bias.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). If anyone takes what I say seriously, he would know I make sense.



Might I suggest, when you find these historians/scholars. if they tell you that you are mistaken, just take it and move on. If they tell you that you make a good point and they want to look into if further, congratulations. But I am rather skeptical you will find reputable historians/scholars, that study this, that will agree.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Not sure if I was the one who brought up Iron Palm first.

So, Mas Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop then. That explains how Mas Oyama was able to describe Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeop in detail in his book "1 million's Karate".

Whether I have bias or not should be proven in terms of logic & fallacy, not by me hating or favoring whatever. Logically can conclude the correct conclusion even with hatred against opponent & while favoring that conclusion. Happy coincidence is a valid concept.

Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). If anyone takes what I say seriously, he would know I make sense. I'm looking for unbiased historians who agree me. And I will not stop nor move on. I'll keep trying.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). If anyone takes what I say seriously, he would know I make sense.


Yeah, well.  You come on here with a clear agenda, and people can see through it.  You are transparent as Saran Wrap.

Nobody here takes you seriously.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Not sure if I was the one who brought up Iron Palm first.
> 
> So, Mas Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop then. That explains how Mas Oyama was able to describe Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeop in detail in his book "1 million's Karate".
> 
> Whether I have bias or not should be proven in terms of logic & fallacy, not by me hating or favoring whatever. Logically can conclude the correct conclusion even with hatred against opponent & while favoring that conclusion. Happy coincidence is a valid concept.



No, I never said that. I have no idea what Mas Oyama learned so I cannot confirm or deny he trained anything called Korean Gwonbeop. 

You are never going to admit your bias and most who have them don't, so might as well let that go I guess


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Regardless of your sources, your reputation is damaged.


Yeah, he can't blame the Japanese for that one.  It went down hill very fast


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Forget my "agenda", motivation, whatever. Focus strictly on my contents with logic & references.

Yeah, I don't care about the rest of people. I'm focusing on connecting to objective people & historians.

Mas Oyama claimed to have learned Gwonbeop which he became first Dan in his second year of middle school. As for whether that Gwonbeop is Korean Gwonbeop or Chinese Quan Fa was unclear, except that Quan Fa has no such thing as Dan according to you.

I don't have bias in my contents. The conclusions are inferred logically from my references without any bias or fallacy. Happy coincidence that those conclusions happen to be true.

As I said, I'm focusing on connecting to the right people, not all of you. I will just keep on trying by keep spreading the truth.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I don't care really. Let Iron Palm be a Kung Fu. What difference does it make?


This is how I feel about breaking..  What difference does it make?


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

I feel that it is an injustice for me, my background (Korea), Korea to lose or share anything Korean. Also, it is about the truth, which is important. The sense of injustice & the sense of truth seeking motivate me to keep doing this. Also, I obviously reject some people no matter what they want. (& no matter what they pretend, my actions & decisions do not change at all in their favor & happiness. I still do and be the same regardless of them.)

Also, for the record, _Ad hominem_ fallacy attacking me and pretending I should be discredited despite how I provide legitimate references and how I conclude legitimate inferences.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Forget my "agenda", motivation, whatever. Focus strictly on my contents with logic & references.
> 
> Yeah, I don't care about the rest of people. I'm focusing on connecting to objective people & historians.
> 
> ...


Can’t do it.  Your agenda contaminates your message.  This is Research Methods beginner-level stuff.

Objective people and historians will not set a place for you at their table.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

There's no agenda. Also, whether there's motivation & agenda or not, the contents are still legitimate logically. Whether you pretend the contents are legitimate or not doesn't change its legitimacy. My contents are logically sound & properly referenced.

No, you are just whining a wish about "research method". My contents are properly referenced; the conclusions are inferred correctly; my contents are good. There's nothing else to look for other than logic. And scholars should be able to see it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I feel that it is an injustice for me, my background (Korea), Korea to lose or share anything Korean. Also, it is about the truth, which is important. The sense of injustice & the sense of truth seeking motivate me to keep doing this. Also, I obviously reject some people no matter what they want. (& no matter what they pretend, my actions & decisions do not change at all in their favor & happiness. I still do and be the same regardless of them.)
> 
> Also, for the record, _Ad hominem_ fallacy attacking me and pretending I should be discredited despite how I provide legitimate references and how I conclude legitimate inferences.


Geese man, you need an education.  When someone has an agenda to push, their message falls under suspicion.  That is how it works.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Logically can conclude the correct conclusion even with hatred against opponent & while favoring that conclusion. Happy coincidence is a valid concept.


And you just "keep digging a deeper hole."


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

As I said, agenda or motivation is irrelevant to how my contents are logically sound & properly referenced. Those things make the contents legitimate. Whether I have agenda or not is irrelevant to the quality of the contents. You are plainly committing _Ad hominem_ fallacy.

Also, there's no agenda. As for my motivations, I don't want injustice; that's my motivation.

Whatever you pretend, 0 result is made in the reality. This thread seems done though. I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians. If they take my writings seriously, they will know I make sense regardless of my motivation, agenda, whatever which didn't affect my contents.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Forget my "agenda", motivation, whatever. Focus strictly on my contents with logic & references.
> 
> Yeah, I don't care about the rest of people. I'm focusing on connecting to objective people & historians.
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea what Quanfa translates to? It means Fist Method. Once it left China it could very likely have had a belt system applied to it. And I believe once it hit Japan it becomes Kenpo


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> As I said, agenda or motivation is irrelevant to how my contents are logically sound & properly referenced. Those things make the contents legitimate. Whether I have agenda or not is irrelevant to the quality of the contents. You are plainly committing _Ad hominem_ fallacy.
> 
> Also, there's no agenda. As for my motivations, I don't want injustice; that's my motivation.



Wait..." if you have an agenda or not its irrelevant"..... nope that is not correct either. An agenda or a bias can jade everything one does and it most certainly does not make it easy for others to take anything you are putting forth seriously.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 30, 2019)

Yeah, Korean Gwonbeop started from Chinese Quan Fa. Anyway, if that didn't have Dan system, Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.

The contents are about logic & references. Whether I have agenda or not doesn't change the logic & the references I use. Hence, happy coincidence in the correct conclusions is irrelevant. The bias should be in the logic, not in the emotion of the arguer. My emotions favor certain conclusions; I have hatred against Japan. However, there is no bias in the logic I use nor in the references I quote. Bias has to be in the logic, not in the emotion. Whatever I'm feeling, it is not affecting the contents.

What you are wishing is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument".

That's exactly what is happening by you whining agenda, motivation, bias, whatever. There's no agenda nor bias in my logic I use. No bias in my references nor my inferences concluding the facts.

This thread is done. I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Also, whether there's motivation & agenda or not, the contents are still legitimate logically.


This is not true because at that point you are pushing your perception of things.  You get random information and shape it to fit your bias.  Not sure where you are living but this was an old trick that's been played over and over in U.S. society.  It's often done to keep less fortunate people from having equal opportunities.

 Here's an example. 
Statement #1:  Group A is poor.  *This is the fact. * 
Statement #2:  Group A is poor because they are stupid.   *This is bais because it thinks less of group A
*
Group A is poor is true in both statements.  But the reason why Group A is not a fact. It is the perception built by how someone sees another group.

Statement #1: Koreans do breaking.  This is the fact
Statement #2: Koreans did breaking before the Japanese. *And I hate everything that Japanese do and I won't be associated with anything Japanese*.

Your hate is the bias.  So because of that bias, Everything you like must come from Korea, even if it actually comes from Japan.  So in your world Japanese will never be the first to create something you like. Because that's something you can never personally accept.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I hope I connected to enough objective people & historians.


Nope.  no connection made.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 30, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Yeah, Korean Gwonbeop started from Chinese Quan Fa. Anyway, if that didn't have Dan system, Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop.
> 
> The contents are about logic & references. Whether I have agenda or not doesn't change the logic & the references I use. Hence, happy coincidence in the correct conclusions is irrelevant. The bias should be in the logic, not in the emotion of the arguer. My emotions favor certain conclusions; I have hatred against Japan. However, there is no bias in the logic I use nor in the references I quote. Bias has to be in the logic, not in the emotion. Whatever I'm feeling, it is not affecting the contents.
> 
> ...



I doubt the thread is done and there is no Ad hominem on my part. What I am stating is based on what you have said. And you are not looking for discussion, you are looking for agreement with your position and anything less is simply not going to work for you. And if you are truly interested in finding historians, might I suggest approaching those people that study these things who are actual historians in universities and not looking for them on martial arts sights. Although we have had a few here over the years who had a pretty darn good grasp on the history of things.

Now I cannot help you in finding any historians looking into the history of Taekwondo and its origin, but I imagine there may be a few in Universities in Korea. However I would avoid approaching them wth the "Happy Coincidence" bit. it is a great way to get them to not take you seriously


However I am done...have a nice day


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 30, 2019)

We will be making fun of this thread for a long time to come.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 30, 2019)

Mongolian culture seems to have influenced ancient Korea so a lot of what is being said about Korea vs Japan being first is just incorrect.





If you look at the rule of the Mongolian empire you can see where these influences start to play a role.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Mongolian culture seems to have influenced ancient Korea so a lot of what is being said about Korea vs Japan being first is just incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not the Mongol Bao 

interestingly enough Mongolian, and Korean, possibly Japanese are in the same language family. And Chinese is not part of that language family.........


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Not sure if I was the one who brought up Iron Palm first.
> 
> So, Mas Oyama probably learned Korean Gwonbeop then. That explains how Mas Oyama was able to describe Chosun(Korean)-Gwonbeop in detail in his book "1 million's Karate".
> 
> ...



I have found NO documented evidence of Mas Oyama learning "Gwonbeop" as some older Korean martial art.  By his own admission and historical records, Oyama earned a 2nd degree blackbelt in Japanese karate at the age of 18 when he was living in Japan.  He also trained Chinese Kempo when he was younger.  Also, to reiterate.."Gwonbeop" is from a chinese military manual that the Koreans used, it is NOT a korean martial art.  It is the korean rendition of "quanfa", or in other words what most people would call "kung fu".  So, if he said he learned "gwonbeop" he would be saying that he learned kung fu, which has been established.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> My research is fine. There are tons of references from scholarly sources & news organization sources that weren't damaged in reputation. Those are typical reputable sources by academic standards. There's no bias. No one is naming any specific fallacy. You wish there was a bias. Just because I favor some conclusion doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly. Just because I have a hatred doesn't mean I weighed in anything unfairly.
> 
> Like I said, I'm just going to spread the truth & facts, hoping to connect to objective people & historians (scholars). Also, accusation doesn't do anything in reality. I can say "distortion & denial VS proofs". Did that do anything for you? That's what you are doing to me. Except that I'm the right one with actual backed up evidences. Also, I'm not the one with goals & agenda (I reject all such people).


I've actually named more than one fallacy and logical errors in prior interchanges. You continue to commit the same fallacies and errors.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea. All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works. Attacking my motivations is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Whether I have motivations or not, my writing still consists of references & inferences. Either there's bias in my writing or not. Bias in emotion doesn't change that.

You have to pinpoint specific bias what conclusion is possible from what references while I'm avoiding that conclusion. If you cannot say "these conclusions are possible from these references, but your bias is avoiding these conclusions and only going for that conclusion", I don't have bias.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea.



Not at all. People simply think it's more likely the founders told the truth, when they said their training was shotokan and kung fu. Not that, as you claim, they were all part of some Great Conspiracy. 



> All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works.



No, it does not. Your "work" (quotes required, for obvious reasons) is utter nonsense, and would remain utter nonsense even if people were not laughing at you.



> Attacking my motivations is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy.



Utter nonsense. People have pointed out why your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense, and all you do is... keep repeating nonsense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> You people are the one with agenda, fallacies, bias against me and Korea. All you whine is my motivations which doesn't change the quality of my works. Attacking my motivations is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy. "fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". Whether I have motivations or not, my writing still consists of references & inferences. Either there's bias in my writing or not. Bias in emotion doesn't change that.
> 
> You have to pinpoint specific bias what conclusion is possible from what references while I'm avoiding that conclusion. If you cannot say "these conclusions are possible from these references, but your bias is avoiding these conclusions and only going for that conclusion", I don't have bias.


Actually, several of us have pointed out that your bias is evident in your conclusions. That's a discussion of the topic, not an _ad hominem_ argument.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

What founders are you talking about? We are not talking Taekwondo. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc. Also, even for Taekwondo, most references are not the direct speaking from founders but secondary references made by other people not the founders. As for Breaking/Tameshiwari, there are many historical records on Breaking/Tameshiwari whether talking Tameshiwari "founders" or whatever.

Why is my work nonsense? Cause you don't want to believe it? Or cause my scholarly sources are not scholarly? Or cause my conclusions don't necessarily follow from the references? This is a matter of logic.

Attacking the person instead of his writings is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy. Attacking my motivations & "agenda" is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Attacking my motivations & agenda is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy. Lots of guys specifically talked about my motivations & agenda. That's a fallacy.

What kind of bias and fallacy is in my conclusions? What other conclusions are possible from the given references? You have to be specific like "these conclusions are also possible but your bias is not considering these conclusions but only considering that conclusion". Or, I don't have bias in my conclusions.

Simply put, what is the conclusion that is acceptable for you? Without ignoring my references? What are the possible conclusions (other than mine) without ignoring my references? Why is that possible without ignoring my references? Why is that conclusion acceptable for you?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> What founders are you talking about?



The founders of TKD. The founders of Kumdo. The founder of TSD. The founders of pretty much every Korean martial art being taught today. Because taekyon and every other art went bye bye while the Japanese ruled Korea. There is zero direct connection between the Korean martial arts of today, and those lost. The Japanese did a very thorough job of suppressing them, and nothing remains.  None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Buppkiss. The people who teach Korean martial arts today know this, and admit this.
Is there a cultural link? Sure, you can reasonably claim that, since it's pretty nebulous and can be said about pretty much anything. But there is zero evidence of any direct connection between Korean martial arts today, and historical Korean arts. There is nothing left of them except their names.



> Why is my work nonsense?



Because self-delusions arising out of racism are not "work", especially when they are, according to the people who actually founded and teach the arts, utter nonsense.

Because when the Mass Oyama says "I teach Karate" it's pretty stupid for you to claim he's lying.
When the founders of the various Kwan say "I studied Shotokan/Kung Fu" it's pretty stupid for you to claim they're all lying.



> Attacking the person instead of his writings is an _Ad hominem_ fallacy. Attacking my motivations & "agenda" is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy.



Nobody has attacked you. They've said, quite clearly (and repeatedly) that your words and your claims are nonsense. And they've shown specific examples of WHY they're nonsense. For example, your ridiculous claim that Oyama taught kwonbop, when he himself never once said that.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

1. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc.

2. Taekwondo topic is long over no matter how much you wish to talk about it.

3. Facts about Taekwondo founders are not really from the founders directly talking but other people talking about the founders.

4. Some people specifically attacked my motivations & agenda.

5. My conclusions follow from my reputable sources. Not a nonsense. What other conclusions are possible without ignoring my references & sources?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> 1. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc.



And all over the world by all sorts of people. So basically, a big "so what" here.



> 2. Taekwondo topic is long over no matter how much you wish to talk about it.



No, it's not. You made stupid claims. They've been refuted. You don't get to decide when a topic is over.



> 3. Facts about Taekwondo founders are not really from the founders directly talking but other people talking about the founders.



Right. All of these hundreds of people are part of the Great Conspiracy. Can I offer you some aluminum foil? You might want to make a hat.



> 4. Some people specifically attacked my motivations & agenda.



Racist agendas should be attacked. Racism is vile.



> 5. My conclusions follow from my reputable sources. Not a nonsense. What other conclusions are possible without ignoring my references & sources?



Your conclusions are ridiculous and in direct opposition to what people have said about themselves and their training.
Nothing reputable about that.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

1. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc. These are traditional sports, not a new sports copying Karate. Korea has had Breaking long before Karate started Breaking. These sports doing Breaking is traditional; it has nothing to do with Taekwondo or Karate.

2. Taekwondo is indeed mixed with Gwonbeop. It's not a stupid claim. Also, I said that Taekwondo is mixed with Karate. Hence, Taekwondo topic is over. You don't get to decide when a topic is over. The topic is over when both sides agree that Taekwondo is mixed with Karate.

3. What great conspiracy? You keep saying as if you are quoting something Taekwondo founders directly said, but what's being referenced is actually what other people have said about founders. I'm just making that point aside from how Taekwondo topic is over cause I say Taekwondo is mixed with Karate.

4. Anti-racism is overrated. It's my right to be a racist. Also, it's not racism for Koreans to reject & hate Japan. It is just a racial correlation that Japan happens to be a different ethnicity that's hated. The hatred is not based on racial causation; it's not about Japan being a different ethnicity; it's about what Japan has done in group identity. So, it's not racism to hate Japan for Korean. Also, it's my right to be a racism legally & morally, especially if the racism is within my rights.

5. You keep saying my conclusions are ridiculous, but facts don't stop becoming facts just because you don't like the facts. What other conclusions are possible without ignoring my scholarly references & news organization sources? The sources are reputable when they are scholarly sources & news organization sources that haven't been damaged in reputation. By academic standards, such sources are reputable. My conclusions are different from what people have said about themselves cause they were talking out of *** without researching. Obviously they should be wrong cause they were talking out of ***.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> 4. Anti-racism is overrated. It's my right to be a racist. Also, it's not racism for Koreans to reject & hate Japan. It is just a racial correlation that Japan happens to be a different ethnicity that's hated. The hatred is not based on racial causation; it's not about Japan being a different ethnicity; it's about what Japan has done in group identity. So, it's not racism to hate Japan for Korean. Also, it's my right to be a racism legally & morally, especially if the racism is within my rights.



So, you're a racist and apparently proud of it..... and yet you do not see why you are not take seriously here...or on your blog......and racism is not anyone's right.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Attacking my credibility, motive, character is Ad hominem fallacy.

Also, racism is legally & morally my rights. It's my pursuit of happiness & my freedom of expression & my freedom to think. Free will and freedom. Koreans hating Japan is not racism cause it is not caused by being a different ethnicity; what they have done just correlates to being a different ethnicity. Also, even if we call it racism, it's a rightful racism within Korean's rights. I'm not harming anyone with it; I'm proud with my "racism", yes. I'm proud to think on my own. It's not racism, but even if we call it racism, it's a rightful entitled racism defended by laws. It's my freedom to be a "racist". It's my freedom to hate and reject group identity that have harmed me personally and have harmed my country.

There are a lot of people watching and not talking. I'm hoping my works and writings connected to them.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Attacking my credibility, motive, character is Ad hominem fallacy.
> 
> Also, racism is legally & morally my rights. It's my pursuit of happiness & my freedom of expression & my freedom to think. Free will and freedom. Koreans hating Japan is not racism cause it is not caused by being a different ethnicity; what they have done just correlates to being a different ethnicity. Also, even if we call it racism, it's a rightful racism within Korean's rights. I'm not harming anyone with it; I'm proud with my "racism", yes. I'm proud to think on my own. It's not racism, but even if we call it racism, it's a rightful entitled racism defended by laws. It's my freedom to be a "racist". It's my freedom to hate and reject group identity that have harmed me personally and have harmed my country.
> 
> There are a lot of people watching and not talking. I'm hoping my works and writings connected to them.



It is not a Ad hominem attack on your credibility if it is something that you state in posts after post and the fact that you seem to feel justified in your racism...which I also get from your posts. You are doing a great job, all by yourself at undermining your credibility, I am not trying to nor do I need to. Your throwing things Chinese did a wonderful job at undermining your credibility and then throwing in Scandinavia......because of a similarity........what you have, and all you have is supposition that is all.

Enough.....like I said before, all you are after is total agreement and support of your flawed hypothesis. I am done letting you waste my time in this thread.;


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Yes, attacking credibility, motive, character is Ad Hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

"short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"

You are not attacking the substance of the argument.

What flaw is there in my conclusions? What other conclusions are possible without ignoring my reputable references? Be specific what other conclusions are possible from those references. What other conclusions are acceptable for you without ignoring my references? Why are those conclusions acceptable for you? Keep in mind that the conclusions have to come from the references I showed. Don't ignore those facts when making conclusions.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> [Repetitive utter nonsense deleted]
> 
> 4. Anti-racism is overrated. It's my right to be a racist. Also, it's not racism for Koreans to reject & hate Japan. It is just a racial correlation that Japan happens to be a different ethnicity that's hated. The hatred is not based on racial causation; it's not about Japan being a different ethnicity; it's about what Japan has done in group identity. So, it's not racism to hate Japan for Korean. Also, it's my right to be a racism legally & morally, especially if the racism is within my rights.



Actually, Koreans, Chinese and Japanese all share the same ethnicity. There is less than 1% difference between the DNA of a Korean, a Japanese, and a Chinese person. That compares to about a 10% difference between different European DNA groups. So, in fact, Koreans and Japanese are the same ethnicity. Congratulations. You're actually Japanese.

Racism is an ugly, vile thing. When it's directed at your own race, that's not only vile, it's just silly. And that sort of self-loathing cannot be healthy...



> facts don't stop becoming facts just because you don't like the facts.



You would do well to remember this. Because your "facts" aren't.



> What other conclusions are possible



Why, the conclusion that people were telling the truth, when they spoke about their own personal training.



> My conclusions are different from what people have said about themselves cause they were talking out of *** without researching. Obviously they should be wrong cause they were talking out of ***.



Um, people do not need to research their own lives, as a rule.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Ethnicity is defined by cultural and historical differences between groups of people. So, Japanese is a different ethnicity.

I'm proud of my racism. It's not racism, but even if we call it racism, I'm proud of my racism; I will not give it up. I'm not harming anyone. My racism is within my legal & moral rights for my pursuit of happiness. It's not ugly to me. It's a rightful racism. The laws protect my racism. There is no self-loathing. Whatever they tell themselves, I still hate & reject them anyway. What they tell themselves is not how I behave & act.

My writings consist of 2 parts: referenced facts & conclusions. If you cannot provide me what other conclusions are possible from the given referenced facts, then my conclusions must be facts. Referenced facts are facts; my conclusions are facts. Or, show me what other conclusions are possible and acceptable to you. Also, why are those conclusions acceptable to you?

"Why, the conclusion that people were telling the truth, when they spoke about their own personal training." What a nonsense. That's impossible because of the referenced hard facts contradicting what they have talked out of *** for so long. This includes Breaking/Tameshiwari. They have been lying; they have been deluding. Oyama taught a new hand strike to Karate that is different from Karate but identical to Korean strike. Korea should be credited for it. Also, Korean Breaking/Tameshiwari was from Korean Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu. This sport was popular and well known.

Sports history needs research just like all other histories. Otherwise, you are making up stories; you are talking out of ***.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Ethnicity is defined by cultural and historical differences between groups of people. So, Japanese is a different ethnicity.



Nope. You're Japanese. Learn to deal with it. 



> I'm proud of my racism.



What a sad, sad thing for any human to say.



> My writings consist of 2 parts



Yes. Racist nonsense and delusions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Why is my work nonsense? Cause you don't want to believe it? Or cause my scholarly sources are not scholarly? Or cause *my conclusions don't necessarily follow from the references*? This is a matter of logic.


Mostly the part I bolded. Which I and others have discussed with you in other threads at length.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I look like a Turkic Siberian. Both my grandfathers looked like Turkic Siberians. I have absolutely nothing to do with Japanese whatever you people tell yourselves with wish, greed, bias. I'm not Japanese. Also, I hate Japan & Japanese. It's not racism, but it's a rightful racism within my rights & freedom even if we call it that.

I'm proud of my "racism". It's within my rights. I can think for myself.

My writings have referenced facts (which must be true) & my conclusions from the referenced facts. What you wish to be true (about what people have been saying about their personal training) contradict referenced facts. Sports history should be researched. Or, it is just an imagination talked out of ***.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Attacking my motivations & agenda is the definition of Ad hominem fallacy. Lots of guys specifically talked about my motivations & agenda. That's a fallacy.
> 
> What kind of bias and fallacy is in my conclusions? What other conclusions are possible from the given references? You have to be specific like "these conclusions are also possible but your bias is not considering these conclusions but only considering that conclusion". Or, I don't have bias in my conclusions.
> 
> Simply put, what is the conclusion that is acceptable for you? Without ignoring my references? What are the possible conclusions (other than mine) without ignoring my references? Why is that possible without ignoring my references? Why is that conclusion acceptable for you?


We had that discussion in another thread. The exact same reasoning applies here. Since you didn't accept it then, you'd just ignore it here, too.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Then be specific what other conclusions are possible from the given referenced facts? And why are your conclusions acceptable for you? Of course, your conclusions must not contradict my referenced facts. Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate cause Karate didn't have it before, Karate had it after, Korean had it before. Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul; Japan became aware of this; Korean always has had Breaking.

No, all I heard was "your conclusions are wrong, it's biased". I never heard "these conclusions are also possible without contradicting your referenced facts". Or I might have skipped through it if you were flooding with nonsense.

I'm very interested to hear what other conclusions are possible from the given referenced facts I referenced. Oyama taught a Korean hand strike to Karate cause Karate didn't have it before, Karate had it after, Korean had it before. Breaking/Tameshiawri was well known by Korean Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul; Japan became aware of this; Korean always has had Breaking. What other conclusions are possible in this situation?


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I'd appreciate if you read everything I wrote including the references. Then you can agree or provide counter-evidence. I don't need regular people. I'm just reaching out to objective people and scholars (historians).
> 
> Also, it wasn't Funakoshi but Mas Oyama that introduced Breaking to modern practice of Karate. That included a new strike identical to traditional Korean hand strike (shoulder rotation in Gwonbeop & Flag Fight Gitssaum punches, Ikmyung Yang's Hand Breaking also mentions Yong stacking speed & power). Before Mas Oyama, Karate didn't emphasize playing Breaking/Tameshiwari. Also, it was Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu that was doing Breaking/Tameshiwari.


I can only really absorb posts that are 144 characters or so.  Blame twitter.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2019)

Japan borrowed jiu jitsu from Brazil.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

Steve said:


> Japan borrowed jiu jitsu from Brazil.



Well, at least they returned it, eventually. 
Can you just imagine the fine if they had borrowed it in book form?


----------



## paitingman (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I feel that it is an injustice for me, my background (Korea), Korea to lose or share anything Korean. Also, it is about the truth, which is important. The sense of injustice & the sense of truth seeking motivate me to keep doing this. Also, I obviously reject some people no matter what they want. (& no matter what they pretend, my actions & decisions do not change at all in their favor & happiness. I still do and be the same regardless of them.)
> 
> Also, for the record, _Ad hominem_ fallacy attacking me and pretending I should be discredited despite how I provide legitimate references and how I conclude legitimate inferences.



this post is the most Korean thing ever


----------



## paitingman (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> 1. In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc. These are traditional sports, not a new sports copying Karate. Korea has had Breaking long before Karate started Breaking. These sports doing Breaking is traditional; it has nothing to do with Taekwondo or Karate.
> 
> 2. Taekwondo is indeed mixed with Gwonbeop. It's not a stupid claim. Also, I said that Taekwondo is mixed with Karate. Hence, Taekwondo topic is over. You don't get to decide when a topic is over. The topic is over when both sides agree that Taekwondo is mixed with Karate.
> 
> ...



I stand corrected.

#4 is the most Korean thing I've ever read


----------



## paitingman (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Attacking my credibility, motive, character is Ad hominem fallacy.
> 
> Also, racism is legally & morally my rights. It's my pursuit of happiness & my freedom of expression & my freedom to think. Free will and freedom. Koreans hating Japan is not racism cause it is not caused by being a different ethnicity; what they have done just correlates to being a different ethnicity. Also, even if we call it racism, it's a rightful racism within Korean's rights. I'm not harming anyone with it; I'm proud with my "racism", yes. I'm proud to think on my own. It's not racism, but even if we call it racism, it's a rightful entitled racism defended by laws. It's my freedom to be a "racist". It's my freedom to hate and reject group identity that have harmed me personally and have harmed my country.
> 
> There are a lot of people watching and not talking. I'm hoping my works and writings connected to them.


OH MY GOD i'M CRYING LAUGHING WITH MY BROTHER!!!!!

THIS!!! THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE MOST KOREAN STRING OF THOUGHTS OF ALL TIME.

You, sir, are a hero to tipsy Samchons everywhere lol


----------



## paitingman (Jan 31, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> So, in fact, Koreans and Japanese are the same ethnicity. Congratulations. You're actually Japanese.



Don't worry, Mr. Lee. He really means that Japanese people are actually Korean. 

It doesn't matter who was first, Mr. Lee. 
Korea was first. Because we're all Korean.


----------



## paitingman (Jan 31, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. You're Japanese. Learn to deal with it.



Yo, can just Steven be Japanese? and the rest of us stay being Korean?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 31, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Yo, can just Steven be Japanese? and the rest of us stay being Korean?



That depends on if you share his racist views or not.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Nonsense. Whatever you tell yourselves, I'm not Japanese; I don't want to be Japanese; I hate & reject Japanese. Whatever you tell yourselves, nothing changes on what's legal & moral, nor what I would do.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

So, how old are you really? Because your responses are rather adolescent


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I'm 32. It is just that I'm angry a lot; I'm fed up with bullshits I am forced to deal with every day every second. I'm angry a lot at Japan & Japanese.

Regarding the other thread that was locked, the following is my reply.

I thought I was pretty clear. Rotating shoulder seems to be a common terminology in boxing. It means when you punch, the shoulder on the striking hand side moves to front. Korean techniques move shoulder when punching. Mas Oyama also taught to move your shoulder when you punch. As for Karate, just like that 1933's Tameshiwari/Breaking picture, shoulders are emphasized to be stationary & square. As for stacking speed & power (Yongryuk), it means not doing what Karate does. Karate punches use implosion & explosion at the beginning of the punch. Stacking speed & power means moving from slow to fast, accelerating without any abrupt movement of punch.     

No, I mean shoulder rotation. The shoulder is supposed to move forward for powerful hand strike. I am talking about the shoulder moving forward when punching, like boxing. 1933's Karate's Breaking photo has square stationary shoulders. I also don't mean positioning such that 1 shoulder is at the front without moving. I refer to 1 shoulder moving to front when punching with that side's hand.

By implosion & explosion, I refer to how Karate explode with punch at the beginning of the punch. Not all punches move from slow to fast. Karate has explosion at the beginning of the punch in a jerking manner.

I don't really train martial arts. I'm a nerd. Amateur historian. I'm not an athlete training martial arts. Keep it simple.

So, my point is that Karate didn't have those techniques; Karate benefitted by Mas Oyama teaching those techniques to Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking. And Mas Oyama knew about those techniques from Korean techniques which had those characteristics. So, in conclusion, Mas Oyama taught Korean hand strike to Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> 4. Anti-racism is overrated. It's my right to be a racist. Also, it's not racism for Koreans to reject & hate Japan. It is just a racial correlation that Japan happens to be a different ethnicity that's hated. The hatred is not based on racial causation; it's not about Japan being a different ethnicity; it's about what Japan has done in group identity. So, it's not racism to hate Japan for Korean. Also, it's my right to be a racism legally & morally, especially if the racism is within my rights.


  If you feel this way then you shouldn't be mad when Japanese treat you the same way.  Just saying.  Hate begets hate..


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I would be happy to never date, marry, befriend nor talk to any Japanese (including anyone mixed with Japanese) ever. Also, my hatred against Japan has rightful reasons. Their hatred against me is just their ego how they don't want to be hated after they've done something wrong.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I don't really train martial arts.


And now it makes sense.   

Most of the historian of high quality participate in the very thing that they study.  They don't watch from the outside, they usually want to get as close to the reality of history as possible.  I wouldn't be a good historian on Korean unless I spend some time living in Korea and absorbing the culture.  The same is true with marital arts.  You can't just read books and not experience what you are talking about.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I'm 32. It is just that I'm angry a lot; I'm fed up with bullshits I am forced to deal with every day every second. I'm angry a lot at Japan & Japanese.



Just a bit of friendly advice, you need to find away to let that anger go, speaking from experience it is not good for you at all. 



Steven Lee said:


> Regarding the other thread that was locked, the following is my reply.
> 
> I thought I was pretty clear. Rotating shoulder seems to be a common terminology in boxing. It means when you punch, the shoulder on the striking hand side moves to front. Korean techniques move shoulder when punching. Mas Oyama also taught to move your shoulder when you punch. As for Karate, just like that 1933's Tameshiwari/Breaking picture, shoulders are emphasized to be stationary & square. As for stacking speed & power (Yongryuk), it means not doing what Karate does. Karate punches use implosion & explosion at the beginning of the punch. Stacking speed & power means moving from slow to fast, accelerating without any abrupt movement of punch.
> 
> ...



The thread was locked for a reason so unless you're looking to get this one locked too, I suggest you let it go.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Anger is my right.

I feel injustice being forced on me.

Also, here's 1 more reply to the locked thread.

See this book by Mas Oyama? On page 157, Mas Oyama teaches shoulder rotation to Karate.

Mas Oyama's Classic Karate


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> would be happy to never date, marry, befriend nor talk to any Japanese (including anyone mixed with Japanese) ever. Also, my hatred against Japan has rightful reasons. Their hatred against me is just their ego how they don't want to be hated after they've done something wrong.


I would be happy to see your kids marry Japanese.  That would be excellent karma.


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

Don't be stupid. Historians don't have to train sports to record and publish sports history. Sports histories have nothing to do whether you can actually do those stuffs or not. It's about reading and distributing historical facts.

I would disown those children. Haha. Japanese are just annoying. Like Samsung & Mitsubishi.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> Anger is my right.
> 
> I feel injustice being forced on me.
> 
> ...



So you want it locked then...I could report it if you like to help you with that


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 31, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> Just a bit of friendly advice, you need to find away to let that anger go, speaking from experience it is not good for you at al


Yep, it really isn't.. It'll eat his soul.  



Steven Lee said:


> I feel injustice being forced on me.


 Spend less time reading about Martial arts and more time reading about Martin Luther King Jr.  and others who have had to deal with worse.  Get control over your life issues first because it's really warping your reality.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep, it really isn't.. It'll eat his soul.
> 
> Spend less time reading about Martial arts and more time reading about Martin Luther King Jr.  and others who have had to deal with worse.  Get control over your life issues first because it's really warping your reality.



Maybe this will help him






They're Tibetans by the way


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Chinese


----------



## Steven Lee (Jan 31, 2019)

I'm not giving up on punishment, rejection, justice that are deserved.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2019)

Steven Lee said:


> I'm not giving up on punishment, rejection, justice that are deserved.



I have known a few Koreans, from Korea, born in Korea and raised in Korea, all are now older than you and none seem to harbor as much dislike as you do for the Japanese.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2019)

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

