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

[JowGaWolf]

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"

I obviously have hostility against Japan.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

The stench of agenda is strong with this one.

 

[Steven Lee]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

I obviously favor some conclusions

That is bias, right there.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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.)

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]

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.