Okay, I'm willing to put aside considerations of any bias you might have for the moment and discuss your "references" and the conclusions you draw from them. Let's start with your first argument ...
Perhaps you can provide a precise, concise description of a strike that "rotates the shoulder" vs one that doesn't, a strike that "stacks speed & power" vs one that doesn't, and a strike that uses "implosion and explosion" vs one that doesn't. Better yet, find some video to illustrate strikes that have these properties vs ones that do not.
Once you have done that, you can provide some sort of evidence that no style of Karate contained the type of strike you describe. What you've provided is one still picture of one karateka performing a break. I'm not sure how you can tell much of anything about the body dynamics of the strike from that one photo, but feel free to explain. After that, you can explain how that you know that one photo is representative of the entire curriculum of the schools of Karate that were extant at the time the photo was taken.
To establish this, you'll need explain your terms as I asked above, then it should be easy to find some video of karateka using the strike you mention.
The illustrations in your links do absolutely nothing to clarify what sort of strike you are talking about. Perhaps the text contains some explanation that might help. If so, feel free to provide a translation of those parts.
Even if you clarify what you are talking about and provide evidence for your assertions above, that still leaves room for alternate conclusions. Perhaps Oyama learned this "shoulder-rotating, speed/power stacking, non-implosive/explosive" strike from a Chinese system. (We know he studied in China, but there is no evidence he ever studied in Korea.) Perhaps he came up with it on his own. (We know that he was an innovator.)
If you are able to address my questions above, I'd be happy to read your arguments and consider your evidence. I will suggest that you don't start with the conclusion you want to reach and search for things you imagine might support that end goal. That doesn't usually end up being very productive or convincing.
First, it would be helpful if you defined your terms. I've been studying martial arts for over 37 years and I have no idea what you mean by "hand strike that rotates shoulder and stacks speed & power without implosion & explosion." This is not standard terminology.
Perhaps you can provide a precise, concise description of a strike that "rotates the shoulder" vs one that doesn't, a strike that "stacks speed & power" vs one that doesn't, and a strike that uses "implosion and explosion" vs one that doesn't. Better yet, find some video to illustrate strikes that have these properties vs ones that do not.
Once you have done that, you can provide some sort of evidence that no style of Karate contained the type of strike you describe. What you've provided is one still picture of one karateka performing a break. I'm not sure how you can tell much of anything about the body dynamics of the strike from that one photo, but feel free to explain. After that, you can explain how that you know that one photo is representative of the entire curriculum of the schools of Karate that were extant at the time the photo was taken.
To establish this, you'll need explain your terms as I asked above, then it should be easy to find some video of karateka using the strike you mention.
The illustrations in your links do absolutely nothing to clarify what sort of strike you are talking about. Perhaps the text contains some explanation that might help. If so, feel free to provide a translation of those parts.
Even if you clarify what you are talking about and provide evidence for your assertions above, that still leaves room for alternate conclusions. Perhaps Oyama learned this "shoulder-rotating, speed/power stacking, non-implosive/explosive" strike from a Chinese system. (We know he studied in China, but there is no evidence he ever studied in Korea.) Perhaps he came up with it on his own. (We know that he was an innovator.)
If you are able to address my questions above, I'd be happy to read your arguments and consider your evidence. I will suggest that you don't start with the conclusion you want to reach and search for things you imagine might support that end goal. That doesn't usually end up being very productive or convincing.
