Taekwondo isn't from Karate, it's from Korean Gwonbub that existed for 300 years

[dvcochran]

Yes. As history. Not as actual arts.

I tend to agree with you on this. But can you absolutely say that there are NO technique in modern TSD/TKD/Kwans from Subak or Gwonbeop? That is an assumption I have always made to explain the obsessive connection by some. And country of origin.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I tend to agree with you on this. But can you absolutely say that there are NO technique in modern TSD/TKD/Kwans from Subak or Gwonbeop? That is an assumption I have always made to explain the obsessive connection by some. And country of origin.

You cannot prove a negative. But I don't need to. There's no evidence to support any claim that there IS, and that would be the assertion requiring proof.
And, of course, everything in TSD/TKD can absolutely be traced back to the founders stated training in Japanese arts (and a touch of Chinese).

 

[Earl Weiss]

I tend to agree with you on this. But can you absolutely say that there are NO technique in modern TSD/TKD/Kwans from Subak or Gwonbeop? That is an assumption I have always made to explain the obsessive connection by some. And country of origin.

I don't think you need to. I favor the perspective which General Choi refers to. No one country or person can claim to have invented martial arts. It is like inventing the wheel or discovering fire. hey are most likely discoveries and innovation that developed simultaneously in different locals.

 

[MartialHermit8]

It is conclusive. The writings & screenshots I showed explicitly say that Taekwondo's 1st generation people learned Gwonbub from Byungin Yoon. Hence, it's a conclusive fact that Taekwondo is from Korean Gwonbub, not from Karate. Karate probably copied Gwonbub. Also, it's a conclusive fact that Korean had a sport called Gwonbub documented 300 years ago. It's also conclusive how Taekwondo (with the root Korean Gwonbub in the early 20th century) & Korean Gwonbub 300 years ago look similar. It's conclusive that Taekwondo is from Gwonbub, not from Karate. The only question is what this Gwonbub is, and Korea had the same name sport with similar visual traits 300 years ago. That's good enough proof without moving goal post fallacy.

Yeah, sounds conclusive alright. I heard that there are some Korean sources that claim that Jesus was Korean, is it true?

 

[MartialHermit8]

As for Taekwondo's earliest gyms, you mean original 2 Kwans, Changmugwan & Pasaenggwan. From my sources, everyone learned Gwonbub from YMCA Gwonbub club (1946) & Chosunyeonmugwan Gwonbub Club. Even the Taekwondo people who called their art Toudi/Tangsu by linguistic influence learned from Byungin Yoon, according to my sources. Also, there should be physical evidences for YMCA Gwonbub club (1946) & Chosunyeonmugwan Gwonbub Club, paperwork & whatnot.

There are no videos to post on Taekwondo origin. There are photos, writings, screenshots.

What did 5 original Taekwondo Gwan say? That they learned Karate? No, according to my sources, they all learned Gwonbub. Korean Gwonbub 300 years ago looks different from Kung Fu & looks similar to today's Taekwondo & Karate because Karate probably copied it in 1922. Also, I don't see anything about 5 original Taekwondo Gwans saying about Karate other than that they sometimes called Taekwondo Tangsu/Toudi, which is from linguistic influence. I can't find "we learned Karate" from Korean Taekwondo gyms created after YMCA Gwonbub Club.

Teakwondo as well as Tangsoodo are pure Shotokan Karate copies. The unpractical circus kicks were added muuuuch later in order to add flashiness to attract new practitioners. Hell, Koreans in America were lying to their customers telling them that they are teaching Karate instead of TKD because nobody wanted to learn that crap in 1960s.

Flashy kicks in TKD are very very new, they appeared in an effort to add the "wow" factor, AND it did work, Teakwondo became an Olympic sport thanks to that.

P.S.
You can still find the original TKD, Koreans call it pro-Teakwondo, and it is looks almost exactly as Shotokan Karate, no acrobatic kicks at all.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Teakwondo as well as Tangsoodo are pure Shotokan Karate copies.

Incorrect. Derived from, yes. Copies? Hardly. Different forms, different stances, on and on and on.

Incidentally, you do know you're replying to a thread that's been dead for a couple years, right? The OP has long since been banned.

 

[dvcochran]

You cannot prove a negative. But I don't need to. There's no evidence to support any claim that there IS, and that would be the assertion requiring proof.
And, of course, everything in TSD/TKD can absolutely be traced back to the founders stated training in Japanese arts (and a touch of Chinese).

This popped in my alerts; I realize it is an older thread.
But for grins and giggles:
Why do you say "You cannot prove a negative." It is one of the most common denominators in proving a logic path. Often times the process of cancellation is the easiest way to get as close to finite as possible.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This popped in my alerts; I realize it is an older thread.
But for grins and giggles:
Why do you say "You cannot prove a negative." It is one of the most common denominators in proving a logic path. Often times the process of cancellation is the easiest way to get as close to finite as possible.

Mathematically, it may be possible. In argument, it is not. The classic examples are things like, "Prove sasquatch doesn't exist." Those are impossible to prove, because all we can ever do is show sasquatch is unlikely and/or isn't in a given place or set of places at a given time.

A negative can only be proven if the premises being challenged are self-contradictory, so the proof is in the inital assertion.

 

[dvcochran]

Mathematically, it may be possible. In argument, it is not. The classic examples are things like, "Prove sasquatch doesn't exist." Those are impossible to prove, because all we can ever do is show sasquatch is unlikely and/or isn't in a given place or set of places at a given time.

A negative can only be proven if the premises being challenged are self-contradictory, so the proof is in the inital assertion.

You are correct. In most instances in the real world (my world anyway) is cancellation to a certain degree (nth) is satisfactory proof. For example, for positional purposes, a certain decimal place below zero is correct.

Example of evidentiary burden of proof:
You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk. You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer.

Examples of negative logic resolution:
In mathematics, a proof of impossibility, also known as negative proof, proof of an impossibility theorem, or negative result is a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved as described in the claim, or that a particular set of problems cannot be solved in general.[1] Proofs of impossibility often put decades or centuries of work attempting to find a solution to rest. To prove that something is impossible is usually much harder than the opposite task, as it is often necessary to develop a theory.[2] Impossibility theorems are usually expressible as negative existential propositions, or universal propositions in logic (see universal quantification for more).



Perhaps one of the oldest proofs of impossibility is that of the irrationality of square root of 2, which shows that it is impossible to express the square root of 2 as a ratio of integers.
Another famous proof of impossibility was the 1882 proof of Ferdinand von Lindemann, showing that the ancient problem of squaring the circle cannot be solved,[3] because the number π is transcendental (i.e., non-algebraic) and only a subset of the algebraic numbers can be constructed by compass and straightedge. Two other classical problems—trisecting the general angle and doubling the cube—were also proved impossible in the 19th century.

I believe Pi is a great example of your argument. It goes on forever, but there is a point where it is more that satisfactory below the decimal.

There is no point in going down the mathematical rabbit hole to a fruitless result.

This is a great wiki. I have spent literal hours arguing the square root of 2 with young math kids.

 

[Koryuhoka]

The traditional forms introduced by General Choi ARE Shuri(from Okinawa) kata. This is what Choi learned from Shotokan. Any others are an attempt to create their own identity as a martial art. Older Koreans I have asked have called it Korea's National Sport, claiming that Taek kyeon is one of their older arts.

 

[MartialHermit8]

Incorrect. Derived from, yes. Copies? Hardly. Different forms, different stances, on and on and on.

Incidentally, you do know you're replying to a thread that's been dead for a couple years, right? The OP has long since been banned.

Aww...That's a shame. Would like for him to answer some of my questions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are correct. In most instances in the real world (my world anyway) is cancellation to a certain degree (nth) is satisfactory proof. For example, for positional purposes, a certain decimal place below zero is correct.

Example of evidentiary burden of proof:
You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk. You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer.

Examples of negative logic resolution:
In mathematics, a proof of impossibility, also known as negative proof, proof of an impossibility theorem, or negative result is a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved as described in the claim, or that a particular set of problems cannot be solved in general.[1] Proofs of impossibility often put decades or centuries of work attempting to find a solution to rest. To prove that something is impossible is usually much harder than the opposite task, as it is often necessary to develop a theory.[2] Impossibility theorems are usually expressible as negative existential propositions, or universal propositions in logic (see universal quantification for more).



Perhaps one of the oldest proofs of impossibility is that of the irrationality of square root of 2, which shows that it is impossible to express the square root of 2 as a ratio of integers.
Another famous proof of impossibility was the 1882 proof of Ferdinand von Lindemann, showing that the ancient problem of squaring the circle cannot be solved,[3] because the number π is transcendental (i.e., non-algebraic) and only a subset of the algebraic numbers can be constructed by compass and straightedge. Two other classical problems—trisecting the general angle and doubling the cube—were also proved impossible in the 19th century.

I believe Pi is a great example of your argument. It goes on forever, but there is a point where it is more that satisfactory below the decimal.

There is no point in going down the mathematical rabbit hole to a fruitless result.

This is a great wiki. I have spent literal hours arguing the square root of 2 with young math kids.

It's nitpicking, but when you show the watch is on your wrist, you prove a positive. The real point is that a very specific, narrow claim can be disproven (in the case of the watch, you'd have to go the drawer to prove it isn't there). But disproving a broader claim is a logical impossibility in most cases. There are certainly edge cases, but they remain that. This, of course, is the nature of logical semantics. "Proof" is usually a binary thing. If there remains a situation that fits the original claim but which cannot be disproved by the evidence provided, the original claim isn't disproved.

It's kinda crap, but it's a problem with reasonable discussion, because people often defend indefensible claims by pointing out these situations that bypass the contradictory evidence.

 

[elder999]

Taekwondo isn't from Karate, it's from Korean Gwonbub that existed for 300 years. Taekwondo isn't from Karate. It's a misconception from how some called Taekwondo Toudi like they called Taekyun Judo, Jiujitsu with linguistic influence during Japanese occupation. Byungin Yoon, the father of Taekwondo, called it Gwonbub. It looks Gwonbub. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtgdlTKW0AAkVDl.jpg

"This content was organized by Master Cheolheui Park's testimony from 2005, recorded in the book "Gym oriented retrospect on Taekwondo Creation History". "I was born in 1933", "I was 15 when Master Byungin Yoon taught me Taekwondo, he called it Gwonbub".

https://imgur.com/E9qxpdl

"YMCA Gwonbub club created Changmugwan Dojang & Pasaenggwan Dojo", "I was training Taekwondo at YMCA, I started Gwonbub at this era. Yoon called it Gwonbub." Also, Subak had frontal slap & punch. Fist & grab moving front & back. + Mustache Kokuryeo Korean.

https://imgur.com/dP4XxxU

This link is written in Korean because the book was published in Korean, but there should be many translators. Interpreting proofs is essential in making correct conclusions. Taekyun & Yetbub were the civilian version; Taekwondo was the military Gwonbub. m.blog.daum.net/teams684/69

Gwonbub was a Korean martial art recorded in Muyedobotongji (Gwonbub) 300 years ago. As you see from the pictures, they look obviously Taekwondo. Karate look like Korean Gwonbub (Yoon's Taekwondo) probably because Karate copied Taekwondo for editing Toudi.

https://imgur.com/MuXGNPv

Civilian crude version is Taekyun (kicking & wrestling) & Taekyun Yetbub (meaning old way, older Taekwondo, this is Pyunssaum, Sibak, Nanjangbaksi, Gitssaum Flag Fight, all had frontal punch). The military art form is Taekwondo, had punch, sparred by kick.

https://imgur.com/LwjGIti

Subak had frontal slap, punch. + Korea had Flag Fight (Gitssaum, 1927 pictures & written description says fist fight; a type of civilian Pyunssaum like Yetbub, Nalparam) punching front & Taekwondo (military Gwonbub version) rotation-punching front. Hitting front isn't from Japan.

Korea hitting front isn't from Japan. Breaking was self-created by practicing & improving common sense hitting. Korea had frontal hitting in Subak, Flag Fight (Gitssaum), Pyunssaum (Nanjangbaksi, civilian Sibak), Gwonbub (military). Karate copied Korean frontal strike & Breaking.

curious

twinfist chip I literally LOLd.

www.martialtalk.com

 

[dvcochran]

It's nitpicking, but when you show the watch is on your wrist, you prove a positive. The real point is that a very specific, narrow claim can be disproven (in the case of the watch, you'd have to go the drawer to prove it isn't there). But disproving a broader claim is a logical impossibility in most cases. There are certainly edge cases, but they remain that. This, of course, is the nature of logical semantics. "Proof" is usually a binary thing. If there remains a situation that fits the original claim but which cannot be disproved by the evidence provided, the original claim isn't disproved.

It's kinda crap, but it's a problem with reasonable discussion, because people often defend indefensible claims by pointing out these situations that bypass the contradictory evidence.

It seems you are ebbing over into philosophy. It that realm there are 4 absolutes.
I am a very heavy math/science nerd and and have a very strong faith but would argue that in the real world there are no absolutes. Yes, there are equations that solve for zero. But they are always conditional. A point in time if you will.
That said, I would not go so far as to say there are semantics in logic. I think this circles back to your original statements; I suppose I would say most things are circumstantial but the facts of solving for 'X' , no matter how you get there all end up with the same functional result.
This can get pretty wonky to consider spatially; when we have applications that have to meet in all three axis to five places below the decimal it gets pretty extreme sometimes. There are no causal considerations and every decision can end in true peril so, being anal about things would be an understatement.

This has been my weekend and it has truly been a challenge.

 

[Buka]

I never looked at this thread until today. I read the first five pages. I'm going to save the last four until tonight, when I have a buzz on.

But I always did have a feeling that @simon invented TKD.

 

[_Simon_]

I never looked at this thread until today. I read the first five pages. I'm going to save the last four until tonight, when I have a buzz on.

But I always did have a feeling that @simon invented TKD.

Darn tootin'!

 

[Buka]

Don't read this thread when you're high. Seriously.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Don't read this thread when you're high. Seriously.

I feel like I've missed some entertainment.

 

[GMK Sa Bum Nim]

Highly entertaining (albeit an old) thread. A few facts, some nonsense, some faulty logic, but in the end just goes to show how much made up crap is being perpetuated by a lack of direct knowledge. So many non-practitioners simply do not understand what Taekwondo is and therefore, so many parents still refer to Taekwondo training as Karate lessons, even after their children have been in a Taekwondo program for months.

 

[punisher73]

Highly entertaining (albeit an old) thread. A few facts, some nonsense, some faulty logic, but in the end just goes to show how much made up crap is being perpetuated by a lack of direct knowledge. So many non-practitioners simply do not understand what Taekwondo is and therefore, so many parents still refer to Taekwondo training as Karate lessons, even after their children have been in a Taekwondo program for months.

So, going from the original premise.

Do you believe that TKD isn't originally from Japanese karate?