YM, I don't like to have to say this, because your own attempt at sarcasm here in no way justifies an intemperate response on my part, and I think most readers know when someone has nothing to fall back on except clumsy snideness. Just a word to the... wise: it makes you look bad, not me; sarcasm generally doesn't work unless you have already really strong arguments and evidence on your side, and you have neither, as we're going to see in some detail. But, in any case, first check your rep line, and then check mine, and then let's talk about "value(d)", yes?
You are, persistently, failing to address the point that the official Taekkyon bodies I cited specifically identify the core techniques of Taekkyon as low kicks aimed at the opponent's legs and feet. Repeat: the official Taekkyon agencies, including the Taekkyon Research Association founded by Song Duk-ki's senior student, Lee Yon-bok, deny categorically the claim that you're making: that high complex kicks à la Taekwondo were ever part of the Taekkyon core repertoire. In passing, note again that none of the Kwan founders were students of Song Duk-ki. The only Gm. I am aware of who did study with SDK—and who, according to his student and our own member, Rob McLain, was largely responsible for his receiving 'Living Cultural Asset' status—was none other than Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, the man who has, in both Black Belt (January issue) and in our own MT Magazine, most emphatically denied the sources of TKD in 'ancient' KMAs. Repeat: only Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, among TKD grandmasters, has actually studied the art with its sole 20th century 'source'. And KPS has attributed the origin of TKD's technique set exclusively to the karate that the Kwan founders brought back from Japan. And you're saying that you know better than LYB, KPS and Song-Duk Ki himself? :lol:
Let me get this straight... your eyes, seeing two people use similar techniques to solve an equation, drop a basketball into a basket, or parallel park, can tell which of the two learned those skills from the other. That's what you're saying? Because, whether you know it or not, that's what you're saying.
Oh yes: those American and British karateka writers such as Lee Yon-bok, Gm. Kim Pung-soo, Gm. S. Henry Cho, and Song Duk Ki himself. Yanks and Brits, every one of 'em!
And which of the people I've cited is karate-based? Mind being a little bit explicit? Robert Young? Stan Henning (TKD dan ranking). Manuel Adrogué? (fifth dan TKD). Eric Madis? (Tang Soo Do dan-ranked, 25+ years in the art). Please... tell us who you're talking about here, OK? I'm very curious... :EG:(i) Let me put it as nicely as I can, YM: what you happen to believe is an item for your (auto)biography, having nothing whatever to do with the truth, or otherwise, of the content of your belief. A lot of people believe that a bomb dropped out of a B-52 bomb bay moving at the speed of a rifle bullet, at 35,000 feet, over spot X, will land on X. A lot of people once sincerely believed that the earth was flat. A lot of people believe that walking under a ladder brings bad luck. That's a fact about them, not where bombs land, the shape of the earth, or the relationship between ladders and misfortune. Your personal beliefs are absolutely irrelevant until they're supported by some argumentation and expertise. The people who I've cited have been up one side of Taekkyon and down the other: they've read every bit of available material and assessed it, they've interviewed Song Duk-Ki and the current leaders of Taekkyon, they've investigated lineages and a hundred other things that you haven't even bothered to find out about yourself, let alone carried out. And in some cases, they've been 'present at the creation': they were there when it happened. The question isn't what you believe; and it's not what I personally believe either. I've no interest in your beliefs, per se, apart from what kind of, and how much, evidence you can adduce in support of those beliefs. So far, all you've given is your observations about the parallelism in techniques between Taekkyon practioners who weren't even born when SDK was photographed doing Taekkyon in the 60s, and 'fancy' kicks which were already recorded in photos of TKD masters in the late 1960, when tournament TKD was getting under way and virtually no one was doing Taekkyon except for SDK and one or two of his very small number of students. If the best you can come up with is that 'evidence of your eyes', then you've lost the argument long, long ago.
(ii) Once again, you seem to have lost the thread of what you're objecting to, just as you once went on at length about comments I made about Eunbi/Empi, which you somehow managed to turn into comments about Koryo. In this case, I was saying nothing, absolutely nothing, that would—let me quote you—
YoungMan said:
What you apparently were trying to say, so far as I can make out, but which you got rather seriously wrong in actually saying it, is that I am saying that Taekwondo is the Korean version of karate. Whether or not that's my position, it has nothing to do with the present discussion, which is about the claim that TKD's 'fancy kicks' came from Taekkyon. I've presented evidence from a variety of well-documented historical sources that they do not. Your comments would perhaps have more credibility if you were a bit more accurate about the statements you're objecting to :wink1: It would also help if you actually addressed the evidence, instead of complaining (incorrectly, as noted) that it originates with British and American karateka, but we've already covered that ground, I think.
This is probably futile, but I'll try again: you cannot possibly have seen anything which establishes the direction of transmission of the techniques in question. The visual sense is wonderful, but it has no time machine capability. You keep repeating your impression of what you've seen as something like a mantra, but apparently cannot, or will not, recognize that what you've seen does not have any bearing on the point at issue: the direction of transmission. I cannot understand why you don't recognize the fact that seeing that X and Y look similar has no bearing whatever on whether X comes from Y or Y from X. For that, you need historical documentation, sources, records. And in this case, the very people who you're claiming taught TKDers to kick high and fancy deny that TKD and Takkyon have any technical connection. Do you not have any idea how much credibility your claims lose in view of that denial, apart from the independent documentation that supports it, given that your sole source of evidence is, 'Well, they look pretty similar to me'?
'Too natural for them to be doing that'... too natural for what??. My son ties his shoes like a pro. He learned that from me. 'Just fits the art'... and you are trying to make a historical claim on on the basis of this kind of reasoning??
:lol: :lol: :lol:
)
