Subak's real rules with physical evidences

[Steven Lee]

Subak's real rules with physical evidences. Subak means clap. I've seen some people claiming that a sport named clap must have (or is likely to have) only slaps or hits only side like clapping. This has no logic at all. Just because a sport is named clap doesn't mean such. As for the real rule with evidences, here are the following.

"Chosun Common Sense Q & A is Namseon Choi's 1937 newspaper column", "Subak & Subyuk were the same, a fight game which became a drinking game, children's game. The method is fist, grab moving front & back. Hand & fingers bend." It had Frontal slap + punch. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp0fnPMWwAIfsuM.jpg

Older references with inherited knowledge are more credible than recent references with imagination or agenda (bending logic to meet goals). Also, what's important is whether the sources are academically reputable. All my sources are academically reputable; most of the references I show from them also happen to be old as a bonus quality. That record says Subak also uses punch, not just hand (bent into palm). It also says the fist moves front & back.

This Kokuryeo Subak picture with 2 mustache men look Subak & the left man looks frontal slapping (like Subyukta). & Subak punched. http://cafefiles.naver.net/data8/2005/5/21/49/%BC%F6%B9%DA%C8%F1_1.jpg

In 1964, the ethnologist Gimu Hong representing North Korean Science Center Anthropology & Ethnology Research Institute published this book, "there was a game called Subak. This knocks down opponent with punches. Subak was liked by warriors in that era." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnvJGLBWwAAauDM.jpg

"Yugyuk showed Tagwon", "with 2 hands, hit his face, neck, back, chest, stomach", "really agile in punching such that no one could go near him", I thought that Yugyuk exhibition record also mentioned slapping forehead, but I can't find it. Tagwon punched. http://cafe384.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_search_read?grpid=12vrX&fldid=1LsP&datanum=196

Yongdangsopoom recorded Subak is also called Tagwon in 1621. It also recorded Subak had Subub, techniques. Korea also recorded Baekta became Gwonbub; Korea had Baekta besides "Subak". https://i.imgur.com/4dqubwA.png

By these physical evidences, I conclude that Korean Subak in Korea had straight frontal slap & punch.

Like Seomundang's photo 100 years ago & Stewart's words, Subyukta had frontal slap, which likely existed in the older version Subak before Subyukta. Subak's slap differs from a regular slap but is a hard swat (palm heel hitting, pressing). + Subak punched. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8o34KXkAA1YdF.jpg

Subyukta Clap Strike always slapped front like Stewart said. "The hands are then clapped, and opened, palms out, to strike those of the other player". She also recorded it was also called Ken, fist. Fist can be made with common sense. https://i.imgur.com/ygSH7dx.jpg

 

[pdg]

Older references with inherited knowledge are more credible than recent references with imagination or agenda (bending logic to meet goals). Also, what's important is whether the sources are academically reputable. All my sources are academically reputable; most of the references I show from them also happen to be old as a bonus quality.

You said almost exactly the same thing in your taekwondo straw grabbing exercise in futility.

So, are these sources more or less reputable than the others?

 

[Steven Lee]

All my sources are academically reputable, including Taekwondo's origin issue. Academia has a specific standard deciding what types of sources are reputable, what logic makes sense (or doesn't make sense, plain fallacies). Also, old references showing inherited knowledge is more credible than recent references with agenda, objectives to bend logic.

 

[Gnarlie]

Academia uses critical thinking to assess veracity. That is not what you are doing.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[pdg]

But you've disregarded the "origin issue" with regard to taekwondo because, to you, it's tainted.

At first, you were absolutely adamant that taekwondo was entirely without karate influence and that everybody "must agree" with you.

You effectively discredited yourself there.

Now you state further absolutes and claim they are the most reputable - are you going to change your mind in 3 days (again)?


Oh, and older doesn't mean more credible in the slightest - it has been shown time and time again that people have always made whatever claims could best further their cause or ingratiate themselves with those in power.

In a time before mass availability of cross reference I can only imagine it was even more rife.

 

[Steven Lee]

Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.

 

[Gnarlie]

Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.

Due diligence in critical thinking would require you to seek sources to disprove those you wish to believe. You have not done that, clearly.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Lee]

There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.

There never was any data that Subak hit side only nor used palm only. No proof. The same goes for all my topics. I have tons of reputable sources, references, data in all topics without any contradicting data so far. Even if there was a contradicting data, that wouldn't win against my data.

 

[pdg]

Yeah, I don't see any logical fallacy applicable in these data or the natural conclusion from the given data. All my sources & references are reputable. My conclusions are natural.

Your conclusions are naturally biased by your desperation to have a pure source.

That does not make them reputable.

 

[pdg]

There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.

Prove their reputation.

People will write anything if they get something from it.

 

[Steven Lee]

My conclusions are natural, not biased neither for nor against myself. Being reputable newspaper, reputable history book, reputable archaeological drawing, reputable magazine, etc make such sources academically reputable.

All my sources are known to be reputable to scholars or the people experienced in such history fields.

I'm done in this website. I can't commit much to computer anyway due to my living condition. The point is, all my sources are reputable in any topic. Also, there's no contradicting proof, data, logic why something shouldn't be. Even if there was any such data, it wouldn't win against my data.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

All my sources are academically reputable, including Taekwondo's origin issue. Academia has a specific standard deciding what types of sources are reputable, what logic makes sense (or doesn't make sense, plain fallacies). Also, old references showing inherited knowledge is more credible than recent references with agenda, objectives to bend logic.

You refer to fallacies. It is a fallacy that older = more credible when it comes to references. The same criteria for credibility (support from unrelated sources, amount of bias, information available to author, etc.) apply regardless of the source's age. In many cases, older sources simply didn't have access to the information available today.

 

[Steven Lee]

Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history. Also, my sources are not just old but academically reputable sources. It seems older era had much more data & information than today. Today's world doesn't really know these stuffs.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There aren't any contradicting data. These data are reputable sources, references. No fallacy was committed.

There never was any data that Subak hit side only nor used palm only. No proof. The same goes for all my topics. I have tons of reputable sources, references, data in all topics without any contradicting data so far. Even if there was a contradicting data, that wouldn't win against my data.

This is the same level of claim you made regarding your sources for TKD's origin - that there wasn't any contradictory evidence. Then some folks showed you clear contradictory evidence.

Is it not possible the same would happen here, if you presented this to folks who make the claims you seem to be trying to counter?

 

[Steven Lee]

It's different from TKD's origin case. In that case, I was focusing on Gwonbub link to Taekwondo, which did exist. There was no counter evidence against Gwonbub link to Taekwondo. The same goes here. There's no counter evidence against all these data, facts existing anyway just like Gwonbub existing within Taekwondo.

 

[Gnarlie]

Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history.

Nonsense.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Inherited knowledge is more credible than talking out of *** with imagination. Older references tend to be inherited knowledge while recent reference is imagination without studying the actual history. Also, my sources are not just old but academically reputable sources. It seems older era had much more data & information than today. Today's world doesn't really know these stuffs.

"Inherited knowledge" seems to be a synonym for information handed down over time. We could spend all day listing the number of "facts" that were handed down among generations in almost any country, that we now know to be incorrect.

Older doesn't make it more reliable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's different from TKD's origin case. In that case, I was focusing on Gwonbub link to Taekwondo, which did exist. There was no counter evidence against Gwonbub link to Taekwondo. The same goes here. There's no counter evidence against all these data, facts existing anyway just like Gwonbub existing within Taekwondo.

Yes, but there WAS evidence of a stronger link to Karate, which you claimed wasn't there. You ignored evidence that wasn't supportive of your claim.

 

[Steven Lee]

No. Inherited knowledge beats imagination with no logical necessity. That's a fact for history.

Inherited knowledge is better than imagination in history. We don't need god's power to know everything. Some things are good enough & certain enough by human world standard. It's standard in history.

 

[Gnarlie]

The only "evidence" you've presented for Kwonbop being part of TKD is that the pictures in the Muyedobotongji look similar. Which is subjective. They don't, and reconstructions by actual martial artists made them more similar to Chuan Fa.

You've also alas failed to address the significant counterpoint I presented (i.e. Complete passages of techniques that are identical between Shotokan and Taekwondo).

You also ignored that the people who lived through it have stated on record that they trained Karate.

I don't disbelieve the link, but I don't believe it either. There is too little evidence to demonstrate objectively either way.

You are not assessing the evidence objectively.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk