The K-cycles Goldstein cited are not price cycles per se (although they contain price inputs). In Kondratieff's original article he looked at BOTH price and real cycles in economic output (what you are referring to as K-waves). He found them to be roughly synchronous. K-wave researchers since then have looked at both and the consensus cycle Goldstein presents is based on real cycles as well as prices.
M&T's K-waves are constructs like S&H's generations. They are not primary data. They are based on objective data, but are interpreted through a leadership cycle lens. Other workers can and (and do) find different real K-waves than the ones M&T present, just as others will see different generations than those S&H present.
But their military data are objective measures of military balance. You arguments using K-waves is analogous to argument based on generational constellations. Generational constellation is an application of the theory, not input for analysis, although many here use it as such.
Here is a comparison of Goldstein consensus K-wave, M&T's K-waves and my own strictly output-based K-waves.
https://mikebert.neocities.org/K-wave-table.htm
There is a lot of agreement. M&T are pretty much on the consensus track until around 1900. Then they combined two separate K-waves into one, which pushes there cycle about 25 years from the consensus. They do this to accommodate their long cycle from 1815-1945, which is about 25 years longer than the 100 year cycle they previously had. As a result from then on they are 25 years off from the consensus. If they have presented compelling data for their unusual dating, I haven't seen it.
M&T's K-waves are constructs like S&H's generations. They are not primary data. They are based on objective data, but are interpreted through a leadership cycle lens. Other workers can and (and do) find different real K-waves than the ones M&T present, just as others will see different generations than those S&H present.
But their military data are objective measures of military balance. You arguments using K-waves is analogous to argument based on generational constellations. Generational constellation is an application of the theory, not input for analysis, although many here use it as such.
Here is a comparison of Goldstein consensus K-wave, M&T's K-waves and my own strictly output-based K-waves.
https://mikebert.neocities.org/K-wave-table.htm
There is a lot of agreement. M&T are pretty much on the consensus track until around 1900. Then they combined two separate K-waves into one, which pushes there cycle about 25 years from the consensus. They do this to accommodate their long cycle from 1815-1945, which is about 25 years longer than the 100 year cycle they previously had. As a result from then on they are 25 years off from the consensus. If they have presented compelling data for their unusual dating, I haven't seen it.