When does a lie turn into a legend?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I’m curious about what the “statute of limitations” is on people who make up a style with a false lineage. How long before that lie is considered a “legend”?

For example, the Wing Chun origin story about Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun is most likely not true. So whoever invented Wing Chun and gave it that origin story was probably lying. Maybe it was Leung Jan.

Anyway, nowadays even if people don’t believe the story, they say it is a “legend” rather than a lie. But how about during the lifetime of the inventor? Was he considered a fraud or a liar in his time?

Same thing with Hsing-I. The person who created the art and then made up a lineage back to Yueh Fei was lying when he did it. But now that lie is just referred to euphemistically as a legend or myth.

So how about today’s frauds like Shaolin-Do? Today they are considered fakes and liars. But in the future, will their lies just become part of the style’s “legendary origins”?

Fundamentally, are today’s frauds any more dishonest than the founders of Wing Chun, Tai Chi, Hsing-I etc. who gave their styles fake lineages?

2

the difference is that xing yi and wing chun seem to work, shaolin do looks very far from good

in the old days u couldnt just “make up” a system because if u just did some movements based on what u saw some time because everyone would know u were making it up

u needed real training and to have put real thought in to this new stle

nowadays u can make up a system by doing kick boxing for a few months and copying some froms and apps from the mo=vies

and because its what everyone else sees working at the movies (that being their only source alot of the time as to what real MA is) and believe that its legit

3

I would guess that about 7/10 ths of all martial arts history is probably incorrect or just ourright fabrication.

To prove my point:

The story of the Shaolin temple, being the birthplace of Southern KF styles, monks with unbelievable skills, etc, etc, - was never heard of before 1909. The story was debunked in written form as early as 1919. In fact, historical documents, (actual written manuals) dating back to as early as the 1630’s, DO claim that Shaolin was known for it’s Staff play, and not much more. One of these manuals was actually written by a monk at the temple and still exists today, in the hands of a famous Taiwanese collector (of MA books).

So, not unlike greek and roman mythology, the Chinese seem to have come up with quite a lot of legends to fill in gaps in oral tradition, or explain origins through the witnessing of ‘animal folley’, etc. Truth probably is, people invented lineage stories - the same way people are doing it today - some to gain credibility when they have no well known teachers, and some to just to avoid saying “no, we don’t know how old it is, no, we don’t know who started it, no we don’t know where it came from”, etc.

I think, as martial artists, we probably need to spend a whole lot less time on lineage and who taught who bullsh1t, and focus more on getting better.

I think the modernization of traditional styles, with uniform curriculum and forms would be the best thing ever, but I don’t think it will ever happen. I think if all CLF people or HG people did their forms the same, it would be too easy to identify which teachers or which schools would be the best/better. Problem is, its never ‘apples and apples’ it’s always ‘apples and oranges’ even within the same styles, because they have different branches, and different lineages, etc.

If we all did the exact same CLF, it would be abundantly clear - ‘oh, these schools here are pretty f*cking good, while these schools here are pretty sh1tty.’

It’s not unlike religion; we have so many factions within each major belief system. "well, since I can’t be the top dog of my religion, cause this guy was here before me or has more followers or is more famous, I’ll claim that there was another book that was hidden (with a different message - which ONLY I possess) or I’ll interpret out holy book differently - and start my only branch/faction - which I’ll be the head of. Sounds familiar???

Organization of the styles and some kind of standardization, would allow us to promote and propagate the styles so that their future would be secure. Lineage wouldn’t be nearly as important as current skills. It doesn’t mean that people couldn’t have loyalty to their past teachers, but seriously - 90% of all discussions/arguements on this forum are about lineage and history. We spend far too much time with it.

I’m not a fan of TKD. BUT, their standardization (and I can’t say I’m a fan of what they did to thier art - it was probably pretty decent Karate with Killer kicks, going back even 50 years ago - however, it is probably one of the more modern martial arts (smallest history) and it is probably one of the largest, if not THE largest MA today. Organizational-wise (more major federations), School-wise (probably more TKD schools than any other single style) and more practitioner-wise (the ATA - American TKD Association will boast over 1,000,000 active students by next year).

Again, I would never teach TKD, or a TKD version of my Chinese Martial Arts, BUT, you have to look seriously at thier CONCEPT and what they have accomplished in the last 40 years in this country alone. It’s staggering.

Anway, just a morning rant, hope I didn’t derail the thread. I still think that most lineage and more origns of styles is bogus. I can’t think of the title right now, but I’ll post it up later - it’s a terrific that my classmate David Ross recommended - which debunks most of the martial art history we come to accept as fact. I’ll look for the title, or if David reads this, please post it.

Peace,

MP

4

[QUOTE=golden arhat;763476]
in the old days u couldnt just “make up” a system because if u just did some movements based on what u saw some time …[/QUOTE]

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that’s exactly how a whole bunch of systems got created “in the old days”.

Every system was “made up” at some point.

5

I think the flip side of that argument is that if you create a standardized curriculum and strive to make everything apples and apples that you lose creativity over the long term and that degrades the art. Of course some creativity isn’t particularly useful or effective but in order to have really good you also have to have really bad. It’s the nature of things.

Using TKD as the case study, and I know nothing about TKD. you point out that 50years ago it was probably pretty good karate. One could argue that the standardization is what changed it to something less good.

It’s kind of like the public school system. There is such a push to test kids to a standard that unique ways of teaching and learning are considered to risky and teachers are nearly forced to teach the same things the same way regardless of any other considerations.

All that being said, I totally agree that the lineage issue is way down the importance list and effectiveness is what matters.

Mitch

6

Modern example:

…99% of fights end up on the ground…"

7

[QUOTE=brothernumber9;763491]Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that’s exactly how a whole bunch of systems got created “in the old days”.

Every system was “made up” at some point.[/QUOTE]

i explained my point just under what you quoted

why dont u try reading it

or quoting exactly what i said instead of whatever u want to hear so that only your point applies

idiot

8

There are no standardized people, so you cannot have standardized styles. To try and force a standardized system when people themselves have no standardizations would ruin the arts we love, and cherish.

9

Within a given system you can standardized principles and concepts and even techniques to an extent.

Most systems have this be default and even in their offshoots, you will still see the core of the “parent system”.

I think that issue is quality control in terms of representation.

10

Well, if you want to write a book documenting the stylistic standards that already exist so far as a styles principals, core techniques, special training methods and overall flavor i guess that would be Ok, but to set up a system to totally standardize a style with strict guidelines as to it’s makeup and curriculum would not only be bad, but virtually impossible…especially in the Chinese arts where diversity is the driving force.

11

stories are just stories. legends are just legends.

the thing about story and legend is that even tho they are not true.

there are many versions of them, too.

:eek:

it was called chen family boxing methods

tai chi is the name adopted only recently.

–

12

I know the thread isn’t really going this way but someone should point out that some of the origin legends were supposedly told like that precisely to keep their origins secret or coded. It may also be a load of old pish but I have heard that this applies especially to the arts that were started around the time of the dissolution of the Shaolin monastery… which may include Hung Gar, Pak Mei and Wing Chun.

As for nowadays, I don’t see any reason for it other than marketing.

13

"the difference is that xing yi and wing chun seem to work, shaolin do looks very far from good

in the old days u couldnt just “make up” a system because if u just did some movements based on what u saw some time because everyone would know u were making it up

u needed real training and to have put real thought in to this new stle

nowadays u can make up a system by doing kick boxing for a few months and copying some froms and apps from the mo=vies

and because its what everyone else sees working at the movies (that being their only source alot of the time as to what real MA is) and believe that its legit"

There.

That’s the whole quote. And I still say, that I beleive in the “Old days” people still made things up with fantasized applications and STILL were able to propagate the styles even until today. The only difference is that they didn’t have movies. I won’t name particular styles, that would just induce a big flame war.
There are alot of styles that are built on the legend of someone who was supposedly a great fighter 150 yrs ago, and not another notable fighter has been produced from those styles since. Just look at all the no-touch knock out BS that’s out there and claim to be hundreds of years old.
Hucksters were around long before we were born.

14

Don’t know what anyone cares about these stories/legends/myths/lies anyway, not as if any of that can help YOU.

I came from kyokushin, tons of crap about Oyama and very few people in the system pay attention to it, BS or not, makes ZERO impact on an individual basis.

15

it takes about a century

I’m going to say it takes about a century for some fabrication to become established as a legend. I say that because I think a generation needs to die off - the generation that bore witness to the fabrication - and a new generation needs to uphold the tradition of the fabrication as legendary. Of course, this is a totally rough figure and I think with the current progress in information sharing, this time period is very subject to change.

I think a more important question is not how long it takes. It’s how many people are needed to believe in it. How many people need to believe in something for it to be true? This is a big question now in our age of information. It’s not just about martial arts. It’s about the Moral Majority, Britney, and hanging chad. It’s about everything. I hope that’s so political that it gets this thread locked…:rolleyes:

16

All legend revolves around my ego, and my ego revolves around crotch kicking…therefore, crotch kicking is the beginning and the end to all things.

its a cycle

17

[QUOTE=GeneChing;763599] Of course, this is a totally rough figure and I think with the current progress in information sharing, this time period is very subject to change.

[/QUOTE]

your point about information sharing raises another interesting question. Is the era of legends over thanks to the availability of the internet and things like youtube?

put another way, would someone like Morihei Ueshiba have become the legendary figure he did if he had been born in today’s society? Or would he have simply been lost in the noise of all the UFC and MMA stuff that is so prevalent today?

18

[QUOTE=GeneChing;763599]I’m going to say it takes about a century for some fabrication to become established as a legend. I say that because I think a generation needs to die off - the generation that bore witness to the fabrication - and a new generation needs to uphold the tradition of the fabrication as legendary. Of course, this is a totally rough figure and I think with the current progress in information sharing, this time period is very subject to change.

[/QUOTE]

So 100yrs. Before my Shaolin I-Ching Bu Ti style will become recognized as “traditional”? I need to get on it.

19

Depends, the cream rises to the top, if he was really good, he would have hung with the best and been known for his skills…sort of like Bass Rutin

20

[QUOTE=kal;763621]your point about information sharing raises another interesting question. Is the era of legends over thanks to the availability of the internet and things like youtube?

put another way, would someone like Morihei Ueshiba have become the legendary figure he did if he had been born in today’s society? Or would he have simply been lost in the noise of all the UFC and MMA stuff that is so prevalent today?[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but like Rd said, if he was good, no one can take that away.

And the UFC and MMA thing, though with us to stay, the fad part is over, like the kung fu of the 70’s and the ninjas of the 80’s and so forth.

Fad die but the systems stay, in one form or another.