We all know that Bruce Lee was trained in Wing Chun by Grandmaster Yip Man. And in Wing Chun, we always hear about stories of that style being developed by an Ex-Shaolin Abbess and taught it to a young girl. This was the history told by Grandmaster Yip Man but to support it with facts or accuracies is questionable. But this is not just Wing Chun but also with other various martial arts especially hybrid systems including those developed in The United States such as American Kenpo Karate. Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions on this.
Like any Great Advertising a Martial Arts System needs a Great 'Hook' = A 'Lead-Style' etc to hang a story on. That gets repeated ad nauseum across the ages. Most are either: A) Reasonably truthful and based in some kind of 'fact' then embellished B) A kernel of truth plus a load of gravy C) Outright bull but it sounds great Most fall into B and C - Particularly when those perpetuating the myths have a vested interest in changing 'facts to suit the fiction' (usually some kind of cultural boogy). "As Used By Batman!"
Good in depth discussion here http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/08/31/did-ip-man-invent-the-story-of-yim-wing-chun/
There are some details of the origins of CLF that are pretty clearly historically true. And some facts that are disputed amongst different lineages. No one doubts that Chan Heung had 3 teachers and developed CLF in 1836. But there is a -sometimes very heated -dispute about whether he founded it on his own or co-founded it with another person. Me, I don't care. I view orgins of most MA's as myth. My definition includes an element of historical truth, but an acknowledgment that there are other elements in the story as well. What matters to me is that CLF is a great system. Regardless of how it developed, what it developed into is what matters most. The CLF people that get all mad at each other because one believes this version vs that version of our origins need to worry about their training more and the history less. History is important, history used to find reasons to hate on others is stupid.
I've been over the origin story of capoeira numerous times on MAP, but the whole disguised as a dance thing isn't accurate.
Historical Inaccuracies = The idea that what is taught today in "traditional karate styles" has direct relevance with the training methods of Chinese Monks or Indian warriors...3000 years ago... Since the 1960's a lot of rubbish was written to justify the particular way methods and techniques in modern karate were taught and applied.. High-kicking, long range attacks, no stand-up grappling or gripping techniques etc. The belt system, wearing a GI etc.. even the dojo kun... Basically what is classified as Traditional karate is actually sport related - kendo inspired - duelling at long range, as a direct result of "sportification" of the art. In some respects it has been lost in translation twice! firstly when it was developed for the Japanese market in the 1930's and then with the diaspora of Japanese Karate instructors and its evolution in the West.. (for TKD... that must be three times + some blatant lying) Traditional Karate Training Methods have more to do with Western Military Doctrine (square bashing and shouting) and the adoption of Western ideas in the end of the 19th Century Japan blended with the particular Japanese teacher - pupil relationship and learning ethos.