The problem here, as I see it, is that old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt." That is, if someone is alive and actively participating in Internet forums here with all of the other human beings, he must be just some schmoe who is talking crazy talk. In order for anyone to have any credibility at all, apparently he has to be 1. Dead, 2. An Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking, or 3. Dead, and an Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking.
Demetrio, has it occurred to you that some of the people writing here actually CAN DO everything they're writing about, and that others CAN DO some at least some of the things being written about, and are on their way to growing and excelling in those skills? It's not some misty legend, but reality happening right now, perhaps even history in the making. And it's most definitely not being embellished, aggrandised or poorly documented... just the opposite, in fact, and right here on AikiWeb and in private scholarly research and writing. So, it will more likely be the stuff of academically written martial arts histories that future scholars will turn to for furthering their own research, rather than become "legends, stories, folklore and narratives."
Too many legends, stories, folklore and narratives on our past. Embellished, aggrandised, poorly documented.
Sure. There will be more legends. More narratives, more embellishments, more aggrandisements and more poorly documented heroic feats of martial awesomeness. More folk stories.
They became better than they were. How good were they? Compared with who? Under which standards were they considered good?