I'm fairly certain this is a troll attempt. Seems to be working. But troll or not, it at least shows us how ridiculous it is to advocate the old just because it's old. The sentiment that the older, original stuff is better is pretty common in CMA. It's a big part of the mystique that attracts a lot of students. You know, ancient wisdom and all that.

CMA is not the same today as it was 1,500 years ago, nor should it be. If we all stuck to the original, we'd have far fewer styles and variations - and that variety is part of the fun in studying kung fu. The antiquity of wrestling and boxing shouldn't need to be mentioned.

Ten Tigers really hit it on the head, I think. Age has very little to do with practical value. Cultural value? Absolutely. Historical value? Definitely. Entertainment value? Certainly seems that way for many kung fu fans around the world. But throughout CMA oral history, we have many stories of people cross-training to absorb what is effective. Almost every style's genesis story sounds something like that, doesn't it? Master/Group A took styles X, Y, and Z and created style Omega out of the best parts of each. Jow Gar, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun, etc. How many styles trace their roots back 400 years or less?

My point is that no style is really "pure" so we're not necessarily diluting it by allowing influence of other methods to come in. Would any of you honestly think that san da fighters didn't adapt according to their fights with Thai boxers, and vice versa? But the OP makes that basic presumptive mistake: distill all of kung fu to find the oldest, original, purest, uncut "truth."