It's because, for one, formal Martial Arts is a dance. A lot of times it isn't very brutal compared to the MMA. It would take a long time to study, and learn true martial arts philosophy to become good enough. And even if one did, part of formal martial arts philosphy would be not to put themselves in that sort of thing. Martial arts is about not fighting unless you have to, but having the confidence that you can defend yourself and the ones you love. Only Americans pervert everything, including martial arts to become a sport thing, and then all of the other cultures follow along. It's something we're good at. Martial arts is way too graceful for the mmc. Kata's are entertaining to watch, but don't serve well. Mix Martial arts is sloppy street fighting, which is dangerous. Many black belts would get beaten cause it is only an art. But if it was taught the old way, as the Shaolin, then it just wouldn't compete, as that way is supposed to be peaceful. But if some mma person came up against a shaolin, I would say that the mma would be killed if unto death, but the shaolin would probably refrain from killing him, unless for a purpose that was unavoidable. Real martial arts just doesn't belong here. It's like putting balet in a hip hop dance challenge. It just wouldn't be right, and the roughness would out do it, all though it is stronger in form. MMA is streetfighting, not much more. It is as good as the old Roman ampitheater fights, minus the killing blows.

I am not an expert but I would say few places and people teach traditional martial arts. Where I go to they teach a newer version of Kenpo. I personnaly have learn traditional moves butg most kids and s don't even know there is a traditional style. Most of the forms of martail arts I pratice (only 2) teach more up to date versions. I am only a kid so I was not around when they tought traditional arts.

I'lll answer you straight out first beatchanter then get to the other rambling.

First off, traditional Martial Arts only encompass one portion of what is needed in MMA. As you need all ranges of combat, most traditional arts only focus on one phase of combat and it's nuances. The few that try to do a bit of everything are not adequate, because of their minimal focus on each of the parts.

Most MMA guys come from some sort of traditional base already, be it TKD, various forms of Karate, wrestling, Judo, etc.

They then use that base and work in other specialties to get well rounded.

It is essentially just as what Bruce Lee envisioned for Martial Artist. You want good kicks... go to the best kickers, TKD, Savate. You want good punches, go to the best punchers and learn. Boxing, Kyoukushin, etc. You want best throws go to wrestling, Judo, etc, etc.

Instead of trying to find one thing that does everything, take a specialist in each aspect and learn from them. This was true for many styles even. Northern Kung Fu is much different than Southern Kung Fu, even Muay Thai was initially broken up, with the North being good bunchers, the Central being good tacticians, Southern being speed guys etc.

I think certain TRAINING PRINCIPLES in some traditional arts are flawed. Kata is a form of conditioning, a way of getting your body used to technique. Only through sparring and fighting do you actually gain timing, accuracy, and which techniques work best for you.

You still see people with a traditional base, they just expound on it and get better. You won't see someone with just one style in MMA much at all anymore, because you need to know every aspect and range of combat, that requires learning from different specialist to be the most effective.

An early poster talked about MMA being a shortcut. In actuality most of the fighters have been fighting for YEARS. Yes, it is quicker to become more effective in MMA, because it is EFFECTIVE and done with relatively simple uncomplicated techniques that work. It is based highly in alive training.

While someone might spend 10 years doing ONE ART, so they can master all aspects of it, only 20 or 30 percent of that art might actually be effective. Essentially you spend 10 years learning the Katas, and nuances, with a small portion of your time actually fighting and sparring.

MMA is all fighting and sparring, with a minimal amount of time on showing techniques. Once the student has the technique, it is necessary to get him to repeat it in a kata 100 times a day for him to have it down. He has to go out spar and learn how to use that technique, and it's timing, and when there are opening in defenses to employ that technique. That is where effectiveness lies.

The lie is the reversal of thought going on here. The real attempt at a shortcut is doing everything but fighting, to try to be a more effective fighter.

I promise you, that a person who fights and spars for 2 hours a day for 5 years, will beat anyone who does kata, works on forms, meditates, and does little to no sparring for 10 years.

It isn't a shortcut, the only way to get better at fighting is to fight! You don't see golfers swinging invisible clubs in the air hundreds of times a day, or even swinging the clubs at invisible balls 100 times a day.

No, to be better at golf they play golf. To hit the ball better they hit balls.

It is the same for anything.

There are no highest level secrets. No magic bullets, or mystic techniques. This has been part of a mysticism surrounding Martial Arts. The truth is what you see is what you get, the only way to get better is through hard training, blood, sweat, and tears. Secret scrolls, hidden techniques, etc are all part of mythology of some Martial Arts. Most of it is unfounded. I will expound on this further below. But if there was some sort of secret hidden techniques only available to those Asians on the highest levels, then they would be dominating not only MMA or any fighting competetion, but also have the lowest crimes rates in the world due to highly trained Martial Artist using their art to protect the innocent. (If you believe the way some people believe)

Cardio is necessary as a Martial Artist too. Bruce Lee felt this was one of the biggest keys and most often overlooked. That conditioning was VITAL to Martial Arts.

He was one of the first to point out that a boxer with a little bit of wrestling could beat 90% of the Kung Fu masters out there because he actually fought on a regular basis.

But the quick answer is you have to have all aspects, and not just one to be successful in MMA.

Quickeningwind: You have been brainwashed my friend. Unfortunately there are plenty of others out there like you.

First off, it is Americans bastardizing ideals alright. But not in the way you think.

Number one: A good philosopher does not make a good Martial Artist.

"Martial arts is about not fighting unless you have to, but having the confidence that you can defend yourself and the ones you love. Only Americans pervert everything, including martial arts to become a sport thing, "

Actually, Martial Arts is about fighting. It always has been, that is the purpose of them. Confidence, etc is an ideal that was brought over. The purpose wasn't about confidence it was about survival or effectiveness in war (initially) and later for other means. It had nothing to do with the feel good butterflies, lollipops, and self confidence building crap that is being proclaimed as the centerpeice for Martial Arts now. (It certainly isn't billed as such in Asian countries as it is a cultural thing).

Second, there was sporting competetions thousands of years before American was ever a country. It was from many of these competetions that Martial Arts back evolve and originated. Even in your own precious Asian countries there was constant competetion, fighting, and rivalry between styles.

Some of the greater national heroes of these countries are guys that went and fought other styles to proof their effectiveness. (It was one of the reasons Japan did Vale Tudo long before America ever came around to the idea).

In fact fighting prowess is a large measure of pride in Asian culture, and fighting for your school, style, or reputation was HIGHLY important, and you were cowardly if you turned down any legitimate challenge.

Honestly you ignorance is probably far from your fault but let me enlighten you further.

"But if it was taught the old way, as the Shaolin, then it just wouldn't compete, as that way is supposed to be peaceful."

Shaolin was one monastery, and one style of Martial Arts period. In fact it isn't even remotely the oldest. It was peaceful because they were buddhist monks, their style was a means of self perfection for exercise of the body. Not as a means of self defense, fighting, or defending their temple. It was exercise. Oh... AND THEY COMPETED AGAINST EACH OTHER! They fought Sanda, and San Shou matches, even as children. (Well mostly as children, once entering full monkhood they would no longer do that)

"But if some mma person came up against a shaolin, I would say that the mma would be killed."

I take it you believe in Dim Mak, and pressure point strikes, and killing blows etc. The truth is an MMA person would destroy a Shaolin Monk. No where in history has their been any evidence to support an incredible fighting prowess amongst Shaolin monks (except in movies) and not only would the monk not fight, but if he did so he would be horrible ineffective, due to his training being geared towards religious perfection and not combat. While he can do physically impressive feats, he has no combat experience (aside from the sparring done in San shou style competetions done while a child).

"MMA is streetfighting, not much more."

What is so funny is the elitist ideas that come into play when you challenge someone's false sense of security. MMA is MUCH more than street fighting, but it does serve as something as close as you can get to a street fight. Which by doing so makes you that much more effective in defending yourself, since you fight skilled attackers constantly in an adrenaline based situation.

Anyway, you can read enough of my posts to get where I am coming from, all my answers are public. I won't write another book like I did yesterday.

Test yourself quickeningwind, if you truly want to know the effectiveness of what you are learning, go at it with someone from another dojo. Friendly sparring, no ego, none of the pride and bravado that ACTUALLY was the old way. Just the mutual benefit of two Martial Artist testing their skill, finding out their weaknesses and strengths and sharing knowledge.

That is the comradarie of Martial Arts. Mind you it is far from the Asian way (which fought constantly to prove who was best, it wasn't always based on style, as it was sometimes based simply on a fighter). But now a days things have evolved. MMA is simply a means of doing those same old challenge matches that were what Martial Arts was built upon.

Funny how a guy like you would consider guys like Huo Yuanjia, Bruce Lee, Mas Oyama, Musashi, and the like as honorable heroes, but think that the MMA is cockiness.

Those guys were main proponents for testing themselves, their arts, and their style and effectiveness.

Every style of Kung Fu derived from combat, and from learning to be more combat effective. ALL styles of Martial Arts derived from that. That was the OLD WAY.

Martial Arts isn't about building confidence, and inner peace, those are by products. That is the western bastardization, the Mcdojo, and white asianophile Kung Fuistas who are either "too deadly to spar or fight, we would simply kill a person" or "It is against the philosophy of our art to fight".

Funny because they very arts they proclaim were rooted and based in fighting, in proving oneself in Lei Tai, Sanda, San Shou, Muay Thai, etc.

Well I wrote a book anyway, read through some of my answers to similar questions and you will get the jist of it.

Beatchanter has read enough of them know where I am coming from.

Just my opinion.

Thanks to MMA, unarmed fighting has evolved more in the last 10 years than the last 1000. We know what works, and it isn't kung fu. The best kickboxing is muay thai, but that is just one aspect of fighting. If you don't know how to wrestle, you don't know how to fight.
Of course, you know that kung fu was brought to China by Buddhist monks from India, who got it from Pankration brought by Alexander's Greek soldiers.

Because MMA martial arts are designed for competitions, which inflict fatiguing hits without causing injury, and are ment to be practiced over the course of one's competitive life, to bring them up to par and getting them in the ring as quickly as possible

Traditional martial arts were designed for actual self-defense, which means hits designed to inflict maximum damage or injury, enough to incapacitate a person to prevent them from harming you. Traditional Martial Arts were designed with the life long practitioner in mind; a martial artist's style was his life, he would have started when he was extremely young and would have practiced it for life.

Certain Martial arts are extremely deadly when used properly, but take decades to perfect. White Crane Kung Fu is a perfect example: a practitioner might take 15 to 20 years before he was considered proficient. So White Crane would be an extremely impractical martial art for the casual American martial artist to learn, but for a Chinese Child that trains over 5 hours a day until he is an adult, it is perfect.

It's all about rules. Once you start adding rules, everything changes. And you need rules in competitions, deathmatch fighting is not exaclty on its way to becoming an olympic sport! In a competition, if you gouge someone's eye or break their leg, you are in trouble. In a real life and death fight, if you gouge someone's eye and break their leg, you win.

Starting to see the difference? In the old wild west days of MMA, the days of Ken Shamrock, when the rules were different, and all sorts of Martial Arts were competing, you had A LOT of injuries, many career ending. The rules were altered to prevent this, and it was around this time when everyone became the fusion of Brazilian Jiujitsu and Kickboxing that you see today.

I think that even some of the best martial artists can't match the athletic ability, and training of division one wrestlers. It is much easier for a national champion wrestler to gain his black belt in any given art, than a black belt to compete at a national champion level.

Hmm, traditional training methods back in the day were brutal with full contact without as much protective equipment. Modern day teaching of traditional arts sometimes focus on kata/forms and practicing techniques. That does not lend itself to the ring/cage. Then again, BJJ is traditional, Judo and Juijitsu is also traditional and is used as is Boxing and wrestling. So I guess we could say that boxing, kick boxing, wrestling, and BJJ, are all tradtional and all representated in MMA.
I really believe it comes down to training realistically or for the sport with full contact and resistant opponent(s) to be ready for a fight or competition. I didn't train soccer for basketball even though the principles are the same (dribble, pass, shoot, block, jam, pacing, etc.). So I think it is just the training. You have to train with the rules (someone will probably be trying to take you to the ground, you cannot go for the eyes, you will have gloves on in some competitions, there are boundaries, you cannot do finger locks, you had better be prepared against arm bars, leg locks, etc. etc.).
I always thought the ancient practicioners (spartans, chinese warriors, samurai) did cross train and did try to learn more than one art, did apply it, and were ready to fight. I think we do not train the same way today as we don't need to. You probably should not run into a sword/spear/polearm/axe fight. There are lawsuits, MMA events are a combat sport to train for, etc. etc.
Just my thoughts. sorry, I think I wandered a bit off topic.

what I think it is is that the way traditional martial arts does take longer to learn and the way it is taught with light contact sparring only and to certain areas limits martial artist in a no holds bared competition. the key to being a successful martial artist is versatility. Stephon Bonner is a black belt in TKD. he first had to break the TKD rules and has become a well rounded striker. All martial arts will be effective in mma once you apply them with other martial arts.

All martial arts is good. The debates about which style is best - or the 'fushion of styles' that becomes MMA is best etc is fuled by the insecurities of the practioner. By proclaiming their style is best, they are trying to indirectly tell you that they are trying to make you associate their kickass with their said style/(s)

I believe that a traditional Martial Artist can beat an MMA practioner. It is not a question of what style is best - its more about the 'best' practioner. If one can strike to the back of the head, spinal column, bite, eye gouge, testicle squeeze etc - all against UFC rules. Do you think grappling will be possible in the first place? Guy tries to take a person down, a nice elbow lands on the back of his head. Don't get me wrong. I do think grappling is highly effective in 1 vs 1 situations. Just questionable in your typical streetfight - where these days trouble doesnt come by himself. Punks brings an army of skanks too.

Its not the style/(s). Its the about the fighter. Than why dont these 'deadly' masters join UFC? for one weight category, second age, third there is some merit that they are deadly. Among other answers. Who is the better tennis player. Roger Federer, or his coach? Who is the better muay thai fighter, the thai coach, or the american who learns muay thai from him?