Okay, I'll grant that if you cover the full range vs covering part of that range, it might take longer. But let's compare the number of kicks and strikes taught in most striking arts. Then look at how many are commonly used in MMA. You could develop competency in the common MMA strikes in a much shorter time than in the range taught in most striking arts. That was my point. I actually like that TMA often has extra techniques and stuff to fiddle with. I love fiddling. Once you've got a decent base of skills, fiddling is really where most of us like to spend our time, in my experience. We want to tweak and get things feeling more simple and less effortful. We practice things that solve problems we could solve with the techniques already in that base, but this new technique is, well, new. And it's challenging, so it gives us something to tinker with.
I'm sure some of the same happens with folks who train MMA long enough. I certainly see some of it in BJJ folks, many of whom are every bit as cerebral after a point as any TMA-er I know.
But let's go back to the typical TMA approach - and I know that's averaging some things that aren't very similar, so accept it for the thought experiment it is, please. There's a fair amount of long, slow drilling of stances and postures that we tend to think of as "foundation" but which boxing and MMA approach differently. Yep, they still have stances, but they tend to focus on them less, use ones that are closer to "normal" movement, and only really point them out when there's a real issue. It doesn't matter whether your foot is pointing exactly 45 degrees, as long as your balance and mobility are appropriate.
And remember, I actually really tend to prefer parts of the TMA approach. I like how it works. I also know there are parts of it that aren't about learning faster, nor even really about a better foundation (that might have been the objective, but I've seen no clear evidence it actually produces different results).
