To be honest, I haven't heard of what you're mentioning here.
The Bubishi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubishi
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Karate-Patrick-McCarthy/dp/0804820155
The diagrams show the methods of attack and defense. The point here is that people attack using hands and feet, the same as they always have. If Americans tend to throw the haymaker overhand right more than other punches, that's OK, people threw that punch then too, and it was accounted for. There are dozens if not hundreds of defenses to that one punch alone.
I quickly went thru some of the other posts on this thread, later on yesterday, however, it seems there are some things that were mentioned that I neglected to mention myself, such as the way techs were applied back then, compared to today, the legal issues, and things of that nature.
The way techs were applied have not changed. I keep hearing the statement that they HAVE changed, but no statement showing in what way that is true. You can't make it true by saying over and over again.
Legal issues - again, I spoke to that. For one thing, it again doesn't say anything about the original point - that attacks have changed. For another, self-defense means what it means. One defends oneself until the threat is gone. It is up to the individual to know and obey the self-defense laws of their location, but it has nothing to do with TMA.
Things of that nature?
Let's go back to the O/P's statements/questions...
"Times change. People change. Do/should Martial Arts change?"
OK, so times change. Yes, they do. People change? No, they do not - or at least they have not in any way that anyone in this thread has demonstrated. They just keep saying that people DO change (or rather, that methods of attack change) without backing it up with any facts at all. My argument is simple - people (and their attacks) have NOT changed. This means that the last part of the statement/question is moot. The martial arts do not need to change if the first part of the statement is incorrect.
The second part of the statement/question was equally invalid:
"As Martial Artists should we be focused/concerned with preservation or progression of the combative arts?"
As a martial artist, *I* am focused on learning the style I am training in. I cannot speak for others, but I am not interested in "preserving or progressing the combative arts."
So the statement is just stuffed with poor logic, which renders it meaningless.
It would be equivalent poor logic to say something like "As human beings, should we be focused on learning to speak Chinese or Japanese?" Well, as a 'human being', I am focused on neither, so the question makes no sense. It proposes only two alternatives, both of which are not valid answers for me.
If someone wants to start a thread and argue that most traditional martial arts dojos in the US are not teaching traditional martial arts skills, I'll go along with that and even agree with it, based on my observations. If they want to argue that people fight differently nowadays than they did in ancient times, and that therefore martial arts training must change to accommodate that, I'm going to ask (again) for proof of that statement, rather than simply repeating it over and over again. I don't think that the way people hit each other has changed at all, and that therefor what worked in the past, works now. It's not broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed.