What Is A TMA?

[Buka]

Would it be fair to say that traditional MA is any martial art that claims to be traditional, and tries to say that they don't fight or compete because of it?



MMA and Wrestling are sports, not martial arts.

I believe MMA and Wrestling are both. As is boxing. And a guy that plays sports, no matter how big or strong, ain't going to kick my *** or anyone else's *** on this forum, but a guy that does MMA or wrestling, just might.

 

[jezr74]

To me it's the philosophy and spirit involved, maintaining the tradition of a martial art through the ages out of respect to the founders and people that take the years to maintain the legacy of the particular art. This does not mean it cannot change or adapt to times, adding new or adjusting old techniques each generation or teacher. Just that the principles are maintained. Roots tend to run deep.

This can include the ritual and traditional aspects as well, bowing, language, ceremony, rank etc.

What I don't think it includes is say makiwara vs. heavy bag, boxing gloves vs bare knuckle, two buckets of water on a pole vs. a barbell or running up 1000 steps vs. a treadmill.

I've mentioned before that I think things can be done in a "classic" way. And that can extend to teaching, but the method really comes down to the individual and their ability to engage students and to me is not a traditional aspect but more teaching\learning strategy.

A modern martial art to me would be something like firearms training and modern weaponry use.

 

[Hanzou]

I believe MMA and Wrestling are both. As is boxing. And a guy that plays sports, no matter how big or strong, ain't going to kick my *** or anyone else's *** on this forum, but a guy that does MMA or wrestling, just might.

Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.

 

[jezr74]

With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc. I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?

You may have to be the thread adjudicator, then decide the standard.

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.

Of course they would. They are professional athletes. The average person doing TMA is not even close to that level of physicality.

That said, I might be able to beat an NFL kicker...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO, "one of the differences" between TMA and MMA is TMA may apply more "principle" in teaching/learning.

For example, the following principles are very helpful when you teach/learn your TMA system.

- If you miss your punch, you should not come back with empty hand.
- Get 2 if you can, otherwise get 1 first and get the other later.
- You should give before you take.
- 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.
- Even if you don't know what you are going to do with your opponent, you keep moving around. When you are moving, soon or later, you will find some opportunity to attack.
- You should always give your opponent plenty of space to fall so your opponent won't fall on top of you.
- When you train, you let your body to lead your limbs. When you fight, you let your limbs to lead your body.
- All throwing/locking skill should be learned in pairs and in opposite direction.
- When you apply upward block and punch, your upward block should be like to raise the curtain, you then walk through under it.
- If you think about power and speed, that's not your true power and speed. When you are not thinking about power and speed, you just do it, that's your true power and speed.
- The end of your 1st move should be the beginning of your 2nd move.
- If you punch, I'll run you down. If you kick, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- ...

I'm sure when the MMA is more developed, we will also see those kind of "principles" used in MMA gym someday.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.

This is very true. One should never underestimate athleticism!

People do not want to hear it but if you are serious about your self-defense skills then you need to train your cardio and attributes. Running, biking, swimming, weight lifting, etc. Train like an athlete and prepare yourself for that one or two times you might need to be at your best in a personal protection situation!

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I missed this one… and I don't want to make K-man a liar, now, do I?

With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc. I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?

I applaud your optimism, Brian… let's see what we can come up with!

As I said in another thread;

The difference is training methods. One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods. TMAs incorporate feudal weapons, ancient forms, and antiquated techniques.

No… as Xue pointed out, this is completely dependant on the system in question… in other words, it's not accurate for the majority, even if it is for a minority… which renders it incorrect overall.

MMA can also mean Modern Martial Art.

Er… no. Not in this sense. Of course, the thread is not about what differentiates a TMA from MMA (note that there is no "a" before MMA… that's a hint as to one aspect), it's what defines a TMA in the first place… what MMA is is kinda beside the point. But still, no.

My definition of TMA may be different from others. A TMA should include:

- partner training to "develop" skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
- equipment training to "enhance" skill.
- solo training to "polish" skill.

Also when you teach a technique, you should also teach

- How to counter it.
- How to counter those counters.

You should have 3 levels of training:

1. beginner level - offense,
2. intermediate level - defense,
3. advance level - combo (use one move to set up another move).

IMO, the TMA "equipment training" can be very unique such as:

Well, the videos have been removed… but realistically, no. None of this "should" be included in a TMA by definition, none of it is exclusive to TMA's (the idea of teaching counters is kinda essential to ground work in MMA, for example), and the structure you suggest is entirely dependant on the system… for example, it suits none of mine. And they're about as "traditional" as you can get.

God help us all when Chris finds this thread.

Found it!

So is it:

TMA = Traditional Martial Arts
MMA = Modern or mixed Martial Arts

?

Is that about right?

Nope.

TMA does mean "traditional martial arts", yeah… and MMA refers to "mixed martial arts"… but the "modern" idea isn't actually the heart, defining, or realistically even accurate part of it.

If you self identify as training in a TMA, it is any MA you think is good and the opposite of any MA you think is bad.

if you self identify as training in a non-TMA of any kind, it is any style you think is crap.

honestly, guys. i think it's that subjective. there is no rhyme or reason to it.

Hmm… I get the tongue-in-cheek tone, Steve, but… no, it's not that subjective. It's a categorisation… not an opinion. Of course, the issue is that the categorisation is so broad that it confounds precision in definition…

This thread makes me thinking, there's actually no distictive method to diferrentiate both.
Is it competition, equipment, training method, forms, the day it founded, philosophy or weapon?

Er… none of the above?

If you kill someone with a punch like this, will the court judge care whether you train TMA or MMA?

Er… what? How is that even a part of the discussion? And "if you kill someone with a punch like this"… huh? Who, outside of comic books, is "killing with a punch like this"?!?!

You do get what reality is, don't you?

How come I've never seen the term classical used to describe older training methods?

Come talk Koryu… "Classical" is exactly how we describe it.

For me, traditional had meant more about the rituals and culture of the school along side classic or modern taught methods. If that makes sense.

Ah, now we're getting there… yep, that's heading in the right direction. Of course, there are plenty of rituals and culture alongside MMA as well…

The labels aren't very useful. What is now considered "traditional" at one time was considered a new art at one point.

"Traditional" doesn't mean "old"… age isn't the defining factor… you can actually have a "new" art that's "traditional", and an older one that's not…

But, for the sake of the discussion. We will consider "Mixed Martial Arts" the new sport that evolved out of the UFC in the US that used to be called "NHB" (no holds barred). After it evolved from more style vs. style of arts into mixing various elements.

In MMA, techniques are chosen based on their success in the ring/octagon. Look at the earlier days between Pride and UFC. You saw different techniques being used because of the environment and ruleset. As more and more events are sanctioned and the rules get closer and closer between organizations you will see more of the same because of this.

As to "why" the TMA's don't do well in the ring, there are too many factors to say one reason.

1) Different goals: the emphasis in traditional karate is civilian self-defense. This puts it's effective range in much closer that the sporting match distance. Most people from a TMA background don't always understand this and try to "spar" with their tools at a range they weren't meant for.

2) Different training goals: The assumption that ALL people who take martial arts only want to fight is inaccurate. Some people take MA's for a social outlet, the same way people do bowling. Others use it as a vehicle of self-expression like dance.

3) Different training methodologies: In okinawan karate, the ultimate goal of self-defense is to preserve your health into old age. There are many karate masters in their 70's and up that move great and have great health. MMA is a young man's sport. It has a very short life span for it's athletes to compete in. It will be interesting to see how these athletes transition their sport into a long term lifestyle like the TMA's. Hurting yourself is not the goal in a TMA, but talk with any athlete that does MMA and almost all of them talk about their training injuries. I have a friend who is a legit BB in BJJ, he is always talking about how his joints are all messed up from the training. Why? How does that help you into old age? You don't need an opponent, you beat yourself up. LOL

I am not against MMA, I enjoy watching it and have trained with various people who compete in it. It's just not for me. But, I think there is also a lot to be learned from MMA and incorporate into TMA's. Ways to find out how to incorporate more resistance training with your partner.

Okay… but isn't that all in the other thread? This one's just about what a TMA is in the first place, yeah?

View attachment 18903

Here is a diagram that I use with my karate students that I think applies to this discussion. As far as I understand the martial arts world, I think it can logically be broken down into three categories.

1. Martial Art - Techniques and methods that are taught for artistic reasons or historical preservation. This includes techniques that aren't very practical, but look awesome. It also includes old weapon systems that don't have too much bearing on the modern world.
2. Self Defense - Techniques and methods that are directly applicable to self defense.
3. Sport - Techniques and methods that are directly applicable to combat sports.

As people can see, there are a lot of crossover techniques and I think this is where a lot of people argue regarding the MMA and TMA debate. Another thing that become apparent after looking at this diagram is that it becomes very difficult to classify entire martial arts. Most martial arts have techniques that cross over into at least two categories. All of the martial arts I've trained in, including western wrestling, have techniques in all three.

As a general rule, "MMA" tends to be more sport oriented, while "TMA" can be all over the diagram. It's really difficult to classify TMA because the category is over broad and include anything from wrestling to tai chi. It can also be very difficult to classify "MMA" when you consider Jeet Kune Do, which mixes and matches weapon training systems, sporting methods, and SD training.

In the end, I think the MMA/TMA dichotomy is a false one. Those two labels aren't helpful in understanding the nature of martial arts techniques.

Hmm… honestly, Maka, there's quite a lot I'd disagree with here… firstly that martial arts are able to broken down into those categories… it goes a lot further than that… and it's really not about "techniques" at all...

What I do agree with is the idea that TMA's are highly varied, to the point of not being easily defined as a single entity.

I gave a kind of smart alec response earlier.

Ha, yeah… noted.

If I had to genuinely define TMA, it would be about the priorities of the style.

I think that's getting at it...

If the most important instructional priority at your school is that you do things as much like your instructor as possible, you are likely training in a TMA.

And that, I feel, is inaccurate.

In all systems, it works on a progression… "traditional", "modern", "classical", "sporting"… when you start, every system will want you to do things as much like your instructor as possible… after all, you're learning to develop the same skills and knowledge as them… and, if you don't need to focus on doing things as closely to their methodology as possible, what are you doing in their school? Obviously you already know how to do it your way… Of course, as you develop, you start to do things your own way… even the most "regulated" of systems have each senior instructor doing things in their own way… and the senior students are encouraged along the same lines… my performance of a particular kata is mine… not my instructors… however I encourage my students to follow my lead as accurately as possible… while giving the seniors approaches to help them define and establish their own approach… which will be influenced by me, sure… but won't be "me". Sporting systems just focus on it earlier, and with a different emphasis, really… but the fact that they do isn't really unique in any way.

Would it be fair to say that traditional MA is any martial art that claims to be traditional, and tries to say that they don't fight or compete because of it?

No.

MMA and Wrestling are sports, not martial arts.

No.

To me it's the philosophy and spirit involved, maintaining the tradition of a martial art through the ages out of respect to the founders and people that take the years to maintain the legacy of the particular art. This does not mean it cannot change or adapt to times, adding new or adjusting old techniques each generation or teacher. Just that the principles are maintained. Roots tend to run deep.

Again, I think this is getting towards it…

This can include the ritual and traditional aspects as well, bowing, language, ceremony, rank etc.

And here's where I disagree… none of that is unique to "traditional" systems at all… just the way it's presented, really…

What I don't think it includes is say makiwara vs. heavy bag, boxing gloves vs bare knuckle, two buckets of water on a pole vs. a barbell or running up 1000 steps vs. a treadmill.

So the use of traditional training apparatus versus modern items isn't part of recognising or defining traditional arts? I think I get what you're saying (that traditional systems can use modern equipment without being non-traditional, and vice versa, so that's not a defining characteristic), but I think that's going to depend on context, really… in other words, it can be… if it wants to be…

I've mentioned before that I think things can be done in a "classic" way. And that can extend to teaching, but the method really comes down to the individual and their ability to engage students and to me is not a traditional aspect but more teaching\learning strategy.

And you've lost me here… can you rephrase or elaborate on what exactly you're meaning here?

A modern martial art to me would be something like firearms training and modern weaponry use.

Firearms training? Okay:

And, of course, what about modern unarmed systems? Are they not modern because they don't train any weapons at all, firearms included?

IMO, "one of the differences" between TMA and MMA is TMA may apply more "principle" in teaching/learning.

For example, the following principles are very helpful when you teach/learn your TMA system.

- If you miss your punch, you should not come back with empty hand.
- Get 2 if you can, otherwise get 1 first and get the other later.
- You should give before you take.
- 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.
- Even if you don't know what you are going to do with your opponent, you keep moving around. When you are moving, soon or later, you will find some opportunity to attack.
- You should always give your opponent plenty of space to fall so your opponent won't fall on top of you.
- When you train, you let your body to lead your limbs. When you fight, you let your limbs to lead your body.
- All throwing/locking skill should be learned in pairs and in opposite direction.
- When you apply upward block and punch, your upward block should be like to raise the curtain, you then walk through under it.
- If you think about power and speed, that's not your true power and speed. When you are not thinking about power and speed, you just do it, that's your true power and speed.
- The end of your 1st move should be the beginning of your 2nd move.
- If you punch, I'll run you down. If you kick, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- ...

I'm sure when the MMA is more developed, we will also see those kind of "principles" used in MMA gym someday.

No. Just… no.

Okay, so I guess I should say what I feel makes something a "traditional martial art"… and it's been touched on a bit here and there…

In short, it's the order of priorities, and the emphasis on particular values. A traditional system will tend towards a priority structure of emphasising their value system first, personal benefits second, and personal achievement third. A sporting system will emphasise personal achievement first, personal benefits second, and the value system third. Now, it really can't be stressed enough that having this order to the priorities means that the third is not valued, or prioritised at all… far from it… just that, in a hierarchy, it's in that position.

It's easy to look at case studies of these… to use the oft-maligned MMA, the priority is in personal success in competition… that's the emphasis of training for contests, really… the next value is placed on personal benefits (confidence, fitness, strength, body-toning, camaraderie-building, and so on)… the last being the values of the system (or, in this case, gym). From there, we can look to Aikido… or TKD… or anything else of the same ilk… The priority is on instilling the values of the system (or founder)… many TKD schools emphasise the "tenets" of TKD… which don't really have anything to do with the physical skill set, when looked at objectively… next, they look at the personal benefits the student can gain… not too dissimilar to the ones listed earlier… and finally the value of personal achievement (gaining a particular rank, possibly success in competition, and so on).

Of course, then we get systems that have aspects of both… such as BJJ… which is both a sporting system and a traditional one, with different schools having different emphasis'… and we have "classical" systems (such as Koryu) where the priorities are more along the lines of: learn the system, be of benefit to the system, pass on the system… somewhat different, really.

When I mention an emphasis on particular values, what I'm meaning is that a sporting system will have it's own value set (based around success in competition), and a traditional system will have a different value set entirely (such as learning leadership qualities… or being of benefit to society… or anything else, really).

To me, that's the only real difference. Of course, it can be noted that having "traditional values and/or priorities" doesn't mean that a system is old… just that they fit a particular framework… it also doesn't mean that it's only applicable to armed, or unarmed systems… or that it precludes competitive application… which is part of what makes this such a difficult thing to nail down… it can all cross boundaries just too easily.

 

[Hanzou]

No.

Yes.

Both Mixed Martial Arts and modern Wrestling were created for sport purposes.

 

[Steve]

I don't think everyone who self identifies as training in a TMA would agree with you, Chris.

 

[punisher73]

"Traditional" doesn't mean "old"… age isn't the defining factor… you can actually have a "new" art that's "traditional", and an older one that's not…



Okay… but isn't that all in the other thread? This one's just about what a TMA is in the first place, yeah?

Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through. That is why I said the label isn't very useful.

Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.

 

[K-man]

Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through. That is why I said the label isn't very useful.

Interesting thought. Can an art that developed at a particular point in time and continues to evolve be termed traditional? In a modern sense that could describe JKD, BJJ or Krav. All contain elements from earlier styles of fighting.

Then you have styles that take a a traditional style, take out some of the original teaching and change the emphasis to allow for competition. Here I could list Shotokan Karate and Goju Kai karate. Neither are the same as the original systems. So they are not traditional in one sense but in another sense they are the same as they were 70 odd years ago when they made that change. That puts them in the same age bracket as Krav and BJJ and a little older than TKD. Kyokoshin karate is much the same as when it started, had traditional roots yet is reasonably modern. A lot of people would consider Shotokan, Goju Kai, JKD and TKD as traditional yet look at BJJ and Krav as modern.

People might consider Aikido traditional but Ueshiba developed that from Daito Ryu relatively recently as well. Same could be said of Judo. Yet many people think of both of these as traditional.

I don't believe there is one answer until some body sets up a set of parameters to define it. That is what the Okinawans did to define 'Traditional Okinawan Karate'.

Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.

You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.

Wise words!

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes.

Both Mixed Martial Arts and modern Wrestling were created for sport purposes.

Are you suggesting that a combative sport can't be a martial art? Way to not see past your own limited understanding there...

I don't think everyone who self identifies as training in a TMA would agree with you, Chris.

That's the thing, Steve… and this is what I was addressing when you first started this idea… it really, really, really doesn't matter one iota what someone "self identifies" as… I couldn't care less… I'm concerned with what is… is someone actually training in traditional martial arts, or do they just "self identify" with the idea that they do? If the former, all cool… if the latter, then it's completely besides the point.

I'll put it this way… I could self-identify as the king of Persia… it doesn't make it true. To keep it back to martial arts, there are a number of Bujinkan practitioners who self identify as Koryu practitioners… they're not, and no amount of self identification changes that… here's a thread showing someone else who self identified as a Koryu practitioner… but had exactly zero clue or exposure to Koryu whatsoever… http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/110-koryu-corner/95693-koryu-bujutsu.html… there are people out there who self identify as "preserving the traditions of the samurai"… but without exception, they have no actual connection to the traditions, the samurai, or anything else.

I have a friend on Facebook who is a teacher of such a system… it's headed by his father, who inherited it from his teacher in the UK… but it's got absolutely no connection to anything that they think it does. The demonstrations show absolutely no understanding of Japanese martial arts, structure, or anything else… but talking to this teacher, he started listing systems that he feels his methods are based in (for the record, no, nothing of the kind). Now, this guy is a lovely man, dedicated to his students and his fathers system… but honestly, it's nothing like what he thinks it is…

It really doesn't matter one jot what someone "self identifies" as. It matters what they actually do.

Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through. That is why I said the label isn't very useful.

Thing is, it can be… or, rather, that can be a part of it… but it's not the defining aspect.

Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.

Ha, yeah… it's an interesting one (ha!)… if you have a strong constitution, here it is: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...o-tmas-have-more-difficulty-ring-octagon.html

Interesting thought. Can an art that developed at a particular point in time and continues to evolve be termed traditional?

Sure, yep.

In a modern sense that could describe JKD, BJJ or Krav. All contain elements from earlier styles of fighting.

Hmm… not sure I'd agree with the assessment of JKD or Krav… or what the idea of "contain(ing) elements from earlier styles of fighting" is actually about…

Then you have styles that take a a traditional style, take out some of the original teaching and change the emphasis to allow for competition. Here I could list Shotokan Karate and Goju Kai karate. Neither are the same as the original systems. So they are not traditional in one sense but in another sense they are the same as they were 70 odd years ago when they made that change. That puts them in the same age bracket as Krav and BJJ and a little older than TKD. Kyokoshin karate is much the same as when it started, had traditional roots yet is reasonably modern. A lot of people would consider Shotokan, Goju Kai, JKD and TKD as traditional yet look at BJJ and Krav as modern.

People might consider Aikido traditional but Ueshiba developed that from Daito Ryu relatively recently as well. Same could be said of Judo. Yet many people think of both of these as traditional.

I see nothing in any of that that would stop any of those systems from being traditional, honestly.

I don't believe there is one answer until some body sets up a set of parameters to define it. That is what the Okinawans did to define 'Traditional Okinawan Karate'.

How did they define it?

You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.

Ha, yeah… sorry…

 

[Steve]

Here's the thing, Chris. No matter how boldly you declare an opinion, you cannot make it fact. An opinion it remains.

You seem not to understand that your opinions are just that, and resort to condescension when anyone shares a dissenting opinion. It makes slogging through your posts difficult, which seems, IMO, to be on purpose. You like to camouflage your opinions as facts, but opinions they remain.

The fact is that everyone who self identifies as training in a tma had a valid opinion on the matter. So, whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or bit, their opinions are as legitimate as your own.

Being an arrogant prig doesn't make you any more or less correct than other peoples considered opinions in the matter.

For what it's worth, all of the above is my opinion only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

Hmm… not sure I'd agree with the assessment of JKD or Krav… or what the idea of "contain(ing) elements from earlier styles of fighting" is actually about…

I personally don't believe you can put TMAs in one box. All I was saying was that whatever criteria you chose to define TMA there will be something that few people would call TMA that would fit the same criteria.

I see nothing in any of that that would stop any of those systems from being traditional, honestly.

That's what I am saying. It all depends.

How did they define it?

In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
:asian:

 

[jezr74]

In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.:asian:

So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.

Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?

 

[Steve]

In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
:asian:

In a basic leadership course, I train new supervisors in critical thinking and decision making. Essentially, we talk about giving some thought to the various factors that influence a decision: risk to the company, policies, safety, legality or precedent. There are dozens of factors that could influence a decision, but if you give some thought in advance to what factors are important to you, it can help you make a sound, wise decision in a moment of crisis. The point isn't that one thing is more or less important than another. The point really is that we all have priorities, but that we seldom think about them with intention. So, in a moment of crisis, we often struggle to reconcile conflicting priorities.

In the same way, we all have priorities and needs from our MA training. We all have a list of things we gain from training: health/fitness, self defense skills, confidence, 6 pack abs (well, some people do, I hear), tradition, esprit de corps. Who knows what else? We all have a list, and our lists are likely different. Which brings me back to what I said earlier. My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."

 

[K-man]

So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.

Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?

Not at all. The training now is essentially the same as it was at the beginning. Now in Okinawa weapon training is separate, kobudo. Karate is basically unarmed combat so unless a race of people have suddenly grown an extra arm they are the same now as they were then. Grappling is basically standing so if for example you suddenly put down mats and brought in a BJJ instructor it would no longer be traditional. If you suddenly started training fighters for MMA competition it would no longer be traditional. You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around. As to ceremonial ... nothing I have seen. Nothing added, nothing changed, same as, same as.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around.

And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.