And comparing Lyoto Machida’s Shotokan to your average Mini Hanshi Karate Mart is like saying that playing WW2 video games is equal to actually contributing to the Allies’ victory.

Yours sincerely,
Marko

Look up some fights at Lumpini or Rajadamnern on Youtube from 25-30 years ago and compare with what’s done around the world in the ring today. You’ll notice the differences.

As for MMA, there’s just too much to mention: different rules, different fighting stance, different goals for the techniques, different strategy and tactics, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT saying one is better than the other. Nor am I saying that the evolution is bad or good; it just is. What I am saying is that it’s different and that these differences matter:
You hit a ball over the net in tennis, you hit a ball over the net in table tennis. Are they the same sport? Do you train the same way? Do you use the same techniques. Nope, not by a long shot. And it’s the differences that determine all this, not the similarities between both.
IMO and IME, the same is true in martial arts.

I rest my case.

Wim

The trad/modern debate is endless and unsolvable, if an ‘art’ is to remain wholly traditional then it cannot progress at all. That’s ridiculous, Martial Arts have to progress to survive.

MMA can certainly take stuff from trad arts, for sure, but it will not be a true representation of that art, in a wholly traditional sense. There has to be some modification, in the same way that arts modified when they left the battlefield.

I’m well aware of both the history, evolution and etymology of the Thai styles, that’s not really the point we were talking about IMHO. You said:
<<
As for traditional martial arts, I think it’s more of a misconception. Wouldn’t you consider Muay Thai a traditional martial art? And it’s been a cornerstone of MMA for some time now.
<<

I'll posit again that the sport of muay Thai has less and less in common with traditional Thai fighting styles. Nothing wrong with that and it's a perfectly natural evolution. But they're still different. The same goes for muay Thai in MMA.
I firmly believe that the differences between both are just as important as the similarities. If you disagree with that, I think we're at an impasse.

Best,

Wim

To discuss Muay Thai’s development more specifically, there is a large misconception that Muay Thai just jumped from Muay Boran overnight and that the two are completely difference styles. The Southeast Asian style of combat we refer to as kickboxing has existed for at least a thousand years if not longer, continuing to develop like all sports do. Muay Boran is a blanket term for the old ways of fighting where hands and feet were bound with hemp rope, and the fights took place in open areas instead of rings. Muay Boran’s translation is simply “ancient boxing.”

If you really want to get technical, anything that’s deviated from its original purpose is no longer a traditional martial art (in Muay Thai’s case, battlefield unarmed combat). However, Muay Thai also has a long history of being a ring sport and past-time from even before the reforms that added the ring and gloves. Where can we draw the line between what is traditional and modern?

As for use in MMA, both of Anderson Silva’s dominating wins over Rich Franklin demonstrated a very traditional use of the clinch and knees. Jose Aldo’s use of the flying knee is also another traditional Muay Thai technique, and Georges St. Pierre makes extensive use of the cobra punch (also known as the Superman Punch), which is another traditional Muay Thai technique.