If that's the extent of it, I'd consider it only marginally traditional. I think the gi has a practical use - it's something durable that can be used as part of the equipment (scarf holds, etc.), so the bow is the only part that's traditional, in my view. As you can see, it's a continuum for me, not a binary result.
The bow is, however, a cultural hold-over in arts that practice outside Japan. BJJ (as a separate system) has origins in South America, so the bow is a holdover from its Japanese roots. The same holds true for NGA, since we no longer have an active dojo in Japan. In both cases, we maintain a Japanese-style bow as a matter of tradition.
I understand the origins of both bowing and the Gi. I've heard explanations very much like yours above many times. And still... Why do people in an American BJJ school bow? Tradition. Because it's part of the gig. I don't have a lot of occasion to bow otherwise.
Agreed. That's why I said it's marginally traditional. A school that does the same art but has abandoned the bow and practices no-gi would be less traditional by that same margin. NGA is more traditional (most schools maintain a shrine, use a formal bow, bow when entering, and use last names: "Mr. Seymour", and uses some more traditional training methods), and just does meet my notion of "traditional".
Why do you care? And yes, MMA.
Why so belligerent?
