Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[K-man]

what exactly is your point? I don't get it.

Simply that people who want to fight against all comers in MMA need to train appropriately to take full advantage of the rules. Mixed Martial Arts are just that, a mixture of styles. Those of us who don't have any desire to fight in the ring don't train that way. To me that doesn't make any styles that don't train for competition any more or less effective than those that do, except in a competitive sense. My first response to Hanzou was to give him a couple of guys who had trained Goju and gone on to compete in the UFC. He then pointed out that they had cross trained to compete. That would seem a no brainer to me but seemed to be a great revelation to Hanzou where he questions the need to train in BJJ or submission wrestling if you are going to compete in a competition heavily into submission wrestling. You don't get it? I don't get it either!
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

I guess I just don't see it that way. If someone is a successful competitor, then I see it as that person is successful. The style they've trained is less important and that person's success is no guarantee that the style is the magic ticket. People start to assume that, well So-and-So trained in BJJ, so they MUST be good, just look at all the BJJ in MMA. I don't make that assumption. There's plenty of lousy people in every style, including BJJ. It still comes down to the person, whether he's successful or not. What tools he chooses to use doesn't automatically guarantee anything.

I think some people who are proponents of certain styles have embraced MMA type competition. That's fine if that's what they are interested in. But their example encourages others to follow in their footsteps and pursue the same, or similar styles if they too are interested in MMA competition. So it creates a pattern that people notice: MMA has a lot of influence from things like BJJ, Muay Thai, and boxing. And people mistake this to mean that those are the only methods that work for MMA. I guess in some ways they may be correct because I'm guessing the training methods that many people follow in these systems probably has become highly tailored to be successful specifically in MMA bouts.

there's a whole butt-load of different systems of martial arts out there. I'm gonna suspect that many of them never had anyone "represent" that system in modern MMA of any kind. Their lack of a presence in MMA tells me exactly nothing about whether or not the method itself is effective, or makes good sense as a training methodology or as an approach to combat. It certainly doesn't encourage me to assume it's a poor system. The desire to compete in MMA is something that only a tiny minority of martial artists have. To think that a system must have been represented in MMA competition in order to prove its effectiveness is, in my opinion, pretty short-sighted.

The issue that you have is we do not have a very good system of testing a martial arts any other way. So yes you are on the money with the idea that MMA testing is flawed. But you can't use that to suggest that any martial art that does not test in any way is as good.

People say they train for the street. But they either don't get into street fights or can't prove they get into street fights. Which is fine that is the sensible option. But we are stuck with testing by competition.

We could just go by as many news articles we can find relating to martial artists foiling robberies and defending themselves but tmas dont over represent well there either?

 

[Hanzou]

I'm sure that Goju alone has the tools to compete. The question is more, does it have the tools required to compete successfully in a competition that has rules that favour grappling, without specialist training in ground work?

What rules specifically favor grappling in MMA competition? All of those takedown defenses you showed earlier are perfectly legal in MMA.

I think you are so blinkered in your approach to other martial arts and so fixated on competition where ground fighting is actually encouraged, that you cannot see that most reality based martial arts would go to the ground only as a last resort and if you are on the ground you would be getting back on your feet as soon as possible. In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which virtually nothing has anything to do with submission.

I don't believe that ground fighting is encouraged at all. Ground fighting is a natural development of fighting itself, where both parties will attempt to knock, or take the opponent to the ground in order to gain a dominant position. Royce Gracie dominated with it in the first UFC, so everyone had to learn it in order to be competitive.

BTW, I'm frankly surprised that you don't teach submission holds to your students. If you're already teaching them how to gain a dominant position on the ground, why aren't you teaching them how to finish their opponent while in that position? Getting back to your feet asap is fine and dandy, but why risk prolonging the encounter if you can end it right then and there with a choke or a limb snap?

But that is beside the point. Why can't you accept the fact that most people learning martial arts don't want to compete?

I accept it just fine. I'm merely asking about those who wish to compete; Why do they need to cross train in totally different style? Why isn't Goju-Ryu grappling enough for the situation?

 

[Hanzou]

I guess I just don't see it that way. If someone is a successful competitor, then I see it as that person is successful. The style they've trained is less important and that person's success is no guarantee that the style is the magic ticket. People start to assume that, well So-and-So trained in BJJ, so they MUST be good, just look at all the BJJ in MMA. I don't make that assumption. There's plenty of lousy people in every style, including BJJ. It still comes down to the person, whether he's successful or not. What tools he chooses to use doesn't automatically guarantee anything.

I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot less lousy people in Bjj compared to many other styles.

Mainly because of the training methodology involved.

 

[RTKDCMB]

This is also a great way to stagnate and foster a learning environment that is more concerned with dogma and tradition than practicality and efficacy of skill.

That depends on how its done The RTKD in my area just opened 3 new schools recently so it certainly has not stagnated. Practicality and efficacy is foremost on the minds of all our instructors and is impressed upon every student.

 

[Steve]

Simply that people who want to fight against all comers in MMA need to train appropriately to take full advantage of the rules. Mixed Martial Arts are just that, a mixture of styles. Those of us who don't have any desire to fight in the ring don't train that way. To me that doesn't make any styles that don't train for competition any more or less effective than those that do, except in a competitive sense. My first response to Hanzou was to give him a couple of guys who had trained Goju and gone on to compete in the UFC. He then pointed out that they had cross trained to compete. That would seem a no brainer to me but seemed to be a great revelation to Hanzou where he questions the need to train in BJJ or submission wrestling if you are going to compete in a competition heavily into submission wrestling. You don't get it? I don't get it either!
:asian:

Whether one wants to train for the ring or anything else, if you never transition to application, your training is flawed.

If I understand Hanzou correctly, the question is why some martial artists are so helpless at the stages of combat in which they do train, using technique that should be familiar to them. That's the elephant in the room.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K-man]

What rules specifically favor grappling in MMA competition? All of those takedown defenses you showed earlier are perfectly legal in MMA.

So we are again back to where we started. Are you just trolling? We have discussed the rules and the effective techniques that are banned in MMA competition ad nauseam. I'm not wasting time going through that again.

I don't believe that ground fighting is encouraged at all. Ground fighting is a natural development of fighting itself, where both parties will attempt to knock, or take the opponent to the ground in order to gain a dominant position. Royce Gracie dominated with it in the first UFC, so everyone had to learn it in order to be competitive.

What would you consider the main art in MMA? Who was pretty much the instigator of UFC? Whose style of fighting changed the way all competitors train for MMA. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't boxing. Oh! Hang about. You actually put it in your post. Actually ground fighting is not a natural progression in a real fight. In a real fight you don't want to be on the ground ... But that had been stated over and over as well. Maybe it was something I said in an earlier post ... "if you want to be competitive in MMA you have to develop your ground skills". Great to see that you at least took on board something I wrote.

BTW, I'm frankly surprised that you don't teach submission holds to your students. If you're already teaching them how to gain a dominant position on the ground, why aren't you teaching them how to finish their opponent while in that position? Getting back to your feet asap is fine and dandy, but why risk prolonging the encounter if you can end it right then and there with a choke or a limb snap?

Now where did I say I don't teach submission holds to my students? Either you are deliberately twisting my words or you have difficulty comprehending. Where did I say I was teaching to achieve a dominant position on the ground? And where did I say that I wasn't teaching them finishing techniques on the ground? I didn't elaborate on what I consider ground fighting but it is minimalist. I want my guys to preferably keep their feet. If they are pulled to the ground or fall to the ground I want them to get up as quickly as possible. Whatever damage they can inflict in that time I would expect them to inflict quickly. That is not prolonging the encounter.

This is prolonging the encounter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKN-3pxIeVU

I accept it just fine. I'm merely asking about those who wish to compete; Why do they need to cross train in totally different style? Why isn't Goju-Ryu grappling enough for the situation?

I spent a lot of time looking and could only find two examples. It would seem patently obvious that most Goju practitioners aren't interested in MMA. Perhaps you could go looking seeing it is you that needs to know. One of those guys was Shodan in an Okinawan school, which did surprise me, but the other was just a brown belt and I couldn't find the branch of Goju that he actually trained in. But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?

 

[Steve]

That depends on how its done The RTKD in my area just opened 3 new schools recently so it certainly has not stagnated. Practicality and efficacy is foremost on the minds of all our instructors and is impressed upon every student.

The stagnation I was referring to was regarding quality of training, not fiscal success or marketing. Also, good intentions alone don't make good training. Thinking about efficacy is a great start, but thinking about it doesn't make it practical.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?

rugby players play rugby. MMAists compete in mma. Chefs cook. Musicians play instruments. Teachers teach. Boxers box. Tennis players eventually play tennis. There's a point where the rubber must meet the road.

It is dangerous I think for an mma-ist to think he has skills he does not. MMA does not train for many things critical to self defense. But it does train punching, kicking and grappling very well. A smart MMAist will know what he knows and also be very aware of what he does not, because the training leads to application.

Also, fwiw, the unified rule set favors strikers in many ways. It's a sidebar, so I won't go into detail, but this "mma favors grapplers" is a misconception that seems to be surfacing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

So we are again back to where we started. Are you just trolling? We have discussed the rules and the effective techniques that are banned in MMA competition ad nauseam. I'm not wasting time going through that again.

Could you at least link us back to that post? I don't recall you mentioning those rules.

What would you consider the main art in MMA? Who was pretty much the instigator of UFC? Whose style of fighting changed the way all competitors train for MMA. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't boxing. Oh! Hang about. You actually put it in your post.

???

Actually ground fighting is not a natural progression in a real fight. In a real fight you don't want to be on the ground ... But that had been stated over and over as well. Maybe it was something I said in an earlier post ... "if you want to be competitive in MMA you have to develop your ground skills". Great to see that you at least took on board something I wrote.

Again, in a real fight, you don't want to be on the ground, but that doesn't mean that you won't end up there. Especially if you're up against someone a lot bigger than you, someone who sucker punches you or tackles you from behind, being taken advantage of by a significant other, or some other crap happening that you don't expect. Just because you don't want to go there, doesn't mean that you won't end up there.

Like that US soldier who was almost raped in a middle eastern country by a taxi driver. She had no room to kick, her punches probably couldn't do much damage from a seated position in the back of a taxi, but she was perfectly capable of performing a triangle choke to send her attacker to dreamland.

Now where did I say I don't teach submission holds to my students? Either you are deliberately twisting my words or you have difficulty comprehending. Where did I say I was teaching to achieve a dominant position on the ground? And where did I say that I wasn't teaching them finishing techniques on the ground? I didn't elaborate on what I consider ground fighting but it is minimalist. I want my guys to preferably keep their feet. If they are pulled to the ground or fall to the ground I want them to get up as quickly as possible. Whatever damage they can inflict in that time I would expect them to inflict quickly. That is not prolonging the encounter.

You said the following;

In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which virtually nothing has anything to do with submission.

Feel free to clarify.

This is prolonging the encounter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKN-3pxIeVU

Not surprising considering that they're both athletic, expert-level grapplers who knew how to defend against leg locks, holds, and chokes. The average person would have gotten their ankle snapped off with that initial takedown and leg lock, ending the encounter in a matter of seconds.

I spent a lot of time looking and could only find two examples. It would seem patently obvious that most Goju practitioners aren't interested in MMA. Perhaps you could go looking seeing it is you that needs to know. One of those guys was Shodan in an Okinawan school, which did surprise me, but the other was just a brown belt and I couldn't find the branch of Goju that he actually trained in. But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?

Well since you've now ignored the direct question for a third time, I guess we're done here.

 

[K-man]

Whether one wants to train for the ring or anything else, if you never transition to application, your training is flawed.

If I understand Hanzou correctly, the question is why some martial artists are so helpless at the stages of combat in which they do train, using technique that should be familiar to them. That's the elephant in the room.

So what you are saying is that if you train to fight in the ring but never fight in the ring your training is flawed? I would say that if you train to fight in the ring and you don't fight in the ring your training has possibly been wasted but it is not necessarily flawed. If you are called up for military service, complete the training but are never deployed, how is that training flawed?

Closer to home, if I wish to learn a martial art I would assume that training should include quite rigorous testing, but if I don't take that training into the ring to test it against an unrelated martial art, why is the training flawed? None of my training is for the ring so I am not looking to test it in the ring. In reality, very little of my training is even really preparing for a fight. It is more training so I don't have to fight. So why does that make the training flawed?

So let's search for the elephant. There are people in any system that are below par. They might train for years and never have the ability to defend themselves. I have had students like that. Most kids classes are just that. Again, what makes that training flawed?

Looking at "helpless at the stages of combat they do train", which is not making a lot of sense to me, surpasses all styles. It is not just a problem in TMAs. It obviously can be a problem in MMA also. But watching these clowns doesn't cause me to bag MMA. Obviously their training hasn't prepared them to compete at the level they are aiming for.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz0hijS2Pu4

I would suggest that, in these cases, these guys' training is flawed.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Not everyone who trains in mma competes in mma. But to be qualified to open a gym and teach others mma, that person should certainly have a lot of experience applying the techniques in context. For MMA, that means competition.

I don't know about Hanzou, but you're retreating to the student. That's a red herring. I think, back in the times when styles were being formalized, the old masters were experts, specifically because they had practical experience. Since then, I'd say we have generations of students who have lacked the experience to instruct. And yet, they do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

Not everyone who trains in mma competes in mma. But to be qualified to open a gym and teach others mma, that person should certainly have a lot of experience applying the techniques in context. For MMA, that means competition.

I don't know about Hanzou, but you're retreating to the student. That's a red herring. I think, back in the times when styles were being formalized, the old masters were experts, specifically because they had practical experience. Since then, I'd say we have generations of students who have lacked the experience to instruct. And yet, they do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree totally with your first para. The second is a little more complex. Any style is portrayed through its students. BJJ would never have gotten of the ground if it wasn't for the skill of the Gracies in particular. Once a style gets a popular champion everyone jumps on the bandwagon. If the style has substance, as BJJ has, then it takes off. Krav Maga had a similar burst of popularity recently as did Karate from the occupation of Japan post WWII. Hanzou is bashing every style in sight because they haven't put up their students to compete in MMA when their training is not for MMA. It is a ridiculous arguement.

Now you are claiming that the old masters were experts. I can agree with that but where is the evidence of practical experience? Did Morihei Ueshiba go round picking fights? What about Chojun Miyagi or Gichin Funakoshi? Certainly Imi Lichtenfeld had experience but Krav training is flawed by your definition because it is not tested in competition.

 

[Steve]

I agree totally with your first para. The second is a little more complex. Any style is portrayed through its students. BJJ would never have gotten of the ground if it wasn't for the skill of the Gracies in particular. Once a style gets a popular champion everyone jumps on the bandwagon. If the style has substance, as BJJ has, then it takes off. Krav Maga had a similar burst of popularity recently as did Karate from the occupation of Japan post WWII. Hanzou is bashing every style in sight because they haven't put up their students to compete in MMA when their training is not for MMA. It is a ridiculous arguement.

Now you are claiming that the old masters were experts. I can agree with that but where is the evidence of practical experience? Did Morihei Ueshiba go round picking fights? What about Chojun Miyagi or Gichin Funakoshi? Certainly Imi Lichtenfeld had experience but Krav training is flawed by your definition because it is not tested in competition.

Couple of things. First, I don't think Hanzou is bashing any styles, and if you think he is, I recommend you use the rtm function. I think he's specifically said its not styles but rather training methods he is debating.

Second, I am not claiming anything about the founders of other styles. I think it's much more accurate to say that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Third, the acquisition of expertise is a dilemma. The soldiers coming out of jump school are trained, but when they report to the 101st, they would not be called experts. And further, they would not stay on as an instructor without experience. This is common in martial arts.

Which leads to martial arts "experts" who are unable to execute techniques which they train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

Couple of things. First, I don't think Hanzou is bashing any styles, and if you think he is, I recommend you use the rtm function. I think he's specifically said its not styles but rather training methods he is debating.

Second, I am not claiming anything about the founders of other styles. I think it's much more accurate to say that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Third, the acquisition of expertise is a dilemma. The soldiers coming out of jump school are trained, but when they report to the 101st, they would not be called experts. And further, they would not stay on as an instructor without experience. This is common in martial arts.

Which leads to martial arts "experts" who are unable to execute techniques which they train.

Again, we are mostly in agreement.

There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.

As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?

 

[Hanzou]

Again, we are mostly in agreement.

There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.

As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?

Actually if you read my posts, it completely revolves around training methods, and it only got to that point because no one was willing to give an answer that made sense.

The gist of what I'm getting from traditional stylists is that they're forced to crosstrain into a submission grappling style because submission grappling has an advantage over everything else in a ringed environment. However no one is really willing to explain what that advantage is exactly.

Saying that the canvas is level, or that there's walls in a cage, or that you can't hit someone in the balls really doesn't hold much weight. All of those factors could also exist "in the streets".

 

[Steve]

Again, we are mostly in agreement.

There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.

As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?

I think we are close, too. Except that I also think I'm basically saying the same thing as Hanzou. I don't think he's style bashing, but if you do, again, instead of casually accusing him in the thread, I recommend you use the RTM function. Personally, I think you guys are talking past each other a little.

Regarding jump school, the army has a great article that sums it up perfectly.

http://www.army.mil/article/109646/

Capt. Michael Baliles, B Company commander, said Black Hats are subject matter experts with flawless memorization skills and can answer any question that could be asked about parachuting.

"The Black Hats here are definitely the cream of the crop of the non-commissioned officers we have; parachuting is a zero fail business," Baliles said. "They have the ability to hone in on the minute details that makes performances successful, whether it's parachute landing falls or activating a reserve parachute."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[RTKDCMB]

The stagnation I was referring to was regarding quality of training, not fiscal success or marketing. Also, good intentions alone don't make good training. Thinking about efficacy is a great start, but thinking about it doesn't make it practical.

That is why good intentions are never alone and training to be practical involves having quality training with the high standards we do.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

First off I think if someone is in a TMA and they want to enter the cage then go for it. If you do not want to them that is absolutely fine as well. TMA's have entered the cage and will in the future. Yet, some systems are probably not going to enter the cage based on their skill sets. Particularly if they are a system that is more countering oriented or receiving and then countering an attack. That is fine. A system like that is probably going to be pretty good for self defense because quite often self defense starts with you having to counter some kind of attack. Not squaring up and going on the attack. (like what you would find in the cage)

Hey Steve, do not get me started with all the mma schools out there that have been opened up by individuals with little to no experience. Some of those schools are like the blind leading the blind. I have witnessed this personally in a few different areas as I am sure you have as well.

I have also witnessed BJJ slowly watering down at the school level.. BJJ when I first started had no kid's classes going on. No stripes on the white belt. Plus it was not the cash cow for a martial school that it is now and unfortunately that does change everything. Back in the day it was more common to get your blue belt in two and a half to three or more years rather than a year or so now. Not to mention that the BJJ schools who focus on the self-defense sides of BJJ are few compared to what they were back in the day by all accounts. it appears that only the Gracie family or the son's of Helio continue this. (though I am sure some others do) Pure BJJ while so dominant early on in the UFC has actually taken a step back as you will rarely if ever find a pure BJJ practitioner dominating now. No instead they are BJJ practitioners who do Muay Thai or Boxing, etc. to complement their jiujitsu training. Having said the above I still love BJJ and think it is one of the world's greatest martial systems! We all owe the Gracies a lot!

Muay Thai is a great martial system as well. There are a lot of people though out there in MMA gyms claiming to teach Muay Thai that really are not that qualified in Muay Thai as well. (but they hold the thai pads well) Still Muay Thai is a great striking system and has proven it over and over and over and over again. No wonder it is or should be a staple of any mma competitor. I am envious of all the young martial practitioner's out there who have easy access to Muay Thai now. When I was younger it was only to be found far away. We had full-contact kickboxing which is good but was not at the level of Muay Thai. My first exposure to Muay Thai was at a Chai Sirisute seminar and it was like wow!!! This is great stuff!!! Still to enter the cage with just Muay Thai would be stupid. Mauy Thai has been around a long time and could be called a TMA.

Wrestling, what can be said it finally has got it's due as a dominant system. To many people for to long just thought they would stuff a wrestler trying to take them down. Knee them or strike them on the back of the head, etc. Wrestling and wrestlers are so good at takedowns and what people really miss I the little details they utilize to cover the distance, get their opponent on their heels for a successful takedown. It is a superb system to take people down and keep them there on their back! Heck, I learned some thing new the other day while training with a student who is also a wrestling coach. He showed me the Penn State method utilizing a double leg takedown and I have to say it has made my double leg significantly better!

Now before you put me in the TMA camp I personally believe in training with resistance, submission grappling, full contact sparring with and without weapons, etc. That is what we do in IRT. Even though I would say the emphasis on what I teach is for self-defense and personal protection. So a good portion of training is on the self-defense side and we train with weapons to the nth degree. Still my guy's step into the cage when they want to and they can grapple, kick, strike with their hands, clinch, etc. with their competition just fine. One guy just wanted to step in to see what he could do. With only IRT training he won two fights easily. Then he was done. He just wanted to test himself. His training and emphasis is personal protection so getting back into the cage is not important to him. One of my students goes for his second amature championship belt in September and another who started with me and move on just turned pro. Even though our emphasis is on personal protection the transition to the cage can be made.

We actually have seen other stylists come into the cage as well and do fine. (look at the capoeira videos I just linked and I can find more for other systems) Machida was more Shotokan when he started and actually his Shotokan training is what made him special for a long time. Literally, nobody new how to deal with his Karate. So other stylists will come into the cage and sure if they wanted to stay around they cross trained. Cross training is in my opinion very important. That is what I like about MMA. Athletes who can kick, punch, clinch, throw, grapple. People who highly condition themselves. Personally, that is what I find wrong about many martial practitioners is that they do not maintain their conditioning. Whether you want to step into the cage or you are training for personal protection conditioning is a key. It is one thing we can all do to our highest individual level and increase our chances whether in competition or for personal protection. Train like a pro in my opinion and condition yourself to the best of your ability! I do think that the UFC and MMA in general should be thanked for this as I believe they show on average what highly conditioned athletes can do. Whether you train in MMA or TMA or whatever you want to call it. Condition your body for your chosen aim to the highest level you can!

Personally if you train in MMA or TMA as long as you are a good person, work hard at what you do I am interested in training with you!

 

[jks9199]

Actually if you read my posts, it completely revolves around training methods, and it only got to that point because no one was willing to give an answer that made sense.

The gist of what I'm getting from traditional stylists is that they're forced to crosstrain into a submission grappling style because submission grappling has an advantage over everything else in a ringed environment. However no one is really willing to explain what that advantage is exactly.

Saying that the canvas is level, or that there's walls in a cage, or that you can't hit someone in the balls really doesn't hold much weight. All of those factors could also exist "in the streets".

No.

If you want to do well in MMA, whatever your style, you have to train for it. That will mean practicing rounds, practicing dealing with people who want to wrestle, people who want to kick box, people who can smoothly transition from both. It means learning the rules, and how to use the rules to do well. It means doing the conditioning work for several 3 or 5 minute rounds, and learning to use that time to score points as well as seek a knockout or a submission. So some of the training will look the same -- but that doesn't mean you have to do it in a MMA gym, or by learning BJJ, Muay Thai, or whatever. There are different ways to do that, but you'll have to do some actual application work, do the rounds, etc., and not rely on line drills, Japanese style 2 person kata, or solo kata alone. (FYI... those aren't enough for self defense training, either, generally.)

But that training will not necessarily prepare you for real violence. Nobody gets ambushed in an MMA match. Rory Miller summarized real violence the best I've seen: Violence happens closer, faster, harder, and more surprisingly than people expect. (The exact quote is in my signature.) You don't fight someone two or three times your size, with vastly superior experience. Your adversary doesn't stop when you tap, and there's no ref to step in and rescue either fighter. There is one aspect of real violence that MMA training will prepare you for, though -- and that's actually being hit, and dealing with that. Of course, physical conditioning never hurts.

Then there are different categories of violence... Broadly -- social and asocial. MMA is really social violence, only a little different from a Monkey Dance bar fight. Asocial violence is a predator/prey relationship; it's about acquiring stuff you want/need, or meeting a goal or objective. When I use force at work -- it's asocial. My job is to make the arrest -- using only and all the force reasonably necessary to do that.

So... why don't TMAs do well in MMA? Maybe it's not what they're training for. Maybe you just don't recognize them when they're there. Some arts don't contain much for a ground fight; they might well have to look for something else to complement it if they want to do MA. Just like a guy from a grappling or wrestling background might need to find a source for learning effective striking.