When/how did martial arts become so useless? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

First, for most of history, before guns came to dominate the battlefield, the martial arts of most importance were archery, horsemanship, swordsmanship, the use of other weapons such as spears and other polearms, and wrestling. Wrestling often took place in a sporting context, often with important ritual/ceremonial elements, e.g., the Olympics, Naadam, much traditional tribal wrestling in Africa (which has been transitioning in many places to become a modern big-money spectator sport, often retaining some of the original ritual elements).

The advent of the gun had two major effects on martial arts: first, musketry became an important martial art, and second, it eroded the value of hand-to-hand fighting on the battlefield. This was a slow process, since guns coexisted on the battlefield for a long time with sword and spear. The sword only disappeared from the battlefield with cavalry, and bayonet fighting is still taught in modern armies. Still, with guns available to deal with a well-armoured skilled enemy soldier on the battlefield, hand-to-hand fighting declined in importance. This led to a civilianisation of non-firearm martial arts, both armed and unarmed. Unarmed martial arts were already predominantly civilian activities - wrestling had long been more useful on the sports ground than on the battlefield.

Noting that most civilians rarely fight, those who learned martial arts rarely put them to use, unless they had fight-likely occupations such as policing or bodyguarding (or crime), or participated in combat sports. There were three important trends in civilian martial arts:

Sporting competition emphasised simple and functional techniques.
With the exception of wrestling, safety considerations encouraged low-contact training, in the form of solo and paired forms/kata. This was especially the case for weapons.
Spectacular and elaborate techniques were effective for recruiting students and earning money. Some Chinese martial artists worked as street performers, and spectacular techniques are more likely to free the spectators from their money than simple straightforward techniques. As an example of flashy techniques were used as a recruiting tool, Taekwondo developed many jumping and spinning techniques for use in demonstrations, which helped its marketing and growth in the 1960s and 1970s, even making it popular enough to make it into the Olympics.

The first and third of these are contradictory. Combat sports applications prevented over-elaboration and a focus on performance. Where fighting in a sporting context was absent, martial arts styles were often free from being tested in action, and could develop a wide range of elaborate (even if often ineffective) techniques.

The second of these could drive either simplification or elaboration. For example, the development of Judo from jujitsu and Japanese karate from Okinawan karate both resulting in the development of teaching techniques for mass instruction in physical education in schools, with simplification of techniques, and there was further simplification in the interests of safety. The set of techniques used in kendo is small compared to the range of techniques seen in old schools of Japanese swordsmanship, and this restriction helps safety. This was also seen in European martial, such as boxing, where various techniques such as kicks, knees, and throws were progressively banned, and safety equipment (gloves) introduced.

Thus, forms and kata often became rather elaborate. This was commented on by the late Ming general Qi Jiguang (as a bad thing).

but you never see these forms or techniques being used in MMA or street fight videos, etc.

There is a reason why MMA is called what it is called (i.e., Mixed Martial Arts) - the techniques are martial arts techniques. The individual martial arts that have contributed to modern MMA are the martial arts with active combat sports competition. This background of combat sports is useful because (a) such practical application has filtered out ineffective techniques, (b) teaching techniques have been filtered for effectiveness, (c) where these martial arts are popular, skilled instructors/coaches are available, and (d) these martial arts are often specialised due to restricted competition rules, and specialisation has led to greater development of skills. Thus, boxing, Western wrestling styles, judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, and Kyokushin karate were all influence (and Sanda is becoming more influential).

The techniques found in these martial arts are also found in other martials arts. For example, the technique base of Kyokushin is largely drawn from Shotokan, with some influence from Goju (Shotokan, ITF-style Taekwondo, and Kyokushin are all very similar at the level of technique, and owe their differences to teaching styles, competition rules, etc.). The basic set of punches in boxing - jab, cross, hook, shovel hook, uppercut - all appear in karate. Taiji is rich in takedowns and throws. Boxing is the key source of punching for MMA not because the punches don't appear in other martial arts, but because good boxing coaches are very good at teaching people how to punch. Karate (and derivatives such as taekwondo) teach punching, but often do so in an effective manner. Karate also contains kicks, elbows, knees, and clinching - the kicks are often taught well, but elbows, knees and especially clinching are often poorly taught.

To return to forms and kata: These are teaching tools. They contain lessons in how to interact with an opponent (paired kata) and lessons in technique and movement (both solo and paired kata). One important element of karate kata is power generation, the combination of movement of the bodyweight and twist of the hips with the arm motion of a punch or the leg motion of a kick. The classic karate stepping-forward lunge punch is not very useful in fighting, as done in kata. It is slow (because it's a big step forwards) and overcommitted, and the puncher is over-exposed due to one hand being on the hip. The elements of motion it teaches: hand on hip teaches keep the elbow in during the punch, and the step forward teaches synchronising forward motion and a small drop of the bodyweight, hip twist, and arm motion (i.e., the elements of power-punching, as, e.g., well-written about by Jack Dempsey in his Championship Fighting). One can quite reasonably argue that this isn't an efficient teaching strategy, especially now that we have training equipment like heavy bags available, but the point is that the punch-in-kata is not a punch-in-fighting; it's an exaggerated version for teaching.

When it comes to fighting, these punches should look more-or-less the same as punches in boxing. This is just the "kickboxer principle" - if people fight under kickboxing rules, they will look like kickboxers when they fight. If they haven't been taught well or learned well, they will look like bad kickboxers rather than good kickboxers, but they won't look like they're doin forms/kata.

Some related past discussion: