I am a bit conflicted after watching one the videos in question. For me I am not so much a traditionalist and agree with a good bulk of what this video says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgNygnOkxeQ
However, to me the dialogue seems to conflict regularly with what the message is. "true traditionalism" is a argument I have heard many times before. "The art is too deadly for MMA" well yes, but if your skill is so high, then you should be able to get in the ring and at least defend yourself against an aggressive opponent without losing the match or at the very least not get completely thumped. Hiding behind the idea that "I have nothing to prove, therefore I a don't need to step up and show you, but I still am going to talk down about a sport where many, many well conditioned athletes spend much of their lives developing their fighting skills" is just BS to me.
I do agree with some of his concepts of training. The idea that a complete core system to develop the body with proper technique and training, is feel spot on. Some of the videos in the youtube account has info that I actually really agree with. He seems to applying modern sports science using some traditional methods that I find very cool.
What do you think of your teacher? Does he have skill, do you respect what he stands for? Sorry to highjack the thread.