# Thriving schools



## puunui (Aug 5, 2012)

Steve said:


> Gracie schools are thriving and their bullying program for kids is popular.



MMA and/or BJJ is in a different category. That is the booming martial  arts at the moment. Kind of reminds me of where taekwondo used to be in  the 70s. By the way, bullying programs in taekwondo are also doing well.  I don't know how much approval those programs would receive from a  diehard self defense is everything type though. In fact, I think I  remember reading a thread or two about that, how ATA's bullying program  was weak, for example. But taekwondo and bjj are in the lead at the  moment for martial arts,while everything else suffers. The two styles don't really encroach on each other's territories, because I think people that are attracted to one aren't necessarily attracted to the other. Probably the most hurt from the BJJ craze, a craze that has been going on for 20 years, I would think would be self defense oriented schools.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 5, 2012)

puunui said:


> Probably the most hurt from the BJJ craze, a craze that has been going on for 20 years, I would think would be self defense oriented schools.



The traditional karate schools I know of are affected.  These are the ones with strict requirements and a high density of information to absorb that in the past attracted the athletic younger guys.  I have no numbers to back it up, but I do get the sense that these type of guys are more attracted now by BJJ and other related type clubs where the macho appeal is evident from the onset and they can congregate with like-minded people easily.  (BJJ people, don't see this as a put down - I have trained some BJJ out of curiosity and I think it is a great MA.)


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2012)

I didn't say any school would be hurt.  You said essentially that a program was doomed to fail.  Something like, "yeah.  We will see how many students you get.". I pointed out that Gracie schools are doing well with Anti-bully program.  What my post you quoted has to do with this thread is beyond me.

And, just FWIW, MMA and BJJ aren't the same.  You know this as well as I do, based on our previous conversations.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Aug 5, 2012)

I think the first thing people need to get past if running their own school is that class sizes, how much money you make etc do not equate to a successful school necessarilly. Some of the best , most reputable schools I know have a small number of students and run out of someone's garage. If I were to run two schools, one soley to make as much money as possible and the other to offer the best possible martial arts instruction, I would run them very differently. Thats certainly not to say a good school cant be a big profitable school (there are many of them around), but I certainly dont judge the quality of a school by how many students they have or how expensive a car the owner drives. Steve made a good point in the other thread, just because something didnt work for you doesnt mean it doesnt work. The school I train at does all the things that you aparantly cant do if you want to be a large successful school and yet we just had a record year for new sign ups and business is booming despite an economic crisis.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 5, 2012)

But to get at the main idea of the original post, I don't know that the style is the primary reason what a school is successful.  For years, one of the biggest ma schools in my area was actually a kung fu school, but they used a lot of the ideas that business-oriented schools get railed on to day for:  catering to children and busy parents, after school pickups, fun environment, contracts, etc.  You could take the same concept to just about any art and do very well financially if you're willing to adapt what you teach to fit the model.  Ninja training, anyone?


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2012)

I think commercial success is one perfectly legit measure of success.  There are many others.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Aug 5, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think commercial success is one perfectly legit measure of success.  There are many others.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


Measuring success is always a difficult one. I know of a guy who runs an extremely successful business in the building industry.  He is under thirty, very wealthy and has all the fancy houses and cars to prove it. BUT, he is the first to admit he is very dodgey, cuts corners everywhere and basically rips people off. Is he successful? If you measure his commetcial success the answer is yes.


----------



## puunui (Aug 6, 2012)

Steve said:


> I didn't say any school would be hurt.  You said essentially that a program was doomed to fail.



That's your interpretation, but that isn't what I said.


----------



## puunui (Aug 6, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think commercial success is one perfectly legit measure of success.  There are many others.



The point I was making was that people want different things today than before. It is a different generation of students, who really are not all that interested in self defense first and foremost.That is not why they sign up for taekwondo lessons in any event, which is the topic area of discussion.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 6, 2012)

puunui said:


> The point I was making was that people want different things today than before. It is a different generation of students, who really are not all that interested in self defense first and foremost.That is not why they sign up for taekwondo lessons in any event, which is the topic area of discussion.



You are absolutely entitled to your perspective, and I for one thank you for expressing it.  *With respect*, may I ask you about the school you own/operate?  I'm assuming it is KKW TKD?  Do you also teach HKD (I know that you have legitimate rank in HKD as well)?  Is it completely separate from the TKD classes?  Are there children in both or is your HKD geared more towards adults?  You mentioned KKW TKD having bully-prevention classes, what type of bully-prevention program do you have for the kids?  Do you offer any type of abduction prevention for them?

Don't take any of this as trying to lead or bait you.  Don't take it as trying to corner you.  I know that you have high rank in both arts and have offered a great deal of information on successful schools.  So now I'm genuinely intrigued as to your own school and the program(s) that you run.  If you have a website for your school, could you link it or shoot it to me in a PM?  Thank you.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 6, 2012)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think the first thing people need to get past if running their own school is that class sizes, how much money you make etc do not equate to a successful school necessarilly. Some of the best , most reputable schools I know have a small number of students and run out of someone's garage.


I would agree with this.  Sharkey's Karate is known for producing national and world champions.  People come in from all over the US, Canada and even Europe to train with them.  However, if you were to walk into the school it would most likely not fit your image of what a school of such caliber would look like.  It is not tiny but it certainly isn't a huge school either.  It is a simple strip mall looking school.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 6, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> But to get at the main idea of the original post, I don't know that the style is the primary reason what a school is successful. For years, one of the biggest ma schools in my area was actually a kung fu school, but they used a lot of the ideas that business-oriented schools get railed on to day for: catering to children and busy parents, after school pickups, fun environment, contracts, etc. You could take the same concept to just about any art and do very well financially if you're willing to adapt what you teach to fit the model. Ninja training, anyone?


I think that is where some of the instructors make a mistake.  They try to adapt their art to the new financial system instead of the other way around.  Many of the business models offered by MAIA and others of the like are great ideas.  You just need to learn how to work them into your currently structure.  You can still have a non-watered down art and still make money doing (wow imagine that!).   Also, not all models will work for all instructors, yet so many get excited, or perhaps intimidated that if they don't implement this next idea the school down the street will and take all their students.  You simply need to be clever enough to implement these business models correctly and carefully.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 6, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> I would agree with this.  Sharkey's Karate is known for producing national and world champions.  People come in from all over the US, Canada and even Europe to train with them.  However, if you were to walk into the school it would most likely not fit your image of what a school of such caliber would look like.  It is not tiny but it certainly isn't a huge school either.  It is a simple strip mall looking school.



I think 'strip-mall' schools get a bad rap.  The size of a school, or the location is no indicator of the quality of the school.  Indeed, a person can teach at the YMCA, their garage or back yard, the park, the beach, a run-down neighborhood or a church and have an excellent school.  

Number of students is not an indicator or school quality either.  Indeed, one could have a single student and be an excellent school.  

The quality of the student(s) is the prime indicator of quality in an instructor.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2012)

After reading through the responses in this thread, it seems to me that everyone here is defining "success" differently.  The point I was trying to make earlier is that 'success' is very subjective, and the only definition that really matters is that of the school owner.  He or she will define 'success' and then measure the school's performance based on that subjective definition.

What do you want out of your school?  More students?  Family friendly curriculum?  Full kids classes?  Lots of money?  A giant 4000 sqft, state of the art facility?  Fame and international recognition?  The adulation of the masses? 

No two people will define the term the same way.

That said, back to the original post, a school can teach an effective, anti-bully self defense class oriented to children AND have plenty of children enrolled.  As I said in another thread, and as miguksaram also said in this thread, different instructors can do different things.  If you, punuui, haven't met with success in a particular program, but believe you're very successful with others, great.  That's awesome.  But your failures aren't universal.  There are different instructors who have different skills, and different personalities.  

There are also different markets.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 6, 2012)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I think the first thing people need to get past if running their own school is that class sizes, how much money you make etc do not equate to a successful school necessarilly. Some of the best , most reputable schools I know have a small number of students and run out of someone's garage. If I were to run two schools, one soley to make as much money as possible and the other to offer the best possible martial arts instruction, I would run them very differently. Thats certainly not to say a good school cant be a big profitable school (there are many of them around), but I certainly dont judge the quality of a school by how many students they have or how expensive a car the owner drives.


I find that financial success of the school is tied to how business savvy the school owner far more than what the art or the quality of the instruction is.  Notice what Puunui said about the flood of Korean instructors coming over and opening schools; they're all college grads who have been specifically trained and groomed to open and operate large commercial schools.  Wouldn't matter if they were doing hapkido, yudo, tangsudo, or taebo; they have been set up to succeed before they ever broke ground.  That doesn't make their art better.  It simply means that they, collectively, are better prepared to run financially successful commercial schools than school owners in other arts collectively are.



ralphmcpherson said:


> Steve made a good point in the other thread, just because something didnt work for you doesnt mean it doesnt work. The school I train at does all the things that you aparantly cant do if you want to be a large successful school and yet we just had a record year for new sign ups and business is booming despite an economic crisis.


Ferrari has record years too.  They make great cars.  And they will never, building the type of cars that they do, ever be as large as Honda, GM, Ford, Nissan or Toyota, or even Subaru.  Are they successful?  Yes.    Are they a major player in the automotive business?  Not in the grand scheme of it.  Outside of F-1 prestige (something Honda, Renault, and Nissan among others also have) and success with a tiny market segment, nobody considers owning them.  Same goes for Lamborghini, Pagani, and other small volume exotic manufacturers.  Manufacturers who make cars that cost as much as a house tend not to have a very big market share.

Ferrari is a major player in a niche market and in F-1, but not in the general industry.  They enjoy that success precisely because their business model mitigates against being as large as a GM, a Honda, or a Toyota.

It really comes down to knowing your market and remaining relevant to that market.  In terms of the big picture, the business model of your school will not have the same broad appeal as that of KKW/WTF taekwondo.  But that isn't an indictment against what your school does; it simply means that you cater to a smaller, more specific demographic and do so very well.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 6, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think 'strip-mall' schools get a bad rap.  The size of a school, or the location is no indicator of the quality of the school.  Indeed, a person can teach at the YMCA, their garage or back yard, the park, the beach, a run-down neighborhood or a church and have an excellent school.
> 
> Number of students is not an indicator or school quality either.  Indeed, one could have a single student and be an excellent school.
> 
> The quality of the student(s) is the prime indicator of quality in an instructor.


Great post!


----------



## puunui (Aug 6, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think 'strip-mall' schools get a bad rap.  The size of a school, or the location is no indicator of the quality of the school.  Indeed, a person can teach at the YMCA, their garage or back yard, the park, the beach, a run-down neighborhood or a church and have an excellent school.
> 
> Number of students is not an indicator or school quality either.  Indeed, one could have a single student and be an excellent school.
> 
> The quality of the student(s) is the prime indicator of quality in an instructor.



No argument about that. In fact, I have been in learning situations where I was that one student. But that is not the issue. The issue is what do people want today from their martial arts training, and self defense no longer the prime consideration or objective, if it ever was for the majority of students. Whether or not a school is a high quality excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today. 

There was a school here that proclaimed "the training doesn't stop until there is blood on the floor". the term "self defense" was part of the school's name. And it was a high quality excellent school, at least back then. But is that what students or their parents want today? I think not.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 6, 2012)

puunui said:


> The issue is what do people want today from their martial arts training, and self defense no longer the prime consideration or objective, if it ever was for the majority of students.



Surely you're not claiming to speak for everyone in every venue sir.  In some venues, sport is just the ticket.  In some, exercise and social interaction is just the ticket.  And yes, in other venues the students want only SD.  That is best left to the individual student and we should not claim to speak for them.  



> Whether or not a school is a high quality excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today.



You've completely lost me here.  Could you please clarify?  



> here was a school here that proclaimed "the training doesn't stop until  there is blood on the floor". the term "self defense" was part of the  school's name. And it was a high quality excellent school, at least back  then. But is that what students or their parents want today? I think  not.



But one school cannot speak for an entire industry or art.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2012)

puunui said:


> No argument about that. In fact, I have been in learning situations where I was that one student. But that is not the issue. The issue is what do people want today from their martial arts training, and self defense no longer the prime consideration or objective, if it ever was for the majority of students. Whether or not a school is a high quality excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today.
> 
> There was a school here that proclaimed "the training doesn't stop until there is blood on the floor". the term "self defense" was part of the school's name. And it was a high quality excellent school, at least back then. But is that what students or their parents want today? I think not.


First, I agree with you that many people aren't really interested in self defense.  I don't have strong evidence of this, but I'd _guess_ that this is true for most people.  Within BJJ, I'd say very few people are really interested in learning "self defense."  Some common motivations I've encountered are, at the most hardcore, to learn skills necessary in order to compete professionally in MMA.  Beyond that are to be competitive within BJJ, to get in shape, to supplement/crosstrain from other styles of MA, and to just have fun.  

Parents enroll their children for a lot of reasons, too.  Now, with parents, self defense for the kids seems much more common, but many of the other reasons remain common.  

But, it's important to note, once again, that different people are looking for different things, and it's interesting that you don't think of adults as students.  When you talk about what "students" want, you're talking about child-age students.  Right?  Students and their parents.   Further, the impression I get based upon several things you've said (but I may be mistaken) is that you consider children to be integral to a successful school.  This isn't true for everyone, although it's certainly not a bad way to look at things.


----------



## puunui (Aug 6, 2012)

Steve said:


> But, it's important to note, once again, that different people are looking for different things, and it's interesting that you don't think of adults as students.  When you talk about what "students" want, you're talking about child-age students.  Right?  Students and their parents.   Further, the impression I get based upon several things you've said (but I may be mistaken) is that you consider children to be integral to a successful school.  This isn't true for everyone, although it's certainly not a bad way to look at things.



Thanks for asking, rather than just assuming. For taekwondo schools, the student demographics have changed remarkably. Back in the day, the schools I have been with were filled mainly with males starting near teen to early twenties, very few females, and some older and some younger students. But the majority was teenage males. Today, that group has all but disappeared from the taekwondo dojang. You get a student who wanders in in this age group, but not so much. The adults who do come to join are generally parents who signed up their children, and then later decided to join themselves. So today, the taekwondo dojang is mostly filled with children and their parents and they generally are not there to learn primarily self defense. Yes, people are looking for different things, but the topic is about what people want out of their training, and to me, self defense is a low priority. Is there really any debate about that point? Is there anyone out there who believes the majority of potential students are adults who enter a taekwondo school because they want hard core self defense skills over everything else? 

As for children being essential, I didn't used to think that, but I am beginning to. It is especially essential if you wish to make a living at teaching or in the alternative rent commercial space. I am sure there are all adult commercial dojang out there, but they are generally the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 6, 2012)

puunui said:


> As for children being essential, I didn't used to think that, but I am beginning to. It is especially essential if you wish to make a living at teaching or in the alternative rent commercial space. I am sure there are all adult commercial dojang out there, but they are generally the exception rather than the rule.


I believe MAIA did some sort of study or survey a few years back and came to the conclusion, if you are looking to make a decent living out of teaching martial arts, you need to have your student base to be about 80% kids in order to survive. Again....let me repeat one thing 





			
				What I just said said:
			
		

> ...if you are looking to make a decent living out of teaching martial arts...


. This is not to say if you have a martial art school open and you only teach adults you are in the wrong. I am saying that if you plan on making a decent living, you know, pay bills, have a car, feed your family, have insurance, go on an occasional trip....you need to have a student base that is predominantly kids. There are exceptions to the norm.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 6, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> This is not to say if you have a martial art school open and you only teach adults you are in the wrong. I am saying that if you plan on making a decent living, you know, pay bills, have a car, feed your family, have insurance, go on an occasional trip....you need to have a student base that is predominantly kids. There are exceptions to the norm.


Yes, I would say that a strong kids curriculum is an asset for all the reasons you give above. Kids are a challenge to teach but very rewarding to be a part of their life experience.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Yes, I would say that a strong kids curriculum is an asset for all the reasons you give above. Kids are a challenge to teach but very rewarding to be a part of their life experience.


I have my own "school" out of Life Time Fitness.  At this time, I teach only kids (3 1/2-5, 6-7, 8-12).  When I am Sharkey's Karate helping out the age range is about the same but I also work 13-Older kids as well.  I enjoy teaching adults to a degree, mostly because I get to play with more higher level techniques in the self-defense, but overall working with the kids is the most rewarding.

I measure success on several different levels....as a teacher I measure success based on how students are comprehending the lessons.  As a class manager I measure success on how the students are starting to take on leadership roles.  As a school manager I measure success on how well the assistant instructors are conveying the lessons to the students and how they are interacting with the parents.  As a business I measure success based on my enrollment numbers.  So as it has been stated success means different things to different people.  There are times I am successful in all aspects in what I am doing, and there are times that I am only successful in some aspects in what I am doing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Surely you're not claiming to speak for everyone in every venue sir.  In some venues, sport is just the ticket.  In some, exercise and social interaction is just the ticket.  And yes, in other venues the students want only SD.  That is best left to the individual student and we should not claim to speak for them.


He is speaking of the general trend.  And he is correct in his assessment.  While there are exceptions and some very good and very successful schools that cater to those exceptions, students actively seeking out self defense are the minority.



Kong Soo Do said:


> You've completely lost me here.  Could you please clarify?


Ever notice how few hatchbacks are on the road?  Many cars that started out strictly as hatchbacks are either out of production or are either only or primarily sold as four door sedans.  What few hatchbacks are left on the market are attached to minivans, SUVs and station wagons.  The only hatchbacks that continue strictly as hatchbacks that I know of are the VW Golf/Rabbit and ... well.. .I cannot think of any others.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the cars in question.  The highest quality hatchback will be outsold ten to one by a sedan of lower quality.  People don't buy coupes anymore either.  Sure, there are exceptions; middle aged men who still want pony cars and the odd luxo-coupe or hatchback.  But coupes are a dying breed.  Notice that virtually all Nascar bodies are based on sedans now, whereas before, they were based on midsized coupes?  There's a reason for that: those cars are no longer produced. 

In short, when Puunui says, "_Whether or not a school is a high quality excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today_," he means that it is not the quality of the school that determines what art type of art customers are seeking out.  Due to the variety of schools and arts available, people actually can pick and choose based on more than just the quality of the school.  And since there are high quality schools that are not hardcore (or even medium core) SD schools, quality is no longer the deciding factor.



Kong Soo Do said:


> But one school cannot speak for an entire industry or art.


One school cannot, but Puunui is very connected to the industry.  So too is Mastercole, Miguksaram, and others.  I keep up with the trends and the trade, even though my primary teaching duties are in a different art.

While he uses individual schools as an example, he is spot on regarding overall customer trends.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

Once again, this is an example of seeing what you expect to see.  If you've decided that hatchbacks aren't around, you won't notice them.  

I can actually think of several off the top of my head.  

Toyota Yaris, Kia Rio, Fiat 500, Mazda 2, VW Golf, VW Beetle (the new one, in particular), Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, MINI Cooper, Ford Focus hatchback, Ford Fiesta, Chevy Spark, Chevy Cruze hatchback, Chevy Sonic.  

That's just hatchbacks.  Coupes (which are different from hatchbacks) are also still very common and all over the place.  MINI just released a new coupe version of their cute little sports cars.  Just about every car sold has a 2 door version and a 4 door version.  

There are a lot of interesting points being made, but you seem to be cherry picking evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring anything that weakens the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> There are a lot of interesting points being made, but you seem to be cherry picking evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring anything that weakens the point you're trying to make.


My point was that the quality of the product does not determine what product people actually want.  

I have a high end Betamax.  Surely, buyers will want one more so than a cheaply made Blue Ray.  No?  Well they must have wanted one way more than those lesser VHS machines back in the heyday of tapes.  Oh... that's right... they didn't.  Beta had a higher quality of picture and sound, but somehow, that didn't really help it keep VHS at bay.  

That example work better for you?

*Edit:* Keep in mind, I'm only using analogies to help something Puunui said make sense to another poster who said that he didn't get it.  It isn't meant to be a scholarly or industry insider on the state of hatchbacks in the US market.  It isn't a question of providing "evidence."


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> My point was that the quality of the product does not determine what product people actually want.
> 
> I have a high end Betamax.  Surely, buyers will want one more so than a cheaply made Blue Ray.  No?  Well they must have wanted one way more than those lesser VHS machines back in the heyday of tapes.  Oh... that's right... they didn't.  Beta had a higher quality of picture and sound, but somehow, that didn't really help it keep VHS at bay.
> 
> ...


Well, here's another one...  beta lost the race, certainly, but it's not at all because consumers made a choice.  There were two main influences that drove the market to choose VHS over Beta.  First, and probably the most influential was the porn industry.  Second was that the VHS format had longer recording times and other features that were considered more end-user friendly.  

So, I do agree with you that the quality of the product doesn't determine what product will sell.  But at the same time, what people actually want doesn't determine what product will sell.  

Most people didn't care whether beta or vhs became the standard, just as most people didn't care whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray became the standard.  Most people just waited until one became the standard and they went with it because either was better than VHS (or beta).  

Bringing this to the discussion at hand, again, I agree with you that "quality" (which is in itself another subjective term) doesn't determine commercial success.  But don't mistake what people want with what people will buy, particularly if there's only one choice.  If WTF TKD were the only game in town, the choice for the consumer isn't what flavor of MA to buy.  It's much simpler: buy the product available or don't.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> Well, here's another one...  beta lost the race, certainly, but it's not at all because consumers made a choice.  There were two main influences that drove the market to choose VHS over Beta.  First, and probably the most influential was the porn industry.  Second was that the VHS format* had longer recording times and other features that were considered more end-user friendly.*


Which were ultimately what people actually _wanted_; Beta initially could only record for like a half hour to an hour.  People _wanted_ longer recording times so that they could record more than just one half hour to an hour show while they were away from their televisions.



Steve said:


> So, I do agree with you that the quality of the product doesn't determine what product will sell.  But at the same time, what people actually want doesn't determine what product will sell.


Not by itself, but it is a factor.  And it certainly has a more profound influence than the quality of one type of product over that of another.  



Steve said:


> Most people didn't care whether beta or vhs became the standard, just as most people didn't care whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray became the standard.  Most people just waited until one became the standard and they went with it because either was better than VHS (or beta).


And the purchase rate of one over the other while both were still available certainly made a difference in which one became the standard and which one became a footnote.



Steve said:


> Bringing this to the discussion at hand, again, I agree with you that "quality" (which is in itself another subjective term) doesn't determine commercial success.


Then what are you fussing about?



Steve said:


> But don't mistake what people want with what people will buy,


I don't.



Steve said:


> particularly if there's only one choice.


Different issue.



Steve said:


> If WTF TKD were the only game in town, the choice for the consumer isn't what flavor of MA to buy.  It's much simpler: buy the product available or don't.


See above.  

So in two posts, you basically end up saying that  you agree with this:


puunui said:


> Whether or not a school is a high quality  excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want  today.


...and that you understood perfectly what I was trying to communicate in the first place all along, but chose instead to go after me and accuse me of "cherry picking evidence."  

If you agree, conditionally or no, but thought it was a bad analogy, why didn't you just say so and offer a better one?  Certainly would have been more constructive.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

Because ultimately, I think you stretch your point too far.  I'm sorry, Daniel.  Was I being rude or disrespectful?  

You've said several times that people buy what they want.  That's a gross oversimplification, and I did my best in the short minutes I have to respond to explain why.  You provided an analogy that was demonstrably untrue.  I understand what you are getting at, and while I agree to a point, I think you take the point too far so that it becomes misleading.

Going back, I don't know how I can disagree with you in a more constructive manner.  I tried to be as clear as I could about what i disagree with and what I don't, but suggesting that I provide a better analogy to support a conclusion with which I disagree is a little silly.  Isn't it?

Edit:  Ultimately, the point I'm making is that, whether or not a school is a high quality, excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today.  _*AND *_what people want today is often irrelevant towards what people BUY.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 7, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> *Edit:* Keep in mind, I'm only using analogies to help something Puunui said make sense to another poster who said that he didn't get it.  It isn't meant to be a scholarly or industry insider on the state of hatchbacks in the US market.  It isn't a question of providing "evidence."



I appreciate the effort Daniel, but, I would prefer the person I've asked to answer the question. He may have the same answer as you've provided, but I/we won't know if others answer for him/her.  

With respect, I have to agree with Steve in that some things are cherry-picked to support one's viewpoint(s).  In some ways, what is being proposed is nothing more than circular reasoning.  The majority of TKD schools focus on sport to one degree or another as opposed to SD.  And this is because, as many have pointed out, TKD caters to children if one wants to earn a living at it.  And since you/me/us aren't going to teach adult SD to children that leaves more of a sport element.  So...most TKD schools cater to kids....therefore most TKD schools teach sportish material....thus more children and adults take sport TKD because that is what is offered the majority of the time.  In other words you/we can't say most people WANT sport because they sign up at a sport school when by-and-large it may be the only thing available.  They _may_ want sport, or it may be that there is no other choice available.  I'll simply mention again that I don't teach sport and I can't keep up with the number of people that want to train with me.  

I don't suggest that adult SD martial arts could compete with children's sport martial arts on a financial level.  But then for me it is a moot point as I don't charge anything except their sweat equity.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> Because ultimately, I think you stretch your point too far.


I might have agreed with you had you put it this way, but you didn't.  You went after me, accused me of something I didn't do, and then proceeded to basically say that you agree with me but with qualification, which is why I answer your next question as I did.



Steve said:


> I'm sorry, Daniel.  Was I being rude or disrespectful?


Yes.  See below.



Steve said:


> You've said several times that *people buy what they want*.



Not sure how many times I've said it, but of the available options, yes, I believe that they do.



Steve said:


> That's a gross oversimplification, and I did my best in the short minutes I have to respond to explain why.  You provided an analogy that was demonstrably untrue.  *I understand what you are getting at, and while I agree to a point*, I think you take the point too far so that it becomes misleading.


So why didn't you just say that instead of accusing me of "_cherry picking evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring anything that weakens the point you're trying to make_."  I'd call that rude and disrespectful.  You obviously understood my point and just said that you agree with it to a point.



Steve said:


> Going back, I don't know how I can disagree with you in a more constructive manner.  I tried to be as clear as I could about what i disagree with and what I don't, but suggesting that I provide a better analogy to support a conclusion with which I disagree is a little silly.  Isn't it?


By not accusing me of "_cherry picking evidence that supports your conclusion and ignoring anything that weakens the point you're trying to make_."  Cherry picking evidence is not the same as providing an imperfect analogy.  I disagree with your assessment.  I will, however, do you the courtesy of not accusing you of trolling, inciting arguments, stroking your ego, or anything else that goes beyond what you have said.

In essence, you were focused on disagreeing with me.  Another poster indicated that they didn't get Puunui's statement.  I make no claims to being an analogy master; if you thought that you could clarify it better, then you certainly could have made the attempt.  That would have been constructive. 



Steve said:


> Edit:  Ultimately, the point I'm making is that, whether or not a school is a high quality, excellent school really is irrelevant towards what people want today.


Now we're back to agreement, at least to a point.   



Steve said:


> _*AND *_what people want today is often irrelevant towards what people BUY.


I agree to a point, but I think you are too dismissive of people's wants in the equation.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I might have agreed with you had you put it this way, but you didn't.  You went after me, accused me of something I didn't do, and then proceeded to basically say that you agree with me but with qualification, which is why I answer your next question as I did.
> 
> 
> Yes.  See below.
> ...


I think you're being very defensive.  I disagreed with you in your initial post.  I now ALSO disagree that disagreeing with someone is synonymous with "going after" them.  Truthfully, from where I sit, it's you who are going after me.  

I was "focused" on disagreeing with you because I did/do disagree with you, and it had nothing to do with your skill in picking an analogy.  It had to do with what your choice of analogy illustrated about your point... the point that I continue to not agree with.  

Ultimately, though, I'm just glad that we (I think) understand each other now.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The majority of TKD schools focus on sport to one degree or another as opposed to SD. And this is because, as many have pointed out, TKD caters to children if one wants to earn a living at it. And since you/me/us aren't going to teach adult SD to children that leaves more of a sport element. So...most TKD schools cater to kids....therefore most TKD schools teach sportish material....thus more children and adults take sport TKD because that is what is offered the majority of the time. In other words you/we can't say most people WANT sport because they sign up at a sport school when by-and-large it may be the only thing available. They _may_ want sport, or it may be that there is no other choice available. I'll simply mention again that I don't teach sport and I can't keep up with the number of people that want to train with me.



I feel you are making a big jump here. TKD does not cater to children, it caters to everyone, the vast majority happen to be children and again, this will still depend on the individual instructor and how he regulates his/her curriculum. Just because a school teaches more kids, does not automatically mean they teach more sporty martial arts. I know of a Hapkido school that has more kids than adults. They do not teach any sport, but they also do not certain moves to the kids as they feel it may be merited as too dangerous for their age group. I also have a friend who has a small group of students, mostly kids, who he teaches arnis. Again, no sports at all. The kids at my school as well as Sharkey's Karate enjoy the fact that we have a pretty balanced curriculum. Those who want to focus on the sport aspect of what we teach have the opportunity through different additional classes we have available. I would say, however, that for every kid I have that competes I have about 5 who do not, but still enjoy practicing just the same.

So perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but to make a jump that says if you teach more kids than adults you are teaching mostly sport, is a bit of a leap.

I do not teach adult SD to kids, but I do teach SD that would be more practical for them. We also do sparring as well as forms. As they get in higher ranks we introduce boonhae or bunkai as well. We also teach weapon work and falling techniques. My point I am getting at is that there is a lot of items to teach that are not "sporty" or sport oriented.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> I feel you are making a big jump here.  TKD does not cater to children, it caters to everyone, the vast majority happen to be children and again, this will still depend on the individual instructor and how he regulates his/her curriculum.


I'd be very interested to hear KSD's and Punuui's reaction to this statement.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'd be very interested to hear KSD's and Punuui's reaction to this statement.


I go get my battle helmet and get ready for the bombs to fly.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think you're being very defensive.  I disagreed with you in your initial post.  I now ALSO disagree that disagreeing with someone is synonymous with "going after" them.


Don't twist my words.  I made it very clear what I was referring to and it *wasn't* that you disagreed.  



Steve said:


> Truthfully, from where I sit, it's you who are going after me.


I'm not going after you.  I didn't appreciate your accusation.



Steve said:


> I was "focused" on disagreeing with you because I did/do disagree with you, and it had nothing to do with your skill in picking an analogy.  It had to do with what your choice of analogy illustrated about your point... the point that I continue to not agree with.


Again, I had no problem with your disagreement over the choice of analogy.  I had a problem with the accusation you leveled.  



Steve said:


> Ultimately, though, I'm just glad that we (I think) understand each other now.


It doesn't matter at this point.  What has been said has been said and cannot be unsaid.  I have nothing more to add.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

What would I have to type in order to get you to let this go?   You are using inflammatory language, and seem intent on picking a fight.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> What would I have to type in order to get you to let this go?   You are using inflammatory language, and seem intent on picking a fight.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


No, I'm not.  I said that I have nothing more to add.  I mean that.  Good day sir.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 7, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> I feel you are making a big jump here. TKD does not cater to children, it caters to everyone, the vast majority happen to be children and again, this will still depend on the individual instructor and how he regulates his/her curriculum.



With respect Jeremy, your statement is contradicting itself.  Don't take that as a shot at you.  This is also circular reasoning.



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> The  adults who do come to join are generally parents who signed up their  children, and then later decided to join themselves. So today, the  taekwondo dojang is mostly filled with children and their parents and  they generally are not there to learn primarily self defense.
> 
> Today, the market for taekwondo is focused mainly on children and/or families who can train together.



TKD does cater to children as the bread and butter of the Dojang.  If you disagree you'll have to take it up with puunui.  And this solidifies my point(s) about it being circular reasoning.  

TKD caters to children as a commercial venture - you don't teach adult SD to children - parents may join the Dojang since they're there already - Dojang teaches sport across the board.

So if the lion's share of the TKD market is geared towards children (and it is), and sport is what you teach children in a TKD school, and many adults that join are doing it out of convienance rather than go to two separate schools then you can't turn around as claim they 'want' sport as it is by-and-large what is offered and available.  

This doesn't make sport bad or less than anything else.  But the only stretch being offered is that 'people don't want SD' when the majority of what is available is sport and they don't have a choice.  Dancing with the stars or sport TKD if nothing else is available.  


			
				miguksaram said:
			
		

> I know of a Hapkido school that has more kids than adults. They do not  teach any sport, but they also do not certain moves to the kids as they  feel it may be merited as too dangerous for their age group. I also have  a friend who has a small group of students, mostly kids, who he teaches  arnis. Again, no sports at all. The kids at my school as well as  Sharkey's Karate enjoy the fact that we have a pretty balanced  curriculum.



Proof that people may indeed opt for a non-sport art if the choice is available.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This doesn't make sport bad or less than anything else.  But the only stretch being offered is that 'people don't want SD' when the majority of what is available is sport and they don't have a choice.  Dancing with the stars or sport TKD if nothing else is available.
> 
> 
> Proof that people may indeed opt for a non-sport art if the choice is available.


If enrollment is the measure of success we're using, more people participate in the "martial sport" category than any other.  TKD, Judo, BJJ, Western Boxing....


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect Jeremy, your statement is contradicting itself. Don't take that as a shot at you. This is also circular reasoning.  TKD does cater to children as the bread and butter of the Dojang. If you disagree you'll have to take it up with puunui. And this solidifies my point(s) about it being circular reasoning.


Not really...I can sell a generic product that is meant for everyone.  However, there may be a specific demographic that is more attracted to my product henceforth they are the majority consumer.  This does not mean that I change my core product to fit the needs for just that consumer.  However, I could highlight the benefits of my product in order to attract that majority demographics to my store.  I don't change the product, just the way it is advertised.  

I guess my issue is the use of the word 'cater'.  I would say that TKD schools are kid friendly, but to say it caters to kids sounds like someone is saying that everything taught in TKD school has no real relavance to adults.  I do believe that TKD school owners are trying to highlight specific areas of TKD that would entice a younger group, but again, to say it caters just seems limited.  Also to say that if you are catering to kids you are catering only the sport TKD, seems to be limited in my view.  



> TKD caters to children as a commercial venture - you don't teach adult SD to children - parents may join the Dojang since they're there already - Dojang teaches sport across the board.
> 
> So if the lion's share of the TKD market is geared towards children (and it is), and sport is what you teach children in a TKD school, and many adults that join are doing it out of convienance rather than go to two separate schools then you can't turn around as claim they 'want' sport as it is by-and-large what is offered and available.


I guess my question here is are you assuming that if you have a children's class in TKD that the only thing being taught is sport or that the vast majority of what is being taught is sport?


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> If enrollment is the measure of success we're using, more people participate in the "martial sport" category than any other. TKD, Judo, BJJ, Western Boxing....


My problem with this statement is that you lump TKD in as martial sport.  While it does have a sport aspect to it, that is a piece of the whole.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> TKD caters to children as a commercial venture - you don't teach adult SD to children - parents may join the Dojang since they're there already - Dojang teaches sport across the board.
> 
> So if the lion's share of the TKD market is geared towards children (and it is), and sport is what you teach children in a TKD school,


Sport along with some level of life skills and maybe anti-bullying in schools that have that kind of program.  Frequently, child appropriate SD strategies (stranger=danger, yelling loudly if a strange person tries to grab you, etc.) are taught as well.



Kong Soo Do said:


> and many adults that join are doing it out of convienance rather than go to two separate schools then you can't turn around as claim they 'want' sport as it is by-and-large what is offered and available.
> 
> This doesn't make sport bad or less than anything else.  But the only stretch being offered is that 'people don't want SD' when the majority of what is available is sport and they don't have a choice.  Dancing with the stars or sport TKD if nothing else is available.


Saying people don't want SD is like saying that nobody listens to Elvis.  Certainly, people listen to Elvis, and impersonators make a good deal of money at it, and record companies still do very well when they put out compilations.  But it is not being consumed the way that modern pop is.

There was a time, however, when the positions were reversed and it was only the traditional, SD focused school that one would find.  Then both were available.  Then the pendulum swung in the other direction.  It wasn't lack of availability that caused that swing.  There were a number of contributing factors, and appealing to kids under twelve certainly was a biggie.  

Will the pendulum swing back?  Seems unlikely, but who knows?  The right intersection of events and factors could certainly precipitate it.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Proof that people may indeed opt for a non-sport art if the choice is available.


There is always a market for a non-sport school.  It is always a smaller market, but it is always present.  One of the biggest appeals of such a school is that it provides a training environment for adults who don't have kids and simply want to train with other adults.  And a savvy school owner can certainly tap this market.


----------



## puunui (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The majority of TKD schools focus on sport to one degree or another as opposed to SD.



Wrong. The majority of taekwondo dojang, cater to families and focus on development of the individual, and not sport or self defense. At least that is what the thriving schools are doing. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I'll simply mention again that I don't teach sport and I can't keep up with the number of people that want to train with me.



Interesting how you consistently talk about how you have a waiting list and can't keep up with the people that wish to train with you for free, while at the same time ignoring questions about how many students you have. The above statement adds nothing to the discussion because for all we know, your capacity is one student and there may be two potential students on your waiting list.


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> My problem with this statement is that you lump TKD in as martial sport.  While it does have a sport aspect to it, that is a piece of the whole.


That's fair, but isn't the same true of Judo, BJJ, and even Western Boxing?


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> That's fair, but isn't the same true of Judo, BJJ, and even Western Boxing?


Could be, but I am neither a judoka, BJJ player or boxer to know what an overall curriculum encompasses and how lessons are taught and in what manner.


----------



## puunui (Aug 7, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sport along with some level of life skills and maybe anti-bullying in schools that have that kind of program.  Frequently, child appropriate SD strategies (stranger=danger, yelling loudly if a strange person tries to grab you, etc.) are taught as well.




But then the naysayers will state that such types of training are not "effective", how could it be, they do "sport".


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 7, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> I guess my issue is the use of the word 'cater'.



I don't see why this would be an issue.  Several people have stated that it is the kids that keep the doors open.  That isn't a dig or slam, just stating the reality of the situation.  Do these schools not host b-day parties and other kid-friendly activities beside the martial program?  Of course they do, and no one is saying this is a bad thing.  The word 'cater' should not be taken in a negative context.  I'm happy that they have kid-friendly activities.

But my point of circular reasoning stands.  



			
				Daniel Sullivan said:
			
		

> Saying people don't want SD is like saying that nobody listens to Elvis.



Puunui has made this statement several times in relation to TKD.  But again, I point out that it is circular reasoning.  



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> The majority of taekwondo dojang, cater to families and focus on  development of the individual, and not sport or self defense. At least  that is what the thriving schools are doing.



This could be said of any school regardless of their focus.  But if you claim that this is specific to TKD, could you provide some statistical data to support your statement?  How do you know what all these families want?  How do you know their not just taking what is available or close to home?  You'll need to back this up if you are going to claim you know what they all want.



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> Interesting how you consistently talk about how you have a waiting list  and can't keep up with the people that wish to train with you for free,  while at the same time ignoring questions about how many students you  have.



I don't recall anyone asking me in this thread the details of my school.  However, I do specifically remembering me asking you about the details of your school.  First or second page IIRC.  Could you answer those questions for us?  Thank you.



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> But then the naysayers will state that such types of training are not "effective", how could it be, they do "sport".



Could you please quote the 'naysayers' that have stated that life-skills, anti-bullying programs and child-appropriate SD strategies are not effective if taught in a sport school?  I'd like to see where your getting this from.  Thank you.


----------



## puunui (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This could be said of any school regardless of their focus.  But if you claim that this is specific to TKD, could you provide some statistical data to support your statement?  How do you know what all these families want?  How do you know their not just taking what is available or close to home?  You'll need to back this up if you are going to claim you know what they all want.



I'm not claiming that taekwondo has a monopoly on being family focused. As for what families want, if they did not want it, they wouldn't be signing up by the thousands for long term contracts and then renewing those contracts. As for taking what is available, at this point in time, open up the phone book and you will see many martial arts schools all over the place. In fact, one of the reasons why taekwondo is so hated by other martial arts is because it does monopolize the market, killing many schools in the process. I don't need to back anything up. It would be like pointing out the obvious, which is what I frequently do, if you haven't noticed. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't recall anyone asking me in this thread the details of my school.  However, I do specifically remembering me asking you about the details of your school.  First or second page IIRC.  Could you answer those questions for us?  Thank you.



I've talked about my school many times. People have been to my school and know my students. If you are out of the loop on that, then again, that is your problem, not mine. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Could you please quote the 'naysayers' that have stated that life-skills, anti-bullying programs and child-appropriate SD strategies are not effective if taught in a sport school?  I'd like to see where your getting this from.  Thank you.



Go search the mt threads.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> But my point of circular reasoning stands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And here I thought I was the only one to mention the king.  Not sure how this relates to circular reasoning thought.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 7, 2012)

puunui said:


> As for taking what is available, at this point in time, open up the phone book and you will see many martial arts schools all over the place. In fact, one of the reasons why taekwondo is so hated by other martial arts is because it does monopolize the market



Thank you, you've proven my point on circular reasoning.



> I've talked about my school many times. People have been to my school  and know my students. If you are out of the loop on that, then again,  that is your problem, not mine.



Sounds good too me.  I'll use the same response 



> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please quote the 'naysayers' that  have stated that life-skills, anti-bullying programs and  child-appropriate SD strategies are not effective if taught in a sport  school?  I'd like to see where your getting this from.  Thank you.





			
				puunui said:
			
		

> Go search the mt threads.



Surely you can do better than this?  If you're going to claim that people here on MT are talking a specific stance, to the point you have to make an 'off-hand' comment then you really need to back it up.  I'm going to have to call you on this one.  Please present something factual to back up your statement.  Thank you.


----------



## puunui (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you, you've proven my point on circular reasoning.



That's not circular reasoning.




Kong Soo Do said:


> Sounds good too me.  I'll use the same response



It would be nice if one person on mt could verify what you state. I just saw miguksaram win two gold medals at the hanmandang and we've traveled to korea together. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Surely you can do better than this?  If you're going to claim that people here on MT are talking a specific stance, to the point you have to make an 'off-hand' comment then you really need to back it up.  I'm going to have to call you on this one.  Please present something factual to back up your statement.  Thank you.



Call all you want. I told you where to look. If you were a martial artist, that would be enough for you. Other people have mentioned the same thing.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Aug 7, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Thank you, you've proven my point on circular reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He wont answer your question. He is just back pedalling. His history here is littered with statements that cant be backed up. This all makes for great reading each afternoon with a coffee on my back deck.


----------



## Archtkd (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> <br>
> I don't suggest that adult SD martial arts could compete with children's sport martial arts on a financial level.  But then for me it is a moot point as I don't charge anything except their sweat equity.




I just saw this and wonder how many other people in this forum are running free dojangs or attend dojangs where they don't pay dues. Another question would be whether it's accurate to refer to such dojangs --  into which one pours money for no monetary return --  as "thriving" enterprises, at least in the capatilistic sense, especially when compared to commercial or even non-profit dojangs, which have to break even.  I am assuming there are costs involved in running a free dojangs, even those located in the home garages of their operators.

Along those lines and maybe this is for another thread, I don't believe in free stuff, especially free instruction from my teachers. Maybe I am old school, maybe it's culture,  maybe it's principal. If someone spends time teaching me a life saving skill that they spent a large part of their life to acquire, I pay them, on time and as agreed. That has nothing to do with my perception or reality about the quality of teaching, the qualification of the teacher, their national origin, etc.   Along those lines, I tend to think there is a relationship between the character of a fledgling martial artist and how they handle their financial obligations. Having the habit to pay (reasonable) dues to a teacher, on time,  is  part of developing character and financial responsibility.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Aug 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I just saw this and wonder how many other people in this forum are running free dojangs or attend dojangs where they don't pay dues. Another question would be whether it's accurate to refer to such dojangs --  into which one pours money for no monetary return --  as "thriving" enterprises, at least in the capatilistic sense, especially when compared to commercial or even non-profit dojangs that have to break even.  I am assuming there are costs involved in running a free dojangs, even those located in the home garages of their operators.
> 
> Along those lines and maybe this is for another thread, I don't believe in free stuff, especially instruction from my teachers. Maybe I am old school, maybe it's culture,  maybe it's principal. If someone spends time teaching me a life saving skill that they spent a large part of their life to acquire, I pay them, on time and as agreed. That has nothing to do with my perception or reality about the quality of teaching, the qualification of the teacher, their national origin, etc.   Along those lines, I tend to think there is a relationship between the character of a fledgling martial artist and how they handle their financial obligations. Having the habit to pay (reasonable) dues to a teacher, on time,  is helps develop character.


we have a school up the road from my place (Im pretty sure they teach zendokai, either way its not  tkd), and its completely free. It has a great reputation and a few mates of mine have trained there over the years, and never paid a cent.


----------



## puunui (Aug 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> Along those lines and maybe this is for another thread, I don't believe in free stuff, especially free instruction from my teachers.



In the big picture scheme of things, nothing is free and everything has a price.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Aug 8, 2012)

puunui said:


> In the big picture scheme of things, nothing is free and everything has a price.


Ive taught guitar for years and never charged a cent. Running my business is my day job, away from work if Im passionate about something and good enough to teach it, then Im happy to share the passion and dont expect anything in return.


----------



## harlan (Aug 8, 2012)

I can no longer follow this convuluted thread, but this simple statement I agree with. And before anyone points out that they've never charged money, I'd suggest that intangibles are also in  play.



puunui said:


> In the big picture scheme of things, nothing is free and everything has a price.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

puunui said:


> It would be nice if one person on mt could verify what you state. I just saw miguksaram win two gold medals at the hanmandang and we've traveled to korea together.



I've given you a resource in which you could freely talk with my instructor, several of my students, those that aren't my direct students but have trained with me. You declined. And what does Jeremy winning something have to do with the questions that you've dodged about your own school? Has he physically been to your school? Has anyone here been to your school.

My friendly advise to you sir is two-fold; don't make statements you can't back up or are unwilling to back up. Secondly, don't ask questions of others if you're unwilling to answer their questions. 



			
				puunui said:
			
		

> Call all you want. I told you where to look. If you were a martial artist, that would be enough for you.



Hmm, so now you're claiming I'm not a martial artist because I don't want to look back through thousands of MT posts to find evidence of a statement you've made but are unwilling to back up? 



			
				ralphmcpherson said:
			
		

> He wont answer your question. He is just back pedalling. His history here is littered with statements that cant be backed up.



I know he won't. In some cases he'd have to admit he made stuff up, in other cases that he's just plain wrong. How can you trust the word of a man that states in an open thread, 'Then I'll just leave and never come back' but is back posting the next day? And he's done this twice!

Enough! Glen, have a nice day and I wish you the very best. But it is pointless to discuss anything with you and a complete waste of time. Others have found value in my posts and they have my appreciation. You may continue to nip at my heels, I'm pretty much done with you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I just saw this and wonder how many other people in this forum are running free dojangs or attend dojangs where they don't pay dues. Another question would be whether it's accurate to refer to such dojangs -- into which one pours money for no monetary return -- as "thriving" enterprises, at least in the capatilistic sense, especially when compared to commercial or even non-profit dojangs, which have to break even. I am assuming there are costs involved in running a free dojangs, even those located in the home garages of their operators.



That is a good question. From a capitalistic point of view, such as school I suppose wouldn't be 'thriving'. But if the point of the school isn't centered around money then it shouldn't/doesn't matter. I don't teach for a living so I have the flexibility to teach for the enjoyment of teaching in-and-of-itself. My reward is seeing a student progress, seeing a student successfully using what I've taught to protect themselves, seeing them develop into an instructor themeselves. This isn't to say that these aren't rewards for instructors that charge, only that I'm in the position where I don't need to charge.

I'm looking into making a complete shift towards something like a church or inner-city community center. Give teens and adults that can't afford MA instruction the opportunity to train. Current students will continue but it will open up opportunities for others. I'll have to see how it pans out. Too me, that would also be a thriving school.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 8, 2012)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Ive taught guitar for years and never charged a cent. Running my business is my day job, away from work if Im passionate about something and good enough to teach it, then Im happy to share the passion and dont expect anything in return.


There is a cost in time and dedication from both the student and the teacher.  There is a cost in materials, for either the student, the teacher, or both.  As was pointed out earlier, there is a cost in intangibles for both the teacher and the student.  

You may go to your student's home or they may come to you, thus eliminating the cost of renting space, and since you do not depend on your income from guitar instruction for sustenance, you are able to absorb whatever monetary costs are involved.  

The fact that you may be the one covering the costs and without passing that onto your students does not make it free; it simply means that someone else (you in this case) is footing the bill.

You are happy to share the passion, and that is your return, your dividend.  The best things in life cannot be attained simply by paying for them, so I am sure that you reap many times in that dividend the expense you put forth.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I just saw this and wonder how many other people in this forum are running free dojangs or attend dojangs where they don't pay dues. Another question would be whether it's accurate to refer to such dojangs -- into which one pours money for no monetary return -- as "thriving" enterprises, at least in the capatilistic sense, especially when compared to commercial or even non-profit dojangs, which have to break even.


Commercially they are not thriving, but as anyone who teaches for the love of teaching knows, thriving (in the general sense) goes beyond monetary measurement.



Archtkd said:


> I am assuming there are costs involved in running a free dojangs, even those located in the home garages of their operators.


Kicking pads, breaking boards, mats, belts, training weapons (dummy knives and guns) certificates, and cleaning products used to keep everything sanitary, plus a first aid kit, not to mention time put into preparing the classes and whatever curriculum/teaching syllabus, as well as various miscelaneous expenses.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't see why this would be an issue. Several people have stated that it is the kids that keep the doors open. That isn't a dig or slam, just stating the reality of the situation. Do these schools not host b-day parties and other kid-friendly activities beside the martial program? Of course they do, and no one is saying this is a bad thing. The word 'cater' should not be taken in a negative context. I'm happy that they have kid-friendly activities.


The issue is that you are making a generalization about TKD schools just because they have more kids than adults, and no, not all of these schools do the b-day parties, so again, that is general jump in your conclusion.  As I already stated, I teach kids at the health club.  I do not do any b-day parties nor do I do any outside kid activities that doesn't involve martial arts.  My friend who teaches Arnis to kids does not do b-day parties nor does the school that teaches a kid's HKD class.



> But my point of circular reasoning stands.
> Puunui has made this statement several times in relation to TKD. But again, I point out that it is circular reasoning.


Please explain how.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 8, 2012)

In response to a couple of items here, let me start by saying I do not have statistical data available on what I am about to say.  On the subject of SD not being the main focus of why people are joining martial arts.  Back in 2010, I was part of the world delegation that went over to S. Korea.  In this delegation we had 80 people from 13 different countries.  While I did not sit down and talk to all 80 people, I did have a chance to talk to about 20-30 of them.  This particular topic came up.  What I learned from people who were from Australia, South Africa, Thailand, Spain, Canada, Mexico, U.S. (naturally), England, and I believe Taiwan (could be China mainland) was that 80% of the people who signed up for classes did so for either exercise or better discipline/focus for the kids.  The remaining 20% fell into the catagorey of self defense or "olympic" dreams of doing TKD.  When I was at the MAIA show back in 2008 I met a delegation from Australia and gentleman from Hong Kong, both which were karate people, both of whom stated that more kids because their parents wanted them to have more self confidence and discipline.  While they do have people who come in specifically for self-defense, those students are few and far between.  Again none of this is backed by statistics, just backed by me listening to what others are telling me abou the trends in their country.

As for Glenn's school, while I have not been there personally, still waiting for the free trip to the islands,   I have met him several times at the Hanmadang as well as traveled over to Korea with him (he too was part of the world delegation trip).  I am not sure what kind of "proof" is being sought, but yes, he does exist and yes he does have students and yes he is very much involved in the TKD world.  When you have several US TKD pioneers recognizing who he is as well as seek legal advice from him, he definitely not some chump who is shooting his mouth on a board because he has nothing better to do with is time.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> The issue is that you are making a generalization about TKD schools just because they have more kids than adults...



You're missing the point Jeremy.  Others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.



> Please explain how.



I have, two or three times.  Again, others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> You're missing the point Jeremy. Others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, two or three times. Again, others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.



As much as I would to schlep through several pages and sift through it can you just link to explaination?  Honestly, I must have missed where you explained how it is circular reasoning.  Thanks.


----------



## harlan (Aug 8, 2012)

As an aside addressing the concept of 'thriving schools'. Agree that the understanding of 'commercial thriving' is pretty much understood, and just a matter of degrees. My understanding of a school that is 'thriving' is one that has been able to produce other teachers that also have students. Each line of the school, each generation, has to be assessed. A good example might be the Ryu-te school by Oyata sensei. It was thriving while he was alive, with what seems to have been several schools, several seniors. But now, after his passing, the association has fractured, there is in-fighting, and possibly syllabus changes. How to assess 'thriving' in that sense where some schools have plenty of students, or some a have few high level ones, and there are changes?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Commercially they are not thriving, but as anyone who teaches for the love of teaching knows, thriving (in the general sense) goes beyond monetary measurement.
> 
> 
> Kicking pads, breaking boards, mats, belts, training weapons (dummy knives and guns) certificates, and cleaning products used to keep everything sanitary, plus a first aid kit, not to mention time put into preparing the classes and whatever curriculum/teaching syllabus, as well as various miscelaneous expenses.



I guess I'm applying my goju understanding to this question. Goju is a success because it has spread in general, even though there are many different lines at this point. Within that, there are some singular lines/associations that are commercially and headcount wise doing very well, even though some of the dojos are very small and not producing senior students. For comparison, there is our line which has grown, calved off senior students where some are teaching, but each dojo seems to be very small. Commercially, not a success. But still producing a few students each generation that will probably teach.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

Jeremy, you and I were just discussing it yesterday...

Circular reasonong = a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement. 

Statement - the majority of TKD students don't want self-defense, they want sport.

Facts;


TKD is predominately a martial art populated by children.  This is true in Korea as well as other countries. Those, including you that have been to Korea have substantiated this as factual.
You do not teach adult SD to children.  Anti-bully programs and abduction prevention yes. Adult SD, no.
Thus the majority of TKD schools teach sport related programs since the bulk is children.  It is commercially viable and many instructors don't know any other way to teach as this is what they themselves have learned.
Many parents that join may do so out of convienance rather than have different schools for themselves and the kids.

Thus, since the majority of schools are populated by a majority of children, the majority teach sport related material.  It isn't a matter of what they want and/or need, it is the only thing available to the majority of students in a TKD school.  Therefore, as a majority they are provided only one possible option.  I/we/you/they can't turn around and state that this is the only thing they want, or that they don't want anything else.  They take what is offered.  The fact that other types of schools offer non-sport or balanced programs that teach children, including your own posts, it has been demonstrated that some are indeed interested in something other than sport TKD given the choice.  

A simple version is this;  a city has 10 TKD schools.  Nine of them are sport only schools with a majority of children for students.  They each have a hundred students.  The instructors of these schools only teach sport art as this is the only thing they've learned themselves.  The tenth TKD school isn't a sport styled school.  Call it SD, call it traditional, call it non-sport or whatever.  It has a hundred students and a balanced program.  On could say that 90% of the students of that city don't want SD or whatever.  But that isn't quite the case and it would be misleading.  It would be more factual to say that 90% don't have an option.  Many may only want sport and it is fair to point that out.  Many may want social interaction or just to get off the couch, nothing wrong with that.  Some may want SD or a balanced program but can't get into the one school that teaches it as it is on the other side of town or the schedule doesn't match their own.

The point is simply that no one can claim to speak for an entire art.  People can take TKD, or any martial art for any reason that seems good to them.  And that is simply wonderful.  Some folks here would be better off simply saying, 'some folks love a particular program and for these folks we offer a great program...but we recognize and celebrate that others have different wants/needs and we wish them well in finding a program that delivers for them'.  I think that would go over a lot better than, 'TKD people don't want SD anymore', because it isn't a factual statement and too be honest, it's somewhat arrogant presumption.

With respect.


----------



## Archtkd (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> That is a good question. From a capitalistic point of view, such as school I suppose wouldn't be 'thriving'. But if the point of the school isn't centered around money then it shouldn't/doesn't matter. I don't teach for a living so I have the flexibility to teach for the enjoyment of teaching in-and-of-itself. My reward is seeing a student progress, seeing a student successfully using what I've taught to protect themselves, seeing them develop into an instructor themeselves. This isn't to say that these aren't rewards for instructors that charge, only that I'm in the position where I don't need to charge.
> 
> I'm looking into making a complete shift towards something like a church or inner-city community center. Give teens and adults that can't afford MA instruction the opportunity to train. Current students will continue but it will open up opportunities for others. I'll have to see how it pans out. Too me, that would also be a thriving school.



 The header of this thread is "Thriving Schools." I don't want to sound too literal, but words have to mean something, Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish." That's according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Along those lines, and putting it bluntly,  liking what you do as a teacher, feeling satisfied, and seeing students effectively use techniques you've taught them for free, does not equate to thriving school. 

By most measures, if you've had a dojang for 20 years and membership or the number of qualified (according to your standard) practitioners you have produced annually has remained the same, we would say that's a stagnant dojang, not a thriving one. If you always have long lines of students on a waiting list, because you don't have space or time to teach them, that's not  a good example of thriving. Stagnant, by the way, does not mean bad school.

On a side note, the idea of a church, community hall setting sounds good, but I would urge you to charge a small fee. Most people, especially those in the poorest neighborhoods, develop a better sense of pride and financial responsibility by learning how to pay for something valuable. I know this from personal experience.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Jeremy, you and I were just discussing it yesterday...
> 
> Circular reasonong = a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.
> 
> ...



It is your third point that I feel you are making a jump in logic. Just because you have a predominate children presence doesn't mean you teaching sport martial arts as your main focus.



> Thus, since the majority of schools are populated by a majority of children, the majority teach sport related material. It isn't a matter of what they want and/or need, it is the only thing available to the majority of students in a TKD school.


What are you basing this thought on? Assumption? Statistics?



> A simple version is this; a city has 10 TKD schools. Nine of them are sport only schools with a majority of children for students. They each have a hundred students. The instructors of these schools only teach sport art as this is the only thing they've learned themselves. The tenth TKD school isn't a sport styled school. Call it SD, call it traditional, call it non-sport or whatever. It has a hundred students and a balanced program. On could say that 90% of the students of that city don't want SD or whatever. But that isn't quite the case and it would be misleading. It would be more factual to say that 90% don't have an option. Many may only want sport and it is fair to point that out. Many may want social interaction or just to get off the couch, nothing wrong with that. Some may want SD or a balanced program but can't get into the one school that teaches it as it is on the other side of town or the schedule doesn't match their own.


I understand what you are saying about choice. My problem doesn't lie in choices being offered. My issue is with the assumption that because we have more kids than adults you automatically come to the conclusion that the TKD school is sport oriented. While they may participate in sports, this doesn't mean that is the main focus. I currently have 27 students all kids. So by your logic I teach sport martial arts. This is simply not true. I teach a traditional curriculum. Out of the 27 kids only 6 are even remotely interested in doing competition, so I produced a class specifically for competition, but it not a main focus class.




> The point is simply that no one can claim to speak for an entire art. People can take TKD, or any martial art for any reason that seems good to them. And that is simply wonderful. Some folks here would be better off simply saying, 'some folks love a particular program and for these folks we offer a great program...but we recognize and celebrate that others have different wants/needs and we wish them well in finding a program that delivers for them'. I think that would go over a lot better than, 'TKD people don't want SD anymore', because it isn't a factual statement and too be honest, it's somewhat arrogant presumption.


No I believe he was saying SD is not the main reasoning for people taking TKD anymore.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> The header of this thread is "Thriving Schools." I don't want to sound too literal, but words have to mean something, Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish." That's according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Along those lines, and putting it bluntly, liking what you do as a teacher, feeling satisfied, and seeing students effectively use techniques you've taught them for free, does not equate to thriving school.



I understand, and appreciate the point(s) you've brought up.  A lot depends, I suppose, upon the interpretation of the definition.  I like the definition that you've posted;



> Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish



Using only myself as an example, from a financial standpoint my school doesn't 'thrive'.  I don't have a chain of schools so in that commercial aspect, it doesn't thrive either.  However, looking at the definition - '_grow, develop well, prosper_'.  I've grown to the point that, IMO, I can't handle additional students at this time due to the amount of individual attention I wish to devote to each.  This is strictly my choice and not to reflect on anyone else or their methods.  When I teach firearms for academies or in-service we have a ratio of one instructor to three students.  For defensive tactics the ration is 1:8.  For operations there is no limit.  So I've grown to the point that I feel maxed out.  This may be changing in the near future where their are plans to be able to delve into the waiting list.  However, I have trained students that have gone on to become teachers themselves.  So in that light, I have duplicated myself and the school and/or art has grown.  To me that is prospering.  Not from a financial perspective, but that isn't my/our focus.  

More specifically, many of my students have gone on to successfully defend themselves in real altercations.  Too me, that is a good example of 'develop well and/or prosper'.  If and when they teach others what I have taught them, and then they in turn successfully defend themselves the art has grown/prospered.  



> On a side note, the idea of a church, community hall setting sounds good, but I would urge you to charge a small fee. Most people, especially those in the poorest neighborhoods, develop a better sense of pride and financial responsibility by learning how to pay for something valuable. I know this from personal experience.



I understand what you're saying and agree with you.  Perhaps whatever small amount can go to the church or community center or simply to a charity or mission trip.  I'm not rolling in money, but I consider myself very blessed (in more ways than just financial).  My love is not for the money, but for the teaching itself.  That is not to be taken as against someone teaching for a living.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

Jeremy,

Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best.  I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'.  The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives.  Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different.  Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.

I think we are often closer in opinion than we are farther apart (this is for you/me/us).  I think it would behoove us all to enjoy our individual contributions to the art(s), or the segment of the art(s) we teach and do our best to help each other in our goals.


----------



## miguksaram (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Jeremy,
> 
> Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best. I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'. The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives. Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different. Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.
> 
> I think we are often closer in opinion than we are farther apart (this is for you/me/us). I think it would behoove us all to enjoy our individual contributions to the art(s), or the segment of the art(s) we teach and do our best to help each other in our goals.



I can agree on that.  Those who know me or have met me know that I am not a stand offish kind of guy, though I have no problem speaking my mind (right or wrong), so when I ask some of the questions, for the most part are sincere non-confrontational questions, sometimes they are sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek.   Body language, tone of voice, etc..etc..etc..are always an issue when posting to these boards.  Plus you cannot discount a reader's mood when reading a post.  Overall, I sleep well at night, because in the long run, none of this is going to upset my life or derail me from my goals.


----------



## puunui (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Statement - the majority of TKD students don't want self-defense, they want sport.



Wrong. Again. How many times do we have to repeat the same thing? The opposite of self defense is not sport, and it is not an either or situation. The fact that you do not understand that prevents having a meaningful discussion on this issue. Ask any teacher and they will tell you the same thing, very few students are interested in competition. What they do sign up for is exercise, weight loss, better concentration and discipline, etc., what is lumped under the category of "self improvement", which is not necessarily self defense or competition. Your basic premise and foundation is factually flawed, and therefore everything else that follows is incorrect and flawed as well.


----------



## puunui (Aug 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best.  I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'.  The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives.  Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different.  Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.



Even if this were face to face, the result would be the same because again, you misunderstand and think that because people no longer want to learn self defense, then that means that they want to learn what you call "sport", meaning they want to compete. that is simply not true, whether it is written down or spoken out loud.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 8, 2012)

miguksaram said:


> Overall, I sleep well at night, because in the long run, none of this is going to upset my life or derail me from my goals.



Same here


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 9, 2012)

puunui said:


> Even if this were face to face, the result would be the same because again, you misunderstand and think that because people no longer want to learn self defense, then that means that *they want to learn what you call "sport", *meaning they want to compete. that is simply not true, whether it is written down or spoken out loud.



I'm fairly certain this has been discussed before at some point, in this thread or another, but there seems to be a perception that the majority of taekwondo schools are "sport" schools. I could certainly be wrong, since I can only talk about what I have seen, but in my experience, "sport" schools are rare. I think a "sport" school is a niche thing, maybe even a bigger niche than a self-defence school. The overwhelming vast majority of students I have come across have had no interest in competition, and absolutley no thought of ever competing in the olympics. Even the schools I've seen who compete a lot have had a relatively low % of students who compete. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% or more of the students don't compete, or compete only recreationally at small local events. I've only heard of a few schools that teach only "sport." And those schools are small groups of elite students who want to train in a more competitive environment than in the general student body of a normal school.

So, to be on topic, I don't think there are many "thriving" sports schools out there, because just like a SD school, the numbers will be small, by design.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 10, 2012)

Jaeimseu said:


> I'm fairly certain this has been discussed before at some point, in this thread or another, but there seems to be a perception that the majority of taekwondo schools are "sport" schools. I could certainly be wrong, since I can only talk about what I have seen, but in my experience, "sport" schools are rare. I think a "sport" school is a niche thing, maybe even a bigger niche than a self-defence school. The overwhelming vast majority of students I have come across have had no interest in competition, and absolutley no thought of ever competing in the olympics. Even the schools I've seen who compete a lot have had a relatively low % of students who compete. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% or more of the students don't compete, or compete only recreationally at small local events. I've only heard of a few schools that teach only "sport." And those schools are small groups of elite students who want to train in a more competitive environment than in the general student body of a normal school.
> 
> So, to be on topic, I don't think there are many "thriving" sports schools out there, because just like a SD school, the numbers will be small, by design.



Not so long ago Daniel Sullivan (IIRC) was using a definition of "sport" that was so braod as to include any sort of activity people engaged in for fun. That means a TKD school doesn't have to focus on competition to be a "sports school." As such "sports" would be a _very_ large niche if that definition was used. I don't recall Kong Soo Do specifying what definiton he was referring to in this thread. It's possible that he was using Daniel's definition. But even if he wasn't, I have found that people sometimes refer to schools as teaching "sport" even if competition isn't the main focus. This is especially true of KKW TKD schools because the sparring system they use is so closely associated with competition. 

FWIW.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 10, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Not so long ago Daniel Sullivan (IIRC) was using a definition of "sport" that was so braod as to include any sort of activity people engaged in for fun.


Yes, a definition quoted from the dictionary.



chrispillertkd said:


> That means a TKD school doesn't have to focus on competition to be a "sports school." As such "sports" would be a _very_ large niche if that definition was used.


That is why in my response to KSD, I didn't criticize his use of the term ("you teach kids sport"). While I'm pretty sure that he means competition/WTF sparring, that isn't what he typed, and I felt that the word usage was correct. 

And for the record, I don't view sport as a dirty word, but I also don't differentiate SD as being specifically 'not sport.' Very few people go into a taekwondo class with a mindset of "I'm gonna learn to be able to beat the crap out of an attacker," though I do think that there is a reasonably sized group of people who hope to get SD as part of the package. Just as there are people who hope to get into competition and win trophies/medals. The majority in my opinion are simply looking for an enjoyable physical activity, which may include competition, self defense, or any number of other things.

Really, the big question isn't how one defines sport, but how one defines SD. There have been several threads on MT over the years that ask the question, 'what is SD?/what is practical SD? what makes a school SD?' and each tends to go on for at least as many pages as this one with a variety of differing answers, most of which have merit.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 16, 2012)

Steve said:


> What would I have to type in order to get you to let this go? You are using inflammatory language, and seem intent on picking a fight.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


Steve,

Sorry to bring this back up, but I was mistaken: I do have more to add. 

Though I was not trying to pick a fight with you, I do think that most of the exchange we were talking past each other to a certain extent.

You tried to end the exchange with a friendly note and I blew you off. That was wrong of me and I would like to offer you an apology. 

Sorry for my part in the friction.  It was uncalled for.

Daniel


----------



## Archtkd (Aug 16, 2012)

Jaeimseu said:


> I'm fairly certain this has been discussed before at some point, in this thread or another, but there seems to be a perception that the majority of taekwondo schools are "sport" schools. I could certainly be wrong, since I can only talk about what I have seen, but in my experience, "sport" schools are rare. I think a "sport" school is a niche thing, maybe even a bigger niche than a self-defence school. The overwhelming vast majority of students I have come across have had no interest in competition, and absolutley no thought of ever competing in the olympics. Even the schools I've seen who compete a lot have had a relatively low % of students who compete. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% or more of the students don't compete, or compete only recreationally at small local events. I've only heard of a few schools that teach only "sport." And those schools are small groups of elite students who want to train in a more competitive environment than in the general student body of a normal school.
> 
> So, to be on topic, I don't think there are many "thriving" sports schools out there, because just like a SD school, the numbers will be small, by design.



I tend to think of the pure taekwondo sport schools as finishing schools. Those are operations that only admit students with prior experience, usually young athlete blackbelts, who want to specialize in WTF sparring. I don't think someone like Juan Moreno, for example, enrolls beginners he has to teach the basics. Some  highly specialized self dense dojangs are or really should be finishing schools, where people who already have a solid taekwondo foundation, preferably blackbelts, would go to learn specialized stuff, and stuff they could use regurly in jobs such as security guards, body guards, law enforcement folks, etc. There is a place for the finishing schools, I mention, but the idea that they should or can be for every taekwondoin is misguided, because they are tailored for a very minute segment of the market. There simply is no big demand out there,  from ordinary people, for hardcore self defense or WTF sparring training.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 17, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I tend to think of the pure taekwondo sport schools as finishing schools. Those are operations that only admit students with prior experience, usually young athlete blackbelts, who want to specialize in WTF sparring. I don't think someone like Juan Moreno, for example, enrolls beginners he has to teach the basics. Some  highly specialized self dense dojangs are or really should be finishing schools, where people who already have a solid taekwondo foundation, preferably blackbelts, would go to learn specialized stuff, and stuff they could use regurly in jobs such as security guards, body guards, law enforcement folks, etc. There is a place for the finishing schools, I mention, but the idea that they should or can be for every taekwondoin is misguided, because they are tailored for a very minute segment of the market. There simply is no big demand out there,  from ordinary people, for hardcore self defense or WTF sparring training.



I agree.


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I understand what you're saying and agree with you.  Perhaps whatever small amount can go to the church or community center or simply to a charity or mission trip.  I'm not rolling in money, but I consider myself very blessed (in more ways than just financial).  My love is not for the money, but for the teaching itself.  That is not to be taken as against someone teaching for a living.



I had the good fortune to meet someone doing exactly that over the summer. The dreadful economy up in Maine, plus some challenging family issues (special needs child, etc.) lead to this fellow closing his school.  He started teaching at his church with an emphasis on welcoming, encouraging, and teaching people with various challenges.  He does charge a small amount but the money goes to the church...which is also struggling financially.

I don't have an issue with teaching for a living either, but I think there is a special inspiration that comes from meeting someone who is driven to teach for reasons other than money.


----------

