# In Defense of the McDojo



## Bill Mattocks

Consider the McDojo.  By and large, when we say the word, we use it in a pejorative way.  We mean commercial studios that purport to teach some form of martial arts, which are based on contracts and guaranteed promotions in rank for students.  Many are franchised chains, some are run by charismatic instructors who lay claim to skill in arts no one has heard of but them, belt levels awarded by organizations of dubious distinction, and an ever-shifting emphasis on whatever is popular at the time; from Karate to Kung Fu to Kick-Boxing.

Those of us who consider ourselves martial artists tend to hold such places in low esteem.  We train for various reasons, but none of us would seek to 'purchase' a belt or ranking by contract, regardless of our actual capabilities.  We seek the 'real thing' and not a pale imitation sold to the children of soccer moms and fantasy-football dads.

However, the McDojo has a place as a legitimate business.  Note that I did not say as a legitimate place to learn martial arts.  A business.  Like calling McDonalds a 'restaurant' (and hence the term 'McDojo').  Yes, you can get food at McDonalds, and some of it is tasty.  You could even live on it, more or less.  Not many would claim it is superior to the local restaurants in one's home town, but it has certain attributes that make it attractive to some.  For one thing, it is dependable.  You always know what you're getting.  The quality may not be the best, but it's nearly always safe and up to a particular standard, even if that standard is not very high.  For another, it's cheap; although many know where to find local bargains at non-fast-food restaurants that is even cheaper.

The McDojo, like a fast-food restaurant, serves a purpose.  *From the business point of view*, it is profitable if done right, and it generates a dependable revenue stream.  By using contracts and looking at promotions as customer enticements to continue instead of recognition of skill levels achieved, it does the one thing that all businesses struggle with - generate recurring revenue that is predictable.  If franchised, it generally has a business model that makes the typical pitfalls and traps of local businesses smoother and easier to manage, like offering specialized vertical accounting software designed specifically for the business, discounts on group-based health and liability insurance, and produces and services that can be sold.

Can students learn 'real' martial arts in a McDojo?  Sure, if the instructor is capable of teaching it.  However, learning martial arts is secondary to making a profit.  This may seem anathema to some - those who see martial arts as something pure that is not to be sullied.  But others see it differently - even the best 'pure' or 'authentic' dojo cannot stay open without students.  A wonderfully-qualified instructor who is difficult to get along with, or mean, or even sadistic, can ruin a dojo, no matter how authentic the instruction is.  A fantastic instructor who cannot balance the books, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on, will soon find himself without a place for his or her students to work out, no matter how good their training is.  So it seems that business needs are important to any dojo, whether or not it is an 'authentic' dojo.  So even a non-McDojo must consider the needs of business, even if they place the emphasis on teaching and not on making money.

A McDojo is primarily a business.  As a business model, it is logical and sensible.  As a teaching model, if it is part of a franchise that puts a requirement on actual training of authentic, it can be a reasonable if not superior one.  That is, like McDonalds, it can insist that a minimum standard be met in instructors and franchise owners.  That is not to say that all McDojo's do that, but they can.  Students can learn useful skills in such places if they are good students and the instructors are good instructors; but it is incidental to the business itself, not the basis of it.  Poor students will also be promoted as long as their check clears, but that's recognizing a business reality, not seeking to build a positive reputation in the authentic martial arts community.

'Real' dojos will always dislike McDojo's and for good reason.  They do indeed drag down the 'value' others perceive of authentic training and advanced belts by lowering the bar and giving away or selling belts and rankings to whomever can pay the freight.  On the other hand, one must wonder how many students start at a McDojo who might otherwise never even have considered martial arts training (due to the McDojo's incessant advertising), become dismayed, and seek out a 'real' dojo as a result?  How many instructors in 'authentic' dojos can relax knowing that their students are there to learn and not to buy a belt, since they know if that is their goal, they can drive down to the local Black Belt Factory and buy one in a year and a half?

McDonalds doesn't really damage local restaurants - they serve a different purpose.  McDojos don't really damage local dojos.  They serve a different purpose.

Thoughts?


----------



## ronagle

Bill Mattocks said:


> Consider the McDojo.  By and large, when we say the word, we use it in a pejorative way.  We mean commercial studios that purport to teach some form of martial arts, which are based on contracts and guaranteed promotions in rank for students.  Many are franchised chains, some are run by charismatic instructors who lay claim to skill in arts no one has heard of but them, belt levels awarded by organizations of dubious distinction, and an ever-shifting emphasis on whatever is popular at the time; from Karate to Kung Fu to Kick-Boxing.
> 
> Those of us who consider ourselves martial artists tend to hold such places in low esteem.  We train for various reasons, but none of us would seek to 'purchase' a belt or ranking by contract, regardless of our actual capabilities.  We seek the 'real thing' and not a pale imitation sold to the children of soccer moms and fantasy-football dads.
> 
> However, the McDojo has a place as a legitimate business.  Note that I did not say as a legitimate place to learn martial arts.  A business.  Like calling McDonalds a 'restaurant' (and hence the term 'McDojo').  Yes, you can get food at McDonalds, and some of it is tasty.  You could even live on it, more or less.  Not many would claim it is superior to the local restaurants in one's home town, but it has certain attributes that make it attractive to some.  For one thing, it is dependable.  You always know what you're getting.  The quality may not be the best, but it's nearly always safe and up to a particular standard, even if that standard is not very high.  For another, it's cheap; although many know where to find local bargains at non-fast-food restaurants that is even cheaper.
> 
> The McDojo, like a fast-food restaurant, serves a purpose.  *From the business point of view*, it is profitable if done right, and it generates a dependable revenue stream.  By using contracts and looking at promotions as customer enticements to continue instead of recognition of skill levels achieved, it does the one thing that all businesses struggle with - generate recurring revenue that is predictable.  If franchised, it generally has a business model that makes the typical pitfalls and traps of local businesses smoother and easier to manage, like offering specialized vertical accounting software designed specifically for the business, discounts on group-based health and liability insurance, and produces and services that can be sold.
> 
> Can students learn 'real' martial arts in a McDojo?  Sure, if the instructor is capable of teaching it.  However, learning martial arts is secondary to making a profit.  This may seem anathema to some - those who see martial arts as something pure that is not to be sullied.  But others see it differently - even the best 'pure' or 'authentic' dojo cannot stay open without students.  A wonderfully-qualified instructor who is difficult to get along with, or mean, or even sadistic, can ruin a dojo, no matter how authentic the instruction is.  A fantastic instructor who cannot balance the books, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on, will soon find himself without a place for his or her students to work out, no matter how good their training is.  So it seems that business needs are important to any dojo, whether or not it is an 'authentic' dojo.  So even a non-McDojo must consider the needs of business, even if they place the emphasis on teaching and not on making money.
> 
> A McDojo is primarily a business.  As a business model, it is logical and sensible.  As a teaching model, if it is part of a franchise that puts a requirement on actual training of authentic, it can be a reasonable if not superior one.  That is, like McDonalds, it can insist that a minimum standard be met in instructors and franchise owners.  That is not to say that all McDojo's do that, but they can.  Students can learn useful skills in such places if they are good students and the instructors are good instructors; but it is incidental to the business itself, not the basis of it.  Poor students will also be promoted as long as their check clears, but that's recognizing a business reality, not seeking to build a positive reputation in the authentic martial arts community.
> 
> 'Real' dojos will always dislike McDojo's and for good reason.  They do indeed drag down the 'value' others perceive of authentic training and advanced belts by lowering the bar and giving away or selling belts and rankings to whomever can pay the freight.  On the other hand, one must wonder how many students start at a McDojo who might otherwise never even have considered martial arts training (due to the McDojo's incessant advertising), become dismayed, and seek out a 'real' dojo as a result?  How many instructors in 'authentic' dojos can relax knowing that their students are there to learn and not to buy a belt, since they know if that is their goal, they can drive down to the local Black Belt Factory and buy one in a year and a half?
> 
> McDonalds doesn't really damage local restaurants - they serve a different purpose.  McDojos don't really damage local dojos.  They serve a different purpose.
> 
> Thoughts?



The training is still often homogenized crap, defense denied. If the training sucks the product sucks. Done.


----------



## K-man

As one who trained in a McDojo of necessity for a couple of years I agree with much of the OP.  However, I had a teacher who was very short on knowledge, teaching techniques that were flawed to students who didn't know better.  Turned out the teacher, about 17 yo and wearing a BB, was in fact not a BB but was wearing it, with approval from those above, for credibility.  Whole setup left lots to be desired. Great model, great business, an incredibly large operation, some good teachers but on the whole, McCrap.


----------



## grydth

Bill, one can say reasonable minds can differ as to what is a McDojo. The longer I'm around, the more I see good dojos are starting to take on some McDojo traits..... and I would concede that some McDojo's can improve and serve some useful purpose. Dojos are like the people in them - seldom pure good, pure virtue and seldom pure evil or pure fraud.

But as to the truly fake ones - Bill, there is no such thing as harmless or victimless consumer fraud. Not in the martial arts, not anywheres else.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ronagle said:


> The training is still often homogenized crap, defense denied. If the training sucks the product sucks. Done.



I don't think I said anything different.

I also said that a McDojo is a sound _business_ model.  I did not say that it produces fine product, just as McDonalds does not produce fine cuisine.

From the point of view of a student who wants to learn 'real' or 'authentic' martial arts, I don't think we are in disagreement.  A McDojo is generally going to be a suboptimal experience.

From the point of view of a business owner, a McDojo model can be a more profitable and consistent model.

From the point of view of the student who only wants a black belt and doesn't much care how he gets it, a McDojo is exactly what he wants.  We may regard such a person with disdain, but they exist, they have money to spend, and there is a market to provide them with what they desire, whether we approve or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> Bill, one can say reasonable minds can differ as to what is a McDojo. The longer I'm around, the more I see good dojos are starting to take on some McDojo traits..... and I would concede that some McDojo's can improve and serve some useful purpose. Dojos are like the people in them - seldom pure good, pure virtue and seldom pure evil or pure fraud.
> 
> But as to the truly fake ones - Bill, there is no such thing as harmless or victimless consumer fraud. Not in the martial arts, not anywheres else.



You bring up an excellent point.  However, let me rebut.

Where there are no standards, there is no way of determining what is fake and what is fraud and what is authentic and what is real.  It's all subjective.

Yes, you and I (and many others on MT) know the difference between a make-um-up eleventy-dozen degree black belt in super-karate-fu-you-never-heard-of and someone who has put in 30+ years in a recognized art under instructors who are known and respected in the community - but that means little to the non-martial-arts community.

I'm sure you and I could call _'BS'_ on many McDojo's, and even (although we don't do that here) on many members of MT.  The problem is not that we don't know the difference between the genuine article and the fake, but that there are no objective standards to hold anything up to.

There are no associations that are above reproach - there are legitimate associations and fake ones.  There are no governing bodies that are immune from politics, schisms, takeovers, and cults of personality.  Martial Arts as a community in whole is fragmented, disjointed, incomplete, and inarticulate.  We generally reject the notion of third-party (ie, government) regulation, licensing, inspection, or certification.  And yet, without it, everything is legit (or not legit) if we say so.

I know I'm not a black belt in Isshin-Ryu.  I'm a green belt with a long way to go.  But I could buy a black belt, join some accrediting agency that would send me a nice certificate for my wall saying I was a certified thus-and-so, and hang out my shingle as a MA instructor.  I might even be able to teach a few things that were useful to newbies.  But I would be a fraud.

However, I'd only be a fraud to this community - to those who know the difference.  To students off the street?  To the general public?  To any government seeking to regulate or control ripoffs and dangerous practices?

I'm not suggesting that the wild world of Martial Arts needs to be tamed or controlled or regulated or licensed.  But I am noting that as long as we reject all such attempts to quantify, certify, and otherwise objectively measure knowledge in the martial arts, there is no 'fraud' in an objective sense.  Joe Blow who saw a DVD of "Enter the Dragon" is as qualified to teach as you are, in terms of what is permitted in most states.  Fraud to you, but not to the rest of the public.


----------



## grydth

I would say the opposite in many cases - it is indeed fraud on the general public, but not on those of us who know better. It is fraud on those who are swindled.

The mere absence of state standards, enforced by political hacks on official commissions, is not fatal to a finding of fraud. Dishonesty is dishonesty, whether there are laws and lawyers or not (ouch, it hurts to say this) to enforce it.

I am aware that one person's fraud is another's Funakoshi, and that all true arts must start somewheres and with somebody.... and what you may consider a heresy, I may view as new and inspired... But let's confine ourselves to the complete fakes.

These characters - the completely bogus ones - work a genuine harm to their customers. 

Let's suppose a student of one of these charlatans is confronted one day by a true threat. His inner Monty Python voice urgently cautions," RunAwayRunAwayRunAway". As well he should. But he doesn't... and why should he? He has a 26th degree ninja black belt, with gold stars, from DaimyoGrandmaster HuffnStuff..... and by paying extra, he has been given the secrets to the No Touch Projected Qi Oriental Fart of Death. 

While our hero suffers a beat down of catastrophic proportions, a few miles away, a child is getting the same thing. His mom bought him a black belt, with funds the family could ill afford, to give him _self esteem_. What happens to *that *when he lands on his back in a puddle with his nose gushing blood, the other kids all laughing? 

Ahead of these two at Urgent Care is a woman who has ruined her back. She signed up for Tai Yo - Fu, a Frankenstein creation of (supposedly) Tai Chi, Kung Fu, Yoga and Eye of Newt..... the brainchild of somebody who has mastered none of them. Students of this *healthy* pursuit will keep the medical facility rolling in cash for months to come.

Meanwhile, three friends who could use the lessons provided by true MA see a poster for a seminar offered by one of the true masters on this forum. Two want to try it... but the third stops them. "That stuff's all fake!"  he assures them.... citing the examples above.

Fraud on the public it is, sir.:soapbox:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> I would say the opposite in many cases - it is indeed fraud on the general public, but not on those of us who know better. It is fraud on those who are swindled.
> 
> The mere absence of state standards, enforced by political hacks on official commissions, is not fatal to a finding of fraud. Dishonesty is dishonesty, whether there are laws and lawyers or not (ouch, it hurts to say this) to enforce it.
> 
> I am aware that one person's fraud is another's Funakoshi, and that all true arts must start somewheres and with somebody.... and what you may consider a heresy, I may view as new and inspired... But let's confine ourselves to the complete fakes.
> 
> These characters - the completely bogus ones - work a genuine harm to their customers.
> 
> Let's suppose a student of one of these charlatans is confronted one day by a true threat. His inner Monty Python voice urgently cautions," RunAwayRunAwayRunAway". As well he should. But he doesn't... and why should he? He has a 26th degree ninja black belt, with gold stars, from DaimyoGrandmaster HuffnStuff..... and by paying extra, he has been given the secrets to the No Touch Projected Qi Oriental Fart of Death.
> 
> While our hero suffers a beat down of catastrophic proportions, a few miles away, a child is getting the same thing. His mom bought him a black belt, with funds the family could ill afford, to give him _self esteem_. What happens to *that *when he lands on his back in a puddle with his nose gushing blood, the other kids all laughing?
> 
> Ahead of these two at Urgent Care is a woman who has ruined her back. She signed up for Tai Yo - Fu, a Frankenstein creation of (supposedly) Tai Chi, Kung Fu, Yoga and Eye of Newt..... the brainchild of somebody who has mastered none of them. Students of this *healthy* pursuit will keep the medical facility rolling in cash for months to come.
> 
> Meanwhile, three friends who could use the lessons provided by true MA see a poster for a seminar offered by one of the true masters on this forum. Two want to try it... but the third stops them. "That stuff's all fake!"  he assures them.... citing the examples above.
> 
> Fraud on the public it is, sir.:soapbox:



Thanks for your response.  Your points are valid, but there is, as usual, another side to it.

First of all, caveat emptor is in play here.  In a free market, it is the job of the buyer to discern the wheat from the chaff.  I do not buy 'eXtenze' capsules, but apparently they're a big seller, so somebody is buying them.

Second, you give a worst-case scenario.  I think we could probably all agree that not every McDojo is staffed with instructors who are utterly incompetent.  They may not be high-quality, but that does not mean they are bad.  I have no doubt, however, that there are many who are as you describe them.

Third, let's take the case of the little boy whose mom wanted to buy him a black belt to _'increase his self-esteem'_.  She got what she bought.  She did not buy him _'increased ability to defend himself'._  And frankly, if she is made a mistake by choosing a McDojo because as a typical consumer, she could not tell the difference between quality and crap, that begs the question why isn't it regulated and licensed?

As regards the people who end up in hospital due to poor instruction, I could as easily argue that a lot of people end up in hospital due to good instruction too!  Injuries happen in a martial arts training environment.  However, you bring up a good point - and that is, what happens when a McDojo (or any martial arts establishment) holds itself out as being conducive to good health or conferring some healthy benefit?  States quite often regulate and license physical therapists, health clubs, and others who purport to offer good health as a side-effect or primary benefit of what they teach or perform.  If martial arts is performed to obtain some health benefit, it would seem to fall directly under that scenario - requiring inspection, testing, certification, and regulation by a government agency.

However, let's get back to my original point.  I contend that the McDojo is not in the business of teaching self-defense.  Understand that, we see that the McDojo is in the business of providing a service, whether it is a high-quality product or not, and it does that rather well.  McDonalds is not a high-end restaurant.  And yet, McDonalds thrives, and many people like it just fine.  The McDojo can't be defended as a place to go to learn top-notch martial arts - but it's a rather good business model for the martial artist/instructor who wishes to earn a living from martial arts teaching.


----------



## seasoned

*"In Defense of the McDojo" *Not my words
Sadly what you say is very true. The only problem I see though is this "Mc" handle can be applied to many other facets of life. Our society is caving into the sub-par and calling it acceptable. If I may digress, there is mc-religion, mc-government, mc-values, mc-education, and the list could go on and on. Those of us that know the difference need to stand up for what we feel is right. Just because the uneducated except this sub-par as the real deal only makes it right in their eyes. You bring up a very challenging thread because sub-par and the handle mcdojo is very subjective, and to them we may be termed old fashioned and antiquated. Maybe thats why we're only here 4 score and 10. Later.


----------



## grydth

Bill, would you concede the difference between an injury suffered in the pursuit of a legitimate art and an injury caused by a fake art?

While you contend a McDojo is not in the business of actually teaching self defense, isn't it true that most attract students by pretending to do exactly that? If they then do not deliver what they promise, and what the customer is paying for, they are providing no service..... indeed, they are doing a serious disservice.

Yes, caveat emptor. But have we not seen threads here where fakes attracted more students than genuine masters because of more convincing presentations? Did we not just have an instance where somebody had some very impressive, though completely forged, certificates? Finding fault with the shopper may be appropriate - but this in no way exonerates the faker.

McDonald's the burger joint at least provides real, though junky food, which provides some nominal nourishment to the body. But I think too many McDojos provide no nourishment to either mind or body, and often act to poison both.

Just my opinions..... :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> Bill, would you concede the difference between an injury suffered in the pursuit of a legitimate art and an injury caused by a fake art?



I guess it depends on how you define it.  As far as the injury itself goes, no, I don't see a difference.  It makes little difference to my busted toe how I broke it.



> While you contend a McDojo is not in the business of actually teaching self defense, isn't it true that most attract students by pretending to do exactly that?



What is self-defense?  Do you mean effective self-defense?  Self-defense against whom, the average street thug, or a trained martial artist?  Self-defense in all situations, or only against certain situations?

If I teach basic blocks and kicks and punches, is that not capable of being used in self-defense?



> If they then do not deliver what they promise, and what the customer is paying for, they are providing no service..... indeed, they are doing a serious disservice.



McDonalds claims to provide tasty inexpensive food.  They do not claim to be a high-quality restaurant.  Are they then a fraud?  McDojos don't claim to produce world-champions, they claim to teach self-defense in the form of 'karate' or 'kung fu' or whatever they think is the hot topic at any given time.

And again, one can argue that the customer is not buying self-defense.  They're buying a belt, for a fee, on a structured payment plan.



> Yes, caveat emptor. But have we not seen threads here where fakes attracted more students than genuine masters because of more convincing presentations?



And what does this mean?  That the McDojo is bad, or that the genuine instructor isn't a very good businessperson?



> Did we not just have an instance where somebody had some very impressive, though completely forged, certificates? Finding fault with the shopper may be appropriate - but this in no way exonerates the faker.



If a person purports to have credentials from a society or organization that they do not have, that is fraud.  Are you arguing that McDojos consist of that?  I would counter that most McDojos have instructors who sport fancy diplomas that don't have much value in 'our' world, but they're no more fake than ours - because there is no independent objective way of judging one against the other.



> McDonald's the burger joint at least provides real, though junky food, which provides some nominal nourishment to the body. But I think too many McDojos provide no nourishment to either mind or body, and often act to poison both.



I have not argued that they're teaching good martial arts.  I've argued that they are a sound business model, and like McDonalds, they might provide real, though junky, martial arts training.



> Just my opinions..... :asian:



I hear you.  But what you seem to be mostly saying is that McDojos are bad.  Bad they may be, but successful they are.  And there is a reason for that.  They have a good business model, and they understand their clientele.


----------



## grydth

Many bad enterprises are extremely successful. History is full of them. But success itself does not act to make what is evil into wonderful.

Do McDojos truly understand their clientele as people.... or do they just understand enough about them so as to be able to fool them? That is a predator's understanding, not a scholar or teacher's.

The key test for fraud is the veracity of what you are selling. If a McDojo advertises to sell effective self defense and only renders a belt for a fee, most would call that fraud.

Many true masters aren't very good as business people. That comes out again and again here..... but having slickly marketed frauds in the region only hurts the true arts, and in a variety of ways. Of course, the genuine masters are limited by the truth in what they can promise.... placing them at a significant disadvantage to the fake.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> Many bad enterprises are extremely successful. History is full of them. But success itself does not act to make what is evil into wonderful.



No, nor have I argued that it does.



> Do McDojos truly understand their clientele as people.... or do they just understand enough about them so as to be able to fool them? That is a predator's understanding, not a scholar or teacher's.



You seem to be fixed on the notion that McDojo's fool people.  I'm not sure they do.  They sell a product that people seem to want to buy.  To the best of my knowledge, they're not selling mastery of martial arts or even self-defense beyond the basics.  They sell black belts to people who want to buy black belts.  If both the seller and the buyer understand the transaction, I have a hard time calling that fraud.  I would contend that most students at a McDojo know exactly what they're purchasing, and they get it.



> The key test for fraud is the veracity of what you are selling. If a McDojo advertises to sell effective self defense and only renders a belt for a fee, most would call that fraud.



I disagree.  Most would call the basic blocks, kicks, and punches, the essentials of self-defense.  Beyond that, I haven't heard much in the way of claims by McDojos.  I have not heard of them claiming to teach a person to able to defend themselves against any situation.

You also seem to be locked onto the worst possible outcome; that of a student who learns absolutely nothing from a McDojo and therefore cannot defend himself or herself.  I would contend that there are quite a few McDojos that teach martial arts in a basic form that is at least useful, if not masterful.

Even if we agree that some McDojos sell what they do not possess, do all of them?  Most are as others describe them disparagingly - belt factories.  They sell belts, and many students want to buy them.



> Many true masters aren't very good as business people. That comes out again and again here..... but having slickly marketed frauds in the region only hurts the true arts, and in a variety of ways. Of course, the genuine masters are limited by the truth in what they can promise.... placing them at a significant disadvantage to the fake.



Again, I have to respectfully disagree.  Many true masters may not be good business people, but there's nothing saying they can't be.  And marketing is marketing - a true master can easily offer an advantage over the McDojo by targeting their marketing to those who would be interested in what they teach;  the usual market for the McDojo students is not their target audience.  You'll never convince soccer moms who want junior to gain self-confidence that authentic and masterful teaching which promises nothing in the way of belts is superior to a belt factory - so it would be foolish to market to them.  But most non-McDojos do little to no marketing at all.  That's not bad marketing, it's non-existent marketing.  Would you say that a true master is bound to not market their services?

But in any case, again I find it hard to fault the McDojo for understanding their target audience and catering to it.  Sound business strategy, and it clearly works.


----------



## grydth

I should have been clearer the first time out on this thread.... I am only speaking about the outright frauds, the worst of the worst. 

I believe there are a number of quality dojos that, for business reasons, are now taking on some traits associated with McDojos - but that usually doesn't make their teaching any less valid. 

I believe there are some places at the other end of the spectrum who eventually  evolve/mature into offering at least some things of value...... .

A dojo which teaches *sound* basics to me is generally not a McDojo. But, seriously, how many of these places do? How many deliver anything remotely near what they promise?

Fooling consumers is a national industry, people make livings just teaching that 'skill'..... I have little reason to think MA is immune to this, and the postings on this Forum, to me, confirm that. 

To the extent that some lazy and superficial students are complicit in this, the ones who want a sweat and blood free black belt as a ticket punch - there're as bad as their 'teachers'.

I *always* focus on worst case scenarios, and that goes back to military service... anyone can plan for the easy eventuality. I want to know what can blow up.

But essentially it all comes down to this: do you deliver the goods or services you promise? if you do not, here as everywhere, it is consumer fraud..... and that is always harmful to individual, to the art/trade and to society in general.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> A dojo which teaches *sound* basics to me is generally not a McDojo.



Ah, I see now.  Excuse me for not getting that.  To my way of thinking, a McDojo is such because of the ways it resembles a McDonalds, hence the name.  Franchised, low-to-middle quality, aimed at a particular market segment, provides a guaranteed product in exchange for a fee (Big Mac or Black Belt, side of mayo optional).

A McDojo to me is packaged goods.  It has a basic focus of profit, not teaching.  Like those trade schools that teach IT skills, but don't teach the liberal arts and other classes necessary to get an accredited degree - they are profit-based, not education-based.  They are in business to make money; what they teach is secondary.

A Dojo can have some of the same features as a McDojo, but usually doesn't.  That's because (IMHO), the instructors are generally very good martial artists with a love of what they teach, but not necessarily good business people who wish to earn a living from teaching it.

If the goal is to earn a living from teaching martial arts (and that's why I put it in this forum), 'real' dojos could take some lessons from the McDojo.  They understand their market.  The dojo and the McDojo do not have the same market, but it is still important to understand it.  The McDojo treats the business of teaching martial arts as a business, and not as a labor of love.  The McDojo can articulate the reasons a person would want to train there.  The traditional dojo can do that too - even better - but seldom does.

It's like another thread I was involved in this morning - I liken it to my experiences trying to be in the business of photography.  Sadly, it's not about photography, it's about the business of photography.  Emphasis on business.  There's more back-office than front-office, and taking photographs is the least of it.  Being good at photography?  Doesn't matter hardly at all when it comes to success or failure.  A crap photographer can make it big if he can run a business well.  It doesn't hurt to be good, but it's better to be a good business person if the goal is to run a business and not a hobby doing something you love.


----------



## Steve

There are lots of ways to make a living.  Many are questionable but lucrative, selling inferior goods at an inflated price.  Whether you're an unscrupulous used car salesman, or schilling a piece of plastic for 2 easy payments of $19.99 on an infomercial, or running what amounts to a daycare center under a TKD veneer.   It's all the same.   

If you want to do that, more power to you.  Not for me.   I sold furniture on commission while in college and was very good at it.  But I got out within months of graduating and am thankful for it.   I could have sold prettyuch anything, probably including martial arts but money isn't the only measure of success, even in business.


----------



## jks9199

Commercial martial arts -- even the day care disguised as martial arts -- are not inherently evil.  Nor are many of the common elements of commercial martial arts, like contracts, testing fees, and the rest.

But there is plenty of evil in the more mercenary martial arts businesses.  For example, one in my area will enroll a student in their "instructor program."  They then expect that person, from day one, to teach in that style -- no matter their background.  And pay for the privilege!  (I know this, because I know someone who got stuck in this mess...)  They jump on whatever they think will bring students in, collecting fees and limiting their choices... and have little tolerance for questioning.

Commercial martial arts serves a valid and necessary role; they get people interested and started.  Commercial places in popular arts satisfy a lot of people's interest.  But the places that scam students out of money, without any effort to provide an honest experience at the level they offer...  They are wrong.  And at least arguably evil.


----------



## K-man

OMG!!  I have just realized ... not only am I the product of a McDojo, I am a certified card carrying member.  My card tells me that when I joined I have a lifetime membership.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   In this country you serve less time for murder!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> There are lots of ways to make a living.  Many are questionable but lucrative, selling inferior goods at an inflated price.  Whether you're an unscrupulous used car salesman, or schilling a piece of plastic for 2 easy payments of $19.99 on an infomercial, or running what amounts to a daycare center under a TKD veneer.   It's all the same.



99% of everything is crap, and it all gets sold.  Either the entire world is evil, or people like and want crap in most circumstances.  It can't be evil to give people what they want and even demand.



> If you want to do that, more power to you.  Not for me.   I sold furniture on commission while in college and was very good at it.  But I got out within months of graduating and am thankful for it.   I could have sold prettyuch anything, probably including martial arts but money isn't the only measure of success, even in business.



I certainly have *no interest* in running a McDojo.  However, money is the only measure of success.  One can only pay rent or a mortgage with money.  One can only buy food with money.  No money, no dojo; unless one intends to run it not as a business, but as a hobby or a labor of love.  And there is nothing wrong with that; it's noble and admirable.  But this being the the 'School Management' forum, it would seem that making money would be one of the topics of interest.

Seems that a lot of the responses I'm getting are focused on how evil or wrong or ineffective McDojos are.  I get that.  It's really not my point.  I think aluminum siding is evil, and don't much care for the people who sell it, but it's bloody everywhere, and people seem to like the stuff.  It would seem that if one were in the siding business, one would want to be good at it; meaning that one would want to make money doing it.

If one intends to make a profit and therefore 'be successful' at running a dojo, there are some lessons that can be learned from the evil McDojo.  They have figured out some basic principles that can be applied to a non-McDojo without compromising principles or watering-down teaching.

I will say this - if I ever managed to acquire the skillset necessary to effectively teach martial arts (which I doubt I will, seeing as I haven't enough years left on the planet to do so given my late start), I would definitely look to the McDojo and take some of their lessons in running a business.  It seems to me that there is a lot of money being left on the table.


----------



## seasoned

Good morning, after a somewhat good nights sleep I would like to interject a thought. I came through the ranks, in a DoJo. At that time the word Mcdojo was unheard of, but there were health spa's around, and that was the distinction. It really was cut and dry at that time, around the early 60's. Everyone that went to either one was looking for a specific product, (1) self defense, (2) or to get in shape, and drop a few pounds. The health spa would enroll anybody that walked in, and the focus was to transform your body back to that youthful form and vigor you once had, and they *thrived*. The DoJo on the other hand, was training "hardened warriors", and they *got by*. Each served a purpose. Enter the 70's and 80's and the business mind was set into motion , and the blending of both started to take place. Each serves a purpose, each has students, but the focus is not the same. Decide what you want, find out the focus of the DoJo or studio as they are sometimes called, and go for it.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> 99% of everything is crap, and it all gets sold. Either the entire world is evil, or people like and want crap in most circumstances. It can't be evil to give people what they want and even demand.


Evil is your choice of words, not mine.  It IS unscrupulous to sell an inferior product at an inflated price.  Selling a cheap piece of plastic at the Dollar Store is fine.  It's cheap.  You know it's cheap and you're getting exactly what you expect.  

Selling a cheap piece of plastic alleging that it's the super awesome fantastic at 10,000% profit is unscrupulous.  This is what a mcdojo often does.  It sells an inferior product at a premium price.  Even the milder, kiddie daycare style McDojos where they make claims to teach kids things like honor, integrity, work ethic and who knows what else.  These claims are patently untrue.  

The program cannot teach these things because the program has no integrity.  The kids are learning the opposite of integrity and honor.  They're learning BAD values, not good ones.  

The kids are learning that the bottom line is the most important consideration.  

They're learning that, no matter how much effort they put into something, they will get rewarded in exactly the same way.  The child who picks his nose every class will get his belt promotions at exactly the same time (and for the same price) as the kid who works hard and tries to do his best.


> I certainly have *no interest* in running a McDojo. However, money is the only measure of success. One can only pay rent or a mortgage with money. One can only buy food with money. No money, no dojo; unless one intends to run it not as a business, but as a hobby or a labor of love. And there is nothing wrong with that; it's noble and admirable. But this being the the 'School Management' forum, it would seem that making money would be one of the topics of interest.


I disagree.  Of course, a business should make enough money to be viable (And that is a number that only the business owner can know).  Of course, one would need to make enough money to pay the bills both personal and professional.  

Beyond this, however, there are an infinite number of ways to measure success.  You're making it black and white, off or on.  It's not that way.  


> Seems that a lot of the responses I'm getting are focused on how evil or wrong or ineffective McDojos are. I get that. It's really not my point.


Making a business case for a mcdojo invites this kind of response.  I'm not sure you're getting my point, which is not that they're evil.  I don't know where you get that from my post.  I don't think used car salesmen are evil, either.  


> I think aluminum siding is evil, and don't much care for the people who sell it, but it's bloody everywhere, and people seem to like the stuff. It would seem that if one were in the siding business, one would want to be good at it; meaning that one would want to make money doing it.


I am beginning to believe that you and I have different definitions of evil.  Siding can't be evil.  It's a piece of metal.  And the salesmen may or may not be unscrupulous, depending upon how they choose to go about their business.  The McDojo version uses pressure sales techniques to sell his siding at an inflated price, making claims that are at best stretching the truth and at worst are complete fiction.  

There is nothing wrong with a guy selling siding to people at a fair price and, frankly, it's odd that you would use the term 'evil' in this way.  Odd to me, at least. 





> If one intends to make a profit and therefore 'be successful' at running a dojo, there are some lessons that can be learned from the evil McDojo. They have figured out some basic principles that can be applied to a non-McDojo without compromising principles or watering-down teaching.


I don't believe you're really talking about the McDojo.  This thread should really be titled, "In Defense of Selling Out."  That's what your argument is defending.  It wouldn't be called selling out if it didn't generate some amount of profit in the short term.  

But as the term states, it's selling out.  Once you've sold out, you can't go back.  Once you start down the path to running a McDojo, you're set.  I've seen it and it's sad.  





> I will say this - if I ever managed to acquire the skillset necessary to effectively teach martial arts (which I doubt I will, seeing as I haven't enough years left on the planet to do so given my late start), I would definitely look to the McDojo and take some of their lessons in running a business. It seems to me that there is a lot of money being left on the table.


And, depending upon how you choose to do it, and what specific lessons you've learned, you will have sold out before you ever even got started.  That's a shame.  Not evil.  Just a little sad.

It's not about whether you make money or not.  Of course, you need to do that.  It's about whether you want to be the unscrupulous siding salesman or not.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I love the martial sciences to much to offer anything good in defense of McDojo's.  Steve's points illustrate pretty much how I feel especially the point of selling something marketably inferior and claiming it is superior.  Unfortunately these salesmen and salesladies are experts at what they do.  They may in the end be poor martial practitioners and also produce en masse another generation of poor martial practitioners but they are good at sales.  However, like Steve said they sell a product that is patently not what they claim it to be!  They are like a modern snake oil salesman and they flourish.  So for generations now we will have this to deal with.  Bill in the end what you do and what I do will be compared to what they do.  That is the crime in this particular situation!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I love the martial sciences to much to offer anything good in defense of McDojo's.  Steve's points illustrate pretty much how I feel especially the point of selling something marketably inferior and claiming it is superior.  Unfortunately these salesmen and salesladies are experts at what they do.  They may in the end be poor martial practitioners and also produce en masse another generation of poor martial practitioners but they are good at sales.  However, like Steve said they sell a product that is patently not what they claim it to be!  They are like a modern snake oil salesman and they flourish.



I contend that they sell a product that the public seems to want to buy.  While some may be confused between authentic martial arts and canned mediocre training, it's clear that they sell belts more than the concept of training; lots of people seem to want to buy a belt.  They're not people who would otherwise consider 'real' martial arts training, so they're a different market.  The McDojos sell them what they want to buy.



> So for generations now we will have this to deal with.  Bill in the end what you do and what I do will be compared to what they do.  That is the crime in this particular situation!



I do not worry about what others think of my training, nor do I worry about whether or not I'm being compared to the products of McDojo training.  I train for my own benefit and not for what others may mistakenly think of it.  Don't you?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Absolutely in the end my training and those I work with are all that matters.


----------



## JWLuiza

You mentioned contracts in the "plus" side of the business model. I think contracts in a MA business model are unethical and in the long run hurt the bottom line, while showing a cash flow positive in the short term. I find allowing for multiple time period enrollments with increasing discounts to be a fair incentive though (e.g., allowing a 1, 3, 6, 12 month purchase).


----------



## Bill Mattocks

JWLuiza said:


> You mentioned contracts in the "plus" side of the business model. I think contracts in a MA business model are unethical and in the long run hurt the bottom line, while showing a cash flow positive in the short term. I find allowing for multiple time period enrollments with increasing discounts to be a fair incentive though (e.g., allowing a 1, 3, 6, 12 month purchase).



This may be your personal experience, and I therefore cannot deny it.  But every industry I've ever been involved in searches for the Holy Grail of services income - recurring income that can be depended upon.  Contracts are the stuff of predictable, recurring, income.

In support of your statement, I found this:

http://www.jonathanfields.com/blog/business-strategy-the-recurring-income-trap/

I largely agree with the sentiments of the author (and your thoughts too), but I recognize that trap or not, the recurring income model works and works well.  Yes, a positively-motivated business that intentionally goes out to earn their business each month is preferable to the student - and can be a winner for the business as well - if the business has the acumen for that.  And one downside that the author of this blog I linked to did not point out - it makes things very difficult for the employees.  People look for stability and dependability for the most part.  Salespeople live on commissions by choice, but rank-and-file don't want to have to live in fear of losing their jobs any given month because Johnny Wannabe Blackbelt didn't choose to pay his dues that month.


----------



## JWLuiza

Thank you for your response and I completely see the business drive for the dependable income, but I have to wonder if it possible to financially model the negative impact of FORCED contracts vs. opt-in contracts. Flux in cash flow can be devastating for any business, which is why I do see the value of having them as an option. However, as you have pointed out, and the article as well, the gym industry has worked on this model for years.

BTW, I really appreciate your take on Business vs. Sensei/Teacher perspectives. As a med student I don't learn ANY business skills and learning those skills is imperative in surviving in private practice.


----------



## jks9199

JWLuiza said:


> You mentioned contracts in the "plus" side of the business model. I think contracts in a MA business model are unethical and in the long run hurt the bottom line, while showing a cash flow positive in the short term. I find allowing for multiple time period enrollments with increasing discounts to be a fair incentive though (e.g., allowing a 1, 3, 6, 12 month purchase).


Contracts aren't bad, to me, in and of themselves.  A contract ensures income over a stretch of time, which is a pretty important thing for a business, no?  Your term enrollments do the same thing, and probably have a contract (for $x, you get 3 months/6 months/etc. with y classes per week, money deducted monthly or paid up front), right?

But when you're talking signing someone up on day -1 for a 3 to 5 year contract, with the addendum for the Black Belt Club and Super Ninja Tiger Demo Team...  Yeah, that's a problem.  Especially when it's a kid...  and there's almost no escape clause for disinterest or dissatisfaction.  After all, what do you tell the guy who just doesn't get it together in time at the end of his "black belt contract?"  You've got a contract to train him to black belt; he either continues to train for free until he's ready (not a good business call...) or you damn well pass him to black belt at the end of the contract...


----------



## dianhsuhe

Unlike McDojo's though- Eating at McDonalds does not put you in danger.  Uhh..Well at least not life threatening danger. LOL

I actually think that McDojo's take potential students away from legitimate schools.  The general public often picks a dojo based on location, convenience and overall appearance.  These mean NOTHING in the martial arts...

I came from a McDojo and I get nauseous and light-headed when I ponder what "might have been" had I stayed.

Jamey


----------



## Bill Mattocks

dianhsuhe said:


> I actually think that McDojo's take potential students away from legitimate schools.  The general public often picks a dojo based on location, convenience and overall appearance.  These mean NOTHING in the martial arts...



If that is what matters to them, they probably won't do well with a 'real' dojo where they have to put forth real effort, will they?

In addition, McDojos, through their advertising, keep the idea out there that there are martial arts schools.  Traditional dojos probably catch some free ride on that - a person sees an ad on TV, thinks about it, and then happens to notice the 'real' dojo down the street.  In the end, it's probably a push.



> I came from a McDojo and I get nauseous and light-headed when I ponder what "might have been" had I stayed.



I understand.


----------



## dianhsuhe

Bill I always enjoy your posts!

Defending McDojo's is a hearty task...I am not sure though that the folks who are looking for a clean and conveniently located dojo would wilt under the pressure of real training.  Tough call-

I do like the blackjack analogy however.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

dianhsuhe said:


> Defending McDojo's is a hearty task.



I like to live a life of danger.  Ticking off martial artists, hmmm.


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> I
> 
> In addition, McDojos, through their advertising, keep the idea out there that there are martial arts schools.  Traditional dojos probably catch some free ride on that - a person sees an ad on TV, thinks about it, and then happens to notice the 'real' dojo down the street.  In the end, it's probably a push.



McDojos are as positive an advertisement for the martial arts as pederast clergy are for religions.

People burned by a fraudulent teacher may well be less likely to try again at a reputable establishment.

One thing I cannot figure out... why would you decide of your own volition to take up their defense?


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> I like to live a life of danger.  Ticking off martial artists, hmmm.



You want danger - try getting my wife angry at you!!  opcorn:


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> McDojos are as positive an advertisement for the martial arts as pederast clergy are for religions.
> 
> People burned by a fraudulent teacher may well be less likely to try again at a reputable establishment.



Again, I would argue that most people don't feel 'burned' because they got what they paid for - a belt.  If they've been defrauded, they're blissfully unaware of it.  In any case, advertising is aimed at newcomers, not the already enrolled.



> One thing I cannot figure out... why would you decide of your own volition to take up their defense?



I just happened to be thinking of how their business model is actually a pretty good one, and how that model could be modified and extended to be used by 'real' dojos.


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, I would argue that most people don't feel 'burned' because they got what they paid for - a belt.  If they've been defrauded, they're blissfully unaware of it.  In any case, advertising is aimed at newcomers, not the already enrolled.
> 
> I just happened to be thinking of how their business model is actually a pretty good one, and how that model could be modified and extended to be used by 'real' dojos.



So you are defending the business model, not the McDojo? *That *position I could have some agreement with.

I think you are assuming all customers at these places want the same thing, and that uniformly they are rather shallow..... but that is not the case. MT has a number of 'refugees' from McDojo's, all of whom are delighted to have found legitimate homes.

Look at the reasons you or my family is in the MA - pretty basic, right? So - - - why imagine none of the others have the same wants and needs? Further, don't they _deserve_ what you and I are getting?

Misleading advertising aimed at newcomers is the most despicable; it targets a vulnerable class lacking knowledge and experience. 

Knowledge of the fraud by the victim is irrelevant in debating whether the fraud exists; I'd be guilty of passing you a counterfeit $100 bill whether you knew it was fake or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> So you are defending the business model, not the McDojo? *That *position I could have some agreement with.



That's what I've been saying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and why I started this thread in the "School Management" forum.



> I think you are assuming all customers at these places want the same thing, and that uniformly they are rather shallow..... but that is not the case. MT has a number of 'refugees' from McDojo's, all of whom are delighted to have found legitimate homes.


Fair enough.  It's not the case that all people who sign up at McDojos are shallow and searching for belts instead of legitimate training.  It's also not the case that none of them are shallow and searching for belts.  Belt factories exist because people seem to want them.  I think the mere fact that sellers on eBay appear to make money selling black belt certificates should go to prove that there's a market for such things.



> Look at the reasons you or my family is in the MA - pretty basic, right? So - - - why imagine none of the others have the same wants and needs?


Why image that they all have the same wants and needs?

Look, it's a small and insular world in martial arts.  We think of ourselves as if we were the 'average' but in fact we're not.  Not many people do think like us.  We're different and part of a rather small subset.



> Further, don't they _deserve_ what you and I are getting?


If they join a McDojo thinking that they are getting top-notch training, then yes, they deserve to get that.  If they join to get a black belt in a specified period of time for a specified amount of money, then they deserve that.



> Misleading advertising aimed at newcomers is the most despicable; it targets a vulnerable class lacking knowledge and experience.


Welcome to the world.  Ever see the ad for 'eXtenze' capsules on late-night TV?  How about 'HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead?'  How about energy drinks?  McDonalds, anyone?  Reality TV?  American Idol?  Things go better with Coke?  The world is full of crap, and 99% is of is worthless if not downright dangerous.  People like crap.  They demand crap.  They line up for crap.  They get angry if their crap is denied to them. The history of the world proves it.



> Knowledge of the fraud by the victim is irrelevant in debating whether the fraud exists; I'd be guilty of passing you a counterfeit $100 bill whether you knew it was fake or not.


Sure, but again, we're back to arguing that all McDojos are uniformly worthless.  I contend that they're not all worthless, even if few are of high quality.  Most teach basic martial arts skills, and those skills have value even if they're not the best.

Would you argue that all non-McDojos are teaching high-quality MA?  I'd say there's no way to know, but it would be reasonable to assume there are some crooks out there who are not running McDojos.  And by the same token, not all McDojos are defrauding anyone.  First, because they provide what the sell - a belt.  Second, because many of them do teach some form of martial arts reasonably well; even if not great.


----------



## grydth

Belt factories may also exist because large segments of the public knows no better. Given the barrage of misleading advertising it is likely many believe that is the way things are supposed to be.

The fact that a market exists does not mean most would not want better... and most in fact deserve better.

If indeed your repeated point about 99% of things being crap is accurate, we likely have not much time left. If we are that full of BS as a society, we won't last long with nations like Russia and Chine around...... yet true MA values would be an antidote to the BS blizzard; McDojo's are merely a part of the problem.

I never have time for late night ads, though I can see I am missing somethings.... what I do not know. Methinks sleeping soundly may be a double blessing...... speaking of which, time to crash......


----------



## AlanE

grydth said:


> I should have been clearer the first time out on this thread.... I am only speaking about the outright frauds, the worst of the worst.
> 
> I *always* focus on worst case scenarios, and that goes back to military service... anyone can plan for the easy eventuality. I want to know what can blow up.
> 
> But essentially it all comes down to this: do you deliver the goods or services you promise? if you do not, here as everywhere, it is consumer fraud..... and that is always harmful to individual, to the art/trade and to society in general.


 
I think most McDojos are delivering. It's a character issue if a person thinks they are more skilled than they are. But if the McDojo is the only accessible training in a person's world occupied by things to buy, temptations do self-destruct or be lazy, or TV to frighten or leave them feeling lacking, why not be active and at least practice kicking heavy bags and escaping holds, rules of safety being upheld? Worst case for lazy people is pulling a muscle when they try to escape a dangerous situation. 

I'm not disagreeing and saying broken promises = quality, only that chuck steak is chuck steak. If I can't afford t-bone steak, I'll stay fed and fueled anyways, and use common-sense and physical effort. I can't be prepared for everything! We all go out in the world and practice what we can. Since mad people throwing bricks can do me harm, I won't discount their abilities by checking the dojos they attended. That's a little to elitist for me. Learn in a safe environment (or not) and move on. Stay fit, keep good relationships, and have some money left over as the years pass. Anybody interferes with that dream, McDojo them .


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I like to live a life of danger.  Ticking off martial artists, hmmm.



There's the crux of it though.   Ticking off most martial artists is not dangerous at all.


----------



## Kittan Bachika

MOD: Would it be possible to slap this on the Defense of the McDojo Thread? I realize it might be more relevant there.

I was at my local news stand when I was flipping through TKD Times which had a cover  story about this person. I am referring to the cover on the left side.

It is an interesting story because basically she built herself a huge McDojo with her then husband and then a lot of drama occurred.She was nearly pushed out because a developer wanted to buy the land where the school was located but since she owned 51% she had more leverage and bought out the 49% interest of her husband. I am sure there is more to the story.

I did a search on her and boy some of the reviews concerning her contracts were not pretty.

http://raleigh.citysearch.com/review/6153998

I am not being mean. She probably worked very hard for her success but there are many things I dislike about the McDojo and one of them are contacts.


----------



## Drac

My experience with a McDojo came from a female officer that I worked..She would show up for duty wearing a satin jacket with the name embrodered on the back and various patches signifying that she had reached instructor level..When she told me what she paid for lessons I could not believe it, I didnt pay that much for my first car..


----------



## wushuguy

I'm glad there's McDojo's around. It gives my students something commonly known to measure against (although admittedly not the best measuring stick). Because McDojos are everewhere you look, sometimes even two or three on a given strip mall, and large numbers of practitioners, it gives my students something tangible they can compare themselves to, other than each other. I also encourage them to take a look, and if they like, to make some friends and play with the other kids on the block, McDojo, Dojo King, or "Real Deal". That way they can gain some experience and find out if what they're learning from me is really what they want, and they can rest assured in the direction they're going.

A nice thing one of my students said recently, was that in his 3-4 months with me, he has gained more and become confident in his ability to defend himself compared to his previous 5-6 years of training.

Whether McDojo or real, the nice thing is it gives people who eventually find what they're looking for a good assessment of what they're buying. Some people couldn't tell the difference between a Rolex and a Timex, but to those who have worn both, they'll know how to value each respectively. Which one they choose to use is then their own choice.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

wushuguy said:


> Some people couldn't tell the difference between a Rolex and a Timex, but to those who have worn both, they'll know how to value each respectively.



Ah, now there's an analogy I can relate to!  As a wristwatch enthusiast, I can tell you that Rolex is not considered the 'best' in terms of quality (Blancpain, IWC, JLC, Vacheron-Constantine, etc, just to name a few).  But to the buying public, Rolex is to watches what Rolls-Royce is to cars; best of the best.  One could say that if you buy a Rolex thinking you're getting the best, you're being defrauded - not only isn't it the best, but better quality mechanical watches can be had for less money.  But on the other hand Rolex is still quite good, and when one has a Rolex, one knows what one has; so does the rest of the world.  If I were to go about sporting a genuine IWC chronometer on my wrist (way out of my league), very few people would know the difference between it and a basic wristwatch of unknown brand.  Only another watch enthusiast would know.

That being said, there are also a lot of people who buy fake Rolexes because although they want the prestige of wearing a 'real' one, they cannot afford it or simply do not want to spend the money.  The watch world's equivalent of a person who buys a belt?


----------



## terryl965

Mc Dojo's are here because lazy people want them, the mom and pops of the world only want to brag about there little Johnny becoming a BB in 18 months and knows it all. This always and will continue to be that way because of the financial  gain that come from them. I struggle to keep my doors open month after month only to be told by other so called Master to dumb it down and I can have 200 students in a few months, sorry I will keep my 20-35 and take all the time in the world to make sur emy BB's can be the best they can be and not the belt they can buy.


----------



## harlan

Good reply.  Personally, I don't have a problem with a 'widely available, cheap, low-grade, martially-based' physical activity - my personal definition of a 'McDojo'. Martial arts study was never meant for the masses, and depending on the individual they will find the 'best fit' of all the options out there. 'McDojo' doesn't necessarily mean 'bad', and sometimes I think the resentment voiced is more sour grapes than a pragmatic look at martial arts training.

Myself, I like antique clocks (Black Forest esp.), and find that basically - the inside workings are pretty much the same. The interesting part is the science, and how it's all put together, but MOST people are not interested in that. And frankly, I'd hate it if I had to share space and my teacher's time with a group of people just looking for a couple hours of mindless exercise.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, now there's an analogy I can relate to! As a wristwatch enthusiast, I can tell you that Rolex is not considered the 'best' in terms of quality (Blancpain, IWC, JLC, Vacheron-Constantine, etc, just to name a few). But to the buying public, Rolex is to watches what Rolls-Royce is to cars; best of the best. One could say that if you buy a Rolex thinking you're getting the best, you're being defrauded - not only isn't it the best, but better quality mechanical watches can be had for less money. But on the other hand Rolex is still quite good, and when one has a Rolex, one knows what one has; so does the rest of the world. If I were to go about sporting a genuine IWC chronometer on my wrist (way out of my league), very few people would know the difference between it and a basic wristwatch of unknown brand. Only another watch enthusiast would know.
> 
> That being said, there are also a lot of people who buy fake Rolexes because although they want the prestige of wearing a 'real' one, they cannot afford it or simply do not want to spend the money. The watch world's equivalent of a person who buys a belt?


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, now there's an analogy I can relate to! As a wristwatch enthusiast, I can tell you that Rolex is not considered the 'best' in terms of quality (Blancpain, IWC, JLC, Vacheron-Constantine, etc, just to name a few). But to the buying public, Rolex is to watches what Rolls-Royce is to cars; best of the best. One could say that if you buy a Rolex thinking you're getting the best, you're being defrauded - not only isn't it the best, but better quality mechanical watches can be had for less money. But on the other hand Rolex is still quite good, and when one has a Rolex, one knows what one has; so does the rest of the world. If I were to go about sporting a genuine IWC chronometer on my wrist (way out of my league), very few people would know the difference between it and a basic wristwatch of unknown brand. Only another watch enthusiast would know.


you're contradicting yourself. If a consumer purchases a Rolex thinking he is getting the best of the best, he clearly does not know what he's getting. He's being duped.  You readily admit that the Rolex ISN'T the best of the best but also readily admit that this is a large part of why people buy them.

Once again, this leads back to a point that you are avoiding, and that's whether the public really knows what they're getting. In the case of a McDojo, some do, of course. But many don't. They are being preyed upon. Or more precisely, their ignorance is being exploited. If you asked the people who train in a mcdojo what they want, do you think that they'd reply (as you've stated multiple times) that they just want crap? I don't think so. Their answers would likely be much the same as yours, mine and everyone else's on here. In other words, they'd train for a variety of reasons, but I'd argue that none of them pick their dojos because they want to be duped. 

If you're with me so far, then the question becomes, "Is a business model that relies upon ignorance a sound business model?" Because that's what we're really talking about. And if money is the overriding concern, then yes. It could be. But make no mistake. That's what we're talking about. For a McDojo to thrive, it must prey upon an ignorant customer base, use pressure sales techniques to get people to commit long term, and in almost all cases choose quantity over quality where the two conflict. 

People castigate the students in McDojos, presuming that they're lazy or looking for an easy promotion. And yet, so many of us here started out in McDojos. It's not necessarily laziness or a desire for instant gratification as much as it's about a lack of information, a lack of standards, and a focus on exploiting ignorance. The one business practice common to most McDojos is to discourage a person from shopping around. Exclusivity is common. Don't compare my product with others. Don't train at another studio. Don't purchase your dobok or your sparring gear online... buy only what my school sells. Drink my kool aid. Listen to my rationale about why I have the "real" kung fu. This is deceptive at least, and fraudulent at worst and is an almost universal characteristic of the McDojo.

Over and over, you trot out a 99% of everything is crap, but I'm not sure I agree. As a premise, I think you're building your rationale from this idea that people like crap, but I just don't agree. Instant gratification? Sure. Quick fix? Sometimes. But no one wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going spend my money on something that doesn't function as designed today."


----------



## wushuguy

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, now there's an analogy I can relate to!  As a wristwatch enthusiast, I can tell you that Rolex is not considered the 'best' in terms of quality (Blancpain, IWC, JLC, Vacheron-Constantine, etc, just to name a few).  But to the buying public, Rolex is to watches what Rolls-Royce is to cars; best of the best.
> That being said, there are also a lot of people who buy fake Rolexes because although they want the prestige of wearing a 'real' one, they cannot afford it or simply do not want to spend the money.  The watch world's equivalent of a person who buys a belt?



I like Vacheron myself, if I could afford it, lol.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> you're contradicting yourself. If a consumer purchases a Rolex thinking he is getting the best of the best, he clearly does not know what he's getting. He's being duped.  You readily admit that the Rolex ISN'T the best of the best but also readily admit that this is a large part of why people buy them.
> 
> Once again, this leads back to a point that you are avoiding, and that's whether the public really knows what they're getting. In the case of a McDojo, some do, of course. But many don't. They are being preyed upon. Or more precisely, their ignorance is being exploited. If you asked the people who train in a mcdojo what they want, do you think that they'd reply (as you've stated multiple times) that they just want crap? I don't think so. Their answers would likely be much the same as yours, mine and everyone else's on here. In other words, they'd train for a variety of reasons, but I'd argue that none of them pick their dojos because they want to be duped.



I'm not trying to avoid any points you're making.  If what you're saying is correct, then anyone who buys a Rolex, other than a watch aficionado, is being defrauded.  I don't accept that as true.  They think they're buying the best because that's the common perception.  Rolex is not going tell them, _"Well, we're not the very best you can buy, but we're still quite good."_ I don't see Rolex as crooks, nor do I see the McDojo as being crooks for not telling prospective MA students that they're not the best training available.



> If you're with me so far, then the question becomes, "Is a business model that relies upon ignorance a sound business model?" Because that's what we're really talking about. And if money is the overriding concern, then yes. It could be. But make no mistake. That's what we're talking about. For a McDojo to thrive, it must prey upon an ignorant customer base, use pressure sales techniques to get people to commit long term, and in almost all cases choose quantity over quality where the two conflict.



Except for the term 'prey upon', I agree.  They market to a largely ignorant customer base.  It's not their job to educate them.  And nobody does, from the people who sell cars to the people who sell vitamins.  Nobody says _"This is probably not the best, and won't work as well as we claim, but buy it anyway."_  So I guess everyone is 'preying upon' the gullible public in that sense.



> People castigate the students in McDojos, presuming that they're lazy or looking for an easy promotion. And yet, so many of us here started out in McDojos. It's not necessarily laziness or a desire for instant gratification as much as it's about a lack of information, a lack of standards, and a focus on exploiting ignorance. The one business practice common to most McDojos is to discourage a person from shopping around. Exclusivity is common. Don't compare my product with others. Don't train at another studio. Don't purchase your dobok or your sparring gear online... buy only what my school sells. Drink my kool aid. Listen to my rationale about why I have the "real" kung fu. This is deceptive at least, and fraudulent at worst and is an almost universal characteristic of the McDojo.



It's a universal characteristic of nearly everything that is sold.  I think you're just focusing your dislike on the McDojo, when in fact they don't do anything different than any other services business out there for the most part.



> Over and over, you trot out a 99% of everything is crap, but I'm not sure I agree. As a premise, I think you're building your rationale from this idea that people like crap, but I just don't agree. Instant gratification? Sure. Quick fix? Sometimes. But no one wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going spend my money on something that doesn't function as designed today."



The people you note who have left the McDojo in search of real training are exemplars of those who didn't want to be sold crap, and left when they realized that's what they were getting.  The rest seem to be content to be sold crap.  And I'd suggest if you evangelized to them and tried to convince them they're buying crap, they'd largely ignore you.  They want what they're buying, and those few who don't, leave and find people like us.


----------



## wushuguy

stevebjj said:


> ... They are being preyed upon. Or more precisely, their ignorance is being exploited. ...
> 
> 
> ... People castigate the students in McDojos, presuming that they're lazy or looking for an easy promotion. And yet, so many of us here started out in McDojos. It's not necessarily laziness or a desire for instant gratification as much as it's about a lack of information, a lack of standards, and a focus on exploiting ignorance. The one business practice common to most McDojos is to discourage a person from shopping around. Exclusivity is common. Don't compare my product with others. Don't train at another studio. Don't purchase your dobok or your sparring gear online... buy only what my school sells. Drink my kool aid. Listen to my rationale about why I have the "real" kung fu. This is deceptive at least, and fraudulent at worst and is an almost universal characteristic of the McDojo.
> ...



Yeah, most consumers are ill informed, whether going into martial arts, prestigious watches, etc. it's a buyer beware world we live in. But anyway, if they're really interested and also talented, they'll probably look more into what martial arts has as most talented students will "out grow" a mcdojo, that is, unless they drowned in kool aid.

I'm sure that's how many of us who started in mcdojos and moved on got here.

also, even if people know there's better things than what they know, they don't always like to do it, especially if they've been in a mcdojo so long and spent so much time and money... some people just look the other way and keep at it rather than admit they got duped for X years.  to make the switch is harder for adults than kids.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not trying to avoid any points you're making. If what you're saying is correct, then anyone who buys a Rolex, other than a watch aficionado, is being defrauded. I don't accept that as true. They think they're buying the best because that's the common perception. Rolex is not going tell them, _"Well, we're not the very best you can buy, but we're still quite good."_ I don't see Rolex as crooks, nor do I see the McDojo as being crooks for not telling prospective MA students that they're not the best training available.


The point is not fraud.  Just as the point was not good vs evil.  It's about whether the business model depends upon a customer base that is ignorant.  

The watch metaphor breaks down somewhat because a rolex IS a pretty nice watch.  Not the best of the best, but still nice.  In contrast, the reason we're talking about McDojos is that they sell belts, promote for money not for merit, etc, etc.  

But quality issues are beside the point.  Once again, if your business model depends upon a customer base that is ignorant, and because this is a service, _remains_ ignorant, then I think your business model is unsound and unscrupulous.





> Except for the term 'prey upon', I agree. They market to a largely ignorant customer base. It's not their job to educate them. And nobody does, from the people who sell cars to the people who sell vitamins. Nobody says _"This is probably not the best, and won't work as well as we claim, but buy it anyway."_ So I guess everyone is 'preying upon' the gullible public in that sense.


Not everyone.  There's still a concept of good value out there, and many people make a fine living providing solid value for services or goods rendered.


> It's a universal characteristic of nearly everything that is sold. I think you're just focusing your dislike on the McDojo, when in fact they don't do anything different than any other services business out there for the most part.


Once again, you're painting business and sales with a giant brush.  Services and sales businesses don't all prey upon ignorance.   Some do.  The key, though, is that you seem to believe that in sales and service, this is the only business approach that exists.  It's just not true.  I'm not talking just about martial arts.

There are other equally effective sales tactics, such as providing value or emphasizing features and benefit (ie, "what's in it for you" sales).  These don't depend upon an ignorant clientele.  Quite the opposite.  Businesses that focus on providing good value will often encourage comparison to other similar businesses.  

Can't you see the difference?  


> The people you note who have left the McDojo in search of real training are exemplars of those who didn't want to be sold crap, and left when they realized that's what they were getting. The rest seem to be content to be sold crap. And I'd suggest if you evangelized to them and tried to convince them they're buying crap, they'd largely ignore you. They want what they're buying, and those few who don't, leave and find people like us.


You're speculating here.  You've already accepted that a tacit characteristic of a mcdojo business model is ignorance, and keeping people ignorant is a part of that model.  There are tactics used in a McDojo designed to do specifically this.  

You're taking a absolute "buyer beware" position, but there's a give and take.  At some point, business must be held accountable for predatory sales tactics and schemes.   Defending these sales tactics only encourages these sales tactics.


----------



## Flying Crane

Bill Mattocks said:


> This may seem anathema to some - those who see martial arts as something pure that is not to be sullied. But others see it differently - even the best 'pure' or 'authentic' dojo cannot stay open without students. A wonderfully-qualified instructor who is difficult to get along with, or mean, or even sadistic, can ruin a dojo, no matter how authentic the instruction is. A fantastic instructor who cannot balance the books, pay the rent, keep the lights turned on, will soon find himself without a place for his or her students to work out, no matter how good their training is. So it seems that business needs are important to any dojo, whether or not it is an 'authentic' dojo. So even a non-McDojo must consider the needs of business, even if they place the emphasis on teaching and not on making money.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


 
This is where lies the heart of my disagreement.  Martial arts and business do not mix well.  No martial arts school should be run as a business on which the instructor's livlihood depends.  It can be run as a side business with the financial goal of covering expenses, perhaps a small profit on top, but that should really be the end of it.  When the business is the bread and butter and livlihood for the instructor, it is guaranteed to become a problem.  I do not believe a martial arts school should be run in this way.


----------



## harlan

Agreed.



Flying Crane said:


> This is where lies the heart of my disagreement. Martial arts and business do not mix well. No martial arts school should be run as a business on which the instructor's livlihood depends. It can be run as a side business with the financial goal of covering expenses, perhaps a small profit on top, but that should really be the end of it. When the business is the bread and butter and livlihood for the instructor, it is guaranteed to become a problem. I do not believe a martial arts school should be run in this way.


----------



## Blade96

I agree. Our own association isnt a business. One of my senseis is a  teacher. The other one is a construction worker.  Their life comes from  that they dont make their money from Shotokan. we pay a little  membership due. But thats not what the senseis live on.

and i agree. mcdojo's know how to make money.  But i dont consider them legitimate business. They arr evil to my mind from what i read about them. I've never been to one. I havent been to a puppy mill either. But would you defend them as well and say they were a legitimate business because they know how to make money? Both turn out crap 'products' But they know how to make money and prey on a public that does not know any better. Do you really think people 'want' crap? Do you think a mother wants little Brutus to have a real black belt or one in 18 months that really doesnt mean anything? She'll say the real one obviously.  Would she want a nice clean healthy puppy that comes from a reputable breeder, or one that may be healthy, but it came from a puppy mill?  I really believe the former. People dont 'want' crap. American would probably say they dont wish to pay more for food. But do people really want crap food? I dont believe so. At university I always used to have a nice healthy grilled chicken salad. But I cant eat them anymore because they raised the price at univ to 10 dollars. I cant afford to pay that for a salad all the time. Nor can most students (who are notorious for living on crap food)  They know how to make money. Would you defend those places then? Just cause they 'know' how to make money? No offense, Bill, but I think you make mistake here.


----------



## Flying Crane

Flying Crane said:


> This is where lies the heart of my disagreement. Martial arts and business do not mix well. No martial arts school should be run as a business on which the instructor's livlihood depends. It can be run as a side business with the financial goal of covering expenses, perhaps a small profit on top, but that should really be the end of it. When the business is the bread and butter and livlihood for the instructor, it is guaranteed to become a problem. I do not believe a martial arts school should be run in this way.


 
I want to clarify my position a bit.

It is my opinion that when one's livlihood is on the line, one will make decisions that favor finances over quality and integrity. Running a martial arts school as a business and primary source of income, is guaranteed to bring this up sooner or later.

The instructor may open the school and begin with all the best intentions. He may even be teaching to a high level of quality for a time. But sooner or later he will be faced with a decision that he needs to make in order to prevent the school failing and his income disappearing. Probably this decision, while saving his school in the short term, will mean that he has compromised his standards. And once he makes that decision once, he has stepped onto a slippery slope and it will happen again and again.

Picture this: John opens a school part time, and keeps his day job. He teaches to a high level of quality, and his school grows. Eventually he quits his day job and runs the school full time. He makes a fair income from the business. As his student body grows, he can no longer keep up with all the teaching. He no longer has the close relationship with every student, that he once had because he needs to rely on assistants to run many of the classes. He's already lost control of the quality at this point.

Then, the economy takes a dump and he starts losing students who no longer have the disposable income to pay for karate lessons, which are perceived by most people as a luxury, recreational activity. John begins to realize that his livlihood is in danger. He can't afford to lose any more students, or else he will start missing payments on his expenses. If he misses another mortgage payment, he may lose his home.

Jenny has been a student of John's for a few years. She's a regular in class, but she doesn't train very hard and doesn't really spend much time outside class practicing. She also doesn't have a lot of natural ability with which to make up for her lack of committment to training. But she shows up to class regularly because it's sort of a social thing for her, and she happily pays her dues every month and buys a new gi and sparring gear and school tee-shirts from him once a year or so. 

Jenny hasn't been promoted in a while, and she has been seeing a lot of other people get promoted around her. She is getting disgruntled. John realizes he may lose her if she doesn't get another belt, and he can't lose another student right now. Gotta pay the mortgage.

So Jenny gets to test, doesn't do very well, but gets the belt anyway. Gotta keep Jenny from leaving. John just made a decision to compromise his standards, drop the bar to a new low, and gave away a belt. 

There is no going back from that. Once that standard has been set, all the other students expect it for themselves. You cannot take the rank away from the student and tell them, "I never should have promoted you yet, you didn't deserve it, so give back the belt." Once it's done, you cannot undo it.

And it's all downhill from there.

keep a day job. Teach on the side, and don't let yourself get into a position where you need to say "yes" to a student when it's not merited. If you are afraid of losing students for financial reasons, you are in a bad situation and you have lost control of quality.

I do not necessarily believe that the instructor is deliberately misleading anyone.  I think most of them probably start out with the best of intentions.  But I do believe that the reality of running a business and earning an income will eventually force him to make decisions that are good for business and bad for quality.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Actually... eating at McDonalds every day would kill you so you can't "live" off of it. Didn't you see the documentary "Supersize Me"? LOL 

Likewise, accepting what is taught in the McDojo as self-defense could have the same result. 

They're good for what they are I suppose. Pretty much an after-school activity for kids. They help them to be more coordinated and one advantage is that in sport-krotty every kid gets to play; nobody sits on the bench.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> This is where lies the heart of my disagreement. Martial arts and business do not mix well. No martial arts school should be run as a business on which the instructor's livlihood depends. It can be run as a side business with the financial goal of covering expenses, perhaps a small profit on top, but that should really be the end of it. When the business is the bread and butter and livlihood for the instructor, it is guaranteed to become a problem. I do not believe a martial arts school should be run in this way.


 
Good post, FC.  Im not sure I'd go quite so far as to suggest that all MA schools function for all intents and purposes as a non-profit, but I agree with the sentiment, absolutely.

Here's the thing.  We've seen time and again that capitalism unchecked doesn't work.  Can an unscrupulous person make a boatload of money preying upon the ignorant?  Absolutely.  We see that all the time.  

Money, however, is not the only measure of success in business.  In fact, often the unfettered pursuit of money in a business venture can undermine the values that built a profitable business in the first place.   How many times have we seen companies founded on the principles of value, integrity and quality begin shaving a little off the budget here and using cheaper materials over there until in a few short years they are selling junk and shamelessly cashing in on reputation only.

Look at the PGA.  Tiger Woods, it could be argued, is VERY good for the PGA.  Prior to his current troubles, when Tiger was in a tournament the viewership went up 93%.  More viewers means more advertisers which means $$.  

But look longer term.  Even prior to this scandal, I've argued that Tiger Woods is bad for the PGA.  20 years ago, the PGA had "stars".  The tour was a diverse collection of personalities, all of whom drew fans.  Seve Ballesteros, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Kite, Fred Couples...  I could go on and on.  

Now?  Post Tiger?  Most people would only be able to name one person on the tour.  Tiger Woods.  And of the minority left over, most of them could only probably drum up one more name:  Phil Mickelson (who's playing poor golf).  

Add to this that many of the people who attend tournaments to watch Tiger alienate the long term golf fans, are louder, drunker and baudier than what would have been tolerated 20 years ago, and you've got many of these former fans slowly losing interest.  

So, getting to the point (finally, I know): what happens to the PGA if Tiger never fully comes back?  Chances are good he will, but what if he doesnt'?  And at some point he's going to retire.  What then?  He's it.  He IS the PGA now...  without Tiger, the PGA is really screwed.  They not only lose the fan base they've accrued through Tiger, but they've also already lost a more consistent fanbase they've cultivated through decades from guys who've watched Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan, through Arnold Palmer and into the 80's and early 90's.   The PGA sold out.  They cashed in on Tiger, reaping short term reward, but at the expense of what?  Longer term, they are looking at becoming as relevant as international Squash or Curling, rather than one of the most viewed and played sports in the world all because they lost sight of what made it so great in the first place, in exchange for $$.

McDojos do the same thing, although the specific tactics are different.  It's the pursuit of money uber alles that will almost assuredly kill your business rather than drive your business.  Profitability is a business descriptor, not a business driver.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Money, however, is not the only measure of success in business.



With respect, yes, it is.  There is no other criteria on which a business can be measured objectively.  A business owner may choose to hold other attributes more than money - and that is certainly their choice.  But the business is measured only by how much money it earns.

In fact, if it is a consistent money-loser, the IRS can declare that it is a hobby and not a business.  Perfectly fine, but no longer a tax-deduction for Schedule C profit and loss or corporate tax filings.

I'm not saying money is all that matters in the world, but it is the only objective measure by which to measure the success of a business.  Any other measure is subjective.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect, yes, it is.  There is no other criteria on which a business can be measured objectively.  A business owner may choose to hold other attributes more than money - and that is certainly their choice.  But the business is measured only by how much money it earns.
> 
> In fact, if it is a consistent money-loser, the IRS can declare that it is a hobby and not a business.  Perfectly fine, but no longer a tax-deduction for Schedule C profit and loss or corporate tax filings.
> 
> I'm not saying money is all that matters in the world, but it is the only objective measure by which to measure the success of a business.  Any other measure is subjective.



I dont believe that. Example. The Toronto Maple leafs are among the top money making business of the NHL. If not the top ones. They make their money by refusing to spend money on good 'products' so to speak, as in coaching and players who might win them a stanley cup.  And they have a huge base of fans who spend this money (I have no idea why)  But in terms of money they are 'successful'

The Detroit Red Wings are a business as well. They make billions of dollars. But not as much as the Maple leafs. But they spend that money on good players and management, that is why they dont make as much. And they produce. Four sc champion teams since 1997. Setrecords. (one of which is the most consecutive number of playoff appearances, another is the amount of points earned in the most consecutive seasons). 

You said money is the only way to measure success. Measured only by how much money it earns. The TML fill their stadium while the DRW are often criticized because they don't. By your logic, the TML are the more successful because they make the most of the NHL. But they dont offer fans much in the way of 'products' 

So who really is the more successful? I dont believe a business is more successful simply because it 'makes more money' and knows how to get people to spend money on them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Blade96 said:


> I dont believe that. Example. The Toronto Maple leafs are among the top money making business of the NHL. If not the top ones. They make their money by refusing to spend money on good 'products' so to speak, as in coaching and players who might win them a stanley cup.  And they have a huge base of fans who spend this money (I have no idea why)  But in terms of money they are 'successful'
> 
> The Detroit Red Wings are a business as well. They make billions of dollars. But not as much as the Maple leafs. But they spend that money on good players and management, that is why they dont make as much. And they produce. Four sc champion teams since 1997. Setrecords. (one of which is the most consecutive number of playoff appearances, another is the amount of points earned in the most consecutive seasons).
> 
> You said money is the only way to measure success. Measured only by how much money it earns. The TML fill their stadium while the DRW are often criticized because they don't. By your logic, the TML are the more successful because they make the most of the NHL. But they dont offer fans much in the way of 'products'
> 
> So who really is the more successful? I dont believe a business is more successful simply because it 'makes more money' and knows how to get people to spend money on them.



I'm sorry, you're incorrect.  You are referring to a subjective evaluation; the kind that fans make.  Investors and stockholders and business owners can only measure the success of a business by the money it makes.

The Chicago Cubs are perennial losers.  They make a lot of money.  As a business, they're successful.  What the fans thinks means nada.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect, yes, it is. There is no other criteria on which a business can be measured objectively. A business owner may choose to hold other attributes more than money - and that is certainly their choice. But the business is measured only by how much money it earns.
> 
> In fact, if it is a consistent money-loser, the IRS can declare that it is a hobby and not a business. Perfectly fine, but no longer a tax-deduction for Schedule C profit and loss or corporate tax filings.
> 
> I'm not saying money is all that matters in the world, but it is the only objective measure by which to measure the success of a business. Any other measure is subjective.


With respect, no.  It's not.  Viability and profitability are two seperate things, and money is not the only metric that a business can use to gauge success.  This is particularly true in small business.  The only thing that money measures is profit/loss.  

Once again, and I'm sorry if I sound repetitive, but it seems that this keeps getting missed, we're talking about businesses that make money.  If the business is in the black, making money, it is profitable.  However, profitability is not the only measure of success. 

Take BJJ school A and BJJ school B (based *very* loosely on two schools I'm familiar with, but representative of some current trends): 

School A makes a pretty good income.  The owner makes enough money to live comfortably doing what he loves.  The school owner charges the prevailing rate for monthly dues, but has decided not to raise dues for existing students as a reward for loyalty.  So, some of his oldest students still pay $50/month dues.  He has a core group of dedicated students and no shortage of new students.  Attrition is average among the other reputable area schools and the school is always well represented at tournaments.  

The school owner is respected among his peers and rivalries are serious but friendly.

School B is cashing in bigtime on the MMA craze.  The school owner left the previous school because he was ambitious and wanted to start teaching.  He found a guy who could give him his purple belt (the bare minimum to start a school), hooked up with a like minded "boxing" instructor and opened a gym.  He charges more than the previous school and uses just about every trick in the McDojo handbook.  His students seldom compete and he and his school have a terrible reputation.  Attrition is high, although as a result of the contracts, he doesn't care whether they stay or not.  He still gets paid for a year (or more). 

If you look at the profit sheets, you find that School B makes more money than School A.  Both are profitable, but which one would you charactarize as successful?

What I think is a shame is that, out of everything I wrote, you fell back to this one sound byte.


----------



## Steve

Okay, you know, it occurs to me to ask a question I wish I had asked before wasting my time on this thread. Are you simply asserting that a McDojo can make money? If so, what exactly is the point of this thread? 

I mean, if profit is your absolute definition of success, then, by your definition, a mcdojo can be wildly successful.  And if this is the case, then there's really nothing to discuss.  Is there?


----------



## celtic_crippler

The business of business is business. My degree is in business, I work in business, and I can tell you... it's about making money...or operating cash flow if you will. Unless you're a Non-Profit organization that is... but I dare say there ain't too many commercial dojos operating in this manner (though I have actually entertained the thought and even come across one or two...but that's another subject.) 

Now, there have been some schools that have found a good balance. They have the kiddie club, but when the parents leave they draw the shades and the real fun begins. This;however, requires a high degree of dedication and time... which is something a lot of us don't have... _time _that is.


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> Unless you're a Non-Profit organization that is... but I dare say there ain't too many commercial dojos operating in this manner (though I have actually entertained the thought and even come across one or two...but that's another subject.)


Quick aside, it's not uncommon to find Judo schools run as non-profits.  Often, as far as bang for one's buck goes, Judo is the best value for quality martial arts training for precisely this reason.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Okay, you know, it occurs to me to ask a question I wish I had asked before wasting my time on this thread. Are you simply asserting that a McDojo can make money? If so, what exactly is the point of this thread?
> 
> I mean, if profit is your absolute definition of success, then, by your definition, a mcdojo can be wildly successful.  And if this is the case, then there's really nothing to discuss.  Is there?



I stated my point in the first post - that the McDojo has a successful business model, and that some aspects of it could probably be used by traditional dojos.  Most of the other issues discussed have been raised by others - that the McDojo provides a poor service, misleads students, and so on.  All I've stated is that it is a successful business model.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry, you're incorrect.  You are referring to a subjective evaluation; the kind that fans make.  Investors and stockholders and business owners can only measure the success of a business by the money it makes.



I'd still argue that just cause some business makes a lot of money doesnt make it 'successful'



			
				bill said:
			
		

> The Chicago Cubs are perennial losers.  They make a lot of money.  As a business, they're successful.  What the fans thinks means nada.



but it does matter what fans think because we're the ones who spend the money on the stuff.  and I know this because I'm a real NHL hockey fan (so is my dad) Thats how come I know this about them. I know both the DRW and the TML have suffered as a result of so called people you call 'successful' because they knew how to make money but what they really did was hurt people. The Norris family and Harold Ballard, also "Dollar" Bill Wirtz (a money hawk who owned the Chicago Blackhawks for a long time thats why they never won anything since 1961)  

you call these 'successful' 'profitable' and you label this, along with McDojo owners, as examples to look up to, to make money? I'm sorry, what?

Also speaking from personally experience because I was one of thes people who was duped by so called 'successful' people. A 'podiatrist' i went to when i was 13 who somehow managed to convince me and my parents that I needed treatment. Was only last year, when i was 30, that I visited a real podiatrist, who knew the first one, who said I was actually fine and the first one was a fraud who made my by offering service that wasnt real and people didnt even need it. 

Anther example was a dentist I'd been seeing since i was like six. Call him Dr. No. My father always had a feeling about him as a money hawk. One day I went to him and he said I had a cavity. I had a bad feeling about him too and went to seek a new dentist. This dentist told me both my wisdom teeth were so rotted out totally destroyed and I should have them removed immediately. He did that the same day. I saw my teeth when removed and he was telling the truth. Dr. No made his money by telling you you had a cavity so you'd have to return again and again. when the situation was more serious.  He could have caused me to get an infection or worse. He made lots of money. By hurting us. 

These, and McDojo owners, are the types of people you would call _successful?_ and that other people might learn something from? An unsuspecting product of a McDojo might get themselves killed because he thinks he can defend himself. I could have ended up with an infection or worse. My family spent who knows how much money on bad treatment I didnt even need. I think that longtime TML captain Mats Sundin eventually quit the organization (and later the NHL altogether) because he finally figured it out he wouldnt get anything with them. Not a SC, not a team built around him so he wouldnt have to carry the load by himself most of it. 

I think people make big mistake if they label such businesses and people successful simply because they know how to make a lot of money.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> With respect, no.  It's not.  Viability and profitability are two seperate things, and money is not the only metric that a business can use to gauge success.  This is particularly true in small business.  The only thing that money measures is profit/loss.
> 
> Once again, and I'm sorry if I sound repetitive, but it seems that this keeps getting missed, we're talking about businesses that make money.  If the business is in the black, making money, it is profitable.  However, profitability is not the only measure of success.
> 
> Take BJJ school A and BJJ school B (based *very* loosely on two schools I'm familiar with, but representative of some current trends):
> 
> School A makes a pretty good income.  The owner makes enough money to live comfortably doing what he loves.  The school owner charges the prevailing rate for monthly dues, but has decided not to raise dues for existing students as a reward for loyalty.  So, some of his oldest students still pay $50/month dues.  He has a core group of dedicated students and no shortage of new students.  Attrition is average among the other reputable area schools and the school is always well represented at tournaments.
> 
> The school owner is respected among his peers and rivalries are serious but friendly.
> 
> School B is cashing in bigtime on the MMA craze.  The school owner left the previous school because he was ambitious and wanted to start teaching.  He found a guy who could give him his purple belt (the bare minimum to start a school), hooked up with a like minded "boxing" instructor and opened a gym.  He charges more than the previous school and uses just about every trick in the McDojo handbook.  His students seldom compete and he and his school have a terrible reputation.  Attrition is high, although as a result of the contracts, he doesn't care whether they stay or not.  He still gets paid for a year (or more).
> 
> If you look at the profit sheets, you find that School B makes more money than School A.  Both are profitable, but which one would you charactarize as successful?
> 
> What I think is a shame is that, out of everything I wrote, you fell back to this one sound byte.



I'm trying to cut to the chase here.  You're giving a subjective value for success.  That's fine but there is no subjective standard for success of a business, that's a personal feeling.  Standards are only objective, never subjective.  The only objective measurement of the success of a business is profit.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Blade96 said:


> I'd still argue that just cause some business makes a lot of money doesnt make it 'successful'



Yes, it does.  Wages are paid with money, bills are paid with money, investments are made with money.  A business with no money is not successful.



> but it does matter what fans think because we're the ones who spend the money on the stuff.  and I know this because I'm a real NHL hockey fan (so is my dad) Thats how come I know this about them. I know both the DRW and the TML have suffered as a result of so called people you call 'successful' because they knew how to make money but what they really did was hurt people. The Norris family and Harold Ballard, also "Dollar" Bill Wirtz (a money hawk who owned the Chicago Blackhawks for a long time thats why they never won anything since 1961)



Let me correct that.  You're right, it does matter what the fans think, to the extent that they continue to support the team by spending money on it.  However, they can all write letters to the teams creditors explaining that the business is 'successful' by their measurements if the team defaults on their loans, and it won't mean a thing to the bank.  Only money matters as an objective measurement of success.



> you call these 'successful' 'profitable' and you label this, along with McDojo owners, as examples to look up to, to make money? I'm sorry, what?



I said that McDojos have a successful business model, and they do.  I did not say they were nice places, that they did wonderful things, or that anyone should look up to them.



> Also speaking from personally experience because I was one of thes people who was duped by so called 'successful' people. A 'podiatrist' i went to when i was 13 who somehow managed to convince me and my parents that I needed treatment. Was only last year, when i was 30, that I visited a real podiatrist, who knew the first one, who said I was actually fine and the first one was a fraud who made my by offering service that wasnt real and people didnt even need it.
> 
> Anther example was a dentist I'd been seeing since i was like six. Call him Dr. No. My father always had a feeling about him as a money hawk. One day I went to him and he said I had a cavity. I had a bad feeling about him too and went to seek a new dentist. This dentist told me both my wisdom teeth were so rotted out totally destroyed and I should have them removed immediately. He did that the same day. I saw my teeth when removed and he was telling the truth. Dr. No made his money by telling you you had a cavity so you'd have to return again and again. when the situation was more serious.  He could have caused me to get an infection or worse. He made lots of money. By hurting us.
> 
> These, and McDojo owners, are the types of people you would call _successful?_ and that other people might learn something from?



Yes on the McDojo, no on your examples of unscrupulous medical practitioners.



> An unsuspecting product of a McDojo might get themselves killed because he thinks he can defend himself. I could have ended up with an infection or worse. My family spent who knows how much money on bad treatment I didnt even need. I think that longtime TML captain Mats Sundin eventually quit the organization (and later the NHL altogether) because he finally figured it out he wouldnt get anything with them. Not a SC, not a team built around him so he wouldnt have to carry the load by himself most of it.



As I've stated, I do not believe that all McDojos are worthless in terms of what they teach.  Most teach a basic form of martial arts that may be of some use to students, and is probably better than not having any knowledge and/or physical conditioning.

I don't know of any dojo - McDojo or not - that can promise if you master their training, you won't still get the snot beat out of you in a self-defense scenario.  In other words, any action a person takes might 'get them killed', no matter how highly trained they are.



> I think people make big mistake if they label such businesses and people successful simply because they know how to make a lot of money.



It is the only objective measurement that exists.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I stated my point in the first post - that the McDojo has a successful business model, and that some aspects of it could probably be used by traditional dojos. Most of the other issues discussed have been raised by others - that the McDojo provides a poor service, misleads students, and so on. All I've stated is that it is a successful business model.


 Right, and you strictly define "successful business model" as maximizing profit. Once again, I have to ask what the point really is? I mean, if your only definition of success in business is maximizing profit, then your conclusion is a no brainer.

I disagree with your fundamental definition of success, though, and while I keep trying to communicate this to you, your response is simply to ignore everything else and say, "Yeah, but I said that success is money." 

In other words, you're building your argument upon what I believe is a narrow and questionable premise. And insisting upon returning to this same questionable premise when challenged is circular logic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Right, and you strictly define "successful business model" as maximizing profit. Once again, I have to ask what the point really is? I mean, if your only definition of success in business is maximizing profit, then your conclusion is a no brainer.
> 
> I disagree with your fundamental definition of success, though, and while I keep trying to communicate this to you, your response is simply to ignore everything else and say, "Yeah, but I said that success is money."
> 
> In other words, you're building your argument upon what I believe is a narrow and questionable premise. And insisting upon returning to this same questionable premise when challenged is circular logic.



Then we disagree.  I'm not going to ever agree that your definition of success is objective instead of subjective, because it isn't.  And I've said repeatedly that if a business owner chooses a subjective meaning of success and decides to pursue that instead of profit, that's their certainly their right to do so.  I don't know how else to state it, so I'll stop.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, it does.  Wages are paid with money, bills are paid with money, investments are made with money.  A business with no money is not successful.



I didnt say it was. But I dont think cause you can pay your bills, wages and stuff that doesnt make you successful either.



			
				bill said:
			
		

> I said that McDojos have a successful business model, and they do.  I did not say they were nice places, that they did wonderful things, or that anyone should look up to them.
> 
> Yes on the McDojo, no on your examples of unscrupulous medical practitioners.



If the McDojo makes its money by NOT doing wonderful thing I still dont call it successful. The medical people I referred to are 'successful' then. They make a lot of money. and they know how to get it.



			
				Bill said:
			
		

> As I've stated, I do not believe that all McDojos are worthless in terms of what they teach.  Most teach a basic form of martial arts that may be of some use to students, and is probably better than not having any knowledge and/or physical conditioning.



One can say the same about sweatshops (another business) They know how to make money too. and could say something like "Well its better than people not having a job at all" 



			
				bill said:
			
		

> I don't know of any dojo - McDojo or not - that can promise if you master their training, you won't still get the snot beat out of you in a self-defense scenario.  In other words, any action a person takes might 'get them killed', no matter how highly trained they are.



still doesnt make their business practices anything good or successful just cause they might not necessarily make those promises. 

I suggest you read about Bill Wirtz vs his son, Rocky (now the owner of the blackhawks)  Or The Norris family vs the Illitches (Mike and Marion, who bought the Red Wings in the early 1980's and still own them) They could be comparable to McDojo owners. Who was the most successful, in the opinions of fans, players who played for them (when many of them finally woke up and realized what had really been happening to them; for a long time they were duped just like mcdojo users)



			
				bill said:
			
		

> It is the only objective measurement that exists.



I dont know what means 'objective/subjective' and so on. But I dont believe that the business with the most money is the most successful one.


----------



## Flying Crane

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect, yes, it is. There is no other criteria on which a business can be measured objectively. A business owner may choose to hold other attributes more than money - and that is certainly their choice. But the business is measured only by how much money it earns.


 
this is probably the pravailing attitude, and supports everything that I posted earlier.  Good martial arts and business do not mix well.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then we disagree.  I'm not going to ever agree that your definition of success is objective instead of subjective, because it isn't.  And I've said repeatedly that if a business owner chooses a subjective meaning of success and decides to pursue that instead of profit, that's their certainly their right to do so.  I don't know how else to state it, so I'll stop.



So.  Would you consider Bjj school a or b to be more successful?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> So.  Would you consider Bjj school a or b to be more successful?



It doesn't matter what I would consider more successful.  The one that makes more money *is* more successful.  My opinion of their business practices doesn't change what is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Blade96 said:


> I dont know what means 'objective/subjective' and so on. But I dont believe that the business with the most money is the most successful one.



Objective: Team A was the most successful, because they won the pennant.
Subjective: Team B was the most successful, because their fans really love them.

Objective is what can be proven outside of the realm of personal opinion and feelings.  Subjective is how you feel about something.

Objective in my example above cannot be disupted - Team A won the pennant.  You can't argue that they didn't win if they did.  The world agrees.

Subjective in my example above is true according to me, but it might not be true according to you.  The truth cannot be determined in a way that everyone will agree with.

For a business, there is only one model that matters to the landlord and the employees - getting paid.  You won't work for a business that loves you to death but can't pay you, and neither would I.  The bank won't knock a few dollars off the mortgage because the business really treats its customers well.  Stockholders won't rejoice if the value of their stock drops, even if the company lost value because they refused to raise prices or whatever.

Subjectively, you and I might agree that a dojo that treats its students well, teaches great martial arts is a great place.  Objectively, if they can't pay the rent, they close the doors.  Like it or not, it all comes down to profit when it comes to keeping the doors open.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> this is probably the pravailing attitude, and supports everything that I posted earlier. Good martial arts and business do not mix well.


I would have to disagree. I don't think that using a billing agency or any other profit making venture makes your Martial Arts bad.
Sean


----------



## AlanE

Bill Mattocks said:


> Contracts are the stuff of predictable, recurring, income.
> 
> In support of your statement, I found this:
> 
> http://www.jonathanfields.com/blog/business-strategy-the-recurring-income-trap/
> 
> ...And one downside that the author of this blog I linked to did not point out - it makes things very difficult for the employees. People look for stability and dependability for the most part. Salespeople live on commissions by choice, *but rank-and-file don't want to have to live in fear of losing their jobs any given month* because Johnny Wannabe Blackbelt didn't choose to pay his dues that month.


 
Bill, I accidently viewed your comment initially from the pespective of the student who lost her/his job who has another contract to ruin life further (cell phone, car, house, electricity, health insurance, life insurance, and...dojo contract), rather than being able to downsize/circle the wagons and pay only the most important costs during the down period. 

A few moments later I realized exactly what you meant. BTW, more kudos to you for your whole line of reasoning and posts (including wristwatches!).

But it does lead me to mixed feelings, which I already had... Ok I didn't! I don't agree with contracts. Since I participated as a student without contracts, I'm used to that model. I realize it's not a complete picture. 

For me, it's "Sound Business Model" meets "Ethical Dilemma."

I wouldn't want students to have one more problem as I try to help their lives. Would I be living outside of good business sense more than a used car salesman who adds only modest (not exorbitant) profit and endures less security? Perhaps I would and I'd fail. I'm inclined not to take from people when I'm not serving them. 

Plus there's the enforcement of contracts. They're not quite as important as the student's car insurance. Blood from a turnip, reputation of your school, students' credit ratings affected (for martial arts??), keeping students that don't want to be there sparring with others, property vandalism as retaliation. Optimum business model for a martial arts school? 

Yeah, I know, contracts work for fitness centers!


----------



## celtic_crippler

The bottom line is that if you want to have a successful business, and that does mean having more revenue than expense, then you will ultimately have to cater to your customer base. 

"Krotty" is a service oriented industry. For the most part, you're selling knowledge and no physical product. That means you really have to cater to the customer base. Why? Because they have to percieve some value in it because they do not possess a physical asset, in thier minds, that can be easily liquidated into readily available funds. 

It's not like buying land... something tangible; it's a service industry. 

The sad truth is, that parents just want something that JR can do after school that involves excercise and building up their self esteem. There are other benefits for sure, but the perpetuation of the martial arts is the least of their concerns. 

You also have those adults that want their self esteem boosted as well as feeling like they're getting excercise and can claim to be active while at the same time putting forth the least amount of effort to feel comfortable making that assertion. How many people do you know that brag about being an overweight couch potatoe? 

So, the McDojo serves a purpose. 

Even though us die-hard purist may knock it at times, it actully serves us as well by helping to keep martial arts main stream. There are those that don't know any better, join a McDojo, and after some time start doing their homework to find there's a whole great big world of the "good stuff" out their and seek it out. Without the McDojo, these folks may have never gotten involved in the first place. 

Do McDojo's overwhelming numbers compared to more hardcore martial arts give a bad perception to the masses? I think it does, but I'm not concerned with the masses as much as teaching that one student that looks for something "more"... and ends up coming to me. 

On a personal note: I don't care if the majority have what I call a "Power Ranger Mentality" towards martial arts. They can point and laugh from thier couches all day long. To me, it's an advantage. Why? Because the common perception is "Krotty is a joke & for kids" and that means most anyone who would try to face me down will underestimate what I can do and that is an advantage for me...

...but then, I don't earn a living from teaching.


----------



## JWLuiza

In a business model, success is determined as cash flow, balance sheet, financial robustness, not by idealogy, corporate environment. Businesses can use these subjective things as both an internal motivator for employees and as a branding mechanism in support of the business of ANY business: making money.

BM has not been trying to say anything about the morality or efficacy of their martial arts, just that from a business standpoint, the "McDojos" have done a few things right.  And, I mean who HASN'T thought of just working on martial arts 24/7 and living off your income from that endeavor while teaching great martial arts?

The more productive argument/discussion is what practices do not act at cross purposes to teaching a high quality product.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> It doesn't matter what I would consider more successful.  The one that makes more money *is* more successful.  My opinion of their business practices doesn't change what is.



So, it's all about the snapshot?  I'm glad you're not a financial planner because your bottom line mentality is in no small part to blame for the current economic mess we are in.  

So were you to be in a position to become a co-owner in one school or the other, which would you pick?


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> I would have to disagree. I don't think that using a billing agency or any other profit making venture makes your Martial Arts bad.
> Sean


 
It may not automatically mean that it's terrible.  But it probably means that the quality is not as high as it should and could be.  Given enough time, it's likely that it will drop further.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> It may not automatically mean that it's terrible. But it probably means that the quality is not as high as it should and could be. Given enough time, it's likely that it will drop further.


As long as you are teaching real concepts it will be sound. Would you rather have 10 core students or 300, when you are dealing with three hundred people, of course, it will be a slower process. Newbies hate to get hurt; so: the sink or swim approach will not work. However if you can get these three hundred kids to a point where they can handle more and more situations as they go, you are teaching real martial arts at a slower pace. 
sean


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> As long as you are teaching real concepts it will be sound. Would you rather have 10 core students or 300, when you are dealing with three hundred people, of course, it will be a slower process. Newbies hate to get hurt; so: the sink or swim approach will not work. However if you can get these three hundred kids to a point where they can handle more and more situations as they go, you are teaching real martial arts at a slower pace.
> sean


 

When you are working with 300 students, you cannot give each of them enough attention to make sure they are learning the concepts and material properly.  Each student needs an interactive relationship with the teacher and you cannot develop that with this number of students.  Quality suffers, with a large number of students.  It's not just that it's at a slower pace.  Rather, you are limiting what you can teach to the superficial, you are accepting that you cannot bring the students to a deeper level of understanding, and you are forced to accept "good enough" as, well, good enough.  It's all you are gonna get in that situation.  

When you are working with 10, you can probably give them the attention needed.  

I'd rather work with five.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> Objective: Team A was the most successful, because they won the pennant.
> 
> Objective is what can be proven outside of the realm of personal opinion and feelings.



you said money was the only objective way that exists to measure success. and you said this. I still dont understand it though. what does it mean? I'm still confused. I never heard subjective and objective before.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Flying Crane said:


> When you are working with 300 students, you cannot give each of them enough attention to make sure they are learning the concepts and material properly. Each student needs an interactive relationship with the teacher and you cannot develop that with this number of students. Quality suffers, with a large number of students. It's not just that it's at a slower pace. Rather, you are limiting what you can teach to the superficial, you are accepting that you cannot bring the students to a deeper level of understanding, and you are forced to accept "good enough" as, well, good enough. It's all you are gonna get in that situation.
> 
> When you are working with 10, you can probably give them the attention needed.
> 
> I'd rather work with five.


 As long as you teach out of a basement that is fine. You can still be the judge of whom gets promoted. I don't think the broader generalized priciples of motion are superficial. The students still need to work, and they have three hundred different body types to discover on their own. What deeper understandings are you refering to specificly?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Blade96 said:


> you said money was the only objective way that exists to measure success. and you said this. I still dont understand it though. what does it mean? I'm still confused. I never heard subjective and objective before.


 The Objective is the task, the subjective is off task.
Sean


----------



## JWLuiza

Blade96 said:


> you said money was the only objective way that exists to measure success. and you said this. I still dont understand it though. what does it mean? I'm still confused. I never heard subjective and objective before.



Objective: Something that can be measured (time to complete a ski course).
Subjective: Something based on personal interpretation, opinion, etc. (Gymnastics scores)

He was saying from a business perspective, $$$ is THE main objective measure. Pennants won by a baseball team might be an objective measure from a team/franchise perspective, but not necessarily a business perspective (i.e., it may/may not result in greater ticket sales and profit).


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> As long as you teach out of a basement that is fine. You can still be the judge of whom gets promoted. I don't think the broader generalized priciples of motion are superficial. The students still need to work, and they have three hundred different body types to discover on their own. What deeper understandings are you refering to specificly?
> Sean


 
Students need A LOT of correction, over and over, to really get things right.  There needs to be a very interactive relationship between the student and teacher, to ensure the student really understands it and makes necessary corrections.  With a large group, that just does not happen.

Things get taught on a superficial level like this:  

Teacher throws a kick: "see how I do this?  Now you do it."

300 students mimick the teacher, and get little or no direct feedback and interaction.  They do this for 10 minutes, all of them are sloppy, but it's time to move on to something else.  

Teacher teaches "Delayed Sword":  "See how this is done?  Grab a partner and practice"

So 300 students partner into 150 partner pairings and struggle thru the technique.  Teacher tries to make the rounds and make corrections, but it just isn't possible.  Students never get Delayed Sword right, because they never got the interaction with the teacher needed to do so.  It sort of looks like Delayed Sword, but it's completely ineffectual and nobody can really use it, and nobody really learns anything from the exercise.

Even if they drill it for two hours, they just drill the slop.  They don't get the interaction needed to really fix the errors and make any of it right.

So they've learned something on a superficial level, but they can't really do it and don't really understand it.

Personally, I think martial arts ought to be taught out of a basement, or in a back yard, with a dozen or fewer students.


----------



## AlanE

JWLuiza said:


> In a business model, success is determined as cash flow, balance sheet, financial robustness, not by idealogy, corporate environment. Businesses can use these subjective things as both an internal motivator for employees and as a branding mechanism in support of the business of ANY business: making money.
> 
> ...
> The more productive argument/discussion is what practices do not act at cross purposes to teaching a high quality product.


 
Good idea. What crosses purposes, and what furthers business success (defined alternately as making $ and making good students)? This thread may still be able to answer. 

Both are results of motivation from consistent, outstanding ethical examples. Quality content....uh, how can a student know? They know if they're being treated right and becoming more capable within themselves. Eventually schools compete, and more notes are taken. The process continues. Skill is improved, retained, or lost. Will the first school you attended still be open? If ethically run, probably yes. If they ran out of money...no. If they got trounced at every competition...no.

Business. 

Please define what we're selling! Dreams, confidence, friendship, movement, getting out of the apartment, God's gift to martial arts, or good instruction and a step in the right direction? Do we all start at the top? How do we know? Looks like a temple? 

What is being sold is more complex than the best fighter, best self defense, most trophies, most flexibility, most traditional, most (whew, I'm out). Yes, there are risks to not trapping a weapon based on bad instruction. This is highly valid.

Awesome Blade96! I agree with much of what you say and sorry to hear about those thieves. I'm not sure they support a fact of strip mall Black Belts being frauds, but they do support your argument that frauds can do a lot of harm. My still-there wisdom teeth are starting to hurt 

Objective: There exists a standard to match performance against. 

Subjective: There is no standard (actually called an objective standard ) to match performance against. This concept often arises with employee performance appraisals. What standard is their performance being measured against? Opinions? How well they get along with others? Energizing their team from within? Looking the part of company man/woman? Deliver a specific number of items/reports/contracts/sales/inspections/solutions within a specific timeframe? (highly objective and appreciated by employees, businesses, shareholders). 

Business performance may not be the instructor's goal. Barely surviving financially to provide great instruction is very likely the instructor's goal. If so, the school's performance will not use business metrics such of growth and profit (objective), and instead use their clear knowledge of making lives better (clear enough, but still subjective, because how are better lives measured?)


----------



## Blade96

Ah, ok! Objective there is a standard and subjective is more based on opinion.

so bill says if a business meets a standard (like a mcdojo making lots of money) then it is successful. 

Gotcha! I think. lol.


----------



## Drac

Drac said:


> My experience with a McDojo came from a female officer that I worked..She would show up for duty wearing a satin jacket with the name embrodered on the back and various patches signifying that she had reached instructor level..When she told me what she paid for lessons I could not believe it, I didnt pay that much for my first car..


 
I had the oppertunity to spar with her on duty once out of the eyes of the prying public..Despite all the patches showing here at instructor level of training she failed to block 90% of what I threw..She still believed that her skill level was good enough for the Police Olympics and signed up for the black belt division..She never made it past the peliminaries...


----------



## Steve

Enron made a lot of money.  Was their business model sound?


----------



## JWLuiza

stevebjj said:


> Enron made a lot of money.  Was their business model sound?


They made up profit and were fraudlent in their business practices (accounting). They weren't successful because they could no longer make money. If McDojos get to the point where they lose their ability to consistently make money, they will then be "unsuccessful", but that clearly isn't happening.


----------



## Steve

Enron made a ton of money. By the definition of success in this thread, their business model was sound. We're looking at their business practice with the benefit of hindsight. BEFORE the collapse and the subsequent legislation making much of how they did business illegal, according to the prevailing definition of business success in this thread, their business model was among the best because they made the most money.

So, are you suggesting that there are other things we might consider when determining whether a business model is sound or not?


----------



## JWLuiza

stevebjj said:


> Enron made a ton of money. By the definition of success in this thread, their business model was sound. We're looking at their business practice with the benefit of hindsight. BEFORE the collapse and the subsequent legislation making much of how they did business illegal, according to the prevailing definition of business success in this thread, their business model was among the best because they made the most money.
> 
> So, are you suggesting that there are other things we might consider when determining whether a business model is sound or not?



I'm saying providing profit to shareholders legally and consistently is success. They screwed their shareholders and did so illegally. I would add legality as a condition of the success.


----------



## Steve

JWLuiza said:


> I'm saying providing profit to shareholders legally and consistently is success. They screwed their shareholders and did so illegally. I would add legality as a condition of the success.


Okay. So, now we've got legal and consistent added to the list, in addition to profitable. 

What about AIG? Can we add sustainable to this list, as well? AIG generated incredible profits until September, 2008 when their credit rating was dropped and they had a liquidity crisis. Can we all agree that, in spite of staggering profits, their business model is questionable (at least)? In spite of record setting profits, their business model was auto-cannabilizing.   Their business practices were legal, at least at the time.  

Or is "too big to fail" is a dependable business strategy?


----------



## JWLuiza

LOL. I thought consistently covered the sustainable part... but yes.

We probably have the same thoughts as to WHAT we want in a MA business, but I am saying the subjective markers are neither necessary nor sufficient for success. However, the traits you are talking about are often integral in increasing profit, sustainability, etc. If you look at a business book like "From Good to Great' success is in financial terms, but it is often the subjective that leads to the success, yet the goal posts remain in $$$ terms.


----------



## Steve

JWLuiza said:


> LOL. I thought consistently covered the sustainable part... but yes.
> 
> We probably have the same thoughts as to WHAT we want in a MA business, but I am saying the subjective markers are neither necessary nor sufficient for success. However, the traits you are talking about are often integral in increasing profit, sustainability, etc. If you look at a business book like "From Good to Great' success is in financial terms, but it is often the subjective that leads to the success, yet the goal posts remain in $$$ terms.


I'm going to cry tears of joy. Thank you.  Just looking at a snapshot of a business, and lasering in on the profit as the barometer of success can be very misleading.  There are other things that must, IMO, be considered and at least you and I agree on a few of these things.  

I was getting pretty frustrated yesterday.  These traits/practices are really where the discussion is here.  I mean, we don't have to agree about whether a particular trait is inherent to a sound business practice, but to dismiss it out of hand by saying, "Nope.  Profit.  That's the gauge," is contrary to the spirit of the discussion.   Profit is one important ingredient, but sustainability is another, as is legality.  There are others that can be discussed as well.   

This is what I've been trying to get across for several posts now and gets back to the two schools I mentioned. And returning to my original posts, even where you are dealing within the law and your business model is sustainable, there are business practices common among mcdojos that are unscrupulous.  Or, getting more specifically to the point, given that there are other ingredients in a sound business model, is it possible that between two businesses, the one turning less profit in the short term might be operating under a healthier business model over time?

Ultimately, I believe that many of the McDojo business practices, much like the AIG comparison, are auto-cannabilistic and depend too much on turnover and an unending supply of ignorant customers. Where I think that the mcdojo plan fails is sustainability.  So, of the two BJJ schools I described, which one is operating under a sound business model?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> I'm going to cry tears of joy.  Thank you.
> 
> This is what I've been trying to get across for several posts now and gets back to the two schools I mentioned.  And returning to my original posts, even where you are dealing within the law and your business model is sustainable, there are business practices common among mcdojos that are unscrupulous.
> 
> Ultimately, I believe that many of the McDojo business practices, much like the AIG comparison, are auto-cannabilistic and depend too much on turnover and an unending supply of ignorant customers.  Where I think that the mcdojo plan fails is sustainability.



http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/02/23/


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> I'm going to cry tears of joy. Thank you. Just looking at a snapshot of a business, and lasering in on the profit as the barometer of success can be very misleading. There are other things that must, IMO, be considered and at least you and I agree on a few of these things.
> 
> I was getting pretty frustrated yesterday. These traits/practices are really where the discussion is here. I mean, we don't have to agree about whether a particular trait is inherent to a sound business practice, but to dismiss it out of hand by saying, "Nope. Profit. That's the gauge," is contrary to the spirit of the discussion. Profit is one important ingredient, but sustainability is another, as is legality. There are others that can be discussed as well.
> 
> This is what I've been trying to get across for several posts now and gets back to the two schools I mentioned. And returning to my original posts, even where you are dealing within the law and your business model is sustainable, there are business practices common among mcdojos that are unscrupulous. Or, getting more specifically to the point, given that there are other ingredients in a sound business model, is it possible that between two businesses, the one turning less profit in the short term might be operating under a healthier business model over time?
> 
> Ultimately, I believe that many of the McDojo business practices, much like the AIG comparison, are auto-cannabilistic and depend too much on turnover and an unending supply of ignorant customers. Where I think that the mcdojo plan fails is sustainability. So, of the two BJJ schools I described, which one is operating under a sound business model?


 
Go prove your theory. 

Open up and run a "_successful_" school without making any profit where that school is your only source of income. Perhaps your students could pay you in chips and sandwiches because it's hard to get groceries with no money and a man's gotta eat. 

I'm not sure how you'll take care of your other expenses; like insurance, utilities, equipment, etc... But hey, it's your theory so prove us wrong.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/02/23/


Are you really trolling in your own thread now? I really am interested in an actual response from you. Or can I assume that you agree with JWLuiza? Do you now accept that profit can be misleading? 

Celtic, go back and point out to me where I've suggested that a business can be successful without turning a profit. At least then, I'll know you've... you know... read what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you imagine I've written. 

I think you'll find that I've never suggested otherwise. What I am suggesting is that tunnel vision on profit is often a misleading indicator of sound business policy. Of two profitable businesses, it is possible that the business generating less profit in the short term is the stronger business model. Bill was very clear that he believed otherwise.  Look at banks now.  The ones cashing in with questionable business practices are folding like crazy.  The ones opting for less immediate profit and a more conservative long term model are not.


----------



## terryl965

All this talk about Mcdojo's have made me hungary, I am going to Mc Donalds for some fast food....


----------



## Blade96

blade said:
			
		

> I think people make big mistake if they label  such businesses and people successful simply because they know how to  make a lot of money.





			
				Bill said:
			
		

> It is the only objective measurement that exists.



Thanks for helping me peoples =] now i can have a nice better debate :angel:

Maybe years ago that might have been a only objective measurement that exists. But now its not the only standard by which we measure a successful business.

what are their products like? How to they treat their workers? do they take good care of them? How do they better society? Is the business owner a miserly old Scrooge and a half who just packs his money away in the bank and watches it grow? (actually i have an uncle who does exactly that and i wouldnt call him or his business successful at all. actuallly takes advantage of people and hurts those around him.) Or does he spend money to make money (as Rocky Wirtz does and the blackhawks - his business - are good now) what type of product do they produce and does that benefit or hurt society and people?

again I'd advise people to look at red wings vs maple leafs. why don't you look up Ted Lindsay and see if he thought his bosses were 'successful' people. or Gordie Howe (who was fooled for a long time and never woke up until long after). These bosses (the Norrises in the case of the Red Wings) worked like McDojo owners. of course one's hockey and one's martial arts but still the business practices were the same. (Gordie Howe when he woke up he and some other people actually sued the NHL and won a big cash settlement.) Last time the red wings won the cup while the norrises were in charge was 1955! and they never won it again. Imo they deserved it! It was only in 1997 under the Illiches who changed the business practices, that the team won again. 

and became successful. Thats what would be considered a 'successful' business in my book. They dont make as much money as the TML, but look at their business practices and what comes out of it. Nothing comes from the TML except money. and if you are rating success only by how much money a business makes than its successful in your eyes, no matter what else. like SteveBJJ said, thats thinking in tunnel vision. But thats not the only measurement these days.


----------



## JWLuiza

SteveBJJ put it in perspective he's not saying no profit, he's saying some McDojo practices are harmful to the success of said business (self-canabalizing I think was the term).

BM was sayingsome McDojo practices are sound. I think the discussion would best be served by distinguishing the two categories.


----------



## Flying Crane

stevebjj said:


> Or, getting more specifically to the point, given that there are other ingredients in a sound business model, is it possible that between two businesses, the one turning less profit in the short term might be operating under a healthier business model over time?


 
I've been saying this for years.  Our entire economy is built more and more on quick profits at the expense of long-term health.  This permeates all aspects of our economy, as well as how we manage our natural resources and ties into pollution and stuff too.

It's very dangerous to make short-term profit the motivator.


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> Celtic, go back and point out to me where I've suggested that a business can be successful without turning a profit. At least then, I'll know you've... you know... read what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you imagine I've written.
> 
> I think you'll find that I've never suggested otherwise. What I am suggesting is that tunnel vision on profit is often a misleading indicator of sound business policy. Of two profitable businesses, it is possible that the business generating less profit in the short term is the stronger business model. Bill was very clear that he believed otherwise. Look at banks now. The ones cashing in with questionable business practices are folding like crazy. The ones opting for less immediate profit and a more conservative long term model are not.


 
Are we talking about McDojos or GAAP? 

I guess I misunderstood... or _imagined_... you meant something else when you wrote, _"Money, however, is not the only measure of success in business" _in post #57.


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> Are we talking about McDojos or GAAP?
> 
> I guess I misunderstood... or _imagined_... you meant something else when you wrote, _"Money, however, is not the only measure of success in business" _in post #57.


Yeah, you misunderstood. Before that, in post 21, I was very clear when I said, "Of course, a business should make enough money to be viable (And that is a number that only the business owner can know). Of course, one would need to make enough money to pay the bills both personal and professional. 

Beyond this, however, there are an infinite number of ways to measure success. You're making it black and white, off or on. It's not that way."

In the context of what I wrote before and what I wrote after, I stand by the statement that, "money is not the only measure of success in business."

I would have thought that the next sentence clarified this statement, as well.  I wrote, "In fact, often the unfettered pursuit of money in a business venture can undermine the values *that built a profitable business in the first place*."   (emphasis added).  

So, yes.  You misunderstood.  Maybe I could have been more clear, but I'll be honest.  I don't know how I could have written it differently.


----------



## Steve

flying crane said:


> i've been saying this for years. Our entire economy is built more and more on quick profits at the expense of long-term health. This permeates all aspects of our economy, as well as how we manage our natural resources and ties into pollution and stuff too.
> 
> It's very dangerous to make short-term profit the motivator.


qft!


----------



## KELLYG

mcdojo's as a business model good stuff.  They are profitable yes.  
A Big mac is food but is it as good for you as a healthy balance meal no.  
I do not think that MA has to be taught out of a garage to be the "real deal".  I think that running a business and earning a living at what you love is awesome. After all a man that Loves what he does for a living never works a day in his life.

 The problem arises when the MAIN motivation for having a Martial Art's business is the money.  Other posters are correct that the temptation to sell out or to lower your standards to make sure the fat bucks keep rolling in is a very heavy temptation.   A SMART/ETHICAL business owner knows that to keep long term business is to make sure that you never sell out, that you give quality services, meet or beat expections at a reasonable price.


----------



## celtic_crippler

stevebjj said:


> Beyond this, however, there are an infinite number of ways to measure success. You're making it black and white, off or on. It's not that way.


 
Yes it is. Because while there may be other factors that play into whether a business is percieved as successful or not, the bottom line is if it doesn't turn a profit those other variables won't mean squat because the business will fail. 

Now, are you going to argue that a business can fail and still somehow be successful? I suppose it could... if the ultimate goal was failure, but I doubt there are many entrepreneurs whose goal is to go bankrupt.


----------



## Flying Crane

celtic_crippler said:


> Yes it is. Because while there may be other factors that play into whether a business is percieved as successful or not, the bottom line is if it doesn't turn a profit those other variables won't mean squat because the business will fail.


 
A business does not need to turn a profit. It can break even and be healthy. This would include meeting all payroll obligations including an established salary for the business owner, as well as other expenses like rent, utilities, and other costs of running the business.

I guess I don't understand the prevailent mentality that all businesses must grow, must make more money than the last quarter, etc.  It fuels a mentality of greed that is never satisfied.  Examples abound in our economy.


----------



## JWLuiza

I wouldn't call a business breaking even as successful. Sustainable, maybe, but not successful.


----------



## Steve

celtic_crippler said:


> Yes it is. Because while there may be other factors that play into whether a business is percieved as successful or not, the bottom line is if it doesn't turn a profit those other variables won't mean squat because the business will fail.
> 
> Now, are you going to argue that a business can fail and still somehow be successful? I suppose it could... if the ultimate goal was failure, but I doubt there are many entrepreneurs whose goal is to go bankrupt.


No.  Once again, that's in your imagination.  

What I will do is what I've tried to do many times already: tell you that I've never suggested that an unprofitable business is successful and that I have no idea where you're getting it.   

I've made two basic points.  

First, that looking at profit as a sole measurement of success can be misleading.  Many businesses that are ultimately dismal failures turn a profit for some period of time.  Some of them, such as AIG, can be wildly profitable for years.  I've given multiple examples of this, and of how a business can turn less profit in the short term, but be MORE successful over time.  Profit is the result of practices that drive business.  Some are destructive in the long term and others are productive in the long term.  

Second, that even a financially sound business plan can be unscrupulous, and in my opinion, any unscrupulous business plan that preys upon ignorance is risky at best and despicable at worst.  In a given area, there are bound to be limits on the number of ignorant customers available and one's customer base will ultimately disappear.  This is a point related to but distinct from the first.   

I've never said nor implied that a company can be successful *and* unprofitable.   In fact, I've said exactly the opposite.


----------



## JWLuiza

Defining success:
http://www.powerhomebiz.com/vol15/3indicators.htm


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> A business does not need to turn a profit. It can break even and be healthy. This would include meeting all payroll obligations including an established salary for the business owner, as well as other expenses like rent, utilities, and other costs of running the business.
> 
> I guess I don't understand the prevailent mentality that all businesses must grow, must make more money than the last quarter, etc. It fuels a mentality of greed that is never satisfied. Examples abound in our economy.


I can see your point, but breaking even isn't what I would call successful.  Surviving, may be.  

Success in my opinion is at least paying all the bills and having enough left over to live on.


----------



## Flying Crane

JWLuiza said:


> I wouldn't call a business breaking even as successful. Sustainable, maybe, but not successful.


 
If all employee, including the owner, gets paid their salary and all expenses are met, how is that not a success?


----------



## Flying Crane

stevebjj said:


> I can see your point, but breaking even isn't what I would call successful. Surviving, may be.
> 
> Success in my opinion is at least paying all the bills and having enough left over to live on.


 
Re-read what I wrote.  All payroll is met, including the salary established for the owner.


----------



## JWLuiza

Flying Crane said:


> Re-read what I wrote.  All payroll is met, including the salary established for the owner.


What about the investment in getting the school running? The sunk cost needs to be returned as part of the recompense, and it is above and beyond salary. Then, by definition, it is turning a profit and is successful.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Flying Crane said:


> If all employee, including the owner, gets paid their salary and all expenses are met, how is that not a success?


 
That's what "profit" goes to pay for. Or perhaps we should better refer to it a Operational Cash Flow. 

I never said "growth" was necessary for success.


----------



## Steve

Bill. So far, you've been pretty adamant that profit is not just an indicator of business success, but the only one. You've said, "Money is the only measure of success." That "the business is measured only by how much money it earns. It is the only objective measure by which to measure the success of a business."

You've also said that "Investors and stockholders and business owners can only measure the success of a business by the money it makes," and that, "The [business] that makes more money *is* more successful." 

So, I'll ask you again. Two BJJ Schools, A and B, and you have the opportunity to take over as a co-owner of either one. One represents a typical BJJ school that's well run.  The other is a lucrative "MMA" school capitalizing on the typical McDojo business model.   Both are turning a profit, although the MMA school is making significantly more money right now.  Which of those would you choose to invest in, if you had the chance? As an investor, which of those two is more successful in your opinion?


----------



## JWLuiza

stevebjj said:


> Bill. So far, you've been pretty adamant that profit is not just an indicator of business success, but the only one. You've said, "Money is the only measure of success." That "the business is measured only by how much money it earns. It is the only objective measure by which to measure the success of a business."
> 
> You've also said that "Investors and stockholders and business owners can only measure the success of a business by the money it makes," and that, "The [business] that makes more money *is* more successful."
> 
> So, I'll ask you again. Two BJJ Schools, A and B, and you have the opportunity to take over as a co-owner of either one. One represents a typical BJJ school that's well run.  The other is a lucrative "MMA" school capitalizing on the typical McDojo business model.   Both are turning a profit, although the MMA school is making significantly more money right now.  Which of those would you choose to invest in, if you had the chance? As an investor, which of those two is more successful in your opinion?



What's the investment cost? What's the ROI per annum? Is this in the current climate? How long has the McDojo been in business?


----------



## Steve

JWLuiza said:


> What's the investment cost? What's the ROI per annum? Is this in the current climate? How long has the McDojo been in business?


Investment cost would be the same for either. Let's presume that overhead is about the same for both, as well. Rent, salaries, insurance and such. ROI per annum, at least at short term, would be much higher for the mcdojo as it's currently turning a higher profit. 

The McDojo has been in business for about a year while the other school has been around for over 10.  This last doesn't matter, though.  Right?  I mean, it has nothing to do with profit.


----------



## JWLuiza

stevebjj said:


> Investment cost would be the same for either. Let's presume that overhead is about the same for both, as well. Rent, salaries, insurance and such. ROI per annum, at least at short term, would be much higher for the mcdojo as it's currently turning a higher profit.
> 
> The McDojo has been in business for about a year while the other school has been around for over 10.  This last doesn't matter, though.  Right?  I mean, it has nothing to do with profit.



How long would it take to recoup the initial investment? The hard numbers really matter here. It may make more sense to invest in the McDojo if ROI is high enough and investment low enough. I know plenty of mcdojos who have in existence for 20-30 yeArs though.  Also if the ROI on the solid club was low it wouldn't be a good investment either.


----------



## Steve

Thanks, JWLuiza. What I'm driving at is that there are more considerations than which business is making more money right now. I could invent some actual numbers, but I think you've made that point very clear.


----------



## JWLuiza

Like I said. I think the best discussion now is what are the lessons we should learn and what things should we stay away from.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> So, I'll ask you again. Two BJJ Schools, A and B, and you have the opportunity to take over as a co-owner of either one. One represents a typical BJJ school that's well run.  The other is a lucrative "MMA" school capitalizing on the typical McDojo business model.   Both are turning a profit, although the MMA school is making significantly more money right now.  Which of those would you choose to invest in, if you had the chance? As an investor, which of those two is more successful in your opinion?



As an investor, I'd invest in the one that made more money.  As a stockholder, I'd invest in the one that I felt was undervalued and had the opportunity for the stock to go higher.  As a student, I'd go to whichever one I felt offered the best training.

But I've largely withdrawn from the thread at this point, because we're going in circles.  You've constructed scenarios that support your point of view.  McDojos have (in your scenario) a poor business model now because they're not sustainable; in your carefully-constructed scenario, all McDojos have an eat-em-up-and-spit-em-out mentality that guarantees that at some point their poor reputation and customer frustration will drive them out of business.  Yet we have no evidence of this; as far as I can tell, the supply of customers is endless.  As much as all small businesses have suffered in this economic recession, the chain McDojos seem not to have suffered unduly.

In any case, you're still arguing against something I've never said.  I have not said that the McDojo is a superior training method, or that they offer great services, or that some don't engage in questionable practices to lure students in.  I have said that the franchised McDojo business model is a successful one.  And it is; that's demonstrable by their success and growth.  The fact that they're in every strip mall in the USA proves it.  I don't see how you can argue against it, it's beyond dispute.

But you want very much for the McDojo to not be a 'winner' in any frame of reference, from their actual training to how they treat their customers to their long term sustainability to even how economically successful they are (which you claim they're not). * I get that you don't like McDojos.*  No problem.  I'm not a fan of them either, from any standpoint other than their business model.

Other than that, I'm not sure what else we have to talk about in this thread.  I stated my case, made my points. You keep constructing new scenarios to try to make your subjective dislike of McDojos into an economic proof, and you seem frustrated that I'm not agreeing with you.  Can't help it, I can't agree with what isn't correct.


----------



## JWLuiza

Actually, I think there is a wealth of opportunities to talk about GOOD business practices that would help even small club owners run their clubs/schools at a benefit to themselves and the student.

Some examples:
On recruiting  here
On pricing here


----------



## Touch Of Death

If your task is to better your community with your art of choice, five people in a basement; is not going to cut it.
sean


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> But I've largely withdrawn from the thread at this point, because we're going in circles. You've constructed scenarios that support your point of view. McDojos have (in your scenario) a poor business model now because they're not sustainable; in your carefully-constructed scenario, all McDojos have an eat-em-up-and-spit-em-out mentality that guarantees that at some point their poor reputation and customer frustration will drive them out of business. Yet we have no evidence of this; as far as I can tell, the supply of customers is endless. As much as all small businesses have suffered in this economic recession, the chain McDojos seem not to have suffered unduly.


Honestly, I think this is an unfair characterization. The scenarios you're referring to were very specifically created *only* to demonstrate that profit is not the only measure of success in business. Really, the scenarios could have been about martial arts schools or any business. They were to counter an assertion made by you many times that at any given time, the business making more money is more successful. I believe it's been very thoroughly established that this is wrong.


> In any case, you're still arguing against something I've never said.


You never said that profit is the only measure of success? I'm pretty sure that's not true. 





> I have not said that the McDojo is a superior training method,


And I've never suggested that you have.





> or that they offer great services,


Again, I'm not sure where you believe I've suggested otherwise.





> or that some don't engage in questionable practices to lure students in.


Okay. This one... I've said that many are unscrupulous. I don't think I've put any words in your mouth, though. 





> I have said that the franchised McDojo business model is a successful one. And it is; that's demonstrable by their success and growth. The fact that they're in every strip mall in the USA proves it. I don't see how you can argue against it, it's beyond dispute.


And while you kept it here, honestly, I had no problems with your argument. As I said before, if your point was strictly that a mcdojo can make money, there's really nothing to discuss. It's when you began asserting very strongly that a McDojo is MORE successful than other martial arts schools if it's currently turning a higher profit that I believe you went off the reservation. 





> But you want very much for the McDojo to not be a 'winner' in any frame of reference, from their actual training to how they treat their customers to their long term sustainability to even how economically successful they are (which you claim they're not). *I get that you don't like McDojos.* No problem. I'm not a fan of them either, from any standpoint other than their business model.


Truly, I don't care one way or the other about McDojos. I mean, no more than I care about the shady used car salesman down the street or any other questionable businessman. I just happen to think that you're wrong to suggest that a mcdojo is more successful than other profitable martial arts schools simply because it's making more money. Profit is not the only measure of success. 





> Other than that, I'm not sure what else we have to talk about in this thread. I stated my case, made my points. You keep constructing new scenarios to try to make your subjective dislike of McDojos into an economic proof, and you seem frustrated that I'm not agreeing with you. Can't help it, I can't agree with what isn't correct.


My only frustration is that every response you post makes it clear that you don't understand what I'm trying to say. You counter arguments I've never made, ascribe feelings to me that I don't have, presume things about my position that aren't correct and ultimately seem more interested in being right than engaging in an honest discussion about issues that you yourself brought up. That does frustrate me a little.  I'm as frustrated with myself as anything because I'm sure I could be more clear, but I'm at a loss as to how.

JWLuiza, 24fightingchickens is a blog I've read for a long time and enjoy. I'm glad I'm not the only one.


----------



## scottie

So true I was a product of a McDojo for almost 10 years I was promoted to 5th Dan in this art. I began learning the busness aspect of the school about five years ago. When I had a pontental student from another in town came in for a "inturductory free private lesson" (my teacher loved for me to do them because in two years I had a 100% sell rate) and asked me what katas we taught. When I told him we don't teach that junk because it does not teach you how to fight in the real world. He looked at me and said you don't teach karate and your five stripes are a joke, then left. 

When I told my teacher that he made some comment about fighting and beating that guy up and quickly changed the subject. I told I wanted to learn katas and he said we don't teach that crap. if you want to learn the you need to go to my old teacher. 

So I did it was the best move I ever made this guy had tracable lineage and I learned more in one class than I learned in 7 years in the McDojo. 

After over 4 and a half years I have earned my first degree Black Belt. I have fallen in love with kata, and thank God every day for that guy coming into my school. Kata has taught me so much. It is awesome. O I also learned that my first teacher that wore a 7th dan had only just been promoted to brown belt which he really did not deserve when he opened his school. My current sensei said that taught him to never promote anyone above there ability to learn. 

I spent 10 years at a very high price with 9 contract renewals to learn how to point fight not counting the Thousands of Dollars I spent on belt test. i don't know if I am more mad at myself for being so dumb or him for thinking what he is doing is the right thing. 

It did however build self esteem and teach me the best defense for a fight is to stay away form one if all possible.  Just my Thoughts I understand both sides not that I agree with both sides


----------



## Joab

Bill, were you serious about all this or were you pulling our legs?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Joab said:


> Bill, were you serious about all this or were you pulling our legs?



Serious.  But make sure you know what my point was - it seems to be getting missed in the general _sturm und drang_ of hating on McDojos.  To recap, I think that the McDojo business model is a valid and successful one, and that some of their methodologies could be used successfully in traditional dojos.  I am not claiming that McDojos are wonderful places teaching great martial arts.


----------



## KELLYG

If you could snag their business model and hold your feet to the fire as far as standards goes then by all means go for it.  I think that you have to know where exact intersection is between excellent instruction and profit and not get greedy enough to cross it.  Money for monies sake means nothing being able to sit back and watch your students grow in martial arts, and be proud of the results of your and their hard work, is where the real profit lies.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> Serious.  But make sure you know what my point was - it seems to be getting missed in the general _*sturm und drang*_ of hating on McDojos.  To recap, I think that the McDojo business model is a valid and successful one, and that some of their methodologies could be used successfully in traditional dojos.  I am not claiming that McDojos are wonderful places teaching great martial arts.



If you dont mind I'll define this cause some people here arent history students 

This means 'storm and stress' its a period of time in the second half of the 18th century of german history when german arts, like literature and music, turned towards freedom of emotion and  what was just defined for me here in this thread, subjectivity. Before that they focused on being rational, and that originally came from the enlightenment period.


----------



## KELLYG

Blade96

Dude that's heavy.  Thanks


----------



## Blade96

KELLYG said:


> Blade96
> 
> Dude that's heavy.  Thanks



np. Did a course on German influence on Russian history when doing Russian (one of my majors, the other one was history) and learned about that, thought I'd forgotten it because it was years ago but Bill's post reminded me again  and i thought other people might be wondering what that meant


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> Serious.  But make sure you know what my point was - it seems to be getting missed in the general _sturm und drang_ of hating on McDojos.  To recap, I think that the McDojo business model is a valid and successful one, and that some of their methodologies could be used successfully in traditional dojos.  I am not claiming that McDojos are wonderful places teaching great martial arts.



Just a note - you might have saved us significant cyber wind had the title of the thread been "In Defense of the McDojo _*Business Model" *_..... not that this thread hasn't been a fun ride, though. 

Methinks somebody has enjoyed "living dangerously"......


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> Just a note - you might have saved us significant cyber wind had the title of the thread been "In Defense of the McDojo _*Business Model" *_..... not that this thread hasn't been a fun ride, though.
> 
> Methinks somebody has enjoyed "living dangerously"......



But I put it in the 'School Management' forum.  What else would it be about?


----------



## Blade96

btw i enjoy the 24fightingchickens site too. quite an enjoyable read. :angel:

PS bill, School Management. I guess that could include business practices.


----------



## AlanE

Touch Of Death said:


> If your task is to better your community with your art of choice, five people in a basement; is not going to cut it.
> sean


According to some, 12 disciples made better an entire world. Whether one agrees or disagrees, my wife says many of us are not destined for public greatness. A few lives made better is a few lives made better. 

Five from a certain basement vs. ten from a McDojo. Not a fair competition for somebody...


----------



## Joab

I have to say Bill I totally disagree with you. I've been to at least two very outstanding schools which were nothing like McDojo's who were doing quite well financially without resorting to McDojo methods. Both offered very high quality instruction, only awarded belts if you were near perfection in your technique (They said it had to be perfect, but nothing humans do is perfect, close to perfection yes...) were not overly commercial in their way of doing business yet thrived through word of mouth that they were very outstanding schools. I think McDojo's are a disgraceful and unnecessary way of doing business.


----------



## Steve

Okay. It seems to me that this thread has actually led to some consensus on a few fronts. 


First, a definition of financial success in business has been largely agreed to. Simply put, if a business is making enough of a profit to pay all expenses as well as recoup (or at least begin to recoup) the initial investment, it is financially successful. Expenses includes salaries, overhead and the rest.


Second, once a business has reached the point where it is financially successful, other considerations come into play that are critical to the _overall_ success of the business: sustainability and legality are two that were specifically mentioned. Suggesting that the company that turns the higher profit is more successful is a specious and potentially misleading. A company that meets the definition of financial success as defined above could actually fail to meet the legality test or the sustainability test and therefore be an unsuccessful company overall.


Third, there seems to be little disagreement regarding the quality of the McDojo product. At best, the product is watered down. At worst, the product is fraudulent. Most McDojos fall somewhere on the spectrum between these two points. To be fair, the same could be said of any Martial Arts school, whether it turns a profit or not. This isn&#8217;t really part of the discussion, but keeps being muddled in, so I think it&#8217;s useful to get it out of the way. 

So, once again, to this point, I&#8217;m really not trying to further any agenda. I&#8217;m genuinely trying to pull together what I&#8217;ve heard everyone say. Me, Bill, CC, JWLuiza, everyone&#8230; these seem to be things that we all agree on. If I&#8217;m wrong, let me know, please.


Now, presuming that we agree on these things, it seems to me that there&#8217;s room to discuss the specific business practices not just from the perspective of whether they generate profit. Once again, most of them do, but do they improve the company? Now, Bill, I know that this is subjective. Is there room in this thread for this? I don&#8217;t know. I hope so. 


Ultimately, what I&#8217;m hoping to do is salvage this thread by turning it in the direction JWLuiza suggested, which is to talk about the business practices not strictly from the perspective of whether they generate income, but also whether they ultimately contribute to the overall health of the business. I&#8217;ve said several times that I believe that McDojo business practices are largely unscrupulous, and I&#8217;d be inclined to find more honorable alternatives to each. I believe that for each of the business practices inherent in the &#8220;McDojo&#8221; business model, there are alternative ways to drive the business that are less seedy, can maintain a consistent standard of quality and still provide for financial success.

For me, it&#8217;s not about sacrificing profitability. It&#8217;s really more about finding ways to generate profit that don&#8217;t require one to compromise his or her values or integrity. This is where I believe that honesty, integrity, value and the like become important, and an examination of specific business practices really becomes interesting for me. Bill identified a few specific business practices in the OP: contracts, franchizing and promotions as incentives. Some others that I think are inherent to McDojos are a tiered fee schedule (ie, instructor tracks, black belt clubs, etc), mandatory belt testings, forcing students to purchase gear from the school, and mandatory add-on sessions, such as weekly &#8220;seminars&#8221; that all cost the student money above their school tuition. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## JWLuiza

Bill isn't saying McDojos are the only way to make money, just that certain practices are beneficial from a business standpoint. I don't think anyone here LIKES McDojos.


----------



## Joab

JWLuiza said:


> Bill isn't saying McDojos are the only way to make money, just that certain practices are beneficial from a business standpoint. I don't think anyone here LIKES McDojos.


 
I hate McDojo's and won't go to any school that is remotedly McDojoish. Sure certain practices are beneficial from a business standpoint, offering free heroin to people works out in the long run with a rather addicted clientele willing to pay top dollar for the product, but that doesn't mean its right.


----------



## JWLuiza

So there are no valuable lessons from the success of the McDojo and everything they do is 100% wrong... And we can't adapt some of their practices without turning into a McDojo....

It must be nice to have such black and white thinking!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> So, once again, to this point, Im really not trying to further any agenda. Im genuinely trying to pull together what Ive heard everyone say. Me, Bill, CC, JWLuiza, everyone these seem to be things that we all agree on. If Im wrong, let me know, please.



I'm totally on board with this.



> Now, presuming that we agree on these things, it seems to me that theres room to discuss the specific business practices not just from the perspective of whether they generate profit. Once again, most of them do, but do they improve the company? Now, Bill, I know that this is subjective. Is there room in this thread for this? I dont know. I hope so.



Again, total agreement on my part.



> Ultimately, what Im hoping to do is salvage this thread by turning it in the direction JWLuiza suggested, which is to talk about the business practices not strictly from the perspective of whether they generate income, but also whether they ultimately contribute to the overall health of the business. Ive said several times that I believe that McDojo business practices are largely unscrupulous, and Id be inclined to find more honorable alternatives to each. I believe that for each of the business practices inherent in the McDojo business model, there are alternative ways to drive the business that are less seedy, can maintain a consistent standard of quality and still provide for financial success.
> 
> For me, its not about sacrificing profitability. Its really more about finding ways to generate profit that dont require one to compromise his or her values or integrity. This is where I believe that honesty, integrity, value and the like become important, and an examination of specific business practices really becomes interesting for me. Bill identified a few specific business practices in the OP: contracts, franchizing and promotions as incentives. Some others that I think are inherent to McDojos are a tiered fee schedule (ie, instructor tracks, black belt clubs, etc), mandatory belt testings, forcing students to purchase gear from the school, and mandatory add-on sessions, such as weekly seminars that all cost the student money above their school tuition.
> 
> What do you guys think?



Looking forward to more constructive discussion of this nature.  Absolutely in agreement here.


----------



## Steve

JWLuiza, which McDojo business practices do you think could be adapted from a McDojo without compromising the quality, values or standards of the school?


----------



## JWLuiza

stevebjj said:


> JWLuiza, which McDojo business practices do you think could be adapted from a McDojo without compromising the quality, values or standards of the school?


Got to run to a dinner talk soon, but I think tiered pricing is OK as long as the penalty isn't huge and there is a sensible release valve in the contract. It can be good for students AND instructor. (e.g., a first kyu student pays for a year because it'll save them $200 and they know they'll stick with it and an injury clause let's them put contract on hiatus, one-two month penalty for breaking early to cover the discount).


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Joab said:


> I hate McDojo's and won't go to any school that is remotedly McDojoish. Sure certain practices are beneficial from a business standpoint, offering free heroin to people works out in the long run with a rather addicted clientele willing to pay top dollar for the product, but that doesn't mean its right.



One might look at it another way.  By analyzing the business practices of the typical franchised McDojo and picking out any parts that could be used to advantage by a non-McDojo, it becomes easier to compete against them.  Beating them at their own game, as it were.


----------



## Steve

JWLuiza said:


> Got to run to a dinner talk soon, but I think tiered pricing is OK as long as the penalty isn't huge and there is a sensible release valve in the contract. It can be good for students AND instructor. (e.g., a first kyu student pays for a year because it'll save them $200 and they know they'll stick with it and an injury clause let's them put contract on hiatus, one-two month penalty for breaking early to cover the discount).


As you've outlined it, tiered pricing and contracts might work.   I have never trained at a school with contracts.  Does anyone have any experience with how they're typically set up?  My impression, which might be skewed from having read about them only online, is that they seldom include injury clauses or an out clause if it just doesn't work out.  Am I mistaken?  If this is the case, by modifying it as you have, are we still talking about a McDojo business practice?  What I mean is, the dreaded McDojo contract horror story is the guy forced to pay for 9 months after breaking his knee or some such is in direct contrast to a reasonable contractual agreement that includes some common sense provisions to protect both the school owner AND the student.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> One might look at it another way.  By analyzing the business practices of the typical franchised McDojo and picking out any parts that could be used to advantage by a non-McDojo, it becomes easier to compete against them.  Beating them at their own game, as it were.



sort of like using a thief to catch a thief. lol


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Blade96 said:


> sort of like using a thief to catch a thief. lol



Or using jujitsu or akido.  Using the opponent's motion against them instead of opposing force with force.


----------



## JWLuiza

What are the specific business practices that for good or ill are definitive of a McDojo?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

JWLuiza said:


> What are the specific business practices that for good or ill are definitive of a McDojo?



Without assigning a 'good' or 'bad' value, some that I can think of:

1) Use of contracts
2) Guaranteed promotion (sometimes based on criteria)
3) Membership in associations offering 'credentialing'
4) Local competitions with awards
5) Fees for testing
6) Fees for promotion
7) Extensive use of add-on sales (merchandise and services)
8) Franchising
9) Advertising / Marketing campaigns
10) Vertical (specialized) accounting software packages
11) Extensive use of attendance records
12) Group membership in associations offering liability insurance / health insurance for employees / legal representation, etc
13) Advertised focus on whatever form of martial art or exercise is currently 'hot' (MMA, BJJ, kick-boxing, taebo, etc)

I'm sure there are more, but those jump to mind first.  I would also venture to say that health clubs, gyms, and other 'health' or 'wellness' related businesses probably follow similar models.


----------



## JWLuiza

Bill Mattocks said:


> Without assigning a 'good' or 'bad' value, some that I can think of:
> 
> 1) Use of contracts


I think this can be useful for income, and used properly can be of benefit to the student. I think forced contracts with no escape valves provide negative word of mouth



> 2) Guaranteed promotion (sometimes based on criteria)


I see this as a way to keep less talented students around, and something that may delegate your school to a lower "tier" in the local community. 



> 3) Membership in associations offering 'credentialing'


I  don't belong to any associations and feel I didn't need them. There can be benefits when people move, but I'm not sure how much value add there is here.



> 4) Local competitions with awards


Competitions drive retail sales, give kids something fun to do, and are profit generators. See no problem here.


> 5) Fees for testing
> 6) Fees for promotion


Gotta pay the bills somehow. We charge about $30 or so per test until dan ranks. Excessive fees are a problem, but board members, facility space, etc. should be covered.



> 7) Extensive use of add-on sales (merchandise and services)
> 8) Franchising
> 9) Advertising / Marketing campaigns
> 10) Vertical (specialized) accounting software packages
> 11) Extensive use of attendance records
> 12) Group membership in associations offering liability insurance / health insurance for employees / legal representation, etc
> 13) Advertised focus on whatever form of martial art or exercise is currently 'hot' (MMA, BJJ, kick-boxing, taebo, etc)
> 
> I'm sure there are more, but those jump to mind first.  I would also venture to say that health clubs, gyms, and other 'health' or 'wellness' related businesses probably follow similar models.


[/quote]

Too tired to finish right now. Good list though.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Without assigning a 'good' or 'bad' value, some that I can think of:
> 
> 1) Use of contracts
> 2) Guaranteed promotion (sometimes based on criteria)
> 3) Membership in associations offering 'credentialing'
> 4) Local competitions with awards
> 5) Fees for testing
> 6) Fees for promotion
> 7) Extensive use of add-on sales (merchandise and services)
> 8) Franchising
> 9) Advertising / Marketing campaigns
> 10) Vertical (specialized) accounting software packages
> 11) Extensive use of attendance records
> 12) Group membership in associations offering liability insurance / health insurance for employees / legal representation, etc
> 13) Advertised focus on whatever form of martial art or exercise is currently 'hot' (MMA, BJJ, kick-boxing, taebo, etc)
> 
> I'm sure there are more, but those jump to mind first. I would also venture to say that health clubs, gyms, and other 'health' or 'wellness' related businesses probably follow similar models.


Some other common practices.  I'm bulleting them, but I'll explain further if any aren't clear:


Black Belt Clubs
Mandatory seminars
Rules against cross training
Focus on "family marketing"
Instructor Training (for additional fees)
Mandatory Testing on a regular schedule (ie, quarterly... just before one's taxes are due)
Emphasis on Values training/De-emphasis on martial skill
Focus on teh d34dly.  "We don't spar because our techniques are too dangerous."


----------



## Touch Of Death

stevebjj said:


> Some other common practices. I'm bulleting them, but I'll explain further if any aren't clear:
> 
> 
> Black Belt Clubs
> Mandatory seminars
> Rules against cross training
> Focus on "family marketing"
> Instructor Training (for additional fees)
> Mandatory Testing on a regular schedule (ie, quarterly... just before one's taxes are due)
> Emphasis on Values training/De-emphasis on martial skill
> Focus on teh d34dly. "We don't spar because our techniques are too dangerous."


I can't believe you are against values! What is the world comming to these days? :mst: I thought the Shaolin guys were Monks with values.
Sean


----------



## AlanE

Bill Mattocks said:


> One might look at it another way. By analyzing the business practices of the typical franchised McDojo and picking out any parts that could be used to advantage by a non-McDojo, it becomes easier to compete against them. Beating them at their own game, as it were.


 
Right, Bill! Beat them at their game, but also beat then where they don't compete (we should come in first place there). However, it always comes back to, "What are you selling?" Students have different reasons for starting. What did they hope to buy? Their reasons for joining can change over time. What are we giving them? Comprehensive instruction given simply, where there exists an inherent motivation for attendance, even if students see no easy belts on the horizon. 

If we lose focus on our chosen mission we can ask ourselves that central question from time to time. What are we selling? Self-respect, self-sufficiency, and camaraderie? (for example). 

If I understand where the thread has progressed to, schools should begin with ethical, capable instruction. From there we're looking for possible ways (and to see if it's worth it to us) to maximize profit, growth, and create a positive influence locally and beyond. 

Is below a good initial premise? 

- Extra costs to customers should have a clear benefit to them, and the extra processes should be sensible, sustainable sources of income comparable with monthly dues.

Just to be sure we're incorporating all ideas, Tez3 made a valid point that got buried, which was the value of instructor competence. This point is so big it can in cases change the general rule about lineage being the best indicator of training efficacy. It can also enhance profitability. Naturally gifted teachers, with graceful movement or boundless energy, this can outshine lineage by far throughout the evening sessions (in the minds of learners). Also, the most creative and capable instructors, the innovators, are not necessarily watering down the art. Okay, they might be, or they could do as many have done: modify techniques and give it a new name. First persons were everywhere in history. They began lineages. 

Another point is we generally like to see the lineage arts to require a lengthy foundation of slow and responsible mastery. Innovators may do it differently and threaten this idealistic and profitable income stream. 

Matching the improved direction of the thread, what we can do as well as McDojo's is:

- Marketing
- Advertising 
- Clean facility 
- Highly organized instruction
- Delegated authority but not responsibility
- Public service (clean-up, volunteer services, demos, 
- Halloween neighborhood walks with local police not in uniform but with 
distinctive name tags (or other indication). 

What we can do better is:

- Not trap students into contracts
- Keep improving our own qualifications; stay connected to those who will challenge us to grow (one of the better reasons to maintain lineage).
- Provide consistent, meaningful, deeply respectful instruction
- Provide better monitoring of student instructors, sparring, and 
giving exact instructions along with a teaching methodology that builds 
on previous lessons (not just another lesson, but always some cohesion 
and "in Monday's class we saw Mary demonstrating..." 
- Make sure it's fun and everyone gets special treatment...equally
- Make sure it's physically and mentally challenging


----------



## Steve

Touch Of Death said:


> I can't believe you are against values! What is the world comming to these days? :mst: I thought the Shaolin guys were Monks with values.
> Sean


 I was typing on a phone. Not sure if you're being serious or not, but what I mean is that a McDojo will often sell values training and minimize any actual martial training. 
Here's an example I just pulled from a TKD school website. It's the first TKD site I clicked on in google:

"We're building greater unity in families, workplaces and in the communities we serve. Vital benefits in today's society!

*FUN! EXCITING! INSPIRATIONAL! EDUCATIONAL!" *

While any of these things are laudable, if you're not actually learning any applicable martial skill, you're not REALLY learning any values either.  If that's not clear, let me know.


----------



## harlan

I'm unclear...the example you cite does not suggest that they purport to teach self-defense, or even anything truly martial?


----------



## Steve

Harlan, that's exactly the point.  This particular example may or may not teach actual, usable martial arts.  I don't know.  If they do teach quality martial arts skills, great.  

But many don't, and don't even claim to.  

I should clarify that teaching values is NOT a bad thing.  I've said before here and on my blog that people absolutely can learn positive traits like discipline, integrity, sportsmanship and a work ethic from martial arts training, but ONLY if they are actually learning a legitimate martial art.  

In the same way, a person can ALSO learn these same positive traits by engaging in any activity, whether it's wrestling, badmitton, chess, marching band or underwater basketweaving.  As long as they're working hard, setting long and short term goals and learning some actual skill.

So, in this context, values driven training is something that absolutely can be applied to a legit school, but not to the exclusion or in lieu of actual hard work and measurable learning.


----------



## harlan

I'm not sure your test of 'legitimacy' stands. How does training in 'archaic' forms of martial arts apply?


----------



## Steve

What do you mean?


----------



## harlan

Sorry. I may be misreading, but was trying to understand. 

1. It seems that your position is that people can't learn positive values in a situation where they are not learning a 'legitimate' art.

2. Can you define 'legitimate martial art'? I think you mean 'usable', but am not sure what that entails. Was throwing out 'archaic' as the first example. Iaido, might be one example. 



stevebjj said:


> people absolutely can learn positive traits like discipline, integrity, sportsmanship and a work ethic from martial arts training, but ONLY if they are actually learning a legitimate martial art.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Sorry. I may be misreading, but was trying to understand.
> 
> 1. It seems that your position is that people can't learn positive values in a situation where they are not learning a 'legitimate' art.
> 
> 2. Can you define 'legitimate martial art'? I think you mean 'usable', but am not sure what that entails. Was throwing out 'archaic' as the first example. Iaido, might be one example.


Ahh... I see what you're saying now. No. There is some misunderstanding. What I'm driving at is that the activity, whether it's a martial art or anything else, has to be internally consistent. So, legitimacy in the context of what you're referring to is largely self-defined. 

Let's say I'm running a golf pro shop and advertising that I'll teach kids to play golf. If you sign your kids up with me, I'm alleging they'll learn good values like discipline, work ethic, respect for authority and all sorts of great things.  In reality, I'm just having them do vaguely golf related things, but they never actually learn to play golf.  Ultimately, if I don't teach them to play golf, they won't learn any positive values because the entire situation is inconsistent. 

If I'm signing kids up for golf lessons, I should first and foremost be teaching them to play golf. If I'm purporting to be teaching kids to play chess, they should be able to demonstrate measurable improvement in their chess skills. 

In the same way, if I am running a martial arts school and make claims about self defense, I should be teaching self defense. If I am signing kids up for kendo lessons, they should at least be learning kendo. Any life lessons or values gained such as discipline are a side benefit.


----------



## Touch Of Death

stevebjj said:


> I was typing on a phone. Not sure if you're being serious or not, but what I mean is that a McDojo will often sell values training and minimize any actual martial training.
> Here's an example I just pulled from a TKD school website. It's the first TKD site I clicked on in google:
> 
> "We're building greater unity in families, workplaces and in the communities we serve. Vital benefits in today's society!
> 
> *FUN! EXCITING! INSPIRATIONAL! EDUCATIONAL!" *
> 
> While any of these things are laudable, if you're not actually learning any applicable martial skill, you're not REALLY learning any values either. If that's not clear, let me know.


I am totally serious. There is nothing wrong with bettering your community by teaching kids to show some damn respect; to be stewards, if you will. Why aren't you up in arms against the Cub Scouts? Or are you?:uhyeah:
Sean


----------



## harlan

Here is the rub: the parents are responding to the marketing of 'life lessons'. If they thought, for one minute, that you were going to teach their kid neck cranks, arm breaks, and how to shove a bo down through the abdomen and pelvis...do you really think they would be there?

We are talking about kids...and the market has spoken: parents want them in 'wholesome' activities. Probably why so much martial arts is wrapped about the 'religious' angle as well in this country...as if 'values' somehow make the activity 'better'. I have a nephew who is in a 'sword fit' type of class, and he loves it. The boffering, playing war, the bogu gear...loads of fun with foam swords. With some pride, I have to say, my nephew at least is very good at the extremely limited sword offering. But it doesn't compare to an iaido teacher explaining exactly what the cut is doing. And my relatives would not have my nephew in that class if they really thought, for one minute, that THAT is what he was learning. 'Not nice.'

Truthfully? I think the people that are paying to have their egos rubbed like it. Too many good, free schools are empty because what they have to offer...doesn't compare to what people want. America: land of the stupid and shallow. Sorry. 



stevebjj said:


> If I am signing kids up for kendo lessons, they should at least be learning kendo. Any life lessons or values gained such as discipline are a side benefit.


----------



## Touch Of Death

harlan said:


> Here is the rub: the parents are responding to the marketing of 'life lessons'. If they thought, for one minute, that you were doing to teach their kid neck cranks, arm breaks, and how to shove a bo down through the abdomen and pelvis...do you really think they would be there?
> 
> We are talking about kids...and the market has spoken: parents want them in 'wholesome' activities. Probably why so much martial arts is wrapped about the 'religious' angle as well in this country...as if 'values' somehow make the activity 'better'.


Values do make the activity better.
Sean


----------



## AlanE

Touch Of Death said:


> I am totally serious. There is nothing wrong with bettering your community by teaching kids to show some damn respect; to be stewards, if you will. Why aren't you up in arms against the Cub Scouts? Or are you?:uhyeah:
> Sean


 
No, no Touch, you may have gotten off on a misunderstanding of stevebjj's comments starting a few back, regarding values. Unless I misread it...

Values is being honored in all cases. 

Let's say one is putting together his/her resume. If anything is missing, it won't get included or emphasized, unless the applicant wants to lie and include it.

When it comes to martial arts sales letters, or the schools' public resumes, the schools include and say things people want more of (families active together and honoring each other). They usually point to a reason to be to be seen as credible (but not always). And, they usually do not say what they can't guarantee (trophies, abilities). 

In fairness to both sides, no guarantees can be made, and a lot of what will be gained is in the eyes of the students, regardless of advertising. Word of mouth helps. Which produces better fighters, better personal protectors, better athletes, better values? In which schools will the students have more money left over? Bad schools will extort folks. 

I'm unsure values improve as fighting skill improves, or for that matter that values start off higher if the martial arts is deadlier to begin with. 

However, and depending on "the crowd" where training occurs, there will be a greater sense of self-confidence, respect, and humility that washes over participants regularly. This regular activity can change people for the better. Students and instructors will still get away with hurting others if they can, if raised to not care too much, or if spending too much time with a crowd that distorts their sensibilities. 

In both McDojos and dojos, students' additional body awareness, athleticism, goal setting, and achievements can and do mean something. Genuine self-defense means something. Maintaining affiliations and accountability means something.

Where should the money fall? Simply put, pay more for more. If you don't need RainX at the car wash, don't get it. If schools hide fees and don't tell students up front that testing (& fees) will be mandatory every 30-60 days, it's uncool to not let families budget - and intentionally trap them to not scare them off early. Just explain costs realistically. Any sport joined is more money than expected. Explain that the others schools in the area, if true, also require mandatory testing and fees. Know your marketplace -- very important for your business, to keep the door open.

We've covered values, being profitable, ethical, more profitable, and back around. Is it common sense, and are we all wanting the same things? 

I think we're looking to firm up:

1) Additional profit generators - sensible to customers; sustainable and instructors can face themselves in the mirror knowing they are providing value.

2) Ideal ways to offset costs for renting facilites, etc.


----------



## Steve

Touch Of Death said:


> I am totally serious. There is nothing wrong with bettering your community by teaching kids to show some damn respect; to be stewards, if you will. Why aren't you up in arms against the Cub Scouts? Or are you?:uhyeah:
> Sean


 


Touch Of Death said:


> Values do make the activity better.
> Sean


I'm not being clear, and I apologize for that.  I think kids should absolutely take part in activities that teach them valuable life lessons.  I am all for respect, hard work and discipline.  

What I'm saying is that these things can't be taught in a vacuum.  These lessons are learned as a by product of learning something else.  Working hard, practicing diligently, _learning_ some demonstrable skill.  



harlan said:


> Here is the rub: the parents are responding to the marketing of 'life lessons'. If they thought, for one minute, that you were going to teach their kid neck cranks, arm breaks, and how to shove a bo down through the abdomen and pelvis...do you really think they would be there?


Maybe, but this is a completely different discussion on the topic of what is appropriate to teach kids.   As I said before, though, if I'm running the golf shop and I claim I'll teach your child a strong work ethic, shouldn't I also, perhaps more importantly, teach your child to play golf?  

Taken a step further, I'd argue that I cannot teach your child any positive life lesson UNLESS I first teach him how to play golf.  


> Truthfully? I think the people that are paying to have their egos rubbed like it. Too many good, free schools are empty because what they have to offer...doesn't compare to what people want. America: land of the stupid and shallow. Sorry.


Certainly a legit opinion.  I don't completely agree, but I can see where you're coming from.



AlanE said:


> No, no Touch, you may have gotten off on a misunderstanding of stevebjj's comments starting a few back, regarding values. Unless I misread it...
> 
> Values is being honored in all cases.


Sort of.  As I said, I'm having trouble making myself clear today.  Maybe I need more sleep.  


Sort of like poetry.  The best poems about death, love, life or any other abstract concept never mention these things directly.  They ground the abstract concept of death in concrete terms.  The poem might demonstrate death in the form of a lifeless body, or it might allude to death in the anguished features of a mourning loved one.  

In the same way, I'm saying that you can't "teach values."  You can demonstrate values by teaching something else.  In order to instill a strong work ethic, you have to demonstrate a strong work ethic.  In order to teach a child integrity you have to act with integrity.  You have to ground these life lessons in real life by demonstrating them in action.  And if the activity has no integrity, such as is often the case in a McDojo, there are no values being demonstrated.   Or worse, negative life lessons are being taught.

We're always teaching our kids something.  It's up to us whether it's a positive lesson or a negative one.   





> I'm unsure values improve as fighting skill improves, or for that matter that values start off higher if the martial arts is deadlier to begin with.


So many kids have learned to live with honor and integrity by stumbling into a boxing gym.   It's not that the kid's values improve as their fighting skill improves.  It's that they're applying larger life lessons to the practical endeavor of learning how to fight (or play baseball or whatever).


> We've covered values, being profitable, ethical, more profitable, and back around. Is it common sense, and are we all wanting the same things?
> 
> I think we're looking to firm up:
> 
> 1) Additional profit generators - sensible to customers; sustainable and instructors can face themselves in the mirror knowing they are providing value.
> 
> 2) Ideal ways to offset costs for renting facilites, etc.


Can't wait.


----------



## AlanE

stevebjj said:


> ...And *if the activity has no* *integrity,* such as is often the case in a McDojo, *there are no values being* *demonstrated. Or worse, negative life lessons are being taught.*
> 
> 
> 
> We're always teaching our kids something. It's up to us whether it's a positive lesson or a negative one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...It's not that the kid's values improve as their fighting skill improves. It's that they're applying larger life lessons to the practical endeavor of learning how to fight (or play baseball or whatever).
> 
> /quote]
> 
> 
> 
> *Well said, stevebjj!*


----------



## terryl965

Look I would like to add to this converstation, First of I am a school teacher by trade and then I own and operate a school for TKD. One of the main problem with childern today is the lack of values the majority have withen there lifes. If a Martial art program in some way can help these kids find some than it is a plus for society and for themself later in life. I have seen so many trouble teens get into wrestling martial arts or any other sport and have a coach that actually makes them understand the word respect for themself and there piers, that it made the biggest difference in their life as a whole. I believe all martial arts geared toward any child should have these core values.


----------



## AlanE

terryl965 said:


> Look I would like to add to this converstation, First of I am a school teacher by trade and then I own and operate a school for TKD. One of the main problem with childern today is the lack of values the majority have withen there lifes. If a Martial art program in some way can help these kids find some than it is a plus for society and for themself later in life. I have seen so many trouble teens get into wrestling martial arts or any other sport and have a coach that actually makes them understand the word respect for themself and there piers, that it made the biggest difference in their life as a whole. I believe all martial arts geared toward any child should have these core values.


 I think you're right, Terry. What you said seems to be unamimous with the posters here, which is to genuinely help folks.

That leaves (possibly) the decision to either making a living with MA, or supplement income with MA.

Supplementing income seems to be the ideal choice. Like an High School sports coach, it allows income from a day job, and extra income from an evening job, plus exercise of one's skills, and improvement of a community - without being bound by student fees for survival of the dream (business). The freedom to give value and not run an assembly line. The way martial arts were probably taught everywhere, except in temples, for generations.

Extra income generators are unnecessary in the above scenario. Paint for potential students an accurate picture of beginning costs & expected costs per year, and leave it to them. Your reputation, communication style, and 1-2 free classes will give a lot to evaluate you on, even more than your tattered belt. 

Can people learn from you? Can they increase their original motivation based on something you gave them? If so, you're a fine teacher and they'll be better off than before. 

There will always be somebody better (at fighting or teaching - if in doubt, just wait a few days), therefore make sure you are teaching something good. You know whether you are or not. When you are, you're not a McDojo. When we teach we can improve ourselves - but only if we're fully engaged. If we're engaged, we'll notice more situations where we won't have the exact solution. We'll have an answer but wonder if it's best. We'll explore and ask higher ups/experts. We'll remain important in our students' lives, despite not being all-knowing and all-skillful.

Just don't earn a yellow belt, then open a dojo and start wearing a black belt, and give untraceable credentials! Be who we are, and upfront with those from whom we would accept money. 

If people will be who they are, and save the energy used to pretend who they're not, they can use that same energy to improve WHO THEY ARE.


----------



## Touch Of Death

terryl965 said:


> Look I would like to add to this converstation, First of I am a school teacher by trade and then I own and operate a school for TKD. One of the main problem with childern today is the lack of values the majority have withen there lifes. If a Martial art program in some way can help these kids find some than it is a plus for society and for themself later in life. I have seen so many trouble teens get into wrestling martial arts or any other sport and have a coach that actually makes them understand the word respect for themself and there piers, that it made the biggest difference in their life as a whole. I believe all martial arts geared toward any child should have these core values.


...And further more, I think that if you focus on values and task yourself and the child to define what integrity, respect, spirit, etc., are, and be able to demonstrate real life examples of where they are an issue, you will help them to become a better person and martial artist.
sean


----------



## dbell

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *Bill Mattocks* 

 
_Without assigning a 'good' or 'bad'  value, some that I can think of:

1) Use of contracts
2) Guaranteed promotion (sometimes based on criteria)
3) Membership in associations offering 'credentialing'
4) Local competitions with awards
5) Fees for testing
6) Fees for promotion
7) Extensive use of add-on sales (merchandise and services)
8) Franchising
9) Advertising / Marketing campaigns
10) Vertical (specialized) accounting software packages
11) Extensive use of attendance records
12) Group membership in associations offering liability insurance /  health insurance for employees / legal representation, etc
13) Advertised focus on whatever form of martial art or exercise is  currently 'hot' (MMA, BJJ, kick-boxing, taebo, etc)

I'm sure there are more, but those jump to mind first. I would also  venture to say that health clubs, gyms, and other 'health' or 'wellness'  related businesses probably follow similar models._




stevebjj said:


> Some other common practices.  I'm bulleting them, but I'll explain further if any aren't clear:
> 
> 
> Black Belt Clubs
> Mandatory seminars
> Rules against cross training
> Focus on "family marketing"
> Instructor Training (for additional fees)
> Mandatory Testing on a regular schedule (ie, quarterly... just before one's taxes are due)
> Emphasis on Values training/De-emphasis on martial skill
> Focus on teh d34dly.  "We don't spar because our techniques are too dangerous."



List one:
1.  Contracts can be good, if written as a win win for both parties, but in general I have not seen that.
2.  Guaranteed promotions are never good.  This should not be done by any school.  A student should not be promoted unless they meet the minimum knowledge/skill requirement for that level.
3.  Associations can be OK, provided that they are not fully money driven and are geared to helping the art grow.  (I don't see that in most cases of today's associations though!)
4.  Local competitions are great for those arts that do sport training/competition training and would be a good thing to be doing.
5.  Fees for testing....  If outside Instructors are coming in, who typically like to be paid, then yes, this is probably needed, but I am not a strong proponent for this concept.
6.  Promotion fees, enough to cover the cost of any new equipment/belts/uniforms (for those that have different uniforms at various levels), can help the school grow.  (I charge $10-35 to cover the belt, depending on the level and if I have it stitched.)
7.  Extensive use of add on sales.  There is nothing wrong with this, provided that it is not required.  Having school clothing and personalized gear is a good way of advertising the school, etc.
8.  Franchising.  Provided that the franchise is a valid full instructor level black belt of the original school, I have no problem with this.  If it is sold to an outsider who has no ranking, or a low ranking, I'm not for this.
9.  Advertising and marketing campaigns are a good thing, if done correctly and without misleading the reader.
10.  EVERY school should be using accounting software, and having a vertical (specialized) package makes it even better!
11.  Attendance records...  Depends on what they are used for.  If it is solely used for tracking time in grade, or related reasons, but not for automatic testing, and it is used for the student's benefit in some way, they can be good.
12.  Associations such as this can be good for the school.  However, there are insurance companies out there that do "group rates" type of programs for MA schools which may better suit the school than an association.
13.  One should only advertise what they teach, and not "bend" that teaching to what is "hot" today....  If what they teach happens to be what is "hot", advertise it.

List two:

1.  Black Belt clubs -  I thought long and hard on this one when I opened my own school, instead of teaching for other schools, a couple of years ago.  I have a "Black Belt Club", and the students pay a bit more, but they also get more time dedicated to them via extra classes and one on one time slotted just for them.  (No contracts though.)  Else wise, I've not been impressed with the many different black belt clubs I've seen to date...
2.  Seminars should never be mandatory.  EVER.  But they should be available and should be of great quality and as low a cost as possible so the students can go if they want.
3.  For new MA students, I would prefer that they not be cross training until they have reached some proficiency in the art.  (Senior Student level)  However if they have prior experience, or are adapting to the concept of MA quickly, I have no problem with someone crossing training, and encourage it at all other times!
4.  "Friends" and Family marketing can be a good thing, but I'm not sure it should be a focus.
5.  A school owner should be training every student as his or hear replacement.  Each student should be getting "instructor" training as they go along, as that is what they are paying for in my eyes with their basic fees.  Paying extra for that is just not acceptable in my eyes.  In fact, in my school, once you make black belt, you stop paying class fees.  (And until you reach 3rd Dan, you keep getting new material.)
6.  Testing should not be mandatory...  End of story there...
7.  A MA school is about MA skill, not about training, the focus should be on the art, not on the training itself.
8.  Some things should not be used in sparring, but training against a person that is not just letting you do the move is important in growing that skill, and that takes sparring (or what ever term is used in that style/art for the equivalent) to test the art out.  You may not go full force, may need to wear pads, but I think it is important to growing your MA skill.  I am not a strong proponent of most of the competition and sport rings out there, as my students would not be able to fully use their art (even if at reduced strength), so I'm not strong on competition events, but I am a strong proponent of sparring and using those skills in a controlled manner.


----------



## dbell

Touch Of Death said:


> ...And further more, I think that if you focus on values and task yourself and the child to define what integrity, respect, spirit, etc., are, and be able to demonstrate real life examples of where they are an issue, you will help them to become a better person and martial artist.
> sean



While I firmly believe that defining and training strong ethical values, self integrity, respect of self and others, spirit, etc, is important, I do not think that should be the focus of a MA school, the focus should be the art and the content of the art.  

If you are teaching a SD related art, your goal should be to teach your students just that, how to defend themselves, and when to defend themselves at the level of defense that is needed and no more than that level.  Teaching these skills will teach them strong values, help them with their integrity, build their respect of themselves and others, and help them grow strong in self (spirit).  But the focus should be on the art and skills of the art, and when to use them.


----------



## terryl965

dbell said:


> While I firmly believe that defining and training strong ethical values, self integrity, respect of self and others, spirit, etc, is important, I do not think that should be the focus of a MA school, the focus should be the art and the content of the art.
> 
> If you are teaching a SD related art, your goal should be to teach your students just that, how to defend themselves, and when to defend themselves at the level of defense that is needed and no more than that level. Teaching these skills will teach them strong values, help them with their integrity, build their respect of themselves and others, and help them grow strong in self (spirit). But the focus should be on the art and skills of the art, and when to use them.


 

I can only agree with the above statement is everything is tought all aspect should come together...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

If you're teaching baseball, you teach baseball.  Not ethics, morals, or other life-development skills that have nothing to do with baseball.

If you're teaching golf, same thing.

Firearms instructors teach firearms.  They may discuss laws of self-defense, licensing and regulatory requirements, but they don't teach how to be a good person, morals, or ethics.

Why would martial arts teachers insert statements of personal ethics and morals being a requirement for teaching?

I'm not saying it's wrong; but I noted how many martial arts business owners in this thread insist that this is a requirement for teaching their art.

Why is that the case with martial arts and nothing else?


----------



## harlan

Because it's still mostly an unregulated activity, where teachers can have unmonitered access to little kids, and don't have to pass a CORI check? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If you're teaching baseball, you teach baseball. Not ethics, morals, or other life-development skills that have nothing to do with baseball.
> 
> If you're teaching golf, same thing.
> 
> Firearms instructors teach firearms. They may discuss laws of self-defense, licensing and regulatory requirements, but they don't teach how to be a good person, morals, or ethics.
> 
> Why would martial arts teachers insert statements of personal ethics and morals being a requirement for teaching?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong; but I noted how many martial arts business owners in this thread insist that this is a requirement for teaching their art.
> 
> Why is that the case with martial arts and nothing else?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

harlan said:


> Because it's still mostly an unregulated activity, where teachers can have unmonitered access to little kids, and don't have to pass a CORI check?



This may be true of tutors, but not for most after-school or other private instruction activities that I know of.  However, perhaps my information is lacking.

Private music teachers don't (as far as I know) teach morals/ethics are part of teaching how to play the guitar or piano or whatnot, nor are they licensed / monitored.  Golf instructors?  Tennis?


----------



## terryl965

Bill I can only answer for myself, I choose to teach the moral aspect along with the Art and sport side of TKD. This is due two fold the first being a parent of three boys I wanted it to be as much in there life as possible and the other is because of my professional choice of being a school teacher. If I can help some of our youth to understand that having proper manners and respect is always the best possible solution for a better and more productive life, than I choose to do it. Now with that being said there is a certain level of respect one must have to be in a good Martial Art school and this is mainly proper ediquet(mis-spelled I know) to know when to speak and how to speak to the instructor of said school. I hope that helps a little, I know it really does not answer everything but you can see why I choose to have it be a part of my school.:asian:


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you're teaching baseball, you teach baseball. Not ethics, morals, or other life-development skills that have nothing to do with baseball.
> 
> If you're teaching golf, same thing.
> 
> Firearms instructors teach firearms. They may discuss laws of self-defense, licensing and regulatory requirements, but they don't teach how to be a good person, morals, or ethics.
> 
> Why would martial arts teachers insert statements of personal ethics and morals being a requirement for teaching?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong; but I noted how many martial arts business owners in this thread insist that this is a requirement for teaching their art.
> 
> Why is that the case with martial arts and nothing else?


I don't think this is necessarily true where kids are involved (adults are a different thing entirely).  Kids athletic programs, kids music programs, kids art programs, and other kids programs, such as the Scouts SHOULD incorporate these things.    Although, I think that you're right in that they don't necessarily need to be overtly taught.  

When a kid plays baseball, football or whatever, they are (or should be) learning more than the skills of the sport.  Any coach worth his salt should be teaching them the value of sportsmanship, how to win with grace and lose with dignity.  They should be learning the value of teamwork, how to handle stress, performance anxiety and the emotional roller coaster than competition brings.  They should be learning goal setting, both short and long term and how to work hard to acheive these goals.  

Even the private music teacher is communicating these positive traits indirectly.  The important thing, though, is that all of these positive traits can come indirectly from learning to do something well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

terryl965 said:


> Bill I can only answer for myself, I choose to teach the moral aspect along with the Art and sport side of TKD. This is due two fold the first being a parent of three boys I wanted it to be as much in there life as possible and the other is because of my professional choice of being a school teacher. If I can help some of our youth to understand that having proper manners and respect is always the best possible solution for a better and more productive life, than I choose to do it. Now with that being said there is a certain level of respect one must have to be in a good Martial Art school and this is mainly proper ediquet(mis-spelled I know) to know when to speak and how to speak to the instructor of said school. I hope that helps a little, I know it really does not answer everything but you can see why I choose to have it be a part of my school.:asian:



I can certainly understand why you want to teach the moral aspects along with the martial arts teaching.

But let make note of a couple things...

In this thread, the lack of moral teaching is seen as one of the aspects (and a negative one) of a McDojo.  In other words, many here say that in order to NOT be a McDojo, one must teach ethical and moral lessons along with the martial arts.

And yet, I cannot recall ever reading about a baseball camp or piano instruction that was considered subpar for failing to teach those things; in other words, parents send their kids to music tutoring to learn to play an instrument; to baseball camp to learn to throw, catch, and hit. Nothing about moral lessons, right?  I'm sure there are coaches and music teachers who have strong morals and emphasize them indirectly in their teaching, but we generally don't put those who don't in the 'bad' category, do we?

And as an adult - may I say that I personally enjoy the ethical and moral underpinnings I get from my Sensei.  But in all honesty, I'm an adult.  If I'm not a decent, honorable man by now, he's not going to teach it to me.  And what's wrong with saying "I don't want to learn your morals, I want to learn karate?"

So I get why many instructors may feel it incumbent upon them to teach more than just the martial art itself - but they relegate those who do not to the 'bad' category; when as far as I can tell, this is a yardstick we do not apply to any other form of teaching.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> I don't think this is necessarily true where kids are involved (adults are a different thing entirely).  Kids athletic programs, kids music programs, kids art programs, and other kids programs, such as the Scouts SHOULD incorporate these things.    Although, I think that you're right in that they don't necessarily need to be overtly taught.
> 
> When a kid plays baseball, football or whatever, they are (or should be) learning more than the skills of the sport.  Any coach worth his salt should be teaching them the value of sportsmanship, how to win with grace and lose with dignity.  They should be learning the value of teamwork, how to handle stress, performance anxiety and the emotional roller coaster than competition brings.  They should be learning goal setting, both short and long term and how to work hard to acheive these goals.
> 
> Even the private music teacher is communicating these positive traits indirectly.  The important thing, though, is that all of these positive traits can come indirectly from learning to do something well.



But I have never heard of a 'McBaseballCamp' or a 'McViolinLessons', have you?  We accept that some teachers of violins or baseball simply teach the skills and nothing else - we do not see that as wrong (your observations noted and accepted of course).  

Yet when it comes to martial arts, we do put those who choose to only teach the art and nothing else in the 'bad' category.


----------



## dancingalone

Bill Mattocks said:


> In this thread, the lack of moral teaching is seen as one of the aspects (and a negative one) of a McDojo.  In other words, many here say that in order to NOT be a McDojo, one must teach ethical and moral lessons along with the martial arts.



I haven't read the thread, but it seems to me the opposite is actually true.  My niece and nephew train ATA taekwondo, the system frequently derided as the epitome of a McDojo.  Having attended many of their classes and activities with them, I actually had the opinion that McDojos focus more on the character-building aspect of martial arts than the actual physical activity itself.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> But I have never heard of a 'McBaseballCamp' or a 'McViolinLessons', have you? We accept that some teachers of violins or baseball simply teach the skills and nothing else - we do not see that as wrong (your observations noted and accepted of course).
> 
> Yet when it comes to martial arts, we do put those who choose to only teach the art and nothing else in the 'bad' category.


That's because, unique to martial arts, the actual "learning skills" part can be compromised.

At the Baseball Camp, kids learn to play baseball and everything else derives from that.  Violin lessons are the same.  The child learns to play the violin and life lessons are a side effect.  Martial arts?  Not so much.  That's the difference, IMO.  The lessons are still critical and should still be consciously considered by the adult.

I should add that I believe that adults are role models for kids, whether we like it or not.  We sometimes have no idea what lessons kids learn from us, or whether they're paying attention at all.  So, whenever we're teaching, coaching or even interacting with kids, we should be mindful of all of the lessons we may be teaching them.  As I said before, kids are always learning something from us.  The real choice we have is whether to teach them something positive or something negative.


----------



## jks9199

stevebjj said:


> That's because, unique to martial arts, the actual "learning skills" part can be compromised.
> 
> At the Baseball Camp, kids learn to play baseball and everything else derives from that.  Violin lessons are the same.  The child learns to play the violin and life lessons are a side effect.  Martial arts?  Not so much.  That's the difference, IMO.  The lessons are still critical and should still be consciously considered by the adult.
> 
> I should add that I believe that adults are role models for kids, whether we like it or not.  We sometimes have no idea what lessons kids learn from us, or whether they're paying attention at all.  So, whenever we're teaching, coaching or even interacting with kids, we should be mindful of all of the lessons we may be teaching them.  As I said before, kids are always learning something from us.  The real choice we have is whether to teach them something positive or something negative.


Actually, wrestling, football, baseball, and quite a few other sports have long been touted as "building character."  They teach lessons like the value of practice, discipline, how to win or lose...  It's just been called "sportsmanship."  But isn't that teaching moral values?

But the martial arts have had links to mysticism, and to religion and philosophy.  The Chinese arts are tied to monks, and the Japanese arts emphasized the personal development aspects in the days after WWII.  So it's not surprising that martial arts here in the US have pushed some of those aspects...

Oh... and regarding the "after school" programs...  Most states don't require them to be run as a day care center; they're "sports programs."  But they're prolific (lots more than the summer sports camps...)  It's downright scary how little they are regulated when you consider that they may be picking kids up from school in vehicles (not school buses...), supervising them for several hours a day, with no external control or regulation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> That's because, unique to martial arts, the actual "learning skills" part can be compromised.



How so?  A baseball coach can be good, bad, or mediocre.  Same for a martial arts instructor.



> At the Baseball Camp, kids learn to play baseball and everything else derives from that.  Violin lessons are the same.  The child learns to play the violin and life lessons are a side effect.  Martial arts?  Not so much.  That's the difference, IMO.  The lessons are still critical and should still be consciously considered by the adult.



Not following you here.  A block, a kick, a punch - all are done in a particular manner based on the martial arts tradition.  Surely that can be taught completely effectively, but utterly divorced from any life-lessons or moral teachings.



> I should add that I believe that adults are role models for kids, whether we like it or not.  We sometimes have no idea what lessons kids learn from us, or whether they're paying attention at all.  So, whenever we're teaching, coaching or even interacting with kids, we should be mindful of all of the lessons we may be teaching them.  As I said before, kids are always learning something from us.  The real choice we have is whether to teach them something positive or something negative.



I tend to agree with that, but that would apply to anything and any interaction adults have with children.  I'm noting not what should be, but what apparently is - we call martial arts training that neglects a moral teaching aspect a 'McDojo' but we don't apply that same requirement to golf lessons (well, you do, but most don't).

I am just curious why a person can't be taught to throw a block, kick, or punch correctly without also being taught some sort of life-lesson as well.  Is it not possible to learn these skills without the (sorry, can't think of a better word at the moment) 'trappings' of non-McDojo martial arts?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

jks9199 said:


> Actually, wrestling, football, baseball, and quite a few other sports have long been touted as "building character."  They teach lessons like the value of practice, discipline, how to win or lose...  It's just been called "sportsmanship."  But isn't that teaching moral values?



Sure, but those who don't teach 'sportsmanship' but just focus on how to hit or how to field correctly are not singled out for derision and referred to pejoratively.  It's a 'nice to have' not a requirement for us to consider them effective and 'good'.

And how about musical instruments?  I've never seen a guitar teacher emphasizing sportsmanship, nor anyone who called a violin teacher out for failing to teach those values.



> But the martial arts have had links to mysticism, and to religion and philosophy.  The Chinese arts are tied to monks, and the Japanese arts emphasized the personal development aspects in the days after WWII.  So it's not surprising that martial arts here in the US have pushed some of those aspects...



Ah, good point.  And therefore, we ought to perpetuate those traditions?  What of the forms of martial arts that have no Asian background? MMA, Systema, etc?  Do they have a 'tag along' obligation to teach life lessons to their students, because Karate or Judo schools do?



> Oh... and regarding the "after school" programs...  Most states don't require them to be run as a day care center; they're "sports programs."  But they're prolific (lots more than the summer sports camps...)  It's downright scary how little they are regulated when you consider that they may be picking kids up from school in vehicles (not school buses...), supervising them for several hours a day, with no external control or regulation.



Well, again, that's a comment on how things ought to be.  I'm noting what appears to be the case today.

We just don't expect a baseball coach to teach sportsmanship - if they do, that's great and we think a lot of it in general.  But if they don't, we don't call their instruction worthless, or their business ethically bankrupt.  If a McDojo does it, that's exactly what we call them.

Does this not seem odd in this context?


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> Actually, wrestling, football, baseball, and quite a few other sports have long been touted as "building character." They teach lessons like the value of practice, discipline, how to win or lose... It's just been called "sportsmanship." But isn't that teaching moral values?
> 
> But the martial arts have had links to mysticism, and to religion and philosophy. The Chinese arts are tied to monks, and the Japanese arts emphasized the personal development aspects in the days after WWII. So it's not surprising that martial arts here in the US have pushed some of those aspects...
> 
> Oh... and regarding the "after school" programs... Most states don't require them to be run as a day care center; they're "sports programs." But they're prolific (lots more than the summer sports camps...) It's downright scary how little they are regulated when you consider that they may be picking kids up from school in vehicles (not school buses...), supervising them for several hours a day, with no external control or regulation.


 Okay.  I'm having a rough spell with communication, clearly.  So, I'm going to pare my point back as much as possible.  

Whatever else a wrestling program purports to teach, it teaches AT LEAST wrestling skills.  Any child who finishes the season will be better at wrestling after a season than they were before.   

When a child spends time in the Boy Scouts, he will at least learn to tie knots, put up a tent and pick up some demonstrable skills.  

After a year of "Martial Arts" training, a child might actually be LESS capable of defending him or herself.


----------



## terryl965

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can certainly understand why you want to teach the moral aspects along with the martial arts teaching.
> 
> But let make note of a couple things...
> 
> In this thread, the lack of moral teaching is seen as one of the aspects (and a negative one) of a McDojo. In other words, many here say that in order to NOT be a McDojo, one must teach ethical and moral lessons along with the martial arts.
> 
> And yet, I cannot recall ever reading about a baseball camp or piano instruction that was considered subpar for failing to teach those things; in other words, parents send their kids to music tutoring to learn to play an instrument; to baseball camp to learn to throw, catch, and hit. Nothing about moral lessons, right? I'm sure there are coaches and music teachers who have strong morals and emphasize them indirectly in their teaching, but we generally don't put those who don't in the 'bad' category, do we?
> 
> And as an adult - may I say that I personally enjoy the ethical and moral underpinnings I get from my Sensei. But in all honesty, I'm an adult. If I'm not a decent, honorable man by now, he's not going to teach it to me. And what's wrong with saying "I don't want to learn your morals, I want to learn karate?"
> 
> So I get why many instructors may feel it incumbent upon them to teach more than just the martial art itself - but they relegate those who do not to the 'bad' category; when as far as I can tell, this is a yardstick we do not apply to any other form of teaching.


 

Bill you are right that alot of other sports do not put the moral aspect into there training methods. I can appreciate what you are driving at.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> After a year of "Martial Arts" training, a child might actually be LESS capable of defending him or herself.



I agree that we're missing each other here.  I don't quite see how that would be so, unless the instructor were utterly incompetent.


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure, but those who don't teach 'sportsmanship' but just focus on how to hit or how to field correctly are not singled out for derision and referred to pejoratively.  It's a 'nice to have' not a requirement for us to consider them effective and 'good'.
> 
> And how about musical instruments?  I've never seen a guitar teacher emphasizing sportsmanship, nor anyone who called a violin teacher out for failing to teach those values.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, good point.  And therefore, we ought to perpetuate those traditions?  What of the forms of martial arts that have no Asian background? MMA, Systema, etc?  Do they have a 'tag along' obligation to teach life lessons to their students, because Karate or Judo schools do?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, that's a comment on how things ought to be.  I'm noting what appears to be the case today.
> 
> We just don't expect a baseball coach to teach sportsmanship - if they do, that's great and we think a lot of it in general.  But if they don't, we don't call their instruction worthless, or their business ethically bankrupt.  If a McDojo does it, that's exactly what we call them.
> 
> Does this not seem odd in this context?



Bill, its very important that martial arts training consist of both adequate skills training and values training. Inadequate or outright fake skills training makes the place nothing but a charm school; teaching the physical skills without the values poses the very real risk of turning out better grade bullies and thugs.

I'd respectfully take issue with any notion that other sports are not expected to teach values. A perfect example was the USA - Canada hockey game last night. A very rugged game, with some personal and team hard feelings - - - yet every man went through the handshake line and the US hung around for the ceremony when they'd rather have been almost anywhere else. Anyone who thinks those values are not taught at the very early levels, or that breaches of these behavioral rules are not treated with "derision" hasn't spent time around this sport.

A violin teacher isn't teaching skills that could be used to injure or kill another human being... there's an important difference between violins and violence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

terryl965 said:


> Bill you are right that alot of other sports do not put the moral aspect into there training methods. I can appreciate what you are driving at.



Thanks!  I'm not trying to be bombastic or insist I'm right here - after all, I am a student at a non-McDojo, and I also have no desire to be a student of a McDojo.  I appreciate what my dojo offers me as a student, far in excess of mere kicks, blocks, and punches.  I certainly get that, and for me, it's something I want.

I was just thinking in terms of a person - let's say a hypothetical martial arts instructor.  Someone who is well-versed in their art, and also a good communicator, someone who can effectively pass on the skills that make up their particular art.  If that person decided to focus on the business aspects of running a dojo - to make it a financially successful business, one they could run as a full-time gig, is it unreasonable for them to teach 'just the art' and not what commonly goes along with it?  Presuming they teach their skills well, does it make what they teach less effective, or less useful?  Does it make them a bad person, or a poor teacher?  Maybe it does, but I'm not sure of that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> Bill, its very important that martial arts training consist of both adequate skills training and values training. Inadequate or outright fake skills training makes the place nothing but a charm school; teaching the physical skills without the values poses the very real risk of turning out better grade bullies and thugs.



Do marksmanship instructors teach values?  Do we expect them to?



> I'd respectfully take issue with any notion that other sports are not expected to teach values. A perfect example was the USA - Canada hockey game last night. A very rugged game, with some personal and team hard feelings - - - yet every man went through the handshake line and the US hung around for the ceremony when they'd rather have been almost anywhere else. Anyone who thinks those values are not taught at the very early levels, or that breaches of these behavioral rules are not treated with "derision" hasn't spent time around this sport.



I agree that such values are accepted and desired in professional and amateur athletes.  However, I am not familiar with any coach of a pro or college team that lost consistently but was kept around because they taught good values.  None that were fired for having a winning season but not passing on effective life lessons.

We do demand sportsmanship in our athletes, and I agree that they must be learning it somewhere; probably from coaches and teachers and leaders and parents and clergy and so on.  I'm noting however that we do not fire coaches who don't teach morals along with how to throw a change-up pitch.



> A violin teacher isn't teaching skills that could be used to injure or kill another human being... there's an important difference between violins and violence.



Tell me you can't kill a person with a violin...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But again - marksmanship?  To get a CCW license, I have to attend classes.  To get a hunter's permit, same thing.  They teach firearm safety, they teach the law, they teach shoot-don't shoot.  They don't teach me how to be a decent and honest and upstanding person.  Yet we do expect that of non-McDojo martial arts instructors.


----------



## grydth

I would say that the very purpose of firearms safety training is based upon law and values. I've had some very good instructors, from a very early age on through adult life..... and values based instruction is the difference between a responsible firearms owner and a drive by shooter.


----------



## JWLuiza

I think no activity inherently by itself teaches morals and values; it is the interactions among human beings that provide this learning. 

Morals and values are best learned by children through observation, and when old enough feedback. However drilling "morals" and the preachy version of the stereotypical McDojo actually, IMO, isn't the best way to teach what we hope to...

I think that if the training comes first (in whatever activity), the students have the chance to pick up on the life lessons.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

grydth said:


> I would say that the very purpose of firearms safety training is based upon law and values. I've had some very good instructors, from a very early age on through adult life..... and values based instruction is the difference between a responsible firearms owner and a drive by shooter.



Law yes, values no.  You point out that you've had some firearms instructors who taught values - having no knowledge of them, I must accept your statement.  However, and again, getting to the heart of what I'm saying here - there is nothing requiring a firearms instructor to teach 'values' along with gun safety, law, and how to actually hit your target.  And I've not ever heard of an instructor fired for failing to teach 'values' along with marksmanship.  Never heard of a firearms instructor told he is less than worthy because he doesn't teach values.  Yet with martial arts...somehow it is a different story.

You can point out how YOUR instructors taught you fine values and ethics all you like; mine did too.  But it wasn't required, nor were any of them fired for not doing it or rewarded for doing that and not their jobs.  We just don't attach a stigma to instructors of almost anything you care to mention who FAIL to teach ethics, morals, values, or whatever.  Except martial arts instructors.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

JWLuiza said:


> I think no activity inherently by itself teaches morals and values; it is the interactions among human beings that provide this learning.
> 
> Morals and values are best learned by children through observation, and when old enough feedback. However drilling "morals" and the preachy version of the stereotypical McDojo actually, IMO, isn't the best way to teach what we hope to...
> 
> I think that if the training comes first (in whatever activity), the students have the chance to pick up on the life lessons.



If that is the case, then the McDojo is no more guilty of failing to  teach morals, values, or ethics than any non-McDojo, right?

I mean, this is one of the main arguments I've read in this thread against the McDojo - they don't teach ethics.  Yet if your statement is true, everything teaches ethics.  If it's not, apparently we require specific ethics instruction from martial arts instructors, but no other instructor I can think of - at least not explicitly.  We read comments about how this instructor or that instructor did provide values and ethics along with their training, but in what field has a coach, teacher, or trainer been fired for teaching well, winning games, producing excellent students, but failing to teach 'values'?  I can't think of any.  But if a martial arts instructor chooses to focus on teaching martial arts and not 'values', they're not worthy somehow.  Hmmm, not clear on that.


----------



## JWLuiza

Bill Mattocks said:


> If that is the case, then the McDojo is no more guilty of failing to  teach morals, values, or ethics than any non-McDojo, right?


Correct. 



> I mean, this is one of the main arguments I've read in this thread against the McDojo - they don't teach ethics.


I don't agree with this assessment, but yes it has been a main argument.



> Yet if your statement is true, everything teaches ethics.  If it's not, apparently we require specific ethics instruction from martial arts instructors, but no other instructor I can think of - at least not explicitly.  We read comments about how this instructor or that instructor did provide values and ethics along with their training, but in what field has a coach, teacher, or trainer been fired for teaching well, winning games, producing excellent students, but failing to teach 'values'?  I can't think of any.  But if a martial arts instructor chooses to focus on teaching martial arts and not 'values', they're not worthy somehow.  Hmmm, not clear on that.


I think you and I are on the same page on this.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that we're missing each other here. I don't quite see how that would be so, unless the instructor were utterly incompetent.


LOL.  You said it, not me.  But to answer your question (if you're serious), in wrestling, kids get to wrestle.  In golf, kids get to play golf.  Clarinet players play the clarinet.  Chess club members play chess.  But, unique to Martial Arts, kids who are in martial arts class tend to get promoted for, at best, kicking pads and competing in TKD tourneys... or at worst, NOT doing these things.  How many children's martial arts classes teach any practical self defense skills? 

So, if a child has any confidence in his or her ability to defend himself, they are dangerously deluded.  


grydth said:


> Bill, its very important that martial arts training consist of both adequate skills training and values training. Inadequate or outright fake skills training makes the place nothing but a charm school; teaching the physical skills without the values poses the very real risk of turning out better grade bullies and thugs.


I think that values are a product of actions not words.  A good coach/teacher will be a good role model.  I do agree, though, that any person interacting with kids in a position of authority should strive to set a good example and be a positive role model.  This includes violin teachers.  Where kids are involved, we aren't training killers.  We're training productive citizens.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Do marksmanship instructors teach values? Do we expect them to?


If they're teaching kids, then yes.  By stepping into the role of coach, they WILL be influencing the kids they teach, for good or ill.





> I agree that such values are accepted and desired in professional and amateur athletes. However, I am not familiar with any coach of a pro or college team that lost consistently but was kept around because they taught good values. None that were fired for having a winning season but not passing on effective life lessons.


It's very different for adults than for kids, but I'd argue that you can ALWAYS tell who had strong, positive role models as coaches and teachers and who didn't.  


> We do demand sportsmanship in our athletes, and I agree that they must be learning it somewhere; probably from coaches and teachers and leaders and parents and clergy and so on. I'm noting however that we do not fire coaches who don't teach morals along with how to throw a change-up pitch.


Do we fire them?  Of course we do.  Teachers and coaches who step over ethical boundaries get fired all the time.  Outside of that, we do expect our coaches to set a good example, work hard and impart qualities like sportsmanship.  At least, that's how it is around here, and how it was where I grew up.  


JWLuiza said:


> I think no activity inherently by itself teaches morals and values; it is the interactions among human beings that provide this learning.
> 
> Morals and values are best learned by children through observation, and when old enough feedback. However drilling "morals" and the preachy version of the stereotypical McDojo actually, IMO, isn't the best way to teach what we hope to...
> 
> I think that if the training comes first (in whatever activity), the students have the chance to pick up on the life lessons.


EXACTLY!  



Bill Mattocks said:


> If that is the case, then the McDojo is no more guilty of failing to teach morals, values, or ethics than any non-McDojo, right?


Except that a McDojo actually teaches negative values.  Like, getting something for nothing.  Being promoted for tenure not effort.  That no matter how little you try you will ALWAYS succeed.  Or in really bad examples, that they might have a chance of defending themselves because they're black belts.  





> I mean, this is one of the main arguments I've read in this thread against the McDojo - they don't teach ethics.


They don't, but I don't think you understand the argument of why.





> Yet if your statement is true, everything teaches ethics.


Where kids are concerned, they're always learning something. 

Again, Bill, I see what you're saying, but it's clear that I'm just not making my points.   But once again, reading through the thread, I'm not sure how I can say it differently.


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not following you here.  A block, a kick, a punch - all are done in a particular manner based on the martial arts tradition.  Surely that can be taught completely effectively, but utterly divorced from any life-lessons or moral teachings.



Not really. If your gonna teach a MA - which is teaching people how they can beat the living snot out of each other, if the need arose, like in self defence, then they also need to be taught morals and respect and things like that. Otherwise, what do you think might happen? People are being taught how to beat the living snot out of each other.

therefore people who can beat the living snot out of each other w/out morals and respect and discipline and stuff vs people who can beat the living snot out of each other who have respect and love and kindness and decency and respect for their opponents.

Weigh it.


----------



## JWLuiza

Blade96 said:


> Not really. If your gonna teach a MA - which is teaching people how they can beat the living snot out of each other, if the need arose, like in self defence, then they also need to be taught morals and respect and things like that.


That's an opinion. It might be right, but the argument is that you CAN divorce the morals from the training



> Otherwise, what do you think might happen? People are being taught how to beat the living snot out of each other.
> therefore people who can beat the living snot out of each other w/out morals and respect and discipline and stuff vs people who can beat the living snot out of each other who have respect and love and kindness and decency and respect for their opponents.



I find it more likely that there is a selection bias going on... The people who fit in with a school's culture are more likely to stick around. Jerks who are going to be amoral and use it inappropriately are politely excluded from participation.
Weigh it.

I had about 10 minutes of lectures on morality in 18 years of training, yet we have a responsible set of practitioners at my school.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Blade96 said:


> Not really. If your gonna teach a MA - which is teaching people how they can beat the living snot out of each other, if the need arose, like in self defence, then they also need to be taught morals and respect and things like that. Otherwise, what do you think might happen? People are being taught how to beat the living snot out of each other.
> 
> therefore people who can beat the living snot out of each other w/out morals and respect and discipline and stuff vs people who can beat the living snot out of each other who have respect and love and kindness and decency and respect for their opponents.
> 
> Weigh it.



If that's the case, then you must be against right-to-carry states that don't require licensing and testing.  I mean, if you can carry a weapon without getting the ethical training necessary to learn how to respect your fellow human being...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Do we fire them?  Of course we do.  Teachers and coaches who step over ethical boundaries get fired all the time.



That's something entirely different.  Teachers and coaches who violate rules is not what I was talking about.  I said teachers who simply fail to teach ethics, morals, or whatever else you think they ought to teach in addition to their actual job description.  We don't fire them for failing to do so.



> Outside of that, we do expect our coaches to set a good example, work hard and impart qualities like sportsmanship.  At least, that's how it is around here, and how it was where I grew up.



We may expect it (I said that), but we don't demand it, nor do we keep coaches around who lose all their games but teach good morals, nor do we fire coaches who win all their games but fail to teach ethics.

We do not demand it.  There is no athletic department equivalent of a 'McDojo'.  No 'McCoaches'.

We only seem to put that onus on martial arts training.  I'm becoming more convinced that the reasoning behind it is artificial.

Is it really that we despise McDojos for not teaching ethics, or is it that we do not like them for being successful and for treating martial arts training like a business instead of a passion?


----------



## Blade96

Bill Mattocks said:


> If that's the case, then you must be against right-to-carry states that don't require licensing and testing.  I mean, if you can carry a weapon without getting the ethical training necessary to learn how to respect your fellow human being...



If its gun control your talking about then yeah, I would naturally be against that.

Who in their right mind would think any shmuck should be able to carry a weapon. 

No licensing and testing? Huh? say huh? I know the gun is to the americans as the sword is to the Japanese, but sheesh.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's something entirely different. Teachers and coaches who violate rules is not what I was talking about. I said teachers who simply fail to teach ethics, morals, or whatever else you think they ought to teach in addition to their actual job description. We don't fire them for failing to do so.


A history teacher doing it well is teaching good ethics and positive life lessons. A history teacher doing it poorly is teaching poor ethics and negative life lessons. A football coach who is coaching kids well is, by example, demonstrating ethical behavior and positive life lessons. A football coach who is abusive or negligent as a coach is doing the opposite. 

The point I'm making, Bill, is that every adult who interacts in a position of authority with kids, whether as a teacher, mentor, coach, pastor, scout leader, parent or whatever, IS teaching these kids ethics. Whether overtly or indirectly, life lessons are being conveyed. 

The second point I'm making are that often the BEST life lessons are the ones learned by example. These are the ones that stick. For example, I can tell a kid to be honest til I'm blue in the face, but the best thing I can do to influence kids is to act with integrity myself.

Taking these two points, my conclusion is that an endeavor like McDojo martial arts training is contrary to acting with integrity because it purports to teach something other than what it actually teaches. 

Honestly, I would be a little alarmed if my kid's history teacher prosyletized in the middle of class. Overt ethics lessons like that really have no place in school. I do, however, expect the teachers to set a strong, positive example for the kids, teaching them positive values through example. 

I expect the same from coaches and even martial arts instructors. Where I think things go awry is when these lessons supplant the other things being taught. If I'm actively sermonizing to the kids on the football field instead of teaching them to punt, pass and kick, I'm getting it all wrong... not to mention a little creepy.  This is, though, exactly what many martial arts instructors do.  They don't teach any practical martial arts.  They sermonize to kids overtly in lieu of martial arts training while demonstrating behavior that is counter to the values they purport to teach.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> A history teacher doing it well is teaching good ethics and positive life lessons. A history teacher doing it poorly is teaching poor ethics and negative life lessons. A football coach who is coaching kids well is, by example, demonstrating ethical behavior and positive life lessons. A football coach who is abusive or negligent as a coach is doing the opposite.
> 
> The point I'm making, Bill, is that every adult who interacts in a position of authority with kids, whether as a teacher, mentor, coach, pastor, scout leader, parent or whatever, IS teaching these kids ethics. Whether overtly or indirectly, life lessons are being conveyed.



I agree.  I'm just saying that if they DON'T teach those lessons, they're not fired for it, and their schools are not regarded as 'McSchools'.  We agree that it's desirable.  We appear not to agree that teachers and coaches, et al, are held to the same standard as those who refer to martial arts centers as 'McDojos' if they don't teach ethics and morals, etc.



> The second point I'm making are that often the BEST life lessons are the ones learned by example. These are the ones that stick. For example, I can tell a kid to be honest til I'm blue in the face, but the best thing I can do to influence kids is to act with integrity myself.



Also agreed.  I am saying that I don't see what inherently is wrong with a McDojo that the instructors don't act with integrity or honesty, etc.



> Taking these two points, my conclusion is that an endeavor like McDojo martial arts training is contrary to acting with integrity because it purports to teach something other than what it actually teaches.



They purport to teach martial arts, don't they?   And they do, to a greater or lesser extent, don't they?  What is it that they're advertising and not providing?  These 'ethics' that are unwritten but apparently still required by you?



> Honestly, I would be a little alarmed if my kid's history teacher prosyletized in the middle of class. Overt ethics lessons like that really have no place in school. I do, however, expect the teachers to set a strong, positive example for the kids, teaching them positive values through example.



Again, what you expect is one thing.  What is required of their teaching contract is another.  Society may expect teachers to teach strong values, but it doesn't require it, nor punish those who don't.  Martial arts instructors apparently are held to a different standard.



> I expect the same from coaches and even martial arts instructors. Where I think things go awry is when these lessons supplant the other things being taught. If I'm actively sermonizing to the kids on the football field instead of teaching them to punt, pass and kick, I'm getting it all wrong... not to mention a little creepy.  This is, though, exactly what many martial arts instructors do.  They don't teach any practical martial arts.  They sermonize to kids overtly in lieu of martial arts training while demonstrating behavior that is counter to the values they purport to teach.



I was under the impression that it was the other way around.  McDojos are accused of teaching just the art and not the ethics that you claim have to go with it in order for the teaching to be valid.  Now which is it?

I am not aware of McDojos saying _"We teach martial arts with a strong dose of good sportsmanship and strong ethical behavior."_  If they did and failed to provide it, then I have no problem with your point.  I see them advertising karate, TKD, etc; and teaching.  Well or poorly is another question, but I don't see them putting themselves forward as centers of ethical learning.

Again, I think we're getting back to a basic premise - some of us don't like McDojos, and we'll come up with a list of reasons why we don't.  But those reasons (to me) are starting to fall apart under scrutiny.   We don't like them because they don't teach ethics.  Oh wait, we don't like them because they claim to teach ethics and don't.  Oh wait, we don't like them because they preach ethics but don't teach martial arts.  Oh wait, we don't like them because, er, uh, we just don't like them.  That's what it's looking like to me at this point.

Seriously, what are your actual reasons for disliking McDojos?


----------



## Xinglu

Blade96 said:


> Who in their right mind would think any shmuck should be able to carry a weapon.



The constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, no one has the right to abridge that right without first abridging the constitution.

Like it or not.

To topic, I wonder if it is the responsibility to of instructors to evaluate and teach ethics in regards to the use of what they are teaching.

Personally, I think it might be for those purely teaching SD, to teach a person who goes out and bullies others with their martial training needs some repercussions (IMHO) in the dojo.

However, what about those who's goal is to train sports MA or competitive fighting?  Like MMA, Judo, and most TKD schools as of late?  If the emphasis is on tournaments and not on SD are they obligated?  I'm not so sure they should be.  HS wrestling coaches never taught me "values."  They taught me how to wrestle and win. Period.


----------



## Xinglu

stevebjj said:


> The point I'm making ... is that every adult who interacts in a position of authority with kids, whether as a teacher, mentor, coach, pastor, scout leader, parent or whatever, IS teaching these kids ethics. Whether overtly or indirectly, life lessons are being conveyed.



I accept this, however it goes to the analogy of "sweeping your own porch," MA instructors should teach such things by actions and their own lives, not by preaching them in class.

Another way, is as part of the agreement to train, they agree to abide by a code of conduct both in and out of the dojo/gym/dojang/guan.  Any blatant violation of that makes them subject to potential termination of training with no refund.  There is no preaching or lectures on ethics that way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Xinglu said:


> HS wrestling coaches never taught me "values."  They taught me how to wrestle and win. Period.



Bingo.  And while it is fair to say that it's a good thing in general if they teach ethics and values just by being good people and teaching by example, I don't really see people declaring a wrestling coach to be no good because they don't teach ethics along with wrestling holds.

So why would this be true of martial arts?  Well, I mean eastern martial arts, of course wrestling is martial arts too.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree. I'm just saying that if they DON'T teach those lessons, they're not fired for it, and their schools are not regarded as 'McSchools'. We agree that it's desirable. We appear not to agree that teachers and coaches, et al, are held to the same standard as those who refer to martial arts centers as 'McDojos' if they don't teach ethics and morals, etc.


And I'm saying that EVERY adult DOES teach ethical lessons to kids by example.  Kids are sharp and they know when our actions and our words are inconsistent.





> Also agreed. I am saying that I don't see what inherently is wrong with a McDojo that the instructors don't act with integrity or honesty, etc.


Let me get this straight.  You don't see anything inherently wrong with a McDojo instructor who is dishonest or acting without integrity?  Even were kids not involved, I still have a hard time understanding this perspective.  I would have thought that the one thing we could all agree on is that acting with honesty and integrity are behaviors to be endorsed.  This is particularly so where kids are involved.  





> They purport to teach martial arts, don't they? And they do, to a greater or lesser extent, don't they? What is it that they're advertising and not providing? These 'ethics' that are unwritten but apparently still required by you?


That's what some claim.  Many claim to teach self defense.  Most do neither.  As I said before, I believe that the average kid who's spent a year training in martial arts is LESS capable of defending him or herself than had there been no training at all.  





> Again, what you expect is one thing. What is required of their teaching contract is another. Society may expect teachers to teach strong values, but it doesn't require it, nor punish those who don't. Martial arts instructors apparently are held to a different standard.


There is a slight difference in that I can't always choose my child's teacher, although I have complete control over her coaches, instructors and other adult role models.  I have, however, had one of my kids moved out of a class where the teacher was a poor excuse for a human being. She was let go after that year.  Ultimately, I don't know why she was let go, but I'm confident that the poor example she set for the kids was the overt, in class manifestation of poor performance.  As I said, a good teacher is teaching by example much, much more than reading, writing and arithmetic.

Think about teachers that you remember from school.  Good ones and bad.  The ones that made an impact, whether positive or negative, on your life.  What do you remember?   I'll bet dollars to donuts that you don't remember lesson plans. 





> I was under the impression that it was the other way around. McDojos are accused of teaching just the art and not the ethics that you claim have to go with it in order for the teaching to be valid. Now which is it?


I've been consistent all the way through.   Whether I've been able to communicate my points effectively... well, I don't know. 





> I am not aware of McDojos saying _"We teach martial arts with a strong dose of good sportsmanship and strong ethical behavior."_ If they did and failed to provide it, then I have no problem with your point. I see them advertising karate, TKD, etc; and teaching. Well or poorly is another question, but I don't see them putting themselves forward as centers of ethical learning.


They often don't even claim to teach martial arts.  They usually lead with ethics and values and stop there.  If you're not aware of this, then I'd encourage you to just google TKD (not to pick on just them, but as prolific as they are there are lots of websites).  Take a look at the websites and I'm confident you'll see a trend.  You'll see claims to developing character.  You'll see them use words like honesty, integrity, discipline and the like.  You'll see them claim to build strong families and such.  Maybe not all of them on every site, but as I said, if you spend 30 minutes looking at TKD websites, you'll see what I mean.  





> Again, I think we're getting back to a basic premise - some of us don't like McDojos, and we'll come up with a list of reasons why we don't. But those reasons (to me) are starting to fall apart under scrutiny. We don't like them because they don't teach ethics. Oh wait, we don't like them because they claim to teach ethics and don't. Oh wait, we don't like them because they preach ethics but don't teach martial arts. Oh wait, we don't like them because, er, uh, we just don't like them. That's what it's looking like to me at this point.


I think it's a shame that you feel it's necessary to be so dismissive of positions that you clearly don't care to understand.  





> Seriously, what are your actual reasons for disliking McDojos?


Honestly, I have no idea how to answer this.  After writing thousands of words in a sincere effort to be as plain as possible, the question I have is whether you're being serious or you're yanking my chain for fun.


----------



## Steve

Xinglu said:


> I accept this, however it goes to the analogy of "sweeping your own porch," MA instructors should teach such things by actions and their own lives, not by preaching them in class.
> 
> Another way, is as part of the agreement to train, they agree to abide by a code of conduct both in and out of the dojo/gym/dojang/guan. Any blatant violation of that makes them subject to potential termination of training with no refund. There is no preaching or lectures on ethics that way.


I agree completely and I'm pretty sure I've been saying that.  The extension to this is that, if an MA instructor doesn't actually teach kids martial arts, they're still learning by example... just not good lessons.


----------



## Steve

Xinglu said:


> However, what about those who's goal is to train sports MA or competitive fighting? Like MMA, Judo, and most TKD schools as of late? If the emphasis is on tournaments and not on SD are they obligated? I'm not so sure they should be. HS wrestling coaches never taught me "values." They taught me how to wrestle and win. Period.


If you were a successful wrestler in high school, you learned values from your coach.  You learned how to be on time for practice and to be at practice every day, because if you didn't make practices you'd be ineligible to compete.  You learned a strong work ethic.  You learned to be self reliant because on the mat, your coach or your teammates can't hold the bridge for you, even when you're really tired.  If you were a successful wrestler, your coach taught you MANY things.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> And I'm saying that EVERY adult DOES teach ethical lessons to kids by example.  Kids are sharp and they know when our actions and our words are inconsistent.



Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you.  I'm also saying it's *not a requirement* for employment, just something we generally expect people to have; except you seem to think it's an explicit requirement for martial arts teachers.  I'm also saying that you appear to be making the statement that this is something the McDojo operators do NOT have.  If every adult has them, then why assume a McDojo doesn't?



> Let me get this straight.  You don't see anything inherently wrong with a McDojo instructor who is dishonest or acting without integrity?



No, I didn't say that.  I said that teaching ethics (not being ethical) is not a requirement of teaching most things, even if it is to be desired.



> Even were kids not involved, I still have a hard time understanding this perspective.  I would have thought that the one thing we could all agree on is that acting with honesty and integrity are behaviors to be endorsed.



I think those are wonderful behaviors, and greatly to be endorsed.  I have yet to see where you link being a McDojo operator with being dishonest or unethical.

You seem to be using circular logic.  A McDojo is unethical because it behaves unethically, which is what a McDojo is.



> This is particularly so where kids are involved.  That's what some claim.  Many claim to teach self defense.  Most do neither.  As I said before, I believe that the average kid who's spent a year training in martial arts is LESS capable of defending him or herself than had there been no training at all.



You said it,  but you haven't defended it.  In what way is a person taught to kick, block, and punch properly according to whatever particular martial art they're learning less capable of defending themselves if their instructor did not also teach them 'values' along with the mechanics of a good punch?



> There is a slight difference in that I can't always choose my child's teacher, although I have complete control over her coaches, instructors and other adult role models.  I have, however, had one of my kids moved out of a class where the teacher was a poor excuse for a human being. She was let go after that year.  Ultimately, I don't know why she was let go, but I'm confident that the poor example she set for the kids was the overt, in class manifestation of poor performance.  As I said, a good teacher is teaching by example much, much more than reading, writing and arithmetic.



All parents have such choices and responsibilities as parents.  However, that's not the point I've been making, and I think you know that.  Society does not name coaches as 'McCoaches' if they don't teach ethics along with volleyball or whatever.  



> Think about teachers that you remember from school.  Good ones and bad.  The ones that made an impact, whether positive or negative, on your life.  What do you remember?   I'll bet dollars to donuts that you don't remember lesson plans.



Again, not my point.  Teachers that teach values along with Reading are terrific.  Society does not require it.  You claim that society does.  That's not correct.  You also want martial arts instructors to be required to teach values along with martial arts, or they're McDojos.  I am now to the point where I'm going to say that's not correct either.



> I've been consistent all the way through.   Whether I've been able to communicate my points effectively... well, I don't know.



I understand your point - ethics are good, and teachers who teach them are good.  I get it.  But teachers are not required to teach ethics or values along with whatever their subject is.  They're not, I don't care how much you think it's a good thing (and I think it's a good thing too).  We can care all we like, society does not require it.  Period.

Except you want to say that a martial arts instructor who does not teach ethics is a McDojo.  That seems odd.



> They often don't even claim to teach martial arts.  They usually lead with ethics and values and stop there.



The signs I see on the door say 'karate' or 'tkd' not 'values'.  I see the ads on TV and hear them on the radio too.  Nothing about 'sportsmanship'.  I hear about self-defense and karate, not morals.



> If you're not aware of this, then I'd encourage you to just google TKD (not to pick on just them, but as prolific as they are there are lots of websites).  Take a look at the websites and I'm confident you'll see a trend.  You'll see claims to developing character.  You'll see them use words like honesty, integrity, discipline and the like.  You'll see them claim to build strong families and such.  Maybe not all of them on every site, but as I said, if you spend 30 minutes looking at TKD websites, you'll see what I mean.



If they claim to do that, they I agree they ought to do that.  And how do you know they don't?  It's that circular logic of yours again.  They can't teach ethics or values because they're a McDojo.  What's a McDojo?  Anyone who doesn't teach ethics and values.  There's no winning with that logic.



> I think it's a shame that you feel it's necessary to be so dismissive of positions that you clearly don't care to understand.  Honestly, I have no idea how to answer this.  After writing thousands of words in a sincere effort to be as plain as possible, the question I have is whether you're being serious or you're yanking my chain for fun.



I promise I'm not yanking your chain.  I'm beginning to question the 'common wisdom' that says McDojos are bad, because I'm seeing the logic unravel.  Exactly what is bad about a McDojo?  I mean exactly.  If they claim to teach something they don't, yeah, then I'd agree.  But you can't say they don't teach ethics because they're McDojos and they're McDojos because they don't teach ethics.  

A) I don't think they all claim to teach ethics, 
B) I don't think teaching ethics is a required component of teaching martial arts, 
C) I don't think other forms of instruction require instructors to teach ethics or values along with their subjects, and 
D) How do you know they DON'T teach ethics and values?

I'm starting to wonder what's wrong with a McDojo other than you don't like them.  If others have reasons to list, I'd like to hear them too.

Sorry, but I like my logic to make sense.  If it doesn't make sense, I have to change my position.  I'm beginning to doubt that there is anything inherently wrong with McDojos, because the logic I'm seeing is starting not to make any sense.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you. I'm also saying it's *not a requirement* for employment, just something we generally expect people to have; except you seem to think it's an explicit requirement for martial arts teachers. I'm also saying that you appear to be making the statement that this is something the McDojo operators do NOT have. If every adult has them, then why assume a McDojo doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that. I said that teaching ethics (not being ethical) is not a requirement of teaching most things, even if it is to be desired.
> 
> 
> 
> I think those are wonderful behaviors, and greatly to be endorsed. I have yet to see where you link being a McDojo operator with being dishonest or unethical.
> 
> You seem to be using circular logic. A McDojo is unethical because it behaves unethically, which is what a McDojo is.
> 
> 
> 
> You said it, but you haven't defended it. In what way is a person taught to kick, block, and punch properly according to whatever particular martial art they're learning less capable of defending themselves if their instructor did not also teach them 'values' along with the mechanics of a good punch?
> 
> 
> 
> All parents have such choices and responsibilities as parents. However, that's not the point I've been making, and I think you know that. Society does not name coaches as 'McCoaches' if they don't teach ethics along with volleyball or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not my point. Teachers that teach values along with Reading are terrific. Society does not require it. You claim that society does. That's not correct. You also want martial arts instructors to be required to teach values along with martial arts, or they're McDojos. I am now to the point where I'm going to say that's not correct either.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point - ethics are good, and teachers who teach them are good. I get it. But teachers are not required to teach ethics or values along with whatever their subject is. They're not, I don't care how much you think it's a good thing (and I think it's a good thing too). We can care all we like, society does not require it. Period.
> 
> Except you want to say that a martial arts instructor who does not teach ethics is a McDojo. That seems odd.
> 
> 
> 
> The signs I see on the door say 'karate' or 'tkd' not 'values'. I see the ads on TV and hear them on the radio too. Nothing about 'sportsmanship'. I hear about self-defense and karate, not morals.
> 
> 
> 
> If they claim to do that, they I agree they ought to do that. And how do you know they don't? It's that circular logic of yours again. They can't teach ethics or values because they're a McDojo. What's a McDojo? Anyone who doesn't teach ethics and values. There's no winning with that logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I promise I'm not yanking your chain. I'm beginning to question the 'common wisdom' that says McDojos are bad, because I'm seeing the logic unravel. Exactly what is bad about a McDojo? I mean exactly. If they claim to teach something they don't, yeah, then I'd agree. But you can't say they don't teach ethics because they're McDojos and they're McDojos because they don't teach ethics.
> 
> A) I don't think they all claim to teach ethics,
> B) I don't think teaching ethics is a required component of teaching martial arts,
> C) I don't think other forms of instruction require instructors to teach ethics or values along with their subjects, and
> D) How do you know they DON'T teach ethics and values?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder what's wrong with a McDojo other than you don't like them. If others have reasons to list, I'd like to hear them too.
> 
> Sorry, but I like my logic to make sense. If it doesn't make sense, I have to change my position. I'm beginning to doubt that there is anything inherently wrong with McDojos, because the logic I'm seeing is starting not to make any sense.


I give up.  You're trying to win a debate not have a discussion.  I concede.  You win.


----------



## Xinglu

stevebjj said:


> If you were a successful wrestler in high school, you learned values from your coach.  You learned how to be on time for practice and to be at practice every day, because if you didn't make practices you'd be ineligible to compete.  You learned a strong work ethic.  You learned to be self reliant because on the mat, your coach or your teammates can't hold the bridge for you, even when you're really tired.  If you were a successful wrestler, your coach taught you MANY things.



Perhaps it's picking nits, but I don't consider professionalism a value.  I know too many morally/ethically bankrupt people who are consummate professionals when it comes to their job/sport.  But over all I think we agree, the things you are talking about should be learned in the MA too, by example and the action/consequence dynamic.

For example, I KNOW to block because my instructor told me, I LEARNED to block because I didn't and it hurt   Two different things when you get down too it.


----------



## Xinglu

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm starting to wonder what's wrong with a McDojo other than you don't like them.  If others have reasons to list, I'd like to hear them too.
> 
> Sorry, but I like my logic to make sense.  If it doesn't make sense, I have to change my position.  I'm beginning to doubt that there is anything inherently wrong with McDojos, because the logic I'm seeing is starting not to make any sense.



The problem is, the term McDojo is subjective.  It implies a certain meaning to some people, another to others, and something altogether different to another.

To truly have this conversation objectively you need all people involved to agree on a definition of "McDojo," which I doubt will happen.  

To me, it is a business model that may or may not have any impact on the quality of training or material taught.  Unfortunately many that fall under this bossiness model have proven to be poor at teaching and good at business.  More than I am comfortable with have turned out to be outright frauds.  However, some are legit schools with legit lineage and a great product/instruction.  There are enough of those out there for me not to write them all off for their business model and take them each on a case by case basis.


----------



## grydth

stevebjj said:


> I give up.  You're trying to win a debate not have a discussion.  I concede.  You win.



Steve and Bill: 

You guys have each contributed to one of the best discussions in recent times, one which has drawn in a variety of diverse people and opinions.

The subject of McDojos will _always_ arouse some hot emotions... 

How about both of you leaving the personal recriminations out and just continue making your excellent points? When you do that, *the Forum wins*.


----------



## Touch Of Death

dbell said:


> While I firmly believe that defining and training strong ethical values, self integrity, respect of self and others, spirit, etc, is important, I do not think that should be the focus of a MA school, the focus should be the art and the content of the art.
> 
> If you are teaching a SD related art, your goal should be to teach your students just that, how to defend themselves, and when to defend themselves at the level of defense that is needed and no more than that level. Teaching these skills will teach them strong values, help them with their integrity, build their respect of themselves and others, and help them grow strong in self (spirit). But the focus should be on the art and skills of the art, and when to use them.


The bigger picture dictates that by teaching values, you are teaching self defense. Just a thought.
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you're teaching baseball, you teach baseball. Not ethics, morals, or other life-development skills that have nothing to do with baseball.
> 
> If you're teaching golf, same thing.
> 
> Firearms instructors teach firearms. They may discuss laws of self-defense, licensing and regulatory requirements, but they don't teach how to be a good person, morals, or ethics.
> 
> Why would martial arts teachers insert statements of personal ethics and morals being a requirement for teaching?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong; but I noted how many martial arts business owners in this thread insist that this is a requirement for teaching their art.
> 
> Why is that the case with martial arts and nothing else?


The difference between sports and martial arts is that people can die if you teach the stuff to just anybody. You as an instructor have some responsibility.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Touch Of Death said:


> The difference between sports and martial arts is that people can die if you teach the stuff to just anybody. You as an instructor have some responsibility.
> Sean



Firearms instructors?  I'm not aware of any of them being required to teach values or morals - just laws of self-defense, gun safety, and accurate shooting.  More deadly than martial arts.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bill Mattocks said:


> Firearms instructors? I'm not aware of any of them being required to teach values or morals - just laws of self-defense, gun safety, and accurate shooting. More deadly than martial arts.


Not really, when you consider that the gun is locked away 99.999% of the time. And, now that you bring it up, I am all for screening potential gun owners... trainers too.
sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Touch Of Death said:


> Not really, when you consider that the gun is locked away 99.999% of the time. And, now that you bring it up, I am all for screening potential gun owners... trainers too.
> sean



Depends very much on where you live.  In Vermont, concealed carry is not only legal, no permit is required for it.  And no one in most parts of the US is required to 'lock up' their guns ever.  I am a law-abiding gun owner myself, and I can tell you that my guns are loaded and easily-accessible in my home.  I'd never lock them up.

And what you propose in the way of having gun owners and trainers screened has nothing to do with my point.  I said that firearms instructors *ARE NOT REQUIRED* to teach ethics, morals, or values in addition to firearm instruction.

Do you think they should be?  OK, no problem.  But they are not now.  And nobody calls a firearms instructor a "McFirearms Instructor" because he or she does not teach 'values' along with target practice.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bill Mattocks said:


> Depends very much on where you live. In Vermont, concealed carry is not only legal, no permit is required for it. And no one in most parts of the US is required to 'lock up' their guns ever. I am a law-abiding gun owner myself, and I can tell you that my guns are loaded and easily-accessible in my home. I'd never lock them up.
> 
> And what you propose in the way of having gun owners and trainers screened has nothing to do with my point. I said that firearms instructors *ARE NOT REQUIRED* to teach ethics, morals, or values in addition to firearm instruction.
> 
> Do you think they should be? OK, no problem. But they are not now. And nobody calls a firearms instructor a "McFirearms Instructor" because he or she does not teach 'values' along with target practice.


I think they teach gun safety. When I was in the military, they flat out told us that the guy in the tower was there to shoot us if need be. It kinda gives you the message that guns are not to be toyed with. LOL I'll bet you that there are Mc Firearm instructors, now that you mention it.
sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Touch Of Death said:


> I think they teach gun safety. When I was in the military, they flat out told us that the guy in the tower was there to shoot us if need be. It kinda gives you the message that guns are not to be toyed with. LOL I'll bet you that there are Mc Firearm instructors, now that you mention it.
> sean



Of course they teach gun safety.  That's not morals, values, or ethics.

You argued that martial arts instructors should be required to teach those things because martial arts are more deadly than learning to play the violin or pitch a baseball.  I countered that firearms instructors are not required to teach morals, ethics, or values, and guns are more dangerous than martial arts, so that kind of blows your argument out of the water.

You may think that there are 'McFirearm Instructors', but society doesn't.  Never heard of one.  I *have* heard of McDojos, though.  And I'm still trying to pin down what it is that makes a dojo into a McDojo.  Nobody seems to be able to answer the question, but there sure is a lot of dancing around the point going on.

I am beginning to think a dojo is a McDojo if they have a successful business model.  How dare they.


----------



## JWLuiza

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am beginning to think a dojo is a McDojo if they have a successful business model.  How dare they.



I've seen em. They exist. Some of them even have POOR business models. The same type of people who open these up end up on Soke councils too....


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course they teach gun safety. That's not morals, values, or ethics.
> 
> You argued that martial arts instructors should be required to teach those things because martial arts are more deadly than learning to play the violin or pitch a baseball. I countered that firearms instructors are not required to teach morals, ethics, or values, and guns are more dangerous than martial arts, so that kind of blows your argument out of the water.
> 
> You may think that there are 'McFirearm Instructors', but society doesn't. Never heard of one. I *have* heard of McDojos, though. And I'm still trying to pin down what it is that makes a dojo into a McDojo. Nobody seems to be able to answer the question, but there sure is a lot of dancing around the point going on.
> 
> I am beginning to think a dojo is a McDojo if they have a successful business model. How dare they.


That's easy. Your school is the real school, the school down the road is a Mc Dojo. Hope that helps LOL
Sean


----------



## AlanE

Touch Of Death said:


> That's easy. Your school is the real school, the school down the road is a Mc Dojo. Hope that helps LOL
> Sean


  Haha!


----------



## AlanE

Bill, the obvious is being missed and I wonder if there is an accidental new purpose (to emphasize gun safety)? 

Guns: Firing range. Point at target down range. Practice. Deadly. To do wrong requires leaving the range, loading, unholstering and shooting at folks a projectile that can cause death or destroy (the original text of "Thou shalt now kill" was "Thou shalt not destroy," meaning eyesight, vocal cords, etc.) 

Martial arts: Firing punches, elbows, knees, fingers, kicks at each other on a regular basis. With control. With great control. Tempted by anger and abilities to react to situations at hand - yet with sufficient control. Our bodies are part of us. Move with us. Always with us. We are responsible for our reactions and level of control with our readily available weapons in order not to hurt others.

Responsible gun usage doesn't negate the need for martial artists to have integrity and set good examples. Hard sweat, memorization, dealing with stresses and fears in oneself and others and working past them together, sparring, encouraging classmates - these are part of MA but not gun use. 

Power that comes easy is not the same as voluntarily enduring hardships, overcoming physical barriers, not crippling others, and listening and acting on honest criticism (felt by contact) - for months or years. A gun bought in solitude, with a license, and with lessons is not the same. The only control for a gun, that others exert on the owner, spoke to the owner years before. The gun can't be improved. It can't create greater or lesser force and the magazine can't hold more rounds because a person cares. A gun is a fixed level of puchased power. Respect and revision of values from sweating with others in equal hardships will occur when, while shooting at targets? It won't happen. It really isn't the same kind of power, and additionally it does not provide the same benefits. 

Guns can be destructive over extended distances, are a deterrent, and are a threat. 

Martial arts can be destructive up close, are seldom a threat, and are predominantly constructive (better health, confidence, interaction with others, awareness, understanding personal limitations, respect the sexes, expanding one's capabilities, inspiring others).
____
Are we still seeking best practices for dojos in this thread, or did we take that as far as it could go?
____
Alan 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course they teach gun safety. That's not morals, values, or ethics.
> 
> You argued that martial arts instructors should be required to teach those things because martial arts are more deadly than learning to play the violin or pitch a baseball. I countered that firearms instructors are not required to teach morals, ethics, or values, and guns are more dangerous than martial arts, so that kind of blows your argument out of the water.
> 
> You may think that there are 'McFirearm Instructors', but society doesn't. Never heard of one. I *have* heard of McDojos, though. And I'm still trying to pin down what it is that makes a dojo into a McDojo. Nobody seems to be able to answer the question, but there sure is a lot of dancing around the point going on.
> 
> I am beginning to think a dojo is a McDojo if they have a successful business model. How dare they.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

AlanE said:


> Are we still seeking best practices for dojos in this thread, or did we take that as far as it could go?



Sorry, I didn't mean to derail that particular thread, but I started responding to _'a McDojo is bad because...X'_ comments. In this case, the often-heard statement is that the McDojo doesn't teach ethics, morals, or values (or alternatively, that they claim to teach same and don't).  That just hit me funny.  It was like, wait a minute, why should a dojo be required to teach ethics, morals, and values?  And if they claim to, how does anyone know they don't actually do so? ???

This does go back to the business model in a sense, but it got long-winded, sorry.  A McDojo is known for packaging martial arts training and often stripping away the 'traditional' or what some might call the 'mystical' aspect of it.  Teaching kicks, punches, and blocks minus the learning a foreign language, practicing meditation, or having discussions about the value of human life.  That's a business practice.  The questions would be, is it a valuable one, is it a good one, does it lead to both profit and sustainability, and does it ultimately cause harm by not teaching 'values' along with martial arts?  If it is indeed harmful to not teach ethics or morals along with kicking and punching, then it's probably a part of the McDojo business model that should not be incorporated into traditional dojos.  If it's not harmful...then it might be useful to some.


----------



## Blade96

maybe all the more reson for a gun person to teach morals ethics and all that stuff.

MA - teach you how to stay alive if you wind up in a situation.

Guns - kill people quickly and easily if in the right place and if some evil person knows how to do it. Arm the gun, cock the weapon, put finger on the trigger and pull.

I'd even say they are more dangerous sometimes than even MA. 

and if MA's instructors teach morals ethics and stuff than gun people should teach the same.


----------



## AlanE

Blade96 said:


> maybe all the more reson for a gun person to teach morals ethics and all that stuff.
> 
> MA - teach you how to stay alive if you wind up in a situation.
> 
> Guns - kill people quickly and easily if in the right place and if some evil person knows how to do it. Arm the gun, cock the weapon, put finger on the trigger and pull.
> 
> I'd even say they are more dangerous sometimes than even MA.
> 
> and if MA's instructors teach morals ethics and stuff than gun people should teach the same.


 
Something brilliant about that, I just don't know how to do it. Unless we bring people into our homes for 10+ years and teach them values. 

As in raising children, while not being lazy outside of society's view, and being encouraging examples for them.

It's handing a person too much power IF they were not prepared in advance. Like being given a military command when unprepared - the boys and girls in blue are going to be retreating.
_______
Bill, I love the thread's directions, BTW. You really have a hit on your hands starting this one!
_______


----------



## grydth

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to derail that particular thread, but I started responding to _'a McDojo is bad because...X'_ comments. In this case, the often-heard statement is that the McDojo doesn't teach ethics, morals, or values (or alternatively, that they claim to teach same and don't).  That just hit me funny.  It was like, wait a minute, why should a dojo be required to teach ethics, morals, and values?  And if they claim to, how does anyone know they don't actually do so? ???
> 
> This does go back to the business model in a sense, but it got long-winded, sorry.  A McDojo is known for packaging martial arts training and often stripping away the 'traditional' or what some might call the 'mystical' aspect of it.  Teaching kicks, punches, and blocks minus the learning a foreign language, practicing meditation, or having discussions about the value of human life.  That's a business practice.  The questions would be, is it a valuable one, is it a good one, does it lead to both profit and sustainability, and does it ultimately cause harm by not teaching 'values' along with martial arts?  If it is indeed harmful to not teach ethics or morals along with kicking and punching, then it's probably a part of the McDojo business model that should not be incorporated into traditional dojos.  If it's not harmful...then it might be useful to some.



I don't know that I'd generalize a McDojo as stripping away the traditional or the mystical.... indeed, I think some of these individuals have no tradition to begin with, while others seek to profit from faux mysticism (I am inspired here by running across a batch of Ashida Kim books today in a used book store.)

I do agree that certain components of McDojo operations could lead to traditional schools being more profitable - and without losing their tradition or legitimacy. Indeed, they might profit from running parody ads on McDojo claims, "We can't teach you to fly or walk through walls... NOBODY CAN..... but we can offer you the benefits of a _real_ MA training, for example......"

As time goes by, I believe we will continue to see more schools showing parts of both traditional and McDojo...... and then the devil will be in the details, won't it?


----------



## AlanE

grydth said:


> I don't know that I'd generalize a McDojo as stripping away the traditional or the mystical.... indeed, I think some of these individuals have no tradition to begin with, while others seek to profit from faux mysticism (I am inspired here by running across a batch of Ashida Kim books today in a used book store.)
> 
> I do agree that certain components of McDojo operations could lead to traditional schools being more profitable - and without losing their tradition or legitimacy. Indeed, they might profit from running parody ads on McDojo claims, "We can't teach you to fly or walk through walls... NOBODY CAN..... but we can offer you the benefits of a _real_ MA training, for example......"
> 
> As time goes by, I believe we will continue to see more schools showing parts of both traditional and McDojo...... and then the devil will be in the details, won't it?


"real MA training" - right! Ashida Kim & mysticism - right!

Is mysticism just flair over substance? I had a math teacher/chess coach/Christian get nervous when I told him I took up martial arts. Before you get a picture in your mind, he was easy-going and very popular, not ranting and raving or oddly-dressed. He wanted to warn me that some of the martial arts might be cults! I'll never forget his concern. He really cared; he didn't want to lose a young person he knew so well (chess tournaments & two math classes). He did not realize how my mind was prepared regardless, and Tang Soo Do had nothing at all mystical!

Are McDojo's bringing sexy back? No, just the opposite. No mysticism, just a pitch for positive activity, earned self-worth, self-defense. It's a choice to attend. Instructor and free classes have impressed potential students? Newbies are impressionable you say? True, true.


----------



## jks9199

There are training halls -- and I wouldn't call them all McDojos -- that are cults.  Cults are not automatically negative; in a strict definition, any church is a cult.  But most MA cults are personality cults; students are strongly supportive of their instructor.  When this relationship is used to build and strengthen the student -- it's good.  When it's used at the expense of the student to build the so-called "teacher" -- it's bad.

Many McDojos aren't cults; they're barely clubs.  The school owners simply care about making money, and they're as happy with nobody showing up at a class, so long as the billing for the month went through.  (Yes, I'm using a bit of hyperbole.)  The cult leader?  He's going to care that each and every student shows up, and "worships."  The real leader/teacher?  He's going to care that the student shows up to learn and grow.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I think teaching morals and basic saftey are nearly the same thing considering it is unsafe to teach deadly techs to just anybody.
sean


----------



## JohnASE

I don't think McDojo's are bad by definition, or rather they shouldn't be.  As other's have said, there's much contention as to what a McDojo is.  Obviously, if you define one as having unethical business practices or teaching worthless martial arts, there's no real question, not that everyone can even agree on what is unethical.  The McDojo model might appeal to unscrupulous people, but I think it's unfair to define the category by what I hope is a minority.

The "McDojos" I've seen are often filled with happy students.  They enjoy what they do and value what they learn.  They don't feel they're being cheated.  Who are we to say they are?  Maybe their martial art isn't the most effective, but whose is?  I believe that what counts is that the students are happy with their program.  Again, this assumes that the instructor isn't _completely_ fraudulent.

By the way, I drove thru McDonalds this past Filet-o-Fish Friday and was happy.  I enjoyed my meal and didn't worry about whether Mahi Mahi at Roy's Hawaiian Fusion Cuisine would have been tastier or healthier.

Regarding Bill's stated topic, I think knowledge is power, and I think people running a dojo can learn things from this business model.  They can take from it what they want and leave what they don't.  Recurring income is nice.  Programs that keep students interested and motivated are good things.  Charging money for crap... bad.

There are a lot of dojos out there closing because they can't cover rent.  I haven't spent much time in the School Management Forum, but I think it's a great idea, and I hope discussions in this forum and this thread help people find ways to keep their dojo going without compromising their ethics.


----------



## GHETTO NINJA

WHOA ! intresting topic :shooter:


----------

