knowingly training at mcdojo

[drop bear]

There are some systems that just seem to charge more.

You can quite often get quality boxing wrestling and judo for cheap.

It is just the way it is sometimes

 

[drop bear]

A lot of military-based systems work this way. I was technically certified to instruct the first level of a combatives system after a 40-hour instructor course. It's absurd, but understand that these systems are designed to, at best, give a bunch of grunts a quick and dirty method of surviving a violent encounter, or, at worst, give the military from which it originates a way of saying "hey, we trained Private Snuffy how to defend from that attack, it's not our fault he panicked and got killed/shot someone." They aren't necessarily designed to be a way of life, and certainly aren't designed to develop us spiritually and ethically the way many traditional martial arts purport to do. That's why I generally prefer the traditional martial arts myself.

I have this whole issue of being inherently suspicious of industry training that everyone else has a sook about.

 

[Mark Lynn]

yep pretty much. Which is the cool thing about Martial Arts.




To the OP:
1. What is your goal for training
2. If you want to really know how to use something then a discount may not be an option.
3. What is the goal for your wife?

What does your wife think of the inexpensive school and instructor(s)? If she thinks she will enjoy the training, go for it.

The instructor having taught for so long might be a very good instructor and able to train your wife giving her the basics and excitement for training that a good instructor can bring to the beginner.

Regards
Brian King

As everyone’s said, it comes down to what she’s looking for in the school. If she’s really just after an alternative type of exercise, then pick the best workout place. If she’s looking to have to register her hands and feet as lethal weapons ( ), choose the right one.

Have you been to the other school? Other than the apparent lack of experience with Krav, how did you come to your current conclusion?

To the "Op": If you are asking the question to this group of talking heads, it seems apparent you are willing, maybe wanting to make some sacrifice to get you wife involved and spend some time doing something together. My advise is to work out together and, with a little subtle suggestion, maybe she will realize there is more to be had from MA and will want to move to something better in the near future. Or, like other have said, maybe you will find the other class satisfying. I hear too many answers from the single life folks and the rigid MA perspective only. My instructor says it best, a relationship that is all bad it bad, a relationship that is all good is bad, it takes both good and bad to have harmony. Sacrifice is a good thing. Hope this helps. Let us know how it goes.

To the "Op" these people have asked some very important questions and in so doing brought out a very important view that I don't think you've addressed. How does your wife feel about this? What are her goals for training? Which school does she like? Which instructor does she like?

It's clear that you want to train in the place you've been training at since it fits your needs and you've checked out several schools and it's the best place in town for you. But you also need to consider your wife's needs, views, goals, and how she feels about it as well. It's easy for us martial artists though to impose our wants, needs etc. etc. onto our training partner when they have their own needs, wants, goals etc. etc. in training. I suggest you bring her into the discussion and visit both schools and see which one she feels most comfortable in, what meets her needs and see what you can then afford.

I get that the one school is better fit for you. However your wife might have different goals for training that the less expensive school can provide and still help her to feel good about her training experience, especially training along side of you. Whereas if you cut out things in life (that she or you both enjoy) to make the sacrifice to go to the higher end school for better higher quality instruction and it's not what she is looking for after a couple of months. Then it can turn into a grinding type of resentment that can ruin the good thing you are trying to do. Thus adding another headache in life that you both don't need.

Personally I believe if you are trying to get your wife involved in your training to do something together than who's the best instructor in KM, how legit the school's lineage is, what organization it's affiliated with, are they bad asses or not, is it a McDojo etc. etc. all these things as martial artists we might care about; are really second, third, fourth place things to be concerned about when your wife or child enters the picture as a training partner. It really should be about them and what you both get out of the training not the school. It's different when it's just about you and your training.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Yeah, for a while we'd get e-mails semi-regularly advertising different Krav instructor training programs. Some of them, you didn't even need to have ever taken Krav. Anybody with some number of years of experience in any martial art could go take their $1,000 weekend training camp and come out a certified Krav instructor in their association.

But at what level? A full instructor teaching, ranking and testing KM to black belt (or the equivalent)? Or just up to a beginner level?

Some o e with a life time in teaching ma, should be able to add KM to their portfolio with little difficulty

Which is what many schools have done now, added KM to their schools programs to reach a broader audience.

If KM has actual techniques (meaning it has its own collection of them), then a weekend is not enough time for someone to gather what those are and be ready to teach them. Depending how much time they put in, a year could be, if they are already familiar with the principles used. I just chose 5+ years because it's reasonable for someone to learn a system (especially one that claims to have left out the stuff that makes it take longer to learn) part-time in those years, especially if they are an experienced MAist and instructor.

I agree that one weekend wouldn't be enough for a person to learn a beginner level and teach that material to paying customers. However if you were learning a beginner level and had back up material couldn't a person work with others get his/her teaching down and then later with the paper qualification in hand put a sign on his door saying that he teaches KM. Up to a certain level of course that they are certified to teach? I'm speaking of a seasoned martial artist here not Joe Blow walking in off of the street with no skill set what so ever.

Unfortunately people tend to lump the true Krav Maga instructors together with the so called Krav Maga instructors out there. There is an idea that any person can get a Krav Maga instructor certification in a weekend. That simply isn't true if it is a resected Krav Maga Organization that has direct lineage back to Imi Lichtenfeld. Just because someone claims that they teach Krav Maga doesn't mean that they actually do. For years IKMA and KMWW have been trying to keep "Krav Maga" from becoming a generic term like "Karate". The places that advertise these weekend Krav Maga certifications are not representing actual Krav Maga, but an organization that has taken the name and principles of Krav and created something as their own. Commando Krav Maga is the first that comes to mind.

To be fair, you don't need a certificate in any martial art to be an instructor. I have never attended a Krav instructor certification course, but I have 35 years of martial arts, 12 years as a full-time dojo owner, and 6 years of Krav that says that I can teach it. I can only speak for KMWW, but their instructor certifications represent the teaching of certain levels, not the entire system.

gpseymour, Kababayan here is an example of what I mean. He has 35 years of martial arts, 12 years as a full time school owner; although he has 6 years of KM training let's for example sake take that off of the table for the moment. Kababayan, is it unreasonable to assume that with your all of your 35 years of training that if you had gone to a KM instructors cert course to learn a basic or beginners levels instructor that you could get up to speed quicker than say a newbie walking in off of the street? I'm not sure what art Kababayan does but as long as it is a striking art as opposed to say Aikido (different skills sets) I think he would see enough similarities that he could relate to catch on and in due time be a good enough coach to teach that basic level of material. The more he teaches the better his KM gets and then he moves onto the intermediate material and so on.

From my limited peripheral view of KM; from when I taught at a KM school (weapons defense), and from meeting with people that teach at or own KM schools (I have no clue on their affiliations), my experience has been that instructors often have prior experience in another martial art, not everyone, but it is common.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree that one weekend wouldn't be enough for a person to learn a beginner level and teach that material to paying customers. However if you were learning a beginner level and had back up material couldn't a person work with others get his/her teaching down and then later with the paper qualification in hand put a sign on his door saying that he teaches KM. Up to a certain level of course that they are certified to teach? I'm speaking of a seasoned martial artist here not Joe Blow walking in off of the street with no skill set what so ever.

If I'm following your question, Mark (and I'm not entirely sure I am), you're asking for instance, could I go do one of these courses with my background and backfill with my own material while I'm teaching. Sure. I wouldn't really be teaching KM (a blend of bits of KM and other stuff I know), but I don't see any real harm in it. It'd be a marketing thing, more than anything else. All the same, I could see it cheesing off folks who are teaching KM and don't like me using the name KM for something that's not really that thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

gpseymour, Kababayan here is an example of what I mean. He has 35 years of martial arts, 12 years as a full time school owner; although he has 6 years of KM training let's for example sake take that off of the table for the moment. Kababayan, is it unreasonable to assume that with your all of your 35 years of training that if you had gone to a KM instructors cert course to learn a basic or beginners levels instructor that you could get up to speed quicker than say a newbie walking in off of the street? I'm not sure what art Kababayan does but as long as it is a striking art as opposed to say Aikido (different skills sets) I think he would see enough similarities that he could relate to catch on and in due time be a good enough coach to teach that basic level of material. The more he teaches the better his KM gets and then he moves onto the intermediate material and so on.

I should probably have finished reading your post before I replied.

Yes, I can see this. I really don't have a problem with someone who is competent at the beginning parts of something starting to teach. I'd take coaching from a BJJ blue belt any day, for instance. My issue is that, though I know some similar principles and movements, I couldn't really start teaching Judo (even with my experience in it decades ago) after a weekend seminar. I simply wouldn't have enough time in even the beginner techniques for it, so I'd actually be teaching NGA approach to some Judo-ish techniques. I could incorporate some new throws and groundwork into what I teach, but couldn't really teach anything recognizably Judo. Now, make that a series of weekends, with practice time between, and we could have a different story.

 

[Mark Lynn]

To the Op

I wouldn't be to concerned about learning KM from the TKD guy just because he teaches TKD and hasn't been doing KM that long. Others on this same thread I believe has said the same thing. A good friend of mine is certified to teach the basic level(s) in KM (he currently works at a KM school); but he has over 40 years experience in various martial arts, we've spent a lot of time together on the mat beating the hell out of each other, he's been my FMA training partner for over 30 years as well. Whereas you stated your just doing this for self defense training and have not taken the rank exams, he has taken the first or basic exams, and he struggles with should he take the next one. Basically he is doing KM for the same reasons you are but he is instructor and probably much older so his life circumstances are different.

Point is going by the just his rank in KM or how long he has been doing KM doesn't really get the whole picture of his skill set or what he can teach a person. You mentioned that the TKD guy has produced some good quality people, I would imagine that he could help you even with the KM as well.

I suggest you go talk to the guy, explain your situation and see what he could do for you. Ask to attend one of the KM classes and see how he teaches. See if he could teach your wife and you privately for one lesson and see what he is like as an instructor. As an instructor if I thought I was getting two students I'd set a side a time to explain my programs and even work with you on the mat to try and get you to sign up in a heart beat. By explaining your training and you and your wife's goals to him he might really want you in the class because you can help him. By being a demo partner, or just someone with good training that helps solidify the class. As an instructor I'm always on the look out for people with prior training who want to get involved in my classes.

 

[Mark Lynn]

If I'm following your question, Mark (and I'm not entirely sure I am), you're asking for instance, could I go do one of these courses with my background and backfill with my own material while I'm teaching. Sure. I wouldn't really be teaching KM (a blend of bits of KM and other stuff I know), but I don't see any real harm in it. It'd be a marketing thing, more than anything else. All the same, I could see it cheesing off folks who are teaching KM and don't like me using the name KM for something that's not really that thing.

Yeah that's not quite what I meant. However what I mean is movement is movement right, and in KM I believe they have simplified things to be taught to a group of people to teach them how to fight by taking techniques from a several different arts and putting them together for a self defense system. So rather than approach things from like karate view point where we spend years getting our stances just right, learning kata, and basics, etc. etc. to learn to use our bodies and minds together, KM was a basic system that took out all of that kind of stuff and kept the raw body mechanics part in. Unlike a boxer who spends years honing the jab, cross, hook, upper cut etc. etc. and learning to apply that against another opponent in the ring. KM takes the same techniques and uses them to hit the average Joe, while learning how to defend against them. Similar to karate schools taking the same moves and putting them in sport karate combinations, or JKD schools, or FMA schools adding them in the form of boxing or Pantuken Boxing. Now in the ring the boxer rules because they only work on that material, outside of the ring well....... (that debate is beside the point)

But if at the weekend KM seminar they are teaching drills that use the Jab, Cross, Hook, Upper Cut, etc. etc. I believe an experience martial artists who's studied JKD, FMA, sport Karate, etc. etc. would have a leg up on getting those drills down and teaching them if they've already been doing that material. Even though it wasn't "KM" in a KM class. I think the same thing would go for kicking, footwork, etc. etc.

I should probably have finished reading your post before I replied.

Yes, I can see this. I really don't have a problem with someone who is competent at the beginning parts of something starting to teach. I'd take coaching from a BJJ blue belt any day, for instance. My issue is that, though I know some similar principles and movements, I couldn't really start teaching Judo (even with my experience in it decades ago) after a weekend seminar. I simply wouldn't have enough time in even the beginner techniques for it, so I'd actually be teaching NGA approach to some Judo-ish techniques. I could incorporate some new throws and groundwork into what I teach, but couldn't really teach anything recognizably Judo. Now, make that a series of weekends, with practice time between, and we could have a different story.

But see Judo is a sport with rules, with the other person dueling with you, who is equally skilled perhaps. Same with BJJ, it is a dueling sport with rules. Totally different situation. KM is about self defense. So after getting the gun away (as in a disarm) how I hit the guy is really not as important (I mean the body mechanics of) as that I follow up and neutralize them.

As an example; I taught a co seminar with a KM instructor at the KM school I was teaching at. The KM instructor showed what we call the Windmill throw/6 oclock 12 oclock throw as part of a defense. One student takes his partner and tosses him, he lands several feet away in a heap, the KM instructor was upset (not pleased) because the guy didn't control his weapon hand all the way down to the ground. Where as I looked at it that he tossed the guy and he landed in a crumpled mass on the floor several feet away, he really threw him (imagine if it was in a parking lot). As far as I was concerned he executed the take down very well regardless. No correction was given or worried about on the technicalities of the throw itself, the concern was on the result or follow up. Now I've learned that throw in several different places over the years; in JKD seminars, Kombatan Arnis, Modern Arnis, etc. etc. its basically the same with some different tweaks in the entry of the technique but that's about it.

This is why I believe experienced martial artists can grasp the principles of the art in a short time and even teach it after a period of time, if we don't put the same constraints on us in learning as we do in TMAs. And if some of your primary art comes into the mix who cares as long as it works and doesn't run a foul of the main teaching parameters. What I mean by this word (parameters) is more like dogma. An example would be my friend was asking my opinion about a particular entry from a club attack from the side. He showed me the KM burst entry that they teach and I disagreed and showed him a similar one that I felt was safer, mind you we were only talking about the entry not the follow up. He told me later that they keep all of the entries the same because they want to cut down the decision tree for the students. OK, valid reason and if I was teaching KM at the their school I would teach the same one to be consistent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah that's not quite what I meant. However what I mean is movement is movement right, and in KM I believe they have simplified things to be taught to a group of people to teach them how to fight by taking techniques from a several different arts and putting them together for a self defense system. So rather than approach things from like karate view point where we spend years getting our stances just right, learning kata, and basics, etc. etc. to learn to use our bodies and minds together, KM was a basic system that took out all of that kind of stuff and kept the raw body mechanics part in. Unlike a boxer who spends years honing the jab, cross, hook, upper cut etc. etc. and learning to apply that against another opponent in the ring. KM takes the same techniques and uses them to hit the average Joe, while learning how to defend against them. Similar to karate schools taking the same moves and putting them in sport karate combinations, or JKD schools, or FMA schools adding them in the form of boxing or Pantuken Boxing. Now in the ring the boxer rules because they only work on that material, outside of the ring well....... (that debate is beside the point)

But if at the weekend KM seminar they are teaching drills that use the Jab, Cross, Hook, Upper Cut, etc. etc. I believe an experience martial artists who's studied JKD, FMA, sport Karate, etc. etc. would have a leg up on getting those drills down and teaching them if they've already been doing that material. Even though it wasn't "KM" in a KM class. I think the same thing would go for kicking, footwork, etc. etc.



But see Judo is a sport with rules, with the other person dueling with you, who is equally skilled perhaps. Same with BJJ, it is a dueling sport with rules. Totally different situation. KM is about self defense. So after getting the gun away (as in a disarm) how I hit the guy is really not as important (I mean the body mechanics of) as that I follow up and neutralize them.

As an example; I taught a co seminar with a KM instructor at the KM school I was teaching at. The KM instructor showed what we call the Windmill throw/6 oclock 12 oclock throw as part of a defense. One student takes his partner and tosses him, he lands several feet away in a heap, the KM instructor was upset (not pleased) because the guy didn't control his weapon hand all the way down to the ground. Where as I looked at it that he tossed the guy and he landed in a crumpled mass on the floor several feet away, he really threw him (imagine if it was in a parking lot). As far as I was concerned he executed the take down very well regardless. No correction was given or worried about on the technicalities of the throw itself, the concern was on the result or follow up. Now I've learned that throw in several different places over the years; in JKD seminars, Kombatan Arnis, Modern Arnis, etc. etc. its basically the same with some different tweaks in the entry of the technique but that's about it.

This is why I believe experienced martial artists can grasp the principles of the art in a short time and even teach it after a period of time, if we don't put the same constraints on us in learning as we do in TMAs. And if some of your primary art comes into the mix who cares as long as it works and doesn't run a foul of the main teaching parameters. What I mean by this word (parameters) is more like dogma. An example would be my friend was asking my opinion about a particular entry from a club attack from the side. He showed me the KM burst entry that they teach and I disagreed and showed him a similar one that I felt was safer, mind you we were only talking about the entry not the follow up. He told me later that they keep all of the entries the same because they want to cut down the decision tree for the students. OK, valid reason and if I was teaching KM at the their school I would teach the same one to be consistent.

I think we're saying much the same thing here. In essence, an experienced person can pick up some principles and drills, and wrap those around what he already knows. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure what makes it KM, though. I could go to the same seminar, bring back the same drills and principles, present the same stuff as a result, and call it NGA. I don't have a problem with someone doing either of those (using the KM name for their modified work, or their original art name). I think the difference might be marketing at that point.

One point for discussion - Judo can be used for a sport, but the training isn't necessarily the same as the sport. Both it and BJJ can be studied absent the sport. My point was that me teaching Juji Garume after a brief intro to it probably means I'm teaching an NGA version of the throw. I see your point about what was corrected by the KM instructor, but I think that's a difference in instructor approach rather than a difference in arts. Within NGA (an exclusively SD-oriented style), there are instructors who are sticklers for technique and instructors who are focused on outcome, and only focus on technical aspects to the extent they matter (for instance, I don't give a flying flip which stance someone is in on a given technique, if it actually serves the situation). I suspect we could find KM instructors who like the detail of technique, too.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I don't totally disagree with your points Mark Lynn. We simply do not know whether it is a McDojo or not. However, based on the going rates across the country $300 a month for two people seems expensive.

 

[jobo]

I think we're saying much the same thing here. In essence, an experienced person can pick up some principles and drills, and wrap those around what he already knows. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure what makes it KM, though. I could go to the same seminar, bring back the same drills and principles, present the same stuff as a result, and call it NGA. I don't have a problem with someone doing either of those (using the KM name for their modified work, or their original art name). I think the difference might be marketing at that point.

One point for discussion - Judo can be used for a sport, but the training isn't necessarily the same as the sport. Both it and BJJ can be studied absent the sport. My point was that me teaching Juji Garume after a brief intro to it probably means I'm teaching an NGA version of the throw. I see your point about what was corrected by the KM instructor, but I think that's a difference in instructor approach rather than a difference in arts. Within NGA (an exclusively SD-oriented style), there are instructors who are sticklers for technique and instructors who are focused on outcome, and only focus on technical aspects to the extent they matter (for instance, I don't give a flying flip which stance someone is in on a given technique, if it actually serves the situation). I suspect we could find KM instructors who like the detail of technique, too.

But KM isn't defined by what it contains so much as what it doesnt, iT doesnt have structure, it doesn't have KatA to perfect techniques and it doesn't have rituals, if it looks like two drunk blokes fighting in a pub car park wearing combat pants it's km, that's all you need to know to tech it, head but him and knee him in groin, " well done now your an expert"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But KM isn't defined by what it contains so much as what it doesnt, iT doesnt have structure, it doesn't have KatA to perfect techniques and it doesn't have rituals, if it looks like two drunk blokes fighting in a pub car park wearing combat pants it's km, that's all you need to know to tech it, head but him and knee him in groin, " well done now your an expert"

That sounds like your usual kind of talk, Jobo. I know next to nothing about KM, and your description makes it sound like you don't know more than I do, and are trying to get a rise out of the KM folks in the thread.

 

[drop bear]

If I'm following your question, Mark (and I'm not entirely sure I am), you're asking for instance, could I go do one of these courses with my background and backfill with my own material while I'm teaching. Sure. I wouldn't really be teaching KM (a blend of bits of KM and other stuff I know), but I don't see any real harm in it. It'd be a marketing thing, more than anything else. All the same, I could see it cheesing off folks who are teaching KM and don't like me using the name KM for something that's not really that thing.

The issue is if there is no good way of distinguishing good krav from bad. It makes it all bad.

So yes a person with 20 years experience could be a weapon. But they could also be crap.

If I had some medicine in front of me and some of it will work. Some will do nothing and some will hurt me. That is a bad system. Even if there is good medicine in there.

So we would have to look at more than there resume to get a good guage of instructors ability to incorporate krav.

 

[drop bear]

But KM isn't defined by what it contains so much as what it doesnt, iT doesnt have structure, it doesn't have KatA to perfect techniques and it doesn't have rituals, if it looks like two drunk blokes fighting in a pub car park wearing combat pants it's km, that's all you need to know to tech it, head but him and knee him in groin, " well done now your an expert"

Which would be fine if it trains in real time. I am happy for simple concepts. But you have to be able to pull the trigger on them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is if there is no good way of distinguishing good krav from bad. It makes it all bad.

So yes a person with 20 years experience could be a weapon. But they could also be crap.

If I had some medicine in front of me and some of it will work. Some will do nothing and some will hurt me. That is a bad system. Even if there is good medicine in there.

So we would have to look at more than there resume to get a good guage of instructors ability to incorporate krav.

Is it actually impossible to tell good Krav from bad? I doubt that.

I think almost any system is capable of turning out people with not much fighting ability, unless it weeds out the people who would become those folks. Competition systems (with real contact) will weed out people who just don't find it in themselves (but probably won't "fix" that about them). Of course, it's possible to just be teaching crap, which is more likely to turn out crappy fighters, but if a system is capable of turning out good fighters, then the issue isn't the system (meaning the system of techniques). It's the instructor, and possibly the organization.

 

[jobo]

That sounds like your usual kind of talk, Jobo. I know next to nothing about KM, and your description makes it sound like you don't know more than I do, and are trying to get a rise out of the KM folks in the thread.

I think that's a fair accurate representation, it a martial art with out the artistic element, It's the difference between doing a water colour and painting your shed

if it works to the same degree as arts that take half a life time to perfect is an interesting question, if so then it makes the years of Kats practise a bit pointless, if not then it's lacking something vital

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think that's a fair accurate representation, it a martial art with out the artistic element, It's the difference between doing a water colour and painting your shed

I think that distinction is pretty close to how I've heard some KM folks talk about it. I don't, by the way, buy that distinction at all. Not all MA have kata, and there's no reason a KM instructor can't discuss life choices and being respectful. That only leaves an aesthetic difference, and I know few instructors who actually focus on the aesthetics of their movements.

if it works to the same degree as arts that take half a life time to perfect is an interesting question, if so then it makes the years of Kats practise a bit pointless, if not then it's lacking something vital

Agreed, assuming KM actually is something distinctly different from a MA. I don't actually think it is. I think the results obtained are likely similar to anyone else using similar techniques and similar intensity.

 

[WaterGal]

But at what level? A full instructor teaching, ranking and testing KM to black belt (or the equivalent)? Or just up to a beginner level?

I haven't looked at one of those e-mails in a while, but I remember one of the groups had a series of weekend seminars. I think if you took one seminar, you were certified to teach a beginner Krav program, and then when you took another weekend seminar, you could teach a more advanced level. I don't remember how many their were.

 

[drop bear]

Is it actually impossible to tell good Krav from bad? I doubt that.

I think almost any system is capable of turning out people with not much fighting ability, unless it weeds out the people who would become those folks. Competition systems (with real contact) will weed out people who just don't find it in themselves (but probably won't "fix" that about them). Of course, it's possible to just be teaching crap, which is more likely to turn out crappy fighters, but if a system is capable of turning out good fighters, then the issue isn't the system (meaning the system of techniques). It's the instructor, and possibly the organization.

Ok. top 3 best krav schools and why.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. top 3 best krav schools and why.

I’ve never been to a Krav school.