McDojos and 'The Worst Martial Art': A Controversial Question

[grydth]

There's nothing wrong with taking a traditional system, and incorporating elements of other systems into it. After all, Ohtsuka Hironori did this when he started the Wado system, by mixing Karate with Ju Jutsu.

It's not really about what systems are mixed together, but rather a matter of whether or not the instructor is any good.

Of course in Ohtsuka's case, he was already an expert before he started his Karate training... His situation was hardly the same as the guy who trains at one school for a few months, moves onto a different school and trains there for a year, then goes onto another school and trains for a few months, etc.

Remember, there's a difference between having 10 years of training, versus 1 year of training repeated 9 times.

Pretty reasonable positions.

I'd observe that it is important that the public be told exactly what they are getting. Too often they aren't, or are actively misinformed.

There have been some excellent discussions over on the CMA section on chamges to systems. Innovation and improvement are necessary, I believe.... but others have made the sound point that the amended style should not be passed off as if it were the original.

Some CMA practitioners would differ with you on your last paragraph. They seem to feel that Americans, hungry for superficial knowledge, run through forms too quickly. Tradition would appear to favor more of those repeated training years.

 

[Hand Sword]

I don't agree with this. The majority of the McDojos that I know of do not allow their students to compete in open tournaments, discourage them from interacting with other styles and do not produce anything resembling a martial artist. They are first and foremost concerned with earning money and they know that by stroking egos, charging inflated prices for any and everything and being willing to promote any age or ability level to black belt.

Money is not the problem. I know instructors who make a decent living from teaching and don't prostitute themselves. The problem arises when an instructor becomes more concerned with milking the students than they do teaching. What other reason can there be for 5 year old black belts?

Ummmm.... actually, I think you are agreeing with me. Think about what you said above, and what I said. You just explained BUSINESS PRACTICES of the McDojos that you know. Money is also the problem. With all due respect your arguing both ends. You say money is not the issue, but, yet the issue is instructors milking students. What are they being milked for? Money! Why young Black Belts? Money! Why McDojo's? Money!

Again, you're falling into the trap of allowing business practices to represent an art, which leads to this superior, inferior crap of one style over another. There's good and bad in ALL OF THE STYLES. How they teach it and what they allow is based on personal choices, not on the art's alternatives.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I've been on these boards for a while, though I don't really post as much as I should. I've noticed that a lot of people around here hold the firm opinion that no art is better than another, and that it all depends on the student's effort and willingness to learn. Although I can see the immediate appeal of this point of view, and the fact that it prevents a lot of arguments and useless insults, I have to disagree.

Another issue often talked about on this forum is that of McDojos. I'm sure we've all encountered them at one point or another in training, and have been angered by their treatment of classic martial arts such as karate, or by their home-brewed, 'ultimate fighting systems'. My question concerns the latter. The instructors at these McDojos often piece together their own martial art from what they believe to be the best parts of others. What results is usually, in my opinion, a poor martial art. It lacks integrity, the philosophy and psychology behind martial arts that have taken hundreds of years to develop.

To say that the 'ultimate fighting system' invented by someone with 5 years of martial arts experience is just as good a martial art as Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or Muay Thai is, I feel, to make a grave insult to these martial arts. So that's where I stand on that issue. Do you think that absolutely any martial art is as good as any other, or do you make exceptions?

I know guys who did full contact TKD in the 70's. They could defend themselves.

I know guys who do HS Wrestling and they could defend themselves.

I know guys who did/do Judo and could defend themselves.

I know guys who did/do Muay Thai and could defend themselves.

I know guys who do FMA and they can defend themselves.

I know guys with no formal training at all that can defend themselves.


On the other hand I know guys that with a gun, a rugby team as backup and the police on speed dial could not defend themselves. It is just not in their make up.

I know guys that think they can defend themselves based upon training or natural skill sets from 10 to 20 years ago. Can they still do it? Not sure as they have not been tested.

The point is that if you find a good teacher and you connect with them then you can apply techniques to your own self defense. If one learns the supreme ultimate nothing better ever technique from the same descriptive martial art, but does not know who or when to apply it or has the mind set to apply it then the person will not be able to defend themselves.

Please be patient logic is sometimes slow to make a point.

I Train in "X"
You train in "Y"

Your instructor trains in "Y"
My Instructor trains in "X"

Instructor in "Y" always beats Instructor in "X".

Does that mean student of "Y" will always beat student of 'X"?

For Student of X does not always equal Instructor of X
And the same is true for Y.

The answer is that there is not enough information. It depends upon the variables around Student of "Y" and "X".

It would depend upon the integral of the knowledge and application of the student of what they have learned from their instructor. (* Also include some experience in application as well. *)

For as the Student of Y approaches that of the Instructor of Y the relationship grows stronger.

But as no two people are exactly alike Student of Y may approach Instructor of Y but I would not expect them to ever be equal.

Of course, there would be an argument of surpassing the instructor which good coaches are able to do for their students and so it would depend upon the individual or Student Y to see if they could meet or exceed Instructor Y. Even then one cannot say for sure that Student of Y will beat Student of X. What if Student of X has surpassed Instructor of X?


The thing to remember, is to not hang your identification of self worth on what you train in. We all want to train in the best. Why else would anyone want to train in the second best? No one would want to on purpose. If you want to test yourself sign up for a competition and see how it goes. If you beat them, then on that day for that person for those rules it was the better.

Now, if you want to say, the guys down the street only does punches in the air and never has contact with anyone and never tries what he has learned, versus the other guy down the other way of the street who mixes it up with anyone and everyone and constantly tries to improve his techniques and applications, then you are now talking about training or teaching styles not about a specific art or technique.

I could take knitting and turn it into a self defense class. Knit one pearl two. Stick the needle into his eye and scoop it out. Wrap the long cord around his neck and choke. But, you see this me Rich. That guy that understands everything can be a weapon. That anything if used in the right situation can kill/hurt/maim/attack/damage or help kill/hurt/maim/attack/damage the opponent/bad guy.

So, if you want to say it is better for me to learn this way. That is cool. But that is you and an individual. If you have stats on arts and how long it takes to be able to do something that would be cool. The issue I see though is that the arts do not measure the same. This could be a problem. As a black belt from this art to that art might be different in skill sets. Heck it could be different from school to school within the same art, or also from student to student in the same school.

Good Luck

 

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

Damn straight, Judo is absolutely horrid! Kano only had 5-years when he created it, not enough time by far!

Change is important, some new styles might not work out as well as there parent styles, but occasionally a really good one comes along. Over time the good ones survive, the rest don't.

Your first paragraph, and its awesome HUMOR, had me laughing my *** off.

Thank you!

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

 

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

I've been on these boards for a while, though I don't really post as much as I should. I've noticed that a lot of people around here hold the firm opinion that no art is better than another, and that it all depends on the student's effort and willingness to learn. Although I can see the immediate appeal of this point of view, and the fact that it prevents a lot of arguments and useless insults, I have to disagree.

Another issue often talked about on this forum is that of McDojos. I'm sure we've all encountered them at one point or another in training, and have been angered by their treatment of classic martial arts such as karate, or by their home-brewed, 'ultimate fighting systems'. My question concerns the latter. The instructors at these McDojos often piece together their own martial art from what they believe to be the best parts of others. What results is usually, in my opinion, a poor martial art. It lacks integrity, the philosophy and psychology behind martial arts that have taken hundreds of years to develop.

To say that the 'ultimate fighting system' invented by someone with 5 years of martial arts experience is just as good a martial art as Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or Muay Thai is, I feel, to make a grave insult to these martial arts. So that's where I stand on that issue. Do you think that absolutely any martial art is as good as any other, or do you make exceptions?

On one level I do totally agree with you...

On another level I do totally disagree with you...

So I have a couple of simple questions...

I'm curious to "why that is important to you?"

I'm curious to "why others must take a martial art that you deem important and that you approve of?"

People do train (I use that word very lightly) for various reasons, why not let them decide their style, instructors, and philosophies on their own?

Then again, I "used to believe" the same many, many years ago.

It might be a "young man thing?"

And, for sake of a discussion, what is the original purpose of kung-fu?

And, for sake of a discussion, what is the original purpose of Tang Su Do (notice I did NOT say taekwon-do, the government's version).

How have those original purposes changed in the 50's? The 60's? The 70's? The 80's? The 90's? Up to now, 2008? If so, how? If not, why not?

Especially since I've been training during all those periods of times, I'm curious about what you perceive of them?

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

 

[Touch Of Death]

Labling other schools as a Mc Dojo seems to lead to not training as much in the style you have deemed worthy of study.
Sean

 

[jks9199]

Remember, there's a difference between having 10 years of training, versus 1 year of training repeated 9 times.

Some CMA practitioners would differ with you on your last paragraph. They seem to feel that Americans, hungry for superficial knowledge, run through forms too quickly. Tradition would appear to favor more of those repeated training years.

Ah... but the question is are they simply repeated years of training -- cumulative -- or are they further years of training -- additive, perhaps even exponentially. I've seen a guy with more than 10 years on continue to make rookie mistakes... and I've seen rookies that never repeated a mistake, and looked like seasoned vets by the end of probation.

Or, to put it another way, there are people who repeat the same form, the same way, every time for years. They never look beyond the motions; they never apply new material to it. They've done that technique 10000 times... but they haven't come to understand it any better than a person who's just started and only done it 10 times.

 

[grydth]

As explained to me, the old way back in the East was a long focus on basics, years of it, until true mastery was achieved. Only then would the student progress to other material. Advancing in rank while still making rookie errors or lacking understanding o what one was doing was precisely what they sought to avoid.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Ummmm.... actually, I think you are agreeing with me. Think about what you said above, and what I said. You just explained BUSINESS PRACTICES of the McDojos that you know. Money is also the problem. With all due respect your arguing both ends. You say money is not the issue, but, yet the issue is instructors milking students. What are they being milked for? Money! Why young Black Belts? Money! Why McDojo's? Money!

Again, you're falling into the trap of allowing business practices to represent an art, which leads to this superior, inferior crap of one style over another. There's good and bad in ALL OF THE STYLES. How they teach it and what they allow is based on personal choices, not on the art's alternatives.

Nope, not agreeing with you in the least. Your supposition is that business and dojo politics don't really affect the quality of instruction and this is where we see things very differently. I think McDojos teach less than effective technique and have lower standards for black belts because they don't want to bruise egos or push people out of their comfort zone. By making things easy, they may keep folks paying but they're not affording students the opportunity to be toughened. A martial art devoid of the martial element is dance or jazzercise.

 

[Andrew Green]

Of course there are also a lot of smaller, "not making any money and don't really want to because we do it for the love of the art" clubs that also take it easy and don't push people out of there comfort zones.

Business practices are seperate from teaching practices. There may be a strong corolation between bad business practices and bad instruction, but I don't think it is a neccesary one. I imagine there are quite a few clubs that are very commercial in their approach, and yet train to a high level.

Just as a example, take the Gracie Academy. High monthly fees, huge enrollment, lots of merchandizing, "we are the best" attitude. If it where any other school that didn't turn out high quality fighters, based solely on there business model some might be tempted to call it a McDojo. Of course we all now better because they do have high standards with quality instructors and students.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Of course there are also a lot of smaller, "not making any money and don't really want to because we do it for the love of the art" clubs that also take it easy and don't push people out of there comfort zones.

Business practices are seperate from teaching practices.

I agree. I think it's the combination of shoddy instruction and blood-sucking business practices that makes a McDojo.

 

[azmyth]

I agree as well..

Mcdojo does not always mean high prices.

normally its a mixture of bad instruction on top of high prices. Mcdojo's take everything over the edge.

they make you pay a fee for everything you do, no matter whether it costs them money or not. They pass out black belts for breakfast, and they usually have tons of "extra curriculur" activites or programs that cost extra, but are really pretty pointless.

Every now and again you'll find a diamond in the rough when it comes to instruction.. maybe the instructor doesn't own the school and he really is teaching for the love and this was his foot in the door..

actually.. I just described about 98% of all ATA schools.

 

[Hand Sword]

Nope, not agreeing with you in the least. Your supposition is that business and dojo politics don't really affect the quality of instruction and this is where we see things very differently. I think McDojos teach less than effective technique and have lower standards for black belts because they don't want to bruise egos or push people out of their comfort zone. By making things easy, they may keep folks paying but they're not affording students the opportunity to be toughened. A martial art devoid of the martial element is dance or jazzercise.

Not only are you in the least, but you are agreeing with me overall as well. First, where is my supposition that you are saying you saw? I never claimed what you're saying I did. I acknowledeged McDojo watered down stuff, and said that it goes across all styles. I've been involved with the arts since '79 so you don't need to explain the McDojo theory to me. I've watched it deteriorate for years.

Next, you are still not seeing or "hearing" me. So, let's all try this little game of imigination shall we?

Let's say that all of us went around to some dojos, "McDojo" and "Legit" and watched the classes. They are also a TKD, CMA, Kenpo, Kempo, and JKA styles and schools. Now, at the "McDojo" schools we are all urked at the manner of instruction, focus, atmosphere, etc.. but, we stay anyway.
Watching the classes what do we all see?

Students in Horse Stances. Front, Back, side, and Round kicks. Palm heels, front punches, backfists, and elbow strikes. Also, blocks of some sort.

Then we visit the "legit" schools. We are much happier now! We like the goings ons and approve of the teaching and overall focus and atmosphere. Not like that other crap! Right?

Looking closer, what do we see?

Students in Horse Stances. Front, Back, Side, and Round Kicks. Palm heels, front punches, backfists, and elbow strikes. Also, blocks of some sort.


Everyone see it?????????
Why? Because all of the arts are ultimately equal...because they all have the same (or very similar) elements to them. Therefore.....MY POINT is based on what the arts contain, none are better or more "legit" than the others.

Business practices of Individuals?.....That's a whole different matter.

 

[MarkBarlow]

Taking the point of view of self defense, I feel all arts are of equal value. This "McDojo" stuff refers to the Business Practices of the managers, owners, etc.. It has nothing to do with the Art itself. In a "legit" style/ dojo, or a "McDojo" syle/dojo...same stances, kicks, and strikes are taught. As for the MMA stuff, same thing from the same point of view. Boxing skil.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your above statement. I define a McDojo by both business practices and a lack of practicality. By those guidelines, a McDojo will not teach "legit" styles.

And, for what it's worth, I'm been training since '76 so if we're using that as a measuring stick, please don't be condescending about my opinions. Regardless, this isn't worth getting your obi in a wad. McDojos arent' worth the breath to disagree over.

 

[LawDog]

If everyone stopped looking at other systems with complete distain they would be able to spend more time perfecting their own skills. Their mastered skills could be then be used to enhance their own system. There then might be fewer McDojos around.
:knight2:

 

[Hand Sword]

:asian:

Well said!!!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Even after I just finished killing the style debate and still it comes back!!!! it is The Debate That Will Not Die No Matter What You Do To It!!!!

 

[MJS]

I've been on these boards for a while, though I don't really post as much as I should. I've noticed that a lot of people around here hold the firm opinion that no art is better than another, and that it all depends on the student's effort and willingness to learn. Although I can see the immediate appeal of this point of view, and the fact that it prevents a lot of arguments and useless insults, I have to disagree.

Another issue often talked about on this forum is that of McDojos. I'm sure we've all encountered them at one point or another in training, and have been angered by their treatment of classic martial arts such as karate, or by their home-brewed, 'ultimate fighting systems'. My question concerns the latter. The instructors at these McDojos often piece together their own martial art from what they believe to be the best parts of others. What results is usually, in my opinion, a poor martial art. It lacks integrity, the philosophy and psychology behind martial arts that have taken hundreds of years to develop.

To say that the 'ultimate fighting system' invented by someone with 5 years of martial arts experience is just as good a martial art as Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or Muay Thai is, I feel, to make a grave insult to these martial arts. So that's where I stand on that issue. Do you think that absolutely any martial art is as good as any other, or do you make exceptions?

If there is an 'ultimate art' I've yet to see it. I will say that all arts, IMO, have something to offer. I also feel that its the person, not the art, that makes the difference.

People will hype up an art, making it seem like its the best thing in the world, and some unfortunately will fall for it. People will attempt to 'create' something that they bill as new, improved or whatever, but the fact remains, that if the student a) does their homework, or b) already has a martial art background, they should be able to see right through the person.

 

[Tom]

The people that go 'my art rawks the goddamn world and your art sucks' are usually people that either A. totally not cool with what they're doing for training so they gotta get valdation from others or crap on the ones that don't or B. got some kinda other motive. Maybe they get paid to teach and need new bodies to get their income up higher. Maybe they're a student and they get some bling for referring other bodies in to class. Or maybe they don't get bling but awwww....their instructor treats em like a special little golden boy for a little while. None of that makes a good art. It just means the reason someone is telling you an art is great is because of greed baby!! They want something they don't got so they lookin to get it from you!

 

[LawDog]

Total insecurity.
:whip: