Thriving schools

[miguksaram]

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

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

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

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

 

[seasoned]

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

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

 

[miguksaram]

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

That example work better for you?

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

That example work better for you?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then what are you fussing about?

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

I don't.

particularly if there's only one choice.

Different issue.

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

Yes. See below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND what people want today is often irrelevant towards what people BUY.

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

 

[Steve]

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


Yes. See below.



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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

 

[miguksaram]

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

 

[miguksaram]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

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

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

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

The adults who do come to join are generally parents who signed up their children, and then later decided to join themselves. So today, the taekwondo dojang is mostly filled with children and their parents and they generally are not there to learn primarily self defense.

Today, the market for taekwondo is focused mainly on children and/or families who can train together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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


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

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