What Is A McDojo?

[Daniel Sullivan]

Elements of judo and BJJ 'can' be effective for SD. But the methodology generally used to teach both isn't the most viable for SD. As I mentioned in another thread, I know Royce Gracie. He taught at SEPSI where I've taught academies. He use to teach BJJ their to Officers and had to GREATLY modify what he taught and the method in which it was taught to have it viable for Officers. As taught in a sport venue, not only is it less than optimal it can be extremely detrimental.

Doesn't make either a bad sport art, but it needs to be taught with a SD methodology and the sporting elements removed entirely.

Agreed. While there is some cross over between fight sport and SD, there are a lot of differences. If the curriculum's applications are geared towards tournament fighting, they really shouldn't call it a self defense class.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Like I wrote, I read about them a lot but I've never actually met one. I suspect that they're far less common than the impression is. There's so much incredulity over the ones that exist that they get magnified in our consciousness, much like the Road Rage incidents have been.

There are tons of them in my area. To be fair, they generally are targeting customers who are looking for things outside of SD. The demographic is kids, parents looking for an activity to do with their kids, people looking to get fit, and adults who want an active social activity. These things aren't bad in and of themselves, but they differ from what most of us feel that an MA school should be.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

A McDojo is a nebulous thing. Much like the US Supreme Courts Potter Stewarts opinion on pornography - "I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it".

In general, I'd say all McDojos do share some traits.

Baby Black Belts.
Belts awarded by daycare programs.
Mandatory testing, or testing students who aren't going to pass.
Isolationism - discouraging students from training or visiting outside schools.
"If you can afford it, we will award it" - If your check passes the bank test, you pass the belt test.
Any school or system that claims to have all the answers.
Any school or system that doesn't spar because it's "too dangerous".
Schools with long term contracts.
Schools that require you to buy all gear only from them.
Schools with a lot of hidden costs.

I associate any and all of these things with lousy schools in general. Some lousy schools are run by frauds who are not concerned with money but with maintaining their own ego and image as a "master" of some kind. As long as they have followers who will prop them up and learn at their feet, they're happy. Their school is lousy. It isn't a McDojo, but it's still a lousy school.

These places usually do the issolationism, claim to have all the answers, and don't spar because it's too dangerous. They're also the ones that build the mystique of secret techniques and essoteric non-physical techniques, such as no touch knock out techniques.

 

[RTKDCMB]

After black belt, there are generally weapons, but the weapons curriculum is designed to keep students interested rather than to actually give meaningful instruction in the weapons in question. They may learn raw basics (how to hold and how to swing in a few predetermined patterns and maybe a couple of blocks), but once they learn these raw basics, they are quickly hustled onto the next, and likely less useful, weapon. Of note, many of the McDojo schools teach arts that don't traditionally include these weapons, but which savvy school owners have learned are exciting to young students.

When I first started at my school I asked my instructor "do we learn weapons" to which he replied "you must first learn to use your body as a weapon first", 26 years later I am still doing that.

 

[lklawson]

I want to preface my response by saying that there are plenty of lousy schools that aren't McDojos. They're just lousy schools.
[...]
Again, the above designates a McDojo. A school can be "traditional" and have an instructor with tons of legitimate accolades and still be a lousy school. Not every champion is a teacher and low prices are no more a guarantor of quality than expensive prices are.

Fair points.

Additionally, a McDojo who's owner hasn't forgotten why (s)he teaches martial arts can sometimes offer a very good school that is also profitable, and thus not as likely to close when times are lean, but such schools are definitely the exception to the rule.

How is that a McDojo? That's just a successful school.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Fair points.

How is that a McDojo? That's just a successful school.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I view "McDojo" as a business model. It isn't a model that I care for, but the elements that make the the model successful (from a business standpoint) are, like McDonalds, reproduced over a large number of schools.

The elements that make McDonalds successful are actually not tied to the quality of its food, be it good or bad, but to the presentation and to the ability to reproduce that presentation. McDonalds' food is consistent from restaurant to restaurant. Other chains have copied McDonalds formula; Burger King, Silver Diner, Bob Evans, Ruby Tuesdays, TGI Fridays, and Taco Bell to name a few. These restaurants are not all in the same price point and the expected quality of the food is different, but what makes them successful is a style and presentation that is consistent within the type of restaurant they run.

Ruby's, Fridays, Red Robin, Chilis, and Applebees are all similarly priced, have similar menues, and each of these chains maintains a similar appearance; every Applebees looks like Applebees. But they are not only consistent within their own chain, they're consistent with each other. Family burger/American style pub restaurants all have a similar feel. They may even have different menu focuses; there are chains such as Joe's Crab Shack, which have all the same elements, but focus on a different type of meal, and are similarly successful.

Similarly, commerical schools utilize a similar formula. McDojo. They use the same terms, the same style of studio (big, bright, clean studios located in retail space with similarly colored mats and using pre-made banners for their various programs), and a similar belt/promotion structure. They all focus on a black belt, they all have strong kids programs for both regular training, after school, and summer camp, and they all have similar clubs and programs. All of them use automatic bank drafting through outside billing companies and one to five year contracts with penalties for early withdrawal from the program.

Notice that I never mention the quality of the teaching. This model is designed to run a successful MA themed business, which may or may not offer decent quality MA.

Like any other style of business, it ultimately comes down to (unsurprisingly) the individual school.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

When I first started at my school I asked my instructor "do we learn weapons" to which he replied "you must first learn to use your body as a weapon first", 26 years later I am still doing that.

You can spend a lifetime in a weaponless art and plumb its depths and never reach the bottom. But you can do the same with a weapon art, or an art that has weapons as a traditional part of it.

It isn't the learning of weapons that raises the flag, but rather the teaching of weapons in a traditionally weaponless art and more to the point, whether you're actually learning a weapon or just an activity to keep you interested.

Not all arts traditionally incorporate weapons. Taekwondo, both KKW and Chang Hon (to my knowledge) do not include weapons in the curriculm. Aikido, Hapkido, some Japanese and Okinawan karate ryu, Japanese bujutsu, Ninjutsu, Savate, and several Chinese arts do include them traditionally.

Grafting them onto a weaponless art isn't necessarily bad, but I do consider it a red flag. If the weapons training is meaningful and worthwhile, flag removed. If it's just an activity, flag remains.

 

[lklawson]

I view "McDojo" as a business model. It isn't a model that I care for, but the elements that make the the model successful (from a business standpoint) are, like McDonalds, reproduced over a large number of schools.

Well, you can certainly choose to define in this way if you want, but if you do so, you will face confusion and difficulty communicating concepts with other martial artists for whom the term "McDojo" is synonymous with incompetent students. Usually the point of discussion is why/how these students are incompetent.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Aikido, Hapkido [...] do include them traditionally.

Both are modern. Not sure it'd be fair to say whether or not weapons were "traditionally" included in them or not.

Savate [does] include them traditionally.

Well, boy, THERE'S a kettle of fish! How do you define Savate?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Both are modern. Not sure it'd be fair to say whether or not weapons were "traditionally" included in them or not.

Aikido and hapkido have had the inclusion of specific weapons for most of their existence. Hapkido traditionally teaches the use of the cane, the danbong (short stick), and frequently the bo and the belt and sometimes the sword.

Aikido has had aiki-jo and aiki-ken for most or all of it's existence so far as I know. If not for that long, long enough that nobody raises an eyebrow at aikido schools that teach them.

When I say traditionally, I mean just that. Traditional doesn't imply ancient; rock and roll, big band, Jazz and blues are all technically modern but there are elements that are traditionally a part of them.

Well, boy, THERE'S a kettle of fish! How do you define Savate?

I should probably have left that one out, as my famiarity is only passing at best. I understand that Savate has a cane fencing element to it, which is why I included it.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, you can certainly choose to define in this way if you want, but if you do so, you will face confusion and difficulty communicating concepts with other martial artists for whom the term "McDojo" is synonymous with incompetent students. Usually the point of discussion is why/how these students are incompetent.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Based on how I actually use the term, incompetent students are the most likely result of the system due to the focus on profitability over quality.

As for how I use the term itself causing confusion, it shouldn't given that I don't throw the term around and on the occasions that I do use it, I define what I mean. Since the word has no specific definition, different people use it differently. Some use it as a synonym for any bad school. I tend to associate it with certain practices, practices that generally result in things like lackluster black belts, kiddie black belts, and material of questionable merit, such as the previously discussed weapons curriculums.

 

[terryl965]

Well my opinion is Fast food martial arts, they cannot execute proper techs and get a BB within a year or so.

 

[RTKDCMB]

You can spend a lifetime in a weaponless art and plumb its depths and never reach the bottom. But you can do the same with a weapon art, or an art that has weapons as a traditional part of it.

It isn't the learning of weapons that raises the flag, but rather the teaching of weapons in a traditionally weaponless art and more to the point, whether you're actually learning a weapon or just an activity to keep you interested.

Not all arts traditionally incorporate weapons. Taekwondo, both KKW and Chang Hon (to my knowledge) do not include weapons in the curriculm. Aikido, Hapkido, some Japanese and Okinawan karate ryu, Japanese bujutsu, Ninjutsu, Savate, and several Chinese arts do include them traditionally.

Grafting them onto a weaponless art isn't necessarily bad, but I do consider it a red flag. If the weapons training is meaningful and worthwhile, flag removed. If it's just an activity, flag remains.

Sometimes if someone asks me if we teach weapons I reply, "yes we do, we teach the knife (hand strike), axe (kick), hammer (fist), hook (kick), spear (finger thrust)". From a purely self defence perspective, I believe that if weapons are taught they should be something that resembles something that you would commonly encounter in the outside world.For example a bo staff could be a stick, a piece of pipe, a broom etc.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Based on how I actually use the term, incompetent students are the most likely result of the system due to the focus on profitability over quality.

Most likely yes but it can also be a product of just a poorly skilled and poorly qualified instructor who does not charge like a wounded bull but does not realize he is poorly skilled and unqualified.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Most likely yes but it can also be a product of just a poorly skilled and poorly qualified instructor who does not charge like a wounded bull but does not realize he is poorly skilled and unqualified.

As I said earlier, there are lousy schools that aren't necesarilly McDojos.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

From a purely self defence perspective, I believe that if weapons are taught they should be something that resembles something that you would commonly encounter in the outside world.For example a bo staff could be a stick, a piece of pipe, a broom etc.

Most weapon arts have techniques that are at least functional with similarly sized implements. However, there are peculiarities to using a cane or broomstick for self defense against either an unarmed opponent or an opponent with a knife or some other type of hand held weapon that are often not factors in the use of the original weapon.

MA weapons such as a bo or jo have a lot more durability than a broom handle. Many brooms now have flimsy aluminum or plasic shafts and are generally a more easliy handled diameter and lower weight than pipe.

Sword techniques can be retrofitted to broom handles, canes, and pipes as well, but swords are sharp, so you don't generally have to be concerned with someone grabbing the blade. Canes and broomsicks are not sharp, so an unarmed opponent has more options to disarm you.

If the weapon is being taught as it was originally trained, such as in a ryu of kenjutsu, historical fencing, and Okinawan kobudo, it is beneficial, though it may not have immediate self defense application.

A serious XMA program is also beneficial, even if it lacks martial application. So long as it isn't marketed as traditional or historical weapons training, it's fine.

If the weapon is grafted on as an activity or as part of some kind of black belt check list, or if it is used as a child's game (foam swords, for example), or if it is XMA being taught as samurai arts, then you have red flags being raised.

 

[lklawson]

I should probably have left that one out, as my famiarity is only passing at best. I understand that Savate has a cane fencing element to it, which is why I included it.

It might or it might not, depending on which Maestro you query. My experience is that more do include than don't but you never know who you'll bump into. Some hold that canne and baton were nothing more than late-to-the-party addons and that Savate really is only boxe francaise. Their evidence ranges from early Savate to even the name ("shoe").

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

As for how I use the term itself causing confusion, it shouldn't given that I don't throw the term around and on the occasions that I do use it, I define what I mean.

Fair enough.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well my opinion is Fast food martial arts, they cannot execute proper techs and get a BB within a year or so.

But they get a happy meal with their black belt!

 

[lklawson]

Most weapon arts have techniques that are at least functional with similarly sized implements. However, there are peculiarities to using a cane or broomstick for self defense against either an unarmed opponent or an opponent with a knife or some other type of hand held weapon that are often not factors in the use of the original weapon.

MA weapons such as a bo or jo have a lot more durability than a broom handle. Many brooms now have flimsy aluminum or plasic shafts and are generally a more easliy handled diameter and lower weight than pipe.

Sword techniques can be retrofitted to broom handles, canes, and pipes as well, but swords are sharp, so you don't generally have to be concerned with someone grabbing the blade. Canes and broomsicks are not sharp, so an unarmed opponent has more options to disarm you.

I agree and have said so many times - improvised weapons, while being used as "weapons," are never as good at it as those designed and made as weapons.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk