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

[Giorgio]

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?

[Andrew Green]

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.

But had those same crappy style creators stuck to the style they learnt, they'd probably still be crappy instructors.

I think the sure fire way to kill a martial art is too just keep doing what you've been doing for generations of students, with no one trying anything different.

[Hand Sword]

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 skills, grappling skills, kicking skills, done differently, but still done like the other arts. All are effective for a fight, and take place in a fight by those trained and not.

To sum it up, comparing techniques--pretty much the same for all the striking styles. No matter where you train, you'll come across something familiar.

If your into the other stuff that a "legit" art does, meditation, creedos, how to run the business, teach, etc.. different argument all together.

[Sukerkin]

Quite right, gentlemen.

I too was going to make the point that why 'style arguments' are fairly futile is that all styles are made up of the same basic elements. Those techniques most immediately applicable to improvised empty-hand fighting exhibit such similarity between arts that it is a non-sequitur to argue that anything makes much difference other than the skill and physical training of the person.

Some arts suit some people more than others and are more comfortable for certain body-types but that's about it. The bottom line from an individual perspective is that you may 'like' one art better than another but that reflects a personal choice rather than saying anything qualatitive about the arts.

[Cirdan]

No, I do not think all arts are equal in any way.

Of course most arts are great when they are taught by a good instructor, be their focus traditional, sports, health, a mix or whatever. However there are also flawed concepts and arts out there that are now so well put together. If this was not so then all arts would not be equal, they would all be perfect.

McDojos are greedy liars giving the stupid and weak minded what they want. What more needs to be said?

[Hand Sword]

Examples??????

[Hand Sword]

I say that because all should be careful not to fall in the trap! Bad instructors are in every single style that exists. So, that can't be the criteria to judge a STYLE , and assume that it's inferior to another. For example, just because 1 Kenpo instructor is a McDojo is no reason to assume that all are, and therefore..Kenpo is a lacking style. Similarly, don't say that Shotokan, because taught in a traditional manner by a small, independent school is legit, making Shotokan superior to Kenpo, or vice versa. Upon a closer look at the STYLES THEMSELVES, NOT THE PEOPLE, shows more similarities than differences.

The differences are in the marketing of the schools, the quality of teachers, and the overall business practices. Don't fall into the trap of judging a STYLE based on those criteria.

[Cirdan]

I would judge a style based on it`s techniques and principles and function, not how impressive the local club is.

[Hand Sword]

Good! Exactly what you should do! Problem there is the striking arts Kung fu, Karate, Kem/npo etc.. have all of the same elements to them, same philosophies too when it comes to applying the techniques to an opponent. So, as styles, they are of equal value.

[Cirdan]

Good! Exactly what you should do! Problem there is the striking arts Kung fu, Karate, Kem/npo etc.. have all of the same elements to them, same philosophies too when it comes to applying the techniques to an opponent. So, as styles, they are of equal value.

Not quite sure what you mean.. sure they are similar but not indentical.
Some use principles that differ a lot as well. The differences are part of what allows the arts to continue to grow and not stagnate.

Would it be impossible for two arts trying to do the same job to have different degrees of sucess?

[azmyth]

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 have seen this first hand. I know some people feel different. but In my eyes, there is no way someone with minimal experience in any martial art has the ability or know how to "create" a style and call it his own. There are just many variables, and too many different things to consider. Hell, I can go looking at books and videos and pick out the "cool" stuff and call it "Rex Kwan Do" and charge people 100 bucks a month to learn my deadly art that is a mixture of Okinawan Karate, American Kenpo, Penjak Silat, and Sambo. To me, it just means more to learn something that has been passed down for generations rather than something some schmoe from down the street stole from a book/video.

I know that martial arts are all created by someone at sometime. But, being a 1st or 2nd degree black belt in TKD or some other basic striking art doesn't give you the credibility to create some hybrid style with all kinds of crap thrown into it, and calling it by some awesome name that you came up with.

[morph4me]

There are enough experienced people who have borrowed ideas, concepts and techniques from different styles and added it to their repetoire that I seriously doubt whether any style is practiced the way it was originally developed, and they never claim to have created a new style, so I have to wonder at all the "new styles" I hear about. Most are just an ecclectic rehash of styles that already exist.

[BrandonLucas]

I have always loved these kinds of discussions, because to me, this is what really seperates the martial arts from eachother: the point of views of the artists, not the arts themselves. Sure, different arts focus on different points, but it's the ARTIST that makes the difference.

That said, I don't think you could truely make a judgement on which art is better unles you had a controlled environment. Everyone is going to react differently to a situation, and there's always different variables involved. The point is, the art is what is learned, and each artist is going to apply that knowledge differently.

Along the same lines..Steve Vai and Eddy Van Halen, 2 awesome guitarists, play the same solo at the same speed, at the same time...while the SCALE itself is uniform, the SOUND is going to be different, because it's the artist's take on that particular solo. Similarily, if 2 TKD students were faced against a 220 lb man kicking the same type kick to their groin, they may act the same, with the same counter, but chances are they are going to combat the move differently.

The point is, if you were to test the martial arts against eachother, what would be the criteria that you would base the decision on? Are the artists gonig to fight eachother? What if they're mismatched in weight, size, or age? IMO, the question is more of a paradox that truely has no answer.

[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. All are effective for a fight, and take place in a fight by those trained and not.


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?

[dancingalone]

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?

I agree. By the way, any school where the instructors tries to sell you PRIMARILY developing self-confidence and personal growth is likely a McDojo. I recall visiting a new dojang in town a number of years ago when I was looking for a place to train, and I knew right away it wasn't for me. Umm, I'm an adult with a successful career. Your stupid chants and high fives are of no interest to me.

[azmyth]

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?

Some Mcdojos are so jaded and idiotic, they actually PROMOTE their students to compete.. even tossing them into MMA fights untrained..

its a sad day.

[Grenadier]

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.

[azmyth]

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.
__________________

I have no qualms with this. this is completely acceptable. But what I do have a problem with, is taking bits and pieces from lets say, 5 completely different martial arts changing the name to "SUPER DUPER FIGHTING SOCIETY" or some other ludicrous name. and Claiming you "created" your own art. If went to a school that taught TKD, with some BJJ and whatever else on the side.. thats cool. But, I am not learning Ninja pan dido.. or whatever, that some guy with a 1st dan made up in a month or 2.

[gblnking]

__________________

I have no qualms with this. this is completely acceptable. But what I do have a problem with, is taking bits and pieces from lets say, 5 completely different martial arts changing the name to "SUPER DUPER FIGHTING SOCIETY" or some other ludicrous name. and Claiming you "created" your own art. If went to a school that taught TKD, with some BJJ and whatever else on the side.. thats cool. But, I am not learning Ninja pan dido.. or whatever, that some guy with a 1st dan made up in a month or 2.

Hey, I think I attended that school. Mine was better though. It combined 8 differant styles and was mastered under a man that at the time was wanted in the United States for tax fraud. I didn't realize that I was a proud member of "crap fu do" until after I signed the way over priced contract.

[grydth]

In all my travels, I have met exactly one man who I thought should have established his own system. He possessed wide knowledge, formidable skill, varied experiences in abundance.

Even though permanently separated from his system by the all too frequent and destructive "dojo politics", he felt the act would be disloyal and inappropriate.

[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 ass 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!!!!


http://dl9.glitter-graphics.net/pub/35/35879u4yck9dhr1.gif (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)

[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:

[azmyth]

People that bash someone elses art for its effectiveness are obviously insecure about the effectiveness of their own.

practice the art you enjoy. Thats really all that matters. When it boils down to it.. its all art.

[Kacey]

People that bash someone elses art for its effectiveness are obviously insecure about the effectiveness of their own.

practice the art you enjoy. Thats really all that matters. When it boils down to it.. its all art.

Nicely stated - and something that can be extended to all areas of life.

[Rich Parsons]

Nicely stated - and something that can be extended to all areas of life.

Kacey, SHHHHH! People who are self doubting their own beliefs or religious convictions and or sexual desires may not want to hear that this can and should be applied to them as well. ;)

[ciscodog]

ok my 2 cents worth....No style is perfect...if any style could promise that you'll always win and never get hit and back it up, everyone would be practicing it. Why did all these different styles survive? Because they worked, are we the first generation to say, "Hey hes going to take me to the ground because im a striker, i better learn ground technique" , no of course not! I hear all the time "Your in karate what do you know about ground fighting?" Yet we grapple every friday night, pull guard, sweeps, submissions, etc as grappling is part of our cuiriculumn. Why, because when Karate was TE, it used ground techniques. Each style will suffer a stereo-type that isnt always true.

Mcdojo's are poor quality teaching at perhaps inflated prices but the scary thing is that those students will put there lives at risk using crap when they find themselves attacked. Thats the worst part of Mcdojo's, they put innocent people with the best intentions at risk, they just want to protect their family members and these places set them up for failure....a shame

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

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.

Nice.

But then all the gossips couldn't do their bitching or their "tearing down of others they want to believe are inferior so they can pretend to be superior".

It is amazing how getting some of the gripers in a gi and sparring them will really shut them up. And some of them become friends, because they just didn't know any better and believed a hate-monger.

Thank you for a great post.

I'm going to go and do some pushups, stretch a bit and sweat a bit.

Great advice you gave.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

[woot]

In my opinion, a "McDojo" may be doing the same moves as a "legit" school, and they may have shady business practices, but where the "McDojo" really falls short is the lack of theory and application in those moves. The instructor at a "McDojo" may have a legit black belt, but that does not necessarily qualify them to "teach" the art if they don't know the arts true histroy, theories, and applications of what it is they are supposed to be teaching.