Martial Arts for a living. Good or Bad for the arts?

[terryl965]

Breaking even for me is 50 students at $80 a month.

You have a high rent then, I'm so glad mine is so affordable for this 5600 sq foot place. To bad not in a better nieghberhood

 

[zDom]

I just don't think that in and of itself, a professional instructor making their living off of instructing is bad for martial art instruction (i.e. leads to "watering down"). I think even the opposite can be true.

I think it comes down to what most instructors THINK they must do to make a living (i.e., follow the McDojo/McDojang formula).

Then again, I also think some martial arts are more viable to support an instructor/school than others.

Hapkido for example, IMO, isn't among the martial arts that are viable without supplementing income with the instruction of other arts.

 

[Andrew Green]

Full time is like part time, just more of it. There is good, and bad. Both are more vissible.

Probably leaning heavy towards the karate-lite schools, but if thats what people want to train in who are we to say they shouldn't? Not everyone wants hard training, but that doesn't mean they should't get to train.

On the otherhand someone looking to become a pro fighter, or Olympic level athlete is probably going to have to train under a full time coach. 2 classes a week is great, but will only get you so far.

So I'd say full-time instructors make up both the "hard" and the "soft" ends of the spectrum.

And to say its watered down does not mean it is not any good. Is flag football a scam because it is watered down football? Is softball a cheap baseball knock off to make money?

Different people want to train at different levels, as long as everyone is being honest with themselves there is no problems.

 

[zDom]

Full time is like part time, just more of it. There is good, and bad. Both are more vissible.

Probably leaning heavy towards the karate-lite schools, but if thats what people want to train in who are we to say they shouldn't? Not everyone wants hard training, but that doesn't mean they should't get to train.

On the otherhand someone looking to become a pro fighter, or Olympic level athlete is probably going to have to train under a full time coach. 2 classes a week is great, but will only get you so far.

So I'd say full-time instructors make up both the "hard" and the "soft" ends of the spectrum.

And to say its watered down does not mean it is not any good. Is flag football a scam because it is watered down football? Is softball a cheap baseball knock off to make money?

Different people want to train at different levels, as long as everyone is being honest with themselves there is no problems.

Good points (I'm still short on rep points to give out).

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i've been running a school for the past 4 years, and most of my training has been in professional, full time schools.

honestly, i've encountered more solid, well-run full time programs than i have part-time programs.

the idea from the first post on this thread was that, having to rely on martial arts for your daily bread, you give in to the temptation to make decisions based on money rather than on integrity or solid training. this is definitely a danger, and there are programs out there that have fallen into this trap. but they don't last. you can't give out mediocre product in any industry and hope to go the distance.

the part this argument doesn't consider is that folks like me (and our staff) are in fact full time martial artists. every hour you're writing code, building homes, delivering widgets is an hour i'm thinking about martial arts. when you're in that staff meeting, i'm planning my lessons for the week after studying curriculum theory and education psychology. full time school owners understand (and love) that this is our job, and we take it very seriously.

if you water down your material, engage in shady practices or do any of the other things that the 'mcdojo' does, then you wind up in financial hurt. once you're there, that trap becomes a reality and it's even harder to maintain your integrity.

but if you run your program right, the students come and the students stay. and you're making enough money that you're never tempted to cut corners.

 

[still learning]

Hello, First of all it is a business and it must run like a business (even if part time).

My suggestion is to start part-time before, you will know if you need or can afford to go full-time teaching. TEACH THE WAY YOU WANT TO TEACH YOUR ART - in time people will know THAT IS THE WAY THEY WANT TO LEARN IT.

In a full time business maybe you can have excerise classes,women self-defense classes,yoga? and so on...you can always share your space or rent it form certain times too? Be creative here.

NUMBER ONE RULE IN BUSINESS: If you get repeat customers every year! You are doing the right things. (In martial arts lots of people drop out because they realize it takes work)..accept this from everyone who signs up and quit later....

Better learn about sale techniques...just as important as learning too punch and kick.

To be a PROFESSIONAL..YOU have to become one...anyone can teach...but can you help them become a better person and martial artist?

Keep in mind? IN and out of the business...you are a role model Always!

Plus you must Love doing it everyday and helping others enjoy the martial arts training. BE firm and honest.....best of luck ...Aloha

 

[Kwan Jang]

The last few posts have brought up some very good points, especially the one by BushidoMA. To have any long term success in business, I believe you have to put out a quality product. You may be able to cut corners and get away with it in the short run, but you end up "killing the goose who laid the golden egg". As a school owner and professional martial arts educator, my "product" is the quality of my advanced students, especially my black belts. If I don't put out a VERY high quality product, then there is no value to what I bring to the market place.

As martial arts instructors, one of the main aspects of our "service" (BTW, I am using business terms on purpose for this discussion for effect) is we teach personal growth and self-actualization or at least a very powerful method for achieving this. In addition, IMO we should teach fitness and personal (and family) protection to the highest level that the individual student is capable of handling. If we are being true to these principles, I believe we are being "true to the art".

As a professional, I believe it is my duty/obligation to convey this in a manner that will allow and encourage the greatest number of people in my community to take advantage of this. IMO, far too many non-professional schools use outdated , inefective teaching methods that are more of an elimination process than a building one. The instructor does less of building character, but rather she/he merely eliminates the weak ones. While this instructor may be a good martial artist, to me this is the mark of being a poor teacher.

I believe it is my obligation to a student to give them my best in motivating them and guiding them along their path to black belt and beyond. Part of the responsibility does lie with them, but I will do my end and then some. I used to teach part-time for the love of the art, but now I dedicate my career and a good part of my life and who I am for the love of the students. I was never able to give so much into improving my teaching when I was part time. This has forced me to grow as person and in many ways, I've reaped the greatest rewards for this (and I don't mean in financial terms either).

Does the local community college provide a better education than Harvard or Yale because it has less students or the tuition is less expensive? While it could be argued that for certain individuals, they might learn or gain more or at the local com. college than at a large Ivy League school. Few would argue though that the Ivy League University would grant far more potential and oppurtunity for the student that wanted to take their learning to greater heights.

 

[matt.m]

Andrew,

Good post. You bring up good points. However, the school that zDom and I train at are driven by part-time instructors that don't make a dime off teaching. Nor will they, all money goes to equipment and standard overhead. GGM Park said "Moo Sul Kwan will be ran like a 'club' everyone who wants to train, can."

All instructors have day jobs and teach at night and on the weekend. I know guys at another TKD school that are wearing flashy blue belts and their test required them to do roughly the same cirriculum as my orange belt test. (I.E. Il and EE jang). That was the 6th belt in their order: White, Yellow, Yellow/Green stripe, Green, Green/blue stripe, Blue, Blue/Red stripe, Red, Black/White stripe, 1st dan.

In Moo Sul Kwan it would be white, yellow, orange, green, blue,purple, brown, red, black.

The worst part about it is that these guys came to my house on Saturdays after their class to "Learn" from me because they felt they weren't getting the help they needed from the dans at their own school.

Do I think the school and three others around St. L that follow this pattern are bad? No I don't. Is their Tae Kwon Do as thourough as Moo Sul Kwan's. The answer is no. I like the people who train that I know at the other schools, they work hard for what they know how to do.

However, MSK charges $40.00 a month for tuition and no contract. The other three schools make people sign a 3 yr. contract and have a bank e.f.t. of $100.00 a month. If they say they want to be a 2nd dan at the end of 3 yrs. they can be.

Again, nice people. I know a few of the head instructors, they are prior military and nice guys. Would I train at any of the three schools? The answer is undeniably no.

I don't mind people making a living teaching Tae Kwon Do. Just be honest with the mindset that "It is what it is." and leave it at that.

 

[matt.m]

IMO, far too many non-professional schools use outdated , inefective teaching methods that are more of an elimination process than a building one. The instructor does less of building character, but rather she/he merely eliminates the weak ones. While this instructor may be a good martial artist, to me this is the mark of being a poor teacher.

Are you saying professional vs. non professional. How are you characterizing this? Full Time vs. Part Time instructors? Please explain how you are validating this as this seems to be a basis of your whole argument and rationalization.

I had been in athletics all my life before I went into the Marine Corps and I find that longevity in a discipline is based on heart. It was not my track or wrestling coaches job to motivate me to continue when I was not on the varsity team, it was mine. I had two choices: Try harder and continue or throw in the towel and quit the team.

I grew up around MA's, my pop is a master in hapkido. It is no different, none at all. zDom has been in Moo Sul Kwan for close to 20 yrs. He and I have seen a ton of people come and go. While I was participating in Judo and Greco for the Marines during my enlistment I knew guys that came in religiously to train with us. They knew they didn't have the aptitude or skill to compete with us and make the team. Did that stop them from coming to practice and train to make themselves better?

The answer to that is no. I do understand where you are coming from when putting the burden on the teacher to produce a quality product. I was a Sergeant in the Marines, I know all too well where you are coming from. However, the Martial Arts are each persons own journey they must take. I know people in MSK HKD and TKD that are more talented than I. I go to compete and don't miss class because I compete against me, I don't need validation from my peers and teachers. I know they know what I am capable of and I leave it at that.

At one time I was a great competitor in Judo and Greco....I have 51 gold medals to show for it. Now, I compete to show support to my organization and hang out with pals I don't get to see often.

 

[Kwan Jang]

Many (probably the majority) part-time instructors use "hand-me-down" teaching methods. In other words, they teach the way they were taught and rarely have the time or the inclination to even consider finding a better way. Like studying the actual science and art of teaching, as well as staying abreast of the latest info on meeting the differing needs of the students.

Obviously there are good instructors who do teach part time who care more about their teaching, their art, and their students more than some full time instructors. OTOH, a full time pro has the ability and resources to grow as a teacher because of the greater commitment he or she has made. I'd compare it to the fact that while you may have someone in the national guard ("weekend warriors") who has never done full-time active duty who may be a better soldier than someone who is active military. You are very unlikely to find many in the guard who are superior soldiers than those who are elite SF due to the same factors of commitment and resources.

I'm glad that you are happy with your school and the instruction you get there, but in any stretch of the imagination, do you really believe that if your instructor(s) were to give their full attention to teaching, that they wouldn't do an even better job? I guess you could argue that it might keep them fresh and away from overload or burnout, but even part-time instructors face that and have the outside factors and responsibilities weighing much more heavily as well.

Also, I'd like to make a comment in regards to your previous post regarding the quality of the other schools in the St. Louis area. You may be right about the quality of your school being higher than the local full-time schools, I don't know (more power to you and your instructors if that is the case). However, the syntax (Ex. belt level they are taught at) in which the other schools teach the forms and how your school teaches them are not any indication of which school or cirriculum is better. In fact, depending on how and why the other schools do it, this might be an argument towards the superiority of their schools and not the other way around.

It's very possible that the other schools are teaching base skills that a beginner can use effectively before they go on to traditional basics which most novices and even many more advanced students struggle with both the coordination and especially the practical application of. While I do truly value trad. basics and forms in the rare instances when they are properly taught w/ the kyusho and tuite applications, most schools use them as a time "filler" rather than use that time and energy to the students best interests (i.e. teach them things they can really use and apply).

Finally I would like to address one other point that you brought up. I define being a professional martial arts educator as having a higher commitment AND resposibility towards the students than merely competent coaching. There is a mutual responsibility between the student and the instructor for the students growth. They have to do their end to, but in part, any failure of them reaching their potential is a failure of mine as well. This is why (even over and above the economic/business end of it) I use contracts with my students. If I am going to invest so much of my time, energy, and even a bit of my being into their growh and progress, I demand form them a level of commitment that they aren't going to quit the first time training gets "too hard" or it becomes inconvenient. I'm always up front about everything and if they aren't willing to make a commitment, then let them go somewhere else.

I am glad that you and others have had the successes that you have and gained as much as you have simply from competent coaching, but what about all those others that you "have seen come and go" over the years? How many of them could have reached so much more of their potential if (no offense) they had a better teacher and not just a good coach?

 

[Fuzzy Foot]

Interesting, and many good points. Do you have to sacrifice quality for quantity? There are always those who will. Does professional mean that MA is your primary living. It could but not necessarily. Or does professional equate with the amount of time you teach/train. That's probably not right either. As with many things it depends on the individual and situation and yes we must all pay the bills and live within the budget (this is where many drop the ball). This thread reminds me of a statement made by an ayeurvedic (medical practice of India) doctor when asked why he treats people for free. His answer: I have enough (he was poor by our standards and obviously lived simply), why should I do anything for money, I am content. I don't rely on MA for a living so it's easier for me to say these things, but this is exactly why I'm considering teaching for free where my only obligation will be to myself, the art, and the student.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

professional is about attitude.

if you treat your teaching like it's your job: you take it seriously, work hard at it, constantly look for ways to do it better, then you're professional. if you maintain professional standards and professional ethics, then you're professional.

if you go about it half-assed, never planning your lessons and letting things and people fall through the cracks, then you're not professional.

it's easier to be professional if it's your full-time job: you have fewer distractions and more time to do it right. not that there aren't many solid part-time programs out there...

 

[Grenadier]

There are many ways to look at it.

Some will see that doing martial arts for a living means that you are dependent on it for money, and that it gets corrupted.

Others, including myself, believe that if you really enjoy doing the martial arts, and want to do it full time, why not make some money doing it? As long as you're still teaching good martial arts, there's really nothing wrong with coming out ahead in terms of finances.

 

[matt.m]

Many (probably the majority) part-time instructors use "hand-me-down" teaching methods. In other words, they teach the way they were taught and rarely have the time or the inclination to even consider finding a better way. Like studying the actual science and art of teaching, as well as staying abreast of the latest info on meeting the differing needs of the students.

Your comment is sound, the rationalization is one that I can more or less agree with. With everything there is a pro and con.

Obviously there are good instructors who do teach part time who care more about their teaching, their art, and their students more than some full time instructors. OTOH, a full time pro has the ability and resources to grow as a teacher because of the greater commitment he or she has made. I'd compare it to the fact that while you may have someone in the national guard ("weekend warriors") who has never done full-time active duty who may be a better soldier than someone who is active military. You are very unlikely to find many in the guard who are superior soldiers than those who are elite SF due to the same factors of commitment and resources.

Again, a good point in thought that supports your first comment. You are basing the whole argument that more times than not the full time instructor who has invested more time is a better instructor.

I'm glad that you are happy with your school and the instruction you get there, but in any stretch of the imagination, do you really believe that if your instructor(s) were to give their full attention to teaching, that they wouldn't do an even better job? I guess you could argue that it might keep them fresh and away from overload or burnout, but even part-time instructors face that and have the outside factors and responsibilities weighing much more heavily as well.

I thank you for putting all points into consideration. I myself have seen "Ok, good, and great." 5 yrs in the active duty has shown me a lot.

Also, I'd like to make a comment in regards to your previous post regarding the quality of the other schools in the St. Louis area. You may be right about the quality of your school being higher than the local full-time schools, I don't know (more power to you and your instructors if that is the case). However, the syntax (Ex. belt level they are taught at) in which the other schools teach the forms and how your school teaches them are not any indication of which school or cirriculum is better. In fact, depending on how and why the other schools do it, this might be an argument towards the superiority of their schools and not the other way around.

I was merely using an example. I don't think just because a cirriculum is different that it is superior or inferior. Just different. However, what I do dislike is the fact that other students from 3 different other schools who outrank me gup wise come to my house and ask me to 'teach' them the way I learned because they say "Your school has stricter requirements on the poomse".

It's very possible that the other schools are teaching base skills that a beginner can use effectively before they go on to traditional basics which most novices and even many more advanced students struggle with both the coordination and especially the practical application of. While I do truly value trad. basics and forms in the rare instances when they are properly taught w/ the kyusho and tuite applications, most schools use them as a time "filler" rather than use that time and energy to the students best interests (i.e. teach them things they can really use and apply).

I whole heartedly agree with the comments. I myself find poomse to be one of the most important aspects of Tae Kwon Do, I am a poomse junkie. I will be the first to tell you that I am not really that good compared to others, I will say that I believe I train much harder than the majority of my peers.

Finally I would like to address one other point that you brought up. I define being a professional martial arts educator as having a higher commitment AND resposibility towards the students than merely competent coaching. There is a mutual responsibility between the student and the instructor for the students growth. They have to do their end to, but in part, any failure of them reaching their potential is a failure of mine as well. This is why (even over and above the economic/business end of it) I use contracts with my students. If I am going to invest so much of my time, energy, and even a bit of my being into their growh and progress, I demand form them a level of commitment that they aren't going to quit the first time training gets "too hard" or it becomes inconvenient. I'm always up front about everything and if they aren't willing to make a commitment, then let them go somewhere else.

I like your line of thought concerning contracts, I can tell that you aren't a black belt churning dojang. I believe finding good instructors is extremely tough indeed. However, GM Hildebrand has said "If I had to change the way late GGM Park taught me then I would quit." GM Hildebrand is one of the most detailed people I know.
My father has said that if he fears the day he fails to teach the hapkido that late GGM Park taught him.

I remember on one occassion about a half a decade ago there was a purple belt test for hapkido. Ever student failed the test. Dad said, "I failed to correctly teach you well enough to pass the test." The students who failed worked harder, with more effort on their part and passed the next go around.

I am glad that you and others have had the successes that you have and gained as much as you have simply from competent coaching, but what about all those others that you "have seen come and go" over the years? How many of them could have reached so much more of their potential if (no offense) they had a better teacher and not just a good coach?

From growing up with my father and seeing him teach since the 70's I will say beyond a shadow of a doubt that he puts the same heart into every workout every time. That is every Tuesday, Thursday and many Sunday's throughout the year for almost 30 years with unshakable conviction. Not bad for a part time instructor. GM Hildebrand is no different in mindset either. I guess Moo Sul Kwan just holds instructors to high accountability for producing excellent quality instruction.

I can honestly say that I wish I had a nickel for everyone I have known to agree to a contract and E.F.T. that worked as hard as they should and show up regularly.
I was an assistant manager at a gym for a few years....I have seen enthusiasm and heart vs. the new years resolution gang. The same argument could apply to MA.

The fact is that people have left Moo Sul Kwan for various reasons of the practitioners own will. Sometimes they wanted to, sometimes it was for medical reasons.

Whatever, let's just say that in a perfect world where nothing goes wrong that someone just becomes lazy. Is that the instructors fault, no certainly not. Is he a bad instructor because he/she has a lazy student? Certainly not.

I have very much appreciated the time you took to put your thoughts and comments on the internet medium. I have certainly enjoyed reading your post and thank you for putting careful consideration to put in a well constructed post to use for debate.

Thank you

 

[tom fox]

I have a school, but do not depend on it to make a living. I teach three nights a week. I have a day job as well..one of those postal people. Also am retired CW2 Army..I think it would alos depend on the size of the town and how many other schools teach in that area to even think of making any money.