Profit v. authenticity in MA

I have moved to a new town and am looking for a dojo in a new style. I have noticed a real tension in MA in general between "authenticity" and profit. By authenticity, I don't mean to imply that what is taught is worthless. Someone teaching BS and turning a profit is a McDojo. But what about someone teaching what appears to be a valuable art, but who engages in some of the practices that tend to be associated with McDojos (like different colored uniforms as you advance in rank, a "black belt club", contracts for specific lengths of time, etc.)? I have found two schools I am interested in-one is very traditional, small, low cost, few classes with 3-5 people in them. The other is larger, classes as big as 20, more expensive but a more flexible training schedule. In the first, the master does all the teaching. In the second, a lot of classes are taught by senior students.

My solution is to train for a while in each school before making a commitment, but I am curious how others see this tradeoff. I am not talking about the truly worthless school, but about good MA taught differently. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

The trade off is between giving people what they want vs. giving people what they need. Consumers don't like hearing people tell them what they need and they're used to 'the customer is always right'.

A traditional school will remind you that a dojo is not a buisness, students are not customers, and 'the door is right over there'.

People who's main occupation is teaching martial arts are faced with the problem of retaining students because if there are no students the instructor doesn't eat. This is a huge conflict of interest which I've never seen navigated well.

 

If it was me (and I could afford it) I'd put maybe a month into each class, and see which teaching method I felt I got the most out of. I won't name names out of respect but there's a class I used to go to that charges a fair bit of money for their classes, only some of which are taught by the main guy, because they have classes all over the place, and even when he teaches, it's very "I demonstrate, then hand out praise and sparse critique."

The plus side of this is I got a chance to play around a lot with how to adapt if things didn't go my way, and if I called the teacher over to explain something, they could quite ably, and I did learn some stuff from there, but while it was fun, I wasn't learning enough, I felt, for what I was paying.

Then there's another class I went to, not far from the other, that was a lot cheaper, even if it did have fewer classes per week, there were never more than five or six people in the room when it was busy, everything had to be done "Just so", techniques had to be done "correctly", there was no room for playing around until later grades. But I learned a lot about proper positioning and leverage, and there was a lot more positive critique going, and I think I improved a fair bit for going there. However, it wasn't really fun.

So yeah, I'd try each class and see how each balances out. It could be that you get what you pay for, or may not be, but both approaches have their pros and cons. More people to practice on = potentially better technique, but fewer people in the class = more attention from the teacher and potentially better technique.

 

Hatamoto's post above is excellent and well worth considering.

Each model may have some pros and cons. A smaller school should have better student:teacher ratio and shouldn't be comproised due to "making money". A larger school that is profit driven may be able to have more instructors (diversity id s good), better hours, and better facilities. Regardless, I'd try both and go with the one that the teaching style and atmosphere better fit me... that's more imprtant in the long haul.

 

It is true that at the end of the day the answer is always, 'Try them all, pick the best.'

 

These are the sorts of schools people dream about and yet fear to run into. Such a teacher/school will hold a person accountable for actually making the commitment to train and not just dabble-about for a while. MA as a way of life is not an easy Path and more than a few people like to represent that is what they do (whether or not this is true) because the very thought of living such a life is so extraordinary that just the aura of such a statement leaves people in awe.

MA was never intended to be "hobby", "a pass-time" or an occupation. To make it so commonly lessens the quality of the art.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Nice post!

 

I have been at a school where "We can find a lot acceptable just because". I have also been at a school where students have been held back just because as well.

It all comes down to ethics, morals and principles doesn't it.

 

I personally believe that is's unhealthy to make martial arts a 'way of life', I've known people who practice that. It seems to create a strange elitist mentality where pain, stoicism, and eastern martial arts sub-cultures are revered.

I think martial arts can be a hobby, a profession or a short term pursuit fulfilling a short term desire. If a person attends a class for a short time or is a tentative beginner they shouldn't be pressured into staying or feeling a 'failure' because the activity isn't for them.

I think people need to chill out when it comes to their evaluation of the importance of martial arts. Reading, writing and basic math are far more important than martial arts for a flourising life, so is eating healthy and moderate exercise.

Like Bobbe Edmunds pointed out, how many martial artists revere their school teachers as much as they do their martial arts lineage? :dunno:

 

If we still had the "thank this post" button, I'd be giving you a click!

 

I think that Matt Thornton had it right when he said that if people placed more emphasis on performance then the martial arts world would be alot healthier.

The most successful and enduring combat sports gyms are one's that have a reputation for being effective in producing high quality practitioners (even one's that cater to recreational athletes).

Most people don't wanna learn how to kick ass they just want a hobby, enjoyment, kudos or exercise... Those 'mcdojos' cater to that IMO. Someone interested in primarily in performance will probably be found down at the £5 a week boxing/judo club, or any local combat sports gym.

It would be nice though if there were more places that taught combat sports but weren't catering primarily to active competitors or athletes... maybe that's why I wanna do BJJ?.. Some combat sports gyms I trained at would have the unpleasent characteristic of subtly pressuring the less coordinated or 'serious' people out of the gym.

It's a funny old world in martial arts.

 

There is no formula to finding a decent martial arts school. The one thing you must consider is the skill and knowledge (two different aspects) of the instructor. He or she will be good/bad regardless of where they teach or how much they charge.

The best instructor I ever trained with insisted on contracts, branded equipment and he charged the highest fees. His school was top notch. But his skill and knowledge justified these things. Likewise, I know poor instructors who teach in their garage because they are so crap that their low student enrolments won't sustain regular classes at a public venue e.g. a leisure centre.

It's impossible - and unfair - to see a school that uses contracts or charges high fees and call it a Mcdojo. It might turn out to be the best school you ever joined.

 

If I understand you right, I disagree with this post. While you are right that for most of us MA is a hobby and not a way of life because we are not professional soldiers, I think that it is different from most other hobbies. I also like to hike, and would call that a hobby. Hiking has not changed the way I think and am in the same way that MA training has. You go for a hike, you come back and you clean the house or make dinner. Maybe you feel calmer or tired, but years of hiking doesn't change your powers of observation, your reflexes, or your attitude. For me, at least, years of MA training have changed all those things. I am more confident, more observant, and coordinated than I was and (I believe) than I would have been without the MA training. I do not revere my instructors as higher forms of life. Much like my teachers in other areas, I respect them and appreciate their passing on of their knowledge. I show that respect by calling them sensei and sitting quietly in seiza when they are teaching. That is the appropriate way to show respect in context. Just like I show respect to my university professors by calling them Dr. X and sitting quietly in a seat and taking notes when they lecture. It is about context.

 

I disagree aswell if MA is what makes you happy why not pursue it to the fullest. The people who have made MA their proffesion are likely to have done it around the clock before it was their proffesion aswell. Define a flourishing life ? Since what you consider a flourishing life can be the complete opposite of what others believe it to be. If someone is happy just living in a cabin in the woods doing MA 24/7 that might be his idea of a flourishing life, who are you to judge that it isnt ?

 

Which is fine. For me (and, I think, a lot of others on this site), MA is that thing. To each his or her own.

And I agree. That kind of reverence for anybody is unhealthy. People are fallible. I take from my teachers (in any context) those things I feel are valuable and leave those that I don't. But I do so in a respectful way. If I am in a class and somebody shows something I think is bunk, I try to do it to the best of my ability. I may ask a respectful question, but I will not announce that I don't think what they are doing is valuable. I signed up for their class and I will treat them with respect in that context. If I don't like what they teach, I know how to find the door.

I also disagree with your example (bowing to a photo of Ueshiba or the founder of any style). As I said in my last post, it has to be seen in context. Aikido comes from the Japanese cultural tradition where a bow is the appropriate way of showing respect. Within an Aikido dojo that is appropriate. If I insisted that everybody who walked into my office bowed to a photo of the founder of the university, that would be culturally inappropriate. It is all about context. I take the tales of Ueshiba's mystical powers (dodging bullets etc.) with a grain of salt. I do not worship the founder of the school or art, but I respect the information I am gaining from him and show that respect in a culturally appropriate way.

 

If I wasn't such a MA and stretching nut I'd be walking with a cane right now, let alone impersonating roadkill within 3 months of a total hip replacement. 20+ years of training almost every day taught me the dedication needed to fully recover.

 

Regarding the idolisation of Ueshiba. John Stevens wrote a biography which included the kiai that could knock you down and tales of Ueshiba throwing without contact.

Kisshomaru Ueshiba and a number of the highest graded shihan went so far as to have articles written in Aiki Journal to refute such statements as nonsense.

It is common in most Japanese martial arts that respect is a fundamental principle..BUT it must be gained and it must be mutual or it has no relevance.