Talk:McDojo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDojo article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Show me a true Dojo!

Never knew about the McDojo, Belt Factory, Bullshido, etc., Thanks, but lets be real, America is all about business and how can it squeeze every single cent from you, me, and every middle class citizen in our beloved country.

So, if not ATA than who? Lee's Academy of Jujitsu? Lu's School of Karate? Grandmaster Law's Aikido Academy? The list goes on. It's pretty much the same with any other Dojo (or McDojo). No one ever does anything for the love of it anymore. It's all about the money. When was the last time you did your job for free and felt good about it???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.242.192.28 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you trolling, or is this a serious question? Characterizing an entire country and every one of its residents as "all about business" is patently ridiculous. There are many people still teaching solid martial arts for the love of the art. Some of them have a large enough student-base that they are able to do it as a career. The fact that they've turned their passion into a business does not change the fact that it's still a passion of theirs, and does not in itself degrade the quality of their instruction. Others are not making a penny doing it, and many of them have no desire to make any money doing it. I can think of multiple examples of both types of teachers, along with a number of people who fit into a third category of those who want to be able to make money teaching their art, but, being unwilling to sacrifice the integrity of their art to do so, have not yet become established enough to turn a profit.
Having said that, I firmly believe that the people teaching good martial arts with "pure" motivations are in the minority these days, but I don't believe that is true just in the United States. —Erik Harris 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a troll to me. Either that, or someone who got burned and is a little bitter. Let's remember that even in The Good Old Days When All Was As It Should Be, martial artists had to pay for food and maintenance of the dojo. I have no problem with a teacher making a reasonable living from zir art, and I think that to ask for things to be otherwise is unrealistic.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


The martial arts school I used to be enrolled in taught pure martial arts, as well as chi (mind and body) exercises. We never called our main guy "master", simply by his first name. At every level of testing (and you had to EARN your tests, not simply wait a given period of time...for instance a white to yellow belt test could take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years depending on how hard the student was working...and no one simply "got" a black belt...it was actually a status symbol...a great achievement, rather than a benchmark of how much someone paid), every black belt was present to grade and score the testee. Unfortunately, it went completely bankrupt as it was extremely cheaply-priced, and offered free classes (if you payed for one class you could join them all, essentially), as well as private help on technique and form (or if you just wanted to work out) at the student's leisure. It just depresses me how a true school like mine, that did so much great things for me (I learned mental focus, strict discipline, punctuality, how to relax, and a great deal of common sense...not to mention the 50+ pounds I lost, then turned into muscle ;)...and an extreme level of flexibility (I could almost do the splits!), had to be terminated due to not being a money-mongering business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias 01 (talk • contribs) –

A lot of schools in PA (where I am familiar) qualify as McDojo in my mind; the school I attend insists on discipline. The idea that true schools are not financially feasible is nonsense; yes, there will be many who flock to the easier schools. I know several people who came to the school I attended and left after their free class because it was "too hard". But my instructor (a WTF sixth Dan) is never hurting for students. When you show up for class, you can bet you will work-out, including cardio, stretching, forms and sparring.

It also depends on the business sense of the operator: my instructor owns his building, and presently uses this as secondary income (he is an engineer by day). His dojang is opened 4 nights a week, and while his monthly fee is more than the area competition, his promotion fee is $45, dramatically less than the others. --CharliePATpk 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


"So, if not ATA than who?" One of the students at my studio moved right after he got his black belt. There were no studios of our style where he moved so he went to an ATA studio. Long story short, he moved back and according to him it qualified as a "McDojang".

We did a demonstration at the YMCA recently and there were ATA people there demonstrating as well. Their black belts were way below average compared to our studio. I would say that studio qualifies as a "McDojang". (The average time it takes someone to make black belt at that studio is 6 months!) Quietmartialartist 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Given that the karate page is really, really, large, I think we should split the stuff from McDojo into the McDojo article. We can leave a short blurb, and say see McDojoRogueNinja 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly notable about Karate McDojoism as seen in that article that anything more than a brief mention of particulars and a reference to the McDojo would be necessary. --Scb steve 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Most if not all that info is already present, don't see the need, any specific bits you would add? --Nate 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Not espically, this page is fairly comprehensive. I am removing most of the section from karate, and removing the merge tags

[edit] Love The Article!

It's about damn time someone wrote this article, and I enjoy it immensely. I added a little polish to it, hope it is appreciated, but if not, feel free to revert or modify. Roundeyesamurai 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adjective?

The opening section mentions the use of "McDojo" as an adjective. Can anyone cite any notable examples of this? I've heard the term tossed around countless times over the last ~15 years in discussions on-line, and I can't recall any predominant use of the term as an adjective (notwithstanding people who have terrible writing skills and misuse words in general, of course). I'd like to give someone an option to reference this before I delete the sentence. —Erik Harris 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Simularly, I wonder, does this word actually exist? McDojo, I mean. I mean, it's a useful word but does it exist or did someone just make it up to describe and lump together the concepts in this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.217.63 (talk • contribs)

What determines whether a word exists or not? All words are "just made up," and how commonly they're used/understood generally determines their "legitimacy." You probably won't find it in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, but it's been in common use among martial artists for quite some time—at least a decade and a half, and probably longer. I've heard the term for as long as I've been involved in on-line discussions of martial arts (early 1990's), and it was probably in common use before that. —Erik Harris 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dojo/Dojang as Business

I think this article has gone a bit over the top -- contracts and belt test fees, as well as making branded items (tee shirts, sweat shirts, etc.) available to students are merely good business practices. The simple fact is, if you want a reliable school that will last over many years, then that school needs to pay for: rent, supplies, utilities, insurance, and salaries for instructors. From that perspective, using contracts to establish a reliable income stream, as well as charging for belt tests, simply ensures that the school will be able to keeps its doors open and exist into the future. And if someone wants to commit to a practice, they should realize that it takes an "average" time of 3 years to get to black belt -- and that is just the beginning. So if I intend to commit that much of my life to something, I would prefer the school keep its doors open for the whole process -- and as such, I have no objection at all to basic business practices that will ensure that it will do so.

I suggest that what makes a Dojo/Dojang a "Mc-" relates more to the storefront operation with the dodgy instructors who have a suspect background, questionable affiliations and accreditation, with "special sauce" secret instruction. As with anything else, caveat emptor. SunSw0rd 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not unreasonable to offer a contract option (perhaps with a reduced rate, like many other long-term contracts), but to require it is a bit dodgy.
No one's saying there shouldn't be fees for belt tests, but McDojos tend to charge ridiculous ones, and throw in a little "belt inflation" by creating a veritable rainbow of belts.
If you think parts of the article are unreasonable, go ahead and tweak it. We'll have a good debate, and will probably end up with a better article. It's the Wikipedia Way! ;)
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
   Evidence is not proof. In my experience and those of many other experienced martial artists (i.e. this is POV and does not belong in the article itself), there tends to be a pretty strong correlation between the commercialization of martial arts schools and poor instruction quality. There are plenty of good commercialized schools, poor noncommercial schools, and good noncommercial schools that have survived for decades without the practices you suggest are necessary. "McDojo" is primarily about the commoditization of martial arts training that generally leads to lower quality (historically, most Asian martial arts work on a model more similar to either apprenticeship or military training than commodity/service). There are many indicators (evidence) that a school may be a McDojo and/or a poor school, but there are also good schools that exhibit some of those indicators to some degree. Plus, as Septegram pointed out, the more extreme McDojos hike these fees to the point where they're ridiculous, and if it weren't for the fact that people (amazingly) voluntarily pay them, might be considered extortion. McDojos aren't (nearly) limited to those that charge "extortionate" rates, though. Many schools charge more "reasonable" rates and are still McDojos. The key point is in the opening sentence, where it states that a McDojo is a "school where image or profit is of a higher importance than technical standards" (emphasis added). The "Examples of McDojo practices" are common indicators that are often common among McDojos. That doesn't mean that these practices are exclusive to McDojos (not proof). Perhaps that point needs to be clarified in the article.
   McDojo operators don't need to be dishonest (i.e. plenty of McDojos are run by people who don't have "questionable affiliations and accreditation"), they simply need to be running their school in a manner that puts business first and martial arts second. An excellent martial artist can (and many do), in an attempt to make his school commercially viable, tweak his curriculum to be more palatable to the public. People don't like to sit in horse stance for five minutes at a time? Okay, we'll de-emphasize stance training--the students will have weaker foundations, but at least there will be students. Moms generally don't want their kids to learn to tear out someone's eye and fracture their spine, and are less likely to join their kids in such a school? Okay, we'll tone down or remove some of the martial applications--the art will be less "martial," but at least it'll be less likely to be abused on the playground. Competitive parents threaten to pull their kids out if they're not promoted as fast as their classmates? Okay, we'll be more lax in our testing requirements--our students won't have such high standards, but we can always correct these issues later on (unless the practice propagates up the ranks)... When this kind of thing happens, the art suffers, to whatever small or large degree, because profitability takes precedence. The person running the school may be an excellent martial artist with good intentions, making what he perceives to be very small sacrifices to keep from not being able to run the school as a business. His students, however, are only likely to get the "good intentions" portion of his teaching. —Erik Harris 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that your perception of placing profitability before standards is a false dichotomy -- they are not mutually exclusive. What I was pointing out is that a school that doesn't make money, doesn't stay open. That doesn't mean relaxing standards, and in fact if you read my initial statement, I made no mention of standards anyway. I was pointing out that a school that has a focus on earning money does not automatically make a school a McDojo/McDojang. In a commercially competitive environment cost will go hand in hand with service. There is no need to pursue the "starving (martial) artist" route. My point is the emphasis in the article on schools that are trying to make money needs to be clarified, because schools that don't try to make money (again, to cover rent, utilities, supplies, insurance, and instructor salaries) are schools that go broke and fail. The key then is -- what might be called questionable business practices -- and it would be better for the article to specify those.
For example, there is nothing wrong, IMO, for a Dojo/Dojang to offer contracts. What is wrong is trying to get new students roped into contracts. A legitimate place will offer perhaps a free sample session, then some short term deals (say a 3 day or 5 day package, than a few weeks of lessons package), then longer term, and finally for the serious students -- longer term contracts with discounts built in. Often a good school will work through a local park district and/or YMCA/YWCA as a "feeder" program, at reduced rates. Contracts are a benefit at a good school for serious students, because normally they offer a substantial discount over the "per class" rate. Contracts permit long term planning on both sides.
And of course a good school won't require longer term contracts -- they will merely offer them as an option. If the school is good, the serious students will prefer them (since contracts are typically cheaper the longer the term.) IMO, a 3 year contract should be good for a discount of perhaps 50% -- which is a very good deal for both the serious student and for the school.
Therefore I assert, that merely offering contracts does not automatically classify a school as a McDojo/McDojang. And in a broader sense, running the school as a business does not necessarily lead to cheapening or making poorer the instruction, in fact it can lead to improving it, just as happens in any other business. Consider that the more money the school has, the better quality of instruction and facilities it may have. Don't assume a business focus leads to poor quality. (Of course, of course, it can -- but it doesn't automatically follow.) So in conclusion, I want to say that McDojo/McDojangs exist of course -- but they can't be defined so simply as asserting that a business focus is bad. Clarification is needed in this article. SunSw0rd 21:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
SunSw0rd, I think you may be seeing things in the article that aren't really intended. "Profitability before standards" is not a false dichotomy. It would only be a false dichotomy if someone stated that one may have profitability or standards, but not both. That's not what's being stated here (unless I'm mistaken, in which case, do please charge ahead and fix the article). However, one of the identifying features of a McDojo is that it does indeed place profits before standards. This is not the same as having a profitable business, nor does the article say that it is, as far as I can see.
Similarly, I agree that simply offering contracts does not a McDojo make. However, requiring them very possibly does a McDojo make, especially if they include unreasonable stipulations. I think that's what the article says, and if it doesn't then you should certainly rephrase it until it is clearer.
Be Cool, and all will be well.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
SunSw0rd - I direct you to my prior post, specifically where I said "There are plenty of good commercialized schools." I am not proposing a (false) dichotomy between profitability and quality, merely a "pretty strong correlation" based on seventeen years of observation, which is somewhat tangential, as the article doesn't address my perceived correlation. As for your claim that "In a commercially competitive environment cost will go hand in hand with service," I point to my comments on the commoditization of martial arts. In a competitive market, cost will go hand in hand with what the market demands. Often, hard work and sacrifice is in much lower demand than an easily-awarded belt and a fun family activity that has the "cool factor" of also (supposedly) teaching one to defend oneself. The competitive market is often what drives well-meaning instructors to make compromises to their arts to attract the large demographic groups that wouldn't be interested in solid martial arts training. Mass-producing good martial arts training is difficult, but such compromises aren't necessary, and the ones who manage to the integrity of their arts in a commercial environment aren't running McDojos. Aside from the fact that I'm not claiming that a business focus is bad, the article does not make any such claim, either. By the way - your proposed definition of dishonest, unscrupulous teachers would more accurately fall under bullshido, the less-common slang term for fraudulent teachers without any regard to their commercial ambition or success. Anything else I'd add at this point would be redundant, as Septegram said it well (immediately above). The article addresses the case of schools that do trade profitability for quality, because that is what defines a McDojo. It doesn't say that all commercial schools are McDojos. —Erik Harris 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Well we are in agreement then -- I concur that yes, a school that responds to "what the market demands" can offer cheap and easy belts, and water down the level of effort. I think what I am objecting to in the article itself are statements like these:
  1. "A McDojo (used as a noun) is a martial arts school of any style that uses specific business practices or principles for the purpose of generating revenue for the school."
  2. "Another frequently seen McDojo practice is charging a fee per belt test or per actual advancement in rank within a particular school."
  3. "Schools may also host martial arts classes for children that generally run as an after-school activity."
Every one of these 3 statements may apply equally to a top flight high quality Dojo/Dojang. The first statement appears to condemn any business practice or principle that is focused on revenue generation, the 2nd is applicable to almost all Dojo/Dojangs, and the 3rd would imply that only McDojo/McDojangs offer classes to children. So...perhaps I'll just edit a few things out. What do you think? SunSw0rd 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
SunSw0rd, you've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that you don't need to persuade people before you fix these problems. You're right: these sections are not well-phrased. Charge!
I'd recommend rephrasing over deleting, wherever possible, but it's up to you how you edit. If people don't like your edits, you'll hear about it {grin}, they'll get edited, and we'll end up with a better encyclopedia.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indented, response to "Well we are in agreement" comment) I'd actually agree with points 2 and 3 above Those are practices frequently seen at McDojos, but they're not exclusive to McDojos. That was the very basis for my "evidence is not proof" comment, and why I expanded the intro paragraph to the Examples of McDojo practices section. #2 and #3 above are evidence that a school may be a McDojo, but are not, in themselves, proof that it is. Both are also accompanied by sentences noting that legitimate schools sometimes adopt the practices. I just deleted the sentence you mentioned in #1. It's not correct, as you point out, what it appears to be alluding to is redundant, and since I deleted the questionable "adjective" paragraph, it's unnecessary. As Septegram points out, there's no need to belabor every change you feel this (or any) article needs. Go ahead and make the changes. If someone else disagrees with the changes, they can revert them and/or start a discussion about them on the talk page. We're not the "sole keepers" of this article (if you look through its history, you'll see that I've only made a few edits, and they're all relatively minor). :) —Erik Harris 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belts

Erik's recent revision brought this piece of text to my attention:

While Japanese martial arts traditionally have ten ranks (kyu) before black belt (dan),

What are these ten? When I was studying Goju Ryu, there were three: white, green, brown. Even adding a tip color we don't get ten:

  • White
  • White with green tip
  • Green
  • Green with brown tip
  • Brown
  • Brown with black tip

is only six. Goju Ryu is a pretty traditional Karate, so I'm a bit confused by this statement.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. The statement that "Japanese martial arts traditionally have ten ranks (kyu) before black belt (dan)" is simply false -- and should probably be deleted. In the old tradition as in more than 100 or so years ago, there were no belts below black -- and before that, no belts. Apparently colored belts other than white (or perhaps white then brown) didn't appear until the 1950's. As for the number -- different legitimate branches tend to have 5, 6, 8, 10, or 11 belts between white and black (inclusive) -- that I am aware of. SunSw0rd 18:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It says 'kyu' as in grade/rank, not belt. Don't know the number but kyu grades are traditional, black belts were introduced by Jigoro Kano, other colours have happened since then. --Nate 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by the term "traditional". I think that the kyu ranking itself didn't appear until 1890. It may be argued that the true traditionalist system was that of menkyo. My point is that the kyu system was introduced by one guy (Kano), and was standardized in one place (Japan) in 1895. Korea and China didn't automatically follow suit, thus the statement doesn't necessarily apply to martial arts from those areas. And clearly, the number of kyu grades is still not standardized.
In addition the Dan grades are not standardized either. Citing Jigoro Kano again, when he was awarded the 10th Dan level by the DNBK, he responded by adding 2 more Dans to Judo -- and threated to do so again if the DNBK ever awarded him another Dan grade! Different art traditions approach this differently. In general the 10th Dan is usually awarded only to 9th Dans that have died, thus it is a posthumous award -- but of course there are exceptions.
I believe my statement stands -- today there are no absolute standards (kyu/dan), and at best the "traditional" ranking only lasted for about 100 years, and even then was not adopted the same way by all arts. SunSw0rd 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe they were not commonly used in MA but I had been under the impression that some sort of ranking was present before Kano even if he formalised & structured it --Nate 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted "belt" from that sentence because I know that traditionally, Japanese arts, like most others, didn't have colored belt ranks, making that inaccurate. I've heard people claim that a common breakdown is 10 kyu and 10 dan ranks, which, with colored belts, might translate to multiple degrees (stripes, tips, etc) of the higher pre-dan colors. I'll defer to those with a greater knowledge of JMA history. I was trying to make the sentence "less inaccurate," not knowing whether or not I was really making it more accurate at the same time. :) The section needs some other work. It had said something about some schools using "as few as five belts," which is a rather arbitrary number. I know of systems that use four, three, two, or none. I "patched" the sentence by adding "or fewer" in, but it should probably be restructured. —Erik Harris 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "...traditionally have 10 kyu/10 dan..." misconception is, ironically enough, a long-lasting legacy of the early McDojoistas! Roundeyesamurai 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cardio/Children's Classes

I have deleted this section. I do not believe that this can be considered a distinguishing characteristic of a McDojo/McDojang. First of all, it is perfectly reasonable to offer children's classes, and many proper schools do so. Secondly, making the space available for cardio classes when not doing martial arts training obviously helps defray operating overhead and thus can reduce costs for the martial arts classes. Thus this is a reasonable business practice.

For this article to be useful, I think it needs to really focus on those indicators that separate a McDojo/McDojang from proper schools. Cardio or children's classes are, IMO, not valid indicators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunSw0rd (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Again, I point back to my initial statement about evidence not being proof. It's pretty much impossible to limit the article to practices that are only common in McDojos. I'm going to restore this section, because it's pretty clearly stated that these classes are common in legitimate martial arts schools, but that McDojos often "claim it can also teach martial proficiency." I don't deny that this section could use some improvement and clarification, but outright removal is not justified, in my opinion. —Erik Harris 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black belt clubs

The recent edits to this section seem a bit suspect to me. "Properly, a non McDojo/McDojang school will limit access to a black belt club to the higher end of the color belt (non black belt) students." This seems to fall into the common McDojo/bullshido category of "holding 'secret techniques' over students' heads" (which, oddly, isn't addressed at all in this article). The concept of "indoor" (disciples, top-level, and/or possible successor) and "outdoor" (public) students is pretty common in traditional martial arts, but that doesn't become an issue until the student is pretty advanced in his training, well beyond the common "black belt" point. With all due respect to SunSw0rd, it appears that recent edits may be borne out of a POV attempt to justify one editor's school's practices - it's been made clear (over and over) that the examples of common McDojo practices are not "damning evidence" against a school, but the recent edits still seem to be going way out of their way to try to say how common McDojo practices may fit into other schools. Nearly all of the practices listed in this article may have their place in legitimate schools, depending on way too many variables to get into. There are teachers who legitimate require long-term contracts. There are teachers who legitimately separate their "run of the mill" students from their "upper echelon" students from nearly the beginning. There are teachers who legitimately have no independently-verifiable qualifications. There are teachers who have legitimately self-promoted. There are teachers who legitimately require students to get training equipment directly from them (insofar as much of it may be specifically custom to their training or traditions). However, all of these are "red flags" and would, at the very least, prompt me to more closely scrutinize a school before associating with it. Ditto for a black belt club, and ditto for an advanced-rank-only black belt club. —Erik Harris 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree (obviously) that all of these are red flags. Because, very simply, you are yourself asserting that nearly all of these practices listed in the article have their place in legitimate schools. Well then, I challenge you, to show me the red line between what is a McDojo and what is not? It is not useful to one the one hand assert that "nearly all" of these are legitimate practices, and then on the other hand assert that all of these are red flags, which is exactly what you have asserted. Because you are then asserting that legitimate practices are also red flags. How does that make sense?
I am attempting to make a clear clarification between what constitutes McDojo practices -- if we follow your statement that "nearly all" of these are on the one hand legitimate, yet on the other hand they are "all" red flags -- then the article itself is quite useless, I think. It is of value when it clearly identifies those suspect practices that separate a McDojo from a legitimate or proper school. If no such practices can be clearly identified, then the article should probably be deleted.
Perhaps you should proactively assert what you feel are not red flag practices, versus what practices are specific only to McDojos -- because otherwise we have an article that doesn't provide any information of value to permit prospective students to make any judgement at all. SunSw0rd 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not everything is so black and white as "this is good, and this is bad." The defining aspect of a McDojo is the motivation of the school's management (commercial success at the expense of martial integrity). Various actions point to that possible motivation, but there's no one to one correlation between motivation and action. Remember, one of the purposes of a McDojo is to convince students that they're learning martial arts. For that reason alone, the lines are often blurred as McDojos use/abuse practices that some legit schools use, and as some legit schools that are commercial attempt to make McDojo practices work in a legitimate setting in order to remain competitive. For one so quick to accuse this article of espousing a false dichotomy, you seem to be the same by attempting to argue that a practice can't be a warning sign that a school may be a McDojo while also being a practice that may exist in some schools that offer quality martial arts training. —Erik Harris 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there are no official standards for identifying a McDojo. However, there are guidelines. These are indicators common to, but not necessarily exclusive to, McDojos. Many schools that would not generally be classified as McDojos have adopted some of these practices to varying degrees.

This in the intro covers alot,
Grr hang bot deleted my previous edits! but was along the lines of what Joe said --Nate 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, I would argue that we should look at McDojos as being similar to what are called "degree mills" in academia. You know, the places that effectively guarantee you a college degree based on you paying for it. For degree mills, obvious red flags are:
  1. Lack of accreditation. For a martial arts school, the parallels I think are (a) lack of lineage (inability of instructor to show line of instructors back to the art "founder"), and (b) lack of membership in a major international organization that has leaders that go back to the art founder or founders. For example in Taekwondo the expectation is that the school had better be recognized by either the WTF or the ITF, or both.
  2. Granting credit upon payment for previous non accreditated experience (life experience, underwater basket weaving, etc.) that leads to the degree. For a martial arts school, that would be granting a higher level belt based on a student asserting they "had the experience somewhere else" and paying some fee to cover the cost of the belt (and lower level belts) -- e.g. "buying a belt".
  3. No correlation between proven level of experience and degree granted. Just as an accredited "real" school in academia requires serious exams at harder and harder levels, a "real" martial arts school should have harder and harder exams for higher belt levels. For example: breaking more (and/or thicker) boards, demonstrating more advanced forms and more of them, requiring longer and more rigorous tests, and so on.
Thus, we should be able to clearly distinguish McDojo practices, just as we can clearly distinguish "degree mill" practices -- that are not considered legitimate practices at serious accredited academic institutions. Perhaps we should use the academic institutions as an analogy to clarify this. Or not. But I would like to see indicators that are clearly done by McDojos and not by serious schools -- I think I have identified 3 here, and there should be more. If anyone else wants to add to the list here, perhaps we can identify 5 or more clear red flags or indicators that are not seen in proper schools but are often seen in McDojos -- so we can paint that bright red line. SunSw0rd 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
SunSw0rd, you raise good points. The problem is that without verifiable sources for these criteria, it's all original research, which is not part of Wikipedia's mission.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, this article needs sourcing. Given that McDojo is a slang term borne out of on-line discussion groups (or at least, that's where I first heard the term in the early to mid 1990's), the vast majority of hits on searches for the term are web forums and blogs, both of which have been contested as valid sources in some other articles. However, there are a number of web sources that can and should be cited, which address many of the topics covered in this article. Last night, I bookmarked a handful of them, and when I get a chance, I'll add them to the article, if someone doesn't do so beforehand. None of this is really original research, but stuff that can't be backed up by a citable source (that isn't truly common knowledge) doesn't belong regardless.
Regarding the comparison to degree mills, it's a good analogy, but analogies between academic education and martial education fall apart pretty quickly, and drawing valid parallels becomes pretty difficult, mainly because academic education is, to some degree, internationally standardized. That's not (generally) the case with martial arts, and it's widely argued (and backed up by historical efforts at martial standardization) that such standardization would destroy the arts. An opposing analogy would be in the field of art - judging who is a good artist and artistic mentor isn't at all straightforward, as is the case with martial arts. However, the martial arts to aesthetic arts analogy falls apart just as quickly for other reasons. —Erik Harris 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's number four:
  1. If an academic school guarantees a degree if you pay, they are a degree mill. Likewise if a martial arts school guarantees a black belt if you pay (e.g. $2995 and they guarantee your belt in one year) then that's definitely a McDojo.
As for original research....you make an excellent point, however -- has the existing article been vetted for verifiable sources? How much of it is original research? Really, most McDojo material out there is rather humor related -- should we be using that instead? Like -- "Your grandmaster's lineage chart includes one of the Power Rangers"? SunSw0rd
There are also schools who meet this criteria but will insist on a 3 year contract they may make you earn you belt but, the fee for proving so in a formal test will be extortionate, On linage this can be contentious, how do you prove it for self founded arts, asking on where derived form is a mine field. Also If no linage is claimed, then this can't be used, equivalents such as fight record may be used.
The essence of the point is as stated at the start, if money is more important than skill/training.
The article is possibly getting to the sage where a trans-wiki (books?) might be appropriate, it's good info but the key idea is summarise in the first few paragraphs. --Nate 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non McD contracts

This section was added & while it needs a bit of re writing & possibly integrating in oexisting bits it could be a good addition. --Nate1481 (talk • contribs 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non McDojo Contracts

The use of contracts doses not make a school a McDojos. Many martial arts schools have some sort of contract. These can provide security that the instructor isn't a nomad martial artist that will leave town in two months and may provide legal protection for injury or death that may occur during training and may be required for insurance purposes. The main difference between a with a McDojo style contract is the wording & conditions of the contract, including things such as reasonable terms for exiting the contract and not guaranteeing a grade by a certain date would make a contract fair. A schools should offer an alternative 'pay-as-you-go' option for to allow a students to asses the school. In the


[edit] POV

Let's see one of the organizations that is being labelled here is Shaolin-Do. I know that there are a lot of criticisms about the arts lineage, but let's look at the description of McDojo... the primary definition for McDojo is "describe a martial arts school where image or profit is of a higher importance than technical standards." I can only speak for the lineage that has come through the Soards, but let's examine the claims:

Frequently these people will be much younger than other instructors that hold similar or higher rank Yes, the lineage is questionable. But that is true for many schools. Most kung fu schools have an oral history for their lineage.
proliferation of such schools in virtually every community in the United States and many other nations---Guilty---but the school has been around for 35+ years. It is only natural that students have spread to other cities. The question shouldn't be "Why are there schools in different cities" but why don't other lineages have students who are loyal to their instructors/lineage?
One common McDojo practice in martial arts schools is the use of long-term contracts (6 months or longer in length) to lock students into a monthly payment---Nope--- They do not have contracts and advocate against ever studying an art that has one.
justify this type of payment plan by asserting that such plans are a greater guarantee of revenue for the school than a “pay as you go” approach---Nope---The Soards actively state that if you aren't interested in studying there, they don't want you. Yes, you can get reduced rates if you pay in advance... but their monthly rate is $50... that is SIGNIFICANTLY less than most schools. Oh, there is more, if you pay in advance, you can get a full year of study for $300. That's only $25 per month! This is 2-3 months at most schools! That sounds very profit motivated.
McDojo will often put beginners in a "black belt club" of some sort.---Nope---Doesn't happen.
after which he or she is guaranteed to receive a black belt--Nope--no guarantees made. But the school does have a different regard for black belts. Black belts are not considered to be the sign of mastery, but rather the point that students become true students. Black belts aren't considered experts, but rather beginners.
McDojos often charge much higher fees or fees that escalate with rank. Yes, they start at 40 and go up... to a $100 per stripe when you get to black belt. So testing to 2nd black will cost $200---much less than the thousands of dollars mentioned in the article. When you consider their base rate, that is nothing. A student studying with them for 3 years will pay less than $1,500---that includes special classes, weapons, training, equipment the student may buy. Doesn't sound very money centric to me.
This is frequently combined with creating additional levels of rank within a school ---Nope---They have White, Yellow, Blue, Green, and 3 ranks or Brown. 6 ranks before black belt, that is on the low end of the spectrum.
by contrast other Schools will only charge once per grading, letting students try as many times as it takes for them to pass. That sounds like the Soards school... if you fail the test, you can retake it as many times as necessary to advance.
Cardio and children's classes---Nope---The Soards teach that the art is too complex for preteens. They generally won't accept a pre-teen unless a parent signs up as well (they aren't baby sitters)---most of the schools under the Soard do not have a children or cardio programs.
training equipment from a particular manufacturer and/or must be purchased through the school itself.---Nope---The Soards will let you use any equipment. If a student can't afford to buy a weapon, they can use the schools weapons. If there aren't enough school weapons, people sometimes practice without a weapon or a stick instead of a sword. If a student quits/leaves the art, they can place their weapons on sale for consignment for free through the school.
claims of superhuman or unverifiable abilities---nope---.

Again, are the questions about its lineage? Yes. Is it too good to be true? Possibly. But other than those two factors, NONE of the money grubbing tactics fits. The topic of McDojo is a legit subject for WP, but once you start labelling different schools as such, it becomes POV and OR.Balloonman 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Err where is Shaolin-Do mentioned? --Nate1481( t/c) 08:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Seen the edits now, no style should be listed unless sourced really, see WP:V --Nate1481( t/c) 09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Where was it mentioned? here and here. I've removed it twice along with two other larger systems that are often criticized. But I agree. Individual styles/schools should not be listed here unless you can provide indisputable concrete evidence that the system is in fact a McDojo---and I sincerely doubt that you could find WP:RS that says that about any system, no system should be listed. Are the USSD and Shaolin-Do schools that generate a lot of criticism on online forums? Yes. But inclusion here is not appropriate... thus my deleting those references.Balloonman 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source. Give me a source!

The Musashi quote is much apreciated but............. source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.76 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Quietmartialartist 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto revew

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481( t/c) 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this an article?

It's not even remotely possible to pose a neutral view on the subject, and the term is basically non-existent outside insular online martial arts communities anyway. By far the most commercialized, gimmicky martial art in popular practice today is Brazilian jiu-jitsu the corresponding mixed martial arts, and they largely get a pass on this term because they fucking coined it. At best this should amount to criticism section of a larger martial arts article.

The article is anything but balanced. The article does not differentiate between schools that use belts as a money making tool and those that use them as a mere ranking system. For example, there are those "schools" that promise a black belt in two years or less. They don't have room for intermediate belts. When my son was training for his black belt, his school used intermediate belts. When students are studying for four, five or more years, it's hard to explain to a 9 year old that he will wait 2-3 years for his next belt. That's almost 1/3 of his life. My son's school did have a testing fee, which they explained was used to defray the cost of belts, and to go toward the purchase of equipment for the facility. The letters also explained that the fees were voluntary. They were also relatively low.

I remember once seeing a belt test for a low ranking class, and one student was given an orange belt with a white stripe. The instructor obviously didn't feel that she was worthy of much more than a yellow belt, and I suppose he could have sent her home with nothing and told her that she failed. Perhaps he could have refunded her fees if her parents paid them. Or perhaps he was giving her an opportunity to continue, albeit at a slower pace, with some degree of recognition. I think we are all on the same page when we say that the belt had no real meaning of rank, but there's a bigger point. A school that gives undeserved belts or undeserved ranks is a belt factory. They are selling the belts, not awarding them. Having a style of martial arts that assures that a black belt means something also means that it will take a long time between "real" belts. That's if you consider any "color" belts to be real belts.

Maybe the article should say that white and black belts are the only legitimate belts; A white belt is for those who haven't earned a black belt. Or they can begrudgingly accept brown belts. But once you say that color belts are OK, but only if they get to pick the colors, that's rather silly. As long as there are defined requirements for a given level, whether a school chooses to acknowledge in between levels of progress has nothing to do with legitimacy with respect to what it is teaching.

What makes a school illegitimate is granting a belt that is not earned or deserved, or on par with what other schools would overwhelmingly considered an acceptable level of achievement. But saying that a school is illegitimate because of what they charge? Give me a break. Incidentally, my son's school charged $300 for his black belt. The fee also included a required 96 hours of training for the test. 68.183.192.216 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While the article is far from perfect, it is stated in the lead that "Standards for a McDojo are largely opinion" and goes on to say they may be used in legitimate schools as well. The information presented is on practices that are used to profiteer in martial arts training. Essential rank/belts mean what the organisation awarding them says they mean, in BJJ it this that you have reached a certain level of competence in sparing, in the style of jujutsu I study it means that you can per form a set list of techniques to an acceptable standard. As I said before the article is simply a collection of practises that are common and may warrant closer inspection, I train at club with a monthly membership but it's optional, and cheaper than the paying per session even if you only tern up to 1/2 or the classes on offer. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
PS A completely POV rant: Giving kids shorter intervals between awards if fine but I personally think they should not be awarded a grade for turning up, if their are formal gradings then only enter them if they are up to standard alternatively, award 'tabs' or similar for regular attendance, just don't pretend they are getting better if they are not! These are my opinions, if someone wants too send a kid to an martial arts themed child care where they get a shiny new belt once a month that is up to them but charge a reasonable price and don't tell them it is teaching them how to fight. /rant --Nate1481(t/c) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)