A complaint oft heard is that if the ONLY sparring that is done is "point" or "tournament" sparring, or is watered down with numerous rules such as no contact or light contact, no punching to the head, no catching, trips, throws, take downs, joint locks, grappling, hits to the back, legs, below the belt, etc… and the techniques encouraged are kicks, jump kicks, and spins, then this is bad.
This is total rubbish and is obviously taking a pot-shot at all of Taekwondo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tournament sparring, some of which may be continuous and some may be point. This complaint is often heard from martial artists who believe that martial arts should be all about self-defense. For these styles, notably Taekwondo, it would be nice now and then to break from the norm and have self-defense-oriented sparring. But the absense of it does not mark poor instruction, let alone a McDojo. Some of the best schools will do nothing but tournament sparring.
If your definition of martial arts insists on forms (kata or poomsae) then you will be disappointed by this statement. But I say, get real. There is nothing wrong with tournament style sparring, it's just different than other styles. It is not a reflection on cheap contract-oriented money grubbing instructors. It is true that tournament style sparring should not be used for self-defense (and the converse is equally true, that self-defense sparring should not be used for tournament), but that is a style that the school teaches, and if the student does not like it, they can go somewhere else.
Do not be alarmed because the school teaches tournament self-defense.
I hope I've made my point.
Having said that, the diatribe that continues on about take-downs, joint locks, grapples, light or no contact, no punching to the head, yada yada yada. The reason these complaints are made is because the complainer is not able to distinguish the difference between street fighting (self-defense) and tournament sparring. In tournament sparring, the rules vary. For example, no punches to the head. No kicks below the belt. No takedowns. If these are the tournament rules, then the school should be practicing with these rules in mind. I suppose the complainer may capitulate and agree, but then point out why doesn't the school play to other tournament rules.
My answer is that it doesn't matter. If all else with the school is fine, and the only complaint is about whether their sparring style includes light contact or no takedowns, then fine. If that's your only complaint, so be it. But this does not mean it's a McDojo.
I will say, however, that no contact is only a small step up from no sparring at all. I believe that a school should at least have light contact, particularly for the less experienced. For these folks - children and adults - they need to work on technique, which is best done with light contact. When full contact is exclusively used with inexperience, then students do not get the opportunity to practice their correct technique. It is appropriate for a school to provide no- AND light-contact for inexperienced students, just as much as light- AND full-contact drills be used for the more experienced students. But if there is no sparring, or only light contact for experienced students, then the students are not getting the best training.
Is there anything wrong with a McDojo?
I hear the term all the time, a label given to a martial art school. According to an unsourced Wikipedia article, it is: "...a pejorative term used by some Western martial artists to describe a martial arts school where image or profit is of a higher importance than technical standards, and in the related use of martial arts franchising."
Yet, a simple perusal of the internet yields blog upon blog of folks further defining what is a McDojo. Typically, they relate to belt factories, contracts, payment structures, and even style.
Martial arts chains are often targets, like Tiger Schulman's and Eagle Martial Arts. Also, organizations (and schools that are part of the organization) are targets, notably American Taekwondo Association and World Taekwondo Federation. Also, schools that teach children are also targets. And schools that charge fees. And schools located in strip malls.
It seems like every school is a target. Indeed, that's becoming more and more common. But just because a school possesses one out of many poor or questionable qualities, it doesn't mean that it is a McDojo.
I prefer a more practical definition of McDojo. The prefix "Mc" suggests a connotation with McDonald's Restaurants. What is relevant is that McDonalds is a chain (it franchises), its goal is to hand out food as fast as possible, with special drivethrough lanes for even speedier service, to accomodate children (see Happy Meals), at a very cheap price ($1 burgers) although one notes that even in the midst of a huge sale, one still pays the same prices regardless (upsell one product, but make more expensive the other products - like sodas and fries).
Wow. We can probably relate to a few martial arts schools who possess qualities of a McDonald's Restaurant, yes? Like the drive through, the schools have clubs for those wanting their black belts. Like the restaurant franchise, some are chains. Like the restaurant's attention to children, the schools have Little Tigers, Little Ninjas, pee-wees, Tiny Dragons, etc. Like the cheap burger-but-pay-through-the-nose-soda-and-fries, schools have cheap monthly or introductory rates, but the equipment, tests, seminars, weapons, and tournaments are very expensive - or at least, they add up.
I think Wikipedia sums it up too much, and the definition seems too sanitized and abbreviated. Had the term "Westernized Dojo" been used instead of "McDojo", I think Wikipedia's definition may fit the bill. But that isn't a catchy name, and so I think "McDojo" (and related terms like "McDojoism") has sprung into everyday usage.
The problem is now everyone who has something negative to say about a school, labels every such school a McDojo. If the school is in a strip mall (aren't many McDonald's?), then it's a McDojo. If the instructor is just a kid with a black belt (haven't you met some newly promoted cocky Fries Manager kid on some power trip?) then it must be a McDojo. If it has birthday parties and kid programs (haven't you seen a climbing pen at most McDonald's?) then it must be a McDojo. If the school is handing out black belts based on tenure, rather than merit (haven't you ever heard the blase phrase, "Who's next...") then it must be a McDojo.
And all of this, as if McDonalds is the epitome of evil? What did McDonald's ever do to you? You WANT McDonalds. You NEED McDonalds. Ever been on a long drive with kids in the back? Fastest thing to shut them up is a quickie trip to McDonald's. Been late to work, and need a coffee? There's a drive-thru with 1 miles of your current location, guaranteed. Need to break a $20? Go buy yourself a $1 burger, get $19 in change.
Alright, let's leave McDonald's alone. And let's leave some of the evil martial arts schools alone, while we're at it. Or not. Should we be weary of McDojos?
Let's see what people are grousing about, and is it enough to make the school a McDojo. And even if it is, is it something to be avoided?
Note that many of the complaints are directed at an organization called "American Taekwondo Assocation", or ATA. The ATA is an organization who started their own flavor of Taekwondo. What they do is market their style, and schools buy a franchise from them. If a school likes their ideals, they buy the marketing stuff, and then uses it to recruit new students.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment