Identifying McDojos

I'm going to answer those the other way round (yeah I know, I wrote them that way in the first place... oh well).

Why should you avoid McDojos?

• From a martial viewpoint, the 'fighting' style is normally watered down right from the start, making it impractical for any use - this includes strength, stretching, everything.
• The focus of the instructors is to make as much money from students as possible, as quickly as possible. Their focus is NOT on making you a better martial artist/practitioner.
• They are DANGEROUS. To YOU. They give their students confidence in skills they do not have (combat or otherwise), and the results should they try and use their "skills" in a fight will be extremely detrimental to their wellbeing.
• The worst ones become a pyramid style franchise scheme. Training the students how to run their own McDojo school (for a percentage fee back to their instructor) instead of teaching them martial arts.

Unfortunately McDojos tend to be quite friendly and energetic, making them hard to quit. This is especially true for children who will be their main focus for new students (n.b. all schools will be after new students of all ages, but McDojos will generally put on a bigger facade for new children joining. Reason being that if you can get the child hooked it makes it hard for the parent to pull them out of class, that school now has a regularly over-paying student until the child is old enough to have adult responsibilities - university or a real adult job & bills).

Why would someone run a McDojo?

Most of the time, just a way to make money. Right from the first intention of opening a school. They do not care about you outside of that construct. They will 'help' you and befriend you to make sure you feel obligated to stay and continue to pay fees, and even obligated to help them make more money. Sounds sociopathic doesn't it? There's a reason for that.

Other times they can be a product of having learnt at a McDojo. They just don't know better and haven't applied any critical, objective thinking to what they are doing.

Lastly there are the people who started with a genuine school, but have slowly devolved to a McDojo. It could be from external influences (other schools, financial issues, marital influence to make more money), or it could be from becoming jaded and disillusioned from the continual turnover that all schools experience, the feeling of only treading water with their overall students skill due to the cycle of students joining and leaving.

• Forms over substance

You practice forms/drills without any indication on how they are used, and no time given to pressure test your training with a resistive partner.

• Any tests of applications only use a compliant partner

If you are practicing a form or drill you want to know it works. Even performance based martial arts have a grounding, a foundation in combat and that should be understood and appreciated. Otherwise, find a dance or a performing arts school.

The school has passed the litmus test and given structure and time to work on applications, but if your partner is always instructed to:

• Only throw a straight punch
• Out of range
• And leave the straight arm hanging in mid-air
• Especially if while that arm is hanging in mid-air you are then expected to chain multiple counters in succession. Without them moving.

Techniques will generally go through 'staged' application setups, but as your understanding and use of the technique improves, you and your partner should be instructed by your instructor to increase their resistance to the technique and increase the realism of the situation.

All of this is not to say any technique will work in all scenarios given a starting point, but there should be a realistic situation where you can still use any technique that you've been taught and someone throwing a punch and then just leaving their arm out is not in any way realistic.

• No sparring

Some schools will have a lighter focus on sparring than others. That is fine. Others will build up sparring, going from very controlled & set drills, to light contact freestyle and then full contact depending on your skill level and experience. That is also fine as it trains you to only use the skills being taught instead of brawling and then trying to remove the extraneous 'stuff'. Other systems will go straight into full contact sparring. Guess what. As long it's done in a safe manner and both parties are learning from then that's fine as well.

No sparring at all is a substantial warning sign. It indicates the system is not pressure tested and has no interest in the 'martial' aspect of their martial art. You may as well be learning dance routines.

• The style itself is 'a unique blend', 'created from the years/decades of learning other martial arts', 'divined by'... or conversely 'ancient', 'original', 'true'

Martial arts evolve, adapt, get (hopefully) better. New martial arts are created all the time, blending a number of styles with the personal experience of this new creator. That is life, and fine.

It is not for beginners. A lot of 'new' martial arts can be boiled down to:

• A practitioner who has flitted from style to style, picking up lots of basics, glimpsing the more intermediate and advanced methods, and decided they know enough to start their own style
• A practitioner who has deigned that they are too good for their style, see too many flaws and so quit to create their own style to 'correct' it. This often happens well before the practitioner reaches the higher levels of any style
• A practitioner who has been kicked out of a style and so starts a competing one out of spite
• A practitioner who has genuinely studied, to a high level, multiple martial arts, under multiple high level, highly regarded instructors. Who has conferred with their peers regarding their insights and determined with help how a custom blend of styles and methods best suits THEM.

That last option doesn't happen often. The most famous example is Bruce Lee creating Jeet Kune Do from his Wing Chun base, and taking inspiration from Western boxing and many other styles. It was also initially for his own training, to improve his own skills. The point of its creation was not to teach others, it just happened to go that way.

So where does that leave us? All the other options - including those not listed here - are born of ego and lack of understanding. That limits the skill that these 'new' styles can teach.

This is different type of yellow flag as it's more to do with the skill, but it does show either a lack of self-awareness, or a severe lack of patience, neither of which are going to bode well for a school or its students.

What about 'old' 'ancient' and 'original' styles? As mentioned, martial arts evolve. Even the new modern martial arts are not the same as they were 20 years ago. Either the instructor is blinded by their fealty to the style and does not question, or they are purposefully using marketing gimmicks to get new students. If it's the former then it's not as bad, but still worth keeping an eye on. If it's the later then actively check around to see what other marketing and sales tactics may be in use.

• All equipment can only be ordered through the school

Yes, the school will probably want a standard training uniform. Most uniforms are generic enough that you should be able to order them, or parts of them, yourself.

Instructors do tend to get a discount at martial arts shops, and may (should) pass that onto students when ordering protective gear, weapons etc., so it may be the norm to order everything through the school, but it should still be possible to order anything that is not school-branded yourself should you choose to do so.

• Everything is branded and/or an advertisement

Your training uniform should not be a walking billboard. Something to identify your school (logo, maybe school name) and something to denote rank is normal, but having a website address, school address, email, phone # etc. goes way out of spec for a training uniform. And it forces everything to be purchased through the instructor at whatever markup they deem appropriate for them.

Public performance 'uniforms' may include a contact method on it. That's fine, just as long as it is provided to you for free. Paying your instructor to advertise their school has already been listed as a red flag here, this is a more low key version.

• High level students are 'strongly encouraged' to start their own schools

Pyramid/franchise scheme. Run.

Some students will love teaching newer students and may genuinely want to start their own school, but they are never the majority in a real school and this should not be pushed or be laid out as the normal training path for students.

• The instructor rarely teaches in person, leaving the bulk of lessons to senior students

You are paying for an instructor, not a study-buddy.

The instructor should be leading the class and directly involved in teaching. Senior students can be involved, and may *help* by taking small groups or giving specific help to a newer student, but this should be in conjunction with the instructor teach the rest of the class and not for the instructor to go on facebook or worse.

There may be times when senior students take classes. Family emergency, illness, holidays, one off seminars and the like (instructors need both breaks from work and to continue their own learning, just as you do), and that is a more than acceptable way to keep the classes running instead of having to shut the school down at no notice. This should not make up any noticable percentage of the lessons though.

• The is an 'exclusive' part of the school membership, that either requires an additional upfront payment or has a different lesson fee structure

This is another example of trying to extort more money from people who will feel they have invested too much time and money in the school to quit. Or a way to make you feel 'special' by including you in an (expensive) 'advanced members only' class.

Schools will generally have different classes for higher level students. That is normal. What is not normal is charging more for it.

• Strong emphasis on board breaking

"Boards don't hit back"

Board breaking is a good crowd-pleaser for public demos (less so for martial demos), but it is mainly there to encourage you to follow through on your strikes and kicks. Once you can do that there is little need for lots of time to be spent on board breaking.

• 'Knife defence techniques' are taught without pressure testing

Everything should be pressure tested anyway, but knife defence techniques have some of the worst reputations within the martial arts community.

Does the attacker 'have' to attack in a specific way? Overhead? Do they just leave the knife arm out there? That's not how knife attacks work, either from untrained/drunk people, or those with genuine knife combat training.

The first advice should ALWAYS be "run". This is true whenever weapons are involved, and should be very high on the list for unarmed self defence as well. If this is not the case then at the very least the school is not performing pressure tests or quality control on their techniques.

• Knife attack analysis - a summary of knife attack statistics and real scenarios to show just how quick and surprising a knife attack is likely to be

Pressure testing with rubber knives and the attacker allowed a free-style attack is a good start to showing the technique is good. Being told that 'you will be cut and stabbed even with the technique' is even more honest.

If you really want to prove a technique (and this requires a little preparation), wear a white t-shirt and have your attacked partner run the 'live' edge and the tip of the rubber knife in red paint. Their objective is to get as much red on you as possible, in as many vital areas as possible. How well does the school's technique work in this scenario?

• Competition and tournaments are forbidden

They may not be advertised, or the norm for the school, but if a student wishes to take part in a competition the instructor should be able to help them achieve that goal.

"Too deadly for competitions" is bullsh!t. Full contact competitions will have rules, and your specific training may have to adapt to those, but it should never be a banned topic.

• Doing stuff that’s “correct” is seen as more important than doing stuff that actually works.

Things that work should be more important than things that look pretty in performances. Unless the school is a performance school, then you put your focus on looking fabulous! I'm being completely serious, no insult intended at all. Some styles do focus on what is effectively acrobatic stagework with a martial flair, and if you are aware that is the focus of the style and you enjoy it, then brilliant.

Additionally there shouldn't be anything taught 'just because'. Whether it's tradition, or how the instructor learnt, or a 'that's how we do it here'. Everything should have a demonstrable reason that survives pressure testing or has an unquestionable link to pressure tested techniques.

• No Cross-training allowed

Instructors should recognise the limitation of their style. It's not great at kicks, or ground work, or throws. Whatever. It WILL have weak areas, and cross training is a good way to counter that.

That's not to say that the instructors should cross train themselves, or that the instructors must encourage cross-training, but it should not be banned or frowned upon.

• Other schools/styles are talked down

First off, this isn't a polite thing to do, regardless of any previous history between the instructors or schools.

If talks regarding other schools happen then it should be objective and not just focussed on the weaknesses in their style and why this school is so much better.

Likewise backhanded compliments about other schools, instructors, or practitioners should be a large warning sign.

All of these are indicators that the school is more interested in creating a cult of personality around itself than demonstrating an honest image of the school's capabilities.

• The demonstration team is all children

If adults either aren't welcome, or are substantially lacking in the school's demo team (if it has one), that is a cause for concern.

Children performing are great for having an 'aww' factor and immediately subconsciously drop the expected skill level of the demonstration.

Yes the school will probably want *some* children in its demo team (to show that the style is friendly/suitable for children), but not exclusively.

• The demonstration team is expected to do free performances, or do every performance.

Not saying that free performances don't happen. They should however be completely voluntary, to the point that they can be cancelled with no backlash to the students should they not be available, or just not want to do that performance.

Traditionally instructors would not take part in performances, and definitely would not take money themselves from it. Performances were for students to earn additional money (so the students had a chance to go to pay for and go to more lessons for a while, but even that was voluntary).

• Nobody fails a grading. Or everyone fails their first attempt

If grading is a rubber stamp then walk away. It means the grading has no real meaning behind it and there is no quality control over the techniques. The school is essentially the equivalent of a 'pay to win' game.

If everyone fails a grading - usually the mid to later gradings - that is a sign that the instructor can regularly get two grading fees from his/her student base once they are sufficiently invested in the school.

Some school do have systems in place to lower the chance of failure (such as mock tests), but these should either be a part of the class or provided at a vastly reduces rate.

• Gradings cost a large amount with NO transparency as to why

Gradings are going to cost, but the cost should be justifiable for what is being tested. If you are being told it's £100 for a ten minute demonstration, with no other information given, then start asking questions. That's paying the instructors officiating the test a combined £600 per hour, which is rather exorbitant if there's only a one or two of them.

Work out the hourly rate per officiator for the grading. The school should be able to give a definite price, at least an approximate duration, and state how many officiators are required - on that, can they justify the number of officiators? Gradings generally don't need more than one or two people to look over them. Maybe a third if the school offers multiple styles and has a distinct 'head of school'.

Reasons for costs may include:

• Hall hire (if the school does not have its own full time venue)
• Time for individual feedback and assistance (if this feedback is given as part of a group and more general, then it should be done during a standard class). This cost would be at approximately the rate for private tuition.
• 'Free' uniform, belt or weapon progression. Is the cost of the next belt or training equipment built into the grading cost?

If the cost cannot be explained by the instructors, or is presented as 'paying respect' to the school, founder, grand-master etc. then take a serious look into other schools and how they grade.

If a standard grading requires substantial travel, or costs several hundred/thousand pounds/dollars, or is justified as expecting you to open your own school to make some of the money back then this becomes a RED flag. You are being charged to grade purely because the instructors can charge that high rate.

A 'final grading' may cost more than the standard ones. If this is the case ask for the reasoning.

• The instructor(s)' martial history is 'secret' or otherwise hidden

Are they open with who they trained under, where they trained, when they trained? Or is it evasive 'traditional/numerous masters in China/Japan'? Are there gaps in the instructors tuition? Or do you just not get an answer - 'I'll tell you later'. Do the answers and timelines change?

The instructor should be honest about their training, even if some of it is embarrassing to them (training under a fraud for a few years, or taking a year off martial arts completely breaking their 'continuous experience chain' for example).

You should be able to look up your instructors previous teachers, the schools they learnt at. Most places have got a web presence these days, and even if the old schools have shut down odds are they have been mentioned online and have a record of their existence. Just be careful not to go full stalker.

• Award winning...

Who gave the award? What was if for? Is it still relevant? A number of awards can be won just by being the only one to apply for it, or writing your own review for the local paper.

• The 'Street'

The infamous 'Street'. Techniques will only work here. Other schools/systems techniques won't work here. It's something to fear. It's something to own.

It should never really be referenced. At best it's too ambiguous, at worst it's scaremongering.

There is a difference between fighting one person and several. There is a difference between fighting a trained, self-taught, untrained, and drunk person. There is a difference between fighting in an alleyway and in a big open area. Nothing wrong with distinguishing which techniques are better for any given scenario, but the scenario must have details.

No details, no repeatable evidence, therefore no usable techniques or information. Also, if that scenario involves you being jumped, from behind, by a group of trained men (armed or not) then... you lose. Instantly. No amount of training or conditioning will save you.