So the Japanese method doesn't work, but when the Japanese use a method that does work, it isn't "the Japanese method" because it works, and by definition the Japanese method doesn't work? This is giving me a headache.
Let me put it this way. When I think of the "Japanese method", I think of traditional budo, which consists a large number of people practising in pairs, practising a large number of waza, without a clear articulation of what the foundational principals are, and consequently leading the practitioners clueless as to what skills they are trying to gain. You then mix in the fact that most training is done under co-operation and none of there is no frame or leverage or concept of playing in non-co-operation and then going outside the dojo and practising with people who are trained to pick you apart. You then mix in the fact that since you do not have a clear articulation of what skills you are attain, you do not have a system with which you can refine your skills that can help you improve your chances against those who are trained to pick you apart. You do not have a system with which you can train intelligently. After you consider all this, then I guess you can understand why I say "the Japanese method" doesn't work. You also consider how institutionalized modern budo is, and you mix in the saving face and the egos, then you can understand why I don't think the Japanese method won't "evolve" or "adapt".