mathewjgano

For me it all comes down to the above. There is no issue of complacent teachers when the student realizes his/her training is always in his/her hands.
There are great teachers, bad teachers, and everything in between. It's up to the student to make their training as good as they want it to be. In a nut-shell, as a student knowing little or nothing, you start somewhere (based on an educated guess we hope) and proceed from there, learning as you go.
I agree Tomiki's system is very well laid out. My brief experience with it left a very good impression, both in terms of effectiveness and "softness," though somehow that doesn't feel exactly like the right word. Certainly not unpleasant though. I had a blast doing it!
The randori system does keep things pretty honest in terms of effectiveness and makes a clear distinction between form and function, which I think is key to making training "alive."
All in all, shodokan translated well with my previous training, which was very ki-based. I believe most of my practical learning (the more martial bits), what little I could absorb, came about through the ability to play around a bit, to fly solo a while, but coupled with clear teaching about what to do with your body in a given movement.
Then again..."horse to water" and sometimes he drinks...it's up to the student/individual to decided where his or her training starts and stops. It's up to those who want their art to maintain effectiveness to make their art effective by teaching and learning how to do so to the best of their abilities.