I think you misunderstood my post, and that is my fault for being unclear.
Fair enough.
Let me address a few issues that may help clarify.
Cool.
I understand the importance in rank. I'm in a style that take a long time to get to black belt. I train 6-7 days a week of (what I consider) hard training. I would venture to say that Brazilian Jiu jitsu is one of the harder styles to achieve black belt in. I've been training 2008 with the same consistency and have managed to make it to brown. I still have a few years to ago for my black belt. That's fine. I don't care. I'm more interested in teaching and training than worrying about my next belt. When it's time, my instructor will promote me. I also studied taekwondo from 1994-2010. Within that timeframe I was able to get to 3rd dan black belt. It was not an easy school to be promoted in. Iv'e also studied some aikido, judo, and tai chi (seminars, classes, etc).
Okay.
I do NOT care about obtaining rank for myself in another style. I understand what the ranking system is suppose to mean and what it should represent. With your reasoning, I am just as well off to go study with Richard Van Donk since he 15th dan, but you talk about his skill being lacking (and I agree). Mark Roemke's skills are evidently lacking too though he is 14th dan. This is why I don't care if the guy is 5th dan or 15th dan.
No, that's not quite my reasoning… it gets a fair bit more complicated than that, and really comes down to exactly what you're after. The point with the ranking is that it's an indication of whether or not what you're getting is what you're looking for in the first place.
I am interested in learning Budo Taijutsu.
Ah, cool, now we're getting to it.
You have one choice, then. Bujinkan. No-one else. Who specifically within the Bujinkan is up to you, of course.
But here's a question… why Budo Taijutsu? And do you understand what it actually is, and why it's different to what you'll get in a Genbukan school?
Why don't I seek something else with tougher training requirements?
What does that have to do with anything?
The line separation threw me, but I'm assuming these are follow on questions… in which case, it's a better indication of what you'll receive from the study. A school with tighter (not tougher) training/ranking requirements will be far more specific and definite about what you're being taught, and the skill level you need to demonstrate/attain. Again, that comes down to what you're after.
How many schools of Taijutsu are there? There's Bujinkan, Genbukan, Jinenkan. Only two of those schools are within any feasible driving distance for me. That's why I asked about the schools listed.
Here's where it gets tricky… none of those are schools of "taijutsu"… although they all have taijutsu as part of what they teach. Mind you, so does Aikido. And Asayama Ichiden Ryu. And a number of other traditional systems. But, in each case, the term refers to something specific to that art/system. Within the various "Ninjutsu/X-Kan" groups, the Bujinkan teaches Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, the Genbukan teaches Genbukan Ninpo Taijutsu (not the same thing), and the Jinenkan teaches Jissen Kobudo (not referred to as "taijutsu" at all, except where the terminology is employed by specific ryu-ha). Then you have the other split-away systems, the largest being Stephen Hayes' Toshindo, schools such as the UK's BBD, our schools here in Australia, a number of Genbukan split-offs that I know of, Shinken Taijutsu, and more. And all of them are different, even though they come from a similar origin point.
As for the forms, I can hopefully tell bad technique from good by now, though I may not know about the specific sequence (or the subtleties of taijutsu). If I can't tell the difference, then whats the point of even studying? I may be learning crap, and I am too stupid to know it! Lol
It's (again) not quite that simple, though… There are plenty of discussions of the minutia of kata, and what is "correct", as well as what isn't, and, particularly in the Bujinkan, that can have quite a fair degree of variation. For instance, here are a range of performances of the first kata in one of our systems, Gyokko Ryu, called Koku. It is shown here by a number of experienced practitioners (each with decades in the art - with one exception), and you can see that there's quite a distinction between the way they're all showing the kata itself:
So… which are "good"? Which are "correct"? Are there "correct" ones that aren't "good"? Are there "good" ones that aren't "correct"? Some of these people are well-respected, some less so… but, of course, the reasons for the respect or lack is needed to be known as well. Importantly, as well, are any of these like what you're seeing in the dojo you visit? Can you tell? Often, in these arts, things can look superficially the same, but are actually quite different.
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here… honestly… but, with these arts, the simple fact that the context is so far removed from what most people expect means that the more common litmus tests don't necessarily apply… things like being able to fight aren't really that important… it might be a useful side-benefit, but it's not the point. That gets muddied by people (instructors and students) who present it as being about modern combat/fighting… it can be applied in that context, but that's not the way the systems are designed (speaking of the ryu-ha here). In other words, what is "good" in BJJ is not good in this context… same with TKD, Aikido, and so on. Oh, and for the record, I have experience in each of those as well.
