Critical analysis starts with consideration of an author's biases. Ken
Hutchins is heavily biased toward Nautilus/HIT  - unto being a
fundamentalist.

He advocates rotary resistance. Jones' rotary resistance claimed to provide
every minutely changing resistance through arc of movement to optimize
effect. Sadly, he ignored varying leverages brought about by bone length,
muscle insertion points, etc. In short, one size has never fit all except in
Nautilus marketing claims.

Hutchins, as if par for the course with HITtites, leaves out transverse or
rotational movements, plyos, speed work, all the things adapted in
successful coaching to produce all around athletic training while lessening
injuries due to partial training of limited parts of the body. Cf JC
Santana's book on program design or Vern Gambetta on Athletic Development.


"Were Jones' ideas perfect?  No.  Here is what is, to me, the single  
best criticism (revision) of his ideas: http://www.sszrc.com/articles/ 
guild/es23c.html"