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"