Erick Mead wrote:
His problem is in assuming that all people start the problem from the same position or with the same relative impediments to learning.
Having seen Dan work with myself and others, I'm pretty sure that "simply is not the case".
There is admittedly strong self-selection ( Dan has said this) from both sides in your choices of training. So, this is not proof of anything. You and the others feel the need to seek what Dan feels prepared to offer and he offers it it to those who feel the need. A circular argument.
Not that you are wrong in your observation of what works for you all (and evidently for Dan). Your observation is just not complete nor inconsistent with mine. You have all sought out what you believe or feel will work for you and thus is presumably true to your natures if you are receiving more benefit from it than from other training you may have experienced.
That does not mean that it is true for all, the great majority, or even a sizeable plurality. It is not grounds for expanding the premise of a training model drawn from (largely) unconscious preferences as a model for everyone, even when personally verified, because your experience may not be representative. Of course, the same is true for the advocates of waza and kokyu undo instruction or other variant forms.
The differences is in the adaptability of the approaches to instruction. The cliff-climbers can generally make the hike -- while the reverse is rarely true. And the cliff climbers may take some vertical pitches from trail leg to trail leg and short-cut the well-trod paths here and there. Note however: they may miss important and informative perspectives of the peak and the upper trails that come in view only from certain specific positions on the trail, and which, if skipped over they may never see.