Lee Salzman

I think the case goes very much in the opposite direction, with the the analytic aspects helping you to reason why a training methodology works and to cut away unproductive training, but not very helpful in coming up with one in the first place which is more just dumb luck plus trial and error.

The training methodologies are the valuable part, and in what I've seen so far the ideas they are based on are extremely simple. What distinguishes the end result is how much work has been poured into that attribute and in what way.

It can be hard to believe that a given training method can even result in what it claims to do till you see an example of someone who, using the method, got to an awe inspiring level of bodily skill. Even after seeing examples, lots of the stuff can seem a bit silly. Were it not for getting out, seeing, and training with people who've actually achieved via whatever methods, I would have thought almost all the training I currently do is just stupid, and it still feels that way half the time anyway. And even nicer, the people don't agree at face value on what is an effective method either. So it can take a bit of ignorant stubbornness to stick with what I am doing in spite of any self-doubt, with written materials and opinions having almost no bearing on that.