Not so much criticism but more questions of intent for power generation, such as questions about what is the goal for the power generation. For example, my view on power generation is to first develop how to hit as hard as I can and know where to hit to make it count, however, this is generally not practical in a real world because of the effort involved makes it not sustainable. Instead the next step is working to develop power within the range I call 70-80% effort. In other words, develop the knock out power in the range of 70% effort. What this generally means for sticks is knockout power with 6 to 12 inches range of motion (+ follow-through). So the majority of my power generation training is to develop at least the ability to stun with a 6 inch strike. The strikes with a larger range of motion are there only when it is safe to use them. Most of these strikes with full range of motion I view as conditioning drills more than power generation drills. They are great for power generation, but at a cost of recovery time when the target is missed. Because of the larger range of motion, it isn't always safe to use these strikes with great amounts of power. IMHO. So the criticism is mostly just questions about the details, not so much actual criticism. I see a value in developing power with specific strikes as an important first step. What comes next are the questions about diversity of the striking at different ranges and questions about the details of how this transition is made.