I feel that there are many issues which must be discerned to the question of whether PNH is good, bad or indifferent:
1. Marketing hype question (btw, "revolutionary" was not referring to horsemanship in the quote, it was referring to the heart & mind of the student - a revolution in the heart & mind.)
2. Whether dvd's/written material are workable for every student, sans a real live instructor being there with the student.
They HAVE worked for thousands of students, happily, for their horses, many of whom were facing an uncertain future prior to PNH. This is FACT, which must be acknowledged. It's not to say that some other program properly applied would've done as well, but all of the programs that those horses HAD BEEN put through HADN'T worked (whether independent "trainers" or big-name clinicians).
3. Whether some certified PNH instructors were given certification unjustifiably, thus giving PNH a bad rep.
4. Whether the program is too costly.
5. Whether the PP's cover up their horsemanship errors with smoke & mirrors (Catwalk, Barney, etc.)
6. Whether the PP's cover up their husbandry errors with smoke & mirrors (Westfall's fatal accident while not being ridden, rumor of their watering program causing deaths of two-three horses who were last to get to the water each time because low in hierarchy, Remmer being allowed to get overweight & develop hoof problems, their star horses disappearing from the headlines, their horses being retired too early, etc.)
7. Whether the PP's exaggerate about their success with horses, (others trained them prior to PP's, but the story is that the horses were killers & all success is due to the PP's, e.g.)
8. Whether their students have a cultic devotion to PNH, leading to protection of them rather than honest answers, etc.
9. Whether the HORSEMANSHIP (it's in there somewhere ;) is truly solid, ALL the way through, including from the point that Linda started assuming authority to bring her own "epiphanies" to the table for inclusion into the official program.
10. Whether Pat has allowed Linda to do the above, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS ERRED in her directives, & allowed these errors into the program, for the sake of the marriage or whatever reason. Case in point: Level 2, "sit heavily on your horse in back-up". Pat HAD to have known that this was false, yet it's in Level 2. Several years went by before Linda slid in a correction on that, in a Savvy Club dvd.
10. Whether such corrections have been handled appropriately (how many missed the SC dvd correction & are still sitting heavily to back?)
11. Whether other instructors whom they bring on board (latest is bio-mechanical "expert" Colleen Kelly) are themselves qualified.
And so on. :)