I've always thought of training (or anything in life) that there are a million differant paths, and it's just which one you follow. And some are trail blazers, and some aren't.
To me it seems Parelli shows you the mountian he's climbed, then tells you how. Every handhold, every step, to follow the exact path. And if you want that, excellent. He seems very good at it. But I am one who likes to go over and see the funny tree just off the edge of the path. :wink:
Hempfling I think allows that. He simply says, "That's the mountian I've climbed. My trail is somewhere are over there." And I really like that, because I can go look at the trees and get lost, and come back, and by the time I get to the top, it's Ok that I'm far from his trail. I like to study those who show you the mountain, not the trail.
I read resently on a book review that the trainer had a lot philosophy and 'cranial work' but no practicle exercises. I think they are one and the same. You can teach a person which button to push, or door to open, but isn't it more interesting to teach them why the button works and how the door opens? And once they know that, they understand on their own how to do things. But I know most people hav no intrest in that way of thinking, and that is probably better, I tend to learn slower because I always have to learn the 'why' before the 'how'.
My mom has made fun of me for this forever. In school I refused to learn math the way it is taught (the easy, intelligent way) and so I made up a whole math system in my deranged little head to play with, based on 5's and 10's.
So Hempfling suits me well, but I can see how he would not suit other people, because he teaches a lot of 'why' and not much 'how'.