You are right. For 1 out of three people. For 1 out of three, it is obscure, obtuse and frustrating. For 1 out of three, it is OK. So, on average, it is good for about half the folks walking around wanting to take pictures.
For half, it is incomprehensible.
It isn't that Phil is wrong, it is that his approach is wonderfully and fantastically suited to those with an analytical temperament. If somebody builds by detail and detail to a complete whole... great. But lots of folks are intuitive rather than analytical, seeing the whole, first, then working down to the details. For an intuitive photographer, BTZS is like pushing a rope, herding cats, carrying water with a fork. BTZS has made the difference for a lot of excellent photographers. It has also driven lots of folks to Digital.
Think about Bret Weston and Ansel Adams. Great photographers. Totally different approaches. Adams, step by step, like Davis. Weston ( pick a Weston, any Weston...) completely intuitive. And the BZTS system has a profound tendency to smother an intuitive approach. It's all about the temperment of the photographer.
The Vestal and Horenstein books are proven texts, taking a middle of the road approach which is successful for nearly everybody. For a foundation, they are splendid. Davis is excellent for many, as an advanced text.
.