It seems to be directed at a very specific audience, and it contains errors.
By that article, Arthur Saxon was not strong. By that article, no gymnast, especially those using rings, is strong. The goals of bodybuilders and powerlifters are mixed freely and the strength which is valued is what is testable with a one rep max in the gym. The bench press is given an exception, and pullups are not, despite pullups using more muscles (in terms of mass and muscle groups) than the bench press.
The statement about swings and squats is in error too...Ross did not deadlift, and was challenged, and he did this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95D7lj-A6tA No deadlifting, yet, an easy 405 lb deadlift. He does swings and other work, none of which would contribute to strength according to the article.
And this:
"
All other aspects of performance depend on strength – this is why athletes take steroids. There are no "balance steroids" and no "agility steroids" and no "endurance steroids" and no "core steroids.""
That is true, but anabolic steroids (very important to mention that detail) are in fact one type of Performance Enhancing Drug, and there are drugs and other chemical help for endurance. Erythropoietin is a hormone as well. And there are other drugs taken for assistance with balance and agility. Equestrian and air pistol competitors have been caught doping and it did not involve anabolic steroids. For equestrians, it is for the horse usually though.
So, in short, that article seems written for more than usual misguided bodybuilders and only for them. Yes, they would do well to work on heavy barbell work with the basics and forget all the nonsense. But for the rest of the population, strength is not just in the gym in a particular lift.