I imagine that the primary reason he was not critisized was tha he was not contentious. As he said he was a traditional guy and his experience in BJJ affirmed and informed his previous practice. As a person who has also had the same type of epiphanies I think I understand what he is saying and I'm sure some others do to.
In hindsight the use of the word innovative was not a good choice. It would be more accurate to say that he he was open to new experience. It was novel, or new to him but he never presented it as innovation.
To see similarities in different experiences is not dilusional.
When my wife and I lived in Chicago we commuted together by train. To kill time we played a game called "Celebrity Train". The goal of the game was to find other commuters that looked like celebrities. The only way you could get a point was if the other person playing agreed that the person looked like the celebrity you named. It might be "Bono" or "Abe Vagoda" or 'Merideth Viera"
it really doesnt matter. The point is I might think a person looked like "Bobby MacFerron" if my wife did not agree that the commuter looked like Bobby MacFerron so she would not give me the point. On one commute we could have argued a point for a lomg time (we both like to win) but our agruement was cut short when the gentleman introduced himself to us and it was "Bobby MacFerron".
If you ask her today she will still tell you it was not him and she thinks I'm crazy. It is easier for me to admit I'm crazy than it is for my wife to admit she was not right.