Hi Go Heavy,
I really don't understand the recent increase in heated debates over this subject. I realize that some people prefer total body, while others prefer splits. I also realize that many people will passionately defend their choice of workout paradigm and ridicule the other paradigm.
However, I don't agree with ridiculing CW , or CT for that matter, for saying that one is "always" better than the other. If you really take the time to read through what they say, and take into account the context in which they are saying these things, you'll realize that both coaches actually agree with each other.
Waterbury's articles are about how to build the maximal overall muscle mass in the quickest most efficient way possible. They also tend to be directed towards beginners (not that more advanced trainees can't also see results from them). Therefore he recommonds using total body workouts, high frequency, and diverse exercise selections/set-rep schemes.
CT's latest article was purely about building an asethetically pleasing phsyique. And from what I gathered from it was geared more towards experienced lifters who had already built up a good base of strength/muscle.
In the article CT wrote:
"I want to make it clear that the big, basic, compound free-weight movements performed with heavy weights will always be the best overall mass-builders."
You see, so CT is actually agreeing with Waterbury. He is simply trying to say that at some point in one's training, if they want to build an aesthetic looking body, or be a bodybuilder, one will need to switch to bodypart splits (unless they are lucky enough to be someone with perfect genetics/structure as CT said). He also cites the excessive volume needed for optimal balance and development of naturally weaker body parts for a reason to switch to body part splits.
But, hey that's just my observations on the subject.