The author of this article had no qualms in stressing the aspects he disliked about Dungeons & Dragons and he explains what he did trying to "fix" them.
I find it odd that Mr. Holt did not eschew D&D entirely, rather than trying to fix it, but we must take into account that it was 1977, and Runequest was published only one year later. (I'm speaking about Runequest because it seems to me it would have been be the most appropriate choice for him, given the content of the article, particularly his rumblings about combat).
He is not gibbering silly things. He is right when he says there are many aspects of D&D which are unrealistic, and he must have thought a lot and made a lot of effort adding his personal mechanics.
Moreover, he didn't lambast D&D in this article, his tone doesn't sound aggressive, nor is he believing (at least to me) to be able to sway others through arguments- in order to choose a different RPG- he is just trying to ameliorate the game he is playing.
Anyway, to the chagrin of those who blindly love D&D i offer this very old article, which shows something anyone in the hobby is already aware of- namely, that many tried to tweak D&D rules from the very beginning, finding them unsatisfactory.
Interesting, it is a pity we cannot see the cards he is talking about
He goes on with the magic system- Some nice ideas here...
And the third problem: the "party effect":
I don't agree with the players playing as monsters during combat.
"The experience system gives greater benefit...." that's true.
"Some monsters'properties differ widely from those in folklore and fiction.." This may be true, this problem was "fixed" by subsequent rpg's in the history of the hobby.