That's what they said about supersonic flight. As to whether or not it would be the Holy Grail, that is debatable.
There are plenty of individuals that focus their interviewing skills on the business field, the news media are full of them. None of them are considered experts on business. Warren Buffett is considered an expert on business, he didn't get there interviewing business people. Bill Gates is considered an expert on software, he didn't get there interviewing software people. Stephen Hawking is considered and expert on theoretical physics, he didn't get there interviewing physicists.
I agree with the content of Mr. Covel's book too, as far as it goes. I think a more explicit definition can be found though. My opinion is that the phrase, "long term" is relative to the chart as you state. This definition should be tested not just criticized.
OK, so if that isn't a component trend following, and this marketsurfer guy considers you an expert on it, what is your definition of trend following? I'm not being argumentative just asking a question of an "expert".
Are you saying that there is only a very narrow definition of trend trading? If so, does that mean all trend traders essentially trade in the same manner, with little or no variance allowed for individual interpretation and exploitation of trend? Since there seems to be some disagreement here on exactly what trend trading encompasses, and since you seem to be the resident expert on all things trend, then kindly define trend trading either as specifically or as generally as you think would be most useful for the purposes of this thread and discussion. Edit: Neenisti, I see you beat me to it.
The above lays out the commonly accepted basic statistical tests for trends ( non randomness). Unfortunately, trend trading fails the tests. Surf
Correllelogram? Random-walks 'trend' according to most definitions (HH/LL etc.). Depends on what your definition of is is.