Of course, Vince, "your discovery" is nothing new. What remains to be determines is what is the most consistently productive form of training. Maybe that is the reason for so much confusion. Because of the body's adaptive response to stress nothing is "consistently" productive. Nothing works forever or even for very long for an experienced trainee.
Along with full range movement, Jones also advocated not only the negative portion of an exercise but the stretch portion as well. In fact, the stretch portion is impossible without negative resistance which he believed is one of the values of eccentric training and necessary for advancement. He considered the stretch portion so valuable that he advocated doing a "pre-stretch" while performing a movement. That as you lower the weight into the stretch position you actually "bounce" a bit which he believed generated a more powerful contraction similar, if not exactly, to the golgi stretch reflex.
This belief in focusing on the stretch position has been around for a while. In Larry Scott's day they called it burns. When Weider started his "lab" it was called partials. Those fellows at Ironman who site that bird wing experiment built a career on X-reps (their name for burns). I believed they were primarily responsible for putting on 3 inches on my calves.
One thing a person notices is that the way they are taught to train: strict and deliberate form, bares very little resemblance to how the pros train which seems to be just throwing weights around. When you watch Ronnie perform, say T-bar rows, you will notice that as he lowers the weight when he reaches the bottom he just throws it back up. This magnifies the resistance in the stretch portion as momentum more than muscle contraction takes it up the rest of the way.
Jason Huh seems to have instinctively or deliberately notice this relationship and just discards full range movements altogether and just concentrates on the stretch portion essentially performing partials on all his movements.