Tight-Agressive Outdated?

While reading an interview with Daniel Negreanu I was suprised by his evaluation of playing styles today.

"Negreanu clearly revels in his wild-card reputation, but he says there is a definite method to his madness. He believes it's becoming increasingly difficult to win with a traditional tight-agressive style, in which you wait for big hands and play them forcefully. As a result he enters more pots than anyone at poker's highest levels. While most players get involved in at most two or three hands out of 10, Negreanu doesn't mind playing five or six.
"It's the correct strategy" he says. "In the old days, there was this myth that you have to play tight and only play certain hands. Poker has evolved. The mathematics behind what everybody thought was correct-the 'book play' is absolutely not correct anymore [because there are so many less experienced and often reckless players coming to poker]. It's way too conservative. The way the game was played in 1980, if somebody raised and then there was a reraise, that meant a premium hand. Slansky even wrote that you should lay down pocket Jacks in that situation. Well, the way the game is played now, the first raise could be 10-8 suited and the next raise Ace-8."

I'm very intrigued by this statement. Negraneau's results consinstently show winning results in today's large pools of players. However, I assume his cash game stlye (high stakes) is much more conservative.

Is this the way to play optimum tournament and middle limit Poker for 2005?

(Interview if excerpted from 'Aces and Kings' by Michael Kaplan and Brad Reagan)