The emphasis is because he wrote two articles: "How to become a good theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html), and "How to become a bad theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html).

Later, the advice on how to become "good" was re-designed to look better, but split the content across multiple pages (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/).

The author of the submitted website is a native speaker of Dutch, but his English looks fine to me (a native speaker of English). I think his choice of emphasis, which I didn't try to reproduce when I submitted the website here on Hacker News, makes the point that people can become mere amateurs or even cranks[1] about theoretical physics unless they prepare carefully. I have seen a few examples of theoretical physics cranks[2] over the years.

[1] I mean "crank" in the second sense shown at the Merriam-Webster dictionary site.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank

[2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-t...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misu...

I agree that use of "good" is questionable here. One would think that without the skills mentioned, one wouldn't be a theoretical physicist at all. (Is every person who lacks these skills a "bad theoretical physicist"? Only in a vacuous sense.)

That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."

I am not sure that you will become a 'good' theoretical physicist after reading those. (I have knowledge of most of the items he mentions) You will have a good overview of many mathematical tools that are used in physics but that's about it. Personally I prefer to read the stuff the 'bad' theoretical physicists write. Read Penrose or Bohm for what 'good' theoretical physicists think of existing orthodoxies and their many failings.