On fundamental vs. technical analysis

My first post is dedicated to introduce my opinion on the topic.
I have been following a discussion on the Financial Times about this for the last couple of weeks (The long run by John Authers).
During the last century the stock exchange has, on average, been going up most of the time. No matter the type of analysis you used: technical, fundamental, full moons or “sell in May and go away” type of behavior, you probably made some profits investing in stocks long enough. Does it mean all of them are correct? For sure not! It is a matter of being at the correct place in the correct century.
For knowing what analysis is better you should be able to compare results: do fundamental investors do better or worse than technical ones on average? I think it is very difficult to test since you never know if investors use “pure technical analysis” or "pure fundamental analysis”. Moreover, histories of success and failures exist for both types of investors. As a PhD student in Economics it is really difficult to me to think that technical analysis is something else that being lucky of having born in the 20th century. Nevertheless, I am a "poor" Ph.D. student criticizing investment procedures of successful analysts, and that does not make sense either.
You have the last word.