Yes that was the case, so clearly its not 100% reliable, but for longer term modest risk and rewards its not too bad of a choice.
Using the same concept but for intermediate (typically 10 year duration) between 1962 and 2008 for 46% average stock exposure you would have achieved 0.26% less annualised than buy and hold and got there with a lot less volatility (risk). And made a gain of 1% in 2008, when stocks were down something like -30% to -40% (or more).
Worse year since 1962 was a -11.3% loss. 8.7% annualised versus 8.97% for large co. stocks.
As with any fat tail minimisation you ideally hunt out individual riskier components for the speculative side as you want zig zag action to capture rebalance benefits. Substitute Small Cap Value for large company as was used in the above table/chart and the annualised rises to 9.87% and would have put it equal with stocks at the start of 2008. Avoiding the large down in 2008/9 would have meant being 40% or 50% relatively ahead so to speak. Partaking in less of the subsequent 2009/10 rebound might be seen as just all-stock catching back up again rather than the blend approach missing out.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
