Tom,
What is wrong with the philosophy of presenting 18 challenging holes? He seems to be arguing for the type of course many of us here enjoy...more of a match-play philosophy where medal score is superfluous to exciting, risk-rewarding holes.
Certainly Crump pulled that off well, no? And if Fowler, or at least his interpretation of Fowler, was one of his inspirations for that approach, more power to him.
I cannot for the life of me see why you'd object to my point that Crump and his followers were enamored with the approach outlined by Fowler that every hole of a championship course should be a strong one? Are you saying Fowler was joking?
Further, if you can readily accept that Great Britain produced its own "Amateur Sportsman" architects, e.g. Fowler, Colt, Mackenzie, none of whom was a particularly world-class player, in response to the lackluster courses being designed by the "pros" at the time, then why do you deny the same phenomenon occurred in the US? Or is it only the Philadelphia architects you seem to have issue with?