Tom:
I'm 60 so I was born in 1944. I was never particularly interested in golf until I was about 35 but it was pretty hard to miss if one was a member of my family. Golf was my father's entire life in one way or another and the fact that he belonged to about 10 pretty interesting golf clubs up and down the east coast and never gave up one of them until he was really old gave me pretty good insight into what clubs and golf was all about. If I was to tell you who he knew in golf and knew well you'd be amazed. To me it didn't mean much when I was young because I didn't know any different but it certainly did give me a good insight into the way things were back then and throughout. How much of an insight I realize more of every day. And in the last twenty years I too have been pretty heavily involved in golf and golf administration of one kind or another and through that, particularly looking back now, it's pretty amazing who all one gets to know that way. Golf in some sense, in that community is pretty small and pretty tight.
I'm sorry to change the subject on you (to the A&C Movement) but I did it because I feel it's an excellent analogy to the statements and conclusion you made on here about how easy it was some decades ago to play any course if you were a member of any club in America. That is simply not the case no matter you pointing to examples of your Dad or Pond and Merrill. Those are just isolated examples that I certainly agree were true then as others like them are true today. It's all basically just a matter of who one knew back then as it is who one knows today. But you just can't accurately use isolated examples like that to conclude what you have on this thread about the way it was back then vs today enough to make the statement you did. You can make that statement, of course, but it simply isn't true or historically accurate or representative.
And I feel the same way about your conclusions regarding the impact or significance on golf architecture of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement. The A&C movement certainly did exist, and is a sense it certainly was far-flung and regional and it was a very interesting movement indeed in all kinds of ways. It's just that it never had the kind of impact on golf architecture to the extent that a man like Hutchinson could even remotely accurately be called or considered the Father of Golf Architecture or that the Golden Age should accurately be called or considered "Arts and Crafts" architecture.
These are two conclusions you made in your otherwise very interesting essays on the subject of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement. I liked your five part essay very much---it's just that those two conclusions you made are not even remotely accurate, in my opinion, and I don't think they should be in the opinion of others either.
I've only tried to point that out on here. You, like Rich, can continue to call me hysterical or one who constantly changes the subject or whatever else you want to say about me for bringing these things up but what you should do is attempt to defend your conclusions in the face of questions and evidence contrary to your conclusions and that you really aren't doing---not the least reason for which---you can't. Ultimately, those two conclusions about the A&C movement and your conclusion about golf reciprocity some decades ago just aren't historically supportable and it's just not possible to make them so.
Of course, you also know I felt you (and certainly Paul Turner) were attempting to make or imply some historically inaccurate conclusions about Crump and his glorification which thereby inaccurately maximized his part in the creation of PV and minimized Colt's part in the creation of PVGC, but thankfully in your very good article on the life of George Crump you appeared to give up that point and conclusion to a large extent--and perhaps the reason you did has something to do with the dialogue and discussion about the subject on this website that preceded the writing and releasing of your article. And that I was glad to see because I believe your final product is a far more accurate depiction of the truth of the creation of PVGC---although thankfully that was not exactly the point of your article on George Crump.