Tom MacWood,
You didn't hit any nerves with Brad or myself.
That statement is your way of trying to validate your erroneous beliefs.
And, it wasn't a backlash, it was a critical analysis of your theory.
I think Brad and I were critical because your theory doesn't hold water in the real world. Espousing your theory shows a total lack of understanding with respect to the realities of restoration projects at golf/country clubs.
Let me try to address your points.
You recommended that a club seek out several individuals as the ultimate decision makers regarding the restoration of their golf course.
How much in the way of decision making power should a club grant an individual who declared that the golf course at Jasna Polana was a modern day Winged Foot ?
Perhaps one of the most misquided comparitive analyses of golf course architecture in the last 150 years.
But, you want to cede authority to this individual.
Do you understand the reality that no club will cede authority to ANY outsider ?
With respect to research, everyone agrees that it's a prudent endeavor. What you don't understand is that the information a club seeks may not exist. Then what ?
As an example, try to research HOW the right greenside bunker on # 17 at GCGC got chopped into four seperate bunkers, three sand and one grass. And this only happened within the last four years. Yet, no record of how and why it was altered exists.
What you also fail to grasp is the application of your very own theory on retaining or restoring to the "architectural high water mark". Perhaps a club feels that an alteration done after the original architect left the building is preferable to what originally existed. Then what ?
And, what if your expert felt otherwise? Then what ?
You seem to feel that there's a treasure of unlimited information available to every club when that's not the case.
The same applies to determining what is and what isn't Ross.
Sometimes that's impossible to determine. Then what ?
How do you know what is and what isn't a stylistic variation ?
Is your FIELD EYE that good ?
You labor under the false impression that voluminous documentation describing every facet of a golf course, from plans, to as builts, to modifications over the years, exists for all to view and analyze, AND, that those viewing that information will collectively come to the same conclusion.
That's where some of the reference to your ivory tower stems from.
Tom, a responsible, well informed independent press serves a valueable purpose. I also believe in sunshine laws and public scrutiny. But, you have to understand the specific nature of a club project, its genesis and ongoing life, as well as the people who support and oppose it.
Time and time again you've stated that you have no interest in club politics, yet it is club politics that will ultimately determine the architectural outcome.
As an outsider you can continue to be an idealist, which is akin to baying at the moon, or you can make an attempt to understand the dynamics of a club project, which affects what happens in the ground, and have some positive impact on what gets done on a project.
And, remember three things,
the right thing isn't always done.
You may have to compromise to get something positive done.
And, no good deed shall go unpunished.