Herbert C. Brown did not believe that it was necessary to invoke a new type of bonding in stable intermediates to explain the interesting reactivity of the 2-norbornyl cation. Criticizing many chemists for disregarding past explanations of reactivity, Brown argued that all of the aforementioned information about the 2-norbornyl cation could be explained using simple steric effects present in the norbornyl system. Given that an alternative explanation using a rapidly equilibrating pair of ions for describing the 2-norbornyl cation was valid, he saw no need to invoke a stable, non-classical depiction of bonding. Invoking stable non-classical ions was becoming commonplace; Brown felt that this was not only unwarranted but also counterproductive for the field of chemistry as a whole. Indeed, many papers reporting stable non-classical ions were later retracted for being unrealistic or incorrect. After publishing this controversial view in 1962, Brown began a quest to find experimental evidence incompatible with the delocalized picture of bonding in the 2-norbornyl cation.
Brown also worked to prove the instability of a delocalized electronic structure for the 2-norbornyl cation. If the non-classical ion could be proven to be higher in energy than the corresponding classical ion pair, the non-classical ion would only be seen as a transition state between the two asymmetric cations. Though he did not rule out the possibility of a delocalized transition state Brown continued to reject the proposed reflectional symmetry of the 2-norbornyl cation, even late in his career.