As for Yale, are you qualified to speak knowledgeably on MacDonald's contribution to the hole, as opposed to Raynor's. They were two different people, you know. Also, are you qualified to speak to any change of heart MacDonald might have had over the decades. Or were the gears of his mind permanently stuck on his first utterance, confusing the concepts of consistency and correctness . . . like you?
I'm not so sure that CBM wasn't one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" guys. I"m not prepared to view his writings in the context of the absolute. I"m intimately familiar with the berm behind the 3rd green and how balls react to it.
Are You ?
No offense meant, but I'll take what he says over what you do . . .
As for the berm behind the 3rd green, I am familiar enought with it to know that it is probably possible to maintain the grass on it higher than is currently maintained.
Since you've never layed eyes on Lido, I'd say you're entirely unqualified to be considered an expert on the hole and its features.
Not so. I never said I was an expert, just qualifiied to analyze. And I have laid eyes on it. In photographs.
How do you know, from what angle the photo was taken ?
Could it be from the front of the green, the side of the green, which side, the back of the green ? Could the materials piled in the foreground and backround be for use elsewhere ?
Could they be greensmix ?
Yes, they could be a nice uniform pile of greensmix, laid out in a semicircle around the green, a very significant pile of greensmix which MacKenzie himself chose to highlight in his article on the Lido.
As for the angle, you might want to take a look at the excavation going on in the foreground, especially on the right side of the foreground. Either they are burying bodies for the Mob or they are digging out bunkers. Coincidentally, there are bunkers depicted in front of and at the right front corner of the Lido Alps in the photos. Hmmm . . .
You don't know enough about the photo or the content of the photo to offer an expert opinion.
To the contrary, I just did. One need not be an "expert" to interpret a photograph.
If you'll look more carefully, on page 168, you'll see no elevation changes behind the green, yet, on that same page on the 4th green, you'll see the elevation lines, just as you do on the 3rd tee.
Not surprisingly, you are focusing on the wrong page. Page 172 shows a berm, relationally in the same place as the photograph shows the berm. You as a potentially rational human being, should be able to see this.
_________________
But let's step back and weigh the evidence.
On my side, we have: Prestwick; MacDonald's description of the strategic merits of the berm behind the Alps green at Prestwick; A similar man-made berm behind the Alps green designed by MacDonald at NGLA; A photo chosen my MacDonald to depict his Alps green at Lide with a semicircular berm behind the green and with bunkers in front to give the proper line of perspective; and a detailed relief map of the lido which shows a berm corresponding to the one in the photo.
On your side you have the alps at yale, designed by Raynor a decade and one-half later.