Anthony,
But, it does show INTENT.
It shows how the architect conceived it, how the architect envisioned it, how he INTENDED the hole to be, from a structural perspective and from the perspective of playability.
You bring up two significant issues.
How was it built ?
How was it maintained ?
If it WAS built as drawn, then the question would be, HOW was it maintained ? It's obvious how Banks wanted it to be maintained ...... as putting surface.
But, we all know that clubs don't adhere to architectural intent when it comes to maintainance.
If it was built as drawn, and subsequently modified, like the 12th at GCGC, there has to be a story behind its reconfiguration.
If it wasn't built as drawn, the question would be, WHY NOT ?
The answer to that may be in some archives somewhere, or, the answer may never be known.
But, you can't refute Banks's INTENT.
He clearly intended # 12 at Hackensack to be a true Biarritz.