TEPaul,
The more I think of this the more logical disputing your position becomes.
Who designs and builds a huge mound in the middle of a green with the knowledge that you're going to subsequently remove it ?
If it was temporary, as you claim, why not build a little mound ?
Why build a monstrosity ?
Why build a mound whose removal will have a traumatic effect on the green ?
Why waste that money ?
Did Crump build other features, intended for removal, at a later date ?
Was that his modus operandi ?
It just seems so counter intuitive.
Who thinks, I'm going to build a mound in the middle of the green that's temporary, so let me build a really big one ? It doesn't make sense.
Then, you have to look at function, cause and effect.
A little mound or a tiny ridge accomplish very little on a green that's over 11,000 Sq/ft.
A small feature doesn't have the same strategic impact, and that's what Crump wanted, a pronounced feature that would affect the golfers mind, the play of the approach and recovery shot and the roll of the ball on the putting surface.
A little, or low mound or ridge would present NO impediment to any of those functions.
The more I analyze each facet, and as I collectivize that analysis, it reinforces my opinion.
While you may not share that opinion, to the degree that I do, I think I can convince you to distance yourself from your present view, and while I don't expect you to totally embrace mine, I can see you wrapping your arms around a good deal of it.
Open your mind Luke, feel the force within you !