Patrick,
I've been in your shoes, and I see now why so many people have asked me why I would even bother to try and reason with someone with a total lack of scruples and mental acuity like Cirba. It it is just a waste of time. He is obviously again shilling for his buddies behind the scenes, which is fortunate in a way because they are not so dense. Unfortunately they are as least as sleazy.
A bit back Cirba quoted -quoted - one of the articles as saying that there was an "'eight foot rise'" between the bunker and green. He wasn't paraphrasing or interpreting, he put in in eight foot rise in marks to indicate that he was copying the article verbatim.
But the article says no such thing. Nothing about an "'eight foot rise'" between the bunker and tee. In fact, what the article actually indicates is that the opposite; the ground slopes as it does on the left and in back, down to the green. From the article: "Beyond the trap the ground slopes about eight feet to the green. The same slope is noted on the left side and in the rear which runs up against the back of the high mound seen at the first hole."
So according to the article the ground slopes eight feet to the green, the same slope as at the left and back.
- Was there an "eight foot rise" to the green from the high backing mound? Of course not. The ground sloped downs toward the green!
- Was there an "eight foot rise" leading up to the green from the left. Of course not! The diagram accompanying the blurb shows an arrow from the left toward the green, indicating the ground sloped down toward the green. The photos show the same.
- If the ground in front was like the ground to the back and to the left as the article claims, then there was a pronounced slope down to the green.
So as I have said, and the other articles such as the NYtimes article suggest, the green was in a bowl, sunken well below the surrounds on at least three sides, including the front.
This was in line with CBM's requirements for the hole - a blind green in a hollow with a tall bank behind, and a pronounced downslope from the fronting bunker to into the green.
When you guys talk about blindness, you keep trying to place the green on the level of the ground as it is now, when the photos and descriptions indicate that the green was sunken well below the surrounds. Where do you suppose they got the dirt for that giant rear mound anyway. Laughably, Brauer suggests they shipped it in. It seems more likely it came from the hole they dug for the green. from the hole they dug for the green.
Why do we put up with this sleaziness? The false quotes, the idiotic, self-serving interpretations, the smarminess?
(While the sleaziness of the falsely quoting the article is pure Cirba, I should mention in fairness to him that he did not come up with this ridiculous notion of the upslope between tee and green on his own. He is just parroting his mentors.)
______________________________________________
As for Mike's speculation that the road was sunken it is just that. Self-serving speculation. But again he is just parroting his mentors. I say prove it.
By the way in the photo with the steps, one can see golfers standing in the bunker and leaning forward against the front it, and looking down at the action on the green. Where is Cirba's 8 foot rise up to the green?