Bryan,
Take a close look at this photo.
Pay particular attention to the extreme left portion of the green at the top of the swalel
See how the green line curves and continues down the slope of the swale.
Is that not evidence of the swale being mowed to green.
Anthony,
You can cite all of the writings, especially the pre-opening writings you want, the physical fact is that there's a charcoal layer throughout that entire green. A Charcoal layer that is ONLY found within the putting surfaces at Yale. That's irrefutable.
The writings, in newspapers and elsewhere are not hard, concrete evidence, only hearsay.
And, most of them are merely parroting what someone else wrote.
The Charcoal layer can't be dismissed.
It's physical existance is irrefutable
It's an integral element in the design and construction of the green/green profile and it's inserted prior to the application of the 12 inches of green's mix.
That's a premeditated act, not an amendatory act.
So, you can show me all of the writings you choose, they can't overcome the physical evidence.
The charcoal layer is the smoking gun, equivalent to a ballistics match in a murder case, whereas, in that same case, you have a named and many unnamed sources claiming what was intended before it actually happened.
So, I have the "as-built" evidence and you have pre-construction opinions.
Added to my premise is the caption under the photo of # 9 green, stating that the front tier and swale are part of the putting surface.
Why do you dismiss that article but embrace pre-construction articles
You don't know if CMB/SR decided before or during construction to add that charcoal layer.
I know one thing, that Charcoal layer is in that entire putting surface.
And, I know, that to dig up the swale and front tier, excavate to 12 inches, insert a one inch charcoal layer, then replace the excavated green's mix, and either replace the sod or reseed would be an enormous undertaking, yet, there's no record of that undertaking, in writing or vis a vis hearsay.
I'm willing to listen to substantive evidence, but, not to wishful thinking.
You, Bill and Bryan DON'T want there to have been a green there from the get go.
You all have a self serving bias, despite your biases being different..
You have all drawn your conclusions, Wilson sailed in 1910 and won't or don't want to accept evidence to the contrary.
Whereas, I'd be happy to consider physical evidence to the contrary.