First and foremost, Lehigh is an excellent course, with a bushelful of cool shots, ok? I could play here every day and love it. But this website is supposed to be dedicated to open and frank discussion about golf course architecture...
I have reviewed the old aerial photos and the tee box has not shifted since 1955, the oldest aerial. So I highly doubt that the longest hitters could reach the green in two when the course opened. Even with no irrigation and hard packed fairway conditions, I doubt players could loft a log shot to the green. To build a green so close to the Little Lehigh River might appear cool on paper, but an architect who does so leaves future superintendents with an inevitable problem.
The fact that John Burnes went for the green in two, missed the green in two but got a free drop for an embedded ball does NOT imply good gca. To the contrary, this is a weakness in design.
I've noted the high number of divot marks in the small second shot short of the river.This landing area is now about the size of a large green. ( Ib et 98% of the players target this area, so a large divot field is inevitable. (I think there were no trees or cart paths when the hole was built
The fact that greenside bunkers can't be built due to the inevitable flooding speaks volumes from a design perspective. Why are you building a green in a flood zone? You might get away with this in the early 20th century.
Cool hole, but still connector hole in my mind.