Arts & Crafts sidetrack

[SPDB]

Tom MacWood, maybe you take as gospel everything George says about Macdonald or Raynor but we don't, and George is a good friend of ours. I've told George a couple of times that it seems like if he finds out Seth was ever within a mile of some golf course he starts to assume Seth designed it.

TEPaul - This seems like a natural bias for an author to have. Authors fall in love with their subjects, and tend to root for them because it adds depth to their discussion. Do you not sometimes find yourself doing the same thing with Flynn? I'm not saying it is a bad thing, it is perfectly natural.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,
I think you made an excellent point a while back when you suggested that, IF SH could maintain the mound in the 5th green, GCGC should be able to maintain the mounds in the
12th green.  Again, it's proof positive that these things CAN be done and adequately maintained if the will to do so is there."

Pat:

I don't recall saying that. What I do remmber saying is the fact they mowed right over that mound on the back right of the green on SH's #5 without any scalping showed me it was possible to mow green space without scalping that is a lot more contoured than I thought they could mow over.

I have no idea what the contours of those huge rolls on GCGC's #12 were like compared to that mound on SH's #5. All I know is the big rolls on #12 GCGC were a whole lot larger than the mound on #5 SH..

And I did see an old on-ground (I think) photo not long ago that clearly showed those big rolls on GCGC's #12 as a rough cut, not a putting green cut.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul - This seems like a natural bias for an author to have."

Sean:

You're right, that would certainly seem to be the case. About 2 years ago Ken Bakst cracked me up on this subject. I think I told him I was having a hard time figuring out what to say and Ken said: "Just lie like all the other authors do."  
 

"Do you not sometimes find yourself doing the same thing with Flynn? I'm not saying it is a bad thing, it is perfectly natural."

No, I do not find myself doing that with Flynn. I have a lot of respect for Flynn's architecture that's different in many ways from other architects whose styles I might admire more. If one was to ask me for my succinct description of Flynn's architecture I would say he was what I call the most interesting "transition" architect (between the older ground game style of play and the beginnings of the aerial style of play), and William Flynn also had one of the most subtle and seemingly simple approaches to architecture that was just remarkably effective in play. And other than a few holes that're obvious, Shinnecock represents that combination in spades, to me. I keep looking at it and looking at it and I've certainly played it enough and I just can't figure out exactly why it is so challenging but I know it is. I guess in a sense that right there may be greatness.

Flynn is Wayne's favorite architect, though, not mine. But there is one thing Wayne and I have always agreed on about Flynn and that is we both think he was the best router ever, and maybe by quite a bit. It seems like he could sort of look at a property or maybe a topo and just go ZAP and see it.

[DMoriarty]

How many of the berms behind CBM Alps holes--NGLA and maybe St. Louis since it opened about the time of the article (it makes no sense to discuss later CBM courses or any by SR and CB since they were not architects when Lesley wrote his article) served the purpose to protect players on a hole directly behind the green?  This was THE reason for the berm behind the 10th green at Merion.  The principle of that large unnatural berm is for safety at Merion and not for any strategic purpose.  Look how far off the green the berm is and the obvious rough in between the green and the berm.

You state authoritatively that safety was "THE reason" for the semicircular berm behind the green on No. 10, and that the berm was not there for any strategic purpose.  

You may be right.  But aside from your interpretation of the aerial, are there an facts to back up this assertion?   For example, did Wilson or Pickering or anyone else ever write that it was for safety?  Was it ever labeled a "safety berm" on any sketch or drawing.  Do the "history books" indicate that it was solely for safety?  Did Wilson create other similar safety berms in similar situations?  Is it documented that safety was a strong concern for this particular hole or for for the course in general?

Surely you must have some support for your conclusion, because there seems to be support for the other side of the argument-- that the green complex was modeled after NGLA No.3's, or Prestwick's, or both.  

If you guys are trying to say that a green with a bunker in front and a berm behind is an Alps hole because of the similarity in their green complexes, I'd say that is a stretch.

I dont know what anyone else is saying, but I am not trying to define an "alps hole."   All I am saying is that the green complex at Merion No. 10 appears to resemble that of the green complexes at MacDonald's Alp's holes in that they share two significant features:  A backing semi-circular bank and a deep fronting bunker.  

Combining these two similarities with other facts . . .
--  The Lesley reference to the hole as similar to the Alps "in principle"
--  Repeated reports by respected golf writers (and designers) that MacDonald advised and consulted on the course
--  Wilson's visit to NGLA prior to traveling overseas, and his tour of NGLA

. . . provides a strong basis for suspecting that MacDonald had a significant influence (direct or indirect) on the design at Merion, or at least the design of this particular green site.

Firstly, it fails to consider the primary feature, a hill or ridge obscuring the green.

This point goes to the question of how one ought to define an "Alps" hole, and perhaps whether Lesley should have called No. 10 an Alps hole, but it is by no means dispositive on the issue of whether the greensite was influenced by MacDonald.  

How do you know the Merion green is similar to Prestwick, NGLA and perhaps including SLCC (although it is likely in 1914 Lesley had not seen the course)?  Is there the substantial internal contouring on the right side which is so pronounced at Prestwick?  Is there as much back to front slope?  I don't think any of us really knows but it looks doubtful from the photographs.

First, Wilson could have borrowed some aspects of MacDonald's interpretation of the Alps, but not others.  Second, as you say, we don't really know.  Maybe there were similarities in the putting surfaces and maybe there weren't.  At best it is ambiguous.  
 

Does the artificial berm behind the green look anything like the one at Prestwick?  No.  Prestwick has a natural slope that is more on the left and does not resemble the berms behind the Merion green nor the NGLA green.  I don't know which Alps Lesley could be referring to.

This makes me wonder if Wilson wasnt more influenced by the copy (NGLA) than the original.  

Does the Merion green resemble the NGLA green?  It looks unlikely.  The NGLA green is far bigger and not square with rounded corners.

Even if it does not have the same shape, there are similarities of the green complex, as mentioned above.

What was the defining characteristic of an Alps hole?  It isn't the berm behind or even the sand in front although this added a lot to the difficulty.  To me it is a hill or high ridge that obscures the green from the approach.  I do not believe at all that the low level ridge in front of Merion's green would do that.  I therefore think there is only some principles that correspond to the Alps hole at Prestwick or NGLA.

This may be true, but there are still the similarities.  Also, Lesley tells us how No. 10 was similar to the Alps.  He never says there was large hill that one needed to carry.   He says the similarites are the hill behind the green, the deep bunkers in front, the need for two well-struck shots.  He particularly mentions the possibility of a long approach lodging on the side of the hill.   You can quibble with his definition of Alps, but all the similarities he points to seem to be there.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom MacWood, maybe you take as gospel everything George says about Macdonald or Raynor but we don't, and George is a good friend of ours. I've told George a couple of times that it seems like if he finds out Seth was ever within a mile of some golf course he starts to assume Seth designed it.

In George's defense, he quite definitively stated here a while ago that Raynor did NOT design the University of Minnesota course, even though many here in the Twin Cities believed that he did, because he also designed the course across the street, Midland Hills C.C.

So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[TEPaul]

"You state authoritatively that safety was "THE reason" for the semicircular berm behind the green on No. 10, and that the berm was not there for any strategic purpose.  
You may be right.  But aside from your interpretation of the aerial, are there an facts to back up this assertion?  For example, did Wilson or Pickering or anyone else ever write that it was for safety?"

Yes there are facts to back it up. In a five page article describing other things about the course Alan Wilson wrote that THE reason for the berm behind the old 10th green was for safety against hooked balls off the old #1 tee.

Next Issue?

[T_MacWood]

Tom;
No, Wayne isn't.  Wayne and others have pointed out previously that these terms were used by these men interchangeably.  

One thing which I have not seen discussed here yet is "Alps" as in reference to a hole and "Alpinization".  They appear to be two different animals.   Tillie's use of "Alpinization" appears to be different from the "Alps" hole at NGLA and Prestwick.  

You appear fixated on assigning an "Alps" designation to the original 10th at Merion using an obscure quote that may or may not be factually correct.  

Since the pictures of the hole's green complex do not bear resemblance to the 3rd at NGLA (i.e. lacking the large, blind hill a player must carry on his approach) or the original hole at Prestwick which CB Macdonald modeled the "Alps" hole afterwards, what is the point in continuing further?  

It may be correct, if photo evidence can be correctly identified, to say that Wilson used what Tillie referred to as "Alpinization" in defending the original 10th green complex.

If this is true, Wilson may have used "Alpinization" to defend the original 10th green complex, but this does not make it an Alps hole, which is what you are basing your argument on.  

I'd listen to Wayne and Tom P. pretty closely.  Merion is in their backyard.  They have a most significant amount of club history (And I don't want to get invited to a diner for the wrong reasons   )

Doug
I've not seen Alps and Alpinization used interchangably.

Wayne
I know you have been critical of Lesley knowledge, but certainly Travis, Macdonald & Tilly, of all people, knew what an Alps or Redan was. To say you or we have a better understanding of these holes today, is a stretch IMO. If Macdonald wants to use these terms loosely, are you going to tell him he is wrong? That is like telling Calder what he calls a 'stabile' is not 'stabile' but a sculpture, because you know better than he does even though he invented the art form.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

Your analogy is lost on me.  MacDonald was not the originator of Alps or Redan.  If he or anybody else is going to use these two terms than it seems reasonable that the original hole is being referenced, at least indirectly.  If the reference is accurate than the basic elements of an Alps or Redan hole should be included.  

Ciao

Sean

[wsmorrison]

"I know you have been critical of Lesley knowledge, but certainly Travis, Macdonald & Tilly, of all people, knew what an Alps or Redan was. To say you or we have a better understanding of these holes today, is a stretch IMO. If Macdonald wants to use these terms loosely, are you going to tell him he is wrong? That is like telling Calder what he calls a 'stabile' is not 'stabile' but a sculpture, because you better than he does even though he invented the art form."

I am not critical of Lesley's overall knowledge.  In fact, Tom, I restrict my critique to Lesley's understanding of Merion's 3rd, 10th and 17th holes.  Call the bunker complex on 4 a Principal's Nose if you like.  It was briefly a complex of three bunkers in the line of play before it was removed sometime prior to 1924.  But on the other holes and their features, I do not find enough commonalities between the original hole designs at Merion and the originals in the UK or at NGLA for that matter.

Tillinghast, Travis and Macdonald I am sure knew a Redan, Valley of Sin and Alps hole when they saw one.  But I think they must have been seeing things if they thought the 10th was an Alps and the 3rd a Redan.  I don't care who they are in your estimation.  By the way, you haven't yet told me why you think the current 3rd was/is a Redan.  Please do so or else I am led to believe that you are taking someone's word for it because it suits a mindset of yours and not because you've carefully considered it yourself.

Also, you need to explain why the presence, if there are any, of features from long ago UK courses necessitate the design involvement (on-site consulting as you called it) of Macdonald and Whigham.  They never controlled the concept nor were exclusive providers of such.  There is no direct connection you can make between the presence of such features and the involvement of M and W.  Right?

[mike_malone]

 What strikes  me about #3 at Merion is how UNLIKE a redan it is and yet as an uphill pat 3 it COULD have been a redan rather easily if the designers chose to make it that way.

[TEPaul]

"What strikes  me about #3 at Merion is how UNLIKE a redan it is and yet as an uphill pat 3 it COULD have been a redan rather easily if the designers chose to make it that way."

Mayday:

That probably would've been a bit hard to do on that green site. First of all the green basically inclines slightly from front to back (albeit basically left to right) which is unredan like, and there is no natural bounce in approach at all to use on that green's site---ala most traditional redans. To get on or stay on that green a ball must be flown onto the green surface. There is no fairway in front of that green at all (as there is on most all redans) and if one ever saw the green he could tell why.

There's a very good reason the 3rd green at Merion is the way it is which is just not redanish in play---eg it was built basically on top of perhaps about the bottom 1/3 of the structure of an old Pennsylvania "bank" barn!  

[mike_malone]

 Tom,
  I certainly agree that the lack of a runup option eliminates this hole from the redan category, as well as the internal contouring of the green also being contrary to a redan , and the lack of a rear bunker  (there is one left but not at the back ). I guess I'm hardpressed to find anything other than the uphill nature of the hole as qualifying. On that basis practically every uphill par three  of 190 yards or so would be a redan.

    It certainly would have taken alot of construction work to make it a redan.

     My point is with the uphill nature of the hole as a start one could have at least created a redanish hole in the style found in Scotland or at NGLA. But, it seems the designers weren't following a model here but what the land dictated.

[T_MacWood]

Sean
Macdonald was the originator of the faux-Alps....more commonly called the Alps....which is the issue that is being debated....is the 10th at Merion a faux-Alps aka Alps.

[wsmorrison]

"...and the lack of a rear bunker  (there is one left but not at the back )"

Mike,

There certainly is a bunker behind the green and two along the left side as well.  The rear bunker was, I believe, worked on by Hanse and Kittleman.

"I guess I'm hardpressed to find anything other than the uphill nature of the hole as qualifying.  On that basis practically every uphill par three  of 190 yards or so would be a redan."

Are you saying that Redan holes have an uphill nature?  Mike, with that and especially the second half of the above quote, it is clear that you don't know what you're talking about here at all.

The designers were not trying to build a Redan.  They succeeded in not doing so.

[Sean_A]

Crediting "inventors" of fake copy holes.  No wonder you lot go round and round without much to show for it.  

Ciao

Sean

[SPDB]

What I don't understand is why the old 10th was not naturally blind. Based on the topography, my guess would be that there is probably 40-50 feet of elevation change from the bottom the 10th tee to Ardmore Avenue. Granted a drive clears most of that elevation. I'm not making a statement here, I'm just curious.

Wayne -
Also, as it regards the Berm behind 10 being a safety device. How far would you estimate a drive would have to travel to reach the 10th Green - it would seem that it would have to be a pretty long hook.

Also, the 11th tee was situated directly in between the 10th Green and the 1st tee, why wasn't it protected as it occupied a place of considerably more danger than the 10th green?

Lastly, I seem to recall a quote from Alex Findlay said the approach to the 10th required a shot identical to that of the 17th at Prestwick. Is this another authority (i.e. has it been mentioned on this thread)?

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald was the originator of the faux-Alps....more commonly called the Alps....which is the issue that is being debated....is the 10th at Merion a faux-Alps aka Alps."

Tom MacWood:

I see, now the issue being debated here is the faux-Alps....more commonly called the Alps, whose originator was Macdonald.  

Wilson spent six months in Europe studying architecture and reputedly sketching and drawing architecture. What if Wilson sketched the Alps hole in Europe and then reproduced his sketch "in principle" at Merion's 10th? In that case would you still say that credit should be given to Macdonald/Whigam for the hole? And if so, why would you say that?

SPDB:

Actually the 10th tee at Merion East may be a bit higher than Ardmore Ave or where the old green was on the other side of the road. From today's back tee if you hit a really poor drive then you wouldn't be able to see the old green but if you hit a decent drive you'd be virtually on a level with the old green across Ardmore Ave.

Although I certainly haven't read every post of this lagubrious debate about whether the old Merion 10th was an Alps hole with something in front of it that blinded the approach, it seems to me there's something semi-hilarious going on here.

Here are all these so-called expert researchers analyzing the piss out of that old photo of the old Merion 10th green and every inch of what's in front of it and it seems like not one of them has managed to notice that that old green in that photo on here is obsolete and out of play. The photo is apparently from 1924 and it seems like some of the men quoted who called it an Alps said that around 1916 or so.

What if they cannabalized whatever it was that might have been in front of that green and took it across the street when they built the new and present green that's in play in that photo on here?

Don't you think that may have quite a bit to do with this debate of whether or not it looked like an Alps hole when IT WAS IN PLAY and those men remarked about the type of hole it was?

If no one had thought of that other than me aobut five pages ago, I'd have to say, in research always remember the time-line, Boys, always remember to apply any known time-line.  

But maybe someone did mention that before and I missed it---that woudn't be hard to do on a thread like this one.  

[T_MacWood]

If Wilson sketched the Alps and built the hole in principle he should be given credit. If Macdonald directed Wilson to the Alps in the first place and advised him on how to build one...he should be given some credit as well.

The original Merion was a collaboration...I don't think you can give credit to one or two men...it was a committee led by Wilson with Macdonald/Whigham advising.

I don't believe Wilson created an Alps at the west course or any other course he designed. It is interesting that the features and holes that one normally associates with Macdonald are gone by the mid-20's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I reread the MacDonald quote.  He doesnt say "steep," he says "high."

My point in bringing whole thing up wasnt to say that Merion's 10 resembled NGLA No. 3 in every respect.  Rather, I noted that the green complex has strong similarities with NGLA No. 3 and other green complexes on MacDonald "Alps" holes.  

This is NOT to say that Merion 10 has a "Alp" that one must hit over, or that Merion 10 was blind, or that Merion 10 had an alternate route.  Rather, I am only noting similarities in their green complexes.  

I think the same similarities, rear berming, existed on # 4 and # 9, and as such I don't know that I'd make the leap to claim that they were Alps like greens.  Both # 4 and # 9 had fronting hazards as well.[/color]

Think of the genesis of the conversation . . .
-- someone suggested that MacDonald had an influence of the design of Merion
-- others said there was little or no actual evidence of MacDonald's influence
-- a caustic debate followed regarding whether Merion No. 10 could be considered a MacDonald-type alps hole.  
-- I offered that (whether or not there was an alps hump) the green complex closely resembled those on some of MacDonald's Alps holes.

You seem to want to believe that I misidentified the "Alp" feature, but I dont think that this is the case.  I am talking about the greensite on Alps holes.  That's it.  
I think it goes a little further, you did say that you thought that the rear berm was a key feature on Alps holes, or the in defining them, and I don't think it was.  The only KEY feature was the saddle like hill intervening between the DZ and the green.

Tom MacWood and SPDB claimed that there were berms behind Alps greens at Camargo and St Louis, apparently confusing the configuration of a punchbowl with that of a high, or steep berm ala NGLA or Yale.  The feature at Camargo is no berm, rather it's a depressed green with slight elevation changes with the surrounding land.[/color]

Isnt it possible-- likely even--  that Wilson followed MacDonald's lead on some features, but not others?  

I would imagine that anything is possible, but absent concrete and substantive documentation you and others can't make a claim and deem it to be a fact.[/color]

And if Wilson used MacDonald's Alps Hole greensite as a model for Merion E No. 10, then isnt this strong evidence that MacDonald had a significant influence on Wilson's design at Merion?

Why do you disregard the other green complexes at Merion, as if they aren't germane to the discussion ?
What are the rear configurations at holes # 4 and # 9 ?
Do they bear a resemblance to # 10 ?
If so does that mean they're the product of CBM ?
I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

As TEPaul stated, it's revisionist history.[/color]

_________________________

So what is the point of this, really?  

I find it informative.[/color]

I find it informative as well.  But it could be much more informative if it wasnt always so adversarial.  This is a conversation, and the standard of proof in a conversation ought to be less than that of a court of law.

Not when some come up with a theory and want to pass it off as fact.

It would be one thing to pose the questions and initiate discussion, it's quite another to offer the theory as fact.  
If the theory holds merit it should be able to withstand withering cross examination.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe Wilson created an Alps at the west course or any other course he designed. It is interesting that the features and holes that one normally associates with Macdonald are gone by the mid-20's."

And other than the old 10th hole across Ardmore Ave and some semi-mysterious PN what other features or holes associated with Macdonald are gone by the mid-20s?

Are you aware that beginning probably in the late teens and on Macdonald became a man who was quite difficult to deal with and communicate with, in Hugh Wilson's opinion and in the opinion of others?

 

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne -
Also, as it regards the Berm behind 10 being a safety device. How far would you estimate a drive would have to travel to reach the 10th Green - it would seem that it would have to be a pretty long hook.

Also, the 11th tee was situated directly in between the 10th Green and the 1st tee, why wasn't it protected as it occupied a place of considerably more danger than the 10th green?

Lastly, I seem to recall a quote from Alex Findlay said the approach to the 10th required a shot identical to that of the 17th at Prestwick. Is this another authority (i.e. has it been mentioned on this thread)?"

Sean,

The 10th green was located just before the present crossbunker on the 1st hole.  It would not be a long hook at all to reach the green and I do feel that it was protecting players on the 10th from tee shots on the 1st.  Craig Disher spent many hours overlaying the original holes on a 1934 routing.  It will be in the Flynn book and it graphically illustrates most of your questions.

Your question about the 11th tee is a good one.  It was not really between the 10th green and 1st tee but just to the left (along the line of play) of the 10th green.  You can see the raised tee in the photo I showed.  Are you certain it is not surrounded by a bank of earth?  It looks like it might be.

You're right about Alex Findlay making that statement in an August 23, 1912 article in the Philadelphia Ledger.  Maybe Tom Paul is correct and the hole was originally more of an Alps like shot.  I don't know if it is a self-perpetuating mischaracterization or if changes were made.  The earliest photographs that I've seen at the Historial Society of Pennsylvania shows no obscuring mound fronting the green.  Are the remaining features enough?  I don't believe so.  The dominant feature of the approach at Prestwick is the hidden nature of the green.  At least it is that way to me.

Tom MacWood,

What courses do we know that H Wilson designed?  How much of the West course did Wilson design?  You should ask Connie Lagerman and Richie Valentine.

"It is interesting that the features and holes that one normally associates with Macdonald are gone by the mid-20's."

Tom,

Why can't you just admit that these features were conceived by someone other than Macdonald and if they existed they might be independent of any design consulting by Macdonald?  You really are stretching a point to link Macdonald to the design of Merion.  You and Whigham seem to be the only ones that attribute design to the man.  I don't see it and you completely baffle me.  I think it is your method of analysis that is at fault.

By the way, in what way is or was the 3rd at Merion a Redan?  Did you forget to answer the question?

[wsmorrison]

"If Macdonald directed Wilson to the Alps in the first place and advised him on how to build one...he should be given some credit as well. "

Tom,

Have you proved this?  It sure seems like your attributing an awful lot of credit without any proof at all.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

Why can't you just admit that these features were conceived by someone other than Macdonald and if they existed they might be independent of any design consulting by Macdonald?  You really are stretching a point to link Macdonald to the design of Merion.  You and Whigham seem to be the only ones that attribute design to the man.  I don't see it and you completely baffle me.  I think it is your method of analysis that is at fault.

By the way, in what way is or was the 3rd at Merion a Redan?  Did you forget to answer the question?

Wayne
No need to exagerate what I have said. Macdonald and Whigham advised...they did not design the course as far as I can tell. The course was designed by the committee led by Wilson.

I have no idea if the original 3rd was a Redan....I don't believe I've ever seen a photo of the hole. Tillinghast, Macdonald and Lesley thought it was.

TE asked me hypothetical question...notice the 'if'.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because you're the one making the claim with respect to the old 10th at Merion.

Why haven't you addressed the issue of the escape route found on all Alps holes, and why haven't you addressed the elevation and sight line issue I raised ?

If you're going to champion a theory, you, and not some third party designate should be able to respond in reasoned fashion.

Pat
That makes a lot sense...you don't want to call in the foremost Alps expert to help clear up the issue...a man who has seen more Alps than all of us combined...because I'm making the claim?

That's right.  You made the claim, not George Bahto.
[/color]

What kind of logic is that?

Simple logic[/color]

George Bahto is not some third party designate.

Sure he is.
You, not George, claimed that the old 10th at Merion was an Alps

CBM was fairly clear in what constituted an Alps hole. He said,
"When the player hits his SECOND shot across the SUMMIT of the SADDLE BACK HILL called "The ALPS' he is completely in doubt about the result.

In addition, the "Alps" required a difficult second shot, one that must have a steep upward trajectory in order to avoid the hill.  No steep or abrupt hill appears anywhere near the old 10th fairway at Merion.

No earthworks such as a saddle back hill exists at Merion's 10th.
And, the creation of a fronting bunker and a rear berm don't an "Alps" make.[/color]

I've never heard of the esacape route...is that a feature of the original Alps at Prestwick?

No, it's an improvement made by CBM.

He provided an alterntate fairway along side of the base of the intervening hill that would allow the golfer to chose the less daring route as an option.

That alternate routing also served to tempt the big hitter to venture down the right side, challenging the long end of the diagonal bunker, the woods on the right, and the rough on the left, in the hope of finding that narrowed fairway, leaving a much shorter shot into the green.  A shot that became even more attractive when the hole location was cut on the far right of the putting surface.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I think you are confused. No one is claiming that George said it was an Alps (I did, based on the fact that Tillinghast and others said it was an Alps) and no one is claiming George said it was not an Alps as you have.

When you have a dispute you bring in an independent arbiter, an expert who can settle the dispute. George had seen more Alps than you and I combined, he could settle the question. I'm not sure why you object to asking him what he thinks.

Did the Alps at Lido have an escape route? Sleepy Hollow?