"No it's not.
The mound is ONLY too high when green speeds get crazy.
In 1918 the mound was probably well thought out and configured.
You can't take a 1918 putting surface feature and context it in 2009 green speeds.
I NEVER suggested restoring the 1918 feature to its precise dimensions.
I DID suggest that the green needs an internal feature, be it a mound or spine that would FUNCTION well in today's environment."
Patrick:
Thank you; you just fell into the trap. What you just said there is total bullshit, plain and simple----all of it!
You don't have the vaguest idea whether that mound wasn't too radical for 1918 greenspeeds and you have precisely zero on which to base your remark that it was probably well thought out in 1913 or 1918----particularly since Crump's best friends wrote for PV that he told them he considered that feature temporary.
Sure, you, like some of the other preposterous suggestors on here who've said some things from the old days should be restored have absolutely no idea at all what that thing was like or what Crump felt about it. How could you?!?
Have you said on this website that mound should be restored? You certainly have; a number of times and I should find those posts for you from the back pages. If I find them and there is a "Modify" time and date on any of those posts later than right now----well then all anyone could consider you to be is slimmy, double-dealing, weasel-faced troglodyte.
I think this kind of suggestion on your part needs a separate thread because it's dangerous----really dangerous. I'm even going to defer to you and let you start it to give you some opportunity for redemption from terminal architectural irresponsibilty and stupidity!
The theme of the thread should be---"How uninformed restoration suggestions without proper research can be disastrous."