Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?
Shivas, I thought I posted an answer to this, but apparently I deleted it instead. I want to post because it provides another striking example of what is wrong with this process
To answer; Yes, I had considered this and think you may have it right, which is why I haven't embraced the conclusion that Mike mistakenly attributes to me, that there was an 8 foot vertical drop. The pictures don't show any such drop, although I guess it is possible that they could have measured from the front part of the bunker complex, which is out of view in the photos of the green. Whether there was an 8 foot drop or not, the description leaves is no doubt that the ground sloped
down from the front bunkers to the green. It is the same slope extends left of the green and behind the green, where the ground slopes
down to the green. This green was sunken below the surrounding land on at least three sides.
I have no idea how anyone could reasonably dispute this, and it is worth taking a moment to consider why Wayne (and then Mike) claim otherwise. Wayne has long insisted that
the ground rose 8 feet from the bunkers to the green. While Wayne insisted that he had proof, he thought he controlled the source material and refused to back up his conclusion with the supporting document. (I laughed out loud when I heard his conclusion, because I had the likely source, which Wayne refused to confirm.)
My point?
Either these guys are very bad at interpreting source material, or they have been intentionally misrepresenting it, or some combination of both. But whether the incorrect interpretations result from innocent inability or intentional imposition, one thing is certain;
When it comes to understanding and explaining the source material, they very seldom get it right. We cannot trust them to accurately interpret it for us. We need to see it for ourselves.
________________________________________
As for your question about Mike's change of heart, I am not sure I understand his answer, given that most of what we have learned since the last go-round confirms that the hole was meant to be a CBM-type Alps hole. A crucial part of Mike's new analysis on this issue is that he now believes that everyone who described it as an Alps was smoking crack. But as usual he hasn't offered any support for this conclusion. And how could seeing the site have changed his mind when the green site is no longer there?
But a more interesting question is
Why did TEPaul change his mind?. [Careful if you ask him, though. When I did he flew into a hissy-fit, calling me a liar, stupid, stupid liar, whatever. He even called me a "dickhead" on another thread, but they may have been as a result of an entirely different temper-tantrum. Hard to keep track.]
Anyway, a few years ago, TEPaul KNEW that the green was blind from the landing area. Above, I quote him trying to convince Wayne of this. But TEPaul not only knew it was blind, he was actually was a bit perturbed that we were even talking about whether the hole was blind, as if the issue shouldn't even be in dispute.
From TEPaul in the same thread:
Let me ask you something David. If the author of that article and the esteemed Robert Lesley said that green surface couldn't be seen from the approach area why in the world would anyone think they'd be lying? Do you think they wanted to be viewed as blind and nuts in their time by hundreds of people who saw that hole?
Of course the green surface was blinded by that berm in front from the fairway approach.
But why are we even discussing this?
Why, indeed?
- And why is TEPaul now telling us that he knows for certain and has known for a long time that the hole was not blind?
- And why is he again insisting that he knows better than us, and that we MUST take his word for it because he has been there more?
- And why does he again launch into his usual personal attacks about my motivations and my research? As if I was taking an absurd and untenable position?? The same position he himself took last time this came up??
Something has certainly made him change his mind, but it is nothing in the source material and nothing to do with any unique perspective he has gained from loitering his days away at Merion. My guess is that his old understanding has become rhetorically inconvenient, so he threw it out, and now demands we do the same.