Personally, I think it's probably fitting that we've now come full circle, back to where it all started with a thread about the Alps started by David that was titled something like, "Another Piece of the Puzzle?"
Frankly, I think it was just the same sort of contrived, over-exaggerated importance of some events and reporting and purposeful diminishing of other facts and information, and twisting contrived meanings and strained word-parsing still seen here that many of us objected to at that time and still do today, though many have passed on from this site as a result.
Throw in the fact that those of us very familiar with the site just shake our heads in disbelief when we hear someone say a shot from the top of the hill on #10 to a pitch across Ardmore Avenue could in any way be blind, unless someone erected a high wall in front of the green. By blind, I'm using the term as it's used on both the Alps at Prestwick and NGLA...where none of the green or flagstick is visible
Similarly, the 3rd hole, supposedly a Redan, has a green and approach unlike any supposed Redan hole in that it doesn't allow a run-up shot, and the angle of the green is completely wrong. However, as we'll see, it's because Wilson and crew took some basic principles of some of the great holes and didn't try to make replicas.
David again tells us that Findlay and Lesley both called it an Alps, and who are we to argue with them? Well, if we're looking for a shot exactly like Prestwick, as Findlay said in the same opening day article comparing Hugh Wilson with Herbert Leeds (not a mention of CBM), and the construction work of his oft-times associate Fred Pickering, it's clearly, visibly unlike the approach shot at either Prestwick or NGLA.
What did Lesley say....
Well, that's curiously omitted, because Lesley says they only copied the hole "in principle", which he defined as;
"A two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green." Read for yourselves;
David also tells us he has no clue what Wilson might have meant when he said he had a lot of making to do (to make it play like an Alps), and that it was probably the addition of fairway bunkering. Of course, this is simple nonsense, as the fairway bunkers were not added until the toughening for the 1916 US Amateur. It was almost certainly the creation of a deep front cross bunker and likely that monstrosity behind the green.
And why couldn't they have placed the large mound in front of the green? Well, Ardmore Avenue was there!
Recall that Richard Francis told us that "In those days, WE thought the road would make a good hazard". Strangely, Francis didn't mention CBM designing the course either...he doesn't mention CBM at all.
Here is a drawing and description of the hole from the 1916 US Amateur preview. Note that once one reaches the 250 yard mark on their drive, it is LEVEL to the green.
The article mentions an "eight foot rise" from the bunker to the green", which is strange as one sees in the next picture. Perhaps the bunker was eight foot deep, but unless one is going from the road to the top of the backing mound, it's hard to see how that is accurate, as seen in this 1916 picture from the left side of the green.
If anyone doubts my term "monstrosity" to describe the mound, this colored photograph shows it from the rear;
Here's another description of the hole during the 1916 US Amateur;
Finally, it's no wonder these guys are seeking to discredit the truthfulness of AW Tillinghast, who conferred with CB Macdonald in person about his role at Merion and who saw the plans for the course prior to construction. His Opening Day article about Merion East in American Cricketer doesn't mention CBM at all but says Hugh Wilson and his Construction Committee should be credited. Of course, we were told in David's essay as well as from Tom MacWood and Patrick that the title "Construction Committee" referred only to building the course to someone else's plans.
However, as seen on the first page of this thread, George Crump and his Committee who were out there designing the course and beginning clearing and construction in the spring of 1913 were also known as the "Construction Committee".
Similarly, no one here has ever claimed Hugh Wilson didn't design Merion West, but note what Tillinghast wrote about them.
Sound familiar?
I think this is a fitting ending.
Patrick, much as you might be fascinated to learn more about Pine Valley's topos, you're going about it with the wrong group.
And in the immortal words of Paul Harvey, "Good Day!"