Something I keep tripping over

So in the following examples I am going with "argue" as the verb-of-example, but you are to understand that many other verbs would also work in context:

So I grew up with two alternative structures of a common phrase, to wit:

"You'd be hard pressed to argue", and

"You'd be hard put to it, to argue" etc.

What I see, more and more, is:

"You'd be hard put to argue" etc.

And it just seems wrong, every time. You've misheard or misunderstood, I want to say, that's not how the expression works. But is that just me being old-fashioned, has the expression simply changed? Or am I right to stand by my guns, does the modern elision actually mean nothing? I think I know what both my versions mean, and I think this new thing that people say has no semantic content, but...

Annnnnd I just learned a new thing

According to the BBC, at least (scroll down to the bottom of the report) the state of Wyoming has just two escalators, and both of them are in a bank.

Anyone in WY want to challenge that assertion? I was just there, and I don't believe I saw one, but, y'know. Laramie is not the state. And come to think, we could've done with one on the hike. Then maybe I wouldn't have fallen over and hit my nose on the mountain. I've always said that the outdoors could use more escalators.