News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bobby Jones Question
« on: July 14, 2006, 01:48:08 PM »
In a Golf Illustrated article about Bobby Jones's victory in the '27 Open, mention is made of Jones wanting a return of the guttie. He thought the Haskell was going too far. The article seems to imply that this was a view Jones had expressed in print sometime before the Open that year.

I was surprised to hear that Jones ever held such views.

Has anyone seen anything in print by Jones about the subject? Were there other people in the '20's urging a return to the guttie?

Bob


Phil_the_Author

Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2006, 03:15:27 PM »
Bob, which article and what issue was it in? By the way, I might be mistaken, but didn't Tommy Armour win the Open in 1927 at Oakmont? Or was that another year?

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2006, 03:30:30 PM »
I think there was much discussion at that time about the ball.

Maybe Geoff or Wayne Morrison can help you with the following quote from the ‘Future of Golf', Geoff Shackelford, page 275.  I am not sure of the source of the quote, but the 'pill' was a source of concern to Flynn in 1927.

" All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill. If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out. "  - William Flynn, golf architect, 1927

Bobby Jones won the Open in 1927 at The Old Course with an aggregate of 285.  Tommy Armour won the US Open at Oakmont with a total of 301.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2006, 03:34:19 PM »
Alan Robertson fired Old Tom Morris when he found Old Tom playing a gutty coming home on the Old Course as Robertson was playing his way out with a feathery.  Of course Robertson made a good part of his living manufacturing featheries and was outraged by this treason!

I didn't realize the Haskell was still the ball in use in 1927, I'd have thought the ball would have evolved since the Haskell was introduced -- shortly after the turn of the century, right?

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2006, 03:41:50 PM »
Bill:

According to the World Atlas of Golf, Haskell invented his rubber-cored ball in 1898, and Sandy Herd used it to win the Open Championship in 1902 (at Hoylake!), which really helped popularize it. (The Haskell still runs a distant second to the guttie, however, in terms of importance to the game. The guttie was by far the most important technological advance ever in the history of the game, IMHO.)


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2006, 03:51:34 PM »
Bill -

My reference to a "Haskell" may be incorrect. The notion was that the rubber core ball was going too far. Whether that was still a Haskell as of the mid-20's, I don't know.

John -

That's an interesting passage. Sounds like Jones was not a lone voice in the woods. It also suggests that Jones - even in the mid '20's - was pretty well clued-in with some of the architects of the era. I think Hunter expressed similar views. He says things to the same effect in The Links. I  can't find where Jones said it, however.

It's not coincidental that the issue came up in the story on Jones' victory at TOC in '27. He and others posted a number of rounds in the '60's that year. Even though the tournament was played in very benign weather, people were shocked and there was lots of talk about TOC becoming obsolete. Plans were hatched to add 20 or so bunkers and push back tees. I don't know how much of that was actually carried out.

Bob  
« Last Edit: July 14, 2006, 04:02:07 PM by BCrosby »

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2006, 03:55:45 PM »
The Haskell wound ball construction fell completely out of favor for the professionals  whenever the Pro V came out

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2006, 03:56:39 PM »
Phil McDade -

I have read that the revolution casued by the guttie was primarily in the reduction in the cost of playing the game. Featheries were very expensive and lasted only a round or so. Gutties were a fraction of the cost and lasted much longer, thus the explosive growth of golf in 1850 or so.

The other change brought on by the guttie was that it was strong enough to withstand impact with metal heads, thus the rise of "irons".

I thought I had read that performance wise, there wasn't an enormous difference between the two types of balls.

Do you have different information?

Bob

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2006, 03:59:53 PM »
John -

Yes, I thought the key Haskell innovation was figuring out how to wind bands of rubber to form a round, resilient core. But I wasn't sure.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2006, 04:02:36 PM by BCrosby »

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2006, 04:04:17 PM »
John -

Yes, I thought the key Haskell innovation was figuring out how to wind bands of rubber to form a round, resilient core. But I wasn't sure.

Thank Mr. Gammeter.

Bob

wsmorrison

Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2006, 04:08:30 PM »
According to the history book of The Country Club in Pepper Pike, Ohio, Coburn Haskell, a member of the club. had a flash of intuition after a round with Bertram Work, the superintendent of the BF Goodrich Co., makers of the Norka golf ball, a solid gutta percha.  Haskell was one of TCC's better golfers and had a particularly bad round with one of the Norkas.  Sitting on the porch twisting a rubber band, Haskell came up with the concept of the wound ball (I guess he borrowed the idea from the yarn windings in a baseball).  Work took the idea back to the Goodrich factory in Akron and a patent was obtained.  I think this was in 1899 or so.  It took a while to perfect the Haskell ball.  Even the first Haskells added about 20 yards but the covers were smooth and they were erratic in flight.  Surface indentations were one of the most significant improvements which would assign the Guttie to obsolescence.  It wasn't until 1903 that the ball was used for TCC championships and of course Travis used the ball in 1904 to win the Open Championship.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2006, 04:09:45 PM »
Bob:

No, that's my understanding, as well. I view durability as a technological improvement, and gutties were obviously much more durable than featheries. Also, gutties could be "dimpled" (pressed and manipulated in a way to create ridges and eventually dimples), which allowed for longer flight. But I do think the gutties initially went farther than featheries, even before the widespread use of dimples.

You're right, the defining importance of gutties was their cost, relative to featheries. Gutties essentially brought golf to the masses, with the corresponding rapid increase in golf courses/clubs from the 1850s on. (One of the great stories about gutties involves the famed fisherman golfers of Inverallochy, near Fraserburgh, in northeastern Scotland, who continued to play their beloved gutties well into the 20th century.)


Andy Scanlon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2006, 04:14:20 PM »
I think there was much discussion at that time about the ball.

Maybe Geoff or Wayne Morrison can help you with the following quote from the ‘Future of Golf', Geoff Shackelford, page 275.  I am not sure of the source of the quote, but the 'pill' was a source of concern to Flynn in 1927.

" All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill. If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, more course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out. "  - William Flynn, golf architect, 1927

Bobby Jones won the Open in 1927 at The Old Course with an aggregate of 285.  Tommy Armour won the US Open at Oakmont with a total of 301.

John:

I like the Flynn quote so much, I have stolen it (with some edits) for my signature. ;D
All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. If the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8000 yard courses.  
- William Flynn, golf architect, 1927

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2006, 04:23:54 PM »
Bob,

The Haskell lasted about 102 years or so !  I thought the Guttie was a little longer. Someone will shortly chime in with some distances.

The Haskell was reported to be  15 to 20 percent  longer than the guttie.

John

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2006, 04:27:09 PM »
All very interesting stuff. Especially the dimple part. People didn't fully appreciate how important they were to aerodynmaics for a long time and they still don't entirely understand it.

The "roll back to the guttie" movement of the mid-20's is very odd. How is it that some 25 years after the Haskell was introduced, people were still nostalgic for the guttie? No way golf was going back to the old ball, not after all that time. Very odd.

I mean, I understand some great old courses fell out of championship rotas (Myopia, Prestwick, etc.) and that's regrettable. But two and a half decades had passed. The Haskell was well and truly baked into the game by the mid-20's and not going away.

Bob

« Last Edit: July 14, 2006, 04:28:39 PM by BCrosby »

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2006, 04:30:19 PM »
Wayne:

Weren't surfance indentations in use on gutties? Page 10 of my World Atlas (3rd edition, edited and revised by some guy named Mark Rowlinson) has a picture of a guttie complete with ridges cut into the ball, in both a straight (primarily) and circular pattern.

My reading of the history of the golf ball is that the guttie was a huge leap forward for two main reasons -- cost and durability (which is a close cousin of cost...). It went further than the feathery, but the Haskell improved distance over the guttie to a much greater extent than the guttie did over the feathery.

Have I misread my guttie history?

wsmorrison

Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2006, 04:34:56 PM »
Phil,
The observation that dings and cuts on the guttie made for more reliable ball flight leading to standardized markings just wasn't immediately implemented on the Haskell.  I guess that wasn't part of Haskell's flash of brilliance   8)  But he soon figured it out.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2006, 04:39:44 PM »
Legend has it that a cut up gutty turned out to have better aerodynamic characteristics than a virginal new one, leading to scientific scuffing and cutting up.


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2006, 04:40:25 PM »
My understanding is that they also scratched up the surface of featheries.

I think the basic concept that smooth surfaces tended to "knuckle" was  always understood. It's just that gutties (and Haskells even more so), had the kinds of surfaces that allowed for more and better dimples.

(I knew a girl once with more and better dimples, but maybe that's a story for another time and place.)

Bob

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2006, 04:47:41 PM »
Check the books tonight.

I think Phil is correct as to scoring the ball. My recollection is that the guttie was smooth at first from the initial molds, and then by happenstance, it was noted that the gutties, scarred by much more iron play,  'went straighter.'  

As to cost,  old featherie was about 4 shillings,  gutty was about 1 schilling.  No wonder Alan got pissed at Tom. :)


Andy

I like it also and you beat me to it !

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2006, 07:00:11 PM »
I have a number of ball related quotes in my interview with Ran.

Most all of the players and the architects were complaining about the ball. There is a LOT of written info on it.
In the teens they were making balls that were in the 1.5x" range with weights in the 1.7x oz. Thus the first standard of the 1.62/1.62 ball.
Vardon was wanting to bring the gutty back in 1912 and make it a tournament ball. The rubber balls were already turning 500yd holes into a drive and a pitch.

Markings on the Gutty came about by accident when players noticed the balls flew better after being played and battered a bit. The first markings gutties were made with a chisel. Then came a machine that would score lines in it, then molding verious markings.
Have a look at David Hamilton's book if you get the chance.


« Last Edit: July 14, 2006, 07:02:26 PM by Ralph_Livingston »
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

Alfie

Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2006, 08:27:52 PM »
Great discussion. here's my tuppence worth ;

The first "GUTTA" balls (1848) were hand rolled to a smooth finish. Gutta percha is a solid tree resin which softens when slowly heated in hot water and therefore allows for moulding. It returns to a solid state when cooled back to room temperature.

It's true, that the golfers soon discovered that a scuffed / used ball appeared to perform better, and they began to "Hand Hammer" the balls (with what we call in the UK a scutching hammer). Chisels were also used as Ralph pointed out in his post along with other "SCORING" devices.

Ball makers could attain gutta percha in "RODS" approx 35mm in diameter which simplified the cutting of the gutta into pieces acceptable for use as a golf ball. Various sizes of balls were produced. (I'd have to check the refs for better detail).
The rods also meant that the ballmakers would suffer less waste with accurate cutting. Gutta was also supplied in "SLABS". The gutta being collected in trays as it seeped from the incision made on the tree. (similar to collecting rubber from a rubber tree).
Early reports state that sometimes the gutta balls would sometimes break up during a stroke. It is my belief - that this came about as a result of ballmakers using up all the offcuts of gutta to make lesser quality and probably cheaper balls. The best and most durable balls being made from one complete piece of gutta !
There was also many various species of gutta tree which yielded differing molecular / elementary structures of gutta. Some not so good for golf balls.

Any refs I have read, state that the distance attaiments of feathery and gutta and very similar. It was the "Bounding Billy" (Haskell) where noticable increases were realised mainly because the Haskell bounced and rolled whereas the gutta and gutty were less likely to do so. The gutty or guttie being a "composite" ball made up of gutta and various other materials - a later development of the gutta.
I would post some photo's of 21st century gutta percha in slab form / golf balls - but I'm a numpty - and can't ?
you can visit my web for photo's etc ;
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/Hickory

I'll come back tomorrow if anyone responds and try to answer any questions re - this thread.

night, night,

Alfie.

David Lott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2006, 11:44:06 PM »
There is already an article on this site regarding the disputes about size and weight of the golf ball in the 1920's. See The Balloon Ball by John Vander Borght.

He wrote:

"Things continued unchanged for nearly two decades more. Finally in the 1921 revision to the Rules of Golf a standard ball was approved with the following wording, 'The weight of the ball shall not be greater than 1.62 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.62 inches in diameter. The Rules of Golf Committee will take whatever steps it thinks necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced.' This ball was what many of us who grew up in the second half of the 20th century called the 'British ball'. At the time, it was accepted by both the USGA and the R&A. But, within 3 years the USGA felt that this ball was going too far and were starting to lobby the R&A for a change.

"In July of 1926 the New York Times reported that W.C. Fownes on returning from a meeting with the R&A said, 'The main reason for opposition to a change in the ball there is the same as it is here,' he said. 'There is a general impression that a larger and lighter ball, such as we advocate, would curtail length. Sight is lost of the aid that such a ball would give to the average player, inasmuch as it would be easier to hit on the fairway. The experimental work which we started, however, will be continued, and I think that at some time in the not too distant future we will have a ball that will be more satisfactory than the present one.'

"The USGA was proposing a ball that would be 1.68 inches in diameter and weight 1.55 ounces. This ball would later be known as the 'floater' or 'balloon' ball.

"In spite of the commitment of the USGA to gain the joint approval with the R&A for any ball changes, by 1929 they were ready to act on their own. On April 30th the R&A voted down a movement to change to a bigger and lighter ball, saying it would make the game too difficult. The USGA says that’s the idea, in light of so many better players now in the game. In an article in the New York Times on September 8, 1929, Fitzhugh L. Minnigerode wrote, 'In this proposed change in size and weight of the ball it is the United States Golf Association that is being reactionary. They say the game is too easy, that with the small heavy ball now in use the professionals get such great distance and such accuracy that the game is entirely too simple and this lighter and larger ball will make golf a much more difficult game.'

"He goes on to say, 'Outside the professionals and the best amateur players, who constitute perhaps 1 or 2 per cent of the folk who play golf, it will be remarked at once that the game needs no more difficulties. Even with the ball in use today, the average number of strokes it takes to negotiate an ordinary golf course has increased by six to ten strokes a round. This is due to the ever lengthening of the courses.'

"Never-the-less, the USGA approved the ball for play beginning on January 1, 1931. In designing the new ball the officials felt 'that golf clubs would not face the burden of course alteration and that the new ball would be an aid to the mediocre player and expert shot maker as well.'

"It didn’t take long for the screams to start. By May a satirical article by H. I. Phillips in the Washington Post, he has a mythical Senator Dumm complaining to Representative Dummer about the new ball, 'If that ball behaves tomorrow the way it did today I will conclude that it was devised by a malicious rules committee to make the life of the average golfer more exasperating.'

"Interestingly the professionals found that there was no significant difference in their scores with the new ball, but the amateurs complained loudly. As the Southern courses started play for the year, the players reported balls being blown off the greens and the ball being uncontrollable in the wind. Once the hot weather arrived the players found that the balls didn’t roll as accurately either. But they did like the size of the ball as it made it easier to hit woods and long irons from the fairway.

"The New York Times reported later that year that the primary complaints by players about the 'balloon' ball were that 'they were losing distance on their shots, found it increasingly difficult to play into the wind and finally that the ball did not have the true putting qualities of the old ball on the green.' The professionals also expressed their displeasure with the new ball. At the Canadian Open they were allowed to use either ball, all but one player used the British ball. The American players said they selected the heavier ball because it putted better.

"Westbrook Pegler wrote for the Washington Post, 'At any rate, nobody has had anything good to say for the new ball as against the old, its best friends merely remarking that it is all right, whereas those who don’t like it are numerous and violent.' He continued, 'The only argument, or apology for the change has been that by suppressing the spirit of the golf ball, the golf association moved to restore the prestige of certain proud golf courses which the great artists of the game amateur and pro, had been humiliating in recent years. With drive and roll on baked fairways they were close to the green, and courses which had been engineered at great expense with a great variety of agonizing pits, tangles and swamps to confound the ordinary player were being humiliated consistently in the great tournaments. This was due, in part, to the nature of the ball, in part to the parching climate and in no trifling part to the gradual refinement of skill.'

"Pegler continued, 'But it was on duty of the golf association to rush to the defense of the golf courses. The golf course will humiliate thousands of players for every player that humiliates one of them and it does the duffer good to follow around on burning dogs while some marvel of the game, in beautiful revenge, makes a sucker of the golf course that has made a sucker of him. The golf course needs no sympathy. Like the roulette wheel, it stands to win.'

"Some players did like the new ball. Bobby Jones was among those who declared themselves well satisfied with the 1.55-1.68, termed by its supporters the 'alibi' ball.

"By September it had become evident that the new ball was a failure in the eyes of the golfing public, both professional and amateur. The USGA was forced to look at changing the standard. But, the players were really only unhappy with one aspect of the ball which was its weight. The size of the ball was 'universally popular' according to H. H. Ramsay the president of the USGA. Therefore in November of 1931 the USGA announced that a new ball that would be 1.68 inches in diameter and 1.62 ounces in weight would become the standard effective January 1, 1932. This is the ball that we all play today. The R&A finally switched over to this ball in 1990.

[end quote]

David Lott

David Lott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2006, 12:10:53 AM »
The notion that Jones wanted to go back to the gutty is certainly wrong. It's doubtful that Jones ever played a gutty, at least on any regular basis, and he did not seem to have any particular animus towards the improved equipment (ball or club) that improved distance. In his book "Bobby Jones on Golf," a compilation of instructional articles written by Jones for newspapers from 1927-1935, what little is said about equipment is largely neutral. In chapter 14 of the original edition, Jones comments on the golf ball, and concludes that the amateur probably should choose a ball different from that used by the expert. He bases this on durability and other less tangible factors, however, and asserts that--despite advertising claims to the contrary--one first class ball would carry about as far as any other. Nowhere does he complain that the ball is too long.

The book was originally published in the 1930's, and then republished thirty years later. In the later edition, Jones added a chapter 15, which discusses "what has happened to golf in the past 30 years." Of the improvements in conditioning and equipment, Jones concludes: "My conviction is that this period has been most productive for the game." He acknowledges that top players are considerably longer, especially off the tee, but attributes this mostly to improved steel shafts and the increased skill of the players. (This is written after he had seen Nicklaus play.) Nowhere is there a complaint that the game has been diminished by length or by technology, of the ball or otherwise.

Who knows what Jones would say of today's ball. Writing in the 1930's, he seemed to believe that resolution of the issues of weight and size had standardized the ball sufficiently. "With the size and weight of the ball standardized, its power can be increased in no other presently known ways." Jones--the careful lawyer--restricted this assertion to present knowledge, but 30 years later did not seem to feel that the game had been hurt by equipment.

Those who assert that Jones wanted to roll back or even limit equipment have not read him very carefully.
David Lott

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Bobby Jones Question
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2006, 12:23:46 AM »
In my interview, I have a quote from jones saying he had never played a gutty. It is the first of the quotes about the ball.
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back