[Alex Miller]

Just because true temper shafts didn't have their patent approved yet doesn't mean they weren't available for use, especially for a woman as wealthy as Ms. Hollins. Patent pending products are widely used. I'm not saying true temper shafts were widely available, but you can't write it off.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With all due respect Pat, I think the failure of the argument is Harvie/Ken/Ben/Byron could only hit drivers 220 yards. 
I have to believe each of these men in the prime could hit well over 250+ under normal circumstances. 

Mike, have you ever played the hole ?

Venturi, Nelson and Ward all confirmed that they hit driver and that Hogan hit a driver.
Pat Burke, a PGA Tour Pro at the times he played the hole indicated that on the four occassions that he's teed off on the hole that he hit driver on three of them.  I've hit driver there numerous times.  Compare the ball and the equipment circa 1925 to 1956 to 1972 to 1979 to 1982 to present day.

Whether Frost's account is true or not seems irrelevent.  To cite an example of another great golf shot in history...to set up his famous eagle at the 15th at Augusta, Gene Sarazen (all 5ft 5in of him) reportable hit driver 250 yards in 1935.

Mike, have you played the 15th at ANGC.
Are you aware of the favorable impact of roll, firm fairways and terrain ?
By 1935 Steel shafted clubs were widely in use, which wasn't the case in 1925.
And, the temperature and heaviness of the air at CPC differs radically from that at ANGC.

If Gene could drive the ball 250 yards in 1935, I have to believe an accomplished women golfer who could probably kick his tail in a street fight could manage 200-220.

Why do you equate total yardage with carry ?
The two are quite seperate.

The story may be myth, but I have to believe there were a few women who could carry it 200 yards.

As for your little wager...if you set it up and I get to warm up on holes 1-15, I'm in.

Just make sure you pony up the ante before you tee it up, it may be the most rewarding or the most expensive round of your life

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just because true temper shafts didn't have their patent approved yet doesn't mean they weren't available for use, especially for a woman as wealthy as Ms. Hollins. Patent pending products are often still widely used. I'm not saying true temper shafts were widely available, but you can't write it off.

Alex, would you cite for us which clubs had their patent pending but were widely available for use ?

Then could you do so circa 1925 ?

Everyone keeps on coming up with WILD possibilities.

How about coming up with something, anything of a substantive nature that supports the myth.

Today, I played and it was 51 degrees.  On holes where the wind was in my face, a carry of 200 yards was a big hit, and that's with modern day balls and equipment.  It would be impossible for me to do it with balls and equipment circa 1925

[Jim_Kennedy]

An aside:  I grew up across the street from the Union Hardware Co. The first really viable steel shaft, made of drawn steel (no seam), was invented and produced there in 1924.  Steel shafts were allowed by the USGA in 1924 and accepted by the R&A in 1929.

Union Hardware eventually produced Rifle (stepless steel) shafts and a few years ago they were bought out by True Temper. I happened to be visiting my aunt (who still lived across the street) when TT's trucks were driving out with the inventory and the machinery. Sad day for the town as quite a few jobs went down the road with those trucks.

p.s. I wonder if the whip of a hickory shaft actually helped Hollins make the shots.  

[Neil_Crafter]

Pat
You keep going on calling it a myth. It is a story related by Mackenzie, and one he received firsthand from one of the participants. Not sure why you keep calling it a myth, guess it just suits you to call it that.

[Mark Pearce]

Robert Crowley applied for the true temper shaft patent in 1922 and it was granted on July 6, 1926.

Yes, I'd bet on it.
Since Raynor DIED on January 23, 1926 we know she wasn't using clubs patented on July 6, 1926, roughly six months afer his death.

Pat,

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread, since the answer "who cares?" keeps coming to mind but your appalling hectoring, lack of manners, and lack of logic made it difficult.  Still, I held off.  However, your obvious and complete and utter ignorance of the patent system and your willingness to plead it in aid when anyone with a base understanding would know it worked against you finally swung me.  The patent was applied for in 1922.  That means the invention had been made AND reduced to practice by then.  The fact that the USPTO took 4 years to grant it is entirely irrelevant.  If the patent was filed in 1922 the product was ready then.  I can't believe it was't for sale soon after.

What I wonder, when someone is clearly as knowledgable and intelligent as you obviously are, is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent conversation rather than looking like a fool?  Is it upbringing?  So many times I have heard people say that you are a gentleman in the flesh.  Why not behave like it online?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
You keep going on calling it a myth.

It is a story related by Mackenzie, and one he received firsthand from one of the participants.

There is NO evidence to support your claim.
Can you provide the citation where either Hollins or Raynor related the story to MacKenzie ?

Not sure why you keep calling it a myth, guess it just suits you to call it that.

I call it a myth for several reasons, one of which is that the story is totally unsubstantiated by ANY witness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Crowley applied for the true temper shaft patent in 1922 and it was granted on July 6, 1926.

Yes, I'd bet on it.
Since Raynor DIED on January 23, 1926 we know she wasn't using clubs patented on July 6, 1926, roughly six months afer his death.

Pat,

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread, since the answer "who cares?" keeps coming to mind but your appalling hectoring, lack of manners, and lack of logic made it difficult.  Still, I held off.  However, your obvious and complete and utter ignorance of the patent system and your willingness to plead it in aid when anyone with a base understanding would know it worked against you finally swung me.  The patent was applied for in 1922.  That means the invention had been made AND reduced to practice by then.  The fact that the USPTO took 4 years to grant it is entirely irrelevant.  If the patent was filed in 1922 the product was ready then.  I can't believe it was't for sale soon after.

Mark,

Your obvious and utter ignorance of the circumstances and the rules of golf are frightening.

Steel shafts were not permitted by the USGA in 1922 or 1923.
It was only in 1924 that they were approved for play.
The alleged Hollins event took place in 1925.
Do you think that the steel shaft had been perfected by 1925 ?

Others have indicated that they weren't in widespread use until the 1930's.

Given Marion Hollins relationship with the USGA do you think she cheated and used steel shafted woods prior to the USGA approval ?

What I wonder, when someone is clearly as knowledgable and intelligent as you obviously are, is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent conversation rather than looking like a fool?  Is it upbringing?  So many times I have heard people say that you are a gentleman in the flesh.  Why not behave like it online?

Where do you get off with your attitude of righteous indignation.

You're the ass who started the name callling.

I see you're still smarting from debates previously lost.
Please reretire and go back to licking your wounds

[Kevin_Reilly]

Alex, would you cite for us which clubs had their patent pending but were widely available for use ?

Two well-known examples.

The original Ping Eye 2 (pat pending)...widely available.

The Anser 2 (pat pending) putter...widely available.

Do you believe that a manufacturer will hold off introducing a new and innovative product until the Patent Office has granted a final patent?  I'm surprised you are so unfamiliar with the process.

How about coming up with something, anything of a substantive nature that supports the myth.

Something more substantive than several photographs of a woman whose hands looked like she never needed help opening a jar and whose legs reminded me of Robert Newhouse?  What else do you need...a Trackman report of her clubhead speed, smash factor and spin rates?

Today, I played and it was 51 degrees.  On holes where the wind was in my face, a carry of 200 yards was a big hit, and that's with modern day balls and equipment.  It would be impossible for me to do it with balls and equipment circa 1925

Good for you getting out for a round, but are you trying to say that your power today is equivalent to the power of Ms Hollins in her 30's?  Can you post a picture of you at the top of your backswing NOW so we can compare?   Please wear a short sleeve shirt so we can have a look at your guns, Mr LaLanne.  

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

There you go again.  You're wrong and someone has pointed it out.  So what do you do?  Deal with it in an intelligent, mature way?  Or talk about obvious and utter ignorance?  Of something I didn't mention?  It is apparent that you have no interest in a discussion that attempts to discover the truth, you just want to behave like a high school bully.

Let me explain this in simple language, in the hope that even you might understand it.

Whatever the rules said in 1922, that would not have prevented True Temper filing an application for a patent, which I'm sure they did anticipating a change in the rules.

If True Temper filed the patent in 1922, they could manufacture the product then.

As soon as the rules changed, True Temper could sell the product.  Indeed, they could sell it beforehand but players could not play in official competition.

It is still entirely possible, whatever your ramblings, that Hollins had a steel shafted club in 1926.

Now, do you want to have an intelligent conversation or continue behaving like a spoiled teenager?

[Jim Nugent]

Can anyone tell from the photos of Marion if she is swinging steel-shafted clubs? 

Dan King -- I looked back over much of the thread.  No one said she definitely hit the shot, though several think she was entirely capable of doing so.

Mackenzie did not take credit for #16.  He gave that to Marion.  Maybe more important than whether she hit the shot is whether she conceived the hole.  If she did, would she really design a hole she could not carry?  And if she did not route it, who did?  Raynor?  The story is that he thought the carry was too long.  But is that myth?   

[Dan King]

Still waiting:
Patrick_Mucci writes:
If that's the way you conduct your research and that's what you base your conclusions on, your work would be classified somewhere between academically unsound to intellectually dishonest to fraudulent.

Please quote anything I said that was unsound, dishonest or fraudulent. If you can't you should apologize.

I think it's safe to say that Raynor had a fairly good understanding of distance and the golfer's abilities.
Which leads me to doubt the story even more.

Nothing wrong with doubt. You said it didn't happen and then gave us your unsound reasons why it couldn't have.

But, here's the hole, if she didn't tee off from the current back tee, where did she tee off from that would force the carry over the chasm

From near where the shorter tees are now. From right in front of the chasm. From up closer but still across the chasm.

Why do you think it was only possible for her to have to hit 220 yards to clear the chasm? What version of the Hollins shot said she hit the ball 220 yards from the center of what would eventually be the green?

It's NOT MacKenzie's story.
He's just repeating what he's heard, not what he witnessed

Again, which Marion Hollins story are you trying to debunk? Is it from Frost's book?

I reads the account in David Outerbridge's Champion in a Man's World and he claims she hit the shot with a brassie. He references the story from MacKenzie but doesn't say why his story isn't the same as MacKenzie's.

I was also mistaken about how wealthy Hollins was in 1925. She was well-to-do but wealth wouldn't come to her until the oil strike in 1928.

Others say that the steel shaft wasn't introduced in America until 1925, including David Nicholls.

Jeffery Ellis would disagree, and unlike Mr. Frost he has notes and a bibliography. The USGA legalized their use in January, 1925. Willie Macfarlane won the U.S. Open that year using steel-shafted woods. You have no way of saying either way what sort of club Hollins used.

Since Raynor DIED on January 23, 1926 we know she wasn't using clubs patented on July 6, 1926, roughly six months afer his death.
And, since Raynor DIED on January 23, 1926, the alleged event probably took place in 1925 or earlier ?  ? ?
Which would diminish the possibility that steel shafts were employed.

Ever heard of patent pending?

Steel shafts were in use in the early 1920s. Steel shafts were illegal for tournament play in the U.S. between 1919 and January 1925. Hollins would not have been playing a tournament. No cheating involved.

Your position does everything it can to dismiss the events of 01-11-56 and champion the event of 1925/6

To say you're neutral would be incorrect

I know, you still haven't backed-up up your earlier claim I repeated in the first part of this post -- but I gotta ask you to back this up. Where have I dismissed the events of 1956 and championed the events of 1925/6? All I've ever done is laugh unmercifully at your attempted to debunk the Hollins story.

At the begining of your reply you question the scores shot by the participants, NOW, you're citing Venturi who claims that NOT a shot was missed, reaffirming what I maintained about the quality of golf shot that day.
Thanks for the assist

You know I like to help you as much as I can Patrick. You kind of need it.

I've played golf and not missed a shot. I didn't set the course record or get considered the greatest golfer in the world or have my shot compared to some other golfer who might have hit a similar shot in the vicinity in 1980.

Cheers,
Dan King

The big hitters certainly did not show the same enthusiasm as the short ones and some of them did not adopt steel for some time; Bobby Jones for instance won his four Championships in 1930 with wooden-shafted clubs.
 --Bernard Darwin (Golf Between Two Wars)

[Dan King]

Jim_Kennedy writes:
p.s. I wonder if the whip of a hickory shaft actually helped Hollins make the shots.

I was wondering this myself. According to Bernard Darwin in Golf Between Two Wars the short hitters were quick to change from hickory to steel with the longer hitters in less of a hurry to switch. He says Bobby Jones won his four Championships in 1930 using hickory shafts.

Marion Hollins was one of the longer hitters of her era.

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Today, I played and it was 51 degrees.  On holes where the wind was in my face, a carry of 200 yards was a big hit, and that's with modern day balls and equipment.  It would be impossible for me to do it with balls and equipment circa 1925

And what do you think the weather was like when Hollins might have hit this shot? It's tough to say since we don't have any idea what time of year or even what year the shot was hit.

Jim Nugent writes:
Can anyone tell from the photos of Marion if she is swinging steel-shafted clubs?

I'm a little more convinced it doesn't make much difference. According to Mr. Darwin the long hitters saw little reason to switch from hickory to steel. It was the shorter hitters who gained.

Dan King -- I looked back over much of the thread.  No one said she definitely hit the shot, though several think she was entirely capable of doing so.

And that is how this whole thread started. Patrick said because Hogan/Nelson/Venturi/Ward made similar shots in 1956 there is no way Hollins could have done it in the 1920s. I've argued all along there are too many unknowns to say either way. The problem is Patrick keeps insisting I said things I never said and ignores requests for documentation.

Cheers,
Dan King

For every theory ye propose about the improvement o' the game, I'll show ye how the game is fadin' away, losin' its old charm, becomin' mechanzied by the Americans and the rest o' the world that blindly follows them. 
 --Julian Lang (Golf in the Kingdom)

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alex, would you cite for us which clubs had their patent pending but were widely available for use ?

Two well-known examples.

The original Ping Eye 2 (pat pending)...widely available.

The Anser 2 (pat pending) putter...widely available.

If the USGA hadn't approved the club as conforming, who would use it ?

Cheats ?

Do you believe that a manufacturer will hold off introducing a new and innovative product until the Patent Office has granted a final patent?  I'm surprised you are so unfamiliar with the process.

I'm surprised that you don't understand the USGA's policy on conforming equipment.
The use of Clubs not approved as conforming is a violation of the rules of golf.
If the USGA had declared the steel shaft illegal, who would use it ?  Certainly not Marion Hollins

How about coming up with something, anything of a substantive nature that supports the myth.

Something more substantive than several photographs of a woman whose hands looked like she never needed help opening a jar and whose legs reminded me of Robert Newhouse?  

Having played with Keith Byers, Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson and Bart Oates, I can assure you that the size of someone's hands and legs doesn't equate into driving distance when it comes to hitting a golf ball.
Did you ever see her full swing as opposed to a still photo ?

What else do you need...a Trackman report of her clubhead speed, smash factor and spin rates?

Today, I played and it was 51 degrees.  On holes where the wind was in my face, a carry of 200 yards was a big hit, and that's with modern day balls and equipment.  It would be impossible for me to do it with balls and equipment circa 1925

Good for you getting out for a round, but are you trying to say that your power today is equivalent to the power of Ms Hollins in her 30's?  Can you post a picture of you at the top of your backswing NOW so we can compare?   Please wear a short sleeve shirt so we can have a look at your guns, Mr LaLanne.  

At 6'3" 220, I'll take my chances at any age, 25, 35, 45 or 55

[Alex Miller]

Having played with Keith Byers, Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson and Bart Oates, I can assure you that the size of someone's hands and legs doesn't equate into driving distance when it comes to hitting a golf ball.

I laughed at this. Think about it Pat

As for Ms. Hollins being a cheat, she definitely did not use steel shafts before their approval for competition, but the shot we're talking about by all accounts is not well documented, so to assume she wasn't using steel shafts is also foolish. I'm not saying she did for sure, but it's POSSIBLE, which means you're wrong.

Jamie Sadlowski is 5'11" 165 pounds and hits the ball farther than anyone on the planet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

There you go again.  You're wrong and someone has pointed it out. 

I'm not wrong.

No one has been able to certify that Marion Hollins hit three balls with a driver, over the chasm, 220 to the center of the green site.
No one has been able to certify that Marion Hollins hit one ball with a driver or Brassie, over the chasm, to the center of the green site 220 yards away.

So what do you do?  Deal with it in an intelligent, mature way?  Or talk about obvious and utter ignorance? 

You stupid ass, you were the one using that first used that language, I merely repeated what YOU said.

Of something I didn't mention?  It is apparent that you have no interest in a discussion that attempts to discover the truth, you just want to behave like a high school bully.

You really are obtuse.
I'm the one asking for someone, anyone to produce concrete evidence that the alleged event took place.
I'm trying to discover the truth and all you and others can do is cry that you know she made the shot/s

Let me explain this in simple language, in the hope that even you might understand it.

Whatever the rules said in 1922, that would not have prevented True Temper filing an application for a patent, which I'm sure they did anticipating a change in the rules.

Let me explain this in simple language, in the hope that you might understand it.
Marion Hollins was very close to the USGA, winning the USGA Women's Amateur in 1921 and thereafter being named the Captain of the first Curtis Cup.  Do you think she would be playing with clubs the USGA ruled illegal.
Get with the program

If True Temper filed the patent in 1922, they could manufacture the product then.

As soon as the rules changed, True Temper could sell the product.  Indeed, they could sell it beforehand but players could not play in official competition.

Let's see if I understand your point.
You contend that Marion Hollins, who was extremely active in competitions, would play a set of conforming clubs in competitions, but another set, a set of non-conforming/illegal clubs when she wasn't playing in competitions.
It's obvious that you know nothnig about golfers who regularly compete in USGA and other governing body events

It is still entirely possible, whatever your ramblings, that Hollins had a steel shafted club in 1926.

No, that's impossible because we've already established that the alleged event had to have taken place PRIOR to 1926
Second, a person of her status in the golf and USGA world would NOT be playing with clubs ruled illegal.

Now, do you want to have an intelligent conversation or continue behaving like a spoiled teenager?

You're wrong again, I'd suggest that you go back to sulking and licking your wounds

[Patrick_Mucci]

Having played with Keith Byers, Lawrence Taylor, Pepper Johnson and Bart Oates, I can assure you that the size of someone's hands and legs doesn't equate into driving distance when it comes to hitting a golf ball.

I laughed at this. Think about it Pat

As for Ms. Hollins being a cheat, she definitely did not use steel shafts before their approval for competition, but the shot we're talking about by all accounts is not well documented, so to assume she wasn't using steel shafts is also foolish. I'm not saying she did for sure, but it's POSSIBLE, which means you're wrong.

Possible ?   maybe
Probable?   very Doubtful
Remember, the alleged event occured in 1925 or earlier.

And, even if she used steel shafts would you compare them to the true temper steel shafts of 1956 ?

Jamie Sadlowski is 5'11" 165 pounds and hits the ball farther than anyone on the planet.

Let's see how far the longest man on the planet can hit it with balls and equipment from 1925 or earlier.

Take a look at the size of the club heads in 1925.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

Can you or anyone cite one iota of documented evidence from any eyewitness certifying the event ?

Until you can, the story is nothing more than a myth.

Additional information/evidence and reasonable thought lead a prudent man to conclude that it's a myth.

[Alex Miller]

Ms. Hollins being close to the USGA actually helps the case being made for the possibility that she used steel shafts. She probably would've known before many others when they would be deemed legal for use in competition, so playing them in preparation for the switch seems more believable than any scenario you have created to the contrary.


Obviously no one is going to cite evidence from an eyewitness to the event. Donald Ross died long ago. That doesn't mean it didn't happen for sure. We can't prove anything and you haven't either, Patrick. We are only making the case that it was possible for Marion Hollins to carry the gap, nothing more.


My point with Sadlowski was obviously lost on you. He is an average size man with extraordinary power. The fact that Ms. Hollins was a woman is not enough reason to assume she couldn't carry the chasm. By your reasoning we should assume Charles Barkley hits 300 yard drives every time.

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
Can you or anyone cite one iota of documented evidence from any eyewitness certifying the event ?

Don't need to. As I've said countless times in this thread, the truth or untruth of Marion Hollins' feat is not something I'm going to guess about. There are far too many unknowns to draw any conclusion. As far as I can tell -- you are the one and only person who has drawn a conclusion, using faulty logic to say it could not have taken place. If you are now changing your position, please, just let us know.

Until you can, the story is nothing more than a myth.

Maybe, maybe not. There are tons of stuff I have no documented proof about but it doesn't automatically make them myths. If you ever had come up with a valid reason Hollins couldn't have hit the shot over the chasm I would listen. But your position she couldn't have because the four golfers in 1956 did hit the shot is laughable. There are just way to many unknowns from the Hollins shot to draw any such conclusion.

No matter how many times you try to get me to accept your red herrings I'm going to continue to refute it.  

Additional information/evidence and reasonable thought lead a prudent man to conclude that it's a myth.

Assuming that prudent man is also crazy.

Cheers,
Dan King

The difference between now and when I played during my younger days is my drives are shorter and my short game is longer.
 --Simon Hobday

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

There you go again.  You're wrong and someone has pointed it out.  

I'm not wrong.

No one has been able to certify that Marion Hollins hit three balls with a driver, over the chasm, 220 to the center of the green site.
No one has been able to certify that Marion Hollins hit one ball with a driver or Brassie, over the chasm, to the center of the green site 220 yards away.

But this thread started with you trying to prove that she did not.  You have utterly failed to do so.  It is not for anyone to prove she did, indeed, no-one has suggested they can since, if it is true only Raynor and Hollins were there and both are dead, it is for you to prove she did not.  I repeat, you have utterly failed to do so.  It is entirely typical of your “style” of argument to attempt to turn the burden of proof around.  Sadly for you we are not all that stupid as to allow you to do so.

So what do you do?  Deal with it in an intelligent, mature way?  Or talk about obvious and utter ignorance?

You stupid ass, you were the one using that first used that language, I merely repeated what YOU said.

But you do appear to be utterly ignorant of the patent system, I can’t help that.  Your discussion of the patent demonstrated ignorance.  I’m sorry, I can’t help that.  Nowhere did I mention the rules.  Nice touch calling me an ass, by the way.  Classy.

Of something I didn't mention?  It is apparent that you have no interest in a discussion that attempts to discover the truth, you just want to behave like a high school bully.

You really are obtuse.
I'm the one asking for someone, anyone to produce concrete evidence that the alleged event took place.

No, you’re not.  You’re the one claiming to have proved it didn’t and, when faced with the inadequacy of your argument, attempting to turn it around.

I'm trying to discover the truth and all you and others can do is cry that you know she made the shot/s

I don’t think you have any interest in the truth.  Just in being right.  Or at least trying to look like you’re right.

Let me explain this in simple language, in the hope that even you might understand it.

Whatever the rules said in 1922, that would not have prevented True Temper filing an application for a patent, which I'm sure they did anticipating a change in the rules.

Let me explain this in simple language, in the hope that you might understand it.
Marion Hollins was very close to the USGA, winning the USGA Women's Amateur in 1921 and thereafter being named the Captain of the first Curtis Cup.  Do you think she would be playing with clubs the USGA ruled illegal.
Get with the program

No. But then I didn’t say so.  I said that she could very possibly have been playing steel shafted clubs in 1926.  Not in 1922 when the patent was filed.  I don’t think my point was difficult to understand, except for someone with no interest in understanding it.

If True Temper filed the patent in 1922, they could manufacture the product then.

As soon as the rules changed, True Temper could sell the product.  Indeed, they could sell it beforehand but players could not play in official competition.

Let's see if I understand your point.
You contend that Marion Hollins, who was extremely active in competitions, would play a set of conforming clubs in competitions, but another set, a set of non-conforming/illegal clubs when she wasn't playing in competitions.
It's obvious that you know nothnig about golfers who regularly compete in USGA and other governing body events

Where did I say that?  Another of your tedious tactics in these “conversations” is to deliberately misrepresent what others are saying.  In 1926 Hollins could have been playing steel shafted woods in competition as well as non-competition.  

It is still entirely possible, whatever your ramblings, that Hollins had a steel shafted club in 1926.

No, that's impossible because we've already established that the alleged event had to have taken place PRIOR to 1926
Second, a person of her status in the golf and USGA world would NOT be playing with clubs ruled illegal.

Now, do you want to have an intelligent conversation or continue behaving like a spoiled teenager?

You're wrong again, I'd suggest that you go back to sulking and licking your wounds

No wounds to lick, thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

With an exhibition of feminine golfing skill such as the Edgewater links will seldom see again, Miss Collett justified her title with a brilliant 38 on the third nine of the scheduled 36-holes with Miss Turpie. That 38 was three under women's par and was made over water-soaked fairways that robbed much of the distance from her shots.........Miss Collett also won the distance driving contest by knocking three golf balls for a total of 659 yards.


That's 219.66 @ Pat  on water-soaked fairways no less

[Kevin_Reilly]

If the USGA hadn't approved the club as conforming, who would use it ?

Cheats ?

Please point out the Rule that requires a piece of equipment to be Patented (as opposed to Patent Pending like the Ping Eye2 and the Anser 2) to be conforming.  If the Anser 2 Pat Pending was not legal for use, then I have bad news to deliver to players like Greg Norman, Mark O'Meara and a young Tiger Woods who used it extensively.

Also, I have no idea why you insist Marion Hollins must have used a steel shaft for the shot.  What makes a steel shaft necessary for it?  Are you saying that a flexible shaft like the Whippy Tempomaster cannot be hit extreme distances like in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sOwlNLYS5w

Steel offered consistency and durability, and later on stepped steel shafts allowed manufacturers to fine tune the flex properties of a shaft.  Ms. Hollins no doubt had a shaft in her driver or brassie that she was happy with, so she would be no better off with a steel shaft for that shot.

For a player with Ms. Hollins's strength and technique (that collection of NY Giants you cited that have the former and not the latter) any sort of shaft would be usable.  Flexible hickory or stiffer steel...wouldn't matter one bit.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bobby Jones was seriously impressed with the whippy shafts used by Frank J. Helme:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1932/ag354m.pdf

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bernard had something to say about the ladies and distance:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1932/ag354s.pdf

an excerpt:  There is a certain one-shot hole at Worplesdon which measures by the card one hundred and eighty-five yards, and the green rises to something of a plateau. To this hole in the final Miss Park, who looks as if you could blow her away, took a No. 2 iron with no wind to help her. She laid the ball some twelve feet short of the hole and expressed her satisfaction that she had not put her partner over the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()