Quote: I do not want to live in the 19th Century nor go back to the 1860’s I live in the current age. If you can get that so wrong then there is no little hope of you understanding me, be it re golf or any other subject.
Melvyn, in your letter to me you said (and I quote): I would like to re start from the turn of the 20th Century. Engineer clubs and equipment to that periods of play so that we see golf at its best, we are able to see some of the great old courses come to life. To play the courses of our forefathers as they once had and perhaps try to emulate their scores (if only) remembering that many a report of these can be found in the archives.
What did I misinterpret in that statement? If anything it is that you only want the game to return to the beginning of the 20th Century, not the middle of the 19th... for that I stand corrected.
Quote: I look at history and try to learn from it, not ignore it. As for technology I have never been against it but I have always believed it should be controlled.
As for a roll back of equipment I said that if I had to decide a period it would be after the introduction of the Haskell at the turn of the 20th Century – I do not wish to travel back to that period either.
You have not slighted me, but I thought that we might get to understand each other, alas I see that’s not possible.
Melvyn, I do understand you and can accept that you prefer the older archaic form of the game. As I said in my letter to you: I think you are someone who has focused on a point in time when the game he loves was played on courses (and with equipment) that he prefers to those offered today. Marry that with the grand performance and recognition of your family during this time and it is easy to understand why you love the turn of the century so much.
I get it, Melvyn, you love golf of the Old Tom Morris era. I accept that and also believe it would be fun to play golf in that manner.
The problem I have with your argument is you choose to employ selective memory when dealing with the historical facts of technological improvements in the game of golf. You contend that the yearn for increased "distance" is a modern phenomenon and did not occur in the past. I contend that the ONLY reason for the development of clubs with various lengths and lofts was to propel the ball varying distances with varying trajectory. In my mind to suggest anything else is blindly ignoring history.
You sing the praises of the Gutty, but initially the Gutty had a smooth surface and didn't travel as far as a featherie. So what happened? Ball makers, like those in your family, discovered that used balls with a scored surface tended to TRAVEL FARTHER and began experimenting with different design patterns to enhance the performance of the ball. This is a FACT. Would you have blocked your family and the other ball makers from scoring their balls in the name of more DISTANCE... as that was the ONLY reason for marking the balls.
As for the Haskell... what made the Haskell popular? Here is a excerpt from Golf Europe's history of the golf ball: In 1898, Coburn Haskell introduced the one-piece rubber cored ball which was universally adopted by 1901 after it proved so effective in the British and US Opens. These balls looked just like Gutties but gave the average golfer an extra 20 yards from the tee. These balls were constructed from a solid rubber core wrapped in rubber thread encased in a gutta percha sphere. Once W. Millison developed a thread winding machine, Haskell balls were mass-produced and therefore more affordable.
Just like today, golfers at the turn of century were seeking more DISTANCE... which made the Haskell a huge success and eliminated the production of gutties within a very short time.
Quote: As for golf, there is only one game called golf but many variations which allows many weak and lazy options. I prefer to stay true to the game as it was taught to me which revolves around walking and thinking and not riding and letting outside aids do my thinking for me. Call it or me what you will but Fundamentalist, no I think not, just because you and others do not want to play the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf don’t go calling me names.
You and others are at odds with me because you do not like to be reminded how golf is played.
I wish you well, I certainly do not dislike you, just feel sorry for lost opportunities.
Describing your philosophy on golf as fundamentalist is not "calling you names." It is simply defining your argument style. Consider this: A primary tenet of religious fundamentalism contends that only "true believers" are righteous and understand the way to Heaven. Fundamentalists consider their scripture the word of God and believe that no person is right to change it or disagree with it. Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation.
You project yourself as a protector of the old doctrine and "way of life" that the "true" form of golf represents. According to you no other person or organization is right to change this form of golf or disagree with it.
Does that not accurately describe your argument style for the archaic version of golf? Is that not fundamentalism?