News:

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


Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
As a bit of fun I have recently played a couple of times with the persimmon woods and blade irons that I used back in the 1980'-90's. Unfortunately I couldn't lay my hands on any balls from that era so I used a modern softer-feel/higher-spin ball as a best-alternative. I've gone back to my old gear many times, mainly for a bit of fun, but I have not done so for the last couple of years, so it was a good opprtunity to refresh my memory.

Not surprisingly, hazards that hadn't been in play for 10-15 years were back in play. The interesting thing was that it wasn't that my shots were much shorter with persimmon/blades than with titanium, graphite and cavity backs, in fact they weren't particularly. But two factors were apparent -

1) the trajectory off the tee - hazards and trees that I can easily carry with a titanium head/graphite shaft are not flyable with a persimmon head/steel shaft. The ball comes off the head soooo much lower with a persimmon head/steel shaft that it's necessary to play more of a ground ball based game and hit shots to the sides and try to curve the ball around hazards or even lay-up. This was the same with my old fairway (genuine) woods vrs modern fairways metals and hybrids.

2) with the irons the trajectory factor is less significant - maybe because club lofts have got stronger over the years - but the amount of spin from an old forged blade with groves manufactured in the 1980's as against a modern iron with modern manufactured groves and production tolerances is very different. A well struck mid or even short iron will land and move forward a little with the old sticks whereas it pretty much tends to stop where it lands with the new generation equipment, so again you have to play more around hazards than straight over them.

With the irons I did find it easier to play finess shots with the older clubs with their old groves especially in a strongish wind, less ballooning etc, in comparison to modern gear, but maybe that's just my style of play. Also, even using a modern style 'go-straight' ball, it was easier to 'work' the ball on all full shots with the old gear, sometimes moving it in the air in the wrong direction though - double crosses having a habit of going way off line!

For your info, my scores averaged 3-4 shots more per round with my old gear versus my modern equipment.

It's nice to play with older equipment once in a while and it was certainly nice to play with more of the original architectural features back in play once again.

All the best.




Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2013, 12:29:04 PM »
...
1) the trajectory off the tee - hazards and trees that I can easily carry with a titanium head/graphite shaft are not flyable with a persimmon head/steel shaft. The ball comes off the head soooo much lower with a persimmon head/steel shaft that it's necessary to play more of a ground ball based game and hit shots to the sides and try to curve the ball around hazards or even lay-up. This was the same with my old fairway (genuine) woods vrs modern fairways metals and hybrids.
...


My understanding is that the old persimmon drivers had lower lofts, because the ball spun more. Even though you say you are using a "soft" modern ball, it has been engineered to spin less off lower lofts. The modern "soft" balls spin about the same off driver as the modern "hard" balls. If you by chance happen to have a brassie or persimmon 2 wood to use instead of the driver, you might get a better comparison.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2013, 12:32:43 PM »
I find this topic to be most interesting.

Specifically, how did/does equipment change architecture?


I believe water become a "needed" hazard as loft and spin from clubs increased and become more easily obtained and greatly decreased the penalty for being in a bunker.


Thoughts?  Other ideas?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Neil White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2013, 12:35:27 PM »
Thomas,

Out of interest what changes has there been to your handicap from using your old gear to using present day equipment?

Neil.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2013, 12:57:39 PM »
...
I believe water become a "needed" hazard as loft and spin from clubs increased and become more easily obtained and greatly decreased the penalty for being in a bunker.
...

If water is a needed hazard, why don't Tom Doak; and Coore and Crenshaw go around creating water hazards on every course? How is it that the #1 modern has no water hazards?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2013, 02:49:47 PM »
...
I believe water become a "needed" hazard as loft and spin from clubs increased and become more easily obtained and greatly decreased the penalty for being in a bunker.
...

If water is a needed hazard, why don't Tom Doak; and Coore and Crenshaw go around creating water hazards on every course? How is it that the #1 modern has no water hazards?


Great point, Garland.

Perhaps I need to re-think/re-word my thoughts on this.

Architecture began to use more water as it was easier than thoughtful design to try to combat new club and ball technology.


Thoughts on that?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2013, 04:18:01 PM »
...
Architecture began to use more water as it was easier than thoughtful design to try to combat new club and ball technology.


Thoughts on that?

The ethic of golf design has moved away from water hazards (well maybe not Rees) since the advent of new club and ball technology.

If you were to say that the PGA sent Tilly around to remove cross bunkers, so it was easier to use water than thoughtful design afterwards as it was easier to use cross bunkers than thoughtful design before Tilly was tasked to remove them, then I might agree.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2013, 05:12:36 PM »
I think I disagree, Garland.

This kind of stuff does come after Tilly, but I see lots of water in post Golden Age design. The Bear Trap, the Snake Pit, the stereotypical 18tj hole with water all the way up one side. You didn't really see this kind of thing in the Golden Age.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2013, 05:34:43 PM »
Mac & Garland -

Wasn't Tillinghast one of the first GCA's to design island greens?

DT

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2013, 05:38:31 PM »
Thomas,

I still have two sets of old MacGregor blades and a set of old Powerbilt persimmon woods. It is far more fun to play with them than my modern Callaway irons and woods.

Biggest difference is length of driver tee shots - much shorter with the persimmon woods (with steel 43 inch shafts). Probably also a bit shorter with the irons.

Other differences: blades are much more fun to use around the greens and while trying to shape shots.

Speaking of shaping shots,  I never really played better than about a seven handicap, but did one day get to play with a plus 3-4 guy who spent one year on the Nike Tour. It was crazy how long he could hit the ball - consistent 200 yard seven irons on the practice tee. But, he couldn't match what I could do shaping the ball. He told me he felt like he never had to and was somewhat amused by my shaping ability.
Tim Weiman

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2013, 05:48:22 PM »
I think I disagree, Garland.

This kind of stuff does come after Tilly, but I see lots of water in post Golden Age design. The Bear Trap, the Snake Pit, the stereotypical 18tj hole with water all the way up one side. You didn't really see this kind of thing in the Golden Age.

What does any of this have to do with the explosion of golf equipment technology coinciding roughly with the introduction of the three piece ball about year 2000?

They didn't create the bear trap and the snake pit to counteract blades and balata.

EDIT, the thread is about newer equipment, but it seems you are going back to the invention of the sand wedge. What that has to do with water hazards everywhere I don't know.

What I do know is that RTJ introduced a form of penal he called heroic, and things went downhill from there. It had nothing to do with sand wedges.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 05:53:19 PM by GJ Bailey »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2013, 06:05:49 PM »
Thomas,

Leaving aside handicap issues, did you find the game to be more enjoyable or did you perhaps find that excessive water in Britain of late (and excessive irrigation for that matter) led to an inability to really play a proper ground game?
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2013, 06:14:33 PM »
Garland...

This was the question I asked following Thomas' comments on equipment.

Specifically, how did/does equipment change architecture?

I was interested in discussing all equipment changes and how it impacted architecture.  I thought that was the gist of the thread.


Enjoy.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Steve Salmen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2013, 07:51:59 PM »
Thomas,

Good topic.  I have older equipment that I break out occasionally.  However, I also mess around with balatas.  A Pro V1 crushed with a persimmon head will go further than a balata beat with a titanium head.  Though I can't prove it, I believe balls of that time have a shelf live and really lose their bounce.  A few years ago I hit a good drive 280 with modern equipment.  At the same time I drove the balata with persimmon about 235.  When I was playing with that equipment regularly when I was around 20 years old, I could drive it 245-260.

In a month or so, I'm playing a 2600 yard nine hole course that apparently has not changed in a century and look forward to using old equipment.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2013, 07:54:22 PM »
Mac,

Your post was confusing. The subject is persimmon/blades, you wrote this is a topic you were most interested in. A logical reading of your post would associate the "this" with the persimmon/blades.

I am now guessing "this" was supposed to be associated with your question.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2013, 02:25:25 AM »
Persimmon is a different issue to blades.  I still hit blades, but damned if I can hit an old persimmon wood.  I have a few 1 woods about, and from what I can see looking at it, it is probably only 6-7 degrees of loft!  But balls behaved differently  back then.  Because of the much higher spin, the ball would shoot off the face low and fizzing for a while and then rise into the air and then drop steeply as it ran out of puff (you could really hear then fizz).  The dimples woudl actually make the ball fly like an aircraft wing.  Now it is low spin and launch angles - so the actual physics has changed dramatically.

I have seen Greg Norman in the old days, get a driver to stop on the green within a dozen or so paces. Try that now.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2013, 03:10:12 AM »
Pretty sure persimmon drivers were mostly 11* as standard, a few were 12*.  I'm not surprised if it would look to you that it has less than that, the clubhead in a modern 460cc driver you're used to looking at these days is a lot taller so its easier to see the loft than on the shorter face of the persimmon.

It's pretty rare that I actually land a ball on the green, but when I land my ball in the fairway, if it's soft enough to get even the slightest amount of mud on the ball, it'll  usually stop within a foot of where it lands.  So I'll bet I could easily stop it in 12 paces on a green if it was soft enough that an approach shot tears the grass (as opposed to just making a dent)  That may just be proof I've never been optimized, however :)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 03:13:06 AM by Doug Siebert »
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2013, 07:53:59 AM »
Thank you all for replying. Some very astute and interesting comments and questions.

To all who either haven't hit a persimmon headed club for a long time or are of the generation that haven't had the opportunity, I suggest you beg or borrow some and give them a go. The sound of a well struck shot coming off a wooden head is wonderful. If you don't have access to some then there are classic MacGregor eye-o-matics, Hogan speed-slots, Powerbilts, Tony Penna's, Joe Powell's etc out there on ebay at what seem reasonable prices. To any who have never held or even seen a persimmon headed club when you see the face close up you'll immediately realise where the phrase 'out of the screws' came from. My own persimmon driver, which I had custom made, is 10.5*. Exactly the same loft as my current titanium 460cc headed graphite shafted beast, but as has been mentioned, the loft on an old wooden driver appears visually to be much less at address as the face isn't anywhere near as deep as the modern driver.

Interestingly, wooden headed fairway clubs don't seem to play that much differently in comparison to the modern metal headed ones, certainly not as different as old-vrs-new drivers play. I guess this probably has something to do with weight positioning, but I'll let the techies argue about that. One thing I do know for sure though, is that the modern titanium driver is soooo much easier to hit off the fairway than an old persimmon driver.

Such a shame that the old balata balls are no longer readily available and that ones found in practice bags/cupboards/garages have probably 'gone-off' a bit in performance terms by now especially as there shelf life was never supposed to be very long. It's very difficult to achieve a really true comparison without access to quality balata balls, which, as has been pointed out, did fly differently to the modern ball, having different spin characteristics etc, unfortunately more side spin as well. Indeed, I can still recall balls being sold wrapped tightly in sticky paper, I expect others can recall this too.

As to forged blades, ah, that special soft feel in the fingers when a shot comes out the middle, but oh, that tingling you got right through all your fingers and up your arms when you hit a thin one out of the toe, especially in the winter time. I'm not sure the performance aspect of quality modern made blades has changed that much but the grooves on new blades seem more consistent in terms of spin and modern manufacturing processes should mean closer production tolerances so sets ought to be better balanced.

And then, as has been mentioned, there's that wonderful weapon......the 1-iron! Lee Trevino's comment/joke about only God being able to hit a 1-iron is incorrect. Almost all the single figure players I know/knew used to carry one, I certainly did, and I still have it. Quail high in a wind, no problem. A great club for links or heathland courses, often used off the tee in the days when a driver from the tee wasn't the best play. Sandy Lyle, now there was the master of the 1-iron in the 1980's-90's - although many players like Sandy, Woosie, Nick Price, Bernhard etc seemed to use a Ping 1-iron rather than a blade. Indeed, I remember that Faldo and Daly had 0-irons made for them, zero-irons. Not sure what loft they had, maybe it was a branding gimic, anyone know anymore about this?

As to playability and score, well on a big long course, especially if it were a parkland or a generally lush style course, and one where flighting the ball high and stopping it quickly is important, there's no doubt in my mind that modern 460cc titanium heads, graphite shafts and cavity back irons have the edge, a considerable edge in scoring terms I would suggest. However, on a shorter classic style course, or a very firm and fast course or where there is a premium on keeping the trajectory lower with the potential to play numerous half or three-quarter shots that you wish to chase or finess or release into very firm greens then it would probably be blades and persimmon for the better ball striker I reckon, but, without access to quality condition balata balls of the specs from the 80'-90's it would be so hard to prove this, so this is just my gut feel and instinct. The width of the sole and the amount of bounce is also key in terms of playability, wide flanges and a lot of bounce being difficult to finess from firm/hard ground and very short grass, which I guess is why most top players seem to prefer to use blade or semi-blade style wedges.

Although I've not been to them, having only seen photos and read comments etc, but I suspect that persimmon and blades might be absolutely terrific fun to play with at places like Barnbougle/Lost Farms, Bandon, Sand Hills/Dismal River etc, this is only my suspicion though and then played perhaps off more forward tees. As to elsewhere, well I've already used them at most British Open venues, and I'd really like to use them at a course like Askernish too (as I would hickories for that matter).

If you've never played persimmon headed woods (and older blades) I'd very much encourage you to give them a go, even just for a few holes.

All the best.

PS - One thing I forgot to mention was how difficult it now is to get a persimmon headed club repaired or refinished. Once upon a time every shop pro and assistant could do it, and I know that some still can and that there are specialists about who are able do this work, but it seems that not many pro shop folk under the age of about 40 seem now know for example, how to re-whip the twine/thread where the shaft joins the shaft and there was always real care and skill in refinishing a wooden head, changing an insert or a sole plate and the removal/re-application of finish. Such a shame. A kinda lost art, even more so when those who are now 40-ish retire in a couple of decades time and their skills and knowledge pretty much retires with them.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 10:58:50 AM by Thomas Dai »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2013, 10:26:28 AM »
Pretty sure persimmon drivers were mostly 11* as standard, a few were 12*.  ...

Two wood loft was 12 degrees. So I doubt this is even close.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Use of old persimmon/blades and architecture comparison purposes
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2013, 01:42:25 PM »
Pretty sure persimmon drivers were mostly 11* as standard, a few were 12*.  ...

Two wood loft was 12 degrees. So I doubt this is even close.


Persimmon DRIVERS did, indeed, usually carry lofts in the 9 - 11 degree range as standard. Do some research. Now that's from the 1970's. I'm not sure about before that. I've also read that many of them were "open" at address, thereby decreasing their "effective loft" to 8 - 9 degrees, but I don't know if that's true.

FWIW, most top players today have lofts of 8.0 - 9.5 degrees on their drivers. Most, not all.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back