The Veto on Steel Shafts lifted (in 1929)

[Melvyn Morrow]

There are times when The R&A can surprise us or are those days now well passed – whatever, they are indeed a law unto themselves.

Those who are interested in history may wish the read the following article from the Scotsman Newspaper dated 3rd December 1929.


I do love one of the comments in the article, although when it comes to technology in golf, it proves to bee the biggest weakness in golf next to cheating, but then that only my opinion.

‘Safeguards are always necessary against innovations tantamount to “buying the shot” over the counter’. Hell, every new product passed buys more I suggest that just one shot, but its not cheating you all call it progress. Excuse me if I feel certain types of ‘progress’ is not acceptable but the willingness of buying is fairly rampant in golf today – it just kills the heart and spirit of the game.





Melvyn

[Michael Moore]

Melvyn -

Which equipment specifications are true to the heart and spirit of the game?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

If you need to ask they I fear for your golfing soul 

Melvyn

[Michael Moore]

Melvyn -

I do need to ask, and I appreciate your concern, but for real, which ball and clubs would you recommend for someone who does not want to feel like they are cheating the game of golf or "buying the shot"?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

Let me ask you a question, why did you purchased say your last 3 clubs.

Old clubs not playable, wanted to spend money or believed that the new ones will enhance your game or was there any others reason?

As then you may have answered your own question - but you would have to be totally honest

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
The particular era you have chosen to champion is like a trainstop midway between destinations. Several different species of wood were used for golf shafts until the mid 1800s, when hickory became the wood of choice. I've even read where it's believed that the first hickory shafts were produced from ax handles sent to Great Britain from, of all places, America.  

The last clubs that I purchased met this criteria: a specific use (not unliike that of rutting irons or similar clubs), looks (not unlike the purchase from my favorite 19th century clubmaker), and flex (similar to the same sorting process that was needed for a matched set of hickory clubs).

Some things are not as dissimilar as we think, even though evolution happens.
  


Edit: This photo was taken before the nose job.

[Pat Burke]

Very cool article

slow to act.  Convinced of no damage.   

Where I have heard that before regarding the R&A  and USGA?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - god, I love America!!

Peter

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

It’s fake, tasteless and verging on the vulgar, but if that is you bag then my friend you are missing out on life.

LSD mean the old pound, shillings and pence re our currency,  pre the 1971 decimalisation although I suspect it has a different colourful meaning to you. Man.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that you are a born again Christian, which might help.

Melvyn

[Doug Siebert]

I personally differentiate between advancements that are mostly or only improving the results of a player's stroke (which I see as reducing the skill requirement for golf) versus those that have a more egalitarian purpose.  I think the advancement from hickory shafts to steel shafts, even though it does also improve the results of a player's stroke, had a more important result of equipment that was much more consistent.  Perhaps cheaper as well, which I think is a good thing, though while hickory shafts would cost more than steel today, that may not have been true in 1929.

The concept of equipment that is more consistent being good for the game is one that I think is often overlooked.  Some purists like Melvyn may find this to be a bad thing, and that one should take their chances with having an oddball hickory shaft in their 8 iron or balls that are a bit out of round.  But I don't think that's good for the game, as it pretty much dooms those of lesser means to use of inferior equipment.  If we were all buying 1920s equipment today, for those who could only afford Walmart clubs, imagine the mismatched horror they'd get with a dozen hickory shafted clubs?  Imagine what an "x out" would be in terms of balls that all out of round, the only question being by how much?  Where the top grade balls, the equivalent of the Pro V1s the pros play, would be selected out of the batches of those unbalanced balls to find the least unbalanced and charge much more for them!  A bigger wallet would directly translate into lower scores amongst two golfers of otherwise identical skills, and that is NOT what golf should be about.

So I can see the good in moving to steel shafts, simply because it allowed for marketing a matched set for the first time.  You can pretty much guess my views on the other technology changes in the game over the past 100 years by viewing them through the same prism...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Doug

From the start my stance on the technology has always been that we should use it. But not for the benefit of improving ones score overnight but for the consistency it can give to the game be it in the ball or clubs.

There is nothing wrong in technology, a point that I have made over and over again, but it must be controlled. Technology is not or should not be used to improve one’s score, that should come from development of ones skill not a better aerodynamic ball or grooved club/ball combination that shaves of 10-20 yards per shot.

Old Tom was not anti-technology so why would I be. He saw first-hand the major limitations of the feathery ball, once wet,  it was more prone to misshaping and splitting were as the gutty would retained its shape. The change from feathery to gutty meant first of all much cheaper balls  allowing the common man to be able to afford using them as well as it gave the game the stability to expand due to the consistency of the ball.

No we should not fear technology but we should certainly control it.

There is an inherent weakness in golf. I suppose it could be compared to the chicken and egg debate. Control or rules for the game did not materialise until late into the life of the game. Therefore little to  no understanding for the need to control the equipment just to define the more basic requirements of ball. This point IMHO still has not been addressed by the governing bodies otherwise we would not see our older course constantly being stretched to accommodate the ever longer Drive from the Tee. It should have been identified from a much earlier stage that this would happen and the problem should have been addressed, be it again by stabilizing the ball or another option. To resort to screwing with our great courses and courses in general is pure madness due to the costs alone compared to buying a new set of balls.

To turn a blind eye to the problem is to negate ones responsibility to the game and of course worst still to oneself. What I feel is inexcusable is to purchase the latest equipment knowing that one may drop a stroke of two due to the latest technology – this lie that some of us quietly live by is slowly undermining the very spirit of the game.

Golf is a game for honest men and women, because in the end its only yourself that you are fooling no one else.

WE need technology, buy controlled technology, yet our Governing Body sees no danger – I am minded of Nero playing his music while his power base of Rome burnt in front of his eyes. Replace Rome with our great old treasured golf courses and you may also feel some concern.

No not against technology but am most certainly FOR Golf.

Melvyn 

[Colin Macqueen]

Melvyn,

Just out of interest which make of clubs and golfballs do you use when you play "the greatest gemme".  I had a set of Ben Hogan Apex for 20 years which I have, within the last year, replaced with Mizunos and I allow myself the luxury of Titleist ProV1 golf balls.

Cheers Colin

[Ken Moum]

Michael

Let me ask you a question, why did you purchased say your last 3 clubs.

Old clubs not playable, wanted to spend money or believed that the new ones will enhance your game or was there any others reason?

As then you may have answered your own question - but you would have to be totally honest

Melvyn

The last set of clubs I bought (in late Nov) was a set of irons that were discontinued at least 25 years ago. I regripped them and intend to use the 7-W in my regular bag.  FWIW, they are at least two club shorter than the ones I have been using.

A week or so prior to that, I obtained three clubs at an AZ flea market-- a 1970s six iron, a 1980s nine iron, and a sand wedge from the 1980s.

About a month before that I traded a buddy for one of his old drivers and a matching three wood, (about 3 years old) because I hit them a little straighter than what I had been using.  The trade involved a 4-year-old driver and some shafts I bought 10 years ago.

Before that, I added a "new" putter to my arsenal in September when another friend bought a putter 1-year-old beat-up used putter at a local golf show and gave it to me.  I spent some time "adjusting" the weight and lie, and now it's my everyday putter.

I buy golf equipment because I enjoy fooling around with clubs. At no time in the last 15 years have I obtained anything that had a significant effect on my ability to score.

In fact, my low round of the year--73--was shot with a Persimmon driver and four wood, 1958 Haig Ultra blades bought new by my father, and a Bullseye putter he gave me on my birthday 50 years ago.  Sadly, a couple of day later I got the predictable shanks with those irons, and shot 100 with them.

Which is why I use the implements pictured below:

[Adam Clayman]

protective conservatism versus sheer cussedness?

Same old? Or is there something new to protect?