Bobby Jones Question

« **Reply #50 on:** July 18, 2006, 10:51:52 AM »

Found it.

Not Inverness.

« **Reply #51 on:** July 18, 2006, 11:04:25 AM »

Pat,
Jones comment about Jack was in regards to how he played the game, not about his distance in particular. He saw in Jack a management of the game that has lead us to what is going on now.

« **Reply #52 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:17:20 PM »

Ralph:

Despite what Jones said in that article, I just can't imagine what that example he gave of carrying a ball close to a green 340 yards away was about.

The fact is power players today, and loads of them, carry a golf ball close to 300 yards or more and under neutral conditions regularly and I doubt Jones with the equipment and balls he used back then could possibly have been within 50-60 yards of that with regularity under so-called neutral conditions. That should be the point here, in my opinion, and not whether or not Jones once carried a golf ball that far or farther a single time in apparently unusual or questionable circumstances (for this kind of distance comparison of then and now).

« **Reply #53 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:36:54 PM »

Ralph Livingston,

The 9th and 17th holes at Merion are seriously down hill.

If Jones had to hit a 3 iron at the 170 yard 9th and a 2 iron at the steeply down hill 215 yard 17th, he evidently couldn't generate the clubhead speed to hit the ball prodigious distances.

Teeing the ball one inch above the ground doesn't allow for much of a launch angle, and we know that launch angles are critical for the trajectory necessary to carry the ball great distances.

I was also taken by Jones's use of the word "potentially".
Why do you suppose he used that word ?
If he had hit an incredibly long drive why wouldn't he have said so without the use of any "qualifying" additives ?

Was the hole a dogleg, measured down the center through the angle of deflection ? A scorecard distance rather than a crow's flight distance ? Jones also doesn't state where the ball landed, only where it ended up, and as such, perhaps he didn't see the entire flight of the ball. Perhaps it hit something in the fairway or rough that propelled it forward.

As to his comments about Nicklaus, it was a comment primarily about Nicklaus's length, his power and high ball flight, two components of the game that are linked together when discussing distance.

Do the math with the clubhead speed and launch angle necessary to carry a ball 320 yards and you'll see that it was impossible for Jones to generate the factors necessary to carry the ball 320 yards.

In addition. look at the qualitiy control methods employed by the ball manufacturers in those days, versus today's balls, and the aerodynamics of the ball, the dimple designs.

How many times have you heard that idiot-savant TEPaul state that higher spin rates cause the ball to balloon, thus limiting distance.

The ball, the equipment and the laws of physics would prevent Jones from carrying the ball 320 yards, hence his claim may have been ...... inaccurate.

Perhaps a reviewing of the Re-Max long distance driving contest would be insightful. They measure the clubhead speed and launch angles. On most carries of 320 the clubhead speed is in the 140-155 range. Even you can't believe that Jones could generate that type of clubhead speed with his driver.

And, if he could, why wouldn't he be hitting 7-8-9 irons on those downhill par 3's at Merion ?

Chalk this one up to folklore, embellishment or misinformation.

« **Reply #54 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:38:44 PM »

Tom,
As long as you understand this drive was a one off deal, not a regular occurance. But there are LOTS more examples like this.

I would be interested in knowing what you thought he meant when he said that was by no means the longest drive he ever hit.
The longest hits I have ever seen with hickory, down wind and in Scotland with Pro v's, never came close. The balls they had were smaller and possibly harder. Look at the 1915 ball ad info, they could make them any way they wanted. Jones also said if he needed more distance he could have the ball manufacturers make them harder (wind them tighter) for him. If they were aware of compression in the teens, you would think they knew what it was in the twenties.
They were also experimenting like crazy with markings. No one has done a study on the effects of the markings on ball flight.
Lots of unanswered questions.

Has anyone looked into the weather back then?
Many on here seem to think all the golf courses were in a perpetual drought.

« **Reply #55 on:** July 18, 2006, 01:40:48 PM »

Pat,
So Jones is a liar.
OK

« **Reply #56 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:06:35 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 18, 2006, 01:36:54 PM

I was also taken by Jones's use of the word "potentially".
Why do you suppose he used that word ?
If he had hit an incredibly long drive why wouldn't he have said so without the use of any "qualifying" additives ?

Jones uses the word "potentially" to indicate that his drive on the fourteenth hole was potentially longer than his drive on the eleventh hole.

« **Reply #57 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:11:46 PM »

Pat,
You are imposing modern play on their game. They mostly hit 1/2 and 3/4 swings for accuracy and control. At least read Jones' books, he talks about it. They (generally) did not play a Power Game. That is what Jones meant in his comment about Jack. The hard swinging and the all-the-time higher trajectory combined, was what he was talking about. He did one or the other but as the shots demanded it, not combined and as a full time gig.
It was a different game, a game with which he was not familiar.
He had obviously hit drives as long, or longer then Jack.

They could and did hit high trajectory shots with their clubs. Clubs ofthe quality they used could hit any way they wanted, and it wasn't about how high they teed it. Jones could make the ball do almost anything with any club, all the good players could. READ SOME BOOKS. A bunch of them from that era. And read between the lines.

I don't know what was going on at Merion during that tournament with the weather and I don't know the holes. A bunt 2-Iron on the 17th fighting the wind or something, might have been the best call. A 3 Iron was the best call on the 9th. 170 yards was easily reachable with his 4 Iron (~=6-7 Iron) based on his own distances for the club. He has even related a full shot with a mashie that carried 175 to the back of a green. If I could ask why he did it I would, trust me on that.
I would like nothing more than to have a demonstration with a good scratch player using a set of my pro-grade clubs. It would help me out and end the speculation. You will be awed at how high a good player hits these clubs. You just haven't seen a good player hitting good clubs.
My current thing is to do carry comparisons with these clubs between ProV's and quoted carry distances. Par 3 holes are obviously the best to use.

« **Reply #58 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:12:39 PM »

Quote from: Ralph_Livingston on July 18, 2006, 01:40:48 PM

Pat,
So Jones is a liar.
OK

Since you can't answer the questions, or accept the laws of physics, you choose to express yourself and your position with an extreme.

Jones might have been misinformed.
The hole might not have been measured properly.
Jones might not have seen the flight of the ball.
Jones may not have recollected accurately,
The editor might have edited or embellished the story,
And, heaven forbid, Jones might not have been telling the truth.

It really doesn't matter which it is.

The Laws of Physics PREVENT Jones from carrying the ball 320 yards. He could neither generate the necessary club head speed and proper launch angle to carry a ball 320 yards, even with today's golf ball, let alone one from his era.

That you refuse to accept the Laws of Physics is your problem.

« **Reply #59 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:15:31 PM »

Ralph Livingston,

This may come as a surprise to you, but, almost all of the top players in the world play within themselves, using dialed down swings as the norm. However, they have power in reserve and can step it up when required to do so.

P.S. I've been with, watching and playing with some of the best players in the world for the last 50+ years, so I think I have a decent understanding of how they hit the golf ball.

And, NOONE, under non-extreme conditions was carrying the ball 320 yards.

Not in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990

« **Reply #60 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:34:47 PM »

From a newspaper account, Jimmie Thompson in 1928 drove the 16th green at Holston Hills. The hole is uphill, 305 yards long but is 'downwind' with a prevailing wind. No mention of the wind & weather in this single newspaper account.

Jimmie was one of the longest drivers of his day, and was 19 in 1928. Also in the same year, Jimmie and his father Wilfred lost in a match versus Gene Sarazen and Johnny Farrell and the newspaper account said "Jimmie outdrove Farrell and Sarazen consistently, getting in the neighborhood of 300 yards on practically all his tee shots."

With no fairway watering, it seems these long drives of long ago are today always attributed to dry hard fairways.

His carry must still have been something like 250-270 to end up reaching the 16th green. Even in dry firm conditions today, you just cannot run the ball, up the hill that far, and reach the green.

« **Reply #61 on:** July 18, 2006, 02:57:24 PM »

John Stiles,

I've seen balls run 50 to 100 yards on dry, firm fairways, especially when aided by the wind.

I suspect the lore of long drives, and carries, is akin to Trevino's comment, "The older I get, the better I used to be"

The Laws of Physics, not hearsay and/or myths determines carry.

« **Reply #62 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:04:56 PM »

There is also the accounts of Clarence Gamber's long driving skills recounted in American Golfer. He hit the Par 6 at Muskegon CC in two.
The hole still exists as a 5 and a 3. I want to get the lazer binocs out and shoot from the Par3 green to the tee of the five. I think it was 625yds.
I will e-mail the Gamber story if anyone wants it. It is too large to post.

Pat, I don't think you really know the "physics" of the player, ball, club combinations.
You assume they couldn't swing over 100 mph when in fact I have previously (10 years ago) measured at around 105-107 and 115 maxed out, and I am just a little guy that was never better than a 5. The Good scratch guys will be able to achieve some pretty big numbers. And I still believe the top balls were hotter then a ProV1. The extra mass in the heads is going to contribute substantially, too.
We need to do a test.

« **Reply #63 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:07:27 PM »

Ultimately the question is:
Why do you think they were screaming about the balls?
If they weren't too hot, why the furor?

« **Reply #64 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:12:08 PM »

Ralph Livingston,

The ingredients necessary to CARRY the ball 320 yards are:

VERY HIGH SWING SPEED
PROPER LAUNCH ANGLE
A SUITABLE BALL

None of the players of Jones's era possesed any of the above.

FAST FORWARD

Neither did Hogan, Snead & Nelson.

FAST FORWARD

Neither did Palmer, Player or Nicklaus

The combination of the three only came into existance recently.

The Laws of Physics are IMMUTABLE.

« **Reply #65 on:** July 18, 2006, 03:29:25 PM »

"Ultimately the question is:
Why do you think they were screaming about the balls?
If they weren't too hot, why the furor?"

Ralph:

Of course they were. Hardly any golf course before the disruptive onset of the Haskell ball were barely ever more than 6,000 yards.

Think in relative terms and degrees, my friend. Flynn said in 1927 if something was not done about distance increase 8,000 yard courses would be necessary. We are now at or over 7,500 yard courses and even with them shot values and shot demands don't even come close to matching the old 6,000 yard courses shot values and shot demands.

The question is not why the furor---the question is not only when and where will it end but will it ever end?

Actually, I think it might. I don't see why more attention isn't paid on here regarding the USGA's calling on the manufacturers to submit prototypes of balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far.

So many on here just seem so intent on criticizing the USGA on just about everything, I have not even seen a single contributor on here (except me) bother to even ask---"15 and 25 yards less far than what?"

« **Reply #66 on:** July 18, 2006, 05:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 18, 2006, 03:12:08 PM

Ralph Livingston,

The ingredients necessary to CARRY the ball 320 yards are:

VERY HIGH SWING SPEED
PROPER LAUNCH ANGLE
A SUITABLE BALL

None of the players of Jones's era possesed any of the above.

How do you KNOW, for a fact, that none of this occured?
I disagree on all points.

Why would high swing speeds be limited to today?
Show me something that documents their lack of physical skills.

Why wouldn't they have figured out the best loft/ball combination?
They could shape shafts, by feel, that were within 10 CPM in each grouping of clubs, but they weren't able to order changes in ball characteristics to fit their needs?
The top players had access to anything they wanted, just like today.

Why would they not have proper balls?
They had balls being made to their individual specifications.
Do you have any idea how much of the "modern" technology in golf was invented/patented in the 1890's thru 1920's?
That era was more in tune to custom fitting then we were until very recently.

The players from the later years didn't have a hot ball.
You give me quote's from the 30 and 40's like that ball wasn't less powerful than the twenties or teen's balls.
And Pat still believes the twenties balls were hotter than the teen's, ignoring the 1921 rules.

If the ball wasn't hot, why was it pulled back twice?
Why did EVERY architecht, most golf writers and most players, along with rules officials in the R&A complain about the ball.

Show me documentation that contradicts the documentation I have been presenting. I find this info in abundance, but nothing contradicting it.
I am interested in knowing the facts.
I change my mental profile as new facts come in.
I don't mind having my theory's proven wrong.
I just want to know what really happened.

« **Reply #67 on:** July 18, 2006, 05:35:58 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on July 18, 2006, 03:29:25 PM

So many on here just seem so intent on criticizing the USGA on just about everything, I have not even seen a single contributor on here (except me) bother to even ask---"15 and 25 yards less far than what?"

TP,

Has that changed ? I thought the USGA said, last April 2005 (?), that they asked manufacturers to participate in their project by developing and submitting to the USGA reduced distance golf balls that would comply with an ODS of either 15 yards or 25 yards shorter than the current standard.

ODS is carry and roll.

Anything new developing on this submittal process ?

« **Reply #68 on:** July 18, 2006, 06:18:56 PM »

Ralph

One only needs to put an old hickory club on a scale to see that it weighs considerably more then today's drivers with light weight titanium and graphite. Couple this with an average of 2 extra inches of length for an average modern driver and the swing speeds obtainable for equally proficient athletes is not close to comparable. Add the aerodynamic properties of dimple patterns of modern golf balls and computer assisted launch optimization and you have a vast difference in capabilities. Technology works.

I believe that much of yesteryear length claims come from baked non-irrigated fairways. and not carry distances.

« **Reply #69 on:** July 18, 2006, 06:24:56 PM »

I did look up Jones' driving in the playoff at Winged Foot in 1929. I have poor 1982 photocopies of the old Golf Illustrated, so I'm not posting those here. But, he did drive it 270-280 yards on many of the longer holes, and right to the front of the green at the sixth.

Interestingly, Al Espinosa hit his tee shot on the 18th hole of the playoff (second round of 36-hole playoff) about where Phil Mickelson hit his last tee shot this year. But, I don't think it was the pressure, Espinosa was 21 shots behind at that point.

« **Reply #70 on:** July 18, 2006, 06:42:59 PM »

Pat said:

The ingredients necessary to CARRY the ball 320 yards are:

VERY HIGH SWING SPEED
PROPER LAUNCH ANGLE
A SUITABLE BALL

I agree that the ball was inferior to today, but don't know why two out of three of those weren't possible in 1928, even if they happened by accident in some ways.

Certainly Jones could generate close to modern swing speeds in his prime. Given shaft torque, etc. he couldn't generate them on every swing, as pros can today, because he would probably break too many clubs. But once in a while, that extra whippy shaft had to accelerate swing speed by whipping in perfect timing with the hit and in perfect line to transmit all the power to the ball, no?

Similarly, every so often, the ball had to come off the club at optimum angle, even if by accident, accounting for the occaisionally surprising long drive. They just didn't know why at the time, just that it happened.

Even with average golfers, they sometimes get the magic 300 yarder in the middle of the tough day at the course for no apparent reason. Wouldn't the above explain that phenomenon?

« **Reply #71 on:** July 18, 2006, 06:58:53 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on July 18, 2006, 05:15:14 PM

I find it amusing that when Pat is backed into a corner by his disbelief he falls back on the unknowns of physics.

Sean,

First, it's Ralph who's backed himself into a corner, relying on folklore to suplant the Laws of Physics.

I can see from reading your above quote that you must not know the definition of the word, "immutable"

Nothing about "Physics" is unknown, it's a science.[/color]

How could anybody possibly say to carry a ball 300 yards in 19 whatever was impossible?

The Laws of Physics dictates the impossibility.
But, don't let facts and science get in your way.[/color]

That in itself is a silly statement.

No more so than the statement that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, or that A2 + B2 = C2, unless you don't believe in Euclidian Geometry.[/color]

None of us knows what some guys back in the day were capable of so why the "scientific" limitations?

It's not guessing about what they were capable of, it's knowing what they were incapable of, and 320 yard carries were beyond their reach. They possessed neither the hi-tech equipment nor the athletic prowess to produce 320 yard drives[/color]

All Ralph is doing is quoting Jones who as far as I know has not had his (Jones's) knowledge questioned in this manner before on this site. What does it matter if Jones carried a drive 280 or 310? The point about distance is still made.

It doesn't surprise me that the facts are of no concern to you.
[/color]

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #72 on:** July 18, 2006, 07:50:03 PM »

Quote from: Ralph_Livingston on July 18, 2006, 05:01:29 PM

How do you KNOW, for a fact, that none of this occured?
I disagree on all points.

Then you've gone from obtuse and stubborn to just plain foolish.

Why would high swing speeds be limited to today?
Because they're a product of titanium* heads, graphite shafts and specially constructed golf balls, none of which existed in
1930.[/color]

Show me something that documents their lack of physical skills.

Ralph, it's the science of the equipment and the Laws of Physics that render carries of 320 impossible.[/color]

Why wouldn't they have figured out the best loft/ball combination?

With what ?
There was no equipment to measure launch angles.[/color]

They could shape shafts, by feel, that were within 10 CPM in each grouping of clubs, but they weren't able to order changes in ball characteristics to fit their needs?
The top players had access to anything they wanted, just like today.

Obviously you don't understand the limiting and disproportionate relationship between solid wooden clubheads made of persimmon or hickory and hickory shafts versus lighter titanium clubheads coupled with longer, lighter graphite shafts.

Some science for you.

Titanium and other space age materials have a strength to weight ratio exponentially greater than steel, persimmon or hickory.

A persimmon or hickory clubhead had constant density.
A titanium clubhead does not have constant density and therefor can be structured such that it's essentially hollow, thus allowing the weight to be redistributed to the walls of the clubhead, which, due to the strength to weight ratio can now be made LARGER, despite the fact that the titanium clubhead will still weigh less than persimmon or hickory.

Now ask yourself, which can you swing faster, a shaft with a heavy or light weight at the end ?

Try swinging a heavy Momentus driver and tell me which you can swing faster, a standard driver or the heavy Momentus
driver.

Let's forget about the fact that a larger, lighter clubhead allows the golfer to swing faster with greater margins of error.

Now, which can generate more end of shaft speed ?
A shaft of 42.5 inches or a shaft of 46 inches ?

And, which can you swing faster, a shaft that weighs 400 grams or a shaft which weighs 66 grams.

When you combine the lighter, larger clubhead with a lighter, longer shaft, you generate considerably more clubhead speed which equates to greater distance.

Try swinging a 46 or 48 inch hickory shaft with a hickory head, with some degree of accuracy and see what clubhead speeds can be generated

If you're familiar with Archimedes you should reach prudent conclusions [/color]

Why would they not have proper balls?
They had balls being made to their individual specifications.
Do you have any idea how much of the "modern" technology in golf was invented/patented in the 1890's thru 1920's?
That era was more in tune to custom fitting then we were until very recently.

Ralph, if the technology of the times had produced such great golf balls, why aren't we using them today ?

Why were they replaced by generation after generation of new and improved golf balls ?

The answer is simple, because discovery and technology produced balls that outperformed the balls you're glorifying [/color]

The players from the later years didn't have a hot ball.
You give me quote's from the 30 and 40's like that ball wasn't less powerful than the twenties or teen's balls.
And Pat still believes the twenties balls were hotter than the teen's, ignoring the 1921 rules.

If the ball wasn't hot, why was it pulled back twice?
Why did EVERY architecht, most golf writers and most players, along with rules officials in the R&A complain about the ball.

Ralph, please examine your own question in the context of the times.

For you to assert that the ball of the teens and twenties outperformed today's balls is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on GCA.com.[/color]

Show me documentation that contradicts the documentation I have been presenting. I find this info in abundance, but nothing contradicting it.
I am interested in knowing the facts.
I change my mental profile as new facts come in.
I don't mind having my theory's proven wrong.
I just want to know what really happened.

If you were interested in knowing the facts you'd have boned up on your physics. It's pure science, not folklore.

You would have understood what Archimedes meant when he said he could lift the world.

You should understand the concept and relationships between constant density, clubhead weight, shaft weight and shaft length, and how they conspire to limit clubhead speed, which limits distance.

Now you'll tell me that Evan, "Big Cat" Williams, the 6'5" well built, well co-ordinated basketball who was the long driving champion for many years would have been even longer with hickory shafted, hickory headed drivers combined with the golf ball from the teens.

Why haven't the guys in the ReMax Long driving contest reverted to hickory ?

And, it should be pointed out that you have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion, I have none.

You're eroding your credibility with the foolishness of your argument.[/color]

« **Reply #73 on:** July 18, 2006, 08:02:05 PM »

Ralph,
"Why would high swing speeds be limited to today?"

Is it not true that hickory shafts were thicker than those of today and therefore giving more resistance on the downswing ? Obviously affecting attainable swingspeeds.

Ralph ; "Do you have any idea how much of the "modern" technology in golf was invented/patented in the 1890's thru 1920's?"

Agreed.

Ralph ; "If the ball wasn't hot, why was it pulled back twice?
Why did EVERY architecht, most golf writers and most players, along with rules officials in the R&A complain about the ball."

The balls were HOT .....in comparison to the gutta, gutty, and the first Haskells etc of the start of the 20th century. Even as late as, say, 1930, golfers, writers, architects etc still retained some memory of how the game was once played and how advancing technologies in both club and ball were affecting the playing field ! Especially those of maturing age.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that incredible distances were being achieved from the gutta era right through the 20th century. However, this was almost entirely achieved by conditions and even pure fluke ! It's also obvious that Bobby Jones - given the evidence supplied - could give it a fair crack. That he could carry ANY ball 320 yards with hickory, is still, IMO, highly unproven !

Long live the feats and memory of Bobby Jones. But let's not carried away and supplant the man into the realms of mythical legend.

Alfie

« **Reply #74 on:** July 18, 2006, 08:56:44 PM »

JeffB, Ralph and Alfie:

I agree with Pat as painful and unlikely it is for me to say so. I don't think so. Some phenomenon, or magic combinaton of circumstances? Come on, get real. This is no knock on Jones or anything like that but something is amiss here somehow.

Jones actually CARRYING a golf ball over 300 or 320 yards back then under anything remotely relating to normal or neutral circumstances? I don't think so. Not with what he was using in clubs and balls. Could Jones back then carry a ball that far with the clubs and balls they are using today? I'm sure he probably could.

News:

RSLivingston_III

RSLivingston_III

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

RSLivingston_III

RSLivingston_III

Michael Moore

RSLivingston_III

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

john_stiles

Patrick_Mucci

RSLivingston_III

RSLivingston_III

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

RSLivingston_III

john_stiles

Geoffrey Childs

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Brauer

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Alfie

TEPaul