[RSLivingston_III]

Now we get to my big question, what was the performance of the ball?
Check the ball ads!!!!!
If the weight was increased by .1 oz how much further would it go?
If you reduced the size by .1" how much further would it go?
If you increased the density how would it affect performance?
What if you did all three?

I would also like to know what you think the performance of the clubs was. Geoffrey's comments about the clubs snapping from a fast swing are laughable.
Also, Geoffrey, I am trying to show that the right driver with one of those balls might have been propelled those longer distances.
I fully understand that the top players were typically driving 250-280 yards, with roll, using their "normal" swing. I am NOT saying they were hitting the ball as modern driver do, maybe as far as they were in the 80's or 90's.

Pat's physics is also very fun. Talk about pissing into the wind. He has zero data to come up with a formula, yet he has a conclusion.
A parameter to consider for your non-existant formula, mass.
Use some real physics on telling me how much different those balls in the ads were in their performance. That's info I can use.

You guys need to see what a pro club was like and I need to do some testing with good players.
I also need a ball engineer that can work up some performance curves on those old balls.

[RSLivingston_III]

Do we want to wrap this up now?
I know I am not going to gain anymore from continueing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

You're saying that you accept any statement attributed to a golfing icon from a past as fact.

Like Donald Ross stating that Seminole was FLAT.

The only problem with Ross's statement is the FACT that Seminole has elevation changes approaching 30 feet in many areas.

I don't choose to waste my time to research and produce the formula that proves my point.  One would have thought that common sense alone would have convinced you and Ralph, but, apparently, common sense isn't so common.

Critical to the formula is one element, the speed of the clubhead striking the ball.  Without that one criterion, distance
is unattainable.   Using heavy, density constant hickory woods/shafts, high clubhead speeds were simply not attainable.

Now, I want you to stop and think.
I know this will be hard for you.
Why did the golf world abandon hickory in favor of steel ?

Could it be because the density constant hickories were outperformed by the hollow steel shafts ?
That the strength to weight ratio was vastly superior ?

THAT THE CLUB COULD BE SWUNG FASTER WITH STEEL SHAFTS ?

Please, think before you answer.
Then, go back and think again and again until it sinks in.

One only has to look at the many movies of Bobby Jones's swing to see that he's not generating anywhere near 120 mph.

My guess is he barely got to 100 mph.

Perhaps someone with the technology can determine his clubhead speed from the movies he made, IF, those movies were made while he was swinging hickory and not steel.

Ralph Livingston,

As the surface (diameter) of the ball increases so does drag.

As the weight of the ball increases, the force necessary to propel it must increase.

As the weight decreases wind resistance increases.

Try a simple test.

Try hitting a ping pong ball and a large steel ball bearing of equal diameter, and then tell us what conclusions you draw from that exercise.

As the ball gets smaller, it becomes more difficult to hit with precision.

The art or science of dimple design and aerodynamics was in its infancy.

Spin rates influence carry.
Anyone who watched Snead, Hogan, Nelson, Palmer, Player and their generation can attest to the ballooning nature of the flight of the ball, which limited distance.

Has ANYONE you know carried a ball 320 yards with a hickory shafted driver with any of today's golf balls ?

If so, how was this documented ?

And, who did it and where and when did this occur ?

You and Sean seem to be the last living members of the "Flat Earth" Society.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Ralph

Please show me in my one contribution to this thread where I said a club would snap from a fast swing.    

In addition to the greatly increased weight of a hickory driver, the coefficient of restitution would also be considerably lower (something like 0.73 old to 0.83 modern) and that would require that the old club obtain faster swing speeds to gain the same distance.  Couple that with the increased length and you have a losing argument.

I'm just trying to use a small bit of science with a LOT of common sense and I have to conclude that a 320 yard carry under anything like normal conditions would be impossible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

It's got nothing to do with statistics.

It's got to do with the Laws of Physics, with which, apparently, you have no understanding.

To declare or support the contention that Jones carried his drive 320 yards with hickories, circa 1930 is absurd.

Apparently, you and Ralph Livingston are the only two willing to dismiss science in favor of folklore.

While that may be SOP for you, I'm surprised at Ralph.

[Sean_Tully]

One would be surprised by how much forward thinking was involved in the development of golf technology in the 1920-30's. I have found in my limited research numerous mentions of trying to understand the mechanics of the swing and how to increase swing speed. They may not have had lauch monitors, but they knew and undertstood their game and their equipment better than anyone. They had to be playing around with the loft, weight of the club,and  shaft lengths(Travis was known to have played with a 50+ inch shaft).

It was interesting to find an article about the transfer of weight in a swing that had a golfer hitting balls while standing on two scales. Not only that but I found mention of golfers keeping stats on the clubs that they were using. They had length, loft angle, and weight to name a couple.

It gets really intersting when you try to wrap your mind around a club that Willie Dunn developed that had mercury inside the shaft and it would flow to the clubhead to increase ones clubhead speed. I do not know if it was ever put into production(I hope not) but you have to give the guy some credit for trying to hit his ball that much further.

To think that golfers of that day and age did not have some of the benifits of modern day golfers one might be surprised that someone had developed a golf club that predates the Medicus by about 70 years. As with today, golfer will go to whatever lengths they deem necessary to put the ball out there farther then the next guy.

I just recently made the switch from playing '69 Staffs and a Hogan Driver to a bag full of lower end hickories and I find it interesting in Ralph's mention that the Pro's had much better equipment than the regular golfer of the period. So, as I play with my standard set of clubs and manage to hit some balatas about 250 on a very good swing(1 out of maybe 25 or so) I can give some consideration to the possibility of Jones pulling off the shot in question. I can say with certainty that I could not for a million years, ever play the game to Bob's level, even for just one shot.

I have also played with Middlecoff balls from late60-70's that were very soft, thinking that I had to play them to protect my clubs, but I have only broken one club out of about the 20 that I play with(tall rough and a hidden tree root were to blame).Considering the age of the balls I still managed to get some 220 yards of carry.

One last thing, these goflers managed to make some pretty big swings(even the ladies).  I think that that was one of the most impressive things that I have come across is a picture of Jerry Travers taking a big cut at the ball. Also, some pics of Egan doing the same all the way back to 1904.

One thing that Tommy brought up and I find interesting is, how does the quality and type of film used affect the appearance of an action. In this case it is a golf swing. Would a camera from that period shoot less frames per second and would that make it look slower than if one were to increase the frames per second?My guess is yes.


We all know that Ralph plays hickories, Sean are you prone to them as well .

I hear some of your argument Pat, but those guys were good too, and Jones, well he was playing the same game just at a different level.


This exercise is in some ways similar to what happened to Lincoln a couple of years ago. Looking at the past through the fog of our own progress. Hell, maybe Jones and Keeler had it going on.

Tully

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This entire thread has tired on me and given me a headache. Even all of my rhetoric. Ralph, I'm still waiting for you to provide something other then an advertisement about how the golf ball was being rolled back, and how the USGA was on top of things when they did it--that's where my interest is. Not that it all just magically corrected itself in the same concept of the magic bullet theory or was gifted by a visit from the tooth fairy who waved a wand and righted that pesky distance Bobby and the rest of them were carrying their drives in those days.

300 yard carries with hickory......unbelievable! Ralph, if these distances were attainable, why aren't you hitting the same golf ball? Oh yes! I forgot...the Pro V1 plays much like it......You yourself told me this....hard to believe that Titliest put so much money into developing a golf ball that went the same distances as their golf ball from the 1920's!

Sean,
Thanks for posting something, because I do value your thoughts on this, as well as what you have researched--if you should come across something please don't hesitate to post it.

As far as the cameras, of course things have changed drastically, but when Tiger swings a golf club, you know he swung a golf club. Bobby Jones, certainly never exerted himself in the same manner. You can see that much on camera.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Since you wouldn't listen to common sense I tried to explain the properties of the B&I along with the Laws of Physics, hoping that you could make the connection of 2 plus 2 equalling four.

If we've learned one thing on GCA.com, it's that quotes, the written word and undocumented deeds are to be looked at with enlightened suspicion.

You choose to take Jones's word when the Laws of Science render it suspect at best.

Donald Ross is alleged to have described Seminole as FLAT when we know that's not true.  Was Ross a liar ?  Was he oblivious to the dramatic elevation changes at Seminole ?

Or, is it likely that his comment was taken out of context, that he was misquoted, or that the editing process inserted the language ?

For you to accept the physical impossibility of a 340 yard carry with hickory, as Gospel would seem to categorize your analytical skills as non-existant.

What Ralph failed to provide with his quote from Chapter Fifteen is Jones stating that he prefered a low trajectory where the ball could get a good deal of run out.

We know that low trajectories don't produce carry.
You may not want to believe this, but, trust me, it's true.

Jones further stated that in 1923-1924 he was hitting the ball with a descending blow and that that tendency was toward a climbing trajectory with more height than he wanted and little in run at the end.

Jones rejected this type of ball flight, which, as we know, is what is necessary to carry the ball great distances.

Jones goes on to describe the driver used in his alleged drive with a carry of 340 yards.

"This head was little if any larger than the usual head, fore and aft.  But, there was a lot of wood in it just the same: as Virgil might have said, it was no small part of a tree.

The face was 1 5/8 inches in depth, with a bulge of 3/8 inch,and virtually [size=4x]no loft at all.[/size]  I suppose it was as near a 90 degree club as ever was used from the tee.
There was so much wood in the head that a tiny pellet of lead was all the weight it could carry,....

So here we have Jones stating that the club had zero loft, a critical ingredient to carry.

Jones does mention that he had to tee the ball up one inch, but, we know that his driver had a face that was 1 5/8 inches in depth, certainly not a lot of room to get a driver with zero loft into the proper launch angle to maximize distance.

And, we know that the driver was heavy.

Let's see if we can add 2 + 2 and get 4.

A heavy large driver, with zero loft, with a hickory shaft, with a ball used in a competition (Georgia-Alabama Open) in the spring of 1924, and you think that Jones was able to create incredible clubhead speed, overcome zero loft in his driver, with a ball teed up but one inch and carry the competition approved ball 340 yards ?

Jones further states,
" I wanted a club that would keep the ball [size=4x] rather low in flight, without the disposition to climb, which was bothering me, and give it a good run at the finish.[/size][/b]

With a predisposition toward that particular ball flight do you still think he carried the ball 340 yards, 320 yards, 300 yards, 250 yards ?  

If you answer yes, then I'm afraid that old P.T. Barnum was right.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean Arble,
Let me explain this concept with you--FACTS. TRUE FACTS.

Not some false facts conjured up and revised to suit ones ability to promote and sell the use of a certain style or type of golf club that is only used by purists and purists alike.

I have nothing to gain from any of this but to explain it better for you.

Here is a study done by the North British Golf Ball Company that was published in the April 1932 issue of Golf Illustrated:

In different sections of America impartial tests have been conducted by well-known club professionals. The results have been uniformly conclusive--in every test the North British ball has out-driven every other ball by a wide margin.

For instance, Fred Moore, professional of Dunwoodie Country Club in Yonkers, N.Y., took twelve North British and 12 each of the most popular 75c and $1 golf balls out of his stock. Choosing at random, he drove each ball twice and the best 12 drives for each brand were tabulated. As usual the North British was by far the longest, averaging 267.3 yards--15, 17 and 19 yards, respectively, better then its competitors.

Five North British balls traveled over 270 yards. Only one competitive ball reached 270 yards.

The North British is made by the world's foremost golf ball designers. Its anti-fractional center, minimum retardation, high compression winding and perfect balance make it the longest, most accurate ball you can play.

This year 75c buys exactly the same fine ball which last year cost $1.00. Official size and weight--dimple or mesh. From your club professional

Now Sean, not being one that likes to wake people up when they are dreaming, I'll ask this gently:

You are more or less calling us insensitive to the words of the immortal R.T. Jones Jr. Why then has Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia bought property from an adjoining country club to extend the tee yardage on it's most celebrated and prized 13th hole, as well as has tried to restore true shot distances if Jones was capble of carrying 300 yards, let alone being able to drive it 275-280 yards? which I think is around the very most he was hitting the ball.

Why have they several times now, has the club moved tees back on most of it's holes when especially there is no difference in the length from 1932? Why has most every course in America gone from 6500 yards on the average to 7400+ yards now? Is it a miracle? Or maybe they just didn't keep an accurate length of driving distances in those days, let alone accurate distance for golf holes? I mean, you can peruse most any issue of Golf Illustrated and the only time they mention distance is in advertisements. You would think in 1932, North British Golf Ball Company would have established itself more bloted preportions for selling their product--when in fact they probably were here in this ad, which I have posted their findings. Or maybe just maybe the ball didn't go as far as Ralph thinks it did, or at the very least likes to claim it did.

Are you awake yet Sean? Or would you rather keep dreaming or remain in the deep sleep and trance Ralph has put you in?

And listen, you don't have to take my word on it. Why don't you simply look this stuff up for yourself? Why do I have to do it for you ALL OF THE TIME?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat & Naccers

You lot are excellent dancers, but you still haven't proven your case because all of your "evidence" is indirect to the quote.  

Since when are the Laws of Physics mutable ?[/color]

Pat, you fail to remember the the entire essence of the quote.  

Sean, I've read the book, the chapter and paragraphs Ralph quoted, I'm intimately familiar with the quote and the erroneous implications that Ralph drew and you support.[/color]

Despite the limitations, Jones claims to have carried the ball just short of a 340 yard hole.  True, maybe just short means 50 yards or maybe it means 10 yards.  I don't know.  In truth, it doesn't really matter because Ralph used the quote to prove a point.  Exactly how far the ball carried is  not essential to the point.[size=4x]

It's the entire point.[/color][/size]

If you want to call someone out you need facts related to the matter at hand.  That would include witnesses and maybe even the club and ball.  

Evidently, not even Jones witnessed where the ball landed, so how could he draw an absolute conclusion relative to the carry ?[/color]

Evidence does not include what Ross alleged to have said about Seminole.  The matters are completely unrelated.


Please tell me that you aren't that obtuse.

Is it outside the realm of possibility that the publication of a statement, alleged to have been made by Ross, which was highly inaccurate, could also have occured with respect to Jones's remarks about carrying the ball 340 yards in the spring of 1924 with a heavy headed, oversized, hickory shafted driver, with zero loft, teed up one inch, using a ball approved for competition in the Georgia-Alabama Open played at Druid Hills ?[/color]

Evidence does not include why Augusta has lengthened their course.  We already know that on average pros carry the ball further than 80 years ago.  However, this does not eliminate the possibility of an abberation in Jones' case.  

Sean, at this point I must advise you that some moron has broken into your computer and is posting under your name.

I don't mind it when someone is stubborn and sticks to their guns, but, blatant, repetitive stupidity is inexcusable.[/color]

Evidence does not include what Jones thought was the optimum ball flight.  

Sure it does.
I quoted what Jones said about his optimal ball flight and what he said about higher trajectory ball flight, all of which coincide with what I tried to describe to you earlier when I took the time to discuss the properties of I&B, physics and carry.[/color]

We all know that not every shot is perfect.  In fact, very few are.  Evidence does not include surmising that perhaps Jones was misquoted.  

Are you dipping into the medicine cabinet ?[/color]

I have already stated that a carry of 300+ yards would have been highly unusual 80 years ago.

Highly unusual ?  Try impossible.
The Laws of Physics, which you don't give much credence to, prohibit that event from ever occuring [/color]

All of your info supports that supposition - thank you.
I know that, that's why I supplied the info.[/color]

However, without direct evidence contradicting the incident Jones relates, I find it difficult to say that Jones was in fact mistaken because I don't know this to be the case.  
There's no direct evidence supporting the evidence.
Jones only states that he found his ball near the green, thus indicating that he never saw it land.[/color]

It is no different than if one of you told me you carried a driver 300+ yards.  I have no reason to doubt your word - especially if I have no evidence to the contrary.  

That's absurd logic.
300+ yard drives are hit every day by a variety of golfers, they're common place.
Made so by technology that married strong, light weight clubheads to long, light, strong graphite shafts which can generate very high clubhead speeds at ideal launch angles to maximize carry.

For you to equate the two eras is mind boggling, but, not surprising.

Try picking an argument you can win, not one that you look foolish in defending.[/color]

Tully

Nah, I find the game challenging enough without resorting to hickories.  I just don't see the value in proclaiming something impossible when damn near all the salient information required to make such a judgement is not avilable.  

The Laws of Physics have been around for centuries, if not eternity, you just choose to ignore them.
They are immutable.
And if that's not salient enough for you, then you just don't get it.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,
Lets see YOU come up with some research on the subject. (That is a challenge)

You refuse or ignore to make any note of explanation of why Augusta National has gone from being a +/-6,600 yard course that Bobby Jones co-designed to challenge the best players in the world, to one that is now 7,445 yards and having to buy property because the club has gone beyond the extra space MacKenzie allowed for expansion in the original design.

Let me here you explain that FACT which you have seemingly chosen to ignore.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, But yet your ready to offer an opinion with no research......

I'm glad your not looking for a cure to cancer!

Yet when proof is given to you in the form of Augusta, your only come back is, "I have no problem with thelength at Augusta..."  

That isn't the point. WHY DID THEY LENGTHEN AUGUSTA IF THEY WERE HITTING THE SAME DISTANCES THEN AND NOW?

I can't wait for your answer on this one.

[Michael Moore]

Tommy -

Why hasn't Augusta National been lengthened to 10,000 yards in response to Mike Austin's 515 yard blast in 1974?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I can see this issue means a lot to you or you wouldn't rely on the the typical Muccian tactic of insulting others in a debate.  


Given your position, I thought I was being kind.[/color]

If you will shut up I will agree to the following:

The immutable laws of physics (which have yet to be stated, but I shall take your word for it) render it impossible for Jones to have carried his tee shot (how far was it again?) just short of a 340 yard hole.  Therefore, Jones was either misquoted, lied or mistaken (I will let you choose the appropriate conclusion and I will even allow you to change it if and when the facts are known).  Additionally, Seminole is not flat.  Furthermore, ball flight either helps or hinders a long carry.

Qualifying your admission doesn't diminish the fact that you've finally admited to the error of your ways.

I'm glad that common sense and reason have finally prevailed on you.[/color]

Lastly, the next time I want to stick to my guns at the risk of being stupid, I will seek advice from your goodself.

No need to, you've done an excellent job on your own.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, And what research allows you to base these findings?

Or is it simply an opinion? (Your entitled to one, as is every man. It's just how others will define it as reputable)

I'm a huge fan of Jones + I'm a huge fan of hickory = I do not believe in any regard that Bobby Jones could carry a ball 320 yards at any given point in his life. It is mathematically impossible due the equipment.

Or Ralph's equasion:

I'm a huge fan of Jones + I'm a huge fan of hickory + I sell and manufacture plus promote the use of hickory clubs = I do believe in all regard that Bobby Jones regularly could carry a ball 320 yards at the pinnacle of his career; That its completely mathematical possible and you can buy your clubs just like it from me!


Sean, You do the math.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,

As I cited earlier (go back and look) you will see I talked about the aerials similar to Wayne's post on #43, obviously when RT Jones Jr. was well into his peak form by winning the US Am, how many 300 yard drives did Jones perform in his qualifying rounds that are shown in those images? Look closely at Wayne's photos and tell me what it looks to be the average distance he was hitting off of the tee on the two and three shot holes.

What more proof do you need?

I guess I can look-up the Winged Foot overlays that I cited earlier that are done in the similar fashion, but what is it going to prove that hasn't been proven already?

I'm stubborn mostly because I'm right. Just ask Pat!

 

[Doug Siebert]

If the ball wasn't going further in the 1910s than the 1920s, then the rule change to the "British" ball size/weight was a failure.  If the ball wasn't going further in the 1920s than 1932 then the rule change to the modern ball size/weight was a failure.  Whatever clubhead speed you need to carry it 320 yards today isn't the clubhead speed you'd need with a smaller ball.  Combined with a nice tailwind to take some of the excess backspin off it and one could certainly carry it a good deal further than a given swingspeed would manage today in neutral conditions.  Whether that would be enough to allow Jones to have really carried it 320 back then is another matter, but I don't think it is quite the 50 yard gap that Patrick is suggesting.

I am quite skeptical Jones carried the ball 320 back then, but he didn't mention any wind or elevation change that could have helped him, nor does have a way to have known whether that 340 yard was correctly measured, measured with a bit of dogleg to it, from the part of the teebox where the tees he was playing that day were placed, etc.  Maybe the hole is 340 yards measured around a slight dogleg, from the back of the teebox to a pin that was on the back of a deep green on the day it was measured, and it was only 285 yards to the spot he reached from the tees he played, certainly that would be well within the realm of possibility given all the other factors.

I'm sure we've all experienced playing a new course, seeing a hole is xxx yards which is just a bit out of our driver range so we just hope to get it within range for a chip or short chip and then to our surprise fly the ball to the front of the green or beyond and realize that the distance on the card isn't what we were playing that day for whatever reason!  The only reason most of us know how far our best drives carry is because we've been around correctly measured courses for decades, so hitting a drive that splots in the mud next to the 150 plate on a 425 yard hole we are pretty sure really is 425 means it carried 275.  If that 425 yards on the card is sometimes 398 yards, sometimes 413 yards and sometimes 433 yards, we don't really have a very good idea how far our drives really carry so we wouldn't know for sure when we really hit a career long carry and when we just hit a good but not unusual drive when playing a hole that isn't as long as we thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

A tailwind favors the larger ball, a head wind favors the smaller ball.

Over the last 50 years I've played with Sam Snead, Player, Palmer, Weiskopf, Irwin, Venturi, Norman, Parnevik and many others and NONE of them came close to carrying a golf ball 340 yards when we played.

The idea that Jones carryied it 340 yards in 1924 with hickories is absurd.

[Andy Hughes]

For all you physics experts, Sean (or maybe it was someone else?) does ask a good question.  Putting aside Jones' 320 yard carry or anyone else's specific shot, what is the maximum that someone in the 1920s could carry a drive?  I know Freddie Tait was supposed to have carried a guttie 245 years before.

[Sean_Tully]

OK, something that I came across in my research is a small mention of a long drive competition in 1929 where the winner would win an airplane from the total of three drives. Well you could imagine my surprise when I saw his total, it makes Jones look like a short knocker compared to his total of 1287 yards and 6 inches!

That is an average of 429 yards a drive. Of course I can not speak for the conditions nor the wind, but 429 is 429, and an average at that.
There is a picture of the guy swinging a club and it is hard to tell if it is a hickory or a steel shaft, none the less it is pretty remarkable.

No matter what there has to be alot of carry in there somewhere!

Oh yeah the guy was a greenskeeper to boot!

Tully

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Tully,

I believe the venue was an airport runway.

[Sean_Tully]

Of all the info that they could have left out from the caption of a photograph, that makes some sense seeing that they were trying to win a airplane. The photo in question was used in an article talking about long drives, some comedy on their  part I'm sure.

Pat, I have an  interesting article on the physics of the golf ball in flight from the 1920's, I will send it to you later today. I think you will find it interesting, they were thinking about such things, but in rather interesting way.

Tully

[RSLivingston_III]

Hi, just checked back in and am surprised to see this still going.
Tommy, these statements are grossly unfair.

Sean, And what research allows you to base these findings?

Or is it simply an opinion? (Your entitled to one, as is every man. It's just how others will define it as reputable)

I'm a huge fan of Jones + I'm a huge fan of hickory = I do not believe in any regard that Bobby Jones could carry a ball 320 yards at any given point in his life. It is mathematically impossible due the equipment.

Or Ralph's equasion:

I'm a huge fan of Jones + I'm a huge fan of hickory + I sell and manufacture plus promote the use of hickory clubs = I do believe in all regard that Bobby Jones regularly could carry a ball 320 yards at the pinnacle of his career; That its completely mathematical possible and you can buy your clubs just like it from me!


Sean, You do the math.

[1] I have not sold any clubs in a number of years. The few individual clubs I have done were for friends. I have NEVER manufactured any clubs.
I do promote playing hickories, but for more personal reasons - I really enjoy meeting people that have strong feelings about playing them and do so for the shot making it brings back to their game.
I do not do it for any financial gain! Just ask my wife/accountant. She would find it laughable your suggesting I am making money from this. I am a commercial photographer with employees. I can't afford to work on clubs and haven't in about 10 years, with only a few exceptions. Certain people I will find time to do it, but some are still waiting 9 months on clubs that are still in my workroom.
If Mike Keiser called, I would find 40 hours out of my life to do a set, but otherwise don't count on sets becoming available from of me.
If you notice, there is no advertising or sales on hickorygolf.com. I have a For Sale section that needs to be removed and has, over the last year, never contained any clubs. I had hoped to be able to have others sell there, but never resolved possible issues.
Maybe I will have my assistant remove it.

Hickorygolf was put up to help people to figure out how to do it themselves.

[2] This is an exaggeration on your part, and I said earlier in this thread I did not believe Jones regularly carried drives that far. I said, in fact, I understood his "regular" drive to be in the 260-280 range.
And no I don't sell clubs, so please don't call me for them.

Tommy, Titliest is just getting the ball back to that performance because the technology has allowed them to circumvent performance limits that have been placed in front of them over the last 76 years.

And, Yes, we are back to that place once again trying to develop new limits and a true pull back to bring shot making into the game.....
Well ewe have discussed the benifits of a pulled back ball, I don't need to reiterate them.

Thanks Sean, Doug, Andy and a few other, for seeing some truth in my theory.

This discussion has helped my realize I need another chapter in my club book about design changes or variations for the different ball sizes and weights. This should push it back another year......

[Geoffrey Childs]

Ralph

Please show me in my one contribution to this thread where I said a club would snap from a fast swing.    

In addition to the greatly increased weight of a hickory driver, the coefficient of restitution would also be considerably lower (something like 0.73 old to 0.83 modern) and that would require that the old club obtain faster swing speeds to gain the same distance.  Couple that with the increased length and you have a losing argument.

I'm just trying to use a small bit of science with a LOT of common sense and I have to conclude that a 320 yard carry under anything like normal conditions would be impossible.

Ralph

You have yet to address these issues.

Where exactly can hickory clubs or old balls make up for the

1- weight disadvantage of a wood vs titanium/graphite driver
2- length disadvantage of 45 vs 43 inches
3-aerodynamic advantage of modern ball dimple patterns
4- coefficient of restitution advantage of thin titanium faces

If you could do that to the satisfaction of basic scientific principals then perhaps it would lend some credibility to your arguments. Old tales and newspapers are not always correct.

Also - where did I say the clubs would snap.

Thank you

[RSLivingston_III]

Sorry Geoffrey, wrong attribution - wrong Jeff. I apologize, I have been trying to do too much at one time.

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?

A couple of things,
The shafts used by top players were neither whippy or torque'y. As I said before, you need to see some pro grade hickory clubs. The ORIGINAL set of Irons I play are all in the 350-390 CPM range. Stiffer than anything you guys have in your bags. I haven't tested the Woods yet, but I assume by feel they are in the 290-350 CPM range.
The whippy stuff is ladies and/or clubs that suffered in the way they were stored during the last 75+ years. Wood does not like moisture after it is carefully dried!

Good hickory clubs weigh about the same as a steel shafted/ forged head version of it's equivalent.

The increased weight in the head is a factor in driving the ball further. It would require less speed to drive it further. Some of the long drivers of the time are documented as doing that. I had a Jack White driver about 8 years ago that was incredibly heavy and extra long. Stupidly, I sold it because I wasn't strong enough to swing it.
It could have been my ultimate example club.
The weight centralized behind the sweetspot is going to increase the distance a ball is hit.
Who says the drivers were limited to 43"? I play a 44" driver with an R-S shaft. There were drivers being made 50+ inches long. No examples are currently known to exist, just written about and a photo.

Now to the ball. You do realize the current ball has had regulations put on it? If you are going to measure potential, now to then, let's get realistic about where a ball could be now. If they were not regulated, how far do you think the pros would be hitting drives? 500, 1000+ yards? I also think you underestimate what they were capable of in the early 20th century. Did you read through those ball ads? Did you see the range of things they were aware of that controlled the balls performance? In 1930 they were X-raying balls to show mass distribution.

I just don't think anyone knows enough to make an educated estimate of the balls capability.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()