???
Bobby Jones legitimately retired in 1930 and sarazen didn’t invent the sand wedge (I presume this is what you are talking about??) until after that date in 1932 and made adjustments to it as he went along. So your comment holds no bearing to this quote
Gene Sarazen is credited for inventing the sand wedge, but Walter Hagen’s name was tied to an earlier version that had a concave club face. Horton Smith bought the rights to Edwin MacClain’s 1928 sand wedge patent and named it the Hagen Sand Wedge. Bobby Jones used the Hagen club to win the British Open leg of his Grand Slam in 1930. The next year, the USGA ruled the club illegal because its concave face enabled the wedge to hit the ball twice during one swing. Sarazen’s modified wedge came out in 1932.
Mr. Jones did indeed choose to lessen the difficulty of the game by using the Hagen concave sand wedge to win the British Open leg of his Grand Slam in 1930. In addition, Mr. Jones chose to use a club that he [obviously] felt gave him an advantage over his competition - a club that was not available to all his competitors.
Truth be told Bobby Jones only took three shots with the Walter Hagen Concave Wedge in the four majors that year, and all three of those swings were in the United Kingdom.
The first swing was at a crucial moment in time. It was the 1930 British Amateur finals. Jones once again was faced with a pivotal hole on the Road Hole 17th. This time however he found himself in the Road Hole Bunker. The Road Bunker is a killer even today…but it was even worse back then when the flange had yet to come of age on the sand wedge. Jones was all but buried up to the top of his head, where no spectators could see him from across the green, used his Hagen Concave to hit a brilliant bunker shot to two feet! An old caddy standing next to none other than Francis Ouimet told him that it was the finest shot he had ever seen executed. That sand shot save bought Jones another two holes, as the match went into a one hole playoff that Jones won.
Just two weeks later that very same Hagen Concave Wedge helped Jones secure his third British Open title and the second leg of the Grand Slam. Going for the green on the 16th at Hoylake, Jones hooked his shot into the greenside bunker. With an odd stance of one foot in the bunker and one foot out Jones hit the ball with his Hagen Concave club and nearly holed it - stopping two inches from an eagle. The birdie would be the nail in the coffin and Jones would once again take home the Claret Jug.
The Walter Hagen Concave club was banned the very next year in 1931.
An interview with Gene Sarazen:
PETER KESSLER
SO I SUPPOSE THE GREATEST MAN IN THE FIELD DID WIN THE ‘32 BRITISH OPEN, HUH GENE?
GENE SARAZEN
WELL YOU KNOW THAT WAS THE TIME I INTRODUCED THE SAND IRON AND THAT USED TO BE MY WORST SHOT AND NEITHER JONES OR HAGEN COULD PLAY THAT EXPLOSIVE SHOT BUT WHEN THE SAND IRON CAME OUT EVERYBODY GOT TO PLAY THE SHOT WELL.
PETER KESSLER
WHAT WAS THE CLUB THAT JONES USED AT HOY (???) LAKE IN ‘30 WHEN HE WON THE BRITISH OPEN THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE SAND WEDGE THAT HORTON SMITH HAD GIVEN HIM?
GENE SARAZEN
NO HE HAD A, HE HAD A, A SAND IRON THAT WAS LIKE A SCOOP. LIKE A BIG SOUP, SOUP SPOON AND IT HIT, THE USGA UH CHECKED IT OUT THAT YOU HIT THE BALL TWICE.
PETER KESSLER
WELL SURE IN THE FRONT AND IN THE BACK OF THE CLUB, RIGHT?
GENE SARAZEN
THAT’S RIGHT AND THEY BARRED IT. SO THAT WAS WHEN I WAS ON A TRIP WITH A, AT CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA AND WAS FLYING AROUND WITH HOWARD HUGHES AND I SAT NEXT TO HIM AND HE SAID PULL THAT STICK AND I PULLED THE STICK AND THE PLANE SHOT RIGHT UP AND IT FLASHED IN MY MIND, AND I SAID THAT’S WHAT I OUGHT TO PUT ON MY NIBLICK AND SO I PUT IT ON THE NIBLICK AND THAT’S THE BIRTH OF THE SAND IRON.
PETER KESSLER
YOU KEPT THAT UPSIDE DOWN IN THE BAG IN BRITAIN.
GENE SARAZEN
OH SURE BECAUSE THE BRITISH WOULD HAVE BARRED IT BECAUSE IN 1932 THE FIRST 9 HOLES I WAS IN 2 OR 3 TRAPS AND I CAME OUT AND DOWN IN ONE AND I HEARD THE GALLERY SAYING `OH HAVE YOU SEEN THAT WEAPON THAT SARAZEN HAS IN HIS BAG?’ SO EVERYBODY STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT BUT IT WAS TOO LATE TO BARR IT.
Even good ol’ Gene Sarazen did what he could to lessen the difficulty of the game…and even kept his new sand iron a secret from both the British authorities as well as his playing competitors.
So, what’s your motivation, golow? Anything positive? Or do you just have a lot of time on your hands to do all this research to prove moot points wrong?
I’ll stick with my foot mashie from the sand thank you. It’s an R-8…right foot size 8 
Just trying to understand the mindthought of not liking change in golf equipment or golf courses. There’s no motivation one way or the other, but the facts did oppose what Bobby Jones supposedly said…which I do not consider to be a moot point considering Jones said it. It took me about 3 minutes of research time.
Certainly open to all points of view here…
thanks for posting.
But it is the scale and speed of change that is the issue here. Of course there were plenty of incremental changes between 1940-1990 in many aspects of club and ball technology but nothing approaching the scale of what happened in the single decade that followed. And certainly nothing that undermined the use of many of golf’s greatest designs from the golden age of architecture and fundamentally altered the balance in the game as regards driving accuracy and distance.
Well, call it a feeling then.
Thanks John…
My original post today was to point out that while Bobby Jones may have said that he would not want to “lessen the difficulty of the game” - he decided to use a new style club that did just that…and it was not available to all competitors. So, I’m not so sure Jones really meant, in the purest sense, what he was quoted as saying. I just found this discrepancy (by Jones) rather interesting, not from a point of view that may oppose any ABS member for whatever reason…but simply because it should be of-interest to most any golfer that appreciates a little history. I guess one might say that it was a topic of conversation. I certainly did not mean to upset anyone - giving them cause to think that I posted this tidbit of information for some sinister purpose, or to belittle anyone. That’s not my style… If I chose poor wording while passing along this information about Bobby Jones (and Gene Sarazen) that may have given anyone (especially Bom) the wrong impression, then please accept my apology.
Why limit technology regarding how far the ball can go? They do seemed concerned about COR and have all kinds of restrictions in place for the manufacturers to follow. WHY? Why not just let technology run it’s natural course of action?
If someone can make a ball go farther, then why not? Or a club that hits it farther… why not?
Why the grooves concern? Isn’t this just stopping technology? If someone can created a club that spins it better from the rough, why not?
What if I invent a certain gel I can put on the clubface for various kinds of shots? Would that be ok? If not, then why is it ok to mill a texture on the clubface? If not, then what about interchangeable inserts for different shots? If lasers are allowed to gauge distances, what’s next? An influx capacitor that can be aimed into the sky to redirect the wind to my liking by using electromagnetic static force fields based upon and hand held device that tracks weather patterns from a satellite dish?
As soon as you say no to any of the above, then you are acting traditional, stoic, and old school.
Should technology be controlled or harnessed to all it’s possibilities? And if so… then why or why not?
Cost and $$$ is huge…the golfers of today end up paying $$$1000’s for equipment that is ‘cutting edge’ but the average handicap of golfers over the years is stagnant
Why pay $600 for a driver ( one club) when you can pick up close to 8 full sets of woods and irons or more for the same price on e-bay?.. if appearance of the club is what makes people feel good about themselves then by all means spend your hard earned on nice shiny weapons… it won’t help but for a few days
It’s the perfect case of indian V the arrow… The swing is 100 times more important than the tools you use…but no-one gets it
I will call a spade a spade and say 99.9% of the people I know or have played with or have helped with their game would be better of with $600 in lessons than $600 in a new driver… but the industry has everyone fooled… targeting distance and an immediate improvement of your game just by buying equipment, as their main resource of sale.
Initiation fees…green fees…course upkeep… monthly dues…$15 sleeve of balls…replacing spikeless cleats at $2 a cleat every few months…golf cart charges… cart paths…$1000 irons… $400 putters…$600 drivers…$200 shafts…5 hour rounds… real estate on course…it is a constant drain and it is all to no avail. Certainly the feel of the true sport and enjoyment aspect has gone lacking.
I am definitely no better a golfer now than I was 20 years ago. I am suggesting I am worse and certainly don’t hit the ball any farther and certainly don’t strike the ball as consistent and age is not a factor in that argument. The people I played with 25 years ago as an amateur are no better today, in fact most are worse and carry higher handicaps today even with the blase handicap system we now have in place that designs a golfer’s handicap around their ‘potential’ and not on their actual playing ability . Another maddening case of golfdom trying to make everyone feel better about themselves.
More lower handicapped players than ever that shoot worse scores than ever. I have 3 handicap players at my club that rarely break 80!!! ever… In my day that was a 7 or 8 handicap not a 3…but it’s all about easing everyone’s pain and riding them to the post in a victory lap. These people’s swings have deteriorated… as they think the club can do all the work for them, yet the club design has been absolutely detrimental to many a golfer by it’s lightweight, upright, too lengthy, unlofted design
If people think they are better or can get better by buying a game…go for it…I just don’t see any positives to back it up except making the Callaways, Titleists and Cleveland shareholders wealthier.
Tell me the last actual golf club that was designed by an actual star player or designed by even a good player?..Karsten Solheim?..NO…Ely Callaway?..NO…probably Hogan was the last who designed clubs around the necessary tools and looks and feedback to be a player, … Nicklaus designed a few sets but he succumbed quickly and was made to strike up clubs designed for the hacker not the true golfer.
True golfers have been putting illegitimate clubs in their hands for years because companies have designed junk for 20 handicappers and dressed it up and made it sound good for all concerned.
Golf used to be a game for the masses…you didn’t need to be loaded in the hip pocket to play it…now that is entirely untrue and to not see that means the blinkers are on and people have been herded into the cattle yard with the rest of the bulls and the sheep sticking their head in the trough and getting numbers stamped on their rumps for reference…
it’s little wonder that the overall participation numbers are dropping as far as involvement in golf is concerned no matter what the age…yet fingers get pointed everywhere except at the correct people to blame for such a travesty
Here is another point to consider.
One of the beautiful intrinsic elements of golf is that it can also be played essentially as "solitaire.
This is how I play a lot of my golf… me against “old man par”. I play the golf course. It is only at best an illusion that we are competing against one another in a stroke play event. Golf is who plays the course the best. It is always you against the course.
I like the idea of a respect for par. The entire amateur game revolves around the concept of par, and players are handicapped to that reference. As you improve your game, you get to a point where you no longer need a handicap, and can play golf at a face value to “par”. A player who can match par consistently has to some degree mastered the amateur game of golf… and might then consider playing the game professionally.
Given the human element, we are all going to make a bogey or worse on occasion, even the top tour players. Golf gives us a chance to make a birdie or more to offset our humanness. Some courses are designed for beginners, others are designed for top level comps.
I don’t agree that the concept of par should be discarded… which essentially it has. Par 3’s 4’s and 5’s should be played accordingly. A good player hitting a proper tee shot, then a good approach should be making par or better. A player driving the ball 30 or 40 yards off line should not… unless extremely lucky.
There is a quality element here that is being overlooked. You know a great golf course when you play it. A great course is fair regarding par, but difficult at the same time. A great course should reward quality shots and punish poorly struck ones.
No one likes hitting great shots and being punished. I don’t like hitting poor shots and not being punished… at least to some degree.
The rules of golf should be aimed at respecting par… certainly for a championship course. A fine architect of a golf course must go through a lot of consideration to create a fair yet challenging championship golf course. Testy but fair.
There is a balance here. And the rules of the game should be moving in tandem with this ideal.
I don’t think any golfer should ever walk off a golf course and be even slightly disappointed when they shoot par. You tied the old man, and good for you. If shoot 65, then great for you… but the old man might just take a beating to you when he whips up some wind, optical illusions, or some new tricky pin placements your next time out.
You can talk directly to Bom yourself if you want, I’m always open. It is what it is, but seeing as you’re interested in details, if something takes me 3 minutes to research, it doesn’t then take me an hour and 3 separate posts to express. But that’s just me…
Btw, I’m not connected to ABS, nor do I speak for them, my opinions and views are solely my own.
All I can say is Wow!
thanks Bom for reminding me… it takes me 3 long posts to make a point! 
Now to condense.
For those who favor technology and the game changing… why have any restrictions regarding equipment, the ball or clubs?
If you then favor some kind of restrictions… then why?
If restrictions or limitations are put in place… isn’t that the point where a person becomes anti technology?
I tend to like your ‘inefficiency’ of posting, Lag, so don’t go getting too tidy with them 
It’s always an interesting discussion to have, but there’s obviously a general appreciation here for a more traditional game. I’ve yet to hear a really quality argument for the value of the technological progression in the game, it’s not like people are out there playing better as a general rule- they may have lighter wallets, so that may help 
And when you see a lot of the old classic courses being rendered obsolete, and at the same time seeing a lot of the new big courses with huge green fees and overheads going out of business, if you’re inclined to think a bit deeper into things, then you might see an obvious problem and solution in the same place. I played with a guy a few weeks ago who hit another monster off line shot on the 16 hole, then walked back to his bag to get another ball saying, ‘that’s my usual two sleeves of balls down the drain’. When I asked him about it he said that as a standard he loses 6 balls a round. I just shook my head in amazement. And of course, the big manufacturers are DELIGHTED with this whole situation, it’s more money for them. And that really bothers me in the same way that strip mining or unchecked logging or monster boats trawling the sea bothers me, because there’s zero regard for the resource itself, it’s considered nothing more than an expendable vehicle for profit. The big manufacturers don’t care about the game, as such, it’s just a means to an end for them, and even though their commercials play the tradition and integrity baloney line, that’s not their concern. It would be a pretty safe bet to say what the main talking point at a Taylor Made or Callaway etc. AGM isn’t about. And I don’t really want to be a pawn in their game(gotta love The Dylan)
Why, thank you!
On another website I go on, there is a thread devoted to video games and a similar argument crops up every few weeks between the owners of Wii consoles, PS3 owners and Xbox devotees. Each argues about how theirs is the best. Then someone will chip in how Pac-Man is actually the best game of all-time. You’ll also hear someone claim that it all went downhill after Pong.
The argument surfaces every few weeks as I say with the main arguers for each version strenuously arguing how theirs is the best whilst convincing absolutely none of the rest of the forum users, it is immensely tedious.
The point is, to each their own. If you don’t like it, don’t participate - but don’t bleat on about it to those of us who enjoy our golf whatever shape it comes in. I occasionally play with persimmon and old school blades, like the vast majority of people who post on here (whether they admit it or not) I play most of my golf with up to date gear and enjoy that game as well.
To me, its akin to someone with a nut allergy walking into a nut shop and shouting “you could kill me with your products!”. Don’t go in the nut shop in the first place!
ps - the PS3 is the best.