WEBVTT - Robert Crosby on the Influence of John Low

0:00:01.040 --> 0:00:04.720
<v Speaker 1>Welcome back to another edition of the Frida Egg Podcast.

0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:08.760
<v Speaker 1>This episode is brought to you by our friends over

0:00:08.800 --> 0:00:12.719
<v Speaker 1>at bet Dratty. Today, I actually played a golf tournament

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:17.040
<v Speaker 1>and I wore a new be Dratty Sport. So they

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:19.840
<v Speaker 1>just came out with us. They did a limited release

0:00:19.920 --> 0:00:23.439
<v Speaker 1>this fall and in a few pro shops and it's

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:27.520
<v Speaker 1>really awesome. It's got that tech fabric and to go

0:00:27.560 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 1>along with their classic cotton, they now have this tech

0:00:30.400 --> 0:00:32.960
<v Speaker 1>fabric great shirt.

0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:36.480
<v Speaker 2>I really liked it kept me cool under pressure, even

0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:39.919
<v Speaker 2>though my game put me under pressure a lot. It

0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 2>was not a good, good round of golf today, but anyways,

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 2>the shirt was great if I played as well as

0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:52.880
<v Speaker 2>my shirt did. We've been playing the US four ball

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:57.280
<v Speaker 2>next spring, so those will be in the pro shop

0:00:57.320 --> 0:01:01.640
<v Speaker 2>hopefully next year right January one, but you can get

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:04.640
<v Speaker 2>them at a few participating clubs, a lot of them

0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 2>on the East Coast. If you're in one of those

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:08.760
<v Speaker 2>pro shops, they might have be Dratty Sport.

0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Also with new happenings in the pro Shop, we have

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:19.320
<v Speaker 1>a twenty five percent off code in the Pro Shop,

0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:22.920
<v Speaker 1>so use the code Fall twenty five and you'll get

0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:27.040
<v Speaker 1>twenty five percent off T shirts, the b Dratty T

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:30.399
<v Speaker 1>shirts and then also with an Angles T shirts. So

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:36.600
<v Speaker 1>we got a new podcast and actually Garrett Morrison, or

0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:39.360
<v Speaker 1>managing editor, is the host of this. So this will

0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:43.039
<v Speaker 1>be with Bob Crosby and Garrett you.

0:01:43.080 --> 0:01:45.280
<v Speaker 3>There, yep, right here.

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>So this is exciting. Yeah, so we're gonna We're gonna

0:01:49.560 --> 0:01:52.320
<v Speaker 1>have Garrett come in. He's gonna do some hosting. I'm

0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 1>gonna do some hosting. But you know, Garrett's probably better

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 1>host than I am.

0:01:56.680 --> 0:02:01.840
<v Speaker 3>Anyways, I doubt that. But I'm getting my seed legs

0:02:01.880 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 3>and it's been really fun. And the conversation with with

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:06.080
<v Speaker 3>Bob was great.

0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, he's he That was a great I listened to

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.079
<v Speaker 2>it and what a what an intelligent guy.

0:02:12.160 --> 0:02:16.080
<v Speaker 3>I know, seriously intelligent. So my idea is that, you know,

0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:19.440
<v Speaker 3>when when I'm tracking down guests and asking people to

0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:21.280
<v Speaker 3>talk with me, I'm going to make sure that they're

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.640
<v Speaker 3>uh smarter than me, which which won't be too difficult.

0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 3>But Bob is definitely smarter than me, and so it

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:29.360
<v Speaker 3>was really really fun to talk to him.

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:32.840
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think that all of our guests are smarter

0:02:32.919 --> 0:02:38.519
<v Speaker 2>than I. I think, so it's a little bar so awesome. Well,

0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 2>we'll hope you guys enjoy Bob Crosby and h Garrett

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:47.560
<v Speaker 2>as a host, and so we'll just you know, it'll

0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 2>be noted in the notes who's hosting, but should be

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:53.640
<v Speaker 2>should be, if anything, better than when I'm hosting.

0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:56.919
<v Speaker 3>And I should mention that my guest, Bob Crosby, who

0:02:56.960 --> 0:03:02.560
<v Speaker 3>goes by Robert Crosby in publication, is a great golf historian,

0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:05.640
<v Speaker 3>and if you're interested in the content of this podcast,

0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:08.919
<v Speaker 3>you should check out his two essays on John Lowe

0:03:08.919 --> 0:03:12.200
<v Speaker 3>for the Journal Through the Green, which we'll link to

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 3>in the show notes. You can also follow him on

0:03:15.520 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 3>Twitter at otay seventy one. That's ote y seven to one.

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:25.800
<v Speaker 3>All right, So, without further ado, here's my conversation with

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 3>Bob Crosby.

0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:31.280
<v Speaker 4>The Frida egg requires a different technique. What you need

0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:34.399
<v Speaker 4>to do is actually square the face so it'll dig

0:03:34.480 --> 0:03:38.120
<v Speaker 4>down underneath that bad lie and propel that ball right

0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 4>out onto the green.

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 5>Here's the thing.

0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Playing out of a buried lion of bunker is completely

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:45.440
<v Speaker 1>different than playing out of a night clean lion a

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:49.119
<v Speaker 1>greenside bunker. You need to be aggressive on any show,

0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:51.720
<v Speaker 1>whether it's sitting cleanly, or it's Frida Egg.

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:55.600
<v Speaker 6>Well, we've all faith that the dreaded Frida Egg. It's

0:03:55.680 --> 0:03:57.680
<v Speaker 6>not to be feared, though. It's actually a pretty easy

0:03:57.720 --> 0:03:58.280
<v Speaker 6>shot to hit.

0:04:09.120 --> 0:04:12.600
<v Speaker 3>How did you initially get into golf? Were you a

0:04:12.640 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 3>player when you were younger? Did you play on teams

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 3>and things like that?

0:04:16.440 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 6>I was, yeah, I was a fairly serious junior golfer.

0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:21.000
<v Speaker 5>Captain.

0:04:21.080 --> 0:04:23.679
<v Speaker 6>I went to Culver Military Academy, played in a wonderful

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:28.720
<v Speaker 6>Langford and a role course at Culver, won some high

0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:33.040
<v Speaker 6>school tournaments, played golf for Harvard College for a couple

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:39.280
<v Speaker 6>of years, and then the student demonstrations created enough cognitive

0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:43.720
<v Speaker 6>dissonance with that activity that I gave it up essentially

0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:48.919
<v Speaker 6>for twenty years, and got back to it sometime in

0:04:48.960 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 6>my mid late thirties and found I loved it more

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 6>than ever, Certainly without playing for tournaments and trying to

0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:00.040
<v Speaker 6>qualify for travel squads and that sort of stuff, it

0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 6>was a lot more fun. So I've been a golfer

0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:04.279
<v Speaker 6>since I was seven or eight years old.

0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:08.440
<v Speaker 3>So tell me more about when you were at Harvard

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 3>and there were the student demonstrations, and it sounds like

0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:16.239
<v Speaker 3>it led you to question your involvement in the game.

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:20.960
<v Speaker 6>I'll give you a very concrete example. Our two home

0:05:21.000 --> 0:05:23.760
<v Speaker 6>courses I didn't appreciate how good they were at the

0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:29.040
<v Speaker 6>time was the Myopia Hunt Club and the country Club

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:33.120
<v Speaker 6>in Brookline. I was sitting in Brookline with I had

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 6>long hair, I had a bandana, I had a black

0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 6>armband of anti Vietnam stuff, and there was a student

0:05:43.240 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 6>demonstration going on back at campus, and I thought to myself,

0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:51.960
<v Speaker 6>I'm in the wrong place, and all that was much

0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:59.040
<v Speaker 6>more pressing. Walked, I caught a ride home that afternoon,

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 6>left my golf clubs at the country club and never

0:06:04.279 --> 0:06:08.359
<v Speaker 6>went back to fetch them. As far as I know,

0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:11.880
<v Speaker 6>nearly fifty years later, they're still there.

0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:16.680
<v Speaker 5>Were That's probably not possible, but.

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 6>That's how abrupt it all happened. And then I kind

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 6>of got swept up in events.

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:21.360
<v Speaker 5>At the time.

0:06:21.560 --> 0:06:27.800
<v Speaker 3>So is there something about golf that just keeps itself

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:31.680
<v Speaker 3>separate from the world at large? Do you think that

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:35.560
<v Speaker 3>that cognitive dissonance, as you call it, between golf and

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:39.679
<v Speaker 3>current events or politics is a natural thing that's always

0:06:39.720 --> 0:06:40.680
<v Speaker 3>going to be there.

0:06:41.120 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 6>You know, Garrett, For me, it really did. When I

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:46.200
<v Speaker 6>walk onto a golf course, I really walk into a

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:50.360
<v Speaker 6>different mental universe, at least for me, and that which

0:06:50.400 --> 0:06:52.080
<v Speaker 6>is one of the reasons I love it so much.

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:58.960
<v Speaker 6>I'm a recently retired lawyer, and there were just so

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 6>many times when I walked, you know, got out of

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:03.599
<v Speaker 6>the car, and it was a different universe at the

0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:06.200
<v Speaker 6>golf course as I was walking on to the practice.

0:07:06.200 --> 0:07:10.160
<v Speaker 6>To you or wherever, Yes, the answer is yes, and

0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 6>strikingly so.

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:15.240
<v Speaker 3>For me, right, And that can be either a good

0:07:15.280 --> 0:07:17.360
<v Speaker 3>thing or a bad thing. It can be an escape,

0:07:17.360 --> 0:07:19.480
<v Speaker 3>as you're talking about, or it can be a kind

0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 3>of realm of denial.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 6>You know, I know too much about this, so I

0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:28.640
<v Speaker 6>don't know how much time you have. But Bernard Darwin

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:34.000
<v Speaker 6>wrote a piece in nineteen fourteen called The Fascination of Golf,

0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:38.920
<v Speaker 6>and it was about the power of golf to in

0:07:38.960 --> 0:07:42.600
<v Speaker 6>some cases, simply take over somebody's life. He worked less hard,

0:07:43.040 --> 0:07:46.080
<v Speaker 6>he spent less time in the office. His wife was

0:07:46.160 --> 0:07:48.120
<v Speaker 6>mad at him all the time, but he was at

0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:52.080
<v Speaker 6>His fascination was such and it was so different from

0:07:52.080 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 6>the rest of his life that he, you know, spent

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:58.280
<v Speaker 6>way too much time in the game. But Darwin thought

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:01.720
<v Speaker 6>that was actually probably a good thing. He published that

0:08:01.800 --> 0:08:03.440
<v Speaker 6>in the Times. I wrote a piece on this for

0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:05.640
<v Speaker 6>Through the Green. He published that in the Times in

0:08:06.360 --> 0:08:10.520
<v Speaker 6>I think it was April of nineteen fourteen. For the

0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 6>next two months there were sixty five or seventy counter

0:08:16.040 --> 0:08:19.920
<v Speaker 6>letters and articles outraged at Bernard Darlwin's view of the

0:08:19.960 --> 0:08:22.840
<v Speaker 6>importance and fascination of golf. How it was a bad

0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:26.720
<v Speaker 6>thing for society, how it corrected young men, how it

0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:31.960
<v Speaker 6>was not a good thing in the long term. It

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:36.240
<v Speaker 6>was unbelievable dispute. The ending irony of all of that

0:08:37.200 --> 0:08:42.240
<v Speaker 6>is that arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated in August second

0:08:42.320 --> 0:08:46.160
<v Speaker 6>or third they launched, you know, World War One is

0:08:46.280 --> 0:08:51.319
<v Speaker 6>kicked off, and all of those young dissolute golfers marched

0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:56.360
<v Speaker 6>dutifully off to war. So it hadn't been that harmful.

0:08:56.640 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 6>But the whole topic is the topic really goes back,

0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:04.160
<v Speaker 6>and you'll appreciate this. It goes back to theories of education.

0:09:04.480 --> 0:09:08.400
<v Speaker 6>Should young boys be taught golf? Now, everybody agreed to

0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:11.080
<v Speaker 6>teaching cricket was a good thing because it was a

0:09:11.160 --> 0:09:14.160
<v Speaker 6>rough team sport, or soccer was a rough team sport.

0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:17.640
<v Speaker 6>But golf was an individual, quote selfish sport, and there

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:19.400
<v Speaker 6>were a lot of people that said, it was a

0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 6>bad influence on boys, but that's another topic for them.

0:09:26.120 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 3>So how did you become serious about researching golf history,

0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:34.679
<v Speaker 3>or maybe the better question is at what point did

0:09:34.679 --> 0:09:37.960
<v Speaker 3>you become interested in the game beyond just playing it.

0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:44.240
<v Speaker 6>I had always been interested in golf architecture, primarily because

0:09:44.240 --> 0:09:47.760
<v Speaker 6>I kept scratching my head over what I thought were

0:09:47.880 --> 0:09:50.600
<v Speaker 6>odd bunkers and odd things on the golf course I

0:09:50.600 --> 0:09:58.480
<v Speaker 6>grew up on, which is in Athens, Georgia, and there's

0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:01.800
<v Speaker 6>this oddly placed bunker, the first hold Athns Country Club,

0:10:01.840 --> 0:10:04.680
<v Speaker 6>But I never quite understood why it was there. And

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:06.880
<v Speaker 6>then I got to thinking, well, you know, everything that's

0:10:06.960 --> 0:10:09.800
<v Speaker 6>on that golf course is there for a reason. Somebody

0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:12.559
<v Speaker 6>decided to put it there or not put something there,

0:10:13.400 --> 0:10:16.760
<v Speaker 6>and that led to just a whole bunch of sort

0:10:16.760 --> 0:10:22.600
<v Speaker 6>of meditations on my own. It wasn't until Frankly Golf

0:10:22.600 --> 0:10:25.600
<v Speaker 6>Club Atless and some of those old blogs that cranked

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:28.760
<v Speaker 6>up in the late nineties that I realized that other

0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:32.600
<v Speaker 6>people wondered about the same things, and it was an

0:10:32.800 --> 0:10:38.320
<v Speaker 6>enormous relief. I thought I was sort of crazy, And

0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 6>out of those blogs, I've made some of the best

0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:45.719
<v Speaker 6>friends I have. We share an interest in golf architecture,

0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:51.440
<v Speaker 6>and it's been wonderful the Internet has made has richly

0:10:51.559 --> 0:10:52.640
<v Speaker 6>enhanced my life.

0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:56.040
<v Speaker 3>For that reason, What was the role of golf Club

0:10:56.120 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 3>Atlas specifically in your exploration of the history of the game.

0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 6>There were a number of really serious architectural historians, and

0:11:07.720 --> 0:11:12.160
<v Speaker 6>I was absolutely fascinated by their research. A couple of

0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:16.000
<v Speaker 6>them are dead now. They led to some very very

0:11:16.000 --> 0:11:24.240
<v Speaker 6>bitter fights, which were unfortunate, but the research and I

0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 6>came to see. Let me back up a mite. I

0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:31.120
<v Speaker 6>came to see golf courses as objects of art that

0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:36.640
<v Speaker 6>had a history that reflected various ideas about how golf

0:11:36.679 --> 0:11:39.880
<v Speaker 6>ought to be played. And I thought that whole nexus

0:11:39.960 --> 0:11:41.360
<v Speaker 6>was absolutely fascinate.

0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:42.400
<v Speaker 5>The history part in particular.

0:11:43.080 --> 0:11:46.800
<v Speaker 6>The other part of that is that I came to

0:11:46.920 --> 0:11:49.880
<v Speaker 6>see and this is really a tell tale for golf

0:11:49.960 --> 0:11:51.480
<v Speaker 6>history in a lot of ways that I can get

0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:52.280
<v Speaker 6>into this later.

0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:53.680
<v Speaker 5>If you want.

0:11:53.240 --> 0:11:58.080
<v Speaker 6>I began to read Alistair McKenzie, Max Bear, you know,

0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:02.800
<v Speaker 6>the usual suspects, and I realized at some point that

0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:08.040
<v Speaker 6>they weren't really writing descriptively. They were writing arguments. They

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:12.679
<v Speaker 6>were being polemical, and as I dug more into it.

0:12:12.800 --> 0:12:16.760
<v Speaker 6>I kept the question kept coming up, who are they

0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 6>arguing with? And that led to a lot of discoveries

0:12:25.080 --> 0:12:29.240
<v Speaker 6>about sort of other theories of golf architectures that they

0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:31.480
<v Speaker 6>were trying to beat back in one way or another.

0:12:31.720 --> 0:12:35.000
<v Speaker 6>And those other theories had to some extent been lost

0:12:35.000 --> 0:12:38.760
<v Speaker 6>to history. Not lost, but they were just lightly buried

0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:41.320
<v Speaker 6>and nobody had bothered to dig back into them. The

0:12:41.360 --> 0:12:44.880
<v Speaker 6>first long thing I wrote on golf architecture was a

0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 6>four part essay in Golf Club Attlas on the Joshua

0:12:50.080 --> 0:12:56.720
<v Speaker 6>Crane Alistair McKenzie Max Bair debates. Literally nobody knew anything

0:12:56.760 --> 0:12:59.600
<v Speaker 6>about Joshua Crane, but that's who they were writing.

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:00.160
<v Speaker 5>Again.

0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 6>They hated him, And then I further came to find

0:13:04.360 --> 0:13:06.600
<v Speaker 6>out that really the one of the reasons they disliked

0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:08.559
<v Speaker 6>him so intensely. First of all, he was a jerk,

0:13:09.080 --> 0:13:14.080
<v Speaker 6>but very wealthy Bostonian. But the real reason they came

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 6>to dislike him so intensely was because he really reflected

0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:21.079
<v Speaker 6>a lot of older Victorian golf architecture ideas and he

0:13:21.240 --> 0:13:25.880
<v Speaker 6>carried them forward into the nineteen twenties. And then that

0:13:25.960 --> 0:13:30.480
<v Speaker 6>led me to John Lowe, who fought the same battles

0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:34.600
<v Speaker 6>with a different cast of characters circa nineteen hundred through

0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:41.120
<v Speaker 6>nineteen oh five. And I came to think that Lowe

0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:45.720
<v Speaker 6>was both a better writer, a better thinker, and had

0:13:46.040 --> 0:13:50.600
<v Speaker 6>more worthy opponents to argue against than Mackenzie Bear and

0:13:50.840 --> 0:13:55.600
<v Speaker 6>Joshua Crane were. And plus it predated them all by

0:13:55.920 --> 0:14:00.720
<v Speaker 6>almost two decades. And so I dug into it. I

0:14:00.800 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 6>dug into it, and that's really how I got to look.

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.959
<v Speaker 6>I have a problem with most golf histories. I'm on

0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:11.040
<v Speaker 6>the Herbert Warren Win Golf Book Award Committee at the USGA,

0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:13.560
<v Speaker 6>been honored for five or six years. I read a

0:14:13.559 --> 0:14:16.000
<v Speaker 6>lot of golf books, some of them really really bad,

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:22.200
<v Speaker 6>some of them very good, but very very few of

0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:25.640
<v Speaker 6>them see golf history as other than a series of

0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:32.240
<v Speaker 6>more or less isolated events. You know, Harry Cole did

0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Speaker 6>Swinley Forrest on this date, and he did this to

0:14:35.240 --> 0:14:38.400
<v Speaker 6>the he built, He built these sorts of holes. The

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 6>stymy was was eliminated from the code book in this year.

0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:43.440
<v Speaker 5>Uh.

0:14:43.800 --> 0:14:46.440
<v Speaker 6>You know, Jade Taylor wins the Open in nineteen oh five.

0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:51.720
<v Speaker 6>I don't find that very interesting. I mean, I'm happy

0:14:51.760 --> 0:14:53.640
<v Speaker 6>to be informed. I can sort of show off at

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:57.440
<v Speaker 6>a cocktail party. But it's just it's not terribly interesting

0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:00.720
<v Speaker 6>that there. What I did come to discover, and I

0:15:00.760 --> 0:15:03.720
<v Speaker 6>think I'm right about this, is that there are long

0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:08.640
<v Speaker 6>term storylines in the history of golf, and nobody in

0:15:08.720 --> 0:15:11.800
<v Speaker 6>bodies what I took to be the most important of

0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:16.480
<v Speaker 6>those storylines better than John Lowe, not just in his

0:15:16.520 --> 0:15:26.200
<v Speaker 6>own time, but continuing today. And that the storyline that

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 6>I'm trying to articulate that basically encompassed Lowe's career in

0:15:33.920 --> 0:15:40.600
<v Speaker 6>the game began about eighteen ninety five, where the game

0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:44.560
<v Speaker 6>the game was very, very different from the game we

0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:50.200
<v Speaker 6>know today. There were the rules were basically driven by

0:15:50.280 --> 0:15:57.000
<v Speaker 6>various clubs. They set their own rules. Golf courses were

0:15:57.200 --> 0:16:00.280
<v Speaker 6>tended to be very Victorian, with these cross bunkers and

0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:03.000
<v Speaker 6>steeple chase things other than the traditional links courses, but

0:16:03.080 --> 0:16:05.880
<v Speaker 6>anything that anything that was inland tended to be these

0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 6>horrendous Victorian golf courses. And there were literally no rules

0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:13.560
<v Speaker 6>by balls. You could use anything you wanted, anything.

0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:14.160
<v Speaker 5>You wanted.

0:16:16.440 --> 0:16:20.560
<v Speaker 6>What Low as a Scott faced and Low grew up

0:16:20.600 --> 0:16:25.360
<v Speaker 6>in Dundee, went to Repton Public School, graduated from Cambridge

0:16:25.400 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 6>Claire College at Cambridge in.

0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:28.480
<v Speaker 5>Eighteen ninety one or ninety two.

0:16:29.920 --> 0:16:32.360
<v Speaker 6>What was happening in golf at the time was that

0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:37.920
<v Speaker 6>it had exploded in England. England had new golf courses

0:16:37.920 --> 0:16:41.120
<v Speaker 6>were popping up daily in England, new clubs. England had

0:16:41.160 --> 0:16:46.640
<v Speaker 6>more money, They had more political clout, They published all

0:16:46.680 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 6>the golf magazines.

0:16:48.160 --> 0:16:50.120
<v Speaker 5>In other words, they had all the power.

0:16:50.400 --> 0:16:55.240
<v Speaker 6>And they brought to golf these Victorian preconceptions about how

0:16:55.280 --> 0:16:59.200
<v Speaker 6>golf and any sport ought to operate, and that basically

0:16:59.280 --> 0:17:04.440
<v Speaker 6>was highly realistic. Low described them as the Party of Equity,

0:17:04.480 --> 0:17:07.960
<v Speaker 6>and he described his traditional Scottish take on things as

0:17:08.000 --> 0:17:15.240
<v Speaker 6>the Conservative Party. So one of the long running themes

0:17:15.320 --> 0:17:19.479
<v Speaker 6>that begins with rules debates in eighteen ninety five between

0:17:19.640 --> 0:17:23.399
<v Speaker 6>Low and others and Englishmen like laid Law Purposal the

0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:26.480
<v Speaker 6>technically he grew up he was born in Scotland almost

0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:31.919
<v Speaker 6>likely and other people based in the London area, was

0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:35.359
<v Speaker 6>the extent to which the rules ought to be answerable

0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:40.800
<v Speaker 6>to concerns of equity or fairness. Low, the traditional scott

0:17:40.800 --> 0:17:44.920
<v Speaker 6>along with Walter Simpson and others, said that's got nothing

0:17:44.960 --> 0:17:46.479
<v Speaker 6>to do with the rule. The rules of the rules.

0:17:46.960 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 6>Some are fair, some aren't fair. It's part of what

0:17:49.560 --> 0:17:52.879
<v Speaker 6>makes golf so interesting, and they has no duty to

0:17:52.920 --> 0:17:59.040
<v Speaker 6>some higher moral concept. At the same time, everybody was

0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:03.560
<v Speaker 6>promulgating theory Victorian golf courses, which really turned on similar issues.

0:18:03.640 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 6>That is to say, hazards are to be laid out

0:18:07.240 --> 0:18:10.840
<v Speaker 6>on a golf course, which were fair and proportionate based

0:18:10.840 --> 0:18:14.200
<v Speaker 6>on the quality of the shot. Good shots should be rewarded,

0:18:14.359 --> 0:18:17.840
<v Speaker 6>any bad shot should be punished, worst shots should be

0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:23.800
<v Speaker 6>punished more heavily. It was this neat Victorian moralistic universe

0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:28.920
<v Speaker 6>of how a golf course are to operate, and Lowe said, no, no,

0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:34.600
<v Speaker 6>the old course at St. Andrews and other great lengths

0:18:34.640 --> 0:18:38.680
<v Speaker 6>courses don't operate on those principles. They operate on what

0:18:38.720 --> 0:18:41.360
<v Speaker 6>we now call he didn't call it the time strategic

0:18:41.440 --> 0:18:44.480
<v Speaker 6>golf architecture principles, which is to say, I'm going to

0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:47.560
<v Speaker 6>give you choices to the extent you want to take

0:18:47.600 --> 0:18:50.960
<v Speaker 6>on risks for easier shots later on the whole.

0:18:51.040 --> 0:18:53.160
<v Speaker 5>You can do that, but if you.

0:18:53.119 --> 0:18:55.639
<v Speaker 6>Don't successfully pull them off, you're going to be in

0:18:55.680 --> 0:18:58.919
<v Speaker 6>deep trouble. And bad golfers, let's leave them alone. More

0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:02.679
<v Speaker 6>or less, they're their own world enemies. So there was

0:19:02.720 --> 0:19:07.919
<v Speaker 6>this deep rupture in golf. Well, it was really a

0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:12.840
<v Speaker 6>fight between two camps, the Conservative Party and the Party

0:19:12.840 --> 0:19:17.600
<v Speaker 6>of Equity, which were roughly divided along geographic lines Scotland

0:19:17.680 --> 0:19:25.080
<v Speaker 6>versus England. And I would argue that out of that

0:19:25.800 --> 0:19:29.119
<v Speaker 6>the basics of modern golf emerge, the golf we are

0:19:29.160 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 6>familiar with today.

0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:31.879
<v Speaker 5>And what I mean by that.

0:19:33.520 --> 0:19:38.720
<v Speaker 6>Is that a rules a codebook that is basically rooted

0:19:38.760 --> 0:19:41.480
<v Speaker 6>in older Saint Andrew's codes. There's been lots of tweaks

0:19:41.520 --> 0:19:45.119
<v Speaker 6>to it since it's basically the St. Andrews Code was

0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:49.000
<v Speaker 6>established with the formation of the RNA Rules Committee in

0:19:49.000 --> 0:19:51.560
<v Speaker 6>eighteen ninety seven, on which Flow served as a very

0:19:51.600 --> 0:19:58.239
<v Speaker 6>young man. At the same time, the architectural principles that

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:04.639
<v Speaker 6>were found in courses and for which Lowe was the

0:20:04.640 --> 0:20:06.960
<v Speaker 6>first to argue for, and I think the first read

0:20:07.080 --> 0:20:12.040
<v Speaker 6>to discover, came to very quickly dominate golf course architecture

0:20:12.080 --> 0:20:16.040
<v Speaker 6>through Harry Coles, Alison Simpson and a whole bunch of others,

0:20:17.680 --> 0:20:22.719
<v Speaker 6>so that the rules we play under today, the basic

0:20:22.800 --> 0:20:25.960
<v Speaker 6>rules we plunder today, the basic kinds of golf courses

0:20:26.000 --> 0:20:30.119
<v Speaker 6>we play on, and the kinds of balls and equipment

0:20:30.160 --> 0:20:34.960
<v Speaker 6>we play with all can be dated back to the

0:20:34.960 --> 0:20:39.200
<v Speaker 6>early Edwardian era, and in the middle of every one

0:20:39.240 --> 0:20:44.560
<v Speaker 6>of those issues was my man John Langlowe, either as

0:20:44.600 --> 0:20:48.520
<v Speaker 6>a member of the rules committee, either as an incredible

0:20:49.000 --> 0:20:52.760
<v Speaker 6>or incredibly articulate exponent for a wholly different kind of

0:20:52.760 --> 0:20:57.480
<v Speaker 6>golf architecture, or in his fight to regulate the Haskell

0:20:57.480 --> 0:20:59.880
<v Speaker 6>ball and later clubs.

0:21:00.920 --> 0:21:03.960
<v Speaker 3>That's fascinating. So that gives us kind of the general

0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:07.600
<v Speaker 3>outline of it. Could you tell me a little bit

0:21:07.720 --> 0:21:11.680
<v Speaker 3>about who John Lowe was? You mentioned a bit earlier

0:21:11.720 --> 0:21:14.760
<v Speaker 3>about where he was from, but you know, who was

0:21:14.800 --> 0:21:19.440
<v Speaker 3>he outside of golf? What was his general social status?

0:21:19.840 --> 0:21:22.280
<v Speaker 3>What kind of person was he in the world.

0:21:23.280 --> 0:21:26.480
<v Speaker 6>John Lowe was born north of Dundee and he was

0:21:26.520 --> 0:21:29.920
<v Speaker 6>born to a manorial estate. His father owned a lot

0:21:29.960 --> 0:21:33.439
<v Speaker 6>of land in an area called dunk Eld the Duncle

0:21:33.640 --> 0:21:36.320
<v Speaker 6>Castle Mansion house, I'm not sure it was called. He's

0:21:36.320 --> 0:21:38.480
<v Speaker 6>still there and I would love to go there visit

0:21:38.520 --> 0:21:42.040
<v Speaker 6>one day. Lowe is buried there on the premises there.

0:21:43.720 --> 0:21:47.480
<v Speaker 6>He married into a very wealthy Dundee family, the Langs.

0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:53.840
<v Speaker 6>His middle name is Lang, I'm sorry. His mother was

0:21:53.880 --> 0:21:56.399
<v Speaker 6>a Lang and they were a very wealthy Dundee family.

0:21:57.400 --> 0:22:00.160
<v Speaker 6>He spent a lot of time in his childhood in Dundee.

0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:03.919
<v Speaker 6>They were major jute manufacturers, which is which in the

0:22:04.000 --> 0:22:07.240
<v Speaker 6>time was the major component for ropes.

0:22:09.160 --> 0:22:10.480
<v Speaker 5>Wasn't smoked, I don't think.

0:22:13.440 --> 0:22:15.240
<v Speaker 6>Low grew up playing a lot of golf at the

0:22:15.240 --> 0:22:22.399
<v Speaker 6>old course with his mother's brothers, the Langs. Tragically, his

0:22:22.520 --> 0:22:25.480
<v Speaker 6>father died as he was going off to college. His

0:22:25.600 --> 0:22:29.400
<v Speaker 6>older brother died at about the same time, and low

0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:33.359
<v Speaker 6>was charged with taking over the family business when he

0:22:33.400 --> 0:22:37.879
<v Speaker 6>was still nineteen or twenty years old. He was so

0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:40.480
<v Speaker 6>he was late getting to Cambridge. He took a year off,

0:22:40.640 --> 0:22:43.119
<v Speaker 6>did some traveling in Europe, but was late getting He

0:22:43.160 --> 0:22:45.480
<v Speaker 6>and Harry Cope, by the way, exactly the same agent

0:22:45.480 --> 0:22:49.919
<v Speaker 6>and were classmates at Cambridge and very close friends. But

0:22:49.960 --> 0:22:55.080
<v Speaker 6>at any rate, Lowe then sells the company made a

0:22:55.119 --> 0:22:57.720
<v Speaker 6>bud I'm not clear how much money he cleared in

0:22:57.760 --> 0:23:00.640
<v Speaker 6>the sale, but he was very wealthy and never had

0:23:00.640 --> 0:23:05.159
<v Speaker 6>to work a day in his life. Before he graduated

0:23:05.160 --> 0:23:08.240
<v Speaker 6>from Cambridge, he was became a member of the RNA,

0:23:08.840 --> 0:23:13.040
<v Speaker 6>ditto for Harry Colt, his classmate. He captained the Cambridge

0:23:13.080 --> 0:23:19.600
<v Speaker 6>golf team and then moved his principal residence became Woking

0:23:19.680 --> 0:23:23.000
<v Speaker 6>on the Woking golf Course in Surrey outside of London

0:23:23.480 --> 0:23:26.880
<v Speaker 6>about nineteen hundred, and that's where he spent. Between Saint

0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:28.960
<v Speaker 6>Andrews and Woking is where he spent most of his

0:23:29.080 --> 0:23:35.560
<v Speaker 6>time thereafter. Close friends with Bernard Darwin, who was also

0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:38.200
<v Speaker 6>a member at Woking and who also went to Cambridge,

0:23:38.800 --> 0:23:42.800
<v Speaker 6>he founded the Oxford helped found the Oxford Cambridge Golfing Society,

0:23:42.840 --> 0:23:46.439
<v Speaker 6>in which everybody that was anybody in golf architecture was

0:23:46.440 --> 0:23:48.920
<v Speaker 6>a member because they all went to college at Cambridge

0:23:49.000 --> 0:23:55.200
<v Speaker 6>or Oxford. Was on the rules Committee from nineteen twenty.

0:23:55.280 --> 0:23:59.480
<v Speaker 6>From eighteen ninety seven until just before he died in

0:23:59.600 --> 0:24:03.119
<v Speaker 6>nineteen twenty nine, was chairman of the Rules Committee for

0:24:03.160 --> 0:24:05.840
<v Speaker 6>eight of those eight critical years. In the middle of

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:11.240
<v Speaker 6>that span, died though he was only sixty when he died.

0:24:11.359 --> 0:24:16.240
<v Speaker 6>He died what I think was from throat cancer. He

0:24:16.359 --> 0:24:19.359
<v Speaker 6>was still not he had not turned his sixtieth birthday,

0:24:19.440 --> 0:24:22.840
<v Speaker 6>had not He'd not got his sixtieth birthday. Yet there

0:24:22.840 --> 0:24:27.520
<v Speaker 6>was an outpour. He was really beloved, outpouring of oh bits,

0:24:27.560 --> 0:24:32.359
<v Speaker 6>including a very long loving one from Bernard Darwin, a

0:24:32.520 --> 0:24:35.720
<v Speaker 6>major figure in the game who has been largely forgotten.

0:24:36.640 --> 0:24:40.840
<v Speaker 3>Right now, did he first really rise to prominence in

0:24:40.880 --> 0:24:44.760
<v Speaker 3>the world of golf during the rules debates of the

0:24:44.800 --> 0:24:48.400
<v Speaker 3>mid eighteen nineties or was he a kind of well

0:24:48.440 --> 0:24:50.000
<v Speaker 3>known figure in the game before that.

0:24:50.800 --> 0:24:56.359
<v Speaker 6>He that's a great question. He as an undergraduate at Cambridge.

0:24:56.359 --> 0:24:59.440
<v Speaker 6>He weighs into what was a really really nasty rules

0:24:59.480 --> 0:25:01.800
<v Speaker 6>debate but between the English and the Scots about the

0:25:01.920 --> 0:25:05.080
<v Speaker 6>role of equity and the rules in eighteen ninety one,

0:25:05.119 --> 0:25:07.439
<v Speaker 6>which is incredible. I mean, this is a nineteen year

0:25:07.480 --> 0:25:09.800
<v Speaker 6>old weighing in with these guys who were forty and

0:25:09.800 --> 0:25:10.639
<v Speaker 6>fifty years old.

0:25:11.480 --> 0:25:12.280
<v Speaker 5>Didn't flinch.

0:25:13.600 --> 0:25:17.600
<v Speaker 6>He was a very fine golfer, so he had a

0:25:17.640 --> 0:25:21.800
<v Speaker 6>reputation for both being a good writer and a fine golfer.

0:25:21.840 --> 0:25:24.719
<v Speaker 6>He he got more deeply involved in that same debate

0:25:25.200 --> 0:25:27.879
<v Speaker 6>on the eve of the formation of the Rules Committee.

0:25:28.720 --> 0:25:32.080
<v Speaker 6>I'm telling you more you want to know. But the

0:25:32.240 --> 0:25:36.959
<v Speaker 6>RNA formed the Rules Committee reluctantly, and they formed it

0:25:37.000 --> 0:25:42.359
<v Speaker 6>reluctantly because it was essentially a defensive move against Lee

0:25:42.520 --> 0:25:47.120
<v Speaker 6>Larvist and other English golfers who wanted to form their

0:25:47.119 --> 0:25:53.400
<v Speaker 6>own democratic golf union which would havesent fair representation from

0:25:53.440 --> 0:25:57.080
<v Speaker 6>all golf clubs in Britain and would make more democratic

0:25:57.119 --> 0:26:00.879
<v Speaker 6>decisions about the rules. And he was push hard for that,

0:26:01.200 --> 0:26:06.240
<v Speaker 6>and members of the RNA, Benjamin Hallblithe, John Lowe and

0:26:06.280 --> 0:26:09.800
<v Speaker 6>others brought the RNA around to the idea that you know,

0:26:09.840 --> 0:26:13.000
<v Speaker 6>you really have to organize a rules administration. You have

0:26:13.080 --> 0:26:14.800
<v Speaker 6>to form a committee or else they're going to take

0:26:14.800 --> 0:26:17.760
<v Speaker 6>over the rules front. It was a real threat that

0:26:17.840 --> 0:26:19.919
<v Speaker 6>was going to happen. It was an existential issue for

0:26:19.960 --> 0:26:23.639
<v Speaker 6>the RNA. Lowe was in the middle of that. Pointed

0:26:23.640 --> 0:26:26.680
<v Speaker 6>to the first Committee along with his buddy Harry Cole

0:26:27.600 --> 0:26:30.960
<v Speaker 6>of coras Uchis and other people you know, and they

0:26:30.960 --> 0:26:35.960
<v Speaker 6>promulgated the first first uniform rules in golf that were

0:26:37.320 --> 0:26:41.440
<v Speaker 6>basically went effective essentially the beginning of nineteen hundred.

0:26:43.280 --> 0:26:45.320
<v Speaker 5>And it was a big moment for the game.

0:26:46.560 --> 0:26:50.760
<v Speaker 3>It sounds like Lowe's general position on the rules. Now

0:26:50.800 --> 0:26:53.919
<v Speaker 3>this will become relevant when we start talking about his

0:26:54.240 --> 0:26:57.680
<v Speaker 3>opinions on golf course architecture, but when he was dealing

0:26:57.720 --> 0:27:01.399
<v Speaker 3>with the rules, it sounds like he was against the

0:27:01.440 --> 0:27:05.040
<v Speaker 3>notion that everything needed to be fair. Could you say

0:27:05.080 --> 0:27:07.240
<v Speaker 3>a little bit more about that and how did that

0:27:07.480 --> 0:27:11.720
<v Speaker 3>get borne out? In the kinds of rules that he endorsed,

0:27:11.800 --> 0:27:15.040
<v Speaker 3>or were the types of things that he argued against

0:27:15.160 --> 0:27:15.880
<v Speaker 3>or argued for.

0:27:16.440 --> 0:27:19.639
<v Speaker 6>I'll give you two concrete examples he he was. He

0:27:19.760 --> 0:27:24.240
<v Speaker 6>was adamantly opposed to using the fairness we can we

0:27:24.280 --> 0:27:25.920
<v Speaker 6>can talk about the old philosopher and me.

0:27:25.920 --> 0:27:28.240
<v Speaker 5>He's happy to talk about what that means in this context.

0:27:28.280 --> 0:27:32.920
<v Speaker 6>But he was adamantly opposed to using fairness as a

0:27:32.920 --> 0:27:37.200
<v Speaker 6>as a criterion for the For the for a rule,

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:39.679
<v Speaker 6>a rule was a rule. He said, this We're not

0:27:40.000 --> 0:27:42.919
<v Speaker 6>we're not creating a penal code here. This is a

0:27:43.040 --> 0:27:46.159
<v Speaker 6>These are rules for a these rules for a sport.

0:27:46.520 --> 0:27:49.320
<v Speaker 6>And fairness really has no play or should have no

0:27:49.400 --> 0:27:51.919
<v Speaker 6>play other than you know, we can talk about in

0:27:52.040 --> 0:27:54.879
<v Speaker 6>limited situations. Let me give you two concrete examples of

0:27:54.920 --> 0:27:58.320
<v Speaker 6>his views. There were all sorts of arguments that the

0:27:58.320 --> 0:28:05.080
<v Speaker 6>STYMI was unfair. Low said, it doesn't matter. What matters

0:28:05.640 --> 0:28:09.720
<v Speaker 6>is that it increases the drama of the game. And

0:28:09.880 --> 0:28:12.320
<v Speaker 6>absent to steymy, you're gonna mark your ball and you're

0:28:12.320 --> 0:28:16.199
<v Speaker 6>gonna put around and that. But the steymy adds a

0:28:16.359 --> 0:28:21.520
<v Speaker 6>degree of drama that is what makes golf special. He

0:28:21.680 --> 0:28:25.000
<v Speaker 6>had similar arguments about and everybody's forgotten this rule existed.

0:28:25.040 --> 0:28:27.160
<v Speaker 6>It used to be a rule called the lost ball rule,

0:28:27.760 --> 0:28:32.439
<v Speaker 6>which applied in match play. The rule stated that as

0:28:32.480 --> 0:28:35.080
<v Speaker 6>soon as a player had lost his ball or his

0:28:35.160 --> 0:28:37.919
<v Speaker 6>ball was out of play and he couldn't use the

0:28:37.960 --> 0:28:42.720
<v Speaker 6>same ball, his opponent had automatically won the hole, without

0:28:42.800 --> 0:28:48.120
<v Speaker 6>regard to what the opponent did afterwards, automatic you're out.

0:28:49.720 --> 0:28:55.640
<v Speaker 6>Lowe defended the rule. It was very acrimonious. Opposing him

0:28:55.680 --> 0:29:01.040
<v Speaker 6>were literally all the professional players, Harold Hilton, everybody uh

0:29:01.520 --> 0:29:05.080
<v Speaker 6>low defended on defended it on similar grounds. If you're

0:29:05.120 --> 0:29:09.280
<v Speaker 6>playing golf and you know what the rule is, then

0:29:09.320 --> 0:29:14.440
<v Speaker 6>you play accordingly. And if you lose your ball in

0:29:14.520 --> 0:29:20.480
<v Speaker 6>a match, there might be catastrophic consequences. Take that into

0:29:20.600 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 6>account and it makes for a better game. It might

0:29:26.920 --> 0:29:29.080
<v Speaker 6>be whether it's fair or not, you know what, I

0:29:29.080 --> 0:29:34.480
<v Speaker 6>don't care. I don't know whether it's not relevant to

0:29:35.240 --> 0:29:37.000
<v Speaker 6>whether or not this rule is a good rule.

0:29:38.280 --> 0:29:42.320
<v Speaker 3>It sounds sort of just sorry. It sounds like his

0:29:42.440 --> 0:29:46.400
<v Speaker 3>priority was the drama and interest of the game as

0:29:46.400 --> 0:29:50.400
<v Speaker 3>opposed to its fairness. And when those two drama versus

0:29:50.440 --> 0:29:53.200
<v Speaker 3>fairness came up against each other and you had to

0:29:53.240 --> 0:29:56.400
<v Speaker 3>choose one or the other. He sided with drama. Is

0:29:56.440 --> 0:29:57.840
<v Speaker 3>that fairly accurate?

0:29:58.240 --> 0:30:01.080
<v Speaker 6>Yes, he wanted golf to be, first of all, a

0:30:01.160 --> 0:30:05.200
<v Speaker 6>sport for gentlemen. Is not a sport that was an

0:30:05.200 --> 0:30:12.760
<v Speaker 6>adventure and heroic and less about athletic prowess. I want

0:30:12.800 --> 0:30:15.800
<v Speaker 6>you to I want you to have. It needs to

0:30:15.880 --> 0:30:21.720
<v Speaker 6>test perseverance, judgment intelligence as much as your physical ability

0:30:21.800 --> 0:30:26.480
<v Speaker 6>to strike a golf ball. Now, there's similar veins of

0:30:26.600 --> 0:30:29.480
<v Speaker 6>arguments that come out literally just two years later when

0:30:29.920 --> 0:30:33.600
<v Speaker 6>he first broaches the idea of strategic golf architecture, and

0:30:33.680 --> 0:30:37.680
<v Speaker 6>there's very similar issues here in the arguments over that.

0:30:38.440 --> 0:30:40.800
<v Speaker 6>And you know his famous saying that there is no

0:30:40.880 --> 0:30:46.720
<v Speaker 6>such thing as an unfair bunker was part of that argument.

0:30:47.400 --> 0:30:50.840
<v Speaker 6>You know it's there, deal with it.

0:30:52.760 --> 0:30:56.520
<v Speaker 3>And now for a word from our sponsor. Today's episode

0:30:56.640 --> 0:31:00.920
<v Speaker 3>is powered by td Ameritrade. Whether on the or in

0:31:01.000 --> 0:31:03.480
<v Speaker 3>the market, it helps to have a second set of

0:31:03.520 --> 0:31:06.360
<v Speaker 3>eyes to keep you on your game. That's why td

0:31:06.440 --> 0:31:09.400
<v Speaker 3>amera Trade's trade desk is here to help gut check

0:31:09.440 --> 0:31:13.200
<v Speaker 3>your strategies so you always feel confident teeing up a trade.

0:31:14.000 --> 0:31:18.280
<v Speaker 3>Visit tdamritrade dot com slash fried Egg to learn more

0:31:18.320 --> 0:31:21.840
<v Speaker 3>about what their trade desk can do for you. Member

0:31:22.040 --> 0:31:25.560
<v Speaker 3>s i PC, all right, and now back to my

0:31:25.640 --> 0:31:30.080
<v Speaker 3>conversation with Bob Crosby. Yeah, that's part of what I

0:31:30.160 --> 0:31:33.960
<v Speaker 3>was leading into because it strikes me that his approach

0:31:34.000 --> 0:31:38.040
<v Speaker 3>to the rules debate is so consonant with his approach

0:31:38.120 --> 0:31:41.520
<v Speaker 3>to golf architecture. So how did John Lowe end up

0:31:41.920 --> 0:31:44.840
<v Speaker 3>getting involved in golf architecture. You mentioned earlier that he

0:31:45.480 --> 0:31:48.840
<v Speaker 3>that he took up a residence near near Woking Golf Club.

0:31:49.880 --> 0:31:53.360
<v Speaker 3>How did it come about that he got involved in

0:31:53.440 --> 0:31:56.800
<v Speaker 3>the in fiddling with that golf course.

0:31:58.040 --> 0:32:01.960
<v Speaker 6>I'll get to Woking in a second. But he first

0:32:02.080 --> 0:32:06.680
<v Speaker 6>established a reputation of golf architecture in nineteen oh one

0:32:06.800 --> 0:32:12.120
<v Speaker 6>in Golf Illustrated that ran a survey on the best

0:32:12.160 --> 0:32:14.960
<v Speaker 6>holes in Britain and they wanted everybody to pick a

0:32:15.000 --> 0:32:17.479
<v Speaker 6>par five, a par four and a par three and

0:32:17.560 --> 0:32:22.320
<v Speaker 6>give reasons for your picks. Low ended up in the

0:32:22.360 --> 0:32:27.160
<v Speaker 6>context of that survey writing a three page essay on

0:32:27.240 --> 0:32:30.800
<v Speaker 6>the merits of strategic golf architecture, something that had literally

0:32:31.120 --> 0:32:35.520
<v Speaker 6>never been seen before. And what he was writing against,

0:32:35.520 --> 0:32:37.640
<v Speaker 6>and this gets back to the polemical side of things.

0:32:38.160 --> 0:32:40.720
<v Speaker 6>Exactly what are they who they are arguing against. What

0:32:40.800 --> 0:32:44.960
<v Speaker 6>he was arguing against was Victorian golf architecture, and in

0:32:45.040 --> 0:32:48.440
<v Speaker 6>nineteen oh one, Victorian golf architecture it was not just

0:32:48.600 --> 0:32:52.480
<v Speaker 6>a crude form of golf course construction. It was, to

0:32:52.520 --> 0:32:58.400
<v Speaker 6>the contrary, a very sophisticated theory of how hazards on

0:32:58.440 --> 0:33:01.320
<v Speaker 6>a golf course are to be laid out. And Lowe

0:33:01.440 --> 0:33:06.560
<v Speaker 6>was arguing against that, and it's a remarkable piece of work.

0:33:08.000 --> 0:33:11.880
<v Speaker 6>It starts a huge flurry of arguments back and forth

0:33:11.960 --> 0:33:15.480
<v Speaker 6>with J. H. Taylor, with Harold Hilton. Lots of lifelong

0:33:15.600 --> 0:33:19.640
<v Speaker 6>enemies were established based on that essay. He goes on

0:33:19.720 --> 0:33:23.600
<v Speaker 6>from that essay with his friend Stuart Payton at Woking

0:33:25.240 --> 0:33:28.600
<v Speaker 6>to take out on the famous fourth hole what had

0:33:28.640 --> 0:33:33.960
<v Speaker 6>been a classic Victorian cross hazard that stretched all the

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:37.280
<v Speaker 6>way across the fairway and reduced it down to a

0:33:37.320 --> 0:33:41.000
<v Speaker 6>simple circular central line bunker as on the sixteenth third

0:33:41.080 --> 0:33:46.600
<v Speaker 6>the old course, and then reconfigured the green to make

0:33:46.640 --> 0:33:48.640
<v Speaker 6>it such that if you wanted to come into the

0:33:48.640 --> 0:33:51.440
<v Speaker 6>green from the right side, which was the easier side,

0:33:51.720 --> 0:33:53.760
<v Speaker 6>I'm going to force you to hit a drive down

0:33:53.800 --> 0:33:56.920
<v Speaker 6>the narrow neck on the right of that center line bunker,

0:33:56.960 --> 0:34:00.400
<v Speaker 6>which by the way, slightly farther right has a railroad track,

0:34:02.880 --> 0:34:04.560
<v Speaker 6>and if you can do that, I'm going to let

0:34:04.560 --> 0:34:08.920
<v Speaker 6>you have an easier shot into the green. That was

0:34:09.040 --> 0:34:13.000
<v Speaker 6>enormously controversial at the time. This is probably nineteen oh one,

0:34:13.120 --> 0:34:15.560
<v Speaker 6>nineteen oh two. Nobody knows quite exactly when you made

0:34:15.600 --> 0:34:17.640
<v Speaker 6>that change. But the other big change, and this is

0:34:17.680 --> 0:34:20.880
<v Speaker 6>fascinating because we take some of these features on a

0:34:20.920 --> 0:34:24.360
<v Speaker 6>golf course today, for granted, but the time they were revolutionary.

0:34:25.320 --> 0:34:29.840
<v Speaker 6>On the seventeenth toll Low dug a bunker into the

0:34:29.880 --> 0:34:33.600
<v Speaker 6>green right at the green, which we now see on

0:34:33.640 --> 0:34:36.719
<v Speaker 6>every golf course you and I've ever played. It was

0:34:37.120 --> 0:34:41.120
<v Speaker 6>hugely controversial on the argument that well, but you know,

0:34:42.040 --> 0:34:44.279
<v Speaker 6>a decent shot is going to catch that bunker, but

0:34:44.320 --> 0:34:46.319
<v Speaker 6>a worse shot is going to be okay, way far

0:34:46.400 --> 0:34:50.360
<v Speaker 6>off the green. But it was this bunker that quote

0:34:50.560 --> 0:34:53.560
<v Speaker 6>ate into the green that caused enormous controversy. It was

0:34:53.680 --> 0:34:56.360
<v Speaker 6>that bunker, and I write about this and through the

0:34:56.400 --> 0:34:59.320
<v Speaker 6>Green Essay that Tom Simpson is still a young lawyer

0:34:59.400 --> 0:35:01.920
<v Speaker 6>just out of school, went at him, looked at because

0:35:01.920 --> 0:35:06.240
<v Speaker 6>of all the controversy, and it struck him that golf

0:35:06.360 --> 0:35:10.360
<v Speaker 6>architecture was dealing with a fascinating set of issues, and

0:35:10.400 --> 0:35:13.000
<v Speaker 6>he decided on the spot to become a golf architect,

0:35:13.360 --> 0:35:19.000
<v Speaker 6>dropped his legal career. But and Lowe was always a

0:35:19.040 --> 0:35:19.840
<v Speaker 6>hero to Simpson.

0:35:20.200 --> 0:35:20.319
<v Speaker 5>Right.

0:35:21.760 --> 0:35:29.879
<v Speaker 3>It's striking to think how different those bunkers were in

0:35:29.920 --> 0:35:34.200
<v Speaker 3>the early nineteen hundreds, you know, and they're pretty commonplace

0:35:34.280 --> 0:35:37.520
<v Speaker 3>ideas to us now, okay, a center line bunker and

0:35:37.800 --> 0:35:40.360
<v Speaker 3>a bunker really near where a pin could be on

0:35:40.440 --> 0:35:45.799
<v Speaker 3>a green. But of course, what was unusual about these

0:35:45.880 --> 0:35:49.360
<v Speaker 3>kinds of hazards at the time is that people assumed

0:35:49.480 --> 0:35:53.000
<v Speaker 3>most people assumed that the purpose of hazards was to

0:35:54.040 --> 0:35:57.600
<v Speaker 3>punish poor strikes of the ball. But Lowe was doing

0:35:57.880 --> 0:36:01.480
<v Speaker 3>something very different, you know. He was doing again something

0:36:01.560 --> 0:36:05.640
<v Speaker 3>that was opposed to the kind of common sensical fairness

0:36:05.840 --> 0:36:09.520
<v Speaker 3>school of golf and going a different direction with it,

0:36:09.640 --> 0:36:12.480
<v Speaker 3>making the game more interesting. What what what was the

0:36:12.520 --> 0:36:15.720
<v Speaker 3>purpose of these hazards? Why was he putting them there?

0:36:16.120 --> 0:36:18.960
<v Speaker 3>What kind of drama and interest did they introduce to

0:36:19.000 --> 0:36:19.360
<v Speaker 3>the game?

0:36:20.600 --> 0:36:23.480
<v Speaker 6>Low low put it very succinctly, and his phrase has

0:36:23.520 --> 0:36:27.200
<v Speaker 6>been copied for by thousands of people since, which is

0:36:27.239 --> 0:36:31.000
<v Speaker 6>that I have no real interest in punishing the bad golfer.

0:36:32.200 --> 0:36:35.640
<v Speaker 6>What I want to do is catch the not quite

0:36:35.719 --> 0:36:41.280
<v Speaker 6>good enough shot of the good golfer. And in other words,

0:36:41.320 --> 0:36:47.000
<v Speaker 6>anybody that wants to play ambitiously but can't quite pull

0:36:47.040 --> 0:36:50.680
<v Speaker 6>it off, he's the guy I want to punish. And

0:36:50.719 --> 0:36:53.440
<v Speaker 6>that's that's how hazards ought to be arranged on a golfer.

0:36:53.760 --> 0:36:58.520
<v Speaker 6>That's that's the point the function of He rewrote the

0:36:58.520 --> 0:37:03.759
<v Speaker 6>function of hazards in his essay in nineteen oh one.

0:37:04.880 --> 0:37:08.319
<v Speaker 6>It's a remarkable I don't know intellectual is the right

0:37:08.360 --> 0:37:10.120
<v Speaker 6>word for it, but it was a remarkable tour to

0:37:10.239 --> 0:37:16.040
<v Speaker 6>fource to have thought that through so carefully, and it

0:37:16.040 --> 0:37:20.200
<v Speaker 6>it remains as modern today as it was when he

0:37:20.239 --> 0:37:22.480
<v Speaker 6>first wrote it. It's just unbelievable.

0:37:22.719 --> 0:37:28.839
<v Speaker 3>Right, It's still counterintuitive for because you think, like, why

0:37:28.840 --> 0:37:31.640
<v Speaker 3>would you put a hazard exactly where you want to be,

0:37:32.239 --> 0:37:35.440
<v Speaker 3>you know, because it isn't that unfair? Isn't that absurd?

0:37:36.040 --> 0:37:39.880
<v Speaker 3>But what Lowe's saying is that, yeah, put those hazards

0:37:39.920 --> 0:37:44.840
<v Speaker 3>where good players balls might gather, because then if the

0:37:44.880 --> 0:37:47.440
<v Speaker 3>hazard's there, you have to play close to it in

0:37:47.520 --> 0:37:50.480
<v Speaker 3>order to have a good position, right right, right.

0:37:50.760 --> 0:37:54.279
<v Speaker 6>The whole calculus plays out beautiful. I'm going to put

0:37:54.320 --> 0:37:57.840
<v Speaker 6>a really nasty hazard close to where your ideal shot

0:37:58.760 --> 0:38:01.160
<v Speaker 6>and you want to you want to want to negotiate that.

0:38:01.320 --> 0:38:03.279
<v Speaker 6>How You're gonna play as close to that hazard as

0:38:03.320 --> 0:38:07.160
<v Speaker 6>you possibly can. Now, if you don't pull that shot off,

0:38:08.520 --> 0:38:12.719
<v Speaker 6>you know your shot is not quite good enough, then

0:38:12.719 --> 0:38:15.880
<v Speaker 6>there's no reason in the world what the consequences of

0:38:15.920 --> 0:38:18.440
<v Speaker 6>that myss can't be catastrophic.

0:38:19.520 --> 0:38:21.920
<v Speaker 5>Because you took on the risk. You could have.

0:38:21.920 --> 0:38:25.520
<v Speaker 6>Bailed out another part of the fairway didn't give you

0:38:25.560 --> 0:38:27.480
<v Speaker 6>a nicer shot into the green, but you had you

0:38:27.520 --> 0:38:31.319
<v Speaker 6>picked it. You chose to take on that risk, and

0:38:31.400 --> 0:38:33.920
<v Speaker 6>you can and and and and the price for not

0:38:34.000 --> 0:38:38.239
<v Speaker 6>pulling it off can be drastic. So that the very

0:38:38.280 --> 0:38:43.520
<v Speaker 6>carefully balanced more moral scales of the old Victorian golf courses.

0:38:43.440 --> 0:38:44.320
<v Speaker 3>He blew apart.

0:38:46.239 --> 0:38:47.799
<v Speaker 5>Well, they were irrelevant.

0:38:48.200 --> 0:38:55.480
<v Speaker 6>They were in fact, they made for bad golf courses, so.

0:38:53.520 --> 0:38:56.080
<v Speaker 3>So and it's and it's truly the key to making

0:38:56.120 --> 0:38:59.799
<v Speaker 3>golf courses challenging for the good player as well as

0:39:00.040 --> 0:39:03.440
<v Speaker 3>playable and fun for the less expert player, which is

0:39:03.480 --> 0:39:08.360
<v Speaker 3>something every golf architect claims to do. But this is

0:39:08.360 --> 0:39:11.239
<v Speaker 3>what he was doing. He found he found to it.

0:39:11.560 --> 0:39:17.480
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, bingo, that's the architectural squaring the circle, and Lowe

0:39:17.520 --> 0:39:19.239
<v Speaker 6>was the first to figure out how you do that?

0:39:19.480 --> 0:39:20.160
<v Speaker 5>Now he didn't.

0:39:20.360 --> 0:39:25.600
<v Speaker 6>It was really curious, is he didn't. He redesigned a

0:39:25.640 --> 0:39:28.560
<v Speaker 6>couple of courses in the south of France, he had

0:39:28.600 --> 0:39:31.879
<v Speaker 6>some design work at the Poe Course in the southwest

0:39:31.920 --> 0:39:36.839
<v Speaker 6>of France, but he really didn't go in He didn't

0:39:36.880 --> 0:39:39.799
<v Speaker 6>really go into golf course design. He really spent most

0:39:39.800 --> 0:39:42.239
<v Speaker 6>of his time on the rules committee and writing, and

0:39:43.040 --> 0:39:44.760
<v Speaker 6>he played in a lot of very He was a

0:39:44.920 --> 0:39:48.480
<v Speaker 6>superb amateur player, reached the finals of the Amateur one year,

0:39:48.560 --> 0:39:51.520
<v Speaker 6>lost to Harold Hilton, that sort of thing. But he

0:39:51.560 --> 0:39:55.160
<v Speaker 6>never really practices a golf architect, nor did Stuart Payton,

0:39:55.239 --> 0:39:56.240
<v Speaker 6>his friend at WOK.

0:39:56.840 --> 0:40:01.200
<v Speaker 3>Right now, around the same time, golf world is dealing

0:40:01.239 --> 0:40:07.640
<v Speaker 3>with the introduction of the Haskell ball, which went enormously

0:40:07.719 --> 0:40:12.120
<v Speaker 3>farther than previous models of golf balls and created an

0:40:12.160 --> 0:40:19.840
<v Speaker 3>existential crisis for golf and golf courses basically, either outlaw

0:40:19.920 --> 0:40:25.040
<v Speaker 3>this ball or change the playing fields. And it turned

0:40:25.080 --> 0:40:28.200
<v Speaker 3>out that the golf world decided to change the playing fields,

0:40:28.400 --> 0:40:30.920
<v Speaker 3>and further, it turned out that this led to a

0:40:30.960 --> 0:40:35.160
<v Speaker 3>lot of great architecture. But Low was right at the

0:40:35.200 --> 0:40:39.239
<v Speaker 3>center of the debate about the Haskell ball about and

0:40:39.360 --> 0:40:42.319
<v Speaker 3>the debate about how golf courses should transform in order

0:40:42.400 --> 0:40:49.400
<v Speaker 3>to accommodate it. So what was his role in that discussion.

0:40:51.920 --> 0:40:55.239
<v Speaker 6>There is a temptation to think that Low came up

0:40:55.239 --> 0:40:58.720
<v Speaker 6>with his architectural theories as a response to the Hassle.

0:40:58.840 --> 0:41:02.839
<v Speaker 6>I don't think that works Chronologically. He came up with

0:41:02.880 --> 0:41:06.280
<v Speaker 6>his notions of strategical of architecture before the Haskell appeared

0:41:06.280 --> 0:41:09.560
<v Speaker 6>in Britain, before anybody really, but almost a year before

0:41:09.560 --> 0:41:12.480
<v Speaker 6>it appeared. We can argue that, you know, it seems

0:41:12.480 --> 0:41:17.720
<v Speaker 6>to me that but he was he was stridently opposed

0:41:17.719 --> 0:41:19.680
<v Speaker 6>to the Haskell from the get go. In fact, he

0:41:19.920 --> 0:41:23.560
<v Speaker 6>was made an object of fun and cartoons for years.

0:41:23.680 --> 0:41:28.000
<v Speaker 5>He was so adamant about it and what his fear was.

0:41:28.040 --> 0:41:31.920
<v Speaker 6>And this takes us to the current issues with the

0:41:31.960 --> 0:41:36.000
<v Speaker 6>solid core ball. What really concerns me about it was

0:41:36.040 --> 0:41:42.840
<v Speaker 6>that it represented an early technology whose further development was unpredictable.

0:41:43.360 --> 0:41:48.440
<v Speaker 6>The woundcore ball was brand new, unlike anything that anybody

0:41:48.440 --> 0:41:52.560
<v Speaker 6>had seen before, and while clearly in nineteen oh two

0:41:52.760 --> 0:41:56.120
<v Speaker 6>nineteen oh three went farther than the gutty. What really

0:41:56.160 --> 0:41:58.400
<v Speaker 6>bothered him was how much farther it might go in

0:41:58.400 --> 0:42:06.000
<v Speaker 6>the future, because nobody knew and the technology had been

0:42:06.640 --> 0:42:08.840
<v Speaker 6>had not been developed, and there was no reason to

0:42:08.880 --> 0:42:12.879
<v Speaker 6>think it wouldn't be developed, and that's what freaked him out.

0:42:13.960 --> 0:42:18.719
<v Speaker 6>And at bottom, what he was trying to do in

0:42:18.760 --> 0:42:21.520
<v Speaker 6>both the context of the rules and the context of

0:42:21.560 --> 0:42:24.560
<v Speaker 6>golf architecture and ultimately in the context of the Haskell,

0:42:25.600 --> 0:42:30.520
<v Speaker 6>is to protect the traditional Scottish game. And if balls

0:42:30.560 --> 0:42:32.760
<v Speaker 6>could be if balls were going all of a sudden

0:42:32.840 --> 0:42:36.480
<v Speaker 6>sixty yards farther than they used to, golf courses didn't

0:42:36.480 --> 0:42:41.200
<v Speaker 6>work anymore. The hazards didn't work. That auto ring a

0:42:41.200 --> 0:42:46.160
<v Speaker 6>bell in twenty nineteen. But that was a critical issue,

0:42:46.320 --> 0:42:49.600
<v Speaker 6>is that golf courses couldn't possibly keep up with the

0:42:49.640 --> 0:42:53.440
<v Speaker 6>technological developments of the ball. And he beat that drum

0:42:53.480 --> 0:42:56.640
<v Speaker 6>as hard as he could until he became chairman of

0:42:56.680 --> 0:43:00.200
<v Speaker 6>the Rules Committee in nineteen thirteen. By then, everybody he

0:43:00.239 --> 0:43:04.080
<v Speaker 6>was very upset about the huge array of different golf

0:43:04.080 --> 0:43:06.800
<v Speaker 6>balls out there. It was just a blizzard of golf balls,

0:43:07.000 --> 0:43:10.480
<v Speaker 6>no rules applied at all. He becomes chairman, the rules

0:43:10.480 --> 0:43:13.399
<v Speaker 6>could be nineteen thirteen, World War One intervenes when they

0:43:13.440 --> 0:43:16.759
<v Speaker 6>come back first, the first thing he does is begin

0:43:16.880 --> 0:43:20.719
<v Speaker 6>the process of drafting limitations on the ball, which are

0:43:20.719 --> 0:43:24.520
<v Speaker 6>finally inactive in nineteen twenty one, and then he sort

0:43:24.560 --> 0:43:27.920
<v Speaker 6>of retires as chairman but continues to serve in the

0:43:27.960 --> 0:43:31.120
<v Speaker 6>committee after that. But it was a huge issue for Low.

0:43:32.440 --> 0:43:34.880
<v Speaker 6>It cost him, no doubt, a lot of emotional capital.

0:43:34.920 --> 0:43:37.520
<v Speaker 6>People made fun of him, laughed at him, but he

0:43:39.400 --> 0:43:45.560
<v Speaker 6>saw it as a profound threat to the game, and I.

0:43:45.480 --> 0:43:46.239
<v Speaker 5>Think he was right.

0:43:47.320 --> 0:43:52.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, Well, that's what I'm going to ask bluntly, Have

0:43:52.120 --> 0:43:53.880
<v Speaker 3>Low's nightmares come true?

0:43:55.200 --> 0:44:00.560
<v Speaker 6>Well, the story's probably more complicated than that in the sense. Well, yeah,

0:44:00.600 --> 0:44:03.760
<v Speaker 6>I think in many respects. In twenty nineteen the Hair Country,

0:44:03.960 --> 0:44:08.160
<v Speaker 6>we have ineffectual, what appear to be ineffectual regulation of

0:44:08.200 --> 0:44:13.600
<v Speaker 6>golf balls. Something needs to be done because they are

0:44:13.680 --> 0:44:18.000
<v Speaker 6>outstripping the ability of golf architects to match up with them.

0:44:18.920 --> 0:44:20.719
<v Speaker 6>And there's no reason to think that's going to change

0:44:20.760 --> 0:44:25.719
<v Speaker 6>in the future. Maybe it will, maybe the technology will plateau.

0:44:25.880 --> 0:44:28.360
<v Speaker 6>I don't know, but there's no reason. I get no

0:44:28.440 --> 0:44:33.040
<v Speaker 6>assurances that it will, and there's every indication it will

0:44:33.080 --> 0:44:35.200
<v Speaker 6>continue to ramp up, they'll find.

0:44:35.040 --> 0:44:36.680
<v Speaker 5>Various ways to increase distance.

0:44:37.760 --> 0:44:40.960
<v Speaker 6>So yes, I mean, it's absolutely and in fact, I'm

0:44:41.080 --> 0:44:44.960
<v Speaker 6>shocked there's been so little written about what I call

0:44:45.080 --> 0:44:50.360
<v Speaker 6>the Haskell, the post Haskell interregnum, that period between the

0:44:50.360 --> 0:44:53.320
<v Speaker 6>appearance of the Hassle and the first limitations on balls

0:44:53.440 --> 0:44:57.040
<v Speaker 6>in nineteen twenty one. There's been remarkably a little written

0:44:57.080 --> 0:44:58.319
<v Speaker 6>about what happened.

0:44:58.000 --> 0:45:03.200
<v Speaker 5>During those two decades. But it was this.

0:45:03.320 --> 0:45:07.680
<v Speaker 6>Wild, crazy, wild West of golf balls that just anything went,

0:45:08.280 --> 0:45:10.760
<v Speaker 6>and it did go. I mean there was this different course,

0:45:10.880 --> 0:45:15.120
<v Speaker 6>different covering, size, shape, some floated, some didn't. They use

0:45:15.200 --> 0:45:21.640
<v Speaker 6>liquid centers, metal centers, all sorts of stuff, and it

0:45:21.760 --> 0:45:26.160
<v Speaker 6>was crazy, and it got so crazy that by nineteen

0:45:26.239 --> 0:45:31.080
<v Speaker 6>twelve nineteen thirteen, the delegates to the Amateur said, look,

0:45:31.120 --> 0:45:34.040
<v Speaker 6>we gotta find we can't have all these players coming

0:45:34.040 --> 0:45:36.839
<v Speaker 6>in here and playing the Amateur with wildly different golf balls.

0:45:36.880 --> 0:45:41.680
<v Speaker 6>They're playing different games, so let's adopt a standard golf ball.

0:45:42.000 --> 0:45:44.920
<v Speaker 6>And that began the process. It took ten more years

0:45:45.040 --> 0:45:48.960
<v Speaker 6>essentially to enact rules that limited golf balls.

0:45:49.960 --> 0:45:52.680
<v Speaker 3>Right now here we are today, and it seems like

0:45:52.719 --> 0:45:57.399
<v Speaker 3>in some respects the wild West has returned. Though there

0:45:57.520 --> 0:46:03.000
<v Speaker 3>is some some standardization of the technology. We have come

0:46:03.520 --> 0:46:08.320
<v Speaker 3>a long way in golf ball technology since nineteen twenty one.

0:46:08.800 --> 0:46:12.440
<v Speaker 6>We really have, and and the parallels to me with

0:46:12.520 --> 0:46:16.480
<v Speaker 6>twenty nineteen, you know, current period strike me. They're just

0:46:16.520 --> 0:46:18.120
<v Speaker 6>so obvious they jump off the table.

0:46:20.600 --> 0:46:21.640
<v Speaker 5>But some of the other.

0:46:21.520 --> 0:46:23.520
<v Speaker 6>Debates that Low is in the middle of are still

0:46:23.600 --> 0:46:28.600
<v Speaker 6>relevant too. I mean, the penal versus strategic golf architecture

0:46:28.680 --> 0:46:32.080
<v Speaker 6>issues still appear in how the US Open sets up

0:46:32.200 --> 0:46:33.240
<v Speaker 6>US Open venues.

0:46:35.440 --> 0:46:36.200
<v Speaker 5>You know, should we.

0:46:36.160 --> 0:46:40.360
<v Speaker 6>Narrow the fairways, get the rough up knee high, or

0:46:40.400 --> 0:46:45.120
<v Speaker 6>should we let the golf course try to handle these folks?

0:46:45.239 --> 0:46:47.960
<v Speaker 6>You know, rule It still comes up in rules issues

0:46:48.000 --> 0:46:51.479
<v Speaker 6>today there's this Low would be spinning in his grave.

0:46:51.560 --> 0:46:55.600
<v Speaker 6>Today's there's this great desire to have make rules fair

0:46:55.840 --> 0:46:58.680
<v Speaker 6>in the sense that we're going to interject into the

0:46:58.800 --> 0:47:04.160
<v Speaker 6>rules intent. So did he mean to do something improper

0:47:04.760 --> 0:47:08.719
<v Speaker 6>or did he just do it? Two prongs for the

0:47:08.760 --> 0:47:11.160
<v Speaker 6>proof he both did it and he meant to do it.

0:47:11.800 --> 0:47:14.440
<v Speaker 6>Lowold have said, no, he did it. That's it. You know,

0:47:15.080 --> 0:47:18.359
<v Speaker 6>that's it, and it's easier to administer, you know, did

0:47:18.360 --> 0:47:20.399
<v Speaker 6>he do it or did it's not whether he meant

0:47:20.400 --> 0:47:23.279
<v Speaker 6>to do it, So you know, did he mean to

0:47:23.560 --> 0:47:26.040
<v Speaker 6>addressed the ball. Well, he either addressed the ball or

0:47:26.040 --> 0:47:29.360
<v Speaker 6>he didn't. You know, that's sort of if the ball moves.

0:47:29.719 --> 0:47:34.040
<v Speaker 6>So I find all sorts of places where the battles

0:47:34.120 --> 0:47:38.880
<v Speaker 6>Low fought more than one hundred years ago haven't gone away.

0:47:38.960 --> 0:47:43.000
<v Speaker 6>In fact, I want to make the argument, this is

0:47:43.000 --> 0:47:46.040
<v Speaker 6>a little bold, I guess that were there have been

0:47:46.120 --> 0:47:50.279
<v Speaker 6>since eighteen ninety five or so, two basic polls, two

0:47:50.480 --> 0:47:53.359
<v Speaker 6>visions of how golf ought to be at its best.

0:47:53.640 --> 0:47:58.320
<v Speaker 6>One is Low's conservative view, and one is the Party

0:47:58.360 --> 0:48:01.399
<v Speaker 6>of Equity view, which is the Party of Equity view

0:48:01.440 --> 0:48:04.840
<v Speaker 6>being And I think these camps still largely describe different

0:48:04.920 --> 0:48:08.680
<v Speaker 6>views about golf. The golf ought to be an objective

0:48:08.719 --> 0:48:12.520
<v Speaker 6>athletic test, and the more objective the test, the better.

0:48:12.960 --> 0:48:17.000
<v Speaker 6>And that means straight, you know, fair rules for everybody,

0:48:17.120 --> 0:48:20.160
<v Speaker 6>all sorts of things, or the conservative rule, which is

0:48:20.200 --> 0:48:22.239
<v Speaker 6>that you know, none of that is really relevant to

0:48:22.280 --> 0:48:30.920
<v Speaker 6>what makes golf great. It's more of a test of intelligence, perseverance, courage,

0:48:31.600 --> 0:48:35.400
<v Speaker 6>all sorts of things, ability to analyze a golf course.

0:48:36.920 --> 0:48:41.560
<v Speaker 6>That's sort of thing. So a lot of that carries forward.

0:48:42.400 --> 0:48:46.239
<v Speaker 3>And that gets it something I'm curious about putting a

0:48:46.280 --> 0:48:53.240
<v Speaker 3>finer point on as we navigate the current debates about golf,

0:48:53.560 --> 0:48:56.880
<v Speaker 3>which are so similar to the debates that have happened

0:48:56.880 --> 0:49:00.759
<v Speaker 3>through history in that often they take the form of

0:49:00.800 --> 0:49:05.759
<v Speaker 3>these two opposing camps that you're describing. How can John

0:49:05.840 --> 0:49:09.560
<v Speaker 3>Lowe teach us a way forward?

0:49:09.840 --> 0:49:10.120
<v Speaker 5>There?

0:49:10.200 --> 0:49:14.160
<v Speaker 3>Can he teach us a way to navigate these waters?

0:49:16.840 --> 0:49:21.759
<v Speaker 6>Lowe was, although he didn't ever really put it this way,

0:49:21.800 --> 0:49:25.480
<v Speaker 6>but Lowe was really part of a of a long

0:49:25.600 --> 0:49:32.719
<v Speaker 6>running theme in golf golf history which runs back to

0:49:32.840 --> 0:49:37.240
<v Speaker 6>Arnold Holtein, which tracks up through various people in fifties

0:49:37.239 --> 0:49:40.560
<v Speaker 6>to sixties, and it's picked up again brilliantly by John Updike,

0:49:42.239 --> 0:49:47.600
<v Speaker 6>And that theme is that golf is about testing yourself.

0:49:47.640 --> 0:49:52.200
<v Speaker 6>It's about character, it's about it's. It's it's it's it's

0:49:52.239 --> 0:49:58.480
<v Speaker 6>as much character, logical and intangible in that way as

0:49:58.520 --> 0:50:01.879
<v Speaker 6>it is a competitive athletic export. And if you miss

0:50:01.920 --> 0:50:04.960
<v Speaker 6>out on that first part, you're really you're missing what's

0:50:05.400 --> 0:50:12.520
<v Speaker 6>what's most intriguing about golf. It's a maddening, sometimes unfair,

0:50:12.800 --> 0:50:18.759
<v Speaker 6>sometimes very fair, but fascinating sport. And if you're in

0:50:18.800 --> 0:50:22.040
<v Speaker 6>it just for the athletic achievement. You miss all that

0:50:22.160 --> 0:50:25.120
<v Speaker 6>now that the athletic achievement is certainly well rewarded these days,

0:50:25.840 --> 0:50:30.000
<v Speaker 6>but it is it is not something that Low thought

0:50:30.120 --> 0:50:33.360
<v Speaker 6>was important to the game to make sure that athletic,

0:50:34.160 --> 0:50:38.880
<v Speaker 6>the athleticism of the game is fair, transparent, and the

0:50:39.000 --> 0:50:42.000
<v Speaker 6>tests are objective. That would he would have found all

0:50:42.080 --> 0:50:45.400
<v Speaker 6>that anathema to what he thought was really the best

0:50:45.440 --> 0:50:46.120
<v Speaker 6>about golf.

0:50:47.920 --> 0:50:52.520
<v Speaker 3>And a true test of character comes through adventure and

0:50:52.640 --> 0:50:57.680
<v Speaker 3>challenge and things happening that are unexpected and perhaps unfair,

0:50:58.520 --> 0:51:01.360
<v Speaker 3>and the test is whether you can deal with that

0:51:01.520 --> 0:51:05.160
<v Speaker 3>and persevere. You know, it seems to me that golf

0:51:05.200 --> 0:51:09.520
<v Speaker 3>in the eighteen hundreds was so much more like mountaineering

0:51:09.719 --> 0:51:13.279
<v Speaker 3>than it is now. And it seems like there is

0:51:13.320 --> 0:51:18.920
<v Speaker 3>this there is this trust, or this this desire that

0:51:18.960 --> 0:51:23.080
<v Speaker 3>we have in the present day to find equipment that

0:51:23.120 --> 0:51:28.120
<v Speaker 3>will allow us to put that in the past, to

0:51:28.160 --> 0:51:32.520
<v Speaker 3>subvert or to do an end run around the test

0:51:32.560 --> 0:51:35.919
<v Speaker 3>of character, to kind of get ourselves to the top

0:51:35.960 --> 0:51:40.080
<v Speaker 3>of the mountain using implements. But of course that's the

0:51:40.680 --> 0:51:44.600
<v Speaker 3>that's to the side of what the what the real

0:51:44.640 --> 0:51:47.719
<v Speaker 3>appeal of the game is, which is that it's you

0:51:47.800 --> 0:51:50.640
<v Speaker 3>against the golf course, and you're going to try to

0:51:51.120 --> 0:51:55.319
<v Speaker 3>try to overcome it using what you have inside you.

0:51:57.800 --> 0:52:00.719
<v Speaker 3>It seems like, are are we losing that? And have we?

0:52:00.840 --> 0:52:00.920
<v Speaker 5>Have?

0:52:01.000 --> 0:52:03.400
<v Speaker 3>We been losing that for a long time.

0:52:04.080 --> 0:52:06.640
<v Speaker 6>Well, I think we have, And I think you say, well,

0:52:06.719 --> 0:52:09.320
<v Speaker 6>what was at the heart of his argument against the Haskell,

0:52:09.520 --> 0:52:13.200
<v Speaker 6>which is that it makes the game easier and and

0:52:13.440 --> 0:52:18.480
<v Speaker 6>that shouldn't be a goal. What what golf legislators should

0:52:18.480 --> 0:52:22.720
<v Speaker 6>aim for is a game that is challenging, that presents

0:52:22.760 --> 0:52:26.239
<v Speaker 6>to you temptations that create great anxiety about whether to

0:52:26.280 --> 0:52:32.240
<v Speaker 6>take them on or not, where failure to pull things

0:52:32.280 --> 0:52:36.440
<v Speaker 6>off can be somehow a disaster, and that adds to

0:52:36.480 --> 0:52:39.800
<v Speaker 6>the thrill and drama of standing on a tee trying

0:52:39.800 --> 0:52:43.839
<v Speaker 6>to decide where to hit your ball. Yes, I mean,

0:52:45.000 --> 0:52:47.520
<v Speaker 6>and the Haskell, to the extent, is much longer than

0:52:47.520 --> 0:52:52.439
<v Speaker 6>the older balls and rendered so many courses obsolete. Took

0:52:52.480 --> 0:52:55.200
<v Speaker 6>those choices out of out of out of play. I

0:52:55.200 --> 0:52:58.239
<v Speaker 6>mean they did, they just didn't matter as much and

0:52:58.480 --> 0:53:02.640
<v Speaker 6>did over today, and the ball has the same effect.

0:53:03.680 --> 0:53:05.920
<v Speaker 6>Low made similar. Maybe it was a sort of a

0:53:05.960 --> 0:53:08.799
<v Speaker 6>disaster in all ways. But he was involved with the

0:53:08.840 --> 0:53:12.239
<v Speaker 6>banning of the Schenectady Putter, which I don't know if

0:53:12.239 --> 0:53:14.680
<v Speaker 6>you're familiar with that story, but days back to nineteen

0:53:14.719 --> 0:53:17.120
<v Speaker 6>oh eight, and it was a disaster.

0:53:17.400 --> 0:53:19.680
<v Speaker 5>I mean, the Americans won't like that.

0:53:20.520 --> 0:53:23.360
<v Speaker 6>The RNA didn't the whole idea of a center shafter

0:53:23.480 --> 0:53:26.960
<v Speaker 6>club low found to make the game too easy, although

0:53:26.960 --> 0:53:29.800
<v Speaker 6>it turned out it really didn't, and there was almost

0:53:29.800 --> 0:53:32.200
<v Speaker 6>a split between the RNA and the USGA, and it

0:53:32.239 --> 0:53:36.200
<v Speaker 6>was a big mess, which in part accounts for why

0:53:36.280 --> 0:53:38.760
<v Speaker 6>they were so careful when they rolled out the first

0:53:38.760 --> 0:53:41.480
<v Speaker 6>ball rules to bring in the USJ and do that together.

0:53:43.080 --> 0:53:47.799
<v Speaker 6>But he was the same issues applied. The idea of

0:53:47.840 --> 0:53:51.319
<v Speaker 6>making the game easier is a misnomer, and we need

0:53:51.360 --> 0:53:56.160
<v Speaker 6>to avoid that temptation because it's deeply tempting, and it

0:53:56.200 --> 0:53:59.960
<v Speaker 6>makes Related to that is the notion that we shouldn't

0:54:00.400 --> 0:54:04.040
<v Speaker 6>have as a main goal as a golf legislator making

0:54:04.080 --> 0:54:07.960
<v Speaker 6>the game more popular, and that's I think an inevitable

0:54:08.040 --> 0:54:14.440
<v Speaker 6>part of opposing better and better balls, you know, keeping balls,

0:54:14.600 --> 0:54:18.720
<v Speaker 6>you know, not at the technological max, but somewhere before

0:54:18.760 --> 0:54:23.560
<v Speaker 6>you get there. That because the high school was enormostly popular,

0:54:24.800 --> 0:54:27.160
<v Speaker 6>and one of the reasons the RNA Rules Committee didn't

0:54:27.160 --> 0:54:28.960
<v Speaker 6>act on it because they were afraid to create a

0:54:29.000 --> 0:54:32.600
<v Speaker 6>schism in the game, and they probably those fears might

0:54:32.640 --> 0:54:35.200
<v Speaker 6>have been well placed low thought, though the threat was

0:54:35.239 --> 0:54:37.400
<v Speaker 6>significant enough to risk it.

0:54:38.280 --> 0:54:42.560
<v Speaker 3>So same thing today. People are afraid of blowing apart

0:54:42.600 --> 0:54:44.959
<v Speaker 3>the game or ruining its popularity. But as you say

0:54:45.000 --> 0:54:47.920
<v Speaker 3>that the popularity, you can't have the goal of making

0:54:47.960 --> 0:54:51.520
<v Speaker 3>something popular. Everybody knows that if you try to be popular,

0:54:51.560 --> 0:54:53.720
<v Speaker 3>you're you're never gonna be. It's putting the cart before

0:54:53.719 --> 0:54:56.920
<v Speaker 3>the horse. There's got to be a compelling experience and

0:54:56.960 --> 0:54:58.160
<v Speaker 3>then it'll become popular.

0:54:58.640 --> 0:54:58.879
<v Speaker 5>Yeah.

0:54:59.320 --> 0:55:02.600
<v Speaker 6>My guess, and this is just one guy's guess, is

0:55:02.640 --> 0:55:06.000
<v Speaker 6>that there's if you took the latest and greatest balls

0:55:06.000 --> 0:55:09.240
<v Speaker 6>out of people's hands and did a rollback, and based

0:55:09.280 --> 0:55:12.439
<v Speaker 6>on what we can discuss some other time, it would

0:55:12.440 --> 0:55:18.160
<v Speaker 6>be enormously unpopular initially, I think, though over time it

0:55:18.200 --> 0:55:21.200
<v Speaker 6>would have really no effect on the game. People would

0:55:21.440 --> 0:55:25.359
<v Speaker 6>come back to it. I've never understood, for example, the

0:55:25.400 --> 0:55:30.120
<v Speaker 6>opposition of ball manufacturers to a rollback, because people would

0:55:30.120 --> 0:55:33.359
<v Speaker 6>have used just as many balls as they ever did now.

0:55:34.120 --> 0:55:37.799
<v Speaker 6>Their Their fear might be that fewer people would play

0:55:37.840 --> 0:55:40.360
<v Speaker 6>golf with a shorter ball.

0:55:41.680 --> 0:55:42.560
<v Speaker 5>Maybe for a while.

0:55:42.600 --> 0:55:44.680
<v Speaker 6>I think people would still come back to the game

0:55:44.719 --> 0:55:48.240
<v Speaker 6>after after a period of adjustment and golf courses.

0:55:48.520 --> 0:55:48.799
<v Speaker 5>You know.

0:55:49.000 --> 0:55:51.280
<v Speaker 6>Part of something I wanted to talk to you about

0:55:51.360 --> 0:55:52.959
<v Speaker 6>is that I think part of all of this too,

0:55:53.080 --> 0:55:56.040
<v Speaker 6>and this is modern times, is this hickory move hickory

0:55:56.040 --> 0:55:59.560
<v Speaker 6>shaft movement and people playing with gold per Simmon clubs

0:56:00.080 --> 0:56:05.799
<v Speaker 6>and the old Wilson staff irons, is they want to

0:56:05.800 --> 0:56:08.600
<v Speaker 6>get back to a game that matches up better with

0:56:08.640 --> 0:56:11.239
<v Speaker 6>these older golf courses, and it's just much more fun to.

0:56:11.200 --> 0:56:12.879
<v Speaker 5>Play, right.

0:56:13.680 --> 0:56:16.239
<v Speaker 3>There is that discovery and it gets made fun of

0:56:16.280 --> 0:56:20.680
<v Speaker 3>a little bit, right, you know, it's I think it

0:56:20.760 --> 0:56:25.400
<v Speaker 3>seems sort of like an affectation to people. But and

0:56:25.760 --> 0:56:28.880
<v Speaker 3>I've never gotten hickories myself. I haven't tried it. I

0:56:29.320 --> 0:56:31.759
<v Speaker 3>may not even really I think I've rolled myself back

0:56:31.800 --> 0:56:36.120
<v Speaker 3>through my lack of ability. But I sometimes think about

0:56:36.160 --> 0:56:38.440
<v Speaker 3>getting an older model of driver, you know, maybe a

0:56:38.520 --> 0:56:41.200
<v Speaker 3>late nineties driver with a smaller head, and seeing what

0:56:41.320 --> 0:56:44.720
<v Speaker 3>the game is like with that. But but it seems

0:56:44.760 --> 0:56:48.919
<v Speaker 3>so much about about leveling the playing field a little

0:56:48.960 --> 0:56:54.080
<v Speaker 3>bit between the golfer and the course, reintroducing that sense

0:56:54.120 --> 0:56:57.600
<v Speaker 3>of the golf course as a piece of nature that

0:56:57.760 --> 0:57:03.239
<v Speaker 3>is imposing and intimidating and difficult and unyielding, and you're

0:57:03.280 --> 0:57:07.200
<v Speaker 3>you're given the barest implements to to conquer it, and

0:57:07.239 --> 0:57:09.560
<v Speaker 3>so that if you do conquer it, there's a wonderful

0:57:09.600 --> 0:57:14.480
<v Speaker 3>sense of achievement. I don't know if the current model

0:57:14.520 --> 0:57:19.680
<v Speaker 3>of driver especially provides that same thrill of achievement, because

0:57:20.240 --> 0:57:23.800
<v Speaker 3>you know, for many people, even for a player like

0:57:23.920 --> 0:57:27.760
<v Speaker 3>me just slightly above average, hitting that kind of driver

0:57:27.880 --> 0:57:31.960
<v Speaker 3>is pretty easy, right, There's not much misery involved in

0:57:32.120 --> 0:57:34.280
<v Speaker 3>and going playing a round of golf with a driver

0:57:34.440 --> 0:57:36.560
<v Speaker 3>like that. Sometimes the ball goes in the fair way

0:57:36.640 --> 0:57:41.120
<v Speaker 3>every single time. And uh, and so when you when

0:57:41.160 --> 0:57:43.200
<v Speaker 3>you have a when you hit a good shot, or

0:57:43.200 --> 0:57:46.480
<v Speaker 3>when you go through a really good round, there's not

0:57:46.560 --> 0:57:48.760
<v Speaker 3>the same thrill. And so it seems like people are

0:57:48.760 --> 0:57:51.120
<v Speaker 3>trying to get that back. I don't think they're trying

0:57:51.120 --> 0:57:54.480
<v Speaker 3>to be pretentious. I think they're just trying to find

0:57:54.480 --> 0:57:56.640
<v Speaker 3>a different way of experiencing the land.

0:57:57.360 --> 0:58:01.400
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I could agree with you more. I would add that,

0:58:01.880 --> 0:58:04.440
<v Speaker 6>and I've played some here. I don't own any, but

0:58:04.480 --> 0:58:06.880
<v Speaker 6>I've played with some hittories. Is that you end up

0:58:06.880 --> 0:58:10.920
<v Speaker 6>playing different kinds of shots too, which a much wider

0:58:11.040 --> 0:58:15.120
<v Speaker 6>variety of shots. You don't hit the usual driver lofted

0:58:15.240 --> 0:58:18.800
<v Speaker 6>iron into the green ball lands and checks and that's it.

0:58:19.080 --> 0:58:21.680
<v Speaker 6>You play stuff on the ground because you're farther back

0:58:21.720 --> 0:58:24.080
<v Speaker 6>and you know all sorts of It's just a whole

0:58:24.120 --> 0:58:27.240
<v Speaker 6>different variety of shots that you have to think about.

0:58:26.960 --> 0:58:31.560
<v Speaker 3>Playing, right, So well, thank you so much for talking

0:58:31.560 --> 0:58:35.320
<v Speaker 3>to me today, Bob. That was fascinating. I'm very much

0:58:35.360 --> 0:58:37.680
<v Speaker 3>looking forward to your book, as I'm sure many people

0:58:37.720 --> 0:58:42.120
<v Speaker 3>are about, John Lowe. Could you give us a sense.

0:58:42.160 --> 0:58:43.800
<v Speaker 3>I know you're in the midst of writing it. I

0:58:43.880 --> 0:58:45.120
<v Speaker 3>know what it's like to be in the middle of

0:58:45.120 --> 0:58:47.760
<v Speaker 3>a project and have somebody ask you about the end point.

0:58:48.000 --> 0:58:51.280
<v Speaker 3>It can that can feel not very good. But where

0:58:51.320 --> 0:58:53.640
<v Speaker 3>are you in the process and what can we look

0:58:53.680 --> 0:58:55.520
<v Speaker 3>forward to in the future from you?

0:58:56.040 --> 0:58:59.280
<v Speaker 6>I was worried you're going to ask me that question. Sorry,

0:59:00.440 --> 0:59:03.520
<v Speaker 6>I'm guessing maybe a year, maybe slightly less. I mean,

0:59:03.920 --> 0:59:07.520
<v Speaker 6>the basics are in place, I just need to bring

0:59:07.560 --> 0:59:10.560
<v Speaker 6>them all together. I'm going back over some older things

0:59:10.600 --> 0:59:14.280
<v Speaker 6>today before we talk, and they could use some work.

0:59:14.560 --> 0:59:18.760
<v Speaker 3>But yes, Grace, all right, well, thank you so much.

0:59:19.400 --> 0:59:22.760
<v Speaker 3>Looking forward to that book and I'll talk to you soon. Thanks.

0:59:22.960 --> 0:59:23.840
<v Speaker 5>Enjoyed it enormously.

0:59:23.880 --> 0:59:27.280
<v Speaker 4>Thank you you've been listening to the fried Egg Podcast.

0:59:27.720 --> 0:59:29.280
<v Speaker 3>We do the digging for you.