Music Welcome to snoozecast, the podcast designed to help you fall asleep. Find us at snoozecast.com and if you enjoy our show, please share us with a friend. This episode is brought to you by Beautifully drawn Maps. Tonight, we'll read an excerpt from The Soul of Golf by PA Vale, published in 1912. Snues cast first read this back in 2020. The author veils contributions to Golf literature extended beyond mere instruction. He was an early advocate for the science of the game. His writings explored the mechanics of golf swings and course strategy, combining a passion for the sport with an analytical mind. And fails influence helped shape the way golf was taught and understood during the early 20th century, paving the way for the modern emphasis on technique and precision. The 15th century scots may have codified the game, but golf in its earliest days was far from the polished pastime we recognize today. Early versions were played with rudimentary clubs and balls made from wood or leather stuffed feathers. One of the oldest known Gulf courses, the old course at St. Andrews,

still exists today and remains a hallowed site for enthusiasts.

Established in 1552,

it reflects the deep historical roots of the game.

St. Andrews is often referred to as the home of golf

and it's where many of the rules of modern golf

were first formalized, laying the groundwork for the sports global expansion. Curiously, golf has also found its way into the annals of literature and lore. Some tales recount how the sports original intent was as much about leisure as it was about competition. Kings and commoners alike enjoyed the challenge of it, and even Mary, Queen of Scots, is rumor to have played. Her passion for the game may have lent her the nickname, the First Lady Golfer, further in twining golf, with history and legend. Let's get cozy. Close your eyes. Relax your body into the softness of your bed. Now take a few deep breaths. flight of the golf ball. The flight the Ball, and particularly of the Golf Ball, exercises a strange fascination for many people to whom the phenomena of flight exhibited by a spinning ball traveling through the air are not of the slightest practical importance. is to say, there is an immense number of people who take merely a scientific and one might almost say an artistic interest in the effects produced by the combined influence of spin and propulsion. Scientific men have been for many years well aware of the causes which produce the swerve of a ball in the air. By swerve I mean, of course, a curve in the flight of a ball, which is due to other causes than gravitation. And in the word swerve, I do not include the drift of a ball, which has been perfectly cleanly hit, but which, in the heading of Swerve. It is more correctly described as Drift, and will be dealt with in due course. In the Badminton magazine of March 1896, the late Professor Tate published an article on long driving. Professor Tate was a practical golfer and a very learned and scientific man. He proved, most clearly, that a golf ball could not be driven beyond a certain distance. He proved this absolutely and conclusively by mathematics. But so the story runs, his son, the famous Freddy Tate, proved next day with his driver that his father's calculations were entirely wrong. For he is alleged to have driven a golf ball over thirty yards farther than the limit which his learned parent had shown to be obtainable. Naturally, Professor Tate had to reconsider his statements, and he then arrived at the conclusion that there must have been in the drive of his son, which had upset his calculations, some force which he had not taken into consideration. He soon came to the conclusion that this was backspin, and he dealt with this matter of backspin, which is of matter of extreme importance to golf, in a most erudite article, which is much too advanced for the ordinary golfer. So I shall content myself here with referring to just a few of the most important points in connection with it. It is necessary that I should, in dealing with the flight of the ball, give those of my readers who are not already acquainted with the simple principles of Swerve, some idea of what it is, which causes the spinning ball, to leave the line of flight that it would have taken if it had been driven practically without spin. The explanation is very simple. If a ball is proceeding through the air and spinning, the side which is spinning towards the hole gets more friction than the other side, which is spinning away from the hole. It is well known that a projectile seeks the line of least resistance in its passage through the air. It follows that the greater friction on the forward-spending half causes the ball to edge over towards the side which is spinning away from the hole. This, in a very few words, is the whole secret of Swerve. Professor Tate stated in his article that Newton was well aware of this fact some 230 years before the publication of the professor's article, and that he remarked when speaking of a spinning tennis ball with a circular as well as a progressive motion communicated to it by the stroke. Quote, that the parts on that side where the motions conspire must press and beat the continuous air more violently, and their excite or reluctancy and reaction of the air proportionately greater end This really is an extremely simple matter and very simple explanation. I have taken care to explain it so simply. For swerve is, by a very great number of people, looked upon as an abstruse problem. In fact, my book on Swerve, or The Flight of the Ball, is catalogued as a treaty on applied mathematics instead of, as I intended it to be, simply a practical application of the ascertain facts to the behavior of the ball in the air. Professor Tate's article has enjoyed a wonderful vogue. Although it was published nearly 20 years ago, it is quite frequently quoted at the present time. There are, however, in it some errors which one would not have expected to have found in such a scientific article. Speaking of the golf ball shortly after it has left the club, Professor Tate said, it has a definite speed in a definite direction, and it may have also a definite amount of rotation about some definite access. The existence of rotation is manifested at once by the strange effects it produces on the curvature of the path so that the ball may skew to right or left, soar upwards as as if in defiance of gravity, or plunge headlong downwards instead of slowly and reluctantly yielding to that steady and persistent pull. There is, in this statement of Professor Tates, a fundamental error in so far as regards the flight of the ball. He said, The existence of rotation is manifested at once by the strange effects it produces on the curvature of the path. This is incorrect from a scientific point of view, and it is also badly stated. The existence of rotation is not manifested at once. In very many cases, practically in all, the ball proceeds for quite a long distance before the effect of rotation is seen. This is more particularly so when it is a matter of backspin, but it is equally true of the pulled ball or the sliced ball. Both of these proceed for a considerable distance before the effect of spin is noticeable. In fact it is well known to all goffers that the spin begins to get to work as the velocity of the ball decreases. Also, it seems as though it is incorrect to refer to the strange effects it, rotation, produces on the curvature of the path, for it is the rotation itself, which produces the curvature. Professor Tate then said, the most cursory observation shows that a ball is hardly ever sent on its course without some spin, so that we may take the fact for granted, even if we cannot fully explain the mode of its production. And the main object of this article is to show that long carry essentially involves underspin. I shall deal with these two statements later on. Professor Tate said, To find that his magnificent carry was due merely to what is virtually a towing operation, performed no doubt in a vertical and not in a horizontal plane, is too much for the self-exhaulting golfer. The fact, however, is indisputable. When we fasten one end of a long, untwisted tape to the ball and the other to the ground and then induce a good player to drive the ball, perpendicularly to the tape, into a stiff clay face or yard or two off, we find that the tape is always twisted in such a way as to show underspin. No doubt to different amounts by different players, but proving that the ball makes usually from about one to three turns in six feet, say from 40 to 120 turns per second. This is clearly a circumstance not to be overlooked. It is wonderful how easily a scientific man as Professor Tate was. Can be led astray when he sets out to find the thing he has imagined? Professor Tate, by a footnote to his article in the Badman magazine, to my mind entirely discounts the value of his experiments. His footnote is so important that I must, quote it, fully. He says, In my laboratory experiments, players could not be expected to do full justice to their powers. They had to strike as nearly as possible in the center, a 10-inch disc of clay, the ball being teed about six feet in front of it. Besides this preoccupation, there was always more or less concern about the possible consequence of rebound. Should the small target be altogether missed? It will be apparent even to anyone who is not possessed of a scientific or analytical mind that Professor Tate compelled his players to endeavor to play their strokes in such a manner that the ball had to travel down a line decided on by Professor Tate. I do not know at what height Professor Tate placed his clay disk from the earth, but it is evident that if he put it very low down, it would involve the playing by the golfer of a stroke which would naturally produce backspin. And in any case, the trajectory was arbitrarily fixed. In experimenting with such a stroke as this, and in such a manner as this, it should be evident that there should have been no restriction whatever as to the player's trajectory. If it was decided that it was necessary to catch the ball in a clay disc, that disc should have been so large that it was impossible for the golfer's ball to escape it. It should not have been necessary for the golfer to aim at the disc. The mere fact of his aiming at the disc and the ball being teed so near has six feet to the disc, all tended to produce the shot, which would give the results, which Professor Tate was looking for. But that does not prove that the ordinary stroke at golf is produced in a similar manner. And I do not for one moment believe that it is. In speaking of the stroke proper, Professor Tate said, the club and the ball practically share this scene between them, but the players right hand and the resistance of the air take some little part in it. It is a very brief one, lasting for an instant only, in the sense of something like one ten thousandth of a second. We may note here that Professor Tate said, the right hand and the resistance of the air take some little part in it. One would be inclined to think from this that Professor Tate was, as indeed was probably the case, an adherent of the fetage of the left, for there can be no doubt that in the stroke proper, the right hand does much more than take some little part in it. I think that Professor Tate is wrong in his idea that underspin, or, as I prefer to call it, backspin, is essential to a long carry. I firmly believe that a ball which is hit with practically no spin whatever can have a very long carry. However, as the paper which I am now about

to consider follows in many ways very closely on the lines of Professor Tate's article,

I should leave this matter for consideration when I am dealing with that paper.

The paper which I am now referring to is one which was read at the weekly evening

meeting of the Royal Institute of Great Britain on Friday 18 March 1910 by Professor Sir J.J. Thompson, Cabin dish, Professor of Experimental Physics, Cambridge, Professor of Physics, Royal Institution, London, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Royal Institution, and winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics 1906. The title of this paper was The Dynamics of a Golf Ball. It will be observed that neither the institution under the auspices of which this lecture was delivered nor the lecturer is inconsiderable. Professor Thompson is, without doubt, a very distinguished physicist, and we must therefore receive anything he writes with a certain amount of respect. There are, however, in this paper so many remarkable statements that it is necessary for me to deal with it quite fully. Professor Thompson tells us very early in the lecture that Newton was well aware of the cause of Swarth, which I have already set out, some 250 years ago, and that he remarked that in a spinning tennis ball, the quote, parts on that side, where the motions conspire, must press and beat the continuous air more violently, and their recite a reluctancy and reaction of the air proportionately greater than, quote. quote. Professor Thompson says at the beginning of his lecture, there are so many dynamical problems connected with golf that a discussion of the whole of them would occupy far more time than is at my disposal this evening. I shall not attempt to deal with the many important questions which arise when we consider the impact of the club with the ball, but shall confine myself to the consideration of the flight of the ball after it has left the club. I may say here that Professor Thompson, although he announces his intention of doing this, is later on in his paper, as we shall see, tempted into considering the questions of impact and, in my opinion, making several grave errors therein. We may, however, in the meantime, pass this by. Professor Thompson continues. This problem is in any case a very interesting one, which would be even more interesting if we could accept the explanations of the behavior of the ball, given by some contributors to the very literature which has collected around the game. If this were correct, I should have to bring before you this evening a new dynamics and announce that matter when made up into golf balls. Obey's laws of an entirely different character from those governing its action, wherein any other condition, this at the outset, is an extremely remarkable statement to come from so eminent a physicist. For I may say that Professor Thompson, after making remark of this nature, proceeds to explain the phenomena of Swerve on exactly the same links which I have set out fully and explicitly in my book Swerve, or the Flight of the Ball. That, however, is a matter of small importance. It may be that Professor Thompson has not had the opportunity of perusing this book. It may indeed be that Professor Thompson has been unfortunate enough, only to have read articles wearing an erroneous explanation of the well-known phenomenon of the flight of the ball is given. Be that as it may. There can be no doubt that the explanation which has been given of the causes of swerve has been adequate and accurate. And there would not have been any necessity whatever for Professor Thompson to bring before the learned institution whose fellows listened to his address on new dynamics. It would have been sufficient if he had correctly explained the phenomenon of the flight and run of a golf ball, according to the well-recognized laws which govern the flight and run of all balls. This, however, he quite failed to do." Professor Thompson says, quote, If we could send off the ball from the club, as we might from a catapult without spin, its behavior would be regular, but uninteresting, end quote. It is quite possible to send a golf ball off a club without spin. It is just as possible from a practical point of view. To send a golf ball away without spin from the face of a driver as it is from the pouch of a catapult, the catapult is a machine, and it is a certainty that it can be made to propel a golf ball without any initial spin, whatever. A machine can be made to drive a golf ball with just as little spin and, matter of practical golf., by far the greater number of golf balls are driven without a appreciable spin. That is to say, without spin, which has any definite action on the flight of the ball.

The learned lecturer says, quote, a golf ball when it leaves a club is only in rare cases devoid of spin, end quote. It is impossible to prove or disprove this statement, for practically no ball goes through the air with the same point always in front. We may see this quite clearly if we care to mark a long tennis ball and to hit it perfectly truly and slowly so that it goes almost as a lob across the net. We shall see even then that the marked part of the ball moves from one place to another. In fact, even if a golf ball were driven by a machine which did not impart to it any initial spin, it is almost a certainty that that ball would not have proceeded far before it had acquired sufficient motion to justify one in technically calling it spin. Spin, however, is a delightfully indefinite word, but this much one may at least say, and it is, in effect, a contradiction of Sir JJ Thompson's ascitation, namely that in the vast majority of balls hit with golf clubs, especially by skilled players, the effect of spin on the stroke unless designedly applied, which is comparatively rare, is practically negligible. Professor Thompson says that a golf ball, when it leaves the club, is only in rare cases devoid of spin, and it is spin, which gives the interest, variety, and vivacity to the flight of the ball. It is spin, which accounts for the behavior of a sliced or pulled ball.

It is spin which makes the ball sore or execute those wild flourishes which give the impression that the ball is endowed with an artistic temperament and performs these eccentricities as an acrobat might throw in an extra-summer-salter too for the fun of the thing. This view, however, gives an entirely wrong impression of the temperament of a golf ball, which is, in reality, the most prosaic of things. Knowing well in the air only one rule of conduct which it obeys within intelligent conscientiousness, that of always following its nose. This rule is the key to the behavior of all balls when in the air, whether they are golf balls, baseballs, cricket balls, or tennis balls. The idea of a spherical object having a nose is is so unscientific and so inexact that it is not necessary for me to dwell very strongly on it here. And I should not do so, or not that this looseness of description is of considerable importance in dealing with Professor Thompson's ideas. He continues, let us, before entering into the reasons for this rule, trace out some of its consequences. the nose on the ball. we mean the point on the ball furthest in front. It will be obvious to my readers that this description is scientifically extremely inaccurate, for if we take a line through the ball from the point of contact with the club to the point on the ball, farthest in front, which Professor Thompson calls its nose, we shall find that the flight of that ball will always be in that same line produced, whereas in the spinning ball it is nothing of the sort. The whole trouble here is that Professor Thompson wants to have the nose, as he calls it, of the ball, both affixed and a moving point. This obviously is most unscientific. If the nose of the ball is the point that is farthest in front, I cannot say too empathetically that it stands to reason that the ball in flight will go straight out after that point. The fact is that the point in front is continually changing. Moreover, the fact that the ball goes the way it is spinning is not explained by any tendency of the ball to wander that way on account of the spin irrespective of the friction of the air. It will thus be seen that Professor Thompson's explanation in this matter is incorrect and misleading. This is about the most unscientific explanation which could be given of this matter. And it is one which is calculated to mislead people who would otherwise understand the matter quite clearly. So we shall drop Professor Thompson's idea of giving the ball a nose, which is always in front of it, but which is also supposed to be continually traveling sideways. It is obvious that Professor Thompson cannot have it both ways. It is very clear indeed that Professor Thompson is not well acquainted with the method of applying spin to balls which are used in playing games. He says, quote, A long tennis player avails himself of the effect of spin when he puts top spin on his drives. I.e. hits the ball on the top so as to make it spin about a horizontal axis. The nose of the ball traveling downwards. This makes the ball fall more quickly than an otherwise would, and thus tends to prevent it going out of the court." I have played Launtanus for more than 20 years, and I am the offer of three books on the game, one of which is supposed to be the standard work on the subject. And I can assure Professor Thompson that no Launtanus player would dream of doing anything so silly as to hit a Launtanus ball on the the top in an attempt to obtain top spin. Yn yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n y