THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLUBS
In my last chapter I dealt with the construction of the golf ball. In
many respects the golf club is more perfectly made than the golf ball,
although it is, of course, hard to compare two objects so entirely
dissimilar. In making the comparison I am, however, thinking mainly of
the amount of exactness which has been brought to bear on the
manufacture of the respective articles in so far as they have
developed in accordance with the best of modern thought. It cannot be
denied, however, that from a mechanical point of view, the golf club
is still a very imperfect implement, for the simple reason that the
striking point of the club is not in a line with the handle. This, of
course, is, from the point of view of one who desires to obtain the
maximum of strength and accuracy, a glaring fault. It has been
remedied to a very considerable extent in the Schenectady putter, to
which I shall have occasion again to refer.
Golf is a very old game, and, as I have shown, it has been simply
festooned with the cobwebs of tradition, and in no respect, probably,
is this truer than it is in regard to the golf club. Originally,
almost every implement made for playing a game by striking a ball was
curved or so crooked that the ball was struck off the line of the
shaft. The cricket bat was originally a crooked implement, so was the
lawn-tennis racket, lacrosse, and even the billiard cue, but these
have all been straightened, so that at the moment of impact the ball
is in a straight line with the handle or shaft of the striking
implement. It would indeed seem exceedingly strange to see a batsman
furnished now with a curved bat, but that, in effect, is what we have
in golf. It is certain that to obtain the best result from one's
strength, it is necessary that the forearm, the ball, and the shaft of
the striking implement shall be, at the moment of impact, in one and
the same straight line or plane. This is a fundamental rule in
athletics which is too much ignored by many players, both at
lawn-tennis and in golf.
Ignoring this principle in lawn-tennis has cost England her
supremacy--not only, indeed, has it cost her her supremacy, but it has
relegated her to the back ranks of the world's lawn-tennis players;
for instead of having the handle of the racket and the forearm in one
and the same straight line at the moment of impact, the English
player, both with the forehand and the backhand, introduces between
his racket and his forearm a considerable angle. He thus, instead of
confining his force to one line, diffuses it over a triangle, and
causes the weight of the blow to fall on his wrist in such a way that
it offers least resistance.
The golf club, although naturally to a less extent, embodies this
fundamental error in mechanics, for instead of hitting the ball dead
in a line with the shaft, it gets it in the middle of the face which
projects from one side of the shaft. A moment's reflection will show
that this is a very imperfect method of striking the ball.
It will, of course, be said by the slaves of tradition that it is a
horribly revolutionary thing to suggest any alteration in the shaft of
the golf club, but it must be borne in mind that the golf club has to
go through a process of evolution before it will become perfect, also
that it has for generations past been going through a process of
evolution which has materially altered its structure. Originally the
head of the golf club was much longer than it is now. Gradually the
head has been shortened so that the point of impact has come nearer to
the shaft, and no less an authority than Harry Vardon has said that
this tendency is well justified, for one can undoubtedly obtain
greater power and accuracy the nearer the blow is brought to the
shaft.
Following Vardon's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we have very
little difficulty in arriving at a decision that we could undoubtedly
obtain better results if we struck the ball in a line with the shaft.
This seems at first glance a revolutionary idea, but, as a matter of
fact, it is nothing new in the game of golf. The old St. Andrews
putter, which had a pronounced curve in its shaft, was so built that
if the line of the upper half of the shaft were continued it would run
practically on to the centre of the face of the club. The lower
portion of the shaft curved very considerably. Sometimes, indeed, this
curve was spread over almost the full length of the shaft. The object
of this curve, which I may say is even now in the handle of all
scientifically constructed wooden putters, is to bring the hands in a
line with the point of impact at the moment of striking, but in this
year of grace, 1912, we find the Royal and Ancient Golf Club barring
on its own links, but, as it states now, _nowhere else_, such a well
known and proved club as the Schenectady putter.
The Schenectady putter is not a centre shafted putter, and in my
opinion is open to several grave objections, for it is made with a
head shaped on the general principle of the wooden putter, which it
resembles more than it does the ordinary metal putter. I have a rooted
objection to any putter which has a broad sole, for it is simply
importing into the stroke an unnecessary element of error. If the
swing is untrue, there is much greater risk of soling with a
broad-soled putter than there is when one is using one of the metal
putters.
I have besides this two other objections to the Schenectady putter. It
does not go far enough, in that it is not a centre shafted putter, and
therefore the point of impact and the shaft are not in the same
straight line; and thirdly, the shaft enters the head of the club some
distance back from the face of the club.
Some years ago, when in America, I invented and patented the "Vaile"
clubs. These are centre shafted clubs and they are built exactly on
the principle of the time-hallowed St. Andrews putter. For example,
the only difference between the "Vaile" putter and the revered St.
Andrews putter in principle is that in my club, instead of spreading
the curve over the full length of the handle, I have gathered it all
at the neck, and instead of allowing the shaft to run into the head of
the club, as in the Schenectady, some distance from the face of the
club, I have turned the neck away in a curve to the heel of the club,
so that the club is much more like the ordinary golf club than is a
putter built on the lines of the Schenectady. The same principle is
used in the wooden clubs.
Now it is absolutely incontestable that this principle is
scientifically more accurate and will deliver a stronger blow than the
golf clubs which are at present used. James Braid in 1901 said of this
putter:
I consider this putter very good for direction, as, the shaft
being practically centred, you get the effect of the driver
headed putters with inserted shafts, without losing the
advantages which the ordinary putter head possesses over the
large headed clubs. The principle, from a scientific point of
view, is certainly right, and I have no doubt that any player
who suffers from bad direction will find this a valuable
club.
In passing, I may draw attention to the fact that James Braid himself
considers that the ordinary putter possesses advantages over the large
headed clubs, and I think myself that there is very little doubt that
this is so for the vast majority of golfers. Arnaud Massy, in his
recent book _Le Golf_, says of my clubs: "Certes, au point de vue
scientifique, cette théorie est inattaquable." Notwithstanding the
opinion of three such men as Vardon, Braid, and Massy on a matter of
practical golf like this, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St.
Andrews has declared that my clubs are illegal on their links, but in
response to questions which they have been asked with regard to this
matter they assert that the club is barred only on the links of the
Royal and Ancient Club!
It seems a very great pity that this famous Club should have taken
this action with the Schenectady and the Vaile, for it has undoubtedly
led, as I pointed out in _The Contemporary Review_ for August 1910,
would be the case, to the passing of the great Club as a world power
in golf. It is impossible for any club or body of persons to stand in
the way of the progress of a great game such as golf, and anybody or
any club endeavouring to do so must inevitably, as I clearly indicated
at the time, pay the penalty for doing so.
I have very little doubt that in the future, and at a by no means
distant date, golf will be played with clubs constructed on an
infinitely more scientific principle than those which are now used.
It is quite plain to anyone who gives the matter a little thought that
the longer the head of the club the greater must be the inaccuracy in
the stroke. It stands to reason that the inertia at the toe of the
club is greater than at the heel, and every fraction of an inch which
one goes farther from the shaft must increase the inertia in the head
of the club. It follows quite naturally that if one is using a whippy
shaft, the tendency must be for the head of the club, especially if it
is at all long, to exert a very considerable amount of torsional or
twisting strain on the shaft of the club in the downward swing. It has
been asserted that this torsional strain, by reason of the recovery of
the shaft at the moment of impact, adds something to the force of the
drive in golf, but this is quite an error, as at the moment of impact
the club is travelling at its fastest. It follows, therefore, that if
there is any inertia in the toe of the club, it will be very apparent
at the time when the club is travelling at its fastest, and the result
is that the torsional strain, instead of providing any beneficial
spring at the moment of impact, only tends to lay back the face of the
club and contribute materially towards slicing. It will, therefore, be
seen that it is very inadvisable to have a long head when one is using
a whippy shaft.
I may, perhaps, illustrate this question of keeping the impact in a
line with the striking implement by instancing the sword cut. Most
people have seen at military tournaments the competition known as
lemon-cutting. In this event a mounted man gallops past a certain
number of lemons suspended on strings, and as he passes he endeavours
to sever them with his sword. It will be seen that at the moment when
his sword enters the lemons his forearm and the sword are, in both
cuts, in the same plane, and it seems so obvious as to need no
emphasising that if the line of his blade were even an inch or two off
the line of his forearm there would be introduced into his stroke a
very great degree of inaccuracy, but although this may be so obvious,
it is practically what we are doing every day in golf.
If the golf club were made in such a manner that the point of impact
was absolutely in a line with the forearms at the moment of impact,
tradition, instead of being outraged, would really be honoured. Not
long ago a friend of mine came to me and showed me an old driver,
saying, "I cannot understand how it is, but I can always get twenty or
thirty yards farther with this driver than I can with any other." I
took the club and ran my eye down the shaft. I noticed at once that it
was warped considerably so that it threw the shaft inwards in such a
manner that it resembled very much the shaft of an old St. Andrews
putter--in other words, it put the golfer's hands and forearms in a
line with the shaft of his club and the shaft of his club in a line
with the point of impact at the moment the stroke was played. I
pointed out to him that his club was, in effect, a centre-shafted
club, and that this was the reason why he was getting a longer and, as
he stated, a straighter ball with this club than with any other club
he used.
While I am on this question of the construction of clubs, I may as
well state that under the recent ruling of the Royal and Ancient Golf
Club there is not a legal golf club in use in England to-day, for one
of the essentials of a legal club now is that the head must be all on
one side of the shaft of the club. Passing by, as too technical an
objection, the question as to whether a circular object may be said to
have a side, we are confronted with the fact that many of the
best-known clubs have the shaft inserted in the head. All the socketed
clubs technically are illegal, because the head is certainly not all
on one side of the shaft. Many cleeks are illegal because the shaft
goes through the socket and right through the heel of the club to the
sole thereof, so that a considerable portion of the head of the club
is on the hither side of the shaft, and every ordinary golf club is so
constructed that it is more correct to say that the head of the club,
instead of being all on one side of the shaft, is either at the foot
of the shaft, or at least that there is, without any doubt, a
considerable portion of the head which goes beyond the one side of the
club whereon the head is supposed to be.
It is a very great mistake indeed to attempt to introduce any standard
golf club or to lay down any regulation whatever as to how the golf
club shall be made. The good sense and sportsmanlike instincts of the
golfer should be sufficient to govern the question of what may and
what may not be used. It is an absolute certainty that if any man were
to endeavour to use an implement which was not in accordance with the
best spirit of the game, he would speedily provide his own punishment,
but it is a wonderful thing to find the greatest Club in the world
barring on its own links clubs which embody in their formation the
well-recognised principles of the most revered implements of the game.
The principle which I have referred to of endeavouring to get the
point of impact as near to the shaft as possible is being shown also
in the hockey stick, which has not now anything like so great a curve
in it as it originally had, and the striking-point has been brought
much nearer to the shaft. The tennis racket, as distinct from the
lawn-tennis racket, has stood for many years as a lob-sided
instrument, but about eighteen months ago I was with a tennis player
who ordered from Messrs. F. H. Ayres, Ltd., six straight tennis
rackets, saying that he believed the soundness of the principle which
I am now advocating to be absolutely incontestable and of universal
application in ball games.
I mention this matter because I believe it is of historical interest,
for I do not think that prior to the time mentioned by me, tennis
rackets were ever made straight. We all know how, when aiming a stone,
playing a billiard ball, firing a gun, shooting an arrow, or pulling a
catapult, one instinctively tries to get one's eye into the line of
flight of the object to be propelled. It is evident that one can aim
better thus. This is denied one in golf, where the ball is practically
the smallest played with, to a greater extent than in any other game.
It follows that a greater degree of mechanical accuracy is called for
in golf than is required in other games. Very few golfers realise that
they are deliberately handicapping themselves by playing with the
clubs at present used. The weight and leverage of the head of the club
is on one side of the shaft, and the angle of error is there. True, it
is small, but a very slight initial error in the flight of a golf ball
becomes in 200 yards serious, perhaps fatal. The golf club of the
future will inevitably follow the march of scientific construction,
and fall into line with the straight-handled implements wherewith the
ball is struck in a line with the shaft.
It is clear that at the moment of impact with a golf club, as they are
now constructed, there is a very great tendency for the club to turn
in the hands. This is shown very clearly when one happens to hit with
the toe of the club a little lower than it ought to be, so that the
toe strikes the earth. This is absolutely fatal for the club will be
turned in the hand, but it is otherwise if by chance one happens to
strike the ground with the heel, for as the force of the club is
transmitted in a straight line down the shaft, the blow is very
frequently, particularly with iron clubs, not interfered with to any
very great extent. It is clear that if the club is centre shafted,
greater strength and accuracy are obtained, for the club has an equal
weight on each side of the shaft. There is thus no torsional or
twisting strain on the shaft as there is at present with every golf
club, and, as I have already shown, this torsional strain cannot be
considered as a negligible factor in a club. I must repeat, however,
that it is an error to think that this torsional strain can, by its
recovery, contribute anything to the length of the drive, for the
recovery from the torsional strain does not take place until long
after the impact has ceased and the ball has gone on its way. This, it
seems to me, even from a theoretical point of view, is undoubted, but
I have proved by practical experiment that one can obtain a longer
ball with a centre-shafted club than one can with an ordinary golf
club.
There is another matter in connection with the construction of clubs
which should receive the attention of manufacturers. We know that the
clubs are of varying lengths, descending from the driver to the putter
according to the length of the shot which is required of them. The
difference between a driver and a mashie is frequently as much as six
inches. The difference between a mashie and a putter is roughly, say,
three inches. It has always seemed to me that in proportion to the
work demanded of it the putter does not continue in the decreasing
scale of length as it should, particularly for short puts. Many very
fine putters get quite low down to their put and grip the putter a
long way down the shaft. It is undeniable that for short puts there
is some advantage in this method, but it is open to the objection that
it leaves too much of the shaft free above the hands, thus not only
destroying the balance of the putter, but risking striking some
portion of the player's body with the free end of the shaft.
I believe that the putter should, generally speaking, be made much
shorter, but, if this is not done for approach puts, I am sure that it
would be worth one's while to experiment with a short putter for short
puts. I have had such a putter made for me, and I have no hesitation
whatever in saying that it is a very valuable club and one that should
be better known than it is. It is necessary, of course, to readjust
the balance in such a club, but when that has been done, I firmly
believe that one is very much more accurate with this club than with
an ordinary putter when playing short puts. The putter which I am
referring to is, if I remember, little, if any, more than twenty-six
inches.
While I am on the question of the construction of putters, I may say
that I am inclined to think that all these putters which are made with
heads such as the Schenectady, the ordinary wooden putter, or those
putters with aluminium heads, are a mistake. The sole of the club is
too broad, and to use such clubs as these is simply providing a
greater chance of error. There is nothing which can be done with one
of these large-headed putters which cannot be done as well, or better,
by an ordinary metal putter.
There are many fearful and wonderful putters on the market at the
present time. Lately there has been produced a putter with a very
shallow face, which is now being largely used because a man who has
won the open championship frequently is using it. For ninety per cent
of golfers a putter with a narrow face is a very great mistake, and I
believe that in saying ninety per cent I am fixing the percentage low.
I do not think that any putter should be built whose face is so narrow
that at the moment of striking the ball properly with the putter the
top edge of the putter is below the top of the ball. I am firmly of
opinion that a putter which is so built that it delivers the main
portion of its force below the centre of the ball's mass is absolutely
defective. I go even so far as to say that I believe that in a
scientifically constructed putter the face should be made much broader
than the face of the average putter, and that the weight, instead of
being massed at or near the bottom of the putter, should be reversed,
and put, if anything, nearer the top. The whole essence of true
putting is that the ball shall be rolled up to the hole, and not at
any portion of its journey played with drag, or as one is sometimes
told to do, slid along the green. Any attempt whatever to put with
drag, or by tapping the ball, must cause inaccuracy.
I saw, a short time ago, one of the finest golfers in England, Mr. A.
Mitchell, lose an important match on the putting-green, or, to be a
little more accurate, on quite a number of putting-greens. He was
then, and I believe still is, making the same mistake as James Braid
made when he was such a bad putter, viz. tapping his puts, and
finishing low down on the line after the ball. It is almost impossible
for anyone to be a good putter with this stroke, and his chance of
being a good putter is rendered remoter still if he attempts to do
putting of this nature with a shallow-faced putter.
A putter should have very little loft indeed, if any. It is
questionable, from a scientific point of view, if the putter should be
lofted at all, but in practice a very slight degree of loft is
generally used, and there may be something to be said in favour of
this slight loft if one is playing the put as it should be played, as
nearly as possible by the wrists, for if that is done it stands to
reason that the putter with a very slight loft will tend, in, of
course, an extremely small degree, but still to such a degree as to be
perceptible, to deliver its blow upwardly through the ball's mass, and
this naturally tends to give the ball a truer roll off the club than
would be the case if the putter were perfectly vertical.
If one were using a putter with a vertical face, it seems fairly clear
that at the moment of impact, when one is endeavouring to roll the
ball forward, it is held simultaneously at two points. There must
then, it seems, be some slight dragging on the face of the club and
also on the green, but when the putter has some small loft on it and
the blow is delivered, to a certain extent, upwardly, the ball will
naturally get a truer roll from it, and for this reason perhaps the
smallest degree of loft on a putter is advisable.
Shallow faces and broad soles in putters have nothing whatever to
recommend them, and there is very little doubt that golfers will, in
due course, find this out, and will use a putter so made that it will
carry the weight where it is most wanted, and that certainly is not at
the base of the ball, for, unnecessary as it may seem to mention the
fact, the put is the one stroke in golf which we always desire to keep
as close to the green as possible. We know quite well that in all
other clubs, when we want to get the ball off the ground quickly, we
take a club which has its weight thrown into the sole, but as we want
exactly the opposite thing on the putting-green, it seems reasonable
to think that we should alter the adjustment of our weight when
constructing a putter which has any claim whatever to being
considered a scientifically made club.
I have referred to the defect of the broad sole, and I have in a
previous chapter of this book indicated that the perfect put should
bear as close a resemblance to the swing of a pendulum as the player
can give it. Let us now for a moment imagine that we have as the
weight on the pendulum the head of an ordinary metal putter, and let
us so adjust this metal head that in the swing of the pendulum it will
barely clear a marble slab placed underneath it. Let us now remove the
metal putter and substitute in its place such a club as one of the
ordinary aluminium-headed clubs, or a Schenectady, and hang this club
on the end of the pendulum so that when the pendulum is absolutely
vertical the front edge of the sole of the club clears the slab by
exactly the same space as the metal putter did when at rest. We shall
now find that this club will swing freely back in the same manner as
the metal putter did, but we shall get a very striking exemplification
of the fact that the breadth of the sole of this club will prevent it
swinging forward at all, for the rear portion of the sole will foul
the marble slab. This, of course, is sufficient to absolutely prevent
a proper follow-through, for even when this happens on a good green
the delicacy of the put is such that it is more than likely the stroke
will be ruined.
This is an illustration of what I mean when I say that the golfer is
importing into his game an unnecessary risk when he uses a broad-soled
club. It will be seen from the example which I have given that there
is an infinitely greater danger of soling with such a club than there
is when one is playing with an ordinary metal putter.
The same error with regard to breadth of sole is very frequently seen
in the mashie. Indeed, the sole of the mashie is so broad and taken
back at such an unscientific angle that very frequently the player
strikes with the back edge of the sole before the front. It stands to
reason that when he does this he is cocking up the front edge of his
club, and so robbing himself of a great portion of the loft of the
club. Many players lay the face of the mashie back in order to
increase the natural loft of the club. In nine cases of ten when they
do this, instead of increasing the usefulness of their clubs they
diminish it, for they insist then upon the front edge of the face of
the mashie striking the ball higher up than would be the case if they
played with the club in the ordinary way.
[Illustration: PLATE XV. J. SHERLOCK
Finish of iron-shot. Note carefully the upright finish
following the swing back, and the position of the hands, a
characteristic of the finish of this shot. Sherlock gets a
lower ball than the ordinary iron-shot.]
Most mashies are constructed in a very unscientific manner. It is the
function of the mashie to get as far underneath the ball as possible.
To do this a mashie should always have its front edge very clearly
defined, and almost immediately the sole leaves the front edge it
should begin to curve upwardly--in other words, a mashie should
practically never have a sole. When the mashie is made like this it is
astonishing how much easier and more accurate it makes one's work with
the club. Not only does the curving sole to the mashie allow one to
get more in underneath the ball and prevent any jar of a square edge
behind the front edge of the sole, but if it is a question of taking
turf, which involves cutting down behind the ball, one is able to do
this with a mashie having the sharp edge and the curved sole such as I
describe, much more easily than one could with the flat sole, for the
simple reason that one is enabled to pass the ball on the downward
stroke much more rapidly than one could possibly do with the
broad-soled mashie. It is obvious that in playing a ball with heavy
back cut, the essence of obtaining that cut must be the speed at
which the mashie passes down behind the ball, and it must be also
equally apparent that if one is playing that shot with a club whose
sole is as broad as is that of the ordinary mashie, that the pace of
the blow must be arrested to a very great extent long before the club
has had an opportunity of absolutely clearing the ball. This means
that the club is hampered in the execution of its natural duty.
While I am on the subject of the construction of the mashie, and
particularly with regard to the curving sole, I may mention that I
have such a club. It was made for me in accordance with a
specification which I furnished, but it did not in any way carry out
what I wanted; in fact, my instructions were very much exaggerated,
but the moment I saw that club I knew that it would be, for short
approaches and for playing stymies, a wonderful club; and so it has
proved. It would take a good deal more than its weight in silver to
induce me to part with it, for that club led to the making of history
in golf--in other words, its construction caused me to see the great
advantage which could be got by using it in playing the stymie shot
which I have described in a previous chapter, and it was while playing
this particular stymie shot that I came to the conclusion that for the
usual stymie shot at or about the hole the ordinary mashie is far too
long, as in the case of the short putter, because when one tries to
get down on the club as low as one really ought to do for playing a
shot of the delicacy required in these strokes, one finds that one has
too much free shaft above one's hands. If I had any doubt whatever as
to the advisability of having a short putter for short puts, I have
absolutely none with regard to the benefits which are to be obtained
from having a short mashie for playing close stymies, and I may say
that at the time of writing I have never handled such a club--I have
never seen such a club, nor have I ever heard of such a club, but
before this book is published I shall have one.
Stymies were once upon a time a perfect terror to me, but with the
club which I have referred to, and whose construction was practically
an accident, they are no trouble, and I firmly believe that nine
stymies of ten would be no trouble to a golfer of ordinary skill if he
had the proper club with which to play them, but it seems not
unreasonable, when we consider the descending scale of the clubs which
I have before referred to, to think that a club which we use
frequently to get eighty yards with should not be the most suitable
implement for playing a stroke of nine inches to a foot.
While I am on the subject of iron clubs, there is another matter which
I should like to refer to, and that is that, in my opinion, the
communion, if I may use the word, between the club and the ball is not
as intimate as it should be. In the lawn-tennis ball and racket one
gets a wonderfully firm grip, and it is astonishing with what accuracy
one can place a lawn-tennis ball by means of cut, but the vast
majority of iron clubs which are used are insufficiently and
unscientifically marked. I can remember the time when iron clubs,
generally speaking, were innocent of any indentation whatever on their
faces. Marking is fairly general now on iron clubs, but it is done in
an utterly unscientific manner. It is frequently done by great deep
straight lines, and, particularly in the mashie, nearly always by
lines which run from heel to toe. Now in the great majority of mashie
shots when one is putting on cut one requires lines running in an
exactly opposite direction. We do sometimes see, of course, lines on
these iron clubs running at right angles to each other, but in nearly
every case the marking is too large and too coarse to be of the
practical benefit which it ought to be.
Quite recently I saw a very skilful golfer playing with rusty clubs,
and somebody who did not understand what it meant commented rather
strongly on his untidiness. He did not understand until he was told
that the idea of the man who was using these clubs in keeping them
rusty was that he got a better grip on his ball, and there can be no
doubt whatever that this is the case, but a scientific maker of iron
clubs would not be satisfied to leave it to his customer to make up
for his deficiency by allowing his clubs to become unsightly. He would
produce a club marked as nearly as might be in a similar manner to a
club which was heavily rusted.
I have experimented with various means for establishing a better grip
between the club and the ball, and I have, I believe, found an almost
perfect medium for establishing effective contact. Let us consider for
a moment how little use the cue would be to us at billiards were it
not for the medium of contact which is commonly used; to wit, the
chalk. Now it is inconvenient, and, moreover, would be ineffective to
a great extent, to chalk one's iron clubs in golf, but it is an
absolute certainty that something which answers to the chalk should be
on the face of every iron used in golf. What that is to be we must
leave to the ingenuity of our scientific club makers, but it is an
absolute certainty that we shall see a very great improvement in this
particular matter within quite a short time.