Tom: Sorry...kinda spaced out there for six months or so i guess, grew up in the 60's & 70's you understand, ha!. THEY WERE THE BEST OF THE BEST OF COURSE(forgewoods, not the era)!!! Bill was my good friend and he taught me a lot. Some of the shafts I currently make (and i'm sure bill would agree) rival with the forgewoods of past without having to go thru the meticulous process he invented.
Joesph and Steve H. Hits it on the head and identify's a lot of the characteristics as being species specific. IPE, Hickory and Purple heart can give mass along with small diameter and tuffness or rupture strength...both of which are highley desirable among today's archers. Bill's process built these two favorable characteristics into an arrow shaft using a species that just didn't/doesn't have it under normal circumstances, POC!!. He just stuffed a whole lota wood into a very small package to get there type of thing...and he got it!!. Recall if I may (off the top of my head here, I may be wrong) but under normal pressure visualize the knock end of your arrow to be 5/8" thick and the point end to be 1 1/4" thick. He squished this whole mass into a 5/16", 21/64" or 11/32" frame work to get what he wanted as a spine wt./mass wt. ratio. Keep in mind, yesteryears archers didn't like a heavy mass weight in their arrows like they do nowday's. 500gr's was a heavy arrow (finished) back in the 50's-60's. Another reason he used POC! it was light mass weight and he could do this process without getting TO heavy. With other species he quickley got to heavy in mass weight(ie doug-fir or any of the hardwoods). One of his biggest problems was getting so heavy(mass wt) archers didn't want them. It boiled down to PERCENTAGE OF COMPRESSION which was about 60% of total capability with the hydrualics that he had((with POC). If he went more than 60% they became to heavy(mass wt)than archers of the day would purchase.
FOC!! Forgewoods had a built in FOC (front of center)mass weight, which todays archer has become obsessed with (my opinion). recall if you will, knock end was 5/8" point end was 1 1/4" before compression. Bill's objective to adding the mass weight up front was to reduce the breakage behind the point that was a common occurance with the POC! At the time he developed this process he was a professor at Berkely University in California teaching archery classes. Breakage behind the point was his main concern, as it is today with POC that has not unergone his process.! This fact hasn't changed in 60 years!..No Wooden arrow shaft of modern manufacturing(doesn't matter the species) will ever obtain the FOC mass weight capabilities the old forgewoods did, and remain within the shaft footprint, without using bill's process(again my opinion).
FOC vs.Balance: With today's variety's of alternate species avilable in shaft material we don't need to build up the mass behind the point to prevent breakage behind the point like they did back in the 60's -70's with POC. We can simply select a different species and get both mass and rupture strength from our decission. ie hickory, IPE, Fir, purple heart.etc.etc..
Paradox recovery: I assume we all know the definition of paradox recovery. If not research it, figure it out and come back. Bill used POC because it was the shaft material of his day and was one of the best for quickness of paradox recovery even after it had been compressed.... Especially after it had been compressed with the built in FOC!!... So they say, "softwoods recover from paradox quicker than the hardwoods"...I believe this to be true but have no experience personally with the hardwoods, so I refrain to commint further other than to ask those that have experimented with both and may know more than myself such as Fred Asbell, Marv Cochran, Dave Doran, Wes Wallace, Norm Johnson, Ted Fry,etc .
Orion: Give me an addy & spine wt. You prefer(static)
Steve: What kinda shaft you get that Muskox with?
LKH: good to see you still out there. Vern's still giving everybody a bad time ( thats good).
So sorry for the length, kinda got carried away.
stump