The 'old' small ball....and the new...do they twine?

[paul cowley]

Are  performance dynamics between the old British small ball and the current new crop of balls similar in some aspects?

One of the advantages [or disadvantages] of the small ball was its ability to go straighter and farther than its American cousin of the time......but it was also less workable.

I feel there are some play similarities between old and new.

Maybe someone who is old enough to have extensive experience with both balls might want to share an opinion of this with us........Patrick?

I know Tom's would be too youthful a memory to really count for much .

[ForkaB]

Paul

I'm nowhere as old as Patrick , but I probably have a lot more experience that he in playing it as I spent about 10 months golfing in the UK in the period from 1978 up to 84-5 when the small ball finally bit the dust.  Even at that time, however, most of the good players were playing the "big" ball, partly because it was required in many top tournaments (It was, in effect, a "Competition Ball"!), but also because the small ball was felt to be more difficult for putting and other aspects of the short game (try hitting a pitch and run with a superball....).  If you wanted length, however, those suckers could go.  The best player I saw during that period used to use a small Pinnacle.  I dread thinking of how hard he might have been able to hit it with todays driver technology.....

[David Sneddon]

I grew up playing the British ball - the old Warwicks, Dunlop65's etc. They would go allright - 300yd drives using persimmon woods wasn't a problem.  They were also less affected by the wind.

The covers were soft - you could peel them easily with a topped shot, rendering your 1/- investment useless.

I don't remember them being great on the green, as far as stopping, but we played more of a ground game then.  They were workable, though.