golf ball performance as it relates to architecture

[Joe Bausch]

Perhaps this is old news to most, but not to me:  seems George Crump was keenly aware of what technology was doing to golf courses, in particular the golf balls post gutta percha.  

Citation:  Headline: Standardized Ball Needed in Golf Otherwise Continued Improvements in Its Resiliency Will Render Present Style of Bunkering Inadequate; Article Type: News/Opinion
Paper: Philadelphia Inquirer, published as The Philadelphia Inquirer; Date: 04-15-1917; Volume: 176; Issue: 105; Page: 20; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

No author is given, although the article sits in between ones done by Billy Bunker and Verdant Greene.

[Adam Clayman]

Joe, Thanx for shar'in.
 Love the eyesore description.

This highlights how today's USGA is really not to blame for the "issue".
 Hammering on them for not acting in the best interests of the game is not a solution. Neither is a reduction of 15-20 yards.

[Ken Moum]

There were lots of people who believed that something needed to be done, including Donald Ross, who wanted the floater to become standard.

Nothing was done, however, until 1931. In fact, the actions of 1931 were a genuine rollback of the ball, which tells me it could be done again if there were sufficient interest.

Quoting myself from an earlier post:

As I have posted before, pre-1931 balls were made heavier and hotter than what we saw in the last half of the 20th century. But the common ball was 1.62"/1.62 ounces.

In 1931 the USGA "rolled back" the ball by making it 1.68" and 1.55 ounces.

It accomplished the objective, perhaps too well with the ball technology of the 30s. Players called it the "balloon ball" and the weight was put back to 1.62, while leaving the larger diameter.

The real beauty of a lighter ball is that it would have the effect of rebalancing the power/control equation. The harder you hit it, the more effect the lighter weight would have.

For the women I know who hit their driver 120 yards, it might increase distance. For the strongest players, it would mean they'd have to think a bit more about  control, and less about power.

The only thing anyone has ever mentioned as a negative is that it would sit up a bit better, making the short game easier. But I have a feeling this would not narrow the gap between good and bad short games.

I think it's something that the best short game players would be able to take more advantage of.

Anyway, it would be cheap, simple to regulate and it might actually allow the manufacturers to be turned loose a bit with other club limits.

I also think that today's balls are so much straighter that we wouldn't see the uprising that was caused in 1931 by changing both the diameter and weight.

John Vander Borght disagrees with me, as seen here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionvanderborght.html.

Ken

[Matt Vandelac]

For now, it seems as if the ball's not flying too much further with the moi and ball restrictions.  I was a little apprehensive about the club restrictions when the Burner Bubble 2 guy became the USGA guy looking to rein in distance, but it seems like it's seeing it's apex.
This is probably fodder for another thread, but...  
What's got me worried is that the premium balls are not able to spin as much as they used to and the inexpensive balls are more rock-like than ever.  It seems as if the better balls are still soft enough to putt and chip, but you don't see balls spinning like they did a few years ago.  Spin as it relates to architecture, IMO, is having it's troubles, especially when a guy tries to play a rock on some firm and fast conditions.  I'm getting to the point where I would like to not even offer to sell harder balls in the shop for fear that they may have a tougher time getting around the golf course.  Your average high handicapper needs to play away from most pins to have a shot at holding a green in many instances (of course they might figure that out on 17 or 18).  There are many superintendents out there that still pour the water to it and hold back on topdressing because they can't risk upsetting the guy paying the fees.  I'd like to think the ball mfg.'s can see what's going on and educate some players about the benefits of a ball that can spin a little (and make more of them), so we can have some fun  playing on conditions made for golf.  I'm sure all the courses made in the target golf era face some really huge challenges.  

[JohnV]

Ken,

1921 was when the ball was first standardized, but only in size and weight.  In 1931, the USGA changed those numbers to restrict it further.  They went too far for the general public at the time and quickly reversed themselves.

Even then, it really wasn't until 1942 that anything was truely done to limit the distance a ball could go as opposed to just its size.  The initial velocity standard that was introduced then worked until the understanding of aerodynamics increased and the overall distance standard was introduced in 1984.

I don't think I took an opinion on whether it would work or not in my piece, I merely stated that one reason the USGA and R&A might be hesitant to act is a result of that attempt.

I was watching the Bobby Jones film about the driver the other day and in the dream sequence he tells the guy not to use the "new ball" as an excuse for not hitting it well.