Yes, Nicklaus and Norman have both advocated a "competition ball." Now Weiskopf has as well.
It's a bad idea in my view.
First, we do desperately need a review of golf ball performance and a re-crafting of the technical standards. We need a ball rollback. We need it so badly, that we should compromise wherever possible to get it. And a "competition ball" is a too-radical approach for the golf ball industry to tolerate. It will be a non-starter.
I think it was Titleist's resident mouthpiece, Brad Faxon, who once replied to a question about Jack Nicklaus' criticism of modern golf balls by saying, "Has Jack ever had a decent ball contract?" Faxon was referring to the fact that in his heyday, Nicklaus played the reprehensible MacGregor Tourney. (MacGregor made brilliant clubs, and awful balls in those days.) And after Jack left MacGregor, and then started Nicklaus Golf Co. in the old Toney Penna factory, Jack had floundered around from one ball company to the next. Jack neveer made much money off of golf balls. Faxon seemed to think that made Jack prejudiced, somehow(!?). In my mind, Faxon's ambassadorial position at Titleist makes him more than prejudiced; he's been bought and paid for.
We'd have no need for talk about competition balls, if the USGA would step up and properly regulate current ball standards. That is exactly what the USGA should do. The talk of competition balls is a fallback position. It is the "Nuclear Option." If the USGA won't regulate balls properly, and if advanced technology makes The Old Course obsolete for an Open Championship, I'd readily agree with "an Open ball." And if the choice is between further awful changes to Augusta, or "a Masters ball," I'd happily see ANGC pick its own ball.
But again, I see this issue as little more than a crazy threat. The first order of business is to make the case for better understanding of ball performance and better regulation of that performance.