[Mike Hendren]

Has there been any fallout over the years?

[Carl Rogers]

not to hijack but a little o/t ...

What year did the R & A end the 1.62 inch ball in competition?  Should that be part of the discussion?

Does or did the smaller ball lend itself to a different kind of course?

[Bill_McBride]

I remember playing with what we called "the British ball" a few times, but never on a links.

It came off the club face more quickly, didn't spin as much, so was a little less comfortable around and on the greens.

It was great into the wind, not noticeably shorter down wind.

[Bob_Huntley]

Bill,

I played the small ball when first playing the game. I loved it.

About three or four years ago when staying at Strathtyrum House in St. Andrews, we had Peter Thomson and his lovely wife, together with Tim Finchem and a bunch of other golf nuts to dinner. Peter opined that the small ball required more skills than that of the 1.68 incher. I am inclined to agree. When you put down a small ball today, it does look miniscule compared to our Pro V1s.

It certainly is the ball to use in the wind.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Some distances of balls from the Golden Age:

First came the Silver King Black Dot,with mesh marking, as used from 1913 to 1922. The average carry was 220 yards, and the average total of carry plus run was 239.
 Next came the King Plus of 1932(1.62 x 1.62), as played with in this country at this moment. The carry was 244 and the total 270.
 There followed two Silver Kings of American dimensions. First that of the 1930 vintage (1.68 x 1.55) which carried 242 yards and totalled 269. Finally U. S. G. A. size of 1932 (1.68 x 1.62) carry 244 and total 278.[/b]

It really doesn't seem to me that the distances cited (by Bernard Darwin) would have much of an impact on architecture. Considering that there was a world wide depression, followed by a world war, followed by many years of rebuilding, I don't think there would have been any appreciable change to architecture during this time.
It's possible that the advent of TV and the boom of course building that began in the late '50s in the US had some influence on what got built in the UK, but that had nothing to do with golf balls, just money.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I played the small ball when first playing the game. I loved it.

About three or four years ago when staying at Strathtyrum House in St. Andrews, we had Peter Thomson and his lovely wife, together with Tim Finchem and a bunch of other golf nuts to dinner. Peter opined that the small ball required more skills than that of the 1.68 incher. I am inclined to agree. When you put down a small ball today, it does look miniscule compared to our Pro V1s.

It certainly is the ball to use in the wind.

Bob

Agree about the skill requirements, it was that liveliness and reduced spin I mentioned above.

I would LOVE to play that ball on a true UK links!

[Pete_Pittock]

Carl,
    The British PGA started an experiment with the larger American ball in 1968. It became mandatory for The Open in 1974 and was
granfathered until 1988. I was able to play it on four trips overseas , preferable to me over the 1.68. First trip (1975) my Dad used them first to great advantage over me and I had to adopt to beat him. 
    I couldn't say if it had any affect on architecture, not knowing what courses were built between 1974 and 1988.

[Steve Okula]

There followed two Silver Kings of American dimensions. First that of the 1930 vintage (1.68 x 1.55) which carried 242 yards and totalled 269. Finally U. S. G. A. size of 1932 (1.68 x 1.62) carry 244 and total 278.[/i]

Jim, what is the difference in dimensions of the same ball? It makes it sound like it's out or round or something. Isn't it just one single diameter for a round ball?

[Pete_Pittock]

Steve,
In the mid 20th century ball diameters ranged from 1.62" to 1.68" and weight was between 1.55 and 1.62 ounces. Eventually it coalesced to a British ball (1.62" diameter at 1.62 ounces and an American ball (1.68" diameter at 1.62 ounces)

[Tony_Muldoon]

I believe the larger American golf ball is synonymous with the aerial game, target golf etc. Playing the smaller ball, even into the wind you would expect to run the ball onto the green more. Maintenance practices, cavity back clubs have all worked together to produce the modern game

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I used carry both with me in the 1980s. I'd play the small one into the wind and the bigger one with the wind.

Alister MacKenzie wrote in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" about the "floater" being easier to hit and that it would encourage more barassie shots to be hit. Was the "floater" the 1.68 ball? He also said that it would eliminate lost balls in water hazards. Did it really "float"?

Dónal.

[Sean_A]

I used carry both with me in the 1980s. I'd play the small one into the wind and the bigger one with the wind.

Alister MacKenzie wrote in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" about the "floater" being easier to hit and that it would encourage more barassie shots to be hit. Was the "floater" the 1.68 ball? He also said that it would eliminate lost balls in water hazards. Did it really "float"?

Dónal.

Donal

I think the floater was a different ball to either of the ones discussed on this thread and it did float. 

A corollary to this question, how do folks feel about guys hitting soft balls downwind and hard balls upwind?  I know its a rule which is usually only used for pros and top am events.  I started doing this now and again since I started playing a links as my home club.  I always feel it is a bit of a scam, what say you?

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

I used carry both with me in the 1980s. I'd play the small one into the wind and the bigger one with the wind.

Alister MacKenzie wrote in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" about the "floater" being easier to hit and that it would encourage more barassie shots to be hit. Was the "floater" the 1.68 ball? He also said that it would eliminate lost balls in water hazards. Did it really "float"?

Dónal.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball 

[Jim_Kennedy]

The floater was a ball with a specific gravity of 1 and I think there were various sizes tested, with 1.70 seen as optimal. Floaters weighed in at " 26 pennyweight" (1.42 oz.) when other balls were "29 and one half pennyweight"(1.62 oz.)

Sean,
I don't think it matters nowadays, any effect is negated by ball construction/dimple patterns.   


edit:Tony,  just remembered JVB's piece when I saw it posted here. Duh.

[Mike Hendren]

What about putting? 

[Bill_McBride]

What about putting? 

All I remember from the time I played this ball - still in my teens - it was lively and jumped off the putter face a bit, but that made no difference.  In those days I made everything I looked at!

[Mike Hendren]

Bill, if the ball is smaller in relation to the circumference of the hole, wouldn't that help immensely?  Not unlike the smaller women's basketball and fixed rim circumference. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, if the ball is smaller in relation to the circumference of the hole, wouldn't that help immensely?  Not unlike the smaller women's basketball and fixed rim circumference. 

Agreed, it would have to give you a bigger, if micro, margin of error.

But like I said, in those days it didn't matter, they went in no matter what.

I miss those days.

[Steve Wilson]

My only experience with them was in the summer of 1979, and, astonishingly to me, though the difference in size is a mere 1/16 of an inch it was readily apparent in the hand.  As I recall, the balls I bought were the small ones, but I found some of the larger ones.  The smaller ball felt the size of a marble.  I wasn't aware of much a difference in playing characteristics as I didn't encounter much wind in several rounds of golf I played, but that is probably as much a testament to the state of my game as to the balls. 

Speaking of putting.  Curiously, more than one person told me they like the American ball for putting.  They thought it held its line better on the greens.  I would have thought the smaller size compared to the cup would have been a greater advantage.  The perceived superiority of the larger ball for putting may have been just that--a perception without basis.
     

[Jim_Kennedy]

As it slows down close to the hole a smaller and heavier ball will settle into the grass before one of the same weight/ larger circumference does, making the smaller ball more susceptible to grain, imperfections, mowing height, etc.. Probably not much of an issue on short, firm grass found on a links course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()