How different would modern golf course architecture in America be if

[Patrick_Mucci]

the USGA had adopted the R&A ball instead of the R&A adopting the USGA ball dating back to 1929, 1974 and 1990?

Would fairways be narrower on sites exposed to wind ?

Would courses be longer, shorter or the same ?

Were there features on courses in the UK not imported to the U.S. due to the use of the larger ball ?

[Tony Ristola]

My bet is courses would be longer and narrower... as they've evolved today. Though a large part of the narrowness today is maintenance (cost) oriented.

.

[John Moore II]

I never played with the smaller ball, but did it make that much of a difference? Was is that much less moved around by the wind? I can't see it making that much of a difference in the design of courses. How do courses built in England during the times in question compare to the courses in American built during that same time? I think that would make a good indicator of what might have become of American architecture.

[David_Tepper]

It would be interesting to know if any of the "golden age" gca's who worked on both side of the Atlantic had anything to say on this topic. My guess is the impact of golf ball size has been minimal. I think other factors (turf conditions, weather, land forms, the impact of golf on TV, etc.) have had a much bigger impact.     

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Moore,

It made a big difference into head and cross winds.

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, I'm pretty sure few here know the inherent playing differences between the two balls.

Please if you would..
 Detail the differences.

Was the ball easier to control?

In your opinion... would shot making have been saved, and, not lost as it has been, if we had smaller balls?


   

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat, I'm pretty sure few here know the inherent playing differences between the two balls.

Please if you would..
Detail the differences.

Was the ball easier to control?

It was, into the wind, and with good cross winds.

In your opinion... would shot making have been saved, and, not lost as it has been, if we had smaller balls?

I think the 1.68 ball favored shot making absent the wind

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Adam I feel larger balls make shot making come easier. lol

[David_Madison]

If I remember correctly from when I first started playing and for fun experimented with the smaller ball, it didn't seem to soar as high or land as softly. If that's actually the case, then courses here would have been designed for more of a ground game rather than the predominant aerial attack designs we have.

[JESII]

Do architects design for the equipment or to oppose it?

[Ron Farris]

I remember, as a kid playing golf in the Sand Hills of Nebraska, playing with the smaller ball.  I was just beginning to play golf and not that good, so it was hard to tell if the ball traveled better through the Nebraska winds better or not.  I remember thinking that if the ball was smaller that it would have a better chance of going in the cup.  That was 40 years ago, so I have a hard time remembering if it was a factor in anything other than novelty.  I personally don't think it would have changed too much architecturally. 

[Mike_Clayton]

The small ball was much easier to play in the wind -  and almost all the small balls sold in Australia at least from 1970 onwards were surlyn. They were really hard to stop on firm greens - and the guys who bought the small balata Titleist back from America - Bob Shearer,David Graham,Bruce Devlin - has an easier time of it at Royal Melbourne when the greens were really hard.
They were more difficult to chip and pitch with - both in terms of getting good contact and stopping it.

America - generally speaking - played in much less wind that Britain,South Africa and Australia so the balls were designed to fly high in the air and they were not easy to play with in the wind. There was much less incentive for manufacturers to make a really good wind ball - other than a Top Flite or a Pinnacle.
When the rest of the world was forced to adopt the big ball the manufacturers were forced to make a ball that was easier to use when the winds were high.
The DDH was by far the best wind ball in the early 80s - but now the big ball plays as the small ball uesd to in the wind - i.e it bores through the wind if it is decently struck.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike.
 thanx for that detailed description.


It makes sense the mannies wouldn't focus on a better wind ball since most of the fickle mass consumers prefer not to play in real wind.

Makes one wonder if there's continued non growth in the sport, if someone will realize they will sell more balls, improving stockholder value, if the game is changed by switching to a ball that performs less optimally. More spin should result in more lost balls resulting in more sales, while simultaneously ending the need for longer courses.

In effect, a rollback will help the bottom line of mannies which should remove the fear the ruling bodies have of being sued.

[JESII]

Tough to market "The ball that gets lost easier"...

How about exploding driver heads?

[John Moore II]

John Moore,

It made a big difference into head and cross winds.

Noted. However, you didn't answer the other question I posed. How were new courses built in England and abroad during these times different from courses built in America during these same times? Your question operates on the assumption that modern American course design would have been markedly different had we used the smaller ball. So how were courses in the UK different from courses in America? I'm sure we'd all like some examples. I honestly don't know, I've never played a round of golf outside the United States. Once its noted how courses differed in the different areas during common time periods, then perhaps we can work forward as to how courses might have been done differently.

[Adam Clayman]

The USGA needn't market the ball, they only need to legislate into rule, it's characteristic.

Basically they need to grow a set.

[JESII]

It's not the USGA that needs to grow a set...it's the clubs themselves...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

John Moore,

It made a big difference into head and cross winds.

Noted.

However, you didn't answer the other question I posed.
How were new courses built in England and abroad during these times different from courses built in America during these same times?

Which new courses were built in England during that time ?


Your question operates on the assumption that modern American course design would have been markedly different had we used the smaller ball.


No it doesn't.
You need to reread my questions, they don't make any assumptions.
The questions were:
Would fairways be narrower on sites exposed to wind ?

Would courses be longer, shorter or the same ?

Were there features on courses in the UK not imported to the U.S. due to the use of the larger ball ?


So how were courses in the UK different from courses in America?   Which ones ?
I'm sure we'd all like some examples.
I honestly don't know, I've never played a round of golf outside the United States.
Once its noted how courses differed in the different areas during common time periods, then perhaps we can work forward as to how courses might have been done differently.