[Jason Topp]

In a December Golfworld article Phil Mickelson was interviewed about equipment changes.  As one might expect, he took the Callaway company line on those issues.

One aspect of the interview surprised me.  Mickelson said that the golf ball had gotten bigger.  The magazine measured a Titleist Professional and a modern ball and the older ball was in fact smaller.

Oddly - I do not see that portion of the interview in the online version of the interview:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2009/12/golf_mickelson_johnson_1221?currentPage=1

I have no idea why ballmakers would be making the ball larger but if it is in fact true it is an interesting tidbit.

[Garland Bayley]

The larger the ball, the easier it is to hit reasonably well.

[Pete_Pittock]

That quote also suprised me. I believe the Titleist Professional was a 1970s ball with a 1.62" diameter similar to the smaller British ball. I was really suprised at the current 1.67" diameter ball dimension, because that would seem to be either non-conforming or a mismeasurement due to the .168" miminum on diameter. Ifyou still have the article, which ball was quoted as having the 1.67" diameter?

BIG EDIT: The 12/28 edition of Golf World had this correction:
An editor's note in [Phil's 12/21 Q&A] stated we measured a Titleist ProV1x and a wound Titleist Professional. These measurements, however, were made by editors using calipers, which is not the method used for measuring by the USGA, nor is it exact, and the numbers published may have inadvertantly given the impression that these ball sis not meet the USGA standard for size. Both the Titleist ProV1x and, at its time, the Titleist Professional, fully conform to the Rules of Golf. Golf World regrets the error.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason,

The untold part of the story is that the older ball had been fished out of a cold stream and measured right away and was suffering from "shrinkage"...

[Pete_Pittock]

Jason,
See the Golf World correction, posted above.

[Jim Sweeney]

So the question remains why make a ball bigger than was made in the 1970s?

Garland offers that a larger ball might be easier to hit reasonably well.

However, a larger surface would create more friction, leading to shorter, more crooked shoys, I would think.

Pergaps core or dimple technology (especially the desire to hide the cover seam) resuts in more surface area, and the potentail negatice effects are ameliorated by the core or dimple designs themselves.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That quote also suprised me.
I believe the Titleist Professional was a 1970s ball with a 1.62" diameter similar to the smaller British ball.

That's not true.
The Titleist Professional was 1.68 inches in diameter.

I had a tube precision milled to five one thousandths of an inch larger than a golf ball, 1.685, just to test balls for quality control.
Fresh out of their packaging, very few balls fit through the tube without differing degrees of pressure.
Titleists and Hogans seemed to perform the best, but the percentage that passed the test was minimal.

I also had a compression machine and again, very few balls lived up to their listed compression.

I was really suprised at the current 1.67" diameter ball dimension, because that would seem to be either non-conforming or a mismeasurement due to the .168" miminum on diameter. Ifyou still have the article, which ball was quoted as having the 1.67" diameter?

BIG EDIT: The 12/28 edition of Golf World had this correction:
An editor's note in [Phil's 12/21 Q&A] stated we measured a Titleist ProV1x and a wound Titleist Professional. These measurements, however, were made by editors using calipers, which is not the method used for measuring by the USGA, nor is it exact, and the numbers published may have inadvertantly given the impression that these ball sis not meet the USGA standard for size. Both the Titleist ProV1x and, at its time, the Titleist Professional, fully conform to the Rules of Golf. Golf World regrets the error.

[PThomas]

i think the only thing(s) that have gotten bigger are Phils breasts...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I think Top-Flite made a big ball.  I forget the name of it and I forget the reasons advertised that promoted it

One of the fellows in our group used it since there was no prohibition against a ball larger than 1.68.

I would imagine that it might be less prone to fried egg lies in bunkers.
I believe my friend found it easier to putt.
Eventually, he abandoned the ball.
When I next see him I'll ask why he prefered it.

[RSLivingston_III]

Glad they corrected that.
I remember during the 90's constantly checking my balls with one of those rings, probably still have it somewhere. I think I stopped using it about the time the Precision took over.
There was an oversize ball that came out in the 90's designed to "help" the less proficient golfers hit the ball straighter. Can't quite remember the name.. seems like magna might have been part of it.

[PThomas]

Jim,

I think Top-Flite made a big ball.  I forget the name of it and I forget the reasons advertised that promoted it

One of the fellows in our group used it since there was no prohibition against a ball larger than 1.68.

I would imagine that it might be less prone to fried egg lies in bunkers.
I believe my friend found it easier to putt.
Eventually, he abandoned the ball.
When I next see him I'll ask why he prefered it.

think it might have been called the Magna

[Pete_Pittock]

Patrick,
You played them, I didn't. Fortunately I prefaced my remark with "I believe".  Mea culpa. I will endeavor to find the article cached somehwhere or find a reference to a British style Titleist. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()