[Niall C]

"America's first and most important contribution to the development of golf was the invention of the rubber-cored ball. And as in the case of so many other great inventions, it was only after its advent that the world was able to realize how badly it had been needed."

Robert Browning, A History of Golf (published 1955)

An interesting quotation that asks a number of questions like was the rubber cored ball the US's greatest contribution to golf ? Is it still the US's greatest contribution and indeed was it ever ?

Also, would we have had the golden age of golf course architecture with out it ?

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,
I suspect that golf would never have become as popular had it not been for the rubber cored/balata covered ball, and I'd say it contributed greatly to the number of courses that were needed to accomodate an ever increasing number of players. It might have had some impact on the GA of GCA, but some of the very best courses in the world were built prior to the rubber ball. 

[RSLivingston_III]

Just an FYI, the first decades of the last century, rubber cored balls used Gutty as a cover material not balata

[Michael George]

I certainly agree, as it was developed in Akron, Ohio and first used at Country Club (Pepper Pike)

[RSLivingston_III]

I certainly agree, as it was developed in Akron, Ohio and first used at Country Club (Pepper Pike)

Thats a funny story. Except it doesn't take into consideration the part about how and why Haskell lost their patent.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ralph,
I don't know what possessed me to write balata, as you said, it was gutta.

Hutchinson, as you know, was an expert witness at the trial and he wrote: 

"it does seem to my uninstructed wisdom that if ever there were a substantially new invention, making a new departure, it was this of these that we then called Haskells and now call India-rubber-cored balls. Nobody, before Haskell, had ever given them to us as reasonable things with which to play the game of golf"

His full account left me with the impression that the proceedings were a combination of circus and courtroom, and that the vast amount of money to be made from the ball was behind the denial of Haskell's patent, i.e. he would have had a monoply. 
 

[Niall C]

Jim

I certainly agree that the game might not have been so popular but I was thinking more from a course design perspective as didn't the lengthening of courses because of the rubber-core ball help propel the golden age of golf course architecture. I'm just wondering that for all we gnash our teeth today about the length these guys hit the ball, whether that in itself has brought an added dimension in how course design is thought out, and not necessarily adding length all the time.

Niall

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,
I remember reading an interview w/Bill Coore in which he said that the issue of ball/length has less of an influence on his and Ben Crenshaw's designs than it does for some other architects because they're mainly building member's courses, not tournament venues, but he did say that he felt the ball was causing change where change wasn't needed.

I don't think the same disparity in distance existed between the club member and the elite player of 100 years ago, so the golden age 'member's' course of 1912 could serve both groups equally well.

....and, if I'm not mistaken, the rubber cored ball wasn't longer than the gutty, it just didn't crack apart, so I guess that makes me someone who doesn't think the introduction of the rubber cored ball changed golden age architecture all that much.

[Niall C]

Jim

Good point about the durability of the rubber-core, that undoubtedly was what made it THE ball. Not so sure about which was longer and I don't know that there was a general consensus at the time which in turn supports your contention of it not being longer however I think it was perception as much as anything in the same way that I reckon the Pro V probably doesn't go any further than a Pinnacle for the average player but he probably believes it does.

The other thing I recall reading about the difference of the two balls was that the rubber-core was more lively and was more likely to run through bunkers. Whether that in itself had an impact on course design is anyones guess.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()