News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« on: February 04, 2013, 01:01:06 PM »
I'm not entirely sure when or why the USGA and R & A split over the diameter of a golf ball. What might the consequences for golf course architecture have been had the 1.62 ball become the standard size throughout the world and remained so?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 01:23:39 PM »
I'm not entirely sure when or why the USGA and R & A split over the diameter of a golf ball. What might the consequences for golf course architecture have been had the 1.62 ball become the standard size throughout the world and remained so?

Mark:

I think the split happened right after 1930, when the USGA was worried about courses becoming obsolete due to steel-shafted clubs, and the R & A did not agree.  Then again, golf in the UK has always been more about battling the elements than about the length of the course.

For me, the more interesting part of the discussion is that nobody moaned loudly about "bifurcation" from 1930-whatever to the late 1970's when there were two separate rules for America vs. the rest of the world.  Nor did anyone moan about "bifurcation" from the late 1970's through the mid-1990's when the 1.62-in ball was still legal for club play in the UK, but not for tournament play.

The only thing I can identify that's changed is the attitude of the equipment companies toward the subject.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 01:57:11 PM »
I read (in John Jacob's autobiography, I think) that Roger Wethered was hoping to get the R&A to adopt the 1.68" ball not too long after World War II ended. He was discouraged from pressing the issue because of the cost British ball manufacturers would have had to absorb in the weak post-WWII economy. The issue was pushed to the back burner and stayed there for 40-50 years. ;)

 


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2013, 12:08:42 PM »
I was wondering if one size of ball would react more than the other to slopes on greens, meaning that for one particular size of ball the borrows on the greens would need to be gentler. Or would one size of ball necessitate a different grade or depth of sand in bunkers? Would the 1.62 inch ball be less affected by winds meaning you could have narrower fairways? I am sure there are other issues which I haven't thought of or considered.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2013, 02:43:35 PM »
I haven't played with the small ball for 50 years, but seem to recall that it was much easier to chip and pitch with the larger ball but the small ball was better into the wind and rolled forever.   So tradeoffs for sure.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2013, 03:08:39 PM »
Wild Bill; and how do you remember the action on the feathery?  ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2013, 03:38:30 PM »
Mark, many moons ago I played in the Italian Open, using the small Dunlop 65 with blue numbers.  I found it easier to drive with (harder to fade and hook), went 10% further on average,  putted great (seemed denser and held it's line), and was easier in the wind regardless what direction.   I used both sizes in the Bahamas in the late 60s and early 70s.  The small Titleist and small Penfold were  pretty useless as I recall, but the pro version of the Dunlop 65 was good.  As noted, it was tougher to chip with, and nestled down too much in bermuda grass.  UK golfers didn't like the "big" ball, but Americans loved trying the small ball.

In summary, the small ball played about like the new balls!

In the 70s and 80s I noticed the great  Moe Norman always had a ball ring, and used it on every ball he played. "Some don't fit through, good downwind. Some fall right through without touching, good wind balls!".   He used to say Titleist were pretty good, Dunlop Maxfli and Penfold had lots of over or under sized balls at the time.  Of course TOP-Flite and DYNA MAX came out with their solid core balls and now most balls fit a mold (like the plyers hitting them).
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2013, 03:48:09 PM »
Wild Bill; and how do you remember the action on the feathery?  ;D

It was shorter off the tee than the gutta percha ball!

Patrick_Mucci

Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 12:57:00 AM »
Mark,

It's an interesting question.

How would courses designed from the date of consolidation have changed had the small ball been the survivor.

I played the small ball and as Gary and others have stated, driving nto the wind and with cross winds, it outperformed the larger ball.

The question I'm wrestling with now is, how would that small ball react with modern day equipment and a solid construction small ball ?

Would it have accelerated the distance race beyond the architect's ability to keep up ?

It's a fascinating question.

Would rough have been emphasized ?
More bunkers ?

Interesting food for thought................

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 1.68 inch ball / 1.62 inch ball and architecture
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 02:12:53 AM »
The small ball flew lower and rolled more so it could be assumed that ground contours and greens open at the front would have played a more prominent roll.

Jon

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back