"Shortly after Max Behr wrote that, the USGA did make a knee jerk reaction in introducing the "floater" ball. "In 1929 USGA adopted a 1.68", 1.55oz ball for the years 1930-31, but the universal condemnation of this balloon made them quickly rethink, and from January 1932 settled on the 1.68", 1.62oz specifications." - Leith Society History of the Rules website. I wonder if his and other's comments caused this debacle. Perhaps that is why they are slow to change today?"
JohnV;
That quote of yours is most interesting! I did not know that. I realize the "floater" ball was an enormous and contentious issue back in those days and that support for it was fairly impressive--eg, Behr, Macdonald, perhaps Thomas and Hunter and a good number of significant Europeans extremely knowledgeable and powerful in the world of golf and golf organization!
Again, I never knew the "floater ball" (a lighter ball) was ever produced. And you say it was considered a complete flop, huh? I'd really like to scratch around for some research into exactly why it was considered a complete flop, if that was actually true. I wonder if the reason was the USGA speced it and the manufacturers basically refused to produce it or if the manufacturers produced it and the golfing public simply did not like it and basically refused to buy it and use it. Knowing which it may have been seems to me to be extremely significant!
In any case, the whole concept of the "floater ball" is very interesting to me, at least it's interesting to me to understand what those men back then who were so vocal in proposing it were driving at! At first it appears they thought it benefical simply because not so many golfers would lose golf balls in water and therefore wouldn't have to spend as much money on balls.
But on a closer analysis of Max Behr's arguments in favor of something like the "floater ball" it appears his reasoning for the benefit of a "floater" ball, or lighter ball was wholly different. It appears it was simply an efficient weight limitation that could be easily tested in the real world (and of course the fact you didn't lose it in water was a benefit too). But why was he or they interested in a weight limitation? Apparently to Behr it had almost everything to do with trying to maintain that certain precise skill limitation in relation to nature itself.
Obviously, the thinking was the lighter ball (no weightier than what would float) was not easy, probably impossible, to hit great distances even in calm conditions but Behr's great concern, one he talked about constantly in his essays, was that somehow nature should never lose it's part in golf and golf architecture--it had to be maintained at all costs to preserve that delicate balance of the skill level of a golfer with his ball and impliments competing against nature (one of his analogies was the sportsman should shoot birds with nothing heavier than a 28 gauge shotgun (very light) instead of a cannon!).
So what was nature to Behr that should not lose it's part in golf so as to preserve that delicate balance of a golfer's skill level while competing against nature? It was definitely the earth and maintaining the natural look of it (for very interesting and separate reasons) but it was also the wind and maintaining it's influence and effect on golf through its influence on the ball. Obviously, they all figured the wind would work its crafty influence far better and far more on the flight of a ball of 1.68" and ONLY 1.55oz rather than a ball of 1.62 and 1.62oz or even 1.68" and 1.620z!
This is all very interesting and perhaps very apropos of what might or might not work today with the golfing public if the regulatory bodies ever do consider a rollback.
So the important question remains---why did it flop?? Was it because the manufacturers basically refused to make it for their own reasons (less profit?) or was it because they did make it but the golfing public didn't like it and refused to buy it and use it?
If it was the latter the further question and even more important one is why didn't they like it? If it turns out to be that it didn't go far enough to suit them then perhaps a lot of people today might need to reconsider not only some of the things they're saying about the USGA but also some of the things they are saying about how well and how effectively a rollback in distance would work if and when the regulatory bodies did legislate it!
This is all very interesting! Let's at least try to find out exactly why that "floater ball", the lighter ball, did flop, if in fact it did! If it was because it didn't go far enough to suit the golfing public then what are we suppose to conclude?