GOLF BALL PROBLEM

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 282, 26 August 1939, Page 15

GOLF BALL PROBLEM

Dilemma For Royal And Ancient Club CONFLICTING OPINIONS Because of the conflict of official opinion, the Royal and Ancient Club, iu its attempt to provide a solution of the ball problem, now finds itself in a dilemma. The four unions, representing England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and the various associations outside the United States, were invited to express their views on a subject that has exercised golfers of all classes for the past dozen years at least. ■The issue is between the retention of the present ball and the introduction of one that is definitely shorter in flight. Advocates of a restricted ball declare that curtailment of flight and length is necessary to prevent the game and the courses from being ruined, and further to restore some of the lost shots, and also the art of control. Those favouring retention of the present ball, and they form the vast majority of golfers, do not admit that tho ball goes too far; on the contrary, it does not go far enough. Moreover, they are strongly averse to the standardization of a new type of ball that will make a • difficult game still more difficult. In making the plea that the present ball gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number, they exhort St Andrews to leave well alone. Though striving to hold the balance, I must say that the attitude of the man-' in-the-street appeals to me, says anEnglish writer. He is not a first-class player, and is never likely to be; he plays golf principally for amusement and recreation, and, as he provides £9O out of every £lOO spent on the game, he is entitled to first consideration. Anything that deprives him of his sum of enjoyment is a false step, and one likely to have far-reaching results on the popularity and progress of the game.

I am repeatedly being told that a restricted ball —bigger, or lighter, or both —would help him to play better,' and, consequently, give him more pleasure. This theoretical view is not borne out by the cold facts of experience. Many examples can be given which utterly confound this view, but it is unnecessary to go further than the recent £2OOO tournament at Bournemouth. A Case in Point. Here we had Great Britain’s fore-,' most professionals to the number of 100 ! playing four medal rounds on a moder-; ate-length course of 6640 yards. Play-; ing with the ball that is supposed to be' ruining the game, only 30 of the 100 managed to break a score of 80 in one J of the rounds. Further, some of the players never returned a score at aiLj Such being the experience of the experts using the relatively smalLj heavy ball, it is possible to imagine how;' the average handicap man, using a big-', ger or lighter ball, would have fared iiL similar conditions. Can it be said wit’di truth that be would have enjoyed the; experience? Even if open championships and tournaments are won in seemingly fantastically low scores, the great majority of golfers are neither greatly concerned nor vitally interested. It is not of vast importance to them whether the long second shot with the brassie is eliminated for the champions of the game, nor is it a matter of deep concern whether they are compelled to walk several hundred yards from the green to the next tee in order to preserve the club’s estimate of the score value of their course. What does matter is the protection of the enjoyment of the mass of golfers in their pursuit of the traditional form of the game. They will, therefore, heartily welcome the recommendation of the English Golf Union to St. Andrews, that the present limits of the ball be retained. The English Golf Union executive are emphatically opposed to any change which would increase the power of the ball, a view to which most people will agree, but only a minority express a desire for a change, which would decrease its present limitations. On the other hand, the Scottish Union have unanimously recommended a change in the specification of the ball in order to restrict the length of the drive.