Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 23175, 26 January 1939, Page 7

TO LESSEN LONG DRIVES MAJORITY FAVOUR NO CHANGE I return with some diffidence to tl« subject of whether the leugth of the golf ball should, or will be, either reduced or restricted. The diffidence is due to the fact that so much tedious matter has already been written on this subject (writes Henry Longhurst, in the London 'Sunday Times ')• Nevertheless, discuss it we should, for the Royal and Ancient, whose government of the game has been slow but exceedingly sure, has called for the opinion of various bodies to see whether it should at last take some action regarding the ball. The ultimate decision will affect every golfer. If a referendum were taken of every one of Britain's million players, it would result, in my opinion, in a 75 per cent, majority in favour of no change.

The chief argument against a change in the ball is so hackneyed that I scarcely like to set it down. “ Shorten the ball,” they say, “ and thousands will give up the game.” Or, again, ‘‘ The handicap player’s chief pleasure is derived from a long drive. Take away that thrill and the game will hold nothing more for him. He is the backbone of the game, and his wishes must be considered.” RETROGRADE. A second argument, somewhat related to the first, is that more people play golf now than ever before, and that therefore any return towards a ball of past days must be a retrograde step. Thirdly, there are commercial difficulties (which, to my mind, a no not in any way concerned with the general good of" golf or any other game). A different type of ball involves new raourds for manufacturers, a costly business; but. since at least a year’s notice would be given of any change, the new moulds could be gradually introduced as the old ones Wore out. Finally, I would quote the statement of an “ expert,” unnamed, that has been given wide publicity, especially in Scotland. “ To achieve a loss of from 20 to .‘lO yards would quite frankly, mean producing an inferior ball ’ that i

would likely be the cheapest on the market and costing less than one shilling. 1 can really see no other-way of cutting the ball's power to that extent, and if we were compelled to use a ball of that kind, most of us would not consider the game worth playing at,all. Even the. scratch man, who could get mast out of it, would not consider it worth hitting. The pleasure we get-from hitting the present ball would simply be taken away." This " expert," it transpired, tvas not an expert on the general question of the most desirable type of golf ball; he was a golf ball manufacturer, which is a very different thing—or, as the cvnics will tell you. just the opposite thing. When the ball did go 20yds less far than to-day it used, if I remember, to cost 3s. It will be interesting to see, if such legislation ever comes into force, whether the price of this particular maker's ball will be " less than Is." As a matter of fact, a man who is responsible for the making of many millions of golf balls every year assured me, in an expansive moment, that it would be perfectly easy to limit the flight of the ball to any desired distance and to produce balls of a perfectly uniform standard. THE OTHER SIDE. T/hqse who-argue on- the- other side

maintain that there is no shred of evidence that thousands of players would give up the game if they played with the sort of ball that was in vogue just after the war, and with which most of them learned their golf.

The motive of those in favour of a change is universally misconstrued. It is not in order “ to prevent low scoring ” nobody minds Cotton going round in 59, as he probably soon will —it is in order to restore to golf courses the proportions with which they were designed. This is sometimes possible by the erection of back tees, but it is a costly item and renders the game tedious and fatiguing. Fourteen thousand yards, it is held, is too much to ask a man to walk for his day’s golf, to say nothing of the uncharted extra distance in walking to the back tees. A shorter ball could provide a fairer game for every class of player on one golf course at the same time. The long hitters could walk to the medal tee and find the hole playing once again as the architect designed, while the “ backbone of the game ” could proceed from a more forward tee, at a great saving of effort, and find the hole playing in approximately the same manner as before.

To the argument that the handicap

man could not control a lighter ball in the wind and “ what would he have done on the last day of the open at Sandwich?” they reply mercilessly that he cannot control any ball in a wind —and that the ball need not necessarily be lighter. A compulsory thickening of the cover would do a lot towards reducing length. From the commercial aspect a thicker cover means economy to the golfer, but decreased sales to the manufacturer — hence one reason for the pious horror expressed by the trade on behalf of the handicap golfer whenever reduction is suggested. From the present back toes on the longer courses a reduction in length would he too severe a hardship for the handicap man, and it is not suggested that ho should continue to use these tees. He can instead return to the days when we used to tee up somewhere near to the green from whence we came. On one point friend and foe are agreed that any new form of ball must bo a real pleasure to strike. A shorter ball must not give the “ wooden ” feeling of the old guttie. That this could be done I have also been assured by persons in the. trade., (