Ball Crusade

Since Jan. 1 when the U. S. Golf Association added .06 in. to the size and subtracted .07 oz. from the weight of the official golf ball, a great muttering has been heard from the fairways, greens and locker-rooms of the land. The U. S. G. A.'s prime reason for the change was to make golf harder for expert players. It was said that things had come to such a pass that long hitters like Bobby Jones and Horton Smith never had a chance to play a brassie shot. The bigger lighter ball adopted by the U. S. G. A. (1.68 in. diameter, 1.55 oz.) is about the same as the Spalding "black domino" of a decade ago. It was designed to take yardage away from long hitters and put a premium on accuracy in the wind. To mediocre players and duffers--who constitute the vast golfing public and really support the game-- it was promised that the new ball would "sit up" better on the fairways, be easier to hit, easier to make "carries" with since it would fly more lightly. Also, the new ball was supposed to putt better.

Expert players have reported no great change in their games due to the new ball. Tournament scores have not been noticeably higher or lower. But the mutterings of the average players, of the mediocrities and the dubs, have grown steadily louder, into a national grumble. So last week Life magazine set out to rally the dissenters for a crusade to bring the old ball back. In an open letter to the U. S. G. A. Life offered this challenge :

If it can be proved to you that the majority of players in this country want the old ball back, will you restore that ball to official standing?

Life undertook to prove its point by sending ballot cards to 5,110 golf clubs, and printing a ballot blank in the magazine. Strictly, Life's poll will not be a true pro-&-con measure of opinion because the form of ballot blank is worded to attract only the objectors. But as a petition of protest, Life is confident that an overwhelming aversion to the new ball will be registered by "the 90% who never break 90."

Said Life's open letter: ". . . For a month or two now the toilers of the fairway have been knocking your new ball around. ... They are thwacking it mightily into the toughest gale, watching it hover and dip and rise again, often to soar away like a homing bird into the trees to some unplayable nest. They are putting it diligently into the cup, diligently and boldly--boy, she's in!--oop--a curl and a flip and out pops Big Boy for another try. ... It was a disappointment in May; it will be hated in June; and by July it will be tyranny. You have literally commanded the players who worked and slaved for years to break 90, to work and slave quite a bit harder to break 100. . . .

"The new ball is unjust and unfair because it widens the gap between the expert and the dub. It may prevent a great player from turning your toughest course in a casual 66, but it will prevent many thousands of others--who make the game, make the galleries and love the fun--from turning in that joyous 89 that means so much. . . ."

Life's words of plaint were really spoken from the heart. For in no club is to be found a more avid player than Life's President Clair Maxwell. His scores are more often in the 70's than in the 90's, but he knows how poorer players feel. Just as enthusiastic are his brothers--Lee, president of Crowell Publishing Co.; Ray G., advertising agent, and Lloyd, of Williams & Cunnyngham agency, Chicago. The four Brothers Maxwell have a standing challenge to any other foursome of one family, or any foursome of the publishing business. Life's Clair Maxwell has a strong personal opinion of the new ball. He calls it a cross between a ping-pong globule and a Mexican jumping bean.

The new ball has many a potent defender, among them the American Golfer (habitually friendly to acts of the U. S. G. A.). Said Associate Editor Innis Brown last week: "Admitting that the new ball widens the chasm between the high handicap man and the low; and that it tends to accentuate the slice; yet the 'dub' who could not get the maximum result from the old ball, can from the new. The new ball was designed to bring back the use of wooden clubs and long irons on the fairway--the use of clubs for which the course was designed. It does just that." Delicate is the position of the manufacturers in this ball controversy. When the U. S. G. A. persuaded them to cease making the old model, it cost some $500,000 to install new molds. A reversal would mean another heavy expense. But the ball-makers do not want to antagonize their best friend and customer--the average player.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.