Timeline for titleist golf balls??

I quess one doesn't exist then? Oh well. CAM

I would try searching titleists website. I know they have an archive with the history of their clubs but im not so sure on the balls.

Google is your friend:

http://www.titleist.com/technology/evolution.asp

In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.

[quote name='pinehurst' timestamp='1337154447' post='4923630']
In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.
[/quote]
I have a bunch of the ProV1-392's werent these really soft compared to the newer Prov1's? how about spin?

[quote name='pinehurst' timestamp='1337154447' post='4923630']
In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewric...eist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.
[/quote]

The problem with his experiment is that the older balls WANTED a higher spin rate, and the equipment matched the ball.

Hitting an older version ball which wants high spin with a driver that tries to reduce spin skews the results.

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1337200266' post='4926768']
[quote name='pinehurst' timestamp='1337154447' post='4923630']
In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewric...eist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.
[/quote]

The problem with his experiment is that the older balls WANTED a higher spin rate, and the equipment matched the ball.

Hitting an older version ball which wants high spin with a driver that tries to reduce spin skews the results.
[/quote]

+1 clubs have evolved as the ball has evolved to match the characteristics.. its the same reason why tour pros used to rock 7* and 7.5* drivers and now you seeing mostly 9*+ on tour

[quote name='JerryMB1' timestamp='1337178456' post='4924630']
[quote name='pinehurst' timestamp='1337154447' post='4923630']
In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewric...eist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.
[/quote]
I have a bunch of the ProV1-392's werent these really soft compared to the newer Prov1's? how about spin?
[/quote]

I used to not get good results from the earlier prov1's and started using the prov1's 392 and other upgrades of prov1 to the present. The 392 was a 93 compression ball in 2007 and 2008, and in 2009 and 2010 prov1 95 compression. In 2011 and 12 were a 99 compression. What ever change came about the ball, still works well for me and holds up good.

[quote name='SilverBullets' timestamp='1337212712' post='4927854']
[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1337200266' post='4926768']
[quote name='pinehurst' timestamp='1337154447' post='4923630']
In 99 they were mostly using the Titleist Professional which was an expensive scuff resistant version of the wound ball. It wasn't much longer than the balata ball. 2000 ushered in the ProV1 and added about 25 yds. The newer versions are even longer than the original ProV1. I was at that Open in 99 on Sunday. It was unseasonably cool with mist and rain in the air. The ball wasn't going very far that day. To get an equivalent length to the 1999 16th hole today, it would have to be about 540 yds . Check out this link: [url="http://www.andrewricegolf.com/tag/titleist-golf-ball/"]http://www.andrewric...eist-golf-ball/[/url] cool experiment.
[/quote]

The problem with his experiment is that the older balls WANTED a higher spin rate, and the equipment matched the ball.

Hitting an older version ball which wants high spin with a driver that tries to reduce spin skews the results.
[/quote]

+1 clubs have evolved as the ball has evolved to match the characteristics.. its the same reason why tour pros used to rock 7* and 7.5* drivers and now you seeing mostly 9*+ on tour
[/quote]

both you guys are correct! the modern ball just doesn't spin or curve like it use to...i'd like to see a test where they use a persimmon driver with a steel shaft hitting the prov's of today, should be interesting