Ball marks are a constant problem on many golf courses, particularly those with creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stonolifera L.)greens.  There are many ball mark repair tools on the market and each has its own recommended method of repair.  An experiment was conducted to determine if any of the tools performed differently with respect to the quality of the ball mark repair (determined by measuring ball roll and visual evaluation) and the rate of healing after repair.  A pneumatic ball cannon was used to produce ball marks and four experiments were conducted in the summer of 2005 on nursery and practice greens at Old Waverly Golf Club in West Point, MS.   All ballmark repair tools tested were superior to unrepaired ball marks in regards to ball roll; but there were no differences in ball roll distance among the tools tested.  The quality of initial repair data showed significant differences among individuals making the repairs, indicating that education of the user may be a key factor in using repair tools.  Tools that used a push forward method were found to be superior to tools which used methods in which the center of the ball mark is lifted or dug up.