Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

15 minutes ago, EasyPutter said:

Nothing but blow-hard goose crap, of course I want to see PGA Tour players hit shots like I do, that makes them real and makes me know that my game is perfectly fine because even the pros sometimes hit a shot like I do on my best day.

But the reality is they do. How many times in a tournament do you see a pro hit one way offline? It happens more than people realize, the problem is many of them aren’t caught on tv, so it seems like it didn’t happen that often, but even so there’s plenty of fore right or pointing that way during tv times.

If I wanted to watch bad golf I would play or walk around the local courses and watch weekend hacks play. Just like if I wanted to watch mediocre baseball i would go watch high school and little league games. 

[MaxEntropy]

I think it would be hilarious if Titleist/Bridgestone/TaylorMade/Srixon all determined the ROI is NOT there to commit R&D funds to develop a shorter ball and opted not to participate. I know it won't happen, but still think it would be funny.

[RickyBobby_PR]

7 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I think it would be hilarious if Titleist/Bridgestone/TaylorMade/Srixon all determined the ROI is NOT there to commit R&D funds to develop a shorter ball and opted not to participate. I know it won't happen, but still think it would be funny.

Titleist has been somewhat vocal about not having a rollback of the ball. I don’t recall if the others have been or not.

I definitely see push back from the ball companies. Not only is it going to be r&d costs but it could be additional labor costs for production, materials cost for the new design and possibly equipment costs. 
 

Imo it’s the ruling bodies getting in the way again. Simple solution is increase height of the fairway grass, increase the height of the rough to penalize missed fairways. This can be done at the courses where people feel the scores are too low.

Ruling bodies listening to the minority about topics happens in many sports. In powerlfiting one fed has changed the rule for how one can setup on bench and how far a lifters arms have to come down in an effort to minimize the number of large arches because there’s a minority that complain about how it looks and ignore that the goal is to lift as much weight as possible. 

[cnosil]

40 minutes ago, EasyPutter said:

 

Nothing but blow-hard goose crap, of course I want to see PGA Tour players hit shots like I do, that makes them real and makes me know that my game is perfectly fine because even the pros sometimes hit a shot like I do on my best day.

They do with the current ball.  Exhibit A: Keith Mitchell; one of the best drivers on tour, at the Player Championship

 

[russtopherb]

"Hey let's go fix a problem that doesn't exist" - Some old guy at the USGA, probably.

[null]

I still think this is pointless.  The fast swingers are still going to swing fast, and thus hit it further than the slower swingers.

So now the slower swingers are going to be even further back. 

IMO it puts even MORE of a premium on driving distance.

[cnosil]

5 hours ago, Ding-dong said:

Last line is interesting, fans don’t want this … I don’t want to see second shots that are wedges, nor do I want to see par 5s hit in 2 with a 6 iron or less. 
The current game is about strength, and somewhere down the line we have lost the art of plotting your way around the course. 
Any ball changes will be a good thing, any ball that gives you nothing after x impact force would be great … no bifurcation would be required. We would see a change in pro player and a game more connected to its roots. 

You identify clubs,  if the wedge was labeled 8 iron and the 6 iron was labeled 3 iron would that be better?   If that makes it better, the problem is simply how clubs are labeled.   

if the problem is the approach distance, long players will still be long and short hitters players will still hit the ball short.   The strategy of hit the ball as far as possible won’t change to an I need to be more accurate strategy.  maybe scores will be a little higher, but I believe there will be no net effect if the elite levels invoke the potential model local rule.   
 

this won’t just impact the pro and elite games.   Think of players coming up through junior golf that have aspirations of playing on tour.  When do they switch to using these new balls?   Is a college golfer subject to these rules and if so how easily can the switch to the pro game when they get an opportunity to play an event.  Let’s back it up to high school,  how does a coach recruit a high schooler that still uses the longer ball, does his game translate to the shorter college/elite ball?   Does the good player with the elite ball not even make his high school team because he doesnt play as well as the kid that plays the longer ball?   
 

 

[hoppman]

Doesn't bother me one bit, it still won't hinder the elite player one bit, they will still hit it long and score. I hope they move forward with the proposal. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by hoppman
Fix typo

[hoppman]

8 minutes ago, cnosil said:

You identify clubs,  if the wedge was labeled 8 iron and the 6 iron was labeled 3 iron would that be better?   If that makes it better, the problem is simply how clubs are labeled.   

if the problem is the approach distance, long players will still be long and short hitters players will still hit the ball short.   The strategy of hit the ball as far as possible won’t change to an I need to be more accurate strategy.  maybe scores will be a little higher, but I believe there will be no net effect if the elite levels invoke the potential model local rule.   
 

this won’t just impact the pro and elite games.   Think of players coming up through junior golf that have aspirations of playing on tour.  When do they switch to using these new balls?   Is a college golfer subject to these rules and if so how easily can the switch to the pro game when they get an opportunity to play an event.  Let’s back it up to high school,  how does a coach recruit a high schooler that still uses the longer ball, does his game translate to the shorter college/elite ball?   Does the good player with the elite ball not even make his high school team because he doesnt play as well as the kid that plays the longer ball?   
 

 

In baseball players at all lower levels use aluminum bats, until they get to the pros, then wood bats only, they either adjust or they are out of the league. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by hoppman
Fix typo

[Stuka44]

I am all for them rolling back the ball for the pro game.  As many have said.  The game is unable to make the rough deep enough, or what would be an impossibility(have no spotters and no help finding their ball), to prevent EVERY PRO from lashing it as far as they can.   This is likely the easiest least expensive solution.  I no longer want to see pros, have par 3's be their hardest holes.  I no longer want to hear announcers declaring when a pro doesn't get a birdie on every par 5, that he's giving shots back to the field.

I know they won't but lets get rid of some sand around the greens, Make them grass bunkers with grass 2 feet long, so they might have to take an unplayable for hitting it in there.  Greenside sand bunkers, no longer really a hazard to pros.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Stuka44

[cnosil]

28 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Imo it’s the ruling bodies getting in the way again. Simple solution is increase height of the fairway grass, increase the height of the rough to penalize missed fairways. This can be done at the courses where people feel the scores are too low.

This is done at many venues now.   Look at scoring for US Opens where the winning score is around even par even on older shorter courses.  

[cnosil]

19 minutes ago, hoppman said:

In baseball players at all lower levels use aluminum bats, until they get to the pros, then wood bats only, they either adjust or they are out of the league. 

Yes this is true and a valid comparison.  I still think that the golf ball would have a more significant impact than the bat.  College players don’t often come play a game or two for a pro team.  

[cnosil]

For handicapping purposes do we need to start identifying the ball…handicap with the elite ball vs handicap with the current ball?   I can see the uproar now,  I record all may rounds with the elite ball that goes 20 yards less and then during my non elite events I play the long ball.  Hitting the ball longer typically means shorter club into the hole so potentially lower scores.  
 

Could this could have a huge impact on the amateur game as well

[SteveGH7]

If they wanted to keep pros under a certain distance, and not change the course or conditions, couldn't they just create a penalty for exceeding that distance in elite distances?  That would mean nothing changes for the shorter hitters, and the long hitters would have to "lay-up" to avoid a penalty shot.  That would also give players the choice whether they want to play the newly created shorter ball or their current balls, as long as they keep it under that distance.  And nothing would change on par 3s.

[GolfSpy_KFT]

29 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Yes this is true and a valid comparison.  I still think that the golf ball would have a more significant impact than the bat.  College players don’t often come play a game or two for a pro team.  

This is a valid comparison, and also a good counter. The other thing to throw in with this is that college baseball players play in summer leagues that are wood bat leagues. The guys who rake with the aluminum BBCOR bats still rake with wooden bats. 

[revkev]

6 hours ago, Ding-dong said:

 

 

Last line is interesting, fans don’t want this … I don’t want to see second shots that are wedges, nor do I want to see par 5s hit in 2 with a 6 iron or less. 
The current game is about strength, and somewhere down the line we have lost the art of plotting your way around the course. 
Any ball changes will be a good thing, any ball that gives you nothing after x impact force would be great … no bifurcation would be required. We would see a change in pro player and a game more connected to its roots. 

We aren't the average fan - if we were there would be 10 million subscribers to MGS.  I agree with the pros assessment - the average fan does not care about this.  

 

Also I would suggest that when you consider the specs of most modern clubs its not quite as different as we think.  The typical 6 iron is closer to a 4 iron in the 1980's.  Pros hit 6 around 190 carry today (with adrenaline and roll out on firm greens that gets to 215 among the leaders in the final round of a tournament).  That's how far they hit 4 iron then.  What's longer, way longer is driver and 3 wood.  I suppose rolling back to the ball, for them, will shorten that but so would growing the grass longer in the fairway - I don't know which is the better approach.

 

I do think that the pro quoted is being very short sighted however.  I don't think the average fan cares that he can play the same tees as Rory and not hit it as far.  For starters on most courses he can't play the same tees as Rory - for example they don't have tee blocks on the championship tees at TPC Sawgrass when you show up and plunk down your $500 to play there - they are roped off much of the time too.  And many fans actually think that they do hit it as far as the pros anyway - seriously.  Older courses don't play the way they used to and that is a problem I think - it's nice to see some of them sprinkled into the mix but not when its nothing but driver and sand wedge all day - for me at least but I'm not the average fan either.  

 

I see a few who desire a return to wound balls or more classic equipment.  No one is stopping you from doing that currently - they have tours for those sorts of things even - if you want that please by all means do so and enjoy it.  I don't want that.  I'm aging and don't want to stop playing.  I find the game more than challenging enough as it is so long as this rule change leaves me alone I will be happy.

 

I will go back to an analogy that I've use before.  I was a baseball player through High School into college.  I have never played a single game of baseball with the same rules that they use in MLB, never once!  I suppose the closest that I came was in High School when we used wooden bats but the strike zone was a heck of a lot different - if it weren't we'd still be playing some of those games.  They also allowed pinch runners for catchers to save time, there was no DH when the AL had one and on and on and on and on.  I never thought that I wasn't playing the same sport.  

[Stuka44]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Imo it’s the ruling bodies getting in the way again. Simple solution is increase height of the fairway grass, increase the height of the rough to penalize missed fairways. This can be done at the courses where people feel the scores are too low.

You are 100% right.  The only problem is I don't think a lot of the courses want to be altered to the extent they would need be for the pro's.  I agree the rough from 300-330 should be 2 feet high.  The fairway for the pro's should get progressively narrower from 280-340, from 35 yards down to 6 at 340.  Instead of sand around the greens(which in now preferred by pro's over long rough grass), come pro tourney time, how about we put down a rubber lining in most of the greenside bunkers, and fill them with temporary "shrubbery" so thick that it will almost certainly produce taking an unplayable.  The problem is they don't want to set up courses to the extent, that other than a pro plunking one in water, there is almost no real "penalty".   If a pro misses a green(especially from 130 and closer) there needs to be actual consequences, and saving par should be about a 20-30% chance at best, not 50-90%.

The problem is they don't want to do it!!!  Hence we'll just make the ball go shorter.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Stuka44

[RickyBobby_PR]

59 minutes ago, cnosil said:

This is done at many venues now.   Look at scoring for US Opens where the winning score is around even par even on older shorter courses.  

That is the USGA that does that and not the pga tour. The USGA imo doesn’t have the best interest of the game in their decision. They are focused on creating problems so they can create a solution for them and make it look like they are doing something.

The PGA tour on the other hand is selling a product that is based on gaining fans at the gate and on TV and they set up the courses to cater to that. 
 

The USGA could work with the PGA tour and propose for certain courses they change the design of the course for the event to reduce the distance. But these two organizations aren’t best of friends and have different agendas.

3 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

You are 100% right.  The only problem is I don't think a lot of the courses want to be altered to the extent they would need be for the pro's.  I agree the rough from 300-330 should be 2 feet high.  The fairway for the pro's should get progressively narrower from 280-340, from 35 yards down to 6 at 340.  Instead of sand around the greens(which in now preferred by pro's over long rough grass), come pro tourney time, how about we put down a rubber lining in most of the greenside bunkers, and fill them with temporary "shrubbery" so thick that it will almost certainly produce taking an unplayable.  The problem is they don't want to set up courses to the extent, that other than a pro plunking one in water, there is almost no real "penalty".   If a pro misses a green there needs to be actual consequences, and saving par should be about a 20-30% chance at best, not 50-90%.

The problem is they don't want to do it!!!  Hence we'll just make the ball go shorter.

I personally don’t want to see any changes, my statement was about if they wanted to address distance this is an easier solution. As for the courses that is between the PGA tour and the course to work out, but most of the time the fairways are cut lower and faster for the events and the greens are speed up so there’s already some alteration to the courses.

The main issue is really with the course designers and not having the imagination in design to challenge the golfers. They think the only way to solve the supposed distance issue is to make courses longer

[Kenny B]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

If I wanted to watch bad golf I would play or walk around the local courses and watch weekend hacks play.

I don't want to watch bad golf, but I do every day I play.  

[edingc]

Ah yes, forcing ball companies to spend millions on even more R&D and tooling in the interest of "sustainability." Goodness is the USGA so incredibly out of touch.

Grow the grass and stop manicuring the bunkers. Far more "sustainable" than changing the ball.

[cnosil]

16 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The PGA tour on the other hand is selling a product that is based on gaining fans at the gate and on TV and they set up the courses to cater to that. 
 

Then from a PGA tour perspective all of this discussion is irrelevant.  They simply don’t have to adopt the rule for their competitions and can do what they feel is best.  

[Berg Ryman]

6 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Then from a PGA tour perspective all of this discussion is irrelevant.  They simply don’t have to adopt the rule for their competitions and can do what they feel is best.  

See, this is what I think is probably going to happen.

This seems like an effort by the USGA and the R&A to keep their old classic courses in the discussion of rotational scheduling. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time this comes around in 2026, only USGA Championships and the Open are using this rule... and maybe The Masters, which is fine enough. It takes us back to the time of the "American Ball" and the "British Ball" which was in existence up until 1990. Might it be different for people for those 3 weeks? Yeah, but it'll keep some old courses that can be beaten into the ground with technology as part of the game's legacy and maybe that's good.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Jnoble89 said:

I personally am a fan of seeing the pros absolutely MASH the driver. I'm not sure that I believe changes to the golf ball would turn people away from watching professional golf, because pros are still pros and will still make incredible shots, regardless of how far the ball travels. It will definitely be interesting to see how this all shakes out, and what some of the more prominent guys on tour will say on the subject. 

The Tour players will complain about this rule just as they complain about every other rule.  I just don't care, they'll all be on a level field, just a different one from "normal" golfers.

2 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

I think it would be hilarious if Titleist/Bridgestone/TaylorMade/Srixon all determined the ROI is NOT there to commit R&D funds to develop a shorter ball and opted not to participate. I know it won't happen, but still think it would be funny.

The manufacturers have supposedly been a part of this process for the last several years.

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Imo it’s the ruling bodies getting in the way again. Simple solution is increase height of the fairway grass, increase the height of the rough to penalize missed fairways. This can be done at the courses where people feel the scores are too low.

Simple?  Tell me, how are the R&A or the USGA going to write a Rule that defines how long the grass must be?  The ONLY thing they can do to address distance concerns is to limit the equipment in some way.  I'm not saying I think its necessary, but its the only avenue they have.

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

For handicapping purposes do we need to start identifying the ball…handicap with the elite ball vs handicap with the current ball?   I can see the uproar now,  I record all may rounds with the elite ball that goes 20 yards less and then during my non elite events I play the long ball.  Hitting the ball longer typically means shorter club into the hole so potentially lower scores.  

It will be interesting to see how far the Model Local Rule gets used.  Professional Tours, probably, national amateur championships, probably, but I'm not sure even State-level amateurs will use it.  If its that few events, played primarily by players who don't need to or care to keep a handicap, I'm not sure it will have much impact.

For anyone who's surprised, you simply haven't been paying attention.  You can see the releases which have come out over the last 3 or 4 years here: 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html

The proposed MLR is pretty consistent with the information presented a year ago, March 2022.

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

For handicapping purposes do we need to start identifying the ball…handicap with the elite ball vs handicap with the current ball?   I can see the uproar now,  I record all may rounds with the elite ball that goes 20 yards less and then during my non elite events I play the long ball.  Hitting the ball longer typically means shorter club into the hole so potentially lower scores.  
 

Could this could have a huge impact on the amateur game as well

Maybe now you have two different handicaps!

I will give another example of something similar. In curling (yes the game with rocks, brooms and yelling) in 2016ish teams were using fabrics on the end of their brooms that were very abrasive. These broom heads and with powerful sweeping teams could essentially direct the stones where they wanted them by creating scratches in the ice. This had never been done before and it then became more useful to use one vs two sweepers. 

Traditionally sweeping served two purposes, to make a stone go further and to make a stone go straighter. Now you could slow a stone, make it go further, make it curl more or less etc. 

The TEAMS (as curling is not a association like golf) decided that this was essentially cheating (it also damaged the ice). The governing bodies (World Curling Federation and Curling Canada) then did a whole years worth of testing and ended up creating a rule where in competition leading to world championships a specific fabric had to be used. (Hair brooms were also outlawed) With this fabric it was proven that directional sweeping was ineffective and sweeping was back to normal per say. 

Some teams had an uproar about it, but now 6 years on from that ruling all players even at a social club level use the same competition approved broom heads for play.  They are the only ones sold now and in rare cases you may see an older brooms heads used in fun play, but its rare. 

However teams still want that edge, so there are two thoughts even with these new broom heads. Brand new ones teams still believe they can make a stone curl one way or another so they change every game (they are not allowed to change mid game). Or some teams have found that dirty and very worn broom heads also may help them become more abrasive or effective and use old ones. 

Point being high level athletes will still look and find advantages where they can. It is part of the nature or sport and trying to get better and being the best. So rolling back the ball sure it will help, but there will be other ways golfers will find speed and distances one way or another. 

[GolfSpy BOS]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But the reality is they do. How many times in a tournament do you see a pro hit one way offline? It happens more than people realize, the problem is many of them aren’t caught on tv, so it seems like it didn’t happen that often, but even so there’s plenty of fore right or pointing that way during tv times.

If I wanted to watch bad golf I would play or walk around the local courses and watch weekend hacks play. Just like if I wanted to watch mediocre baseball i would go watch high school and little league games. 

First time I went out to TPC boston to see the event there I walked in on the 9th tee.  It's a dogleg left.  Very first drive I ever saw from a PGA tour pro..... Hooked it solid off one of the pines on the left side of the hole.  

[Splatt]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Maybe now you have two different handicaps!

I will give another example of something similar. In curling (yes the game with rocks, brooms and yelling) in 2016ish teams were using fabrics on the end of their brooms that were very abrasive. These broom heads and with powerful sweeping teams could essentially direct the stones where they wanted them by creating scratches in the ice. This had never been done before and it then became more useful to use one vs two sweepers. 

Traditionally sweeping served two purposes, to make a stone go further and to make a stone go straighter. Now you could slow a stone, make it go further, make it curl more or less etc. 

The TEAMS (as curling is not a association like golf) decided that this was essentially cheating (it also damaged the ice). The governing bodies (World Curling Federation and Curling Canada) then did a whole years worth of testing and ended up creating a rule where in competition leading to world championships a specific fabric had to be used. (Hair brooms were also outlawed) With this fabric it was proven that directional sweeping was ineffective and sweeping was back to normal per say. 

Some teams had an uproar about it, but now 6 years on from that ruling all players even at a social club level use the same competition approved broom heads for play.  They are the only ones sold now and in rare cases you may see an older brooms heads used in fun play, but its rare. 

However teams still want that edge, so there are two thoughts even with these new broom heads. Brand new ones teams still believe they can make a stone curl one way or another so they change every game (they are not allowed to change mid game). Or some teams have found that dirty and very worn broom heads also may help them become more abrasive or effective and use old ones. 

Point being high level athletes will still look and find advantages where they can. It is part of the nature or sport and trying to get better and being the best. So rolling back the ball sure it will help, but there will be other ways golfers will find speed and distances one way or another. 

I always love a comparison to another sport that has already done a similar thing.
Especially, when the author is obviously loves the sport or is involved with the sport (I'm ashamed to say I only ever watch curling during the olympics, but when it's on I'm an instant expert )

I hope the changes only affect the pros and in a positive way that makes the game better.
A par 4 should be a par 4 in anyones world, and in the age of technological advancements there's a reason most courses have had to either keep moving tee boxes back or introducing new hazards.
Augusta, IMO, shouldn't have to keep buying land behind it to extend the tees to combat the long hitters. (Also, it still makes me laugh that Bryson called it a par 67 and then Augusta ate like 3 of his golf balls)

Just never give me a Tour golf ball I need all the distance I can get.
 

[joedeausen]

I put together this commentary on bifurcation back in early 2018.  Here are some considerations:

Re: Comment on Bifurcation of Rules (specifically, the golf ball)

As to the bifurcation of the rules of golf, many folks would agree that technology must be reined in.  Most people would agree with this premise. But, the real question which needs to be addressed is, where does the professional level begin at which technology is reined in?

Let's assume that the golf ball manufacturers eventually agree to make a ball that goes somewhere between 15-20% less distance than it currently does.  Who would be in charge of making sure that professionals adhere to this rule?  Is it the pro golfer? USGA? R&A? PGA Tour? How would testing be applied in pro golf tournaments to ensure that this is the case?  

Second, we address the question of what level to apply the rules of a new reduced distance golf ball. 

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

"Golf is one of the more lucrative sports in the world for both men and women, but has a very different structure from other sports. Almost all (at least 95%) professional golfers make their primary income as club or teaching professionals rather than competition. "Touring professionals", also known as "Tournament golfers" or "Pro golfers", who make their income from prize money and endorsements are a small elite within the profession."

Would a new reduced golf ball be required for the following tours?  And, consider that some of these tours help golfers qualify for a PGA Tour event.

Web.com Tour 

Challenge Tour (second tier tour to European Tour)

Asian Developmental Tour

Japan Challenge Tour

PGA Tour of China

PGA Tour of India

There are also third and fourth level tours, which are independently offered and may affect qualification for the 2nd level tours, like Web.com and Challenge Tour.  Will these professional events also require use of the new ball?

How about the US Open?  The U.S. Open is open to any professional, or to any amateur with an up-to-date men's USGA Handicap Index not exceeding 1.4.    Obviously, potential participants in the US Open trying to qualify have to use the new "reduced" golf ball.  Who will be in charge of ensuring that these potential qualifiers are using the correct ball?  How about amateurs qualifying for PGA Tour events thru sponsor exemptions?  PGA professionals for the PGA Championship?

Soo, if only PGA Tour players have access to this new "reduced distance golf ball", wouldn't anyone else not using this ball have a competitive disadvantage by not having access to it?  Also, if you don't have access to the ball, how can players determine its performance in the short game?  Again, another competitive disadvantage if only select players have access to this ball.

The Masters golf tournament would not have to abide by the reduced golf ball, if they chose not to.  But, wouldn't they be asked for input into the eventual decision?

Personally, I'm in agreement that the golf ball needs to have some distance roll back.  If the golf ball manufacturers agree to the roll back (which is not an insignificant hurdle), bigger questions remain as to how the golf ball distance roll back would be implemented.

1.  At what levels do the new ball apply? And, how far down the ladder of professional golf, does the new ball apply?

2. How would the use of the reduced ball be monitored and implemented?

I understand the reluctance of the PGA Tour in making a decision to roll back the golf ball.  Even if they said, yes, let's do it.  How would they do it?  And, who would it impact?

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, joedeausen said:

I put together this commentary on bifurcation back in early 2018.  Here are some considerations:

I'm glad that someone else understands that this conversation has been going on for a while.  I agree that bifurcation through MLR will being complications.  I think that many of the issues you present here have fairly straightforward solutions.  The most significant concern I have is for players who are either moving upward in the level of competitions they play, or who play at varying levels of competition through the year.  Those guys will have adjustments to make, perhaps on a weekly basis.

On the other hand, accepting that some reduction of distance is appropriate at the highest levels, I think the MLR is the best solution to a difficult problem.  It won't have any effect on the vast majority of golfers, which is a positive.  

[panhndl]

I haven’t read the whole thread but am very curious how they regulate what 20% is.  What’s to stop a golf ball manufacturer from having the “smallest” 20% reduction.  
 

Why not just require wooden drivers and fairways instead?  Why not just limit golfers on strength and height?  Why not force golfers to use slick leather soled shoes with no spikes or tread?  Where does it end?

[Stuka44]

The problem is with an average of 8 fairways missed off the tee, and 4 of those greens missed on approach, but par made 3 out of 4 times   on those misses the course conditions just aren't hard enough.  The problem is they want to keep the courses pretty looking, so the ball is the best answer in their minds.  Not sure I agree with it.

Look at what the PGA is up against.  How much complaining goes on about courses that at their worst, are 100x better than anything most of us will play under ideal conditions.,  My ball is on an and hill, my ball is in its own pitch mark, I wasn't really going to putt ball, but that sprinkler cover is in my way.  Imagine how they would complain, if greenside bunkers were turned into temporary ponds, and  coming up short from 120 yards made the best score possible for getting up and down a bogey  instead of being able to get up and down from the sand for par 75% of the time.  

"Oh the humanity!!"  You would think it was the Hindenburg disaster all over again, If the PGA decided to ACTUALLY punish bad shots by the pros.