Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Beakbryce]

I don't favor a ball roll back. But, as MYGOLFSPY has demonstrated soft balls don't go as far, why doesn't the USGA and R&A just mandate that ball compression can't be more than say 80 or 85? Seems like an easier test to verify rather than the overly complicated distance, launch angle, swing speed, whatever, described in the new proposed test hoopla. I would be willing to use an 80 compression ball and move up a tee so we all have the same rules. Just thinking that a pro swing speed on an 80 compression ball would have to result in some problems for "window" and "direction" conditions for launch. Maybe MYGOLFSPY could do that test? Would there be a significant enough change in distance to be as effective a rule as that proposed?

Additionally, I am convinced that ball manufacturers already have a ton of data on lower compression balls.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Beakbryce

[jlb1023]

Not sold on this being the best way forward, but I do think something needs to happen.  How about a shorter tee, as per the MGS Snell interview, combined with a ball similar to the Bridgestone RXS?  Softer compression, higher spin ball combined with a lower tee which will force a lower launch and higher spin. 

I don't know all the details or what all was involved, but didn't Mizuno say they produced 99 different proto types before releasing their latest ball?  I'm guessing 99 prototypes had to cost a bit of money to modify chemical compounds and/or molds for that many combinations, and yet they have some of the lower cost urethane balls on the market. 

[chisag]

On 3/23/2023 at 11:49 AM, GolfSpy_BOS said:

I think I'm going to stick with their football analogy and keep comfort in that.

On 3/24/2023 at 9:15 AM, jtowns43 said:

I think it is more "relatable"

On 3/24/2023 at 7:19 AM, Chadillac15 said:

I think one of the things that draws the random, first timer to golf is the fact you can play the same equipment/balls as the pros.

On 3/23/2023 at 11:49 AM, GolfSpy_BOS said:

In my head I think it goes

On 3/23/2023 at 11:18 AM, TR1PTIK said:

I think what you'll see is a niche market

 

 

[GolfSpy BOS]

1 minute ago, chisag said:

 

 

***USER 'chisag' BAN.EXE***

>Execute?

>Y

>USER 'chisag' HAS BEEN BANNED

>

 

[Eric C.]

My thought is this, there should be a mandatory standard for Tour players versus everyone else. If you still want to play the “tour” ball, go right ahead. However, chances are you’re not being fitted to the exacting specifications of a Tour player either. In my opinion, and I believe Jack Nicklaus as well, the increasing quality of shafts over the years makes a bigger difference than the compression of the ball being used. 

[glnelson7]

The bifurcation issue with golf balls will result in two handicaps for the better players, one for the ”tour spec” ball and one with the “recreational spec” ball.  Or do you only have one handicap, based on tour spec balls or recreational spec balls?    For example, for local tournaments that anyone with a tour spec ball handicap must continue to play with that handicap and a tour spec ball and not be allowed to play with a recreational ball spec.  Do you see the complications and implications of the bifurcation of golf ball specs? Golf handicaps are for leveling the playing field and that would work, but you would have to set up the local tournament rules to make things fair. 

Personally, I would never have to worry about two handicaps since I will never be playing any ball but a “recreational spec” ball.

Golf - "Don't think of it as work. The whole point is just to enjoy yourself." -- Otter, Animal House

 

[AndySP]

Put me in the group that thinks a rollback is a good thing. Starting with a bifurcation allows the USGA to test the waters before implementing it for everyone and I hope that’s the plan. Golf courses already take up so much space, it would nice if there was less pressure to accommodate 7600+ yard tracks.
 

Where I live in NJ, the municipal courses are still relatively short from the back (6000-6200) which would be more fun with a shorter ball. I’m not the longest hitter but I have decent speed and I still rarely use anything but driver, hybrid and wedge (if I’m playing well) at my regular muni. Moving up tee boxes is not a big deal as I age out of my current distance. 

[MajorCavalry]

Please forgive me if much of this has been covered. I. Did not read through all of this thread.

I know this is not a popular position, but I think the anguish over the current roll back of the golf ball distance for the professional golfer is, at the very least, overblown.  The argument starts with the basic premise that now, we amateurs, can play the “same” game on the “same” courses using the “same” equipment as the pros.  Any change to the ball would result in “bifurcation” of the golf game.  I think this basic premise is inherently false.

First, we do NOT play on the same courses as the pros.  We do not play from the pro tees which are likely not even available for amateurs to use.  Every player uses the tees that play to their ability (as it should be).  So that 7800 yard pro course might be 6200 yards for me.  There are no worries that my long game might overpower a traditional course. The rough is not grown to the same height, the fairways are not rolled and narrowed to make it harder for us mortals to keep it in the short grass, and the greens are not set to a speed which would be difficult for most of us to manage or enjoy.

Second, most of us do not use the same equipment as the pros.  We have the ability to use game improvement irons, super game improvement irons, hybrid clubs that replace all of our irons, super tricky sand wedges that we see advertised on Golf Channel and putters that stand up on their own.  Should we all be using muscle back or cavity back forged players clubs with little or no offset?

Third, we play with handicaps.  This is important and perfectly acceptable to allow amateurs of all levels to compete.  But if we want to “play like the pros” we should all play straight up.  Even the pros have different abilities. We see this every week where ½ the field do not make the cut and the likely winners are the ones with the highest (+) handicap.  No one thinks the pros should be allowed to use their handicap to “even up” the field.  Why do amateurs who are playing the “same” game think it is appropriate.

Face it, amateur golf is not the same as pro golf.  We are not likely to overpower any course using the equipment we have available and the current conforming golf balls.  If I should ever get stronger and longer, I can always move to a more challenging tee box.  Pros are already beyond the tips and in need of more real estate.  For these situations, a reduced distance ball makes perfect sense.  Being it would be USGA and RA approved, there is no reason an accomplished amateur cannot use this ball just as they can use any approved irons/woods etc.

Thanks for reading my rant (if you actually got this far) and I would love to hear counter arguments.

 

Steve

 

 

[ZackS]

46 minutes ago, MajorCavalry said:

Please forgive me if much of this has been covered. I. Did not read through all of this thread.

I know this is not a popular position, but I think the anguish over the current roll back of the golf ball distance for the professional golfer is, at the very least, overblown.  The argument starts with the basic premise that now, we amateurs, can play the “same” game on the “same” courses using the “same” equipment as the pros.  Any change to the ball would result in “bifurcation” of the golf game.  I think this basic premise is inherently false.

First, we do NOT play on the same courses as the pros.  We do not play from the pro tees which are likely not even available for amateurs to use.  Every player uses the tees that play to their ability (as it should be).  So that 7800 yard pro course might be 6200 yards for me.  There are no worries that my long game might overpower a traditional course. The rough is not grown to the same height, the fairways are not rolled and narrowed to make it harder for us mortals to keep it in the short grass, and the greens are not set to a speed which would be difficult for most of us to manage or enjoy.

Second, most of us do not use the same equipment as the pros.  We have the ability to use game improvement irons, super game improvement irons, hybrid clubs that replace all of our irons, super tricky sand wedges that we see advertised on Golf Channel and putters that stand up on their own.  Should we all be using muscle back or cavity back forged players clubs with little or no offset?

Third, we play with handicaps.  This is important and perfectly acceptable to allow amateurs of all levels to compete.  But if we want to “play like the pros” we should all play straight up.  Even the pros have different abilities. We see this every week where ½ the field do not make the cut and the likely winners are the ones with the highest (+) handicap.  No one thinks the pros should be allowed to use their handicap to “even up” the field.  Why do amateurs who are playing the “same” game think it is appropriate.

Face it, amateur golf is not the same as pro golf.  We are not likely to overpower any course using the equipment we have available and the current conforming golf balls.  If I should ever get stronger and longer, I can always move to a more challenging tee box.  Pros are already beyond the tips and in need of more real estate.  For these situations, a reduced distance ball makes perfect sense.  Being it would be USGA and RA approved, there is no reason an accomplished amateur cannot use this ball just as they can use any approved irons/woods etc.

Thanks for reading my rant (if you actually got this far) and I would love to hear counter arguments.

 

Steve

 

 

I personally don’t see the bifurcation as amateurs and pros not playing the same game anymore. As I agree with you points about different tees and conditions the pros play with. Where I see it is that being a local rule it may not be consistent and needs to be all or none thing. This probably will not for regular play but for competitive amateurs and maybe even pros. Having the possibility of different balls from one week to another is an issue. And yes you could always just play the rolled back ball always to avoid this. But if you do and go a play a tournament on a very long course that doesn’t require the rolled back ball are you really going to play at a disadvantage of a shorter ball on a really long course when other you are competing against aren’t. And my opinion on all or none, is none. I can understand trying to cap it where we currently are for the reasons of not having to keep expanding courses. But I personally feel the game is in a good spot. For the most part the can set current courses up where it cannot be over powered if they want. But part of what makes the game fun and more watchable for more they golf nuts is have Rory drive it to 3 feet from 375 sometimes. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by ZackS

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 hours ago, MajorCavalry said:

Please forgive me if much of this has been covered. I. Did not read through all of this thread.

I know this is not a popular position, but I think the anguish over the current roll back of the golf ball distance for the professional golfer is, at the very least, overblown.  The argument starts with the basic premise that now, we amateurs, can play the “same” game on the “same” courses using the “same” equipment as the pros.  Any change to the ball would result in “bifurcation” of the golf game.  I think this basic premise is inherently false.

First, we do NOT play on the same courses as the pros.  We do not play from the pro tees which are likely not even available for amateurs to use.  Every player uses the tees that play to their ability (as it should be).  So that 7800 yard pro course might be 6200 yards for me.  There are no worries that my long game might overpower a traditional course. The rough is not grown to the same height, the fairways are not rolled and narrowed to make it harder for us mortals to keep it in the short grass, and the greens are not set to a speed which would be difficult for most of us to manage or enjoy.

Second, most of us do not use the same equipment as the pros.  We have the ability to use game improvement irons, super game improvement irons, hybrid clubs that replace all of our irons, super tricky sand wedges that we see advertised on Golf Channel and putters that stand up on their own.  Should we all be using muscle back or cavity back forged players clubs with little or no offset?

Third, we play with handicaps.  This is important and perfectly acceptable to allow amateurs of all levels to compete.  But if we want to “play like the pros” we should all play straight up.  Even the pros have different abilities. We see this every week where ½ the field do not make the cut and the likely winners are the ones with the highest (+) handicap.  No one thinks the pros should be allowed to use their handicap to “even up” the field.  Why do amateurs who are playing the “same” game think it is appropriate.

Face it, amateur golf is not the same as pro golf.  We are not likely to overpower any course using the equipment we have available and the current conforming golf balls.  If I should ever get stronger and longer, I can always move to a more challenging tee box.  Pros are already beyond the tips and in need of more real estate.  For these situations, a reduced distance ball makes perfect sense.  Being it would be USGA and RA approved, there is no reason an accomplished amateur cannot use this ball just as they can use any approved irons/woods etc.

Thanks for reading my rant (if you actually got this far) and I would love to hear counter arguments.

 

Steve

 

 

People do have access to courses the pros play and even play them the week before or after a pga event under the same conditions. As for tee boxes that is personal choice and not bifurcation. Or course setup.

As for equipment there is no difference in what the pros play or can play to what amateurs have access to. They are all the same standard under the confirming equipment rules. 
 

The notion that pros play muscle backs isn’t true anymore. The #1 iron on tour was the ap2 which has been replaced by the t100

A large portion of Ping staff play the i230 or previously i210 or previously i20 which are more in the game improvement category than in the players category 

[ashmore72]

For the past 20 years we have been all about lengthening courses, making huge driver heads, high launching irons/loft jacking, low spinning shafts, low spin ball, etc.  now we want to basically start to say whoa whoa whoa, we cant hit it as far.  Then what was all of this for?  I for one do not really care about length and being the longest.  I do not play the tips and really have no need to.  When I can consistently break 80 from 6000 yards or less then I will start moving back.  But honestly who really cares?  Golf is all about skill level.  If you want to make an 8000 yard course and dudes can hit it 350, then so be it.  I for one dig a long ball, especially a straight one.  Courses are tough enough and present a great challenge no matter what.  Now we want to take all of that away and hit things shorter?  The USGA rules board is literally making things up to justify having a job.  This is stupid. PERIOD.

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, ashmore72 said:

If you want to make an 8000 yard course and dudes can hit it 350, then so be it.  I for one dig a long ball, especially a straight one.  Courses are tough enough and present a great challenge no matter what.  Now we want to take all of that away and hit things shorter? 

 

... It is never as easy as it seems. Most 7,000 yd courses in existence do not have the real estate to just add 1,000 yds to accommodate the less than .001% that hit the ball far enough to compete at that yardage. Then adding yardage or making longer courses requires more maintenance, more chemicals, more employees and more money passed on to me. 

... Again, these are just opinions but I admit to being surprised how many care that .001 of golfers "might" be using a ball that travels shorter but still longer than 99.99% of us that play golf. If Rory goes from 359 to 329 with a shorter Pro Ball it will not effect my game or my enjoyment of watching him still reach a 600yd par 5 in two with a long iron. 

[ashmore72]

3 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... It is never as easy as it seems. Most 7,000 yd courses in existence do not have the real estate to just add 1,000 yds to accommodate the less than .001% that hit the ball far enough to compete at that yardage. Then adding yardage or making longer courses requires more maintenance, more chemicals, more employees and more money passed on to me. 

... Again, these are just opinions but I admit to being surprised how many care that .001 of golfers "might" be using a ball that travels shorter but still longer than 99.99% of us that play golf. If Rory goes from 359 to 329 with a shorter Pro Ball it will not effect my game or my enjoyment of watching him still reach a 600yd par 5 in two with a long iron. 

I am not talking about courses in the present.  It has been all the courses built over the past 20 years that needed to tip out at 7800 yards.  

 

As far as the .001%.  It doesn't stop there and won't.  This will run downhill.  We will all feel this in 10 years.  I honestly do not care about the pros.  What I do care about is where the game is at now.  We do not need to make it harder.  We are finally seeing it grow with the younger generation.  Lets keep it that way.

[DerekBee]

I'm not a fan of the rollback; I think the equipment ex-driver is going to be able to overcome most of it.  If the rollback is through the generation of spin, they will have to follow closely behind this with some kind of an equipment ban/limit that is in addition to all the existing restrictions.  Players could just jack lofts and start playing low spinning bombers to bring the spin back down and up the carry and descent angle, no?

It makes more sense to me to make the course more punishing for inaccuracy; Scores haven't dropped that much over the last 30 years - hell, Tiger's SG against the field for driver was higher in his day than the top guys are now, so why is this suddenly an issue?  Up the risk/reward for long bombing it and you'll see a lot of guys just pull 3 wood and put the ball out there to last generations' carry, anyway, unless they are chasing - in which case that just adds to the excitement.

[chisag]

7 minutes ago, ashmore72 said:

As far as the .001%.  It doesn't stop there and won't.  This will run downhill.  We will all feel this in 10 years.  I honestly do not care about the pros.  What I do care about is where the game is at now.  We do not need to make it harder.  We are finally seeing it grow with the younger generation.  Lets keep it that way.

 

... I don't think that will ever happen but of course it remains to be seen. Even the USGA does not want to make the game harder for Am's, quite the opposite as the recent rules revisions have shown. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

59 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... I don't think that will ever happen but of course it remains to be seen. Even the USGA does not want to make the game harder for Am's, quite the opposite as the recent rules revisions have shown. 

Well considering the USGA has different amateur events guess where they will implement the MLR? In those events. The AJGA will probably do the same so it’s going to filter down to the amateurs. Then it’s will make its way into some club championships and eventually will become the default ball because of its need to be used to prep for all those events. Also nothing stopping the ncaa from implementing it also.

Same is going to happen to high level am events in Europe and so on

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Well considering the USGA has different amateur events guess where they will implement the MLR? In those events. The AJGA will probably do the same so it’s going to filter down to the amateurs. Then it’s will make its way into some club championships and eventually will become the default ball because of its need to be used to prep for all those events. Also nothing stopping the ncaa from implementing it also.

Same is going to happen to high level am events in Europe and so on

 

... Well, we shall see but I still doubt it will ever happen for anyone other than the Tour, and the jury is still out on whether or not they will even adopt the rule. While some agree the top .001 recent need the rule I have not read or heard one argument for it's use outside the Pro Tour. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... Well, we shall see but I still doubt it will ever happen for anyone other than the Tour, and the jury is still out on whether or not they will even adopt the rule. While some agree the top .001 recent need the rule I have not read or heard one argument for it's use outside the Pro Tour. 

I don’t think it’s going to happen for anyone. If the ball companies hold the line and say they aren’t going to make a ball the ruling bodies are in a bind. They will have to provide funding to someone to develop the ball and manufacture it. 
 

Also the PGa tour wants nothing to do with it. So between the tour and the ball companies not wanting it there’s very little to no demand for it.

However if it does enter the market then there will be no doubt it trickles all the way down because the various amateur organizations are going to put the mlr in effect. Once that happens every kid looking to be elite amateurs and have the dream of going pro are going to want it. At that point it becomes a ball for everyone and imo the ball companies will slowly drop the current ball or make changes to it so that it also conforms to the mlr.

It’s almost inevitable once it’s in play on the tour 

[Quigleyd]

I am in a weird spot. I 100% agree with all of the USGA reasons. But also 100% disagree with a rule change.

[LICC]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:20 AM, RickyBobby_PR said:

People do have access to courses the pros play and even play them the week before or after a pga event under the same conditions. As for tee boxes that is personal choice and not bifurcation. Or course setup.

As for equipment there is no difference in what the pros play or can play to what amateurs have access to. They are all the same standard under the confirming equipment rules. 
 

The notion that pros play muscle backs isn’t true anymore. The #1 iron on tour was the ap2 which has been replaced by the t100

A large portion of Ping staff play the i230 or previously i210 or previously i20 which are more in the game improvement category than in the players category 

Using an aluminum baseball bat is also a personal choice. Amateur baseball players can use wooden bats if they like. But they mostly don't. Just like most all recreational golfers do not play from the same tees as the pros. It is bifurcation.

[LICC]

On 3/31/2023 at 2:22 PM, DerekBee said:

I'm not a fan of the rollback; I think the equipment ex-driver is going to be able to overcome most of it.  If the rollback is through the generation of spin, they will have to follow closely behind this with some kind of an equipment ban/limit that is in addition to all the existing restrictions.  Players could just jack lofts and start playing low spinning bombers to bring the spin back down and up the carry and descent angle, no?

It makes more sense to me to make the course more punishing for inaccuracy; Scores haven't dropped that much over the last 30 years - hell, Tiger's SG against the field for driver was higher in his day than the top guys are now, so why is this suddenly an issue?  Up the risk/reward for long bombing it and you'll see a lot of guys just pull 3 wood and put the ball out there to last generations' carry, anyway, unless they are chasing - in which case that just adds to the excitement.

Tighten landing areas to force long hitters to lay up. Yawn ...

[LICC]

George Bamberger:

While we’re at it, let’s bury this pretentious word going around golf: bifurcation, splitting something into two parts. Golf, as the best players play it, is a cousin, but that is all, to the game the rest of us play. We use whatever ball that comes out of our bag. We change brands midround without a second thought. You pick up after making a triple. You pick up after your third putt. You’re playing match play. We mark and clean and aim-point in some sort of monkey-see, monkey-do fantasy. Our game is not their game. Please. We need to get over ourselves. ...

Also, nobody is coming after your golf ball. Not in your club championship. Not in your after-work league. Not in your Sunday game. Not in NCAA play. The USGA and the R&A need to do a much better job of selling what this is: course preservation. The preservation of the par 5. A dose of humility for a game and world that needs it.

[jaskanski]

Let's put the whole ball roll back into perspective - how many actual pros fall into the category of 'they're just too darn long' ? Maybe 80-90 at best? Lest's say above average Rory McIlroy needs his average 326 yards rolled back to 300 yards to 'protect' courses. That means a ball that will (on average) travel 26 yards less - which is around 8%.. Another pro who hits on average 300 yards, now has their disatnce cut down to 276 yards (the same 8%) - so who still has an adavatage? Yup - Rory. The whole ball roll back is a total nonsense that doesn't create a level playing field - it just creates a new relative bias. And it's the same relative bias that existed 50 years ago. You hit it longer than the next guy - you have an  advantage (provided you can keep it in play). Simple solution - make it more difficult to keep it in play (without adding excess course length) by using strategic run off areas of rough, ditches, hazards, whatever, to mean there is no advantage whatsoever to hitting in excess of 320 yards, because you'll either be OOB, in rough (and I mean rough), in water, in a bunch of trees, or in a hazard which is no easy escape. It's totally doable (with the possible exception of ANGC) because it's how courses used to be before everyone on tour got some sort of sense of entitlement that courses need to look like contender for a beauty pageant. They don't - but all you hear about is pros whining about how difficult it is to break par on a course with an element of difficulty beyond it's length. Welcome to our world pro buddy, welcome.  Just use the same ball and suck it up. That's the whole original point of golf rules right?

[chisag]

1 minute ago, jaskanski said:

Lest's say above average Rory McIlroy needs his average 326 yards rolled back to 300 yards to 'protect' courses. That means a ball that will (on average) travel 26 yards less - which is around 8%.. Another pro who hits on average 300 yards, now has their disatnce cut down to 276 yards (the same 8%) - so who still has an adavatage? Yup - Rory. The whole ball roll back is a total nonsense that doesn't create a level playing field - it just creates a new relative bias.

 

... To be fair the rule has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Golfers that hit the ball farther should have an advantage! Just like golfers that putt well have an advantage on Tour speed greens. It has nothing to do with "relative bias" and everything to do with protecting many of the old established curses as well as courses that will be built in the future. 

[jaskanski]

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... To be fair the rule has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Golfers that hit the ball farther should have an advantage! Just like golfers that putt well have an advantage on Tour speed greens. It has nothing to do with "relative bias" and everything to do with protecting many of the old established curses as well as courses that will be built in the future. 

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

[chisag]

8 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

 

... We are not on the same page at all and that's fine as these are just opinions. Par 5's are designed to be reached in 3 shots and those with the length to reach in two should have an advantage. But when the entire field can reach easily and the long hitters have short irons, the design of the hole has been completely compromised. Personally I want to see every golfer faced with a tough decision at Augusta on #13 and #15. When virtually every player can reach those two greens with their 2nd shot you have completely changed the design of those holes. A long hitter on #15 with a great drive may have a 5 iron compared to a shorter hitter using a fairway wood and they may elect to lay up putting a premium on their short game and to me that is compelling golf. Lots of players using different techniques suited to their strengths to play a hole, not just bomb a driver with everyone on in two with at worst a hybrid. Obviously ymmv's ... 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, chisag said:

But when the entire field can reach easily and the long hitters have short irons,

But the whole field doesn’t have the capability to reach in two. Anyone who is around Zach Johnson’s length isn’t getting home in 2 on most par 5s week to week. It’s. A perception that everyone is hitting wedges into par 4s and reaching par 5s in two. There was a chart posted in the wrx thread that out that notion to rest 

[LICC]

21 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

So more woods and irons off the tee... boring. This is about keeping strategy and challenge in the game. Not about leveling the field.

[LICC]

3 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But the whole field doesn’t have the capability to reach in two. Anyone who is around Zach Johnson’s length isn’t getting home in 2 on most par 5s week to week. It’s. A perception that everyone is hitting wedges into par 4s and reaching par 5s in two. There was a chart posted in the wrx thread that out that notion to rest 

When 90 players in any given tournament can reach most of the par 5s in two, that is all of the relevant field.

[jaskanski]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

So more woods and irons off the tee... boring. This is about keeping strategy and challenge in the game. Not about leveling the field.

There has always been strategy and challenge in the game. The trouble is, in the professionall game, the way that courses have been set up with slick fairways and little real protection of any note, the driver bomb and gouge tactic has become a dumb reach no brainer. Take that option off the table, no matter what ball you're using you have more strategic options.