Sneakylong The USGA is in search of a solution where a problem doesn't exist.
I completely agree. A few people don't like seeing certain courses yielding lower scores and feel the need to regulate something. Most of us love seeing great players shooting under par. I don't need to see a US Open every round. We all know what can be done to a course to make it play a LOT harder without lengthening it. I suppose everyone is always looking for useless stuff to do to justify their jobs.
Sneakylong I'd like to see someone start a golf equipment company whose mission statement and sole goal was to make the game easier and more enjoyable for the masses
Same goes for course designers. Making it unfair and unusually fucking difficult is no longer "cool".
I'm betting the FUSGA doesn't have a Facebook or X page where we can all tell them how screwed up they are. Website with customer feedback maybe? 
The USGA has to walk a fine line between recreational players and competitions. It is not just the PGA Tour or the USGA Amateur here, that is just where the TVs are pointed at.
USGA guidelines are used for almost every junior, high school and college match & tournament. Sure, the PGA Tour guys can keep hitting it longer - let the courses expand to meet that right? College golfers hit it just as far, so now every course that hosts a college match needs to expand. But wait, many high school golfers are able to crank out 300 yard drives now, and now we are talking about the vast majority of public courses out there that host high school matches. Do we expect all of them to expand as well?
Is my enjoyment going to change when my 250 drive goes only 225? Maybe for a few months as I get used to it, but then I move up a set of tees and all is back to what I expect. Now my 6400 yard muni course can still work for me, but it also becomes a little more of a challenge to those high school players too.
A semi-random thought that's somewhat related to this subject: You can choose to play with either current-generation clubs and a wound-core golf ball (Titleist Professional or something similar), or early 1990s clubs (think along the lines of the early Big Bertha drivers, and either blades or Ping Eye 2/Zing/Titleist DCI for irons) with a modern ball - which do you think that you would score better with?
What the proposed ball rollback is effectively doing is going down the route of option 1, but only part of the way (I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but my understanding is that the shift from wound core balls to solid core led to distance increases of something like 10%). For what it's worth, I think that professional golf would be more interesting (and more able to identify the best players) if there were stricter limits on the equipment used at the top level, with the aim of reducing forgiveness - that's the second option above.
MartinD A semi-random thought that's somewhat related to this subject: You can choose to play with either current-generation clubs and a wound-core golf ball (Titleist Professional or something similar), or early 1990s clubs (think along the lines of the early Big Bertha drivers, and either blades or Ping Eye 2/Zing/Titleist DCI for irons) with a modern ball - which do you think that you would score better with?
I'd say the latter would be best for scoring, but a 460cc driver of today versus a 1990 driver is also a huge difference.
Yeah, the bifurcation path might be interesting, but trying to sell stuff to the masses would be a mess. You can't have Tiger saying "you should buy TP6" and then watch Tiger play a Balata Tour 90.
Sneakylong I think older players who are having a hard time even from the shortest tees should just tee ul their ball in the fairway somewhere and have at it. Go 20 yards in front of the red tees and play away. What are they gonna do? Kick you off the course?
There were reposts of AGGC considering their own 'Masters Ball' . 
Ultra Stupid Gigantic Assholes
Un Sightly Gross Arrogance
rsvman2 I think older players who are having a hard time even from the shortest tees should just tee ul their ball in the fairway somewhere and have at it. Go 20 yards in front of the red tees and play away. What are they gonna do? Kick you off the course?
Yeah, I've suggested that. They have some ego left and won't do that. That's why my buddies 78 was so amazing. Had some epic up and downs from well off the green.
Again, my point is there's way more golfers who need to hit it farther not shorter. They're proposing limits that affect a small percentage of golfers.
I personally don't want to see any changes at any level of golf. However, if you must make changes make the Pro's use wooden drivers just like Major League Baseball doesn't allow metal bats.
There was no effort to lengthen iconic Fenway Park. 
You can't legislate against athleticism.
Bottom line is leave the masses alone. There is no problem with 99% of people that play recreational golf.
Sneakylong There is no problem with 99% of people that play recreational golf.
Like there is no problem with 99% of the golf courses; with most their layout has been unchanged since their inauguration. Since only the pro-game has changed, maybe it is time to move on and declare 6700 yard courses like St-Andrews Old Course obsolete for pro play and construct a 7500-8000 yard championship course next to it.
Luc_Van_Daele or just have them play sim golf if it is such a problem 
Luc_Van_Daele Like there is no problem with 99% of the golf courses; with most their layout has been unchanged since their inauguration. Since only the pro-game has changed, maybe it is time to move on and declare 6700 yard courses like St-Andrews Old Course obsolete for pro play and construct a 7500-8000 yard championship course next to it.
The Old Course was over 7,300 yards for the Open Championship last year (going by this Golf.com article) - it just played much shorter because of the conditions (one of the driest summers that I can remember...) That is quite a bit longer than in previous years - just over 7,100 yards in 2000, and 6,900-odd yards in 1995.
One problem with the male professional game as it is at the moment is that the players aren't being challenged in the same way as their predecessors - you simply aren't going to see shots like Tom Watson's 2-iron into the 18th green at Birkdale in 1983, or Christy O'Connor's 2-iron approach into the 18th at the Belfry in the 1989 Ryder Cup because even the average player is hitting at most a mid-iron into even the longest par 4 holes under almost any conditions. To restore the shot values seen in the 1980s (i.e. long iron approaches into par 4 holes, true 3-shot par 5s), courses would need to be getting up towards 8,500 yards, with par 4s well over 500 yards, and par 5s pushing towards 700.
After a lot of thought, and a good night's sleep, I've made my decision on this subject.
Henceforth, I shall no longer be concerned with my balls. At age 71, almost 72, I don't see the need. They have already been restricted for many years now, esp. the last couple. 
Sneakylong There was no effort to lengthen iconic Fenway Park.
Or maybe you can legislate against athleticism.
All baseballs are manufactured by Rawlings. All meet the same specifications and must meet a COR range of 0.530-0.570.
MLB does regular testing, and also trends the number of home runs and distances.
MLB dialed back the ball last in 2021 as homers were up, and testing determined that Rawlings was getting most balls near the 0.570 Core limit.
The masses could do it now. There are non-conforming balls. Hi COR clubs have tried and failed to gain market share. The masses will play whatever the Pros play, and what the Pros tell them to play in 30 second segments on the TV.
