I spent time on the phone trying to add accuracy to the issue and even got a name quote. I'm glad that they chose to emphasize "Depends on how much wear and tear there is". That really is the key. Such early intervention and such a violent hyperextension of the knee with the golf swing and you get problems.
By now, everyone knows all ten of their friends and the two family members they didn't already know had had their ACL's done; there's a bunch of them out there and they run from soup to nuts. A virgin hyperextension injury with a rupture and no secondary damage or pre-existing disease, do a cadaver graft (Allograft) and they do wonderfully.
At the other end, say some OCD, a lateral meniscus tear requiring a meniscal transplant and significant OCD requiring drilling and/or an osteochondral allograft and whoo-eee those are some variable parameters and outcomes.
Just remember, every ACL reconstruction is not the same. Many think they are better than new, because they took their knee for granted before. An ACL reconstruction is never better than before. It is never better than the original, in fact some surgeons are performing multiple bundle procedures to try and imitate the original model, but it's a lot more work and the evidence does not support an extra benefit versus the current "Gold Standard" procedures. Balderdash to that kind of "Better than new" nonsense, I wish I had two pre-1995 knees, when your body accommodates to changes slowly, your memory helps you change your standards.
We'll leave out the full-blown postero-lateral corner insufficiency, true dislocations and more sordid affairs for this discussion. We pretty well can guess that those are not in play.
We don't know what the post-Open MRI showed, so we don't know about any surprises on that, but since the team had the MRI to look at, they had no surprises.
Well done GolfWeek, no out-on-a-limb stuff, good anatomical drawing lots of corroboration from multiple sources, glad I could help.
Wishing Tiger well,