Let's Change a Bad Rule - Win = Honors - Page 3

 

Maybe that's the OP's point, that it should be 'rewarded' thru having the option. 

 

And as I and others have said, he wants a perk and we disagree that he should get the perk. The perk was winning the hole.

 

So really the question then becomes "should the winner get an extra perk?" and I think the answer has been a fairly resounding "no" to this point.

 

But why does he need any more benefit than having just won the previous hole?  Seems to me that should be enough.  This proposed change is trying to turn it into a reward situation where such a condition has never and should not exist.

 

I don't know. Just took a stab at trying to understand his rationale.

 

I think we understood his rationale. That's why I used the word "perk" early in the thread:

 

That's still the problem. He can't answer why he should get more, and the answer seems to be "no" from the vast majority.

 

I said I don't know. Only spoke for myself. If you got it early on then cool.

I agree that the purpose of honors is to simply decide who goes when.  Maybe the term "honors" is misleading in that by definition it would lead one to think it is a perk.   If the purpose of it is to strictly determine the playing order, then why not make it something that can be determined before a match. 

 

Players can agree that the person who wins the hole goes first or last depending on their preference. 

I am in my own world on the course and rarely give thought to what people I play with do. Because I play the same courses frequently my club and shot choices are made based on previous experience and current conditions. I don't think having the option to observe my playing partner's choices offers any advantage. I play my game not theirs. If anything having the box after winning a hole is a confidence builder and for me with that comes momentum. I can't see a reason to change this.

 

 

^^^This

 

It's not intended to be an advantage. It's intended to be a disadvantage to make a match more competitive. Think about it in terms of match play. If you're hitting second, you have a better chance of winning a given hole since you know what the person who won the last hole did with their drive (they crank it out of bounds, you hit a 3-wood to the middle of the fairway). Theoretically, you'd alternate winning every other hole because of it (obviously it doesn't work that way in real life). The advantage isn't as clear in stroke play, but it's still there.

Why do you think it is described as 'having the honour'?

An honour is usually presented to recognise an achievement. In this case having the best score on the last hole.

It is given as a reward or bonus. Nor is it intended to present an advantage or disadvantage.

It is noteworthy that the term does not relate to strokes during the play of a hole. 

I

I had no idea that hitting order was even a "rule" - thought it was just a tradition

we pretty much always play ready golf - if you are ready, go ahead - order doesn't matter really.

 

 

 

But I do like the idea of having a rule just in case someone is anal enough to make a stink about when he/she hits.  It takes the guesswork out of it.

Seems a bit silly to need this, but I assume rules have to be written to accommodate the least common denominator if they don't play well with others.

 

Seems silly to name it "Honors" instead of just "prescribed hitting order"

Why use three words when one will do (and has done for a couple of hundred years)?

 

Because you're using one definition of "honor" when others exist, and a modern definition at that.

 

It's still considered good manners to allow someone to go first. It's gentlemanly to hold the door open and let others go past, to take their seats first, etc. So one golfer could say to another "I'll give you the honor of playing first, dear chap."

 

It's not a "reward." It's simply the prescribed order of play based on the fact that golf was invented a loooooong time ago.

Ok, but can we agree (or at least debate), that being forced to tee-off first in match play is almost always a disadvantage? Or is that going to take this discussion off-topic?

After all, I think that was sort of the point the op was making when starting this thread.

It certainly is not (something we can agree on - its definitely something we can debate and seems apropos to the thread to me).  How many people out there say that they prefer to be the first to hit their approach shots into the green to put pressure on their opponents?

 

To each his own, however, I would, in many situations, say that going first is an advantage.

 

I played in a bowling league with my father-in-law where he was our anchor.  (There's no "honor" in bowling, you just go when you are ready and the guys on either side of you aren't going)  When it came down to him and the other anchor in the tenth in a close game, he would always wait and see what he needed to do to win.  He would obviously agree that going second is an advantage.  It killed me though, because I was the exact opposite.  I want to get up there as fast as possible and bury one in the pocket to give my opponent something to think about and perhaps make him nervous.

 

Yes, bowling is different because there's no strategy ... you try to knock down all of the pins all of the time.  So the only time I would say that going second in golf is to your advantage is when your opponent hits one awry allowing you to "play it safe."  Otherwise, I always want to be the one in control.

I feel going first is an advantage, particularly by the point in the round where these types of things matter (i.e. you already know the firmness of the greens, etc.). And remember, it's only for the tee shot anyway.

 

But then again I've always had a sort of "I'll show YOU!" sort of attitude.

I think there are many more opportunities that occur during a match play round, where it's an advantage to see what your opponent does off the tee before you decide what shot to hit.

You can literally make your decision based on his result, and it should be your advantage every hole because of it.

In stroke play, doesn't make a difference to me. I'm speaking specifically to match play here.

 

Here's the short version of every response you'll get which disagrees with you from here on out: I disagree, and you haven't convinced me of anything.

 

I don't agree it SHOULD be your advantage, and I don't agree that it's necessarily an ADVANTAGE to go second.

 

And again, we're only talking about ONE shot on a hole (the first one).