Let's Change a Bad Rule - Win = Honors - Page 4

Yes, we are talking about only 1 shot each hole, but arguably the most important shot. Especially when we are talking about match play. A good drive is crucial to set you up for the rest of the hole.

The ONLY advantage I can see for playing first is to "put pressure on your opponent" by hitting a great shot. I can't imagine this scenario actually comes into play in a real world match situation more than once or twice, and that's assuming your opponent is actually going to be 'bothered' by your perfect first drive.

In almost every other situation, it's advantageous to hit 2nd. Merely from you having the knowledge. You have knowledge that your opponent does not have. I'm not talking about whether he hit a 6i or 7i off the tee on a par 3. Or even if the wind is swirling, or more direct near the green. I'm speaking directly of having the knowledge of how your opponent played it (Driver, 3 wood or Long Iron), how aggressive he was (Did he hit to the middle of the fairway, did he cut the corner on a dogleg, etc) and how successful he was with the shot (is he in the fairway, waste bunker, thick rough, water, OB, etc).

All of that information is power. And it can all be used strategically to plan your attack. (Do you have to hit driver, or can you play it safe?) You now know that if your opponent is in trouble, and simple par will win the hole, and can play accordingly. Your opponent did NOT have any of that information when he teed first. He was paying his drive 'blind' so-to-speak. In match play, I think you need to play the opponent, as much as you play the course. His mistakes, however slight, should be information you use to plan your course strategy.

I honestly can't see how anyone can say hitting 2nd isn't an advantage. The simple fact that you have a ton of information that your opponent did not, is a huge advantage.

You have information that your opponent did not. Advantage you.

'Putting pressure' on your opponent (or vice versa) by hitting a great drive, seems kinda nonsense to me. Also, I think that if it does factor in, it probably does less times per round.

This debate is basically pointless, as the winner will never have the option to hit 2nd. But, I'm finding it hard to believe that hitting first is an advantage in match play.

 

Going last you are always in a position of having to react, rather than forcing the action yourself by going first.  I want to be the one to set the target.  I'll take first both for that reason and because if I'm first then I just won a hole and I've got momentum on my side.  I don't want to give up that advantage without a fight.  Wanting to go last sounds to me like someone is running scared.  

 

If you go second and your opponent bombs a perfect drive, that puts the pressure on you to match him.  In my experience averaging at least 5 or 6 matches a year for 22 years, hitting first is a lot less stressful than hitting second.

exactly!

"The ONLY advantage I can see for playing first is to "put pressure on your opponent" by hitting a great shot. I can't imagine this scenario actually comes into play in a real world match situation more than once or twice, and that's assuming your opponent is actually going to be 'bothered' by your perfect first drive.

In almost every other situation, it's advantageous to hit 2nd. Merely from you having the knowledge."

 

Personally to me, this seems absolutely correct.

But the issue is that golf can be a very mental game for most, so the position is very subjective.

 

 

 

If your opponent (or you) are very mental during the game, I can clearly see why one would think hitting first off the tee is an advantage - it's the 'emotional' argument.  Works for some, not for others.

 

If you are really able to stay within your own game and can execute cleanly, then clearly going second is an advantage because you can take advantage or make appropriate changes when the other makes a mistake - and if the other doesn't make a mistake, you'd play the same anyway.  Works for some, not for others.
 

I suspect the answer "depends" then.  So the idea of a standard hitting order - with the options for the players to agree to go out of order if both want to is fine - but you can't force it on the other - also fine.

 

The idea that you guys 'agree' or 'disagree' with each other on such a subjective topics is ridiculous.  If one wants to really get a generalization, then I'd say a survey of the top pros is in order - and even there, you likely get an answer based on their personal self confidence rather than strategy alone.

 

I like this - it tells you more about the mental set of the pros, though, more than about what an advantage is.  I also like to take this, and then read interviews about when a pro goes second and he talks about the other guy's 'mistake' off the tee and how he was then able to play it safe and win the hole.

 

 

I think the preference to go first for the pros is a reflection that they all expect to be able to hit the shot they want and that happens a LOT more than 'mistakes'.  So going first is preferred just because it's a more pure experience with less potential distractions.

 

I'm a big believer that people put pressure only on themselves and the MOST that someone can do in these terms to the other players is to just encourage them to pressure themselves - if they are so inclined.  So I still suspect that the top pros don't care much UNLESS they know the other guy is actually flappable at all in these regards.  Then, of course, they'll want to play the mind games if it'll help them win.

Thanks, rehmwa, but that's still off topic. You have to convince people that you should get an extra perk or reward for winning the previous hole before you talk about what that advantage is.

agreed - but an interesting tangent to the topic.  And the entire thread is based on the off topic concept for what it's worth.  Else it's just a notification of the rules for order of play.  Later
 

 

for that matter, the first thing that 'psychs' out my drive is putting the tee in the ground - it then gets worse from there....

so hitting order is pretty  minor compared to that       ; )

Sort of ... but if we convince him that going first IS the advantage then the need for his rule change (and his justification) doesn't exist.

 

Not that we'll convince him of anything, but hey ...

Don't forget to use the quote feature. :)  (Actually ... learn to use the "multi quote" feature too! :)

 

OK, since you are still convinced that going second could be an advantage ... then like Erik said, first you have to convince us why you think you are entitled to a reward?

Regarding advantage/disadvantage:

 

I find it interesting that arguably the greatest match player of them all, Bobby Jones, said that he started winning matches more consistently when he stopped worrying about what his opponent was doing and just focused on beating old man Par.  Maybe those who are worrying about whether they have the advantage, and watching what their opponent is doing and then adjusting their strategy are focusing on the wrong thing?
 

WINNER!!!

Play for personal bests.  it's not like it's a contact sport

To claim its a reward is misleading, it depends on many things

 

But under the rules of golf, the player who wins the hole has the Honor of playing first. The only time that player can choose not to go first is if an incident occurs were the player would be required to do something that would slow down play, like he left a club on the last hole and went to retrieve it. Then he may allow the other person to hit first, and that other person has the option to hit first or not to. 

 

But to claim it is a reward to to assume it is a benefit, and that is depends greatly on the person playing, the opponent, the hole, and if the shot turns out good or not. So its varies greatly. 

 

really i don't get the whole putting pressure on the other person, because i never felt pressure by someone else. The only time i felt pressure is if i had a putt to win a match, other than that, there's no pressure if that person hits a good shot or not. Now, if i know he's messed up a 2nd shot on a par 5, i might, lay up instead of go for the green, or if he hit a bad tee shot, i might hit a wood or iron off the tee. So, i rather go 2nd, but that's not good since going 2nd means that the person i am playing against has won a hole, or has tied me on every hole since he won honors. 

 

Yeah, but that's Bobby Jones.  I'm not even on the same planet, and that makes a huge difference in how I play.  I've played plenty of holes where if I try beating par, I'm more llkely to make a double or triple than I an a birdie - I'll play that hole for a bogey and if my opponent does something that changes my strategy, then so be it.  

 

I don't deny that hitting second can be an advantage in certain circumstances.  It is most definitely not an advantage in many situations, and some would say in most situations.  What I'm arguing here is this peculiar belief that you have won the right to choose.  A question for the proponents of this unlikely change - do you also feel that the player who won the first hole has the right to choose who goes first for the next 17 holes even though he only won one hole, assuming that you halve every other hole?  That's just ridiculous.

 

 All you've won is the right to be one hole better in the match score than you were before you won the hole.  Then the RULE determines that you go first on the next tee, and forever thereafter until you lose a hole.  No reward, no punishment, no guaranteed advantage or disadvantage.  You just go first.  You have done nothing to deserve anything better than that.  You people are still reading way too much into this.  

 

This has to be one of the strangest rules discussions we've ever had here.  

I think in context, paying for Old Man Par would mean taking into account any strokes you may be entitled to.  If I am playing to an 18 then it means playing for bogey.  If I am playing to 10 it means playing for bogey on those ten holes on which I would get a stroke.

 

And yes I know that in the match strokes are given on the difference of the handicaps, but the underlying principle, IMO, is the same as the principle used to generate hole scores for holes not played in a partial round. 

 

But the REAL point Bobby Jones was making was that he just focused on getting his best possible score, and not allow what his opponent was doing to affect his strategy. 

 

But.... there are still situations in match play which can dictate a change in strategy.  Real situation:  I hit my drive 220 yards, but into a lateral water hazard, and still 210 yards from the green (long par 4 hole).  My opponent hit second and hit his drive only 70 yards, and about 3 feet into deep rough.  Then instead of taking the smart play he tried to hack it out, taking 2 more shots to get back in play while only advancing the ball about 5 yards.  He finally made a decent swing and was lying 4 in the fairway about the same distance from the hole as I was after my drop, but I was in the rough.  At this point I didn't need to make the hero shot out of the rough, just get down in no more than 4 strokes and he has to do it in 3 to tie me.  I played a 9 iron to 100 yards out, then a GW to the middle of the green, 2 putted and won the hole with a double.  If he declares his ball unplayable and takes the 2 clublength drop, he gets out of the native rough and probably does no worse than a halve, possibly convincing me to try the hero shot.  No telling if I might have pulled it off or not, but this was a case where my play was predicated on the situation - par or bogey had nothing to do with it.  At that point I was playing the man, not the course.  

 

Normally I would agree with you and usually when standing on the tee, my plan is to play the hole to the best of my ability, but circumstances are subject to change, and ones strategy should be flexible enough to change with them.