A Case Against "Honors" in Match Play

[nleary9201]

I think it would be better to have the choice to hit first or second when you have the honor in match play.  A choice is always preferable to being required in just about every aspect of life, let alone golf match play.  Example..a difficult par 3 over water on a windy day. Might be nice to see how your opponent plays it first. Other examples ...win the toss at a football game and you have the choice to kickoff or receive. 

[woodzie264]

I’ve considered this too. My understanding is that you can offer your opponent to play first if you have honors, but they can of course decline wherein you are required to play in turn.  It would be nice to have the option

[Shindig]

Think of it as both an opportunity and an obligation.  If you're winning, and we get to that par-3, you hit first and the player who did not most recently win a hole has to react to it. 

It works both ways, though.  Hit a great shot and they're on the spot.

[nleary9201]

The option is always better in my opinion.  I remember in the 70s my pittsburgh steelers would win the toss and elect to kick off. The defense was so good they figured they would have better field position after a "3 and out" and punt. What if they were "required " to receive the kickoff instead.  

Another example would be winning the lottery.  You have the "choice" of a lump sum or installment payout. You won...you choose.

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Think of it as both an opportunity and an obligation.  If you're winning, and we get to that par-3, you hit first and the player who did not most recently win a hole has to react to it. 

It works both ways, though.  Hit a great shot and they're on the spot.

From a Rules standpoint, its a lot simpler to define one way, rather than to give choices.  From a personal viewpoint, I'd generally prefer to play first, to put pressure on my opponent.  I'd rather ACT, and force my Opponent to REact.  

[ChetlovesMer]

38 minutes ago, nleary9201 said:

The option is always better in my opinion.  I remember in the 70s my pittsburgh steelers would win the toss and elect to kick off. The defense was so good they figured they would have better field position after a "3 and out" and punt. What if they were "required " to receive the kickoff instead.  

Another example would be winning the lottery.  You have the "choice" of a lump sum or installment payout. You won...you choose.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but a lot of times in sports (and in life), if you win they put you at a disadvantage. (Or you could think of it as giving an advantage to the loser.) 
Examples:

• The team that performs the worst during the season gets the first draft pick. 
• When you make a basket in basketball the other team gets the ball. 
• The best golfers are given the fewest strokes in golf. 
• In poker (often, but not always) to win the hand, you have to show your cards. The loser can (often but not always) keep his/her cards a secret. 
• In most cooperate offices, they give the most difficult tasks to highest performers. While folks that don't perform well are often giving less difficult tasks. 
• If you make money in the stock market the government taxes you heavily. If you lose money you are often given a tax break. 

I'm not making a judgement as to what's right or wrong. Sometimes in life and in sport, we try to reward the loser to help level the playing field. Not always the case, but often. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by ChetlovesMer
spelling

[nleary9201]

Interesting take. But I think the original intent, partly because of the word "honor" was meant to reward the winner of the previous hole 

[StuM]

46 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but a lot of times in sports (and in life), if you win they put you at a disadvantage. (Or you could think of it as giving an advantage to the loser.) 
Examples:

• The team that performs the worst during the season gets the first draft pick. 
• When you make a basket in basketball the other team gets the ball. 
• The best golfers are given the fewest strokes in golf. 
• In poker (often, but not always) to win the hand, you have to show your cards. The loser can (often but not always) keep his/her cards a secret. 
• In most cooperate offices, they give the most difficult tasks to highest performers. While folks that don't perform well are often giving less difficult tasks. 
• If you make money in the stock market the government taxes you heavily. If you lose money you are often given a tax break. 

I'm not making a judgement as to what's right or wrong. Sometimes in life and in sport, we try to reward the loser to help level the playing field. Not always the case, but often. 

I'm not sure these are all disadvantages and not really similar to "Honors" in golf.  In Poker the winner being required to show his hand is not a disadvantage.  Before I give you the pot, possibly large, I need to know if you really had the better hand.  I'm not going to trust you that you have the better hand, but if I concede, that is all on me.  As for making money and being taxed, that is not a disadvantage.  I would rather earn a $100 and pay $20 tax to keep the $80 then to lose $100 to reduce my taxes by $20 which is net LOSS of $80

 

[nleary9201]

In the end I just think the choice would be better 

[StuM]

As for Honors, I do not play formal competitions other than my league and we are specifically instructed to play Ready Golf so if you want honors, get your self ready.

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, nleary9201 said:

In the end I just think the choice would be better 

I'd take the opposite view, that having an established order removes all potential confusion, so is the better method.  I took a look back at www.ruleshistory.com, it seems that the order from the tee was first specified in the mid-1800s.  Prior to that, it was specified that the ball furthest from the hole MUST be played first, but the order for teeing off wasn't mentioned.  Worth mentioning, pretty much all golf at that time was played at match play, which is reflected in many of the Rules of the time.  Given the 150+ year history of the Honour, it seems this is unlikely to be changed any time soon.

[nleary9201]

I agree it probably won't change but I can't see logic in the honor as "requiring " you to hit first. (,match play). Seems like the honor should give you the choice and a more advantageous position. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, nleary9201 said:

In the end I just think the choice would be better 

Well, that's not much of a "case" against "honors."

I was sold a bill of goods by the title of the topic that was not delivered.

6 hours ago, woodzie264 said:

I’ve considered this too. My understanding is that you can offer your opponent to play first if you have honors, but they can of course decline wherein you are required to play in turn.  It would be nice to have the option

No, you can't.

You can overlook their shot if they play out of turn, but you'd possibly get yourself in trouble if you're constantly offering for them to go first.

6 hours ago, Shindig said:

Think of it as both an opportunity and an obligation.  If you're winning, and we get to that par-3, you hit first and the player who did not most recently win a hole has to react to it. 

Yep.

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

From a Rules standpoint, its a lot simpler to define one way, rather than to give choices.  From a personal viewpoint, I'd generally prefer to play first, to put pressure on my opponent.  I'd rather ACT, and force my Opponent to REact.  

Yep.

5 hours ago, nleary9201 said:

Interesting take. But I think the original intent, partly because of the word "honor" was meant to reward the winner of the previous hole 

It does reward the winner - they hit the shot to which the other player has to react.

[ChetlovesMer]

9 hours ago, StuM said:

I'm not sure these are all disadvantages and not really similar to "Honors" in golf.  In Poker the winner being required to show his hand is not a disadvantage.  Before I give you the pot, possibly large, I need to know if you really had the better hand.  I'm not going to trust you that you have the better hand, but if I concede, that is all on me.  As for making money and being taxed, that is not a disadvantage.  I would rather earn a $100 and pay $20 tax to keep the $80 then to lose $100 to reduce my taxes by $20 which is net LOSS of $80

 

Stu, You crack me up. I didn't expect anyone would put much thought into my comment. Yeah, I know none of my examples were apples to apples. 

I was just pointing out that often in sport and life we try to level the playing field a bit by giving an advantage, however small to the losing side. My poker example comes from playing Texas Hold'em tournaments when I'm just trying to learn whether a given opponent bluffs or not and when. However, often if that player loses the hand, they can hide there bluff from me (and everyone else at the table as well.) It's not a huge advantage, but neither is getting to tee off second. 

With taxes. Think of it this way. If you earn $100, we may tax you at 40%. If you only earn $50, we may only tax you at 10%. If you only earn $25, we may not tax you at all, thereby leveling the playing field a bit. Is it still better to be the person who earned $100, YES, of course it is. But it is also better to be the person who wins the hole, even if it means teeing off first. I don't think anyone would intentionally lose a hole just to be able to tee off second on the next hole. In the same way as I wouldn't expect anyone to give up half their pay, just to drop into a lower tax bracket. It's just a little bit of help to try to create parity. 

Not saying saying anything Earth Shattering or profound. Just pointing out that in some aspects of life and sport we try to boost the losing side up a bit. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by ChetlovesMer
correction

[nleary9201]

To reiterate,  the core of my argument is that a choice is always better than an ultimatum. The " I like to hit first " argument doesn't apply because you can still "choose" to hit first if you win the previous hole. Then again look at the football coin toss. The winner has the choice to kick, receive or defer. Its up to the winner to choose. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, nleary9201 said:

To reiterate,  the core of my argument is that a choice is always better than an ultimatum. The " I like to hit first " argument doesn't apply because you can still "choose" to hit first if you win the previous hole. Then again look at the football coin toss. The winner has the choice to kick, receive or defer. Its up to the winner to choose. 

Again that’s not much of a “case,” and giving someone the choice would slow play and lead to more conflict.

[bkuehn1952]

45 minutes ago, nleary9201 said:

...  the core of my argument is that a choice is always better than an ultimatum.  

It may always be better for the person choosing but it certainly is not better for the opponent and the match.  The winner of the first hole can then dictate the order for potentially several holes ("You go first, now I will go first, now you go first again").  That seems like it could be a significant strategic advantage, one that is not deserved for just winning the first hole.

It could also lead to issues where an opponent who has been told to go first on several holes, makes an incorrect assumption and tees off first and then is told he was to go second and his shot is recalled.

Setting the order of play rather than offer a choice makes for a better match.

[nleary9201]

The oder of play is dictated by the winner of the previous hole now. It changes as the match goes on. Its not " I go first, now you go first". Its only on who wins the previous hole, or carries over. And "iacas" as to you problem with my"case".I'm just putting this out there for people to think about. Maybe create a conversation with you golf buddies. Thats all.