A Case Against "Honors" in Match Play

[Shindig]

1 hour ago, nleary9201 said:

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.

It would really help if you quote what you're responding to, so we can follow.  If you want to reference another member, please preface with the @ key -- that will alert them, too.

Under your proposal, if I win the first hole, I could select who tees off on the second hole.  If that hole is a push, who tees off first on the third hole?  Same person I chose last time or do I choose again?

[ChetlovesMer]

3 hours 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. 

I don't think anyone really disagrees that being given choices in life is "nice". Having said that, golf is currently battling slow play issues. I don't think adding or changing rules that make the game slower would be well received. 

There are tons of things in sports where you aren't given a choice. The home team in baseball always bats second. They aren't given a choice. 

[nleary9201]

Zhindig...this only applies to match play. There is just you and one opponent.  

Chet...funny you mention baseball. Had a funny occurrence years ago. Was coaching girls softball and we were the higher seed in a tourney. As higher seed we were "automatically " required to be home team. But our record was better that year as visitors. Our girls all like to bat first (bucking conventional wisdom). I argued as higher seed we should have choice and not be required to be home team. The officials freaked out a little but eventually saw the merit of my argument.  We were visitors. I think we won the game to. Lol

[ChetlovesMer]

15 minutes ago, nleary9201 said:

Zhindig...this only applies to match play. There is just you and one opponent.  

Chet...funny you mention baseball. Had a funny occurrence years ago. Was coaching girls softball and we were the higher seed in a tourney. As higher seed we were "automatically " required to be home team. But our record was better that year as visitors. Our girls all like to bat first (bucking conventional wisdom). I argued as higher seed we should have choice and not be required to be home team. The officials freaked out a little but eventually saw the merit of my argument.  We were visitors. I think we won the game to. Lol

I used to play 16" softball in Chicagoland... You know where the ball is called a "Clincher" and there are no gloves worn. This is like early 80's. In that sport the home team got to bat first. Why? Because it was an advantage. They break out a brand new ball for each game. The ball gets softer as the game goes on. More homeruns hit in the first inning than in the later ones.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, nleary9201 said:

Zhindig...this only applies to match play. There is just you and one opponent.

He knows. So did @bkuehn1952 on the last page.

Please quote posts and mention members properly.

https://thesandtrap.com/how-to/mention-members/

You’ve shared your idea. Others have given you reasons why it’s not that way.

[DaveP043]

On 8/7/2022 at 8:32 AM, nleary9201 said:

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.

When someone suggests that a rule should be different, the first test in my mind is whether the change is an improvement, or just a change.  There are lots of issues where there may be a personal preference to one side or the other, but neither is demonstrably better.  You've expressed a preference, but I can't say you've shown it to be better to have a choice.  Indeed, minimizing potential confusion and pace of play issues is, in my opinion, an advantage to the current system.  I definitely don't see an advantage to the "choice" system that more than offsets the advantages included in the current system.