Let's Change a Bad Rule - Win = Honors

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

If I hit my drive 220 and had 210 to the green out of rough I'd be laying up to a good distance no matter what my opponent was doing.  That is my best realistic play for the best possible score given my situation.  If my opponent had crushed his drive and had 150 to the green I'd still eschew the hero shot.  Who knows what might happen?  He could hit a bad approach into a bunker, take 2 to get out and then 3-putt.  If I make my best course management decision I put myself in position of have a chance at winning the hole if he screws up.

I've snap hooked a drive OB, and then had my opponent "strategically" play the hole so poorly I pulled out a half.  If he had just forgot about what I did and played the hole normally he would have won the hole easily.   Now if I have a 6-footer to win or halve a hole I might grind a bit more than normal, but the strategy is the same.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

If I hit my drive 220 and had 210 to the green out of rough I'd be laying up to a good distance no matter what my opponent was doing.  That is my best realistic play for the best possible score given my situation.  If my opponent had crushed his drive and had 150 to the green I'd still eschew the hero shot.  Who knows what might happen?  He could hit a bad approach into a bunker, take 2 to get out and then 3-putt.  If I make my best course management decision I put myself in position of have a chance at winning the hole if he screws up.

I've snap hooked a drive OB, and then had my opponent "strategically" play the hole so poorly I pulled out a half.  If he had just forgot about what I did and played the hole normally he would have won the hole easily.   Now if I have a 6-footer to win or halve a hole I might grind a bit more than normal, but the strategy is the same.

Keep in mind that my golf was played in Colorado at more than 5000 feet elevation.  210 yards was a 22° hybrid for me at the time, actually a very doable shot, but the hazard I'd just dropped out of continued the entire length of the hole, passing less than 10 yards right of the green.  Left of the green were some mounds which would kick your ball farther left under some small trees.  Any error on my shot and I put him right back in the hole.  But if I had needed to try the hybrid, it was a doable shot.  Again, it was a situational strategy.  I've had many a match turn on that hole.  The course has 3 or 4 holes which can become man to man rather than man to course just based on how the players manage the hole.

This is one of the reasons that I love match play.  It's a dynamic form of play, and anyone who doesn't consider what his opponent is doing during the match isn't usually going to have a lot of success.  I've played some good rounds during matches, and beaten my opponent on strokes, but still lost the match because he managed a few key holes better than I did by playing off my mistakes, or in one case taking the hero shot because he needed it and pulling it off.  In match play, all you need is to take fewer strokes than your opponent on more holes than he takes fewer than you.  You don't need to make par, you don't need to make bogey, you just need to take fewer strokes than he takes.

To me that doesn't mean going into a match with an ultra conservative or an ultra aggressive approach, only that I'm ready to modify my strategy according to the needs of the moment.

[nleary9201]

Everyone is getting away from my basic point. An "option" is always better than a "you must."  Coin flip winners have the "option". Rent with and "option" to buy. The quarterback "option" play. Take something back to Walmart, you have the "option" of store credit or your money back. Thats all I want. Not "having to" hit first after I win a hole, thats all. Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Everyone is getting away from my basic point. An "option" is always better than a "you must."  Coin flip winners have the "option". Rent with and "option" to buy. The quarterback "option" play. Take something back to Walmart, you have the "option" of store credit or your money back. Thats all I want. Not "having to" hit first after I win a hole, thats all. Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you are still treating it as some sort of reward.  It isn't.  Period.  I isn't a coin toss or a rental or store credit.  It's match play golf.  You were the last to win a hole, you play first off the tee.  End of story.

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you.

[newtogolf]

I think the confusion is in the wording often used after you've won a hole at the next tee box, "You won the honor", I understand it's not a reward and I agree that it shouldn't be, but in most cases the way that it's worded would lead some to believe that they had "won" something and it was a reward.  Also some definitions on various websites also add to the confusion;

HONOR – the privilege of hitting first on the next tee. The “honor” is gained by having the lowest score on the preceding hole.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It doesn't make sense because you are still treating it as some sort of reward.  It isn't.  Period.  I isn't a coin toss or a rental or store credit.  It's match play golf.  You were the last to win a hole, you play first off the tee.  End of story.

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense to you.

[Fourputt]

From the Definitions in The Rules of Golf:

Quote:

Honor

The player who is to play first from the teeing ground is said to have the “ honor .”

This is all it means.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Not a privilege, not a reward, just the order of play.

By this definition you can see that if you don't play first then you don't have the honor, because you can only have honor by playing first.

[Rulesman]

No one 'wins' the honour, they 'have' the honour as a result of what went before.

Either they had a lower score than the other player(s) on an earlier hole (usually the preceeding one) or as a result of the draw (which may have been a toss of a coin).

In matchplay, having a lower score happens to be the same as winning the hole.

But in strokeplay, no one wins holes, as the score is simply a cumulative count.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Too often I see people trying to attach conventional meanings to golf terms, and it doesn't always work because most of the terminology used in golf was implemented more than 200 years ago when there was a different or additional meaning to those words.  The word "honor" has had many meanings in society through the many centuries of its use.

Originally Posted by Rulesman

No one 'wins' the honour, they 'have' the honour as a result of what went before.

Either they had a lower score than the other player(s) on an earlier hole (usually the preceeding one) or as a result of the draw (which may have been a toss of a coin).

In matchplay, having a lower score happens to be the same as winning the hole.

But in strokeplay, no one wins holes, as the score is simply a cumulative count.

Exactly.  nleary, look at it this way:  If, instead of using the word "honor," the rule book said something like "the player who scores lower on the preceeding hole will tee off first" then you wouldn't have even brought this up, I'm guessing.  What these guys are pointing out is that is exactly what it does say, just that the language of the past is a bit different. :)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Everyone is getting away from my basic point. An "option" is always better than a "you must."  Coin flip winners have the "option". Rent with and "option" to buy. The quarterback "option" play. Take something back to Walmart, you have the "option" of store credit or your money back. Thats all I want. Not "having to" hit first after I win a hole, thats all. Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

You have not proven to anyone why you should get the reward to choose.

Your reward is winning the hole. The rules then mandate that you play first from the next tee because they have to mandate that someone do so.

[rehmwa]

I thought a rule for hitting order was bit overly controlling and, frankly, a bit anal - provided from stuffy old farts in weird clothes and old guy hats from ages and ages ago.

I figured there is no 'real' advantage and that, in the real world of polite people, they wouldn't argue over it in the absence of that rule - because it's not a big deal.

However, I've changed my mind......because of this thread.  you learn something every day.  thanks

If the rule was tee off alphabetically by last name - I'd be glad it was in place.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

I thought a rule for hitting order was bit overly controlling and, frankly, a bit anal - provided from stuffy old farts in weird clothes and old guy hats from ages and ages ago.

I figured there is no 'real' advantage and that, in the real world of polite people, they wouldn't argue over it in the absence of that rule - because it's not a big deal.

However, I've changed my mind......because of this thread.  you learn something every day.  thanks

If the rule was tee off alphabetically by last name - I'd be glad it was in place.

Sure, unless your name was Joe Aardvark or Mark Zebra (keeping with the animal theme) :)

[rehmwa]

that's great...!!!

all the pros that really think it matters would actually be off getting name changes

now, bringing up the last 4-some of the US OPEN

Aaron Aames

Alan Aabes

AArnesto AAaabadich

and

Tiger Woods

[iacas]

Originally Posted by rehmwa

that's great...!!!

all the pros that really think it matters would actually be off getting name changes

now, bringing up the last 4-some of the US OPEN

Peh, dumb comment.

Everyone knows U.S. Open doesn't play foursomes.

Hee hee hee.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by iacas ws U.S. Open doesn't play foursomes.

Well, if the "fix slow play" effort takes off like it should, then those selfish bastards will have to fix that.  won't they?

[nleary9201]

Ok, I'm done with this one. I may have changed a few minds and made a few of you think outside the box a little. In the end, if winning the previous hole is only an order of play issue, why can't the winner defer, just like players 3 or 4 in the foursome? That would be the best solution.  I'll be back to get everyone's knickers in a bunch with the next one soon. Thanks for listening.

[carrx]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Because hitting first ISN'T supposed to be a reward for anything, it's just the rule.  You have earned a hole won, that's all.  Hell, you just won the hole, why should you get anything more out of it?  Now it's your turn to hit first on the tee because that's how it's done, and for no other reason.

You are supposed to win a hole or a match by how you play your ball.  You are trying to turn it into gamesmanship instead of golf, and that's bush league at best.  It's admitting that you aren't good enough to beat him at golf, so you need some other sort of edge.  That isn't how the game is intended to be played.

I may be in the minority here, but I disagree with the above post.  Having the honors is absolutely an advantage in a match play format.  As a guy who has competed in some match play events, I can attest to this first hand.  If you're getting beaten and can't wrest the tee away from your opponent, it's demoralizing.  Similarly, winning a hole and taking the tee from your opponent is an uplifting event in a match.

Perhaps the OP should think of it another way.  Having the honors allows you to apply pressure to your opponent.  You win a hole, you tee off first, and you stripe one down the middle.  Now the opponent has to respond.  Pressure does wonderful things in this context.  As for the par-3 you mentioned, in my opinion, your scenario only applies if you're playing against your regular crew, or guys who really know your game.  A guy you're playing against in your typical event would have no idea if you made your usual swing, punched one low, clubbed up, clubbed down, or whatever.  Even if you hit a 5-iron when you'd normally hit a 7-iron, I can virtually guarantee the opponent is worried about the 2-club wind, and not what club you used to tee off, good or bad.

[David in FL]

Ok, I'm done with this one. I may have changed a few minds and made a few of you think outside the box a little. In the end, if winning the previous hole is only an order of play issue, why can't the winner defer, just like players 3 or 4 in the foursome? That would be the best solution.  I'll be back to get everyone's knickers in a bunch with the next one soon. Thanks for listening.

I just reread the entire thread and I don't see anyone's mind having been changed. Sorry, I think you're still pretty much on your own on this one! ;-)

[mdl]

Originally Posted by Bucki1968

I think if we need to change any rule, it should be the stroke and distance rule on the out of bounds shot. I think it slows play down too much.

Guess we don't need a big discussion of this again, but I've changed on this rule and kind of go back and forth now. On the plus side, it opens up differing levels of danger available to course designers and rules committees.  I played at a course recently where some super tight fairways had what reasonably could be called OB all up one side but it was marked as environmental hazard to not make the hole totally killer for everyone who didn't hit a perfect tee shot, but then other areas on holes where you could definitely miss there but your choice wasn't hit a tee shot within 10 yards of your aim point or tee off again with your 3rd shot, and those areas were marked as OB.  Also, I'd guess that well more than a majority of the amateurs I've played with play pretty much everything as a water hazard anyway, whether marked with white or red or red and green stakes, so maybe it doesn't slow down play as much as you might fear?

On the other hand, I've definitely played with or been stuck behind guys who just use the "provisional" to hit as many drives as they want, basically feeling free to take a bunch of time for pace killing on-course practice, until they hit the fairway or at least miss to the opposite side of OB, then feel free to pretend that was their first tee shot.  And even honest provisional taking can really be a pace killer when playing with not very good but serious players so you've got 5-6 tee shots and an extra approach or two on lots of holes.

Plus, I recognize the argument for more serious penalization for fully hitting the ball off the course, but to me it tends to feel pretty arbitrary as to when I get to take a next shot that gives me at least a reasonable chance of sitting 3 near the green, if not on it, so a 1-putt gets me par and an up and down saves bogey, versus when the best I can hope for is a good next tee shot and to be sitting 3 at standard approach distance, where I have to stick a full iron super close just to have a good chance of saving bogey.