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

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.

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 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.

In the end I just think the choice would be better

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

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 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.

They seem to waste them alot. At most game I attend it happens at least twice or 3 times.

I think the newer rule (I am 55) where coaches can call time out from the bench needs tweaking or changing. Back in the "old" days, players had to call time out. On the surface, coaches calling time out seem ok but the unintended consequence is that they are "playing" the game from the bench. Defenses can hardly ever get a 5 second call anymore. The coach always calls time out at 4 sec. That makes a great defensive effort go for naught. Jump balls are averted by time outs too. I wonder how many posessions time out change in a game. Lets go back to the way it was. If a player has the presence of mind to call time out, let him but keep the coaches from "playing the game".

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.

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 could still tee of first by taking that option. But if you are like the bowler mentioned in a previous post, you could choose to tee of 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

Thanks MyrtleBeach, someone finally gets it.

Im not wanting "more perks". Just don't think it should be a detriment. If you don't like to go first, you shouldn't have to. Again, a coin flip winner in any other sport has the "option"--i. e. to kick off or receive. I also take issue with another bad rule I ran into in a softball tourney, (similar situation, YOU GUYS WILL LOVE THIS ONE!) My daughters team was seeded higher in their bracket. We go out for the pre -game talk with the umpires and they tell us we are the home team (only because of a higher seeding.) So of course I say " No we would like to be the away team, shouldn't we have the option of being home or away because of our higher seeding. Our team had a much better record when being the away team. The umps were at a loss. Nobody had ever brought it up. They agreed in principal but couldn't change the rule on the spot, which I understood. Conventional wisdom isn't always best. Some things that are traditional aren't always correct. Back to the softball argument, I would like to see some stats on being a home or away team on a NEUTRAL field. I think there is way more pressure being behind and having your last at bat, the do or die situation. You both get the same number of at bats, but the pressure of the bottom on the "7th" in girls softball can be overwhelming to some teams. The option, the option, the option, is all I want.

What the heck are "angle shots"?

You're screen name say you are a major winner. If you have been in that kind of competition you know that using every legal advantage isn't "gamesmanship" its just playing smart. Is watching your opponents putt roll on a similar line as yours "gamesmanship"? I don't know why the "option" isn't better than the "you must hit first" honor. The "honor" should be the option. That would be a better honor for all players. Those that like to hit first can. Those that like to hit last can.

I guess my point about the "OPTION" is getting lost. Why isn't having the option better than an abitrary "you must hit first" rule. I personally hate to hit first for all the reasons I stated before. I shouldn't be made to hit first if I don't want to. I should be able to earn the option by winning the previous hole. Also the "what if he his it stiff or swings a little harder of softer argument doesn't get to the root of it. I've been on holes at new courses many many times when the stated yardage is either way off or visually deceiving. I would much rather the previous hole loser hit first. You can get some info from his club selection even if you aren't exactly sure i.e. driver vs. hybrid, 3 iron vs 7 iron and so on. I don't get the point about slower play being a factor. The previous hole winner decides if he goes first or not. The rest of the players would play in the normal order.

I'm still trying to figure out why the "honors" rule hasn't been changed. I think it just doesn't make sense. 1. The Rule as I know it. - Correct me if im wrong, but I think you are "required" to hit first after you won the last hole. 2. Why its a Bad Rule -- I think the previous hole winner should have the "option" to hit in any position he wants. The "option" is a much stronger position. This is especially true in match play. 3. Example When the Rule Can be Especially Negative. - You are in match play and you have been hitting the ball about the same distance as your opponent. You have noticed you hit mostly the same club in a given situation. Then you come to a nasty par 3 with a "two club wind". Hmmmmmm , wonder what club I should hit here??? Wouldn't it be better to have the "option" to let your opponent hit first. If he pulls a hybrid out and hits it 20 yds. over the green, you might want to hit 5 iron. And so on! 4. Bad Arguments I hear Supporting the Rule. " I wanna hit first a put pressure on my opponent." This isn't a very good argument because the percentages of amature players hitting shots that put pressure on opponents isn't very good. Most of us hit more bad or mediocre shots than shot that will make our opponent cringe in fear. 5. Support from Other Sports in Similar Situations. 1. College Football Overtime. Ever watch an NCAA football game going into overtime? The team that wins the coin toss chooses to play defense 99% of the time. Why? The want to see what their opponent does with their turn. If they don't score, they only need to kick a field goal to win. If the do score they know what they have to do and can play accordingly. 2. Golf Long Drive Competitions -- My son competes in some long drive events. A coin flip decides who has the "OPTION" of what order to hit in. Again, 99% of the time, the "coin flip winner" goes last. If the first contestant doesn't get any drives in the grid, contestant 2 can pull a 3 wood and just hit one in the grid. Again a position of much more power, having the "OPTION" of when you hit.

I agree, but in my opinion Tiger doesn't have any class. Used to like Couples too, but its a little guilt by association with me concerning his captains pick. You know, maybe life is just too difficult for Woods. Too much money to keep track of, too many homes to maintain, too many yachts to gas up. I need to be more understanding.

I wish America didn't care about Tiger Woods so much. Time hasn't change the fact that he is still a spoiled, childish, ***** mongering, very rich an talented pro athlete. I hope he never talks to anyone who could give him advise except maybe someone who could convice him to be a better person, role model etc. I hope he contiues to play poorly as long as his attitude is so surly.

Yea, gotta say if you are polling golfers about what is cool or not, you are asking the wrong group. Golfers ( as a group ) are not cool. Ever see those really bad comedy videos done by pro golfers. I think the pga etc. are trying to make them look down to earth and approachable. Doesn't work. Golfers are ususally stoic, quiet geeks. Just look your old high school golf team. Not many of them dating the cheerleaders.

Just think its a little funny that golf seems to pride itself on being a game where the purists pride themselves on adhering to the rules no matter what, and all of a sudden when something seems to help their game there isn't much of an outcry if a rule is being broken or not. Someone please clairfy this. What does the rule in question say? If there isn't a rule, then why is everyone talking about it? Come on golf and golfers, figure it out.

Thanks for the link to the older tread. I want to talk mainly about golfers and their following of the rules. If the long putters are better or worse for someone is strictly a matter of opinion and good arguments can be made either way. I want to know more about the "anchor" the club to your body rule. Golfers call 'fouls" ( I use the word foul) because you can't "call a penalty" a penalty is the punishment for the foul, on themselves all the time in competition. So are they breaking a rule or not? It shouldn't be that complex. Any answers?

Been months since I've been on. Need to stir thing up again. This time I am wondering were the opinions fall concerning the long putter. I haven't looked up the rule about anchoring a club to your body but if that is the rule than how can they be legal? Golfers seem to have the "our sport is a sport of gentlemen, with strict compliance to the rules" attitude. If so, how have long putters circumvented that rule?? Can anyone clarify the rule?