The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-08-26

der and Stickney. McKi.trick Is too erratic
ana the Others you have mentioned nave
hang IT. I'd rather see a fellow play in style
and lose than play out OF style and win.
That Is, he SHOULD have SOMETHING like 4
sweet, coherent way. l do not think Char
ley Scuader has Il St. Andrews swing, but
he has a neat way. Kenneth and Mckinnie
are very rough IL their play. but are efiec-
tive with their heavy clubs and hard clout-
ing. Adams Was awful last year. but has
improved in every respect.
Il like Clay Iierce's style best OF all.
There is power and swing and follow for
You, also good judgment and high church
principles. He always uses the right club
and plays the orthodox shot. Walter Nc
style, but he lacks power. Stickney's stroke
is exaggerated. and he does not get action
with his wrists. Charley Scudder does not
take Il fun swing. but what he does use is
all right"
Jim MackreI, the country club profess
Slonal, has gone 10 Canada on Il vacation.
Went north some time ago. ana Mr.. Mack
rell left last week to join Them. lie Will
return by September !.
Simpson. the Field Club professional. had a
deal of hard luck in the open tourney dt
oconomowoc. he broke the course record
going out. but had hard fortune coming
IN. he did a 81 and a Il.
Champion Taylor of England snys: 81
play with u stiff. heavy club; 70 life n SAT-
and great weight in head Sounds rs If
Mr.. Taylor had a lot of saw-log hickory
and iron to dispose of.
The question of employing professional
cacdies in amateur tournaments Is one
which is being much discussed In golf cir
Giles at The present time. and many predict
that the time IS no. far distant when FRO
! tessioHal caddies will lie barred from Amer
lean courses, however popular they nay be
upon English and Scotch links. In the pres
ent discussion the benefit 10 be derived
from such professional coaching, as we'll as
49, ..-,sA, - a-, tpr .st.l, ccfg. s ~ %
TO The player, is put in issue. With Zach big
tournament the question is raised anew,
and there seems to be a growing sentiment
that the practice of employing trained Iro-
fessiCnais 10 caddy ana coach N amateur
matches should at least be restricted.
1t is natural that in This county such
n sentiment should readily ind ardent sup
porters. for the privilege of employing d
professional makes the game more than
ever a rich mans game. and 50 tends to
create caste III a sport where money All
ready plays too large q part.
z The comparative newT'eSs of the game
on this size of the water has given me
1t is quite to be expected that an expert
caddy. who can tell u player at 4 ,!an.e
: the best stroke 10 play from a bad lie;
find his services in demand among certain
. classes. To those who have learned me
game in Great Britain the assistance Of a
! Professional seems most natural and proper.
The person who opposes the use OF pro-
fessiCnai CaddieS is confronted at once by
the arEument that such a practice has been
sanctioned during centuries of golf. and
/ that the propriety of such assistance has
never been seriously questioned. But the
/ game during its long life in Great Britain
has developed two classes. The upper class
have played without reckoning expense. and
SKIN and expert knowledge OF the game
have found q ready market at good prices;
the lower class have played because the
sport can there be INDUCED in Inexpensive
~ by the mass Of the people, and to those
l. .,-,-T t< n-,s n rnnHr and 0lGv
means of livelihood.
: more effective argument against legts-
lating TO exclude professionals is embodied
in the general assertion that all cadoies are
| professionals, and the line between a caddy
who caddies and a cadGy who coaches as
! well cannot easily be drawn. Many a cad
dy boy who never dreamed Of giving a les
son is well qualified on occasion to advise
a player. nervous and ratified. under the
of methods for eliminating the profession-
al element is itself evidence of the difficult
ties. A rule that c<ddies should not con-
verse with players during the progress of a
match is impracticatle. because the player
must necessarily and properly frequently
address inquiries to the caddy during the
game, and, moreover. a rule of this kind
would be enforced with great difficulty. A
provision limiting the amount that caddies
be paid could be easily avoided, An age
limit for caddies raises many objections.
but might offer the most practicable solu-
ton.
Those who advocate the present system
uphold the propriety of receiving advice
and assistance from professionals in ANA
teur contests upon the ground hat the
player makes the strokes, and so, after all.
plays his own game; that, in the end. he
must decide for himself which stroke he
will attempt, and what club he will use
on each occasion. and. therefore,, that there
is no possible harm or objection in discuss
my any play before he makes It with an
attendant.
1t is safe TO presume that as the sport
grows more general in this country, and
assumes a more national character. the
prevailing custom at st. Andrews or
anywhere else will carry much less weight
in determining the STANDARD for American
players. 1t has been the experience in other
sports that American and English stand
ards regulating amateurs have been estab-
llshed quite Independently of each other.
The position OF those who opposed the
practice of professional caddying Is clearly
defined. except as to the means of effect
ing the desired change. They maintain
that II is contrary. to the accepted tenets
OF amateur sport in this country that in
any branch of sport a player should re-
, ceive advice from professional sources, SC,
indeed. from any sources at all, during the
progress of a match, and they point to the
prevailing sentiment in other branches OF
sport to sustain this contention.