Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-24
THINKING GOLF
THE IDEAL GAME2
Bold, Free Play Cramped by
Present Craze for Direction.

| Walter Travis won the CHAMPIONSHIP at
Sandwich in 1904. says the New York Her.
aid. Just prior to this Johnny Low and
the bonny knights of st. Andrews had I'M
| corked the idea.
The Blackwels. and that ilk of the anna
teur fraternity, plus Braid. Harry vardon.
| Herd, etc., etc., were overreaching tradition
| and halt had to be called on their far
reaching drives Ergo thinking golf and
to the deuce with the man whose two full
shots equaled two and three-quarter shots
! of the ordinary fellows.
To check the untraditional far-reaching
full shots, the Royal and Ancient had to
| rise in its "augustocity." Men who had
| the undreanled of audacity to drive 2S0-3O0
yard must have their combs cut" Hence
thinking golf.
Much has been written by accepted au-
| thorities the light of hooking ball
| here slicing ball elsewhere; cheating the
wind. etc. Yet, with the exception of Mr..
| II. H. Hilton Harry Vardon and ia mes
| Braid, who has seen the expert that pulled,
sliced or cheated the wind, with consistency
| when it was necessary?
In fact. the very opposite is invariably
| the case, and the chief advocates of this
great mastery over the ball have been
| seen. to slice when they should have pulled,
| pull when they should have sliced and
| spank sky rocket when they wanted a
| low, raking ball.
For this reason, when one reads and has
| thrust down his throat thinking golf he
| asks, Who are the advocates? The answer.
| If sifted, comprises players-amateurs not
prOfessionals-who lose many yards in two
! full shots.
St. Andrews Schools Blind Devotion.
| 1t is a curious fact that in response to a
| weekly London golf paper, as the best one,
| two, three shot holes etc, those at ST. An
drew's were chiefly selected by st. An
| drew's amateurs. Further, such masters
as Harry Vardon. Braid, Taylor and other
professionals we're in a big majority in
| favor Of holes at Sandwich, and with them
| st. Andrews was very much In the minor
| ity when it came to be rated. Nor must
Mr. Hilton be forgotten. This famous
| Holyoke amateur was distinctly of the
same opinion as the professionals
| Whom does it serve? Is it an equitable ad-
justment of the game?
Replying in order. it insidiously cramps
| a mans game until from timidity arises
caution and from that plodding me-
| chanical game.
It serves the man whose lack Of physique
collapses under ordinary conditions as Well
as the man whose muscles are 80 bound
that to break his neck he cannot drive with
| in yards Of the average free, Hthesome
| player.
It is an unfair adjustment Of things
| from the fact that a bold titanic player is
penaized and reaps no reward.
And. taken all in ALL it Is premium on
the player who has not the knack OF open
ing out his shoulders. hips and every piece
of machinery in his anatomy. but who
either holes out from off the edge Of the
green or runs up dead.
Surely an equitable adjustment of things
| would be to give the long driver the con-
sideration his prowess his physical pow
ers yield. If he cannot approach dead to
the cup, or If he fiddle away puts on the
| green. the thinking" golfer must at least
equalize things. But to demand that the
golfer capable Of driving $50 yards should
| so adjust his shot that he will escape OBJ
stacles which the 160-yard man never hopes
| to reach becomes not only irrational but
distinct advocacy in favor of the short,
puny player
No Allowance for Long Drivers.
Without any intention of being invidious,
| take Chandler Egan and Walter J. Travis.
| Assume that each from the tee strikes his
ball a shade too much the toe of the
| club, what is the result under the narrow
alley thinking golf plan? Mr.. Egans
ball is so far reaching that the tangent
| becomes further and further from the de-
| fined line, while Mr.. Travis goes just far
enough not to transgress.
In other words the one who has struck
a ball scientifically enough to soar over
| $50 yards of distance, but a shade aslant,
| Is to be condemned as an uncomfortable
slugger, whereas the other, who is equally
| at fault in his stroke, but unable to attain
| anything like the same momentum. goes
| off scot free. and is noted for his direction.
| Surely there is no equity in this. and
surely no would advocate Mr.. Egan
taking his midiron instead of his driver
! To obviate the present unfair trend to
which thinking golf Is drifting, 1t can
! be regulated by simple process-a process
which should give the brilliant player like
Chandler Egan the equal advantage he
| merits against the methodical player like
| Walter ]. Travis.
| Instead of the fair green being confined
| between two parallel boundaries of a par
| ticular breadth for any given distance let
| them diverge from the tee and become
| further and further apart as the distance
| extends
| In other words, say the fair green Is so
! yards wide, $50 yards from the tee: let
1t be IS yards wide. IT'S yards from
| the tee: 100 yards wide. 1875 yards from the
| tee: 100 yards wide, 200 yards from the tee.
| and 50 on to $50 yards away. Then if 1t Is
| a two-shot hole, let the boundary Of the
| fair green converge again and open out in
| the same proportion to the putting green.
| In other words, let thinking golf give
some thought to the bold and the free as
| well as the cramped and methodical
|