Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-17
Foot Ball Marked Most Golf Titles Lost Says Keller

perfect figures that he wins titles by
the excellence Of his play. Here b
Keeler's argument: eff we take par 70
be perfect goll-and par Is Just about
as close to perfect golf as any one can
approximately seems to me that
Bobby Jones has come nearer winning
golf championships than any living
man. He wins because he has the posi-
tive stroking ability to adhere closer to
par than the other fellow. And the
other fellow loses because he lacks the
positive quality TO do that very thing.
Take the last amateur champion
ship. Except for two full rounds and
part Of another, Bobby didn't play ex-
ceptionally fine golf. He was around
par, but he played some ragged golf
in spots where he didn't need to be any
better. The point want to make Is
that Bobby played as well as he had
to play, and that even though Bobby
was not at his best the other fellows
lost their matches to him. It may be
stretching q point to say that Bobby
did not win, but had the other chaps
played the game of which they are
harder time. They beat themselves be-
cause they couldn't match their sfsots
against his shots and against the par
Of the course. Their golf was negative.
while his was positive. Therefore they
lost Take the match against Ross Som
merville in the first round. Ross had
several chances to keep level with Bob,
over the first six holes, but he failed
where his main chances were. Then Bob
played some winning golf on the
seventh, eight and ninth holes. and that
match was over But Bob played Mega
tive golf against Fred Hoblitzell in the
second round Against q man like
Sweetser or Won Elm he would have
been run out Of that tournament. He
played negative golf, for he was out
in 43, with two balls out of bounds, and
played positive golf-winning golf-he
would have had Bob in tough spot.
But he was not capable of turning on
the heat when Jones was a little on,
and again Bob won. But 1t was not
positive golf. Bob did not win In the
sense mean. Rather Hoblitzell lost
that match. That match was q good
example Of what mean by losing
championships.
ming golf against Gene Romans in the
semi final until the last few holes. and
then his game sagged. Instead of posi-
tive winning golf, 1t became just indif-
ferent, losing golf. and Gene went along
shooting his pars and Seaver lost. But
the point make is that Seaver lost.
He had the match in the bag, and had
he continued stroking the ball as he
had been stroikng 1t he would not have.
lost that match. He played negative
golf where he should have played posi-
tive golf Romans deserved to win, but
what am trying to make clear is that
while Romans won the golf match.
Seaver also lost 1t. A little tightening
up on the last few holes and he would
not have lost" And Keeier blew o
smoke ring from his cigarette.
Remember that match at F1ossmo0r
that Bob lost to Max Marston?" I did.
Bob lost that match. Max thoroughly
deserved to win, particularly when Max
in that 12-footer on the thirty
fifth green. But Bob played negative
golf In that match. At Merton, in 1924,
he suddenly learned to play positive,
golf He has had few sIumps
In between, but think Bob comes
nearer playing winning golf than any
man know. He wins where the other
fellows lose. But I still think golf
generally speaking, are not
won, but lost"