INTENSE interest, from a golfer's point of view, has been excited over a controversy that has raged over what has been described as "the best hole." Naturally opinions have varied considerably when a discussion has been started upon this subject, a fact not to be marvelled at, for every player has a predilection for one distance or the other.

This being the case, I approach the matter with much tribulation of spirit, yet I trust I may be found capable of adding even just a little to what has already been said by the leading lights of the game.

In the first place, it is generally understood that this "best hole" must be subdivided. It must be calculated at and upon various distances; this is a necessity for the purpose of comparison. These distances may be so stated as to include three sections, the one-stroke hole, the two-stroke hole, and the three-stroke hole. Even when this is done those who stand at the head of the game are still divided in opinion. Some, who may think their power of play is being better suited, may be inclined to one particular distance, while others prefer another.

I would like it to be clearly understood that the opinions I shall express here are solely my own, based, it is almost needless to say, upon my own experience of the game. They may be quite correct; on the other hand, they may be wrong. But they will, anyhow, express what I think would be the right thing to aim at; so to the subject of our consideration without further delay.

For the one-stroke hole I think a distance of from 140 yards to 150 yards would, under a practical test, be proved to be the best. This distance, of course, is not a full wooden club shot, as accomplished by a good driver, but it is quite long enough for all useful purposes. A strong driver may be capable of getting his ball from 180 yards to 200 yards from the tee, but this is the exception rather than the rule, and the moderate player must after all be considered.

Supposing that the hole is placed 150 yards distant from the tee, then every player possesses a fairly equal chance. But if the hole is placed over that distance, the medium driver finds himself at a disadvantage, for he cannot hope to get upon the green, unless, of course, he is particularly well served in the matter of fortune or wind.

Once upon the green it then becomes simply a matter of putting, a matter where the action of hand and eye, perfectly under control or otherwise, spells either success or disaster.

For the purpose of a two-stroke hole I would suggest a distance of 320 yards or 330 yards, still bearing in mind, of course, that an exceptionally long driver would be capable of doing more than this in two strokes. For the everyday player, though, just the ordinary club man, this distance is amply sufficient, for it contains two full shots for the medium driver and an iron or cleek shot for the longer driver.

In calculating this hole I am taking from 170 yards to 180 yards as a reasonable limit for the drive, leaving about 140 yards, more or less, remaining to be covered before the green is reached.

Although it may not be exactly the full distance for two club shots, it will be found, in the great majority of instances, that even if a hole is but slightly over 340 yards it becomes neither one thing nor the other. It is an awkward length if that distance is exceeded ; it becomes too difficult to suit the requirements of all, and this is an especial evil that must be guarded against at all costs. The medium player would need to take two full drives and an approach shot, and although there are those who have laid it down that a two-stroke hole should be from 380 yards to 400 yards in length, I do not agree with their reasoning or their deductions.

If the last-named distance has to be covered, it will be certainly found to be within the compass of the long driver; but it is equally as certain that it will prove a very bad length indeed for a golfer who is only capable of drives of medium power. This is my argument - that the powerful player must not be given too great an advantage over his less fortunate comrades; so do not make holes to suit just one particular kind of player, but, on the contrary, make them in such a manner as to suit all players.

As for the three-stroke hole, this, I am inclined to think, is the simplest upon which authorities may agree as regards the best and proper length. I have no hesitation in saying that I consider 470 yards an ideal distance, one, in short, that cannot be improved upon, no matter whether you may be catering for the powerful or the medium player.

The former should be able to reach the green by dint of playing two drives and an iron shot, while the medium golfer would take three full shots in order to reach the same spot or thereabouts. This would leave the pair fairly upon an equality, and that, I take it, is the most important fact to be borne in mind when a hole is being laid out. Give every competitor a fair field and no favour-these are admitted to be the ethics of British sports.

The tendency of the present day, however, is to make every course as long as possible - a tendency, I fear, that very frequently is discovered to have defeated its own ends, for by following out this predilection to the strict letter what might have been a really good course is more often than not turned into a bad one.

I am not a believer in or a supporter of what I would like to term "sloggers' golf." A long course, it must be admitted, places a premium upon the long and powerful driver, and playing upon it simply means the survival, not of the fittest, but of the most muscular player.

It is only fair that medium players should occasionally be afforded a chance. We are not all Samsons or Sandows, and if a golfer once discovers a task is above his power of accomplishment, then he becomes disheartened, and the more delicate points of the game suffer.

Quite as important, too, must be the recognised fact that it is not long driving alone that is sufficient to win a match - the approach shots and the putting are all-important, and call for the utmost consideration-