(1) There are many points of style which are essential to effective play.

(2) There is practical unanimity among golfers on recognising the effect of the presence or absence of most of these.

The third doesn't affect my point for the present, so I don't quote it. Now how far in the light of modern golfers would Sir W. G. Simpson defend these theses to-day? Were they ever sound? I mentioned the Badminton, and I advise those who have never read it to do so. Two important plates in it show 'the top of the swing as it should be' and 'end of the swing as it should not be'; another plate gives the St. Andrews swing. These two golfers, for it is quite well known whom they represent, have strangely different methods. The result we know they shared - both hitting the ball very far and very straight.

In 1898 there came that fine book Golf and Golfers, and it is significant of the progress of the game that such a book should have been issued. It contains a splendid collection of golf swings, embracing practically all the best exponents of the game of that day, too many of whom, alas, have dropped out. Although too much reliance must not be placed on photography, for it often lies, and a golfer, even one of the big men, conscious of being photographed, produces a very different picture from that when he is not conscious, yet for the purpose of observing what the players have in common the photos are sound, with perhaps the exception of Mr. H. G. B. Ellis's two examples. I cannot bring myself to take them seriously, as they savour too much of an uncontrollable fit of joking, sadly inopportune.1 If there is one lesson to be learnt from this picture gallery, it is that there are dozens of successful ways of producing far and straight driving - many have more than one point in common, but no one point is common to all.

The frontispiece to the book is a 'finish of the drive' by the late Lieutenant Tait, a giant even amongst giants. Carefully examine this side by side with his other photograph on page 144. The theorists have always appeared to me a little too fond of explaining away a fact that they couldn't fit in by avowing that the Champion (and it was generally a champion that gave most trouble) was so clearly a genius and thus a law unto himself. Lieutenant Tait certainly caused much anxiety with his right-hand grip and consequent wrist action.

1 I can assure Sherlock that they are very serious pictures and true portraits of a very singular player. - H. G. H.

I well remember the flutter and excitement caused by Taylor when he won at St. Andrews. There was very little 'correct' in his methods, and the clubs he used were mere freaks. Then Vardon came and wrested the championship away from Taylor in the famous play-off after the tie at Muirfield in 1896. What the old school must have thought about these two youngsters from over the border can only be guessed. Certainly between them they disregarded most of the points that were accepted as the right way of playing the game. Every year since, the list of those who are a law unto themselves has been added to. Nowadays, the golfer who plays with a style all his own escapes notice even at St. Andrews. If you doubt this, think for a moment what would have happened if Mr. de Montmorency had gone twenty years ago and annexed the Jubilee vase, as he did last year, with his egregious but horribly effective methods. I can imagine the feelings of the Royal and Ancient being so outraged that a special train would have been chartered - their well-known sense of courtesy would have demanded that - and he would promptly have been ordered south of the Tweed.

Before me as I write, having arrived at a most opportune time, is an advertisement of yet another golf text-book. It contains a photograph giving a part of the swing with a driver, and printed with it, drawing attention to a certain movement, is the dictum 'this is essential to the true swing.' The first thing that struck me was that at any rate it is not part of my swing, and, what is more to the point, neither does it form part of the swing of the editor of this book - to go no further. My own case doesn't count, but the editor is the acknowledged W. G. of the game, and cannot be passed over lightly.

Another book that has but recently seen the light of day is expected to be of use to the man who takes the game up late in life. To my mind it is unfortunate that the illustrations should be all of a golfer whose freedom of movement, ease and agility it is hard to match from amongst the best of the younger school. Exuberance is marked in nearly every photograph. Is it wise for many people, especially those of middle age, to try and emulate such a method?

An enlightening experiment, if it were possible, would be to parade the first twenty men, starting at any club in the British Isles, and carefully note how they are equipped to play games. Height, length of limb, power of wrists, arms, hands, etc., balance, quickness of movement, etc. etc. etc. Having done this, face the question: Is it likely to be the soundest advice that these men should be coached, drilled, or a better word still is 'bent,' to adopt one stereotyped form of swing? Is it not more feasible to bend the game within limits to fit the man? If there is something to be said for this idea, the truth will probably be found in a scientific combination of both, and here, 'you writer of golf books, is a subject made to your hand.' But in the meantime don't frighten good men or shake the confidence of true men with all this talk about essentials.