In the case of the low shot against the wind, it is clear that, as the club-head "goes through ' the ball, it must be descending and tending to keep to the turf as long as possible. In swinging the club with that behaviour of the club-head in view, the player will naturally tend to keep his weight forward on his left foot.

* The player is not called upon to juggle with the club.

In the case of the high shot down wind the mental picture will be the opposite one: the club-head must be tending to rise sharply as it "goes through" the ball, and the players weight will naturally be kept well back on the right foot, in order that the club-head may take that path.

Such, it is submitted, is the proper view of stance in so far as the direction is concerned. It now remains to consider stance in relation to the length of the shot. The text books are again prolific in suggestions for the use of the inch-tape and for the use of the club-shaft as a stance guide. Thus Braid: "As a general rule, the player should stand just so far from the ball that when the face of the club is laid against it, the end of the shaft just reaches to his left knee when the latter has got just a suspicion of a bend in it."

This kind of advice may be well meant, but it is ill-conceived. It is not only bad in itself, it is bad because it suggests an entirely wrong attitude to the shot and the game. There is no spectacle on the links more pathetic than that of the player whose mind is atrophied and whose bones are stiff with this kind of doctrine. Uric acid is not more insidious or more deadly. It is~ one of the pleasures, and part of the pride, of Ernest Jones that his pupils never look as though they had been taught golf. They proceed from cause to effect and stand up to the ball as though they were going to hit it, and to enjoy hitting it - not as though they were doing a medieval penance, or entering a torture-chamber, or bracing themselves for the crack of doom, or performing a religious rite, or setting a theodolite. . . . All that the player has to do is to stand up to the ball so that he can swing freely, forcefully, and accurately - that is really all that can usefully be said about it. Obviously, if he stands beyond a certain distance away from the ball he will lose his balance and, with it, accuracy, and he will stretch out his arms and stiffen his shoulders so that he must lose freedom and power. And, obviously, if he approaches beyond a certain distance towards the ball, his swing will be cramped and ineffective. A few experiments and a little thought will teach him all that can be learned.

The writer passes to the question of the square and the open stance, a question magnilo-quently described by one of golfs journalists as "The Battle of the Stances" - a thing ranking in importance, apparently, with Marathon and the Battle of the Marne.

The impression of the open stance normally conveyed in the textbooks is that the player's body is so turned that a line across the player's shoulders is approximately parallel with a line across his toes - that the player is, in fact, turned more or less toward the hole. Thus Webb: "The player should slightly face the hole." But this is not so. The difference between the open and the square stances is essentially a difference in the position of the feet, the difference in the position of the shoulders and hips being slight - almost negligible. The failure to realize these facts leads to endless confusion.

"Slicing," says Braid, "is commonly due to a faulty stance . . . the right foot too far forward." Again: "The most elementary direction for obtaining a sliced ball is to take your stance with your right foot advanced." And Vardon: "In playing for the slice, the stance should be open." The books are, indeed, practically unanimous on the point. They speak continually of the feet, and if they refer, directly or indirectly to the shoulders or hips, they usually mislead. They suggest that the open stance and the slicing stance are one and the same thing; they do not point out that it is the forward position of the right shoulder that gives slice, and they do not warn the player that in the ordinary open stance - the stance which gives the straight ball equally with the square stance - the right shoulder must be kept back, and in no circumstances allowed to come forward to the extent suggested by the advanced position of the right foot.

If it were the fact that in the open stance the shoulders did follow the line of the feet, then the open stance would properly be called the slicing stance, as the player can readily prove to his own satisfaction. Let him stand up to the ball in the position just indicated and make an experimental swing over the ball, observing the path of the club-head as the ball is passed. He will find that as the club-head passes over the ball it is swinging, not in the line of intended direction, but across that line. The stance he has taken up is, in fact, the position in which he would have found himself had he stood up to the ball with a view to the club-head crossing the line of direction - that is, with a view to slicing.

The player is now asked to stand up to the ball (without thinking for a moment about the position of his feet) so that when he makes his experimental swing the club-head shall pass over the ball in the line of intended direction. That is to say, he is asked to stand up to the ball as though he were about to make an ordinary straight shot. Let him now notice the position of his feet. They may be set either "open" or "square." If they are open, let them be placed square. If they are square, let them be placed open. It will be found that this operation can be done with only a very slight adjustment of the line of the shoulders or the line of the hips, and that if the experimental swing over the ball is repeated, the course of the club-head will not be changed. The moment, however, that the line of the shoulders or the line ot the hips, is materially interfered with, that moment a fresh direction will be determined for the club-head, with corresponding results in the shot.

It will thus be seen that in analyzing a player's stance the essential characteristic to be noted is the line of the shoulders (and the hips), and not the position of the feet; for the position of the feet may be varied, within limits, at the caprice of the player. In the slicing stance the line of the shoulders is turned towards the hole. And, of course, the converse holds good, the line of the shoulders in the pulling stance being turned away from the hole.

The vital point to observe in the stance for the straight shot is that whether the feet be open or square, the right shoulder is well back. It is the position which that shoulder must take if the player sets about finding the stance by reference to his swing. The player who has this mental attitude to the stance will instinctively adopt a position in which his head will be turned slightly away from the line of direction; he will have in mind a type of swing based on a back-handed "swipe" at the ball with the left hand and arm. Observation of any expert golfer, whether he stand open or square, will show that his head in the address is turned away from the line of direction, and if the backward position of the right shoulder is less noticeable, the player will tell you that the feeling he has is that the right shoulder is back. This feeling is one of the fundamentals of golf. This does not mean, of course, that the beginner must place his right shoulder back when he is addressing the ball, for the position is an effect, not a cause. His right shoulder will automatically take its proper position if he has a proper mental picture of the shot.

To recapitulate. The writer submits that it is no part of the player's business to think of the shot in terms of stance. To do that is to put the cart before the horse, to confuse effect and cause. The stance is determined absolutely and entirely by the swing. It is the swing, and the swing alone, which conditions the stance. When the player has learned to swing the club, he will have nothing to learn about stance. Until he has learned to swing the club, he can learn nothing about stance. It is for these reasons that the writer believes that the teaching of the text-books is unsound - the more, not the less unsound, because that teaching is aimed at the beginner. It is quite true that a beginner who has not acquired the art ot swinging the club may perform less egregiously if he measures out his stance with the help of his club-shaft and an inch-tape. The player who tries to hit the ball when the club-head is the length of the shaft from the left knee will, ceteris paribus, fail less miserably than the man who can only reach the ball by adroitly springing forward at a well-chosen moment in the down-swing; and similarly the chances of hitting the ball are undoubtedly increased when the feet are out of the way. But, after all, even the person who takes up golf should be presumed to have some intelligence, and it is only fair to him to ask him to use it. It is obviously not good for the beginner to get hold of the right end of the club if he gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.