ONE of the primary problems of golf is the exact place to be assigned to sheer strength. Like most other questions, it has two sides, and it is worth while to see how the arguments fall.

First for those against mere muscle; I once heard a Scotch professional say, "Yon man's o'er strong to play." He was referring to one of those individuals of Samson-like development, who could put the shot an incredible number of feet and who by pure muscular power lift a comparatively heavy man with one hand and hold him up for some time. There was much truth in this professional's remark, for the Goliath could make nothing of the game of golf. He could not even hit the ball a long way, for the simple reason that he was muscle bound in every limb in his body, and in consequence could not swing the club with even a relative degree of freedom.

The whole result of his most frantic muscular efforts was to push the ball a distance of about one hundred and fifty yards. I say push the ball advisedly, as his swing was nothing more or less than a species of push, a swing which took the club up with rigid muscles. He did not seem able to relax those abnormal muscles of his, and then tighten them up again on the downward swing. The mere effort of taking hold of the club appeared to have the effect of bringing his frame into an absolute state of rigidity.

I do not wish to imply by this, however, that actual physical strength is of no avail in the game of golf. If a man who is well blessed with physical power can only apply that power to its best advantage, it must of necessity be a great asset to him, as there are quite a number of strokes to be played in the game which necessitate the use of more than an average degree of strength, and the man who is not blessed with a sufficiency for the occasion must of necessity suffer. But it is better to be blessed with a comparatively limited degree of physical strength, and know how to a )ply it to its fullest advantage, than to have the gift of exceptional physical power, and not know how best to utilize it. In one instance, the physical power is in excellent control, while in the other it cannot be.

If there is one muscle or rather set of muscles in the human frame which are of no use to man in the pursuit of the game of golf, they are those which act in relation to what is usually termed the biceps. No doubt those muscles have their uses in this world, for instance, one could imagine that they are particularly serviceable in the removal of pianofortes or other heavy domestic material, but for the propulsion of a golf ball, they are worse than useless, as they simply get in the way and hinder the swing of the player. That they are of little avail to the golfer is evidenced by the fact that among professionals whose physical exercises are limited to the playing of golf there is almost an entire absence of development.

Some few years ago I had occasion to receive very emphatic testimony on this point. We were discussing the question of golf and physical development consequent to it, and I expressed the opinion that not only were the biceps of no use to the player, but moreover there were very few first-class players who could claim any particular development in this part of the arm, and that the majority were almost devoid of such development. These opinions were received with a certain degree of incredulity, not to say unbelief. Just at that moment J. H. Taylor, the four times champion, arrived on the scene, and I suggested that they should utilize his anatomy as a test

Taylor is an exceptionally sturdy, strongly built man, looking the very embodiment of physical strength, the kind of a man one would on first sight be excused for assuming to be something akin to a professional wrestler. On the mere question of appearance, a more unlikely subject could not have been chosen by which to prove the truth of my contention, but I was not in the least alarmed, as I knew that Taylor played golf and no other game. The reply to the query as to the development of his biceps was much as I anticipated, as it came in the most emphatic manner, "Soft as butter, sir, just like a child's," and a physical demonstration proved this to be correct in every way. John Henry Taylor was almost completely devoid of muscular development in his biceps, and in this respect was only much the same as the majority of men who have made the game of golf their favorite physical pastime.

But it must not be understood that golf does not develop the physical attributes, as in truth it is a wonderful all-round developer of physique, and in particular of the muscles at the back of the arm and those which have their resting place in the shoulders; the majority of those who have played much golf in their younger years have splendidly developed shoulder muscles. Again it develops the leg and the chest muscles; in fact, as a general all-round developer of the frame there are very few games as good as golf. Peculiar to say, the muscles that it does not materially aid are the biceps and the forearm muscles, and although many good golfers have well-developed forearms, it is to my way of thinking possible to have too great a development of forearm for the playing of successful golf.

What I do think the game of golf tends to develop is strength of sinews, particularly of those which pass through the wrists, and it is almost impossible for a golfer to be a great player without he has an average degree of strength in the sinews of the wrists. It does not necessarily mean that he must be possessed of those big, strong, square-boned species of wrists, which indicate exceptional strength in this part of the anatomy. In fact, the bone development may be slight and the wrist apparently a comparatively weak example, but provided there is strength and suppleness of sinew, the player need not worry about the lack of bone. The sinews will do all that is required, and some of the longest drivers I have ever come across have had wrists which in appearance would have seemed more in keeping on the arm of a woman.