The continued hold which golf has kept on St. Andrews links is sufficient proof of their lasting excellence, and of the fascination which they exercise on the golfer's mind. A green so old in story, whose every bunker yawns with tradition, whose every hole is replete with memories of "battles long ago," must always appeal to the imagination of the golfer. The constant tread of human feet and the ceaseless thrashing of human niblicks, may have changed the configuration of the ground, as they certainly have caused the disappearance of the whins. But these inevitable results of the march of time, properly regarded, but add to the interest of the place, as do the steps and pavement of an ancient church, worn by the feet of bygone generations. The golf is still as good as ever, and as difficult, though it is somewhat different in character. The passing away of the whins has been counterbalanced by the badness of the lies throughout the green, and if the records have been greatly reduced, it is because the large increase in the number of players, and the great improvement that has taken place in the manufacture of clubs and balls, have resulted, but naturally, in a distinct advance in the quality of the play.

Though the record of St. Andrews links now stands at 71, a reference to the Appendix and the winners of the open championship will show, that since 1873, the average round for the winner on these links is a fraction over 85, while at Prestwick, during the same period, the average winning round was 81 1/2, and at Musselburgh a little over 79. At Sandwich, on the only occasion on which the championship has yet been played there, the winner's average was nearly 81, and at Muirfield and Hoylake on the two last occasions, 79 and 78 1/2 respectively. This would seem to show that St. Andrews is three or four strokes more difficult than any of the other championship courses.

Now, if any verdict at all is to be arrived at, the question of the superiority of any of these five first-class greens over the others must resolve itself into which is the most difficult. Where all are, humanly speaking, in as perfect condition as possible, and where the hazards, putting greens, and tees, have been placed in the best places, as the result of years of knowledge and experience, where there is not 600 yards of difference between the total length of the longest and shortest of them, it can only be a matter of opinion which green supplies the best golf. But if the question be confined as to which green is the more difficult, it may be possible to arrive at a more absolute verdict. Let us see if a further examination of the statistics at our disposal will confirm the apparent greater difficulty of St. Andrews.

In the first place the course is the longest of the five championship courses, and it measures 6,323 yards, or 311 yards more than Sandwich, which is the next longest. Though 311 yards would be a fairish length for a hole of four strokes, it will not be contended that this accounts for the difference between the championship scores. Spread over eighteen holes, 311 yards does not amount to much, and probably one stroke would be ample to allow for the difference in this respect between St. Andrews and Sandwich, and two would certainly cover the difference between it and Prestwick, which is the shortest of the five. How, then, are the missing strokes to be accounted for ? The following comparative table may be useful in analysing the matter.

For purposes of comparison all holes from 350 yards downwards are reckoned short holes.

St. Andrews, 6,323 yards.

Prestwick, 5,732 yards.

An examination of the above table and a reference to the Appendix will at once reveal the fact that St. Andrews greatly differs from all the others, both in the number of its long holes and the total of its short holes. It will be seen, in the first place, that on this computation, St. Andrews has 10 holes from 350 yards upwards, while the 5 others have only an average of a little over 6 apiece. Further, while St. Andrews has only 8 holes from 350 yards downwards, the rest have an average of nearly 12 each.

If we add up the total lengths of these long and short holes the difference is even more striking, as the following list will show.

The above figures will clearly demonstrate that the difference between St. Andrews and the other courses is not to be accounted for by the additional actual length which St. Andrews possesses, but is the result of the proportionate length of the holes themselves. For in the case of every one of the other greens, the total length of the short holes is in excess of that of the long holes, while the total length of the long holes at St. Andrews is 1,865 yards in excess of that of its short ones.

As the difference between the courses is thus obviously the result, not of actual length but of its distribution, let us look a little more closely at our classification of the various holes.

It will be found, on referring to the table, that St. Andrews has 6 holes over 350 yards and up to 400 yards, while the others have only 7 of this class between them, and of holes from 350 yards to 200 yards, while the other greens have an average of over 9 apiece, St. Andrews has only got 6.

Further, it is in these two classes of holes that the difference exists. In the holes over 400 yards and under 200 yards there is practically no difference between the respective averages of the lengths, and even in numbers they are approximately the same.

Now, of course, it may be said that figures can be made to prove anything, but if it be true, as championship returns seem to show, that St. Andrews is several strokes more difficult than any of the other courses, and if, as some contend, there is a good length and a bad length for a hole, irrespective of its configuration or hazards, it is at least a suggestive fact, that St. Andrews is rich in holes over 350 yards and under 400, where the other courses are poor, and is deficient in the shorter class of holes, from 350 to 200 yards, where the others are strong.