THE MYSTERY OF GOLF
There is no such thing as "the mystery of golf." One might reasonably
ask, "If there is no such thing as 'the mystery of golf,' why devote a
chapter to it?" But "the mystery of golf" should really be written
"the mystery of the golfer," for the simple reason that the golfer
himself is responsible for all the mystery in golf--in short, "the
mystery of golf" may briefly be defined as the credulity of the
golfer. Notwithstanding this, at least one enterprising man has
produced a book entirely devoted to elucidating the alleged mystery of
golf, wherein, quite unknown to himself, he proves most clearly and
conclusively the truth of my opening statement in this chapter, that
the mystery of golf is merely the credulity of the golfer; but of that
anon.
There really is no mystery whatever about the game of golf. It is one
of the simplest of games, but unquestionably it is a game which is
very difficult to play well, a game which demands a high degree of
mechanical accuracy in the production of the various strokes. It is
apparent from the nature of the implements used in the game that this
must be so. All the foolishness of nebulous advice, and all the quaint
excuses which have been gathered together under the head of "the
mystery of golf," are simply weak man's weaker excuses for his want
of intelligence and mechanical accuracy. Until the golfer fully
understands and freely acknowledges this, he is suffering from a very
severe handicap. If, when he addresses his ball, he has firmly
implanted in his mind the idea that he is in the presence of some
awesome mystery, there is very little doubt that he will do his level
best to perform his part in the mystery play.
We do not read anywhere of the mystery of lawn-tennis, the mystery of
cricket, the mystery of marbles, squash racquets, or ping-pong. There
are no mysteries in these games any more than there are in golf, and
the plain fact is that the demand of golf is inexorable. It insists
upon the straight line being followed, and the man who forsakes the
straight line is immediately detected. In no game, perhaps, is the
insistent demand for direction so inexorable as in golf. Perhaps also
in no game is that demand so frequently refused, and, naturally, the
erring golfer wishes to excuse himself. It is useful then for him to
be told of the mysteries of golf--the wonderful mysteries, the
psychological difficulties, the marvellous cerebration, the incredibly
rapid nerve "telegraphing," and the wonderful muscular complications
which take place between the time that he addresses the ball and hits
it, or otherwise.
Now, as a matter of fact, this is all so much balderdash, so much
falseness, so much artificial and indeed almost criminal nonsense. It
would indeed almost seem as if the people who write this kind of stuff
are in league with the greatest players of the world, who write as
instructions for the unfortunate would-be golfer things which they
themselves never dreamed of doing--things which would quite spoil the
wonderful game they play if they did them.
[Illustration: PLATE I. HARRY VARDON'S GRIP
Showing the overlapping of the first finger of the left hand
by the little finger of the right. This is now the orthodox
grip.]
If there may be said to be any mystery whatever about golf, it is
that in such an ancient and simple game there has grown up around it
such a marvellous mass of false teaching, of confused thought, and of
fantastic notions. No game suffers from this false doctrine and
imaginative nonsense to the same extent as does golf. It is
magnificently played. We have here in England the finest exponents of
the game, both amateur and professional, in the world. If those men
played golf as they tell others by their printed works to play it, I
should have another story to tell about their prowess on the links.
Golf, in itself, is quite sufficiently difficult. It is quite
unnecessary to give the golfer, or the would-be golfer, an additional
handicap by instilling it into his mind that golf is any more
mysterious than any other game which is played. The most mysterious
thing about golf is that those who really ought to know most about it
publish broadcast wrong information about the fundamental principles
of the game. Innocent players follow this advice, and not unnaturally
they find it tremendously difficult to make anything like adequate
progress. Naturally, when some one comes along and explains to them in
lengthy articles, or may be in a book, about the psychological
difficulties and terrific complications of golf, they are pleased to
fasten on this stuff as an excuse for their want of success, whereas
in very truth the real explanation lies simply in the fact that they
are violating some of the commonest and simplest laws of mechanics.
Here, indeed, I might almost be forgiven if I went back on what I have
said about the mystery of golf, and produced, on my own account, that
which is to me an outstanding mystery, and labelled it "the mystery of
golf." This really is to me always a mystery, but I should not be
correct in calling it "the mystery of golf," for it is more correctly
described as the simplicity of the golfer. This mystery is that
practically every writer about golf, and nearly every player, seems to
labour under the delusion that there is a special set of mechanical
laws for golf, that the golf ball flying through the air is actuated
by totally different influences and in a totally different manner from
the cricket ball, the ping-pong ball, or the lawn-tennis ball when
engaged in a similar manner. That is bad enough, but the same
delusions exist with regard to the conduct of the ball on the green.
Now it is impossible to speak too plainly about this matter, because I
want at the outset to dispel the illusion of the mystery of golf.
There is no special set of mechanical laws governing golf. Golf has to
take its place with all other games, and the mechanical laws which
govern the driving of a nail, a golf ball, or a cricket ball are fixed
and immutable and well known, so that it is quite useless for any one
to try to explain to intelligent persons that there is any mystery in
golf or the production of the golfing strokes beyond that which may be
found in other games. Some people might think that I labour this
point. It is impossible to be too emphatic at the outset about it, for
the simple reason that it is bad enough for the golfer to have to
think at the moment of making his stroke about the things which
actually do matter. If we are going to provide him with phantoms as
well as solid realities to contend with, he will indeed have a sorry
time. As a matter of fact, about seven-tenths of the bad golf which is
played is due to too much thinking about the stroke _while the stroke
is being played_. The golf stroke in itself may be quite easily
learned; I mean the true golf stroke, and not the imaginary golf
stroke, which has been built up for the unfortunate golfer by those
who never played such a stroke themselves, and by those who write of
the mystery of golf; but it is an absolute certainty that the time for
thinking about the golf stroke, and how it shall be played, _is not
when one is playing the stroke_.
As a matter of fact the golf stroke is in some respects a complicated
stroke. Certain changes of position in the body and arms take place
with extreme rapidity during the execution of the stroke. It is an
utter impossibility for any man to think out and execute in proper
order the component parts of a well-executed drive during his stroke.
When a man addresses his ball he should have in his mind but the one
idea--he has to hit that ball in such a manner as to get it to the
place at which he wants it to arrive; but between the time of his
address and the time that the ball departs on its journey his action
should be, to use a much-hackneyed but still expressive word,
practically sub-conscious; in fact, the way he hit that ball should be
regulated by habit. If the result was satisfactory--well and good. If
otherwise, he may analyse that shot in his armchair later on; but when
once one has addressed the ball it is absolutely fatal to good golf to
indulge in speculation as to how one is going to hit that ball, and if
to that speculation one adds a belief in what is called "the mystery
of golf," one had better get right away back to marbles at once,
because it is a certainty that any one who believes in nonsense of
this sort and practises it can never be a golfer.
The bane of about eighty-five per cent of golfers is a pitiful attempt
to cultivate style. The most contemptible man at any game is the
stylist. The man who cultivates style before the game is not fit to
cumber any links. Every man should strive to produce his stroke in a
mechanically perfect manner. A good style is almost certain to follow
when this is done. Style as the result of a game produced in a
mechanically perfect manner is most desirable, but style without the
game is simply despicable. One sometimes sees misguided golfers, or
would-be golfers, practising their follow-through in a very theatrical
manner. It should be obvious to a very mean intelligence that a
follow-through is of no value whatever, except as the natural result
of a correctly executed stroke. If the stroke has been correct up to
the moment of impact, the follow-through will come almost as naturally
as a good style will be born of correctly executed strokes.
Self-consciousness is the besetting sin of the golfer. It is hardly
too much to say that the ordinary golfer devotes, unfortunately, too
much thought to himself and "the swing," and far too little to the
thing that he is there for--namely, to hit the ball.
In golf the player has plenty of time to spare in making his stroke,
and he occupies too much of it in thinking about other things than the
stroke. The essence of success at golf is concentration upon the
stroke. The analysis has no right whatever to intrude itself on a
man's mind until the stroke has been played. The inquest should not be
held until the corpse is there. If this rule is followed, it will be
found that the corpse is frequently wanting.
Golf is a very ancient game. Lawn-tennis is an absolute parvenu by its
side, and there are many other games which, compared with golf, are
practically infants. Golf stands alone as regards false instruction,
nebulous criticism, and utter disregard of the first principles of
mechanics. I have always been at a loss to understand this. It is not
as though golf had not been played and studied by some of the keenest
intellects in the land. We have had, as we shall see later on, men of
the highest scientific attainments devoting their attention to the
game, writing about it, lecturing about it, publishing things about it
which exist solely in their imagination. This truly may be called a
mystery.
I cannot leave the mystery of golf without giving some illustrations
of the things which are published as instruction. For instance, I read
lately that a good style results in good golf. This is the kind of
thing which mystifies a beginner. The good style should be the result
of the good golf, and not the golf of the style. I read elsewhere:
As a matter of fact most of the difficulties in golf are
mental, not physical, are subjective, not objective, are the
created phantasms of the mind, not the veritable realities of
the course.
I find these things in Mr. Haultain's book entitled _The Mystery of
Golf_.
There is no game where there are fewer mental difficulties than in
golf. The game is so extremely simple that it can practically be
reduced to a matter of physical and mechanical accuracy. The mental
demand in golf--provided always, of course, that the man who is
addressing the ball knows what he wants to do--is extremely small and
extremely simple. "The created phantasms of the mind" are supplied by
fantastic writers who have proved for themselves that these phantasms
are the deadliest enemies of good golf. In another place I read the
following passage:
You may place your ball how or where you like, you may hit it
with any sort of implement you like; all you have to do is to
hit it. Could simpler conditions be devised? Could an easier
task be set? And yet such is the constitution of the human
golfing soul that it not only fails to achieve it, but
invents for itself multiform and manifold ifs and ans for not
achieving it--ifs and ans, the nature and number of which
must assuredly move the laughter of the gods.
Probably this is meant to be satirical, but it is merely a libel on
the great body of golfers. It is not the "human golfing soul" which
"invents for itself multiform and manifold ifs and ans for not
achieving it." He who invents these ifs and ans is the author of the
ordinary golf book on golf, written ostensibly by some great player,
and the "ifs and ans" most assuredly, if they do not "move the
laughter of the gods," are sufficient to provoke the derision and
contempt of the golfer who feels that nobody has a right to publish
statements about a game which must act in a detrimental manner upon
those who attempt to follow them.
It is not the "human golfing soul" or the human golfing body which is
so prone to error. Those who make the errors are those who essay to
teach, and the time has now come for them to vindicate themselves or
to stand back, to stand out of the way of the spread of truth; for one
may be able to fool all the golfers some of the time and some of the
golfers all the time, but it is a sheer impossibility to fool all the
golfers all the time; and if the teaching which has obtained credence
in the past were to be left unassailed, the result would be untold
misery and discomfort to millions of golfers.
It is for this reason that I am dealing in an early chapter with the
alleged mystery of golf, for I want to make it particularly clear that
in the vast majority of cases those who attempt to explain the mystery
of golf proceed very much on the lines of the octopus and obscure
themselves behind clouds of inky fluid which are generally as
shapeless in their form and meaning as the matter given off by the
uncanny sea-dweller. In fact, the ordinary attempt to explain the
mystery of golf generally resolves itself into the writer setting up
his own Aunt Sally, and even then exposing how painfully bad his aim
is.
Nearly every one who writes about golf claims for it that above all
games it is the truest test of character, and in a degree unknown in
any other game reveals the nature of the man who is playing it, and
they proceed on this assumption to weave some of the most remarkable
romances in connection with the simple and fundamental principles of
the game. In the book under notice we are asked
... and yet why, _why_ does a badly-played game so upset a
sane and rational man? You may lose at bridge, you may be
defeated in chess, you may recall lost chances in football or
polo; you may remember stupid things you did in tennis or
squash racquets; you may regret undue haste in trying to
secure an extra run or runs in cricket, but the mental
depression caused by these is temporary and evanescent. Why
do foozles in golf affect the whole man? Humph! It is no use
blinking matters--say what the scoffers may--to foozle at
golf, to take your eye off your ball, cuts down to the very
deeps of the human soul. It does; there is no controverting
that.... Perhaps this is why golf is worth writing about.
It certainly is mysterious that any "sane and rational man" can write
such stuff about golf. This is a fair sample of the kind of thing one
gets from those who attempt to treat of golf from the physiological or
psychological standpoint. I can hardly say too often that there is no
such thing as the mystery of golf, any more than there is, in reality,
such a thing as the soul of golf, but the mystery of golf is a
meaningless and misleading term. The soul of golf means, in effect,
the heart of golf--a true and loving understanding of the very core of
the game.
It would be bad enough if the persons essaying to explain the alleged
mystery of golf knew the game thoroughly themselves, but, generally
speaking, they do not--in the case under consideration, the writer
himself admits that he is "a duffer." Now taking him at his own
valuation, it does indeed seem strange that one whose knowledge of the
game is admittedly insufficient, should attempt to explain to players
the super-refinements of a game at which he himself is admittedly
incompetent. It may seem somewhat cruel to press this point, but in a
matter such as this we have to consider the greatest good of the
greatest number, and we must not allow false sentiment to weigh with
us in dealing with the work of anyone who publishes matter which may
prejudicially affect the game of an immense body of people.
The attempts to deal with the psychology and the physiology of golf
are a mass of confused thought and illogical reasoning, but it is when
the author proceeds to deal in any way with the practical side of golf
that he shows clearly that his estimate of himself, at least in so far
as regards his knowledge of the game, is not inaccurate. Let us take,
for instance, the following passage. He says that William Park,
Junior, has informed us that
... pressing, really, is putting in the power at the right
time. You can hit as hard as you like if you hit accurately
and at the right time, but the man who presses is the man who
puts in the power too soon. He is in too great a hurry. He
begins to hit before the club head has come anywhere near the
ball.
This quotation, I may say, is not from William Park's book, but is
taken from the volume I am quoting, and the last sentence--"He begins
to hit before the club head has come anywhere near the ball"--shows
clearly that the author has no idea whatever of even a mechanical
analysis of the golf stroke, for it is impossible to begin the hit too
soon. The main portion of the power of the drive in golf is developed
(as indeed anyone with very little consideration might know) _near the
beginning of the downward swing_. This is so simple, so natural, so
apparent to any one who knows the game of golf that I feel it is
almost unnecessary to support the statement; but there are so many
people who follow the game of golf, and are willing to accept as
gospel any remarkable statement with regard to the game, that I may as
well refer doubters to James Braid's book on _Advanced Golf_ wherein
he shows clearly that anyone desiring to produce a proper drive at
golf must be hard at it from the very beginning of the stroke. The
author continues:
If in the drive the whole weight and strength of the body,
from the nape of the neck to the soles of the feet, are not
transferred from body to ball, through the minute and
momentary contact of club with ball, absolutely surely, yet
swiftly--you top or you pull or you sclaff, or you slice, or
you swear.
It is almost unnecessary to tell any golfer that the whole weight of
his body is not thrown at his golf ball, for this, in effect, would
produce a terrific lunge and utterly destroy the rhythm of his stroke.
Here is another remarkable passage--"and as to that mashie shot where
you loft high over an abominable bunker and fall dead with a back-spin
and a cut to the right on a keen and declivitous green--is there any
stroke in any game quite so delightfully difficult as that?" and my
answer is "Certainly not, for there is no such stroke in golf." When
one puts a cut to the right or to the left, one has no back-spin on
the ball. The back-spin is only got by following through after the
ball in a downward direction, and as to a mashie approach with a cut
to the right--well, the cut on a golf ball in a mashie stroke is in
practical golf _always_ a cut to the left, which produces a run to the
right. The shot as described by Mr. Haultain simply does not exist in
golf. It probably is a portion of the mystery of golf which he has not
yet solved.
Then we are told
... not only is the stroke in golf an extremely difficult
one--it is also an extremely complicated one, more especially
the drive, in which its principles are concentrated. It is,
in fact, a subtile combination of a swing and a hit, the
"hit" portion being deftly incorporated into the "swing" just
as the head of the club reaches the ball, yet without
disturbing the regular rhythm of the motion.
This again is another of the mysteries of golf, and a mystery purely
of the inventive brain of the author. The drive in golf is played with
such extreme rapidity that the duration of impact does not last more
than one ten-thousandth of a second, yet we are asked to believe that
the first portion of the stroke is a swing, but in, say, the
five-thousandth of a second it is to be changed to a hit. Could the
force of folly in alleged tuition go further than this?
We now come to an absolutely fundamental error in the golf stroke, an
error of a nature so important and far-reaching that if I can
demonstrate it, any attempt on the part of its author to explain
anything in connection with the golf stroke mechanically,
physiologically, psychologically, logically, or otherwise, must
absolutely fall to the ground. We are told "the whole body must turn
on the pivot of the head of the right thigh bone working in the
cotyloidal cavity of the _os innominatum_ or pelvic bone, the head,
right knee and right foot remaining fixed, with the eyes riveted on
the ball."
Now, put into plain English this ridiculous sentence means that the
weight of the body rests upon the right leg. It is such a fundamental
and silly error, but nevertheless an error which is made by the
greatest players in the world in their published works, that I shall
not at the present moment deal with the matter, but shall refer to it
again in my chapter on the distribution of weight, for this matter of
the distribution of weight, which is of absolute "root" importance in
the game of golf, has been most persistently mistaught by those whose
duty it is to teach the game as they play it, so that others may not
be hampered in their efforts to become expert by following false
advice.
Further on we are told, "in the upward swing the vertebral column
rotates upon the head of the right femur, the right knee being fixed,
and as the club head nears the ball the fulcrum is rapidly changed
from the right to the left hip, the spine now rotating on the left
thigh-bone, the left knee being fixed." Of course, I do not know on
what principle the man who writes this is built, but it seems to me
that he must have a spine with an adjustable end. None of the famous
golfers, so far as I am aware, are able to shift their spines from one
thigh bone to another. Moreover, to say that "the vertebral column
rotates upon the head of the right femur" is merely childish
unscientific nonsense, for it is obvious to any one, even to one who
does not profess to explain the mystery of golf, that one's spine
cannot possibly rotate within one, for to secure rotation of the spine
it would be necessary for the body to rotate. This, it need hardly be
pointed out, would be extremely inconvenient between the waggle and
the moment when one strikes the ball.
We are told that in the downward swing "velocity of the club in the
descent must be accelerated by minute but rapid gradations." For one
who is attempting to explain the mystery of golf there could not
possibly be a worse word than "gradations." The author, in this
statement, is simply following an old and utterly obsolete notion.
There is no such thing as accelerating the speed by minute gradations.
Quoting James Braid in _Advanced Golf_, from memory, he says that you
must be "hard at it" from the very moment you start the stroke, and
even if he did not say so, any golfer possessed of common sense would
know that the mere idea of adding to the speed of his golf drive by
"steps," which is what the word "gradations" implies, would be utterly
futile. The futility of the advice is, however, emphasised when we are
told that these gradations come from "orders not issued all at once,
but one after another--also absolutely evenly and smoothly--at
intervals probably of ten-thousandths of a second. If the curves are
not precise, if a single muscle fails to respond, if the timing is in
the minutest degree irregular--the stroke is a failure. No wonder it
is difficult."
It would indeed be no wonder that the golf drive is difficult if it
really were composed as indicated, but, as a matter of fact, nothing
of the sort takes place in the ordinary drive of a sane golfer. There
is one command issued, which is "Hit the ball." All these other things
which are supposed to be done by an incredible number of efforts of
the mind are practically performed sub-consciously, and more by habit
than by any complex mental directions. The drive in golf is not in any
respect different from numerous other strokes in numerous other games
in so far as regards the mental portion of it.
Now so far as regards the complicated system of mental telegraphy
which is claimed for golf in the production of the stroke, absolutely
the same thing happens in practically every game, with the exception
that in most other games the player is, so far as regards the
production of his stroke, at a greater disadvantage than he is in
golf, for he has nearly always a moving ball to play at and much less
time wherein to decide how to play his stroke. In golf he has plenty
of time to make up his mind as to how he will play his stroke, and the
operation, to the normal golfer, in so far as regards the mental
portion of it, is extremely simple. His trouble is that he has so much
nonsense of this nature to contend with, so much false instruction to
fight. If he were given a correct idea of the stroke he would have no
difficulty whatever with regard to his "gradations."
Braid has explicitly stated that this idea of gradually and
consciously increasing the speed is a mistake, and I have always been
especially severe on it as one of the pronounced fallacies of golf. I
shall deal with it more fully in my chapter on "The Fallacies of
Golf," but I may here quote Braid, who says:
Nevertheless, when commencing the downward swing, do so in no
gentle, half-hearted manner such as is often associated with
the idea of gaining speed gradually, which is what we are
told the club must do when coming down from the top on to the
ball. It is obvious that speed will be gained gradually,
since the club could not possibly be started off at its
quickest rate. The longer the force applied to the down
swing, the greater do the speed and momentum become. But this
gradual increase is independent of the golfer, and he should,
as far as possible, be unconscious of it. What he has to
concern himself with is not increasing his speed gradually,
but getting as much of it as he possibly can right from the
top. No gentle starts, but hard at it from the top, and the
harder you start the greater will be the momentum of the club
when the ball is reached.
Now this is emphatic enough, but it should not be necessary to quote
James Braid to impress upon any golfer of average intelligence that
this idea of consciously increasing his speed gradually as he comes
down to the ball is the most infantile and injurious tuition which it
is possible to impart. To encumber any player's mind with such utterly
stupid doctrine is most reprehensible.
As an illustration of how little the author of this book understands
the true character of the golf stroke, I may quote him again. In a
letter recently published over his signature he says: "Mind and
muscle--both should act freely and easily _till the moment of impact_;
then, perhaps, the mind should be concentrated, as the muscles must be
contracted, to the utmost." Now this is such utterly fallacious
doctrine that I certainly should not notice it were it not that this
book, on account of its somewhat original treatment of the subject,
has obtained a degree of notice to which I do not consider it
entitled.
This is so far from what really takes place in the drive at golf that
I must quote James Braid from _Advanced Golf_, page 56. It will be
seen from Braid's remarks that the whole idea of the golf drive from
the moment the club starts on its downward course until the ball has
been hit is that of supreme tension and concentration. It seems almost
a work of supererogation to deal with a matter of such apparent
simplicity, but when one sees matter such as that quoted published in
responsible papers, one realises that in the interests of the game it
is necessary to deal with statements which really, in themselves,
ought to carry their own refutation.
Braid says: "Look to it also that the right elbow is kept well in
control and fairly close to the side in order to promote tension at
the top." Again at page 57 he says: "Now for the return journey. Here
at the top the arms, wrists, body--all are in their highest state of
tension. Every muscle and joint in the human golfing machinery is
wound up to the highest point, and there is a feeling that something
must be let go at once." On page 58 we read again: "No gentle starts,
but hard at it from the very top, and the harder you start the greater
will be the momentum of the club when the ball is reached." At page 60
again: "Keep the body and wrist under tension a little longer." At
page 61 we read:
Then comes the moment of impact. Crack! Everything is let
loose, and round comes the body immediately the ball is
struck, and goes slightly forward until the player is facing
the line of flight.
If the tension has been properly held, all this will come
quite easily and naturally. The time for the tension is over
and it is allowed its sudden and complete expansion and quick
collapse. That is the whole secret of the thing--the bursting
of the tension at the proper moment--and really there is very
little to be said in enlargement of the idea.
Now here it will be seen that Braid's idea, which is undoubtedly the
correct one, is that the golfer's muscles, and it follows naturally
also his mind, are in a state of supreme tension until the moment of
impact, _when that tension is released_. On the other hand, we are
told by our psychologist that the moment which Braid says is the
moment of the collapse of the tension is the moment for introducing
tension and concentration. The statement is, of course, an extremely
ridiculous one, especially coming, as it does, from one who presumes
to deal with the psychology and physiology of golf, because nothing
could be further from the truth than the statement made by him. It
proves at the very outset that he has not a correct idea of the golf
stroke, and therefore any attempt by him to explain the psychology of
golf, if golf may be said to have such a thing as a psychology, is
worthless.
Our author has also explained how, in the downward swing, the speed of
the club is increased by extremely minute gradations. I have elsewhere
referred to this fallacy, but the matter is so important that I shall
quote James Braid again here. At page 57 Braid says:
Nevertheless, when commencing the downward swing, do so in no
gentle, half-hearted manner, such as is often associated with
the idea of gaining speed gradually, which is what we are
told the club must do when coming down from the top on to the
ball. It is obvious that speed will be gained gradually,
since the club could not possibly be started off at the
quickest rate. The longer the force applied to the down swing
the greater does the speed of the momentum become, but this
gradual increase is independent of the golfer, and he should,
as far as possible, be unconscious of it. What he has to
concern himself with is not increasing his speed gradually,
but getting as much of it as he possibly can right from the
top.
I am very glad indeed to be able to quote Braid to this effect, for if
we may accept his statement on this matter as authoritative, it
completely refutes one of the greatest and stupidest fallacies in
golf, which is this particular notion of gradually increasing one's
speed by any conscious effort of muscular regulation. Now if Braid's
statement with regard to the muscular work in the downward portion of
the drive is correct, it follows naturally that the explanation of the
"mystery of golf" offered by the author is merely an explanation of a
mystery which he has evolved from the innermost recesses of his
fertile imagination; but it is needless for me to say that unless such
an idea as this is absolutely killed, it would have a most pernicious
effect upon the game of anyone who came within its influence.
It may seem, perhaps, that I attach too much importance to the writing
of a gentleman who describes himself as "a duffer." It is not so. No
one knows better than I do the influence of printed matter. I have
lived amongst print and printers and newspapers for very many years,
and needless to say I know as well as any man that not everything
which one sees in print is true, but the remarkable thing about the
printed word is that even with one who is absolutely hardened and
inured to the vagaries and extravagances and inaccuracies of those who
handle type, the printed word carries a certain amount of weight.
We can easily understand, then, that to those who are not so educated
the printed word is much more authoritative. Therefore, even if the
circulation of a book or a paper may be very little, it is always
worth the while of one who has the interests of the game at heart to
do his best not only to scotch, but absolutely to kill false and
pernicious teaching of this nature, for the simple reason that even if
a book circulates but a hundred copies, or a newspaper two hundred and
fifty, which is giving them both a remarkably small circulation, it is
impossible, or at least extremely improbable, that any man will be
able, by his influence, _to follow each copy of that book or that
newspaper_. There is a great fundamental truth underlying this
statement. If one gives a lie a day's start, it takes a terrible lot
of catching. This is particularly so in connection with printed
matter, and I have had some very remarkable illustrations of the fact.
So strongly, indeed, do I realise this fact, that although I believe
that I am as impervious to adverse criticism as any one, I will never,
if I can prevent it, allow criticism of that nature which I consider
inimical to the interests of any subject with which I am dealing, to
get the slightest possible start. Indeed, I have, on occasions,
carried this principle still further, and when I have known that
matter was to appear which I considered of a nature calculated to
produce wrong thought in connection with a certain subject I have
taken means to see that it did not appear.
It will be readily understood that I am not now referring to matters
of personal criticism. I refer particularly to matters of doctrine
published and circulated, even in the smallest way. If, for the sake
of argument, the paper which spreads that false doctrine circulates
only twenty copies, _one cannot follow every copy_, and to do one's
work thoroughly and effectively it would be necessary to follow every
copy of that paper in order to counteract the pernicious influence
which it might otherwise exercise. Taking this view of the effect of
printed matter, it should be apparent that I consider the time devoted
to refuting injurious and false teaching well spent.
In the attempted explanation of the mystery of golf there are some
amazing statements which tend to show clearly that the author of that
work has not that intimate knowledge of sport generally which is
absolutely essential to any man who would even essay satisfactorily to
do what the author is trying to do. Let us examine, for instance, such
a statement as this: "Indeed, the difficulties of golf are innumerable
and incalculable. Take, for example, that simple rule 'Keep your eye
on the ball.' It is unheard of in tennis; it is needless in cricket;
in golf it is iterated and reiterated times without number, and
infringed as often as repeated." Can anyone imagine a more wonderful
statement than this? In tennis, by which from subsequent remarks it is
clear that the author means lawn-tennis, and also indeed in tennis, it
is, of course, a fundamental rule that one must keep one's eye on the
ball. It is repeatedly drilled into every player, and even the most
experienced players by neglecting it sacrifice points.
Lifting one's eye is one of the most prolific causes of missed smashes
and ordinary volleys, while the half volleys which are missed through
not attempting to follow out this universal rule are innumerable. We
are told that it is "unheard of in cricket." This indeed is a
marvellous statement. No coach who knows his duty in tennis,
lawn-tennis, cricket, racquets, or in fact any game where one plays at
a moving ball, could possibly have gone more than about half a dozen
lessons, if so many, without impressing upon his pupil the extreme
importance of endeavouring to watch the ball until the moment of
impact. This, of course, is a counsel of perfection, and is not often
perfectly carried out, for various reasons which I shall deal with in
my chapter on "The Function of the Eyes."
For one who has attempted a critical analysis of the psychology of
golf the author makes some wonderful statements. Speaking about
"looking" _versus_ "thinking," and keeping one's eye on the ball, the
author says: "As a matter of fact, instead of _looking_, you are
_thinking_, and to _think_, when you ought to _play_, is the madness
of mania." It should be fairly obvious to anyone who does not even
profess to be capable of analysing the emotions of a golfer that to
look it is necessary to be thinking--to be thinking about looking, in
fact; that it would be impossible to look without thinking; that
indeed the looking is dependent upon the thinking, or, as our author
would probably put it, he must will to look--not only must he will to
look, but he must will to hit. Those are the two important things for
him to will--to look and to hit. Now those things cannot be done
without thinking, and yet we are told that to _think_ when you ought
to _play_ is "the madness of mania."
The author goes on to give what he calls a very "simple and anatomical
reason" for this inability to see one's ball when one is thinking
instead of looking. He says:
Everybody has heard the phrase "a vacant stare." Well, there
actually is such a thing as a vacant stare. When one's
thoughts are absorbed in something other than the object
looked at, the eyes lose their convergence--that is to say,
instead of the two eyeballs being turned inwards and focussed
on the thing, they look straight outwards into space, with
the result, of course, that the thing looked at is seen
indistinctly. I am convinced that this happens to many a
grown-up golfer. He thinks he is looking at his ball, but as
a matter of fact he is thinking about looking at his ball (a
very different affair), or about how he is going to hit it,
or any one of a hundred other things; and, his mind being
taken off that supreme duty of doing nothing but _look_, the
muscles of the eye are relaxed, the eyeballs resume their
natural position and stare vacantly into space.
It will probably not be news to most of us that there is such a thing
as "a vacant stare." We probably remember many occasions when, "lost
in thought," our eyes have lost their convergence, but it will indeed
be news to most of us that it is the supreme duty of the eyes to do
nothing but _look_.
We are now face to face with this fact according to this analysis. The
author quotes the great psychologist, Höffding, as saying, "We must
will to see, in order to see aright." We now, by a natural and
logical process of reasoning, have the golfer settled at his ball, his
address duly taken, his eye fixed on the ball, and he is in the act of
"willing" to see as hard as he can. So far so good. Let us presume
that he _is_ seeing. Now we are told that to think when he ought to
play is the madness of mania. We must presume that it will now be
impossible to proceed with his stroke unless he "wills" to move. How
will he "will to move" without thinking? If anybody can explain to me
how a golfer can play a stroke without willing to hit as well as to
look, I shall indeed consider that he has explained at least one
mystery in golf.
We are told that
... if during that minute interval of time which elapses
between the commencement of the upward swing of the club and
its impact with the ball, the golfer allows any one single
sensation, or idea to divert his attention--consciously or
unconsciously--from the little round image on his retina, he
does not properly "perceive" that ball; and of course, by
consequence, does not properly hit it.
Notwithstanding this statement, we see that the author tries to
implant in the mind of the golfer the idea that during his downward
stroke arms and hands are receiving innumerable orders "at intervals
probably of tens of thousandths of a second," and that at the moment
of impact with the ball the mind has to become suddenly concentrated
and the muscles suddenly contracted. He surely will allow that in this
advice he is trying to impart at least one single sensation or idea
which is sufficient to ensure that he will "not properly perceive that
ball, and of course, by consequence, that he will not properly hit
it."
Here is another paragraph worthy of consideration: "But if one tautens
any of the muscles necessary for the stroke, the stroke is spoiled."
I think I have already quoted James Braid on the subject of tension in
the drive, to show that this statement is utterly fallacious, and that
without very considerable tautening of the muscles it would be
impossible to produce a golf drive worthy of the name.
The strangest portions of this alleged explanation of the mystery of
golf are always when it comes to the question of practical golf. Let
us consider briefly such a statement as the following:--
Both sets of stimuli must be intimately and intricately
combined throughout the whole course of the swing; the wrists
must ease off at the top and tauten at the end. The left knee
must be loose at the beginning, and firm at the finish, and
the change from one to the other must be as deftly and
gently, yet swiftly wrought, as a crescendo passage from
pianissimo to fortissimo on a fiddle.
We have already seen what James Braid says about the golf stroke--that
from the top of it right to the impact the muscles must be in a state
of the fullest tension; while it is of course well known now that the
left knee is never at any time in the stroke what is described as
loose, for from the moment that a properly executed golf drive begins,
the weight proceeds towards the left foot and leg, and therefore it
would be impossible to play a proper drive with the left knee "loose."
I deal fully with this subject in my chapter on "The Distribution of
Weight."
[Illustration: PLATE II. HARRY VARDON
Stance and frontal address in short put.]
As we proceed with the consideration of this work we find that golf is
indeed a mystery to the author. We are informed that "the golf stroke
is a highly complex one, and one necessitating the innervation of
innumerable cerebrospinal centres; not only hand and eye, but arms,
wrist, shoulders, back, loins, and legs must be stimulated to action.
No wonder that the associative memory has to be most carefully
cultivated in golf. To be able, without thinking about it, to take
your stance, do your waggle, swing back, pause, come forward, hit
hard, and follow-through well over the left shoulder, always
self-confidently--ah! this requires a first-class brain, a first-class
spinal cord, and first-class muscles"; and--if I might be pardoned for
adding it--a first-class idiot. Nobody but a first-class idiot could
possibly do all these things without thinking of them, except probably
that brilliant follow-through "well over the left shoulder!"
I have heard many things enunciated by people who considered
themselves possessed of first-class brains, but this is absolutely the
first time that I have ever heard of a good follow-through "well over
the left shoulder." A good follow-through "well over the left
shoulder" generally means a most pernicious slice. Any follow-through
at any game goes after the ball. What happens when that is finished is
merely a matter of individual style and the particular nature of the
stroke which has been played. The club, in some cases, may come back
over the left shoulder; in other cases it may point right down the
course after the ball; in another it may swing practically round the
body. It is little touches such as these which show the lack of
practical acquaintance with the higher science of the game. No one
acquainted with the inner secrets of golf could possibly refer to that
portion of a stroke which is coming back from the hole as "the
follow-through."
As an instance of absolutely ridiculous nonsense I may quote the
following:
What the anatomists say is this, that, if the proper orders
are issued from the cortex, and gathered up and distributed
by the corpora striata and the cerebellum, are then
transferred through the crus cerebri, the pons varolii, the
anterior pyramid and the medulla oblongata, down the lateral
columns of the spinal cord into the anterior cornua of grey
matter in the cervical, the dorsal and the lumbar region,
they will then "traverse the motor nerves at the rate of
about 111 feet a second, and speedily excite definite groups
of muscles in definite ways, with the effect of producing the
desired movements."
Of course this to the ordinary golfer is absolute nonsense, but to the
skilled anatomist and student of psychology, who may also be a golfer,
it is worse than nonsense, for the simple reason that assuming that
the measurement of the speed at which these orders travel has been
even approximately measured as proceeding at the rate of "about 111
feet a second," it is obvious that such a rate of progression would
be, by comparison with the speed at which the golf stroke is
delivered, merely a gentle crawl.
One might be excused if one thought that this book was merely a
practical joke perpetrated by a very ingenious person at the expense
of golfers, but I do not think we should be justified in assuming
that, for then we should have to speak in a very much severer manner
than we are doing; for when one reads about such things as "the twirl
of the wrists, the accelerated velocity, and the hit at the impact,"
one is justified in assuming that even if the psychology of the author
were sound, his knowledge of the mechanical production of the golf
drive is extremely limited. He says:
Psychologists are, I believe, agreed that there is in the
mind a faculty called the Imagination. Indeed, there has been
a whole essay written and printed on "The Creative
Imagination."
Even if psychologists are not agreed on this subject we could, I
think, take as irrefutable evidence of the existence of the "creative
imagination" the work under notice.
It is curious to find one who is endeavouring to analyse matters which
are psychologically abstruse exhibiting the greatest confusion of
thought. Let us take an illustration. He says: "We misuse words; we
construct an artificial and needless barrier between mind and matter.
By 'matter' we simply mean something perceptible by our five senses."
Let us consider this statement. It would be impossible to imagine a
more sloppy definition of matter. According to this definition of
matter, glass is not matter, for it is not perceptible by our sense of
hearing, smelling, or tasting. It is evident that the author
means--which in itself is erroneous--to define matter as something
which is perceptible by one of the five senses, but in an analytical
psychologist so overwhelming an error is inexcusable. It is manifest
that he is not equal to the task which he has set himself in any way
whatever. He says that "The golfer, strive as he may, is the slave of
himself." Here again we have a gross libel on the poor golfer. The
ordinary golfer is not the slave of himself. He is the slave of
thoughtless persons who write about things which they do not
understand, and, in some cases, the bond-servant of those who write
without understanding of the things which they do very well.
Elaborating this idea, the author proceeds: "It is not a matter of
want of strength or want of skill, for every now and again one proves
to oneself by a superlative stroke that the strength and the skill are
there if only the mind could be prevailed upon to use them." This
truly is a marvellous statement from one who essays a critical
analysis of anything. It is undoubtedly possible that a player might
be set at a tee blindfolded, and provided his caddie put down
sufficient balls for him to drive at and he continued driving long
enough, he would unquestionably hit "a superlative stroke." Would this
prove that the strength and the skill are there? I wonder if our
author has ever heard of such a thing as "a ghastly fluke"?
A little later on we read: "Time and time again you have been taught
exactly how to stand, exactly how to swing," and he then proceeds to
wonder how it is that the unfortunate golfer is so prone to error. The
reason is not far to seek. It is found in the work of such men as our
author, and others who should know much better than he; it is found in
the work of men who teach the unfortunate golfer to stand wrongly, to
swing wrongly. These, in company with our author, will be duly
arraigned in our chapter on "The Distribution of Weight." That is the
plain answer why golfers do not get the results which they should get
from the amount of work and thought which they put into their game,
for golfers are, unquestionably, as a class, the most thoughtful of
sportsmen. If they were not, a book such as I am dealing with could
not possibly have secured a publisher. Continuing his argument on this
subject he says:
... and yet how often it has taken three, four, and even five
strokes to cover those hundred yards! It would be laughable
were it not so humiliating--in fact, the impudent spectator
does laugh until he tries it himself; then, ah! then he, too,
gets a glimpse into that mystery of mysteries--the human
mind--which at one and the same time wills to do a thing and
fails to do it, which knows precisely and could repeat by
rote the exact means by which it is to be accomplished, yet
is impotent to put them in force. And the means are so
simple. So insanely simple.
To which I say, "And the means are indeed so simple, so sanely
simple." It is writers who do not understand the game at all who make
them insanely complex. As a definite illustration of what I mean let
me ask the man who writes that the golfer who desires to drive
perfectly "could repeat by rote the exact means by which it is to be
accomplished" where, in any book by one of the greatest golfers, or in
his own book, the golfer is definitely instructed that his weight must
not at any time be on his right leg. In fact the author himself, in
common with everybody who has ever written a golf book, _deliberately
misinforms the golfer in this fundamental principle_.
How, then, can a man who claims to be possessed of an analytical mind
say that the ordinary golfer could repeat by rote the exact means by
which anything is to be accomplished when it is now a matter of
notoriety that practically the whole of the published teaching of golf
is fundamentally unsound?
Speaking of the golfer's difficulties in the drive the author says,
"The secret of this extraordinary and baffling conflict of mind and
matter is a problem beyond the reach of physiology and psychology
combined." Yes, there is no doubt that it is; but it is a matter which
is well within the reach of the most elementary mechanics and common
sense.
It will probably seem that I am dealing with this attempt to explain
the mystery of golf very severely, but I do not feel that I am
treating the matter too strictly. Golf is enveloped and encompassed
round about with a wordy mass of verbiage. All kinds of men and some
women, who have no clearly defined or scientific ideas, have presumed
to put before the unfortunate golfer directions for playing the game
which have landed him in a greater maze of bewilderment than exists in
any other game which I know. It is obvious that if a man is both "a
duffer" and a slow thinker it will be unsafe for him, until he has
improved both his game and his mental processes, to attempt to explain
the higher science of golf for anyone. It should be sufficient for him
to study the mechanical processes whereby he may improve his own game
until at least he has been able to take himself out of the class which
he characterises himself as the duffers. To explain golf
scientifically in the face of the mass of false doctrine which
encumbers it, it is necessary that one should be, if not at least a
quick thinker, an exact thinker, and that one should know the game to
the core.
It seems to me that there is possibly a clue to the remarkable
statements which we get in this book in the following quotation, which
I take from the chapter on "Attention":
When I first rode a bicycle, if four or five obstacles
suddenly presented themselves, these to the right, those to
the left, I found I could not transfer my attention from one
to the other sufficiently quickly to give the muscles the
requisite orders--and I came a cropper ... and so with the
golf stroke.
It seems to me that here we have the key of the author's difficulty.
His mind was fixed on the obstacles--some to the right and some to the
left. In similar circumstances most budding cyclists, and I have
taught many, confine their attention to the clear path right ahead,
and consequently the obstacles "these to the right, those to the left"
do not trouble them. This, psychologically speaking, is a curious
confession of the power of outside influences to affect the main
issue. It seems to me that right through the consideration of this
subject the author, like many other golfers, has been devoting his
mind far too much to the things which he imagines about golf, instead
of to the things which are, and they are the things which matter. No
wonder, then, that he has "come a cropper."
There is a chapter called "The One Thing Necessary," which starts as
follows: "But, since I stated that my own belief is that only one
thing can be 'attended' to at a time, you will probably be inclined to
ask me what is the most important thing? what precisely ought we to
attend to at the moment of impact of club with ball? Well, if you ask
me, I say _the image of the ball_." This is really an astonishing
statement. "At the moment of impact of club with ball" the image of
the ball does not really matter in the slightest degree. As I shall
show later on, the eye has fulfilled its functions long before the
impact takes place. Also, of course, to the non-analytical mind it
will be perfectly obvious that _the image of the ball_ could be just
as well preserved if the golfer had lifted his head three to six
inches, but his stroke would have been irretrievably ruined.
Now, as a matter of fact, by the time the club has arrived at the ball
it is altogether too late to attend to anything. All the attention has
already been devoted to the stroke, and it has been made or marred. As
we have clearly seen from what James Braid says about the stroke the
moment of impact is the time when the attention and the tension is
released, so it will obviously be of no service to us to endeavour
forcibly to impress upon our minds in any way the image of the ball.
If there is any one thing to think of at the moment of impact, the
outstanding point of importance must be that the eyes should be in
exactly the same place and position as they were at the moment of
address.
Here is a most remarkable sentence:--
It is a pity that so many literary elucidators and
explicators of the game devote so many pages to the
subsidiary circumstances.... I wonder if they would pardon
me if I said that, as a matter of simple fact, if one
_attended to the game_ (with all that that means), almost one
could stand and strike as one chose, and almost with any kind
of club.
There is a large amount of truth in this; but it comes most peculiarly
from the author of this book, for of all the literary obfuscators whom
I have ever come across I have never met his equal in attention to the
"subsidiary circumstances" and neglect of the real game. Much time is
wasted in an analysis of the nature of attention. Now, attention,
psychologically, is somewhat difficult to define from the golfing
point of view, but as a matter of simple and practical golf there is
no difficulty whatever in explaining it. Attention in golf is merely
habit acquired by practice and by starting golf in a proper and
scientific manner. I shall have to deal with that more fully in my
next chapter, so I shall not go into the matter here. Suffice it to
say that lifting the eye at golf is no more a lack of attention than
is lifting the little finger in the club-house. It is merely a vice in
each case--a bad habit, born probably of the fact that in neither case
did the man learn the rudiments of the game thoroughly.
We are told that "the arms do not judge distance (save when we are
actually touching something), nor does the body, nor does the head.
The judging is done by the eyes"; but we must not forget that the arms
accurately measure the distance.