CHAPTER III

PUTTING

The great mystery to me, not about golf, but about the work of the

greatest golfers, is the attitude which they all adopt with regard to

putting. Now, putting may quite properly be said to be the foundation

of golf. It really is the first thing which should be taught, but, as

a matter of fact, it is generally left until the last. Practically all

instructors start the player with the drive. It is beyond question

that the drive is the most complex stroke in golf, and it is equally

beyond question that the put is the simplest. There can be no shadow

of doubt whatever that the only scientific method of instructing a

person in the art of playing golf is one which is diametrically

opposed to that adopted by practically all the leading players of the

world. Instead of starting the beginner at the tee and taking him

through his clubs in rotation to the putting-green, the proper order

for sound tuition would be to start him six inches from the hole and

to back him through his clubs to the tee.

This is so absolutely beyond argument that I need not labour the point

here, except in so far as with it is bound up the important question

of attention--that is, of riveting one's eye and one's mind on the

ball for the whole period employed in making the stroke. As I said in

the preceding chapter, attention is habit. Attention includes the

habit of keeping the eye on the ball and the head still until the

stroke has been played. The best way of inculcating the vices of

lifting the head and the eye during the stroke is to teach the player

the drive first. It stands to reason that if a player is started, say,

with a six-inch put, that he has at the moment of making his stroke

both the ball and the hole well within the focus of his eyes, so that

it is absolutely unnecessary for him to lift his eye in order to

follow the ball. It therefore follows that he is not tempted to lift

his eye.

Now, no player should be allowed to go more than two or three feet

from the hole until he has learned to hole out puts at that distance

with accuracy and confidence. By the time he is allowed to leave the

putting-green, he will have acquired the habit of attention.

It will be clearly seen that, starting now from the edge of the green

with his chip shot, he is much more certain of striking the ball and

getting it away than he would be were he put on to the more uncertain

stroke in the drive; so by a gradual process of education the player

would come in time to the drive, and by the time he arrives at the

most complicated stroke in the game--the stroke wherein is the

smallest margin of error--he has cultivated the habit of attention,

which includes keeping one's head still.

Of course, this is a counsel of perfection which one does not expect

to find carried out, although a similar course is followed by all good

teachers in every trade, profession, science, or game, but as I have

said before, in golf there is a tremendous amount of false teaching

which is generally followed. It is, however, a certainty that any

beginner who has the patience, perseverance, and moral courage to

educate himself on these lines, will find golf much easier to play

than it would be if he had started, as nearly everybody wants to

start, with "the swing." It is bad enough that putting should be

relegated to the position it is, but the attitude of the great

writers, or perhaps I should say the great golfers who have written

books about golf, aggravates the offence, and forms what is to me the

greatest mystery in connection with golf literature.

I shall give here what Braid, Vardon, and Taylor have to say about

putting. Let me take Vardon first. At page 143 of _The Complete

Golfer_ he says:

For the proper playing of the other strokes in golf, I have

told my readers to the best of my ability how they should

stand and where they should put their feet. But except for

the playing of particular strokes, which come within the

category of those called "fancy," I have no similar

instruction to offer in the matter of putting. There is no

rule and there is no best way.

The fact is that there is more individuality in putting than

in any other department of golf, and it is absolutely

imperative that this individuality should be allowed to have

its way.

And now comes a very wonderful statement:

I believe seriously that every man has had a particular kind

of putting method awarded to him by Nature, and when he putts

exactly in this way he will do well, and when he departs from

his natural system he will miss the long ones and the short

ones too. First of all, he has to find out this particular

method which Nature has assigned for his use.

Again on page 144 we read that when a player is off his putting

... it is all because he is just that inch or two removed

from the stance which Nature allotted to him for putting

purposes, but he does not know that, and consequently

everything in the world except the true cause is blamed for

the extraordinary things he does.

Let us now repeat what James Braid has to say on the important matter

of putting. On page 119 of _How to Play Golf_ he says:

It happens, unfortunately, that concerning one department of

the game that will cause the golfer some anxiety from time to

time, and often more when he is experienced than when he is

not, neither I nor any other player can offer any words of

instruction such as, if closely acted upon, would give the

same successful results as the advice tendered under other

heads ought to do. This is in regard to putting.

Further on we are informed that "really great putters are probably

born and not made."

So far we must admit that this is extremely discouraging, but there is

worse to follow.

Let us now see what Taylor has to say about putting. At page 83 in his

book, _Taylor on Golf_, and in the chapter, "Hints on Learning the

Game," he says:

Coming back to the subject of actual instruction. After a

fair amount of proficiency has been acquired in the use of

the cleek, iron, and mashie, we have the difficulty of the

putting to surmount. And here I may say at once it is an

absolute impossibility to teach a man how to putt.

Even many of the leading professionals are weak in this

department of the game. Do you think they would not improve

themselves in this particular stroke were such a thing within

the range of possibility? Certainly they would. The fact is

that in putting, more than in aught else, a very special

aptitude is necessary. A good eye and a faculty for gauging

distances correctly is a great help, indeed, quite a

necessity, as also is judgment with regard to the requisite

power to put behind the ball. Unfortunately, these are things

that cannot be taught, they must come naturally, or not at

all.

All that is possible for the instructor to do is to discover

what kind of a putting style his pupil is possessed of,

offer him useful hints, and his ultimate measure of success

is then solely in his own hands.

It is easy to tell a pupil how he must needs hold his clubs

in driving or playing an iron shot, but in putting there is

hardly such a necessity. The diversity of styles accounts for

this, and in this particular kind of stroke a man must be

content to rely upon his own adaptability alone.

Now in the same book on page 240, in the chapter on "The Art of

Putting," we read:

The drive may be taught, the pupil may be instructed in the

use of the cleek, the iron, or the brassie, but in putting he

must rely upon his own powers of reducing the game to an

actual science. The other strokes are of a more or less

mechanical character; they may be explained and demonstrated,

but with the ball but a few feet distant from the hole there

are many other things to be considered, and hints are the

only things that can be offered. The pupil may be advised

over the holding and grip of the putter, but as far as the

success of the shot is concerned it remains in his own hands.

In passing, I may remark that it seems to me that in this latter

respect the put is not vastly different from any other stroke in golf,

or indeed, for the matter of that, in any other game.

Continuing, Taylor says:

Putting, in short, is so different to any other branch of the

game that the good putter may be said to be born, not made.

That this is really the case is proved by the fact that many

of the leading players of the day, professionals and amateurs

alike, are very frequently weaker when playing with the

putter than when performing with any other of their clubs.

Speaking solely of professionals, is it at all probable that

this would be so were they capable of improving themselves in

this particular department? Certainly not.

Now it will be admitted that this is a very gloomy outlook for him who

desires to learn how to put. He is thrown entirely on his own

resources. I must quote Taylor once again with regard to putting. He

says:

And yet it is none the less true that to putt perfectly

should be the acme of one's ambition. Putting is the most

important factor of success, for it happens very frequently

that a man may meet a stronger driver, or a better performer

with the iron clubs, and yet wrest the leadership from him

when near the hole.

There can be no doubt whatever of the truth of what Taylor says in

this last paragraph--"Putting is the most important factor of

success"; yet we are confronted with the amazing statement made by the

three greatest masters of the game, men who between them have

accounted for fourteen open championships, men whose living depends

upon playing golf and teaching it, that "the most important factor of

success" cannot be taught. There is no possible doubt about their

ideas on this subject. They deliberately tell the unfortunate golfer,

or would-be golfer, that good putters are born and not made, that

putting cannot be taught, and that each person must be left to work

out his own salvation.

It is admitted that putting is practically half the game. It has been

well illustrated in the following way:--Seventy-two strokes is a good

score for almost any course. The man who gets down in two every time

is not a bad putter. This allows him thirty-six strokes on the green,

which is exactly one-half of his score. Now what does this statement

which is made by Braid, Vardon, and Taylor amount to? It is an

assertion by them that they are unable to teach half of the game of

golf, and _that_ the most important half, for, as we have seen, Taylor

says that it is "the most important factor of success." Now surely

there is something wrong here. As a matter of fact it is the most

absolute nonsense which it is possible to imagine. Putters are not

born. They are made and shaped and polished to just as great an extent

as any metal putter that ever was forged. Putting is the simplest and

easiest thing in golf to learn and to teach, and it is positively

wrong for men of the eminence in their profession which these players

enjoy to append their names to statements which cannot but have a

deleterious effect on the game generally, and particularly on the play

of those who are affected by reading such absolutely false doctrine.

There are certain fundamental principles in connection with putting

which cannot be disregarded. It is quite wrong to say that the first

thing to consider is some particular idiosyncrasy which a man may have

picked up by chance. The idea of Nature having troubled herself to

allot any particular man or men, or, for the matter of that, women or

children, any particular styles for putting is too ridiculous to

require any comment. Needless to say, very many people have

peculiarities which they exhibit in putting, as well as in other

matters, but in many cases it is the duty of the capable instructor

not to attempt to add the scientific principles of putting to a

totally wrong and ugly foundation. The first duty of one who knows the

game and how to teach it is to implant in the mind of his pupil the

correct mechanical methods of obtaining the result desired. If, after

he has done this, it be found that his natural bent or idiosyncrasy

fits in with the proper mechanical production of the stroke, there is

no harm in allowing him to retain his natural style; but if, for the

sake of argument, it should be found that his natural method is

unsuitable for the true production of the stroke, there is only one

thing to do, which is to cut out his natural method, and make him put

on the lines most generally adopted.

Nor is this difficult to do, for it stands to reason that anyone who

is a beginner at golf has not already cultivated a style of his own.

The statements of these three great golfers are absolutely without

foundation--in fact, they are indeed so far from the truth that I have

no hesitation whatever in saying that in at least ninety per cent of

the cases which come before a professional for tuition, if the subject

is properly dealt with by an intelligent teacher, putting is, without

any shadow of doubt, the easiest portion of golf to teach and to

learn. In the face of the mischievous statements which have been so

widely circulated in connection with the difficulty of learning the

art of putting, one cannot possibly be too emphatic in stating the

truth. In doing this, let it be understood that I am not stating any

theory or publishing any idea which I am not prepared fully to

demonstrate by practical teaching. It is a curious thing, but one to

which I do not wholly object, that those who read my books seem to

consider that they have a personal claim on my services as well, and

it is no uncommon thing for me to receive visits from men who are in

trouble about their putting, their drive, or their approach, and I

have not, as a rule, any very great trouble in locating the seat of

the difficulty.

The pernicious influence of such teaching as that which I have just

quoted repeatedly comes before me. I know men who seem to consider

that the chief art of putting in golf is bound up in another art,

namely, the art of the contortionist, whereas, of course, nothing

could be further from the truth. Putting, as I shall show later on, is

an extremely simple operation. In fact its simplicity is so pronounced

that little children, almost without instruction, do it remarkably

well, because they do it naturally. It is only when people come to the

game possibly rather late in life, and perhaps with habits acquired

from other games, and in addition to this are told that they must

evolve their own particular style, that we find the difficulty, for

the style which is evolved is, in the vast majority of cases, no style

at all, and the stroke is played unnaturally.

That is what I have to say with regard to the "difficulty" of putting.

I shall, later on, deal with the principles involved in putting. It

will, in the meantime, be sufficient for me to consider and criticise

these statements generally. If this were my own uncorroborated

opinion, it is possible that the definite statements of three men like

Braid, Taylor, and Vardon might outweigh what I have said, although I

do not believe that even in that case they would; for what I have

quoted is such obvious nonsense that it would indeed be to me a

mystery if any golfer possessed of ordinary common sense could accept

any view of the matter other than that which I put forward.

However, when dealing with names like these, it is worth while to

reinforce oneself. Let us see what James Braid has to say about the

matter in _Advanced Golf_. At page 144, chapter x., dealing with

"Putting Strokes," Braid says: "Thus practically any man has it in his

power to become a reasonably good putter, and to effect a considerable

improvement in his game as the result." Here is the message of hope to

the putter. It will be remembered that Taylor states that the good

putter may be said to be born, not made, and that Braid practically

said the same thing. This, of course, is nonsense, and if any

refutation were necessary, James Braid himself is the refutation. The

first time I saw Braid putting, he was trying a Vaile putter for me

at Walton-on-Heath. He came down on the ball before he had come to the

bottom of his swing, and finished on the green quite two inches in

front of the spot where the ball had been. Before I had reflected in

the slightest degree, I came out quite naturally with the question,

"Do you always put like that?" "Yes," said Braid in his slow, quiet

way, "and it is the best way." By this time I had remembered who Braid

was, and I did not pursue the subject any further, but I thought a

good deal. I thought that Braid would, in due course, find out that it

was not the best way, and I fully understood why he was such a bad

putter.

Since then Braid has found out that his method was wrong. He has

altered it, and now plays his puts in the only proper way, which I

shall refer to later on. As everybody knows, Braid is now a very fine

putter--_but he was not born so_. If ever there was an illustration of

a fine putter made out of a bad putter, James Braid is the outstanding

example, and James Braid is the answer to Taylor's question as to

whether a professional can improve his putting or not. Any

professional whose putting is bad can improve it by using his brains,

because when a professional puts badly it is rarely a question of his

hands, his eye, or his wrist being wrong. The seat of the deficiency

is much deeper than that.

Let us now see what James Braid has to say about putting. At page 146

of _Advanced Golf_ he practically eats his own words. This is what he

says:

Of course, they say that good putters are born and not made,

and it is certainly true that some of the finest putters we

know seem to come by their wonderful skill as a gift, and

nowadays constantly putt with an ease and a confidence that

suggest some kind of inspiration. But it is also the fact

that a man who was not a born putter, and whose putting all

through his golfing youth was of the most moderate quality,

may by study and practice make himself a putter who need fear

nobody on any putting green. I may suggest that I have proved

this in my own case. Until comparatively recently there is no

doubt that I was really a poor putter. Long after I was a

scratch player I lost more matches through bad putting than

anything else. I realised that putting was the thing that

stood in the way of further improvement, and I did my best to

improve it, so that to-day my critics are kind enough to say

that there is not very much wanting in my play on the putting

green, while I know that it was an important factor in

gaining for me my recent championship.

So I may be allowed the privilege of indicating the path

along which improvement in this department of the game may

best be effected; and what I have to say at the beginning is,

that putting is essentially a thing for the closest

mathematical and other reckoning. It is a game of

calculations pure and simple, a matter for the most careful

analysis and thought.

Now here at least we have common sense with regard to putting. Braid

holds himself out as an example of the bad putter turned into the good

putter. He does not, it is true, tell us why he was a bad putter and

how he changed his bad methods to his present excellent method, but I

have already given the key to that. I shall, however, deal with it

more fully when I come to the question of the practice of putting.

Braid says on page 147 of _Advanced Golf_, still speaking of putting,

that "the mechanical part is comparatively simple." He continues:

"Putts most generally go wrong because the strength or the line, or

both, were misjudged, and they were so misjudged because the different

factors were not valued properly, and because one or two of them were

very likely overlooked altogether."

I think very few golfers will be inclined to dispute the opening

statement that "Putts most generally go wrong because the strength or

the line, or both, were misjudged." I may say that I never heard of a

put which went wrong for any other reason. If the strength and the

line are both right, one always has an excellent chance of ending in

the tin! Braid tells us again on page 148

... that what I call the mechanical part of putting--the

hitting of the ball--is simple and sure in comparison with

the other difficulties that are presented when a long putt

has to be made; yet it is hardly necessary to say to any

experienced golfer that there are absolutely thousands of

players who fail in their putting, not because of any lack of

powers of calculation or a good eye, steady hand, and

delicacy of touch, but simply because they have fallen into a

careless way of performing this mechanical part, and of

almost feeling that any way of hitting the ball will do so

long as it is hit in the right direction and the proper

degree of strength is applied.

Again Braid says on page 149:

Absolutely everything depends on hitting the ball truly, and

the man who always does so has mastered one of the greatest

difficulties of the art of putting. A long putt can never be

run down except by a fluke when the ball has not been hit

truly, however exactly all the calculations of line and

strength have been made.

Now the point which I am making, and I hope making in such a manner

that no one will ever dare even to attempt to refute it, is the fact

that the mechanical operation of putting is one of extreme simplicity,

entirely devoid of mystery, and capable of acquirement by persons even

of a very low order of intelligence. I want to make it plain beyond

the possibility of doubt that putting is the foundation of golf and

that it can be very easily learned, provided always that the

instructor has a proper idea of the mechanics of the put. Generally

speaking, when one uses the word "mechanics" a golfer is afraid that

he is about to receive some abstruse lecture illustrated by diagrams

and mathematical formulæ, but it is not so. It is essential to a

thorough knowledge and enjoyment of the game of golf that the golfer

should understand the mechanics of putting.

James Braid says that it is a matter of mathematics and calculation,

and he is not far wrong; but the mechanics of the put are of such

extreme simplicity that no golfer or would-be golfer need be

discouraged because one refers to the elementary science which is

involved in the making of the perfect put. Rather let him be thankful

that he has James Braid's corroboration of the fact, which I have for

many years past tried to impress upon golfers, that the main thing to

strive at in connection with improving their game is a proper

understanding of the mechanical principles involved in producing the

strokes. Until the ordinary golfer has this he will not progress so

rapidly as he may desire.

I think that we may now consider that it _is_ possible to teach people

how to put; so, having disposed of this fable, let us consider the

most important features of putting. I do not propose here to

illustrate the manner in which the stroke is to be played. I have done

that fully in _Modern Golf_ and in other places. I am here concerning

myself mainly with the fundamental principles. When these are properly

grasped, and these I may say are practically all arm-chair golf, any

person of ordinary intelligence should be able to go on to a putting

green, and by carrying them out become quite a good putter.

Let us first consider the manner of propulsion of the ball. Provided,

for the sake of argument, that the putting-green were an enlarged

billiard table with a hole in the middle of it, and one were given a

penny to put into that hole from the edge of the table, how would one

endeavour to do it? There can be but little doubt one would try to

_roll_ the coin into the hole. Now that is the way one must try to

put. The ball must be rolled up to the hole. At first sight this seems

an entirely superfluous direction. The reader may say: "In what other

way may puts be sent into the hole than by rolling?" Practically,

there is no other way. It was the idea that there was another and a

better way of holing puts than by rolling them into the hole which

made James Braid in the old days such a bad putter, for in those days

James Braid putted with what is commonly called "drag." It is no

uncommon thing to hear men who play a very fine game of golf advise

players to "slide" their long puts up. Put in another way this simply

means--advice to play a long put with what is known as "drag."

[Illustration: PLATE III. HARRY VARDON

At the top of his swing, showing his weight mainly on the left

leg. This characteristic is very marked in Vardon's play.]

It is well known that at billiards one can hit very hard and direct

one's ball very well by playing with a large amount of drag, and

golfers have carried this notion on to the putting-green, but, it must

be admitted, in a very thoughtless manner. In billiards the ball is

very heavy in proportion to its size. It moves on a perfectly level

and practically smooth surface, the tip of the cue is soft and covered

with chalk, which gives a splendid grip on the ball, and the blow is

delivered very far below the centre of the ball's mass, and is

concentrated on a particular point. In golf it is impracticable in

putting to get very much below the centre of the ball. It can be done,

of course, with a club which is sufficiently lofted, but the moment

this is done there is a tendency to make the ball leave the green,

which is not calculated to make for accuracy. Moreover, be it

remembered that the contact here is between two substances which

are not well calculated to enter into communion, namely, the

comparatively hard and shiny surface of a golf ball, and the hard and

frequently unmarked face of a putter. Moreover, the golf ball is

frequently marked with excrescences called brambles or pimples.

It is obvious that in many cases the first impact will be on one of

these pimples, and also in many cases certainly not in a line dead

down the centre of that bramble and in a line coinciding with the

intended line of run of the ball. When the impact takes place in this

manner it is obvious that, according to the simplest laws of

mechanics, the put must be started wrongly. It is also obvious that if

there is this tendency to go crookedly off the face of the club the

ball will have more opportunity of getting out of the track, which it

makes for itself in the turf, if it is lifted in any degree from the

turf by a lofted club.

It is apparent that a golf ball on a putting green sinks into the

turf. It is equally apparent that it will, on its way to the hole,

make for itself a track or furrow of approximately the same depth as

the depression in which it was resting when stationary. That furrow,

to a very great extent, holds the ball to its course and minimises

very much the faulty marking of a great many of the golf balls of

to-day, so that it will be seen that the object of the player should

be not in any way whatever to lift his ball from the green in the put,

which is the invariable and inevitable tendency of attempting to put

with drag by means of a lofted club. It is an extremely common error

to suppose that a put played with drag hugs the green more than one

played in the ordinary way, or with top. As a matter of

incontrovertible fact, no put hugs the green more than a topped put.

It would be easy enough to demonstrate this were it necessary to do

so, but it is a matter which comes in more in the dynamics of golf,

and possibly I shall have the space to treat of it further there. We

may, for our immediate purpose, content ourselves with the fact that

James Braid has abandoned putting with drag, and now rolls his ball up

to the hole with, if anything, a little top, although, be it clearly

understood, there is no apparent intention on his part to obtain this

top, nor does he in _Advanced Golf_ advocate that any attempt should

be made to obtain top; but there can be no doubt whatever that the

manner in which he plays his put tends to impart a certain amount of

top to the ball, and this, of course, causes it to run very freely.

Now with regard to putting drag on a long put, it should be obvious to

any one that, considering the roughness of the green, the extreme

roughness of the ball and its comparatively light weight in proportion

to its size, it would be impossible to make that ball retain any

considerable measure of back-spin over any appreciable distance of the

green. The idea is so repugnant to common sense and practical golf

that it has always been a matter of astonishment to me to think that

it could have prevailed so much as it has. However, there can be no

doubt that putting under this utterly wrong impression has done a very

great amount of harm to the game of players who might otherwise have

been many strokes better. Let our golfer understand that there is one

way, and one way only, in practical golf to put the ball, and that is

to roll it up to the hole.

There is generally an exception to prove the rule, and if I can find

an exception to this rule, it must be when one is trying to bolt short

puts. Practically every one has experienced the difficulty of holing

short puts, especially when the green is extremely keen. It is here

that the delicacy of the stroke allows the ball and the inequalities

thereof and any obstructions on the turf to exercise their fullest

power to deflect the ball from the line to the hole. James Braid, in

these circumstances, advises bolting one's puts. Needless to say, he

explains that one should put dead for the middle of the hole, and by

bolting, of course, is meant that one should put firmly so as to give

the ball sufficient strength of run to overcome its inequalities or

those of the turf.

This, unquestionably, is good advice; but if one puts at the hole in

this manner and does not get it cleanly enough to sink into the tin at

once, the ball with top will run round the edge of the tin and remain

on the green. This is the only case in golf that I can call to mind

where there is any use in putting drag on a put, and the reason for

this is that the distance from the ball to the hole and the nature of

the green is such that the ball is able to retain a very considerable

portion of its backward spin, and upon contact with the rim of the

hole, instead of having a forward run on it which enables it to hold

up and so get away from the hole, the back-spin gets a grip on the

edge of the hole and the ball falls in.

So far as I can remember, this is absolutely the only case in which

drag of any sort may be considered useful in a put. When I say drag of

any sort I am not, of course, referring to cutting round a put, or

negotiating a stymie with back-spin, for neither of these strokes

comes within the scope of my remark.

Having arrived at a decision as to the best method of sending the ball

on its journey to the hole, we have now to consider a point of supreme

importance in golf, and one which is not sufficiently insisted upon

by instructors. This is, that at the moment of impact the face of the

putter shall form a true right angle with the line of run to the hole.

That is the fundamental point in connection with putting; but it is of

almost equal importance that the right angle shall be preserved for as

long a time as possible in the swing back, and also in the

follow-through--in other words, the head of the putter should be in

the line of run to the hole as long as possible both before and after

the stroke. With this extremely simple rule, and it will be apparent

that this can be just as well learned in an arm-chair as anywhere

else, almost anyone could put well.

There is another point of outstanding importance. I have said that the

head of the putter should form a right angle to the line of run to the

hole. I shall be more emphatic still. Let us consider the line of run

to the hole as the upright portion of a very long letter T laid on the

ground. The top of the letter T will then be formed by the front edge

of the sole of the putter, so that it will be seen that not only does

the putter face form a dead right angle to the line of run to the

hole, but that the line of run to the hole hits the putter face dead

in the centre. For all ordinary putting, that is the one and only way

to proceed. One reads in various books about putting off the heel,

putting off the toe, and putting with drag. This is, comparatively

speaking, all imbecility and theory. There is no way to put in golf

comparable with the put that goes off the centre of the club's face.

If we may treat the face of the putter as a rectangle, bisect it by a

vertical line and also by a horizontal line, the point where these two

lines cross each other will be the portion of the putter which should

come into contact with the ball.

These are extremely elementary matters; but it is impossible,

although they are so elementary, to exaggerate their importance, and

it is amazing, considering their simplicity, how much neglected they

are in all books of instruction, and, generally speaking, by all

instructors. For instance, James Braid, at page 149, tells us:

Hitting the ball truly is simply a question of bringing the

putter on to it when making the stroke to exactly the same

point as when the final address was made, and of swinging the

putter through from the back swing to the finish in a

straight line.

This statement would be correct if the address had been made correctly

in the first instance, but unless one has it in one's mind to make

one's putter the top of the T--that is, the completion of the right

angle to the line of run to the hole--the chances are that one's

original address was wrong. Then it will be clearly seen that it is

not "simply a question of bringing the putter on to it when making the

stroke to exactly the same point as when the final address was made."

The important point is to see that the final address is correctly

made; but in no book which I have read--and I have read practically

every book on golf which deserves to be read--do I find any simple and

explicit directions for the mechanical portion of the put, which, as

James Braid truly observes, is extremely simple.

Now for the idea of the stroke: The player will, of course, have

learned his grip from some of the books on golf, or from a

professional. He will in all probability have adopted the overlapping

grip, for that grip tends, more than any other, to bring both wrists

into action together; and there can, I think, be little doubt that for

most people it is the better grip. Having obtained a good general idea

of the simple mechanical operations involved in the contact of the

club with the ball, the player now has to consider how that club

moves where it is, if we may so express it, bound to him. Well, if he

has even a rudimentary idea of mechanics, he will know that if he

wishes to swing that club so that it may hit the ball in an exactly

similar manner every time, he should suspend it on a single bearing,

so that it would swing in a similar manner to the pendulum of a clock.

The perfect put, from a mechanical point of view, is made by a motion

which is equivalent to the swinging of a pendulum. If, instead of

allowing the weight of the pendulum to be, as it generally is, in the

plane of the swing, it were turned round so that the flat side faced

towards the sides of the clock, we should have a rough mechanical

presentment of the golf club in the act of making a put. This is, of

course, a counsel of absolute perfection. It is an impossibility to

the golfer, both on account of his physical and physiological

imperfections, and on account of the fact that the golfer practically

never puts with an upright putter.

We are frequently told that a put is the only true wrist stroke in

golf. As a matter of fact there is no true wrist stroke in golf, for

it is evident that if one played the put as a true wrist stroke with a

club whose lie is at a considerable angle to the horizontal, the

centre of the circle formed by the club head will be away from the

ball to such an extent that the instant the club head leaves the ball

it must leave the line of run to the hole, and equally as certainly

will it leave the line of run to the hole immediately after it has

struck the ball.

Now this is not what we require, so it has come to pass that the put

at golf is to a very great extent a compromise. It must, above

everything, be a deliberate stroke with a clean follow-through. There

must be no suggestion of reducing the put to a muscular effort. The

idea of the pendulum must be preserved as much as possible, and the

strength of the put regulated to a very great extent by the length of

one's backward swing.

It is of the first importance that the body should be kept still

during the process of putting, and it stands to reason that the wrists

must also be kept as much as possible in the same place. If one finds

that one has a marked tendency to sway or to move the body about,

standing with one's feet close together will frequently correct this.

I have referred to the fact that the put is not a wrist stroke. As a

matter of fact, the wrists must in all good putting "go out after the

ball." By this is meant that at the moment of impact the wrists must

in the follow-through travel in a line parallel with the line of run

to the hole, and they must finish so that the club head is able, at

the finish, to stay over the line of run to the hole. To do this, it

is obvious that the wrists, after impact, must move forward. No true

follow-through in the put can be obtained from stationary wrists. This

may sound a little complicated. As a matter of fact it is nothing of

the sort, and the action is very simple, very natural, and when

properly played the ball goes very sweetly off the club and with

splendid direction.

There is one good general rule for regulating the distance which one

should stand from the ball in putting. When one addresses one's ball,

one should be in such a position that the ball is right underneath

one's eyes. To put it so that there can be no possible mistake as to

what I mean, I may say that in most cases the eyes, the ball, and the

hole should form a triangle in a plane at a right angle to the

horizon. Now I know how hard it is for some people to follow a remark

which refers to planes and right angles and horizons, so as this is a

matter of extreme importance, and a matter where many beginners go

absolutely wrong, I shall make it so plain that there is no

possibility of misunderstanding what I mean.

Let us imagine a large, irregularly shaped triangle with the apex at

the hole. We shall suppose, for the sake of argument, that this

triangle is composed of cardboard, that it is a right-angled triangle,

and that its base is 4' 6" wide. This triangle, then, is laid on the

green so that its base is vertical, and the corner which is remote

from the hole represents the ball, the upper corner of the base being,

of course, the player's eyes.

I believe this to be a matter of very great importance, for here it

will be seen that we have the eyes, the ball, and the hole all in the

same plane. Some people like putting with very upright putters. For

the purpose of experiment I had a perfectly upright putter made, but

upright putters are, I think, open to this objection--one's body hangs

too far over them, so that at the moment of striking the ball one is

looking inwards towards the ball, for one's head projects beyond the

line of run to the hole for a considerable distance. It will thus be

seen that one is looking down one line to the hole, and putting over

another. Needless to say, this cannot be good for direction. The eye,

the ball, and the hole should undoubtedly be in the same plane, and

that plane at right angles to the horizon.

As regards the position of the ball in relation to the feet there is

some slight difference of opinion, but generally it may be said that

about midway between the feet is the best position. If anything, the

ball should perhaps be a little nearer to the left foot than to the

right, but this is a matter upon which we cannot lay down any hard and

fast rule. The main point for the player to consider will be how he

can best secure the mechanical results which I have stated as being

the fundamental requisites of good putting. The matter of an inch or

two in his stance, nearer the hole or farther from it, is not of very

great importance compared with this. Some players have an idea that

they can secure a better run on their ball when putting by turning

over their wrists at the moment of impact. This is one of the most

dangerous fallacies which it is possible to conceive. The idea is

absolutely and fundamentally erroneous.

If one desires to put any run on one's ball more than is obtained by

the method of striking it which I have stated, it is always open to

one to play the put a little after the club has reached the lowest

point in its swing,--that is to say, as the putter is ascending, but

this is practically unnecessary. If one requires a little more run on

the ball it is best obtained by making the stroke a little stronger.

Any attempt whatever to do anything by altering the angle of the face

of the club during impact is utterly beyond the realm of practical

golf.

There are many refinements in the art of putting which go somewhat

beyond the fundamental principles laid down in this chapter, in that

they call for cut of a particular kind; but for about ninety-five per

cent of the puts which one has to play, practically nothing more need

be known by the golfer than is here set out.

I am not here going to describe the method in which one cuts round a

stymie, for I have done that very fully elsewhere; and, moreover, this

does not so completely come within the scope of this work, for it

enters much more into the region of practical stroke play than do the

matters which I have treated of and which I intend to treat of in this

book.

There is, however, one stroke which is played on the putting-green,

yet is not truly, of course, a put. It is a stroke which I myself

introduced into the game several years ago. This is the stroke which

is now known as the Vaile Stymie Stroke. It is unique among golf

strokes in that it is not an arc. Every known golf stroke before I

introduced this stroke into the game was an arc of a more or less

irregular shape, but it was an arc. The essence of my stroke is that

it is produced in practically a straight line. For all ordinary

stymies it is without doubt the most delicate and accurate stroke

which can possibly be played, and the manner of playing it, after a

golfer has once conquered the force of habit which tends to make him

raise his club from the earth immediately he leaves his ball, is very

simple. The mashie is drawn back from the ball in a perfectly straight

line, and with the sole of it practically brushing, or no more than

just clearing the green. It is then moved sharply forward, but instead

of coming up with the ball after it has hit it, it passes clean

forward down the intended line of flight in a perfectly horizontal

line, provided always, of course, that the green is level, so that it

finishes some inches down the line to the hole and practically

touching the green. No attempt must be made to strike the ball or to

take turf. The idea in one's mind should be to divide the ball from

the green with the front edge of the sole.

Many mashies are not suitable for this shot, because the sole is not

cut away enough on the back edge, as indeed the sole of every mashie

should be; so it will frequently be found that the best club for

negotiating stymies is the niblick, for its sole being cut away so

much enables the front edge of the club to get well in underneath the

ball. This is a matter of the very greatest importance in playing

stymies, for the simple reason that it enables the player to put so

much more of his force into elevation than is possible when the front

edge of his mashie is cocked up, as it frequently is, by the breadth

of the sole of the mashie; for in many cases when one is trying to

play a stymie the rear edge of the sole of the club makes contact with

the green first and tilts up the front edge, so that it is at least a

quarter of an inch higher than it should be, and instead of striking

the ball almost at the point where it is resting on the turf, it gets

it fully a quarter of an inch to half an inch higher up. The

consequence of this is that too much of the force of the blow goes

into propulsion instead of elevation.

This means that if the stymie is close to the hole and there is only a

very short run after the ball has got over the obstacle, the player

invariably finds that with his imperfectly constructed mashie he

cannot put enough stop on the ball, nor play the shot delicately

enough to give it a chance to get into the hole, because the run is in

many cases far too strong. Every golfer who desires to play a stymie

well should see to it that he has a mashie with a very fine front

edge, and that the sole is not flat in any part, but begins to curve

away immediately it leaves the front edge. With the mashie constructed

on these lines all ordinary stymies absolutely lose their terror if

the shot is played as described.

The delicacy and accuracy of this stroke are remarkable. The direction

is an astonishing illustration of the importance of the rule for

putting which I have laid down, of keeping the front edge of the

putter at a right angle to the line of run to the hole, both before

and after impact. As the whole essence of playing this stymie stroke

correctly consists of the straight movement of the face of the club

sharply down the intended line of flight and run to the hole, the

wrists have naturally to follow the head of the club in a line

parallel with that made by the head of the club, and so accurate is

the result that in any ordinary stymie if a wire were stuck on the top

of the intervening ball, I would guarantee to hit the wire every time.

This stroke was a revelation to me of the importance of the principles

which I am now enunciating, although, of course, I was well aware of

their soundness before I discovered this stroke.

The usefulness of this stroke is not confined merely to playing

stymies, but it makes a magnificent and accurate chip shot; or if one

has a bad portion of green to put over one can, with this stroke, rely

upon going as straight through the air as one can in the ordinary

course over the green.

Lest anyone should think that this is merely a theoretical stroke, let

me tell how I came to introduce it into the game of golf. I had used

the stroke myself for some time. One afternoon I was in the shop of

George Duncan, the famous young Hanger Hill professional. It was

raining heavily, and to pass the time I was knocking a ball about on

the mat. Presently I set up a stymie and said to Duncan:

"Show me how you play your stymie, George."

"Oh, just in the usual way," said Duncan.

"Well, show me," I said.

Duncan took his mashie and played the stymie shot perfectly, "just in

the usual way."

"There is a much better way of playing a stymie than that," I said,

and I set up the shot and showed Duncan how I played it by my method.

Very few people can give George Duncan any points with the mashie. He

got hold of the stroke at once, and he would hardly wait for the rain

to stop before he went out on to the green to try it there. He plays

the shot perfectly now, and maintains, as indeed I show in _Modern

Golf_, that there is no stymie stroke to compare with it, and of that

I have myself absolutely no doubt. In fact, so accurate is the stroke

that if I found myself badly off my game with my putter, I should take

my mashie and play this stroke, for as regards the fundamental

principle of putting it is a wealth of instruction in itself.

Cutting round a stymie is nearly always included in the chapter on

putting, but it is practically always a mashie stroke, and in the

majority of cases is a very short pitch with a large amount of cut. On

account of the loft of the mashie the club gets well in underneath the

ball, and as the head of the club at the moment of impact is

travelling in a line which runs at a fairly sharp angle across the

intended line of flight and run of the ball it imparts a strong _side

roll_ to the ball. The cut on a golf ball in such a stroke as I am now

describing resembles almost exactly the off-break spin in cricket.

This means that the ball has a strong side-spin, so that the moment it

hits the earth it endeavours to roll sideways, but the force of

propulsion fights this tendency, and the resulting compromise is a

curve which enables the ball to get round the intervening obstacle,

and, if the stroke is well executed, to find the hole.

Almost all golf books instruct the player wrongly about this stroke.

He is told to draw his hands in towards him at the moment of impact,

and in some cases, even where the author calls his book _Practical

Golf_, he is told to draw his hands in after impact. Both of these

instructions are utterly wrong. There must be no conscious drawing in

of the hands at the moment when one is trying to cut a put. All the

cut must be done by the natural swing of the club across the intended

line of run of the ball: in other words, the cut is a continuous

process from the time that the club begins its swing until the time

that it ends it. The fact that the ball is in the way of the face of

the club as it crosses the intended line of run to the hole may be

said to be merely an incident in the passage of the club head. Any

attempt whatever to interfere with the natural swing of the club or to

juggle with the ball during impact, or, more futile still, after

impact, must result in irretrievably ruining the stroke.

The stymie shot which I have described will also be found of use a

little farther from the green, and by means of it an excellent run-up

shot, with most accurate direction, can be played. There is another

way of negotiating a stymie which I have never seen described. It is

pulling round a stymie. It will be obvious to any one acquainted with

the game that cutting round a stymie is merely another form of slice;

although of course the run of the ball is obtained in a different

manner from the curve of the slice in the air, yet the method of

production of the stroke is practically similar. So is it with pulling

a put. There is no doubt that this can be done; but I think there is

also no doubt that it is the most difficult method of negotiating a

stymie which there is. The stroke is played, to all intents and

purposes, as is the pulled drive. Some people imagine that it may be

obtained by turning over the wrist at the moment of impact. This is

quite an error, and is absolutely destructive of accuracy. As, in the

cut put, the head of the club is travelling from outside the line

across it, towards the player's side of the line at the moment of

impact, so, in the pull, the head of the club must be travelling from

the player's side of the line across and away to the far side of the

line at the moment of impact. That is the secret of the pull either in

the drive or the put.

I cannot refrain from quoting Vardon again. He says on page 148:

There should be no sharp hit and no jerk in the swing, which

should have the even gentle motion of a pendulum. In the

backward swing, the length of which, as in all other strokes

in golf, is regulated by the distance it is desired to make

the ball travel, the head of the putter should be kept

exactly in the line of the putt. Accuracy will be impossible

if it is brought round at all. There should be a short

follow-through after impact, varying, of course, according to

the length of the putt. In the case of a long one, the club

will go through much further, and then the arms would

naturally be more extended.

This is wisdom as regards the put. There can be no doubt whatever

about this being practical golf of the highest order, but Vardon

rather spoils it by the following sentence in which he says, "In the

follow-through the putter should be kept well down, the bottom edge

scraping the edge of the grass for some inches."

Now, if that means anything at all, it means that although Vardon's

conception of the put and its execution in many ways is excellent, yet

he has been making for years the error which made James Braid a bad

putter--in other words, he has been putting with drag. It is well

known that for a very long time Vardon's weakness was his putting; and

I firmly believe that the secret of his bad putting was this low

follow-through with his put. I think that Vardon's follow-through in

his put is now not so low as it was, and the consequence is that his

putting has improved.

Vardon continues:

It is easy to understand how much more this course of

procedure will tend towards the accuracy and delicacy of the

stroke than the reverse method, in which the blade of the

putter would be cocked up as soon as the ball had left it.

What is more natural, then, than that the blade of the putter should

be cocked up immediately after the ball has left it? That is exactly

what should happen in the perfectly played put. Vardon has already

told us that the put is to be played with the "even gentle motion of a

pendulum." Let us suppose for a moment that it was the weight of the

pendulum turned side-wise which had struck the golf ball. It stands to

reason that immediately the weight, which in this case answers to the

face of the golf club, has struck the ball and sent it on its way to

the hole, the face begins to "be cocked up."

Vardon here makes a totally erroneous claim. He claims greater

delicacy and accuracy for the put played with drag as against that

played as Braid now plays his puts. There can be no shadow of doubt

that the put played with drag, or with a low follow-through "scraping

the top of the grass for some inches," partakes much more of the

nature of a tap than does the put which is played with top or a

perfectly horizontal blow. If Vardon has not completely realised this,

as I think he has, he will, ere long, do so, as James Braid already

has done.

I need not here deal with complicated puts; that is to say, puts of

such a nature that one has to traverse one, two, or more slopes on

the way to the hole. These puts do not, in themselves, contain any of

the fundamental principles of golf. Each one stands entirely by

itself, and these are absolutely matters in which nothing but practice

on the green can be of any use. It will be obvious to any schoolboy

that if he has to run across five little hills on his way to the hole,

and that three of these slant one way and two the other; and if we say

for the sake of example that they are all practically equal in their

width and slope, that it will be a case of four of them cancelling out

on the good old plus and minus system of our schoolboy days, and we

shall then be left practically to calculate how much we will have to

allow for putting across the incline of one slope. This is not a case

which I should think of giving myself. I merely give it because I came

across such an illustration given in a book which is supposed to cater

for those who desire the higher knowledge of golf, but as a matter of

practical golf these situations but seldom occur.

Allowing for the drop in a green when one is putting across the slope,

requires a lot of practice, and is most absolutely and emphatically

not a thing that can be learned in an arm-chair, or in any golf

school. It must be learned on the green itself.

Although James Braid has remodelled his putting with such success, he

still, to a certain extent, clings to his own idea of putting with

drag. On page 154 of _Advanced Golf_ he says:

For general use I am a strong believer in a putter having

just a little loft. I know that some players like one with a

perfectly straight face which does not impart the slightest

drag to the ball, their theory being that such putters are

capable of more delicate work than others, and that the ball

answers more readily to the most delicate tap from them.

There may be considerable truth in this, though, obviously,

great skill and confidence on the part of the player are

taken for granted.

And again he says:

The strength of long putts can generally be more accurately

regulated with a lofted putter than with a straight-faced

one.

He continues:

This is the kind of putter that I might recommend for what

might be called a medium or average green, if there can be

said to be such a thing; but I wish to point out that the

putter that is the best suited to such a green is not so well

suited to either a very fast green or a very slow one, and

that in each of the latter cases the club best adapted to the

circumstances is one with considerably more loft on it.

On page 56 he says:

Now in both these cases, when the greens are very slow and

when they are extremely fast, the best putter for them is one

with very considerable loft on the face, and it will often be

found that there is nothing better than a fairly

straight-faced iron, or an ordinary cleek, if it is big

enough in the face to suit the player. With this club and its

great dragging power, the effect seems to be practically to

reduce the distance between the ball and the hole. Such is

the drag that the ball is simply pushed over a considerable

part of the way, and it is only when it is quite near to the

hole that it begins, as it were, to run in the usual way. The

fact is that for the first part of the journey the ball does

not revolve regularly upon its axis, as it does when

approaching the hole, but simply skates over the turf, and it

will be found that with a little practice the point at which

it will stop skating can be determined with very considerable

exactness. When it does so stop there is still so much drag

on it that it is very quickly brought to a standstill. Thus

in both cases, of the very fast and the very slow green, the

ball can be played without fear right up to the hole when the

putter is so well lofted as I have recommended.

Here we are told that the ball "simply skates over the turf." As I

have shown before, this is one of the greatest fallacies in golf. It

is impossible to obtain any results by drag in a long put, which are

not better obtained by simply rolling the ball up. Braid says that

"with a little practice the point at which it will stop skating can be

determined with very considerable exactness," and he goes on to say

that "when it does so stop there is still so much drag on it that it

is very quickly brought to a standstill."

This is obviously nonsense. It is the drag on the ball which makes it

do any skating which may take place. It is obvious that when the

skating has ceased the drag has stopped exerting its influence. How,

then, is it going to stop the ball from rolling in a natural manner?

We see here the mistake of importing into golf the well-known

phenomena of billiards, but one would have thought that the experience

of the billiard-table would have been sufficient to show the fallacy

of this statement. The billiard player uses drag to enable him to play

his ball fast and accurately, and there is no doubt that by means of

this drag he does obtain very considerable accuracy, but directly the

ball has ceased to "skate" he knows that that is the time when the

drag has entirely departed from it, and that the momentum has

conquered the friction caused by the back-spin; in other words, the

drag having accomplished its work has gone out of business, and all

the run that is on the ball is derived from the remains of the

momentum imparted to it.

I cannot say too emphatically that in my opinion this idea of putting

with drag, or with any club having a loft more than that which barely

enables one to see the face of it when it is properly soled, is

dangerous and calculated to produce bad putting on the part of anyone

who attempts it, even as it did in the case of James Braid himself.

There is one remark which James Braid makes about stymies which I

should like to refer to here. Braid says: "Given complete confidence,

the successful negotiation of a stymie is a much less difficult matter

than it is imagined to be, though in the nature of things it can never

be very easy." I must say that I differ entirely from Braid in this

respect. I maintain that in the nature of things most ordinary

stymies, when played in the manner which I advocate, are very easy.

The difficulty of the stymie, provided one's club is properly

built--and later on I shall refer to the construction of the

mashie--is much exaggerated. Eight of ten stymies should present no

more difficulty than an ordinary put. The only time a stymie should

present a difficulty to the golfer is when the intervening ball is

much nearer to the hole than to the ball which is stymied, so that the

force required to get over the obstacle is so much that the player,

after landing on the far side of the stymie, has too much power in his

ball to give it a chance to settle in the hole, but even such a stymie

as this may, if the ground be suitable, be overcome by lofting one's

ball so as to drop on the hither side of the stymie, bound over it on

its first bound, and continue on its way to the hole. This, probably,

is one of the most difficult ways of negotiating a stymie; but as

showing that it is eminently a matter of practical golf, I may say

that I was illustrating the shot one day to a man who had practically

just started golf. I showed him how to obtain the shot, and he did it

at his first attempt. I advised him not to try again that day.

Braid continues:

I need not say that the pitching method is only

practicable--and then it is generally the only shot that is

practicable--when both balls are near the hole, and are so

situated in relation to each other and to the hole that the

ball can reach the latter as the result of such a stroke as

enabled it to clear the opponent's ball.

Braid is, I think, referring to a clean pitch into the hole, although

the photograph leaves this open to doubt. The pitching method is

practicable when one is stymied in almost any position on the green,

provided always, as I have said, that one has any chance whatever of

pulling up in time to get into the hole after having got over the

stymie. Let me give an example:--Supposing my ball were fifteen yards

from the hole, that the green was absolutely level, and that I had a

stymie ten inches or ten feet in front of me. I should not hesitate

for a moment to use the shot which I have described as the best stymie

stroke in the game. The ball in front of me, so far from being an

obstruction, or in any way whatever putting me off, would, if

anything, serve as a good line to the hole. I am aware that to many

golfers who do not know this stroke, and comparatively few do, this

will sound like exaggeration. I am prepared at any time to demonstrate

the practical nature of what I am writing to any one of my readers who

cannot obtain the results which I get with this stroke.

At the time that I introduced this stroke there was much controversy

about it, and it was claimed that it was not a new stroke, but that it

was exactly the same as the stroke played by all golfers when stymied.

This, however, is quite an error. Speaking of the stymie shot, James

Braid says

... it is just an ordinary chip up, with a clean and quick

rise, the fact being remembered that the green must not be

damaged. To spare the latter the swing back should be low

down and near to the surface, which will check the tendency

to dig. The thing that will ensure the success of the shot,

so far as the quick and clean rise is concerned--and often

enough success depends entirely upon that--is the

follow-through. Generally, if the club is taken through

easily and cleanly, all will be well.

It is obvious from this description that the stroke in Braid's mind is

totally different from my stymie stroke. With the stroke as I play it,

it is an absolute impossibility to "dig" into the green. One has no

need to have any anxiety whatever about the green, for as the club

travels parallel with the surface of the green all the time, it is

obvious that no damage can ensue. If there is any deflection whatever

from the straight line, it would be at the moment of impact, but even

here it stands to reason that there is practically no deflection

whatever; for even in a stroke played, relatively speaking, so slowly

as is this shot, any alteration of the line of the stroke after it has

once been decided upon, is quite improbable, but the dominant idea in

the player's mind must be to insert the front edge of his mashie

between the ball and the grass, and above everything to keep his

follow-through as straight and as low along the surface of the green

as was his swing back. It is this straight and low follow-through

which gives the ball its "quick and clean rise," as Braid calls it.

Curiously enough, the follow-through which Braid shows for his stymie

shot, wherein the head of the club is raised from the green, will not

give anything like so quick a rise or such delicacy of touch as will

the stroke played in the manner which I have described, and, above

everything, with the very low follow-through insisted upon by me.

[Illustration: PLATE IV. HARRY VARDON

At the top of his swing in the drive. This is a fine

illustration of Vardon's perfect management of his weight,

which is mainly on his left foot. Observe carefully the

wrists, which are in the best possible position to develop

power.]

I may mention that George Duncan never uses any other stroke than this

when playing a short stymie. Indeed, he went so far as to say, when I

was having him photographed for my illustrations in _Modern Golf_,

that it was useless to take any exposures of the ordinary stymie shot,

for the stroke introduced and described by me had practically put it

out of the game.

Speaking of cutting round a stymie, James Braid says: "Whichever way I

wish to make the ball curl, either round the other ball from the

left-hand side, or from the right, I hit my own with the toe of the

club, drawing the club towards me in the former case so as to make a

slice, and holding the face of it at an angle--toe nearer the hole

than the heel--in the latter, in order to produce a hook." And he

adds: "You cannot do anything by hitting the ball with the heel of

your putter," to which I would rejoin, nor can you do anything by

hitting the ball with the toe of your putter, that you cannot do

better by hitting it absolutely in the middle, which is the only

proper part wherewith to hit a golf ball.

In the illustrations Braid is shown cutting the put with an aluminium

club. One has no more chance of cutting round a stymie with a club of

this nature than one would have with a bar of soap, for the simple

reason that on account of the breadth of its sole--for if it be not an

aluminium club, it is at least shaped on the same lines--it is

impossible to get the face of the club sufficiently underneath the

ball for the loft to get to work so as to impart that side roll which

is of the essence of cutting round. Braid says at page 171: "But

remember that you can never get any work on the ball if the green is

stiff." Now if this is so, I should like to know what use there is in

attempting to put with drag?

I quite agree with Braid that it is practically impossible to get any

work whatever on the ball with the club he is shown using. With such a

club it would be still more difficult, if not absolutely impossible,

to obtain any appreciable drag, but if, as Braid says, "you can never

get any work on the ball when the green is stiff," how can he advise

one to attempt to put with drag on a stiff green? To my mind this is

absolutely bad and misleading advice.

In my chapter on the "Construction of Clubs" it will be seen that I

advocate a short putter for short puts. In _Advanced Golf_ James Braid

has some interesting things to say about gripping low down. He says:

Many golfers grip very low down, even half-way between the

leather and the head. If their putting when done this way is

first class, nobody can say anything to them, but if it is

not first class it may be pointed out to them that the system

is absolutely bad. It may be allowed to pass for holing-out

purposes; but for a putt of any length it cannot be good, for

the club is not swung in the ordinary easy manner by which

distance can be so accurately gauged. The ball is more or

less poked along. When a man putts in this way he is putting

largely by instinct, and even though he may generally putt

well, his work on the greens cannot be thoroughly reliable.

No putting is so good and consistently effective as is that

which is done with a gentle even swing, which can be

regulated to a nicety, and such putting is only possible when

there is enough shaft left below the grip to swing with.

I am quite in accord with what James Braid says about this method of

putting, and I do not for one moment think that the short grip should

be used for approach puts, but I am sure the nearer one gets to the

hole the closer one should get down to the ball. Braid deals further

on with the question of shortening one's putter. He says:

As to the length of the shaft, many players, because they

find that they always grip their putters a foot or so from

the end of it, proceed in due course to have the best part of

that foot cut off, or in purchasing a new putter they have

the shaft cut very short. Are they quite satisfied that it is

not better to have a fair amount of shaft projecting up above

the place where they grip when that place is very low down?

The answer to this is that in many cases the wood which projects above

the grip is very much in the way of true putting. Any golfer who is

foolish enough to cut anything like a foot off any club without any

compensation to the head in the way of balance must be expected to pay

the penalty for his ignorance, and anyone having a club constructed

for him on such a principle, or, rather, want of principle, will

inevitably pay for it. Braid goes on to say:

Often enough no consideration is given to this point; it is

not imagined that the shaft above the grip can serve any

useful purpose. Yet it is constantly found that a putter cut

down is not the same putter as it was before, not so good,

and has not the same balance; and, again, many players must

have been surprised sometimes, when doing some half-serious

putting practice with a cleek, iron, or driving mashie, each

club with its long shaft, to find out what wonderfully

accurate work could be done in this way. The inference from

all experience, having theoretical principle to back it, is

that the top or spare part of the shaft acts as a kind of

balance when the putter is gripped low down, and tends

materially to a more delicate touch and to true hitting of

the ball. A very little reflection will lead the reader to

believe that this is so, and in some cases it may lead him

towards a revision of his present methods.

Personally, I should not think that even "a very little reflection"

would be necessary to induce anyone to believe that the top part of

the shaft acts "as a kind of balance" when the putter is gripped low

down, but it is quite obvious that it is possible to build a putter,

let us say, for the sake of example, two-thirds of the length of an

ordinary putter, which is just as perfectly balanced as the long

club. This is not any question of theory--it is a matter of absolutely

proved and tried practice in golf. One may have a perfect putter which

will be ruined by taking a few inches off the shaft. The balance of

that putter is probably irrevocably destroyed, unless, perchance, the

owner is lucky in adding weight to the head in some way, but dealing

with a putter like this is tricky work for one who does not understand

it. The main point in connection with this matter of Braid's, which I

have quoted, is that he gives a kind of qualified approval to the idea

of the short putter for short puts. Personally, I think it is the

soundest of sound golf, and I am inclined to think that before many

years we shall see the shorter clubs used in their proper place when

their value is more clearly understood.

Vardon has some very interesting things to say in his book, _The

Complete Golfer_, on "Complicated Putts," while dealing with what he

calls "one of the most difficult of all putts--that in which there is

a more or less pronounced slope from one side or the other, or a

mixture of the two." As he truly says, "In this case it would

obviously be fatal to putt straight at the hole." He continues: "I

have found that most beginners err in being afraid of allowing

sufficiently for the slope"; and I have found that nine champions of

ten make exactly the same error. It is as bad a fault at golf as it is

at bowls to be "narrow," by which, in golf, is meant not to allow

enough for the slope of the green, for it is obvious that if one is

narrow one does not give the hole a chance any more than one does when

one is short; so we may add to the stock maxim in putting "Never up,

never in," another one, which is just as sound, "Never be narrow."

Vardon goes fully into the general principles underlying these

complicated puts, but as I have already indicated, this is

unquestionably a matter which can only be settled by practice on the

green; but he also goes into the question of the manner in which the

stroke should be played, and here we have a subject which legitimately

comes within the scope of this work. He continues:

But there are times when a little artifice may be resorted

to, particularly in the matter of applying a little cut to

the ball. There is a good deal of billiards in putting, and

the cut stroke on the green is essentially one which the

billiard player will delight to practise, but I warn all

those who are not already expert at cutting with the putter

to make themselves masters of the stroke in private practice

before they attempt it in a match, because it is by no means

easy to acquire. The chief difficulty which the golf student

will encounter in attempting it will be to put the cut on as

he desires, and at the same time to play the ball with the

proper strength and keep on the proper line. It is easy

enough to cut the ball, but it is most difficult, at first at

all events, to cut it and putt it properly at the same time.

For the application of cut, turn the toe of the putter

slightly outwards and away from the hole, and see that the

face of the club is kept to this angle all the way through

the stroke. Swing just a trifle away from the straight line

outwards, and the moment you come back on to the ball draw

the club sharply across it. It is evident that this movement,

when properly executed, will give to the ball a rotary

motion, which on a perfectly level green would tend to make

it run slightly off to the right of the straight line along

which it was aimed.

There are one or two points in this statement which are of very great

importance. Vardon says: "For the application of cut turn the toe

slightly outwards and away from the hole, and see that the face of the

club is kept to this angle all the way through the stroke." This is

absolutely unsound golf, for Vardon is advising his reader to play the

put with the toe of the putter slightly outwards and away from the

hole. It stands to reason that following this advice will put the face

of the club in such a position that at the moment of impact it will be

impossible for it to be at a right angle to the intended line of run

to the hole, and this rule is, for all purposes of practical golf,

invariable. It is obvious that coming on to the ball in the manner

suggested must tend to push it away to the right--that is to say, it

would have a strong tendency to go away to the right from the very

moment of impact, which is not what is generally wanted in a good put;

also playing the put in this manner tends quite naturally to decrease

the amount of cut put on it. The idea that cut mashie shots and cut

puts are played in this manner has arisen from the fact that very

frequently the golfer addresses the ball with the toe of his club laid

back a little, but by the time he has come on to the ball again he has

corrected this. In many cases, if it were not for laying the toe of

the club back a little in this manner, golfers would be inclined,

although as a matter of strict and accurate golf they should not be,

to drag the ball across towards the left of the hole.

Vardon says: "Swing just a trifle away from the straight line

outwards, and the moment you come back on to the ball draw the club

sharply across it." Now here again we see this outstanding error of

practically every man who ever put pen to paper to write about golf,

which is that in producing the cut, whether it be in a put or a sliced

drive, something is done intentionally to the ball during the period

in which the ball and the club are in contact. This is absolutely

wrong. I have explained before that the cut put, and indeed all cut

strokes at golf, are produced by the club swinging across the intended

line of flight or run at the moment of impact, and the amount of cut

depends entirely upon the angle and the speed at which the club head

is travelling across the intended line of flight or run. It is obvious

that the amount of cut must also, to a certain extent, depend on the

amount of loft of the club, for the greater the loft of the club the

greater assistance will the golfer who is applying the cut obtain from

the weight of the ball.

Vardon goes on to say: "It is evident that this movement, when

properly executed, will give to the ball a rotary motion, which on a

perfectly level green would tend to make it run slightly off to the

right of the straight line along which it was aimed"; but as I have

already shown, the unfortunate part of it is that a put so played

would not go down the straight line which every golfer desires that

his put shall go on; nor indeed on anything like it.

Also it is a delusion that it is possible with any of the ordinary

putters to obtain a cut of a sufficiently pronounced degree to remain

on the ball, especially on the bramble balls, for any appreciable

distance. Vardon supposes a case of a steep but even slope all the way

from the ball to the hole, and he gives instructions as to how to put

across this slope with cut so as to hold the ball up against the

slope. He says:

But we may borrow from the slope in another way than by

running straight up it and straight down again. If we put cut

on the ball, it will of itself be fighting against the hill

the whole way, and though if the angle is at all pronounced

it may not be able to contend against it without any extra

borrow, much less will be required than in the case of the

simple putt up the hill and down again.

In the first place, I may remark that we do not generally borrow from

a slope "by running straight up it and straight down again." The path

of the ball is generally, almost from the time it is hit, a curve, and

a gradual curve, in which one sees to it that the ball is at its

farthest from the straight line to the hole somewhere about midway to

the hole. But this idea of putting cut on the ball with a putter,

which is sufficient to hold the ball up against the hill for any

appreciable distance, is practically a delusion. I can easily

understand that if Vardon plays the cut put as he himself directs it

to be played, that he thinks that cut administered to a ball by an

ordinary putter may have a very great effect in holding the ball up

against the side of a hill for a considerable distance, but this

really is not so. Putting, however, as Vardon instructs one to put for

obtaining cut, would in itself punch the ball up against the slope of

the hill, and I can easily believe that anybody who plays the put like

this, thinking that he is obtaining cut by so doing, will be under the

impression that cut is a very useful thing for holding the ball up

against the slope in this manner, whereas he is in effect simply

punching the ball up against the slope--in other words, he is playing

a put, which if the green were perfectly level, would be yards off his

line to the hole and to the right of it.

Vardon goes on to say:

Now it must be borne in mind that it is a purely artificial

force, as it were, that keeps the ball from running down the

slope, and as soon as the run on the ball is being exhausted

and the spin at the same time, the tendency will be, not for

the ball to run gradually down the slope--as it did in the

case of the simple putt without cut--but to surrender to it

completely and run almost straight down.

There is a fundamental error here, for Vardon states that practically

the spin on the put and the run on the ball will be exhausted at the

same time, but it is an utter impossibility to calculate with any

exactness whatever as to what happens in such a case. Vardon knows no

more about it than any other golfer, and all that any golfer knows

about this is extremely little, so that to advise anyone to attempt to

hold his ball up against a slope by the application of cut with any

ordinary putter, particularly a broad-soled putter, is to invite him

to play his shot blindfolded.

Vardon does not mention the length of the put which he considers it

possible to play with this cut, but in his diagram he shows a put

which would conceivably be quite a long put, let us say for the sake

of argument fifteen or sixteen feet, but the theory would be just as

bad if it were much less. He says:

Our plan of campaign is now indicated. Instead of going a

long way up the hill out of our straight line and having a

very vague idea of what is going to be the end of it all, we

will neutralise the end of the slope as far as possible by

using the cut and aim to a point much lower down the

hill--how much lower can only be determined with knowledge of

the particular circumstances, and after the golfer has

thoroughly practised the stroke and knows what he can do with

it. And instead of settling on a point half-way along the

line of the putt as the highest that the ball shall reach,

this summit of the ascent will now be very much nearer the

hole, quite close to it in fact. We putt up to this point

with all the spin we can get on the ball, and when it reaches

it, the forward motion and the rotation die away at the same

time, and the ball drops away down the hill, and, as we hope,

into the hole that is waiting for it close by.

Vardon may well say "as we hope," for the put described by him has no

more chance of being brought off on a putting-green than Vardon has of

winning another open championship from an aeroplane. To speak of

putting a ball in this manner, and treating it with such magic that

when it gets up by the hole the forward motion and the rotation die

away at the same time, is not practical golf, but absolute moonshine,

for it would be an utter impossibility to persuade any golf ball which

has ever been made to receive from any known form of golf club

sufficient cut to make it behave in the manner described. The theory

of the thing on paper is to a very great extent right, with the

exception that the cut described would require to be obtained by a

club with a much greater loft than any ordinary putter; but it is

evident that putting with putters such as those which Braid or Vardon

use, it would be an utter impossibility to get cut on the ball which

would stay with the ball during a long put and exert much influence in

holding the ball up against any appreciable slope, for with these

putters, which have not much loft, it is evident that any spin

whatever which is imparted to them by drawing the putter across the

line of run at the moment of impact will be mainly about a vertical

axis which is, in effect, the spin of a top. It is evident that as the

ball progresses across the green there will be a very strong effort

indeed on the part of the ball, following its friction on the green,

to wear down this vertical motion and convert it into the ordinary

roll of a naturally hit put.

Even when one is putting with a highly lofted club and with a

tremendous amount of drag on a perfectly flat green, the drag goes off

the ball in a wonderfully short space of time, and here, of course,

one is using a spin which is analogous to the drag of the billiard

player, for it is pure back-spin which is fighting in the same plane

the forward roll of the golf ball. Therefore it is reasonable to

suppose, and indeed it is undoubted that the ball would be more likely

to retain this pure back-spin for a much longer time than would the

ball with the side-spin imparted by the putter, for the spin which is

imparted by the putter does not directly fight the forward progress of

the ball as it is spinning across the plane of the roll which the ball

desires to take, whereas, as I have before pointed out, the ball

played with drag is absolutely fighting the forward roll of the golf

ball. It therefore would for a very short distance skid over the

putting-green, but those who only theorise about these matters have a

ridiculously exaggerated idea of the influence of drag on the golf

ball.

I have made it very plain, and I cannot emphasise the matter too

strongly, that any attempt whatever in long puts to use drag or cut of

any kind is to be deprecated.

There is another matter which Vardon refers to that I should like to

notice here. He says:

One of the problems which strike most fear into the heart of

the golfer is when his line from the ball to the hole runs

straight down a steep slope and there is some considerable

distance for the ball to travel along a fast green. The

difficulty in such a case is to preserve any control over the

ball after it has left the club, and to make it stop anywhere

near the hole if the green is really so fast and steep as

almost to impart motion of itself. In a case of this sort I

think it generally pays best to hit the ball very nearly upon

the toe of the putter, at the same time making a short, quick

twitch or draw of the club across the ball towards the feet.

Little forward motion will be imparted in this manner, but

there will be a tendency to half lift the ball from the green

at the beginning of its journey, and it will continue its way

to the hole with a lot of drag upon it. It is obvious that

this stroke, to be played properly, will need much practice

in the first place, and judgment afterwards, and I can do

little more than state the principle upon which it should be

made.

I need hardly do more here than repeat what I have said in the case of

the other puts. Any attempt to jump a ball at the beginning of the

put on a steep, fast green is about as bad a method of starting it as

one could possibly imagine. There is nothing for it but the smooth,

steady roll. Few greens, of course, are so steep that the ball will

run off them unless it has been very violently played, so the ordinary

principles of putting still hold good here--there is one way to play

that put, and that is not from the toe, but from the centre, of the

club, and as straight as may be for the hole, having due regard to the

slope or slopes of the green. Of course, as I have before indicated,

if one is very near to the hole, certainly not more than two to three

feet at the utmost, one may be excused for putting straight at the

hole with drag, because a ball can be made to carry its drag for about

this distance.