SHOULD GOLF GADDIES ADVISE?

Evening Star, Issue 19776, 28 January 1928, Page 19

SHOULD GOLF GADDIES ADVISE?

QUESTION m WHICH THE SEXES DIFFER [Written by Hare's Vaedon, for the ‘Evening Star.’] Mr John L. Low, than whom there is nobody better qualified to interpret the traditions and spirit of golf, has been taking the ladies gently to task for their efforts to place the question of caddies on what they regard as an equitable basis. Referring to the old condition of comradeship between player and caddie, he says:—“l hear rather sadly that there is likely to ho a change, and that the English ladies wish for no particular caddies, hut rather that they should be allocated to them by lot. In case the caddies be too few, no blood relations may he helpful to their own kin ; the brother may not carry for the sister, but will be handed over to succor the sister’s most bitter foe!” It was in this year’s ladies’ championships that a rule came into force stipulating that no competitor should bo allowed to have any club professional, relation, or friend to carry for her, nor be permitted _to_ bring her own caddie. By the majority of mere males it was regarded as a sudden and rather shocking revolution against one of the historic of the game—the privilege, by which the golfer may sally forth in the spirit of the feudal system of the Middle Ages, accompanied by a favorite henchman ready to stand by him till the last ditch or bunker. In point of fact, it was not, I think, nearly so sudden a movement as most people imagined.

Whatever the affront to sentiment or tradition, the Ladies’ Golf Union has long been working in a practical way against the maintenance of.che principle that one player is entitled to enjoy an advantage oyer another by reason of the possession of the better caddie. Many years ago_ it resolved, in connection with the ladies’ open championship (which w r as then the only classic event for the sex), that no competitor should employ her club professional and coach as caddie. For some time relatives and friends were permitted to act in this rapacity _in the first round, but only when, owing to the large number of players, there might be a shortage of local caddies. THE SHREWD CHOICE. Consequently, the ban complete is the logical conclusion of an ideal that formed itself early in iho feminine mind. I am quite sure that, if the question of preventing a plaj’er from engaging his own particular caddie were brought before the Royal and Ancient Club, it would be dismissed immedately. In men’s golf it is accepted that the player who commands the better caddie has the right to benefit by bis shrewdness or whatever quality it is that enables him to secure the treasure. It is a survival of the feudal spirit. If the caddie would rather serve a certain employer than any other, and the employer would sooner have that caddie than any of his fellows, there is established an implacable human circumstance that argument cannot alter. The first thing that many a man does when he visits his favorite seaside course is to ask foiy his usual caddie, if he has not written in advance and settled the matter. It is very much as he wants somebody in the house who knows his ways and where to find things for him. In that respect man has not changed, either in golf or in the household, since the earliest days of golf and households. It may be that woman is more independent of help than man in matters which, after all, demand only services ■of..a menial character. Man needs and expects the best kind of servant, and, having secured what lie regarded as a prize, makes a friend of him. Woman, having a far wider range of experience in the quest, comes to the conclusion that the best is located somewhere else, which is probably true.

It must be such a sentiment as this which has dictated the, policy that players in the open and English Indies’ championships are to take their chance as to the caddies alloted to them, and not bring their own friends or hirelings. From a purely practical point of view, there is a great deni to be said for this decision. Lieutenant-colonel Sir F. S. Jackson has remarked that “golf is the only game at which you are allowed to take out your coach,” which is completely true, and nn indication of the way in which one player may enjoy an advantage over another by engaging the better attendant. Fundamentally, the ladies are right, because there surely can be no doubt that everybody ought to succeed nr fail solely on individual. merit. DEGREES OE HELP. In men’s golf this coldly logical attitude has never gained much ground. When a youthful amateur beat several of the stars in the amateur championship, his way aided by a sagacious middle-aged professional as caddie, who nominated the shots and told his charge how to swing for them, people rather enjoyed this liaison of forces. It was typical of the way in which the golfers of ancient times played their games—those times when even kings had their special foursome partners and mentors who acted ns caddies when circumstances demanded that the head of the conferedacy should contest a, single. For a long while it has been considered incorrect, although unt ‘ illegal, to employ an acknowledged professional and instructor ns caddie. Rut that has unt deterred man from securing the most helpful caddie obtainable. When golf was a very .small game (hundreds of years ago) and everybody knew everybody else on the links, the scheme of the favorite caddie had its perfect justification. He was in the nature of a retainer, wholly concerned about his employer’s fortunes. Nowadays, caddies vary so much in quality that the system of allowing them to advise and otherwise affect the player has less justification, A few caddies there are who have inherited the qualities of being guides, philosophers, friends, and moral supports, Others have much the same soullessness as small boys who offer to carry your hag from the railway station. That the principle will continue to flourish in men’s golf is, however, certain.