GOLF CADDIES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 4 February 1928, Page 3

GOLF CADDIES

SHOULD THEY ADVISE? . A QUESTION ON WHICH THE SEXES DIFFER (By Harry Vardan, Six Times Open Champion.) (Specially Written for “The Mail'’.)

Mr John L. Low, than whom there is nobody better qualified to interpret the traditions and spirit of golf, 'has' be.en taking the ladies gently to task for their efforts to place the question pf caddies on what they regard as an equitable basis. Referring to the old condition of comradeship between player aud caddie he says:—“l hear rather sadly that, there is likely to he a change, and that the English ladies wish for no particular caddies, but rather that they should be allocated to them by. lot. In ease the. caddies be too few, no blood may be. helpful to their own kin; the brother may not carry for the suter but will he handed over to succour the sister’s most bitter foe!” It was in this year’s ladies’ chain-' pionships that a rule came into force stipulating that no competitor should be allowed to havo any club professional, relation or friend to carry for her, nor be permitted to bring her owrz caddie. By the majority of mere males it was regarded as a sudden and rather shock-' ing revolution against one of tho historic privileges of the game—the privilege by which the golfer may sally forth in tho spirit of the feudal system of the Middle Ages, accompanied by a favourite henchman ready to stand by him till the last ditch or bunker. In point of fact, it was not, I tlvihk/neqrly so sudden a movement as most-people imagined. ... v>Whatever tho affront to sentiment or t tradition, tho Ladies’ Golf- Union has long been working in a 1 practical way against the maintenance of the'jprinr cipie that one player is entitled‘to enjoy an advantage over another by, reason of tho possession of the better, caddie. Mail}’' years ago, it resolved, in;/connection with the 'ladies’ open. fchampic»hship (which was then the only classic' everit for the sex), that no competitor should employ her club' professional and coach as caddie. For soino time, relatives and friends were permitted to act in this capacity in the first round, but only when, "owing to tho large number of players, there might be a shortage of local caddies. THE SHREWD CHOICE : \ Consequently, the ban completo is the logical conclusion of an ideal that formed itself earlv in the feminine mind!' I am quite sure that, if tho question, nf preventing a player from engaging his own particular caddie wero brought before the Royal and Ancient Club, it would be dismissed immediately. In men’s golf, it is accepted that the player who commands tho better caddie has the right to benefit by his shrewdness or whatever quality it is that;. enables him to secure tho treasure. It is.a survival of the feudal spirit. If tho caddio would rather servo a certain ernplqyer than any other, and tho employer would sooner have that caddio than any of his fellows, thcro.is established an' implacable human circumstance that arguments cannot alter. The first thing that many a, man does when ho visits his favourite seaside course is to ask for his usual caddio, 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, mam has not changed, either in golf or in the household, since the earliest days of gojf 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 bo regards as a prize, makes a friend of him. Woman, having a far wider range of experience in the quest, comes to'the conclusion, that tho best is located somewhere else, which is probably true. It must bo such a sentiment qs this which has dictated the policy that players in the open and English ladies championships are to take their chance as to the caddies allotted to them, and, not bring their own friends or hirelings. From a purely practical point of view, there is a great deal to be said for this Sir FV S Jackson lias remarked that golf P.s. : the ,onlyname at which you are,, alloyedJo.take, out vour coach,” which is completely true,' and an indication of the way in which one player may enjoy an advantage over another by engaging the better attendant. Fundamentally,' the indies are right, because there surely can bo no doubt that everybody ought to succeed or fail solely on individual menfc * DEGREES OF HELP .

In men’s golf, this coldly logical attitude has never gained much Mound. 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, peopl? rather cnfoved this liaison of forces. It was tvpical of the way in whiclr thegolfers of ancient times played their £ amcs —those times when even kings lrid their special foursome partners and mentors who acted as caddies when circumstances demanded that the head the confederacy should contest a single For a long while it has been considered incorrect, although not illegal, to employ an acknowledged professional and instructor as caddie. But that has not deterred man from securing, the most helpful caddie obtainable. When golf was a very small game (liuiidreds°of years ago), and everybody knew everybody else on the links, the scheme of the favourite 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 nualifv that the system of allowing them to advise and otherwise affect tho player lias less justification. A few caddies tliero are who have inherited the qualities of being guides, philosophers, friends, and moral supports. Others ha,vo much tho same soullcssncss as small hoys who offer to carry vout 'bag from the railway station. That the principle will continue to. flourish in men’s golf is, however, certain.