USGA JOURNAL COMBINING TIMELY TURF TOPICS Champions When the Open Was More Casual Photos Edwin Levick, N. Y. Willie Anderson (left) won the Open four times—1901-03-04-05. He was the only player to be Champion three years in a row. At right, the Cham­ pion of fifty years ago, Willie Smith, winner in 1899. USGA JOURNAL COMBINING TIMELY TURF TOPICS PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION Permission to reprint articles herein is freely granted (unless specifically noted otherwise) provided credit is given to the USGA Journal. VOL. II, NO. 2 JUNE, 1949 Through the Green................... 1 Amateurism Is in the Spirit................. -.................James W. Walker 5 Chicago Rich in Open History......... ............ Joseph C. Dey, jr. 6 37 for Two Holes in the Open.......... ...................... —........ 8 Par for Chipping and Putting.....—.......... ..William B. Langford 11 No Change in the Wedge............... ...................... John D. Ames 12 How to Win at Golf....... ....................... ........ -........Stephen Potter 14 Plans for Championships ............ -......... 15 Control and Balance in the Swing ........ Ernest Jones 17 Active Year for the Seniors ....................—................ -................... 19 The Referee: Decisions by the Rules of Golf Committee.......... . 21 Timely Turf Topics: USGA Green Section Soil and Turf Relationships....R. P. Humbert and F. V. Grau 25 Questions and Answers .................................................................... 32 It’s Your Honor: Letters.................. 33 Subscriptions: $2 per year; seven issues per year: Spring, June, July, August, September, Autumn, Winter. Single copies—30 cents. Subscriptions, articles, photographs , and correspondence (except pertaining to Green Section matters) should be addressed to: UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION 73 East 57th Street, New York 22. N. Y. Correspondence pertaining to Green Section matters should be addressed to: USGA GREEN SECTION, Room 307, South Building, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md. Edited by Joseph C. Dey, Jr. and John P. English. Advisory Committee—John D. Ames, Chairman; Isaac B Grainger, Curtis W. McGraw, James D. Standish, Jr. All articles voluntarily contributed. printed in u. s. a. USGA COMPETITIONS FOR 1949 Walker Cup Match: August 19 and 20, at Winged Foot G. C., Mamaroneck, N. Y, Men’s amateur teams, British Isles vs. United States. (Dates entries close mean last dates for applications to reach U.S.G.A. office, except in the case of the Amateur Public Links Championship. For possible exceptions in dates of Sectional Qualifying Rounds, see entry forms.) Championship Entries Close Sectional Qnalifi)in Conf inunl on pane 20 i USGA Journal: June, 1949 11 Par for Chipping and Putting By WILLIAM B. LANGFORD Member, American Society of Golf Course Architects Any observing golfer knows that the number of strokes taken with a putter during a round is an inaccurate meas­ ure of putting ability. Paucity of putts may mean that the player has displayed marvelous precision with his approach shots, or has played them badly, leaving himself a multitude of chips which have been well executed. The player who con­ sistently makes the green with his long shots will probably take several more putts than the fellow who just fails to get home. In making par tables, an allowance of two putts per green has been standard procedure. In actual practice, this does not mean two strokes with a putter on each hole; in major competition no golfer who averages 36 putts per round can hope to finish in the money. To me, it means that two strokes, either chip or putts, are allowed with which to hole out after the ball has been played toward the green from, any reachable distance exceeding 32^2 yards—the point at which fractional par for chipping and putting is 2.5 in the tables I have compiled. Some ten years ago I prepared a table showing par performance for chips and putts. Since then I have paid close attention to short-game detail in my daily contacts with golfers of widely varying abilities and at many competitions, especially those in which putting records were kept. My observations have in­ duced me to readjust the allowance for short putts, where psychological tension plays havoc with mechanical perform­ ance to such an extent that anv table for that range will probably undergo vehem­ ent criticism. This is an empirical table for par. not average performance, based on play over a level, true surface. Although of only academic interest, it should, if it is as accurate as I believe it to be, en­ courage the poor putters, for the goal set is within the reach of anyone who will work, and keep the better putters from continually blowing their tops be­ cause they don’t hole all of them. I have had a lot of fun checking and work­ ing it out and now present the appended revision with the hope that it may be of some interest to golf analysts. Golf’s battlefront of nerves and finesse around the green is the happy hunting ground of the scrambler and of the chap who never says die. Here the David of the links who has courage and self-control can recover from his losses through the green and fight on even terms with his physical superiors. Par 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.00 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.S5 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2?30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 Dis- tance Inches 14 19 25 31 38 45 54 63 i 1 SI Feet 1 ..) S '1 9 5 10.5 11.5 12.5 14.5 16.5 IS.5 20.5 Yards 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 25.0 O ** 30.0 32.5 Par Performance in Holintr 100 Balls Total Strokes Possible Distribution of score 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 1S5 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 230 235 240 245 250 .Ices ICO 95 90 S,.-) so 70 Gn 60 ;>.) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 J Pence s 100 95 90 s 80 70 ba 60 50 Peaces 0 D 10 15 20 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Threes SO S5 90 95 0 5 10 15 20 30 35 40 45 50 12 USGA Journal: June, 1949 No Change in the Wedge By JOHN D. AMES Chairman, USGA Implements and Ball Committee Clubs of the general type popularly known as “wedge” have been under rather intense consideration by the USGA Executive Committee during the last year. At its recent spring meeting, the Com­ mittee decided to take no legislative ac­ tion against the wedge. Thus this trouble club remains “legal”—and prob­ ably a lively topic for conversation until another flurry of criticism brings it under scrutiny again. That has been the periodic pattern for the wedge ever since its modern ancestor, a concave-faced niblick with a heavy, rounded-and-flanged sole, made its appearance in 1930. The USGA Ex­ ecutive Committee then lost little time in legislating against it—in January, 1931, it was barred. The report of Herbert Jaques as Chairman of the Implements and Ball Committee then said: “Repeated tests proved conclusively that from grass a ball could strike the club face at two different points in the same stroke.” This resulted in adoption of the follow­ ing regulation: “Club faces shall not embody any degree of concavity or more than one angle of loft.” The concavity of face in the original sandwedge was the basic reason for its abolition. But since then there have been developments in the sale of wedge­ type clubs which have caused many lovers of the game to press for modi­ fication. Criticism has originated from belief that the wedge is a sort of foolproof club which takes away much of the need of skill in playing shots from sand and short pitches to the putting green. There have been honest differences of opinion, even among those who should know the subject. Following are some opinions, and their diversity reflects the scope of the problem which has confronted the ISGA Executive Com­ mittee. Con Herbert Jaques has dealt with the matter periodically for nearly two dec­ ades in USGA committees and is an ad­ vocate of modifying the club. He has said: “The feature which makes it a ‘self­ playing implement’ is the angle of the trailing edge of the sole which extends below a horizontal plane, measured from the leading edge, when the line of the shaft (not the shaft itself) is per­ pendicular to the plane.” He suggested legislation which, he felt, would do the following: “1. Eliminate the automatic up-lift or ploughing-out action of the present sandwedge. “2. Take care of either flat or rounded soles. “3. Not make obsolete the present clubs, which could be ground down to meet the proposed specifications. “4. No limitation on width of the sole is necessary to eliminate the up-lift or« ploughing-out action.” Tommy Armour has remarked sub­ stantially as follows: “The present club should be outlawed because it is of in­ estimable benefit to the expert but of no particular help to the average player because he doesn’t know how to use it properly.” Francis Ouimet has said he feels the club “has no place in the game, and I would like to see it declared illegal. I realize, however, that it has given much consolation to a great many golfers.” Pro Various shades of opinion have been expressed by various USGA Committee­ men. One said: “There should be some specifications to limit the club, but some sort of wedge similar to those in use to­ day should be legal. I believe the club helps the dub more than the top pro in spite of the latter’s proficiencv with it. and it would be a shame to bar all USGA Journal: June, 1949 Original Wedge Note concavity of face in illustration at left, and flanged sole at right. wedges. I am sure that many of the sand wedges are far from foolproof; at least, I know mine isn’t, judging from the numerous frightful shots 1 have hit with it.” Another view: “The wedge is more helpful to the duffer than to the pro. The pro can get out of a bunker and down in one putt quite regularly due to the wedge; the duffer can at least get out with this club, where with the old niblick he used to take a number of strokes before achieving the result."’ Still another was torn between consid­ eration of the average player and a de­ sire to minimize the work done by the club at the expense of playing skill. “Most courses,” he said, “cannot afford to keep their traps raked perfectly, and for the average golfer it is almost es­ sential to have a very heavy wedge to extricate oneself from a deep footprint or a very heavy lie.” In any case, the wedge is still with us —and, probably, so are the problems which it has created. The USGA 13 Journal welcomes the views of golfers on this and related subjects. Bulges on Club Faces A convex bulge from top to bottom on the face of any club, including putters, has been approved by the Executive Committee. The present Rules are not clear on the point, and their phrasing will be changed next year so as to em- bcdy the new interpretation. Radioactive Golf Ball The Association has been asked whether it would approve a golf ball in combination w’ith a radioactive sub­ stance—an invention said to relate to a ball which may be located when lost by means of a detector sensitive to emanations from the ball. The detector used would preferably be a small hand- carried Geiger Counter, it is said. After consideration, the Executive Committee did not feel it had enough in­ formation, one way or another, to make a decision, and thought it best to let the matter develop further so that everything involved in such a golf ball could be taken into consideration. There was a good deal of conversation about the advantage of one player over another if only one could afford the Geiger Coun­ ter, about any harm to human beings or animals which might come from prox­ imity to such a ball, if any, and whether or not it would make any difference in the manufacture or flight of the ball. The matter has been left in an in­ definite state because a decision now, based on insufficient knowledge, might have to be reversed later. Lightning Protection The USGA recently re-issued its poster on "Protection of Persons Against Light­ ning on Golf Courses.” Copies have been sent to all USGA member clubs, and others are available from the USGA, free. The same material is contained in the USGA Rules of Golf booklet. In checking the text of the poster, the National Bureau of Standards point­ ed out: “If golf clubs could be impressed with the necessity of calling off matches be­ fore the storm is near enough to be haz­ ardous, the cases of multiple injury or death among players and spectators could be eliminated.” Mednes Only Whenever we go down to play golf The ladies are so numerous they crowd us olf. Thank goodness Wednesday Is the mednesdav. —Punch 14 USGA Journal: June, 1949 How to Win at Golf (WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHEATING) By STEPHEN POTTER Many books have been written on correct form in sports, but “The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship or The Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheat­ ing” by Stephen Potter is the first devoted to the subject of how to win games without being able to play them. Thanks to Henry Holt & Co., Hie., and “Pageant” magazine, the USGA Journal is enabled to present here, in digest form, a few of Mr. Potters golf “secrets”. Since the first muscle stiffened is the first hole won, the object is to build up an atmosphere of muddled fluster. When, for instance, your opponent kindly comes to pick you up in his car, your procedure should be: (1) Be late in answering the bell; (2) Don’t have your things ready: (3) Walk down path and realize you have forgotten shoes; (4) Return with shoes, then, just before getting into car, pause and wonder whether clubs are at the pro shop or in the den upstairs. The First Hint Like the first hint of paralysis, a scarcely observable fixing of your op­ ponent’s expression should be visible. Now is the time to redouble the attack with map play (a new and better way to the club, ending, of course, in a blind alley). An experienced gamesman will keep two changes, one correct and one in­ correct; also, two golf bags—one cov­ ered in zippers with five woods, twelve irons and a left-handed deck; a second containing only three irons and one wood, each with the appearance of string ends around its neck. If he finds his opponent is humbly dressed, he will wear the smart outfit. If the conditions are reversed, out will come the frayed trousers and the stringy clubs. “And I don’t want a caddie,” he says. Plav against your opponent’s tempo. Against a plaver who makes a great deal of wanting to get on with the game, the technique is to: fl) agree, “as long as we don’t hurry on the shot”; (2) hold things up by 15 to 20 disguised pauses. Peg-top tees were introduced for this purpose. Tee the ball, frame up for the shot and at the last moment stop, pretend to push the peg a little farther and start all over again. Early games- men used such naive devices as leaving the driver on the tee and going back for it. The essence of the modern approach is making the pause as if for the sake of your opponent’s game: removing an imaginary twig from the line of his putt, asking him to wait until “those kids” (imaginary) stop walking across his line of sight, etc. For the slow-playing opponent, of course, the flurry works best. Invent some train you would “rather like to catch if the game is over by then.” To counter the old-aunty type of game, I invent an imaginary character called Jack Rivers. Early in the game I praise his charm, good looks, fine war record and talent for games. Then I say, “I like Jack Rivers’ game. He doesn’t care whether he wins or loses so long as he has a good match.” If the method is given time to soak in, chances are your opponent will begin to think, “Well, perhaps I am being a bit of a stick-in-the-mud.” Soon he is adopting a hit-or-miss method which doesn’t suit his game. My counter to, “I’m afraid I don’t play golf. Do you know, I’ve never been able to see the point of it,” is, “No—it is, of course, a game of pure skill.” USGA Journal: June, 1949 15 Plans for Championships The USGA holds four Championships for male golfers, and this year they require a grand total of 146 Sectional Qualifying competitions to determine the fields for the Championships proper. In addition, there will be a score or more of Sectional tryouts for the Wom­ en’s Amateur Championship, which will have such a feature this year for the first time. Numbers of qualifying points estab­ lished for events for males are: Open— 30; Amateur Public Links—41; Junior Amateur—41; Amateur—34. Locations for all but the Open follow: Public Links Junior Amateur Ala........... Birmingham Birmingham — — Ariz........... Phoenix Cal........... Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Phoenix — — San Fran. San Fran. Denver San Fran. Denver Peoria Atlanta —■ — Chicago — — Colo......... Denver D. C........ Washington Washington Washington Fla........... Jacksonville Lakeland Ga............. Atlanta Hawaii.. Honolulu III............. Chicago Miami Atlanta Honolulu Chicago — — Ind............. Indianapolis Indianapolis — — — — Des Moines — — — — — — Louisville ■—• — Iowa......... — — Kans........ Wichita Ky............. Louisville La............. New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Mass......... Boston Mich........ Detroit Minn......... St. Paul Mo............. —■ — Boston Detroit Minneapolis Minneapolis Kansas City Kansas City St. Louis Lincoln South Bend — — Boston Detroit St. Louis St. Louis Lincoln •—• — Albany New York Rochester Morganton —• — Cincinnati Cleveland Neb........... — — N. M.. . . Albuquerque Albuquerque N. Y.... Albany Buffalo New York Troy Buffalo New York N. C........ Raleigh N. D......... Grand Forks Fargo Ohio......... Cleveland Charlotte Dayton Toledo Alliance Cincinnati Columbus — — Okla. City Portland Okla......... Okla. City Ore........... Portland Pa............. Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia Tulsa Portland Pittsburgh Tenn.... Memphis Nashville Texas.... Galveston Pittsburgh Memphis Nashville Fort W’orth Dallas Pittsburgh Memphis Nashville San Antonio Houston — — Midland Houston Lubbock UTAH.... Salt Lake C. Salt Lake C. — — Va............. — — Wash.... Seattle Richmond Seattle — -- W. Va... — — Huntington Huntington Wis........... Milwaukee Milwaukee Milwaukee Richmond — — —■ —; Spokane Public Links June 9 is the last day for entries for the Amateur Public Links Champion­ ship to be received by Sectional Qualify­ ing Chairmen. This is the only LSGA event for which Sectional entries do not go first to the USGA office. The Sectional Rounds, at 36 holes, are scheduled on various dates in the period June 19-27. They will produce a final field of 210 for the Championship proper, to be played at the new Rancho Golf Course in Los Angeles. The Team Championship, involving three-man Sec­ tional teams at 18 holes stroke play, is scheduled Saturday, July 9, and the In­ dividual Championship for the period July 11-16. Like the other USGA tournaments for males except the Open, the Champion­ ship proper is entirely at match play. The winner will be invited to compete in the Amateur Championship without having to qualify sectionally. Other •semi-finalists will be invited to play in Sectional Qualifying for the Amateur. With these exceptions, an entrant may not apply to play in both the Public Links and the Amateur Championships in the same year. Entries for the Public Links tourna­ ment are open to male amateur golfers who, at all times since January 1, 1949, have not had the privileges of private clubs maintaining their own golf courses. Junior Entry blanks are out for the USGA’s second Junior Amateur Championship. All entries must reach the USGA office in New York by 5 P. M. on Tuesday, July 5. They must be filed on USGA forms and must be accompanied by the entry fee of $3. The Sectional Rounds in 41 cities are at 18 holes stroke play on Tuesday, July 19, except that the date is Monday, July 18 for rounds at Denver. Chicago. St. Louis and Seattle. The 128 successful players will gather for an all-match-play tournament July 27-30 at the Congressional Country Club, Washington, D. C. Rooms and meals will be available at reasonable rates at Georgetown I niversity for players and male relatives and friends. The LSGA 16 USGA Journal: June, 1949 Championship Committee will be quartered there and will supervise players. The Junior is open to hoys who will not reach their 18th birthday by mid­ night of the day of the final, July 30. In addition to golf, arrangements are being made to take the boys on sight­ seeing trips of particular interest in and about the nation’s capital. Amateur The Amateur Championship is the only USGA event for males in wdiich all American entrants must be members of USGA Regular Member Clubs. This year’s tournament will be held over the East course of the Oak Hill Country Club in the Rochester, N. Y., section, during the period August 29-September 3. Entries close at the USGA office on Monday, August 1, and the Sectional Qualifying Rounds are scheduled Tues­ day, August 16, except at Honolulu, where the date is Tuesday, August 9. Entries must be filed on USGA forms. The fee this year is $7. Women’s and Girls’ Events Philadelphia is to entertain both the Women’s Amateur Championship and the new Girls’ Junior Championship— the first at the Merion Golf Club’s East course and the Girls’ event over the Bala course of the Philadelphia Country Club. The Girls’ tournament will be held August 15-20. It is the only USGA event without Sectional Qualifying. The Women’s Championship field will be determined by Sectional rounds at 36 holes over two days, August 30 and 31. The Championship proper is scheduled September 12-17 and will in­ volve a field of 128 for all match play. USGA COMPETITIONS FOR NEXT YEAR Curtis Cup Match: Sept. 1 and 2 at Country Club of Buffalo, Williamsville, N. Y. Women’s amateur teams, British Isles vs. United States. Championship Open Entries Close May 15 Sectional Qualifyina May 29 Championship Dates June 8-9-10 Amat. Public Links May 26 Junior Amateur June 26 June 11 to 17 July 11 Team: July 1 Indiv., July 3-8 July 19-22 Amateur July 24 August 8 August 21-26 Minneapolis G. C. Girls’ Junior Women’s Amateur August 10 Aug. 24-25 September 11-16 Atlanta A. C. (East Lake) Aug. 28—Sept. 1 (Not determined) August 11 » I'lllllll...- Venue Merion G. C. (East) Ardmore, Pa. Seneca G. C. Louisville, Ky. Denver C. C. Denver, Colo. Minneapolis, Minn. Atlanta, Ga. THUS SPAKE THE VOICE OF GOLF I thrive in the green meadows and besides the wooded hills. I glory in cool breezes and sparkling sun­ shine, yet oft I lure my followers o'er wintry fields or under summer's blazing skies. I appeal alike to young and old. I encourage the weak, reproach the boastful, reward the strong. I am the spirit of fairness, and the essence of self-control. I am opportunity oft returning. I am ambition. I am a fixed star; men follow me, and women too, through the slough of despond to the golden heights of achievement. Men may love me, curse me, kneel to me, deride me, yet I am constant as the tides of the rolling seas; in­ deed I shall never die. Of loneliness I am the chief enemy, for I drive away dull hours and countless petty cares. I have for my bosom companion health, and for my delight a hearty appetite. I revel in entertainment; the world out-of-doors is my house; my guests are whosoever will condescend to share my delights. I lay foundations of everlasting friendships, and build oft in the land of romance. I am an intoxicant. I cure all, but kill none. — Anonymous USGA Journal: June, 1949 17 Control and Balance in the Swing By ERNEST JONES Author of “Swinging Into Golf” To do anything well you must have control. Of course, everyone agrees on that; but when you ask what is meant by control and what is it you must have control of, the answers are, to put it mildly, very confusing and contradic­ tory. What you must have control of is the club itself. One of my very good pu­ pils when asked, “What do you swing the club w’ith?”, replied, “With author­ ity,” which is the perfect answer. Con­ trol means to be in charge, to be in au­ thority, to know what you are doing with what you are using. The clubhead is what you hit the ball with. It is the implement which you must master. Until you are perfectly clear as to the way it should be used, there will be very little hope of having any definite sense of control. Many golfers seem to have the idea that control means keeping a straight left arm, or cocking the w’rists at the right time, trans­ ferring the weight properly, and so on. All these things are the result of proper control of the club, and not the cause. The next thing to consider is balance. If you are not properly balanced, you are under a handicap in one form or another. There is a difference between static bal­ ance and dynamic balance. Balance at rest is simply an even distribution of weight, and the comfortable feeling of poise or “suspended animation” that re­ sults. I keep pointing out to a pupil that anything that can be overdone is not good. You cannot overdo what is right —you can only reach it, not go beyond. Your hands, being the only possible medium through which you can have control of the club, must be in a per­ fectly balanced position. The only true balance is when they are brought to­ gether, palms facing, and exactly in the center of the body. Then I place the right hand on top of the left, and bring them into the position where they would be when holding the trip of the club. Next, I hold the end of the club be­ tween my index finger and thumb and let the head of the club hang naturally. This, of course, is straight down, like a pendulum at rest. The club, to be balanced, is midway between the two feet—which is a perfectly balanced po­ sition for every shot. If the clubhead is off-center, something must be off bal­ ance. It may be a little or it may be a lot, but the'e is no logical reason to practice knowingly anything that can be overdone. Balance in Motion So far, I have been describing posi­ tions of balance at rest, or static bal­ ance. The next thing is to consider bal­ ance in motion. As soon as you start to move the club the right way, everything is set in motion. I invariably ask the pu­ pil to place his hand on a table and to draw a line with his finaer around the thumb in the manner of drawin" a circle with a pair of compasses, the thumb be­ ing the pivotal point. No one has any trouble in doing this Then I casually say, “Well, that wasn’t hard. But tell me quickly what you did with your thumb.” The answer three times out of four is. “Nothing — I kent it perfectly still.” Then I say, “Just try it again,” and, of course, the pupil instantly realizes that the thumb has to move: it is impos­ sible to keep it still—it has to act as the pivot. This is exactly what happens when you swung the clubhead around your bodv. Holding a club as I would a baseball bat, I swing it fast, horizontally, so that the force carries my body around in a 18 USGA Journal: June, 1949 Ernest Jones sits down to play a stroke in illustrating his contention that, if the player is aware of swinging the clubhead with his hands, all else will follow in natural order—hips, legs and other parts of the body will do their jobs in respon­ sive action, but they should not initiate the swing. full-circle pivot. The pivot is the result of the swing and not the cause. If you wanted to make a top, or any other kind of body in motion, maintain a state of balance, you would have to learn to spin it. The faster the motion, the bet­ ter the balance. Balance in motion is not a position, but a state or condition gov­ erned by centrifugal force. Next. I ask the pupil to hold a club horizontally out in front of him, at arm’s length, with the hands apart, roughly about two feet, and get him to swing the club backward and forward, first to the right and then to the left, letting himself give naturally with the motion. Of course, when these things can be demonstrated, they are much easier to understand. As the swinging to and fro continues, I ask. “What are you doing—trying to keen vour arms out or swinging the club?’” If he says, “Swinging the club.” I ask. “Can you swing the club without your arms going out?” Of course, it becomes obvious that he cannot. So then I point out: “You are using your power to swing, and not putting it into your arms to keep them straight. The pivot is the result of swinging; no conscious effort is needed to make the body pivot.” Last, but not the least important, is to realize that when the club is swung to the right, the left side, knee and foot give naturally with the action; and when swung to the left, the right side, etc., respond naturally to the leftward motion. After a little practice at this, so that the body pivot is felt as the result, not the cause, of the swinging motion, I then have the pupil hold the club in the regular golfing position. I take care to explain how to hold the club in the hands, primarily with the control in the fingers, realizing that the most important finger is the thumb. When the club is held properly, the space be­ tween the tip of the thumb and the (Continued on page 20) USGA Journal: June, 1949 19 Active Year for the Seniors Has there any eld fellow got mixed with the boys? If there has, take him out, without making a noise. Hang the Almanac's cheat and the Catalogue's spite! Old time is a liar! We're twenty tonight! We're twenty! We're twenty! Who says we are more? He's tipsy—young jackanapes!—show him the door! "Gray temples at twenty?"—Yes, WHITE if we please! Where the snow-flakes fall thickest there's nothing can freeze! Hr * ★ Yes, we're boys—always playing with tongue or with pen— And I sometimes have asked—Shall we ever be men? Shall we always be youthful, and laughing, and gay, Till the last dear companion drops smiling away? Then here's to our boyhood, its gold and its gray! The stars of its winter, the dews of its May! And when we have done with our life-lasting toys, Dear Father, take care of thy children, THE BOYS! —from "The Boys" Oliver Wendell Holmes never was guil­ ty of golf, as far as the record shows, so it must have been the prophetic in­ sight of the true poet which he expressed in these lines from one of his jolly works. Surely, he had Senior golfers in mind. The Boys, to us, are those youngsters on the golden side of 55 years who com­ pose the United States Senior Golfers' As­ sociation. Throughout the year they’re among the most ardent of players, wher­ ever they may be, but now they’re about to reach a peak in their annual Cham­ pionship, in New York. Their 36-hole competition always has been held entirely at Apawamis, but this year it’s to be divided between Apawa­ mis and Blind Brook. If you really want to feel the spirit of the game, that’s one of the tournaments of the year. The record happens to be 143, and it’s a rare year when the Champion isn’t required to average better than 75s. The 1948 Champion was John F. Riddell, Jr., with 149. John G. Jackson It's to be a particularly big year for the Seniors. Immediately after their Championship, a nine-man team sails to renew an international rivalry with the Senior Golfers Society of Great Brit­ tain. The match will be played at Wok­ ing, England, July 12-13-14. This is to be the first postwar match with the Brit­ ish, the last having been held in 1938. Canada used to participate. The American team as announced by Henry A. Goode, Tournament Chairman of the Seniors’ Association, comprises: S. W. Creekmore, Fort Smith, Ark. Robert A. Gardner, Chicago William C. Hunt, Houston John G. Jackson, Captain, New York John F. Riddell, Jr., New York Fitzwilliam Sargent, Philadelphia Harrison Smith. Oklahoma City Duane Tower, Niagara Falls Joseph M. Wells, East Liverpool, Ohio Following the British match, the team will play a series of informal games in Sweden, on invitation by the Swedish Golf Union. 20 USGA Journal: June, 1949 37 For Two Holes (Continued from page 10) series of ineffectual efforts to cut his way through to the ball, he suddenly decided to shift his tactics. By this time the sole of the niblick was red-hot and dented badly, but the shaft, of real stout hickory, stood up magnificently. “Barnes, as one of the favorites for the title, was, of course, bearing up splendidly. He did not say how much he enjoyed the performance, but he never left his observation post. “As I have said, Willie changed his tactics. Now instead of striving to play toward the green, he chose to chip the ball away from the rock. This he did after the second effort. After a little more hard luck, Willie reached the green, perspiring; and then, as always when things are not going well, needed three putts. I am not sure whether or not Jim got his 3, but I do know he was thoroughly chilled waiting for his turn to play. “Now came the real test. Willie tried his best to count his strokes, but since he had been working in the bot­ tom of the ravine for the greater part of 30 minutes, he was not sure how' many he had taken. As he was ex­ hausted, he turned to Jim for help. “ ‘Willie, you took 18 for the hole,’ said Barnes. “ ‘Oh, Jim, that cannot be so,’ wras Chisholm’s reply. ‘You must have counted the echoes.’ ” Control and Balance (Continued from page 18) first joint of the index finger forms a V, or triangle, and the apex of the V is on the top center of the shaft when the club rests on the ground. This is true for both hands. I am definitely in favor of the little finger of the right hand resting on the index finger of the left hand, in what is known as the overlapping grip. The so-called interlocking grip I don’t like and never advise, because it robs the left hand of part of the control. Summing Up To recapitulate: 1. One categorical imperative: “Hit the ball.” No minor absolutes. 2. Only one thing hits the ball: the clubhead. 3. The clubhead must be moved to produce the greatest force coming into contact with the ball — centrifugal force. 4. Only one medium through which power can be transmitted to the club­ head: the hands and fingers. 5. Balance is the result of good swing­ ing. 6. Power is used to produce speed in the clubhead, not wasted by bracing against anythin". The straight arm. cocked wrist, pivot, firm left side, head still, etc., are all results of a true swinging motion. 7. Brevity being the soul of wisdom, as of wit, everything is the result of “Swinging the Clubhead.” This is the last of two articles by Ernest Jones. This material must not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the consent of the author. A Caddie’s Pay Rising pay rates for caddies have been made official in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth’s minimum W’age com­ mission, in establishing new’ rates for workers in the amusement and recreation field, set minimum fees of $1.25 a round for experienced caddies and $1 a round for inexperienced boys. Four-Ball Event for Juniors Last year the Myers Park Club, of Charlotte, N. C., instituted a tourna­ ment which it calls the “National Junior Four-Ball Championship.” It will be re­ newed soon—June 27 through July 1. The Club’s announcement states: “Again we sponsor this fine event to promote better play, fellowship, sports­ manship, and the general advancement of golf among our champions of the future.” The tournament is open to players W’ho will not have reached their 19th birth­ day prior to July 1. USGA Journal: June, 1949 21 THE REFEREE Decisions by the USGA Rules of Golf Committee Example of symbols: “No. 49-1” means the Section 3 of Rule 7 in the current Rules of Golf. first decision issued in 1949. “R. 7 (3)” means Claims: Time Limit For Making No. 48-171. D. 1; R. 1 (2a), 2 (2) Q: In interclub women’s team match­ es, the teams play two-ball twosomes, which makes the interclub play in four­ somes. A particular match was all even on the back side on the 17 th tee. This hole measures 175 yards. None of the foursome hit the green. All four chipped on the green from short yard­ age. The lady with the longest putt, after close scrutiny, announced that it was not her ball. Further examination disclosed that her partner was also about to putt with the wrong ball. The partners had switched balls, although none of the four was sure whether the change in balls had been made on the tee or at the chip shot. Considerable discussion followed, with none of the four knowing the rule gover­ ning and none thinking to get an official decision before proceeding. Anyway, they all agreed to hole out the balls they had chipped to the green. The two offending partners both sank their putts while the shorter putt of the opposition was missed, thus giving the offending side one point. Without further com­ ment or protest, they drove off the 18th tee. On this hole the offending team won one point, which put them 2 up on the back nine, thus squaring the match, as they had been 2 down on the front side. These results were turned in by both team captains, with no immediate com­ ment about the 17th hole. An hour later a protest was filed by the non-offending team with the Asso­ ciation’s Rules Committee. Under the Rules of Golf covering four- ball play, what right of protest does the non-offending team have? I believe, first, that having condoned the exchange of balls by the offending team, the non­ offending team becomes equally guilty and that as a result both teams should have been disqualified under Rule 2 (2); and second, under Rule 1 (2a), unless claim of protest had been made before they teed off on the next, or 18th hole, no later protest couM be claimed merely because either or both teams did not know the Rule covering. Harry Winters Inglewood, Cal. A: The match described was a four- ball match (see Definition 1). The 17th hole should stand as played. A claim to the contrary was not made within the time limit provided in Rule 1 (2a). It was never established that the so- called “offending team” exchanged balls during the play of a hole; the exchange may have been made on the teeing ground when the balls were not in play. In view of this doubt as to whether a Rule was ever violated, it cannot be held that the players breached Rule 2 (2) pertaining to agreement to waive Rules or penalties. Unplayable Ball in Stroke Play No. 49-1, R. 8(2b) Q. 1: There is quite a difference of opinion regarding Rule 8(2b). In the case of an unplayable ball a num­ ber maintain that if it is impossible to play a ball behind the place from which the ball was lifted, they can, under penalty of two strokes, play the ball from the fairway no matter what dis­ tance it is from the spot where the ball was lifted so long as it is not nearer the hole. On the other hand, some players maintain that the ball must be teed as near as possible to the spot where the ball was lifted but not nearer to the hole, even if it still be in the rough. A. 1: Under Rule 8(2b), if it be impossible for a player to keep the point from which the ball was lifted between himself and the hole, he must play his next stroke as near as possible at the place from which the ball was lifted but not nearex* the hole. The word “impossible” in the Rule refers to inability to keep the point from which the ball was lifted between the playei’ and the hole and to play there­ from; it does not refer to the difficulty of the stroke to be played. There is no limitation on how far the player may go behind the place from which the ball was lifted; the cardinal prin­ ciple is to keep that place between him­ self and the hole if possible. 22 USGA Journal: June, 1949 When Lost Ball Meant Lost Hole Q. 2: Could you inform me if there was ever a Rule that the penalty for lost ball in match play was loss of hole? If so, when was this Rule changed? A. 2: Yes. This Rule was changed in 1920. Questions by: Capt. A. R. Francis Bermuda Four-Ball Stroke Play Women’s Handicap Strokes in Mixed Competition No. 49-2. Hdcp. Q. 2: Four-Ball Stroke Play, on bet­ ter-ball basis—In a mixed partner tour­ nament, should the women take their allotment of handicap strokes as they come on the men’s card (in other words, on the long course) or on their own course and par on which their handi­ caps are based? We use this tournament monthly at Baltusrol, and the men and women take strokes as they come on the men’s card. Players are not given full handicaps, as 85 per cent seems fairer when club handicaps have a wide range, to 40. I am anxious to try this type mixed tournament for the Asso­ ciation, and handicaps are limited to 25 for the women, but wish your sugges­ tion on how to take the allotment of strokes. A. 2: The USGA has had no ex­ perience with such a form of competi­ tion, but we would think that women competitors should take their handicap strokes as they come on the women’s score card, as that card represents the course on which their handicaps are based. Attention is called to the fact that the Rules of Golf do not cover four-ball stroke play. The USGA has therefore never endorsed a method of handicap­ ping for such form, but has suggested the following system (for men) to those interested: “When on a better-ball basis, the strokes are taken by each player as they come on the card, using full han­ dicaps. On each hole the lower net score of the partners becomes the score for that hole.” A. 3: The USGA has no recom­ mendations. If handicaps have been computed on a sound basis and if strokes are taken as indicated in Answer 2 above, it would seem unnecessary to place limits on handicaps except per­ haps to restrict the size of the field. Ball Striking Another Ball No. 49-21. R. 7(8), 12(4c), 21(6) Q. In four-ball stroke play (better ball basis) and foursome stroke play (not four-ball but alternate shot), is it correct to assume that stroke play rules apply, and therefore Rule 12 (4c) applies and not Rule 12(4e)? Also Rule 7(8)? If the above assumption is correct and stroke Rules apply, would you say it is proper for a committee to post a notice retracting the above penalties in order to speed up play in a tournament? I realize I am asking about a form of play which the USGA does not en­ dorse. A: (a) Rule 21(6) provides that foursome stroke play shall be govern­ ed by the Rules for Stroke Competi­ tions. (b) Although the Rules of Golf do not provide for four-ball stroke play, the Rules of Golf Committee believes that stroke play Rules should govern. Thus, Rules 7(8) and 12 (4c) should apply. As a matter of fact, Rule 11 (3a and b) and Rule 12(4c) should apply to a partner’s ball as well as to a fel­ low competitor’s ball. We would think it improper for a lo­ cal committee to remit the penalties provided for in Rules 12(4c) and 7(8). Rather than speed play, such remission might cause inconveniences, confusion and delay. Questions by Mrs. Homer Lichtenwalter Short Hills, N. J. No Limit on Handicaps Q. 3: Four-Ball Stroke Play, on better-ball basis — What difference in handicap limit should be placed on part­ ners in a mixed tournament? What dif­ ference in handicap limit for women in a women’s four-ball better-ball? A limit handicap of 15—no more than 15 difference between handicaps — has been used for the mixed. For the women’s, a rule that partners’ handi­ caps must total six has been used. Water Hazard: Local Rule Unnecessary No. 49-4. R. 17(2); LR. Q. Please make a recommendation regarding the penalty for lifting out of a ditch on our 17th hole. Below is a sketch of this hole. We have always considered the ditch to be a parallel hazard and lift out on the fairway side (penalty—1 stroke) with no limit to the distance the player takes USGA Journal: June, 1949 23 but thereafter it appears possible to observe the pertinent Rule of Golf, 17(2). However, should a “parallel water hazard rule” be desired, the following is suggested: “Hole 17. Ball in parts of water haz­ ard marked by red stakes (or marked ‘Parallel Water Hazard’) — a ball may be dropped within two club-lengths of either side of hazard opposite point where ball last crossed hazard margin, not nearer hole, under Penalty of one stroke.” Lifting in 3-BaIl and 4-Ball Matches No. 49-9. R.ll(4), 12(4), (4e), 18(7) Q. 1: In three-ball or four-ball match play, with all balls on the green within 60 feet and more than six inch­ es from the hole, not playing stymies, the player away plays first; we know he can ask a player in line to lift or putt his ball, but: (a) Can he ask players nearer the hole to let their balls lie, and not lift them? (b) If in putting he hits another com­ petitor’s ball, does he (the player) lose the hole (1) if he asked the player not to lift or (2) if he did not ask to have the ball lifted? (c) Does a competitor have a right to walk up to his ball to lift it just as a player away is putting? (d) Does anyone except the owner of the ball near the hole have any right to lift another’s ball and/or concede a putt, and especially as the player away is about to putt? A. 1: (a) No, not if someone else in the match desires otherwise. See Rule 11(4). (b) There is no penalty. The moved ball must be replaced. See Rule 12(4e). (c) No. Under Rule 11(4), the ball must be lifted or played before the player has played his stroke. (d) The right to lift a ball may be granted only by the owner of the ball and on his responsibility, under circum­ stances when the Rules permit lifting. A putt may be conceded by an op­ ponent, but it should be done so as not to interfere with the player about to play. Note—Stymies are played only in single matches. In the cases cited, the distance of the balls from the hole is immaterial. Lifting in Single Match Q. 2: What are the answers to the foregoing questions in single match play? the ball out into the fairway except that he shall not move it closer to the hole. The player obviously would car­ ry the ball well out so as to avoid the trees on his next shot and we feel that this should not be allowed but don’t know what to do about it. Floyd Chapman, Jr. St. Louis, Mo. A: A ditch is a hazard under Rule 17, Definition, but is not necessarily a water hazard unless its nature or a local rule makes it so. If a ball be unplay­ able in a ditch which is not a water hazard, Rule 8 governs. It is recommended that the ditch in question be classified as a water haz. ard. From the sketch submitted, we believe that play should be regulated by Rule 17(2) — the regular Rule for water hazards. Under Rule 17(2a), a ball may be dropped, under penalty of one stroke, behind the hazard so as to keep the spot at which the ball last crossed the hazard margin between the player and the hole. We do not believe a “parallel water hazard rule” to be necessary in this instance. There might be some justi­ fication for it for the first 150 yards of the ditch immediately off the tee, 24 A. 2: The Rules of Golf do not recog­ nize single matches in which stymies are not played. Rule 18(7) governs lifting balls on the putting green. With regard to question 1(b), Rule 12(4) provides for singles that “. . . if the player’s ball move the opponent’s ball, the opponent, if he choose, may drop, or in a hazard or on the putting green may place, the ball as near as possible to the spot from which the original ball was moved, without pen­ alty, but this must be done before an­ other stroke is played by either side”. Questions by: E. B. Freeman Newton Centre, Mass. Putter Shaft and Head No. 49-6. D.4; R. 10(1); F. & M. Q: A friend of mine uses a putter with a regular head but on which the shaft is fixed to the center of the head vertically from the middle and which he is able to swing between his legs similar to a croquet shot. Is this style of putter according to the Rules or is it a violation? The head is regular in every way but the stroke is taken with a small swing straight between the legs as in croquet. He sinks 8-footers with aggravating regularity! V. P. Letcher Asbury Park, N. J. A: The Rules Governing Form and Make of Golf Clubs provide in part: “The shaft of a putter may be fixed at any point in the head between the heel and a line terminating at the center of the sole”. The Association “regards as illegal the use of such clubs as those of the mallet-headed type, or such clubs as have the neck, or shaft, so bent as to produce a similar effect”. The Rules of Golf provide no restric­ tion on the type of stroke played pro­ vided the stroke is in fact a stroke and does not conflict with Definition 4 and Rule 10(1). Ball Striking Opponent’s Ball No. 49-8. R. 12(4). Q: If your ball hits your opponent’s ball at any time, is it ootional whether or not he replaces his ball in its origi­ nal position, and does the distance from which the ball is hit have any bearing? Clyde Johnson Hot Springs, Va. A: In match play singles, it is op­ tional with the opponent as to whether he play the ball where it comes to rest or returns it to its original position as provided in Rule 12(4, a and b). In a three-ball, best-ball or four-ball match, a ball moved by any other ball USGA Journal: June, 1949 in the match must be replaced—see Rule 12(4e). • In either case, the distance from which the striking ball is played is im­ material. Referee Attending Flagstick No. 49-10. R. 2(2), 7(7) Q. 1: If, during single match play, the players request the referee to as­ sume part of tne caddie’s duty and at­ tend the flagstick, is this a violation of Rule 2(2) by collusion to waive any penalty incurred if so attended? A. 1: No. The players’ willing­ ness to accept the consequences in such a case is not the kind of agreement which Rule 2(2) contemplates. Should the referee attend the flagstick, despite the injunction in the note to Rule 7(7), he would, as always, be an outside agency. Prohibiting Attendance of Flagstick Q. 2: Does player A have the right under Rule 7(7) to require either his caddie or the referee not to attend the flagstick while player B plays his shot during a singles match? A. 2: Yes, in both cases. Questions by: H. F. Russell Salt Lake City, Utah Casual Water in Hazard No. 49-18. R. 7(4), 8, 17(2) Q. 1: A ball lies in casual water in a sand trap. The only sand not un­ der casual water is nearer the hole. May the player drop the ball, without pen­ alty, into the part of the trap not un­ der casual water even though it be nearer the hole? A. 1: No. In no case mav the play­ er lift the ball without penalty or drop it nearer the hole. The procedure is described in Rule 17(2), which is iden­ tical for a ball in a water hazard and in casual water in a hazard. The pres­ ence of casual water in a hazard gives such hazard the same status as a water hazard, as far as the Rules are con­ cerned. No Relief from Fence Q. 2: The ball is knocked against a fence. The player cannot swing, and the ball cannot be dropped without roll­ ing back against the fence. A. 2: Rule 7 (4) soecifically ex­ cludes fences from classification as ar­ tificial obstructions, hence no free re­ lief is given. The ball must be played as it lies or be treated as unplayable under Rule 8. Free relief could be giv­ en only by a local rule. Questions by: Robert McCoy Atlanta, Ga. USGA Journal: June, 1949 25 Better Turf for Better Golf X TIMELY TURF TOPICS 2 from the USGA Green Section SOIL AND TURF RELATIONSHIPS A Report on Some Studies of the Physical Properties of Putting-Green Soils as Related to Turf Maintenance By R. P. HUMBERT AND F. V. GRAU Head, Agricultural Division, Saratoga Laboratories, and Director, USGA Green Section, respectively. The purpose of a putting green is to provide for the players a firm, smooth surface which is true and accurate so that a properly stroked putt will roll toward the cup in a satisfactory manner. The quality of the putting surface, com­ posed of the closely cut, densely knitted sod of grass plants, is affected by many factors which can be dissociated for individual study and evaluation only with extreme difficulty. Because of the highly specialized nature of the turf and the limited areas involved, it is un­ derstandable that the scientific studies of many of the factors have lagged far behind the practical aspects of the work. A great deal of study has been de­ voted to the successful search for strains of bentgrasses which would develop superior putting surfaces. Work with improved strains of Bermudagrass is in progress. Similarly, problems of dis­ eases, insects and weeds, for the most part, have been solved satisfactorily from a practical standpoint. Soil-turf relationships from the chemical stand­ point have been studied closely, and the result has been an improvement in fert­ ilizer practices, with a corresponding improvement in turf quality. Studies of the physical properties of putting- green soils have received scant attention in proportion to their importance in re­ lation to plant growth. It has been suspected that many of the difficulties encountered in providing continuously satisfactory putting surf­ aces are traceable to the physical nature of the soil underlying the turf putting surface. This assumption can be made logically on the basis that, under the skilled supervision of a competent golf- course superintendent, each putting green receives the very best care in order to provide the playing qualities that are demanded. In spite of the best of care and atten­ tion, it is significant that, on nearly every golf course, there is a “best” green and a “worst” green. By “best” is meant “easy to maintain,” and by “worst” is meant “difficult to maintain.” The “worst” green invariably requires more frequent treatment for diseases or insects or both. The turf, usually composed of the same grass that is on the “best” green, often becomes thin and is more readily infested with weeds. The thin turf provides little resistance to the ball and putts are likely to skid. The green then is called fast or slip­ pery. Watering must be done with greater care to avoid sogginess which may encourage algae. During periods NOTE—zl ppreciation is expressed to Clyde W. Decker for the mechanical analyses in this article. 26 USGA Journal: June, 1949 of intense heat and high relative hu­ midity, it is the “worst” green that must be watched closely and managed with extreme care to avoid damage to the turf. Because the “worst” green actually gets more and better care in the matter of surface treatments than the “best” green, it is entirely logical to seek the answer in the physical make-up of the soil in an effort to discover some of the reasons for the differences in response to treatments. This is particularly logical because in most cases the pene­ tration of the root systems is noticeably greater in the “best” greens. The value of the related functions of good drainage and aeration in produc­ ing satisfactory growth of grass plants cannot be questioned, particularly as it pertains to grass plants which receive heavy traffic and which are cut every day at 3/16 inch to 4/16 inch. It must be recognized that this is highly special­ ized management and that, to maintain grass growth under these conditions, the soil should be of the best in every re­ spect. Few putting-green soils are natural soils. They are synthetic to the degree that they are modified by the additions of various soil-conditioning materials. In constructing golf courses little at­ tention has been given to providing uni­ form physical structure in each green. The factual information concerning soil physics in this phase of agronomic work is fragmentary. Consequently, variation is the biggest factor facing the golf- course superintendent. It necessitates his careful study of all conditions in order that he may do a satisfactorv job. Procedure In an effort to evaluate some of the physical soil factors in putting-green management, the USGA Green Section in 1917 selected a number of golf courses in several states for studv. Se­ lection of the courses was made on the basis of a knowledge of existing con­ ditions. Each superintendent was asked to supply a core of soil from his “worst” green and one from his “best” green, each core to be taken from an area rep­ resentative of the green. The judgment of the superintendent was the sole basis for the selection. The soil cores were taken to the full depth of the cup-cutter and were wrapped at once in waxed paper. They were carefully packaged to avoid break­ age in transit and were mailed to the USGA Green Section at Beltsville, Md. Upon arrival, determinations of volume weight were made and observations were recorded on “layering” in the profile. Where marked layering was exhibited, the cores were divided and wrere anal­ yzed as separate samples. Mechanical analyses were completed on 58 samples, representing 37 plugs. The size dis­ tribution of particles was obtained by the International Pipette Method of Analysis, using sodium metaphosphate as the dispersing agent. The mechanical composition of a soil and the arrangement of the sand, silt and clay particles control its physical behavior. Thin sections of the soil in its natural structure were obtained by a technique of vacuum impregnation with bakelite. The samples were then ground as any rock sample to a thin­ ness that permitted microscopical ex­ amination. Photomicrographs were taken of several distinctively different types of structure. Experimental Results The extreme individuality of the sam­ ples limits the effectiveness of attempt­ ing to compare all “good” samples with all “bad” samples. Accordingly!, the two samples from each golf course will be compared, and the results will be evaluated in an attempt to discover on how many of the courses the physical soil conditions could be said to be at the root of the trouble. The assumption that all other factors are equal or ap­ proximately equal must be made in spite of the fact that they may or may not be identical. Where it is known that other factors are important, it will be so stated in the discussion. The results of the mechanical analy- *All mechanical analyses were made at the Saratoga Laboratory s, Saratoga Springs. New York, under a research contract with the USGA Green Section. USGA Journal: June, 1949 27 Course No. 1. Poor Green This sample is characterized by a very high proportion of sand which creates a very open pervious structure. There is not enough silt and clay to hold moisture and plant food, necessitating more frequent feeding and watering. A green built on this soil will be firm but will not become compacted. sis, volume weight and porosity studies are presented in the accompanying tables. Representative photomicro­ graphs likewise are presented in connec­ tion with the discussion on the course in question. Figures in parentheses in­ dicate depth in inches of samples taken. Course No. 1 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-4) 2.9 0.4 85.0 10.6 4.4 1.55 Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Poor (0-4) 3.9 0.6 83.4 2.5 9.1 1.65 42 38 In thi s case the "poor” turf appears to be aissociated with higher organic matter, more sand, less silt and more clay than we find in the "good' green. The higher porosity and the lower vol­ ume weight in the "good' green are functions of the greater quantities of silt and clay combined. It must be recognized that on this course even the green labeled "poor is always in tournament condition. Thus “good" and "poor are relative terms, and comparisons can be made only on the same course. These sireens would benefit bv having some additional clay and silt incorpo­ rated into the sand to increase the ability of the soil to retain moisture and fertility. These are Bermudagrass greens and are noted for their excell­ ence. Course No. 2 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent By Weight (0-7 inches; no layering) Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Good 2.3 0.6 21.4 60.8 17.4 1.25 53. Poor 1.7 2.2 17.8 56.5 25.7 1.33 50. The "good" green has a lower volume weight, a higher total porosity, a higher organic-matter content and a lower silt- clav content than the "poor green. The silt-clay content is so high in both greens that it would seem logical to in­ corporate sand and organic matter to provide a more open, porous structure and to improve percolation. These soils become very dense and the clay packs tightlv around the larger particles, pro­ viding no continuous channels for drain­ age and aeration. The larger, dark par­ ticles are concretions, and the dark irregular-shaped particles are fragments of organic matter. 28 USGA Journal: June, 1949 Course No. 3 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Organic matter 2.9 0.5 Gravel 72.7 Sand 25.2 Silt 2.1 Clay Volume weight 1.37 Porosity 48. 0.9 1.9 70.5 20.1 9.4 0.9 3.1 62.1 26.1 11.8 2.4 0.6 71.3 20.6 8.1 1.33 50. Because of layering, the samples were divided where the cores broke naturally. Looking at the average of the analysis to the 4-inch depth, the “good” green has a higher volume weight, lower porosity, slightly higher organic matter, more sand and less silt and clay than the “poor” green. A reduction in the silt-clay con­ tent by incorporating sand and the ad­ dition of organic matter would result in improvement of conditions on the poor green. On this course the difference between “good” and “poor” is small, and it can be attributed to the factor of location as much as to differences in mechanical analysis. Course No. 4 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Poor (1-5) 2.1 0.0 5.1 82.7 12.2 (0-1) 14.6 2.2 45.7 43.6 10.7 1.58 40. Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Good (0-4) 0.6 3.6 24.8 59.0 16.2 1.31 51 In the “good” green there was no layer- ing, but in the “poor” green the sample broke at the 1-inch depth. The diffi­ culty here is not in total analysis but in the high silt 182.7%) and the low sand content (5.1%) in the 1-5 inch depth of the “poor” green. In this case even the “good” green would be benefited by incorporating sand and organic matter to the full depth (6 inches, if possible I. The “poor” green would bene­ fit from frequent deep cultivations, coupled with dressings of high sand con­ tent. The high organic matter content (14.6%) in the top inch of the poor green would indicate severe matting and Course No. 2. Poor Green The soil is an extremely dense, light-colored silt loam. The gravel particles are too few in number to provide continuous channels for good drainage and proper aera­ tion. The clay is closely packed around the larger particles. There is not enough sand to create a desirable open porous structure. The dark, irregular-shaped par­ ticles are fragments of organic matter. USGA Journal: June, 1949 29 Course No. 5. Poor Green This represents a gravelly clay soil where the films of clay surround the gravel par­ ticles, choking off the larger pores and disrupting water and air movement. Less clay and more sand would re-establish drainage and aeration channels. the development of conditions favorable to disease organism. The high organic matter would hold moisture, encourage shallow rooting and encourage the de­ velopment of localized dry spots by pre­ venting the absorption of water into the lower levels. On this course the physical conditions of the soil are known to be at the root of the trouble. Course No. 5 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-4) 1.0 2.2 58.3 29.4 12.3 1.35 49. (0-3) 11.3 3.5 46.4 41.9 11.7 Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Poor (3-5) 7.7 9.7 37.7 37.6 24.7 Here we have a situation similar to Course No. 4, where the surface layer of the “poor” green is exceptionally high in organic matter and where the lower layer (3-5 inches) is exceptionally high in silt and clay. The gravel in the “poor” green is so tightly surrounded by the finer particles that drainage channels are practically nonexistent. Thorough cultivation and incorporation of sand would be extremely beneficial in en­ couraging deeper rooting. This comparison is not entirely valid because the “good” green is Bermuda­ grass, whereas the “poor” green is Metro­ politan bent. The failure of the bent­ grass can be attributed in part to the physical soil conditions. Course No. 6 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Good (0-7) 3.6 3.2 57.4 24.6 18.0 1.19 55. Poo, (0-6) 3.6 3.7 60.0 24.5 15.5 1.33 50. In this case the mechanical analyses are so nearly alike that we must look elsewhere for the difficulty. The volume weight in the “poor” green is much 30 USGA Journal: June, 1949 higher and the porosity much lower than in the “good” green. It must be pointed out in this case that the “good” green gave only slightly less trouble than the “poor” green and that there has been great difficulty on all the greens. 47. Poor (2-5) 0.9 0.4 13.0 56.6 30.4 (0-2) 6.7 0.9 64.1 29.0 6.9 1.40 Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Course No. 7 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-6) 2.3 1.9 58.7 39.4 1.9 1.55 42. This course is located on soils that are renowned for their high clay content. The “good” green shows a rather high proportion of silt but, because the pro­ file is uniform, it wras possible to maintain a good turf by adjusting man­ agement practices. In the “poor” green we find a high content of organic matter in the 0-2 inch level and a very high percentage of silt and clay in the 2-5 inch level, which effectively retards drainage and aeration. An attempt was made to incorporate sand, which show's in the 0-2 inch level, but it has been ineffective because there has been no mix­ ing. The layering has prevented root growth beyond the 2-inch level. Poor (0-2) 5.9 0.2 72.8 15.4 11.8 1.08 Course No. 8 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-1) 5.1 0.2 81.6 7.0 11.4 Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity (1-3) 5.8 0.2 80.3 7.3 12.4 0.93 65. rreen here seems to be silt-plu s-clav associated with a higher trreen. content than th e "aood” This difference, with the higher volume weight which indicates compaction, and the lower porosity, which indicates poor aeration, could account for the differ­ ence. This course has a high water table and drainage generally is known to be poor. These greens had verv high proportions of medium and fine sand The “poor” 59. and only small amounts of coarse sand and fine gravel. Course No. 9 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (3-6) (0-3) (0-1) Poor Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity 3.1 2.0 58.2 31.7 10.1 1.11 58. (0-2) 3.3 2.3 61.7 27.1 11.2 1.12 58. 0.9 2.0 40.0 46.6 13.4 (2-4) 2.8 3.6 53.6 29.3 17.1 5.8 2.7 61.2 20.8 18.0 1.16 58. (0-2) 2.0 1.1 61.0 39.0 9.0 1.20 55. (1-5) 1.4 4.5 47.5 43.2 9.3 (2-4) 1.7 9.5 69.3 21.2 9.5 It is extremely difficult to discover any logical basis in these analyses for the designations “good” and “poor” for these samples. The “poor” greens are higher in volume weight but are only slightly different. The “poor” greens are lower in porosity but the difference again is slight. * The bad layering on all these greens makes interpretation ex­ tremely difficult when the other un­ known factors cannot be evaluated. In this case we are forced to say that the “poor” greens are poorer than the “good” greens for reasons other than phvsieal soil conditions. Course No. 10 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity Good (0-6) 3.7 1.2 46.5 36.4 17.1 1.38 48. Poor (0-6) 3.6 0.5 54.9 35.8 9.3 1.49 47. Xo striking differences exist h(?re, and it is interesting that the "poor ’ green actuallv contains more sand in the 0-6 inch level than the “good” green. The “poor” green in this case is poor because of location on the edge of a lake, where­ as the "good” green is higher and is USGA Journal: June, 1949 open and well-drained. This is a case where the difference cannot be ascribed on the basis of soil physics. Course No. 11 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity (0-2%) (2 %-6) Good Poor (0-4) (4-6) 3.0 5.2 52.8 23.0 19.2 7.1 0.5 73.5 5.3 21.2 1.39 48. 6.7 0.1 76.2 14.4 9.4 1.33 50. 0.0 7.3 65.2 21.1 13.7 This cas e is simi lar to No. 10. There is some layering, but it exists in, both classifications. The complete absence of organic matter in the 4-6 inch level of the “poor” green could be a deciding factor. This course is on soil that is famed for its sticky, gumbo-type clay. Il is likely that the reason for the desig­ nations must be sought elsewhere. All of the greens on this course are famed for their excellence, and any differences are known to be slight. Course No. 12 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-1) Organic matter 3.9 Gravel 0.1 Sand 61.4 Silt 28.4 10.2 Clay Volume weight 1.19 Porosity 55. (1-4) 2.3 0.2 55.5 34.8 9.7 Poor (0-4) 1.9 1.0 47.1 40.3 12.6 1.25 53. In the “poor” green the lower organic matter and the higher silt and clay con- tent contribute to a volume higher weight (density) and lower porositv. The “poor” green is at a streamside sur- rounded by trees, and the air drainage is poor. The green is small a nd traffic i> heavy. 1 he "good” green occupies a more favorable location in addition to having a better physical soil make­ up. Even thou'-’h the differences in the mechanical analysis are not large, they are important when other unfavorable factors are added. Course No. 13 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity (3-6) 6.3 1.9 63.9 22.6 13.5 (0-3) 2.9 0.4 62.3 27.1 10.6 1.37 48. 31 Poor (0-7) 9.8 2.5 69.9 16.4 13.7 1.41 47. The most striking difference that is shown by these analyses is the very high organic-matter content in the 0.7 inch layer of the “poor” green, which actual­ ly has more sand than the "good" green. In spite of the high organic-matter con­ tent the volume weight of the “poor” green is higher, w'hich is indicative of greater compaction. The “good" green is on a hillside in the open, with no trees near it. The “poor” green is a smaller green (which gets the same total traf­ fic), it is lowg entirely surrounded by trees and is a seeded green: whereas the “good” green was vegetated to Wash­ ington bent. Course No. 14 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight Good (0-2) (2-4) Poor (0-2) (2-4) 2.6 0.9 65.2 20.2- 14.6 1.3 0.9 63.5 18.0 18.5 0.94 65. 1.8 6.5 61.2 21.2 17.6 2.7 4.6 64.9 21.5 13.6 1.15 57. Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity These analyses are marked for their uniformity, especially in the *and con­ tent. The higher volume weight and gravel content and the lower porositv mav in part account for the diflerence in designation, but other factors are sus­ pected to be more important as in the case of Course No. 13. Course No. 15 Mechanical Analysis Per Cent by Weight 8.0 0.0 73.2 18.8 8.0 1.39 Organic matter Gravel Sand Silt Clay Volume weight Porosity 51. 1.0 0.6 45.4 43.9 10.7 32 USGA Journal: June, 1949 This single “good” green is given here because it represents a good green from many standpoints. We cannot say that the soil conditions are ideal, but the soil supports a turf that is nearly per­ fect from the playing standpoint. Careful management is the rule on this course. It is interesting that the volume weight of 1.30 is about midway between the mean volume weight of the “good” greens (1.22) and the volume weight of the “poor” greens (1.34). Likewise the porosity (51) is between the mean of the “good” greens (53.4) and the mean of the “poor” greens (49.9). (Continued in next issue) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The answers below are in reply to actual questions received by the Green Sec­ tion staff in correspondence or at turf conferences and meetings. In some cases the question has been rephrased. Since the authorship of many questions received at meetings is in doubt, reference to location are omitted. Question—What advantages does B-27 bluegrass have over commercial bluegrass seed? When will B-27 seed be available on the market and what will it cost? Answer—B-27 bluegrass is lower growing, will withstand closer mowing, is more resistant to Helminthosporium leafspot and maintains a turf of pleasing color with greater freedom from weeds than does commercial Kentucky blue­ grass. There is evidence that it is some­ what more heat tolerant and drought tolerant (han is common bluegrass. Co­ operative tests in progress will decide some of these points. Seed should be available commer­ cially in reasonable supply in two years. Acreage increase for seed production is expanding rapidly. Most of the seed will be produced in Oregon. The cost of B-27 bluegrass will be much higher; it may sell at four to five times the price of common bluegrass. It is ex­ pected that less seed will be required to produce good turf. Establishment is more rapid and seedling vigor is greater than with common bluegrass. Question—We have read in the Ag­ ronomy Journal and in the USGA Jour­ nal that the Turf Committee of the American Society of Agronomy has rec­ ommended that Highland bent be substi­ tuted in turf-seed mixtures for redtop. What are the reasons for the change and what are the advantages of Highland bent over redtop? Answer—Highland bent is a close relative of redtop, but it has the advan­ tage of producing a turf of more pleas­ ling texture and color. It becomes a per­ manent part of the turf, but it acts as a nurse grass by germinating quickly, as redtop does. Highland bent is available in quantity, whereas redtop has been scarce and high in price because of seed-crop failures. Highland bent is less competitive than redtop when included in turf seed mix­ tures because it grows less coarse and less rapidly. Highland bent produces excellent turf when seeded by itself on golf-course fairways or when included in lawn, tee and even athletic-field mix­ tures. Its use in athletic-field mixtures thus far has been confined largely to the Pacific Northwest, where it is used in combination with Alta fescue. Because of its smaller seed size, three- fourths of a pound of Highland bent can be substituted for one pound of redtop. In a mixture with bluegrass, red fescue, or Alta fescue, Highland bent generally need not exceed 20 per cent of the mix­ ture by weight. NEW SUBSCRIBERS TO GREEN SECTION SERVICE Since publication of our list of sub­ scribers to Green Section Service in the Winter, 1949, issue of the USGA Jour­ nal, we are pleased to record the fol­ lowing additional subscribers: Commercial Firms Dreer, Henry A., Inc., Philadelphia. Jacobsen Mfg. Co., Racine, Wis. Lilly, Charles H., Co., (The), Seattle. Minnesota Toro, Inc., Minneapolis. Naco Fertilizer Co., Jacksonville, Fla. Toro Mfg. Co., Minneapolis. Cemeteries Beverly Cemetery Co., Blue Island, Evergreen Cemetery Ass’n., Chicago. Knollwood Park Cemetery, Inc., Queens, N. C. West Laurel Hill Cemetery Co. (The), Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. Woodlawn Memorial Park of Nash­ ville, Inc., Nashville, Tenn. Golf Course Architect Bell, William P., & Son, Pasadena, Cal. Individuals Connell, Bud, Marion, Ohio. Hall, A. F., Kansas City, Kans. Shearman, M., Sioux City, Iowa. Park Department Hartford Park Department, Hartford, Conn. USGA Journal: June, 1949 33 IT’S YOUR HONOR FROM THE JUNIOR CHAMPION To The USGA: I wish to tell you again that the Junior Tournament last summer was the finest I have played in, and that it was run with the cus­ tomary courtesy and thoroughness that control all your fine national tournaments. It was the kind of tournament that, I am sure, made every young golfer that participated carry with him the desire to go on to the National Amateur and the National Open. With best regards and congratu­ lations for your success in pre­ senting the finest of junior tourna­ ments to the young golfer, Dean Lind Ann Arbor, Mich. (Note: Dean Lind won the USGA’s first Junior Amateur Championship last year and is now a student at the University of Michigan.) ANOTHER TRIBUTE to O. B. To The USGA: My own eyes were a bit watery as I read the moving story about my good old friend O. B. Keeler in the Spring issue of the JOURNAL. I had failed to renew my sub­ scription, but your complimentary Spring issue brought the sudden realization that I might have missed entirely the thrill of that fine tribute to O. B. and possibly others to come. So thank you for the reminder, and here's my renewal check. Raymond L. Williams Pasadena, Cal. MEDIUM OF EDUCATION To The USGA: We will be happy to recom­ mend the USGA JOURNAL to our membership. I believe the JOURNAL is an excellent publication and one that all golfers should read, especially in these times when golf has seemed to lose a little bit of its traditions, not to mention the lack of etiquette. I am sure the JOURNAL will do much to educate the golfers in the proper spirit in the playing of the game. Leo Fraser, President Atlantic City Country Club Northfield, N. J. BRITISH LADIES' FUNDS To The USGA: Miss Enid Wilson has informed us of a letter received by her from Mrs. Edwin Vare inquiring whether reports to the effect that we have a fund of £6000 to cover the expense of sending our team to the U. S. A. for the Curtis Cup Match in 1950 are true. These re­ ports are totally untrue and, we think, have probably arisen when a remark made by our Hon. Treas­ urer to the effect that the English men had collected a sum of this size was misreported. We have had the report contradicted by the English paper concerned and would be extremely grateful if it were possible for you to have it contra­ dicted in the papers in the U. S. A. In point of fact, funds are still badly needed to enable us to continue to keep up our Union's international fixtures, and, in particular, the Curtis Cup. Miss Barbara H. Hale Secretary Ladies' Golf Union London, England Editor's Note: The USGA Journal invites comments on matters relating to the welfare of the name and will publish them as space permits.