USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT DO THE NEW RULES COVER THIS? Yes, and so did the 1949 Rules of Golf. The perplexed golfer’s ball is impaled o n the barb of a wire guarding a green from large animals. The wire in this case is an artificial ob­ struction. The player may drop without penalty under Rule 7 (4b). If it had been a boundary fence there would be no relief. Combine Photos USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT 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. Ill, No. 1 SPRING ISSUE April, 1950 Through the Green ____ _________ ____ ____________ ___ ___ 1 Great Moments in the Open_______ ____ ______ Francis Ouimet 5 How to Start the Season...... ................ Johnny Farrell 9 Changes in the Rules of Golf_____________ Isaac B. Grainger 10 Handicap System Revised __ ______________ William 0. Blaney 12 Etiquette: Then and Now ..... 14 Amateurism in College Golf______________ Joseph C. Dey, Jr. 15 The Caddie-Master’s Role .................. 17 “Golf House” Fund Under Way__ _____ Daniel A. Freeman, Jr. 18 The Referee: Decisions by the Rules of Golf Committee ......... 22 Turf Management: USGA Green Section Breeding Bermudagrass for Turf ______________________ B. P. Robinson and Glenn W. Burton 25 Merion (B-27) Bluegrass __ ___________ _________ ____ __ Charles G. Wilson and Fred V. Grau 27 Let’s Save Water ____ _____ ____ ___ ___ _________ _____ _ 30 Cooperative Turf Fungicide Trials _______ J. B. Rowell 31 Oriental Earthworm and Its Control___ John C. Schread 32 Published seven times a year in February, April, June, July, August, September and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION 73 East 57th Street, New York 22, N. Y. Subscriptions: $2 a year. Single copies: 30c. Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and correspondence, except pertaining to Green Section matters, should be sent to the above address. Correspondence pertaining to Green Section matters should be addressed to USGA Green Section, Room 307, South Building, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md. Entered as second-class matter March 3, 1950, at the Post Office at New York, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Edited by Joseph C. Dey, Jr. and John P. English. Advisory Committee—John D. Ames, Chairman; Isaac B. Grainger, Totton P. Heffelfinger, Curtis W. McGraw. All articles voluntarily contributed. printed in u. s. a. USGA COMPETITIONS FOR 1950 Curtis Cup Match: Sept. 4 and 5 at Country Club of Buffalo, Williamsville, N.Y. Women’s amateur teams, British Isles vs. United States. (Dates entries close mean last dates for applications to reach USGA office, except in the case of the Amateur Public Links Championship. For possible exceptions in dates of Sectional Qualifying Rounds, see entry forms.) Championship Open Entries Close May 15 Amat. Public Links *May 26 Junior Amateur June 26 Amateur July 24 Sectional Qualifying Rounds ***May 29 Championship Dates June 8-9-10 **June 4 to 18 July 11 Team: July 1 Seneca G. C. Indiv.: July 3-8 Louisville, Ky. July 19-22 Denver C. C. August 8 August 21-26 Minneapolis G. C. Venue Merion G. C. (East) Ardmore, Pa. Denver, Colo. Minneapolis, Minn. Hamburg, N.Y. Atlanta, Ga. Girls’ Junior August 11 — Aug. 28—Sept. 1 Wanakah C. C. Women’s Amateur August 10 Aug. 24-25 September 11-16 Atlanta A. C. (E. Lake) ’ ♦Entries close with Sectional Qualifying Chairmen. **Exact date in each Section to be fixed by Sectional Chairmen. ***Except Honolulu, May 22; New York, Rochester, N. Y. and Cleveland, May 25; Cincinnati, May 26. USGA Journal: April, 1950 1 THROUGH THE GREEN The 50-Year Milestone Each year in this era is a Golden An­ niversary for several clubs, associations and tournaments. Organized golf in this country is now 56 years old, and many good things had their beginnings just a half-century ago. It is the Golden Anniversary of the USGA Open, Amateur and Women’s Boston Herald Miss Grace Keyes, Miss Margaret Curtis and Miss Harriot S. Curtis, from left to right, display the type of costumes they wore at the time of the first Champion­ ship of the Women’s Golf Association of Massachusetts in 1900. Miss Keyes de­ feated Miss Harriot Curtis in the final. Amateur Championships. It is also the Golden Anniversary of the North and South Amateur at Pinehurst, N. C. The Women’s Golf Association of Massachusetts celebrated its Golden An­ niversary with a tea at The Country Club, Brookline. Miss Grace Keyes and Miss Harriot S. Curtis, winner and runner-up in the first championship, were the guests of honor and appeared in the golfing dress of 50 years ago, with Miss Mar­ garet Curtis. Five other participants in the first championship at the Oakley Country Club attended, along with the lone invited male guest, Mr. A. Linde Fowler, who reported the first championship for the Boston Transcript. Miss Eleanor W. Allen, a former president, was hostess. The as­ sociation which was organized by four clubs now lists 72 clubs on its member­ ship roll, representing 870 players. The New Jersey State Golf Association also celebrates its Golden Anniversary this year and plans to issue an anni­ versary publication. Hole-in-One Contests Whether a hole-in-one is a feat of skill or a fortuitous turn of luck becomes an academic question when the Rules of Amateur Status are applied to hole-in- one contests. The USGA Executive Committee ruled in 1946 that a hole-in-one contest is a golf competition and the Rules of Ama­ teur Status apply. The decision has been reiterated several times. It is the Com­ mittee’s opinion that golf skill is a factor in a hole-in-one contest, although it rec­ ognizes that accidents do happen. This policy is well established, but apparently it is not fully understood throughout the country. Last fall, a western amateur golfer paid his 50 cents and made his three shots at the target in a hole-in-one con­ test. He holed one of the shots and won $500. By accepting the money prize, he forfeited his amateur status. Merion’s Baskets In days of old, says “Fore,” an occa­ sional publication of the Merion Golf Club, the shepherds of Scotland used crooks as staffs to mark golf holes. Then they went a step further and hung their 2 lunch baskets atop the crooks. (It seems reasonable to assume that this was done after lunch.) Baskets, instead of flags, to mark the holes were introduced to Merion in 1915 and will be used during the Open Cham­ pionship. Until recently, Merion weaved its own baskets of willow. Today the Club buys the baskets, but home-made or bought, they are part of the Merion tradition. Guests and spectators, seeing Merion for the first time, are fascinated by the baskets. Evidently they talk about them at their home clubs. Every year Merion gets letters asking for the basket story. Adjustable Clubs Taboo It is desirable to maintain the tradi­ tional type of clubs with which the game was developed in Scotland and passed along to us. To play a game with other than the customary clubs would be to play a game other than golf. Clubs traditionally consist of a plain shaft and head and do not contain mov­ able or mechanical contrivances. The earliest clubs known probably are those in the museum of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club at St. Andrews, Scotland. Modern clubs are direct descendants from the crude originals. In rendering decisions about new clubs, the USGA Implements and Ball Committee is guided by the principle, among others, that “A club shall be one unit. All its various parts shall be per­ manently fixed. No part may be movable or separable or capable of adjustment by the player.” It frequently happens, however, that a golfer of an experimental turn of mind creates a club which has movable or ad­ justable parts. Such clubs have been uni­ formly disapproved. One which continues to appear from time to time is the curiously designated aluminum “wood” formerly manufact­ ured by the Reynolds Metals Co. These clubs, as they were made by the Rey­ nolds Metals Co., have a large screw in the sole which permits changing the weight of the club. This, of course, is an adjustable feature and has been disap­ USGA Journal: April, 1950 proved. The Reynolds Metals Co. has dis­ continued manufacture of the clubs, but the information is set forth here because some apparently are still available. Sarazen’s Autobiography In an earlier day, it was customary for a golfer who achieved eminence to write an autobiography. Then the trend turned to a succession of instructional books. Gene Sarazen has reversed the pattern by completing a readable and possibly controversial autobiography which ties together events and personalities of the last three decades in golf. It is titled “Thirty Years of Championship Golf” and published by Prentice Hall, Inc. “On numerous occasions when I have been approached to write an instruction book, I have begged off for the simple reason that what I have learned from ex­ perience to be important to good golf would never fill a book,” he explains. “I think a chapter is all that is necessary.” As a matter of fact, he covered the sub­ ject pretty well on one page of the Sep­ tember, 1949, issue of the USGA Journal. Writing with the assistance of Herbert Warren Wind, Sarazen tells his own story with frankness and appraises un- evasively the personalities and games of his contemporaries from Barnes to Hogan. He tells with particular senti­ ment the story of how, through the gene­ rosity of Walter Hagen and the inspiring advice of an aging Kent caddie named Daniels, he finally won the British Open. These things, among many others, place the autobiography on a high level from the viewpoints of readability and * * * history. In another recent book, “My Greatest Day in Golf” by Darsie L. Darsie, 51 well-known amateurs and professionals tell of the most memorable episodes in their careers. The publisher is A. S. Barnes & Co., Inc. Several of the selections are surprising. Bob Jones relates that his greatest round was a 73 from the back tees at the Nation­ al Golf Links of America on a raw, wet day during an invitation tournament in 1924. Ben Hogan favors the 69 he scored USGA Journal: April, 1950 to tie for third and win $385 in the Oakland, CaL, Open in 1938 when he needed the money to continue on the tour. Cary Middlecoff, the Open Cham­ pion, picks a defeat he incurred in the semi-finals of the Southern Collegiate Championship in 1940 which awakened him for all time to the necessity of con­ centrating until the last putt drops. * * * A new axiom in the field of positive, simplified instruction is advanced by Cy Foster, professional at the Scioto Coun­ try Club in Columbus, Ohio, in his re­ cent pamphlet “Golf Is Easy.” By way of justifying that title, Foster condenses his message into 10 words: “Start the swing, stop the swing, with the left hand.” The discovery of this axiom, the author states, was the result of 10 years of analy­ sis during which he found “its use was a sure cure, not only for shanking, but any and all of the faults of golf (and) an adequate substitute for the many words which had been tried and found lacking ... It was positive and created the proper mental pictures.” Lure of St. Andrews The British Amateur Championship returns to St. Andrews, Scotland, late in May for the first time since the war — for the first time in 14 years, as a mat­ ter of fact. That undoubtedly accounts for unusual American interest. Thirty-two players from this side have forwarded their entries. Frank Stranahan, Willie Turnesa and Bob Sweeny, who won in 1948, 1947 and 1937, respectively, intend to challenge again, and Stranahan also plans to play in the British Open at Troon in July. Among the other entrants are W. Stan­ ton Barbour, Morristown, N. J.; William C. Campbell, Jr., Huntington, W. Va.; Frank B. Carbone, Douglaston, N. Y.; Richard D. Chapman, Pinehurst, N. C.; Arthur 0 Choate, Jr., Locust Valley, N.Y.; George L. Coleman, Jr., Tulsa, Okla.; Bing Crosby, Los Angeles; J. C. Earle, Los Angeles; William G. Ebey, (Continued on Page 4) 3 SPORTSMAN’S CORNER There was no referee, and the argument be­ tween them was getting hot. There was even some name-calling. Finally, somebody suggested sending in for a member of the committee. The official arrived on the double. He listened to two different and highly emotional accounts of the same incident—it was a pretty important juncture of the match, for things were close, and it was the 17th hole. Besides, it was a mighty important match. Be­ cause what match isn't important when it involves two boys, 15 and 17 years old—particularly two boys who still have a couple of things to learn about sportsmanship? The official's main concern was to try to pacify the lads, because one lad in particular was mak­ ing rather a sorry show of himself in this USGA Junior Amateur Championship. But it was not exactly the right situation for moralizing or paternalizing, or even for the big stick. It would be better for the boys to find their own way out of the messy little situation they had created. The committeeman gave his decision. One lad was still sore. The other sort of looked as if he felt, "Well, I told you so." They went to the 18th. After a good deal of angry hacking around, the boys were all square when they finished it. Off down the hill they went to the 19th. The official was tempted to follow them. From the looks of things, they needed boxing gloves more than putters. But he left them alone. After 25 or 30 minutes, however, they had not reappeared. The official was sincerely anxious. Had they gone into the woods to settle it? he wondered. Just then the lads hove in sight from an un­ expected quarter. No bloody noses were visible, nor black eyes. Just a couple of kids who had finished a golf match. "Well," said the official, "where in the world did you get to?" "Oh, we went all the way to the twenty-first," replied one lad airily. "Twenty-first, eh? You just played golf? No scraps, or anything?" "Naw," said the other young fellow—the one who lost. "We're friends now." You won't find that incident written in the record books of the 1949 Junior Championship at the Congressional Country Club in Washington. But it is written in the hearts of two young Americans. They may not even know it's there. But some day, later in life, when the going's tough again, they'll be influenced by the lesson in overcoming self and in making friends which they taught themselves that hot July day at Con­ gressional. 4 LURE OF ST. ANDREWS (Continued from Page 3) Oklahoma City, Okla.; Frederick L. Ehrman, Purchase, N. Y.; J. Clark Espie, Jr., Indianapolis; Charles Evans, Jr., Chicago; John R. Fell, Jr., Palm Beach, Fla.; William L. Goodloe, Jr., Valdosta, Ga.; Edmund K. Gravely, Rocky Mount, N. C.; Clarke Hardwicke, Los Angeles; John Heminway, Palm Beach, Fla.; William D. Henderson, Westbury, N. Y.; James Knott, Palm Beach, Fla.; J. Ellis Knowles, Rye, N. Y.; William K. Laughlin, Southampton, N. Y.; Edward E. Lowery, San Francisco; Leonard Mar­ tin, Rye, N. Y.; James B. McHale, Jr., Overbrook, Pa.; Edward B. McLean, Palm Beach, Fla.; Francis Ouimet, Bos­ ton; Udo M. Reinach, Scarsdale, N. Y.; Frank Strafaci, Garden City, N. Y.; Her­ bert Warren Wind, Brockton, Mass. Only a handful of American women apparently will compete in the British Ladies Championship at Royal County Down, Ireland. Miss Grace Lenczyk of Hartford, Conn.; Miss Peggy Kirk of Findlay, Ohio, and Miss Dorothy Kielty, Mrs. Ruth MJcCullah and Miss Madeline Bayly of Los Angeles were early en­ trants. The Gutty Could Fly, Too One of the legends of the game is that the old gutta-percha ball could not be persuaded to fly a very respectable dis­ tance. Evidence which recently came to hand indicates that this legend should be interred. On the eve of the Open Champion­ ship of 1899 at the Baltimore Country Club, Willie Hoare won a driving com­ petition by hitting a gutty 269 yards 7 feet 6 inches, and Harry Gullan was declared runner-up with a drive of 266 yards. Findlay S. Douglas, the Amateur Champion the year before, had the best average of three drives, 256 yards. These three fine players must have struck the gutty most squarely to achieve such distances, for they surpassed the efforts of the late Douglas Rolland, re­ puted to have been the longest hitter among professionals in the gutty era. USGA Journal: April, 1950 All of Rolland’s drives were measured during a match he played against John Ball at Sandwich in 1894. His longest was 235 yards and his average was 205 yards. Rolland probably was not at his best that day, however, for Fred G. Tait, twice British Amateur Champion, smote a gutty 245 yards on the carry and 342 yards over-all at St. Andrews on his 23rd birthday, January 11, 1893. The drive was measured by a civil engineer. It was aided by hard ground but not by wind. A British Viewpoint The British publication Country Life recently said: “It would obviously be a good thing if the game of golf, which is now world­ wide, could be played everywhere under one and the same code of rules. “Unluckily, the latest pronouncement of the USGA seems to put agreement on one code of rules farther off rather than nearer, for the USGA are disappointed with what they call the ‘general liberal­ isation of penalties’ under our new rules. “People in this country have a notion that Americans like the game made easy, and this is probably true of the public that follows the professional tourna­ ments and thinks only of low scores. They like wide fairways, few bunkers, and in short, anything that conduces to ‘sensa­ tional’ scoring. But it is quite untrue of the USGA, who have a great respect for the rigours of the game and do their best to uphold it in often difficult circum­ stances. “So here we have the rather topsy­ turvy state of things of Britain lightening penalties and America maintaining them. It can only be hoped that something may be achieved by a conference which is sure, at least, to be a friendly one.” THOUGHT FOR THE 10th TEE If you are beginning to encounter some hard bumps, be glad. At least you are getting out of the rut. USGA Journal: April, 1950 5 Great Moments in the Open By FRANCIS OUIMET USGA Open Champion, 1913; USGA Amateur Champion, 1914, 1931 When I accepted this assignment, I thought it would be rather pleasant to look back on some of the Open Championships and to review a few of the highlights that still live in my memory. It seemed a simple thing to do, but now I find myself enmeshed in a series of situations that, to describe adequately, would require the writing of a book. This I have no time to do, because it would take too many pages to cover properly those moments which meant so much to the winners and to those who just failed to win. One great stroke at the right time is usually the thing that determines the winner. I remember, for example, walking from the 10th green to the next tee in the 1913 Open Championship at Brook­ line. I had just taken a 5 on an easy par 3 hole at a time when, instead of squandering strokes, I should have been saving them. It was necessary to play the final nine in 36 to tie Vardon and Ray. The 5 seemed fatal, how fatal I could not tell. As I trudged wearily toward the tee through a lane of spectators I heard one member of the gallery say in a loud voice, “It’s too bad. He’s all through.” Of course the import of that remark was soon forgotten. An Eight-Foot Putt Then as the holes passed by more favorable things began to happen, and with three holes remaining I had a chance to tie. The 16th was a short one, and I reached the green safely enough with my pitch. A poor putt from 20 feet left me eight or nine feet from the cup. In such a position you cannot think of the holes that are coming up and how you hope to play them. Neither can you call yourself into the private office of your mind and say, “If I had only got­ ten that three on the tenth, things would be much better.” It is too late to go back and folly indeed to look ahead. There is the putt; it must be dropped. The putt was holed and then a brand new stream of thoughts had to be put together for the play to the next hole. The fact that a 15-foot putt was holed on the next-to-last green was valuable, but it would have been useless had the eight- or nine-footer on the green before failed. That is why I will always feel that one single stroke is the dividing line between winning an Open Cham­ pionship and just missing. In 1915 Jerome D. Travers won the Open. After much ragged play on his final 18 holes, he had worked himself into a position where he must play the last four holes in 4-5-4-4 to win. Not necessarily in this sequence but its equivalent. The figures outlined were possible, although par on the card read 5-5-4-4. Jerry had discarded his wooden clubs and in place of the driver was using his driving iron. The 15th hole at Baltusrol measured about 460 yards, and while it was easy enough to make in 5, the badly needed 4 was something else again. Very few of the competitors were able to get home in two because the last 75 yards was over rising ground. Travers had driven a long ball with the driving iron, which was imperative, but another 200 yards along was a huge trap that spread across the fairway. He could play short of the trap if he wished, but to do so meant a blind third shot to the green. Or he could try the big carry and, if successful, have a good peek at the flag. He chose the latter, ac­ cepting all the dangers and the risk of disaster that must go with failure. Her­ cules at his best would have been hard pressed to bang an iron with sufficient power to clear that trap and Jerome D. Travers was no Hercules. Jerry could always be relied upon to think clearly when called upon to play a vital stroke. Many of us thought he 6 was digging his own grave. No man liv­ ing could have hit a shot more solidly than Travers hit that second with a driving iron. As the ball climbed through the air there was considerable doubt as to whether it had the power to land safely. After a few seconds of watchful waiting, the ball landed a scant three feet beyond the hazard and bounded an­ other 10 or 12 yards toward the green. As a reward for that great shot, a pitch and run of some 30 yards, played with a jigger, left him a putt of four feet which he never looked like missing. Get­ ting his 5-4-4 with great steadiness, he thoroughly earned his title. As we know, a terribly thin line sep­ arates the winner and the golfer who comes next. At Scioto Joe Turnesa was shaping up as the new Champion. He had a good lead and only nine holes to play. Then a few things happened. He was an experienced tournament player and sensible enough to realize that he could take nothing for granted. An iron failed to stay on the green, the chip was not USGA Journal: April, 1950 close and a 5 was marked down. It oc­ curred again. I watched him play the 17th, the second-last hole. He had a fine drive and hit what seemed to be a satisfactory iron. The ball kicked a bit to the right and just trickled off the green. Another 5. Joe finished with a total of 294, a splendid figure and, as I think of the severe rough that resem­ bled a wheat field on both sides of the fairways, a fine performance. Jones’ Strength Trailing Joe, that is to say playing in back of him, was the redoubtable Bob Jones. Bob might make a mistake here or there, but when it came down to the point where no strokes could be wasted, he was supreme. As I think back over his phenomenal career, only once do I recall him finishing badly. That was at Inwood in 1923 when he made a 6 on the last hole which permitted Bobby Cruickshank to tie. To do this Cruick- shank placed a long iron six feet from the cup and holed the putt for a 3. Ever after Bob Jones left no similar Francis Ouimet at Brookline, with his caddie Eddie Lowery. USGA Journal: April, 1950 7 openings. In retrospect I believe the great strength in Bob’s game was his ability always to play the last nine or closing holes in perfection. Others might falter but never Bob after 1923. Think it over. To get back on the main line, Bob Jones was picking up a stroke here and another there. As he stood on the final teeing ground he needed a 4 to beat Turnesa. It is not easy to remember that last fairway at Scioto because the cham­ pionship was played in 1926 and that was 24 years ago. Amid the wheat fields, the grass just off the fairways was at least 18 inches tall, a golden brown in color. The ground sloped from right to left. Had I been a competitor, my powers of visualization undoubtedly would be more accurate. I was simply a spectator. Length and position with relation to the playing of the second shot were the first requirements. The hole was about 480 yards long, a simple 5 perhaps but the stiffest sort of a hole to play in 4, the figure needed. The drive had to be started for the right half of the fair­ green. A well hit drive that traveled on a straight line to this area would gain little run because it would hit the face of the incline and die immediately. A tee shot directed to this spot with draw, that is to say moving from right to left, would have a forward run and pick up additional yardage. In the first instance a long wooden club would be required to play the second shot from a side­ hill lie. In the second, the green might be reached with an iron if all went well. Bob hit his ball perfectly and it had just a wee semblance of a draw. It struck the ground just to the right of the center of the fairway and then kept going forward, following the contour and finally coming to rest on the left­ hand side of the cut surface 300 yards from where it had started, on a nice piece of level ground. That was the beginning of his quest for a 4. The ending was not delayed. A price­ less iron shot that covered the flag all the way stopped nine feet beyond the hole. Two carefully played putts secured the important 4, and Bob Jones had added another Open to his record. There is no telling what it is that comes over a golfer who performs as did Gene Sarazen in 1932. He had al­ ready won the British Open at Prince’s, and since the United States Open was being played on his home course at Fresh Meadow, he would dearly love to win that as well. Many think because a golfer is playing his home course he should win, but there are so many factors sur­ rounding such a situation that it is not necessary to go into detail. Sometimes local knowledge and good friends un­ wittingly subject a player to severe han­ dicaps. Gene was going nowhere in particular after the first two rounds, and at the Gene Sarazen, at Fresh Meadow. end of the first nine holes of his third round he had lost more ground to the leaders. A 38 for that nine was not good enough to close the gap, even though he did make a 2 on the ninth. He kept try­ ing. A brilliant 32 coming home lifted 8 USGA Journal: April, 1950 him out of the ruck into the middle of the contention, just one stroke behind the leader, Phil Perkins. Gene was inspired. He always did like a battle. He never once thereafter looked like anything but the winner he proved to be. Bobby Cruickshank had played his two concluding rounds in 69 and 68. Perkins, the leader at the end of 54 holes, was great, making a 70. They scored for their 72 holes of play 289. Sarazen could not be stopped. His final 66 was too much. When you add his 2 on the ninth and his 32 to the 66 you find he played 28 consecutive holes in 100 strokes, 12 below an average of 4s. Until I see or hear of a performance that can equal this on a first-class lay-out, I must accept it as the finest stretch of superlative golf on record, taking into consideration the importance of the competition. The feats of Byron Nelson, Craig Wood, Ben Hogan or Lloyd Mangrum are too well known to the present gen­ eration to bear repeating. As I dream on of “great moments in the Open” I like to think of Walter Hagen. It was 1919 and no Championships had been played in 1917 or 1918 because of World War I. Mike Brady, a Boston profes­ sional of great ability, finished in 301 at Brae Burn, a total that seems high compared to modern standards of play. Nevertheless Brae Burn was a stiff test, and today I believe it would withstand the best efforts of the golfers of class to beat par consistently. This is a broad statement, I know, but Brae Burn is a real test of golf. Mike was the leader at the end of 54 holes and could hardly lose. Hagen was five strokes in arrears and a comparison of their play in the final round revealed that Mike had picked up another stroke on the first five holes. Now six shots ahead, there was nothing to it. Brady must win. No one can pick up six strokes on Brady with 13 holes to play, was the general thought. Mike, playing ahead of Hagen, made a 4 on the short sixth. Hagen, following be­ hind, got a 2 but it did not seem impor­ tant. Rumors, this time accurate, re­ ported that Brady had taken a 7 on the 10th. Players had reached that green in two and, while 4s were exceptional, anything above a 5 seemed silly. Hagen picked up two more strokes there. Mike managed to stagger around in 80 which, added to his 74-74-73, gave him his total of 301. Mike’s play outside of a few spots on the final round was excellent. Those few spots were just sufficient to give Walter Hagen the opportunity he longed for. Standing on the 18th tee, he had to get a 4 to tie. A fine drive was followed by a great second, 10 feet from the hole. “Where Is Mike?” As Hagen pushed his way through the crowd and saw his ball resting reason­ ably near the cup, a large smile came over his face. Mike was there. Walter studied the putt carefully and, before taking his stance, looked around and said, “Where is Mike? I want him to see this.” It was the putt that would win. He hit the ball a bit too firmly, and while it caught the center, it did not go down. That Walter Hagen won the play-off the next day is a story in itself. Then and there did he establish himself as not only a great golfer but a tremendous sports­ man. He loved to win but it was just a game to him. He was quick to see the lighter side of golf and reveled in it as much as anyone. These reminiscences could go on for­ ever and space will permit no further reports. I think it is mighty nice that Merion is to be the scene of the Golden Anniversary of our Open Championship. The Merion Golf Club is steeped high in tradition. It has been most generous always in offering its facilities for the game of golf. It was at Merion that a young man, or perhaps I should say a boy of 14, first played in a major championship; it was at Merion 14 years later that Bob Jones in 1930 walked off the 11th green the holder of the four greatest golfing honors that any man could win. As the second half of the Century of Progress gets under way, I am sure Merion will continue to add to its luster. USGA Journal: April, 1950 9 How to Start the Season By JOHNNY FARRELL USGA Open Champion, 1928 Professional, Baltusrol Golf Club, Springfield, N. J. What is the best method for starting the new golf season? Should I practice first, or should I just go out and play around the course? It is a rare golfer who does not ask himself these questions when spring is in the air. In my opinion, the best method for starting the season is to play a relaxed nine or 18 holes. Playing helps you to get the feel of the clubhead before you become too conscious of what you are doing. You probably recall that often in the past your first round has been one of your best because you did not think too much. You were completely relaxed. Do not become involved in a “pres­ sure” round in your first turn around the course. If there seems to be no op­ portunity to play a friendly, relaxed round, it would be better to play alone. There will be plenty of time for prac­ tice after you have played a round or two, and that is when your practice should start. The important thing in practicing is to have a plan. You should practice with an objective clearly in mind. The aimless hitting of balls serves no par­ ticular purpose. Try to remember what you were doing when you played your best rounds last year. Possibly you were keeping your left arm firm. Maybe you were placing your hands in a particularly good posi­ tion. You may have been keeping your left heel down during your backswing. Whatever it may have been, try to recap­ ture it in your practice. If you do not have a plan, ask your professional to give you one. He can do it if he is familiar with your swing or if you give him an opportunity to study it. It is also a good idea to practice any particular shots which caused you trouble Johnny Farrell last year—bunker shots, putts, short iron shots or any others. Practice when you are playing well. It will help to make the correct swing a matter of muscle habit. If you are playing poorly or suffering a spell of shanking, it is best to stop playing for a while and relax. Your pro­ fessional may be able to give you some useful advice. But in any case, don’t groove a bad swing by practicing it. I would also caution you not to practice too long at a time, especially early in the season. You might develop blisters before you realize what is happening. That is one of the reasons I recommend playing before practicing at the start of the season. Practicing is much harder work and is harder on the hands and the muscles. These hints are contributed to the USGA Journal in the hope that they will help you start right and have a very en­ joyable season of golf. 10 USGA Journal: April, 1950 Changes in the Rules of Golf By ISAAC B. GRAINGER Chairman, USGA Rules of Golf Committee One of a number of changes in the Rules of Golf which became effective last month has been widely misunderstood. It concerns the water hazard Rule, 17(2). When your ball comes to rest in a water hazard, you are allowed, under penalty of one stroke, to drop a ball at either one of the following three places: (a) Behind the hazard, keeping the spot where the original ball last crossed the margin of the hazard between you and the hole. (b) In the hazard, keeping the spot where the original ball entered the water between you and the hole. (c) As nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was played; if it was played from the tee, you may re-tee. This year’s change simply lets you proceed under option (c) anywhere on the course, under a stroke-and-distance penalty; heretofore you could do that only when the original ball was played from the tee. Thus, the revised option (c) is identical with procedure and pen­ alty for a ball lost or unplayable else­ where than in a water hazard—see Rule 8(1). Provisional Ball Extended This simple amendment of the Rules has made it possible to permit a pro­ visional ball for a ball which may be in a water hazard—something the Rules did not previously allow. Under 1950 Rule 19, if you consider that your ball may be lost, unplayable, out of bounds, or in a water hazard, you may (in order to save time) immediately play another ball provisionally from the spot where you played the first one. You are not obliged to state the reason for which you play the provisional ball. As before, you may play the pro­ visional ball until you reach the place where the original ball is likely to be. Then you have to make your choice— either you play the original ball (in which case there is no penalty) or you keep on with the provisional ball, under the appropriate penalty—that is, stroke and distance for ball lost, unplayable or in a water hazard, and distance only for ball out of bounds. Once you make your choice, you must retire the other ball. If, for example, your original ball is in a water hazard, you may play it as it lies in the hazard or you may abandon it and keep on with your provisional ball. But you can’t abandon the provisional ball also without paying a penalty; once you play a provisional ball and find the original ball in a water hazard, you are precluded from exercising options (a) and (b), described in Rule 17(2), be­ cause you have already exercised option (c). There’s one little qualification to that. If your provisional ball is also in a water hazard, along with your aban­ doned original ball, the provisional ball becomes a ball in play for purposes of scoring and Rules procedure. In that case, you may start all over again to exercise any one of the three options in Rule 17(2), using the former pro­ visional ball as a base. As a practical matter, in most cases if there’s a chance that your original ball is in a water hazard, it still is to your advantage to ascertain its situ­ ation before you do anything else. Then, if you discover it’s in a water hazard and you have not played a provisional ball, you can proceed under option (a) or (b)—and that usually will mean no ap­ preciable loss of distance besides the penalty stroke. How to Obtain Rules Books The 1950 edition of the USGA Rules of Golf booklet may be ob­ tained from the Association’s office, 73 East 57th St., New York 22, N.Y. The price is 15 cents a copy, re­ gardless of quantity. USGA Journal: April, 1950 11 The second shot is played from X toward the left, crossing the water hazard margin at A and B. It may be lost, unplayable, out of bounds or in the water hazard. The player may play a provisional ball from X. But he does not, knowing that if his original ball is lost or unplayable in the water hazard he will be obliged to continue with the provisional ball. The player searches for his ball and finds it in, a water hazard, in a difficult lie. B is the spot where the ball LAST crossed the margin of the hazard. The player therefore drops a ball, under penalty of one stroke, so as to keep B between himself and the hole—as provided in Rule 17 (2a). C is the place he selects to drop. (A is not the spot to be kept between the player and the hole, as it was not the LAST point at which the ball crossed the hazard margin.) From C he plays onto the green with his fourth stroke. Suppose he had played a provisional ball from X to Z. On ascertaining the situation of the first ball, he would have just two choices—to play the first ball as it lay in the hazard or to continue the provisional ball in play (see Rule 19(2)), in which case he would lie 4 with the provisional ball at Z. Having played the provisional ball, he would not be allowed to abandon it and drop a third ball behind B, as for example at C. In short, it’s now permissible to play a provisional ball for a ball which may be in a water hazard, but often it won’t be a sensible thing to do. Other Amendments In its continuous study of the Rules, the Committee has discovered many op­ portunities to contribute toward a better general understanding. The result is a number of clarifying changes in the 1950 code. Some others which will af­ fect play are: Borrowing clubs (Preamble) — This Rule has been tightened for stroke play. Formerly one was prohibited from bor­ rowing from a fellow-competitor. The word “fellow” has been deleted, with the result that borrowing from any com­ petitor in a stroke competition is now a violation. (In match play, one still may not borrow from a partner or an opponent.) Finding ball (Rules 7(3a) and 17 (Id))—A player is now permitted to find and identify his ball under any condi­ tion, even to the extent of touching or moving parts of a hazard or loose im­ pediments therein. For instance, if a ball is covered by sand or leaves, either may be removed and, when identification is accomplished, such sand or leaves must be replaced. A player is not necessarily entitled to see his ball when attempting to play it. Artificial obstructions (Rule 7(4)) —The following statement of purpose has been added: “The player is entitled to freedom from interference by an arti­ ficial obstruction in order to strike the (Continued on Page 16) 12 USGA Journal: April, 1950 Handicap System Revised By WILLIAM O. BLANEY Chairman, USGA Handicap Committee When the USGA Golf Handicap System was issued, in December, 1947, it was be­ lieved to include all the basic principles necessary to establish it as a satisfactory standard for nationwide handicapping of men golfers. At the same time it was an­ ticipated that some refinements and changes in the procedure eventually would be necessary. The experience of USGA member clubs and associations during the last two playing seasons has proved the validity of these thoughts. Accordingly, the USGA has adopted a number of changes which should make the USGA Golf Handicap System a more nearly accurate and much better handicapping system. These changes are incorporated in a revised booklet which has been forwarded to member clubs and sectional associa­ tions. It can be purchased, for 25 cents, by writing to the USGA. The USGA system still pertains prim­ arily to Basic Handicaps (designed to establish a player’s inherent ability to play the game). It does not as yet include computation methods for Current Handi­ caps (designed to reflect the prevalent, or at-the-moment, state of a player’s game). Due to the popularity of Current Handicaps in certain sections of the country, the Handicap Committee is working on a standard procedure to rec­ ommend to clubs and associations de­ siring to operate under a Current Handi­ cap system. It is hoped that handicaps so produced will be tied in so closely with our existing Basic Handicaps that there will be a minimum of confusion and inequity whenever players handi­ capped under each system meet com­ petitively on a neutral course. When adopted, Current Handicap recommen­ dations will be published in a supple­ mentary leaflet and explained in the USGA Journal. Major changes in our Basic Handicap System are outlined below, together with, in most instances, the reasons why they are believed to be necessary. Many of the changes will be recognized as sug­ gestions appearing in previous issues of the USGA Journal, so that our earlier attempts to clarify and standardize pro­ cedure are now official. Number of Scores Basic Handicaps now are computed from the lowest 10 of a player’s last 50 scores, instead of from the lowest 10 of an indefinite number of 50 or more scores. This change should place handi­ caps on a more nearly accurate and equit­ able basis since every handicap will be figured from the same number of rounds played. Provisional Handicaps Provisional Handicaps are now avail­ able for players with fewer than 50 posted scores. These handicaps are com­ puted from the lowest 20 per cent of all posted scores, as from the lowest 6 of 30 scores. Provisional Handicaps are in­ tended primarily for beginners or for new members with no previous scoring records. They also can be used while the USGA Golf Handicap System is being installed to handicap players until such time as the required 50 scores can be ob­ tained. Scoring Records A new section on the collection and maintenance of scoring records has been added. Due to the variety of conditions prevailing at different clubs, no one method can be recommended for all. However, the importance of obtaining a score from each player every time he completes an 18-hole round is so great that the subject cannot be overempha­ sized. Text Rearranged The order of the previous text has been rearranged in an effort to make it more understandable. Handicap compu­ tation methods and matters pertaining thereto have been grouped near the front USGA Journal: April, 1950 of the new booklet to be more accessible to handicappers. The details of our course-rating methods have been shifted to the back of the booklet because they are of importance only to individuals as­ signed the task of rating courses. Once courses have been rated, there is less need to refer to these particulars. Chart Renamed. Handicap Table A has been renamed USGA Handicap Chart in order to estab­ lish it more firmly as the only handicap table that can be used with the USGA Golf Handicap System and to place more emphasis on the fact that it is a USGA creation. Table B Eliminated Handicap Table B has been eliminated because its use has been negligible, it has caused confusion and it has been used incorrectly. Its removal emphasizes USGA Handicap Chart as the only table for use with our Basic Handicap System. Four-Ball Allowances Cut Handicap allowances in four-ball play have been reduced. In stroke play, each player is now granted 75 per cent of his individual stroke play handicap, rather than his full handicap as in the past. In match play, each player is given two- thirds of the difference between his stroke play handicap and that of the low handi­ cap player in the match, the low handi­ cap player to play from scratch. Previous­ ly, this differential was 85 per cent. Handicap strokes in four-ball play, either stroke or match, are to be taken as they come on the card. Heretofore, handicap allowances for four-ball play have been in the nature of suggestions. The increase of four-ball play in certain sections of the country and the experience gained therefrom have caused the USGA to change these sug­ gestions to recommendations and to re­ duce the allowances for reasons fully ex­ plained in the new text. Stroke Allocation Recommendations for the allocation of handicap strokes to the holes of a course have been changed drastically. Heretofore, the recommendations have implied that the lower-numbered strokes should be assigned to the hard par 4 13 holes in preference to the long par 5 holes or par 3 holes. The new recommendations give greater consideration to the com­ parative playing ability of the contest­ ants in matches where handicap strokes are given and received. For example, when allocating the first handicap stroke, consideration is given to matches between players of practically equal ability, such as those in­ volving scratch and 1-handicap play­ ers or 8- and 9-handicap players. In such matches, the location of the first handicap stroke will be of the greatest importance to the player receiving it. As a handicap stroke is in the nature of an equalizer, it should be available on a hole where it most likely will be needed. The law of averages indicates that the more strokes played by competi­ tors on any one hole, the greater will be the probability of the higher handi­ capped player making an error that will require the use of an equalizing, or handicap, stroke. In allocating; the second handicap stroke, matches between players having a slightly greater difference in handicaps are given the most consideration, such as those between players handicapped at 8 and 10 or 15 and 17. This process is continued until all strokes have been assigned. Therefore, the over-all theory is that the allocation of handicap strokes should start on the longest and most difficult hole to score on — not the most difficult hole to play in par — and end on the shortest and easiest hole. The plan of allocating the odd-num­ bered strokes to the holes of the first nine and the even-numbered strokes to the holes of the second nine and the desirability of avoiding as far as possible the allocating of lower-numbered strokes to holes near the end of each nine remain unchanged. Aids to Installation Recommendations designed to help clubs and associations install the USGA course rating methods have been added because experience with these methods has been limited in the past to a (Continued on Page 17) 14 USGA Journal: April, 1950 Etiquette: Then and Now The etiquette of golf has changed little, basically, over the years; but the lan­ guage in which it is couched and the clothes it wears have undergone a con­ siderable upheaval. Take the clothes it wore in 1901 as an example. Emily Holt’s “Encyclopedia of Etiquette,” published by Doubleday, Page & Co., in that year, prescribed the appropriate golfing dress for women thus: “A woman’s dress is invariably a severely plain wool, duck, or brown linen skirt falling to her ankles; a blouse, open-throated, of wash cotton or silk; a light wool sweater; rubber- soled, laced shoes of brown, black, or grey; and a straw or felt hat with brim jutting over her face, trimmed sparingly with a scarf or ribbon. In cool weather a short coat of the same goods as the skirt is ‘de rigueur’.” Men, of course, were not so regimen­ ted, although it would seem that a man who appeared on the course without a lounging jacket would have a difficult time finding a playing companion. If a golfer, man or woman, heeded the sartorial gospel, he had no need to worry about the skill with which he played the game. He had only to heed also the following rules of golf etiquette and memorize the dictated phrases ; to become a model golfing companion: “1. A golfer may be too unambitious to learn to play accurately, too indolent or uninterested to master the rules of the game, yet the etiquette of the links cannot be forgotten or ignored, and the man or woman who, through ignorance or selfishness, fails in courtesy on putt­ ing or fair green is sure to be as swiftly condemned as one who makes a ‘faux pas’ in a lady’s drawing room. “2. It is no disgrace for a beginner to make short strokes and many of them do, or to use the wrong club at the wrong time, but it is considered as unpardonable a sin to speak or move when watching a fellow player make a drive as it is to attempt to play through the game of persons who are ahead on the links. “3. In teeing off, care must be taken that one’s immediate predecessors from the tee are at least two good shots in advance; otherwise there is too great danger of injuries resulting, as well as confusion arising, from balls recklessly driven among nearby players. Golfers not playing together give each other a wide berth on the course, and an approach shot must never be made on the putting green until that space of greensward is guite clear. Putt­ ing is a delicate operation, on which success in the game often hangs, and the player, bending with intense concentra­ tion of mind, eyes, and muscle upon his ball, justifiably feels disconcerted and angered at the sound or sight of stray balls falling near. When by an error one plays on to a green not cleared, one should go forward at once and apologize for the intrusion. “5. It is not unusual for rapid and skillful players to find their progress over the links greatly retarded by the slow and inaccurate. In such circum­ stances, the former have a right to ask permission to play through and ahead of the others, who, unless they are ig­ norant of golfing etiquette and most un- fairminded as well, will gracefully ac­ cord this privilege, and rest their game a moment while the more expert players hasten on. It would be, in this event, even more polite and considerate for the slower players to volunteer this privilege, one of them perhaps saying: ‘I see you are getting on very fast. Will you not play right through, we are in no haste.’ With cordial thanks, the others should respond, saying: ‘Thank you, that is very kind,’ and immediately take ad­ vantage of the chance. “6. When a man and woman play together, if no caddie can be secured, the man carries his companion’s bag of clubs, gives her her irons and driver as she needs them, aids in looking for her ball when it flies far from the course, and forms her tees for her.” USGA Journal: April, 1950 15 Amateurism in College Golf By JOSEPH C. DEY, JR. USGA Executive Secretary Do the USGA Rules of Amateur Status operate to deprive some worthy young men of a college education? Let’s see. Let’s take the case of Bill. Bill was a pleasant young fellow. He had always been one of the most courteous and alert caddies at the club. Besides, he had a fine, natural swing such as many caddies are blessed with. After Bill captained his high school golf team to a State championship, half a dozen college athletic directors and golf coaches sought to persuade him to matric­ ulate at their institutions. Bill finally made a profitable arrange­ ment with a college located in climate where he could play golf practically all year. His studies didn’t interfere too much with his golf, because they fixed him up with some of the less demanding courses, including sail-boating, basket­ weaving and aesthetic dancing. Bill had a delightful time. Of course, he had to work a little to earn some cash, but the college took care of most of his expenses. The college figured it was well worth it, because Bill developed into a nationally known player during his four years there, and he always represented the college and got its name in many news­ paper articles. The college saw to it that Bill went to all the important tournaments. They financed his expenses not only to the usual college events during the academic year but also to many invitation tourna­ ments and championships during the summer. And when Bill was graduated, he was sure that the world still owed him a liv­ ing. Two Violations That picture of Bill is deliberately overdrawn, and the college is not a typi­ cal college. But some of the facts are from real life; there once was a college golfer who actually took courses in sail­ boating, basket-weaving and aesthetic dancing. Bill is not an amateur golfer. An ama­ teur is “one who plays the game solely as a non-remunerative or non-profit- making sport.” Bill’s principal violations of that USGA Definition of an Amateur Golfer were: 1. Because of his golf skill and repu­ tation, he accepted a scholarship and other consideration as an inducement to be a student in an institution of learn­ ing. 2. He accepted expenses for non-col- lege competitions. Proselyting Let’s examine the first case. Does it mean that, if golf’s Rules of Amateur Status covered all of life, all college scholarships and other helps would be improper? Certainly not. Scholarships /or scholarship are splendid. But when they are given exclusively in exchange lor one’s services as a player of golf, the recipient is patently selling those serv­ ices; and that is not the act of an ama­ teur. Golf is played for pleasure. An ama­ teur does not use his skill at the game to gain any special privileges. Why should Bill receive financial benefits that are not available to his fellows simply because he can hit a golf ball squarely? Is it fair to his fellows, who do play for pleasure? Admittedly, the rule here involved does tend to dry up one source of help to stu­ dent golfers. But it minimizes proselyting of amateurs and attendant abuses, and is really in the best interests of the young fellows. In the long run, it works the greatest good for the greatest number, and that is about as much as can be ex­ pected of any rule. Expenses As for expenses for college golfers, the subject is a live one because of a recent change in wording of the pertinent USGA Rule. It is a basic tenet that a player who accepts expenses, in money or otherwise, 16 USGA Journal: April, 1950 in connection with a golf competition or exhibition forfeits amateur status. There are certain exemptions; under one ex­ emption, acceptance of expenses to com­ petitions by school and college golfers has long been permissible. The USGA has always intended this exemption to apply to college or school events or other events in which the institution was represented by a team (such as a team match with a club.) But it now comes to notice that some colleges and their golfers have construed the special exemption as permitting ac­ ceptance of expenses to all kinds of com­ petitions. The language of the old rule was not clear on that point. So the exemption’s phrasing has now been revised to obviate any such misin­ terpretation. It now permits an individual to accept a reasonable amount of ex­ penses “As a representative of an insti­ tution of learning or of a military serv­ ice in (a) team events or (b) other events which are limited to represen­ tatives of institutions of learning or of military services, respectively. In each case, expenses may be accepted from only the authority represented.” Suppose there were no restraints. Our old friend Bill, after spending a com­ fortable eight or nine months in or near college, could then go on tour for the summer and represent his college in all manner of events, with the college footing the bill. You might even have the start­ ling situation of having an Open Cham­ pion by courtesy of dear old Siwash. What would be fair about such a situation? If Bill is playing golf solely as an amateur sport, why should he have special privileges not available to other golfers? So good old Bill during his college days was doing violence to the spirit of amateurism on two counts — he sold his golf skill and he accepted improper expenses. And the college was perhaps guiltier than Bill, for the college knew better. But wasn’t there a third harm? The really important thing in Bill’s life was the development of Bill himself — his real self, his character. But they took such good care of Bill’s wants at college that he didn’t have much occasion to develop his true self. In fact, he had very little to do for himself — except play golf. As long as he did that, every­ thing went along fine. So it was only natural that, when Bill was graduated, he was sure that the world owed him a living. For golf, you see, had unfortunately become to Bill a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Changes in the Rules (Continued from Page 11) ball in the direction of his choice (sub­ ject to limitations elsewhere in this Rule). This does not mean that the de­ sired line of flight of the ball must ne­ cessarily be free of such interference. Regardless of how the desired line of flight may be affected, the player is en­ titled to specific relief as follows,” whereupon the Rule details procedure for various situations, as formerly. Casual water in a hazard (Rule 16 (3))—Lifting and dropping within a hazard, not nearer the hole, without pen­ alty is now permitted. However, in drop­ ping outside a hazard, the water hazard principles prevail and a penalty stroke is added. (This Rule does not apply to casual water in a water hazard.) Hazard definitions (Rule 17)—The definition of a hazard has been amended to cover “any bunker, water (except casual water), water hazard, or sand.” A water hazard now is defined as “any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, drainage ditch, or other water course (regardless of whether or not it contains water) and anything of a similar nature. All ground within the margin of a water hazard, whether or not it be covered with water or any growing substance, is part of the water hazard.” Included in the Rules book are recom­ mendations for local rules for wet days, for parallel water hazards and for caddy­ ing double. USGA Journal: April, 1950 17 The Caddie-Master’s Role The values a good caddie - master can create, and conversely the harm that a bad caddie-master can do, are not always appreciated. This is pointed up sharply by a letter the USGA received recently from an applicant for a position as cad­ die-master. The letter was written by Paul F. Lux, of Dayton, Ohio, and it contained such an interesting analysis of the role of the caddie-master that it merits wider atten­ tion: “Any club can be a desirable influence for good in the community by offering gainful employment to boys, by offering them contacts with good citizens, by guid­ ing them to correct thinking in regard to the various -isms of our times. “The kids of today are not different from us at their age. They want to feel themselves a part of their community and a wanted asset to its working force. The ‘hot-rodders’, the kid gangs, the pool­ room slickers and the organized work­ stoppers are what they are only because they have no opportunity to challenge a creative and gainful work. “Every human being born must in some way find out what he can and cannot do. No child is born with a developed sense of his own abilities and inabilities. “If a boy can put the fire of his being alive into creative work, he is an asset to society. If not, he becomes a delin­ quent. This I know from my own youth. A well-hit drive is the same sensation producer as a ‘hot-rod’. I know because I have driven both. A well-organized cad­ die force can channel much of this energy into creative work. “A club whose caddies are subjected to unfair practices such as favoritism, reg­ ulars, kickbacks and so forth is likely to have poor service. A club where fairness, job distribution, recreation and thought­ ful leadership prevail is a club which has good caddies when they are needed. Cad­ dies who are treated fairly and intelli­ gently are, after training, able to offer the club members a working companion­ ship that is beneficial to both. “A good caddie makes for a better game. A better game makes for better members. Better members make for a bet­ ter club. “The contrary is also true. To prove the point, I could cite the case of a club where I caddied for a part of one summer. The club lasted only a few years. Its demise was attributed to financial dif­ ficulties. I insist that the members were fed up at seldom having caddies or, when they did, at being robbed of balls, tees, cigarettes. Golf under these circumstances was not a pleasure. The members did not enjoy themselves and the club fold­ ed.” Handicap System Revised (Continued from Page 13) relatively small section of the coun­ try. Associations adopting the USGA Golf Handicap System are urged to solicit the assistance of neighboring as­ sociations which have had experience with our rating methods. The rating of all courses in any locality, State or sec­ tion of the country by a committee from the association having jurisdiction over that territory is strongly recommended so that all ratings will be definitely related to one another and will show how the playing difficulty of any one course compares with that of each of the others. There are other minor changes and additions for clarification and emphasis, but these need no mention here. The Handicap Committee believes the revisions greatly improve an already ex­ cellent handicap system and that matches between players handicapped under the system should be more equitable and enjoyable than ever before. In spite of this expression of optimism, the Com­ mittee is not blind to the possibilities of future improvements. It will welcome suggestions and constructive criticism. 18 USGA Journal: April, 1950 “Golf House” Fund Under Way By DANIEL A. FREEMAN, Jr. Chairman, USGA “Golf House” Fund Committee “Having been a devotee of the game since a kid of 10 years of age in 1907, 1 am glad to contribute to ‘Golf House,’ which will serve through the years to perpetuate the milestones of the game.” D. A. Freeman, Jr. That brief mes­ sage accompany­ ing a contribution to the USGA “Golf House” Fund typ­ ified the gener­ ous and enthusiast­ ic response to launching of the drive. The note was from Orrin H. Davison, of Hillsborough, Cal. “Golf House” is the name to be given to a modest building in New York which will house the USGA Golf Museum and Library, offices of the USGA and per­ haps of other golf associations, and which, in general, will be a real national golf center. The building has not yet been selected, nor will it be until the campaign for contributions with which to buy it has progressed further. However, sev­ eral suitable buildings have been in­ spected. Inasmuch as the USGA does not have adequate funds for such a purpose, and in view of its pressing need for larger quarters, it has invited golf-lovers over the country to become Founders of “Golf House” through donations to the Fund. Within the first six weeks 1,029 con­ tributions had been received, totaling $21,649.40. The minimum goal is $75,000 but there is a real need for at least $100,- 000, on a conservative estimate. Such is the devotion of the golfer, however, that the aim seems attainable. The interest of clubs and associations has been particularly gratifying. Among the early contributors, for example, were the Royal Canadian Golf Association, the Western Golf Association and the Min­ nesota Golf Association. Several memor­ ial gifts have been received. Obviously, it is impossible to commun­ icate directly with all persons who may be interested. But all golfers, clubs and associations are most cordially invited to become Founders. Contributions of any amount are most acceptable; they should be made payable to “USGA Golf House Fund.” We here record the Association’s sin­ cere thanks to the hundreds of golf-lovers who are uniting in the creation of “Golf House.” Of course, records cannot be kept up to the minute in a periodical such as the Journal, inasmuch as every mail brings new contributions. Thus, the list of Found­ ers below covers only the first 603 dona­ tions; others will follow in later issues. A James H. Ackerman Herbert J. Adair Mrs. Agnes Albert Dr. Reuben N. Albinson Malcolm P. Aldrich Mrs. DeWitt L. Alexandre Miss Eleanor W. Allen Sydney K. Allman, Jr. Joseph W. Alsop William J. Ambrose Ernest A. Anderson Robert S. Anderson Walter H. Annenberg Anonymous Arthur K. Atkinson Richard S. Auchincloss Lee A. Ault William M. Austin Roy Autry E. N. Ayer B Dr. J. P. Bacigalupi George T. Baird, Jr. J. Stewart Baker George W. Baker Mrs. William Spohn Baker James B. Baldwin Miss Julia M. Ball John Bancroft, Jr. Edward J. Barber Courtlandt D. Barnes Shepard Barnes Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Barnes, II Frank H. Barnett Earle E. Baruch W. G. Baumhogger George E. Bean David E. Beatty J. Roger Beauchamp Robert H. Beekman Alexander C. Bell John C. Bell, Jr. Gus Benedict Mr. and Mrs. Edward C. Benkert Mr. and Mrs. Max Berg, Jr. Joseph E. Bernolfo, Jr. Howard L. Berkey USGA Journal: April, 1950 19 George F. Berlinger Richard Bernheim Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Berrien Franklin Berwin P. S. Billings Mrs. Alvadore Rogers Bixby Gary Black J. Walter F. Blizard Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Y. Boggs Mrs. Frederick A. Bothe William Boutell Dr. Frederick A. Bowdle Jerome P. Bowes, Jr. John L. Boyd Phil A. Boykin B. Snowden Boyle Edward M. Boyson Samuel C. Bradly John Brady, Jr. Mrs. Eben Breed John A. Brewster Mrs. Bruce Brodie Irving Brodsky John D. Bromfield Miss Janet J. Brown J. C. Brown Phillip W. Brown Allan Brown Mr. and Mrs. C. H. Brunner, Jr. M. Q. Brunton Mrs. A. J. Bryant John J. Budelman Louis E. Buehn Harry A. Bullis Willard Bunn, Jr. Kenneth H. Burns Stanley M. Burns Philip B. Burtis Mrs. Conyers Button c Mrs. W. Vernol Cadmus Mrs. J. Emott Caldwell Mr. and Mrs. John G. Capers E. Jean Cardinal Herbert L. Carlebach Joseph B. Carroll Mrs. Victor Carty Mr. and Mrs. Michael Casserly T. Frank Cassidy Mrs. Harloe Smith Chaffee James T. Chandler, Jr. E. Calvert Cheston Sal Chillemi Arthur O. Choate, Jr. Frederic C. Church J. Ross Clark, II Ray P. Clayberger J. E. Clifford, II Charles C. Clare Richard Warner Clarke Mrs. Charles E. Clifton John H. Cobbs W. W. Cochran Miss Peggy Coffin George A. Coleman Mr. and Mrs. Tristram C. Colket, II Harold Connett Mr. and Mrs. Edward E. Connor Dr. Thomas J. Conte Charles E. Cooney, Sr. B. Warren Corkran F. H. Corrigan Franklin C. Cotton Winston S. Cowgill Mrs. Butler Cox John S. Coxe Adam Cramer C. Jim Creekmore Mr. and Mrs. Thomas A. Crompton Joseph M. Cullen James Cullo Miss Kathleen Curtis Miss Margaret Curtis William Gale Curtis Henry K. Cushing Ralph D. Cutler Brig. Gen. Stuart Cutler D Michael Daroff William G. Davidson Joe E. Davis Orrin H. Davison Donald C. Dayton Mason L. Dean Eligio Del Guercio Charles de Bretteville James S. Denham William B. Denham Joseph C. Dey, Jr. Melville P. Dickenson Dean Dillman C. Douglas Dillon F. Eugene Dixon, Jr. Mrs. Edwin H. Dodge J. T. Dorrance, Jr. John W. Doty Findlay S. Douglas Jack J. Dreyfus, Jr. Frank G. Drum H. A. B. Dunning Walter G. Dunnington Christopher Dunphy G. J. Dunphy Thomas R. Dwyer E William G. Eager, Jr. "Hike" Eastep Mrs. Charles F. Eaton, Jr. Fredrick M. Eaton W. J. Ebert Frederick H. Ecker Oscar O. Edlund Walter Egan Frederick L. Ehrman Bradford L. Eldridge H. M. Ellis W. R. Ellis John P. English Van Horn Ely, Jr. F Mr. and Mrs. Paul Farrens Mrs. Jacob Feinstein Max Felix John R. Fell M. G. "Scotty" Fessenden Morton H. Fetterolf, Jr. Mrs. R. Fenton Fisher Mrs. Edwin H. Fitler Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Fleish- hacker, Jr. George H. Flinn, Jr. Percival E. Foerderer Isaac Fogg T. J. Foley, Jr. Dr. Clifton G. Follis Burdette E. Ford John H. Forsman John E. Foster E. Tunnicliff Fox John N. Frederick Daniel A. Freeman, Jr. James E. French, Jr. Percival E. Furber G Mrs. Harold H. Gade Dr. G. Everett Gaillard Mai Galletta Donald P. Gamble Raynor M. Gardiner Walter S. Gates Mrs. James C. Gentle Edward H. Gerry Henry A. Gerry Robert L. Gerry, Jr. Louis Gerstley, Jr. Douglas Gibbons George J. Gillespie, Jr. Francis H. Gleason Robert H. Goffe, Jr. A. P. Goldsmith Mr. and Mrs. Frank Goodyear Miss Elizabeth M. Gordon Mrs. Wright D. Goss, Jr. Walter F. Graham Robert M. Grant M. Donald Grant Jerome B. Gray Mrs. Leonard S. Green Shel Greer Miss Frances C. Griscom John C. Griswold Fred Grosz Carl S. Gundlich Mrs. E. Fred Guthrie H Mrs. Betty C. Hale Dr. Frank J. Hall Herbert S. Hall Perry E. Hall David H. Halle J. David Hamley William Churchill Hammond, Jr. James R. Hand Robert E. Harlow George E. Harding S. Leo Harmonay W. L. Harmonay E. Roland Harriman Arthur K. Harris 20 George Upham Harris Fred B. Harry Alfred Hart I. J. Harvey, Jr. R. D. Harwood J. L. Haskins Charles F. Havey Mrs. Arthur E. Hedstrom F. T. Heffelfinger G. W. P. Heffelfinger T. P. Heffelfinger Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Hendrickson Mrs. Joseph C. Herron George B. Hess Mrs. John S. Hess C. Everett Hicks Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles Harry H. Hilp Karl R. Hines, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. William Hocken- jos, Jr. A. T. Hodge C. L. Hodgman William J. Hoelle Eddie Hogan Mrs. James H. Holahan H. B. Hollins James B. Hollis J. V. Honeycutt Wilbur K. Hood John R. Hooker Charles H. Hyde Paul H. Hyde I J. A. W. Iglehart Warren Ingersoll Miss Elinor Irving Chester S. Ivory J Mrs. Henry B. Jackson J. G. Jacob Mrs. A. B. Jacobsen C. T. Jaffray In Memory of Herbert Jaques, Sr. Herbert Jaques Robert G. Janover Mr. and Mrs. Richard B. Jarrett William F. Jetter Mr. and Mrs. George Reid Johnson Homer H. Johnson J. Ford Johnson Philip A. Johnson Mrs. William C. Johnson Robert Trent Jones Durham Jones M. F. Judge Charles M. Justi K Robert L. Kaiser Andrew H. Kaye David E. Kaye Anthony F. Keating Charles G. Keller George B. Kellogg W. Hubert Kennedy James H. Killington John G. Kinnard Irving Klampert Mrs. Leroy E. Klopfer William Klopman James Knott Dr. R. N. Knutson Clarence E. Kohler R. C. Kollenborn Mrs. Ernest Korber Abe Kronenberg L Henry W. Lambrecht Mrs. Spencer Sergeant Large William J. La Roche John W. Latham Phillip B. Leavitt Richard K. Le Blond, II Thomas Le Boutillier Joseph A. Lee Charles R. Leonard M. J. Lenihan C. L. Le Roy Douglas B. Lewis Dr. J. Walter Levering Gustave L. Levy Mr. and Mrs. Henry Lindenmeyr J. Edward Lippincott Philip Little, Jr. Laurence M. Lloyd William C. Loughlin V. Theodore Low Edward E. Lowery Frederick J. Lowery David A. Lowry James F. Lowrie Mrs. Leonard W. Lowther Maurie Luxford Oliver B. Lyman Arthur F. Lynch John R. Lyons M Harold L. Mack Connie Mack, Jr. Percy C. Madeira, Jr. Harvey M. Manss John Martin Otto Marx Early Maxwell Norman H. Maxwell Alvan Macauley, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Roland R. MacKenzie Mrs. Decker McAllister F. G. McClintock William J. McCormack William J. McCormack, Jr. Frank McCormick C. B. McCoy Carlos J. McDonald Guy F. McDonald David B. McElroy Curtis W. McGraw George R. McKee Anthony L. McKim George A. McLachlan A. Craig McMicken USGA Journal: April, 1950 Miss Florence McNeely William McWane Joseph A. Meehan Joseph I. Melanson H. L. Mellen, Jr. Charles Henry Mellon Paul Mellon Mrs. T. Arthur Menzel Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Merriam Dwight Merrill George E. Melvin George W. Metlar Albert F. Metz Clifford W. Michel Dr. Robert S. Millen David M. Minton, Jr. Mrs. J. Ferguson Mohr Brig. Gen. E. H. Molthan Kenneth Monteagle Mr. and Mrs. George G. Mont­ gomery William H. Moore Paul Moore Edward S. Moore, Jr. Mrs. S. Rowland Morgan, Jr. Robertson G. Morrow John B. Morse S. F. B. Morse Mrs. Charles B. G. Murphy H. E. Murray Julian S. Myrick N C. E. Needham Mrs. J. E. Neff M. C. Nelson Mr. and Mrs. Thorpe Nesbit Jack Neville Clement B. Newbold William Nichols John J. Nolan C. E. Noyes o Franklyn M. O'Brien Thomas K. O'Brien William L. O'Donovan Carroll F. Ogden Katharine and Louis O'Neill Charles A. Owens P Fred Pagano Laird U. Park Ransom J. Parker, Jr. Percy Parker, Jr. Joseph H. Parsons Joseph Paterno, Jr. Joseph M. Patterson Stuart H. Patterson A. J. Drexel Paul Alfred H. B. Peabody Walter F. Pease Herbert H. Pease Mrs. Grace Coffin Penrose Lawrence Perin Landon M. Persons George W. Petersen J. Edward Peterson USGA Journal: April, 1950 Dave AA. Petty Wilfred P. Phaneuf AArs. AAiriam Phipps-Lyon Harold W. Pierce Charles F. Pietsch John Pillsbury William J. Platt J. Wood Platt John Poinier Dr. J. Beverley Pollard Dr. S. Gilmore Pontius AAr. and AArs. AAark A. Porter AArs. Ralph A. Powers Robert D. Pryde S. John Pyle R Charles V. Rainwater AAr. and AArs. Edward H. Rakestraw Barry H. Raynor AAr. and AArs. Ralph I. Raynor Henry S. Reafield Newbern Reeve A. AA. Reid Burton B. Resnik Dr. O. W. Rhoad Lester Rice Charles D. Richardson Bernard Ridder, Jr. Thomas C. Robbins AAiss Laura W. Robbins Clifford Roberts Dudley Roberts, Jr. Francis C. Robertson H. L. Robinson Charles K. Rockwell AAiss Deborah AA. Rood AArs. Norman P. Rood Robert A. Roos, Jr. Frederic Rosengarten, Jr. Donald P. Ross Frank D. Ross H. A. Rowbotham AArs. George R. Rowland Clifford L. Rugg Allen Rushton John B. Ryerson s William R. Salomon William E. Saufley Richard Sawyer AArs. Caryl H. Sayre Homer D. Sayre AAatthew J. Scammell, Jr. Stuart Scheftel Charles N. Schenck, Jr. J. H. Schroeder H. S. Schutt, Jr. H. P. Scott, III Sidney Scott William P. Scott, Jr. W. Parker Seeley Gerald Shattuck Harold D. Shattuck John G. Shattuck Sherrill Sherman James E. Shields Paul V. Shields Dr. and AArs. James S. Shipman Robert AA. Siegfried AAiss Helen Sigel T. T. Skinner Frank E. Slack G. O. Smallcomb Gordon Smith, Jr. Dr. Robert J. Smith W. A. Speakman, Jr. G. H. Spigener Charles E. Staples AAason B. Starring, Jr. Jack Stein AAilton Steinbach AArs. Helen B. Stetson AArs. Ames Stevens Joseph L. Stevenson Dr. Donald B. Stouffer Frank Strafaci AAax J. Stringer Philip H. Strubing A. Herman Stump Henry S. Sturgis Alfred L. Sweeney William J. Sweeney Robert Sweeny Robert H. Swindell T Oscar L. Tacy John Thames Arthur E. Thornton Carl W. Timpson Rear Adm. Forde A. Todd Charles R. Todd Daniel R. Topping AArs. George Trainor Richard S. Tufts Dr. and AArs. C. AA. Turman Howard Turner Harold Tschudi V William P. Viles Harvey N. Volkmar w Basil Wagner, Jr. C. Gilbert Waldo G. H. Walker, Jr. James W. Walker Harry Wallach, Jr. A. W. Wareham Fred Waring AA. Pierpont Warner Dr. James P. Warren AAr. and AArs. Howard Wasserman R. A. Waters AArs. John B. Watson Raymond E. Watson, Jr. Philip H. Watts Louis Wayland-Smith Dudley S. Weaver AArs. Elmer R. Weil Philip Weinsier Saul R. Weinsier Edward O. Welles Lincoln A. Werden 21 John C. West Alexander B. Wheeler John P. Wheeler Ogden White William E. White John Hay Whitney Dr. Oke V. Wibell Jack Widby R. J. Wilcoxson AArs. Danny Williams John A. Williams H. A. Wilmerding Emery E. Wilson C. C. Wintermute John AA. Winters, Jr. Edward Wippler Ralph J. Wrenn C. F. Wright Fred E. Wright Jowell S. Wright Thomas H. Wright Richard W. Woolworth R. Van Der Woude Alan Wurtzburger Y z Lucian Yann Paul Zens Robert C. Zimmerman CLUBS Country Club of Charleston, S. C. Del AAonte Golf and Country Club (the Swallows), Cal. Grossinger Country Club, N. Y. Hempstead Golf Club, N. Y. Llanerch Country Club, Pa. AAonroe Golf and Country Club, AAich. Nashua Country Club, N. H. National Golf Links of America, N. Y. Philadelphia Electric Company Athletic Association, Pa. Quaker Ridge Golf Club, N. Y. Rogue Valley Country Club, Ore. Rydal Course, Pa. Sankaty Head Golf Club, AAass. Seven Oaks Golf Club, N. Y. Suburban Club of Baltimore County, AAd. Wakonda Club, Iowa Wilmington Country Club, Del. ASSOCIATIONS Akron District Golf Association Association of Golf Presidents (Detroit) Eastern Interscholastic Golf As­ sociation AAinnesota Golf Association Public Golf Association of AAin­ nesota Royal Canadian Golf Association Texas Golf Association Western Golf Association OTHER Pine to Palm Tournament, AAinn. 22 USGA Journal: April, 1950 THE REFEREE Decisions by the USGA Rules of Golf Committee Example of symbols: . “No. 50-1” means the first decision issued in 1950. “R. 7(3)” means Section 3 of Rule 7 in the 1950 Rules of Golf. Default during Nassau Match No. 50-1, Tourn. Q: Player competing in team match, scoring under Nassau system, finishes 4 up first nine, then is advised that member of family ill and has to leave. Her opponent claims three points, in­ sisting that player, by leaving, de­ faulted match. When I gave my opin­ ion, I ruled that since player had al­ ready won point for first nine, the final score of match should have been one point for player who quit and two points for her opponent, who would get point for second nine and point for eighteen-hole victory. Vincent Eldred Ft. Pierce, Fla. A: We concur in your opinion. Ground under Repair on Green No. 50-4. R.l(2a), 2(1), 7(5b), 16(2), 18(Def.) QI: A and B are playing a par-4 hole. A hits his second shot over the green, about 4 or 6 feet into ground under repair. A picks up the ball, after first finding it was 12 steps , from the pin, and paces off 12 steps from the pin in the opposite direction, which put his ball off the green about one foot. A then putted up to the pin. When the play was over, B claimed the hole be­ cause in pacing off the 12 steps in the opposite direction, A thereby eliminated the necessity of chipping to the pin. Thereupon, A, to avoid an argument, gave B the hole. It is A’s contention, backed by the local pro, that A could place that ball within 12 steps of the pin in any direc­ tion as long as it wasn’t any nearer to the pin. Was A right or wrong? A 1: Rule 18 defines the putting green as all ground, except hazards, within twenty yards of the hole being played. Since you state the ball was within twelve paces of the hole and you do not refer to a hazard, it is assumed that the ball came to rest in ground under repair which was technically on the putting green. Rule 7(5b) provides that, on the putt­ ing green, ground under repair may be treated as if it were casual water. Rule 16(2) provides that, if a ball on the putting green lie in casual water, the ball “may be lifted without penalty and placed in the nearest position to where it lay which is not nearer to the hole . . .,” etc. Thus, A was required to place his ball in the nearest position to where it lay which was not nearer to the hole. It seems unlikely that the nearest avail­ able position would be in the opposite direction from the hole, and if that be so, A lost the hole for violating Rule 7(5b)—see Rule 2(1). Q 2: B stood there all the time A was pacing off and playing the ball and didn’t by any look, action or word say anything was wrong. But after A putted up, B claimed the hole. Shouldn’t B have protested that A was wrong, if he were wrong, at the time A was plac­ ing the ball in the new position? A 2: B was not obliged to enter a claim other than as provided in Rule l(2a). Questions by: Robert S. Smith Portland, Ore. Putting out of Turn: Match Play No. 50-8. R. 2(2), 5, 6, 18(8) Q: If it should be a player’s turn to make a stroke but before same can be executed his opponent makes his stroke on the putting green (Rule 18 (8)), must the player recall his op­ ponent’s stroke or does the player have an option in this matter? Does this recall of a stroke by one player against an­ other contain an option of recall in all cases or just in those cases where recall is mandatory? Samuel G. Campbell, Jr. Charleston, W. Va. A: On the putting green in match play, it is mandatory to recall a stroke played out of turn, under Rule 18(8). An option does not exist because orderly play on the putting green is imperative, especially in view of possible stymies. Rule 2(2) provides: “Players shall not •agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or local rule, nor to waive any penalty incurred. Penalty—Disqualifica­ tion of both sides.” Order of play on the teeing ground is governed by Rule 5, and through the green and in hazards by Rule 6. In such cases, recall is optional in match play. USGA Journal: April, 1950 23 Local Rules for Tree Basins No. 50-10. R. 7(4), LB Q: The Green Committee is prepar­ ing local rules. It is faced with a sit­ uation that may be treated under Rule 7(4) as “hole made by greenkeeper”. Young trees have been transplanted and are under cultivation. Irrigation is provided by means of filling the basin —prepared by the greenkeeper—with water. The soil from the basin is piled around the edge, thus creating a rim. Assume that a ball has come to rest so near the obstruction that a swing could not be made without striking part of the obstruction, which could be deemed interference with the swing. 1. Under what condition may the ball that comes to rest near the obstruction be dropped? 2. Where should it be dropped or placed? 3. In the event the ball comes to rest directly on the line between the green and the obstruction—either in front of or behind the obstruction—where should it be dropped or placed? Albin Martinson Sacramento, Cal. A: The Rules of Golf do not pro­ vide relief without penalty. Tree basins are not “holes made by the greenkeeper” in the sense contemplated by Rule 7(4). Whether or not relief should be given by local rule is for the local committee to determine in the light of such fac­ tors as size and character of the basins and whether they are temporary or permanent. Ordinarily, any such local rule should be temporary and should be canceled as soon as conditions per­ mit. In any case, such local rule should not necessarily give relief from inter­ ference by trees. The Rules of Golf Committee has ap­ proved the following various methods of allowing relief where local committees deem it necessary: 1. Adoption of a local rule as follows: “A tree basin may be treated as an obstruction under Rule 7(4) except: (1) the player in dropping the ball must keep the spot where the ball originally lay between himself and the hole; (2) this local rule does not apply when the ball lies in a hazard.” 2. Adoption of a local rule similar to the above but providing a one-stroke penalty for lifting and dropping. 3. Classifying tree basins as water hazards. If any such local rule be adopted, the margins of the tree basins should be defined either in fact or in the local rule. Recalling Tee Shot: Match Play No. 50-12. R. 2(2). 5(1,2) QI: In regard to the honor of hit­ ting the ball first from the tee, Rule 5(2) states an opponent may recall a ball hit out of turn from the tee. He may recall, but is it compulsory? Does he have to recall it? Al: In match play, when a ball is played out of turn from the teeing ground, the opponent may recall the ball but it is not compulsory that he do so. Honor on Tee Is Mandatory Q 2: In match play, if I have just won a hole, I have the honor on the next tee. If I wanted to drive off the tee last, could I allow my opponent to play first? What penalty could be used against me if I wanted to play last from the tee? A 2: Rule 5(1) provides: “The side which wins a hole shall take the honor at the next teeing ground.” An agree­ ment to waive the Rule would subject both players to disqualification under Rule 2(2). Questions by: Horace Lambden Los Angeles, Cal. Player Unable to Continue No. 50-13. R. 1(2), 20 Q: During our Invitation Mixed Foursomes Tournament, Miss Mary Ann Downey and Peter P. Prudden were playing against Mrs. Talbot Shelton and Edward C. Alvord. On the 15th tee, with Miss Downey and Mr. Prudden 2 up and four holes to go, Mr. Prudden took a practice swing on the tee and accidentally struck Mr. Alvord squarely on the forehead, knocking him out. Mr. Alvord was assisted off the course. The committee at that time ruled that anyone leaving the course had to default the match, but the rules were strained by the committee afterward to permit the foursome to finish the last four holes the following morning. However, when I telephoned to Mr. Prudden to ar­ range the play-off time, I found Mr. Prudden in the hands of a doctor with an attack of diabetes. The committee then ruled the match a tie and permit­ ted the able team of Mrs. Shelton and Mr. Alvord to continue in play. In would be appreciated if you would let us have your official ruling and opinion on this incident. Jack Ross Everglades, Fla. A: The local committee had author­ ity to decide the matter under Rule 1(2), and its decision was final. The committee had satisfactory rea­ son to approve discontinuance of the match and to provide for its resump­ tion the following morning—see Rule 20. 24 USGA Journal: April, 1950 When one player was unable to re­ sume play at the scheduled time, it was within the committee’s power to declare the match defaulted, for the orderly progress of the tournament, and the effect of the committee’s decision was to register such a default. The committee’s actions appear equit­ able. Claims of Undue Delay No. 50-14. R. l(2a), 2(3) Q: Having been requested to define “undue delay” under Rule 2(3), I ad­ vised that an opponent, in the absence of a referee, would be the sole judge, but will appreciate your advising if the Rules Committee has placed any limita­ tion as to time. While I realize that no two players exercise the same speed, it appears im­ possible to conscientiously invoke a pen­ alty in the absence of a more specific ruling as to what constitutes undue delay. R. J. Foley Huntington, W. Va. A: The Rules of Golf Committee has specified no time limit which can be used in applying Rule 2(3). Application of the rule depends on judgment and a sense of fair play. A referee or a committee should be able to discern readily whether an individual is proceeding promptly, as the custom of the game and good manners dictate. In the absence of -a referee, a player who believes that another is unfairly delay­ ing play may appeal to the committee in stroke play or should enter claim under Rule l(2a) in match play. He is not the sole judge, however. Provisional Ball also in Water No. 50-15. R. 17(2), 19 Q: Regarding Rule 19 (2), if A plays a ball from the tee into a water hazard in a doubtful lie and then plays a pro­ visional ball and finds when she reaches the hazard that both the original and the provisional ball are unplayable, what is the procedure and how is it scored? Mrs. Theo. J. Meindl Chicago, III A: It is understood that the pro­ visional ball (as well as the original ball) is in a water hazard. The player may proceed with a third ball under any one of the three options provided in Rule 17 (2), treating the second (pro­ visional) ball now as having been the last ball in play; the score after proceed­ ing with a third ball would be 5. The status of the provisional ball played under Rule 19 is uncertain until the status of the original ball is deter­ mined. The player ultimately decides to abandon the original ball in the water hazard. The provisional ball then be­ comes the ball in play, and the player’s score up to that point is 3. But the player decides to abandon the second ball also. Her only recourse is to play a third ball under Rule 17(2). If she proceeds under Rule 17(2a), the spot at which the second ball last crossed the margin of the hazard determines the line on which the third ball must be dropped. If she proceeds under Rule 17 (2b), the place at which the second ball entered the water determines the line of dropping the third ball. Ball Stuck on Club-Face No. 50-18. R. 1(3), 15(2) Q: When the player finished his fol­ low-through, the ball and some mud were stuck to the face of his club. He shook his club in the air, but the mud and the ball still stayed on the face of the club. What is the ruling? W. H. Roettger Fort Knox, Ky. A: The Rules of Golf do not spe­ cifically cover the case of a ball stick­ ing or adhering to a club after a stroke, and so the Rules of Golf Committee has ruled that in equity (see Rule 1(3)) Rule 15 (2) applies. Thus, the ball should be dropped as near as possible to the spot where it originally lay, without penalty. Of course, the stroke on which the ball stuck to the club is counted. Hole-in-One Defined No. 50-21 R. 12(4b,d,e) Q: If a drive lands near the cup and another player’s drive hits the first ball and knocks it into the cup, is it a hole in one? What constitutes a hole in one? Carol McCue Chicago, III. A: Match play (except as noted be­ low)—Rule 12(4b) provides: “If the play­ er’s ball knock the opponent’s ball into the hole, the opponent shall be deemed to have holed out at his last stroke.” Stroke play—Rule 12 (4d) provides: “If a competitor’s ball which is at rest be moved by another competitor or his cad­ die or forecaddie or his clubs or his ball, the ball shall be replaced.” Three-ball, best-ball and four-ball matches—Rule 12(4e) provides: “If a player’s ball move any other ball in the match, the moved ball must be replaced :as near as possible to the spot where it lay, without penalty.” If a player’s first stroke is holed out in accordance with the Rules of Golf, the player is deemed to have made a hole- in-one. USGA Journal: April, 1950 25 Correspondence pertaining to Green Section matters should be addressed to: USGA Green Section, Room 307, South Building, Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md. BREEDING BERMUDAGRASS FOR TURF By B. P. ROBINSON AND GLENN W. BURTON Turf Specialist, Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, and Senior Gene­ ticist, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Tifton, Ga. As a general rule in all types of re­ search, one particular field of investiga­ tion draws upon another in order to ob­ tain an ultimate objective. Since it is true that one branch of science cannot exist alone in its endeavor to solve a particular problem, we should expect an overlap­ ping in the field of applied research. Thus, when the Southeastern Turf Re­ search Center was established at the Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Sta­ tion, Tifton, Ga., in 1946, it received a shot in the arm from the well-established, cooperative U.S. Department of Agricul­ ture grass-breeding program that had its beginning in 1936. Of the several turf projects under way at Tifton, probably the one most benefited by this allied field of research has been the breeding of superior Bermudagrass types for turf. the last three years on the disease resis­ tance, sod density, fineness, aggressive­ ness, earliness of recovery in spring, free­ dom from weeds, renewed growth after overseeding with ryegrass and so forth of these Bermudas indicate that several selections in the nursery are superior to common seeded Bermudagrass and should assist the turf producer in the South in overcoming several problems. Clubs all over the South are faced with the problem of obtaining suitable putting greens during the transition period from ryegrass to Bermudagrass. From the per­ formance of the many selections at Tif­ ton, it has been found that a great dif­ ference exists in the ability of the selec­ tions to produce a desirable turf during the transition period. Forty-two selections from the extensive and effective breeding program for supe­ rior Bermudagrass pasture and forage types have been compared with forty-nine plugs of Bermudagrass from putting greens in the Southeast and with seeded Bermuda. The selections were maintained under putting green and fairway condi­ tions. Various observations made during For instance, several weeks elapsed each year between the disappearance of the ryegrass and the appearance of good Bermuda sod on common seeded Bermuda and some of the other poorer selections. In comparison, it has been gratifying to note that several hybrid selections, parti­ cularly Tifton No. 55 and Tifton No. 57, have produced excellent growth through­ out the transition period, with the result This article is based on cooperative investigations at Tifton, Ga., of the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, U. S. Department of Agriculture; the Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station; the United States Golf Association Green Section, and a number of southern golf associations. 26 USGA Journal: April, 1950 Two Bermudagrasses After Same Treatment Tifton No. 57 Bermudagrass. Sod is dense and weed-free, has fine texture. Bermudagrass from seed. Sod is coarse, with heads of Egyptian crabgrass. that it has been difficult to detect the disappearance of ryegrass. From the performance of the superior selections during the last three years, it is reasonable to assume that the transition problem that has been harassing southern greenkeepers for years may largely be eliminated by the use of such strains. We should always keep in mind, how­ ever, that the potential abilities of an athlete may remain dormant if they are not given a chance to develop. Thus the importance of management cannot be overlooked even if superior strains are used in combatting transition or other turf problems. The appearance of crabgrass and other weeds at more or less inopportune periods is another problem that the turf producer inevitably must face. It might seem too good to be true that the strains which performed so well in solving the transi­ tion problem at Tifton also produced weed-free turf. This, however, happens to be the case. Throughout the three-year period such aggressive selections as Tifton No. 57, Tifton No. 55 and a few of the strains from golf clubs in the South have virtual­ ly eliminated the weed problem without the use of herbicides. Even on the fair­ way plots where watering was not prac­ ticed and the fertilization program was less intense, these strains still were ag­ gressive enough to keep undesirable weeds from becoming established. It is evident that the control of weeds in turf through the use of superior strains is the most economical solution to the problem. Persons attending the 1949 Southeast­ ern Turf Conference, held at Tifton, rated the Bermuda strains in the test as to their quality for putting. Tifton No. 57, selec­ tions from the Charlotte Country Club and from the Pinehurst Country Club received the highest ratings. The disease resistance, ability to with­ stand close and frequent mowing and the relatively low fertility requirements of Tifton No. 57 and several of the other superior Bermudas make them stand out under unfavorable growing conditions. Reports from persons who have made small plantings of Tifton No. 57 and Tif­ ton No. 55 on their golf courses indicate that the strains are well adapted through­ out the South. Even though they surpass other Ber­ muda types, none of the superior Ber­ muda strains is as fine as is desirable. After this period of intensive testing the problem of obtaining fineness in strains approaching that of bent or of incor­ porating fineness into the existing selec­ tions confronts the Research Center. The latter problem has been approached USGA Journal: April, 1950 27 by hybridizing Tifton No. 57, Tifton No. 55 and several of the best selections from golf courses with a very fine-leafed Ber­ muda obtained from T. R. Garlington of the Atlanta Athletic Club (East Lake). The hybrids are now under observation, and it is hoped that some will possess the desired characteristics of both parents. Some of the other problems receiving special attention at the Southeastern Turf Research Center might be listed as fol­ lows: 1. Breeding better Bahiagrass strains for heavy duty turf. 2. Studies on centipedegrass seed production. 3. Fertilization studies including: (a) Nitrogen source test on centi­ pede and Bermudagrass, (b) Soil reaction as it affects the production of southern turf grasses, (c) Effect of organic and inor­ ganic sources of nitrogen on Bermudagrass greens. 4. Insect control studies. 5. Crabgrass, Nutgrass and Dallis- grass control. The results from these studies are con­ sidered to be of a preliminary nature, which may be altered with additional ex­ perience. It has been the purpose of this paper to report on the progress in the breeding of Bermudagrass for turf and not to give an extensive summary of all the projects under way at the Southeastern Turf Re­ search Center at Tifton. MERION (B-27) BLUEGRASS By CHARLES G. WILSON AND FRED V. GRAU Agronomist and Director, respectively, USGA Green Section The selection and testing program which has resulted in the release of Mer- ion (B-27) Kentucky bluegrass for com­ mercial production is one of the achieve­ ments of the cooperative research pro­ gram being carried on by the USGA Green Section and the Department of Agriculture. This grass was tested by the Green Sec­ tion for several years before the war. With the curtailment of Green Section ac­ tivities in 1942, the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, Department of Agri­ culture, took over the work, carrying on the clonal stock and observing plantings which had been made. At the end of the war the Green Section resumed its field work and since that time the Department of Agriculture and the Green Section both have been interested in getting Merion into production. Merion bluegrass was observed for a number of years by Joe Valentine, super­ intendent at Merion Golf Club, in Ard­ more, Pa., and a plug of turf was given to the Green Section in 1936 along with two similar strains from a tee at Merion. The name Merion was chosen for B-27 bluegrass by reason of the origin of the original material. Merion was described as a dense, dark-green turf growing in partial shade, spreading over several feet and crowding out weeds with its vigor­ ous growth. Other morphological charac­ teristics of this grass are: 1. Short leaves, 3 to 5 mm. in width. 2. Height when flowering, 16 inches. 3. Open panicles with 3 to 5 florets on each spikelet. Twelve years of testing and observing Merion at the old Arlington Turf Gardens and at the Bureau of Plant Industry have shown this strain to be markedly superior to ordinary commercial bluegrass in the following characteristics: 1. Resistance to Helminthosporium leafspot. 2. Lower growth habits (tolerates closer mowing than common blue­ grass). 3. Rate of spread. 4. Vigor of rhizomes. 5. Turf quality and appearance. 6. Resistance to weed invasion. 7. Heat and drought tolerance. The seed of Merion bluegrass is uni­ 28 USGA Journal: April, 1950 form in characteristics and can be dis­ tinguished easily from commercial blue­ grass seed. The seed of Merion is shorter and plumper and lacks the usual brown tinge found at the base of commercial bluegrass seed. Further tests are now under way to ascertain whether or not this valuable characteristic will be main­ tained under wider environmental condi­ tions. In addition to the trials carried on by the Green Section and the Department of Agriculture, test plots also have been observed for a number of years at Mil­ ford, Conn., Lexington, Ky., and Ames, Iowa. These test plots have been main­ tained at several heights of cut as well as under other variable conditions. 30 Cooperative Tests Although Merion was already under increase in Oregon as a result of these tests, it was felt by the Green Section that further observation on widely scattered comparable plots would be necessary be­ fore approval of large-scale production and usage could be sanctioned. With this thought in mind, more than thirty cooperators from state experiment stations and golf courses were selected to carry on comparison tests. Trials were laid out in 14 different states and in Canada; therefore a good cross section of the country was included. One hundred pounds of foundation Merion seed, made available through the courtesy of Lloyd Arnold of the Associated Seed Growers and Geary Brothers of Klamath Falls, Ore., was distributed to cooperating agen­ cies by the Green Section in 1947. Cooperators were furnished two pounds of seed and were requested to plant it un­ der conditions favorable to Kentucky bluegrass, in direct comparison with a comparable plot sown to commercial bluegrass. Both plots were to be 1,000 square feet and were to be treated iden­ tically. The commercial plot was to be used as a standard for comparing weed invasion, Helminthosporium leafspot and other diseases, general acceptance from the turf standpoint and for obtaining other pertinent data and observations. In November, 1948, the first or “estab­ lishment” report form mailed to cooper­ ators requested information concerning the time of planting, germination period, soil conditions, management and inci­ dence of disease and weed infestations. Sixteen replies that included information concerning tests in 11 states were received for evaluation. From this it was ascer­ tained that both comparison plots grown by each cooperator had been treated iden­ tically and that Merion was being com­ pared to Kentucky bluegrass under a wide range of soil, climatic and manage­ ment conditions. The following is a sum­ mation of the first report: 1. Eleven cooperators reported Merion to be superior to commercial bluegrass. 2. Two cooperators failed to summar­ ize the outstanding characteristics. 3. One cooperator reported both Mer­ ion and commercial bluegrass to be poor­ ly established. 4. Two cooperators reported commer­ cial bluegrass to be superior to Merion. (It is interesting to note that the three cooperators in Nos. 2 and 3 reported Merion as being superior in the July, 1949, report. The two cooperators in No. 4 show in the July report that Merion is equal or slightly superior to commercial bluegrass.) The second, or “performance,” report form, which was mailed to cooperators in July, 1949, requested information and ratings on disease incidence, crabgrass infestation, heat and drought tolerance, color, turf quality and general appear­ ance. The observations were made in Aug­ ust and September, 1949. Ratings were made on the basis of 0 to 10, percentage­ wise. For example, if a plot showed 50 per cent diseased leaves, a mark was made in column No. 5. A plot showing no disease received a mark in the 0 column. Thus the best rating would fall in the lower column numbers. Twenty-seven returns on this second re­ port form were received for evaluation. Ten of these returns were incomplete and consequently could not be analyzed. To evaluate the remaining 17 returns the column numbers were totaled on a master sheet. USGA Journal: April, 1950 29 Turf General All-Around Disease Crabgrass Tolerance Color Quality Appearance Performance Heat and Drought Totals. Cooperator 1. B. P. I., Md........... 2. Phila. C. C., Pa.... 3. N. J. Exp. Sta.... 4. Ky. Exp. Sta........ 5. Mo. Exp. Sta....... 6. Ohio State Univ... 7. Denver C.C., Colo. 8. Penn State.......... 9. Cleveland, O....... 10. Mich. State.......... 11. Indianapolis, Ind. 12. Capital Parks, D.C. 13. Clayton, Mo........... 14. Univ, of Cal......... 15. Purdue Univ., Ind. 16. Rochester, N. Y.... 17. Marysville, Ohio.... TOTAL....... . 7 8 1 7 3 0 4 3 1 0 9 3 2 1 0 4 0 53 * Only two instances from the 102 ratings in which Merion was inferior to commercial bluegrass. In all other cases Merion was equal or superior to commercial bluegrass. Com. Mer. Com. Mer. Com. Mer. Com. Mer. Com. Meir. Com. Mer. Com. Mer. 4 8 4 18 4 0 3 17 3 13 2 6 5 5 4 7 1 374 104 0 3 1 7* 1 0 0 3 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 22 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 5* 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 16 8 9 2 3 3 5 4 6 1 4 7 3 2 3 5 6 4 75 8 9 1 5 3 5 4 6 3 3 5 4 2 3 6 4 3 74 7 5 0 1 3 3 3 3 6 2 5 1 5 0 3 3 1 51 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 15 3 5 0 7 2 0 2 7 0 1 7 2 6 0 5 6 6 59 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 0 1 1 0 19 38 44 5 30 16 13 21 28 14 14 43 16 19 9 21 27 16 1 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 16 5 8 1 7 2 0 4 3 3 4 10 3 2 2 2 4 2 62 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 4 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 16 It is impossible to include all the com­ ments made concerning the outstanding characteristics in the above table. For this purpose four cooperators have been selected at random and quoted as fol­ lows: This has been an interesting com­ parison, and in spite of the severe wea­ ther Merion has been outstanding. The Central Ohio Greenkeepers were very much impressed by the performance of Merion bluegrass. (Ohio) Commercial bluegrass looks much better than usual in August, because there has been no drought or severe heat. Turf now formed by Merion at Columbia, Mo., is excellent. (Missouri) Commercial bluegrass will suffer for water before Merion shows signs of needing any. This plot is on a light sandy soil. Merion is far superior at either Ya-inch or P/2-inch height of cut. (Colorado) We consider Merion bluegrass to be definitely better. It has a deeper color. It spreads out closer to the ground and takes less mowing for this reason. It forms a very dense, tight turf. It may be more resistant to weed invasion. We have grown an excellent turf of both Merion and the commercial bluegrass on an adobe clay by using generous feeding. (California) In reviewing the demonstrated super­ iority of Merion bluegrass as the result of 12 years of testing, it would seem that Merion bluegrass has proved itself worthy of recommendation for seeding alone or as a part of seed mixtures throughout the range of Kentucky bluegrass adaptation. It has been tested in California, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, In­ diana, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Penn­ sylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Con­ necticut, Maryland, Kentucky and Wash­ ington, D. C. Many other states and Can­ ada are also cooperating with the Green Section in testing Merion, but as yet they have not made reports on the outcome of their trials. Merion is already in commercial pro­ duction, and the demand for seed is great and increasing. There is need for further wide-scale testing of Merion bluegrass, particularly farther south and in the crab­ grass belt as a permanent cool-season grass in mixture with the southern warm­ season grasses. The Green Section will welcome re­ ports from those who are growing turf produced from Merion bluegrass seed. 30 USGA Journal: April, 1950 LET’S SAVE WATER Note on “Ion Exchange Process for Brackish Waters” (World Wide Chem­ istry), Chemical and Engineering News, p. 3306, Vol. 27, No. 45, Nov. 7, 1949. “The world is Becoming increasingly aware of shortages of a raw material once thought inexhaustible, i.e., fresh water. There are a number of regions, such as Los Angeles, Cal., Perth, Austra­ lia, Johannesburg, South Africa, and Tel Aviv, Israel, where large population den­ sities combined with small annual rain­ fall give rise to situations where the future economic development is limited by the fresh-water supply”. The article describes several possible methods and costs of demineralization of brackish water and states, “Although the maximum present-day water cost for very highly valued crops is 30 cents per 1,000 gallons, a more reasonable max­ imum figure for moderate-scale agri­ cultural uses is 10 cents per 1,000 gal­ lons”. Notes on “We’re Running Out of Water” by Pat Frank, This Week Maga­ zine, p. 5, Nov. 6, 1949. This article points up the alarming water shortage in a dramatic way. Scient­ ists say that 1957 is the critical date when action will have to be taken if new sources of fresh water are not found. The article stresses the possibilities of tapping the oceans for fresh water and says that the Department of the Interior has asked Congress for 50 million dol­ lars to find a way to obtain fresh water from the sea. The author says, “Hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated lands are being kept in production only through serious over - pumping of the existing water supply . . . “The water levels of the reservoirs that feed Louisville and Indianapolis have dropped 40 and 50 feet, respectively. “But the most critical areas are the great, expanding metropolitan districts of the nation where the population is jumping, constantly stepping up the use of water”. The article describes methods of puri­ fying salt water, including the possible use of atomic energy, and ends with this thought: “There is no greater gift this country could give the earth than the perfection of techniques for transforming the sea into fresh water. And for our own good, we’d better do it soon!” * * * The growing scarcity of fresh water is not an idle threat; it is real. Two re­ cent references have been abstracted here to indicate the trend of thinking. To cite other references would serve no useful purpose. During the educational turf confer­ ences of the winters 1948-49 and 1949-50, USGA Green Section personnel stressed repeatedly the need for saving water on turf areas. Since 1945, Green Sec­ tion research has been directed toward a program of growing the best turf possible with the minimum of ar­ tificial irrigation, using every known device such as: (1) Aeration of the soil to improve porosity and absorp­ tion and to reduce runoff; (2) More adequate fertilization to produce denser turf, which is the best-known method of saving water; (3) Emphasis on the turf grasses which have low-water require­ ments and high drought-tolerance. The Green Section expresses its con­ sidered opinion that funds for agricultural research may be used justifiably for turf research which is directed toward saving water. It is well known that, even in areas where water shortages are becoming critical, many turf areas reg­ ularly are overwatered. Agricultural and industrial interests should welcome the opportunity to support this phase of turf research because the savings in water largely will accrue to the benefit of agriculture and industry. We do not limit our thinking and our planning to golf-course turf; we include all turf areas. We subscribe to the policy that the best turf for all purposes is that which is maintained with only sufficient water to keep it alive. USGA Journal: April, 1950 31 COOPERATIVE TURF FUNGICIDE TRIALS By J. B. ROWELL University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. The original report of the 1949 nation­ al cooperative turf fungicide trials is mim­ eographed in 12 pages. The cover page lists the cooperators and the test loca­ tions: California, P. A. Miller; Indiana, Eric G. Sharvelle and D. E. Likes; Iowa, H. L. Lantz; Massachusetts, Geoffrey Cornish; New Jersey, Spencer H. Davis, Gustave Silber and Ralph Engel; Ottawa, J. H. Boyce; Pennsylvania, H. W. Thurs­ ton and R. M. Means; Rhode Island, John B. Rowell; Wisconsin, 0. J. Noer. The objective is to compare promising turf fungicides as preventive treatments against the more important turf diseases under various regional conditions. Eleven materials were tested in 1949. They were: Materials Dosage per 1,000 sq. ft. Per cent active Active Ingredient 1. Control 2. Caloclor suspension 3. Cadminate 4. Crag 531 5. Merck H258T 6. PMAS 7. Puraturf 2.0 oz. 1.6 oz. 3.0 oz. 1.6 oz. 0.1 pt. 0.2 pt. _ 90 20 100 20 10 6 8. Puraturf GG 9. Puraturf 177 10. Spergon W 11. Tersan 0.05pt. 2.4Hg. 6.0Cd 1.6 oz. 3.0 oz. 3.0 oz. 20 48 50 _ _____________ Mercurous chloride (60%) and mer- curie bichloride (30%) Organic cadmium compound Calcium - zinc - copper - cadmium chro- Organic cadmium compound Phenyl mercury complex Phenyl mercury triethanol ammonium mate lactate Organic cadmium-mercury complex p-amino phenyl cadmium dilactate Tertachloro p-benzoquinone Tertamethyl thiuramdisulfide Each fungicide was supplied from a single, uniform lot supplied by the vari­ ous manfacturers. Data were summarized from tests having from three to six replications. For eight locations, the 11 chemicals ranked in this order, from best to poorest, for the control of dollarspot: Puraturf 177 Crag 531 Cadminate Puraturf GG C aloe lor Merck H258T PMAS Puraturf Spergon W Tersan Control (no treatment) 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.4 5.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 Caloclor Spergon W PMAS Puraturf 177 Tersan Puraturf Crag 531 Puraturf GG Merck H258T Cadminate Control (no treatment) 1.5 4.2 4.2 5.8 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.7 8.3 These data are considered to be less conclusive than the data reported for dollarspot. No conclusion could be drawn from the scant data submitted on control of copperspot and Helminthosporium leaf­ spot. For four locations where brownpatch occurred the 11 chemicals ranked in this order, from best to poorest, for control of brownpatch: Editor’s Note: These cooperative trials were arranged and summarized under the sponsorship of the American Phytopathological Society. The USGA and its member clubs which total 1,400, and 144 Green Section Subscribers wish to express thanks to the American Phytopathological Society and to all cooperators for the information. 32 USGA Journal: April, 1950 ORIENTAL EARTHWORM AND ITS CONTROL By JOHN C. SCHREAD Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Conn- The earthworm (Pheretima hupeiensis Mich.), a pest in golf-course greens, originated in the Orient. It gained en­ trance to this country some years ago, and is now known to occur at one or more points from Stamford, Conn., to Miami, Fla. It is manifest in greatest abundance, however, in the New York Metropolitan area, where at least 50 per cent of the golf courses in West­ chester County are to some extent infested. Pheretima varies in size from 150 mm. to 222 mm. in length and is about 5 mm. in diameter. In general it is light grass­ green in color on the dorsal surface. The underside of the worm is grayish-pale in color. It is extremely active at all times, especially when handled, coiling and recoiling convulsively. Furthermore, it discharges a disagreeable secretion, thus the common name “stinkworm.” When weather conditions permit, the earthworm may cast during all four seasons of the year. There are records available of casting counts varying from a few to 50 to the square foot. Obviously when large numbers of castings appear on the surface of golf-course greens, once or several times in 24 hours, it is vir­ tually impossible to maintain a putting surface in a desirable playing condition. It has been found that Pheretima may occur in all types of soil and in all parts of an infested golf course—greens, tees, fairways and rough. They are most abundant, however, in the greens where fertility and moisture are highest. In 1948 a program of research was undertaken in Connecticut and New York designed to develop effective and econ­ omical control measures. At first Para­ thion was used at extremely high dosage levels. The results obtained with this material in destruction of the Oriental earthworm were remarkable. However, where the toxicant was applied several times to the turf, temporary injury re­ sulted. Turf areas treated with Parathion in 1948 have been free from infestation since the spring of 1949. Chlordane and Toxaphene 50 per cent wettable powders, used at the rate of 80 pounds of technical toxicant to the acre, were rather slow in controlling Phere­ tima populations. It appeared, however, that 10 to 12 months subsequent to treatments the greens were virtually free from earthworms. Aldrin (Compound 118) used as a 2^ per cent dust in mid­ summer, 1948, excited the earthworm population more noticeably than other chemicals. In fact, soil castings and sur­ face worms on Aldrin-treated greens far exceeded in number anything that had been seen up to this time. Reduction in Pheretima infestation seemed to be rather slow, however, and it was not until the following spring that control appeared to have been attained. In late spring, 1949, emulsifiable con­ centrates containing Chlordane were ap­ plied to Pheretima infestations at the rate of one quart of 48 per cent emul­ sion (one pound of technical toxicant per quart of emulsion) in 10 gal­ lons of water to 1,000 square feet. At a later date Aldrin emulsifiable con­ centrate was used also at the rate of 3 pints of 25 per cent emulsion (one- half pound technical toxicant per quart of emulsion) in 10 gallons of water to 1,000 square feet of Pheretima-infested turf. Treated turf was drenched with clear water for three days following treatment. Both of these materials were amazing in their rapidity of action. Earthworm populations diminished rapidly and vir­ tually disappeared in a few weeks. As quickly as the worms surfaced on emul­ sion-drenched turf (during rainy weath­ er) they died. In contrast, greens that were not treated were covered with healthy stinkworms, all of which returned to the soil in a normal manner when the rain stopped falling. It is too early to predict what the residual activity of Chlordane and Al­ drin may be when employed to control Pheretima USGA Journal: April, 1950 33 IT’S YOUR HONOR In The Spring TO THE USGA: I would appreciate it very much if it were at all possible for you to help me locate a position as an assistant pro. At the present time I am employed in the city in a position I have had for three years. But every time the sun comes out and the weather begins to get nice, my heart yearns for the golf course. NAME WITHHELD We Are Grateful TO THE USGA: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to send the enclosed check as a donation from the members of the Quaker Ridge Golf Club to the fund for "Golf House." EDWIN ROSENBERG President, Quaker Ridge Golf Club Scarsdale, N. Y. TO THE USGA: I am pleased to advise that the directors of the Western Golf Association unanimous­ ly adopted the following resolutions: Resolved: that the Western Golf Associa­ tion be and hereby is authorized to contrib­ ute to the United States Golf Association's "Golf House" fund, and Further Resolved: that the officers and directors of the Western Golf Association by letter communicate with their friends and friends of member clubs of the Association asking for support and for contributions to the United States Golf Association's "Golf House" fund. The officers and directors of WGA join with me in sending you our best wishes for the early establishment of "Golf House." JEROME P. BOWES, Jr. President, Western Golf Association Chicago, III. Pam Barton Fund TO THE USGA: Every club in Britain has been asked to help the Curtis Cup Team fund and the response is very encouraging. We appreciate American aid, which we hope will not be mistaken for charity. Brit­ ish people still cling to their sturdy in­ dependence, and our real reason for ac­ cepting the generous offer of the Amer­ ican women is that we could not get the dollars. The Pam Barton appeal has deeply touched the hearts of all British golfers. We feel that this is a spontaneous tribute to a lovely girl, and in Britain the ges­ ture is deeply appreciated. I hope the fund will be a worthy effort. Our coun­ tries, tied by many common bonds of tongue and custom, will become more friendly and understanding because of ges­ tures such as the Pam Barton fund. I wish it every success, and please assure all your ladies that we deeply appreciate your efforts. DESMOND HACKETT London Daily Express A Williloo Bird TO THE USGA: Enclosed is two dollars for which please send me seven back issues of the USGA Journal. I'm like the Williloo bird which flies backwards. I don't care where I'm going; I want to see where I've been. LARRY BLOSS Miami, Fla. It's A Pleasure TO THE USGA GREEN SECTION: About two and a half years ago I wrote you with the question, "Where can I go to get scientific training for greenkeeping?" I have now completed that training, pick­ ed up a master's degree in Ornamental Hor­ ticulture and am happily employed as green­ keeping superintendent of the Rio Hondo Golf Club in Downey, Cal. To you goes much of the credit for the speed with which I was able to complete this training. You will see how happy I was to be able to switch to U.C.L.A. with no loss of credits and to begin work there at the inception of the turf project. I learned of the U.C.L.A. project through you and might easily have delayed six months in starting there had you not put me in con­ tact with Dr. Stoutemyer. ED ROACH Downey, Cal. Editor’s Note- The USGA Journal invites comments on matters relating to the welfare of the game and will publish them as space permits.