Billiards

Hitherto what has been stated about the game of billiards in this volume, whether generally or in the description of strokes recommended for practice, has been on the supposition that the table was of the ordinary make, the pockets being either those known as the standard of the Billiard Association, or of those patterns used by the best makers, both sorts being 3⅝ in. wide at the fall. As the game is played at the end of the nineteenth century this size of pocket is sufficiently difficult for amateurs as a class; and spectators of public play, by whose patronage professional players are mainly supported, have so greatly preferred the freer game and longer breaks possible with it, that the three-inch pocket or championship table may almost be said to have become obsolete. We believe, however, that this disappearance is merely temporary, due to a combination of circumstances which may not continue for long, and may be longer still in recurring. Further, if it was absolutely necessary when the conditions were drawn up to have what was called the championship of the game decided on a table different from that on which it is usually played—an anomaly greatly to be regretted—then the simple tightening of pockets was a device open to as little objection as any other. It is certainly preferable to barring this stroke or that on an ordinary table, an arrangement in which there may always be the suspicion that limitation is made in favour of a certain player or of a certain class of players, which is of itself sufficient condemnation. Whereas when the same result is obtained by making the pockets more difficult, that objection cannot be urged with equal force; the table is the same for all, and if a man can bring any stroke to such perfection that he can continue his break to great length, so much the better for him; he will remain champion till another arises who can go on longer.

No stroke admissible in the ordinary game should be barred when the championship is played for, because the champion ought to be the greatest master of all lawful strokes; and if hazards are found to predominate unduly the remedy lies in tightening the pockets. But before the next game for the championship is played, cannons and not hazards bid fair to exercise too great an influence. If that match were played to-morrow in this year 1896 on a three-inch pocket table, it is safe to predict that victory would be gained by the man who was best at cushion nursery cannons; of this there is no question, ‘no possible shadow of doubt.’ What man in his senses would court constant failure at hazards when success with cannons was within his grasp? Here, therefore, we are again face to face with a question similar to that which arose on the ordinary table when the spot stroke was brought to perfection; with this difference, that whereas the strokes in a spot break are each genuine, easily seen and watched by the referee and spectators, and therefore fair, in a break of cushion nursery cannons the reverse is more than probable. Made by trick or sleight of hand rather than by an open stroke, with balls so close that even when the break is stopped and the referee summoned he cannot readily decide whether they touch or not, and when promptly continued remonstrance or complaint is too late to be of use, with the push stroke permitted, such a break is open to objections much graver than any ever urged against spot play. The scoring is faster far than is possible with the spot stroke, and play is often obscured for many spectators by the performer himself. In this case as in that of hazards no lawful stroke should be barred; it would seem preferable to draw lines round the table parallel to and at a fixed distance from the cushions, and to make rules somewhat similar to those in force for the Partie Américaine dite du Cadre. In this game, when balls 2 and 3 are in the same compartment, that is in one of the rectangular spaces between the lines and the cushions, and therefore are not separated by a line, only one cannon is allowed without making at least one of the balls pass the boundary. There is, in fact, no great difficulty in making rules to defeat tricks which are favoured by obscurity; no cannon otherwise lawful need be barred, and as the breaks must be slightly slower time is afforded for inspection, and if necessary for appeal to the referee. Moreover, the cannon game would be improved, for greater skill is required to continue the series when one ball at least must be some distance from the cushion, and therefore this suggestion has the merit of inciting players to greater exercise of skill in every lawful stroke, whereas the policy of barring certain strokes tends to their neglect and to a corresponding loss of execution.

The objections to having one pattern of table for ordinary play and another for championship matches are obvious, for the games being different the champion may not be the best player on the easier table, even when the spot stroke is barred; and to style a man champion of one game because he has beaten all comers at another is scarcely logical; but the remedy is not so apparent. Two solutions present themselves, only to be dismissed on consideration. First, that amateurs should adopt the three-inch pocket table, in which case there would be one game and the champion would ordinarily be the best player of that game; next, that the championship should be decided on an ordinary table and the three-inch pocket be abandoned. In both cases the difficulties seem insuperable; the game on the 3⅝-inch pocket or ordinary table is the better game for the vast majority of persons, if not absolutely the better game of the two, because of its greater variety, in that hazards play their part more equally with cannons, and because scoring is faster and a freer and better style of play is possible. Indeed, if the three-inch pocket table were introduced to clubs and public rooms, it would probably be found desirable to reduce the length of the game from one hundred to fifty points, whilst maintaining or only slightly reducing existing charges, because inferior players who form the majority would score so slowly. Again, if the championship matches were played on an ordinary table, success would depend mainly on mastery of the spot stroke, which is held to be undesirable. There is, of course, another alternative—to have a table with smaller pockets than the ordinary but larger than those of the championship table, and perhaps also to increase the size of the balls. It is not safe to be too sure of anything, but at present, so far as is known, such an arrangement has not been tried—save perhaps when Roberts played Ives, and the result was not encouraging; it may, therefore, be neglected on this occasion.

In short, the difference between professional and amateur play must remain so great that in spite of disadvantages the arrangement which seems open to fewest objections is to have two tables, an ordinary one for amateurs and for exhibition games, and another with three-inch pockets for the championship. The latter, with the lines already recommended for regulating cannon play, or with the push stroke considered to be foul, would form an excellent field whereon the battles of professionals might be decided.

But even supposing the question of the table to be settled, there is another formidable difficulty in the way of reviving satisfactory matches—namely, how to insure that the game is genuine and that each competitor is trying to win. The great games of old days were for the most part honest, the stakes were real, the rivalry of competitors was evident, and these facts added greatly to their attraction. Men paid a guinea gladly enough to see a game of that sort in comfort who would hesitate to pay five or ten shillings to see a mere exhibition game, although the play in the latter is certain to be more brilliant because it is unfettered by caution. Two causes are apt to have a malign influence on the genuineness of the game; one, that gate-money is often of more importance than the stake, and the other we may call the weakness of human nature. Both are somewhat thorny matters to deal with, the latter specially so; but those who know most will most readily admit the difficulty. In time there is reason to hope for improvement; the change of status and character of professional players during the last forty years amply justifies this; but, as in other ways of life, some men are more worthy of confidence than others, and that course in arranging for a competition is preferable which shall tend to strengthen the idea that honesty is the best policy. To help this the influence of gate-money should be reduced to a minimum, possibly by making the game short enough to be completed in one day if not at one meeting. The stakes should be substantial, and it is worth considering whether other advantages could be added to make the position of champion more attractive. But its reward must lie chiefly in the honour and distinction it confers rather than in money, and therefore no opportunity should be lost of adding to the dignity and consideration of the post; whilst even as regards remuneration it must have value, for its possessor will command the highest rates of payment which obtain in his profession.

These remarks concerning the championship are agreed to by Mr. Rimington-Wilson and by others who have studied the subject; they may not improbably before long have to be considered by those entrusted with drawing up conditions for the next match, which in the ordinary course of things is unlikely to be greatly delayed. For if youth does not advance with the speed which might be expected, age will inevitably tell and lessen the distance between first and second, till a combat on even terms is waged, or the elder retires and allows younger rivals to contest for the position.

Persons interested in the subject of this chapter will welcome the following memorandum kindly furnished by Mr. Russell D. Walker, the well-known sportsman, who, amongst other accomplishments, is a player of much merit on a championship table, although in places it repeats what has been already told in other parts of this book.

It is a matter of regret to many lovers of billiards that they never now see a match for the professional championship. The obvious reason, of course, is that there is at the present time one player so far superior to all the rest that it would be useless to challenge him without the slightest chance of success. At the same time, there would be a great deal of interest aroused if a second prize was instituted, as it is in several amateur competitions in different branches of sport; and with such brilliant players as Diggle, Dawson, Mitchell, Peall, and Richards, excitement would run very high as to their respective chances. Up to the year 1849 Jonathan Kentfield was universally allowed to be the greatest exponent of the game, and it was not till the following year that the North-countryman from Manchester, John Roberts, father of the present champion, gradually made his way to the front. He never met Kentfield in a match, the latter declining the contest, but they did in that year play a few friendly games together at Kentfield’s rooms at Brighton. From that date, 1850, till 1869 John Roberts was admittedly the champion, and during this period he was able to, and did, give habitually 300 in 1,000 to the next best players, who were Bowles, Richards (elder brother of the present D. Richards), and C. Hughes. During 1869 a young aspirant, Wm. Cook, a pupil of the champion, was being much talked of, and it was said that his admirers thought he had a great chance of defeating John Roberts if a match could be arranged, especially as he had developed wonderful skill at what is now universally known as the spot stroke (of which the champion himself was the introducer, and up to the present the chief exponent), and would be able to make so many consecutive hazards that Roberts’ supposed superiority all round would be more than counterbalanced. In fact, so strongly did this idea prevail that at a meeting of the leading professional players, convened to draw up rules for the proposed championship match, it was agreed that the pockets should not exceed three inches, and that the spot should be placed half an inch nearer the top cushion, thus making it twelve and a half inches distant instead of thirteen. The history of the match, played on February 11, 1870, at St. James’s Hall, has often been related, and, as all the billiard world knows, the younger player succeeded in, winning the proud position of champion. From that date up to the year 1885 there have only been three players who have won the title. The number of matches played in these fifteen years amounts to sixteen (a list of which with dates and results is given on p. 373), and from the last match^[18] up to the present time, a period of ten years, John Roberts, junior, son of the John Roberts whom Cook defeated, has been in undisputed possession of the title of champion. I say undisputed, because no one has challenged him to play under the rules governing the championship matches, which were drawn up for the express purpose of deciding the title, under which all the sixteen matches have been played, and which have never been abrogated or altered. It has been urged by many that the table is too difficult, inasmuch as experts at the spot stroke are precluded from making any large number of their favourite hazards; but it is evident that the intention of the framers of the rules was to render the pockets more difficult, and not only make the spot stroke, but every hazard, whether winning or losing, require the greatest care; and no further proof of their discretion is required when we see that all ordinary matches between the leading players are always now, and have been for some time, played with the spot stroke barred, the fact being that the public soon got wearied of the monotony of the stroke, and would not pay to see it.

Now to bar a legitimate stroke is an absurdity, except in the case of the balls getting ‘froze’ (as our American cousins say) in the jaws of the pocket, as happened at the Aquarium on April 24, 1891, when T. Taylor made 729 consecutive cannons (and more recently at Knightsbridge, on June 2, 1893, when Frank Ives made 1,267 somewhat similar^[19] strokes); but this position is so rare and so difficult to attain, that the case could be met by merely declaring that, should such a contingency arise, the balls should be broken in the same way as they are when touching. To return to the question of the spot stroke, it is not barred on the championship table any more than a difficult losing hazard, such as a short jenny; it is merely rendered more difficult, and the greatest accuracy is required for its successful manipulation; but there can be little doubt that Peall, with his extraordinary power of perseverance and unfailing accuracy, would, with practice, in a very short time make fifty consecutive hazards, and probably more. It must not be thought for one moment that the three-inch pocket table is advocated for general use in exhibition matches; for, though caviare to those who have really made a study of the game, the scoring is not rapid enough to satisfy the palate of the majority of the public, whose great idea is to witness something big in the way of figures, and who would prefer to see a break of several hundreds amassed by the repetition of one particular stroke to an all-round break of various strokes from different positions, however masterly the execution, which might not even reach three figures. Still, in spite of this hankering after sensational scoring, if we compare the number of spectators at the fifteen matches for the championship played from 1870 to 1885 inclusive with the attendances at the ordinary spot-barred exhibitions of to-day, and at the same time take into consideration the enormous extent to which the game of billiards has developed during the last decade (I speak only from personal observation), the balance would probably be in favour of the former period.

It must not, however, be forgotten, on the other hand, that there is a great difference in interest to the spectators between a bona-fide match for a stake and an ordinary exhibition game, where there is no other incentive than the glory of winning. Who does not remember with delight the wonderful strengths and neat execution of W. Cook, and the losing hazard striking of Joseph Bennett, and the keen rivalry which prevailed between these players and the present champion in their contests? Roberts declares that he attributes the height of excellence he has reached to be mainly owing to those years of play on the championship table; and though not himself an advocate for it as far as ordinary exhibition matches are concerned, yet, if called upon to defend his title, he considers that the table which has always been used according to the championship rules should still be adhered to, an opinion in which he is supported by other well-known players of the past and present.

We have some reason to hope that before very long we may perhaps see a challenge issued to the champion, so great are the strides that the younger generation are making at the game; and though to those who watch John Roberts play it seems almost impossible that they will ever see his equal, it must not be forgotten that in one remarkable week when giving Diggle more than one-third of the game, viz., 9,000 out of 24,000, the latter absolutely scored more points in the first six days’ play than the champion. There can be no doubt that, within reasonable limits, in all games the greater the difficulties presented the greater is the satisfaction in overcoming them, and the higher is the standard of excellence attained; and it is much to be hoped that we may again see such interesting and scientific matches between our leading players as we used to have from 1870 to 1885.

One word more: is it not high time that the push stroke should be abolished once and for all? It is not allowed by any other billiard-playing nation, and is equally unfair with the so-called quill or feather stroke, which was tabooed years and years ago.

Regarding play on a championship table, little need be said; the practice prescribed for an ordinary one for the most part holds good, and diagrams of strokes, such as accompany Chapters IV., V., VII, and the figures of nursery cannons in Chapter X., are applicable with but little alteration. As regards cannons generally, it is of course evident that the stroke is the same on both tables, and as to hazards the only real difference is that with easier pockets there is a larger margin for error. Hence a few words of caution as to the execution of strokes and the policy of play are alone required. For making easy losing hazards, certainty is most readily assured by striking ball 1 a gentle strength rather under the centre; this has the effect of slightly diminishing the natural development of rotation and of decreasing the rebound due to elasticity after impact. A ball thus struck seems to travel on straight rather than on curved lines, and the stroke is specially useful for short jennies. Similarly for long losing hazards drag with strength rather under No. 2 will be found very useful: but hazards should be subordinated to cannon play; they should be chiefly used as a means of getting cannon breaks. When, however, they have to be played and are not certainties, it is better to strike with freedom than to attempt to secure success by extreme gentleness and caution; for accuracy is more probable when the stroke is played with customary strength than when great softness necessitates placing the ball at a strange angle. In case of failure also the freer stroke is less likely to leave an easy opening for the adversary, whilst at the same time it may be usefully kept in mind that if somewhat more caution in attempting a hazard is necessary, less apprehension need be felt as to leaving balls near pockets. It is a matter of common knowledge that on an ordinary table the better the stroke for a hazard, that is, the nearer it is to success (so long as that is not obtained), the greater is the penalty for failure. Realising this, many persons play with more strength than is necessary, in the hope of bringing the ball away from the pocket in case of a miss, which often results in consequence of the precaution. When pockets are difficult this consideration may to a great extent be neglected, and attention may be concentrated on making the hazard. Another point which should be noticed is that amateurs are more nearly equalised on a championship than on an ordinary table. A man who on the latter could give his adversary thirty points in a hundred, would probably find that on the former he could not give more than twenty points. The usual fault is that persons accustomed to the 3⅝ inch pockets are afraid of the smaller ones, and try a great deal too much for absolute accuracy, a procedure which is simply fatal to success. Hence strength approaching to that generally used by each person will be found best. Should the stroke be missed the balls will come reasonably away, whereas if it should be made, the player has presumably some idea of the position to be left, and a fair chance of continuing the break. By following that policy and by determinedly playing for cannon breaks, specially nurseries, success may reasonably be expected. Do not break your heart over difficult hazards, leave that to the adversary; but hold tenaciously to every chance of cannons. Play, in fact, as Ives did with Roberts. The latter could very possibly give the former half the game in one of the usual spot-barred exhibitions, but when the pockets were reduced in size and larger balls were brought into play, the American had the best of the deal and won accordingly.

From the preceding remarks it will be gathered that whilst for practice the manual prescribed for an ordinary table may be followed, in a game the player must pursue a different policy. Hazards which require strength greater than No. 2 should be avoided, and the ordinary idea of bringing the object ball back to the middle of the table after a middle-pocket hazard, half-ball or finer, should be superseded by playing with reduced strength, and, when the object ball is the red, being contented with leaving it in play, that is, between the lines PM, QN, laid down on many of the diagrams. When ball 2 happens to be the opponent’s ball endeavour should be made to leave it in the neighbourhood of the spot. With these qualifications the advanced player (and we think no other should use three-inch pockets) will find the directions for making breaks in Chapter X. useful, specially those which refer to play at the top of the table and at cushion nurseries; practice will soon result in a very considerable modification of the ordinary game, but the changes will vary with the personal qualities of the player, who will soon adopt those which suit him best. As scoring on a tight-pocket table is decidedly slower than on an ordinary one, it follows that safety and cautious play have more effect in the former game. Hence potting the opponent’s ball and leaving a double baulk, and similar tactics, are more likely to be rewarded with ultimate success than when that style of game is followed on a table with 3⅝-inch pockets. Whether that is or is not an advantage is a question for the reader to decide for himself; one good result with which it may be credited is to encourage the practice of strokes for the purpose of scoring from, or at any rate of disturbing, a double baulk.

It is, we think, unnecessary to say more at present respecting play on a championship table; in time, perhaps, improvement in amateur form may be so great and so universal as to make the more difficult supersede the easier game; but that day is distant, and speculation as to its requirements is under existing circumstances unprofitable.