The one great feature of the year 1875 was the introduction of billiard handicaps on the American system. With regard to these Land and Water observed at the time:-
"It seems now definitely settled that a handicap in which the eight best players will contend on the American system will take place. Thanks to the munificence of Messrs. Burroughes and Watts, who, for the third time during the past two years, have offered the sum of £100 to be given away in prizes, there can be no doubt of the handicap being a great success. One good point in the American system, which we may briefly describe, as each man plays one game with every other player, is that it necessitates a smaller number than an ordinary handicap. Hitherto sixteen has been almost invariably the number fixed on, as it avoids the necessity of having an odd man in the draw, which too often has been the means by which quite an inferior player has, by sheer luck, got into the final heat and won second prize.
"Now, eight men playing on the American system will play considerably more games than sixteen on the English, as the latter only play fifteen, whereas the former play twenty-eight at the very least, and probably more, as very likely there may be some ties. For instance, suppose two men or more win four games each, four being the greatest number of games won by any individual player-these men will have to play again in order to decide who is the winner. Another great point in favour of the eight best players being picked instead of more is that almost every match is interesting. Now, in some of the recent handicaps, when two men, neither of whom ranked among the first ten players of the day, by chance drew together, the spectators knew, to their cost, how extremely tame and uninteresting was the match. In the present instance Cook has chosen, we think, wisely, the players being Cook, Roberts, jun., Joe Bennett, Taylor, Timbrell, Stanley, Kilkenny, and Alfred Bennett. Now it is impossible to pick any two who will not make an exceedingly interesting match.
"How often, too, are people who take an interest in billiards heard to say, 'I should like to see a match between so-and-so'-e.g., Taylor and Joe Bennett. One good point in the forthcoming handicap will be that every man can pick any particular match he likes-every one playing with every one else. Then, again, the element of luck, so often the spoiler of sport, is, by the method adopted, almost eliminated. How often do we hear the regrets of some fine player who, owing perhaps to some lucky fluke of his opponent, is knocked out in the very first game, who probably, but for the fluke in question, would have been the winner of the handicap ? In the present case, no man who did not win a single game would be audacious enough to attribute his want of success to luck only; nor, on the other hand, should a player win every game he played, could the meanest of his opponents but candidly confess that he had fairly earned his triumph. However, a meeting of the players takes place, when all preliminaries are settled. Should some players prefer to be placed with less points against their names than would otherwise be credited them, the result would prove how far their wishes are the result of conscious power, or simply one of the many instances of the proud spirit that goeth before a fall. At any rate, never has any billiard tournament taken place that will so clearly bring out the respective merits of the different men who will contend.
"Billiards, as a sport in the present day, bids fair to take a very high position. We believe this is due partly to the high honourable tone of the leading professionals, and partly to the encouragement given in the shape of prizes, such as those lately offered by Messrs. Burroughes and Watts, who have done more to make billiards a recognised national amusement than any who have in their way been encouragers of the game for years past. There has never been any difficulty in finding men ready to come forward with money for a stake when a crack player has wanted backers. Various are the motives. Hundreds of men will put down money in the firm belief that they will win it back again, or for the love of being thought a sporting man, or simple vanity, but the case in which a sum of money is absolutely given away in hundreds is rare. It is much to be regretted that the example thus set is not followed by those who, with an earnest wish to encourage sport of all kinds, seem at a loss to perceive any other method open to them than that of backing their particular 'fancy,' too often to their own loss, and attended with the sacrifice of the honour of the 'fancy' in question."
The preliminary meeting is described as follows:-
"At a meeting that took place last Tuesday at the private residence of Mr. J. Burroughes, of the firm of Burroughes and Watts, the whole of the arrangements in connection with what will undoubtedly be the great handicap of the year were definitely settled. Mr. Burroughes being unanimously voted into the chair, the meeting, which consisted of all the players, with the exception of Roberts and Alfred Bennett, besides numerous representatives of the London press, proceeded to business. The first point decided was that the handicap should commence on Monday, January 18th, at three o'clock in the afternoon, at Joseph Bennett's well-known rooms in Oxford Street, almost adjoining Regent Circus. Two games will be played each afternoon, and two in the evening, commencing at eight. Consequently, the handicap will last seven days, and cannot be concluded before Monday, January 25. Should, however, there be any ties, they must be played off afterwards.
"The next point decided was the handicap itself, and resulted in the members of the press present being entrusted to decide the delicate question as to how many points each player should receive, it being previously determined that the champion and two ex-champions-viz., Joseph Bennett and Roberts, jun.- should all start at scratch. The members of the press having retired to another room for the purpose, there ensued what our old friend Herodotus used to call a great pushing of words. However, fortunately, the members were an odd number, and the following handicap was finally carried by four to three.
"Somewhat anxious were a few of the faces as the handicappers returned to the festive board. The feeling of honourable rivalry runs somewhat high among the upper-class professionals, and to their credit be it said that the feeling with each was that he preferred the honour of being thought well of in being allotted a few points to the mere pecuniary advantage to be derived from receiving many. After a laugh had subsided from the youthful Stanley observing in a tragic voice, 'Gentlemen, are you all agreed upon your verdict ?'-and certainly the scene was uncommonly like the return of a jury-the handicap was announced as follows:-Cook, Roberts, J. Bennett, scratch; Taylor 100; Stanley, 120; Timbrell, 140; Kilkenny and Alfred Bennett, 160. The verdict was evidently one of 'Guilty, my lord,' so far as Stanley was concerned, as he was evidently annoyed at receiving twenty points more than Taylor, which fact seemed to outbalance the honour of receiving twenty more than Timbrell. This latter player was probably surprised at being handicapped to receive points from a man whom he had but recently played and beaten in a match for a stake of £1,000. However, being a full-grown man, he concealed his emotions. For our part, leaving out of the question as to who is the best player of the three and who is the worst, we think the handicappers would have shown more worldly wisdom had they placed Taylor, Timbrell, and Stanley all on the same footing, as this would have been more gratifying to the players' feelings, and also an exceedingly interesting point in the handicap would have been the order of merit in which these three undoubtedly fine players would have placed themselves. As it is, should Timbrell beat Stanley, or both beat Taylor, much of the credit that they would otherwise have won is removed by the fact that points were given.
"After the question of the handicap was disposed of, the point next considered was in what proportions should the prizes be awarded, as, on the American system, each player gets a prize. Mr. Burroughes now announced that they proposed giving, in addition to the £100 in prizes, a gold medal to the winner of the first prize, besides which the whole of the profits of the tournament, which will probably amount to a considerable sum, would be added to the £100 and divided among the players. Joseph Bennett, also, has allowed the use of his room for the week for so small a sum that he may be almost considered as the giver of another prize. Cook also stated that he would give a gold locket, value £10, to whichever of the other players should make the largest break during: the handicap. After some little discussion, the principal difficulty being that the American system seemed to call for a more than ordinary knowledge of arithmetic, it was decided to divide the money in the following proportions:-The lowest, or rather the player who wins the least number of games, was to receive two parts, the next best three, the next four, and so on to the winner, who would receive nine parts; consequently, the whole sum of money will have to be divided into forty-four equal parts, and then distributed accordingly; or as the old-fashioned arithmetic books say-Example: Suppose the whole sum of money should amount to £220, each player will receive as follows:-The winner, the gold medal and £45, the next £40, the next £35, the next £30, the next £25, the next £20, the next £15 and the last £10. Some will probably think we have entered rather unnecessarily into a very simple and obvious calculation, but we have found so many persons who were quite unable to grasp the idea, that for their sakes we trust we may be pardoned by the more mathematical.
"But this last little difficulty was nothing to the awful problem that next presented itself, which was the order of play. It was determined that each man should play one game each day, that no man should play more than one each day, yet every man was to play every other man, and no two men to play twice together. Required: To draw up a list of four games with the names of the players for each of the seven days. A very pretty little puzzle or problem. The three rabbits with the three ears between them, and each to have two ears, was nothing to it. It was rather cruel of Mr. Burroughes to invite seven distinguished literary gentlemen to open an unknown number of bottles of excellent champagne, and then to present them with a problem that, to say the least, requires some little consideration. But the seven distinguished literary gentlemen behaved nobly under the trial. Reams of paper and bundles of pens and pencils were produced, and for a time silence reigned around.
"The scene almost recalled the Senate House at Cambridge, with Great St. Mary's chiming the quarters apparently every five minutes. After vainly endeavouring to divide n(n -1) by Moet and Chandon, the seven distinguished literary gentlemen settled to their work, and ultimately produced a successful result."
The handicap commenced on January with, and was, as every one had anticipated, a great success.
Roberts and Alfred Bennett were equal, each one having won five games. They played off the tie the following evening after the last game, when Roberts won easily, starting with a splendid break of 213, and ultimately winning by 140 points.
The next event of importance in 1875 was a match between Cook and Taylor for £200, the latter receiving 200 points in 1,000. Cook was in fine arm, and won by 474 points. The match was played immediately after the handicap, and on the same table, a very fine specimen supplied by Messrs. Burroughes and Watts. On a previous occasion these two players met, Cook giving 300, when Taylor won with great ease.
So complete had been the success of the first billiard tournament on the American system in London, that Messrs. Burroughes and Watts once more came forward with the offer of £100 for another one on the same system at Manchester. This was commenced on Tuesday, March 30th, and was played in the Cotton Waste Hall, Manchester, the players being the same as before, with the exception of Harry Evans being substituted for Timbrell.
The result of the handicap was an easy victory for Roberts, who won every game, in addition to which he secured a silver tankard, valued at fifteen guineas, for the best general average; while an extra prize, a fitted portmanteau, for the largest break in the handicap, was won by W. Cook, who in his game with J. Bennett made 304 off the balls.
Most assuredly Roberts's play in this handicap was a grand performance. Up to about this period Cook and Roberts, though handicapped to play level, were scarcely considered equal. Cook's long run of winning four matches in succession for the championship, as well as the fact of his having made the largest breaks on both an ordinary and a championship table, had caused him to be generally regarded as Roberts's superior. After this time, however, the position of these two players became reversed, Roberts taking a decided lead, which he has steadily increased ever since.
On Friday, May 14th, Cook and Taylor met for the third time, Cook giving 300 in 1,000 for a stake of £200. In this game Taylor reached 903 to Cook's 827, when the latter scored the game off the balls with a magnificent break of 173.
On the 24th of the same month Cook and Roberts met once again for the championship. Cook suffered a defeat, as Roberts won by 163 points in three hours and thirty-nine minutes. In this game Roberts's best break was 49, and Cook's 52.
In July, 1875, the two famous American players, the Dion Brothers, visited London, but their exhibitions proved a dead failure, as, in the first place, it was wrong to choose the summer, and, in the second, the English public have never yet shown any interest whatever in French billiards.
In July Stanley and F. Bennett met on a championship table for a stake of £200. After some weeks of wrangling, the game not being finished in time, and never played out, Stanley received the stakes.
Nothing of real importance occurred till the close of the year, when, on the 20th December, Roberts, jun., the champion, once more met W. Cook for another match for the championship. The result was Cook was again defeated by 135 points, the time of the game being three hours and twenty-five minutes Roberts's best break was 85, and Cook's 54. Unfortunately in this match considerable offence was not unnaturally taken, owing to the utter absence of any provision being made for the press, the room being so completely darkened, except the light on the table, that taking notes became impossible, and many papers failed to give any account whatever of the game. This was the last match of the year.