Following Walter Lindrum's record breaking visit to England in the 1929-30 season, he became universally accepted as the greatest player the game had ever seen. In the last issue we published a letter from Andrew Ricketts, possibly the leading authority on Walter Lindrum today, stating the case for Walter to be recognised as being the best player in the World, not from this date, but as early as 1920, when most people in England accept that accolade as belonging to Willie Smith.
Here we have some responses from supporters of Willie Smith:
From Harry Smith—Australians have always been noted for their traditional love of sport and their sense of humour, and both of these are evident in Andrew Ricketts' piece on his hero, Walter Lindrum. As John McEnroe used to say he "can't be serious".
He claims that Walter was "already the greatest" by 1920, when he was 21 and had been playing the game for only 12 years, but later reminds us that "the development of billiards is a long and gradual process" and in his published biography of Lindrum he writes "a billiardist has to serve a long apprenticeship—up to twenty years—before he has, by regular practice and competition, developed the game to its potential".
Walter's father's challenge to take on anybody in the World for a side stake, is one of many that have been issued, the latest example coming from Mike Russell. They are largely publicity stunts. What Andrew Ricketts forgets to mention is that the challenge specified that bonzoline balls had to be used. Young Walter must have been allergic to ivory!
The demolition of Stevenson by Walter in 1922 appears impressive until you remember that Stevenson was 48 at the time, past his peak, and that bonzoline balls were used. And why did the best player in the World feel the need to harass the "old man", by, as Andrew revealingly puts it "employ(ing) that all-red route in a deliberate attempt to upset Stevenson"? Surely gamesmanship should not have been necessary to defeat a player who was not even considered a Championship contender in England at that time.
The games against Claude Falkiner in 1924 and 1925 are mentioned only in terms of Walter's 1,879 break, mostly from the red ball, but that break came in the final and deciding match, the players being level until then. Falkiner was a good player, but like Stevenson, was not considered to be a serious Championship contender. The session in Kalgoorie (Walter's birthplace) when Falkiner won 750 to 153 has not been referenced, nor are the many offers that were made to Walter to go to England—including one in 1924—that guaranteed him £2,000 for a season's play (around £70,000 in present day values) against the very best English players. In his book Andrew writes "The offer was firmly rejected. Lindrum was obviously reluctant to go to England, but the reason for his repeated refusal of attractive terms remained obscure".
Leaving aside Walter's fear of the harsh English winter, we can only conclude that he didn't feel he was ready to tackle the World's best players, especially using ivory balls.
When Willie Smith finally forced the confrontation by travelling to Australia in 1929, he managed to beat Walter in Sydney (though Andrew suggests that the game may have been fixed) and became the first player to make a 2,000 break in that country. An outstanding feat achieved by a visiting player in an unfamiliar environment using unfamiliar composition balls, and one which had apparently been beyond the ability of the "World's best player". Just to ensure that Willie didn't win the series, some of these Aussie "sportsmen" sabotage Willie's cue causing it to break early in the match. So in 1929 Walter became recognised as the greatest by defeating the 43 year-old Smith, and with the obstacle of ivory balls out of the way, he eventually came to England and started his amazing record breaking feats which established him as the greatest player of all-time. But the greatest before 1929? Don't come the raw prawn Andrew!
From Peter Ainsworth—During Claude Falkiner's tour of Australia in 1924 he played Walter Lindrum three level matches of 16,000 up winning the second and losing the other two. All of these matches having a winning margin of around 800 points. Falkiner returned to England and played two matches against Willie Smith before leaving on another overseas tour. Being given a start of 4,000 in 16,000 he was comprehensively beaten on each occasion by more than double the margin that Lindrum managed in a level game. Had Lindrum accepted the offer of £2,000 to return to England with Falkiner it would almost certainly have been him playing Smith in these matches. Could he have done better than Falkiner? Possibly—although he may have had more difficulty than Falkiner in switching to the ivory ball. Could he have defeated Smith? The figures suggest this would have been unlikely.