Two strangely contradictory attitudes are adopted by supposed authorities in the billiard world towards amateurs These are (1) that amateur play is not, and never can be, comparable with professional play, but (2) that in restrictive rules that are framed relating to the game amateurs and professionals are to be treated alike.
Taking these points in their order, we desire first to inquire: Is it true that amateur play is not, and never can be, comparable with professional play? There are amateurs who have made breaks under standard condition's amounting to some hundreds of points, and marked in their compilation by the most scientific, correct, and improved methods. They have exceeded the 100 off the red ball alone, and have demonstrated that in regard, at least, to knowing how to do it, even George Gray can teach them little.
They have successfully exploited in turn the spot stroke, nursery cannons, and top-of-the-table play in general, and have clearly demonstrated that all that they need to bring them up to the best professional form is the frequent long match against formidable opponents.
At the same time it may readily be admitted that the average of amateur play is not of a very high order, and the enquiry naturally arises how far the existing rules of billiards are responsible for this state of affairs.
Let us first take the abolition of the spot stroke by way of illustration. The elder Peall made mammoth breaks by aid of the spot stroke, upon which he specialized precisely as Gray is now specializing upon the middle pocket losing hazard. He practically lived and moved and breathed for that one stroke alone, as Gray has admittedly done for his stroke to the tune of several hours daily for six years past. If Peall had quitted the stroke for a time the stroke would have largely quitted him, and the same may be said of Gray with regard to his present speciality.
What we are now saying is easily demonstrable of proof.
A year or two ago Peall and Dawson—the old spot stroke antagonists—met at Soho Square with a spot stroke limit, which was comparatively seldom needed. Peall was found to have lost much of his old spot stroke touch and direction, and was at least never in danger of wearying his audiences with it. Therefore the spot stroke—as with any highly-specialized stroke—may be said to be largely a one-man stroke rather than a "one stroke."
But what happened with the spot stroke? Instead of allowing the stroke as an exhibition factor to kill itself, as it would indubitably have done, the Billiard Association stepped in and barred it, alike from professional and—hear this, ye heavens!—from amateur play. In our deliberate judgment the spot stroke ought never to have been barred, and ought to be reinstated. For this opinion—which may be regarded in some quarters as a rather startling one— we will proceed to give our reasons.
The spot stroke is not only an extremely technical and difficult stroke, only to be compassed with a great amount of perseverance and intelligence, but it is a conspicuously instructive one. Apart from forming the basis of top-of-the-table play—which is only, after all, a clever and beautiful evasion and development of the spot stroke—it is the whole science of potting (in pool and pyramids, not less than in billiards) written small.
Those wiseacres who in their day belittled the Peall stroke were on the same level of perspicacity and knowledge as the people who at the present moment are seeking to belittle the Gray stroke. To both sets the wonderful break efforts appealed, or are appealing, as a "one stroke" performance.
The red ball potting play may involve, as it does, the perfectly regulated draw-back, the running side follow through and round, the stab cushion stroke, the stun follow through, and the fine bring back with side, whilst the red ball in-off play may require, as it does, the plain half ball stroke, the half run through, the gentle fine in-off, the quick quarter ball in-off, the long loser with position regained off three cushions, and the raking top pocket forcer.
But to critics of this class it is all "one stroke."
What is now happening in regard to red ball losing hazard play, and what has happened with regard to red ball potting play? Thousands of amateurs are practising accurate losing hazard striking as they have never practised it before, but as regards the necessary positioning in top-of-the-table work—which the maintenance of the spot stroke would have taught them—they are for the most part hopelessly at sea.
If the spot stroke were restored forthwith, or a certain reasonable number of spot strokes allowed, there would, we are convinced, be no danger whatever of its being overdone, just as there is no danger of the red losing hazards being overdone. If Inman chose to get the white out of the way and score long red ball in-off sequences as a regular thing, he could do so. He has, indeed, freely used this prolific scoring factor, which he has cultivated more than any other English player—whilst climbing the billiard ladder and as a weapon in reserve for bad days and against very formidable opponents, but he has now outlived the expedient. In the same way, if the spot stroke were reinstated, it would, from time to time, be employed, and would interest the public if not overdone, but neither the losing hazard nor the pot is nearly so rapid a method of obtaining points as the winner-cannon movement at the
head of the table, and would from all points of view be relegated to a subordinate place by the best players.
The two great disabilities under which amateurs rest are, we suggest, the practical illegality of the extremely instructive and essentially important spot stroke (which, even under the Billiards Control Club rules, can only be introduced by mutual arrangement) and the absence of facilities for the playing of long matches in public. There may also be a social question, of which we need not speak. But so long as amateurs, who play in public, even for a charity, where money is taken at the doors, are classed by billiard rules as professionals, there is little likelihood of their obtaining that practice and experience in real, strenuous conflicts, which are essential if they, in considerable numbers, as well as in individual instances here and there, are to become, "comparable with professionals."
The following letter recently appeared in the press:— Referring to the correspondence and articles which have appeared recently in the press relative to a match between the champion, Stevenson, and George Gray, the Australian player, we beg to emphatically state that we waive all financial considerations with regard thereto.
From an imperial, sporting, and hospitable point of view, we are particularly anxious that these two celebrated exponents should meet, and, therefore, provided satisfactory arrangements can be made for the said event to take place, we have much pleasure in consenting to release the champion from his engagements with us for the fortnight commencing March 6 next, subject to the permission of owe or two clients who have already secured his services during the period mentioned.—We remain, yours faithfully, (For Burroughes & Watts, Ltd.) John R. Abbot, Director.
[The only question is, of course, whether Stevenson considers that a £200 fee, and another £250 if he wins, is quite good enough.— Ed. B.M.]