A reform in billiards, that might have a far-reaching and beneficial influence on the game, would be the substitution of a time limit in all games and matches for the present fixed points system. The disadvantages of the points system are that the proficiency and speed of players vary greatly and also that, when anything important is at stake, much time is occupied by the contestants with safety play and in making up the mind preparatory to striking. It frequently happens that, in private play on a public table, or at clubs, two good players have to pay their shilling for a twenty minutes hundred-up, whereas two players who occupy a whole hour in reaching the same total are only called upon to pay the same amount. Under the time limit the good players could play a game of 150 up for their shilling and the "duffers" would be asked to pay 2s. for their hour.
From this point another—and one of no small importance— emerges. Everyone is in favour of the sizes and shapes of pocket openings being standardized in order that handicapping may be properly and scientifically carried out, no matter what might be the table upon which the averages that form—or should form—the basic principle of the handicapping have been scored. True, the nature of the table so played upon is supposed to be taken into consideration in framing the handicaps, but this must be, at best, an uncertain and unsatisfactory expedient.
If, therefore, scientific handicapping based on averages requires for its entire success a standard pocket width, the adoption of the time limit would seem to be an essential in the bringing about of this desirable result, and it is equally certain that, until the play on public and club tables is charged by time, uniformity in the size of pocket openings cannot be hoped for. In order to make their tables pay on the points system the owners of many public tables favour large pockets, whereas under a time system there would be no object in doing so.
Quite apart from the question of handicapping, many hotel-keepers and others are already changing from points to time, and we believe there is no case on record in which, the time system having been once adopted, any departure has been made from it.
The question may be asked: "How are starts to be arranged when play is for a fixed time? But this point really presents no difficulty? Fractional precision is not called for, and the rest is merely a matter of almost instantaneous mental calculation. For example: A 4 average man gives a 3 average man 25 in one hundred, or a quarter of the game. They agree to play for half-an-hour and the 4 average man has to make one-third more points than the other in order to win, or the 3 average man has to make three-fourths of the points made by the 4 average man. Similarly, 5 would give 4 one-fifth of the game, 6 would give 5 one-seventh, and so on. It is merely, up to the" owing " stage, a matter of 100 divided by the start.
Objections have, we know, been raised to the time limit system, but these have mainly applied to the time, limit associated with fixed points. It has been urged, for instance, that if sessions were of fixed length, and were neither to be shortened when one player was at his points nor lengthened when both were behind their points, a long match might either terminate a day or more before its time and have to be declared drawn, according to the circumstances— a result that would hardly be likely to prove satisfactory to the public and that might seriously affect the gate of the immediate match and the success of exhibition billiards as a whole. But under the system of fixed time versus fixed points this objection ceases to operate, and we must, at any rate for the moment, confess our inability to conceive of any substantial disadvantage by which the time method could be accompanied.
The system will, indeed, be seen in operation next month, when, at the Soho Square Salon, Stevenson will allow Diggle a start of 4,000 in a month's play, and if this should be found to turn out satisfactorily when extended over so long a period and with players who are capable of making breaks into the neighbourhood of the thousand, it will be difficult for anyone to frame a coherent objection to the adoption of the system under all circumstances and with every class of player.
There is another point that is closely allied to the time limit, and that is the question of scoring speed: Suppose in the pending match that has been referred to, Stevenson should score 30,000 and Diggle 25,000. If would be a very simple matter to register the total time taken at the table by one of the two men, and the balance of the 48 hours would be the time occupied by the other, assuming that no abnormal cause of waiting—such as changing of balls—intervened. If the result of this time-keeping were that Stevenson was shown to have spent no greater time at the table than Diggle, the merit of his victory would from an important point of view, be greatly augmented.
As matters at present stand, the speed with which points are collected, either by the winning or the losing man, finds no record alongside the score.
The same thing applies in a measure to ordinary social games. Amateurs meet each other for years on the 100 or 250 up basis and have no clear idea of their scoring speed, whereas, if time games were the rule rather than the exception, the constant effort would be made to score 100 within 20 or 30 minutes, and the ultimate outcome of such a system and of such efforts would be brighter and better billiards.