George Gray has now made his many thousands by going in off the red just as Peall made his thousands by potting the red, and, logically viewed, as good a case exists for barring the one stroke as the other. It is, however, certain that billiard public opinion would not consent to a restriction of successive middle-pocket red losers to two and the question that remains for serious consideration is: Should any, and if so what, limit be put to losing hazard scoring off the same ball?
Not red ball play alone is involved in this consideration, for if winning and losing red hazards were restricted without the white ball being included there would be nothing to prevent a Gray, or a Lindrum, from making a session's points off the white ball alone.
Let us endeavour, therefore, to inquire whether some one simple and comprehensive rule might not be evolved which, whilst eliminating all possibility of monotony from billiards, would still leave scope for specialization to a reasonable extent. As the game stands there is a close limit to red potting strokes and a less restricted limit to ball-to-ball cannons.
There is no limit to losing hazards or to mixed pots and cannons, otherwise known as top-of-the-table play. The monotony of the spot stroke led to the invention of the winner- cannon movement, to which great players such as Roberts, Mitchell, Dawson, and Stevenson, turned as a natural development of spot stroke specialization. Good spot stroke capacity is, indeed, essential to any player who desires to excel at top-of-the-table play, and it may be suggested with some confidence that if Peall had not, in his day, carried the spot stroke to the point of monotony, just as Gray is now carrying the losing hazard stroke, the top-of-the-table game, with all its consummate beauty and endless variety would never have been heard of.
In suggesting this, however, we are very far from attributing the modern top-of-the-table game to the barring of the spot stroke. The stroke was not, indeed, barred until after it had ceased to attract or until the winner-cannon alternative, as perfected by John Roberts, was in free and fruitful use. It has been ever so, until quite recently, in the history of billiards. When no professional could be found willing to publicly specialize on a close potting or a close cannon stroke and when the public could not be drawn, even with ropes, to witness such a display, officialdom has stepped forward, and, with much fuss and circumstance, enacted superfluous restrictive laws.
What is needed in billiards control is uniformity and consistency and the two alternative suggestions that we now desire to make have this prime desideratum in view.
Our first suggestion is that no limit or restriction whatsoever be placed upon any properly-executed stroke at billiards. (The "push" is not a stroke, either in billiards or in any other game played with a stationary ball, and may be left out of the consideration).
In advocating this radical step we would point out that the likelihood of professionals carrying any one stroke to the point of monotony is as remote as the likelihood of amateurs being able to do so. Long before George Gray was heard of in the billiard world Inman had made long runs off the red, but it was during those years when he was fighting for recognition as a scorer, and when, acting under good advice, he was adhering to the open game as a safer points-collecting medium than close tactics. He now plays the close and open game almost equally well, and it is as inconceivable that he would indulge in public in long bouts of the still legal red losers as that he, or any other professional, would specialize on the spot stroke if it were revived.
There is an alternative suggestion, and it is the simple and comprehensive one that not more than twenty-five consecutive ball to ball cannons or winning or losing hazards should be made. The present rule as to ball to ball cannons is that an indirect cannon must intervene to permit of the renewal of the sequence. Similarly in the case of winning hazards either a cannon or a losing hazard would suffice and in the case of losing hazards a cannon, winning hazard, or losing hazard off another ball.
By this means, instead of the practice of essential billiard strokes being discouraged by too close restrictions, a direct incentive to their reasonable cultivation would be provided, whilst, at the same time, all likelihood of monotony would be eliminated from the game. Indeed, attractive features would be added to it, just as already exist in connection with close cannon and top-of-the-table play. To the informed billiard spectator nothing is more fraught with interest and mild excitement that noting how a professional, at the close of a run of twenty-five direct cannons, invokes the aid of a cushion or guides the red to potting position, or, after two successive pots from spot into a top pocket, wheels the cue ball round to take up position for another pot or in-off at the centre of the table.
Cannot some professional—John Roberts for preference —think out a method before the next season opens for largely utilizing the red losing hazard within certain restricted limits? We suggest that a 1,000 break is to be made on these lines with greater certainty than in any break in which top of the table play predominates. There is, indeed, already one such method, which was invented by Mitchell, and is called "the circular break." Of this style of scoring Mitchell says that there is no reason why it should not be kept up until the striker drops beneath the table from exhaustion. The red is over a middle pocket, the white is against the cushion above the billiard spot, and the cue ball is in hand. Red is potted and cue ball left below spot. Gentle cannon leaves red over top corner pocket. Pots leave cue ball against top shoulder. Cross in-off leaves red over middle pocket. Result. Eleven points in four safe strokes and as much variety as anyone could reasonably desire.