To the Editor.
I have read with interest Col. Western's article in this month's issue of The Billiard Monthly, but he has overlooked the fact that different sets of billiard balls, though of the same material, often throw different angles. Taking ivory balls first, I remember years ago playing with a set, the half-ball angle of which was quite as wide as that of average bonzoline balls, and on the other hand a professional— I believe it was Cook—has told me that he once played a match with ivory balls which threw so narrow an angle, that when playing the long in-off from the D with the object white on the centre spot, the cue ball had to be placed on a spot nearly 6 inches—instead of the customary 3½ inches—from the end of the D line. Indeed, it is a matter of knowledge that professionals often speak of a certain set of ivory balls as being wide-angle or narrow-angle balls as the case may be.
Again, good players who have played with many different sets of bonzolines or crystalates, are well aware that there is often a considerable difference in the throw-off angles of two sets of balls of the same size and make.
It would appear that Col. Western's exhaustive tests have been entirely confined to three sets of balls—one of ivory, one of bonzoline, and one of crystalate—otherwise he would not have made the error of stating that, contrary to the general belief, bonzoline balls, instead of throwing a wider angle than crystalates, throw a narrower one. I do not for a moment doubt that this is the case with the sets which Col. Western used in his experiments, but this is certainly not my experience, nor is it the general one. I feel sure that Col. Western will readily allow that the angle which is thrown by any set of balls—not in degrees and minutes but to practically the centre of the pocket—can be found by any decent player—say a player who regularly makes sixties and seventies—without recourse to mechanical devices. A few trials by such a player of the long in-off from the D with an object ball on the centre spot is all that is necessary to discover which of two sets of balls throws the wider angle, and if, as Col. Western remarks, the general opinion is that bonzolines throw a wider angle than crystalates—this opinion, of course, refers to the average balls of each make —he may safely take it that this opinion—which indeed is not an opinion but knowledge—is founded on truth.
My own experience derived from games played with many sets of all three kinds of balls is that average crystalates come off just slightly wider than average ivories, and average bonzolines just slightly wider than average crystalates.
Col. Western's experiments have all been made at No. 2 strength, but such a stroke played without screw or side is a somewhat different stroke in a game of billiards from what it must be in his experiments. The reason of this is because a No. 2 stroke is a fastish one, and for such a stroke without side or screw the cue ball would almost always be struck well above the centre with the result that the curve after contact would be fairly pronounced.
Like Col, Western I have absolutely no financial interest of any sort in any make of ball, but I cannot help wondering what the makers of crystalate balls will say if they read that a crystalate ball diverges from the object ball 3 inches more in 5 feet than an ivory ball when the contact is halfball, and 4 inches more when the contact is quarter-ball.
Col. Western is wrong when he states that the recognised standard size of a billiard ball is 2 1/16. The standard size is 2 1/16 to 2 3/32. Consequently the composition balls, 2 5/64 and 2 3/32, with which Col. Western made his tests, though larger than the ivory balls used by him, were not over-size but strictly standard. As a matter of fact, professionals when making a match often stipulate for 2 5/64 balls, which size is, of course, the mean between the extreme limits of standard size.
In conclusion, may I state how very delighted I have been to come across the current number of The Billiard Monthly so far away from home.
Riso LEVI.
Shepheard's Hotel, Cairo.
Dec. 10th, 1912.
To the Editor.
I have a suggestion to make that I think is worth consideration, as it appeals to the amateur style of play. As the ruling of the game stands now, the winning hazard is barred practically; the cannons are limited; and they are talking of checking the losing hazards If they do, then the whole of the game is penalized. My opinion is, and it is backed by the majority of West End club members—that the only thing that should be barred is the push stroke, the spot, cannons, and losing hazard remaining in, as in the original game. If professionals excel at certain shots let them in their matches or tournaments to make their own stipulations.
It is the billiard-interested public that keeps the game up.
What would the professionals do without them. Therefore the rules should be made for billiard players generally.
Now for my suggestion. Instead of the red ball counting 3, let the white count 3 and the red ball 2—that is all. If a player is good at losers he naturally will play on the highest scoring ball, which would then be the white, and he cannot regain position by potting that ball as he could at present do with the red when his strength was faulty. The white should be the highest counting, not the red. The white is penalized if potted by remaining dead, the red is spotted. Therefore the red should be regarded as the minor.
GEO. CLARKE,
Head Marker, Junior Carlton Club.
Dec. 7, 1912.