287.—"I always look forward to the coining of your paper every month. It is full of useful information, and the' cue tips ' have improved my game considerably. To-day I read with great interest your article on 'Elementary Billiard Strokes.' Your introductory remarks, however, seem to me to be a little unfair to the ordinary amateur. You say:—' In other pastimes with a scientific side, such as fencing, boxing, cricket, or golf, intending players who hope to excel usually take some pains to ensure a commencement of their acquaintance with the pastime on sound lines, but this is not always the case with intending billiard players, who, without am preliminary advice or training, etc., etc' Now, whose fault is this? In the games you mention there are competent professionals whose services can be got at a fee within our reach. In music and other arts there are schools all over the country, not to speak of first-class teachers, whose fees do not exceed £2 2s. for twelve lessons of one hour each.
In Glasgow £1 1s. is the usual charge for music. I know, because I am in the musical profession. Where can lessons in billiards be had for this money? Then there is the expense of private practice, which can only be had by paying 1s. 6d. per hour at any of the billiard saloons. It is not want of inclination to learn the game properly that is wrong with us. It is want of money to pay what can only be called prohibitive fees to professionals. I would be very glad indeed if I could get twelve hourly lessons for £2 2s. from a really competent teacher. I can see quite dearly that all the practice I can get will only bring me to a certain stage, and without professional coaching it is impossible for me to get beyond it. I go and see all the pros, who play in Glasgow. It is a perfect treat to watch them, but the only thing I have learned from seeing them is how to hold the cue properly and make a bridge."
We have pleasure in printing your question fully, as the point is one that has been somewhat in our mind of late. We agree with you that the charges of billiard professionals for lessons have been much too high, and we do not see why they should not, as you suggest, approximate more nearly to those made for music or languages.
Of course, the position of the professional in billiards must be taken into consideration. A man who is paid ten guineas for a two hours' exhibition game can hardly be expected to devote an hour to private tuition for half-a-crown or five shillings. Even in music this is not done by high-feed performers. At the same time, there are, or should be, excellent billiard tutors apart from the foremost ranks of cueists, and we think that these would be likely to make more money in the long run by giving lessons at, say, 5s. each than by standing out for 10s.
288.—"I am an enthusiastic follower of the game of billiards, and have put in a lot of practice, but I seem to be making little progress. At any rate, I find that people who began the game after I did and practise less are a long way ahead of me. They seem to agree, as they say, that I know 'a lot about the game.' but for all that they beat me. Can you kindly suggest what is the matter?"
If we saw you play for five minutes we could tell you, but otherwise it is difficult. However, we will assume that you know what cue and ball contacts to make to produce certain results, but that for some reason or other the shots do not come off. In such a case the reason must be in the aiming, or the cueing, or what is known as the personal equation; or possibly in all three combined. If you know what the cue and ball contacts should be; if your cue is properly held, and swung in the right direction; and if you do not interfere with it in any way right up to the completion of the stroke, you simply cannot help scoring and would go on for ever. What you have to do.
however, is to submit yourself to a number of tests, and first of all we suggest the following cue delivery test:—Strike the ball several times up and down the centre of the table, and if you cannot keep it there glance at your cue when you are addressing the ball and note whether it is exactly over the spot in the bottom rail or a little to one side of it. If the latter, you have found out one of your weak points, and an important one. Your cue does not point in the direction that you intend the cue ball to take.
289,.—"Would you please inform me if when playing snooker you pot a ball and go in-off does it count?"
When the cue ball follows another ball into a pocket the striker does not score, and the value of the red or coloured ball is scored against him.
290.—"I read an article In John Roberts in which he said unless you can bring your ball at will straight up and down the table over the centre spots you can never hope to improve your game very much. I have been practising this stroke about twenty minutes a day for the past ten months, and I am getting somewhat disappointed at the slow progress I am making. Three years ago I had a course of lessons from a well-known professional, but he did not impress me with the importance of this point. I should like your opinion as to what you consider a reasonable time in which to acquire this most valuable billiard asset."
We do not think that it need occupy you much longer.
If your cue is exactly over the spot in the bottom rail and you strike the cue ball exactly in the centre, the ball simply must go straight—it cannot help it. Either your body positioning or your cue delivery has been wrong, or possibly both combined. See also answer to No. 288.
201.—"Could you furnish me with (or let me know where I could secure) a list of Melbourne Inman's games of last season, with their averages for each session of each match: also that of his late match with T. Newman?"
We have not the detailed figures relating to Inman's play last season that you ask for, nor of his recent tournament match with Newman. The most likely source from which you might obtain the information would be "The Sporting Life" In the Inman-Newman match Newman made breaks of 530, 407, 361 and five above 200, against 510, 388, and two above 200 by Inman.
292.—"Playing in a handicap, my opponent forced his ball on to the woodwork of the table about midway between the bottom and the middle pockets, the ball running along the polished surface, over the middle pocket, right un to the top end of the table, and dropping into the top pocket. I claimed a foul stroke (for ' off the table' ), which he disputed. The balls were eventually spotted, and I was awarded the foul, but there have been some arguments as to whether this was the correct ruling or not."
There is no doubt that a wrong decision was arrived at, and there should be a re-play. The Rule No. 4 (d) B.C.C. is:— "A ball is forced off the table which comes to rest otherwise than on the bed of the table or in a pocket."
293.—"Can you explain why George Gray carries his cue so far through the stroke—sometimes half a cue length beyond the cue ball—in making his famous consecutive losers?"
Beyond a point this is a mannerism. It is only necessary to carry the stroke as far beyond the ball as it is drawn back from it. But doubtless Gray found in his early practice that he was apt to overlook this prime essential of the cue follow through and purposely exaggerated it accordingly—a method that has clung to him. As a matter of fact. Gray's long forward movement of the cue is really a dual one. He completes the stroke and then follows on in a sort of second movement as though to ascertain, after the event, what line his cue has actually taken. It is not necessary, but, at the same time, nothing can really be urged against it.