THERE is something of a shuttle movement apparent in billiards and kindred games. We must not press our analogy too close lest we invite comment from our friends who know exactly how a shuttle does move. This is beyond our comprehension; all we know is that a shuttle makes ordered movements which produce desired results in manufacture. Similarly, ordered movement is apparent winch gives results in the world of billiards.
SINCE attaining complete mastery in their own house, Mr. John C. Bisset and his colleagues on the Control Council have set a machine going on behalf of the game. Effort which was previously more or less scattered and spasmodic has been united, and new effort made in many fresh directions. Much of this ought to have been done before some of the members of the Control Council were born. Billiard government was born in an old newspaper office not far from where we sit; it was fostered or opposed by rival trade interests, by contending professional players, by newspapers who took sides in a hardy general argument, and the marvel is that it thrived sufficiently to exist.
NOW, of course, the above is altogether a thing of the past. Billiard government is in the unfettered hands of a body of amateurs whose sole interest is to foster the game in every way. The shuttle of time has so moved, but the shadow of the past is still with us to a regrettable extent. County organisation, trade advisory organisation, to mention two of many important things, are hampered because it is not generally realised that the old machinery has been scrapped.
OLD ideas are still much in evidence. Isolated and individual effort persists, because the advent of a new era is not realised as completely as it should be. During the chaotic past it was doubtless necessary for individual interests to stand aside and be ready to pounce on the ball when it came out of the scrummage of what billiard government there was. That is no longer either necessary or possible. Team effort has replaced it. When the ball gets moving it must be passed from man to man until the goal is scored.
THAT goal is success for billiards *- and kindred games. The opposing team is really every counter-attraction from the dogs to the cinemas. How much better it would be if this was generally understood and acted upon; it is to a growing extent, but there are still those who hanker for a lone run with the ball and who, at heart, regard the opposition as rival trade interests. These good folk seem unable to see that selling their own billiard goods is one thing, and a very commendable thing; but that fostering billiards as a whole is a bigger thing which can only be accomplished by team work.
TAKE the county organisation of billiards, for instance. Here, apathy is the big obstacle. Much of this apathy could be removed if everyone in the trade did all they could to arouse local interest. Some do, some do not; unity of effort in this direction would be a splendid thing for all, and it is very regrettable to note the absence of it. Much of it is doubtless due to the old and discredited feeling that billiard control is in the hands of a " few people in London "who cannot see much further than across the street from their office window. There was a time when that was only too true, no one knows that better than the writer, but it is altogether different now, so different that we have the Control Council arranging to send our Amateur Champion to South Africa to take part in the Empire Billiard Championship.
MENTION of championships reminds us that Sir Emsley Carr, Chairman of the News of the World and a Vice President of the B.A. and C.C., made a very relevant point when presenting the cup to Joe Davis at the finish of the United Kingdom Professional Championship at Thurston's. After congratulating the winner, and praising Tom Newman for his great fight as runner-up, Sir Emsley went on to suggest that close-cannons were still rather too prevalent in first-class professional billiards. He made his point with studied moderation, and mentioned, more in the tone of a friendly hint than anything else, that it might be advisable to compel the playing of a cannon off not less than two cushions after 35 consecutive ball-to-ball cannons had been made.
WE hasten to express our complete agreement with every word Sir Emsley said concerning the great play of Joe Davis. Better billiards has never been seen in any championship event at Thurston's, and Tom Newman lost after showing form which would have won many a past championship by the length of the street. Regarding the suggested close-cannon limitation, Sir Emsley's proposal has our complete support in a general way. It is another of the things that the shuttle of time has brought to us. Our leading professionals, helped by the perfection of playing conditions, have almost mechanised their game from session to session. The main aspect of this mechanisation is close cannon play, very clever, of course it is, but too much like the ticking of a clock to please the public.
WHATEVER may be done to change it, the fact is very plain t h a t more work for the Control Council is implied, work of that general character for the benefit of the game which entitles that body to support. Our own feeling is that whatever change may be made in close-cannon limitation is of primary interest to the professionals concerned. Amateur cueman are not affected in the least except so far as they can learn something from watching the play of professionals. Close-cannons are useless for this instructional purpose; there are a few amateurs who can make them and like making them, but we have yet to see one amateur "in the pit" who has any command whatever of the moves whereby the balls are "nursed" into position for close cannons.
THIS rules them out of amateur billiards in a playing sense. As a spectacle, they have ceased to draw, killed by over exploitation exactly as the spot-stroke was killed and the all-red-ball game ended. When the spot-stroke was done away with, \V. J. Peall, the unrivalled master of this great stroke, was the first to realise the true position and gave his ready help when the shot had to be legislated against. Our close-cannon experts should follow this admirable precedent. They should devise some means whereby close-cannons do not tend to spoil their show, as they undoubtedly do at present. They may rest assured that the governing body will be only too pleased to give careful consideration to whatever constructive proposition they may put forward.
MR. JOHN C. BISSET introduced Sir Emsley Carr in a speech which contained two important announcements. The first of these was that the governing body had decided to give official status to a standard small-size table. It is not our present intention to enlarge upon the very big questions opened by this decision. All we ask is that the new idea should be tested on its merits. It will be a great mistake in any quarter to turn it down unseen and uninvestigated. That must suffice for the present; our further remarks must be deferred until general opinion on the innovation has had time to show itself.
THE second announcement made by Mr. Bisset was that the Women's Billiard Association is to be incorporated in the B.A. and C.C. We understand that a representative body of women players will be formed within the governing body to. deal with all matters affecting billiards for women. This appeals to us as a change for the better. Billiards for women is making headway, but its boom cannot arrive until men and women play billiards together as a matter of ordinary spurting life, exactly as they do at golf and tennis. So far as it is a move in this direction, we welcome the change and hope the fusion will mean more play for women as time goes on.