MAJOR J.H. HARDCASTLE is a billiard enthusiast of a type unique in our experience. We have met many men who were able and ready to pick up a cue and show us something; it may have been of interest, it may have been merely an individual demonstration of no general value. But there was always the disconcerting human element, the variation due to the type of man behind the cue. John Roberts, for instance, often showed us what he called "a bit of screw," even "a little screw," Without appreciating that what he was doing was more than countless thousands of amateurs could equal if they practised for years.
WHERE Major Hardcastle is different, altogether different, is in his complete reliance on mechanical apparatus to record certain ball movements. He never picked up a cue to show us anything, but always arranged mechanism of his own invention and manufacture to produce the results he wanted to show. What is more, he drew no conclusions whatever from those results. His attitude was that of the detached scientist; he showed us things, very interesting things, but left us to draw our own conclusions.
We do so at his invitation, but without any claim to do more than set discussion going. There is plenty of room for views other than those we have formed, and the BILLIARD PLAYER is a free platform for those views.
BEGINNING by asking us to be a species of "human machine," Major Hardcastle placed three pennies on top of each other, a foot or so in front of the cue-ball, and asked us to play a forcing stroke, striking the ball rather high, and disregarding the pile of pennies. We did so with a rather heavy cue with a biggish tip, and to our surprise the cue-ball skimmed over those pennies. We were not aware of any "jump effect," but the Major tells us that this is commonly present when forcers are played in the manner described. Mind, it was a forcer, the ball was hit as hard as we could hit it, but the skimming jump, far too quick and shallow for the eye to detect, came as a surprise to us when the pennies were cleared.
FROM this we infer that many strokes are "steeplechasers" before ball-to-ball contact, to an extent little suspected. This accounts for sundry curious and baffling happenings. We all know that very weird effects come from these "forcers" at times. We all know how difficult it is to play them accurately. We now see that the cue-ball may "drop on" the object ball at some part of a skimming leap, thus bringing us to a ball-to-ball contact it is impossible to say much about. The moral seems to be to avoid "forcing them" as much as we can, and to be very careful of our cueing when one has to be played.
COMING to the purely mechanical aspect, Major Hardcastle adjusted a steel cue, stiff enough to be quite free from vibration, in an ingenious piece of mechanism which propelled it forward on a dead straight line and on a line perfectly horizontal with the bed of the table. We were at once reminded of Claude Falkiner's remark that perfect billiards demands a table with no cushions on it, as the cushions compel more or less of a "downward thrust" on the ball, which tends to set up swerve in certain shots, thus introducing an unpredictable factor.
MAJOR HARDCASTLE'S mechanism eliminated this, but it is only fair to point out that his cue angle was so far idealised, identical with that obtainable if all shots could be played as if cushions did not compel distortion of cubangle from the true horizontal. In addition, his steel cue, so dead true, so impossibly heavy for hand manipulation, so stiff and free from even a tremor, must be regarded as a piece of mechanism constructed for demonstration purposes. How far results obtained from it apply to normal playing conditions with a wooden cue in a human hand is a point demanding special investigation. There can be no doubt they do apply, but to what extent is very possibly a problem to be worked out by individual players according to their cue-power.
PUTTING a parti - coloured crystalate on the table, a ball half red, half white, the Major proved that a plain ball stroke at slow-medium strength sends the ball away with almost unmixed forward rotation, the two colours showing distinct side by side as the ball runs on-—but the moment it strikes a cushion and rebounds, the colours "mix" beyond recognition, thus proving that the axis of a moving ball changes on cushion contact. It does not appear that this has appreciable effect on the angle of reflexion at ordinary strengths, but the Major informs us that to preserve the maximum equality between the angle of incidence and the angle of reflexion it is necessary to strike the cue-ball slightly above its centre, a point of particular interest to snooker players when "potting" to get out of a "snooker" by making the cue-ball hit several cushions before hitting the ball "on."
THE Major also showed us that a ball carrying appreciable side spins along without any "mix" in rotation, running smoothly ahead and always revolving according to the side imparted. The effect of this was most marked, the red and white sections of the side-laden ball showing as distinct as if the ball was held still on the cloth instead of moving quickly with a good deal of side on it.
COMING to the big item on the programme, the question of transmitted side, the Major explained the special mechanism he has devised to settle this vexed question. At the end of his steel cue he fixed a large sector of a ball; a little had been cut away to flatten top and bottom to permit facility of spin, but the circumference was unchanged and the horizontal line of ball-to-ball contact identical with that in actual play.
SPINNING his cue-ball with a string acting on the principle of the humming-tops familiar to Victorian boyhood, the Major sent it smartly against a stationary cueball, thus mechanising the effect of a side-laden ball coming into contact with a stationary ball. The result, as checked beyond dispute by the record the object-ball made as it rolled over smoked paper, was the transmission of a recordable amount of side from cue-ball to object-ball. But the amount of side was so small that the eye could not see a trace of it as the object-ball moved away after ball-to-ball contact. Still, it was there, as proved by the smoked paper test.
BUT to scale this down to normal playing conditions it must be remembered that the Major's steel cue, working without sway or symptom of "see-saw," is a much more perfect instrument than any cue ever held by human hands; it may also be more powerful—that would depend very largely on its velocity at the instant of cue-and-ball contact. However, we may say that it is identical with human cueing inasmuch as it projects a spinning ball against a stationary ball. But, as surely as all things are relative, some indeterminable allowance must be made for the actual spin imparted. This, as noted, was produced by pulling a string smartly to make the mechanism by which the ball was suspended spin the ball at x—that x is the baffling problem.
SO far as we could judge, Major Hardcastle spun his ball much faster than it would be possible to spin a ball by means of an ordinary cue-contact. We doubt whether even a hand-stroke expert ever spun a ball at the" revs, per minute " recorded by the ball in the Major's apparatus. This, of course, does not affect the proof given that it is possible to transmit side from the cue-ball to the object-ball. Major Hardcastle has settled that for ever, and we are all greatly indebted to him for so doing. But the playing application, which he leaves as a thing apart and outside his province, does not appear to take us very far.
WE work it out like this. By means of a steel cue worked horizontally to a perfection, and, very possibly, with a power unattainable by the cues and hands we play with, the Major begins with the ideal tool for his job we should expect an experimenting scientist to use. In addition, he spins his cueball mechanically at a rate which we are convinced must far exceed anything obtainable when our champions meet, never mind what happens when ordinary cuemen put side on a ball. Yet the result is no more than the transmission of so little side that the human eye cannot detect it; the object-ball has to run over smoked paper to prove that side is actually transmitted.
FROM this, without in the least belittling the interest and importance of the Major's demonstration, we are forced to conclude that transmission of side, although provable as we have seen, is negligible in actual play. We expect to see this conclusion challenged by those who have always believed in the transmission of side; they will hail the Major's discovery as" proof that they were right and have been right all the time."Well, we live and learn a lot about billiards by our friendly little arguments, but with the possible exception of some very slight influence on the subtlest of requirements in close-cannon play, we cannot see where the transmission of side has the smallest playing significance.
IT is very different as regards the final experiment shown by the Major. He gave every player something to think about when he set his steel cue to impart a maximum of left side on the ball, pure side, with no mixture of top or screw. Propelling the cue as straight as machinery could direct it, the astonishing fact was revealed that the straight stroke, carried clean through, to the left of the ball, sent it away to the right—sent it no less than 6$frac12; inches to the right in a run of 6o½2; inches with the nap of the cloth. This, of course, seems to upset" billiards as played."We have all been taught that if you strike a ball to the left, the left side thus imparted will cause the ball to turn to the left when running with the nap of a woollen cloth.
YET, here, as plain as could be, the machine registered ball deviation to the right when powerful left side was used, side so strong that it brought the ball back to the cuepoint off the cushion. Upon thinking it over, the explanation is fairly obvious. Major Hardcastle has more power in his engine than we humans can put into our cueing. The consequence is that the powerful forward thrust of his steel cue sets up much more preliminary deviation than is usually apparent on a side-laden ball. This deviation is always present; Joe Davis showed it to us very clearly on a new Janus cloth at Thurston's. When he played a short jenny from hand into the left middle pocket, using the usual strong left side, the run of the ball to the right for the first foot or so was registered on the sensitive playing surface. Then, as initial momentum died away, the side rotation took effect and curled the ball into the pocket in the usual manner.
MAJOR HARDCASTLE'S powerful apparatus demonstrated initial momentum only, which would be in the reverse direction of the side imparted. There was no table space in which to allow the drift in the direction of the side to show itself, although indications of it were apparent towards the end of the run of the ball. The practical lesson from this is important. It shows that imparting drag in conjunction with powerful side, thus helping to keep the ball straight, is of playing importance. Many great players rely on drag to ensure true running in this way. John Roberts was especially fond of it. Joe Davis relies on it for plenty of shots. We have seen Walter Lindrum use it like the great cueman he is, and so we might continue until we come to Tom Newman. He can put "drag" on a ball; of course he can, but there is something so exquisite about his central ball striking that he must make far less use of "drag" than any other great player ever seen in action.
WE cannot conclude without expressing our thanks to Major Hardcastle for his scientific investigations, for his unique work on behalf of billiards and kindred games. He requested us to say what we liked about them; we have done so to the best of our ability. But we do not claim to have said the last word, even the right one; there is more in these things than it behoves us to be positive about. We therefore extend a cordial invitation to those who may have other views to send them to us for publication.