I sincerely hope that Chris Hudson will not take these comments prompted by his article ("The History of Cannons"in the No. 4 issue of the BQR) as in anyway personal. The myths surrounding Lindrum's record cannon break go back a long way. This is due to the inaccurate reporting and subsequent repetition. The other breaks mentioned in the article are well known to older players but nobody seems to consider that these were parts of larger breaks. It must have taken quite a few shots to obtain the pendulum or the nursery position and it is also very unlikely that these breaks ended with a simple cannon missed. As regards Lindrum's world record cannon break, I have a rule book printed in 1952 (A reprint of the 1939 Revised Edition) Having studied the baulk-line rule I realised that everything was not as straightforward with Lindrum's break as it might have seemed, but I thought that if players can accept without question so many peculiar things prevalent in billiards one more wouldn't make much difference. However, as I am rapidly approaching the end of my billiard days, and this fairy-talc has had a long enough run (59 years to be exact) it is time to clear it up lest it be perpetuated.
By and large the rule changes were the result of a running battle between the authorities and a handful of professionals; the millions of lesser players, the grass roots, on whom the success or failure of the game really depended, their opinions were not considered. The great players' enormous breaks may have been admired but the average player could not really relate to them any more than a one-legged person could relate to the performances of, say, Carl Lewis, the sprinter. I feel, that it would have been more beneficial for the game to base the limits, including the top-end play, on the abilities of the vast majority instead of on those of the few.
The first attempt to curb nurseries was that a ball-cushion-ball indirect cannon had to be played every 35 cannons This rule came into force some time prior to 1932 when McConachy, presumably complying with this rule, made his nursery runs on the top cushion. All he had to do was to push the inside ball a bit forward so that the two object balls formed near enough 90 degrees with the cushion, then hit the paint on it with a little running side and he was back in business. (Sounds easy, enough. Ed.) McConachy's breaks seem to have been instrumental in the introduction of the baulk-line rule, which was in addition to the 35 direct cannons rule and not a
replacement for it. At first, the crossing had to be made in every 100 points, and this was later increased to 200 points The rule was put on trial in the 1932/33 season and made compulsory in 33/34. Both rules appeared together in the 1934 rule book and they were worded exactly as in my 1952 book, except that by then the crossing had to be made in the last 20 points of every 200.
The rule affected all types of scoring but not equally. It would be relatively simple to set up a pot red at the top end or into a middle pocket and make the cue ball do a double crossing by driving it in and out of baulk As this sort of shot is clearly out of the question in nursery play, the crossing had to be done either on the green for a left handed player, or on the yellow side of the baulk line for a right handed player. It is impossible realistically to reconstruct Lindrum's cannon break for we don't know where the nurseries were set up and how many points had already been scored. With the rules being unclear as to whether the crossing was valid in one direction only or in either direction, there are two possibilities.
"Two and a half times" around the table implies 2 crossings in one direction (down the table) and 4 crossings in any direction (into baulk and out of baulk both counting as crossing the line.) We can, in fact, ignore both, for the rules stipulated one crossing in every 200 points i.e. every 100 cannons. Therefore 500 cannons needed 5 crossings whichever way we look at it. The usual explanation of this "Two-and-a-half times round the table," lies in the possibility of putting two 200 points back-to-back,' but crossing early and late in the break. Assume that Lindrum with his first shot gathered the balls on the green side of the baulk line, with the cue ball just out of baulk. Having crossed the line with his 2nd cannon he had 198 cannons left to take the balls around the table and cross the line again with his 200th. For this he would have to have averaged a comfortable 33 cannons per cushion lengths - exactly as McConachy averaged in his break. The remaining 329 cannons must have been quite something because he had to take the balls three more times around the table - one crossing every 100 cannons - making a total of five crossings. The last three crossings would involve 16-17 cannons per cushion. To do that the object balls would have to be inches away from the cushion which would make passing the middle pockets easier but at the same time made the turning around the corners more difficult, not to mention complying with the indirect cannon rule.
However, assuming that crossing the baulk line in both directions was legal then, "two and a half times round the table," is feasible and this is where Chris Hudson's calculations about the cushion lengths inside and outside of baulk become valid. Bearing in mind that it is far easier to make 100 cannons on the shorter route in baulk, than to do the same on the much longer route outside (and complying with the indirect rule) the break could have looked something like this: Nurseries obtained with the first stroke on the top cushion; 100 cannons to the green crossing, another 100 to the yellow crossing, then back to the green crossing with the 3rd 100 cannons and so on. The break of course, still needed 5 crossings. The 529 cannons were undoubtedly made, but it is not clear whether it was made in accordance with the line rule. What I find most extraordinary is that Lindrum does not seem to have made much bigger breaks when he could assuredly have done so prior to the line rule. Quiz: For a spot-end player it was possible, at least in theory, to put together any number of 200 points back-to-back. If we assume that Lindrum did that at the beginning of his break, then would it have been possible for him to repeat this whilst in nursery position and if so, how? - Order my book - with the right answer and I'll send it at a three pounds discount.
"The play in the fifth heat of the Gold Cup Tournament at Thurston's Hall in Leicester Square on Saturday was made remarkable for a new cannon record which was set up by Lindrum during the afternoon. Large runs of close cannons were made by the Australian and other players before this form of scoring was legislated for by the introduction of the baulk-line rule, but by making a run of 529 consecutive cannons on Saturday Lindrum exceeded them all and incidentally achieved the unique distinction of actually playing the balls a little more than two and a half times round the table.
"By a type of freak stroke bigger breaks than this were made by the use of what was known as the pendulum cannon, and before that by the anchor stroke, but in both cases the balls were kept stationary and the achievement could not be held to bear comparison with the runs made by playing the balls along the cushions. Lindrum's run is the highest ever made by what might be regarded as orthodox methods. Earlier in the season Davis had shown that the problem associated with the baulk-line rule, which was introduced for the purpose of placing some sort of restriction on this form of scoring, could be overcome in the same way. The method adopted is to make the necessary baulk-line stroke which has to be done at least once in the course of every 200 points scored in a break, by playing the balls over the line as the cannon run proceeds, and then to cross the line again as the balls are played out
of the baulk area. To accomplish this the player has to avoid"nursing"the balls too closely so that he can play them round the table to make the necessary line stroke in time.
"Before Lindrum secured position for his record run Davis had made breaks of 185 (37 cannons), 91 and 68, while his opponent's chief breaks were 235 and 73. Then, at his seventh visit to the table, Lindrum obtained position with the three balls close together above, and just to the left of the billiard spot. By perfect control he played the balls as a left-hand player along the top cushion, down the left side, and twice round the table without experiencing any appreciable difficulty. Lindrum completed four figures and went on with the cannon run until he had taken the balls again into the baulk area, but when he had passed the right bottom pocket he missed a thin cushion cannon, the run having realised 529 and the break 1,164. It was a really remarkable achievement, and must provide the controlling body much cause for consideration concerning the value of the present experimental baulk-line rule. The remainder of the play was unimportant. During the session Lindrum scored 1,550 for an average of 187, while Davis made 399 for an average of 50, and Lindrum reduced his opponent's lead from 3,987 to 2,836.
"The scores at the interval were: Davis (receives 6,000) (in play), 14,556; Lindrum, 11,720." (Result of the match: Davis 24,758; Lindrum, 24,007.)