Dear Tom
Thanks for BQR which arrived today.
Riso Levi states in the preface to, "Billiards in the Twentieth Century," that he believes that Lindrum's book on billiards was written by W. G. Clifford.
I was interested to read in Paul Wood's article that Clarke McConachy is credited with being the first player to score over a thousand in two consecutive visits to the table. However, Riso Levi's book does not say that he was the first player to do this feat. On page 95 of the 1937/38 edition of the Billiards Association and Control Council Handbook and Rules, under the section entitled Notable Achievements, the second paragraph reads:- "Three breaks of over 1000 were made in consecutive turns by W. J. Peall (1601 and 1139) and Fred White (1085) in 1889." Thus W. J. Peall scored two consecutive breaks of over 1000 before Clarke McConachy was born.
To the Editor:
I've just been told that the amateur one day tournaments developed because the professionals wanted a guaranteed prize fund. Well, nobody asked me. I'm quite prepared to play for the prize pool, and many amateurs have said to me they would like the pros to play.
There are not enough billiard players to have divisions of politics or personality and I am quite sure that most pros would play for a floating prize fund.
Let's get the one day tournaments back to the best possible format to promote the game and get the best matches."
Robby: I don't know who suggested this to you but I feel that it is not true. The Mini-Prix prize money structure was developed by Des Heald and, as far as I remember, was boosted to the present figures at the Huntingdon Tournament of some three years ago. The Amateur Tournaments, now in their second season, were initiated by Derek Townend envisaging a nation-wide network of amateur players, ranked, and possibly eventually handicapped, a network tied in with the new WPBSA Amateur Snooker and Billiards Association and catering for all classes of amateur player. These ABC events have a prize money structure dependent upon the number of entries. There will be eight of these events this season and the entry fee stands at £12 - the same as the Pro-Am. I can assure you that Townend has nothing against professional players as is shown by his 100% attendance at the Pro-Am, and his support of professional events where he referees at times.
You are quite right in saying that there are not enough players for divisions. I would go further than that and say that if there were to be, say, a half-dozen Pro-Ams then there would be hardly enough players to go round. We might have the ironical situation whereby, from the position of a few years ago when there were not enough tournaments, we might have too many! Players are picking and choosing. I, too, speak to many players, and am left with the impression that whilst the better/keener players welcome the chance to play against Russell or Foldvari, the more amateur type of amateur is much more likely to support an all amateur tournament on the premise (mistaken!) that he has more chance of getting through a round or two. The brutal truth is that the Pro-Am cannot function without sponsorship of some kind. There is very little money around, and although there was a good turnout at Widnes a few weeks ago, last year's overall figures were not good.
As regards the organisation of the Mini-Prix, remember that the series was organised for a good few years by the then amateur Des Heald, and is now reluctantly organised by another amateur - me. It costs in time and money to set up a Mini-Prix, whilst the benefits of the tournaments have been overwhelmingly to the professional player. (I am not forgetting the generosity of Aughton, Ltd, and Rees Bros.)
I look forward to the day when the distinction between amateur and professional is dropped, we all become players and compete on something like equal terms through handicapping, whilst the prestigious tournaments (World Championship, etc.) are restricted to those players who have something of a realistic chance (or who really want to play) by a sharp increase in the entry fee.
In the meantime I feel that it is up to the Professional Players Committee to look to providing an events structure which caters for professionals including all those who wish to pay up for the privilege of being known as a professional billiards player. (Ed.)
Dear Sir,
I would like to comment on the items in BQR. No.9.on pages 13 and 19.
The double elimination format is an alternative to the round robin for a couple of reasons. In the past, a player who has lost games in the round robin and, knowing he cannot qualify, has failed to complete his commitments and left the tournament without playing any more games. Also, a player may continue playing in the knowledge that he can't qualify and play in a diffident manner not to his full potential. In either case this action may bring about the ire of the officials and possible action against the player. Also, it can disregard a non-essential game in the latter stages of a round robin when two players meet and their game has no consequence on the result since neither can qualify. These games are often referred to as, "dead games." The double elimination format means that a player must lose twice to be eliminated from the tournament. This format may continue until there are 8 or 4 players left and them played on a knockout basis. I neither praise nor condemn this format - I just accept it for what it is.
As regards the problem I agree with your answer but I did it differently. I took the 12ft + twice 1/4 inch minus twice the half diameter of the cueball. This gave me lift 10 and 7/16 inches. I then multiplied this by 6 and came up with 71ft 2 and 5/8 inches. I liked your comment about the cueball speed being disappointingly slow. I would not like to be hit between the eyes with a cueball travelling at 25 mph. Speed is relative. The fastest runner in the world cannot run this fast. 100 mph might seem fast but a 747 Jet would literally fall out of the sky at that speed.
Also I do not know if there was an error or an omission going to print, but I believe the expression 4D/H is wrong. The diagram showing the path of the ball is correct because an object falling is governed by the square of the time. I believe that the expression should be 4D divided by the square root of H. With the statement, "if it is actually struck above the centre with a downward blow," it is getting into the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, which only complicate matters. Here is another thing to consider and complicate matters even further. If the ball is struck as shown in the diagram, then the ball will have a forward rolling motion and the top of the ball will be travelling faster through the air than the bottom of the ball. According to the, "Bernoulli Effect, "his will cause the ball to keep airborne and travel further. It is the due to the Bernoulli effect that a baseball pitcher can throw a curve ball, cause a golfer to hook or slice, and keep a plane flying. However, with the low speed of a cueball and its lack of aerodynamic shape, the effect will be virtually non-existent.
Thanks for your letter Geoff and especially for those parts of it that I could understand! As regards the double elimination, it was a compatriot of yours (unnamed) who made the criticism. This format is unknown here though there has recently been some criticism of a version of it whereby at some snooker tournaments a defeated player has been able to buy his way back into an event.
The answer to the problem was not mine -1 couldn't work it out. The answer was supplied by the originator of the problem, Brendan Carroll. 'You are the only to have to have arrived at the same solution as Brendan The comment about the cueball speed being "Disappointingly low," again is not mine. The comment is again by Brendan Carroll in the light of an experiment of George Oneda (U.S.A.) As regards your comments on the formula I am not qualified to comment and will pass your letter on to Prof. Carroll of the Academy of Quantitative Billiards. (I hope that you are not taking Brendan and Ivan 1V too seriously.) Thanks and keep writing.
Dear Tom
The latest issue of BQR raised some stimulating topics and I am pleased to enclose my subscription for another year. Amateur Billiards needs a governing body which is genuinely interested in the game of billiards rather than just being an adjunct to a body whose principal interest is snooker. Surely the same applies to professional billiards as well. On the other hand billiards cannot afford to distance itself too far from snooker when many players both at amateur and professional levels play both games. My thanks to those worthy gents who have taken it upon themselves to organise the EABA Championships. As secretary of the Bradford and District Sunday-School billiards league, I know that organising even local tournaments is no easy matter. One small complaint though, why are all billiards competitions now played on Sundays? I enjoyed playing in the Mini-Prix series in its early days when some competitions were played on Saturdays and I have also enjoyed the regional stages of the English Amateur over the last few years when the matches have been arranged for Saturdays. But these and those of the Amateur Circuit now seem to be exclusively on Sundays. I have mentioned this to Derick Townend before. I play my billiards for a church team in the local league and as well as playing my billiards there I am also the Church treasurer and a regular member of the congregation. It is impossible for a practising Christian to worship on a Sunday morning and also play in a billiards competition that starts on Sunday morning. Finally, I was interested in the achievement of Ron Wilson - 125 points in a half-hour at the age of eight. Does he stand on a box to play? My own experience of very young players is that before the age of about twelve they are too short to reach the table properly which results in a round arm type of cue action which is difficult to correct as they get older.
My own children are currently 5 and 2 so this is a question which will be of direct concern to me in the future. At what age should children be encouraged to play - or for how long can I seriously expect to keep them off the table! Thanks again for an excellent magazine.
And thank you Mr Kershaw for the compliment. With regard to your comments re billiards and governing bodies I think that page 4 of this issue covers the matter as regards amateurs. Professionals do have a billiards sub-committee of the main body of the WPBSA.
As regards Sundays I respect your views as a practising Christian. The truth of the matter is that most club owners are not willing to provide facilities for billiards on any other day except Sundays. It is simply a matter of practicalities.
Robin Wilson (His name was mistakenly published as Ron) does not stand on a box. I have now seen him play. I do not think he is any taller than the average eight-year-old but he does not stand on a box and his cue action is not particularly round-armed. With regard to your own children I had something of the same problem myself. I gave it a deal of thought and, though a great lover of billiards myself, I bought them a set of golf clubs!