"I was loaned several copies of your magazine from a protege of mine, Frank Humphries. I was very interested in your articles about the top-of-the-table, they were excellent. I would like to make a couple of comments. Firstly, when changing from a red ball player to the top, the player must think top all the time. He must consider that when he gets there in the shortest time possible there will be some sort of break. Secondly he must be sure to get closer to his work by having the cue-ball approximately fifteen inches from the red ball, no further - when the red is on the spot. The fewer the number of shots to get to the top the more consistent will the player become.
Early in my life, until I was about 21, like all players I played the red ball and could make breaks from 100 to 800; but it is slow work. In 1931 when I was 21, I played with Horace Lindrum for about three weeks. We played together every day whilst I was on holiday in Melbourne and I completely changed to a top-of-the-table player which made my scoring rate much faster and from then on all through my career I could average a hundred points in about five minutes. Against Tom Cleary in the Australian final of 1953 I made a break of 702 in 37 minutes and my break of 1,057 took 48 minutes. I have a certificate from the B.A.& C.C. signed by the then chairman, John Bisset that, in the 1951 Australian Championship I made a new world amateur record break of 589 unfinished in 25 minutes and had a session average of 110.08.
I think that what stands out after developing the top is how much better your averages get. What made me most happy with my billiards was not so much big breaks but having a good average. I have averaged 100 points or more in a two hour session on 34 occasions the highest being 129.9 in the third session of the 1962 World Championship against Wilson Jones who, by the way, is not only a great friend but a wonderful gentleman and a fine ambassador for India.
I think that what helped me to become a fast player was not just the top-of-the-table method but the fact that I used to give the lads in my home town of Bayswater 400 start in twenty minutes, those were the days when we played twenty minutes for sixpence.
I am not in favour of the 150 up format, it is not good for the public or the game. Time would be much better. Time would give all players a chance of making big breaks which would please the paying public.
The 150 up is not a good test and makes slow players slower. Against all players I always used to set myself a target of 1000 in two hours, I didn't always do it of course but I often did and my highest was 1,889 in the Australian Championship. I have carried on a bit but I felt I owed it to you, many thanks for the magazines, let us hope that the great game can be saved,
Best Wishes to you all
I was sorry to learn from the October B.Q.R, that the future of the Mini-Prix is in some doubt. I have visited a few of these in and around the London area and immensely enjoyed watching the top players. Unfortunately, most of the Mini-prix have been out of my reach but I enjoy reading about them and admire the dedication of the organisers, particularly Des Heald, who I have met and spoken to. However it seems that these efforts will go unrewarded due to lack of sponsors. Billiards will possibly never recover its past glories It seems unable to stand alone as does snooker.But public interest might be aroused in the game if it were part of a package - snooker, billiards, and pool. A competition to find the world, "All-Round Champion," might attract the T.V. and then a fillip would be given to all three games. I believe that saturation point has been reached in snooker, apart from the World Championship, the public are becoming indifferent. Something new is required and an all-round tournament might be the answer, the Eddie Charlton springs to mind as a possible winner but there are many others who would be treading on his heels if decent prize money were involved. Could it be done?
Dear Tom
I would like to add a few comments to the letters published in Billiards Quarterly Review, Issue No. 10, from Robby Foldvari and S. Kershaw, and your editorial response to them. I think it was apparent to many people that when the ABC tournaments started up alongside the Mini Prix events, one or the other would have difficulty surviving. Although billiards players thankfully seem to be an increasing army today (for the first time in my memory,) it does appear unrealistic to expect fifty or sixty of the breed to travel the length and breadth of the country to play in one-day tournaments as frequently as twice a month. Some, of course, are willing and able, and indeed delighted to have such opportunities, but for many the reality of conflicting commitments and/or financial restraints make such dedication to the cause an impossibility. In such circumstances a choice has to be made, and it seems to me that amateur billiards players have voted with their cues in favour of ABC.
Personally I miss Mini Prix events, to which I always travelled with fond hopes of easing out Dagley in the first round, cruising past Close, Gilchrist and Foldvari before annihilating Russell in the final. Sadly, I am still waiting for this to actually happen, but such are the fantasies of the billiards nut! Seriously though, I am quite sure that exposure to such brilliant artists has helped many ordinary players like myself, to lift their game on to a higher level, and that Mini Prix has had a definite and lasting effect upon overall amateur standards in England.
Please note that none of my remarks are meant to imply any criticism whatsoever of Derick Townend for his promotion of the ABC events. Indeed I would congratulate Derick for his vision, organisational skills and the sheer effort involved in beginning and sustaining these tournaments, which are obviously providing superbly well for the needs of the amateur player; the billiards world owes so much to the unselfish and untiring efforts of such enthusiasts. With the continuing success of ABC, it seems most unlikely that more than two or three Pro-Ams a year would be viable. The harsh facts of life dictate that if the professionals require more than this, then it is up to them or their Association to take some initiatives.
With regard to one-day tournaments now being played exclusively on Sundays, I think that it is a little misleading of the editorial comment to place all of the"blame"for this upon the host clubs. As a club proprietor myself, I would much prefer to promote in-house tournaments on a Saturday, as this is a quieter day than Sunday in my club and, I believe in most other clubs. However, from past experience I know that Saturday events will be markedly less well supported than Sunday competitions, and this is the real reason for the inclination towards the Sabbath. It is the great majority of the players who require Sunday dates, free from work commitments, shopping duties, and with the advantages of easier travel and parking, although it does seem that we are rather failing Mr. Kershaw (and no doubt others) who are unable to participate on this day.
Just a couple of points to finish off my ramblings. One quite often sees references to professional billiard players which include their ranking status, but, unlike in the snooker world, I cannot recall ever seeing a comprehensive listing of the current billiard professional rankings -can you oblige periodically? Finally, one of the most enjoyable features of early BQR's was, in my opinion, the pen pictures of familiar tournament contestants - Des Heald, Derick Townend and Jock McGregor were profiled - but these have not appeared in more recent editions-are they any plans for its re-introduction?
Congratulation on the good work; I always look forward to BQR dropping through my letter box.
Thanks for those interesting comments John. There is little doubt that amateur standards in generally have improved dramatically over the last seven or eight years. That there are no amateurs of the calibre of, for e.g. Driffield or Dagley, is simply due to the fact that players of that calibre, or potentially of that calibre, have all turned professional. In the very first issue of this magazine I wrote that this rise in standards was largely due to three factors; The Mini-prix, the Teesside Boys League, and Mike Russell. The Mini-prix was well established and popular in the late eighties; gatherings of enthusiasts were delighted at the chance to watch such artists Dagley, Wildman, Beetham, Close, and others. Then Robby Foldvari arrived bringing a new and younger dimension to the game and challenging the supremacy of Dagley and Co. They were the days when even only half-decent player such as myself could hope to get through a few rounds given a decent draw. It was all rather sedate, comfortable, and oldy-worldly. The seventeen-year-old Russell hit the Mini-Prix like an exploding bomb. With no disrespect to any other player here was somebody at last who made billiards exciting to watch. The scene changed virtually overnight and I, for one, will never forget the first time I saw him play and the impact he had. Suddenly everybody wanted to play like Russell, and though I remember writing at the time (Snooker Scene. Nov.1989) that I thought Foldvari was a better model for a young player, nobody took any notice of that! This influence can be seen today in the ABC tournaments where many more players are trying their hand at the spot-end than used to do so. In my opinion Causier plays the way he does as a result of the influence of Russell and Peter Gilchrist. And not only Causier, Lee Lagan and Paul Bennett (among others) come to mind and it would not surprise me at all to hear that they were getting into the 300 break class. The influence of The Teesside boys on modern billiards cannot be over-estimated, and the Mini-Prix was the stage.
And all this without even a word of a certain Indian gentleman! I also agree with your other comments on the Mini-Prix and recall that you were one of the first to point out the various factors that could lead to difficulties in keeping it going. Your prognosis was all too accurate. I will try to keep up with profiles of players both famous and not so famous and I hope you enjoyed Michael Ferreira's piece on Geet Sethi. I am toying with the idea of a Billiards Who's Who but don't know how well this would be supported.
Professional ranking lists are published from time to time and I will try to oblige in the next issue. Amateur rankings based on ABC and the Amateur Championship should be available by the end of the season. I am sure readers will find your comments interesting and I hope you will find mine equally interesting.