Martin Goodwill has been a finalist in the last four Amateur Championships winning twice (1990/91.) He lost to Manoj Kothari in the World Amateur Championship (Bangalore 1990 - the last time it was held) by just 4 points. If he had won who knows how he would have fared as Kothari went on to win the title. In fact, although he is now a professional, Kothari is still the holder of the World Amateur. On a world ranking list, Goodwill would quite certainly be in the top 20. It is just a few weeks ago that I saw him make a beautiful triple century in an ABC final. He is certainly a better player than most, if not all, professionals outside the top eight seeds but has no plans to turn professional himself. There would simply not be enough events to satisfy his appetite for the game. Few and far between are weekends during the season when Martin is not to be found playing in some event or other - ABC, Mini-Prix, CIU - which he has recently won for the third successive year - or whatever tournament he can find, and he can win far more in prize money than he could possibly do by playing professionally where his entry fee to the Association and the tournaments plus the costs of overnight stays would likely be far in excess of what he could win. Fine player though he is, there is money in the professional game only for those extraordinarily brilliant players right at the top of the tree. But this is not to say that he is not interested in professional play. He is very much interested and is a great admirer of Sethi, Russell, Gilchrist, Foldvari, Dagley, and others. He has also been heard to remark that, in his opinion, what Jack Karnehm and Michael Ferreira do not know about the game is hardly worth knowing.
Here Martin raises a few controversial points about the state of Professional Billiards as he sees it.
Following on my move from R.A.F. Scampton to R.A.F. Linton, I'm sitting in a room full of Pickfords removal boxes having just moved into my seventh house in just over six years. The mess reminds me of the state of Professional Billiards. I should be starting to tidy everything up but thought it would be more interesting to make a few comments on the game.
I believe this was introduced in an attempt to get some T.V. coverage. I realise that one or two matches have been shown on, "Sky," but I am sure that most readers would agree that this format has done little to promote billiards as a whole.
There are several professional players with tremendous ability and the potential to make 1000+ breaks in competition. If you want to make the game really, "exciting," why not play 50 up! If you want to see creative, artistic, and really exciting billiards with the prospect of 1000 breaks, then matches have to be made longer.
In 1932 Lindrum made a break of 4,137 which Davis immediately followed with 1,247. We can guess what these past masters would think of 150 up. There are several possible formats and maybe each tournament could be slightly different so as to add some variation to the scene. There would be room for a short-game event but, by playing over time, players do have the chance to make big breaks as did Geet Sethi in the last World Championship, and that is what enthusiasts want to see. Let's have more time matches.
The Mini-Prix used to be the bread and butter of the Professional Game. The Mini-Prix, as it was structured, needs sponsorship, and in the present recession this is not forthcoming (With a couple of exceptions.) But there should not be a problem in reducing the prize money by paying out on the basis of entry fees in the same way as the ABC. I wonder how many professionals would play under these terms, I suspect that as many as used to play in the old Mini-Prix. There is another option however which was raised in the BQR of October, 1992. It seems that the WPBSA Billiards Committee decided not to take up the suggestion of sponsoring the Mini-Prix out of the funds set aside for billiards. I have heard that a yearly grant in excess of £20,000 goes to the Billiards Committee from the Main Board; it would have been in the professionals own interests to have put a (small) percentage of this into helping to keep the Mini-Prix alive. Tournaments and Finance I understand that the Radiant Grand Slam events, played in India, have a rather uncertain future, and in any event are of concern only to the very top players. I also understand that not all the sponsorship is Indian and that some of the money involved comes from the Billiards Committee's grant - the same grant that cannot spare something for the Mini-Prix. Along with all this, I believe that it cost something like £17,000 to stage the World Matchplay in Moscow. This might have done a lot for billiards in Moscow but I question how much it did for billiards overall and the average professional. It is also alleged that a sum in the region of £8,000 was spent on a couple of carom tables one of which is still in Moscow.
Is it not time to spend a bit more of the grant in the U.K. Even half of the normal prize funds would be better than no tournaments at all -assuming that there is no sponsorship available. But Strachan sponsors billiards and I am sure that other companies could be found, after all, there are companies who specialise in finding sponsorships. It seems that we are heading on a downward path which will lead to all professional tournaments being played overseas. Whilst I believe that world-wide promotion - in the billiard playing countries - is certainly worthwhile, I would suggest that more effort should be put into billiards in the U.K.
It is impossible to hide such a beautiful game as billiards, but it seems that, at the moment, the professional organisers are doing their best -at least in England.
I hope my comments are taken in a good spirit, They are meant for the good of the game.