I propose there is nothing wrong with billiards itself, but Professional Billiards and its presentation, or lack of it to the public, in my opinion, leaves a lot to be desired.
So what qualifies me to, "Sound off," on this wonderful game we all want to blossom?
Well. I am in a fairly unique position in so much that I have been in the entertainment business for 30 years; I have been a collector and student of billiards and snooker history for 25 years; I have served on the WPBSA's Billiards Committee, albeit very briefly: I know most of the leading players in the game without having a vested interest in any one of them; I am the proprietor of a club at which I play both games with somewhat limited ability. From these facts, I consider my 30 years in the entertainment business as being my most valuable credential. Without entertainment nobody watches, nobody sponsors, and nobody promotes you, and if you think this sounds like billiards in 1993, then I would like to see this state reversed To make a billiards match really interesting to the public, there must be an element of sporting uncertainty and also some novelty. These are not my words but those of Melbourne Inman in 1927. So how can this be achieved?
The first question is, do we want the game to remain a sport for the lone enthusiast, with no pretensions of attracting a wider audience, or should efforts be made to bring professional billiards into the 1990s and make it entertaining for player and spectator alike?
I would like to see this happen, but I think that to do this changes have to be made in the game's format, its presentation, and its image by those who have the power to influence.
We have all heard the arguments for and against 150 up matches, with those against saying that you can never see a big break, and those for saying that it makes for more tension and excitement. I have had many conversations with top professionals and amateurs on this contentious subject. Going back to Inman's comment; where is the sporting uncertainty in a long match when you know that the best player cannot possibly lose? It is true that the spectator may still appreciate the cuemanship, the concentration, and all those other qualities which make the winner a champion, but where is the contest, that pressure which sets the pulse racing, or, as the Americans would say, "Where's the Beef?" in such a game.
Consider professional snooker. I wonder how Joe Davis would have taken to playing the best of 9 frames to a television audience of millions? His reputation was built on invincibility, but that would not be possible in a best of 9, week in, week out. His 145 frame matches played over two weeks was a far better proposition for him because he was undoubtedly the best player over such long matches. But would snooker have flourished as it did in the 70s and 80s if these long matches had continued? My guess is no, simply because the public are less patient these days wanting a result of some kind within reasonable time limits. Just consider the popularity of one-day cricket compared to the four day county matches. What interest would there be in darts if the games were of several thousand up!
As an entertainer, I can also sadly add that in the 1990s, unless you are on television, most people think you are dead. The Telly rules OK., so if Billiards is looking for a wider audience and major sponsorship, then it has to have a suitable format.
From this you will have gathered that I am in favour of keeping the 150 up game. Well, I am, but would like to propose what I consider to be a major improvement. My proposal should satisfy both sides of the argument allowing for bigger breaks with regular climaxes as follows:-
When player A has reached 150 the referee calls game. This player has won one frame or game. The Scoreboard is taken back to zero for both players BUT player A, who is still in, carries on from where he left off.
The advantages of this would be that if a player is capable of making a 600 break, then he is in the position of winning a best of seven games match in one visit with four continuous breaks of 150.
BUT it also retains regular climaxes, as in a game of snooker, with the ever mounting pressure on the player each time he reaches 150, and for the spectator there is always the thought that the trailing player is not hopelessly behind as the most he can be in arrears in any one game is 149 points.
Changes should also be made in any presentation of any TV coverage the game may get. At present the game is set up as for snooker, but more innovative camera positions and ball path imagery would enhance the viewers enjoyment. As in three cushion billiards, the cue balls could be of different colour with the players wearing appropriate matching waistcoats.
I would like to see both player's scores discreetly placed on the screen permanently against their respective colours, which would progress as the player scored. This would also greatly assist the viewer to understand the game. There should be some consideration given to bringing in a time element as undue slow play is a killer. Not, of course, to the extent of the Pot Black timeframe where players were running round the table, but something for the player to keep in mind.
What would the chances be of billiards getting to a wider audience on the back of snooker? The roles were reversed in the 1930s. Why should there not be a World Professional Billiards Championship at the Radion Plaza in Sheffield, whilst the Snooker Championship was at The Crucible? This could be timed so that the final session of the billiards could be played at The Crucible the day following the snooker final. Think of the advantages. With television, the governing body, and a major sponsor already in attendance, how well professional billiards could be promoted. I know that there might be an, "After the Lord Mayor's Show," element to this, but if there isn't enough support for the game to just about fill a couple of sessions at The Crucible then perhaps the professional game has no future. It would be very interesting indeed if this could be put to the test. The Mike Russell's and Geet Sethi's of the billiards world deserve such a forum as The Crucible to demonstrate their skills.
Snooker on the box needs a bit of new life put into it. Unlike Golf, for example, where each course is different, a snooker table at each event is the same picture, and almost invariably you can perm any two players from the top six to be there. Wouldn't it be nice to see here some different types of format to include an element of billiards, such as a Master Cueman Championship, involving the top eight billiards and snooker players. An event similar to this was recently held in India and won by Steve Davis with Mike Russell as runner-up. Why not here?
All this of course requires planning from the top. With a new chief executive in place, it would be nice to think that the 'B' in WPBSA, might in the future, receive more attention from the board members, than has apparently been the case in the past. Over to you Mr. Street.
Thank you Roger. I think that your idea for combining the excitement of the short game with the possibility of big breaks is first rate. It should most definitely be given a go, possibly at the next U.K.
Your other proposals are no less interesting and how I wish they would be taken up by the governing body. Some years ago Norman Dagley contacted Embassy and suggested that it would be a good idea to follow up the Embassy World Snooker with an Embassy World Billiards, but he didn't get anywhere. I am sure that you are right in saying that such a proposal must come from the governing body to have any chance of serious consideration. Perhaps one day? The Mr. Street that Roger mentions is Mr. Alan Street who has been appointed as the WPBSA chief executive in succession to Alan Harrison who resigned a few months ago. He is no relation to the well-known referee.