During the 1940's, my pals and I, as Earl Shilton teenagers, used to watch young, "Dag," as we called him, 3 years my junior, practise under the watchful eye of his mentor Reg Wright. I marvelled at Reg's ability to compile breaks from seemingly endless strings of middle-pocket in-offs, nursery cannons, or at the top. Though highly satisfying for the connoisseur, most TV viewers would not watch for more than a few minutes. Billiards in its present form is just not a spectator sport. I fear that even if all of Roger's suggestions were adopted, the game would still not attract any substantial viewing public, and more importantly, youthful and enthusiastic newcomers. Look at the billiards scene. It comprises mostly 'mature' to veteran players, with only a handful of youngsters. In our relatively strong Sandford Orcas league of some ninety players, we have about five still in their teens compared to sixty or so real oldies. This imbalance is reflected in the BQR where articles are often historically based giving the impression that billiards is a game to be looked back on rather than looked forward to. If billiards, particularly professional billiards, is ever to become popular again, it must be modified to suit the tastes of an unsophisticated yet critical TV audience. What might be changed? As I see it the only things which should be treated as unchangeable are the number and size of the balls, the scoring shots, and the conventional table. I would suggest: -
Possibly red, white, and yellow, as was tried in the Blue Arrow matches. Other combinations could be tried in relation to TV lighting or even viewing psychology.
No more than 150 or 200 up but each game to be complete in itself. The layman is not interested in huge breaks and the combination of a dominant player scoring, say, 4 x 150 points punctuated only by the referees voice calling, "Game," and the soporific drone from the commentary box is not, I would suggest, a recipe for success. Consider the number of people yawning and sleeping through many snooker matches despite players frequently alternating between table and chair.
As generally played, the break-off is a pretty easy shot. Why not consider placing the object balls at the start of a game in some position where either scoring or safety would be a real challenge? Putting the balls in a set position on the side cushions above the middle pockets might be a good alternative to simply spotting the red.
How many points are scored for each stroke is not of great importance provided it is consistently applied and easily understood. What is important is the interest-killing repetition of certain strokes. My suggestion would be that no scoring shot may be made twice in succession. A cannon would have to be followed by an in-off or a pot, a pot by an in-off or a cannon, etc. The non-playing public's misconception that billiards is an easy game compared to snooker must be largely attributable to repetitive shots, and that there is often an alternative shot on after poor positional play. A non-repetition rule would go some way towards changing this. Such a rule would provide more interest for spectators and a greater challenge for the players.
I would suggest that the non-offender should have the following options;-
It is just as difficult to pot the white as it is the red. why not re-spot a potted white - perhaps on the pyramid spot thereby recognising the legitimacy of the shot.
A more interesting finish to a game could be brought about by one exception to the non-repetition rule. A game must end by a player potting the red and his opponent's ball. In a game of 150 up a player could, "Pot out," on any score from 145 onwards. This would add to the tension of the game. It would be a final challenge to the player and give some hope to his opponent, whilst the viewers would be treated to a real finish. Should a player pot the red but fail on the white, the red would be spotted and his opponent play from where his ball had finished. If a player potted the white but failed on the red, then the other player would play from hand. The score of a player failing to conclude the game in this fashion would stay at the point reached before having to, "Pot out."
I am aware that all of the above suggestions would need very careful consideration before they could be properly worded and written into the rule-book and I can almost hear the traditionalists screaming their heads off at the very idea that such drastic changes could be for the good of the game. But the facts are that decades have passed without any real changes being made to the game, during which time its popularity has diminished to the point where billiards is almost a historical relic. If the game is not revised and re-vitalised I am afraid that its total demise is a real possibility in the not too distant future. I hope you will read this letter and dare to print it. Perhaps it will evoke some sort of response. It might even set certain people thinking about the way billiards is going and how it ought to go - or are they all too busy doing snooker commentaries to bother with a sporting zombie?"
Thanks Colin.
I am myself a traditionalist but I am not screaming my head off. I think that you may have a point regarding the colour of the balls in relation to T.V. (billiards does sometimes get on the box,) and I agree that there are more than a few players who are in the veteran stage myself included. On the other hand we do have the Teesside Boys League, and there are moves afoot in other parts of the country to get more youngsters into the game. It is also true that this year's championships attracted record entries.
All of your other suggestions are certainly radical, and I agree with hardy any of them but then, I am very much a traditionalist reactionary. The adoption of your proposals would produce a version based on the strokes of the game -1 wonder what old Riso would say to your proposals? - but it wouldn't be billiards. However, I would like to know if you have actually played a game under the rules you suggest and what your opponent thought about it.
It is true enough that TV coverage of sport is a vital factor in increasing the popularity of that particular sport. I have nothing against professional performers in any sporting activity, except that many of them are grossly overpaid (though not billiards professionals,) and that to some professionals, their idea of sport is to break the opponent's leg, or 'rake' a boot down the other chap's face; but I suspect that if, for example, there were never to be another game of professional football, whilst something would go from our national life, the game itself would still be played every weekend by hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic amateurs. And is it not true that, whilst professional billiards was virtually non-existent for many years, the amateur game has in fact survived, and is in a healthier state than for years.
However, whilst I do not agree with most of what you write, I would, as Winston Churchill said, defend to the death your right to say it. I hope that your letter will stimulate others to write in with their views on possible changes to brighten up the game.