Dear Tom
I read Colin White's letter in the July issue of the BQR and the Editor's comments with considerable interest. As a very late convert to billiards I have a strong interest in its future and as an unashamed traditionalist, whilst I will not scream my head of either, I will take leave to doubt whether the majority of the radical changes proposed by Mr. White would do anything to improve either the popularity of billiards or make it more attractive to TV viewers.
Snooker owes its tremendous development both home and abroad to the TV coverage it receives which started with the inspired decision to put, Tot Black,' on the screen all those years ago. However, there are clear signs that the popularity of snooker on TV is waning, despite the robust efforts of Clive Everton to arrest the slide. Viewing figures of various millions are bandied around when discussing snooker viewing. But I wonder what an in-depth analysis of these millions would reveal? Because of the times allocated to screening snooker, either live or recorded, I would reckon that the majority of the viewers are middle-aged, non-participants, including a substantial number of women who watch because they enjoy the undeniable skills demonstrated by the players plus the faultless (usually) behaviour, sportsmanship, and the absence of the more objectionable physical habits on many of today's professional sportsmen. Billiards, while no less skilful, lacks the multi-faceted structure of snooker and is clearly not as watchable except to the connoisseur or active participant.
I therefore do not believe that the suggested changes advocated by Mr. White would achieve anything It is up to the leagues and clubs to persuade the youngsters currently besotted with snooker to try their hands at billiards through coaching and competition. From available evidence, billiards is experiencing a modest revival, and this must be encouraged and nurtured. Mr. White is to be commended on making suggestions - would that there were more people who would give it a bit of thought - but I do not believe that such drastic rule changes are the answer.
Dear Tom
I read with interest the article (July. 1994) by my friend and colleague Coin White. I follow the reasoning behind his suggestions but agree with you that, apart from the point regarding the colour of the balls, the game would not then be billiards.
If billiards is to make any television impact some rule changes would have to be made, even if they applied only to televised matches/competitions, so that the presentation would not become boring to the majority of potential viewers. But I doubt if it would then suit the connoisseur.
May I suggest one rule change which might achieve the above objectives :- The striker must complete at least one cannon and one losing hazard during every 25 strokes of his break.
We frequently read about the famous scoring strokes of earlier years - the 'Anchor,' and 'Pendulum,' strokes. There must be many of your younger readers who would appreciate an explanation of these. Could you include table diagrams in a future BQR?
With regard to your suggestion re the repetition strokes, please see the article devoted to that subject in this issue.
Readers will be interested to know that Gordon has played in the Sandford and Orcas Billiards League since 1946. He was secretary from 1959 - 75 and in 1991 was made a Life member of the League.
Dear Tom
May I comment on your editorial comments?
The last time I saw any billiards on TV was when Dagley won the world championship in 1987 when there was about a ten second shot of him taking the final middle-pocket loser and raising his hand in triumph. That was on sports personality of the year and was shown with all the other also-rans. (I don't mean that Norman was an also ran - just the game.) Before that I saw a few games in the Blue Arrow series which has been described as a disaster. I have not seen billiards since on any major channel, but I suppose I might have blinked and missed it. I don't know how one gets younger people to play billiards when they prefer snooker and find little to interest them in the three-ball game. I suppose I can claim some very modest success in Mere by way of getting Dagley to play an Exhibition at Wincanton in his Grand Slam year, and by forming three teams at our two clubs (one has now dropped out.) They play for the Dagley trophy and we try to get coverage in the local newspaper. Brian Harvey came along and did a bit of coaching/demonstration which was thoroughly enjoyed by the twelve players who attended.
As for the amateur game thriving if the professional game is also healthy. The two tables at our club are sometimes not used for days on end unless there is snooker on the box. Then down stream the enthusiastic youngsters all wanting to try their hand at a 147. Gradually the interest wanes, but it is a fact that the amateur game in this instance is much affected by its professional counterpart. Billiards does not get even this sort of spur and is not likely to until it gets more viewable. I agree with your remark that if my ideas were implemented then the game would be drastically changed, but the foundation of the game, the scoring and positional strokes would remain as before. My ideas, and I believe, those of Roger Lee, are aimed at trying to increase public and commercial interest, and increased sponsorship - not to please we older players who tend to be rather inflexible in our thinking and outlook.
Colin White's article in the July Issue brought in some interesting correspondence a selection of which is included above. Everyone seems to want rule changes, but I am not so sure that drastic rule changes would make much difference to the popularity of the game, and might make it even more complicated for the non-playing spectator. After all, the simplest way to change the game would not be to change any of the rules at all, but to change the scoring values. Imagine a game in which all in-offs counted one point, all pots counted two, and all cannons counted three! Is there a Lindrum out there anywhere?
If it were left to me, the only change I would make (for professional play) would be to allow just one pot from the spot after which the red would be spotted on the pyramid spot - one pot - and then to the centre spot. One pot from the centre and then back to the top spot. I think that the star players would very soon adapt their top-of-the-table play to cope with this, but it would at least have the effect of introducing a rather more varied pattern. Rule changes aside, reaction amongst spectators at the U.K. Final in Plymouth, many of whom had never before seen a game of billiards, convinced me that if the game could get some T.V. coverage then success would depend, not on the rules or on how the game is played, but on the players. I can assure readers that there was an air of excitement caused entirely by the fact that Mike Russell had given an exhibition of the game at its very best, and that his opponent, Peter Gilchrist, though largely a spectator, went out for his strokes in his usual dashing manner, and, disappointed though he must have been, still managed to put on an unforced smile. Anybody who was there could say with enthusiasm, that is how the game should be presented, that is how it should be played.
Although every enthusiast has his or her idea of what should be done to make the game more attractive for the potential television viewer, the priority is to get the game on the box in the first place. We cannot know what viewers reactions might be, because there is no national coverage. And there will be no coverage until someone in authority decides to give it a chance. No-one will ever convince me otherwise than, that which minority sports are covered and which are not, does not depend to a great extent on the whim of the programme controllers. I am quite sure that if the Director General of the BBC were a marbles enthusiast then we would pretty soon get some marbles coverage. And I feel sure that it is the same with International sporting events such as the Olympic Games. At the Olympics you can watch such fantastically popular so-called sports as synchronised swimming, rhythmic gymnastics, beach volley-ball, to mention but three. If you had been in Victoria this week for the Commonwealth Games you could have watched, for instance, "The Open Pairs Skeet." For the odd reader or two who is so ignorant as not to know what pairs skeet is, then I can tell you that it is something to do with shooting. You could also have watched the, "Men's running target." That is also a shooting event and it certainly sounds more interesting than the skeet. I wonder who they get to be the running targets? If they can introduce such meaningless, contrived events, then why not an international stage for a game such as billiards that does at least have some history and a proper set of rules.
But I digress. Coming back to the question of whether or not billiards would be a hit on the Telly and whether it would be necessary to change the rules, I can only repeat my opinion that if there were ever to be any, even minimum national coverage of billiards, everything would depend on the players.
There is something of a parallel with cricket. Over the years the cricket authorities tampered with the Laws when the real problem was with the people who were actually playing the game. And what was it that saved county cricket from the obscurity that seemed to face it some twenty years ago? The one day game. Critics of the billiards 150 format should bear that in mind. I repeat my opinion, that if ever the game gets a real chance of television coverage, then success or failure will depend entirely on how the game is played in terms of the player's willingness to play attractive, reasonably quick, and reasonably open billiards.
Dear Sir
I feel I must protest in the strongest terms possible about your derogatory comments in the last issue of BQR. Is this the thanks I get for producing articles for your rag? I will have you know that my cue is not an, "awful-looking black abomination of whippy graphite." It is in fact an awful-looking abomination of blue whippy graphite! I think you should get your facts right before making such hurtful criticisms.
There is, somewhere or other, an article by Levi on the subject of screwing power in which he concluded that the stiffer the cue the greater its powers of forcing and screwing. This theory fell to pieces when he tried a shot with a veritable fishing rod of a cue and found it to be the best of the lot for powerful strokes. So there, Yours indignantly,