I was sorry to read of the low turnout for the last two ABC tournaments. You invite reader's views, I hope that mine may promote some discussion. Both ABC and Pro-Am are super days out for those enthusiasts who regularly make century breaks and can average ten or more. Regrettably the number of such players is getting less each year and I am not too surprised that entries have fallen off. As regards amateurs-only, the majority of interested players are not in this class and in reality make only the occasional fifty and average about six. This means that they can expect only one-and-a-half hours billiards (unless drawn against someone of similar standard) and this time is realistically about thirty minutes as they are often kept off the table for about two-thirds of the time. This is hardly an exciting day's play. Pro-Ams are a different kettle of fish, and I hate missing one of those, as after my couple of games, three with a bit of luck, I can relax and enjoy the company of like-minded enthusiasts and watch some exciting matches between 500 break professionals plus a few of the very top amateurs.
As regards attendance, in my opinion handicapping is not the answer in a time game as it tempts the front marker into slowing the game down and introducing more safety play than is really necessary. Seeding the top eight players in both Pro-Am and ABC would give the lesser lights more hours play, but how the seeded players would react to being excluded from the plate is anybody's guess. My guess is that entries would go up and this is what we need to think about. An added incentive for the seeds could be a play-off between the losing semi-finalists for what was previously the highest break prize. I hope Derek (Townend) will give some consideration to my suggestion and write in saying what he thinks about it.
I was also interested in your comments on the dreadful drumming noise during BBC's, "Shot of the Tournament," from The Crucible. I also cannot stand it, so when it comes on, I go into my billiard room and play 100 points at the top-of-the-table (not in one break!). This takes about as long as the offending noise lasts. What is much worse are the ITV Adverts. They, and the noise they make, is quite unacceptable to me so I go and play 100 nursery cannons (also not in one break.)
With regard to screw strokes (BQR July 1994, P14 & 15) I can screw back into baulk from hand with the object ball about 10 inches above the middle spot. With the red on the pyramid spot I can occasionally get back about a foot. The screw back with side from the black, I can just about get to the middle pockets line. A very good snooker player at my club, Derek Newman, can reach the yellow spot with no trouble. I asked Roxton Chapman to try this on my table and he also reached the yellow spot without the slightest trouble. The trick seems to be getting an equal amount of side and screw on the cue ball. An excess of either seems to 'kill' the shot. I don't believe it is possible to screw in-off the spotted red from hand without bringing the red into baulk. - I'll believe that one when I see it done."
Thank you Ross. With regard to the last point, I can only refer you to Levi, "Strokes of the Game," Vol.1.P169. Riso writes about the possibility, "This stroke is, I believe, absolutely impossible on very fast tables, but it has been accomplished several times on slow to medium-pace tables." Levi then refers the reader to, "The World of Billiards," Vol.2. Pages 284 and 333. Like you Ross, I would like to see it done. I think a player with exceptional controlled cue-power, say someone like Jimmy White, could get the shot on a slow table. I think that either Russell or Gilchrist, and maybe Amateur Champion Goodwill, with practice, would be a reasonable bet to bring it off. We might get the chance to prove it sometime.