"Dear Tom
I hope you are well and that you have not been visited by a scrumpy crazed mob from Yetminster, Somerset, sent over by billiards person Carroll Walters who, unless he has been fooling us all over many years, happens to be a bloke. Carroll tends to suffer from his parents' choice of name and has said to me many times how he hates it. I am surprised that you didn't recognise the difference between Carroll and Carol.
Brian Harvey's letter makes sad but not unexpected reading. As I suggested in my letter on changes to the game, the billiards fraternity comprises mainly middle-aged to elderly players with a few youngsters whose main interest is snooker. Unless it is made more attractive to the young it will probably fade completely away. The Sandford Orcas league currently has 18 teams of 4, and for the first time in many years outnumbers our Three Counties snooker league which has 19 teams of 3, i.e. 72 players as compared with 57. Unfortunately this seemingly favourable comparison is not due to a resurgence in the popularity of billiards despite a net gain of 2 teams over the last two seasons. It is in fact due to a decline in the number of snooker players. The number of players registered with Sandford Orcas (Billiards only) has remained relatively stable at around 85/90, whereas the number of snooker players registered with the Three Counties has declined from a high of 135 in 1991/92 to 90.
I am pleased to see that the professionals have started to use a yellow ball. My wife's immediate reaction was to say, "Good, now at least we shall know which ball is which." I might add that players might not play with the wrong ball so often."
Thanks Colin. I apologise for thinking that Ms Walters was a Mr. or was it the other way around. I'm sure that he will forgive me. If he is so put out by his name why doesn't he change it to Kevin or Shane or something like that?
With regard to the yellow ball, well, yes! In the recent Strachan Pairs Championship there was one match involving two extremely experienced players, one of whom you know rather well. One of these highly experienced men (not the one you know rather well) made a break of about thirty playing, would you believe it, with the wrong ball. The fact went unnoticed by his partner, by his opponents, and by the officials until he broke down and they wanted to put the score on the board. Perhaps they should introduce a second colour. Norman Dagley sends his regards.
I have had a few hours with Norman (Dagley) playing with the new balls. They are Aramith and to date we've only had one kick. On measuring them I found that they were just slightly bigger than his old set of, "Supers," about one-sixteenth of an inch. Norman has two sets and was very pleased with the latest set. I must try to get accurate measurements of these, I think that they must be just a bit heavier than the balls we have been using.
I liked your article about Harry Welch. You refer to a, "golden era," of amateur billiards. I must agree with you. I saw most of the players of those days but, for me, far and away the most entertaining to watch was Frank Edwards. No matter what the difficulty of the shot, just one movement of the cue and sometimes not even that, the shot played all in one movement. Richard Holt likened him to a virtuoso violinist.
"The BQR article on repetition strokes (No.17.P18) states that Reece's break of 499,135 unfinished, began on June 3rd and ended on July 6th (1907). Reece, in his book, "Dainty Billiards," cites the 3rd of July to the 6th of July, i.e. 4 days."
It is quite true Graeme, as you say, that Reece in, "Dainty Billiards," (P.87) writes that he made his break, "between July 3rd and 6th, 1907." However, on the very next line he states that the break took him, "5 hours and 49 minutes. "he first of the statements is an error, either of printing or proof reading, and I don't think that the second can be correct.
Reece himself writes in, "Cannons and Big Guns," (P143) that he obtained the Anchor position in the first session when he had scored 865, "I went on playing the same stroke for five solid weeks." Riso Levi, "Strokes of the Game," Part 3.P.584, writes that the break began on June 3rd, 1907, and continued until July 6th. V. S. Beanland in his book, "Great Games, Great Players," also gives the same dates and describes how he went to one session. (BQR. No 14.P17) As regards the time, Levi writes that, "on one instance Reece played - with intervals for rest - from 11.15am until 5.15am (the following morning.) Reece writes how he would play until all the spectators had gone home and describes how on one occasion there was one spectator who refused to leave and he was found to be fast asleep. I am myself surprised that he hadn't died - from boredom. If Reece played, let us say, just four hours each day, and if the play were only five days per week, then we arrive at a total of 100 hours - and this must be an underestimate.
Another error in, "Dainty Billiards." may be found at the end of the introduction (P10) where Reece is credited as holding the World's record of 499,135 cannons. This would have made the break 998,270. Reece contradicts this on P87. where he writes that the number of cannons was 249,552. That number of cannons scores 499,104 points, and so Reece must have scored 31 in his break before obtaining the position.
My own opinion is that the figures are quite unreliable but have become part of accepted billiards folklore. I just cannot believe that anybody ever actually counted the break, or indeed was able to count the break, let alone record it somewhere. I imagine that daily totals were computed from an estimate of the average hourly score. Reece himself, when asked how many he had scored per session, is quoted as saying that he wasn't particular to a thousand or two! An accurate picture could only be gained from a detailed investigation of contemporary newspaper reports and accounts. It is a little surprising that no-one seems to have done that, but who could be bothered now? As it is, the only indisputable facts are that the so-called match lasted from June 3rd to July 6th, and that the great Tom Reece made a huge break.
Incidentally - does anyone really believe that Reece and Chapman were contracted to play half a million up? I have read that the game was abandoned because the hall was needed for another engagement. How long would it have taken Reece to score the number of points he did score if he had not obtained the Anchor position?
"It is possible to keep a cloth in good condition for much longer than is usual by carrying out the following simple maintenance.
The first areas of wear on a table occur when dust lumps form under the spots and the balls get spotted with unreasonable force.
These dust lumps can be broken up by pushing a pin through the cloth and moving it around under the spot. However, this still leaves the dust in the area of the spot. It is possible, by using the pin, to lift the cloth very slightly away from the slate. The dust can then be blown away from the area by placing one end of a plastic tube against the cloth and at the side of the pin. The best type of tube is the shell of a ball point pen."
"Consequent on your remarks in the Editorial of the last issue of BQR and our conversation at Widnes, the following may be of some interest.
1. Lack of handicapping
Perhaps some of the cannon-fodder are becoming disillusioned with their lack of success against the stars.
2. Suspicion of the new Governing Body
Looking at the personnel involved in the regional administration of the EASB, it is possible that some players are thinking that the new EASB is but the old B&SCC, "writ large." The dramatic reduction in the entries for this year's championship may be indicative of this feeling.
3. New hat/Old Hat
It is possible that the novelty of the introduction of the ABC tournaments by Derek Townend is beginning to wear off as they become a standard feature of the season.
It is, of course, much easier to identify possible ills rather than prescribe remedies, but I would suggest:-
1. Introduction of Handicapping.
2. Support the EASB. Continuing efforts should be made by all of us to convince any sceptics that the EASB is working in the best interests of the game as I believe it is. There is no doubt that the billiards calendar for 1994/95 is very impressive.
3. Publicity. In addition to the BQR, publicity for the ABCs could perhaps be sought in other magazines and in local venues.
4. Change in Format. Maybe the idea of getting a minimum of 3 games by using the Double Elimination format is worth investigating.
I hope these comments might be of some help and that there will be some reader response.
"With regard to Derek Varley's query about cushions, readers might find my experience both interesting and surprising, back in 1957 I had my table fully reconditioned and fitted with, "Arrowflite," cushions by Burroughes and Watts. At that time my house was heated by open fires and gas central heating. With the room temperature normally at 63 degrees the cue ball, when struck over the spots, would always travel between four-and-three-quarter and five-and-one-quarter lengths. This never varied up to November 1988 when I moved to a house with a custom built billiard room. A room with double glazing and a sophisticated system of gas central heating. The table was moved and re-erected by a very good firm and I decided that I would have new cushions. I hoped to get an extra half-length to bring the speed up to that of the table I play on in the league and on which I always seem to perform better than on my own table. With the room temperature kept at 65 - 70 degrees the speed remained identical. I was assured that it would speed up after a few months but it never did. I thus have documented evidence that there was no deterioration in my original cushions after 31 years, and there has been none in my new ones after 7 years. Some tables in our league only run about four lengths. This is fine for the top-of-the-table player, but what an abomination for the bread-and-butter red ball man like me. I have always had cloths by Strachan, No.6 and, at the moment No.10. This latest cloth was fitted in January 1992, has not been re-stretched and plays perfectly despite its high mileage (600,000 points approximately.) My conclusions are that there is much nonsense talked about, "Damp rooms," "Old cushions," "Too hot," "Cloth needs stretching," and etc., etc.
Yours Ross."
"I was interested in some of the articles in the July and October issues of the BQR. In, "You are the Referee," I also find that this is a rule that many players do not understand. As you stated, the important words are, "If on the table." I mentioned this fact in a previous letter published in the July 1992 issue. There are a couple of other rules that some players do not know. Rules - Section 3: 4(b) also mentions the pot twice off the pyramid spot and not just off the spot as many players seem to believe. Rules - Sect.3:12(b) states that it is a miss when, "There is no ball out of baulk." Some players seem to think that this means both balls must be in baulk. If a player pots his opponent's white and then leaves the red in baulk, when he is in hand is there a ball on the table out of baulk quite obviously no.
The point raised about the consistency of the referee informing the player was also mentioned in a previous letter of mine. Rules Sect.5: l(b) basically tells us that the referee cannot tell a player about anything that is going to happen. Consider a player asking the referee if the red will go on its spot and he answers. His opponent could then complain that the referee is giving, "Advice or opinion on points affecting play." However, there are a number of occasions (Including ball in baulk) where the rules state that the, "Referee shall inform," or "The referee will answer." These cover existing or past situations and do not cover something that is going to happen. We must remember that the referee is purely an arbiter of things that have occurred. The point I am making is that the referee keeps his mouth shut about the future and does not volunteer information unless directed by the rules (number of hazards) or he may be asked (ball in baulk.) The item in the July issue about the remarkable screw-back by Jimmy White was most probably the same one I saw on TV. White screwed back into baulk because the black was near the other baulk pocket. I can only dream about playing a shot like that. Years ago, in a billiard room where I often went, several players would put money into a pool and compete at trying to pot a ball from the centre spot into a top pocket and screw back into a baulk pocket. When a player failed he dropped out and the last successful player left took all the money. Many times I saw a week's wages change hands. I sometimes wonder if it really matters whether or not the layman is interested in high breaks or is getting bored with the play. Do not the interests of the player take precedence over the interests of the spectator. Several years ago, a woman complained about a snooker game on TV. She claimed that the referee was, "A nasty little man," who kept taking balls from the pockets and putting them back on the table when the players had gone to a lot of effort to put them there in the first place.
We are all bound by the rules, good or bad. This not to say that some rules might be changed but as I have said, a lot of thought would have to put into any changes and the implications worked through. I hope I have not upset anyone by my remarks on these matters. I am merely adding my thoughts like anyone else and do not wish to be controversial. "
Thank you Geoff Williams.
I don't think you have been particularly controversial though I do think that there might be a professional eyebrow or two raised at the suggestion that the spectator is secondary to the player. You are probably right as regards ordinary amateur play.
Your remarks on the suggestion that the referee ought to be able to inform the player whether or not the red ball will spot are precisely the same as the remarks made by professional Billiards Tournament Director Alan Chamberlain. I take the point and I respect your opinion. However, my argument is that the position as it stands is not wholly logical and seems to me a little unfair. Let me put my point.
Rules. Section.5:l(b)(iii) (The Referee) shall not, "give any advice or opinion on points affecting play."
Rules. Section.3: 6. To play from in-hand.(notes)"The referee will answer, if asked if a ball is in or out of baulk."
The first observation is that the rule would permit the referee to give a ruling on a ball being in - or out - of baulk, only when a player is in hand. There is some genuine confusion here, and I will ask for clarification when I next meet the senior referee. Many players think that the referee may be asked this question at any time. No matter; In the case of the ball in - or out - of baulk, whether or not the referee is giving his opinion on something that has occurred, or as Alan Chamberlain put, on a, "matter of fact," it remains the case that the referee's ruling is quite clearly giving the player an indication of a stroke which may, or may not, be played.
To return to Russell and the red. Some years ago I was present at the final of a major billiards championship. The match was at a very interesting stage with not a lot of time left and neither player able to establish a winning lead. Russell started to build a break at the spot end. After a cannon he shaped to pot the red, but not before a very careful examination of the position of the object white. He potted the red and from the positioning of the cue ball he clearly thought that the red would spot. The referee used his plastic marking device and decided the red would not spot and placed it on the pyramid spot. Russell asked for a re-check - which the referee did - and again placed the ball on the pyramid spot. The young professional then asked the referee if he would, "try with the ball." This seemed a little illogical as the plastic markers are made to precise measurements and, in fact, may give a more accurate judgement than trying with a ball to see whether or not it may go on the spot. The referee, not unreasonably, refused to do this. Russell was clearly a little upset but accepted the decision, attempted a pot from the pyramid spot to the middle pocket, and missed. Ironically enough, just a minute or two later, Russell's opponent, in hand and about to play an in-off the white, paused and took a second look at the red ball, lying on the baulk line, and asked whether or not it was playable. He was given the benefit of the doubt and changed his stroke to a simple in-off the red into a baulk pocket. There is no doubt whatever that the player was within his rights, there is no doubt that the referee applied the rules absolutely correctly. But somehow or other it seemed that in the one case a player was able to ask for information which assisted in his choice of stroke, whilst in the other the information was not available. I appreciate that in the case of the line-ball the referee is giving a decision on a point of fact, but does this not equally apply in the case of whether or not a ball will spot?
It just struck me as unfair at the time and I have had this, "bee in the bonnet," ever since! Reader's opinions please.