NOTES BY THE WAY

Concerning Billiard Legislation

Much has been said and written lately respecting the effect of George Gray's play upon the attractiveness of Billiards from a spectacular point of view, as well as its bearing upon the game itself. The opinion has been expressed that another alteration in the rules will sooner or later become necessary, and various suggestions have been made.

In an article in the "Times," the writer says: "There can be little doubt that Gray's prodigious breaks of losing hazards off the red ball will have to be considered with great care, but there are obvious objections to legislating against any fair stroke simply because one man by skill and practice has brought it to such perfection that his antagonists have no chance."

We assume this to mean that modifications may have to be made for the general well-being of the game, but that the player or players who have excelled at a particular stroke shall first have a fair chance of reward, both financially and in the honour due to those who achieve success.

With this view we heartily agree.

Abnormal Breaks with Particular Strokes in the Past

Peall, Dawson, and Mitchell would doubtless admit that they had no cause to complain that their reputations or their incomes were adversely affected by the limitation of the spot stroke, a considerable period having been allowed to elapse before any alteration was made in the rules. Nor are Lovejoy, Cook, and Reece likely to assert that they suffered by the suppression of long series of "Anchor" cannons; though we are of opinion that the play of Reece and Cook and perhaps Lovejoy may have been prejudicially affected to some extent by the limitation of ball-to-ball cannons to twenty-five.

Difficulties to be Encountered

The ideal game of Billiards is undoubtedly one in which every legitimate stroke is permitted to have full sway, but the obstacles in the way of framing the rules to attain this desirable object are great and numerous.

There are many aspects of the subject which have to be taken into account when discussing a new rule or the alteration of an existing rule. This is chiefly owing to the different conditions under which games are played, and for this purpose they may be divided into three classes:

1. Those played for amusement and recreation.
2. Exhibition matches by professional players.
3. Championship matches.

Amateur Games the First Consideration

Games played for amusement or recreation are by far the most important both as to their relative number and from the fact that Nos. 2 and 3 are the results of and subsidiary to these games. This point is apt to be overlooked or at all events not sufficiently borne in mind, because of the great publicity which is given (and rightly) to Exhibition Games and Professional Championship Matches.

One might say that Billiards as a game, consists of matches played by amateurs, and that the others are valuable chiefly in conveying instruction and of providing interesting entertainments. It is essential, therefore, that all rules should be made primarily for the amateur, or at least, that no rules should be in force which will deprive him from deriving the full benefit of his skill and knowledge.

Like other games, Billiards should exist for recreation,, which may either take the form of participating in a game or the enjoyment of watching one, but it would be most unfortunate if the former did not greatly predominate.

Exhibition Games by Professionals

These matches are, in our opinion, absolutely essential to the general improvement in the art of Billiards. Anyone, whether a beginner or a player of experience, who witnesses an exhibition match simply for the purpose of amusement, must, in spite of himself, add to his knowledge of the game. If he attends with the object of adding to his knowledge of the game, the benefit he derives will be very considerable, especially if he is an improving player and is taking lessons.

One cannot say too much in favour of these professional matches as a means of maintaining the general average play at a high standard.

But, in the opinion of many, these games, as such, require no special modification of rules for their protection or for ensuring that they shall be attractive to the Billiard-playing public. This view is borne out by the history of the spot stroke. When Peall, Mitchell, and Dawson made enormous breaks with the "Spot" stroke, large numbers of the public flocked to see them. After a time the patrons of these games tired of the comparative monotony, and all three players abandoned the stroke in most of their matches, notwithstanding that they were still allowed to do so under the rules. It was, therefore, so far as exhibition games are concerned, quite unnecessary to limit the number of "spot strokes" at all. The same might be said of the "Anchor" stroke.

The "Push "stroke is often spoken of as if its suppression were decided upon with the same object in view as that which resulted in the limitation of the above-mentioned strokes but this is not so. The others were, and still are, recognised as proper and legitimate strokes, but the "Push" was very rightly relegated to the list of foul strokes, and in our opinion should always have been placed there.

Most habitual visitors to exhibition matches will agree that it is the all-round game which is permanently attractive.

At the same time the interest taken in abnormal development of a particular branch of the game is often very keen.

Great crowds have witnessed every match that Gray has played because of his remarkable proficiency in mastering the after position of the red ball in each of many consecutive strokes.

We noticed some time back, that a writer in the "Observer," who, from his other remarks, is doubtless an enthusiast, and understands the game, expressed the fear that George Gray's one perfected stroke would "poison" the game "unless something is done," but notwithstanding he admits that Gray's matches have "revived interest in Billiards and have attracted all kinds of people who for some years have forgotten the table in the rival allurements of Bridge." But if the Billiard public still like to see the red-ball play, it is either because they enjoy watching a fine exhibition of skill or on account of the novelty of the method of compiling huge breaks, or both.

Surely this is not bad for Billiards. So soon as the public tire of it and cease to spend their money for the benefit of witnessing a game that does not include the whole variety of Billiards, the professionals who now play it, will, in their own interests, limit these consecutive strokes in order to make the entertainments more attractive. Will not the Billiard public then flock in greater numbers than has lately been the case—with renewed interest and increased pleasure —to watch those games which bring into play the almost endless variety of strokes which is the great charm of Billiards?

In the meantime, how many thousands have been practising "middle pocket play," and so added to their skill and knowledge of the game, and how many have been brought back to Billiards by this passing vogue, and are now trying to improve their game in other directions?

It seems evident, therefore, that exhibition games may be left to look after themselves, provided that they do not clash with the laws and regulations for the time being. It is necessary to lay emphasis on this, as one so often hears remarks about the necessity for altering rules because certain exhibition matches are considered monotonous. The public may be left to judge what games are attractive and interesting to watch.

Championship and Ordinary Games

As we have already said, the rules should be made for games played by amateurs, but there are many arguments in favour of special rules for Championship matches. These special rules would, of course, govern both amateur and professional championship games.

Rules for ordinary games could then be made free of all restrictions as regards consecutive strokes of a similar nature, so that every billiard stroke could be exploited to the best of each player's ability. The limitation of the "spot" stroke was felt by many players as a curtailment of their enjoyment, and destructive of an interesting part of the game. The strokes necessary for "spot" play are various, and the making of (say) six "spot" strokes requires as much skill and judgment as any other method of scoring.

Again, there are players who can make 25 ball-to-ball cannons, but it is irksome to count each stroke in ordinary friendly matches. As for "red-ball" play, we do not advocate any immediate change in the rules for this purpose, and for two reasons: (1) Championship games are always played with ivory balls, and so far no player has shown that "red-ball" play will greatly predominate in matches played with these balls. (2) In our opinion exhibition games require no special rules.

Other games can be mentioned by way of analogy in support of the proposal to introduce special rules for occasions demanding them. In both French and American Billiards a variety of rules applicable only to Championship contests are in force, and there seems to be no reason why we should not accept a principle which has been found to work well in other countries. Turning to another branch of sport, there is golf with its two distinct methods of scoring—match play and medal play. Why should there not be match games and Championship games in Billiards?

It is true that in golf, strokes are not more restricted in one game than in the other. We use the illustration merely to show there is no rooted objection on the part of players of games of sport to two varieties of games, which differ but slightly. Billiard matches at clubs, and in private houses, would doubtless be played occasionally under Championship rules but this need not detract from the enjoyment of the ordinary game. As to exhibition games, we presume that most matches would be played under Championship rules.

But the patrons of these matches will probably find much enjoyment in watching an occasional game with unlimited "spot-stroke" and red-ball play. It would be both entertaining and instructive to witness a game in which one player is limited in respect of the "spot-stroke," and the other as regards "red-ball" play.

In answer to the oft-repeated objection against what is termed a "cramped" game for the Championship, it may be said that the special rules for the Championship would ensure the best all-round man the greatest chance of victory. No one would assert that Peall's break of 3304 was more than four times as meritorious as Stevenson's break of 802.

Different Rules for Amateurs and Professionals Unwise

We have heard it suggested that there should be one set of rules for amateurs and one for professionals, but there is a great objection to distinguishing between amateurs and professionals in this respect. It is true that there is a wide gulf between the scoring power of the amateur and professional players, but it would be an unpardonable slight to the former to say that he should have easier rules made for him.

The chief cause of the disparity is the continuous play of a few professionals, as compared with the amateur. It will not be contended that amateurs, as a class, do not play as intelligently as professionals, as a class, or that the knowledge of the game acquired by many amateur players is not equal to the professional. One so often hears of the vast difference in the skill of amateur and professional billiard players. All that can be reasonably asserted is that amateurs and thousands of professionals do not play nearly so well as ten or twelve of the best professional players.

The Principle Already Acknowledged

The Council of the Billiards Control Club appeared to realise that ordinary games should not be too restricted, when it added a note to the rule dealing with the "spot" stroke to the effect that the limit to the number of these strokes may be suspended. It may not have been wise on that occasion to make a radical change such as is now suggested, but we contend that when it is decided to make any further changes in the rules it is worth considering whether the opportunity should not be taken of making an open game for all contests, except Championship matches.

In the meantime, any expressions of opinion cannot but assist those responsible for the government of the game.

---