To the Editor of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS
Dear Sir, - In your issue of 28th ult., I noticed it was stated (inter alia) that the feeling of the Billiard Association Committee was that some steps should be taken to bring transgressors of the rules of the Association within the same course of procedure in vogue in the Football Association, etc., or words to that effect.
I write to suggest that while "this feeling" is on, the Committee ought to do something to better the status of amateurs and bring them, as far as possible, within the course in vogue as regards the rules governing amateur athletes, etc., or within some more stringent and applicable rules.
Would any amateur athlete, etc., be allowed to compete with professionals publicly, and then afterwards with amateurs? No, such a thing would never be tolerated, notwithstanding that the competitor never won any money, nor was paid for his services. Yet amateur billiardists often play with professionals in matches to which the public are admitted and specially invited. And this is somewhat common with some players, judging from the reports one sees in the provincial newspapers.
These amateurs, I assume, and don't doubt, are not paid for their services, but they certainly receive a certain amount of gain in that they enhance their knowledge and practice of the game, and also gain much confidence in playing before the public. They also assist the professional or proprietor in his livelihood, either by helping to advertise his room, or by saving him the sum he would have to pay for the services of another professional to join in the match. (Why don't other professionals, who perhaps could do with a little money for match play, kick against this?) Therefore, I suggest that the Billiard Association Rules ought to so modify the definition of an amateur as to prevent in future such a class of players from competing in any events solely open to amateurs. What chance have really private players in competing for the Amateur Championship with those who have often played with professionals in matches before the public? They are certainly placed at a very great disadvantage.
By all means let professionals play matches with professionals and amateurs matches with amateurs (except of course in friendly games where the public are not invited), or else change the names, and distinguish the classes for championships, etc., as public and private players. The former to include all professionals, and those amateurs who play public matches with professional players, and the latter those who do otherwise.
I would also suggest that, when playing in handicaps, etc., and especially in events under the control of the Association, such as the Amateur Championship, proper entry forms with a suitable declaration by the competitor to the effect that he has never competed with a professional billiard player in a.match before the public, etc., be used and open to inspection by the other competitors.
Until some such suggestion as the above is carried out (and never till then) will the definition of an amateur be really satisfactory.
I hope some day a championship for really private cueists (defined as above suggested) will be contested, for then the interest (though the play might not be so good) of the audience and lovers of the game would be very keen in seeing such players battling to their utmost.
Hoping some "private amateurs" will give their views on the above suggestion. - Yours, etc., AN ORDINARY BILLIARD AMATEUR.
P.S. - I believe the Association have a rule requiring their permission to be given for matches by amateurs with professionals. Supposing this rule is rigorously enforced, is there any limit to the number of times permission is to be granted, or can one apply regularly?
[No amateur may play against a professional in any game to view which a charge is made, without a permit from the Billiard Association, and this is never granted unless the proceeds of the game are to be devoted to a charity or benefit. - Ed. THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS.]
To the Editor of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS.
Dear Sir, - I read the letter signed "Leslie Belcher" in a recent issue of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS with great interest, and I think that all fair- minded players will agree with me that your correspondent is giving the author of the " Strokes of the Game" no more than his due. I must admit that I have not seen Stevenson's book, indeed, it would be of little use to me, for unfortunately top-of-the-table play is not, and never will be, for me. It is for this reason and no other that it does not seem permissible to rank this book of Stevenson's in front of Mr. Riso Levi's book.
After all, top-of-the-table play is but a chapter of the game, and Mr. Levi in the preface of his present work promises us this chapter in a future volume.
The present work contains many long chapters, and in reviewing Chapter 10, you use these words: " Chapter 10 is as weighty and formidable as it is clever. Its text of ' Screw and Reverse Rotation ' is a big one indeed, but the higher the class of stroke the more pronounced and assuredly authoritative does Mr. Levi become. There is a whole heap of billiard philosophy here, theorising plainly backed by the practical hand in this the longest chapter of all." Taking your own estimate of this chapter, an estimate which I can fully endorse, it would appear that this chapter is quite as capable as Stevenson's chapter on top-of-the-table play. The "Strokes of the Game" consists however of seventeen chapters, mostly long ones.
Again, in commenting on the "Strokes of the Game" as a whole you use the following words: "Yet no real lover of billiards, the man who will try to learn something of the game's intricacies, can afford to be without a knowledge of the hundreds of golden hints with which the ' Strokes of the Game ' is stored. In the wealth of good things it contains to select any outstanding matter is no easy task. The same painstaking treatment is meted out to every shot. That the work has exceeded the bounds which were first of all in the author's mind may be taken for granted. But in a labour of love - I know it has been so to Mr. Levi - the end is never in sight, etc.
And then a few weeks afterwards you ignore the book altogether. Ever since I have read THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS, nearly three years ago, I have been struck with its thorough fairness and fearlessness, particularly has this been the case in your bright and eminently readable" Editorial "(which, by the way, is always all too short), but this present instance savours very much of over-praising a great professional player, and in the interests of amateurs in general I make this protest. - Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY.
2, George Street, Prestwick, Lancashire, December 21, 1906.
To the Editor of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS.
Dear Sir,- - May I be permitted to also say a word on the subject of which is the best book. Although I concur in all that your correspondent has said, there is one little point which he has not touched upon. That is, the price of billiard books. There are, as we all know, plenty of Is. books, but most of these books on the game are practically worthless. Until recently you could not get a good book, except at a high price. "Badminton Billiards"was first published at 10s. 6d., and Mannock's 7s. 6d. per volume. Then there was Dawson's book which cost 12s. 6d., though it was chiefly historical.
What players in general require is a book which deals with everything on billiards and yet is within the reach of the slenderest purse. I consider that Riso Levi's book comes nearest to this requirement, and the price, 4s. 6d., compares most favourably with the price of the books I have mentioned, as it contains more diagrams, more explanatory.matter, and more little details than any other book.
The ideal book would be a very complete book dealing in as thorough manner as Mr. Riso Levi has done with every stroke of the game and published at 2s. 6d.
Can this be done? Such a book I am convinced would have a very great circulation. Why does not some literary billiardist follow Hall Caine's example? - Yours, etc., L. JACK. 12, Sandringham Road, Waterloo, December 24, 1906.
To the Editor of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS. Sir, - No small amount of astonishment has been created amongst followers of billiards in the Thames Valley district, by the annoying and ridiculous leniency with which Frank Finn, of the" London Apprentice," Isleworth, and previously marker at the" Queen's Head,"Richmond, has been treated in the above-named billiard handicap. For years he has been recognised throughout the locality as an excellent exponent of the game, and as a distinctly superior player to anyone in the neighbourhood. Indeed, it is doubtful if there is an amateur player throughout England who could concede him 200 in 1,000. Last season he played a -match, for money, at the" St. Margaret's "Hotel, St. Margaret's-on-Thames, against C. Williams, the marker at the "Crown" Hotel, Twickenham, conceding him 100 in 750. In the course of the game Finn made breaks of 135 and 72. When playing Robert Inman, jun., he made a break of over 100. On several occasions he has played exhibition matches with Melbourne Inman, and even that distinguished and highly accomplished professional has not conceded him half the game. In the face of these facts, how comes it that he is absolutely thrown into the Licensed Victuallers' Handicap with a start of 150 points in a game of 250 up? What earthly chance can any amateur licensed victualler have of defeating him? Not a dog's chance. For instance, Mr. Thomas, of the" King's "Head, Twickenham, is on or about the scratch mark, Frank Finn could concede him 30 in 100 and beat him. Last year Mr. Arthur Williams of the" Crown "Hotel, Twickenham, received 125 only: Frank Finn could give him at least 60 in 100 and smother him. In a handicap of this importance, instituted for a charitable purpose, and to which highly valuable prizes are attached, it is surely essential that fair play should be accorded all competitors, and that only those who are legitimately entitled to compete should be permitted to enter. I beg to submit that Frank Finn, being a professional player, has no right to compete, and, further, that, even supposing he had that right, that he has through some mysterious circumstance or other, which certainly calls for an explanation, been most flagrantly under-handicapped. Already he has defeated Mr. J. Newport, who.has the sympathy of everyone acquainted with the facts herein stated. Let us hope he will be the only victim in this matter. If, however, things are permitted to remain as they are, the best thing to do will be to make a present of the first prize (value £50) to Mr. Frank Finn, and thus save that gentleman the trouble and exertion of playing for it. - Yours, etc., HORACE VERNON THEED. 32, Napoleon Road, East Twickenham.
To the Editor of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS.
Dear Sir, - I have been much interested by the perusal of your Editorial of October 17, regarding the use of the short cue for the" masse "stroke - where it is stated that the cue in question is the invention of Mr. Mannock.
In allusion to the same question it is also observed in the same number that French billiards is very imperfectly known in England. This is evident from what has occurred regarding the use of the short cue. I have played French billiards, off and on, for some thirty years, and have a considerable knowledge of them, and the rules regarding them, and know pretty intimately many establishments where no other tables exist, and can assure you that the short cue, for the masse, is anything but a novelty. Twenty or thirty years ago no French billiard room equipment was complete without one, at least, of these cues, about one metre long, while in many rooms there was one of these short cues to each table. The object of the short cue is not only to facilitate the position of the player, but in many positions on the table, away from the edge, where a cannon-player would play a,masse\ this is not possible with an ordinary cue, on account of the lights over the table.
As regards changing the cue in the course of the game - putting aside the question of the short cue - I have known French professionals (Baroutell, for in stance) who invariably used a special cue (exchanging it as often as necessary during the game), with a soft spongy top for playing the masse, and with it would often play a back masse, right down the table, when such a stroke would bring the balls together. Hoping that these notes may be of use, I am, yours, etc., H. J. DURY.
English Club, Montevideo, November 12, 1906.