Dear Sir,—It is difficult to write dispassionately concerning a letter appearing in your issue of January 2, signed "An Ordinary Billiard Amateur." I notice that you have yourself dealt with one of the many incongruities of that epistle when pointing out that only on the grounds of charity, and by permission of, the Billiard Association, may an amateur play in public against a professional.
A further mis-statement is that no amateur athlete, etc., would be allowed to play in public against a professional, and afterwards against amateurs. When I was at Cambridge I never heard that the purity of the 'Varsity amateur status was endangered because the 'Varsity "Soccer" XI. played Aston Villa, or because Oxford played the Wolverhampton Wanderers. The same remark applies to the Corinthians. Every amateur playing county cricket, and thousands who do not (including public and private schoolboys!) constantly do what your correspondent denies. Is all this really, news to him?
Again, he suggests that only billiard amateurs who have never played in public against a professional should be eligible for the Amateur Championship, because, forsooth, they have improved their knowledge of the game! For what other reason does he suppose such games are played except that the amateur may improve by studying the attack, defence, and finesse of one who has done what he himself cannot do, i.e., made a life study of the game.
He goes on to ask, "What chance have private players in competing for the Amateur Championship with those who have often played with professionals public matches?" Naturally little or none, for they have too much yet to learn. One cannot improve much at any game accept by playing against one's superiors, and at billiards the only superiors of the best amateurs are the professionals.
Your correspondent, after proceeding to state (as an objection) that amateurs who play in public against professionals assist the latter class to a livelihood, asks: "Why don't other professionals who perhaps could do with a little more money kick against this?"
Stupendous! He admits the pro-playing amateur helps the "pro." to get a living and thinks the "pro" should "kick!"
I am well aware that there is a bad side to this question, and I would only too willingly join in putting it down with a firm hand, but logic such as that of your correspondent will hardly help to mend matters.
I hardly think that the remaining remarks in the letter warrant serious attention, when, typical of them, is such a grossly unfair suggestion that the governing body of the game should disqualify from the Amateur Championship all those who have so far most strictly complied with the rulings of that body as to when an amateur may and may not compete against a professional.
May I, in conclusion, ask your correspondent three questions?
1. Does he, when he suggests that the Amateur Championship should be open only to "private cueists," imagine that the Amateur Championship is in any sense a private function?
2. Has he considered, in the event of this reply to his letter striking him as somewhat aggressive, that his original letter is little short of an insult to myself and all other amateurs who, while spending time and money on improvement, have always striven to raise the level of the "amateur status"?
3. Will he, in the event of his answering the above, so far relinquish his desire for "privacy" as to sign his name, as I do, and drop his nom de guerre?
Dear Sir,—In answer to "Ordinary Billiard Player," re amateurs playing professionals, I fail to see his point, re only allowing amateurs who have never played in public or against professionals to be classed as amateurs.
Why not object to their playing practice games together?
I take it that the necessary qualifications for an entrant to the Amateur Billiard Association Championship are: Firstly, that he is an amateur, as per Billiard Association rules; secondly, that he is a good player, and thirdly, that he be able to reproduce his best form in the "pit."
Save us from the player who can only play when there is nothing depending on the game, and nobody patching him! How many amateurs have there been in the history of the game, who are at least good enough, on their home form, to enter for the Amateur Championship, yet have not the necessary nerve to reproduce that form (and know it) in the pit? A great many if a list were taken. I give way to no man in my dislike and utter contempt for the pro.-amateur, but I see no harm in an amateur doing his best to make himself as fine a player as possible. And unless he is capable of playing in public and with something "big" attached to the game, he is no champion.—
Yours etc.