| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Billiards
Author: Broadfoot, William, Ford, W. J., Pontifex, Dudley D.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Billiards" ***
The Badminton Library
OF
SPORTS AND PASTIMES
EDITED BY
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT, K.G.
ASSISTED BY ALFRED E. T. WATSON
_BILLIARDS_
[Illustration:
A SCREW LOSING HAZARD.
]
BILLIARDS
BY
MAJOR W. BROADFOOT, R.E.
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY
A. H. BOYD, SYDENHAM DIXON, W. J. FORD, DUDLEY D. PONTIFEX, RUSSELL D.
WALKER, & REGINALD H. R. RIMINGTON-WILSON
[Illustration]
_ILLUSTRATED by LUCIEN DAVIES, R.I., and from PHOTOGRAPHS also by
numerous Diagrams and Figures_
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON AND BOMBAY
1896
_All rights reserved_
_DEDICATION
TO
H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES_
BADMINTON: _May 1885_.
Having received permission to dedicate these volumes, the BADMINTON
LIBRARY of SPORTS and PASTIMES, to HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF
WALES I do so feeling that I am dedicating them to one of the best and
keenest sportsmen of our time. I can say, from personal observation,
that there is no man who can extricate himself from a bustling and
pushing crowd of horsemen, when a fox breaks covert, more dexterously
and quickly than His Royal Highness; and that when hounds run hard over
a big country, no man can take a line of his own and live with them
better. Also, when the wind has been blowing hard, often have I seen His
Royal Highness knocking over driven grouse and partridges and
high-rocketing pheasants in first-rate workmanlike style. He is held to
be a good yachtsman, and as Commodore of the Royal Yacht Squadron is
looked up to by those who love that pleasant and exhilarating pastime.
His encouragement of racing is well known, and his attendance at the
University, Public School, and other important Matches testifies to his
being, like most English gentlemen, fond of all manly sports. I consider
it a great privilege to be allowed to dedicate these volumes to so
eminent a sportsman as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and I do
so with sincere feelings of respect and esteem and loyal devotion.
BEAUFORT.
[Illustration:
BADMINTON
]
PREFACE
A few lines only are necessary to explain the object with which these
volumes are put forth. There is no modern encyclopædia to which the
inexperienced man, who seeks guidance in the practice of the various
British Sports and Pastimes, can turn for information. Some books there
are on Hunting, some on Racing, some on Lawn Tennis, some on Fishing,
and so on; but one Library, or succession of volumes, which treats of
the Sports and Pastimes indulged in by Englishmen—and women—is wanting.
The Badminton Library is offered to supply the want. Of the
imperfections which must be found in the execution of such a design we
are conscious. Experts often differ. But this we may say, that those who
are seeking for knowledge on any of the subjects dealt with will find
the results of many years’ experience written by men who are in every
case adepts at the Sport or Pastime of which they write. It is to point
the way to success to those who are ignorant of the sciences they aspire
to master, and who have no friend to help or coach them, that these
volumes are written.
To those who have worked hard to place simply and clearly before the
reader that which he will find within, the best thanks of the Editor are
due. That it has been no slight labour to supervise all that has been
written, he must acknowledge; but it has been a labour of love, and very
much lightened by the courtesy of the Publisher, by the unflinching,
indefatigable assistance of the Sub-Editor, and by the intelligent and
able arrangement of each subject by the various writers, who are so
thoroughly masters of the subjects of which they treat. The reward we
all hope to reap is that our work may prove useful to this and future
generations.
THE EDITOR.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
I. HISTORY OF BILLIARDS 6
_By Sydenham Dixon_.
II. IMPLEMENTS 55
_By Archibald Boyd_.
III. ELEMENTARY: ONE-BALL PRACTICE 104
_With Memorandum by Dudley D. Pontifex._
IV. MOTION, IMPACT, AND DIVISION OF BALLS: TWO-BALL PRACTICE 130
V. PLAIN STROKES, WINNING AND LOSING HAZARDS, CANNONS:
THREE-BALL PRACTICE 142
VI. ON THE ROTATION OF BALLS 189
VII. MISCELLANEOUS STROKES 215
VIII. THE SPOT STROKE 264
IX. SAFETY AND BAULK PLAY 283
X. BREAKS 300
_With Memoranda by Archibald Boyd and R. H. R. Rimington-Wilson._
XI. THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THE THREE-INCH POCKET TABLE 362
_With Memorandum by Russell D. Walker_
XII. THE RULES OF THE GAME OF BILLIARDS 374
XIII. PYRAMIDS, POOL, AND COUNTRY-HOUSE GAMES 387
_By W.J. Ford_
XIV. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 436
INDEX 447
_ILLUSTRATIONS_
(REPRODUCED BY THE SWAN ELECTRIC ENGRAVING CO.; WALKER & BOUTALL; P.
NAUMANN, AND G. H. FORD)
_PLATES_
ARTIST
A SCREW LOSER _Lucien Davis._ _Frontispiece_
CHOOSING A CUE „ „ _To face p._
48
PRELIMINARIES „ „ „ 108
OPENING THE GAME „ „ „ 133
A DISPUTED SCORE „ „ „ 148
IN OR OUT OF BAULK „ „ „ 190
THE LONG REST „ „ „ 264
A SERIOUS GAME: NURSING THE BALLS „ „ „ 300
A DIFFICULT STROKE „ „ „ 362
ARE THEY TOUCHING „ „ „ 386
A LADIES’ BATTLE „ „ „ 440
_ILLUSTRATIONS IN TEXT_
PAGE
MR. SAMSON’S SECTIONS OF A BILLIARD-ROOM 64, 65
AN OUTSIDE BILLIARD-ROOM 103
STRINGING. 106
AN EASY ATTITUDE 107
THE BRIDGE 109
USING THE REST 113
THE BRIDGE (_bouclée_) 129
INSTEAD OF LONG REST 148
HIGH BRIDGE FOR A CRAMPED STROKE 188
A PUSH STROKE 225
A PUSH (_bouclée_) 232
THE LEAP OR JUMP STROKE 252
WHEN PLAYER’S BALL IS NEAR A CUSHION 263
PREPARING TO PLAY BEHIND THE BACK: _the right way_ 314
PREPARING TO PLAY BEHIND THE BACK: _the wrong way_ 324
A NURSERY 349
PLAYING BEHIND THE BACK 360
A WINNING GAME 437
BILLIARDS
INTRODUCTION
Justification for the appearance of a volume on the game of billiards as
it is played early in 1896 is ample, for no treatise or manual exists in
which modern developments are considered. Though this is so, it does not
follow that the instruction in older works is unsound; much may be
learnt from some of them, specially about plain practice strokes, but
the science of playing breaks has been completely changed since they
were published. If, however, further warrant were needed, it is supplied
in the neglect of most players, whether professional or amateur, of
elementary facts concerning the motion of balls on a table; and this,
though ameliorated as regards professional players by constant practice
and observation, obstructs both classes more than they think in the race
for distinction. The best French players, from whom we have much to
learn, recognise that the closer and more intelligent the study of the
game, and the more nearly the implements reach perfection, the nearer do
scientific theory and actual practice conform. Hence in this book
considerable space is devoted to matters which may seem elementary and
self-evident, but which are really the bases of sound knowledge, and of
which amateurs (for whom the volume is primarily written) are for the
most part completely ignorant. When the behaviour of a ball under
various influences is described endeavour is made to use the simplest
language; mathematical terms not generally understood are as far as
possible avoided.
Several matters of importance to the game and in need of reform are
discussed, the opinions of experts, amateur and professional, being
occasionally quoted; sometimes opposite views are stated, and efforts
are made to consider duly those of all shades.
It is usual, and most of the contributors have not failed to conform to
the fashion, to insist on the fact that more can be learnt from a player
in an hour than from a book in a year, that an ounce of practice is
worth a ton of theory, or some similarly original sentiment. Certainly
no man can be made a billiard-player solely by the study of books any
more than skill in shooting, fishing, or other sport, can be so
attained; but much may be learnt from a good manual, both by a beginner
and by his instructor. By conforming to the arrangement of a book a
system of teaching will be followed, and this, if sound, must help
master and pupil.
The amateur who has played for years and acquired a bad style is more
difficult to assist; he is apt to find, whilst trying to correct faults
and to play breaks, that he has lost his old certainty, and scores worse
after than before instruction—a result which causes many to lose heart.
But there is no need to do so; the chance of improvement depends greatly
on modesty and perseverance, whilst the case is hopeless in proportion
to the presence of presumption and conceit. Some give in at this stage
and revert to their former methods, others more resolute persevere and
improve; but it is hoped that both classes will find this book of
service. Those who devote their whole attention to making the immediate
stroke will be assisted by the practice recommended; whilst the more
ambitious will find advice which may in time enable them to play real
breaks and thus derive fresh pleasure from the game.
Personal qualifications have so important an influence in billiards,
that too precise definition of the stroke to be played for is avoided.
What is the game for one person is not necessarily the game for another,
and each must use his own discretion. The qualities usually found in
fine players are good nerve, quick and sound judgment, resolution, and
temper under control, accompanied by fair sight, a fine touch, and
sympathy between eye and hand. Of these some are the gifts of nature and
cannot be acquired; others may be improved by careful training. Nerve is
little understood, but is strengthened by gaining certainty of play,
which creates confidence; yet there is always that which we cannot
explain, but may call the ‘personal equation.’ It is perplexing, but
must not be ignored, and persons of the most slender experience will
admit that they play better with one man than with another, though they
cannot always account for the fact.
Much care and time have been spent on the diagrams and figures, but
absolute accuracy is not to be expected; indeed, it cannot be attained,
for the size of the table must be limited by that of a page, whilst for
the sake of clearness the balls are shown on a larger scale, a
consequence being some imperfection in the delineation of their
indicated paths. In the final chapter many matters connected with
billiards are briefly noticed, amongst which are: the suitability of the
game for ladies; the French or cannon game, which possesses advantages
on account of the smaller size of table on which it is played; and the
duties of marker and referee. The observations about etiquette are
specially commended to the careful consideration of readers. It is
beyond doubt that the vastly inferior play of amateurs compared with
professionals is in no small measure owing to laxity in behaviour,
whereby attention is distracted from the game. If billiards is ever to
be played finely in ordinary clubs, as strict order must be maintained
as is usual in the card-room.
Obligations must be expressed to Mr. Boyd, Colonel Allan Cunningham,
R.E., Mr. Dudley Pontifex, and Mr. Russell Walker for assistance in
various ways; and to M. Vignaux, whose admirable manual of the French
game has been of special service. To a less extent the volume is
indebted to the works of Joseph Bennett and of other players; but beyond
all it owes much of whatever merit it may have to the assistance and
advice of Mr. R. H. R. Rimington-Wilson. It is indeed impossible to
overestimate the value of this aid, for his knowledge of the game and
practical skill are united to a singularly sound judgment, and his help
is enhanced by the kindness and courtesy with which it has invariably
been accompanied. Acknowledgment is further due to Messrs. Burroughes &
Watts and Messrs. Peall and Walder for practical help of great value.
The preparation of this manual was a difficult task which the writer
would not have attempted without the co-operation just acknowledged; and
readers are besought to recollect, if disposed to resent an air of
authority in giving advice, or a too evident want of respect for their
knowledge and skill, that on every question of importance the recorded
conclusions are the result rather of careful consideration by experts
than an expression of personal opinion.
Passing on from these preliminary observations and acknowledgments, it
should be at once said that no laborious compilation of the results of
research is here given on the subject of the origin of the game of
billiards, for the reason that this is obscure in the extreme. Many
attempts have been made to trace its ancient history, but little success
has resulted. In most books about it, reference is made to the
well-known quotations from Spenser and Shakespeare; whilst in ‘Modern
Billiards,’ the American text-book, the historian plunges deeper into
the mystery of the past, and tells how Cathire More, King of Ireland,
who died A.D. 148, left ‘fifty billiard balls of brass, with the pools
and cues of the same materials.’ Besides this, he refers to ‘the travels
of Anacharsis through Greece, 400 B.C.,’ during which a game which might
have been early billiards was seen.
We may, perhaps, safely assume that the game is of considerable
antiquity, a development from some primitive form played with balls on
the ground. It may, therefore, have been evolved simultaneously in many
countries, and have assumed minor differences as it grew older. Then, as
intercourse became easier, one country may have borrowed from another
what was thought desirable, with the general result that the
similarities of the games of various countries are greater than the
differences.
Undoubtedly, in 1896 the two great games are the English and the French,
and each is indebted to the other.
From the lawn or courtyard the game was promoted to a table indoors, the
bed was wooden, the cushions were stuffed with cotton, and there were
pockets. The balls, of ivory or of wood, were propelled by wooden maces
tipped with ivory, silver, or brass. Such a table is depicted in ‘The
Compleat Gamester,’ by Charles Cotton (1674). Improvement for a long
time after this date seems slow to those who contrast the strides made
during the last half of the nineteenth century. The first step of
importance was the substitution of the cue for the mace, and the
invention of the leather tip by Mingaud, a French player, who early in
the century was, it is said, imprisoned for a political offence, and
during his imprisonment made the important discovery. Next came the
application of chalk, with which Carr, who had some title to be called
the first champion player of England, is generally credited. He was,
moreover, a player of the spot stroke, in those days (about 1825)
probably a recent invention. Position was maintained by a screw back or
by follow, as the slow cushions did not admit of use after the modern
manner. Carr is referred to in the following chapter.
CHAPTER I
HISTORY OF BILLIARDS
BY SYDENHAM DIXON
Just as there were ‘brave men before Agamemnon,’ so, doubtless, were
there good billiard-players prior to Kentfield; but we hear very little
about them. One of the few whose name has been handed down to posterity
is John—generally known as Jack—Carr. He was originally marker for Mr.
Bartley, the proprietor of the billiard-tables at the Upper Rooms at
Bath. When business there was slack, Mr. Bartley and Carr used
occasionally to amuse themselves by placing the red ball on the centre
spot, and attempting to screw off it into one of the middle pockets
without bringing the red ball back into baulk. Such a stroke would be
easier under the conditions then existing of slow list cushions and
rough baize cloths than it is now, and for a long time Mr. Bartley was
the only person who could accomplish it. At last he confided to Carr
that he did it by striking his own ball upon its side. It seems pretty
clear, therefore, that Mr. Bartley was the inventor of the side stroke
and screw; but he appears to have made very little practical use of his
great discovery; whereas Carr, who soon outstripped his instructor in
proficiency at this particular stroke, turned his knowledge to excellent
account, and fairly astonished and mystified the frequenters of the
billiard-room at Bath by the ease and certainty with which he brought
off apparently impossible strokes. They were naturally anxious to learn
the secret, and, after Carr had artfully roused their curiosity to its
highest pitch by remaining obstinately silent on the subject for a
considerable time, he gravely informed them that his wonderful powers
were entirely due to the use of a certain ‘twisting chalk’ that he had
recently invented, and had then on sale. The demand for small pill-boxes
filled with powdered chalk at half a crown per box was naturally
enormous, and for a long time the wily marker reaped a rare harvest. If,
as some have supposed, this was the first introduction of the custom of
chalking the tip of a cue, the half-crowns were well invested; but,
unfortunately, the weight of evidence goes to show that chalk had been
in common use for this purpose for some time prior to Carr’s smart
stroke of business, and that he economically filled his valuable
pill-boxes by grinding up some of the chalk provided by Mr. Bartley for
the use of his customers.
What with the brisk sale of the famous ‘twisting chalk,’ and the immense
advantage that his knowledge of the power of screw gave him over all
rivals, Carr must have been making a great deal of money about this
time. Unhappily for his own prosperity, however, he was a desperate and
confirmed gambler, and all that he made out of ivory in one form was
lost through ivory in another. He never could resist ‘flirting with the
elephant’s tooth,’ and every shilling that he made was promptly lost at
hazard. At last, fairly tired out by incessant losses scarcely broken by
a single run of luck, and discontented with circumstances immediately
connected with his professional pursuits, he determined to leave England
and try his fortune in Spain. It might have been imagined that the
latter country would have proved anything but a happy hunting-ground,
and that the Dons, on falling victims to Carr’s powers of screw, might
have taken it into their heads to lay down their cues and to finish the
game with knives. However, the Bath marker was evidently an excellent
man of business, and the Spanish billiard-rooms proved veritable El
Dorados to him. He made a tour of the principal towns, and succeeded in
easily beating everyone with whom he played. The feats he performed by
means of the ‘side twist’—as the screw stroke was formerly termed—amazed
all who saw him play, and he managed to amass a considerable sum. Still,
the old passion was as strong as ever, and once more proved his
downfall. Spain was even more amply furnished with gambling-houses than
England, and, as Carr’s usual ill luck pursued him, all his doubloons
vanished even more rapidly than they had been acquired; he was compelled
to return home, and finally landed at Portsmouth almost in rags.
‘Whether’—to use Mr. Mardon’s own words, and it is to his excellent book
that I am indebted for much of my information as to these early
exponents of the game—‘players of those days were less particular than
persons of the present period is not for me to determine; but it is no
less strange than true that, even in so deplorable a garb, he no sooner
made his appearance at the billiard-table than he met with a gentleman
willing to contend.’ In the ‘gentleman willing to contend,’ Carr, in his
hour of direst need, must have found a very foolish person, for no man
of average sense would have lost seventy pounds to an individual whose
appearance loudly proclaimed that he did not possess the same number of
pence, and who, therefore, could not possibly have paid had the issue of
the games gone the other way.
The _dénouement_ of this little episode fully confirms this idea.
Quitting the room with the money in his pocket, Carr immediately
proceeded to get himself fully rigged out in ‘a blue coat, yellow
waistcoat, drab small-clothes, and top-boots.’ A little advice from the
local Polonius was evidently sadly needed; the attire was probably
‘costly’ and may have been ‘rich,’ but it was certainly ‘express’d in
fancy,’ and decidedly ‘gaudy.’ Arrayed in all this magnificence, Carr
paid another visit to the same billiard-room on the following day, when
he again encountered his victim. The latter being, according to Mr.
Mardon, ‘a fine player and devoted to the game,’ lost no time in
challenging the stranger to play. This match naturally resulted as the
other had done, and Carr again won a considerable sum. When play was
over the gentleman remarked that ‘he was truly unfortunate in having met
with, on succeeding days, two persons capable of giving him so severe a
dressing. Carr, making himself known, thanked the gentleman for the
metamorphosis his money had occasioned, and wished him a good morning.’
In 1825, Carr played a match against ‘the Cork Marker,’ at the Four
Nations Hotel, in the Opera Colonnade. The latter was considered a very
fine player in his day, and it is curious that no one seems to have
known his name, for he is invariably alluded to under this somewhat
vague designation. They played three games of 100 up, and, although Carr
won all three, he was evidently encountering a foeman worthy of his
steel, as ‘the Cork Marker’ reached 92 in the first game, and 75 in the
third. In the second, however, he only got to 49, as Carr suddenly
astonished the spectators by making twenty-two consecutive spot strokes.
This was naturally considered a most extraordinary feat, and, as an
offer was at once made to back Carr against all comers for a hundred
guineas a-side, he can fairly lay claim to being considered the first
champion of billiards, or, at any rate, the first whose claim to the
title rests upon anything like a solid foundation. Pierce Egan, in his
‘Annals of Sporting and Fancy Gazette,’ writes of him as the ‘father of
the side stroke;’ and though, as I have previously narrated, Mr. Bartley
was the discoverer of the stroke, Carr was undoubtedly the first man who
realised its importance and turned it to practical account.
I have been unable to satisfy myself whether Bedford and Pratt, two fine
players who flourished in the first half of the present century, were
contemporaries of Carr, or belonged to a somewhat later period; this,
however, is a matter of small consequence. According to Mr. Mardon,
‘each was celebrated for quietude of demeanour and elegance of style,’
and Bedford was ‘graceful and unassuming, excelling in winning hazards,
whilst all [strokes?] are made without apparent effort;’ his best break
was 159. The same author gives the following amusing anecdote of Pratt,
which will well bear repetition:
One evening, when most persons were enjoying their claret by the
fireside, a gentleman presented himself in the billiard-room, where
Pratt was seated alone. To a request whether he was desirous of
playing, he replied in the affirmative. The lights were placed, and
the parties took their stations at the table. ‘What game, sir, would
you wish to play?’ ‘I will play,’ replied the stranger, ‘the game of
100 up; and, as it is my desire that you should be rewarded for your
trouble, I will play for sixpence!’ The game commenced; and, after the
gentleman had once or twice struck the balls, he left his opponent’s
ball near the red, which, fortunately for Pratt, being on the spot, he
continued to hole in the two corner pockets four-and-thirty times,
beating his liberal antagonist a love game, 100 up!
To return, however, to Carr. His challenge was soon taken up by Edwin
Kentfield, of Brighton (better known as Jonathan); but Carr fell ill,
and the proposed match never came off. Kentfield then assumed the title
of champion, his claim to which was not disputed for four-and-twenty
years. There is no doubt that Edwin Kentfield, who died in 1873, was
very superior to most of his profession. He was a man of refined tastes,
passionately devoted to horticulture, with which he was thoroughly
conversant, and he had the shrewdness to see that the tables and all the
accessories of the game which were in use when he began to play were
very crude and imperfect, the tables having list cushions, wooden beds,
and coarse baize coverings. He spent many years in improving tables,
cushions, balls, cues, &c., and, thanks to his energy, and to the acumen
of Mr. John Thurston—the founder of the present well-known firm of
billiard-table makers, who thoroughly believed in Kentfield, and was
always ready to support his views and carry out his suggested
improvements—the old order of things was gradually superseded by rubber
cushions, slate beds, and fine cloths.
All the newest improvements were naturally to be found in Kentfield’s
Subscription Rooms at Brighton, the appointments of which were
wonderfully perfect, considering the date. In 1839 he published ‘The
Game of Billiards: Scientifically Explained and Practically Set Forth,
in a Series of Novel and Extraordinary, but Equally Practical, Strokes.’
In his well-written and modest preface, Kentfield alludes to the ‘many
alterations and improvements that have been successfully introduced, and
which have so greatly contributed to the state of perfection to which
this noble amusement has at length arrived.’ Compared with the tables
that were in vogue before Messrs. Kentfield and Thurston began their
improvements, their joint production did doubtless seem wonderfully
perfect; yet this extract reads curiously in 1896, in the face of the
extraordinary developments of everything connected with the game that
have taken place within the last ten or fifteen years.
Kentfield was acquainted with the spot stroke, and played it well,
considering the then existing conditions. He devotes a very short
chapter in his book to it, and describes four different methods by which
it can be made. There are now nine entirely different strokes which may
be brought into use in the course of a long spot break; but doubtless,
in his day, several of the varieties of the stroke were absolutely
impossible, owing to the comparative slowness of the tables. He did not,
however, approve of the spot stroke, nor consider it billiards, and on
this point was evidently of the same mind as the younger Roberts, who
has recorded his opinion that a constant succession of big spot breaks
‘would very soon kill the popularity and destroy the artistic position
billiards has attained.’ The thoroughly genuine nature of Kentfield’s
feelings on the subject may be judged from the fact that he caused the
pockets of the tables in his rooms at Brighton to be reduced to three
inches, in order to prevent spot strokes being made; and this, unless he
materially increased the charge for each game, must have meant a
considerable annual pecuniary loss to him. The table on which Kentfield
constantly played is thus described: ‘The table in the Subscription Room
is extremely difficult. It is, perhaps, the fastest in England, and has
pockets of the smallest dimensions (three inches). The spot for the red
ball is barely twelve inches from the lower cushion; the baulk circle
only eighteen inches in extent. On many tables the spot is thirteen
inches from the cushion; the baulk twenty-two.’ It seems singular that,
quite thirty years before the first championship table was manufactured,
Kentfield should have put up almost a fac-simile of it in his Brighton
rooms; but probably John Roberts, senior, saw it there, possibly played
upon it, and derived from it the idea of the table on which, in 1870,
the championship was decided.
It is almost impossible, after this lapse of time, to form any
trustworthy opinion as to the real strength of Kentfield’s game, and it
would be manifestly unfair to draw comparisons between him and any
player of more recent date than the elder John Roberts. Let us first
take the evidence of Mr. Mardon on the subject; and I may here remark
that Mr. Mardon’s book—which was a very great improvement on any of its
predecessors dealing with billiards—appears to have been primarily
written with the view of giving immortality to the author’s great game
of 500 up with a Mr. Porker. This was played in Kentfield’s rooms. Mr.
Porker, who conceded a start of 25 points, reached 495 to 475, and then
Mr. Mardon ran out. A break of 25, even at the end of a game, does not
seem such a very startling feat; still, it was evidently considered as
such in those days, and a diagram is given of each of the nine strokes
which were comprised in this historical effort. One or two of these were
somewhat singularly played according to modern ideas. In one of them,
for example, the red ball was near the left top pocket, into which it
was very easy to screw, and his opponent’s ball was nicely placed about
the middle of the table. Instead of making the losing hazard with a slow
screw, which would have just brought the red ball down to the white, and
left a capital chance of a good break, Mr. Mardon had a regular bang at
it, doubled the red ball right down the table and up again, and,
probably more by luck than judgment, finally left it almost in the jaws
of the right-hand top pocket. This, however, is ‘another story,’ and I
am keeping Mr. Mardon waiting an unconscionably long time in the
witness-box to give his testimony as to Kentfield’s abilities as a
player. He writes:
Were I to relate all the extraordinary performances of Mr. Kentfield
at the period when list cushions and pockets of large dimensions were
in vogue, the reader would imagine I was bordering on romance. On one
occasion, when playing the winning game, 21 up, Mr. Kentfield gave his
opponent 18 points, and won sixteen successive games. In playing the
winning and losing game, 24 up, he won ten games, his adversary never
scoring! The games were thus played: Mr. Kentfield, in playing off,
doubled the red ball for one of the baulk corner pockets, placing his
own ball under the side cushion. His opponent played to drop it into
the corner pocket, failed, and left on each occasion a cannon; that
was made, and the games were all won off the balls! At another time he
was playing the non-cushion game, 16 up. On going off he twisted his
ball into the corner pocket from the red and won in that manner six
games, his adversary not having a stroke! Desirous of ascertaining how
many games of 24 up could be played within the hour, he commenced the
task with a player of considerable eminence;[1] and they completed
thirty games within the specified time. Forty-seven games of 100 up
were also played in eight and a half hours. In a match that did not
exceed two hundred games, he beat his opponent eighty-five love games.
Even allowing that the ‘player of considerable eminence’ was out of
form, and that Kentfield had the table virtually to himself, 720 points
in an hour was amazing;[2] and even the longer test, which works out at
the rate of about 550 points per hour, does not compare at all badly
with the rate at which our best players score at the present day; so it
seems curious that a performer of such ability should have continued for
years playing games of 21 and 24 up, in which, as was almost sure to be
the case, his opponent frequently never had a stroke. When John Roberts,
senior, was fast coming into note as a great player, and people were
beginning to compare his powers with those of Kentfield, Mr. Mardon thus
expressed his opinion on the subject:
I have been given to understand, within the last few months, that Mr.
Roberts, superintendent of the billiard-rooms at the Union Club in
Manchester, is considered by his friends of that neighbourhood to be
equal to any player in England; and, in order to afford me an
opportunity of judging of his skill, balls have been placed in
situations of considerable difficulty, and I have been assured that
hazards thus presented came quite within his power of cue. I have also
been informed that, in playing a game of 100 up, his opponent, aware
of, and dreading, his ability, ran a coup at 96 love, hoping, by so
prudent and cautious a proceeding, to ensure winning the game. Mr.
Roberts, playing from the baulk circle, twisted into one of the corner
pockets from the ball upon the spot, and made from a break so
unpromising 102 points from the red ball alone! Admitting, however,
this information to be correct, still, wonderful and surprising
execution does not constitute either a sterling or a successful
player; and when I take into consideration the advantages to be
derived from playing the game called ‘One pocket to five,’ and learn
that Mr. Kentfield has played upwards of fifty thousand games with one
gentleman alone, I cannot but imagine that an experience so great,
united with his matchless skill, must not only elevate him above all
other players, but fully entitle him to the paramount laudatory
remarks with which his name will be found to be associated. When I
call to mind, and reflect upon, the wonderful execution displayed
while playing the commanding game over the table, and the game of one
pocket to one pocket _commanded_, I have no hesitation in saying that
on such occasions his power of cue has gone beyond what even the
imagination could embrace. I have seen him, like a man inspired,
accomplish stroke after stroke, hazards and cannons, against which I,
with my knowledge of the game, would have laid fifty to one! From his
cue I have witnessed that which I am confident I shall never see
again; and, although luminaries may shine forth in other spheres, Mr.
Kentfield, the electric light of mine, must, I think, dim their lustre
and keep them in the shade.
The only other witness I shall call is John Roberts, sen., who has left
on record his opinion that Kentfield ‘played a very artistic game, but
possessed very little power of cue. He depended on slow twists and fancy
screws, and rarely attempted a brilliant forcing hazard. He gave misses,
and made baulks whenever they were practicable, and never departed from
the strict game.’ This was not written until many years after all
rivalry between the two men had ceased, and may, therefore, probably be
accepted as a calm and unprejudiced opinion. At first sight it is
difficult to reconcile the entirely opposite views of Mr. Mardon and
Roberts with regard to Kentfield’s power of cue. The truth probably lies
between the two extremes, for the former’s judgment may have been
slightly warped by intense admiration for his idol, whereas Roberts was
possibly comparing Kentfield’s power of cue with his own, which was
almost phenomenal. The highest break that Kentfield ever made was one of
196, and his best spot break 57 consecutive hazards. It may be taken for
granted that neither of these breaks was made on his three-inch pocket
table; nevertheless, they may still be regarded as very excellent
performances. If, however, there are diverse views as to Kentfield’s
powers as a player, I have only been able to discover one opinion as to
his merits as a man. Whether or not we may feel inclined to accept the
dictum that genius is ‘an infinite capacity for taking pains,’ I think
there is little doubt that Edwin Kentfield was a genius at billiards,
whilst in other respects it is quite certain that he set a brilliant
example to the players who followed him.
During the last few years of Kentfield’s long and peaceful career, the
fame of John Roberts was rapidly growing, especially in and near
Manchester, and it became evident that at last, for the first time for
four and twenty years, the champion would be called upon to defend his
title. Roberts was born about 1815, and, as is bound to be the case with
a really great player, had a cue in his hand long before he was tall
enough to reach the table properly. Indeed, he was only nine years old
when he began to play upon an old-fashioned table by Gillow, with a
wooden bed and list cushions. This was at the old Rotunda, Bold Street,
Liverpool, and he showed such remarkable aptitude for the game that in
six months he could give points to most ordinary players. His precocious
ability appears to have been unknown to his father, until one day the
two played three or four games together, and the youngster won by many
points. Instead of being delighted with this display of juvenile talent,
the old man, who was possibly a bad loser, concluded that his son must
have been devoting far too much time to the game, and, lacking the
shrewdness to perceive the possibilities that lay before so skilful a
lad, apprenticed him to a carpenter. The boy stuck to this trade for a
couple of years; but his passion for billiards remained as strong as
ever, and at the end of that time he ran away, thenceforth devoting
himself entirely to what was unquestionably his proper vocation. His
first engagement was as marker at Oldham, and it is evident that he must
have improved very rapidly while there, for he could not have been more
than fourteen years old when he played home and home matches with
‘Pendleton Tom,’ a professional player with considerable local
reputation, and beat him in both. When he left Oldham he obtained a
situation in Glasgow, and in 1844 played a match against John Fleming, a
well-known billiard-table maker of that day, for 100_l._ a-side; and
here he met with his first reverse of any importance. They were playing
500 up, and when the game was called ‘485 all,’ Fleming tried for a
cannon and missed it, but fluked a six stroke and went out. Roberts then
defeated Tom Broughton of Leeds, and this appears to have been his last
match of any note during his sojourn in Glasgow. This ended in 1845,
when he became manager of the billiard-rooms of the Union Club at
Manchester, a position which he retained for seven years. This was very
fortunate for him, as he no doubt had far more opportunities for
practice than he had ever previously enjoyed, and it was while there
that he learnt the spot stroke. The popular idea that he invented the
stroke is, of course, an entire fallacy, for Kentfield, Carr, Pratt, and
others were in the habit of playing it. It was taught to Roberts by Mr.
Lee Birch, a member of the Union Club, who had seen it played in London,
and, being one of the best amateur players of the day, soon mastered it
to the extent of being generally able to make a dozen or fifteen
consecutive hazards. It is curious, by the way, how many amateur players
attain this standard of excellence and never get any farther. If a man
can habitually make this number of spot strokes, nothing but steady
practice is required to enable him to make runs of fifty, seventy, a
hundred, or even more; yet not one in a thousand has the resolution or
perseverance to take this necessary practice. With Roberts it was
entirely different. He at once realised that the stroke must give an
enormous advantage to any man who could play it with something like
certainty. For six months, therefore, he devoted himself almost entirely
to it, and spent hundreds of hours at the top of the table.
When a man who united a natural genius for the game with indomitable
perseverance thus set himself to master a particular stroke, there could
be only one result, and I should fancy it was then—strong in the
confidence engendered by his ability to play this deadly stroke—that he
first conceived the idea of bearding Kentfield in his den, and
challenging his long-undisputed supremacy. Mr. Mardon’s account of the
first meeting of the rivals is as follows: ‘Arriving in Brighton,
Roberts called on Kentfield. He informed him at once, in a manly,
straightforward manner, who he was, and expressed a desire of playing a
friendly game. He neither sought disguise nor secrecy, and would
willingly have shown the strength of his game to all who might have
approached. Kentfield, on the other hand, was very desirous of avoiding
publicity, and, taking Roberts into an adjoining room, locked the door
and began a game.’ Then follow a few more lines in Mr. Mardon’s usual
rather high-flown style, the meaning of which, translated into the
vulgar tongue, is that Roberts speedily discovered that his opponent was
not really doing his best. This did not at all suit the man who had come
from Manchester on a voyage of discovery, and Mr. Mardon tells us that
he thus expressed his opinion on the subject: ‘This, Mr. Kentfield,
cannot be your game; to play such as this I can give forty in a hundred.
If you are withholding your powers for the purpose of obtaining a bet, I
am willing to recommence the game and to play you for five pounds.’
Those who knew the elder Roberts intimately may possibly accept this as
the general purport of his remarks, but will entirely decline to believe
that he did not express himself in far more vigorous and forcible
language. As, however, Mr. Mardon states that the door of the room was
locked, and that no one was present excepting the two principals, he
could only have written his account of the scene from hearsay, and it
differs considerably from Roberts’s own version of the interview. This,
given in ‘Roberts on Billiards,’ runs as follows:
I remember perfectly my first meeting with Kentfield, better known as
‘Jonathan.’ It was in the beginning of 1849, at Brighton, where I went
on purpose to see him play. On entering his rooms I met John Pook, the
present proprietor of the Cocoa-tree Club, who was at that time his
manager. After sending up my name, Kentfield came in and inquired my
business. I told him that I was admitted to be the best player in
Lancashire, whence I had come to find out if he could show me
anything. He inquired if I wanted a lesson. I told him I did not, and
asked him how many in 100 would be a fair allowance from a player on
his own table to a stranger, provided they were of equal skill. He
replied ‘15;’ I told him I thought 20 would be nearer the mark, but I
was contented to try at evens. He said: ‘If you play me, it must be
for some money;’ on which, not to be frightened, I pulled out a
100_l._ note, and told him I would play him ten games of 100 up for
10_l._ a game. He laughed, and said I was rather hasty; and eventually
we knocked the balls about, and then commenced a friendly 100 on level
terms. He had the best of the breaks, and won by 40. In the second
game I pulled out a few north-country shots and won by 30, but he
secured the third. Then he put down his cue, and asked if I was
satisfied he could beat me. I said: ‘No; on the contrary, if you can’t
play better than this, I can give you 20 in 100 easily.’ He replied:
‘Well, if you want to play me, you must put down a good stake.’ I
asked how much, and he answered 1,000_l._ I said: ‘Do you mean
1,000_l._ a-side?’ Upon which he told me he thought I was a
straightforward fellow, and he would see what could be done. He then
sent Pook back to me, and I explained to him how things stood. He
replied: ‘You may as well go back to Lancashire; you won’t get a match
on with the governor.’
Accepting Roberts’s version of this historical meeting, one is forced to
the conclusion that, if one of the two was not trying to win, it
certainly was not Kentfield; for when a man loses two games out of three
on level terms, and then calmly tells his victorious opponent that he
can easily give him 20 in 100, it is certain that the loser must have
been keeping a very big bit up his sleeve. Evidently Kentfield was fully
alive to this, for all efforts to get him to make a match proved
fruitless.
The fact of the matter undoubtedly was that Kentfield, who was many
years the senior of the pair, felt that the coming man was too strong
for him, realised that he had everything to lose and very little to gain
by risking a contest, and preferred the title of ‘retired champion’ to
that of ‘ex-champion.’
John Roberts, therefore, attained the first position in the world of
billiards in 1849, and the following year, whilst he was still manager
of the billiard-rooms at the Union Club, Manchester, played a great
match of 1,000 up with Starke, an American. The latter was a remarkably
fine nursery cannon player, and, getting the run of the balls in the
early part of the game, reached 600 to 450, thus securing a formidable
lead. Then it was that Roberts first reaped the reward of all the time
and patience he had expended on the practice of the spot stroke. Wisely
abandoning the all-round game, he devoted his energies to getting
position at the top of the table; a break which included thirty-nine
consecutive ‘spots’ took him to the front again, and another fine run of
thirty-six red hazards gave him an easy victory. In a letter to ‘Bell’s
Life’ on the subject of this match, one of the best contemporary judges
of the game gave it as his opinion that ‘Kentfield showed good judgment
in declining a match with Roberts, for, had they played upon a neutral
table, he would have been defeated to a certainty.’ Even Mr. Mardon
completely altered his mind with regard to the respective merits of the
two players, and to his second profession of faith he probably remained
steadfast until the day of his death; for, as comparatively recently as
the early part of 1874, he wrote a letter to the ‘Sporting Life’ on the
subject of billiards, in which he strongly maintained the superiority of
old John over his son, William Cook, and Joseph Bennett.
It is doubtful whether, at the period of which I am now writing, the
title of champion was of much pecuniary value to its possessor. He could
only get an occasional match for money by giving a very long start,
whilst such things as exhibition games seem to have been of very rare
occurrence. In glancing over the files of ‘Bell’s Life’—the only
sporting paper then in existence—of some forty years ago, one cannot
fail to be struck with the way in which billiards is practically
ignored; in fact, it was some time before I could find any allusion to
the game. At last, in the issue dated February 22, 1852, I discovered
the following announcement: ‘A silver snuff-box will be given by the
proprietor of the Shakspere’s Head, Wych Street, Strand, to be played
for by eight of the best players in London, on Tuesday next, at six
o’clock. A gentleman from the country will be in attendance to play any
man in London for from 25_l._ to 50_l._ the same night.’ The most rigid
examination of the issue of the following week—in those days sportsmen
had to content themselves with one sporting paper, which came out once a
week—failed to discover the smallest record of the doings of ‘eight of
the best players in London’ on that Tuesday evening, and the destination
of the silver snuff-box might have been for ever lost to posterity but
for the appearance of the following challenge: ‘Mr. John Dufton will
play Mr. Farrell, the winner of the snuff-box at the Shakspere’s Head,
Wych Street, on Tuesday last, a match at billiards, from 100 to 1,000
up, for 10_l._ or 20_l._ a-side. Money ready any evening at the
above-named place.’ It is probable that the challenger was a relation of
the well-known William Dufton, ‘tutor to the Prince of Wales,’ as he
always proudly styled himself, though I must candidly confess that I had
never previously heard either of him or of Farrell, entitled as each may
have been to rank amongst the eight best players in London. It was not,
however, the battle for the snuff-box that interested me. I was anxious
to know how the countryman fared on his adventurous crusade, and had a
suspicion that he may have turned out to have been no less a personage
than the champion himself, this being just the sort of little joke that
John Roberts always enjoyed. However, my curiosity on this point had to
remain unsatisfied, and I ceased to be surprised that it should be so
when I found that in the same issue of ‘Bells Life’—which in those days
was supposed to devote a good deal of its space to events of general
interest other than sporting—the death of Tom Moore, the sweetest singer
Ireland ever produced, was dismissed in exactly five lines!
In this same year (1852) Roberts resigned the management of the
billiard-rooms at the Union Club, which he had held for seven years, and
took the Griffin Hotel in Lower Broughton, a suburb of Manchester. Soon
after this he played two more matches with Starke at the American game,
each of them being for 100_l._ a-side. It is noteworthy, as marking the
rapid manner in which he had ‘come on’ in his play, that whereas, only
two years previously, Starke had played him upon even terms, and at one
stage of the game looked very much like beating him, it was now thought
good enough to back Roberts to give a start of 300 in 1,000. This proved
rather too big a concession; nevertheless, little mistake had been made
in estimating the respective merits of the two men, for in the return
match, in which the start was reduced to 275, the champion won very
easily. The billiard history of the next few years is singularly
uneventful, and there appear to have been few players good enough to
have any chance with Roberts, even when allowed a long start. He,
however, did not retain the Griffin Hotel very long, and, after leaving
it, took billiard-rooms in Cross Street, Manchester. He must have been
living there in 1858, when he played a match with John Herst in Glasgow,
in the course of which he made a break of 186, which included a run of
55 consecutive spot strokes. Herst was a brilliant winning hazard
striker, and played in very pretty and finished style. Great things were
expected of him, and there is every reason to suppose that these
expectations would have been realised, but he died almost at the outset
of his career. In 1861 Roberts at length left Manchester, to become
lessee of Saville House, Leicester Square, and he had not been there
many weeks when he played a match with Mr. Downs, an amateur, to whom he
conceded a start of 700 in 1,000. In the course of this game, which he
won by 93 points, he made two very fine breaks of 195 (53 ‘spots’) and
200 (64 ‘spots’), and scored his thousand points in 2 hours 11 minutes,
an excellent performance, notwithstanding the fact that he must have had
the table virtually to himself. A rather curious episode occurred in the
course of this game. Mr. Downs, in lieu of giving the customary miss at
the beginning of the play, ran a coup, expecting that Roberts would give
a miss, and very probably calculating that, with his big start, to give
three and receive one was really judicious. The champion, however,
instantly grasped the situation, and, without a moment’s hesitation,
played hard at the red, and sent it and his own ball flying to the other
end of the room. In those days there was no penalty for knocking a ball
off the table, so Mr. Downs’s carefully calculated and promising scheme
of running a succession of coups and receiving a series of misses was
summarily nipped in the bud. It was at Saville House in March 1862 that
Roberts made his famous break of 346, mainly composed of a series of 104
spot hazards. William Dufton was his opponent, and Roberts won the game
in the remarkably fast time of an hour and three-quarters. This break
was more than a nine days’ wonder, and never before or afterwards did
Roberts make 300 off the balls in public—a feat that is now well within
the compass of plenty of men who do not play well enough to get a couple
of engagements per season in exhibition matches.
Two of the most prominent players in the ‘fifties’ and early ‘sixties’
were Alfred Bowles and Charles Hughes. Roberts considered the former to
be the best player he ever met, and records that ‘no one yet has ever
held me at the points as Bowles used to do.’ The points alluded to were
300 in 1,000; but it must not be forgotten that these remarks were
written before William Cook, John Roberts, jun., and Joseph Bennett had
come to the front. I never saw Bowles play until he challenged the
younger Roberts for the championship and suffered an easy defeat. This
was in May 1870, when the Brighton man had possibly seen his best day.
He played a steady, old-fashioned game, but was hopelessly out-classed
by young John, and, though he could play the spot stroke well, of course
he had no opportunity of doing so on a championship table. From what I
saw of the play of the two men, I should unhesitatingly place Charles
Hughes before Bowles; but it would be ridiculous, with the very limited
opportunities I had of forming an opinion, to oppose my judgment to that
of Roberts; and certainly the results of two matches that were played in
the early part of 1864 point strongly to the superiority of Bowles. In
January of that year Roberts gave Bowles 300 in 1,000 for 100_l._
a-side—in those days 100_l._ a-side meant 100_l._ a-side, not that each
man went through the solemn farce of staking his money, and received it
back again at the end of the game, whatever the result might be—and was
beaten by 109 points; whilst, two months later, the champion conceded
Hughes 350 in 1,000, and beat him by no fewer than 243 points. There can
be no doubt, however, that Hughes improved wonderfully between the date
of this match and 1869, when he sailed for Australia. The weak point in
his game was an irresistible inclination to go out for fancy cannons. He
would be apparently well set for a really good break when he would
neglect a comparatively simple shot for some elaborate cannon off three
or four cushions, which he would either just miss or perhaps bring off,
with the result of leaving the balls in an almost impossible position
for a further score. He was gradually, however, getting over this
propensity towards the close of his career, and undoubtedly played a
very good game indeed at the time that he left England. Just prior to
sailing he ran into the last three of a great professional handicap
which took place at the ‘Nell Gwynne,’ Strand, in which, together with
Cook and Roberts, jun., he started at scratch, whilst the champion owed
50 points, and, as there were as many as forty players engaged, this was
a capital performance. He also won a handicap of 200 up, which was
played to celebrate the opening of the Bentinck Club, upon the site of
which the Vaudeville Theatre now stands. In this he received a start of
30 points, the champion owed 20, whilst his son and Cook had 20 each.
The best thing he ever did, however, was accomplished in the last game
he played in England. He sailed from Liverpool, and, as Roberts had gone
down to see him off, the pair took advantage of the opportunity to play
1,000 up at the ‘Golden Lion,’ Deansgate, Manchester. Roberts, as usual,
gave a start of 300, and had reached 736 against 794, when Hughes went
out with a break of 206, which included 62 consecutive ‘spots.’ Being
asked to finish the break, he added 21 more red hazards, and this 269
was a bigger run than anyone had put together since the champion had
made his famous 346 about seven years previously. I can find no record
of Hughes’s achievements in Australia, but he did not long survive his
arrival in that country. As has been the case with too many other fine
players, he lacked the resolution and strength of mind to take proper
care of himself, and the lavish colonial hospitality which was thrust
upon him at every turn speedily killed him.
In the limited space at my disposal it is manifestly impossible to
follow the game closely, year by year, and I think the better plan will
be to give a sketch of all the principal players, including some account
of the most important matches that have taken place since 1870, at
nearly all of which I have been fortunate enough to have been present.
In ‘Roberts on Billiards,’ which was written towards the close of the
author’s twenty-one years’ tenure of the championship, he names Charles
Hughes, John Herst, Joseph Bennett, William Cook, and John Roberts,
jun., as candidates for the title of second-best player, and adds,
‘probably the two best are William Cook and my eldest son.’ The first
and second I have already dealt with; the other three, who kept the
championship entirely between them during fifteen years, naturally
demand more extended notice, as their doings really form the greater
part of the history of billiards from 1870 onwards. Before coming to
them, however, it will be better to dispose of what Roberts terms the
third class, in which he includes William Dufton, L. Kilkenny, W. D.
Stanley, W. E. Green, George Mulberry, Alfred Hughes, George Davis, W.
C. Hitchin, Tom Morris, Harry Evans, and John Smith, ‘to any of whom I
have been in the habit of allowing 350 in 1,000.’ Of these, I never saw
Stanley—who, I fancy, was an elder brother of D. Richards and S. W.
Stanley—Mulberry, Davis, Hitchin, or Smith play, and will not,
therefore, write anything about them. With respect to Dufton, I feel
bound to say that, in my opinion, he was a much overrated man. As I saw
him perform for the first time in 1866, when it is possible that he may
have been going off, I should have hesitated to write so plainly, had
not my view of his lack of ability been fully confirmed by one who
constantly played with him, and for whose judgment I have the highest
respect. His long ‘jennies,’ on the making of which his reputation
almost entirely rested, are now easily within the compass of any
professional player, and he would never have made the name he did but
for confining his play almost entirely to exhibition games with Roberts.
These exhibition matches would naturally have lost much of their
attraction if the champion had invariably won, so Dufton had his share
of successes, and came to be regarded as being able to play Roberts with
350 points in 1,000; whereas it is perfectly certain that a start of
half the game would not have brought them together when the scratch man
was doing his best. L. Kilkenny kept pace fairly well with the
remarkable development of the game that took place between 1870 and
1880, and managed to hold his own with a reasonable start from the
rising stars. He possessed little power of cue and no brilliancy of
execution, but played a sound, steady game, and, before spot-barred
games became so universal, could generally be relied upon for a pretty
good run of ‘spots’ when he obtained a favourable position. Deprived of
the strongest part of his game, however, he soon fell out of the ranks.
Alfred Hughes was a player of no class compared with his brother
Charles, and Tom Morris, a left-handed man, with a somewhat flashy
style, was only moderate. Harry Evans, on the contrary, was a thoroughly
sound performer, who played an excellent all-round game, and, if he did
not go out for gallery strokes, seldom or never missed an ordinarily
simple one. Soon after his arrival in Australia he suddenly came out as
quite a phenomenal spot stroke player, though he had never so
distinguished himself in England, and he held the championship of that
colony for many years, till quite recently deprived of it by Charles
Memmott.
About 1866 John Roberts, jun., William Cook, and Joseph Bennett began to
draw away from the ruck of billiard-players, and it did not require much
foresight to predict that old John would shortly find a dangerous rival
or two, though it was difficult at the time to believe that anyone would
have the temerity to meet him upon even terms. In the October of that
year a great four-handed match took place, the champion and Dufton
attempting to give 200 in 1,000 to Charles Hughes and Joseph Bennett for
200_l._ a-side, an attempt in which they failed lamentably, being beaten
by no fewer than 344 points. Though Hughes scored 497 points during the
game, whilst Bennett only contributed 281, the major portion of the
credit of the victory must be given to the latter, who, by the way, is
the only surviving member of the quartet. Always remarkable for his fine
generalship and wonderful knowledge of the game, Bennett never displayed
these qualities to more advantage than on this occasion. He played in
front of Roberts, and, although he made a few breaks of twenty or
thirty, his sole mission was never to allow the champion a fair opening.
Directly he had a stroke which it was not three to one on his making, he
at once abandoned the break, and either put down the white and left a
double baulk or else gave a miss. Roberts’s game, in fact, was so
utterly cramped from start to finish that it was a remarkable feat on
his part to make 488 points during the evening. In the meantime Hughes
was thoroughly enjoying himself. Having only Dufton to follow him, and
well knowing that it did not much matter what sort of a game he left on,
he went out for everything, brought off all sorts of fancy cannons, and
scored the fastest of the party. Poor Dufton’s show was a very
lamentable one. From the style of game that Hughes was playing, he
naturally left any number of good openings, but all that Dufton could
total during the evening was 136. By Bennett’s clever strategy the
four-handed match was virtually reduced to a single-handed battle
between Hughes and Dufton, and this could only have had one result, even
had they played upon level terms.
It was at the end of 1868 that William Cook and John Roberts, jun.,
between whom there was destined to be such keen rivalry for the next
twelve or fifteen years, played their first match for money, Cook being
at that time just nineteen years of age and his opponent two years
older. The match took place at the Bentinck Club, and produced a very
large amount of speculation. It is quite needless to give any
description of the game, which Roberts won by 92 points, but it is
noteworthy that his best breaks—at the all-in game, be it
remembered—were 120 and 99, whilst Cook’s highest effort only reached
92. This contrasts very curiously with the state of affairs early in
1896, when, in a spot-barred game of 1,000 up, it would be quite safe to
back a player of the calibre of D. Richards or H. W. Stevenson to make
three breaks of upwards of a hundred each. In spite of this defeat,
Cook’s friends did not lose faith in him, and, in his inmost heart, I
believe that Roberts, sen., always rated Cook’s play at a higher level
than that of his son. I remember having a chat with the old man on this
subject at the Bentinck Club. Young John had just beaten Cook pretty
easily in their heat of the handicap with which the opening of the club
was celebrated, and this, coupled with his recent success in the match
just referred to, led me to remark that there could be little doubt as
to who would be future champion. ‘I’m not so sure of that,’ said the
veteran with a shake of the head; ‘we’ve not seen the best of Cook yet.’
Before the end of that year his opinion was amply justified. In March a
return match was played, in which, though the breaks on both sides were
very small, Cook beat Roberts, jun., by 323 points, and when the former
began playing again after the summer recess the improvement he exhibited
was simply extraordinary. His beautiful delicacy of touch was more
striking than ever, and he ‘nursed’ the balls with even more than his
old skill; but in his anxiety to secure position he did not so
frequently miss the immediate stroke, which had formerly been the weak
point in his game. Then he had attained a proficiency in playing the
spot stroke that entirely eclipsed anything that had previously been
witnessed in this line, and three times in one week, with young Roberts
as an opponent, he made upwards of three hundred off the balls. Two of
these breaks—351 at the Royal Hotel, Dale Street, Liverpool, and 359 at
the Prince of Wales’s Hotel, Moss Side, Manchester—beat the champion’s
346, which for seven years had been considered quite unapproachable.
After this, Cook seldom played two games of 1,000 up without making a
break of 300 in one of them, and left his old rival, John Roberts, jun.,
completely in the rear. There could only be one end to this series of
remarkable performances, and in the autumn of 1869 Cook issued a
challenge to play the champion, on or before January 1, 1870, a game of
1,000 or 2,000 up, level, for 500_l._ a-side. Some little time elapsed
before the two men came to terms, and it was decided by a committee of
the leading players of the day that matches for the championship should
be played on a table with three-inch pockets, and with the spot 12½
inches from the top cushion, instead of 13¼ inches, the then customary
distance. As Cook was a member of the committee which decided on this
radical alteration in the table, it seems strange that he did not
protest strongly against a measure which nearly every expert at once
realised must deprive him of the strongest feature of his game—the spot
stroke—but the reason was that he apparently did not realise the fact.
Cook was then barely twenty-one years of age, but he ought to have had
sufficient experience to have saved him from such a mistake. Before he
had been playing on the new table for an hour, his error must have been
brought home to him in very unpleasant fashion.
Just as the great battle at Farnborough between Sayers and Heenan was
read about and eagerly discussed by all sorts and conditions of men who
had previously professed the greatest disgust for prize-fighting, so the
match between the veteran and his pupil excited intense interest, even
amongst people who could scarcely define the difference between a
winning and losing hazard. The Prince of Wales was present at St.
James’s Hall, and, as no such scene had ever previously been witnessed
at a billiard match, and may never be seen again, I need not apologise
for reproducing part of a sketch of the memorable night contributed by
myself at the time to one of the last numbers of the famous old
‘Sporting Magazine,’ which ceased to exist at the end of 1870:
For the last five or six years the champion has made no very long
break nor any great number of successive ‘spots,’ whilst his son,
Joseph Bennett, and Cook, especially the last-named, have frequently
put together a very big score off the balls. People at last began to
realise the idea that the title of ‘second-best player in England’
would not long satisfy one or two of the colts, and were not
altogether surprised when Cook challenged his old master for 500_l._
a-side. Roberts took a long time to reply to this cartel, and it was
believed that another walk-over would take place—for as yet there had
never been a match for the championship; but at length he made up his
mind for one effort to retain his place, and they agreed to play on
February 11. Prior to that day a meeting of the leading professionals
was held. Rules were drawn up for future contests ... and some
important alterations were made in the construction of the tables to
be used in matches for the championship, with what results we shall
presently see.
The match was played in the large concert room at St. James’s Hall.
Just before eight o’clock the spectators settled down into their
places, and the scene was a truly remarkable one. The table, which
looked very small in such a huge hall, was of course placed in the
centre, and, about three yards from it, a cordon was formed by a
scarlet rope, so that a ‘clear course’ was secured for the combatants,
even if ‘no favour’ could not be guaranteed. Outside this rope the
tiers of benches began, and sloped up to the galleries. Every seat was
occupied, and the galleries themselves accommodated a very large
number of spectators, many of whom had provided themselves with opera
glasses, anew concomitant to a billiard match, but a very necessary
one on this occasion. Shortly after eight o’clock the calls of ‘time’
became very loud and impatient, and, with a view of creating a
diversion, someone who appeared to have the chief management of the
affair began to weigh the balls. He spun out this operation in very
clever fashion, and kept the people quiet for nearly ten minutes; but
at last they grew tired of seeing him hold up the scales, and remain
immovable, apparently wrapped in astonishment that the balls should
exactly balance each other, and the noise became worse than ever. At
length the two men appeared, without their coats, and apparently
‘eager for the fray.’ They were received with uproarious applause,
which seemed to delight Roberts immensely.
At the beginning of the game caution prevailed, and the tight pockets
puzzled both men.
At 127 Cook made six ‘spots,’ the longest run of the evening; but the
new-fashioned table seemed to have quite destroyed his pet stroke. The
red ball required to be played with the greatest care, or it did not
go in, and, owing, we imagine, to the change in the locality of the
spot, it seemed almost impossible to secure position for the second
stroke, even if the first came off. Both men had several tries at it;
but they could make nothing of their old friend, and the last half of
the match was practically played ‘spot hazard barred.’ The contrast in
the style of the two was very noticeable, Roberts’s being as clumsy
and awkward as Cook’s was pretty and elegant, the latter playing, as
someone near us observed, ‘a very genteel stroke.’ The men were very
level at about 450, and then the champion got in, with Cook’s ball and
the red almost touching each other, and quietly dribbled them down the
table, making six or seven very pretty cannons in succession. He
followed this up with a regular ‘gallery’ stroke, potting the red at
railroad pace, and making a cannon off two or three cushions, which
brought down the house. A break of 22 by Roberts made his score 494
against 495. The announcement of ‘517 all’ produced great cheering;
however, 44 and 49 by Cook soon placed him in front again, and, as
soon as he passed 600, there was a short interval.
The men soon came back, Roberts decorated with a cross, ‘wearing it
for the last time,’ as one of Cook’s backers grimly remarked. A
magnificent ‘all round’ 80 took the young one to 785. The knowledge of
strength shown in this break was truly wonderful, and there was a thin
‘loser’ in it which even Roberts felt compelled to applaud. There was
soon a gap of a couple of hundred points between them, and the
champion kept looking up mournfully at the figures at the end of the
hall. He never lost heart, however, and, laying himself down to his
work, began to creep up again. Cook’s score stood still for some
little time, and the old man’s backers got very excited. Roberts now
made 62, his longest break during the game, and two or three other
good runs brought him close to Cook, whom he passed, the score being
called 1,041 to 1,037 in favour of Roberts: but a 31, finished with a
double baulk, placed Cook well in front again, and, when his score
stood at 1,133, he made a horribly fluky cannon, and ran right out,
with a succession of the easiest and prettiest strokes we ever saw, a
winner by 117 points.
Here I prefer to take leave of John Roberts, sen.; for, although he
occasionally played in public for several years after, he never again
exhibited anything approaching his best form. It almost seemed as though
he had wound himself up for one great effort to retain his supremacy,
and that he never recovered from the consequent reaction: added to which
he was then fifty-five years of age, and had consequently seen his best
day. In his prime he was a man of extraordinary strength of
constitution, and performed several feats of endurance which probably no
professional player of the present day could approach. Perhaps the most
remarkable of these was accomplished in 1846, when he had rooms in
Glasgow, and an amateur, who was in the habit of frequenting them, made
a match to play him on the following conditions: Roberts was to concede
sixty points in each hundred, mark the game, hand the rest, spot the
red, take the balls out of the pockets, &c., and in fact do the work of
both player and marker. They were to continue playing until one of them
stopped voluntarily or through exhaustion; but I have been unable to
ascertain whether or not they were allowed to eat and drink during the
progress of the match, though the probability is that there were no
restrictions in this respect. The stakes were ten shillings per game:
whoever gave in first was to forfeit 25_l._ and all claim to anything he
might have won. Roberts was at that time in full play, and doing strong
work round the table for several hours in each day; but his opponent
could not have been far behind him in this respect, and must have been a
remarkably game man into the bargain, for he struggled on for
forty-three consecutive hours before Nature gave way, and he fainted
from exhaustion. In that time no fewer than 125 games were played, and
Roberts won a good stake, every penny of which he had certainly earned.
Differing entirely from Kentfield in this respect, he possessed
extraordinary power of cue and a wonderfully strong wrist, which enabled
him to perform all sorts of curious feats, such as knocking both balls
off the table and making them reach the end of a long room before
touching the floor. His worst fault was a too flashy style of play, and
I shall always believe that he would just have beaten Cook in the great
match for the championship if he had kept himself a little quieter
during the game; but he could not resist incessantly chaffing his
friends, chalking bets on the floor, &c. Comparison between Roberts’s
form and that of the leading players of the present day would be most
unfair to the old man. Had he lived fifty years later than he did, and
enjoyed all the advantages of the improvements that have been made in
the accessories of the game, as well as the opportunities that leading
players enjoy of constant practice, it is certain that he would have
been found right in the front rank. He had a real genius for the game,
and was a great player.
Immediately after winning the championship Cook had a very busy time of
it. He played John Roberts, jun., the best of twenty-one games of
pyramids, the result being that, after they had won nine games each,
Roberts secured the next two and won the match, which virtually decided
the championship at pyramids. Then Cook toured for a few weeks, and, in
the course of an exhibition game with S. W. Stanley at Totnes, made the
hitherto unparalleled break of 512. On April 14, 1870, just two months
after he had wrested the championship from the elder Roberts, Cook lost
it to Roberts, jun. The length of the game was wisely reduced from 1,200
points to 1,000, and Cook was beaten by very nearly half the game. This
is one of the few contests for the championship that I did not witness,
and I have never been able to understand the result; for, although
Roberts won by 478 points, and scored his thousand in three hours and
four minutes, which was the fastest time recorded for a
three-inch-pocket table until the last match ever played for the
championship fifteen years later, a 47 was the best break he made during
the whole evening! Of course, it must be remembered that the winner had
the table virtually to himself, for Cook must have been utterly and
hopelessly out of form. Six weeks later, Alfred Bowles, of Brighton, a
contemporary of Roberts, sen., challenged the winner. It is probable
that Bowles, though I believe he is still alive, had then passed his
best day, for the result of his plucky challenge was disastrous. He
played a good, sound old-fashioned sort of game, devoting himself
chiefly to runs of losing hazards in the middle pockets, but had not the
smallest pretensions to meet a man of the class of Cook or Roberts on
even terms, and never possessed the least chance all through the game.
The next challenger, however, was of very different calibre, and the
battle between Roberts—as I have now taken leave of the father, it is
needless to constantly repeat the distinguishing ‘junior’—and Joseph
Bennett was about the most obstinately contested of the entire series.
It lasted for four hours and three-quarters, and Bennett, with repeated
safety misses and double baulks, at last fairly wore down his formidable
opponent, and won by 95 points. Thus ended 1870, a truly remarkable
year, which not only witnessed the first match ever played for the
championship, but in which the title was actually held by four different
men.
To trace the progress of the game minutely from this point to the
present time, and to attempt even to mention the principal matches that
have been played, would occupy too much space, and I must, therefore,
content myself with giving slight sketches of the chief players from
1870 to 1895, alluding to a few of the most remarkable matches. At the
earliest possible moment—the two months which were allowed when the
conditions governing contests for the championship were drawn up—Roberts
played a second match with Bennett, and had no difficulty in regaining
his title, as he won by 363 points in the very fast time of three hours
twenty-two minutes. Cook was the next challenger, and, although he only
got home by 15 points—a really nominal victory—this was the beginning of
his marked superiority to any other player, and for exactly four years
all efforts to wrest the championship from him proved futile. On
November 29, 1872, during an exhibition match at his rooms in Regent
Street, he made the previously unheard-of break of 936, which included
no fewer than 262 consecutive spot hazards. This break was, of course,
made on an ordinary table. From 1871 to 1875 was undoubtedly the very
zenith of Cook’s career. During those four years he stood right out by
himself, and could defeat all comers on any class of table. The
strongest point of his game was unquestionably his wonderful delicacy of
touch. Brilliant forcing hazards, and winning hazards made at railroad
speed, so irresistibly fascinating to the gallery, possessed little
attraction for him, and he was the first man who seemed fully to realise
what might be done by delicately nursing the balls and bringing them
together, time after time, with perfect strength. Even when at his best,
however, he was never too consistent a player; there were occasions when
he was completely ‘off,’ and, if he happened to be caught on one of
these days, quite a second-rate performer could beat him easily. His
personal popularity was simply unbounded, and it would have taken a
remarkably strong nature to have resisted all the temptations to which
he was exposed. No man ever lost a finer chance of an exceptionally
brilliant and successful career. He must have made much money, but when
the end came, it found him penniless. I have no wish, however, to dwell
on his weaknesses, amiable as most of them were; rather let me record to
his credit that no professional billiard-player has ever possessed a
higher character for unimpeachable honesty, and that, in his prosperous
times, he was never known to turn a deaf ear to appeals for assistance.
It is quite time, however, to introduce the third and only other man
that ever held the championship cup presented by the leading
billiard-table makers in 1870. I refer, of course, to Joseph Bennett,
who is three or four years older than Roberts, and was playing in public
before either Cook or his great rival. He rapidly acquired a wonderful
knowledge of the game, for he was barely eighteen when he was engaged at
Leeds to play and teach. During his stay there he played his first
important match. It was with W. Moss; the game was 1,000 up for 100_l._
a-side, and Bennett won by upwards of 500 points. Possibly this success
induced him to turn his thoughts Londonwards again; at any rate, he
shortly afterwards returned there. His first metropolitan match was with
Dufton; then he played a couple with Herst, winning one and losing the
other: but it was the great four-handed match in which he and Charles
Hughes so decisively beat old Roberts and Dufton that first brought him
into prominent notice.
Whether Bennett, as a player, was ever quite the equal of Cook or
Roberts it is unnecessary to discuss here. He beat each of them in turn
for the championship, and can well afford to rest contented with that
record. In early life Bennett’s health was indifferent, and his nervous
and highly strung temperament was by no means in his favour. One of his
peculiarities was that, when in training for a championship or other
important match, he would never play with anyone, but invariably shut
himself up in a room alone, and played one ball against the other, or
simply practised one or two special strokes by the hour together. His
contention was that a man required all his nervous energy for the match
itself, and ought not to waste any of it in practice. There was,
doubtless, something in his theory, for few men have ever shown to more
advantage ‘in the pit;’ and it was sheer pluck and determination that
enabled him to defeat Cook for the championship, as his opponent held a
long lead when within a couple of hundred of home. A very severe
accident in the summer of 1881 caused Bennett to resign the
championship, and, though he completely recovered from its effects, he
wisely gave up playing in public. He will be better remembered as a
teacher than as a player, for he has virtually devoted his whole life to
instruction, and with remarkable success.
In December 1873 Messrs. Burroughes & Watts promoted the first of a
series of handicaps, with which they afterwards became so much
identified. The important effect that these handicaps had upon the game
is scarcely calculable, and, thanks to the liberality of the promoters,
several players who afterwards took prominent positions, but might
otherwise never have been heard of, were first introduced to public
notice. These handicaps gave such men exactly the chance they needed.
The following sixteen players took part in this handicap:—W. Cook, J.
Roberts, jun., Joseph Bennett, T. Taylor, F. Bennett, S. W. Stanley,
Harry Evans, W. Dufton, J. Roberts, sen., T. Morris, A. Hughes, John
Bennett, L. Kilkenny, Alfred Bennett, G. Collins, and Stammers. It was
won from scratch by Cook, who beat Kilkenny (130 points start)—the heats
were 500 up, all in—in the final, winding up with a splendid break of
428; and this appears to be a favourable opportunity for giving brief
sketches of some of the players who took part in it, six or seven of
whom are no longer living.
‘Master’ Stanley, as he was always designated in print for the first
year or two after he began to play in public, was certainly one of the
most precocious youths that ever handled a cue, and could not have been
more than sixteen when he began to take his own part in good company.
The spot hazard was the strongest point of his game, and I shall never
forget the style in which he used to dash round the top of the table,
getting ready to play the next stroke long before the red ball had
reached the pocket. When it failed to drop in, even if it was a couple
of inches wide of the pocket, his invariable look of blank astonishment
was intensely comic.
Tom Taylor came forward about 1872, just at the time that Stanley was
becoming well known, and many were the hotly contested battles between
them. Never were two lads more evenly matched. Stanley was a shade the
better of the pair at the spot stroke, but Taylor was a little superior
all round the table. Tom, like most billiard-players, had a pet stroke.
When he had opened a game with a miss in baulk, and his opponent had
followed with the answering miss under one of the side cushions, he
would invariably play at the red ball for the cannon off two cushions,
and bring it off three times out of four. This is a stroke that is never
played nowadays, and yet, when unsuccessful, it rarely leaves anything
on, which is more than can be said of the cannon off the white ball, the
customary game at present. A gamer player than Tom Taylor was never
seen. No matter what the state of the score might be, he never ceased
struggling; to be apparently hopelessly in rear only seemed to improve
his play, and from time to time he would pull a game out of the fire in
really marvellous fashion. With the exception of Roberts and Collins,
Taylor is the only one of the sixteen players in the great handicap at
the Guildhall Tavern in December 1873 who is playing regularly in 1896.
Fred, Alfred, and John were all younger brothers of Joseph Bennett.
John, although he occasionally took part in handicaps, was a player of
no class, and died in November 1886; but Fred and Alfred worthily upheld
the family reputation as billiard-players some twenty years ago, though
they seldom now play in public.[3] It is difficult to say which was the
better of the two when they were in their prime, for both played the
spot well and were good all round; but perhaps Fred was the more
brilliant, and might have taken a high position if he had been fonder of
the game, and devoted himself more assiduously to it.
L. Kilkenny was another remarkably sound exponent of the game as it was
played twenty years ago. He, too, was good on the ‘spot,’ and when this
stroke went out of fashion it practically killed his game; for Roberts
and Richards, neither of whom ever liked the stroke, are the only two of
the old school who are playing better now than they did in the
‘seventies. Kilkenny was about the last man that would have been taken
for a professional billiard-player; indeed, clad in correct clerical
costume, he would have made a model country vicar. He was always
exceptionally quiet, unassuming, and well-behaved, and ought to have
done well; but for some reason or another he missed his chances and died
in poverty.
George Collins always played quite a game of his own. I have seen him
make numerous long runs of spot strokes, but they were invariably put
together in the most unorthodox style. His own ball was rarely within
eighteen inches of the red, and he would incessantly leave himself the
most difficult hazards, which he brought off again and again in the most
marvellous fashion. In a spot break of 300 he would have to play more
awkward shots than Taylor or Stanley would leave for themselves in ten
breaks of the same number, and very much the same thing was noticeable
in his all-round play. He would constantly succeed in ‘gallery’ shots,
but never seemed to trouble himself as to where the balls would be
placed after the stroke; and his apparent lack of any knowledge of
playing for position was a fatally weak point in his game. It was
magnificent, but it was not billiards, and in his best day Collins
always played the game of an exceptionally good amateur rather than that
of a professional. Of late years he has had comparatively little
practice, and has naturally fallen off in consequence.
As long as he remained in England, Harry Evans was always recognised as
a sound third-rate all-round player, who was practically of no use on
the ‘spot,’ and it was a great surprise to all who had known him over
here when, soon after he had settled down in Australia, he gained great
fame as a spot stroke player, made some really remarkable breaks, and
held the championship there for many years; indeed, it is only
comparatively recently that he was deprived of it by Charles Memmott.
With the exception of Roberts, sen., Tom Morris was many years older
than any other player who took part in the first great handicap. His
game was indifferent, as was that of A. Hughes and Stammers.
Early in 1874 the first agitation against the spot stroke took place,
though it was not until twelve or thirteen years later that the stroke
was virtually abandoned. It occasioned a good deal of surprise when the
final heat of the first spot-barred handicap lay between Taylor and
Stanley, two players whose game was popularly supposed to depend almost
entirely upon their proficiency in the spot stroke. Yet there was really
nothing remarkable about this result, for there is a great deal of truth
and good sense contained in a letter from Stanley, which was published
in ‘Land and Water’ about a couple of months before the handicap was
played. In it he wrote: ‘I believe, as a rule, it will be found that the
best player at the spot stroke is the best player, after a time, at the
all-round game. To play the spot stroke well requires great patience, a
great deal of practice, and a great amount of nerve. Now, anyone who can
combine all these is sure to be a good all-round player.’ Cook paid a
visit to America in 1874, where he was ill advised enough to tackle
Rudolph at the cannon game, with the inevitable result; still, it was
impossible to regret that he had taken the trip, for he brought back
with him the American system of handicaps, which at once became so
popular in this country that scarcely a dozen really important handicaps
on the old ‘knock-out’ principle have been played in the last twenty
years. It seems hardly necessary to explain that, in an American
handicap, each player has to meet every one of the others, and the
winner of the largest number of games takes the first prize. The immense
advantage of this system is that the element of luck is as nearly as
possible eliminated, and that, presuming the play to be fair and
straightforward all through, the best man on the handicap terms will
win. Messrs. Burroughes & Watts took up the experiment warmly, and
presented 100_l._ in prizes. I formed one of the committee appointed to
frame the handicap and to arrange the order of play, and I well remember
the difficulty we had over the latter task, which will be fully
appreciated by anyone who has attempted a similar one. It must be
remembered that, as this was the first affair of the kind which had
taken place in England, we had no precedents to guide us, and though it
may seem very simple to arrange a list of eight men, so that each shall
play against a different opponent on every one of seven days, let anyone
who has had no experience in the matter sit down with a pencil and paper
and try it. The handicap was as follows: Cook, Roberts, and J. Bennett,
scratch; Taylor, 100 points start; Stanley, 120; Timbrell, 140; Kilkenny
and A. Bennett, 160. William Timbrell has not previously figured in
these pages, and may be dismissed in a very few lines. He was a
Liverpool player, who had already been credited with, and to the best of
my belief actually did make, a break of 893, which included a sequence
of 296 ‘spots.’ On his own table in Liverpool he may occasionally have
done great things, which, however, he failed to repeat in London. The
moment he began to play in public every atom of nerve seemed to leave
him, and on the numerous occasions on which I saw him play he never
showed even third-rate form. Roberts and A. Bennett tied for first prize
with five games each, and in playing off the former secured a very easy
victory.
On May 24, 1875, Cook lost the championship, which he had held for
exactly four years, to Roberts, and the match was a very noteworthy one,
as it marks the turning-point in the careers of the two men. Up to that
period Cook had been generally considered rather the better of the pair,
but from the date of this match Roberts asserted his superiority, which
became more and more marked in each succeeding year. In 1876 D.
Richards, an elder brother of S. W. Stanley, ran second to Cook in an
American Tournament. Richards is the _doyen_ of all the professional
players before the public in 1896, and is a fine player. As in the case
of Roberts, increasing age only appears to improve his game, and there
is not the smallest doubt that when he had reached his ‘jubilee’ he was
playing infinitely better than he had ever done in his life. Nursery
cannons form the strong point of his game, and he certainly plays them
beautifully and with remarkable delicacy of touch, though it must be
admitted that no one makes more use of the push stroke than he does.
About the most noteworthy events of 1877 were two matches on a
championship table between Joseph Bennett and Tom Taylor, both of which
the latter won, though only by twenty-seven and twenty-one points
respectively. Bennett had gone very much off in his play just about that
time, or Taylor would not have been matched with him on even terms, and
in the following year the two were both handicapped to receive a start
of 150 in 500 from Cook in an American Tournament that was played at the
Gaiety Restaurant. One of the eight men engaged in it was Fred Shorter,
who had a start of 200, and had done very little previously. Never did a
young player so suddenly make a reputation, and some of his performances
during the tournament were most extraordinary. In his heat with Joseph
Bennett, the latter gave a miss in baulk, Shorter followed by placing
his ball under one of the side cushions, and Bennett went out for a
cannon, which he missed by the merest hair’s breadth. This left a nice
game on for Shorter, who speedily worked his way to the top of the
table, and went clean out with the spot stroke, thus winning a love
game. There is a little story relating to this heat which must be fairly
well known, but is good enough to bear repetition. Of course, the game
only lasted about a quarter of an hour, and, as we were going out of the
room an old gentleman, desiring, I suppose, to make what he considered a
soothing remark to the beaten man, said: ‘How do you do, Mr. Bennett?
You did not seem quite in your usual form to-day.’ This to a man who had
only been allowed two strokes—with one of which he gave a miss in baulk,
and with the other as nearly as possible brought off a most difficult
cannon—was almost too much. I shall never forget the expression of
Bennett’s face, but language failed him to make a suitable reply.
Shorter did not treat Cook quite as unkindly as this; still, the latter
only scored twelve when he played his heat with the new man on the
following day, and most of the other players in the tournament were
served in somewhat similar fashion.
A consequence of his beating Taylor was a match which I arranged between
them, Shorter to receive 200 in 1,000. An incident that occurred early
in this game gives an excellent idea of Shorter’s coolness and
self-possession. One of his friends was seated next to me at the
spot-end of the table, and thoughtlessly struck a match to light a cigar
without watching for a favourable opportunity to do so. Shorter had just
worked his way to the spot, and the sudden flash catching his eye caused
him to miss the pocket by about six inches. He came round to us and said
quietly, ‘Please don’t do that again; I can get on the “spot” whenever I
like, and stay there as long as I like, still it isn’t worth while to
throw away a chance.’ This was no idle boast, for when the game stood at
444 to 152 in his favour he put his opponent’s ball into one of the top
pockets with a brilliant stab shot from baulk, and, his own remaining in
perfect position behind the red, he ran right out, winning the match by
848 points. His break of 556 was for many years the largest made in a
match for money. On being asked to continue it, he ran it up to 636,
including 207 consecutive spot hazards. Just at that time I firmly
believe that Shorter had no equal on an ordinary table; indeed, I
offered to match him to play Cook 1,000 up, level, if the latter would
stake 500_l._ to 200_l._, but the proposal was politely declined.
Unfortunately, Shorter’s prospects of ever attaining a position at the
head of his profession were marred by the fact that he had no liking for
the game. It was the most difficult thing in the world to get him to do
any practice. When he afterwards took part in tournaments, his first two
or three games were generally devoted to playing himself into form, so
that his big breaks towards the end of the week came too late to give
him any chance of success. His constitution was never a strong one, and,
as he could not be persuaded to take any reasonable care of himself,
symptoms of consumption showed themselves in 1884. A voyage to Australia
was recommended as the best chance of saving his life, but the remedy
came too late, and he died at Deniliquin in August 1885. On a match
between Roberts and Timbrell at the Gaiety Restaurant, Timbrell
receiving 300 in 1,000 and winning by 449 points, it is not necessary to
dwell. It was played on an ordinary table, spot stroke in, but Roberts
never made more than 35 off the balls, whilst Timbrell’s best break was
73.
The year 1879 was remarkable for the first appearance in London of
William Mitchell. The ‘Sheffielder,’ as he has always been called,
though, as a matter of fact, he was born in Derbyshire, had long been
known in the provinces as a player of exceptional ability; but few were
prepared for the form he showed on the occasion of his London _début_ in
an American Tournament at the Royal Aquarium, Westminster, when he won
six consecutive games and took the first prize. This he followed up by
securing another tournament at the Baynard Castle, and then he was taken
on a provincial tour by Joseph Bennett, in the course of which he made
many very remarkable breaks. Four years later, in a match of 3,000 up
with Cook for a stake of 1,000_l._, Mitchell at last cut Shorter’s
record in a money game with a brilliant 739 (55 and 189 ‘spots’). Prior
to this, however, when practising at Brighton, he had made a break of
1,839, composed almost entirely of 612 consecutive spot strokes. This
was generally discredited at the time, but subsequent events showed
Mitchell to be well capable of such a performance. When at his best,
Mitchell never played a long game without making two or three
four-figure breaks, and it was probably his own fault that Peall
eventually became his master at the ‘all-in’ game. He played the ‘spot’
at a tremendous pace, and has never had an equal in one particular
stroke—that of going all round the table and regaining position. A
somewhat delicate constitution has always been against him, but his
gameness is quite on a par with that of Roberts and Taylor. There has
never been a more brilliant hazard striker; and, strange as it appears,
considering that for many years the spot stroke was the backbone of his
game, he was always seen to great advantage on a three-inch pocket
championship table. When at his best, his all-round game is always a
singularly free and attractive one to watch, and few players could
surpass him in a push-barred game.
It was in 1880, the year after Mitchell had taken London by storm, that
his great spot stroke rival, W. J. Peall, made his first appearance as a
professional. Rumours had long been flying about as to the big breaks he
was in the constant habit of making when playing as an amateur, and his
appearance at the Royal Aquarium in an all-in American Tournament was
watched with great interest. He and R. Wilson received the limit of 175
points start in 500 from Joseph Bennett and W. Mitchell, who were at
scratch. Peall, however, disappointed expectation at first, though
playing sometimes brilliantly in exhibition games. He did not show to
advantage when a stake was at issue, but in time he acquired confidence.
In May 1884 he won an exhibition game with Mitchell at the Aquarium in
four breaks exclusive of his initial miss, scoring 1,000 points in
forty-four minutes, which still remains the fastest time on record.
Later in the same month the same pair were giving an exhibition game at
Cambridge, and Peall made a wonderful break of 1,989, which included 548
consecutive spot strokes, though as all of this break, with the
exception of the first 411, was made after the game was over, it is
questionable whether it should be counted as a record. Fortunately for
Peall, he can well afford to dispense with this 1,989; for at the Royal
Aquarium, on November 5 and 6, 1890, he completely eclipsed it with a
phenomenal break of 3,304, all made inside the game, and comprising runs
of 93, 3, 150, 123, 172, 120, and 400 spot strokes. I have no hesitation
in giving these records of breaks made almost entirely on the ‘spot,’
for though the tables on which most of them were made may have been
comparatively easy, there is no sort of doubt that the breaks were
genuine in other respects. With spot-barred breaks, however, the case is
very different, and I prefer to write very little about them. In matches
where no money has really been at stake, although each party to them had
solemnly deposited his 50_l._, or 100_l._, or 200_l._, as the case might
be, it was clearly to the interest of each man to have as many big
breaks made as possible, for the reports of these were likely to improve
the ‘gate.’ Most of these big spot-barred breaks are composed largely of
nursery cannons, and some of these long runs of nursery cannons which
are credited to different players were never really made at all. Either
a cannon was scored which was not made, a very difficult thing for a
marker to detect, considering the express speed at which some
professional players rattle up these ‘nurseries,’ or the player, when
his ball was in contact with one of the others, calmly proceeded with
his run of close cannons, instead of having the red and his opponent’s
ball spotted and playing from baulk. This is something of a digression,
but it seemed necessary to explain why I have written so little about
‘records.’ They are easily to be ascertained by anyone who is interested
in them, and can be taken for what they are worth. From these great
performances of Peall’s it may be easily gathered that his nervousness
had entirely left him, and, after he had once acquired confidence, there
never was a more consistent and trustworthy performer. Whatever any of
us may fancy Mitchell _might_ have done, there is no getting away from
what the latter has actually accomplished, and, as a spot stroke player,
he has never had an equal. For a long time past he has been ready and
willing to meet anyone at the ‘all-in’ game, and is entitled to call
himself champion of English billiards. It might have been imagined that
the virtual disappearance of the spot stroke would have completely
disposed of his pretensions to a place in the front rank, but, so far
from this being the case, he was for a considerable period second only
to Roberts as a spot-barred player. Short stature has always precluded
the possibility of his being a very stylish player, but the extreme
deliberation which rather detracted from his play years ago has to a
great extent disappeared. His name has always been associated with all
that is honourable and straightforward, and no member of his profession
is more universally and deservedly respected.
No match for the championship had taken place for nearly three years and
a half when Joseph Bennett challenged either Roberts or Cook to play for
it. The former waived his claim and left Cook to meet Bennett on
November 8, 1880. This match was one of the most interesting and
exciting I ever witnessed. Bennett, who was favoured with a good deal of
luck in the early part of the game, did not fail to take the fullest
advantage of his opportunities, and, at the interval, held a lead of 122
points, a very big advantage indeed on a small-pocket table. The
interval, however—like luncheon time in an important cricket match—often
used to produce a marked change in the aspect of affairs, and soon after
resuming play Cook put in a fine break of 107, passed his opponent at
795, and entered the last hundred with a substantial lead. The contest
then seemed all over, but Bennett, playing up with any amount of
coolness and resolution, won by 51 points. This was about the first time
that I noticed unmistakable signs of Cook’s nerve failing him; he missed
two or three easy strokes just when points were most wanted, and I doubt
if he was ever quite the same player again.
Cook and Roberts sailed for India immediately after this match, and
Taylor at once challenged Bennett for the championship. The match came
off on January 12 and 13, 1881, at St. James’s Hall, and though, soon
after starting, Bennett made a break of 125, the highest that had then
been recorded in a match for the championship, Taylor stuck to him in
his usual dogged fashion, and was only beaten by 90 points. Shorter was
the next aspirant, but failed to make good his final deposit, so Bennett
received forfeit. An off-hand match, however, for 25_l._ a-side took
place between the two on the table on which they ought to have played
for the championship. Bennett, who conceded a start of 100 in 1,000, was
defeated by 193, and as he soon afterwards met with the unfortunate gig
accident to which I have previously alluded, this was about his last
appearance as a player, all his energies being subsequently devoted to
teaching. I must not omit to mention that in September of this year,
during an exhibition game with Alfred Bennett, Cook made a spot-barred
break of 309, the longest then on record. It was without the semblance
of a fluke, and was a far finer performance than it looks to be on
paper, for the ‘top of the table game’ was then unknown, and it was put
together by open play all round the table.
In January 1882, Cook, for the first time, took points from Roberts, who
gave him 500 in 5,000, all in, for 500_l._ a-side, and won by no fewer
than 1,658 points; the winner’s best break was 430 (5, 11, and 107
‘spots’). A return match was played for a similar stake at Newmarket
during the July week, and was witnessed by the Prince of Wales and a
large and aristocratic company. This time Cook’s start was increased to
750, and he won by 918. His highest break was one of 412; Roberts had
two consecutive runs of 653 and 395.
Very early in 1883 John North, who possessed a high reputation in Wales
and the western counties, made his first appearance in London. This was
in a spot-barred American Tournament at the Albert Club, and a more
trying ordeal for a comparative novice cannot well be imagined, for, as
is very truly stated in ‘Billiards, by W. Cook,’ in allusion to North’s
_début_:
It is comparatively easy to perform in an ordinary tournament or
match, where the least noise or interruption to the player is
instantly checked; ... but billiards at the Albert Club is a different
thing altogether. Betting on the game, and often on individual
strokes, is carried on without let or hindrance, and that a stranger
to London should have displayed consistently good form under such
trying circumstances was conclusive evidence that he had plenty of
nerve and self-possession.
North won this tournament, but it cannot be said that he has ever
fulfilled his early promise. Fit and well, and at his best, he is an
undoubtedly fine player; but his style, never a pretty one, becomes
terribly ugly and jerky when he is out of form. Towards the close of the
year 1883 Roberts offered to give any man in the world 500 in 5,000,
all-in, or 200 in 3,000 spot barred. There was no response, and I only
mention the fact to show how the status of certain players has altered
in the last ten years. Few people would now care to pit Roberts against
Peall on even terms at the all-in game; whereas his supremacy at the
spot-barred game, to which he has entirely devoted himself, is so
complete, that his offer of such a start as 200 in 3000 reads almost
ludicrously.
[Illustration:
CHOOSING A CUE.
]
At the end of the year J. G. Sala, a Scotch player of considerable
repute, appeared in London for the first time in an American Tournament.
On his day he was a fine spot stroke player; indeed, his feat of making
186 consecutive screw back red hazards into the same pocket remained a
record for years, when it was completely wiped out by Charles Memmott,
who made 413 similar strokes in succession in a match in Australia. Sala
was, however, by no means strong at the all-round game. In 1884 Roberts
took a company consisting of Mitchell, Taylor, Shorter, North, Collins,
White, Coles, and Sala for a provincial tour, and organised tournaments
in Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester, where some
really magnificent play took place. Writing the names of these players
reminds me that I have said nothing of Harry Coles and Fred White. The
former originally came from Birmingham, and made no particular mark for
some years after arriving in London, though he was always regarded as a
sound and consistent player. Perhaps his form was never rated quite as
highly as it deserved to be, for there was nothing in the least ‘flash’
about his style, and he never appeared to be playing nearly as well as
he really was, in this respect being the exact opposite of Richards. The
virtual abolition of the spot stroke, however, gave him his opportunity,
and he improved very rapidly indeed, until about 1892, when I saw him
make upwards of 500 off the balls, twice within a few days at the
Aquarium, he was playing a really fine game, and only wanted a short
start from players of the class of Peall and Dawson. Nearly twenty years
ago White was regarded by some few people as a promising youngster, but
for a long time his health was very indifferent, and never gave him a
real chance of doing himself justice. When he became stronger he played
brilliantly for a brief period, making spot stroke breaks of upwards of
a thousand on two or three occasions in matches; but as he depended
almost entirely on the spot stroke, and was very weak as an all-round
player, little or nothing has been seen of him of recent years, though
it is gratifying to know that he has done exceedingly well in pursuits
unconnected with billiards.
It may be interesting to record that the first game of 10,000 up ever
played was begun at the Aquarium on May 24, 1884. It was between Roberts
and Peall, ‘all in,’ and the latter, who received a start of 2,000, won
by 589 points. Once started these long games became very popular. They
were soon extended to as many as 24,000 up, which took no less than a
fortnight to play, and the spot stroke was invariably barred. I am not
sure that the change was a judicious one, for it is by no means so
interesting to witness a couple of hours’ play in the middle of a long
match, with one of the players possibly hopelessly in the rear, as it is
to see a game begun and finished at a single sitting. The last matches
ever played for the championship took place in 1885, when Roberts
defeated Cook and Joseph Bennett in turn, each game being 3,000 up. The
champion at this time was suffering from an attack of rheumatic gout,
which prevented him from touching a cue for a week prior to the match
with Cook, and made it very difficult for him to hobble round the table;
but he won by 92 points. Bennett suffered defeat by more than half the
game. It is only fair to state that Bennett was so unwell that he could
scarcely hit a ball on the first and second days, but the one-sided
nature of the contest was in a great measure atoned for by the splendid
exhibition given by Roberts. He made breaks of 155 and 147, the largest
ever put together in a match for the championship; and also scored
sixteen successive spot strokes, the largest consecutive number ever
made in a championship match. A notable ‘all-in’ match of 15,000 up on
even terms between Roberts and Mitchell was played in February 1886;
Roberts, who certainly had the better of the luck, winning by 1,741
points. His longest breaks were 693 (230 spot strokes), 544 (179), 616
(88 and 104), 722 (230), and 716 (47 and 184). Mitchell’s highest
efforts were 745 (244), 601 (197), 969 (321), and 532 (175). The result
was particularly instructive, as it showed that, though Mitchell was at
his very best just then, and in full practice at the spot, whereas
Roberts had not played the stroke in public for months previously, the
champion was still able to assert his supremacy at the all-in game. In
the following week Roberts and Peall began a six days’ spot stroke
match. The conditions were that they should play four hours per day,
each man to place his ball where he chose at the beginning of a break,
and the highest aggregate scorer at the end of the week to be the
winner. Peall had matters all his own way from the outset, and
eventually totalled 16,734 against Roberts’s 11,925; it was a terribly
wearisome affair and attracted very few spectators. Later in the year
Peall challenged Roberts to play 15,000 up, all in, on even terms, and
as Roberts declined the offer then, and whenever it has been renewed,
Peall, as already remarked, has certainly been entitled to claim the
championship at English billiards ever since that date.
Since 1886 genuine matches for money have gone greatly out of fashion,
and we have had to content ourselves with battles for more or less
fictitious ‘purses,’ varied by an occasional tournament. The great
feature of the past few years has been the wonderful play of Roberts,
who, although he was born on August 15, 1847, has made greater
improvement during the past few seasons than any of the younger players,
and was never better than he is at present. Everyone who is interested
in the game must have seen him play, and one visit to the Egyptian Hall
will give a better idea of his inimitable skill than pages of
description.
The young players who have come most prominently to the front since
about 1888 are Hugh MʻNeil, Charles Dawson, Edward Diggle, H. W.
Stevenson, and William Spiller. At one time MʻNeil, who is a left-handed
player, was generally regarded as the ‘coming champion.’ He was the
first to grasp something of the champion’s style, and certainly played
the ‘top of the table game’ better than any of his contemporaries.
Roberts had a very high opinion of him, and long ago said that he ‘would
be a splendid player if he would only keep steady.’ A very severe
illness unfortunately obliged the young Scotchman to give up playing for
a long period. Dawson’s improvement was rapid, and well maintained for
several seasons. His form is generally very consistent, and would be
even more so if he were less sensitive when luck seems to be against
him. Diggle is now generally regarded as one of the most promising of
the younger men. He is by no means a pretty player, and does not appear
to have the least idea of making a bridge, sometimes playing through his
forefinger, sometimes between his first and second finger, and in
various other extraordinary fashions; but, bridge or no bridge, he keeps
on scoring. Stevenson is by far the youngest of the professional
players, being still under age at the time of writing, and there are
great possibilities before him, for he has a beautiful delicate touch,
strongly resembling William Cook in that respect. It has been amply
proved during the season of 1895–6 that Spiller only needed the
requisite public practice to make him a fine player, and, though he
performs in somewhat loose and haphazard style, he continually runs up
long breaks. Nor must I forget Charles Memmott, a remarkably game and
capable performer, and equally good at the all-in or spot-barred game.
J. P. Mannock is a player who would have come into prominent notice long
ago had he appeared more in public.
The game is just now in a somewhat curious state. It was never so
popular in clubs, and where there was one house possessing a private
table a dozen years ago, there are now twenty; but the public support of
billiards is fitful. There is no doubt that exhibition matches have been
terribly overdone during the last few seasons, and some genuine battles
are sadly needed to revive the fading interest in the doings of
professional players. It may, I think, be taken for granted that the
push stroke—which has been abused to such an extent that a big cannon
break is only put together by means of a number of glaring fouls—is
doomed. Probably, indeed, the table of the near future will have smaller
pockets with the spot a little nearer to the top of the table than it is
at present. There will then be no occasion to bar any fair stroke, for
such gigantic breaks from the spot stroke as have been made by Peall and
Mitchell would be a sheer impossibility. The barring of any fair stroke
makes the game a bastard one, and I feel certain that an alteration in
the tables, such as I have indicated, would make billiards far more
interesting to watch than it is at present, and would, therefore, prove
of the greatest benefit to professional players.
* * * * *
The history of the development of the modern game of billiards is
scarcely complete without reference to the games between Roberts and
Frank Ives, the American champion, because the capabilities of the
cannon game, even on a table with pockets, were so conclusively shown.
Since then, cannons have played a conspicuous part in most long
spot-barred breaks; and although cushion nurseries with the aid of the
push stroke are so open to objection that some restriction is probable,
yet it is certain that as pockets are made more difficult, cannons will
become more important. Indeed, this would seem to lead ultimately to the
adoption of the cannon game and the abandonment of pockets; a
consummation to be regretted, for winning and losing hazards are
attractive features in the English game.
In the summer of 1893 the champions met at Knightsbridge and played on a
table with 3¼ in. pockets and with balls 2½ in. in diameter. At first
Roberts had the advantage, but afterwards Ives cornered the balls,
making 1,267 cannons in a break of 2,539, and 402 cannons in a break of
852, and won with ease. At the end the game stood, Ives, 6,000; Roberts,
3,821.
Neither player could be expected to show his best form under the
circumstances, for compromise in the matter of tables and balls cannot
be satisfactory; but the power and control possessed by Ives were a
revelation to most of our experts. Putting the great break on one side,
he was easily able to run up very long scores by means of a series of
cannons played almost perfectly, without the push stroke or suspicion of
a foul, and with but slight recourse to the _massé_.
During December 1895 Eugene Carter, another American player, has been
giving exhibitions at the Argyll Hall, and those who are capable of
judging cannot fail to have realised from his performances how important
the cannon is likely to be in the English game of the immediate future.
To the various professionals who have been mentioned the names should be
added of Green, the veteran Scotch player, who has often performed very
well in London, and whose game is sound, if old-fashioned; and of Lloyd,
who won the first prize at the Association Tournament held in December
1895, after a most determined struggle with Peall. The games during this
tournament were played spot and push strokes barred.
More detailed notice of John Roberts and his remarkable breaks[4] would
have been made here were he not so frequently alluded to in other parts
of the book, for the history of the modern game is mainly the history of
his career and that of his father. The elder revolutionised the game by
the cultivation of the spot stroke, whilst the younger has advanced its
interests by virtually abandoning that mode of play. Each of them for
long was without a rival on even terms, and the respect entertained for
the play of the younger Roberts is, we trust, evident by the references
elsewhere to his opinions and practice.
CHAPTER II
IMPLEMENTS
BY ARCHIBALD BOYD
No game in the world is so absolutely dependent on all its various
accessories as billiards. Cricket can still be played, and played well,
although the pitch may be not quite first-rate, and a bit of rough
ground is not fatal to a golf links; but if the room be not large and
airy, if the table be ill kept, the cloth unbrushed or badly stretched,
the balls foul, and the cues ill cared for, the skilful player at
billiards will be reduced to the level of an ordinary performer, and
anything like a decent break will be out of the question. It is,
therefore, of paramount importance that all the implements connected
with the game should be of the very best kind, and in the very best
order.
Before dealing seriatim with the various subjects, it is with pleasure
that I acknowledge the great assistance that Messrs. Burroughes & Watts
and Messrs. Thurston & Co. (I place the firms in alphabetical order)
have cheerfully given me—assistance without which I could not have hoped
to carry out my allotted task, and with which, I fear, I have hardly
done justice to the time and trouble they have ungrudgingly expended
upon me. I have also to thank Messrs. Wright & Co. for the drawings of
the Standard Association Pockets which appear amongst the remarks on
tables.
THE ROOM
To begin with, a room of convenient proportions must be found to
accommodate the table. Good play is severely handicapped by an
unsuitable room, and the essential points of a good room are worthy of
careful consideration. That it must be large and airy goes almost
without saying, yet, self-evident as this may seem, it is a point which
is too frequently overlooked, not only in private billiard-rooms, but
also in rooms where exhibition matches are constantly being played.
Amateurs, in general, are more directly interested in the rooms of clubs
and private houses, concerning which there are some points which cannot
well be disregarded.
And, first, as to club-rooms.
Although in these the architect has, as a rule, a free hand, yet in far
too many cases the comfort of the spectator (and, as a natural
corollary, the freedom of the players) is sadly neglected. It is most
important for the players’ sake that spectators should be comfortably
seated at a reasonable distance from the table. No man can play his best
if he has constantly to turn round and look for a place for his foot
amongst a crowd of friends; still less when he is haunted by the fear
that the butt of his cues may at any moment come into collision with a
whisky-and-soda. The older architects, as a body, seemed to consider
that if the room was twenty-four feet long by eighteen feet broad, ample
accommodation was provided, forgetting that the platforms, upon which
the seats are placed, take up a great deal of the spare space. So that
one frequently finds, in an apparently large room, that certain strokes
cannot be played without placing a foot upon the platform. At one club
an ingenious architect, ably abetted by an unwary committee, ran some
hot-water pipes _in front_ of the platform, and so near to the top of
the table did they extend, that the well-known hazard from the top
pocket off the spot became exceedingly difficult, because a player was
obliged to rest one foot upon these rounded pipes, which afforded, at
the best, a precarious foothold. It is of the utmost importance that the
player should have plenty of room _all round_ the table.
Another matter of importance is the position of the door. Do what you
will, somebody is sure to come in ‘on the stroke,’ and, therefore, the
more the door can be kept out of the line of sight the better.
Obviously, the worst place for the door is at the top of the
table—_i.e._ directly facing the player as he plays from baulk—the best
place is at the bottom, and, if possible, away to the side.
In a large and modern room a light screen with peep-holes may be
advantageously placed inside the door, which should be fitted so as to
open and shut silently. By this means an inevitable nuisance may be
brought within manageable limits.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
The position of the fireplace is also important. A flickering light in
the eyes of the players interferes seriously with good play; therefore,
if possible, the fire should never be at the top of the table. Wherever
it may be, it is well to cover the outside of the pocket facing it with
green cloth, so that the light may not shine through the pocket.
The Committee of the Oriental Club have kindly permitted me to introduce
a plan of their large room as an excellent example of what a club-room
should be (fig. 1). As will be seen in the plan, the door is well out of
the way, the seats are roomy and comfortable, capable of seating, say,
fifty spectators, and—most important of all—plenty of space is left for
the player all round the table. The skylight is a special feature; in
most rooms its elevation is something like the annexed sketches (figs. 2
and 3).
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
A private house billiard-room need not be so large as a club-room, but
it is essential that it should be as airy as possible, and—a most
important point—it ought, if possible, to be the usual smoking-room of
the house, so that it may be regularly inhabited. If this point is
neglected, and the room is intended solely for billiards, a time may
come when it may be left severely alone for two or three months, and the
cushions will probably suffer from cold and want of play. If, however,
the room be made comfortable and attractive, it will be constantly lived
in, and the cushions kept at an equable temperature. Besides, the fact
of the table being at hand and ready will of itself induce more play.
All this, of course, means that at one end or other of the table there
must be considerably more than the regulation six feet. If one is going
to build, thirty or thirty-two feet for length, and twenty feet for
breadth, will give plenty of space for billiards and smoking, and be
more satisfactory in the long run than a room twenty-four by eighteen at
the outside.
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
If the plan of the house precludes the possibility of a room of this
size, it should be remembered that very excellent billiard-rooms of
corrugated iron, lined with felt and match-boarding, can be put up
alongside a house if the requisite space can be found for them. It is
also worth while to remember that thirty feet by twenty feet looks a
very small plot when measured on the lawn, so that many a disused and
forgotten corner might serve as a site for a noble billiard-room.
Such a room Mr. W. H. Fowler, the well-known amateur, has erected in
Taunton by the side of his house. It is thirty-four feet by thirty-three
feet, and is roughly of this shape (fig. 4).
The system of ventilation seems so excellent that, at my request, Mr.
Samson, the architect of the room, has kindly sent me drawings which are
shown under ‘Ventilation,’ and which will, no doubt, make clear what is
obscure in this description.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5
]
The skylight is fitted with an exhaust cowl; and the chimney has a
special ventilating flue. For cold weather, two gas-stoves of the modern
hygienic type are connected with the gas-pipes, and keep the room warm
enough at night to save the cushions from the effects of the severest
frost. As they have come triumphantly out of the ordeal of the Siberian
winter of 1894–95, it is fair to assume that outside rooms of this type
can be thoroughly protected from cold with very little trouble.
The recesses on each side give ample room for smoking, whist, or
writing; and the horizontal beams of the framework naturally lend
themselves to the function of bookshelves, so that a variety of tastes
may be satisfied. The cost of such a room would be about 300_l._
As a type of an indoor room I append a rough sketch of Mr. A. Gibbs’
room at Tyntesfield, which embodies the same principle—viz. that it is
an exceedingly comfortable room for smoking and writing. It is covered
with a high-arched roof, so that it is always cool (fig. 5).
One can thus see that the addition of a recess or a few feet in length
at once renders the room habitable and convenient.
I do not, of course, wish it to be supposed that the foregoing plans
necessarily represent the best billiard-rooms of their kind in the
country; they happen to be rooms with which I am familiar, and I have
introduced them as illustrations merely of the principle that _comfort_,
both for players and spectators, is a very important factor in the
encouragement of good play. Every reader can, out of his personal
experience, suggest to himself examples of comfortable rooms, both
public and private, as good as, and possibly better, than those I have
sketched.
VENTILATION
One of the most difficult and most important problems in connexion with
billiard-rooms is the subject of ventilation, particularly where the
electric light is used. If gas be the lighting agent, the heated air can
generally be drawn off by means of an exhaust cowl over the skylight;
but these cowls are apt to cause a leak in the skylight fittings, and
must, therefore, be erected with great care. Where the electric light is
used, a small sunlight gas-burner at the bottom of the exhaust tube
helps to generate a hot upward current.
Tobin tubes in the corners of the room, carried well up eight or nine
feet from the ground, are valuable allies in admitting fresh air; but
one great objection to them is that they usually pour the cold current
upon the unprotected heads and necks of the spectators. Small boards
(say six inches in height) to fit against the bottom of the windows make
capital practical ‘Tobins;’ for the lower sashes can be pushed up a
couple of inches without going clear of the board, and fresh air comes
into the room between the sashes. Skylight sashes are not of much use,
for they can only be used in fine weather, and they rarely fit tight
enough to keep out really heavy rain. If we turn back for a moment to
the drawing of the Oriental Club skylight, we shall see that it is a
good fine-weather type. The sashes pivot on their middles and admit
plenty of air, and as the coaming[5] is unusually high (more than two
feet), the danger of rain splashing off the flat roof through the bottom
of the sashes is sensibly reduced.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6
]
Mr. Samson, the architect of the County Club at Taunton, and also of Mr.
Fowler’s room, very recently showed me a system of ventilation which he
had introduced into the Club billiard-room with absolute success. Fully
realising the difficulty of keeping rain out and letting air in with a
skylight of the ordinary type, he decided to carry the skylight the
whole length of the room, so that the sashes which open at one end are
far removed from the table. The skylight is of the ordinary section
(fig. 6), and in order to avoid undue glare he has fitted the space
between the coamings with horizontal sashes of ground glass, sliding one
on another in such a way that the amount of light can be easily
regulated by the marker. At one end of the skylight two vertical sashes
(of the full width of the skylight) are fitted, one being above the
coaming, the other in the wall below the coaming, so that it can be
opened whether all the horizontal sashes be closed or not. At the other,
or fireplace end of the skylight, two large gratings are fixed, one (as
at the opposite end) above, the other below the level of the base of the
skylight, communicating with a flue in the chimney, which is, of course,
kept warm by the heat of the fire. Thus a powerful exhaust is working at
one end of the room, while as much or as little fresh air as is required
flows in at the other. I append a rough sketch, which may, perhaps, tend
to make the description clearer (fig. 7).
[Illustration:
Fig. 7
]
The two great advantages of his plan seem to me to be, first, the risk
of water on the table is greatly diminished; second, no matter how cold
it be, some air can be admitted, and some can be sucked out, although
the skylight may be completely shut by the closing of all the flat
sashes.
[Illustration:
Fig. 8.—Mr. Samson’s Sections of a Billiard-room (32′ × 24′)
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 9
]
In all rooms, the heating apparatus, whatever it may be, should be
absolutely under the control of the players. Most of us have experienced
the nuisance of hearing a fire noisily poked by a chilly spectator just
in the middle of a good break; and, apart from the strain on the nerves
that such interference with play causes, the question of the heat alone
is one that the players should be allowed to settle for themselves.
Spectators sitting near a window are apt to forget that a temperature
which to them feels merely comfortable may be well-nigh intolerable to a
player constantly on the move and exposed to the heat and glare of the
lamp.
On such an important point as ventilation it is well worth while, if
building a new room, to consult a competent architect. It may save many
a headache afterwards.
LIGHTING
A considerable choice lies before the owner of a room. He can have
electric light, or incandescent gas, or albo-carbon, or ordinary
burners, or oil lamps.
If he is in the country, with no gas light and no electric light
installed, he must of necessity fall back upon oil. Mineral oil is
generally used, and the lamps made for the purpose appear to answer very
well. One word of caution is, however, necessary. The lamps should only
be put in the brackets _when required_, and should be removed
immediately the play is over, so as to minimise the chance of oil being
spilt upon the cloth. For the same reason the containers should be most
carefully wiped before being put into the brackets, and with _constant_
care of this kind no harm need happen to the table.
Glass chimneys, whether for oil or gas, are a constant source of danger.
If one should break, the pieces of glass are apt to cut or scorch the
cloth. They must, therefore, be very carefully handled. Chimneys of talc
are now supplied, which are in every way to be preferred to the glass
ones.
Of the various kinds of gas light the incandescent appears to give the
most pleasant for play. The burners for this light are now fitted with a
‘bye-pass,’ which is a tiny flame never to be extinguished. With this
fitting, when the gas is gradually turned on it ignites from the small
leader on the bye-pass and the mantle gradually glows without a sudden
shock. By this means the life of a mantle is much prolonged. If the
light should be fitted without the ‘bye-pass,’ the greatest care and
caution must be observed in lighting up. A spirit torch should be used,
and the gas should not be turned full on at once or the mantles will
soon be destroyed. It will be found advisable to hold a tray or
something of the kind under the spirit torch when lighting up, to
prevent any of the hot spirit falling on the cloth.
Albo-carbon lights are not often seen now. With the best attention we
are told that they are absolutely inodorous, but, practically, owing to
carelessness or what not, in most rooms where I have seen them used I
have found a disagreeable smell.
The old ring burner (which has the merit of simplicity) is seldom used,
because of the tremendous heat which it generates. One good burner of
modern type under each shade ought, with fairly good gas, to be
sufficient for all purposes. It will save a great deal of gas as
compared with the ring burner, and will cause fewer headaches.
Of the electric light little need be said. The globes are of the
ordinary pattern, and the lights should be 32–candle-power;
16–candle-power is not strong enough to light up the corner pockets, if
the usual 6–light bracket is used, and it is an easy matter to shield
the eyes by putting silk fringes at the bottom of the shades. It is
advisable to have three or four spare globes in readiness in case of a
break, and care must be taken to avoid touching the lights with a cue.
If a glass does break, it will fly into thousands of pieces, and cover
the table with fine particles of glass, which are troublesome to clear
off without injuring the cloth.
_Note by Major Broadfoot_
The question of a good light on the table during the day is of great
importance. For all persons daylight is probably healthier than the best
system of artificial light; whilst for those whose breathing
arrangements are delicate, and they, unfortunately, are many, daylight
play may be almost obligatory. The main difficulty has been to provide a
weather-tight skylight, and Mr. Boyd has given excellent hints and
advice on the subject. It is, however, worthy of consideration whether
the skylight should not be abandoned in favour of a sound roof, the
light being admitted at the sides and ends of the room; at a height
above the floor sufficient to prevent the glare and shadows which result
from ordinary side lights. Several advantages are obvious. The roof
should be more weatherproof, the room less liable to be overheated in
sunny weather, the frame which carries the lighting apparatus would cast
no shadow on the table, whilst, when daylight is waning and artificial
light is required, the struggle for supremacy between the two, resulting
in a most objectionable dark spot directly under each shade, would be
avoided. Each of these considerations is of much importance, and an
intelligent engineer or architect would have little difficulty in
designing an arrangement to meet them. The idea may be gathered from
above sketch (fig. 10).
[Illustration:
Fig. 10
]
The heat in most skylighted rooms is unendurable in summer.—W. B.
TABLES
It would, no doubt, be very satisfactory if all the tables throughout
the kingdom were of one uniform pattern, and more than one attempt has
been made to bring about this desirable state of things. But such
efforts have not been successful because the owners of the many thousand
tables already in existence are naturally unwilling to spend money in
alterations. And, again, individual tastes will constantly tend to
develop typical differences.
The question of the size of the pockets first reached an acute form at
the time when the championship was being frequently played for between
Messrs. J. Roberts, jun., W. Cook, and Joseph Bennett.
The deadly effect of the spot stroke on a large pocket table was clearly
recognised, and fears were already entertained that unless some radical
alteration were made, all-round play would become neglected, and that
the public would soon weary of watching a single stroke indefinitely
repeated.[6]
A committee of the leading players thereupon decided that in future all
matches for the championship should be played upon a table with pockets
three inches at the fall of the slate, with the billiard spot a little
nearer to the top cushion, and with a smaller =Ｄ=. This last alteration,
looking to the fact that the deliberate intention of the committee was
to discourage, if not kill, the spot stroke, seems curiously illogical.
If the spot is to go, something must be encouraged in its stead;
obviously, all-round play must be developed. Why, then, cramp in any way
the latitude up till then given to a player when playing from hand?
[Illustration:
Fig. 11
]
The subsequent history of the pockets is an interesting commentary on
the labours of the committee. As they had expected, the spot stroke soon
failed to draw, and for exhibition purposes it is, in 1895, as dead as
Julius Cæsar. But the tight pocket failed to gain popularity. Here and
there a more than usually gifted amateur erected one for his own
amusement; in one or two instances an enterprising billiard-room
proprietor, who had other tables to fall back upon, tried one for an
experiment. But these tables are and must be, for all time, _caviare_ to
the general. The reduced =Ｄ= has never found a place on ordinary tables,
so that the result of the committee’s work is that the spot has gone,
and the championship match, if there ever be one, must be played with
the three-inch pocket.
[Illustration:
Fig. 12
]
Quite recently another attempt to secure uniformity has been made by the
Billiard Association. Their committee, recognising the fact that the
public would have nothing to say to a tight pocket, and taking a 3⅝-inch
pocket as a fair average size, caused templates to be made of those
dimensions, and decided that tables made with pockets accurately fitted
to the aforesaid templates should be called ‘Standard Association
Tables.’ In two minor respects these pockets differ slightly from what,
for want of a better word, we may call ‘ordinary’ pockets—first, the
shoulders of the cushions are struck with a rounder curve; second, the
outer edge of the fall of the slate at the middle pocket falls slightly
within the inner line of the cushion, as shown in fig. 11, where A A is
the line of the cushion, C the cloth, and P the middle pocket. From this
sketch it will be seen that the difficulty of middle-pocket jennies is
sensibly increased.
[Illustration:
Fig. 13
]
Drawings of the Championship pockets (figs. 12, 13) and the Standard
Association pockets (figs. 14, 15) are here inserted in order that the
reader may compare them for himself. The drawings of the Championship
pockets are taken direct from the templates in the possession of Messrs.
Burroughes & Watts, and those of the Standard pockets from templates the
property of Messrs. Wright & Co.
An intending purchaser has, then, to decide for himself whether he will
have a Standard pocket table; an ordinary 3⅝-pocket table (and in this
case the pockets of different makers will vary slightly in size and
shape); or, lastly, a 3–inch pocket Championship table.
[Illustration:
Fig. 14
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 15
]
Whichever may be the pattern selected, the purchaser, if he is really
fond of the game, ought to get a good table well up to ‘club’ quality.
If money is no object, elaborately carved tables can be bought up to
300_l._ or so; but for the purposes of _billiards_ all the carving is
unnecessary. Let the bed be a thoroughly strong one, the slates of the
best quality, the cushions according to the maker’s best pattern, the
cloth the best of its kind, and the woodwork plain.
A plan of a billiard-table is given on p. 75, in order that the terms
used in connexion with the table may be fully set forth; it is drawn on
the scale shown below-⁹⁄₂₀ in. = 1 ft.
[Illustration:
Fig. 16
]
ORDINARY TABLE
(i) Billiard spot 12¾ in. from face (or nearest point) of the top
cushion.
(ii) _Radius_ of semicircle of =Ｄ=, 11½ in.
(iii) Baulk-line, 29 in. from face of bottom cushion.
CHAMPIONSHIP TABLE
(i) 12½ in. (ii) First 9½ in. then 10 in. (iii) 28 in.
It is essential to the true running qualities, as well as to the lasting
qualities of the table, that the frames (which few people ever see)
should be exceedingly strong, thoroughly well seasoned, and accurately
levelled. The slightest warping of these frames is fatal to the
preservation of the table, and they are made, for this country at any
rate, of the most carefully selected red deal. If the table is intended
for the tropics, mahogany or teak should be used. As soon as the frames
are bolted to the legs (which, by the way, are erected on an absolutely
level base), they are carefully trimmed over with a long plane, and,
until the straight-edge fairly meets the frames all over, in whatever
direction it may be tried, the bed is not ready for the slate.
[Illustration:
Fig. 17
]
Slates come from the Penrhyn or Aberdovey quarries, as the case may be.
Some makers prefer one quarry, others another. After they have been
rough-hewn to size and thickness, they are passed through a planing
machine, which reduces the surface to a rough level. They are then put
into another machine and cut to size, each slate being now 2⅖ feet wide
and 6 feet 1½ in. long. Then the five slates[7] necessary to make a
table bed are laid together upon a solid level bed, and ‘floated’ with
coarse sand; then fine sand is used, and yet finer, till the face is
brought to a polish. Meanwhile, every inequality is carefully tried
down, so that before the slates leave the ‘banker,’ as it is called, the
straight-edge must touch them fairly all over.
* * * * *
_References to Diagram_
B, B, B, B. Bed of table.
Cushion 1. Top cushion.
Cushion 2. Right top side cushion.
Cushion 3. Right bottom side cushion.
Cushion 4. Bottom cushion.
Cushion 5. Left bottom side cushion.
Cushion 6. Left top side cushion.
D. The =Ｄ=.
L, L. Baulk-line.
P^1. Left top pocket.
P^2. Right top pocket.
P^3. Right middle pocket.
P^4. Right bottom pocket.
P^5. Left bottom pocket.
P^6. Left middle pocket.
_p_, _p_, _p_, ..., Pocket plates.
S^1. The spot, or the billiard spot.
S^2. Pyramid spot.
S^3. Centre spot.
S^4. Left spot of the =Ｄ=.
S^5. Centre spot of the =Ｄ=.
S^6. Right spot of the =Ｄ=.
* * * * *
[Illustration]
Holes are bored in the sides of the slates and metal dowels leaded into
one side, as shown in the sketch (fig. 17), so that each slate may fit
into the next, and then large holes are drilled out on the underside of
the slates and steel nuts leaded in to take the long screws which fasten
the cushions firmly to the slates (fig. 18).
[Illustration:
Fig. 18
]
On the underside of each slate a bevel about two inches wide is made, in
order that a chisel may be slipped between the slates to separate them
when dismantling a table; and if one is far away from professional
assistance, and is obliged to take down a table according to one’s own
lights, it is well to look carefully for this bevel, and it may save
many a cracked slate.
Various thicknesses are used, from, say, 1⅛ inch up to and over two
inches, the general principle being that, the thicker the bed is, the
quieter the balls run. But, as in most other things, there is a
reasonable limit, because the weight of the slates increases so
enormously with the increased thickness, that beyond two inches in
thickness they become very difficult to handle, and the risk of damage
in transport is more than proportionately increased.
Therefore, one may call two inches a reasonable maximum, and 1⅝ in. a
fair minimum for the thickness of slates.
CUSHIONS
No part of the table has undergone such radical changes in the last
forty years as the cushion. Billiard-players of even twenty-five years’
experience are already beginning to forget the miseries they endured in
the early days in endeavouring to make a respectable shot from under the
old high cushions, and a school of billiard-players is rapidly growing
up who will never realise the difficulties their fathers encountered.
I am permitted by the courtesy of Messrs. Burroughes & Watts to insert
four drawings from ‘Billiards Simplified,’ which show the difference of
the stroke from under the cushion—fig. 19 in 1826; fig. 20 in 1837; fig.
21 in 1869; fig. 22 in 1895.
The more the player’s cue is elevated from the horizontal, the more
difficult it becomes to direct the course of the ball, and with the old
high cushions it was no easy matter for an ordinary player whose ball
was tight under the cushion to hit another ball at the length of the
table.
But it is not only for the reduction in the height of the cushions that
we have to thank the makers at the present time. The early rubber
cushions were exceedingly sensitive to cold, and unless the greatest
care and trouble were taken with them they became hard, untrue, and
useless; and if they were once allowed to get ‘frozen,’ as it was
called, they never regained their original elasticity. Five and twenty
years ago it was the exception and not the rule to find a country-house
table worth playing on; now, thanks to modern improvements, no one need
despair of keeping his table in excellent order.
[Illustration:
Fig. 19
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 20
]
Vulcanite specially prepared was at one time recommended for
country-house cushions. But although cushions of that material were
unaffected by frost, they were slower and deader than ‘native’ rubber
cushions, and soon became unpopular. The makers have at last found a way
of preparing cushions so that with ordinary care they can be kept true
and fast in all weathers, and it is possible, and indeed usual, to play
in the country with the same kind of cushions as are used in the leading
London clubs.
[Illustration:
Fig. 21
]
The manufacture of these cushions is a delicate piece of work; but one
may say generally that the rubber is applied to the backing in thin
strips, one ‘pasted’ on the top of another with some liquid preparation
of india-rubber similar to, if not the same as, the stuff one uses to
mend a hole in wading-stockings.
[Illustration:
Fig. 22
]
For those who wish to go deeper into the subject, a day at the Patent
Office Library and a careful study of the various patents obtained by
the principal makers with reference to the manufacture of cushions will
prove an interesting piece of research, and will place the scientific
reader in possession of information which for obvious reasons could not
properly be included in the present work.
As we write, rumours of a pneumatic cushion ‘which is to supersede all
others’ are widely current in the billiard world; but when one remembers
the number of fair-seeming patents that have never got further than the
Patent Office Library aforesaid, it would be premature to express any
opinion upon the cushions until they have been thoroughly submitted to
the two practical tests of time and play.
CLOTHS
The bulk of the cloth comes from Stroud, although a good deal is
manufactured in Yorkshire, and the finest quality is passed through two
steel rollers, while a sort of knife like a mowing machine removes a
considerable part of the long nap. This is the kind of cloth that one
sees upon the tables used for exhibition matches. It would be unsuitable
for a club because, having a comparatively short nap, it would soon be
rubbed smooth and bare by the incessant play, and the brushing and
ironing such play involves. For country houses, however, it is the very
thing. The short nap which renders it unsuitable for clubs makes it
easily manageable in a private house; it requires a minimum of ironing;
and even if the table be left to itself for some time, there will be no
staring nap to be seen when next the table is used.
For clubs the next quality, with longer nap, is more useful; more
brushing and more ironing are required, but the cloth is better fitted
to resist the everlasting friction of the player’s hands and the
incessant brushing that becomes, owing to the chalk from many cues, an
almost hourly function.
And here, notwithstanding all that has been said and written about the
subject, let me say that the ironing in club-rooms is in most instances
very much overdone. It is not altogether the marker’s fault; members
complain that the table is running slow, and on goes the iron as a
matter of course, generally far too hot. Nearly every marker will tell
you that the iron is no use unless it is thoroughly hot; what he means
is, that he cannot get the glaze upon the cloth without it; but the
proper answer is that nobody wants, or ought to want, the glaze, and
that it is directly detrimental to scientific billiards. The cooler you
can use the iron and keep the table in order, the better for the life of
the cloth and the better for the club play.
At the seaside, or in any damp climate, constant ironing becomes a
necessity, in order to thoroughly dry the cloth, but even under such
circumstances there is no necessity to scorch it.
A good cloth can be told by the feel only; it should be firm and
leathery, closely woven, and not too elastic.
In such an important matter as a cloth, however, a purchaser would be
well advised to place himself unreservedly in the manufacturers’ hands,
and leave the selection to them.
TO ERECT A TABLE
Having fixed upon a suitable foundation (and for this a competent
architect should be consulted), stand the legs up in the places they
will occupy; fit the frames (which are all numbered) into the mortices,
and screw the frames to the legs with the long bolts provided for the
purpose.
At this stage it will be well to set about levelling, _before_ the
weight of the slates comes upon the bed, and if you get your wedges in
now, you can more readily knock them a little further when the table is
completely put together than if you had left them to be inserted last of
all.
Having thus got the bed level, lift the slates on carefully, and lay
them on the bed an inch or two apart. Place the centre slate accurately
in position, slide the next one up against it, and enter the dowels of
the one into the corresponding holes of the other fairly and squarely;
proceed in like manner with the other slates till they are all joined.
If there be any cracks in the upper edges of any of the slates, fill
them in with plaster of Paris.
Lay on the cloth, taking care that the right side is uppermost, that the
nap runs from what is to be the bottom of the table towards the top, and
that the cloth is square to the table. Go to the top of the table, drive
in a couple of tacks,[8] and then go to the bottom of the table, pull
the cloth tight, and drive in two more tacks on the middle line. Then
stand at one of the middle pockets, pull the cloth a little towards you,
and tack it lightly on each side of the pocket; next go over to the
opposite middle pocket, pull the cloth tight and tack it as before. Then
at each of the middle pockets in succession take a good handful of cloth
and a good pull and tack what you get underneath the pocket. Smooth out
the cloth over the fall of these pockets, but do not at present trouble
about a wrinkle or two, as they will be smoothed out later. Get somebody
to hold the cloth firmly at the middle pocket, and go yourself to the
corner pocket and pull along the side of the table, using considerable
strength; proceed in like manner with the other corner pockets. If all
this has been done carefully, neatly, and firmly, the cloth ought to be
well stretched the length and breadth of the table. The amateur will
find the greatest difficulty in getting the cloth to lie smooth along
the sides and ends of the table, and especially at the fall of the
pockets, for the cloth must be humoured so as to come fair over the
pockets without creasing. This is a work of time, trouble, and
neat-handedness; you must not hurry; take plenty of time, plenty of
tacks, and by degrees success may be attained.
Covering the cushions with cloth is such an exceedingly difficult and
delicate operation that it should not be attempted by an amateur; very
few workmen can cover a cushion as it should be covered, and, therefore,
it is useless to describe the operation. It will be found prudent to
order the makers to cover the cushions before sending them out; indeed,
some clubs abroad have two sets of cushions, so that while one set is in
use the other may be in England for repairs.
And now to put the cushions on the table. Take care that you have each
one in its proper place (the cushions will be all numbered); fit them
all firmly on so that the holes in the woodwork exactly coincide with
the holes in the slates; push in the bolts and screw them _all_ up
_hand_ tight. _Don’t_ screw one as tight as you can at first, or you
will strain the cushion and the nut, but when you have got them _all_
fairly tight, set them up with the brace as tight as your strength will
allow, taking care that each is similarly treated. With modern steel
cushions it must be remembered that slots have to be dealt with instead
of holes, and therefore the position of the cushions must be carefully
measured, or one pocket will be larger than another.
Having screwed up the cushions quite tight, fit in the pocket plates and
pass the long thin screws up from below through the woodwork of the
cushions and screw all tight. (Some modern cushions are fixed with what
are called invisible pocket plates; these have to be put into the
cushions before the latter are fixed). Modern pockets are made with
holes at the side closed by an india-rubber ring, so that the balls can
be taken out without putting the hand into the pockets. These are an
improvement on the old pattern, for the shoulders of the cushions will
last longer and will not be pulled out of shape.
It now only remains to get the table quite level. Work the level about
and correct any slight errors by slightly jacking up the low part, and
by pushing the wedges under the nearest legs further home. Rather
under-compensate at first, because if you overdo the thing at all, you
will find yourself obliged to go on overdoing it till your table is
eventually raised appreciably above the regulation height, which should
be 2 ft. 8 in. from the floor to the cloth, _not_ to the top of the
cushions.
If obliged to put up or superintend the erection of the lighting
apparatus, remember that the flame is generally three feet from the
cloth.
One more word of advice. If you can secure an expert to erect your
table, never do the work yourself; but if you cannot command such aid,
the foregoing hints may be of service.
The spots should be of thin court plaster, and should be carefully stuck
on the places shown in the diagram, p. 75.
Pipeclay, white chalk, black chalk, or a lead pencil can be used for
marking a baulk-line; and, whichever you select, remember to mark the
lines lightly or the cloth will soon become grooved and damaged.
Pipeclay, which is the least likely to damage the table, has the
drawback that it very easily rubs out, and, in consequence, involves
constant ruling, so that, on the whole, a lead pencil carefully and
lightly used can be recommended.
If the table be a Championship one, the position of the afore-mentioned
spots and lines requires modification, as shown on p. 73.
BRUSHING AND IRONING
It is impossible to overestimate the value of continual and regular
brushing. With one of the finest quality cloths, unless the climate be
damp, once or twice a week at the outside will be enough for the iron,
_if the brush_ is used as it should be. At the conclusion of play the
brush should _always_ be used freely and at once, so that all the chalk
marks may be removed before they are rubbed through the cloth. Remember
always to use the brush _with the nap_—that is, from the bottom towards
the top of the table.
To iron a table properly, place the iron at A C (fig. 23), and then take
it steadily along the table from A to B. _Lift it off_; then go back to
the bottom again; put the iron down at C E, and take it along the table
from C to D. Then go from E to F; and finally from G to H. Proceed then
in a similar manner with the other side of the table. Avoid as much as
possible letting the iron come into contact with the cushion.
It will be observed that the iron in the sketch is put down diagonally,
the reason being that if, when ironing the breadth next to the side
cushion, the iron comes in contact with the shoulder of the middle
pocket, it will slide on harmlessly and not damage the cushion. If it
were held squarely, the sharp edge of the iron might cut the cloth of
the cushion.
_Bear well in mind_ that if at any time the cloth is turned end for end,
the brushing and ironing will have, as before, to go with the nap, and
will, therefore, start from the top end of the table and proceed towards
the bottom.
[Illustration:
Fig. 23
]
Let the iron be too cold rather than too hot. It is easy to go over the
table a second time, and after a little experience the proper
temperature will become known. If the cloth be once scorched it will
never be satisfactory. Therefore:
Rule 1.—Never put an iron on the cloth until you have _practically_
satisfied yourself that it is not too hot.
Rule 2.—_Never iron an unbrushed cloth._
UNDERSIZED TABLES
Tables can be bought 10 ft. by 5 ft., 9 ft. by 4½ ft., and so on down to
6 ft. by 3 ft. There are also combination tables which serve as
dining-tables as well, and they seem to answer very well in small
houses.
For the earnest student a so-called ‘spot stroke’ table 6 ft. by 3 ft.,
which is really a section of the top of a full-sized table, made after
the fashion of the sketch (fig. 24), will afford an immense amount of
amusement and practice; for, in addition to the ‘spot,’ the top of the
table game, ‘rail’ cannons, &c., can be practised. The pattern of the
spot stroke table is a matter of fancy and cost; the side A, B, C need
have neither cushion nor pocket.
[Illustration:
Fig. 24
]
If the small tables do not satisfy the ambition of the player, he has
yet another course open—viz. to get a French table, and seriously study
the cannon game in all its phases; and signs are not wanting that this
beautiful game, as it is becoming better known, is finding favour with
advanced players.
It may not be generally known by the vast army of people who rent
furnished houses for a few months at a time that billiard-tables can be
hired from the leading makers by the week or the month, the rate being
from, say, 2_l._ 2_s._ to 3_l._ 3_s._ a month, with a small payment in
addition to cover erecting and dismantling. Lighting and all fittings
are, of course, included in the above charges, and thus, without the
expense of purchase, a billiard-table can be brought within anyone’s
reach.
Before leaving the subject of tables, an ingenious modification of an
old arrangement whereby the balls are automatically returned from the
pockets to the baulk end of the table may be mentioned. It has been
patented by Messrs. Orme & Sons, and will be found a convenience where
no marker is kept, specially in practising losing hazards from baulk.
For spot, or top of the table play, it is inconvenient; but the drawback
of having to return to baulk for the ball after each hazard may be
remedied by placing a plug or false bottom into each top pocket (failing
anything better, a pocket handkerchief will do), so that the ball may be
removed in the usual way. Mr. Rimington-Wilson has devised a mode of
meeting this difficulty, and Messrs. Orme have acquired the right to use
his patent.
BALLS
Balls are made of various substances, generally of ivory, the standard
diameter for the English game being 2¹⁄₁₆ inches.
Every practical billiard-player is painfully aware of the difficulty
that exists in procuring a really satisfactory set of ivory balls. I
propose, therefore, first to touch on their manufacture, then on their
treatment, and finally to offer a suggestion or two as to their purchase
and preservation.
It is said that only one kind of tusk, that of the female elephant, is
suitable for ball-making; and the size of the tusk, again, is closely
regulated by the size of the ball required; for it is important that as
little as possible of the outside of the ivory should be pared away.
As the tusk comes into the workshop, the upper part (which is hollow)
and the hard point are sawn off, leaving the piece from A to B (fig.
25). This is generally sawn into five blocks, each of which will
eventually become a ball; these blocks are roughed out and turned into
approximately spherical shape and left for about a year to season,
before they are touched again, in order that the inevitable shrinking of
the grain may proceed naturally and slowly.
Now, the ball from end B is closer in the grain than the ball from end
B, and therefore they will differ in weight; and as it is most important
that the three balls should be of equal weight, no small trouble is
experienced, after finishing, in finding three that will pass the test
of the balance.[9] If five sets can be got out of a hundred balls, the
makers are satisfied, and even then perhaps only one set will be up to
match standard.
When one considers the cost of ivory, the time and delicate work
involved, and the scarcity of sufficiently skilled workmen, it is small
wonder that a good set of balls is an expensive luxury.
[Illustration:
Fig. 25
]
If balls are to last well, much care must be taken of them; but
unhappily their ordinary treatment at a club is too severe for their
delicate constitution. In many cases they are put upon the table as soon
as they arrive from the makers, before they have had time to get
acclimatised to the change of temperature, and, as full-sized balls are
sure to seem heavy after balls that have been once or twice adjusted,
the heaviest cues in the room are brought to bear upon them with
literally crushing effect.
Now, as the turners have removed a little of the hard outer surface, the
newly exposed surface ought to have time to harden; and, further, ivory
is very susceptible to changes of temperature, sensitive to damp, and
needs acclimatisation in its new home, to enable it to withstand the
shock of collision without cracking. The leading players, when they get
a really good set of balls, never think of playing a hard shot with them
until many days, or even weeks, are gone by. Every day they take them
out and gently tap them along with nursery cannons and quiet little
strokes, until they are sufficiently seasoned to stand the shock of a
long game; hence their balls last much longer than club balls.
Anyone who has served on the billiard committee of a London club may
remember how his life has been made a burden to him by the never-ending
complaints of members on the subject of balls. He might reasonably
reply: ‘Gentlemen, the matter rests mainly with you; if you are
determined to have good balls, you must make up your minds that they are
to receive good treatment.’ But how that much-to-be-desired arrangement
is to be ensured I confess I cannot say. The balls are common property,
and must be as much at the service of those who know nothing and care
less about the game (save as a means of whiling away an hour or two) as
of the limited few to whom the difference between good and bad balls
means a great deal.
Some clubs adopt the principle of paying a leading firm so much per
annum (like a subscription to a lending library), upon the understanding
that the firm is to change the balls as often as the club likes. This
system is a bad one for makers and clubs alike. There is no inducement
to the makers to send their _best_ balls to be subjected to the severe
ordeal of everyday club play. Rather do they prefer to keep such balls
for customers who are able to take the greatest care of them; and it
follows that makers, having from the nature of things only a few of the
very best sets, cannot be blamed if they send more moderate articles to
take their turn in the ‘lending library’ arrangement.
The following is, I think, a better system. Several sets of balls are
bought _in the rough_ to start with, with the date of their purchase
marked on a label attached to each set. These balls are then hung in a
net under the table and left undisturbed for one, two, or three
years—the longer the better; they are then adjusted and hung up again;
after another interval a set is again adjusted, made ready for play,
and, finally, having been kept for, say, another fortnight or three
weeks, is put upon the table. At the same time another set to take its
place is bought in the rough, and, as every set in turn is brought into
use, another rough set is purchased. By this means there are always
eight or ten sets seasoning in the particular temperature for which they
are required.
Every good system has its weak point, and the weak point of this one is,
that it is essential to its success that the set which comes back from
adjustment is the identical one which was sent. I do not suggest that
the leading makers would knowingly make a mistake of this kind; on the
contrary, I know as a fact that great care is taken in the turning shop
to prevent any such accident; but one set of balls is very like another,
and it is quite possible that an unintentional change might take place.
However, with a view to render such an accident impossible, one firm, at
any rate, willingly allows the man in charge of the balls to stay in the
shops while they are being adjusted, so that he can take them away with
him as soon as they are finished.
If neither of these systems is adopted, the best plan is to buy the
balls for the ensuing billiard season in the early summer, when little
or no play is going on, and keep them in the room seasoning until they
are wanted in the autumn. Any time and trouble expended on their careful
selection will be amply repaid before the year is out, because the balls
so selected will have hardened up, and will be less liable to crack than
others bought a few days before they are required for regular use.
Balls purchased from, or adjusted by, a first-class firm should not
require to be tested for size and weight, because they have been
accurately gauged (fig. 26) and weighed before they are sent out; but a
rough-and-ready test may be useful if one finds oneself about to play in
an out-of-the-way corner of the country, and one half suspects the
presence of the inevitable pool ball. Place the three balls in a line
touching one another and one of the cushions, and then lower the eye
till the line of sight becomes a tangent to the top of the balls and the
top of the woodwork of the cushion; by this means irregularity in size
is easily detected. If you suspect the balls to be foul, set up balls 2
and 3 touching; note the exact spot on cushion where 3 should hit—viz.
that indicated by the prolongation of a line through the centres and
point of contact.
Then play the plant with ball 1 and note deviation. If in doubt whether
balls or table be in fault, reverse the stroke; go to the opposite end
of the table and play back over the same line. Good lines to select are
the diagonals which are the longest on the table.
[Illustration:
Fig. 26
]
‘How can you tell a good ball?’ is a question that is often asked, and
the late Mr. Frank Buckland answered it as follows. ‘The test is this:
the ball is rolled gently along a billiard-table till it stops of its
own accord. If at that moment it falls either to one side or the other,
it is useless to the player; if, on the contrary, it remains motionless
on the same line on which it was originally projected, it is allowed to
pass muster.’ Such a test, however, would be too much for 99 balls out
of 100. First, ivory is not like Whitworth steel; it is a substance of
varying density, and even if by the skill of man it could be turned into
_an absolutely perfect_ sphere, it is hardly likely that the centre of
gravity of each piece would coincide with the centre of the sphere;
secondly, in order to make the experiment at all satisfactory, the table
should be absolutely level, the cloth perfectly new, free from dirt, of
the finest quality, and most carefully stretched; and, lastly, the ball
must be struck _exactly_ on its vertical centre line. Each of these
conditions presents some difficulty in attainment; to combine them all
is well-nigh impossible.
Every ball, to speak generally, will fall over a little, and it may be
due to the failure of _any one_ of the above conditions. Therefore, it
is safer to say that the less a _truly struck_ ball changes its
horizontal axis the better ball it is. For the owner of a private table,
I should say the safest way to get a good set is to ask a first-class
professional player, whom he can trust, to make the selection; of course
he would have to pay a good price, but he will no doubt thus get a
better set than he himself could choose. If he should in this way become
the fortunate possessor of a good set, he ought to lock them jealously
away, only to be produced when he finds an adversary that he can trust
with them; and he will find it good policy to keep another set for
ordinary use.
Ivory is getting increasingly scarce, and everything seems to point to
the fact that as time goes on good balls will become still more costly,
and more difficult to procure; and one is led to the conclusion that the
next generation will have to find some substitute, or leave billiards to
millionaires. Many attempts have been made in the last few years to get
over the difficulty, and composition balls of various substances have
from time to time been placed upon the market; but the earlier kinds
have not found much favour—first, because they were believed to be
explosive; secondly, because they did not possess sufficient elasticity;
and, lastly, because they showed a tendency to soil, and pick up any
dirt they might happen to pass over.
About the year 1893 or 1894, however, a new composition called Bonzoline
made its appearance. The makers claim for it that it is heavier
(specifically) and _more_ elastic than ivory, and, as far as observation
at present goes, their claim seems to be well founded. Whether bonzoline
will stand the wear and tear of everyday work as well as or better than
ivory it would be premature to offer an opinion, but these balls have
_at least_ the merit of cheapness: 31_s._ 6_d._ compares very favourably
with 3½, 4, or 5 guineas for a set of balls; so that, even if they do
not last so long as ivory (and I do not say they do not), a purchaser
would not be very much out of pocket thereby. One thing is certain, that
they run very truly at first, and time will soon show whether they can
be depended upon for endurance. They certainly do not appear to be
explosive; they seem less affected by changes of temperature and damp
than ivory; but they have the same facility for picking up dirt that the
older kinds had. I cannot, however, find that washing them in tepid
water injures them in the slightest degree. For pool and pyramids they
represent an enormous saving in money.
They ‘come off’ at a slightly different angle to ivory—that is to say, a
shade ‘squarer.’ With No. 1 strength the difference is inappreciable,
but as forcing strength is reached it becomes more apparent; but in the
most extreme cases it is not much, and easily provided for—indeed, with
some sets it hardly exists. I am aware that there is a very general
impression amongst amateurs that the difference is very great, ‘enough
to ruin one’s game;’ but, for all that, it is largely a matter of
imagination, and the very objectors forget that ivory sets vary
considerably in the same sort of way, so that each new set wants a
little knowing.
As I write I hear that somebody in Sweden has brought out at Stockholm
some billiard balls of hollow cast steel. According to ‘Chambers’s
Journal’ for March 1895, they are said to be of the same weight as
ivory, and about a quarter of the price; they are also said to be
turned, and the thickness of the skin is given as about ¹⁄₁₆ in.
Nothing apparently is mentioned as to their elasticity, and I cannot
find that anyone here has seen or tried them.
CUES, HALF-BUTTS, RESTS, ETC.
Cues should be made of old and carefully-seasoned wood; ash being
generally used. There are three kinds—(1) plain cues; (2) French butted;
(3) English butted.
The first kind are of course the cheapest, but, being made of ‘self’
wood throughout, they have more tendency to warp, and their balance is
not so finely adjusted; hence one seldom sees an advanced player using a
plain cue. Of the second and third kinds, the French butt is solid, the
English butt is veneered on, and, therefore, if a light cue is required,
a French butt cannot be selected.
In making the French butt the ebony is sawn in two =Ｖ=-shaped cuts, and
the ash is cleared out, so that when the cue and the butt are driven
together, with hot glue run in, an exceedingly tight joint is made,
which never comes adrift.
In making the English butt, two broad and two narrow tapering pieces of
ebony, mahogany, or other hard wood, are glued to the sides of the ash
cue which have been squared off to receive them, and when the glue has
thoroughly set the whole butt is planed down into shape, sand-papered,
and polished. The above sketch may give a clearer idea of the process
(fig. 27).
[Illustration:
Fig. 27
]
At first sight the preparation of what one may call the shaft of the cue
seems simple, and a little ordinary planing all that can be required;
but this is very far from being the case; indeed, the whole secret of
successful cue-making lies in the careful manipulation of the ash shaft.
Every piece of ash, generally speaking, will have a soft spot or two in
it; and if the wood were planed carelessly all round without reference
to these weak spots, the shaft would warp to a certainty, for every
piece of wood has a tendency to cast towards the centre of the tree from
which it was cut; therefore, the maker humours the wood and planes more
from the hard grain and less from the soft, so that they may be made to
balance one another; and then, if there be still a slight tendency to
warp in any direction, the piece of butt _on the opposite side_ will be
made a trifle longer, so that it may have a little more leverage in
counteracting the warping tendency. No doubt there are perfectly true,
straight-grained pieces of ash, but they are very rare, and a leading
cue-maker has told me that he doesn’t come across more than two or three
in a year. All the rest require special treatment, and about three out
of every dozen that come in from the seasoning shop have to be rejected
as hopeless as far as cues are concerned, though they may serve for
rest-handles or for dowels.
When the cues are finally turned out as finished articles, a purchaser
will find a considerable range in weight, balance, size, shape of butt,
and size of top to select from, showing that individual fancy is an
important factor in the case. There is no magic in any particular
weight, or in any particular shape or kind of grip. What a player
fancies, he will play best with, and he will soon get accustomed to a
particular pattern, which he ought to adhere to steadily.
Cues vary from 14 oz. in weight to 18 oz. and even 20 oz., and I have
seen a few of over 20 oz.; but, speaking generally, 16 oz. to 16½ oz. is
a very usual weight. Peall plays with a very light cue, about 14 oz.
Roberts uses one weighing about 16 oz. Good results can, therefore, be
produced with widely varying weights, and a player can suit himself.
With a very heavy cue the ‘touch’ is likely to be coarse; but I have
seen an amateur make over twenty spots with a cue of over 20 oz.
With regard to the top, its diameter varies from ³⁄₁₀ in. to ⁶⁄₁₀ in.
for English cues, and within fair limits a medium-sized top is more
easily and certainly used by ordinary players than a very fine one.
TIPS
Tips are now always made abroad, and are supplied in boxes of assorted
sizes, so that a purchaser is sure of finding some the size he requires.
It is essential to good play that the cue should be well tipped; and the
process of tipping has been so often described in existing works on
billiards, that everyone _ought_ to be able to tip a cue for himself.
The golden rule to be observed is that the top of the cue must be
_absolutely flat_, and the tip should fit the top as closely as
possible. If the tip is a well-fitting one, it should be warmed (and the
top of the cue also), and stuck firmly on with cue cement. There is an
ingenious little clamp to be bought, which holds the tip tightly until
the cement has set. After the cement is fixed, the tip should be gently
hammered until it is flat, and any overhanging leather or cement must be
carefully removed, first with a knife and then with sand-paper. _Avoid
touching the cue_ itself with the sand-paper, if possible; and you will
find it a good plan to wrap a piece of paper round the cue while you are
rubbing the tip. If the cue be much scratched, the wood will begin to
‘stare’ and feel rough in the fingers. Nothing is so bad for the cue as
the common amateur trick, at the commencement of play, of rubbing the
cue from the tip, say two feet down, with coarse sand-paper. Players say
they do it to clean the cue; but the best way to do that is to get a
damp cloth and wipe the cue well, and then rub it hard with a dry one.
By this means your cue will be very clean, slip well through the bridge,
and acquire a fine, hard polish, so that it will feel much the same in
damp as in dry weather.
[Illustration:
Fig. 28
]
Some players do not feel neat-handed enough to undertake the tipping of
a cue; for them I would recommend a little brass plate with three spikes
in it, which screws into the top of a cue shaped as in fig. 28. If the
cues in a country house are so fitted, anyone can put a tip on in a
couple of minutes. You have merely to put the tip on the spikes and
gently hammer it home.
[Illustration:
Fig. 29
]
Another device is to fit the cue-top with a brass screw socket, into
which a screw with a flat top is screwed, and the tip is fixed on the
movable screw (fig. 29). The advantage of this plan is, that a player
may have three or four screws all duly tipped, and as one tip wears out
he simply takes out the screw and screws in another. For country-house
visiting this, combined with a screw-jointed cue (fig. 30), makes a
player quite independent of local cues and local tips, especially as
with a jointed cue he can have a spare top joint.[10]
Another simple arrangement is the ivory top fitted with a screw, as
shown in fig. 29.
[Illustration:
Fig. 30
]
After long service a cue will wear away at the top. It is worth
remembering that such a cue need not be discarded, as it can easily be
restored to its original condition. The usual remedy is an ivory top,
but a better one is to get the cue spliced or fitted with a screw,
according to the illustration (fig. 31). Whichever plan may be adopted,
the great thing is to pick an _old_ seasoned bit of ash, nothing being
better than a piece of an old cue with a good straight grain. By
adopting this plan, the top can be made as large as may be desired, and
a good bit of wood in the most delicate part of the cue is ensured.
[Illustration:
Fig. 31
]
The writer has a cue with a single splice, which has been in work for
years, and is so well put together that even at this time it is
difficult to find the joint; but, on the whole, he ventures to think
that the double splice is stronger and neater.
HALF-BUTTS
Half-butts and long-butts, on account of their length, have to be made
of pine for lightness’ sake, and little need be said about them. They
are cumbrous things, and a disagreeable necessity.
It is a good plan to wipe the upper end of the butt _every day_ with a
damp cloth, and then with a dry one, because they always collect a
quantity of dirt, and are apt to run stickily through the rest. If these
butts were not varnished, but well polished with boiled oil, they would
be much pleasanter to play with.
RESTS
Rests are now usually made in the shape of a diagonal cross, the upper
drawing of fig. 32, the old-fashioned pattern being very seldom seen.
[Illustration:
Fig. 32
]
The chief objection to the cross pattern is that it is troublesome to
manipulate in the neighbourhood of the cushions, and some years ago
Messrs. Burroughes & Watts brought out a rest which gets over the
cushion difficulty very cleverly. As will be seen in the annexed drawing
(fig. 33), the height can be regulated at will, and a _firm_ rest on the
cushion can be made. For some reason or other this rest has never become
popular, and the cross-shaped rest still holds the field.[11]
[Illustration:
Fig. 33
]
That a perfect rest is still to be invented I firmly believe. A point
that has never yet been met is, that the friction over the bridge of the
human hand is of a quite different character to that over a brass or an
ebony cross-piece, and so a cue on a rest seems to run away from a
player.
CHALK
Chalk is worth attending to carefully. The most familiar kinds are the
square blocks done up in green paper and the cylindrical pieces in
cardboard cases. These last are turned straight out of a solid block,
and are, therefore, not free from grit and other impurities; the more
gritty they are the more destructive are they to the cue-tips. The
square blocks are sawn from more carefully selected chalk, and are for
that reason to be preferred to the cylindrical pieces. They should be
dry and powdery, for a greasy chalk is not to be depended on, and it
will soon make the cue-tip shiny. In fact, the great secret of chalk is
to have it _dry_.
Attempts have been made from time to time to grind down the chalk to
powder and again consolidate it; but, as foreign substances must be
introduced in order to make the powder stick together and become hard
enough to withstand the friction of cue-tips, the result has usually
been rather a greasy mixture.
There can be little doubt that if our chemists were to go into the
matter seriously they would soon give us a smooth and yet biting
‘chalk.’
Within the last few months a French firm have brought out some
greenish-blue ‘chalk,’ called St. Martin chalk, which reminds one of the
old green Thurston chalk one used to see thirty years ago. This new
preparation seems to hold the ball very well, and does not make such a
mess of the table as the old white; it is not poisonous; but—there is
always a but—it is very expensive.
MARKING BOARD
A good marking-board is essential to the comfort of the players, and the
ordinary pattern, as shown in fig. 34, leaves little to be desired. Long
games, however, of 400 and 500 up are not uncommon in private rooms in
these days, and it would be a slight improvement if some means of
scoring _hundreds_ were introduced. I should think two slides similar to
the pool slides, with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 underneath, placed above
or below each scoring-roller, would meet the case (fig. 35).
[Illustration:
Fig. 36
]
There is another pattern still fairly common which is always a nuisance,
for sooner or later a mistake is sure to be made as to the twenties
(fig. 36). One or other of the players will forget to move on the twenty
marker when he takes the other back to zero; more advanced arithmetic is
involved and another objection is that a separate board is required for
pool.
[Illustration:
Fig. 34
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 35
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 37
]
Another kind of marker is a nickel-plated one let into the woodwork of
the cushions, and worked by pressing a button (fig. 37). Two are placed
side by side, one for each player. A further variety of the same kind is
a hand marker, which is useful in a country house.
POOL BASKET
If you should happen to possess a good set of pool balls, you should get
a set of dummy balls, made in box-wood or inferior ivory, to shake up in
the basket, for the violent shocks that real balls receive in the basket
at the hands of an energetic marker are a fruitful source of cracking
and faulty running.
THE HALF-BALL ANGLE
[Illustration:
Fig. 38
]
A piece of wood of about the thickness of half a ball (say 1¹⁄₃₂ in.),
as shown in fig. 38, is to be bought, and will be found exceedingly
useful to beginners. The idea of this invention is that by its means the
angle by which a ball (fairly struck in the middle without side, No. 1
strength) is deflected from its course by colliding a half-ball with
another is accurately shown (fig. 39).
Let A be the striker’s ball, and let it be required to hit the ball B
exactly half-ball. Clearly the line of progression of ball A will be
along the line A D. At D it is deflected in the direction of the arrow
F; and the angle between F D and E D, the original course of the ball,
is the amount of deflection due to collision. This will be found to
amount to 33°.
Suppose, then, it is required to find the proper place to spot a ball,
so as to go into a pocket half-ball off another (fig. 40).
Let O be the object ball, P a pocket. It is required to spot a player’s
ball somewhere near the line A B to go into the pocket off O. Place the
angle A of the instrument against the ball O in such fashion that the
side A D points for the centre of the pocket. Then a ball with its
centre upon the line A E produced will, if it strikes the ball O
half-ball, proceed towards the centre of the pocket.
[Illustration:
Fig. 39
]
The course of the player’s ball will not be _along_ A D, but converging
upon it from a point half a diameter distant from the ball O. Hence the
angle of deviation as shown by the instrument is made slightly greater
than that described by the ball; that of the instrument being about 35°,
the real angle being about 33°.
Of course it cannot be mathematically correct at all distances, but it
is near enough for practical purposes, and will help to train the eye to
estimate half-ball angles.
[Illustration:
Fig. 40
]
The two lines marked upon the upper surface of the instrument, if
produced through the angle A, will give the direction taken by the
object ball after collision, according as the shot is played from B or
C.
[Illustration:
An Outside Billiard-room
]
CHAPTER III
ELEMENTARY: ONE-BALL PRACTICE
Before commencing the manual of instruction in billiards, it is
desirable to address a few words of advice to the beginner, and to
explain some of the technical terms used. Others will be described in
future chapters.
It is clear that before playing, the room must be entered; and hence we
commence with the mode of doing so. The operation seems so simple as to
be too trivial for notice; but, far from that, there is nothing short of
actual play which shows more clearly the difference between a
well-trained, well-mannered player and a novice or a careless and
discourteous visitor. The door of a room should always be approached
quietly, for the table may be occupied; if it be so, _wait for the
stroke_. When the stroke is played, open the door quietly, and walk
straight to a seat. Avoid everything likely to distract the attention of
the players from their game, and recollect that for the time being the
room, its light, fire, and so forth, belong to them. Persons who smoke
should wait for the stroke before scratching a match, and when
extinguishing it should not do so by waving it before the eyes of the
player. In short, ordinary courtesy is nowhere more important than in
the billiard-room, for if men can play, their nerve and attention are
strained; interruption may prove fatal to the chance of one of them, and
is sure to be resented, even though it may pass without remark.
In the previous chapter the terms employed respecting the table and
implements have been detailed; these are now supplemented by others in
common use during play.
_Angled._—A ball is angled in respect to that part of the table to which
it cannot be directly played.
_Ball._—In billiards three balls are used, white, spot-white, and red.
The player’s or cue-ball will usually, in this volume, be called ball 1;
the object ball, or ball played on, ball 2; and the third ball, ball 3.
A line-ball is one resting on the baulk-line.
_Baulk._—The space between the baulk-line and the bottom cushion. A ball
within that space is in _baulk_; when a white and red ball are in baulk
and the other is off the table, the situation is termed a _double
baulk_.
_Break._—The term is applied to a continuous score, or one made in
unbroken succession.
To _break the balls_ is to play as at the opening of a game.
_Bridge._—The player’s hand which rests on the table, and which serves
as a guide to the cue, is so-called.
_Coup._—If a player fails to hit another ball, and by the same stroke
causes his own ball to enter a pocket, he is said to have _run a coup_.
_Cover._—A ball is said to be _covered_ when it cannot be directly hit
by player’s ball because of the interposition of another ball; in other
words, when ball 1 cannot directly strike ball 2 because of ball 3, ball
2 is said to be _covered_ by ball 3.
_Foul._—A stroke made in contravention of the rules.
_In hand._—When a player’s ball is off the table it is termed _in hand_.
_Hazard._—When a player with his ball pockets another ball he is said to
make a _winning hazard_; when he pockets his own ball after contact with
another ball he makes a _losing hazard_.
_Kiss._—Ball 2 is said to kiss when it comes a second time in contact
with ball 1. The kiss is generally made off a cushion.
This term is used with much laxity in the language of billiards, and
includes what the French call _coups durs_, when ball 2 is touching a
cushion, and _rencontres_, when balls 1 and 3 meet, the former having
been set in motion by the cue and the latter by the impact of ball 2.
When ball 2 has an unforeseen collision with ball 3, and thereby
prevents a cannon, the failure is attributed to robbery by a _kiss_.
_Miss-cue._—Failure in the delivery of the cue on player’s ball; usually
a slip from want of chalk or from defective striking.
_Plant._—When two balls touch and an imaginary line through their
centres if prolonged terminates in the centre of a pocket, a _dead
plant_ is said to be on. If the ball further from the pocket be played
on and struck almost anywhere, the ball nearer the pocket will
inevitably be _planted_ or go into the pocket. The _plant_ is still
possible when the line through the centres falls slightly to the right
or left of the pocket.
_Strength_ is the measure of force used to make a stroke, which is said
to be soft or hard according to the _strength_.
[Illustration:
Stringing
]
To _string_ is to play from baulk to the top cushion so as to leave
player’s ball near the baulk-line or bottom cushion as may be selected.
Before a match the players _string_ simultaneously for choice of balls,
and for the option of commencing the game.
After these preliminaries, the first matter of importance is that
players should try to acquire an easy attitude. For its attainment
precise rules like those for military drill cannot be given, because
what are suitable for a tall spare man are wholly impossible to one who
is short and stout. Therefore, advice must be general. The learner
should go to a proficient of about his own make, whose style is admitted
to be good, and be shown the best attitudes to reach a ball placed in
various parts of the table, first from baulk, and afterwards from other
and more cramped positions. If this be neglected, he is apt to contract
faulty habits, which become more difficult to abandon the longer they
have been entertained.
[Illustration:
An Easy Attitude
]
In playing an ordinary stroke from baulk, a right-handed player should
stand so that his body shall be on the left of the line of stroke, which
is, in fact, the axis of the cue; the left foot should be advanced so
that the toe shall be just below the cushion, and pointing in the
direction of the stroke; the right foot retired more or less according
to the stature of the player, and pointing at a right angle to the left
foot. The right leg should be straight, the left more or less bent; the
right hand should hold the cue near the butt, the elbow being nearly
vertically above the hand, whilst the left hand should be extended in
the line of stroke, so that the cue resting between the thumb and
forefinger shall lie as nearly as possible horizontal. For a left-handed
player the same advice holds good, save that throughout the word ‘left’
should be substituted for ‘right.’ For all players that attitude is best
which is least stiff or constrained, and which combines the greatest
measure of steadiness with freedom of action.
The formation of a good bridge is essential to accurate play. Its object
is to supply a rest for the cue at the height of the stroke to be
delivered, and this ordinarily is the centre of the ball. Just as for
the right hand, which puts the cue in motion, freedom is the chief
necessity, so for the left, which acts as the guide and support,
stability is of the first importance. That is best attained by bringing
some weight to bear on the base of the thumb, and consequently by
somewhat raising the knuckle-joint of the little finger. As hands vary
in shape and size, no precise rule or measurements for the formation of
a bridge can be laid down. A competent instructor will show how a bridge
is made, and an intelligent learner will soon acquire the habit of
making one which suits himself. The general mode is to place the hand
flat on the table, elevate the knuckles about two inches or rather more,
keeping the fingers rigid or unbent, so as to form nearly a right angle
with the palm, raise the thumb, and press it moderately just above the
joint against the forefinger, forming with it the rest or point of
support of the cue, spread the fingers slightly so as to widen the
foundation, so to speak, of the bridge and increase its stability, and
by means of raising or lowering the little finger, bring the point of
support so that the cue shall lie level with the point of the ball to be
struck. These directions, perhaps, seem complicated; but if the
prescribed movements are gone through once or twice before the learner
by a competent person, all difficulty will disappear. The final movement
whereby the height of delivery of the cue is regulated, is one of much
importance, which we do not recollect to have seen mentioned in previous
manuals.
[Illustration:
PRELIMINARIES.
]
[Illustration:
The Bridge
]
Exceptional rests or bridges have to be made to meet exceptional cases.
Thus, when a ball is under a cushion, the tips of the fingers form the
sole support; in other instances the thumb is lowered and the forefinger
bent so as to form a ring or hook through which the cue is passed. The
French call this _bouclée_.[12] There are, in fact, many variations
which it would be a waste of time and space to describe; some, indeed,
have to be invented as the necessity for their use may arise.
The attitude and method of making a bridge having been acquired, the
next point is to deliver the cue freely and horizontally. It should be
lightly held near the butt and repose on the bridge, so that ordinarily
from 9 to 12 inches project towards the ball. Considerable differences
in the distances between the bridge and the ball occur during the
variations in a game, but it is generally true that the nearer they are
the greater the accuracy with which the ball can be struck, and the
further (within reasonable limits) they are apart the greater the power.
What is gained in power is, to some extent, lost in accuracy.
A little practice with the cue without a ball is useful to familiarise a
beginner with the necessary action, that is the horizontal backward and
forward motion; a slow withdrawal followed by a faster forward stroke.
When this is attained practice with one ball should be commenced. It is
of the highest importance; for by means of it alone can the rare
qualification of a true delivery of cue be acquired. And this applies
not merely to beginners, but to persons who are out of practice, for the
commonest of all faults, and the secret of most failures to score, is
that the player’s ball is not truly struck. It may seem strange, but it
is nevertheless true, that many persons who play what is held to be a
fair game cannot truly strike a ball.
Let us then suppose a ball placed on the spot on the centre of the baulk
circle, and that the player has assumed a suitable attitude in order to
play up the table over the billiard spot. The tip of his cue should be
about half an inch from the centre of the ball, and the axis of the cue
should be as nearly as possible parallel with the surface of the table,
and in the same vertical plane as its central line, because the path
travelled by a ball truly struck in the centre is, till after impact
with a cushion or with another ball, invariably a prolongation of the
axis of the cue. Having aimed carefully over the spot, he should draw
the cue slowly back three or four inches and then bring it forward,
giving the ball a smart tap, in contradistinction to a push, in the
centre; the strength of the stroke to be such that the ball shall return
into baulk. If ball, table, and stroke are true, the path travelled will
lie precisely over all the spots in the central line; and after impact
with the top cushion the ball will return to baulk by the same route.
Herein is manifest the excellence of this stroke for practice; because
if the ball be struck either right or left of the centre, it will return
to the right or left of the central longitudinal line of the table. The
nearer the return path is to that line the better the stroke, and the
further it is from it the worse; so that an infallible measure of the
truth or accuracy of hitting the ball is supplied by the result. It is
impossible to overstate the value of this test, and by the time that a
person can play this stroke up and down the table with varying strength
and fair accuracy he has gone far towards mastering the first step at
billiards. To secure striking the ball in the centre, as soon as aim is
taken the player should fix his eyes on the ball and try to the best of
his ability to deliver the cue truly and as horizontally as possible so
that the tip does not see-saw up and down. The tap on the centre of the
ball should be sharp and clean, the cue being permitted to follow it for
a few inches; less when the stroke is soft, and more when it is hard.
It may probably appear in course of practice that the striker has a
tendency to hit the ball either right or left of the centre; he should
correct this by striking on what seems to him slightly the other side.
Thus, if he, whilst aiming truly, brings the ball back to baulk
invariably to the right of the central line, he should strike at what
seems to him slightly to the _left_ of its centre; if by doing so he
brings the ball back over the spots, he may be assured that he has found
the true centre of the ball, and by continuing the practice his eye will
become educated, and the tendency to strike on the side will diminish or
disappear. The stroke should be repeated till it is mastered at every
possible strength, or, say, hard enough to cause the ball to travel four
lengths of the table. When confidence in the power to strike a ball in
the centre has been acquired, further practice should be made. Place the
ball on one corner spot of the =Ｄ=, play to the centre of the top
cushion immediately behind the spot, and the ball should return over the
spot on the other corner. This, too, is very useful practice; it
familiarises the eye with the general truth of the axiom that the angle
of reflexion is equal to the angle of incidence; and variations from
this stroke (which need not be defined here, as any person of ordinary
intelligence can multiply them indefinitely) will prove of constant use
when it is necessary to play at a ball protected by baulk.
For the sake of clearness, one other example may be cited.
Place the ball on the right corner of the =Ｄ=, measure a point on the
top cushion an equal distance from the right side cushion, that point
will be precisely opposite the right corner of the =Ｄ=; halve the
distance between that point and the left top pocket, and at the half set
up a mark—a piece of chalk laid on the cushion will do. If the ball be
played correctly on to the place thus indicated, it will return to the
left bottom pocket. Easier strokes of the same kind can be made across
the table into any pocket, and confidence, which is an important factor
in the game, is thus acquired. Before leaving the subject of these
exercise strokes, it is desirable to emphasise the value to a beginner
of acquiring a good style and of cultivating it incessantly till it
becomes natural, and then he may, without harm, indulge occasionally in
a game; if he begins with games he is certain to contract bad habits,
which, becoming more confirmed the longer he plays, must result in
increasing his difficulties and may never be wholly cured.
As regards indicating the strength to be used in playing various
strokes, the best plan is to refer to the positions of the balls when
they are at rest after a stroke; but as some rough guide may save
beginners many trials, it has been usual to indicate by means of numbers
the approximate strength to be used. Thus Strength No. 1 is a slow, or
soft stroke; No. 2 harder, and so on till No. 5 or No. 6 may be taken as
the greatest possible strength. Various measures have been adopted by
different authorities; for our purposes in this book it is proposed to
classify them thus:
Strength 1. From softest possible to that required for one length of the
table.
Strength 2. From one length to two lengths of the table.
Strength 3. From two lengths to three lengths of the table.
[Illustration:
Using the Rest.
]
Strength 4. From three lengths to four lengths of the table, beyond
which it is probably unnecessary to go. These definitions may be further
subdivided as desired: thus a very gentle stroke would be called a very
slow or soft No. 1; a less slow one, medium No. 1; a stroke which
required the strength to take a ball the length of the table, a full or
free No. 1, which it is obvious reaches No. 2 strength; where No. 1 ends
No. 2 begins, and so on.
It is clear that the practice prescribed will familiarise the beginner
with the various strengths, a matter which he will find greatly to his
advantage.
When the ball cannot be comfortably reached by hand an artificial
bridge, known as the rest, is employed. A short man requires it
frequently, a tall man less often, but both should practise with it
assiduously. A competent person will show a beginner the proper way of
using it in a very short time. The handle of the rest should be nearly
in the same line as the cue, only so far out of it as to permit of free
delivery; the cue should be lightly held between forefinger and thumb,
knuckles up, the elbow being raised level with the butt. The hand which
holds the rest should lie on the table.
These are general rules, but they must on occasion be modified. The
practice already defined will serve for strokes with the rest if the
ball be placed sufficiently far from the cushion. The half-butt and
long-butt should also be used. Before leaving this subject it is well to
say that to be obliged to use the rest, and, worse still, the half-butt
and long-butt, is at any time a drawback. This can be reduced to a
minimum by learning to play with either hand; a most useful
accomplishment, by no means very difficult of attainment.
The following memorandum by Mr. Dudley D. Pontifex, who besides being a
billiard-player of very high class is an expert at many other games, on
the great importance of cultivating an almost mechanical accuracy in
delivering the cue, and on the methods which he has followed in order to
attain this end, will be read by proficients as well as beginners with
both interest and profit. In essentials it agrees with the
recommendations already given, and where it may seem to differ the
variations are so small as not to require examination and explanation.
Some interesting remarks on the styles of leading professional players
will be found, and attention is justly directed to Roberts’s admirable
delivery of the cue, which is said to appear to be harder or stronger
than it really is; but one of the excellences of that great master’s
strokes is that they are habitually struck harder than is usual with
other professionals; the necessary compensations are, however, applied,
and though the ball starts with considerably greater initial velocity
than is usual, yet it does not necessarily travel farther or effect
more. A heavy drag stroke played the length of the table by Roberts will
travel nearly twice as fast as one struck by any other man, yet the
object ball will often be found not to be harder hit.
The feat of screwing back to baulk from the red ball on the billiard
spot, direct and without trick, is so remarkable that readers cannot
fail to be much interested in a well-authenticated instance of the
stroke. Besides Mr. Pontifex, William Seymour, (marker in 1895 at the
Queen’s Club) was present at the time, and has seen the gentleman do the
stroke on many other occasions.
MEMORANDUM
BY DUDLEY D. PONTIFEX
There is one characteristic which distinguishes games such as billiards
and golf, and sharply divides them from others like cricket and tennis.
While in the latter the stroke has to be made on a moving ball, in the
former the ball is stationary. Instructions as to the method of making a
stroke consequently vary in value in the two classes of games. The tiro
at cricket or tennis is told to play a particular ball in a particular
way, but is met with difficulties when he attempts to carry out the
advice. The cricketer knows that he ought to play back or forward
according to the length of the ball, but alas! too frequently is unable
to decide until too late what the length of some particular ball is. At
tennis it is much the same. The player knows well enough how the stroke
should be made, but at the critical moment finds himself in such a
position that it is utterly impossible to make a correct stroke. In
these games the value of instructions is proportionable to the capacity
of the player to adapt himself to the exigencies of the moment. It is
quite different as regards billiards. Having once made up his mind as to
the method to be adopted, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the
player from carrying it into practical effect. He is not hurried for
time. He is not called upon to make a sudden and, as it were, intuitive
decision instantaneously. On the contrary, the table and balls are
before him, and his opponent has to wait quietly until the turn is
completed. Consequently the value of instructions, if there be any value
in instructions, is relatively greatly enhanced in this class of game.
When one of our best professionals is playing, it is no uncommon thing
to hear the remark made, ‘What beautiful strength!’ To my mind the
excellence of a fine player’s game lies not so much in his strength as
in his accuracy. Given accuracy, strength will follow; at all events
there is no reason why it should not. But strength without accuracy is
useless, and even worse than useless. If a good player and a bad one
meet, the latter usually has the better of the leaves. The reason is not
difficult to discover, for the good player fails far more frequently
from want of accuracy than from bad strength, and the balls are left
fairly placed for his opponent. The bad player has little accuracy and
less strength. He goes for his stroke, and chances position. After a
score he leaves himself little, but if he fail he leaves little for his
opponent. His play is characterised by a series of disjointed efforts.
But, although the good player fails more often from want of accuracy
than from bad strength, he does not, unless the balls are very close
together, try for exact strength. To use a well-understood phrase, he
tries to get them there or thereabouts. Take a very fine player, and let
him play from baulk with the other two balls nicely placed in the middle
of the table, and let him play two breaks with the balls so placed. It
is almost certain that after the third stroke, probably the second, the
breaks will branch out differently. The good player only tries to place
the balls about where he means. If he be at all successful, he will have
the choice of playing one of perhaps half a dozen different strokes. Not
one of these half-dozen strokes is, it may be, difficult; and then he
has to consider which will leave him the best break, and if there be
three or more leaving an equally good game he takes the easiest. What is
deserving of observation is that, whichever he selects, he usually makes
the stroke and approximately carries out his idea.
It is this deadly accuracy which is so noticeable in the play of the
best professionals. How have they obtained it? First and chiefly by
years of constant and assiduous practice, secondly by a correct
mechanical style. Nothing can take the place of the former. No amount of
teaching will be the equivalent of strong individual effort extended
over a length of time. The player who really excels at billiards must
have given a large amount of time to it. He who plays a wonderful game,
and yet hardly ever touches a cue, exists only in the imagination of the
incompetent novelist. But, although nothing can compensate for hard
practice, something may be done for the beginner by teaching him how to
obtain a correct style. To avoid errors is the surest and quickest way
to real progress, and to thoroughly grasp the idea of a true mechanical
style is the most important lesson in billiards. There is no one style
that can be said to be the only correct and proper one. If the best
half-dozen players be watched, it will be seen that they all differ in
various ways from one another. The position of their heads, and the way
in which they hold the cue, are often entirely different. One thing,
however, may be noted, that however much they differ from one another,
they are true to themselves. Each man keeps rigidly to his own style.
His position and his manner of delivering the stroke are constant so far
as circumstances permit, and this is the lesson which the amateur may
properly take to heart. Billiards is more of a mechanical game than
anything else, and, because the mechanical part of it is so important,
nothing can take the place of continual practice on right lines. And
even that which may have been a defective style originally may, by
becoming habitual, lose half its injuriousness. The beginner, however,
wants to avoid defects so that he may have nothing subsequently to
unlearn, and he wants to know the nearest road to the best game of which
he is capable. When he has once got a clear idea of what a correct style
is, he is next door to getting the thing itself. And it is worth some
little trouble to get. For not only will his general progress at the
game be more rapid, but he will find the utility of it at a critical
moment. Some pernicious trick or mannerism may not be particularly
injurious on ordinary occasions, but when the stress of a match comes it
is apt to be fatal. It is then that the man with an easy and correct
style finds half his work done for him, as it were.
It is by no means an uncommon thing to see what may be called the
pump-handle style, where the cue, instead of moving horizontally or
nearly so, is at the commencement of the stroke lifted high at the butt,
and then brought forward with a circular sweep. This makes it a matter
of no little skill in itself to hit the ball at all correctly, and yet
we see players who apparently are not satisfied with the ordinary
difficulties of billiards, but must add a quite superfluous one to every
stroke.
Most of these eccentric players must be to some extent aware of their
eccentricities, and a very little reflection would show that they are
quite unnecessary and may be harmful.
Apart from any theoretical consideration of the matter, a casual
observation of really good players proves that they do not indulge in
these atrocities. In fact, our best players are, almost without
exception, easy, graceful players, and distinctly the best break I ever
saw North play was at the same time the quickest and least demonstrative
of any I have seen made by that player. The play of John Roberts is
almost above criticism, and his style is at once the delight and despair
of all. Diggle, Dawson, and Richards, more especially the last, are
charming players to watch. They who can remember Cook at his best will
recall with delight a style that was in the opinion of many unrivalled.
An imperturbable temper that nothing appeared to ruffle, a nerve that
never seemed to fail, a touch always firm and crisp, yet often using a
strength so delicate that he seemed to require instruments more accurate
than the best manufacturers could supply—these were some of the features
of a game that ever had a great fascination for the spectator.
A few words may not be out of place on the benefit of private practice,
_i.e._ practice by oneself. I believe from a tolerably wide experience
that they are exceptional, very exceptional, who can keep on improving
without having had, at some time or other, a good deal of private
practice. How many men there are who play their two or three hours every
day, and yet at the end of fifteen years are little, if any, better! It
is because their energies are being entirely absorbed by the immediate
contest. If they have a fault in style, they have no time to correct it.
They cannot make up their minds to court present defeat for a future
gain. They play the same old game with the same bad result year in and
year out. The least innovation on their stereotyped game will probably
result in failure, and perhaps defeat, and is therefore rejected. After
a time they come to accept their game as the best of which they are
capable, and when they see really good play they admire it, but never
appear to dream of taking a hint from it for their own improvement.
A short time given to private practice would do much for such a one.
Here there is no opponent to distract, no dread of consequences. The
greatest novelty, even to the playing of a losing hazard at dead slow
strength the length of the table, may be attempted fearlessly. But this
is not all. Not only may every kind of stroke be attempted without any
attaching penalty, but if there be a fault of which the player is
conscious he may now correct it. His attention is now concentrated upon
the one point, and it is wonderful how soon that which has become
habitual may be changed by steady determined suppression. Billiards
again, at least to play one’s best game, is very much a question of
confidence, and confidence is born of familiarity. He who has played a
particular stroke in a particular way a hundred times successfully in
private practice, not only feels that he can do that stroke in that way
in a match, but that it is his best chance of doing the stroke at all.
He is in a way compelled into the better class of game.
Probably no amateur is in the least likely to go through the years of
continuous labour that the best professionals have given to the game.
But in many instances he may, by giving some consideration to the matter
and taking a little trouble, acquire a greater degree of accuracy than
has hitherto been associated with his game. Accuracy in play means
accuracy in striking, and the player has to aim at hitting ball after
ball with the precision of a machine. Of course one seldom or never gets
two strokes running exactly alike, but the various movements of the body
which precede and accompany the delivery of the stroke may be and should
be alike. This uniformity of style is the groundwork of accuracy, and it
is by a recognition of the various movements and a careful observance of
them that the player may obtain a correct mechanical style. He should
once for all definitely decide what is the best style for him to adopt,
and, having decided, should strictly observe it with unfailing
regularity. It is absolutely fatal to keep chopping and changing in the
endeavour to copy a better player. In all probability that which is
copied has nothing to do with the excellence of the play. It is perhaps
some little trick which is peculiar to the man, the result of his build
or of his early billiard education. Most of us have known some friend
who, after seeing John Roberts give one of his wonderful exhibitions of
skill, has attempted to imitate his rapidity of play. The last state of
that person is worse than his first. We cannot all play our best in the
same way. Some men are naturally quick players, others lose whatever
merit they may have in the attempt to hurry through their stroke.
Usually, the better practice a man is in the quicker he plays, but,
whether he play fast or slow, he should always play naturally and at the
same pace. If he be playing badly, conscious hurrying over or dwelling
on the stroke will not mend matters. The reason for the bad play must be
sought elsewhere. Usually the internal machinery has in some way gone
wrong. But the last thing a man cares to admit is any failing in
himself. It is far more pleasant to attribute his ill success to
something else. Still, if his style be not radically wrong, and if
during one of these seasons of depression he attempts to vary it, his
game will surely suffer when the causes which led to his temporary
deterioration have passed away.
If I venture to give some advice, it is with a double motive; first, to
illustrate my meaning how, by a careful attention to details, uniformity
of style may be obtained, and, second, in the hope that it may in some
respects be found useful by beginners. But before doing so I should like
to say a few words as to what I conceive to be the real utility of
advice. What is too often the case is this. The beginner tries to
recollect before every stroke all he has learnt, and laboriously
endeavours to reduce each and every rule into practice at the same time.
Some of these rules may be the exact opposite of his previous method.
The consequence is that this attempt at wholesale assimilation causes
the player to look like a trussed-up fowl, uncomfortable to himself and
unnatural to others. He should remember that that which is ungainly in
style is usually wrong, always superfluous.
Rules may be good enough in themselves, but if there be a grave
difference between them and our former method there will always be a
difficulty about their immediate application. There is no authority for
the opinion that the world was made in a day, and even at games time
must be allowed to bring about the desired result. Too great insistence
upon the observance of several rules at the same time distresses and
discourages the player. But if he will get, more especially in the
intervals of play, a clear mental recognition of the rules which he
believes to be specially applicable to himself, he will find that they
will presently begin to work out in practice. This is not only a more
pleasant but a better way. Without any conscious effort, the player
finds that the mind is beginning to direct and control the bodily
movements. The result thus arrives in an apparently natural way, and
when it so comes it comes to stay. That this is the best use to which
advice can be put is an opinion derived from an experience more or less
intimate with a variety of games.
No exact formula can be laid down with regard to position. This is
precisely one of those cases in which some latitude must be allowed for
a man’s make and shape. Two points, however, should be borne in mind. To
state them in their natural order they are, first, that the player
should always, so far as circumstances permit, assume the same relative
position as between himself, his own ball, and the line of direction. A
useful general rule is the following. When the player takes his position
opposite his own ball with his left leg advanced as is the usual manner,
the line of direction if prolonged backwards through the centre of his
ball would pass through the centre of his body. As he settles to his
stroke, the body naturally sways a little to the left, leaving the right
arm free to swing in the proper direction. Secondly, the position should
be a firm one. The advantage of this will be more particularly felt in
any game in which nerves play a part. If there be any tendency to
unsteadiness in the player’s position, it will then be emphasised. The
body should be kept as motionless as possible, the feet being firmly
placed and the right leg straight.
It is not easy to recognise the true natural angle[13] under all its
different phases, and the frequent failure of even the best players at
long losing hazards shows this. Constant practice is the only teacher,
and the plan of having for private play two strips of wood joined
together at the proper angle—and which was, I believe, first introduced
by Joseph Bennett—is very useful. The angle is more sharply defined, and
therefore easier of recognition, if taken through some fixed point, and
this point should be the centre of the player’s ball. The angle should
be taken to the centre of the pocket.
It is almost a rarity to find a really good baulk-line player, and in
some cases it is quite the weakest point in a man’s game. That this
should be so seems strange, seeing that the player has such a wide range
within which to place his own ball. It is, I think, often this very
option of choice of position that causes the stroke to be missed. The
player places his ball, perhaps, quite correctly for the first long
loser he has, but misses it through hitting his own ball falsely. He
does not attribute his failure to its proper cause, but thinks he has
placed his own ball wrongly. Next time he puts it a little wider or
narrower as the case may be, and if he happen to put on by accident the
proper amount of side and does the stroke, he is almost worse off than
ever, for the first time he does hit his own ball truly he comes to
grief. By this time he has got an entirely wrong estimate of what the
true natural angle is, and it may be a matter of several days before he
can do the stroke with any certainty. Another point may be remarked. If
the player use only his left eye in play, he should judge the angle only
with his left eye; if he use both eyes, then judge with both eyes; but
if he uses the right eye to take the angle and the left eye to play,
when he settles to his stroke the angle will often appear wrong, and he
will become confused as to what the correct natural angle really is.
This probably arises from the fact that with most people the focus of
the two eyes is not identical.
Whether the cue should be held only by the fingers, or in the hollow of
the hand, may be matter of opinion, but there is no doubt it should be
held lightly, not gripped. Any rigidity of the muscles tends to impair
the easy pendulum swing so essential to accurate play. Some people seem
to think it necessary to grip the cue when making a screw. The point is
easily susceptible of practical demonstration if they will only
condescend to hit the ball in the proper place.
With many players, again, the position of the left hand appears to be a
matter of supreme indifference. They place it on the table anyhow, and
almost without taking a glance at the stroke. Now it is all very well to
say ‘Look at John Roberts. He doesn’t worry about these things,’ but we
are not, most of us at least, of the calibre of John Roberts. His easy
and graceful style is deceptive. If anyone will take the trouble to
contrast the face of the man with his manner of play, it will be
apparent how thoroughly concentrated is his mind on the game. He is the
consummate artist who conceals the difficulty of the stroke under the
ease of its execution. For most players, and all beginners, it is
advisable to pay some little attention to the position of the left hand.
Obviously it is of importance. If it has to be moved, however slightly,
after the player has settled to his stroke, the result will be a loss of
accuracy. It should be advanced with care, by which I do not mean with
wearisome laboriousness, to the player’s ball, the eye being steadily
kept on the line of direction, or, better still, on the exact spot on
the object ball it is desired to hit.
The cue from tip to butt should be in one straight line with the line of
direction. It may be thought that this is always the case, but a close
observation will show that very frequently the cue along its length is
by no means in a straight line with the point aimed at. I have found it
most useful to bear this rule in mind, especially when beginning
practice after a long absence from the billiard-table.
The player should not hurry up from the table after delivering his
stroke. The fault indicated may easily become a habit, and a very bad
one. It may be often observed among the more impatient class of players.
It may cause the body to move at the very moment when it is most
essential it should be quite steady, viz. at the moment of the cue’s
contact with the ball.
A few more hints may be useful to some. Much of billiards is played
before settling to the stroke. This may at first sight appear an absurd
statement, but it contains an important truth. If the player have a
clearly defined idea not only of what stroke he is going for, but how it
is to be made, much of the difficulty is already overcome; but if he go
down to his stroke, and then have an elaborate consultation with himself
as to what is to be done, the process is not only harassing to his
opponent but detrimental to himself. Once having decided on the stroke,
he should go for it unhesitatingly, and as though no other stroke were
possible. To play one game, at the same time having a lingering
partiality for another, is not usually attended with success.
The height of the player and the length of his arms will to a
considerable extent determine where he should hold the cue so that he
may combine sufficient power with the greatest attainable accuracy. It
must not, therefore, be held too far back. This may cause a slight loss
of power, but that is of very small importance. The bad play so often
seen in amateur billiards is not usually to be attributed to any want of
power of execution.
I have never known a professional do a stroke which most amateurs could
not copy, though I have known one instance of an amateur being able to
do that which probably no professional living could do. The feat
deserves to be recorded. The gentleman was an undergraduate at
Cambridge, and it was said that he could from baulk screw back off the
red on the spot into baulk again. One day I asked him to do it for my
edification, and at the third attempt he succeeded. The balls used were
two of the usual set with which we ordinarily played. He used his own
cue, which was one of the usual pattern of English cues. The white came
straight back without touching a cushion. There are many persons besides
myself who have seen him do it, but I have never heard an authenticated
case of any other person who could perform the feat.
On the face of it, it seems wrong that a man of six feet and one of five
feet six inches should hold cues of the same length in the same place,
and a slight consideration of the nature of a proper stroke will show
very good reasons for not holding the cue too long. The stroke itself
should be made by, as nearly as may be, a horizontal motion of the cue.
Any depression of the cue-tip has a tendency to make the ball take a
slight curve. There are strokes when it is desirable to sharply raise
the butt for the very purpose of making one’s own ball describe a curve
before contact with the object ball, and such strokes are sometimes very
useful when the pocket is a narrow one. But as a general rule the
movement of the cue should be as nearly horizontal as circumstances
allow. Now, if the cue be held too long for thorough control over it, as
the player’s hand goes back before delivering the stroke it will take an
upward direction, and one of two things must take place when the stroke
is made. If, during the forward movement, the cue work in a plane, it
will be depressed at the moment of contact with the ball; but if at the
moment of contact it be horizontal, or nearly so, it will have described
a slightly circular movement. This is one of the things to be avoided,
for the cue should work like a piston-rod.
The bridge should be a short bridge rather than a long one. What is
meant by a short bridge is a short distance between the bridge itself
and the player’s ball. Too long a bridge must necessarily diminish
accuracy of hitting. The stroke itself should come from the arm alone,
and as much as possible from the elbow, the movement of the shoulder
being kept within the narrowest limits. However delicate, it should be a
clean, crisp blow, avoiding the least suspicion of a push. In this
respect it is exceedingly instructive to watch John Roberts play. He
appears to strike the ball so hard, even in his close game, that one is
at a loss to understand how it stops so quickly—the fact being that the
ball is struck so firmly, and so clean, as to give the appearance of a
harder stroke than in reality it is. It is a very unusual thing to see
an amateur strike his ball crisply when using delicate strengths. Not
only should the angle be judged, but aim should be taken through the
centre of the player’s ball. This applies to every stroke not less than
a half-ball. For all ordinary strokes—excepting, of course, screws,
&c.—the ball should be struck, whether with side or without, exactly
half-way up. The ball when so struck runs truer.
One last word of advice. It is—simplify your game. If you can take your
choice of two games, one which looks promising but with possible
complications, the other simple and obvious, choose the latter. Some two
or three years ago Dawson was for this reason a most instructive player
for the amateur. His game was so simple that he never appeared to be in
a difficulty. He has somewhat changed its character since, but I
question if he has ever played better than he did then. In this respect
John Roberts is the last player the amateur should attempt to copy. His
game is full of complications, but he gets rid of them with an ease and
a celerity that fairly astonish the onlookers. He is out of a difficulty
almost before one has recognised that there is one. Sometimes he seems
to fairly revel in them, and deliberately to make them for the pleasure
of getting out of them. It is certainly wonderfully attractive, but the
percentage of men who could play such a game with success would be
infinitesimal.
If this memorandum appear too didactic, I can only apologise to my
readers. It must necessarily assume that character to some extent. But,
in truth, the advice is not meant for good players. It may be that there
are some fine players who have never consciously observed any rules, but
have naturally adopted a correct style. They are facile players, but
they know not the pleasure which comes from attacking and overcoming
difficulties. There are others, quite as fond of the game, who find the
road to even partial success a somewhat stony one. These hints, or some
of them, may perhaps be of use to such. One thing is certain. Not even
the most perfect rules or the most undeniable instructions can of
themselves make a good player. They cannot take the place of hard work.
All they can do is to help the beginner over some of the difficulties
others have met with, and so save him time.
[Illustration:
The Bridge (_bouclée_)
]
CHAPTER IV
MOTION, IMPACT, AND DIVISION OF BALLS: TWO-BALL PRACTICE
The practice prescribed in the preceding chapter had for its chief
object the attainment of certainty in striking ball 1 truly in the
centre; we now proceed to study some of the elementary facts concerning
the impact of one ball with another.
In the first place, the conditions of impact should be recognised, and
what is termed the division of balls must be explained.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
Now, for practical purposes the cloth and bed of the table are level,
and the balls are of the same size; hence when they touch one another
the point of contact is invariably on the line of their greatest
horizontal circumference, which, as all know, is precisely at half their
height. It will hereafter be shown that ball 1 may be caused to leap,
and so strike ball 2 above this; but for present purposes, when a plain
stroke alone is being considered, it may be accepted as a fact that the
point of impact is always at half the ball’s height. That fixes the
location of impact vertically; but horizontally it is evident that there
is considerable latitude. Ball 1 may hit ball 2 either precisely full,
when the centre of one is played on the centre of the other, or it may
strike either to the right or left of the centre of ball 2; the limit on
either side being the finest possible touch. The accompanying figure
will show what is meant. When ball 1 hits ball 2 full, at the moment of
impact it occupies the position 1″; and the part of 2 which can be
struck by a ball situated at 1 is from P″ to P; if ball 1 occupies the
position 1′, then the part of 2 which may be touched is restricted to
that marked P″ P′; but should ball 1 be placed at 1″, then the only
point on 2 it can touch is P″. Therefore the nearer 1 is to 2 the less
of the latter can be struck, and the further away the more.
As regards the division of balls, for the English game at any rate, the
simpler it is the better. The larger balls on a smaller table, as used
in the French game, admit of more minute subdivision than do our smaller
balls, which may be, and often are, further from the player’s eye. To
attempt a division which the eye cannot easily appreciate is a mistake.
For purposes of play both balls 1 and 2 must be divided; and although at
this early stage of the manual we are not concerned with the division of
ball 1 (for all practice at present is confined to centre strokes), yet
it is convenient now to record the divisions of both balls.
Ball 1 is divided by its vertical and horizontal diameters into four
parts. The centre stroke is delivered at C, and is of all strokes by far
the commonest and most important.
A ball struck high and right is struck in the sector C A E; low and left
in C D B; high and left in C A D; low and right in C E B.
The vertical and horizontal lines are divided from the centre where they
intersect, into four equal parts each way. Thus a ball ¼ high is struck
on the line C A at the point marked ¼; ½ low is struck on C B at the
point marked ½; ¾ right is struck on C E at the point marked ¾; ¼ left
is struck on C D at the point marked ¼. Combinations of these divisions
are of course possible: thus ½ high and right would indicate a point P;
¾ left and ½ low is represented by P′. That division is quite as minute
as the eye can follow; indeed, for general purposes it will probably
suffice to indicate the sector only; to say, for example, ball 1 should
be struck high and right.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
[Illustration:
OPENING THE GAME.
]
In respect to ball 2 the matter is different; it cannot, as has already
been shown, be struck save on the line C C′ A, the height moment of
reaching 2, then its position will be that of the dotted circle 1″,
whose centre is C″, and P′ is the point of impact. For any stroke
between full and half-ball the point of impact will lie between P and
P′; between half-ball and the extreme of fineness the point of impact
will lie beyond P′ in the direction of E.
Ball 2 being struck by ball 1 at P′ must travel in the direction P′ B F,
the line from the point of impact passing through B the centre. There is
practically no departure from this rule. Hence it follows that if it be
desired that ball 2 should travel in the direction B F, say to a pocket,
imagine a line from the pocket passing through the ball’s centre; this
cuts the circumference at P′, which is manifestly the point which must
be struck by ball 1. Where is the centre of ball 1 to be aimed at in
order that P′ may be struck? Produce the imaginary line F B P′ to C″,
making P′ C″ equal to B P′ or in other words equal to the radius of the
ball. If the centre of ball 1, C, be aimed on C″, ball 2 must be struck
at P′ and must travel in the direction required.
Pray realise that it is impossible to hit ball 2 at the point aimed at
save when the stroke is full; in every other case the aim must be beyond
the point of impact, and the rule above given will enable anyone to
determine precisely where aim should be taken.
When a ball is struck by the cue its first impulse is to slide forward,
and if there were no friction between the ball and the cloth it would do
so till arrested by other causes; but as there always is this friction,
the lower part of the ball is thereby retarded, and the result is the
rolling or revolving motion with which all are familiar. This will be
further considered when the subject of rotation is discussed, but it is
mentioned here as the cause of certain effects which will be observed in
some of the strokes recommended for practice. When one ball impinges on
another the immediate result is a greater or lesser flattening of both
surfaces at the point of impact; this is instantaneously followed by
recoil,[14] the result of each ball reassuming its spherical form. The
greater the strength of stroke the greater the flattening and the
greater the recoil; the converse likewise holds good.
Further, the force or strength with which ball 1 strikes ball 2 is
immediately divided on impact; if ball 2 be struck full it appears to
acquire from ball 1 the whole of its energy save that due to naturally
developed rotation, the result being that ball 2 travels fast whilst
ball 1 remains comparatively stationary. If the distance between the two
balls be very small, little rotation is acquired and ball 1 transmits
its motion to ball 2 and stops on or near the spot which that ball
occupied; if the distance be considerable, ball 1 acquires rotation
which, overcoming the recoil on impact, causes it to travel slowly in
its original direction. When impact is other than full, ball 1 parts
with more or less of its force, which is transmitted to ball 2. What the
one loses the other gains.
These general remarks will seem to many self-evident and superfluous; to
others they may prove difficult to realise and distasteful; but
students, whether beginners or those who have already acquaintance with
the game, may rest assured that a careful consideration of them can do
no harm and may be of much advantage; for practice is assisted by an
intelligent appreciation of the behaviour of balls under certain
conditions; in short, by a consideration of cause and effect.
For practice: place ball 1 on the centre of the =Ｄ= on the baulk-line,
put ball 2 a foot up the table in the central line, play 1 full on 2
with varying strength, at first with strength to carry 2 to the top
cushion; the truth of the stroke will be shown by 2 passing over all the
spots in the central line and 1 following slowly in the same line for a
short distance. When tolerable certainty is acquired play the same
stroke harder, and if correctly struck ball 2 will return from the top
cushion and meet ball 1, kiss as it is called, in the central line. The
stroke can be made more difficult by placing ball 2 further up the
table, say on the centre spot, and playing as before, and again by
placing it on the pyramid spot. This practice, though it may seem
uninteresting, is most useful; it combines and continues that
recommended for one ball with that required for truth of stroke on
another. It also, as will hereafter be shown, is directly useful in the
matter of cannons, hence it should be assiduously practised.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5
]
Next set ball 2 upon the central line at such a distance from the
baulk-line as the player can imagine its division described on page 133,
and play ball 1 so as to make three-quarter, half, and quarter-ball
strokes with some confidence. This distance will no doubt vary with the
stature and sight of the player, but 2 feet may be tried as about
average. If P, P′, P″ be the points of impact for the various divisions,
ball 2 will, after the strokes, travel in the directions R, R′, R″, each
being the prolongation of a line from the point of impact through the
centre. Ball 1 will behave differently according to the strength with
which it is struck; what is always true is that it will travel in a
contrary direction to ball 2. If the one ball goes to the left after
impact the other will go to the right. Played with strength 1 or 2,
impact being at P, ball 1 will follow through the space which ball 2
covered, and will stop slightly to the right of the line A B. With
impact at P′ or a half-ball stroke, ball 1 will deviate further from the
line A B, and travel in the direction D, A C D being the half-ball
angle; when played quarter-ball, impact being at P″, ball 1 will deviate
less from A B and travel towards E. The object of this practice is to
accustom the eye to recognise approximately the directions taken by both
balls after impact.
A small matter which is a little obscure connected with the language of
billiards should here be noticed. In placing ball 1 for a stroke, it is
usual, and generally desirable, to select a spot from which the angle 1
C D shall be what is known as the half-ball angle, and certainty in play
is greatly based on the power of recognising this position. Consequently
in time players, perhaps unconsciously, refer almost every stroke to
that angle as a standard. If a hazard or cannon is on the table, they
consider for a moment whether the angle contained between the two paths
of ball 1 is greater or less than the half-ball angle, and to the best
of their ability they apply compensations to meet the difference,
playing fuller and harder when the angle is less, finer and slower when
the angle is greater, until a following stroke becomes necessary.
Nevertheless, the universal custom is to define the situation when the
angle is smaller as _wider_, and when the angle is greater as
_narrower_. Thus the position 1 C D is called wider than 1 C E. Clearly
it is so only as regards the deviation of ball 1 from the prolongation
of its original path—that is, from the path which would have been
followed if there had been no impact—consequently the angle of deviation
must be defined as that between the new actual path of ball 1 and the
path that would have been described if the deviation had not taken
place. This being accepted, the ordinary use of the terms _wider_ and
_narrower_ is appropriate.
In this and in all diagrams as far as possible the lines followed by the
centres of balls are shown; hence, as the centres cannot touch each
other or the cushions, the lines do not reach to the surface of either,
but are necessarily short of the point of impact by the length of the
ball’s radius. Ball 1, after impact other than full, describes a curve
due to the forces to which it is subject; this is greater in proportion
to the strength of stroke, and though in practice its effect must not be
neglected, it is not ordinarily shown in the diagrams, which do not
pretend to absolute accuracy, but merely to such measure of correctness
as is required for practical purposes. An illustration of the curve, and
a warning when its existence must not be overlooked, will be found in
Chapter V.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6
]
From the strokes recommended in Chapter III. for practice it will have
been learnt that in a general way a ball played against a cushion will
return therefrom, so that the angle of reflexion shall be nearly equal
to the angle of incidence. A useful two-ball practice based on this is
to place balls 1 and 2 on the table and endeavour to play on 2, having
first struck a cushion. The difficulty is to determine the point on the
cushion on which 1 must impinge so as to rebound on 2.
The solution is approximately:—From ball 1 let fall 1 A perpendicular to
the cushion A C D; produce 1 A to B, making A B = 1 A. Join B with the
centre of 2; where that line cuts the cushion at C is the point
required. Play 1 so that it shall strike C and it will rebound on 2.
Similarly, if the second ball occupy the position 2′ the line from B to
its centre intersects the cushion at D; ball 1 played to touch the
cushion at D will travel to 2′. In a game of course the cushion must not
be marked, but in practice it will at first be found advantageous to
mark the spot sufficiently to guide the stroke and educate the eye. This
is easily done by placing a piece of chalk on the wooden frame of the
cushion just behind the spot to be hit, thus doing away with the need of
marking the cushion with chalk, which it is well to avoid. When it is
necessary to mark the cloth of bed or cushion, pipeclay such as tailors
use is preferable to chalk. Special attention is necessary to two facts:
first, the angle of reflexion varies with the strength; that is, a soft
stroke will come off very nearly at the same angle as that of incidence,
whilst with a hard stroke there is a perceptible difference; second, the
point on the cushion which should be hit must not be aimed at. This is
merely a modification of what has already been explained with reference
to the points of aim and of impact. Fig. 7 shows how very far a ball on
the line 1 P played, _i.e._ aimed at P, is from hitting that point;
instead of doing so it strikes the cushion at T; hence allowance must be
made in aiming, the length allowed on the cushion diminishing as the
angle approaches a right angle. When the stroke is at a right angle to
the cushion the points P and T coincide and no allowance is required.
One reason why the angle of reflexion varies with the strength is that,
on impact with the cushion, the ball, being harder than the rubber,
indents it—makes a sort of cup, in fact, deeper as the stroke is
stronger. Friction with the cloth of the cushion has also some effect on
the angle, and there may be other causes at work; fortunately, it is
probable that one to some extent counteracts another. This practice from
a cushion is interesting as well as useful; at first the beginner will
be satisfied if he hits ball 2 anywhere and anyhow; but soon he will be
able to hit it on one side or the other, as he may wish, when the
distance ball 1 has to travel is not very great. Hereafter both cannons
and hazards will be mentioned, which must be played _bricole_, or off a
cushion before ball 2 is struck, and the practice proposed will make
their execution fairly easy and certain. We conclude this chapter, which
has covered important ground, with four illustrations of the division of
ball 2 at the moment of impact. A shows ball 1 applied to 2 for a
quarter-ball stroke, B for a half-ball, C for a three-quarter-ball, and
D for a full ball stroke; the phases varying between partial and total
eclipse.
[Illustration:
Fig. 7
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 8
]
CHAPTER V
PLAIN STROKES, WINNING AND LOSING HAZARDS, CANNONS: THREE-BALL PRACTICE
By the practice already recommended, the beginner should have become
fairly able to strike ball 1 in the centre, and familiar with the
divisions of ball 2; he may therefore with advantage proceed to play
natural or plain strokes. We prefer the term plain, partly because, ball
1 being struck in the centre, no rotation beyond that which is
self-acquired or spontaneous is communicated by the cue, and partly
because one stroke deserves the name natural as much as another. It is
as natural for a ball struck on its side to rotate round its vertical
axis as it is for a ball struck in the centre to have no such rotation.
In billiards plain strokes cover a vast field; most of the certainties,
or strokes which should seldom be missed, come under that definition.
Their number is infinite, and it is impossible to give diagrams of more
than a few typical examples. The student can, without great effort,
multiply and vary them at will, and it is desirable that he should do
so, altering the strength and noting the behaviour of each ball after
the stroke. He will thus learn more than he can possibly acquire from
any book, however excellent, and will profit much if his practice is
occasionally supervised by a competent instructor.
Let us begin with winning hazards. Place ball 2 on the centre spot; it
is then opposite the middle pockets. Choose one of them into which the
ball is to be played. From what has already been explained, it is known
that the ball should travel on a line drawn from its centre to the
centre of the pocket—that is, from C to A (fig. 1); also that the point
of impact must be where that line prolonged meets the circumference at
B, and that the centre of ball 1 must therefore, at the moment of
striking, be at P, B P being equal to B C, or the radius of the balls.
No matter where ball 1 may be situated, its centre has to be played on P
in order that the winning hazard may be perfectly made.
Set ball 1 on the prolongation of A C, which is the line of the cue’s
axis. The player must place himself accordingly, and aim full at ball 2.
The stroke is precisely similar to that recommended for practice over
the spots, but easier, as the distances are shorter. It should be played
with various strengths. With a soft No. 1, ball 2 will roll into the
pocket, ball 1 following a few inches on the same path. If it diverge
there is error in the stroke, and endeavour should be made to correct
it. That is, the player should not be satisfied with the mere winning
hazard, which is very simple, but should by watching the path of the
balls, satisfy himself that the stroke was true. With No. 2 strength, or
a free No. 2, ball 1 will follow on, and eventually drop into the same
pocket.
When tolerable certainty has been acquired, ball 1 may be moved to 1′,
1″, &c., either to the right or left of the original position. No good
can result from giving precise measurements for the various situations
of ball 1; it does not, indeed, greatly matter where it is set, so long
as the player can reach it with comfort; what is obligatory is that its
centre must pass over the point P. The limit of the stroke is when the
position 1^n is reached; thence, if correctly played, point B will just
be touched, and no motion to ball 2 be communicated. Hence, when the
path of ball 1 before impact is at right angles to that which 2 must
travel, the winning hazard is impossible. In other words, a right-angled
cut is impossible; such strokes sometimes seem to be made, but the
explanation will, on examination, be found in the size and shape of the
pockets. These winning hazards should be practised into both middle
pockets till a tolerable certainty or confidence is acquired. Some
persons will make the full, whilst others will play the fine strokes
best; and again, it will often be found that, when playing into the
right-hand pocket, there is a tendency to error on one or other side,
but when playing to the left-hand pocket the mistake is just reversed.
If the strokes are taken too full to the right, they will be made too
fine to the left. The proper procedure is obvious: by making a very
small allowance each way the mistake will be corrected, the eyes will
become educated, and the tendency to error will diminish. It need
scarcely be added that the kind of stroke in which one has least
confidence should receive the most attention; failure indicates where
practice is required.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
Also, let the path of ball 1, after impact, receive close attention, and
as soon as some certainty in making the hazard is felt, let the exercise
consist quite as much in playing to leave ball 1 in or near a desired
place as in the success of the hazard. The value of this is all but
self-evident, and it is as important in pool or pyramids as in
billiards.
Similar practice may, with advantage, be made to the top corner pockets,
ball 2 being placed on the billiard, and afterwards on the pyramid spot.
The rules for finding what point of 2 should be struck and the points of
aim are, of course, unaltered, but attention may usefully be given to
the following hint, based on the construction of the cushions at the
neck of the pocket. Whether a pocket is easy or not depends, perhaps,
more on this than on the actual width at the fall. If the channel is
gradually rounded off, with but little rubber in the sides, a ball once
in the neck is nearly sure to fall into the pocket; but if there is much
rubber in the sides, the same ball would expend its energy in rebounding
from side to side, and have no disposition to travel forward into the
pocket. Cushions cut square, as it is called, make the pockets more
difficult than those sloped gently away; the channel is narrower.
Let ball 2 be placed between the spot and the top cushion, or anywhere
on a line connecting a point so chosen and the corner pocket into which
it is proposed to play. In this case the point of aim is no longer the
true centre of the pocket, nor even the centre of the portion of the
pocket which is open from position 2, but a point so chosen that ball 2
may impinge on the neck or side of the pocket entrance, and thence drop
in. The accompanying sketch will show what is meant. If ball 2 were
played on C, the centre of the pocket, it would strike the cushion A,
and very probably rebound to the opposite side, and the hazard would
fail: but if, on the contrary, it strike the cushion B at a point T,
inside the neck of the pocket, then, unless played very hard, the hazard
will to a certainty be made.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
With reference to the position of ball 2, C is termed a blind pocket,
because the full width at the fall is not open. Hazards into blind
pockets are therefore more difficult than those into open ones;
nevertheless, if the player is careful to observe the required point of
impact, and to allow accordingly in aim, such strokes can be played with
considerable confidence.
When measurements are given whereby the positions of balls on the
billiard-table may be found, they must not be supposed to be absolutely
accurate. They no doubt are nearly so for the table and balls with which
the stroke was played for the purposes of this volume; but tables,
balls, cloth, and climate are subject to variation which may make
modification necessary, and, moreover, each man has a mode of using his
cue as peculiar to himself as is his handwriting. Therefore, once for
all, let it be understood that the diagrams and descriptions must be
treated as but approximate. All measurements from a cushion are from the
edge on which balls impinge to the centre of the ball whose position is
to be fixed; those from a pocket are from the middle of the fall. The
dotted lines with figures marked in Diagram I., example A, show the
measurements whereby the position of ball 2 is determined. Many mistakes
are made by inaccurate reading of instructions, and by failure to use
the measure correctly, but the eye will prove a useful check; for if the
position of the balls, when placed on the table, does not nearly
coincide with that shown in the diagram, there is an error somewhere
which a little patience and consideration will cause to be discovered.
A few typical strokes are shown on Diagram I.:—
A. Ball 1, on or near the right corner of the =Ｄ=; ball 2 7½ in. below
the right middle pocket, and 8 in. from cushion 3. The measurements are
in this instance shown on the diagram as a guide in other cases.
Play a free No. 1 strength. Ball 1, after pocketing 2, should travel to
the top cushion, and so far back as to leave an easy winning hazard on a
ball on the billiard spot. With slight variation of the position, the
stroke may be played slower or faster, as may be desired. If the
strength is misjudged, and ball 1 should stop somewhere between the top
cushion and the desired position, a losing hazard in the left top pocket
may not improbably be possible. The positions of both balls may be
considerably varied, whilst the stroke remains virtually unchanged. The
further ball 1 is brought to the left along the baulk-line, the fuller
is the hazard, and the position of ball 1 after the stroke will be more
to the right of the spot than that shown in the diagram.
B. Ball 1, 25½ in. from cushion 2, and 10 in. from the top cushion.
Ball 2, touching the top cushion and 12 in. from the right top pocket.
Play a gentle No. 1, which will leave ball 1 about 7 in. from cushion 2
and 14 in. from the top cushion.
In this stroke ball 2 and the cushion are simultaneously struck, as will
be apparent if ball 1 be placed against ball 2 at the proper point of
impact; hence a very common rule is to direct the player to aim between
ball and cushion. The general rule however for finding the point of
impact holds good, and the fact that under the circumstances the cushion
is struck at the same time as the ball is merely a coincidence.
[Illustration:
Instead of Long Rest
]
C. Ball 1, 3 in. from the left side cushion, and 9 in. from the left top
pocket.
[Illustration:
A DISPUTED SCORE.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
Ball 2, touching the left side cushion and 4½ in. from left top pocket.
Play a very soft stroke so that ball 1 may be left at 1′; a losing
hazard from the spot is then open. This stroke is best made if the
player stand close to the balls and lean over the table, making his
bridge for the cue _bouclée_—_i.e._ the forefinger bent round the cue.
If played in the usual way the stroke could not be reached without the
long rest, and the eye is then so far from the ball that error and
failure are probable. Any ordinary player can show the stroke, which is
quite easy and very useful.
D. Ball 1, 5 in. from cushion 5 and 17 in. below the left middle pocket.
Ball 2, 6 in. from cushion 5 and 7 in. below the left middle pocket.
This is an example of a hazard to a blind pocket. Ball 1 should be
struck gently, and its position after the stroke will be in the
direction of the right top pocket. It is, in fact, a fine cut, and if
played with sufficient strength ball 1 may probably go into the right
top pocket. If ball 1 be placed 6 in. from cushion 5, the stroke is
slightly fuller and may be played slower; after impact the ball will
travel in the direction D E.
Diagram II. shows positions for doubles, with which it is well to
accustom the eye. Though such strokes are not very much used in
billiards, they are occasionally of great value, and their principle is
based on the equality of the angles of incidence and reflexion. It is
clear that a double may be set up at almost any part of the table, and
it is well that several positions should be selected and played from
till some certainty is obtained; those shown in the diagram are merely
types. In these cases ball 1 is played full or nearly so on 2, and
position for a further score may with attention to strength be attained.
Doubles are used more in pool and pyramids than in billiards, and will
be treated in detail when the two former games are described.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
It may be as well to make a few remarks explanatory of the diagram. A is
an example of a double in baulk where the balls are easily reached. The
point A on the cushion where impact with ball 2 should take place is
half-way between the baulk-line and the bottom cushion. A ball played
from B to A should, if truly struck in the centre, fall into the left
bottom pocket. Place balls 1 and 2 as shown in the diagram on the line B
A, keeping 2 sufficiently far from the cushion to avoid a kiss; play
full, and 2 should be doubled. Again, let C be the middle point of
cushion 6, and imagine lines joining it with the right middle and right
top pockets. On these lines place the balls. A full stroke from ball 1
to 2 should double the latter in the one case into the right top pocket,
in the other into the right middle pocket.
Next, D is an instance of a simple double, from which in more ways than
one a losing hazard from spot may be left. Ball 1 is 24 in. from cushion
6 and 26½ in. above the middle pocket; ball 2 is 5 in. from the same
cushion and 20½ in. above the pocket. A full stroke will double ball 2
into the right middle pocket, and ball 1 may be left near the line from
the left middle pocket to the spot.
In the case marked E, ball 2 is just beyond the shoulder of the right
middle pocket, ball 1 being so placed nearly in a line from 2 to the
left bottom pocket that a full stroke about No. 1 strength will carry 2
to the left top pocket. Ball 1 may be so played as to leave a losing
hazard into the left top pocket from a ball on spot.
All these strokes should be played medium strength, say No. 1 or 2; in
practice it will be found that the angle of reflexion varies somewhat
with the strength, and in a less degree with the table.
As great accuracy is of the highest importance in playing winning
hazards, it is evident that, when either ball has a considerable
distance to travel, the stroke should not be played too slowly; for in a
very slow stroke imperfections of ball or table tell more than when
greater strength is used. Also, before leaving the subject, it is
desirable to impress the reader strongly with the importance of the
remarks on pages 145–6 respecting play into a more or less blind pocket.
Attention to them is essential to good spot play and also to what is
called play at the top of the table. Clearing the dangerous shoulder of
the pocket is the secret of success.
We now proceed to losing hazards, which with most amateurs form the
mainstay of the game; partly because being easier than winning hazards,
they are usually taught first, but mainly because they are possible with
a slovenly style and inaccurate striking which effectually prevent
success with winners. In reality, however, they will repay care and
accuracy as much as any other stroke, because, unless ball 2 be struck
in the proper place, it will not travel in the desired path, and the
result of a poor stroke may be success as regards the hazard, coupled
with leaving ball 2 hopelessly safe. When played with intelligence and
with due regard to the position of ball 2 after the stroke, they form
most excellent practice. Following the usual custom, these strokes may
be divided into short and long losers, and each will be separately
treated; at present, of course, plain strokes only being considered. It
is convenient to take the half-ball hazard as the standard or typical
stroke; it is the easiest for the reason given at p. 133, because aim is
taken at the edge of ball 2, a well-defined mark, instead of at an
indefinite point on the ball’s surface. Moreover, on billiard-tables
certain positions are recognised as affording half-ball losers, and
these are most valuable to a player as supplying the means, during play,
of testing and correcting his strokes or his judgment of angles. It
often happens from many causes that a man’s eye or nerve partially
fails, which failure destroys confidence and begets still worse play; he
probably before long gets a stroke from one of the many positions which
should be played half-ball. The mere effort to recognise the situation
tends to arrest demoralisation, whilst the success which follows correct
recognition goes far to restore equanimity and confidence. That is one
reason against wantonly altering the positions of the spots on the
table, the size of the =Ｄ= and such matters; though, no doubt, if the
game can thereby be certainly improved, the alteration is justified, and
in time players will learn similar positions under the altered
circumstances. Hitherto such changes have been made rather with the view
of cramping the play of one or two men, and so placing others less able
or less diligent on a par with them, than with the object of making an
undeniable improvement in the game. Such modifications under the pretext
of reform are much to be deprecated.
Taking the billiard, pyramid, and centre spots as fixed points on the
table, Diagram III. shows with sufficient accuracy the lines of
half-ball strokes to the top pockets. Let the billiard spot be
considered first. From either top pocket there is a half-ball stroke to
the opposite one; also from either middle pocket there is similarly a
half-ball hazard into the opposite top pocket. Next, from a ball placed
on the pyramid spot there are half-ball hazards from either corner of
the =Ｄ= into the top pockets; and, lastly, from a ball on the centre
spot, half-ball strokes to either top pocket may be made from positions
about 7½ in. to the right and left of the centre spot of baulk. Precise
accuracy in definition of these strokes is not attempted; tables and
balls vary, whilst no two men strike exactly alike; hence each must work
out for himself the exact position for a half-ball stroke; it will in
every case be reasonably near the lines indicated.
Diagram IV. illustrates several losing hazards, all good for practice.
For the group marked A, place ball 1 on an imaginary line from the
centre of the red spot to the upper edge of the shoulder of the left
middle pocket about half-way between them, where it can be conveniently
reached by the player; it is then in position for a gentle half-ball
stroke to the right top pocket. When correctly played, impact with ball
2 takes place on the central longitudinal line of the table, and
consequently 2 travels to the top cushion on that line, and returns on
the same path a shorter or greater distance according to the strength of
stroke. A very gentle one will bring ball 2 back to the spot; a medium
stroke will result in leaving it near the pyramid spot, and it can be
brought further down the table if desired; but for practice at this
stage endeavour should be made to leave ball 2 between the red and
pyramid spots on the centre line. If this is effected, ball 2 has been
truly struck; should it return to the right of the line it has been
struck too full, and if it rests to the left of the line too fine. So
that here again we have an index which points out error and shows what
is required for its correction. The hazard is so easy that after a
little practice it will seldom be missed, and for that reason it should
be worked at till it becomes what is called a certainty.
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
]
Then from A lay off, in the direction of the right middle pocket, a
series of positions marked A′ A″ A‴ A⁗, each about 1¾ in. from the
other, and from each of these play the hazard. The point of impact
should be the same in every case, therefore the point of aim will vary
slightly with the change of position; but the chief variation in the
stroke lies in the strength employed.
For the position A′ the strength is about No. 2, and ball 2 should be
left on the central line L L between the centre spot and the bottom
cushion. For A″ the same stroke a little stronger, ball 2 returning from
the bottom cushion towards the centre spot: and so on. It is seldom
necessary to practise beyond A‴ in dealing with plain strokes. The
strength required for this stroke is considerable approaching No. 4, and
ball 2 should travel beyond twice the length of the table. In all these
strokes endeavour should be made to keep ball 2 travelling on the line L
L; this will be found not quite an easy matter, and sometimes divergence
may not be from any fault of striking, for an imperfection in the ball
which might account for an error of half an inch or less in 6 ft. would
produce a perceptible deviation during a journey of 24 to 30 ft.
Nevertheless, the prime source of failure is to be looked for in a
faulty method on the part of the player, who, if he cannot easily remedy
what is wrong, should without hesitation revert to the practice
previously prescribed. After some work at this he will probably find
that ball 1 was not being truly struck, and will amend the fault. These
strokes should then be transferred to the other side of the table,
making the hazards into the left top pocket. They are very conveniently
played with the left hand, and the player who can use both hands almost
indifferently has a great advantage over a purely one-handed performer.
It is entirely, we think, a matter of resolution and of practice. At any
rate, these strokes should be played from both sides of the table till
they can be made without difficulty.
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
]
Example B exhibits a valuable stroke of common occurrence. Ball 1 is on
the line from the left top pocket to the spot. That line should be taken
from a point nearer the top than the side cushion. Ball 2 should be
struck so as to drive it as indicated, half a foot or more above the
right middle pocket on to the cushion, whence it rebounds and comes to
rest conveniently over that pocket. A similar stroke should be played
from the right top pocket, and there is as usual a little license as to
the position of ball 1; it may be further from or nearer to the pocket
than is shown in the diagram, and also a little above or below the line
indicated, and still be a plain stroke; when the divergence is greater,
side is required, and the methods of play will be hereafter explained.
The strokes marked C on this diagram afford admirable practice for
middle pocket losing hazards; for their results record plainly the
errors committed. They have been selected because the point of impact on
ball 2 is in the central line of the table; therefore, as has been
already shown, its path should lie on that line. Another advantage these
strokes possess is that from each position of ball 2 precisely similar
hazards may be made into the right and left middle pocket.
Place ball 2 in the central line of the table, 24 in. from the
baulk-line. A half-ball hazard is open from either the right or left
corner of the =Ｄ=. Ball 2 should pass up and down the central line, the
distance varying with the strength; for simple hazard practice it should
be brought back to its place before the stroke was made. Next bring ball
2 1½ in. down the central line; place ball 1 10 in. from the centre of
baulk; play as before.
This stroke may be repeated by bringing ball 2 down the central line 1½
in. each time, till a position 18 in. from the baulk-line is reached.
When nearer than this the stroke is so far changed that the strength
must be reduced, so that ball 2 shall not return from the top cushion,
but shall be cut towards one of the top pockets, and as the position of
ball 2 approaches the baulk-line it will be found desirable to place
ball 1 further and further back in the baulk within the limits of the
=Ｄ=. Ball 1 is placed 1½ in. towards the centre for each stroke up to
the fifth when ball 2 is 18 in. from baulk. Whilst accuracy should be
aimed at, its perfect attainment is impossible; in playing these strokes
occasionally a very good one may be made, and ball 2 may keep very close
to the central line. Oftener, however, there will be divergence, and
hence it is well to recognise limits within which the stroke, though not
very good, may yet suffice to leave ball 2 in play. In the diagram the
lines P M and Q N, drawn from the corners of the =Ｄ= parallel to the
sides of the table, form such boundaries. If ball 2 be left anywhere in
the space so enclosed, and as far down the table as the spot, there is
almost certainly a plain hazard to be made off it from baulk into either
top or middle pockets.
Other and easier middle pocket hazards may be indefinitely multiplied,
and should be practised till the person playing acquires confidence, not
merely that he can make the stroke, but that he can vary the strength at
will from such delicacy as scarcely to move ball 2 to one which will
bring it in and out of baulk. A few examples are given in Diagram V.
A. Ball 2, 16½ in. from cushion 3, 12½ in. below right middle pocket;
ball 1 on right corner of the =Ｄ=. Play half-ball about No. 2 strength,
leaving ball 2 placed for a hazard in the left middle pocket. Ball 2 can
be brought back nearly over the centre spot, and the danger of the
stroke is that, if played too fine, ball 2 will lie near cushion 6 and
be practically out of play.
B. Ball 2, 15½ in. from cushion 3, 6 in. below right middle pocket; ball
1 on baulk centre spot. Play half-ball No. 2 strength, leaving ball 2
with hazard into right middle pocket.
C. Ball 2, 21 in. from cushion 5, 10 in. below left middle pocket; ball
1 on baulk centre spot. Play half-ball No. 2 strength, bringing ball 2
back over or near the centre spot of the table. With slight variation of
strength and aim ball 2 can be brought back into almost any desired
position on the table.
D. Ball 2, 9 in. from cushion 5, 23½ in. below left middle pocket; ball
1, 5½ in. to the right of the centre of baulk, or on position 5 of
Example C, Diagram IV. Play a half-ball slow No. 1. Ball 2 will travel
to the side cushion on a line at right angles to its face, or, in other
words, parallel to the baulk-line, and will return on the same line to a
distance varying with the strength. A medium No. 1 strength will bring
the ball back from 24 to 30 in. from the side cushion. There is great
latitude in placing ball 1 for this stroke, which can be made as far as
8½ in. to the right of baulk centre, the difference in play being merely
in strength. The further ball 1 is placed from 2 the greater is the
strength required, and as a consequence the further does ball 2 return
from the side cushion. This stroke is of the class called ‘jennies.’
Each stroke here recommended for practice can be played from either side
of the table; and this should always be done in order that the eye may
become equally familiar with the angles into either side pocket.
The next two examples (Diagram VI.) are of an importance which the
beginner may not at once realise, but which is abundantly clear to a
professional or to an advanced amateur. The hazards are in themselves so
easy that a very poor player can have no difficulty in making them; but
mark the difference between the right and wrong method of play. In the
first example the paths of ball 2 after impact are drawn, both when
rightly and when wrongly struck; and an examination of them will show
that if the proper method is followed, error in strength has much less
effect in leaving the ball out of play, and if the stroke is wrongly
played the margin for such error is comparatively small. The principle
here illustrated applies to many positions, and consequently the strokes
deserve close study.
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
]
Example A.—Place ball 1, 40 in. from the top cushion, 7 in. from cushion
6; ball 2, 16 in. from the top cushion, 11 in. from cushion 6; play a
free stroke rather finer than half-ball; it is a bad stroke indeed which
leaves ball 2 out of play. Another good example is shown at B; ball 1,
24 in. from cushion 4, 4½ in. from cushion 3; ball 2, 13 in. from
cushion 4, 9 in. from cushion 3. Play a free stroke finer than half-ball
on 2, which will follow a course somewhat resembling that indicated.
Diagram VII. may be thus set up:—Ball 2, 5 in. from left middle pocket,
½ in. above a line joining the centres of the two middle pockets; place
ball 1 7 in. to the right of the centre spot in baulk; play half-ball on
ball 2 a free stroke. Ball 2 must be very badly struck if it is left out
of play; it should strike the left side and top cushions and return to
position. If played improperly, it returns from the top cushion only,
and unless the strength is very exact is probably lost to play. Many
accidents may happen; it may be holed in the left top pocket, or, still
worse, catch in it and run safe under the top cushion; it may return
close to cushion 6 and come to rest either above or below the middle
pocket; in each case it is left in a more or less undesirable position.
If played too full, ball 2 will probably be left safe near cushion 2;
hence there are at least two types of wrong paths which might be shown,
but they have been omitted to avoid complicating the diagram.
Having fairly mastered short losing hazards, the next step is to study
similar strokes into the top pockets from baulk. They are called long
losing hazards, and form an excellent test of a performer’s capacity at
the game of billiards, in which they fill an important part. They
require greater accuracy than the short hazards, because the balls have
to travel over a greater distance, so that correctness in placing ball 1
for a plain half-ball stroke on ball 2 is of the greatest consequence.
Smoothness and truth in the delivery of the cue must not be lost sight
of, and a short reversion to the practice recommended in Chapters III.
and IV. for the attainment of these objects will prove to be of much
benefit.
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
]
The typical long losing hazard is made from ball 2 on the centre spot,
ball 1 being about 7½ in. from the centre of the baulk. Differences in
the elasticity of the balls will make a slight alteration in the best
position for ball 1; where it is considerable, 8 in. may not be too far
from baulk-spot, and where it is less 7 in. will suffice; the position
also varies with the strength of stroke. This hazard is rightly
considered a difficult one, and it cannot be mastered without much
application; it is indeed now of more value than of old, because in a
break when ball 1 is left touching another ball, the game is continued
by placing the adversary’s ball on the centre spot, the red on spot, and
playing from baulk.
The stroke can be made with considerable difference of strength, which
varies of course with the position desired for ball 2. Ball 1 should be
struck in the centre (not below) about No. 2 strength; this will bring
ball 2 back over the middle pocket, the stroke being played half-ball.
If it be made ten or twelve times in succession on a clean table, the
path travelled by 1 after impact will be fairly visible, and it is an
instructive subject of study. First there is a straight line to within
the length of a radius of the point of impact, next there is a somewhat
violent curve, the result of the forward course suddenly modified by
impact, the rebound due to elasticity and the frictional action between
ball and cloth, and this in turn is merged into a second straight line.
The action described is not peculiar to this stroke, but is visible in
many others, and exists more or less in all, but this one forms a
favourable opportunity for observation. The path travelled by ball 1 is
roughly indicated in fig. 3, and the practical lesson to be learned
therefrom is that in playing cannons the curve must never be overlooked
or forgotten when the third ball lies within the sphere of its
influence. Reference has just been made to the impact of two balls and
the rebound which follows, a subject which was referred to in the last
chapter; it is of interest, and at this moment appropriate, to consider
the matter a little further.
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
In fig. 3 ball 1 played on 2 impinges at T; 2 travels from T as shown by
the arrow. B C shows the line travelled by 1 after impact as it is
exhibited in the diagrams; but the true path is more nearly B D. Hence
it is clear that a cannon on ball 3 would just be missed, the position
of 1 being indicated in the act of passing 3. The tendency of the lines
B D and B C to approach each other and ultimately to coincide is
apparent. It is also clear that the magnitude of the curve B D depends
on the strength of stroke as well as on the elasticity of the balls. If
played very hard, it will be greater; if very soft, it will almost
disappear, the line of travel approximating to B C, in which case it is
evident the cannon would be made.
The balls may for our purpose be assumed to be of equal density and
perfectly elastic; that is, they are equally hard, equally heavy, and
when they receive the shock of impact they recover their figure or shape
with a force equal to that which caused the momentary compression. What
happens more or less in every stroke in which one ball is made to strike
another is that at the moment of collision the round surfaces are
flattened by the shock, and impact is not confined to what is accurately
called a point, but is extended to this flattened surface, which varies
in size according to the strength of the stroke, the hardness of the
balls, and the part of ball 2 struck. In using a very perfect set of
ivory balls 2³⁄₃₂ in. diameter, in a stroke rather fuller than half-ball
with strength from No. 3 to 4, this temporary flattening was found to
extend to about the size of the head of a small tin-tack, say ⅒ in. in
diameter; nearly but not quite as large as the billiard balls shown in
the diagrams. The rebound is due to the reaction whereby the balls
recover their normal shape; in the case of ball 2, which was at rest
before impact, the effect is to make it travel on a line from the point
of impact through its centre; the effect on ball 1, which was not only
moving forward but also revolving, being to check its velocity, some of
which is imparted to ball 2, to rebound, and to assume a new path, the
first part of which is curved as a result of the blending of the various
forces to which it is subjected. In this explanation no pretence to a
mathematical solution is made; it is simply the result of watching the
behaviour of the balls and endeavouring to account for it by an exercise
of common-sense. Most persons who have played much must have noticed
occasional stains of red on the white ball; these were the results of
impact, and if carefully examined would be found to be small circular
spots; similarly all persons are familiar with the fact that the red
ball gradually loses its colour, which it parts with in the way here
noticed.
Now to return to the long losing hazards; the usual mistake is to place
ball 1 for a stroke finer than half-ball, the result being that it
strikes the side cushion on the dangerous shoulder; therefore, when in
doubt, allow for this and place the ball for a full rather than for a
fine stroke. The hazard from ball 2 on the central point of the table
should be constantly practised, first into one top pocket and next into
the other, till it can be made with considerable facility and with
varied strength. Then let ball 2 be placed on the pyramid spot and ball
1 on or near the corner of the =Ｄ=; a half-ball stroke will make the
losing hazard into either top pocket. Care should be taken not to hit
ball 1 above the centre, and the strength should be about a soft No. 2.
Ball 2, after striking the top and side cushions, should come to rest so
that a middle pocket hazard may be left.
Between these two hazards a number of others may be interpolated, the
most satisfactory plan being to set ball 2 at intervals of 6 in. from
the centre spot up the central line towards the pyramid spot as shown in
Diagram VIII. By this means six separate hazards are provided for
practice, or four are inserted between the two already described. Taking
these four 6 in. in succession above the centre spot; for the first,
ball 1 should be placed about 7 in. from baulk centre; for the second
about 5 in.; for the third about 2½ in.; and for the fourth on the
centre spot of the baulk. As before explained, these positions for ball
1 are but approximate; they require modification proportioned to the
elasticity of the balls, the personality of the player, and the strength
used. For example, from the position when ball 2 is on the centre spot
and for the next two positions, in playing with bonzoline balls it would
be prudent to place ball 1 from ½ to ¼ in. further from centre of the
=Ｄ= than the positions indicated.
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
]
When the eye has become acquainted with the half-ball angle, ball 2
should be set up anywhere within the lines P M, Q N (Diagram IX.),
between the centre and billiard spots, and practice continued. Unless
for some special purpose, endeavour should be made to leave ball 2
within the space enclosed by these lines.
On Diagram X. two hazards, when ball 2 is further up the table than the
pyramid spot, are shown. They are types of two classes, either soft or
strong strokes—forcing hazards, as they are called. A is of the latter
class; that is, though the hazard can be played quite gently by the use
of side, yet as a plain stroke from the left corner of the =Ｄ= the
strength required would be such as to make it probable that ball 2 would
be left in baulk after the stroke. To avoid this, place ball 1 so that
the hazard may be played with strength sufficient to bring ball 2 in and
out of baulk. Place ball 2 about 16 in. from the top cushion, and 26 in.
from cushion 2; ball 1 should be played from baulk 8 in. to the left of
the centre, a free No. 2 or No. 3 strength. Ball 2 will travel somewhat
as shown by the dotted line; if struck fuller it will go further and
keep better within the lines P M, Q N.
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
]
B is an example of a gentle stroke, and of a type which frequently
occurs in the course of a game. Ball 2, 4 in. from the left side cushion
and 4 in. from the top cushion. Place ball 1 on the baulk-line on the
left corner of the =Ｄ=. Play on to the left top cushion so as to rebound
on 2 about half-ball. As in most other strokes, there is considerable
latitude both as regards strength and the fulness or fineness with which
ball 2 may be struck. A few trials will show where it is desirable to
place ball 1 if a very gentle stroke is required, and where it should be
put if a stronger one is wanted. That the latitude both as to the
position of ball 2 and to the point of aim is great is clear from the
results of a number of trials, ball 1 being played at a point on the
left side cushion about 18 in. below the top cushion; the path taken by
ball 2 varied generally between the two shown on the diagram; when it
was struck full or nearly so, it impinged on the top cushion at R, and
travelled towards the pyramid spot, and sometimes beyond it; when struck
fine it was cut towards M, and of course did not travel so far. It is
useful to be able to play this stroke when ball 2 is at some distance
from the pocket until, in fact, the direct losing hazard becomes
possible, and therefore it should be practised till the eye can select
with tolerable accuracy the point of the cushion at which ball 1 should
be aimed. This method of playing by first striking a cushion or
_bricole_ is too much neglected in the English game, which suffers
thereby; when played it is often considered a fancy stroke, whereas
numerous plain strokes, specially cannons, are advantageously made by
its judicious use. Seeing that play from a cushion is sometimes
imperative, as, for example, when player’s ball is in hand and a
certainty left in baulk, _bricole_ practice from a variety of positions
will well repay the labour bestowed.
What has been mentioned about the elasticity of balls and the consequent
rebound after impact has a special importance in treating of cannons.
This class of strokes has a tendency in the recent development of the
game of billiards to supersede in a measure losing hazards which
formerly, without doubt, were the mainstay of our players. The
inferiority of losing to winning hazards in respect to influencing the
game was conclusively shown when the spot stroke was played, but that
stroke was rarely formidable save in professional hands; the amateur, as
might be expected, clinging to the easier losing hazard. When the spot
stroke was barred, a substitute had to be found, and in a great measure
this has been supplied by the cannon, chiefly, no doubt, in runs or
series of strokes called nurseries (of which more will be said
hereafter), but also by strokes which have the result of leaving the
three balls close together, _gathering_ them, as the Americans say. To
deal fully with these involves the use of side and of other refinements
of play with which as yet the student is not supposed to be familiar; at
present attention is confined to plain strokes, which include those made
direct from ball to ball and those made after impact with one or more
cushions, but all played without side.
[Illustration:
Diagram X.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
The general rule to be observed as to strength is to make it
proportional to the distance to be traversed and to the angle between
the paths of ball 1. That is to say, the smaller the angle between balls
1, 2, and 3, the greater the strength required. Figure 4 shows at a
glance what is meant. Ball 1, played half-ball on 2, cannons on 3, as
indicated by the lines. The nearer 3 approaches the position 3′, which
is nearly at right angles to a line joining the centres of 1 and 2, the
harder must the stroke be played. When it passes the right angle and
approaches to 3″, screw is required in addition to strength; that is,
ball 1, though still truly struck in its vertical central line, must be
struck below its true centre. Hence it may be said that, the greater the
angle or the finer the stroke, the more gently should it be played; the
smaller the angle, or the fuller the stroke, the greater is the required
strength.
The other point of importance is common to all plain strokes, but may
here be usefully repeated; the player should stand for the stroke so
that the line from 1 to 2 prolonged through 1 backwards shall form the
axis of his cue.
Another matter never to be forgotten is that the finer the stroke the
less velocity ball 1 loses, and consequently the less is imparted to
ball 2; the fuller the stroke the more 1 loses and 2 gains.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5
]
It is evident that, in every instance given of losing hazards, if ball 3
be substituted for the pocket the stroke will be converted from a hazard
to a cannon; indeed, if that ball lie on any part of the path of ball 1
after impact or within the distance of a radius (1¹⁄₃₂ in.) on either
side of the path, a cannon must result. Hence the examples for losing
hazards are equally available for practice cannons, the eye-training for
the requisite angle being the same. The cannon is in fact easier than
the hazard, the target being nearly equal to the width of two balls, as
fig. 5 shows; 1 played on 2 may just touch 3 to the left, when it would
occupy the position 1′, or it may just touch the other side as shown,
1″. The width of this target varies with the distance between balls 2
and 3; at greatest it may be taken as double the size of a ball, or 4⅛
in. The pocket on the other hand is usually 3⅝ in. at the fall, the
target it presents being under the most advantageous circumstances
somewhat larger; on the other hand, when it is blind the target is
reduced.
A few cannons useful for practice, which if properly played result in
gathering the balls, that is in leaving the three balls together, or so
placing them that another stroke is left, are shown in the accompanying
diagrams. In every case when indication is desirable the path of ball 1
is marked by a thin line; that of ball 2 by a dotted line; and that of
ball 3 by a line consisting of a dash and dot alternately. In some cases
the positions of the balls after the stroke are indicated thus:—1′, 2′,
3′; 1′ being the position which 1 has taken, and so on; in other cases
this is not done because the situations are somewhat indeterminate, and
also when the balls are but slightly moved the diagram would be confused
and needlessly complicated.
The cannon shown in Diagram XI. is not merely an excellent plain stroke
for practice, but the position is not infrequently met with or played
for in a game, and is of a type which will repay close attention. As in
all other cases, the measurements are merely approximate, and it is
evident that a great variety of similar cannons can be set up simply by
varying the position of ball 2. For ball 3 is supposed to be on the
spot, and ball 1 in hand, so that a slight change in the position of
ball 2, either up or down the table or in its distance from the side
cushion, merely entails a corresponding move of ball 1, so that the
cannon on ball 3 may always be played a soft half-ball. In the present
instance, ball 2 is 18 in. from cushion 6, and 6½ in. above the central
transverse line of the table. If ball 1 be placed a little to the left
of the baulk centre, say from 1 to 2 in., and played half-ball, so as to
do little more than reach ball 3, and cannon on its right side, ball 2
will be brought towards the spot from which ball 3 has not been far
removed. The balls may not improbably be left in the positions 1′, 2′,
3′, in which case there is an excellent opening; but it must not be
expected that in every instance fortune will be equally favourable.
Still, unless the stroke is very badly played, the three balls will be
left not far from each other, and at the top of the table, and that is a
sufficient recommendation. The stroke, when correctly set up, simply
requires a true half-ball plain stroke, with attention to strength. If
ball 3 is sometimes hit on one side, sometimes on the other, and
occasionally missed altogether, the inference is that accuracy in the
half-ball stroke is wanting, and it is well to try and recover that by
the methods previously recommended; when confidence is restored, then
pay particular attention to the strength. Do not be satisfied till ball
3 is displaced from the spot not more than a few inches, say under six.
Hence, in this class of cannons, which, like all other strokes, should,
whenever possible, be practised under professional supervision, the
first thing to do is to place ball 1 correctly for the half-ball angle;
the next is to strike 2 precisely half-ball; and the last is to regulate
the strength so that ball 1 shall strike ball 2 very gently. These
remarks are to some extent general, and may be usefully applied, at the
reader’s discretion, to many strokes.
[Illustration:
Diagram XI.
]
Diagram XII. shows a variation of the stroke just described; ball 2 is
still 18 in. from the left side cushion, but is 3 in. below the central
transverse line. There is, it is clear, a losing hazard into the left
middle pocket from about the right corner of the =Ｄ=; but it is a better
game in this position to place ball 1 2½ to 2¾ in. left of the baulk
centre, and play the half-ball cannon. If ball 2 were further from the
side cushion, the losing hazard would become the better stroke, and this
example may be considered as almost the limit at which the cannon is to
be preferred. The balls will approximately follow the paths indicated,
and their positions after the stroke may be about 1′, 2′, 3′, a fair
chance remaining for continuing the break; and if, as will often happen,
ball 1, placed a little wider or played a little finer, should strike
ball 3 on the other side, _i.e._ on the side next the left top pocket,
then ball 3 is driven towards the right top pocket, leaving a hazard (a
winner for preference) into it, ball 2 is left, as before, near the
spot, and the situation is still eminently favourable. If played a great
number of times, some unfortunate results will occasionally happen; the
three balls may be left in a line, all nearly touching the top cushion,
and ball 1 between 2 and 3; even then a way may be found out of the
difficulty, but at present the plain cannon is being considered, and it
is difficult to set up on the table a better practice stroke.
[Illustration:
Diagram XII.
]
The cannon shown in Diagram XIII., though apparently a little different,
is, in reality, played precisely like the others; the results, too, are
in a way the same, for the three balls are gathered at the top of the
table. The main difference is that, the cannon being made off the top
cushion, ball 1 is generally left above ball 3—a situation not so
favourable as when ball 1 is below the other two balls. It often
happens, however, that ball 2 is so left that a losing hazard from it
into the left top pocket can be made, and the break may be thus
continued. The further it is desired to bring ball 2 towards the left
top pocket, the more towards baulk centre should ball 1 be placed; and
the nearer to the spot it may be wished to leave it, the finer should
the stroke be set. One advantage of practising this stroke is that
confidence is acquired in making the cannon from the cushion, which is
in this instance greatly preferable to playing a forcing stroke direct,
though many persons, thinking of the cannon alone, would erroneously
select the latter mode of play. A substantial gain is made when the
player has recognised that the stroke is almost exactly like the two
just described, and that the top cushion may, save in a small extra
allowance of strength, be completely ignored.
On Diagram XIV. two cannons are shown; to that marked A special
attention is invited. The position, or a similar one, often occurs, and
is as often incorrectly played by amateurs, when balls 2 and 3 are on
the table, and 1 in hand. Thinking solely of making the cannon, the
player usually spots 1 towards the right of the baulk for a half-ball
stroke. Result, a cannon and separation of the balls, 2 being doubled
towards baulk, 3 carried up the table and not improbably lodged in
safety under cushion 6.
Place ball 2, 14 in. from cushion 5, 30 in. below the left middle
pocket.
Ball 3, 11 in. from cushion 5, 17 in. below the left middle pocket.
Ball 1, 9 in. to the left of baulk centre. Play a gentle stroke on 2 so
as to double it from the cushion to 3 and with strength sufficient for
ball 1 to reach 3. The three balls will be left close together and not
far from the left middle pocket. Care must be taken to prevent the balls
being left in one straight line, and also to avoid a kiss between balls
1 and 2 before the cannon.
[Illustration:
Diagram XIII.
]
Example B, though not of so common occurrence as A, is also an excellent
practice stroke.
Ball 1, 5½ in. from cushion 3, 21½ in. from the bottom cushion.
Ball 2, 4 in. from cushion 3, 33 in. from the bottom cushion.
Ball 3, in front of the left top pocket, 3 or 4 in. from it. Play a
centre ball stroke, about half-ball on 2, with strength to carry 1 to
3—say a free No. 1. Ball 2 will double from cushion 3 and join 1 and 3
near the left top pocket.
In this stroke accidents may happen, and if it be missed by a hair’s
breadth the adversary will rejoice. Ball 3 may be cannoned into the
pocket and ball 2 may also go in; but, if played often, the result will
generally be satisfactory and the stroke is therefore a fairly sound
one. If ball 3 were the red, it would be prudent to play so as to leave
ball 2 somewhat behind and thus reduce the danger of losing it in the
pocket. A little consideration will show that the varieties of this
stroke are numerous, and that by means of some of them the three balls
may be brought to the top of the table.
The strokes shown in Diagram XV. exemplify that most useful class of
cannons in which the velocity of ball 1, struck often with considerable
force, is almost wholly transmitted to ball 2, and 1 retains little more
than is required to reach 3. This is achieved in the first place by
playing as full as the cannon will admit of on 2, and next by a peculiar
use of the cue, which the French term _arrêté_ because it is grasped and
not permitted to follow the ball more than an inch or two after
delivery. The stroke is a stab, and its intensity can be varied by
raising the butt of the cue. The point of ball 1 to be struck is, as
before, the centre, but delivery instead of being horizontal is at a
smaller or greater angle with the surface of the table. The stroke is
made as though the striker desired to stab the ball through its centre
to the table. It springs away with more life than can be communicated by
a horizontal stroke, and parts with that life on impact with 2 more
readily, and therefore expires or comes to rest on reaching 3 with
greater certainty. The stab is not required in every case, but where
ball 2 has a long path to travel and ball 3 is at a right angle from 2
or less, it cannot be dispensed with. Classified as a stroke, it may be
placed between the horizontal centre and the screw, which will be
described in the next chapter, whereby ball 1 is made to return towards
the point of the cue after impact with 2.
[Illustration:
Diagram XIV.
]
A simple form of these cannons is shown at A on this diagram. No
measurements are required, as the position is perfectly simple and
equally good for practice when varied according to pleasure. It can be
conveniently played when ball 3 is on the pyramid spot, ball 2 about 6
in. from it and rather nearer the player, ball 1 being between the
player and 2 near the latter as shown. Play ball 1 nearly full on 2 with
strength sufficient to cause its return from the cushion to 3, which 1
should reach but scarcely move. When played as shown across the table
the stroke is always a gentle one, and when the balls are close to the
cushion from which 2 has to return it must be played very softly indeed.
The usual faults made in playing are that 2 is struck too hard and too
fine, the result being that the three balls separate instead of coming
together.
For B, a pretty little stroke useful in turning the corner at the left
top pocket, the following measurements will help in placing the balls,
which can however be set up from the diagram with sufficient accuracy.
Ball 1, 5½ in. from cushion 6, 22½ in. from the top cushion.
Ball 2, 3½ in. (full) from cushion 6, 16½ in. from the top cushion.
Ball 3, 8½ in. from cushion 6, 13 in. from the top cushion.
Play a gentle stroke on 2 from ¾ to ½ to the right so as just to reach
3; 2 will return from side and top cushions, and the three balls will be
left together. It is evident that this stroke may be adapted to any
corner of the table, an exercise which may be left to the student.
[Illustration:
Diagram XV.
]
Example C.
Ball 2, 19 in. from cushion 6, 16½ in. from the top cushion; ball 3 on
the spot; ball 1, 18 in. from cushion 6 and 12 in. from the top cushion.
Play a little less than full on 2 with strength to bring it back from
the bottom cushion to the neighbourhood of the spot; ball 1 to travel to
3, which it moves slowly towards the right top corner pocket.
This stroke as exhibited at C is not very difficult, though some
moderate execution is required, and an intelligent application of the
stab will give more perfect control of the balls. As ball 3 is placed
further from 2 and nearer the top cushion, so does the stroke require
greater skill and judgment, the stab then becoming more necessary, as
the energy or life of ball 1 must expire about the moment it reaches 3,
otherwise the success of the stroke is much endangered.
Diagram XVI. shows a position of the balls which at first sight is apt
to be regarded with dissatisfaction by the player.
Ball 2 is too near cushion 2 and too far from the right top pocket for a
certain losing hazard; say 28 or 29 in. from top cushion and 5½ in. from
the side.
Ball 3 is 3 in. from cushion 6 and 12 in. above the middle pocket.
Ball 1 is in the central line of the table, from 9 to 13 in. below the
pyramid spot.
Play No. 1 strength finer than half-ball on 2, which strikes cushion 2
and travels towards ball 3; ball 1 makes the cannon off cushions 2 and
1, and sometimes off cushion 6 as well.
[Illustration:
Diagram XVI.
]
The danger of this stroke is that balls 1 and 2 may kiss just before
ball 3 is reached, the result being disappointment for the player and a
good opening for the adversary. In the modern game, however, a man
should look for success to skill and enterprise which, though not
without risk, lead to rapid scoring, rather than to tactics of
obstruction, so dear to the heart of respectable mediocrity. The results
of this stroke will be found to vary considerably. Sometimes ball 3 will
be placed over the left middle pocket with a winning or losing hazard
for next stroke. Again, if the cannon is made on the right side of ball
3, ball 1 will travel below the pocket, and the next stroke will
probably be another cannon. It is clear that this type of stroke can be
modified at will; ball 1 may remain fixed whilst ball 3 is moved up the
left side and 2 down the right side of the table, or ball 1 may be
shifted a little up or down the central line; the limits being when
losing hazards become preferable to the cannon.
[Illustration:
High Bridge for a Cramped Stroke
]
CHAPTER VI
ON THE ROTATION OF BALLS
The subject of this chapter is a very difficult one to deal with in a
manner at all satisfactory, and the writer is conscious that the want of
minute knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, must render the
task before him formidable in every way. Yet there is no intention of
evading it, for the remarks which will be offered for consideration are
based on a lengthened observation of the behaviour of billiard balls
under various conditions, and will, it is believed, prove of interest,
if not of use, some to one person, others to another, even though put
forward in an unscientific manner.
In most books on billiards the subject is avoided; a chapter (of a page
or two) is devoted to side, and those writers who have dealt with it
most briefly have probably made the fewest mistakes. An exception,
however, must be made in the case of M. Vignaux, in whose ‘Manual’
endeavour is made, with considerable success, to explain many phenomena
in a homely way; and as the observations and deductions therein recorded
often agree with those arrived at in this book independently, it is not
remarkable that the courage which the Professor has shown in attempting
a difficult subject should be admired, and that the skill which has led
him to no small measure of success should be praised. Besides, in trying
to convey instruction the teacher is much assisted, and the learner
finds his task more easy, in proportion as the reasons for orders are
understood. A rule whereby a player is desired to use right-hand side
for a certain stroke from baulk to the top of the table, and left-hand
side for a similar stroke from the top to baulk may be perfectly
correct; but it is much more likely to be remembered and put in practice
at the moment of need if the reason why has been explained and is known.
Hence, some space will be devoted to the consideration of rotation, and
it may be that when attention is drawn to the various effects, or some
of them, due to this cause, a better qualified writer may be induced to
study and deal with the subject in a more scientific and satisfactory
manner. If this should happen, the remarks now made, however imperfect
and conjectural, will not have been thrown away.
It has already been brought to the reader’s notice that a ball, when set
in motion by the stroke of a cue, does not merely slide forward, but at
once commences to rotate round its horizontal axis, which is at right
angles to the axis of the cue, or the path of the ball. That is, in
addition to the movement of displacement, or movement from one place to
another (which can be effected by taking the ball in one’s fingers and
placing it down in its second position), called by the French
‘translation,’ there is generated a distinct movement of rotation, which
is for the most part latent and invisible till after impact with another
ball or with a cushion.
That the motions are distinct is evident; for a ball or a cube may be so
pushed or removed from one spot on the surface of the table to another
that no rotation results. Again, the same ball may be made to spin or
rotate by the action of the fingers, and dropped vertically on the
table, so that no impulse forwards or backwards is communicated, and yet
no sooner does the ball fall on the cloth than it will commence to
travel in a line at right angles to the axis of its rotation. Hence,
both motions may produce displacement or translation, and when both are
at the same time active in a ball the path travelled, whether straight
or curved, is the resultant of the two movements.
[Illustration:
In Or Out Of Baulk?
]
Now at p. 132–3 the divisions of balls were explained, and the same
figure will suffice to assist in defining the various classes of
rotation used in the game of billiards to effect different purposes at
the discretion of the player. There are four main divisions,
corresponding to the four sectors into which the lines H B and G D
divide the ball.
(1) Forward rotation, or follow, is communicated by striking the ball on
the line C H above the centre C.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
(2) Backward rotation, retrograde, or screw, is obtained by striking the
ball on C B below the centre.
(3) Right side,[15] or rotation round the vertical axis H B from left to
right, is attained by striking on the line C D; whilst
(4) Left side,[15] or rotation from right to left, results from striking
on C G.
And these can manifestly be combined; thus, the ball struck in the
sector C H D has both follow and right side; struck in C D B the
combination is screw and right side; in C G B screw and left side; and
in C G H follow and left side. These are the practical divisions for
purposes of play, but it must be borne in mind that so long as the cue
is delivered horizontally the path travelled is the prolongation of its
axis, of a line parallel to that axis, and the effect of the rotation
communicated does not show itself, save to a very minute extent, till
after impact with a ball or cushion. Then it becomes immediately
apparent and often bewildering in the strangeness of its results. Who,
for example, has forgotten the feeling of awe with which he first
contemplated the result of a well-executed screw, ball 1 striking ball 2
smartly and thence returning to the point of the cue? And to this day
the most consummate masters cannot explain some of the strange results
whose practical effects are sufficiently well known.
Before passing from this figure it may be as well to explain that the
maximum of rotation can best be effected, or most side given, by
striking at the ends of the diameters H B and G D, on the principle of
the lever being longest at those ends; but practically the limit is
reached at the point on either line beyond which a miss-cue would
result. Each player will in time find out this point for himself, and it
is remarkable how practice improves the power. With it a man can hit
clean and sharp further out on the arm of the lever—that is, further
away from the centre—than is possible for an untrained person, and it
will be found, moreover, that in time and by practice a delicacy of
touch and increase of effect are acquired.
But what is this rotation, what causes it, and how is it regulated?
The main factor, or at any rate the main reason whereby its effects
become visible and are regulated, is friction with the cloth or bed of
the table. If balls were perfectly smooth, the bed also being equally
hard and smooth, and if they were unaffected by the resistance of the
air and the force of gravity, once set in motion they would continue to
slide along for ever within the limit of the length of the bed. They
would not roll, but would slide as a curling stone does on smooth ice.
But the practical condition of affairs is different. In the first place,
the surfaces of the balls, be they never so finely finished, instead of
being smooth, are if examined under a microscope found to be palpably
rough. The cloth, too, no matter how well stretched or of how fine a
texture, is both soft and rough. A ball at rest on it is standing in a
little cup, whilst one travelling forms a narrow groove, along which, it
is plain, resistance will vary according to its direction and that of
the nap of the cloth. If with the nap the friction will be less, if
against it more.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
Hence it follows that in considering the motion and rotation of billiard
balls on a table, we must picture to ourselves a toothed-wheel working
on a toothed-plane, and one toothed-wheel working into another, rather
than a perfectly smooth surface on a similarly perfectly smooth plane,
or two perfectly smooth spherical surfaces in contact.
The accompanying drawings, in which the roughness is purposely
exaggerated, will convey the idea better than much elaborate
description. No. 1 shows a ball in contact with the cloth, and No. 2 one
ball in contact with another. From these it is easy to realise that a
ball rotating has a bite of the cloth, and will travel along it in the
direction of the rotation, and also that a ball rotating round its
vertical axis brought into contact with another must transmit a portion
of its rotation, the effect of which is to make the second ball revolve
in the opposite direction, precisely after the manner of one
toothed-wheel working into another. Such transmitted side is no doubt
very small and difficult to perceive, save in the matter of results
which cannot otherwise be accounted for. It is indeed probable that side
can in this way be communicated to a third ball provided it be touching
the second ball. By its means certain kiss strokes can be made which
without the use of side are impossible. The subject is undoubtedly
complicated, and the suggestions here offered may be wrong; they are
those which, after much consideration, have commended themselves as most
in agreement with known facts concerning the rotation of bodies, and as
accounting for the behaviour of billiard balls in a manner which is not
repugnant to common-sense. Nevertheless it must be admitted that
absolute proof of transmitted side can scarcely be said to exist, that
many experienced persons deny its existence, and, moreover, it is never
safe to jump to conclusions.
Let us now consider the four classes of rotation which have already been
defined, and begin with forward rotation or follow. This is the most
important of all; for, as will be seen, it is present and active in
almost every stroke unless special means are employed to counteract it.
It is generated in two ways—spontaneously, and by striking the ball
above its centre.
When a ball is struck by a cue in the centre, no rotation is thereby
communicated. Its first impulse is to slide along with a velocity and
for a distance proportionate to the force employed. But the instant that
motion is communicated, resistance to sliding forward is experienced.
The ball then is subjected to two forces, one from the cue impelling it
forward, and the other a retarding force caused by the friction of the
cloth. The impelling force drives C in the direction M, and the friction
or retarding force acts on B in the direction B N. The point B is
thereby retarded, and the result of the two forces is that C travels
towards M, whilst A advancing, B being retarded, a rotatory motion is
produced whereby A at the top gradually lowers its position till it
reaches the bottom and rests on the cloth. It is evident that this
spontaneous rotation exists in every plain stroke; it is separate from
the mere displacing or translating force, and has a separate life. One
may outlive the other; an ordinary example of this is when ball 1 is
played full on ball 2. When the distance between them is small, little
or no rotation has been acquired and the force of ball 1 is transmitted
to ball 2, the former remaining nearly stationary, or dead, after
impact; but when there is considerable distance between 1 and 2,
rotation is well established and asserts itself after impact, which
destroys the life of the force of displacement or translation. Thus ball
1 on impact stops merely for a moment, for rotation coming into play
carries it forward on its original path. A very common illustration of
this is unpleasantly familiar to young pool players. They cannot prevent
their own ball from following into a pocket after a long straight
hazard.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
But follow can be increased or accelerated artificially, and the object
of doing so is to augment the progress of ball 1 after impact. No gain
in propulsion results from hitting a ball over the centre, for what
rotation gains translation loses, and when there is no obstacle to run
or follow through it is a mistake to strike above the centre, for a ball
will travel less truly when so struck, and further, should it encounter
unperceived obstacles, such as grit, or dust, or tobacco, the tendency
to leap is enhanced by follow, and the result is greater or less
deviation from the true path.
The chief use, then, of follow is to control deviation and prevent
stagnation after impact. When a fine stroke becomes dangerous a follow
may not only be safe, but may be played so as to leave a good game. The
stroke should be delivered gently, smoothly, and the cue should be held
as horizontal as possible, the butt being lowered, and the bridge raised
so as to bring the tip opposite the part of ball 1 to be struck. After
impact the point of the cue should be permitted to follow on with a
flowing motion. Another and at first sight quite different use of follow
is to decrease the velocity of rebound from a cushion or from a ball
touching a cushion. The reason is that after impact rotation is
reversed, and a stroke which reaches a cushion with follow rebounds with
retrograde or drag. If played with strong follow, the ball will not
improbably leap in the air after impact, and either stop short on
reaching the bed or even return towards the cushion. As is perhaps
evident from what has been explained, follow is very useful when balls 1
and 2 are so close that little or no rotation can be spontaneously
acquired; its absence is supplied by striking ball 1 above the centre.
The next rotation to be considered is round the same axis—horizontal—as
follow, but is in the opposite or backward direction, whereby what we
call ‘screw’ and ‘drag,’ the French ‘retrograde,’ and the Americans
‘draw,’ are effected. The point of aim is on the line C B (p. 191, fig.
1), and the lower the ball is struck the greater the rotation, the limit
being as usual where a miss-cue would ensue. To ensure striking low, the
cue should be made to bear somewhat heavily on the bridge between the
thumb and forefinger, and the butt should be slightly raised. The result
of the stroke is that ball 1 is forced forward but does not acquire
spontaneous rotation, that being counteracted by the inverse rotation or
screw communicated by the cue. If the stroke be played the length of the
table close observation will disclose a different behaviour of the ball
from that which results from a plain stroke. In the first place, the
ball will start for an equal transit or length of path with greater
initial velocity, it will slow down much more abruptly, will apparently
stop for a moment, and then continue its course till it comes finally to
rest. Analysing this path, the first portion is traversed by the ball
with inverse rotation and under the influence of a stronger stroke than
would have been necessary had it been struck in the centre; the slowing
down is the struggle between the screw or backward rotation artificially
given and the spontaneous or forward rotation naturally acquired; the
momentary check or stop is when the one rotation exactly counterbalances
the other, and the ball on an instant slides forward without any
rotation; and the final part of the course is when (the backward
rotation being dead) the spontaneous rotation has conquered, and in turn
dies with the force of displacement or translation. That is what is seen
when a master of the art plays with drag. He uses it to overcome
irregularities in the ball or bed, and is by its means enabled to
combine the advantages of a strong and of a gentle stroke. If ball 1
cannot be trusted the length of the table for a slow hazard or cannon,
the player strikes it comparatively hard with drag; the ball then runs
fast over the greater length of its course, but pulls up in the manner
and for the reasons above described, and reaching ball 2 with gentleness
does not displace it to any great extent.
That is the complete stroke; but if it should happen that ball 2 is so
near ball 1 that impact takes place before the backward rotation is
dead, if the stroke be full the whole of the forward motion
(translation) is communicated to ball 2, and ball 1, which has
apparently stopped for a moment on the spot which ball 2 occupied, will
return towards the point of the cue by reason of its inverse rotation or
screw. The result is what is known as a ‘screw back stroke.’ The more
full ball 1 is played on ball 2, the further will that ball travel and
the greater will be the recoil and screw back. The finer ball 2 be
taken, the less velocity will be imparted to it and the less will be the
return of ball 1. Screw back is not possible, unless, perhaps, the balls
are very near each other, if ball 2 be struck half-ball or finer.
When the student has acquired confidence that he can play ball 1 on ball
2 direct and full and screw back, he may with advantage study the
various angles at which ball 1 will come off ball 2 when hit at certain
divisions between full and half-ball. A convenient mode of practising
these strokes is to place ball 2 on the baulk-line, and ball 1 6 in. to
8 in. below it.
Thus, if ball 1, struck three-quarters low, or wherever the player can
communicate most screw, be played full on ball 2, the latter will travel
up the table parallel to the cushion, whilst ball 1 will return over the
position it occupied, also parallel to the cushion, in the direction of
the bottom cushion. The distance travelled will depend on the strength
and truth of the stroke as well as on striking ball 1 so as to obtain
the maximum reverse rotation. That is the limit in one direction of the
screw stroke; the other limit is to aim at the edge of ball 2, ball 1
being, as before, struck three-quarters low. In this instance the path
of the latter after impact is along the baulk-line, or, in other words,
practically perpendicular to its path before impact. That is what is
known as a ‘right-angled screw,’ a most useful stroke to master, as is
evident after a moment’s consideration. In the first place, if ball 3
were situated anywhere along the baulk-line, a cannon becomes a
reasonable probability; and next, if there were a pocket at either end
of the baulk-line, the losing hazard would be far from impossible. The
way to acquire confidence in this right-angled screw is to begin softly,
but always endeavouring to give ball 1 the maximum of screw. The beauty
of the stroke is that it is impossible to give ball 1 too much screw,
and that its path, when struck truly, must lie on the baulk-line; if it
leaves the baulk-line and goes up the table, then ball 2 has been struck
finer than half-ball, or ball 1 has had insufficient screw given, or
both; if it comes back from the baulk-line, ball 2 has been struck
fuller than half-ball. So here, again, is an example of a practice
stroke which records exactly the causes of failure, thereby saving much
time in fruitless inquiry, and pointing directly to the required remedy.
Now, having acquired the power of bringing ball 1 back from ball 2 in a
direction perpendicular to the baulk-line, and also of screwing off ball
2 along the baulk-line, it follows that by subdividing ball 2 between
full and half-full, and by regulating the strength used, the path of
ball 1 after impact can be foreseen, and it may be made to travel
thereon with some certainty. Thus 1 played full on 2 returns towards A;
1 half-ball on 2 travels towards L or B; when struck fuller than
half-ball it returns towards C or K; fuller still towards D and H; and
so on in succession towards E, F, and G. Now the acquisition of these
strokes is not nearly so difficult as it seems, specially when a cannon
is played for, and the power and confidence acquired by knowing that
wherever a ball is situated—for example, anywhere on or near the various
lines drawn on fig. 4—there is a reasonable prospect of scoring, are of
great advantage.
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
In the example just explained ball 1 is supposed to be near ball 2, say
from 4 in. to 8 in. distant; when they are further apart the stroke must
be played with greater strength, and ball 2 must be struck fuller to
compensate for the tendency of ball 1 to travel past the position which
was occupied by ball 2 before the screw takes effect. As the distance
between the balls increases so must the strength of the stroke be
greater, and so also must ball 2 be struck more nearly full.
This question of regulating the strength of screw strokes is of great
importance. The general rule is as above stated, but there are many
instances when a player, to obtain position, will vary the stroke. Thus,
in order to make ball 2 travel he will play fuller on it, reducing the
amount of screw, though the stroke might be equally certain if played
gently, half-ball, but with more screw. There must be no slavish
adherence to any one division of ball 2; the screw must be made at will
off a full, fine, or intermediate ball, and the strength must be varied
to suit the division of the ball, and the distance between the two
balls.
At the risk of incurring the charge of repetition, let it be further
explained (for this elementary fact should never be forgotten) that the
reason why greater strength and more screw must be used as the distance
between the balls is increased is because of the tendency ball 1 has to
develop rotation in the direction of its path. When the balls are near
each other but little spontaneous rotation can be acquired, and
therefore ball 1 need not be struck hard or very low; when they are very
near, the spontaneous rotation is so slight that in order to screw it is
unnecessary to strike ball 1 below the centre. On the other hand, when
the distance between the balls is increased, the opportunity for
acquiring forward rotation or follow is greater; and greater, therefore,
must be the strength and screw used for its conquest. That being so, it
is further necessary to abandon attempts to screw off the finer
divisions of ball 2. Endeavours to do so will end in failure, for the
needful strength will carry ball 1 past ball 2 and the screw will be
overcome. Hence the necessity for playing more and more full on ball 2
as the strength of stroke is increased. The fuller the stroke the more
is forward motion transmitted to ball 2, and the less is the screw
imparted to ball 1 interfered with. These matters, which are very
difficult to deal with in a lucid way on paper, can be plainly
demonstrated on the table without much trouble; there the student should
repair with his instructor, and soon what may seem confused and useless
in the above remarks will appear plain and of great value.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5
]
The consideration of regulated screw leads to the insertion of fig. 5,
in which a class of strokes of common enough occurrence, but little
relished by players whether amateur or professional, is illustrated.
They are intermediate between the path of a forcing stroke and that of
the right-angle screw. Now the latter, though decidedly difficult when
the balls are far apart, say 2 ft. or so, yet admits of some certainty
in playing, for it represents about the maximum of most men’s power; but
the intermediate strokes, though they require less execution, are yet
oftener missed, because the player has no definite measure of them, no
guide or clue to which he can trust.
If the paths represented from ball 1 to ball 2 and then to ball 3 be
those of a hard forcing stroke, and the paths 1 to 2 and 2 to 3A those
of a right-angle screw, the strokes referred to lie between the two, and
may be represented by the dotted lines from 2 to 3B, 3C, &c. The balls
may be set up as shown; ball 1 on the right spot of the =Ｄ=; ball 2 at
the same distance from the side cushion line and opposite the centre of
the middle pocket; ball 3 anywhere between the pocket and the limit of a
forcing stroke in the positions marked 3B, 3C, &c.; or ball 1 may be
advanced nearer to ball 2, in which case the strokes are easier. In
either case practice at these intermediate angles will not have been
thrown away if the remarks and advice respecting screw be appreciated
and followed. Do not forget that when played with strength ball 1 will
pass beyond ball 2 before the screw takes effect.
In practising the straight screw back it is advantageous to keep the cue
exactly in position after the stroke, which, if true, will result in
bringing ball 1 back to the tip. Also the behaviour of ball 2 after each
stroke should be noted, in order that when playing in a game its
position may be approximately foreseen. Always chalk the cue before
attempting a screw.
Rotation round a horizontal axis having been considered, it is necessary
now to examine side, or rotation round a vertical axis. This is
communicated by every stroke of the cue which is not delivered precisely
on the vertical line H B (fig. 6), and is, as may readily be conceived,
generally applied unintentionally. In fact, much of the preliminary
practice has been recommended in order that the power of striking a ball
without side might be acquired. Still, when intelligently used, side
gives great additional scope to a player and will well repay attention
and study. To discuss right side and left side separately is
unnecessary, for the one is simply and solely the reverse of the other.
Side, or rotation round the vertical axis, does not convey to a ball a
movement of displacement or translation; on the contrary, its tendency
is to bring the ball to rest, precisely as a top when thrown with heavy
spin at first gyrates or travels a little, but soon comes to rest, or
sleeps, whilst revolving at a great rate. Hence it follows that some
compensating strength has to be used when playing with side.
Now, the student cannot have got so far, supposing that the various
strokes have been practised, without having acquired some knowledge of
the effect of side. He has learnt, for example, that the more out of the
centre his ball was struck, the more did the angle of reflexion vary
from the angle of incidence; if struck on one side, the angle of
reflexion was enlarged; if struck on the other side, it was diminished.
Side also makes some, though less evident, modification in the angle of
deviation after impact with another ball. The proper mode of
communicating side to a ball by means of a cue must now be considered, G
H D B is a ball standing on the table T T; H B is its vertical axis, C
its centre, E and F represent the cue-tips at the moment of striking the
ball: E for right side, or side which tends to take the ball towards the
right, and F for left side, which will carry the ball to the left. It
will be observed that the cue is delivered on the central horizontal
line, for on it the maximum of rotation round the axis H B can be given;
in other words, the height of the stroke is precisely the same as that
for a plain or true centre stroke, and is equal to half the height of
the ball.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6
]
The next point is the proper alignment of the cue. In a plain stroke it
has been shown that the path of ball 1 previous to impact is the
prolongation of the line of the cue’s axis. For a side stroke, the point
of aim being the same, the only difference is that ball 1 must be struck
on the side instead of in the centre. Hence, to preserve the same path,
the cue’s axis must be parallel to that in the plain stroke and distant
from it in proportion to the amount of side to be given.
Fig. 7 illustrates the chief points connected with side strokes, and
admits of comparison between them and an ordinary plain stroke. Ball 1
played half-ball plain on ball 2 travels the path shown by the
continuous line 1 1′ 1″ and 1‴, and the angle at which it comes off the
cushion is nearly equal to that of approach. The position of the cue is
the central one on the prolongation of the path 1 1′. The same stroke
played with right side is thus effected: the cue is moved to the right,
its new axis being parallel to the original axis. The stroke is
delivered in precisely the same way and in the same direction, save that
the point of ball 1 struck by the cue is to the right of the centre.
Ball 1, if struck with the strength of a full No. 1 or more, travels
practically the same path until it strikes ball 2, after which it
deviates slightly to the right, following the path marked by dot and
dash alternately, and reaches the cushion at R, whence it flies off at
an enlarged angle in the direction of R′. Right side for the stroke
figured increases the velocity of ball 1 after impact with the cushion,
from which it shoots perceptibly faster than does a ball plainly played.
Hence, this side is termed direct, being given in the direction that the
ball is intended to travel.
Played with left side, the cue is shifted to the left of the centre, but
is still parallel to the original direction. As before, on delivery of
the stroke ball 1 travels to ball 2, but after impact follows the dotted
line 1′ L L′, returning from the cushion at once more perpendicularly
and with reduced speed, the left side with which ball 1 is charged
tending to reduce velocity, specially after impact with the cushion. In
respect to this stroke, left side, conveying as it does rotation in a
direction contrary to that of the ball’s path, is termed reverse. Of
course, if the other side of ball 2 were played on, the left side would
become direct and the right side reverse.
[Illustration:
_EDGE OF CUSHION_
Fig. 7
]
There, in a nutshell, lies nearly all that is essential in the matter of
side. A man with ordinary powers of thought can for himself apply the
lesson either to cannons or to losing hazards, and nothing but practice,
as far as possible under the supervision of a master, will suffice to
produce the confidence and certainty which is necessary to good play. Be
careful about the alignment of the cue; see that the left hand, which
forms the bridge, is so placed that the part of forefinger and thumb on
which the cue lies is precisely opposite the point on ball 1 to be
struck, and as there is special danger of a slip or miss-cue when much
side is used, never neglect to chalk the cue carefully before the
stroke. Attention to this, though it seems but a small and self-evident
matter, will save many a game and much temper.
There are, however, certain other matters connected with rotation which,
though not so important as what has already been explained as far as the
game of billiards is concerned, are yet of considerable interest, partly
as they affect the game, but chiefly in so far as they may add to our
knowledge of the various forces which affect a ball in motion. Amongst
these is the side which may be acquired from friction with the cushion.
The probability that such side is so acquired is understood, but the
conditions are little known. M. Vignaux remarks that it depends on the
angle of impact, on the velocity, and on the strength; and he gives as
an example a plain stroke played gently in a corner of the table, when
the ball always has a tendency to come off at a diminished angle of
reflexion, specially when the angle of incidence is about 45. The side
acquired is probably greatest when a ball is played along and touching a
cushion; if played from baulk up the left cushion the tendency would be
for the ball to acquire right side, and up the right cushion left side;
but all such strokes are complicated by the much more important friction
with the cloth on the bed of the table. It is unnecessary here to
speculate further on a matter which so slightly influences the game. Of
vastly greater significance, though its action is still most imperfectly
apprehended, is the effect of the nap of the cloth on the rotation and
path of a ball. Amateur players scarcely understand the subject at all,
and no doubt the habitual strength with which they play in a great
measure destroys or smothers the effect of the nap, which tells more
when the execution is delicate. There is also another reason why they
are ignorant of its effect, which is that markers, to please the great
majority of their patrons, smooth and iron away the nap in order to make
the table faster. By this means they ruin it for the very few who can
play, for without plenty of nap the slow screws and gentle side strokes
will not tell, the ball, so to speak, cannot obtain a bite or grip on
the cloth, and the result is that strokes which should be played softly,
and from which the position of the balls can be foreseen with some
accuracy, have to be forced, and an ignorant hard hitter may on such a
cloth defeat a player of a much higher class. Thus the common fault of
amateurs, in attempting by strength results which should be effected by
skill, prevents them from acquiring a practical knowledge of the use of
nap, which is consequently sacrificed, to the detriment of the game. It
is scarcely an exaggeration to say that there are but few tables in
London clubs the cloths of which are in fit condition for play.
Now, though the professional scarcely understands better than the
amateur why the game can be more scientifically played on a cloth with
nap, yet from practice, and because of his habitually gentler touch, he
prefers a slower table and a cloth with proper nap. For all serious
matches a new cloth is used; and in some cases when the game is very
long, extending for two weeks, a condition is made that one player shall
supply the cloth for one week and the other for the next. Of course
there is a limit to the amount of nap which is desirable; it is quite
possible to have a cloth which is too coarse and rough, but the usual
mistake is the other way. Persons are apt to think that the more
friction is reduced the better; but it is not so, and even an average
club amateur would find if he tried to play on glass or ice how
impossible many ordinary strokes would become.
In a general way, in very delicate strokes side should be reversed when
playing against the nap. Many examples can be shown, and a good
professional will easily set them up on the table. One may be mentioned
here, as it affords an excellent illustration of the general principle.
If ball 1 be in baulk, almost touching the left cushion, and it be
desired to run a _coup_ in the left top pocket, a gentle stroke with
side next the cushion, or left side, will cause the ball to hug the
cushion and fall into the pocket. But reverse the stroke, play from the
top of the table down the same cushion; if cushion side, or right side,
be used, the ball will run fairly straight as long as the forward force
(translation) overcomes or neutralises the side; but whenever the latter
can assert its power the ball will show a distinct tendency to leave the
cushion altogether. It will even strike the bottom cushion 6 in. away
from the side cushion, and return towards the latter by reason of the
side. Play the same stroke with left side—_i.e._ side away from the
cushion—and as soon as the side tells the ball will most distinctly hug
the cushion, and if repelled from it will endeavour to return again. At
present the full effect of playing with or against the nap is neither
understood nor practised, but it has attracted attention, and the more
skilful and thoughtful players are studying and utilising its effects.
It is sufficient here to notice a refinement of play from which
considerable development may confidently be expected.
[Illustration:
Fig. 8
]
Many diagrams are unnecessary for this chapter, which is rather an essay
or series of suggestions on matters connected with rotation than part of
a manual of billiards; examples of following, side, and screw strokes
will be dealt with in the next and subsequent chapters. Still, practice
is useful at this stage, and some strokes are accordingly indicated. The
opening stroke of a game may be taken as the first example. Place ball 1
in baulk on or close to the baulk-line A B and at a convenient distance
to reach, say, the centre spot, or, perhaps better still, an inch or so
beyond it, in order to avoid playing from a spot which, however thin,
must on a new cloth, at any rate, be raised above the general level. If
the player stands at A, he should strike ball 1 with right side and
strength sufficient to take it to the cushion above B and back as nearly
as possible to the central longitudinal line of the table, or below the
centre baulk-spot, thereby securing a good position, marked P, and
making his opponent’s next stroke, also usually a miss, as difficult as
possible. If played from B, left side must be used, and the stroke must
be practised till complete confidence as to angle and strength is
acquired. Then marks should be set up at C, D, E, F, and each stroke
practised till ball 1 can be brought with fair accuracy to follow the
lines B C, B D, B E, and B F, which, as is seen from the figure, will
result in a _coup_ in the left bottom pocket. At first this is about the
maximum of side a beginner can command, but after some practice he will
succeed in striking the bottom cushion near G, a stroke which is useful
when a ball is left over the pocket, as a losing hazard may be made with
sufficient strength to bring ball 2 out of baulk. These strokes should
be played from B as well till some certainty is acquired. They are very
useful for disturbing a double baulk, and even for scoring from one, and
a good break so made has a somewhat disconcerting effect on the
adversary.
A side stroke played back to baulk is shown in Diagram I. Place ball 1
on the right corner of the =Ｄ=, and play on the left top cushion 14 in.
above the middle pocket with a little right side a free No. 2 strength;
the ball should follow approximately the course indicated, and run into
the left bottom pocket. Similarly played from the other corner of the
=Ｄ= to the right top cushion, the ball should fall into the right bottom
pocket. These strokes are often useful in a game when a double baulk is
given and one or both balls are over a pocket. A little modification
too, either by aiming higher or lower on the top side cushion, or by
using more side, makes this stroke available for cannons in the
neighbourhood of the bottom pockets, and for disturbing the balls when
the adversary has left a certain score for himself in the corner.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
The next stroke is also well worth acquiring. It is differently played
by different people, but the main point is to bring the ball on to the
bottom side cushion a few inches below the middle pocket. If that is
done the path thence is practically a straight line to the centre of the
bottom cushion. It is interesting to practise thus: place balls 2 and 3
as shown in Diagram II. on the central longitudinal line of the table,
ball 3 near the bottom cushion, and ball 2 immediately above, but not
necessarily touching it. Set ball 1 on the baulk-line about the centre
spot, play at the side top cushion, 30 in. from the pocket, a free No. 2
with a little direct side. The stroke can be played off either right or
left side top cushion, and should be tried from both. It can also be
made from the corner spot of the =Ｄ=, aiming at a point 15 in. above the
pocket, if the stroke be played more gently and the side correctly
regulated. It follows, therefore, where there is so great possible
divergence in the manner of play, that each person should find out that
mode which best suits him, and practise till confidence is gained. The
cannon may be made in many ways, sometimes as indicated, on other
occasions ball 1 will strike the bottom cushion first and thence cannon
from 3 to 2, and so on, showing that there is considerable latitude for
error in striking. Once the player realises the path of ball 1 from
below the middle pocket to the centre of the bottom cushion, it is clear
that many possibilities of scoring cannons in baulk are opened. The
reader can no doubt supply them for himself, and it is well that he
should take the necessary thought to do so; but one example is
indicated. If balls 2 and 3 occupy the positions 2′ and 3′ the same
stroke will probably result in a cannon. Mr. John Roberts often uses
this stroke or a modification of it, and when the result is successful
the delight of the spectators is unbounded; they applaud and regard him
with the awe and respect due to supernatural power. Yet there is nothing
remarkable in the stroke. Mr. Roberts knows approximately the course of
the ball after it has struck the bottom side cushion, he sees that ball
2 is on or near that path, and therefore that there is a fair certainty
of his hitting it, and if he does so on the proper side the cannon on 3′
or 3″ is probable. It is well to be conversant with strokes of this
nature, though as a rule they should only be resorted to when clearly
necessary, and never used simply to show off or to bring down the
gallery.
Other examples might obviously be added, but these are sufficient to
illustrate the principle, which is, when learning the stroke, always
play it as nearly as possible in the same way and under the same
circumstances. The result is that the eye becomes familiar with the
tracks of the ball, and then moderate ingenuity and observation will
serve to guide the player when he may make use of his knowledge to
advantage in a game.
This chapter, wherein are raised interesting and suggestive questions
which may hereafter be more thoroughly investigated and applied to the
game, may be appropriately closed by an illustration, the idea of which
is borrowed from ‘Modern Billiards,’ the text-book of the American game,
prepared by the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. of New York.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
Place fig. 9 so that A is in position for reading, and _follow_ is
illustrated. Reverse it, bringing B into position, and _screw_ or _drag_
is shown. Bring C into position for reading, and a _side stroke_, in
this case right side, is represented; and if this be reversed, D being
brought into position; the _massé_ stroke, which will hereafter be
explained, is seen.
[Illustration:
Fig. 9
]
CHAPTER VII
MISCELLANEOUS STROKES
Under the above heading it is proposed to describe a variety of strokes
many of which may be played in different ways, according to the position
which it is desired to leave. Some of these are genuine strokes, whether
plain or whether rotation is applied; others partake rather of the
nature of tricks, but as they do not contravene existing rules they must
be treated as legitimate, and their effect on the game is so important
that they must not be neglected in any manual. Following strokes belong
to the former class, and are of much importance to the game; the
principle involved in playing them was explained in the last chapter.
The number of such strokes which may be set up on the table is infinite,
whilst the examples here given are necessarily few. They have, as in
other cases, been selected after much thought, and being in some
instances strokes commonly met with in a game, similar diagrams will be
found in other books on billiards. Yet this does not involve plagiarism,
for in many instances repetition cannot be avoided, as will be apparent
when the spot stroke is described.
Endeavour has been made to give examples which may readily be varied at
the will of the player, and so that slavish adherence to the
measurements given may be unnecessary. This is important, for not only
do tables vary slightly in make, but persons vary the manner of
measuring. The diagrams, as before, must simply be considered
approximate, but are, it is hoped, sufficiently correct and intelligible
to enable a careful reader to set up the strokes when disposed for
practice.
Diagram I., stroke A.
Ball 1: 34 in. from cushion 2; 23 in. from cushion 1.
Ball 2: 30½ in. from cushion 2; 37 in. from cushion 1.
Ball 3: 24½ in. from cushion 2; 50 in. from cushion 1.
Strike ball 1 one-half above the centre, a free No. 1 strength, play
nearly full (between three-quarters left and full) on ball 2, and cannon
gently on ball 3; ball 2 will follow the course indicated or some
modification thereof, and after contact with two cushions rest near the
middle pocket; ball 3 will also be driven gently in that direction, and
the situation of the three balls after the stroke may be as indicated by
the figures 1′, 2′, and 3′, leaving, as is evident, an excellent
opportunity for further play. Played fifty times, this stroke may never
result twice precisely alike; yet it is scarcely possible to make the
cannon and fail to leave a good opening. That is one beauty of the
stroke. Even if, as will happen occasionally, ball 1 cannons fine on
ball 3 (which it may easily do in a slight variation in the stroke) and
runs into the pocket, ball 2 comes up from the bottom cushion and there
is a fair chance of scoring from baulk. There may, of course, sometimes
be an unlucky leave, but if the stroke be played with freedom this will
rarely happen. The general fault made in all following strokes is to
play too fine on ball 2, specially when some strength is used; hence it
is prudent to play what seems to be rather too full. This should never
be forgotten; ten strokes are missed because they are played too fine
for one that fails because it was played too full.
Another set of measurements which may be substituted for those given,
and which will exhibit a somewhat similar stroke, are here appended.
They are taken from the same cushions, which are not therefore again
indicated.
Ball 1, 33 × 27½ in.; ball 2, 31 × 36 in.; ball 3, 20 × 52½ in. This
stroke and many variations of the same type will suggest themselves to
the player, and may with much advantage be practised. At first sight
position A might seem to an amateur a rather unfortunate conjunction of
the balls; yet see what an excellent opening may be left in one stroke!
It is the power to recognise such situations and to profit by them which
makes the great difference between players.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
Diagram I., stroke B.
No measurements are needed. Ball 2 is on the spot, and balls 1 and 3 as
indicated. Ball 1, struck slightly above the centre, aimed at ball 2
about ¾ right, medium No. 1 strength, will cannon on ball 3 and scarcely
disturb it, whilst ball 2 will return from the side cushion and the
balls will be gathered about ball 3. This is a very common position from
which endeavour is made to start a series of nursery cannons; but if
this is not desired, and if ball 2 be the red, then a winning hazard to
the left top pocket will leave a good opening for continuing play at the
top of the table.
When balls 2 and 3 are touching the cushion, as shown in Example C, ball
1 being in hand or suitably placed on the table, the cannon can best be
made as a simple following stroke, because aim is easier when no side is
used.
Play thus: Ball 1, ½ to ¾ high, No. 2 strength full on ball 2, which
will escape in the direction shown by the dotted line, whilst the follow
will cause ball 1 to run up the cushion and make the cannon. The stroke
may be played with left side and slower, with the advantage that the
position of the balls afterwards may be roughly foreseen, and that if
the cannon be missed direct it may be got off the top cushion. If the
losing hazard into the left top pocket be desired, then left side must
be used, for the pocket is as blind as possible, and the side is
necessary not so much to keep ball 1 close to the cushion on its way to
the pocket, as to cause it to enter the pocket after contact with the
shoulder of the top cushion. For the cannon, the further ball 1 is from
ball 2 the safer is it to dispense with side and trust to follow.
Diagram II. shows types of losing hazards made by use of follow. Example
A may be set up by eye, measurements not being required. Play ball 1,
striking it about one-half left and over rather than under the height of
its centre; impact with ball 2 should be about three-quarters left or
fuller, and the latter ball will take a course somewhat as indicated by
the dotted line, on which it is evident that once out of baulk there is
a considerable margin as regards strength within which the ball is left
in play. If there is a heavy nap on the cloth, and if for some reason it
may be desired to play this stroke very gently, the reverse side may be
used, ball 1 being struck one-quarter right. The side acting against the
nap and outliving or predominating the forward motion (translation) will
powerfully draw the ball into the pocket. It is understood, of course,
that the reverse side is only used when playing against the nap of the
cloth.
Example B,—Ball 1: 30 in. from cushion 5, 15 in. from cushion 4. Ball 2:
12 in. from cushion 5, 3 in. from cushion 4. This is a useful stroke for
practice, and may be played in many ways, either without side or with
it, either gently or with considerable freedom, according to the
position in which it is desired to leave ball 2.
For a plain stroke deliver the cue medium No. 1 strength on ball 1
rather over centre than under, striking ball 2 three-quarters right or
fuller; ball 2 will rebound off two cushions towards the centre of the
table, leaving the path of ball 1 to the pocket clear. This stroke may
be varied by advancing ball 1 on the line 1, 2; but as the distance
between the balls decreases strength should be reduced and follow
increased, the reason being that there is less space within which ball 1
can develop rotation, which, therefore, must be artificially supplied.
Ball 1 may be retired on the same line, in which case the stroke is
plain—_i.e._ the cue is delivered on the centre of ball 1.
It may also be played with side, which has two effects, both beneficial.
If ball 1 be struck one-half left on ball 2, as before, nearly full, the
side used tends to prevent the common error of playing too fine on that
ball, and further it enlarges the pocket, or, in other words, will cause
ball 1 to drop into the pocket even if it may have touched the dangerous
shoulder, as that corner of the cushion is called which partly blinds
the pocket.
As a variation of this stroke, place ball 1 30 in. by 13 in., and ball 2
12 in. from cushion 5, and touching the bottom cushion—_i.e._ ball 1 is
moved 2 in. nearer the bottom cushion and ball 2 is set touching it, the
other measurements being unchanged. Play with strong left side, striking
ball 1 above the centre; impact with ball 2 as before. The stroke may be
played with almost any strength desired, and the distance between the
balls may be varied; the usual error is to play too fine on ball 2,
probably from forgetting to allow for the difference between the points
of impact and of aim. As certainty is acquired ball 2 may be placed
further from the pocket, when the stroke, though otherwise similar,
requires greater accuracy.
Example C is not of uncommon occurrence in a game, and is specially
useful when 2 happens to be the adversary’s ball which would be lost for
play if dropped into the pocket. By playing a free stroke with strong
left side full on ball 2, the latter is driven along the cushion,
catches in the shoulders of the pocket, and travels down the table,
leaving an open path for ball 1 to the pocket. Ball 1 should be struck
above the centre to secure follow, and with plenty of side, to cause it
to cling to the cushion. The stroke is an easy one, soon acquired; but
the same can scarcely be said respecting Example D, which, though merely
a variation, yet requires more judgment and accuracy. The difficulty, of
course, is how to give ball 2 time to take the corners of the pocket and
get out of the way. Solution is simple, and might be correctly arrived
at by a careful student who has read thus far; but the stroke requires
some neatness, and time and temper will be saved by watching an expert
and by playing before him. It is far from easy to describe such a stroke
so as to make its execution by another person certain; all that will be
said here is that, to give ball 2 the required time, ball 1 must after
impact travel very slowly, whilst ball 2 has considerable velocity, and
this is effected by delivering the cue slightly under the centre. If it
be struck too low or too sharply, it will stop altogether; and if struck
true centre or above, it will follow too soon and again collide with
ball 2, the result in both cases being failure.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
Diagram III.—Measurements are not required, as the balls can be placed
from the diagram with sufficient accuracy. From position 1″ the stroke
can be made by a well-executed screw either direct or off the top
cushion, but it is easier and more certain if played as a following
stroke; but from positions 1 and 1′ the screw is all but impossible,
whereas the high follow offers a reasonable prospect of scoring. Let the
cue be well aligned and let the player stand carefully, so as to ensure
free delivery. Get well down to the stroke; play ball 1 a free No. 2
strength, three-quarters high, nearly full on ball 2; after impact ball
1 will follow a path somewhat as indicated, the curve being usually very
pronounced. The first and sharper curve is apparently due to the rebound
after impact modified by the strong follow, whilst the second and more
gentle curve is the result of impact with the cushion. The tendency of
the latter is, of course, to reverse the follow and send the ball down
the table; but the strong follow appears to fight with this, and to
prevail so far as to maintain its bias for the cushion and its
disposition to return towards it. Ball 1 may almost be placed anywhere
towards the left side of the table, and the stroke remains much the
same. As the distance between balls 1 and 2 increases, follow becomes
less necessary, its place being supplied by naturally developed
rotation.
The variety of strokes which may be played on this principle is very
great. Too much force should not be employed, or that will in the final
conflict defeat the follow, of which it is ordinarily impossible to give
too much.
Fine strokes should rarely be attempted unless ball 1 is near ball 2;
they are, then, however, often of great value, because, being played
gently, the positions of the balls after the stroke can be foreseen with
tolerable accuracy. The great secret of success is to stand properly, so
that the edge of ball 2 may be clearly seen. A few examples are shown on
Diagram IV. They can be set up without measurement.
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
]
Example A.—A fine stroke on ball 2 will make the losing hazard and leave
that ball about 2′ .
Example B.—Ball 1 played fine on ball 2 will make the losing hazard and
leave an opening from baulk.
Example C.—A very useful stroke. Ball 1 played fine on ball 2 will
cannon rather full on ball 3, which it will drive as shown by the
dot-and-dash line; ball 1 will stop between the other two, and a winning
or losing hazard will almost certainly be left in either top pocket.
In playing nursery cannons fine strokes are often useful; indeed, a
player who possesses great delicacy of touch may make a series of
strokes yet scarcely move balls 2 or 3. These cannons will be considered
hereafter, and, therefore, are not at present further noticed.
Fine strokes have the following drawbacks: they must usually be played
so softly that the least obstacle or untrueness of ball will cause
deflection from the proper path; the target presented by ball 2 is
small, sometimes merely an edge; and an error so slight as to be
imperceptible in the division of ball 2 may result in leaving the balls
safe.
[Illustration:
A Push Stroke
]
The next variety of strokes to be considered are those in which the ball
is pushed rather than struck; they are usually subdivided into _push_
and _half-push_ strokes. Great difference of opinion exists as to
whether push strokes should be lawful in the game, but at present we are
not concerned with what should be, but with what is allowed. The
question whether, in the interest of billiards, the stroke should or
should not be foul will hereafter be considered; at present, it is
permitted by the rules, and without it much delicate play and many long
breaks would be sacrificed, consequently a few examples are introduced.
In learning this stroke, instruction from an expert is indispensable:
there are various ways of playing it, some grasping the cue tightly with
both hands to secure rigidity and sliding the bridge, which is
_bouclée_, the forefinger being hooked round the cue and the other
fingers shut on the cloth; others somewhat shorten the cue, or hold it
further from its butt and play over a bridge in the usual way; but in
any case the cue-tip should be brought as close as possible to ball 1,
short, of course, of touching it, and not withdrawn before the stroke,
but pushed gently and steadily forward. Contact between cue-tip and ball
1 must be preserved till the position occupied by ball 2 is passed, and
ordinarily no more strength should be employed than is necessary to
carry ball 1 either to ball 3 or to the pocket. The idea of the stroke
is that, by dint of steady pushing, ball 2 is removed from the path of
ball 1, which is more nearly unaltered on impact the more perfectly the
stroke is made. In practice, if the distance between ball 2 and the
pocket or ball 3 is considerable, some allowance must be made, and the
player cannot safely ignore ball 2; he must not push exactly for the
part of ball 3 he desires to hit, or straight for the pocket, but
compensate for the throw-off from ball 2 by aiming somewhat fuller than
would be necessary were it removed. The more perfect the performer, the
more may ball 2 be neglected, and the less compensating allowance is
necessary. For example, if the cue-tip were stuck to ball 1, so that
interruption to contact was impossible, ball 2 might be wholly
neglected; ball 1 could be pushed through a pyramid of balls and made to
enter a pocket, or cannon simply by aligning correctly and pushing
straight for the object. By common consent, however, long push
strokes—_i.e._ when ball 1 is far from ball 2—are avoided; it is very
difficult, if not impossible, to make them without interruption to the
contact between cue-tip and ball, and consequently they either fail if
the cue be withdrawn, or are foul if it be reapplied.
Some cases when the push stroke is specially useful are shown in Diagram
V. A is an example of the commonest and simplest type. Ball 1 pushed on
the alignment shown will move ball 2 slightly to the left (thereby
opening the losing hazard from baulk), and cannon full on ball 3,
leaving a losing hazard in the middle pocket.
B. Ball 1 pushed gently through ball 2 on the alignment shown, will
enter the pocket and leave a losing hazard from baulk.
C is a _bricole_ push, a useful and very pretty stroke. The three balls
are so nearly in a straight line, so near each other and so near the top
cushion—which, however, they do not touch—that a score by an ordinary
push or stroke is impossible. If, however, the cue be aligned as shown,
and ball 1 be pushed without touching ball 2 on to the cushion, it will
escape between the cue-tip and cushion in the direction of ball 2, and,
entering between it and the cushion, will push it out of the way and
make the cannon.
This stroke is made easier and more certain if the cue is applied to the
left side of ball 1; if by chance it was applied to the right of the
centre, there would be much probability of the ball becoming jammed
between cue and cushion.
D is another ingenious adaptation of the push stroke. Ball 1 pushed
gently on ball 2, which touches the cushion, is slightly kissed and
travels quietly to ball 3, whilst ball 2 squeezed between ball 1 and the
cushion indents the latter slightly and escapes to rejoin the group at
ball 3. Some players, perhaps Mitchell specially, use this stroke with
great effect in nursery cannons.
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
]
In Example E the situation is shown when assistance cannot be got from a
cushion. The balls are too nearly in a straight line for the ordinary
push, it being impossible to get 2 out of the way before 3 is reached;
if, however, the cue be carefully aligned on the right edge of ball 3, a
steady push will result in 2 striking 3 on the left, causing it to
travel to the right, where it meets ball 1, which has been slightly
deflected in the same direction. This is a pretty example of a class of
strokes which requires great accuracy of eye and a wonderfully just
judgment to invent or to modify in a game; of course, when a situation
somewhat similar to that now shown occurs, and a player profits by the
advice given here, he may not necessarily possess these qualities in an
eminent degree, but his recognition of the stroke and its successful
execution will encourage him to try modification, and may elicit the
sound judgment which is so greatly to be desired.
On Diagram VI. A is an example of as easy a push hazard as can be found
on the table. Ball 1 is very close to or touching the top cushion, ball
2 partly masks the pocket. Align the cue parallel to the cushion, and
push ball 1 along its edge past ball 2, which may be wholly neglected.
The cushion forms a guide to both cue and ball, and the stroke can
scarcely be missed.
B is a modification of the cannon already explained (Diagram V., Example
C). In this case, ball 2 is too immediately in front of the pocket and
too nearly equidistant from the top cushion with ball 1 to permit of the
treatment just recommended for A. It is necessary to align the cue as
shown, and to push ball 1 on its right side to the cushion. The squeeze
between cue and cushion will cause that ball to remove ball 2 and enter
the pocket.
The half-push is quite a different stroke from the push; it has always
been considered a fair stroke, whilst some years ago the push stroke was
held to be foul; but both are open to the same objection.
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
]
When balls 1 and 2 are very near each other, their surfaces being not
much more than an inch apart, and ball 3 is so placed that the cannon
would ordinarily be made by use of follow, but so far away that
sufficient follow cannot be communicated to ball 1, the stroke may be
made by the half-push. C is a favourable example. Ball 1 is on the right
corner of the =Ｄ=; ball 2 immediately in front of it, slightly nearer
cushion 3; ball 3 is placed, say, 30 in. from the top cushion, and so
near cushion 2 that a ball cannot pass between them. Imagine a straight
line through the centres of 1 and 2 prolonged to P, a point equally
distant from 2 with ball 3. Halve the space between P and ball 3, and
let Q be that point. Strike ball 1 in the centre about No. 3 strength,
aiming at Q, or slightly nearer ball 3, as a precaution, because there
is a large margin for error on the right of that ball; it will deflect
sufficiently to make the cannon. Similarly, it is evident losing hazards
can be made by the half-push, the pocket being substituted for ball 3,
but they are seldom useful and will not be further considered.
In making push strokes, good players often apply the cue to the side
instead of to the centre of ball 1, with the view of supporting it and
of modifying its escape on that side. This precaution is often required
in order to obtain position.
_Kiss Strokes._—In the English game the term kiss is used rather
vaguely, so that precise definition is difficult if not impossible. It
includes the strokes which the French call _coups durs_, in which ball 2
is touching a cushion and cannot give way as usual, but throws off ball
1 with the recoil of balls and cushion combined, as well as those termed
_rencontres_, or the meeting of balls 1 and 3, the former having been
put in motion by the cue and the latter by collision with ball 2.
Of the former kind examples are shown in Diagrams VII. and VIII. In
playing these strokes recollect that screw or retrograde rotation
augments the velocity of ball 1 after impact, whereas follow has the
opposite effect.
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
]
[Illustration:
A Push (_bouclée_)
]
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
]
Example A, Diagram VII., is the simplest form of the stroke, the three
balls being in one line—ball 2 against the cushion, and ball 1 between 2
and 3; a stroke full on ball 2 will result in a cannon. B is a
modification, for ball 3 is out of the straight line; the cannon is made
by a slight division of ball 2, say ¾ right; if ball 1 be played on that
spot it will cannon on ball 3. The student can set up examples for
himself, and by careful division of ball 2 make many cannons. The
greater the distance ball 1 has to travel, the lower and harder must it
be struck. A very excellent practice to train the eye to the angles and
the hand to control strength is afforded by Example C, which is
otherwise not of much use in a game. Mark the positions of balls 1 and 2
slightly with pipeclay, and try to make losing hazards into every pocket
on the table. After each stroke the balls are replaced, and the number
of strokes taken to make the six losing hazards is the measure of
accuracy in play. The first stroke into the right bottom pocket is easy;
it will soon be made in one trial, for it is almost a plain half-ball
stroke. The second into the left bottom pocket is perhaps the most
difficult of all, for not merely has ball 2 to be correctly divided but
strong left side is used; the left middle and top pockets are made
direct, accuracy depending solely on the correct division of ball 2,
finer for the former, fuller for the latter pocket. The right top and
right side pockets are made off the cushion, and in the last-named side
is used. This hazard may be made without a kiss; ball 1, played a free
No. 1 strength half-ball on ball 2, will touch bottom and side cushions
and travel towards right middle pocket. It is needless to enter into
further detail, for the advantage of the stroke is to accustom the eye
to the angles at which ball 1 comes off the various divisions of ball 2,
and that is learnt solely by practice. To try for the pockets merely
gives an object or interest to the stroke, and, if further incentive be
required, back yourself to complete the hazards in fewer strokes than
another person may require. The practical application of the knowledge
thus obtained is that, should ball 3 happen to be on the lines 2P, 2P′,
2P″, or 2P‴, the cannon may be played with some confidence, and if it be
anywhere else on the table, a reasonable attempt to score may, if
needful, be made, and a game _in extremis_ may thus be saved.
Diagram VIII.—Example A is an easy and useful stroke. Ball 1 is 30 in.
from cushion 3, 15 in. from bottom cushion; ball 2 on the baulk-line
touching cushion 3; ball 3 is as shown in the neighbourhood, say 18 in.
from the right top pocket and within 2 in. of cushion 2. Play ball 1
with high right side half-ball or slightly fuller on ball 2, free No. 1
strength.
Example B is, in its way, a curiosity, but the stroke is by no means
devoid of use. First, suppose ball 2 on the baulk-line touching the
cushion at its left extremity. Place ball 1 for a half-ball kiss hazard
into the right top pocket. This is squarer than an ordinary half-ball
angle, because ball 2, being against the cushion, cannot give way; but
the difference is not as great as might be imagined, and the stroke is
not very difficult. What is curious, however, is that, if ball 2 be
moved a certain distance up the cushion to positions 2′, 2″, &c., a
half-ball cannon will be made on balls placed 3′, 3″, &c., at exactly
the same distance along the top cushion. That is, if ball 3 be placed at
the centre of the fall of the pocket, the distances between 3 and 3′,
and 3′ and 3″, shall exactly equal those between 2 and 2′, and 2′ and
2″.
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
]
The other class of kiss strokes is illustrated in Diagram IX., from
which it is seen that ball 2 is in no case touching the cushion, but
that (except in case E) it is used to kiss or plant ball 3 in such a
direction that it advances to meet ball 1, and the cannon is thus
effected. In case E the course of ball 1 is modified by a second impact
with ball 2.
Example A. The three balls are in a straight line perpendicular to the
cushion. If ball 1 be played absolutely full on 2, that ball will strike
3 full also, and no score will be made; but if ball 2 be struck slightly
out of the centre—that is, between centre and ¾—a cannon will result.
Play ball 1 a soft No. 1 strength slightly to the right of the centre of
ball 2, which will travel proportionately to the left and strike ball 3
to the left of its centre. Ball 3 will strike the cushion slightly to
the right of the perpendicular line, and, returning therefrom, will meet
ball 1 when the cannon is complete. Ball 2 may be struck similarly on
the left of its centre, and the stroke be made on the same principle as
before.
Example B. Balls 2 and 3 touch, and the line through their centres is
slightly inclined to the cushion. Ball 1 is so placed that the fine
cannon is either impossible or dangerous. Play a gentle No. 1 centre
stroke on ball 2 about three-quarters left; ball 3 will be planted on to
the cushion, and, returning, will meet ball 1. The general fault is to
play too fine on ball 2, but the stroke is easy.
Example C. Place the balls as shown; do not attempt the fine stroke, but
play half-ball on ball 2; the cannon is inevitable.
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
]
Example D partakes more of the nature of a fancy stroke than of one
useful in games; nevertheless, it illustrates in a striking way what may
be done by means of the kiss or plant. Set up the balls as shown in a
straight line. Balls 2 and 3 should touch, and ball 1 should be a little
apart, to permit of a stroke on ball 2. The balls should touch or be
very near the side cushion. Play ball 1 one-quarter right, No. 2
strength on ball 2, so as to impinge on the side cushion above the right
middle pocket. Ball 2, being thus struck rather fine, causes ball 3 to
travel at a moderate pace down the table towards baulk, whilst ball 1,
travelling faster, comes off cushion 2 and meets or catches ball 3
generally in baulk. A similar and easier stroke may be from positions
1′, 2′, 3′, near cushion 5, ball 1 being played on ball 2 to strike
cushion 3.
Example E is a very pretty little stroke, which may be thus placed.
Ball 1: 6½ in. from cushion 6, 7 in. from top cushion.
Ball 2: 11½ in. „ 6, 2½ in. „
Ball 3: 19½ in. „ 6, 7½ in. „
It will be observed that there is no direct stroke whereby ball 2 may be
kept at the top of the table, nor is the fine side stroke (ball 1 with
strong right side played fine on the left of ball 2) possible; in fact,
the position seems far from being desirable. Yet, if the directions for
playing this stroke be followed, the cannon will be found almost a
certainty, and the balls will generally be well left for further play.
The stroke is made thus: play ball 1 centre, a soft No. 1 on ball 2,
three-quarters right, which will return from the cushion, kiss ball 1 on
to ball 3, and often remain between ball 1 and the pocket. Hence, if
ball 2 be the red, a better opening for a break could scarcely be
desired. The stroke should first be practised from the positions
indicated until fair certainty is acquired, then the positions may be
slightly varied, and it may with advantage be set up without
measurement, so that the eye may become trained and able to recognise
the situation should it occur in a game.
Example F happens occasionally, and, therefore, it is well to be
prepared. The three balls are in one straight line, and the situation
generally comes about thus: the red ball being on the spot, the
adversary’s ball happens to stop directly above it, between the red and
the top cushion, ball 1 being in hand. The easiest way to score is to
place ball 1 in line with balls 2 and 3, in this case on the centre spot
of the =Ｄ=, and play full on ball 2. Personal inaccuracy will in this
case insure the score, for ball 2 will rarely be struck so full as to
impinge on the centre of ball 3; it will strike it on one side or the
other, and a cannon will result on the same principle as that explained
under Example A.
The general warning as to kiss strokes should be remembered. Avoid
attempting doubtful strokes, specially when the balls are not close
together.
_Jennies._—In Chapter V. p. 160, an example of the plain half-ball
stroke was described, and whenever the pocket is fairly open these
strokes can be best made without side; but when the pocket is very
blind, the losing hazard cannot be thus made, and side, which takes ball
1 into the pocket after touching the farther shoulder, must be employed.
The nearer ball 2 is to the side cushion the more difficult is the
stroke and the more side is required. The general fault in playing these
strokes is that ball 2 is struck too full, a natural result of the use
of reverse side, of which it is impossible to put on too much, specially
for long jennies.
Diagram X.—Example A.
Ball 1: about 1 in. behind and right of the centre spot of the =Ｄ=.
Ball 2: 22¼ in. below the left middle pocket, 6¼ in. from the side
cushion.
Play ball 1 one-quarter left medium No. 1 strength on ball 2, half-ball
or rather finer; the hazard will be made off the far shoulder of the
pocket, and ball 2 will rebound nearly perpendicular to the side cushion
towards the centre of the table.
Example B.
Ball 1: on baulk-line, 8 in. to the right of centre.
Ball 2: 10½ in. below the right middle pocket, 4 in. from cushion 3.
Play ball 1 one-quarter right free No. 1 on ball 2 half-ball or finer.
The more side the stroke is played with the better; it will often
compensate for inaccuracy of aim.
Example C.
Ball 1: as in last example.
Ball 2: 9 in. above the left middle pocket, 4 in. from cushion 6.
Play ball 1 one-quarter left No. 1 strength on ball 2 from half-ball to
quarter-ball.
Jennies are not nearly so difficult as they seem at first sight. The
general rules for playing them are, for middle pockets, plain wherever
possible, ball 1 being struck rather below than above the centre. But
when ball 2 is so near the side cushion that the hazard cannot be made
by a plain stroke, and for long jennies, use as much side as possible
and endeavour to aim on ball 2 finer than half-ball.
In Diagram XI. a few examples will be found of _bricole_ strokes, or
those in which ball 1 strikes a cushion before impact with ball 2, side
being used. Plain strokes of the sort have been mentioned in Chapter VI.
Example A.
Ball 1: on baulk-line a little to the right of centre.
Ball 2: over the left bottom pocket as shown.
Play ball 1 one-quarter right, aiming just out of baulk, No. 1 strength;
the side, if correctly judged, will bring the ball back as indicated,
and the losing hazard may be made.
Example B.
Ball 1: on the centre spot.
Ball 2: on the centre transverse line of the table overhanging the
pocket, with just room on either side for ball 1 to pass without
touching it.
[Illustration:
Diagram X.
]
The losing hazard may be easily made as shown from either side of ball
2. Take first that from the left side. Play ball 1 one-quarter right,
medium No. 1 strength, so as just to pass ball 2 to the left without
touching; ball 1 will return from within the shoulder, strike ball 2,
and fall into the pocket. For the hazard from the right of ball 2, ball
1 is played one-quarter left, to pass the right of ball 2.
Example C is precisely the same stroke into a corner pocket.
Example D may occasionally be of use, though generally a miss would be
the proper game under the circumstances. Ball 1 is supposed to be in
hand, ball 3 having stopped near ball 2 on the spot, but not
sufficiently straight above it to warrant playing for the kiss cannon.
In this case the knowledge acquired by playing an old fancy stroke—to
make the losing hazard off ball 2 from baulk by playing _bricole_—is
utilised. In that stroke an approximate guide as to the point of aim on
the side cushion was obtained by aligning the cue so as to pass over the
left bottom pocket, and the left corner of the =Ｄ=: the prolongation of
that line indicated the point. Hence, by aiming a little above the point
thus found, ball 2 is struck on the right side, and the cannon is
possible. Place ball 1 on the left corner of the =Ｄ=, play a free No. 1
strength at the side cushion, aiming as directed. One or two trials will
determine the correct point of aim with a given strength; if the
strength is altered, the angle of reflexion will also alter.
Example E, on the other hand, is perfectly simple and most useful.
Measurements are unnecessary. Play ball 1 to the cushion with slight
right side; ball 2 will be pocketed, and ball 1 will rest in a good
position for a losing hazard from spot into the right top pocket.
Example F.—Ball 1 in hand, balls 2 and 3 as shown about the diameter of
a ball or a little more from the side cushion, so placed that the fine
cannon from 2 to 3 would be very difficult. By placing ball 1 on the
baulk-line as shown, and by playing with a little right side behind ball
2, ball 1 will, after impact, run down the cushion and make the cannon.
When the eye is trained, ball 2 may be a considerable distance—say six
or eight inches—from the cushion, and the stroke may be made with a
reasonable chance of success, whereas played in any other way the result
would almost certainly be failure.
[Illustration:
Diagram XI.
]
_Plants_ (see definition in Chapter III.) are perhaps more connected
with pyramids and pool than with billiards; nevertheless, they may be
occasionally used, and, therefore, must be briefly considered. The
simplest form is when the centres of balls 2 and 3 are on a straight
line which leads to the centre of a pocket. (See Diagram XII.)
Example A.—Balls 2 and 3 are on the line P Q and touch each other. Ball
1 may be on any part of the table from which ball 2 may be struck save
the small corner cut off by the line R S perpendicular to Q P, and if
played on ball 2 with sufficient strength ball 3 will run into the left
bottom pocket. It is hardly possible to miss the winning hazard, and
hence, whenever two balls touch and are so aligned, a very easy stroke
is presented if ball 1 be suitably placed; for, no matter how badly it
may be played on ball 2, ball 3 must of necessity travel to the pocket.
So far the matter is simple enough; but the next example, B, at once
introduces difficulties which it is proposed to observe and notice
rather than attempt to explain. A glance at the diagram will show that
in this case G H, the alignment through the centres of balls 2 and 3,
does not terminate in the pocket, but falls slightly without; hence, if
the plant were played in the ordinary way, ball 3 would impinge near the
shoulder at H. In the first place, let ball 1 be removed from the table,
and let the problem be to play ball 2 with the cue so as to put ball 3
into the pocket. If this stroke be presented without explanation, nine
men out of ten or more will attack ball 2 from the baulk side, playing
towards the top of the table. The more they do this the further up the
table will ball 3 strike the cushion; but let the player go round and
place his cue on the alignment shown so as to strike ball 2 on its side
towards the top of the table—that is with right side—a medium No. 1
stroke, when, wonderful to relate, ball 3 will travel to the pocket in
the most docile manner. That having been established to the satisfaction
of the player, let him replace ball 1 on the table anywhere as
shown—that is, in any of the positions marked 1 or in any intermediate
position. For the stroke as now set up, play ball 1 one-half left, No. 1
strength, on ball 2 half-ball or fuller to the right; again ball 3 will
roll obediently to the pocket. If by an error of judgment ball 2 be
played on to the left, ball 3 will strike the cushion above the point H.
[Illustration:
Diagram XII.
]
Example C is merely an amplification of the same stroke. Ball 2 is
conveniently placed in front of the pocket, and ball 3 is placed
touching it first on the line P R, when the straight plant is to the
left of the pocket, and next on the line P S, when it is to the right;
ball 1 being somewhere as shown, an exact position for it being of no
consequence. Now, when ball 3 is on the line P R, to the left of the
pocket, play ball 1 on the left side of ball 2; when it is on the line P
S, to the right of the pocket, play to the right of ball 2; in both
cases the winning hazard will be triumphantly made.
These strokes are capable of ready demonstration on a table, but the
laws which govern them are not certainly known. The results seem to
point partly to transmitted side, but that is scarcely sufficient to
account for so considerable a deviation from the straight plant,
specially if it be considered that such side can hardly be detected by
the unassisted human eye. Very likely, when once it is understood, the
explanation will seem simple enough; at present, so far as is known, the
result has not been accounted for in a satisfactory manner.
Example D is worth mentioning and worthy of practice; like most other
strokes, it can be far more satisfactorily explained on the table by a
man who can play it than by the most careful description on paper; yet,
as in spot play and possibly in other circumstances it may be useful, an
attempt to convey an idea of the stroke will be made. Ball 2 is on the
spot; ball 1, too near it for any ordinary stroke with fair chance of
success, but not necessarily touching, is first on the line T U, the
straight plant being therefore on the point U. Now, if the cue be
aligned as shown on the right side of ball 1, pointing towards X, and a
medium No. 1 strength be delivered, ball 2 will be deflected into the
pocket. Conversely, when ball 1 is on the line V W, close to ball 2, the
cue must be aligned on a point Y below W, and a stroke on the left side
of ball 1 will, as before, result in sending ball 2 to the pocket. The
principle is apparently the same in all oblique plants, if those may be
so called whose path is not the prolongation of the straight line
through the centres of the two balls.
In Example C ball 3, and in Example D ball 1, are not drawn, in order to
avoid complicating the diagram; their positions are indicated by the
figures.
The subject of screw strokes was fully considered in last chapter, and
practice was recommended with the view of facilitating the acquirement
of the stroke rather than of illustrating its application to the game;
hence it is now appropriate to give some useful examples.
Diagram XIII. Example A.—Balls 1, 2, and 3 as shown. This stroke may be
played in many ways, depending on where it is desired to leave the
balls. If ball 2 is to be brought back, play ball 1 one-quarter low
about No. 2 strength nearly full on ball 2, which will travel to and
return from cushion 1; ball 1, having parted with its velocity, will
return slowly to ball 3, and the three balls should be left together. It
might be desirable to play the stroke in a totally different manner if,
for example, 2 were the adversary’s ball. In this case it would suffice
to send ball 2 up the table towards spot, and cannon on ball 3 so as to
leave a winning hazard in the left bottom pocket. To do this the
strength communicated to ball 2 must be diminished, and this may be
effected by playing finer on that ball and by using more screw in
compensation.
Example B is a good practice stroke, and may be played harder or softer
at will. It does not require to be laid down by measurement, and may be
set up wherever convenient. Play ball 1 about one-half low and left,
medium No. 1 strength on ball 2, about three-quarters right.
Example C, a screw back losing hazard, is often useful, ball 1 being
between ball 2 and the pocket; no instruction is required beyond that
given in last chapter for playing the stroke. It may be varied by moving
ball 2 round ball 1 as far as the cushions will permit; the stroke is
always possible, and in trying to make it some practical lessons in the
matter of compensation will be learnt.
Example D.—Place the balls as shown. Play ball 1 three-quarters low on
ball 2, half-ball or rather fuller, but avoid the kiss. Ball 1 will
travel up cushion 2 and make the cannon or hazard, whilst ball 2 will
escape towards the left middle pocket.
Example E is a screw off a fine ball, a stroke at which many amateurs
fail chiefly because they do not stand properly for it—do not usually
align their cue fine enough on ball 2. If played very slowly, very fine,
and with the maximum of screw, the stroke is perhaps more certain of
execution, but ball 2 will probably be left in baulk. To obviate this,
play rather fuller, with less screw, and with more strength. The stroke
is conveniently made from the spot, ball 1 being placed variously
between the angle at which a losing hazard with side can be made and the
vertical, or when the ball 1 is directly above the spot. The position
shown in the diagram is a fair one, the stroke being not very difficult;
it becomes more so as ball 1 approaches the position above the spot. It
may be thus played: Align the cue as shown for a fine stroke, play ball
1 one-half low No. 2 strength on ball 2, one-quarter right. It is
difficult in a stroke of this nature to give precise instructions for
making it, because it varies with every slight variation of the position
of ball 1 and with the power of each player to communicate screw; hence
it is advisable at first to get the assistance of a competent person,
and then to practise before minor details are forgotten.
Example F is well worth mastering; it is easier the nearer ball 2 is to
the pocket. Play ball 1 one-half low and right on ball 2 about
three-quarters left a free No. 1 strength. Ball 2 may thus be brought
out of baulk, whilst the reverse side carries ball 1 into the pocket. In
strokes of this kind care should be taken to avoid the kiss.
[Illustration:
Diagram XIII.
]
Close screws, when ball 1 is so near ball 2 that the stroke cannot be
made in the ordinary way, are worth mastering, but as some execution is
required, they should at first be played under professional supervision.
The chief point about them is to convey to ball 1 a maximum or nearly so
of screw and side; the cue has to be delivered with great freedom, and
ball 1 passes well beyond the position occupied by ball 2, then the
forward force (translation) having been chiefly transferred to ball 2,
the screw and side conquer the small balance left and ball 1 returns
more or less towards the player. A rather neat example of a close screw
is shown on Diagram XIV., and may be set up on the table without
measurements. Play ball 1 one-half low and one-half right, a free No. 2
strength on ball 2 between three-quarters left and centre, so as to
cause its return after impact with cushion 1; ball 1 should make the
cannon off cushion 4 and perhaps cushion 5 as well, and the three balls
should be gathered at the left bottom pocket. This kind of stroke is
useful for losing hazards also, but should not be practised until the
player has acquired much confidence in the delivery of his cue, lest
accidents should happen.
Another stroke which must be noticed, though it should be rarely
employed, is that known as the _leap_ or _jump_, whereby ball 1 leaves
the bed of the table during part of its course. It is made in two ways:
either by laying the cue on the table, aligning it as usual in the
direction desired for ball 1, and striking that ball so low that the tip
touches the cloth before it reaches the ball. This is practically
equivalent to putting the cue under the ball and throwing the latter
upwards; but there being at the same time a forward motion, the result
is a leap higher and longer in proportion to the strength of stroke.
Played in this way there is no danger of cutting a sound cloth, and the
ball may be made to jump higher with less strength, and to be better
under control than when the leap is otherwise effected.
[Illustration:
Diagram XIV.
]
Ball 1 may also be made to leap by striking it down towards the bed, the
cue being oblique, its butt elevated—in fact, by an exaggerated stab.
The ball is thus momentarily squeezed between cue-tip and bed, and leaps
as it escapes from the pressure. This stroke should be practised with
the greatest moderation; indeed, not at all until the player is well
experienced and confident in handling the cue, for it commonly results
in knocking the balls off the table and damaging them, and may further
cut the cloth. The stroke is sometimes of use, and, therefore, must not
be ignored; but it is safe to say that no one who valued his table or a
good set of balls would willingly see them used for this class of
practice.
[Illustration:
The leap or jump stroke
]
Diagram XV. shows a few instances in which the leap stroke is
legitimate, and as safe for the balls and table as is possible under the
circumstances.
Example A.—It is desired to play the winning hazard on ball 3 without
disturbing ball 2. Align the cue on the table in the direction required
for the hazard, see that the tip is on the cloth and kept there, and
play a medium No. 1 strength. Ball 1 will leap over ball 2 and make the
winning hazard.
[Illustration:
Diagram XV.
]
Example B.—The three balls as shown are in a straight line with no
reasonable chance of a score. The situation happened at a critical
moment in a match which the writer played many years ago, and a
successful leap cannon enabled him to win. Place the cue in alignment
with the three balls, and play the stroke as directed for the previous
example; ball 1 should jump on ball 2 and roll off to ball 3. The
difficulty, of course, is to control the strength used; the top of ball
2 must be cleared, and yet the ball must not be wholly missed. It is a
question of nerve and judgment tempered very considerably with good
luck. There is little or no danger to cloth or balls in practising this
stroke.
Example C is one which is not infrequently played in exhibition games.
Ball 2 is so placed that it cannot be got rid of by means of the
shoulders of the pocket, and there is not sufficient room for a cushion
or _bricole_ hazard. A delicate leap stroke played between ball and
cushion will make the losing hazard. It is not a desirable stroke for a
beginner to practise, for he will inevitably cause ball 1 to jump beyond
the pocket and roll away till brought up by some obstacle more or less
destructive.
Example D is of a class which occurs occasionally in actual play. Balls
1, 2, 3 are nearly in a straight line, ball 3 being about 2 in. from the
side cushion, so that a ball cannot pass between. An ordinary following
stroke is difficult and uncertain, so usually the best play would be to
give a miss; but the state of the game may render that impossible or
undesirable, in which case the best chance of scoring is to strike down
on ball 1, causing it to leap on to ball 2, which in turn bounds away,
leaving the course clear for ball 1 to reach ball 3 and make the cannon
either direct, off the side cushion, or even possibly from the top
cushion.
The effect of ball 1, so struck, causing ball 2 in turn to leap, is
prettily shown by placing the pool basket and balls as drawn in Example
E. A smart stroke down on ball 1 will cause ball 2 to jump into the
basket.
Many examples of fancy strokes made by means of the leap could be given,
but they are purposely withheld, as there is no wish to encourage
experiment as useless to the game as it is detrimental to the
implements.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
_Piqué_ and _massé_ are not often used in English billiards; the latter,
indeed, seldom or never, whilst the former, when used, is miscalled
_massé_. They form in reality a continuation of the series of strokes
which, departing from the normal or horizontal, culminate in one
delivered vertically on the top of the ball. Thus, in fig. 1, Q, Q′,
&c., represent the axes of a cue presented at various angles to the ball
whose centre is C on the table T T. It has already been explained, but
may without harm be repeated, that, the strength of stroke being equal,
the maximum forward motion to the ball, or translation, is given by the
horizontal delivery of the cue on the line Q C. As the angle of delivery
increases, so does the forward impulse decrease until the limit 90°, or
a vertical stroke, is reached, when there is manifestly no forward
motion communicated to the ball, the entire force of the stroke being
counteracted by the rigidity of the table. Now, without any attempt at
fine distinction or any claim to precise accuracy, it may, in a rough
way, be said that plain strokes are delivered on the axis Q C; that
stabs lie between that and Q′ C, which is at an angle of 45° with Q C,
or half-way to the vertical; that _piqué_ commences at Q′ C and ends at
Q″ C, beyond which the strokes are termed _massé_. This is not exactly
correct, for there may be a _massé_ with less inclination than Q′ C, the
real distinction between _piqué_ and _massé_ being that in the former
the cue’s axis is directed to the centre of the ball, and therefore the
effect is to drive it straight with reverse or retrograde rotation; in
the latter, the cue’s axis is not directed through the centre, but on
one side or other of it, with the consequence that the path of the ball
is no longer a straight but a curved line. This is the case to such an
extent that the rotation round an oblique axis will often conquer the
small measure of translation or displacement conveyed by the stroke and
produce some beautiful curves.
Now, so long as the push stroke is allowed, _massé_ will not be much
attempted; it is difficult of execution at any time and in any position,
impossible on a large English table save when the balls are near a
cushion. It further has the great disadvantage, when played hard, of
causing a dent or pit in the cloth sufficient to deflect or arrest a
very slow ball, and therefore soon spoils a cloth near the cushions on
the very part most used for nursery cannons. It is also doubtful whether
with the most skilful manipulation effect can be got with small balls
and fine-pointed cues at all equal to that which is obtained in the
French game. Hence for many reasons we are indisposed to recommend the
study and practice of this undoubtedly beautiful stroke.
Quite otherwise, however, with _piqué_, which may often be used with
advantage in the English game and without harm to the table. The stroke
is indispensable when ball 1 is so near ball 2 that the screw back
cannot be made in the ordinary way, or when the cushion prevents the
application of the cue to the proper part of the ball. In Diagram XVI. a
few examples are shown. A learner should get some person who can make
them—and they are all very simple—to play the strokes before him once or
twice, when he will observe that no great strength is required: the
weight of the cue let drop on the right part of ball 1 will almost do
what is needed, and by restraint of force the danger of cutting the
cloth is greatly reduced. More harm is done by hitting the ball hard
vertically, for then the cloth is damaged in the same way, though not so
badly as when a careless or thoughtless person in spotting the red ball,
finding that it has a tendency to move on the spot, hammers it down with
force, thus in a very short time forming a cup sufficient to ruin all
delicate play from the spot, and with a hard stroke very likely to cause
the red ball to fly off the table. The practice is most reprehensible,
and persons doing it should invariably be remonstrated with, for they
are ruining the table for more intelligent players.
[Illustration:
Diagram XVI.
]
Example A. Balls as shown. Play ball 1 a gentle _piqué_, the cue at an
angle of about 60°, inside, _i.e._ to the left of the centre of ball 2;
ball 1 will return and cannon on ball 3; ball 2 will be left in the
neighbourhood of the left bottom pocket. If it be desired to move ball 2
very slightly, the stroke may be played _massé_, the cue being nearly
vertical, and ball 1 struck slightly to the right of the centre, nearer
ball 3 than the centre. This mode of play gives greater rotation but
less forward motion to ball 1.
Example B. Balls as shown. Play ball 1 _piqué_, cue from 50° to 60°
according to the distance it is desired to make ball 2 travel; aim at
ball 2 about three-quarters right, a clean gentle stroke, say equal to a
medium No. 1. Ball 1 will make the losing hazard.
Example C. Balls as shown. Play ball 1 _piqué_ 45° to 50° nearly full on
ball 2, which will cross the table and return or remain near the spot as
may be desired. The strength employed should be almost entirely
communicated to ball 2, whilst the rotation will make the cannon. If
ball 2 be the red, it may be as well to bring the balls together for the
next stroke; if it should be the adversary’s ball, it would be better
play to leave it near the spot and pocket the red next stroke.
Example D. Balls as shown. Ball 1 is too near the top cushion for a
screw in the ordinary way, whilst ball 3 is so placed that a ball cannot
pass between it and the cushion. Play ball 1 _piqué_ 55° to 65°, so as
to bring it well on the right or cushion side of ball 3, which is by its
situation what is termed in billiard language greatly enlarged. A few
remarks respecting this term will be found a little further on.
Respecting _massé_ proper, it is not proposed to write in detail. Those
who desire more information are referred to ‘Le Billard,’ by M.
Vignaux,[16] from which excellent work, though on the French game, much
may be learnt by players of the English game. Two of his remarks may be
quoted:—‘No stroke is more difficult. Good players hesitate to attempt
it, for the slightest inadvertence causes failure. The fault of amateurs
is always to play too hard, a stroke which requires the greatest
delicacy and the lightest possible touch.’
This chapter may be suitably closed with a few remarks on what are
called precautions and compensations. In certain situations we have
already frequently remarked that a pocket was blind—that is, was more or
less narrowed by one of its shoulders, and as a precaution, if a hazard
is desired the player has been warned to avoid the dangerous shoulder.
Sometimes it is sufficient to play inside the other shoulder; at other
times, when the pocket is more blind or less open, reverse side has to
be added in the case of losing hazards to induce the ball to enter the
pocket after contact with the far shoulder. The side so used is said to
enlarge the pocket, and the expression is appropriate, for if the ball
struck the part of the shoulder which is exposed and had no side it
would simply rebound and remain on the table; the side overcomes this
tendency and the hazard is made. Again, in case of cannons, a cushion or
two cushions, if judiciously made use of, similarly enlarge the size of
a ball. When ball 3 is near an angle of the table so placed that another
ball cannot pass between it and either cushion, a very large target is
presented, and there is room for much inaccuracy without imperilling
success. The thoughtful player will avail himself of this when it is of
paramount importance to make the stroke, as, for example, when it is the
game stroke, and so aim as to have the widest margin for error on either
side. This is an instance in which there are many chances whereby a
cannon may be made direct or off either cushion, so that ball 3 has for
practical purposes a size equal to three or four balls.
Similarly, when a ball is within a diameter of a cushion, it may be
enlarged by judicious precaution.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
Thus, in fig. 2, C C is the cushion, 1, 2, 3 are the balls. If it were
the last stroke of the game, and therefore the cannon were of chief
importance, the stroke should be played to make ball 1 after impact with
ball 2 travel towards a point P between ball 3 and the cushion, and not
direct on that ball. If ball 1 should strike the cushion anywhere from
P′ to a point opposite the centre of ball 3, the cannon is certain;
hence, aiming at P, a convenient spot between P′ and ball 3, a margin
for error is left on either side.
The subject of compensation is very interesting, and its proper use is
one of the refinements of play. Certain elementary forms will be
described, but the application of the principle to the execution of
strokes must be left to the intelligence of the player; and this may
with safety and a clear conscience be done, for the less ambitious and
clever player will not concern himself with the question.
Perhaps the simplest form with which ordinary amateurs are familiar is
that whereby the angle between the paths of ball 1 before and after
impact with ball 2 is diminished or enlarged by side which compensates
for strength. Thus, taking plain losing hazards of the simplest type
(Diagram IV. p. 157), side may be substituted for strength, and the
angle of deviation altered so that with the strength prescribed for the
first hazard the second and even the third hazard may be made.
Similarly, reverse side will compensate for fine striking; it will, in
other words, decrease the angle of deviation.
These remarks of course apply equally to cannons, and with them also
compensation is used in order to control the movement of ball 2. Without
a knowledge of the motions which may be communicated to a ball by a cue,
and the skill to apportion them at will, no long break can be continued.
For the power to leave ball 2 in a certain position or direction is
often a necessity; hence, whilst the actual stroke is made, that ball
must be struck sometimes on one spot, sometimes on another, and
therefore compensation must be supplied for the variation of aim.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
Consider a right-angle screw stroke.
In fig. 3 let 1, 2, 3 be the balls; if played half-ball, R will be the
point of impact between balls 1 and 2, therefore the path of ball 2 will
be in the direction R P. But suppose for some reason it is desired that
ball 2 should travel towards P′. Then impact must be at R′, and, this
being fuller than before, ball 2 will travel faster and ball 1 slower,
if the strength of the two strokes is the same. But as ball 2 is struck
fuller, less screw is required, and therefore ball 1 need not be hit so
low. Here the additional fulness on ball 2 is compensated for by a
diminution of screw, and the cannon is made; were the screw kept the
same as that necessary when impact was at R, ball 1 would return to some
such position as 1′, and the cannon would be missed.
Again, suppose that it is wished to send ball 2 towards P″; R″ must be
the point of impact, and that makes the stroke so fine that ball 2 will
travel much more slowly, and ball 1 as much faster; hence, to get the
cannon, ball 1 must be struck extremely low to compensate for the loss
of recoil occasioned by taking ball 2 so fine. So, if it be desired to
make ball 2 in this case travel as far as before, additional strength
must be used to compensate for the fineness of the stroke. This example
shows the principles involved; working them out and applying them
correctly to particular strokes is a matter of practice and experience,
without which theoretical knowledge is useless or nearly so for purposes
of play.
Another common illustration of the principle of compensation is the drag
stroke, which was explained at p. 197. As the ball is hit more and more
below the centre according to the length of the path to be travelled, so
must greater strength be used to compensate for the loss of naturally
developed rotation; and, conversely, when that rotation is too powerful,
or when there is special need for accuracy of path, or necessity for
diminishing the travel after impact with ball 2, compensation is given
in the form of retrograde rotation by striking ball 1 below the centre.
It is hardly necessary to give more examples, the great matter being to
direct attention to the general principles which govern the conversion
of strokes, and to make the player inquire why he attempts a stroke in a
certain way. When he begins to do this and can solve such questions
satisfactorily, the power will soon follow to realise at sight the
compensations which he must apply to each stroke as it occurs in order
to continue a successful break; and then, as in other matters affecting
us, the value of calm sound judgment becomes apparent.
In almost every stroke in a break some compensation or other is used in
order to control the paths of the balls. Strength is substituted for
side or _vice versâ_; screw is increased or diminished according to the
fineness or fulness of the stroke, which in turn involves variation in
strength, and so on; substitution of one element of a stroke for another
is constant, even though the player may scarcely appreciate the fact.
[Illustration:
When player’s ball is near a cushion
]
CHAPTER VIII
THE SPOT STROKE
Hitherto the theory of the game and the strokes recommended for practice
have been such as are required in learning to play a sound and perhaps
old-fashioned game, that of an amateur in distinction to that of a
professional player. But in dealing with the spot stroke a wholly new
field is entered; much more severe and constant practice is needed if
any real measure of success is to be attained, and if this cannot be
bestowed the amateur would act wisely in never sacrificing an opening at
the ordinary game for the sake of the spot. If he does so he will
assuredly verify the truth of the old saying, that the spot has lost far
more games to ordinary players than it has ever won. Still, it stands
unrivalled as practice in winning hazards combined with getting position
for another similar stroke; and even moderate familiarity with its
variations and their results is of much advantage to the average player
who cannot give the time and attention needed for their complete
mastery. Hence he is recommended to practise the stroke as much as
possible, and when some certainty in its execution is reached to take
advantage of his knowledge and skill when favourable opportunities
present themselves in games; but cautioned not to neglect ordinary
openings for the sake and on the chance of making a few spots. It is
difficult to say when that stage is reached at which it may be sound
policy to throw up an ordinary for the sake of a spot break.
Circumstances vary so much (and prudence must take them all into
consideration) that what is wise in one case may be foolish in another,
whilst it should never be forgotten that, as a rule, failure to make the
hazard results in an easy break for the adversary. Taking a considerable
class of amateurs, those who can occasionally make breaks of thirty, and
who perhaps once or twice in a season make fifty, their average score is
probably nearer four than five—that is, they take nearer twenty-five
than twenty innings to score a hundred. Now at first sight it would seem
that as soon as a player of this class was fairly certain of making
three or four hazards he might reasonably discard the ordinary for the
spot game, because such a break would be double or treble his average;
but he would scarcely find it advantageous to do so; for, having made
say four spots and failed at the fifth, he would leave the red ball over
a pocket, so that an equal opponent was nearly sure of three, and might
get six, in addition to the chance of making his average four. Hence the
advantage is largely discounted, but very little more than four hazards
as a measure of spot play will give the man who can make them a distinct
superiority. He does not play the all-round game worse because he can
make from six to ten spots; quite the contrary, and soon experience will
act as a safe guide when to make use of them and when to play the
ordinary game. If an amateur improves on this and becomes capable of
making ten spots commonly and twenty occasionally, he passes into a
higher class; the average of such a player would probably be seven or
eight, and he has reached a stage to maintain which constant practice is
required. Beyond this the amateur becomes gradually so merged in the
professional that it is difficult to define the differences in their
play, the excellence of which mainly depends on their state of training.
This is specially true in respect to spot play; the late William Cook,
whose delicacy of touch was unrivalled, has recorded that if he ceased
to practise even for a week his execution suffered. So it will be
readily understood that an inferior player, whose practice is much less,
soon loses touch, and is very apt to hurt his game rather than benefit
it by too persistent employment of this particular stroke.
[Illustration:
The Long Rest.
]
On the other hand, the general game is greatly assisted by improvement
in making winning hazards, and hence practice of spot play, though
wholly insufficient for producing a spot stroke player, may yet vastly
improve the all-round game. Without it the modern game played at the top
of the table is impossible; that being, in fact, merely a development of
spot play into which the element of cannons has been introduced, whilst
the number of consecutive winning hazards is limited.
Again, of all breaks made on the table none is more genuine, none owes
less to chance, than a series of spots; and it is far from impossible
that its monotony, as it is called, does not in a great measure arise
from the absence of luck. Partly, at any rate, from this, and partly
because the complaint of monotony was judiciously fanned by those whose
performances at this stroke were not of the highest order, spot play
fell out of fashion, and in the present state of public knowledge and
education in matters concerning billiards it is not likely to resume the
position it legitimately held for many years. As has happened to the
spot stroke, so in course of time and with far more reason will cushion
nurseries of cannons be in turn abandoned; but what will take their
place it is difficult to say. It may, however, be safely affirmed that
the former, having genuine value, will continue to influence the game,
and consequently will be practised; whilst the latter, being made by
trick, of little service beyond the continuation of the series, will
when once discarded perish for ever.
The positions and their variations from which the spot stroke should be
practised have been defined in most books on billiards, amongst which
the treatises by Bennett, Cook, and a small volume by Mr. J. P. Buchanan
may be mentioned. There is no new position to illustrate, and even the
modes of play do not greatly vary, though where one player will elect to
get position from two cushions, another will obtain it from one. And it
is well to remark here that perhaps in no strokes do the different
qualities of ivory and bonzoline balls make themselves so evident;
whilst with ivories in a certain position a following stroke off two
cushions would be the preferable mode of playing, with bonzoline balls
it would undoubtedly be better to play a stab from one cushion only. In
some strokes the advantage clearly lies with ivory, in others as clearly
with bonzoline; and so it may be said than on the whole the merits of
either sort of ball are about equal. But bonzoline is cheaper, and can
be got more uniformly accurate in shape and weight, hence it is not
unlikely to supersede ivory in a great measure; therefore, a mention of
the differences of behaviour as a warning to players is not out of place
in this chapter. It is of course understood that some sets of bonzoline
balls are more like ivory in behaviour than others, and then the warning
is scarcely required; but in other sets the difference is marked and
cannot safely be neglected. When playing it is better to adhere to one
or the other sort of balls, and to practise with the kind selected. It
is also desirable to practise each position and variation separately
till confidence is acquired, and then gradually try to make breaks. It
will often be found that, after certain positions have been fairly
mastered, the work at a new one will cause the student to forget what he
has learnt, and to fail when an old position recurs. For this there is
no remedy save practice. The same thing occurs in other strokes, and
those whose memory is retentive have no doubt a great advantage over
those who soon forget, and the only way in which the latter class can at
all compensate for their defect is by working harder and longer at each
stroke. By resolute labour they may bring themselves on a par with their
more fortunately constituted brethren. It is an ordinary experience that
at one time a player excels at winning hazards, at another he succeeds
with every follow, whilst he fails with every screw; again, he will find
much certainty in playing fine strokes one day, whilst the next he can
do none but the simplest of that sort. So it is with the spot stroke,
and against failure there is no remedy but hard work, involving not
improbably a return to the simplest one-ball practice to correct
inaccurate delivery of the cue. In playing or practising the spot, the
cue should be constantly chalked, or the requisite delicacy of touch
will be lost, and miss-cues will result; side should never be used when
the stroke is possible without it, for the actual hazard is by its use
at once made a difficult stroke. Stab or screw are much safer because
the cue is delivered on the central vertical line of ball 1, and they
can in a great measure supersede side, but there are strokes in which
the latter is obligatory. Again, contrary to what is often recommended,
a free style of stroke is, we believe, to be preferred to very great
delicacy. The latter is often the result of timidity or nervousness,
which is sure to be soon fatal to accuracy; it also places the player
far more at the mercy of untrue balls or table. Readers whose experience
dates from the early seventies will understand precisely what is meant
if they recall the play of William Cook and John Roberts, junior. When
balls, table, and player were all that could be desired, Cook’s delicacy
of play gave him a distinct advantage at the spot; but let any little
disturbing element intervene, and Roberts’s freedom of stroke carried
all before it. It was a far better style for lasting, and rendered him
far less dependent on absolute perfection of implements. It is just the
same in other strokes—trying to be too clever, too delicate in strength,
is not to be recommended; in nursery cannons it results in leaving the
balls touching after every third or fourth stroke, whereas a firmer
delivery of cue will result in a far longer break. No doubt the general
fault of beginners is to play too hard, and the reason is obvious; brute
force in all things precedes science. But excessive strength is found
often to cause disaster, and when that is realised, and the student has
learnt how to compensate for strength, he is very apt to fall into the
opposite extreme, and to play in too slow and hesitating a manner. Of
two players, there is more hope for the one who strikes rather too
freely than for the other who just fails from want of strength, for the
man who is too quick rather than for the man who is too slow.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
The limits within which it is prudent to confine spot play may be
roughly ascertained from the accompanying figure. S is the spot, S P and
S P′ being the paths which the red ball should travel, in order that the
pocket, which is somewhat blind, should be enlarged as much as possible
by directing the red ball to the shoulders of cushions 2 and 6, thereby
avoiding the dangerous shoulders of cushion 1. A A′ is a straight line
passing through the spot parallel to cushion 1. S B and S B′ are
prolongations of the paths of the red ball, so that if ball 1 be placed
on either line, the hazard is played full ball, S C and S C′ are each
60° from A A′, leaving an angle of 60°, C S C′, in which the spot cannot
be played. Within the remaining angles, A S C and A′ S C′, the stroke
may be considered possible, but the practical limits are much smaller.
It is unwise to attempt to lay them down dogmatically, for those which
are right for one man are wrong for another, and therefore advice must
be general. Perhaps the simplest definition is to recommend that play be
confined within the dotted lines S D and S E on one side and S D′ and S
E′ on the other; D, D′, it will be seen, are but very slightly below the
line A A′, and S E, S E′ are at angles of 50° with A A′, the arcs D E,
D′ E′ being 18 in. from S. Within these limits endeavour should be made
to leave ball 1 after each stroke as nearly as possible on the lines B S
or B′ S, and from six inches to a foot distant from S. It is just as bad
a fault in spot play to get too near the red as to get too far from it;
in fact, of the two, it is, in the same way as the extremely soft play
already referred to, the more objectionable, for a very slight error of
strength will result in the loss of position.
Spot hazards may be conveniently divided into those above the full ball
strokes on the lines B P′, B′ P and those below. Of the former there are
two classes, the drop stroke and the stab follow. The limits are marked
as before, D, D′ and E, E′.
Commence with a stroke on the limit line from D to S, and place ball 1
about eight inches to a foot from the spot, ball 2 (the red) on the
spot.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
Play ball 1 rather below centre, a gentle No. 1, the strength being just
sufficient to carry ball 2 into the pocket; ball 1 after the stroke will
rest in a position near 1′.
This stroke can be played in a variety of ways, but the plain stroke is
unquestionably the best. If there is much nap on the cloth, right side
may be used in the hope that the ball’s path will curve towards cushion
1, and if there is little nap the reverse or left side will have a
tendency to keep ball 1 up the table; but in either case the difficulty
of making the hazard is greatly enhanced by the use of side, and the
advantage is microscopic in the extreme.
The next stroke is an easy one, consequently the position is good for
play. Instead of placing ball 1 on the limit line from D to the spot,
place it above, between the lines D S and B S. This is also a plain drop
stroke, but as ball 2 must be struck fuller, it may be played with
greater freedom. Place ball 1 as directed, eight inches to a foot from
the spot, ball 2 on the spot.
Play ball 1 centre, a gentle stroke on ball 2; the former will follow
through and come to rest about 1′, a position somewhat similar to that
played from, but on the other side of the table.
The first point to ascertain is the correct division of ball 2, and the
next is so to regulate the strength that ball 1 should remain within a
foot of the spot.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
The stroke shown in fig. 4 is played differently from the preceding
ones, and requires a little making. Ball 1 is placed between its
position in the last stroke and the line B P′ for a full ball. It is,
indeed, only so far from that line that a screw back would cause
position to be lost.
Place ball 1 as directed at the same distance from ball 2 as before.
Play a gentle stab on ball 1 rather below centre; ball 2, being struck
nearly full, will acquire most of the velocity, whilst ball 1 will
follow slowly through and obtain position on the other side of the
table. The further ball 1 is from 2 the harder must the stroke be
played, and the nearer the softer; indeed, when ball 1 is within six
inches the stab is scarcely required; a medium No. 1 strength
one-quarter low will suffice. The stab or screw corrects the tendency
ball 1 has to follow straight after ball 2. If it did so position would
be lost.
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
When ball 1 is moved further down the table than the position described
in the previous example, so as to be on the line B P′, the stroke is
evidently full, as the hazard is perfectly straight. Position is
retained by screw back.
Place ball 1 as shown eight to ten inches from ball 2, and in direct
line for the corner pocket. Play ball 1 one-half low, a medium No. 1
strength full on ball 2, which should be pocketed, whilst ball 1 should
return on the line S B.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5
]
Though this stroke seems very easy, yet no position for the spot
requires longer and more careful practice. At first, beginners will find
that they cannot make two similar hazards in succession; either ball 1
will have left the line S B, or it will have travelled on it too short
or too great a distance from the spot. These errors can only be cured by
practice. If the screw back is not straight, ball 2 has not been struck
full, and for correction it is as well to remove ball 2 to another part
of the table, say the pyramid spot, where there is no question of making
a hazard, and there playing solely for trueness of screw back. After
delivery, keep the cue exactly in position; it should then point
absolutely to the centre of the pyramid spot, and ball 1 should return
to the tip. Strict practice in this way is not wasted; the power of
regulating the screw to compensate for strength is most valuable, and in
time the student will find, to his satisfaction and profit, that with a
very gentle stroke he can screw far enough back for another chance, and
that the certainty of the hazard is greater as the strength decreases.
As in other similar strokes, the further ball 1 is from ball 2 the more
strength is necessary. When by misadventure ball 1 remains on the
straight line, but very near ball 2, play may be continued by a _piqué_;
struck gently down, the cue’s axis being 60° or more with the surface of
the table, ball 1 will return as before along S B or sufficiently near
that line to leave another spot stroke. Again, if similarly left very
close to ball 2, but slightly out of the straight line for the pocket,
the hazard may be made and position even may not be lost by use of the
plant stroke described at p. 246, and exhibited on Diagram XII. (p.
245). We do not think this has ever been mentioned in any treatise on
spot play, and many persons who can make a considerable number of spots
would consider the position lost were ball 1 left as described and give
a safety miss. Yet a little practice will prove that the hazard, at any
rate, is not very difficult; it is less easy to retain position, for
freedom of stroke, amounting to double strength, is generally required.
Of the straight screw back there are two variations which require great
delicacy of touch and accuracy of appreciation, for side has to be used
in compensation for a minute division of ball 2. They occur when ball 1
is left at a suitable distance from ball 2, say, from 4½ in. to 9 in.,
not precisely on the straight line B P′, but very near it. Being off the
line, it is clear ball 2 cannot be struck full, but impact must be
slightly to one side or other of the centre according to whether ball 1
is above or below B P′. The divergence of return due to this slight
division of ball 2 may be counteracted by a minute allowance of side,
and the straight path may thus be regained. Or the screw back may be
made without this compensation, in which case ball 1 will return either
above or below the line B S, whence, though position for screw back may
be lost, spot play may be continued. It has generally been usual to
dismiss this straight screw back spot stroke somewhat contemptuously, as
too easy to require much comment, an assumption which cannot be
conceded. The stroke has to be played harder than many other spot
strokes, and, therefore, greater accuracy is required. The slightest
inaccuracy or imperfection of balls is fatal unless the player is a
master of no ordinary capacity, and can, by his skill, apply the
required compensations. What can be done with it alone has been
conclusively shown by the best performers of the day, some of whom
exhibit a marvellous power of retaining position directly behind the
spot. The writer has seen Roberts do so with great ability; but his
performances at this special stroke have been eclipsed, notably by Sala,
who has made 186 consecutive screw backs, Peall, who has made 184, and
we believe Memmott to have wonderful skill, and to have made a much
greater number of these strokes than any other player.[17]
When ball 1 is below the line B S, and just so far from it that position
cannot be retained by screwing back, the stroke must be differently
played. Place ball 1 as shown below B S, and distant a foot or so from
the spot. If the stroke were played full, ball 2 would just hit the
dangerous shoulder of cushion 1. That will suffice to give alignment,
which is of considerable importance for this hazard, as freedom of
stroke is required. Play ball 1 one-half high, free No. 1 strength or
No. 2, on ball 2; ball 1 should follow through, and, returning from
cushions 1 and 2, regain position on or near the line B′ S. That is the
simplest form of the stroke, which is never an easy one, and seems
decidedly more difficult with bonzoline than with ivory balls; the
former requiring a stronger stroke to recover position, and therefore
endangering the success of the hazard. When even thus but slightly out
of the straight line, some of the best players use side to compensate
for strength, an advantage, doubtless, if the hazard striking be very
perfect. Yet for ordinary persons nothing is more difficult than to
strike ball 2 truly when ball 1 is played with side; hence we counsel
practice of this position with follow, but without side.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6
]
A very small variation of the stroke, however, makes the use of side
imperative. If ball 1 is near ball 2, sufficient follow cannot be got
on, and position can only be retained by the use of direct side—that is,
playing from cushion 6, right side; this causes ball 1 to shoot from
cushion 1 with increased velocity, and at a different angle from that of
incidence, thereby impinging on cushion 2 at a point above or nearer the
pocket than it would otherwise have done. The compensation for the side
is a reduction of strength.
Again, if ball 1 is a shade further from B S than the position shown and
described for the plain follow, the use of side becomes obligatory. As
ball 1 is further from ball 2, follow is less necessary, or rather it
becomes unnecessary to strike above the centre, as developed rotation
supplies the necessary follow. This stroke, and specially the variations
which demand the use of side, require long and constant practice, and
are always difficult.
[Illustration:
Fig. 7
]
The position indicated in fig. 7 shows ball 1 further down the table, or
from B S, than that exhibited in the previous figure. Here, with ivory
balls it may still be possible to play off two cushions with a great
deal of side; but it is generally better, certainly with bonzoline
balls, to obtain position from cushion 1 only, by means of a stab. Place
ball 1 as shown about eight to twelve inches from the spot; play a stab
through the centre downwards, the angle of the cue being ten or fifteen
degrees with the bed, a free No. 1 strength. Ball 1 will impinge on
cushion 1, and return in the direction indicated. This stroke is not
easy and requires considerable practice. It is also difficult to
determine when it should be played as a follow off two cushions and when
as a stab from one. No exact rule can be laid down; one player will
adopt one way, another will choose another method. It is clear that
where follow with side off two cushions ends stab begins, and therefore
there is one position exactly between the two which may be played either
way. One’s first impression or impulse is often a good guide, with the
reservation that ivory favours the follow, whilst bonzoline favours the
stab.
[Illustration:
Fig. 8
]
Similarly the stab is gradually merged into a perfectly plain stroke.
With ball 1 further down the table than in the last example the stroke
becomes easier. As it is represented in fig. 8 nothing is required
beyond the winning hazard and such regulation of strength as shall
result in leaving another hazard from the opposite side of the table.
Place the balls as shown; play ball 1 centre, No. 1 strength, on ball 2,
so as to make the winning hazard; ball 1 will return to position from
cushion 1 somewhat as indicated. If it returns too straight back—that
is, too near the spot—in all probability ball 1 has been struck either a
little below the centre or slightly to the left. The correction is
obvious, and a very small allowance will cause ball 1 to come off the
top cushion at a wider angle. The stroke becomes more difficult the
further ball 1 is from ball 2, because it must be played with greater
strength, which in turn may have to be controlled by delivering the cue
rather under the centre.
As ball 1 is placed further down the table, it is evident that the
winning hazard becomes finer till a point is reached at which position
cannot be got from cushion 1 by a plain stroke. At first all that is
required is to play the hazard with a little right side, which causes
ball 1 to leave the top cushion at a sufficient angle; but as that ball
approaches the line E S (the limit we have proposed for the spot stroke)
various modifications of play are introduced. So long as the distance
between balls 1 and 2 does not exceed a foot, and the former is within
the angle E S D, the fine stroke with right-hand side may be played;
when the distance is greater, or ball 1 is on or very close to E S,
position is best gained by a gentle stab-screw, whereby the ball returns
from cushion 1, as shown in fig. 9. Different persons play this stroke
and its variations—which are many—in different ways, and it would be
gratuitous to say that one way was right and another wrong. So long as
the hazard is made and a good position is left no one can condemn the
stroke, though one man may get position on one side of the spot and
another man on the other side. Some players habitually use the reverse
or left side if the stroke is played from cushion 6, in order to keep
sufficiently away from the spot; but for reasons already given the use
of side when attempting winning hazards is unadvisable. Sometimes it is
obligatory, and then the risk of missing the hazard must be taken, for
there is no doubt that even for the most accomplished hazard striker
side greatly enhances the difficulty of the stroke.
[Illustration:
Fig. 9
]
It is doubtful whether any further drawings are necessary to illustrate
the spot stroke; they could no doubt be multiplied almost indefinitely,
and one would be found to approach its neighbour so closely that even an
educated eye and a much more elaborately drawn set of plates than those
possible on the present scale would fail to detect the difference. The
stroke must be taught by a master, and should occasionally be practised
under his supervision, when much that is difficult to make clear on
paper will at once become evident, and the variations of strokes (that
is, those which are intermediate between the examples here given) may
usefully be set up and played. It may be desirable to say that in each
of the figures the nomenclature of fig. 1 has been retained: the letters
D, D′ and E, E′ representing the limits within which the stroke lies,
and B P′, B′ P are always the straight lines through the spot to the
pocket. The lines D S, E S, &c., have been omitted in order that the
figures may not be needlessly complicated. It is of course understood
that the strokes should be made from both sides of the table, and it
will very likely be found that whereas, playing from one side, there is
a tendency to strike ball 2 rather full, from the other side the error
is just reversed. This may partly arise from physical peculiarity—may
be, in fact, an evidence of the personal equation or error of
observation which everyone has to some extent—but it will often arise
from error in the cue’s delivery, and, if so, will be greatly improved,
if not wholly eliminated, by reversion to one-ball practice to secure
truth of the centre stroke.
Before leaving the spot stroke the methods usually adopted to continue
the break or to obtain safety must be noticed.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
When ball 1, failing to regain position, is left above the spot, or
nearer to the top cushion than the spot, several alternatives are
presented. If for any reason it is wished to continue spot play, the
hazard may be made with strength to cause ball 1 to return to position
after going round the table and striking at least three cushions. This
stroke, though not so difficult as it may at first sight seem, is not to
be recommended, chiefly because getting the exact strength must be to a
great extent a matter of luck. Also when the necessary strength is used
the hazard is very uncertain. It is more or less a fancy stroke which
greatly delights the gallery, and is illustrated in Diagrams I. and II.;
Peall usually plays off three cushions, whilst Mitchell generally uses
five. It is much sounder play, when possible, to drop the red into the
pocket and lie near cushion 2 for a losing hazard (see fig. 10); and if
that be impossible or very doubtful, then a miss in baulk or a double
baulk should be played. The latter stroke, or one of the same type, will
be hereafter explained when dealing with safety.
[Illustration:
Fig. 10
]
This chapter may be closed—as, indeed, it was commenced—by reiterating
the opinion that, whether the all-in game be tabooed as monotonous or
not, the spot stroke is, and, as far as can be seen, must remain, of
first-rate importance in modern billiards, and its study and practice
will well repay such thought and work as may be bestowed on it.
CHAPTER IX
SAFETY AND BAULK PLAY
The subject of this chapter, though of very great importance, is
unquestionably of much less interest than the consideration of making
strokes, just as in war attack is preferred to defence. Yet no general
is fit for command who does not well understand defensive tactics, and
in the same way a billiard-player must often play a defensive game. In
the first place, such a game is advisable when the adversary is a
stronger player; he presumably will give points, and almost certainly
will try to force the game, which may often be saved by prudent play.
Again, when in possession of a great lead a defensive rather than an
enterprising game is to be recommended; whereas, if behind, every
reasonable endeavour to score and get a break should be made. It is a
difficult matter to say how far a cautious game should be advised, for
whilst prudence is praiseworthy, timidity, or cushion-crawling, as it is
termed, is contemptible. Speaking generally, and considering average
people, it may be said that if there is a small stake on the game, or
if, what is in effect the same thing, the loser has to pay for the
table, quite sufficient caution will usually be shown: whereas where
there is neither stake nor payment great laxity in playing is likely to
result. The same thing is seen in professional play; nowadays there is
rarely a genuine match, the stakes are more or less imaginary, and the
consequence is that the strict game suffers if it seems to interfere
with taking gate-money. One evil effect of general laxity of play,
neglect of etiquette, and so on, is that if occasion should arise for a
serious game caution is very likely to be completely overdone, and a
better player may, by adopting over-cautious tactics, actually throw the
game into the hands of a more ignorant performer. No doubt, as in most
other things, a middle course between temerity and timidity is best. It
may be said that safety should be played for when there is no reasonable
chance of making a score; and from this it follows that an inferior
player should often content himself with giving a safe miss when a
superior player may try to continue the game.
Safety is sought for in many ways, but with the majority of amateurs is
more often the result of accident than of design. The simplest form, and
that which is most familiar, is exhibited at the opening strokes of a
game. The person who commences has the red ball on the spot, and may
play at it if he please; but he rarely does so, preferring to give a
miss in baulk. The adversary then has all the chances which the other
player had, with the addition of those of a cannon; yet, unless the
latter be very tempting, he too follows suit with a miss below the
middle pocket, choosing the right or left so as to leave the squarer
angle and more difficult score. Sometimes there is a good deal of
fencing for the first opening, and whenever a miss is given endeavour
should be made so to place ball 1 that not only is it difficult to score
off, but that at the same time the adversary is forced to try for a
stroke beyond his powers, or at any rate to disturb the position. He is
then at a disadvantage, for he cannot give a miss because the other
player has an easy stroke on the balls, and if he fails to score a good
opening may be left. In giving a miss endeavour should always be made to
place ball 1 in a commanding position, as well as in safety. All misses
must be played with the point of the cue, and it is often advisable, if
a careless player gives the miss otherwise, to insist on his making the
stroke over again in the proper way. Another general rule is that when
playing a miss back into baulk it is advisable to play from one or more
cushions rather than direct for the desired position. The stroke may
thus be played stronger, and the danger of failing to reach baulk is
avoided. Another mode of playing for safety is to make a double or
single baulk when the opponent’s ball is in hand; and there is yet a
third mode, respecting which it is difficult to write, but which exists
none the less, and that is so to regulate play that if failure to score
should result as little as possible is left. Such a game, though fatal,
we imagine, to anything like free play and long breaks, is yet very
effective amongst players of moderate capacity. It will not, however, be
seriously disputed that excessive safety play and use of obstructive
tactics tend to alienate the sympathy of spectators, often most
unjustifiably; witness the delight with which the public welcome a score
in baulk from a safety miss, even when success is gained by the most
palpable fluke. They seem to say, ‘Serve the cautious man right for his
timidity’; and the only persons who appear to hold other views are those
who have backed the prudent though unfortunate player.
Whilst on the subject of safety, it is well to consider the question of
pocketing the adversary’s ball, and giving a miss in baulk. This mode of
play is generally resented, and it is at best a confession of weakness;
yet there are times when it is the game, and should be played, and the
outcry against it should be promptly put down. It is one of those
matters in which sentiment is allowed to outweigh expediency. Yet no
wise man will neglect sentiment; and it is probably better to lose a few
games by not availing oneself of the unpopular stroke than to gain them
and lose the goodwill of the company. Nevertheless, there are times when
a man may be greatly blamed for omitting to take advantage of the
opening; for example, if his score is 95 out of 100, and he has the
opportunity of putting his adversary down and giving a double baulk,
should he neglect to do so and, in consequence, lose the game, neither
he nor his backers are likely to be pleased. So, perhaps, though
sentiment is strong, business is stronger, and each may prevail at
different times and under different circumstances without offence.
A few examples of safety and baulk strokes will be found in the
following diagrams:
Diagram I.—Ball 2, say the red, safe near cushion 1; ball 1 as shown
near cushion 6, ball 3 in hand. Play ball 1 a plain medium No. 1
strength against cushion 3, whence it will impinge on cushion 4, and
travel in the direction indicated. Even if ball 1 occupy the position
1′, it is still advisable to give a miss in baulk by striking cushion 3
in the first instance.
Diagram II.: Example A.—Ball 1 in hand; ball 2 over right top pocket;
ball 3 or 3′ angled for ball 2, which is supposed to be the red. Ball 1
should be played a No. 1 strength to the top cushion to rest near ball
2, where it cannot be directly struck by ball 3. The best chance of
disturbing the arrangement is to play ball 3 off cushion 5 or 6.
Example B.—Balls 2 and 3 as shown, the former being the red; ball 1 in
hand. There is a certain winning hazard from ball 3 on ball 2, and if
ball 1 has to play he should give a miss out of baulk, but directly in
line with balls 2 and 3, and as close to the latter as possible. The
hazard is then much cramped. Unless the balls are all close, a miss of
this sort would be imprudent, for several solutions of the difficulty
would present themselves to the player of ball 3.
Diagram III.: Example A.—Ball 2 near or touching cushion 1 as shown;
ball 1 conveniently near it; ball 3 in hand. Play ball 1 a low screw on
ball 2, rather fuller than half-ball, but carefully avoid a kiss, with
strength about No. 2. Ball 1 will remain under cushion 1, whilst ball 2
is doubled to baulk. This is an excellent type of stroke, for by means
of the screw ball 1 returns to the cushion further from the pocket than
ball 2, and is almost always perfectly safe.
Example B.—Balls 1 and 2 as shown; ball 3 in hand. Play ball 1, with
right side, a gentle stroke on ball 2, fine, so as to cut the latter
towards the right bottom pocket; ball 1 will come off cushion 3 and rest
in baulk.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
]
Diagram IV.—A very useful type of stroke is here exhibited. When playing
the spot stroke, position is often practically lost by ball 1 remaining
very near the line A A′ parallel to cushion 1, either above or below it,
at such a distance from ball 2 as to make the hazard very dangerous.
Similarly, in top of the table play, the loss of the adversary’s ball,
whilst ball 1 is left somewhat as shown, necessitates safety play. Ball
3 being in hand, two courses are open for ball 1; either it may be
played into baulk in the way shown on Diagram I., or the double baulk,
which is not difficult, may be played. It is thus made: ball 1
three-quarters right about No. 3 strength on ball 2, one-quarter right;
the paths indicated will be approximately followed. The usual fault with
this stroke is to play too full on ball 2. If played fine with freedom
and a little right side to ensure impact on cushion 5, and to avoid
cushion 6, the stroke will generally be successful. A little difference
in the position of ball 1 does not materially alter the stroke, which
should be played until the winning hazard and position may be tried with
reasonable chance of success. Play the stroke from both sides of the
table till confidence is gained.
Diagram V.—What is said of the last stroke applies for the most part to
this one, the difference being that ball 1 is above the line A A′. To
make a double baulk, play ball 1 one-half low and right, about No. 3
strength, on ball 2, between one-half and one-quarter left. A little
practice will show that there is considerable margin in the division of
ball 2, within which the double baulk may be made; consequently the
paths travelled by the two balls will diverge materially from those
shown, which are for ball 2 about one-quarter left, or a rather fine
stroke. Ball 1 may be moved either nearer the spot or nearer cushion 1,
and the stroke may still be made, its limit being, of course, when the
winning or losing hazard into the right top pocket becomes worth
playing.
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
]
Diagram VI.—Two very useful and very common types of double baulk
strokes are here shown; they should, like most of the other strokes, be
practised on either side of the table till they can be made with
certainty. Ball 2 need not be touching the cushion; some variation of
play is required as it is moved away, but not more than may be left to
the intelligence of the reader who has thus far followed the advice
given in this volume. In practice it will be found that the method of
play shown for Example A holds good when ball 2 is close to the
baulk-line, and for a certain distance above it when the other mode of
play comes in. With ivory balls 18 in. above baulk may be considered the
limit within which the stroke A should be confined; after that, and up
to the middle pocket, the double baulk should be made as shown at B.
With bonzoline balls the limit of the former stroke is considerably
extended, but the 18 in. limit, though it may easily be passed, will be
found safe with any balls. The double baulk may be made with
extraordinary differences of stroke; the ball which has to travel round
the table may impinge on cushion 1 anywhere from the point P towards the
right; but it is advantageous so to play that impact with the cushion
shall be to the right of the spot in order that the chance of the ball
catching the corners of or entering the right middle pocket may be
avoided.
Example A.—Ball 2 (the red) near cushion 5 as shown, within 18 in. above
the baulk-line, ball 1 in hand. Place ball 1 towards the right of baulk;
play one-half right No. 3 strength on ball 2 one-quarter right; it will
return from cushion 5 towards the right bottom pocket; ball 1, after
impact with cushions 5, 1, and 2, will enter baulk towards the left
bottom pocket. The finer ball 2 is struck, the nearer to cushion 5 will
it come into baulk, and the less strength is required, which, however,
must be compensated for by more side.
Example B is in a way the converse of A, for ball 1 performs the short
and ball 2 the long journey to baulk. Place ball 2 as shown 18 in. or
further from the baulk-line, ball 1 towards the left spot of baulk. Play
ball 1 from one-half to three-quarters low No. 3 strength on ball 2
about three-quarters left (as full as possible without the kiss); it
will rebound from cushion 5, and after touching cushions 1 and 2 will
enter baulk in the direction of the left bottom pocket; ball 1 will
return from cushion 5 towards the right bottom pocket. This stroke can
be made when ball 2 is a little above the middle pocket, but it requires
execution and is too risky to be recommended.
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
]
Diagram VII.—When the red represented by ball 2 is above the middle
pocket as shown, a double baulk may be made, and the stroke is worth
working at for the sake of acquiring some certainty in striking ball 2
with freedom fuller than half-ball. It is not in reality a very
difficult stroke, but it is not one to be recommended at critical
moments, when the simplest solution would usually be to play back into
baulk. Yet there are times when it is obligatory to hit the red ball, as
for example when the adversary is within one point of game; and since
with practice the stroke may be successfully made three out of four
times, and a person who has once mastered it is, even if out of
practice, more likely to make it than to fail, it should in such a case
be played.
Suppose ball 2 to be placed as shown, exact position by measurement
being unnecessary; balls 1 and 3 are off the table and the former is to
play. Place ball 1 on the baulk-line for a three-quarters follow stroke
on ball 2, so that it may strike cushion 1 well to the right of the
spot. The diagram, though without pretension to absolute accuracy, will
serve as a guide. Play ball 1 centre or rather higher a free No. 3 or
No. 4 strength on ball 2 three-quarters left, or slightly fuller, which
will then impinge on cushions 2, 1, and 6, entering baulk in the
direction of the right bottom pocket. Ball 1 will after impact follow
through ball 2 to cushion 1 and return thence to baulk. The stroke is a
pretty one, and its practice is interesting.
Another type of baulk stroke is shown in Diagram VIII. It is clear that
the single baulk would be simpler than the double, for by playing a more
or less full stab on ball 2 it would of necessity run into baulk, whilst
ball 1 would remain near the position which ball 2 occupied. But the
double baulk is not difficult. Place the balls as in the diagram, play
ball 1 one-half high with left side, a free No. 2 full (if anything to
the left of full) on ball 2, which will after striking cushion 6 travel
towards the right bottom pocket; ball 1, following through ball 2, will
strike cushion 6 at the same place, but by reason of the follow and side
will shoot off at a different angle, keeping nearer cushion 5. When ball
1 approaches position 1′, the stroke is similarly made, but must be
played a little harder, for ball 2 will strike cushion 3 near P, and
thence enter baulk. This class of stroke may be set up on either side of
the table almost anywhere between baulk and the top.
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
]
There are, of course, numerous other positions whence a double baulk may
be played, either with or without the help of a cushion; but the
examples given will, it is hoped, be sufficient to show how in positions
where the mode of play is not self-evident the strokes should be
attempted. As a general rule, endeavour should be made to leave the
player’s ball and the red some distance apart, in order that the
adversary may find it difficult to score from a cushion, or to disturb a
comfortable arrangement. A useful set of strokes for such score or
disturbance is shown in Diagram IX. The three variations should be
practised, and then if in a game some intermediate stroke may be
required, the player will be able to judge where to place his ball. The
angle of return can also be controlled by the strength.
Let balls 2 and 3 be in baulk as shown, and ball 1 be in hand. It is
desired to disturb balls 2 and 3 with the chance of scoring. Play ball 1
from the right corner of the =Ｄ=, centre on a point P about seven inches
from the right top pocket, No. 2 strength; it will rebound from cushions
1 and 2, and following a path similar to that shown have a very fair
chance of cannoning from ball 2 to ball 3. Again, place ball 1 on the
centre spot of the =Ｄ= marked 1′; play as before on P a free No. 2, and
it will arrive at a point about 2′.
And, lastly, place ball 1 on the left corner of the =Ｄ= marked 1″; play
No. 3 strength on P, and it will return to 2″ and have a chance of
cannoning on 3″. If these strokes are mastered they give a wide scope
for the disturbance of certainties left in baulk, for they can be played
from either end of cushion 1, and if balls 2 and 3 are missed, ball 1
has generally sufficient strength to carry it some distance up the
table.
CHAPTER X
BREAKS
In Chapter III. the term _break_ was explained as a continuous score, or
one made in unbroken succession, and the definition is in a general
sense accurate; nevertheless, it has amongst the better class of players
a higher signification. With them it means a succession of strokes each
of which has been played for, and so played that the next has been
foreseen, calculated, and left as desired by the player. That is to say,
a break to be perfect includes not merely making a stroke, but the
preparation for another to follow. Hence the difficulty of making any
given stroke is enhanced by the need of thought and of modification in
play, in order that the balls may be favourably placed for the next
attempt; but, on the other hand, making the next stroke, that is,
continuing the break, is so much more certain after reasonable
preparation, as in the hands of even a moderate performer to more than
counterbalance the drawback. Indeed, in many cases it is as easy to play
the stroke in the right way as in the wrong, and the eye once educated
selects the proper method without conscious effort, so that the
difficulty referred to is reduced to a minimum, and the advantage
correspondingly preponderates.
[Illustration:
A SERIOUS GAME: NURSING THE BALLS.
]
On the other hand, the great majority of amateurs, for whom the game is
one of chance rather than of skill, either will not or cannot give the
necessary attention to master its rudiments; consequently, they cannot
be said to play for breaks, nor is it desirable that they should make
the pretence. They will score faster by concentrating their attention on
the stroke before them, and by implicitly trusting to Providence for the
next. It is true that they never make a break in the higher sense of the
word; nevertheless, they often succeed in putting together considerable
scores and in defeating better players. For persons of this class—and
let it be clearly understood that there need be no cause for shame in
belonging to it, because many cannot give the time nor afford the money
required for practice and professional supervision—a few general hints
will suffice. What is ridiculous is when they pretend to a knowledge
they do not possess, and ascribe their failures to playing for position,
a crime of which they are wholly guiltless. Beyond these there are an
increasing number of persons who have grasped the idea of playing a
break, who desire to do so legitimately, and who can give some time and
attention to the game, and now and then get a little professional
instruction. Though such are undoubtedly in a higher class than the
former, it by no means follows that they invariably defeat them. Their
breaks though played for may very probably not equal by half the scores
made by the others; indeed, until decided progress has been made the
difficulty before alluded to of providing for the leave will result in
the immediate stroke being missed so often, as to more than neutralise
the benefits which arise from occasional success. In time, however, the
average play and rate of scoring of this higher class will surpass the
performances of those first mentioned to such an extent that they can
give a start of from one-fifth to one-fourth of the game. The best
players of this higher class soon reach the standard of what for want of
a better definition may be called good club play. That is to say, few
players in London clubs can give them points, they make consistent
scoring, and under favourable circumstances may play 250 points in an
hour. This means a considerable aptitude for the game, as well as some
knowledge of it, and more or less education. In fact, a standard has
been attained which will be lost unless kept up by steady work.
Comparatively speaking, very few gentlemen pass beyond this stage, and
when they do they seldom play in clubs. The reasons are obvious; in the
first place they cannot get the tables for sufficiently long games, and
they are liable in club-rooms to all manner of interruption fatal to
continuity of play; they further meet no opponents from whom they have
anything to learn. Hence naturally they prefer to play elsewhere, and
they often attain to a very high standard of excellence in cases
rivalling not without success high-class professional form. It must not
of course be overlooked that certain natural qualities should be
possessed by the student if he is to become a fine player, and also that
men in every class as players may be fortunate enough to enjoy them.
They will always be useful, and will often lead their possessor to
victory when contending with a harder working but less gifted opponent.
The most important of all is perhaps good health, for that covers a
multitude of excellences; good nerve, good sight, quick and sound
judgment, good temper. A good figure, too, is of great advantage, and it
is better to be tall rather than short; yet how many short men have been
and are fine players.
But these advantages will not of themselves suffice to make a player;
intelligent practice and plenty of it are required, and the fewer or
weaker the natural qualities may be the more must they be reinforced by
work—‘_à force de forger en devient forgeron_.’
The system of classifying a player by means of his average break is a
safe one, provided that the average is calculated from a great many
games, and that the other person with whom comparison is made is
averaged from the same number of games played under the same
circumstances. Unless this is attended to results may mislead. The
average break is found by dividing the points scored by the number of
visits to the table. Thus if a player scores a game of 100 in 10
innings, the initial miss of course counting as 1, his average is 10; 20
innings give an average of 5; 25 an average of 4; and so on. This
process if continued over a large number of games will give a result on
which dependence may be placed. But a little consideration will make it
plain that unless the circumstances are very similar comparison between
players based on their averages may be misleading; one table is much
easier than another; one adversary plays an open game and gives many
chances, another plays for safety and leaves no opening time after time;
the size of the balls, the temperature of the room and the light, the
order maintained, and a variety of circumstances will affect the
average, and moreover affect it differently in different men. Hence care
is necessary before assuming as a result of one or two observations that
the average derived from them is trustworthy. Still it is less liable to
mislead than unassisted observation, and a man who desires to play a
match with another and who knows his own average is considerably helped
by taking the latter’s average, even if only from one or two games. If
prudent he will allow a good margin in his favour to meet the
unforeseen, for few things are more difficult to explain than personal
questions concerning play and that most potent factor which we call
luck.
As regards the first of these, it is a matter of common experience that
men play differently—indeed, very differently—with different opponents.
One man’s manner, or style of play, or what not, is aggravating and
irritating to another, and the feeling need not be mutual; yet the man
affected will play many points behind his real game. It is no
exaggeration to say that there may be three men, A, B, and C, equal
players, yet a record over a great number of games might show that
whereas A generally beat B and lost to C, B on his part generally
defeated C. Such an anomaly is of course more likely to be found where
men are acquainted with each other—indeed, without acquaintance personal
peculiarities would not count for so much.
The second subject, that of luck, must be approached with much caution.
One person, generally that one who is enjoying fortune’s favours, will
say that in the long run, as between man and man, luck is even. Indeed,
he may go further and practically deny its existence, affirming, what is
no doubt true, that the laws of nature are not altered or suspended in
favour of any player, and that effect follows cause irrespective of
personality. Another will declare that some men are habitually lucky,
and that with certain players his chances are better than with others.
There is truth probably in both contentions; luck is more likely to be
evenly divided between the players in a long than in a short game, yet
we think no close observer would care to deny that some men seem
habitually lucky at billiards, just as it is generally admitted that
certain persons are good cardholders, and, again, that other men appear
to be more than averagely unfortunate. The better the player the more
ready is he usually to admit his obligations, but as a rule, though no
less valuable, they are not so evident as the palpable fluke of the
weaker performer. They consist of trifles, so to speak, which are summed
up in the phrase ‘a kindly run of the balls,’ and enable the fortunate
man to compile breaks and play with confidence, feeling that nothing can
go wrong, whilst all the time, no evident fluke being made, he is
credited with playing a fine game. His unfortunate antagonist meanwhile
can do nothing right; even when by dint of cue power and science he
pulls off one difficult stroke after another, each leaves a more
difficult one to follow, till failure is inevitable. And this is not all
nor the worst; for whereas Fortunatus on failing to score leaves the
balls safe or nearly so, our unlucky friend can scarcely touch them
without leaving one certainty after another; finally, when attempting
some impossibility, he makes the most undeniable fluke, at which the
spectators smile in appreciation, whilst he is engaged in trying to
solve the problem of why a fluke even should leave nothing to follow.
Luck plays an important part in most breaks, more in those all-round and
what are called ‘out in the country’ than in top-of-the-table play, and
least of all in spot breaks. With professional players it affects the
results of games less evidently, and probably absolutely less than with
amateurs, yet even with the former its power is immense. If they fluke
seldomer, they make far more of each piece of luck. For example, the
writer saw a match of 1,000 up between two very fine players, one of
whom conceded the other a start of 100. He gave the usual miss in baulk,
and his opponent attempted to screw in off the red. He failed
egregiously, but drove the red round the table into a pocket, whilst his
own ball after a strange career settled down beautifully for spot play.
From this opening 100 spots were made, and the game when he broke down
was called love, 404. Though play on both sides was of a very high
order, the lead thus obtained made the final result almost a certainty.
In dealing with breaks, one other matter must be kept in mind; it is
very important, and must influence anything we have to offer in the way
of advice, making that of necessity general rather than particular. This
is, that what is the game for one man is not necessarily the game for
another, and that no very moderate break can be twice played alike even
by the same man. Still there are general principles which cannot be
neglected with impunity, and attention to them will without doubt
improve the chances of the most moderate performers. More experienced
players adhere to them almost unconsciously, and some even are disposed
to push them too far, thus occasionally sacrificing the break in
attempting too minute and too perfect control over the balls. This is a
rock on which many a game is wrecked, specially by players of great
delicacy of touch. A freer player, who recognises the futility of
attempting too great precision, but who at the same time never loses
sight for an instant of the general principles which should guide him,
and whilst obeying them leaves minutiæ to take care of themselves, is
far more likely to steer clear of trouble and to get home first.
A few words may suffice on the subject of nerve, a quality which is
intimately connected with making breaks. All men at times suffer from
nervousness, and its effect is paralysing; judgment, sight, and muscular
control are all affected, in some instances one might say arrested.
Nerve is probably closely allied to courage, yet in many respects it is
quite distinct; and very often a player at billiards who is nervous has
his failure unwarrantably attributed to what is expressively though
inelegantly called funk. Yet the man is no more a coward than the
hundreds are who if called upon to make a speech suddenly find their
tongues if not their ideas paralysed; he would face danger, moral or
physical, with average intrepidity, but still under certain
circumstances his play breaks down and he collapses. In so far as the
question is between man and man—one person’s nerve being greater than
another’s—we have nothing useful to say: one man is taller or healthier
or stronger than another, so much the better for the fortunate man; but
much that is set down by thoughtless spectators to fear is in reality
want of confidence, which happily may be supplied by intelligent work.
That, with ordinary care in living and with a resolution never to play
for stakes which cannot be lost with complete equanimity, is the remedy
which will be found most effectual.
Allied to this gain of confidence is the consideration of whether
beginners should select for purposes of play a difficult or an easy
table. The question is open to argument, and perhaps what may suit one
man may not suit another. But judging from personal experience and from
professional advice respecting training for a match, we should counsel
commencing to learn on an easy rather than on a difficult table. Many
persons have doubtless experienced the feeling that when they have made
20, 30, 40, 50, or some greater number of points, they are on the way to
making a break, and therefore must be careful lest they should fail. The
thought is fatal, and is quickly followed by collapse. The best
prevention is to become accustomed to making such breaks, and that is
most easily managed on a table where the pockets are not very difficult.
As one’s powers improve so may tighter pockets be encountered, but if
the same game be played the limits of divergence of tables must be
small. Half an inch or less in the width of a pocket necessitates a very
material alteration of the game, which need not at this moment be
further particularised.
A point of interest concerning breaks which may just be mentioned is
that, although the tables and method of scoring in the French game are
different from ours, yet the standard attained by amateurs is, compared
with professional form, much the same in each country. In a rough way
professionals may be said to score from ten to fifteen times more than
amateurs: that is, of course, comparing class with class in this way; an
indifferent amateur occasionally makes 25 or 30 points, so a
professional of not very high class may sometimes make 250 to 450,
whilst the amateur who can occasionally make 100 to 150 is to his
fellows what the professional is who can score from 1,000 to 2,000. A
series of 100 cannons is a very fine break for a French amateur, so may
100 points be said to be a long break for an English amateur, though
there are a few gentlemen of whom it may fairly be said that such a
break is by no means unusual; they, however, have decidedly passed from
amateur to professional form.
Now as regards playing for a break the way for instruction is cleared by
the system on which practice has been recommended and strokes have been
explained in previous chapters. A careful reader cannot fail to have
noticed that in almost every type of stroke described, the position of
the ball or balls after the stroke has been considered in a way second
only to actual execution. The application of the knowledge thus acquired
must chiefly be left to the intelligence of the player, who will, when
several strokes present themselves, at once select either the easiest,
or that which promises to leave most, according as he plays for a score
or for the break. Still a few remarks may be of use to the very large
class of players who cannot undertake close study of the game, and if
they seem to more advanced readers self-evident and unnecessary, we must
crave their indulgence and try to be brief. An important point to keep
in view is as far as possible after a losing hazard to leave the balls
within the parallel lines P M, Q N (see Diagram I.), and then they will
usually be well in play. Very often, however, one of the balls will be
left beyond these lines and virtually safe; when that is so, an
opportunity should be watched for, and may sometimes be made, to bring
the other ball near to it, so that by means of a cannon it may be moved
from its unprofitable situation.
Thus if the result of a few strokes has been to leave ball 3 out of play
near a side cushion, ball 2 being near the centre of the table and ball
1 in hand, the game is to continue the losing hazards till ball 2 is so
left that the cannon on ball 3 bringing it into play is easy. Suppose
ball 2 to have been left exactly on the central longitudinal line of the
table, in which case it is clear that the losing hazards into the top
pockets are exactly alike. Yet, if ball 3 is in the position shown, play
into one pocket will result in leaving the balls together, whilst if the
other pocket be thoughtlessly selected the balls will be separated.
First as a typical stroke let ball 2 be placed on the centre spot; the
losing hazard into either top pocket is a known practice stroke (see
Chapter V. p. 164). Place ball 1 for the half-ball hazard, and play the
stroke in the usual way, when ball 2 will stop near the left middle
pocket, and it is probable that either a hazard or cannon will be left.
The one serious danger of the stroke is that ball 2 should run into the
middle pocket and the break be lost; even then a miss in baulk would
leave its player with the best of the deal; besides, the mishap can be
guarded against by being careful not to play on ball 2 fuller than
half-ball, and with rather less strength than is required if a middle
pocket loser were desired. But if the hazard be made into the right top
pocket, then ball 2, after contact with cushions 6 and 1, would stop
near the right middle pocket on the opposite side of the table from ball
3.
This type of stroke or break should be played as indicated, so long as
ball 2 strikes cushion 2 first; when ball 2 is so far up the table that
(when the half-ball losing hazard is played) it strikes cushion 1 first,
then the hazard should be made into the right top pocket. This will be
at once seen by placing ball 2 on the pyramid spot, ball 3 being as
before. Place ball 1 on the left spot of the =Ｄ=, and play the usual
half-ball hazard into the right corner pocket; ball 2 will return from
cushion 1 towards ball 3. Place ball 1 on the right spot of the =Ｄ=, and
play into the left corner pocket, and ball 2 will return towards cushion
2 away from ball 3.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
Again, with ball 3 as before, but ball 2 below the middle pockets, with
a hazard from baulk right and left, ball 1 in hand. If the right middle
pocket loser be played, place ball 1 for a fine rather than for a full
stroke, in order that ball 2 may be cut towards ball 3; if the left
middle pocket be selected, place ball 1 for a full rather than for a
fine stroke, so that ball 2 after impact with cushion 1 may return to
the left side of the table, and admit of bringing ball 3 into play.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
An excellent rule is to play known strokes in preference to inventions
of the moment. Those who have practised the examples previously
recommended will know with tolerable accuracy where ball 2 is likely to
stop, at any rate in the commonest sort of plain strokes, and it is well
to profit by this knowledge. Thus with the balls as shown in fig. 1,
where 2 is the red, and 3, 3 are positions for the opponent’s ball, it
is better, at any rate for those who are not considerably advanced, to
play the half-ball losing hazard into the left corner pocket, than to
endeavour to secure a chance of a top of the table break by making the
cannon. For the hazard is more certain to most persons than the cannon,
and if the stroke is made balls 2 and 3 must almost inevitably be left
in play. Similarly in the positions shown in fig. 2, although the
cannons from 1 to 2 and 3 are perfectly easy, yet it is better to play
the known losing hazard 1 from 2 (which is supposed to be the red on the
spot) into the right corner pocket. Ball 2 will then be left over or
near the right middle pocket, into which a hazard will be left, or if
the stroke has been played without enough strength there may remain a
cannon from which the balls should be gathered at the top of the table.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
With balls 2 and 3 so left that there are plain losing hazards into the
middle pockets whilst at the same time, ball 1 being in hand, a cannon
is as easy or easier than either hazard, there is some difference of
opinion as to which stroke a moderate performer should play. In case of
being within two points of game the cannon may be chosen as rather the
easiest, but except in that case we recommend playing the losing
hazards. For at the worst there are two easy strokes on the table
against one if the cannon were played, totalling five against two. If,
however, the balls were so placed that one of them was too far up the
table for a plain hazard, then it is possible that the cannon might pay
better.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
For the class of players to whom these few hints are specially offered
it is, we believe, sound advice to say—do not vary your strength of play
greatly, accustom yourself to a free No. 1 or No. 2, and do not
ordinarily depart from it; avoid extremes of strength and the use of
side, specially with winning hazards; master the plain half-ball stroke,
and many other things shall be added to your score. Do not concern
yourself more than you can help about your adversary’s good or your own
bad luck, and do not think it incumbent to explain for the instruction
of spectators (some of whom at any rate presumably know more of the game
and understand it better than yourself) the reasons of your failures.
Now in addition to the players just referred to—and they form the great
majority—there are those who can devote considerable time and attention
to the game, who can play the spot stroke in the sense of knowing how
each position should be treated, and can usually make from five to ten
spots, besides having a fair general notion of the game. Such persons
represent the better class of club play, and from among them at rare
intervals a few appear whose form approaches that of the professional.
For their special behoof little need be said; they have acquired and
practise unconsciously the principles already recommended; in order to
improve in the matter of breaks they must work on professional lines,
and may, within the limits which their powers prescribe, follow
professional play. That is to say, it is not desirable to try to
prescribe a separate style of break for persons who are fairly grounded
in the grammar of the game, even though they may never attain great
excellence. As a rule, they owe the length of their scores, which are
often considerable, to small genuine breaks connected together by
providential bounty; every now and then in a score they are obliged to
give sole attention to making the stroke, and what is left is therefore
due to luck, which may be good or bad. The truth of this becomes
apparent if they are set to a break which must be thought out and which
does not often admit of adventitious aid, such as the spot stroke or a
nursery of cannons. They will rarely make more than ten or twenty
consecutive strokes, and how often not more than five. Nevertheless,
their profit will lie in trying to follow the lead of the masters,
modified, as may be required, by personal proficiency.
[Illustration:
Preparing to play behind the back: _the right way_
]
And here, lest it may be justly said that the interests of the vast
majority of billiard-players and of our readers are in danger of being
somewhat neglected in favour of a small minority who alone may
reasonably aspire to professional form, we have much pleasure in
introducing a paper by Mr. A. H. Boyd, who is well qualified to deal
with the subject, on ‘Every-day Billiards.’ From his paper, which is
commended to the careful attention of readers, it may be gathered that
he has successfully passed through many of the sorrows of the
self-taught student of the game, and is now enabled to attain to a
measure of his legitimate aspirations.
EVERY-DAY BILLIARDS
BY A. H. BOYD
As a great deal of the instruction contained in this volume may be too
scientific for the ordinary amateur, it has occurred to me that a few
simple hints, from a moderate player, who has experienced, and is daily
meeting, difficulties which possibly a brilliant performer hardly
understands, may be of some assistance to those who, like himself, are
fond of the game, appreciate its fascinating variety, and are honestly
anxious to improve.
The correct method of playing almost every stroke that is likely to
occur in a game has been so lucidly laid down in previous chapters, that
my efforts will be limited to pointing out where moderate players are
apt to go astray, and to dealing with a few salient points, in the hope
that I may be able to show what to avoid, rather than what to do or how
to do it.
By the moderate player I mean the average player as found in the average
club billiard-room, a man who is capable of running up 20 or 30, and who
has on certain happy days passed the Rubicon of 50.
I believe the use, and particularly the abuse, of the expression ‘power
of cue’ has led to more slipshod play, and done more harm to young
players, than anything else. In ninety-nine billiard-rooms out of a
hundred a steady, unpretending player, who makes simple strokes with
tolerable certainty and with fair strength, is considered a far inferior
performer to the gentleman who plays _every_ hazard with side on his
ball, who delights in extravagant screw shots, but who is supremely
indifferent to the subsequent career of the object ball. ‘Power of cue’
unfortunately, as understood by ordinary billiard-players, means _want
of command_ of cue. The mere power of imparting side, or making screws,
though valuable enough in itself, falls very far short of ‘power of cue’
as rightly understood. The real meaning of the expression is the ability
to combine the various elements, such as side, screw, follow, or stab
with varying strengths, so as to convert a forcing shot into a soft
screw, or a gentle stroke into a fast and fine shot, always with a view
to improved position.
Without the power of control or combination, the power of imparting side
may be and very frequently is positively harmful. An enormous number of
young players with a certain amount of aptitude for the game become so
enamoured of this showy gift that they insensibly drift into the habit
of playing every stroke, however simple, with side, and become
absolutely incapable of striking their ball in the centre, thus
increasing their difficulties at the outset. It is comparatively easy to
strike a ball in the centre as often as may be desired; it is next to
impossible to strike it on the side in the same place a dozen times
running. Hence, players who habitually use side constantly miss simple
shots, because the amount of side they put on is continually and
involuntarily varying.
The worst case I ever met was that of a man who had allowed the habit to
grow upon him so far that he could only strike his ball on the right
side. The natural consequence was that half the table was practically
closed to him: he would not attempt a jenny into the left-hand top
pocket, and his long losing hazards were of course very uncertain. Many
others there are, however, who, even when playing from hand, evince a
decided preference for playing to a particular side of the table, and it
is evident that, although possibly they don’t realise it themselves,
they have more command of one side than of the other. If this
inclination is felt, it should be fought down at once by playing for the
opposite side of the table; and a little resolute discipline of this
kind will soon eradicate the fault.
Curiously enough, moderate players rarely use side for following hazards
near a cushion, although a liberal use of it converts an extremely
difficult stroke into a comparatively easy one. The explanation, I
imagine, is, that when they began billiards, they were told to hit their
ball high in order to follow, and it is of course a difficult operation
to put side on a ball that is struck near the top. They, therefore, do
not choose to increase the risk of a foul by aiming at the side of the
top, and take some pains to strike their ball on or near the vertical
centre line. Did they but know it, the same pains expended upon the same
object, when playing ordinary losing hazards, would rapidly improve
their game.
It is easily understood that from near a cushion a pocket is a very
small target, and the margin of error in aim reaches the irreducible
minimum. So that this follow is rightly considered by moderate players
who play it in the way I have described as difficult, dangerous, and
hardly worth attempting. If, however, there is plenty of reverse side on
the ball, and it strikes anywhere on the shoulder of the pocket, it is
sure to go in.
Another fault very commonly committed is, where there are two ways of
playing a stroke, men take the way they fancy rather than the way which
will pay them best. Nothing stands more in the way of improvement than
this habit. Very likely games may be lost by trying for a little more,
and spectators are often too severe on what they consider as want of
proper caution. But let them say what they like. If a player is honestly
anxious to improve, he can afford to let the particular game take care
of itself, and even if he lose a dozen games running, patient practice
will bring its reward in the end.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not advocating ‘playing to the
gallery,’ merely for the sake of bringing off a showy stroke, but
playing out on purpose to try for position. There is, of course, a time
for everything. In a match involving a stake, or when competing in a
club handicap, a player should throw no chance away, and play carefully
and cautiously, especially near the end of the game _with the lead_. But
in an ordinary game he should play out and try whatever comes. Though
many shillings may be thus lost, it is comforting to reflect that they
are really the fees for learning, and they will ultimately prove to have
been well spent. Nothing is more melancholy than to watch a couple of
men who have devoted many hours daily for many years to their favourite
game, poking about with safety misses, white winners and double baulks,
and spinning out a game of 100 to a weary length. In all those years
they have not added one stroke to their battery, and they will go on to
the end of the chapter, unimproved and unimproving, confirmed
cushion-crawlers.
Just as at whist, there is such a thing as playing to the score, so
there is a time to be bold as well as a time to be cautious; and many a
match has been lost by over-caution. I once saw a game in a club
tournament, where one of the players was immeasurably superior to the
other, and, although he had given his opponent a long start, he had
caught him 100 from home. He then took it into his head that his proper
tactics were to play for safety on every occasion. The result was what
might have been expected. His antagonist took a clearer view of the
situation, saw that the game was desperate, and played out every time
after the other’s safety stroke. There were many occasions when the
better player, if he had taken the least risk, would probably have run
up a nice break, and possibly have finished the game; but he waited and
waited, and his antagonist got home. Clearly, with 100 to be made and
playing on level terms, his proper course would have been to play his
usual game, when his superior skill must have brought him in an easy
winner. A player must remember that it is not enough to hamper the
enemy’s chances of scoring; he has _got to make the points_ himself.
The four-handed game, which is a very popular institution with the
cautious, is one of the very worst schools for a young player with any
enterprise. He will be drilled into everlasting safety, and if he is at
all ambitious of playing a good game, he should avoid it as he would the
plague. On the other hand, he should never lose an opportunity of
playing with better players; for, although at first he will find the
rapid scoring of his opponent very disconcerting, still, in time, the
feeling will wear off, and the necessity for doing better will of itself
induce improved play.
The tactics of the over-cautious school lead one to consider the
question of ‘leaves’ as generally understood. The hard-hitting,
slap-dash player, after having sent all the balls flying in various
directions, will often bitterly bewail his luck if nothing is left after
what he considers a brilliant stroke; and amateurs are prone to look for
this chance-leaving as a fairly earned reward of their skill. The less
one looks for this sort of thing the better. A leave which has been
carefully planned and successfully engineered is more meritorious than a
dozen of such, and will, in the end, bring a more certain reward.
Nothing is more mortifying to the player who is honestly trying to place
the balls than to find, as he often will at first, that time after time
he has just failed, perhaps by a few inches, to attain the desired
position; while a hard-hitting, careless friend is merrily scoring all
round the table after strokes which have apparently hopelessly scattered
the balls. Curiously enough, a large share of this particularly
exasperating form of luck falls to the lot of the careless. I once saw a
man make 62 without a fluke as popularly so-called, and yet every leave
was the result of accident rather than of design. This is what one must
be prepared for, and suffer gladly. Don’t be cast down or disgusted if
the adversary drives a ball anyhow to the baulk end and finds an easy
losing hazard left. It is all the more annoying because one cannot call
this sort of thing by its true name—viz. a fluke.
Another form of annoyance is the fluked safety, which will sometimes run
almost through an afternoon. It is very hard to bear, especially when
the adversary takes spurious credit for playing a wonderfully safe game.
If under these trying circumstances the temper can be kept, things will
not only right themselves eventually, but a reputation for good-nature
and saintliness may be earned.
That these things worry is not wholly discouraging. Unless one is
absolutely indifferent to the game they must be felt, and the keener one
is the more must their injustice be resented. But, after all, they teach
patience and coolness—two very valuable allies—which have many a time
pulled a game out of the fire, after it has seemed utterly and
irretrievably lost.
Careful students of Chapter V. will have realised that perhaps the most
important thing for the learner to devote his attention to is the
winning hazard; but that stroke, at once the most difficult and the most
important at billiards, is sadly neglected by the vast bulk of amateurs.
Seldom, or never, is a break of over 40 made which does not involve a
winning hazard, which must be accomplished in order to continue the
break. All strokes are largely a matter of confidence, and this is
especially true of the winning hazard. Unless it is played with the
confidence which practice alone can give, the stroke seldom succeeds.
Here pool comes in as an excellent training school. It is wearisome
drudgery practising these strokes simply; but in the friendly rivalry of
pool, with the added zest of a prospective sixpence, the winning hazard
becomes quite attractive.
In a long spot-barred break a spectator, if his attention has never been
directed to this point before, will be astonished at the number of times
the red is holed, and, of course, the immense possibilities of the
‘all-in’ game are obvious to everyone. It is the spot practice, and
nothing else, which has given the leading players their complete mastery
over winning hazards; and though it is the fashion nowadays for even the
most moderate players to declare ‘the spot’ tiresome to watch and not
worth their attention, yet a little quiet spot practice will not be
thrown away. Although the learner may not attain sufficient proficiency
to justify him in going for the spot in an important game, still he will
pick up almost unconsciously a notion of the right place to strike the
object ball for a winning hazard, and, in addition, one or two little
wrinkles as to ‘touch’ and ‘strength’ which will stand him in good stead
in other parts of the table.
Another great point in winning hazard practice is that it directs the
learner’s attention, forcibly and practically, to the dangers and
disadvantages of misapplied side. In the first place, the hazard itself
is rendered more difficult, and repeated failures will compel a learner
to take pains to strike his own ball in the centre. And, in the second
place, the run of ball 1, after impact with ball 2, will be checked or
accelerated, as the case may be, to an extent which may lead to
disaster. Young pool players, when playing from baulk on a ball at the
top of the table with their player in hand, frequently experience the
mortification of seeing their ball, after an unsuccessful shot, come
back into baulk a helpless prey to the next player. It may very well be
that they have not put too much force into their stroke, but they have
probably struck it off the centre. In this, one of the commonest of pool
strokes, it is of the last importance to avoid putting on side.
It is worth remembering, too, that it is not necessary, as so many
amateurs appear to think, to make all winning hazards at forcing
strength. As a matter of fact, the pocket is considerably larger for a
stroke played at drop strength, although of course it requires some
nerve to play the hazard in that fashion.
Losing hazards have been so exhaustively dealt with in Chapter V. that
nothing need be said here concerning them; but there are two faults very
commonly committed by amateurs which are fatal to accurate hazard
striking, and the first of these is pointing the cue at one part of ball
1 and striking another. Some men habitually aim with the cue-tip
pointing over the top of their ball, others again with the tip almost
touching the cloth, no matter whether the stroke they intend to play be
a follow or a screw, a centre stroke or a stroke with side. Those who
are familiar with golf are well aware that in those places where
grounding the club behind the ball is not allowed it is exceedingly
difficult to hit the ball cleanly and truly, because there is nothing to
guide the aim. Similarly, at billiards, if the cue be aimed exactly at
the point on the ball that it is intended to strike, the stroke is more
likely to be accurately delivered than if it be pointing at some other
spot or be brought down or up, to the left or to the right, at the last
moment. It is a rare occurrence to find a moderate player who aims as he
should aim.
The second fault is the widespread belief among inexperienced players,
that in order to impart the maximum amount of side to a ball the cue
should move in a horizontal curve—that is to say, that believers in this
strange theory (and they are legion), when they are attempting a stroke
involving, say, right side, sweep the point of their cue to the right as
they deliver the stroke. Students of Chapters III. to VI. will readily
see that the theory is absolutely fallacious, and fully understand that,
the straighter the cue is pointing along the path of ball 1 or parallel
to it, the more power it has over the ball. But, as the theory is firmly
maintained, it may be worth while to draw attention to it in order to
emphasise the instructions contained in Chapter III.
In most billiard-rooms the balls receive somewhat severe treatment, and
of necessity are constantly travelling to the makers to be adjusted or
turned down. Therefore, it often happens that they are smaller and
lighter than they should be. Now, such balls are more easily sent flying
up and down the table, and they are not quite so liable to catch in the
jaws of a pocket and stop outside as full-sized ones. Hence they are
popular with free hitters; but in other ways they are very
objectionable. Being light, they are more liable to turn aside over any
slight obstruction on the table; and, as they start away after contact
faster than heavy balls, it is a difficult matter to play quietly with
them and keep the balls together. It may be that at first, with heavy
full-sized balls, the breaks are neither so many nor so long; but
perseverance will result in more command over the heavy balls than was
possible with the light ones. The very fact that continual slogging with
heavy balls is arduous work, and distinctly damaging to the top of the
cue, will of itself induce a quieter style of play and more thought for
the hereafter.
Simple as it may seem, very few men know how to practise. It is a common
experience to walk into a billiard-room and find a player idly knocking
the balls about—now a losing hazard, now a cannon, all too rarely a
winning hazard, with no method, and with no attention to the run of the
balls. Nothing is really more useless. To practise properly, one should
have a distinct idea of what is wanted and how to set about getting it.
Chapter VIII. clearly shows the great merit of the spot stroke as a
means of practice. The combination of strength and accuracy is most
important training. One or other position will probably prove more
difficult than the rest. Practise that particular stroke till it is
mastered—_i.e._ till not only is the hazard made, but position is
obtained for the next stroke.
Many, of course, there must be who have not got the time or the patience
for such practice as this, and to them I offer an alternative. Spot the
red, put the white on the middle spot (the position after the balls have
touched), play from the =Ｄ=, and see what the break will run to. At the
outset the white long loser is an admirable practice stroke, for it must
be played freely, and its successful manipulation will engender a
feeling of confidence in long losers which will be worth a great deal.
There are some players who find when they make this hazard that the
object ball runs perilously near to the middle pocket; others find with
their normal stroke that the ball usually strikes the side cushion about
a foot or eighteen inches above the middle. Players of the former class
generally gain position off two cushions; players of the latter class
off three; but in each case the object is to leave a cannon up the table
on to the red on the spot.
Long losers from baulk are most excellent practice, and would be more
popular were it not for the nuisance of having to go and fetch the ball
from the other end of the table every time. The new tramway arrangement,
patented by Messrs. Orme & Co., whereby the ball returns automatically
from the top pockets to the bottom of the table, does away with this
drawback, and is therefore a distinct advantage where there is no
marker.
There is an exercise, invented I believe by a weather-bound golfer, in
which the red is spotted on the centre spot, and the player starts from
the =Ｄ= and tries to hole the red in all the pockets in turn in as few
strokes as possible. The red is re-spotted on the centre spot every time
it is holed, and the player plays on each occasion from where his ball
has run to. This game is really excellent practice, for it involves
accurate winning hazard striking, combined with delicate strength and a
knowledge of angles. I believe that 20 is considered what golfers would
call the ‘bogey’ score; but I fancy it is placed a little too high, and
I think 16 would be nearer the mark. As the learner improves he can
lower the bogey to suit himself. To sum up, the whole art of successful
amateur billiard-playing is almost all contained in the accurate
delivery of the cue, division of the object ball being a comparatively
simple matter.
[Illustration:
Preparing to play behind the back: _the wrong way_
]
Chapters III., IV., V., and the valuable memorandum contributed by Mr.
Pontifex, should be carefully studied. The learner will find that if he
once masters cue delivery many other things will be added unto him. He
will discover that it is just as easy to screw to any angle, when the
balls are close together, by playing softly as by hitting hard, and will
learn the valuable fact that screw and side are easier to apply softly,
because with a gentle stroke he can make more certain of striking where
he intends, and thus he will have found out the whole secret of screw.
It is the spin on ball 1 which causes it to spring off square, and the
force of impact has comparatively little to do with altering the angle
of deviation.
And yet I fear that no printed instruction will teach everything in the
way of making strokes, because the sense of touch enters so largely into
the question of execution. A good player with a cue in his hand can show
more in an hour than the best book will in a month; but the former is
not always attainable, whilst the latter may be the student’s constant
companion. Hence it will be seen how advantageous it is to play as much
as possible with better players, and also to practise carefully the
strokes recommended in a sound manual.
* * * * *
By all who are interested in the higher aspects of the game the
following memoranda by Mr. R. H. R. Rimington-Wilson on breaks
generally, and on top-of-the-table play specially, will be welcomed. He
brings to the subject great experience, gathered from every available
source, and to masterly execution adds soundness and accuracy of
judgment, which give peculiar value to his remarks.
SOME NOTES ON ‘THE TOP-OF-THE-TABLE′ GAME
BY R. H. R. RIMINGTON-WILSON
No practice by oneself at billiards can be more fascinating than this
modern development at the top of the board; it has also this advantage,
that in the absence of a marker it does not often entail journeys to far
distant pockets in search of a ball. Furthermore, it is an art which
makes as many calls on the head as it does on the hand and eye. Many
little problems have to be solved, and many a solution, sufficiently
obvious when pointed out, fails to present itself after months of
solitary work.
The following notes presuppose the student to be well beyond the novice
stage, and well up in the ‘out in the country’ game. He must have
thoroughly mastered moderately easy short winning hazards, with and
without side, also slow screws off fine and full balls under the same
conditions. Failure in the former is absolutely fatal, and execution in
the latter essential to due control over the object ball.
It is hardly necessary to say that a good spot stroke performer starts
with a great advantage, many of the strokes being spot strokes pure and
simple. Conversely, it follows that a good top-of-the-table player must
of necessity be a fair spot stroke performer. To anyone who is uncertain
of his short winning hazards there is only one course open—to work at
them till he can do them, or to leave the top-of-the-table game severely
alone. Breaking down at this game is usually even more expensive than
failure at the ‘spot,’ as in the latter case all three balls are not
necessarily together at the top.
To a master of the art there is no question but that this method of
scoring presents the easiest and quickest way of making a break. Given
the requisite knowledge, the strokes are generally not very difficult,
and there is the enormous advantage of being close to the work—in
addition to which the player adopting this style of game is much less
affected by the conditions of the table.
Nursery cannons are of course a great feature of play at the top of the
table, and must be made a separate study. They are much easier than is
generally supposed, and require really more knowledge than execution,
especially with the push stroke allowed as in the English game. The
writer has several times seen fifty consecutive cannons made with no tip
on the cue, which is strong evidence in favour of not much execution
being required.
The chief difficulty lies (1) in getting position; (2) in turning the
corners. Getting past the middle pocket is rarely attempted, and would
generally defeat the best players. It is almost impossible to illustrate
these ‘nurseries’ by means of diagrams, as often a difference of a
hair’s breadth in position will determine the way of playing the stroke.
To anyone wishing to make a study of nursery cannon play Vignaux’s ‘Le
Billard’ (Paris, Delarue), an admirable work on the French game, well
illustrated with diagrams, is strongly recommended.
Now, unless the opponent has been kind, before one can play the
top-of-the-table game it is obviously necessary to get there;
consequently diagrams are given to show some of the readiest means of
obtaining the desired position. These do not, of course, pretend in any
way to exhaust the subject, but merely indicate the general idea. Each
diagram is accompanied by some simple instructions for play.
It will be seen that the commonest mode of getting position is by the
long cannon (Diagram II.), played either to collect the balls in the
region of the spot, or—with a slight variation of position—to double the
red towards the top pocket, driving the opponent’s ball spotwards.
While mentioning this cannon it will not be out of place to call
attention to a very important point, one of general application, but
especially valuable in this type of stroke.
It is of the first importance that after cannoning the _striker’s_ ball
(ball 1) be left in a commanding position; in fact, in such a position
that a score will almost certainly be left wherever the other two balls
may come to rest at the top of the table.
In a general way this is effected by two opposite methods. We will first
consider a case where the cannon ball (ball 3) lies well away from a
cushion, and in an uncramped position, which it would be desirable for
the striker’s ball to occupy. In this case the cannon should be made
dead full on ball 3. Ball 1 will be stopped comparatively dead, and will
occupy the other’s place, which is what is required.
It follows from this that in the event of ball 3 being close to a
cushion or in some other undesirable place, the opposite method should
be employed, and the full ball cannon avoided.
There are cases, of course, when it is desirable to cannon full on a
ball touching or nearly touching a cushion, with a view of utilising the
kiss, but this is not the class of stroke under discussion.
The main point it is hoped the previous remarks may convey is, the great
importance of leaving the striker’s ball in a commanding position. The
player’s attention is called to this as one of the chief points to be
considered in this class of stroke.
Reference will be made in the diagrams to this method of play.
In conclusion, one word of warning. On arrival at the top of the table
do not straightway become a player with one idea—to stop there.
Remember that a little exercise ‘in the country’ is often required, and
often more profitable than a risky attempt to prolong the stay ‘at
home.’ The return home is by no means hopeless. Not only is there every
chance of it if a man is in good form, but under any circumstances no
undue hurry should be shown to get position either for the spot or for
play at the top of the table. It is better to plod along quietly with
long losers and ordinary strokes till a favourable conjunction of the
balls presents itself than to risk failure by attempting to get
immediate position by means of complicated strokes full of
compensations. No doubt if they come off successfully the triumph is
great, but the method is unsound, and will not bear the test of time; it
will fail far oftener than the less ambitious mode, which waits a bit on
fortune, instead of trying to force her favours. It is usually the
comparative novice who is in the greatest hurry—‘_Chi va piano va sano,
e chi va sano va lontano._′
Probably the most favourable open position for commencing the
top-of-the-table game is when the red is on the spot, the striker’s ball
in position for an easy spot hazard, and the opponent’s ball in close
proximity to the red, above or below it, and more or less in the central
line of the table. We may borrow a French expression and call this
position the _position mère_. This position in the hands of an expert is
most prolific, admitting as it does of a system of play consisting
ideally of alternate winning hazards and cannons, but varied by
‘nurseries’ and incidental play. The great feature of the modern game is
to obtain and regain this _position mère_.
The diagrams that follow are given with a view of illustrating some of
the commonest methods of leading up to this position and suggesting
others.
In supplementing previous remarks the student’s attention is invited to
the importance of being constantly on the look out for an opportunity of
playing the opponent’s ball spotwards when there is a probability of the
succeeding stroke being a red winner. Even in the event of a red loser
being left—instead of the winner as intended—the opponent’s ball can
hardly occupy a more favourable position, as the balls probably can be
gathered at the top of the table in the course of a stroke or two.
It will be noticed that in the examples given the play recommended is of
the simplest and most natural description, calling for a little
forethought, but for little or no execution. They also in nearly every
case represent the simplest way of leaving a break even to a player who
is not a proficient at the top of the table.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
Remember to be full on ball 3 with the view of stopping your own ball.
Compare also Diagram p. 177.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
Play half-ball on the red, driving it towards the right-hand top
pocket. Full
on ball 3 to stop your own ball and drive it spotwards. With ball 2,
the white ball, be careful not to play too hard for fear of losing it.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
Half-ball on ball 2, sending it spotwards, nearly full on ball 3,
which will stop
your own ball and leave it near the pyramid spot.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
Be careful to be fine enough on ball 2 to keep it at the top of the
table; a half-ball
would bring it down the table out of play.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
(I.) Make the loser off the white, driving it spotwards. (II.) Hole
the red, and
get position either by the slow drop or off the top cushion,
preferably the latter.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
(I.) Make the loser off the white, leaving it near the spot.
(II.) As in previous diagram.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
(I.) Make the white loser gently. (II.) Hole the red as before.
]
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
Screw back on to the white, bringing the red round. With the white as
object
ball, care must be taken in this class of stroke not to hole it in the
top
pocket.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 4.—Play to cannon full and slowly on ball 3, leaving the red
winner and\white near the spot. With balls 1 and 2 further apart,
the strength would be too difficult to play as here given, and the
play would be as in Diagram No. I.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 5.—Play the white spotwards and be full on the red.
]
The diagrams and remarks just given having led us up to the top of the
table, those that follow will attempt to illustrate on broad lines some
of the play when there. Niceties cannot be touched upon, and it is
thought more convenient to give individual strokes of common occurrence
rather than the consecutive strokes of a break.
In some cases the stroke given might be played differently, in order to
collect the balls for nursery cannons; but as the diagrams are intended
to illustrate the more open game, the position for nurseries will not as
a rule be taken into account. In other instances the stroke given admits
of different treatment from that shown, the choice being frequently
determined by the player’s preference for a particular class of stroke.
The chief aim of the diagrams is to suggest ideas.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6.—Play ball 2 behind the spot, cannon full on ball 3 (the red),
leaving\the winner, which when made with a stab leaves the _position
mère_. Guard against losing the red first stroke, in which case the
break would very likely be lost.
]
A common fault in playing at the top of the table consists in
endeavouring to bring the balls together, when the better game would be
to leave them farther apart. In playing to bring them together a dead
cover often results, very possibly bringing a promising break to a
close. Of course in many instances to bring them together would be the
game, but frequently it is not, and the reader should be on his guard
against the above-mentioned cause of breakdown.
[Illustration:
Fig. 7.—Hole ball 2 (the red), and get position for a cannon either by
the\screw back or stab follow.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 8.—Play a three-quarter ball on ball 2 (the red), dropping gently
on\ball 3, in such a way as not to interfere with the red winner to
follow.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 9.—Remember to make use of the screw back in these positions.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 10.—Drop very gently between the balls; when making the
second\cannon, push through and get above them.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 11.—Practise these strengths till you are sure of them.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 12.—White spotwards and leave red winner.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 13.—Play here to cannon, and leave the red winner, barely
disturbing\the white.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 14.—Play very fine on the white so as not to disturb it. Avoid
the run\through in this very useful class of stroke.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 15.—Gently here to leave red winner. Forefinger bridge. Better
than\trying to bring them together. This is a stroke which requires
some delicacy of execution; it should be practised till the red can
be left near the corner pocket with certainty.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 16.—Push dead full and slowly, bringing the balls together for
nurseries.\There must be more than the diameter of a ball between
ball 3 and the cushion. The stroke is often assisted by pushing ball
1 on the left side, which ensures its free escape from the squeeze
between cue-tip and cushion.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 17.—Study the position with the opponent’s ball on either side of
the central\line of the table. In the one case when it lies on the
player’s side, hole the red by the slow drop, stopping about B. In
the other case play freely off the cushion to A.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 18.—Play rather fine on both balls, and come back a little way up
the\table. In playing this class of stroke, the object being to send
ball 3 to the spot and leave red winner, it is often useful to
employ side, which taking effect from the cushion after the cannon
is made, enables the player to keep near the object ball or away
from it, as desired. The stroke can hardly go wrong.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 19.—Red touching cushion 1. Play slow, kiss cannon, leaving red
winner.\Not too full on the red.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 20.—In this sort of position, the game is to cannon and drop
slowly and\full on the red. A screw back cannon the next stroke
played with good strength will probably permit of the top of the
table game being continued. The strength for the return of the
object ball, whether off one or more cushions, must be constantly
practised. It varies considerably on different tables, and possibly
with the weight of the balls.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 21.—There is no better practice for touch than these slow screws
off a fine\ball; played off too thick a ball or too hard the break
is lost at once. The object, of course, is to play the red over the
top pocket for the winner and cannon slowly on the white.
]
[Illustration:
Fig 22.—Beware in playing this cannon of leaving the red close to the
cushion,\as a cover often occurs. Keep the red several inches from
the cushion, either by finer cut or bringing it back from cushion.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 23.—Fine on ball 2 (the red) to leave winner. Cannon gently on
inside of\ball 3, leaving it near the spot.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 24.—Stab the red in and stop close to it, taking care, of course,
not to\stop on the spot. This leaves the stroke shown in fig. 15.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 25.—Play ball 2 back to the spot, leaving red winner.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 26.—Hole the red and play to leave your own ball for the push.
Get a\shade above the white if possible to enable you to keep it
near the spot.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 27.—Cannon fine on both balls and get above them.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 28.—White spotwards and leave the winner.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 29.—Play the white spotwards and leave the winner.
]
[Illustration:
A Nursery
]
Much advantage will result to the thoughtful reader from a careful study
of the foregoing remarks on breaks, specially if they are read beside a
table on which the strokes may be played; but the same can scarcely be
said with regard to any instructions we have seen for playing a break of
nursery cannons. Of all strokes on the billiard-table they lend
themselves least to description, and the distances between the balls
being so small and the paths travelled so very short, that illustration
by diagram is at once difficult and of doubtful use. Even if the writer
or draftsman thoroughly understands each stroke, it is nearly impossible
to convey his knowledge to the reader. As Mr. Rimington-Wilson has
remarked, the student cannot do better than consult M. Vignaux’s manual
as far as book study is concerned, for the principle underlying the
break is the same on French and on English tables. There are, however,
practical differences, such as the pockets on an English table, which
interfere with the continuation of a long series, and the size of the
balls and table, all of which make the break more difficult for us than
for the French. On the other hand, our rules permit the push stroke,
which is not allowed by French or Americans, and this makes a long break
easier for us. Hence it is necessary to endeavour to give some idea of
this style of play on our tables, the more so as nurseries form a large
part of most long spot-barred breaks.
The only nurseries of cannons that have as yet played an important part
in the English game are those made in such a way that the three balls
are kept travelling in front of the player, and seldom further than from
four to eight inches from the cushion. The series was invented in
America under the name of Rail play, and brought to France by Vignaux,
where though quite modern it is already barred in match games.
Theoretically it consists of the repetition of one simple stroke,
whereby the balls are moved slightly forward, the only check to
uniformity being when a corner has to be turned or a pocket passed;
practically, this normal stroke, _position mère_, as the French call it,
is seldom preserved for any length of break, and the art of continuing
to score consists greatly in the skill whereby it is recovered.
A notion of the ideal path of the balls may be gathered from fig. 30,
that of ball 2 being a zigzag parallel to the cushion, and that of ball
3 a straight line also parallel; 1′ 1″ 1‴, 2′ 2″ 2‴, 3′ 3″ 3‴ are the
positions of the balls after each stroke. In fact the relative position
of the three balls remains the same, whilst they are all moved short
distances along the cushion at each stroke. Of course to attain this
result absolute perfection of manipulation and of implements is
necessary, and equally of course, no such conditions exist; after a few
strokes the relative position is altered, even if certain requirements
of the series be preserved. These mainly are, that a line passing
through the centres of 2 and 3 must be inclined, not parallel to the
cushion; that ball 3 (of fig. 30) shall never be nearer the cushion than
a diameter (2¹⁄₁₆ in.), so that there may be room for ball 2 to be
played between it and the cushion, but ball 2 must never pass ball 3;
that ball 1 also should never pass ball 3; and that each should follow
its rail. These are the chief considerations to be kept in mind when
playing the series, the next point of importance being how to continue
the break when the relative positions of the balls to each other is
modified by various imperfections of play.
[Illustration:
Fig. 30.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 31.
]
A few of the commonest variations will be mentioned, the object of the
strokes being to recover the _position mère_ as soon as possible.
If ball 1 be played with a little right side or screw or too full on
ball 2, or a combination of these errors, it will strike ball 3 too fine
and come to rest below it, as shown in fig. 31. Ball 3, by having been
struck too fine, has not travelled sufficiently, whereas ball 2 may have
gone too far, so that the tendency of the error here represented is that
the three balls should be left in line, and the series be lost; being
only recoverable by a perfect _massé_—a stroke so rare in the English
game that it may be neglected.
In the case supposed it is clear that following the usual nomenclature
ball 3 would become ball 2 for the stroke about to be played, but would
again become ball 3 in the next stroke after, and confusion might
result; hence, for these nursery cannons the cushion is assumed to be
cushion 1, or that at the top of the table, and the balls retain their
numbers 1, 2, 3, as in the _position mère_, fig. 30. The player is
standing at cushion 6, looking towards cushion 2. First let ball 1 have
its centre at A. Play a very fine ball on 3, scarcely moving it and
cannoning tolerably full on 2, coming off it to the left; a gentle
stroke will leave something like the original position. If ball 1 has
its centre at B, and occupies the position of the dotted circle 1′, then
in the English game the break is continued by a gentle push very fine on
3, and as full as practicable on 2. One of the chief difficulties of
this and other similar strokes when ball 1 is decidedly below the other
balls is the correct alignment of the cue. Different persons meet the
difficulty in different ways; the majority, who are tall enough and not
too stiff, bend over reversing the cue so that its tip points towards
instead of away from themselves, the elbow being raised; whereas others
lay the cue on the table in the right alignment, then standing as before
at cushion 1, raise the tip, having taken hold of the cue about 6 or 8
in. further back between the thumb and forefinger, and leaving the butt
on the table, bring the tip forward for a stroke or push as the
situation may require. Occasionally a short, stout man is put to
considerable inconvenience and disadvantage in playing these shots, and
has after each cannon to walk round and play the next with the rest; at
first sight the hardship may not be apparent, but if the value of
keeping the eyes close to the balls in such delicate work, and the
additional labour in walking round a corner of the table, and taking up
the rest, say twenty times in a series of forty cannons, be considered,
the serious nature of the drawback will not be denied.
[Illustration:
Fig. 32
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 33
]
The next position (fig. 32) is just the reverse of the preceding. Play a
fine delicate stroke on 2, cannoning gently on 3 also rather fine, and
getting a position similar to that shown in the previous figure. If ball
1 is nearer the cushion and nearer ball 2, the cannon must be pushed,
care being taken to push fine on 2 so as not to remove it further down
the table than need be, and to get below 3, that is further from the
cushion, for the next stroke. The stroke left being that of fig. 31,
suppose it to be played too fine on ball 3, getting so full on ball 2,
that it is left behind as in fig. 33. The stroke as shown is a screw a
little further back, or less, than a right angle; but if played plain,
ball 2 will return from the cushion at right angles, or perhaps to the
left of the perpendicular, and there is much probability of ball 1
remaining between the other two and the break being lost. Whereas if
ball 1 be played with left side, ball 2 will come off the cushion to the
right and rejoin 3. If by error ball 1 be played with right side, ball 2
will return from the cushion straighter or more to the left. This use of
side is very pretty, and its effect seems to point to the transmission
of rotation to the second ball, reversed of course, as it should be,
according to the theory put forward in Chapter VI.
[Illustration:
Fig. 34
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 35
]
Again, if instead of being left behind, ball 2 is rather too far
forward, by playing ball 1 with right side and gentle screw ball 2 will
be kept back and the relative position recovered. In playing this,
however, a slight error may result in leaving the balls as shown (fig.
35), from which position the break should be continued by a kiss; ball 1
played just right of the centre of ball 2 should be kissed back on ball
3 fine.
[Illustration:
Fig. 36
]
These kiss strokes should be practised till they can be done with great
exactness. Usually the player being afraid of missing the cannon causes
ball 1 to strike ball 3 too full, and thus drives it down the table,
very likely so as to lose the break. Another type of stroke which easily
results from nursery play is that wherein ball 2 has got too far forward
and is left very close to ball 3. If ball 1 is favourably placed, a
series of fine cannons may be played irrespective of the cushion, the
secret being not to be too fine on the third or cannon ball, and so to
avoid the danger of leaving all three balls in a straight line. In
trying to continue cushion nurseries from a position such as is shown
(fig. 36), the point to bear in mind is that ball 3 is too far back,
relatively; therefore, it must be struck as full as possible without
sending it cushion-wards, cannoning gently on ball 2. If 1 should occupy
the position 1′, a push on the left of ball 1 for its support fine on
ball 3, will result in the latter escaping off ball 2 in the proper
direction, whilst ball 1 will cannon on ball 2, and by means of a few
careful strokes the _position mère_ may be recovered.
[Illustration:
Fig. 37
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 38
]
In playing cushion nurseries even after sufficient confidence is
attained, and series of twenty or thirty cannons are not infrequently
made, great trouble is found in continuing the break round a corner of
the table. That the difficulty is real is apparent from watching
professional play under the circumstances; very often it will be seen
that when the balls have been worked into a corner, the player will
seize the first opportunity of so striking his adversary’s ball as to
leave it near the spot, and cannoning on the red with the view of holing
it next stroke. In other words, the nursery is abandoned and a
favourable position for the top-of-the-table play is selected. This, we
venture to think—for to write dogmatically on such a matter is
foolish—is generally sound play; it makes use of the pocket, which is a
serious obstacle to continuing cannons. Nevertheless, by careful
watching and sometimes by slight modification of play, the opportunity
of turning the corner may be recognised or created. Two examples are
shown in the following figures of positions, in which it is worth while
to try to continue cannons; the balls should not be allowed to get too
near the pocket before trying the strokes, otherwise success is
endangered by the shoulders. The sketch, which has been made without the
advantage of a table on which the balls might be set up, is therefore,
no doubt, faulty, but may serve to convey the desired idea. The position
shown is a modification of the normal one, and the player’s object is to
cause ball 2 to strike cushions 1 and 2 clear of the shoulders of the
pocket, with such strength as to leave that ball near cushion 2.
Further, he must so cannon on ball 3 as to drive it towards the path of
ball 2, if possible slightly ahead of it, when either the _position
mère_, or one not differing very widely from it, will be left, and the
series may be continued along cushion 2 towards the middle pocket. Play
ball 1 a screw stroke about three-quarters right on ball 2, whence it
will return on ball 3, moving it slightly towards cushion 2 and away
from cushion 1. The relative positions of the balls to each other after
a well-played stroke is roughly indicated at 1′ 2′ 3′; their actual
position on the board cannot be shown, as it would confuse the original
drawing.
[Illustration:
Fig. 39
]
Fig. 39 shows another type of stroke for turning the corner. In this
case ball 1 must be played with a little right side, the measure of
which is the quantity of ball 2 taken so as to make it travel as
desired. If fuller, more right side is required; if finer, less.
[Illustration:
Fig. 40
]
A person practising these strokes will be able to interpolate many
variations between the screw and the follow as here exemplified, and
perhaps the best way to make good use of these types is to set up the
balls in normal position for cushion nurseries within a few inches of
the corner pocket, and then try in one or two strokes to leave a variety
of one or other of the examples. In this way the eye becomes accustomed
when playing a series to gauge the distance from the pocket and to seize
a favourable opportunity for passing it.
Another way of turning the corner is shown in fig. 40, whereby as will
be seen use is made of the jaws of the pocket to bring ball 2 down the
table into the desired position. The stroke is so simple as not to need
detailed description; it may be set up by sight, and a few attempts will
reveal what compensations should be applied to insure to ball 2 the
required speed and to slow ball 1, so that it may be left above the
other balls. This diagram was sent by Mr. W. J. Peall, who, moreover,
has kindly read these remarks on ‘cushion nurseries,’ and expressed his
approval of them.
It is right that advice on the subject of cannon play should be given
with caution and hesitation, for the science is far from understood even
by our best players, and further knowledge may put our present ideas
into the background, if not show some of them to have been founded on
misapprehension. Hence but little more will be added on this subject,
and that must be general. Avoid excessive use of the push stroke; it is
commonly employed when quite unnecessary, and is more likely to result
in leaving the balls touching than when an ordinary stroke is used.
Next, play freely rather than over gently, and if possible under the
close supervision of a first-rate performer, and one who can and will
detect every small imperfection. Replace the balls after failure, and
repeat the stroke till certainty is acquired; an hour’s practice daily
is about what is required to keep up the necessary touch after the
various positions have been mastered, but recollect that too much
practice at close cannons is apt to cramp and destroy the freedom needed
for general play.
These notes on nurseries may be appropriately closed by the following
remarks kindly furnished by Mr. Rimington-Wilson, who, it is permissible
to observe, can play such cannons with a speed and certainty as greatly
to be envied as they are difficult of attainment, and in a style
professional rather than amateur.
‘Nursery cannon play in England is still in its infancy, and the writer
cannot help expressing a wish that it may never see full maturity. The
possibilities of this style of game were well illustrated by the visit
of the American champion Ives to this country, when he played a match
with Roberts under unusual conditions.
‘It is true that Ives made his gigantic break in a way that would be
impossible with the ordinary sized balls and pockets—viz.: by jamming
the balls, which were an intermediate size between the American and
English, in the angle of a table with very tight pockets. While
maintaining the position in which he made his break, the balls were not
jammed in the jaws of the pocket as they may be in the English game, but
rather in the angle of the corner where, owing to the large balls and
small pockets, there was very little danger of losing a ball. In fact,
the break was played very much as it would be on an American table with
no pockets.
[Illustration:
Playing behind the back
]
‘Independently of this break Ives’s cannon play was very superior to
anything of the kind in this country, and the writer has seen him in
practice make a break between 600 and 700 without ever getting the balls
angled, and this with the push stroke barred. Of course the _massé_
stroke came into play, but not very frequently.
‘From the spectators’ point of view long series of nursery cannons soon
become wearisome, perhaps even more so than the spot stroke. In many
instances also a large proportion of those present are unable to see the
play at all, as the body of the striker blocks their view. So wearisome
and monotonous did the breaks become in the French and American game
that it was found necessary to legislate against them, and in
first-class play a line is now usually drawn fourteen inches from the
cushions and parallel with them, inside which cannons, except under
certain restrictions, are barred. It is not improbable that in the
future some sort of restriction will have to be imposed in our game.
Gate-money, however, with professionals settles these questions very
satisfactorily; amateurs may be allowed to do as they please.’
CHAPTER XI
THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THE THREE-INCH POCKET TABLE
Hitherto what has been stated about the game of billiards in this
volume, whether generally or in the description of strokes recommended
for practice, has been on the supposition that the table was of the
ordinary make, the pockets being either those known as the standard of
the Billiard Association, or of those patterns used by the best makers,
both sorts being 3⅝ in. wide at the fall. As the game is played at the
end of the nineteenth century this size of pocket is sufficiently
difficult for amateurs as a class; and spectators of public play, by
whose patronage professional players are mainly supported, have so
greatly preferred the freer game and longer breaks possible with it,
that the three-inch pocket or championship table may almost be said to
have become obsolete. We believe, however, that this disappearance is
merely temporary, due to a combination of circumstances which may not
continue for long, and may be longer still in recurring. Further, if it
was absolutely necessary when the conditions were drawn up to have what
was called the championship of the game decided on a table different
from that on which it is usually played—an anomaly greatly to be
regretted—then the simple tightening of pockets was a device open to as
little objection as any other. It is certainly preferable to barring
this stroke or that on an ordinary table, an arrangement in which there
may always be the suspicion that limitation is made in favour of a
certain player or of a certain class of players, which is of itself
sufficient condemnation. Whereas when the same result is obtained by
making the pockets more difficult, that objection cannot be urged with
equal force; the table is the same for all, and if a man can bring any
stroke to such perfection that he can continue his break to great
length, so much the better for him; he will remain champion till another
arises who can go on longer.
[Illustration:
A DIFFICULT STROKE.
]
No stroke admissible in the ordinary game should be barred when the
championship is played for, because the champion ought to be the
greatest master of all lawful strokes; and if hazards are found to
predominate unduly the remedy lies in tightening the pockets. But before
the next game for the championship is played, cannons and not hazards
bid fair to exercise too great an influence. If that match were played
to-morrow in this year 1896 on a three-inch pocket table, it is safe to
predict that victory would be gained by the man who was best at cushion
nursery cannons; of this there is no question, ‘no possible shadow of
doubt.’ What man in his senses would court constant failure at hazards
when success with cannons was within his grasp? Here, therefore, we are
again face to face with a question similar to that which arose on the
ordinary table when the spot stroke was brought to perfection; with this
difference, that whereas the strokes in a spot break are each genuine,
easily seen and watched by the referee and spectators, and therefore
fair, in a break of cushion nursery cannons the reverse is more than
probable. Made by trick or sleight of hand rather than by an open
stroke, with balls so close that even when the break is stopped and the
referee summoned he cannot readily decide whether they touch or not, and
when promptly continued remonstrance or complaint is too late to be of
use, with the push stroke permitted, such a break is open to objections
much graver than any ever urged against spot play. The scoring is faster
far than is possible with the spot stroke, and play is often obscured
for many spectators by the performer himself. In this case as in that of
hazards no lawful stroke should be barred; it would seem preferable to
draw lines round the table parallel to and at a fixed distance from the
cushions, and to make rules somewhat similar to those in force for the
_Partie Américaine dite du Cadre_. In this game, when balls 2 and 3 are
in the same compartment, that is in one of the rectangular spaces
between the lines and the cushions, and therefore are not separated by a
line, only one cannon is allowed without making at least one of the
balls pass the boundary. There is, in fact, no great difficulty in
making rules to defeat tricks which are favoured by obscurity; no cannon
otherwise lawful need be barred, and as the breaks must be slightly
slower time is afforded for inspection, and if necessary for appeal to
the referee. Moreover, the cannon game would be improved, for greater
skill is required to continue the series when one ball at least must be
some distance from the cushion, and therefore this suggestion has the
merit of inciting players to greater exercise of skill in every lawful
stroke, whereas the policy of barring certain strokes tends to their
neglect and to a corresponding loss of execution.
The objections to having one pattern of table for ordinary play and
another for championship matches are obvious, for the games being
different the champion may not be the best player on the easier table,
even when the spot stroke is barred; and to style a man champion of one
game because he has beaten all comers at another is scarcely logical;
but the remedy is not so apparent. Two solutions present themselves,
only to be dismissed on consideration. First, that amateurs should adopt
the three-inch pocket table, in which case there would be one game and
the champion would ordinarily be the best player of that game; next,
that the championship should be decided on an ordinary table and the
three-inch pocket be abandoned. In both cases the difficulties seem
insuperable; the game on the 3⅝-inch pocket or ordinary table is the
better game for the vast majority of persons, if not absolutely the
better game of the two, because of its greater variety, in that hazards
play their part more equally with cannons, and because scoring is faster
and a freer and better style of play is possible. Indeed, if the
three-inch pocket table were introduced to clubs and public rooms, it
would probably be found desirable to reduce the length of the game from
one hundred to fifty points, whilst maintaining or only slightly
reducing existing charges, because inferior players who form the
majority would score so slowly. Again, if the championship matches were
played on an ordinary table, success would depend mainly on mastery of
the spot stroke, which is held to be undesirable. There is, of course,
another alternative—to have a table with smaller pockets than the
ordinary but larger than those of the championship table, and perhaps
also to increase the size of the balls. It is not safe to be too sure of
anything, but at present, so far as is known, such an arrangement has
not been tried—save perhaps when Roberts played Ives, and the result was
not encouraging; it may, therefore, be neglected on this occasion.
In short, the difference between professional and amateur play must
remain so great that in spite of disadvantages the arrangement which
seems open to fewest objections is to have two tables, an ordinary one
for amateurs and for exhibition games, and another with three-inch
pockets for the championship. The latter, with the lines already
recommended for regulating cannon play, or with the push stroke
considered to be foul, would form an excellent field whereon the battles
of professionals might be decided.
But even supposing the question of the table to be settled, there is
another formidable difficulty in the way of reviving satisfactory
matches—namely, how to insure that the game is genuine and that each
competitor is trying to win. The great games of old days were for the
most part honest, the stakes were real, the rivalry of competitors was
evident, and these facts added greatly to their attraction. Men paid a
guinea gladly enough to see a game of that sort in comfort who would
hesitate to pay five or ten shillings to see a mere exhibition game,
although the play in the latter is certain to be more brilliant because
it is unfettered by caution. Two causes are apt to have a malign
influence on the genuineness of the game; one, that gate-money is often
of more importance than the stake, and the other we may call the
weakness of human nature. Both are somewhat thorny matters to deal with,
the latter specially so; but those who know most will most readily admit
the difficulty. In time there is reason to hope for improvement; the
change of status and character of professional players during the last
forty years amply justifies this; but, as in other ways of life, some
men are more worthy of confidence than others, and that course in
arranging for a competition is preferable which shall tend to strengthen
the idea that honesty is the best policy. To help this the influence of
gate-money should be reduced to a minimum, possibly by making the game
short enough to be completed in one day if not at one meeting. The
stakes should be substantial, and it is worth considering whether other
advantages could be added to make the position of champion more
attractive. But its reward must lie chiefly in the honour and
distinction it confers rather than in money, and therefore no
opportunity should be lost of adding to the dignity and consideration of
the post; whilst even as regards remuneration it must have value, for
its possessor will command the highest rates of payment which obtain in
his profession.
These remarks concerning the championship are agreed to by Mr.
Rimington-Wilson and by others who have studied the subject; they may
not improbably before long have to be considered by those entrusted with
drawing up conditions for the next match, which in the ordinary course
of things is unlikely to be greatly delayed. For if youth does not
advance with the speed which might be expected, age will inevitably tell
and lessen the distance between first and second, till a combat on even
terms is waged, or the elder retires and allows younger rivals to
contest for the position.
Persons interested in the subject of this chapter will welcome the
following memorandum kindly furnished by Mr. Russell D. Walker, the
well-known sportsman, who, amongst other accomplishments, is a player of
much merit on a championship table, although in places it repeats what
has been already told in other parts of this book.
THE BILLIARD CHAMPIONSHIP
It is a matter of regret to many lovers of billiards that they never now
see a match for the professional championship. The obvious reason, of
course, is that there is at the present time one player so far superior
to all the rest that it would be useless to challenge him without the
slightest chance of success. At the same time, there would be a great
deal of interest aroused if a second prize was instituted, as it is in
several amateur competitions in different branches of sport; and with
such brilliant players as Diggle, Dawson, Mitchell, Peall, and Richards,
excitement would run very high as to their respective chances. Up to the
year 1849 Jonathan Kentfield was universally allowed to be the greatest
exponent of the game, and it was not till the following year that the
North-countryman from Manchester, John Roberts, father of the present
champion, gradually made his way to the front. He never met Kentfield in
a match, the latter declining the contest, but they did in that year
play a few friendly games together at Kentfield’s rooms at Brighton.
From that date, 1850, till 1869 John Roberts was admittedly the
champion, and during this period he was able to, and did, give
habitually 300 in 1,000 to the next best players, who were Bowles,
Richards (elder brother of the present D. Richards), and C. Hughes.
During 1869 a young aspirant, Wm. Cook, a pupil of the champion, was
being much talked of, and it was said that his admirers thought he had a
great chance of defeating John Roberts if a match could be arranged,
especially as he had developed wonderful skill at what is now
universally known as the spot stroke (of which the champion himself was
the introducer, and up to the present the chief exponent), and would be
able to make so many consecutive hazards that Roberts’ supposed
superiority all round would be more than counterbalanced. In fact, so
strongly did this idea prevail that at a meeting of the leading
professional players, convened to draw up rules for the proposed
championship match, it was agreed that the pockets should not exceed
three inches, and that the spot should be placed half an inch nearer the
top cushion, thus making it twelve and a half inches distant instead of
thirteen. The history of the match, played on February 11, 1870, at St.
James’s Hall, has often been related, and, as all the billiard world
knows, the younger player succeeded in, winning the proud position of
champion. From that date up to the year 1885 there have only been three
players who have won the title. The number of matches played in these
fifteen years amounts to sixteen (a list of which with dates and results
is given on p. 373), and from the last match[18] up to the present time,
a period of ten years, John Roberts, junior, son of the John Roberts
whom Cook defeated, has been in undisputed possession of the title of
champion. I say undisputed, because no one has challenged him to play
under the rules governing the championship matches, which were drawn up
for the express purpose of deciding the title, under which all the
sixteen matches have been played, and which have never been abrogated or
altered. It has been urged by many that the table is too difficult,
inasmuch as experts at the spot stroke are precluded from making any
large number of their favourite hazards; but it is evident that the
intention of the framers of the rules was to render the pockets more
difficult, and not only make the spot stroke, but every hazard, whether
winning or losing, require the greatest care; and no further proof of
their discretion is required when we see that all ordinary matches
between the leading players are always now, and have been for some time,
played with the spot stroke barred, the fact being that the public soon
got wearied of the monotony of the stroke, and would not pay to see it.
Now to bar a legitimate stroke is an absurdity, except in the case of
the balls getting ‘froze’ (as our American cousins say) in the jaws of
the pocket, as happened at the Aquarium on April 24, 1891, when T.
Taylor made 729 consecutive cannons (and more recently at Knightsbridge,
on June 2, 1893, when Frank Ives made 1,267 somewhat similar[19]
strokes); but this position is so rare and so difficult to attain, that
the case could be met by merely declaring that, should such a
contingency arise, the balls should be broken in the same way as they
are when touching. To return to the question of the spot stroke, it is
_not_ barred on the championship table any more than a difficult losing
hazard, such as a short jenny; it is merely rendered more difficult, and
the greatest accuracy is required for its successful manipulation; but
there can be little doubt that Peall, with his extraordinary power of
perseverance and unfailing accuracy, would, with practice, in a very
short time make fifty consecutive hazards, and probably more. It must
not be thought for one moment that the three-inch pocket table is
advocated for general use in exhibition matches; for, though caviare to
those who have really made a study of the game, the scoring is not rapid
enough to satisfy the palate of the majority of the public, whose great
idea is to witness something big in the way of figures, and who would
prefer to see a break of several hundreds amassed by the repetition of
one particular stroke to an all-round break of various strokes from
different positions, however masterly the execution, which might not
even reach three figures. Still, in spite of this hankering after
sensational scoring, if we compare the number of spectators at the
fifteen matches for the championship played from 1870 to 1885 inclusive
with the attendances at the ordinary spot-barred exhibitions of to-day,
and at the same time take into consideration the enormous extent to
which the game of billiards has developed during the last decade (I
speak only from personal observation), the balance would probably be in
favour of the former period.
It must not, however, be forgotten, on the other hand, that there is a
great difference in interest to the spectators between a _bona-fide_
match for a stake and an ordinary exhibition game, where there is no
other incentive than the glory of winning. Who does not remember with
delight the wonderful strengths and neat execution of W. Cook, and the
losing hazard striking of Joseph Bennett, and the keen rivalry which
prevailed between these players and the present champion in their
contests? Roberts declares that he attributes the height of excellence
he has reached to be mainly owing to those years of play on the
championship table; and though not himself an advocate for it as far as
ordinary exhibition matches are concerned, yet, if called upon to defend
his title, he considers that the table which has always been used
according to the championship rules should still be adhered to, an
opinion in which he is supported by other well-known players of the past
and present.
We have some reason to hope that before very long we may perhaps see a
challenge issued to the champion, so great are the strides that the
younger generation are making at the game; and though to those who watch
John Roberts play it seems almost impossible that they will ever see his
equal, it must not be forgotten that in one remarkable week when giving
Diggle more than one-third of the game, viz., 9,000 out of 24,000, the
latter absolutely scored more points in the first six days’ play than
the champion. There can be no doubt that, within reasonable limits, in
all games the greater the difficulties presented the greater is the
satisfaction in overcoming them, and the higher is the standard of
excellence attained; and it is much to be hoped that we may again see
such interesting and scientific matches between our leading players as
we used to have from 1870 to 1885.
One word more: is it not high time that the push stroke should be
abolished once and for all? It is not allowed by any other
billiard-playing nation, and is equally unfair with the so-called quill
or feather stroke, which was tabooed years and years ago.
R. D. W.
Regarding play on a championship table, little need be said; the
practice prescribed for an ordinary one for the most part holds good,
and diagrams of strokes, such as accompany Chapters IV., V., VII, and
the figures of nursery cannons in Chapter X., are applicable with but
little alteration. As regards cannons generally, it is of course evident
that the stroke is the same on both tables, and as to hazards the only
real difference is that with easier pockets there is a larger margin for
error. Hence a few words of caution as to the execution of strokes and
the policy of play are alone required. For making easy losing hazards,
certainty is most readily assured by striking ball 1 a gentle strength
rather under the centre; this has the effect of slightly diminishing the
natural development of rotation and of decreasing the rebound due to
elasticity after impact. A ball thus struck seems to travel on straight
rather than on curved lines, and the stroke is specially useful for
short jennies. Similarly for long losing hazards drag with strength
rather under No. 2 will be found very useful: but hazards should be
subordinated to cannon play; they should be chiefly used as a means of
getting cannon breaks. When, however, they have to be played and are not
certainties, it is better to strike with freedom than to attempt to
secure success by extreme gentleness and caution; for accuracy is more
probable when the stroke is played with customary strength than when
great softness necessitates placing the ball at a strange angle. In case
of failure also the freer stroke is less likely to leave an easy opening
for the adversary, whilst at the same time it may be usefully kept in
mind that if somewhat more caution in attempting a hazard is necessary,
less apprehension need be felt as to leaving balls near pockets. It is a
matter of common knowledge that on an ordinary table the better the
stroke for a hazard, that is, the nearer it is to success (so long as
that is not obtained), the greater is the penalty for failure. Realising
this, many persons play with more strength than is necessary, in the
hope of bringing the ball away from the pocket in case of a miss, which
often results in consequence of the precaution. When pockets are
difficult this consideration may to a great extent be neglected, and
attention may be concentrated on making the hazard. Another point which
should be noticed is that amateurs are more nearly equalised on a
championship than on an ordinary table. A man who on the latter could
give his adversary thirty points in a hundred, would probably find that
on the former he could not give more than twenty points. The usual fault
is that persons accustomed to the 3⅝ inch pockets are afraid of the
smaller ones, and try a great deal too much for absolute accuracy, a
procedure which is simply fatal to success. Hence strength approaching
to that generally used by each person will be found best. Should the
stroke be missed the balls will come reasonably away, whereas if it
should be made, the player has presumably some idea of the position to
be left, and a fair chance of continuing the break. By following that
policy and by determinedly playing for cannon breaks, specially
nurseries, success may reasonably be expected. Do not break your heart
over difficult hazards, leave that to the adversary; but hold
tenaciously to every chance of cannons. Play, in fact, as Ives did with
Roberts. The latter could very possibly give the former half the game in
one of the usual spot-barred exhibitions, but when the pockets were
reduced in size and larger balls were brought into play, the American
had the best of the deal and won accordingly.
From the preceding remarks it will be gathered that whilst for practice
the manual prescribed for an ordinary table may be followed, in a game
the player must pursue a different policy. Hazards which require
strength greater than No. 2 should be avoided, and the ordinary idea of
bringing the object ball back to the middle of the table after a
middle-pocket hazard, half-ball or finer, should be superseded by
playing with reduced strength, and, when the object ball is the red,
being contented with leaving it in play, that is, between the lines PM,
QN, laid down on many of the diagrams. When ball 2 happens to be the
opponent’s ball endeavour should be made to leave it in the
neighbourhood of the spot. With these qualifications the advanced player
(and we think no other should use three-inch pockets) will find the
directions for making breaks in Chapter X. useful, specially those which
refer to play at the top of the table and at cushion nurseries; practice
will soon result in a very considerable modification of the ordinary
game, but the changes will vary with the personal qualities of the
player, who will soon adopt those which suit him best. As scoring on a
tight-pocket table is decidedly slower than on an ordinary one, it
follows that safety and cautious play have more effect in the former
game. Hence potting the opponent’s ball and leaving a double baulk, and
similar tactics, are more likely to be rewarded with ultimate success
than when that style of game is followed on a table with 3⅝-inch
pockets. Whether that is or is not an advantage is a question for the
reader to decide for himself; one good result with which it may be
credited is to encourage the practice of strokes for the purpose of
scoring from, or at any rate of disturbing, a double baulk.
It is, we think, unnecessary to say more at present respecting play on a
championship table; in time, perhaps, improvement in amateur form may be
so great and so universal as to make the more difficult supersede the
easier game; but that day is distant, and speculation as to its
requirements is under existing circumstances unprofitable.
_Billiard Championship Matches_
┌──────┬────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────┐
│Points│ Date │ Players │Won by│
├──────┼────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼──────┤
│1,200 │ Feb. 11, 1870 │Cook b. Roberts, senr. │ 170│
│1,000 │ April 14, 1870 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 478│
│1,000 │ May 30, 1870 │Roberts, jun., b. Bowles │ 246│
│1,000 │ Nov. 28, 1870 │Jos. Bennett b. Roberts, jun. │ 95│
│1,000 │ Jan. 30, 1871 │Roberts, jun., b. Bennett │ 363│
│1,000 │ May 25, 1871 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 15│
│1,000 │ Nov. 21, 1871 │Cook b. Jos. Bennett │ 58│
│1,000 │ Mar. 4, 1872 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 201│
│1,000 │ Feb. 4, 1874 │Cook b. Roberts, jun. │ 216│
│1,000 │ May 24, 1875 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 163│
│1,000 │ Dec. 20, 1875 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 135│
│1,000 │ May 28, 1877 │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 223│
│1,000 │ Nov. 8, 1880 │Jos. Bennett b. Cook │ 51│
│1,000 │ Jan. 12 13, 1881 │Jos. Bennett b. Taylor │ 90│
│3,000 │ Mar. 30 and 31, and │Roberts, jun., b. Cook │ 92│
│ │ April 1, 1885 │ │ │
│3,000 │ June 1, 2, 3, 4, 1885 │Roberts, jun., b. Jos. Bennett│ 1,640│
└──────┴────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┴──────┘
CHAPTER XII
THE RULES OF THE GAME OF BILLIARDS
In a game so scientific and at the same time so popular as billiards,
played, as it is occasionally, for important stakes, the rules evidently
should be clear, precise, and sufficient. That those in force in 1895
fulfil these conditions will not be affirmed by any person of
experience; indeed, more versions than one exist and are current, whilst
the opinions of experts even do not coincide as to the provisions which
should be included. Hence, it is evident that the problem cannot be
satisfactorily solved until the various matters have been fully
considered by a carefully selected body of men, in which the
professional element is sufficiently but not predominantly represented,
and which should contain persons capable, from habit and training, of
recording the decisions arrived at lucidly and in good English. The work
to be done is in many respects similar to that of drafting an Act, and
similar qualifications are required for doing it well.
In this book, however, in dealing with rules, the main question is, What
version at present existent has the best title to the obedience of
players? This, we think, can only be answered in one way if we deal with
things as they are, not necessarily as they should be, and that is by
accepting as valid the rules prepared by the Billiard Association of
Great Britain and Ireland. They were compiled by the chief professional
players of the day, who do not appear to have had the advantages of
educated amateur criticism or of the services of an expert to draw them
up in a satisfactory manner. Under them, however, the principal games of
recent years, both exhibition and those for genuine money, have been
played, and therefore they have perhaps the best title to be considered
as the laws of the game. Sold, too, by the Association at half a crown a
copy, they form, it is believed, its main source of income. But both
title and income are held on a precarious tenure, for there is little
doubt, the present code being so imperfect, that if a committee of
suitable persons were formed an improved set of rules might easily be
framed which would supersede existing ones, and might be sold at a price
more nearly approaching to their cost of production.
In an article written for the first number of the ‘Billiard Review,’ at
the champion’s request the present writer thus summarised the needs or
wants of the Association rules:—
Considered generally, the code requires rearrangement on a system. It
should begin by defining the game and implements, by prescribing the
positions of the spots, the baulk-line, the =Ｄ=, and so on, keeping
such preliminary matters at the commencement, and not scattering them
broadcast.... Then the code should proceed step by step, one leading
to another; explanation or definition should precede, and not succeed,
reference to terms.... Again, some of the rules seem superfluous or
capable of being embodied in other rules, thus reducing the number and
tending to their simplification.
In commenting on this, John Roberts remarked that it was high time that
the rules were recast, and he has kindly offered to give any assistance
in his power.
As a general guide to the preparation of a code it was stated in the
article already quoted that the rules should be as few, as simple, and
as clear as possible; of a nature general rather than particular; and
that for one offence one penalty, ample, but never vindictive, should
suffice. Inquiry was suggested how far accidental may be distinguished
from intentional offence. Further, the principle that the struggle for
victory ought to be strictly confined to the players, no one under any
pretence soever being permitted to assist or advise either, must be
recognised;
and provision should be made for offences, recollecting that very
often the offenders are spectators, and that in dealing with them it
may be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce a penalty. Again, ...
knowing, as all do, how the custom of different rooms varies, and how
habitually in certain places great laxity prevails, how far is it wise
to make laws with the full knowledge that they will be broken with
impunity and by common consent?
All will agree that unless such rules are plainly required in the
interests of the game they should be cancelled; but when they are
beneficial and necessary they must be supported or provided, and it
would seem best that the option of enforcing them should be left to the
non-striker. Each rule should have a brief marginal reference to its
subject, and when explanation is difficult or doubtful it should be
illustrated by examples. As these considerations may help the framers of
the next set of rules, it seems right to include them in this chapter,
in which, however, it is not proposed to discuss minor matters in
detail, for that can be better done when the amendment of the code is
undertaken; but there are certain questions connected with the rules so
important to the game that their examination here is appropriate. These
are:
1. The desirability or otherwise of attempting to discriminate between
the act of aiming and the act of striking.
2. The necessity for a special penalty for playing a miss otherwise than
with the point of the cue.
3. Playing with the wrong ball.
4. Foul strokes.
5. Procedure when player’s ball touches another ball.
6. Offences committed by persons other than the players.
7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker.
8. How far the marker may assist either player; and, finally,
9. The push stroke.
In offering remarks and suggestions on these matters there is no desire
to arrogate any superiority of judgment or any right to decide. It is
fully understood that opinions will differ, and that those brought
forward here may not commend themselves to the majority of experts; but
they are the result of study and of consultation with persons well
qualified to be heard on such matters, and, therefore, they are put
forward as of sufficient importance to warrant their receiving due
weight when action is taken in respect to the rules.
Dealing with the questions in their numerical order, let us examine:
1. The results of trying to discriminate between the act of aiming and
the act of striking. Now, these two together constitute a stroke, the
first being the preliminary, the second the final part; and it is not
always easy to say where the one ends and the other begins. Here,
therefore, there is an element of uncertainty which if possible should
be eliminated, the more so because argument as to a fact of which no one
but the striker can be really cognisant is avoided. The matter can be
satisfactorily settled by simply ruling that if a player touches his
ball his doing so shall be considered a stroke. In addition to removing
a somewhat thorny subject of discussion, which in itself is sufficient
recommendation, such a provision is very much sounder than any attempt
to divide a stroke into its component parts and to treat each
differently. Why should carelessness during the first part of a stroke
be pardoned whilst during the last it is punished? It is not unusual for
a striker who inadvertently touches his ball to remark that he was not
in the act of striking, and to proceed to give a safe miss. This often
happens when a difficult stroke is attempted and the safe miss is
unquestionably his best game and the worst for his adversary, who,
realising the fact and perceiving the opening for profitable generosity,
begs the striker not to mind the little accident, but to replace his
ball and play the stroke again. With a young player this
disinterestedness is usually rewarded, but an older one will decline to
take advantage of such good-nature and will adhere to the safety miss.
Now, if the touch was held under the rules to be, as it is actually, a
stroke, there would be no inducement for this little by-play, and the
offender would not have the option of embarrassing his opponent and
escaping from the effects of his blunder by playing for safety. A stroke
is a stroke whether played hard or soft, whether intentional or
accidental, and the rules should uphold this fact. If they did (and this
is a further recommendation), several rules or provisions in the code of
the Association might be expunged, and it would thereby gain in
clearness and simplicity.
2. Playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue. The general
rule is that all strokes must be played with the point of the cue, and
that they are foul if otherwise made. This perhaps meets all cases
sufficiently save that of giving a miss for safety. Some players, from
carelessness or in order to assume a _dégagé_ style which they consider
to be attractive and indicating that they do not need to stand on much
ceremony with their opponent, give the miss with the side of the cue,
and if they have made the ball travel too fast they have no hesitation
in stopping it. As matters stand, all that can be done in such a case is
to insist on the person playing the stroke properly; but this is
insufficient, and it is not absolutely clear whether he can be forced to
do so. Distinct provision for this should be made and a sufficient
penalty provided, so that this practice, which is discourteous to the
adversary, and which, if the ball is stopped, involves two offences, may
be prevented. It is a bad practice, too, for the man who indulges in it,
for he may do it on some occasions when unpleasantness would result,
and, moreover, indulgence in the habit is likely to lead to loss of
power to give a miss in the proper way.
3. Playing with the wrong ball. Under the Association rules, if the
striker plays with the wrong ball the opponent has the choice of three
penalties and the option of claiming them. He cannot, however, enforce
any unless the error be discovered and claimed before the next stroke.
This rule seems objectionable in more ways than one. Unless there are
very cogent reasons for ruling otherwise, one offence should have but
one penalty, and the adversary, who is an interested party, should not
be permitted to decide what measure and form of punishment are
appropriate. Surely an adequate penalty could be devised the infliction
of which would have no suspicion of vindictiveness. The limitation, too,
is not very fortunate, and usually leads to discussion, for the offender
often avers that he played with the ball which the non-striker did not
use; this of course is really no argument, but it is often successful,
for men generally prefer to avoid dispute.
4. Foul strokes. The Association Rule 30 is incomplete and badly worded.
Presumably, all strokes which are not fair are foul, and if a list is
given it should be as complete as possible. Were this attended to, and
were the recommendations under 1 accepted, the result would be to
decrease the number of rules and to simplify the code.
5. When player’s ball touches another ball. In old days, if under these
circumstances a score was made, the stroke was held to be foul and the
opponent broke the balls. This was apparently thought to bear too
severely on delicate play, specially as the touch was often the result
of imperfection in the balls or table; and the present rule was
introduced, which provides that the red be placed on the spot, the
non-striker’s ball on the centre spot, whilst the striker may play from
baulk. This change enormously improves the value of close positions for
cannon play, and one of its results is the fearless cultivation of
nurseries; but whether that is a benefit to the game of billiards is
another matter. The question how to deal with the case of balls which
touch is really surrounded with difficulty. It has always appeared hard
that if at the end of a stroke fairly made the striker’s ball should
touch another ball, his next stroke should be foul. He has not offended,
and why should he be punished for playing with exact strength? The only
apparent reason for ruling the next stroke foul is that it is a
certainty; the striker, if he can play into any pocket or on the third
ball, must score, and he cannot give a miss. What is the objection to
this? Is not the object of all work at billiards and the measure of
success thereat to be able to leave a certainty to follow each stroke?
In the case of close cannons the stroke is practically no more certain
if the balls touch than if they are the conventional small distance
apart. Other unknown considerations may affect the question and make the
present or former ruling fair and advantageous for the game, but in
their absence no sufficient case is made out against abolishing the
rules respecting balls touching and permitting the striker to play on.
Possibly the objections to this in nursery cannon play are so great as
to make the arrangement undesirable, but it is open to question how far
it would materially affect the length of the series. At any rate, whilst
expressing no strong opinion, it is clear that the proposal merits
consideration. A collateral advantage would be doing away with the need
for a reference to the umpire or marker on a point often most difficult
to decide, and one concerning which mistake is frequent.
6. Offences committed by persons other than the players. These are not
easily dealt with, chiefly because of the difficulty of enforcing a
penalty; and many of them, moreover, are rather the result of bad
manners, want of observation of the etiquette of the room, and
ignorance, than of intention to offend.
Perhaps the commonest and one of the most offensive errors a spectator
can be guilty of is offering advice to a player. This is of course
promptly resented if there is money on the game. That, however, is not
enough; the mischief may be done, and no amount of penitence can then
compensate. But the practice is equally reprehensible if there is no
money at stake; the competitors should have a fair field and no favour.
Another offence is obstructing a player, and this expression covers
accidentally coming against him, or being in his way when striking a
ball, or doing any other act which interferes with his stroke—moving in
his line of sight, scratching a match, or extinguishing it by waving it
up and down in front of him, entering or leaving the room on the stroke,
speaking to a player or conversing in a loud tone sufficient to distract
his attention. Want of the certainty that these matters will receive
consideration, and of all power to enforce them except at the risk of
being considered unreasonable, is one of the reasons why really good
amateurs abstain so largely from playing in clubs. It is worthy of
consideration whether a spectator who sees the game wrongly marked
should be allowed to state the fact. We think that he should not have
this permission, on the principle that the struggle should be strictly
confined to the players, and that they, and they only, should be allowed
to question the score. The spectator is almost as likely to be wrong as
right, and an interruption is caused which had better have been avoided.
Lastly, it has been usual to provide that in case the marker or referee
could not decide a point, the majority of spectators might be appealed
to. As a rule, the majority of spectators know so little about such
matters, and, not being so well placed as the marker or referee to judge
of questions of fact, it would seem in every way preferable in case of
doubt to produce a coin and leave the matter to the arbitrament of
chance.
7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker. The intention of the
rules whereby deliberate obstruction or wilful interference with the run
of the balls shall be punished by the loss of the game is excellent, as
also is the provision that the non-player shall leave the table and
avoid the player’s line of sight; but the rules are not very definite.
In the first place, what is deliberate obstruction? Clouds of tobacco
smoke blown across the table interfere with sight, and pieces of tobacco
and ashes obstruct the run of the balls; a remark which distracts the
player’s attention is an obstruction as much and as deliberate as if the
opponent laid his cue on the table, but it is less tangible and more
difficult to deal with. What is desired is complete liberty and freedom
for each player when in possession of the table; it matters
comparatively little whether the offence is accidental or intentional,
for the penalty should be sufficient to meet the graver case. If a seat
is available for the non-striker, it is surely not much to ask that he
should occupy it and remove himself to a fair distance from the table.
8. How far the marker may assist either player. Regarding this an
opinion has already been plainly expressed that the struggle should be
strictly confined to the players, neither of them being allowed to
receive extraneous advice. It is no argument, or but a very poor one, to
contend that the same advice is open to both players; and no such
sophistry can make it right that the judgment and eyesight of the marker
should be at the disposal of an adversary who is either too lazy or too
blind to see for himself how far the cue-tip is from the ball. When two
men are playing billiards, he who helps the one injures the other, and
the more careless and lazy the performer, the more help will he receive,
a result clearly injurious to the best interests of the game and unfair
to the attentive man. The latter will seldom err as to which ball he
should play with, whilst the former after almost every break will
commence by inquiring which is his ball or play with the wrong one.
Again, strokes with the half or long-butt are fruitful causes of
failure. Is it right that a player should be permitted to ask the marker
whether the cue-tip is within proper distance of the ball? Certainly
not. If one of the players’ sight is better than the other’s, he should
profit thereby, just as he may lawfully profit by any other advantage he
is fortunate enough to possess. Believing, as we do, that it is most
important to let the struggle lie absolutely between the two combatants
and to preserve the strictest neutrality, and that advice or assistance
of the nature indicated should, if asked for, be refused, it follows
that the custom some markers have of offering the rest or the half-butt
is at least equally objectionable. It is often done in perfect
innocence, but it may have a most undesirable effect on the game, and
the impulse to take the initiative should be restrained.
9. The push stroke. The vexed question whether this stroke is to be
permitted or to be prohibited will, we think, have to be arbitrarily
decided—decided, that is, not on its real merits, but on the
consideration of expediency. It is always rather a pity when this is so,
and with the view of laying before those interested matters concerning
the stroke which might escape notice, we shall endeavour to collect them
and to assign to each its due importance.
To begin with, those who assert roundly that all push strokes are foul
because there are several impacts between cue-tip and ball are
practically wrong. In very close pushes, such as those employed in
nursery cannons, or in any stroke when balls 1 and 2 are nearly
touching, if played by a person who has mastered the art, the vast
majority are fair strokes—that is, they are made with the point of the
cue, and ball 1 is not twice struck. In other words, it is possible to
push a ball for some distance with the point of the cue without losing
touch. It is dangerous to drive any argument to extremes, and for
practical purposes it is well to bear in mind that _de minimis non curat
lex_. Against the opinion just expressed that it is possible to push a
ball for a short distance fairly, those who contend that such is not the
case base their view on the fact that as soon as the ball begins to
travel it also begins to rotate, and that when rotation is established
continued impact is impossible. They contend that though it may appear
to be continuous it really is not so, and that the stroke consists of a
number of little blows, which might be represented by a dotted line,
instead of absolutely steady impact, which would be represented by a
line. It seems unprofitable to attempt to go into such minutiæ. If the
touches are sufficiently close together the result is continued impact;
in other words, if the dots are close enough together they cease to be
dots and form the line. A man who allows these minute matters to obscure
his judgment might equally well argue that a ball rotating quickly in
the direction of its path was not in constant contact with the cloth. No
doubt it is not, and but a small irregularity, an atom of dust, chalk,
or tobacco, will if passed over cause the ball to jump perceptibly;
contact with the cloth is visibly interrupted and again assumed, and the
ball for an instant is off the table, yet no one would dream of
inquiring whether the stroke was in consequence vitiated, or of raising
the question as to whether the ball was knocked off the table. So much
for those who base their opposition to the push stroke on the assumption
that it is always foul and, following timid or incapable referees, rule
it so invariably on appeal. Another so-called proof that the stroke is
generally foul is arrived at by either chalking a cue heavily and
pushing the red ball, when, it is argued, if contact is continuous, the
ball will show a line of chalk on its surface, but if impact has been
interrupted the line will be broken; or by pushing with a cue whose tip
has been removed, when the fact of repeated impacts is conveyed to the
player by the sense of feeling—in other words, he feels the friction
between the ball and cue. Neither of these tests is conclusive; in the
first it is manifest that sooner or later the expenditure of chalk on
the tip must result in none being applied to the ball, or a slight
variation in pressure or some other accident might account for the chalk
not adhering to it; in the second, all that need be said is, when it is
desired to play a fair push stroke do not select a cue without a tip.
Were the tip made of cotton or wool or a similar fabric, it is evident
that there would be no difficulty in keeping some part or other of it in
contact with the ball even over a long course. But the fact is these
far-fetched objections should carry no weight, and, as far as we can
judge, a practical and impartial person who desires to consider the
matter is justified in starting with the assumption that the push is not
necessarily foul.
If, however, on theoretical grounds it were so ruled, it follows at once
that many other strokes hitherto unsuspected or uncomplained of would
for the same reason have to be prohibited. Of these the half-push (see
p. 230) is an example, and indeed it is not too much to say that in
every stroke in which balls 1 and 2 are close, and which has to be
played at all hard, whether a follow or a close screw, in both of which
the cue-tip follows up ball 1, the probability is great that there have
been at least two distinct impacts. Before going further it is
reasonable to inquire why a ball should not be struck twice. There does
not seem to be any special rule in the Association code prohibiting the
practice, the only one under which it can be brought being Rule 30,
wherein impeding or accelerating the progress of a ball is declared to
make the stroke foul; and this is an excellent example of how badly
those rules are drafted; for in every stroke played with follow the
progress of the ball is accelerated, whilst in every drag stroke it is
impeded, and yet both are fair strokes. However, as there is no other
rule on the subject, this must be accepted, it being conceded, for the
sake of argument, that subsequent impacts of the cue make the ball
travel faster. Now, it seems on consideration that the reason for
prohibiting a second impact is that a player is entitled to one stroke
only at a time; he must not, once he has set ball 1 in motion, take a
second stroke to correct deficiencies. These deficiencies are likely to
be of two kinds—either ball 1 is struck too gently, in which case there
is temptation to help it with a second blow; or it is sent in a wrong
direction, when there is inducement to correct the error by an
application of the cue. To condemn the push stroke as contravening this
rule seems somewhat far-fetched.
But, granting all this, there are most serious objections to the stroke,
of which perhaps the strongest is the great difficulty of discriminating
between a fair and a foul push. In many instances it requires a man who
has mastered the stroke to judge, and in others markers and referees are
apt most unwarrantably to make up their minds that, if the push is
allowed, any stroke so made, however palpably foul, must be passed;
whilst others take precisely the opposite view, and on appeal rule every
push to be foul. The difficulty of judging is their only excuse, but to
rule any stroke as foul unless they distinctly saw and can name the act
which made it so is to prove themselves unfitted for the post of
referee. A vast proportion of amateurs cannot make the stroke, which
requires much determination and steadiness, as well as a good deal of
practice; they are most suspicious of those who can do it, and resent a
ruling that their clumsy endeavour is foul, whilst another smoothly made
by an expert is fair. Being ignorant of the difference, they feel
injured, and express their feelings more or less eloquently to the
marker, who to avoid such scenes rules all push strokes to be foul.
Another important objection to the push is that it induces a slovenly
style of cannon play, and that, so far as we know, it is not permitted
by any other billiard-playing nation. This is a drawback when our
players compete with foreigners, not merely because the difficulties of
arranging the game are enhanced, but because our representatives are
wanting in the skill which is required to surmount obstacles usually
overcome by the push.
The case for and against the push stroke was thus condensed in the
‘Times’ of December 17, 1894:—
Opinions will vary, for there are many arguments on both sides. Those
opposed to it maintain, in the first place, that it is always foul,
because cue-tip and ball come in contact more than once; that it is a
slovenly mode of evading difficulties which should be conquered by
fair means; and that, therefore, its use is detrimental to the game,
players not being encouraged to acquire the skill possessed by foreign
exponents. On the other hand, those in favour of it will deny the
separate contacts or affirm contact to be so nearly continuous that
the difference between a push and an ordinary stroke is merely one of
duration; they will truly say that it is a stroke requiring much
skill, and greatly extending the possibilities of the English game, in
which _massé_ can never play the part it does in the French game; and,
lastly, that to abolish it would lengthen play, which is undesirable.
We do not know that much more remains to be said; as far as can be
judged, the balance of opinion, professional and amateur, is in 1895
perhaps in favour of its retention, and Roberts’s remark that he does
not think the time has arrived when it should be prohibited is doubtless
sound from the point of view of gate-money, which naturally influences
professional opinion, and is, moreover, a test of popularity which
deserves some consideration; but it is by no means conclusive as to what
is best in the interests of the game. And signs are not wanting that the
days of the push stroke are numbered.
[Illustration:
ARE THEY TOUCHING?
]
CHAPTER XIII
PYRAMIDS, POOL, AND COUNTRY-HOUSE GAMES
BY W. J. FORD
When and under what circumstances winning hazard games were invented,
billiard history does not record. Every player, however, must have met
men with little aptitude for the more scientific game of billiards, who,
being blessed with good sight and sound nerve, play well at pyramids and
pool. For their benefit these games were doubtless produced, demanding
as they do considerable skill and knowledge, and lending themselves
especially to being played for money. It is an established fact that
persons will play billiards for nothing who would never dream of playing
pyramids, &c. for love; and also that many who would think twice before
risking a shilling or half a crown on a hundred game at billiards would
lightly and cheerfully take part in a game of pyramids or pool for
stakes at which a far greater sum can readily be lost or won.
One thing the beginner must remember—that he will have to pay for his
experience. He may be a fair hazard striker, with a moderate power of
cue and sound ideas about strength and position, but until he has played
a good many games of pool and pyramids, with the money up, and has
overcome the nervousness incidental to playing in public for a stake, he
will never master the game. All must go through the fiery ordeal of the
public room, where every shot is fired in earnest and there are no blank
cartridges. The price to be paid must depend on the beginner’s nerve and
his aptitude for such games, but he will find that practice and
observation work wonders, and that when he has watched fine players and
played with them, his losses will begin to dwindle, and gradually
transform themselves into winnings.
A few general hints may not be out of place before discussing the
different games in detail. It is really important to use the same cue as
far as possible; it is as essential as one’s own gun, bat, or racquet,
and as jointed cues can now be procured, which are easily carried in the
hand or packed in a portmanteau, it is prudent to get one. Some players
fancy a heavy cue, with a broad top, for winning hazards; but this is a
matter of taste, and it is generally wise always to use the same weapon.
It should be remembered, in playing pool or pyramids after billiards,
that the balls are usually smaller, lighter, and less true. Another
essential point is a strict adherence to rules. It is an unfortunate
thing for billiards that this principle is not observed with rigid
strictness, that fouls are often not claimed, that players are allowed
to get on the table, and so forth; but the curious thing is that, lax as
many men are on these points over a game of billiards played for
nothing, they are very strict when they are playing for money; so as
long as billiards is played, it is perhaps well that there should be a
small stake on the game, if only to induce _every one_ to make Sarah
Battle’s whist the model of what his billiards should be. Her celebrated
wish was ‘the rigour of the game. She took and gave no concessions. She
hated favours. She never made a revoke, nor ever passed it over in her
adversary without exacting the utmost forfeiture;’ and where she
emphatically asserted that cards were cards, I repeat that billiards is
billiards. Again, the etiquette of the room should be most carefully
observed, though it is frequently neglected. It is the duty of the man
who has played his stroke to retire ‘to a reasonable distance and keep
out of the line of sight’—the rules require this; but there are many
people, unfortunately, who think this a good time to light a pipe, talk
in a loud tone of voice to a bystander, give stentorian orders to the
waiter, and so forth, forgetting that a game is in progress which is
making every demand on the striker’s nerve and self-possession. Such
offenders are numerous, they are public nuisances in the room, and it is
small consolation to the persons disturbed to be assured that their
delinquencies were unintentional. Any game that is worth playing at all
is worth playing seriously and strenuously, and the cultivation of
habits of silence, decorum, and self-restraint is a duty we owe to our
friend the enemy and have a right to expect from him in return.
PYRAMIDS
This game is played with one white and fifteen red balls, the latter
being set up in the form of a triangle or pyramid, with the apex-ball
nearest to the baulk-line and on the pyramid spot. As a rule, only two
players take part in a game, and the order of playing is decided by lot.
The first stroke is played from the =Ｄ=, as are all subsequent strokes
if the white ball has gone into a pocket or has been forced off the
table. The object of the game is to hole the red balls with the white,
each ball so holed counting as one; but, should the striker make a
losing hazard (notwithstanding that he holes a red ball with the same
stroke), or force a red ball or his own off the table, or miss
altogether, he loses a ball—_i.e._ one is deducted from his score and a
ball put up on the table. Any ball or balls he may have taken by such a
stroke are put up as well. If the striker’s score is love, and he incurs
this penalty, he is said to owe one (or more, as the case may be), and
no ball can be put up till he has made a winning hazard; if he owes more
than one, a ball is restored for each hazard he makes, until he has paid
off his debts. After a miss the next player plays from where the white
ball stops; but if the latter is pocketed or forced off the table he
plays from the =Ｄ= at any ball he chooses, whether in baulk or not. When
only two balls—the white and one red—are left on the table, the game
becomes single pool; after white has played on red, red plays on white,
and so on till one of the two is holed.
These are the salient points of the game; other details may be gleaned
from the printed rules which should be in every billiard-room. Points
are scored (see Rules 4 and 5)[20] by giving balls or owing balls, or
both. When a player gives one or more balls, they are scored to his
opponent before the game begins, and are removed from the table. If he
owes one or more, the first time a winning hazard is made the ball is
put up on the table, and nothing is added to the striker’s score till
all the balls he owes have been put up. When the odds are combined, each
ball given is removed, and no hazard counts till all debts are paid;
_e.g._ if he gives one and owes two, one ball is removed (see Rule 4),
his opponent scores one, and the giver of odds cannot score till he has
holed two balls, each of which has to be put back on the table (see Rule
18).
The rules for foul strokes are the same as at billiards, but if a player
_wilfully_ touch a moving ball, he loses the game;[21] to do so
accidentally makes that stroke foul (see also Rule 23).
I once saw a pretty commentary on Rule 18, which directs that a ball
which has to be put up be placed on the pyramid spot. The player, who
owed four, made a hazard and got exact position behind the pyramid spot
in a line with the corner pocket, and, screwing back each time, holed
each ball as it was put up.
Balls forced off the table are put up again, but the striker’s break is
at an end unless he also holes a ball (see Rules 18 and 19).
Nothing can be said on the question of handicapping players. Of course
their relative skill at billiards affords no criterion of their relative
powers at pyramids. A few games will best decide the question; but it
may be remarked that to give a ball is a far higher handicap than to owe
a ball, as the adversary starts with a point to the good, and there are
only fourteen coloured balls on the table; whereas the player who owes a
ball only forfeits the first hazard he makes.
Before the game commences the first step is to set up the balls
properly. In theory each ball should touch its immediate neighbours, but
in practice this is of course impossible. They should, however, be
collected in the triangle, and then rolled smartly up and down parallel
to the sides of the table, the apex-ball never going beyond the pyramid
spot. After this has been done two or three times the motion should be
sharply stopped when the apex-ball is on the spot, and the pyramid will
then be fairly correct. There are three ways of playing the first
stroke, two of them unsound. The first wrong way is to smash the pyramid
by a vicious hit from baulk, for which Captain Crawley, in ‘The Billiard
Book,’ recommends a mysterious ‘under-handed stroke;’ but in whatever
way the stroke is played it is unsound, as there are only two pockets
behind the pyramid into which to drive a ball. The second wrong method
is to play slowly up the table with a little side, missing the pyramid
on the upward journey, and just dropping on to it from the top cushion.
Old-fashioned players are fond of this opening, but it is not sound, as
the adversary can easily get safe, or, if he likes, he can smash with
four pockets open to him. Whether he be wise to do so is another
question; with a weak adversary, to whom he is giving odds, it may be
advisable. I have seen no less than five balls disappear after such a
stroke; but if a winning hazard is not made, the break of course goes to
the other side: it is a matter of speculation, the chances being
naturally in favour of the stronger player. At no time should a smash be
tried except when four pockets are open—_i.e._ from the top of the
table; a stab or screw back should be used, so as to avoid as far as
possible the mob of flying balls, which may kiss the white into a
pocket. The third and orthodox opening is to play at the end ball of the
row next the base of the pyramid with strength sufficient to leave the
white ball as near to the bottom cushion as possible. If the pyramid is
properly set up, the opponent has no easy stroke left, though
occasionally a ball is malignant enough to detach itself and come down
the table. This is generally the result of either careless setting up or
of striking too hard, but if this opening stroke is properly played, the
second player will have nothing better to play for than a more or less
difficult stroke for safety, and so the game will proceed till the
pyramid is gradually shaken and finally broken up; but in playing for
safety it is sometimes advisable to disturb the pyramid, if possible, it
being difficult for one’s opponent to steer a safe course when there are
rocks ahead in the shape of balls.
It is often safe to leave the white ball near the pyramid, provided that
it has not been greatly disturbed; for, if the players are equal,
neither should risk a smash, for it is, after all, even betting which
player profits. The best safety of all is to leave the adversary far
away from a ball and as near to a cushion as possible; but if he can
retaliate in kind, not much good will have been done. Watch the score,
and play to the score. The leader should play a cautious rather than a
dashing game, as a losing hazard not only diminishes his score by a
point, but also gives his adversary the advantage of playing from baulk
with an extra ball on the table. ‘When in doubt play for safety,’ is a
golden rule, but a doubtful hazard may often be tried when one can get
safety as well. Beginners should be cautioned to watch carefully for
foul strokes, especially when the rest or spider is being used. A
knowledge of the spot stroke and its variations is invaluable,
involving, as this stroke does, every form of screw, stab, and following
stroke; while the stop stroke is also most useful—_i.e._ a sort of stab
that leaves the white ball on the place just vacated by the red.
When a player is familiar with ordinary winning hazards, and can make
them with some facility, he should devote himself to the making of
breaks—_i.e._ a series of hazards. Diagrams I. and II. may serve as
examples, showing how position should be got so that one hazard may lead
on to another.
[Illustration:
Diagram I.
]
Nor should the famous _dictum_ about the spot stroke be forgotten—viz.
that the first and most important point is to make sure of putting in
the red. Supposing, then, that the balls are left as in Diagram I., the
problem is to take them all in a break, which may be done as follows,
the figures representing the successive positions of the white
ball:—From position 1 there is an easy hazard, and position 2 may be
easily gained. The same remarks apply to the next stroke, but from 3 a
‘run through’ with right-hand side is required so as to get to 4. Here
there is the option of dropping ball X quietly into the middle pocket,
leaving an easy shot on Y, or of stabbing Y and getting position 5. If
the latter stroke is successfully played, the rule of ‘never play for a
middle pocket at single pool’ should decide the striker to drive X
gently down to the left-hand bottom pocket, leaving his ball safe under
the side cushion.
The break shown in Diagram II. is by no means so easy. It may be played
as follows:—From position 1 a gentle stab, screwing back a little,
should be played; from 2 is required a semi-follow with left-hand side.
For the third stroke strong right-hand side is used, the top cushion
being utilised or not according to fancy; and the fourth also requires
some right-hand side, but the proper play is to try to get such position
as will leave a shot for a corner and not a middle pocket. It may also
be noted that by playing on ball Y first there will be but a poor chance
of getting ball X in the course of the break, as ball Z will clearly be
the next one to play at. These two breaks are only suggested for useful
practice, and to show the beginner some of the devices necessary for
success.
[Illustration:
Diagram II.
]
I will now discuss certain strokes of frequent occurrence, for which
special hints are necessary, plants and doubles being among the most
important. They have been to some extent dealt with already,[22] but are
more common at winning-hazard games than at billiards, and consequently
not only do they demand careful attention, but also verification by
practice, the relative positions of the balls being frequently altered,
and the varieties in the results noted and studied. Another very
important class of strokes occurs when the object ball is under the
cushion, a common situation in all games of pool. Diagram III. shows two
examples, though stroke B is really only a modification of stroke A;
still, it deserves separate consideration, as the hazard is very
difficult, and the position of the striker’s ball after the stroke has
been played is most important. Example A may be considered typical; the
player’s ball is on the centre of the =Ｄ= and the object ball half way
up cushion 2. Play slowly, about No. 1 strength, so as to hit ball and
cushion simultaneously. Ball 2 will drop into the pocket, and ball 1
will travel towards the spot. If position is desired to the right of the
spot, a little left-hand side should be used, and it even seems to make
the hazard easier; a sharper stroke with right-hand side will bring ball
1 towards the middle of the table. This stroke should be practised with
ball 2 at such positions as P, Q, R, and S, and the resting place of
ball 1 should be carefully observed. It is clearly not a good stroke for
single pool, as the balls are left too close together. Stroke B is not
at all easy, but it is worth playing for, as it cannot leave much. Ball
2 must be cut very finely—in fact, play just not to miss it. If it _is_
missed on the upward journey, left-hand side, which is almost essential
to the stroke, will cause ball 2 to be hit from the cushion, X and Y
show the direction of ball 1 according as no side or left-hand side is
used.
There are no strokes more common and none which require more care than
those in which the object ball is close to a cushion, nearly at right
angles to the path of ball 1 and a long distance from it. The paths of
both seem, from the mere proximity of the cushion, to be regulated by an
entirely new code of dynamic laws, the fact being that the whole
conditions of the case are not correctly realised. It is here that the
inestimable qualities of side, as an agent productive of pace, are
called in to assist; for by playing with direct side and cutting ball 2
very fine, its course will be restricted, and the side will cause ball 1
to travel freely down the table; but here, as in all things, an ounce of
practice is worth a ton of theory, and more can be learned by an hour’s
practice than a week’s reading.
[Illustration:
Diagram III.
]
To the serious student the ‘R.-W. Billiard Diagram Notebook’[23] is
recommended, in order that the results of practice and observation may
be recorded, for, as Captain Cuttle might have said, ‘These things, when
found, should be made a note of.’
Diagram IV. shows a useful double in stroke A, ball 2 being some
distance below the middle pocket, and two or three inches from the
cushion. Ball 1 should be placed approximately as shown in the diagram;
but practice and experience can alone show the exact place, depending as
it does on the position of ball 2. To make the double, play full on ball
2. Ball 1 can be made to reach the top of the table, if desired, by the
use of strong left-hand side and follow. For single pool a stab is of
course the right stroke. If the top pocket is blocked, or if for any
other reason (_e.g._ for the sake of position) this stroke is
undesirable, there is a good chance of a double as shown in stroke B,
ball 2 being struck half-ball, and ball 1 following approximately the
lines terminating in X. For the sake of practice the position of ball 2
should be shifted towards the pocket, and also further down the table.
The further it lies from baulk, the finer must be the cut, and the
harder the stroke. The position of ball 1 should be carefully noted each
time, and also the point at which the object ball having been gradually
moved _down_ the table, a kiss occurs and prevents the double into the
middle pocket.
[Illustration:
Diagram IV.
]
The stroke shown in Diagram V. is of common occurrence in single pool,
and may appropriately be here explained, as every game of pyramids
eventually becomes one of single pool. The type of stroke is so
important that it should be practised from various positions—first
without side, and then with side both right and left, the ultimate
position of the striker’s ball being the main feature of the stroke. The
direct hazard is of course on, but only special circumstances would
justify any but a first-rate hazard striker in trying for it. In the
diagram P Z shows the course of ball 1 when no side is used, Q Y when
played with strong left-hand side, and R X when strong right-hand side
is employed. Strength is most important, and observation alone will show
when a kiss occurs as the balls cross each other’s track; but the
chances of this are much diminished when reverse side (in this case
_left_ side) is used. If ball 2 is near the cushion, a sharp stroke is
necessary, but the double shown in stroke A, Diagram VI., is the better
game. All the doubles shown in this diagram are useful, especially for
single pool. Stroke A is played with a stab, stroke B with follow, so as
to leave ball 1 under the top cushion. Stroke C also requires a stab,
strength being judged so as to leave ball 2 close to the pocket, if it
is not holed. In both B and C ball 2 might possibly be cut in, but the
double is, for pool at least, the safer stroke.
The question of plants has been already alluded to in Chapter VII.,
which should be carefully studied, as such shots are infinitely more
common with the fifteen-pyramid balls than at billiards. In the plant,
pure and simple, the balls are touching or practically touching; but if
what may be called the second object ball is fairly near to the pocket,
a plant is often worth trying, though some caution is necessary, as a
leave is very likely to result if the stroke fails. The principle may be
described as playing a ball on to a certain point in a third ball, this
point being on the line leading to the centre of the pocket. Thus, by
means of ball 2, ball 3 may be holed, though, with a view to a possible
leave for the adversary, the stroke is too risky to be recommended for
general use.
[Illustration:
Diagram V.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 2
]
It should be noticed that a pocket is considerably enlarged so to speak,
when there is a ball in the position shown by fig. 2, as from almost
anywhere to the right of the diagonal drawn through that pocket a ball
may be holed off ball 3, either directly or off cushion 2, or it may be
put in without touching ball 3, which will then be left for the next
stroke.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3
]
Fig. 3 shows a neat stroke. Balls 2 and 3 are touching. The line passing
through their centres is at right angles to the line drawn from ball 2
to the centre of the pocket. Then from any point below P Q, and even
from some distance above it, a winning hazard on ball 2 is with ordinary
care a certainty.
In fig. 4 a useful but rare stroke is shown. The two balls are touching
or nearly touching, but are not aligned on the pocket. By playing a push
shot, quite quietly, the point of the cue, never quitting ball 1,
gradually directs ball 2 towards the pocket. The cue should be directed
as much _above_ P as the pocket is _below_ it. A _stroke_ with left-hand
side will have the same effect, but to enter into reasons would be to
open up the whole question of push strokes.
[Illustration:
Diagram VI.
]
[Illustration:
Fig. 4
]
In Diagram VII. stroke A suggests a method of making a winning hazard
which, though in itself easy, may be dangerous when the player is in a
cramped position. Ball 2 is close to the pocket, and ball 1 is in a
straight line with it, but so hampered by the cushion that a stab shot
is out of the question. The hazard may easily be made by playing off
cushion 6, as shown, and ball 1 may be left in the direction of the
spot. This type of stroke, by the way, is capable of much development
and should be studied. The strokes marked B_{1}, B_{2}, and B_{3}
suggest three methods of play in case ball 1 should be angled, ball 2
being in the jaws of the middle pocket. Fortunately such an occurrence
is rare; but I once saw it happen at pool, and the player—a very good
one—played the stroke marked B_{2} and brought it off. Experiment gives
the best results with B_{1} and the worst with B_{3}; but which of the
three should be essayed depends on the exact position of ball 2 and the
chances of making a loser. The point Q is about six inches below the
baulk-line, but a few trials will show the exact place. B_{2} is of the
nature of a _massé_, and even if ball 1 strikes the cushion above the
middle pocket, there is still a chance of success. Should ball 1 be
angled for ball 2, the latter being in a corner pocket, the _massé_
stroke is the only chance; in fact, there is a very old trick stroke,
made when balls 1 and 3 are in the jaws of the corner pockets and ball 2
in the jaws of the middle, all on the same side; by a similar species of
_massé_ ball 1 curves round and outside ball 2 and holes ball 3.
[Illustration:
Diagram VII.
]
_A propos_ of stroke A, there is a useful method of getting position at
the top of the table, if ball 1 can be struck freely. If plenty of
follow is used, and ball 2 is struck nearly full, the striker’s ball
will rebound towards the middle of the table and then spring forward
towards the top cushion again. The stroke requires much freedom, and the
explanation of it is to be found in Chapter VI., On Rotation.
Stroke C may be found useful at some time or another. The object ball is
resting against the upper jaw of the middle pocket, in such a way that
it is impossible to cut it in from baulk; but with a kiss the stroke is
absurdly easy. By playing from the end of the =Ｄ= with No. 1 strength,
and hitting the red about three-quarters right, the kiss will send it
into the pocket and leave ball 1 in the middle of the table.
The question of occasionally giving a miss may deserve a word, but, as a
matter of fact, the opportunities of playing such a stroke with profit
are very rare. To begin with, the penalty is a very heavy one, and can
only be afforded by a player who has a most commanding lead and whose
adversary cannot dare to follow suit. With a score of, say, nine to one,
when the leading player has the game in hand, he may, if he please,
sacrifice a ball in the hopes of getting a break afterwards; but when
the scores are nearly equal, it is clear that if it is worth A.’s while
to give a miss, B. can hardly do better than follow his example.
The highest possible break at pyramids (unless the striker owes one or
more balls) is, of course, fifteen; this number has frequently been
taken by fine players, but the chances of finding a full complement of
balls on the table and of being in a position to take advantage of the
opening are very small, always presupposing that the ability to clear
the table exists. In the quickest game I ever played, my adversary
managed to take a ball after the opening stroke, and, gradually breaking
up the pyramid, secured ten, and the last five fell to me in the next
turn, so that we had but three innings between us, one of them being the
break. A capital performance was once done at Cambridge by an
undergraduate whose adversary broke and apparently left everything safe;
however, eight balls disappeared, nearly all very difficult strokes, in
which the player had to consider safety as well as the hazard. In his
next turn he cleared the table by a series of similar shots, all, or
nearly all, so difficult that once more safety was his main object. This
was a very great feat; but the reader need hardly be reminded that at
pyramids, as at billiards, the art to be cultivated is the art of
leaving a series of easy strokes. I once saw a man who had just made a
break of 30 or 40 at billiards turn round and say, ‘What a good break!
There wasn’t a single easy stroke in it!’ The real billiard-player would
have described it as a series of well-made strokes, but as a _break_,
never.
SHELL-OUT
This game is practically the same as pyramids, but more than two take
part in it. A stake, so much a ball, is agreed upon. The balls are set
up as at pyramids, but under no circumstances is a ball ever put up
after a miss, or when a ball has been forced off the table, or when the
white has run in. If any of these things has happened, a point is added
to every one’s score except the offender’s, who thus pays the stake to
the other players. The score is most conveniently kept on the slate,
each ball counting one, except the last, which is generally reckoned as
two; all penalties incurred off it are also double, but with the
exaction of the penalty the game is at an end. There is no single pool,
white always playing upon red. If a player plays out of turn, he has to
pay all round; he can gain nothing if he takes a ball, but the ball is
not put up. If he makes a foul when only one red ball is left and takes
that ball, he cannot score, but the game is at an end. The rules for
foul strokes are the same as at pyramids. At the end of the game each
player pays or receives the differences. Thus, if the scores stand A. 9,
B. 3, C. 4, A. receives 6 from B. and 5 from C., while C. receives 1
from B.
Everything that has been said about pyramids applies equally to
shell-out; but as it is a game of all against all, safety is not so much
an object as hazard striking, it being clearly useless for A. to leave
B. safe so that C. may profit by it. It may also be remembered that if,
say, four are playing, the individual has practically a bet of three to
one about each stroke. The game, in fact, is more for amusement than for
scientific play, though naturally the scientific player will in the long
run get more pleasure and profit out of it.
POOL
Pool, the good old-fashioned following pool, is getting out of date. The
more racy games of black pool and snooker have jostled it from its place
in men’s affections, so once more Cronos has been deposed, and Zeus
reigns in his stead. As, however, no article on winning hazard games
would be complete without a detailed reference to it, if only because of
its antiquity, I will treat it as still instinct with life and energy;
and, indeed, as the parent of the more modern games, it deserves our
respect. The principles of the game are quite simple.
Each player receives a ball by lot—any number up to twelve can play—and
starts with three lives. The order of play is decided by the sequence of
the colours on the marking-board, which correspond with the balls. White
is placed on the billiard spot and red plays the first stroke from the
=Ｄ=; yellow plays on red, green on yellow and so on, the same order
being kept throughout the game, unless an intermediate ball is dead
(_i.e._ has lost all its lives), when the ball that precedes it becomes
the object ball; _e.g._ if red is dead, yellow plays on white, or if
both red and yellow are dead, _green_ plays on white. If a player clears
the table—_i.e._ takes all the balls on it—his ball is spotted.
The most important part of the game is to hole the object ball. When
this is done, its owner loses a life, and the striker continues his
break by playing at the nearest ball, and thus the game proceeds till
only one player or two are left. In the first event the survivor takes
the whole pool, which is called a maiden pool if he has his three lives
intact; in the second the two players play on till one kills the other,
or till each has an equal number of lives, in which case the pool is
divided. If, however, there are three balls on the table, say red with
two lives, yellow with one life, and green with two lives, then if green
holes yellow, he has a shot at red, though the number of their lives is
equal. This is obviously fair, as he is in the middle of his break.
Green, then, has this stroke called stroke or division; if he holes red,
the pool is played out to an end—_i.e._ till both are one-lifers or till
green kills red; but if green’s stroke fails, the pool is divided at
once. Each player pays the amount of his pool to the marker, this being
generally three times the value of a life, though, if lives are only
sixpence, the pool should be two shillings. The table-money, generally
threepence a ball, and the same for each star, is taken out of the pool
before it is given to the winner. A player who is unfortunate or
unskilful enough to lose his three lives early can come into the game
again by paying the amount of the pool a second time over. This is
called starring, as a star is put against his colour on the
marking-board, but he only receives the lowest number of lives shown on
the board.
As the striker is compelled to play at a particular ball, he is allowed
to have any ball or balls taken up (to be replaced after the balls have
ceased rolling) which are nearer than the object ball and prevent him
hitting either side of it, or which in any way interfere with his stroke
(see Rules 20 and 21).[24] No star is allowed when only two players are
left in, but when more than eight are playing a second star is
permitted. Sometimes the game is played with an unlimited number of
stars, each costing the amount of the pool over and above the price of
the last star—_e.g._ at three-shilling pool the first star costs three,
the second six, and the third nine shillings, and so on (see Rules 8 and
9). The striker loses a life (Rule 13) if he holes his own ball, whether
he takes the object ball or not; forces it off the table; misses; runs a
coup; plays out of turn; hits a wrong ball first; or plays with the
wrong ball, except when he is in hand, in which case there is no
penalty. All penalties are paid to the owner of the proper object ball,
however incurred. If a player wishes to have a ball up, he should not
lift it himself, as such an act would be technically a foul stroke.
Should a player be angled, and wish to play off the cushion, he may have
any ball or balls taken up which interfere with his aim; but the old
rules allowed him to move his ball just far enough to get his stroke,
though he could not take a life by it.
Rule 28 says: ‘Should a player be misinformed by the marker, he may play
the stroke over again, but cannot take a life.’ This seems hard, and is
perhaps an instance of _summum ius, summa injuria_; but the moral for
the player is that he must keep his attention fixed on the game and the
marking-board. To attempt to replace the balls, and to allow the stroke
to be played over again might give rise to much unpleasantness. By Rule
30, ‘Should the striker miss the ball played at, no one is allowed to
stop the ball, the striker having no option.’ The striker’s ball after
missing the object ball may still hit others, and materially affect the
subsequent progress of the game; hence a hard-and-fast law on the
subject is necessary.
As it is to the survivor or survivors that the pool eventually comes, it
is of paramount importance to cling to life. Many things combine to
decide the striker whether to try for safety or for a hazard, or for
both together—his own temperament and skill, the state of the score, and
the position and skill of the next player and his other opponents. All
hands are against every man, so that general rules are impossible, but
‘When in doubt play safety’ is a capital rule. Another useful maxim is,
‘Play for safety with safety-players, play for hazards with hazard
strikers,’ as the latter, if they play out boldly, are sure to sell the
safety-player sooner or later—_i.e._ will leave his ball in a position
of great danger. But if the next player is close to the cushion, one is
justified in playing for a hazard when, under other conditions, safety
would be the right game. Again, a bolder style is right in a big pool
of, say, eight or ten players, as the chances of being sold are greater.
More boldness, too, in playing out for hazards may be shown by a player
who is left in with, say, three lives, while the others have only one;
but even then it is better to be cautious.
It is generally good policy to star two; many things may happen before
it is star’s turn to play again, and he has the great advantage of
playing from the =Ｄ=. A glance should also be taken at the position of
the other balls, as the next player may have an easy stroke to play, and
every life taken is in star’s favour with a view to the pool. A
deliberate miss or coup, so as to be enabled to star well, is not
chivalrous, perhaps not fair, but there is nothing unsportsmanlike in
playing a more open game with a view to starring. With an unlimited star
the question is reduced to one of capital and temperament; but in any
case starring is an expensive luxury, and the player who is not
judicious may find in himself a parallel to F. C. Burnand’s heroine of
suicidal tendencies, of whom he wittily writes the epitaph, ‘In memory
of Itti Duffa, the ill-starred maid, who lost her one life in this
pool.’
One must play for one’s own hand, regardless of the other players, and
undeterred by chaff or sneer from trying for a plant or cannon; but it
is generally dangerous to play for a cannon unless very easy, as there
is always a chance of the player’s ball following the other into a
pocket; but it is no more bad form to try for such a stroke than to pot
the white at billiards; whether it is expedient or not, is another
question, which only the exigencies of the moment can decide.
The marker is the proper person to measure distances when necessary, but
the beginner should learn the right way to do so. One player puts his
finger firmly on the striker’s ball, while another gently slides the
butt of his cue up to it, holding the other end between forefinger and
thumb, thumb uppermost. The point of the cue is then lowered till the
cue rests lightly on the top of the other ball, the forefinger being
slid up till it just touches the ball. A similar process is gone through
with the third ball, the striker’s being held steady the while, and the
question of which is the nearer is solved at once. Again, it is the
marker’s duty to tell the striker on which ball he has to play, and
which ball plays next, the formula being, _e.g._ ‘Green on yellow,
player brown,’ or, if brown is in hand, ‘Green on yellow, player brown
in hand,’ and if the striker has to play on his player, the marker must
inform him of the fact; as, however, the striker is the scapegoat even
if he acts on wrong information, he should keep his attention fixed on
the game.
The opening of a pool is more or less stereotyped, all the players
endeavouring to lay themselves under the top cushion out of harm’s way,
the player being always in hand till white’s turn comes round; thus the
last player—brown, let us say, in a five-pool—has to steer himself round
the other balls that are clustered at the head of the table, and find
his way down to baulk, as white is nearly sure to be high up; in a big
pool the last player may have some difficulty, and it is well to
remember that, as he can have any ball or balls up that lie between him
and the object ball, he can, by selecting a good spot from baulk, have
one or two such obstacles removed. The orthodox opening shot for red, by
the way, is to play full on to white from a corner of the =Ｄ=, just hard
enough to find the cushion himself. Plenty of drag should be used and no
side. Side and screw are of no value except for position, or for playing
a slow stroke which is wanted to travel quickly off the cushion.
The late William Cook once made a pool record. ‘Playing in a twelve
following pool at his own rooms’ (I quote the words of a fine amateur
player who took part in the game), ‘in 1881, he actually cleared the
table, playing always of course on the nearest ball. He had taken 20 to
1 five or six times from spectators, and the excitement was intense when
he performed this really phenomenal feat.’ As pool is limited to 12,
Cook, like Alexander, had no more worlds to conquer; but his hazard
striking and position must have been marvellous.
Doubles are of the utmost importance, and the strokes shown in the
preceding diagrams should be noted. One may fairly play a middle-pocket
double with extra strength if by so doing there is a chance of the
double-double, though it is not strictly sound, and shows a certain
diffidence as to one’s accuracy. Plants are rare.
_A propos_ of doubles, the following occurrence is probably without
precedent, but the story is absolutely vouched for. Three amateurs were
playing three-pool. Red opened by doubling white into the right-hand
bottom pocket. Yellow avenged white by doing exactly the same to red,
and white made matters even by treating yellow to a precisely identical
shot. Strange to say, red with his second shot holed white just as
before—four consecutive doubles into the same pocket—and, though yellow
spoiled the average by only doubling red into the right-hand _middle_
pocket, white made things all square and yellow disappeared into the
original pocket. Thus six consecutive doubles were made, five of them
into one pocket! What are the odds against such a performance?
As even in these enlightened days the confidence trick flourishes, it
may be worth while to warn beginners against innocent strangers. If
these win by sheer skill, there is nothing to be said against them, and
the best thing is to put down one’s cue; if they are sharps as well,
they will probably hunt in couples, on the chance of one playing next to
the other, when the first player, curiously enough, never quite gets
safety and always leaves a ball over the pocket. I remember just such a
pair, a good player and a duffer, turning up at some rooms I used to
frequent, and, though none of us were innocents, they played so cleverly
into each other’s hands, the apparent duffer making several slight
mistakes at critical moments, that the good player had a pretty good
time. Talking the matter over, we saw that we had been had, and, as we
were rather a snug little _coterie_, arranged with the marker what was
to be done if they reappeared. The pair had posed as absolute strangers
and had come in separately, so we told the marker that if the duffer
came in first he was to have a ball and we would try to warm him up, but
on the good player’s appearance he was to be refused a ball, while we, a
fairly sturdy lot, would see the marker through any trouble. All came
off splendidly. The duffer appeared first and lost two or three pools,
and when the crack walked in he was at once confronted by the marker
with ‘I am very sorry, sir, but I can’t give you a ball to-day.’ We
expected a row, but he took it like a lamb and decamped, and the duffer,
after losing another pool or two, decamped also. One of our party saw
them the same evening, hobnobbing together at the Criterion, so there
can be no doubt that it was a put-up job. The following occurred to a
friend of mine, a good billiard-player, a particularly good
pyramid-player, and well able to look after himself. After a couple of
games of billiards, on both of which he won a small bet, his opponent, a
stranger and apparently a Jew, suggested ‘just one game of pyramids.’
‘What shall we play for?’ said my friend. ‘Three and one,’ said the
Semitic one, which means, as usually interpreted, a shilling a ball and
three shillings on the game. My friend won by thirteen balls, but his
opponent, after putting up his cue, offered him just four shillings and
threepence, being at the rate of three _pence_ a ball and one _shilling_
a game! There was nothing to be done, but I wonder what the Jew would
have claimed had he won by thirteen balls.
THREE-POOL
When four players only are left, and one of them is finally killed, the
marker should be careful to call ‘Three-pool.’ Why this is so may not be
apparent to the novice, and perhaps it will be cheaper for him to learn
from a book than to pay for the information over the table. When four or
more players are left in, the striker plays for a hazard, and, whether
successful or not, he has no further anxieties beyond the safety of his
own ball; but in three-pool a new element is introduced: he must
consider where the object ball will finally stop if his hazard fails,
and the middle of the table is the very worst position for it. A
moment’s thought will show the reason. A., B., and C. are three players:
B. plays on A., lays himself safe from C., and leaves A. in the middle
of the table. C. having to play on B., is now, in most cases, in a great
dilemma; he has no chance of taking B., and with A. in the middle of the
table may find it very difficult to get safety after he has played. If
he has a long shot from under the cushion, he will probably leave A. a
fairly easy stroke, in which case B. may suffer also, so that B.’s own
carelessness, or his indifference as to where A. was left, may
deservedly recoil on his own head. The amount of consolation meted out
to him for having been sold will be the cold comfort of ‘You ought to
have played three-pool;’ in other words, ‘You ought, while leaving your
ball safe, to have also left A.’s ball in such a position as to make
safety fairly possible for C.’ Again, it is only self-defence to leave
the object ball near a pocket, in case of a failure to put it in;
especially is this advisable when it is very hard for the striker to get
safety, for it is clearly to every player’s advantage to have, if
possible, a comrade in misfortune.
The general principle of three-pool may be more easily understood from
Diagram VIII., which shows two cases in which the obvious stroke for
ordinary pool would be quite wrong in three-pool. In each case red has
to play on white, yellow being his player. In No. 1 red has a hazard in
the middle pocket, but it is not particularly easy, and must be played
slowly, so that if it fails white will very likely be thrown by the
lower jaw of the pocket to about A, while red drops slowly down to B.
Yellow has the poorest chance of escaping white next time, and, being
extremely indifferent to what becomes of red, will probably sell him, as
he deserves. If red plays the game he will dribble white down towards
the left-hand bottom pocket, and be himself safe at C, when yellow will
not be forced to run any risks. In stroke 2 it is tempting to play for
the double into the middle pocket with strong right-hand side and screw,
so as to get near the spot off three cushions; but as this would
probably leave white in the middle of the table, and yellow would be in
hopeless trouble, the right stroke is an attempted double into the
_bottom_ pocket, when left-hand side and screw will leave the striker
safe, and yellow will have no difficulty in getting safe also, while,
further, the striker will have the best chance in the subsequent
finessing.
SINGLE POOL
Many of the more ordinary strokes required at this game have already
been discussed; but, as single pool is a most scientific and interesting
game _per se_, it deserves a few lines to itself. As the striker is
always playing on his player, the problem of safety is quite different.
Two general maxims should be writ large in the striker’s mind: (1) Leave
the balls as far apart as possible; (2) Never play for a middle pocket
unless it is a certainty. The first of these requires no comment: a
moment’s thought will show the importance of the second, which applies
equally to doubles and to direct shots, as a stroke for the middle is
sure, if it fails, to leave the adversary’s ball in the middle of the
table, when he will either have a good chance of a hazard or no
difficulty in getting safe.
[Illustration:
Diagram VIII.
]
Reverting to Diagram VIII., stroke 1, at ordinary pool red may,
_caeteris paribus_, try to hole white in the middle pocket. The danger
of this stroke for three-pool has already been shown; at single pool it
is even more risky, as from A white would have an almost certain hazard
with red at B. The same remarks apply to stroke 2.
For the opening stroke, again, it would be suicidal for red to drag
slowly up to white: an endeavour should be made to double the white into
one of the bottom pockets by a stab, for which object the white should
be driven against the top cushion, about four inches to the right or
left of the centre of it behind the spot, leaving the striker’s ball as
near the cushion as possible; but some players like to use a little
direct side while playing for the same double, leaving their own ball
under a side cushion.
Two strokes are shown in Diagram IX. illustrating the difference of play
demanded by single pool. In stroke 1, at ordinary pool the striker would
try to hole white in the top corner pocket; at single pool he should
play a smart stab, being careful not to follow on, driving the object
ball all round the table towards the bottom cushion. Stroke 2, known as
the Z shot, separates the balls well and should be played with some
right side, white being cut very fine, so as to leave it high up the
table. It would be an equally sound stroke to play for a double in the
right-hand bottom pocket; but the reader is again warned that these and
all other sample strokes should be tried over coolly in private, and not
be essayed for the first time in the heat of actual conflict.
BLACK POOL
Considering the popularity of this game, it is really surprising that no
regular and recognised code of laws exists. Some rules have been
published, it is true, but there are so many deviations from them,
almost every room having its own bye-laws, that the present state of
things is quite chaotic. Thus it is impossible to do more here than give
directions for the game as it is generally played; any one who is
playing in a strange room should inquire what the customs of the room
are.
[Illustration:
Diagram IX.
]
The special feature of the game is the introduction of the black ball,
which may be described as public property, for every player who takes it
is paid by all the others the amount of the stake agreed upon, and all
penalties incurred when playing at it are also paid all round. It is
spotted on the centre spot; if that is occupied, on the pyramid spot; if
that is occupied, on the billiard spot; and if _all_ are occupied, it is
held up till one is vacated. Each player has an infinite number of
lives, and cannot be killed, however often he is put down. Each life
lost is paid for by a stake agreed upon. There is no subscribed pool.
Each game lasts half an hour; when time is up, directly after white has
played the marker announces the last round, white having always the last
stroke. Any number can play for whom balls can be found, but five
players make the most interesting game. At the end of a round a new
player can enter. His ball is spotted on the billiard spot, and he has
to stand fire till his turn to play comes. Similarly, any one can retire
by giving notice of his intention directly after he has played, but his
ball remains on the table till his turn comes again. In fact, the
spotting of the new-comer’s ball and the removal of a player’s ball may
be considered their first and last stroke respectively. Foul strokes are
regulated by the rules of ordinary pool, but after a miss the striker’s
ball is left where it stops and is not removed from the table. A life is
lost by playing with or at the wrong ball, or out of turn; if any one
plays at the black out of turn, he has to pay all round. The black ball
is never taken up, and no coloured ball can be taken up (except during
the first round) if it interferes with the striker. Baulk, as in all
winning hazard games, affords no protection. If the black ball is holed,
it must be spotted at once; if the striker play before it is spotted,
the stroke is foul.
The first round is played exactly as at ordinary pool, the balls being
given out in the same way—white set on the billiard spot, and black on
the centre spot. After white has played—that is, after the conclusion of
the first round—red can play on any other player’s ball.
By some rules he has to play on the nearest ball, by others the pool
order is observed.
If he takes a life, he receives a single stake from the owner of the
ball and must then play on the black.
By some rules he may take as many coloured lives as he likes before
playing on the black. This cuts both ways, as the striker may have a
better chance of getting position on black by taking several coloured
balls first, but, on the contrary, he is spoiling his chance of a
large break.
If the coloured ball is holed and the black also (_e.g._ by a cannon or
plant), the black does not count, but is spotted at once and is the next
ball to be played on.
Sometimes the black is allowed to count under these circumstances, and
can be played on again, after it has been spotted, the theory being
that, though black cannot be _played on_ twice running, it may, under
certain circumstances, be _taken_ twice running.
If black is holed, the striker must play on a coloured ball, the rules
of the room deciding which one, but in most rooms he is allowed his
choice.
If he takes this life too, he must again play on black, taking coloured
balls and blacks alternately till he breaks down, when the next player
proceeds.
If the striker plays on black, and holes both black and a coloured ball,
both are counted; but if a coloured ball goes down and black does not,
the coloured ball does not count, and the break is at an end. If the
striker holes the black and no other ball is left on the table, his ball
is spotted.
In a game of this kind, where all are playing against all, to play for
safety is mere waste of time; but when the next player has an easy
stroke waiting for him, with perhaps a good chance of black to follow,
the striker should sacrifice his own game (unless he has a reasonable
chance of scoring) to spoil the next player’s; _e.g._ if red has a
difficult stroke, and yellow, who follows him, has a good chance of
taking (say) brown, then red should knock brown away, as, if yellow
makes his first hazard and then gets black, red will have to pay with
the others. But as a general rule the striker must play for himself
alone, and play not merely for the first hazard but for the black
afterwards. At no time is caution so necessary as when the next striker
is in hand and there is a ball behind the baulk-line which is likely to
be holed. If the black is safe, no danger is to be feared; but if it is
anywhere in the middle of the table, some self-sacrifice may be
necessary, so that it behoves every player as his turn comes round to
think what kind of a stroke the next man is likely to have.
Again, it is clearly useless to cower under a cushion; no one is likely
to play at a ball so placed, and its owner will have left his ball in a
cramped position. Hence an open game should be played, with the black
always in view, and the reflection that he whose ball is holed will have
the advantage of playing from baulk. To push the matter further, a coup
is often judicious, if such a course does not seem likely to sell the
table; a coup is often better play than a haphazard shot, which may cost
one or more blacks in the end. As a new-comer’s ball is spotted before
white plays, it is no good entering if white has a promising break; the
last arrival may indeed help him to get one, and in this case it is
prudent to defer one’s entry for another round. The player who leaves
before the pool is over has to stand fire for a round and is responsible
for any blacks that may be taken in the course of it.
No hazards are so valuable at black pool as those into the middle
pockets, because of the position of the black. Practice consequently at
this class of strokes is sure to be profitable.
BLACK AND PINK POOL
For science, changing vicissitudes, and general amusement, black pool is
greatly improved by the addition of the pink ball. It is always spotted
on the pyramid spot; if that is occupied, on the billiard spot; and
failing that one, it goes to the centre spot, if unoccupied. If all are
occupied, it is held up till one of the spots is free. The rules of
black pool apply both to the black and pink balls. In some rooms,
however, pink can be played on originally (after the first round), but
under all rules blacks and pinks can be taken alternately, without the
intervention of a hazard off a coloured ball. A double stake is
generally payable on black and a single stake on pink, this being levied
on all the players. The game is opened as at black pool; neither black
nor pink can ever be taken up if they interfere with the striker, nor
any coloured ball, except in the first round. When a coloured ball has
been taken, the striker must play on either pink or black.
In some rooms this is optional, and he may play on a coloured ball if
he chooses.
If the striker holes a pink or a black, he cannot play on that ball till
he has taken another life, but not necessarily a coloured ball, as he
can go from black to pink and from pink to black as often as he makes a
hazard. If he plays the first stroke of a break on a coloured ball and
holes either black or pink by cannon or plant, the rule of black pool
which provides for such a case is generally observed.
In some rooms, if _pink_ goes down under these conditions, it is
allowed to count even if the coloured ball is not holed. If both are
holed, both count.
It is usually conceded that black cannot be _played upon_ twice running,
nor pink, but every room should have a hard-and-fast law to settle
whether either or both can be _taken_ twice running; otherwise the
following is a _crux_. No balls are left on the table except pink,
black, and the striker’s ball. Pink is over the pocket; the striker
plays on black and ‘plants’ pink. If pink may not be taken again, the
break is at an end, and the coloured ball must be spotted; otherwise he
may play on pink and black alternately as long as he can make a hazard.
The best break I ever heard of at this game was one coloured ball,
followed by ten pinks and ten blacks, a pretty series of twenty-one
hazards. A good way of collecting the stakes is to mark off with chalk
on the top of the cushion a compartment for each player; he can then lay
down his lives, on the _wooden_ surface opposite his compartment, and
the striker can readily collect the money when his break is over. This
saves a great deal of trouble in collection. No special hints are needed
for this game, as it is only a modification of black pool, but care is
necessary to avoid leaving an easy hazard for the next player if black
or pink is over a pocket. Especially is this necessary if the rule is
that pink may be played on originally.
Another useful bye-law is that the striker may be required, before he
plays, to declare on which ball he is playing; if he declares to play on
black, misses it, and hits pink, then, though legally entitled to hit
pink, he must pay the full penalty for missing black. Such a law as this
may save many disputes.
SNOOKER
Snooker—or, to give it its full title, Snooker’s Pool—is a hybrid game,
half pool and half pyramids. Any reasonable number of players, say five
or six, may take part; but it is best to play a single-handed game, or
for two to play against two. As is the case with black pool, there are
no accepted rules, the published code being of little use, so many are
the deviations from it. The general method of play is here laid down, so
that those who are unfamiliar with the game may make its acquaintance.
The pyramid balls are set up in the usual way, and the striker always
uses the white ball. The black ball is set on the billiard spot, the
pink on the centre spot. Blue is placed just below the apex-ball of the
pyramid, brown on the centre spot of the =Ｄ=, with yellow and green on
the right and left corner spots.
If pink and black are not introduced, blue is put on the billiard
spot, brown on the centre spot, green at the apex of the triangle, and
yellow on the centre spot of the =Ｄ=. The positions of pink and black
are sometimes reversed.
A red ball counts one, yellow two, green three, brown four, blue five,
pink six, and black seven. The score, if two persons are playing or
sides are formed, may be marked on the board as at billiards.
A red ball must be taken before a coloured ball can be played at; if the
striker, playing on a red, holes it, and takes a coloured ball also, the
latter does not count and is spotted. If, playing on red, he fails to
hole it, but holes a coloured ball, the value of the latter is scored to
the other side.
In each of these cases the striker is allowed in some rooms to score
the coloured ball; the rule given is the generally accepted one.
After taking a red, the striker must play on one of the coloured balls.
If he holes one of them, any other balls that go down by the same stroke
count to him. All coloured balls which are holed must be spotted
immediately; if the striker plays before all are spotted, the stroke is
foul. No red ball is ever put up. The rules for foul strokes are the
same as those of ordinary pool, and penalties are incurred in the same
way, but the amount of the penalty is the value of the ball played
at—_i.e._ to miss a red counts one, to miss the yellow two, and so
forth. If the striker, playing at red, hits a coloured ball, the penalty
is the value of the ball struck.
The rule is not always as severe as this. In many rooms, to miss red
involves a penalty of one, to miss yellow of two, and so on,
regardless of the value of any ball that may be struck afterwards.
If the striker gives a miss, the ball is left where it finally stops. If
the striker is by law obliged to play on a red ball or on a coloured
ball, but from the position of his own ball is unable to do so directly,
he is said to be snookered; he must then make a _bona-fide_ shot at the
proper ball off the cushion, the penalty if he misses being the minimum
penalty: _e.g._ if he is bound to hit a red ball, the penalty is only
one; if a coloured ball, two—the value of yellow.
In some rooms, the striker is bound, when snookered, to play a
_bona-fide_ shot as described, and if he hits a coloured ball when
playing on red is mulcted in the value of that ball. In others, if he
has to play on a coloured ball and is snookered for them all, he has
to name the ball he intends to play on; if he misses all the coloured
balls, or hits one of a smaller value, he is debited with the value of
the one he plays at; if he hits a more valuable one, he is fined the
value of it; but as it is hard to define what a _bona-fide_ shot is,
these regulations lead to many disputes. A good rule is to allow the
striker to give a miss, the penalty being the lowest that can be
exacted, but he must not thereby snooker the next player. If he _does_
snooker him, the stroke must be played over again, till the next
player has a clear shot at the right ball.
When all the red balls have been holed, the others must be taken in
proper pool order—first yellow, then green, and so on. When holed they
are not put up. The striker, when snookered for his proper object ball,
must play a _bona-fide_ shot for it, being fined its value if he misses
it.
Here again there are variations. In some rooms he may give a miss,
leaving the next player in a position from which he can play on the
proper ball, and being fined the value of the object ball; or he may
(sometimes _must_) play at that ball, and if he hits another he is
fined the value of it, which at this period of the game is always
greater than that of the object ball.
When only white and black are on the table, white always plays on black.
If white misses black, or goes in off it, or forces it off the table, or
goes off the table himself, the game is at an end.
In some rooms the game proceeds till black is actually holed.
Of course the main object of the good player is to get behind a ball of
great price when he has taken a red, green and yellow being of no great
value, though their capture may lead on to higher game. As a rule, it is
wasted time to hole a red when there is no chance of a break to follow,
as by this means one of the preliminaries to a break is destroyed; but
at the same time the opponent’s chance is diminished, so that this
general principle may be laid down—that the player who is leading, or
receiving points, should get rid of the red balls, so as to reduce his
opponent’s chance of making a big score; but he who is giving points, or
is behind in the game, should abstain from taking a red ball unless he
has a fair chance of getting a coloured one afterwards. He should play
rigid safety, leaving the opponent long shots, from under a cushion if
possible. Safety is indeed one of the beauties of the game, misses and
coups being often good play; but when all the red balls have been holed,
the utmost accuracy of strength and direction is called into play, so as
to snooker the adversary, whose efforts to hit the proper ball may
enable the other to retrieve an apparently lost game. It must never be
forgotten that, as a break may run up to thirty or forty, or even more,
each point representing money, a single incautious stroke may cost the
loss of the game, and that care and thought are consequently of enormous
importance.
The drawback to the game is the large part played in it by luck. There
are so many balls on the table that really excellent strokes are
incessantly being spoilt by a combination of kisses against which it is
impossible to provide. To this both sides are equally liable, but in a
game of skill the element of luck ought not to be too prominent, and it
is owing to the preponderance of luck in snooker that the game is, as a
game of skill, inferior to black pool.
THE MARKER
As there are stakes depending on all these games, apart from other
general reasons, good marking is all but an absolute necessity; but good
marking is not compatible with the many services that some players, and
even some spectators, think they have a right to demand from the marker.
He is called upon to ring the bell, to give orders to the waiter, hand
the matches and so forth, at a time when his whole attention should be
concentrated on the game and the wants of the striker. Marking requires
great care of itself, but when there are rests to be handed, balls to be
spotted, foul strokes to be watched, and so forth, it is positive
discourtesy on the part of spectators to distract his attention. The
marker is the servant of the players—and of the players alone—as long as
a game of any kind is proceeding, and he ought to be regarded and
treated as such. Under the best conditions, however, players should keep
their eye on the marking-board, so that any error may be corrected
_immediately_: delay only leads to dispute. At pyramids the score on the
board _plus_ the number of balls on the table must always make 15, so
that a mistake can be detected at once.
The marker himself may be reminded that distinct calling is as essential
as accurate marking. At pool each life lost must be audibly announced,
and the chance of starring offered to the player when it occurs. He
should never neglect to remind the striker that he is on his player, or
that his player is in hand, or, at the proper time, that it is
three-pool or single pool, as on all these occasions a different style
of play is required. But, once more, players should also be alive to
their own interests, and watch these points for themselves. The rests,
long cues, spider, &c., should be handed to the striker when asked for,
and not laid on the table, as, on the principle of _qui facit per alium
facit per se_, the striker is constructively liable for any foul made by
the marker when he puts these implements on the table. They should be
always ready to his hand, but he should never _offer_ them to a player;
it is often a distinct hint as to what the right game is when the marker
is seen to get the rest ready or move towards the half-butt. It is his
duty to be attentive but not officious.
COUNTRY-HOUSE GAMES
I now pass on to a class of games in which ladies can take part, and
which provide plenty of amusement for those who do not care for a more
serious game. Not but that cork pool and skittle pool may not be made
highly scientific, but when ladies take a cue, such games are generally
regarded as a pleasant recreation _pour passer le temps_, or as an
excuse for a mild bet.
SELLING POOL
This is an eminently simple game, in which any number can take part.
There are no lives, no pool, and no end, till the players are tired. Any
one who chooses to leave can do so by giving notice, and taking his ball
off the table when his turn comes round next. A small stake is agreed
upon, and it is lawful to play on any ball, but no ball can be taken up.
There is of course no safety and no star, but the usual rules of pool
govern the game in other respects. To make the game go, however, it is
well to have plenty of threepenny bits, sixpences, or shillings ready,
according to the stake, as giving change is always a trouble, and cash
down is necessarily the rule.
CORK POOL
This is another amusing game, which admits of any amount of skill and of
any reasonable number of players. Two balls are used, white always
playing upon red. The cork is put on the centre spot (sometimes on the
pyramid spot), and on the cork the pool is placed. The object is to
cannon from red on to the cork. Sometimes it is obligatory that the
cannon be made off a cushion. Each player in turn—the order is decided
by giving out the pool balls—plays from where white stops, the first
playing from baulk, as is also the case if the white goes in. Each
player has only one stroke. If he cannons on to the cork and knocks it
over—it is not enough merely to shake it—he takes the pool, which is
then renewed. If he misses the red, holes the red or his own ball (even
after hitting the cork, so that white must never be stopped), or cannons
without first hitting a cushion (if this is the rule of the room), or
plays out of turn, he has to put the amount of his original stake on the
cork, in addition to what is already there. Sometimes he is only fined
for an illegitimate cannon, but in this class of game the more forfeits
that can be invented the better.
Not a bad variety of the game is to make the red hit the cork, a sort of
winning hazard, any other way of knocking it over carrying a penalty; or
this may be further restricted by insisting that the red must hit at
least one cushion before it overthrows the cork.
I used to play another excellent and really amusing variation of this,
which we dignified by the name of ‘bumble-puppy.’ A ring about three
inches in diameter was drawn round the cork with chalk. The pool was put
as usual on the cork, and each player who failed to hit the cork over—we
used to play the winning hazard game—was fined a penny, which was added
to the pool, and when the cork was hit the striker secured only as many
coins as fell outside the ring, those that were more than half outside
counting as over. The fun of this was that sometimes there would be five
or six shillings in copper and silver on the cork, and only a few meagre
coppers would fall to the successful striker, all that was left in the
ring being put back on the cork and a fresh stake added by each player.
I can strongly recommend this form of the game, as it is full of
incident and amusement.
NEAREST BALL POOL
This may best come under the category of country-house games, though it
may be played with lives and a star and be treated as seriously as
ordinary pool, the rules of which apply throughout. The striker is bound
to play on the nearest ball, whatever the colour, under the penalty of
losing a life; but there is no particular science in the game beyond
that required in ordinary pool, except as far as spoiling an easy stroke
for the next player is concerned.
SKITTLE POOL
This is another game admirably suited for after-dinner amusement in a
country house, and one in which ladies can take part. The arrangement of
the skittles on the table is rather elaborate, and can best be
understood from Diagram X. Ten white and two black skittles, each four
inches long, are used. A and E are on an imaginary line drawn through
the pyramid spot parallel to the ends of the table. D and H are nine
inches above the baulk-line. The distance between A and D and between E
and H is divided into three equal parts; B, C, F, and G are at the
points of division. All these eight points are four inches, one
skittle’s length, from the cushion. Another white skittle is on the
billiard spot, and the tenth at I, four inches from the right-hand
baulk-spot. When black skittles are used (they are sometimes left out),
one is placed at X, four inches from the left-hand baulk-spot, and the
other at Y, half-way between G and the cushion. The red ball is spotted
half-way between the billiard spot, K, and the cushion, white and
spot-white on the right and left baulk-spots respectively. Each white
skittle has a particular value, denoted by the figures in the margin; a
penalty is attached, as will be shown, to knocking down either of the
black skittles. The position of the skittles, when once found, should be
marked with discs of white paper, on which the value of the skittle may
be shown. The object of the game is to make cannons with one of the
white balls off the red or the other whites on to the skittles; when
such a cannon is made, the value of the skittle or skittles knocked over
is scored to the player. The rules are as follow:—
I. The game is played 31 up, each player having one stroke alternately,
the order of rotation being decided by giving out coloured balls or
numbers.
II. Any number can play in a pool, and in all cases the following order
is to be observed, viz.: No. 1 plays out of baulk with either the spot
or white ball from its respective spot, and he and the following players
must always hit a ball (even if it touches another) with his own before
striking a pin, or he cannot score. No. 2 plays with the remaining ball
from its spot in baulk, and at either of the other balls, except when
the one in baulk has been touched or moved, in which case he and the
following players can play at any ball they please during the game.
III. Any pin or pins knocked down by a player must be replaced before
the next one takes his turn.
IV. Any ball occupying the spot of a fallen pin must be placed on its
proper spot, and the pin also replaced.
V. Should any ball stop on either of the spots of the other balls, each
must be placed on its proper spot.
VI. Any player who knocks down a black pin (after making his stroke)
with a ball, cue, sleeve, or in any other way, is dead (_i.e._ is out),
but can star any number of times by signifying the same before the next
player has struck, but he comes in without any points he has previously
made. The purchase of a star to be the same amount as the pool.
VII. Should a player stop a ball or alter its direction, he shall be
considered dead, but may star any number of times.
VIII. Any pin is to be considered down if it has entirely left the spot
it occupied, or when leaning against a ball, cushion, or another pin.
[Illustration:
Diagram X.
]
IX. Any one playing out of turn cannot score, and the one who should
have played continues, without replacing the balls; but the former has a
right to play in his proper turn, if he is not dead by knocking down a
black pin.
X. Foul strokes are made as follows, viz.: by pushing a ball instead of
striking it; by knocking down a white pin without striking a ball first,
or before the balls have ceased running; by playing out of turn, or when
all the pins are not in their places, or when the three balls are not on
the table. Running in or jumping off the table is not foul.
XI. If (by mistake) the black and white pins are wrongly placed, the
white scores and the black counts as dead if knocked down; but the pins
must then be replaced in their proper places.
XII. Should the three balls be covered by the pins, so as to prevent
their being played at, the red ball can be spotted; and then, if they
are again covered, the spot ball can be spotted.
XIII. Any one, not being present at the commencement of the pool, has
the right to join in it, provided that no player has had more than one
stroke, and that no one has starred.
XIV. Baulk affords no protection.
The usual way of playing this game is to agree that the pool goes to the
player who first makes exactly thirty-one, neither more nor less: if he
exceeds that number he is dead, unless he likes to star, the number of
stars being unlimited. Another method is to let the player who gets
beyond thirty-one score backwards: _e.g._ if his score stands at
thirty-four, he can win the pool by scoring three. Under either system
the other players endeavour so to leave the balls as to make it
difficult or impossible for him to knock down the skittle which will
give him the desired number. The game may, however, be played with a
sealed handicap, each player receiving a numbered counter at the
beginning of a game, which he keeps secret but adds to his score. Thus a
player whose counter was numbered six would produce it when his score
reached twenty-five, and would claim the pool; part of the game then is
to guess the handicaps of the other players, by observing which skittles
each is trying to knock over when within range of thirty-one. Thus, if a
player whose score on the board was twenty-four were seen to be
incessantly playing for one of the skittles at either B or E, counting
four, his handicap number would probably be three, and so on. This
innovation seems to have come from the Italian way of playing skittle
pool, which is very popular in Italy and Greece, and indeed in all the
Levant. Directions for this game may be found in Dufton’s ‘Practical
Billiards.’
The game may also be played without the black skittles, but there is
less fun and excitement, as their presence adds considerably to its
vicissitudes.
CHAPTER XIV
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Before finishing this book it is desirable to mention a few matters
connected with billiards which have not been dealt with in former
chapters, though some of them may have been more than once introduced.
To begin with, the question is often debated whether in the interest of
the game a stake is desirable. Undoubtedly, some advantages are gained
when money, however little, is played for; the rules are more strictly
obeyed, and the game is treated as serious. On the other hand, there are
drawbacks: certain players, often those most anxious to bet, cannot
afford to lose, and the miserable result is that the pleasure of the
game is sacrificed to money. When played on proper lines, no stimulant
beyond the honour of winning and the pleasure of making meritorious
breaks is needed for players who are devoted to billiards and have
attained certain excellence. In most clubs far fewer games are played of
late years for even the small stake of a shilling or half a crown than
was the case in the early seventies, but a little excitement is supplied
by an occasional handicap. From want of experience, however, the framers
often make serious mistakes, which deter persons from entering, and
these are perhaps less in estimating the start which should be allowed
than in general principles. Hence, with the view of helping framers, a
few remarks are offered.
[Illustration:
A winning game.
]
A handicap, to be satisfactory, should be on the American principle:
each player should in turn play with every person who has entered, and
he who has most games to his credit is the winner. It follows that too
many entries should not be allowed, nor, if possible, should there be
too great a difference in the class of players. It is better to have
more than one handicap than to try to bring together men between whom
there is great difference of play. As a general rule, it is probably
safe to say that no two men should play in the same handicap when one
can give the other much more than a third of the game. In a short
game—and those of most amateur handicaps are from 100 to 250 points—more
than one-third of the game is so long a start that chance plays too
important a part. When there are many competitors, it might be desirable
to have one or more handicaps subordinate to the final one, played, if
preferred, on the English system, in which the loss of one game
disqualifies for further competition; but the final, amongst, say, the
best six players, should if possible be arranged on the American plan.
As a guide to handicapping, the following rule may be useful. The
question is, if A. can give B. twenty in a hundred, and B. can give C. a
like number of points, how many can A. give C.? Add the points, and from
the result deduct their product divided by the length of the game. Thus,
in the supposed case:
20 + 20 − (20 × 20)/100 = 40 − 4 = 36;
or A. can give C. 36 points.
Another sort of handicap is sometimes substituted for the ordinary and
uninteresting four game when it is wished that more than two players
should take part. The method followed is to agree about the points and
then string or toss for position—_i.e._ to determine who shall commence
and the sequence of play. Whoever first scores the agreed number of
points wins the game and takes the stakes. It has this advantage over
the four game that excessive safety play is useless or worse, and that
each competitor does his best to score. The luck is to follow a player
who leaves easy openings, but, as no one plays specially for safety, a
good player is as likely to leave an easy stroke as a bad one.
A few words may be permitted on billiards as a game for ladies. With
their superior delicacy of touch and at least equality in all other
respects, save perhaps in brute force, there would seem to be no reason
why they should not greatly excel at the game. As a fact some, a very
few, do play almost as well as good club players; they can make from
twenty to forty points in a break, and, this being so, work is all that
is required to raise their standard. The game is a healthy one, calling
into play not merely the muscles but the mind; and, as to its
capabilities for showing a handsome figure to advantage, Mr. Davis’s
illustrations are sufficiently eloquent.
Some readers may perhaps regret the absence of a chapter on the
French and American game. To them we would urge that a game so
beautiful, so scientific, and capable of such development, cannot be
satisfactorily treated in short space; and, therefore, it has been
thought better simply to refer inquirers to M. Vignaux’s book and to
‘Modern Billiards,’ the American text-book, published by the
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., New York. Comparison between the
English and French games is scarcely profitable; they differ widely,
and each has its advantages. Conspicuous amongst these in favour of
the foreign game is the small size of the table which may be set up
in ordinary rooms. It is cheaper and more easily lighted than that
used in the English game, and, although hazards are eliminated and
much interest is thereby lost, the cannon game can be brought on the
smaller table to a perfection of which we scarcely even dream.
A matter which closely concerns the well-being of the game must now be
considered, and that is the behaviour of players and spectators; in
other words, the _etiquette_ of the room. Throughout this book, in one
part or another, the importance of maintaining order and the
impossibility of preserving a high class of play when interruption is
permitted have been clearly set forth. The orderly proceedings in
professional play, during which neither player smokes nor interrupts the
other, and spectators are generally courteous, silent, and impartial,
contrast, we regret to say, with the ordinary behaviour of amateurs in a
club billiard-room. Here, in general, players have to submit to all
manner of interruption, the result mainly of ignorance and inadvertence.
Consequently, the great majority play day after day, year after year,
and scarcely improve, whilst the few who get the length of thinking out
a break and working it out on the table are driven to play where they
are less liable to disturbance.
[Illustration:
A LADIES’ BATTLE.
]
In a billiard-room the players for the time being should be considered
supreme; table, light, fire, marker, are theirs for the time; and a
little ordinary consideration will show any gentleman that he should
avoid interference with them during a game. Yet, how common it is for
persons to bounce up to the door, open it without waiting for the
stroke, march gaily along towards a seat irrespective of whether a
stroke is in progress or not, and then, as likely as not, commence an
animated conversation in a loud tone of voice with another spectator, or
in default even with the non-player. If conversation fails, they have no
scruple in lighting a lamp or in poking the fire and making a glare and
heat which is unbearable to the players. The opponent, too, is often an
offender in the matter of talking. No sooner has he missed a stroke than
he commences conversation, failing to see that, if his adversary is more
polite, he enjoys absolute quiet during his break, whilst the other has
to play under disturbing influences, a proceeding which is not merely
discourteous, but unfair. Then, again, a running commentary is often
kept up during play, the remarks for the most part being absolutely
foolish. A spectator who listens to them cannot fail to notice their
grotesqueness, and, if they could be fully reproduced, the offenders
themselves would scarcely credit that they could have acted such a part.
Sometimes a player volunteers on every occasion explanation of his
failure to score, at other times he passionately addresses the balls,
adjuring them to stop or come on; he seems to think he gains a
reputation for generosity when he praises his adversary’s efforts by
shouting ‘good stroke’ when satisfied that the hazard or cannon has just
been missed, and it is entertaining to watch his change of tone and
countenance should some unforeseen score be made. His nervous
contortions when a ball is approaching a pocket or likely to make a
cannon are often remarkable; head, hands, legs and feet, all coming into
play, and all impressed to indicate his sensations, which, to judge from
the display, must often be unpleasant.
Smoking, too, requires regulation. Matches should not be lighted on the
stroke, nor should they be extinguished by being waved about; cues,
umbrellas, or sticks, should be kept perfectly still; in fact, every
care should be taken to avoid distracting the player’s attention. There
are many drawbacks to the game from players smoking; with every care,
ashes and tobacco fall on the cloth, the woodwork of the cushions is
blistered and disfigured because the ends of lighted cigars are
carelessly laid on it, and the striker is often hampered by clouds of
smoke poured over the table by his adversary in the line of sight. These
may be reduced to a minimum by the exercise of a little consideration,
and suitable metal trays should be provided on mantelpiece or side
tables on which lighted cigars may be placed whilst the player is at the
table. Another not uncommon but most offensive breach of etiquette is
for a spectator to offer either player advice; it often happens that
they see what a player has overlooked, but they should resist the
temptation to advertise their smartness, and recollect that the struggle
ought to be left entirely to the opponents, who are entitled to a fair
field and no favour. These are the main faults which are of common
occurrence: a little care and self-restraint will deter men from
offending, and gain for them an enviable character for consideration of
others and good feeling; whereas indulgence in them will sooner or later
cause transgressors to be considered as the pests of the room and to be
more or less avoided. It is true that endeavour has been made in
existing rules to control the behaviour both of players and of
spectators, and it is possible that some further steps in this way may
be taken; but much must be left to the good feeling of gentlemen, which
will not fail when they realise the value of a room in which good order
is kept; and the remarks here made are offered in the hope that they may
contribute to the desired result.
With reference to the disputed question which was discussed in Chapter
VI. and has incidentally appeared elsewhere, whether side can be
communicated by one ball to another, there is a stroke which will repay
study. Place the red and another ball on the baulk-line about a foot
apart within the =Ｄ=. From the right-hand side of the table play a free
stab on the red with strong right side, hitting it almost full but
sufficiently on the left to just send it out of baulk. If properly
played, both balls will be left in baulk. The white going into baulk
shows that the red was struck on its left, and therefore must have gone
out of baulk, whereas its return to baulk would appear to be due to
communicated side. It is instructive to play this stroke first with one
side and then with the other, and to observe the difference of result.
The practice of strokes as recommended throughout this manual may
occasionally be varied by trying breaks from some well-defined position
of the balls. Place a ball over each middle pocket for easy losing
hazards and play the break from hand. After each break record the score,
and after five or ten trials take the average. Anyone who can usually
score 100 points in six innings is more than able to hold his own
against good club form. The task is not so easy as it appears, as a few
trials will show. The gradual rise of this average is a good measure of
improvement. But too much time should not be spent in this way, for the
practice of strokes is far more profitable, specially if the maxim ‘Over
the easiest strokes bestow the greatest pains’ be always remembered.
Work at easy strokes till they can be so played as to leave another easy
one to follow; no practice is more remunerative.
Intimately connected with the interests of billiards are the duties of
referees and markers. In important matches three persons are employed
besides the players—the referee, the marker, and a boy to hand the balls
and rests; in ordinary games all the duties fail on the marker. It is by
no means an easy matter to be a good referee; men are often selected
more because they happen to be connected with a sporting newspaper than
from any personal aptitude for the position. The qualities required form
a combination difficult to be obtained. The referee should possess a
strictly judicial turn of mind, perfect sight, developed accuracy of
observation, great calmness, rapidity of judgment, perfect and fearless
honesty; in addition to knowledge of the game, intimate acquaintance
with the rules, and correct appreciation of the duties he may have to
perform. Failure in any one of these qualifications may result in
erroneous decisions; but perhaps the last-mentioned is the one which is
most liable to be misunderstood. As a rule, the referee should not
interfere unless appealed to; it should be fully realised by him that he
can make no law or rule, and has for the time being no concern with the
justice or injustice of the code; his duty is simply to say whether a
rule has or has not been broken, and to declare the penalty. His
personal opinion as to whether a stroke should be fair or foul is of no
moment; all he has to deal with are matters of fact and the application
of acknowledged rules. Thus, until the push, for example, is contrary to
the rules, a referee is not justified in declaring every such stroke
appealed against to be foul; on the contrary, a competent man, whatever
his opinion may be as to the merit of the stroke, should declare all
strokes to be fair unless he actually saw a rule infringed. If he saw
the cue twice applied (which is common enough), he is justified in
ruling the stroke to be foul; if he did not (as he cannot in a
well-executed push) see two applications, he is bound to uphold the
stroke as fair. It is no argument to say that he knows the stroke to be
always foul; no one desires him to air his opinion on such a matter, and
a person who made such an excuse for his ruling would thereby
conclusively prove his unfitness for the post.
The marker is a man for whom we have much sympathy; his duties are many
and trying, sometimes almost beyond human endurance. As a class, markers
are civil, well-behaved, and otherwise probably neither better nor worse
than their fellow-men. When asked for advice or instruction, they give
it cheerfully to the best of their ability, and in respect to play they
may be said to lie between amateurs and professionals. They have
occasionally a good deal to put up with, and their services are often
unjustifiably requisitioned; attention is invited to Mr. Ford’s remarks
(p. 428), which, though made with reference to pool, are in most
respects applicable to billiards. And when late at night or in close
rooms markers are occasionally drowsy, or make a mistake, let players
endeavour to realise the monotony of their lives. From their arrival in
the room before noon till their departure at, perhaps, three in the
morning, think of their average experience! The table has to be got
ready, the room dusted and preparation made for visitors. These appear
at first fitfully—the young, who are not good enough for the serious
business of the day, and the old, who are losing their game, meeting
together, followed later by the regular _habitués_, who play billiards
or pool as may be. Conversation is carried on as if the marker were both
deaf and dumb, a mere machine for returning the ball and handing the
rest. There is an admirable essay on this aspect of the marker in ‘The
Billiard Book,’ by Captain Crawley, written by the author of ‘Lost Sir
Massingberd,’ in which it is justly pointed out that the marker
moralises and is ‘daily the dumb witness of innumerable frauds.’ He is
made to say, ‘I know the real skill of every player to a hair, and how
much he conceals of it.’ I know the characters of nine-tenths of the men
who enter the room, and very indifferent they are—‘the man who plays for
a stroke only when it is a certainty preferring his own safety to his
enemy’s danger; the hard hitter, from whom no player is secure; the man
who is always calling his own strokes flukes; the man who is always
calling other people’s by that derogatory name; and the poor fellow who
is for ever under the cushion. My world, which is not a small one, is
mapped out for me, with all its different species of men, upon this
table; for I stand apart, and mark many things beside the score.’
Then think of the marker being obliged to constantly watch the
performances of those who take from half to three-quarters of an hour to
play a game of a hundred, the same bad form exhibited game after game,
by men who for one reason or another never improve; and judge leniently
of slight lapses of attention.
It is expedient once more to emphasise the point that whilst a game is
in progress the marker’s services should be considered as wholly devoted
to the score and the players; no spectator should speak to him or
attract his attention, and markers ought to be instructed, in case of
breaches of this rule, to point out respectfully that they are
prohibited from entering into conversation during a game. The writer has
often seen spectators, and occasionally opponents, most unwarrantably
engage a marker in conversation when they failed to get anyone else to
talk to, thereby distracting his attention from the game to which it
should be entirely devoted.
And now, as a last word, it is proper to explain that, though endeavour
has been made in the preceding pages to put amateurs in the way of
improving their game and of understanding its general principles, yet it
is not for a moment advocated that young men should devote to billiards
the time which might be more profitably employed in serious work. Except
for professional players and a very few specially circumstanced
enthusiasts, it is, after all, but a game and relaxation. Indulgence in
it should, therefore, be kept within strict limits; but, so regulated,
it will be found generally beneficial to mind and body. These
restrictions, it is evident, must almost to a certainty prevent amateur
form from ever seriously approaching that of professional players, and
one is warranted on meeting a youngster whose knowledge of the game and
handling of the balls have reached professional form in concluding that
his skill is evidence of a misspent youth. Still, there is a vast
difference, which may reasonably be lessened, between such perfection
and the average amateur performance; and it is hoped that this volume
may contribute to so desirable a result.
INDEX
Aberdovey slates, 73
Albert Club, 48
Albo-carbon light, 66, 67
American handicaps, 40, 43;
tournament, 41, 436
Angle, half-ball or natural, 101–103, 123–124;
of deviation, 138;
of incidence and reflexion, 139–140
Aquarium. _See_ Royal Aquarium
Association, Billiard. _See_ Billiard Association
Attitude, 107
Balls, billiard, 86–92;
treatment of, 87–88;
weight, 87_n_;
gauge, 89;
tests of, 90;
bonzoline, 91–92;
cast steel, 92;
dummy, 101;
definition of, 105;
motion, &c., and division of, 130–141;
impact of, 164–168;
rotation of, 189–214;
surface of, 193;
friction of, on cloth, 193;
transmitted side, 194; 443;
different qualities of ivory and bonzoline, 266–267;
light, 322
Bartley, Mr., 6, 9
Basket, pool, 101, 253–254
Baulk, meaning of the term, 105;
doubles in, 150;
playing for safety in, 284;
double, 290
‘Baynard Castle,’ 43
Bedford, Mr., 9
_Bell’s Life_, 19;
quoted, 20; 21
Bennett, Alfred, in handicaps, 36, 38, 40, 41, 47;
death, 38_n_
Bennett, Fred, 36, 38
Bennett, John, 36, 38
Bennett, Joseph 4;
his manual, 4;
in a four-handed match with John Roberts, sen., 26; 29;
beats Roberts, jun., and beaten by him, 34; 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44;
beaten by Roberts, jun., 50;
beats Cook for championship, 46;
defeats Taylor for championship, 47;
Shorter forfeits for championship, 47;
introduction of angle for private practice, 124; 266, 370
Bentinck Club, 24, 27
Billiard Association of Great Britain and Ireland standard tables, 70,
71, 362;
rules of, 374;
revision required, 375;
examination of — rules, 376–386;
examination of — rules of pyramids, 390
‘Billiard Book,’ Captain Crawley’s, on pyramids, 391;
essay on the marker, 445
‘Billiard Review,’ quoted, on the Association Rules, 375
Billiard-rooms, 55–57;
in Oriental Club, 57; 58, 59;
Mr. W. H. Fowler’s room, 59;
Mr. A. Gibbs’, 55–56;
ventilation of, 61–66;
lighting of, 66–68;
Major Broadfoot’s note on, 67, 68
Billiard-tables, 5, 10, 11, 15, 69;
pockets, 69;
Billiard Association legislation, 70;
Standard Association tables, 71;
cost, 72;
ordinary, 73;
championship, 73, 83, 362–373;
frames, 73;
slates, 73–77;
plan of table in diagram, 74, 75;
cushions, 77–79;
cloths, 79–80;
setting up the table, 79–83;
brushing and ironing, 83–84;
undersized, 84;
spot stroke, 85;
French tables, 85;
hiring, 85;
automatic returner, 86;
few in London clubs fit for play, 207;
easy and difficult—in training, 306
Billiard terms in use, 105–107
Black and pink pool, description of game, 423;
variation in rules, 423;
collecting stakes, 424;
a useful bye-law, 424
Black pool, 408, 418;
no regular laws, 418;
the game as generally played, 420;
special features, 420;
variation in rules, 421;
points to be held in view, 422
Blind pockets, playing hazards into, 146, 150
Bonzoline balls, 91;
wear, 92;
playing hazards with, 170;
difference between ivory and, 266;
playing double baulk strokes with, 293
_Bouclée_, formation of the bridge, 109, 129
Bowles, Alfred, 23;
his matches with Roberts, jun., 23, 33, 367
Boyd, Mr. A. H., 3;
aid from, 3;
on implements, 55–103;
on ‘Every-Day Billiards,’ 315–325
Break, definition of, 105;
higher signification of, 300;
average—in classifying players, 302;
personal questions: luck and nerve, 303–306;
advice to players who cannot undertake close study, 307–313;
advice to a higher class of players, 313;
Mr. Boyd’s advice to moderate players, 315–325;
— at the top of the table, by Mr. Rimington-Wilson, 325–348;
nursery cannons, 348–361
Breaking the balls, explanation of the phrase, 105
_Bricole_, utility of, 172;
the push, 226, 240
Bridge, the term, 105;
a good, 108, 109;
a short, 127;
_bouclée_, 129
Brighton, Kentfield’s Subscription Rooms at, 10
Broughton, Tom, beaten by Roberts, sen., 16
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. the, cited, 212, 440
Brushing tables, 83
Buchanan, J. P., 266
Buckland, Frank, test for balls, 90
‘Bumble-puppy,’ 430
Burners, gas, for billiard-rooms, 67
Burroughes and Watts, aid from, 4, 55;
first series of handicaps, 36; 40, 77, 98
Butts, 97
Cannons, plain, 172–186;
tendency to supersede losing hazards, 172;
general rules for strength in playing, 174;
easier than the hazard, 175;
in baulk, 210–212;
use of compensation in making, 261–262;
nursery, easy of execution, 326; 348–361
Carr, John, 5;
sells twisting chalk, 7; 8;
backed against all comers, 9;
challenged by Kentfield, 10
Carter, Eugene, American player, 53
Cathire More, King of Ireland, his brass billiard balls, 4
Chalk, 83, 87, 98, 384;
St. Martin, 99
Championship, the, &c., 362–373;
Mr. Russell D. Walker’s memorandum on, 367–370
Championship matches, remarks concerning, 362–366;
list of, 373
Championship table, the, 73, 83;
pockets, 362;
play on, 370–373;
objections to different tables for ordinary play and for championship
matches, 364;
genuineness of game, 365;
equalisation of amateurs on a, 372;
record of championship matches, 373
Chimneys of lamps for lighting billiard-rooms, 66
Close screws, method of playing, 250
Cloths for billiard-tables, 79;
nap of, 193;
effects on rotation and path of ball, 207
Club billiard-rooms, 56;
over-ironing of cloth in, 207
Coles, Harry, 48, 49
Collins, George, 36, 38, 39, 48
Combination tables, 85
Compensation in play, 260
Composition balls, 91
Cook, William, 20, 23, 24;
Roberts, sen.’s opinion of, 25;
first match with and defeat by Roberts, jun., 27;
beats him later, 28;
rapid rise, 28;
beats Roberts, sen., for championship, 29–31;
remarkable breaks, 33, 34;
loses championship to Roberts, jun., 33, 41;
zenith of his career, 34; 35, 36;
wins handicap, 36; 39, 40;
beaten by Roberts, jun., 41, 42, 43, 46;
beaten by Joseph Bennett in championship match, 46;
beats and beaten by Roberts, jun., 47, 50;
unrivalled style, 120;
on the spot stroke, 265, 266, 268;
strength and execution, 370;
pool record, 412
‘Cork Marker,’ the, his match with Carr, 9
Cork pool, description of, 429;
variation in play, 430;
bumble-puppy, 430
Corrugated iron billiard-rooms, 59
Cotton’s ‘Compleat Gamester,’ 5
Country-house games, 429–432
Coup, to run a, explanation of phrase, 105
_Coups durs_, 105, 230
Cover, meaning of the term, 105
Crawley, Captain, on pyramids, 391;
quotation about marker from his billiard book, 445
Cues, &c., 93–103;
French butt, 93;
English butt, 93;
tips, 95, 96;
jointed, 96, 388;
splicing, 97;
mechanical accuracy in delivering, 115–129;
hold of, 125;
use of — in the follow, 196;
in the screw back, 202;
in applying side, 203;
in the push stroke, 224;
‘power’ of, 315;
necessity for accurate delivery of, 324
Cunningham, Colonel Allan, R.E., aid from, 3
Cushion-crawling, 283
Cushion nursery cannons, 348–361;
breaks of — often spurious, 363
Cushions, 77;
covering with cloth, 81;
difficulty of square-cut, 145;
side acquired by friction with, 206;
nurseries, 348–361
Davis, George, 25
Dawson, Charles, 49, 51, 120;
simplicity of his game, 128; 367
Defensive play, where advisable, 283
Diagrams, explanation of, 138–139
Diggle, Edward, 51, 120, 367
Double baulk, 105
Doubles, value of, 150;
in baulk, 150;
simple, 152; 398, 400, 413, 416
Drag strokes, 116, 196;
used to overcome irregularities in ball or bed, 197
Dufton, John, 20
Dufton, William, ‘tutor to the Prince of Wales,’ 20;
match with Roberts, sen., 22;
his long jennies, 25;
an overrated player, 25
Dufton’s ‘Practical Billiards,’ on skittle pool, 435
Dummy balls, 101
Egan, Pierce, 9
Egyptian Hall, 51
Electric light in billiard-rooms, 61, 66, 67
Elementary instruction, 104;
mode of entering room, 104;
technical terms, 104–106;
attitudes, 107;
formation of bridge, 108, 109;
the bridge _bouclée_, 109, 129;
cue delivery, 109;
practice with one ball, 110–115;
strength, 112;
use of the rest, 113–115;
use of the half-butt and long-butt, 115;
Mr. Pontifex’s memorandum, 115–129;
a remarkable amateur feat, 116, 126
English butt, 93
Erection of billiard-table, 80
Etiquette of the billiard-room, 3, 104, 388, 440–442
Evans, Harry, 25, 26;
champion of Australia, 39
Feather stroke, 370
Fleming, John, defeats Roberts, sen., 16
Follow, the, importance of, 194;
increasing artificially, 195;
chief use, 196
Forcing hazards, 170
Ford, Mr., on markers, 428; 445
Foul, definition of a, 105
Four-handed game, a bad school, 318;
a substitute for, 439
Fowler, Mr. W. H., his outside billiard-room, 59, 103
French butt, 93
French players on the game, 1
Gaiety Restaurant, matches at, 41, 43
‘Game of Billiards,’ Kentfield’s, 10
Gas in billiard-rooms, 61
Gate-money, 365, 366
Gibbs, Mr. A., his billiard-room at Tyntesfield, 61
Gillows’ tables, 15
Green, W. E., 25, 53
Guildhall Tavern, matches at, 37
Half-butts, 97
Half-push, the, 228
Handicaps, 36, 39;
American system of, 40, 41, 43; 436;
the same guiding rules for framing, 439
Hazards, winning, 142–153; 320, 404;
plain strokes, 142;
middle pocket, 159, 422.
_See_ Losing
Herst, John, 21, 22, 25
Hiring billiard-tables, 85
Hitchin, W. C., 25
Hughes, Alfred, 25, 26, 36, 39
Hughes, Charles, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 367
Impact, divergence between point of aim and point of, 133–135;
points of, 143;
rebound following, 164, 167
Implements of the game, 55 _et seq._
In hand, definition of the term, 105
Incandescent gas light, 66
India-rubber cushions, 77
Ironing billiard-table cloths, 79, 83
Ives, Frank, his matches with Roberts, jun., 53, 365, 372;
cannon play, 359;
makes 1,267 consecutive cannons, 369
Ivory balls, 86;
expense of, 91;
differ from bonzoline, 266; 293
Jennies, 160;
method of playing, 239
Jump stroke, 250
Kentfield, Edwin (otherwise Jonathan), champion, 10;
his improvements, 10;
his book, 11;
his game 11; 12, 13, 14, 15;
interviewed by Roberts, sen., 17, 18;
refuses to play Roberts, 19; 367
Kilkenny, Lewis, 25, 36, 38, 40
Kiss, the term explained, 105;
mode of playing the — stroke, 230; 406
Knightsbridge, matches at, 53
Ladies, billiards as a game for, 440
Lamps, oil, for lighting billiard-rooms, 66
Leap stroke, method of making, 250
Lighting billiard-rooms, 66, 83
Lloyd, winner of 1895 Association Tournament, 54
Long-butts, 97
Losing hazards, short and long, 153–172;
half-ball strokes, 154; 156;
middle-pocket, 158;
jennies, 160;
long, 162;
care required in playing, 168;
forcing, 170;
inferiority to winning hazards, 172;
by use of follow, 218–221; 371
Luck in playing, 303
MʻNeil, Hugh, 51
Mannock, J. P., 52
Mardon, Mr., writer on billiards, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20
Marker, duties of the, 412, 414, 415, 428, 445;
services should be devoted to game and players alone, 446
Marking-boards, 99;
nickel-plated, 100
_Massé_ stroke, method of playing, 255, 353
Matches, championship, 373
Measurements in billiards, approximate, 146;
how made, 147
Memmott, Charles, champion of Australia, 26, 39;
record of screw back spots, 48; 52, 274
Miss, must be played with the point of cue, 284
Miss-cue, meaning of the term, 106
Mitchell, William, 43–46;
as spot player, 44–48;
beaten by Roberts, jun., even, 50; 52, 228, 367
Mode of entering a billiard-room, 104, 441
Morris, Tom, 25, 26, 39
Moss, W., 35
Mulberry, George, 25
Nap of cloth, effect of playing with or against, 193, 207, 208, 270
Nearest ball pool, 431
‘Nell Gwynne,’ Strand, match at, 24
Nerve in playing, 3, 305–306
North, John, his style, 47, 48, 119
Nursery cannons, 348–361;
value of — on three-inch pocket table, 363
Oil lamps for lighting billiard-rooms, 66
One-ball practice. _See_ Elementary instruction
Oriental Club, plan of room, 57, 62
Orme & Sons, their automatic arrangement for returning balls, 86; 323
Over-caution in playing, evils of, 318
_Partie Américaine dite du cadre_, 364
Peall, W. J., aid from, 4; 44;
remarkable breaks, 45; 46, 48;
defeats Roberts, jun., 49, 50;
present position, 51; 52;
weight of his cue, 94;
consecutive screw back spot strokes, 274; 282;
turning a corner at cushion nurseries, 359; 367
Peall cushion rest, 98 _n._
Pendleton, Tom, 16
Penrhyn slates, 73
Pipeclay for marking baulk-lines, 83
_Piqué_ strokes, mode of playing, 256
Plain strokes, 142–188
Plan of billiard-table, 74, 75
Plants, definition of, 106;
method of playing, 244;
laws which govern them unknown, 246;
in pyramids, 400
Players, system of classifying, 302;
difference in, 303;
luck, 303
Pneumatic cushions, 79
Pockets of billiard-tables, 11, 69;
blind, 146, 150;
Billiard Association standard, 362, 368
Pontifex, Mr. Dudley D., aid from, 3;
memorandum by, 115, 325
Pook, John, Kentfield’s manager, 18
Pool basket, 101, 253–254
Pool, importance of playing for position in, 145;
useful as winning hazard practice, 320;
description of the game, 408;
rules and penalties, 410;
safety and hazards, 411;
starring, 411;
playing for cannons, 411;
measuring distances, 412;
marker’s duty, 412;
the opening stroke, 412;
Cook’s record, 412;
doubles, 150, 400, 413;
story concerning consecutive doubles, 413;
anecdote about sharpers, 413, 414;
for other varieties of the game, _see_ Black pool, Black and pink,
Cork, Nearest ball, Selling, Single, Skittle, Snooker, Three-pool
Porker, Mr., his match with Mr. Mardon, 12
_Position mère_, 329; 351
‘Practical Billiards,’ Dufton’s, on skittle pool, 435
Pratt, his style, 9;
match with a stranger, 10
Precautions in play, 259
Prince of Wales, the, _See_ Wales, Prince of
Prince of Wales’s Hotel, Moss Street, Manchester, matches at, 28
Professionals, rate of scoring, 307
Push stroke, the, 52;
method of playing, 224; 370;
its permissibility, 382;
character defined, 383;
so-called proofs of foulness, 383, 384;
objections to striking twice, 385, 386;
the case for and against, 386
Pyramids, 33;
importance of playing for position in, 145;
general hints concerning, 388;
salient points of the game, 389;
rules regarding, 390;
handicapping players, 390;
setting up the balls, 391;
ways of playing the first stroke, 391;
safety, 392;
making a series of hazards, 392;
plants and doubles, 394;
when the object ball is close to a cushion, 396;
useful strokes, 396–406;
good break by an Undergraduate, 407
Queen’s Club, 116
Quill stroke, 370
Rebound following impact, 164, 167
Referees, duties of, 444
_Rencontres_, 105, 230
Rests, 98, 115
Richards, matches with Roberts, sen., 367
Richards, D., 25, 27, 41, 120
Right-angled screw, the, 198
Rimington-Wilson, Mr. R. H. R., aid from, 4;
on the top-of-the-table game, 325;
on cannon nurseries, 359;
on the professional championship, 366
Roberts, John, jun., 11, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28;
beats Cook for the championship, 33;
beats A. Bowles, 33;
beaten by Joseph Bennett, 34;
defeats Bennett, 33, 34; 40;
again beats Cook for championship, 41; 43, 46;
in India, 47;
defeats and is beaten by Cook, 47; 48;
beaten by Peall, 49;
beats Cook and Joseph Bennett for championship, 50;
beats Mitchell, 50;
beaten by Peall, spots only, 50;
challenged by Peall, 51;
his wonderful play, 51;
matches with Ives, 53, 359, 365;
his long spot-barred breaks, 54;
weight of his cue, 94;
admirable cue delivery, 116;
ease and grace of style, 119;
skill, 121, 125, 127, 128, 212, 268;
good at the spot stroke, 274; 370;
offer to assist in recasting rules of the game, 375;
on the push stroke, 386
Roberts, John, sen., 12, 13;
contrasted with Kentfield, 14, 15;
rapid rise, 16;
taught the spot stroke by Mr. Lee Birch, 16;
interviews Kentfield, 17, 18;
champion, 19; 21;
lessee of Saville House, Leicester Square, 22;
his famous break of 346 in a match with William Dufton, 22;
matches with Alfred Bowles and Charles Hughes, 23, 24; 26, 28;
defeated by Cook, 31;
endurance match with an amateur, 32; 367
Rotation of ball, 189–214;
cause of, 192;
round horizontal axis, forward, 194;
backward, 196;
round vertical axis, 202
Royal Aquarium, Westminster, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 368
‘R.-W. Billiard Diagram Notebook,’ 398
Rudolph, match with Cook, 40
Rules of billiards, 374;
defective character, 374;
proposed revision, 375;
penalties for infringing, 375;
suggestions respecting, 376–386;
discriminating between the act of aiming and the act of striking,
377;
playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue, 378;
playing with the wrong ball, 378;
foul strokes, 379;
when player’s ball touches another ball, 379;
offences committed by persons other than the players, 380;
spectators offering advice, 376, 380;
obstructing players, 380;
obstruction of the striker by the non-striker, 381;
how far the marker may assist either player, 381;
the push stroke, 382;
the half-push, 384;
striking a ball twice, 384;
chief objections to the push stroke, 385, 386
Safety, when to be sought for, 283;
pocketing an adversary’s ball, 285;
double baulk, 290
St. James’s Hall, 30, 47, 368
St. Martin chalk, 99
Sala, J. G., record of consecutive screw back spots, 48; 274
Samson, Mr., architect, 60, 62;
designs by, 64–65
Scoring, different rate of, between amateurs and professionals, 307
Screw, the, 196, 197, 247;
right-angled, 198;
regulation of strength necessary in playing, 198;
importance of regulating, 200;
close, 250
Selling pool, principle of the game, 429
Seymour, William, 116
‘Sharping’ in billiard-rooms, 413, 414
Shell-out, the game of, 407, 408
Shorter, Fred, wins love game from Bennett, 41–42;
beats Cook, 42;
beats Taylor, 42;
forfeits to Bennett, 47
Side, transmission of, 194, 202;
acquired by friction with cushion, 206;
imparting, 315;
can it be communicated by one ball to another?, 443.
_See_ Rotation
Skittle pool, description of, 431;
rules, 432;
usual way of playing, 434
Skylight sashes for ventilating billiard-rooms, 62
Slates for billiard-tables, 73–77
Smoking in billiard-room, 442
Snooker, 408;
variations in rules, 424;
general method of play, 424;
penalties, 425, 426;
main object of player, 427;
the element of luck, 427
Spiller, William, 52
Spot stroke, the, 11, 16;
agitation against, 39;
result of barring, 172;
constant practice required for success, 264;
danger of using, 265;
its genuineness, 266;
ivory and bonzoline balls in playing, 266;
use of chalk, 267;
method of playing, 268;
its limits, 269;
the screw back, 273;
the stab, 276;
must be taught by a master, 279;
methods adopted to continue break or obtain safety, 279;
invaluable as practice for winning hazard play, 282; 320
Spot-barred breaks, 45
Spot stroke tables, 85
Spots, inadvisability of altering, 153
Stab, the, use of in playing cannons, 182;
and spot stroke, 276
Stakes, advantages and disadvantages of playing for, 436
Stammers, 36, 39
Standard Association tables, 71
Stanley, S. W., 25, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
Starke, defeated by Roberts, sen., 19;
further matches with him, 21
Stevenson, H. W., 27, 52
Strength, definition of, 106
String, to, meaning of, 106
Strokes, following, 194;
screw, 196, 247;
practising, 208;
_massé_, 214, 255;
miscellaneous, 215;
fine, 222;
push and half-push, 224;
_bricole_, 226, 242;
kiss, 230;
jennies, 239;
plants, 244;
close screws, 250;
leap or jump, 250;
_piqué_, 255;
compensations, 260;
spot, 264
Style, 112
Tables. _See_ Billiard-tables
Taylor, Tom, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 368
Templates, 71
Terms, billiard, technical, explained, 104–106
Three-ball practice, 142 _et seq._
Three-inch pocket table. _See_ Championship table
Three-pool, 413;
strange occurrence at, 413;
principles of the game, 415, 416
Thurston, John, 10;
his improvement of tables, 11
Thurston & Co., 55
Timbrell, William, 40, 43
‘Times,’ the, quoted on the push stroke, 386
Tips of cues, 95;
process of tipping, 95;
cleaning, 95;
renovating, 96
Tobin tubes for ventilating billiard-rooms, 61
Top-of-the-table game, the, 325–348
‘Twisting chalk,’ Carr’s, 7
Two-ball practice, 130–141
Union Club, Manchester, 14, 16
Ventilation in billiard-rooms, 59, 62
Vignaux, M., aid from his book, 3;
cited, 189, 206, 259, 327, 351, 440
Vulcanite cushions, 77
Wales, Prince of, 20;
at championship match, 29;
at match Roberts _v._ Cook, Newmarket, 47
Walker, Mr. Russell D., aid from, 3;
on the championship, 366, 367
Warming billiard-rooms, 60, 63
White, Fred, 49
Wilson, R., 44
Winning hazards, 142–153;
confidence required, 320
Wright & Co., 55, 71
PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON
-----
Footnote 1:
If a man wants to play fast he would surely select the worst—not the
best—player as antagonist.—ED.
Footnote 2:
It is difficult to believe in the possibility of scoring over 700
points in an hour with the imperfect implements then in use; half that
number is probably nearer the truth.—ED.
Footnote 3:
Alfred Bennett died after these lines were in type.
Footnote 4:
Roberts twice in 1894, during exhibition games, exceeded 1,000 in
spot-barred breaks, making 1,033 and 1,392.
Footnote 5:
The raised woodwork above the leads.
Footnote 6:
I do not, of course, mean that the spot stroke is a one-position
stroke—far from it; but from an ordinary spectator’s point of view it
is summed up in the words ‘potting the red _ad infinitum_.’
Footnote 7:
Formerly only four slates were used, with the result that a joint ran
straight across the table from the centre of one middle pocket to the
other. If, then, warping or subsidence of the floor ensued, an ugly
ridge arose opposite the pocket, making it unmissable from one side,
and almost impossible from the other.
Footnote 8:
Battens are screwed to the slates in order to take the tacks which
fasten down the cloth.
Footnote 9:
Each ball weighs about 4⅔ ounces.
Footnote 10:
The jointed cue with a spare top joint renders the above devices
unnecessary, and they are all open to some objection.
Footnote 11:
An excellent cushion rest, capable of being used as an ordinary rest,
is that known as the Peall Cushion Rest, which possesses the
advantages of simplicity and ease of handling.
Footnote 12:
See illustration, p. 129.
Footnote 13:
Often called the half-ball angle, both definitions being very
inaccurate; but they are in common use, and generally understood.
Footnote 14:
Or _restitution_, the effect of _compression_.
Footnote 15:
The Americans term what we call _side_ ‘English’ or ‘twist.’
Footnote 16:
Delarue, Paris.
Footnote 17:
Memmott has made, we believe, the extraordinary number of 423
consecutive screw back spot strokes.
Footnote 18:
For a description of this game, see pp. 29–31.
Footnote 19:
Taylor’s cannons were made on balls jammed in the jaws of the pocket;
Ives’ cannons were made on balls well outside of the jaws.
Footnote 20:
The numbers quoted are those of the Billiard Association’s Rules.
Footnote 21:
The rules do not say for how many balls the offender has to pay:
presumably all that are left on the table are scored to his adversary.
Footnote 22:
See pp. 148 and 244.
Footnote 23:
Published by Webster, 60 Piccadilly.
Footnote 24:
The numbers quoted are those of the Association Rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. P. 302, changed “à force de forger on devient forgeron” to “à force
de forger en devient forgeron”.
2. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
3. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
4. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end
of the last chapter.
5. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
6. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
7. Denoted superscripts by a caret before a single superscript
character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in
curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Billiards" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.