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.
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.