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 April 1, 1885 | Roberts, jun., b. Cook | 92 |
| 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.