The Amateur Championship.
BILLIARDS NOTES & NOTIONS
By MELBOURNE INMAN.
Champion 1912-1920.
It is being whispered that the Billiards Control Council were considerably out of pocket through the last amateur championship, but whether this is true or not cannot be definitely stated, as no accounts arc published in connection with the a flair. Notwithstanding the largely increased number of entries, the reduction of the entrance fee from two guineas to half a guinea, while in itself a most praiseworthy policy, resulted in a considerable diminution of revenue.
The comparatively poor attendances at the various games, indeed, could not have been adequately remunerative compared with the expense incurred through transferring the concluding stages from Burroughes Hall to the Palace Hotel, Bloomsbury. The latter venue was splendidly equipped in every respect, but with the exception of the occasions when Earlam and Steeples were playing, there was very little support from the public.
The B.C.C. have to rely for their income upon the billiards and snooker’s pool championships which they promote, and upon the sale of rules, and with a certain amount of expense being continually incurred, the abstention of the public from attending the matches, naturally causes some concern. In previous years some effort was made to invest the competitions with greater interest by “arranging” the preliminary heats.
“Seeding.”
This was done in order that the better-class players should have a chance of surviving until the later rounds, and perhaps the council will, in future, consider the advisability o’ reverting to the practice of “seeding” the draw with a view to this end. There were several instances of unfortunate clashings in the early heats.
It is urged in some quartets that such practice eliminates much of the sporting element of a competition, and perhaps to a certain extent that is true, but recent experience demonstrates that in order to stimulate and maintain interest to the end the appearance of the more prominent players in the later heats must, if possible, be provided for. In other branches of sport the practice of “seeding” is openly adopted—and this is particularly the case in tennis tournaments—and where the existence of a governing body practically depends upon gate receipts there does not appear to be any considerable reason for exception to be taken.
Monotony in Runs.
The controversy regarding the restriction of long and monotonous runs of red losers continues to be acute and all sorts of suggested reforms are being put forward. There is a strong body of opinion against what is called “alteration of the rules,” but legislation restricting sequences of certain strokes need not necessarily be regarded as any alteration in the fundamental rules of the game. The red loser is, admittedly, the basis of the game, and especially of big breaks, but it does not call for the skill required for a varied display of the various other strokes, which the public demand when paying for admission to matches.
It has been abundantly proved that any player with a true eye, a natural swing of the arm, and some appreciation of the strength of the table, can score extensively by its means, and yet never become what might be called a real billiards player. This is especially the case where composition balls arc used.
So far as the professional players are concerned no legislation is at all necessary, as we know the public will not pay to see one man making one stroke interminably, although George Gray netted a nice amount when the stroke first became in vogue, and therefore we avoid indulging in it. But at the same time we all know what a valuable match-winning- asset the stroke is, and therefore we should not welcome any great restriction of it, unless it were found possible to offer compensation in some other direction. If, however, the red loser is to be restricted, I think the limit should be fixed at no more than ten.
Sporting Times – Saturday 17 April 1926