BOWLS

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 186, 7 August 1900, Page 2

BOWLS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l have much pleasure in complying with the request of Mr Vincent M. Allen to explain more fully my scheme for playing our championships. I should have done so in my last but for fear that you might think I wanted the issue. I remembered after sending1 my letter that I ■was wrong in my figures, but I did not think 35, more or less, In one thousand two hundred games, was of any importance. I cannot, however, understand how Mr Allen gets his 595. The correct number should, if every player played all other entrants, be 35 multiplied by 34, which gives, I think, 1190. If each player does not play every other entrant, all his games should be cancelled, as we did at Remuera, otherwise it might be in the power of the player to say: "I am not going to play you, Mr Jones, I wish Mr Smith to have the championship." I have heard a few bowlers say that the fairest test is to play every player who enters. I believe this is quite Incorrect, and I think'most bowlers will agree with my reasoning. Before the competition is half finished many of those who entered will practically be hopelessly beaten. Some of them will no doubt play out their matches. But they know they have no hope of winning. They will not even play as they would in an ordinary match, let alone a championship. The incentive is gone. Naturally no one under the circumstances would play so keen a game as if he was still."in It." You are in the match, yet out of it. Under my scheme, you are never out of It until you have lost your two matches to your opponent, and then you take your back seat as you ought, and do not hinder others. I do not play bowls regularly. Tennis and golf, with a little shooting and cycling thrown In, take up all the time I can spare for recreation, but I take a great interest In every branch of sport, and it is entirely a matter of principle on which I am opposing the resolution passed by our Club by, I am pleased to say, the narrow majority of two In a voting power of 24 I have not yet had the opportunity —which I hope to get shortly—of going into this matter with Mr Beatty, but I am convinced that he only moved the motion as the less of two evils, and if we can remove the greater evil I am confident that he will be pleased to aid me In getting rid of the less. From time immemorial champions have proved themselves by winners playing winners. In the old days, when a gentleman went down with the business end of a lance in proximity to his jugular, it would have been inconvenient for the other competitors to wait until he came out of hospital, and unless we want to degrade bowls to a game only fit for -children we. should be content to play it on lines somewhat akin to those which govern dther sports .worthy to be played by men, and I say "right here," as our Yankee friends put it, that bowls is such a game, and it is partly because I want to have it played on reasonable lines when I seriously take to it that I am taking such an interest in the matter. So that Mr Allen may clearly TinQorataiia my scneme,- I "will, with -jrour permission, state it a little more fully. ' Let us say we have.twenty .entries..for the championship. As now played this would mean 20 multiplied by 19, which equals 380. I propose to draw, as i 3 usually done. This gives us 10 pairs, who play off each pair playing the best two'out of three matches. If all three were played, and this would certainly be the exception, only 30 games would be necessary. Losers then go out. This would leave It players in, who draw again, and the 5 pairs play best out of three again, with a maximum number of 15 games. The next draw leaves two pairs and a bye. The 2 pairs play off with a maximum of 6 games. This leaves three players In. Two play off, making maximum of 3 games, and the winner plays the bye in last round, making another 3 games; in all, 57 possible games, of which probably a fair number would\ not require to be played, as many would be won on two games only. With your kind permission, I may at a future date still further expose the fallacy of every man playing every man being the truest test of championship, and I shall then adduce high authority in support of my contentions. I have not so stated above, but I should, of course, as usual in tennis, golf, etc., take all byes in the first round. Played on these lines, each man knows exactly where he is, the draws have to be played to time, and there is no running round begging opponents to come up and play you—men, probably,, who are right out of it, and whose interest is entirely gone. Personally, I cannot' see that last year's system has a single good point to recommend it, and I hope the bowling clubs of Auckland will give my scheme their- best attention, as, even if they do not decide to use it, the discussion which It,will cause might bring to light something better than last year's performance, In whjch, even according to Mr Allen, 595 games were necessary to settle the championship of the Auckland BowlIng Glub. I should imagine the bowlers of Auckland must have plenty of time or money, or both, arid quantities of patience, otherwise such a "system" could not be tolerated. Life is too short. I shall be very pleased to meet Mr Allen and give him any further information he may require, as I feel that I have already trespassed considerably on your space. My pnly excuse is that, as Mr Allen says, the subject must possess considerable interest for bowlers, and, as we all know, they are now a very numerous and weighty class.—l am, etc, ....]■

P. *A. VAILE,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Re Mr Pi A. Vaile's letter on "Bowling Championship": The system adopted by the Auckland B.C. last season was .a "silly" system. "All sportsmen will agree with him that the idea is unheard of and cannot be supported by reasonable argument." He thinks "that the man who is beaten twice, isn't worth considering," also that the "A.B.C. propose" to grade their champions in the coming season"; that the A.B.C. "will notice his scheme and save them this indignity." Mr Vaile compares shooting, running and bowling—games totally unlike. I have known many systems, but as yet have found neither a wise nor a silly one In what way_can a system be "silly?" in shooting and running every man has equal opportunity. Each man in a shooting match fires his 10 or 20 shots, as the case may be, the man making the greatest number of points is the champion. In running all competitors go over the same course in about the same time, but the man who first breasts the tape is the champion. But cutting a man out on losing one draw may possibly be cutting out the best man in the match. I am not prepared to accept Mr Vaile's ruling respecting the conduct of laat year's A.B.C, match, "that all sportsmen will agree with him that the idea is unheard of and cannot be supported by reasonable argument." I commend to Mr Vaile's notice the International Chess Match, played and concluded June 20th 1900, at Paris. There were seventeen players. Bach man played every other, and the champion won 14J games. Mr Vaile's system would cut the champion chess player of the world out .when he had lost one draw as "notv worth ponslderlng," Mr Valla has been misln-

formed about Auckland Bowling Club "grading their champions." The A.B.C. Intends having one champion only in the coming season. I am quite sure that the Committee of the A.B.C. will give every consideration to Mr Vaile's discovery, "pairing and playing off." This discovery seem to have many points of excellence about it, and the wonder is that no one ever hit on this system before. The notion of the A.B.C. champion is to i play in heats, and the winners of heats to - play off. The number of games with 35 entrants „ for each man to play every other is, ac- , cording to Mr Vaile, 1225, and, according: to Mr V. M. Allen, 695. Neither is correct. The number of pairs with 35 entrants is 1190. Mr Vaile seems not to be imbued with a bowler's spirit. Bowls are played not so much to make "champions" as to give a number of men enjoyment.—l am, etc., AN A.B.C. BOWLER. August 6.