BOWLS

Southland Times, Issue 22158, 28 October 1933, Page 14

BOWLS

(By

“Kitty.”)

The Southland Club’s green is looking better this season than it has for several years past, the improved condition reflecting the careful attention received at the hands of Jack Thomson (the greenkeeper) and his understudy “Bill” Mcßobie (the greenranger) who have nursed the surface with as much devotion as a Plunket nurse employs for her charges. The pavilion, too, has just been painted and consequently looks much brighter in its setting. Three familiar faces—those of Dave Thomson, George Cooper and George Kingsland—will be missed at the Southland Club this season. All three were valuable members who have achieved quite a considerable measure of success in the sport—Thomson as skip, Cooper as either skip or third and Kingsland generally as lead. A departure from the usual custom of selecting the shield rink is to be made by the Southland Club. This season the rink to represent the club in this all-important fixture will be determined by competition, members being free to choose their own teams. At least seven rinks will fight among themselves for the honour and some good games should result with a consequential beneficial effect on the standard of club play as a whole. It may well be argued that this new mode of selecting the shield rink will afford no guarantee that the four strongest players represent the club, but against this there seems little doubt that it will serve a very valuable purpose, namely, the cementing of that good fellowship or feeling so vitally important in any club and more particularly so in the Southland club which possesses so many strong players each believing that his claims to recognition are worthy ones. And, after all, the win is not everything. Moreover, the new system will give some of the younger players an opportunity to prove themselves. A large blackboard crammed with names shows how popular are the various competitions held during the season by the Southland Club. The entries for this year have just closed and the number of competitors in the respective events is as follows: Champ-

ion singles, 31; champion pairs 14; handicap pairs, 16; shield rink, 7. It is vzorthy of note that the entries for the handicap or “Scotch” pairs (for which there is no entry fee) number two above those in the champion pairs. Again this year the Northend Club was favoured with ideal weather conditions for its second annual Labour Day rinks tournament. Sixteen teams entered to make a full green and it was pleasing to see representatives from both the Hokonui and Riverton Clubs.

Thanks to excellent organization on the part of the umpire and supervisor (Mr Leek), everything went off without a hitch. It was fortunate that no section ties had to be decided for the replay would have necessitated the final being postponed for another night. Even as it was, the last three or four heads in the deciding match were played in fast gathering darkness. The section winners proved to be Turnbull (Waihopai), Mills (Waihopai), Smith (Northend) and Stevenson (Invercargill). On paper, in section three appeared to be the most formidable teams. Both Shaw (Te Rangi) and Scandrett (Northend) skipped strong rinks in this section and Stevenson’s team had to fight hard for the victory over them in each case. The Southland rinks in section 2 (Donaldson, Fraser, Mcßobie and J. C. Thomson, skip), though defeated comfortably by Halliday (Hokonui) and, after a closer struggle, by Steans (Northend) proved very troublesome to Mills in the third round. Though obviously prejudiced by a lack of practise, the Southlanders fought doggedly and were only 3 down at the finish. Mills played a fine game in this match, his winning shots, in particular, being well executed.

Quite a mild surprise was created by Syd Smith’s defeat of Stevenson in the semi-finals. The green was slightly on the heavy side at this time and the most successful shot was the fast one. It was with his brilliant driving that Smith won the game and even his team mates were the first to admit that the victory was due in the main, to his prowess. It was a game calling for enterprise and agressiveness and Smith did not hesitate but forced the play. At the second last head, Stevenson’s rink was one up but in the final end Smith lay two when the skips crossed over. Smith did not alter the head with his first. Stevenson drove and a short ball flicked his off. Then Smith attempted to draw again, but did not disturb the position. Stevenson then drove with the result that he flicked another of Smith’s in, the game thus ending in favour- of the Northend rink by 12-10. In the drawing Stevenson’s team were beating Smith’s rink, but Smith virtually pulled the game out of the fire with his driving—he simply could not go wrong. Smith certainly had to “carry the baby” the more often in this semifinal, but in the final against Mills his mates gave him much better support. I. H. Macdonald (his lead) was only fair in the first round game and “off colour” against Stevenson, but against the Waihopai rink in the final he led very well. Much credit is the due of Smith’s second, A. Millar, who, practically a new player, was having his first fullday tournament experience. What is more, he played with new bowls and hadn’t even got a “feel” of them, a fact which makes his display the more meritorious. He seemed somewhat on the nervous side (particularly in the final), but he showed distinct promise. When he has cultivated the right match temperament and been further carefully handled, he should prove a player of no mean prowess. W. Reid (Smith’s third) was off his game in the first stages of the final — he appeared to be feeling the strain of the earlier games. However, he responded excellently to give his skip many of the shots asked for at a critical stage in the match and is certainly a good, faithful player. Mills drew well throughout the whole tournament and played a good fighting game, always interesting to watch, against Smith. At drawing, too, he gave a good display for on several occasions when his opponents were “lying a hatful” he saved the situation with his drives.

Barham, one of Mills’s men, seemed to be playing out of place as second. Stevens also seemed off his game and McDowell (lead) was a good, honest player. Te Rangi players are looking forward to the inter-club matches which begin next week. There is a great stir in the club and much enthusiasm. Entries are coming in for the green matches, and everything points to a heavy season. The selector and handicapper is in for a strenuous time sorting out the players.

The trophies won by the different billiard “champions” at Te Rangi during the winter, were presented during the past week. A stronge bowling incident occurred on the Port Chalmers Club green recently. The president, after making the opening day speech, called on visiting bowlers to say a few words. When it came to the Mayor’s turn, a visitor stepped forward and announced that unfortunately the Mayor was very ill. Therefore, he, as the Mayor’s representative, proceeded to convey the civic good wishes, and concluded by declaring the green open. There were two very much surprised men there. One was the Mayor himself, and the other was the president of the club. The latter immediately entered into an earnest discussion with the impersonator, and both walked off the green together. The president returned alone and called on the real Mayor to speak. The “humorist” was a stranger wnom nobody seemed to know. Advice has been received from the Australian Bowling Council that it had been decided to invite New Zealand to send representatives to the carnival in Adelaide, also that the New Zealand Association stamp would be accepted and that New Zealand bowlers could play under the rules of the New Zealand Bowling Association. Sunday Bowls.

Whether to play bowls on Sunday or not is a question that comes up with some clubs annually. It always causes a good deal of pavilion chatter, and members give their views one way or another with a degree of vehemence in accord with the depth of their feeling. Only recently the Wellington Education Board (says a writer in the Dominion) was very much concerned over the question whether Sunday tennis should or should not be permitted in school grounds, when a majority of the members of the board voted in favour of Sunday play, a decision which did not accord with the chairman’s views. Whatever views may be held, there seems to be no doubt whatever that a greater liberty in the matter of Sunday play is rapidly asserting itself not only here, but the world over. What has been noticed in Wellington is the inconsistency displayed by many in considering the situation. Only a few months ago the City Council held a debate whether it would sanction Sunday tennis on Town Belt courts, and the somewhat smug view was put forward that Sunday tennis was not so objectionable if it was not flaunted before the eyes of churchgoers. This in face of the tennis, to be paid for at so much a game, which the'City Council provides on Sundays at Day’s Bay, and the golf it nourishes at Berhampore, at so much per round. In the domain of the ancient and well-loved game of bowls, the point whether or not there should be Sunday play is decided by each club individually. It is a point which does not concern enther the centre or the association. Bowlers are as inconsistent as members of the City Council in their views

on Sunday play. There are members who frown on the proposal to open their own club green for play on the Sabbath, yet who go off to Seatoun or Eastbourne on fine Sundays for a game. On a recent occasion one player resigned from his suburban club because it had decided to allow play on Sundays. One cannot but respect the man for such strong adherence to his principles; but should he allow those principles to stand in the way of other people indulging in this mild recreation on vzhat is, perhaps, the only day that is free from work? At present there is no Sunday play on the city greens, but the suburban greens, with two or three exceptions, throw open their greens for play and invite members of city clubs to become week-end members at a nominal fee. One of the most peaceful and picturesque scenes imaginable is a very pretty country bowling green not so very far from Wellington. It is situated in close proximity to a church. Members of the congregation thing it no sin on their way home after service to sit on the garden seats and watch the run of the bowls for half an hour. There is something so open, innocent, restful, and delightful in a game of bowls, or watching one, that the time is not 10 years distant when the game will be freely played on every day of the week.

HOW TO ATTAIN POPULARITY

A bowling “wag” has written the following “hints” how to become “popular,” but for reasons of “safety first” we do not recommend the advice being accepted, says a nothern writer:To old members especially, be generous with “advice.” They usually need extra “ginger.” To your skip—let hie always know what you are doing. If your bowl finishes near the next rink say you took too much green; if in the ditch, you were too strong; if a bit short, don’t omit to mention that you took too much off. These remarks should be made in an audible voice in case your skip is hard of hearing. It also shows the other players you know all about the game. Stand as close to the kitty as possible just to shovz how interested in the game you are. No. 3 will see the humour.

If you are not chosen for a big game adopt the “high and mighty” attitude towards the selectors, who are generally old fossils and don’t knovz their business. Let the “world know” that the club is run by a clique. Don’t notify the secretary if you can’t attend the match. Be late and stand on your dignity. If the weather doesn’t suit you stay away. For goodness sake don’t pay your sub. until long overdue. WOODS THAT STRAIGHTEN ARTIFICIAL LOADING. It is a remarkable fact that no journal outside of the Referee, and no individual excepting myself, has ever tackled what is undoubtedly the greatest menace to the game—artificial loading of bowls, writes “Boomerang” in the Sydney Referee. Viewed from many angles, there can be no doubt as to its being a menace. Therefore it is only reasonable to ask: “Why has the silence been maintained for all time, and why do not responsible people approach the subject?” That it is too deep for many is admitted, but let us look into the pros and cons. convince anybody that artificial loading vince anybody that artificial loading is not only undesirable, but is a direct contradiction and an enemy _ to the table-test, or any test. The wise men who formulated the splendid weight, shape and size laws were alive to the drawbacks that accrue from bowl stuffing, but they diplomatically side-step-ped the issue by merely adding to their report to the ruling body that . they “did not recommend the artificial weighting or loading of bowls.” Despite the inactivity that is universal, The Referee has succeeded in establishing in the minds of 95 per cent, of bowlers that the stuffing of bowls with lead or any other material, is not conducive to good results, to say the least. I do not deny for a moment that it cannot be done so as to ensure perfect balance, but that is not the point. The balance is only there when it leaves the expert’s hands. A bowl may leave the hands of a manipulator, with several ounces of loading inside, placed so that the bowl does its work just as though there was nothing inside. But the very important fact is overlooked that when a bowl becomes warped with the effects of climatic conditions, or even shrink, the artificial loading then causes the bowl to lose its centre of gravity, and consequent balance. In one of the interstate matches played within the past year, a pair of wooden bowls were found to be running almost as straight as a tram rail, on any hand. The owner admitted that they were a puzzle to him. But they should not have been. The fact js that they had so warped that the loading inside had made centre of gravity lean towards the anti-bias side, straightening them up. Reform Needed. But there are other aspects to the question. Mr Jos. Hammill is moving towards certain reforms. Why not tackle this most urgent of all reforms? It should be an offence for anyone to interfere with the “inners” of a bowl. The article is manufactured or made into shape by the makers, and after being tested and stamped, is sent out as conforming in every respect with the regulations of the Australian Bowling Council, or the English or Scottish Bowling Associations, as the case may be. If something is done to the manufactured article afterwards, regarding the interior, it is not fair to the maker, and should be an offence to lift a disc for any purpose. Hensell demonstrates unmistakably that if a bowl contains lead or other material a certain method of testing, called “The Wobble Test,” will surely find it out, and in almost all cases such bowls fail to pass the same wobble test as the standard bowl is subjected to. For reasons that it is not my province to define, this wobble test was unsympathetically received in other quarters, and is still. But there can be not the slightest doubt about its efficiency, and necessity. When the A. B. C. Select Committee stated that it would not recommend artificial loading, it could have been much more emphatic, but the question was not then as acute as it is to-day. The game is the thing, and the good of the game, and no interests of any kind must be allowed to sprag its welfare. _ Unfortunately all wooden bowls in the vicinity of 5-inch and over, must be loaded up with several ounces if their owners desire the maximum weights. That is the position to-day, owing to the great scarcity of seasoned timber. Tire ruling bodies everywhere know that by universal consent this loading is not in the best interests of the game, yet make no move. I have put it up to leading men in the game, yet all remain silent and inactive. It would be interesting to know Mr Jos. Hammill’s views on the subject, and what relation he thinks it has to our negotiations with New Zealand at Dunedin in January.

"LIFE” TO A BOWL WHAT IT MEANS. HOW THE PALMER IS HANDICAPPER. It takes the expert billiardist to define what “life”—known in some shots as “side”—means in the compilation of a break, or the execution of a particular shot. That “life,” that is an out standing feature of good billiards, has a relation to all ball games—tennis, cricket, baseball particularly, and, of course, bowls. All young bowlers should get a thorough knowledge of the importance of being able to put “life” into their bowls (says “Boomerang” in the Sydney Referee). That is one of the arguments, among many, that I advance when claiming that my grip method is the only and all-correct one. Try to imagine a man minus a thumb. He would, as a matter of compulsion, have to sit his owl in the palm of his hand after the style of the player who places his thumb on or in the immediate vicinity of the side disc.

What “life” could he impart to a owl? That gives you a line to what control, or life, the player can give his bowl who places his thumb where it is unable to spin the object. It is also not generally known that the player who does not place his thumb on top is forced to grass his bowl much further ahead than the man who can retain the grip and control right up to the point of delivery. The dumper, palmer, or-, sitter cannot as accurately gauge the number of revolutions required for a given length as the spinner or thumb-gripper. In short ends, when the green is very keen, it is best illustrated. I remember an occasion that will illustrate my point to a nicety: At Wellington in ’29 the green was “fiery,” and Ardell was giving my rink “baby” lengths—just the bare. Both sides were running beyond the jack in a must ludicrous fashion, particularly my fellows. A bowl dropped with the least effort went sailing away, and caused much amusement. On such a length the palmer, or man who went to the side with his thumb, had no chance whatever. There was one in the rink, no matter which side, and he absolutely was unable to control his length owing to the fact that he had to green his bowl further afield than the thumb-gripper, and lost control. I found that here was where that “life” I am referring to came in. By bending well down, and making the elevation at its lowest point,. almost, the fingers and thumb in unision with the wrist were able to just spin, or flick, the bowl sufficiently to overcome any tendency to fast-running. You would term that _ “touch, as, just as I preach in upholding the fing-ers-thumb grip, you can only get that touch by holding the bowl with your fingers and thumb, delicately giving it that bit of life that is impossible to the palmer, or dumper. Take a set of snooker balls, 22 in number, and stand at the baulk end of the table. Now invite any man to compete with you who bowls with his thumb at the side, stipulating that he must roll the snooker balls the same as he rolls his bowls. Whereas you, if you are a finger-thumb gripper, can roll those balls to fractions of an inch to the end cushion, the other would have no control, and invariably be beaten in a show-down.

I issue that challenge to any man, that, without he placed his thumb on the billiard ball, and not at the side, he would never win a game. And to get back to our lesson, it is all a question of “life,” making the bowl or ball part of yourself, sympathetic with the work in hand nerve-sense, touch, control, all of which are lost to the palmer, dumper, or sitter; the man who goes to the side. Of course I am not out to ridicule or hurt the feeling of the player who has palmed or gone to the side all his bowling days. Rather do I sympathize; but I won’t have him interfere with, or try to undo, the good work I have in hand. August Myers takes up the correct and admirable position, for he tells his pupils to disregard certain things that he does, and to follow implicitely those laid down by “Boomerang.” That is a fine spirit, and one which I commend to those engaged in the losing fight of opposing the thumb methods I propound.

SIZE AND WEIGHT OF BOWLS At the Otago Centre meeting recently a great deal of time was spent discussing the very, important question concerning the size and weight of bowls, writes “Jack” in the Otago Daily Times. Circulars have been sent to all clubs asking for their opinions with respect to sizes and weights and. also asking for an expression of opinion whether or not they would be in favour of a rule similar to that in force in Australia, which reads as follows:—The major diameter of bowls shall not be more than five and three-sixteenth inches nor less than four and 14-16ths inches. The difference between the major diameter and the minimum (between discs) shall not exceed, half an inch nor be less than seven-sixteenths of an inch. The maximum weights for the respective sizes of bowls shall be in accordance with the following scale, in applying which a variation of a thirty-second of an inch in diameter shall be allowed.

Mr G. Nelson gave members some idea of the difference between the sizes adopted by Australia and the bowls mostly used in New Zealand. He stated that if the Australian rule were adopted, in so far as the difference between minor against major diameter was concerned it would mean scrapping nearly 100 per cent, of the wood bowls in use in Dunedin. This was news to some of the delegates, but it nevertheless is a fact. Mr Nelson said that taking a 5 l-16th bowl as a sample, the average diameter between the discs is 4 11-16ths. Some few may . come close to 4fths, and if we test this with the Australian law we find that the diameter should be between 4 9-16 and 4§ths. It is thus easily seen than any bowl measuring 4 11-16ths in the 5 l-16th size would be out of court. Even a bowl just over 4|ths diameter would not be permissible. This argument put up for the 5 l-16th bowl applies equally to the 5 J th. and the writer is certain that the question of adopting the Australian rule, so far as diameter is concerned, has no chance of coming into force, at least for many years yet. I understand that some clubs are in favour of the rule, but I feel sure that they have not given the major and minor diameter question enough thought or consideration in respect to the bowls in use by members. I am informed that a select committee has been appointed to examine as many powls as possible in the Dunedin Club, and the result will be submitted to the next centre meeting It would be a wise move on the paid of all bowlers to measure up their bowls, and to compare the two diameters with the Australian rule.

Major diameter. Maximum weight. 4J inches 31b 2oz. 4 15-16 inches 31b 2oz. 5 inches 31b 4oz. 5 1-16 inches 31b 5oz. 5J inches 31b 7oz. 5 3-16 inches 31b 8oz.