BILLIARDS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18008, 19 November 1926, Page 3

BILLIARDS

(NOTES BY HACKA.) They have created a term “the Ashes cf Billiards’* in England, in imitation of the Ashes of cricket. Mr George Kelson, the Leeds authority, in touching on the prospective visit of Walter Lin drum to England, is illuminating: “According to England's champion of billiards, Tom Newman, we shall probably have a visit from the Australian champion, W. Lindrum, this season. At any rate, Newman has gone to the length of issuing a challenge, the terms of which are so lengthy that they occupy a column in one of the Sunday newspapers. Lindrum chal-. lenged any of our players last season: but he made the stipulation that the games were to be played with composition balls, in Australia. “In his challenge Newman has offered every possible inducement for Lindrum to come to England, and take what he calls the “Ashes of Billiards back to Australia. He offers to play Lindrum the best three of five games, half the games to be played with ivory balls, and half with composition, on any make of table. In short, under the most reasonable terms possible. “Newman rightly says, though, that if there are to be any 'billiard ashes.* Lindrum will have to first fetch them from England, and if he can do so. he (Newman) is prepared to play in Australia. at the first opportunity in an endeavour to bring them back. If all these interesting events are brought about, one wonders what Willie Smith will have to say on the matter. Also, following the precedent of burning the wickets to make ‘cricket ashes,’ one wonders if it. will be Newman’s cue, the billiard table, or the balls that will be burnt if Newman gets beaten.” A few days back, Smith stated in London that he was definitely prepared to play the Australian three matches in England, and three in Australia, the place where the first set of games shall be played to be determined by tossing a coin. It has the sound of a genuine desire to meet the Australian.

Smith has been showing good form, and, in the first match of the season, at Scarborough (Eng.) beat Newman, the champion, by 730 points in a game of 8000 up. In another very interesting game, the more so because a young player was concerned, Joe Davis, of Chesterfield, proved to Smith he is coming cm a good deal, for the latter failed to concede him 1500 in 9000,

young Davis winning by 460 points. Smith beat J. Earlam, the. British amateur champion, now turned professional. at Liverpool, after conceding him a liberal start. Smith was to meet ,Earlam again this month at Newcastle, and in December in. Edinburgh. The games were 18,000 up, Earlam receiving 8000. It is not known if the original programme will be adhered to. On the other hand, Walter Lindrum has been practically “idle,” and it is not unlikely that he is anxious to participate in big matches. H. D. NOYES IN QUEENSLAND. 11. D. Noyes has retained his title as snooker champion of Queensland. The completion of the chair pionship marked the close of the round of big Championships conducted by the Amateur Billiard Association of Queensland. The snooker title of Queensland has been contested four times. 11. D. Noyes won In 1922, 1925, and again this year. In 1923 he was defeated by J. Cullen. In 1924 there was no contest. In the previous contests, S. Lowry was runner-up on each occasion. 11. D. Noyes is, perhaps, more widely known as a cricketer. He is a medium pace right-hand bowler of fair ability, and figured in inter-State matches for Queensland last season.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME. The new rule which has been passed by the governing body of the game has been accepted by the large body of billiard players with considerable satisfaction. For a long time it was realised that unless some limitation was placed on one particular type of stroke there would be a big danger of the game being spoilt both as a pastime and as a spectacle. The alteration, which limits the number of consecutive hazards, either wanning or losing, to 25, will affect amateur players much more than it will most of the professionals. In the majority of cases the professional players have endeavoured to retain the general principles of the game, which have as their chief object the use of all three balls. The great value of hazard play was realised by old-time players, of whom W. J. Peall, the father of the present-time professional, was perhaps its greatest exponent. In his playing days what is known as the spot stroke, a succession of winning hazards off the billiard spot, was exploited to such an extent that legislation was necessary to prevent the game becoming too much of a specialised art. So drastically was this scoring method treated that at the present time only two consecutive strokes off this spot are permitted. The “anchor” cannon, by which the two object balls were practicall}’ jambed in the top pocket, was quickly barred, as the absurdity of allowing the stroke was soon emphasised when Reece made a break of approximately half a million by this means; but the nursery cannon was not seriously affected when consecutive strokes of this kind were restricted to 25, as it is permissible to play on to a cushion to enable the sequence to be continued. While it was perfectly clear that the hazard, will always play a very import-

ant part in the game, it was equally obvious that so much specialisation in the respect was likely to prove harmful to its future. When Gray, the Australian player, first came to the country and showed its enormous possibilities his achievements were received with some degree of wonderment. His skill was.not to be questioned, and for some time his play attracted a great deal of attention. The fact that other players began to regard this method as a valuable scoring medium was not surprising, but that its value had been overrated was shown when Gray was decisively beaten in the Professional Championship. From that point professional players generally gave it less consideration, and wisely turned their attention to the further all-round development of the game. With the amateur player, however, the case was rather different. The losing hazard has always been their most prolific scoring stroke, and while a very fair number could easily make 25 consecutive hazards, not more than perhaps one out of a hundred could make a similar number of close cannons. It is as much in the interests of the amateurs as the professionals that the governing body have acted as they have done.

There already seems to be some slight misunderstanding concerning the interpretation of the rule. The wording “consecutive hazards (winning or losing)” clearly means to refer to the two types of strokes in conjunction. The suggestion that the new rule permits a continuity of winning hazards off the billiard spot, in other words, a reversion to the spot stroke, is not implied, nor is anything of the kind intended. The spot stroke in its true meaning constitutes a winning hazard made when the red ball is placed on the billiard spot at. the top of the table. A similar stroke made off the centre spot, on which the red ball is placed after two winners have been made from the billiard spot, is merely a winning hazard, and does not come within the meaning of the spot stroke. The new rule does not seriously interfere with winning or losing hazard play. It merely restricts specialisation, and is clearly made to assist the development of the different phases of a very fascinating game which was in danger of being spoiled in some of its primary essentials. (Published by Special Arrangement), BILUARD OR BILLIARDS? By RISO LEVI. Author of “Billiards: The Strokes of the Game” and “Billiards for the Million.’* (Copyright). There has been a good deal of discussion in billiards circles during the last two or three years, as to which term is more correct, “billiard” or “billiards.” Personally, I infinitely prefer “billiards” to “billiard,” and in my opinion, “billiard” will become a rare word in another generation or two, as already it is fast disappearing from our daily and weekly papers. The editor of “The Billiard Player” disagrees with me on this matter, and maintains that just as we call the green on which the game of bowls is played a bowling green and not a “bowlsing” green, so, too, the table on which billiards is played should be termed a billiardtable, and not a billiards-table. _ To my mind, however, this is a very unsound argument, because the implement which is used for the playing of the game of bowls is called a bowl, whereas there is no implement or instrument used in the game of billiards or connected with billiards which is called a “billiard.” Also, there is no verb to “billiard,” whereas there is a verb to bowl, and it is because of this verb that the green on which players bowl is called a bowling green. When, however, we speak of a champion at bowls we call him a bowls champion, and never a bowl champion. In the same way, we must call a champion at billiards a billiards champion, and an instructor of the game a billiards instructor. Take rackets. One of the implements of the game is a racket, but nobody ever thinks of calling the championship at this game the racket championship. It is always termed the rackets championship, and in the same way billiards championship must be the correct term, and is infinitely preferable to billiard championship. The governing body at billiards is called the Billiards Association and Control Council, and rightly so, because it is an association dealing with billiards and controls, or is intended to control, billiards. Many years before the B_A. and C.C. was formed the old governing body was called the Billiard Association, but in those days the word billiards for use as an adjective had not yet come into general use. Indeed, in the days when the old Billiard Association first came into existence it may, for all I know, never have been used' in this way. When, however, the B.A. and C.C. was formed, the word “billiard” was no longer deemed correct, and “billiards” was, therefore, substituted in the title. Today billiardstable, billiards-room, billiards-hall, etc., are the common terms in the Press! and as a billiards-table is a table for billiards, a billiards-room a room in which billiards is played, and a bil-liards-ball a ball used for billiards, the term “billiards” in relation to them must be more correct than “billiard.” The terms billiards-table, billiards ball, etc., may at first sound strange in the ears of players who have always been accustomed to use “billiard” for “billiards,” but they would quickly get used to the more correct term after having once adopted it. A Question of Euphony. Tho editor to whom I have referred

has argued that if we dropped the word “billiard” in favour of “billiards” we should logically have to alter “billiardist” into “billiardsist” and has asserted that billiardsist” would be a very clumsy and ugly word. Ido not agree with him in the first part of his argument, though I am quite with him as to the ugliness of “billiardsist.” A letter, is, however, often dropped for the sake of euhpony, just in the same way that one is sometimes added. For example, when we speak of difficult pots which Smith constantly brings off—l have in mind those pots of his at the top of the table when the red is about a foot from the pocket and only half an inch or so from the top cushion, and the cue ball, instead of being right behind it, is at an awkward angle to it; pots which Smith plays with running side and plenty of pace in order to cause the cue ball to run into commanding position via two cushions—we do not term them Smithonian, but Smithsonian, pots. “Smithonian” does not sound so well, so we add an “s” for euphony. And in the same way for euphony we delete an “s” from “billiardsist” and make it “billiardist.”

Another critic who possesses all my works on the game found fault with me for having entirely discarded the word “billiard” in my last two billiards books. This gentleman, who is a very eminent man of letters, and the author of a large number of books which are of world-wide renown, accused me of helping to spoil the beauty of the English language by coining a word in my books which he insisted I should never have made use of. We had some very friendly correspondence over the matter, and I informed him that I had not been guilty of any neologising, but had simply adopted “billiards” for “billiard” because I had found, during the last few years, that the Press of the country, and particularly the London Press, had, with few exceptions, entirely discarded the word “billiard” and that I had, therefore, been encouraged to use the word which, to my mind, was the more correct. In answer, I was informed that one does not look to Fleet Street, or to the provincial Press, for the best English, and that the authorities on our language were our lexicographers and the British Encyclopaedia. The Tremendous Influence of the Press. Tt is quite true that matter in a newspaper is not always couched in the best English, but one must remember that the bulk of what we read in our newspapers has been hurriedly written only a few hours before the paper is on sale, and that there is only time for the barest revision, and iu many cases not even this, after the copy has been set up by the various linotype operators. That the Press is, however, a great, even a predominant, factor in the alterations which gradually take place in the spelling of words, or in the phrasing of the language of any country, cannot for a moment be questioned, and thus, as the Press of Great Britain in general has pronounced that “billiards” is preferable to “billiard,” the dictionaries of the future will state tha.t “billiard” is an obsolete word. As, however, in addition to this man of letters holding that our dictionaries should decide the argument, the editor of "The Billiard Player,” in commenting on the question, has written as follows: "We think it is largely a question for the lexicographers, and these seem to be agreed that the adjective (form of ‘billiards’ is ‘billiard.’ ”