BILLIARDS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLII, Issue 6, 10 February 1909, Page 43

BILLIARDS.

By AN EXPERT

Transmitted “aide” is rather a subject Cutside the pale of practical billiards, and a matter which few billiard-players take into consideration. Yet it has to be taken account of in the run of many an object-ball, despite the long-standing belief which exists that the latter cannot be made to revolve out of the simple over-and-over or plain ball state. If this were actually so, one would frequently Btop to inquire the reason why the firstclass professionals use check “side” at an open pocket, and so increase the difficulties of the forced losing hazard. Then, again, there is the screw cannon, a square screw, or a screw-back, in the playing of which the first object-ball can, in a measure, be attuned to the needs of position. There is proof positive that if no “side” is transmitted to an objectball it can be made to take a fresh direction from a single contact with a cue-ball carrying left or right “side.” The spin, of course, must be strong, and it naturally exerts <•. greater influence at slow to medium pace than when travelling at faster rate of speed. But, fast or slow, according to the degree of the impact between the two balls, there is a noticeable control over the object-ball. Whether the object-ball actually takes a certain form of spin from the cueball when it carries “side” is a point which has never been definitely cleared up. In theory, it should do so, as all contacts and all angles at which the balls leave another are supposed to be, approximately, equal. Therefore, a ball carrying leading or running “side” ought to cut the object-ball away nearer to a right-angle than a plain ball can do, and a ball carrying check “side” should throw it further forward. To my way of think-

The obi tinuous line — shows the course of th<| r rue-ball, and the dotted line the ivprying movements of the red ball.

ing, these are the causes leading to the clever effects which come front the professional players’ cues. As in many other games, the best executants are not able to explain the why and. wherefore of the object-ball taking three different courses, dictated by plain ball or left or right “side.” But nearly all are agreed that the object-ball does not actually take “side.” Its vagaries arc ascribed to the curious throw-off that the lively running “side” or slothful cheek "side” induces. To be able to give the object-ball a line of travel, even it be ever so slight, is a feature of the highest flights of billiard science. The cue-ball only strikes an object-ball on a pin-point’s part of its. central line, yet billiard balls are so sensitive, beautifully balanced .and sympathetic that in the thousand part of a second or -o they are in contact the peculiar motion carried by the one is imparted to the other. Some examples of what I take leave to term “side” transmission are to be seen on the two diagrams herewith. There are many others, notably the incorrect "plant” at snooker’s pool or pyramids, but the th.ee strokes I am showing will suffice' for present demonstrations. Upon the first diagram a double movement of the object-ball, following a forcing losing hazard into the right top pocket, is represented. The danger to the ordinary player would be the failure to keep the red ball in play more thpn the actual score. Running, or left “side,”'and even plain ball would direct it too far down the table away under the baulk side cushions, or, as likely as not, behind the baulk-line. This fact might never occur to the average amateur player, who would only periodically stumble across this class of losing hazard, and continue to make the same mistake. It is otherwise with the professional. He builds up his game upon his mistakes and what they serve to reveal to him. Failing to keep the red ball in play and in good scoring position from this same kind of losing hazard, he would ask himself the reason why, and experiment with the stroke until he mastered its eccentricities. -

Finding that running, or left “side,” turned the red ball so far down the table, and that a plain ball was but little improvement upon the other method, he would play his last card in the shape of a check or left “side” stroke. This would present greater difficulties of execution so far as the losing hazard is concerned. Yet in the guidance of the balls for a series of simple positions, which is the whole art of billiard-playing, it is the more intricate stroke of the several always possible that provides the best results. So it is in this case. The cheek “side” stroke sends the object-ball more squarely on to the cushion, doubling it across the table, and keeping it in play somewhere between the centre poekets (as represented 'by the cross marked 1). On the other hand, the running “side” sends the red ball off so slantingly to the cushion that it takes the shortest line for baulk, and enters there after rebounding from a lower side cushion (as represented by the cross marked 2). Upon the second diagram there is shown a ball-to-ball screw cannon in conjunction with a cushion winning hazard. Try the cannon with left “side.’’ then right “side,” and also with a plain ball stroke. The idea is to make it double

acruss the table, as the diagram shows, to join the red ball. Play the atroke slowly, almost stunning the cue-ball, and note the favourable line at which it meets and leaves the first cushion for your purpose of gathering the balls together. 'Then attempt the same thing with running ‘side” or plain ball, and

remark the different run of the object* ball. The winning hazard, steering the cushioned red ball into the left baulk pocket, by a curling running “side” stroke on the cue-ball, reveals another pphase of “side” communication. The

cushioned object-ball is attacked behind its facing centre by the fact of the cueball being played on to the cushion, just in advance of it. The result is a slight imported spin that gathers strength as the ball rubs against the cushion on its way to the pocket, and helps it in there. Played with cheek “side’’ on the cue-ball, the' hazard is not nearly so certain of being made. By the heavy defeat-he recently inflicted upon Melbourne Inman in the Burrowghes afid Watts’ provincial competition, Stevenson is adding to the many splendid victories he has won in the past three months (says a writer in “London Daily Telegraph”). He promises to win the London Tournament, the snooker s pool championship run in conjunction with this event, the provincial tournament, and the championship which 4 he Billiards Control Club will assuredly promote in the coming spring. lie has reduced the art of scoring at billiards to a . mechanical nicety, "‘such as no ~other player has ever contrived to do. It may be, though, that (he top-of-the-tabie game, by means of which he builds up his breaks,Hacks the spectacular qualities of the open, old-fashioned style of play. If presenting greater problems and demanding nicer execution, there, is no overlooking the fact of the close play between the top pockets being somewhat overdone. The spectators at the leading matches welcome the losing hazard oil the red as played by Melbourne Inman, or the good double-strength shots and accurate screw-backs of Ilarverson.

It Las become necessary for me to ro|HMt that there i* no test of a billiardplayer’s quality like his average scoring. His ideas of the game ami his stroke play arc deceptive. They frequently mislead the spectator and the critic. On the other hand, there is the exceptional case where one’s class of game is sure to cause anything but a true estimate of its effectiveness. Only the average scoring for each innings^gives a fair analysis of the form which produces it. This will prove correct as a general rule. I l(ave tested this method many a time, with iiiM class and second-class professional, amateurs

of the championship grade, and those? who fall away to the very humblest limits of ability. At least seven to eight games in ten proved the clue to collateral ability. 'l’he remaining and less translu cent tests can be robbed of their value by the fact of long periods of safety play, or, as is bound to happen, one or both players being out of form. As in other games, the billiard player may be above or below his usual standard of form, the balls may run most con trarily and the tactics of the play conduce to obscure the worth of the average. But this will all come right in the long inn. You strike an average in all matters where you are seeking after a general bulk or of a business turnover. In none of them is the mirror held up to Nature so clearly as by the billiard average. Still, the man who checks the average and tries to form comparisons must know a good deal about the ebb and flow of the billiard table and be in a position to make due allowances for altered circumstances and conditions. To gauge the conduct of a game is not given to all. It demands a practical knowledge and a long experience to balance the right with the wrong.