BILLIARDS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 906, 18 July 1907, Page 10

BILLIARDS.

(By

“ Blue Chalk.”)

FThe writer of this column wiU be Had to answer any Questions »n the game.]

In a game of snooker, played at the Waitemata Billiard Saloon Parlor last week, two well-known amateur players of equal calibre had an exciting contest. The players were Messrs. J. Cook and J. Clark. The result was a surprise, for Mr. J. Cook scored 117 to Mr. J. Clark’s 2. Such a score between players of equal merit is seldom met with.

The editor of “The World of Billiards” has the following on the status of an amateur: —“A thoroughly satisfactory definition of an amateur at billiards seems difficult to find. This is the one given in the rules of the Billiard Association: —‘An amateur is one who has not at any time earned his living, or any part of his living, by playing or scoring games played on a billiard table.’ It cannot be said that this is very comprehensive, yet I think that the members of the committee who drew it up were judicious not to attempt anything more definite. I doubt if it is possible to draw up a terse and really satisfactory definition of an amateur. Let me deal first with the question of playing for money, upon which point a vast deal of misapprehension appears to exist. It is the custom in almost every billiard room in the world that the loser of a game shall pay for the table, whilst no objection has ever been raised to the amateur status of a player on the score of his betting a shilling or half-a-crown on the result of a game. This being the case, it follows that, if a small bet does not endanger the amateur status of a player, a larger one cannot do so, and, therefore, any amateur is at perfect liberty to bet £l, £5, £lO, £lOO, or any larger sum upon the result of a game. Carrying this argu-

ment to a logical conclusion, what is perfectly legitimate in the case of a contest between two players, cannot be wrong where a larger number are engaged, and, therefore, if a dozen or more choose to subscribe a sovereign or five pounds each, and play a sweepstake or handicap, the winner to take the subscribed money, they do not endanger their amateur status. Always provided—this sounds delightfully legal and impressive—that not a farthing of added money is given. Thus, supposing the handicap to be played in a licensed house, the winner may accept a prize of any value from the landlord or anyone else, but he may not take the smallest sum of money. It is not permissible for an amateur to accept expenses in any shape or form whatever. Some people consider this a harsh regulation, and point to the contrary custom which is in vogue with regard to cricket and certain other sports, but, as I have often pointed out previously, the cases of cricket and billiards are not at all parallel ones. In cricket a man is simply playing for the honour of his club or county, whereas at billiards he is working entirely for his own glory and honour.”

Regarding the Inman-Memmott match, the “Referee” says:—“Memmott at his best plays a good game, but ’ when he’s bad he’s horrid,’ and his play was just horrid for the first few days of his engagement with Inman. Just fancy our champion averaging 3 for a session I Yet it was so. How he ever consented to play in the billiard condition he was in last week is incomprehensible. Certain it is that his friends should not take any stock in the showing. All the same, young Inman, playing sterling billiards, it is doubtful if even the greatest player of to-day would have lived with him on the opening day, when he put in breaks of 339 and 218 unfinished in the afternoon, and an average of 84, scoring 751 to Memmott’s 29. After that sensational performance his rate of progression steadied somewhat, and he finally won by 2906. Inman’s average for the whole game was 37.2, and Memmott’s 14.1.”

H. W. Stevenson received a unique and valuable token of esteem from a popular Melbourne amateur last week in the form of a Victorian gold chalkbox, engraved: “To the ‘ Apostle of Touch,’ from an Australian admirer. —C.M.C., Melbourne, 4/7/’07.” Charley Memmott also gave his gifted pupil a neat watch-chain in memory of Auld Lang Syne.

In the course of a very short time Young Lindrum promises to be quite at the top of the tree of Australian billiards, and some of the older players will have to practice hard if they would hold their position.

“ How like Stevenson” was often remarked last week in Melbourne during the Inman-Memmott game, when the latter occasionally got the balls together at the head of the table and ran up a few nursery cannons. How like, indeed ! Well, it would be strange if it were not so, for it was from Memmott that “ The Wizard” picked up his style and that phase of the game. When Stevenson was quite a lad he used to play against Memmott, receiving half, the game start from the Australian, and it was during that impressionable period that he acquired proficiency in nursery cannons, and to-day holds the position in the world of billiards that might have been Memmott’s had he put the same energy into his profession that Stevenson has done. There is no royal road to skill in any game or profession—it is practice and hard work that paves the way to success.