BILLIARDS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 994, 25 March 1909, Page 11

BILLIARDS.

There is virtually nothing doing locally in the world of billiards, nor is there likely to be until the warm weather is over. Indications, however, point to a brisk time ahead.

The Council of the Billiards Control Club (London) has issued its “ Rules of the Game of English Billiards.” 'Fhe one important point on which the Billiards Control Club breaks away from the Billiard Association is in respect of safety play. Bule 9of the Billiards Control Club rules prohibits a player from making “ two misses in successive innings, unless he or the opponent score after the firt miss, or a double baulk intervenes.” Consecutive ball-to-ball cannons are limited to 25, and for a foul stroke “ the striker cannot score, and his opponent plays from hand, the two other balls being spotted.” It is also provided that “ the referee, should he observe any breach of the rules, must of his own initiative intervene.” This authorises him, without appeal, to prevent a player from continuing a break in which in the referee’s opinion a stroke has been missed.

In his recent challenge to Roberts, Inman says: “Before the season closes I am anxious to show the public that I can beat any player, bar Stevenson, upon level terms. lam prepared to back myself to play John Roberts 18,000 up upon level terms under Billiard Association rules for £5OO a-side, the winner to take the whole of the gate receipts. On hearing from Roberts that he will accept, the above terms, I will at once stake the whole of the money.” Inman has satisfied the English press that this is not mere idle talk on his part —he has the money, and is willing to stand the risk of losing it in an attempt to prove himself the superior of the veteran.

Perhaps the most sensational match of the time was that of 3000 up for .£BOO. between Wizard Jake Schaeffer and Monsieur Cure in the Paris Nouveau Cirque in 1904. Schaeffer won on the post by the close margin of 16 points, and his friends immediately rushed him, raised him shoulder high, and raced round and round the scene of battle, cheering wildly, only stopping now and again to bestow a like tribute upon the Frenchman who, though defeated, made a gallant fight, playing grandly throughout the very severe battle. It was indeed a scene to be long remembered.

John Roberts reminds me muchly of two great American boxing champions —John L. Sullivan, in the long ago. and Tommy Burns, the up-to-date, if somewhat eclipsed hero of the boxing stage (says the editor of the “New World of Billiards.”) He has taken to the “ knock out” programme that “ J. L.” made popular by travelling around and offering a certain sum of money to anyone able to withstand his battering-ram punches for three rounds and escaping his specialty—the “knock-out.” At first Sullivan was a downright good sportsman. He offered the whole of the gate receipts to anyone who could last out the three rounds with him. but when Tug Wilson and Charlie Mitchell, two English boxers, crossed the Atlantic and qualified for two large sums of money, Sullivan’s sporting instincts deserted him. From that time forth he stipulated for a certain fixed sum to the adventurous rival who dared his might. During the ensuing fortnight John Roberts is engaged in a similar task. The veteran has engaged himself to concede Harverson a start of 4000 in 18,000 up, and he has, a la Sullivan (in this champion’s less inflated days), offered his opponent the magnanimous terms of £lOO if a winner and nothing if a

loser. Where John Roberts resembles Tommy Burns is equally simple of explanation. Stevenson has offered Roberts a start of 4000 in 20,000 for £250 or £5OO a-side. Roberts is willing to play, providing he receives two-thirds of the gate money. No doubt he feels that he is making a great concession to the present champion in giving him anything at all and not making him qualify for, say, one-fifth or one-sixth share, such as Harverson has to be content with, boxing championship, between Burns And, in this connection, let it be borne jn mind that the recent match for the and Johnson, was for a purse of £7500. Burns refused to get in the ring unless he had £6OOO, win or lose. Moreover, he got it, and the winner, Johnson, had to be satisfied with the remaining £l5OO !

There are no greater deceivers in billiard-playing than the half butt and long butt (writes Tom Taylor). They are as deceptive as /they are necessary on the 12 x 6 table. It is their increased weight as compared to the ordinary cue that makes them so uncertain to play with. I remember the mistakes I used to make with them when I was learning the game as a youngster. All my screw-shots and forcers always went wrong and I could not make out the reason why. At last I figured it out that if I played with a cue the weight of the halfbutt or long-butt, and their driving power, I should require to use less force than I did ordinarily. I was in the right tack then, and although never fond of the “ half and long one” I got on better with them when I understood how they had to be handled. If you play with them like you do your ordinary cue, except in the very slowest touches, you will be courting failure. You have to make allowance for the extra weight, and it is safer to put less force than you consider is required than to “ overdo” the shot, as you are bound to do li you play as though you have your cue in your hand. A very good tip that may avert a foul or an over-reached is to copy the professionals, and walk round the table to where your halfbutt or long-butt is lying on the “ resthead.” Then take the end of it and put it as close up to the ball as your judgment is necessary to prepare it for the stroke. This is better, safer, and more according to the rules of the game than asking your opponent or the marker, “How far am I away?” as so many players do. Always play the proper game, and see to these details yourself !