E-text prepared by Richard Tonsing
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
(https://archive.org)

Apart from its inviting to moderate and wholesome exercise, billiards, as popularly played, is pre-eminently a mental pastime. Nearly all its exponents of approved skill, whatever were the drawbacks of their youth, are intellectually quick and bright. This is due in some measure to the ready mathematical requirements of the play as a routine, but in a much greater degree to its taxing the eye, stimulating the fancy, and disciplining the mind by imposing watchfulness, invention, and analysis. Slowness is costly, and hence, as an early habit, an eager alertness of vision, alacrity of step, and promptitude of decision.

Regarding billiards as a spectacle, its physical requisites to perfection are keen sight, level head and steady hand; but they are by no means essential to enjoyment of it as a leisure-hour diversion en amateur. In this sense, its charm lies altogether in participation, which is all the more agreeable and healthful because never needing to be exhausting.

Caroming methods are still changing. Execution is again growing less fantastic and more practical. Systemization is becoming more and more dominant. In consequence, certain gathering shots, depicting instructive possibilities rather than downright needs, and diagrammed as still proper to teach when the earlier edition of this book was issued, have no place in the present volume.

2Play has been made harder in theory, but easier in fact. Lowering the cushion first and the table next has facilitated most strokes, and particularly those dependent upon elevating the cue. Our fathers knew piqué, but seldom massé. Drawing a ball without hopping it has been made surer. Cloths were once so much heavier in nap that ironing new ones again and again, until the iron burned them out, was the method here, as it is in certain other countries yet. Although longer than the present ones by several inches, yet still choice cues of old rarely went beyond eighteen ounces. For special needs there are cues now whose butts alone are heavier than an old-fashioned cue in its entirety. The lighter ashen sticks of the past were meant for a greater variety of shots than the experts’ carom game of to-day has use for. Styles of play as a matter of contest are also different. If the present generation know better how to count, their elders knew better when not to try and count.

There has been progress in more directions than one. A light-weight cue never before handled by its wielder played the last 1900 points of a memorable contest. Our “Record” has no other one-night match so impressive for headwork, handicraft, and hazard. In the same year, and in the same State, a mile in harness was trotted in 2:19¾, but under wholly different conditions from those which to-day govern track, equipment, transportation, and individual effort. As in the popular eye some Cresceus or Lou Dillon now completely obscures the bob-tailed, homely little bay mare at Kalamazoo, so the billiard giants of these times are apt to overlook that the credit they receive for a marvelous progress as counters may not be exclusively their own. Some share in it is possibly due to improvements that first-class mechanicians have made in billiard implements. Rubber 3vulcanized in layers of different densities in the one strip have made cushion-angles trustier, cloths are of closer shear and more uniformly spread, choice cue-leathers are choicer, cues have grown magical in their mere heft of hilt, and vanished is the muslin under-cloth that helped the balls to dig their graves deep into the one of green. Rarely seen, if ever now, is the serrated cushion, with a face like a saw whose dulled teeth are set inches apart, and not often is there complaint that the speed of the bed is greater than that of the return from the cushion, or else not quite so great.

Billiards was practically without beginning. As with untold other excellences, so with that. Until merit is established, curiosity as to origin rarely begins. When merit is acknowledged, it is too late to trace origin.

“Let us to billiards, Charmion,” is one of Shakespeare’s many anachronisms. As introduced into “Antony and Cleopatra,” its significance is simply that the amusement was growing in favor at the English court in the time of Elizabeth, Shakespeare, and Mary, Queen of Scots, the last of whom had brought her table over with her from France.

The diligent student may read that Socrates played billiards, that Anacharsis saw it played during his travels in Greece, that St. Augustine saw a billiard-table in journeying to or in Africa, and that Cathire More, an Irish king of the second century A.D., bequeathed to his nephew “fifty billiard-balls of brass, with the pools and cues of the same material.” But the student must not go so far back as the originals in his search, lest he discover that all are translators’ errors. St. Augustine’s vision has proved to be nothing else.

Billiards is also of quasi-historical record as having been invented by Henri de Vigne, a Frenchman, for the amusement of Louis XI. As runs a story more explicit, though probably no trustier, De Vigne was only a carpenter, or cabinet-maker, who, at the order of Louis, fashioned “a 5billiard-table with a bed of stone, covered with cloth, and having a hole in the centre, into which the balls were driven.”

A more plausible recital is that the game was introduced to both France and England centuries before, when the Knights-Templars returned from their first or second crusade in the Holy Land. But why not have been introduced into Spain and Italy at the same period? Rome should have been a likely spot for this game of the monasteries of the East to reach, and yet Rome’s ample archives seem to have shed no light upon it, although we find the “Lives of the Roman Pontiffs” mentioning one Pope who was fond of billiards, it being the Italian game of a century or so ago. Any game of Eastern origin should have reached Spain, through the Moors, centuries before France or England got it via Palestine.

History is no happier in taking liberties with our own country by variously assigning the honor of introducing billiards here to the Spaniards in Florida under De Soto, to the English Cavaliers in Virginia, to the Huguenots settling in South Carolina in 1690, and to the primitive Hollanders of Manhattan Island. But why not to the earlier Spaniards in Florida under Ponce de Leon, to the English Cavaliers who settled one-half of the province of New Jersey, and to the Huguenots who founded New Rochelle, N. Y., at the same time that kindred refugees found lodgment in South Carolina? Other nationalities have both played the game and kept rooms in once pre-eminently cosmopolitan Holland, but the Dutch themselves have never-been a billiard-playing people; and the official proceedings before the schouts, scheppens and burgomasters of New Amsterdam may safely be challenged to show any allusion whatever to billiards.

Remote literature, whether official or otherwise, is lacking in evidence of the game anywhere in America until introduced 6into New York City by English officers in garrison in the eighteenth century. On the contrary, there is proof that, even as late as 1808/9, the only billiards on Manhattan Island was the English winning-and-losing game on six-pocket tables, presumptively from England. One was a 7 × 14 with eight legs, and having cushions stuffed with hair.

It is probably not worth disputing that, howsoever christened at first, billiards was originally an outdoor game, and that, lifted three or four feet from the ground, it was eventually taken indoors when it rained. Remotely, it may have been marbles or the immemorially ancient goff (now golf), or goff may have been remotely billiards or any one of half a dozen other outdoor jollities. Suffice that billiards to-day bears no more resemblance to what was so called a century and a half ago, before France introduced first the third ball and in 1792 the fourth, than bagatelle bears to shuffleboard or pingpong.

Obscure as that of the game itself is the origin of the “twist” and the “draw,” the two most important strokes in modern billiards. England claims them both for John Carr, the “Bath Marker,” on the ground that, at some time prior to 1823, he was the first to chalk a cue, which is not a fact; and France claims them for one Capt. Mingaud, an alleged professional billiardist, who, while imprisoned for a political offence in 1823, invented the cue-leather. As the writer recalls this Mingaudism in its entirety, as published in a book issued in Paris about 1868 and reprinted in the Billiard Cue here, it was manifestly pure romance. France may never have had a professional so named, but France did have a Capt. Roget de Lisle, who, imprisoned for a political offence about the beginning of the last century, invented the deathless “Marseillaise.” Moreover, it was about 1868 that the 7writer, on the authority of Prof. Wm. Lake, who was a professional billiard-player here before and after 1823, published that Camille Avout, a shoemaker, was the pioneer in turning out cue-leathers in New York City prior to 1823, in which year a few were imported from France.

Further to complicate matters, Carr is called the “father of the side-stroke” by the renowned Pierce Egan, a contemporary of Carr, in his “Annals of Sporting,” a London periodical; while later English billiard writers recount that Roomkeeper Bartley, Carr’s employer, was the inventor of the side-stroke and the draw, that in due course he showed them to his marker, and that Carr merely profited by vending, as the magical cause of both, some powdered chalk in pillboxes at two-and-sixpence a box, Italian, French and Spanish players being his easy customers.

No matter when or in what shape billiards had its beginning, it has been a favorite recreation of the good and the great for ages, and never more noticeably so than in the present one. Philosophers seek it, divines commend it, and physicians prescribe it.

Whatever its old form, its new is essentially American. Other lands have gradually yielded to the force of American ideas. Public matches were a dozen years old in this country before there was one in any other, and the American billiard tournament, never seen in England until 1874/5, and not in France until 1879, is now the accepted mode in both.

Balklining, another American idea, was unknown to the professionals and amateurs of France until 1880. It is now their standard caroming restriction, while for seven or eight years past the English have been urging a line around the table as a hindrance to the “nursery cannons” that are the most recent powerful development in their national game.

8Cushion-caroms were first publicly exhibited in this country in 1867, but never in France until 1881. Three-cushion caroms, of which the Paris professionals have made a specialty during the past dozen years, constitute another game of American development, dating from 1878 in a non-public way among professionals, and going many years further back among our non-professionals.

Until the way was shown by Andrew Buist, an American, caroms were barely an incidental feature of the English game. Attention was called anew to them by the separate visits the Dions made to London more than twenty years ago. Even the prolific spot-ball play, which has likewise been surprisingly progressive, owes at least a little to this side of the Atlantic, for in advance of Buist another American—Linley Higham, the “Albany Pony”—settled in England. Spot-balling, at which he was mighty for that era on an American 6 × 12 table, called then for but four different strokes in England. Now it engages more than twice as many.

Modifications have likewise affected the representative players of France and America. For fifteen years after they first came together, the French were weak as compound cushioners, but strong as ball-to-ball drivers. It was the other way with the Americans, who had been brought up on 6 × 12 and 5½ × 11 pocket tables, while the French professors had been accustoming themselves to what was nearly a 4½ × 9 carom, whereon other cushioning than a single one, in which they were strong and the Americans weak, was an infrequent necessity. Now that the two nationalities are using the one table, there is little to choose between them in respect of cushioning and ball-to-balling. If proof were needed, there is the international championship match of January 29, 1904, with its score of 500 to 496, which is both trusty history and the latest up to date.

An apartment to accommodate one table should be of the dimensions following, graduated by the size of the table, and affording space for the free exercise of the cue. Where two or more tables are placed, five feet will be sufficient to allow between them.

Architects, in their plans for modern mansions, should make suitable provision for this amusement, without which no gentleman’s establishment (more especially if a country one) can now be considered perfect. Even if the builder of a house has no taste for the game himself, he should look beforehand, and consider that such an accommodation might form an important item in the price which a succeeding tenant would be willing to pay for it. The light, if possible, should come from above, through ample skylights, so as to bring the table within a general focus, and thus prevent any shadow being thrown from the balls or cushions. The gas-light should be 10raised about three feet two inches from the bed of the table and supplied with horizontal burners, as by such an arrangement no shadow is cast from the pipe. The distance of the light from the floor should be about 6 feet 1 inch. For a 5 × 10 table the cross-arms of the pendant should measure from light to light 28 inches, and the long arms 56 inches. For a 4½ × 9 table, cross-arms 25 inches, and long arms 50 inches. For a 4 × 8 table, cross-arms 22 inches, and long arms 44 inches. For a 5½ × 11 table, cross-arms 31 inches, and long arms 62 inches. A useful shade has been devised which throws a soft, even light on the table, and keeps the glare from the player’s eyes. The floor, if carpeted at all, should be covered with some thick, soft material.

BILLIARD APPLIANCES—THEIR CHOICE AND CARE.

HOW TO SELECT A TABLE.

Never attempt it. Rather consult with and rely upon reputable manufacturers.

SIZE, SHAPE, AND STYLE.

In this country there are the standard size, which is 5 × 10 feet, and the popular size, which is 4½ × 9. Experts use the former, and the latter is preferred in many public rooms and clubs, as well as in most private houses, in the last of which the 4 × 8 also often finds a place.

Tables are of various styles and shapes, but mostly now without pockets, and with the broad rails at sides and ends 11beveled, ogee, or square. Those designed for ball-pool have six pockets usually, but sometimes only four. In addition there is the combination billiard-table, meant for both caroms and ball-pool at will.

Beds are of slate, and their tendency is toward greater thickness than was required up to a few years ago. This adds to the general stability of the table. Even for the 6 × 12, slabs now are often in three pieces, instead of four, thus insuring a smoother playing surface. Heavier slabs should have six legs instead of four, whether the table is 5 × 10 or larger. Many 4½ × 9’s have six.

Apart from its cloth and cushions, a table requires no special care beyond treating it similarly to any other piece of furniture, by keeping its framework clean and occasionally applying polish, which can be had of almost any furniture-dealer. When not in use, the table should be well covered up.

THE CLOTH.

There are various kinds and several grades. Buying the best will save money.

Almost invariably, it is the indifferent player or worse who, in or out of public rooms, finds most fault with cushions, balls, cues, leathers, or chalk. The experienced one has learned that usually, when all is not well with him at billiards, the fault is with himself or in his stroke. A less skillful performer will blame the balls when a sagging floor has thrown the table out of level, the table when a ball needs either truing or a holiday, the chalk or the leather when he is wildly throwing his whole body at the ball, and the cushion when diminished speed is really due to the influence of a protracted spell of damp weather upon cloth or ivory. One is sure to absorb moisture, and the other may.

12As soon as play is over, and especially in damp weather, the cloth should first be hair-brushed and then whisk-broomed, both processes being with the nap. This, on all tables properly set up, runs in the one direction, although what in America and elsewhere are called “head” and “foot” become “bottom” and “top” in England, an inversion whose effect is to make the grain run the same way in both, the English starting from the bottom. Whether table be pocket or carom, the dust is to be swept out through the two corners farthest from the “string-line,” or “balk,” as it is termed in Canada, India, England and Australia.

Beating with the hair-brush is not advisable. Cloth should not be so long neglected as to need it. The brush spreads in the pounding, and its action is as much against the nap as with it.

THE CUES.

As to both their selection and their care, players should trust to the roomkeeper and his staff. An owner of a private table ought to see that, after play, they are not only kept away from a heater, but are also stood exactly upright in their rack, to prevent warping or crooking. Under-leathers sometimes need sandpapering to overcome expansion. Neglected, they will wear away the nap of the cloth in low-ball “draw-shots,” if not make it picturesque with L-shaped rents, although the usual start of these rents is that the cloth has been minutely punctured either by a hammered cue-ball (massé) or by one made acrobatic by an unskillful, thoughtless stroke as it leaves either the cue or the cushion. For slightly roughening the surface of the upper leather, solidifying it, smoothing its edges, and generally “rounding it off” as a finishing touch, a fine rasp is of service; but it should 13not be used without that instruction which any competent roomkeeper will be glad to give.

It is a habit with a few to chalk both their bridge-hand and the upper half of their cues in muggy weather, thereby befouling their own cloth and that of the table. A wet rag, followed by a dry one, will remove the stickiness.

Cues are made as light as 12 ounces, but those most in demand are from 17 to 22.

Ball-pool, in calling for a somewhat different stroke from that of ordinary caroms, needs a little longer cue.

CUE-LEATHERS.

Self-adhesives, with directions accompanying every box, have made the act of leathering an easy art; but selection is still a science, and here again, until experience has taught the amateur not so much, perhaps, what he needs as what he ought to expect to get, manufacturer or roomkeeper will be the safer guide.

The same counsel will apply to

CHALK.

Most on the market is good. Much is often unspeakably bad. All should be dry, and as free from grease as from grit. It now comes in various shapes—octagon, cylindrical and square. As the colored is labor-saving, few roomkeepers have use for the white. Just as few took to the colored when first brought to notice, nearly forty years ago, although it was made green in order not to show itself upon the cloth.

THE CUSHIONS.

Elasticity, accuracy and durability are their requisites. By elasticity is not meant excessive speed, for a cushion can 14be made so fast as utterly to baffle the good player without ultimately aiding the bad one who craves it. All other things equal, that cushion is best which is neither radical nor unexpected in its angles, and is least susceptible to ordinary atmospheric changes.

Until their covering begins to wear out in spots, cushions need no other attention than to be lightly brushed when the bed-cloth is cleansed, and every few weeks to have their bolts tightened by the merest turn or fraction. Should the bolts be overlooked too long, the cushion itself, by emitting a jingling sound, will give notice that a shrinkage in wood or metal calls for carpenter’s bit-and-brace.

The height of the top of the modern cushion-rail from the floor, if level, may be roundly expressed as thirty-four inches, and that of the cushion’s knife-like edge from the bed is one and seven-sixteenths inches. This is for the regulation American and French ball, which, at one-quarter of an inch above its centre, comes into contact with the cushion’s edge. Struck with force, a much larger ball would jump over the cushion, while a much smaller, jamming itself between table’s bed and cushion’s edge, would jump inwardly.

Cushions must be tuned to balls. Unless the former have a given height and pitch, there cannot be accurate reflection, and there may be inaccurate stroke. Height has already been discussed. Pitch is the inward slant of the cushion’s top surface as a guide to the cue in certain situations.

THE MAGIC BALLS.

With balkline the vogue, as much depends upon balls, cloth and cushions as upon the player himself.

Balls should be of well-seasoned ivory, and the only available 15guarantee as to that is the ability of manufacturers to carry a heavy stock.

There are players who talk of perfect balls, but a well-turned ball is the limit, and neither its truing-up nor its recoloring should ever be intrusted to other than an artisan of conceded skill and experience. Earth has never known an absolutely round sphere or a perfectly smooth plane. Under the glare of a chemical light, lens and screen will show hills and valleys in both.

Requiring much patience and much ivory, matching balls is an art in itself. The lower end of a tusk is too small for carom balls, and the upper and larger too hollow. Perhaps six balls, on an average, can be shaped out of the central section. The ball toward the smaller end is closer-grained than any of its companions, all of which, while of the one size, may differ in other respects from one another. Possibly out of twenty tusks not fifty balls will be found approximately equal, in sets of three, with respect to weight and centralized gravity. As sets, they may all differ from one another, notwithstanding that any one set is fit for ordinary use; and for an important match the whole twenty tusks are liable not to turn out three balls alike in size, weight and central gravity.

The best and dearest ivory is the rarest—the worst, of course, is cheapest. Some tusks, as they grow, acquire more moisture than others. The dentine in the millions of little cells is greater in one tusk than in another. When it comes to billiard-balls, what the animal fed upon up to from ten to twenty years of age, and also where it fed, are no inconsiderable factors, could we find them out. Some tusks partly season by sun-drying as they grow, their owners having to trot long distances for water. Other elephants rear themselves where water is abundant, but sunshine scarce. There 16would also seem to be more durability in the detached tusk than in balls made from it. The writer has a match-set he knows to be at least twenty-three years old, that have never been returned, and that have not had their cardboard box opened in nearly twenty years. What will happen to them if put on table? Within four hundred feet of where they rest, the set used in the Phelan-Seereiter match fell to pieces, in 1867, as soon as played with. As souvenirs they had lain idle eight years. In Paris, some years later, professors engaged in a series of games with a set from a tusk (that of a mammoth) presumably thousands of years old. Until told the players had no idea but that those balls were from a modern elephant, born and despoiled within their own lifetime.

In view of all this, is it any wonder either that manufacturers decline to guarantee ivory or that man to-day knows no more about it and its care than was known two hundred years ago?

Heat is a greater foe to balls than cold. The latter is not an abstract, positive quality or condition, being merely the absence of heat. Could excessive warmth be guarded against as to billiard-balls, there would be little reason to dread the chilly draught. At the outset, balls need to be much larger in hot climates than in cold. We in America murmur, and yet billiards, both social and spectacular, is played in countries where heat and moisture will change every new set from sphere to spheroid within a month.

Balls usually do their prettiest freaks across the grain, but sometimes do them with the grain. Those that swell under the influence of moisture will occasionally, if allowed to remain idle for months, resume their proper form automatically; but in a large majority of cases truing-up is the only 17cure. Balls that crack will be helped to heal, like human lips that chap, by touching them somewhat sparingly with tallow. Neither rubbing balls with oil nor storing them in sawdust saturated with it is recommended. There are countries having peculiarly evaporative traits in which oil has been proved a blessing, but in this climate tallow for cracks and sawdust without oil are about the limit of cure and prevention.

Balls should never be placed on or near a heater. Modern artificial warmth is ivory’s direst enemy. Roomkeepers meet with fewer mishaps as to balls when their places are heated by stoves. Those fresh from play, especially in hot rooms, should not be placed on metal or stone, nor even on wood near door or window. Metal and stone are no colder than the room itself, although feeling colder to the touch; but they have a wonderful capacity for stealing heat from other things and giving it away in space, to suck in more. Nor should balls be put at once into an iron safe. Their play has been work, and there can be no work without generating inside heat. The old way was to put them up on a shelf in the open room. The box might have a lid, but there would be holes in it the year round. The fire would go out slowly and early, and zero might come after midnight, but the balls would be there at 8 A.M. sharp. Nails in the floor worried the old-timers, with their self-ventilating balls, more than heat or cold.

It was their fashion, too, never to put new balls in play at once. No matter how well-seasoned ivory is in point of age, it is practically nowhere riper than in its greenest part. Consequently a ball pared in spots in returning is virtually a new ball throughout in proffering the atmosphere new access to its interior. Were new balls put upon the table every day for two or three weeks, after the chill is off the room, and 18merely toyed with, without ever being struck with anything like force, they would probably give better and longer service.

A private table should have two sets of balls, and public rooms not fewer than three sets to every two carom tables.

As soon as play is done, the balls should be wiped off with a moist cloth, and then dried and polished with one of wool or chamois, so fine as not to scratch.

Composition balls have advantages besides their cheapness, but the demand for them continues to be almost confined in this country to ball-pool. The prejudice against them for caroms is still, as it was thirty-six years ago, that they are not ivory. The interval has greatly improved them, however, and this year’s promise of “absolute perfection” may at least result in coming closer to it than ever before.

The match-standard American carom-ball, always of ivory, is of 2⅜ diameter, with the red no larger than the whites. Standard ones for ordinary use are, when new, either 2⅜ full or 27
16 scant.

MANUAL.

In billiards first impressions form no inconsiderable bearing upon the future practice, and success depends, to a considerable extent, whether these impressions be good or bad, true or false. Too often one endeavoring to learn without the aid of an instructor falls into error through a misunderstanding of the first principles, or a disregard for them, in efforts to accomplish the desired ends, by means which at the moment appear the readiest, but are liable, in the majority of cases, to be at variance, and opposed to the laws governing the principle. Repetitions of this fault create a habit, and the player, finding his game does not show the satisfactory improvement he has reason to expect, seeks a remedy in an instructor who, seeing the false ideas governing his pupil’s movements, is forced to rid him of all that he has acquired, and recommence upon an entirely new basis. All know the difficulty of changing at once the ideas which have been long entertained, even though one is satisfied of their falsity; and to avoid this it is better, when possible, to start in a proper manner, secure a competent 20teacher, and accustom one’s self to the proper mode of play in the beginning. A teacher, to be valuable, should be able not only to show how the stroke is to be made, but to make it and tell why the effect is produced and how, to give the reasons for the different motions, and, in fact, to understand the philosophy as well as the practice of the game.

There have been published some fifty or more volumes upon the game of billiards, in English, French, and German, and despite this number the remark has often been made that one cannot learn to execute well from a book. This, to a great extent, has been the fault of the authors, who have been obscure in their meanings, have not shown the simple reasons why each particular description of stroke is made, and have indulged too much in perplexing fractions and algebraic problems, or else they have reached the opposite extreme, and give no particulars other than how to strike the ball, and what the result will be after it is so struck. It has been the desire and effort of the writer to make the following directions and diagrams so plain and comprehensible that any one, by the exercise of ordinary care, can learn to play billiards well, by following them, and the finished player may be able to learn something further by a study of these pages. But, in order that this end may be attained, the player is urged to follow the teachings implicitly, and where his own views may be in conflict with those herein expressed, he should discard them and conform strictly with those found hereafter. Every diagram and example in this volume has been carefully tested, and if the stroke is made as required, the result is inevitably as set 21forth; should it fail, the player will discover some divergence on his part from the instruction.

ATTITUDE.

The acquisition of a good attitude is a point of the first importance to the student of billiards, and yet, from its purely physical nature, is a subject which almost defies the control of any written rules. There are peculiarities of height and figure which render the rules that would be excellent in one case totally inapplicable in the other; thus it is impossible to define by inches the distance at which a player should stand from the table, when about to strike; for not only will the different statures of men cause a difference of position—but, even with the same player, different positions of the ball will call for corresponding changes of attitude.

Under these circumstances, the best that can be done is to give a general direction, which each student must apply for himself to his own particular case. Let him stand with his left foot slightly advanced, his left arm extended and resting on the table to form a bridge, and his body, not facing the table squarely, but forming an acute angle with the side at which he stands; let him relax all the muscles of his limbs into their usual and most natural posture—for rigidity of body is at all times awkward and ungraceful, and seriously interferes with play. The striking motion should be confined to the wrist and arm, and chiefly to the lower division of it; athletes in billiards, or those persons who throw their bodies forward after the cue, would do well to renounce 22the “game,” for that quality totally unfits them for the delicacy of touch and firmness of body, eye, and purpose, which are the grand essentials of success. The body should remain immovable as a rock, while the right arm swings to and fro at a sufficient distance to avoid contact with the side, when advancing. All spasmodic motion and muscular contortions should be avoided; mere bodily strength in the player will not give strength to his stroke; the quantity of motion imparted to the ball will correspond precisely with the weight of the cue multiplied by the velocity with which it is advancing at the instant of contact; and therefore the only force required from the player, even for the strongest stroke, is force enough to cause his cue to move forward at a rate of speed which, multiplied by its gravity, will give the required result. As said, this motion should emanate especially from the wrist and forearm. It is impossible to describe exactly what should be conveyed; but if the readers, when striking, will imagine that they are throwing a lasso, and give the same quick, steady force of wrist to the cue that is required in flinging the coil, they will understand exactly what is required.

It is owing to the knowledge of this secret, that men, physically weak, are frequently more than a match in billiard-strength for players who have the proportions of Hercules, and the “dead pull” of Samson when he brought down the pillars of the temple on the heads of the assembled heathen.

As for the attitude in which a lady should stand while playing billiards, no instruction is needed; perfect ease 23is perfect grace, and perfect ease of position is the grand DESIDERATUM for the billiard-player. As the ladies are always graceful, they will naturally observe that ease of attitude which it is only necessary to enforce upon the ruder and more awkward sex.

The male novice should avoid all stiffness and parade—all affected dignity. Let the dress and attitude be such as to afford the body a perfect mastery of its own movements. A practised eye can discriminate at the first glance, on entering a billiard-room, which is the really skillful player, and which the pretentious bungler, by merely noting the contrast which the good player’s easy grace presents to the rigid formalism of the other. Paganini, in his younger days, when he taught the violin, used to give his pupils six months time in which to practise how to hold the instrument and bow. When they understood that thoroughly, he could teach them, he said, the remainder of the art in a few weeks.

Now, without requiring so long an apprenticeship—without, in fact, requiring any at all—if the student will only allow himself to stand in his natural position, the first essential feature of the game will have been accomplished.

The left foot should be pushed slightly forward, pointing straight ahead, while the right is withdrawn, and turned outward, at whatever angle is habitual and most convenient to the player. The body should be fairly balanced, for, without this equilibrium, we can neither have grace nor ease. The left arm, when necessary, should be advanced and rested on the table—the left hand being extended, as in the cut, to form a “bridge.” (See page 36.)

Select a cue in harmony with the physical powers, and become accustomed so much as possible to play with cues of similar weight. From fifteen to nineteen ounces are fair weights, according to the balls now used in play. A cue, if too heavy, will paralyze the nerves of the arm and render them unable to estimate correctly the amount of force employed; if too light, on the other hand, it will call for an amount of force so great as to be incompatible with a steady and deliberate aim. Without some sensation communicated to the hand through the cue, when it contacts with the ball, it would be impossible for experts to accomplish the great runs so often made.

The heavier the cue the less is the influence of the stroke on the ball felt, and it is carried beyond or falls short of the point desired. The delicate touch for nursing should be as apparent as the stronger stroke.

Finally, let the cue be straight, for any crookedness in this instrument distracts the eye, and may seriously interfere with the manual correctness.

CUE-LEATHERS.

The leather is an important feature of the cue—in fact, an all-important one to any player who deals much in the strokes which are technically described as “forcing,” “twisting,” and “following.” With an inferior leather, his play will be paralyzed by miscues. In selecting the cue-leather, choose such as possess the finest fibre, and are at the same time solid, pliable, and elastic; and see to it that they have a good, solid under-leather, as that 25will save the point of the cue from breaking away, and will last longer than a thin one. Before being fitted on to the cue, they should be thoroughly well beaten out on a lapstone, so as to prevent them from spreading in the course of play; but that side of them which is next the cue should be roughened with a file or sandpaper, as also the cue itself, in order that the adhesive wax may be able to take good hold. The leather should be rounded, not flat, yet each must decide for himself the exact degree of convexity which will best suit his play. When the point of the leather becomes glazed from excessive play, a little sandpaper should be used to roughen it, so that the chalk may stick.

HOW TO HOLD THE CUE.

The cue should be held lightly in the hand, and when the tip rests one-eighth of an inch from the ball the cue-hand will be found beneath but a trifle forward of the elbow. This assures near a horizontal stroke, whereas if the cue be held at the extreme end of the butt, a curved motion up and down is given it in making the stroke. The cue is to be held by the three fingers and thumb, bent about it for support. When the stroke is given, and the cue carried forward, the hand closes naturally and without effort on the part of the player, then as the cue is drawn back the hand opens and is found again as described. The hand is not closed upon the cue until the instant the ball is struck, when it is done instinctively; the strength of this grasp being governed by the quickness of the movement. The speed of the cue, rather than the weight of the body or the greatness 26of muscle, gives force to the ball. At the instant of aim being perfected the stroke should be made, and he who has the faculty of quickest perception and calculation will become the finest player.

AIM AND DELIVERY.

To determine the line of aim let the bridge hand be raised or lowered as may be made necessary for the delivery of the cue, care being taken to elevate the butt as little as possible, thus permitting the cue to rest nearly horizontal. In changing the height of the bridge hand do not allow the end of the thumb to rise or fall, separated from the forefinger, against which it should rest gently, but secure the proper height by raising or lowering the palm of the hand from the table, permitting the weight to come upon the heel of the hand and the ends of the fingers.

In preparing for the stroke many things must be considered; the strength to be employed, the chances for a “kiss,” the weight of the ball and cue, the probable position for the succeeding carom, and the more important matter of all, the exact spot upon the cue-ball to be hit with the cue-point.

First, resolve upon the direction of aim, then the point on the cue-ball for receiving the cue; let the eye rise to the spot of contact on the object-ball, and instantly upon being satisfied the calculations are correct make the stroke. At the moment the cue strikes the cue-ball the eye should shift to the object-ball, as with the marksman who regards the target rather than his rifle, in shooting. In moving the cue backward and forward to secure aim, 27let its point each time come within one-eighth of an inch of the ball, being careful, of course, not to make a foul. Some players do not permit the cue to approach nearer the ball than an inch, and at that distance a stroke false to the calculation is most certain to result. The beginner should not be discouraged by the result of a stroke which he may have reasoned to himself was perfect. Whatever the intentions may have been before making it, the course of the ball will show beyond doubt the stroke that was actually made, and the player will then understand, if that course be different than he anticipated, that the point of contact upon the cue-ball was not such as he intended; he must remember, in fact, that the laws of motion are unalterable, while human vision is easily deceived.

THE CUE-BALL.

The centre of the cue-ball being considered the point from which all calculations are made, the following words are used in the directions for making shots to express a stroke at fractional distances from this centre.

The centre, as presented to player in a horizontal stroke:

Massé Stroke.

The centre, as the player looks down upon the ball:

Aft means off the perpendicular centre, directly away from the object-ball looking from above, in direction of the line of aim.

Forward means forward of centre toward object-ball.

Right means right of centre from line of aim.

28

Diagram illustrating a stroke of the cue which imparts the four primary motions to the ball.

29Left means left of centre from line of aim.

The cue-ball is that with which the play is made.

The object-ball is the first ball struck by the cue-ball.

The carom-ball is the second ball struck by the cue-ball, completing the carom.

It is first necessary to master the centre-stroke, which is accomplished by delivering the cue at the point g, the line g, e, a, being the centre diameter of the ball.

The centre stroke imparts to the ball a natural impelling force where the strength of stroke is not in excess of “ordinary” (see Plate I). This stroke should always be used unless the player has a reason for a different delivery. Any divergence from the centre produces an effect on the ball in excess of the natural, and when applied in the smallest degree the result should be fully understood.

A centre stroke, with exceeding strength, produces an effect herein explained:

A centre stroke, slow or medium, will cause the cue-ball to rotate the instant of delivery, but in excess of medium the ball will slide a distance over the cloth before rotating, that distance being governed by the strength of stroke, and when thus sliding should contact be had with an object ball, at the slightest variation from its centre, right or left, the cue-ball will perform a right angle to either side, and the object-ball, taking up the impelling force, continues the direct right line of the cue-ball.

The Follow-Stroke.

By viewing the diagram in such way as will bring the explanation under letter A into a proper reading position, the follow shot is seen. For this stroke the cue is delivered ½ above centre, imparting two forces to the 30ball: impelling it forward in direction of arrow a and rotating in direction of arrow b, the entire force of the blow converging to centre of motion e. With this stroke the cue-ball, after striking the object-ball full, follows directly in its path. At the instant of impact with an object-ball, the cue-ball will, if struck with great strength, apparently stand still through the resistance of opposite forces caused by contact, but the rotating power overcoming the repelling tendency of the concussion, carries it forward on its original path.

It will be noticed the line k through the cue meets the spot h on the ball which is the point of aim, and this should be the case in every description of stroke. Only a part of the surface of the leather impinges upon the ball in this stroke, and the quantity of surface is governed by the strength used, for the stronger the blow the greater the indentation of the ball in the leather. The effect of delivering the cue-ball on the object-ball right or left of full will become apparent to the student early in his practice.

The cue may be delivered still farther above the centre—a ⅝ delivery, which imparts excessive rotation, and which is as far above as the leather will hold on the ball surface. The “follow” can also be executed with the cue delivered as far as one-fourth below centre, but the latter delivery should be with a “slow” strength of stroke, that the ball may rotate naturally; if it be full upon the object-ball and with strength exceeding “medium,” the cue-ball will stop, or will perform a right angle if played a fraction off the centre, as shown in Plate IV., Balls 1 and 6.

Turn the diagram so the letter B may come beneath it and the draw-shot is illustrated.

The delivery as shown is one-half below centre, with the central line k through cue meeting the point of contact, h, on ball, and imparting to it three distinct forces, that of impulsion, rotation, and retrograde, the latter causing the cue-ball to rotate in direction of the arrow b; the strength of this force is such as to counteract the natural tendency of the impulsion, prevent the forward rotation, and cause the ball thereby to slide over the cloth without the rolling motion. This stroke holds the ball (thus preventing for the instant its natural rotation) in a position corresponding with the line e to i, the moment the impelling force is communicated to the object-ball, which is at the instant of contact, the retrograde power acts with all its remaining strength, and it returns in the direction of the player. The distance between the balls must regulate the strength of the stroke, but greater distance between cue- and object-ball requires greater force, that the cue-ball may retain its retrograde tendency which prevents its being displaced by friction in sliding over the cloth, which inertia in the cue-ball acts in the direction of dotted line i to j. A delivery ½ below, with the object-ball the length of the table away, will act as a “slowed” ball only. The quick, sudden delivery movement of the cue made with the aid of the wrist is what imparts the retrograde or “draw” tendency to the ball; there should be no spasmodic motion, but a free and horizontal blow direct at the calculated spot on the surface 32of the cue-ball, permitting the cue to pass naturally beyond where the cue-ball has rested, as the grip of the hand upon the cue will stop the latter when the limit of its swing is reached, except where cue- and object-balls are near together; in the latter case, that a foul may be avoided, a “twist” or “English” is imparted to the cue-ball, which carries the cue naturally off the side of the cue-ball.

Do not withdraw the cue; it is an awkward habit many persons have acquired. The limit of the swing of the cue is governed by the strength of the stroke. Full instructions in regard to the cue and its delivery have already been given.

The “English” or “Twist”-Stroke.

Bringing C beneath the diagram, we have the “English” stroke, with the cue delivered at ½ right of centre, which imparts to the cue-ball a perpendicular axis. A variation to the slightest degree in twist makes a difference in the direction of the cue-ball, which can only be appreciated by those who have studied it carefully.

A player, when instructed to deliver a ⅛ cue-ball, for instance, will disregard the direction and deliver a ¼ or even a ½ ball, apparently unconscious or careless of the value of the change. When it is understood that a cue-ball may be made to carom upon a ball placed anywhere upon the bed of the table by the application of the proper degree of twist, then the player will recognize the necessity or advisability of so fixing the various degrees in his mind as to have them always ready for use. A twist secures, of course, a false angle, and is used generally when 33the natural angle will not accomplish the result desired, and again, often is employed to control the object-ball.

The velocity of the cue-ball in the twist-stroke is governed by the divergence from the centre at which delivery of cue is made. There is a method in employing twist which is effective, that of combining it with the division of the object- and cue-balls, giving an exact line of aim to be had in no other way. When the twist is applied to that side of the cue-ball coming in contact with the object-ball, the aim will be more positive, as the cue covers the exact line of aim through the two balls.

The effect of the twist may be marked by placing the cue-ball upon its spot, and playing the cue-ball, hit in its centre, at the left side cushion, at an angle of 45°. The ball in its rebound taking a natural angle, traverses a line corresponding to its original line of departure from the cue. Impart right-hand English and the angle grows obtuse; increase the twist and the angle widens accordingly, and it grows until the extreme angle is reached through application of excessive twist.

Players frequently are at a loss to know upon which side to apply twist to accomplish certain desired results, and but few give sufficient thought to the matter to understand the theory of the “English.” A cue-ball struck upon its right side and contacting with the left cushion at an angle of 45°, the cue-ball touching cushion at point l on ball (see p. 44), will describe an obtuse or wide angle, which is nearer parallel to the cushion than the natural angle, for the reason that the circular spinning motion, imparted by the cue to the ball, is moving on that side of the ball contacting with cushion in an opposite direction 34to the impelling force (as shown in arrows b and l); hence, when it contacts with the cushion, it spins against it in a direction which acts as a blow from the ball on the cushion, and this carries it farther forward. When the reverse or left English is imparted the revolution of the ball is exactly opposite to that already shown, and its tendency is to leave the cushion toward an acute angle, the direction of the spin on the side contacting being that in which the ball is moving; so, when it meets the cushion, in place of gliding along it strikes it in such a manner as to receive a check to further onward progress and describes a line inclined toward a right angle from the point of contact.

When delivered directly upon a cushion the cue-ball should be struck upon that side toward which it is expected to roll. In compound angles the twist is so consumed after leaving the second cushion that the response from a third cushion approximates a natural angle. Many players are deluded with the idea that it is necessary to turn, jerk, or twist the arm when making an “English” stroke, and some suppose the ball should be rubbed by the cue in delivery; in reality no such thing is required. After the aim is secured, and the point for striking is determined upon, let the player make the stroke naturally and easily, and leave everything else to take care of itself. After the blow has been given, no amount of intelligence and no wonderful contortions can alter its effects. In all deliveries imparting twist up to and including “ordinary” strength of stroke, the wrist only is to be used. Every blow delivered with the cue converges to the centre of motion at e in the cue-ball (as shown in arrow c, c,), and every grain of weight in the ball is imparted through the 35cue to the hand; therefore with the expert the weight and density of the ball is calculated to a nicety at each delivery, whether it be at centre or at ⅝ right or left, else all strengths could not be so cleverly estimated in gathering and holding the balls for a long run.

The Massé.

Bringing the letter D beneath the illustration the massé stroke is shown.

This is the most difficult of all strokes to describe and instruct with the pen. The cue is delivered in the diagram at the ½ ball surface-point h; the cue is held slanting at an angle of 78¾ degrees, shown by dotted line d. The butt of the cue is held as near the eye as is possible, not interfering with the sight, that the eye may run down the cue covering the spot on the ball to be hit; the cue is held between the thumb and three fingers, the thumb being on that side toward the face, and when the point of the cue rests on the ball the thumb of this cue-hand should be about three inches above the horizontal line of the elbow of that arm; this will show the spot on the cue-ball which is to be struck. Permit the cue to play freely and without diverging from a straight line in its movement up and down, to and from the ball, until the aim is secured.

36

The bridge is formed by resting the ends of the fingers of the bridge-hand on the table with a slight pressure, the back of the hand being turned outward nearly parallel with the side of the body, with the fingers slightly spread to resist vibration from the play of the cue, with the thumb separated from the hand, with its end resting about an inch and a half from the forefinger. The spot upon the ball for delivery of the cue must be found by looking between the thumb and forefinger, immediately over the outer edge of the cue-tip. Practise this position as instructed, and when it is acquired more than half the difficulties of the stroke will be overcome. It is this correct attitude that goes far toward insuring a proper delivery of the cue-tip on the cue-ball. For deliveries in excess of “medium” the cue may be held at the butt, the same as heretofore instructed for the regular massé, with the exception that the left forearm must rest upon the hip, the forefinger hooked about the cue a foot more or less from the tip. In this way unlimited strength may be used. In the close massé the weight of the cue, guided by the wrist only, is sufficient to accomplish the stroke. The forearm is used in addition to the wrist when the balls lie farther apart, judgment, of course, being exercised in imparting the force in accordance with the distance between cue- and object-ball. When the delivery is perfect, the bite or grasp of the cue-tip on the ball will be felt in the hand by the player through a sensitive, keen vibration of the cue. The retrograde movement imparted to the cue-ball is that denoted by arrow b, and the slant given the cue, indicated by dotted line d, imparts the impelling force and the ball moves in accordance with the calculation. The cue-ball slides upon the cloth at point a, the same as explained in the draw-stroke.

37

Taking Aim.—The Ordinary Massé.

Slowing the cue-ball and speeding the object-ball is one of the most important strokes in the game. If the cue-ball be delivered at the pivot centre of the object-ball, the points of impact will be at the greatest diameter of both balls and the exact centres of each ball will meet, and the cue-ball, if hit ¼ below, will stop instantly and rest. If the cue-ball be delivered a hair’s-breadth from the centre of the object-ball, the former will describe a perfect right angle from the object-ball, as illustrated in Plate IV., balls 1 and 6. The fractional divergences from centre in delivery of cue on cue-ball gives that ball a separate and distinct action.

Elevation of the Cue.

Diagram giving the degrees of elevation at which the cue should be held.

39The angle line 10° represents the position of cue in making the “draw-jump” shot, the stroke “very hard” ⅝ below centre.

The angle 22½° is for the “jump stroke,” struck ¼ above the centre.

67½° is the “half-massé,” ½ aft the perpendicular or top centre, as hereafter explained under “Massés.”

78¾° is the full massé, the cue-ball being struck ½ aft the perpendicular centre, i.e., looking down from a line above the ball at 90°, at the top centre of the ball, which latter centre is directly over the centre of motion, and the centre of gravity as well.

The common angle—45°—is denoted by a heavy line whereby the player may better gauge the other lines.

The “Jump”: its Causes and Preventions.

A ball is made to “jump” by being struck hard ¼ above its centre with the cue held at an elevation of 22½°. The stroke of the cue at this elevation is resisted by the bed of the table, and the ball rebounds, leaves the table and flies through the air, the distance being regulated by the strength of stroke, which is usually “hard.” When the cue-ball reaches the object-ball or cushion, its centre is above that of the object-ball or the top surface of the cushion, causing the ball to ride over whatever it may contact with. If the force used is great the object-ball will also be made to “jump,” often causing both balls to fall to the floor. When a ball lies close under the cushion it makes necessary an elevation of the cue to about the angle for a “jump;” when this occurs the player must be very careful in making the stroke, and must sacrifice a certain 40quantity of strength in order to secure the carom, for should considerable force be used the ball will leave the bed of the table. When the ball lies in the open table and it is desirable to use more than “ordinary” strength, it is always better to deliver the cue ½ below centre, so as to do away with any possibility of a “jump.” The motion of the ball in being struck below centre is denoted by the arrow b, the bed of the table being j, and when contacting with the cushion at a the ball is rolling upward, and the cushion acting against it holds it down to the table.

In delivering cue on ball, it is always necessary to observe the exact fractional divergence from centre, as the slightest change may make the stroke a miss. For the fractional parts of balls, the reader is referred to the next succeeding pages.

Object-Ball.

In the object-ball all distance is measured from its central width (indicated in cut by dotted line a) to its outer edge surface, and the fractional strokes are calculated from this centre point, each divergence denoting the body resistance received by the cue-ball from the object-ball; thus with 8
8 as a full ball, ⅞ signifies ⅛ to left or right of centre as may be instructed.

The position which the object-ball may assume after being struck is unimportant, so far as that particular stroke is concerned; but in the management of the balls and the ability to leave them in a position favorable to the next play—or unfavorable to his opponent, if the player thinks it impossible to count himself—lies the strength and science of the game.

The spots on the horizontal line through the centre diameter of the ball, are the different fractional parts at which the cue-ball may be delivered, to effect certain results. The spots are made by exact measurement, and extend from the pivot A toward either side surface. The centre A indicates a “dead full” delivery. The spots right and left of this centre show the points of impact for the cue-ball, as may be directed.

42

The division of the cue and object balls are important elements in the game of billiards for the player to understand and master. Both should be divided at the instant of aim, and the line of aim should be through the points on the two balls at which they will come in contact. If a delivery on the object-ball of a ½ ball right be required, then the left half of the cue-ball will impinge upon the right half of the object-ball; consequently aim should be taken from and to these parts.

It is impossible to deliver a full cue-ball on a ½ or other fractional part of an object-ball; for when a full cue-ball delivery is made upon a full object-ball, the centres of both balls meet.

The dotted lines show the course the object-ball takes after being struck by the cue-ball. These directions may be considered in effecting either a carom, or in pocketing the ball in the pool games.

The line from a upon the cue-ball to a upon the object-ball indicates the direction taken by the former when delivered full upon the latter.

The corresponding letters upon the two balls denote the points of contact. Thus, the letter b on the cue-ball shows the point of fractional division of a ¾ ball, and b upon the object-ball indicates exactly where such a delivery will bring the cue-ball into contact with it; the other fractions are at c, d, e, and f.

The dotted lines beyond the object-ball are the paths 44over which it will travel after being struck by the cue-ball at the fractional deliveries indicated.

These balls can, of course, be still further divided into other fractions.

Fractional Divisions of the Cue-Ball.

When the reader finds, in the explanation of the following diagrams, directions to strike the cue-ball at a stated distance above or below the centre, a reference to this plate will show the exact point indicated by the fractions.

The letters b, c, d, e, denote points at which the ball may be struck, giving to it four distinct movements, impulsion, rotation, English or twist, and draw or recoil.

The fractional parts of the table are indicated by the figures ¼, ½ or ¾, and when employed are to be understood as directing that such force shall be imparted to the cue-ball as to carry it the distance denoted, either in excess or below the space traversed by the ball when struck with either of the five degrees of strength; thus ½ in excess of slow instructs the player to use such force as shall return the ball one-half the length of the table after contacting with the cushion.

47

48

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ above, object-ball ¾ right; strength, “ordinary” to “hard.” The cue-ball, partaking of the “follow” quality, and having its direction changed by contact with the object-ball, rebounds slightly with the concussion, and in its efforts to regain its natural course—that of the “follow”—describes a convex curve, and effects carom in corner.

Diagram 2.—Illustrating the concave curve. Cue-ball ½ below, object ball ¾ right; strength of stroke, “ordinary” to “hard.” The retrograde tendency given the cue-ball by the “draw” overcomes the impelling power after its contact with the object-ball, and causes it to make the curve shown.

Diagram 3.—Straight line carom. Cue-ball centre, object-ball ¾ right; strength of stroke, “ordinary.” The cue-ball being struck in the centre has neither rotary motion forward nor back, but slides over the bed of the table a certain distance, when the natural condition of a moving sphere overcomes the propelling power, and it takes a rolling movement. Plate IV. fully explains this centre delivery.

Constant practice is necessary to properly gauge the strength required. The force of the delivery controls the several caroms. Familiarize the eye with the angle of departure from the object to the carom-ball, noting the width of space between them. When like positions are brought about in the progress of a game, the player will recognize the similarity to those shown here, and will understand how to play.

51

52

This plate shows a most useful series of diagrams for general instruction in striking the cue-ball. It is made to carom upon each of the ten numbered balls, playing full each time upon the object-ball a, simply by changing the position of the cue at, below, and above the centre of the cue-ball.

To carom on ball 1.—Cue-ball ¼ below, object-ball ⅞ left; strength of stroke, “medium.” This gives the slow movement to the cue-ball and speed to the object-ball, and is used in the game to drive the object-ball for a gathering stroke.

To carom on ball 2.—Cue-ball “centre,” object-ball ⅞ left; strength of stroke “medium.” The stroke can also be played with any strength desired.

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ½ above, object-ball ⅞ left; strength of stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 4.-Cue-ball ½ above, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 5.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 6.—Cue-ball ¼ below, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium.” By playing the cue-ball ¼ below, and full on the object-ball, the cue-ball stops and rests at the point where it comes in contact with the object-ball.

To carom on ball 7.—Cue-ball ½ below, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 8.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 9.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 10.—Cue-ball ½ below, object-ball ¾ left; stroke, “medium.” The dotted lines 1 and 4 show course of object-ball from a ¾ delivery, and lines 2 and 3 the course from a ⅞ delivery, and show also how the object-ball may be thrown in position, as explained hereafter in Part II.

The player should thoroughly understand what motion each stroke imparts to the cue-ball, and what positive direction the latter gives to the object-balls.

In all draw-shots allowance should be made for the curve of the cue-ball when it leaves the object-ball, and direction thereafter should be calculated with the curve considered, its extent being governed by the strength and proximity to the centre of the object-ball—nearer the centre the less marked is the divergence from a straight line.

54

Having explained the methods of the direct caroms, the cushion play is illustrated:

To perform the angle a to b strike the centre of the cue-ball, the line of aim being at the point a. The natural angle from the cushion through a medium stroke is that of line from a to b, b, bearing in mind that with the medium strength the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence—that is to say, the line of angle from a to b is the exact counterpart of the original direction of the cue-ball to point a.

An “ordinary” stroke will effect angle from a to c, and the “hard” stroke will produce the angle a to d.

As the strength of stroke is increased the ball necessarily imbeds itself more firmly in the cushion, and the sudden rebound, together with the resistance from the rubber through indentation, throws it off with greater velocity and produces a more acute angle.

Diagram 1.—The angle from c, a, to ball 2 represents the angles of incidence and reflection, and it is drawn mentally before considering the ball 1. If a ball is banked from c at the centre diamond at b on the end cushion, it will take its angle of reflection directly on ball 2. Therefore, with ball 1 placed as per diagram, with its edge surface at the line running from c to a, and the centre stroke on cue-ball on ½ right of ball 1, with strength of stroke “slow,” the cue-ball will follow same angle found in the bank and will carom on ball 2.

Regarding diagrams 2, 3, 4, and 5, follow the same directions as in diagram 1, excepting, of course, in the necessary change of impingement, owing to the difference in position toward the diamond sight b, increasing the strength of stroke to cover the lines of the diagram.

Play to be made from ball 3 to 4, 5 to 6, etc., etc.

57

When “English” or “twist” is applied to the cue-ball in its course, it is forced from a straight line and diverges to an extent that it will pass around a ball placed in a direct line before it. The line of aim in the diagram is a ½ ball right on the object-ball, cue-ball ⅝ left and ⅝ below; stroke, “medium.” This stroke is the application of the extreme English and extreme draw, and is of such force as permits the combined motions—impelling, rotating, retrograde, and diagonal—applied to the cue-ball to act upon it. The distance from the starting-point of the greatest point of divergence of a cue-ball is, of course, governed by the strength of stroke applied.

The point e is the natural destination of the cue-ball struck at centre, upon ½ object-ball, and the difference in space between points e and f may be made by striking the ball, as shown in the diagram, for the reason that the cue-ball, diverging as it does from a straight line, takes from the point e a new direction, effecting a ½ stroke upon the object-ball and rolling, as we have said, to point f.

The dotted line d shows the direction in which the ball is forced by being struck on the side, but the ball rotating in the opposite direction to that which it is impelled, in consequence of the twist and draw imparted, aided by the resistance through friction of the nap of the cloth, serves to bring it back to the original point of aim, as shown by the curved loop-line, b, which denotes twist.

59

60

This diagram illustrates the three principal strokes of the cue-ball on the cushion, showing the effect of twist after contact of ball with the cushion:

If the cue-ball be struck in the centre from point shown in the diagram, upon the cushion at a, its natural course will be the line from a to b—stroke, “medium.” If ⅝ right and ⅝ below at a, it will take the extreme angle indicated by the line a to d—stroke, “medium.” If ⅝ left and ⅝ below at a, stroke, “ordinary,” it will effect the angle from a to c.

62

This plate gives simple examples of the cushion angles shown in previous diagrams.

To carom on balls 7 or 8.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “medium.” This is the natural or reflected angle.

To carom on balls 2 or 4.—Cue-ball ½ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on balls 3 or 5.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on balls 6 or 9.—Cue-ball ⅝ left—a reverse English—object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “medium.”

Ball a, a is introduced as an imaginary one from which the player may make the mental calculation of the angles necessary to secure the carom, as shown before in Plate VII.

After finding the angles place the ball 1 as in diagram, strike cue-ball (2) ½ right, ¼ below, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, and e, caroming on ball 3.

Should a ball be located at either of the points indicated as those where the cue-ball contacts with the cushion, of course a carom would be effected there as well.

65

66

To kiss to cushion at c.—Where a ball may rest: cue-ball ½ above, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.” The cue-ball will describe the curve line from ball 1 to c. Should player desire to reach any point between c and e the ball 1 should be hit from ⅞ to ¾ right. Judgment must be exercised as to the precise fractional part and also the strength of stroke.

To kiss to b.—Cue-ball ⅛ below centre, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

To kiss to d, the natural angle of reflection, cue-ball ½ below, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

To a, the acute angle, cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “hard.” The “draw” imparted to the cue-ball, together with the kiss and the extreme velocity obtained from the cushion resulting from the hard stroke, tends to rebound the cue-ball in a direct line across the table.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ aft of perpendicular centre, the line of aim being direct at ball 1, the elevation of cue being at an angle of 78¾°; stroke, “medium.” This is a simple initial massé, the cue-ball resting at b. It must be practised constantly to secure proper hold on the cue-ball. The backward whirl given it by the stroke acts instantly upon its contact with the object-ball, because the impelling force is taken from the cue-ball and imparted to the object-ball. Strength of stroke must be slight, the weight of cue is almost sufficient. The fingers of the bridge-hand, in the instance shown, must rest on the rail, with the palm turned toward the cue-ball diagonally.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball, ⅝ aft of perpendicular centre, ¼ forward toward the object-ball; stroke, ½ less than “slow;” the line of aim, along dotted line a, from edge of cue-ball just off edge of ball 1. The weight of cue, through the gentle motion of the wrist, is sufficient to effect the stroke.

Diagram 3.—The balls here are at a distance from each other. Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ forward perpendicular centre; object-ball, “fine;” stroke; “slow;” line of aim on dotted line a.

Diagram 4.—The distance here is further increased. Cue-ball, ⅝ right, ¼ forward perpendicular centre; stroke, “medium;” the line of aim along dotted line a, from edge to edge, on account of greater strength.

Diagram 5.—Cue-ball ½ left, ¼ forward perpendicular centre; stroke, “medium;” line of aim along line a; object-ball, “fine,” taking direction of line b, and cue-ball cushions at point c, effecting carom on ball 2.

69

70

PLATE XIII.
 
THE TABLE LAID OUT FOR THE SEVERAL GAMES.

The letters A, B, C, D, and E, on the diagram opposite, show the position of the spots on the billiard-table. In placing them a line is drawn down the centre of the bed, from and to the middle nails or sights in the head and lower cushions; another line is then drawn from the centre sights in the side cushions, across the table, and where the lines intersect the spots are placed.

The spot at A, being next the head of the table, is, in the American or four-ball game, the light red spot, and an imaginary line (G) across the table at this point is the string; the spot at B is the dark red spot; that at D is the white ball spot. The spot at C is the English spot, which is twelve and a half inches from the end or lower cushion, and is used in playing the English game, but in this country it is generally put about nine inches from the lower cushion.

The spot at D is used in two-ball pool, also, and is placed about five inches from the lower cushion.

E shows the pin-pool spots, that in the centre being numbered five; each of the others should be placed three inches from it, in position shown, and measuring from the centre of each spot.

F shows the position of the balls in playing fifteen-ball pool. The balls are placed in a triangular frame so as to insure exactness—the base of the triangle being parallel with the end or lower cushion of the table. The highest number, fifteen, should be placed on the deep red spot at B.

Figures 1 and 2 show the positions of the semicircles or playing points for the English and three-ball games.

In playing the English game, the semicircle is drawn from the white ball spot with a radius of ten and one-half to eleven and one-half inches. In England the spot is placed two feet four and one-half inches from the cushion on the English 6 × 12 table.

The semicircle for the three-ball game is drawn with a radius of six inches on the American table.

In playing the three-ball game, the spot A is occupied by the white ball, and the spot B by the red. The semicircle 1 is drawn six inches from A, and from within this limit the cue-ball must be delivered in opening the game.

The object of a good player is to keep the balls before him in such manner that every stroke when completed shall leave another to follow.

Directions.—The cue-ball is placed about three inches from either side of the white spotted ball. In this diagram the left side is employed. When the stroke is perfectly made the course of the balls and position left, will approximate the dotted lines, and at the spots g, h, and d. With the ordinary player, perhaps, the success of the carom will alone be sufficient, regardless of which side the carom-ball is struck by the cue-ball. In this diagram at the finish of the stroke the object-balls are in front of the cue-ball for the succeeding stroke, whereas the result generally produced from this opening carom is to place the cue-ball between the others. When one perfects himself at the opening stroke, which can only be done with practice, the direction of the cue and object balls will be easily mastered. The strength of stroke must also be carefully considered and studied.

Cue-ball ¼ above, ⅛ right, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom at point c, about ½ or ¾ on the carom-ball from direction of point b. The cue-ball after carom takes the direction of c, d, and rests at or near d; the carom-ball travels to h, there resting, and object-ball cushions at e, f, stopping finally at g.

73

74

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “medium.”

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “medium.”

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Caroming on ball 2.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, “hard.” Caroming on ball 3.

Particular attention must be given to the different degrees of strength of stroke.

It is necessary to learn these caroms thoroughly, as upon the principles involved in them depend, to a great extent, all the strokes likely to occur in a game of billiards.

76

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “medium,” effecting carom on ball 2. Ball 1 will return to corner, gathering with ball 2. A wrist stroke. An easy, direct draw.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium,” caroming on ball 2, gathering ball 1 in corner with ball 2. An easy quarter-spread draw.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “ordinary,” effecting carom on ball 2. Long draw stroke, somewhat difficult.

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ⅛ left, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium.” Ball 1 returns from end cushion, and gathers with ball 2. Follow gathering stroke.

Diagram 5.—Cue-ball ½ above, ⅛ left, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary,” effecting carom on ball 2, ball 1 gathering with ball 2 in corner. A follow stroke, driving ball around the table.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ above, ¼ left, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, ¼ less than “slow,” effecting carom on ball 2 at point a. This stroke is played as a half follow, in order to gain the position, although the carom can be easily effected by playing on ball 1, ¼ right, but this would spread them beyond position for the succeeding stroke. The course and final resting-place of the different object-balls are indicated in all the diagrams by the dotted lines and spots, the heavy lines showing the course of the cue-ball.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ above, ⅛ left, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, “medium,” caroming on ball 2. A follow stroke. To insure the cue-ball being held on its proper course, it is struck by the cue just enough left of the centre to prevent the opposite twist taking effect through carelessness; for if the cue-ball be struck at all to the right of centre, it will not follow the line laid out for it. Forearm and wrist motion only required in this stroke.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ½ below, exact, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “slow.” Spread draw for position. Note in this diagram the curved line of the cue-ball as it leaves the object-ball, and allow for this curve in calculation.

Note.—That the balls may be placed exact upon the table according to the diagrams, the author suggests that the student follow the plan here given: First refer to the diagram desired for practice. If it be the one herewith (No. XVII.), in order to place ball 2 of diagram 1, draw the direct right lines a, b from the centre of ball 2 to the nearest cushion surface at c, d, or from the points c, d to centre of ball 2. On the point where the lines a, b intersect, place ball 2. In this manner the student may place any ball exact in position that may be found in either of the plates in this work. To calculate correctly the spot for the placing of a ball, note carefully the distance from the nearest diamond sights, at either nearest cushion, to the point where each line joins the cushion surface, which will be immediately opposite the exact centre of the ball which is to be placed.

79

80

From ball 1.—Cue-ball ¼ above, 1
16 left, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, “ordinary.” The course of the cue-ball is marked by the heavy line, that of the object-ball by the dotted line.

From ball 2.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ⅛ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

From ball 3.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ¼ left, object-ball ⅜ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

From ball 4.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ½ left, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, ½ greater than “medium.”

The natural line of departure from the object-ball, if the cue-ball be struck centre at a ⅝ ball as stated, would be on the first cushion, to the right of the heavy line indicated, or at spot c; this, of course, would govern the point of contact with the second cushion, and result in missing the carom. The use of the twist, however, gives it the direction calculated more or less acute than natural.

The twist given the cue-ball is imparted, to some extent, to the object-ball in impact, causing it to take the proper angles to gather as desired. By some writers and theorists this statement is disputed, but repeated experiments have shown it to be a fact beyond question.

The caroms illustrated could be effected by striking the cue-ball centre, and contacting the object-ball nearer full; but in order to bring this object-ball into position for next stroke, the twist is applied, and the natural angle is sacrificed for a false one, in order to control the object-ball.

Diagram 1.—Play on ball 1, cushion at a, carom on ball 2. Cue-ball ⅝ right, ¼ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Object-ball cushions at b, c, gathering at d.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ below, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at h, effecting carom on ball 3. Object-ball cushions at e, f, gathering at g.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ¼ right, object-ball ⅜ left; stroke, “medium.” A direct carom, gathering all the balls in the corner.

83

In effecting this carom and gathering the balls, cue-ball ¼ left, ¼ above, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting a carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, resting at f, near ball 2.

There are many strokes resembling this one, where the balls are in a somewhat similar position, and where the same cushions are used, from either side the table. The cue-ball may be in a more direct line in its bearing to the object-ball, or it may lie more away to the left. If the former is the case less twist is required, not exceeding ⅛; but if the latter, then it is increased, so as to perform the angle required.

In this stroke the value of thoroughly understanding the different shades of “twist” is appreciated, and if comprehended fully there will be no difficulty in executing these strokes from a mere glance at the position of the balls.

85

86

To carom on ball 2.—Cue-ball ¼ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ½ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 4.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “ordinary;” effecting carom by reverse “English,” the cue-ball taking but one cushion and straight line back to ball 4.

To carom on ball 5.—Cue-ball ¼ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 6.—Cue-ball ½ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 7.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 8.—Cue-ball ½ right, ½ below, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 9.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ below, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ above, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “medium,” caroming on ball 2. The object-ball passes behind ball 2, taking the direction of dotted line b to c. The cue-ball accomplishes the angle from a to ball 2, through the excessive twist applied. The natural angle for the cue-ball, after meeting cushion at a, is in the direction of d, which it would take were the twist not imparted.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ above, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting a carom on ball 2. The object-ball takes direction of arrow. The player is cautioned to take the cushion at or below a, otherwise the carom will not be effected.

89

90

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ right, ¼ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “slow.” Cue-ball cushions at a, twist carrying it to ball 2. The object-ball taking direction of dotted line resting at spot b. The natural angle from ball 1 to a is represented by dotted line a to c, but the ½ “English” imparted to cue-ball accomplishes the angle to ball 2 in excess of the natural.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ½ below, object-ball ¼ right, stroke, “medium,” effecting carom on ball 2. The object-ball follows d, e, at which latter it stops. The dotted line a to b is the natural angle, and the line to c is the real excessive angle produced by ⅝ twist given cue-ball.

Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ below, object-ball ¼ right; stroke “medium.” The object-ball traverses c to e, where it rests. The cue-ball, twist excessive, cushions at a and thence along b to ball 2, where it effects carom. The natural angle is a to d.

The stroke is very effective and gathers the balls well.

93

94

Cue-ball ⅛ above, ½ right, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, and by reverse twist effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, c, resting near or at d.

This stroke is a very effective one and may be played from various positions. It requires much attention to master it, and the value of the twist and strength must be familiar to the player. The skill is in the judgment displayed in estimating quantity of twist necessary to effect carom, as the cue-ball can be made to come away from the cushion at a on an acute angle nearly parallel with the side cushion.

To carom on ball 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅝ below, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Object-ball cushions at e, f, g, resting at h. Cue-ball cushions at a, caroms on ball 1.

To carom on ball 2.—Cue-ball ½ left, ½ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ½ left, ½ below, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 4.—Cue-ball ⅛ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 5.—Cue-ball ¼ right, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 6.—Cue-ball ½ right, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 7.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅝ below, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 8.—Cue-ball ½ right, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

To carom on ball 9.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ¼ above, object-ball “full;” stroke, “ordinary.”

The practice of these single-cushion carom strokes is of vast importance, as the positions constantly present themselves during play. When the pupil becomes familiar with the “breaks,” the carom is of easy accomplishment.

97

98

From ball 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

From ball 2.—Cue-ball ½ right, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, “medium.”

From ball 3.—Cue ball ¼ right, object-ball ⅛ right; stroke, “medium.”

From ball 4.—Cue-ball ½ left, ¼ above, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at c, f, d, e effecting carom on ball 5. The object-ball 4 doubles the length of the table, resting at h. Ball 5 is placed the width of a ball from either cushion. Ball 4 is placed in this diagram just off the cushion that the pupil may avoid a kiss on account of it touching the cushion. The carom may be made with ball 4 touching the cushion.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ right, ⅛ above, object-ball full centre; stroke, “ordinary.” Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, resting at d. Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. The delivery ⅛ above gives a slow-follow motive power to cue-ball, while the ½ English, delivered on right of cue-ball, causes the latter to perform the obtuse angle from the cushion at a to the carom-ball. The object-ball is placed in line, so that it will clear the carom-ball and perform the angles shown by dotted lines.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅛ right, object-ball ⅛ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium,” effecting carom on ball 2. Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c. Object-ball takes direction of the arrow e, the carom-ball being hit near full, takes direction of the arrow d.

101

102

Diagram 1.—To double the object-ball twice across the table by playing as full upon it as is possible. Cue-ball ⅜ below, ½ right, object-ball 15
16 left, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, and joins ball 2 in corner. Cue-ball is slowed so it barely effects carom. Stroke, “very hard.”

Diagram 2.—Gathering stroke, to double object-ball and effect carom. Cue-ball ¼ below, 1
16 left, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, “ordinary.” Object-ball cushions at a, b, gathering at c. The cue-ball travels very slowly to the carom-ball, speed merely sufficient to effect carom.

These strokes appear in all parts of the table, and the player should search for those he has practised, selecting always that which will give the best result in position. He who displays the best judgment in thus calculating will make the most successful player.

Cue-ball ¼ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “hard.” Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, and rests beyond d. The object-ball is struck nearly “dead” full to cross the table, as the lines indicate; the cue-ball is “slowed” through the ¼ below delivery, effecting carom on ball 2. This stroke requires much practice, as the compound doubling of the cue-ball is of difficult execution when combined with the “slowed” cue-ball.

Care should be used in the placing of the cue-ball for the execution of the stroke.

105

106

To carom on ball 1.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ¼ right, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, “medium.” The cue-ball is struck ¼ above, in order to keep it from describing too great a curved line that it would do if hit ½ above, which latter delivery requires greater precision. If hit below ¼ above, the ball will come away more toward the open table. The cue-ball is also hit ¼ right, that it may be kept away from the cushion in its course toward the carom-ball; if struck on left side it would take cushion upon nearly every occasion. Put the twist on the side opposite the direction the cue-ball will take when it lies at this angle.

To carom on ball 2.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ½ right, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ½ left, object-ball 1
16 right; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 4.—Cue-ball ¼ right, ½ below, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 5.—Cue-ball ½ below, ½ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 6.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ¼ left, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, “medium.”

To carom on ball 7.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

Again on ball 3.—Cue-ball ½ left, object-ball ¾ left, stroke, “hard.”

In the stroke illustrated, a ⅝ full delivery of the cue-ball on object-ball 1 is absolutely necessary, with the cue-ball struck exactly ⅝ left centre.

Cue-ball ⅝ left, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

If the cue is delivered below the centre of the cue-ball, with the object-ball 1 touching the cushion, the cue-ball will rebound at an acute angle that generally fails to effect the carom. The objective point is the cushion at b, which insures the stroke, and if the angle be always calculated from a point on the second cushion with the cue-ball so delivered as to reach that spot, the remainder of the stroke is assured and will take care of itself. That is to say, draw the angle required from the object-ball to the first cushion, then from that point to the second cushion.

109

110

Cue-ball ¼ left, ⅝ below, object-ball ½ right; stroke, “medium.”

The purpose in striking cue-ball ⅝ below is to reach cushion at a by making no more than ½ on object-ball, driving it to c. The ¼ left is given the cue-ball that it may perform the angle a to b, which accomplishes the carom. Greater twist would perform a more obtuse angle to side cushion, striking at e.

Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.”

The twist is the principal force exerted in this stroke, though aided by the very full play upon the object-ball. A full ball on the object-ball is required for two reasons, to throw it into position at g, and also to reach the point a with cue-ball, without the excessive draw being applied, the twist performing the larger portion of the work.

The cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2, the latter resting at or near h. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, f, resting at g.

The wrist and forearm are required for this stroke.

113

114

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball, being slowed, effects carom on ball 2; the object-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, resting at e.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, resting at d.

116

This stroke is played on account of the balls occupying a position directly before each other, insuring a “kiss” should the “follow” be attempted.

Cue-ball ⅛ below, ½ left, object-ball 1
16 right; stroke, “hard.” The ⅛ below prevents cue-ball jumping at instant of delivery. Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, e, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball crosses the table twice, cushions at f, a, resting at g.

Bear in mind the twist on the cue-ball aids the player in imparting force after contact with the first cushion; so whilst great speed of cue-hand is necessary, it need not be conveyed by excess of muscle or violent action of the body. The object-ball must be struck very fine, about 1
16, so the resistance may be slight and not interfere with the free run of the cue-ball.

118

Balls in a line, that if a “follow” stroke were played a “kiss” between object and carom ball would result; therefore the play as directed:

Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅛ below, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, “hard.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, e, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball doubles the table, resting at g.

The object-ball must be struck but ⅛ in order to carry the cue-ball to cushion at a and to give proper direction to the former ball.

The quick movement of the cue insures speed to the cue-ball.

In order to reach the point a with the cue-ball, which also gives direction to ball 1, it is absolutely necessary to strike very fine on the latter.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ½ below, object-ball, “very fine,” 1
32 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium”. Cue-ball cushions sharp at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball moving slowly, having been cut exceedingly fine, up table to c.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅝ below, object-ball 1
16 right; stroke, “ordinary.” The point of aim on object-ball, 1
16 right, is to prevent cue-ball striking cushion after leaving object-ball.

121

122

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ above, ¼ right, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “slow.” The balls here are in a direct line. After delivery object-ball “kisses” carom-ball, throwing it to point a, where the cue-ball has been carried by ¼ right, and carom is effected.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ below, object-ball, “fine cut,” 1
16 right. Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, and receiving the excessive twist describes angles shown, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball rolls up table to d.

The carom is difficult; the cue-ball requires excessive English; ball 1 must be cut exceedingly fine.

Cue-ball ⅛ below, object-ball 31
32 left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball effects carom and rolls to f, carom ball rests at e, and object-ball cushions at a, b, c, stopping at d. The ⅛ below delivery “slows” the cue-ball, imparting strength merely sufficient to drive carom-ball to e for position.

This is one of the most important strokes known in the game, and should be mastered perfectly by the pupil.

125

126

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅛ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball caroms slowly on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, resting at c.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ¼ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball caroms slowly on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, resting at c.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅜ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball caroms by slowed ball. Object-ball cushions at d, e, f, h, resting at g.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ¼ right, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball caroms on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, and rests in corner near ball 2. Allowance must be made for curve of the cue-ball when it leaves the object-ball, and it must be considered in calculating the imaginary line of progress over the cloth of the cue-ball.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ¼ left, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball describes acute curve on leaving object-ball, and caroms on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, gathering in corner near ball 2. Draw for the carom-ball as though there was no cushion near by, for it is better to learn to do entirely without this cushion assistance.

129

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅛ below, ⅛ right, object-ball ½ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ¼ right, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ½ below, ½ right, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, ¾ in excess of “medium.”

Cue-ball cushions in each instance at points a. Object-ball in diagram 1 cushions at b, f, in diagram 2 at c, f, in diagram 3 at d, g, in diagram 4 at e, h, all stopping at i, and cue-ball effects carom on ball 2.

Diagram 5.—A massé. Cue-ball ½ left, ½ aft, perpendicular; object-ball ¾ right; stroke, “medium.” The cue-ball curves, letting ball 1 through for position, and caroms on ball 2. This is a direct curve massé, the cue-ball in centre of other balls, the three being in a line about one inch from rail. Spot on cue-ball indicates where it is to be struck by cue, looking down upon it.

The line of aim is the dotted line from a to b.

131

132

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ½ right, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, ½ greater than “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, f, resting at g.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅝ below, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, through the strong draw delivery of the cue and having also the excessive reverse twist in it, performs the obtuse angle from a to carom-ball. Object-ball cushions at b, c, resting at d, the balls here gathering. The delivery of the cue on the cue-ball ⅝ below and left is one that requires much practice to perfect.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ left, ⅛ below, taking cushion first at a, then the object-ball, ¾ right, considered from point a on cushion; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions again at b, effecting carom on ball 2 which rolls to d. Object-ball crosses table, cushions at e, stopping at c. This stroke is played with the forearm and wrist.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ½ left, object-ball ¾ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2 which stops at c. Object-ball cushions at b, e, and rests at d. The quick wrist movement only is employed in this stroke.

135

136

Illustration of a series of caroms effected with cue and object-ball in one given position, also a peculiar “kiss” carom with balls in a line.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ above, object-ball 15
16 right; driving it to cushion at a, b, a little beyond which it contacts with carom-ball forcing it to point d, where the cue-ball meets it and effects carom. Stroke, ½ in excess of “slow.” Cue-ball cushions at c with an excessive spinning twist.

Diagram 2.—To carom on balls 1 and 2: cue-ball ⅜ right, ⅛ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ of “slow.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, c, resting at d.

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ½ right, ⅛ below, object ball ½ left; stroke, ½ less than “slow.” Cue-ball cushions at a, and object-ball cushions at b, c, stopping at d.

To carom on ball 4.—Cue-ball ¼ left, ¼ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 5.—Cue-ball ½ left, ¼ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “slow.”

To carom on ball 6.—Cue-ball ½ below, ½ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, e, b, g.

Again on ball 6.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ⅛ right, object-ball ¼ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at e, effecting carom by one cushion on ball 6.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅛ below, ⅝ left, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at d, e, resting finally at f, near ball 2. This is a stroke that occurs often in the course of a game, the position being changed to the other side of the table, possibly. Most players are content with making the carom simply, and, with that only in view, merely “cut fine” the object-ball, whilst, if they would play full upon it with twist the stroke would be as surely effected, and a fine set-up is left. The secret of the stroke is to throw the object-ball at the point d on side cushion at corner, or as near that as possible; excessive twist being given the cue-ball, the carom is assured.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅛ above, ⅛ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “medium.” Cue-ball “kisses” directly on carom-ball, and object-ball, springing from the cushion, rolls to a.

139

140

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, object-ball full centre; stroke, “slow.” The excessive twist upon cue-ball causes the latter to curve to the left whilst hitting the object-ball at the line of a full ball. The twist of the cue-ball gives a slight opposite twist to the object-ball, which in its turn communicates the motion in a less degree to the carom-ball, causing the latter to deflect from its natural course on leaving the cushion at a, meeting cue-ball at b, the object-ball being carried to one side by the excessive twist of cue-ball and the “kiss” from carom-ball. A carom may be effected on left of balls by changing the twist force to left side of cue-ball.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ⅝ right; stroke, “medium.” The carom can be made on either side of the balls by changing slightly the direction.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ¼ above, object-ball 31
32 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “slow.” Object-ball strikes the carom-ball a hair off its centre, taking direction a; the cue-ball follows, effecting carom.

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ½ above, object-ball 31
32 right; stroke ½ in excess of “slow.” Carom by double kiss at a.

142

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ above, ¼ left, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at g, d, e, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, resting at f. This is a follow-cushion stroke, the cue-ball hugging cushion.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ above, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball describes curved line, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball doubles the table, cushions at a, b, c, resting at d.

Point the cue and object balls to cover the angles of dotted lines. Deliver a quick wrist stroke, using care against foul.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball centre, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball kisses direct onto ball 2.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ left, object-ball ¾ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball takes cushion at a, and thence to b, where carom-ball meets it, having been forced directly down the cushion by kiss from object-ball. The balls are in such position here that a fine stroke is impossible, and where a massé is exceedingly difficult.

145

146

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ above, object-ball full; stroke, “slow.” Carom-ball, kissed by object-ball, cushions at b, returns to a, where cue-ball meets it and effects carom.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ above, ½ left, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions c, d, e, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball doubles table, takes cushion at a, resting at b. This is termed a “following cushion hug stroke.”

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅛ above, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, ½ in excess of “slow.” The cue-ball taking a curved line on object-ball, forcing it out from the cushion that it may strike the carom-ball on right of centre, thus making room for cue-ball, the object-ball going to right. Carom-ball cushions at b, meeting cue-ball on rebound at a, where carom is effected.

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ½ above, ¼ right, object-ball ⅛ left. Kissing carom-ball to cushion at b, the cue-ball following and meeting carom-ball at a, where carom is effected.

Diagram 5.—Cue-ball ¼ above object-ball 31
32 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Object-ball kisses carom-ball to cushion at a, upon its rebound it meets cue-ball at b.

148

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ below, object-ball ¾ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, and c, effecting a carom on ball 2. Object-ball is kissed out, resting at d. The object-ball, in this stroke, is touching the cushion; the cue-ball is about ¼-ball below, a right line from the former. The carom is effected by a “kiss” from object-ball to opposite cushion at a, b, and, with an excessive twist, the cue-ball performs angles shown.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅛ above, object-ball 31
32 right; stroke, “medium.” Cue-ball curves, forcing object-ball from the cushion, permitting the ball to pass through and meet carom-ball at a after the latter has rebounded from cushion at b.

Diagram 3.—Massé. Cue-ball struck at spot ⅝ left, ½ forward. Carom-ball is kissed by object-ball into corner at b, where cue-ball meets it. Strength, “slow.”

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅝ above, object-ball “full”; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball meets carom-ball at a through kiss.

Cue-ball ¼ below, ⅛ left, object-ball ⅝ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “ordinary.” Cue-ball doubles the width of the table, cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, resting at f.

If the cue-ball is struck above centre it will describe a curved line from a to b, thereby missing the carom, by taking the end cushion and passing ball 2. The accuracy of this stroke is in delivering the cue below the centre of the ball which causes the cue-ball to take a direct line from each cushion.

151

152

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ below, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, resting at c.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at d, b, resting at c.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at e, f, and rests at c.

The above are all wrist-strokes, and should be played with a careful delivery.

Diagram 4.—Cue-ball ½ above, object-ball 31
32 left, the latter striking carom-ball 31
32 right; stroke, ½ in excess of “slow.”

The object-ball kisses off carom-ball, taking direction of dotted line, resting at or near a; the cue-ball effects the carom. Here the carom-ball lies in corner touching two cushions. The three balls are in a direct line.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ¼ left, ¼ above, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at d, a, b, c, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball takes direction of dotted line.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ¼ above, ⅛ right, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at d, a, b, c, or possibly the player may not be able to hug the cushion beyond one or two of points indicated by the letters. Object-ball takes direction of dotted lines. The angles in this diagram are more obtuse than those in Diagram 1, and the object-ball lies away from the end-cushion.

155

Cue-ball ⅜ below, ¼ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at e, c, resting at d.

A carom may also be effected from object-ball 1 by direct kiss to ball 2. In this stroke: cue-ball ½ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.”

157

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ left, ½ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, crosses table, and rests at e. The carom-ball rests at d.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ left, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, resting at c.

This stroke is very effective in gathering the balls, and may be readily played, with care. Similar strokes are played with the first object-ball lying well out toward the centre of the table, with the cue-ball occupying a similar position in its bearings toward the object-ball. The cue-ball leaves the cushion at a sharp and in direct line to the carom-ball.

159

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ¼ right, object-ball 31
32 right; stroke, ¼ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2, the latter resting at f; cue-ball rests at e. Object-ball cushions at f, b, c, resting at d. The secret in this stroke is in getting off the object-ball sharp and clear to cushion at a. The cue-ball should travel slowly to carom-ball from being struck so nearly full on object-ball.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ¼ right, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, ¼ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions slowly at a, effecting carom on ball 2, which rests at f, and the cue-ball at g. Object-ball cushions at b, c, d, resting at e.

161

162

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ left, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at d, e, resting at f.

Diagram 2.—A kiss carom.—Cue-ball ⅛ above, object-ball 31
32 right; stroke, ¼ less than “slow.” Carom-ball cushions at b, where it meets cue-ball, and carom is effected.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ⅛ left, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2, which rests at b. Object-ball cushions at d, e, f, g, stopping at c.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ¼ right, ½ below, object-ball ½ right, calculated from point a; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, taking object-ball ½ full, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, c, resting at d. This is a bank stroke, cue-ball played on cushion first before striking any ball. Object-ball is at such a location in corner that the stroke shown is the only practicable one.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ½ below, object-ball ½ left, calculated from point a; stroke, ¼ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, strikes object-ball ½ full, cushions again at b, and effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, resting at d.

165

166

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ¼ above, cushion first at a; object-ball ⅞ left from a. Cue-ball cushions again at b, effecting carom on ball 2; stroke, “medium.” This stroke combines a very heavy twist with follow tendency, and, in order that the two forces may be effective, the object-ball must be struck exactly ⅞ left, as calculated from point a.

Diagram 2.—A massé. Cue-ball ½ left of perpendicular centre, ⅛ forward in direction of object-ball, object-ball 1
16 right. Line of sight being along dotted line b to a. Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2 by a treble curved line.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ½ right, object-ball full; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, c, d, resting at e.

Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅝ below, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, “medium.” As the object-ball lies from the cushion—a space ⅛ of a ball, less than the width of a 2⅜ ball—it is impossible for the cue-ball to pass behind it, as it would have to do in order to contact with the cushion first; as it is, the contact with cushion and object-ball is at the same instant. The cue-ball really takes two cushions, but it is so instantaneous as to be imperceptible.

169

170

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, resting at c.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, object-ball 31
32 right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball, by an acute draw, effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at d, g, e, resting at f.

Positions similar to Diagram 1 frequently occur during play, consequently the pupil should know the gathering angle to cushions a, b, for any object-ball which may rest at any part of the table within space between the spot at h and side cushion at ball 1; the cue-ball at all times played from behind the object-ball as shown.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, ¾ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, resting at f.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ left, ⅛ above, object-ball “full;” stroke, ½ in excess of “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effects carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, resting at e.

The cue-ball performs a slow twisting “follow,” the object-ball running with speed. The “slowed” follow ball is executed through the delivery ⅛ above, which imparts slight rotating power in the ball.

173

174

Cue-ball ⅝ left, ¼ above, object-ball “full centre;” stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, with excessive ⅝ twist, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, c, resting at d.

The player may find trouble in striking the object-ball dead full, where he delivers the cue ⅝ left. A little practice will overcome all difficulty.

176

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅝ below, object-ball full; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at c through draw and twist delivery, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at a, b, finally resting at c. An effective gathering stroke.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ½ left, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effects carom on ball 2 and rolls to i. Object-ball cushions at b, c, d, f, resting at g. Carom-ball cushions at e, crosses table, and stops at h.

The space between balls 1 and 2 is nearly the distance which separates the diamond sights.

First.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ½ left; cushions at a, d, strikes object-ball at f, ½ right, calculating from point d; cue-ball then cushions again at g, h, i, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball takes direction of arrow. Stroke, “hard.”

Second.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ½ left; cushions at b, c, hits object-ball at e, ½ left, sighting from cushion at c; cushions then at j, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball is driven around table, cushions at n, o, p, resting at l. Stroke, “hard.”

179

180

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ¼ below, ¼ right, object-ball ¼ right, sighting from cushion at a. Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, resting at e. Stroke, “ordinary.” The object-ball (1) lies near and cushions so that cue-ball has not room to go around table and gather balls after carom, therefore the bank stroke is employed.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ right, ⅛ below, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Object-ball is width of a ball from the cushion. Cue-ball cushions at a, b, c, d, effecting carom on ball 2.

Object-ball cushions at e, f, resting at g. Ball 1 must be so placed that the cushion at a can be reached by cue-ball.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, c, resting at d.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅛ below, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, e, resting at f.

Caroms could be effected by cutting object-ball fine on right, but gathering position for next stroke would then be sacrificed.

183

184

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ¼ below, object-ball ⅛ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “slow.” Cue-ball cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, resting at or near d.

To carom on ball 3.—Cue ball ¼ right, ¼ below, object-ball ⅛ right; stroke, “medium.”

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ½ below, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball kisses from object-ball, takes cushion at a, then, by ⅝ twist, runs to ball 2, effecting carom. The object-ball lies in corner touching both cushions. When the point a is reached the stroke is assured, if the ⅝ “twist” has been applied to cue-ball.

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ½ below, object-ball “full”; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at b. Similar in principle to preceding stroke.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ below, ¼ left, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, resting at e.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ½ left, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at b, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at d, resting at f.

Diagram 3.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball extremely fine, 1
32 left; stroke, “hard.” Cue-ball cushions at a, describes a curve, and effects carom on ball 2 in corner. The strong right twist given cue-ball counteracts opposite twist given by contact with cushion, whilst the draw or retrograde force imparts a tendency to return in direction from the impelling force, this producing the curved line of progress.

To carom on ball 3.—Cue-ball ¼ left, ⅛ below, object-ball 1
16 left; stroke, “ordinary.”

To carom on ball 4.—Cue-ball ½ left, ⅛ below, object-ball ¼ left; stroke, “ordinary.”

187

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ⅛ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball cushions at b, from which it performs curved line in effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, a, resting at e. The carom-ball crosses table, cushions at g, resting at f. An acute wrist delivery is necessary in order to impart extreme “draw-and-twist” to the cue-ball.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ left, ⅛ above, object-ball ¾ left; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball takes cushion at a, b, effecting carom by reverse twist, on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at c, d, resting at e.

This stroke is played to gather the object-ball at ball 2. If the cue-ball is played around the table, imparting opposite twist, taking cushions a, b, d, the object-ball will be “lost.”

189

190

Cue-ball ⅝ below, ½ left, object-ball ⅛ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball “kisses” directly to ball 2. Object-ball is struck ⅛ left, driving it to cushion a, b, resting at c. Carom-ball takes direction d, after carom has been effected. The object-ball must be hit with exactness to get it away from the cushion to the points a, b, c.

Again, cue-ball ¼ left, ¼ above, object-ball ½ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at e, effecting, carom on ball 2. Object-ball takes direction approximating dotted line.

192

Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ¾ left; stroke, “hard.” Cue-ball describes curve, cushions at a, b, c, effecting carom on ball 2, which rests at h, with cue-ball at i. Object-ball doubles the width of table, cushions at d, e, f, resting at g.

The carom could be made with a massé, but position would be sacrificed. The close draw is played in order to gather the balls.

The stroke is an acute wrist and arm delivery, and should be given with confidence.

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ⅝ below, ⅝ right, object-ball 15
16 left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Object-ball cushions at a, returning to b. Cue-ball, by excessive draw and twist, caroms on ball 2.

The object in imparting excessive twist to cue-ball is to avoid cushion in recoil. The object-ball is struck slightly to the left, and the twist overcoming the outward tendency this would naturally give to the cue-ball, brings it back to a straight line.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ⅝ right, ⅛ above, object-ball ½ left; stroke, “medium.” Object-ball cushions at c, resting at d. Cue-ball cushions at e, effects carom on ball 2.

In practising this stroke, the object-ball must be set about the distance of ½ ball from the cushion.

If the ball be so set that it be hit too full it will throw the cue-ball toward the corner at a; again, if it be struck too fine the cue-ball will be thrown to the left of ball 2.

195

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ above, ¼ left, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball by kiss effects carom on ball 2. To reach the carom-ball in this stroke it is absolutely necessary that the object-ball be struck ⅞ right, more or less will bring the cue-ball short of or beyond the corner at ball 2.

Diagram 2.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ left, object-ball ⅞ right; stroke, “ordinary.” Cue-ball by kiss cushions at a, b, effecting carom on ball 2.

This latter diagram shows a comparatively difficult position from which to effect a carom. The excessive twist completes the stroke. The proper direction of aim must be first determined—in this diagram it is to point a on end cushion. The player is asked to observe the angle of cue from the cue-ball to the cushion.

197

198

Diagram 1.—Cue-ball ½ below, ⅝ right, object-ball ⅞ left; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Cue-ball cushions at a, effecting carom on ball 2. Object-ball cushions at b, resting at c.

This stroke is one-half draw with excessive twist, the latter actually effecting the carom.

Diagram 2.—Massé follow.—Cue-ball ½ forward, ½ left, object-ball 15
16 right; stroke, ½ in excess of “medium.” Elevation of cue 78¾°.

Cue-ball describes curve, and effects carom on ball 2. As the balls lie in this diagram an ordinary plain massé is impossible, as the player will not be able to reach the cue-ball from either side the table, therefore the follow massé is resorted to. Through force of the massé, the cue-ball curves out as shown, but returns to proper line, governed by the excessive twist and massé.

Finding the Number of Games.—The first thing to know is the number of games imposed by differing numbers of entries. There are several ways of working this out. The quickest and simplest is a mental one. If the number of entries is even, say 10, multiply the second highest term (9) by one-half the highest—9 × 5 = 45. If odd, as 7, multiply that figure by one-half the next highest—7 × 3 = 21 games. But, if a pencil is handy, a quick enough way is to multiply the highest term, whether odd or even, by the next highest, and then divide the product by 2, which will show 253 games if there are 23 entries—23 × 22 506, halved. These are regular games. No amount of figuring can forecast ties.

Tie Games.—When competition is for a championship, any tie for it must be played off. Ties for other prizes may or may not be, as circumstances dictate.

Tie Games Separate.—Save when they involve a championship, tie games are no part of the tournament proper, which ordinarily ends when all the contestants have either played or forfeited an equal number of games. Yet, while tie games for else than the championship will not serve to determine other than special wagers, they are, nevertheless, records in themselves, although without being a part of the tournament.

Forfeitures.—In a tournament, every game begins with 201the first one, in the sense of binding every player who has not previously been declared out. It has always been an unwritten law of billiards that a withdrawer, instead of canceling his games already played, forfeits those he has yet to play. The former procedure penalizes the faultless for another’s fault. It is also open to the objection that, in order to deprive one winner of his record for high average or high run, the loser of the game in which either was made may be induced to withdraw. Injustice is possible even without collusion. Within two years, cancellation has deprived one continuing player of his highest average, and another of the highest average of all.

For amateur tournaments, a few Western roomkeepers have a rule of their own, which cancels if the withdrawer has not played more than half his games, and forfeits if he has.

Guarding Against Forfeiture or Other Failure.—Until a scheduled game is started, the players of the next one in order should be on hand.

The Sanctity of Schedule.—A schedule once made out by due authority should be adhered to, instead of being changed to suit some individual caprice.

Opening Game.—Never let it be between the supposed best two players. For some special reason, one such may be utilized, but not two without inviting the almost certain penalty of a loss of public interest as the games draw near their close.

Rush the Losers.—As far as practicable, play losers first in preference to winners. If they are good losers, they will not object. In no other way can the anti-climax be prevented of having one or more games to play after the main prize has been won, or of requiring the leader to play when there is nothing for him to win.

202Handicapping.—This, so often necessary, calls for a nice knowledge of the contestants. Fixed rules are impossible. That one man has a chance to sit long and think while the other plays, and perhaps not always plays with as much ability as effect, makes billiards pre-eminently the temperamental game. There must, therefore, be much guessing in the name of handicapping. Not a few conductors of tournaments shirk their office by happily inveigling their players into handicapping themselves.

One thing is to be cautioned against. As a rule, if the light-weighted, with their imposts, about fairly balance the middleweights, they are apt to prove too heavy for the heavyweights. To illustrate, A can give B 30 in 100, B give C 30, C give D 20, and D give E 20. A in practice can possibly give C the 60 required by theory, but he can little better give D 80 than he can, as theory requires, give E 100 in 100! Again, if there are many entries, those with a light impost possess a decided advantage in having so much more to learn than the others. The oftener they play, the relatively better.

If A can give B 12 in 100, B give C 15, and C give D 23, then A should give C 25 and D 44, and B give D 35. It is all merely a question of multiplication, division, addition and subtraction, without being simple enough to look easy in print.

The process multiplies together the odds A gives B and B gives C, as 12 × 15 = 180, which is to be divided by the number of points (100) constituting game. The quotient, which is nearer 2 points than 1, is to be reckoned as 2, and deducted from the 15 B gives C, leaving 13, which, added to the 12 given B by A, makes 25 to be given by A to C. By a similar process—multiplying together the 15 given by B to C and 203the 23 given by C to D (15 × 23 = 345), dividing by 100 and subtracting the 3 from the 38 (15 added to 23)—35 are what B should give D. What A is to give D is ascertained by multiplying together the 15 (less 2) and the 23 (13 × 23 = 389), which, divided by 100, shows that 4 are to be deducted from the added 13 and 23, leaving 32, which, added to the 12 A gives B, makes 44 to be given by A to D.

Scoring Tournaments.—Owing to a faulty system of keeping track of games played, not a few conductors of tournaments are temporarily at a loss to determine with whom some contestants have yet to play. This formulary covers everything:

204Figures next to names stand for handicap, if any.

Figures standing alone in squares are for total first, average next, and highest run last.

Winning and losing averages are both given, and in common fractions, with the double purpose of showing which player led (in case of later dispute), and of facilitating the making-up of general and tournament averages when play is done.

When a game is over, add an I to Games Won and an X to Games Lost.

When tournament is finished add up totals, as well as innings (last figures of those in middle line of squares), and compute single, general and tournament averages decimally.

To find out who has yet to play, look for blank spaces exclusive of those running obliquely and marked D. (for Jones of horizontal column doubling with Jones of vertical). In the table are four blanks, meaning two games to play—Gray with Jones and Smith.

To find out how many games have been played, add I’s and X’s together, and divide by 2.

When I’s and X’s differ in their totals, there has been an error in tallying games either won or lost.

Scoring for the Press.—Care should be taken to begin with the score of him who plays first. His winning then will mean that the innings were unequal, while putting the winner’s score second will indicate equal innings. Disregard of this rule, prevalent of late years, forces whoever would verify the average to count up the innings in each score.

HOW TO FIGURE AVERAGES.

Decimals are Best.—Divide total points by total innings. Thus, 300 points in 28 innings show 1020
28 in crude fractions, 10 and 5/7ths in the lowest evenly reduced ones, and 10.71 (71/100ths) decimally. The first system seldom gives an accurate idea at sight. In the second, the fractions cannot always be reduced evenly, as above. Ordinarily, the third is closest, briefest and clearest.

Avoid a Jumble.—Some computers mix themselves and others up by using all three methods. Others, as a convenience, 205express the single average as 1020
28, and the general average not as 8170
175, to be consistent, but as 8.97. This is akin to the barbarism of speaking in two languages at once. There are others who, simply because it is so divisible, convert the 8170
175 into 834
35, so that anybody seeking to prove the average by finding the points and innings will have rare figuring as a preliminary.

Decimalizing.—This is simply adding a cipher to the right-hand end of every remainder after the dividend has no unused figure left. Adding a cipher to the 20 in 1020
28 yields 7 and 4 over when divided by 28, and now adding a cipher to the 4 will result altogether in 10.71, with 12 over.

Pay no attention to this remainder unless, if a general average, 10.71 seems to be a tie with some other general average. Such a tie will rarely happen. Should it, add a cipher to the 12, and dividing the 120 by 28 will result in 10.714 (1000ths now, instead of 100ths), with 8 over. If there is still a tie, proceed as before, first making 80 of the 8.

Give and Take.—Had the 10.71’s remainder been 14 or more, instead of 12, which is less than one-half the innings, the average would change to 10.72. The arbitrary rule is to ignore the final remainder when it is less than half the innings, but enlarge it and give it to the player when it is half or more.

Reconversion.—If for any reason it be necessary to find the number of innings, add ciphers (two will usually be enough in billiards) to the points, and divide by the decimalized average. Thus 1071)30000(28 innings, with 12 over. To find the points on which a general average is based, innings (50) and average (16) being known, multiply the one by the other—16 × 50 = 800.

General Average.—A match of continuous points has but one average, whether it be played in one session or half a 206dozen; but it is different both in a tournament and in a match of several separate games, a majority to win.

In computing the general average, avoid the easy error of adding all a player’s game-averages together, and dividing the product by the number of games. There is only one condition in which this will show the true average, and that is when all the games have innings separately equal in number, howsoever much the points themselves may vary.

Illustration of false and true:

The average found by dividing by the number of games is grossly extravagant.

Losing Averages.—Properly, the loser’s average can never be higher than the winner’s. To concede that it can is to premiumize its maker’s inefficiency. Setting out to win the opening shot, he had failed, which is the only way, with fewer points, to make the seemingly higher average. It is equally unfair, in a continuous game of several sessions, to concede an average for a fraction of the game. By getting far behind, one player is without limit on any night, while the other is stopped every night by reaching the number of points assigned to every leader.

Except as personal compliments, losing averages are valueless. Their apparent makers do not wholly make them. Much depends upon the other man. The loser reaches a high figure largely because, having aimed to cover a given number 207of points, he failed to do so. It has often happened that a player with 50 to go has needed as many innings to make them as he had taken to make his other 250. As a rule, losers “let down” near the finish more than winners, and hence their average is dependent less upon themselves than upon those who close the game.

FOUR-BALL GAME

[Up to 1863, all play not otherwise described was at unrestricted caroms, with 2⅜ balls, on a 6 × 12 ft. six-pocket table; from 1863 to 1869, on a 6 × 12 four-pocket, with the various restrictions mentioned; from 1869 to 1873, chiefly on a 5½ × 11 four-pocket, under a new system of counting; and from 1873 to 1876, almost altogether on a 5 × 10 carom table.]

Abbreviations.—P., 2000—12.20—129; S., 1904—157, indicates winner’s total, average, and best run, always in that order, together with loser’s total and high run, without his average, which has never been a record; W., games won in tournament; R., highest run; Av., best winning average; G. A., general (or grand) average; p. b., push-shot barred; c. b., crotching barred (carom table); j. b., jaw barred (pocket table).

1854.

First Contest in a Public Hall. May 13th, Malcolm Hall, Syracuse, N. Y.—Caroms with unrestricted hazards (pocketings), stake unknown. Joseph N. White, 500; Geo. Smith, 484.

This was not technically a public contest, admission having been by invitation only. Mixed caroms and hazards were last played professionally on a six-pocket table by two lads in a hotel billiard-room on Third Avenue, N. Y. City, in 1865, for a stake of $50 a side. The winner is living, but has long been out of billiards. Maurice Daly, then sixteen, was loser.

1858.

First Match with an “Average” without Guessing. N. Y. City, April 24th, $250 a side.—Totals, winning average and best runs: John Seereiter, 1000—6.94—53; Bernard Crystal, 830—68. This 209was a billiard-room or private match, and it is given here only because it was the first in which score was kept in figures from beginning to end.

1859.

First Technically Public Contest. Fireman’s Hall, Detroit, Mich., April 10th.—$250 a side. Dudley Kavanagh, New York, 1000—8.47—177; Michael Foley, Detroit, 989—87. This match was the first to which an admission fee was charged.

Michael Phelan (New York) vs. John Seereiter (Detroit). Same hall, April 11th, $5,000 a side, on table taken from Seereiter’s room (used night before by K. and F.), but having a new cloth. P., 2000—12.20—129; S., 1904—157.

Admission was five dollars, but this charge was rather to keep the wrong persons out than to profit from letting the right ones in. Phelan was out-nursed, but he outbetted the Detroiters, and both outgeneraled and generally outbetted their representative.

1860.

First Professional Tournament. Phelan & Collender’s Union Square Billiard Rooms (upper floor), N. Y. City, October 26–31st.—Invitation or private tournament on a 6 × 12 carom table for two souvenir cues, one given by Claudius Berger, of France. In the table below, a “Lost” column is specially inserted because of a shortage of games, that between Lynch and Geary (the latter substituting for Christian Bird, of Philadelphia) being neither played nor forfeited. All games were 500 up but the final and deciding one (Kavanagh, 1000—29.41—144; Tieman, 746—156).

1861.

First Public Match Between Western Players. Wood’s Theatre, Cincinnati, November 21st.—Philip Tieman vs. John Deery, both of Cincinnati; $500 a side. T., 1000—12.25—106; D., 683—54.

First Public Home-and-home Match. Cleveland, O., March 6th.—First of two games, each $500 a side. Dudley Kavanagh, N. Y., 1500—13.39—118; Michael Foley, then of Cleveland, 1065—102. Return: Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 3d, F., 1500—9.43—99; K., 1466—108.

Push and Massé Barred. Half-way game, Kremlin Hall, Buffalo, N. Y., November 6th.—Also for $500 a side, but barring both push-shot and massé. K., 1500—10—86; F., 1296—90.

This was the first public match from which the push-shot was excluded. No other has ever barred the massé.

M. Foley vs. Deery. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 4th.—$250 a side. F., 1000—11.24—66; D., 502—45. Same night, a private match was begun for same amount, but in 100–point games, Deery winning the odd (11 to 10). The two matches lasted from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.

Wm. Goldthwait vs. Deery. Alston Hall, Boston, June 25th.—$250 a side. G., 1500—9.87—99; D., 1270—79.

First Barring of Crotch in Public. Tucker’s Academy, San Francisco, August 2d.—Championship of California and $100, carom table, c. b.—i.e., crotching limited to three successive shots within an imaginary line. Daniel Lynch, 1000—971—104; Joseph W. Little, 852—run not known.

1863.

Kavanagh vs. Goldthwait. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 23d.—$500 a side. K., 1500—14.42—125; G., 1282—130.

First Public Tournament, First Formal Professional Championship Anywhere, and First Four-pocket Table. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, June 1–9th.—First prize, emblematic cue and a $750 Phelan & Collender billiard-table; second, $250. Instead of the usual 6 × 12 six-pocket, a 6 × 12 four-pocket was used for first time in public. The highest run was made by “jawing,” also for first time in public. Tieing in both high run and high winning average, done by Kavanagh 211and Tieman, has yet to be paralleled in a public tournament. Average of this one (seven games apiece), 12.19. Points and money stake in all succeeding matches, 1500 and $500 a side.

KAVANAGH VS. SEEREITER. First match, same hall, October 15th—K., 1500—16.85—151; S., 715—57.

KAVANAGH VS. TIEMAN. Same hall, April 7, 1864.—K., 1500—12.29—152; T., 1265—93.

KAVANAGH VS. GOLDTHWAIT. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, June 9, 1864.—K., 1500—17.44—154; G., 1425—117.

KAVANAGH VS. TIEMAN. Same hall, September 15, 1864.—K., 1500—14.56—147; T., 927—139.

KAVANAGH VS. GOLDTHWAIT. Academy of Music, N. Y. City, January 20, 1865.—K., 1500—15.63—158; G., 1406—113.

KAVANAGH VS. FOX. May 16, 1865.—K., ill, forfeited.

FOX VS. DEERY. Washington Hall, Rochester, N. Y., September 7, 1865.—D., 1500—16.67–166; F., 1465—276.

DEERY VS. PIERRE CARME. January 7, 1866.—C. paid forfeit.

DEERY VS. JOHN MCDEVITT. Cooper Institute, N. Y. City, March 13, 1866.—D., 1500—10.79—119; McD., 1145—95.

DEERY VS. JOSEPH DION, of Montreal. Same hall, May 23, 1866.—Dion, 1500—10.42—92; Deery, 1366—144.

DION VS. McDEVITT. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, October 5, 1866.—D., 1500—25.86—258; McD., 1276—308.

DION VS. McDEVITT. Same hall, June 10, 1867.—D., 1500—19.73—616; McD., 816—220. Run of 616 was the first case of “jawing” in a match contest for any championship. It led at once to the abolition of “jawing” in this series.

DION VS. EDMUND H. NELMS, Philadelphia. Same hall, September 15, 1867, “jawing” then and thenceforth barred. N. paid forfeit.

DION VS. McDEVITT. Same hall, December 11, 1867.—McD., 1500—13.16—181; D., 1488—291.

McDEVITT (residence changed from New York to Chicago) vs. MELVIN FOSTER, N. Y. Library Hall, Chicago, April 8, 1868.—McD., 1268—21.49—293; F., 1262—263. In fifty-ninth inning, F. 212protested against a decision. Confusion followed, and the referee adjudged McD. winner while it was still his turn to play. Declining to submit to arbitration, McDevitt guaranteed the stakeholder against a possible suit-at-law, and was paid the stakes.

McDEVITT VS. J. DION. Same hall, September 16, 1868.—McD., 1500—166.67—1458; D., 407—261.

McDEVITT VS. GOLDTHWAIT. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, December 22, 1868.—Fourteenth contest and seventeenth and last match. McD., 1500—25—238; G., 1483—226.

On Christmas Day, 1868, there being no challenge pending, McDevitt resigned the cue to its donors, Phelan & Collender, as a step toward a new championship, push barred. The old style of game came thus to an end.

Best Record Average on a Six-pocket Table. Union Hall, Indianapolis, December 17, 1863.—$250 a side. McDevitt, 1500—17.24—148; Frank Parker, 661—68.

Excepting one at the three-ball game, this was the last public contest at caroms on a six-pocket table.

1864.

First Public Contest Prohibiting Both Pushing and Jawing. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 8th.—Informal match in aid of Workingwomen’s Protective Union, 6 × 12 four-pocket. Michael Phelan, 1000—8.40—56; Dudley Kavanagh, 965—40.

First State Championship Tournament—An Unbeaten Amateur. Allyn Hall, Hartford, beginning August 16th.—Tournament for championship of Connecticut. Games, 300 points up, save in the final one, which, between Gershom B. Hubbell, of Hartford, and Geo. B. Hunt, of Bridgeport, was 500 points. The winner-in-chief was beaten by none but another amateur—Lieut. J. B. Burbank, then stationed at New London Harbor, and now a field-officer in the Fifth U. S. Artillery. Messrs. Burbank, Hunt and Hewins tied for second and third prizes, purses of $50 and $25, which the first two resigned to the professional, who is still such in Hartford. First prize, the champion cue, to which, when the champion’s term was up, was added the billiard-table. Average of tournament (five games apiece, 6 × 12 four-pocket), 5.90. The matches following the tournament were all played in Allyn Hall.

HUBBELL VS. MICHAEL WOLLAHAN. November 15th.—First match. H., 1000—6.62—78; W., 921—47.

HUBBELL VS. HUNT. February 21, 1865. Hubbell, 1000—7.58—70; Hunt, 649—57.

HUBBELL VS. RALPH BENJAMIN. August 16, 1865.—H., 1000—6.13—58; B., 956—33.

HUBBELL VS. BENJAMIN. March 27, 1866.—Fourth and last match. Hubbell, who then acquired the emblem on time-limit, ran 154 to Benjamin’s 42, averaged 10.87, and won by nearly 400 in 1000.

First Championship of Pennsylvania.—October 4–10, 1864, Sansom Street Hall, Philadelphia.—500 points on a 6 × 12 carom, p. and c. barred. Prizes, champion cue for first; silver plate, worth $100, for second. Nelms beaten by Estephe and Montgomery only. Average of tournament (seven games apiece), 8.23. Money stake in matches, $100.

ESTEPHE VS. RYALL. First match, same hall, December 13th.—E., 1200—10.63—60; R., 966—76.

ESTEPHE VS. MONTGOMERY. Same hall, February 20, 1865.—E., 1200—16—109; M., 525—44.

ESTEPHE VS. NELMS. Third and last match, Academy of Music, Philadelphia, April 13, 1865.—E., 1200—15.38—78; N., 1161—155.

First Annual Championship of Upper Canada. November 21–26, 1864, Music Hall, Toronto.—Games, 500 points, 6 × 12 four-pocket. Wm. Jakes beaten by none but Samuel May, who won play-off with D. Miller. Two prizes for place, and one for high run. Tournament unique in the approximate uniformity of its high runs and averages at the style of game. Its own average (six games apiece) was 5.99.

1865.

First Public Contest on a 5½ × 11 Table (Four-pocket). Grover’s Theatre, Washington, D. C., January 23d.—$250 a side. Melvin Foster, 1500—19.23—170; John Deery, 1445—205. Return game, Irving Hall, N. Y. City, February 11th.—F., 1500—16.13—137; D., 1124—122.

Thomas Foley vs. Chas. A. Frink. Metropolitan Hall, Chicago, January 29, $250 a side, 6 × 12 four-pocket. Foley, 1000; Frink, 872. Same terms and hall, February 11th.—Foley, 1000—14.71—93; Frink, 537—47.

Amateurs’ Sixteen-hour Contest for $2,000. “Arena,” 185 Sixth Avenue, N. Y. City, February 20–21st—Admission by invitation. Wm. N. Wickes gave Wm. McKeever odds of “double discount,” best in 37 100–point games “around the table”—i.e., mixed caroms and pocketings, latter limited to three consecutive times from the one spot (6 × 12 four-pocket). Games won: W., 20; McK., 14; W.’s extra one due to a dispute as to which had won the 13th. Total points: W., 4981; McK., 2129. Winner’s general average, 14.43. No intermission. Referee throughout, Peter D. Braisted, Jr., color-sergeant Seventh Regiment.

Mace, Bridge and Jaw Barred. Music Hall, Milwaukee, Wis., March 11th.—$250 a side, 6 × 12 four-pocket, John W. Coon giving S. A. Tustin odds of 200. C., 1000—14.08—112; T., 864—106.

First Championship of Massachusetts.—Bumstead Hall, Boston, March 13–18th.—Games, 300 points. Contestants all Boston professionals but Lee W. Langdon, amateur, of Florence, Mass. Four prizes, all for place, went to the first four as tabled. They also made the best four winning averages, but in this order—W., 17.65; D., 12.50; T., 12; L., 7.89. Average of tournament (seven games apiece), 6.72. Ensuing matches were all played in Bumstead Hall.

215TOBIN VS. WILMARTH. First match, June 21st.—W., 1500—11.36—110; T., 1439—134.

WILMARTH VS. DANIELS. October 18th.—D., 1500—9.74—80; W., 1020—58.

DANIELS VS. LANGDON. February 21, 1866.—D., 1500—8.61—129; L., 1252—50.

DANIELS VS. WILMARTH. June 21, 1866.—D., 1500—11.64—151; W., 911—115.

DANIELS VS. TOBIN. October 17, 1866.—T., 1500–10.14; D., 1292.

TOBIN VS. JOHN H. FLACK. June 28, 1867.—T., 1500—9.15—122; F., 1470—119.

TOBIN VS. DANIELS. October 31, 1867.—D., 1500—28.30—255; T., 628—101.

Series ended with seventh match. After that run of 255 and that average of 28.30 on a 6 × 12 four-pocket, no one challenged the title of the restored champion; and for that reason, also, there was no new championship until, in 1869, there was a remodeled game.

First Championship of Ohio. Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, May 22–30, 1865. Games, 300 points. Two prizes, gold-mounted cue and silver goblet. Tiers for latter tied again, and presented it to Tony Honing, who had marked the games. The winning averages of the five leaders, in this order, were: 10.71, 12.50, 8.67, 15.79, and 8.57; but actually fourth and fifth were Broga’s 10 and Turners 9.68. Average of tournament (seven games apiece), 7.25. All matches were for $250 a side.

CHOATE VS. FRAWLEY. Same hall, September 28.—F., 1000—9.01—90; C., 874—74.

FRAWLEY VS. CHAS. DAVIS. Academy of Music, Cleveland, January 24, 1866. F., 1000—11.36—291; Davis, 998–135.

FRAWLEY VS. CHOATE. May 31st.—C. forfeited.

FRAWLEY VS. ACKERMAN. Brainard’s Hall, Cleveland, September 25, 1867.—Fourth and last match, j. b. and game arbitrarily lengthened. F., 1500—16.32—410; A., 1239—110.

McDevitt vs. Goldthwait. Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, May 31, 1865.—$1,000 a side.—McD., 1500—22.73—267; G., 10.86—16.71—96.

216First Championship of Illinois. Smith & Nixon’s Hall, Chicago, June 14—21st.—First prize, gold-mounted cue; second, silver tea-service. Lowell Mason, ill, withdrew without playing; Charles A. Frink, taking his place, withdrew after playing and losing a game; and a Chicago amateur, billed as “Davis,” filled out the Mason-Frink gap. Those who reached double figures in their best winning averages were: F., 13.64; R., 11.54; and Le B. and “Davis,” 10.34 each. The one victory credited to M. W. Donahue was a forfeit from Chas. Masters. Average of tournament, 6.55. Seven 300–point games apiece.

Money-stake in all matches, $250 a side.

FOLEY VS. RHINES. Bryan Hall, Chicago, October 12th.—F., 1500—12.50—84; R., 1061—47.

FOLEY VS. LE BRUN. Latter declared forfeit.

FOLEY VS. JOSEPH VERMEULEN. Chicago, June 27, 1866.—F., 1500—15.46—178; V., 1002—126.

FOLEY VS. RHINES. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, October 15, 1866.—Fourth and last match of series. F., 1500—12.10—159; R., 1225—157.

Challenges ceasing, emblem eventually became the unbeaten Foley’s own.

First Championship of All Canada. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, July 12–19, 1865.—Tournament for gold-mounted cue for first, and a $75 silver cup for second. Five 500–point games apiece. Average of tournament, 7.07.

The only high winning averages passing 8.47 (Jakes’s) were Dion’s 20 and May’s 12.50. This championship was simply nominal, as Joseph Dion was clearly the Canadian premier, with his brother Cyrille easily second. It was never played for again.

Jos. Dion vs. Melvin Foster. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, July 19th.—$1,000 a side in gold (U. S. currency still at heavy discount) D., 1500—21.74—151; F., 1108—147.

217Champion of Canada vs. Champion of Massachusetts. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, July 20th.—First contest of a home-and-home match, $500 in gold each game. C. Dion, 1500—12.71—109; Robt. E. Wilmarth, 1375—90. In return game, set for Bumstead Hall, Boston, October 19, W. forfeited.

Championship of Maine. First tournament, Meonian Hall, Augusta, September 4–9th. Games, 300 points. R. T. Williams, E. Godfrey, and C. E. Smith were the prize-winners.

Championship of Upper Canada. Second annual tournament, Dallas Block, Toronto. Games, 300 points, p. b. Messrs. May, Miller and Brown tied, and the play-off gave Brown the championship and May the second prize. Their best winning average and their general average in the regular games were: Brown, 7.14 and 5.94; May, 9.38 and 6.92; Miller, 6.82 and 5.65. May won prize for high run, 79. The other contestants were Messrs. Cheseborough and Phillips, the latter winning no game, and the former beating only Phillips.

Thomas Foley vs. John W. Coon. Bryan Hall, Chicago, September 28.—$500 a side, Foley giving odds of 400. F., 1500—12.50—91; C., 1463—151.

C. Dion vs. Ed. Daniels.—Bumstead Hall, Boston, October 19.—$250 a side. Dion, 1500—16.30—157; Daniels, 728—59.

Dudley Kavanagh vs. Pierre Carme. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, November 4.—Second game of match of three, every one for $1,000 a side, half forfeit. (See Three-ball Caroms, October 5, 1865, for first.) Push-shot barred, 5½ × 11 four-pocket table, 25
16 balls. K., 1500—25—132; C., 1339—178. Third game, pushing and jawing allowed on 6 × 12 four-pocket, set for December 4th, was forfeited by Carme.

First Championship of Maryland. Baltimore, December 11–13th. 6 × 12 carom, c. b. Five players. Winner, Glessner, whose best average was about 8. No matches.

218First Championship of Virginia. Norfolk, December 19–23d. Six participants. W. Baldwin, beaten by S. D. Brough only, was winner, his 40 being the highest run of all, and his 4.61 the best general average.

W. BALDWIN VS. EDWARD BRYAN. Norfolk, Va., May 10, 1866.—Only match. Bryan, 800—9.52—46; Baldwin, 429—49. By agreement, a 5½ × 11 four-pocket instead of a 6 × 12, as in tournament.

1866.

Pennsylvania Restores Push-Shot. Concert Hall, Philadelphia, January 31 to February 4, 1866.—Second championship of State, 6 × 12 carom, c. b., push allowed. Contestants: E. J. Plunkett, R. T. Ryall, Jas. Palmer, J. B. Bruce, and H. W. Hewes. All games 500 up but deciding one, which, between Ryall and Plunkett, was 1000 up; and in that the winner, Plunkett, ran 251, highest of tournament. Ryall, in playing Hewes, had made the next highest, 172. Palmer won third prize.

PLUNKETT VS. RYALL. Same hall, March 29th.—First match. R., 1500—18.07—123; P., 629—50.

RYALL VS. ESTEPHE. Same hall, May 14th.—R., 1500—17.44—160; E., 1349—75.

RYALL VS. PLUNKETT. Same hall, June 29th.—P., 1500—18.52—115; R., 823—117.

PLUNKETT VS. ESTEPHE. Sansom Street Hall, Philadelphia, August 28th.—P., 1500—30—223; E., 1360—282.

With this match the series was discontinued. Restoring the push had caused a division of sentiment.

First Championship of Georgia. Atlanta, February 12–21st.—300 points, eight contestants. A. W. Crawford beat all; John P. Chapman, second prize, $50 and gold watch; John Lloyd, third, $25 and a set of jewelry. Their best runs and averages were: Crawford, 54 and 13.64; Chapman, 68 and 14.29; Lloyd, 96 and 12.50.

Memphis, Tenn., Tournament. February 14–24th.—500 points, six players. Melvin Foster, N. Y., won first ($500) after a tie with F. A. Myers, of Memphis ($300), while Wm. Brown was third ($200). The best winning average and highest run, Foster’s 50 and 282, resulted from his “jawing” the balls against Harry Choate.

219First Public Contest in United States Between Foreign Players. Cooper Institute, N. Y. City, May 24th.—Purse game for a testimonial benefit, 25
16 balls on a 5½ × 11 carom, p. b. J. Dion, of Montreal, 750—39.47—297 (by crotching); P. Carme, from France, 491—105.

First Championship of Indiana. Hamilton Hall, Fort Wayne, June 6–11th. Games, 300 up. Morris beat McCarthy, but lost in playing off. Best four winning averages: Morris, 12; McCarthy, 10.34; Capron, 9.33. Average of tournament, 6.19. All players tied but one, the only case of the kind among so many as seven at the four-ball game. No matches, McCarthy passing unchallenged. Six games apiece, tournament averaging 6.19. This was the first case of a championship tie.

Goldthwait vs. Deery. Cooper Institute, N. Y. City, June 15.—$500 a side. G., 1500—15.79—218; Deery, 1245—202.

First Championship of Missouri. Verandah Hall, St. Louis, June 14–20th.—Six 300–point games apiece. Winner beaten by Terrell only, and beat Pearce in play-off. Best three winning averages—H., 60; B., 13.64; Wade, 8.57. Average of tournament, 6.87.

HARRISON VS. PEARCE. Same hall, October 4th.—Only match. P., 1500—10.71—136; H., 1462—98.

T. Foley vs. Jos. Vermeulen. Chicago, June 27th.—First of two games, each $250 a side. F., 1500—15.47—178; V., 1002—126. Academy of Music, Chicago, July 26th, return game, p. b. F., 1000—7.63—52; V., 898—63.

Third Annual Championship of Upper Canada. Rossin House, Toronto, p. b. D. C. Cheseborough beat Samuel May by 300 to 202, and J. Manard by 300 to 183. No others.

220Championship of the Champions. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, beginning September 15th. Tournament of State and provincial champions—Canada, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, and Ohio. First prize, gold-mounted cue. Plunkett beat McCarthy in playing off for second and third—a billiard-table and an emblematic silver service. Frawley’s 141 won gold watch and chain for highest run, Foley being near with 134. Average of tournament (seven games apiece), 9.83. It would have been higher, did not the subjoined table show 27 games instead of 28. The missing one was between Harrison and Frawley, and was annulled next morning (the only such instance on record as to a public tournament) by a vote of 7 to 1 of the eight contestants.

Goldthwait vs. Daniels. Bumstead Hall, Boston, October 26th.—$250 a side, winner conceding 500 points. G., 1500—20—218; D., 1499—195.

No match of so close a finish had ever before been played, the nearest approach having been the Frawley-Davis contest of 1000 to 998.

McDevitt vs. Goldthwait. October 30 in Bumstead Hall, Boston, and November 30 in Irving Hall, N. Y. City.—Home-and-home match for $500 a side each game. Goldthwait lost in his own city by 926 to 1500, and won in McDevitt’s by 1500 to 1137. McDevitt surpassed match record for a 6 × 12 four-pocket (his own 308) by running 409 in Boston.

1867.

Third Championship of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, February 14–22d.—6 × 12 carom, c. b., push retained. All games 500 points but the last, in which, 1000 up, Nelms vs. Estephe, the highest run and best winning average (38.46) were made. Other players with 221winning averages above 15: Estephe, 33.33; Jas. Palmer, 17.86; Wm. Rockhill, 16.73; Ryall, 16.13. Nelms-Estephe game was played in National Hall. Average of tournament, 10.63. Seven games apiece.

NELMS VS. RYALL. National Hall, Philadelphia, May 27.—Only match. N., 1500—33.33—543; R., 1140—277.

Second Championship of Illinois. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, June 17–26th.—500 points, j. b. Prizes: Gold-mounted cue for first (won by Vermeulen in playing-off with Rhines), gold watch for second and amethyst ring for third. Best four winning averages were the four leaders’: R., 20.83; V., 14.29; Honohan, 12.20; Davis, 13.16. Average of tournament, 8.93. Seven games apiece.

All matches were in Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, and the money-stake, except in last, was $200 a side.

VERMEULEN VS. RHINES. September 9.—R., 1500—18.29—300; V., 1162—236.

RHINES VS. HONOHAN. December 4th.—R., 1500—14.66—162; H., 1275—211.

RHINES VS. VERMEULEN. March 4, 1868.—V., 1500—13.65—201; R., 1415—161.

VERMEULEN VS. HONOHAN. May 25, 1868.—V., 1500—12.61—187; H., 1376—75.

VERMEULEN VS. RHINES. September 2, 1868.—R., 1500—11.16—211; V., 1377—128.

RHINES VS. VERMEULEN. December 21, 1868.—V., 1500—10.42; R., 1472.

VERMEULEN VS. HONOHAN. March 25, 1869.—J. and p. b., and points reduced. V., 1200—13.33—111; H., 910—68.

VERMEULEN VS. FRANK PARKER. July 5, 1869.—Another change, counting three for every carom instead of in twos or threes. P., 1200—19.67—117; V., 523—57.

222PARKER VS. SNYDER. November 20, 1869.—P., 1200—15.38—129; S., 827—63.

PARKER VS. SNYDER. March 23, 1870.—Tenth and last match, stake increased to $250 a side. P., 1200—16.90—105; S., 978—93.

Championship of Pacific Coast. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, August 17, 1867.—$500 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, c. b. Albert W. Jamison, 1500—50—212; Edward Morris, 740—236.

First J. M. Brunswick & Co.’s Table in Tournament. Cincinnati, O., October, 21–31st.—5½ × 11 four-pocket, play unrestricted. All games 300 points but that determining tie between Foster and Coon, which was 1000. Davis won third prize. The first was the table on which games were played. Average of tournament, nine games apiece, 12.93.

One-half of the contestants became champions, State, national, or both; but the best mere billiard-player of the ten (Foster) never could attain to that eminence.

C. Dion vs. Daniels. Bumstead Hall, Boston, Mass., December 18th.—$250 a side, p. and j. barred, 6 × 12. Dion, 1000—11.71—101; Daniels, 770—94.

Fourth Annual Championship of Upper Canada. Toronto, December.—500 up, p. b., but jawing allowed. Wm. Jakes, with G. A. of 8.43, won all his games; Samuel May, G. A. 7.42, won all but one; Turner, G. A. 6.33, was third; Egener, G. A. 4.67, fourth; and Davis, G. A. 3.27, fifth and last. Average of tournament, 5.94.

1868.

McDevitt vs. Goldthwait. Cooper Institute, N. Y. City, January 8.—$250 a side, no restrictions. McD., 1500—166.67—1483; G., 113—48. The 1483 were made nominally in the “jaw,” but in effect it was a carom-table “crotch.”

223Championship of Nevada. Opera House, Virginia City, January 20th.—$250 a side in gold, unrestricted; 5½ × 11 carom. W. Wright, 1500—71.43—768; Valentine J. Orndorff, 279—59. The 768 were crotched.

Hewins vs. L. W. Simonds. Music Hall, New Haven, Conn., March 4th.—$500 a side, j. b. on 5½ × 11, the Danbury expert giving the Hartfordite 500. H., 1500—8.13 (1000)—64; S., 1015—68.

Carme vs. Vermeulen. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, July 22d.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, c. and p. barred, and V. receiving 500. C., 1500—34.88—382; V., 1135 (with odds)—73.

Third Championship of Ohio. Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, October 21–26th.—5½ × 11 four-pocket, c. and p. b., 300–point games. Fred. Ackerman won play-off and second prize, $150, and Tony Honing third, $100. Harry Choate, winning all his games, received first prize—gold-mounted cue and $100. Ackerman’s 33.33 was best average, his 14.88 the best general average, and Asa Brainard’s 143 the best run. The other six were Samuel Turner, J. W. Cronn, J. Quill, Joseph Casper, Jos. Cherry, and J. Grunkemeyer. Average of tournament, 10.37.

CHOATE VS. ACKERMAN. City Hall, Springfield, O., January 12, 1869.—First match. A., 1000—20.41—99; C., 563—65.

ACKERMAN VS. HONING. Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, September 11, 1869.—Second and last match. A., 1000—16.67—130; H., 894—187.

First Match in America Between French Experts. In November, A. P. Rudolphe and Pierre Carme were matched to play two games in Chicago, four-ball, p. and c. barred, and three-ball, each for $1,000 a side. Carme was adjudged to have forfeited in both. Soon afterward, they played two similar games, Rudolphe winning both, without equaling the record in either.

T. Foley vs. Frawley. Garrett’s Hall, Cleveland, December 2, 1868.—First of three games, every one for $500 a side, 5½ × 11, j. b. and push allowed in first, but both barred in second. Foley, 1500—16.30—120; Frawley, 975—189.

Second game, Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, December 30th.—Foley, 1000—10.63—78; Frawley, 645—81.

224Third game, three-ball caroms, Frawley forfeited; and a new match, same as game of December 2, but for $1,000 a side, was played in same hall as second, February 24, 1869. Foley, 1500—22.39—248; Frawley, 1202—188.

1869.

[In this and all later years until close of the four-ball series, table was a 5½ × 11 four-pocket, when not differently indicated, the game p. and j. b., and the count in ones (for misses), threes and sixes.]

Frawley vs. Rhines. Garrett’s Hall, Cleveland, January 22d.—$250 a side. F., 1000—14.02—153; R., 1496—298.

J. Dion vs. Foster. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, January 28th.—First of home-and-home-and-odd (see Three-ball Caroms, 1869), $1,000 a side every game. D., 1200—36.36—208; F., 1116—355.

First Chalking of Lines. On every corner cushion rail, about eight inches apart, the terminals of an imaginary line were drawn. This line had no reference to jawing or crotching, already barred by the articles of agreement, and yet its purpose was to prevent what, without describing it, a Montreal paper had spoken of as “Dion’s patent shot.” No one could be found who knew its nature. Suspecting it to be a “kiss-back” from one ball dead against the end-rail, one of the staff of the “N. Y. Times” suggested the line, and the referee, Gershom B. Hubbell, marked it with the concurrence of the players.

First Public Game Played Under Protest. Dion could not have fully understood the purpose of the line. Because of it, he played the latter half of the game under protest, Michael Phelan to decide. As he won, the protest was needless. Had he lost, it would have been useless. There has been only one other case of playing on after protesting, instead of having the point decided then and there; and in that other case the protester won because of a wrong decision due to delay, and that, if given on the spot, would not have been wrong, singular to say.

Dion vs. Foster. Mechanics’ Hall, Montreal, April 6th.—Third and last match of series, same terms as one above. D., 1200—28.57—124; F., 1118—102.

First Championship of Wisconsin. Opera House Hall, Fond du Lac, February 9–12th. Counting in twos, threes, and fives. 225Adam Kleser, then of Milwaukee, first; L. Olcott second; Harris Liverman, third. The others were S. A. Tustin, W. W. Seavor, and C. Bly. Stake in matches, $200.

KLESER VS. SEAVOR. Madison, Wis., May 19th. Counting now in threes and sixes. K., 1200—9.92—102; S., 728—48.

KLESER VS. LIVERMAN. Music Hall, Milwaukee, December 6, 1870. L., 1200—av., 11.54; K., 776.

LIVERMAN VS. KLESER. Eau Claire, June 29, 1871. L., 1200—av., 15; K., 1164.

First Formal Amateur Championship. That of Long Island, at Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, April 19–28th. Games, 300 points, old counting, unrestricted. Contestants, Messrs. Dodge, Rogers, Wharton (prize-winners in that order), Hardy, Karff, Sproul, and Vanderwerker.

Second or Diamond Cue Championship of America. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 26 to May 10, 1869. This was a tournament of innovations. It was the first with an entrance-fee from contestants. Instead of in twos, threes, and fives, caroms were counted in threes and sixes. Instead of two short games per session, there was one long one (1200 points). For the first time in national championship contests, a 5½ × 11 (four-pocket) table was used, and the push-shot prohibited. Foster alone beat the winner-in-chief. Average of tournament, six games apiece, 17.35.

The closeness of the single and general averages is still without parallel in a tournament of leading experts. Playing off, Rudolphe beat both Foster and Snyder, and Foster, in defeating Snyder by 1200 to 872, ran 492 and averaged 38.67—records in themselves without being records of the tournament. Could Foster’s extra two games have been added to his tournament six, he would have credited himself with the tournament’s best run, its best single average, and its best general average (20.13).

All matches were for the Diamond Cue and a money-stake of $500 a side.

226DEERY VS. FOSTER. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, September 14, 1869. D., 1500—20—174; Foster, 1229—154.

DEERY VS. C. DION. Mechanics’ Pavilion, San Francisco, January 8, 1870. Deery, 1500—15.31—177; Dion, 1489—156.

DEERY VS. RUDOLPHE. Same hall, March 5, 1870. R., 1500—18.52—279; Deery, 1327—235.

RUDOLPHE VS. C. DION. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, May 31st. R., 1500—27.27—153; D., 1485—177. Instead of one referee and two umpires, this contest had three joint referees, and an erroneous decision as to count, thoughtlessly given by one without consulting another, the third being absent temporarily, gave Rudolphe the match, $1,000 in stakes, and about $1,750 in clear door-money, the largest ever realized from one night’s play.

RUDOLPHE VS. J. DION. Apollo Hall, N. Y. City, October 7, 1870. R., 1500—28.30—192; D., 1192—180.

RUDOLPHE VS. PARKER. Kremlin Hall, Buffalo, N. Y., January, 11, 1871. P., 1500—18.29—144; R., 1235—162.

PARKER VS. C. DION. Crosby’s Opera House, Chicago, April 26, 1871. D., 1500—19.48—183; P., 1164—168.

C. DION VS. DANIELS. Latter declared forfeit.

C. DION VS. FOSTER. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, June 19, 1871. D., 1500—24.59—186; F., 616—96.

C. DION VS. DEERY. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, November 29, 1872. Dion, 1500—16.67—321; Deery, 1201—81.

C. DION VS. DALY. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, January 2, 1873. Daly missed victory through his failure to see, until too late for rectification under the rules, that 15 points of his had not been marked up. When the score-strings showed 1490 for Daly and 1486 for Dion, the contest was annulled by an agreement to begin again, in Tammany Hall, January 9th. Dion then, 1500—25.42—156; Daly, 1147—159.

C. DION VS. DALY. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, May 16, 1873. Daly, 1500—26.79—195; Dion, 1261—147.

DALY VS. GARNIER. Same hall, October 2, 1873. G., 1500—31.25—171; D., 1224—249.

October 6, Garnier resigned Diamond Cue to its surviving donor, H. W. Collender, instead of to C. Dion, who on September 30 had challenged winner of then pending Daly-Garnier match. Dion thereupon again became champion.

C. DION VS. RUDOLPHE. Same hall, April 7, 1876. Fourteenth match and thirteenth and last completed contest. Dion, 1500—40.54—228; Rudolphe, 392—108.

Time-limit, two years and a half, made the emblem Dion’s. Daly holds it as a souvenir of his having held it as champion.

227Second Championship of Massachusetts. Olympic Theatre, Boston, May 10–18, 1869.—500–point games. R. E. Wilmarth, champion cue and $250; A. B. Williams, second (billiard-table); John H. Flack, third (gold watch and chain). Other contestants were W. A. Tobin, John F. Murphy, L. S. Brooks, Samuel Colby, and R. Davis. Stake in matches, $200.

WILMARTH VS. BROOKS. Bumstead Hall, Boston, December 10th. W., 1200—10—87; B., 955—99.

WILMARTH VS. MURPHY. Same hall, January 24, 1870. W., 1200—16.67—93; M., 846—69.

WILMARTH VS. B. FRANK DENNISON. Same hall, March 31, 1870. D., 1200—16—208; W., 787—60.

DENNISON VS. TOBIN. Opera House, Springfield, Mass., June 30, 1870. D., 1200—13.33—132; T., 1014—105.

Chicago’s First Amateur Championship. T. Foley’s Room, June 7–26, 1869.—500–point games. Clem Ellison won second in play-off, and fourth went to Humphreys. Average of tournament, nine games apiece, 8.02. G. A. of five leaders were: S., 12.06; E., 9.59; W., 9.34; H., 9.66; John W. Blaisdell, the actor, 8.26.

Second Championship of Maine. Portland, August 2–7th. 500 points, 5½ × 11 four-pocket, unrestricted, and counted in old way. Henry F. Shiel, unbeaten, won champion cue and $200; C. E. Smith, of Augusta, billiard-table; and Smith, of Portland, gold watch. Others, J. M. Bonney and George Swazey.

SHIEL VS. T. HERBERT WHITE. Portland, August 7, 1871. Former won by 1000 to 867.

SHIEL VS. C. E. SMITH. Lancaster Hall, Portland, June 28, 1871. Shiel, 1200—17.91—150; Smith, 818—115.

Average of 1000. Breed’s Hall, Norwich, Conn., August 4th.—First of home-and-home, each for $200 a side, $50 forfeit, Melvin Foster to discount Geo. T. Stone on 5½ × 11 carom, c. and p. both allowed, and counting in the old way. Foster “crotched” out his whole 1000 in his first inning. Stone, who made but 19, forfeited in return one, set for Aborn Hall, New London, August 11th.

228Third Championship of Ohio. Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, November 29th to December 1st.—500–point games, 5½ × 11 carom. Williamson won play-off. Average of tournament, three games apiece, 11.77. Match stake, $100 a side, in games of 1000 points.

Champions by turn were Williamson, Casper, Choate, Honing, and Choate again. Honing made the best run of the match series, 192 against Choate, May 17, 1871, in Cincinnati, and Choate the best winning average, 32.26 against Honing, same date.

Choate vs. Jacob Garratt. Respectively as champions of Ohio and Indiana, they played a match of $200 a side in Indianapolis July 3, 1871 (C., 1200—22.22—126; G., 989—78); and in Hopkins’s Hall, Cincinnati, July 18th following, they contended for the joint championship of the two States, regardless of disability by reason of non-residence (G., 1200—21.05—123; C., 1162—105). Both games, counted in threes, were on a 5 × 10, probably with push, but minus crotch; and on August 2, 1871, at the Opera House, Springfield, O., Choate’s home, they played a purse game on a 5½ × 11 carom, c. and p. barred (C., 1200—7.69—187; G., 1170—141).

Parker vs. Snyder. December 4, 1869, Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, $250 a side. P., 1200—15.58—207; S., 1088—84.

Second Championship of Indiana. If there was a tournament, record of it is altogether lacking. December 4, 1869, in Indianapolis, Alex. McCracken, then champion, contended with John W. Gregg for the championship and $200 on 5½ × 11 carom. G., 1200—19.05—126; McC., 1111—126.

GARRATT VS. McCRACKEN. Record is lacking as to how Gregg relinquished and Garratt acquired the championship. Washington Hall, Indianapolis, April 4, 1870, Champion Jacob Garratt, 1200—22.22—93; McC., 1129—144.

GARRATT VS. GREGG. Same hall, January 9, 1871.—Garratt, 1200—15—90; Gregg, 976—63.

GARRATT VS. CHOATE. For joint championship of Indiana 229and Ohio, July 18, 1871, see year 1869 under “Third Championship of Ohio.”

GARRATT VS. PARKER A. BYERS. Indianapolis, October 26, 1871.—For Indiana championship. G., 1200—24—105; B., 1187—135.

Byers was afterward proclaimed champion, and for some time Indiana had rival Billiard Associations and two championships.

GARST VS. GARRATT. Indianapolis, September 15, 1872.—New Billiard Association, with Peter Garst as standard-bearer. Table, 5½ × 11 carom. Garst won by 1500 to 1252.

BYERS VS. GARRATT. Lafayette, home of Byers, May 22, 1873.—$100 a side, 5 × 10 carom, “under the rules of the Indiana Billiard Association.” G., 1500—41.67—114; B., 1194—120.

This closed the often puzzling four-ball record of professionals in Indiana.

First Case of Two Styles of Game in One Night. Bumstead Hall, Boston, December 13, 1869.—First of two games, each $100 a side (see Three-ball Caroms, December 13, 1869, for second), 5½ × 11 carom, c. and p. b. Melvin Foster, 750—44.12—426; E. Daniels, 645—147.

1870.

Deery vs. C. Dion. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, February 3d.—$1,000 a side. Deery, 1500—18.42—231; Dion, 1044—120.

Parker vs. Adam Kleser. Music Hall, Milwaukee, February 9th.—$100 a side. P., 1200—42.86—277; K., 321—run, 42.

(See “Best Record Performances.”)

Rudolphe vs. Deery. Mercantile Library Hall, San Francisco, March 17th.—$1,500 a side. R., 1500—32.61—312; D., 970—174.

This contest was unique in having three judges in addition to a referee.

Parker vs. Coon. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, April 11th.—$250 a side. P., 1500—19.48—189; C., 1205—133.

Second Championship of Maine. First match was in Congress Hall, Portland, May 13th.—$100 a side, on a 5½ × 11 four-pocket, 230surely counting in threes, and supposedly j. and p. b. Champion, Henry Shiel, 1200—12.37—78; C. E. Smith, 1152—90.

Second Amateur Championship of Long Island. Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, May 23d to June 2d.—Five games apiece. Rogers, won 5; Kirkby, 4; Craft and Upham, each 2; Roberts and Campbell, each 1. Of the matches, Kirkby beat Rogers, December 16, 1870, by 500 to 393; Earle, January 11, 1871, by 500 to 338; Aaron Vandewerker, January 26, 1871, by 500 to 375 (table changed from 5½ × 11 four-pocket to a carom of same size); and Vandewerker again, May 22, 1871, by 500 to 296. On October 17, 1871, it was Rogers, 500—20—99; Kirkby, 307—63, and on January 17, 1872, it was Rogers, 500—17.86—99; Rapelye, 375—108. Rogers’s 20 was high average, and the best carom-table run, next to the 108 and the two 99’s, was Kirkby’s 87 against Vandewerker.

Experts’ Game, Also Known as “Red, White and Blue.” Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, June 1st.—500 points, $250 purse. J. Dion, 300—5.36—25; M. Foster, 260—28.

This was the first game designed to suppress nursing. Instead of two reds, one red and a blue were used with two whites. The game had special rules, but its chief feature consisted in prohibiting the striker from playing on the nearer ball first when both were within a certain distance of each other. While 500 points had not been found too long in practising for the match, they proved too many in public competition, and when 100 points had been scored it was decided to shorten the game by two-fifths.

Rudolphe vs. C. Dion. Hippotheatron, N. Y. City, June 17, 1870.—$500 a side. D., 1500—27.27—193; R., 1090—246.

New Championship of California. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, June 18th.—Match for silver cue and $400, 5½ × 11 carom, c. and p. b., and counted in threes. Joseph W. Little, averaging 16, won by 1200 to John F. B. McCleery’s 669. Congress Hall, same city, November 18th: McCleery, 1200—19.67—93; L., 836—93. See 1872 for another new series.

231G. F. Slosson’s First Public Match. Opera House, Springfield, Mass., October 13th.—B. Frank Dennison giving odds of 300 in points and $200 to $100 in money. D., 1000—76.92—355; S., 684—138. This was counted in the old way, and was probably on a 5 × 10 carom-table.

C. Dion vs. Dennison. M. H. Hewins’s Room, Hartford, Conn., November 3d.—Purse game, carom-table, c. and p. b., counting in threes, and Dion giving odds of 250. Dion, 1000—52.63—171; Dennison, 577 (with odds)—57. A similar contest, $200 a side, was begun at once, odds now being 250. Dion, 1000—125—330; Dennison, 478 (with odds)—run not known.

J. Dion vs. Deery. San Francisco, November 26th.—$1,000 a side. Dion, 1500—22.38—315; Deery, 896—115.

C. Dion vs. Rudolphe. Academy of Music, N. Y. City, December 28th.—$1,000 a side, Rudolphe giving odds of 5 per cent. D., 2000—20 (in 1900)—141; R., 989—315.

1871.

First Public Handicap Tournament. Allyn Hall, Hartford, February 23d to March 1st.—Five games apiece, Clark E. Wilson winning 4, and prize cue and $250. Melvin Foster, M. H. Hewins and Geo. T. Stone 3 apiece, B. F. Dennison 2, and Wm. Bowen 0. In playing off the ties, Hewins beat Stone and won third ($50), and Foster beat both. In round numbers, the general averages were: F., 18; S., 13; W., 12; Dennison, 11; Hewins, 10. Bowen forfeited two games.

First Known Use of 5 × 10 in Four-ball Game. Academy of Music, Lafayette, Ind., March 2d.—$400. Parker A. Byers, 1200—24—96; Wm. F. Kenny, 817—108. The 5 × 10 is to be suspected of having been utilized in this way once or twice before, but this is the first sure case.

Slosson and Daly’s First Tournament. Rochester, N. Y., March 28th to April 1st.—1000–point games, counted in threes, p. and c. barred, but on a 5½ × 11 carom. Daly won play-off, and Slosson the $25 extra for highest run. Six games apiece.

Rudolphe vs. J. Dion. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, April 1st.—Second of three games, every one for $1,000 a side. R., 1500—20.27—228; D., 1288—207. For third, see Three-ball Caroms. The first, English winning-and-losing, caroms and pocketings, with 2⅛ balls on an English 6 × 12 six-pocket table, was played in same hall, March 15th. Dion, 1000—4.24—29; R., 956—40.

Plunkett vs. Nelms. Assembly Buildings, Philadelphia, May 23d.—$250 a side, counted in the old way on a 5½ × 11 carom. P., 1500—28.85—132; N., 1183—138.

Championship of Canada. Also on 5½ × 11 carom, Montreal, July 18–27th.—Frank Dion first (gold-mounted cue and $100), John Hickey second ($60), and Thos. Russell third ($40). Jas. G. Bennett, Alphonse Derome, Chas. Egener, Thos. Knox, and Jas. Phelan were the others. Match record is incomplete. January 19, 1872: J. G. Bennett, 1500—18.07—75; A. Derome, 1259—105; and March 20, 1872, Wm. Jakes defeated Bennett by 1500 to 1183. Each match was for $100 a side, and both were played in Montreal.

G. F. Slosson vs. Eugene Carter. Toledo, O., July 26th.—$500 a side. S., 1500—av. about 27; C., 1032.

A Wrong Decision Makes a Second Game. Apollo Hall, Newark, N. J., August 14th.—C. A. Frink vs. Ebenezer Francis, $250 a side, carom table. As Francis made apparently the winning shot, spectators closed in, causing his cue to touch a ball. Frink claimed foul, the referee so ruled, and Frink, with a run of 82, changed score to 1500 to 1497 in his favor, with an average of 28.25. Francis protested against payment of stakes, and another game was played in same hall August 21st. Francis, 1500—24.19—154; Frink, 1378—141.

Maurice Daly’s First Public Match. Athenæum, Brooklyn, September 15th.—$50 a side, usual way of going, but on a carom table (5½ × 11). D., 1500—93.75—357; A. W. Jamison, 414—105.

233Garnier vs. Daly. Metropolitan Hall, Chicago, October 2d.—First of home-and-home, $1,000 each game, usual terms. G., 1500—26.79—201; D., 1365—159.

Return, Irving Hall, N. Y. City, October 27th.—D., 1500—25—327; G., 1230—132.

This tie was virtually disposed of in Titusville, Pa., December 6th. First of two games (see Three-ball Caroms for second), severally for $250 and $200 a side. D., 1500—34.69—291; G. scored 698.

Byron Gillett vs. G. F. Slosson. Stancliff Hall, November 1st.—$250 a side, carom table G., 1500—50—267; S., 1263—240.

1872.

Amateur Championship of Long Island. Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, March 11–12th.—Carom table of usual size, cue to become personal property of tournament winner. Two games each.

Championship of Pacific Coast. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, March 21st.—Silver cue and $200 a side, 5 × 10 carom. J. F. B. McCleery, 1500—28.85—207; W. W. Wright, 900—117. Same hall, May 7th, A. Kraker, 1500—38.46—147; McC., 754—150. Same hall, October 25th, Kraker, 1500—83.33—348; McC., 930—234.

Championship of Massachusetts. Bumstead Hall, Boston, December 9–12th.—Entrance fee $50, 600–point games, carom table, 5 × 10. First prize, cue and $300; second, billiard-table; third, $150. Nothing to indicate general averages or disposition of ties. Five games apiece.

KENDALL VS. JOHN HICKEY. Same hall, February 11, 1873, stake $100 a side and championship. K., 1500—31.58—186; H., 1225—168.

234KENDALL VS. WILSON. Same hall, March 11, 1873. W., 1500—33.44—273, K., 1410—150.

WILSON VS. DENNISON. Same hall, April 2, 1873. D., 1500—46.88—330; W., 741—159.

DENNISON VS. BULLOCK. Same hall, April 28, 1873. D., 1500—40.54—120; B., 784—207.

DENNISON VS. KENDALL. Same hall, October 24, 1873. K., 1500—52.41—273; D., 1485—285.

1873.

[This year and thenceforward, except when otherwise stated, 5 × 10 carom, c. and p. barred, counting in threes.]

Dennison vs. J. G. Bennett. Bumstead Hall, Boston, April 14th.—$200 a side. D., 1500—83.33—300; B., 579—240.

Slosson vs. John Bessunger. Kingsbury Hall, Chicago, September 9th.—$250 a side. S., 2000—142.86—534; B., 216—run, 108. On the prior April 19th they had played a similar match in Chicago. S., 2000—44.44—279; B., 1969—213.

Dennison vs. Goldthwait. Bumstead Hall, Boston, September 18th.—$100 a side. D., 1500—65.22—417; G., 819—216.

1874.

Louisiana Double Championship. Crescent Hall, New Orleans, April 6–30th.—Tournament at both four-ball and three-ball games. (For second, see Three-ball Caroms.) First prize, championship locket and $100; second, $50. Six games apiece. Average of tournament, about 13¼. Individual G. A.: H., 14.40; H. M., 20.61; C., 10.11; J. M., 14.31; J. F. M., 15.25; A., 10.31; Q., 10.65.

HOA VS. H. MILLER. Same hall, June 1st.—Match, stake $50. M., 500—20.83—155; H., 180—36.

H. MILLER VS. MAGGIOLI. Varieties Theatre, New Orleans, March 4, 1876. Miller, 500—33.33—91; Maggioli, 360—77.

Slosson vs. Sexton. Foley’s Room, Chicago, September 17th.—Purse game, 5½ × 11 four-pocket table, counting in the old way. Slosson, 2000—33.33—356; Sexton, 1730—257. [The night before they had played the three-ball game on the same table. Slosson, 600—8.22—137; Sexton’s total, 278.]

Those games were not matches, and are not records. Not being matches, they furnished no line at all as to Old Billiards vs. New. This is the final four-ball chronicle as to professed experts of standing. The revival of contests on pocketless tables, tested as early as 1860, and abandoned outside of Philadelphia as too repressive of “safety,” or generalship, had brought the game into disesteem for spectacular uses. So small a table as a 5 × 10 for that way of going was almost a burlesque of competitive billiards in the hands even of approximate masters; and yet it remained for four-ball caroms to be played, although by an inferior class of experts in the remoter West, on a 4½ × 9 carom!

BEST RECORD PERFORMANCES AT FOUR-BALL CAROMS
IN MATCHES FOR A GENERAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

BEST AVERAGES ON 6 × 12 FOUR-POCKET TABLE.

166.67 in 1500, jawing barred, pushing allowed—J. McDevitt, 1868 (see series under 1863).

25.86 in 1500, push and jaw allowed—J. Dion, 1866 (see series under 1863).

BEST RUNS ON 6 × 12 FOUR-POCKET TABLE.

1458, jaw barred, push allowed—J. McDevitt, 1868.

616, due to jawing—J. Dion, 1867. (See series under 1863 for both.)

BEST AVERAGES ON 5½ × 11 FOUR-POCKET TABLE.

40.54 in 1500, push and jaw barred—C. Dion, 1876.

31.25 in 1500, push and jaw barred—A. Garnier, 1873. (See series under 1869 for both.)

RUNS ON 5½ × 11 FOUR-POCKET TABLE.

321 by C. Dion, 1872; 279 by A. P. Rudolphe, 1870; and 249 by Maurice Daly, 1873—all push and jaw barred. (See series under 1869.)

BEST AVERAGES ON 6 × 12 SIX-POCKET TABLE.

12.20 in 2000—Michael Phelan, 1859.

17.24 in 1500—John McDevitt, 1863.

10.00 in 1500, push and massé barred—Dudley Kavanagh, 1862.

BEST RUNS ON 6 × 12 SIX-POCKET TABLE.

177 by Dudley Kavanagh, 157 by John Seereiter, and 129 by Michael Phelan, all in 1859.

90, push and massé barred—Michael Foley, 1862.

BEST AVERAGES ON 6 × 12 FOUR-POCKET TABLE.

8.40 in 1000, push and jaw barred—Michael Phelan, 1864.

166.67 (by jawing and pushing)—John McDevitt, 1868.

BEST RUNS ON 6 × 12 FOUR-POCKET.

56, push and jaw barred—Michael Phelan, 1864.

1483, by jawing and pushing—John McDevitt, 1868.

BEST AVERAGES ON A 5½ × 11 FOUR-POCKET.

42.86 in 1200, push and jaw barred—Frank Parker, 1870.

BEST RUNS ON A 5½ × 11 FOUR-POCKET.

492, push and jaw barred—Melvin Foster, 1869.

327, push and jaw barred—Maurice Daly, 1871.

315, push and jaw barred—J. Dion and A. P. Rudolphe, 1870.

BEST AVERAGES ON A CAROM TABLE.

15.38 in 1200, push and crotch barred, size 6 × 12—Victor Estephe, 1865.

25.00 in 1500, push barred, crotching allowed, but none done, size 5½ × 11, 25
16 balls—Dudley Kavanagh, 1865.

39.47 in 750, push barred, but average due to crotching, 5½ × 11, 25
16 balls—J. Dion, 1866.

33.33 in 1500, crotch barred, push allowed, 6 × 12—E. H. Nelms, 1867.

1000 in 1000, push and crotch allowed, 5½ × 11—Melvin Foster, 1869.

32.26 in 1000, push allowed, crotch barred, 5½ × 11 table, $500 a side—W. W. Wright, Virginia City, N. T., December 11, 1868. Loser, C. A. W. Jamison, who was given odds of discount, averaged 51.23 in his total of 1537.

93.75 in 1500, 5½ × 11, crotch barred—M. Daly, 1871.

BEST RUNS ON CAROM TABLE

543, crotching barred, push allowed, 6 × 12—E. H. Nelms, 1867.

297, by crotching on a 5½ × 11—J. Dion, 1866.

1000 (whole game), by pushing and crotching, 5½ × 11—Melvin Foster, 1869.

BEST AVERAGE IN TOURNAMENT.

100 in 300, 5½ × 11 four-pocket, no restrictions—M. Foster, 1867.

Note.—No account has been taken here of either tournament games or matches on any table smaller than a 5½ × 11, which was the first-class professionals’ limit.

[Unless otherwise stated, all play was with 2⅜ balls, and, with but few exceptions, on a Phelan & Collender, a Collender or a Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. 5 × 10 carom table, crotching not barred until 1870.]

Abbreviations.—This succession—Player, 250—10.—54; Player, 212—69—stands for winner’s total, average, and high run, and loser’s total and high run.

1862.

First Public Match. Louis Fox, of Rochester vs. John Deery, of N. Y. City, $250 a side, 250 points up, 6 × 12 four-pocket table, was the first match made at this game with any idea of playing it in public. It was set for Buffalo, N. Y., but the Deery side forfeited on November 7th.

1864.

First Technically Public Contest. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, afternoon of April 8th.—$250 a side, 6 × 12 four-pocket table, in aid of the Workingwomen’s Protective Union. Peter D. Braisted, Jr., 100; Wm. H. Freeman, 79. Players were not of the first class, and hence runs and averages were not tallied for publication.

There had, of course, been many earlier match-contests, both amateur and professional; but those and scores of others before them were of the nature of billiard-room contests, with the exception that Michael Phelan and Ralph Benjamin’s in Philadelphia, in 1857, was a formal match, although not public, each principal being limited to a certain number of friends as spectators.

1865.

First Formal Public Contest. Gallaher’s Hall, N. Y. City, October 5th.—First of the three-game match (see, Four-ball for others), $1,000 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, 25
16 balls. Pierre Carme, from France: Total, 250—winning average, 2.48—high run, 19; Dudley Kavanagh, 224—15. [Note.—This is the order of all matches, the loser’s average being omitted as not a technical record.]

The table was a compromise in height between the French and the American.

1868.

First Match on a 5 × 10 Carom. For this reason, a billiard-room match merits mention. This size is not known to have been used again in any expert match in this country until 1870.

238Peter D. Braisted’s Room, N. Y. City, January 21st.—$50 a side Wm. N. Wickes, amateur, 150—2.86—15; Braisted, 47—5.

Melvin Foster vs. John Deery. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, September 30th.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 carom. Foster, 300—2.80—40; D., 184—24.

Foster vs. Joseph Dion. Academy of Music, N. Y. City, December 28th.—Second game of match of three (see Four-ball for others), $1,000 a side, 5½ × 11 carom. F., 300—1.73—21; D., 296—11. Catching the draughts and blasts from the untenanted stage, the balls were ice, the cues icicles, and the players paralytics in sheer numbness.

1869.

Foster vs. Benjamin. Braisted’s Room, N. Y. City, January 6th.—F. giving 150 in 300 and laying $100 to $80, 5½ × 11 carom. F., 300—1.94—16; B., 131 (without odds)—14.

Not a record except as a match in which, for many successive innings, both men played alternately for “safety” without leaving their seats. Foster, who began it, had to quit, as he was behind, and the misses, if continued, would have put his opponent out. This contest suggested the rule of 1879, illegalizing more than two consecutive misses.

Foster vs. Deery. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 23d.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 four-pocket. F., 300—2.80—18; D., 183—14.

McDevitt vs. C. Dion. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, May 10, $500, 5¼ × 11 four-pocket. D., 300—2.03—19; MCD., 299—29.

Ralph Benjamin vs. M. H. Hewins. Town Hall, Meriden, Conn., November 23d.—$100 a side, 5½ × 11 four-pocket. B., 150; H., 132. On the same terms, Hewins had won in Meriden, Conn., August 21st, by 150 to 130, and Benjamin had won return game in Portchester, N. Y., October 22d, by protesting against referee’s decision as to a shot claimed as foul (actual score, 150 to 149 in favor of Hewins). Best runs in the three games: B., 7, 8, and 11; H., 7, 10, 8. Winning averages, barring protested game, 1.50 each.

1870.

Geo. T. Stone vs. Hewins. Music Hall, New Haven, Conn., January 4th.—$300 a side, Stone giving odds of 60, probably a 5½ × 11 carom. S., 300—1.63—11; H., 267—11.

239First Public Match Contest at the West. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, January 19th.—$200 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, Frank Parker defeating Henry Rhines by 300 to 260. There had been an announced three-ball match at the West a year or so before, but it was really an exhibition.

Carme vs. Henry Miller. National Theatre, New Orleans, March 24–25th.—Two games, each $250 a side, Carme giving odds of 150. First game: M., 500—3.98 (in 350)—56; C., 374—29. Second game: C., 500—6.49—85; M., 388—31. Table was surely no larger than 5 × 10.

J. W. Coon vs. Frank Parker. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, April 25th.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 carom. C., 500—2.90—24; P., 499—17.

First Three-ball State Championship. Assembly Rooms, Philadelphia, April 25–30th.—First tournament for championship of Pennsylvania, 5½ × 11 carom. E. J. Plunkett, 6—0; E. H. Nelms, 5—1; Wm. Rockhill, 4—2; James Palmer, 3—3; Robt. Hunter, 2—4; McAlier, 1—5; Doyle, 0—6. Prizes—1st., cue and billiard-table; 2d, $150; third, $70.

Plunkett vs. Nelms.—Same hall, January 18, 1872.—First match for champion cue. N., 200—av., 2—run, 22; P., 168—18.

Michael Honohan vs. Abraham Bassford. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago.—$100 a side, 5 × 10 carom. H., 300—2.63—17; B., 191—17.

First Known Case of Crotching Barred. Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, October 19th.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, c. b. Frank Parker and Henry Rhines, 400—3.07 and 2.54—19 and 17; Peter Snyder and John W. Coon, 264—2.26 and 1.51—13 and 12.

As far back as 1860–1, a run of 40 had been crotched (or jawed, in fact), in a non-public match at the three-ball game; and that crotching was not specifically barred before 1870 was because, until small tables came into vogue, it was theoretically twice as hard to get the crotch at three-ball caroms as at four-ball, and practically much harder.

1871.

[In this and all later years, table a 5 × 10 carom, with crotch barred, unless mentioned differently.]

First Match on a 5 × 10 Between First-Class Players. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, January 12th.—$500 a side. J. Dion, 500—3.60—46; Deery, 474—37.

240January 26th, same hall and stake, Dion giving odds of 100. Deery, 600—3.73 (in 500)—57; Dion, 479—42.

February 9th, same place and stake, Dion now giving 50. Deery, 600—5.98 (in 550)—83; Dion, 491—25.

These were the first public three-ball contests at odds between first-class players, and the odds was always marked up at the start of the game, instead of, as usual now, one man’s going to 500 against the other’s 600. Practically, or temperamentally, there is often a difference between ways that theoretically seem the same.

Rudolphe vs. Garnier. Apollo Hall, N. Y. City, January 21st.—$500 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, crotch not barred, but no crotching, Garnier receiving odds of 15 per cent. Rudolphe, 600—5.46—72; G., 510—28.

C. Dion vs. Daniels. Bumstead Hall, Boston, January 24th.—$250 a side, 5½ × 11 carom, no bar. Dion won by 300 to 131, with 38 against 12 for best run.

First Professional Tournament at Three-ball Game, and Also First Championship of the Northwest. Chicago, February 2–28th.—Games 300 points, balls 25
16. Playing off, Foley beat Pearce, and Coon both Pearce and Foley. Six games apiece.

The 25
16 ball had not been used in tournament before, and has been availed of in but one since. It makes “position draws” harder, and failures easier by an eighth of an inch. Yet it made less difference then than it would make now. There was but one match.

RHINES VS. COON.—Crosby’s Music Hall, Chicago, May 27th.—$250 a side, same balls. R., 400—4.82—54; C., 295—18.

Coon vs. Garnier. Same hall as above, March 8th.—$200, 5½ × 11 carom. C., 600 (odds of 100)—4.76 in 500—58; G., 522—35.

Coon vs. Parker. Same hall and table, March 11th.—$500. C., 400—3.48—22; P., 320—29.

Parker vs. Rhines. Same hall and table, March 22d.—$500. P., 400—2.44—26; R., 369—29.

241C. Dion vs. Deery. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, April 7th.—$500 a side. Dion, 500—6.41—58; Deery, 476—73.

J. Dion vs. Rudolphe. Congress Hall, San Francisco, April 17th.—Third and last of three games (see Four-ball Game for both that style and English billiards for $1,000 apiece). D., 500—4.72—(run not recorded); R., 472—69.

Daly vs. Rhines. Brooklyn Hall, Brooklyn, N. Y., November 6th.—$500 a side. Daly, 500—4.27—44; R., 397—58.

First Triple-figure Runs. National Theatre, New Orleans, November 20th, 22d, 25th.—Separate games, $500 apiece, crotch probably not barred. Joseph Dion won by 500 to 479, 365, and 268, including odds of 150 received invariably by Henry Miller. Winner’s averages: 4.95, 6.85, and 8.94. Best runs per game: D., 48, 105, 107; M., 29, 23, 11. [In this city, January 16, 1872, C. Dion ran 109, mainly in the crotch of a 5 × 10; but as a billiard-room match it was not a record.]

First Double-figure Average. Corinthian Hall, Titusville, Pa., December 7th.—$250 a side. Garnier, 500—10.42—80; Daly, 233—27.

1872.

Garnier and Rhines vs. Deery and Parker. Orpheus Hall, Chicago, May 25th.—$250 a side. G. and R., 336 and 164 (500)—7 and 3.49—82 and 27; D. and P., 181 and 191 (372)—3.85 and 4.07—32 and 46.

Parker vs. Rhines. Orpheus Hall, Chicago, July 1st.—$500 a side, 5 × 10 carom. P., 500—4.94—44; R., 359—27.

Daly vs. Deery. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, September 3d and 13th.—Match of 500 and 600 points, each for $1,000 a side, c. b. Resulted from match for $250 a side, played July 25th in the private room at Chris. O’Connor’s, Daly then winning by 500 to 455, averaging 4, and running 56 against 31. September 3d: Daly, 500—6.94—59; Deery, 292—41. September 13th: Daly, 600—6.25—54; Deery, 406—63.

Francois Ubassy vs. Henry Miller and John Bessunger. In Harmony Hall, New Orleans, and in Nixon’s Amphitheatre and the Globe Theatre, Chicago, Ubassy gave odds varying from “discount” to 200 in 600 and 300 in 800, in April, May, and June. The half dozen contests were of importance chiefly by reason of Ubassy’s runs and averages. The highest of the former were 117 and 116; of the latter, 15.79 in 300 in New Orleans and 17.78 in 800 in Chicago.

Amateur Championship of Louisiana. New Orleans, May 12th to 28th.—Tournament of 200–point games on a 4½ × 9 carom table. This series was so called not so much because quite all the contestants were clearly non-professionals as for the reason that any professional championship at that precise time would have fallen to either Henry Miller or his brother John, then first and second best players in the State. All matches of the new series were 300 up, on a 4½ × 9 table, for a stake of $100 a side, and played in New Orleans. Record of tournament, four games apiece:

From June 10th of this year until July 14, 1874, there were a dozen or two matches, Maggioli, Abrams and Choate taking turns as champions. Ultimately, the emblem became Maggioli’s permanently. The highest run of the series was 60, and the highest average 12, both by Maggioli.

First Championship of the World. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, June 23–30th.—First first-class professional tournament anywhere at three-ball caroms. Games, five apiece, 300 points. This tournament made the 5 × 10 carom table, bar crotch (4½ in. in all directions from the cushion-junction), the standard. Garnier and C. Dion first and second after playing off.

Average of tournament, 7.89.

All matches were for the Challenge Cup and $1,000 a side, and all but the last were played in Tammany Hall, N. Y. City.

GARNIER VS. C. DION. December 2d.—G., 600—10—68; D., 480—61.

243GARNIER VS. UBASSY. January 30, 1874.—G., 600—8.70—108; U., 460—50.

GARNIER VS. DALY. April 3, 1874.—G., 600—12.77—75; D., 380—62.

GARNIER VS. RUDOLPHE. December 10, 1874.—R., 600—14.63—161; G., 387—101.

RUDOLPHE VS. MAURICE VIGNAUX. February 22, 1875.—V., 600—10.17—60; R., 556—58.

VIGNAUX VS. SEXTON. Grand Hotel, Paris, France, March 3, 1876.—V., 600—19.35; S., 459—run, 129.

Jacob Schaefer’s Public Debut. Washington Hall, Indianapolis, July 25th.—Purse game. Schaefer, 300—4.84—38; Parker A. Byers, 183—20. He had also pursed two weeks before, Jacob Garratt beating him by 1000 to 932; but it was at the four-ball game, and in Garratt’s Indianapolis billiard-room.

First Championship of Pacific Coast. Mercantile Library Hall, San Francisco, August 25–30, 1873.—Tournament for championship, a silver cup and $650. Games, 200 points, six apiece. Mott won play-off.

Slosson and Schaefer’s First Meeting. October 5, 1873, Indianapolis, $100 a side, was the first meeting between a pair that have met oftener in public than any other two. Slosson, 500—5.32—35; Schaefer, 321—45.

Slosson vs. Daly. Kingsbury Hall, Chicago, November 8th.—$500 a side, Daly giving odds of 100. S., 600—5.68 (in 500); D., 593—44.

Chicago’s First First-Class Tournament. Kingsbury Hall, November 10–21st.—Aggregate, $3,100 in cash prizes, seven 400–point games apiece. Garnier and Daly won in playing off. Average of tournament, 6.46.

244In tabulating this tournament originally, the mistake was made of including the tie or extra games. Omitting them makes a slight difference in the general averages of Garnier, Ubassy and Daly, but none at all in J. Dion’s.

First Three-ball Championship of Massachusetts. Boston, closing December 5, 1873. Three prizes for place, and one for high run. Five games apiece.

Match-stake was $200, but there was only one contest—Bumstead Hall, Boston, January 7, 1874. Hickey, 400—3.40—22; Dennison, 323—26. On March 3 following, when there was no challenge outstanding, H. resigned emblem to Massachusetts Billiard Congress.

Tournament at Two Different Games. (See Four-ball Game, 1874, for one.) New Orleans, April 6–30th.—200 points up, for three prizes. Called an amateur tournament. Hoa won play-off.

MILLER VS. HOA. New Orleans, July 1st.—M., 300—3.33—20; H., 285—29. In this match, as in the other, the stake was the championship and $25 a side.

MILLER VS. MAGGIOLI. Same city, September 1st.—Maggioli, 300—3.85—33; Miller, 277—21.

1874.

First Game of Multiple Nights in America. Fall River, Mass., January 19–27th.—Wm. Briggs vs. Jerry Sullivan, for championship of Fall River and a silver cup, played in nightly blocks. Nothing reported but totals and best runs. B., 1500—26; S., 1449—19.

Multiple nights’ play, since carried to an extreme in England, originated in France in 1867.

First First-Class Tournament in Boston. Bumstead Hall, March 9–13th.—There was a prize for every player, and there was also poor 245playing for every prize, Garnier’s 78, 7.84 and 5.90 being best run, winning average and general average. This was the order of the prize-winners: Garnier, C. Dion, J. Dion, Ubassy, and Daly.

Daly vs. C. Dion. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, March 3d.—$1,000 a side. Daly, 600—8.95—212; Dion, 547—81. Daly here beat the record run, which was his own 153.

C. Dion vs. Daly. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, May 15th.—$2,000. Dion, 600—8.22—83; Daly, 578—94.

Ubassy vs. Garnier. Same hall, May 24th.—Purse game. U., 600—8.33—68; G., 446—61.

Wm. M. Dodds vs. E. H. Nelms. Assembly Buildings, Philadelphia, May 27th.—$250 a side, probably a 5½ × 11. D., 400—3.25—27; N., 334—28.

Same hall, same terms, June 30th.—N., 400—3.20—48; D., 391—31.

Rudolphe vs. C. Dion. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, September 18th.—$500 a side. R., 600—12—79; D., 338—55.

This led to a $200 “freeze-out,” $50 a game, played September 21–22 in Tim Flynn’s room, and lasting from 8.45 P.M. until 9.30 A.M. Games (100 up) and total points: R., 13—1349; D., 9—1266.

Rudolphe vs. Wm. Cook, Champion of England. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, October 9th.—$1,000 a side, with 21
16 balls on an English six-pocket table, 6 × 12 inside measurement. R., 400—1.96—26; C., 274—16.

Amateur Championship of Long Island. Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, N. Y., beginning October 26th.—Tournament for gold-mounted cue and $50 for first, and $75 apportioned as other prizes. Games, 200 points, with eleven entries. Samuel F. Knight and Joseph Pihet tied. After Knight had won the play-off, the loser protested on the ground that Knight, the year before, had received pay for marking in a professional tournament, and the cue and the $50 were awarded to Pihet. Later, there were half a dozen or more matches for the emblem, with varying results.

246First Three-ball Championship of America. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, November 4–13th.—Special prizes were a gold watch from Capt. Fred Grote for best run, a watch from Peter Totans for best general average, and an emblematic gold medal from Matthew Delancy. There were also a number of special playing-rules, no one of which outlasted the championship itself. Among them was one to bar crotching by requiring a 5½-in. oblique line on the bed of the table. This had been suggested for another end in the Dion-Foster match in Montreal in 1869 (see “First Protest” under Four-ball Game). Accomplishing nothing except actually to increase the crotching area by an inch, this, too, was speedily abandoned, an imaginary line (on the principle of the spot-radius in the three-ball game and the “string” in the four-ball) having been sufficient ever since 1862.

The tournament itself was an emphatic success, but the strange rules confused the public and irritated the players; and for the first time in a professional tournament a game was not completed, and for the first time, also, a referee was impelled, in self-respect, to vacate his office in rebuke of a player who refused to defer to the official ruling. It is necessary to mention the unfinished game (Garnier ahead of Ubassy by 274 to 246) for the reason that, as his general average indicates in the table below, Garnier has a total of but 2238, whereas, beaten only by Vignaux (11) and Daly (125), he should have 2264. The average of the tournament, eight games apiece, was 8.93.

All matches for $500 a side, and in Tammany Hall.

VIGNAUX VS. J. DION. December 30, 1874.—V., 600—12.50—192; D., 538—64.

VIGNAUX VS. RUDOLPHE. February 23, 1875.—V., 600—15.38—69; R., 326—41.

VIGNAUX VS. C. DION. March 25, 1875.—V., 600—12—80; Dion, 543—119.

April 26, 1875, his backers having failed to cover challenger’s final money on time, Vignaux forfeited emblem and $250 to Garnier. Money was returned, but emblem was retained until, on June 12th, Garnier resigned it to Daly, who had challenged May 26th.

247DALY VS. C. DION. November 23, 1875.—Dion, 600—12.50—52; Daly, 557—104.

Challenged by Garnier November 30th, Dion resigned the emblem December 14th.

GARNIER VS. J. DION. November 16, 1876.—D., 600—8.22—180; G., 495—77.

J. DION VS. SEXTON. May 31, 1877.—S., 600—12.23—247; D., 442—84. This was the first match-run to beat Daly’s 212 of 1874. Sexton seemed hopelessly behind when he made it.

SEXTON VS. C. DION. November 13, 1877.—S., 600—11.32—97; D., 428—105.

SEXTON VS. SLOSSON. June 27, 1878.—Sexton, 600—28.57—158; S., 338—100.

SEXTON VS. SLOSSON. December 27, 1878.—Tenth match and ninth and final contest. Sexton, 600—20.69—158; Slosson, 468—140.

Vignaux vs. C. Dion. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, December 8, 1874.—$500 a side. V., 800—11.94—100; D., 772—127.

Ubassy vs. C. Dion. Chris. O’Connor’s private room, N. Y. City, December 15–16th.—$500 a side, played in two nights. U., 1000—8.16—137; D., 930—91.

This was the first contest of more than one night between leading experts in America.

1875.

Championship of Ohio. Cleveland, O., closing January 25th.—Tournament for championship of Ohio and $1000 in money. Eugene Carter first, T. J. Gallagher second, and Anthony Honing, John Bluim, John A. Thatcher, Harry Choate, Joseph Casper, W. A. Burchard, Martin Mullen and H. Coleman following. Stake in match series was $200 a side, and table a 5 × 10. Carter beat Gallagher by 400 to 346, March 25th, and Honing by 400 to 353, both in White’s Hall, Toledo. In the Globe Theatre, Cleveland, October 17, 1876, occurred the fastest game of the series, which was for $250 a side. Gallagher, 400—17.39—76; Carter, 221—31.

Four-handed Public Game. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, February 17th.—In aid of the Homoœpathic Hospital Fund. J. and C. Dion, 500—15.15—36 and 56; Daly and Garnier, 354—28 and 34.

248First Avowedly Professional Use of 4½ × 9 Table. (It had already been used in declaratively amateur games in New Orleans.) Championship of Indiana, Indianapolis, February 23 to March 1, 1875.—Eight contestants. Henry Bussey was undefeated, while Parker A. Byers, failing to beat Bussey only, made best run, winning average, and general average, viz., 67—14.29—6.66.

But one match-contest is chronicled, and in that, played in Turners’ Hall, Indianapolis, June 24th, Byers beat Jacob Garratt who had been third in tournament. B., 400—10.26—63; G., 201—38.

First Undeniably Professional Match on 4½ × 9. Washington Hall, Indianapolis, March 9th.—$200 a side. Lewis Shaw, 400—13.79—51; Wm. Burleigh, 188—25.

Slosson vs. Rhines. Warerooms of J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co., Chicago, March 24th.—Rhines receiving odds of 100. S., 600—5.13—45; R., 579—41.

Brooklyn’s Only Professional Carom Tournament. Assembly (Billiard) Rooms, April 1–15th.—300–point games, for $600 (Garnier), $400 (Vignaux), $250 (J. Dion), $150 (Ubassy), and $100 (C. Dion). Neither runs nor averages were striking. Games won and lost: G., 5—1; V., 4—2; J. D., U., and C. D., 3—3; Daly, 2—4; Rudolphe, 1—5. J. Dion and Ubassy won in playing off triple tie.

Wm. Sexton’s First Public Three-ball Match. Bleecker Hall, Albany, N. Y., April 5th.—$100 a side, c. b. S., 500 to 462; winning average, 4.32.

Championship of Northwestern and Southwestern States. Warerooms of J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co., Chicago, April 12–24th.—200–point games. Prizes show outcomes of play-offs, every one of the twelve but Miller, Maggioli and Honing having tied. Average of tournament, 5.36. General averages of Gallagher and Burleigh parallel Ubassy and Slosson’s in 1874 for closeness.

249MILLER VS. RHINES. Academy of Music, New Orleans, July 8th.—First match for championship and $500. M., 500—5.49—32; R., 304—60.

MILLER VS. MAGGIOLI. Same hall, September 9th.—Maggioli, 500—5.68—73; Miller, 354—36.

MAGGIOLI VS. BURLEIGH. Oddfellows’ Hall, New Orleans, December 9th.—B., 500—9.43—69; M., 365—33.

BURLEIGH VS. SHAW. Chicago, February 19, 1876. S., 500—8.62—67; B., 485—87.

As a changeful championship, this has always stood unmatched. No one man won two successive contests.

Garnier vs. Vignaux. Tammany Hall, April 28, 1875.—$500 a side, c. b. G., 600—13.04—90; V., 258—33.

Garratt vs. Choate. Academy of Music, Cincinnati, July 29th.—$250 a side, c. b. G., 400—6.90—75; C., 304—27.

Anthony Kraker vs. Deery. Palace Amphitheatre, San Francisco, August 14th.—$1.000, c. b. K., 600—5.77—38; D., 598—48.

“The Garnier Tournament.” Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, November 15–22d.—For a purse of $3,000, presented by the late George L. Lorillard through Albert Garnier; 300–point games. Ties for third, fourth, and fifth prizes were not played off, the aggregate $1,000 being divided equally. The tournament stands alone not only because its winner’s general average is surpassed by those of four out of his six competitors, but also because his best single average is lower than that of any other player who won one or more games. Average of tournament (six games apiece), 9.81.

Schaefer vs. A. Kraker. About this year, Schaefer played and won a $500 match in Virginia City, N. T. (we think, having no record but memory), averaging 12 or 12.50 in 500 or 600, which was high for that region, high for himself, and high for his surroundings, unsecreted pistols stimulating him to unusual efforts.

Shaw vs. Carter. Adelphi Theatre, Toledo, January 7th.—$500, 4½ × 9, c. b. S., 500—15.13—108; C., 311—89.

Rudolphe vs. Daniels. Bumstead Hall, Boston, January 20th.—$500, 5 × 10, R. giving odds of 150. R., 600—13.04—68; D., 426—44. This match came of a billiard-room encounter between the pair in N. Y. City, Daniels receiving odds then, also, and losing.

Sexton vs. Slosson. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, January 27th.—$1,000. Sexton, 600—15.38—73; Slosson, 482—110. It was this match, with its high winning average, that determined the choice of Sexton over Slosson to go to Paris as challenger of Vignaux to the last game for the first world’s championship, which see under 1873.

Schaefer’s First Public Match in the East. Ford’s Opera-house, Washington, D. C., April 26th.—Announced as for $2,500 a side. Lewis Shaw, 600—10.72—69; Jacob Schaefer, 547—76. It was because of Shaw’s victory that he, instead of Schaefer, was admitted to the Centennial Tournament of May following.

Centennial Tournament. Horticultural Hall, Philadelphia, May 15–27th.—300–point games. This tournament took its rise in a purse of $1,000 proffered by Frank Queen, editor of the New York Clipper, to whichever billiard manufacturer should add most. H. W. Collender added $4,000. J. Dion, Daly, and Rudolphe played off their ties in Irving Hall, this city, June 5, 6, 7, with the results shown here in apportioning the prizes. Nine games apiece. Average of tournament, 10.07.

251First of Long Games in Tournaments. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, June 8–16th.—$1,500 in prize-money, 600–point games, one a night, instead of two short ones. In playing off ties, Rudolphe averaged 25 and ran 127 against Sexton, while Slosson against Garnier ran 311, thus beating record, which was Sexton’s 287. Average of tournament was the high one of 15.88. Garnier’s 17.84 eclipsed the general-average record, which was Sexton’s 14.73.

Daly vs. C. Dion. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, June 12–15th.—Five nights for $200 a side, c. b. Dion, 2000—12.99—121; Daly, 1141—128.

The Only First-class Tournament in California. Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, July 31st to August 4th.—600–point games for announced $3,000 in prize-money. Average of tournament, 17.44. Ties not played off.

Slosson’s general average of 18.80 surpasses Garnier’s New York record of 17.84. The two tournaments themselves were record-beaters for coincidences. They were the first with long games at three-ball caroms, 600 points in each, and neither came anywhere near paying expenses. The single averages of the winners-in-chief in the two cities were precisely the same (21.43) in exactly the same number of games. Finally, the player who had made the highest single average in New York made the highest in San Francisco also.

Daly vs. Slosson. August 12, same hall and c. b. game as foregoing.—$500 a side. D., 600—13.95—153; S., 364—47.

Louisiana Championship. No record of tournament, if there was one. A change seemingly made to 5 × 10 table.

252New Orleans, June 6th, first match, stake $50 a side. Louis Abrams, already champion, 300 to Chas. Quaid’s 143, winner’s average and best run being 8.33 and 50.

August 4th, Abrams, 300—5.88—55; John Miller’s total, 249.

October 4th, Henry Miller, 300—6—63; Abrams, 244—23.

December 4th, Maggioli, 300—10.71—58; H. Miller, 253—61.

This was the sixth match, and seems to have been the last.

Schaefer’s First Tournament. Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, November 20–28th.—Four money-prizes, aggregating $1,500, 300–point games on the usual 5 × 10, but with 25
16 balls. Slosson having gone South, but one tie game was played, and that, increased to 600 points, was won by J. Dion, who also received the special prize (a billiard-table) for best general average. Six games apiece, averaging 9.30, a drop due less to lesser runs on balls together than to missing on smaller balls far apart.

First Public Handicap Tourney at Game. Begun in Academy of Music, Cleveland, O., December 27th.—A Honing (275), $250; T. J. Gallagher (350), $200; J. Randolph Heiser (275), $150; Eugene Carter (300), $100. J. A. Thatcher (275) was the other competitor.

1877.

Sexton vs. Slosson. Globe Theatre, New Orleans, January 5th, 6th, 7th.—5 × 10, c. b., $200 a side. Sexton, 1800—24.32—417; Slosson, 976—172. Winner’s run and average surpassed previous records.

Schaefer’s Second Tournament. Mechanics’ Hall, Utica, N. Y., beginning March 20th.—300–point games, c. b. John Bessunger, $400, in addition to a gold-mounted cue for best general average; T. J. Gallagher (beaten by Bessunger in play-off), $250; Wm. Burleigh, $150; Jacob Schaefer, $125; and Eugene Carter (beat Chas. Knight in play-off), $75.

Four First-place Ties Out of Seven Players. Championship of Chicago, January 7th to February 4th.—300–point games. Henry Rhines ($150), Frank Parker ($100), Albert Hoa ($50), and M. Honahan ($25) had to play off, result being as given above. Peter Snyder, Ben Saylor, and Chas. P. Miller were the remaining contestants.

RHINES VS. PARKER. Same city, April 11th.—Championship and $200. Parker, 500—4.95—65; R., 449—36.

First First-class Tourney in New Orleans. January 10–19th, c. b., for $1,000 in prizes. Ties resulted in the precedence here given. Sexton topped Slosson’s San Francisco general average.

Average of tournament, 17.25.

Sexton vs. C. Dion. St. Charles Theatre, New Orleans, February 5th.—$2,000 a side, c. b., Sexton giving odds of 200. S., 1000—27.78—228; Dion, 765 (with odds)—94.

Indiana Championship. Washington Hall, March 18–23d.—Probably a 4½ × 9 table, c. b. P. A. Byers, gold badge and a Brunswick-Balke billiard-table; J. Randolph Heiser, $100; Henry Bussey, $60; and Jacob Garratt, $40. The best run (116) was made by Bussey, and the best single average (30) by Heiser. The other competitors were Geo. Morris, J. R. Seaman, A. Hawkins, and C. E. Carney.

Challenged by Bussey and receiving forfeit on May 23d, Byers resigned the championship emblem to the State Association.

St. Louis Handicap. Chas. E. Mussey’s Room, March 21–28th.—600 points up, c. b., for money-prizes aggregating $400. G. F. Slosson, C. Dion and J. Schaefer were at “scratch,” T. J. Gallagher received 10 per cent., and Wayman C. McCreery 20 per cent. Schaefer beat Dion, Slosson beat Schaefer, McCreery beat Slosson, and Gallagher beat McCreery. In beating Dion in the play-off, Schaefer ran 429, eclipsing Sexton’s match-run of 417. (This led to the match 254next below.) Average of tournament proper, 14.79 (four games apiece).

Schaefer Forfeits to Sexton. Match of three games, 1000 points each in New York, Chicago and St. Louis, for $2,000 a side, highest aggregate score to decide. Schaefer side incurred forfeit through failure to make the final deposit, July 3d.

First 1000 Points in a Night. Three-ball. Turner’s Hall, Chicago, November 20th.—$500 a side. Slosson, 1000—25.64—293; Schaefer, 739—217.

1879.

Second Championship of the World. Cooper Institute, N. Y. City, January 23d to February 10th.—Tournament for the J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co.’s emblem and $2,100 in cash, 600–point games. Slosson had the highest run by 19 per cent., and the best general average by 25 per cent.; but it was against him that Daly made the best run of his life, and his defeat of Slosson placed the latter in a position from which he could extricate himself only by vanquishing Schaefer twice. Instead, Schaefer beat him at once (600 to 571 in seven innings), after it had seemed almost certain that Slosson would win in five or six innings, and by about 600 to 200. There was only one play-off, Sexton beating Daly. The seven games apiece averaged 16.10, which, while lower than the figures of earlier tournaments, was yet higher than the general averages of all the contestants in this one but Slosson, Schaefer, and Daly. Only half the single averages in the appended table, viz., those of Schaefer, Daly, Gallagher, and Rudolphe, are winning ones. This proved to be the last tournament at the regular three-ball game to command the presence of first-class experts in America.

There was but one match for this championship, together with a money-stake of $1,000 a side. It occurred in McCormack’s Hall, Chicago, May 15th. Schaefer, 1000—333.33—690; Slosson, 44—21.

255Last First-class Professional Tournament. It was also the first tournament in France. Cercle Internationale, Paris, May 5–10th.—Games 600 up, on a J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co.’s 5 × 10 carom, for a championship emblem and other prizes. Triple tie not played off.

Last First-class Professional Match in America. Madison Square Garden, N. Y. City, October 23–25th.—1000 points nightly, $2,000 a side. Schaefer, 3000—41.62—427; Slosson, 2604—365.

1880.

Last First-class Match Anywhere. Salle Cremorne, Paris, April 10–14th.—$500 a side. Vignaux, 4000—80—1531; Slosson, 3118—1103.

Championship of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, beginning December 4th.—Games, 300 up. Ed. McLaughlin, E. H. Nelms, V. Estephe and Wm. M. Dodds prize-winners.

B.-B.-C. Co.’s First Tournament on Pacific Coast. San Francisco, Cal., about 1880–81.—To write from memory, it was won by W. J. Lowry, one of whose strongest competitors was an Eastern amateur, who was persuaded into participating while on a visit to that city.

Spotting at Fifty. C. E. Mussey’s Room, St. Louis, March 20–27th, five days’ play, Wayman C. McCreery giving the odds, 256for $100 a side, of spotting at 50 to W. H. Catton’s 60. McC., 3000; C., 2771.

This method of repressing straight-rail nursing had been tested in a six-handed handicap tournament at Mussey’s in the prior February, the winner being Louis Reed, who spotted at 50, Catton (35) taking second prize, and Leon Magnus (50) the third.

1883.

St. Louis Handicap. Mussey’s, February 3d to March 10th.—Seven entries, of whom Gallagher (650) and Catton (500) tied on 5—1 each, without playing off. Highest run and best winning average were Gallagher’s 332 and 46.44.

Championship of Pacific Coast and $500. Mechanics’ Pavilion, San Francisco, September 25–30th.—Ben Saylor, 2500—10.91—191; J. F. B. McCreery, 1783—112.

Ed. McLaughlin vs. Randolph Heiser. Assembly Buildings, Philadelphia, December 12th.—First of match of three games (see Balkline and Champion’s Game for the others) for $250 a side each. McL., 1000—71.43—805 (finish); H., 134—run, 119.

1884.

Maggioli vs. Edward Dawson. Theatre, Mobile, Ala., July 8th.—$500 a side, 4½ × 9. M., 1000—13.51—170; D., 789—148.

Maggioli vs. Harry Cole. Casino Hall, San Antonio, Tex., October 24–26th.—$500 a side, 4½ × 9. M., 3000—71.43—833; C., 2383—854. They played in Galveston on January 4th, 1885, and Cole won the $500 by 1000 to 254, averaging 66.67, and running 507.

First of 1500 Points a Night. Central Music Hall, Chicago, December 19–20th.—$1,000 a side. W. H. Catton, 3000—31.58—933; Edward McLaughlin, 2307—942. These are the largest runs in this country in a stake game on a 5 × 10 table.

1885.

Ben Saylor vs. Lon Morris. San Francisco, April 22d.—$125 a side, Morris discounting. S., 1000—27.77—101; Morris had 470 left—best runs, 554 and 289.

257Eugene Carter vs. Harvey McKenna. Frasheim Hall, Cleveland, O., May 12–13th.—$1,000 a side, 5 × 10. C., 3000—26.79—289; McK., 2288—417.

Championship of Dakota and $200. Mitchell, December 27th. L. E. Stern defeated Max Shauer.

1886.

W. D. Emery vs. Lansing W. Perkins. Hershey’s Music Hall, Chicago, February 18th.—$500 a side. E., 800—7.16—87; P., 775—75.

Amateur Handicap Annuals. Maurice Daly’s Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, N. Y., March 20th.—Commencement of annual tournaments for jeweled prizes. Eight contestants. Orville Oddie, Jr., won the one-carat diamond stud, having incidentally made highest run (75) and single winning average (12). In tournament of November 8th to 24th, he was awarded another diamond stud, winning 6—1, and again making highest run (130) and single average (18.18).

1887.

Amateur Match for $3,000. N. Y. Racquet Club, April 15–20th.—300 points a night. Dr. G. L. Knapp, 1500—4.15—76; Alexander Morten, 1383—52.

500 or No Count. Grand Rapids, Mich., May 21st.—Game of 1000 points, $50 a side. McKenna, 1000; Wm. Burleigh, 143. Numerically, this is the largest odds ever known to have been given to one of Burleigh’s speed.

First Amateur Championship of America. May 23–28th.—N.Y. Racquet Club tournament for a silver tankard valued at $500. Five games apiece, 300 points up. Messrs. Soulé and Flannagan represented Philadelphia.

One general average having been withheld, it is not possible to figure out the average of tournament.

258McKenna vs. Fred Eames. Bumstead Hall, Boston, December 20–21st.—Game for a purse, McKenna to make 5000 before Eames could score 500 altogether on either night. McK., 5000—416.67—2572 and 2121; E., 45—18.

1888.

Second Amateur Championship of America. N. Y. Racquet Club, May 14–19th.—First competition for the Townsend Cup, valued at $1,000, and to be won, consecutively or otherwise, in three annual tournaments. Three games apiece, 300 points. Average of tournament, 4.90.

1889.

Brooklyn, N. Y., Amateur Annual. Daly’s Assembly Rooms, February 4–14th.—Handicap tournament for diamonds, 5 × 10. Arthur R. Townsend (scratch, 375), winning 3—1, won first prize and also made highest single average (15), highest general average (7.40), and highest run (116). Townsend was tied by Wm. Barnard (375), but defeated him, in playing off for first and second, by 375 to 185.

Third Tourney for Amateur Championship of America. Second and last for Townsend Cup. N. Y. Racquet Club, May 13–18th. Average of tournament (four games apiece), 6.01.

May 12, 1900, a third annual competition having been found impracticable, the club committee awarded the Townsend Cup to Oddie.

Joseph Capron vs. John Donahue. Montreal, Can., September 18th.—$250 a side. Capron won by 500 to about 340, but loser made best run (66).

Schaefer vs. McKenna. November.—Match for $2,500 a side, even up. Death of Schaefer’s wife caused his side to pay $500 for postponement to January, and death of McKenna meanwhile ended match.

Brooklyn, N. Y., Annual Amateur Handicap. Daly’s Assembly Rooms, March 10–22d.—Average of tournament (five games apiece), 5.10.

J. Schaefer vs. J. F. B. McCleery. San Francisco, May 29th, 30th, 31st.—$200 a side, 3000 points, Schaefer giving odds of discount, 4½ × 9, c. b. S., 3000 (winning score)—average, 751 in actual score (3004)—run, 3000; McC., 15—run, 13.

F. C. Ives vs. McCleery. Same city, same table, a day or two later, Ives conceding 1000 for a stake of $250 a side. Ives, 3000—176.46—982; McC., 1748—717.

Nothing could more fitly close the chronicle of regular three-ball caroms than those McCleery matches. For other than amateurs or rising professionals, the game had lacked approval ever since the spring of 1879. Several of the contests after that were designed chiefly to surpass the “run” and “average” records of one or two professionals earlier in the wonder-working field; and so lamentably did the unrestricted game decline that first-class players, avoiding one another to the neglect of championships, welcomed matches with fourth or fifth-rate ones on 4½ × 9 tables.

Kerkau vs. McLaughlin. Daly’s Room, N. Y. City, purse games. August 16–21st.—McLaughlin, 6000—run, 1290; K., 4749, total. Sept. 6–11th.—Kerkau, 6000—run, 1355; McL., 4520—run, 1349. Averages in both were light for the high runs.

1905.

J. Ferd. Poggenburg vs. Wm. H. Duhy. Rooms of the Cherokee Club, N. Y. City, February 26th.—Contest for the Victor Dowling Championship Cup at “straight-rail,” 4½ × 9 table. P., 150—9.44—run not stated; D., 146—run, 60 (highest of game). At the Lexington Avenue Opera House, N. Y. City, April 30th, for same emblem: Ed. McLaughlin, 300—21.43—158; Wm. Duhy, 153—50. Table, 4½ × 9.

AVERAGES IN CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES.

333.33 in 1000—J. Schaefer, 1879.

28.57 in 600—Wm. Sexton, 1878.

RUNS IN CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES.

690 in 1000—J. Schaefer, 1879.

247 in 600—Wm. Sexton, 1877.

AVERAGES IN CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENTS.

85.71 in 600 points—J. Schaefer, 1879.

25.00 in 300—J. Dion, 1874 (championship of America).

37.60 (gen. av. in 3947 points)—G. F. Slosson, 1879.

RUNS IN CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENTS.

464 in 600—G. F. Slosson, 1879.

159 in 300—M. Vignaux, 1874 (championship of America).

AVERAGES IN NON-CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES.

416.67 in 5000—H. McKenna, 1887 (nominally a match, but actually a purse game. Schaefer averaged 751 in 1890, running 3000, but the table was a 4½ × 9).

80.00 in 4000—M. Vignaux, Paris, 1880.

48.39 in 3000—W. H. Catton, 1884.

24.32 in 1800—W. Sexton, 1877.

71.57 in 1000—Ed. McLaughlin, 1883.

RUNS IN NON-CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES.

1355 in 6000—H. Kerkau, purse game, 1887.

2572 in 5000—H. McKenna, 1887 (see paragraph above).

1531 in 4000—M. Vignaux, Paris, 1880.

942 in 3000—Ed. McLaughlin, 1884.

417 in 1800—Wm. Sexton, 1877.

805 in 1000—Ed. McLaughlin, 1883.

212 in 600—M. Daly, 1874.

AVERAGES IN NON-CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENTS.

66.67 in 600—J. Schaefer, 1878.

60.00 in 300—Wm. Sexton, 1876.

RUNS IN NON-CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENTS.

287 in 300—Wm. Sexton, 1876.

327 in 600—J. Schaefer, 1878. (S. ran 429 in tie-game, but it was outside of tournament.)

All play was on a 5 × 10 carom, with 2⅜ balls, and also with a 14 × 28–in. line, except in last two public matches.

Abbreviations.—Player, 600—18.75—165; Player, 585—151—signifies winner’s total, average, and high run, followed by loser’s total and high run.

1879.

First Tournament at Restricted Three-ball Caroms. In the Champion’s Game, as originally played in public on the dates given below, an oblique line was drawn near every corner. Its purpose was to make it harder to swing the balls (“turn the corner”) in the progressive nursing process known as “straight rail.” On the short rail, this line ended 14 inches from the nearest corner, and on the long rail 28 inches. Within any one of the four balks so formed, only two successive shots could be wholly made; but, for it to count, the second shot had to send at least one ball out.

Tammany Hall, N. Y. City, November 11–24th.—Challenge emblem and $2,000. Games 300 points, except in playing off ties. Sexton by 500 to 478, and Daly by 500 to 496, were winners of ties. Average of tournament (seven games apiece), 10.58.

Money-stake in championship matches, $500 a side. All were played in Tammany Hall. After his second victory over Schaefer, Slosson was never again challenged.

SEXTON VS. SCHAEFER. January 10, 1880. Schaefer, 600—18.75—165; Sexton, 585—151.

SCHAEFER VS. SEXTON. April 22, 1880. Schaefer, 600—14.63—141; Sexton, 523—75.

SCHAEFER VS. SLOSSON. June 19, 1880. Slosson, 600—30—236; Schaefer, 470—114.

SLOSSON VS. SCHAEFER. October 4, 1880. Slosson, 600—33.33—138; Schaefer, 438—312.

Carter vs. Gallagher. Union Square Rooms, N. Y. City, March 22d.—$500 a side. C., 600—10.17—140; G., 423—54.

Heiser vs. Carter. Same hall, March 26th.—$500 a side. H., 600—10.53—93; C., 566—149.

Vignaux vs. Slosson. Grand Hotel, Paris, December 20–24th.—$1,000 a side. V., 3000—29.70—214; S., 2961—273.

1881.

Schaefer vs. Slosson. Academy of Music, N. Y. City, April 11–15th.—$2,000. Schaefer, 4000—32.52—342; Slosson, 2780—252.

1882.

Longest Run Abroad. Grand Hotel, Paris, January 30th to February 3d.—$1,000 a side. Slosson, 3000—37.97—398; Vignaux, 2553—394.

As the first victory of an American abroad in a public match, this was commemorated by a dinner to Slosson at Delmonico’s, N. Y. City, on February 23d, by a professional testimonial to him afterwards at the Columbian Room, not then his, and later by a purse of $700, contributed in part by Charles A. Dana, Frank Queen, and other journalistic patrons of billiards. [The winner maintains that this game was played on 18 × 38 lines.—Ed.]

New Orleans Tournament. Millers Room, March 27th to April 13th.—Games started at 400, but found too long, and reduced to 300 after first night. Maggioli, 5—0; Abrams and Coste, each 3—2, Coste winning play-off; Oberlander and Zaehringer, each 2—3, former winning play-off; and Bartley, 0—5.

1884.

Longest Run in America. Madison Square Hall, N. Y. City, February 14th.—$250 a side, last game of match (see Three-ball Caroms and Balkline for others). Edward McLaughlin, 600—15.79—206; J. R. Heiser, 552—351.

263Handicap Tournament of Chicago Amateurs. Collender Billiard Hall, beginning March 17th.—Messrs. Ed. Rein, Sawyer and Davis played Champion’s Game against Frank Rice and four others. Rein won 6—1, and Rice and Davis 5—2 each, Rice also winning play-off. Sawyer won fourth prize.

Line Increased from 14 × 28 to 18 × 38. Central Music Hall, Chicago, May 31st.—Second game of match of two (see Balkline Game for the other), $500 a side each. Slosson, 800—28.54—236; Schaefer, 657—98. The 18 × 38 line was then first played in public in America, but had been practiced in 1882–83, and on January 20, 1883, Slosson challenged Schaefer to play it for $500 a side.

1885.

Line Increased from 18 × 38 to 20 × 40. Same hall and stake as foregoing about Feb. 2, Chicago. Schaefer, 800—16.67—78; Slosson, 589—97.

Making runs of 100 unlikely or impossible in public defeated the purpose of the game, which was to restrict nursing without prohibiting it, and at this stage this line system was abandoned.

BEST PERFORMANCES IN PUBLIC MATCHES.

AVERAGES AT 14 × 28.

33.33 in 600 (championship)—G. F. Slosson, 1880.

37.97 in 3000, Paris, France—G. F. Slosson, 1882.

32.52 in 4000—J. Schaefer, 1881.

RUNS AT 14 × 28.

312 (championship)—J. Schaefer, 1880.

351 (best in America)—J. R. Heiser, 1884.

398 (best anywhere)—G. F. Slosson, Paris, France, 1882.

AVERAGES AT 18 × 38.

28.54 in 800—G. F. Slosson, 1884.

RUN AT 18 × 38.

236—G. F. Slosson, 1884.

AVERAGE AT 20 × 40.

16.67—J. Schaefer, 1885.

RUN AT 20 × 40.

97—G. F. Slosson, 1885.

All play, unless otherwise stated, was with 2⅜ balls on a 5 × 10 carom table, and until 1885 on an 8–inch line.

Abbreviations.—Such figures as 600—50.—375 stand in that order for total, average, and high run, the loser’s average being omitted as not a record. Those of 8:2, 14:2, 18:1, and 18:2 signify eight, fourteen, or eighteen-inch line with either one or two shots or plays in balk, regardless of count.

1883.

First Public Contests. What is known simply as “Balkline” took its name originally from the table’s having a continuous line running around it six inches from the cushion. This form, with three shots in balk, was practiced by Rudolphe and the Dions in 1875, pronounced too difficult, and never played in public. The intersecting short lines near every corner were added early in 1883, and the main line was then put eight inches from the cushion; and in this form, with its eight balks and the two shots or one valid count therein, as described for the Champion’s Game, the “Balkline” was first played publicly for the world’s championship in Central Music Hall, Chicago, March 26th to April 6th. Of the seven contestants, Alonzo Morris and Thomas Wallace were graduated from a preliminary tournament held at the J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co.’s warerooms, that city, March 6–13th. In addition to the challenge emblem, there were money-prizes aggregating $3,000, and the tournament was akin to a marvel in embodying so many as seven players without a single tie. Average of the twenty-one games, 12.86. J. Dion’s 17.71 and Sexton’s 16.58 were their best averages—not winning ones. During Sexton’s run of 170 the first glimpses in public were seen of what, in 1890, was dubbed “The Anchor.” It had been played in private at the regular three-ball game, but lacked favoring opportunities at the Champion’s Game, while at Balkline it was impossible until the eight short lines were added near the corners.

Matches were to have been 800 points for $500 a side, but none was ever made, and in due time the emblem became Schaefer’s to keep. This was the second case of first-class championship tournament without ever a match. Nor was there a balkline championship 265match until Slosson and Schaefer’s in 1890, which was the first case of first-class carom championship, either national or universal, without a tournament.

Vignaux vs. Schaefer. At close of foregoing tournament these experts played two games in public. The one in Hartford, Conn., was at cushion caroms, and Schaefer won it. The other, played at Academy of Music, N. Y. City, June 12th, was in all respects on balkline championship terms, except that, as there was no challenge, therefore there could not be a championship match. V., 800 (total)—22.22 (winning average)—106 (highest run); S., 644 (total)—90 (highest run).

First Balkline Match Abroad. Grand Café, Brussels, Belgium, November 21–25th.—$500 a side, 4½ × 9 table. Garnier, 3000; Daly, 2839. Averages and runs not cabled.

Second game, Lyons, France, December 10–14th.—Same size of table. Garnier, 3000—27.23—238; Daly, 2970—309.

Vignaux vs. Schaefer. Grand Hotel, Paris, November 26–30th.—$1,000 a side. V., 3000—28.85—165; S., 2859—164.

Same place and terms, January 14–18, 1884. V., 3000—44.75—329; S., 2869—201.

Vignaux vs. Rudolphe. Paris, December 10–14th.—Same terms as last two games above. V., 3000; R., 1415. Runs and averages not cabled.

1884.

Vignaux vs. Schaefer. See 1883, November 26–30th.

Championship of Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. M. H. Hewins’s Room, Hartford (except last game, which was played in Allyn Hall), January 29th to February 15th.—Tournament at “Space Game,” a combination of Balkline and the oblique line of the Champion’s Game. L. A. Guillet, 5—0; Hewins, 4—1; H. Behrens, J. A. Hendrick and C. T. Shean, 2—3 apiece; and J. Pletcher, 0—5. Play-off gave Behrens third money, and Shean fourth. A gold watch was championship emblem.

Three matches followed, all played in Springfield, Mass., the home of Guillet, who defeated Hewins by 500 to 286, received forfeit from 266Behrens, and finally, December 30, 1885, defeated Behrens by 500 to 366.

Except as here set forth, the “Space Game” has never been played in public.

McLaughlin vs. Heiser. Assembly Buildings, Phila., Jan. 17, second of three different styles of game, $250 a side apiece. McL., 600—10—64; H., 470—43. (See Regular Three-ball and Champion’s Game for the two other contests.)

Maggioli vs. John T. Moulds. New Orleans, February 28–29th, March 1st.—Former gave odds of 25 per cent., for $500 a side, and won by 1200 to 1153. Nothing of moment in runs or averages.

Schaefer vs. Slosson. Central Music Hall, Chicago, May 12th.—$500 a side. Schaefer, 800—38.10—211; Slosson, 384—200. First game of a match at two different styles (see Champion’s Game, 1884, for the other).

Later there were a few 8:2 matches between lesser experts; but this was the last, of either match or tournament, between first-class ones.

1885.

First Handicap Tournament. Starting early this year, there were many handicap tournaments during that and the next half dozen or more; but in only a half dozen of such tournaments was aught accomplished worth recording. The one in Platt’s Hall, San Francisco, January 4–6th, this year, is cited first among the exceptional six because of its having been the first at the game, the first tournamental playing of it on a 4½ × 9 table, and the only instance of a player’s single averages being the same as his general average.

Entrance fee, $250, with $250 added by the B. B. C. Co. Three games.

Morris’s averaging 18.52 against both opponents necessarily made his general average 18.52 also.

267Line Increased from 8:2 to 12.2. Central Music Hall, Chicago, January 26th.—$500 a side. Schaefer, 800—14.55—109; Slosson, 719—98.

Increased to 14:2. Philadelphia roomkeepers’ championship handicap tournament, begun March 2d. Ed McLaughlin, Wm. Rockhill, and Pincus Levy won, 6—1 apiece, and Rockhill won emblem and $100 in playing off, Levy taking second prize ($75), and McLaughlin third ($50).

There were about a dozen match-contests for the trophy. Winning it from Rockhill on May 28th, at odds of 300 to 200, McLaughlin would have made it his own had not James Palmer, on May 25, 1886, defeated him by 175 to 254 in a possible 300. Ed. Burris beat Palmer on September 23, 1886, and others later at intervals, among them McLaughlin twice (handicap 225 to 300), and finally became owner of the emblem by defeating Pincus Levy, June 2, 1887, by 200 to 126 in a possible 150. What is worth recording here is not in the play itself, but in the logic of the situation. That it was a handicap championship necessarily made McLaughlin the champion all along as the giver of the longest odds.

In December, 1890, at the Continental Hotel, the Philadelphia roomkeepers engaged in another 14:2 handicap (John Cline, Ed. Burris and Ed. McLaughlin first, second, and third on imposts of 225, 300, and 400 points), but avoided the championship contradiction.

First Public Match at 14:2. Central Music Hall, Chicago, March 25th.—$250 a side. Capt. A. C. Anson, 500—5.43—39; Frank Parker, 364—22.

Catton vs. Gallagher. Mercantile Library Hall, St. Louis, $500 a side, 8:2. C., 800—10.67—74; G., 687—78.

First Strictly Public Tournament at 14:2. Irving Hall, N. Y. City, April 20–29th.—$2,250 added by the B. B. C. Co. to entrance fees of $250 apiece and to net door-money equally divided among the five. The approximate average of tournament, which instituted no championship, was 11.

268A 14:2 Tournament of Four Rounds. VIGNAUX, SCHAEFER AND SLOSSON.—Central Music Hall, Chicago, twelve nights between November 16th and December 26th, both inclusive, for $2,950, given by Chicago roomkeepers, and $1,000 by the B. B. C. Co., with the net receipts added. No championship was involved. Independent games of 600 points, every player playing every other twice, constituted the first two rounds, or tournament proper, and 800–point games, every man playing every other twice, constituted the remaining rounds, which were to determine the triple tie of November 16–21st, duplicated December 21–23d.

After this tie, the three proposed to divide all, and did divide all but the $1,000 of the B. B. C. Co., which required them to play to a finish. The next round was also a tie, but in the final one Schaefer beat both, and Vignaux beat Slosson. Nothing of moment signalized the six extra games, save that Schaefer lengthened his high run to 187, that Slosson reached 159, and that Vignaux fell from a winning average of 75 to 22.22, and then to 13.11.

1886.

Schaefer vs. Vignaux. Cosmopolitan Hall, N. Y. City, January 26–30th.—$2,500 a side. S., 3000—20.97—180; V., 2838—143.

Same hall, March 9–13th.—$1,000 a side. S., 3000—25.86—230; V., 1855—149.

Gallagher vs. Carter. B. B. C. Co.’s Warerooms, Chicago, March 9th.—$250 a side. G., 500—9.61—41; C., 381—37.

McLaughlin vs. Heiser. Cosmopolitan Hall, N. Y. City, March 8th.—$500 a side, home-and-home. McL., 500—7.35—51; H., 435—65. Return game, Assembly Buildings, Philadelphia, March 19th. H., 500—9.61—55; McL., 429—48.

Purse Game at 10.2. Allyn Hall, Hartford, Conn., December 20th. Sexton, 500—9.61—69; McKenna, 369—52.

An unexampled feature of the year was that three winners out of four—Gallagher, Heiser, and Sexton—did 500 points in 52 innings (or 9.61) in matches.

Twelve Players Tied Out of Thirteen. St. Louis, January 3d to February 17th.—Handicap for six prizes (aggregating $725) and a challenge medal. Wayman C. McCreery did the handicapping, E. Carter and T. J. Gallagher being high at 300 each. There were two ties of four each, and two of two each, W. H. Catton, sixth from both top and bottom with his 6—6, being the only one who escaped. Among amateurs, Chicago has since surpassed this in the striking particular that all five contestants tied alike, every one winning and losing two games of a tournament held in the late Henry Rhines’s room.

In playing off for from first to fourth in St. Louis, Frank Day and John Thatcher tied again for first and second, and Gallagher and Maggioli for third and fourth. Thatcher beat Day, and Maggioli lost to Gallagher. Carter, who, with 5—7, was among the other tieing four, made the highest single average (18.75) by 50 per cent., and was the only one who ran triple figures (101), Maggioli coming next with 78, Gallagher with 69, and Catton with 68. The regular games numbered 78.

McLaughlin vs. Heiser. Natatorium Hall, Philadelphia, February 24–26th.—$250 a side. McL., 1500—5.60—46; H., 1064—45.

Daly’s Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, March 15–17th.—Return game, $250 a side. H., 1500—7.81—55; McL., 1258—60.

Schaefer vs. Slosson. Central Music Hall, Chicago, April 12th.—$500 a side. Schaefer, 800—17.78—126; Slosson, 639—135.

1888.

Connecticut Championship at 8:2 on a 4½ × 9. M. H. Hewins’ Rooms, Hartford, January 17th to February 6th.—Tournament of 250–point games. Fred Hawks, 5—0, first prize; J. A. Hendrick, 4—1, second prize, and also prize for high run (36); W. G. White, 2—3, third prize, having beaten R. W. Kellogg in play-off.

Same room, game, and table, April 9th.—Match for championship. Hawks, 300—4.55—27; John H. Kingsbury, 217—7.

The championship emblem was a billiard-table, to be defended fifteen months.

270First 14:2 Tournament in France. Played on a B. B. C. Co.’s 5 × 10 table at Vignaux’s Academy, Paris, March 19–28th.—Contestants at various handicaps, Messrs. Vignaux (3—1), Piot, Fournil, and Leuiller (2—2 apiece), and Gay (1—3).

Slosson Defeats Schaefer. St. Paul, Minn., October —, 14:2, purse game, $250, given by the B. B. C. Co. No data as to totals, runs or averages.

First Championship of Shortstops. Madison Street Theatre, Chicago, November 26th to December 8th.—200–point games. Carter, who won 7—0 in games and $254.80 in money, made highest run, single average and general average (87—13.33—9.33). Catton and Gallagher tied for second and third, and divided $302.80, and Maggioli and John T. Moulds, tieing for fourth, divided $64.60. The other contestants were Frank C. Ives (2—5), Wm. F. Hatley (2—5), and Henry Rhines (1—6). In December, 1889, Ives challenged Carter, who, intending to go to Paris, declined to defend the emblem. There was never a match-contest for the emblem, Ives holding it the required time without challenge. After Carter’s return from Europe, there was a second tournament for the shortstop championship (see 1891).

1889.

New England Championship at 10.2 on 4½ × 9. J. J. Murphy’s Hub Palace, Boston, ending December 18th.—Eight in. Fred Eames first, Moses Yatter second, Chas. F. Campbell third. (See February 16–26, 1891, for their being 1—2—3 also for another 10.2 championship.)

1890.

Maggioli vs. Hatley. Madison Street Theatre, Chicago, January 23d.—Match for $250 a side and the championship of Western players below first grade. M., 500—9.26—71; H., 327—28.

Old Line Against New. Chickering Hall, N. Y. City, February 20th to March 1st.—First appearance of Ives and Catton in the East. To six entrances of $250 apiece, the B. B. C. Co. added $2,500. Games 500 up, Slosson and Schaefer playing 14:2 against the 8:2 of the others, three of whom divided third, fourth, and fifth prizes.

271As professionals of mark have never publicly repeated this experiment of line against line, averaging this tournament in its entirety would be worthless for comparison. Average of the four 8:2 players, 13.17; of the two 14:2, 17.63.

Going to Chicago, the same players contended in Central Music Hall, April 5–12th for a like amount of money, but handicapped in points, all at 14:2. In place of $400 thrice, now read Slosson, $800; Catton, $400. Average of tournament, 12.48.

Maggioli vs. Ives. Madison Street Theatre, Chicago, April 16th.—$250 a side. M., 500—15.15—121; I., 440—73.

First World’s Championship at 14:2. Instituted without the formality of a tournament in a match-contest at Chickering Hall, N. Y. City, December 1st.—Stake, $500 a side in money and a silver Challenge Cup presented by the B. B. C. Co. Schaefer, 800—19.51—128; Slosson, 609—60.

SCHAEFER VS. CARTER. Second match, same terms, Central Music Hall, Chicago, May 6, 1891.—S., 800—21.05—104; C., 481—111.

SCHAEFER VS. SLOSSON. Third match, Lenox Lyceum, N. Y. City, January 22, 1892.—Schaefer, 800—23.53—155; Slosson, 592—119.

SCHAEFER BEATEN BY IVES. Fourth match, Central Music Hall, Chicago, March 19, 1892.—I., 800—16.33—95; S., 499—45.

IVES VS. SLOSSON. Fifth match and last contest, same place as above, May 21, 1892.—I., 800—26.67—124; S., 488—120.

First Reversion of an Emblem to Donors. For their failure to play the sixth match in Paris, where it was made in 1892 by Ives and Schaefer, the official stakeholders declared match off, Challenge Cup reverting to donors under the rules.

Second New England Championship at 10.2. J. J. Murphy’s Hub Palace, Boston, Feb. 16–26, tournament for challenge emblem valued at $100 and $320 in money, 250 points on 4½ × 9. Eames, Yatter, and Campbell were again 1—2—3, but this time against T. R. Bullock (fourth money) and Wm. Gilman. Eames lost not a game and made best single average, run, and general average—10.87—55—7.58.

Second Shortstop Championship. B. B. C. Co.’s Warerooms, Chicago, February 10–27th.—Games, 400 points. Average of tournament, 9.86.

Either Capron’s is a losing average or the figures are an error for 13.33, a winning one.

CARTER VS. IVES. Central Music Mall, Chicago, April 29th.—Only match contest. I., 500—9.43—70; C., 478—72.

Again 10.2 on a 4½ × 9. Union Hall, Providence, R. I., March 10–14th.—C. F. Campbell, 2—1; Eames, 2—1; Bullock, 1—2; and Moses Yatter, 1—2. Campbell won in play-off. Eames made best single average and run—9.68 and 66.

First Balkline Amateur Tournament in the East. Daly’s Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, March 9–20th.—8:2 on 4½ × 9, handicap. Won by Samuel Ehrlich (165). Best averages, single and general (6.43 and 5.70), by Wm. Barnard, who carried the top weight (225), and best run (76) by Dr. H. D. Jennings, who was next in weight (200).

Eastern amateurs last played 8:2 in formal contest on February 2 and March 4, 1893, in Brooklyn, Frank A. Keeney scoring 300 to Dr. Jennings 189 first, and 300 to his 212 next.

Championship of Pennsylvania. Pittsburg, March 16–21st.—Challenge emblem and money-prizes aggregating $800. Average of tournament, 4.22.

Stake in matches, $300. Challenged by Dodds, McLaughlin won in Philadelphia, May 4th, by 400 to 181.

273Twelve and a Half Line on 4½ × 9. B’nai B’rith Hall, San Francisco, April 23d.—J. F. B. McCleery and B. Saylor began a tournament at 12½.2 for championship of the Pacific Coast. Result of first game is all that ever reached the Atlantic. S., 400—12.12—73; McC., 221—41. W. A. Spinks was the other entry.

Slosson vs. Schaefer. N. Y. City, October 26th.—$500 a side. Slosson, 800—22.22—173; Schaefer, 392—48.

Ives vs. Carter. Milwaukee, Wis., October 28th.—Consideration not known. As it was played out of the bailiwick of both, it was probably a purse game. I., 600—30—133; C., 183 (total).

1892.

[See 1890 for championship matches in this year, together with explanation of later inaction.]

Vignaux vs. Schaefer. Paris, France, December 21–22d.—$500 a side. V., 1200; S., 982. Runs and averages not cabled.

1893.

First Known 14:2 Tournament of Amateurs. G. F. Slosson’s Room, N. Y. City, 1893. Byron Stark first, Dr. A. B. Miller second, and Dr. A. L. Ranney third.

But at Daly’s, Brooklyn, December 23, 1886, two amateurs had played a match at 12.2. Orville Oddie, Jr., who won, gave odds of 100. Winner, 400—4.40—18; loser, 338—21.

Sutton’s Caromic Beginnings in Public. Toronto, Can., championship of Canada and $500. George Sutton, 500; Joseph W. Capron, 459. (January 27th, $500, the former ball-pool player beat Capron at regular three-ball game by 700 to 266.)

Galt, Ont., March 28th.—Championship and same stake. C., 500; S., 306.

Galt, Ont., April 20th.—Championship and same stake. S., 500; C., 408.

In January, 1894, S. forfeited championship to C.

Half in Toronto and half in Galt, March 29–30, 1894.—Fourth time for championship and $500. C., 1000; S., 830.

274April, 1894, Montreal, C. played M. Thomas for championship and $500. C., 500; T., 415.

December, 1894, Montreal, C. again encountered Sutton, but now in a tournament in which he had to play off with Spark B. Watson to get first prize, Sutton being third, Thomas fourth, and W. Jakes fifth.

Championship of Canada at 14:2. See Sutton, above.

Capron vs. Ed. M. Helm. Chicago, July 7, 1893.—$200. C., 400; H., 246.

Schaefer vs. Ives. Chicago, November 21–25, 1893.—$2,000 a side. Schaefer, 4000—27.21—343; I., 3955—456. When last night’s play began, winner had 1305 to go to Ives’s 800. Run of 456 chiefly by anchor, due to the Ives-Roberts London match in prior spring.

Second Tournament of Doubled Games. Madison Square Garden Concert Hall, N. Y. City, December 11–16th.—$600 entrance fee apiece, winner to take 50 per cent. of it and of the net receipts, second and third taking 30 and 20. Schaefer first—average, 100—run, 566 (against Ives in final game); Ives, second, 50—141; Slosson, third, 41.67—164. Schaefer’s 566 was nearly all anchor across short line ending at left-lower cushion.

Going to Chicago, the three played January 8–13, 1894, in Central Music Hall, ending in a tie (not played off) between Schaefer and Ives, who had anchored up to 487 and equaled the Schaefer average in New York. Slosson won no game. After the others had each beaten him once, anchor was barred, and neither first nor second class players have ever revived it, eyes like Ives’s and Schaefer’s being scarce.

Next to Cincinnati, February 1–3d, and there, playing but once around for $1,500, Ives was first—general average, 28.60—run, 163; Schaefer, second—general average, 21.52—run, 74; and Slosson third—general average, 17.36—run, 97.

Next to Boston, February 8–10th.—Same terms as in Cincinnati, and this ended tour. Slosson first—general average, 23.50—run, 163; Schaefer second—general average, 16—run, 271; Ives third—general average, 19—run, 146.

Philadelphia Three-handed Handicap. March 19–24th.—Purse of $300 added to entrance fees, Burris and Dodds, second and third, playing 300 to the 400 of McLaughlin, first.

Boston Match at 4½ × 9 10.2. April 11–13th.—Eames, 1200; Geo. R. Carter, 883.

Sexton vs. Heiser. N. Y. City, August 13–18th.—Opening of Maurice Daly’s Annex. Purse game. S., 1500; H., 1152.

Ives vs. Schaefer. Home-and-home match, November 12–17th in New York, and in December 3–8th in Chicago.—$2,500 a side each game. First: I., 3600—48.62—331; S., 3074—244. Second: I., 3600—41.38—359; S., 2831—217. This was the last stake-match at 14:2 between stars of the first magnitude.

Gallagher vs. Fournil. Daly’s, N. Y. City, beginning December 17th.—Purse game. Edouard Fournil, of Paris, France, gave odds of 50 per cent. and won by 3000 to 1421, actual score, the best run being the winner’s 176. A little later, Gallagher won with odds of 1800; G., 3000—14.65; F., 2289—27.91.

1895.

Sutton’s First in Carom Tournament. Recital Hall, Chicago, January 18–27th.—Shortstops at 14:2, anchor barred, $1,000 in prizes. Order here is games won and lost, best average, general average, and high run: Gallagher, 5 to 0—28.58—19.80—104; Hatley, 3 to 2—12.15—11.—93; Maggioli, 3 to 2—14.29—10.54—91; McLaughlin, 2 to 3—21.—13.50—114; Sutton, 1 to 4—13.80—9.75—80; Capron, 1 to 4—13.—8.40—54. Hatley and Maggioli divided second and third. Sutton beat McLaughlin only.

Amateur Championship of Illinois at 14:2. B. B. C. Co.’s Warerooms, Chicago, Ill., February, 300 points. With the exception of the winner-in-chief’s, which we have corrected, the averages—some winning and others losing—are only roundly expressed, as they appeared originally in a Chicago daily newspaper in 1895.

276The emblem ultimately became the property of Clem E. Ellison. There was but one match-contest for it, and in that, against Mr. Milburn at the rooms of the Chicago A. C., E. won on an average of 6.

W. A. Spinks vs. George Carter at 14:2. Boston, October 13–14th.—$100, 4½ × 9. S., 900; C., 477.

Roomkeepers’ 14:2 Tournament. Philadelphia, ending October 26th.—Order of finish: Burris, H. Cline, McCabe, J. Cline, and Rhoads.

1896.

Shortstops in Chicago. Recital Hall, Jan. 18–27; game, 400 points, 14:2; prizes, $1,000.

Intercity and Interclub Amateur Tournament. The first was held at Maurice Daly’s Assembly Rooms, Brooklyn, in 1895, and the second, held at his rooms in this city, January 13–27, 1896, is given a place here because of its having embraced nearly all of those who have since been busiest en amateur in and around Manhattan.

There were three other competitors—Messrs. Wm. Barnard, Dr. H. D. Jennings, and Fred Oakes. The game was 14:2.

First Tournament at 18:2. Madison Square Garden Concert Hall, March 31st to April 5th, under the auspices of Ives and Daly. Two shots in balk and five in anchor-box, instead of ten, as had latterly been the practice at 14:2. Games, 600 points, all three contestants playing twice around. Schaefer and Ives 3—1 each, but never played off; Albert Garnier, 0—4. Best winning averages, general averages, and high runs: I., 50—36.48—200; S., 30—24.11—176; Garnier, ...—9.99—36.

Repairing to Chicago, they next played the

First Tournament at 18:1.

Central Music Hall, May 18–23d.—Only one shot either in anchor or in balk. Playing twice around, Schaefer and Ives 500 to Garnier’s 277300, G. first, I. second. Best single, best general, and highest run: G., 12—9.60—53; I., 19.58 (losing)—16.58—103; S., 17.56 (losing)—12.70—111.

In Boston their tour ended. See Cushion Caroms.

Temporary Revival of 14:2 by Stars. Bumstead Hall, Boston, April 18th.—Four-handed. Daly and Schaefer, averaging 23.81, defeated Garnier and Ives by 500 to 347.

1897.

All Tie in Pittsburg, Pa., Tournament of Shortstops. Davis’s Room, February 27th to March 6th.—14:2 without anchor, $1,000 in 40, 30, 20, and 10 per cent. divisions, 400–point games. Average of tournament, approximately 12.70. In play-off, Sutton beat both, and Spinks, running 187 and averaging 40, put third prize upon Gallagher.

Same Players, Plus John Matthews, in Chicago. Under the auspices of and at Clarence E. Green’s Imperial Room, April 6th.—Same game and the like prize-money. In playing off, Catton won by 600 to 478, but Spinks topped the shortstop record with a run of 197. Maggioli’s 28 is either a losing average or an error. Average of tournament, 14.65.

Hugo Kerkau’s American Debut. Daly’s Room, N. Y. City, July 5–10th.—Purse game, 300 points of 14:2 nightly. K., 1800; Morningstar, 1523.

Same place and terms, July 19–24th.—McLaughlin, 1800; K., 1702.

First World’s Championship at 18:1. Madison Square Garden Concert Hall, N. Y. City, November 20th–December 4th.—Emblem and $1,200 in cash, both presented by the B. B. C. Co., added to 278$500 in entrance fees and to the net receipts. Average of tournament, four 500–point games apiece, 8.89.

SCHAEFER DEFEATS SLOSSON. Same hall, February 5, 1898.—First match for championship and $500 a side. Schaefer, 600—7.46—76; Slosson, 596—34.

IVES DEFEATS SCHAEFER. Central Music Hall, Chicago, April 4, 1898.—Second and last match. I., 600—15—91; S., 426—90.

As there was no challenge outstanding, and as Ives declined the emblem without waiting to qualify as champion, it reverted, under the rules, to its donors, and there was no 18:1 championship again until December, 1901.

1898.

Schaefer vs. Slosson. Opera-house, Hartford, Conn., February 16th.—18:1 purse game. Schaefer, 400—7.84—39; Slosson, 317—59.

First Handicap at 18:1. Central Music Hall, Chicago, January 17–22d.—Ives and Schaefer playing 400 to the 260 of Sutton, Catton, and Spinks. Schaefer’s defeat of Ives by 22, coupled with his own defeat at the hands of Spinks by 262, caused a tie between the “scratchmen,” who divided first and second moneys, as Spinks and Catton did the fourth prize. The B. B. C. Co. had added $1,750 to the entrance fees. Average of tournament, 14.57.

Roomkeepers’ New Handicap Championship. Philadelphia, April 4th.—Match won by Edward Burris (225—5.—28) from Sol Allinger, who played for 175.

Knickerbocker A. C. Championship. N. Y. City, April.—14:2. Making best single and general, 9.67 and 7.50, Byron Stark won, Dr. A. B. Miller, Dr. L. L. Mial and F. Poggenburg finishing as named.

279Amateur Athletic Union Handicap. Knickerbocker A. C., N. Y. City, May.—14:2. Order at close: Mial (250), Stark (300), Miller (250), J. A. Hendrick (270), Clement Bainbridge (260), and L. A. Servatius (250). Best single, general, and run: 9.09—6.37—64, by Stark.

Amateur 14:2 Handicap. Ives’s Room, N. Y. City, November 2–9th.—Won by Florian Tobias (215) from Messrs. Stark, Mial, and Poggenburg (all three at 300), Wm. Gershel (240), and Wm. Arnold, Dr. W. G. Douglas, and L. A. Servatius (all at 200). Arnold was second, and Stark third.

A. A. U.’s First Class B Tournament. Knickerbocker A. C., beginning December 5th.—300–point games, 14:2. All the singles except Stark’s and possibly Miller’s are either losing averages or slightly inaccurate in their fractions.

Al Taylor, of Chicago, won play-off from J. De Mun Smith, of St. Louis. Approximate average of tournament, 5.25. Figures are not at hand to test whether or not the general averages of Taylor and Poggenburg were exactly alike. If they were, it was the first known case (see Metropolitan Championship, 1900, and “Another Tie in General Averages,” 1903).

1899.

A. A. U.’s First Class A Tournament. Knickerbocker Club, N. Y. City, February 13–18th.—Doubled 400–point games of 14:2, anchor barred, for an unchallengeable championship trophy presented by the B. B. C. Co. Martin Mullen, of Cleveland, lost none but opening game, and that to Wayman C. McCreery, of St. Louis, who won no other. Wilson P. Foss, of Haverstraw, N. Y., second.

Average of tournament, 8.56.

Liederkranz Amateur Trophy. Liederkranz Society’s Room, N. Y. City, May.—300 points of 14:2 nightly, best in five, J. F. Poggenburg, averaging 12 in one session, won three, and J. Byron Stark two.

280Straight Rail vs. 8:2 Balkline Revived. Amateur handicap, Foley’s Room, Chicago, March.—Al Taylor and Griffith played the line for 250 against the unlimited three-ball game of Gray (250), Cochrane, Harris, and the younger Foley (all at 180), McKay and Atwater (both 140), Rawson (130), and Wilder (120). Taylor, winning by 9—0, had highest general average (5.86), second-best run (74), and second-best single average (7.81), the highest run and single by a “railer” being the 126 and 13.85 of Foley, who got second place on 7—2. Atwater (6—3) third, and the veteran McKay (5—4) fourth.

Schaefer vs. Slosson at 18:1. Lenox Lyceum, N. Y. City, May 13th.—First of match of two games, each for $500 a side (see Cushion Caroms, May 22, for second). Schaefer, 600—13.64—139; Slosson, 418—62.

First Tournament National Association Amateur Billiard Players. These were two sets of handicap 14:2 games, both one as to the main prize (the Daly-Slosson Cup), but independent as to the two sets of other prizes. Poggenburg won at G. F. Slosson’s Room, beginning November 13th, and Keeney at Maurice Daly’s, ending December 15th. The records of the two tournaments are given side by side.

Approximate average of whole play at Slosson’s, 5.75; at Daly’s, 4.32; of both combined, 5.30.

Play-off for the Daly-Slosson Cup, December 19–20th: P., 600—6.82—44; K., 439—33.

A. A. U.’s Second Class B Tournament. Knickerbocker A. C., N. Y. City, December—300 points, 14:2. This and all later ones given under authority of the A. A. U. were not strictly invitation tournaments, the box-office being open to the public. A. G. Cutler’s run of 74 does not properly belong to this series of games, having been accomplished by reason of his preliminarily playing in 281more games than some others. Threshie, Smith and Kellogg’s singles are winning ones.

Tournament’s approximate average, 5.55.

Chicago Amateur Handicap. Foley’s Room, December.—14:2. Harris (145), 9—0; Al Taylor (300), 7—2; Levine (145), 6—3; and Lang, Atwater, and the younger Foley (severally 200, 135, and 170), all 5—4. Best single and general averages and highest runs were 7.14—6.20—66 by Taylor, and 6.10—4.—56 by Nolan (250), who won but two games.

1900.

A. A. U.’s Second Class A Tournament. Knickerbocker A. C., February 5–16th.—400–point games, 14:2, anchor barred, for championship Silver Cup given by the B. B. C. Co., to become the property of anyone winning it thrice.

Average of tournament, 7.95.

Metropolitan Amateur Championship of 14:2. First tournament held by Hanover Club, and second participated in by the N. A. A. B. P., Brooklyn, N. Y., March 12–17th. Average of tournament, 6.57.

The remarkable features were presented of three players, Stark, Keeney, and Poggenburg, having the same total innings (125), of Stark and Keeney with 821 points each, and of their also tieing on general average for the first time known to us in a demonstrated way.

Roomkeepers’ Championship of Philadelphia. This time without a handicap, it began May 3d in a tournament at 14:2. Merrick Levy won it, but had to average 4.88 against John Cline to do so. John Thornton was second.

282A. G. Cutler vs. Chas. Threshie. Hub Billiard Palace, Boston, May 9th, 10th, 11th.—Match at 14:2. C., 1000—6.17—48; T., 998—51. The pair had the rating then of amateurs.

Cook County Amateur Championship. What with tournament bouts and challenge matches as a sequel, W. P. Mussey’s memorable Chicago 14:2 series lasted this year from February 26th to August 15th. That four out of the nine in the tournament met on even terms tended largely to overcome the logical objection to handicapping as a championship factor. The table below exhibits a winning average of 9.68 for one “scratch,” as well as a general average of 7.10. The challenge matches were always interesting, and often impressive, as when, with a run of 76 and an average of 10.34, Conklin took the emblem from Kellogg. McGinniss, like Kellogg, Brown, and Dr. Parker, lost half his tournament games; but he made amends by winning his whole six matches, thus acquiring ownership of the “Mussey Medal,” in the final match for which, August 15th, he averaged 7.50 against Adams.

In beating Conklin by 225 to 232 on the tie, Adams averaged 5.77, and Kellogg reached 5.88 in depriving Adams of the championship in the very first match. Expressed in a round way, the average of the tournament was 4.80.

Doubled Tournament Games at Daly’s. N. Y. City, October 15–20th.—Handicap at 14:2. Gallagher (400), 4—0; Morningstar (250), 3—1; Howison (200), 3—1. Highest runs, winning averages and general averages: M., 73—9.62—7.78; H., 39—10—6.07; G., 84—general, 12.55. Playing off tie, Howison won by 2 points on an average of 8.78.

Clubmen Made Desperate by Ties. October.—The 14:2 tournament of the Olympic Club, San Francisco, ended in a first-place tie of four out of seven—Dr. O. B. Burns, F. L. Taylor, J. J. Roggan, and W. Franklin. The first three tied again, shutting out Franklin; and after tieing again and again, they played once three-handed, which summarily cut the Gordian knot thus—Taylor, 283Burns, and Roggan. In the tournament proper, Burns had made high average (5.77), and Franklin the high run (42).

Revival of 8:2 in New Orleans. Capt. John Miller’s Room, October 22d to November 16th.—Louis Abrams and George H. Miller, the two “scratchmen,” were first and second among six. Best runs and averages: Abrams’s 8.33 and 46, and Miller’s 7.14 and 57.

Following week, same game, match for $50, best in three nights. Abrams made the more points, but Miller won the three nights, averaging 5.88 as his best, and running 48 to Abrams’s 29 for high.

Knickerbocker A. C.’s Championship of 14:2. N. Y. City, beginning December 26th and recordable chiefly because of the winner’s having the unexampled privilege of “keeping warm” in the depth of winter by playing all his games one after another without interregnum, which necessarily had to deprive the remaining games of interest. Contestants: Chas. S. Norris, J. A. Hendrick, Dr. A. B. Miller, Dr. L. L. Mial, and Albro Akin. Best general average, 5.77 by the winner-in-chief, Norris.

1901.

Championship of the N. A. A. B. P. First tournament, under the patronage of the Hanover Club, Brooklyn, N. Y., for the Brooklyn Eagle’s Gold Cup, but the third annual one of the Association, Brooklyn, N. Y., January 14–26th. Arthur R. Townsend won play-off. Average of tournament, 5.96. Three tied on high run, and the other three were not far from virtually tieing on general average. Such closeness, practicable for any grade of performers at any form of cushion caroms, is phenomenal at 14:2 balkline for players of the speed of these.

A. A. U.’s Third Annual Class A Championship Tournament. Knickerbocker Club, N. Y. City, February 5–15th.—At 14:2. Average of tournament, four 400–point games apiece, 6.39.

284In the play-off, Mial made the best run and single average (89 and 8.16), both in defeating McKee.

As winner-in-chief, Conklin on February 16th played Foss, holder of the A. A. U.’s championship. F., 400—10.87—69; C., 262—43.

Morningstar vs. Howison. Maurice Daly’s Room, N. Y. City, beginning February 18th.—Six nights’ purse game at 14:2, even up. M., 1800—8.78—92; H., 1761—76.

Progressive Billiards. City Athletic Club, Toronto, Can., February 23d.—Game so called, ten members on each side, using five tables with four players apiece. Messrs. White and McDonald made highest and lowest individual scores—177 and 37.

Three-handed Doubled Games. Daly’s, N. Y. City, March 18–23d.—Handicap purse tournament at 14:2. Morningstar (300)—1122—23.08—183; Gallagher (400)—1158—19.05—75; McLaughlin (400)—1414—20.—92. G. A.—M., 14.20; McL., 13.09; G., 12.12.

Competition by Telegraph. March 26th.—14:2, St. Louis and Cleveland, Wayman C. McCreery playing in John Lacari’s room and Martin Mullen in Ed. M. Helm’s. Runs, etc., wired to and fro. Averages not announced. Totals and highest runs: M., 500—80; McC., 471—53. McCreery, who suggested this experimental contest, proposed to spot at every inning. As the St. Louisan later wrote The Weekly Billiardist: “Mullen thought that too easy, and amended by commencing in the ordinary way, viz., playing on the far ball, then playing with still ball for five innings, then respotting,” and so on.

“The Mussey Handicap.” Mussey’s Room, Chicago, ending May 7th.—Amateur 14:2 tournament for gold watch and chain. Messrs. Adams, Kurtz, Gerhardt, and Miehle, severally in at 240, 200, 215, and 200, were trailers in that order. The other five, with their handicaps, best single averages and highest runs, were Ed. Rein (230)—6.76—52; Dr. Harley Parker (230)—5.90—65; W. W. Kellogg (275)—8.60—45; C. F. Conklin (300)—8.57—49; and H. A. Coleman, of Milwaukee (300)—6.25—36. The two postmen, Conklin and Coleman, won 5—3 each, while Rein and Parker, third heaviest weight-carriers, but first and second winners, won 7 to 1 and 6 to 2.

Morningstar vs. Jose Ortiz, of Spain. Daly’s Room, N. Y. City, May, five nights’ purse game of 14:2. M., 1500—10.49—83; O., 1032—68.

285C. F. Conklin’s Lofty Average. A. M. Clarke’s 14:2 handicap, Chicago, closing May 29th.—Leaders were Conklin (250 and unbeaten), 15.60—run, 67; Brown (175), 5.67—33; Morin (175), 6.50—38. The latter two tied in games with 5 up and 2 down, and Brown won play-off by 18.

John Miller’s Plexus, or Bunch of Ties. New Orleans, 14:2 handicap, ending October 2d.—Of seven entries, Abrams (160), G. H. Miller (160), and Zaehringer (140), tied in high run (31), as also did Van Gelder and Peterson (120 each) on 21, while there were two ties for first prize, Abrams winning play-off, and three for fourth.

Gallagher vs. Ortiz. Daly’s, N. Y.; October 7–11th.—14:2 purse game. G., 1500—11.54—82; O., 913 (with 250 odds)—58.

Daly Handicap at 18:2. N. Y. City, October 21–26th, and Willie Hoppe’s first in tournament, which was for purse. Handicap, best winning and general averages, and highest run, individually: Hoppe (200), 10.—8.81—54; Morningstar (300), 12.—12.75—59; McLaughlin (300), 15.79—13.79—89; Gallagher (300), 11.11—9.50—75; Ortiz (225), 5.22 (gen. av.)—49. Hoppe and Ortiz reversed in games, 4—0 to 0—4, and the other three, tieing at 2—1, tied again, and then divided.

Chicago Handicap at 14:2. Foley’s Room, October 18 to December 9th.—Amateur contestants—Harris and Kent, 200; Cochrane and Sorenson, 175; Miller, 160; Dethke, 145; Ballard, 135; Gunther and Shute, 130. Outcome—Harris, Ballard, Sorenson and Cochrane. High runs, with averages of both kinds: 49—5.26—4.00, by Harris. Miller’s 44 was second in runs.

Second World’s Championship at 18:1. Madison Square Garden Concert Hall, N. Y. City, December 2–10th.—Tournament for jeweled badge and $2,000 in cash added by the B. B. C. Co. to $1,500 in entrance fees and net receipts. This was the public début of Leon Barutel, Orlando Morningstar, and Leonard Howison in first-class company. Tournament’s average, five 400–point games apiece, 6.61.

286Instead of any contest, there were three challenges for this emblem. Sutton, who challenged twice, claimed it the latter time, and it was awarded to him on October 30, 1903, in default of Schaefer’s covering forfeit. (See March 4, 1904, and January and March, 1906).

Championship of the Northwest at 14:2. Played for on a 4½ × 9 table in Duluth, Fargo, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, November. Emblematic cup presented by B. B. C. Co.

Schaefer vs. Barutel at 18:2. Frank A. Keeney’s Knickerbocker Academy, Brooklyn, N. Y., December 19–21st, three nights’ purse game. S., 1800—16.90—85; B., 946—58.

1902.

Last Class B. Tournament of A. A. U. Knickerbocker Club, N. Y. City, winter of 1901–2.—Game, 14:2. Instead of by games, this tournament was to be decided by best general averages in case of tie for first place. A. G. Cutler, W. W. Kellogg, and J. A. Hendrick tied, and Cutler was winner on average. Other contestants were Frank Billiter, of Minneapolis, C. S. Schmitt, of Chicago, and W. A. Paige, of Boston, all new to this series of games.

Second Tournament for “Brooklyn Eagle” Gold Cup. Brooklyn, N. Y., January 13–18th, under patronage of Hanover Club and under auspices of the N. A. A. B. P. Four games apiece, 300 points, 14:2. Average of tournament, 5.32. Uniformity of runs and general averages is remarkable for players of their speed.

Championship of France at 18:2. Grand Hotel, Paris, February, 500–point games.