Re: Early World Championship scores

[Cyril]

The Statman,

Didn't wan't to mess up your WC thread - by posting on it.

I think observers to these scores/breaks should appreciate the difficult conditions in the thirties. Heavier balls and tighter pockets, more suited to billiards. It is fair to say, I think, that King Joe got them altered to some degree, in the fifties (well, according to Alec Brown).

Are you going to incorporate these findings into the WC records, in your books?

Also, does The Times continue on after WWII, with such comprehensive reporting of our sport and, are there other Newspaper archives we can explore?

The detailed reporting of this era, I feel, is long overdue.

Keep up the good work, Sir.

C

[The Statman]

As for whether the Times continues its detailed coverage, I don't know. I will find out, no doubt, in the coming weeks!

The Times is the only paper that has a digitial, searchable arvhive on the net that goes any way earlier than about 2000. So that is the only source readily available without searching through back issues on microfilm, say, in a library.

That is my next step, a few months down the line, maybe at the National Newspaper Archive in Colindale.

[Cyril]

I think I am correct but if not perhaps 100-uper will correct me.

Joe Davis wrote a weekly column in the Daily Mail and Fred Davis in the Sunday Empire News (which later changed to the News of the World). The Daily Mail were big sponsors of billiards in the early thirties, in particular, the big billiards tournament at Thurston's, London, the "Daily Mail Gold Cup". They changed their sponsorship to snooker in 1936, an indication that snooker had overtaken the three-ball game in popularity.

Tom Webster was the famous Daily Mail cartoonist and a great supporter of snooker and billiards.

Could perhaps be a starting point?

[The Statman]

Cyril, Joe Davis's 110 in 1935 and Lindrum's ton in 1936, were both made in dead frames, after a result had been achieved. Do you think these should be acknowledged as tournament centuries?

[Cyril]

Good question. This appears to be a common trend, in that the break making improved in the dead frames. No doubt, when the game was "live", play was more defensive.

Personally, as Joe's 110 has been accepted as being the Championships first century for all these years, I would be inclined to acknowledge it. It is hard to appreciate today, that back then "dead frames" were considered part of the contest.

I would show the final result/score, with the winning lead, where known, in brackets.

[The Statman]

Yes that's what I was hoping to achieve - the full-time result and also the point at which the winning lead was achieved (which has more relevance in comparison to modern-day snooker).

[Cyril]

Excellent!

I think possibly, the Davis-Donaldson finals will be the last to have included dead frames in the result. There may have been instances later, such as 1969, where the dead frames were played but not acknowledged. In fact, the controversy surrounding Higgins in '76 was brought about when he refused to play out the dead frames!

Going slightly off track, do you recall Snooker Scene doing a big feature on the 1957 final in Jersey between Pulman and Rea? I would say, around two years ago?

[Cyril]

More good work on the other thread Statman, is there no end to it?

Joe's breaks are getting better all the time and most impressive considering the conditions then. To compare it with the light weight balls and fast cloths we see at the Crucible, is like comparing Fred Perry's era to Pete Sampras' at Wimbledon, the modern day equipment compared to the old wooden rackets.

[The Statman]

Cyril, was it you whosaid that the 1940 final (Davis beat Davis 37-36) was not actually a decider, but was won by Joe 37-35 with one dead frame?

The Times gives reports (as illustrated by 100-uper a few days ago) give frame scores throughout the final – except the final evening!

Can you elaborate at all?

[Cyril]

Only that Clive Everton's book states the 37-35 score and also, have you not seen the old archive film? It shows referee Charlie Chambers changing the score board from 36-35 to 37-35 (or 37-35 to 37-36??)
http://www.movietone.com/search.cfm?...ultsPerPage=10

[Cyril]

Statman, have you looked at 1938 yet? In all the books I have, none of them have scores for the semi-finals, Joe Davis v Willie Smith and Sidney Smith v Fred Davis. So I am guessing they were not reported in the Times?

[The Statman]

Hang on - I haven't finished 1937 yet!!!

I am being strict with myself and just going through, year by year, date by date, and not having a quick peek at later dates till I get there (however tempting it might be, and however much you might want me to!)

[Cyril]

Haha, get a move on!

[The Statman]

I have now completed 1937.

Have a look at the breaks made by both players in the final – we often talk of Jimmy White as being the best player never to have won the world title but Horace Lindrum must be a contender!

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/showt...0082#post20082

[Cyril]

Excellent breaks indeed! Have you seen any footage of Horace Lindrum. He had a very attractive style. His elbow was tucked behind his back a little like Joe Swail.