There is no doubt that Edwin Kentfield, who died in 1873, was very superior to
most of his profession. He was a man of refined tastes, passionately devoted
to horticulture, with which he was thoroughly conversant, and he had the
shrewdness to see that the tables and all the accessories of the game which
were in use when he began to play were very crude and imperfect, the tables
having list cushions, wooden beds, and coarse baize coverings. He spent many
years improving tables, cushions, balls, cues, &c., and, thanks to his energy,
and to the acumen of Mr. John Thurston - the founder of the present well-
known firm of billiard-table makers, who thoroughly believed in Kentfield, and was
always ready to support his views and carry out his suggested improvements -
the old order of things was gradually superseded by rubber cushions, slate beds,
and fine cloths.
All the newest improvements were naturally to be found in Kentfield's
Subscription Rooms at Brighton, the appointments of which were wonderfully
perfect, considering the date. In 1839 he published 'The Game of Billiards:
Scientifically Explained and Practically Set Forth, in a Series of Novel and
Extraordinary, but Equally Practical, Strokes.' In his well written and modest
preface, Kentfield alludes to the 'many alterations and improvements that have
been successfully introduced, and which have so greatly contributed to the
state of perfection to which this noble amusement has at length arrived.'
Compared with the tables that were in vogue before Messrs. Kentfield and
Thurston began their improvements, their joint production did doubtless seem
wonderfully perfect; yet this extract reads curiously in 1896, in the face of the
extraordinary developments of everything connected with the game that have
taken place within the last ten or fifteen years.
Kentfield was acquainted with the spot stroke, and played it well, considering
the then existing conditions. He devotes a very short chapter in his book to it,
and describes four different methods by which it can be made. There are now
nine entirely different strokes which may be brought into use in the course of a
long spot break; but doubtless, in his day, several of the varieties of the stroke
were absolutely impossible, owing to the comparative slowness of the tables.
He did not, however, approve of the spot stroke, nor consider it billiards, and on
this point was evidently of the same mind as the younger Roberts, who has
recorded his opinion that a constant succession of big spot breaks 'would very
soon kill the popularity and destroy the artistic position billiards has attained.'
The thoroughly genuine nature of Kentfield's feelings on the subject may be
judged from the fact that he caused the pockets of the tables in his rooms at
Brighton to be reduced to three inches, in order to prevent spot strokes being
made; and this, unless he materially increased the charge for each game, must
have meant a considerable annual pecuniary loss to him. The table on which
Kentfield constantly played is thus described: 'The table in the Subscription
Room is extremely difficult. It is, perhaps, the fastest in England, and has
pockets of the smallest dimensions (three inches). The spot for the red ball is
barely twelve inches from the lower cushion; the baulk circle only eighteen
inches in extent. On many tables the spot is thirteen inches from the cushion;
the baulk twenty-two.' It seems singular that, quite thirty years before the first
championship table was manufactured, Kentfield should have put up almost
a fac-simile of it in his Brighton rooms; but probably John Roberts, senior, saw
it there, possibly played upon it, and derived from it the idea of the table on
which, in 1870, the championship was decided.
It is almost impossible, after this lapse of time, to form any trustworthy opinion
as to the real strength of Kentfield's game, and it would be manifestly unfair to
draw comparisons between him and any player of more recent date than the
elder John Roberts. Let us first take the evidence of Mr. Mardon on the
subject.... He writes:
Were I to relate all the extraordinary performances of Mr. Kentfield at the period
when list cushions and pockets of large dimensions were in vogue, the reader
would imagine I was bordering on romance. On one occasion, when playing the
winning game, 21 up, Mr. Kentfield gave his opponent 18 points, and won sixteen
successive games. In playing the winning and losing game, 24 up, he won ten
games, his adversary never scoring ! The games were thus played: Mr. Kentfield,
in playing off, doubled the red ball for one of the baulk corner pockets, placing
his own ball under the side cushion. His opponent played to drop it into the
corner pocket, failed, and left on each occasion a cannon; that was made, and
the games were all won off the balls ! At another time he was playing the non-
cushion game, 16 up. On going off he twisted his ball into the corner pocket
from the red, and won in that manner six games, his adversary not having a
stroke ! Desirous of ascertaining how many games of 24 up could be played
within the hour, he commenced the task with a player of considerable
eminence;¹ and they completed thirty games within the specified time.
Forty-seven games of 100 up were also played in eight and a half hours.
In a match that did not exceed two hundred games, he beat his opponent
eighty-five love games.
The only other witness I shall call is John Roberts, senior., who has left on
record his opinion that Kentfield 'played a very artistic game, but possessed very
little power of cue. He depended on slow twists and fancy screws, and rarely
attempted a brilliant forcing hazard. He gave misses, and made baulks whenever
they were practicable, and never departed from the strict game.' This was not
written until many years after all rivalry between the two men had ceased, and
may, therefore, probably be accepted as a calm and unprejudiced opinion. At
first sight it is difficult to reconcile the entirely opposite views of Mr. Mardon and
Roberts with regard to Kentfield's power of cue. The truth probably lies between
the two extremes, for the former's judgement may have been slightly warped by
intense admiration for his idol, whereas Roberts was possibly comparing
Kentfield's power of cue with his own, which was almost phenomenal.
The highest break that Kentfield ever made was one of 196, and his best spot
break 57 consecutive hazards. It may be taken for granted that neither of these
breaks was made on his three-inch pocket table; nevertheless, they may still be
regarded as very excellent performances. If, however, there are diverse views
as to Kentfield's powers as a player, I have only been able to discover one
opinion as to his merits as a man. Whether or not we may feel inclined to accept
the dictum that genius is 'an infinite capacity for taking pains,' I think there is
little doubt that Edwin Kentfield was a genius at billiards, whilst in other respects
it is quite certain that he set a brilliant example to the players who followed him.
¹ If a man wants to play fast he would surely select the worst - not the best -
player as antagonist. - ED.
|
|
= You are here
= New or updated entry