Incorrect result

[t.lavery55]

Careful analysis of the results in the initial world championships has brought to my notice that one of them does not fit with the general pattern.

This is in the Semi-final of 1929 where T.Dennis is reported to have beaten K.Prince by a margin of 14-6. This is strange because from 1929-1935, all the other matches (apart from the finals)either have the winner successful in 13 frames, like the modern-day format, or have a total of 25 frames between the players, (eg.16-9) where the dead frames were played out.

So I checked the framescores for the match in question. Here I have listed them alongside the running matchscores (Dennis first):

40-67 0-1
41-58 0-2
52-56 0-3
60-52 1-3
55-30 2-3
75-12 3-3
54-40 4-3
55-88 4-4
60-31 5-4
67-12 6-4

50-62 6-5
42-55 6-6
66-21 7-6
56-14 8-6
69-14 9-6
58-63 9-7
60-19 10-7
59-22 11-7
53-26 12-7
54-52 13-7!

(Source: globalsnookercentre.co.uk)

So according to these framescores, the match actually resulted 13-7 not 14-6 as seems to be recorded just about everywhere. Is anyone able to verify this claim? It seems quite possible that originally one newspaper/magazine of the time recorded the result incorrectly and everything published subsequently has repeated the mistake, similiar to what happened with the 1972 world final.
So does anyone know if am I correct and if so where this error began?
I will be very interested to hear other people's comments on this topic.

[jonashford]

Well dun!!!

[dantuck_7]

Maybe there was a concession on one of the frames. Ie black ends up over the pocket and that player resigns the frame even though they'll be leading? Just like Hendry v ROS this year?

[100-uper]

So according to these framescores, the match actually resulted 13-7 not 14-6 as seems to be recorded just about everywhere. Is anyone able to verify this claim? It seems quite possible that originally one newspaper/magazine of the time recorded the result incorrectly and everything published subsequently has repeated the mistake, similiar to what happened with the 1972 world final.
So does anyone know if am I correct and if so where this error began?
I will be very interested to hear other people's comments on this topic.

The match wasn't important enough to have been recorded in the national daily press, but The Billiard Player of January 1929 records the result as 14-6 to Dennis. I suspect there has been a transcription error in the frame scores which appear on the Global website, although I don't have the originals to hand which would allow me to check this at the moment.

[100-uper]

OK, I have it now. Third frame should read 52-26, not 52-56.

[t.lavery55]

The match wasn't important enough to have been recorded in the national daily press, but The Billiard Player of January 1929 records the result as 14-6 to Dennis. I suspect there has been a transcription error in the frame scores which appear on the Global website, although I don't have the originals to hand which would allow me to check this at the moment.

OK, I have it now. Third frame should read 52-26, not 52-56.

Thanks 100-uper. Sounds like it's just a coincidence then. Do you know why this match was first to 14 frames, when all the others were first to 13(or dead frames played out?)

[100-uper]

Now that's an interesting question, and one which I can only speculate upon. I can tell you that the original conditions, as taken from the August 1928 edition of The Billiard Player, were as follows:

"The Professional Championship of Snooker will be played under the same conditions as last season, with the exception that the holder will play through the whole competition, and that two additional games will be played in each of the preliminary games, and in the final, the former consisting of the best of 25 games and the latter of the best of 33. The final will be played at Messrs. Camkin's Hall, Corporation Street, Birmingham, from March 18 to 21, 1929, and preliminary heats and semi-finals must be terminated seven days prior to that date. The entry fee of £5 5s. and stake money of £5 5s. (for each heat) must be received not later than Monday, October 15, 1928."

The 1928 conditions referred to above, also stipulated that the Preliminary heats and semi-finals would be played over three days. However, a significant source of income for these players would have been money taken at the door. It is known that Tom Dennis and Kelsall Prince actually played over six evenings at the Loughborough Town Hall, and having obtained permission from the Control Council to do this, the extension to the game making it best of 27 was presumably agreed at the same time. I can only speculate that with a schedule of 4 frames per night then, depending on the state of the game, 5 frames on the last day might not have been considered enough to make sure it attracted a full house.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of "gate receipts" in these early championships, and the Control Council would have been acutely aware that if they did not fully accommodate the players they might end up without any entries the following season, As it was, there were only 5 entries to this one, so they couldn't really afford to upset anyone.

The gate receipts, after deduction of expenses, would have been divided equally between the winner and loser of each game, and in the preliminary heats these amounted to approximately £25 for each heat of three days' play. Set against an entry fee of £5 5s and a similar amount as a stake (side bet) for each match, then a first round loser might just about break even with a bit of luck. There would also be no prize money available to anyone other than the two finalists who would split all the entry fees in the proportion of 60-40% Petty tough going in these early days.

You will note that the originally planned date and venue for the final were also altered at a late stage. This match also being extended from the intended 33 frames to best of 37. Undoubtedly commercial reasons were also behind this change.

[t.lavery55]

That's an interesting speculation you've got there. I had wondered why it took 6 days to play that match, when the others only required three or four, including the final, which was even longer! You could be right about that agreement, although I'm a little surprised that they chose this semi-final to attempt it with, rather than the other one in which Joe Davis was playing. After all, he was by far the greatest and most popular player of that era and would surely have attracted more gate money. Maybe they thought he'd win too easily and expected that Tom Dennis v Kelsall Prince was more likely to produce a tense finish. Do you kow how many frames per night they actually played then, following the agreement and whether they played any in the afternoons?

I can certainly see the need for as high a gate receipt as possible, if prize money was that scarce. Of course, they didn't have the benefit of sponsors and television coverage like the game has today. Just to confirm that this match was indeed first to 14, are you absolutely sure that the frame score I quoted is incorrect? Perhaps I'll enquire to the person running the website, where that information came from.

With regards to the final of that year, I thought that the reason for the 19-14scoreline was due to the dead frames being played out(ie. after one player had achieved a winning lead), another method designed to increase the gate receipts as much as possible. After all, if you add the 19 and the 14 together, it comes to 33, the quantity of frames that the match was originally stated to consist of. Furthermore, looking at the framescores on the global snooker centre, the loser of the match, Tom Dennis, won the last two frames 41-61 and 38-70. They cannot, therefore, have played first to 19(best of 37), or else the match would have stopped at 19-12, unless those framescores are wrong too!

Until correct records of these points are found, this topic is certainly open to much debate, but that is the most likely possibility that I can think of.

[100-uper]

Dealing with the semi-final first: I have access to two national daily newspapers from this period and neither mention the match at all, although they do give extensive coverage to the professional billiards which was going on during the same week. My sole reference comes in the January 1929 issue of The Billiard Player, as follows:

"The semi-final heat in the above Championship between T. A. Dennis, of Nottingham, and Kelsall Prince, of Loughborough, was played at The Town Hall, Loughborough, from December 17 to 22 (evening sessions only being played, at the request of the players, so that the game occupied six days, instead of three), resulting in a victory for Dennis by 14 games to six. Prince made a very plucky resistance, but the greater experience of Dennis gave him an easy passage into the final, which will be played at Messrs. Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, from March 25 to 28. Frame scores: 40—67; 41—58; 52—26; 60—52; 55—30; 75—12; 54—40; 55—88; 60—31; 67—12; 50—62; 42—55; 66—21; 56—14; 69—49; 58—63; 60—19; 59—22; 53—26 and 54—52." [BP0129 p.32]

Details of the sessions probably appeared in the local Loughborough newspapers, but I have no access to these.

Regarding the final, you are correct and the match was played as the best of 33 frames as originally advertised and not 37 as I had assumed.

[t.lavery55]

Thanks for the clarification. It looks like the result was 14-6 after all. Which two newspapers did you try looking in? I just wonder if the framescores I found were also from the billiard player, the mistake occurring when they were transcribed onto the global snooker centre, as you suggested. It seems a strong possibility. And you wouldn't happen to the known the names of any Loughborough newspapers of the time would you, in case I am able to track one down sometime? Just a thought.
Thanks for your help 100-uper.

[100-uper]

You could try the Loughborough Echo (http://www.mediauk.com/newspapers/13806/loughborough-echo), they were around at the time and are still going today, conveniently having a website. Let me know if you have any success.

[scottley]

theres also the loughborough mail too.

[t.lavery55]

I couldn't find anything on their website from the relevant period of time so I think I'll trying contacting them to find out if they have anything about the sessions of the match.

Thanks for the information scottley, I'll try the Loughborough Mail too.

[t.lavery55]

I contacted Loughborough Echo and they informed me that their archive is available in Loughborough library. So I have phoned them up and they say they have copies of the Echo from that period of time which they will be able to photocopy and send to me.
I have requested relevant articles from 18-24(accounting for 23rd being a sunday) Dec 1928 to be sent in the post, so hopefully they should arrive in a few days and may solve the mystery of how many frames were played each evening.

Unfortunately, I am unable to use the Loughborough Mail to help me as this was not around at the time. The only other local paper from this era is the discontinued Loughborough Monitor. Any idea whether this is worth a try?

[Cyril]

Keep up the research mate, all very interesting stuff! :)

[The Statman]

Well if your main reference library is anything like mine, they will still be able to help even if the paper no longer exists. I found a great deal of stuff from my local paper in 1910, as well as lots of stuff from papers which have not been still circulating in my lifetime.

[t.lavery55]

I have now received the information requested from the Loughborough Echo.
Unfortunately, the paper was only printed once a week so only one article was available from the period of time requested.

The article reads:
"The semi-final for the English Professional Snooker Championship commenced in the Town Hall on Monday evening, when T.A. Dennis, of Nottingham, met Kelsall Prince, the Loughborough billiard professional. The first four games were played on Monday evening and were divided. Prince won the first two games at 67-40 and 58-41, but lost the next two to Dennis at 26-52 and 52-60. These last two games were remarkable for a great recovery by the Notts champion after Prince had made a break of 32. Dennis, although, 44 behind, won."

(This therefore confirms that the third frame score which I found originally on globalsnookercentre.co.uk recording it as 52-56 must have been transcripted incorrectly and that the billiard player magazine was correct. The result must have been correct then, so it was 14-6.)

"In the first two games of the Tuesday session Prince was very unlucky, and Dennis won comparatively easily. In the second Dennis had scored 65 before Prince had taken his first red, and eventually won 75-12, having won the first game 55-30. In the second game Dennis made a break of 27. The third game was very close, and Prince was leading by one when only the colours remained. The scores were level at 36. Prince took the brown, but Dennis got the blue, pink, and the black and won 54-40. Prince played much better in the last game, making several fine shots, and won by 43. Scores: Dennis, 5 games; Prince, 3 games."

"On Wednesday Dennis won the first game by 61(should be 60?) to 31. The next Prince took comfortably by 62 to 50. He however, fell away in the third, and lost by 12 to 67 (the Billiard Player reports the score as 12-67 for the second frame of the session and 62-50 for the third).The last was taken by Prince by 55 to 42, the issue being in doubt until the last ball was potted. Score: Wednesday night; Dennis, 7 games; Prince 5 games."

So the session by session breakdown of frames was:

Monday 17th: 4 frames
Tuesday 18th: 4 frames
Wednesday 19th: 4 frames

This leaves only 8 frames for the remaining 3 days of the match. However, as the paper was printed on Friday and there is no mention of any play on Thursday then perhaps the remaining 8 frames were split between the last two days. What do you think?