Walter and Horace Lindrum were Uncle and Nephew
cueists from Australia. Between them they won many snooker and billiards
Walter Lindrum became the best billiards player the
game has ever seen while his nephew was amongst the best snooker players in the
world for a great many years.
Walter Lindrum defeated Joe Davis for the world
billiards title in 1933 and 1934 by what appears to be a slender margin.
However I believe that Joe was receiving a significant handicap.
Walter made huge breaks mainly using the nursery
cannon, this was a means of scoring that grouped the three balls together and
with great touch and skill, kept them close. This allowed many cannons to be
scored with frightening swiftness.
Walters highest recognised break was 4.137,
which was largely dominated with this scoring method. Lets not be fooled by
this statistic because Walter Lindrum was brilliant at all round billiards as
Moving on to Horace Lindrum for a moment, I personally
feel that the fact that his world championship win in 1952 is not recognised
appears from a historical perspective, somewhat churlish. Horace Lindrum and
Clark Mc Conachy played what in effect became a challenge match for the world
snooker title as all other professionals had withdrawn due to a dispute with
the governing body.
It seems to me that the time is long overdue for this
decision to be reviewed, Horace unfortunately passed away in the mid nineteen
seventies so can not benefit other than in a kind of restored reputation sense
from any new decision considered at this late date.
My own personal view is that his win is not that
different in principle to some of John Pullmans great wins in the fifties
and sixties. The game of snooker as a public spectacle was in decline and
therefore not many top players could make a living at the game. John Pullman
was amongst a small group of players that retained professional status and
therefore competed for the world crown. The championship was often played for
on a challenge basis with Mr Pullman and one other player.
No one seeks to deny John Pullman of his rightful
place among those that have held the same championship as Ray Reardon, Alex
Higgins and Steve Davis, so why keep the gate closed on the flamboyant and
apparently entertaining Mr Lindrum?
I believe that Joe Daviss first win in the
championship was against Tom Dennis in the back room of this gentlemans
own pub, should Joes tally be retrospectively reduced to fourteen?
If you get the chance, please take a look at the book
between frames by Ted Lowe and when you have zeroed in on the sections
concerning Horace Lindrum ask yourself if this was the type of man who should
have been denied his rightful place in the history books?
From a psychological point of view, I am not surprised
that Horace Lindrum didnt win the tournament again. The additional
pressure on him to do so must have been immense. I have noticed that pressure
seems to affect those players most whos game depends on flair and
inspiration. Look at Jimmy White, a man who senses his place in the history of
the game as well as you or I. I suspect and yet he has not managed to lift the
very trophy that for him eclipses all others. Take a moment to look at his
record in the world matchplay championship however, he not only won it, but
retained it, what does that suggest about the added effects of the world
championship on this type of player?
Please feel free to pass on any opinions to me for