100 Points (Snooker) vs. 100 Balls (14.1)

[Calgaryplayer]

They are both challenging goals that not easy to be reached, especially for amature players.

But, if compare these two games side by side, which "100" YOU think is easier to be achieved by most amature players in GENERAL?

 

[djkx1]

Based on my experience I would say a century break in snooker is easier. I have played about the same amount of each, which is very little and I have not run 100 in either. My high run in 14.1 is 79 and in snooker it is 57, however the last time I played snooker is probably at least 10 years ago and I am a much better player now.

The main reason I think it would be easier is that your colors, most importantly your black, keep getting re-spotted at the same place and you constantly play very similar position. Once you have some free reds its just a matter of getting to the reds properly which generally requires limited cue ball movement in comparison to most other games. The only thing that is more difficult is the actual potting.

In 14.1 there is a ton more stategy involved and though the potting is easier you also need to make a break shot every 14 balls, which can very easily end a run if not played perfectly. Without extreme precision or a bit of good fortune it is very tough to run multiple racks.

To simplify it a bit, I would ask it this way. Which is easier a 24 point run in snooker or 24 ball run in 14.1? Potentially 6 balls vs 24(including a break shot or two). JMHO but I would be curious to see what others would say, especially those that can do both regularly. Not sure there are many of those.:smile:

 

[berniep]

They are both challenging goals that not easy to be reached, especially for amature players.

But, if compare these two games side by side, which "100" YOU think is easier to be achieved by most amature players in GENERAL?

In my opinion, a century break at snooker is not an easy goal for an amateur, but I feel that running 100 at 14.1 is definitely more difficult. (For the record, I've been fortunate to have done both).

Given a regulation 3 1/4" snooker pocket and a 4 1/2" pool table pocket for example, I would rate a snooker century the equivalent of approx a 65 to 70 14.1 run.

I would be interested to get input from other players who have played both games.

Thanks.

Bernie Pettipiece.

 

[Calgaryplayer]

To me, I would say in this case, century break of Snooker is a little bit easier to reach because one thing on Snooker is you can "cheat" on the points a little bit by breaking up all of the red balls which makes the game easier to be run more points. But for running 100 balls at 14.1, you have to run up to 8 racks.

 

[Cameron Smith]

In my opinion, a century break at snooker is not an easy goal for an amateur, but I feel that running 100 at 14.1 is definitely more difficult. (For the record, I've been fortunate to have done both).

Given a regulation 3 1/4" snooker pocket and a 4 1/2" pool table pocket for example, I would rate a snooker century the equivalent of approx a 65 to 70 14.1 run.

I would be interested to get input from other players who have played both games.

Thanks.

Bernie Pettipiece.

That's roughly my assessment too. Although, it really depends on the what you start with. No two century breaks are equal, depending on the lay of the balls. If they're spread out and nothing is on the rail all colours on it's spots, it's considerably easier than most of the reds in the pack with the black tied up. In the latter scenario I would say it is as tough or tougher than a 100 ball run.

But I think the real difference is a 100 ball run takes 30 minutes and more of concentration and executing 100 times. A century requires 8-12 minutes of your time. However granted the individual shots are considerably more difficult than the average straight pool shot.

I give the slight edge to the 100 ball run.

 

[Cameron Smith]

To me, I would say in this case, century break of Snooker is a little bit easier to reach because one thing on Snooker is you can "cheat" on the points a little bit by breaking up all of the red balls which makes the game easier to be run more points. But for running 100 balls at 14.1, you have to run up to 8 racks.

The reds rarely open up as nicely on a snooker table as they do on a pool table when you break into them from the black or blue. Especially on slower cloth. It's also a lot more difficult to do with control, most amateurs who attempt it simply miss the ball half the time.

If your talking about simply smashing them open and waiting for another inning, that won't work against even top tier amateurs .

 

[predator]

I voted 14.1 even though the comparison is somewhat flawed. You know 100 balls is 100 balls after all.

However, some snooker breaks are almost impossible, and they don't even have to be a century.

This is one of my favourites from Ronnie, only a 76, but he was losing 60-0 in this frame, so no mistakes allowed. Much much harder then most centuries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Q7dwnEfEE&feature=related