Ronnie O'Sullivan calls his shot. 147 with a twist.
- Thread starter Cashman
- Start date
RichGambler
The Kid
Ok, I'm just discovering Ronnie and I have to say that this guy blows my mind. He makes it look so friggin easy. Amazing stuff. :bow-down::bow-down:
Neil Robertson, current World Champion, is quoted on the BBC Snooker page about Ronnie's 147
"To pot one red and a black, then ask the referee if there's a 147 prize is pure genius, no other player would have done that," said Robertson
"He knew there wasn't a prize, he was just setting it up. No-one is bigger than the sport but he does make it more attractive when he does something like that."
"To pot one red and a black, then ask the referee if there's a 147 prize is pure genius, no other player would have done that," said Robertson
"He knew there wasn't a prize, he was just setting it up. No-one is bigger than the sport but he does make it more attractive when he does something like that."
Georgia Boy:
I get your point, and if Ronnie had done this OVERTLY, where the crowd can clearly hear him, I'd agree with you. But here's the difference: after King missed (badly), leaving a shot with the balls in such a perfect layout with no cluster-busting needed whatsoever, Ronnie QUIETLY asked the ref what the prize is for a maximum. NOBODY heard it, except the commentary desk, and the only reason that the commentary desk heard it, is that the ref was mic'ed. Even then, only *one* of the commentators heard Ronnie's question, and that was because the referee repeated the question with the answer, "Yes, I'll find out what max pays."
Do I think this is Ronnie "being a d*ck"? Heck no. He asked quietly, and not even his own voice was heard. It was only after the referee answered him (remember, he's the only person on the play floor that is mic'ed), that the commentary desk picked up on what was going on. The audience never heard a thing.
Ronnie was actually staging something special, and boy, did he deliver! When the audience finally finds out that he asked, "how much a max pays" when he only potted a red and a black thus far, I'll bet they went home with bewilderment that "not only did I just watch a special moment in history in person, but this guy can produce these special moments on demand?!?" I know *I* would think that after watching this!
Rather than blast the guy for being a d*ck, I give him props for being a showman for a sport (any cueing sport, to be precise) that needs it BADLY. Yes, snooker enjoys a far greater audience and spectatorship in other countries, than pool does here in our own country. I *wish* pool had this kind of spectatorship here. If we had the kind of character, natural talent, and "giving back to the sport" as Ronnie offers snooker (Earl Strickland comes close in the talent department, but drops off a cliff in the others), I think we wouldn't bemoan the woes that we do.
Every "arteest" has issues. Name any single front-standing talent that pops into your head (e.g. Johann Sebastian Bach, Evil Knievel, Neil Peart, Jimmy Hendrix, Jaco Pastorius, et al.), and I'll show you a very eccentric individual that offered a lot to his/her craft. Enough to change it, even.
-Sean
Last edited:
Just to add to this, it's way too common anymore to justify the insurance. Though it's not happening every tournament, some years there seems to be a bunch (2008 had 7, 2007 had 6). When the 147 prize was started there would be no more than 1 a year if that at all. Better to use that money elsewhere. Maybe a 146 prize lol, they are actually more rare.
Jimmy White better than Ronnie in his prime? Hardly. Ronnie has won more against stronger competition. He has also competed with Stephen Hendry and John Higgins in each of their primes (and higgins is still there), two of the all time greats. Jimmy doesn't even have more centuries than Steve Davis, who is not nearly as aggressive a player. Ronnie is also on pace to overtake Stephen Hendry in the all time centuries scored in competition. He's 143 behind.
No 147 is easy, but not all snooker breaks are created equal. This one is almost as good a chance as you can get. A 147 equates to roughly 120-150 ball run in 14.1 depending on the layout of the balls.
If the balls are spread with nothing on the rails, all colours on the spots and no clusters a snooker century is roughly as difficult as a 60-70 ball run. Start clustering the balls together, put some on the rails and difficulty level can raise significantly. I've seen Ronnie run centuries from positions, I and many players would only hope to get 20 points and finish with a good safety.
A direct comparison between pool and snooker just isn't possible. Snooker players come to a pool table and seem to never miss. But then, so do professional pool players. Oliver Ortmann running 100 and out, 100 and out, 150 and out and 125 in successive matches is just as insane as anything Ronnie has done.
Last edited:
While I agree direct comparisons are not realistic i strongly disagree that a 147 is = to 120-150, not even close imo. I have had centuries in both snooker and pool so I have some idea what it takes.
I definitely agree with you.
To make a 147 out from the start is extremely difficult. Especially so in a tournament.
If you ask efren to choose try making a century break in snooker or run a century in a straight pool in a couple of try i would fancy he would take the straight pool option.
BTW I know that efren also play snooker in his younger days and was a century breaker.
I think a 147 is more like a straight run out in the finals of a world championship where the fellow runs a straight 17 racks to win it. It would be an amazing feat! but it would also make the competition look a little silly.
Excellent post sir!
Ronnie on form is scintillating, a master craftsman that does not have pressure in his vocabulary. Most players would crumble at making a max for a 1/4 million dollars, he dances through it with sublime genius, no one comes close.
He did shake his opponents hand! Right after he potted the pink.
In snooker they usually do so as a foul on the last black ends the game and you only win after the pink is potted.
The only near comparison of truly raw talent is Alex Higgins. Boy would i love to see them match up especially after Alex had a few shot of whiskey!
I invited him to my tournament once, i believe 2006.
Because he was announched, another 351 players entered the tournament.
He had to play the qualifiers to qualify for the final 64 on Sunday.
He came with no cue, and asked me for a cue.
I gave him my Predator Sneaky Pete, he played and won 4 qualifying matches.
Then in to the last 64 he won another 5 matches to reach the final including wins over 2 professional players (Fabio Petroni) eventually he lost the final to Mika Immonen 10-6.
To achieve that with a borrowed cue, you are good...
MH
HOB Weert
Because he was announched, another 351 players entered the tournament.
He had to play the qualifiers to qualify for the final 64 on Sunday.
He came with no cue, and asked me for a cue.
I gave him my Predator Sneaky Pete, he played and won 4 qualifying matches.
Then in to the last 64 he won another 5 matches to reach the final including wins over 2 professional players (Fabio Petroni) eventually he lost the final to Mika Immonen 10-6.
To achieve that with a borrowed cue, you are good...
MH
HOB Weert
TheThaiger
Banned
Didn't he win the World Championship with a cue he'd played with for about a week? I think he also changed his tip mid-match once without any change to the standard of his play.
He gave his cue to a kid in the crowd after winning one of his WCs - said he fancied a change. Incredible.
TheThaiger
Banned
Alex was a cult hero but wasn't anywhere near Ronnie's class, not even close. It's impossible to compare players from different eras, however.
I agree with you on if he cut his teeth in pool. Guy can play snooker at the highest level either handed. Sick.
What would you equate it to?
I've run centuries in both as well, but I've never had a 147. I've only ever had one total clearance in practice (139), but outside of that one I haven't felt that any of my other centuries were as tough as a 14.1 century.
It's a tough comparison, it would be nice to be able to refer to the records and say well there have been 70 competitive maximums and 70 competitive 300 runs or something to that effect.
The real issue with the max is staying on the top side of the reds every time and the right angle off the black, just look at the shot Ronnie had to play to get on the last two reds all because he was a little bit off. It's all about cue ball control in the end, oh and a good spread of the reds doesn't hurt
Cameron:
I would have to agree. I play snooker (my high run is also incidentally 139!) and I base all my mechanics/fundamentals on the snooker style. But I find breaking centuries in straight pool to be more difficult. The reason is simple -- creating a break ball situation from the remaining balls to continue the run. You don't have to do that in snooker, because unlike straight pool where each ball is worth only one point, snooker's colors are worth multiple points. As long as you break-build with the blue, pink, and black (which are all at the bottom-half of the table [blue being on the center spot, of course]), you can ring-up a century in a straight forward manner. When the break is over, and if there aren't enough points on the table for the opponent to counter (and beat) you with, the frame is over and the next frame begins anew with a brand-new rack of reds and positioned colors.
In straight pool, however, you *have* to plan going into the next rack -- that is the only way to get beyond the 14 points that the current rack buys you. You have to CAREFULLY plan your run around the final "triangle" -- the final three balls, which are the break ball, the key ball (to get position on the break ball), and the key-ball-to-the-key-ball (self-explanatory). This is much more difficult than the "pure snooker" zealots realize. In snooker, you're only worried about getting position on a high-scoring color after potting a red. While the champion players do plan the entire table (including cluster-busting), a good club player can quite literally limit his/her thinking to only two balls ahead ("after I pocket this red, I need to get position on the pink [or blue, or even black]") and still score a century, as long as the reds are spread out. You can't achieve high runs in 14.1 with that kind of thinking.
Interestingly, my highest break in snooker (139) is "higher" points-wise than my current high run in 14.1, which, for now, is 133. I did score a 122 this past June, and I'm working hard to enter the acclaimed "200 Club" as NY's esteemed 14.1 player Steve Lipsky likes to call it. I hope I can do that before the year is out. The only thing stopping me is that "distraction from pool" (i.e. the day job, which is actually a 24/7 thing).
Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* to play snooker, and anytime I walk into a new pool hall or club, I first try to find a snooker table. (These are unfortunately rare in my area -- I have to make the trek into NYC to play on one.) Given a choice between a snooker table or a pool table, I'll grab the snooker table almost every time. But failing that (which is most of the time, unfortunately), I'll play 14.1. And I love the game!
Great replies in this thread -- an enjoyable read!
-Sean
Sean
Your points of view expressed here are absolutely valid. He is a genius with a cue in his hand, I don't think anyone can deny that. But like many others he is flawed (not saying anyones perfect) and in some ways that is really sad to see.
But I have been at many tournaments where Ronnie was playing and I just don't understand some of the things he says or does. I was at the World's in Sheffield in I think it was 96 when he was charged with assaulting Mike Ganley, now Tournament Director of that Championship. I was also at Sheffield in 2002 when he appeared to blame losing to Stephen Hendry on some earlier tournament and a "miss" or "foul" call that he felt was Hendry's fault. In all fairness Hendry kicked his butt in the last session by playing much better snooker than Ronnie. I guess it may just be that I have seen so much of him and a lot of it not so positive as his great play that it's difficult to get past that. I know however I should and going forward I am going to judge him on what he's doing now.
Since moving here and been to a few Pool Tournaments I find the atmosphere completely different maybe that's what Ronnie needs? Anytime he wants to come over here and join the Tour he can stay at ours I'll even let him practice on my table, he's gotta get his own cue though
Ronnies view of the world and how he reacts to it may be very different from John Q citizen, he was brought up in a shall we say "unusual environment" that has shaped his character.