What do you think of this absurd comment
- Thread starter jimmy-leggs
- Start date
To be a Champion you do!
Golfers don't putt when they're still 200 - 600 yards from the cup. When they do start putting the cup is the same size- way bigger than the ball (which, by the way, they aren't hitting into the cup with another ball; they're hitting it directly into the pocket with their "cue"). LOL.
What's so absurd about it?
this guy deserves the "Earl Strickland, im oblivious to the world around me award"
They are both tough, played at the top levels. At least the best golfers actually make a living.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Last edited:
And what again are you trying to say? That it is easy? Most amature golfers average over 2 of those putts or more on each hole, after they finally make it to the green. It is not easy, which you seem to be trying to imply. Have you ever even played the game? What is your handicap?
There is a new pool league based on that exact concept...all offense, no defense. It's called Pool 300, and it combines 10-ball with 14.1 with scoring opportunities like in bowling. It's a lot of fun to play. Check it out at .www.pool300.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
because as Celtic stated ( and I agree with him) the game is too easy. If a player like me, a mediocre pool player, can run racks there is really something wrong with the game. When you say "I could come closer to beating a pro pool player than beating a pro golfer." what game are you talking about? 9 ball? Straight pool? Race to 5? Race to 21? Race to 200 balls? People think "I could come closer to beating a pro pool player than beating a pro golfer" because the equipment where pros play is too easy and the matches are too short! A big difference is playing against a pro race to 5 and another race to 50.
This is so far off base when it comes to comparing the two games it's hard to respond.
If putting were the same as hitting a pool ball into a pocket with your cue, everyone on the PGA Tour would average 1 putt per hole all the time
Let's put it into another perspective:
In golf, on average you get to touch the golf ball 4 times in order to get it to fall into a small cup that's over 400 yards away. While doing so, you're contending with weather (wind, rain, etc), uneven lies, rough, trees, water, bunkers and a ton of other things that can cause your score to sky rocket in 2 seconds.
The pool math-guys love to say how accurate one's stroke must be to make a 8' cut shot. Hitting just a millimeter or two off center should make you miss without adjustment. Now, if you're swinging the golf club 90-100mph and you make a SLIGHT MICRO-FLINCH in any direction, you're either:
- Flubbing/chunking the ball to the point where it's not going past the womens' tee
- Blading the ball to the point where you can kill a goose sitting by the pond near the tee
- Slicing the ball into the rough/sand/trees/water
- Hooking the ball into the rough/sand/trees/water
Now, if you pair the above with the fact that every golf course is TOTALLY different and each individual course plays TOTALLY different on a day-to-day basis based on the weather --- you have a super tough game. For the most part, all pool tables are the same (twice as long as is wide, cloth, round balls, etc). Most equipment is fairly standardized. Golf courses aren't.
I've played golf and pool my entire life and there's no way anyone can convince me that pool is harder. I can beat "almost" anyone in 1 set of most games in pool. There's NO WAY a hobby / amateur-level golfer of the same level can beat a tour player in 1 round on any course.
If Earl thinks pool is so much harder than golf, then why isn't he on the PGA Tour? It's crazy.
Golf is the harder sport to play and there's no question about it.
That's a good one.. Thanks for the laugh, and wisdom!!:thumbup:
I am a scratch golfer, but an okay pool player. I would MUCH rather be an A pool player and a 15 handicap golfer. To me, golf just comes natural. Pool on the other hand is a challenge. I have no idea why. I think Earl is right.
if its so easy; how many of you have won the us open?
just a question: why always this comparisons with golf???? dudes soon im gonna have to block all threads with "golf" besides the threads with "CTE", "aiming system" and "obama"
because the game is so easy for them winning a tournament is very hard. If a game is very hard only the best could win and this is not what happen in pool.
Muscle memory plays a large part in both disciplines, but when you compare the number of muscles that have to fire properly in the golf swing versus the pool stroke, it is obvious (to me anyway) that pool is not even in the same universe as golf with regard to physical difficulty. I would put pool somewhere between darts or shuffleboard and... I don't know, maybe table tennis or bowling?
Aaron
Aaron
What I'm saying is that you have an ill-conceived fixation on pocket size in pool as something that would cause a major advance in pool.
All it would do is cause LESS people to want to play it. Also, one pocket size for pros and another pocket size for amateurs would be a big mistake. The focus should be on getting rid of the 5" pockets that too many people play on so that there is one standard pool game.
It's unnecessary. The best players in the world miss shots at 4.5" pockets (granted, some of the "mid-level, amateur players" in this forum almost never miss those gigantic 4.5" pockets:wink
. If all the pros were playing on 4 1/8" pockets all the time it wouldn't surprise me at all if the same percentage of shots are missed as now. Any big change seen when someone suddenly starts playing with smaller pockets has more to do with not having enough time to adjust their game than anything else. If someone shows poorly with 4 1/8" pockets maybe they were above their speed range on 4.5" pockets, too. See next item.Longer races would reveal the skill level difference between top level players and weed out those who don't belong at that level without any change in pocket size.
The fact of the matter is that I wouldn't mind eventually seeing smaller pockets. In the meantime I can play snooker if I choose to.
LOL...thanks, Chris.
I figured as much. The guy calls out my intelligence and can't even come with something original. Good thing I didn't lose any sleep over it
if its so easy; how many of you have won the us open?
just a question: why always this comparisons with golf???? dudes soon im gonna have to block all threads with "golf" besides the threads with "CTE", "aiming system" and "obama"
Make no mistake about it. They WOULD go win the US Open if the pockets were just smaller so it would be worth their while.
It's pointless to try to compare one to the other. Attempts are made to compare them because of jealousy. Golf is successful and pool isn't.
In any case, getting back to where the thread kind of veered off to after the Earl-kicking was played out- as I recall, Earl didn't say one was harder than the other. He said that he, as a pool player, had attained a respectable level at golf whereas there weren't any examples of golfers who had reached a respectable level at pool. If someone wants to contradict Earl all they have to do is produce some names but they haven't.
What I'm saying is that you have an ill-conceived fixation on pocket size in pool as something that would cause a major advance in pool.
All it would do is cause LESS people to want to play it. Also, one pocket size for pros and another pocket size for amateurs would be a big mistake. The focus should be on getting rid of the 5" pockets that too many people play on so that there is one standard pool game.
It's unnecessary. The best players in the world miss shots at 4.5" pockets (granted, some of the "mid-level, amateur players" in this forum almost never miss those gigantic 4.5" pockets:wink
Longer races would reveal the skill level difference between top level players and weed out those who don't belong at that level without any change in pocket size.
The fact of the matter is that I wouldn't mind eventually seeing smaller pockets. In the meantime I can play snooker if I choose to.
why one pocket size for pros and one for amateus is a big mistake? The problem with pool is it lacks drama totally. There is a lot of drama on the mosconi cup because due the huge pressure the pros miss! I think is really sad when you see a pro ( SVB for example) breaking the balls, making a ball, then he has a shot on the lowest ball and you hear from the commentator "He is out". This makes the game looks stupid and easy. In snooker if Ronnie O'Sullivan has a shot is not garanted he will win the frame.
Also don't forget SVB run a 7 pack on a table with 4 1/8 pockets!
Make no mistake about it. They WOULD go win the US Open if the pockets were just smaller so it would be worth their while.
after this post I think you didn't understand the problem. Personally if the pockets would be smaller the margin beetween good players and the best would be bigger. Today a lesser player can win against Souquet if he gets some good break and rolls. The difference beetween Tiger Woods and an average good golfer is huge because the game is very hard. Try to make a golf course with only 4 holes, only 60 feet of playing surface and with hole size of 10 inches. Don't if you think an amateur could get much closer playing on easy condition than what he could with hard conditions? This is what happens in pool, the equipment is too easy and the matches are too short to be true indicator of skill.
Last edited:
If you want to finally ruin pool forever then change it to be popular on television.
The equipment is fine. The matches are set up wrong. There should be long races.
The whole idea of tournaments in pool should be forgotten as far as I'm concerned. Streamed, long race, heads up matches for bigger money is what pool needs. The focus should be on getting more viewers who do want to watch that to pay for those. This will never happen on ESPN.