Why does snooker thrive and pool die?

[Maniac]

that's not the reason. In Europe we have football ( or soccer) which is the most followed sport in the world. We have F1 and basketball.
Other sports like baseball, hockey, nascar are generally considered "rubbish" sports in Europe. Golf has a good fanbase who plays it but I don't know a single person who actually follows it in TV.

That is EXACTLY my point, sir. What is considered "rubbish" overseas is the Holy Grail in America, thus not allowing a lesser sport like pool (or snooker) to come to the forefront. There just isn't room for it in the average Americans sports-following life. Because Asians (possibly Arabs too) are probably NEVER going to have pro football, or NASCAR-type tracks in their countries anytime soon, there has to be some type of sport that caters more towards their natural abilities and/or interests. Snooker/pool fills the bill nicely in these enviroments.

Maniac

 

[CreeDo]

just some other thoughts, they might be way off.

- Snooker just looks harder. Even if you've never played it, those pockets look tiny on that gargantuan table. This makes it more entertaining to watch, which translates to sponsor money. In pool, you almost have to kick a ball in to impress the viewer.

- Beginners grow up learning the standard game of snooker, and that's what the pros play when they're in front of the TV cameras.

Equipment aside, the game is just tough, comparable to straight pool. Difficult enough that they don't feel the need to switch to another game, shrink the pocket, alter the break, tweak the rules, etc.

Pool beginners grow up playing 8 ball, but it's not what they see on TV because that game is just inherently a bit too easy for pros. "Why's he still shooting, the 8's down." "They're playing 9 ball, you shoot them in order 1-9" ..."OK why did it just get spotted up" ..."you have to call the 9". "Oh, so you gotta call your shots in 9 ball?" "Well, no, just the 9." ..and so on.

It's hard to feel attached to the game if you don't know what's going on.

- Pool's association with gambling, or smoking and drinking are not going to make it unmarketable (see poker). But pool's association with casual recreation in bars might reduce its options... because a marketer probably figures "I can't sell something expensive to a guy who literally pays for his game with quarters. I should be selling this to a golfer who's blowing $50-100 per round."

 

[Slh]

just some other thoughts, they might be way off.

- Snooker just looks harder. Even if you've never played it, those pockets look tiny on that gargantuan table. This makes it more entertaining to watch, which translates to sponsor money. In pool, you almost have to kick a ball in to impress the viewer.

- Beginners grow up learning the standard game of snooker, and that's what the pros play when they're in front of the TV cameras.

Equipment aside, the game is just tough, comparable to straight pool. Difficult enough that they don't feel the need to switch to another game, shrink the pocket, alter the break, tweak the rules, etc.

Pool beginners grow up playing 8 ball, but it's not what they see on TV because that game is just inherently a bit too easy for pros. "Why's he still shooting, the 8's down." "They're playing 9 ball, you shoot them in order 1-9" ..."OK why did it just get spotted up" ..."you have to call the 9". "Oh, so you gotta call your shots in 9 ball?" "Well, no, just the 9." ..and so on.

It's hard to feel attached to the game if you don't know what's going on.

- Pool's association with gambling, or smoking and drinking are not going to make it unmarketable (see poker). But pool's association with casual recreation in bars might reduce its options... because a marketer probably figures "I can't sell something expensive to a guy who literally pays for his game with quarters. I should be selling this to a golfer who's blowing $50-100 per round."

exactly. I also think the trickshot competitions are "ruining" the actual pool. The average joe who is not a pool person thinks the trickshots are the real pool, so when they watch a 9 ball match with ( example) a Buddy Hall shooting always 2 feet long shots they think it is boring and you can hear the famous "He is not that good, he only had easy shots".
I can't blame them. If you watch a guy shooting 6 rails masse shots and then you see another guy shooting 2 feet straight in shots, you prefer watching the first guy ( in the average joe mentality)..

 

[Cdryden]

In short, snooker is pure. Pool is mongrel.

And yet I would take my mut over a prissy pure breed any day!

Both are great games although I don't remember any academy award winning movies about snooker j/k don't get your knickers in a bind!

Congrats to snookers success, I have played the game and liked it. But pool will always be my first love no matter how mongrel she may be perceived.

 

[Cdryden]

exactly. I also think the trickshot competitions are "ruining" the actual pool. The average joe who is not a pool person thinks the trickshots are the real pool, so when they watch a 9 ball match with ( example) a Buddy Hall shooting always 2 feet long shots they think it is boring and you can hear the famous "He is not that good, he only had easy shots".
I can't blame them. If you watch a guy shooting 6 rails masse shots and then you see another guy shooting 2 feet straight in shots, you prefer watching the first guy ( in the average joe mentality)..

I dont think trick shots are ruining pool any more than the home run derby is ruining baseball. Both are entertaining additions to pool. Assets to the game.

I get what your saying about the average joe thinking the regular game is boring but I am willing to bet that trick shots have done more for pool than most people realize.
I often ask people I know what got them interested in pool. I hear this answer most of all, " I saw this cool trick shot by: Steve Mizerak, or Masconi or Tom Rossman and wanted to try it myself" And they almost always say once they started playing around trying to do what they saw on TV, they fell in love with the game. Never have I heard anyone say they quit pool because the games are more boring to them than the trick shot competitions. Maybe it happens but I have never came across it.

Pools decline isn't due to artistic pool imo, I thinks it's just a cycle that pool has gone through before. It will survive.

 

[alstl]

Vegas gave odds and took bets one time on an American pool tournament. Most of the players, who at the time were some of the top American players, conspired to fix the tournament so they could rob the odds makers.

 

[labatt ice rod]

Hi
do you know why Alex decided to gave his spot away?

I watched the canadian snooker championship and even though Alex didn't play as well as the last year, he still won the tournament. He also had the high run of the tournament, 134, if I remember correctly. The tables in the canadian championship play a little looser than the usual tables in the pro tour, but they also play a lot slower. He also had a 147 in pratice.
Here his 134 break:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oekjq8nbSgQ

Its a 2 year commitment overseas. And he has too many events in 9 and 10ball to make the jump to full time snooker. So i think by 2015 you will see him on tour. As for the Canadians Alex was a machine after winning the 8ball he went right to the snooker table and made them pockets like like a bar box. Thanks for posting the high
run, That was my first time commentating Snooker.

 

[Cdryden]

Vegas gave odds and took bets one time on an American pool tournament. Most of the players, who at the time were some of the top American players, conspired to fix the tournament so they could rob the odds makers.

Which has happened in baseball, football, basketball (especially college) etc. To me this only serves to prove that there are undesirables in every sport, it doesn't imo single out pool.

 

[Slasher]

Lets face it pools a pretty boring game to watch.
Snooker at least has more elements and drama in the game.
English billiards, carom three cushion never made a tv impact in the UK either so I don't see why 9 ball should be any different.
Pool is dead and stinking the place up around here and all that remains is to remove the carcass.
It will stay dead, like a lot of other pass times it has been replaced and it aint coming back.

 

[Maniac]

Which has happened in baseball, football, basketball (especially college) etc. To me this only serves to prove that there are undesirables in every sport, it doesn't imo single out pool.

Yeah, and besides, how many of the general public would even know that the "fixing" ever took place in that infamous pool tournament? Hell, how many serious poolplayers even know about it? I knew nothing of it until I read about it here on AZB about 2 years ago, and I've been playing pool for over 40 years.

Maniac

 

[bwally]

I often think that crowd participation has something to do with why pool may not televise as well as it could. Seems like there is too much sitting on hands. Look at Darts for example, not a horribly exciting game but the arena and crowd make it exciting to watch. Snooker has this as well and I believe that this is why the Mosconi Cup well. If I am not mistaken isn't Barry Hearn involved with Darts too?

 

[TheThaiger]

Lets face it pools a pretty boring game to watch.
Snooker at least has more elements and drama in the game.
English billiards, carom three cushion never made a tv impact in the UK either so I don't see why 9 ball should be any different.
Pool is dead and stinking the place up around here and all that remains is to remove the carcass.
It will stay dead, like a lot of other pass times it has been replaced and it aint coming back.

That pretty much sums it up. :frown:

 

[TheThaiger]

I often think that crowd participation has something to do with why pool may not televise as well as it could. Seems like there is too much sitting on hands. Look at Darts for example, not a horribly exciting game but the arena and crowd make it exciting to watch. Snooker has this as well and I believe that this is why the Mosconi Cup well. If I am not mistaken isn't Barry Hearn involved with Darts too?

Yes - he really transformed darts. Pool's fatal flaw is it's bloody boring. A boisterous crowd wouldn't harm its fortunes, and players that GET ON WITH IT is a prerequisite.

Can't agree with other comments about pool being a quick wham-bam game - that is what it SHOULD be, but isn't.

 

[skogstokig]

I don't want this to be another snooker vs pool skill thread bcs i think we all can agree - as can potential viewers/followers of either game - that the top players in snooker and in pool are amazing precision sportsmen.

And pool is not boring to watch. It's the production that sometimes makes it boring. I mean compare older broadcasts such as IPT 8 ball that was on eurosport or US open BCN, or for that matter the mosconi cup on ESPN, to the streams that we have today with a fixed camera and a boring voice. Huge difference of course. And compare pool to dart or poker, now theres two really boring games that gets TV time.

Characters is a good point. That is one of the things the snooker tour really capitalizes on; the top 16, the "bad boy"s and the girls favourites, etc. Pool does have that potential too, its just not promoted or noted much (except for earl). I think that would really be something for a future pool TV production to focus on.

And about ads. Can the viewer clientele really differ that much between pool and snooker? i mean bet365 and all those companies that pumps money into snooker, they're not aiming for the NASA software engineers either.

Ahhh, the betting. Pool, unfortunately, can't even be bet on in Vegas due to players demonstrating they will take a dive. Yes, it's happened.

It's happened in snooker too. And even the slight suspicion of it in snooker RAISES HELL from the governing body, just look at john higgins some year ago. Other bad behaviour is also punished. As with most sports, a certain amount of strong governing and discipline is needed to make it work. its not a democracy, you're in the game or you're not.

 

[Cameron Smith]

If we go back in time to the 50's and 60's I remember reading of an interview with Fred Davis where he was asked about the future of snooker, he replied "snooker has no future". That sounds somewhat familiar. The world championship was on a challenge match basis, players had to make money through exhibitions rather than a steady stream of tournaments.

Snooker's popularity has gone through some ups and downs as others have pointed out. But initially it gained interest through pot black which was a program devised to fill out BBC's colour television programming. The one frame format was an excellent way to wet peoples appetites for the game. Surely if they had attempted to feed viewers 6-10 hour marathon matches it would have fallen flat on it's face. Snooker after all can be something of an acquired taste. The British public certainly didn't start out watching 100 hours of snooker over 2 weeks (roughly the available programming of the world championships), they built up to it.

And of course you can't forget Alex Higgins. In a documentary one commentator stated people who didn't know the blue was worth 5 points would show up to his exhibitions. Between him and array of colorful characters who had built up a repertoire of jokes and routines through years of working the exhibition circuit (remember the was not much of a tournament scene for professional snooker prior to the late 70's) people tuned in as much for the player drama as the snooker itself.

That appears to be main ingredient for either game to take off, player drama. The popularity of snooker dropped off as players became increasingly more stoic and robotic at the table. And that's been the primary complaint for years, viewers moan that there aren't anymore characters in the game.

Pool would benefit from a reality show of some sort, just needs to be the right formula and aimed at the general public. There are all sorts of characters in the game, and TLC has proven time and again people will watch anything if it is filmed and edited right. If you can get the public to care about the participants, they will watch them in a match.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I think there's also a huge difference in spectators. Not just in Snooker, but pool as well. It just seems that the non American spectators (even those that don't play) are more educated on the games. How do you pick out an American in a crowd of Europeans watch a pool or snooker match? They'll be the person applauding after every stop shot.

Now as a pool player, I actually love watching any form of pool, and don't find it boring it all. One of the biggest reasons, though, that I love to watch snooker is the commentary. With pool, commentary is always hit or miss. However, I've never once heard bad commentary when watching a snooker match.

 

[predator]

Pool isn't going to die, it will always have its players and followers even though it may never reach the success of some mainstream sports. Comparison with snooker is valid because those are cuesports played by basically the same sort of people.
In my opinion, pool just doesn't look as good on TV. The tables are just not as visually attractive as snooker tables. Choices for cloth color and numbered balls are OK for playing the game, but TV coverage is a different beast. Pool can be hard to follow on TV for non players, snooker not so much. Color contrasts and constantly changing rules may have something to do with it. Also, not only is snooker a tough game in real life, but it even *looks* tough on TV, something which cannot be said for many sports. People tend to like that.

 

[Renegade_56]

I have not read the entire thread yet, but I'll make a couple of what I think are key points on this,,,,,,,

1)The UK is primarily focused on just snooker, with a small outlying version of english pool,,,,,,reds and yellows. We as Americans have umpteen games and we can't focus enough group support for any of them to flourish.

2)As an American I hate to say it,,,,,,,,,but Snooker is just a flat out better all around game than MOST American pool games. I place it second to one pocket on my personal list.

 

[thelongbomber]

Two words: Earl Strickland.

Do you really think mom/dad want their boy/girl playing pool professionally when one of the top ranked players is a dick? And where exactly would a company's brand fit in when a guy like Earl wins the tourney and takes home the grand prize? Earl doesn't represent the sport well and is the worst ambassador you can have for the sport. It's part of the reason the sport hasn't attracted more sponsors and money in the past.

Snooker is a game of professional sportsmen and women. Fouls are often called by the offender, and players always shake hands at the end. Just go to the BBC and watch all the little kids lining up to play snooker in UK and China - in part thanks to Barry and the professional attitude snooker has worked hard to keep (mostly). OK, wait, I know you are going to mention Alex Higgins and say he made the sport worth watching. Yes he did, but for himself. Just imagine if that talent was funneled into growing snooker further with youth and in schools and people looked at Alex the same way they now look at Steve Davis and Shaun Murphy? How much better would snooker be as an international sport? Probably even further ahead.

The game needs an ambassador that parents and companies will respond to. Earl isn't one of them.

 

[Lumocolor]

Which has happened in baseball, football, basketball (especially college) etc. To me this only serves to prove that there are undesirables in every sport, it doesn't imo single out pool.

Except these sports bring in live crowds of 20,000 to 80,000, plus millions on TV and make the teams and their owners hundreds of millions of dollars, so with or without gambling they would still exist. Whats the largest crowd in the history of pool 200 people?