Ronnie O'Sullivan vs Raj Hundal?

MartinBullet said:
And according to Raj, race to 11, minimum £20,000 pot! 9 ball, venue is Thistle Hotel, London Heathrow.
Click to expand...

11 racks = 99 balls max

3 frames of snooker @ 36 balls = 108 balls max

This thing will be over before snooker players take their tea break at the end of the fourth frame. :D

21 racks =189 balls

5 frames of snooker @ 36 balls = 180 balls

Just a day off for Ronnie with a $30,000+ payoff - assume this is winner take all.

£20,000 is, of course, a pot generated by the public profile of pool in the UK, not by O'Sullivan.
 
Last edited:
trob said:
EXACTLY! There isn't any money in mens pool here but a ton of money in snooker so why don't they stop playing 9 ball and go play pro snooker...because 99 percent of them can't lol
Click to expand...

I agree - it makes me laugh when pool players try to compare 9 ball or even 10 ball to Snooker.

Perhaps the way we should be looking at this is.
Who is the best cue sport player in the world?
Raj playing Ronnie at Pool raises the profile of pool which is great :thumbup:
Raj challenging Ronnie at - 9 Ball, Snooker and 3 Cushion
Has complete different permutations and outcomes and there would be no questions or doubts to the eventual winner.

I'll go down on record by saying. Whatever cue sport Mr. O'Sullivan is prepared to learn and dedicate an ounce of his time too - he will completely dominate it for FUN :thumbup:

HERE'S AN IDEA for some of the world's to 'pool players' - that are struggling financially.
Practice Snooker (which by some definitions is an easier game) - enter the world championships in 2014. Win it and make yourself $400,475.00 usd GUARANTEED! :yikes:

Pool Players - I'M ONE - and they make me laugh at times... :thumbup:
 
trob said:
EXACTLY! There isn't any money in mens pool here but a ton of money in snooker so why don't they stop playing 9 ball and go play pro snooker...because 99 percent of them can't lol
Click to expand...

I know the debate about snooker/pool has been played out dozens of times but I fall in the camp that says any top american player, Johnny Archer caliber, could do well in snooker if they REALLY tried, as in moving to England and went all-in with a coach.

But, mass makes class, so it's pretty much like women trying to play with the men, because there are SO MANY great players already the odds that Johnny or any player trying to break into snooker would be good enough to be top ten are enormous against them.

Snooker has loads of high skilled players who are there precisely because the reward for reaching the top level is financial stability.

Top pool players have all the skills needed but what they lack is the discipline and experience.
 
voiceofreason said:
Darren says:

"what I am saying is there is more to the game than making the balls"

My point exactly...
Click to expand...

some other points he said,

DAZ: "...the thing I like about pool is that every game is a different game, and there's a lot more skill involved regards shot-making, kickin', safety. Whereas snooker, you just play in the bottom part of the table. It's all stop-stop-stop. You're always playing for the black-red, black-red, pink-red... So it's all about your fundamentals, I think, playing snooker."

INTERVIEWER: "That's interesting, it's amazing, because we thinnk of snooker as a much harder game, mostly because of the size of the balls, size of the pockets, (and) size of the table."

DAZ: "Let's put snooker balls on a pool table, for example. We'll play with snooker-size balls, and let's say that I have to play with a snooker cue as well. And let's say Bustamante breaks for Ronnie O'Sullivan, and I play a race to 21 playing 10-ball, I dont think Ronnie O'Sullivan can win, on a pool table."
 
Last edited:
BeiberLvr said:
The equipment is what makes snooker tough. The game itself is easy.
Click to expand...

The rules to most games are easy.
Football - run to the end of the pitch and cross 'that line' for a touch down!
Real Football - kick the ball between the goal posts and score a goal
-
Stop your opponent from running to the end zone
Stop your opponent from kicking the ball into the net

ALL of which are very very simple things to do..?

Conditions, rules, playing surfaces, conduct, pressure are just some of the things that make all games what they are. For cue sports, the standard is Snooker and always has been from the time it was first played.

For Pool to become the standard in world cue sports it first needs to standardise the game itself.

E.G.
the break shot :eek:

O Oh... I didn't just type that did I? :thumbup:
 
arps said:
some other points he said,

DAZ: "...the thing I like about pool is that every game is a different game, and there's a lot more skill involved regards shot-making, kickin', safety. Whereas snooker, you just play in the bottom part of the table. It's all stop-stop-stop. You're always playing for the black-red, black-red, pink-red... So it's all about your fundamentals, I think, playing snooker."

INTERVIEWER: "That's interesting, it's amazing, because we thinnk of snooker as a much harder game, mostly because of the size of the balls, size of the pockets, (and) size of the table."

DAZ: "Let's put snooker balls on a pool table, for example. We'll play with snooker-size balls, and let's say that I have to play with a snooker cue as well. And let's say Bustamante breaks for Ronnie O'Sullivan, and I play a race to 21 playing 10-ball, I dont think Ronnie O'Sullivan can win, on a pool table."
Click to expand...

Am not even gonna quote an individual albeit on video when they are not on this forum to defend themselves.

One thing I do know, is that any top pool player would love to play Ronnie on their home pitch as the kudos from this is massive for the themselves and the game!

I have no problem with this - as it's part of what the game needs right now :thumbup:
 
ronnie all the way in that match, not knocking raj but the rocket is a beast.

as far as the long stupid debate of pool vs snooker ill say what someone said earlier. - they are both equally as hard. the game is as hard as your opponent.

ive played both a lot.obviously potting balls in snooker is harder, and the stroke has to be more precise because the size of the cue tip. although, one thing ive noticed about snooker players is that they shoot too straight. they have trouble cheating the pocket on a standard american pool table, which is huge for positional play. given that, a snooker players shot selection is much different than a pool players. not saying they dont know the shots, but they dont use them as often. pool is much more flexible in this respect.

snooker players do have excellent mechanics, and usually have awesome precision stroke. although the pockets is where the two differ.
 
Last edited:
SakuJack said:
Out of curiosity, who do you put in this bracket? Archer and SVB? Or are there others I'm overlooking?
Click to expand...

Archer, Duell, Morris, SVB, Strickland, John Schmidt, for example. I feel like all these guys have the skillset they would need to play high level snooker.

It's like Steve Davis said, if a top pool player had grown up playing snooker the he would likely have become a top level snooker player and vice versa.
 
JB Cases said:
Archer, Duell, Morris, SVB, Strickland, John Schmidt, for example. I feel like all these guys have the skillset they would need to play high level snooker.

It's like Steve Davis said, if a top pool player had grown up playing snooker the he would likely have become a top level snooker player and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I think SVB has the best fundamentals out of those you listed that would translate well over to snooker. But I also think that all of them are too old (especially Archer and Strickland) to make a serious dent in the snooker world.

I think SVB would do the best, but I don't think he would ever be top 5.

Of course this is all just speculation.
 
Any of the top players in pool at the minute would be playing snooker for a living if that's the path they had chosen at an early age. They are all easily good enough to play either if they dedicated enough time. If they transfered to snooker right now, or had a year to practice they wouldn't be in the top 16 in snooker. Doubt they would make it into the top 32 for that matter. They would be completely average.

Ronnie has completely dominated in the modern snooker world that hasn't been seen since Joe Davis was in his prime. Steve Davis did it too, as did Stephen Hendry. No pool player, past or present would have come close to the level of dominance Ronnie has shown, even if they grew up here in the UK and played snooker from an early age. Ronnie is almost super-human when he is at the table. He's just that good. If he grew up in America and played pool he would have had the same level of dominance in pool as he's had in snooker. The only difference is he wouldn't be as wealthy. Who's dominated pool? Strickland and SVB are both excellent players that have dominated pool to some extent in the past but if either had grown up playing snooker the only real expectations or aspirations they could have had would be the 2nd best player in the world.

If I was Raj I'd be kacking my knickers.
 
Jaden said:
I'm sorry but snooker players don't run out nineball on a snooker table.

That's not the game. Regular long shots are not shot in snooker, only occasionally, where as with a random break and opponents playing safe, you would HAVE to shoot long shots in nine ball all the time.

Most shots in snooker are from two or three feet. They are different animals, snooker and rotation...

Each with a requisite skill set.

Jaden
Click to expand...

does not look like you have seen many snooker matches and log pots
 
mel_smOg said:
does not look like you have seen many snooker matches and log pots
Click to expand...

I've watched lots of full snooker matches. Jaden is absolutely correct. The long pot in snooker is usually the start of a break build. Once they make that long pot, most of their remaining pots aren't long.

I don't recall seeing too many high breaks (100+) with the CB leaving the bottom half of the table. That's not to say it's never happened, just that it's not the norm.
 
The last seven balls in a snooker game are run out in rotation just like nine ball. If they are on their spots then the patterns to run them out are fairly standard among snooker players, if they are not on their spots then players have to get creative.

I have seen the colors run out with shotmaking and position play that could be EXACTLY like the way a nine ball player would do it. Snooker players can and do use side spin when they need to, they simply have to be much more precise about it having less margin of error.

And saying that the shots are not long because they are in the bottom half of the table is not quite accurate either. The table is 6ft wide. That's almost the length of a bar table. I will be happy to put the cue ball one foot off the rail and set up some 3,4,5 foot shots on the bar table for people who think that it's easy. Then we can move over to the snooker table and see how it goes.

The way a snooker player picks through the rack for a long run is nothing short of amazing. If you have never tried it you can't possibly understand. They make it look easy but the fact is that the precision required for position is incredibly high. If you get just a touch out of position then it pretty much blows the run out because you simply don't have that much pocket to use to go another route.

There is no need to debate it, find a 6x12 and play some on it. You will get humbled pretty quickly. However after a while you will start getting used to the speed and the angles you need, then it will start be fun.
 
BeiberLvr said:
I've watched lots of full snooker matches. Jaden is absolutely correct. The long pot in snooker is usually the start of a break build. Once they make that long pot, most of their remaining pots aren't long.

I don't recall seeing too many high breaks (100+) with the CB leaving the bottom half of the table. That's not to say it's never happened, just that it's not the norm.
Click to expand...
A straight shot on a spotted black into the corner with the CB against the long rail is 3ft. The black has to travel another 3ft making it 6ft in total and that's considered a short pot. A medium shot would be considered anywhere from 6-9ft total distance. Or to put it into perspective on a 9ft table; CB on the middle diamond on the short rail and 1ft off the short rail with a ball centre table being cut into the corner would be considered a long pot in pool where as a snooker player would consider it a medium pot and something they should be making 95%+ of the time. A long pot in snooker is something no pool player will ever be able to shoot on a 9ft table.

You may have watched plenty of snooker matches, but have you ever played on a snooker table? Your comments lead me to think you haven't. Until you play on a snooker table you won't get the real perspective of how big the tables are and what a "real" long shot is. Yes most high breaks are done by making short-medium pots because the players capable of high breaks have exceptional CB control.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Just my opinion, but I think SVB has the best fundamentals out of those you listed that would translate well over to snooker. But I also think that all of them are too old (especially Archer and Strickland) to make a serious dent in the snooker world.

I think SVB would do the best, but I don't think he would ever be top 5.

Of course this is all just speculation.
Click to expand...

It is harder for older people to learn new skills. I am just saying that if say any of them REALLY tried, all-in, coach, learning the right way, with tough beatdowns to get them into shape then they could probably do well. What is there about handling a cue ball that Johnny Archer doesn't already know?

But the problem is that in order to reach the top level you have to fight through a whole bunch of Chris Melling level players who also want to be at the top level. The pressure would be very high.

Now when Johnny or Shane go to a tournament they are the players to beat. They go to England and they are the outsiders, the B players who have to fade a ton of world beaters.

If I were insanely wealthy I would run a lot of "experiments" where I would put guys like Archer into intensive training just to see what would happen. I'd put snooker player into 3 cushion, 3 cushion players into ten ball, etc.... I'd take the best women players and have them gambling against the best men and see if they didn't improve greatly.

That would be my hobby alongside knitting. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top