American Pool vs Snooker

One thing that snooker does that a lot of us pool guys like is long races in tournaments, especially the WC. Its a race to 18 if i'm not mistaken.

I have seen more Osullivan matches than anything. One thing that I like about his game is speed. I don't know if he is the exception or the rule but that speed is definitely something that some top pool players lack.

Its been said before but I'll say it again, snooker beats pool because of its organization. Everything is standard. Pool should take a page or two outta the snooker book.
 
vjmehra said:
No sorry, as I said its physics nothing more. A snooker table is bigger, therefore the pocketing of balls is fundamentally harder, regardless of how much you practice etc.

Of course if you play snooker regularly you are likely to be better at that than pool and vice versa and as I say its not necessarily easier to win at pool than snooker, however its not even a discussion topic to suggest pool as a standalone game is harder or equal to snooker.

In simple terms take any player in the world, whether they have played cuesports or not and see if they can pot more balls on a pool table or a snooker table.

From a 5 year old to Stephen Hendry the answer will always be the pool table, hence it is fundamentally easier to pocket balls on a pool table.

As I said before that's not to say its easier to win, merely that potting balls on a pool table is easier.

Again that's physics not opinion.
Click to expand...

You're argument is a bit flawed and you are jumping to conclusions.

I helped you out a bit using JoeyA's trademark blue font.
 
Reason is very simple. It is a better game! to play/watch. Thats all of course there are many reasons why; safety, difficulty, maximums, difficult breaks, centuries, drama, player personality, fans, tv, etc etc

same with football (soocer) there is a reason football is the most popular sport in the world. It is the best game!. and no it wasnt invented by th english so thats why, it encompasses everything the players/fans want. NFL hasnt caught on anywhere else...why? its not that good of a game unless you are subjected to it constantly in the US it has no appeal. Hence not an Olympic sport.

Not bashin either of the two I love pool and since came to US enjoy the occasional football game but don't get it. Run 3 yards fall down, break, commercial, whole new team comes on ..run 3 yars fall down kick ball to other team and repeat..(generalization of course)
 
BasementDweller said:
You're argument is a bit flawed and you are jumping to conclusions.

I helped you out a bit using JoeyA's trademark blue font.
Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Again to re-iterate I'm not saying one game is easier to win than the other, merely that the fundamentals of potting balls on a 12 x 6 ft table are different (and harder, again physics) to potting balls on a 9 x 4.5 ft table.
 
vjmehra said:
Thank you for illustrating my point.

Again to re-iterate I'm not saying one game is easier to win than the other, merely that the fundamentals of potting balls on a 12 x 6 ft table are different (and harder, again physics) to potting balls on a 9 x 4.5 ft table.
Click to expand...

Please share with us the unit of measure for "harder".

Or better yet, stop saying "physics" without any actual physics proofs to back it up. Just because you assert "science" in your argument doesn't make it valid.

Put simply, putting smaller balls into smaller holes from farther away is more difficult for humans to do. If you want to get technical, and I think this is more of a geometric proof, the thing that makes it harder is that the rounded cushions on a snooker table will spit balls out where the flat faces of a pool table cushions will accept more balls.

So when we say "harder" all we're really saying is that it requires more accuracy. And it takes a lot of work to develop that accuracy and therefore it is "harder". But this type of accuracy is derived from hand/eye coordination and is more of an observation/perception/physiological operation of the human body so not really physics, unless you're one of those smug "all science is derived from physics" people.
 
krupa said:
Please share with us the unit of measure for "harder".

Or better yet, stop saying "physics" without any actual physics proofs to back it up. Just because you assert "science" in your argument doesn't make it valid.

Put simply, putting smaller balls into smaller holes from farther away is more difficult for humans to do. If you want to get technical, and I think this is more of a geometric proof, the thing that makes it harder is that the rounded cushions on a snooker table will spit balls out where the flat faces of a pool table cushions will accept more balls.

So when we say "harder" all we're really saying is that it requires more accuracy. And it takes a lot of work to develop that accuracy and therefore it is "harder". But this type of accuracy is derived from hand/eye coordination and is more of an observation/perception/physiological operation of the human body so not really physics, unless you're one of those smug "all science is derived from physics" people.
Click to expand...

Nope! Not a scientist at all, I just remember having to do some kind of maths problem with snooker balls in physics :-)

As for units of 'hardness' a simple way of looking at it would be:

How many professional 147 clearances have there been?

100

How many professional 9-Ball clearances have there been?

I can't count that high!
 
krupa said:
Please share with us the unit of measure for "harder".

Or better yet, stop saying "physics" without any actual physics proofs to back it up. Just because you assert "science" in your argument doesn't make it valid.

Put simply, putting smaller balls into smaller holes from farther away is more difficult for humans to do. If you want to get technical, and I think this is more of a geometric proof, the thing that makes it harder is that the rounded cushions on a snooker table will spit balls out where the flat faces of a pool table cushions will accept more balls.

So when we say "harder" all we're really saying is that it requires more accuracy. And it takes a lot of work to develop that accuracy and therefore it is "harder". But this type of accuracy is derived from hand/eye coordination and is more of an observation/perception/physiological operation of the human body so not really physics, unless you're one of those smug "all science is derived from physics" people.
Click to expand...


A bit pedantic don't you think?
 
Philthepockets said:
A bit pedantic don't you think?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. I admit it was a bit of a rant and not even entirely correct but saying, "it's harder because of physics" is annoying.

You could actually use geometry and math to show that the margins for error are smaller in snooker.
You could actually use statistics to say "look, significantly fewer 147 breaks have occurred than have 9-ball break-and-runs".

But our (i.e., the world's) current debating tactics of "I strongly/arrogantly/smugly assert something that sounds legitimate and therefore I'm correct" has got to stop.
 
MapleMan said:
One thing that snooker does that a lot of us pool guys like is long races in tournaments, especially the WC. Its a race to 18 if i'm not mistaken.

I have seen more Osullivan matches than anything. One thing that I like about his game is speed. I don't know if he is the exception or the rule but that speed is definitely something that some top pool players lack.

Its been said before but I'll say it again, snooker beats pool because of its organization. Everything is standard. Pool should take a page or two outta the snooker book.
Click to expand...

Snooker is faster paced and more fluent than pool. The pace of play in pool is a DISGRACE, and the number one thing to be tackled IMO.
 
Cornerman said:
"At the moment I am an awful pool player. I have got to get used to heavier balls, different angles from the cushions, things like that.
"Snooker players are perfectionists but in pool you leave yourself with shots you would not dream of taking on the snooker table like potting balls off cushions. There is a diamond system to the table which is simple if you know how to work it. If you don't it isn't.
"That's why snooker players get thrashed by American pool players because it is not as easy as it looks. I think there is more luck involved in pool than snooker but I still think there is a tremendous skill level in pool that goes unseen.
"Once I started playing pool over the last couple of weeks I have realised it is a very difficult game and there is an art to it. If you compare it to snooker, with big holes in pool surely you shouldn't miss but it is not as simple as that. There are a lot more tactics to the game - which I need to learn and that will take time." - Ronnie O'Sullivan, 2005

http://www.guffoo.cz/danny/ronnie/index.php?nid=1380&lid=cs&oid=171207
Click to expand...

I think Appleton is a better example than Ronnie. That appleton went from playing English 8 ball, with a 1.75" CB, to be a monster at 9 ball, with a 2.25" CB, in a relatively short time, speaks absolute volumes for how quickly a good cueist can pick up 9 ball.

Snooker, much less so.
 
Bob Dixon said:
I watched the one above and at about 30:00 Hendry missed the entire ball, twice, by about six inches on an attempted safety. That doesn't look like top level safety play to me. I also got a laugh over the discussion, and several alternatives offered, over where to replace the cue ball. All of this makes a pool player go :eek:.

Hendry did execute a delicate safety earlier (of the roll up against the pack type). Pool players are used to the requirement of rail contact after ball contact.
Click to expand...

lol, are you referring to that length of the table shot, coming off of two rails to catch the red thin on the way back and return to baulk? Just what are you, Bob?

Pathetic Shark said:
The pace of play in pool is a DISGRACE, and the number one thing to be tackled IMO.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Bob Dixon said:
I watched the one above and at about 30:00 Hendry missed the entire ball, twice, by about six inches on an attempted safety. That doesn't look like top level safety play to me. I also got a laugh over the discussion, and several alternatives offered, over where to replace the cue ball. All of this makes a pool player go :eek:.

Hendry did execute a delicate safety earlier (of the roll up against the pack type). Pool players are used to the requirement of rail contact after ball contact.
Click to expand...

It is understandable someone without cue sports in their DNA wouldn't understand what was happening there. To escape from the safety too thick - to full-ball cannon the red - would have been disastrous. Players in that situation ALWAYS err on the side of being too thin, and risk losing 4 points. The first shot in that situation is merely a 'sighter', as they say. He was giving away 4 points in the expectation of making a perfect hit the second time, once the miss had been called and the balls replaced. I don't like players doing that but it is not against the rules. The miss rule can be a bit of a fudge on many fronts, but it is worth keeping IMO, just.

But did you see his third shot in that sequence? It would take you a month to make that ball.

And Hendry is the single greatest cue sportsman there has ever been.Tremendously disrespectful to compare one of his safeties to that of a mere pool player.
 
Pathetic Shark said:
And Hendry is the single greatest cue sportsman there has ever been.Tremendously disrespectful to compare one of his safeties to that of a mere pool player.
Click to expand...

And the reason this match illustrates just how superb Ronnies safety was that he had Hendry welded to the bottom cush or trapped so often then backs it up with "no miss" snooker, simply incredible.
 
Philthepockets said:
And the reason this match illustrates just how superb Ronnies safety was that he had Hendry welded to the bottom cush or trapped so often then backs it up with "no miss" snooker, simply incredible.
Click to expand...

That was one of the few crucible matches I didn't see - was that the game Hendry often says is the greatest exhibition of safety he's ever seen?

Pool players cannot even begin to understand the levels of excellence at the top end of snooker.
 
Bob Dixon said:
I watched the one above and at about 30:00 Hendry missed the entire ball, twice, by about six inches on an attempted safety. That doesn't look like top level safety play to me. I also got a laugh over the discussion, and several alternatives offered, over where to replace the cue ball. All of this makes a pool player go :eek:.

Hendry did execute a delicate safety earlier (of the roll up against the pack type). Pool players are used to the requirement of rail contact after ball contact.
Click to expand...

Bob you may have misunderstood the intent

What Hendry was trying to do at 30:00 was to come off two cushions and thinly
clip the outer red of the pack and return the cue ball back behind the baulk line.

One would always err more to miss on the initial attempts as hitting the pack full on
would leave everything on!
 
Pathetic Shark said:
Snooker is faster paced and more fluent than pool. The pace of play in pool is a DISGRACE, and the number one thing to be tackled IMO.
Click to expand...

Is there a rule in place for a player's tempo? I am not asking for a shot clock in pool. I would prefer what they do to pitchers in baseball. There is an unwritten rule of about 25 sec. between pitches. I think players should be warned and then punished for slow play.

For example: Jimmy has a straight in shot at close quarters. He chalks, bends over, practice strokes and then stands and chalks. That's a warning. If he does it again its a loss of the rack or BIH for his opponent. I see guys chalk for an extended period of time only to stand and chalk again.
 
Last edited:
DGilb147 said:
Bob you may have misunderstood the intent

What Hendry was trying to do at 30:00 was to come off two cushions and thinly
clip the outer red of the pack and return the cue ball back behind the baulk line.

One would always err more to miss on the initial attempts as hitting the pack full on
would leave everything on!
Click to expand...

And his definition of what constitutes "6 inches" is a little off, which is telling in itself.
 
MapleMan said:
Is there a rule in place for a player's tempo? I am not asking for a shot clock in pool. I would prefer what they do to pitchers in baseball. There is an unwritten rule of about 25 sec. between pitches. I think players should be warned and then punished for slow play.

For example: Jimmy has a straight in shot at close quarters. He chalks, bends over, practice strokes and then stands and chalks. That's a warning. If he does it again its a loss of the rack or BIH for his opponent. I see guys chalk for an extended period of time only to stand and chalk again.
Click to expand...

Yes...sort of...referees have warned players for slow play before, but I'm not sure there is a clear definition of what constitutes slow play, I believe its purely down to the discretion of the referee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top