Top Level Snooker vs Pool?

Slasher said:
He's just gone through a pro ranking event
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-2
9-3
In the final destroyed the number 3 player in the world that has won the last four ranking events topped it off with a maximum and you think SVB is going to win, he would be lucky to win a frame and maybe only then after Ronnie got bored beating him silly.
You must have never been within ten feet of a 6x12.
Let me know when you want to bet so I can arrange a mortgage on my house.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point, but actually not quite doing it justice. Ronnie went:

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1 (Against 4 time World Champ John Higgins)
6-2
9-3

In 7 matches, against professional snooker players, Ronnie dropped a total of 10 frames. Anyone who can even imagine Shane beating Ronnie in a best-of-17 match...has quite an imagination. Pagulayan would destroy Shane at snooker. Low ranked pros would destroy Pagulayan. Top pros eat lower ranked pros for breakfast, and Ronnie is not only the best player in the world today, but possibly the best player the game has ever seen.

In a pretty recent TAR podcast Appleton talks about exactly what it takes in terms of fundamentals to play snooker at any decent level. I think a lot of people who haven't played snooker really underestimate what it takes just to get the balls in the holes. As great as Shane is at pool, he would not be immune from this problem.
 
DangerousDave said:
This is an excellent point, but actually not quite doing it justice. Ronnie went:

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1 (Against 4 time World Champ John Higgins)
6-2
9-3

In 7 matches, against professional snooker players, Ronnie dropped a total of 10 frames. Anyone who can even imagine Shane beating Ronnie in a best-of-17 match...has quite an imagination. Pagulayan would destroy Shane at snooker. Low ranked pros would destroy Pagulayan. Top pros eat lower ranked pros for breakfast, and Ronnie is not only the best player in the world today, but possibly the best player the game has ever seen.

In a pretty recent TAR podcast Appleton talks about exactly what it takes in terms of fundamentals to play snooker at any decent level. I think a lot of people who haven't played snooker really underestimate what it takes just to get the balls in the holes. As great as Shane is at pool, he would not be immune from this problem.
Click to expand...

Difficult to argue.

But is not the same true in reverse?
 
voiceofreason said:
Difficult to argue.

But is not the same true in reverse?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, since there are people out there who seem to think that Ronnie is somehow better at pool than Shane - I am not one of them. Shane would be a massive favourite in any pool match, no question. But in terms of fundamentals, there isn't the same barrier for O'Sullivan to at least compete. If the table breaks easy there would at least be a match. On a pro-cut snooker table, any pool player that hasn't spent a considerable amount of time playing the game wouldn't just lose, they would lose ugly.
 
DangerousDave said:
This is an excellent point, but actually not quite doing it justice. Ronnie went:

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1 (Against 4 time World Champ John Higgins)
6-2
9-3

In 7 matches, against professional snooker players, Ronnie dropped a total of 10 frames. Anyone who can even imagine Shane beating Ronnie in a best-of-17 match...has quite an imagination. Pagulayan would destroy Shane at snooker. Low ranked pros would destroy Pagulayan. Top pros eat lower ranked pros for breakfast, and Ronnie is not only the best player in the world today, but possibly the best player the game has ever seen.

In a pretty recent TAR podcast Appleton talks about exactly what it takes in terms of fundamentals to play snooker at any decent level. I think a lot of people who haven't played snooker really underestimate what it takes just to get the balls in the holes. As great as Shane is at pool, he would not be immune from this problem.
Click to expand...

IIRC he was just as dominant in the Masters, which were longer matches. I think he dropped less than 10 frames throughout the entire tournament.

And for Double Dave's benefit, not one of those players Ronnie massacred would lose a single frame to SVB. It is grossly unfair on SVB to compare him with Ronnie O'Sullivan, or a whole host of other top snookers for that matter.
 
smashmouth said:
this has been proven

slight edge in pool to the pool players, zero chance in hell that they win barley a frame in a snooker match

for the noobs, do the research
Click to expand...

100% accurate. For a full pocket shot weather pool or snooker (assuming same shots distances), the aim margins pretty much close, and i expect a good pool player to make 90-97%% or more of those shots; Snooker pockets starts to shrink faster much faster than pool for balls that leaves the center of the table and get closer to rails and the snooker pockets rubber starts to get in the picture, that is where margins of aim and stroke straightness becomes very critical; this is why snooker pros do not blast the rack so to keep balls near center of table as much as possible; also the black ball comes with its own risk it barley has more than 1/2 a pocket.

I wonder why European players that master pool, do not jump on the Snooker prize money wagon that is 10 times the pool money. The 16th place gets paid higher than most 1st place in pool.
 
Slasher said:
Think what you like but you obviously do not understand pro snooker.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what to say against such a well thought out reply.

How about you give me a valid reason why Ronnie will beat Shane in a race to 30 8-Ball,
I say they can play every day for a year and Ronnie will not win once beacause his break
is light years behind Shane's and this is not something you can learn in a few weeks or even months.

Ronnie plays like god on a snooker table but misses very makeable balls playing pool, Shane does not.

gr. Dave
 
SakuJack said:
Lunacy. Isn't Shane's high break in snooker around the 50 mark?
Click to expand...

I do not know what Shane's current high break is, mine is 48 and I am a B player (at pool) on my good days.
On his very first full day playing snooker Shane will make a frame winning break and within a week he will make a century.

Snooker is tough but it is not brain surgery. And, yes I have watched more hours of pro Snooker on live tv with
world class commentary then 99% of the people on this board.

gr. Dave
 
TheThaiger said:
IIRC he was just as dominant in the Masters, which were longer matches. I think he dropped less than 10 frames throughout the entire tournament.

And for Double Dave's benefit, not one of those players Ronnie massacred would lose a single frame to SVB. It is grossly unfair on SVB to compare him with Ronnie O'Sullivan, or a whole host of other top snookers for that matter.
Click to expand...

Yep - Ronnie won 4 matches in a field containing only the top 16 players in the world, and lost only 7 frames in winning the title.

Having won these two tournaments already this year, winning 28 frames to 7 against only top players, and 36-10 against other pros, it's nothing short of insanity to suggest that he could lose 9 to a non-snooker player before winning 9 himself. Snooker players have a tough enough time trying.
 
Double-Dave said:
I do not know what Shane's current high break is, mine is 48 and I am a B player (at pool) on my good days.
On his very first full day playing snooker Shane will make a frame winning break and within a week he will make a century.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

So within a week Shane will be about as good as Ronnie was when he was 10. In the intervening years he's improved a fair bit. All snooker pros make hundreds for fun all day long - the difference between making a century break and being pro standard is massive.
 
DangerousDave said:
It's nothing short of insanity to suggest that he could lose 9 to a non-snooker player before winning 9 himself. Snooker players have a tough enough time trying.
Click to expand...

I fear that is what a lot of people think I am saying, it is not.
So once more: Assuming they play a set of each every day, I think Shane will beat Ronnie
in a race to 9 playing snooker BEFORE Ronnie beats Shane in a race to 30 8-Ball.

That's it. People think pool players have no prayer against snooker players, I do not understand why.
No, they cannot join the tour and be succesfull, but win a match? Definitely.

Efren played Ronnie a best of 5 playing snooker getting a 25 point spot per game and won. So what
does that tell you? He played Jimmy White aswell (not sure of the spot) and beat him too.

gr. Dave
 
Last edited:
DangerousDave said:
So within a week Shane will be about as good as Ronnie was when he was 10. In the intervening years he's improved a fair bit. All snooker pros make hundreds for fun all day long - the difference between making a century break and being pro standard is massive.
Click to expand...

Within a week Shane will be better then Ronnie was at age 10. Shane shoots as straight
as any pool player out there and has a pretty sound tactical game.
I know there is a big difference between century play and pro play, but that is not what we are discussing.

gr. Dave
 
I think we are all agreed that Ronnie O'Sullivan is a great snooker player. The best arguably. to suggest he has a chance against SVB, or any other professional pool player for that matter, in a long distance race at discipline of pool is ridiculous.

He would have to serve his time and learn the game - just like everyone else did. Being good at the fundamentals of making pots would give him a great starting point but that is not all of what pool is about.

And by the way of the European players that I have also seen play other cue sports, the only one that I see retains the same shot making style is Melling. Both Appleton and Shaw in particular have adapted their games to the differences.

For example, a snooker cue is very different to a pool cue and acts differently. The close bridge, the much more use of side. Banking, kicking, jump shots, safety. All very very different between the two games.

Someone asked "why don't top pool players clean up the money at snooker" or some other similar comment. Simple answer. They do not play snooker regularly enough. Why not? Various reasons. Appleton has said that he finds it boring. I too find it boring after a while.

You might as well ask how come US based professional pool players all convert to golf? It's infinitely more prize money than pool.

Does money motivate all pool players? Doubtful.
 
Double-Dave said:
I fear that is what a lot of people think I am saying, it is not.
So once more: Assuming they play a set of each every day, I think Shane will beat Ronnie
in a race to 9 playing snooker BEFORE Ronnie beats Shane in a race to 30 8-Ball.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

I appreciate the clarification - always helpful in these discussions - but I understood you correctly and have to disagree. If the table breaks easy, Ronnie runs out like water in 8 ball. I actually think it would be one of the better pool games for Ronnie. For pro players it's mostly about running out, which would be the strongest part of O'Sullivan's game in any pool discipline. In my estimation Ronnie beating Shane at 8 ball is highly unlikely, whereas Shane beating Ronnie at snooker, over 17 frames at least, is inconceivable.
 
Double-Dave said:
I do not know what Shane's current high break is, mine is 48 and I am a B player (at pool) on my good days.
On his very first full day playing snooker Shane will make a frame winning break and within a week he will make a century.

Snooker is tough but it is not brain surgery. And, yes I have watched more hours of pro Snooker on live tv with
world class commentary then 99% of the people on this board.

gr. Dave
Click to expand...

lol, this shows how much you're missing the point by.

What makes you think Shane would even see a chance to knock in a frame winning break playing against Ronnie? Anyone can pot balls when given the chance, and a lot of people can knock in big breaks, centuries even. But at that level Shane might get a look at a long ball once per frame.

You say Ronnie can't win at pool because of his break, and ask for reasons why Shane can't win at snooker. Shane can't win at snooker because of his entire game. Even if he were capable of making frame winning breaks regularly, which he isn't, that means nothing. There are a lot of club players knocking in good breaks every day, but at that level, against someone like O'Sullivan no less, they just wouldn't get the chances.
 
DangerousDave said:
I appreciate the clarification - always helpful in these discussions - but I understood you correctly and have to disagree. If the table breaks easy, Ronnie runs out like water in 8 ball. I actually think it would be one of the better pool games for Ronnie. For pro players it's mostly about running out, which would be the strongest part of O'Sullivan's game in any pool discipline. In my estimation Ronnie beating Shane at 8 ball is highly unlikely, whereas Shane beating Ronnie at snooker, over 17 frames at least, is inconceivable.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do think that 10-Ball would be the hardest
game for Ronnie to win and 8-Ball the easiest but still he has no chance imo.

I also agree that the easier the pool table plays (breaks) the better chance Ronnie has, but the
same would be true for the snooker table. Pro pockets vs. Club pockets. So for the sake of the
discussion I assumed we were talking about pro equipment (pro-cut diamond and pro cut riley) for both.

gr. Dave
 
Last edited:
People seem to forget that O'Sullivan has chanced his arm at 8 ball pool and came up rather short:

27 Jul 2006 10:59:00
www.worldsnooker.com

Ronnie O'Sullivan's interest in the IPT North American 8-Ball Open is over.

The two-times world snooker champion heads back from Las Vegas later this week with $10,000 and a wealth more experience of the small table game.

O’Sullivan had walked a tightrope in his earlier group matches, surviving by the skin of his teeth to be among the last 60 remaining players.

But the Essex star won only one more match and suffered defeat to Quinten Hann as he bowed out of the tournament.

O’Sullivan lost 8-6 to former world 9-Ball runner-up Francisco Bustamante and 8-7 to American Mosconi Cup star Corey Deuel.
His biggest disappointment will be an 8-4 loss to Aussie Hann, who also beat Jimmy White in the first round of the competition.

O’Sullivan’s solitary success came against Manchester based 8-Ball specialist Karl Boyes, winning 8-5.

Hann, who has been banned from professional snooker for eight years, goes through to the fourth group stage. His next round of matches includes a clash with volatile Americal Earl ’the Pearl’ Strickland.
Click to expand...
 
If there was ever a chance of making it happen, I would love to see an all around with these two players. Something like

Snooker - Best of 17
8 Ball - Race to 30
10 Ball - Race to 30
One Pocket - Race to 8

The 8/10 Ball and One Pocket played on a 10' table.

I would pay a good amount of money to watch this.
 
voiceofreason said:
People seem to forget that O'Sullivan has chanced his arm at 8 ball pool and came up rather short:
Click to expand...

Hardly the best example - in the results that you posted he lost by very small margins to two of the best players in the world, on tables that broke crazy tough. Remember the thick napped cloth on those tables? Losing by one game to Corey, and two to Bustamante isn't exactly the most convincing grounds to dimiss someone's ability to play 8 ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top