Alex Pagulayan going to UK to try pro snooker

[thefonz]

You know like many others that attempt a pro snooker career, it may very well take Alex more than one go at Qschool in order to be successful.

Snooker's a technical game, sure - but it's not like you're shooting from the baulk all day long, tactical play and what you do while you're in the balls is what matters most.
As far as ability goes I think Alex has all the shots, and he has a great tactical mind - the only distinct disadvantage I can think of is his height - hopefully he can play around that.

I hope he does well as an ambassador for snooker in North America.

 

[TheThaiger]

Not that he would not have them in spades. I think the AZB action room itself could come up with $500,000 for that match... most people there know a lock when they see one. I would put $10,000 into the pot myself for that one.

If it was over a reasonable race, say to 10, I'd be tempted to put that sort of dough on AP not winning a single frame.

 

[TheThaiger]

The fact that you stand by a remark does not make it correct. Your belittling of top players 30/40 years ago is nothing short of ridiculous and your reliance on stats shows a poor working knowledge of the game and it's history.

However, thankfully, you feel your argument is "clearly demonstrable" so carry on, demonstrate it. Particularly the one about finding 1000 players today who are better than Alex Higgins at his peak.

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

 

[Swighey]

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

I think Alex Higgins would find a way to win pretty quickly. But, yes the standard back then is WAY behind that to be found nowadays. Higgins would be found out pretty quick, would then find a way to win and would then be found out again and be crushed. But comparing eras........... really?

 

[sfleinen]

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

I have to agree, Tim. Every snooker commentator I've ever listened to all subscribed to the same tenet: that the game has evolved and player craftsmanship has increased to the point where the players of old would have a hard time indeed dealing with the players of today. I really doubt Alex Higgins (who I admire, btw, because he was the right player at the right time) would be able to deal with a Stephen Hendry, or a Judd Trump, or worse yet (for Alex), Ronnie O. It would have little to do with the fact that Alex, unlike the players I just mentioned, had never achieved a 147 in competition. No, it goes far beyond just mere high breakmanship. When you watch videos of Alex playing, one word comes to mind: roughshod. I'm not talking running roughshod, but rather roughshod playmanship. Compare that to the precision playing of today, on tougher equipment, with better standardized fundamentals and cueing, and Alex would be hard-pressed to play to the milestones he set back then.

IMHO as always, of course, and comparing players from different eras has problems of its own.

-Sean

 

[yobagua]

He'll never make it. The system favors the seeded players. Going through the qualifiers is brutal and costly. Rempe and Mizerak tried to do it and they didn't come close. You just don't enter a tournament by buying in. Most of the places are already spoken for. Besides talent and skill you have to understand the culture.

Going back and rethinking, youre right I might have been Negative in my thinking. I am of the thinking that if you want it enough, if you have the passion, one can overcome all odds and succeed. If anyone can do it its Alex. If its something he really wants he should be supported. Only his family and close friends can tell him it might be detrimental to him and his fold. I was thinking of the difficulty.

Im going to get esoteric here. (So you can skip if you like). Im reminded of Lafcadio Hearn, of Irish and Greek heritage, who went to Japan in 1890 when he was 40 years old. He became so immersed in the culture that he was able to write extensively in the language and became a teacher there. His works in Japanese are historically noted and from one of his stories came the great film Kwaidan. A collection of Japanese horror stories. Try getting a book in Japanese if you think it would be easy for a westerner.


So it can be done. When I left home to come to Cali to make it on my own. Everyone told me, even my family, that I would fail. I had a dream. I totally support Alex in his quest. Go, my brother! Do your thing! We'll love you no matter what.

Keone/Mr Wu

 

[TheThaiger]

IMHO as always, of course, and comparing players from different eras has problems of its own.

Agreed, and I wasn't.

 

[naji]

Going back and rethinking, youre right I might have been Negative in my thinking. I am of the thinking that if you want it enough, if you have the passion, one can overcome all odds and succeed. If anyone can do it its Alex. If its something he really wants he should be supported. Only his family and close friends can tell him it might be detrimental to him and his fold. I was thinking of the difficulty.

Im going to get esoteric here. (So you can skip if you like). Im reminded of Lafcadio Hearn, of Irish and Greek heritage, who went to Japan in 1890 when he was 40 years old. He became so immersed in the culture that he was able to write extensively in the language and became a teacher there. His works in Japanese are historically noted and from one of his stories came the great film Kwaidan. A collection of Japanese horror stories. Try getting a book in Japanese if you think it would be easy for a westerner.


So it can be done. When I left home to come to Cali to make it on my own. Everyone told me, even my family, that I would fail. I had a dream. I totally support Alex in his quest. Go, my brother! Do your thing! We'll love you no matter what.

Keone/Mr Wu

Rempe, Mizerak, SVB, Earl, Busty, Efren, Dennis O, DAZ, and many pool players do not have good stroke for snooker; it requires high accuracy unlike pool. Sure the full pocket shots are easy, but if you go out of line in snooker you loose half the pocket and stroke, stance and aim becomes extremely critical. Alex on the other hand has the snooker stroke, and he may reach close to the top, will be great to see him up there..

 

[HaroldWilson]

It will be very difficult as the players going on the tour have been preparing since they were 5 or 6 years old and have lived and breathed snooker all of their lives. These kids are being groomed by their families to become professionals such as was Judd Trump and have access to the best coaches and mentors and are taken around the country to play in all of the events, similar to golf players like Tiger Woods. Unfortunately, 99.9% of them don't get anywhere close and if they continue playing cue sports they normally end up playing 9-ball such as Daryl Peach, Imran Majid, Chris Melling or Mark Gray etc who where all pro snookers players initially.

However, in saying that I wish him all of the luck in the world as there is nothing that can't be done and he will know that because he is a champion in his chosen sport so why not give it a crack ..

 

[justadub]

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

The argument is silly in general. Who is to say that the player of old, magically transported in time to today, wouldn't have his game evolve, with exposure to the newer equipment, styles of play and basic game experience with newer players?

Obviously the champs of old were good at adapting their games given the parameters of the time. They were that much better than their contemporaries. Of course they would adapt in todays world. Would it be enough, perhaps not, but I wouldn't be so quick as to dismiss the possibility, either.

 

[dkleather]

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

I have played and avidly watched snooker for over 25 years and I have never ever heard a commentator state that past champions could not live with today's players. Ever, if you're just going to post lies there's no point.

I asked you to prove your point, which you said you could. Needless to say you didn't. I'd say that sums it up.

 

[HaroldWilson]

Obviously the champs of old were good at adapting their games given the parameters of the time. They were that much better than their contemporaries. Of course they would adapt in todays world. Would it be enough, perhaps not, but I wouldn't be so quick as to dismiss the possibility, either.

That is a good point because the game of yesterday was very different and much more tactical compared to the open game today. Thus if those players where to find themselves in today's environment they would surely have to adapt to the newer style and change their games appropriately. The game is also heavily based on mental focus which the top players of each generation would have both had in abundance and is equally relevant today considering that Terry Griffiths is one of the best coaches in terms of the mental side in the world today and he comes from that era.

 

[dkleather]

I have to agree, Tim. Every snooker commentator I've ever listened to all subscribed to the same tenet: that the game has evolved and player craftsmanship has increased to the point where the players of old would have a hard time indeed dealing with the players of today. I really doubt Alex Higgins (who I admire, btw, because he was the right player at the right time) would be able to deal with a Stephen Hendry, or a Judd Trump, or worse yet (for Alex), Ronnie O. It would have little to do with the fact that Alex, unlike the players I just mentioned, had never achieved a 147 in competition. No, it goes far beyond just mere high breakmanship. When you watch videos of Alex playing, one word comes to mind: roughshod. I'm not talking running roughshod, but rather roughshod playmanship. Compare that to the precision playing of today, on tougher equipment, with better standardized fundamentals and cueing, and Alex would be hard-pressed to play to the milestones he set back then.

IMHO as always, of course, and comparing players from different eras has problems of its own.

-Sean

Alex Higgins, well past his best, beat Stephen Hendry in a major final. By that time Hendry was a multiple ranking winner and would go on to do all the things we know. He is the only player who has beaten a Spencer, Reardon, Davis and Hendry in major finals.

Quite simply these guys were great players and would have been great players in any era.

 

[HaroldWilson]

Alex Higgins, well past his best, beat Stephen Hendry in a major final. By that time Hendry was a multiple ranking winner and would go on to do all the things we know. He is the only player who has beaten a Spencer, Reardon, Davis and Hendry in major finals.

Quite simply these guys were great players and would have been great players in any era.

Alex Higgins in his prime would match it alongside any player today including Ronnie. Likewise Jimmy White who is still doing it. Even players of the class of Joe Davis and Walter Lindrum who had incredible abilities which in Lindrums case have never been equalled.

 

[Celtic]

Who's belittling players from the past? You should learn to read.

Each and every commentator that has ever expressed an opinion on how the game has evolved has said they couldn't live with the players of today, multiple world champions amongst them. That YOU, whoever you are, disagree with them is baffling. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is not surprising you are struggling so badly with this concept given you criticise someone for "relying on stats" lol.

Facts schmacts.

The players of the past would be different players today as well though. The human species is not evolving to become better at playing pool or snooker or golf or any other sport where people do these comparisons. The sports evolve, the fields evolve, the knowledge in the game evolves, and the players of the more recent eras benefit from this increased knowledge, better equipment, easier access to information and training, ect...

You take a pool player from the past like Mosconi and throw him into a time machine and plop him into the US Open of 9-ball as soon as he steps out of the Delorian then he is probably going to be in a little tough. He was a phenom, he might still surprise a lot of people and be fairly competitive, but he might struggle with many aspects of the modern game.

BUT, you take a 5 year old Mosconi who is known to have been something of a savant when it comes to pool, who at a VERY young age was already showing signs that he was going to be a future world champion, and you drop him into 1980 New York or Chicago or LA, and you give him access to the game and advantages that the players of that era had growing up? A now 38 year old Mosconi having grown up in this era would do the same thing he did in the previous era, he would dominate his peers. He would be the best player in the world in ANY era he grew up in because when it comes to pure natural talent there has likely never been anyone who was more gifted and who had that much potential to be that good.

Vice Versa, you take any top ranked player today and take them back in time as a newborn and have them grow up in Mosconi's era and the sport as it was back then, they would be a Caras, they would be a Ponzi, the best today might be a Crane, but they would not be a Mosconi.

 

[sfleinen]

Alex Higgins, well past his best, beat Stephen Hendry in a major final. By that time Hendry was a multiple ranking winner and would go on to do all the things we know. He is the only player who has beaten a Spencer, Reardon, Davis and Hendry in major finals.

Quite simply these guys were great players and would have been great players in any era.

What Tim and I are speaking to, is the EVOLUTION aspect of the game, not the natural talent of the players from eras that make up that evolution.

People seem to think that "Alex Higgins in his time" and "Stephen Hendry in his time" and "Ronnie O'Sullivan in his time" are comparable, skillset-wise. This is not true.

Granted, who's to say if we plop Alex Higgins into the same cauldron that cast Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullian, that he wouldn't be of the same caliber, skillset-wise? We can't, because that's not possible, and enters into the silliness of comparing players from different eras.

What Tim and I are saying, is that the game- and skillset-demands of today are VERY DIFFERENT -- and dare we say -- more comprehensive and a higher rung on the ladder -- than yesteryear.

The game evolves. And the skillsets shown by today's players reflects that.

-Sean

 

[dkleather]

What Tim and I are speaking to, is the EVOLUTION aspect of the game, not the natural talent of the players from eras that make up that evolution.

People seem to think that "Alex Higgins in his time" and "Stephen Hendry in his time" and "Ronnie O'Sullivan in his time" are comparable, skillset-wise. This is not true.

Granted, who's to say if we plop Alex Higgins into the same cauldron that cast Stephen Hendry or Ronnie O'Sullian, that he wouldn't be of the same caliber, skillset-wise? We can't, because that's not possible, and enters into the silliness of comparing players from different eras.

What Tim and I are saying, is that the game- and skillset-demands of today are VERY DIFFERENT -- and dare we say -- more comprehensive and a higher rung on the ladder -- than yesteryear.

The game evolves. And the skillsets shown by today's players reflects that.

-Sean

Well, if that's what you both are saying, say that. Don't make ridiculous comments like there are now 1000 players that could beat Alex Higgins in his prime, which is ridiculous and untrue.

Fortunately comparing eras is possible with Alex Higgins, as I pointed out above he beat the greats from three different eras. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would not have been able to be competitive today.

As for "skill-sets", I have footage of Reardon making centuries going into the pack four and five times, chipping reds out two or three at a time, on heavy cloths with heavy balls with power and precision that very, VERY few of today's pros could match.

 

[sfleinen]

Well, if that's what you both are saying, say that. Don't make ridiculous comments like there are now 1000 players that could beat Alex Higgins in his prime, which is ridiculous and untrue.

Fortunately comparing eras is possible with Alex Higgins, as I pointed out above he beat the greats from three different eras. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would not have been able to be competitive today.

As for "skill-sets", I have footage of Reardon making centuries going into the pack four and five times, chipping reds out two or three at a time, on heavy cloths with heavy balls with power and precision that very, VERY few of today's pros could match.

Concerning the bolded part, I disagree. What you are describing is called break-building, and admittedly, Reardon was great at it on those old conditions (i.e. heavier nap cloth and older / non-phenolic balls). But to say "very, VERY few of today's pros could match"? Nonsense. Today's game relies EVEN MORE on break-building -- in fact, I would dare say it's a foundational skillset for today's way of playing the game, and if you are to be considered a world class pro today, you HAVE to have that break-building skillset as a staple. Of that, I'm convinced.

-Sean

 

[Scaramouche]

Modern players have introduced new techniques to the game:
Cliff Thorburn - the shot to nothing
Stephen Hendry - potting the blue and opening the pack by shooting, for example, a stun shot when the blue was on its spot.

 

[dkleather]

Concerning the bolded part, I disagree. What you are describing is called break-building, and admittedly, Reardon was great at it on those old conditions (i.e. heavier nap cloth and older / non-phenolic balls). But to say "very, VERY few of today's pros could match"? Nonsense. Today's game relies EVEN MORE on break-building -- in fact, I would dare say it's a foundational skillset for today's way of playing the game, and if you are to be considered a world class pro today, you HAVE to have that break-building skillset as a staple. Of that, I'm convinced.

-Sean

Jeez. I'll try to explain this a third time. I'm typing this slowly as you clearly cannot read fast. Break building with the older, heavy balls on thick heavy cloths was a completely different prospect than it is now.