Oh the irony lololool
Snooker vs. Pool
- Thread starter BJTyler
- Start date
Oh the irony lololool
Can I have broad sweeping generalizations for $1000 Alex?
Utter nonsense. Deuel and Pagulayan love the game as much as the money.
The gambling and staying in flea pits side of things: lol, if you want get out of that life and get a regular job why not just enter pool tournaments and beat all the the top pros? There's enough money for you right there. Or would that be too easy and unromantic?
Oh, by the way, not a single person on this thread has denigrated American pool players.
Either I'm not communicating properly, or you just aren't understanding. I give up.
Probably option 1...assuming we consider option 3 impossible, which is that you are just wrong.
Still, the guy asked a good question. Your contention was that American pool players scoff at systems. This was a conversation *comparing* pool to snooker. So please complete the comparison. Pool players scoff at systems, while snooker players use X,Y, and Z system.
If you don't know or didn't really have anything in mind when you made your claim, that's ok. But hopefully you did. I'm curious.
I think Basement Dweller made an excellent point that a systematic *approach* to training has great value, but it is debatable if systems (like aiming, diamond systems, kicking systems) are required to play at a high level. Agree with him or disagree? Efren is probably the greatest kicker in the history of all cue sports. He says he uses no systems and does it by feel. What are we all missing?
KMRUNOUT
Well it's really not nonsense, I didn't say Deuel & Pagulayan don't love the game, I stated their foray into snooker was about $, not the love of THAT game, if you asked either one of them what they'd rather play if $ in both were equal it would be pool, not snooker. Also there's a difference between "modest" & flea pits & there's nothing romantic about the life of gambling, it's a grind, there isn't enough $ in tournaments & that is the problem, it's easier to gamble & supplement with poker. Lastly quite a few posts here have denigrated American players & pool. It seems many from other countries where snooker is popular feel we have a superior attitude when it's quite the other way around, especially the English, superior attitude is their hallmark.
Why am I the Colonel? Because I always get the chicken
Everyone in the uk has a far better stroke than everyone in thousands... Fact
From the limited info available, my impression is that Deuel and Pagulayan are giving snooker a go for reasons unrelated to money. That's what they are both saying anyway.
Lol, do you not see the irony in this statement? I agree there are many that think you have a superior attitude but I am not one of them. I'd also agree that many (but certainly not all - it's no hallmark) English people have a superior attitude, I'm not one of those either. The reasons, for many people around the world thinking those from the US and UK have a superior attitude, are complex but I'm certainly not here to discuss them.
Anyway, before we go off on too many tangents I'll get back to pool and snooker. Like all games the best players don't play the game because of the money. They play because of the game and they make money because of it. Gambling games are called "side" games for a reason - they are not about the game itself.
And lastly, yes there might be some posts denigrating American players and pool but I haven't really noticed them. It would also be harsh to assume that all posts that discuss the pros and cons of both games are "denigrating" one game when they discuss aspects of the other that they think are superior or where the players have developed skills that could be useful to players of the other game. Over-reacting to those posts by going on the defensive seems a little silly too - there have certainly been plenty of those posts.
Lol, do you not see the irony in this statement? I agree there are many that think you have a superior attitude but I am not one of them. I'd also agree that many (but certainly not all - it's no hallmark) English people have a superior attitude, I'm not one of those either. The reasons, for many people around the world thinking those from the US and UK have a superior attitude, are complex but I'm certainly not here to discuss them.
Anyway, before we go off on too many tangents I'll get back to pool and snooker. Like all games the best players don't play the game because of the money. They play because of the game and they make money because of it. Gambling games are called "side" games for a reason - they are not about the game itself.
And lastly, yes there might be some posts denigrating American players and pool but I haven't really noticed them. It would also be harsh to assume that all posts that discuss the pros and cons of both games are "denigrating" one game when they discuss aspects of the other that they think are superior or where the players have developed skills that could be useful to players of the other game. Over-reacting to those posts by going on the defensive seems a little silly too - there have certainly been plenty of those posts.
But you know something? Scaramouche is right, as much as we pool players don't like it. Let's not put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig, so the broad sweeping generalizations apply and fit more than a small population of us pool players.
-Sean
I will have you know that I have found the Magical Chalk, so the rest of the seeking journey is moot.
Freddie <~~~ it's the hunt, not the catch
Good post -- especially the bolded part. What you'll see is 1.) American pool players absolutely will resist any form of structured way of learning or diagnosing their game, and instead prefer a "roll your own" pick-and-choose method of learning; 2.) are extremely sensitive and defensive about anyone calling-out their method of learning as such; and 3.) are extremely sensitive and defensive to the notion that there are better fundamentals than the typical pool fundamentals.
So no matter how you try to present the "better way" story, you're going to see these posts popping up that are defensive in nature. Nobody (especially American pool players) likes their baby called ugly.
-Sean
If you really want to boil down the difference between pool and snooker players - this is what I think the difference is:
The thing pool players care the most about is getting the ball into the pocket.
Snooker players care the most about their cueing technique.
I really think this explains the difference you see between the two. When all you are focused on is getting the ball into the pocket you will do anything possible to make that happen. You will stand this way or that. You will grip the cue this way or that. You will put your head here or there. On some shots you might curl your wrist; on other shots you may leave your wrist real loose and straight. One week you might stand with a more open stance than the week before because the balls seem to be going in a bit better. You add all these things up and over the years you develop your own unique style of cueing. I think even our top players pretty much go this route.
Snooker players worry about their cueing. Of course they may make minor tweaks here or there but the focus is on their technique and if their technique is good the balls go into the pockets.
It is a completely different mindset. Personally, I've found the second approach has been much more productive. I think there is just way too much worrying about the balls in pool. The balls shouldn't direct the stroke -- it should be the other way around.
I never grow tired of this subject.
The thing pool players care the most about is getting the ball into the pocket.
Snooker players care the most about their cueing technique.
I really think this explains the difference you see between the two. When all you are focused on is getting the ball into the pocket you will do anything possible to make that happen. You will stand this way or that. You will grip the cue this way or that. You will put your head here or there. On some shots you might curl your wrist; on other shots you may leave your wrist real loose and straight. One week you might stand with a more open stance than the week before because the balls seem to be going in a bit better. You add all these things up and over the years you develop your own unique style of cueing. I think even our top players pretty much go this route.
Snooker players worry about their cueing. Of course they may make minor tweaks here or there but the focus is on their technique and if their technique is good the balls go into the pockets.
It is a completely different mindset. Personally, I've found the second approach has been much more productive. I think there is just way too much worrying about the balls in pool. The balls shouldn't direct the stroke -- it should be the other way around.
I never grow tired of this subject.
IMO, the thing that pool players care about most is playing position such that getting the ball into the pocket is almost automatic, and all of the top pros do it very well. In pool, the only times you see a pro taking a challenging shot are when they just broke, came to the table after their opponent's shot, or made a mistake getting position from the previous shot. Snooker players don't play with as much english to navigate the table because they can often get around to position zones without straying from the vertical axis of the cue ball. It's just another one of those things that pool players attempting to play snooker have to "unlearn".
I guess you're sort of right -- good correction. What I'm trying to point out is that the balls dictate what pool players do. So if a player isn't able to make a shot AND get the cue ball to a certain place doing it one way -- they will try it another way. Maybe this time they will snap their wrist on the shot, or they will curl their wrist a bit, or on and on it goes. Each week they adjust something. We are all a bunch of tinkerers.
It doesn't appear that snooker players do this nearly as much. It's always about cueing. They worry about their technique first and foremost and the balls follow. Some people may see this as a distinction without a difference but I think it's a totally different mindset.
Granted - I don't play snooker and I don't personally know any serious snooker players. It's even been years since I've seen a 12 footer in person. These are just my observations but I think I'm right.
Which brings me back to the points I made earlier, the players have changed to meet the demands of the game.
Straying too far from center ball is much more difficult over that distance and the tighter pocket openings.
Pureness of stroke is essential for consistent accurate execution.
Players have learned how to get where they want to go by using mostly stun draw and follow out of necessity and that is not to say they can't it just makes it more difficult.
Just the thought of using some of the pool type strokes that involve moving things around once you are down or cross stroking the ball is just cringe worthy, you can't do it at this game and I see no reason why it has any place in pool. Pool players did it because they could get away with it due to the large margin for errors, the game did not demand it not to mention the many many myths around the different stroke techniques.
Sure there are many that still play great pool in spite of it all after all you only do what you have to do and if you get the intended result then that's all that matters.
It's a bit like driving to the store in a Pinto or a Ferrari both will get you there just the same the problem arises when someone tries to rob you along the way.
Fast forward 2014, the tables are tighter and the players are better, the bottom line is change or get left behind.
Indeed. Hence we learn from our bad shots but are reluctant to learn from our "good" ones.
And that's the summary of it all. I would LOVE to be my normal optimist self and say that US pool players will adapt. But I'd be doing myself a disservice -- the realist part of me is telling me that the captain is going down with his ship.
-Sean <-- American pride is a double-edged sword
Well, level the field.
Tell us all the secret.
It would be a terrible thing to attribute your prowess on the table to an inanimate object rather than your talent.
Is it:
Silver Cup
Master
Master pre-flag
Triangle
Kamui
Predator 1080 High Performance
Blue Diamond
Lava
Balabushka
Pioneer
Eastpoint
NIR Super Professional
Perhaps you have purloined some special Russian Pyramid chalk that other AZB posters have yet to discovered.
I guess you're sort of right -- good correction. What I'm trying to point out is that the balls dictate what pool players do. So if a player isn't able to make a shot AND get the cue ball to a certain place doing it one way -- they will try it another way. Maybe this time they will snap their wrist on the shot, or they will curl their wrist a bit, or on and on it goes. Each week they adjust something. We are all a bunch of tinkerers.
It doesn't appear that snooker players do this nearly as much. It's always about cueing. They worry about their technique first and foremost and the balls follow. Some people may see this as a distinction without a difference but I think it's a totally different mindset.
Granted - I don't play snooker and I don't personally know any serious snooker players. It's even been years since I've seen a 12 footer in person. These are just my observations but I think I'm right.
This is what I was talking about with systems. Pool players frown on them for the most part, yet, arguably the best position player ever was Buddy Hall. A system user. He used the clock method. Here's the definition of systems-
A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole[1] or a set of elements (often called 'components' ) and relationships which are different from relationships of the set or its elements to other elements or sets.[citation needed]
Fields that study the general properties of systems include systems science, systems theory, systems engineering, cybernetics, dynamical systems, thermodynamics, complex systems and system analysis and design. They investigate the abstract properties of systems' matter and organization, looking for concepts and principles that are independent of domain, substance, type, or temporal scale.[citation needed]
Some systems share common characteristics, including:[citation needed]
A system has structure, it contains parts (or components) that are directly or indirectly related to each other;
A system has behavior, it contains processes that transform inputs into outputs (material, energy or data);
A system has interconnectivity: the parts and processes are connected by structural and/or behavioral relationships.
A system's structure and behavior may be decomposed via subsystems and sub-processes to elementary parts and process steps.
The term system may also refer to a set of rules that governs structure and/or behavior. Alternatively, and usually in the context of complex social systems, the term institution is used to describe the set of rules that govern structure and/or behavior.
A system is nothing more than an orderly way of doing something so it is repeatable. Whether that be fundamentals, aiming, position play, speed control, ect. Why are snooker players currently better pocketers than we are? Because they use a system to ensure straight stroking.
Just to show how prevalent the American way of thinking about playing pool is completely non-orderly, just read this thread. I couldn't even mention "systems" without everyone's thinking reverting to the only system they are familiar with- aiming and then CTE. They can't even associate systems with anything else in the game.
Mark Wilson's entire book is about going about playing in a systematic way. Showing the best practices, and explaining why they are the best practices in his eyes. When Americans start systematically playing, instead of all the willy-nilly band-aids to cover up inconsistencies, then you will see us improve.