Earl Strickland at the Snooker World Championships?

[BeiberLvr]

Hendry's played the game plenty compared to Earl.

Hendry's almost 8 years younger than Earl (although 46 probably seems old to you).

No matter, I guess neither one of them would fare well on the snooker tour.

46 is ancient when you're talking about snooker/Chinese 8 ball.

Hendry's last win a ranking event was in 2005, and 2006 was the last time he ever made it to the finals of one.

So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that he wouldn't fare well (today) on the snooker tour.

And to say a much older and less experienced Earl also wouldn't fare well would be the f#%king lock of the century.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I imagine you are trying to suggest that since Hendry also didn't fare well on that equipment, that it doesn't reflect poorly on Earl's performance either. But, it doesn't help to boost the argument that Earl can transition. It only adds to the pile of people who played poorly when transitioning.

I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that Strickland has a chance of transitioning to pro snooker. SVB... maybe, if he cared at all for the game. Shaw, definitely if he put everything he has into the game, but he's riding high in the pool world right now. Tough to let go of that to take a chance at the bottom if the snooker world. Dechaine might do it, but what he possesses in raw talent he lacks in drive. I expect him to be out of pro pool and into business by the time he hits 35.

No, there isn't going to be anyone in the pool world rising to the top of the snooker world at any time in the foreseeable future, but I'd sure get a kick out of seeing how Earl fared against the top players. I'd expect him to make a showing about as good as Mizerak did when he tried his hand at it. Nothing earthshaking, but not too shabby when all is said and done.

 

[shinobi]

I'd expect him to make a showing about as good as Mizerak did when he tried his hand at it.

Hmm? My understanding is that Mizerak got nowhere fast.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Hmm? My understanding is that Mizerak got nowhere fast.

I wasn't aware that he ever made a serious bid for it. By the time he played Davis he was already in serious decline, both in health and ability. It was after that that he made a failed attempt. He was almost 50 and very overweight, not the best time to start a career in a new discipline. Earl would probably do better IMO. Maybe we'll get to find out.

 

[spartan]

46 is ancient when you're talking about snooker/Chinese 8 ball.

Hendry's last win a ranking event was in 2005, and 2006 was the last time he ever made it to the finals of one.

So yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that he wouldn't fare well (today) on the snooker tour.

And to say a much older and less experienced Earl also wouldn't fare well would be the f#%king lock of the century.

Not impressed with Hendry post retirement results
Recent C8B Masters he lost all his matches
But then I suppose he gets paid appearance fees, endorsements whether he wins or loses
So Hendry would be crushed on snooker tour now but he would care better than Earl

 

[PINKLADY]

They are ear pieces. The connect to the BBC commentators in the booth. So you get the commentary that you would on TV here in the UK. I think they were like £6/7 last year so the venue must make a killing off of them.

well that's cool! why don't they provide them at Mosconi/Vegas? are they wired-in with the players' microphones, too?

 

[asbani]

earl would be way,way,way down the list of wildcard picks I would imagine

Why would you imagine this? If its cause of his antics and how he behaves, then I would only say that you guys have no idea how the TV business works.

fifteen years ago ESPN stated openly that pool is failing on TV is due to players being boring, and I bet thats what you like, a.k.a Neils and Ralf and his friends being quiet and taking ages to shoot. then ESPN also stated that if we had more characters like Earl Strickland who are passionate and vocal then pool might of survived on TV. So with this information you should see what pool needs to be more successful, or maybe not you will still not need it and want quiet players who behave nicely to each other. I dunno what you guys want, more money and success like snooker/tennis, or more quiet, slow, boring players.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Why would you imagine this? If its cause of his antics and how he behaves, then I would only say that you guys have no idea how the TV business works.

fifteen years ago ESPN stated openly that pool is failing on TV is due to players being boring, and I bet thats what you like, a.k.a Neils and Ralf and his friends being quiet and taking ages to shoot. then ESPN also stated that if we had more characters like Earl Strickland who are passionate and vocal then pool might of survived on TV. So with this information you should see what pool needs to be more successful, or maybe not you will still not need it and want quiet players who behave nicely to each other. I dunno what you guys want, more money and success like snooker/tennis, or more quiet, slow, boring players.

If you think that, you've no idea about how snooker audiences work. This isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons, not least earls antics.

 

[arps]

I think that Earl is the best 9-ball player in the history of pool - his accuracy and cueball control is tremendous. snooker shouldnt be hard for him.

 

[J.S.]

I think that Roger Federer is the best tennis player in the history of tennis - badminton shouldn't be hard for him.

Joking aside, we're talking about two different games here - albeit they have a lot in common, they are also very different.

I think that Earl is the best 9-ball player in the history of pool - his accuracy and cueball control is tremendous. snooker shouldnt be hard for him.

 

[Grantstew]

I think that Earl is the best 9-ball player in the history of pool - his accuracy and cueball control is tremendous. snooker shouldnt be hard for him.

Maybe 20 years ago, but at his age, the 12 foot tables require such good vision. That is why most snooker players go downhill fast after about the age of 35.

 

[voiceofreason]

You could say that about anything. "Golf is different not harder then pool".

It is BS.

To reach the highest levels of competition in snooker or golf is most definately "harder" then doing so in pool. Partly due to the ease of the equipment and significantly higher luck factor, and partly due to the lack of financial reward in pool simply not motivating people to commit the same effort to pool as they would in snooker or golf.

Rubbish of course.

All sports are equally hard to master.

Running 100m is easy. Does that make getting to number one in the world at the 100m easier than getting to number one in pool, snooker or golf?

 

[voiceofreason]

On the contrary VOR.
If true, then I reckon they are trying to sell American Pool to the Brits.
The MC is aired 'live' in the UK. No better pre-promotion as to have Mr. Strickland in the main arena at the Crucible, while the commentators make references such as:
"Here's the greatest Pool Player of ALL time. Be sure to watch him at this years MC in Vegas."
Even if Mr. Strickland does not make the USA MC 2015 team. He is still one of the strongest names in pool for the media machine to plug! :thumbup:

Difficult to argue. Whichever way round, it is obviously Matchroom's influence

 

[arps]

I think that Roger Federer is the best tennis player in the history of tennis - badminton shouldn't be hard for him.

or table tennis right? not a good analogy though.
in 1988, the Philippine Sports Commission asked Efren if he could represent the country in the snooker event for the Asian Games. he was able to learn and practice the game for two weeks. he took the gold medal after the event using his pool cue. :wink:

as to what Grantstew said, vision could be a bit of a problem for earl, at his age.

 

[Pidge]

or table tennis right? not a good analogy though.
in 1988, the Philippine Sports Commission asked Efren if he could represent the country in the snooker event for the Asian Games. he was able to learn and practice the game for two weeks. he took the gold medal after the event using his pool cue. :wink:

as to what Grantstew said, vision could be a bit of a problem for earl, at his age.

Vision is a problem for a lot of snooker players. Luckily, because they have played it so long their eyes don't need to be those of a 20 year old as they get older because they rely on past experiences to know what looks right. But for someone like Earl starting snooker at his age those long shots will just look all wrong from what he is used to. In the Crucible as your first outing too...enough to make anyone feel sick to their stomach with nerves.

 

[voiceofreason]

Vision is a problem for a lot of snooker players. Luckily, because they have played it so long their eyes don't need to be those of a 20 year old as they get older because they rely on past experiences to know what looks right. But for someone like Earl starting snooker at his age those long shots will just look all wrong from what he is used to. In the Crucible as your first outing too...enough to make anyone feel sick to their stomach with nerves.

Not sure how much snooker you have played but in my experience (and from watching it on the tv too) long shots are rarely played more than once a frame.

What usually happens at the beginning of a frame is a safety exchange until either one player makes a mistake or one of them feels that he can take a long pot on (or indeed forced into it).

Should he be successful, his break continues until he reaches the snookers required stage and then he can relax or he misses or runs out of position and goes safe.

Such a dul game to watch snooker these days. Even worse to play.

Yawn...

A long pot is also not compulsory and can be refused in favour of a safety should the player at the table not feel comfortable.

Anyway. The thought of Earl racking up to Sheffield with a pool cue and beating any snooker player at all under the lights has me salivating without doubt.

I am rubbing my chin furiously...

 

[Pidge]

Not sure how much snooker you have played but in my experience (and from watching it on the tv too) long shots are rarely played more than once a frame.

What usually happens at the beginning of a frame is a safety exchange until either one player makes a mistake or one of them feels that he can take a long pot on (or indeed forced into it).

Should he be successful, his break continues until he reaches the snookers required stage and then he can relax or he misses or runs out of position and goes safe.

Such a dul game to watch snooker these days. Even worse to play.

Yawn...

A long pot is also not compulsory and can be refused in favour of a safety should the player at the table not feel comfortable.

Anyway. The thought of Earl racking up to Sheffield with a pool cue and beating any snooker player at all under the lights has me salivating without doubt.

I am rubbing my chin furiously...

Long pots and long shots are different. There are usually several, sometimes 20 mins worth of long shots in safety exchanges at the start, and throughout the frame.

 

[ibuycues]

Listen to what the commentators in these two exhibition matches say about Mizerak's abilities, and the snooker potential of American pool players in general:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFtJ-HyV2Cc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6NMR3kxoQU

I can see Earl in his prime as having as much snooker potential as any American pool player that has ever lived. A little too late to launch a pro snooker career at this stage, but I'd pay to watch him play a few matches, that's for sure.

Thanks for taking the time to post these two clips of Miz at snooker. :thumbup:

Will Prout

 

[ibuycues]

Vision is a problem for a lot of snooker players. Luckily, because they have played it so long their eyes don't need to be those of a 20 year old as they get older because they rely on past experiences to know what looks right. But for someone like Earl starting snooker at his age those long shots will just look all wrong from what he is used to. In the Crucible as your first outing too...enough to make anyone feel sick to their stomach with nerves.

Question:

How do contact lenses figure into the vision issue for snooker players?
I have worn rigid gas permeable lenses (with bi-vocals no less and 20-10 vision) for 25 years and see fine.
Even corrected astigmatism!
Isn't the issue as much an eye-hand coordination issue with age as it is plain old seeing at distance?

How does this work for snooker players? I am curious and would like to hear.

Will Prout

 

[Pidge]

Question:

How do contact lenses figure into the vision issue for snooker players?
I have worn rigid gas permeable lenses (with bi-vocals no less and 20-10 vision) for 25 years and see fine.
Even corrected astigmatism!
Isn't the issue as much an eye-hand coordination issue with age as it is plain old seeing at distance?

How does this work for snooker players? I am curious and would like to hear.

Will Prout

You are right that it isn't just vision. Hand eye coordination, the shakes etc everything that comes with age doesn't benefit snooker or pool for that matter. I don't know many players that wear contacts, or maybe I do they just don't tell me about it. I know of players that have had laser eye surgery and have jumped up in skill level almost immediately. One guy I know is in his 50s, had the surgery and went from a 70ish break standard player to a 90/100ish break standard player within a month or two of starting back after surgery.