Cue sport comparisons

hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Post what you think would be a comparison in accomplishments between different cue sport games. I will use a 100 ball run in 14.1 as a base. Just estimate what you think would be done by an equally skilled player in the other events, not the same player even, just compare how good a player would be in 14.1 to run a 100, then think about how good another player would be to execute something similar on a snooker table or in another game that the other player liked to play.

I'll dump the results in a spreadsheet and find out some averages how we view things. Feel free to argue and call each other idiots if you don't agree with another poster ;)

To level things out let's just assume that all the games were played on a normal difficulty table for a skilled player, 9 footer 4.5" pockets for the pool type games and whatever is the tournament standard for 3C and snooker so we don't have people comparing 7' tables or saying that a table with 5" pockets would be easier or something.

14.1 - 100 ball run
9 Ball - ?? run
8 Ball - ?? run
1 Pocket - ?? run
Snooker - ?? break
3C = ?? run
 
Last edited:
Alot of guesswork in here but, a 100 ball runner in straight pool if dedicated equally to the other games might:

9-ball - The occasional 5-pack on tough tables, maybe more
8-ball - A similar number (4-5), but less frequently due to the clustering in 8-ball
Snooker - Maybe 70-ish on a snooker table (the game is just flat harder)
3C - 15ish? (total guess)
1-pocket - Not even sure how to compare here, maybe they run out 2 out of 5 with 3 or 4 balls loose in the stack?

Thoughts?
 
To help along the comparison, a top professional in snooker (top 10) manages one century per 10-20 games (not matches), depending on the player. Players ranked 17 and up range between 1 in 30 to 1 in 40 sometimes higher.

What would be the comparison to 14.1? 9 ball and 8 ball are tough to compare since you have to look at packages and there are elements of luck as well as conditions of the table to consider. So things outside of the players control that doesn't necessarily make it harder. You can only run 8 in one pocket unless you are giving weight. From what I have seen in 3 cushion, 15 does look fair. I've seen more 10's in tournaments than centuries in snooker. But to be fair I haven't watched a lot.
 
Maybe it's a stupid question but do we mean " playing against someone" or just running balls alone?
 
My personal bests at different rooms and tables but all on 9 footers.
14.1 - 101 ball run
9 Ball - 5 racks
8 Ball - 3 racks
1 Pocket -yuk
Snooker - don't play
3C = don't play
 
From my own experience, 70 point-runs in snooker are pretty common even among amateur players, and nowhere near as big an achievement as a 100-ball run in straight pool. It depends though, if we're talking about a poolplayer who only dabbles in snooker then they might be equivalent.

FWIW, I've played a lot more snooker than I have straight pool and my high runs are 48 in 14.1 and 87 in snooker.
 
victorl said:
From my own experience, 70 point-runs in snooker are pretty common even among amateur players, and nowhere near as big an achievement as a 100-ball run in straight pool. It depends though, if we're talking about a poolplayer who only dabbles in snooker then they might be equivalent.

FWIW, I've played a lot more snooker than I have straight pool and my high runs are 48 in 14.1 and 87 in snooker.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about that
Maybe there are 70+ in straight cos there are more snooker players than straight pool
I am guessing 100 in straight is more like half century in snooker- your own example could be cos you play more snooker
:grin:
 
Could be... but you rarely see anyone run 100 balls in a straight pool match (could be due to the length of the race), whereas I'd almost expect a decent snooker player to run upwards of 50 points if I leave them a shot and the table is laying well.

I think it all depends on whether we are talking about doing these in practice or in actual match.
 
Last edited:
Tramp Steamer said:
I play One Pocket, exclusively. How does this relate to what you are talking about? :)
Click to expand...

I think the only way to compare one pocket in the context of this thread, Tramp....
....is the one pocket proposition..
...running 15 might equal a 75 run at straight pool.

I'm surprised anyone thinks it's as hard to run racks of 8-ball as it is 9-ball.....
....I know of a 22 and a 21 pack of 8-ball on a bar box in the 70s.....for the cash.
....never heard of that at 9-ball, even on a bar box.
 
I would explain it this way...

I think for players who specialize in one or the other, a best of 100 in snooker is pretty similar to a 14.1 players with a best run of 100.

That said, if they were to swap over, the 100 snooker break maker could probably approach a 100 run in 14.1 with about a week's practice, provided he was near the peak of his snooker game.

But for many 14.1 players who have made a run of 100, it might take them a year and a complete rebuild of their fundamentals to have a chance of making a 100 break in snooker.

The tables and games just require a different focus on fundamentals and it is hard to change one's stance and stroke after playing like that for 20+ years. The physical fundamentals of snooker players cross over much more easily to US games.
 
Mr. Bond said:
Maybe it's a stupid question but do we mean " playing against someone" or just running balls alone?
Click to expand...

That would change things, how about serious alone playing? LOL

Say the 14.1 challenge where you start with ball in hand but are in competition to run balls not just win with a safe or goof around.
 
Colin Colenso said:
I would explain it this way...

I think for players who specialize in one or the other, a best of 100 in snooker is pretty similar to a 14.1 players with a best run of 100.

That said, if they were to swap over, the 100 snooker break maker could probably approach a 100 run in 14.1 with about a week's practice, provided he was near the peak of his snooker game.

But for many 14.1 players who have made a run of 100, it might take them a year and a complete rebuild of their fundamentals to have a chance of making a 100 break in snooker.

The tables and games just require a different focus on fundamentals and it is hard to change one's stance and stroke after playing like that for 20+ years. The physical fundamentals of snooker players cross over much more easily to US games.
Click to expand...

That's comparing a player in multiple events, I was more interested in equal skill levels amongst players that play those particular games, not if a 100 ball runner in straight pool can run 100 in snooker or 7 racks in 9 ball. More like, if Mosconi ran 100 in straight pool, is that like Earl running 5 racks or 6 in 9 ball and Efren going 8 and out in 1 pocket or would it be more like 10 or 7?
 
hang-the-9 said:
That's comparing a player in multiple events, I was more interested in equal skill levels amongst players that play those particular games, not if a 100 ball runner in straight pool can run 100 in snooker or 7 racks in 9 ball. More like, if Mosconi ran 100 in straight pool, is that like Earl running 5 racks or 6 in 9 ball and Efren going 8 and out in 1 pocket or would it be more like 10 or 7?
Click to expand...
Sounds like using tournament stats would be as good a way as any to make such comparisons. AtLarge may be able to help.

In Derby City, usually several players manage to run 100+. I doubt there are as many runs of 5 racks in the 9-ball, certainly not in the 10-ball. Perhaps I'm wrong... haven't seen stats for continuous B&Rs at tournaments collected much... probably because a lot of them use alternating break.

You could make guess based on overall Break & Run percentages, which are around 40% for 8-ball on 9 footers and 30% for 9-ball. That would make odds of 5 in a row in 8 ball approx 1/100 and 5 in a row in 9 ball would be around 1 in 400.

My guess is the same pros could run 100 in 14.1 at least 1 in every 50 attempts. The best 14.1 players amongst them, probably 1 in 10 attempts.

Average snooker pros make 100s about 1 in 40 frames they play. It would be twice that often if they played by themselves.
 
I don't think 3c can be compared. Someone correct me, but the average "run" is less than 2per inning, and Blomdahl beat Reyes 30-20 in 20 innings.

So for a little perspective, if I am right and the average is <2per inning, and the world record is somewhere around high 20's, then extrapolating a100 ball run into 3c is kinda, well,,,,difficult if not impossible. It would mean, say in a tourney, that the best player might run anywhere from 0 > 4 or 5 or a bit more, but then for his average to be 2, then he would also have a lot of donuts too.

My high run is 93. The several times I've tried 3c, I averaged 1 point every 6 innings (or worse) LOL
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
I would explain it this way...

I think for players who specialize in one or the other, a best of 100 in snooker is pretty similar to a 14.1 players with a best run of 100.

That said, if they were to swap over, the 100 snooker break maker could probably approach a 100 run in 14.1 with about a week's practice, provided he was near the peak of his snooker game.

But for many 14.1 players who have made a run of 100, it might take them a year and a complete rebuild of their fundamentals to have a chance of making a 100 break in snooker.

The tables and games just require a different focus on fundamentals and it is hard to change one's stance and stroke after playing like that for 20+ years. The physical fundamentals of snooker players cross over much more easily to US games.
Click to expand...


I must disagree.
Back in time when I was young I learned play Billiards games.
I got 80+ run at straight pool after 2 years. Snooker I made my first century break after 4 months. Breaking 100 + line did take a lot more time at straight pool. Imo it's a lot easier to make 100+ snooker than straight pool. Of course table tightness varies both games but I talk about both games played at medium difficulty tables.
People seem to overrate snooker difficulty compared to pool because pocketing balls is more difficult.

My estimates:

Straight Pool 100 run (154 record)
Snooker 15 red clearance 100+break (130)
9-ball six pack (7)
8-ball 7-8 pack (10)
3c 10-12 run (8)
Dunno one pocket how you could compare it here...
 
hang-the-9 said:
I will use a 100 ball run in 14.1 as a base. Just estimate what you think would be done by an equally skilled player in the other events,
14.1 - 100 ball run
9 Ball - ?? run
Click to expand...

this has been studied...100 ball run = exactly 5 racks of nine ball and then in the 6th rack missing the 5 ball on a difficult cut into the side pocket....
 
FWIW, my personal records (not averages)

14.1: 38 (9-ft Diamond, but I don't play much 14.1)
8-ball: 5-pack (easy 8-foot table)
9-ball: 6-pack (easy 9-foot table)
3C: 6 (10-foot Verhoeven heated table)
Snooker: 94 (crappy 10-ft table)

(Edited to add table conditions)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top