The Greatest Frame of Snooker?

midnightpulp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In my opinion this one frame shows why Snooker is so incredibly far above any form of pool (any cue game to be honest) as a spectator sport. There are so many unique situations that happen in snooker that cannot happen in any other game. The extended drama of a snooker frame is unparalleled. Although there is the occassional fluke snooker is almost always decided by both skill and strategy. Shot and speed control tolerances are miniscule and a single frame of snooker can take as much concentration as an entire set of 9 ball or something like that. Not only that but it is fantastic to watch on TV and very easy to follow. It is the greatest of all the billiard type games and it is not even remotely close. And in terms of pure cuemanship O'Sullivan has no peer.

I honestly think snooker's rule set is convoluted and inelegant, with gimmick rules like multiple attempts at an escape, no requirement to hit a rail after contact, playing away from frozen balls, a player having no mathematical chance to comeback in a frame, making efforts like centuries and 147s glorified victory laps instead of winning feats, the respotting of the colored balls (which continuously brings the referee into the picture), and the arbitrary end game of having to make the coloreds in order.

Now I do agree that 8 ball, 9 ball, and maybe even 10 ball have become too easy for pros on modern equipment and can lack that "extended drama" you're talking about since those games have become too break and run centric, but great sets in those games are just as good as viewing as anything in snooker. Difference is a snooker frame can sometimes last as long as a set of 9 ball, so you'll simply get more "drama" due to a snooker match lasting a lot longer, not because it's inherently a better cue sport. The Efren/Earl race to 120 had everything a great snooker match has.

That said, I do agree pool needs a "new" game. 8 ball and 9 ball caught on due to their relative simplicity. Straight pool is awesome, but not good viewing since you might only see a single player shoot. It's my opinion that a pool table is better designed than a snooker table due to Phelan's innovation by making the traditional rounded pockets flat faced. This simple innovation actually creates an exponential amount more of offensive and defensive possibilities and forces players into more "dilemmas." Because shots are easier to make and you can make them from more angles reliably, players are faced with more 50/50, 40/60, etc decisions than snooker where going for offense vs. defense is an easier decision. It makes safety play more interesting because you have to lock up more due to those additional offensive options, this translates into more kick/jump escapes and kick/jump return safes. You can get away with playing distance in snooker a majority of the time. I think 5x10 is the table size sweet spot, for pool at least. Playing safes via just distance is lame, so the equipment shouldn't be too friendly toward that tactic.

I say this because a lot of pool fans who have p*nis envy of snooker think the equipment (smaller table, bigger pockets) is responsible for how easy it is to run out in modern pool, when it's the actual games (8 ball, 9 ball, 10 ball the core pool games now) being played. Create a game that will naturally produce more clusters off the break and that will better balance defense with offense and better balance players battling for a single game rather than players simply exchanging break and runs/runs from a dry break. I think Joe Tucker's American Rotation on the 10 footer is a step in the right direction. On the fence about ball in hand after the break, though. That's one of those "inelegant" rules I don't like. Seems contrived, but I understand the theory behind it.
 
Last edited:

Z-Nole

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In my opinion this one frame shows why Snooker is so incredibly far above any form of pool (any cue game to be honest) as a spectator sport. There are so many unique situations that happen in snooker that cannot happen in any other game. The extended drama of a snooker frame is unparalleled. Although there is the occassional fluke snooker is almost always decided by both skill and strategy. Shot and speed control tolerances are miniscule and a single frame of snooker can take as much concentration as an entire set of 9 ball or something like that. Not only that but it is fantastic to watch on TV and very easy to follow. It is the greatest of all the billiard type games and it is not even remotely close. And in terms of pure cuemanship O'Sullivan has no peer.

I agree with you except for one thing. One pocket is way better. Other than that I think your spot on.
 

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I honestly think snooker's rule set is convoluted and inelegant, with gimmick rules like multiple attempts at an escape, no requirement to hit a rail after contact, playing away from frozen balls, a player having no mathematical chance to comeback in a frame, making efforts like centuries and 147s glorified victory laps instead of winning feats, the respotting of the colored balls (which continuously brings the referee into the picture), and the arbitrary end game of having to make the coloreds in order.

Now I do agree that 8 ball, 9 ball, and maybe even 10 ball have become too easy for pros on modern equipment and can lack that "extended drama" you're talking about since those games have become too break and run centric, but great sets in those games are just as good as viewing as anything in snooker. Difference is a snooker frame can sometimes last as long as a set of 9 ball, so you'll simply get more "drama" due to a snooker match lasting a lot longer, not because it's inherently a better cue sport. The Efren/Earl race to 120 had everything a great snooker match has.

That said, I do agree pool needs a "new" game. 8 ball and 9 ball caught on due to their relative simplicity. Straight pool is awesome, but not good viewing since you might only see a single player shoot. It's my opinion that a pool table is better designed than a snooker table due to Phelan's innovation by making the traditional rounded pockets flat faced. This simple innovation actually creates an exponential amount more of offensive and defensive possibilities and forces players into more "dilemmas." Because shots are easier to make and you can make them from more angles reliably, players are faced with more 50/50, 40/60, etc decisions than snooker where going for offense vs. defense is an easier decision. It makes safety play more interesting because you have to lock up more due to those additional offensive options, this translates into more kick/jump escapes and kick/jump return safes. You can get away with playing distance in snooker a majority of the time. I think 5x10 is the table size sweet spot, for pool at least. Playing safes via just distance is lame, so the equipment shouldn't be too friendly toward that tactic.

I say this because a lot of pool fans who have p*nis envy of snooker think the equipment (smaller table, bigger pockets) is responsible for how easy it is to run out in modern pool, when it's the actual games (8 ball, 9 ball, 10 ball the core pool games now) being played. Create a game that will naturally produce more clusters off the break and that will better balance defense with offense and better balance players battling for a single game rather than players simply exchanging break and runs/runs from a dry break. I think Joe Tucker's American Rotation on the 10 footer is a step in the right direction. On the fence about ball in hand after the break, though. That's one of those "inelegant" rules I don't like. Seems contrived, but I understand the theory behind it.

the reason they go for 147:s is the maximum break prize. or was, rather. since the prize incentive was removed fewer players attempt it. the reason they go for centuries is to cool down their opponent. some players, like mark williams, don't bother much with it
 

midnightpulp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree with you except for one thing. One pocket is way better. Other than that I think your spot on.

Yeah, One Pocket illustrates the superiority of the pool table design over the snooker table design. A snooker table is a peach basket hung on a rafter, while a pool table is a modern hoop with a backboard. One Pocket would be silly on a snooker table due to the game's emphasis on bank shots from odd angles and how often balls get frozen/close to the rail. The "issues" with one pocket is that it lacks ball running vs. other games, which a lot of cue sport fans like to see. It also lacks snookers/hooks since every ball is free to play, so we don't get to see kick escapes and kick safes, even though we can see a lot of kick offense.

Personally, while I think the game probably requires the most creative shot making out of all cue sports, I do desire an "elegantly" designed pool game that uses all the pockets and all the balls, but balances offense and defense so we see high ball running, cluster breaking, multi-rail position play, and safety/escape play in relatively equal amounts.
 

midnightpulp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
the reason they go for 147:s is the maximum break prize. or was, rather. since the prize incentive was removed fewer players attempt it. the reason they go for centuries is to cool down their opponent. some players, like mark williams, don't bother much with it

Don't get me wrong, 147s and centuries are fun to watch as a cue sport fan to see excellence in action, but they're not all that relevant to winning a frame, while going 150 and out in 14.1 is relevant (while at the same time being a "feat"), since if you crap out at 149, it's possible your opponent can go 150 and out himself. Snooker frames can devolve into mere formalities all too often where it isn't mathematically or realistically possible for the opponent to win, while every ball always counts in the mainstream pool variants. There's no "safe" score you can reach in pool. You have achieve the game's end goal, whether that be pocketing the 8, 9, reaching 150 points, etc.

Also don't get me wrong that I'm trashing snooker, I'm more defending pool as every bit of snooker's equal, and personally, I think pool (in general, not specific games) is the superior cue sport because of the flat faced pocket innovation that simply creates many more shot possibilities and thus defensive possibilities and tougher decision making whether to shoot or play safe (those "dilemmas" I was referring to). I'm glad rounded pocket tables exist, since it can be interesting to see how players break out balls frozen/close to the rail, but a desert island scenario, I'm taking a pool table over a snooker, Chinese 8 ball etc table all day.

But I understand the criticism toward modern short race 9 ball as the pool game today. I remember someone here saying it's devolved into a racking game (meaning how well or specific the balls are racked largely determines the outcome). Short race rack your own 9 ball is indeed going to look quite inferior to snooker. That said, long race 9 ball (race to 100) can be just as compelling as anything. You'll eventually get that balance of offense/defense and more key shots/key safes that can swing the match (i.e. player down 30-20, makes a key shot to run out, puts up a 5 pack, opponent flubs a shot, player who is down runs a tough 3 pack or wins 3 tough racks with great defensive play in a row to climb back to 30-28, etc).
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Yeah, One Pocket illustrates the superiority of the pool table design over the snooker table design. A snooker table is a peach basket hung on a rafter, while a pool table is a modern hoop with a backboard. One Pocket would be silly on a snooker table due to the game's emphasis on bank shots from odd angles and how often balls get frozen/close to the rail. The "issues" with one pocket is that it lacks ball running vs. other games, which a lot of cue sport fans like to see. It also lacks snookers/hooks since every ball is free to play, so we don't get to see kick escapes and kick safes, even though we can see a lot of kick offense.

Personally, while I think the game probably requires the most creative shot making out of all cue sports, I do desire an "elegantly" designed pool game that uses all the pockets and all the balls, but balances offense and defense so we see high ball running, cluster breaking, multi-rail position play, and safety/escape play in relatively equal amounts.

Did you know that the biggest action I ever saw was in the Rack in Detroit...
...one pocket on a 5x10 snooker table.

I won a $1,500 side betting on Billy Johnson once...it was a piece of a piece of a piece of
a side bet....the set was two ahead...$180,000 bet on the match.

A week later, Marvin Henderson won $110,000 on the same table.
 

midnightpulp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Did you know that the biggest action I ever saw was in the Rack in Detroit...
...one pocket on a 5x10 snooker table.

I won a $1,500 side betting on Billy Johnson once...it was a piece of a piece of a piece of
a side bet....the set was two ahead...$180,000 bet on the match.

A week later, Marvin Henderson won $110,000 on the same table.

You had money on it, so I'm sure it was entertaining to watch for you, but I can't imagine one pocket on a rounded pocket table having a good "game flow," since it's nearly impossible to play a lot of those clever banks on a rounded pocket table (though I'm sure you saw a couple of great shots that had the angle). Was the match a defensive and "nudge" (carefully moving your balls to your side while playing safe vs. taking a risky multirail bank) fest? Many people complain one pocket is exactly that even when played on a pool table lol
 

alphadog

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yeah, One Pocket illustrates the superiority of the pool table design over the snooker table design. A snooker table is a peach basket hung on a rafter, while a pool table is a modern hoop with a backboard. One Pocket would be silly on a snooker table due to the game's emphasis on bank shots from odd angles and how often balls get frozen/close to the rail. The "issues" with one pocket is that it lacks ball running vs. other games, which a lot of cue sport fans like to see. It also lacks snookers/hooks since every ball is free to play, so we don't get to see kick escapes and kick safes, even though we can see a lot of kick offense.

Personally, while I think the game probably requires the most creative shot making out of all cue sports, I do desire an "elegantly" designed pool game that uses all the pockets and all the balls, but balances offense and defense so we see high ball running, cluster breaking, multi-rail position play, and safety/escape play in relatively equal amounts.

Since you seem to think jump shots are " elegant " I find your believes skewed at best:p
 

midnightpulp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Since you seem to think jump shots are " elegant " I find your believes skewed at best:p

Lol. Don't like them using the jump cue, but it's a fine shot played with your regular cue. The existence of the jump shot makes safety play all that more exacting and demanding.
 

bb9ball

Registered
You had money on it, so I'm sure it was entertaining to watch for you, but I can't imagine one pocket on a rounded pocket table having a good "game flow," since it's nearly impossible to play a lot of those clever banks on a rounded pocket table (though I'm sure you saw a couple of great shots that had the angle). Was the match a defensive and "nudge" (carefully moving your balls to your side while playing safe vs. taking a risky multirail bank) fest? Many people complain one pocket is exactly that even when played on a pool table lol


Here is Cornbread Red mentioning he ran 10 and out 10 times in a match in Detroit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfTEqsqrBGU&t=230 (time=3:50)
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Was the match a defensive and "nudge" (carefully moving your balls to your side while playing safe vs. taking a risky multirail bank) fest? Many people complain one pocket is exactly that even when played on a pool table lol
People who complain about that just aren't familiar enough with the game to recognize the skill displayed if a ball doesn't go into a pocket. Some shots in one pocket are better if they miss the pocket.

pj
chgo
 
Top