The title speaks for itself. Pool and snooker. pros and cons.similarities and differences. I want to hear your facts and opinions.Some people say pools harder, some people say snookers harder.
Pool Vs. Snooker?
- Thread starter SureShot21
- Start date
one isn't harder than the other. I caused a huge debate on FB a few days ago with a comparison to boxing vs. MMA. pool and snooker are both cue sports, but the games are completely different. Using snooker mechanics in pool will only take you so far. In my case, it's vastly improved my accuracy, at the expense of other areas of my game. Using pool mechanics in snooker, I can't imagine ending very well. Look at the chinese 8-ball match between Shane and Gareth Potts.
I think snooker mechanics in pool can take you all the way to the top, not just so far. There is nothing prohibitive about a snooker stance\cue action when playing pool.
Tell that to Allison, and Karen
Snooker mechanics will take you as far as you would ever want in pool. It will nit hold you back in the slightest, you can generate enough power and spin to reach any part of the table a pool player would. The same goes for pool mechanics in snooker. Just because a pool player has an unorthodox fundamental set up and stroke doesn't mean they're not accurate enough to play snooker. If you placed any of the top 5 pool players in the world onto the snooker circuit for a few years they would be competing at the highest level. Perhaps not in the top 5 in snooker, but then again the top 5 in snooker have been playing their entire lives. If you placed a top 5 snooker player into pool, again, they might not be in the top 5 but they would be amongst the best pool players in the world.
Snooker and pool are different sports, but they're basically the same at the end if the day. Hitting one ball into another to make it go into 1 of the 6 pockets. One sort doesn't produce more accurate potters, and the other sport doesn't produce mire powerful players that can send the cue ball around the table 6 times before landing perfect on the 9.
The difference is with snooker mechanics is that there is more information widely available. Most pros stick to rough guidelines through tradition and because of what is available to them. In pool, there isn't so much freely available. You have to pay for most knowledge in pool and because of this a traditional fundamental set up for a pool player is yet to be established.
Snooker and pool are different sports, but they're basically the same at the end if the day. Hitting one ball into another to make it go into 1 of the 6 pockets. One sort doesn't produce more accurate potters, and the other sport doesn't produce mire powerful players that can send the cue ball around the table 6 times before landing perfect on the 9.
The difference is with snooker mechanics is that there is more information widely available. Most pros stick to rough guidelines through tradition and because of what is available to them. In pool, there isn't so much freely available. You have to pay for most knowledge in pool and because of this a traditional fundamental set up for a pool player is yet to be established.
boxing is boxing as snooker is snooker. they are finite diciplines. whereas american pocket billiards has many different games 8 ball, rotation games, one pocket, banks, 14.1 etc. as MMA has many different martial arts muay thai, karate, taekwondo, jujitsu, etc.
Snooker is Organized and Harder
Snooker is organized well and gentlemanly sport with timers. Pool is....anything but. I think Pool has been given a little too much latitude perhaps when you compare the two yes there is game differences but there is really so much more.
Snooker is organized well and gentlemanly sport with timers. Pool is....anything but. I think Pool has been given a little too much latitude perhaps when you compare the two yes there is game differences but there is really so much more.
Winners Snooker Prize money in March 2015
World Seniors - £18,000
Shootout - £32,000
Indian Open - £50,000
World Grand Prix - £100,000
Players Tournament Championship Grande Finale - £100,000
China Open started in March - £85,000
A player winning all March tournaments would pocket £385,000
That's $570,000 U.S. folks.
U.S. pool pros were competing for $1.25 in the same time period.
Draw you own conclusions. :grin:
World Seniors - £18,000
Shootout - £32,000
Indian Open - £50,000
World Grand Prix - £100,000
Players Tournament Championship Grande Finale - £100,000
China Open started in March - £85,000
A player winning all March tournaments would pocket £385,000
That's $570,000 U.S. folks.
U.S. pool pros were competing for $1.25 in the same time period.
Draw you own conclusions. :grin:
First prize in World Snooker Championship - starts April 18 - £300,000 or about $450,000 U.S.
U.S. Pool - What's a World Championship?
U.S. Pool - What's a World Championship?
I agree 100% with this.
But there is an argument that snooker is more effective than pool in teaching someone to play.
The reason is that if you hit a pool ball badly, you will often still slop in into the side of the pocket. Of course the poor hit will probably have a knock-on effect on your shape for the next ball. But at least you are still at the table. And probably have already forgotten your mistake because you are thinking about what do do next.
But if you hit a snooker ball badly, you will very rarely pocket the ball. So you have nothing to think about apart from the shot you have just fouled up. It is an immediate slap in the face. That encourages learning.
I have no doubt that good pool players could make the transition to snooker and play well. How well, is anybody's guess. But it is difficult to see any top pool pro being prepared make the commitment needed for a serious attempt at a switch of codes.
It is not a question of putting in a couple of months' practice; anyone wanting to give it a go would probably need to stop playing pool and go live in a snooker playing country such as England for a year. Where would their income from to sustain that?
What do we qualify most players as... B or C? Enough to know the game and be decent at it.
Those are the players I'm thinking of. I think a normal guy that goes and plays snooker for a few hours a week would be able to transition to pool a hell of a lot easier than a player of the same caliber that plays pool and tries to transition to snooker.
I think pro players from either discipline would be able to transition and still hold their own.
Just my .02
Those are the players I'm thinking of. I think a normal guy that goes and plays snooker for a few hours a week would be able to transition to pool a hell of a lot easier than a player of the same caliber that plays pool and tries to transition to snooker.
I think pro players from either discipline would be able to transition and still hold their own.
Just my .02
Yes there is a fair amount of money in pro snooker, but there are a lot of guys chasing it.
When I looked at this many years ago, I concluded that if you could not get into the top 32, you would be earning less than average wage. And that is before expenses.
The prize money has gone up since I looked at it, but the expenses have gone up hugely.
You also need to factor in that a snooker pro' time in the money (top 32 or whatever) is typically relatively short. And when it is over, the ex-pro will not normally have acquired much in the way of a marketable skill set to equip them for the rest of their lives.
All I can say is you need to learn some history.
The vast amount of money in Snooker is due solely to:
promotion
popularity on TV
cigarette stealth advertisement
none of which has a snit to do with the relative merits of the games themselves
Prior to 'Pot Black', which more or less started it off, the lot of a Snooker player
was much the same as that of a Pool player.
Dale
One way to look at it is earl strickland's point of view:
Pool is tough because, at least at the highest level, you are always spinning the cue ball to get position all over the table using several rails. So you are rarely shooting the cue ball straight at the contact point of an object ball. You are literally sending a spinning cue ball curving left/right into a contact point on the object ball, which then spins the object ball into a pocket. You are compensating for deflection, swerve, and throw.
In snooker, the shots are much tougher, but you are usually doing less with the cue ball, and hitting center ball, which allows you to aim straight at the contact point.
Pool is tough because, at least at the highest level, you are always spinning the cue ball to get position all over the table using several rails. So you are rarely shooting the cue ball straight at the contact point of an object ball. You are literally sending a spinning cue ball curving left/right into a contact point on the object ball, which then spins the object ball into a pocket. You are compensating for deflection, swerve, and throw.
In snooker, the shots are much tougher, but you are usually doing less with the cue ball, and hitting center ball, which allows you to aim straight at the contact point.
Easy - as long as the person you are playing on the same table with the same pockets is worse than you are.
Lot of truth on this post.
To win one frame of snooker you can do just shooting short distance shots if you just move your cue ball accurately short distances too.
So actually if pack of reds is scattered nicely there you need 24 shots to make hundred break. I compare this now to 14.1 where you need 100 shots and you need break rack and clusters many times. Learning to shoot 24 short shots and moving cue ball accurately is way easier and faster to learn.
It take 3 months to make my first hundred break at snooker. Even I was still starting player. It did take 10 years to make it straight pool. Of course it did take long because I did nit have teacher or knowledge back then but still I think its a lot harder.
Even now I can have many months without playing snooker but still score hundred break.
So overall game structures are so different comparing those games directly is ridiculous.
My 2 cents