100 balls or 100 break?

[hobokenapa]

I have only recently discovered the wonderful game of Straight Pool, and since playing regulary I've noticed a real improvement in my all-round game especially positional play. While I am still at the intermediate level, I usually run a 30+ every couple of weeks although I am yet to break through the 40 barrier.

I feel that with enough practice, dedication, and being a real student of the game, I can run 100 balls. Or at least, I feel like it is an achievable goal. However, I know that I could never do a 100 break in snooker, it's just too damn hard. So the question is what is harder? A 100 ball Straight Pool run on a 9ft regulation table, or a 100 break on a regulation 12ft snooker table?

 

[sjm]

It's very close, but I'd have to say that a 100 break in snooker is just slightly harder. Now 100 on a Diamond Pro, that might be tougher than a 100 break in snooker.

 

[bruin70]

do you mean 100 in snooker FOR A SNOOKER PLAYER vs. 100 in 14.1 for an american player,,,,,,,,or 100 on a snooker table vs. 100 in 14.1 for an american.

cuz if it's the second, i know a 170 ball runner who feels he did good making 70 pts in snooker.

 

[sjm]

do you mean 100 in snooker FOR A SNOOKER PLAYER vs. 100 in 14.1 for an american player

That's how I interpreted the question.

 

[hobokenapa]

I was just referring to the difficulty of each. A vast majority of the Europeans can get 100 breaks at snooker, but they have been brought up on snooker tables and then come here to America with the smaller tables and bigger pockets so it's easy for them run 100 balls (correct me if I'm wrong). I remember seeing a post about a snooker player in Australia thinking he could get a 100 ball run within a week, and pretty much did it. But I don't think it would go the other way. I think an American that run 100 balls would take months, maybe years to get to a 100 break in snooker. Obviously snooker is the harder game, but I was just trying to find a level where the difficulty was the same. Perhaps a 100 ball run is equivalent to a 60 break in snooker?

Basically I want to know if I can someday run 100 balls, or if I'm deluding myself

 

[hobokenapa]

do you mean 100 in snooker FOR A SNOOKER PLAYER vs. 100 in 14.1 for an american player,,,,,,,,or 100 on a snooker table vs. 100 in 14.1 for an american.
.

I meant 100 on a snooker table vs 100 in 14.1 for anyone whether American or European.

 

[ajrack]

Snooker 100 > 14.1 Pool 100

I play both games ...you must run 100 balls in 14.1...you only have to run about 28/29 balls (reds with a pink or black ball) to get your 100 points...
I have played hundreds of thousands of balls in straight pool..and have played maybe a couple of thousand "frames' of Snooker.
Once you get used to the larger table and the patterns of snooker, I think it is a little easier to get the snooker 100.
My problem is, I just try to run out on my opponent rather than try to get the " Century"!
I am proud of my Snooker "centuries"...141/137/135 and quite a few 120's...
Straight pool > about 50+..100's

 

[Bobby]

I have only recently discovered the wonderful game of Straight Pool, and since playing regulary I've noticed a real improvement in my all-round game especially positional play. While I am still at the intermediate level, I usually run a 30+ every couple of weeks although I am yet to break through the 40 barrier.

I feel that with enough practice, dedication, and being a real student of the game, I can run 100 balls. Or at least, I feel like it is an achievable goal. However, I know that I could never do a 100 break in snooker, it's just too damn hard. So the question is what is harder? A 100 ball Straight Pool run on a 9ft regulation table, or a 100 break on a regulation 12ft snooker table?

The 100 break in snooker is tougher IMO. My high
run is 88 balls in 14.1, my high snooker break is
39 and I'm just as proud of both runs equally.
I would be much more ecstatic if I had 100 break in
snooker than if I ran 100 balls in 14.1

 

[predator]

Maybe it depends on player's style or attitude. You can do 100 in 14.1 even if you stand very erect with less than perfect technique. But aiming might be very hard if you stand upright at snooker. An accomplished snooker player capable of hundred breaks on the other hand might have trouble keeping his concentration going for a 100 ball run at 14.1 plus you have to actually get into proper stance over 100 times!

My personal record at 14.1 is 52 balls playing alone, but on a loose table. Now I have switched to playing on extremely tight Olympic tables with very unforgiving pockets and now I'm happy to clear two racks. But it won't be long until I score about 40 or so even on those tables.

On those rare occasions that I played snooker, I've never scored more than 30. That's about 6 balls run. I'm sure I could do more if I had a chance to play it more. Only once have I been able to open the pack of reds using the the black as break ball. Properly opening the pack of reds is most difficult at snooker IMO.

It's hard to say which 100 run is more difficult since most of us here have very little snooker experience. But how about playing 14.1 on a 12ft using just the reds? I bet that even O'Sullivan would have trouble running 50 in those conditions.

 

[bruin70]

I was just referring to the difficulty of each. A vast majority of the Europeans can get 100 breaks at snooker, but they have been brought up on snooker tables and then come here to America with the smaller tables and bigger pockets so it's easy for them run 100 balls (correct me if I'm wrong). I remember seeing a post about a snooker player in Australia thinking he could get a 100 ball run within a week, and pretty much did it. But I don't think it would go the other way. I think an American that run 100 balls would take months, maybe years to get to a 100 break in snooker. Obviously snooker is the harder game, but I was just trying to find a level where the difficulty was the same. Perhaps a 100 ball run is equivalent to a 60 break in snooker?

Basically I want to know if I can someday run 100 balls, or if I'm deluding myself

can't compare because snooker players grow up playing snooker. the american tables are like baby table to them. also, and this is important i think,,,,,no one really plays 14.1 anymore, so it's hard to gauge the frequency that a 100 ball run is broken.

maybe if someone had a stat of how many times 100 is broken in a pro 14.1 tournament vs. how many times 100 is run in a snooker tournament

i think if you can run three racks say one out of every ten tries(just to throw out a figure) and you can run twenties 2/3's of the times, you will do it. based on all the players i know, most C shooters can run a high 30 or low 40. most B's should be able to run a 50 or 60. and A shooters can run 80+. the open or close to open players i know have run 160+. ginky and mika are around 250-260. and anyone above them have gone past 300 and 400. there most definitely seems to be a heirarchy of high runs and level of player......and it's tied closely to one's ability TO BREAK INTO the next rack consistantly.

 

[Bobby]

can't compare because snooker players grow up playing snooker. the american tables are like baby table to them. also, and this is important i think,,,,,no one really plays 14.1 anymore, so it's hard to gauge the frequency that a 100 ball run is broken.

maybe if someone had a stat of how many times 100 is broken in a pro 14.1 tournament vs. how many times 100 is run in a snooker tournament

how often does hendry or o'sullivan crack 100 in say 20 tries vs. a pro like engbert or reyes in 14.1....did any player run 150 in the last tournament(roseland)?

There weren't any 150's at Roseland, I think 140
was the high run.

Comparing how often snooker pros and pool pros run
their 100's is not neccesarily an indicator of how
hard the runs are, you have to consider that in
general snooker pros practice much more diligently
and for longer hours than pool pros. So the snooker
pros are more prepared at their chosen game.
In pool the pockets are much more forgiving. 100
balls can be run by a pro who may ot neccesarily be
in stroke, maybe 10-15 or more balls may be pocketed
during the run that are sloppy. In snooker however,
all balls must be potted accurately to fall.
I've heard that Hendry estimated that he's had
over 4,000 centuries in his life, that includes
practice time, I think he has over 600 in tournament
play, that's about twice what the next best player
has.

 

[DaveK]

A vast majority of the Europeans can get 100 breaks at snooker ...

This doesn't sound right to me. Consider that in pro snooker tournaments there are limited numbers of 100 breaks, and most players in any given tourney do not hit 100 as their high runs. I'd say a minority of European snooker players have 100 runs to their credit.

Just for my own edification, I just checked out a recent tournament. At the 2005 Welsh Open, where O'Sullivan beat Hendry in the final, there were a total of 696 frames played and 51 centuries recorded by 23 players. O'sullivan had 9 himself, and Hendry had 5. I'd guess that there were 96 players competing, but I could not get a real count. Assuming my 96 number is correct, then only about 25% of the TOP PROs at this tournament were able to record a century, certainly not a majority. I'd say this is pretty representative.

Dave

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

did any player run 150 in the last tournament(roseland)?

There weren't any 150's at Roseland, I think 140
was the high run.

Tony Robles won the High-Run award for the U.S. Open Straight Pool 2000 (Roseland) with a 148.


Personally, I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. You really aren't being fair to either simply because the challenges are so different. In snooker, no shot is ever simple and even the best snooker players will admit that. On the otherhand, 14.1 is a multi-rack game. Running 100 balls requires moving through several racks. The angled shots that you MUST take in 14.1 require that your mechanics are perfectly sound. You cannot tell me someone who barely holds a cue correctly can wing it through a 100 balls.

Between the two goals, I'd have to say running 100 would be a greater accomplishment but that's simply because I'm a pool player. I'm sure there are plenty of snooker players that would disagree and I respect that.


Jude M. Rosenstock

 

[hobokenapa]

A great many Europeans have 100 breaks at snooker

What I meant was the European pool players that play in the US. I heard on a recent 9-ball tournament that Mika has made more than a 100 centuries at snooker.

I guess the bottom line is money. The weaker European snooker players were not good enough to make money in the snooker world so they came to the US. You gotta remember that the World Snooker Championship has a prize fund of around $3M with about $500,000 going to the winner in 2003.

2003 World Snooker Prize Fund

Players chase the money. Since there is no money at all in women's snooker, the women players come over here to the US and rake in the cash. But you won't find any of the male world snooker players coming to the US to play for nothing at pool. Which makes me wonder why the top pool players don't spend a year learning snooker then try their luck over there. Has anyone done that?

As mentioned above, it would be very interesting to see O'Sullivan try 14.1 on a snooker table with the reds. How many do you think he could run?

 

[bruin70]

What I meant was the European pool players that play in the US. I heard on a recent 9-ball tournament that Mika has made more than a 100 centuries at snooker.
Which makes me wonder why the top pool players don't spend a year learning snooker then try their luck over there. Has anyone done that?

?

because the pool players would have to learn a game(equipment and all) all over again. mizerak and rempe went abroad to try snooker. when was it,,,,,80's???,,,,,i don't know. they were beat by, i am told, 14 year olds. i think that would turn off any pool player.

i'd rather watch o'sullivan play 14.1 on a 9 footer. i would appreciate it more since i can gauge the effort better. i would actually be more interested in watching his cb than the 100 ball run itself. he would pocket everything, of course, but then so do all the american pros. he MIGHT have a tough time massaging the table in the beginning.

 

[sjm]

because the pool players would have to learn a game(equipment and all) all over again. mizerak and rempe went abroad to try snooker. when was it,,,,,80's???,,,,,i don't know. they were beat by, i am told, 14 year olds. i think that would turn off any pool player.

Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. It was in the late 1980's. When I visted London afew years ago, one of the top amateur snooker players related that,at first, the Miz had insisted on using a pool cue with a 13 mm tip to play snooker with. He gave the snooker faithful a chuckle, I was told, but I was also told that everyone in England liked him. No surprise there.

 

[Bobby]

Tony Robles won the High-Run award for the U.S. Open Straight Pool 2000 (Roseland) with a 148.


Personally, I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. You really aren't being fair to either simply because the challenges are so different. In snooker, no shot is ever simple and even the best snooker players will admit that. On the otherhand, 14.1 is a multi-rack game. Running 100 balls requires moving through several racks. The angled shots that you MUST take in 14.1 require that your mechanics are perfectly sound. You cannot tell me someone who barely holds a cue correctly can wing it through a 100 balls.

Between the two goals, I'd have to say running 100 would be a greater accomplishment but that's simply because I'm a pool player. I'm sure there are plenty of snooker players that would disagree and I respect that.


Jude M. Rosenstock

I never said "someone who can barely hold a cue can
run 100" you totally twisted that part. I said "a
PRO who may not be in stroke can run 100".
I've seen this many times, Ive seen Ervolino run
over 100 countless times and a few of those runs
were when he admitted he wasn't playing well.
Another time I saw a "B" player run 104 and man it
was an ugly run, about 20-25% of the balls rattled
or slopped into the pocket, twice he got completely
out of line and banked balls in to continue the run.
You simply can't do that in snooker.

 

[hobokenapa]

Another time I saw a "B" player run 104 and man it was ugly

If your high run is not a good gauge of your actual ability at 14.1, then what is? You make it sound as though the "B" was lucky. Would you count balls over say 20 innings and average them out?

If you can run 35, then how long would it take to run 70. Is it THAT much harder? Could you achieve it in six months playing say three times a week? How long did it take you 100+ players to go from the 30 and 40s to the 100s and 150s?

 

[bruin70]

If your high run is not a good gauge of your actual ability at 14.1, then what is? You make it sound as though the "B" was lucky. Would you count balls over say 20 innings and average them out?

If you can run 35, then how long would it take to run 70. Is it THAT much harder? Could you achieve it in six months playing say three times a week? How long did it take you 100+ players to go from the 30 and 40s to the 100s and 150s?

the key is consistancy, because you give yourself better odds to reach 100. it is not a matter of consequence that "If you can run 35, then how long would it take to run 70. Is it THAT much harder?",,it's how consistant you are running two or three racks.

it is totally within the realm of possibilty that a B can run 100. that's 7 racks with 6 good breaks(he only needs to break "lucky" 2 or 3 times). i always felt the third rack was key. i think a B running 100 is close to amazing though.

 

[hobokenapa]

i always felt the third rack was key.

I'm a B player and that's certainly that's my experience. I've run two racks at least a dozen times (even back to back) in the last six months, but I've never run three full racks.