100 balls or 100 break?
- Thread starter hobokenapa
- Start date
hobokenapa said:
All I'm saying is that at his skill level at the
time he never should have run 104, his high run
before that was 59. He nearly doubled his high run
in one day! And I don't believe he ever came close
to that ever again.
High runs are not always an indicator of ones skill
level. At the time of the 104 run (about 7 yrs ago)
there were 4 or 5 of us that all played roughly at
the same level. But our high runs were all different,
his was 104, mine was about 60 another guy who was
probably the best of the bunch had a high run of only
47 but he would hit you with back to back 20's all
the time, most people were shocked when they found
out his high run was so low. Many players I know
seem to top out at about 50 or so and never go
beyond that even though they'll play regularly for
years. Of course, if a pro has a high run of 350
then it's pretty fair to say he's a great player.
Is anyone here actually made 100 in both games?
I have only played 14.1 few times and made break like ~40, but in snooker i have over 100 centuries.
If you give me 20 tryes in both games, i more likely make 100 in snooker than in 14.1. Thats because i know what to do in snooker table, things are differend in 14.1. There are alot of things you need to know in 14.1 before you can run that many balls. I find it hard to keep my consentration in 14.1 because i dont have clear picture of the table like i have in snooker. Thats the key point in both games i think, so for me its easier to run 100 in snooker than in 14.1.
But in the end, if you are skilled enough to make 100 in both games, easier is the one you see better.
Did that make any sense
(sry my english etc..)
I have only played 14.1 few times and made break like ~40, but in snooker i have over 100 centuries.
If you give me 20 tryes in both games, i more likely make 100 in snooker than in 14.1. Thats because i know what to do in snooker table, things are differend in 14.1. There are alot of things you need to know in 14.1 before you can run that many balls. I find it hard to keep my consentration in 14.1 because i dont have clear picture of the table like i have in snooker. Thats the key point in both games i think, so for me its easier to run 100 in snooker than in 14.1.
But in the end, if you are skilled enough to make 100 in both games, easier is the one you see better.
Did that make any sense
(sry my english etc..)
sjm said:
So would it then be fair to assume that Mizerak and Rempe were not able to achieve centuries on a regular basis, if at all ? That might provide some insight into the answer to this question ...
I'd venture to guess that these gentlemen would have become fine snooker players had they spent more time and effort on the game. But I surely understand why they wouldn't bother, going back to their traditional games instead. I admire them for giving it a go, that took courage given their position in the American pool world. It must have been quite humbling for them. On the other hand I would expect them to be have been treated very well, as snooker is a well recognized and respected activity in the UK, much moreso than pool in the USA.
Dave
Bobby said:
I didn't mean to totally twist your words though I did have an important point. Make no mistake of it, straight pool is still a shot-maker's game. You still need to shoot well if you intend to run balls. Yes, there are plenty of things that one would consider sloppy but it's still legitimate. Have you ever seen a professional straight pool tournament? I can tell you right now, many of the shots I saw played in the men's side of the U.S. Open 2000 were not "traditional". Efren Reyes IS NOT a straight pool player but he's still a great pool player and was able to muster a few victories.
Jude M. Rosenstock
Jude Rosenstock said:
Really? I thought it was a combination of shotmaking and positional play. When you see a top Straight Pool player, it is entirely positional play with all the balls in one half of the table. When you see a 9-ball player play Straight, it's shotmaking.
Bobby:All I'm saying is that at his skill level at the
time he never should have run 104, his high run
before that was 59. He nearly doubled his high run
in one day! And I don't believe he ever came close
to that ever again.
What's your high run in straight pool btw? is it more or less than this guys?
Bobby: High runs are not always an indicator of ones skill
level. At the time of the 104 run (about 7 yrs ago)
there were 4 or 5 of us that all played roughly at
the same level. But our high runs were all different,
his was 104, mine was about 60 another guy who was
probably the best of the bunch had a high run of only
47 but he would hit you with back to back 20's all
the time, most people were shocked when they found
out his high run was so low.
You answered my last question, your high run is lower than 104, just as I figured. As far as your logic in relation to his high run, my high run is over 200 balls. Doubt I'll ever see that that type of run again, but does that mean I'm a hack? I hope not. Back to back 20's usually don't get the job done when guys are running 60-70 balls on you. If your buddy's running 20's all day, he'd lose all day long where I play. That's simple 3rd grade math. Not picking on you, just stating a fact.
Bobby: Many players I know
seem to top out at about 50 or so and never go
beyond that even though they'll play regularly for
years. Of course, if a pro has a high run of 350
then it's pretty fair to say he's a great player.
That's great, but it doesn't discount the fact that the other guy ran triple digits, and you still can't say that. Why discount his accomplishment? Congratulate the guy and strive to get yourself a 104 ball or better run. Until then, he has brought his game to a place where you have not. Dismissing it as luck or a fluke is fine and dandy, but it happened.
What is more difficult? Well I have countless 100+ runs in straight pool and 2 century runs in snooker. I think that explains it from my perspective, yet I do not play snooker as often as I play straight pool. I'm sure that has more to do with it than anything. After playing on a snooker table for 3-4 hours, the pockets on the 9 foot Gold Crowns were like the Grand Canyon. Snooker is a completely different game than straight pool. It requires a different rhythm, different midset and a different strategy.
Also, Im not picking on Bobby. I see that attitude all of the time, everywhere. It usually happens when an dark horse wins a tournament, or upends a top notch player unexpectedly. People dismiss it as a fluke rather than seeing a player accomplishing a goal or reaching a milestone. A good measuring stick in straight pool skill would have to be the average balls per inning, not high runs.
time he never should have run 104, his high run
before that was 59. He nearly doubled his high run
in one day! And I don't believe he ever came close
to that ever again.
What's your high run in straight pool btw? is it more or less than this guys?
Bobby: High runs are not always an indicator of ones skill
level. At the time of the 104 run (about 7 yrs ago)
there were 4 or 5 of us that all played roughly at
the same level. But our high runs were all different,
his was 104, mine was about 60 another guy who was
probably the best of the bunch had a high run of only
47 but he would hit you with back to back 20's all
the time, most people were shocked when they found
out his high run was so low.
You answered my last question, your high run is lower than 104, just as I figured. As far as your logic in relation to his high run, my high run is over 200 balls. Doubt I'll ever see that that type of run again, but does that mean I'm a hack? I hope not. Back to back 20's usually don't get the job done when guys are running 60-70 balls on you. If your buddy's running 20's all day, he'd lose all day long where I play. That's simple 3rd grade math. Not picking on you, just stating a fact.
Bobby: Many players I know
seem to top out at about 50 or so and never go
beyond that even though they'll play regularly for
years. Of course, if a pro has a high run of 350
then it's pretty fair to say he's a great player.
That's great, but it doesn't discount the fact that the other guy ran triple digits, and you still can't say that. Why discount his accomplishment? Congratulate the guy and strive to get yourself a 104 ball or better run. Until then, he has brought his game to a place where you have not. Dismissing it as luck or a fluke is fine and dandy, but it happened.
What is more difficult? Well I have countless 100+ runs in straight pool and 2 century runs in snooker. I think that explains it from my perspective, yet I do not play snooker as often as I play straight pool. I'm sure that has more to do with it than anything. After playing on a snooker table for 3-4 hours, the pockets on the 9 foot Gold Crowns were like the Grand Canyon. Snooker is a completely different game than straight pool. It requires a different rhythm, different midset and a different strategy.
Also, Im not picking on Bobby. I see that attitude all of the time, everywhere. It usually happens when an dark horse wins a tournament, or upends a top notch player unexpectedly. People dismiss it as a fluke rather than seeing a player accomplishing a goal or reaching a milestone. A good measuring stick in straight pool skill would have to be the average balls per inning, not high runs.
Blackjack said:
My high run was 60 at the time, it's now 88. I wasn't
trying to put down his high run, I'm just saying
that it was odd occurance, he even admitted this
himself and often when asked what his high run was
wouldn't mention the 104. And we all congratulated
him on the run, he was playing a very good local
player and we all wanted to see him get 100.
I never said I was a great player. I said
previously that me and the 3 or 4 other players
including the guy with 104 run were about even and
that the high runs weren't indicative of our skill
level since they were all so far apart in number.
I never implied that back to back 20's were
good enough to beat guys like you said who could
run 70's, I just said that he was probably the
best of us "B" players.
And yes where I come from, NYC, there are many
100 ball runners and me and my friends were not
even close to being top dogs I never said that.
I just love the pool vs. snooker shop talk...
This discussion has to get more technical and detailed... Seems like a few people on this thread have done both century feats in 14.1 and snooker. Congratulations! Looking from the outside, as a player who cannot approach century-level play, it'd seem like snooker is generally more difficult just by the way this thread was phrased. If running 100 point break in snooker requires pocketing/potting under 30 balls (albeit in rotation), and that is in any way comparable to running 100 balls in 14.1, we'd have to say almost by definition, snooker centuries are harder.
Going further, I'd like to hear what specific skills each century-run requires. There is the issue of tougher equipment in snooker. Also, of course, in 14.1 one doesn't have to pocket balls in rotation as in snooker. But it also seems snooker patterns are more repetitious, since in 14.1 your patterns will vary more from rack to rack after the break shot. Am I correct?
Maybe I just love threads like this one because I'd wish I played more snooker. In New York City, however, snooker is not very big among other cue sports.
This discussion has to get more technical and detailed... Seems like a few people on this thread have done both century feats in 14.1 and snooker. Congratulations! Looking from the outside, as a player who cannot approach century-level play, it'd seem like snooker is generally more difficult just by the way this thread was phrased. If running 100 point break in snooker requires pocketing/potting under 30 balls (albeit in rotation), and that is in any way comparable to running 100 balls in 14.1, we'd have to say almost by definition, snooker centuries are harder.
Going further, I'd like to hear what specific skills each century-run requires. There is the issue of tougher equipment in snooker. Also, of course, in 14.1 one doesn't have to pocket balls in rotation as in snooker. But it also seems snooker patterns are more repetitious, since in 14.1 your patterns will vary more from rack to rack after the break shot. Am I correct?
Maybe I just love threads like this one because I'd wish I played more snooker. In New York City, however, snooker is not very big among other cue sports.
Well the differences between straight pool and snooker are fairly easy to figure out. Especially when talking about running a 100.
In snooker you need:
-Good straight stroke
-Ability to pot high colours from their spots with high accuracy, especially the black should never be missed from its spot.
In straight pool you need:
-Ability to read the rack, especially after each break shot
-Figuring out good patterns and using a lot of insurance balls etc.
In both games you don't need to move the cueball so much. I'd say running a century in snooker is easier, because you only need one good layout of the reds and with some confidence you can "roll them" in. In straight pool you need to know a lot of things before you can reach the 100 barrier. In snooker I'd say you only need good pocketing skills and nice position play will make it easier.
I've run 85 in 14.1 and 88 in snooker on a 12' table. And I have played a lot more pool than snooker.
My two cents...
In snooker you need:
-Good straight stroke
-Ability to pot high colours from their spots with high accuracy, especially the black should never be missed from its spot.
In straight pool you need:
-Ability to read the rack, especially after each break shot
-Figuring out good patterns and using a lot of insurance balls etc.
In both games you don't need to move the cueball so much. I'd say running a century in snooker is easier, because you only need one good layout of the reds and with some confidence you can "roll them" in. In straight pool you need to know a lot of things before you can reach the 100 barrier. In snooker I'd say you only need good pocketing skills and nice position play will make it easier.
I've run 85 in 14.1 and 88 in snooker on a 12' table. And I have played a lot more pool than snooker.
My two cents...
[\QUOTE]
I've run 85 in 14.1 and 88 in snooker on a 12' table. And I have played a lot more pool than snooker.
My two cents...[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your input, Mikko. Like I said, I really enjoy hearing from players with experience in both games. It just never ceases to amaze me how difficult 14.1 can be given that it isn't a rotational game. Thank again.
I've run 85 in 14.1 and 88 in snooker on a 12' table. And I have played a lot more pool than snooker.
My two cents...[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your input, Mikko. Like I said, I really enjoy hearing from players with experience in both games. It just never ceases to amaze me how difficult 14.1 can be given that it isn't a rotational game. Thank again.
It has to be 100pt run in snooker..Sure you could just play red then black a bunch of times times but what are the chances of that if you not a A level player or better..
Long position tight pockets make it tougher
Sure it seems easy to pocket balls playing straight but if you play the game alot of variables occur with open racks, break shots ect..
I think this is really a question of which is harder in baseball terms a perfect game( snooker) or a no hitter (Straight pool)... Both are equally hard but snooker has to be tougher...
Long position tight pockets make it tougher
Sure it seems easy to pocket balls playing straight but if you play the game alot of variables occur with open racks, break shots ect..
I think this is really a question of which is harder in baseball terms a perfect game( snooker) or a no hitter (Straight pool)... Both are equally hard but snooker has to be tougher...
lewdo26 said:
Where are the New York City snooker tables? The only place I know that has a couple of tables is Spin City in Queens. Any in Manhattan?
Great comments on this thread guys, keep 'em coming.
That's funny, hobokenapa. I've always asked myself that same question. Are these people crazy? With the immigrant population of this city, I'd bet there'd be more business for some good old 12 footers than what's available today. Anyway, Master Billiards has *one* snooker table and that is all I know. I've recently discovered the snooker tables at Spin. Don't know of any other place. Now, the continuation to your question is: Where does Raymund Fung play? Does he have a 12 footer in his own home? If so, is that the only place he practices in? Go figure.hobokenapa said:
Jude Rosenstock said:
jude,,,i'd have to disagree,,,,,,,,,,strongly. let's agree that pocketing balls is endemic to pocket pool......miss and you lose. but 14.1 is not a "shotmaker's" game in the same sense as say,,,9ball. 14.1 is all about the choices you make(as there are many on any given turn) and planning.
what you saw at a straight pool tournament are players brought up on rotation who play "9ball straight pool". and ultimately they rely on their shotmaking and creative playmaking to run racks. a good 14.1 game is all about logic, simplicity, and common sense, mixed with an infrequent shotmaking situation.
reyes is a great player, pure and simple, and that's what he uses to overcome his 14.1 shortcomings(and 95% of the time he's facing other players playing 9ball straight pool, anyway). SHORTCOMINGS!? who said that?...not me
personally, i would have loved to watch reyes's uniques vision of the game.
Last edited:
Blackjack said:
14.1 is unique to a someone who loves the game. and to that person, a great 14.1 game is also about HOW the run was made.
yes,,,the BOTTOM line in competitive pool is did you win,,,and you will win if your runs are better than your opponents.
however, to someone like ervolino, he'll blow off a high run if it's not done well, as would other afficionados of the game. to them,,14.1 is not all about numbers. there is an artistry in table management that's involved in 14.1. and yes,,,if he saw your high run(even if it was 300) and IF you were cowboying the whole game, he wouldn't give your high run a second thought.
besides no one's best game is THEIR GAME, which is all bobby was saying, imo.
No, bruin70. Slate is a joke. It doesn't even have pool tables, in the strictest sense of the word. Just a yuppy hangout, like many NYC billiards establishments. Carom Cafe is one of the most respected billiards venues here, for obvious reasons. Too bad it is so far.bruin70 said:
