100% agree. Steve Davis, snooker world champion, agrees with you as well.
Alex runs 234
- Thread starter DTL
- Start date
100% agree. Steve Davis, snooker world champion, agrees with you as well.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Steve davis will parrot anything Barry Hearn tells him to. Another world champion, terry griffiths, tell 6 million viewers on live national TV 'pool is a game for girls'.
So who is right, Mr Anecdotal?
You may drop the steve davis mantra now, john. I've retired him for you.
Well since Steve Davis has the far better record, with multiple world titles, and since I don't believe that Steve was saying anything to appease Barry Hearn I go with Steve.
Terry Griffiths can get played an all around for a million dollars against Alex any day of the week if he thinks pool is so easy. IF he actually made that remark it shows not only his ignorance but also his sexist nature.
Ron Swanson
Banned
With the vast difference in true sponsor ADDED money in snooker tournaments worldwide compared to pool, I'd say there are a million reasons for the best pool players to play snooker if they could.
What reason would the best snooker players in the world have to concentrate on pool?
I never get why this is even an argument.
I am pool guy (I also play a little snooker)... but this... sorry very far from reality!
John,
Thanks for seeing the light & putting it in a bit better perspective.
So... were my comments as you stated they were?
Best Wishes.
And this is why I have picked him last month to win the US Open (even if he did get whooped by Kazakis)
Last edited:
Pool players have bigger balls. Period.
So you say....yet we have about the same number of 200 ball runs as we do 147s.
Just because you can't do something doesn't make it harder than something else you can't do.
Until a person who can do both speaks up it's all just amateur opinion anyway.
This has been discussed ad nauseum....generally the consensus at this point is that if a snooker player didn't start in diapers they really have little chance to get into the top ten.
I think that a top pool player WOULD have a chance but ONLY if the went full immersion for at least a few years.
Top snooker players have NO reason to focus on pool. The top pool players though make about as much as mid range snooker players. So if pool is sooooo easy then they can easily dominate all the pool tournaments and be the number one pool player instead of mid-level snooker players.
Anyway....... it's all just amateur opinion. Two different sports, similar but not the same. I am just winding up the snooker snobs on AZB.
That list is players in professional competition making a 147, whereas the other list I believe is any player who's ever made a 200 ball run or better in any capacity. If it were professional straight pool competition it would be three names. Or just one if you are counting strictly tournament play.
Tons of amateurs you've never heard of who've made a max in some capacity, be it competitive, solo practice or match practice. Not diminishing the feat in any way and it still could be equally difficult, just a matter of statistics. Far more frames of snooker played than straight pool, and it takes 8-10 minutes for a max vs an hour or more for a 200 ball run. Wish I knew what it was like to do either.
I think that there is a fundamental issue in that you have tens of thousands of tournament snooker matches where a 147 is possible vs. virtually no tournaments where running 200 is a possibility due to professional match length being largely 125 or 150 with only recently final matches being to 200.
So it's a fallacy to compare professional opportunities. BUT if as you say there are tons of unknowns who have done the 147 - which is literally 36 balls - then that points even more to it being "easier".
I am just tired of the snooker snobs diminishing pool accomplishments. Running 20+ racks in a row is a great feat that few can accomplish.
Actually I'm of the belief that a 200 ball run is harder on average. There are easier layouts for a max, whereas the only thing that make a 200 ball run 'easier' is polished balls, new cloth and bigger pockets.
I just mean that more frames means stastically means more chances for a 147.
Just between Cliff Thorburn and Willie Thorne they have well over 200 147s.
..personally, I value a 100 run at straight pool or snooker equally.
But at some point the discussion of high runs at each game becomes apples and oranges.
They are both great games, but different.
There is A LOT of pool players that can make 200 balls, that list is crap, I know 2 guys in my country that nobody knows outside it that have made it training (they play some Eurotours and never went further than last 32)...
The 14.1 list is a list with (alive) players that have made a >200 runout (each one probably has made several...), the snooker one is a list of all 147's, not players, if fact only 44 distinct players have made a 147... now add to your list how many unknown chinese and taiwanese players have made >200 balls training and at least you will x2 that list.
Also, official 14.1 matches are usually played to less than 200 points, so there is no chance...
Hardly anybody runs 200 balls anymore b/c straight pool isn't played much anymore .
Snooker on the other hand , is a million dollar sport .
If 200 is so tough, how did someone run 600?
Surely, nobody has done TWO 147's in one inning .
147 is an event . 200 in straight pool PRACTICE ? Not really imo.
I think Efren's 5 racks of 15-ball is tougher . I have not heard anyone else doing it .
Absolutely, I agree. I compiled some stats between the the world 14.1 championships and the world snooker championships, and the 100 per game/frame ratio was pretty close. I only looked at the last 32 in order to ensure I was primarily looking at top players. Straight pool had a slightly higher rate, but it was a much smaller sample size, I would guess it would even out if i was able to look at a similar amount of games.