Now you went and did it. That was a 2011 thread before the snooker snobs showed up. Now they will go post in it to piss on Alex's accomplishment.
Alex runs 234
- Thread starter DTL
- Start date
Now you went and did it. That was a 2011 thread before the snooker snobs showed up. Now they will go post in it to piss on Alex's accomplishment.
Anyways, am i the only one who doesn't rate alex?
And there's not a chance he's had a maxi - have any of you actually seen him play snooker?
Yes, I have. :grin:
Ron Swanson
Banned
Ron Swanson
Banned
Not just Alex's (and it would require some proof to believe it) - how is the much revered pool champion cory deuell getting on at snooker? Has he had a 50 break yet? Has he beaten anyone who's fully pubescent recently?
It was you who made a complete tit of yourself predicting big things from these two, wasn't it?
How to make a 147 - according to Willie Thorne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pTXsz8wyE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBc0iCmiBlw
Profile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEdBjqkwMKI
Last edited:
No I don't believe I predicted any such thing. I think I did say I like their chances IF they were to be fully immersed in snooker, which they were not.
How much more immersed could they have been?
They won national snooker titles here (Canadian and US respectively).
They went over there.
They trained there at Q School and elsewhere.
They competed there. Didn't qualify even against the others who were attempting to qualify. If they played against real pros it would have been a bloodbath.
My memory is fuzzy but I thought one of them (Alex) tried a second time, to boot.
To me immersed is moving to England and training snooker all their waking hours.
If Alex was born in the UK, started playing snooker at 6 years old he would be a top 16 / top 8 player no doubt. His mental game is very strong which i think would give him a huge advantage at snooker.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. He's clearly a very talented player, and when playing regularly is one of the best pool players in the world, IMO, but the standard at the top these days is so high - and there are so many good players below that level - that I wouldn't feel confident making that prediction about anybody.
There are people who played as well as (if not better than) Alex does now when they were children (like 10-11 years old), who may never crack the top 8 in the world. It's a brutally high standard.
Alex was one match away from getting his ticket....he finished eleventh (top 8 made it)
.....and Alex WAS one of those talented young kids...it just was't at snooker.
O'Sullivan and Hendry had 147s at ages 12 or13, but they wouldn't have finished 11th in
that qualifying field.
Jim Rempe was the pool player that had the most success in Britain...he won some money
and beat the current Scottish champion on his first trip over.
But like Alex, he went over in his middle 30s, and was not going to do as well as he did at
pool.
I'm sure Chris Melling was one of those talented kids, too. He's certainly a far better snooker player than Alex is now, and is unbelievably talented. He's never cracked the top 80.
It's not a slight to unsure about anybody making the top 8/16 in the world. Like I said before, it's an unbelievably high standard.
Not quite. Hendry didn't even start playing until that age, and I think O'Sullivan's was at 15.
A bit of an exaggeration, I doubt anyone in an under 13 event has a chance against Alex. But point taken, he wouldn't be the favorite to win the World U21 event if he falsified his birth records.
I was a bit disappointed that he didn't continue with the rest of last years season, he was losing 5-1 and 5-2 but I was seeing progress. He even had a century, which is even tougher to do against a pro. Don't get many opportunities against those guys, even the lower ranked ones.
You're quite right....Hendry didn't start playing til he was 12.
Ronnie had his first century at 10....his first 147 at the age of 15.
It was probably that century at the age of 10 brought to my attention...
....I was going over there a lot at the time.
Alex could play 9-ball with action-tough players when he was 15....
...when he was 16....many of them couldn't play with him.
Alex P and Corey D are stone cold champions. They know what kind of training efforts are required to excel.
Their intelligence and dedication was reflected in what they did. They did go there. They did train hard.
It's easy to suggest they didn't train hard enough, but that is insulting to them. Why? Because if they believed that they could "get there" by any means, they would have figured it out. If they thought they were close, they would have seen it through to an end. Did you really think two champions would make the significant decision to travel there and train, and then put in a lackluster effort? Is that your position?
Alex obviously thought he was close so he did try it a second time. He still didn't get there.
Maybe if Alex had seen your suggestion to train all his waking hours, he would have succeeded
Um, I talked to Corey for an hour and one of the subjects was whether he thought immersion would help. The answer was yes but cost prohibitive. Corey did win some money getting matched up in local rooms in London.Alex P and Corey D are stone cold champions. They know what kind of training efforts are required to excel.
Their intelligence and dedication was reflected in what they did. They did go there. They did train hard.
It's easy to suggest they didn't train hard enough, but that is insulting to them. Why? Because if they believed that they could "get there" by any means, they would have figured it out. If they thought they were close, they would have seen it through to an end. Did you really think two champions would make the significant decision to travel there and train, and then put in a lackluster effort? Is that your position?
Alex obviously thought he was close so he did try it a second time. He still didn't get there.
Maybe if Alex had seen your suggestion to train all his waking hours, he would have succeeded
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I know what a 147 is, but I don't fully know why people do it.
Obviously it is a nice feat (which is an understatement, obviously). But does it carry any more value in competition than winning the rack by running it out with the other colors instead of the black all the time? Just bragging rights? Do tournaments offer bonus incentives to do it?
If not, and it's only for style points or to thrill the crowd, I'd assume a competent snooker player would instead usually play the table in the most efficient way, and not go for it. Is that wrong?
And to second what JB said, yes I think Mosconi's high run would easily be broken if a prize were offered for it, if the same conditions (8 foot table, large pockets) were used. No doubt about it my mind, at least.
Obviously it is a nice feat (which is an understatement, obviously). But does it carry any more value in competition than winning the rack by running it out with the other colors instead of the black all the time? Just bragging rights? Do tournaments offer bonus incentives to do it?
If not, and it's only for style points or to thrill the crowd, I'd assume a competent snooker player would instead usually play the table in the most efficient way, and not go for it. Is that wrong?
And to second what JB said, yes I think Mosconi's high run would easily be broken if a prize were offered for it, if the same conditions (8 foot table, large pockets) were used. No doubt about it my mind, at least.
For a guy who probably doesn't play a lot of snooker, you have pretty good insight here.
73 is the most important run...that leaves only 67 points left on the table.
But most tournaments have a high run prize.
When John Spencer, a three-time world snooker champion, first met a young Cliff Thorburn,
it was mentioned that Cliff had seven 147s....John said to him " you must have played
the wrong shot a lot of times."
Sofla. It would be nice if you gave a report of your Open trip to NPR.....
....something different for the guys.
...'course, someone will ask who Barry voted for, but you can fade that
The pro tournaments have a prize for a max. But most 147s I've seen, the players don't really focus on getting it until they've made their 10th red. So the first 9-10 blacks usually come because it was the most logical choice or it wasn't too much of a risk to play for the black as opposed to playing an easier shot to get on the pink or blue. Once the frame is relatively safe they focus on it more.
Some exceptions to that where players have been hunting for the 147. I think it was last year Shaun Murphy came close a couple of times during a particular tournament before finally making it in what I believe was the final.
Without a prize for the max, you are right it's not really worth the risk unless the frame is already safe.
In past for £147,000 was the award for scoring 147. Now its been reduced to £5K.
From wiki:
In professional tournaments there was usually a substantial prize awarded to any player achieving a 147 break. For example, Ronnie O'Sullivan's maximum at the 1997 World Championship earned him £165,000. Of this, £147,000 was for making the 147 break and £18,000 was for achieving the highest break of the tournament.[97] This was however abolished in the 2010/2011 season. In the 2011/2012 season World Snooker introduced a roll-over system for the maximum break prize money.[98] A maximum break is worth £5,000 in the televised stages and £500 in qualifying stages of major ranking events. There is a £500 prize in the Players Tour Championship events from the last 128 onwards.[99] If a maximum is not made then the prize rolls over to the next event until somebody wins it.[98]