Could Ronnie O'sullivan do it

[realkingcobra]

i totally agree guys, i'm not totally serious. But I feel that some of you are seeing this the wrong way.
It's always been about taking someone out of their element, which i tried to dispel at the start. Instead of taking the guy out of his comfort zone keep him there and let him do his thing.

and again, let's not totally merge the two styles and table size. Do you think that running a hundred on a bar box is easier or harder? I'm sure you won't play the same way. I think Ronnie could put up some serious numbers given time (and again, not much) playing with just the reds on a snooker table.

Or at least let's say he's the only one i would put up to the task.

Playing on a pool table, a 9ft table at that, with 2 1/4" balls instead of 2 1/16th snooker balls is a big adjustment between the two different types of games. Cue ball control on a pool table is way different than cue ball control on a snooker table, hell, even the cloth plays night and day different, as well as the pockets. I have no doubt Ronnie could run a 100 balls on a 9ft pool table....with 6 months practice. But to run a hundred reds on a 12 ft snooker table, not a chance. You're not taking into consideration the break shots required to continue from one rack to the next....and when Ronnie runs a 147 playing snooker, that's a SINGLE rack, starting out with a predetermined....perfect break. And I do mean PERFECT break, because if it's not dead perfect, he's not going to get a 147 run. Now that I've pointed that out, how many 147 point break and runs in a ROW has Ronnie performed?....because that's what it's going to take, 37 of them perfect breaks....only 37 times from all different positions all over that 6'×12' snooker table:grin:

 

[pt109]

I would bet everything I had that Ronnie would run 100 balls on a pool table within 1 week.

I don't think we disagree here...
...I think Ronnie could run a hundred on a pool table also ....within hours.
The original poster was talking about a 6x12 snooker table......
...that's 100 balls playing straight pool.

 

[hang-the-9]

I don't think we disagree here...
...I think Ronnie could run a hundred on a pool table also ....within hours.
The original poster was talking about a 6x12 snooker table......
...that's 100 balls playing straight pool.

Actually the original poster said he thought that Ronnie could run not 100 but 527 balls in 14.1 on a snooker table.

"Snooker table, with just 15 red balls, could Ronnie beat the 527?
I think that he could and I don't think it will take him long also, i'm talking within a week. "

 

[pt109]

Actually the original poster said he thought that Ronnie could run not 100 but 527 balls in 14.1 on a snooker table.

"Snooker table, with just 15 red balls, could Ronnie beat the 527?
I think that he could and I don't think it will take him long also, i'm talking within a week. "

Yeah, I know he said 527....but that is ridiculous.
I'm saying he can't run 100 in a week......that is straight pool on a snooker table...
....in case I'm quoted out of context.

 

[one stroke]

I'd put several thousand of my money on him NOT doing it in a week. Or a month. Or 3 months.

I'd be comfy betting a 100 he could not get through 3 full racks on a snooker table in a week.

This shows the post of a fan not something thinking clearly.

I would give you odds he could run 3 racks in a week in fact I doubt it would take him a day


1

 

[HawaiianEye]

Yeah, I know he said 527....but that is ridiculous.
I'm saying he can't run 100 in a week......that is straight pool on a snooker table...
....in case I'm quoted out of context.

I'm with you. He ain't running 100 on a 6 x 12 English snooker table in a week or maybe even longer than that, but I know damn well he isn't EVER going to run 527 on one.

 

[realkingcobra]

I don't think it's even possible to run a 100 with 2 1/4" balls on a 6'×12' snooker table, the balls alone are almost 1/4" bigger, but the pockets are the same size as for the 2 1/16th snooker balls. To successfully break out the rack, break shots are going to have to be shot harder than playing snooker because of the weight difference of all the balls and trying to get them to move while breaking them out and NOT rattle the the break ball....come on. Straight pool on a snooker table is not like playing 9 or 8 ball.

 

[THE MONTREALER]

John Spencer, 3 time world snooker champ, ran 150 on the Miz at straight pool.
Cliff Thorburn, 1980 world snooker champ, is the best pool player of all the snooker champs.....IMO.

But to run a hundred balls on a world class snooker table would be a feat that surpasses
Willie's 526.

HI My father Dick Ponzie ran 130 balls on a Snooker Table 6 ft by 12 ft table

The game was Black Ball where you spot the Black Ball on the
Blue Spot.

The game is you play on your player once ball is made you are allowed to make 3 black balls on the spot

When you make 3 black balls you have to shoot on a colour ball and
then you are allowed to make 3 black balls on the spot

AT the time there was 6 players playing Black Ball

My father made 75 black balls and 55 colours

By the way this was played at the Mount Royal Snooker Club back in the Seventys where all the best players in Canada played there

Cheers Leonard Ponzie

 

[one stroke]

I don't think it's even possible to run a 100 with 2 1/4" balls on a 6'×12' snooker table, the balls alone are almost 1/4" bigger, but the pockets are the same size as for the 2 1/16th snooker balls. To successfully break out the rack, break shots are going to have to be shot harder than playing snooker because of the weight difference of all the balls and trying to get them to move while breaking them out and NOT rattle the the break ball....come on. Straight pool on a snooker table is not like playing 9 or 8 ball.

The length of the table is irrelevant and the width is a advantage I doubt he would bust into the rack hard that would force balls to the rails not where you want them to be on a snooker table , he is a master of working in tight quarters with cue ball controll second to none,
I don't think 100 is a impossible number

9

 

[Johnson]

On a 10 foot snooker table maybe or even more likely on a 9 foot table he is an absolute beast when in dead punch. He shoots balls near the rails in better than anyone else but that would be dozens of shots like that to run over 500 which would be very very tough to do.

 

[realkingcobra]

The length of the table is irrelevant and the width is a advantage I doubt he would bust into the rack hard that would force balls to the rails not where you want them to be on a snooker table , he is a master of working in tight quarters with cue ball controll second to none,
I don't think 100 is a impossible number

9

Believe what you want, breaking that rack out and always having a shot is not all that easy with 2 1/4" balls on a snooker table:thumbup:

 

[pt109]

HI My father Dick Ponzie ran 130 balls on a Snooker Table 6 ft by 12 ft table

The game was Black Ball where you spot the Black Ball on the
Blue Spot.

The game is you play on your player once ball is made you are allowed to make 3 black balls on the spot

When you make 3 black balls you have to shoot on a colour ball and
then you are allowed to make 3 black balls on the spot

AT the time there was 6 players playing Black Ball

My father made 75 black balls and 55 colours

By the way this was played at the Mount Royal Snooker Club back in the Seventys where all the best players in Canada played there

Cheers Leonard Ponzie

Your father was a fine player, Leonard.....
..but playing straight on a snooker table would be much more difficult....
...you have to break14 balls every rack...and get a shot.

I've seen 150 blacks ran off the spot....I've seen monster runs at wild pink both sides of
the border....but running racks of straight pool is much tougher.

 

[spartan]

Why even jump 2 dimensions ? From snooker to 14.1 . And from pool table to snooker table. That is tough ask. Ronnie maybe super but he is not God ( ok maybe he is)
If we are pivoting to Ronnie breaking Mosconi record let us be fair and let Ronnie do it on pool table. Now that is much easier. Can he do it? IMHO yes but not in such a short time - I would give him 3 months to 1 year and he can do it .
14.1 is closer to snooker than 9 ball is to snooker so yes if anyone can do it it is Ronnie. Not 14.1 on snooker table but on pool table. Oh and 9 footers not baby child's play 7 footers LOLOLOL

:wink:

 

[7forlife]

Everyone agrees that running 527 is insane, no question there but I still say that keeping "this guy" within his element and using the power of imagination to go back in time I think this man with nothing else to practice for and in his prime could put up staggering numbers. Looks at some of his matches when he's in dead punch and showing off how he hammers the balls into the pocket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98wtcD9cx88

 

[Ron Swanson]

One thing people tend to forget about O'Sullivan: he misses.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Hey, man I know I'm no pro, hell I'm probably in the bottom 50% of the active posters here, with the APA 5's (guessing). But you need to realize that Willie Mosconis world record was set in 1954, and nobody's been able to beat it ON A POOL TABLE. What does that tell you? Even if you smash break the rack every time (shoot an 8 ball breakshot instead of straight pool), making a 100 ballls on a snooker table is a great achievement. I only brought my runs up to illustrate the difference in difficulty between the two games. I don't think too many people were impressed, lol! Several people here have ran over 200!

I'm sure Ronnie would make a straight pool 100 easily even on a tight match table, maybe 200 too. But you see with every ball pocketed there is a chance for a skid, a bad roll etc and on an unforgiving snooker table that factor is multiplied many times over. You need luck as well as skill to run that many balls. There is no telling what Ronnie could do, given enough time..but a week, come on!

Breaking the 527 on a snooker table in a week is complete insanity. It's so crazy even Ronnie O'Sullivan couldn't do it, and I'm his biggest fan.

Bottom 50%?

These people are mere americans!

 

[greekdeal]

I stand corrected. With only the 15 reds it's tough. I would say impossible. In the game of snooker the colors give you a perfect breakball near the rack, and security ball when breaking the pack. Without them you'll need to develop them and every ball near the cushion would be the end. Gotta agree it's impossible. Would like to see him on a 9 footer, tho.

 

[SilverCue]

Why even jump 2 dimensions ? From snooker to 14.1 . And from pool table to snooker table. That is tough ask. Ronnie maybe super but he is not God ( ok maybe he is)
If we are pivoting to Ronnie breaking Mosconi record let us be fair and let Ronnie do it on pool table. Now that is much easier. Can he do it? IMHO yes but not in such a short time - I would give him 3 months to 1 year and he can do it .
14.1 is closer to snooker than 9 ball is to snooker so yes if anyone can do it it is Ronnie. Not 14.1 on snooker table but on pool table. Oh and 9 footers not baby child's play 7 footers LOLOLOL

:wink:

I think Mosconi's record was set on an 8' with 5 1/2" pockets.

 

[Dan White]

I think Mosconi's record was set on an 8' with 5 1/2" pockets.

There is a very long thread somewhere on this. There's a lot of disagreement regarding how loose the pockets were. Even people who said they played on the exact table disagreed on how the pockets played.

Of course then there's the people who actually saw Mosconi play. Those are the ones who say the pocket size doesn't matter because every shot was an easy one!

 

[7forlife]

what if we once aging change the rules and then take current Ronnie.
What do you think he can accomplish being allowed to play full out snooker style and rules except that he has to leave a break ball and is allowed to continue his run?