Daryl Peach on Efren Reyes...

[TheOne]

It would be very interesting. I'd love to see Ronnie,
Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Paul Hunter, and say
Mark Williams play 14.1 for a month and see what
some of the high runs would be. Frankly, I wouldn't
be surprised if more than one of them beat Mosconi's
record. Of course, they'd have no incentive at all
to do this, it would be like challenging the New
York Yankees to play in a local softball league,
it'll never happen.
As for 1 pocket, I think Steve Davis would be
great at it because he's such a great tactition.

Your right about Davis, 1 pocket would be his best pool game IMO. I dread to think what ronnie would get if he played straight pool for a month. A rolls royce cue action, perfect cue ball control, can pot balls of the light shade and an awesome break builder. 147 in front of the cameras in 5min 20secs with all that cash riding on it - breathtaking!

 

[Renegade]

On the UK 9-ball website I ran across this comment from Daryl Peach a year ago about Efren Reyes:

Q: "Who, in your opinion, was the greatest ever to pick up a cue (snooker, pool, whatever)?"

"Snooker: Ronnie O'Sullivan

Pool: Efren Reyes

Overall: Efren because I saw him play Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan 6 years ago, at snooker best of 5 for £100 each if I remember rightly: he beat both of them with his pool cue, and he made 3 centuries!! Now that's special."

Wow. Of course I've heard stories before about Efren playing different games, like the one about his 3-C game where he didn't think anyone in the world could beat him until he saw Ceulemans play. But if he really did beat White and O'Sullivan at snooker that really is something special.

I think a lot of the reaction to this post is misplaced. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, including Darryl Peach. Now if Darryl said he saw efren beat jimmy and ronnie, what reason would he have for lying? he just saw someone beat somebody at their own game and he thought it was special, like woods beating jordan in basketball. he didn't mean efren would beat them all the time. just that he beat them that one time it was already special. maybe it was a fluke, but special nonetheless. although the fact that he made 3Cs suggests otherwise. (imagine what he could do if he played snooker, or any other cue sport, exclusively?)

now about the insuation that efren can't be all that good at snooker because he didn't choose to play it professionally, well, efren was humble enough to admit (perhaps too humbly) that he wasn't good enough. poolbum goes on: "like the one about his 3-C game where he didn't think anyone in the world could beat him until he saw Ceulemans play". meaning, efren doesn't think he's the best in the world. he feels a lot of other players are better than him. he actually feels that he was in his prime during the 70s. but look at where he is still. his play may be in decline, but it's still enough for him to be the top money maker year in and year out, defeating all the best the pool world has to offer, and some very good snooker players on the side.

at the recently concluded 2nd leg of the asian 9ball tour where he beat yang in the finals, he said that yang had the best shot among all the players in that tournament, himself included. the breaks just didn't go yang's way. and this shows a lot of what efren thinks of the game.

 

[kidrock]

I think a lot of the reaction to this post is misplaced. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, including Darryl Peach. Now if Darryl said he saw efren beat jimmy and ronnie, what reason would he have for lying? he just saw someone beat somebody at their own game and he thought it was special, like woods beating jordan in basketball. he didn't mean efren would beat them all the time. just that he beat them that one time it was already special. maybe it was a fluke, but special nonetheless. although the fact that he made 3Cs suggests otherwise. (imagine what he could do if he played snooker, or any other cue sport, exclusively?)

now about the insuation that efren can't be all that good at snooker because he didn't choose to play it professionally, well, efren was humble enough to admit (perhaps too humbly) that he wasn't good enough. poolbum goes on: "like the one about his 3-C game where he didn't think anyone in the world could beat him until he saw Ceulemans play". meaning, efren doesn't think he's the best in the world. he feels a lot of other players are better than him. he actually feels that he was in his prime during the 70s. but look at where he is still. his play may be in decline, but it's still enough for him to be the top money maker year in and year out, defeating all the best the pool world has to offer, and some very good snooker players on the side.

at the recently concluded 2nd leg of the asian 9ball tour where he beat yang in the finals, he said that yang had the best shot among all the players in that tournament, himself included. the breaks just didn't go yang's way. and this shows a lot of what efren thinks of the game.

cheers very well said...

 

[PoolBum]

OIt would be very interesting. I'd love to see Ronnie,
Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Paul Hunter, and say
Mark Williams play 14.1 for a month and see what
some of the high runs would be. Frankly, I wouldn't
be surprised if more than one of them beat Mosconi's
record.

I'm just curious as to why you would day this? What is it about these snooker players that makes you think that they could actually play better straight pool (you actually didn't say they would be better straight-pool players, you said you wouldn't be surprised to see more then one of them break Mosconi's high-run record, but I'll take the liberty of assuming that means they'd at least be on a par with Mosconi at straight-pool) after just one month than someone who started the game at age five or so and is considered by many to be the greatest straight-pool player ever? When I say I'm curious I really mean that--do you think the top snooker players are somehow inherently more talented/skilled than the top pool players, or is it that these particular players just happen to be a crop of more talented players than a Mosconi, or what exactly?

 

[bruin70]

I'm just curious as to why you would day this? What is it about these snooker players that makes you think that they could actually play better straight pool (you actually didn't say they would be better straight-pool players, you said you wouldn't be surprised to see more then one of them break Mosconi's high-run record, ?

snooker is a game that most closely resembles 14.1. so while your best pool players would probably play "cowboy" 14.1, snooker players certainly have a head start when it comes to negotiating a crowded half table and massaging balls into position. and the fact that they play on a 12 foot table makes everything easier when they switch to a 9'er.

the sheer number of qualified snooker players makes it more of a likelyhood that they would be in the best position to run 500+. i don't think pocketing becomes an issue because pool players would pocket well, but snooker players would be "dumbing down" to a 14.1 game, where pool players would have to improve on certain aspects of their game to compete.

 

[Bobby]

snooker is a game that most closely resembles 14.1. so while your best pool players would probably play "cowboy" 14.1, snooker players certainly have a head start when it comes to negotiating a crowded half table and massaging balls into position. and the fact that they play on a 12 foot table makes everything easier when they switch to a 9'er.

the sheer number of qualified snooker players makes it more of a likelyhood that they would be in the best position to run 500+. i don't think pocketing becomes an issue because pool players would pocket well, but snooker players would be "dumbing down" to a 14.1 game, where pool players would have to improve on certain aspects of their game to compete.

Thanks for that reply to his question Bruin, that's
pretty much what I would have said. Another thing
that I think would make snooker pros good at 14.1 is
that they are very used to knocking object balls
off of the rails because they are hard to pocket on
a snooker table, this skill would come in handy when
there are two balls frozen or near frozen to a rail
in 14.1 but don't pocket anywhere.

 

[PoolBum]

snooker is a game that most closely resembles 14.1. so while your best pool players would probably play "cowboy" 14.1, snooker players certainly have a head start when it comes to negotiating a crowded half table and massaging balls into position. and the fact that they play on a 12 foot table makes everything easier when they switch to a 9'er.

the sheer number of qualified snooker players makes it more of a likelyhood that they would be in the best position to run 500+. i don't think pocketing becomes an issue because pool players would pocket well, but snooker players would be "dumbing down" to a 14.1 game, where pool players would have to improve on certain aspects of their game to compete.

I agree that among pool games snooker most closely resembles 14.1 in the type of skills necessary, but I'm still not sure why you think that the greatest snooker player could outperform the greatest straight-pool player with only one month's practice time? Do you think that an O'Sullivan could actually defeat a Mosconi with just one month of practice, or are you only claiming that the high-run record might be broken?

Mosconi was obviously an enormously gifted and talented cueist. He was a child prodigy, and he learned from one of the greatest ever in Greenleaf. Mosconi's game was pool, and in particular 14.1, not snooker. O'Sullivan's game is snooker. I haven't the slightest doubt that Mosconi would not defeat the greatest snooker player of all time, but I'm equally skeptical that the greatest snooker player could switch to 14.1 and defeat the greatest 14.1 player of all time in one month. Do you think that O'Sullivan himself is just that much more supremely talented than any of the greatest pool players ever that he could defeat them at their own game? If so, why?

 

[bruin70]

I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Do you think that O'Sullivan himself is just that much more supremely talented than any of the greatest pool players ever that he could defeat them at their own game? If so, why?

i don't know where the "one month" practice timeline came from.

i am of the belief the great champions are and were great no matter when they play. we(humans) don't really evolve that quickly enough that a few decades makes any difference.

and all champions have great heart.

i think o'sullivan would have to,,,build stamina to run all those balls(and maybe even keep from getting bored),,,complacency could kick in. and there is always the looming problem of a bad roll. i think a 14.1 player would have to rethink his safety play, and leave ronnie O absolutely zilch on the table.

how would he do against mosconi et.al? well, he's a champion,,,,but so are they. he would be playing on their tables, not the other way around. it's clear that the main and obvious advantage of a snooker player is his pocketing on a bigger table with smaller pockets. he doesn't have that adavntage in 14.1. and has o'sullivan sat for one or two hours watching someone run 200+ balls? in a head to head, i have to defer to the 14.1 players(they've done it!) until the a decent snooker player proves otherwise.

 

[PoolBum]

i don't know where the "one month" practice timeline came from.


The original responder said he'd like to see the snooker players "play 14.1 for a month to see what the high runs would be." Maybe I misunderstood and he was wondering what the result would be for the snooker players playing for one month after practicing for X amount of time beforehand.

I thought that perhaps he thought that O'Sullivan himself was that gifted, or that the game of snooker because of its nature would produce greater 14.1 players than 14.1 itself or pool has done.

 

[sjm]

If we're talking about running balls on a diamond pro, I'm of the opinion that if every pro snooker player in the world played nothing but straight pool every day for a month, not even one of them would run a 200 before that month was out.

I think the amount of knowledge required to run balls in straight pool is being taken pretty lightly in this thread. Straight pool is puzzle solving of the highest order, and cannot be mastered in a month anymore than chess can.

Now if Nick Varner gave 100 hours of straight pool lessons to each of the world's ten best snooker players, and then each of them played nothing but straight pool for a month on a diamond pro, then I'd say I could imagine that one of them might run a 300, but I'd STILL bet against it.

If we're playing on loose equipment, the whole subject is different. On loose equipment, had he cared to, my guess is that Mike Sigel could have run a 1,500, perhaps even a 2,000.

 

[TheOne]

To clear some things up I took it that we where talking about a "high run" only. I'm not sure that Ronnie would be able to actually "beat" Mosconi in a match as that is something different. The problems he would have with straight pool would be knowledge of caroms, combinations and banks. I'm assuming to make a run of 500+ even the likes of mosoni would have had to pull out a few "special" shots to keep the run going. I think Ronnie would rely almost soley on inch perfect positional play and his potting to keep the run going.

I have practised with two snooker players who used to be ranked in the top 10 in the world on a tournament standard (tight as hell) snooker table. I have also played Reyes and a few other Pro's on a 9 ball table. I have had about 10 two hour sessions (20 hours) of straight pool and I was a few balls from a 100 run twice. I am sure I would make 200 if I found a good table and played 8 hours a day for a month.

HOWEVER, I am by no means a Ronnie O, I have spent the best part of the last 10 years playing social snooker and 8 ball. My cueing is nowhere near what it used to be and is a million miles away from Ronnies. I am convinced that if Ronnie played nothing but straight pool for a month he would produce a HUGE high run and I wouldn't bet against him challenging Mosconi's record. It would make no difference to Ronnie osullivan what 9 ball table he played on because even the tighest pockets would look MASSIVE to him.

 

[DaveK]

I think the amount of knowledge required to run balls in straight pool is being taken pretty lightly in this thread. Straight pool is puzzle solving of the highest order, and cannot be mastered in a month anymore than chess can.

I'm curious about this comment. My straight pool knowledge is very low, but it would seem to me that straight pool and snooker both involve defensive breaks, developing balls out of a partial rack, and precise position play to execute long runs. One might even argue that position play in snooker is more difficult due to the limited number of colour balls to shoot every second shot. As such, snooker and straight pool would seem to be two of the most similar pocket billiards games. Consequently a top snooker pro might find the 14.1 puzzle quite familiar ?

Dave

 

[Williebetmore]

I agree with SJM. I think many posters are grossly underestimating the skill it takes to play straight pool at a high level. High runs depend a great deal on the type of equipment. Even Danny DiLiberto opined that the top 9-ball players would have difficulty running 100 balls on tight equipment. I have played probably 20 or 30 hours of straight pool on tight pocket tables with 3 different pro's (all who have been ranked #1 in the world at one time or another). The high run I've seen was 56 (of course I am probably dragging them down to my level). Pocketing the ball is not necessarily the problem, the amount of benefit from studying straight pool is immense.

I also think that many posters are just assuming that snooker players are somehow better at pocketing the balls than pool players. I think that is not true. The top pro's in pool are aiming the object ball at a target the same width as the object ball, if the pockets are tight or loose, the top pro's are still going to make the vast majority of shots that they take, because their target is the same. They have developed the precision to hit the object ball to a certain portion of the pocket. Good players are good because they have good strokes, and devote themselves to their particular game. I think it is ridiculous to think that snooker players are in some way better cueists just because they have smaller pockets on their tables.

 

[TheOne]

This is a bit like Ali v Tyson but all good fun!

Willie, I guess we have to define "cueing" but I cringe at some of the pool players technique, they just couldn't get away with what they do on a snooker table and consistenly pot balls. The distances are too great and the pockets are just way too tight. BUT this doesn't mean they don't have great timing and have great skills that most snooker players don't possess. Personally though, having played both and I have no doubt that a player like Ronnie would be able to get a much larger run than sjm has suggested (sorry sjm). Its interesting though that the non-snooker players tend to doubt Ronnies ability to make such a high run. I believe this as I think as other posters have noted straight pool requires many many similar skills to snooker and more than one element are in the snooker players advantage:

Potting: Easier (even tighest 9ball pockets are much looser than snooker)
Cue Ball Control: Easier (any ball, instead of color every second shot)
Breaking Pack: Easier as position on any ball
Concentration: Harder (run much longer than maximum 36 ball run in snooker)
Banks/Caroms: Harder (snooker players rarely play them)

I'm not sure how many of the "nay" sayers have actually seen Ronnie play, you have to remember that this guy is so special IMO that he beats the other best players in the world left handed! In a recent match against the former 6 times world champion Stephen Hendry he switched to left handed because he was frustrated and still won! I think Hendry is currently ranked number two in the world!

 

[Williebetmore]

This is a bit like Ali v Tyson but all good fun!

Willie, I guess we have to define "cueing" but I cringe at some of the pool players technique, they just couldn't get away with what they do on a snooker table and consistenly pot balls.

TheOne,
Agreed, all in fun. I was ONLY discussing the top professionals, I believe they could consistently pot balls. If they were playing snooker regularly perhaps they would change their technique (which is of course my point, we are comparing apples and oranges here). There are pro's who have developed their stroke to extreme levels of precision, but remember 9-ball is not necessarily the best way to find out who these people are (in the days of straight pool there were fewer unorthodox players, maybe for a reason). All of these players have developed their stroke and technique for the games that they play; and these games are very different. If you set up 100 long straight snooker or pool shots, I doubt there will be much difference between any of the top cueists (pool or snooker). Let them play their individual games and thats where the differences begin.

 

[PoolBum]

This is a bit like Ali v Tyson but all good fun!

Willie, I guess we have to define "cueing" but I cringe at some of the pool players technique, they just couldn't get away with what they do on a snooker table and consistenly pot balls. The distances are too great and the pockets are just way too tight. BUT this doesn't mean they don't have great timing and have great skills that most snooker players don't possess. Personally though, having played both and I have no doubt that a player like Ronnie would be able to get a much larger run than sjm has suggested (sorry sjm). Its interesting though that the non-snooker players tend to doubt Ronnies ability to make such a high run. I believe this as I think as other posters have noted straight pool requires many many similar skills to snooker and more than one element are in the snooker players advantage:

Potting: Easier (even tighest 9ball pockets are much looser than snooker)
Cue Ball Control: Easier (any ball, instead of color every second shot)
Breaking Pack: Easier as position on any ball
Concentration: Harder (run much longer than maximum 36 ball run in snooker)
Banks/Caroms: Harder (snooker players rarely play them)

I'm not sure how many of the "nay" sayers have actually seen Ronnie play, you have to remember that this guy is so special IMO that he beats the other best players in the world left handed! In a recent match against the former 6 times world champion Stephen Hendry he switched to left handed because he was frustrated and still won! I think Hendry is currently ranked number two in the world!

I agree with part of what you say above. Pocketing balls on a pool table is easier than potting balls on a snooker table, but there is so much more to an incredible high run in straight pool. You do mention the concentration factor, but you don't mention the amount of knowledge one must possess to go on such a huge run in straight pool. If you watch a great player like a Sigel go on a run of 100 or more, he invariably reaches certain points where his vast knowledge is crucial to continuing the run. I'm not talking about coming up with a great shot out of the stack or something like that, I'm talking about running the balls off properly so that you foresee the potential problems ahead of time and avoid them because of knowledge. I have no doubt that, were O'Sullivan to attempt all the particular shots and position plays that a Mosconi or a Sigel shoots in a huge run, that he is more than capable of making them all. What I am skeptical about is that he would, in such a short time, acquire the amount of knowledge that would be necessary to execute a high run of 500 or more--the knowledge that he would need to possess to run the balls in the same way that a Mosconi or a Sigel would. While I see the similarities between snooker and 14.1 that would be a boon to the snooker player attempting a 14.1 run, I don't think that all of the knowledge necessary to master the complexities involved in properly analyzing the table over the course of a run of 500 balls can be gained from snooker, or from playing 14.1 for such a short time. If O'Sullivan were to compete with a Sigel, or learn from someone like Sigel, over a longer period of time and come to possess that knowledge, then I think his cueing skills might produce such a high run, but I think it would take a longer time.

btw, my money would be on Ali to defeat Tyson just like he found a way to defeat Foreman.

 

[Kevin]

I'll chime in. I suppose I am a bit of an anomoly here, playing 14.1, 9-ball, and 1-pocket on 9-footers and way back when 8-ball on 8-footers/7-footers, now snooker a bit on 12-ft Riley's, and 2hrs a week I play 3-cushion on 10-ft heated Gabriels. I'm shooting for the well-rounded game award. Haven't yet met up with the Russian game shooting grapefruit-sized balls into grapefruit plus .2 inches game yet, but who knows, there is hope yet.

In Japan I get to watch Sky Sports, British Barry Hearn productions of Matchroom Sports snooker, World Pool Masters, etc. ESPN WPBA is too dumbed down, Accu-stats too dull for the masses, while Barry Hearn and Sid Waddel give flash presentation and interesting commentary.

Ronnie O'Sullivan is special, and not just because my name is Sullivan. He is streaky, hot, able to play both left and right handed with almost equal ease. Davis only plays one 9-ball tournament a year, the rest of the time snooker. He has said the snooker players and top US pocket pro's are the same folks, just different game, so he sees no huge pedestal to place himself upon.

That said, the skills in break-building snooker runs would stand him in good stead for straight pool.... but..... one thing not mentioned here yet is the congestion factor.

Take a 9-ft with 40.5 foot of playing surface, and the number of clusters that need dealing with when playing any game. Playing the same game on a 7-footer with balls and pockets the same size, with 16 less square feet to work with (24.5), now many more clusters and minute position errors can spell disaster for a high run. Now consider the 72 square feet of snooker table to play on, the freedom to stun the cueball several feet for perfect position, yes, and only 21 smaller balls to deal with. Some adaptation would be necessary, and learning some respect for the discipline.

I hesitate to mention how many good 9-ball players used to flying the cue ball around the table for area position think 14-1 looks "easy" when you tell them they can shoot any ball any time, then find poor shot selection or a fraction of an inch positional error in traffic can end their run. It's not so easy to adapt to minimizing cueball movement, subtle choice of cut versus spinning a ball in, minute draws and stuns, gently nudging balls into break position, etc. For really high scores, these skills and style of play make straight different from most other games.

BTW, a local mid-level Japan 3C pro rates Efren a 28 out of 25 innings in 3C, well below necessary for world-class play, but way strong for banking/kicking skills in pocket games. Why fly the cue ball when you can hit a specific side of the ball after 3 rails?