People make this argument all the time, and really it's just crap. Snooker is to pool as tennis is to golf? Do you really think basketball and baseball have anywhere near as much in common as snooker and pool? It's a horrible argument and it drives me nuts! Watch some videos of Davis playing Strickland or Efren or snooker converts like Drago or Peach. Watch Mizerak win a couple of frames against Davis and White. They can do this because their is a significant overlap in the skill sets required for both games. They both use leather tips on wood cues hitting phenolic resin balls into six pockets on slate bed tables covered with cloth with rubber cushions, with the table twice as long as it is wide. They use the same principles to make one ball as they control the cue ball for position on the next.
A snooker player that has never even seen a 9ft pool table can get on it and play to a much, much higher standard than a beginner. There's so little overlap between tennis and golf that if Federer had never played the game he would be pretty lost. It's so obvious that it shouldn't have to be said but people make this comparison over and over again. I think a closer comparison (though this is too far on the other side favouring similarities) would be tennis played on different surfaces. It's rare that the best clay-courter will also be the best player on grass courts. The extent to which different players struggle to switch surfaces can vary drastically, but the same basic principles of tennis apply. This still isn't accurate but it's far closer than baseball and soccer or motor racing and water polo.
Ronnie would likely lose this match. He would not lose anything like Federer, Jordan or anyone else that has never made a living with a cue in their hand.
