Efren on Snooker

[onepocketchump]

Yes, all those people who thought 9-ball players play better snooker then snooker players are firmly put in their place! Score one for the good guys!

Um, I don't recall even one person saying, hinting, insinuating, or even jokingly saying that 9-ball players play better snooker than snooker players. I'll give all my v-bucks to the first person who accurately quotes a post on this forum where someone says that.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

Hahah I am really enjoying this. Yes I saw Parica firing balls in those tiny holes and running out. Do I think Parica would do well playing snooker in Europe? NO. I said that last joke because it seems that once someone mentions any pool player converting to snooker, it causes more of a commotion than someone desecrating the Koran in Saudi Arabia.

You guys really think that not one pool player alive (that wasn't a snooker player) is a ball pocketing genius that might, just might, be able to hang with the big boys in Europe? Anyone?

I do. Given a fair amount of time to adapt and learn the game as well as receiving the proper coaching I believe that a lot of top pool players could compete on the main tour and some of them would be top ten. Who? I don't know. Johhny, Mika, Rodney and so on.

You all like to throw up Jim Rempe as having tried it and found he couldn't compete. Do any of you know exactly what Rempe did to prepare? Did he practice for a week, a month, a year?

I asked POINT BLANK what the difference is and received NO real answer. Johhny Archer and others can pocket a ball on four inch pockets and move the cueball three rails to stop in an area the size of a nickel OVER AND OVER.
What leads you to believe that he couldn't compete at snoooker if he really TRIED to LEARN the game? I mean he definitely has world class pocketing and cue ball control abilities. Would he be able to practice a week and do any good? No chance. A month. A little better chance. A year? Well if he couldn't do it in a year then no one could. So far though, no one has tried as far as I know.

Would any of you care to back Ronnie O' Sullivan against Efren Reyes in One Pocket off level? How about with 10:8, which is more than Efren got from Ronnie? How about after a month to learn the game with a proper coach? How about after a year?

Now, there is no way to prove it but I sincerely believe that any player who consistently wins in the pro pool events - the big ones where everyone is there - could be a top twenty snooker player after a year's intense practice. I believe that the extraordinary talents like Johnny Archer could be top ten material.

Why? Because I sincerely believe that talent transcends conditions. The #80 snooker player will "never" be the world champion in pool because he is just not good enough at any billiard game to get there. Nor will he ever be the world champion at snooker. The world champioin pool player, on the other hand has a legitimate shot at the snooker world championships because he already has the talent needed with the only question being can he make the adjustment needed? That, to me, is the crux of the debate.

John

 

[Celtic]

Um, I don't recall even one person saying, hinting, insinuating, or even jokingly saying that 9-ball players play better snooker than snooker players. I'll give all my v-bucks to the first person who accurately quotes a post on this forum where someone says that.

John

The original post proves nothing more. You missed the sarcasm in my statement.

 

[trophycue]

I do. Given a fair amount of time to adapt and learn the game as well as receiving the proper coaching I believe that a lot of top pool players could compete on the main tour and some of them would be top ten. Who? I don't know. Johhny, Mika, Rodney and so on.

You all like to throw up Jim Rempe as having tried it and found he couldn't compete. Do any of you know exactly what Rempe did to prepare? Did he practice for a week, a month, a year?

I asked POINT BLANK what the difference is and received NO real answer. Johhny Archer and others can pocket a ball on four inch pockets and move the cueball three rails to stop in an area the size of a nickel OVER AND OVER.
What leads you to believe that he couldn't compete at snoooker if he really TRIED to LEARN the game? I mean he definitely has world class pocketing and cue ball control abilities. Would he be able to practice a week and do any good? No chance. A month. A little better chance. A year? Well if he couldn't do it in a year then no one could. So far though, no one has tried as far as I know.

Would any of you care to back Ronnie O' Sullivan against Efren Reyes in One Pocket off level? How about with 10:8, which is more than Efren got from Ronnie? How about after a month to learn the game with a proper coach? How about after a year?

Now, there is no way to prove it but I sincerely believe that any player who consistently wins in the pro pool events - the big ones where everyone is there - could be a top twenty snooker player after a year's intense practice. I believe that the extraordinary talents like Johnny Archer could be top ten material.

Why? Because I sincerely believe that talent transcends conditions. The #80 snooker player will "never" be the world champion in pool because he is just not good enough at any billiard game to get there. Nor will he ever be the world champion at snooker. The world champioin pool player, on the other hand has a legitimate shot at the snooker world championships because he already has the talent needed with the only question being can he make the adjustment needed? That, to me, is the crux of the debate.

John

King James , who i have great respect for..........had a 6x12 put in his house, and practiced every day for four yrs. I have a tape with Jay Helfert quoting those numbers........Rempe could not only not get in the top 10, he was not even in the top 100...........he was in his prime and the snooker feilds were much smaller and easier to qualify than today............those are the facts to the best of my knowledge

 

[bruin70]

King James , who i have great respect for..........had a 6x12 put in his house, and practiced every day for four yrs. I have a tape with Jay Helfert quoting those numbers........Rempe could not only not get in the top 10, he was not even in the top 100...........he was in his prime and the snooker feilds were much smaller and easier to qualify than today............those are the facts to the best of my knowledge

on the other hand, bill stroud will be putting a snooker table in his space once he clears out his equipment. he told me he ran 4 or 5 last balls short of 147, which would put him at about 120. pretty good for someone in his 60-70's.

personally, i don't think four years is enough considering all that rempe had to "unlearn". there are youngsters trained properly from the day they picked up a cue, who have four years under their belt by the time they're 16. so rather than something they learned, snooker was something they "lived". there's a big difference, i think.

 

[Gerald]

I'm fed up with those stories about what an onlooker saw someone somewhere do on a snooker table.

If he can really do it let him go to a snooker tourney and do it, it doesn't get any simpler than that.

There are many people who can confirm Parica's pocketing ability on "Big Bertha". I have never seen anyone else fire balls into the pockets on that table and I mean FIRE! Why should this bug you so much? Isn't there a snooker forum for you to hang out at?

 

[TheOne]

I do. Given a fair amount of time to adapt and learn the game as well as receiving the proper coaching I believe that a lot of top pool players could compete on the main tour and some of them would be top ten. Who? I don't know. Johhny, Mika, Rodney and so on.

You all like to throw up Jim Rempe as having tried it and found he couldn't compete. Do any of you know exactly what Rempe did to prepare? Did he practice for a week, a month, a year?

I asked POINT BLANK what the difference is and received NO real answer. Johhny Archer and others can pocket a ball on four inch pockets and move the cueball three rails to stop in an area the size of a nickel OVER AND OVER.
What leads you to believe that he couldn't compete at snoooker if he really TRIED to LEARN the game? I mean he definitely has world class pocketing and cue ball control abilities. Would he be able to practice a week and do any good? No chance. A month. A little better chance. A year? Well if he couldn't do it in a year then no one could. So far though, no one has tried as far as I know.

Would any of you care to back Ronnie O' Sullivan against Efren Reyes in One Pocket off level? How about with 10:8, which is more than Efren got from Ronnie? How about after a month to learn the game with a proper coach? How about after a year?

Now, there is no way to prove it but I sincerely believe that any player who consistently wins in the pro pool events - the big ones where everyone is there - could be a top twenty snooker player after a year's intense practice. I believe that the extraordinary talents like Johnny Archer could be top ten material.

Why? Because I sincerely believe that talent transcends conditions. The #80 snooker player will "never" be the world champion in pool because he is just not good enough at any billiard game to get there. Nor will he ever be the world champion at snooker. The world champioin pool player, on the other hand has a legitimate shot at the snooker world championships because he already has the talent needed with the only question being can he make the adjustment needed? That, to me, is the crux of the debate.

John

John, I understand what youre saying I really do but don't be offended if I say you do sound like you haven't seen much snooker. That sounds bad but I don't mean it too honestly. Colin sums it up best a number of times in the other thread. The barriers of entry nowadays are just to high for anyone in their late teens to make it never mind players in their twenties and 30's. All the players that you mention are great players but I'm not joking when I say there are probably 500 snooker players who are better players than they could ever be who don't even bother trying to make it as a pro. There's a whole pile of "failed" snooker players in the UK who years ago would have been stars. Like Colin said the main reason for this is 20 years of TV exposure and large prize money.

For example, Ive mentioned him before but take Mike Hallet. A house hold name 10 years ago when he was ranked number 6 in the world. He made more than a million pounds in prize money (almost 2 million dollars) alone. Now he has struggled to break into the top 100 players in the world for quite a few years now. So my point is if a top player like him, with probably 30 years of experience and knowledge in the game, one of the most talented on the practice table can't even break into the top 100 then do you really think a pool player can? Snooker is a young mans game, maybe its just a keen eye thing, I don't know, but the amount of young guns around today make it a cut throat business where only the true greats will succeed.

That doesn't mean that a Johny Archer or whoever couldn't have been a Pro snooker player if somebody had bought him a snooker cue for Christmas 20 years ago instead of a pool cue though

 

[bogey54311]

straight pool

in 1996 efren played in his FIRST straight pool tourney.
(spotshots in maine).
monster field.
he had never played before............

the results??

highest run of the tourney(130 something)

won the tourney.

people said he didnt even know some of the rules and he learned the rules and saftey shots as he played.

if that doesnt tell you on how fast this guy can learn a game, well......

if he did play snooker, he would be a world beater, just like he is in every other pool game.

my 2 cents.

chris

 

[Fred Agnir]

Um, I don't recall even one person saying, hinting, insinuating, or even jokingly saying that 9-ball players play better snooker than snooker players. I'll give all my v-bucks to the first person who accurately quotes a post on this forum where someone says that.

John

He was joking about the twist of arguments.

Fred

 

[Snapshot9]

Forcing the issue ...

all this Snooker vs. Pool thing is an exercise in futility. Why is
everyone getting so emotional and agumentative over this?
Who, in the hell, cares? A Pool player doesn't have to prove
that he might be able to play good snooker to anyone. Neither
does a Snooker player, unless he wants to. Ronnie must be a
smart man to play so well, and he will probably be a good pool
player, just how good remains to be seen. Potting balls isn't
all that Pool is about, many many other things come into
Playing Pool.

This is like arguing handball player vs. racquetball player.
or Cricket player vs. baseball player.

Why don't we just all wait, and see how he does? But, I don't
think there is any reason 'to strike fear in the hearts of every
Pool player alive' at this time ... or that 'the second coming' is
about a Snooker Player that is going to Play Pool.

Get a grip ...

 

[Colin Colenso]

all this Snooker vs. Pool thing is an exercise in futility. Why is
everyone getting so emotional and agumentative over this?
Who, in the hell, cares? A Pool player doesn't have to prove
that he might be able to play good snooker to anyone. Neither
does a Snooker player, unless he wants to. Ronnie must be a
smart man to play so well, and he will probably be a good pool
player, just how good remains to be seen. Potting balls isn't
all that Pool is about, many many other things come into
Playing Pool.

This is like arguing handball player vs. racquetball player.
or Cricket player vs. baseball player.

Why don't we just all wait, and see how he does? But, I don't
think there is any reason 'to strike fear in the hearts of every
Pool player alive' at this time ... or that 'the second coming' is
about a Snooker Player that is going to Play Pool.

Get a grip ...

I don't sense a lot of hostility here. Perhaps the occassional misunderstanding and an odor of us v them. But where would sports be without that.

If we could set up some real testable challenge that somehow pits snooker players against pool players. I would like to see it happen and I'd like to get some money on it, because I think the quality and depth of pro-snooker players is underestimated by many pool fans.

A bit of gambling on 'that I know better than you' is a central aspect of cue games and all sports. Highly enjoyble if you pick your bets wisely

 

[The Kid]

I think snooker players have better fundamentals.
So when they switch to pool they are already ahead of the game, just look who's winning the WPBA events.

It is not the case if a pool player switches to snooker, with their fundamentals and the fact that they are used to cheating pockets etc., they have no chance to become a pro snooker player.

Just look at Tony Drago hadn't been playing pool for long, he finished 3rd in the World Pool Championships and then goes on to win the World Pool Masters.

 

[wahcheck]

snooker and pool

Just to throw my 2 cents worth into this .... I remember thinking that when Allison Fisher first appeared to dominate women's pool in the USA, and then later Karen Corr, I thought it was because they were snooker players adjusting to an easier game.....

By the same token... whenever I practice on smaller or tighter pockets to prepare for competition, I feel it really helps when I am about to play on bigger pockets....

 

[Bobby]

I don't sense a lot of hostility here. Perhaps the occassional misunderstanding and an odor of us v them. But where would sports be without that.

If we could set up some real testable challenge that somehow pits snooker players against pool players. I would like to see it happen and I'd like to get some money on it, because I think the quality and depth of pro-snooker players is underestimated by many pool fans.

A bit of gambling on 'that I know better than you' is a central aspect of cue games and all sports. Highly enjoyble if you pick your bets wisely

I would also love to see some kind of test between
snooker and pool players. Lets say we take 5 top
players from each discipline, lets say Ronnie
O'Sullivan, Stephen Hendry, Mark Williams, John
Higgins and Peter Ebdon. The pool players could be
Earl Strickland, Johnny Archer, Efren Reyes,
Fransisco Bustamante, and Thorsten Hohmann or any
other 5 top players. have them play a series of
matches where every snooker player plays every pool
player in both snooker (race to 5) and 9-ball race
to 11 (or any pool game: 8-ball, 14.1 etc). So each
player will have played 10 matches in total.
I'll wager my entire bank account that the snooker
players come out on top by a clear margin.

 

[bruin70]

I don't sense a lot of hostility here. Perhaps the occassional misunderstanding and an odor of us v them. But where would sports be without that.

If we could set up some real testable challenge that somehow pits snooker players against pool players. I would like to see it happen

the only caveat to this test,,,,in order to be fair to the pool players, would be to play on a pool table. clearly, any game on a snooker table would be a lopsided affair. anything wherein the pockets are set smaller than what pool players are used to would be advantageous to the snooker player.

OR,,,,,,,,,,,,you could have both play 3C against each other in an even odds match.

OR,,,,,,,,,,,,a match played with pool balls on a snooker sized table with simonis and pool tournament sized pockets........i can certainly see this as do-able

a match of snooker and ,,,any pool game is ultimately lopsided as well. the snooker players will win ALL their snooker games and take some pool games. i think we all agree that pool players have zero chance in snooker.

 

[wayne]

I would also love to see some kind of test between
snooker and pool players. Lets say we take 5 top
players from each discipline, lets say Ronnie
O'Sullivan, Stephen Hendry, Mark Williams, John
Higgins and Peter Ebdon. The pool players could be
Earl Strickland, Johnny Archer, Efren Reyes,
Fransisco Bustamante, and Thorsten Hohmann or any
other 5 top players. have them play a series of
matches where every snooker player plays every pool
player in both snooker (race to 5) and 9-ball race
to 11 (or any pool game: 8-ball, 14.1 etc). So each
player will have played 10 matches in total.
I'll wager my entire bank account that the snooker
players come out on top by a clear margin.

A fair game might be 5 complete games of snooker and 5 games of straight pool to 150, then compare the margins of victory. (For e.g. if the snooker player wins the snooker match by 70 points and the poolplayer wins the straight pool by 150-70, then the poolplayer would be ahead by 10 points. Total it up after 5 games each and then 5 players each and you have a winner.

If you bet your entire bank account on this game I may take you up on your 10 pound bet.

A race in 9 ball or 8 ball would not prove anything because there is too much luck involved in a short race and a good player can upset a much better player every once in awhile. The only way to make it fair would be to handicap the matches. Give Efren 25 points in snooker and he gives the 7 out in pool and I like his chances.

Wayne

 

[pinkisntwell]

A fair game might be 5 complete games of snooker and 5 games of straight pool to 150, then compare the margins of victory. (For e.g. if the snooker player wins the snooker match by 70 points and the poolplayer wins the straight pool by 150-70, then the poolplayer would be ahead by 10 points.

That's apples and oranges. Club players can run 100 balls in straight pool. I doubt there are club players who can do century breaks (consistently) in snooker on championship tables.

The fair would be race to 5 snooker, race to 10 9ball or something like that. No counting games (frames) no nothing. Just sets. Whoever wins most sets wins the match. Given that the top 5 in snooker have a very very very slim chance of dropping any of the snooker sets, I think nobody would take this bet.

 

[mjantti]

I think snooker players have better fundamentals.
So when they switch to pool they are already ahead of the game, just look who's winning the WPBA events.

It is not the case if a pool player switches to snooker, with their fundamentals and the fact that they are used to cheating pockets etc., they have no chance to become a pro snooker player.

Just look at Tony Drago hadn't been playing pool for long, he finished 3rd in the World Pool Championships and then goes on to win the World Pool Masters.

What Tony had said is that he has been playing and practising 9-ball many years already. I think Tony has put a lot of effort in 9-ball and it pays off. He's also a great player on snooker table and that helps of course. And Tony is usually quite relaxed during matches in both pool and snooker which IMHO helps a lot in pool tournaments.

You can compare pool players and snooker players but getting reasonable arguments and reasonable and not-so-passionate counter-arguments seem to be difficult here.

If you ask me there are few things about pool player and snooker players overall, certain individuals are of course excluded: (Just my opinions)

-Top pool players could not compete among top snooker players in snooker
-Top snooker players have a better chance of succeeding in pool than vice versa
-Snooker players have more accurate strokes but usually lack smoothness.
-Pool players spin the ball better just because they use a lot more spin than snooker players. (This isn't always a good thing btw)
-Because the cloth (nap) is different, poolplayers use much more slow spinning shots, "drag" shots and slow sidespin shots.
-Snooker players are better at "stunning" balls. This usually means shooting along the vertical axis of the ball. Pool players are better shooting along the horizontal axis of the ball.

Yes, you might have different opinions but wouldn't it be nice to have a mature argument for a change ?


EDIT: just to say, I know something I'm talking about. There are top European players in my club both in pool and snooker so I have a good view on both disciplines. And if this matters, my high run in 14.1 is 85 and in snooker (12') with relatively tight pockets 88. And no, I have never practised snooker. Playing both pool and snooker gets my stroke all mixed up... it's like creating knots in my brain or having my brain contradicting with my arms all the time

 

[wayne]

That's apples and oranges. Club players can run 100 balls in straight pool. I doubt there are club players who can do century breaks (consistently) in snooker on championship tables.

The fair would be race to 5 snooker, race to 10 9ball or something like that. No counting games (frames) no nothing. Just sets. Whoever wins most sets wins the match. Given that the top 5 in snooker have a very very very slim chance of dropping any of the snooker sets, I think nobody would take this bet.

Talk about apples and oranges. How is this fair? You are comparing races in snooker where it probably takes 5 to 10 years minimum for a great potential player to become great. In 9 ball it may take a year for a great potential player to become great. So the 9 ball players who could potentially be great snooker players need 5 to 10 years to develop, whereas, the snooker players with great pool potential could become great in 1 year. It's like a comparison of backgammon and chess, the best backgammon player would have no chance in chess unless he took many years to master it but the great chess player could probably master backgammon in short order. Different disciplines with different learning curves.

Now if you go to the more complex games like Rotation, 1-pocket or banks and you would have a much different comparison. I would stake some money on the best pool bankers challenging the best snooker bankers on both tables, I know who would win this. Or let some snooker players take a year to learn 1-pocket or Rotation and let them challenge Efren and see how they do.

9-ball is just too easy to learn to think of it as a comparable challenge. There are probably 1000 9 ball players in the U.S. that could beat the best poolplayers in England on any given day.

Wayne

 

[bruin70]

What.................. Playing both pool and snooker gets my stroke all mixed up... it's like creating knots in my brain or having my brain contradicting with my arms all the time

you ain't a'kiddin'!!! i'm so off when i play snooker, that in order to address the cb properly, i end up using a retarded, jerky poke of a stroke. so really, the only benefit i get out of playing snooker is that the pool table looks small.