Higher skill pocket billiards players - 9 ball or snooker players?

C

Cleveland_Rocks

New member
Here is Anthropic Claude's answer for who would play better in high level competition between 9 ball players and snooker players. Do you have a reason to disagree? Also, is this effect another example of the usual "its easier to go from a 9 footer to a bar table than from a bar table to a 9 footer" argument? And what does this mean for our American, European, and Asian 9 top 9 ball players? Should we be watching more snooker?

"
can the best american, european, and filipino 9 ball players beat the best snooker players at snooker and vice versa
3:24 PM





Synthesized cross-discipline cue sports dynamics and skill transferability patterns

Synthesized cross-discipline cue sports dynamics and skill transferability patterns

This is a great cue sports question, and the short answer is: the crossover is very asymmetric. Snooker players have a much easier time competing at pool than pool players do at snooker. Here's why:

Snooker Players Playing 9-Ball​

Top snooker players can be genuinely competitive at 9-ball relatively quickly. The snooker table is 12 feet long with notoriously tight pockets and smaller balls, so snooker players already possess extreme cueing precision and positional awareness. Moving to a 9-foot pool table with larger pockets feels comparatively forgiving to them.

Notable examples: Steve Davis won multiple pool world championships after his snooker career peaked. Jimmy White was also competitive in pool. More recently, Judd Trump has shown interest in pool and clearly has the raw talent to compete. The potting and cue ball control skills transfer very well — the main adjustment is adapting to the faster, shorter game and different strategic patterns.

Could the best snooker players beat the best 9-ball players? Not consistently at the highest level — elite 9-ball specialists like Shane Van Boening (US), Francisco Sanchez Ruiz (Spain/Europe), or Carlo Biado (Philippines) have dedicated their lives to that specific discipline. But top snooker players could hang with them and win matches.

9-Ball Players Playing Snooker​

This is where it falls apart. The best American, European, and Filipino pool players would struggle enormously against elite snooker players on a full-size snooker table. The reasons stack up fast:

  • Table size: The 12-foot table demands a completely different range of power and touch. Long pots that snooker players hit routinely feel almost impossible to a pool player at first.
  • Pocket size: Snooker pockets are cut much tighter relative to ball size. The margin of error shrinks dramatically.
  • Positional complexity: Snooker involves navigating 15 reds and 6 colors in sequences that require thinking many shots ahead with extremely precise cue ball placement.
  • Safety play: Snooker's tactical game is far more intricate. Elite players like Ronnie O'Sullivan, Judd Trump, or Mark Selby would dominate the safety exchanges.
Even the legendary Efren Reyes — widely considered the greatest pool player ever — played some snooker but never came close to competing at the professional level. The same goes for other Filipino greats and American stars. The skill gap going in this direction is simply enormous.

The Bottom Line​

Think of it like tennis vs. table tennis. A world-class tennis player could become a decent table tennis player more easily than the reverse, because certain foundational skills transfer "downward" in scale more readily. Snooker's demands in precision, range, and tactical depth are so extreme that mastering it gives players a toolkit that adapts well to pool — but pool mastery, as impressive as it is, doesn't prepare you for the full-size snooker challenge. The best 9-ball players in the world would likely lose heavily to even mid-ranked professional snooker players on a snooker table.

"
 
One common issue with these comparisons is how a single frame of snooker vs. pool is defined. This leads to statements like “top snooker players could hang with top pool players and win matches.” That is factually true, but it doesn’t speak about the skill required to play, instead, it reflects how much more luck is involved in a single frame of pool compared to snooker.

When comparing games, you should consider how much luck is built into each unit of play, which in case of pool/snooker is one frame. Take poker as an example: anyone can beat money from the best players in the world in a single session. That doesn’t mean poker requires less skill than some other game, it just shows how much luck plays a role in individual hand, and even individual sessions. Play long enough, and the more skilled players will win more.

A frame of 9-ball also contains a decent amount of luck. Not as much as poker, but enough that an amateur can beat a top player. A frame of snooker is different though, the nature of how one frame is defined leads to much less luck and therefore a low-level amateur will practically never win against a professional. This difference doesn’t reflect the skill required to play each game, but rather how much luck affects each frame. This goes the other way too, put the current best snooker players in the world in a race-to-100 against the current best pool players, their chance of winning the entire set is 0%.

Of course this all depends on the definition of skill and the definition of what it means for a game to require more or less skill than some other. But just thought I'd bring this perspective up since I've seen similar discussions ignoring these issues way too often.
 
Sick of these comparisons, even if this one is ai Yes, a great snooker player can shift to 9 ball relatively well. They play rotation at the end of a snooker game and the snooker players are very good. But how do they do in one pocket or banks? How do they do in 3 cushion? What? They don’t play English billiards anymore?

Yesterday something came up on Facebook. John Schmidt got sick of the “ snooker snobs.”He offered to play Ronnie straight pool for healthy 6 figures. He’s not the greatest pool player, not young, and doesn’t compete much. Won’t happen. And JS even though he said he has a 146 and other centuries knows he can’t beat the snooker guys at snooker. He said it himself. I think his point was to respect the respective games.

Snooker is a good game but it isn’t the be-all, end- all of cue sports. I respect it. Even though they call making balls “ potting” which I find hideous. Spreading that terminology to pool is worse still, but the game is still something to respect. But the people who tout snooker the most make me not want to respect it.

So how many snooker players come close on defense and strategy in one pocket? How bad is the beat down in a round robin between the top 12 snooker players and the top12 one pocket players?

So yes, you can pick the discipline- 9 ball- that has the easiest transition and say how well the snooker guys would do. And?
 
for what its worth an AI generated search on ronnie o'sullivan pool record and comments on his pool game
....................................
Ronnie O'Sullivan has played American pool (specifically 9-ball and 8-ball) on a limited basis, but he has not competed professionally in pool events. His record in pool is based on occasional appearances in amateur or exhibition settings.

  • Mosconi Cup (9-Ball): Played in 1996 and 1997 at ages 21 and 22. His record was 2 wins and 3 losses in singles, and 2 wins and 2 losses in doubles.
  • IPT 8-Ball (North American Open, Las Vegas, 2006): At age 30, he won 5 of 13 matches and had a 50% game win rate with a break-and-run percentage of about 14%—indicating limited consistency at the professional level.
While O'Sullivan is widely regarded as one of the greatest cueists in history due to his snooker mastery, pool players and experts agree he is not a top-tier professional pool player. His strengths in snooker—precision, cue ball control, and long-distance potting—are less dominant in pool, where break-building, safety play, and tactical shot selection are more critical.

As noted in discussions:

  • "He plays pool well, to put it simply... but he has been mediocre."
  • "He would get killed playing rotations against any top 10 caliber American guy."
  • "There is nothing he does better than the top pool players already do."
In short, O'Sullivan has no official professional pool match record, and his appearances suggest he would be competitive only against lower-tier players—not the elite in American pool.
 
JPB2 said:
Sick of these comparisons, even if this one is ai Yes, a great snooker player can shift to 9 ball relatively well. They play rotation at the end of a snooker game and the snooker players are very good. But how do they do in one pocket or banks? How do they do in 3 cushion? What? They don’t play English billiards anymore?

Yesterday something came up on Facebook. John Schmidt got sick of the “ snooker snobs.”He offered to play Ronnie straight pool for healthy 6 figures. He’s not the greatest pool player, not young, and doesn’t compete much. Won’t happen. And JS even though he said he has a 146 and other centuries knows he can’t beat the snooker guys at snooker. He said it himself. I think his point was to respect the respective games.

Snooker is a good game but it isn’t the be-all, end- all of cue sports. I respect it. Even though they call making balls “ potting” which I find hideous. Spreading that terminology to pool is worse still, but the game is still something to respect. But the people who tout snooker the most make me not want to respect it.

So how many snooker players come close on defense and strategy in one pocket? How bad is the beat down in a round robin between the top 12 snooker players and the top12 one pocket players?

So yes, you can pick the discipline- 9 ball- that has the easiest transition and say how well the snooker guys would do. And?
Click to expand...
Just play 10-ball where you call your pocket, and the break is harder, its a completely different game.
I don't get these comparisons, two very different games. If it was that easy for a snooker players, there would have been more going into american pool.

You could also say, why isn't there more snooker players playing english 8-ball? which should be easier, as its half the size. But again, for the most part, its a specialist game.
There is one exception to this, mark selby won the world english 8-ball in 2006 i believe.
 
Last edited:
Cue Alchemist said:
Just play 10-ball where you call your pocket, and the break is harder, its a completely different game.
I don't get these comparisons, two very different games. If it was that easy for a snooker players, there would have been more going into american pool.

You could also say, why isn't there more snooker players playing english 8-ball? which should be easier, as its half the size. But again, for the most part, its a specialist game.
Click to expand...
Why don't they go to American pool or English 8 ball? Much less $$$$ is the reason.
 
lakeman77 said:
Why don't they go to American pool or English 8 ball? Much less $$$$ is the reason.
Click to expand...
Ronnie and others could probably get 7 figure one pocket action in New Orleans I think. Easy game. Big pockets. Only need 8. I’m sure the snooker fans would back him for say 3 barrels at 1M each. Easy money right? Don’t have to wear a stupid waistcoat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top