Judd is bad for pool

[something_pool]

I kind of doubt whether any top US pool player would be able to win their first 3 matches in any top tier snooker event.

Winning his first three rounds in the US Open isn't really an accomplishment, though, since those rounds were basically dead money. His first match, he beat Joe Magee (FR: 367), second round he beat Dhruvalkumar Patel (FR: 411), and third round he beat Abdullah Alshammari (FR: 728). I doubt you'd get that kind of easy first three rounds at a major Snooker event (though admittedly, I don't know much about how difficult the average Snooker tournament field is).

 

[gerryf]

Winning his first three rounds in the US Open isn't really an accomplishment, though, since those rounds were basically dead money. His first match, he beat Joe Magee (FR: 367), second round he beat Dhruvalkumar Patel (FR: 411), and third round he beat Abdullah Alshammari (FR: 728). I doubt you'd get that kind of easy first three rounds at a major Snooker event (though admittedly, I don't know much about how difficult the average Snooker tournament field is).

Those FR's for Magee and Patel are preliminary and based only on this one tournament. Robustness was 37 and 34, respectively.

The people who know these players rate them as low A players.

If you believe Trumps preliminary FR of 725 (robustness 69), then both players were around 620, based on that one data point.

Mike Page will tell you not to bet money on preliminary FR's.

 

[something_pool]

Those FR's for Magee and Patel are preliminary and based only on this one tournament. Robustness was 37 and 34, respectively.

The people who know these players rate them as low A players.

If you believe Trumps FR of 725, then both players were around 620, based on that one data point.

Thanks for the clarification -- that's helpful to know. Still, beating two 620 players and then one 728 is not much of an accomplishment, since he essentially didn't even face a pro until his fourth round.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Thanks for the clarification -- that's helpful to know. Still, beating two 620 players and then one 728 is not much of an accomplishment, since he essentially didn't even face a pro until his fourth round.

I agree, the point still stands IMO. Any pool player getting a wild card into a ranking snooker event would have to play a top 64 player the opening round. That would be the equivalent of a 780FR if we assume the relative skill levels are the same. And given how difficult it is for any snooker player to establish themselves on the tour, I think this is a conservative guesstimate.

 

[hang-the-9]

Just making balls is not the whole game in snooker, either. Maybe it is the pool fans that don't fully understand.

But that is the only thing that is harder in snooker than pool, position is position when when you can pocket a ball. The rest of the stuff is just time on the equipment to learn the rails. And snooker players have the same difficulty in pool with the other aspects of the game, pattern play, safety, harder banks, etc... The main point I was making is that pool players don't scoff at snooker players, but snooker players all the time just say how pool is easier and marginalize the difficulty of the game, especially after a snooker player loses to a pool player. Look at any YouTube video comment on a pool match vs a snooker match. The snooker fans are just stuck up a-holes when it comes to pool, while the pool players are just "whatever".

Any pool video is just about guaranteed to have two types of dopes posting, those that say "snooker blah blah blah" and "Efren blah blah blah" One from snooker fans, the other from the Philippines. "Look at how large the pockets are LOL Anyone can play on those tables and be world class" "Look at those two bad players, Efren is the best and will beat them all even when he is 95" and all seemingly without realizing how much of a jerk they sound like.

Imagine someone posting a video of someone making pancakes and all the comments are "waffles are much harder to make, any waffle maker can make pancakes but I bet they would burn all the waffles if they tried to make them". The correct post that does not make one sound like a stuck up jerk is "hey, nice pancakes".

 

[skogstokig]

But that is the only thing that is harder in snooker than pool, position is position when when you can pocket a ball. The rest of the stuff is just time on the equipment to learn the rails. And snooker players have the same difficulty in pool with the other aspects of the game, pattern play, safety, harder banks, etc... The main point I was making is that pool players don't scoff at snooker players, but snooker players all the time just say how pool is easier and marginalize the difficulty of the game, especially after a snooker player loses to a pool player. Look at any YouTube video comment on a pool match vs a snooker match. The snooker fans are just stuck up a-holes when it comes to pool, while the pool players are just "whatever".

Any pool video is just about guaranteed to have two types of dopes posting, those that say "snooker blah blah blah" and "Efren blah blah blah" One from snooker fans, the other from the Philippines. "Look at how large the pockets are LOL Anyone can play on those tables and be world class" "Look at those two bad players, Efren is the best and will beat them all even when he is 95" and all seemingly without realizing how much of a jerk they sound like.

Imagine someone posting a video of someone making pancakes and all the comments are "waffles are much harder to make, any waffle maker can make pancakes but I bet they would burn all the waffles if they tried to make them". The correct post that does not make one sound like a stuck up jerk is "hey, nice pancakes".

paying attention to youtube comments is pointless in the first place. but i imagine that a lot of them you describe writes from third world countries in which snooker is popular and internet etiquette is unheard of

judd trump certainly gave pool the respect it deserved in interviews and elsewhere. his venture into pool, although probably related to his new sponsor (that unsurprisingly sells american pool tables), undoubtedly did good for pool

 

[Straightpool_99]

How tough is the snooker field? The depth of talent is hard to even describe. In the top 50-60 anyone is a direct threat to win a major tournament with no extreme luck or easy draws. The skill differences, even in the top 200 are extremely minute. If you're in there you are a great all round player with no real weakness in your game. There is no dead money in the pro tournaments. They all earned their spots. You can't buy or bluff your way in

 

[BeiberLvr]

In the top 50-60 anyone is a direct threat to win a major tournament with no extreme luck or easy draws.

I don't think this is true. I looked at the winners of ranking events over the last 4 years and didn't see one person that ranked worse than 49th, and that's just one person.

Most winners of ranking events are in the top 20.

Now if you want to say the Joe Magee's of the snooker world would have an easy time in snooker against any pool pro, then I would agree.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I don't think this is true. I looked at the winners of ranking events over the last 4 years and didn't see one person that ranked worse than 49th, and that's just one person.

Most winners of ranking events are in the top 20.

Now if you want to say the Joe Magee's of the snooker world would have an easy time in snooker against any pool pro, then I would agree.

The last part is a given. I don't even know of any pool player in recent times who managed to even qualify for a pro card.

Bingham won against against Stephen Hendry when Bingham was ranked 93d, hundreds of years ago. Anyway, the point wasn't so much the fact that they could win, but being in the top 100 means you're f-ing awesome at the game and could win against anyone, at any given time. There are very few pushovers in pro snooker. The top 16 stay there because they are professionals through and through, which along with their awesome talent, and seeding, means they have an unfair advantage against working stiffs. Many people have great talent at the game, but don't have the option to go completely all in with no worries about money. There are enourmously talented snooker players who cannot even get into the top 100 for that reason. They cannot spend all day training in facilities, with coaches and whatnot. If they did, then who knows what would happen.

Bingham is an example of someone very talented who struggled quite a bit at times, then dedicated himself to the game and started to really shine. Kurt Maflin has also been up and down in the rankings, at times being low, then making it far in tournaments. Those guys in the top 50-60 are not to be taken lightly by anyone, at any time they could hit their stride. There are hundreds of potential Binghams out there, believe it or not. And there are workman pros who could break through at any time. You have Luca Brecel, ranked 44th, Joe O'Connor 56th, Jimmy Robertson 48th (semi-finalist in the last British open ) along with Elliot Slessor (43d). They didn't win this time, but maybe the next?

 

[Cameron Smith]

Now if you want to say the Joe Magee's of the snooker world would have an easy time in snooker against any pool pro, then I would agree.

This is definitely not the case. The most generous estimate of Joes game is that he is a low A player, which would put him around 600-625 if I understand the ratings. The players Corey Deuel beat in the US Snooker Championship were certainly at that level and better. In fact Sargon Isaac, who Corey beat in the final, has a pool Fargo of 688. A top pool player would definitely be a favourite by some margin over a decent club snooker player.

 

[Swighey]

The main point I was making is that pool players don't scoff at snooker players

A few years ago when Alex and Corey tried snooker, there were plenty of pool fans saying they were going to make it and that Alex was going to win the world championship. A handful of snooker fans on youtube saying how easy pool is is not representative of snooker fans in general. Anyone who plays snooker to even a decent recreational level understands cuesports.