smashmouth said:
TEN BALL!!
New Respect For Snooker Players.
- Thread starter mnorwood
- Start date
TEN BALL!!
smashmouth said:
That's funny. He's the first guy that came to mind for me as well. SHHH!
Out of curiousity why would 14.1 be harder on a snooker player than say 9 ball? I think it would be an easier game to learn. Given the nature of professional snooker and the way the pack gets picked apart as opposed to the smash and crash style of amateurs I personally see the art of snooker more akin to the art of 14.1. The two games required prolonged, as compared to 8 or 9 ball, sessions of focus, concentration, and planning. Both require knowledge of breakouts and sometimes subtle shots to develop balls and move others into more desireable positions. Plus, unlike the previous comment about snooker players having to adapt to playing longer shots in 9 ball those shots aren't normal in 14.1 due to the standard way the pros pick the packs apart.
Am I wrong? I would think that mentally John would be very well suited to snooker and Hendry would be mentally well suited for 14.1.
I still say the primary difference between the games is not the level of difficulty as that to say one is harder than the other would obviously upset some players, rather, the difference is the focus on the physical and mental. Snooker has somewhat standard patterns and shots, as does pool, however the emphasis is on the stroke and its fundamentals. The emphasis in pool is on the mental interpretation of the table and the creativity to execute shots that would be considered thinking outside the box in a snooker environment.
Players like, and I mean no disrespect, Nick Varner or Francisco Bustamante have strokes that are noticeably more conducive to pool whereas Stephen Hendry has a stroke more conducive to snooker. That said, I would imagine that, barring any mental difficulties in switching over, that Hendry would have less work to do than Varner or FB simply given that there wouldn't be the requirement to change the fundamentals that made them great. It would be simply a matter of understanding the new demands of the new game.
Am I off base?
Am I wrong? I would think that mentally John would be very well suited to snooker and Hendry would be mentally well suited for 14.1.
I still say the primary difference between the games is not the level of difficulty as that to say one is harder than the other would obviously upset some players, rather, the difference is the focus on the physical and mental. Snooker has somewhat standard patterns and shots, as does pool, however the emphasis is on the stroke and its fundamentals. The emphasis in pool is on the mental interpretation of the table and the creativity to execute shots that would be considered thinking outside the box in a snooker environment.
Players like, and I mean no disrespect, Nick Varner or Francisco Bustamante have strokes that are noticeably more conducive to pool whereas Stephen Hendry has a stroke more conducive to snooker. That said, I would imagine that, barring any mental difficulties in switching over, that Hendry would have less work to do than Varner or FB simply given that there wouldn't be the requirement to change the fundamentals that made them great. It would be simply a matter of understanding the new demands of the new game.
Am I off base?
john schmidt said:
John,
I put that post up there for a reason. Too many people were belittling the efforts of Tony Drago, who showed a lot of HEART at the Mosconi Cup recently. You are right. If any snooker player challenged you in Snooker and Straight Pool, it's a push.
But if any pool player challenged Tony in 9-Ball (even a long set) and Snooker, he becomes the favorite IMO. My point is, the man can play 9-Ball, which ain't all luck. Sometimes you gotta come with it, and the pressure is palpable at other times. It's no accident that the best players ALWAYS win the big 9-Ball tourneys (like you). All I can say about this year's WPC is, it was very strange, and Darryl Peach showed a lot of heart and class in winning. Every good player got weak at one time or another, and in single elimination, you can't do that. I truly wish you would have gone John. You had as good a chance as anyone!
I'll say it one more time to everyone reading this. It takes courage to play top speed 9-Ball. The closer you get to winning, the closer you are to losing, EVERY rack! As has been stressed in another thread, you gotta have heart to win. Just take a look at who has won the most 9-Ball tournaments over the years. The names you see over and over again are Earl, Buddy, Sigel, Efren, Johnny etc. etc. Do you get my point?
Sure, a weaker player may win a match or two, and perhaps upset a champion. But he won't be around at the finish line. It's no accident that this year has been dominated by Shane, Dennis, Niels, Lee Van, Rodney and other top players. The best players show up in the end, because they have more heart! No offense to DCP.
Yes, skill is paramount. Without it, you won't go far. But in the end the winners have the biggest cohannes!One week away John, so better get that Ten Ball stroke unlimbered. You're our horse!
raybo147 said:
I think that a top snooker player playing with 15 reds could run 100 balls. And maybe a lot more. Once they figure out the break shot, it's all over. JMO
heck if Henry truly ran 200 balls I'd bet on him against anyone in a snooker/pool challenge
I don't see how anyone can beat the greatest snooker player of all time who happens to run 200 balls in straights after only a few minutes practice
they say Ronnie has the most natural talent and Henry has the work ethic (always felt this was a bit of an insult to Henry) but Ronnie did squat in the IPT
I don't see how anyone can beat the greatest snooker player of all time who happens to run 200 balls in straights after only a few minutes practice
they say Ronnie has the most natural talent and Henry has the work ethic (always felt this was a bit of an insult to Henry) but Ronnie did squat in the IPT
I am certainly not a top snooker player but I really do not have a clue what size of runs I will make with this. I am going to try this within the next couple of days and I am not going to come on here and say I ran 100 if I couldn't get past 30. One thing I am NOT going to try is bank pool on a snooker table. New thread--snooker players are better at bank pool than pool players--yeah right!!! Seriously I will give it a go and let you know what I thought of it.jay helfert said:
I think you're off base, but most snooker players and players who don't give it much more than a cursory thought would agree with you. You'd still be off base, IMO.PoolSponge said:
I base my opinion again on watching other lesser snooker professionals as well Stephen Hendry have problems with power shots in pool (World Team Billiards and Snooker/Pool Challenge respectively). He'd (they'd) learn them eventually for sure, but it's just a shot that doesn't come up in snooker nearly as much as it does in, say, 9-ball. I'm not saying he wouldn't be great, but what I"m saying is that the transition isn't so cut and dry. There are some strokes and angles you will never (or close to never) see in snooker that are bread and butter in pool. So, it's an even transition. With all the past evidence, I still dont' see why anyone would presume otherwise.
And, Nick Varner has century breaks in snooker, IIRC. I would think that Fransciso wouldn't take long to have centuries either, if he already doesn't. Efren certainly has.
Fred
Last edited:
Man this thread has really gone somewhere.
Hey today I went over to play snooker and actually won one frame out of 4. I like the progress I have made in just three attempts.
John no self respecting, knowledgeable poster on this here forum doubts your chances with anyone in the world in 14.1. That's like Tiger Woods challenging a someone to a round of golf. LOL
No snooker player is going to play you in 14.1 for any amount of money. I bought your video, thanks....
Hey today I went over to play snooker and actually won one frame out of 4. I like the progress I have made in just three attempts.
John no self respecting, knowledgeable poster on this here forum doubts your chances with anyone in the world in 14.1. That's like Tiger Woods challenging a someone to a round of golf. LOL
No snooker player is going to play you in 14.1 for any amount of money. I bought your video, thanks....
Seems I Ruffled A Few Feathers on The American Eagles
In snooker the usual objective of the break is to hit a red and hide the cue ball behind one of the three baulk colours, not to mention that the distance and those baulk colours, plus blue plus pink create barriers. No such hiding places exist in straight pool - the cue ball always has a straight path to an object ball (Is this why it is called Straight Pool?)
Straight pool requires two balls be driven to the rail on the break with point penalty for failure. Seems to me that making a break shot to avoid a penalty is offence not defense The defensive part of the shot is where you park the cue ball.
Snooker has no such requirement. Ideally, you would barely touch a red leaving the rack virtually undisturbed and the cue ball welded behind a baulk colour, requiring a two rail or more escape. That is a defensive break
One could add other stuff to the snooker vs straight pool/14.1 discussion, such as the area to place the cue ball after a scratch is more confiined in snooker notwithstanding the snooker table is much larger etc...
In snooker the usual objective of the break is to hit a red and hide the cue ball behind one of the three baulk colours, not to mention that the distance and those baulk colours, plus blue plus pink create barriers. No such hiding places exist in straight pool - the cue ball always has a straight path to an object ball (Is this why it is called Straight Pool?)
Straight pool requires two balls be driven to the rail on the break with point penalty for failure. Seems to me that making a break shot to avoid a penalty is offence not defense
The defensive part of the shot is where you park the cue ball.Snooker has no such requirement. Ideally, you would barely touch a red leaving the rack virtually undisturbed and the cue ball welded behind a baulk colour, requiring a two rail or more escape. That is a defensive break
One could add other stuff to the snooker vs straight pool/14.1 discussion, such as the area to place the cue ball after a scratch is more confiined in snooker notwithstanding the snooker table is much larger etc...
Scaramouche said:
Ignorant statement. You've obviously only watched bangers play the game.
Scaramouche said:Straight pool requires two balls be driven to the rail on the break with point penalty for failure. Seems to me that making a break shot to avoid a penalty is offence not defense
Equally ignorant. Watch the game when its played by good players and look at the cue ball placement on the opening break shot.
Scaramouche said:Snooker has no such requirement. Ideally, you would barely touch a red leaving the rack virtually undisturbed and the cue ball welded behind a baulk colour, requiring a two rail or more escape. That is a defensive break
One could add other stuff to the snooker vs straight pool/14.1 discussion, such as the area to place the cue ball after a scratch is more confiined in snooker notwithstanding the snooker table is much larger etc...
That really doesn't prove much of anything in regards to anything. That's just like someone saying that 14.1 is harder because you only get 1 point per ball. It's a non-issue.
I respect snooker immensely,but like I said earlier, if you think you can hang with me or any other 14.1 player in our element, go for it.
mnorwood said:Man this thread has really gone somewhere.
Hey today I went over to play snooker and actually won one frame out of 4. I like the progress I have made in just three attempts.
John no self respecting, knowledgeable poster on this here forum doubts your chances with anyone in the world in 14.1. That's like Tiger Woods challenging a someone to a round of golf. LOL
......and likewise no knowledgeable poster on here doubts that John (or any other USA nationality pool player) would have precious little chance against a top snooker player in a substantial 'race' at snooker.
So if straight pool was to be brought into the equation in respect of considering a two leg snooker/pool challenge of the general nature which Quinten first brought up (and let's remember at this point that Quentin is not stupid and very pointedly mentioned from the beginning that he was talking about 8 ball as the pool leg) the only $64,000 dollar question for any potential gambler or for any rational assessment on such a snooker/straight pool challenge is really "has a pool player such as John got a better percentage chance of beating a top snooker player at snooker than a top snooker player has of beating John at straight pool, given substantial length races in each?" or if you prefer "is the gap in ability between John and the snooker player at straight pool likely to be wider than the gap between them at snooker?"
I know next to nothing about John's ability at snooker but in the case of most American nationality pool players a gut instinct says to me that a reasonable answer might be that, although the gap is wide and the chances of the underdog very slim in both cases, there is slightly more percentage chance of the snooker player winning at straight pool than there is of the pool player winning at snooker.
You are probably right that there is no snooker player out there willing to take John on at straight pool as a "one-off" but I wouldn't be so sure that there would be no snooker player willing to take him on at the two leg challenge of straight pool/snooker as it seems realistic to say that purely in a mathematical probability sense the odds are still leaning very slightly in the snooker player's favour.......not that such a conclusion has any great wider significance about the comparison of ability levels in the two different cue sports.I certainly think it might be good entertainment at very little risk to both participants as it of course very likely to be a draw.
Incidentally.......Tiger Woods frequently loses in "a round of golf" especially in matchplay. He wouldn't often lose in a race to 10 though
Congrats on your snooker progress, keep it up and we'll be seeing you on telly whipping O'Sullivan this time next year
Last edited:
Blackjack said:
ok i did not really want to get into a barking match online cause i wont be coming to america for ay least 4 months but the next time im there we can play blackjack. im a man of my word so ill message you when i know im coming maybe we can play for $5,000 or so but we can also play a long race at 8 ball too for the same amount at least one game i have played before.