No kidding. I wish those claiming snooker superiority would take your advice. I've been saying exactly the same thing.Scaramouche said:First, different sized tables and different games develop different skill sets. If you want to prove your adaptability, go play those other tables and games successfully. Don't demand that others play your game and proclaim superiority if they don't comply.
Good thing the definition of "tougher game" isn't only about pocketing balls. As Steve Davis said, "snooker is all about potting; American pool is all about position."Second, the proposition that pocketing balls on a 100 inch long table with 4+ inch pockets is tougher that pocketing balls on a 138 inch long table with 3.33 inch pockets won't pass any objective test.
This is the same bogus argument that always comes up. There are things people just won't do, since more money isn't what normally makes people truly happy. I could make more money doing something else that I have the skills to do, but I'd hate doing it. So, I stick with the job I'm doing, making half the money but loving what I do.Third, players from other countries have competed successfully at snooker's highest level: Ding from China; Robertson from Australia; Drago from Malta; Wych and Thorburn from Canada. That is where the prize money, fat endorsements, and reputations to create audiences for exhibitions are found. Given the constant complaining about sparse pickings in U.S. cue sports, it is amazing that no U.S. player has made the transition.
If you can eek out a living doing something you love (say, play pool) or make a ton of money at something you hate and live in countries that aren't home, is that something anyone would ever consider? It's not like playing snooker is the same as playing pool. Most player who love pool don't particularly like anything about snooker. That's the same about American baseball vs. cricket.
Fred
Last edited: