New Respect For Snooker Players.

[JoeW]

While it is not quite the same you can make your own comparison with two sets of pool balls and a 9 foot table.

Use the striped balls from both sets and the 8 ball as the "reds"

Use balls 2 - 7 as the color balls. I prefer to use the blue as the "2" point ball, etc because it is easier for most people to keep track of ball value.

On a 9 - footer the table is crowded, the pockets are different, but it will give a feel for the differences and similarities of the two games.

Snooker is not that different, just a different skill set. I have maybe 1,000 hours playing snooker on 12 foot tables in Canada with my ex brother-in-law and his friends. In general, snooker players are more accurate but not necessarily on thin cut shots (where their skills are as varied as pool players). Pool players are better at position and cue ball control.

 

[jay helfert]

Here's the problem that all snooker and pool players have in adjusting to the other game. It's the different size cue balls number one, and the object balls number two. The hit on a pool cue ball is altogether different than the hit on a snooker cue ball. They just act differently and do different things with the english you put on them.

Sure the rails are different and so are the pockets. But it is the difference in size of the balls (most especially the cue balls) that takes the longest time to adjust too. Any player will probably tell you the same thing.

I used to play a lot of snooker on 10' tables and once I got the feel of the balls, I could make all the shots. The banks took a while too, since they were different as well. Small balls fit just fine into small pockets by the way. No problem there if you shoot straight.

 

[BlackDragon]

so hann writes to say he'll take on snooker/8ball combo match but not 10ball or straight pool. So one guy says just eightball ok and the ex US champ says to play 10ball, straight pool. Failure to communicate there and no game. duhh

 

[Fatboy]

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

i agree 100%, i have watched alot of snooker, I was a better snooker player than 9Ball years ago-my high break is 53 or 56 on a kinda tight table, i cant remember anymore back then my 9B game isnt what it is now, I might within a few months of playing snooker get there again or a bit higher-I doubt I could ever run a 100 that takes alot of skill-breaking up clusters etc, high 70's are achievable if the balls are laying easy, for me, i believe my snooker game is stronger than my pool game is. the snooker players would be good 14,1 players but I dont think they coukd get to 400, sullivan might.


so thats my credentials, now to my point the 2 games are very different and require a different set of skills, the cueing of the ball in snooker is different in many obvious ways, open bridge, 4 point contact with the body, both hands, chest, chin. the stanse is square to the table not the cue like in american pool, I played snooker using american cue's and stance. I have a friend who is a world class snooker player and he can break the balls in 9 ball unbelivablely hard with an open bridge. Snooker isnt any harder than pool its just different, I played alot of both diciplines and can say that each is hard to master(impossible for me) but to master either you need different skills thus crossing over from one to the other is impossible at a high level, yes the girls did it but they arnt competitive against the men on professional 9 ball here or snooker there, I'm not knocking allison but she cant beat SVB, neither can hendrey, SBV cant beat Hendrey on a 12' box. Two different games. just like 3C its a different game,

 

[PoolSponge]

Here's the problem that all snooker and pool players have in adjusting to the other game. It's the different size cue balls number one, and the object balls number two. The hit on a pool cue ball is altogether different than the hit on a snooker cue ball. They just act differently and do different things with the english you put on them.

Sure the rails are different and so are the pockets. But it is the difference in size of the balls (most especially the cue balls) that takes the longest time to adjust too. Any player will probably tell you the same thing.

I used to play a lot of snooker on 10' tables and once I got the feel of the balls, I could make all the shots. The banks took a while too, since they were different as well. Small balls fit just fine into small pockets by the way. No problem there if you shoot straight.

Exactly! When I switch to snooker I struggle for a while getting used to how light the balls are and then when I go back to pool I feel I need to stroke so much longer and harder to get any action at all. To me that is one of, if not the biggest, challenges of trying to play well at both games. So I gave up and resigned myself to just playing pool...poorly.

 

[Fatboy]

Here's the problem that all snooker and pool players have in adjusting to the other game. It's the different size cue balls number one, and the object balls number two. The hit on a pool cue ball is altogether different than the hit on a snooker cue ball. They just act differently and do different things with the english you put on them.

Sure the rails are different and so are the pockets. But it is the difference in size of the balls (most especially the cue balls) that takes the longest time to adjust too. Any player will probably tell you the same thing.

I used to play a lot of snooker on 10' tables and once I got the feel of the balls, I could make all the shots. The banks took a while too, since they were different as well. Small balls fit just fine into small pockets by the way. No problem there if you shoot straight.

also dont forget the american snooker tables brunswik made had tighter pockets than riley tables(what the tournments in the uk use) and the cushions in the UK have flat faces while the american tables have a V shaped point on them like our pool tables do, which changes alot of things, running 147 would be impossible on most of the old brunswick tables I have payed on, even a total clearance(all the balls 15 reds, colors in one inning 36 balls total) would be impossible, I wonder how many concetive shots have been made on the 12' box at hardtimes? it isnt possible to run 36 shots on it.

 

[Bamacues]

As so many have already stated, they are really two totally different games. The equipment is different, the balls are different, the cues are different, the stance and stroke are different. I played nothing but snooker growing up, and I could pretty much make just about any makable shot. When I returned to pool after a break of many years, I was playing 8/9 ball because there were no snooker tables anywhere around. Position play is totally different in 8/9 ball, but the snooker strategy play concept helps a whole lot in understanding safety play, etc. I truly had to learn the games of 8/9 ball.. I had just never really played them, snooker was so much more challenging, IMO.
Joe

 

[PoolSponge]

I have personally played on three types of 12' tables: Brunswick, Black Crown, and Riley. Without question the Riley was the hardest to pocket balls on. The pockets are very tight. The BC was a joke. The Brunswick I learned to play on can't be like the ones you are talking about Fatboy because I have run a century and countless 90's on it and I found it easy to pot balls on but rather slow in its play so a harder stroke made some shots very tough. The rails on this Brunswick were square whereas the BC were more like those typically found on a pool table and triangular.

At the Canadian Snooker Championships they had Riley's and Alain Robidoux was complaining the pockets were too tight yet someone still ran 117! Wow.

PS: Alain is still playing and playing great! He has also turned his career on the table into a partial career commentating on RDS a French sportscaster from Quebec. Really nice guy too.

 

[mnorwood]

I have to agree with JCIN here. Bar box 8 ball is a complete joke. Mr. Hahn, if that's your real name, you would be a favorite against Shane VanBoening. His recent success has been a fluke he even admits he is just a young guy.

Forget what I said about John Schmidt. His run through that deep field at the US Open was dumb luck, hell John should go buy a lottery ticket.

Mr. Blackjack only runs 100's in practice. Pocketing 10,000 balls in 24 hours was not done under competitive conditions.

A player of your stature and long track record of classy moves would have no problem with any of these inferior American chumps. Come to America Mr. Hann, follow the light from lady liberty.

 

[raybo147]

Here's the problem that all snooker and pool players have in adjusting to the other game. It's the different size cue balls number one, and the object balls number two. The hit on a pool cue ball is altogether different than the hit on a snooker cue ball. They just act differently and do different things with the english you put on them.

Sure the rails are different and so are the pockets. But it is the difference in size of the balls (most especially the cue balls) that takes the longest time to adjust too. Any player will probably tell you the same thing.

I used to play a lot of snooker on 10' tables and once I got the feel of the balls, I could make all the shots. The banks took a while too, since they were different as well. Small balls fit just fine into small pockets by the way. No problem there if you shoot straight.

Jay you are quite correct in what you are saying. What we do in snooker is use less side spin and rely more on the speed of the hit to move the ball around. If you are watching snooker on you tube watch closely and you will see that for about 80% of the shots the player (dosent matter who it is) will be striking the cue ball in the center on the lower half of the ball. From this position we can move the cue ball wherever we want. Also you will see snooker players choke up on the cue a lot more than pool players again because speed for us is everything. In pool the top players use english all the time to throw or kill the cue ball. The bigger balls and the different makeup of the pockets allow them to do that and the fact that there is a lot less room to work means that they need to influence the cue ball more than a snooker player does. I hope I made some sense with my post I have never tried to write about this before although for me the differences are like night and day between the two games.

 

[Fatboy]

I have personally played on three types of 12' tables: Brunswick, Black Crown, and Riley. Without question the Riley was the hardest to pocket balls on. .

for me it was the oppisite all the brunswick boxes i played on( 10-15 of them) were real tight-not counting the box at hardtimes, perhaps they were set up as golf tables, the Riley tables i have played on were correct, i have awalys used the american 2 1/8" balls not the 2 1/16" balls-i'm sleepy i think i have the ball sizes right, i just know in the UK they use smaller balls which makes the pockets play bigger, snooker balls on a pool table are fun, they dont bank right but its kinda cool.

 

[Jaden]

Lmao

I have to agree with JCIN here. Bar box 8 ball is a complete joke. Mr. Hahn, if that's your real name, you would be a favorite against Shane VanBoening. His recent success has been a fluke he even admits he is just a young guy.

Forget what I said about John Schmidt. His run through that deep field at the US Open was dumb luck, hell John should go buy a lottery ticket.

Mr. Blackjack only runs 100's in practice. Pocketing 10,000 balls in 24 hours was not done under competitive conditions.

A player of your stature and long track record of classy moves would have no problem with any of these inferior American chumps. Come to America Mr. Hann, follow the light from lady liberty.

Rep to you sir, ROFLMAO

 

[Nick B]

for me it was the oppisite all the brunswick boxes i played on( 10-15 of them) were real tight-not counting the box at hardtimes, perhaps they were set up as golf tables, the Riley tables i have played on were correct, i have awalys used the american 2 1/8" balls not the 2 1/16" balls-i'm sleepy i think i have the ball sizes right, i just know in the UK they use smaller balls which makes the pockets play bigger, snooker balls on a pool table are fun, they dont bank right but its kinda cool.

Fatboy your right the table at HT and others are setup for Golf and are not the standard Brunswick snooker cut. In Canada if you go back 30 years you would find Brunswick Snooker tables EVERYWHERE. Pool tables where few and far between and most of those where either 10 footers or bar boxes. When the Riley's started to show up (early 90's) we all had to re-learn how to make balls.

The Brunswick's would accept balls that where a little outside of center and would reject balls that wiped the pocket coming in.

The Riley's are the opposite. A little on the outside and your done...but the will accept a ball that just brushes inside of pocket.

Oh and for my American friends that have played snooker on a 10 footer...well it's kind of like 7 ball on a bar box. Running 70 on a world class 12 footer is tougher than a 120 on a 10 footer. This doesn't mean that a Snooker star could wipe the table with a pool champ. I just think people have to understand the difference.

Take it from a guy who plays both and spent his early days on HUNDREDS of Brunswicks the Rileys are tougher (but not as tough as a tricked up Golf table).

Nick

 

[PoolSponge]

I only got to play a few dozen frames on a 10' but in my opinion it was HARDER to run big runs. As soon as you play the break my beloved black ball would disappear into a sea of reds never to be seen again and the pink was usually no where happy. I just found there to be no room if you tried to play 15 reds on those tables. I liked the 12' because you had room to work.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[JLW]

Who do I need to talk to to help stake Blackjack and John? I'm not wealthy, but I sure know a deal when I see one.

 

[Jaden]

If you were referring to me about the ten footer....

Fatboy your right the table at HT and others are setup for Golf and are not the standard Brunswick snooker cut. In Canada if you go back 30 years you would find Brunswick Snooker tables EVERYWHERE. Pool tables where few and far between and most of those where either 10 footers or bar boxes. When the Riley's started to show up (early 90's) we all had to re-learn how to make balls.

The Brunswick's would accept balls that where a little outside of center and would reject balls that wiped the pocket coming in.

The Riley's are the opposite. A little on the outside and your done...but the will accept a ball that just brushes inside of pocket.

Oh and for my American friends that have played snooker on a 10 footer...well it's kind of like 7 ball on a bar box. Running 70 on a world class 12 footer is tougher than a 120 on a 10 footer. This doesn't mean that a Snooker star could wipe the table with a pool champ. I just think people have to understand the difference.

Take it from a guy who plays both and spent his early days on HUNDREDS of Brunswicks the Rileys are tougher (but not as tough as a tricked up Golf table).

Nick

If you were referring to me....
I ran my 74, i readded it was a 74, I made six blacks, 2 pinks and two blues plus all the reds i needed to do that, on a 6x12 that was cut for golf... not anywhere near as difficult as the hard times table, but I wouldn't say it was easy either. Not on a 5X10. The five by 10 that I played on for years, I only played golf on.....

 

[Scaramouche]

At the Canadian Snooker Championships they had Riley's and Alain Robidoux was complaining the pockets were too tight yet someone still ran 117! Wow.

PS: Alain is still playing and playing great! He has also turned his career on the table into a partial career commentating on RDS a French sportscaster from Quebec. Really nice guy too.

Alain in Action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdNF0aD39A

 

[yobagua]

Hey Quentin how do you get on the rough side of things. I mean you are a handsome talented guy. But everything you get into turns downright ugly. Last time I saw you you got beat by a lower rated snooker player named Andy Hicks? was it? A guy that would make Inspecor Clousseau look like a Tarzan. A true bald little computer type nice guy and you challenged him to a fist fight on national tv. How do you get into these scrapes? You really deserve better.
And Virgo and THorne and Steve Davis was just loathing your publicized boxing match. Is that how you yobs are still settling things. Pub brawling? Come on man this is the 21st century.
And why come on here and pound on your mates from America. Remember us? When Winnie practically begged us to get into the old War to save Ole Englands butts from der schiklegruber. Remember us? Where the Stones and Lennon and his boys use to come and rip off all the black blues artist for their music like Muddy Waters and Little Walter and Buddy Guy and make millions of it and pretended to invent it?
Stay where you are man and enjoy your "chook" and "bay Bugs" and your Vegemite. Enjoy your retirement. Let us second rate cueists get on with our life.

 

[mnorwood]

Hey Quentin how do you get on the rough side of things. I mean you are a handsome talented guy. But everything you get into turns downright ugly. Last time I saw you you got beat by a lower rated snooker player named Andy Hicks? was it? A guy that would make Inspecor Clousseau look like a Tarzan. A true bald little computer type nice guy and you challenged him to a fist fight on national tv. How do you get into these scrapes? You really deserve better.
And Virgo and THorne and Steve Davis was just loathing your publicized boxing match. Is that how you yobs are still settling things. Pub brawling? Come on man this is the 21st century.
And why come on here and pound on your mates from America. Remember us? When Winnie practically begged us to get into the old War to save Ole Englands butts from der schiklegruber. Remember us? Where the Stones and Lennon and his boys use to come and rip off all the black blues artist for their music like Muddy Waters and Little Walter and Buddy Guy and make millions of it and pretended to invent it?
Stay where you are man and enjoy your "chook" and "bay Bugs" and your Vegemite. Enjoy your retirement. Let us second rate cueists get on with our life.

I have to disagree, I would pay the actionreport 40 bucks to see Shane thump this chump in the box. I would also buy a DVD featuring John Schmidt murdering this guy in 14.1 I hope something comes together.

 

[TheOne]

Havent read this thread entirely so apologies if Im off track. I'd jsut like to add that Im prob a reasonable "test (not nut) case" for a snooker - 14.1 comparison.

Some of you may recall my self imposed can I run 100 balls within a week challenge a few years back. I was a part time snooker/pool player who hadn't player either game seriously for over 10 years. Even at my best as a snooker player I quit too early and never came close to the level the top pros are at.

ANyway I ran a few 90's that week but not a 100. IMO I would say a top level snooker player could run 200 balls if he played it everyday and took it seriously within a month, possible a week for somebody like Ronnie (if a hack like me could almost do a hundred)

I've played in both the recent world 14.1 events finishing 9th and 17th, again I knew I wasnt playing half as well as I used too and that wasn't half as good as somebody like Ronnie so IMO 14.1 wouldnt be as hard for a snooker player as some people think.

just my unique take on it