New Respect For Snooker Players.
- Thread starter mnorwood
- Start date
remember running 100 is fairly easy ive done it around 500 times.but ive only ran over 200 33 times.200 is not twice as hard as 100 its more like 20 times harder.to me clearing off a table of snooker balls seem easier to me than running 15-20 racks of 14.1.TheOne said:
Cornerman brings up an interesting comparison between baseball and cricket. I understand his point was to use it as an example why pool players don't have the desire to transition into snooker, and vice versa. But the baseball vs. cricket comparison is also an appropriate analogy to the pool vs. snooker debate regarding physical ability.Cornerman said:
In general, I feel that any professional baseball player has all the physical tools and coordination needed to be an adequate cricket player. The baseball player may need a few months or years training in that specific sport before he can be somewhat competitive in cricket (not necessarily a superstar, but competitive).
However, I can't can't say the same thing going the other way. If you take a typical cricket player, no amount of training would make him a competitive baseball player. The typical cricket player (in general) just won't have all the physical tools and coordination required to hit a 95mph fastball or 88mph slider hard and often enough, and no amount of physical training would make him acquire those skills unless he began learning it at a very early age.
So at least regarding physical ability, American pool is to cricket while snooker is to baseball.
a lot of similarities
John,
There are a lot of similarities. For the most part, if you are shooting long shots on a snooker table you aren't playing the game right. It is much more a game of tight patterns and weaving through the red balls to find a shot on the seven over and over. When you add the difficulty of setting up on a break ball and breaking the rack with your final ball pocketed in 14.1, I have to say that nothing in snooker equals that level of difficulty over and over.
I did find snooker on a very tight table excellent practice when coupled with playing pool everyday. Like 14.1 it is a game that you can play alone and at least speaking for myself, keep a high level of interest. I think your room would need a good tight pocketed snooker table if it was about four and a half hours closer.
Hu
john schmidt said:
John,
There are a lot of similarities. For the most part, if you are shooting long shots on a snooker table you aren't playing the game right. It is much more a game of tight patterns and weaving through the red balls to find a shot on the seven over and over. When you add the difficulty of setting up on a break ball and breaking the rack with your final ball pocketed in 14.1, I have to say that nothing in snooker equals that level of difficulty over and over.
I did find snooker on a very tight table excellent practice when coupled with playing pool everyday. Like 14.1 it is a game that you can play alone and at least speaking for myself, keep a high level of interest. I think your room would need a good tight pocketed snooker table if it was about four and a half hours closer.
Hu
can't believe this thread is still going so strong lol.
snooker and pool are just completely different in style. that's the bottom line. in pool you're spinning balls into the pockets with outside, making thin cuts with inside english, cueing off the rail a lot more, and with spin, and most of the time you are hitting the balls harder too because they're bigger and heavier. etc etc
and so for all this talk about snooker players mechanics being 'better', it's not, it's just different. it's suited and honed for snooker. likewise a pool stroke suited and honed for pool.
do i want ronnie o'sullivan over the pearl shooting a long straight in deflection power stroke with high right on the pool table? do i boat. likewise a long opening red at the beginning of a snooker frame earl wouldnt be my choice here. does this mean ronnie has a 'better' stroke that earl? or stephen hendry than john schmidt? or any other equivalent? nope.
there's just so much MORE to the games for one to say that one game has tighter pockets, therefore it's much harder, therefore it's players are more talented.
Happy new year everyone!
snooker and pool are just completely different in style. that's the bottom line. in pool you're spinning balls into the pockets with outside, making thin cuts with inside english, cueing off the rail a lot more, and with spin, and most of the time you are hitting the balls harder too because they're bigger and heavier. etc etc
and so for all this talk about snooker players mechanics being 'better', it's not, it's just different. it's suited and honed for snooker. likewise a pool stroke suited and honed for pool.
do i want ronnie o'sullivan over the pearl shooting a long straight in deflection power stroke with high right on the pool table? do i boat. likewise a long opening red at the beginning of a snooker frame earl wouldnt be my choice here. does this mean ronnie has a 'better' stroke that earl? or stephen hendry than john schmidt? or any other equivalent? nope.
there's just so much MORE to the games for one to say that one game has tighter pockets, therefore it's much harder, therefore it's players are more talented.
Happy new year everyone!
It's end-all statements like this that really bug me, after 17 pages of evidence that your post isn't correct. I've provided factual evidence that the snooker players that turned to pool when pool started getting popular in the UK sucked. Factual World Team Billiards tournaments, that millions of people got to watch. How then does that make it "MUCH easier"? Did any of you actually see these guys play?jsp said:
UK snooker is a different game, different balls, different rules, different cloth. There are skills that translate very well to pool. There are other skills that are virtually non-existent in snooker that are required at pool.
US pool normally lacks the disciplined shotmaking that snooker requires, but the vast majority of US players that have ever tried a snooker table have played on equipment much more difficult than what they use in Europe.
If a nobody like me can have a 50 break the first day playing snooker on a 12' snooker table, isn't that anectodal evidence enough to suggest that the transition from one to the other isn't any more difficult either way?
And finally, I"ve met a few people that came from a snooker background that told me that their transition to pool was NOT easier, and was surprised that it wasn't as easy as they had hoped. Someone on this board as well. Maybe he'll speak up.
I mean, I"m glad TheOne has found success in his transition, but if there are others who have an opposite result as his, doesn't that mean that it's not any easier and that I'm not just "fooling myself?" Doesn't that mean that it all depends on the individual, and not the game?
Fred <~~~ uses actual facts, not just feeling
you are right
You are right in your basic premises of course but playing snooker is a great way to help a pool player realize that they are overcomplicating their pool game.
I played a much simpler and better game when I shot a lot of snooker along with pool. Also I couldn't help but notice that I played just fine without extreme spin when my tip was glazed over on my last trip to the pool hall and my favorite tip tool was at my shop. I'm thinking seriously about some practice sessions without chalking. Probably simplify and improve my game.
Hu
You are right in your basic premises of course but playing snooker is a great way to help a pool player realize that they are overcomplicating their pool game.
I played a much simpler and better game when I shot a lot of snooker along with pool. Also I couldn't help but notice that I played just fine without extreme spin when my tip was glazed over on my last trip to the pool hall and my favorite tip tool was at my shop. I'm thinking seriously about some practice sessions without chalking. Probably simplify and improve my game.
Hu
worriedbeef said:
Ok I am going to put my 2 cents in one more time. It is VERY hard to go to another country and succeed in another sport. The one thing that I think everybody has missed here is that American pool is played extensively in the UK which is the center of the world for snooker. They have their own pro level tour (or at least they did) and the very competitive Euro Tour is just a $20 BMI flight away. Most of the snooker players who do well in pool are already seasoned before they ever come to the States. Now I am going to use John Schmidt as an example. Great player, of course he is. Say he said to himself "I think I want to be a snooker player" where does he go to find out just how good he really is--England--thats where all the action is. So he has to put out thousands of dollars and uproot his family and he really has no idea if he is capable of making a living because he's never been tested. I have played in pro level regional tournaments at snooker and pool and the players to me seem just as talented in the pool tournaments as they were in the snooker tournaments. I am telling you the reason no american pool player has succeeded is because there is no way for them to do it if they stay in the States. Please nobody say Canada because the standard there is nowhere near England. John I hope you don't mind me using you as an example but you have been on this thread so I thought it would make sense. Sorry for long post......Cornerman said:
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
Fred,
I'm all for pool, really I am (see my previous post if you don't believe me) but I think it can safely be said that more snooker players have had sucess playing pool than the other way around. Can that even be argued? Look at Peach, Davis, Manallo, Hann, etc. etc. I can't think of any pool player that's gone over and cracked the top 32 over there (correct me if I'm wrong), despite the fact that there's more money in Snooker than in Pool. Sure, the Snooker players can't beat SVB or any of the top guys in long races but with the current tourament formats, they are right in the thick of things and in some cases they even win tournaments.
Potting balls on a 12' snooker table takes a super straight stroke that takes years of practice to get right at the top levels. Where is an American pool player going to grow up that he can practice Snooker properly? If he did, he'd be considered a Snooker player anyway.
There's no point in arguing it, it's harder for top level Pool players to play top level Snooker than it is for top level Snooker players to play top level Pool. Like you say, look at the facts (tournament results on both sides). The problem I have is when the Snooker camp says a guy like John Schmidt or Efren (throw in any number of Pool Champions) would not have made it to the top of Snooker if they had come up in that game. That's just ridiculous to me.
Too many top pool players claim century runs for me to think that they couldn't make the transition if they truly wanted to. The question is, what does it take to make the transition. I think Raybo and a few others of us gave the best explanation.Alex Kanapilly said:
I think it's reasonable to assume that if snooker was a more exciting game, it would have thrived in the U.S. But times have changed, and games like 3C have all but exstinguished. That's another reason why there's no proof of transition: nobody wants to.
Mizerak and Rempe supposedly tried to crack the top 32 decades ago. Tough call without putting months of practice into it. Could they have? I have no doubt they had the ability and could make the transition. Both have several century breaks using pool cues. BUt again, do they would have had to change their entire life to do it. It hardly seems worth it, unless you love that game. I doubt they did.
I think there's an overall communication issue when you say "top level pool" and "top level snooker." Aren't you and others basing it on tournament results? That's not really a fair comparison because the best thing about snooker tournaments is that the tournament structure makes it such that the best player is going to win. Makes sense. It's not always the case in pool. The short race format allows top players to "catch a gear," and win a tournament. But, those tournament results are a different idea than "top level play." That's a pretty important distinction. I'm talking about "top level play," as in skill level.
Forget about tournament results. If American pool had the same type of tournament format that snooker has, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. We wouldn't get these "once in lifetime" wins on the 9-ball tour. I'm talking about top level play. I think a lo of people are confusing the two. I mean, I don't think you (Alex) are confusing the two, but I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing anymore.
Why doesn't Efren's accomplishment at that snooker tournament and action reported by Peach count as any kind of proof?
Fred
Last edited:
Alex Kanapilly said:
I think we are on the same page. The "ZOMG, the snooker stroke is just the NUTZ, and can't be beat!!!!!!!!!" crowd need to qualify the statement "It's harder for top level Pool players to play top level Snooker than it is for top level Snooker players to play top level Pool." statement with the addendum of "because there is no realistic competition for snooker, or even many snooker tables for that matter, in America. The same is not true for pool in Europe."
Anyone who says it is just because snooker players are much more talented, is just being a fanboy. The top American (and international) poolplayers have what it takes to reach the top in snooker, which is simply: the hand-eye coordination to make the long, tough shot, the mental ability to make the tough shot when possibly the whole match rides on one shot, the the burning desire to win.
That's ALL it takes, people. If Efren Reyes grew up in a country that played only snooker, and he played it from 10 years old on, he'd have a World Snooker Championship under his belt.
As far as I know, all the top poolplayers peak in their late 20's, early 30's. The peak might be earlier for snooker players, but whatever that peak is for snooker, I am SURE that if any of our top players grew up in England, and had the time to practice to reach the top of the game and peak in the proper age range, they'd do JUST as well. As far as I know, Brits, Scotsmen, Irishmen, and other assorted countries don't have the market cornered on good eyesight and hand/eye coordination.
And ANOTHER thing.... Just laying out a blanket challenge "Well if pool players are SSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo good, then why don't they practice up on a snooker table from a young age, and come over and snap off some of this easy snooker money", is simply ludicrous.
Why? Well Thailand has snooker tables EVERYWHERE, but they still don't have many top top professional snooker players. Why, because they are too far away from England, and have little chance to compete against top snooker players.
God d**n it, becoming a top player in ANY game REQUIRES playing against top talent!! Do you understand, you snooker fanboys??? REQUIRES IT.
American snooker players have little chance to play against top snooker talent. European players play in local events with Hohmann, Souquet, Fiejen, etc...etc...etc ALL the time. I am QUITE sure that every snooker player who tries to convert to pool gets his head beat in by the top players for a good 2-3 years, even AFTER his fundementals have been perfected.
Gee, that's about the time it takes an American pool player to start winning major events after he pretty much has his full game together, innit?
Russ
That's it Russ. You've officially retired me from responding to these posts. If I do, I'll just point to your post. Excellent summary.Russ Chewning said:I think we are on the same page. The "ZOMG, the snooker stroke is just the NUTZ, and can't be beat!!!!!!!!!" crowd need to qualify the statement "It's harder for top level Pool players to play top level Snooker than it is for top level Snooker players to play top level Pool." statement with the addendum of "because there is no realistic competition for snooker, or even many snooker tables for that matter, in America. The same is not true for pool in Europe."
Anyone who says it is just because snooker players are much more talented, is just being a fanboy. The top American (and international) poolplayers have what it takes to reach the top in snooker, which is simply: the hand-eye coordination to make the long, tough shot, the mental ability to make the tough shot when possibly the whole match rides on one shot, the the burning desire to win.
That's ALL it takes, people. If Efren Reyes grew up in a country that played only snooker, and he played it from 10 years old on, he'd have a World Snooker Championship under his belt.
As far as I know, all the top poolplayers peak in their late 20's, early 30's. The peak might be earlier for snooker players, but whatever that peak is for snooker, I am SURE that if any of our top players grew up in England, and had the time to practice to reach the top of the game and peak in the proper age range, they'd do JUST as well. As far as I know, Brits, Scotsmen, Irishmen, and other assorted countries don't have the market cornered on good eyesight and hand/eye coordination.
And ANOTHER thing.... Just laying out a blanket challenge "Well if pool players are SSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo good, then why don't they practice up on a snooker table from a young age, and come over and snap off some of this easy snooker money", is simply ludicrous.
Why? Well Thailand has snooker tables EVERYWHERE, but they still don't have many top top professional snooker players. Why, because they are too far away from England, and have little chance to compete against top snooker players.
God d**n it, becoming a top player in ANY game REQUIRES playing against top talent!! Do you understand, you snooker fanboys??? REQUIRES IT.
American snooker players have little chance to play against top snooker talent. European players play in local events with Hohmann, Souquet, Fiejen, etc...etc...etc ALL the time. I am QUITE sure that every snooker player who tries to convert to pool gets his head beat in by the top players for a good 2-3 years, even AFTER his fundementals have been perfected.
Gee, that's about the time it takes an American pool player to start winning major events after he pretty much has his full game together, innit?
Russ
Fred
Ok I think 3 of all just pretty much said the same thing. It is true that no pool player has made it to the top in snooker but for the life of me I can't think of one that has ever tried. Do not mention Mizerak and Rempe, they put no time into it and they fell for every trick in the book regarding safety and tactics. Somebody take Landen Shuffett or Austin Murphy and send them over there for 5 or 6 years and then we can end this. Seriously though snooker is a brutally tough way to make a living, more now than ever before. The prizemoney is too top heavy and if you do not make an immediate impact you just fall back off the tour and then you have to qualify all over again. It is tough if you are English. If I was a young American phenom knowing what I know now there is no way I would even consider it, not the way snooker is set up right now. If anybody here knows any of the Canadian guys (Wych, Chaperon Finstad, Morra etc) they would give you a great insight as to how tough it really is.
Alex Kanapilly:
surely this just disproves the point you are trying to make? all this tells us is basically "yes the snooker players can't play pool at a real high level but due to the way most pool tournaments are run these days and the game of choice we play, they can still pull off a win sometimes"
oh and raybo, you sound like you know quite a bit about mizerak and rempe's foray into snooker, care to tell us a bit more? thanks
surely this just disproves the point you are trying to make? all this tells us is basically "yes the snooker players can't play pool at a real high level but due to the way most pool tournaments are run these days and the game of choice we play, they can still pull off a win sometimes"
oh and raybo, you sound like you know quite a bit about mizerak and rempe's foray into snooker, care to tell us a bit more? thanks
When Mizerak and Rempe came over it was for a few years in the late eighties. A few of the older players that I got to know when I lived there had talked about the pool champions giving it a go. One guy I did get to know quite well was John Rea who was a Scottish player. He told me that he lost to Rempe back I think in 87'. At the time Rea's practice partner was a very young Stephen Hendry (about 17 years old) and Rempe played Hendry in the next round. I know Hendry beat him but it wasn't 10-1 or anything like that, it was much closer. Let me tell you John Rea RIP was a hell of a player so that was a good win for Rempe but I rembember him saying that he didn't really have a clue with the safety, he just went for anything.worriedbeef said:
Last edited:
That would be plain stupid. I don't know anyone who would dream of saying that. But it's too late once it's too late. No matter how talented John and Efren are, it's too late for them to even dream of switching codes.Alex Kanapilly said:
You need to understand how popular snooker became in the 1980's in the UK. All of a sudden snooker was a viable path to international fame and vast fortune, and every father dragged his son down the snooker club as soon as he was old enough to hold a cue. What happened was hardly anyone slipped through the net during that period, and as a result the myth that snooker was an older man's game was smashed forever. Knowledge and experience count for a lot in pool and that comes with time. The only experience you gain in snooker as you get older is being smashed into oblivion by prepubescent potting machines. By contrast longevity is part of the attraction of pool for fading snooker players (eg Drago) or as an alternative career for those not quite good enough to make it (eg Peach).
Boro Nut
raybo147 said:
You can check the records but I think Jimmy won several English 8-Ball titles. He tried harder than any other top American to make it in snooker, putting a 6x12 in his home. He played over there for three or four years, and did win matches. I don't think he ever got past the round of sixteen though.
Afterwards he told me that no American player had a chance over there. This was when the Americans ruled pool.
thanks.
interesting what you say about him struggling with the safety aspect of the game, i think most people would agree that in general, the safety aspect is a bit simpler in snooker. if you're stuck for an idea you can usually bank on clipping a red and leaving the white on the baulk cushion! maybe he was feeling a bit gung-ho that day!
It was very much a newly introduced pub game at the time Jay. There were no Hills, Appletons, Mellings, Boyes, Selbys etc in those days. You wouldn't find a serious player anywhere near the small tables then - they were all playing snooker. I'm not suggesting he wouldn't have still won it today. Just that you'd be hard pressed to name who he beat.jay helfert said:
Boro Nut