O'Sullivan finishes second to Immonen

[TheOne]

Can you address how the smaller table affects your game, if at all, when transitioning from 12' snooker to 9' pool table?

For me, when I transition from a 9' pool table to a 7' bar table, although the shots are much easier to pot, the tightness of the table, the reduced cueball pathways, and the constant elevated rail bridges presents a challenge for me that's not so prevalent on a 9' table.

Fred

Hi Fred, I have had the pleassure of seeing quite a few pro level snooker players (with 147 maximum breaks under their belt) first start playing 9 ball, both with a snooker cue and with a pool cue. One guy was an English guy in Thailand, he was one of the best potters I have ever seen, simply outstanding. I had been studying 9 ball and playing only slightly longer than him and the problems he face where, the break obviously, finishing straight too often (as snooker teaches you), he had no problem whatsoever with side, deflection, or potting in anyway. In fact an American backer took him to JAMs DC area and Im told he cleaned up beating the best in the area although I don't think he played kieth or pookie.

Another guy Ive seen playing in the club I live now is an ex pro (he actually went to Thailand with Ronnie O once I think) and he's another great cueist and potter. He has the same problems as the other guy did plus he's having deflection problems when using a pool cue.

I only play snooker occassionally nowadays but for reasons of consistency I use my z-shaft to play snooker with also. I still suprise myself that I am able to play snooker with this cue but for some reason I am still able to pot balls on a very tight table, even though in general I think I have lost accuracy since turning to 9 ball.

When I forst started playing on the American tables it was the bar boxes in vegas, I used my 9mm snooker (although not to break with) and I did pretty well. I eventually bought a predator break cue and then a z shaft. I actually played efren with this, I only had the BK butt and would have to change shafts after each break which seemed to amuse him lol!

The problem I had when I started was similar to what many snooker players have and thats deflection, whether they use a predator or not. There is some myth that snooker players don't use side (english). This to me (and anyone that plays snooker) is one of the strangest things I've ever heard as in Snooker, you get used to playing almost every shot with side, especially long shots returning to the baulk end of the table. In effect you are brought up swerving the cue ball to pot balls. Now when you make the switch to 9 ball the deflection is much less and snooker players take time to adjust to this, they often hit long half ball cuts too full and miss them badly. This is purely due to having to adjust to the different deflection, in my case having to learn to use a predator where its even less made the transistion even harder. However I decided that the benifits of the taper and small tip where worth the extra effort. Its really not that hard to adjust if you put in the time.

I could mention more, but I think these two in partuclar plus my own experiences answer your question in some way?

Cheers

Craig

hope this helps?

 

[jsp]

That's a common view but the fact is, snooker players like steve davis have experienced difficulty in potting pool balls when they transitioned over from snooker...

I've never played snooker before, but what you say does seem to make sense to me...simply because the ball sizes differ between snooker and pool, and that can affect judgments on cut shots.

It does make perfect sense that the shooting precision of snooker players (in general) is superior of that of pool players (less room for error in snooker...balls are smaller, pockets are smaller, tables are bigger). On long straight-in shots, I doubt that any snooker player would have difficulty potting straight-in pool shots. However, cut shots are a different story, and this is where snooker players may struggle.

When aiming a cut shot, your mind has to determine how much off center of the OB you have to aim in order to pot that particular cut angle. To many professionals, this amount of offset is determined subconciously and comes automatically.

Maybe in some players' minds, calculating this offset is done in absolute distances. For example, for a 30 degree cut angle, move aiming point 2 cm to the left of center (don't know if these numbers are accurate, just an example). On the other hand, maybe some players calculate this offset in terms of ball percentages. For example, for a 30 degree cut angle, move aiming point 50% ball's-width to the left of center.

It would seem that if a snooker player's mind calculates this offset more in terms of absolute distances as opposed to ball percentages, he would be more prone to struggle on cut shots when transitioning to the pool table. Because you have to offset more in a cut shot in pool for a given cut angle (in terms of absolute distances), this snooker player may tend to undercut most of his cut shots.

Just a thought I'd throw out there.

 

[Cornerman]

The problem I had when I started was similar to what many snooker players have and thats deflection, whether they use a predator or not. There is some myth that snooker players don't use side (english). This to me (and anyone that plays snooker) is one of the strangest things I've ever heard as in Snooker, you get used to playing almost every shot with side, especially long shots returning to the baulk end of the table. In effect you are brought up swerving the cue ball to pot balls.

Just wanted to highlight this, as I always thought that snooker players used side as well. They'd have to. I think what confuses those of us who don't see much snooker is that what is shown is usually the high breaks, where the player is in that mode of one rail position that normally doesn't require much side. And because the ball is smaller, I don't think we can appreciate how much side is being used (tip offset to ball diameter ratio) on any shot.

I could mention more, but I think these two in partuclar plus my own experiences answer your question in some way?

Mostly I really am wondering if the postion play in your view is more challenging on a tighter table when you make/made the transition from large to small table and if that affects your shotmaking. But, since you said you did well on bar tables transitioning from snooker tables, this suggests that it wasn't so hard for you.

Fred

 

[TheOne]

Just wanted to highlight this, as I always thought that snooker players used side as well. They'd have to. I think what confuses those of us who don't see much snooker is that what is shown is usually the high breaks, where the player is in that mode of one rail position that normally doesn't require much side. And because the ball is smaller, I don't think we can appreciate how much side is being used (tip offset to ball diameter ratio) on any shot.


Mostly I really am wondering if the postion play in your view is more challenging on a tighter table when you make/made the transition from large to small table and if that affects your shotmaking. But, since you said you did well on bar tables transitioning from snooker tables, this suggests that it wasn't so hard for you.

Fred

Well I probably played more 8 ball on bar box size tables than I have snooker Fred so Im probably not the best person to ask

But I would say I can't imagine it being much of a problem, I mean the area around the reds on a snooker table is effectively a bar box size. More often than not this area has 17 balls (15 resd + pink and black) in it which a snooker player has to work with, often playing on a single ball (and getting the right angle) much like 9 ball. The areas snooker players struggle will always be, break, jump shots, and probably the hardest thing for them kicks and banks as the cushions are so different.

There are quite a few British players that have excelled a both snooker and 8 ball, I expect these players to make a very big impression on the IPT as they have both the advantage of being superb potters but also think like pool players and have great knowledge of the game of 8 ball. I think these type of players, such as Mick Hill, Quinten Hahn, and Even Appleton will do very well.

 

[sniper]

The areas snooker players struggle will always be, break, jump shots, and probably the hardest thing for them kicks and banks as the cushions are so different.

You hit the nail square on the head Craig, snooker players have their biggest problems with the break, jump and bank shots. These are all non-factors in snooker, I remember when Steve Davis attempted a jump shot at the 04 Mosconi Cup, Feijen had to talk him into attempting it and Davis ended up missing horribly. I don't recall ever seeing a snooker player with a strong break, unless you still consider Manalo a snooker player....I hope not LOL!


P.S.
Craig, did you get that PM I sent you the other day?

 

[Solartje]

my 2cent, as an old snooker player, yes break, bank, kicking are my main problems i had to learn, jumping actually was easy. Took me 5 minuts before i had it, one u know how to jump, its as easy as drinking a bear. the first one always tastes weird, but once uve got one down, all the other taste sweet.

game i seem to be best at: 8ball. i think its the game that is the closest to snooker. Game i prefere to play: straight pool (probably because i love to pot many balls in a row), game i suck at? 9 ball (probably because my breake is a negative thing instead of a positive thing. if i would play for money, giving my opponent the breake would be smarter then asking for the break.)

greats, silly solly

 

[mthornto]

I honestly believe that Ronnie is more talented than any other person to ever hold a cue, Efren included.

I am not trying to start a fight, just an honest question.

Has O’Sullivan played much of any other cue sport besides snooker? I am not aware of him being dominant in any other game. If I am correct in his not being dominant in any other game, how do you support your statement? Or is your statement more of a prediction?

Again, I am not looking for a flame war. I am just interested in how you came to your conclusion.

 

[Solartje]

i dont think efren could be in a cruscible final, where ronnie can finish in the open weert final. I must admit, i agree ronnie is the best (but thats just personal opinion and no evidence to back this statement up) only one way to know, and we'll probably never will.

let efren, ronnie, ceulemans play EVERY possible game and see who will win.
(Man id love to see that!!!). ID put my jellybeans (that the right hustling term right? ) on ronnie.

 

[sniper]

i dont think efren could be in a cruscible final, where ronnie can finish in the open weert final. I must admit, i agree ronnie is the best (but thats just personal opinion and no evidence to back this statement up) only one way to know, and we'll probably never will.

let efren, ronnie, ceulemans play EVERY possible game and see who will win.
(Man id love to see that!!!). ID put my jellybeans (that the right hustling term right? ) on ronnie.

Well Efren would have Ronnie at One Pocket, nine ball, rotation, and three cushion, can you name four games that Ronnie would definitely have Efren at?

 

[DaveK]

You hit the nail square on the head Craig, snooker players have their biggest problems with the break, jump and bank shots. These are all non-factors in snooker ...

Having said that, there is a video clip of Steve Davis running 147 on the first edition of Virtual Snooker. In the middle of the run he goes a bit far on a shot and ends up side-banking a red ball to continue (of course he makes the red, it's a 147 after all !). Other than that I agree, when I used to travel in the UK and watch snooker on BBC, I didn't see another bank in any match I saw. Jumping is against the rules of snooker, so it's not something they would practice. A snooker player should have a pretty good 14.1 break though

Dave

 

[Buckster_uk]

If Snooker had various disciplines, then Ronnie would have Efren there.

Efren would have Ronnie at pool and Ronnie would have Efren at Snooker, although 9-ball could be fairly close, that would be the only game IMO where the result could be close, of course over say 100 games Efren would be ahead.

It is so hard to judge talent between 2 really different cuesports, I am in the opinion that Ronnie is the most naturally gifted cuesports player out there, this obviously is my opinion as my mind boggles at how he can play Snooker, but I witnessed Efren playing One Pocket at the DCC and his performance there was also phenominal.

2 of the greatest cuesports players ever, I will leave it at that

 

[Andrew Manning]

I also think Ronnie's abilities on a snooker table qualify him as a more talented cueist than Efren. His potting accuracy + positional accuracy + speed control + cluster control are totally unmatched in all of cue-sports, in my opinion. However, I think Efren has more of an aptitude for learning new games, and I think Efren plays a lot of games Ronnie doesn't.

However, I think calling Efren a more talented cueist than O'Sullivan is like calling Bo Jackson a more talented athlete than Michael Jordan, in this respect: I think the mastery O'Sullivan displays over a snooker table is more impressive than Efren's mastery of any one specific game he plays, and the only one I think even comes close is one-pocket. The fact that he plays so many at a high level doesn't mean he's more talented with a cue.

That being said, there's really no comparing two great competitors who don't compete in the same sport. Even if the sports are similar, you can really only compare them if it's the same game. I think Ronnie's a more talented cueist, but this debate will never be settled, because no matter how long Ronnie plays 8-ball or 9-ball, his game is snooker; it's the one he grew up with. We'll never be able to make a true comparison.

-Andrew