Pool Vs. Snooker?
- Thread starter SureShot21
- Start date
I can assure you, the TV tables at the crucible are not forgiving. Firstly, the pockets are small at the opening, and the rounded jaws make them play extremely tight when the shot isn't going into the full opening. Balls on or close to the cushion have to be hit with the utmost accuracy, 1cm either side of perfect and the OB is rattling. Then you have the heated bed, making it play like an ice rink. Then you have the nap of the cloth to contend with. Pots into the middle pockets from down near the pink spot is like a putt on a green, you have to read the nap and how the ball will take to the nap at a given speed so you cant just aim for the centre of a pocket. Then you have the size of the tables, which makes even the best players quake in their boots if they aren't familiar with it.
Basically what I'm getting at is you don't see pool players making cameo appearances in snooker. You see snooker players making cameo appearances in pool except they aren't really cameo...they stand a very good chance of holding their own.
When I was at my best I could play the snooker ghost a best of 17 and win 50% of the time on a TV table set-up. On a club table maybe 60-70% of the time. Now, when I'm nowhere near my best I cant remember the last time I lost to the 9 ball ghost. I would go as far to say that a 7ft UK pool table plays toigher than a 9ft diamond pro am.
They manage quite alright in snooker leagues. Snooker seems to understand that to keep arguments to a minimum they need a ref not just in the pro game but in amateur leagues so they have a ref from 1 team ref a frame then one from the other team for the next. I don't know why they don't employ this in pool. Maybe if they did there wouldn't be quite as many people *****ing on here about "what is the rule when..." Or "I hate league because...".
Ron Swanson
Banned
This video someone else posted is an example of what I was saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOhGxjVhvz0&feature=youtu.be
The pockets look almost like a pool table. American 10 foot snooker tables have such small pockets you often can't make a ball down the rail, period. This is what most Americans think of when they think snooker tables.
That is why I made the comment. As an American I was indeed surprised at the size of the snooker pockets in England.
Most American snooker tables that are 10 foot that I've seen and played on were with American sized balls and cut like Chinese pool tables...making it a Chinese pool table. I will give anyone £100 if they can make 10 shots in a row from the cushion going from middle to a corner pocket on a club snooker table let alone a tv table.
Exactly lol they both dominated rotation almost immediately. If you think that would happen if rotation players tried to play snooker I'll be happy to take some of that action. Lol
John Schmidt started in his csi interview that it's all relative, snooker has smaller pockets but the balls are smaller as well.
Also, they play with cues with 9mm
I've seen Steve Davis and Mark grey bring their snooker cues to the mosconi cup, but has a pool player ever brought his cue to a snooker table?
The biggest difference is that snooker can be understood by its fans because of its utter simplicity and because the pros play the same game as the amateurs.
.... ah, snooker is so easy to watch and follow. Red-color, red-color until the reds are gone and then shoot them in numerical order. That's how you play it in your local room and if you watch pros live or on TV that's the way it is played, and always on a twelve foot table. Event producers and promoters have succeeded by continuing to give casual onlookers a game they know and can easily follow.
....and then there's rotation pool. Today it's 9ball, tomorrow it's 10-ball. Today it's call shot, tomorrow it isn't. The day after tomorrow you must call the money ball only, and the day after that you must call your safes, too. Some days, you must break from the box, others not. Some days it is winner breaks, other days it is alternate break. Some days the breaker racks his own, other days it's the opponent doing the racking. Some days, a jump cue is allowed, but other days it isn't. The size of the table is variable from tourney to tourney. Some days there is a shot clock and some days there isn't. Some days there is a dress code and some days there isn't. Event producers and promoters have always been far more committed to giving the pros the game they want rather than making the game intelligible and recognizable to the casual onlooker.
Well, you get the idea.
.... ah, snooker is so easy to watch and follow. Red-color, red-color until the reds are gone and then shoot them in numerical order. That's how you play it in your local room and if you watch pros live or on TV that's the way it is played, and always on a twelve foot table. Event producers and promoters have succeeded by continuing to give casual onlookers a game they know and can easily follow.
....and then there's rotation pool. Today it's 9ball, tomorrow it's 10-ball. Today it's call shot, tomorrow it isn't. The day after tomorrow you must call the money ball only, and the day after that you must call your safes, too. Some days, you must break from the box, others not. Some days it is winner breaks, other days it is alternate break. Some days the breaker racks his own, other days it's the opponent doing the racking. Some days, a jump cue is allowed, but other days it isn't. The size of the table is variable from tourney to tourney. Some days there is a shot clock and some days there isn't. Some days there is a dress code and some days there isn't. Event producers and promoters have always been far more committed to giving the pros the game they want rather than making the game intelligible and recognizable to the casual onlooker.
Well, you get the idea.
nobody who has played both games says pool is harder
Wrong....I've played a lot of both games.
In snooker and pool, you have to beat your opponent.
In pool, cue ball control and strategy is more important...
....in snooker, you're nothing without accuracy.
In one-pocket, you gotta be Einstein.
A game is only as hard as the skill set you have. I find snooker a bit challenging, nine ball and 10 ball simple, 14.1 a lot of fun, one pocket a mental mind fcuk and banks impossible.
If you don't have the fundamentals, the eyes, the tactical know-how, the experience and the desire to be better at a certain discipline of pocket billiards then you are going to find it hard.
And the table is MUCH bigger, that's kind of an important piece to leave out
It matters not how small the balls are only the relative size of the pockets compared to those balls. Nobody is stopping a pool player from using a 9mm tip? If it were NOT more difficult, why would pool players scrounge around for table scraps, if they can eat Filet Mignon every night of the week and twice on Sunday.
Triple my salary, and I'd move just about anywhere in Europe. I mean, if Cricket players were good enough to play baseball, you don't think there would be a line 1 mile long for some of those $50M, $100M, $200M, or even $325M contracts that are given out
It seems like every 30-50 years in the U.S. we pick a new game that becomes the "standard" for a long time, whereas I find it amazing that in Britain snooker remains the same, and generation after generation improves on the game without tiring of it.
In the U.S. we started with pocket-less games like balk-line and 3-cushion, then moved on to 14.1, which dominated for decades until Mosconi made it almost too boring to watch (the man never missed!). From there bar tables came into favor and the local pool halls could no longer compete, but that forced people to play games like 8-ball and 9-ball...9-ball won out and has dominated for decades. Leagues keep 8-ball and 9-ball alive, so I guess there's no end in sight for their dominance, but 1P is starting to capture more attention.
Still, I love watching snooker matches and it amazes me that snooker fans still have such enthusiasm for the game. If the U.S. had 1 billiards game dominate for as long as snooker has dominated in the U.K., I'd reckon we'd all be bored with it by now.
In the U.S. we started with pocket-less games like balk-line and 3-cushion, then moved on to 14.1, which dominated for decades until Mosconi made it almost too boring to watch (the man never missed!). From there bar tables came into favor and the local pool halls could no longer compete, but that forced people to play games like 8-ball and 9-ball...9-ball won out and has dominated for decades. Leagues keep 8-ball and 9-ball alive, so I guess there's no end in sight for their dominance, but 1P is starting to capture more attention.
Still, I love watching snooker matches and it amazes me that snooker fans still have such enthusiasm for the game. If the U.S. had 1 billiards game dominate for as long as snooker has dominated in the U.K., I'd reckon we'd all be bored with it by now.
Last edited:
Well I didn't even "jest", so I am sure I didn't "gest".
Sounds like you mis-read again, and again, and again.
My comments were about an American Snooker table - which anyone
on the planet who has ever shot a ball on a snooker table knows play
MUCH more difficult than the pockets on an English table.
Dale
None of which changes the fact that it is considerably more difficult to 'pot' balls
on standard American pockets than English pockets - Crucible tables
notwithstanding, Methinks you have never seen an American table. Back when this
was still America, many big city rooms had 12 foot American Snooker tables. Sadly
most of them have gone the Golf route.
Dale
I sure hope you are making a bad joke - do you have any idea how long ago
American companies started making Snooker tables?
Dale
Last edited: