Robin Hull - Ex-snooker player ran 180 in 14-1

[Vahmurka]

My math sucks!

it really does Or it is your scoring knowledge. Red equals 1 point, black equals 7 points. Red+black equals 8 points. 8 times 12 equals 96 which doesn't make a century (100 points at least). And a red pocketed after that does not either. So a player has to make red-black combination at least 13 times and register a 104 break. 13 times 2 equals 26 balls.

straight pool ... is mentally a very tough game and running out game after game for 2 or 3 hours is way tougher than it seems. Snooker players would not be able to just run 500 whenever they felt like it, the game really is not that easy even for a Hendry or somebody like that.

very nice point Ray, a century in snooker rarely exceeds 10 minutes nowadays, okay let it be 15 which is slow play already. After that the frame is over and there is no need to keep concentration level high, mind and muscles can relax.
It's not the same at straight pool where on a run a player can stay at the table for hours. Just take John's 245 DVD for example and watch how long it takes. Or Feijen's 259 which is around 1:30. I've never seen a snooker player making the balls and secondary breaks without mistake for such long time - for obvious reason.

 

[memikey]

it really does Or it is your scoring knowledge. Red equals 1 point, black equals 7 points. Red+black equals 8 points. 8 times 12 equals 96 which doesn't make a century (100 points at least). And a red pocketed after that does not either. So a player has to make red-black combination at least 13 times and register a 104 break. 13 times 2 equals 26 balls.

Much closer than JB, but still not quite the full cigar

Your description is of course basically correct but seems to forget about the possibility that a century break can in fact also be made by running only 25 balls

 

[TheOne]

This confirms what I've said before, if a hack like me could almost run a hundred in a week then a Pro Snooker player could probably run 200. I was mocked a little (I think somebody said running 200 isn't twice as hard as running 100 which of course I agree with) when I suggested this but I didn't think a Pro snooker player was only twice as good as I was either!

I agree about the differences between high run and a match up, but Snooker and 14.1 really do have much more aspects in common than probably most pool players imagine.

I found it interesting that Appleton won the DCC with little 14.1 match up experience (and zero tournament experience). Correct me if I'm wrong but did he beat you John? How did you rate his game, how did the match go? (this is a genuine question not a wind up or anything)

I personally think you JS and Hahn should play the following 3 games:

14.1
Snooker
American 8 Ball

Why bother with 14.1 and Snooker you ask? Simply because of all the years of debate on this board if nothing else! John to his credit has put in some time on the Snooker table and made some fine breaks. It will be interesting to see if he can pinch a few frames off QH (you only need a 70 break to win a frame in most circumstances).

Snooker players have also now been shown to run large numbers at 14.1 with little practise. John I think has also said that Hahn can't beat him at 14.1, it would be interesting to see how close he could get at least?

One thing is qithout question, JS is one of the best 14.1 players in the world, and Hahn was one of the best Snooker players in the world. The problem with the Snooker v Pool comparision has always been lack of evidence on the Pool to Snooker side, what better time to answer some of these questions?!

The 8 ball as everyone knows is the even game, if not slighty favouring John. Yes QH played UK 8 ball and did well on the IPT but its on Johns equipment in Johns backyard.

This would be a truly fascinating match up!

Come on guys...?

 

[TheOne]

Can I add that I understand how elitist this debate must seem to pool players, BUT I often think the reasoning is lost.

I don't think many on the Snooker would argue that JS or Efren couldn't possibly have become Snooker pros if they were born in England with a snooker cue in their hands.

The point is that when any sport attracts large sponsors, huge TV audiences, and pays millions in prize money you're going to get a shit load of kids trying to copy their heros!

JS Knows golf and I honestly think it's harder, or just as hard to make the top 16 at Snooker than it is to become a golf Pro.

You simply can't say that about pool, I'm sure deep down John knows that its much harder to be a world beater at golf than it is at pool? Does that mean Golf is harder than pool? I don't think it is, I just think a shit load more people want to be the best at it.

IMO, and it won't be a popular one the standards of the top pool players in the world aren't as good as they could/should/would be if somebody pumped millions into the game.

Lets face it, what reason does a pool player have to practise 20 hours a day? Does he have to beat thousands of kids just to have a shot at making a qualifier?

This simple fact is competition improves standards, bottom line.

Yes there will always be an argument that Snooker players pot better, which again lets face it why shouldnt they given the difference in equipment?

I think Johns argument about there being so much more to pool that would ensure the pool player would always win if their was more money in the game. In addition the current pro races are too short.

Tell me this, if the world 14.1 Championships can play race too 150 or 200 at 14.1 to find out who is the best player in the world....why are races too 1000 always mentioned when QH and JS are talking about matching up?

If a Snooker player really does have no chance at 14.1 why change the race length? I bet QH would be more than happy to play race to 17 or 18 frames like the final of the world snooker championships do.

 

[instroke75]

true!

Can I add that I understand how elitist this debate must seem to pool players, BUT I often think the reasoning is lost.

I don't think many on the Snooker would argue that JS or Efren couldn't possibly have become Snooker pros if they were born in England with a snooker cue in their hands.

The point is that when any sport attracts large sponsors, huge TV audiences, and pays millions in prize money you're going to get a shit load of kids trying to copy their heros!

JS Knows golf and I honestly think it's harder, or just as hard to make the top 16 at Snooker than it is to become a golf Pro.

You simply can't say that about pool, I'm sure deep down John knows that its much harder to be a world beater at golf than it is at pool? Does that mean Golf is harder than pool? I don't think it is, I just think a shit load more people want to be the best at it.

IMO, and it won't be a popular one the standards of the top pool players in the world aren't as good as they could/should/would be if somebody pumped millions into the game.

Lets face it, what reason does a pool player have to practise 20 hours a day? Does he have to beat thousands of kids just to have a shot at making a qualifier?

This simple fact is competition improves standards, bottom line.

Yes there will always be an argument that Snooker players pot better, which again lets face it why shouldnt they given the difference in equipment?

I think Johns argument about there being so much more to pool that would ensure the pool player would always win if their was more money in the game. In addition the current pro races are too short.

Tell me this, if the world 14.1 Championships can play race too 150 or 200 at 14.1 to find out who is the best player in the world....why are races too 1000 always mentioned when QH and JS are talking about matching up?

If a Snooker player really does have no chance at 14.1 why change the race length? I bet QH would be more than happy to play race to 17 or 18 frames like the final of the world snooker championships do.

some very good points!
Jeremy

 

[ledrums]

Is it just me or do I get the impression that what is being implied at times is that somehow Snooker players are genetically superior or something. Is someone from Britain or Europe born with inate talents that americans don't have? Can a person born in the US who devoted their lives to snooker have a chance at being the best? I want to hear opinions because these threads are starting to sound like whose country has better people threads.

 

[Blackjack]

Is it just me or do I get the impression that what is being implied at times is that somehow Snooker players are genetically superior or something. Is someone from Britain or Europe born with inate talents that americans don't have?

No... they'll choke at the worst possible time just like everybody else in the world - whether they have a snooker background or not.

 

[TheOne]

Is it just me or do I get the impression that what is being implied at times is that somehow Snooker players are genetically superior or something. Is someone from Britain or Europe born with inate talents that americans don't have? Can a person born in the US who devoted their lives to snooker have a chance at being the best? I want to hear opinions because these threads are starting to sound like whose country has better people threads.

See above posts, quite the opposite of what you suggest

 

[memikey]

Is it just me or do I get the impression that what is being implied at times is that somehow Snooker players are genetically superior or something. Is someone from Britain or Europe born with inate talents that americans don't have? Can a person born in the US who devoted their lives to snooker have a chance at being the best? I want to hear opinions because these threads are starting to sound like whose country has better people threads.

This has been debated at length already on at least two threads and just about everyone (European and American) has already agreed that the likes of John, if he had taken snooker up as a youth instead of pool, would have had a good shot at making it.

You only need to look up above to the second sentence of The One's second post to see an example of that opinion.

Edit....Snap! The One....slow typer me

 

[Jimmy M.]

Mjantti, I hope it's ok that I stole your post from the 14-1 forum. Thought this could be a nice thread since we are discussing snookerplayer Q. Hann vs John Schmidt. Perhaps a 14-1 match between Hann and Schmidt could be fun and not so one-sided as some people here first thought

(By the way Mjantti, congratulations with your medal)

That's a pretty big "perhaps" there. Kinda like, "perhaps I'll win the election in 2016 and become the first pool-player president". I'll put a few Diamonds in the Oval Office and hold weekly tournaments for Congress/Senate members only. I'm stealing! Hey, it could happen!

 

[TheOne]

That's a pretty big "perhaps" there. Kinda like, "perhaps I'll win the election in 2016 and become the first pool-player president". I'll put a few Diamonds in the Oval Office and hold weekly tournaments for Congress/Senate members only. I'm stealing! Hey, it could happen!

But will you punch George in the chops as he moves out?

 

[Jimmy M.]

Tell me this, if the world 14.1 Championships can play race too 150 or 200 at 14.1 to find out who is the best player in the world....why are races too 1000 always mentioned when QH and JS are talking about matching up?

Hi Craig. I suspect your question is rhetorical but I'll chime in.

It's just the nature of pool, unfortunately, that tournament formats do not always ensure that the best player wins. In a gambling match, especially straight pool, I too would want to play a 1000-point game, especially if I felt I were the better player. I could beat John, or any player, for that matter, a game to 150, at least once in a while, and I don't possess the same skills that Quinten Hann does. However, I don't think I'd ever win a game to 1000, no matter how many games we played.

I don't know enough about snooker to know if 17 or 18 frames, like you mentioned, would be enough to ensure the better player wins, but it sure sounds like a lot. They play 17 or 18 total frames? How long does something like that take?

 

[Jimmy M.]

But will you punch George in the chops as he moves out?

I'd do that now if I wouldn't have to suffer the legal ramifications.

 

[TheOne]

Hi Craig. I know your question is rhetorical but I'll chime in.

It's just the nature of pool, unfortunately, that tournament formats do not always ensure that the best player wins. In a gambling match, especially straight pool, I too would want to play a 1000-point game, especially if I felt I were the better player. I could beat John, or any player, for that matter, a game to 150, at least once in a while, and I don't possess the same skills that Quinten Hann does. However, I don't think I'd ever win a game to 1000, no matter how many games we played.

I don't know enough about snooker to know if 17 or 18 frames, like you mentioned, would be enough to ensure the better player wins, but it sure sounds like a lot. They play 17 or 18 total frames? How long does something like that take?

Hi Jimmy,

Its best of 35 I think, takes 2 days over 4 Sessions I think, might be wrong though been long time since last May

I know what youre saying and it was a little rhetorical.

I just think there's some confussion. When a Snooker player/fan says (lets use the current example) QH could beat John at 14.1 surely its fair to assume he's talking about professional length matches? I think if Quinten said "You can't beat me at Snooker" and then wanted to play a race 5 times longer than the world final it might cause a few sniggers on the "pool" side of the debate.

QH v JS race to 150 or 200 is a VERY open game at 14.1 IMO. Now I'm saying this and QH has NEVER played 14.1 before in his life.

Think about it, doesn't this speak volumes? It sounds crazy doesn't it, BUT the very fact JS did suggest a long race is very interesting.

I'm probably getting a little too deep, I'll go to bed lol

 

[TheOne]

I'd do that now if I wouldn't have to suffer the legal ramifications.

You and a "brazillian" others lol

 

[john schmidt]

hi

of course he can beat me in a race to 150-200.i can beat him in a best of 5 snooker sometimes to dont worry.actually i think i can beat tiger woods in a 3 hole golf match if the stars aligned.ill say it again so there is no confusion.if any snooker pro ,hendry,osullivan,hahn etc want to play me 1000 points of 14.1 for say 10000 ill play today.if they win ill flip the coin and try another set.if they practiced the game for say a year then maybe it would be even.but right now i think i have an edge and am willing to bet high on it instead of speculate which does not cost much to do.cheers mate

 

[Jimmy M.]

Hi Jimmy,

Its best of 35 I think, takes 2 days over 4 Sessions I think, might be wrong though been long time since last May

Too bad pool just isn't big enough here to warrant taking that much time. It would be great to decide world champion pool players in matches of that length. Well, it would be great for a few; not so great for everyone else because, imo, they might not be winning as often.

I think you'd definitely see the number of people who are capable of winning tournaments shrink in size. I'm not sure if that would be good for pool or not. I know that people like variety, but dominant figures also attract spectators (think Ali, Jordan, Woods, and Federer).

 

[worriedbeef]

TheOne the reason why john suggests a race to 1000 and a snooker player wouldnt suggest a race longer than a standard snooker match simply reflects the current state of pool. snooker, whilst not being in great shape at the moment, is still in a good enough situation so it can afford to have match lengths that truly mean the best player will win.

in pool however standard tournament match lengths just aren't viable at the moment it seems - but in an ideal world 9/10 ball matches would be races to say about 25, and straight pool race to a 1000 for each match in a tournament. that would be more of an equivalent to snooker. but it's hell of a job just to get a straight pool tournament going at all it seems, never mind having the game in a healthy enough state so that we could have races to a thousand for each round.

so it's not unreasonable for john to suggest a race to 1000. it's unlikely, but say quentin ran 150 and out? what would that prove? race to a thousand is a much truer test of ability where both players will get multiple innings and the better player will always win. rather like the way snooker is as standard.

The best shot makers on planet Earth are snooker players...no surprise, really, a 12' table would be utter hell for mainstream 9 ball players...without a doubt, snooker and 14:1 are simular, and I agree with you 100%

the best shotmakers on earth are not nessecarilly snooker players. what people seem to forget is pool and snooker are extremely different in style. i mean, take a long straightish red in snooker. the equivalent long shot in 9-ball would probably be played with low right english to draw over to the rail and back out as opposed to centre ball in snooker. or I saw earl once play this long power force follow deflection shot - was amazing. you'd never see that in snooker. and don't forget you're hitting the ball a lot harder in pool because the balls are a lot heavier.

i honestly don't think either game is harder than the other when played to it's high levels. and they are just completely different styles of game.

in any case, all this snooker vs pool discussion is kinda irrelevant anyway. what's important is how good the game is, not how difficult it is. for me pool is a miles better game than snooker - more natural and satisfying. if we're gonna get into the realms of difficulty then why not just tighten up the pockets in snooker so they are say just a millimetre wider than the ball either side? what would be the point in that? it wouldnt make the game better.

on a side note something i thought about a while back regarding the women's game. a lot of the top players use snooker style fundamentals and strokes. now i think we will all agree that at this moment in time the women's game is nowhere near the men's. (and incidentally, like somebody said earlier, the men's game could be a lot stronger too if the state of pool was better). now for me there's one top player who is amongst the most talented to ever pick up a cue including the men. jasmin ouschan. and she plays the game like a pool player - whereas most of the other women play it like snooker players.

she has a beautiful pool stroke, ryhthmic and loose, and powerful. and it's so suited for pool. the snooker style is great and quite effective, but it's best for snooker. same as a pool style is best for pool.

they are both great games. i don't see why so many people seem to want to proclaim snooker players as cueing gods and forgetting and not realising just what is so great about the game of pool.

 

[JB Cases]

on a side note something i thought about a while back regarding the women's game. a lot of the top players use snooker style fundamentals and strokes. now i think we will all agree that at this moment in time the women's game is nowhere near the men's. (and incidentally, like somebody said earlier, the men's game could be a lot stronger too if the state of pool was better). now for me there's one top player who is amongst the most talented to ever pick up a cue including the men. jasmin ouschan. and she plays the game like a pool player - whereas most of the other women play it like snooker players.

she has a beautiful pool stroke, ryhthmic and loose, and powerful. and it's so suited for pool. the snooker style is great and quite effective, but it's best for snooker. same as a pool style is best for pool.

they are both great games. i don't see why so many people seem to want to proclaim snooker players as cueing gods and forgetting and not realising just what is so great about the game of pool.

No one wants to do that. What is so great about all the pocket billiard games is watching the balls disappear in the pockets.

Jasmin and her brother were groomed to play pool. Almost any person who was trained from a young age develops into a formidable professional as long as they have the desire to do it.

The whole point of all this is that world class is world class - there is nothing that a top snooker player knows about hitting a ball that a top pool player does not. The difference lies in the atmosphere that each player develops under.

Snooker is harder. It's that simple. The playing field is enormous, the targets (balls and pockets) are smaller, there is almost no cheating of the pockets going on, the equipment is fairly standard and the competition is truly fierce.

Thus a world class player that rises to the top in that environment can handle any pocket billiards game.

However the easier the environment gets then the tougher it becomes to dominate because it's easier for everyone.

Kelly Fisher, my favorite ex-snooker player, ran an 80 or so the first or second time she tried at straight pool. I have no doubt that within a week or so she would break 100 and go from there.

Anyway it's all academic. As The One says until someone matches up the debate will simply remain an exercise in fantasy.

 

[Gerry]

I used to play snooker for about 20 hours a week for a couple of years on a very difficult 6x12 table. My high run on that table is 78....twice. My high run in 14.1 is 127 and I think the 127 was MUCH harder than the 78.

my point is on the snooker table you have TONS of room to move the cue ball around using only center ball shots if you wish which is easier IMO then having larger heavier balls on a smaller table with no room to move so you must spin the cue ball to get where you need to which lowers your accuracy. A bigger table for top flight players makes it easier IMO with less congestion.....

just try a game of 14.1 on a 7footer, then a 9footer.