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

[memikey]

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.

As far as trying to position the cue ball is concerned there's no doubt that there is generally more margin for error in where you can 'get away' with leaving the cue ball in most circumstances during a break on a snooker table than during a break in straight pool on a 9ft pool table and obviously you're not going to get any disagreement from the snooker camp purely on that front.

However the requirement to more often put spin on the cue ball in pool to achieve position is a slightly different subject and is just one of the many other different aspects of shot execution affecting the overall difficulty of achieving the pot and making good position. It isn't reasonable to introduce some aspects of shot difficulty whilst completely ignoring the many other accompanying aspects of difficulty in execution, including the size of the pockets in relation to the object balls and the average distance between cue ball and object ball and object ball and pocket, in the two games.

As regards your own experience, what you have posted can also be interpreted to mean that in over 2000 hours of snooker you have not even came close to a century break whereas you have accomplished at least one 100 plus run in straight pool. Yet more evidence that a century break in snooker and a 100 plus run in straight pool are not necessarily apropriate measures of skill in the two games to use for skill measuring or match up purposes. My gut feeling is that if two fair measuring standards to use for comparison purposes even exist in the first place, they aren't likely to be a century and a 100 ball run, certainly not for top level players anyway.

Good luck in finding the century, it'll come

 

[john schmidt]

hi

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.

you keep saying snooker is harder.but in snooker its world class to run 1 table.in 14.1 its world class to run 7-15 tables in a row.its all relative to what the best players can do at the game.yes its harder to run a table of snooker but if you do it thats a great run.in pool running 1 table is not great.you have to run many tables in a row to be great.also not anyone will be great if they are groomed from an early age trust me i know thousands that all thought they should be pros by now and arent even close.they have played as much as anyone on earth and are just above average.its not that easy trust me

 

[john schmidt]

hi

you know another thing that drives me crazy is how someone says well this ex snooker player on his first try ran 80 so 14.1 is easy.first of all any pro at any cue discipline should be able to run around 100 in a days time on loose table.if and when robin hull or kelly fisher or any body else gets up an runs 100 or more every 5-7 innings or even run around 3-4 hundred than tell me how easy 14.1 is.by the way i ran 145 at snooker does that mean its easy and i would be world class in no time,of course not.

 

[Marvel]

you know another thing that drives me crazy is how someone says well this ex snooker player on his first try ran 80 so 14.1 is easy.first of all any pro at any cue discipline should be able to run around 100 in a days time on loose table.if and when robin hull or kelly fisher or any body else gets up an runs 100 or more every 5-7 innings or even run around 3-4 hundred than tell me how easy 14.1 is.by the way i ran 145 at snooker does that mean its easy and i would be world class in no time,of course not.

Yes John, but in the first place you claimed that your level in Pool is equal to Ronnie O'Sullivan's in snooker. If he'd win you in snooker, you'd win him in 14.1. - like there's no difference.
But, John, there is a big difference. The One explained it quite well in one of the previous posts in this topic.

And, actually, it seems you are starting to get the point, as you admit that those snooker pros could beat you in one year, if they started to play 14.1. I'm sorry to say this, but no matter how long and hard you would practise snooker (or any other 25+ years old pool pro), you could never beat those guys in a long run in snooker..

The first and original point was, that for snooker pro to become top pool pro is possible (even easy for some), but in opposite for a pool pro to become a top snooker pro, it surely is impossible.


And don't get me wrong, I love pool and I'm hardly at all interested in snooker. I just know something and I say it like it is..

 

[JB Cases]

you keep saying snooker is harder.but in snooker its world class to run 1 table.in 14.1 its world class to run 7-15 tables in a row.its all relative to what the best players can do at the game.yes its harder to run a table of snooker but if you do it thats a great run.in pool running 1 table is not great.you have to run many tables in a row to be great.also not anyone will be great if they are groomed from an early age trust me i know thousands that all thought they should be pros by now and arent even close.they have played as much as anyone on earth and are just above average.its not that easy trust me

I hate to disagree with someone I admire.

John, may I ask how much real experience you have had with English snooker? I know you have stated that you have played and made high breaks on 6x12 tables. But have you ever watched a whole snooker tournament? Either on TV or in person?

I watched dozens of them during my ten years in Germany. This is not just about running out one table. It's about running out over and over and over again in long matches in single elimination tournaments.

There is simply no way that straight pool is harder than snooker. Period. Just about every shot in snooker is harder than just about every shot in straight pool.

Yes, straight pool requires intense concentration and proper patterns to weave your way through all those racks. What makes you think a top snooker player does not possess the skills to learn those patterns rapidly? Do you think that they are afraid of long shots? How about the tricky safeties where you have to brush the rack and the cueball is starting at the head rail? If you watched much snooker then you know that the top flight snooker players have epic safety battles where they do that time and time again over a 24+ foot distance. A 9 ft pool table looks like a toy to them when it comes to those shots.

I doubt you know thousands of players who have been trained as much as Jasmin and Albin Ouschan. Sorry but I have been around the block in the pool world myself a few times in the last 25 years, all over the world. I guarantee you that most players with that training and dedication are world beaters or getting close to it.

The truth is most players get to a point where they burn out or fizzle out. They either get disillusioned with it, get sidetracked on the hustling side or simply go broke looking for sponsorship. The ones who enjoy the support and remain focused become world beaters with few exceptions.

But that is not the point. The point is that top snooker players can play high level 14.1 much, much faster than ANY top flight pool pro can play high level snooker.

Anyone who truly knows both games can see the similarities in them.

A lot of good snooker players who can't make it on the snooker tour are jam up pool players. In Germany no one wants to draw Mike Henson because he is capable of easily beating any pool player he faces. Never heard of Mike Henson? He is an ex-snooker pro who never made it on tour. He regularly wins German snooker events against the top German players. And he is a feared pool player.

It's just the facts. You are 50/50 at best to beat Quentin in a 5000 point marathon. Because after the first 1000 or so points he will have absorbed your patterns, your safeties, and whatever else it is that you do to be a top 14.1 player. Then it will be a matter of outplaying him and how will you do that when he can execute as well as you do?

Play him one pocket and it will take him a lot longer to learn that game. You will beat on him for quite a while until he learns the moves.

After a month of one pocket though you probably won't like it anymore.

 

[JB Cases]

you know another thing that drives me crazy is how someone says well this ex snooker player on his first try ran 80 so 14.1 is easy.first of all any pro at any cue discipline should be able to run around 100 in a days time on loose table.if and when robin hull or kelly fisher or any body else gets up an runs 100 or more every 5-7 innings or even run around 3-4 hundred than tell me how easy 14.1 is.by the way i ran 145 at snooker does that mean its easy and i would be world class in no time,of course not.

Did you run a 145 the first of second time you ever played snooker on a regulation 6x12 snooker table?

Kelly ran 80 on a tight 4.25inch Brunswick Metro on her first or second try.

No one is denigrating your accomplishments John. I would love to be able to run 50s. What we are saying is that just because a snooker pro hasn't played 14.1 that does not mean it is hard FOR THEM.

They have put in as much time as you have - just in a different discipline that makes it easier for them to adapt to yours. You excel because you have earned it. So do they because they have earned it as well.

There is no way any human being flukes 180 balls into the holes. Anyone who shoots like that is perfectly capable of shooting 400 and 500 and more if everything goes well. I suppose that fatigue is a factor when you get into the hundreds, concentration surely. But a snooker player plays match es that last hours and hours and sometimes span days. So they are no strangers to fatigue and the need to maintain focus.

 

[john schmidt]

hi

yes ive watched tons of snooker matches on video.secondly i give up your right.snooker players can do anything i can do with little or no effort pool is easy.they are smarter more talented ,more coordinated from birth,better looking ,have more money .i on the other hand could never in a million years do what they do .that being said would you like to stake quintenn or any other snooker pros to a 5ooo point game of 14.1.you say at best its 50,50. ill make it easy on them and whoever stakes them .we can play for only 20,000 since surely im the underdog.also i never said i think they would beat me consistently in a year either.i know your a good guy and all john but you say things like you know more about cuesports than me and and the players and the different subtleties .who can beat who etc etc.what games harder or easier etc.frankly that would be about like me telling you how to build a poolcase feel me.i think snooker players are awesome at what they do. .poolplayers are awesome at what they do too .

 

[Scaramouche]

Seems everyone forgets that to win a snooker frame a maximum of 74 points is required. Many frames are won with fewer points. Anything beyond the number of points required to win the frame, like a century, is just showing off. In tournaments, prizes are awarded for high break and for a 147.

No snooker player will have long runs of balls because snooker is always alternating break. By comparison, a long run is 14.1 has all the appeal of running a ultra-marathon. You may be the toughest dude in that sport, but it won't get you much money, and you won't get many interested in challenging you.

Here is a link to the full scoring (bottom of page) for the 2008 China Open. Numbers in brackets are the longest breaks in each frame, if notable. Notable starts at 30

http://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/Results/2007-8/07-8-Professional/2008_China_Draw.htm

For example
FINAL

Stephen Maguire 10-9 Shaun Murphy 60-41(41), 32-63(54), 0-72(72), 74(74)-0, 122(106)-0, 68(46)-24, 114(102)-0, 0-136(136),

24-75(75), 36-61(46), 8-92(81), 39-74(45), 137(137)-0, 80-15, 80(80)-0, 97(89)-17, 0-107(86), 46(40)-61, 64-40

 

[JB Cases]

yes ive watched tons of snooker matches on video.secondly i give up your right.snooker players can do anything i can do with little or no effort pool is easy.they are smarter more talented ,more coordinated from birth,better looking ,have more money .i on the other hand could never in a million years do what they do .that being said would you like to stake quintenn or any other snooker pros to a 5ooo point game of 14.1.you say at best its 50,50. ill make it easy on them and whoever stakes them .we can play for only 20,000 since surely im the underdog.also i never said i think they would beat me consistently in a year either.i know your a good guy and all john but you say things like you know more about cuesports than me and and the players and the different subtleties .who can beat who etc etc.what games harder or easier etc.frankly that would be about like me telling you how to build a poolcase feel me.i think snooker players are awesome at what they do. .poolplayers are awesome at what they do too .

I don't think you are really reading what I am saying. I fully believe that if you had grown up in England and someone put a snooker cue in your hands then you would have probably made top 16 in snooker at least.

I haven't said anything less than pool players are awesome at what they do.

I wouldn't bet on you or against you in a long race in 14.1 against a top snooker players. It's a coin flip, in my opinion.

I would bet on you against any other pool player on the planet and that inlcudes the people I know who are superb 14.1 players like Thomas Engert, Ralf Souquet, and Oliver Ortmann. I'd have to not bet against Ralf because he is a friend. But i'd bet your side of it just because I like your style.

But you are right when it comes down to brass tacks as far as skill goes I am on the outside looking in. You know far better than me what goes on in the pro mind so I will defer to you and leave it at that.

I hope you get your game and us fans can watch two legends settle the snooker/pool debate once and for all.

 

[TheOne]

Some excellent points made. Its unfortunate that not so many pool players have seen much snooker.

But like somebody else said these deabtes always seem to become nationalistic.

I've said this before but I'll say it again anyway. I would probably bet than any British pool player would admit that they have no chance of becoming a Snooker pro if they where 25 years old and had never played it before.

If they understand this and can admit it, is the problem that:

a) Overseas pool players simply don't understand enough about Snooker?
b) Overseas pool players are better at pool than British pool players?
c) Overseas pool players just won't admit it?

I suspect its probably a) with a tiny pinch of c)

Anyway enough of all this, geez the boxers could learn a few things about promotion on this thread! JS v QH Snooker / 14.1 / 8 Ball challenge might just sell a few tickets and answer a few questions!

 

[Marvel]

yes ive watched tons of snooker matches on video.secondly i give up your right.snooker players can do anything i can do with little or no effort pool is easy.they are smarter more talented ,more coordinated from birth,better looking ,have more money .i on the other hand could never in a million years do what they do .that being said would you like to stake quintenn or any other snooker pros to a 5ooo point game of 14.1.you say at best its 50,50. ill make it easy on them and whoever stakes them .we can play for only 20,000 since surely im the underdog.also i never said i think they would beat me consistently in a year either.i know your a good guy and all john but you say things like you know more about cuesports than me and and the players and the different subtleties .who can beat who etc etc.what games harder or easier etc.frankly that would be about like me telling you how to build a poolcase feel me.i think snooker players are awesome at what they do. .poolplayers are awesome at what they do too .

John, after you got low and nasty with Quinten, for a few posts you tried to be decent and well mannered.

This is sarcasm again, and afterwards, to ask people to stake Q to 5000 points 14.1. is cowardice. Don't forget it was you who backed up in that thread, Q doesn't seem to be here anymore.


Anyway, you still haven't answered to that original claim about snooker vs. pool. (if you don't count that sarcastic escape)

No-one has ever said or claimed that snooker players are super humans compared to pool players. It's just that to become top snooker player, those guys practice about 60-70hrs a week, and that is well organized practice with scientific approach and highly educated coaches,not just gambling etc.
And lastly, to give you some peace of mind, I do not have any doubts, that you would have the same level in snooker that you are having now in pool. That is, if you were born in Britain, in a family which father is a fan of snooker, and who would have given you the ideal environment and support - from the start of your childhood.