Ronnie O'Sullivan to play pool this year

[Fred Agnir]

Fred
i have been following this thread and read all the post in detail and all i can say is that you remind me of fast larry , so angry , just because peoples views differ with yours

That is not why I reply as I do. Differing opinion is what this bored is borne from. What I do get annoyed at is the same argument over and over, even though previous people have had the same argument, and yet have stepped back and realized that their opinion need rescrutinizing.

Can you show me the post that made you write this? I just read every thread again, and I don't see where I got "angry" at all. I got passively slammed and got mocked first. Do I not have the opportunity to rebutt?

All they have to do is read. The moment someone insults me, and then goes on to accuse me of insulting them or their sport, then I've got problems with that. Someone asked a question, and I think I gave a very plausible answer, answers that have been spoken by people far more in to snooker than I will ever be. Should all of that be discounted?

your angry replies prompt angry replies , in the future i am just going to skip your posts just as i would fast larry if he were still around on this forum.

If you must, you must. The words are just words. There is no anger in my words. Fast Larry is delusional. And he can't read. Do you think I'm delusional? Do you think I can't read? Do any of my points have any merit in your view? Are they all just senseless barking, in your opinion?

remember just because you say it is so , does not make it so.

I am not known to make hand-waving posts, so your statement really doesn't apply to me. I always back it up with why I feel the way I feel.

And I think the Darryl Peach interview speaks volumes, rather than just speculates. Do you think everyone that I'm debating with has a more valid or equally valid point of view than Darryl Peach? Do you think they'd feel the same way if they actually witnessed what Darryl Peach witnessed?

Fred

 

[TheOne]

After filtering through the last 8 pages of drivel, here are the results:

FACT: Snooker players can play pool to a high standard with the right preparation, see Drago and Gray.

CLAIM: Pool players can play snooker to a high standard, its just that they enjoy poverty and are too lazy.

Probably the most sensible thing in all this thread. Oh except you forgot Tony Corsby, Steve Knight, Steve Davis, Daryl Peach, Many of the Europeans I Believe played snooker first as did the Canadians. Johl Younger, Alex the Lion, Many of the Asians on the San Miguel (including Efren and Manalo) also are converted snooker players.

From what I have seen and been told most of the snooker tables in America have much bigger pockets than in the UK, with many actually have pool pockets!

Fred, you really can't judge pocket sizes from TV, you should know that. If you watched the WPC on TV the pockets looked very generous but of course they were not. The main problem with this thread is that most of the Americans are commenting on Snooker which they know little or nothing about, and many of the Brits are judging pool purely by the size of the pockets. Of course no pool player (eg learnt to play pool first) has ever successfully converted to Snooker, however I do think it is possible that some of the top 9 ball Pro's with good fundamentals given time could become a very good snooker player. However I doubt they could ever reach the very top level, the gulf is just to big.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...
From what I have seen and been told most of the snooker tables in America have much bigger pockets than in the UK, with many actually have pool pockets! ...

If you ever get to the Los Angeles area, stop by Hardtimes in Bellflower. If you would like to try a three-red clearance on the front snooker table, beginning with the reds loose near the pink and the cue ball in hand (as in nine ball), I think you could get a lot of bets. Of course, that's only one snooker table in the US. In fact, I think you could get even money bets on brown-blue-pink-black.

But to get back to the subject of this thread, I'm willing to bet a small amount that Ronnie leaves the US pool scene more than a little disappointed.

 

[TheOne]

If you ever get to the Los Angeles area, stop by Hardtimes in Bellflower. If you would like to try a three-red clearance on the front snooker table, beginning with the reds loose near the pink and the cue ball in hand (as in nine ball), I think you could get a lot of bets. Of course, that's only one snooker table in the US. In fact, I think you could get even money bets on brown-blue-pink-black.

But to get back to the subject of this thread, I'm willing to bet a small amount that Ronnie leaves the US pool scene more than a little disappointed.

I was going to mention "That table", but I beleive its more set up for gold than snooker?

I also doubt whether Ronnie will do that well, when I played 8 ball in the UK two top ten snooker players wouldn't play me at 8 ball for money, it just seemed to confuse the hell out of them. That was the Uk version though with tiny balls and pockets, the 9fts may suit Ronnie a little better

 

[unknownpro]

Probably the most sensible thing in all this thread. Oh except you forgot Tony Corsby, Steve Knight, Steve Davis, Daryl Peach, Many of the Europeans I Believe played snooker first as did the Canadians. Johl Younger, Alex the Lion, Many of the Asians on the San Miguel (including Efren and Manalo) also are converted snooker players.

From what I have seen and been told most of the snooker tables in America have much bigger pockets than in the UK, with many actually have pool pockets!

Fred, you really can't judge pocket sizes from TV, you should know that. If you watched the WPC on TV the pockets looked very generous but of course they were not. The main problem with this thread is that most of the Americans are commenting on Snooker which they know little or nothing about, and many of the Brits are judging pool purely by the size of the pockets. Of course no pool player (eg learnt to play pool first) has ever successfully converted to Snooker, however I do think it is possible that some of the top 9 ball Pro's with good fundamentals given time could become a very good snooker player. However I doubt they could ever reach the very top level, the gulf is just to big.

Many American players already play snooker just fine. Snooker is a great game, not boring at all, and many pro players in the U.S. grew up playing it all their lives. Nearly every poolroom in the South had a snooker table for most of the last century, with runs of 50 to 70 being quite common among no name players from the body shop around the corner. Pool and snooker are both great games. Neither is harder than the other. Can't we all just get along? Open up a snooker tournament with a million dollars in it and play it over here and don't be surprised if Americans place very high.

unknownpro

 

[vagabond]

Where?Where? Are u talking about 10 foot tables or real snooker tables that are 12 foot? I want to know how many cities have the 12 foot are in the south and the names of the locations.
Vagabond

 

[TheOne]

Many American players already play snooker just fine. Snooker is a great game, not boring at all, and many pro players in the U.S. grew up playing it all their lives. Nearly every poolroom in the South had a snooker table for most of the last century, with runs of 50 to 70 being quite common among no name players from the body shop around the corner. Pool and snooker are both great games. Neither is harder than the other. Can't we all just get along? Open up a snooker tournament with a million dollars in it and play it over here and don't be surprised if Americans place very high.

unknownpro

I have to agree Snooker is a great game, not boring at all. However I have to say if they held a snooker comp in America and the top 128 snooker players in the world played in it I seriously doubt if any American would place in the top 128. You see the lvel that snooker is it now a days is unbeleivable. The main reason for this is the money, 20 years ago the competition wasn't that great and players that where in the top 32 then prob wouldn't get in the top 128 now. Kids and parents have seen what a top Snooker player can earn and of course want to copy it. 50 or 70 breaks you say, wow! If you haven't made a 147 by 16 then you have no chance nowadays, for example another Pro in my home town was making a 147 break almost every day in practice in the lead up to the world championships this year. He struggles to break into the top 50 in the world and I don't think he even made it to the tournament proper! In the old days there was Pro players that had never even had a maximum break! There is Zero chance that a pool player WITH NO SNOOKER experience could ever beat a top ranked snooker player in a long race, zero, none. Its just too much of a jump and the top players in the world now are just too good.

Yes snooker players, both male and female have done well in Pool but apart from the women they haven't dominated as some would have you believe. But they do have a chance, however no matter how talented Ronnie is my money is on Reyes everytime! (at pool anyway ;-)

 

[onepocketchump]

I have to agree Snooker is a great game, not boring at all. However I have to say if they held a snooker comp in America and the top 128 snooker players in the world played in it I seriously doubt if any American would place in the top 128. You see the lvel that snooker is it now a days is unbeleivable. The main reason for this is the money, 20 years ago the competition wasn't that great and players that where in the top 32 then prob wouldn't get in the top 128 now. Kids and parents have seen what a top Snooker player can earn and of course want to copy it. 50 or 70 breaks you say, wow! If you haven't made a 147 by 16 then you have no chance nowadays, for example another Pro in my home town was making a 147 break almost every day in practice in the lead up to the world championships this year. He struggles to break into the top 50 in the world and I don't think he even made it to the tournament proper! In the old days there was Pro players that had never even had a maximum break! There is Zero chance that a pool player WITH NO SNOOKER experience could ever beat a top ranked snooker player in a long race, zero, none. Its just too much of a jump and the top players in the world now are just too good.

Yes snooker players, both male and female have done well in Pool but apart from the women they haven't dominated as some would have you believe. But they do have a chance, however no matter how talented Ronnie is my money is on Reyes everytime! (at pool anyway ;-)

What is the difference in your opinon? Is it the cueing action? Is it strategy?

I have said before that I believe if Ronnie or any other top ten snooker player were to come to the USA and play Ronnie Allen, Scott Frost, Efren or any other TOP one pocket player for a solid month, gambling for signifigant money then the snooker player would himself become a top ten one pocket player within that month. Similarly I firmly believe that if Johnny Archer were to play Snooker against Ronnie for a solid month then Johnny would himself become a top snooker player - top ten? No probably not right away but he would definitely be able to play at a world class level. The reason I believe this is because both Ronnie and Johnny have that level of talent that transcends their fellow professionals and champions breed champions.

I could go on forever. The reason Daryl Peach couldn't get a better ranking in snooker is because he wasn't good enough. The reason Daryl Peach isn't snapping off all the top pool events in the world is because he is not good enough. Send Johnny to England and he will instantly be "the best" pool player there because he is "that" good. Back to mass makes class. Not enough people play pool professionally in England for there to be any serious contenders there for pool domination. The snooker cream however can compete with some practice on the nuances because they are also "that" good.

Obviously the largest difference in pool and snooker is the equipment and the accuracy needed to pot balls. Now, although there are plenty here, myself included, that have had some experience in both worlds, I would say that we can all agree that there is a lot of overlap as well. So is it just the harder equipment that makes the player? Or is it that mass makes class and the fact that there is more money in Snooker means that there are going to be more people who take it seriously as a true profession and that leads to the cream being an appreciably higher level?

But is there a level in pool that can't get any higher no matter where you come from? I mean if you play perfect then isn't that the ultimate? I have to believe that someone of Johnny Archer's caliber would have been a top ten snooker player had he grown up playing only snooker. And I believe that Ronnie would have been a top ten pool player had he only played pool.

Okay, well enough conjecture. On a personal note, it's definitely not as daunting to play pool as it is to play snooker on an true professional 6x12 with rounded pockets. When the goal is to continuously pocket balls then it is definitely easier on a pool table with 4.25 inch pockets than it is on a snooker table.

Lastly, I would take the bet on whether any given American could finish in the top 128 in any given Snooker tournament. There are quite a few Americans who can play snooker quite well and are definitely able to take matches off of any given player in any particular match, especially in the early rounds of a snooker tournament. I don't know who the 128th player in the world is in pro snooker but I'll bet that Johnny Arher is a better snooker player than that person is. David McDonnel is currently ranked #75 on tour and made a whopping 3100 Pounds last season. Johnny earns quite a bit more than that playing pool. To properly frame this discussion we need to have a bit more facts in play.

John

 

[kyle]

IMO if the top American pros had a chance to compete with the best snooker players they would of done it, up until recent years the money in pool wasn't even close to what they played for on the snooker tour. The women snooker players are a better exsample than the men they have turned to pool for the money and have made a full commitment to the game, the men I think in the begining did it more for the fun of it but still remained on the snooker scene. With the decline in purses for snooker and the growth in pool the talent is no longer being swallowed up by snooker I expect we will start to see more pool players from the U.K. in the years to come.

 

[TheOne]

What is the difference in your opinon? Is it the cueing action? Is it strategy?

I have said before that I believe if Ronnie or any other top ten snooker player were to come to the USA and play Ronnie Allen, Scott Frost, Efren or any other TOP one pocket player for a solid month, gambling for signifigant money then the snooker player would himself become a top ten one pocket player within that month. Similarly I firmly believe that if Johnny Archer were to play Snooker against Ronnie for a solid month then Johnny would himself become a top snooker player - top ten? No probably not right away but he would definitely be able to play at a world class level. The reason I believe this is because both Ronnie and Johnny have that level of talent that transcends their fellow professionals and champions breed champions.

I could go on forever. The reason Daryl Peach couldn't get a better ranking in snooker is because he wasn't good enough. The reason Daryl Peach isn't snapping off all the top pool events in the world is because he is not good enough. Send Johnny to England and he will instantly be "the best" pool player there because he is "that" good. Back to mass makes class. Not enough people play pool professionally in England for there to be any serious contenders there for pool domination. The snooker cream however can compete with some practice on the nuances because they are also "that" good.

Obviously the largest difference in pool and snooker is the equipment and the accuracy needed to pot balls. Now, although there are plenty here, myself included, that have had some experience in both worlds, I would say that we can all agree that there is a lot of overlap as well. So is it just the harder equipment that makes the player? Or is it that mass makes class and the fact that there is more money in Snooker means that there are going to be more people who take it seriously as a true profession and that leads to the cream being an appreciably higher level?

But is there a level in pool that can't get any higher no matter where you come from? I mean if you play perfect then isn't that the ultimate? I have to believe that someone of Johnny Archer's caliber would have been a top ten snooker player had he grown up playing only snooker. And I believe that Ronnie would have been a top ten pool player had he only played pool.

Okay, well enough conjecture. On a personal note, it's definitely not as daunting to play pool as it is to play snooker on an true professional 6x12 with rounded pockets. When the goal is to continuously pocket balls then it is definitely easier on a pool table with 4.25 inch pockets than it is on a snooker table.

Lastly, I would take the bet on whether any given American could finish in the top 128 in any given Snooker tournament. There are quite a few Americans who can play snooker quite well and are definitely able to take matches off of any given player in any particular match, especially in the early rounds of a snooker tournament. I don't know who the 128th player in the world is in pro snooker but I'll bet that Johnny Arher is a better snooker player than that person is. David McDonnel is currently ranked #75 on tour and made a whopping 3100 Pounds last season. Johnny earns quite a bit more than that playing pool. To properly frame this discussion we need to have a bit more facts in play.

John

Sorry John, top 10 it just isnt going to happen. If Archer only played snooker from now until eternity he isn't going to make the top ten, its too late, seriously. But there's a difference here, I'm saying NO POOL player that has NO HISTORY playing snooker can ever make it as a top snooker pro, I'm not saying that if Johnny had played snooker from an early age that he couldn't have made it. Snooker is a young mans game and if youre not at a certain level by a young age you're just not going to catch up. btw don't forget Johl Younger who barely made it into snooker top 100 beat Johny Archer at HIS own game, 9 ball in the biggest 9 ball comp ever in Tokyo. With a snooker cue aswell. See this is the only point Im making and it has happened time and time again:

Snooker players can "compete" with the best pool players in the world with little practice.

Pool players (players that have hardly played snooker) have ZERO chance to compete with a snooker player.

But like I said, if Strickland, Reyes, etc had GROWN UP with a snooker cue in there hand then things may have been different. BTW snooker has two tours now, and I think the main tour has been cut back so there isn't 128 players on it anymore? Anyway interesting side note, Quinten Hann, a snooker player who has never won a ranking event, or even been to a semi final - well he won the 8 ball world championship one year (uk version).

One other point you touch on is (without wanting to sound cruel) most of the male snooker players that have turned to pool have been "failed" snooker players. But most of the female players that have made the conversion have been champions! Interesting...

Come on role role, Pro Pool player needed to play on Snooker TOur for two years he he

 

[leechenman]

Well said the one...!!!

Looks like you are making some sense in these forums. I was a snooker myself withour major success but since converting to 9 ball i have wona European Open Tournament and even qualified for this years WPC so i truly believe that snooker players can turn out to be good pool players but pool players will not turn out to be good snooker players.

Anyway The One...how are you and hope to see you soon mate. Maybe in Japan. I am heading off to 38th Jpn open from HK via training in the Phillipines in October. I am ready...see you there.

 

[pinkisntwell]

BTW snooker has two tours now, and I think the main tour has been cut back so there isn't 128 players on it anymore?

Really? I didn't know about that. I know that they used to have two rankings, but that didn't have anything to do with two tours, it was just that some sponsor wanted to be heard by giving money to the players, but this sponsorship has now ended.

 

[TheOne]

Really? I didn't know about that. I know that they used to have two rankings, but that didn't have anything to do with two tours, it was just that some sponsor wanted to be heard by giving money to the players, but this sponsorship has now ended.

There is the challenge tour and the main tour. I am told that the main tour numbers have been cut back. Incidently Mike Hallet who used to be world number 6 dropped off the main tour and had to play on the challenge tour (when there was more than 100 on the main tour). He won the challenge tour I beleive but I think (could be wrong) missed out on the main tour again because the numbers where cut.

Could Archer beat Mike on a pro snooker table, not a chance in hell!

 

[TheOne]

Well said the one...!!!

Looks like you are making some sense in these forums. I was a snooker myself withour major success but since converting to 9 ball i have wona European Open Tournament and even qualified for this years WPC so i truly believe that snooker players can turn out to be good pool players but pool players will not turn out to be good snooker players.

Anyway The One...how are you and hope to see you soon mate. Maybe in Japan. I am heading off to 38th Jpn open from HK via training in the Phillipines in October. I am ready...see you there.

Sounds good Lee, would love to be there, Charlie Williams invited me to go back to the Korea for another event around that time but I'm afraid I may have to work for a while in preperation for next year. Just to let you know though there are a few tournaments around that time, the Taiwan open, Japan Open as you mentioned (AND the Tokyo 9 ball seperate comp), and the Korean Chmapionships. If you email Charlie I don't doubt he will give you a spot in the main draw.

Hope your good mate,

PS
Came 33rd in Weert, should have done better but beat some good players. Nice pool hall like you said and might have to keep going to the other events

Craig

 

[leechenman]

Hey mate

Can you email me Charlie Williams so i can ask him about that event please or give me directly on here.

Cheers mate

 

[pinkisntwell]

I would also like to point out that snooker and US pool are two quite different worlds. By reading and participating in US pool forums I have found that much of the discussion is around cues, tips, the 9ball break and (of course) aiming systems.

I might be mistaken but I think that in the snooker world they generally don't spend time arguing about cues (many top players have been playing for their whole carreers using the cues they'd had since they were 10 years old, the equivalent of a house cue really) or aiming systems (they recognise that there is no way an aiming system could help you achieve a 147; a 47 once a month maybe).

I'm not trying for another flame war here, just stating my observations.

 

[vagabond]

Snooker players can "compete" with the best pool players in the world with little practice.

Pool players (players that have hardly played snooker) have ZERO chance to compete with a snooker player.

Well said,mate.
Vagabond

 

[onepocketchump]

IMO if the top American pros had a chance to compete with the best snooker players they would of done it, up until recent years the money in pool wasn't even close to what they played for on the snooker tour.

"The Chance" is what is comes down to. There is virtually no chance for a young American player to learn and compete in British Snooker while in America. Unless a player is groomed for it with total immersion in some fashion then the chances of success are indeed slim.

This has little to do with money. Millions of children in America play soccer. Very few of them will ever have the chance to play for the German Bundesliga. Despite that millions "play" soccer in the USA there is precious little in the way of world class instruction and immersion. In other parts of the world however many more millions play soccer at a much higher level at a much younger age and therfore many more soccer stars are produced.

If it were all about money then British parents would be sending their children to America to play basketball, football, baseball, hockey and Survivior.

The "chance" consists of enviroment and opportunity combined with talent. A better player than Ronnie and Johnny might be born today and never touch a cue. Therefore, "the best" is always taken from those we have. Most Americans barely know that pool is played professionally much less that a game called snooker exists. By the time a player of any signifigant talent knows that there is money in Snooker they are ususally fully immersed in pool.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

I would also like to point out that snooker and US pool are two quite different worlds. By reading and participating in US pool forums I have found that much of the discussion is around cues, tips, the 9ball break and (of course) aiming systems.

I might be mistaken but I think that in the snooker world they generally don't spend time arguing about cues (many top players have been playing for their whole carreers using the cues they'd had since they were 10 years old, the equivalent of a house cue really) or aiming systems (they recognise that there is no way an aiming system could help you achieve a 147; a 47 once a month maybe).

I'm not trying for another flame war here, just stating my observations.

Actually, you are stating your conjectures. There are definitely snooker instructionals that I have seen that do. in fact, teach aiming systems that are akin to what is taught here by some. No "system", cue, tip or anything else will make even one ball by itself. It is the proper application that does it.

You find people arguing and discussing here because that is EXACTLY what a forum is for. In the mainstream pool world people mostly just play as I suspect they do in the mainstream snooker world. I am sure that there are plenty of people who love to debate snooker theory as well, as we are doing here.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

Well said the one...!!!

Looks like you are making some sense in these forums. I was a snooker myself withour major success but since converting to 9 ball i have wona European Open Tournament and even qualified for this years WPC so i truly believe that snooker players can turn out to be good pool players but pool players will not turn out to be good snooker players.

Anyway The One...how are you and hope to see you soon mate. Maybe in Japan. I am heading off to 38th Jpn open from HK via training in the Phillipines in October. I am ready...see you there.

Maybe so but in all of the examples so far the only one you have of a top pool player trying to play snooker at a pro level is Jim Rempe. So far, not one of the male players who didn't make it at snooker have done anything of note in the pool world. The only ones who have had any success are the ones who are already recognized champions, Davis, Drago and so on.

Yes, Johl younger took a set of Archer. So what? I know A-players here that can take a set off Archer once in a while. How many World Championships has Johl Younger won? The whole point is that B-list snooker players have moderate success at pool while A-list pool players don't even bother to play snooker.

I've got to go.......later,

John