TheOne said:
This thread is histerical, it is so easy to see the guys that have never seen a pro snooker player play. Now we have people going off on tangents talking about 1 pocket,3 cushion etc.. its amazing? Why do people get so defensive? I class myself as more of a pool player than a snooker player but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore the evidence? If I get time later I will list the snooker players that have turned to 9 ball and list what they have won. In the mean time if Fred or anyone else wants to list all the snooker tournaments that pool players, American or otherwise have won that would be useful. Then we can all make up our own minds. Remember for me anyway all Im saying is that:
a) Pure Pool players (
AND FRED EFREN IS NOT ONE OF THEM AS HE ALSO PLAYED SNOOKER) have no chance to compete with the top snooker pro's.
b) Less than top snooker players can compete with the best in the world at
9 ball.
If anyone really disagrees with this then I'm afraid youre beyond help, the facts are sadly there for all to see.
This sadly is more of an insult to the game of 9 ball than the players themselves, don't take it so personal guys!
I hope you don't think I am one of those whom you believe has no knowledge of professional snooker. Since I lived in Germany for 10 years I got my fill of professional snooker on BBC and DSF. I played lots of snooker on 6x12 Rileys with semi-pros.
1. I also believe that a TOP snooker player has an easier transition from snooker to pool than the other way around.
2. I do NOT believe that middle of the pack snooker players = top pool players though as I think some would like us to believe.
3. I do not believe that world class ability at snooker means automatic dominance at pool games.
Snooker has it's own special requirements to excel at. Pool has it's own special requirements as well. So does 3-cushion, Russian Pyramid, English Billiards and so on. That is why you often see champions in those disciplines with extraordinary talent and very little crossover. Of course there is overlap as they are ALL games with the common denominator that the balls are manipulated by a person using a wooden instrument with a leather or similar tip. Pretty much the same as saying all ski disciplines require skis.
I accept that a snooker player of Ronnie O' Sullivan's caliber will be a force to be reckoned with on a pool table much more than a pool player will make a dent in the snooker world. While Ronnie would have an even chance or better to beat any pool player at any pool discipline within a short time of acclimation the same cannot be said for players very far down the rank list. This is the crux of my point. While lower ranked snooker players would most likely trounce Johnny at snooker they don't have to ever win playing 9-ball, 14.1, one-pocket, banks or other pool discliplines. This is because, in my opinion, they are lower ranked in snooker because they miss more, they don't think as well and can't hold up under pressure as well as Ronnie and the other top ten players. Johnny Archer doesn't miss much, plays perfect patterns and holds up under pressure. Therefore he is to pool what Ronnie is to Snooker.
I play pool with Kelly Fisher as often as I can. She is nearly technically perfect. She often takes shots that are fairly difficult and makes them look easy. She often plays the "wrong" patterns and gets there anyway. When we practice I often show her lots of things that better pool players just know. How to spin the ball in for example. Throwing balls. Applied english (spin) to the object ball for banks, caroms, and combinations. So the question is will she become less accurate as she "learns" more of how pool is played or will she retain the accuracy and become even more deadly when armed with the nuances that are part of pool?
I don't know. I do know that I feel privileged to watch her "develop". The fact that she so quickly grasps any concept presented to her and executes them perfectly within minutes is a testament to the adaptability of a world class player. I have seen my share of British ex-snooker players (men) who are damn good pool players but not exceptionally great ones. I could name names but I won't as it is not my intent to belittle anyone in this debate.
I truly believe though that someone with world class talent such as Johnny Archer, Rodney Morris, Wu and so on could be a very respectable snooker player IF they really tried to do it. But, just as with the thousands of players who try and break into the snooker circuit already, doing it requires a hefty financial commitment for a shot at the reward. I would be willing to take your bet Craig, that a top pool player could qualify for the main tour in Snooker within a year if I could be sure that said pool player were able to fully immerse themselves into the game and receive top flight instruction for at least six months prior to that qualifying year. I would bet my house on it.
Unfortunately I am not philanthropic enough, nor wealthy enough to fund that experiment. What would be cool is if the BCA were to guarantee the top US pool player a year's worth of earnings if they would go to England and take a real shot at Snooker. It would cost the billiard industry $150,000 and could be a great PR and reality story.
Kind of like that show the Brits have, "Faking It". In this show people are fully immersed in intensive crash courses to be trained to become something that is far removed from their experience. The culmination is that they must be able to fool experts in that field into believing that they are indeed qualified professionals. Very often the people are able to pull it off successfully. The conclusion I draw from this is that given the right instruction and opportunity talent and intelligence will allow a person to excel and also very quickly expose a lack of talent as well.
I am so tired. Goodnight.
John
