Ronnie O'Sullivan to play pool this year

[RED NAXELA]

One reason, I think, why this thread is now longer by half is the human brain's inability to accommodate conflicting ideas at the same time.

An O'Sullivan/snooker fan dismissing Efren's wins over Ronnie and Jimmy in England in 5 sets of snooker, scoring 3 centuries in the process while using his pool cue, as "NOTHING and not a true measure of Efren's skills at snooker " is like a Reyes/pool fan dismissing Ronnie's wins over Efren and Django in the Philippines in 5 racks of rotation, scoring 3 runouts in the process while using his snooker cue (if ever such a feat comes to pass), as "NOTHING and not a true measure of Ronnie's skills at pool ". If, indeed, such a feat comes to pass, who could blame buckster and co. voices raised in exultation a million-fold to proclaim the superiority of snooker players?

No, I don't think Efren's win over Ronnie proves the superiority of pool players over snooker players no more than a Ronnie win over Efren in rotation would prove the superiority of snooker players over pool players. So Efren's feat means nothing, then? Of course it means SOMETHING. It means that there are special pool players like Efren who could make a successful transition to snooker if they would put their mind to it, and there are special snooker players who could make a successful transition to pool if they did the same.

The success is because of the player's gifts, and not because of the superiority of either game.

 

[Celtic]

- Name One snooker player that has converted to pool and done any good?

- Err heaps, including Marlon?

- Err, (thats not fair!), err he played pool first or he wasn't any good at snooker lol

- OK, here's an interveiw where he says he was a converted snooker player

- Err, well thats not fair and doesn't count becuas ehe practised heaps LOL

Actually no. Its more like

- Ronnie O'Sullivan is going to play pool!

- OMG the snooker players will pwn the pool players!!!

- Umm no, some snooker players may do well in time but I think you will see the pool players at the top still over the long haul

- No the snooker players will rule all, they have all the skillz and the money!

- Yeah! their table is tougher, they will never miss a shot on a pool table evar!

- Umm, well snooker players who have switched to 9-ball have not dominated yet, not even close really, some compete at a high level, but only after a long time of playing and growing acustomed to the game of pool

- (Enter TheOne who ignores the first 5 pages of debate where snooker players are akin to gods who never miss a pot)

 

[TheOne]

- (Enter TheOne who ignores the first 5 pages of debate where snooker players are akin to gods who never miss a pot)

Thats probably because I didn't agree with much of what was said. I think its clear what my opnion is, I just threw it in there. I was a little shocked that some people really beleive that its not easier for snooker players to change to 9 ball than it is for pool players to change to snooker? Snooker is a young mans game, pool is not. In pool you have players like Efren that can still dominate at almost 50. It is extreemly difficult for old players in snooker to be successful, players like Davis are only still at the top because the system protects them and keeps them in the top 16. Marlon says as much himself in his interview. Honestyl guys if you really think that a pool player like say archer could go over and break into the top ranks of snooker you really don't appreciate how unlikely that would be. Colin pretty much summed it up, years of coverage and top prize money has created an army of hungry teens that can smash in century breaks, there's hundreds of the little suckers!

For those that are interested you might want to check out the 82nd best ranked best player in the world, the young Judd Trump. He's 16 years old and has been given a special wild card to play on the main tour this year. Check out his stats here...

http://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/Players/Global_Europe/Global_England/eng_judd_trump.htm

Does anyone want to take Archer over this 16 year old whipper Snapper?

Red, I agree with most of what you're saying (except for the brain cells bit lol ;-) However given most of this is opinion all we can do is compare the acheivments of players that have made the conversion. Sadly if this was a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight about 5 pages ago, its a no contest. The impact that ex snooker players have made in the pool world, no matter how small some may think, so outweighs any acheivments that pool players have made in the snooker world its amazing that people are even bothering to debate it?

 

[onepocketchump]

Well, you can go back a few pages to see the post where TheOne is listing the "failed" snooker players that are doing well and winning tournaments in pool. So your point is pretty moot.

He didn't list any one who has done anything of particular noteworthyness. So far NO males snooker player has won the world pool championships, nor the US Open, nor any major US Event. No snooker player of any rank has beaten, to my knowledge, ANY pool player for any signifigant amoutn of money in a gambling session in any pool game. Most certainly not in one pocket or banks.

As SJM is fond of pointing out, only results count. By your logic the #200 in snooker should be the number one in pool. It hasn't happened and it won't happen.

Yeah, snooker players pot balls real well. Pool players make the balls dance though. You'll see the difference if you bring any snooker player to Derby City and all the cash you can gather together and put it down against any of five lowly pool players in one pocket. You will see the pool players make the balls do things that seem to defy physics.

I am not holding my breath that a contingent of British stakehorses are going to show up at Derby City with some Snooker players in tow.

John

 

[RED NAXELA]

If a pool champion like Efren (were he younger) succeeds in snooker, and a snooker champion like Ronnie succeeds in pool, it should not be a cause for the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, despair and lamentation for fans on the other side, but a cause for celebration, among pool and snooker fans alike, of the GLORY OF HUMAN POTENTIAL (background music, Handel's Messiah). I wish Ronnie well. (mumble...mumble...May you bloodysnookerhooligans live in interesting times...mumble...)

 

[Celtic]

I was a little shocked that some people really beleive that its not easier for snooker players to change to 9 ball than it is for pool players to change to snooker?

Curious who said that? I have not read the whole 15 pages. I totally agree with the above. I am not arguing against the above at all. The reason for the above as much as anything is the game we play, 9-ball. I already said WHY the snooker players have alot more success coming into pool then pool players coming into snooker, the games difficulty. The top 20 pool players in the world have reached a peak in the game. You cannot really play better 9-ball then any of them, what makes the difference to them now is luck and success on the break, thats it. Any "true" snooker player that has a hot streak can beat them because 9-ball is FAR too easy. This does not mean that snooker players are better cueists, it means that 9-ball is not a proper test of pool skill.

Manalo and Archer and Hohmann and Bustamente and Souquet when they play you might as well flip a coin because any of them have pretty much a 50/50 chance to win. That is not to say they are all the same level, if we played a different game that truely tested skill then one would rise above the rest. You cannot rise to the top in a coin flipping contest. One pocket has proved to be a true test of skill, Reyes is pretty much undisputed as the best 1-pocket player in the world. Noone will EVER be the undisputed best 9-ball player in the world due to the games nature. As such of course a snooker player has a better chance of getting into pool with success then vise versa. If we switched the game to one that truely tested pool skill then the snooker players would have no better chance of making it to the top in pool then a pool player making it in snooker. I dont think any snooker player could ever beat Reyes in 1-pocket, race to 17. 1-pocket is simply a different variation of pool, it is more akin to snooker though in that it is sufficiently difficult to allow the cream to rise to the top. 9-ball is the Go-Fish of the pool world, I am sure alot of people could beat Gus Hanson in Go-Fish, does that mean much though?

 

[TheOne]

Curious who said that? I have not read the whole 15 pages. I totally agree with the above. I am not arguing against the above at all. The reason for the above as much as anything is the game we play, 9-ball. I already said WHY the snooker players have alot more success coming into pool then pool players coming into snooker, the games difficulty. The top 20 pool players in the world have reached a peak in the game. You cannot really play better 9-ball then any of them, what makes the difference to them now is luck and success on the break, thats it. Any "true" snooker player that has a hot streak can beat them because 9-ball is FAR too easy. This does not mean that snooker players are better cueists, it means that 9-ball is not a proper test of pool skill.

Manalo and Archer and Hohmann and Bustamente and Souquet when they play you might as well flip a coin because any of them have pretty much a 50/50 chance to win. That is not to say they are all the same level, if we played a different game that truely tested skill then one would rise above the rest. You cannot rise to the top in a coin flipping contest. One pocket has proved to be a true test of skill, Reyes is pretty much undisputed as the best 1-pocket player in the world. Noone will EVER be the undisputed best 9-ball player in the world due to the games nature. As such of course a snooker player has a better chance of getting into pool with success then vise versa. If we switched the game to one that truely tested pool skill then the snooker players would have no better chance of making it to the top in pool then a pool player making it in snooker. I dont think any snooker player could ever beat Reyes in 1-pocket, race to 17. 1-pocket is simply a different variation of pool, it is more akin to snooker though in that it is sufficiently difficult to allow the cream to rise to the top. 9-ball is the Go-Fish of the pool world, I am sure alot of people could beat Gus Hanson in Go-Fish, does that mean much though?

Thats why I said many posts ago celtic that we basically agree with each other lol!

I kept putting it in bold but some people kept twisting it

I would add though that I would also apply straight pool to that argument. It would be easier for a snooker player to convert to straight pool than it would be for a pool player to convert to snooker. IMO even more so than 9 ball.

The above I beleive has been proved by the results that are there for all to see. The other thing I have said is merely my opinion and that is that a pure pool player like Archer and of similar age has NO CHANCE of every converting to snooker. I can't prove that but I'm sure 99% of people that have in depth knowledge of both games would agree with me.

 

[TheOne]

One interesting point you touched on celtic though. After watching all the Pro's miss tons of balls at the WPC and even more at the US Open (I missed about half of them lol) I actually now disagree that the current players have taken it as far as they can. You see on there is nobody here that looks even close to playing a perfect game, they are all missing lots of easy ballls (TV table is much easier and not what Im talking about). Maybe these tight pockets is what 9 ball needs to seperate the boys form the girls and raise it to a higher level. Its obvious that all the players have got lazy playing on loose equipment for far too long.

 

[Celtic]

I would add though that I would also apply straight pool to that argument. It would be easier for a snooker player to convert to straight pool than it would be for a pool player to convert to snooker. IMO even more so than 9 ball.

Well straight pool was a game that is sufficiently difficult to allow the cream to rise to the top though. Get the pro's back playing straight pool, use 4 inch pockets, and I would not like a snooker players chances without playing years of straights to catch up, and even then. Would a snooker player in the 50's have been able to dethrone Mosconi in his prime? Nope. Crane? Unlikely. Sigel? Again, I would think not. There are alot of nuances to straight pool that the true top echelon players understand and use. It is a game that takes years to master, unlike 9-ball. If straights was to come back I would like to see the tables the exact same as at the US Open this year, 4 inch pockets, straight pool on those would be a great game. Once the pro's adjusted to competing on those things at that game it would be very hard for a snooker player to break into the ranks and compete against people who have been playing the game since they were young kids. This is part of the problem with snooker, most top snooker players are put into the game at a very young age and that is how they get so good. To try and become a pro at snooker starting at an age past 10 is almost impossible.

Another interesting game that is almost impossible to break into is 3 cushion. This is a game that pool players and snooker players alike have no prayer of breaking into and competing against the top pro's. It is a game that is perfectly difficult.

One interesting point you touched on celtic though. After watching all the Pro's miss tons of balls at the WPC and even more at the US Open (I missed about half of them lol) I actually now disagree that the current players have taken it as far as they can. You see on there is nobody here that looks even close to playing a perfect game, they are all missing lots of easy ballls (TV table is much easier and not what Im talking about). Maybe these tight pockets is what 9 ball needs to seperate the boys form the girls and raise it to a higher level. Its obvious that all the players have got lazy playing on loose equipment for far too long.

I could not agree with this more. It is depressing to think that the IPT is going to use 4 1/2 inch pockets. Use 4 inch pockets and get these pro's to actually aim again. I would love to see the pockets tighten right up in pool, it would help the sport in every way. Heck, I am going to send them a email suggesting they take a que from the US Open and use REAL tight tables that challenge potting. 8-ball on those US Open tables would be a phenomenal game.

 

[LastTwo]

Craig, I guarantee you that Marlon played alot of pool when he played alot of snooker. I asked him in person, no lie. He owns a poolhall in the Phillipines. Ask him for yourself if you are still at the USOpen. Also, I've said this before in other threads, that Marlon does not use classic snooker mechanics. His stance/stroke are geared towards pool.

Thank you for clarifying what you are arguing about, because I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the insinuation that snooker players play better pool than pool players. I am also defending how good the top pool players play, because you and other people don't seem to have much respect for them. You just went 2 and out in the US Open against two shortstops, and yet you are here talking crap about pool players. Who you ALMOST beat doesn't matter. I lost to Santos 9-7 in a tournament. Big whoopity doo. He can give me the 6-out and drill me. When you start beating top players on a regular basis, then go and talk as much crap as you want. Until then, have a little more respect for these guys. You are talking about how you saw so many players missing easy shots. I'm sure you played perfect. I've seen Steve Davis and Tony Drago miss fairly simple shots on the massive WPC pockets just as much as any pool player would.

I have a good idea. Since you think all of these pool players constantly miss shots, why don't you match up with some of the shortstops and pros over at Q-masters, play them in a setting where they are not under the pressure of the TV lights or huge crowds watching them. See how many times they miss then. The way you talk, you should be able to steal from these guys. Yet I don't hear about you playing anyone for money. Jeez man, you used to be one of my favorite posters on this board, I didn't realize until now how big your ego is.

 

[Fred Agnir]

By this reasoning, none of Drago's accomplishments have merit, as those WPC pockets were huge. Some of the biggest I"ve ever seen on TV. EVen bigger than the WPBA!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sorry Fred but you are mistaken. At the 2003 WPC (the last time it was held in Cardiff) the pockets on the Brunswick tables were triple shimmed. I was in the tournament office when the table fitter came looking for guidance. There was nobody else around from the WPA so I told him that he should make them tight. So triple shimmed they were!

You triple shimmed a Brunswick? For a tournament? Do you even know what that means?

I find it hard to believe, considering how balls fell in from everywhere, but hey, if you say it's true, it must be true. Most of us here in the US know a triple shimmed table when we see one.

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

Red, I agree with most of what you're saying (except for the brain cells bit lol ;-) However given most of this is opinion all we can do is compare the acheivments of players that have made the conversion. Sadly if this was a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight about 5 pages ago, its a no contest. The impact that ex snooker players have made in the pool world, no matter how small some may think, so outweighs any acheivments that pool players have made in the snooker world its amazing that people are even bothering to debate it?

You're right. The fight would have stopped a long time, and I would have been here standing. You said you read the entire thread, yet you missed why there was an argument. You have said that results matter, yet you dismiss Efren's (who doesn't play snooker. You are here in VA? We can both walk over and ask him together. Then you can report his answer here).

I don't and will never dismiss the snooker player's pool accomplishments. Why haven't pool players made the transistion? That was the first and only pertinent question. I answered. It's an obvious answer. If this was a boxing fight, the referee would have stopped it.

Pool players don't like snooker. Many find it boring. They also find 3-C boring. And many of today's 9-baller find straight pool boring. And 1-pocket boring. That's why many of today's 9-ballers don't switch to any other game. You have to love what your playing if you're going to make it your profession. That's what I said on page one or two. That was the orginal question. Yes Craig, this argument would have been stopped a long time ago.

As for "can a snooker table adapt easier than a pool player," I again have to point to the Efren session. But that's a different argument altogether. They both had to adjust to a table that they weren't use to. The game happened to resemble snooker more than pool. Efren apparently adjusted quicker. End of that discussion.

Fred

 

[Buckster_uk]

You're right. The fight would have stopped a long time, and I would have been here standing. You said you read the entire thread, yet you missed why there was an argument. You have said that results matter, yet you dismiss Efren's (who doesn't play snooker. You are here in VA? We can both walk over and ask him together. Then you can report his answer here).

I don't and will never dismiss the snooker player's pool accomplishments. Why haven't pool players made the transistion? That was the first and only pertinent question. I answered. It's an obvious answer. If this was a boxing fight, the referee would have stopped it.

Pool players don't like snooker. Many find it boring. They also find 3-C boring. And many of today's 9-baller find straight pool boring. And 1-pocket boring. That's why many of today's 9-ballers don't switch to any other game. You have to love what your playing if you're going to make it your profession. That's what I said on page one or two. That was the orginal question. Yes Craig, this argument would have been stopped a long time ago.

As for "can a snooker table adapt easier than a pool player," I again have to point to the Efren session. But that's a different argument altogether. They both had to adjust to a table that they weren't use to. The game happened to resemble snooker more than pool. Efren apparently adjusted quicker. End of that discussion.

Fred

If the pockets were playing like buckets then I certainly wouldn't think Efren couldn't clear the table. As I said, he Ronnie or Jimmy might not of even got a shot playing! I am saying it would be different on a championship table. We don't know the size of the pockets, or even the kind of table they played on.

This thread is going back and forth, as much as it is fun. it's clear we all have different opinions.

Thanks for the entertainment and good debate over the last few days, now maybe we should give it a rest?

 

[pro9dg]

Pool v Snooker

You triple shimmed a Brunswick? For a tournament? Do you even know what that means?
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

Most of us here in the US know a triple shimmed table when we see one.
THAT IS A SERIOUS STATEMENT
Fred

I don't wish to get into an acrimonious discussion with Fred who obviously holds some pretty firm beliefs. But I have been in cuesports for nearly 30 years - room owner, instructor, magazine editor, promoter of over 600 tournaments, player management and a mediocre amateur player. So I do know what triple shimming means.
I have also seen Efren play snooker. He plays an old style game refusing to smash into the pack of reds. Instead, he loosens them one or two at a time then runs for cover if he hasn't got shape on a coloured ball. I asked him what his highest snooker break was and he replied:"All the balls". I don't think that he meant a maximum 147 but it would have been a big century.
With his playing style he could beat anyone in a single match but winning a tournament would depend on his focus and stamina.
Both he and Ronnie O are in the UAE in a few weeks so maybe we can get a late night match up

 

[LastTwo]

I don't wish to get into an acrimonious discussion with Fred who obviously holds some pretty firm beliefs. But I have been in cuesports for nearly 30 years - room owner, instructor, magazine editor, promoter of over 600 tournaments, player management and a mediocre amateur player. So I do know what triple shimming means.
I have also seen Efren play snooker. He plays an old style game refusing to smash into the pack of reds. Instead, he loosens them one or two at a time then runs for cover if he hasn't got shape on a coloured ball. I asked him what his highest snooker break was and he replied:"All the balls". I don't think that he meant a maximum 147 but it would have been a big century.
With his playing style he could beat anyone in a single match but winning a tournament would depend on his focus and stamina.
Both he and Ronnie O are in the UAE in a few weeks so maybe we can get a late night match up

LOL I have been laughing non stop ever since you said the pockets in the 2003 WPC were "tight". LOL LOL I mean that is hilarious!! Did you ever get a chance to see how the tables played? The pockets were so loose it was disgusting. I wasn't exaggerating when I said that those pockets were the loosest I have ever seen, and I've seen loose pockets before. LOL

 

[Buckster_uk]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Thats probably because I didn't agree with much of what was said. I think its clear what my opnion is, I just threw it in there. I was a little shocked that some people really beleive that its not easier for snooker players to change to 9 ball than it is for pool players to change to snooker? Snooker is a young mans game, pool is not. In pool you have players like Efren that can still dominate at almost 50. It is extreemly difficult for old players in snooker to be successful, players like Davis are only still at the top because the system protects them and keeps them in the top 16. Marlon says as much himself in his interview. Honestyl guys if you really think that a pool player like say archer could go over and break into the top ranks of snooker you really don't appreciate how unlikely that would be. Colin pretty much summed it up, years of coverage and top prize money has created an army of hungry teens that can smash in century breaks, there's hundreds of the little suckers!

For those that are interested you might want to check out the 82nd best ranked best player in the world, the young Judd Trump. He's 16 years old and has been given a special wild card to play on the main tour this year. Check out his stats here...

http://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/Players/Global_Europe/Global_England/eng_judd_trump.htm

Does anyone want to take Archer over this 16 year old whipper Snapper?

Red, I agree with most of what you're saying (except for the brain cells bit lol ;-) However given most of this is opinion all we can do is compare the acheivments of players that have made the conversion. Sadly if this was a boxing match the referee would have stopped the fight about 5 pages ago, its a no contest. The impact that ex snooker players have made in the pool world, no matter how small some may think, so outweighs any acheivments that pool players have made in the snooker world its amazing that people are even bothering to debate it?

Ok The One,

In order to support your point that snooker players can make the transition to top level pool more easily than pool palyers can do the reverse, I set forth this propisition, that I would point my money on, if it could take place in the real world.

Take young Judd Trump, a pure snooker player, who is ranked 82 in the world. All be it with a bullet.

Let him practice 9-ball for 3 months and let Johnny Archer practice snooker for 3 months. Then let them play as series against each other.

I'd bet Judd Trump can win a set race to 9 in 9-ball off Johnny within 10 sets. I'd bet Johnny can't win a race to 3 in snooker against Judd in 20 sets. And Judd is not a top 10 player. But that is how I would bet. And I reckon the pro bookmakers would see it about the same.

I see 9-ball versus snooker as similar to tennis vs badminton.

We have heard Efren made 3 centuries in 10 or less, frames against Ronnie and Jimmy white, which is top pro-snooker standard. All I know about this is from Daryl Pearl's quote, but was it really on a regulation snooker table I'm not sure. If Efren achieved this he is a magician, no doubt. But I would bet that if the 10 top pool players went to the pontins Challenge tour ( the qualifying tour) next year, that none of them would make 3 century beaks in their first 20 frames.

I'd actually be surprised if any of them got through their first round.

Yet, if the top 10 snooker players entered the US open 9-ball, I'd be suprised if less than 50% got through their first round and if one of the 10 didn't make it into the last 8.

Now consider if the IPT ambitions come to reality and a dozen players start earning USD1million plus per year. Within 8 years there'd be 100 young Landon Shuffets. 15 year olds running 15 racks in practice. Something like we are seeing in Taiwan with Wu, but there'd be 20 other Wu's and the Earl's and Archers would look like antiques, struggling to find their peak form for a chance at breaking even against the new generation.

Now NFL players are supreme athelets, while in the commonwealth we have rugby. Occassionally a rubgy player dreams of converting to the NFL, and I'm not sure any have succeeded despite many similarities in requirements of the game. However, I'm pretty sure dozens of top NFL players could make the transition to rugby and be top level players, because their athletic capabilities are generally far superior. In the same way, the top 500 snooker players are superior in their cueing abilities than the top 50 pool players on average.

The whole thing is driven by economics, not geographics or bias such as them vs us and my NFL v Rugby showed.

I talked with a US pro who had practiced with Steve Knight for a few weeks. He told me that Knight was a better cueist than any pool player he had seen, and predicted that if the top pro snooker players took up pool that US players would get their asses handed to them.

It has happened in women's pool, because their is more money in women's pool than in women's snooker. If the IPT can put up more money than the snooker tour has to offer, and the snooker pros are welcomed in, there will be a flood of players from the UK that will make the US player's heads spin. Some of them will learn the strategy and set new levels of professionalism in pool I expect. Also, there will likely be a boom in the quality of US players. But I expect it will take a few years, like we see in the WPBA, where some new US talents are starting to come through.

 

[Buckster_uk]

NFL and Rugby are not exactly similar!

 

[TheOne]

Craig, I guarantee you that Marlon played alot of pool when he played alot of snooker. I asked him in person, no lie. He owns a poolhall in the Phillipines. Ask him for yourself if you are still at the USOpen. Also, I've said this before in other threads, that Marlon does not use classic snooker mechanics. His stance/stroke are geared towards pool.

Yes he played some pool, so what, most of the snooker players in the world probably started playing two shot 8 ball that doesn't make them pool players?
He said himself he was a converted snooker player and this thread is the first time that I have heard anyone think otherwise!?

Thank you for clarifying what you are arguing about, because I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the insinuation that snooker players play better pool than pool players. I am also defending how good the top pool players play, because you and other people don't seem to have much respect for them. You just went 2 and out in the US Open against two shortstops, and yet you are here talking crap about pool players. Who you ALMOST beat doesn't matter. I lost to Santos 9-7 in a tournament. Big whoopity doo. He can give me the 6-out and drill me. When you start beating top players on a regular basis, then go and talk as much crap as you want. Until then, have a little more respect for these guys. You are talking about how you saw so many players missing easy shots. I'm sure you played perfect. I've seen Steve Davis and Tony Drago miss fairly simple shots on the massive WPC pockets just as much as any pool player would.

I suggest you go back and read my posts again. I;m kind of fed up of repeating it. I don't think I'm insulting pool players, I class myself as one. I'm just telling it like it is, Im sorry if you don't like it? I only listed players I almost beat to make the point that if a shitty player like me can compete with these players then a) vastly better players like Ronnie are probably going to do better than me and b) there's something wrong with the game and it needs to be made harder. You keep talking about money matches and long races and 1 pocket and 3 cushion etc but that's ot what I AM TALKING about. I'm talking about pro tournaments, comparing 9 ball to snooker. Also if you had actually read my post you would have seen that I said I missed half the shots. I'm the first one to take the piss out of mysefl when I lose, many people have commented to me how I'm a good sport and take losing well. I generally don't make excuses if I lose. But I will say that I know when Im playing well and when Im not and given the amount of time Ive been playing 9 ball and the hours Ive practised I'm reasonably happy with my last few months. But hey I don't play to keep you or anyone else happy, I don't even play for the money really, I play for myself and the love of pool.

I have a good idea. Since you think all of these pool players constantly miss shots, why don't you match up with some of the shortstops and pros over at Q-masters, play them in a setting where they are not under the pressure of the TV lights or huge crowds watching them. See how many times they miss then. The way you talk, you should be able to steal from these guys. Yet I don't hear about you playing anyone for money. Jeez man, you used to be one of my favorite posters on this board, I didn't realize until now how big your ego is.

Did I, really? You seem to have been having a few digs at me for a while, Oh well nothing I can do about that. It seems that I can't state my opinions without you misinterpreting my words and taking them so personally. If I wasn't playing so crap I would be playing for money but like I said before I even left for this trip I havent been practising and after playing so poorly I'd probably get raped! If you really understand my points I really don't see what that has to do with this discussion?

For me I've had my "look at pool" over the last 8 months or so, now its time for me to hopefully find a table and go back to school LOL fyi I bought 3 books last night, advanced Pro book, banking with the beard and play your best straight pool. So much to learn in the pool world, hopefully I will somehow get access to a table and then who knows I might even win a match next year!!



Can I ask you one question, have you ever seen pro snooker played live?

 

[TheOne]

Ok The One,

In order to support your point that snooker players can make the transition to top level pool more easily than pool palyers can do the reverse, I set forth this propisition, that I would point my money on, if it could take place in the real world.

Take young Judd Trump, a pure snooker player, who is ranked 82 in the world. All be it with a bullet.

Let him practice 9-ball for 3 months and let Johnny Archer practice snooker for 3 months. Then let them play as series against each other.

I'd bet Judd Trump can win a set race to 9 in 9-ball off Johnny within 10 sets. I'd bet Johnny can't win a race to 3 in snooker against Judd in 20 sets. And Judd is not a top 10 player. But that is how I would bet. And I reckon the pro bookmakers would see it about the same.

I see 9-ball versus snooker as similar to tennis vs badminton.

We have heard Efren made 3 centuries in 10 or less, frames against Ronnie and Jimmy white, which is top pro-snooker standard. All I know about this is from Daryl Pearl's quote, but was it really on a regulation snooker table I'm not sure. If Efren achieved this he is a magician, no doubt. But I would bet that if the 10 top pool players went to the pontins Challenge tour ( the qualifying tour) next year, that none of them would make 3 century beaks in their first 20 frames.

I'd actually be surprised if any of them got through their first round.

Yet, if the top 10 snooker players entered the US open 9-ball, I'd be suprised if less than 50% got through their first round and if one of the 10 didn't make it into the last 8.

Now consider if the IPT ambitions come to reality and a dozen players start earning USD1million plus per year. Within 8 years there'd be 100 young Landon Shuffets. 15 year olds running 15 racks in practice. Something like we are seeing in Taiwan with Wu, but there'd be 20 other Wu's and the Earl's and Archers would look like antiques, struggling to find their peak form for a chance at breaking even against the new generation.

Now NFL players are supreme athelets, while in the commonwealth we have rugby. Occassionally a rubgy player dreams of converting to the NFL, and I'm not sure any have succeeded despite many similarities in requirements of the game. However, I'm pretty sure dozens of top NFL players could make the transition to rugby and be top level players, because their athletic capabilities are generally far superior. In the same way, the top 500 snooker players are superior in their cueing abilities than the top 50 pool players on average.

The whole thing is driven by economics, not geographics or bias such as them vs us and my NFL v Rugby showed.

I talked with a US pro who had practiced with Steve Knight for a few weeks. He told me that Knight was a better cueist than any pool player he had seen, and predicted that if the top pro snooker players took up pool that US players would get their asses handed to them.

It has happened in women's pool, because their is more money in women's pool than in women's snooker. If the IPT can put up more money than the snooker tour has to offer, and the snooker pros are welcomed in, there will be a flood of players from the UK that will make the US player's heads spin. Some of them will learn the strategy and set new levels of professionalism in pool I expect. Also, there will likely be a boom in the quality of US players. But I expect it will take a few years, like we see in the WPBA, where some new US talents are starting to come through.

Nice post Colin, and obviously spot on. You bring up a point that again is there for all to see. Not many of the top snooker players have made the jump and given up snooker for pool, none really. However this is exactly what has happened in the womens game, and look what happened. Its interesting that many of the pro players understand this. I've heard great things mentioned about Steve Knight from a host of Pro's and money players on my travels. I've seen a pro pool player say "I can't beat him at snooker" when they where woofing at each other for a game. It seems to me that the pool fans themselves are the one's that get very defensive about the ability of pool players to convert to snooker. Most of the players realise they wouldn't be able to convert AND that snooker players are a threat in 9 ball tournament play. But like I have said before I still wouldn't back Ronnie to do that well - in 8 ball especially, but he if he takes it seriously and puts in the work he is such a talent anything is possible.