Ronnie O'Sullivan vs American Pool Player?

[KRJ]

My take from a NON snooker playing American. Those 12 foots tables are monsters. The pockets are sick, and make Diamonds look like buckets.

Not sure why folks believe snooker players can't move the cb around. They have to do it on a 12 foot table all the time, with the tight pockets. And they need to play out of the "stack" like a straight pool player, and they get the cb in very tight quarters to continue their run.

Snooker has some very similar characteristics to one pocket and straight pool. I think it would be an easy transition for most snooker players. I mean, there is plenty of shot selection going on in snooker, so they know strategy.

The accuracy and precision is mind boggling. Allison Fisher did pretty good transitioning from snooker to pool, as did many other woman players. Obviously, not as much money in woman's snooker as in men's. I doubt the top Cricket player in Europe worries about his inability to play MLB in the states and grab a $100M contract. Not his game, he should not care.

Going from pool to snooker would be akin of a Cricket player going to Major League Baseball. Not saying it could never happen, but if we follow the money, who in Cricket is getting paid contracts of $100M and more ?? If they could make the switch, they would.

Snookers players are making quite a good living. Heck, is anyone not willing to move to Europe to collect a 6 figure salary, and possibly hit 7 figures with endorsements, etc.

If someone doubled my salary today, I'd move to Europe tomorrow. Pool players might get quadruple or even more of their current salary. So, I'm not saying they could not compete, but with the money at stake, why is nobody giving it a go in their prime competing years ?

I'm thinking of joining a local snooker club not to far from my house, just a 30 minute drive. I'm thinking this is gonna help my pool game tremendously, especially the mental part, including concentration. Not gonna be fun getting my arse kicked for a few months, or possibly years,

And just because snooker could be more difficult, takes nothing away from pro's that play pool. different games, like baseball and cricket, yes similarities exist, but way different.

 

[Pidge]

My take from a NON snooker playing American. Those 12 foots tables are monsters. The pockets are sick, and make Diamonds look like buckets.

Not sure why folks believe snooker players can't move the cb around. They have to do it on a 12 foot table all the time, with the tight pockets. And they need to play out of the "stack" like a straight pool player, and they get the cb in very tight quarters to continue their run.

Snooker has some very similar characteristics to one pocket and straight pool. I think it would be an easy transition for most snooker players. I mean, there is plenty of shot selection going on in snooker, so they know strategy.

The accuracy and precision is mind boggling. Allison Fisher did pretty good transitioning from snooker to pool, as did many other woman players. Obviously, not as much money in woman's snooker as in men's. I doubt the top Cricket player in Europe worries about his inability to play MLB in the states and grab a $100M contract. Not his game, he should not care.

Going from pool to snooker would be akin of a Cricket player going to Major League Baseball. Not saying it could never happen, but if we follow the money, who in Cricket is getting paid contracts of $100M and more ?? If they could make the switch, they would.

Snookers players are making quite a good living. Heck, is anyone not willing to move to Europe to collect a 6 figure salary, and possibly hit 7 figures with endorsements, etc.

If someone doubled my salary today, I'd move to Europe tomorrow. Pool players might get quadruple or even more of their current salary. So, I'm not saying they could not compete, but with the money at stake, why is nobody giving it a go in their prime competing years ?

I'm thinking of joining a local snooker club not to far from my house, just a 30 minute drive. I'm thinking this is gonna help my pool game tremendously, especially the mental part, including concentration. Not gonna be fun getting my arse kicked for a few months, or possibly years,

And just because snooker could be more difficult, takes nothing away from pro's that play pool. different games, like baseball and cricket, yes similarities exist, but way different.

Probably the most rational post in this thread. Pros are pros because they have dedicated their lives and excelled because of it in any sport. That dedication I what makes a person play their chosen sport professionally. Had snooker been the national cue sport of the USA and pool the national sport of the UK, AZB would still be here, and threads like this would still be created. The difference being would be the title "SVB vs UK pool player". You would then get people saying well Ronnie couldn't make the transition to the big tight tables, and SVB would think playing on a 9ft with buckets is a childs game.

We will never know if Ronnie could have been the best pool player of all time. All we know is he is the most skilled player to ever grace a snooker table, which would help him out and shorten the learning curve massively if he decided to make the transition.

It is grit and determination to dedicate their entire lives what makes a world beater, not what category of sport you play. You can only be the best at what you choose to compete in. Ronnie chose snooker to be the best in, and he succeeded.

 

[GDC]

Some are born great.
Some achieve greatness.
Some thrust greatness upon themselves.

Little differences in cues, balls, pockets.
No difference is fable configuration: 2 X 1

Many lesser snooker players have converted to pool very successfully.
But it is the opinion of this American poster that one of the most talented players to ever hold a cue couldn't do the same.

Adorable American pool players should concentrate on beating European pool players, and on creating their own organization that some day, far in the future, might have world tournaments with purse structures far exceeding snooker. Then the winners can pontificate about their supposedly superior and unique skills.

If you can't compete where the money is, you can't compete, you can only blow.

I think there is a supportable argument that O'Sullivan would be great at pool. I have no argument there ... he is amazing.

But when you write stuff like this ... "If you can't compete where the money is, you can't compete, you can only blow." as reply to a guy like CJ Wiley ... you lose all credibility for me. Because the guy you just addressed in that message has done that and beat the best ... at a time when there was far bigger money in pool than there is now.

Have you competed where the money is, or do you only blow?

 

[Ron Swanson]

Probably the most rational post in this thread. Pros are pros because they have dedicated their lives and excelled because of it in any sport. That dedication I what makes a person play their chosen sport professionally. Had snooker been the national cue sport of the USA and pool the national sport of the UK, AZB would still be here, and threads like this would still be created. The difference being would be the title "SVB vs UK pool player". You would then get people saying well Ronnie couldn't make the transition to the big tight tables, and SVB would think playing on a 9ft with buckets is a childs game.

We will never know if Ronnie could have been the best pool player of all time. All we know is he is the most skilled player to ever grace a snooker table, which would help him out and shorten the learning curve massively if he decided to make the transition.

It is grit and determination to dedicate their entire lives what makes a world beater, not what category of sport you play. You can only be the best at what you choose to compete in. Ronnie chose snooker to be the best in, and he succeeded.

If snooker had been predominately played in america rather than the UK, do you think there would be players there who would be approaching 800 centuries in competition?

I say a big, fat no.

 

[DTL]

......................

 

[BeiberLvr]

If snooker had been predominately played in america rather than the UK, do you think there would be players there who would be approaching 800 centuries in competition?

I say a big, fat no.

Ronnie being from the UK has absolutely no bearing on his skill at snooker.

Sorry, to say, but you folk are not genetically predisposed to being great at the sport.

What made Ronnie the player he is today was starting at a very early age, practice, determination, desire, competition, and a dash of natural talent.

It wouldn't have mattered if he was born in China, Japan, Mars, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or *gasp* even America.

 

[AtLarge]

Ronnie being from the UK has absolutely no bearing on his skill at snooker.

Sorry, to say, but you folk are not genetically predisposed to being great at the sport.

What made Ronnie the player he is today was starting at a very early age, practice, determination, desire, competition, and a dash of natural talent.

It wouldn't have mattered if he was born in China, Japan, Mars, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or *gasp* even America.

Don't discount the importance of the snooker environment in England in the 1980's when Ronnie was learning the game and developing as a player.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Don't discount the importance of the snooker environment in England in the 1980's when Ronnie was learning the game and developing as a player.

I wouldn't, as it was also important. Had he the same environment elsewhere, he still would've been great.

It matters not that he is British.

 

[KRJ]

You chaps across the pond are just superior TROLLS, right?

Sorry, but a small correction was needed

 

[Cardigan Kid]

My take from a NON snooker playing American. Those 12 foots tables are monsters. The pockets are sick, and make Diamonds look like buckets.

Not sure why folks believe snooker players can't move the cb around. They have to do it on a 12 foot table all the time, with the tight pockets. And they need to play out of the "stack" like a straight pool player, and they get the cb in very tight quarters to continue their run.

Snooker has some very similar characteristics to one pocket and straight pool. I think it would be an easy transition for most snooker players. I mean, there is plenty of shot selection going on in snooker, so they know strategy.

The accuracy and precision is mind boggling. Allison Fisher did pretty good transitioning from snooker to pool, as did many other woman players. Obviously, not as much money in woman's snooker as in men's. I doubt the top Cricket player in Europe worries about his inability to play MLB in the states and grab a $100M contract. Not his game, he should not care.

Going from pool to snooker would be akin of a Cricket player going to Major League Baseball. Not saying it could never happen, but if we follow the money, who in Cricket is getting paid contracts of $100M and more ?? If they could make the switch, they would.

Snookers players are making quite a good living. Heck, is anyone not willing to move to Europe to collect a 6 figure salary, and possibly hit 7 figures with endorsements, etc.

If someone doubled my salary today, I'd move to Europe tomorrow. Pool players might get quadruple or even more of their current salary. So, I'm not saying they could not compete, but with the money at stake, why is nobody giving it a go in their prime competing years ?

I'm thinking of joining a local snooker club not to far from my house, just a 30 minute drive. I'm thinking this is gonna help my pool game tremendously, especially the mental part, including concentration. Not gonna be fun getting my arse kicked for a few months, or possibly years,

And just because snooker could be more difficult, takes nothing away from pro's that play pool. different games, like baseball and cricket, yes similarities exist, but way different.

It's my belief that what holds many pool players back is pride when it comes to taking on snooker.
A top pool instructor taking on a student and the first request by the student is "I want to improve but I don't want to mess with my stroke"

The first thing that has to go is the pool player stance, the mika type warm up strokes-pretty much the entire approach to the shot is foreign to anyone who has played pool for their life.

So many don't even try. Too stubborn to admit that the way they have approached the shot fundamentally for the last thirty years just isn't the most ideal.

However, if you go ahead with your plans to join the snooker club, I'm absolutely positive you would emerge as a far more consistent pool player with the skills you would acquire. If I had a snooker club in my city, I'd join in a second, even though my heart resides with pool.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I wouldn't, as it was also important. Had he the same environment elsewhere, he still would've been great.

It matters not that he is British.

Just that he grew up in Britain.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Ronnie being from the UK has absolutely no bearing on his skill at snooker.

Sorry, to say, but you folk are not genetically predisposed to being great at the sport.

What made Ronnie the player he is today was starting at a very early age, practice, determination, desire, competition, and a dash of natural talent.

It wouldn't have mattered if he was born in China, Japan, Mars, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or *gasp* even America.

Whisper it, but you lot can't even play pool, let alone snooker. O'sullivan, and a whole host of equally great snooker players, would today just about be beginning to make regular total clearances under the scenario i mentioned, genetic or not.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Don't discount the importance of the snooker environment in England in the 1980's when Ronnie was learning the game and developing as a player.

Quite. Mass may make class, but its concentration of class, and access to it, that is important here, and something americans aren't going to have.

 

[CJ Wiley]

When a player doesn't like the game it's not possible to play world class

It really is apples to oranges. Like comparing the best duck pin bowler to the best 10 pin bowler. One could argue the duck pin bowler is better because they have better aim where 10 pin bowlers use a bigger ball and curves the ball. No way for the two to play on an even playing field to see who really is better. Two different games and equipment. They just have to except they are they best at the game they play.

That's right, I have always liked pool, however snooker doesn't have the same appeal. I would venture to guess that Ronnie feels the same way about snooker compared to pool.

When a player doesn't like the game it's not possible to play it at a world class level....the passion must be part of the motivating process, or it's "just a silly game".

 

[GDC]

Quite. Mass may make class, but its concentration of class, and access to it, that is important here, and something americans aren't going to have.

Your quote, "class ... And something that americans aren't going to have."

You write like someone truly born believing in a world of aristocracy. Americans don't believe in that crap. And that is why America is superior both in business (600% GDP of the UK) and in sport (60% higher medal count in the last Olympics).

Brits are great in snooker. We can leave it at that.

 

[mr3cushion]

RJ; I copied a sentence from your previous post.

. Not sure why folks believe snooker players can't move the cb around. They have to do it on a 12 foot table all the time, with the tight pockets. And they need to play out of the "stack" like a straight pool player, and they get the cb in very tight quarters to continue their run.


IMHO, just as in 3C, the 'Cue' plays a BIG part in why the billiard balls, (being much larger than snooker) travel around the table with great ease for top players! So does the snooker for the smaller balls.

A lot has to do with the configuration of the cues, (snooker and Carom), they are both basically, (Conic) VERY stiff compared to Pool cues! These cues help penetrate thru the CB and in turn thru the OB much easier than pool cues.

Both games do have faster cloths than Pool also.

 

[one stroke]

Your quote, "class ... And something that americans aren't going to have."

You write like someone truly born believing in a world of aristocracy. Americans don't believe in that crap. And that is why America is superior both in business (600% GDP of the UK) and in sport (60% higher medal count in the last Olympics).

Brits are great in snooker. We can leave it at that.

I would hope so since we have about 5 times the population ,,


1

 

[one stroke]

That's right, I have always liked pool, however snooker doesn't have the same appeal. I would venture to guess that Ronnie feels the same way about snooker compared to pool.

When a player doesn't like the game it's not possible to play it at a world class level....the passion must be part of the motivating process, or it's "just a silly game".

Willie Mosconi said on more than one occasion he never really liked pool he did it because he was good at it and made him money



1

 

[KRJ]

RJ; I copied a sentence from your previous post.

. Not sure why folks believe snooker players can't move the cb around. They have to do it on a 12 foot table all the time, with the tight pockets. And they need to play out of the "stack" like a straight pool player, and they get the cb in very tight quarters to continue their run.


IMHO, just as in 3C, the 'Cue' plays a BIG part in why the billiard balls, (being much larger than snooker) travel around the table with great ease for top players! So does the snooker for the smaller balls.

A lot has to do with the configuration of the cues, (snooker and Carom), they are both basically, (Conic) VERY stiff compared to Pool cues! These cues help penetrate thru the CB and in turn thru the OB much easier than pool cues.

Both games do have faster cloths than Pool also.

I agree Billy, so with a pool cue, a snooker player should not have any problem moving the cb around a 9ft pool table. They already have the stroke

 

[Ron Swanson]

Your quote, "class ... And something that americans aren't going to have."

You write like someone truly born believing in a world of aristocracy. Americans don't believe in that crap. And that is why America is superior both in business (600% GDP of the UK) and in sport (60% higher medal count in the last Olympics).

Brits are great in snooker. We can leave it at that.

Lol. What % do americans get at comprehension?