Ronnie O'Sullivan vs Raj Hundal?
- Thread starter MartinBullet
- Start date
I agree with the thrust of what you say. In fact, just two days ago I discussed this exact subject with my English pool team mate. His position was that snooker was a tougher game than pool and more difficult to master. The thrust of my counter argument rested on the definition of 'pool'. Unlike snooker, where there is basically one game with commonly under stood rules, 'pool' is actually a collection of games to include 8 ball, the rotation based games, 14.1, bank pool and on an on. Each of these pool games put emphasis on a different skill set. In fact, as I mention to my English bud on wednesday, it would be entirely inappropriate to compare the abilities of a snooker player to, say my bud John B who is a champion bank pool player for instance (can't remember the last time I saw a bank shot in snooker...).
In any event, this debate will go, but in my mind it is an inappropriate comparison and likening the two simplistically (as often is the case) is silly and pointless. Here, perhaps, is a better question:
Who would win this match up playing golf, Ronnie O'Sullivan or Earl Strickland? The answer, just like the question, is pointless and proves nothing.
P.S. As an aside, I wish we had more snooker tables in the US...
Snooker is a lot more difficult than pool. Set up a rack of 9ball on a snooker table. Tell me if running is out is more difficult than on a pool table.
You have only described playing 9 ball on a snooker table, which no one would do except to play a gaff gambling game. I suppose that you could also say that playing snooker would itself be very tough if played on a three cushion table.
How about we play snooker next on a minature golf course. That would prolly be pretty tough too.
I agree. My snooker hall has a set of 2 1/16 striped snooker balls and I now and again use them to play 10 ball on the snooker tables. 10 ball on a snooker table is much, much harder than on a 9x4.5.
Its true that a mistake in pool can lose you multiple frames, but its much harder to win just 1 frame in snooker at 1 visit than it is in 9 ball, so a mistake won't cost you multiple frames very often.
What's going to set Ronnie and Raj apart is the tactical side and pattern play in 9 ball. Raj has this down, but Ronnie may struggle. I don't care what anyone says, if you don't play on a 9 footer with 2 1/4 balls then you will struggle with potting and position to start. I've seen many snooker players miss pots and screw up position that they would never do on a snooker table.
Snooker players that try out English 8 ball consider it a childs game because of the size of the balls and table. Yet they can't play the game for sh*t. Difference in the cut of the pockets, cushions and ball sizes and weights means they struggle. Same thing with American pool and snooker.
If the race is long enough, Raj really doesn't stand a chance IMO. I've seen Ronnie play 9 ball before without practicing on a table prior, and he still plays good enough to be just behind the worlds elite few. If he pulled his finger out and put in a couple of weeks practice before hand then he is capable of becoming one of the worlds elite and standing a chance against anyone. If Ronnie can learn to break and consistently make a ball then Raj is going to be sat down a lot. I doubt he will develop any kind of break though, so Raj is in with a chance, but I still say Ronnie.
Last edited:
He's a bit handy at snooker is like saying earl is a bit handy at 9 ball. He's the best... And he will eat raj lunch 7 days a week and twice on Sunday lol
You have only described playing 9 ball on a snooker table, which no one would do except to play a gaff gambling game. I suppose that you could also say that playing snooker would itself be very tough if played on a three cushion table.
How about we play snooker next on a minature golf course. That would prolly be pretty tough too.
My point was that snooker table conditions are so much more difficult than a pool table. Just look at the pockets. On a pool table the ball can hit the side of the pocket and because of the way it is cut the ball will still drop. On a snooker table the ball needs to enter the pocket clean or you miss. That is just one of many examples.
Your point is well taken and I certainly agree that potting balls on a snooker table is more difficult than potting balls on an American pool table. But potting balls is only one aspect of BOTH games and does not define either on its own. Putting one or even a series of balls in a hole without a miss does not define either game either.
My point is that the nature of both differ and do not offer a ready comparison. Consider the following:
Which is the greater feat, a maximum break of 147 in snooker or the following:
- running 150 and out playing 14.1?
- banking 37 consecutive shots in pool (which Eddie Taylor did BTW)
- running 20 racks of 9 ball consecutively on a 7' bar table as someone alleged to have witnessed in a recent thread here
My point is that each of the feats above, certainly including the 147 break in snooker are awesome achievements, but do not have a direct comparison to each other.
Essentially, snooker is a fabulous game of skill, but so is the collection of games known as 'pool'. Each has elements that differ from the other, so drawing a direct comparison is murky at best and always debatable.
As other's pointed out, Ronnie has already played 8-ball and 9-ball before and without even putting in much preparation, was world class.
I'd expect players like Earl, SVB, Dennis O to walk over Ronnie especially because of the break, jumping, etc... but I'd take Ronnie over Raj in a long race.
I'd expect players like Earl, SVB, Dennis O to walk over Ronnie especially because of the break, jumping, etc... but I'd take Ronnie over Raj in a long race.
I don't think its murky at all. Snooker is a tougher game than pool. Plain and simple. You have a much lower margian or error in snooker. Ask yourself this, why do pro snooker players move over to pool and have huge success but not once has a pro pool player become a pro snooker player?
I don't understand why everything seems to turn in to an argument here. Europe vs US, Snooker vs Pool etc etc
anyways regarding the post I expect Raj to win as he ll have a stronger break. Ronnies break will be pretty inconsistent however if he gets open tables to run out, anything can happen.
anyways regarding the post I expect Raj to win as he ll have a stronger break. Ronnies break will be pretty inconsistent however if he gets open tables to run out, anything can happen.
Well, as indicated by AZB's records of money won, I would not consider the pool careers of Raj Hundal, Steve Davis, Tony Drago, or any snooker player turned pool player to be all that noteworthy, so I think that you are off base there. Who would you say had "huge success" converting to pool? I guess the more I think about it, I guess you could make that argument that Allison Fisher dominated, but I can't think of any other example.
Edit: As for the margin of error you mention, consider the case of Joe Balsis playing a weak (but not obviously so) safety against Crane in the finals of a tourney in years gone by and that play caused him to lose the match from there without returning to the table - in this instance in pool, the margin of error would be zero, and you can't get less than that.
If anything, the issue is not "plain and simple", as is suggested. Hey, like I said, they are all good games and fun and challenging to play. You seem like a good guy, and are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. In the end, there are many roads to Dublin...
Last edited:
Snooker players...
I'm sorry but snooker players don't run out nineball on a snooker table.
That's not the game. Regular long shots are not shot in snooker, only occasionally, where as with a random break and opponents playing safe, you would HAVE to shoot long shots in nine ball all the time.
Most shots in snooker are from two or three feet. They are different animals, snooker and rotation...
Each with a requisite skill set.
Jaden
I'm sorry but snooker players don't run out nineball on a snooker table.
That's not the game. Regular long shots are not shot in snooker, only occasionally, where as with a random break and opponents playing safe, you would HAVE to shoot long shots in nine ball all the time.
Most shots in snooker are from two or three feet. They are different animals, snooker and rotation...
Each with a requisite skill set.
Jaden
There is less margin for error in pool and I say that because I believe the game to be easier than snooker, especially rotation. How many can run consecutive racks of 9 ball on here? Quite a high percentage I'd imagine. How many can make a century break in snooker? Less than 1% I'd say. Put it into perspective; a century break in snooker is the equivalent of around a 70-100 in 14.1, who can run 70+ in 14.1? Still a low percentage. 9 ball is easy. I'm not nocking it, I enjoy playing it but its just the nature of the game.
No top 16 player in snooker is ever going to play pool competatively for any length of time so you can't compare players from either sport really. Far more money in snooker than pool so unless Ronnie could win £200,000 in a tournament on a regular basis the pool world won't be seeing much of him.
I like the point someone made about why don't pool players go into snooker? They could earn far more money...well, no they couldn't. Why would SVB go from being one of, if not the best pool player in the world to being an average snooker player in the pro ranks? That's what he'd be...average. The transition from pool to snooker is far more difficult than the other way around.
What I'd like to see, and would pay good money to watch would be a real snooker vs pool match, not just one guy trying out the other sport. Take the best player from each sport and play 9b, 10b, english pool and snooker. Each a race to 15 and who ever wins the most frames takes the cash.
No top 16 player in snooker is ever going to play pool competatively for any length of time so you can't compare players from either sport really. Far more money in snooker than pool so unless Ronnie could win £200,000 in a tournament on a regular basis the pool world won't be seeing much of him.
I like the point someone made about why don't pool players go into snooker? They could earn far more money...well, no they couldn't. Why would SVB go from being one of, if not the best pool player in the world to being an average snooker player in the pro ranks? That's what he'd be...average. The transition from pool to snooker is far more difficult than the other way around.
What I'd like to see, and would pay good money to watch would be a real snooker vs pool match, not just one guy trying out the other sport. Take the best player from each sport and play 9b, 10b, english pool and snooker. Each a race to 15 and who ever wins the most frames takes the cash.
I think Allison Fisher would be a good example of snooker player turned pro pool player. If I am not mistaken she is in the BCA HOF......
I don't mind that we don't see eye to eye on this subject. I just know that after playing pool for years and years and then trying snooker I had a high run of 19 and was missing easy straight in shots that I would never miss in pool. To me that says it is a more difficult game.
I hear ya. Your experience reminds me of what Larry Price once told me. He said that he didn't just aim for the pocket, he aimed for a specific part of the pocket, even when he did not have to cheat the pocket. Doing that, it encourages potting accuracy on any table, snooker or otherwise. That is what I think really great players do.
Now, back to the original question. Ronnie is my pic to win:thumbup2:
Are you insane? Pool is a game of knowledge and snooker is bit bat bosh??? Obviously you only watch the 147's on youtube. If you have seen a set of 33 you would know the safety and knowledge side of the game is huge, whether to interrupt the pack from baulk or black, lots of 2 way shots. Just as argumentive pool is bangers game you bash the balls hard as you can and if you have shot on teh 1 ball your basically out ...sweet nice game. Archer said it best it cant be a sport if the other person doesnt get to play at all.
I love pool and is my game now since relocating to the US but i was a very avergae snooker player in Scotland and I joined the APA league here never having played on the bar tables or 9ft and was a 7 straight away not even knowing the rules.
There is a reason Appleton, Melling, Peach, Boyes, Melling, Shaw are playing pool; they could not break into the top tier of the snooker game. Appleton been playing American poool 7 years and has won everything and arguably best player in the world.
Hundal was never a snooker player he wanted to be but couldnt make it. Steve Davis did alright in the pool circuit beating Strickland at the top of his game but remember davis and drago played when they were retiring from snooker unlike pool after 40 there has never been a worl champion in snooker. Again endurance, mentally, physically just a harder game. Sorry.
I remember the TAR match where Raj played Oscar D., when the table had the Fatboy rails and pockets were @ 4 1/8 inches.
Raj had some trouble pocketing balls on the smaller pockets, and that's being really nice.
I don't care to argue whether pool is harder than snooker, I pick Ronnie simply because he is levels above Raj at hitting the white ball.
Raj had some trouble pocketing balls on the smaller pockets, and that's being really nice.
I don't care to argue whether pool is harder than snooker, I pick Ronnie simply because he is levels above Raj at hitting the white ball.