Snooker Players

M

Mowem down

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Why do you think that snooker players do not own the 9 ball world ?

I know they've had a firm grip no the WPBA tour for some time. It just scemes to me they should rule the world with a iron cue..

Why is the game not played in the U.S.? You don't have to play on a 6x12 with the small little balls.. They make (or did) 5x10's that have standard hight rails so you can use 2 1/4 inch balls..

The game scemes alot like golf, it has alot of rules to make sure its fair and not ruled by chance (luck).
 
Mowem down said:
Why do you think that snooker players do not own the 9 ball world ?

I know they've had a firm grip no the WPBA tour for some time. It just scemes to me they should rule the world with a iron cue..

Why is the game not played in the U.S.? You don't have to play on a 6x12 with the small little balls.. They make (or did) 5x10's that have standard hight rails so you can use 2 1/4 inch balls..

The game scemes alot like golf, it has alot of rules to make sure its fair and not ruled by chance (luck).
Click to expand...

This is an easy one... Once you play snooker in UK for money it would be like tiger woods switching to mini putt. Look at the women, coming from snooker they own the 9 ball world. The money sucks in pool and that is why the men stay with snooker. Women however can make more in pool than pro snooker.
 
Snooker on the 12 footers would do well in the US if anyone would promote it. It makes for better tv than pool, golf or nascar IMO.
 
mnorwood said:
Snooker on the 12 footers would do well in the US if anyone would promote it. It makes for better tv than pool, golf or nascar IMO.
Click to expand...

they don't want to take the time learning snooker. Someone can win at 9 ball in months, snooker it would be years.
 
one of the main reasons snooker became popular on tv in britain was because the players themselves were entertaining, not just the game. thats somewhat ended and tv ratings are down, which means the money isnt there anymore for most players. theyll be playing more pool events now IMO so id say the top snooker players will have success soon.
 
we should see

I have heard that snooker's major sponsors have been outlawed and the money has largely left. If the snooker players are really a superior beast we should see it soon if there is money to be had in pool. My bet is that they aren't better, just different.

In the WPBA the snooker players were the first players with a real foundation of training behind them. The other players were mostly women that jumped into the void when women's pro pool started and there wasn't really any women pro's or too few to begin filling a field. It was like greyhounds racing against a field of poodles and they mostly had an easy time of it. Notice that now we have invaders coming in that have never played snooker but have a strong foundation of training in pool and are doing quite well. Seems that the training is what is key. The transition from pool to snooker or the other way isn't that hard for most people. The training from either applies pretty well.

The men's pro events are a different story. The snooker players will have to come in against battle hardened veterans with a strong background themselves. My bet is that one or two snooker players will make waves, the rest will fit into the pool fields at about the same levels as in the snooker fields.

Snooker players have superior skills in some areas however they are also unpracticed in some skills needed for pool. The size of a snooker table is often brought up but on a good run the size of the snooker table is three by six for most of the run. You are making a red ball and playing shape to make one ball over and over, a simpler game than eight or nine ball. After you run out of red balls then you shoot the same drill you have shot dozens or hundreds of times as all of the numbered balls are in the exact same location every game. The set pattern of the balls insures bridge balls to work from end to end of the table so once again if the game is played well the shots aren't very long.

Snooker requires different shot selection and this makes many pool players trying it for the first time believe it is far tougher than pool. Once shot selection is learned, it is tougher but not all that much.

Hu



Mowem down said:
Why do you think that snooker players do not own the 9 ball world ?

I know they've had a firm grip no the WPBA tour for some time. It just scemes to me they should rule the world with a iron cue..

Why is the game not played in the U.S.? You don't have to play on a 6x12 with the small little balls.. They make (or did) 5x10's that have standard hight rails so you can use 2 1/4 inch balls..

The game scemes alot like golf, it has alot of rules to make sure its fair and not ruled by chance (luck).
Click to expand...
 
Snooker is very hard!!!!

Try playing on a 12 foot snooker table when you are 5'1".:D
Its the most difficult thing in the world!!!!!!!!!
I admire snooker players. I tell ya, it VERY difficult. Just sayin:smile:
 
Hey, I've been there!

Milo said:
Try playing on a 12 foot snooker table when you are 5'1".:D
Its the most difficult thing in the world!!!!!!!!!
I admire snooker players. I tell ya, it VERY difficult. Just sayin:smile:
Click to expand...


Hey, I have been there too! I was 5'-1" myself once. It's kind of hard to remember the third grade but . . . . :D :D :D

Believe it or not I didn't use a rake much more playing snooker than playing pool. If you control the table you can forget it is 12 foot long. I played snooker before I played much one pocket and one pocket reminds me a lot of snooker. There is a lot more table out there but you are doing your best to not have to use it. Of course when it is time to give up the table then you leave the other person in the middle of the Serengeti.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I have heard that snooker's major sponsors have been outlawed and the money has largely left. If the snooker players are really a superior beast we should see it soon if there is money to be had in pool. My bet is that they aren't better, just different.

In the WPBA the snooker players were the first players with a real foundation of training behind them. The other players were mostly women that jumped into the void when women's pro pool started and there wasn't really any women pro's or too few to begin filling a field. It was like greyhounds racing against a field of poodles and they mostly had an easy time of it. Notice that now we have invaders coming in that have never played snooker but have a strong foundation of training in pool and are doing quite well. Seems that the training is what is key. The transition from pool to snooker or the other way isn't that hard for most people. The training from either applies pretty well.

The men's pro events are a different story. The snooker players will have to come in against battle hardened veterans with a strong background themselves. My bet is that one or two snooker players will make waves, the rest will fit into the pool fields at about the same levels as in the snooker fields.

Snooker players have superior skills in some areas however they are also unpracticed in some skills needed for pool. The size of a snooker table is often brought up but on a good run the size of the snooker table is three by six for most of the run. You are making a red ball and playing shape to make one ball over and over, a simpler game than eight or nine ball. After you run out of red balls then you shoot the same drill you have shot dozens or hundreds of times as all of the numbered balls are in the exact same location every game. The set pattern of the balls insures bridge balls to work from end to end of the table so once again if the game is played well the shots aren't very long.

Snooker requires different shot selection and this makes many pool players trying it for the first time believe it is far tougher than pool. Once shot selection is learned, it is tougher but not all that much.

Hu
Click to expand...

I think that you have summed it up pretty well, Hu.

I doubt that there is any real difference between the talents of the pro snooker and pool players. But they have developed slightly different skill sets, each optimised for their own games.

I also agree that good pool players would be able to switch to snooker if they put in the time and play a pretty good game; certainly 100+ runs should be no problem with a few months of concentrated practice. However competing at the top level would be another matter entirely.

You are right that often snooker is played in a 6 x 3 area, and when it is, distance will not be a problem. But when competing against good players, you are going to find yourself right up against the rail, with the only ball you can see is 10 feet away. So there is a huge difference between being able to make high runs in practice and being able to compete against snooker specialists.

Of course snooker players have their problems coming to pool. On the 9 ball men's circuit, the break is a big issue. I also think that while snooker players can get used to the angles in pool pretty quickly, they will find the pool specialists have the edge in speed control (you can get away with a little more on the slower napped cloths used in snooker, especially when you have bigger areas to play into.
 
Why play 9-ball?

The top snooker players to the 2005-06 season (In pounds AZB doesn't recognize the symbol)

Position Earnings Player
1 ?8,207,886 Stephen Hendry

2 ?5,456,008 Steve Davis

3 ?4,861,681 Ronnie O?Sullivan

4 ?4,634,289 Jimmy White

5 ?4,049,877 John Higgins

6 ?3,593,328 Mark J. Williams

7 ?3,234,936 Ken Doherty

8 ?3,120,400 John Parrott

9 ?2,523,809 Peter Ebdon

10 ?2,161,268 Alan McManus
 
a serious question

I know that the snooker players had no reason to dabble in pool in the past but what is the current status? I heard that sponsorship and TV time were both way down but this is only secondhand information and I forget the actual numbers I heard. I was thinking there was only a tiny fraction of this kind of money in snooker now.

Any information appreciated.

Hu


Scaramouche said:
Why play 9-ball?

The top snooker players to the 2005-06 season (In pounds AZB doesn't recognize the symbol)

Position Earnings Player
1 ?8,207,886 Stephen Hendry

2 ?5,456,008 Steve Davis

3 ?4,861,681 Ronnie O?Sullivan

4 ?4,634,289 Jimmy White

5 ?4,049,877 John Higgins

6 ?3,593,328 Mark J. Williams

7 ?3,234,936 Ken Doherty

8 ?3,120,400 John Parrott

9 ?2,523,809 Peter Ebdon

10 ?2,161,268 Alan McManus
Click to expand...
 
that minor detail!(grin)

There is that minor detail! :grin:

When a top player safes you, you are likely to be jacked up with a whole putting green between you and the ball you need to make or use to safe back. Once you get a run started it is pretty easy but getting started can be very tough. I wasn't anything like a top player but without any real local competition I would usually run about 56 in my first or second inning and then send the cue ball to what I called the poor boy end of the table. Mighty lean pickings from that end of the table. Few pool players had the understanding of the cloth and the control needed to make a red down on the other end of the table and keep the cue ball down there for the seven.

Snooker was fun but it has been a lot of years since I have even seen a snooker table around here.

Hu


Siz said:
I think that you have summed it up pretty well, Hu.

I doubt that there is any real difference between the talents of the pro snooker and pool players. But they have developed slightly different skill sets, each optimised for their own games.

I also agree that good pool players would be able to switch to snooker if they put in the time and play a pretty good game; certainly 100+ runs should be no problem with a few months of concentrated practice. However competing at the top level would be another matter entirely.

You are right that often snooker is played in a 6 x 3 area, and when it is, distance will not be a problem. But when competing against good players, you are going to find yourself right up against the rail, with the only ball you can see is 10 feet away. So there is a huge difference between being able to make high runs in practice and being able to compete against snooker specialists.

Of course snooker players have their problems coming to pool. On the 9 ball men's circuit, the break is a big issue. I also think that while snooker players can get used to the angles in pool pretty quickly, they will find the pool specialists have the edge in speed control (you can get away with a little more on the slower napped cloths used in snooker, especially when you have bigger areas to play into.
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
I know that the snooker players had no reason to dabble in pool in the past but what is the current status? I heard that sponsorship and TV time were both way down but this is only secondhand information and I forget the actual numbers I heard. I was thinking there was only a tiny fraction of this kind of money in snooker now.

Any information appreciated.

Hu
Click to expand...

The average ranking event on the main tour pays around $80,000 first place. I believe major tournaments like the UK Championship are around $100,000 and the World Championships are at $500,000.

These could be off but that is how I remember it. There are about 8-10 tournaments a year and as the game becomes more international they seem to be able to sustain that. They recently added the Shanghai open to the line up and the Bahrain Open as well, which has kept the numbers up.

The World Championships has lost sponsorship from 888.com but apparently they have reserve money to maintain the prizemoney for a while. I believe this is the last year that Maplin and Saga Insurance will be sponsoring the Uk Championship and the Masters respectively.

Snooker is having a rough go of it, but they are still in much better shape than pool. The BBC contract is one of the big reasons that Snooker is able to maintain their high prize money.

Once you get off the main circuit into smaller professional events the prizemoney plummets to something like $10,000 funds. Furthermore even on the main tour the monies are often carved up by the top 16 players as they are seeded directly into the last 32 of the tournament, which means they only need to win one or two matches every tournament to maintain their ranking. The bottom end of the tour is making peanuts and needs to sustain themselves with exhibtions.

In short, if you aren't in the very top echelon you aren't doing a whole lot better than pool players. Which is why guys like Mark Grey make the move.

As for why Snooker players don't dominate, Pool players don't suck at their own game.
 
gave rep as soon as I read it

Cornerman said:
I love this quote!

Fred <~~~ has no game
Click to expand...

I gave him rep as soon as I read it. He summed the deal up in a hurry.

Hu
 
The money is still much higher with 170,000 pounds going for a perfect game and high run is still like 15,000 or something. Another big one, they always get paid on their tour unlike the mens pool events.
 
ShootingArts said:
I gave him rep as soon as I read it. He summed the deal up in a hurry.

Hu
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Rep!

When anyone asks me about pool vs. snooker I always tell them that it is equally difficult to play either game at a high level. When I get overconfident on a pool table I come crashing back to reality very quickly.
 
They will never dominate, but you cannot say they will not be competitive as the current World 9-ball Champion, European No 1, Predator 10-ball Champion and Mosconi Cup MVP (as well as ladies No 1 for last 12 years--3 different players) are all snooker players. Pool exists in Europe and snooker really does not exist in the US so it is not fair to the pool players over here to make any comparison. We have beat this horse before and unless snooker becomes popular in the US we will never know. The snooker players in Europe who have made the switch are already at the top of the sport over there.
 
mnorwood said:
Snooker on the 12 footers would do well in the US if anyone would promote it. It makes for better tv than pool, golf or nascar IMO.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Snooker would be like slow death for action crazy Americans.

One of the reasons it thrives in the UK is it's history and the fact that there are stars. People like to cheer on their favorites.

In the USA people in general don't know or care about pool stars and they certainly aren't about to start caring about snooker stars.

The USA has so much going on attempting to capture people's attention that it's not even funny. Our cable and satellite channel choices completely dwarf that found in other countries.

And I like snooker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top