F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Your ID is "TheOne." I'm sorry if I mistook that as an open invitation to call you arrogant at my first opportunity.TheOne said:
Okay, all kidding aside, maybe there's a way to combine our arguments.
My argument (which has been consistent):
American pool players and pool players in general do not cross over to play snooker because they don't like the game. They find it boring. And you have to love the game if you're going to make a committed switch. Given any pool room in the states, and a few that I've visited in Germany, the snooker table (12' real snooker table) is empty, with the majority of the pool tables being occupied by 9-ball and 8-ball. If the pool rooms only had snooker tables on them and no other game were available, then I'm sure any American cueist would play snooker. I do not believe that a pool player would have a more difficult time attaining the same level of proficiency at snooker if he actually spent the same amount of time on the game. The modern 9-ball player mentality feeds off of scoring and excitement. This is why we don't play 3-Cushion anymore, and why 14.1 has all but fell by the wayside. One-pocket will never be accepted by 99% of players.
The game of 3C puts more emphasis on big strokes, and cueball patterns. The game of snooker puts a premium on small table patterns (one rail, one side of the table) and precision shot making. That's not to say that 3C doesn't have an amount of precision shot making, and snooker doesn't have an amount of big stroke shots with advanced cueball patterns. They do, but it's not the primary focus of each. Pool on the other hand has a combination of both, but not to the focused degree. So, the blend is the focus. IMO, it's the ability to blend the two that makes the pool games unique. To be able to play all the pool games (1-pocket to 9-ball), there has to be a certain proficiency in both of these foci.
Craig's (The One) argument:
"I'll say it again is there anyone in here that has played pool AND snooker to a high level that thinks snooker is easier to convert to than pool?"
Obviously, I don't like the question, because that's reverse of what I've been arguing against. I believe the statement has been:
"It is easier to convert from snooker to pool than it is from pool to snooker."
If that is the statement, then I think given why I feel modern 9-ball players do not play snooker to begin with, and given the difficulty and premium on potting skills, there is compromise of these statements. That is, Craig is correct, but I think it's because of my argument plus the tournament structure of today's 9-ball, and not because of snooker vs. pool.
Most 9-ballers will have a difficult time right of the bat in pocketing balls, and their lack of enjoyment of the game (which stems partially from the inability to pocket balls) won't keep them interested long enough to gain any proficiency. On the other hand, because pocketing balls on a pool table won't be an issue to a snooker player, and the overall excitement of the game, a snooker player will be more apt to stick with, say, 9-ball in order to master its nuances, even though they're getting their brains beat in by true pool players.
So, what about the pool players who can pocket balls? If (and this is a big 'if') they enjoyed the game, would they, could they gain the same level of proficiency in snooker? The two that have tried did not. Rempe and Mizerak. I can't speak to how hard they tried, but they would have to make a life committment, IMO. And I doubt either of them had the funds to do so. But, that's my guess. Given those two, they weren't able to. But, Efren Reyes somehow won the Asian Games, which can only lead me to believe that he could, if he enjoyed the game, reach that level of proficiency. But, that's also just my guess. Efren said he didnt' like the game. So, that speaks to my argument. He certainly can play it.
My personal non-professional anectode given my limited play is that in the handful of actual games of snooker (if I've played 12 full games of snooker, that's probably an overestimate) I've played on a snooker tables with snooker facings and snooker pockets (not American snooker tables), I've had 50 breaks on both a 10' table and 12' table. Okay, that's not quite right. I had a 49 on the 12' table and, yes, dogged the ball. I suck. So, if I liked the game, or if I played it every day, I don't see how I couldn't gain the same proficiency, which is nothing but a B+ player.
What about the reverse? Is there a single snooker player that gained the same level of proficiency? Steve Davis hasn't. And Tony Drago hasn't actually reached the level of proficiency in snooker. He's a conundrum. I think he's actually a pool player, not a snooker player. I don't know what to say about Drago. But, results-wise, he has. Play-wise, from what I've seen of him, he hasn't. What about Raj? My Scottish friend, Cardman will swear up and down that this kid is a pool player first. So, if he had a century at 13 in snooker, I could just as easily claim that he's a pool player that has gained the same level of proficiency at snooker. But, that's a different semantic arguement.
Ronnie O'Sullivan will be the biggest test. And I look forward to his accomplishments. I hope he does well, not because I favor snooker players but because he's a world class cueist that should do well in any other cue sport if he puts in the effort. The money is there, he must like the game enough to be putting forth the effort, and he's a tremendous talent. He has a better chance to do well at this tour than a pool player will at the UK snooker tour (WPBSA?) given all of the reasons in this thread.
Fred
Give it a rest until November 
.