Snooker/Pool Transition

Cornerman

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Silver Member
Through all the debating, it's clear that there are two completely debates going on. Posters like TheOne is contending that it is easier for a snooker player to do well in a pool tournament than a pool player to do well in a snooker tournament. To this argument, I absolutely agree. I think as I read all the posts over the years, not many people disagree to this. But, this is a point only based on tournament structures, IMO.

I and many others are arguing based solely on the game, and gaining the same level of proficiency at that other game, having nothing to do with tournament structures. Isn't that the real question? It seemed obvious to me all these years, but apparently, I'm wrong. Other people are simply arguing a completely different question.

So, how do we compare the transition and the transition only? What level of pool is the equivalent to what level in snooker, and which direction of transition gets to that level "much easier."

Where I grew up, we had an overly tight 12' snooker table that got limited use, similar to the carom tables. My personal experience in playing on that table was that when I went back to a pool table, I was completely lost. Sure, pocketing was no problem, but everything else was horrible. Now, unless you've actually done the same thing, please don't guess. When I first shot on a European proper snooker table with proper cloth, proper ball size, and proper pocket size, the game was easier than my home room. Much easier, at that. But, not exactly easy either.

The best I can compare is 14.1. I don't and never have played much of the game. The last I played a race to 100 was about 7-8 years ago against poster mikepage. I doubt I got anything higher than a 20 ball run, but my high run in the game is in the 60's. I'm nothing but a B player.

Given that, what should be the equivalent break in snooker? Average break? High break? Well, my first day of playing actual games, I had a 50+ break. Someone in the snooker world who has played both should be able to tell me whether or not in one day of playing, I showed B level play. I think I did, and therefore, that's my proof that the transition isn't difficult. How "much easier" could it possibly be to transition from snooker to pool? It seems like it took a full day to reach the same level of proficiency.

Now, I do believe there has to be a level of potting skills that if you don't have it, snooker will never be fun. The same can be said about 3C (and cueball path skill) or one pocket (object ball and cueball position skill). D players in pool might not ever transition to any kind of player in snooker. But then again, what's a D level player in snooker? But, good shotmaking C level players in pool might have a good shot at playing fun snooker.

So, again, what are equivalent skill levels, and how long does it take for one to get to the other? If a 14.1 player has a high run of 100, what is the equivalent break in snooker and how long does it take for him to get there and vice versa? Do you all truly believe given the question framed as such that it's easier to go from one to other?

I again look at the snooker pool challenges where Mizerak (not the best player in the world at the time) played against Davis (the best player at the time). In 14.1, Davis had a 70+ high run, winning one frame. Mizerak had a 70+ high break winning one frame. Is the equivalent break about the same point value? Someone like TheOne should be able to answer this question the best, IMO.

Fred
 
When I suggested in another thread that pool players should try playing snooker on their 9 foot tables, nobody jumped up and said it was a great idea. Apparently Americans believe that snooker can only be played on a big table and should be left to the pros and woofers:D

It wouldn't be the same as playing on 12 foot with regulation pockets, any more than pool games remain the same if you go to a barbox. (The dumbest thing about the comparisons of games on different sized tables is that they ignore that the size alone dictates what will and will not work and therefore the shots the experts will use.)

Personally, I find snooker is more interesting than 8-Ball 9-Ball or 14.1, and that it combines the best aspects of all three.
 
Scaramouche said:
When I suggested in another thread that pool players should try playing snooker on their 9 foot tables, nobody jumped up and said it was a great idea. Apparently Americans believe that snooker can only be played on a big table and should be left to the pros and woofers:D

It wouldn't be the same as playing on 12 foot with regulation pockets, any more than pool games remain the same if you go to a barbox. (The dumbest thing about the comparisons of games on different sized tables is that they ignore that the size alone dictates what will and will not work and therefore the shots the experts will use.)

Personally, I find snooker is more interesting than 8-Ball 9-Ball or 14.1, and that it combines the best aspects of all three.
Click to expand...
I want to say that the majority of American snooker tables (different than an Imperial or UK snooker table) are 9' and 10'. Unfortunately, there are enough differences that make it almost a different game.

Fred
 
This may not help the debate much, but I will throw my experience out there for consideration. I've played snooker quite a bit (for an American) ever since I first learned to play many moons ago. I enjoyed it so much that after I bought a pool table for my home, I decided I would really rather have a snooker table. As luck would have it, I now have both. Over the year and a half that I've had both tables, quite a few players of varying skill levels have played on them. Bear in mind that the snooker table has 760 cloth on it and is 10', not 12'. I use 2 1/8" snooker balls and 2 1/4" pool balls. I am ranked as a 7 and 9 in APA 8-ball and 9-ball but would consider myself on the lower end of those rankings. Of the players that I would consider to be the same or better than myself in skill level, all were quite competitive playing snooker once they got used to the table and how the game was played.
I have a husband and wife that come over to play quite a bit. They both bounce around between 3 and 4 in the APA and 4-5 balls would be a very good run for them. We mostly play cutthroat and snooker. On the pool table, they can gang up and beat me about half the time playing cutthroat. On the snooker table playing cutthroat, they are lucky to beat me 1/4 of the time. Playing snooker, it is way less. It is very rare for them to make 4 or more balls in a row. We all agree that it is easier to pot the larger balls on the snooker table than the smaller balls. (For Scaramouche, I did play snooker on the pool table one time and it was so ridiculously easy that I abandoned it almost immediately. It might be more fun with larger balls.)

For the first full year plus a couple months more, I only played snooker on the snooker table. Around the middle of last summer, I started playing pool on the snooker table and now spend most of my time playing rotation on the snooker table. I do play on the pool table a couple of nights a week as well. My observations doing this are that my game on the pool table has improved quite a bit. However, there are times when I have problems judging the angles on the pool table. I will have to spend a rack or two paying close attention to lining up the shot instead of relying on my intuition before the angles become natural for me. Same thing when I go play on the bar table. Other times, there is no transition time needed.
Bottom line is that for me personally, the biggest difference between pool and snooker is the size of the balls. The smaller balls make everything just a little more difficult. It's harder to see the right aim point, it's harder to apply screw & side, and it's a tiny bit harder to see the angles. The pockets are definitely harder to get the ball into as well. The distances encountered can also make things a little tougher, but if the table plays well, getting the shot speed down mitigates this to some extent.
If you can make a 50 break in snooker, say mid 40's on a somewhat regular basis, that would be making around 12-14 balls in a row (given that you aren't making black every time). Given the harder playing conditions and the fact that you have to play shape on a colored ball after each red, I would equate it to somewhere around 20-25 in straight pool. I have played on 12' tables at three different locations but none of them had napped cloth. Unfortunately, two of them had crappy lighting and obstacles to deal with around the table. The one decent table I played on, I didn't feel like it was too much harder than the 10'.
 
bsmutz said:
Bear in mind that the snooker table has 760 cloth on it and is 10', not 12'.
Click to expand...
I've played on a 12' table with 760. It was much tougher than playing on regular napped snooker cloth.

I use 2 1/8" snooker balls and 2 1/4" pool balls. ...We all agree that it is easier to pot the larger balls on the snooker table than the smaller balls.
Click to expand...
That's the Jay Helfert assessment.


If you can make a 50 break in snooker, say mid 40's on a somewhat regular basis, that would be making around 12-14 balls in a row (given that you aren't making black every time). Given the harder playing conditions and the fact that you have to play shape on a colored ball after each red, I would equate it to somewhere around 20-25 in straight pool.
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense in my case, since my high run of any particular day in 14.1 is probably going to be low 20's compared to that high break of that one day of snooker, if you get what I mean.

However, does it cross over at some point or get closer to equal? I mean, a perfect 147 can't be the equivalent of 70ish. But, since so many people have perfect 147s, it can't be equivalent to 200 either. Or is it?

Excellent post, IMO.

Fred
 
Last edited:
quick reply will try and reply properly later. I'd say its somewhere like 1 point in snooker = a little more than 1 ball in 14.1.

The reason being I know many many excellent Snooker players that couldn't break 100 on a Snooker table in a lifetime but they could break 100 at 14.1 Im quite sure.

For example when I tried my 100 ball challenge I was playing snooker a couple of nights a week at most and had maybe made 10-20 100 breaks in the last year. I ran 90+ several times that week, with new equipment and not much 14.1 knowledge.

Roughly speaking:

100 break = 100-150 ball run
Total clearance = 150 -200 ball run
147 = 300-400+ ball run
Back to back 147s = Mosconi! :)

A few years ago a fringe pro in my home town ran 3 147's in a row, he was making a 147 almost every day in practice leading up to the worlds. He lost his first match at the crucible and has never really broken into the elite.

Opinions of course but this would be my quick guess.
 
TheOne said:
A few years ago a fringe pro in my home town ran 3 147's in a row, he was making a 147 almost every day in practice leading up to the worlds. He lost his first match at the crucible and has never really broken into the elite.
Click to expand...

that sucks....goes to show that practice and match play are two totally different things
 
TheOne said:
quick reply will try and reply properly later. I'd say its somewhere like 1 point in snooker = a little more than 1 ball in 14.1.

The reason being I know many many excellent Snooker players that couldn't break 100 on a Snooker table in a lifetime but they could break 100 at 14.1 Im quite sure.

For example when I tried my 100 ball challenge I was playing snooker a couple of nights a week at most and had maybe made 10-20 100 breaks in the last year. I ran 90+ several times that week, with new equipment and not much 14.1 knowledge.

Roughly speaking:

100 break = 100-150 ball run
Total clearance = 150 -200 ball run
147 = 300-400+ ball run
Back to back 147s = Mosconi! :)

A few years ago a fringe pro in my home town ran 3 147's in a row, he was making a 147 almost every day in practice leading up to the worlds. He lost his first match at the crucible and has never really broken into the elite.

Opinions of course but this would be my quick guess.
Click to expand...

A comment and a question:

I wouldn't say a 147 is equivalent to a 300-400+ in straight pool, because of the frequency with which those feats are accomplished. I've seen videos of dozens of 147's, whereas the kind of run you're talking about is something only a handful of pool players can claim, and of those, most of them only accomplish that high a run once or twice in a lifetime.

And for the question, have you made a century break on a 6x12 snooker table with competition-size pockets? How about a total clearance? Just curious.

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
A comment and a question:

I wouldn't say a 147 is equivalent to a 300-400+ in straight pool, because of the frequency with which those feats are accomplished. I've seen videos of dozens of 147's, whereas the kind of run you're talking about is something only a handful of pool players can claim, and of those, most of them only accomplish that high a run once or twice in a lifetime.

And for the question, have you made a century break on a 6x12 snooker table with competition-size pockets? How about a total clearance? Just curious.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
The thing with the 147 is that you have to be very precise with your position to be able to get back to the black 15 times. This is the toughest thing about a 147. I have had several 147's hit against me. My practice partner used to be Terry Murphy who has hit about 40 147's and 1 in competition. I myself have never hit a 147 in a competitve game but I have probably hit about 25-30 breaks of 140 or above. The closest I ever got was 14 reds. I don't know what it equates to in straight pool because I have put no time into straight pool. Remember the difference between 140 and 147 is huge. Andrew I know you were not directing your question at me but I thought my experience might help.
 
Andrew Manning said:
A comment and a question:

I wouldn't say a 147 is equivalent to a 300-400+ in straight pool, because of the frequency with which those feats are accomplished. I've seen videos of dozens of 147's, whereas the kind of run you're talking about is something only a handful of pool players can claim, and of those, most of them only accomplish that high a run once or twice in a lifetime.

And for the question, have you made a century break on a 6x12 snooker table with competition-size pockets? How about a total clearance? Just curious.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

You also have to remember Andrew that there used to be many Pro's that had never had a 147 in there lives! (not so sure about modern day players).

This despite practising 6-8 hours a day from a very early age for most of there lives! This is actually quite a compliment to JS run of 400+

Yes you see more now a days this only goes to show what level todays players play at.

I had a 139 total clearance on my 17th birthday, 6 months later I quit to go to Uni. I had only been playing snooker seriously on a full sized table for 6 months.

PS
Thanks Raybo
 
TheOne said:
quick reply will try and reply properly later. I'd say its somewhere like 1 point in snooker = a little more than 1 ball in 14.1.

The reason being I know many many excellent Snooker players that couldn't break 100 on a Snooker table in a lifetime but they could break 100 at 14.1 Im quite sure.

For example when I tried my 100 ball challenge I was playing snooker a couple of nights a week at most and had maybe made 10-20 100 breaks in the last year. I ran 90+ several times that week, with new equipment and not much 14.1 knowledge.

Roughly speaking:

100 break = 100-150 ball run
Total clearance = 150 -200 ball run
147 = 300-400+ ball run
Back to back 147s = Mosconi! :)

A few years ago a fringe pro in my home town ran 3 147's in a row, he was making a 147 almost every day in practice leading up to the worlds. He lost his first match at the crucible and has never really broken into the elite.

Opinions of course but this would be my quick guess.
Click to expand...

Craig,
As a snooker guy who moved to pool I would concur with your assessment. The difference between 115 and 147 is at least 100 more balls in straight pool.

Nick
 
Raybo is that terry murphy from northern ireland by any chance?

Id have to say the transition from snooker to pool at a professional level is so much easier than the other way round!
Most of the current british players on the american pool scene have converted from top ranks of english pool (appleton, boyes, holtz,) etc etc and ive heard a few of those lads can hit a decent snooker ball round too. Know of snooker players that have converted too. Ive heard Daryll peach started out as a snooker player many moons ago without much success and converted to american pool and just won the last 9ball world championships. i know the likes of drago, Steve Davis have made latter in major competitions they've come from snooker backrounds. Mark Gray originally came from a Good snooker backround but as far as i know hasnt done anything in snooker to shout about, but i believe has only been playing american pool for about two yrs and i think he's currently number 1 on europeen tour which consists of some very established players!

The only pool player that ive ever heard of that come from american pool to do something simular in snooker was cliff thorburne and that was twenty years ago! I heard Rempe came over and did well in english pool
but thats a different topic

I can probably guarentee that some of the top american pool players can hit a tasty snooker ball round and make decent snooker breaks but in a direct competition against world class opponents i dont think many would really stand a chance in snooker, but i do think that a top snooker player could really push a top american pool player if they practiced. thats my opinion.

also you cant really compare 300+ runs to maximum snooker breaks. Both are very special but take different attributes to accomplish!! I think another possible reason why we see more 147 made than 300+ runs is that more time and dedication is made to the dispcipline of snooker than 14:1. If your gonna practice 6-8hours a day at straight pool for years i think those runs would definatelly become more regular!!

To try and give cornermans question an example about playing levels
Ive hit multiple tons as have thousands of others in the UK have.

Ive been told that if i was to enter a local league id be off -14 to -21 and the lowest previous has been -56(he's top 16 in world). Id consider myself average in the grand terms of game with a high break of 144. Then in comparison to american pool have a highest run of 276 in practice which is above quite alot of pro's and a 139 in english 8ball but it takes sumthing a little extra to be able to replicate those in competition on a regulary basis!

pretty sure Darren appleton has hit 200+ run on an american table but know on an english pool his record is something like 460 odd which frankly is F**king unreal dont know if hes any good at snooker tho lol

But you can say the same thing about the players doing multiple centuries in snooker on tv and those players who made 400+ breaks on american pool tables. I kinda stand in AWE at times when you witness something special or here about stuff like that and thats the benchmark you wanna set yourself to accomplish but know it takes masses of dedication to even get close.

Sorry its such a long piece but thats my two pence worth lol

R114
 
Reaper114 said:
Raybo is that terry murphy from northern ireland by any chance?

Yes Reaper we went to school together and he started playing about a year before I did, Terry stuck it out in England for about 12 years but he is back in Derry now playing in the local leagues. He made a pretty good go at it but it is tough to last in the pro game.
Click to expand...
 
snooker 50+ = pool 20-25
snooker 100+ = pool 75+
snooker 147= pool 147

thats my estimate. you could also say that playing a good 14.1 break shot could be like playing position on black, and potting reds is equal to potting non break balls.

but snooker isnt about potting balls just, even with a full table left a good snooker can be the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top