Snooker to Pool vs Pool to Snooker
- Thread starter RichSchultz
- Start date
There's a lot of truth in what you say, however 2 things to add...
1) I'd agree most reasonable players could hit a 50 break if they practised for a week, but we're talking about in practice, probably not in a match situation and that's not on a consistent basis...as for a century that's a whole different thing (appreciate you didn't claim anyone could hit a century easily am just throwing it out there), your options severely diminish as the reds disappear and many decent amateurs only have a few centuries over an entire career.
2) I think they key point is when you mention that any decent cueist could play...that's true...however you can be a good pool player with a less than decent cue action and play tactically smart etc. however you will almost never find even a reasonable amateur snooker player with a rubbish cue action.
Personally I think you need to practice snooker more to maintain a good standard, which for many is just too much effort to bother with!
I certainly like these points. Where do we put Alex Higgins? Horrific form at times, but certainly could deliver the cue. He's like the proof that any stroke can be a world snooker champion if you live in England and had the three Ds (or is it five or six Ds?).
After reading through the other posts, I want to add a few things to my previous statements:
In my opinion both snooker and pool are difficult sports if you want to bring it to perfection, but you can`t really tell if becoming a tremendous long potter like Neil Robertson or Judd Trump is more difficult than master the break shot like Shane has done it.
Some people tried to compare snooker and pool with other sports and I think if you want to do that, the best comparison in my eyes would be with the different disciplines in skiing. One of the best downhill racers could start in the slalom discipline and do well. Why? Because he is a really good at skiing. But he never will be one of the best slalom skiers, because therefore the two disciplines are too different, although it is more or less the same thing- getting down a snowy mountain as fast as possible.
Others mentioned Steve Davis and I agree, that he really did well in some pool tournaments. What you shouldn`t forget is that Steve is an exception in the world of snooker and all cue sports. He was a winning machine, highly competitive in everything he has done and he put a fair amount of time in practicing pool. So much time, that he once said, that his ambitions in pool hurt his late career in snooker, because even he could not manage to play both games on high level at the same time.
The prime example for a snooker player who turned to pool is Mark Gray and if you look at his performances, for example on the Mosconi Cup, you see, that he is a really good cueist, with very good fundamentals and an outstanding potting game. He is consistent, has strong nerves and a good touch with solid position play and solid tactical game.
His breakshot is his weakness and his banking and kicking is nowhere near what the top pool players can do...and I can`t remember if he even owns a jump cue.
If you put all that in the mix, you get a really good cueist, but although Mark plays pool for a long time now and I`m sure he puts a lot of work into this sport, he will always be what he is- a snooker player who turned to pool.
In my opinion both snooker and pool are difficult sports if you want to bring it to perfection, but you can`t really tell if becoming a tremendous long potter like Neil Robertson or Judd Trump is more difficult than master the break shot like Shane has done it.
Some people tried to compare snooker and pool with other sports and I think if you want to do that, the best comparison in my eyes would be with the different disciplines in skiing. One of the best downhill racers could start in the slalom discipline and do well. Why? Because he is a really good at skiing. But he never will be one of the best slalom skiers, because therefore the two disciplines are too different, although it is more or less the same thing- getting down a snowy mountain as fast as possible.
Others mentioned Steve Davis and I agree, that he really did well in some pool tournaments. What you shouldn`t forget is that Steve is an exception in the world of snooker and all cue sports. He was a winning machine, highly competitive in everything he has done and he put a fair amount of time in practicing pool. So much time, that he once said, that his ambitions in pool hurt his late career in snooker, because even he could not manage to play both games on high level at the same time.
The prime example for a snooker player who turned to pool is Mark Gray and if you look at his performances, for example on the Mosconi Cup, you see, that he is a really good cueist, with very good fundamentals and an outstanding potting game. He is consistent, has strong nerves and a good touch with solid position play and solid tactical game.
His breakshot is his weakness and his banking and kicking is nowhere near what the top pool players can do...and I can`t remember if he even owns a jump cue.
If you put all that in the mix, you get a really good cueist, but although Mark plays pool for a long time now and I`m sure he puts a lot of work into this sport, he will always be what he is- a snooker player who turned to pool.
I really wish snooker could be brought into the fold in North America as not a separate discipline on an island somewhere, but a game that everyone plays to some degree. I believe pool players would benefit from playing snooker and snooker players would learn better cue ball control by playing pool.
The thing about 9 ball is that a really good shot maker can do well if the table is breaking soft and they have a decent idea on how to play safe. 9 ball is practically designed to move fast and allow surprise wins.
No snooker player however would get far in the DCC one pocket if they entered on a whim. That is kind of the similar problem pool players face when they enter a snooker event. Even if you are a great shotmaker, it doesn't really matter if you are playing against someone who has competed at snooker to a high level their entire life. I've lost matches where I was playing great but my opponent kept me on the baulk cushion the entire time.
I don't really know how much of an effort any pro pool player has put into learning the game. The snooker players who transition work hard on their pool games before they really breakthrough and are motivated by the fact that they can play in the biggest events without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Particularly players in the 90's would have to win several matches to even win money until they got their ranking high enough. It's no wonder why someone like Daryl Peach started playing pool.
Alex, Corey and Efren's snooker tournament wins weren't exactly against pro level competition. The Canadian Championship is a tough tournament for most amateurs, but it's not quite what it used to be when snooker was the main game in Canada. To give an idea of how far north america is from pro level competition, Gary Wilson who is ranked 55th in the world came to Canada for some exhibitions. I think he lost three frames in a weeks worth of play and made 3 or 4 maximums.
I can't really comment on the South East Asian Games since I don't know when exactly it happened. But we can't really compare snooker from 25-30 years ago to now because it has changed and developed so much. Top players and even top amateurs are so much better than they used to be. Nowadays a lot of good amateurs have 147 breaks to their name and they aren't nearly good enough to try out for Qschool.
So I guess my position is that neither pool or snooker is necessary harder to play at a top level. The nature of 9 ball makes it easier to compete due to the short racks and short races. But if you lengthen tournament 9 ball races to 15 or 20, then snooker players will struggle to compete without a lot of practice.
Pool is a lot harder than most snooker players think, likely because they got a break and run out once or twice and thought they did something special. And snooker is a lot harder than some pool players think, possibly from watching pro snooker and seeing dozens of 50+ breaks without proper context.
The thing about 9 ball is that a really good shot maker can do well if the table is breaking soft and they have a decent idea on how to play safe. 9 ball is practically designed to move fast and allow surprise wins.
No snooker player however would get far in the DCC one pocket if they entered on a whim. That is kind of the similar problem pool players face when they enter a snooker event. Even if you are a great shotmaker, it doesn't really matter if you are playing against someone who has competed at snooker to a high level their entire life. I've lost matches where I was playing great but my opponent kept me on the baulk cushion the entire time.
I don't really know how much of an effort any pro pool player has put into learning the game. The snooker players who transition work hard on their pool games before they really breakthrough and are motivated by the fact that they can play in the biggest events without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Particularly players in the 90's would have to win several matches to even win money until they got their ranking high enough. It's no wonder why someone like Daryl Peach started playing pool.
Alex, Corey and Efren's snooker tournament wins weren't exactly against pro level competition. The Canadian Championship is a tough tournament for most amateurs, but it's not quite what it used to be when snooker was the main game in Canada. To give an idea of how far north america is from pro level competition, Gary Wilson who is ranked 55th in the world came to Canada for some exhibitions. I think he lost three frames in a weeks worth of play and made 3 or 4 maximums.
I can't really comment on the South East Asian Games since I don't know when exactly it happened. But we can't really compare snooker from 25-30 years ago to now because it has changed and developed so much. Top players and even top amateurs are so much better than they used to be. Nowadays a lot of good amateurs have 147 breaks to their name and they aren't nearly good enough to try out for Qschool.
So I guess my position is that neither pool or snooker is necessary harder to play at a top level. The nature of 9 ball makes it easier to compete due to the short racks and short races. But if you lengthen tournament 9 ball races to 15 or 20, then snooker players will struggle to compete without a lot of practice.
Pool is a lot harder than most snooker players think, likely because they got a break and run out once or twice and thought they did something special. And snooker is a lot harder than some pool players think, possibly from watching pro snooker and seeing dozens of 50+ breaks without proper context.
A fair point, but the game has moved on...Davis, Hendry and a few others would be competitive today with their cue actions (assuming they were in their 20's/30's now I mean and adopted modern tactics).
Alex Higgins would struggle to make the top 16 (maybe top 32 or is that a bit too far?), but admittedly may get the odd freak win, he could string it together occasionally, but his cue action was all over the place and he lacked consistency, which is something modern players have.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but that Steve Davis reference sounds incorrect.
Steve openly stated on TV he didn't really bother practising pool and relied on his self belief as one of the greatest cueists the UK has ever produced (or something to that effect).
Not quite word for word, but thats basically what he said.
Also pretty sure his auto-biography makes no mention of his pool ambitions hurting his snooker.
He was proud to have beaten Strickland and Reyes, but to him it was more important to focus on snooker rather than take pool seriously (which is a shame as although he'd probably never have got the break, in that era he may have had a chance at some glory...you never know)!
Assuming that you time traveled 1970's Alex to the current day, he would probably be a journeyman pro. Even compared to his contemporaries, he wasn't that great of a scorer. He made a lot of 50's and 60's, but players who don't convert many 50's into 70+ tend to struggle because top players will mop up the rest and steal the game. That's the problem Jack Lisowski has (had?). He makes a lot of 50+ breaks but not enough of them are frame winners so his opponents would steal frames from him.
Alex was however a very good tactical player so that would put him in good stead.
That said, I believe that a top player would become a top player in any era. Alex didn't have the benefit of the coaching and modern tactics that today's players do which explain his deficiencies.
Hmmm... I somehow had in mind, that I heard he put some practice in and that he said that his adventures in the pool world probably cost him a few good years in snooker, because he didn`t realize how fast snooker was changing.
Anyway, I didn`t find any resource to proof my claim, so it might just be that I put something he said in the wrong context.
Best I could find was this quote, where he said he doesn`t want to play snooker directly after 9-ball.
" I’m not sure that I was totally successful at 9-ball and I’ve had very little exposure and no competitive play at pub 8-ball but obviously I can still perform to a relatively high level, even though as you say, different balls, tables and cues. In essence they are they same though. The way you hit the ball should be no different for whatever game you play. Perhaps I have the “feel” for hitting balls, and how they are going to subsequently react, more than most. Having said that I wouldn’t want to be playing an important Snooker match coming straight off the back of some intensive 9-ball.
https://www.snookerisland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=352#p6865
How players with a snooker background have done on Team Europe in Mosconi Cup play has been mentioned several times in this thread.
The career records of all such players (as well as those without a snooker background) can be found in this post: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6028861&postcount=2
The career records of all such players (as well as those without a snooker background) can be found in this post: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6028861&postcount=2
Some interesting info you have there,from couple of sources i read that Efren played just single frame against Ronnie. Not saying that it didnt happen the way you say it happened,just would you care to share the source of your info so i can read more about that snooker encounter?:wink: i just disagree with you on Drago slightly - he really was first and foremost a snooker player (he won about 1mil.pounds in prize money in snooker tournaments during 90s and early 2000s) who just happened to transition to pool effortlessly. And i totally agree with you - he was a monster!
:grin: