Snooker vs Pool players - More fuel for the fire

[Fred Agnir]

- No pool player has ever had any success in snooker.


That's the truth in a nutshell. Everyone else
ignores the facts. No pool player has ever done
a damn thing in professional snooker...ever.
I knew all along that the Reyes/O'Sullivan story
was not true.

The Reyes and O'Sullivan story happened, but there were some errors in Darryl Peach's reporting. By and large, what he said was the truth. What was not the truth, IYO? They played, Efren made centuries, Efren came out on top, the final bill was probably around $100 USD since they were playing for games, not for a set. There was a spot, which is one thing that the Peach interview didn't mention. And Jimmy White didn't play Efren any snooker, which was also different than what the Peach interview reported. But, the rest was still pretty close. Nobody can fault Darryl for the slight errors of his reporting, can they?

Efren won the gold medal in snooker at the Asian Games in Jakarta in 1987. If his opponents weren't true snooker players, then I'm sure they'd be insulted to hear that. Were they professional caliber or not? I really don't know who was there. Do you? I'd be happy to hear it.

Fred

 

[The Kiss]

AH they are both square tables with round balls and sticks how hard could it be

 

[Bobby]

The Reyes and O'Sullivan story happened, but there were some errors in Darryl Peach's reporting. By and large, what he said was the truth. What was not the truth, IYO? They played, Efren made centuries, Efren came out on top, the final bill was probably around $100 USD since they were playing for games, not for a set. There was a spot, which is one thing that the Peach interview didn't mention. And Jimmy White didn't play Efren any snooker, which was also different than what the Peach interview reported. But, the rest was still pretty close. Nobody can fault Darryl for the slight errors of his reporting, can they?

Efren won the gold medal in snooker at the Asian Games in Jakarta in 1987. If his opponents weren't true snooker players, then I'm sure they'd be insulted to hear that. Were they professional caliber or not? I really don't know who was there. Do you? I'd be happy to hear it.

Fred

Most of the story wasn't true.
1- He never played Jimmy White
2- He played Ronnie but it wasn't a set.
3- Reyes never said he ran 3 centuries, just one.
4- REYES GOT A SPOT!!!
5- Reyes didn't say who won.

That's much different than the Daryl Peach version,
I'd like to hear Ronnie's version, I'll bet it
changes even more.
The fact (if it is even a fact) is that Reyes
got a 25 point start per frame! That's like
someone claiming they heard that saw someone beat
Strickland for cash. Then you find out that he got
the 6 ball!
Bottom line: If Reyes had ANY chance of making any
money in snooker he would have tried long ago
instead of staying up all night gambling with
degenerates. This is not a rip towards Efren, it's
just the reality of pool. And no I don't consider
the Asian games medal to be a sign of success in
pool. Look at baseball players winning a gold
in the olympics and then play second-string in the
majors.

 

[pinkisntwell]

Efren won the snooker event in the Asian games back then, but did the best players play? I have no doubt that if the best Asian snooker players gathered today for a tourney Efren would have no chance (not because he isn't a great cueist, but because snooker is not his game and he's way too old to catch up). There are way too many great players in Asia. I heard there are over 5,000 snooker clubs in China alone. So why did he win back then? Anybody know?

And Fred, leave Darryl's story rest in peace, Efren got a spot for God's sake!!!

 

[vagabond]

I shall still resist calling you names even though your long thread probably merited it, I notice nobody has replied to it yet? :confused

-

Hello Mate,
U do not have to call names.But you can tell Fred Agnir that lately he became very:AGGRESSIVE
CONTEMPTUOUS
CONDESCENDING
ARGUMANTATIVE and
IRRATIONAL towards others.If he continues that behavior he may pay the price.
Cheers
Vagabond

 

[vagabond]

Hello Mate,
U do not have to call names.But you can tell Fred Agnir that lately he became very:AGGRESSIVE
CONTEMPTUOUS
CONDESCENDING
ARGUMANTATIVE and
IRRATIONAL towards others.If he continues that behavior he may pay the price.
Cheers
Vagabond

hey one,
I forget to mention about the GRANDIOSITY and u may include that one

 

[vagabond]

hey one,
I forget to mention about the GRANDIOSITY and u may include that one

Hi One,
Are u there mate ..????

 

[Fred Agnir]

Most of the story wasn't true.
1- He never played Jimmy White
2- He played Ronnie but it wasn't a set.
3- Reyes never said he ran 3 centuries, just one.
4- REYES GOT A SPOT!!!
5- Reyes didn't say who won.

That's much different than the Daryl Peach version,
I'd like to hear Ronnie's version, I'll bet it
changes even more.
The fact (if it is even a fact) is that Reyes
got a 25 point start per frame! That's like
someone claiming they heard that saw someone beat
Strickland for cash. Then you find out that he got
the 6 ball!
Bottom line: If Reyes had ANY chance of making any
money in snooker he would have tried long ago
instead of staying up all night gambling with
degenerates. This is not a rip towards Efren, it's
just the reality of pool. And no I don't consider
the Asian games medal to be a sign of success in
pool. Look at baseball players winning a gold
in the olympics and then play second-string in the
majors.

I guess it never amazes me that two people can read the same thing and get two different meanings.

-Reyes ran "centuries," not just one. He got an award in the tournament for getting what he called the "fastest century." Someone with more knowledge of that Bankok tourney can tell us what that meant. But, he confirmed "centuries."

-Reyes won. The nodding and cocked smile was Reyes' humility.

-A spot of 25 is huge, but so are centuries.

I'd also like to hear Ronnie's version. Someone here knows him. You? Ask him. Report your findings here, please.

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

Hello Mate,
U do not have to call names.But you can tell Fred Agnir that lately he became very:AGGRESSIVE
CONTEMPTUOUS
CONDESCENDING
ARGUMANTATIVE and
IRRATIONAL towards others.If he continues that behavior he may pay the price.
Cheers
Vagabond



hey one,
I forget to mention about the GRANDIOSITY and u may include that one

I disagree. Most of these behavior patterns are not new for me.

That being said, I'm rarely condescending and definitely am not irrational. I don't think I ever write down an argument without backup nor do I write them out of emotion. And, if you'll notice, other people agree with me, so it can't be that I'm irrational on those points.

You've been around the board long enough to see this same argument come up over and over, and the same arguments from the snooker side over and over. And snooker aficionados have come on board over the years and at least put a check on all of the arguments. But as the years go by, new posters will come, and the same arguments come up. And the cycle continues. All of these same arguments have already been put in check and put to bed. So, yes, it gets exhausting. These aren't new arguments, and snooker players have laid them to rest, just like now. Snooker players are posting and confirming many if not all the same things that I (and many before me) have stated.

Please check to see if I posted anything argumentative, condescending, insulting, or irrational.

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

If he continues that behavior he may pay the price.

What purpose does this post serve? What price will I pay? To get booted off the board? Do you not acknowledge the insults hurled towards me both passively and aggressively?

When someone writes, "Take these American opinions with a pinch of salt, most of them have never even seen a 6 x 12 snooker table," after what I write as a thought out and RATIONAL post of a subject I've spent years discussing (not moments filled with emotion), yes sir, I'm going to take issue. In fact, go back to it, and there seemed to be a good discussion going between Pink and me, but suddenly, someone took a swipe at Americans (me, since I was the only one in question).

That's a slap in the face, and you know it.

Fred

 

[TheOne]

I disagree. Most of these behavior patterns are not new for me.

That being said, I'm rarely condescending and definitely am not irrational. I don't think I ever write down an argument without backup nor do I write them out of emotion. And, if you'll notice, other people agree with me, so it can't be that I'm irrational on those points.

You've been around the board long enough to see this same argument come up over and over, and the same arguments from the snooker side over and over. And snooker aficionados have come on board over the years and at least put a check on all of the arguments. But as the years go by, new posters will come, and the same arguments come up. And the cycle continues. All of these same arguments have already been put in check and put to bed. So, yes, it gets exhausting. These aren't new arguments, and snooker players have laid them to rest, just like now. Snooker players are posting and confirming many if not all the same things that I (and many before me) have stated.

Please check to see if I posted anything argumentative, condescending, insulting, or irrational.

Fred

Wow, you really are amazing Fred. You preach pretty well but what you say here doesn't seem to match what I've been reading in recent weeks, or come to think of at any time during my time on AZ? I actually Joined the same month as you (in 2003) the first time but for some reason I couldn't login or forgot password and Mike didn't reply to my appeals for help or something so I created a new account over a year ago. I don't remember any debate ever coming around to Fred's way of thinking, but then that's probably what you thought happened?

I can still only see YOU Fred that thinks its easier for a pool player to convert to snooker than visa versa?

BTW, I think Efren's snooker title was the EAST Asian games wasn't it?

Vagabond, sorry mate been travelling back from NYC via planes trains and automobiles! But thanks for the post, you're certainly not the first one to think that.

Cheers


EDIT:
OMG Fred, I was just doing a search to try and find out what the feild was in the Asian games when I came across this thread over at ccb:

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccbo...=205294&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

You really know how to make friends don't you. There seems to be a pattern here, you calling people names and getting pretty insulting, then other posters that have never really met you calling you arrogant!

Hmmmm

 

[Fred Agnir]

I actually Joined the same month as you (in 2003)

That's the re-up date. I've been on these boards since 1997. The AZBilliards board has undergone a few changes. My first post to AZBilliards was probably in 1999 or whenever it first existed.

I can still only see YOU Fred that thinks its easier for a pool player to convert to snooker than visa versa?

I have never ever said that. Never. Not once. Never. Never. Never. Please do not misrepresent my argument. My new thread was very clear. I trust you've read it thoroughly. Please also re-read many of the UK players that I have already listed to see if their arguments jibe with mine. I trust you've also read those thoroughly.

BTW, I think Efren's snooker title was the EAST Asian games wasn't it?

You have more information than I. Please tell us more about it. All I know is it's in the late 80's and it was in Jakarta.

EDIT:
OMG Fred, I was just doing a search to try and find out what the feild was in the Asian games when I came across this thread over at ccb:

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccbo...sb=5&o=&fpart=1

You really know how to make friends don't you. There seems to be a pattern here, you calling people names and getting pretty insulting, then other posters that have never really met you calling you arrogant!

I'm not on this board to make friends, obviously. I'm here to discuss. I've made enough friends from these boards meeting them face to face.

I've had a long history with that particular poster (Qtec) and his jingoism, who I've mentioned before. Is it okay for them to call me arrogant but if I call you arrogant, I'm calling you names? If they call me arrogant, is my name-calling of them the only name-calling that counts? Aren't they also calling me names? What about passive aggressive mocking (your MO)? Is that not the same level of insults?

Fred <~~~ asked these same questions before, but got no response.

 

[TheOne]

That's the re-up date. I've been on these boards since 1997. The AZBilliards board has undergone a few changes. My first post to AZBilliards was probably in 1999 or whenever it first existed.


I have never ever said that. Never. Not once. Never. Never. Never. Please do not misrepresent my argument. My new thread was very clear. I trust you've read it thoroughly. Please also re-read many of the UK players that I have already listed to see if their arguments jibe with mine. I trust you've also read those thoroughly.


You have more information than I. Please tell us more about it. All I know is it's in the late 80's and it was in Jakarta.

I'm not on this board to make friends, obviously. I'm here to discuss. I've made enough friends from these boards meeting them face to face.

I've had a long history with that particular poster (Qtec) and his jingoism, who I've mentioned before. Is it okay for them to call me arrogant but if I call you arrogant, I'm calling you names? If they call me arrogant, is my name-calling of them the only name-calling that counts? Aren't they also calling me names? What about passive aggressive mocking (your MO)? Is that not the same level of insults?

Fred <~~~ asked these same questions before, but got no response.

Please see the EDIT above Fred. Honestly I never use any other forum other than AZ, when I started to read your comments on the other board it was a little freaky. You're right you are consistent:

- you post your opinion
- many poeple disagree with you
- you insult them and question whether they actually read what you said (seem to be a lot of people that can't read in your world Fred!)
- some neutral steps up and insults you for being rude, arrogant etc..

Have you ever thought that, oh Im not sure if I can say it Fred, it sound sooooo CRAZY!... oh ok, maybe YOU are wrong? Maybe all those people that can't actually read are right?

EEK!

PS
As for Efren, I think you know it was East Asian games because it has been quoted before in recent weeks (thats where I first heard it, here on AZ) and a little digging shows that it comes from the WPC website. The funny thing is thouhg Fred, there's only been 4 EAST Asian games, and the first one was in China in 1993!?

http://www.east-asian-games2005.com/en/eag/pastGames.php

Maybe it was the East Manila games? I hope you're not basing you're entire argument on hearsay again, did Daryl tell you this?

 

[Fred Agnir]

Please see the EDIT above Fred. Honestly I never use any other forum other than AZ, when I started to read your comments on the other board it was a little freaky. You're right you are consistent:

- you post your opinion
- many poeple disagree with you
- you insult them and question whether they actually read what you said (seem to be a lot of people that can't read in your world Fred!)
- some neutral steps up and insults you for being rude, arrogant etc..

I ALWAYS question whether anyone actually reads what I write when they post something that shows that they didn't. For example, you've now written down an opposing argument three different ways, all three are not equal. Should I ever say something about it?

These three are not equal:

1. It is easier for pool players to convert to snooker.
2. It is about the same for a pool player to convert to snooker as it is from snooker to pool.
3. It is easier for a snooker player to convert to pool.

I'll go with number two. Not number 1. Maybe 2 and 1/2, as my other thread indicates. I said you were right in that thread.

[Have you ever thought that, oh Im not sure if I can say it Fred, it sound sooooo CRAZY!... oh ok, maybe YOU are wrong?

If you READ what my argument was, you'd know how silly this question is. Especially since I wrote:

That is, Craig is correct...

And you're mocking me yet again.

Maybe all those people that can't actually read are right?

My argument has been consistent. I can't say anything about all these other arguments, because they're not my arguments. Should I once again write down what my argument is, even though I dedicated an entire new thread on it to make sure it didn't get muddied up???

As I said previously, this is an old argument.And you can see at:

Various Snooker vs. Pool Debates Since 1995, when RSB was concocted, these discussion have come and go. And much of the questions were answered by snooker players. Rupert Ward, Austin Williams, Graham Toal. I don't know any of them other than the internent and that they represented the snooker point of view.

As for Efren, I think you know it was East Asian games because it has been quoted before in recent weeks (thats where I first heard it, here on AZ) and a little digging shows that it comes from the WPC website. The funny thing is thouhg Fred, there's only been 4 EAST Asian games, and the first one was in China in 1993!?

http://www.east-asian-games2005.com/en/eag/pastGames.php

Maybe it was the East Manila games? I hope you're not basing you're entire argument on hearsay again, did Daryl tell you this?

Since I am not in the snooker scene, nor am I in the far east any time (as you have been resently), you would know more about this event than I. If you know anything about it, please tell us. I don't know Darryl, so I can't possibly know what he has to say. Only recently has anyone described what level of players are there. All I know is the Ronnie O'Sullivan played in the same tournament in Bankok.

Fred

 

[TheOne]

OK, I'm lost now I think everyone in the world knows my position, Ive written it in bold often enough (if only the old <blink> tag still worked <sigh>) You list three different versions but I honestly can't remember ever saying 2)?

So if you agree with me can you PLEASE spell out in one simple sentence what you are arguing/daebating with me for? (I can't be bothered to read your novel again and the first line is kinda rude since you ask in your PM) You keep saying all these people agree with you, but if you agree with me then we all agree with each other LOL Yippee!


PS
Those guys you mention where snooker players?

 

[Fred Agnir]

OK, I'm lost now I think everyone in the world knows my position, Ive written it in bold often enough (if only the old <blink> tag still worked <sigh>) You list three different versions but I honestly can't remember ever saying 2)?

Because I've been saying number 2. You've said number 3 and number 1, as if I've said number 1. I have never. I would never. I'm not that arrogant. I'm just a little arrogant.

So if you agree with me can you PLEASE spell out in one simple sentence what you are arguing/daebating with me for?

Simple sentence? Can't be done. But my simple sentence should be in bold below.

The initial statement in these past threads was that pool players couldn't compete with snooker players. The money is so high that if pool players could, they would. My response was, is, and seems to be backed up by at least three different UK posters is:

Pool players could compete, but they would have to make a a life-changing commitment. Today's 9-ballers do not have the mentality to make that change. Many find snooker boring, or not enough fun to dive full on. But the reverse, because ball potting is easier for a snooker player, s/he is more apt to stick with it. It's fun right from the get go. And, IMO, there are a handful of things you need to become highly proficient at anything: natural talent, a passion for the game, lots of time, and dedication to excel among other things I suppose. The amount of each summed together will determine your skill level.

The Efren match should at the very least convince snooker stalwarts that given enough time, a pool player can compete and reach the same level of proficiency in snooker.

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the last sentence. And Efren isn't even known for shotmaking, but rather he is known for creativity.

I can't be bothered to read your novel again and the first line is kinda rude since you ask in your PM)

Get passed the first line. I was kidding. I swear. The rest is good stuff. You'll see that I reiterate my position, and give merit to yours, but with my reasoning.

Those guys you mention where snooker players?

I assume so. They're more snooker players than I ever will be.

Fred

 

[TheOne]

Because I've been saying number 2. You've said number 3 and number 1, as if I've said number 1. I have never. I would never. I'm not that arrogant. I'm just a little arrogant.


Simple sentence? Can't be done. But my simple sentence should be in bold below.

The initial statement in these past threads was that pool players couldn't compete with snooker players. The money is so high that if pool players could, they would. My response was, is, and seems to be backed up by at least three different UK posters is:

Pool players could compete, but they would have to make a a life-changing commitment. Today's 9-ballers do not have the mentality to make that change. Many find snooker boring, or not enough fun to dive full on. But the reverse, because ball potting is easier for a snooker player, s/he is more apt to stick with it. It's fun right from the get go. And, IMO, there are a handful of things you need to become highly proficient at anything: natural talent, a passion for the game, lots of time, and dedication to excel among other things I suppose. The amount of each summed together will determine your skill level.

The Efren match should at the very least convince snooker stalwarts that given enough time, a pool player can compete and reach the same level of proficiency in snooker.

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the last sentence. And Efren isn't even known for shotmaking, but rather he is known for creativity.



Get passed the first line. I was kidding. I swear. The rest is good stuff. You'll see that I reiterate my position, and give merit to yours, but with my reasoning.



I assume so. They're more snooker players than I ever will be.

Fred

I'm pretty sure you spent about 3 pages in the original thread arguing against my visa versa statement as that was pretty much the only thing I kept putting in bold but I can't really be bothered to check so I'll let it go. ALthough I am sure you seem to think that snooker players haven't acheived more in pool than pool players have in snooker, oh yes thats because they think it boring!

Anyway finally we have something, this we definately disagree on but its a little hard to prove who's more likely to be correct with this one. However I shall try and summarise later as I'm pretty tired at the moment, but at least we're getting somewhere, aren't we?

 

[Fred Agnir]

I'm pretty sure you spent about 3 pages in the original thread arguing against my visa versa statement as that was pretty much the only thing I kept putting in bold but I can't really be bothered to check so I'll let it go.

Here's what you've been arguing:

The point Im mainly trying to make is that a pool player such as Archer has no chance at snooker

a) Pure Pool players (AND FRED EFREN IS NOT ONE OF THEM AS HE ALSO PLAYED SNOOKER) have no chance to compete with the top snooker pro's

b) Less than top snooker players can compete with the best in the world at 9 ball.

Archer. For example Mike Hallet(ex world number 6 and one of a handful of players to have won a million pounds in prize money is currently outside the top 100) who is in his mid 40's and won it the other year would absoloutley murder him no matter how long he practised!

Are you saying you weren't arguing these quoted points?

You also were giving false claims about my exposure to snooker, first stating that I didn't know anything about snooker (to which, you were incorrect), then you changed it to I hand't watched any professional snooker (to which, you were incorrec), to I haven't played at a proficient level (which you are finally correct). Your argument changed, so you forced me to respond, and mine has NEVER changed.

Just in this page, you wrote:

I can still only see YOU Fred that thinks its easier for a pool player to convert to snooker than visa versa?

Again, you accused me of saying something that I NEVER said. You haven't kept the argument straight. No wonder I keep having to respond.

ALthough I am sure you seem to think that snooker players haven't acheived more in pool than pool players have in snooker, oh yes thats because they think it boring!

There are several other posters on this board that seem to be saying the same thing. It's the love of the game that's important. And, as I said so many times, today's 9-ballers do not have the mentality to dedicate themselves to games like snooker, 3C, or 14.1. You have to love it. Surely you can't disagree with that (and it speaks to my argument, which has never changed).

at the moment, but at least we're getting somewhere, aren't we?

My argument has never changed. Never.

Fred

 

[shortshooter]

It's easier for a coach driver to become a taxi driver than for a taxi driver to become a coach driver.

So?

Who cares?

(sorry! this was meant for the Bus station forum.

Hehe!

 

[Fred Agnir]

It's easier for a coach driver to become a taxi driver than for a taxi driver to become a coach driver.

!

Believe it or not, I drove a bus for 7 years. And one of my best pool playing friend drove a taxi for a few years. We both agree, that the other's job would have been more painful.

It's all in what you know, and the steps you take to make the transition.

Fred