Snooker vs Pool players - More fuel for the fire

[TheOne]

I said I couldn't be bothered to trawl through all the other threads as when I see people doing that I think its pretty sad, I wasn't expecting you to do it lol. We can all pick faults with different words, you seem to do it more than most. I think its been pretty clear what I meant, your lack of snooker experience, whether it be playing, watching, whatever stands out like a sore thumb to me and others that have a good appreciation of the game at world level. Yes I didn't know what experience you had in snooker (no matter how u wish to define "experience"), you could have made me look silly and told me you was a champion. However you didn't and I never doubted you would because it was obvious, as it still is, because you haven't shifted in your beleifs despite many people explaining to you why it is that Efren or Archer at couldn't convert tomorrow to snooker and ever break into the elite. But then neither does your "boring" argument as a reason that pool players haven't succeeded. But before I go on to list why I disagree with you Fred let me just clarify these two points for the benifit of the jury, we have:

Exhibit A) You think Efren or Archer etc. could pick up a snooker cue tomorrow and given time break into the worlds elite at snooker?

Exhibit B) You think that the reason that pool players haven't flocked across the alantic by the boat load to dominate the snooker scene and to become millionaires and live the life of riley is because......they think snooker is boring?

I disagree with both of the above but since you did shift on the other statement I made then please confirm if Im correct in assuming the above (in 5 words or less Fred!) and I will give my reasons why I disagree.

 

[pinkisntwell]

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

I can't believe this.

Fred, pro pool players who haven't spent time playing snooker will never be able to beat pro snooker players!!! Never!

 

[Fred Agnir]

We can all pick faults with different words, you seem to do it more than most.

I don't know why you say this, insult me more, and yet see no reason why I shouldn't do the same to you. Your words are all I have, and I've been arguing against the words. You kept changing your word, and they took on different meaning at each turn. Are you seriously trying to suggest that I was supposed to know what you meant everytime you changed your words? This is a written forum. Your words are all you have here.

I didn't know what experience you had in snooker (no matter how u wish to define "experience"), you could have made me look silly and told me you was a champion

I had no reason to define experience since I didn't bring it up. Those who have read my crap know that I go to Europe several times a year.

And, I have no reason to lie to you and misrepresent my position. I'm not a snooker player. I've had snooker tables in my reach for many years, but I don't play on them. For me to get into snooker, it would have to be the only cue sport available to me. But, it's not, so I don't.

Exhibit A) You think Efren or Archer etc. could pick up a snooker cue tomorrow and given time break into the worlds elite at snooker?

Given enough time and of course passion and determination.

Exhibit B) You think that the reason that pool players haven't flocked across the alantic by the boat load to dominate the snooker scene and to become millionaires and live the life of riley is because......they think snooker is boring?

They don't love the game. Many 9-ballers find it boring (as others have stated on this thread). Many won't even play other games other than 9-ball. It's a tremendous leap. And you'd have to make a life-commitment. There are rooms across our country with top pool players who don't even look at the snooker table. If they loved the game, they'd play it.

I disagree with both of the above but since you did shift on the other statement

I have never changed my argument. Never.


Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

I can't believe this.

Fred, pro pool players who haven't spent time playing snooker will never be able to beat pro snooker players!!! Never!

No doubt. I never said anything that would suggest the opposite.

What about pro pool players that have spent time playing snooker?

Fred <~~~ thinks the words are important

 

[pinkisntwell]

No doubt. I never said anything that would suggest the opposite.

What about pro pool players that have spent time playing snooker?

If it isn't systematic training from the time they were teenagers, never.

 

[Fred Agnir]

If it isn't systematic training from the time they were teenagers, never.

What constitutes "beating pro players?"

And, what about the snooker players who have undergone systematic training from the time they were teenagers, but still remain outside the second echelon. If they don't make it, is it the systematic training or is it the individual ability that gets them to the top?

They need both ability and the systematic training, right? I think that's what you're saying. And I'm saying that pool players have the natural ability. So, how do they undergo the systematic training? It's a life commitment, is it not?

The "from the time they were teenagers" is most probably correct, but I would suggest that there has got to be a flyer out there that could handle the systematic training after he was in his, say, 20's. What would it take? Passion, wouldn't it?

Fred

 

[TheOne]

Its pretty hard to pin you down to a simple statement Fred but you take great please in searching for misplaced comma's or slightly different wording in order to riggle out of the argument. I'm still curious as to why you spent pages and pages arguing with me in the original thread if you now say you agree with me and have never changed our position even though the main point I was raising in that thread (which I kept putting in bold) didn't change (well in most peoples eyes except yours fred)

You always seem to add a million conditions and disclaimers to everything you say, can't you just put down your position in one simple statement? I would hate to spend another week arguing with you only for you to say at the end that you agree with me and always have?

Is it safe to say the two statements in above are pretty much your position? (don't worry I'm not going to get all anal and start picking them apart later, we are obviously generalising here)

 

[TheOne]

Fred, you have repeatedly implied that you think Efren could convert to snooker and be one of the best in the world if he was sufficiently interested and put in the work. Efren is 50 years old so I just want to pin you down on this so u don't try and riggle out on it later. Just to remind you I have said on a number of times that I don't doubt Efren could have been a top snooker player if he played snooker from an early age and all his life but this I think is where we differ? (and obviously why you are wrong! )

As for the boring aspect, hmm so by your logic all the pool players out there that have told me they don't like 8 ball won't be signing up to the IPT then? Wrong Again Fred! Busted!

 

[Fred Agnir]

Fred, you have repeatedly implied that you think Efren could convert to snooker and be one of the best in the world if he was sufficiently interested and put in the work. Efren is 50 years old so I just want to pin you down on this so u don't try and riggle out on it later. Just to remind you I have said on a number of times that I don't doubt Efren could have been a top snooker player if he played snooker from an early age and all his life but this I think is where we differ? (and obviously why you are wrong! )

You are a tough one, since you keep changing your argument.I won't try to wriggle out of anything. I don't have to. This wasn't your bold-faced argument, but I'll answer anyway.

I think Efren has the talent that if he quit pool today and dove head-first into to take on snooker, that he would be able to compete against the top echelon of snooker. But, you're right, at 50 years old, he's past his prime. Had this discussion taken place 20 years ago, would you be closer to my line of thinking? At 30 years old, he would have been a world class pool player by a decade. I also think Corey Deuel and Johnny Archer have the talent that if they wanted to switch to snooker, there isn't anything that would lead me to believe they couldn't be top contenders. But, they'd have to commit. Isn't that the basic discussion? I don't mind disagreeing on this since it's conjecture. That is, if it's your opinion that Efren could never make it to the first echelon of snooker, then I have no problem in our disagreement. But if your disgreement stems from the idea that I don't know anything about snooker, or that you think I'm an American that hasn't even seen a 12' table, then we've got a problem. That's what started the argument, and nothing else. You came in three pages later and told me you read everything.

As for the boring aspect, hmm so by your logic all the pool players out there that have told me they don't like 8 ball won't be signing up to the IPT then? Wrong Again Fred! Busted!

I have no idea. This doesn't relate to 9-ballers switching to snooker, so it's moot. But, I also don't mind disagreeing on this, because it is also conjecture.

Ronnie O'Sullivan is going to play 8-ball . He obviously doesn't find it boring. Do you know of other snooker players playing 9-ball or 8-ball that find 9-ball or 8-ball boring?

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

Its pretty hard to pin you down to a simple statement

Me??? I've been consistent. You've change the wording of your argument over and over. Didn't I already quote you and proven that to you?

You always seem to add a million conditions and disclaimers to everything you say, can't you just put down your position in one simple statement?

No, I can't. I put it down in a concise statement. You changed the wording of your argument and my argument such that it was fruitless. You misrepresented my argument, and then you went on about it.

Here's two of your statements in the same post:

So far I have yet to hear of ONE player who played both Pro snooker AND pro level pool that has said pool is more difficult to play than snooker?

Read your own words, Craig. Nobody said this point, so who would dispute it? Your arguing against phantoms.

And..

But anyway from what I can tell it seems like we all kind of agreed that it would be easier for a snooker player to convert to pool than visa versa in the other thread.

.

There are at least a dozen posters who gave a good reason why neither is easier to convert to, yet you decided to ignore them and blanketly state that everyone kind of agreed. And you ask me why I accuse people of not reading posts?

Your two quoted statements are drastically different. I'm supposed to know what your argument is?

My statement: A cueist is a cueist. Given enough time and dedication, a cueist can gain the same level proficiency at any other cue sport.

I have never strayed one iota from this statement/sentiment. You can add all your wiggle words, change your argument, misrepresent my argument all you want. It does not change my position. I have never changed my argument.

Another way to say it is what I called number 2: A snooker player switching to pool is about the same as a pool player switching to snooker. The disciplines each have their own nuances to master.

Fred

 

[LastTwo]

I said I couldn't be bothered to trawl through all the other threads as when I see people doing that I think its pretty sad, I wasn't expecting you to do it lol. We can all pick faults with different words, you seem to do it more than most. I think its been pretty clear what I meant, your lack of snooker experience, whether it be playing, watching, whatever stands out like a sore thumb to me and others that have a good appreciation of the game at world level. Yes I didn't know what experience you had in snooker (no matter how u wish to define "experience"), you could have made me look silly and told me you was a champion. However you didn't and I never doubted you would because it was obvious, as it still is, because you haven't shifted in your beleifs despite many people explaining to you why it is that Efren or Archer at couldn't convert tomorrow to snooker and ever break into the elite. But then neither does your "boring" argument as a reason that pool players haven't succeeded. But before I go on to list why I disagree with you Fred let me just clarify these two points for the benifit of the jury, we have:

Exhibit A) You think Efren or Archer etc. could pick up a snooker cue tomorrow and given time break into the worlds elite at snooker?

Exhibit B) You think that the reason that pool players haven't flocked across the alantic by the boat load to dominate the snooker scene and to become millionaires and live the life of riley is because......they think snooker is boring?

I disagree with both of the above but since you did shift on the other statement I made then please confirm if Im correct in assuming the above (in 5 words or less Fred!) and I will give my reasons why I disagree.

I wouldn't be surprised if you added an "Exhibit C) You think Saddam Hussein is attractive and want to cuddle with him" or something like that. I mean you are going off on all types of tangents in your arguments.

Basically it all boils down to facts. Everyone's argument about how easy it is for a snooker player to make the transition to pool has been based mainly on Tony Drago. Yet nobody has been able to respond to Tony's QUOTE that he had been playing 9-ball for 6 hours per day, for 6 YEARS before he won the World Pool Masters. Tony Drago has now been playing pool for 8 years. Please name some other successful snooker-to-pool players that are a threat to the top pool players in the world? That's right, NOBODY. All I am seeing is "Oh I think Raj played some snooker"....SO WHAT. He's not a top 9-ball player. Until someone can bring up some evidence that snooker players become great pool players QUICKLY after making the transition, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON.

Fred, and NOBODY else is arguing that snooker is easier than 9-ball, or that a 9-ball player could just decide to switch to snooker and all of a sudden start beating everyone in Europe. Stop with the strawman bullcrap. We are arguing that snooker players cannot and will not dominate the pool players, not unless they at least spend the time that Tony Drago did practicing the game. Snooker players are NOT these perfect Gods of cuesports that never miss a ball. I have multiple tapes showing snooker legends such as Jimmy White and other snooker players in the WPC of the last few years making fools of themselves. Jimmy White couldn't run 4 balls to save his life. Why is that? I thought he is a god? That is NOT a potshot at Jimmy White, because he was/is a great snooker player, but HE IS NOT, I REPEAT, *NOT* A GREAT POOL PLAYER.

 

[LastTwo]

Oh, Fred, you are right about your 'a cueist is a cueist' statement, but that doesn't apply to snooker players. They are not cuiests, they are immortal gods and no snooker player has missed a pot since 1832 due to a 9.8 earthquake or something like that.

 

[Fred Agnir]

Fred, and NOBODY else is arguing that snooker is easier than 9-ball, or that a 9-ball player could just decide to switch to snooker and all of a sudden start beating everyone in Europe. Stop with the strawman bullcrap. .

Don't tell me that I actually was writing clearly enough that someone could understand what I wrote and could understand my position!

Fred <~~~ shocked

 

[TheOne]

I wouldn't be surprised if you added an "Exhibit C) You think Saddam Hussein is attractive and want to cuddle with him" or something like that. I mean you are going off on all types of tangents in your arguments.

Basically it all boils down to facts. Everyone's argument about how easy it is for a snooker player to make the transition to pool has been based mainly on Tony Drago. Yet nobody has been able to respond to Tony's QUOTE that he had been playing 9-ball for 6 hours per day, for 6 YEARS before he won the World Pool Masters. Tony Drago has now been playing pool for 8 years. Please name some other successful snooker-to-pool players that are a threat to the top pool players in the world? That's right, NOBODY. All I am seeing is "Oh I think Raj played some snooker"....SO WHAT. He's not a top 9-ball player. Until someone can bring up some evidence that snooker players become great pool players QUICKLY after making the transition, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON.

Fred, and NOBODY else is arguing that snooker is easier than 9-ball, or that a 9-ball player could just decide to switch to snooker and all of a sudden start beating everyone in Europe. Stop with the strawman bullcrap. We are arguing that snooker players cannot and will not dominate the pool players, not unless they at least spend the time that Tony Drago did practicing the game. Snooker players are NOT these perfect Gods of cuesports that never miss a ball. I have multiple tapes showing snooker legends such as Jimmy White and other snooker players in the WPC of the last few years making fools of themselves. Jimmy White couldn't run 4 balls to save his life. Why is that? I thought he is a god? That is NOT a potshot at Jimmy White, because he was/is a great snooker player, but HE IS NOT, I REPEAT, *NOT* A GREAT POOL PLAYER.

I can always rely on LastTwo to chime in with the ridiculous? If nobody else was arguing it then why did you guys argue it for pages in the other thread when that's all I kept repeatedly stating (In Bold LOL?) Tangents, me LOL? Since these threads are going on and on and probably boring everyone else shitless I thought I would atleast try (for everyone's sake) to try to find out exactly why they are going since you TWO are saying you agree with me? I tried to condense Fred's novel into a couple of statements so maybe we could discuss them sensibly, no need to get all upset about it! As for pool gods, I'm sorry but I don't think anyone will agree with you on that so you're on your own there, shall I add that as exhibit 4? As for the evidence of snooker players success in pool, already done that Fisher(x2), Korr, Jens, etc., Manalo, Drago, Davis, Knight, Crosby, Peach, Younger, etc.. you probably missed it last time but I'm not going to do that again. Oh well, can't be arsed anymore, Fred says he has been arguing this for years, I can see why now!

 

[TheOne]

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.

I must be a slow learner (or a very patient person!), but finaly I'm starting to see your (and others from previous threads) point

 

[LastTwo]

I can always rely on LastTwo to chime in with the ridiculous? If nobody else was arguing it then why did you guys argue it for pages in the other thread when that's all I kept repeatedly stating (In Bold LOL?) Tangents, me LOL? Since these threads are going on and on and probably boring everyone else shitless I thought I would atleast try (for everyone's sake) to try to find out exactly why they are going since you TWO are saying you agree with me? I tried to condense Fred's novel into a couple of statements so maybe we could discuss them sensibly, no need to get all upset about it! As for pool gods, I'm sorry but I don't think anyone will agree with you on that so you're on your own there, shall I add that as exhibit 4? As for the evidence of snooker players success in pool, already done that Fisher(x2), Korr, Jens, etc., Manalo, Drago, Davis, Knight, Crosby, Peach, Younger, etc.. you probably missed it last time but I'm not going to do that again. Oh well, can't be arsed anymore, Fred says he has been arguing this for years, I can see why now!

Please find a quote of any of us claiming that snooker is easier than 9-ball, and that switching from pool to snooker is easier. You can't.

First and foremost we (including you) have been discussing the male players. Second, you have not responded to the fact that Drago has now been playing ALOT of pool for the last 8 years. He had been playing 9-ball 6 hours per day for 6 YEARS before he won the World Pool Masters. Marlon Manalo has always been a pool player who played alot of snooker. That's just like Efren playing alot of 3-C while being a pool player. As for the rest of the players you mentioned, they are great players but they are not top pool players. Give Crosby and Younger a few years of lots of pool practice and I am positive they will become the best 9-ball players in the world.

You are unable to name one single player who switched from snooker to pool that became a top pool player in a short amount of time. Scratch Manalo off your list, since he has always played pool (which is what he told me, face to face). I told you to go ask him while you are at the Open. Did you? Probably not. Also scratch off Drago, whom like I said has been playing 9-ball for 8 years now. You know that already, I've said it two or three times. Sounds like you are getting desperate.

When you have actual evidence to back up your claims, come back and argue all you want. I'm using logic, but feel free to call it whatever you want. Until you can name one male snooker player that is a top pool player without years of practice, you've got nothing to go on. *YAWN*

And don't get angry if Fred is insulting you. You've made nothing but passive insults to him and others here since this argument began. That's why I took a jab at you. Whether the insult is passive or direct, it's all the same, so don't expect respect if you don't give any.

 

[mjantti]

This is too much of a battleground for a handful of people but I'd sure like to see what Hohmann and Deuel could do in snooker scene if they'd practise hard for 5 years. I think those 2 players are already sound in stroke fundamentals and they could learn the finesse play of snooker. How well they would do in the snooker scene ? Everyone who thinks he has a strong argument on this if they'd succeed or not is talking out of his a$$. It's just not possible to evaluate such thing, putting a finger on something why they would or wouldn't succeed is stupid and foolish. Or maybe I'm just indecisive.

This comment had nothing to do with the past posts in this thread. I just wanted share my opinion, because these kind of "what if" -threads might be fun but usually totally pointless. No consensus to be found in these threads... ever.

Well, maybe it would be terrible if we'd all share the same opinions.

 

[LastTwo]

Here I am going to use some more logic and see what everyone's take is on this-

If a top pool player was to practice snooker for 5 years, all day long, could he become a top snooker player? If no, why not? Let me explain- There is not a top pool player in the world that does not hit the center of the pocket consistently. Someone who can't hit the center of the pocket consistently is not a consistent player, and there is no way he can be a top pool player. Why? Because a player that is not pocketing the ball accurately will not be playing position accurately, and will be getting out of line often. So, if someone can consistently hit the center of the pocket on a pool table, what is to stop them from consistently hitting the center of the pocket on a snooker table, with years of consistent practice? Logically, there is nothing that would prevent it.

Now to hit you with even more logic. Obviously snooker players can hit the center of the pocket very well. The argument that everyone uses that separates snooker players from pool players is that snooker players are the superior ball pocketers. The truth is, that if you take away the consistent usage of center ball and 1/2 a tip of sidespin, the snooker players will miss just as much as anyone. Pool, especially 9-ball is a game that takes that away. Theoretically, top snooker players would never miss on a pool table since pool tables are so much easier to pocket balls on. So why do they miss? One main reason is that when they have to move the cueball around, and they have to use alot of sidespin, there ability to do that is inferior to pool players. Another reason of course is the size and weight of the balls. Pool requires a more powerful stroke.

Now for even more logic. Of course we all know that pool is not all about pocketing ability, and neither is snooker. Position play is a huge factor. The top pool players obviously are masters at position play. Surely within 5 years any top pool player could get used to the cloth and speed on a standard snooker table. If a pool player shoots only easy shots on a snooker table because his position play is so good, what separates him from the top snooker players? Of course there would be a few tough shots that you would have to "come with" sometimes, but I would suspect those shots come up less often than they would in a game of 9-ball.

So basically I am asking why you (TheOne) and a few others think that even with a few years of practice, top pool players wouldn't even be at the bottom ranks of the snooker pro circuit. Right now, your arguments aren't looking too good.

 

[LastTwo]

This is too much of a battleground for a handful of people but I'd sure like to see what Hohmann and Deuel could do in snooker scene if they'd practise hard for 5 years. I think those 2 players are already sound in stroke fundamentals and they could learn the finesse play of snooker. How well they would do in the snooker scene ? Everyone who thinks he has a strong argument on this if they'd succeed or not is talking out of his a$$. It's just not possible to evaluate such thing, putting a finger on something why they would or wouldn't succeed is stupid and foolish. Or maybe I'm just indecisive.

This comment had nothing to do with the past posts in this thread. I just wanted share my opinion, because these kind of "what if" -threads might be fun but usually totally pointless. No consensus to be found in these threads... ever.

Well, maybe it would be terrible if we'd all share the same opinions.

If Hohmann played snooker for a few years there is no doubt in my mind he would be a top contender. He has such perfect mechanics, and his ability in straight pool would definately be a bonus. By the way Mikko, I saw that video of you playing straight pool, and I think you have a great stroke. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if you ran at least 100 balls, you obviously have the skills to do it.

 

[mjantti]

If Hohmann played snooker for a few years there is no doubt in my mind he would be a top contender. He has such perfect mechanics, and his ability in straight pool would definately be a bonus. By the way Mikko, I saw that video of you playing straight pool, and I think you have a great stroke. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if you ran at least 100 balls, you obviously have the skills to do it.

Thanks LastTwo. Hoping to get to the 100 ball mark soon, despite my ok but unorthodox stroke.

Talking of snooker, I've also ran 88 on a full size table with medium to small pockets.