Snooker vs. Pool

Some of the things in this thread are mind boggling. Snooker & pool are 2 different animals, realistically the different variations of pool, 14-1, 9 ball, 10 ball, one pocket are all different animals requiring varying skill sets. Snooker has a tour, it's top players can more than a comfortable living, pool does not, it never has & therein lies its problem. Anyone that has ever excelled in any cue sport realizes the time & dedication it requires to become world class. The problem has always been that for everything you have to put into it to reach an elite level there is no return on it, only a small handful can make enough $ to not have a regular job & devote their life to their craft, this reason is why gambling has always been so prevalent. Players had to resort to the road & gambling in order to NOT have to keep a regular job to survive. This reason is truly why there has never been a functional tour where pools top players can make a good enough living to forgo gambling. Potential corporate sponsors have 0 desire to be associated with the negative specter of gambling. Therein lies the conundrum, sponsors don't want to be associated with gambling so there's no tour, players gamble because there is no tour that provides a way to make a living at the skill they've dedicated their life to developing & on & on like a dog chasing its tail & never catching it. This bleeds down, it isn't that this sport isn't appealing to young people, it's that for the time & dedication you must invest to become great, there's no return, no endgame. Therefore pool over the last 40 years since I became involved in it is something that's considered to be a denizen for gamblers, hustlers, louts & layabouts like myself. Because this is how it's perceived no corporate sponsor will touch it & why it's wrongly perceived as not being a sport which is a travesty as I believe it's the greatest sport that's ever existed. It really has nothing to do with schools or formal instruction or anything of the kind. In my time I've known thousands of world class talents that no ones ever heard of that hung it up just for the simple fact that in order to have a family or what most consider a normal life, a home, a family, stability they had to give up what they loved to get a job to support that life. Only those willing to live a relatively lone existence chasing their dream of making a living at this game IE, traveling, gambling, getting a game wherever they can stay in it & forgo what most consider to be a normal existence, it's just the way it is. For those who want to denigrate American players & their skill sets vs snooker players, I offer you this. Step out of your comfortable world of arriving at a tour event well rested in your cute little vest where you'll earn thousands for just showing up without having pocketed a ball & step into a world where you drive all night in a cramped car, eat at some chain diner, check into a modest motel in the interests of bankroll management, get a few hours sleep & then set off to find a game understanding that your continued existence counts not only on finding that game but winning it & failure to do so places you in a precarious position. Match up & grind for 8,10, 36 hours in a hostile environment where no one is rooting for you & if you take it down & get out you have to think about getting back to your motel without getting robbed or worse, try that for a few years & tell how it sits with you. As far as American players or those that play pool venturing into the snooker world, well as you can see, not many have, not because they can't but because they're just not interested, it's a different game & it's not popular here because most consider it boring, hence the lack of snooker tables here. Those that have, Cory Duell, Pagulayan, it's about $, not a love for the game. At the end of the day it's a travesty Pool isn't perceived as a sport for reasons I've already mentioned but to suggest American pool players aren't as skilled as snooker players because of a lack of a formal training school or that we don't have a tour because of a lack of a formal training school to develop upcoming players is ludicrous. Pro pool players do take their craft seriously but are jaded by a lack of a way to earn a living at it without having to gamble & it's gambling that keeps a corporate sponsor from backing a reputable tour, not because of unskilled players or pros who don't take it seriously.


Why am I the Colonel? Because I always get the chicken

All i ask of you is to go to a snooker table and hit some balls; and tell us if you made a 32 break. I have changed few jobs in last few years because i want more money and i got it sure there was no fun in doing so; the point is, pool players cannot and will never be able to pocket balls on snooker table in the same constancy as pool table; otherwise they would consider the switch, don't you think SVB wants 500k a year vs 100k , he is already on the road, he is not going to change the way he lives by switching, he still can play pool to support himself while switching, or other top players such as Earl, DAZ, all Poinys ..
Plus Sponsors love gambling games, but only when there are many gamblers such as in UK or other countries; Sponsors at the end of the day wants audience they care less about image of game or players; look at Beer sponsoring, beer kills (some) people, yet it is the first ad you see on super ball!! or look at Tiger Woods sponsors, despite his womanizing issues, still he brings lots of audience! MARKETING!! at the end of the day
 
Last edited:
I offer you this. Step out of your comfortable world of arriving at a tour event well rested in your cute little vest where you'll earn thousands for just showing up without having pocketed a ball & step into a world where you drive all night in a cramped car, eat at some chain diner, check into a modest motel in the interests of bankroll management, get a few hours sleep & then set off to find a game understanding that your continued existence counts not only on finding that game but winning it & failure to do so places you in a precarious position.

Pure gibberish.

Neil Robertson, Australian, currently ranked #1.
Became a professional at 16, was unable to make the grade on the tour.
Went back to Australia.
In 2003 he won the World under 21 championship and got back on the tour.
His starting bankroll was 500 pounds.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...-snooker-no-longer-sport-where-074920155.html

Similarly, Ding Junhui, currently ranked #3, was not a product of the state machine for turning out nation flattering athletes. His father sold his business and opened a billiard room so his son would always have a table for practice.
The family sold their home to finance him.
He won the 2002 World under 21 championship at 15, the youngest champion on record - too young to join the tour.
In 2004 he joined the tour.
He moved to the UK - no support around him, strange food, strange language.

Even if a player makes the tour, there is no guarantee they they will be successful.
For example, like Neil Robertson, Martin Gould made the tour, got knocked off, dealt cards in a casino and eventually returned.


The tour has players from around the world. Their places were not given to them, they worked. not only on their game, but many had jobs to support themselves.

A job is something a pool player plays pool to avoid.
A job to a snooker player is the means to attempt to achieve a dream.
 
Last edited:
I think you are confusing "scoffed at using any kind of systems" with "scoffed at using CTE".

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what non-pro posters on AZ scoff or don't scoff at, only the players themselves.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled scoffing :p

No, I didn't confuse it. CTE wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up. I'm talking about all system in general. Americans tend to scoff at them. And think they have little to no merit in the game. But, applaud just "playing by feel" with no set order or precision.
 
021385182_thompson_arrogance_answer_1_xlarge.png



All joking aside, I agree with what you say about treating it as a sport. I disagree on most of what you say on systems.

You are free to think what you want about me, but you are very wrong when you think I am arrogant. Almost all Americans THINK they know how to play pool, but haven't even yet begun to learn. For some reason, Americans relish their ignorance. Which is why we are falling behind so quickly.
 
No, I didn't confuse it. CTE wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up. I'm talking about all system in general. Americans tend to scoff at them. And think they have little to no merit in the game. But, applaud just "playing by feel" with no set order or precision.

Taking a systematic approach to training for pool is not the same thing as incorporating a bunch of systems into your game, whether they are aiming systems, kicking systems, banking systems or any combination of the above.

Actually, on it's surface 3 cushion billiards is the one game that you would think all of these systems would be very beneficial for improving your game, but my understanding is that among the top 3 cushion players very few if any players use systems.

It has been proven that systems ARE NOT needed to play top level pool, snooker, or any of the carom games. It is becoming increasingly clear that taking a more systematic approach to training is very important when it comes to becoming a great player at any discipline.

These two separate things should not be confused.
 
Taking a systematic approach to training for pool is not the same thing as incorporating a bunch of systems into your game, whether they are aiming systems, kicking systems, banking systems or any combination of the above.

Actually, on it's surface 3 cushion billiards is the one game that you would think all of these systems would be very beneficial for improving your game, but my understanding is that among the top 3 cushion players very few if any players use systems.

It has been proven that systems ARE NOT needed to play top level pool, snooker, or any of the carom games. It is becoming increasingly clear that taking a more systematic approach to training is very important when it comes to becoming a great player at any discipline.

These two separate things should not be confused.

Let me put it to you this way- there are now robots set up to play pool. Which one do you think is more accurate, the human, or the robot that was programmed using "systems"? I'm not saying that one has to use systems to play what is currently top level pool. I am saying, that learning them early on will greatly reduce the time needed to learn. To break it down, it is a known fact that if you do "A", you will get "A's" results every single time. You vary "A" a little to get "B", you get "B's" results every single time. That is a system. One that a person can easily learn from when using high precision and really paying attention to what they are doing. From that, the game becomes much simpler, and you start to see astounding things happen on a regular basis.
 
No, I didn't confuse it. CTE wasn't even mentioned until you brought it up. I'm talking about all system in general. Americans tend to scoff at them. And think they have little to no merit in the game. But, applaud just "playing by feel" with no set order or precision.

Then I simply do not agree, even remotely, that people scoff at using *any* system.

But, if the point is to show that pool players are bums compared to snooker players because they don't use a system, then what system is it snooker players are using that pool players aren't?
 
10 wins for Ronnie, 5 wins for Neil according to cuetracker.net. Over the long haul Ronnie still has a better centuries per games played stat. This year Neil has scored a century every 8.11 games and 13.72 games over the course of his career. Ronnie is actually close behind Neil this season with a century every 8.95 games and 12.27 for his career.. Hendry finished with a century rate of 1 per 15.13 games, Alex Higgins had 1 per 75.47 games.

Thanks for that link, a great one.

I wasn't crazy. Although it's 10 Ronnie, 5 for Neil, Ronnie won 6 of the last 7 on that chart.

Ronnie was always amazing, but before he got his consistency fixed, which he attributes to his sports psychologist, he often pulled a Strickland and went into "give up" mode. Now he is steamrolling more than ever.

6 of the last 7 against the world's #1, not too shabby. And everyone knows that Ronnie would be #1 if he actually played in half the tournaments (he skips a lot of tournaments because he likes more personal time and less travelling).
 
Then I simply do not agree, even remotely, that people scoff at using *any* system.

But, if the point is to show that pool players are bums compared to snooker players because they don't use a system, then what system is it snooker players are using that pool players aren't?

:confused: Either I'm not communicating properly, or you just aren't understanding. I give up.
 
Then I simply do not agree, even remotely, that people scoff at using *any* system.

But, if the point is to show that pool players are bums compared to snooker players because they don't use a system, then what system is it snooker players are using that pool players aren't?

In the pool world there seems to be a lot of people trying to provide answers for questions that no one asked :p
To me it's a distraction, hard work discipline simple mechanics and hard work will give you the accuracy and consistency required to play the modern game.
 
Last edited:
...snip...
Which one do you think is more accurate, the human, or the robot that was programmed using "systems"?

The human. Certainly, there will be a day when the machines will take over. I'm certain the O'Sullivan 3000 will be very exciting to watch play snooker.

The beautiful thing about human snooker and pool players is they are able to handle thousands of computations subconsciously. Humans emulating machines is probably not the way to go, especially when you consider that none of the top players really do that now. Although I will say some of the snooker players do tend to look like ball pocketing machines.
 
:confused: Either I'm not communicating properly, or you just aren't understanding. I give up.

You said people are scoffing at using any system. Since this thread is Snooker vs. Pool, I'm asking what system you believe the snooker players are using that pool players aren't? Or are snooker players also scoffing at systems? (Pretty sure they are)

As it so happens, I feel one of the best ways to improve playing pool is to practice on a snooker table part of the time. Really dials in the fundamentals and accuracy. Not a system per se, but highly effective nonetheless.
 
In the pool world there seems to be a lot of people trying to provide answers for questions that no one asked :p
To me it's a distraction, hard work discipline simple mechanics and hard work will give you the accuracy and consistency required to play the modern game.

"hard work" is so important you said it twice in your list :thumbup:

I know personally you back that up, from when I saw you many times hop on the snooker table and practice drilling in long shots with good mechanics. A real example of hard work, discipline, simple mechanics, and of course hard work :D
 
"hard work" is so important you said it twice in your list :thumbup:

I know personally you back that up, from when I saw you many times hop on the snooker table and practice drilling in long shots with good mechanics. A real example of hard work, discipline, simple mechanics, and of course hard work :D

Why thankya thankya very much :thumbup:

long story short it is again helping me get back. After the long illness that messed with my muscle control and destroyed my game I have been more focused than ever over the last couple months, every day on the table doing routines, I luv it.
 
Let me put it to you this way- there are now robots set up to play pool. Which one do you think is more accurate, the human, or the robot that was programmed using "systems"? I'm not saying that one has to use systems to play what is currently top level pool. I am saying, that learning them early on will greatly reduce the time needed to learn. To break it down, it is a known fact that if you do "A", you will get "A's" results every single time. You vary "A" a little to get "B", you get "B's" results every single time. That is a system. One that a person can easily learn from when using high precision and really paying attention to what they are doing. From that, the game becomes much simpler, and you start to see astounding things happen on a regular basis.

Neil:

Not to jump into your parlay with folks here about the virtues of "system," but I think one of the main reasons you're finding yourself in these situations, is that you seem hell-bent on separating out "alignment" out from underneath the fundamentals umbrella, leaving just the "mechanics" physical portion, and then shoehorning in a system du-jour (whether that be CTE or another aiming system), and then extolling to us the virtues of this bolted-together result.

The problem is just that -- you're ripping out the alignment part of fundamentals just so that an "aiming system" can be substituted and extolled. You may want to generically refer to it as "systems," but this is an evasive term -- we know what you're getting it.

Only in pool do you see this, btw. Because of pool's traditional "roll your own" approach to learning fundamentals (as opposed to the systematic approach to learning fundamentals in other cue sports, like snooker [and take careful note of how I used the word "systematic"]), there have always been "pockets" or "gaps" left missing -- alignment being the biggest one -- which of course point-purpose solutions like alternative aiming systems and Geno's "perfect aim" (which is not an aiming system per se, but rather a head/eye alignment system) spring up like mushrooms to fill the void. I'm not saying that's bad -- it's HIGH TIME those gaps got filled -- but to say the mode of learning mechanics and adding head/eye alignment and adding a system, instead of systematically learning *all facets* of proper fundamentals, is an anomalous way of doing it.

In snooker, alignment and "aiming" is simply not an issue, because it's covered by the comprehensive, structured syllabus that is taught. Sure, if you look hard enough, you may find some snooker students asking questions on forums about alignment and aiming. But you'll have to look hard. Compare that to, say, an entire Aiming Conversation forum dedicated to the subject in pool.

In pool, if you add mechanics + Gene's "perfect aim" head/eye alignment system + an aiming system (pick one: CTE, 90/90, Pro-1, etc.), you *might* approach what is taught in the fundamentals umbrella of snooker.

Like I've been saying, pool players seem to prefer doing it this way -- "get 'this' from here, get 'that' from there, get 'that other thing' from that other place, etc." and gluing them all together in "roll your own" fashion. This obvious leads to continued gaps, because of the "pick and choose" nature -- almost like choosing items from a menu without the benefit of the menu itself.

Pool in America will continue to suffer the consequences of this approach, until the average pool player mindset shifts from this "I don't need no steenking instructor, I'll 'roll my own' and have better things to do with my money" to that of "I really don't know what I'm doing, I should seek the help of a qualified instructor, coach, or sanctioned syllabus." Much like what Europe and Asia are doing now (the latter, that is).

-Sean
 
Neil:
Pool in America will continue to suffer the consequences of this approach, until the average pool player mindset shifts from this "I don't need no steenking instructor, I'll 'roll my own' and have better things to do with my money"
-Sean

The better things that all American pool players do with their money is seeking The Magical Cue, with a Shaft of Magical wood, equipped with a Magical
Tip with a Magical Monetary Shape, and covered with Magical Chalk.
:grin:
 
Last edited:
Neil:

Not to jump into your parlay with folks here about the virtues of "system," but I think one of the main reasons you're finding yourself in these situations, is that you seem hell-bent on separating out "alignment" out from underneath the fundamentals umbrella, leaving just the "mechanics" physical portion, and then shoehorning in a system du-jour (whether that be CTE or another aiming system), and then extolling to us the virtues of this bolted-together result.

The problem is just that -- you're ripping out the alignment part of fundamentals just so that an "aiming system" can be substituted and extolled. You may want to generically refer to it as "systems," but this is an evasive term -- we know what you're getting it.

Only in pool do you see this, btw. Because of pool's traditional "roll your own" approach to learning fundamentals (as opposed to the systematic approach to learning fundamentals in other cue sports, like snooker [and take careful note of how I used the word "systematic"]), there have always been "pockets" or "gaps" left missing -- alignment being the biggest one -- which of course point-purpose solutions like alternative aiming systems and Geno's "perfect aim" (which is not an aiming system per se, but rather a head/eye alignment system) spring up like mushrooms to fill the void. I'm not saying that's bad -- it's HIGH TIME those gaps got filled -- but to say the mode of learning mechanics and adding head/eye alignment and adding a system, instead of systematically learning *all facets* of proper fundamentals, is an anomalous way of doing it.

In snooker, alignment and "aiming" is simply not an issue, because it's covered by the comprehensive, structured syllabus that is taught. Sure, if you look hard enough, you may find some snooker students asking questions on forums about alignment and aiming. But you'll have to look hard. Compare that to, say, an entire Aiming Conversation forum dedicated to the subject in pool.

In pool, if you add mechanics + Gene's "perfect aim" head/eye alignment system + an aiming system (pick one: CTE, 90/90, Pro-1, etc.), you *might* approach what is taught in the fundamentals umbrella of snooker.

Like I've been saying, pool players seem to prefer doing it this way -- "get 'this' from here, get 'that' from there, get 'that other thing' from that other place, etc." and gluing them all together in "roll your own" fashion. This obvious leads to continued gaps, because of the "pick and choose" nature -- almost like choosing items from a menu without the benefit of the menu itself.

Pool in America will continue to suffer the consequences of this approach, until the average pool player mindset shifts from this "I don't need no steenking instructor, I'll 'roll my own' and have better things to do with my money" to that of "I really don't know what I'm doing, I should seek the help of a qualified instructor, coach, or sanctioned syllabus." Much like what Europe and Asia are doing now (the latter, that is).

-Sean

Sean, you couldn't be more wrong. You, like others, can't see past your prejudices to be able to just read what is written. I wasn't even thinking about aiming when I wrote what I did. You guys go ahead and keep doing what you are, and getting the same results you have been. Good day.
 
Back
Top