And it will never be settled!
I think Ronnie's chances in your game are pretty slim. Just better than Shane's.
Top Level Snooker vs Pool?
- Thread starter Push&Pool
- Start date
And it will never be settled!
I think Ronnie's chances in your game are pretty slim. Just better than Shane's.
Thick napped cloths and crazy breaking tables was probably why he got those frames.
I'd fancy getting frames off those players under those conditions.
Races to 8 hardly what we are talking about here either and even with those conditions it is noticeable that it was mostly the same old faces progressing through the events..
Well, you certainly took my reply out of context rather well. You suggested/inquired Shane's high break
is around 50. It might be, but that would only be the case if he played less then 5 frames in the last 5 years.
He simply shoots too good to have that low of a high break which is what my response was about.
So, explain to me then how did Efren win a best of 5 match against Ronnie getting only a 25 point spot per game?
I mean, he never gets to shoot right so shouldn't it be 3-0 for Ronnie?
gr. Dave
In a match that meant anything? No.
In a competitive match, against any top professional, Shane simply wouldn't get the chances he'd need to make frame winning breaks - assuming he improves his game to the point where can consistently make those breaks.
So it has happened but it was meaningless, right well that's irrefutable logic.
I get the impression people have watched a few highlight clips of Ronnie on youtube
and think he runs a 147 every other time he gets to the table. Ronnie certainly has matches,
tournaments, months even were he plays pretty much unbeatable snooker.
But he also has matches where he misses a makeable shot almost every frame, giving
his oppenent plenty of open chances, more then once a frame even.
He is easily put off by slow play, gets down on himself and depressed, has even quit a match halfway thru.
gr. Dave
What does that example mean? That Efren won a few friendly games against Ronnie? Okay, but friendly games look nothing like competitive ones. It has no bearing on this discussion.
I don't think anybody thinks that - although Ronnie has been playing near flawlessly lately.
I think you're underestimating just how difficult it is against a player of that level (or even anywhere near that level). You just don't get the chances that someone of Shane's level would need to win frames. Good players who knock in regular centuries wouldn't have a chance in that game; Shane van Boening is not knocking in regular centuries.
A good pool player does not necessarily make a good snooker player. They may look the same, but they're different sports with very different skill sets. And the transition from pool to snooker in particular is brutal.
It is equally hard the other way..
I have watched an awful lot of snooker in my time and it is a rare thing indeed for a player not to get a chance at all in a frame.
Considering that when Mizerak played Steve Davis, Davis was the World #1 or #2 at the time, and Mizerak was ranked outside the top 30 in pool. Mizerak in the short race in snooker had won a frame(edit: I had previously wrote "with a break in the 70's" using a pool cue, but his high break in that frame was in the 20's. Mea Culpa).
I don't think winning one frame in a long race is even a question based on that. It's now like you're comparing Ronnie O'Sullivan playing an average pool player. But actually we're talking about Ronnie vs Shane.
Last edited:
I disagree. Without saying anything about the individual merits of either game, I think it's a lot harder to go from pool to snooker than it is from snooker to pool.
And while it's rare to not see a chance at all in a frame, a frame winning chance for someone of Shane's level is a different thing to a frame winning chance for a professional level player.
I just saw that youtube video linked earlier (2014 maximum break by Ronnie).
Found it in HQ from the start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8imFvfn6Y
This guy just shits 147's every day lol.
There are things snooker players are amazing at, and you'd think their straight stroke
and superhuman accuracy would allow them to dominate any pool game, but pool
is a different animal. There are little skills that a pool player becomes proficient at
that maybe aren't called upon as much in snooker.
You don't see a lot of masse and jump shots in snooker, for starters.
Kicks are soft, as you don't need a rail, while pool players learn to kick more firmly
to stick the cue ball or get separation.
It sounds weird but the easier pockets in pool mean certain shots that are routine
in pool are seldom used in snooker. Banks, railfirst, running a shot down the long rail, etc.
Generally they seem to use and need less sidespin. Going high inside 3 rails for shape
across the length of the table is fairly routine in pool, but in snooker it'd be a monster shot,
almost a trick shot. I imagine snooker players maybe have less feel for those high deflection shots.
They also may be less used to navigating traffic across the whole table. Their balls
cluster straight-pool style and once they're spread you need to be unlucky to get hooked,
the table is so big that position windows are huge. But in pool there are many
occasions where a few inches off will leave you no shot.
Sort of like how being careless on a barbox might give a 9-foot player fits.
They could eventually learn all of these pool-specific skills, and pool players
could be taught to shoot ultra-straight like snooker players (though I think you'd need to start at an early age).
Without any special training, a midlevel pro snooker player probably beats any pool player at snooker.
And I would not bet on Ronnie O. vs, say, Max Eberle in 8 ball.
Found it in HQ from the start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8imFvfn6Y
This guy just shits 147's every day lol.
There are things snooker players are amazing at, and you'd think their straight stroke
and superhuman accuracy would allow them to dominate any pool game, but pool
is a different animal. There are little skills that a pool player becomes proficient at
that maybe aren't called upon as much in snooker.
You don't see a lot of masse and jump shots in snooker, for starters.
Kicks are soft, as you don't need a rail, while pool players learn to kick more firmly
to stick the cue ball or get separation.
It sounds weird but the easier pockets in pool mean certain shots that are routine
in pool are seldom used in snooker. Banks, railfirst, running a shot down the long rail, etc.
Generally they seem to use and need less sidespin. Going high inside 3 rails for shape
across the length of the table is fairly routine in pool, but in snooker it'd be a monster shot,
almost a trick shot. I imagine snooker players maybe have less feel for those high deflection shots.
They also may be less used to navigating traffic across the whole table. Their balls
cluster straight-pool style and once they're spread you need to be unlucky to get hooked,
the table is so big that position windows are huge. But in pool there are many
occasions where a few inches off will leave you no shot.
Sort of like how being careless on a barbox might give a 9-foot player fits.
They could eventually learn all of these pool-specific skills, and pool players
could be taught to shoot ultra-straight like snooker players (though I think you'd need to start at an early age).
Without any special training, a midlevel pro snooker player probably beats any pool player at snooker.
And I would not bet on Ronnie O. vs, say, Max Eberle in 8 ball.
Forget Appleton for a second, how about Pionys! Dennis, Efren, and many others that travel 24 hours to get to US soil for 10k, or 20k max, vs London 1/2 way, and 200 and 300k payout; only one reason, they cannot learn, or compete in snooker it is difficult game, and if they master pocketing, they will lack mental endurance for snooker. I am talking about players that has nothing but travel and play pool, and not just a hobby!
Snooker players use plenty of spin when needed. In that 147, to get from the brown to the blue, Ronnie loaded up the shot with plenty of inside. This is obvious by the starting/end position of the CB, and the way it takes off the short rail.
Also, he used low outside (with the bridge) to get from the green to the brown.
Also, he used low outside (with the bridge) to get from the green to the brown.
I think that the transition from pool to snooker is tougher than the other way around, but I don't think that makes one game any harder or better than the other, just different. Certain components of each game, such as shot making (ball potting :smile or position play, vary in difficulty between games, but ultimately you are playing against an opponent, so the bar for excellence is based on what is humanly achievable.
As for going from one game to another, I think that snooker players have a huge advantage: all the shots that go in snooker still go in pool. Not true for pool players; lots of shots that are standard pool shots aren't even worth attempting in snooker. It is also easier for a snooker player to immediately focus less on precision pocketing and more on position than it is for a pool player to sharpen their precision without abandoning position play for a while.
All in all, if you are among the elite of either game, you probably had the potential to be very good at the other one, but once you have put in the time and effort to get to that level, the transition from pool to snooker is the more difficult one.
or position play, vary in difficulty between games, but ultimately you are playing against an opponent, so the bar for excellence is based on what is humanly achievable.As for going from one game to another, I think that snooker players have a huge advantage: all the shots that go in snooker still go in pool. Not true for pool players; lots of shots that are standard pool shots aren't even worth attempting in snooker. It is also easier for a snooker player to immediately focus less on precision pocketing and more on position than it is for a pool player to sharpen their precision without abandoning position play for a while.
All in all, if you are among the elite of either game, you probably had the potential to be very good at the other one, but once you have put in the time and effort to get to that level, the transition from pool to snooker is the more difficult one.
They play pool because that's the set of games they've been playing in order to survive in the Philippines. It's not like they can take some months off to learn a completely different cue sport in order to travel to try to make money.
Shane can not beat Ronnie in a race to 9 in snooker on a regulation pro snooker table. Ever. I mean it will NEVER happen.
Even if you think SVB breaks to well for Ronnie to ever win a 8-ball set, as much of an advantage as you think that makes SVB in 8-ball that edge pales in comparison to the advantage Ronnie has in snooker.
Ronnie will learn how to break well enough to maybe have a prayer of getting through a set of 8-ball against SVB before SVB could ever even reach a speed to lose only 9-2 instead of 9-0. Ronnie would have YEARS to figure out how to break better and in those years of 8-ball sets SVB would still be not even close to good enough to threaten Ronnie at all in snooker in a race to 9.
If SVB plays Ronnie a race to 9 once a month for the next ten years he will never win a set as long as Ronnie stays in competitive form. He has no prayer.
That is completely irrelevant, it's has much tighter pockets, balls close to the rail are very tricky and you need to be on the right side of everything or you are screwed, it's very much about precision positional play.
you stated this like it was fact?