Top Level Snooker vs Pool?

BJTyler said:
Suppose you took the top 10 snooker players in the world -who had no significant prior experience at pool- and let them focus and work on pool games for 2 years (8b, 9b, 10b, 1p, etc...). Similarly, let's suppose you took the top 10 pool players in the world (again having no significant snooker backgrounds) and let them study/practice snooker for 2 years.

At the end of the two years, how do you think each group would perform in their newly chosen disciplines?

If you think one group would fare much better than the other? why? which skillsets could or could not be learned by which group? and why or why not?

Several times "cueing" has been mentioned as the all important skill that cannot be learned/improved after a certain age....why not?

(I'm specifically choosing 10 players to shift this from a discussion around Ronnie vs Shane into one around snooker vs. pool player.)
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's just easier to start from scratch rather that relearn new ways of doing things.
Basically you have a very small window in your early life for learning, as you age your fine motor skills receptiveness and learning ability declines, by the time you reach your early 20's they are severely diminished and it becomes extremely difficult to reach the supreme level of skill that many of the child prodigies possess. You may become fairly good but never great.
 
Slasher said:
Sometimes it's just easier to start from scratch rather that relearn new ways of doing things.
Basically you have a very small window in your early life for learning, as you age your fine motor skills receptiveness and learning ability declines, by the time you reach your early 20's they are severely diminished and it becomes extremely difficult to reach the supreme level of skill that many of the child prodigies possess. You may become fairly good but never great.
Click to expand...

So, are you implying that snooker players won't have to (re)learn some things to become champions at pool? or are you simply saying that the things that snooker players have to (re)learn aren't fine motor skills, but things related to knowledge, power, etc... i.e. things that can be developed later in life?
 
BJTyler said:
So, are you implying that snooker players won't have to (re)learn some things to become champions at pool? or are you simply saying that the things that snooker players have to (re)learn aren't fine motor skills, but things related to knowledge, power, etc... i.e. things that can be developed later in life?
Click to expand...

It's possible this is true as mechanics plays a massive part in snooker where it's less of a factor at pool. Knowledge of the game is huge in pool, I cringe at the way some snooker players play shots in pool lol
 
BJTyler said:
So, are you implying that snooker players won't have to (re)learn some things to become champions at pool? or are you simply saying that the things that snooker players have to (re)learn aren't fine motor skills, but things related to knowledge, power, etc... i.e. things that can be developed later in life?
Click to expand...

To play pool a good snooker player would not have to (re) learn how to pot a ball or control the cue ball.

They will need to learn patterns of play and how to cheat the pocket,
this does not need to encrouch on their technique.

lf you time the ball well you can move the cue ball around the table with little force
which helps the object ball into the pocket.

I think an interesting example of this is Stuart Pettman's 117 break in straight pool
on a 10 by 5 pool table.

The commentators could not second guess his next shot as Stuart was unaware
of the normal patterns of play ( his first time at the game).

At the end of the day if you don't miss you have a chance of winning
 
Slasher said:
It's possible this is true as mechanics plays a massive part in snooker where it's less of a factor at pool. Knowledge of the game is huge in pool, I cringe at the way some snooker players play shots in pool lol
Click to expand...

So by this reasoning, I assume you would agree that when teaching pool or any other cue-sport to the young, technique and fundamentals should be (nearly) the entire focus of instruction, while things such as position, speed control, english, draw, follow, strategy, patterns, tactics, jumping, banking, caroms, tangents, etc... should all probably wait until one is further along in their development? And if we did this, would we have a much better collection of adult pool players than we currently do? or just pool players who would be more successful at snooker?
 
That seems like what Mark Wilson is advocating, which is focusing on perfecting and refining your fundamentals and stroke first and foremost. Once there is a solid base, knowledge and touch will follow. Otherwise like many poolplayers, including myself, they'll just spend many years learning to compensate for their shortcomings and never reach their true potential.
 
BJTyler said:
So by this reasoning, I assume you would agree that when teaching pool or any other cue-sport to the young, technique and fundamentals should be (nearly) the entire focus of instruction, while things such as position, speed control, english, draw, follow, strategy, patterns, tactics, jumping, banking, caroms, tangents, etc... should all probably wait until one is further along in their development? And if we did this, would we have a much better collection of adult pool players than we currently do? or just pool players who would be more successful at snooker?
Click to expand...

I see it like this.
Most of the pool players (and this applies to the snooker players of the 60's-70's as well)
Just picked up a cue and went with it, if they had some dedication and talent they became your top players of today.
What happened in the snooker world and what you see today is largely a product of the "coached at an early age player" that followed in the footsteps of players Like Steve Davis that through superior technique took the game to another level.

Today I see the pool players as still lacking in the mechanics dept. this is changing but I see more of it in the non American players such as Niels, Mika, Darren etc.
It shows under pressure and thats what Davis proved, the simple sound mechanics he could rely on no matter the pressure.

And I agree the main focus for a young player should be on mechanics, don't get me wrong at the end of the day you still need all of the other aspects you mention, you need the complete package to be successful but initially they should take a back seat to learning to play like a machine. :D

My start was snooker and even though I never made pro level I can still play pretty good pool but only because I have good mechanics, admittedly I cant jump, kick or play all that safe very well but I get by :)
 
Last edited:
BasementDweller said:
There are many different skills that are required to play any cue discipline.

There's banking balls, playing safe, shooting caroms, kicking, breaking, shooting combinations, and on and on it goes.

There is one skill that is supreme and that is straight cueing. This skill and only this skill, directly translates to any game that is played with a cue.

So ultimately, the player that cues the straightest will have the easiest time transitioning to a different discipline.

We all know which players cue the straightest. To think, that someone that has focused their entire life on straight cueing could ever be out cued by someone that hasn't is ridiculous.


Carry on
Click to expand...

In pool your statement is 85% correct, but in snooker it is 30% corret. Aiming and foucus in snooker is critical, better yet ability to maintain focus is more important.
 
That's true, but I would bet that those diamond pockets play a lot tougher than the ones they had back in the day.
 
let Shane or any of the top pool players play snooker for a couple years and watch the best players play,or have a snooker coach for that time and i say they will compete with any top snooker player,the pool players dont play snooker much,going from snooker to pool is much easier then from pool to snooker,the pocket size and learning the moves and getting the table speed down takes time. I think its all about heart,if you have the heart of a lion you can be on top at anything if you have no physical limitations and proper technique,so i think the best pool players would thrive at snooker too. Ronnie is a big fish in a small pond,he should be glad the top pool players dont want a piece of his action,or else he wouldnt dominate like he does. My question is why dont they want a piece of his action,if you can make a living doing it,or can you. I have heard the payouts are decent in snooker,can you make a living as good or better than pool,if so why arent the pool players converting over.
 
i can remember playing snooker and running 60 pts and i only played once a week,hell if i played every day with the top players i am sure that 60 pts would be a lot higher,and hell i am just a banger in the pool world,so its all relative. i play at a "b" player level
 
Lucky_Lew66 said:
let Shane or any of the top pool players play snooker for a couple years and watch the best players play,or have a snooker coach for that time and i say they will compete with any top snooker player,the pool players dont play snooker much,going from snooker to pool is much easier then from pool to snooker,the pocket size and learning the moves and getting the table speed down takes time. I think its all about heart,if you have the heart of a lion you can be on top at anything if you have no physical limitations and proper technique,so i think the best pool players would thrive at snooker too. Ronnie is a big fish in a small pond,he should be glad the top pool players dont want a piece of his action,or else he wouldnt dominate like he does. My question is why dont they want a piece of his action,if you can make a living doing it,or can you. I have heard the payouts are decent in snooker,can you make a living as good or better than pool,if so why arent the pool players converting over.
Click to expand...

So essentially you believe that pool players would succeed where hundreds of the best snooker players in the world have failed bwahahahahahaha, get a grip man :grin-square:
I think it comes down to this here on AZ most of you simply have no concept of how good the top players are and just how insanely good Ronnie is, he makes it look too easy to appreciate. By the way lots of my pool playing buddies come over and make the odd 50+ break but they are all crap in the grand scheme of things.
 
Pro snooker players don't switch to pool because there is no money in it, whereas pro pool players don't switch to snooker because they know they don't have a chance. End of discussion.
 
Lucky_Lew66 said:
i can remember playing snooker and running 60 pts and i only played once a week,hell if i played every day with the top players i am sure that 60 pts would be a lot higher,and hell i am just a banger in the pool world,so its all relative. i play at a "b" player level
Click to expand...

Well done a 60 break on a 12 by 6 in a match is good.

You did well to find a reg snooker table in the states.

here is the link to join the Q school so that you can commence your professional snooker career

http://www.worldsnookerqschool.com/

Please pass it on to your friends and any pro pool player.

It would be great for our game if we can get more players from the USA.
 
Push&Pool said:
Or, in other words, how would a match between, let's say, SVB and Ronnie O'Sullivan look like in:
a) snooker
b) 8ball (WPA rules)

Who would you expect to win? Who would have a harder time doing so?
Click to expand...

pool ronnie could *maybe* make/win some games- perhaps a short set, too.
but in snooker? absolutley no chance.

so shane would have a much harder time- i m dead seriously about that.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I am going to try my best to show restraint here, I allready wrote three replies which I had to delete for being too harsh.

First "Ronnie is a big fish in a small pond", really?!! I don't know if you noticed but snooker is a major sport worldwide. Just because you don't get it on tv in the US does not mean that it is not. Soccer is another example of this. As a matter of fact, snooker was until the end of the 80's bigger than soccer on tv in the UK! Snooker is being broadcast all over Europe, Austraila, Asia not just the UK, probably Canada too but this I am not sure of. One channel, Eurosport, will send snooker almost round the clock for a week at a time. That means that being a top snooker player not only pays a huge salary, but is also a ticket to fame, not poolroom notoriety but actual fame. They are featured in major magazines and on tv, women throw themselves at them etc. I wonder why pool players do not want this, when they are living on the brink of starvation? Sure Shane makes a decent living, but if he had the same positon in snooker that he has in pool, he would be drowning in money and women.
Look at this list of snooker millionaires in pounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snooker_millionaires
And please read the article. Not only will the snooker players make a lot of money for exhibitions and the like, but they also get actual sponsorship. Real money, not just a free cue or two.

Snooker is a huge draw, even for live watching, and usually the big events have a packed house. If you held a WPC anywhere but in Asia, you would have a hard time drawing flies. In fact I venture that flies would do anything in their power to avoid the venue. Watch any accu-stats tape for the US open recently and you will see a sad story. All the onlookers are male (except maybe the players girfriends/wives), way past their prime to put it mildly. In fact I'd venture to say that the only companies that could make money advertising at these venues would be denture manufacturers and adult diapers. If you look at the snooker crowds you will see young, attractive women, celebrities, politicians, businessmen etc. I love pool and snooker equally, and I hate having to realize these facts, but that is what they are: Facts.

Here is a list of earnings for one year for pool, (could not find a similar list to snooker) and this is dollars, not pounds.
http://www.azbilliards.com/people/azb-money-leaderboard/2013/all/
I know what you are going to say, lots of them gamble etc. Well, that is correct, but almost all gamblers end up poor in the end. Nothing like guaranteed income (exhibition, sponsorship) to secure your future.

Sure, any true elite pool player would probably be ok at snooker after a year or two of coaching, but would they be elite snooker players? I don't know, but I really don't think so. Because of the rewards for being a good snooker player are so high there are tons of good snooker players, really good ones. And there are thousands upon thousands of regular century break players, which you would have to go through to even get a chance at the top guys.
Click to expand...

Ouch!!! That hurts. It is online gambling that made snooker prosper, and great marketing. They say snooker has # 1 rating in China tv , lots of money too. I really do hope someone take top pool players and put them in a snooker boot camp for a year and see where they reach. One thing for sure they will have to get rid of the long bridge / long stroke style, and get used to wear a tie and a tux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top