I'm only decent at both games but as slim as it is, I would take my chances against Orcullo rather than waste my money trying to beat Luke Donald.
Oy vey.
Last edited:
What do you think of this absurd comment
- Thread starter jimmy-leggs
- Start date
I'm only decent at both games but as slim as it is, I would take my chances against Orcullo rather than waste my money trying to beat Luke Donald.
Oy vey.
Race to 9 is short race. Try race to 20 or 30 in 9 ball and you realize you have no chance.
If you extend the contest enough in any game the lesser player has no chance against a champion; does that mean all games are equal in terms of which one is the most difficult of all the others? If that's the case then horseshoes is just as difficult to play at the elite level as pool or golf. The comparison that was made was between the two normal length contests for a tournament round in either sport.
You said exactly what I was going to say
I don't remember Earl making that comparison. He just said: "I'm telling you right now -- this game is way harder than golf; it ain't even close."
So we don't really know the specifics of what he is talking about.
I was responding to the post just before mine, and his response to the proposition made in the post he quoted.
I was responding to the post just before mine, and his response to the proposition made in the post he quoted.
Aha! Thanks. But I do wish we could have a little more detailed conversation with Earl as to what he really means.
Golf is more difficult.
Pool is a good comparison to putting on the green that's it.
Pool is a good comparison to putting on the green that's it.
would take all the fun out of it
It would take all the fun out of a thread approaching 250 posts but I think it would be fair to say that Earl was stating his opinion based on his level of play at pool and golf. I'd even go so far as to say it is probably easier to play golf at the level Earl plays than pool at the level Earl plays or once played. Little doubt that at one point in his career you could count the people that played pool at Earl's level on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over. Many thousands of people play golf at Earl's level from what I can gather.
Hu
It would take all the fun out of a thread approaching 250 posts but I think it would be fair to say that Earl was stating his opinion based on his level of play at pool and golf. I'd even go so far as to say it is probably easier to play golf at the level Earl plays than pool at the level Earl plays or once played. Little doubt that at one point in his career you could count the people that played pool at Earl's level on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over. Many thousands of people play golf at Earl's level from what I can gather.
Hu
As I'm sure others have probably pointed out, this is really an apples and oranges discussion. You can't make literal comparisons between any two sports as they tend to fall apart quite easily. I mean, imagine trying to compare boxing and golf. The golf swing is far more complicated than any punch, and it's easier to punch a guy than it is to hit a left to right fade, so therefore golf is harder right? Wrong. In fact, I have no idea which is harder. A top tier Boxers has to be in peak physical conditioning, they have quick reflexes and punch so friggin fast, some of them are unbelievable. I'm sure anyone can make a better attempt at comparing the two, but there is no point.
Is golf tougher than chess? the physical movements in chess are incredibly simple, but the strategy is dizzyingly complex at the grandmaster level. The point is that every game has it's own unique challenges and trying to make literal comparisons just isn't possible.
Pool's challenge is to be precise and accurate, all the while trying to be absolutely perfect and controlling the paths of two and often more balls on the table. The average shot in pool and even snooker is fairly easy. But the difficulty is in attempting to string together an endless amount of successful easy shots which imo supersedes the challenge of making a few tricky shots, which is the argument for 14.1 as a more challenging game than 9 ball.
Golf on the other hand requires one maneuver a ball around an impossibly long course, controlling it's flight path over 2-300 yards at a time all the while contending with both man made and natural obstacles. On it's surface, this is a far more difficult task and I haven't even discussed the mechanics involved accomplishing these goals. However good pool is not about making impossible shots, it's about minimizing the them keeping everything under complete control. Though I'm sure if the trickshot artists could add wind and rain to their routines, they would.
I'm not the right person to be comparing the games anyhow. I play a decent game of pool and a mediocre game of golf. My understanding of the latter is minimal at best (my crowning achievement is a 52 on a par 36, I've only ever played 9 holes).
I would submit however that in all likelihood it's probably equally challenging to reach the top tier in both pursuits. Even if one is slightly more challenging than the other, I doubt the difference is at all meaningful.
Is golf tougher than chess? the physical movements in chess are incredibly simple, but the strategy is dizzyingly complex at the grandmaster level. The point is that every game has it's own unique challenges and trying to make literal comparisons just isn't possible.
Pool's challenge is to be precise and accurate, all the while trying to be absolutely perfect and controlling the paths of two and often more balls on the table. The average shot in pool and even snooker is fairly easy. But the difficulty is in attempting to string together an endless amount of successful easy shots which imo supersedes the challenge of making a few tricky shots, which is the argument for 14.1 as a more challenging game than 9 ball.
Golf on the other hand requires one maneuver a ball around an impossibly long course, controlling it's flight path over 2-300 yards at a time all the while contending with both man made and natural obstacles. On it's surface, this is a far more difficult task and I haven't even discussed the mechanics involved accomplishing these goals. However good pool is not about making impossible shots, it's about minimizing the them keeping everything under complete control. Though I'm sure if the trickshot artists could add wind and rain to their routines, they would.
I'm not the right person to be comparing the games anyhow. I play a decent game of pool and a mediocre game of golf. My understanding of the latter is minimal at best (my crowning achievement is a 52 on a par 36, I've only ever played 9 holes).
I would submit however that in all likelihood it's probably equally challenging to reach the top tier in both pursuits. Even if one is slightly more challenging than the other, I doubt the difference is at all meaningful.
I see y'all are still at it !!!
Let me bring up something I don't believe, has been touched on..Technically, golf, is just like bowling...It is a NON-COMPETETIVE sport, meaning that you are playing the course, (or lanes) and your opponent has NO control over what you do.
Pool, although not physical in nature, is more comparable to chess, or checkers, in that you have to deal with whatever your opponent serves up for you. If you don't think pool is competetive in nature, just watch a good one pocket match, between two guys who really know the game. Or even a good safety battle in 9/10 ball. It takes a complete set of pool skills, to prevail, especially in short tournament matches, which is all we have..
So I guess, as much as I love both games, to compare Pool and Golf, is not going to be cut and dried. As has been said, it is "apples and oranges"..The major difference being, the golfers have 72 holes to determine who's best (that day) out of 150 damn good player's. Its a shame pool has no Q-School !
DCC, for example, will field well over 300 entries, in both 9 ball, and one pocket this year. Probably 100 of those guys, could beat the other, in a short race. But as usual, the 10 or 15 best will be around, when the field thins out...Just like golf..
PS..For those who jumped on my "world class" statement, I don't believe those were Don Cherry's exact words..He may have said "compete at the professional level"... for drawing his comparison of the difficulty of learning the three games..I, for one STILL think he was right.
Golfers must learn a solid repeatable swing, and how to get out of trouble. (rough, traps etc.) All pro's religiously measure their club distances, (and all their caddies know it well) IMO, putting seperates the men from the boys... ("drive for show..putt for dough")
Bowler's have to know what diamond on the approach, to aim at, for their breaking ball, or how oily or dry the lanes are.. (much simpler)
A pool player also has to learn a solid repeatable stroke, (swing) And how to deal with position play, table conditions, and an untold number of different shots situations...Plus, most difficult of all...Cue ball speed, and control.
MANY more people, world-wide play pool, than golf (google it)...Why are their only a hundred or so "World Class Player's ???
Let me bring up something I don't believe, has been touched on..Technically, golf, is just like bowling...It is a NON-COMPETETIVE sport, meaning that you are playing the course, (or lanes) and your opponent has NO control over what you do.
Pool, although not physical in nature, is more comparable to chess, or checkers, in that you have to deal with whatever your opponent serves up for you. If you don't think pool is competetive in nature, just watch a good one pocket match, between two guys who really know the game. Or even a good safety battle in 9/10 ball. It takes a complete set of pool skills, to prevail, especially in short tournament matches, which is all we have..
So I guess, as much as I love both games, to compare Pool and Golf, is not going to be cut and dried. As has been said, it is "apples and oranges"..The major difference being, the golfers have 72 holes to determine who's best (that day) out of 150 damn good player's. Its a shame pool has no Q-School !
DCC, for example, will field well over 300 entries, in both 9 ball, and one pocket this year. Probably 100 of those guys, could beat the other, in a short race. But as usual, the 10 or 15 best will be around, when the field thins out...Just like golf..
PS..For those who jumped on my "world class" statement, I don't believe those were Don Cherry's exact words..He may have said "compete at the professional level"... for drawing his comparison of the difficulty of learning the three games..I, for one STILL think he was right.
Golfers must learn a solid repeatable swing, and how to get out of trouble. (rough, traps etc.) All pro's religiously measure their club distances, (and all their caddies know it well) IMO, putting seperates the men from the boys... ("drive for show..putt for dough")
Bowler's have to know what diamond on the approach, to aim at, for their breaking ball, or how oily or dry the lanes are.. (much simpler)
A pool player also has to learn a solid repeatable stroke, (swing) And how to deal with position play, table conditions, and an untold number of different shots situations...Plus, most difficult of all...Cue ball speed, and control.
MANY more people, world-wide play pool, than golf (google it)...Why are their only a hundred or so "World Class Player's ???
Last edited:
You know what? You have finally convinced me. I now realize without the shadow of a doubt that you can both golf and play pool better- far, far better, than Earl Strickland. You win, buddy!:thumbup:
I retract the insults comment. I confused you with the someone else who's posting.
"Race to 9 in 9 ball
18 holes of golf."
That isn't evidence that pool an easier sport. It just confirms what I've been saying up-thread. Pool competition is poorly designed to determine the best players. The tournaments are a real waste of time in that respect. That drawback is overlooked because we have the opportunity to and enjoy seeing high level play.
I think a better system in pool would be all head to head, long race matches. Similar to boxing but with arrangements in place to prevent the corruption of thrown matches. If A beat B and C beat B then A and C should match up, etc. With live streams and DVD sales this can be done and probably at a lower cost than all the money going into league promotion, etc. More money needs to be put into promotion of this so that a significant profit margin is produced.
Similarly structured matches for lower ranked competitors would be played in local low cost venues as a farm system to produce new contenders for the upper levels. There has to be enough reward at the upper level matches to bring the participation at the lower levels.
If this is worked at consistently the audience may increase to a sustainable critical mass to make the entire system rewarding for everyone by focusing on the subset of the population that would find it attractive. Forget about the "everyone will love pool if we could just get on ESPN more" idea.
My answer to that would be that there are even less than 100, just as there are less than that in golf or any sport really. I'm of course reserving my definition of "world class" to mean the best of the best. Naturally though, there are many more professional golfers that can earn a very nice living off the game because there is so much more money in the sport plenty filters down to the journeyman level.
So perhaps part of the reason there are more guys who can compete in professional golf is because due to the financial rewards, there are more guys that want to and have worked towards it. Probably a lot more serious competitive golfers fall into that category than pool players. I know that in either sport I want to be the best I can. But I'm not putting in the time and work required even if someone promised me I could play at the professional level in pool, but if you promised me I could earn a living as a professional golfer I would almost certainly do whatever it took for the potential rewards.
The fact there are fewer pro pool players relative to the population of those that play pool has probably more to do with the potential financial rewards of pursuing a pool versus golf career. And more probably it has to do with the many more opportunities (through high school and college) to learn, get coached, and compete in golf. There are probably a bigger percentage of the golf population interested in doing the work required to get to the professional level.
I agree a better system would be good but for pool tournaments, time has always been a factor outside the pro events or maybe some of those to.Every event I go to they say you must register by 12noon,then Calcutta and after that the event begins at 1pm.
Most of the time there still letting in players at 1pm to fill the field and play won't start till 3pm.Pool has to be taken on a more serious level for this game to progress.The whole golf debate is pointless,comparing an outside sport to a inside sport but will agree on taking a different approach to pool venues but seems it will always come down to money.If you become an elite pro in most other sports you are making a fantastic income except for pool.Pool seems to be one of the only sports I can think of where you have so many elite pros and only a handful of them don't need a side job to subsidize there income.Its kind of disappointing.Takecare