What if Ronnie O moved over to pool

It depends on whether or not he can master the break.

If he can't master the break, he is not going to be as good as SVB, Orcullo, Ko Pin Yi, or Chang. Period.

If he masters the break, he might reach the top tier of players, but he still wont dominate, short rack rotation isn't the kind of game that allows for domination like in snooker or straight pool.
 
ronnie seems like he would beat all pool players for the money

i think he looks like be could give svb the 6 ball and win the one pocket soon
not sure about banks

not really sure about anything
 
More than likely he would not do well at all. He has a difficult enough time focusing 100% playing his counterparts snooker without getting disinterested. One set with someone like Ralph Souquet milling over each shot for two minutes would drive Ronnie to bits I think.
 
a motivated ronnie playing straight pool it would be no surprise to see him break mosconi's record on a 9 or 10 foot diamond, a motivated ronnie w shane as a designated breaker would be a sight to see as well but i doubt he will ever be motivated to play pool unless he gets bored after retiring from snooker

efren reyes is the all time greatest pool player but ronnie osullivan is the all time greatest cueist and there is a difference between the 2, what ronnie lacks in creativity and genius he overcomes w sheer firepower like no other
 
Just wondering:
Do squash, tennis, and badminton players have these weird discussions seeking validation for their choice of game, and thus recognition of their obvious superior skill?

:grin::grin::grin:
 
Last edited:
KMRUNOUT said:
"Playing 9 ball or 10 ball on a Snooker table"...this happens? Other than just for fun?

I think most people on here have a very poor grasp of the concept that the different games have *different* demands and skill sets. SVB has a great talent for sure anyone would agree. He has worked VERY hard on just his break. While it may be the best, he has plenty of improvement he can still make. Ronnie could come here and do NOTHING but practice breaking for 8 hours a day for years and would likely not surpass or even equal Shane in this one factor. Of course this would mean he is totally ignoring all the other facets of the game which are totally different from Snooker.

The people that say Ronnie would dominate pro pool in six months or whatever sound just as stupid as the ones that say he would have no chance. Ronnie's time and accomplishments in Snooker, as well as the snooker stroke he has spent so much time developing and perfecting, would be more of a handicap than a benefit for playing *men's* pro pool at a high level. The Alison Fisher example is not a very good one. Let's face it, there really were not any female pros before Alison that were particularly great (in the context of *all* players, including men). It isn't because Alison was a snooker player that she excelled in pool. It was because she had a very practiced, highly developed tournament game, and was essentially a champion competitor playing in a field of girls that were *nowhere* near her skill level. This would simply not be the context *at all* for Ronnie. He is a great great player for sure. But foolish bias (the thing I'm very familiar with must be more intricate and demanding than the the thing I'm not as familiar with) is a poor basis for any real argument.

I hope he does make the switch...it would bring some much needed reality to the conversation.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

I agree it is not wise to assume such a thing, Ronnie would not even consider the switch as long as he is at the top, earning a million dollar a year!! why would he switch for 100K a year top! assuming he plays pool, would't you think he will be like all other Brits that made the switch and dominating? I think he will dominate with authority provided luck factor is minimized. True SVB break is one of the best, but it is being emulated by many players, they just need to know how to rack!!
 
Scaramouche said:
Jus wondering:
Do squash, tennis, and badminton players have these weird discussions seeking validation for their choice of game, and thus recognition of their obvious superior skill?

:grin::grin::grin:
Click to expand...

They don't play each other's games though. Most snooker players have played pool, some of them have even won pro tournaments.
 
naji said:
We all know Cory Duel shoots pool like God, you would think he would easily just go and bang some balls in snooker, apparently it is not as easy! from this video it looks like what he learned in pool all was wrong and has to abandon his pool stroke to get ready for snooker. Snooker is extremely tough game to master; I see Ronnie in six months stepping on every pro with ease, but the only problem Ronnie will have is pool has the luck factor and at times it might not be on his favor and loose some matches. But playing 9 ball or 10 ball on a snooker table he will dominate for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVI2oaNq6E8
Click to expand...

Wow. I can't help but wonder what CD's motivation is for switching to snooker? If he needs to have a red ball placed on the floor to indicate where he should stand, he's going to find the transition very difficult indeed.
 
voiceofreason said:
If RO has good fundamentals and nothing else, how can he possibly get into the top 10 within a year?

If fundamentals were so important in the first place, then why are players with excellent fundamentals the ones at the top of the rankings now?
Click to expand...

Why does players with excellent fundamentals, the ones at the top of the rankings now? Mmmmm.....well because they have excellent fundamentals? I'm taking a stab that you meant that some pool players that don't have excellent fundamentals are at the top of the rankings? Obviously, RO has more than just good fundamentals btw.

The point I was trying to make is that pocketing balls is paramount in snooker. If a player rarely misses then they will be competitive in pool almost immediately. I've seen mid tier level snooker players play pool at a pretty high level in pool within a few months of picking up the game. Frank Jonic and Johl Younger come to mind. Not to mention when Steve Davis and Tony Drago has played pool at a pretty high level after just learning the game.

Good fundamentals allows for a good stroke that holds up well under pressure. Sure, players that have played with the HAMB method can be great, but what if their fundamentals were as solid as snooker players? They might miss fewer balls under pressure situations and be even better.
 
The reason some of the all time greats in pool (past and present) didn't have great fundamentals is because pool doesn't require it.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Pool tables aren't easy to play on, but they are more forgiving.
Click to expand...

...allowing the pool player to do more things with the cue ball more easily than a snooker player in a "similar" spot. A snooker snob might call this more margin for error but it's not. It's just different - it's what some call "using the table".

I'm not a fan of the term "fundamentals" as a way of comparing the players because the fundamentals of each game are different. Well, some of the fundamentals.
 
dardusm said:
Why does players with excellent fundamentals, the ones at the top of the rankings now? Mmmmm.....well because they have excellent fundamentals? I'm taking a stab that you meant that some pool players that don't have excellent fundamentals are at the top of the rankings? Obviously, RO has more than just good fundamentals btw.

The point I was trying to make is that pocketing balls is paramount in snooker. If a player rarely misses then they will be competitive in pool almost immediately. I've seen mid tier level snooker players play pool at a pretty high level in pool within a few months of picking up the game. Frank Jonic and Johl Younger come to mind. Not to mention when Steve Davis and Tony Drago has played pool at a pretty high level after just learning the game.

Good fundamentals allows for a good stroke that holds up well under pressure. Sure, players that have played with the HAMB method can be great, but what if their fundamentals were as solid as snooker players? They might miss fewer balls under pressure situations and be even better.
Click to expand...


Steve Davis almost beat Dennis O in this match!! luck failed Steve this time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZLVtufOyNs
 
naji said:
Steve Davis almost beat Dennis O in this match!! luck failed Steve this time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZLVtufOyNs
Click to expand...

Well there certainly is luck in pool. Wasn't 2006 the year that Ronnie Alcano finished 2nd in his 4 player round robin group in the first round? The winner won all three games and the others were all on 1 win and 2 losses with Ronnie going through on racks. Ronnie ranked 64 for the knockouts and drawn against #1 and then went all the way to win the title.

Davis turned up for that tournament looking like death. He only turned up because he was knocked out of a snooker tournament a day or two before and took his open invitation. Pretty much all his matches were on the TV table. He did well considering.
 
Swighey said:
...allowing the pool player to do more things with the cue ball more easily than a snooker player in a "similar" spot. A snooker snob might call this more margin for error but it's not. It's just different - it's what some call "using the table".

I'm not a fan of the term "fundamentals" as a way of comparing the players because the fundamentals of each game are different. Well, some of the fundamentals.
Click to expand...

That's where I'm going. It's the same when pool players go to an extremely tight table. This might be fine for one pocket, but for games that need a player to dance with the cueball (and the cueball dance is the skill that separates the have from the have-nots), then too tight of a pocket suddenly removes what makes pool wonderful and skill of its own.

I think that players who concentrate on "pocketing the balls in long tight conditions" as the determining factor of pocket billiards completely have missed what is necessary to excel in pool. I can excuse snooker player who wouldn't know better; I scratch my head at pool players who don't realize this.

Freddie
 
Cornerman said:
That's where I'm going. It's the same when pool players go to an extremely tight table. This might be fine for one pocket, but for games that need a player to dance with the cueball (and the cueball dance is the skill that separates the have from the have-nots), then too tight of a pocket suddenly removes what makes pool wonderful and skill of its own.

I think that players who concentrate on "pocketing the balls in long tight conditions" as the determining factor of pocket billiards completely have missed what is necessary to excel in pool. I can excuse snooker player who wouldn't know better; I scratch my head at pool players who don't realize this.

Freddie
Click to expand...

Freddie, I generally find you to be spot on, but I disagree, a bit, here.


Anyone who regularly plays snooker knows there are lots of shots that fall outside the 'standard' rubric, and that in order to be a competent player - one that is analytical, able to execute, and creative when in trouble - you have to think outside the box. Making balls is important, yes, but everyone runs out of position at some point. It is there that we get to see what a good player can bring, and it isn't always a safety.

I know you know all this, but I felt it was worth pointing it out for anyone else who might not.

Dan ------ plays snooker and pool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top