PDA

View Full Version : Ronnie O'Sullivan's amazing 147 snooker run video



dr_dave
01-24-2005, 11:46 AM
FYI, I just posted a link to a video of "The Rocket's" amazing record-breaking snooker run from the 1997 World Snooker Championship. After watching this, you must agree that he is one of the best billiards players of all time. If you haven't played snooker before, take my word for it that it is a lot tougher than pool. The table is bigger, the balls are smaller, and the pockets are much smaller and tougher. The video is linked under NV A.19 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/new/NVA-19.htm). Happy viewing! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cueless Joey
01-24-2005, 12:11 PM
I wonder if he was using Hal Houle's aiming system. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
J/k.
What a performance. Pretty scary when talents like him get in the zone.
Thank you Dr. D for sharing the vid.

daviddjmp
01-24-2005, 12:44 PM
Great Video, fun to watch. I need to find out more about snooker.

PQQLK9
01-24-2005, 01:45 PM
Thanks for the link. Amazing /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif!

dr_dave
01-24-2005, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr>What a performance. Pretty scary when talents like him get in the zone.<hr /></blockquote>
I couldn't agree more. Every time I watch this video it inspires me to be so much better with my fundamentals. Psychology (attitude) can be fairly powerful, because I almost always play better after watching this awesome performance. I think I'll watch it again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

dr_dave
01-24-2005, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> Thanks for the link. Amazing /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif!<hr /></blockquote>
You are very welcome. I thought some folks in CCB land would be impressed by this awesome display of talent.

yegon
01-24-2005, 02:44 PM
We do get to see a lot of top snooker here in Europe. I am too amazed by the performance of these greats. And this 147 is not an exception, I have witnessed many 147 runs on TV. These guys run 100s regularly (even 2-3 times during a race to 9). Stephen Hendry holds a record, I do not remember the exact number but it was something like 800 breaks over 100 points in competition.

Ronnie plays very well with his left hand too, ho is able to run a 100 with it, in fact he sometimes chooses to play the whole match with the left hand.

And what about those paychecks. Last year first place finnish at the world championships was over a million dollars. These guys sure have motivation to be the best.

dr_dave
01-24-2005, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr> We do get to see a lot of top snooker here in Europe. I am too amazed by the performance of these greats. And this 147 is not an exception, I have witnessed many 147 runs on TV. These guys run 100s regularly (even 2-3 times during a race to 9). Stephen Hendry holds a record, I do not remember the exact number but it was something like 800 breaks over 100 points in competition.

Ronnie plays very well with his left hand too, ho is able to run a 100 with it, in fact he sometimes chooses to play the whole match with the left hand.

And what about those paychecks. Last year first place finnish at the world championships was over a million dollars. These guys sure have motivation to be the best. <hr /></blockquote>
A British pool buddy of mine grew up playing snooker and he tells me that snooker in the UK is almost like American football in the US. He says the Snooker World Championship is like the Super Bowl, with a wide viewing audience. Hopefully, those million dollar paychecks will appear in the US one day. I'm sure that would help elevate American pool to a whole new level.

SPetty
01-24-2005, 03:04 PM
Is 147 the highest run possible?

yegon
01-24-2005, 03:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Is 147 the highest run possible? <hr /></blockquote>
yes, it is achieved by making all balls on the table. In snooker you have 15 red balls worth 1 point each and 6 color balls set in specific locations on the table worth from 2 to 7 points (black ball is worth 7). You have to make a red ball and then a color ball that is respotted, then red ball, color ball etc. If you combine all the red balls with the black ball and then run all the color balls in order (from 2 to 7) you get 147 points. This has to be done in one inning (break). It requires exact position, great shotmaking and cluster breakups (all the red balls are set ina a triangle rack that is not busted on the break. The balls are usually chipped away). Also note that snooker players allmost never use english, they play just draw and follow.

dr_dave
01-24-2005, 03:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr>note that snooker players allmost never use english, they play just draw and follow.<hr /></blockquote>
For those of you that don't know why, the reasons are:

English deflection (AKA squirt), curve AKA (swerve), and throw

For more information, see the recent threads on squirt (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168242&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and throw (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168241&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=).

Qtec
01-24-2005, 03:43 PM
No. Highest break pos would be 155.

Q

Qtec
01-24-2005, 03:47 PM
Player A breaks and runs the table ie pots all the balls but only wins by 30 points. Player B never gets a shot.
How?
Q

DebraLiStarr
01-24-2005, 05:50 PM
There was another video of Cliff Thorburn's 147 from like 25 years ago. I think it was the BBC website that had it up.

BCgirl
01-24-2005, 06:52 PM
[/quote=dr_dave]
If you haven't played snooker before, take my word for it that it is a lot tougher than pool.<hr /></blockquote>

I think that there are many, many seasoned players who would disagree, and who might very well suggest that anyone who makes such a statement has an awful lot to learn about the art of pool and billiards. The set of shots typically played in snooker is a subset of those played in pool disciplines, with a far higher emphasis on accuracy and consistency, as opposed to creativity. It is far harder to maintain accuracy with power or massive amounts of english. In snooker, you do not need to hit the ball nearly so hard, and you can still go the length of the table multiple times.

In a simplistic sense, snooker requires more accuracy, and therefore, a player who has reached a certain level of snooker play may be a far greater threat on a pool table than an equivalent pool player would be on a snooker table. Why? Because the snooker player is aiming for the pocket centres with high accuracy, and can often compensate for poor position with shot accuracy, while the pool player is trying to use the pockets like a pool table, on a table where that just doesn't work. Because the fundamentals of execution are critical in snooker, it is a far better foundation for playing pool, than pool is for playing snooker.

A 147 is a triumph of planning, accuracy, and consistency, with an element of luck in the initial position. But, along the way, there tend to be more position options with the multiple red ball shots. The closest pool comparison is straight pool. Many will argue that straight pool is far harder than 9-ball. Since straight pool is an unbounded problem, it's difficult to argue. But, given a set of 9 balls in straight pool and 9-ball, the difficult per shot for 9-ball is clearly harder.

If your statement was correct, then as one of the very great snooker players, Steve Davis should wipe the floor with mere 9-ball players. In fact, Steve Davis illustrates the learning process. In one of his snooker training videos, he says of banking balls, that no english can be transferred from the CB to the OB. In playing 9-ball, he has learnt that this is clearly wrong, and it is to his immense credit that he acknowledges the learning process he has undertaken in becoming a force in 9-ball.

Perhaps you should take a look at some of Blohmdal or Sayginer's shots in 3-C billiards, which, in terms of creativity, planning, and sheer cueing, are leagues ahead of the vast majority of snooker play. Just believing that you saw what you saw often requires a replay of the shot.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> After watching this, you must agree that [O'Sullivan] is one of the best billiards players of all time. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended.

At the end of the day, sheer greatness should be measured in dominance, and in mastery of all shots. In that regard, Efren Reyes surely has to be a contender for one of the all-time greats, but while O'Sullivan may be able to get there some day, he has a way to go to display the same mastery of all types of play.

BCgirl

sack316
01-24-2005, 07:17 PM
that was freakin awesome. Thats all I can say about that!

Bob_Jewett
01-24-2005, 09:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Player A breaks and runs the table ie pots all the balls but only wins by 30 points. Player B never gets a shot.
<hr /></blockquote>
He pots all 15 reds on the first stroke, takes yellow, and then clears the colors: yellow, green, brown, blue, and pink, and then goes in-off while potting black, game over.
15+2+2+3+4+5+6-7 = 30

As for the highest possible break, I think there was a recent competition break over 147 but I don't remember if it was better than Wally West's 151.

crawdaddio
01-24-2005, 09:46 PM
Nice post /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

~DC

yegon
01-24-2005, 09:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>As for the highest possible break, I think there was a recent competition break over 147 but I don't remember if it was better than Wally West's 151. <hr /></blockquote>

How would that go? I know that the final score can be over 147 because you are credited extra points for your oponent's fouls but that is not counted as your break. A break is a point total achieved in one inning. How can you make more then 147 points in one innng?

Bob_Jewett
01-24-2005, 09:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr> ... How can you make more then 147 points in one innng? ... <hr /></blockquote>
If your opponent fouls on the opening shot and snookers you on the reds, you have the possibility of a free ball (a color temporarily becomes a red ball). That means it is possible to have a 16-red clearance, giving a maximum possible break of 155. Try a google search for "Wally West" and 151 and snooker for more info. I suppose it is theoretically possible for your opponent's foul to have been 7 points, so you could win with a total of 162 points and only one inning in the frame.

yegon
01-24-2005, 10:06 PM
snooker is a lot tougher than pool in the accuracy department. I do not think the cueing games can be ordered by difficulty, each of them rquires a different set of skills, the main difference is the strategy and knowledge of the moves in my opinion.

Snooker requires very good fundamentals, in fact if you watch a snooker tournament in TV you really get to see what a stroke should look like, what is a pre shot routine and how much you can concentrate, These guys are like clones, the stance is the same, the stroke is the same every time and for the vast majority of the players.

The most dominant players for the past 20 years have been Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry. Ronnie O'Sulliven is regarded as the greatest natural talent in the game today and as the player to beat for the past few years. I hear that he plays good pool too but that is just for fun, with these amounts of money in snooker I do not wonder that he focuses mainly on his sport.

Steve Davis and Tony Drago are the two most known snooker players that play nine ball, both of them very good, they get deep through the field on each world championships. I think their play is very respectable if you consider that they play nine ball mainly during their offseason and they do not have nearly as much exposure to it as the regular 9-ballers. Marlon Manalo who made some grat wins (Efren Reyes, Francisco Bustamante) on the last WC is also mainly a snooker player.

All in all snooker is a great game, many 9-ball players play it to iron out any errors in their fundamentals. If you never played it and just go to play after watching the 147 run you will be really humbled by the difficulty of pocketing the balls. If you get good at it the next big thing to think about is how the hell can those guys allways make the cue ball go the extra 2 inches past the blue ball to be able to return to the stack on the next shot. Their speed control on the one rail shot is just unbelievable. Kinda makes you go train again. If they can be accurate down to 2 inches on a 6 foot position route you should be too /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

recoveryjones
01-24-2005, 11:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr> [/quote=dr_dave]
If you haven't played snooker before, take my word for it that it is a lot tougher than pool.<hr /></blockquote>

I think that there are many, many seasoned players who would disagree, and who might very well suggest that anyone who makes such a statement has an awful lot to learn about the art of pool and billiards. The set of shots typically played in snooker is a subset of those played in pool disciplines, with a far higher emphasis on accuracy and consistency, as opposed to creativity. It is far harder to maintain accuracy with power or massive amounts of english. In snooker, you do not need to hit the ball nearly so hard, and you can still go the length of the table multiple times.

In a simplistic sense, snooker requires more accuracy, and therefore, a player who has reached a certain level of snooker play may be a far greater threat on a pool table than an equivalent pool player would be on a snooker table. Why? Because the snooker player is aiming for the pocket centres with high accuracy, and can often compensate for poor position with shot accuracy, while the pool player is trying to use the pockets like a pool table, on a table where that just doesn't work. Because the fundamentals of execution are critical in snooker, it is a far better foundation for playing pool, than pool is for playing snooker.

A 147 is a triumph of planning, accuracy, and consistency, with an element of luck in the initial position. But, along the way, there tend to be more position options with the multiple red ball shots. The closest pool comparison is straight pool. Many will argue that straight pool is far harder than 9-ball. Since straight pool is an unbounded problem, it's difficult to argue. But, given a set of 9 balls in straight pool and 9-ball, the difficult per shot for 9-ball is clearly harder.

If your statement was correct, then as one of the very great snooker players, Steve Davis should wipe the floor with mere 9-ball players. In fact, Steve Davis illustrates the learning process. In one of his snooker training videos, he says of banking balls, that no english can be transferred from the CB to the OB. In playing 9-ball, he has learnt that this is clearly wrong, and it is to his immense credit that he acknowledges the learning process he has undertaken in becoming a force in 9-ball.

Perhaps you should take a look at some of Blohmdal or Sayginer's shots in 3-C billiards, which, in terms of creativity, planning, and sheer cueing, are leagues ahead of the vast majority of snooker play. Just believing that you saw what you saw often requires a replay of the shot.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> After watching this, you must agree that [O'Sullivan] is one of the best billiards players of all time. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended.

At the end of the day, sheer greatness should be measured in dominance, and in mastery of all shots. In that regard, Efren Reyes surely has to be a contender for one of the all-time greats, but while O'Sullivan may be able to get there some day, he has a way to go to display the same mastery of all types of play.

BCgirl
<hr /></blockquote>

Excellent analysis BC girl. You have great knowledge of the game(s).Where you from again??? LOL, RJ

buddha162
01-25-2005, 12:11 AM
BCgirl,

I look forward to your infrequent posts, as they are always worthy reading, and this one was no exception. Great insight into each game, I couldn't agree more with what you said (and how you said it).

-Roger

BCgirl
01-25-2005, 03:27 AM
I'd agree with almost everything you say, Yegon, although I do think there are skills that are rarely used in snooker.

Take a look at O'Sullivan's 147. The 36 shots were predominantly draw or stun shots, with two power-draw shots, and almost 50/50 zero or one rail position. He played one force-follow shot, four two rail shots, no three-rail shots. Only one or two shots employed significant amounts of side-spin, and only one shots was at a pocket angle shallower than the black ball. All shots prior to the yellow were made in the top four pockets, with only three reds in the middle pockets. This break was a superb showcase of efficiency, close position play, great cue ball touch, and working his options. In keeping tight positional control, and not letting any balls escape to the rails, he minimised the degree of potting accuracy required, thus maximising his chances. That's sheer mastery of the core disciplines of snooker, and the rapid play makes it all the more impressive. But, it's a substantially different balance and narrower set of shots than you would see in a typical 9-ball match.

Having said that, there are top pool players who are masters of minimal-english one-rail position play and amazing cue ball speed control, who make the game look devastatingly simple, techniques as close to snooker as you can get. Many other players have a background in snooker, including, I think, Mika Immonen, so the value of honing accuracy on a snooker table cannot be denied.

As for the snooker-pool converts, I think Tony Drago is a delight to watch, because he defies normal 9-ball position play, and plays tough shots almost with contempt. But, I think Steve Davis is the more rounded pool player. I'm sure neither one has reached the peak of their achievements in 9-ball, and I hope that both continue to get invites to the WPC for some time to come.


Thanks for the other nice comments in other replies to this thread. As per my profile, I'm in Vancouver, but most of my bad billiard habits have been developed over years in the UK and the US.

BCgirl

p.s. Just a query in response to the puzzle. If you make the last black and scratch, does the black not get re-spotted, with your opponent getting ball in hand in the D?

pooljunkie73
01-25-2005, 03:48 AM
BCgirl, You wouldn't happen to be a multi time Canadian champion, would you?

If this is who I think it is, then yes she knows what she is talking about. Plus she is one of the nicest ladies in the Canadian billiards world.

Kent

yegon
01-25-2005, 04:13 AM
It just came to my mind how hard is it to make the 27 ball exercise. In fact I missed the 18-th ball yesterday. And that was just 27 straight in stop shots on a forgiving 8-foot table. After this it seems impossible to me at my level to even think about making 36 balls without a miss on a snooker table let alone to play position in the process /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

BCgirl
01-25-2005, 04:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooljunkie73:</font><hr> BCgirl, You wouldn't happen to be a multi time Canadian champion, would you?

If this is who I think it is, then yes she knows what she is talking about. Plus she is one of the nicest ladies in the Canadian billiards world.

Kent <hr /></blockquote>

No, sorry Kent. I'm not nearly that accomplished, but I do have a somewhat over-analytical streak. I do try to be nice, though, and I'll try to be worthy of at least part of your compliment :-)

BCgirl

DickLeonard
01-25-2005, 05:40 AM
David here is the first thing and only thing you have to know about snooker. Stephen Hendry has earned over 10 million lbs winning Snooker titles. Ronnie O'Sullivan made 512 dollars a second running the 147. England loves snooker more than Golf. ####

Buckster_uk
01-25-2005, 06:24 AM
Ronnie is the most talented cueist I have ever seen.

He was making 100 breaks at the age of 10 I think it was!

He was also considering playing a whole season left handed (opposite hand) to see if he could maintain his top 16 position, as he can make century breaks with his opposite hand aswell.

Just a bit of background info there, and yes, the highest known break is a 151 by an amateur known as Wally West as someone previously said, Tony Drago also made a 149 break in a practice session which was witnessed.

Fred Agnir
01-25-2005, 07:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Is 147 the highest run possible? <hr /></blockquote>No. I believe there have been several over 147.

Highest Snooker Breaks (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sport.snooker/msg/5fe90edffe77d4cc?dmode=source)

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-25-2005, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr>note that snooker players allmost never use english, they play just draw and follow.<hr /></blockquote>
For those of you that don't know why, the reasons are:

English deflection (AKA squirt), curve AKA (swerve), and throw

For more information, see the recent threads on squirt (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168242&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and throw (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168241&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=). <hr /></blockquote>And for those that don't know, snooker players do use side spin. The top players' pattern play however is dominated by single-rail or no rail position.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-25-2005, 07:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DebraLiStarr:</font><hr> There was another video of Cliff Thorburn's 147 from like 25 years ago. I think it was the BBC website that had it up. <hr /></blockquote>There have been a handful of 147 breaks online over the past couple of years.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-25-2005, 07:17 AM
Perfect post, BCGirl. It is absolutely short-sighted for anyone to say that one billiard game is far more difficult than any other. Past performance by cross-over players have proven this.

I still have tapes of the Irish and English players (former snooker pros) when they first started taking up 9-ball. It's a joke. The skill sets do not translate so easily considering the pattern play 9-ball demands. Their shotmaking skills were completely non-existent when they had to play 9-ball position. This is a simple observation that anyone with any experience can judge.

And let's not even start talking about 1-pocket.

Fred

dr_dave
01-25-2005, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>The set of shots typically played in snooker is a subset of those played in pool disciplines, with a far higher emphasis on accuracy and consistency, as opposed to creativity. It is far harder to maintain accuracy with power or massive amounts of english. In snooker, you do not need to hit the ball nearly so hard, and you can still go the length of the table multiple times.<hr /></blockquote>
I agree with you completely that pool can involve much more creativity, and a wider arsenal of shots, than snooker. I made my comments thinking more about the deadly accuracy required in snooker.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>In a simplistic sense, snooker requires more accuracy, and therefore, a player who has reached a certain level of snooker play may be a far greater threat on a pool table than an equivalent pool player would be on a snooker table. Why? Because the snooker player is aiming for the pocket centres with high accuracy, and can often compensate for poor position with shot accuracy, while the pool player is trying to use the pockets like a pool table, on a table where that just doesn't work. Because the fundamentals of execution are critical in snooker, it is a far better foundation for playing pool, than pool is for playing snooker.<hr /></blockquote>
Excellent summary! I think everybody would agree with you on this one.

dr_dave
01-25-2005, 09:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote yegon:</font><hr>note that snooker players allmost never use english, they play just draw and follow.<hr /></blockquote>
For those of you that don't know why, the reasons are:

English deflection (AKA squirt), curve AKA (swerve), and throw

For more information, see the recent threads on squirt (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168242&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and throw (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=168241&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=). <hr /></blockquote>And for those that don't know, snooker players do use side spin. The top players' pattern play however is dominated by single-rail or no rail position.<hr /></blockquote>
Just to be clear, for those that don't know, I meant no offense by the "for those that you that don't know" statement. I actually have not played snooker that much, and the little I know is from talking with and playing pool with one of my snooker buddies. I will certainly try to be much more careful in how I choose my words in the future.

dooziexx
01-25-2005, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Is 147 the highest run possible? <hr /></blockquote>No. I believe there have been several over 147.

Highest Snooker Breaks (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sport.snooker/msg/5fe90edffe77d4cc?dmode=source)

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I think the discussion here is the highest run/break in one inning. You can get only 147 in one inning. 155, 149 or whatever could be the total score after the frame (rack) has been completed. I think theres confusion between points in an inning and final score.

But anyways that was amazing especially at the speed he was doint.. less than 6 mins a frame.. Ive got guys on my APA league that take an hour to play a race to 3 8ball on a bar box!!

TonyMN
01-25-2005, 11:45 AM
Doozie,
As was pointed out earlier, the incoming player receives a 'free-ball' if he is snookered after the opponent has fouled. This free-ball can be any of the colo(u)rs, and counts as a red (1 pt). The color is respotted, and the player then pockets a color (e.g. black for 7pts), then the remaining 15 reds &amp; blacks, then the colors for 8 + 147 = 155, in one visit.

Steve Davis explained this possibility on TV during this year's UK Championships while I was back in England visiting my parents in November.

Tony. (Snooker loopy)

Fred Agnir
01-25-2005, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dooziexx:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Is 147 the highest run possible? <hr /></blockquote>No. I believe there have been several over 147.

Highest Snooker Breaks (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sport.snooker/msg/5fe90edffe77d4cc?dmode=source)

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I think the discussion here is the highest run/break in one inning. <hr /></blockquote> I think you need to read the link.

Fred

Qtec
01-25-2005, 12:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote dr_dave:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After watching this, you must agree that [O'Sullivan] is one of the best billiards players of all time. <font color="blue"> Dave, Ronnie is not a billiards player. He,s a snooker player. </font color>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. <font color="blue"> I,m pretty sure Willie Thorne -AKA 'the Maximum man'- holds that record. </font color> The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, <font color="blue"> I think thats an over-simplification. </font color> and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. <font color="blue"> You only need to play a recovery shot, after you have played a bad positional shot! I,m not saying Alex wasnt a great player tho.</font color> Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended. <font color="blue">I dont think they would. You obviously havnt seen Ronnie in practice! </font color>

At the end of the day, sheer greatness should be measured in dominance, and in mastery of all shots. In that regard, Efren Reyes surely has to be a contender for one of the all-time greats, <font color="blue"> Do you think that E has dominated pool?</font color> but while O'Sullivan may be able to get there some day, he has a way to go to display the same mastery of all types of play.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with most of the things you have said. You obviously have a good understanding of the game, but Ronnie is a unique talent. Take it from me, you really dont know how good Ronnie is! He is so good , its frightening! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Qtec

pooljunkie73
01-25-2005, 01:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>No, sorry Kent. I'm not nearly that accomplished, but I do have a somewhat over-analytical streak. I do try to be nice, though, and I'll try to be worthy of at least part of your compliment :-)

BCgirl <hr /></blockquote>

Well ya seem nice to me, BC . I thought you might be Maryann MacConnell, who is also from B.C.. I had the pleasure of working with her at the Canadian Snooker Championships one year.

Kent

dr_dave
01-25-2005, 02:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Quote dr_dave:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After watching this, you must agree that [O'Sullivan] is one of the best billiards players of all time. <font color="blue"> Dave, Ronnie is not a billiards player. He,s a snooker player. </font color>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="green">The phrase I should have used (and what I meant) by "billiards player" was "cue sports player." The term "billiards" can be interpreted in different ways (3-cushion billiards vs. all cue sports). Your point is well taken.</font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. <font color="blue"> I,m pretty sure Willie Thorne -AKA 'the Maximum man'- holds that record. </font color> The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, <font color="blue"> I think thats an over-simplification. </font color> and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. <font color="blue"> You only need to play a recovery shot, after you have played a bad positional shot! I,m not saying Alex wasnt a great player tho.</font color> Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended. <font color="blue">I dont think they would. You obviously havnt seen Ronnie in practice! </font color>

At the end of the day, sheer greatness should be measured in dominance, and in mastery of all shots. In that regard, Efren Reyes surely has to be a contender for one of the all-time greats, <font color="blue"> Do you think that E has dominated pool?</font color> but while O'Sullivan may be able to get there some day, he has a way to go to display the same mastery of all types of play.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with most of the things you have said. You obviously have a good understanding of the game, but Ronnie is a unique talent. Take it from me, you really dont know how good Ronnie is! He is so good , its frightening! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="green">I'm glad somebody else also thinks Ronnie is totally awesome.</font color>

nhp
01-25-2005, 03:34 PM
Not only did he run a ton of balls similar to straight pool, only with tighter pockets, he brought his cueball up table perfectly for the 2-ball, and proceeded to run 6 more balls in rotation perfectly.

Snooker is alot harder than pocket billiards, no question about it.

I just watched a match of Semih Sayinger vs Sang Lee playing 3-cushion. 3-cushion is is the hardest pool game in the world, IMO. 3-cushion, however, is NOT pocket billiards, which is obviously what Dave was talking about when he said that snooker is the hardest pool game. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Snooker you have a 6x12 with smaller balls and smaller pockets, 3-cushion you have a 5x10 with much bigger and heavier balls, and no pockets.

All Dr. Dave gave was his opinion on a video in which he generously provided for us, and you write this long essay about why he's wrong, and all of the people he's offended. It seems like you are telling Dr. Dave to be ashamed of himself for being generous. What is your point?

Rod
01-25-2005, 03:43 PM
Nit pickers!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif LOL

dr_dave
01-25-2005, 03:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>All Dr. Dave gave was his opinion on a video in which he generously provided for us, and you write this long essay about why he's wrong, and all of the people he's offended. It seems like you are telling Dr. Dave to be ashamed of himself for being generous. What is your point?<hr /></blockquote>
Thank you very much! I really appreciate this posting. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'm glad there are some people in CCB land that appreciate my efforts.

nhp
01-25-2005, 04:00 PM
Welcome to the internet, where people try to massage their own egos by writing posts with big words, even though the subject matter makes no point.

nhp
01-25-2005, 04:06 PM
I just think it's sad that other people feel threatened when someone else shares their knowledge of the game, much less their opinion.

nhp
01-25-2005, 04:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Perfect post, BCGirl. It is absolutely short-sighted for anyone to say that one billiard game is far more difficult than any other. Past performance by cross-over players have proven this.

<hr /></blockquote>

Even though in BCgirl's first post she scolds Dr. Dave on how simplistic running 147 in snooker is compared to the creative shots in 3-C?

BCgirl
01-25-2005, 05:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Not only did he run a ton of balls similar to straight pool, only with tighter pockets, he brought his cueball up table perfectly for the 2-ball, and proceeded to run 6 more balls in rotation perfectly.<hr /></blockquote>

You know, a 147 break need not be perfect. While the crowd was happy to see the 2-ball position, I think O'Sullivan might have been a little more self-critical. If you care to look closely, there were several occasions, including one cluster break shot where the intended position was missed. But, you will also notice that he generally erred on the correct side, and left options open as insurance, the mark of excellent planning.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Snooker is alot harder than pocket billiards, no question about it. <hr /></blockquote>

Well, you know, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if a few rounds of one-pocket against Allan Hopkins or Nick Varner might just change your mind?


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> All Dr. Dave gave was his opinion on a video in which he generously provided for us, and you write this long essay about why he's wrong, and all of the people he's offended. It seems like you are telling Dr. Dave to be ashamed of himself for being generous. What is your point? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't recall criticising Dr.Dave or his right to post. He has recently both promoted his column, his book, and contributed many threads with links to his website. In doing so, he has contributed some interesting threads, information and discussion topics, with both topics, comment and material designed to invite and promote comment. I don't think either the posting, or the various comments and interesting discussions of snooker rules are unwelcome.

BCgirl

Bob_Jewett
01-25-2005, 05:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>...

p.s. Just a query in response to the puzzle. If you make the last black and scratch, does the black not get re-spotted, with your opponent getting ball in hand in the D? <hr /></blockquote>
No. The rule is that if more than 7 points separate the players, and only the black remains, any foul or pot on the black ends the game. This means that if you pot pink to get within 8 points of your opponent, and play safe from black, leaving your opponent behind the corner of the pocket, and leave black hanging over a pocket, and he fouls by not hitting black, his lead goes to 1 and he wins the frame.

A small problem with the wording of the puzzle is that "to pot" means to legally pocket a ball, so the foul on black at the end is not really potting the black.

BCgirl
01-25-2005, 06:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>...

p.s. Just a query in response to the puzzle. If you make the last black and scratch, does the black not get re-spotted, with your opponent getting ball in hand in the D? <hr /></blockquote>
No. The rule is that if more than 7 points separate the players, and only the black remains, any foul or pot on the black ends the game. This means that if you pot pink to get within 8 points of your opponent, and play safe from black, leaving your opponent behind the corner of the pocket, and leave black hanging over a pocket, and he fouls by not hitting black, his lead goes to 1 and he wins the frame.

A small problem with the wording of the puzzle is that "to pot" means to legally pocket a ball, so the foul on black at the end is not really potting the black. <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks, Bob. I just don't play snooker enough :-)

BCgirl

nhp
01-26-2005, 04:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You know, a 147 break need not be perfect. While the crowd was happy to see the 2-ball position, I think O'Sullivan might have been a little more self-critical. If you care to look closely, there were several occasions, including one cluster break shot where the intended position was missed. But, you will also notice that he generally erred on the correct side, and left options open as insurance, the mark of excellent planning. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't see where he missed position. All pool games require planning, even 3-C. Notice how often the 3-C players try to leave an object ball as close to a corner as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you know, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if a few rounds of one-pocket against Allan Hopkins or Nick Varner might just change your mind?
<hr /></blockquote>

What about playing snooker against Steve Davis or Ronnie O'Sullivan? I've played against pros before in tournaments, never one pocket though.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall criticising Dr.Dave or his right to post. He has recently both promoted his column, his book, and contributed many threads with links to his website. In doing so, he has contributed some interesting threads, information and discussion topics, with both topics, comment and material designed to invite and promote comment. I don't think either the posting, or the various comments and interesting discussions of snooker rules are unwelcome.
<hr /></blockquote>

If you go back when Dr. Dave first started posting here, he got attacked by the all-knowing pool gods of this board. It seems like that happens quite often. In this particular thread, he generously posted up a link to a fantastic display of snooker, stated his opinion that he thinks snooker is tougher than pool, and you wrote this long post criticising his opinion, saying how he would offend top pool players, etc. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, like you said. I can't help but feel sorry for the guy, because he came on this board with good will, giving people free access to a vast supply of learning tips for pool. He never criticises anyone, he is very polite, and extremely open minded. It's a shame how people on this board treat him.

I don't know how long you've been around this board, but quite a few times some very strong players have quit this board because of all the crap-talking. Earl Strickland reads these boards, but he won't post here because of all the crap people talk about him. This board could be a very valuable learning tool for many up and coming players if some people would stop driving the valuable posters away. Just my opinion. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

TonyMN
01-26-2005, 07:23 AM
We know some snooker players have taken up 9 ball, Davis &amp; Drago having some success, but are there any 9 ball players that have tried to make the move to Snooker?

I am not sure if the Canadian players, such as Thorburn, or Kirk Stevens played pool first.

The prize money is better, so why not?

Just wondering.

Tony.

dr_dave
01-26-2005, 10:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>If you go back when Dr. Dave first started posting here, he got attacked by the all-knowing pool gods of this board. It seems like that happens quite often. In this particular thread, he generously posted up a link to a fantastic display of snooker, stated his opinion that he thinks snooker is tougher than pool, and you wrote this long post criticising his opinion, saying how he would offend top pool players, etc. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, like you said. I can't help but feel sorry for the guy, because he came on this board with good will, giving people free access to a vast supply of learning tips for pool. He never criticises anyone, he is very polite, and extremely open minded. It's a shame how people on this board treat him.<hr /></blockquote>
nhp,

Thank you so much for your kind words and support. My skin is getting much thicker now, so the negative comments and attacks don't bother me as much as they used to.

Thanks again for the positive feedback,
Dave

Stretch
01-26-2005, 11:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>If you go back when Dr. Dave first started posting here, he got attacked by the all-knowing pool gods of this board. It seems like that happens quite often. In this particular thread, he generously posted up a link to a fantastic display of snooker, stated his opinion that he thinks snooker is tougher than pool, and you wrote this long post criticising his opinion, saying how he would offend top pool players, etc. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, like you said. I can't help but feel sorry for the guy, because he came on this board with good will, giving people free access to a vast supply of learning tips for pool. He never criticises anyone, he is very polite, and extremely open minded. It's a shame how people on this board treat him.<hr /></blockquote>
nhp,

Thank you so much for your kind words and support. My skin is getting much thicker now, so the negative comments and attacks don't bother me as much as they used to.

Thanks again for the positive feedback,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Dave. Glad your still "out there". You can say what you want, but fact is most all your threads are the most viewed, and replied too. As a die hard Pool player that's music too my ears. All the "other" stuff is just chaff to the wheat ya now? I think it was Dee (sounds like a Dee'ism anyhow) who said. "it helps in a forum to have skin as thick as a rynoe's $$S, and the complete inabilaty to be unsulted". LOL St.~~just throws stuff up and catches wheat~~

www.rainingwheat.com (http://www.rainingwheat.com)

smfsrca
01-26-2005, 11:46 AM
A new DVD entitled "Ronnie's Hot Shots" is available from the UK. I bought it from Amazon.co.uk.
Before purchasing make sure your player can play the europeon PAL format, and the region 0 or 2
It shows 147s by each of the following players:
Steve Davis 1982(1st TV)
Cliff Thorburn 1983
Kirk Stevens 1984
Jimmy White 1992
Stephen Hendry 1995
Ronnie O'Sullivan 1997 (speed record)\
This DVD is worth it just to watch Stephen Hendry for near perfect style.

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 11:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Perfect post, BCGirl. It is absolutely short-sighted for anyone to say that one billiard game is far more difficult than any other. Past performance by cross-over players have proven this.

<hr /></blockquote>

Even though in BCgirl's first post she scolds Dr. Dave on how simplistic running 147 in snooker is compared to the creative shots in 3-C? <hr /></blockquote>If that's how you see it, so be it. I saw it differently. I saw as someone with a little more education and knowledge about the topic in question shedding better light on it. Her posts should help everyone involved, if better learning is what we all are after.

Or, we could just happily accept some of the posts that are IMO grossly incorrect or misleading and we could all be silent in our ingnorance. It sure ain't about stroking egos, but if you think people need it, good job everybody. Your efforts are well appreciated.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> I just think it's sad that other people feel threatened when someone else shares their knowledge of the game, much less their opinion. <hr /></blockquote> Why do you thinik people "feel threatened" when someone has a different opinion? Isn't that a bit melodramatic?

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 12:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
Snooker is alot harder than pocket billiards, no question about it.
<hr /></blockquote>I disagree. It's harder to pocket balls in snooker for sure. Fortunately, there's another half of the game that is tougher with most pool games.

Every good/great snooker cross-over player that I've ever asked has had that same opinion. That would include Allison, Karen, and Julie. Are you formulating your opinion based on anything other than shot making?

I've only played snooker a handful of times, and had a 50 break one of the first times I played it. And I'm a nobody.

Here's a statistical comparison, rather than a off-the-cuff opinion:

Runlength Comparison - Ron Shepard (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/cd8fd6fbb03c982e?dmode=source)

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> My skin is getting much thicker now, so the negative comments and attacks don't bother me as much as they used to.<hr /></blockquote>It also helps to not consider other people's opinions and criticizing as "negative comments and attacks."

The posters who survive on these anonymous forums are going to be the ones who read the posts at face value and not take much as a personal attack or vendetta. Words are just words. And if you take them as "attacks," you will never benefit from them.

Now on to the criticizing. Dave, you have a lot to offer, but I personally feel there's a lot about the game that you don't know about or understand. That's the same for all of us. Share and learn. Especially learn. Nobody should be here as a teacher. We are all here as students. The moment someone decides to teach, all it takes is to rub one poster the wrong way and suddently we have a flame war. And sadistic as it may seem, some of us don't back off from flame wars.

Fred

dr_dave
01-26-2005, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Dave, you have a lot to offer<hr /></blockquote>
Fred, thank you very much for the compliment. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>but I personally feel there's a lot about the game that you don't know about or understand. That's the same for all of us. Share and learn. Especially learn. Nobody should be here as a teacher. We are all here as students. The moment someone decides to teach, all it takes is to rub one poster the wrong way and suddently we have a flame war.<hr /></blockquote>
I apologize if I sometimes have a "teacher" style in my writing. Being a university professor and book author, it is very difficult to not do this sometimes ... it is what I do for a living.

I have already learned a tremendous amount from you and others on this forum. We are blessed to have such a great group of diverse and experienced people who are willing to share their knowledge and viewpoints.

Fred, I'll admit that at first I thought I was frequently "attacked" by you and others. However, now that I am starting to understand the different "personalities" in the forum, it is easier to see somebody's perspective without feeling attacked.

I also very much appreciate your contributions to the forum. Keep it up. Dave

BCgirl
01-26-2005, 01:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TonyMN:</font><hr> I am not sure if the Canadian players, such as Thorburn, or Kirk Stevens played pool first.
<hr /></blockquote>

I believe both were snooker players first. Cliff did, of course, win the world snooker title, and has more recently been one of the top Canadian pool players.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TonyMN:</font><hr> The prize money is better, so why not? <hr /></blockquote> Why not jump from 9-ball to snooker? Well, I know of dozens of 9-ball players who claim mastery of snooker and pretty much any billiards format you can name, guys who run 147's with one arm. I don't believe a word, of course.

I think it's more a question of regional variations. Only a few players make good money from tournaments. Others make money from sponsorship, exhibitions, and running their own tournaments/halls etc. Oh, and gambling, too.

Also, because snooker relies so much on accuracy, it's more a young-guns game, and guys like Steve Davis are no longer in the running for world titles. So, why not try for a new challenge?

Tony Drago's comments in one WPC interview were simple. He really enjoys 9-ball, and he thinks he's got a great game, so why not let it out?

Tony.

nhp
01-26-2005, 01:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
Snooker is alot harder than pocket billiards, no question about it.
<hr /></blockquote>I disagree. It's harder to pocket balls in snooker for sure. Fortunately, there's another half of the game that is tougher with most pool games.

Every good/great snooker cross-over player that I've ever asked has had that same opinion. That would include Allison, Karen, and Julie. Are you formulating your opinion based on anything other than shot making?

I've only played snooker a handful of times, and had a 50 break one of the first times I played it. And I'm a nobody.

Here's a statistical comparison, rather than a off-the-cuff opinion:

Runlength Comparison - Ron Shepard (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/cd8fd6fbb03c982e?dmode=source)

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Good point Fred, but it's not all about shotmaking. I am using pure logic to form my opinion. Many people believe that in pocket billiards, straight pool is the toughest game, one-pocket a close second. I believe 15-ball rotation is the toughest, then the latter two, and 9-ball being the easiest. Snooker has elements of straight pool, a little bit of one pocket, and 9-ball. First, in snooker lets not forget the huge 6x12 table you play on, with felt that has a nap. Then you have the tiny pockets that are rounded, so that if you rattle a ball usually it's not going to go in. In snooker you have more balls. You have the 15 cherries, and the 2-7 balls. Early in the game it involves making a cherry, then a numbered ball, then a cherry, and so on. To simply run out all the cherries in snooker, you have to pocket a total of 30 balls, you have to negotiate the cluster, break out balls, so on and so forth, 30 times in a row. The game is not over yet. After you have ran 30 balls, for the most part in the two corner pockets, then you have to run 6 more balls in order. In snooker having skills in kicking is a huge part of the game. Jump shots are illegal. If your hooked in 9-ball, it seems about 70% of the time you can get out of safety by whipping out your jump cue with a phenolic tip and hopping over the impeding ball.

In a nutshell, snooker has elements of most pocket billiards games, only snooker has tougher equipment, more balls on the table, requires a more powerful stroke, and you can't jump your way out of a safety. That is what my opinion is based on, and I really think there is no question about it.

I think 3-C is the toughest game of them all, but it doesn't count as pocket billiards.

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 02:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote me:</font><hr>

Runlength Comparison - Ron Shepard (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/cd8fd6fbb03c982e?dmode=source)

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Good point Fred, but it's not all about shotmaking. I am using pure logic to form my opinion.

In a nutshell, snooker has elements of most pocket billiards games, only snooker has tougher equipment, more balls on the table, requires a more powerful stroke, and you can't jump your way out of a safety. That is what my opinion is based on, and I really think there is no question about it.
<hr /></blockquote>There isn't a big emphasis on two-rail patterns and two-rail kicks. There isn't a big safety element other than long parks. There is little need for big stroke english shots and hold-up banks. And no snooker game requires the power stroke that 9-ball demands. That's the biggest key to why the Europeans didn't do very well in 9-ball competitions in the early 90's. I trust you saw none of that action based on this comment.

If you truly were using "logic," you would read and absorb Ron Shepard's article on Runlengths. The emphasis in snooker is different than most pool games. A similar statement can be said about one-pocket. Only unfamiliarity with the game presents the difficulty. Obviously, if you only play pool, then trying out snooker can be daunting. Likewise, if you only play snooker, 3C can be daunting. And if you only play 3C, one-pocket can seem alien.


Fred

nhp
01-26-2005, 03:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think that there are many, many seasoned players who would disagree, and who might very well suggest that anyone who makes such a statement has an awful lot to learn about the art of pool and billiards. <hr /></blockquote>


Do you think or do you know? This is entirely your opinion. What if I told you that I know professional pool players who say the opposite of what you said? You are welcome to have a chat with Parica, Morro, and Ernesto.


[ QUOTE ]
as opposed to creativity. <hr /></blockquote>


So your argument that pool is harder than snooker is solely based on creativity? Creativity mainly exists in one pocket. Games like 9-ball and straight pool require patterns with a some creativity. Do you think that there is no creativity involved in snooker?


[ QUOTE ]
In snooker, you do not need to hit the ball nearly so hard, and you can still go the length of the table multiple times. <hr /></blockquote>


You're wrong here. I'm not calling you a ball banger, but if you ever pay attention to how the best players in the world play 9-ball, they rarely have to hit a ball hard. It's all in the stroke. If you've got the stroke of a champion, you can zip the cueball around the table if needed, with smooth, medium speed stroke, depending on the shot.


[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because the snooker player is aiming for the pocket centres with high accuracy, and can often compensate for poor position with shot accuracy, <hr /></blockquote>


This is also very misleading. In snooker, position play is everything. Notice the precise position play by especially Tony Drago, and Steve Davis. In 9-ball, you play area shape. Half of your shots are leaving the cueball in the center of the table. Besides, part of what makes a pro is being able to 'come with the shot'. When they get out of line, they make a key shot to get back in line.


[ QUOTE ]
Because the fundamentals of execution are critical in snooker, it is a far better foundation for playing pool, than pool is for playing snooker. <hr /></blockquote>


I gotta disagree with you there. Fundementals for pool are best suited for pool. Fundamentals for snooker are best suited for snooker. If what you said were true, you would see all the top players using snooker stances.


[ QUOTE ]
Since straight pool is an unbounded problem, it's difficult to argue. But, given a set of 9 balls in straight pool and 9-ball, the difficult per shot for 9-ball is clearly harder. <hr /></blockquote>


Wait, so first you said that although shotmaking in snooker is harder than pocket billiards, that doesn't really matter. Now you are giving snooker a likeness to straight pool, comparing it with 9-ball, and saying that you have more difficult shots in 9-ball. So does shotmaking matter or not? You are contradicting yourself. First of all, in straight pool, many shots are easy because you must place precise position. The cueball can roll a centimeter too far and you're doomed. In 9-ball, like I said you can play center of the table position for most of your shots, and you're good to go. Positioning the cueball to within an inch of where you want it to go is ALOT tougher than cutting a ball down the rail into a 5" pocket.


[ QUOTE ]
If your statement was correct, then as one of the very great snooker players, Steve Davis should wipe the floor with mere 9-ball players. <hr /></blockquote>


Which he has done before. He is a force to reckon with in 9-ball, even with his weak break.


[ QUOTE ]
he acknowledges the learning process he has undertaken in becoming a force in 9-ball. <hr /></blockquote>


Of course there is a learning process when you make the transition from snooker to 9-ball. Everything is different. The equipment, the format, the break, that would all be new to someone who only played snooker their whole life.


[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should take a look at some of Blohmdal or Sayginer's shots in 3-C billiards, which, in terms of creativity, planning, and sheer cueing, are leagues ahead of the vast majority of snooker play. Just believing that you saw what you saw often requires a replay of the shot. <hr /></blockquote>


You are comparing apples and oranges here.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended.
<hr /></blockquote>


What you said here is laughable. Notice that Dave gave his opinion that Ronnie is one of the best players ever. PLURAL. As in, Ronnie is not THE best player ever, but one of many. If I said that Alex Pagulayan is one of the best players ever, do you think it would offend Efren, Archer, Varner, and the rest of them? Of course not. You're just criticising Dave for the hell of it. Nothing in your post shows me that you have enough knowledge of the game to criticise anybody without getting laughed at.


[ QUOTE ]
O'Sullivan may be able to get there some day, he has a way to go to display the same mastery of all types of play.
<hr /></blockquote>


Maybe if Ronnie mainly didn't play snooker, he could become a great in all around play. It's obvious that Dave was saying that Ronnie is one of the best snooker players ever.

Fred, please explain to me how she shed some light? Bleh.

dr_dave
01-26-2005, 03:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCgirl:</font><hr>I don't think that follows either. Many players have significant numbers of perfect games to their credit, few of which have been on TV. The advent of TV, with shorter races, has emphasised consistency over brilliance, and some of the sheer brilliance in recovery shots played by the likes of Alex Higgins is rarely seen in today's play. Fantastic player as O'Sullivan is, I think that Joe Davis, along with a league of other snooker, pool, and billiards greats, might just be a little offended.<hr /></blockquote>
What you said here is laughable. Notice that Dave gave his opinion that Ronnie is one of the best players ever. PLURAL. As in, Ronnie is not THE best player ever, but one of many. If I said that Alex Pagulayan is one of the best players ever, do you think it would offend Efren, Archer, Varner, and the rest of them? Of course not. You're just criticising Dave for the hell of it. Nothing in your post shows me that you have enough knowledge of the game to criticise anybody without getting laughed at.<hr /></blockquote>
It sure is nice to have people taking up for me for a change. Thanks again to all of you who have helped defend me. It is much appreciated. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 03:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Of course there is a learning process when you make the transition from snooker to 9-ball. Everything is different. The equipment, the format, the break, that would all be new to someone who only played snooker their whole life.<hr /></blockquote> Exactly the same point. Of course there is a learning process. To say that one game is more difficult is simply a case of not learning or growing up with the other.


[ QUOTE ]
You are comparing apples and oranges here.<hr /></blockquote> Exactly the same point. Comparing snooker to pool is like comparing apples to oranges.

[ QUOTE ]
Fred, please explain to me how she shed some light? Bleh.


<hr /></blockquote>By attempting to nitpick her post, you used the same answers that she was saying all along, all to prove that snooker is not necessarily more difficult than pool. That is, she even shed some light onto your own argument. Wouldn't you agree?

Fred &lt;~~~ great job, BCGirl.

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 03:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Do you think or do you know? This is entirely your opinion. What if I told you that I know professional pool players who say the opposite of what you said? You are welcome to have a chat with Parica, Morro, and Ernesto.<hr /></blockquote> Wordsmithing aside, Parica, Morro, and Ernesto are known to play liability on tricked up snooker tables at Hard Times. Is that the "snooker" that you're talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
So your argument that pool is harder than snooker is solely based on creativity?<hr /></blockquote>
Strawman. She didn't say that.

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong here. I'm not calling you a ball banger, but if you ever pay attention to how the best players in the world play 9-ball, they rarely have to hit a ball hard. It's all in the stroke. If you've got the stroke of a champion, you can zip the cueball around the table if needed, with smooth, medium speed stroke, depending on the shot. <hr /></blockquote> And if you have the stroke of a champion, you better be shooting the ball hard when it needs to. As I've said before, when the time comes for power shots, the 9-ballers have the edge.

[ QUOTE ]
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BCGirl:</font><hr>
Because the fundamentals of execution are critical in snooker, it is a far better foundation for playing pool, than pool is for playing snooker. <hr /></blockquote>


I gotta disagree with you there. Fundementals for pool are best suited for pool. Fundamentals for snooker are best suited for snooker. If what you said were true, you would see all the top players using snooker stances.<hr /></blockquote>Non Sequitur, right? You didn't follow her statement, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your statement was correct, then as one of the very great snooker players, Steve Davis should wipe the floor with mere 9-ball players. <hr /></blockquote>


Which he has done before. He is a force to reckon with in 9-ball, even with his weak break. <hr /></blockquote> He has won matches before. He is not a "force to reckon with." Even Mizerak and Massey who rarely play English Snooker have taken sets of Davis and Hendry. (Here comes another fallacy)

I'm not sure why you have the need for the over-the-top fallacy defense. Saying that "snooker isn't more difficult" isn't the same thing as "pool is more difficult." But your defense suggests you read something that wasn't written.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-26-2005, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
What you said here is laughable. Notice that Dave gave his opinion that Ronnie is one of the best players ever. PLURAL. As in, Ronnie is not THE best player ever, but one of many. If I said that Alex Pagulayan is one of the best players ever, do you think it would offend Efren, Archer, Varner, and the rest of them? Of course not. You're just criticising Dave for the hell of it. Nothing in your post shows me that you have enough knowledge of the game to criticise anybody without getting laughed at.

<hr /></blockquote>Once again, you failed to read what she wrote, and then went on an over-the-top fallacy-filled retort. Dave said "one of the greatest billiard players." He even went on to clarify "one of the greatest cueists"

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Dr. Dave:</font><hr>The phrase I should have used (and what I meant) by "billiards player" was "cue sports player." <hr /></blockquote>

to which BCGirl replied with examples like Efren Reyes , a dominant player when considering all "cueist" or "billiard" games. "At the end of the day, sheer greatness should be measured in dominance, and in mastery of all shots. In that regard, Efren Reyes surely has to be a contender for one of the all-time greats.

In your quick-to-hit attitude, you missed the WORDS written. Even the words by the guy you seem to feel obligated to protect. I'd like to hear from him where on the list of billiard cueists he proposes Ronnie to be? Just so we have it straight and you won't have the opportunity to wordsmith his meaning. He's his own man. Let him gun it out himself. Because if yours are the posts he's proud to have back him up, he needs better representation.

Fred

BCgirl
01-26-2005, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
I don't see where he missed position.
<hr /></blockquote>
The 2-ball shot was over-hit by some margin. The first of the two-red cluster break shots, where he attempted a stun/draw into them, was missed, and he immediately followed with a one-rail break shot. On the second last red, he very nearly snookered himself behind the pink. While these and other errors are small, you have to judge shots at pro-level. You also have to balance that by saying that, in most cases, he left other options as back-up. Great play is not always about the absence of error, but about limiting the cost of error.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
All pool games require planning, even 3-C. Notice how often the 3-C players try to leave an object ball as close to a corner as possible.
<hr /></blockquote>
Then surely you will agree that there is no real difference in the fundamental requirements of snooker and any other billiard game. All games, even 3-C, require accurate aim, cueing, and control of both cue ball and object ball. This supports my contention that snooker places an extremely demanding focus on a relatively narrow set of shots.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
What about playing snooker against Steve Davis or Ronnie O'Sullivan? <hr /></blockquote>
I don't for a moment minimise the challenge of snooker, let alone the chances of robbing Davis on a race to 3, but that's not really the point. A given rack of 9-ball or snooker need not really involve the other player. Price's role in the 147 was simply to play a poor safety. At a very high level of play, the difficulty of a given rack is largely independent of the quality of your opponent, (unless you are embroiled in a safety battle). That's not true in one-pocket, where each rack is a strategic battle, and entirely dependent on the skill and knowledge of your opponent.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
If you haven't played snooker before, take my word for it that it is a lot tougher than pool.
<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
If you go back when Dr. Dave first started posting here, he got attacked ...
... he generously posted up a link ...
... stated his opinion ...
... you wrote this long post criticising his opinion ...
... Everyone is entitled to their opinions ...
... I can't help but feel sorry for the guy ...
... He never criticises anyone, he is very polite
... extremely open minded.
... It's a shame how people on this board treat him.
... I don't know how long you've been around this board.
<hr /></blockquote>
Oh dear, how tiresome! So, you think that because he's been given a rough ride in some past threads, any future counter opinion is to be rubbished, and the poster flogged for others' old sins? And, let's just acknowledge that Dr.Dave's statement, which I took the liberty of re-quoting, was really quite a bold one to make.

I have indeed been around this group for some time, and I have to say that there are a lot of things that are unique about Dr.Dave. I really do not think that the intention is to be ignored. There have been long periods where there are few interesting active threads. Dr.Dave has been a catalyst for a lot of discussion. Isn't that a good thing?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
Earl Strickland reads these boards, but he won't post here because of all the crap people talk about him.
<hr /></blockquote>
This is a separate discussion, and I'm not sure how we got to Earl. Earl is a great player, but everyone I know, including myself has a first-hand Earl story (although I did make my own best Earl story up /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif), and I'd be awfully hesitant to rule out any freaky behaviour story about Earl as crap.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
This board could be a very valuable learning tool for many up and coming players if some people would stop driving the valuable posters away.<hr /></blockquote>
This board is a very valuable learning tool precisely because it promotes in depth discussion, rather than trying to suppress it. I hope it continues to do so

BCgirl

BCgirl
01-26-2005, 04:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Once again, you failed to read what she wrote, and then went on an over-the-top fallacy-filled retort.
[\quote]

Thank you, Fred. You made many points that I might have made in return. I did consider replying to some of the genuine points that were made in the post you're referring to, and clarifying some of my own, but I found that the tone was getting just a little offensive, and I have to say that I'm disappointed in Dr.Dave for jumping in with encouragement, just at the point when the post was threatening to become little more than a personal attack.

BCgirl

nhp
01-26-2005, 04:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly the same point. Comparing snooker to pool is like comparing apples to oranges.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's not what you said before. You said that pool is harder than snooker. I think there is a comparison between pool and snooker, because they both require shooting balls into pockets. Comparing snooker or pool to 3-C is like comparing apples to oranges because 3-C there are no pockets, and your goal is to strike an object ball, have the cueball hit at least 3 rails, and then strike the other object ball.

[ QUOTE ]
By attempting to nitpick her post, you used the same answers that she was saying all along, all to prove that snooker is not necessarily more difficult than pool. That is, she even shed some light onto your own argument. Wouldn't you agree? <hr /></blockquote>

Not really...I don't see how I am agreeing with her at all. Can you point that out? What you wrote above sure doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Fred &lt;~~~ great job, BCGirl. <hr /></blockquote>

Translation: I'm lonely, will you please go out with me? j/k /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

nhp
01-26-2005, 05:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wordsmithing aside, Parica, Morro, and Ernesto are known to play liability on tricked up snooker tables at Hard Times. Is that the "snooker" that you're talking about?
<hr /></blockquote>

I have a fantastic idea! Put down 'Playing Off the Rail' and understand that alot of things written in that book never happened. I'm talking about actual snooker. These guys have travelled all around the world to play pool. Do you think they only play at Hard Times?

[ QUOTE ]
Strawman. She didn't say that. <hr /></blockquote>

Huh? I reached a conclusion based on what SHE said.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you have the stroke of a champion, you better be shooting the ball hard when it needs to. As I've said before, when the time comes for power shots, the 9-ballers have the edge. <hr /></blockquote>

Ok, and what's your point? Generally those shots are the key shots of each rack, and they generally happen once per rack. Once the key shot is made, and executed correctly, you're in line, and you run out. By the way, I think 3-Cushion players have more powerful strokes than 9-ball players &lt;---- completely irrelevant :cough:

[ QUOTE ]
Non Sequitur, right? You didn't follow her statement, so your conclusion doesn't follow.
<hr /></blockquote>

Are you kidding me!? Do you even understand what she said? She thinks that the fundamentals snooker players use is also well-suited for pool. Then I replied that if that were true, then you would see most pool players using snooker stances (fundamentals).

[ QUOTE ]
He has won matches before. He is not a "force to reckon with." Even Mizerak and Massey who rarely play English Snooker have taken sets of Davis and Hendry. (Here comes another fallacy)
<hr /></blockquote>

Go and check how well he has placed in the last few WPC's. Aside from that, If Davis was not a strong player, why would they choose him for the Mosconi Cup? I've seen him play before, have you? He's got game, he runs out just like the rest of the pros. The only thing that hurts him is his break. Aside from that, Steve Davis doesn't compete in the United States, except for on rare occasions maybe, but I've never heard of him playing out here. He is known as one of the best players in Europe, snooker or pool. That's a fallacy, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you have the need for the over-the-top fallacy defense. Saying that "snooker isn't more difficult" isn't the same thing as "pool is more difficult." But your defense suggests you read something that wasn't written.
<hr /></blockquote>

Well sure, if you take everything literally. You see, what I do is try to understand what people are saying. You like to take things literally. After saying that 'snooker isn't more difficult than pool', giving reasons why pool is more difficult than snooker is going to lead me to a conclusion.

Look Fred, I don't mind arguing with you, but just promise me that you won't strike me with lightning or something. I don't want to anger a pool god.

nhp
01-26-2005, 05:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The 2-ball shot was over-hit by some margin. The first of the two-red cluster break shots, where he attempted a stun/draw into them, was missed, and he immediately followed with a one-rail break shot. On the second last red, he very nearly snookered himself behind the pink. While these and other errors are small, you have to judge shots at pro-level. You also have to balance that by saying that, in most cases, he left other options as back-up. Great play is not always about the absence of error, but about limiting the cost of error. <hr /></blockquote>

He made no mistakes. He almost made a mistake on one of his cluster break-ups where he had to shoot a ball in the side. After that he stayed perfectly in line. The shot from the 7 to the 2 ball was not over hit. He had a perfect angle to get to the 3. See, if he under hit that shot, he would have had to use the rake, being that he was playing on a 6x12. I don't think he went to that depth, such as having a back up plan. He was shooting extremely fast. The longest he took on a shot I think was 3 seconds. He automatically saw patterns, and he executed everything perfectly. He didn't make any mistakes that game, you are very wrong there.

[ QUOTE ]
Then surely you will agree that there is no real difference in the fundamental requirements of snooker and any other billiard game. All games, even 3-C, require accurate aim, cueing, and control of both cue ball and object ball. This supports my contention that snooker places an extremely demanding focus on a relatively narrow set of shots.
<hr /></blockquote>

Of course there is a difference in fundamental requirements. 3-C players stand much higher on their shots than other people do. Snooker players normally keep their right foot in line with the shot (if they are right handed) and have their whole body facing the shot. 9-ball players stand way more sideways and have looser strokes (most of them do). These are all fundamental differences.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't for a moment minimise the challenge of snooker, let alone the chances of robbing Davis on a race to 3, but that's not really the point. A given rack of 9-ball or snooker need not really involve the other player. Price's role in the 147 was simply to play a poor safety. At a very high level of play, the difficulty of a given rack is largely independent of the quality of your opponent, (unless you are embroiled in a safety battle). That's not true in one-pocket, where each rack is a strategic battle, and entirely dependent on the skill and knowledge of your opponent. <hr /></blockquote>

Wow! I agree with you for once.


[ QUOTE ]
Oh dear, how tiresome! So, you think that because he's been given a rough ride in some past threads, any future counter opinion is to be rubbished, and the poster flogged for others' old sins? And, let's just acknowledge that Dr.Dave's statement, which I took the liberty of re-quoting, was really quite a bold one to make. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh no, it just seemed to me that since everyone was getting their licks in, you tried to get a free one in too. Why else would you criticise someone for doing you a favor? All I saw was a silly attempt on your behalf to sound intelligent, to list some 'fallacies' (as pool god Fred would call them) about pool, and to get attention.

[ QUOTE ]
And, let's just acknowledge that Dr.Dave's statement, which I took the liberty of re-quoting, was really quite a bold one to make.
<hr /></blockquote>

Lets not forget that when someone tells you to take their word for it, it means that it is coming from them, which means it's their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a separate discussion, and I'm not sure how we got to Earl. Earl is a great player, but everyone I know, including myself has a first-hand Earl story (although I did make my own best Earl story up ), and I'd be awfully hesitant to rule out any freaky behaviour story about Earl as crap. <hr /></blockquote>

In case you forgot, I was making a point about valuable posters leaving or not wanting to join this board because people here drive them off the board or talk crap about them before they even join.

[ QUOTE ]
This board is a very valuable learning tool precisely because it promotes in depth discussion, rather than trying to suppress it. I hope it continues to do so
<hr /></blockquote>

Uh, me too.

pooljunkie73
01-26-2005, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TonyMN:</font><hr>I am not sure if the Canadian players, such as Thorburn, or Kirk Stevens played pool first. <hr /></blockquote>

Both great Canadian champions started off playing snooker. It was only after they did everything they could do on the snooker table that they moved to pool.

Kent

Rod
01-26-2005, 07:10 PM
This is an amazing thread. Here we have a fellow, who, I would imagine, admits not knowing skills in all cue games. I think if one does, then that person would take his statement as an exciting comment as intended. Around here, or other forums, it's sad you need to add disclaimers every time you make a statement.

It has been blown out of proportion because Dave just wanted to share his thoughts on a spectacular run out. No harm was done and anyone knowledgeable would have taken it as just that, sharing a video. The joy of sharing is now diminished, just because in the excitement of the moment this statement was made, itís carved in stone as fact.

If great players of cue sports read this thread, Iím sure, because of their experience, would know nothing said was intentional. Armatures may presume to know what pro players think but Iíd imagine they would take it with a grain of salt. Itís old hat stuff, lets move on.

Rod

BCgirl
01-26-2005, 08:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> He made no mistakes. He almost made a mistake on one of his cluster break-ups where he had to shoot a ball in the side. After that he stayed perfectly in line. The shot from the 7 to the 2 ball was not over hit. He had a perfect angle to get to the 3. See, if he under hit that shot, he would have had to use the rake, being that he was playing on a 6x12. I don't think he went to that depth, such as having a back up plan. <hr /></blockquote>
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. It is clear to me that in both break shots he intended to hit the same two frozen reds. He missed the first, but he erred on the right side, so he didn't get in trouble. Having missed the first time, he targetted the same two balls on the very next black ball shot. On the 2-ball shot, he erred on the right side again, because had he erred on the wrong side, he would have had to use the rake. But the commentor, Dennis Taylor, I believe, can be heard to say "Oh, slow down now" because he immediately realised it was over-hit. And, yes, like any good snooker player, straight ball player, or even 8-ball player, he planned both shots and options. You can choose to insist that the run was sheer perfection (and who knows, maybe O'Sullivan did indeed play every shot precisely and perfectly as intended) or appreciate the subtlety of the choice of shots, and the many ways, in addition to great precision, that O'Sullivan made sure he got the 147.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Of course there is a difference in fundamental requirements. 3-C players stand much higher on their shots than other people do. Snooker players normally keep their right foot in line with the shot (if they are right handed) and have their whole body facing the shot. 9-ball players stand way more sideways and have looser strokes (most of them do). These are all fundamental differences.
<hr /></blockquote>

These are differences in style. A fundamental difference would be where the OB trajectory, or some other component of the fundamental act of aiming and cueing, is unimportant, which is the assumption that some people make of 3-C. It is only the emphasis that is put on accuracy that promotes the classic snooker stance. The emphasis on being able to see and visualise angles accurately and impart massive spin promotes a more upright 3-C stance, often with more wrist motion. These are extremes of style, brought about by an emphasis on specific aspects of the game. Other billiard games are more rounded in their demands, and the typical stances reflect that.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
Oh no, it just seemed to me that since everyone was getting their licks in, you tried to get a free one in too. Why else would you criticise someone for doing you a favor? All I saw was a silly attempt on your behalf to sound intelligent, to list some 'fallacies' (as pool god Fred would call them) about pool, and to get attention.
<hr /></blockquote>
Your assumptions are really very insulting. Let me see, you insult my intelligence, question my motives, call me a ball-banger (as in "I'm not calling you a ball-banger ... but"), and accuse me of posting garbage ... just because you don't agree with my point of view.

What I saw was an interesting and civil thread, with points, and arguments. It's true, I picked up on a line which I thought promoted a naiive and simplistic assessment. Nonetheless, the ongoing debate was civil, until one of your posts sounded an overly personal and argumentative note. I'm happy to trade points with you, but not insults.

As for having a chat with Morro, I have indeed had the pleasure. I respect his opinion, and I will not forget his comments. I've learnt so much from watching Parica's awesome game. But their opinion of snooker is just that, and I'd be happy to promote a snooker's-hardest vs billiards-is-no-slouch ProAm matchup, because I'm sure it would be entertaining, and neither team short-handed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
Lets not forget that when someone tells you to take their word for it, it means that it is coming from them, which means it's their opinion.
<hr /></blockquote>
I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. If you want to indicate that it's just your opinion, then "in my opinion" is a really good phrase to use. "Take my word for it" means "I know better than you".

BCgirl

thepoolnerd
01-26-2005, 09:14 PM
I think bumper pool is the hardest game.

kyle
01-26-2005, 09:24 PM
I hope that those of you saying pool is harder than snooker have played on a 6x12 with proper baize, I haven't played any bumper pool though.

Popcorn
01-26-2005, 11:27 PM
quote
"and the pockets are much smaller and tougher."

The pockets on an English snooker table are actually quite large. The bigger table size and in my opinion the smaller balls are the biggest problem. The smaller balls maybe because of less mass seem to be harder to play with. In fact when you jump to billiard balls they seem to be much easier to play with and shoot accurately, pool balls fall somewhere in the middle. I have played in England and attended world championships in England and was amazed at the large size of the pockets compared to the tables you see here in the US. American 5 x 10's generally have very small pockets as do 6 x 12's that are set up for golf, but they are not representative of most championship tables.

Qtec
01-27-2005, 03:40 AM
You will find that break here on this page (http://home.tiscalinet.de/snookerclub_essen/videoclips_main.htm) .
Check out jimmy White's 147.

Qtec

buddha162
01-27-2005, 03:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
...If Davis was not a strong player, why would they choose him for the Mosconi Cup? I've seen him play before, have you? He's got game, he runs out just like the rest of the pros.

...Notice the precise position play by especially Tony Drago...<hr /></blockquote>

Drago plays precise position? Davis a top 9ball pro? Please tell me you're joking.

-Roger

buddha162
01-27-2005, 03:52 AM
This is what Dr. Dave said in his initial post: "If you haven't played snooker before, take my word for it that it is a lot tougher than pool."

Obviously people more knowledgable refused to simply take his word for it, and thank god for that. You made it sound like he offered a link to a video and nothing more.

-Roger

buddha162
01-27-2005, 03:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
It sure is nice to have people taking up for me for a change. Thanks again to all of you who have helped defend me. It is much appreciated. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Please stop this excruciating martyrdome crap. Understand that you were never attacked by anyone, at least not in this thread. Your opinions were challenged, opinions that you have not bothered to defend. You don't need thick skin to survive on this board, you need some logical perspective.

-Roger

Qtec
01-27-2005, 04:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As for the highest possible break, I think there was a recent competition break over 147 but I don't remember if it was better than Wally West's 151.
<hr /></blockquote>

In the early 80,s I used to play in a club owned by Wally's brother Barry. Wally sort of ran the place so he was there every day. He played with a realativly short cue [ it was real heavy, 21/22 oz] which he always held right at the end. He had a great stroke- he cued almost across the shoulder line- totally free but classic Pend. action. Wally was one of those characters you can only meet in a pool/snooker club. Funny as hell.
Many times I left that club at 5am after watching a young top talent called Jimmy White match up.
Those were the days.

Qtec

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> That's not what you said before. You said that pool is harder than snooker.<hr /></blockquote> When? I never thought that, so I would never say it. Your entire over-the-top defense is based on something that neither I nor BCGirl ever said.

There are some pool games that are harder than snooker. There are some pool games that are easier. Overall, snooker and 9-ball, IMO are about the same difficulty. Based on at least one statistical rather than intuitional reasoning.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 07:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote me:</font><hr>
I'm not sure why you have the need for the over-the-top fallacy defense. Saying that "snooker isn't more difficult" isn't the same thing as "pool is more difficult." But your defense suggests you read something that wasn't written.
<hr /></blockquote>

Well sure, if you take everything literally. You see, what I do is try to understand what people are saying. take things literally. After saying that 'snooker isn't more difficult than pool', giving reasons why pool is more difficult than snooker is going to lead me to a conclusion. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL!! You just nailed what is the problem with your posts. You misunderstood it because you were trying to "understand what people are saying" rather than taking the post literally. Literally wasn't too hard. It was exactly what was meant. Literally. Try it. You'll keep your blood pressure down. I swear.


[ QUOTE ]
Fred, I don't mind arguing with you, but just promise me that you won't strike me with lightning or something. I don't want to anger a pool god.<hr /></blockquote> Nice to finish it off with an stawman and and ad hominem. You're the poster child for fallacy debate (that's also an ad hominem).

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kyle:</font><hr> I hope that those of you saying pool is harder than snooker <hr /></blockquote>I don't recall anyone saying this, thankfully. What was being objected was the statement "snooker is much tougher than pool."

Fred

dr_dave
01-27-2005, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> quote
"and the pockets are much smaller and tougher."

The pockets on an English snooker table are actually quite large. The bigger table size and in my opinion the smaller balls are the biggest problem. The smaller balls maybe because of less mass seem to be harder to play with. In fact when you jump to billiard balls they seem to be much easier to play with and shoot accurately, pool balls fall somewhere in the middle. I have played in England and attended world championships in England and was amazed at the large size of the pockets compared to the tables you see here in the US. American 5 x 10's generally have very small pockets as do 6 x 12's that are set up for golf, but they are not representative of most championship tables. <hr /></blockquote>
Unfortunately, I don't have the specifications for a snooker table handy, nor do I have convenient access to a table. However, I think (and I thought I tested this the last time I played snooker) snooker pockets are much smaller at the narrow portion of the pocket as compared to the size of the ball. On most pool tables, you can fit more than two pool balls inside the pocket opening (especially, in the side pockets). I don't think this is true for snooker tables.

Maybe other forum participants with more snooker experience, knowledge, and reference information can let us know for sure.

Also, the jaws of a snooker table are curved (instead of straight, as on a pool table). That makes their effective size even smaller. Snooker tables don't have the "batman curve" effect that pool tables do (see my Jan '05 instructional article (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/jan05.pdf)). If you ever tried a rail shot on a snooker table, you would know what I mean.

dr_dave
01-27-2005, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> This is an amazing thread. Here we have a fellow, who, I would imagine, admits not knowing skills in all cue games. I think if one does, then that person would take his statement as an exciting comment as intended. Around here, or other forums, it's sad you need to add disclaimers every time you make a statement.

It has been blown out of proportion because Dave just wanted to share his thoughts on a spectacular run out. No harm was done and anyone knowledgeable would have taken it as just that, sharing a video. The joy of sharing is now diminished, just because in the excitement of the moment this statement was made, itís carved in stone as fact.

If great players of cue sports read this thread, Iím sure, because of their experience, would know nothing said was intentional. Armatures may presume to know what pro players think but Iíd imagine they would take it with a grain of salt. Itís old hat stuff, lets move on.<hr /></blockquote>
Rod,
As always, excellent summary!

Concerning "joy of sharing is now diminished," that is definitely not the case. I have learned a lot about snooker and personalities in this thread, and I have enjoyed reading every posting.

Popcorn
01-27-2005, 09:53 AM
I just wanted to make that comment because not that many people in the US may have ever actually seen a championship snooker table and have the perception it is like the snooker tables they may see in their local pool rooms. You mention shooting down the rail, On American style table it can hardly be done, you have to trickle the ball in. On one of those tables you can fire a ball down the rail and make it with no problem. The pockets are smaller then a pool table but not as small as you may think and quite easy to pocket balls.

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I just wanted to make that comment because not that many people in the US may have ever actually seen a championship snooker table and have the perception it is like the snooker tables they may see in their local pool rooms. You mention shooting down the rail, On American style table it can hardly be done, you have to trickle the ball in. On one of those tables you can fire a ball down the rail and make it with no problem. The pockets are smaller then a pool table but not as small as you may think and quite easy to pocket balls. <hr /></blockquote>I've only been on a couple of snooker tables in Europe, but I can echo what Popcorn has said. The pockets are more forgiving, are larger, and the balls are even smaller than what I've seen in the US.

Fred

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 10:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
All I saw was a silly attempt on your behalf to sound intelligent, to list some 'fallacies' (as pool god Fred would call them) about pool, and to get attention.
<hr /></blockquote>If you didn't understand what a debate fallacy is, you could have asked or looked it up rather than once again misrepresent the other person's point of view. I mentioned nothing about "fallacies of pool."

Fred &lt;~~~ RIF

Fred Agnir
01-27-2005, 10:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr>It has been blown out of proportion because Dave just wanted to share his thoughts on a spectacular run out. No harm was done and anyone knowledgeable would have taken it as just that, sharing a video. <hr /></blockquote>I coudn't agree more. No harm was done. And someone presented an opposing viewpoint to an opinion that Dr. Dave stated. No harm. Until one person blew a gasket.

I think that if I had come on board and linked a video of Wade Crane's perfect 1.000 in 1985 and suggested that after watching that video, Wade Crane is one the "greatest billiard cueists" ever, and that further for those who never play 9-ball that 9-ball is "much tougher than 8-ball," I think I would get some opposing view points. Don't you agree? Would someone go over-the-top to my "defense"?

I sure hope not.

Fred

Rod
01-27-2005, 11:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I coudn't agree more. No harm was done. And someone presented an opposing viewpoint to an opinion that Dr. Dave stated. No harm. Until one person blew a gasket.

<hr /></blockquote>

I suppose, but that person felt about the same as I. I didn't think there was any need to point out all the differences. I however just let it slide. Usually I'll never comment on such trivial matters.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would get some opposing view points. Don't you agree? Would someone go over-the-top to my "defense"?
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure you would Fred, but you know better. LOL If I felt you made an innocent comment, and relatively new to the way this forum reacts, then yes, I might comment.

Rod

Qtec
01-27-2005, 12:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
On one of those tables you can fire a ball down the rail and make it with no problem. The pockets are smaller then a pool table but not as small as you may think and quite easy to pocket balls. <hr /></blockquote>

If this was on a snooker table, how would you rate your chances of making this ball, even with generous pockets.

wei (http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/)

Would you even attempt it knowing that if you missed it would cost you the frame?

Qtec

bsmutz
01-27-2005, 01:29 PM
You forgot the code.

Popcorn
01-27-2005, 01:51 PM
I could not see the shot you set up but I can guess what it was. My point was that in the US most snooker tables are extremely tight and those set as golf table it is almost impossible to pocket a ball more then a few feet from the pocket and down the rail it almost can't be done. Since conventional snooker is so rarely played here this is what many Americans think snooker tables are like. I just wanted to make that distinction. It was not meant to be a knock, like I think English snooker tables are easy or something. They are set up to play fair as the game was meant to be played. On a American golf table no one no matter who they were could run more then a few balls. A 20 point run would be big. Even profesional players would refuse to play on a table set up like that. Not meant to be a debate just add some clarity.

bsmutz
01-27-2005, 02:16 PM
I have to agree with Popcorn here. I'm not sure about the not being able to pot more than a few balls, but all but one of the snooker tables I've played on have smaller pockets than a regulation table. When I first saw this video, I was convinced that there was a lot more opening on the table Ronnie was playing on than any I had ever seen before. While shopping for a used snooker table, I had the opportunity to play on a regulation 12' table and could see that the pockets were definitely more generous. 2 1/4" balls should take care of this "problem".
To add my OPINION to this already overworked subject, from personal experience and hours played on an American snooker table, I find it much harder to play snooker on an American snooker table than any of the other pocket billiard games played on any size table (i.e., 2 1/4" balls with 4.5 to 5 inch pockets, never played bumper pool). For me, it requires much more concentration and accuracy. Cutting a ball down the rail even if it's only a foot or so is quite an accomplishment. Most players avoid these shots in favor of any type of cut or even banks quite often. If it is touching the rail, it better be perfect, stay right on the rail and reach the pocket at or just a hair above pocket speed or it is not going to drop.

nhp
01-28-2005, 03:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL!! You just nailed what is the problem with your posts. You misunderstood it because you were trying to "understand what people are saying" rather than taking the post literally. Literally wasn't too hard. It was exactly what was meant. Literally. Try it. You'll keep your blood pressure down. I swear <hr /></blockquote>

You are a living, breathing contradiction. You tell me to take things literally, yet in all of your responses to me, you like to talk in 'Fred language', saying things like 'Strawman'. That may mean something to you, but where I'm from, I've never heard that term used. So instead of taking what you said literally, and wondering why you called me a strawman of all things, I will do the intelligent thing. I will try to understand what you meant by 'strawman'.

My point is, some people don't explain their intentions literally, and they leave it up to the reader to try and interpret what they mean. I do just that.

I have an idea, why don't I take what you wrote below literally:

[ QUOTE ]
Nice to finish it off with an stawman and and ad hominem. You're the poster child for fallacy debate (that's also an ad hominem).
<hr /></blockquote>

"an stawman and and ad hominem" = I have no clue what you are talking about. Since you totally screwed up here, you are leaving it to me, the reader, to try and interpret what you meant instead of taking this train wreck of a sentence literally. Get it? I really hope so, for the sake of humanity.

buddha162
01-28-2005, 04:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
LOL!! You just nailed what is the problem with your posts. You misunderstood it because you were trying to "understand what people are saying" rather than taking the post literally. Literally wasn't too hard. It was exactly what was meant. Literally. Try it. You'll keep your blood pressure down. I swear <hr /></blockquote>

You are a living, breathing contradiction. You tell me to take things literally, yet in all of your responses to me, you like to talk in 'Fred language', saying things like 'Strawman'. That may mean something to you, but where I'm from, I've never heard that term used. So instead of taking what you said literally, and wondering why you called me a strawman of all things, I will do the intelligent thing. I will try to understand what you meant by 'strawman'.

My point is, some people don't explain their intentions literally, and they leave it up to the reader to try and interpret what they mean. I do just that.

I have an idea, why don't I take what you wrote below literally:

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Nice to finish it off with an stawman and and ad hominem. You're the poster child for fallacy debate (that's also an ad hominem).
<hr /></blockquote>

"an stawman and and ad hominem" = I have no clue what you are talking about. Since you totally screwed up here, you are leaving it to me, the reader, to try and interpret what you meant instead of taking this train wreck of a sentence literally. Get it? I really hope so, for the sake of humanity.

<hr /></blockquote>

This is going to be good.

-Roger

Fred Agnir
01-28-2005, 04:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>

"an stawman and and ad hominem" = I have no clue what you are talking about. <hr /></blockquote> Not surprising. You've not understood anything else so why try now? It's written in plain English. If you don't understand what fallacy debate is, look it up as I suggested.

In a nutshell, you are a poor debater. You make up arguments and exaggerate your opponent's viewpoint. You fail to understand what the other person is writing, yet you dive full steam into an illogical defense. You have made several illogical conclusions.

That's all for now. Have a good day. If you don't understand that you continue on using fallacy debates, we can never ever have a decent discussion on the subject at hand (which was the opinion stated that snooker is much tougher than pool).

Fred

Bob_Jewett
01-28-2005, 05:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> "an stawman and and ad hominem" = I have no clue what you are talking about.<hr /></blockquote>
You will find "strawman" more easily if it's spelled correctly.

As for "ad hominem", just go to http://www.google.com/advanced_search and type the two words into the "exact phrase" box and all will become clear.

nhp
01-28-2005, 06:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Not surprising. You've not understood anything else so why try now? It's written in plain English. If you don't understand what fallacy debate is, look it up as I suggested.
<hr /></blockquote>

You didn't get it. As a joke, I told you I would take your mispelled sentence literally, and it made no sense. I had to interpret what you said instead of taking it literally. Who's exaggerating now?

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell, you are a poor debater. You make up arguments and exaggerate your opponent's viewpoint. You fail to understand what the other person is writing, yet you dive full steam into an illogical defense. You have made several illogical conclusions.
<hr /></blockquote>

Fred, several times I have made jokes to prove a point and you took them seriously. Quit being a hypocrite, you are the one exaggerating. I reach conclusions based on what you or someone else said. You pull conclusions out of your...nevermind.

In a nutshell, you have an attitude problem. You've been on this board for years doing the same thing, scolding people who have 'false' perceptions of spin induced throw or deflection, or other physics of the game. The reason why I call you a 'pool god' of this forum, is because often when someone else comes on the board with a different opinion than yours about the physics of the game, you chime in, male PMS and all, and try attack the person.

You don't think you attacked Dr. Dave? What about the assumption you made that Dave cheated in one of his videos? That's right, you made an assumption, that could have been harmful to his reputation. It seems like you did that because he joined this board and threatened your ego. Your responses to him reminded me of an animal marking it's territory. You have a very large ego.

newbie
02-20-2005, 04:46 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39127000/rm/_39127415_sport_ronnie_vi.ram

Another of his 147's. Very different and he had to recover so many times. The way he breaks the pack with repeated soft collisions keeping position is awesome. He's so good and makes it look so easy that many underestimate how hard it is to make a maximum under that pressure.

BCgirl
02-21-2005, 05:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote newbie:</font><hr> http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39127000/rm/_39127415_sport_ronnie_vi.ram

Another of his 147's. Very different and he had to recover so many times. The way he breaks the pack with repeated soft collisions keeping position is awesome. He's so good and makes it look so easy that many underestimate how hard it is to make a maximum under that pressure. <hr /></blockquote>

It was indeed a little surprising to me that he played so many little shots to nudge clusters. I thought the first part was harder than the previous 147 (mainly because of the initial positions of the reds) but he played some very nice position routes to keep the sequence going.

I did think that Ray Reardon's words of praise (Reardon's Praise) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/snooker/4283589.stm) are worth noting, since he ranks RoS above Steve Davis, Hendry and even my favourite bad boy, Higgins. High praise from someone who is in a position to know!



BCgirl

thecardman
02-22-2005, 02:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DebraLiStarr:</font><hr>There was another video of Cliff Thorburn's 147 from like 25 years ago. I think it was the BBC website that had it up.<hr /></blockquote>

Last year, the BBC showed both Thorburn's and O'Sullivan's 147 breaks split screen, side-by-side at the same time. O'Sullivan's was finished before Thorburn had reached 50.

Safe to say that for O'Sullivan's 147, the got the stopwatch going whereas with Thorburn's they dug out the calendar! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Best wishes

thecardman
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCgirl
02-23-2005, 02:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote thecardman:</font><hr> Last year, the BBC showed both Thorburn's and O'Sullivan's 147 breaks split screen, side-by-side at the same time. O'Sullivan's was finished before Thorburn had reached 50.

Safe to say that for O'Sullivan's 147, the got the stopwatch going whereas with Thorburn's they dug out the calendar! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Best wishes

thecardman
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

It is an interesting comparison. Thorburn was always very deliberate and methodical. But, comparing the runs also speaks volumes. Although I think Thorburn's task was harder, since the reds were spread more widely, he often looks like he's trying to figure out a puzzle and maintain shape, whereas RoS always looks in control. Even eliminating the rate of play, the comparison is heavily in RoS's favour. I think that's even more impressive than the sheer speed that the balls disappear from the table.

BCgirl

Grimmeh
04-24-2005, 04:14 PM
Sorry to jump in here, but I (like many others, I'm sure) wound up here after doing a web search for a video of Ronnie's 147 break, and it's sad to see all the bickering going on.

(However, I can't help myself but mention that in no way can the phrase 'ad hominem' be referred to as 'plain English'...)
(Sorry)

BoroNut
04-25-2005, 02:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Grimmeh:</font><hr> However, I can't help myself but mention that in no way can the phrase 'ad hominem' be referred to as 'plain English'...<hr /></blockquote>

Forgive them Grimmeh, for they know not what they are doing. They clearly mean abe hominem, and we know he was Welsh.

Boro Nut

Snyder1
04-27-2005, 07:06 PM
OK folks ... here's the deal as I see it in a nutshell. Snooker tables have radiused pockets. This factor alone makes it a much more demanding game - you must hit the leather in the back of the pocket if you use any speed at all. I've played on a snooker table only once in my life &amp; never care to again ... those radiused pockets are BRUTAL (and we won't even get into the fact the snooker table more closely resembles an aircraft carrier landing deck than a pool table) !!! Can anybody in their right mind say that playing on those radiused snooker pockets is as easy as conventional angled pockets ? No way ...

JS

Fred Agnir
04-28-2005, 08:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Snyder1:</font><hr> Can anybody in their right mind say that playing on those radiused snooker pockets is as easy as conventional angled pockets ? No way ...

JS <hr /></blockquote>Fortunately, many of us are talking about the whole game, not just pocketing balls. I think that's what confuses people in these discussions. If it were only about pocketing balls, then we'd have no discussion.

Fred

JRBleau
05-09-2005, 09:35 AM
Beautiful post, BCgirl.

JRBleau
05-09-2005, 09:47 AM
Gotta admit, it is a bit of a martyrdom schtick.

That BCgirl's post could be interpreted as an attack is beyond me. She wrote a thoughtful message that was nothing less than superb. It doesn't take thick skin to accept an opposing viewpoint that is so well crafted, it just takes a sense of appreciation.

aco76
05-10-2005, 02:04 AM
Snooker requires more accuracy, while pool requires more types of shots. People like to compare 9ball with snooker, but I think that's wrong.

If you really must compare pool to snooker, I'd rather use 14.1 cause there are undeniably many similarities. Last month I've been playing nothing but 14.1 instead of usual 9ball. Even though I only managed 43 balls once, I really felt progress in my game. How much would a run of 43 balls at 14.1 be "worth" at snooker? 30, 40?
Somewhere I read that on average a 100 ball run is comparable in difficulty to a century break at snooker...

BoroNut
05-10-2005, 02:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote aco76:</font><hr> Snooker requires more accuracy, while pool requires more types of shots. People like to compare 9ball with snooker, but I think that's wrong.<hr /></blockquote>

It certainly is. And I don't think pool requires more shots. It just lets you get away with trying them. You're perfectly entitled to try them at snooker if you're in need of the excercise and don't mind an evening of picking the balls out for someone else.

Pool does require more equipment though. You need a different cue for breaking for instance, in order to decide who's going to win, and a cap to knock the balls in with, to name but two.

Boro Nut

TheRock
12-30-2005, 12:24 PM
I think the only real way to get to the bottom of this is to ask people who have played all of the cue sport disciplines in question competitively. I have played 9-ball, 8-ball and snooker competitively. I started out as a snooker player, and after 3 or 4 years of regular practise, managed to make a few centuries. I played in local and county leagues for a few years before transitioning to 8-ball pool (on english pool tables), at which I achieved a greater level of success and prominence, and I have focused on it ever since. I play for the Indian national 8-ball team, and I occasionally play 9-ball tournaments.

OK, now I might upset some of the pool fans here, but, without a doubt, snooker is the toughest cue sports discipline in my opinion. These days, it takes weeks of practise on a snooker table before I can get to a standard of making regular 50 breaks (and a 50 break won't guarantee you winning a frame). On the other hand, I can not pick up a cue for weeeks, and still come back to an 8-ball table and break and finish several frames in a row. With 9-ball, I rarely put in more than a couple days' practise before a tournament, and can still play to a standard where I can run several racks.

Even though I am a pool fanatic, and rarely play snooker these days, it would be ridiculous of me to say that 8-ball or 9-ball pool are comparable in difficulty to snooker. Snooker requires much more accuracy and discipline. As a pool player (esp. 9-ball), you can get away with a flawed technique and still pot balls. Try achieving any degree of consistency in snooker with the same flawed technique, and the smaller pockets and larger play area will find you out.

Luck also plays a greater part in pool - so much depends on the break. In an alternative break scenario, it is feasible that you could get unlucky on most of your breaks, leaving no clear runout, while your opponent has an easy table lay after each of his breaks. You could lose a match just because you were unlucky on the break. I think that luck plays a greater part in pool than in snooker.

I know many snooker players who have successfully transitioned to pool, but not vice versa. Many of the successful 8-ball and 9-ball players that I know readily acknowledge the comparatively greater difficulty of snooker. Rather than denying that it is, they practise snooker to hone their technique/cueing, and improve their pool game.

ho_fo_sho
05-14-2007, 01:01 PM
Never mind - I am retarded.

scaramouche
05-14-2007, 02:49 PM
Love the chauvinism of the pool vs snooker postings.

Running the last 8 balls in snooker - red, colour, and six colour balls in order - certainly resembles a 9-ball run out, except for - smaller balls, smaller pockets, rounded pockets, faster cloth, faster cushions, greater acreage, and no flukes or combos to win, and no need to make a rail after contact, all shots executed with a wimpy little cue no bigger in diameter than a willow twig./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

dr_dave
05-14-2007, 06:06 PM
I certainly have great respect for the unique challenges of snooker. I have only played a few times, but I was certainly humbled by each experience.

By the way, this thread is very old and the video has been moved. The video can now be found under "snooker" (under "Great match highlights") here (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/videos/index.html).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote scaramouche:</font><hr> Love the chauvinism of the pool vs snooker postings.

Running the last 8 balls in snooker - red, colour, and six colour balls in order - certainly resembles a 9-ball run out, except for - smaller balls, smaller pockets, rounded pockets, faster cloth, faster cushions, greater acreage, and no flukes or combos to win, and no need to make a rail after contact, all shots executed with a wimpy little cue no bigger in diameter than a willow twig./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>