pool vs snooker

[snookerpoolman]

Interesting...

"Too many people say that American games are "easy" when they're actually playing them very badly! Anyone who has tried playing straight pool will appreciate what it takes to run 400 balls like John Schmidt and others have."

Yeah but could John Schmidt or any other of the top pool players pot 400 balls on a snooker table? Ronnie, Higgins, Hendry, Selby etc have gone 400 - 500 points without reply, even though there opponent has left a tough white from a break off or a safety. I realise that's not the same as straight pool and yes there is skill in maintaining concentration for that amount of potting on any table, but the ball to pocket ratio is the key here IMO.

Thanks for the correction on the Mizerak match - I'll have to get my VHS copy out and brush up! Am I correct about him mis-counting on the 52 break??

"I think snooker players have the better end of it in making the switch because of their solid technique, and they can manage some wins in short races in nine ball if things go their way. However, if any top snooker player played a top pool pro a race to 100 in ten ball or similar, the chances of the match being competitive aren't great."

You may be correct here - Maybe Barry H will organise such an event one day as he now has a foot in both camps!

Don't think I'm writing off nine ball altogether, as has been stated earlier in this thread, Darren Appleton and some of the other English players are at it now presumably as there's more money in it than English 8 ball?

But for me playing American pool on an english table is more of a challenge: The lads I play pool with and myself played a competion that started with us playing 15 balls straight with a screw-in tip pub cue (our own cues were banned) - nobody had won it for months at a pound a go. I cleared em on my second attempt and won £400!! We then progressed this comp. to play nine ball in numerical order, again for a pound a go. Overall in 3 months we won £1200!!! Was a real blast

[Bandanna Joe]

I agree with those that think it would be harder for an American Pool Player to transition to snooker as it does take better technique. That is why I study Hendry & Davis as a pool player!

That being said...the previous poster mentioned John b4 I had an opportunity to jump back in here. John Schmidt has actually run snooker centuries. He may not be competitive with the top snooker players; however, he shoots pretty straight. For anyone that doesn't know him, his straight pool techniques and videos may help one learn to go into the stack of reds better. He has two videos that are for purchase (I'm not affiliated with him or selling them.) In the video, "How exactly I run 100's," he wears a microphone and tells you what he is thinking as he runs around 160-200 balls.

Here is John shooting:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxca56PIqt8

[Nugget]

Yeah but could John Schmidt or any other of the top pool players pot 400 balls on a snooker table? Ronnie, Higgins, Hendry, Selby etc have gone 400 - 500 points without reply

I don't think anyone has ever potted 400 balls without missing on a snooker table! I wasn't trying to imply that Schmidt could compete at snooker, but it's the same the other way around if the snooker player has a lack of experience at the game. Steve Davis ran around 50 balls in the straight pool challenge. It was a very messy run, Steve had only a couple of days to prepare and was using an unusual cue. Steve said 14.1 was the game that interested him the most of the pool disciplines and I'm sure a lot of the people on this forum would enjoy it if they tried, it's similar to snooker in some ways and demands very good cue ball control.

Thanks for the correction on the Mizerak match - I'll have to get my VHS copy out and brush up! Am I correct about him mis-counting on the 52 break??

I don't remember that being included in the video I had of the event, it was a highlights video that didn't show each match in its entirety. I think they showed Mizerak make a 20-something break, and the conclusion of the one frame that he did win, with Davis playing for snookers.

You may be correct here - Maybe Barry H will organise such an event one day as he now has a foot in both camps!
Don't think I'm writing off nine ball altogether, as has been stated earlier in this thread, Darren Appleton and some of the other English players are at it now presumably as there's more money in it than English 8 ball?

I'd love to see another event like this happen, though I won't hold my breath! Nine ball is probably my least favourite game to watch, particularly in short races. The most enjoyable match I've ever seen was the $100,000 race to 120 between Earl Strickland and Efren Reyes. The full match is available on Google Video & YouTube, both players are outstanding:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0975062476584#

And for anyone who hasn't seen straight pool played, the following link is definitely worth checking out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06-M...eature=related

The full match is there, from the 1966 US Open. Irving Crane runs 150 balls to win the match. It looks easy. It's not.

[snookerpoolman]

Thanks for that Bandana Joe. Had a look at the videos and yes he does cue well. But I have thought of a scenario to explain it with a level playing field:-

Pool Player X vs Snooker Player X (for simplification John Schmidt vs Steve Davis) Play Straight Pool, but on a snooker table with reds (2 & 1/16ths") for the ball out and the pack. You leave a ball out on a blind cut back (as in the 2nd video on you tube). That's already a hard and missable shot on a snooker table. Let's say you make that shot clean and split the pack. Chances are some of the remaining 14 balls are gonna go awkward or on cushions and the cue ball could end up in Baulk with very little chance of a subsequent pot. Whereas on an American table you have less playing area, hence less distance overall and a shot 'down the rail' is a lot easier.

That for me encompasses the difference. In the scenario I've outlined, you are far more likely to be left a pot on from the pack split in straight pool played on an American table compared to a snooker table because of the ball to pocket ratio.

:snooker:

[Nugget]

Pool Player X vs Snooker Player X (for simplification John Schmidt vs Steve Davis) Play Straight Pool, but on a snooker table with reds (2 & 1/16ths") for the ball out and the pack. You leave a ball out on a blind cut back (as in the 2nd video on you tube). That's already a hard and missable shot on a snooker table. Let's say you make that shot clean and split the pack. Chances are some of the remaining 14 balls are gonna go awkward or on cushions and the cue ball could end up in Baulk with very little chance of a subsequent pot. Whereas on an American table you have less playing area, hence less distance overall and a shot 'down the rail' is a lot easier.

That for me encompasses the difference. In the scenario I've outlined, you are far more likely to be left a pot on from the pack split in straight pool played on an American table compared to a snooker table because of the ball to pocket ratio.

I think this is a weak argument. It would be harder to run balls in this game...but this is a game that does not exist! If you've ever seen a Russian billiards table you'll know that the pockets are barely bigger than the balls, and the table is the same size as a snooker one. Does this make the game harder? In reality it just changes what is possible and what is expected of you to play the game well. It changes the focus of the game and puts more emphasis on potting than anything else. Not harder, just different.

To compare the games directly, I would say that running 400 in straight pool would be more difficult than making a 147. Of course this isn't to say the game of straight pool itself is more difficult, just trying to get a direct comparison going between the games here.

[snookerpoolman]

I think this is a weak argument. It would be harder to run balls in this game...but this is a game that does not exist! If you've ever seen a Russian billiards table you'll know that the pockets are barely bigger than the balls, and the table is the same size as a snooker one. Does this make the game harder? In reality it just changes what is possible and what is expected of you to play the game well. It changes the focus of the game and puts more emphasis on potting than anything else. Not harder, just different.

To compare the games directly, I would say that running 400 in straight pool would be more difficult than making a 147. Of course this isn't to say the game of straight pool itself is more difficult, just trying to get a direct comparison going between the games here.

Yes the game doesn't exist, but that's because it may well be unplayable at the level you can play straight pool on a table with bigger pockets.

I haven't seen Russian Billiards played , but I do have a set of Russian Pyramid balls kicking about and they're same size as American balls 2 & 1/4", and I have played American pool with this size ball on snooker table (not too hard I found) and on my English table to improve my potting accuracy - this is a test!!!

I have also some Carom Balls and they are massive! Approx 60mm I think, but then there's no pockets on a Carom table so no matter LOL!

I'm not saying potting 400 balls straight is easy, and does it demand very high level of concentration, but harder than a 147? Not sure about that. I've managed a 132 fourteen red clearance, and that was hard enough!!

Talking of concentration it's getting late...or is that early!

[Nugget]

Yes the game doesn't exist, but that's because it may well be unplayable at the level you can play straight pool on a table with bigger pockets.

I haven't seen Russian Billiards played , but I do have a set of Russian Pyramid balls kicking about and they're same size as American balls 2 & 1/4", and I have played American pool with this size ball on snooker table (not too hard I found) and on my English table to improve my potting accuracy - this is a test!!!

I have also some Carom Balls and they are massive! Approx 60mm I think, but then there's no pockets on a Carom table so no matter LOL!

I'm not saying potting 400 balls straight is easy, and does it demand very high level of concentration, but harder than a 147? Not sure about that. I've managed a 132 fourteen red clearance, and that was hard enough!!

Talking of concentration it's getting late...or is that early!

It is getting a bit late, but I can never leave a debate!

I maintain that 400 balls is the greater feat - look at how many 147s are made by comparison. Few people had ever ran over 400 balls, and 147s are common as muck these days. Some players have even made consecutive maximums.

People that have played both games have equated running 100 in straight pool with making a century in snooker. Running 400 demands more than just concentration, but an exceptionally high level of skill! Developing clusters, clearing paths to pockets and being able to manufacture break balls to continue your run requires as fine a touch as any break in snooker.

132 is a great break. See if you can top 132 in straight pool!

[snookerpoolman]

It is getting a bit late, but I can never leave a debate!

I maintain that 400 balls is the greater feat - look at how many 147s are made by comparison. Few people had ever ran over 400 balls, and 147s are common as muck these days. Some players have even made consecutive maximums.

People that have played both games have equated running 100 in straight pool with making a century in snooker. Running 400 demands more than just concentration, but an exceptionally high level of skill! Developing clusters, clearing paths to pockets and being able to manufacture break balls to continue your run requires as fine a touch as any break in snooker.

132 is a great break. See if you can top 132 in straight pool!

Yeah me aswell, I love debating pool and snooker and my addiction to this forum is getting nearly as bad as my obsession with actually playing the games!!! (incidentally am on the snooker table in the morning hopefully for a couple of hours)

Yeah my one and only century came after being stuck on 92 for approx 5 years, then I smashed that one Sunday morning. Was an awesome feeling and my practice partner said I never looked like missing, which was nice. Don't play enough now but had 62 the other day and should have made more.

One day given the necessary enthusiasm, opportunity and situation I will attempt a multiple ball run at pool. Done this in the past on my English table, but couldn't tell you how many I potted, as it was that long ago.

I've done sub a minute at speed pool which is OK for a laugh, but I'm not as quick these days! Must get some Zzzzz's... Good night.

[Giggity1984]

It is getting a bit late, but I can never leave a debate!

I maintain that 400 balls is the greater feat - look at how many 147s are made by comparison. Few people had ever ran over 400 balls, and 147s are common as muck these days. Some players have even made consecutive maximums.

People that have played both games have equated running 100 in straight pool with making a century in snooker. Running 400 demands more than just concentration, but an exceptionally high level of skill! Developing clusters, clearing paths to pockets and being able to manufacture break balls to continue your run requires as fine a touch as any break in snooker.

132 is a great break. See if you can top 132 in straight pool!

I think that there's a fundamental difference between running 100 balls on a pool table and making a century break. A century break could potentially be as "few" as 26(ish) balls consecutively.

However, it's not as simple as that, as discussed earlier in the thread, the table, pocket and ball size all affect the perceived difficulty. Another factor for me is the positional side of it. In straight pool you can play for a choice of balls on every single shot. Whereas in snooker you can only do this on the reds really, you can't really play for a choice of colour every single time. For me, 100 shots in a row on a snooker table is much harder then 100 shots in a row on a pool table.

[Cueboy88]

To be fair Snooker and 9-ball can't be compared. They are both difficult games in their own right. I would say Straight Pool is the most difficult American Pool game.

Matt Lester
www.matthew-lester.com

[wildJONESEYE]

It is getting a bit late, but I can never leave a debate!

I maintain that 400 balls is the greater feat - look at how many 147s are made by comparison. Few people had ever ran over 400 balls, and 147s are common as muck these days. Some players have even made consecutive maximums.

People that have played both games have equated running 100 in straight pool with making a century in snooker. Running 400 demands more than just concentration, but an exceptionally high level of skill! Developing clusters, clearing paths to pockets and being able to manufacture break balls to continue your run requires as fine a touch as any break in snooker.

132 is a great break. See if you can top 132 in straight pool!

how many Snooker players have tried getting 400 balls ?

its easy to say 400 is harder than a 147 however better cuists have not tried to do 400.

[Nugget]

I think that there's a fundamental difference between running 100 balls on a pool table and making a century break. A century break could potentially be as "few" as 26(ish) balls consecutively.

Yes, it's worth noting that the difficulty of a century break varies considerably. When there are ten reds in the open with paths to pockets, all colours available and nothing on the cushions it's a good bit easier, so it's tough to compare directly.

In straight pool you can play for a choice of balls on every single shot. Whereas in snooker you can only do this on the reds really, you can't really play for a choice of colour every single time. For me, 100 shots in a row on a snooker table is much harder then 100 shots in a row on a pool table.

100 shots in a row on a snooker table would be harder (extremely tough in one visit) but I wasn't making this comparison.

Although you can play any ball in straight pool, the reality of it is that you can't if you want to put together a large run. As soon as you break the balls you have to clear out problems, eliminate clusters and either preserve or create a break ball - then finish with the proper angle to start the process all over again.

Where a frame winning break in snooker can often be made without addressing the awkward balls on the side cushion, if you want to run more than 14 balls in straight pool you have to address these problems before you run out of balls! This is not to say that 14 balls = frame winning break, just that avoidance of problems is never an option.

All I can say to anyone who hasn't played the game is that they should give it a try. See how your high run compares with your high break and get an idea of what the game demands. Of all the pool games this one probably has the most in common with snooker - defensive break, emphasis on close control, developing clusters and splitting packs. Just set up an opening break shot and go from there. Any ball in any pocket, but you have to call your shot!


Snookerpool man, I look forward to hearing about your run. YouTube if possible!

[matoski]

its easier to play and doesn't need as long practicing to reach a acceptable level to play it.

in other words the majority of this world are lasy sods that doesn't want the challenge of playing a proper game.

Do you know that American Pool is a sport with highest number of registered players in the World? Can you imagine that? I mean more than soccer
So, the competition in American pool is toughest one in the World. The top 200 proffesionals are not lazy sobs, but they practice as hard as snooker pros. 9-ball is not an easy game by any means. In proffesional 9-ball you just can't afford to miss a ball or get out of position because in 99.999% it means you'll lose the frame. Whereas in snooker we often see players missing 6-7 times each in a single frame. Also, the bigger surface of the snooker table gives you much more freedom in positioning the cue ball, while in American pool the positioning has to be pin point accurate, or else you'll be forced to play with the cue ball close to the cushion a lot of times during the match. Not to say that snookering on the intended ball in 9-ball is more often than snooker, because in snooker you can play for choice of reds, or you may chose one from the six collors after poting a red. The vast difference which makes snooker look tougher than 9-ball, 10-ball or 8-ball is the construction of the pockets. It has to be said that potting in snooker is 100 times tougher than in American Pool, but that is compensated with much easier positioning side of the game.

Both games are very tough to play, and both games require serious every day practice if you want to live from that, or become a decent proffesional.

[goose]

The top pool players are very talented the likes of Appleton peach boyes mick hill and chris melling they can all play snooker to a high standard but would any of them make top 64 at snooker? Where if they stay in pool they are the best and can expect to win any game I think you must have to put more practice in to be successful at snooker but then natural talent and hard work comes in to play if two twins who were exactly the same standard one just plays 9 ball the other snooker, the 9 ball twin will find it's easier to get to a high standard than the snooker player soz I am rambling now

[ian046]

The top pool players are very talented the likes of Appleton peach boyes mick hill and chris melling they can all play snooker to a high standard but would any of them make top 64 at snooker? Where if they stay in pool they are the best and can expect to win any game I think you must have to put more practice in to be successful at snooker but then natural talent and hard work comes in to play if two twins who were exactly the same standard one just plays 9 ball the other snooker, the 9 ball twin will find it's easier to get to a high standard than the snooker player soz I am rambling now

chris melling isnt just a player he is an artist 1 of the most naturally talented cue sport players ive ever met and tbh with alot of players its not that they cant do it they just prefure playing pool but most top pool players play snooker and practice quite abit 2 keep there cue action solid oh and they play at a high standerd