pool vs snooker

[magicman]

I use to play snooker against Imran Majid, and he was a very decent snooker player, but wouldn't have made it as a pro. He went on to win tournaments at pool, played in the Mosconi Cup and in the doubles demolished Earl Strickland and his playing partner, and got into the last 32 of the World a couple of times, I think, no doubt someone will correct me.

In the world of women's pool, any decent snooker player such as Alison Fisher, Kelly Fisher, and Karen Corr have easily made the transition and won events, and in Alison's case even dominated the game. These are women without the benefit of having grown up playing the game and accumulating years of experience at it. They were, basically, novices that learnt as they went and took no time at all to get to the top of the pool rankings.

If Ronnie O Sullivan decided snooker was dying, and that Barry Hearn couldn't save it, and really turned to pool, he would be world number one within a couple of years. The same could probably be said for most of the top 16. In fact a few years ago, Ronnie beat Fabio Petroni in the Veert Open 9-8 on the way to the final. Petroni's won events, came fifth at the World's, Italian champion, Euro tour champion. Can you ever imagine him beating Ronnie 9-8 at snooker? I mean, ever?

American pool requires pin point accurate positioning? LOL. Pinpointedly back into the middle of the table every time. As long as you are around the blue spot virtually anything is pottable. In fact, angles on cush shots are necessary on a pool table whereas on a snooker table you just wouldn't be able to pot the ball unless you got accurate position behind it. Of course the game of pool is harder than I make out here and generally harder than it's given credit for and the pro's are excellent at it, but there's no comparison between the standard required to compete at the very top.

[Omehenk]

But the real pool game is still 14.1, try running 200+ i think VERY few snooker players can do that. Any top straight pool player (thorsten hohmann etc) would destory every snooker player in 14.1

[Nugget]

It would be interesting to hear frazz (ex snooker pro Fraser Patrick) comment on this. Going on a post in one of the Talisman tip threads, he started playing American pool after leaving snooker's Main Tour. He should have a pretty good idea about what it takes to play either game at professional level.

[durbanpoison100]

you cant compare the two,
pool is like drawing a matchstick man
snooker is like painting a Constable!

haha well said i totally agree!
my mates all say come we go for a game of pool and im like nah mate i'll take u snooker!

[Csmith]

Part of the problem is everyone compares snooker to 9 ball which is understandable considering it is the primary game in pro pool tournaments. But 9 ball is a very 2 dimensional game that is very easy to play at a high level. Many, many amateurs have recorded wins against top professionals in short tournament matches, simply because they caught a gear. 14.1 is the only game that can be compared to snooker imo.

Even so, tournament pool matches are very short by snooker standards. In 9 ball you are looking at races to 7, 9 or 11 (1hr to 2hrs to complete) versus snooker best of 9's, 11's or 17's (4hr to 6hrs to complete). The shorter matches in pool tournaments allow weaker players to compete. Furthermore many rules of pool tournaments are made to equalize the playing field (ie. alternating the breaks).

My two favorite games are snooker and 14.1. I feel they present an equal amount of challenge to play at a top level. My high runs in 14.1 are 115, 105 and 101 all of which were more difficult to complete than my high break which was a 130sumthing (in practice). Compare a 7 minute break to 43 minutes of concentration and control.

[Csmith]

In the world of women's pool, any decent snooker player such as Alison Fisher, Kelly Fisher, and Karen Corr have easily made the transition and won events, and in Alison's case even dominated the game. These are women without the benefit of having grown up playing the game and accumulating years of experience at it. They were, basically, novices that learnt as they went and took no time at all to get to the top of the pool rankings.

This isn't a fair point to make really. The standard of womens pool in north america during the 90's and earlier was very weak. Until Jasmine Ouschan, the high run by a woman in a straight pool tournament was something like 62 balls.

It would be like any top pool player competing in American snooker tournaments, they would win the US Snooker championship in their first couple of tries. For some perspective, the high break at last years US championship was a 50 something. The high break in the finals was somewhere in the 30's.

[Nugget]

Part of the problem is everyone compares snooker to 9 ball which is understandable considering it is the primary game in pro pool tournaments. But 9 ball is a very 2 dimensional game that is very easy to play at a high level. Many, many amateurs have recorded wins against top professionals in short tournament matches, simply because they caught a gear. 14.1 is the only game that can be compared to snooker imo.

Even so, tournament pool matches are very short by snooker standards. In 9 ball you are looking at races to 7, 9 or 11 (1hr to 2hrs to complete) versus snooker best of 9's, 11's or 17's (4hr to 6hrs to complete). The shorter matches in pool tournaments allow weaker players to compete. Furthermore many rules of pool tournaments are made to equalize the playing field (ie. alternating the breaks).

My two favorite games are snooker and 14.1. I feel they present an equal amount of challenge to play at a top level. My high runs in 14.1 are 115, 105 and 101 all of which were more difficult to complete than my high break which was a 130sumthing (in practice). Compare a 7 minute break to 43 minutes of concentration and control.

I think you've summed it up perfectly. Short races in 9 ball really are a joke. Many on the "snooker is much harder" side cite Tony Drago's successes in the game but realistically if he were to gamble with any of the top players in a race to 100 or so, he's a massive underdog.

I do think snooker players have the best of the switch, but I don't think it would be quite as easy for them as some seem to. Until you've played 14.1, you can't begin to appreciate how hard running 400 must be!

[Csmith]

I think you've summed it up perfectly. Short races in 9 ball really are a joke. Many on the "snooker is much harder" side cite Tony Drago's successes in the game but realistically if he were to gamble with any of the top players in a race to 100 or so, he's a massive underdog.

I do think snooker players have the best of the switch, but I don't think it would be quite as easy for them as some seem to. Until you've played 14.1, you can't begin to appreciate how hard running 400 must be!

Thanks. Tony is a fine player, but people forget that he played pool for a long time before he finally won the Predator International 10 ball event, which is his only major pool title (World Pool Masters doesn't count). Same with Daryl Peach, he had been been competing in professional events for over ten years before his world title. But neither of them are top favorites to win major events.

I also agree with your point about 400 ball runs. Even with three 100 ball runs under my belt, I can't even fathom running 200 let alone 400. It's like running 2000 in billiards, just completely out of reach.

It would be an awesome event if we could have Ronnie O'Sullivan play Mika Immonen, a race 50 in 10 ball one day and the next a best 35 frames in snooker. My prediction, Mika wins the 10 ball 50-21 and Ronnie Wins the snooker 18-5.

[ian046]

Thanks. Tony is a fine player, but people forget that he played pool for a long time before he finally won the Predator International 10 ball event, which is his only major pool title (World Pool Masters doesn't count). Same with Daryl Peach, he had been been competing in professional events for over ten years before his world title. But neither of them are top favorites to win major events.

I also agree with your point about 400 ball runs. Even with three 100 ball runs under my belt, I can't even fathom running 200 let alone 400. It's like running 2000 in billiards, just completely out of reach.

It would be an awesome event if we could have Ronnie O'Sullivan play Mika Immonen, a race 50 in 10 ball one day and the next a best 35 frames in snooker. My prediction, Mika wins the 10 ball 50-21 and Ronnie Wins the snooker 18-5.

ronnie needs to learn 2 break before getting close to beating any decent pool player lol

[JoyBell]

Luck is definitely required

ronnie needs to learn 2 break before getting close to beating any decent pool player lol

Or find some luck. Luck plays a bigger part in pool than snooker, especially on the break. In a recent 8-Ball tournament they played double elimination and the eventual winner had to play his final twice because his opponent had a second chance. In the first run to 11 he won 11:5 but on the rematch it went to 11:10 and the thing that got him over the line was that he finally potted a ball off the break. During the second match he wasn't potting anything off the break and was having to wait for leftovers.

No luck no game.

We video recorded a lot of the matches and through editing we noticed that yes the standard was very high... a playoff between all the top players in Australia who had paid the $1,000 entry fee. But probably the most amazing stroke of luck that we witnessed can be seen in the movie snippet on the link below (download first rather than play from the web because it's almost CD quality)... it starts with a snooker that leaves one player in dire straits but wait for the result...

Big Guns Snippet

Some might call this "ball control"

[ian046]

Or find some luck. Luck plays a bigger part in pool than snooker, especially on the break. In a recent 8-Ball tournament they played double elimination and the eventual winner had to play his final twice because his opponent had a second chance. In the first run to 11 he won 11:5 but on the rematch it went to 11:10 and the thing that got him over the line was that he finally potted a ball off the break. During the second match he wasn't potting anything off the break and was having to wait for leftovers.

No luck no game.

We video recorded a lot of the matches and through editing we noticed that yes the standard was very high... a playoff between all the top players in Australia who had paid the $1,000 entry fee. But probably the most amazing stroke of luck that we witnessed can be seen in the movie snippet on the link below (download first rather than play from the web because it's almost CD quality)... it starts with a snooker that leaves one player in dire straits but wait for the result...

Big Guns Snippet

Some might call this "ball control"

regardless sum players have amazing breaks i dont want to brag but in the english game i have a very gd break thats the envy of many top players ive met/played and in american pool if daz appleton had a more consistant break he would still be world number 1

EDIT: THERE THE BIGGEST POCKETS IVE EVER SEEN HAHA PUT ME ON THAT TABLE I WOULD NEVER MISS!!!

[BoBnoGG!n]

regardless sum players have amazing breaks i dont want to brag but in the english game i have a very gd break thats the envy of many top players ive met/played and in american pool if daz appleton had a more consistant break he would still be world number 1

EDIT: THERE THE BIGGEST POCKETS IVE EVER SEEN HAHA PUT ME ON THAT TABLE I WOULD NEVER MISS!!!

well, my mate, Ben Nunan who won that comp, said he missed about 5 shots all up in 5 hours. even if you 'never miss' would you be consistent enough to have the same ball control and potting ability? its no snooker, but its a hell of a lot tougher than american pool.

what technique do u use for your break? my mate, whos about 5'5" has a sledgehammer of a break! one in 5 breaks sends the cue balls off, 1 in 10 pots the black ball, but he always pots around 3 to 4 balls.

whoever said american pool is about ball control clearly has never played english pool. i reckon you need way more ball control, cause its harder to control a smaller white ball. need to be accurate as hell, especially playing with a small tip! and not to mention the smaller table space, much easier to get caught in behind balls etc.

[ian046]

well, my mate, Ben Nunan who won that comp, said he missed about 5 shots all up in 5 hours. even if you 'never miss' would you be consistent enough to have the same ball control and potting ability? its no snooker, but its a hell of a lot tougher than american pool.

what technique do u use for your break? my mate, whos about 5'5" has a sledgehammer of a break! one in 5 breaks sends the cue balls off, 1 in 10 pots the black ball, but he always pots around 3 to 4 balls.

whoever said american pool is about ball control clearly has never played english pool. i reckon you need way more ball control, cause its harder to control a smaller white ball. need to be accurate as hell, especially playing with a small tip! and not to mention the smaller table space, much easier to get caught in behind balls etc.

i play with an 8 mill tip and breaking in english pool isnt really about power its about speed and a gd controlled stroke and those pockets really are massive i practise on a 7x4 and the pockets are no where near that big lol, im a big lad and ppl think its "power" that makes my break they would be wrong its speed and consistancy i can hit the white with top/bottom side etc lol and i dont misscue i tend to strike from the left hand side of the d hit the lead ball half ball with abit of top and with the speed i put into the shot the white bounces off the pack then goes str8 back through em with the top spin usually pot 2 or more balls and get a great split i find all tables break different like on my practice table u can hit the ball 2 hard which results in alot of balls going safe on the rails where as if i take abit off most of em stay in open play etc

[merlin1234]

Hi guys, just necroing this thread with a couple of comments.

There are a lot of different types of difficulty in sports and it's not often easy to make comparisons. Take skill type difficulty vs athletic type difficulty, say. Asking if it's more difficult to sprint to an Olympic standard or play chess to Grandmaster standard doesn't really make much logical sense. The two activities are too different for a comparison to be meaningful.

In terms of comparing cue sports, you can compare the shot for shot but beyond that it gets very speculative.

It's pretty obvious that snooker is more difficult on a shot for shot basis. Executing commonplace shots on a championship snooker table requires much more accurate cueing because your margin for error is much smaller, the cloth so responsive that even slight miscues will swerve the ball. Where pool games only require a low number of shots to win games, this difference seems pretty conclusive.

Comparing high 14.1 breaks against snooker breaks is much less clear cut though, as you're comparing the difficulty of performing a smaller number of higher difficulty shots with a much greater number of easier shots, comparing shot execution based difficulty with tactical difficulty.

[FerruleFox]

This thread is pretty funny. I used to think like many that the snooker stroke would easily translate to 9ball (or American pool). I was sadly mistaken and proven so.


Snooker is predominately a screw and stun game, largely because of the difficulty in potting balls with extreme side. By contrast, 9ball is a follow through with side game, where the emphasis is put on cueball control. Since the pot is usually considered automatic, moving the cueball into extremely precise positions becomes the key of the game.


Snooker players can always pot more balls but often get snookered because of the lack of space on a 9ball table. This is not unlucky, it's the central difference between the games.