Aiming/Sighting Consistency

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

When asked why he hadn't had a go at Pool Stephen Hendry's response was something like 'why play draughts after you'd been playing Chess all your life'

I believe Earl "the Pearl" Strickland once won $1million for running 10 racks in a row in a winner breaks match ... it probably took him 10 minutes or so ... if I were Stephen Hendry and had his skill, and his desire to win, I'd definitely want to have a pop at that - it could easily be set up as an exhibition ...

So I think Stephen's answer is a "standard media answer" - the real reason is he know he's amazingly good at snooker but may not be that good at pool ... probably that and also his manager (name?) was probably very antagonistic towards Barry Hearn who seems to control (very well in my opinion) most cross atlantic cue sports ...

Hendry has no chance of doing that, no snooker player has. They simply cannot compete on the break. Earl also had quite a few golden breaks IIRC, which is pure luck.

Tslking of hendry and pool, i wonder if he has changed his mind on how difficult it is since transferring to chinese 8 ball? You would think this game would suit snooker players to a tea - soft breaks, smaller tables, tiny pockets, pocket weight shots and clean cueing, yet they get MULLERED by the pool lads.

The fact is, and snooker players need to pay attention here, the challenges pool presents are just as difficult as the challenges snooker present.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Earl never got the million and everyone knows you need pure luck to make 10 racks in a row....for him to have broken 10 times and have a shot on the 1 every time, almost any pro would run that out. But id like to see him or any other pool/snooker player do it again..even give them 20 trys each.

Earl took the lump sum settlement of $650,000 instead of $50,000 per annum over 20 years from the underwriters.

I would be surprised if that was the outcome. IIRC earl got around half that after various legal disputes.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I feel it is hard to gauge which is tougher to play as both have their strengths which requires hard practice. But potting wise, it is definitely snooker as the length and width of the table is definitely bigger and the pockets much smaller. With pool, you can even aim at the cushion just above the pocket to pot a ball. It doesn't have to be dead centre of pocket. And playing with side for position, this pocket size and length of table definitely makes positional play so much easier.
Hope i do not offend anyone with this assessment.

I can't agree with that and anyone that plays both snooker and pool will tell you that is a myth. In pool, potting balls is easy and positional play is difficult. In snooker, the opposite is true. Large open spaces and multiple options on both reds and colours versus single ball position on a smaller table with lots of traffic in the way...i know which i prefer when it comes to positional play.

Pros in both games make both elements look ridiculously easy, when all us hacks know otherwise.

Pool is all about not making mistakes. Make one minimal positional error and you lose. A snooker player can make 36 minimal positional mistakes and still clear the table in one visit

[golferson123]

well you're a hack so why should we constantly have to bend to your opinions

[tedisbill]

This thread is great!

Snooker is easy Innit! And poolz is dead hard and stuff!

[vmax4steve]

The US pool player with the best technique was undoubtedly Strickland, got his chin down on the cue and stroked from the elbow but used a loop bridge most of the time.
The break is when he launched his shoulder and body into the shot as well to get that extra power, the rest of the time he stayed pretty still on the shot.

I'd bet that Strickland could have been a pretty good snooker player once he lost that looped bridge and seeing as most snooker players already have the sound technique of chin on cue, stroking from the elbow and keeping still on the shot they only need to learn to separate the break shot from that sound technique. like Strickland did, in order to be uber successful at pool.

Big Shot argues that Van Boening is a master of the break shot, but how can the break be so accurate with the shoulder and body launched into the shot in order to get that extra power. There is no way to strike the cue ball accurately when moving on the shot like he does on the break. It's all about power and the run of the balls as to getting a shot at the lowest numbered ball left on the table.

The snooker boys who have switched to pool don't quite have the power in the break shot to make a ball nearly every time, but their safety is better, their positional play is better, and as a result and they don't need to make clearances with a succession of great shots, but when needed they pot better than the US pool players as well.

Snooker is a far harder game and if all Big Shot has left to argue about is the break shot, where it's all about power and luck then he knows he's lost an argument he shouldn't have put forward in the first place.

[winphenom]

You are absolutely right vmax4steve. Power and luck plays a very important part in pool. How you explain the Golden Break if luck is not involved? And nowadays, no one can afford to make a mistake also as the standard is so high. Pool needs to pot those few balls only whereas snooker is about potting 36 balls in a bigger table with a so much tighter pocket. If you place all pool balls in a fixed position and get both snooker and pool players to clear, i am sure both can do equally well. Think its a no brainer kind of argument.

[vmax4steve]

Pool is all about not making mistakes. Make one minimal positional error and you lose. A snooker player can make 36 minimal positional mistakes and still clear the table in one visit

Bollocks,

if the pockets on a US pool table were any smaller then 9 ball would descend into long bouts of safety and lose it's audience overnight.

[Byrom]

I once played some American at pool over here on an English pool table at my local - he was working for a electronics company and was over on business - he said and you don't know if to believe these Americans sometimes that he was a champion of his state at American pool and would spot me 10 pound a frame - bet me - all very friendly though as I always am - I never really play for money be he insisted. I thought at one point he might just be doing a Tom cruise and was waiting for him to turn it on but it never happened and he got butchered off me and lost every single frame and he kept saying - boy these pockets are tight.

Snooker players will know why that made me laugh. A snooker player can play position too you know Mr Big shot - pool is not such a mystery to us - our pool tables are smaller in the UK and you need more precise position - your tables are easier and you can cheat the pocket more - in fact I worry sometimes you might guys might fall in as you walk around the table.

A few of our snooker girls Karen Corr and Alison Fischer went over the pond to take you guys on at your game and they tore you up didn't they?

Our players beat you up in the Marconi Cup - In the future look out for a guy called Stephen Lee - he may head your way and if he adapts his game - he will have the noodles to destroy you all if he wanted to - but all bets are off

[Terry Davidson]

The name of this site is theSNOOKERforum so perhaps we've had enough of American pool for this past 2 weeks. Without a doubt snooker is the more challenging game.

Terry

[j6uk]

i agree with big pot, sitting on a pool ball is harder to take and leaves you with a mighty big pocket

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

well you're a hack so why should we constantly have to bend to your opinions

Because they are correct?

[ace man]

I think Mr Big Shot is an experienced troll.
On AZ Billiards forums he often teases Americans as to how badly they cue and how snooker and english pool players are far superior. Uses names like The Thaiger and various other aliases.
But here on this site, he chose a different strategy. Rather than spitting on US pool players, he now tries to present 9ball as even tougher than snooker.
I would bet money that this is the same person, style seems almost identical.
If that isn't master trolling, I don't know what is.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Pool is all about not making mistakes. Make one minimal positional error and you lose. A snooker player can make 36 minimal positional mistakes and still clear the table in one visit

Bollocks,

if the pockets on a US pool table were any smaller then 9 ball would descend into long bouts of safety and lose it's audience overnight.

9 ball has no audience as it is, it's incredibly boring to watch. Even those of us that play it don't like watching it.

Playing safe at 9 ball is incredibly difficult, you ought to try it sometime if you think it isn't. No easy bunts up and down the table to get distance, no easy roll ups behind baulk colours and no rolling balls onto cushions or playing into large areas.

But don't let the buckets (and new cloth) of the mosconi cup deceive you, many tournament tables have pockets that are plenty tight. This can make the game even more boring to watch. Pool should be death or glory, fast and furious, all about great shot making. There should be no safety in pool. Safety should be reserved for games where players have no stroke.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The US pool player with the best technique was undoubtedly Strickland, got his chin down on the cue and stroked from the elbow but used a loop bridge most of the time.
The break is when he launched his shoulder and body into the shot as well to get that extra power, the rest of the time he stayed pretty still on the shot.

I'd bet that Strickland could have been a pretty good snooker player once he lost that looped bridge and seeing as most snooker players already have the sound technique of chin on cue, stroking from the elbow and keeping still on the shot they only need to learn to separate the break shot from that sound technique. like Strickland did, in order to be uber successful at pool.

Big Shot argues that Van Boening is a master of the break shot, but how can the break be so accurate with the shoulder and body launched into the shot in order to get that extra power. There is no way to strike the cue ball accurately when moving on the shot like he does on the break. It's all about power and the run of the balls as to getting a shot at the lowest numbered ball left on the table.

The snooker boys who have switched to pool don't quite have the power in the break shot to make a ball nearly every time, but their safety is better, their positional play is better, and as a result and they don't need to make clearances with a succession of great shots, but when needed they pot better than the US pool players as well.

Snooker is a far harder game and if all Big Shot has left to argue about is the break shot, where it's all about power and luck then he knows he's lost an argument he shouldn't have put forward in the first place.

I am not 'arguing about the break shot', i am explaining why snooker players will never be able to compete with pool players. Obviously you are free to provide me with a list of names from former snooker players who have switched to pool and have dominated, but you cannot. If pool is so much easier, jobbing pro snooker players would have glittering pool careers, but the fact is, jobbing snooker pros that have switched have become jobbing pool pros instead. You may do the math at your leisure.

As for the rest of your post, it is similarly misinformed. Strickland's technique? Most modern pool players have stronger fundamentals than he does, far more akin to the snooker stance than his. Watch him play more closely in future. Your comments on Van Boening's break veer between extraordinary and moronic. Again, watch him break more closely, there are many super slo mo shots on youtube. It has taken years and years of dedicated practice to master, 4 hours per day according to reports. His 10 ball break is the really impressive one, as breaking from the centre of the table is far more difficult than the side.