Man ... this place
WilleeCue
Perhaps I can get a good argument going here.
Willee
JAM
argument going here."
Willee, I just read this in the an October/November 1989 issue of "The Snap"
magazine that:
"Who in cue sports has won the most tournament prize money in history?
Minnesota Fats? Steve Mizerak?..."
Remember, this is in 1989 (hee-hee).
"...Nope. Wrong game. Steve Davis of England, by far the best snooker player
on the planet, is approaching $5 million in lifetime tournament earnings. And
he is only 33 ... Cliff Thorburn, for example, ranked seventhy in the world,
made $211,000 in tournament play in the 1988-89 season."
It is curious that snooker seems more lucrative than traditional American
pocket billards games, and Karen Corr and/or Allison Fisher, as examples, made
the decision to play non-snooker games.
The title of the article, BTW, is "British Snooker vs. American Pool. Can We
Do What They Did?" I found this interesting and am trying to fill the
wasteland, Willee. :>)
JAM
Vader93490
>pocket billards games, and Karen Corr and/or Allison Fisher, as examples,
>made
>the decision to play non-snooker games.
At that time, yes it would have been a curiousity indeed. It's my
understanding currently that professional snooker has hit hard times
financially, mainly due to tobacco's being forced to pull out of the snooker
scene due to recently passed legislation restricting its advertisement in the
UK. Also, there is talk that the ladies tour may cease to exist entirely.
However, last year at the world championships I believe Ronnie O'Sullivan
received a bonus check of 147,000 quid for his 147 and out that he ran against
Marco Fu. He nearly beat his world record of 3 minutes and change while
accomplishing that feat and last I looked on the snooker website that run is
still available for viewing.
I don't know what the snooker scene will offer this year in terms of prize
money but if I'm interpreting what I'm seeing correctly on their website, it
will be not as much as in years past. I hope that they will broadcast the
world championship again this year over the web like they did last year. If
they do, I'll e-mail you the link at that time or post it on here and RSB.
WilleeCue
there a bit tough and are thinking 9 ball here in the States would be an
easier game? How could the rough and unrefined pool players in the USA even
come close to the well groomed skill and discipline of the English snooker
players. I think we are seeing the beginning of the wave of snooker players
coming over wanting to kick some American ass. Even the Canadian snooker
players pale in comparsion to the English shooters. I think the only thing
that keep everyone of them from packing it up and playing in America is the
low prize money for snooker here in the States.
Willee
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040316111358...@mb-m13.aol.com...
JAM
"Steve [Davis] jumps up as he recalls the 1972 tournament, the year that his
hero, Alex Higgins, first came into the game. Alex was a 'bad boy'-- long
hair, absolutely wild style of play. Steve demonstrates Higgins' flailing arms
and flop-around follow-through, who, nevertheless, didn't seem to miss. This
unlikely renegade brought to the game a new generation of viewers who also
became players."
Sounds like history repeating itself here in the States (IMO).
JAM
JAM
O'Sullivan
received a bonus check of 147,000 quid for his 147 and out that he ran against
Marco Fu."
Vader, how much is 147,000 quid in American dollars?
JAM
Smorgass Bored
Vader, how much is 147,000 quid in American dollars?
JAM
(*<~ $0.08
NEXT,
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Bob Jewett
> Vader, how much is 147,000 quid in American dollars?
Anyone not familiar with www.oanda.com should be.
At present exchange rates (which are historically bad for the
dollar relative to most currencies) 147k GBP = 265,364 USD. And
that was for a single frame of snooker.
--
Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/
John McChesney
sponsors.
The Brits are not interested in changing to 9 ball .. unless the prize money
significantly increases .. Steve Davis is already a millionaire .. and just
enjoys the 9 ball competition .. the ladies who came here, i.e, Fisher,
Coor, Kelly did so because ladies' snooker did not pay what the gents were
paid .. ah .. must be a throwback to what the original term golf was derived
from ... g ( gents ) o ( only ) l ( ladies ) f ( forbidden ) per Scotish
forklore.
John McChesney - Texas Express
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040316121818...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Vader93490
LOL.... now there's a name from the past... Alex Higgins, nicknamed The
Hurricane. I remember there was a lot of talk comparing him to John McEnroe
regarding his antics. Even so, he was quite the player. Bob Byrne had a nice
write-up about him in one of his advance technique books... I don't recall the
name, but the cover was tan in color.
Last I heard he was making some noise that the snooker players were dumping
their matches on purpose in order to swing the betting odds one way or another
and that he himself had been approached a time or two. When Steve Davis was
asked for his thoughts on the matter, he replied that the snooker world had
stopped listening to Higgins had to say a long time ago.
Vader93490
>
>JAM
>
I don't know right off-hand Jennie as I'm unaware of what the current exchange
rate is for dollars to pounds (quids as the Brits call it). When I was last
over there playing snooker, it was roughly half of what the total would be in
dollars. So based on that line of reasoning, it would be roughly 300k American
dollars, give or take.
Vader93490
>
>At present exchange rates (which are historically bad for the
>dollar relative to most currencies) 147k GBP = 265,364 USD. And
>that was for a single frame of snooker.
Thanks for the link Bob. Looks like the exchange rate is roughly the same as
when I was last over there years ago.
Tony DeAngelo
It's because women in England cannot make the same money as the men-not
even remotely close. We'll never know, but I'd wager that if the top
men snooker players could make 10X what they do by playing 9-ball, the
world pool scene would look quite a bit different.
DarkSamurai
Steve Davis is already a millionaire ..
And I saw him recently win poker on t.v. LOL
Tjander Nathoeni
> However, last year at the world championships I believe Ronnie O'Sullivan
> received a bonus check of 147,000 quid for his 147 and out that he ran against
> Marco Fu. He nearly beat his world record of 3 minutes and change while
> accomplishing that feat and last I looked on the snooker website that run is
> still available for viewing.
5min20sec.
Then 6min30sec and 4 more maximum's.
Cheers,
Tjander
Tjander Nathoeni
> Could it be that English snooker players are finding the competition over
> there a bit tough and are thinking 9 ball here in the States would be an
> easier game?
Yes, some snookerplayers, like medium club players, have great
disdain for anything pool and find pool is chucking balls into buckets.
Usually players higher up the cue-volutional ladder appreciate the
similarities and differences. Steve Davis mentioned a few times that
9ball
is a very respectable game and rates it very highly. That is one thing
that stops people changing games. Snooker is also very traditional so
don't
expect anything to happen soon.
I guess you are right about the fact that more snooker players would
turn
to pool if the prize money is right. Not solely because they are more
accurate cueists. I think it is linked with the fact that live for a
cueman in the UK is pretty tough ( <- typical british understatement ).
With the Hendry era came another generation of players, the young and
the strong. You've got 12 year olds putting up 40's and 50's just as
easy as taking a piss. You've got an elaborate system of competition
before you even get to be on the main tour. On that main tour you have
a system of ranking points and not all events are ranking events. If you
are not a seasoned player or a talent it is very unlikely that you
will find yourself in the top 100 in the next 5 years, or even top 200.
Given the fact that only the top 64 have a real shot a some prize money,
you can figure out yourself that a '400' players earns absolutely
next to nothing. Snooker takes great dedication, great discipline and
lots of hours on the practice table. Basically so much that if you want
to go up there with the top players you can't have a dayjob. Seeing
that a lower ranked player needs to have a dayjob he almost per
definition cannot give his game the attention it needs... get it?
The story that snooker is more profitable is a complete and utter
fairytale, unless you're in the top 64 that is.
> I think the only thing that keep everyone of them from packing it up and
> playing in America is the low prize money for snooker here in the States.
That and the fact that at home they probably have a snookerhall within
a 30min drive... WHERE EVER they live.
Oh yeah..... one other minor detail: The States are so bloody American..
certainly for Brits
> How could the rough and unrefined pool players in the USA even
> come close to the well groomed skill and discipline of the English snooker
> players.
Practice and tighter pockets. Seriously, since we (the lads at Snooker
Killer Night) have watched the WC Pool in Cardiff, we have a new
expression 'That ball would've been gone in Cardiff'. I'm not putting
pool
down but if on WC level play you can cut a ball into the corner from
midtable which has approx a 30 degree angle with the long rail and it
hits
that long rail one diamond away from the corner and it STILL GOES... I'm
sorry but the pockets are just too big.
Snookerplayers take alot of practice a step further. They don't stop the
CB on a dimes 10 times but they practice 50 or so. Progressive line-up
is common too and I've learned lately that repeated follow and draw and
stun shots using none, one and two cushions.
Cheers,
Tjander <- still can only run 8 ball with the big pockets
Vader93490
>5min20sec.
>Then 6min30sec and 4 more maximum's.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Tjander
I'll have to re-check the website, but I believe you may be correct. Sorry for
any mis-information.
Vader93490
>disdain for anything pool and find pool is chucking balls into buckets.
I ran into this very attitude quite a bit when I was last over there playing.
The majority of the Brits I played over there had a disdain for pool in
general, claiming it was too "easy" because of the "bucket pockets", but some
were beginning to warm up to pool, but it was mainly 8-ball played under the
"English" rule-set in the pubs which I thought was an interesting set of rules
but brutal in the case of a scratch.
As I learned quickly after losing a few quid, you had to learn to keep the cue
ball on the table at all costs, else if you scratched the incoming player had
ball in hand and the table was deemed open. In other words if you had shot off
all your color group and you scratched, all your opponent had to do was make
the black and the game was over.
WilleeCue
WIllee
"Vader93490" <vader...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040317121848...@mb-m06.aol.com...
vader93490
> 3 minutes? Are you sure, one or two years back he made a 147 in
> 5min20sec.
> Then 6min30sec and 4 more maximum's.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tjander
You were indeed correct after all. The world record stands at
O'Sullivan's 5:20 performance. He nearly broke it last year with a
time of 6:30. He's had a total of 6 maximums I believe.
For those interested, here's the link to the page where the video can
be watched. There are some other memorable moments available as well,
including O'Sullivan's 5:20 maximum:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/snooker/world_champs_2003/default.stm
Rob
> I guess you are right about the fact that more snooker players would
> turn
> to pool if the prize money is right. Not solely because they are more
> accurate cueists.
OK, I know you've been trolling for it with a few posts, but I have to
strike back at the myth that snooker players are more accurate players
than their "pool" counterparts. We have repeatedly seen that this is
not the case--witness the results of the Mosconi cup. And if you're
wondering why I say this . . .
[snip some other stuff]
> I'm not putting pool
> down but if on WC level play you can cut a ball into the corner from
> midtable which has approx a 30 degree angle with the long rail and it
> hits
> that long rail one diamond away from the corner and it STILL GOES... I'm
> sorry but the pockets are just too big.
This has always struck me about snooker-is-so-hard players--they
always seem to concetrate on the difficulty of pocketing a ball. The
difficulty in 9-ball isn't just pocketing a ball (which you might
think is easy until you play on a table with triple-shimmed pockets),
it's getting the cueball to exactly the position you want it. Position
play is what makes the game hard, not pocketing balls.
>
> Snookerplayers take alot of practice a step further. They don't stop the
> CB on a dimes 10 times but they practice 50 or so. Progressive line-up
> is common too and I've learned lately that repeated follow and draw and
> stun shots using none, one and two cushions.
>
Follow and draw shots using 0,1, and 2 cushions? Wowee. That's routine
pattern play in 9-ball. How about 75-degree cut shots using inside
english/spin to travel 3 rails for position on the head rail? So some
snooker players play stop shots 50 times in a row. So do some 9-ball
players. Some, like myself, play 2-rail draw shots to land the
cue-ball in a 3-inch-wide circle at the other end of the table 30 and
40 times in a row.
I'm not saying snooker is easy, just that it's different. The emphasis
for good 9-ball players is not on pocketing balls, but on which *way*
to pocket a ball (e.g., ball first or rail first) to get great
position for a runout. Mistakes more than not lead to disaster instead
of "Oh, I'll just pocket that ball down there instead."
>
> Cheers,
> Tjander <- still can only run 8 ball with the big pockets
Slainte,
Rob
who ran 45 and 62, respectively, in the only 2 games of snooker he
ever played
Vader93490
>
>WIllee
>
It is brutal Willee. As I said, cue ball control is absolutely essential
playing 8 ball under that rule-set and it cost me a few quid to find that out.
However, I did forget to mention that a scratch on the 8-ball isn't an
automatic loss of game, it depends on whether or not your opponent has the
skill to capitalize on your scratch and the layout of the table after the foul
occurred.
Ron Hudson
Wait a minute... if, as you say, the incoming player has ball-in-hand after you
scratch while shooting the 8, and the table is considered open, and if you have
shot all of one color group off... then all he has to do is shoot in the 8. So
it's as good as an automatic loss, isn't it?
Under BCA rules here, a scratch while shooting the 8 ball is not loss of game,
but your opponent must still shoot his balls before he can pocket the 8.
Ron
Tjander Nathoeni
> OK, I know you've been trolling for it with a few posts, but I have to
> strike back at the myth that snooker players are more accurate players
> than their "pool" counterparts. We have repeatedly seen that this is
> not the case--witness the results of the Mosconi cup. And if you're
> wondering why I say this . . .
9ball. Completely different game. I bet if you got a few poolplayers
to play in a snookertournament you get the same bad results.
Ofcourse the top players in whatever cuesport are the best cueist there
are and the best poolplayers normally play their shots clean but
still...
with snooker a shallow angle shot into the corner close to the cushion
has a snowballs chance in hell that it will go if it hits cushion first.
Now with pool, you have a reasonable chance it'll go.
> This has always struck me about snooker-is-so-hard players--they
> always seem to concetrate on the difficulty of pocketing a ball. The
One table, six pockets just another game not harder.
> difficulty in 9-ball isn't just pocketing a ball (which you might
> think is easy until you play on a table with triple-shimmed pockets),
What would be a triple-shimmed table? The Cardiff one?
Thurstons over in Rotterdam have UK pool tables but still give you an
American set of pool balls. Quite hard to play on and comined with shots
like doubles and banks much more of a challenge than a regular pool
table. To bad you'd have to raid a bank in order to play a few hours.
> it's getting the cueball to exactly the position you want it. Position
> play is what makes the game hard, not pocketing balls.
Uh-huh... and position play in snooker is irrelevant? You seem to think
that putting up a century requires little positional play, neither
does a shot leading up to breaking the pack.
> Follow and draw shots using 0,1, and 2 cushions? Wowee. That's routine
> pattern play in 9-ball.
Pattern play <> 9ball? Now you've lost me.
> How about 75-degree cut shots using inside
> english/spin to travel 3 rails for position on the head rail? So some
How about a 10 feet drag shot to get to a red on the rail with position
on the black to break the pack? I'm not able to do that often but hey,
I don't practice.
> I'm not saying snooker is easy, just that it's different. The emphasis
> for good 9-ball players is not on pocketing balls, but on which *way*
> to pocket a ball (e.g., ball first or rail first) to get great
> position for a runout. Mistakes more than not lead to disaster instead
> of "Oh, I'll just pocket that ball down there instead."
Ofcourse 'that ball down there' would have to be there in the first
place. And if it's there it has to be accesible and it should be
possible to get position on your next shot. Potting 'that ball down
there' only works if you can't really play position and so you're
desperate to nick points from your opponent.
Cheers,
Tjander
David Malone
<t.nat...@its.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>with snooker a shallow angle shot into the corner close to the cushion
>has a snowballs chance in hell that it will go if it hits cushion first.
>Now with pool, you have a reasonable chance it'll go.
This is because of the profile of the pockets are different ie. pool
pockets have a straight side whereas snooker pockets are curved. It's
merely an equipment limitation.
David "The Hamster" Malone
Rob
> [regarding the Mosconi Cup] So there were a few snookerplayers playing
> 9ball. Completely different game. I bet if you got a few poolplayers
> to play in a snookertournament you get the same bad results.
>
No doubt. But I'm not the one who claimed that pool players were "more
accurate cueists," am I? You claimed that about snooker players.
Apparently they aren't quite as accurate with those big pockets as you
claim.
> Ofcourse the top players in whatever cuesport are the best cueist there
> are and the best poolplayers normally play their shots clean but
> still...
> with snooker a shallow angle shot into the corner close to the cushion
> has a snowballs chance in hell that it will go if it hits cushion first.
> Now with pool, you have a reasonable chance it'll go.
I'm sure that "a reasonable chance" is fine for the recreational
player, but your top 9-ball pro isn't playing reasonable chances.
They're playing the ball precisely. A ball is played rail-first into a
pocket for the better position it offers, not because the pro 9-baller
is a sloppy player.
> What would be a triple-shimmed table? The Cardiff one?
>
> Thurstons over in Rotterdam have UK pool tables but still give you an
> American set of pool balls. Quite hard to play on and comined with shots
> like doubles and banks much more of a challenge than a regular pool
> table. To bad you'd have to raid a bank in order to play a few hours.
Sorry, but it's been a couple years since I've made it over to your
side of the pond. I have no idea what the Cardiff table or Thurstons
in Rotterdam are. So I can't speak to any of this.
>
> > it's getting the cueball to exactly the position you want it. Position
> > play is what makes the game hard, not pocketing balls.
> Uh-huh... and position play in snooker is irrelevant? You seem to think
> that putting up a century requires little positional play, neither
> does a shot leading up to breaking the pack.
Did I say position play was irrelevant? Please tell me where I wrote
any of these things. Position play on a 9x4.5 table with large balls
is vastly different than position play on a 12x6 table with smaller
balls. You have less surface area to work with in 9-ball and you have
to cross the length of the table a lot, so it is often extremely
difficult. I'm sure snooker is, too, but please stop giving the
impression that big pockets somehow make 9-ball an easier game.
>
> > Follow and draw shots using 0,1, and 2 cushions? Wowee. That's routine
> > pattern play in 9-ball.
> Pattern play <> 9ball? Now you've lost me.
Well, that's pretty obvious. But it's okay--after all, you're only a
snooker player.
Slainte,
Rob
Vader93490
>you
>scratch while shooting the 8, and the table is considered open, and if you
>have
>shot all of one color group off... then all he has to do is shoot in the 8.
>So
>it's as good as an automatic loss, isn't it?
It all depends on the skill level of the incoming player as well as what occurs
after the scratch.
For example, it's entirely possible that as you're shooting the 8, the ball
takes a wild roll and winds up locked against another ball, thus making the
incoming player's chance of winning somewhat less.
Vader93490
>accurate cueists," am I? You claimed that about snooker players.
>Apparently they aren't quite as accurate with those big pockets as you
>claim.
What you need to remember is that snooker balls and the pockets on snooker
tables are all different than pool balls and tables.
If you look at a pool ball and a snooker ball side by side, you'll see that a
pool ball is quite a bit larger and heavier than a snooker ball. The pockets
on a snooker table are also shaped differently than on a pool table. Also,
snooker tables over in England play quite a bit faster than anything I've seen
in the USA.
Essentially, snooker players play with smaller, lighter and faster equipment.
If you get a chance to play with what I call "real" snooker equipment you'll
see what I'm saying.
There is no doubt that if a snooker player practiced pool long enough, he could
become an equally accurate pool player. Steve Davis has illustrated this in
his Mosconi Cup appearances, along with Allison Fisher in her forays into
women's professional pool.
Donald Tees
The pockets are also quite a bit smaller.
Donald
sam
Sincerely, Sam
"WilleeCue" <n5...@nospam.stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:29F5c.2235$Mm2...@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Man this place is a wasteland.
WilleeCue
Same ol Sameo here.
Willee
"sam" <s...@lasercom.net> wrote in message
news:c3dj1...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Tjander Nathoeni
> No doubt. But I'm not the one who claimed that pool players were "more
> accurate cueists," am I? You claimed that about snooker players.
the impression that you think both are equally accurate cueists. You
didn't actually wrote this but you implied it... now you are asking
me if you claimed pool players are better cueists? You're good.
> Apparently they aren't quite as accurate with those big pockets as you
> claim.
If both were equally accurate cueists, pool players would hold up in a
snooker game right? Well don't be silly. Pro players are dedicated to
their own game. Steve's had quite a bit of practice and Tony Drago seems
more suited for playing pool, the rest on the team only play snooker. So
that Mosconi Cup thing really isn't an argument at all.
Steve is doing okay for an old-school snookerplayer and Drago is
actually
quite good. His race to the Dutch Open crown was fast and with good
numbers. Playing field had Davis, Drago, Hohman, Archer, Strickland,
Reyes and others.
> Sorry, but it's been a couple years since I've made it over to your
> side of the pond. I have no idea what the Cardiff table or Thurstons
> in Rotterdam are. So I can't speak to any of this.
The last WC's were in Cardiff. That's the Cardiff table, you did
watch the WC's right?
> Did I say position play was irrelevant? Please tell me where I wrote
> any of these things. Position play on a 9x4.5 table with large balls
> is vastly different than position play on a 12x6 table with smaller
> balls. You have less surface area to work with in 9-ball and you have
> to cross the length of the table a lot, so it is often extremely
Those cross-table lenghts shots are the most unpleasant ones, I know.
But okay, both pool and snookerplayers are equally accurate cuesist.
They are equally accurate so also they are equally inaccurate.
Suppose the error they make, on a long staight in shot with the OB
2 feet away from the pocket, is 3 degrees while both are aiming for
the heart of the pocket. On a pool table the cue ball travels 7
feet, on a snookertable the CB travels 10 feet. The error at right
angles with the direct line between CB and OB at the point of the
OB is 0.369 feet on a pool table and 0.524 feet on a snooker
table. Now, tell me... if on both tables ballsize,pocketsize are
at the same ratio, it would be equally difficult to pocket a ball
right into the heart of the pocket? Well, 0.369 feet relative to
the pooltable size is a smaller ratio then 0.524 feet relative to
the snookertable size. The equal error at the point where the cue
is amounts to a relatively bigger error at point of the OB on a
snooker table. Ball,pocket size at equal ratio, this makes live
harder on a snookertable.
> difficult. I'm sure snooker is, too, but please stop giving the
> impression that big pockets somehow make 9-ball an easier game.
I never did that! I was talking about the general games.
> > Pattern play <> 9ball? Now you've lost me.
> Well, that's pretty obvious. But it's okay--after all, you're only a
> snooker player.
Yeah well, you can't have everything in live, now can you? I'll go
play snooker tonight, much more of a mature game then the 1-through-9-
connect-the-dots-like-I-did-in-kindergarten ;)
Next week, I'll practice my 9ball game 'cause league starts in April.
The fact that this is alt.sport.pool wasn't enough of a hint for you
that I play pool too? Carom too BTW, not proficient but I'm learning.
Cheers,
Tjander <- still has a few of those coloured in connect-the-
dots things... well, coloured in and out! Dots properly
connected though.
Tjander Nathoeni
> This is because of the profile of the pockets are different ie. pool
> pockets have a straight side whereas snooker pockets are curved. It's
> merely an equipment limitation.
as Hague5 only Thurstons have the rounded cushions. I can't say I have
more or less trouble potting with the shallow angle shots.
Cheers,
Tjander
Rob
Agree with that all. And I have played snooker--twice in my life. I
ran 45 and 62, respectively, in those 2 games. I think that any pro
level player at any game could become respectable at any other game if
given the time to practice at it. Each game offers its own particular
challenge. I'm just tired of hearing how hard snooker is and how much
better all the players are.
Rob
Adam Jacoby
Thanks for the link to those videos... Damn those guys are good...
O'Sullivan's cueball control on that video is just remarkable...
Adam <~~~~~~~~ I think I could run at least 1 ball...
"vader93490" <vader...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2b18597c.04031...@posting.google.com...
Ron Shepard
shax...@juno.com (Rob) wrote:
> Agree with that all. And I have played snooker--twice in my life. I
> ran 45 and 62, respectively, in those 2 games. I think that any pro
> level player at any game could become respectable at any other game if
> given the time to practice at it. Each game offers its own particular
> challenge. I'm just tired of hearing how hard snooker is and how much
> better all the players are.
If you compare runlengths, measured in balls, not points, for a
player when he plays 9-ball and when he plays snooker, they are
usually about the same. Tough tables (like some snooker tables in
the US) or easy tables (like some pool tables in the US) do make a
difference, of course, but if you compare "normal" competition
tables in both sports then the runlengths are usually about the same.
I believe that these runlengths are a particular measure of the
intrinsic difficulty of games. That measure ignores some aspects of
tactics, the effect of safety play on the runlength stats, the
effect of the break shot in short-rack games such as 9-ball on the
runlength stats, and so on, but it is a way to get to the crux of
the discussion: the intrinsic difficult of two different games.
A 62-point run in snooker is probably about 15 balls, right? A
15-ball run in 9-ball is like breaking and running two racks (not
counting the balls pocketed on the break shot). Do you think those
two things would occur at about the same frequency if you were to
play both games regularly?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Rob
> If both were equally accurate cueists, pool players would hold up in a
> snooker game right? Well don't be silly. Pro players are dedicated to
> their own game.
With some practice at it, I have no doubt that the top pro 9-ballers
could play respectable games of snooker. They didn't grow up on the
game, so they are at an automatic disadvantage there. But, yes, I
believe that excellent 9-ball players are extremely accurate in both
their shotmaking and position play. As accurate as any other players
in the world.
BTW, you should know that a number of the top 9-ballers *DO* play
snooker, and very well. Reyes and Bustamante, for example.
> The last WC's were in Cardiff. That's the Cardiff table, you did
> watch the WC's right?
>
Sigh. I wish. Sadly, they are not broadcast here, and I have no way to
get any kind of DVDs in a format compatible with my DVD player. Sad,
really.
> > Did I say position play was irrelevant? Please tell me where I wrote
> > any of these things. Position play on a 9x4.5 table with large balls
> > is vastly different than position play on a 12x6 table with smaller
> > balls. You have less surface area to work with in 9-ball and you have
> > to cross the length of the table a lot, so it is often extremely
> Those cross-table lenghts shots are the most unpleasant ones, I know.
> [snip your math] The equal error at the point where the cue
> is amounts to a relatively bigger error at point of the OB on a
> snooker table. Ball,pocket size at equal ratio, this makes live
> harder on a snookertable.
What you say is true, but it just emphasizes that small mistakes
become bigger ones on snooker tables. However, you have to realize
that good 9-ballers usually aren't just putting the ball in the pocket
but putting it in a particular part of the pocket. Unlike me, who
wishes the pockets were two inches wider on each side.
> > > Pattern play <> 9ball? Now you've lost me.
> > Well, that's pretty obvious. But it's okay--after all, you're only a
> > snooker player.
> Yeah well, you can't have everything in live, now can you? I'll go
> play snooker tonight, much more of a mature game then the 1-through-9-
> connect-the-dots-like-I-did-in-kindergarten ;)
>
That hurts. My friends and I will be waiting for you out on the
playground.
Rob
David Malone
<donal...@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>The pockets are also quite a bit smaller.
And so are the balls, so that's a wash... (grin).
David "The Hamster" Malone
Vader93490
>ran 45 and 62, respectively, in those 2 games. I think that any pro
>level player at any game could become respectable at any other game if
>given the time to practice at it.
Did you play over there or over here in the USA? And did you use your own
personal pool cue or a snooker cue?
At some places I've been to, they advertise "snooker" being available, but the
ball-sets and tables being used aren't quite the same as what I've played with
in the past overseas.
>Each game offers its own particular
>challenge. I'm just tired of hearing how hard snooker is and how much
>better all the players are.
>
>Rob
>
Indeed, each game offers its own challenge. However, snooker is indeed a hard
game and to say otherwise doesn't give the game its just due.
As far as the players being better, that's a hot topic for discussion in its
own right. I remember seeing Stephen Hendry play Steve Mizerak some straight
pool many years ago, and while Hendry did lose in that exhibition match he did
manage a twenty-something run in the first game which I thought was quite
admirable considering he had only picked up a pool cue for the first time in
his life only a week or so prior to that match.
It used to be said that the best snooker players in the world could beat the
best pool players in the world at snooker. Conversely, the best pool players
could beat the best snooker players at pool. After seeing first-hand what real
snooker equipment is all about, it's easy to see how that statement still holds
value IMO.
Vader93490
>Thanks for the link to those videos... Damn those guys are good...
>O'Sullivan's cueball control on that video is just remarkable...
>
>Adam <~~~~~~~~ I think I could run at least 1 ball...
You're welcome.
Yes, they are indeed quite talented, no question about it.
I hope they decide to broadcast the world championships over the 'net again
this year. Hopefully the video quality will be better than last year's and the
price will remain the same.... free! :)
Rob
> If you compare runlengths, measured in balls, not points, for a
> player when he plays 9-ball and when he plays snooker, they are
> usually about the same. Tough tables (like some snooker tables in
> the US) or easy tables (like some pool tables in the US) do make a
> difference, of course, but if you compare "normal" competition
> tables in both sports then the runlengths are usually about the same.
>
> I believe that these runlengths are a particular measure of the
> intrinsic difficulty of games. That measure ignores some aspects of
> tactics, the effect of safety play on the runlength stats, the
> effect of the break shot in short-rack games such as 9-ball on the
> runlength stats, and so on, but it is a way to get to the crux of
> the discussion: the intrinsic difficult of two different games.
>
> A 62-point run in snooker is probably about 15 balls, right? A
> 15-ball run in 9-ball is like breaking and running two racks (not
> counting the balls pocketed on the break shot). Do you think those
> two things would occur at about the same frequency if you were to
> play both games regularly?
Nice post. I don't recall the exact ball count, but that sounds about
right--15 balls. I think if I practiced snooker as much as 9-ball I'd
probably be able to shoot 50 or 60 regularly. I don't know for sure,
though, because snooker doesn't really grab me the way 9-ball and
1-pocket do. But it doesn't strike me as inconceivable. The more I
played, though, the more I think I'd become familiar with the
individual tactics, patterns, and idiosyncracies of snooker, so I
think I could become more consistent.
Rob
Rob
>> Did you play over there or over here in the USA? And did you use
your own
> personal pool cue or a snooker cue?
>
Here in the USA, and I did use my personal pool cue, not a snooker
cue.
> At some places I've been to, they advertise "snooker" being available, but the
> ball-sets and tables being used aren't quite the same as what I've played with
> in the past overseas.
I know what you mean. I've seen the 5x10 "Snooker" tables with the
balls that are somewhere in size between actual snooker balls and pool
balls. But this was a 6x12 and the small balls. It wasn't as difficult
to shoot with a pool cue as I thought it would be, although using any
english was horrendously difficult to do with accuracy.
[snip me]
> Indeed, each game offers its own challenge. However, snooker is indeed a hard
> game and to say otherwise doesn't give the game its just due.
>
No doubt. Any game--snooker, 9-ball, 1-pocket, carom or 3-cushion--is
difficult, in my opinion. If they weren't, we'd all be world
champions.
> As far as the players being better, that's a hot topic for discussion in its
> own right. I remember seeing Stephen Hendry play Steve Mizerak some straight
> pool many years ago, and while Hendry did lose in that exhibition match he did
> manage a twenty-something run in the first game which I thought was quite
> admirable considering he had only picked up a pool cue for the first time in
> his life only a week or so prior to that match.
>
> It used to be said that the best snooker players in the world could beat the
> best pool players in the world at snooker. Conversely, the best pool players
> could beat the best snooker players at pool. After seeing first-hand what real
> snooker equipment is all about, it's easy to see how that statement still holds
> value IMO.
I fully agree with this, actually. I just disagree with the idea that
the best snooker players could beat the best pool players, only
snooker players don't bother. I think anyone who says that doesn't
have much experience playing pool. (And vice versa, as far as the
arguement goes, for pool players beating snooker players, though I
haven't seen that claimed myself).
Rob
Vader93490
>balls that are somewhere in size between actual snooker balls and pool
>balls. But this was a 6x12 and the small balls. It wasn't as difficult
>to shoot with a pool cue as I thought it would be, although using any
>english was horrendously difficult to do with accuracy.
True enough. I must admit that when I first tried the game I did look a little
weird using a big (to the Brits) pool cue. After trying a snooker cue, life
became a little easier although snooker cues take some getting used to.
The only place I've seen a (what I call) true 6x12 snooker table with the right
equipment was at Celebrities in West Palm Beach, FL. The slate was heated IIRC
and that made for an even faster experience.
The other snooker tables were as you referenced... 5x10 or 4 1/2 X 9 with the
balls that are in between the size of real snooker balls and American pool
balls. I will say those tables can be useful if you want to sharpen your 1p
game, if we're thinking of the same thing. :)
>I just disagree with the idea that
>the best snooker players could beat the best pool players, only
>snooker players don't bother.
It's hard to say as they're really two different games as far as the equipment
goes. But keep in mind one thing, there are still a lot of anti-American pool
advocates in the UK.
If Steve Davis and Allison Fisher are any indication, I'm sure the snooker
players could, with enough practice and an appropiate adjustment period, give
the Americans a tough match. The statement also applies to the American pool
players.... with enough practice and an appropiate adjustment period, they
could give the snooker players a tough match.
Tjander Nathoeni
> BTW, you should know that a number of the top 9-ballers *DO* play
> snooker, and very well. Reyes and Bustamante, for example.
> Sigh. I wish. Sadly, they are not broadcast here, and I have no way to
> get any kind of DVDs in a format compatible with my DVD player. Sad,
> really.
Well we're fortunate. We had a Dutch postal worker who became a triple
Embassy Darts World Champion and in the wake came a few of our good
pool players. TV picked up on that.
About your DVD player. You mean you're region-bound? I thought that
was easily fixed.. at least a friend of mine got the advice to turn
his region-bound player to non-region-bound by the salesman in the
shop! Supposed to be something easy like replacing a jumper.
Any cracks reading this? I'm so damn conservative I still record
on VHS (stereo and colour though).
> What you say is true, but it just emphasizes that small mistakes
> become bigger ones on snooker tables. However, you have to realize
> that good 9-ballers usually aren't just putting the ball in the pocket
> but putting it in a particular part of the pocket. Unlike me, who
> wishes the pockets were two inches wider on each side.
I'm not doubting that. Even I try that on close shots. The error you
make gets over-emphasized if you will, on a snookertable. I myself
haven't met any really good nine-ballers so I really can't tell... but
the shot I described that got you responding... I find it hard to
believe that anyone actually plays for that. Even more so because some
shots I make and clearly feel I misjudged them sometimes still go on
a pool table.
> That hurts. My friends and I will be waiting for you out on the
> playground.
LOL!
Cheers,
Tjander
Donald Tees
> If Steve Davis and Allison Fisher are any indication, I'm sure the snooker
> players could, with enough practice and an appropiate adjustment period, give
> the Americans a tough match. The statement also applies to the American pool
> players.... with enough practice and an appropiate adjustment period, they
> could give the snooker players a tough match.
I think you are pretty well spot on with your comments. I play on a
snooker table most of the time, and have played
eightball/cutthroat/snooker on it fairly often with people from ASP/RSB.
In my experience, playing them on the 6*12 gives me a bit of an edge,
but not that big an edge. If they can beat me regualarly on a pool
table, then they can beat me on the 6*12.
Nine ball is problematic, because it is a lousy game on a 6*12(IMO,
anyway). In effect, it is almost the same game as the end-game in
snooker, and I think snooker is a better game for that style table.
Games like cutthroat, on the other hand, tend to be better games, as
they are too easy on a small table. I actually prefer eightball to
snooker ... I am more of a 6*12 table fan than a snooker fan per sey.
I think the biggest bone of contention between snooker and nineball is
simple game length. A seven game match in snooker is a hugely different
contest than a best of seven at nineball. Nineball, in any match of
less than about twenty games, can be pretty well a crap shoot if the
players are good enough. 14.1 is probably a much better game to compare,
as the ability to run extended patterns is reflected much better.
Although it is a change in topic, somewhat, I can't help but feel that
the game of nineball has done the professional circuit in the states a
great deal of harm. Because it is an easier/faster game (in the sense
that running a table is not something that can only be done at the
pro-level), it does not really show the skill involved to the extent
that a snooker table does. It has turned the sport into a bar thing in
the states, like darts. Amateurs EXPECT to be able to compete with the
pro's. At snooker, the lines are a bit more distinct.
Donald
Vader93490
>simple game length. A seven game match in snooker is a hugely different
>contest than a best of seven at nineball.
This is pretty obvious, considering that there are a lot more shortcuts to
winning games of nine ball than there are at snooker.
>Nineball, in any match of
>less than about twenty games, can be pretty well a crap shoot if the
>players are good enough.
You're not taking into account other factors, such as the tightness of the
pockets, the speed of the table, the quality and condition of the balls being
used, air temperature, etc.
>14.1 is probably a much better game to compare,
>as the ability to run extended patterns is reflected much better.
As far as an endurance test, I would agree with you. Snooker matches can run
for extremely long lengths.
>Although it is a change in topic, somewhat, I can't help but feel that
>the game of nineball has done the professional circuit in the states a
>great deal of harm. Because it is an easier/faster game (in the sense
>that running a table is not something that can only be done at the
>pro-level), it does not really show the skill involved to the extent
>that a snooker table does. It has turned the sport into a bar thing in
>the states, like darts. Amateurs EXPECT to be able to compete with the
>pro's. At snooker, the lines are a bit more distinct.
>
>Donald
I don't think nine ball is harmful at all. It's been my observation that
spectators that are just getting into pool for the first time enjoy seeing a
game that's played fast. Straight pool, while it's a good foundation-building
game in its own right, can more times than not move at a maddeningly slow pace
as can one pocket and thus appeals to a smaller segment of the pool fan base
than does nine ball because nine ball showcases speed and power.
dalecue
Rob wrote in message ...news:<40582AA1...@its.tudelft.nl>...
>> I guess you are right about the fact that more snooker players would
>> turn
>> to pool if the prize money is right. Not solely because they are more
>> accurate cueists.
>
>OK, I know you've been trolling for it with a few posts, but I have to
>strike back at the myth that snooker players are more accurate players
>than their "pool" counterparts. We have repeatedly seen that this is
>not the case--witness the results of the Mosconi cup. And if you're
>wondering why I say this . . .
>
>
>> I'm not putting pool
>> down but if on WC level play you can cut a ball into the corner from
>> midtable which has approx a 30 degree angle with the long rail and it
>> hits
>> that long rail one diamond away from the corner and it STILL GOES... I'm
>> sorry but the pockets are just too big.
>
>This has always struck me about snooker-is-so-hard players--they
>always seem to concetrate on the difficulty of pocketing a ball. The
>think is easy until you play on a table with triple-shimmed pockets),
>play is what makes the game hard, not pocketing balls.
>
>>
>> CB on a dimes 10 times but they practice 50 or so. Progressive line-up
>> is common too and I've learned lately that repeated follow and draw and
>> stun shots using none, one and two cushions.
>>
>
>Follow and draw shots using 0,1, and 2 cushions? Wowee. That's routine
>english/spin to travel 3 rails for position on the head rail? So some
>players. Some, like myself, play 2-rail draw shots to land the
>cue-ball in a 3-inch-wide circle at the other end of the table 30 and
>40 times in a row.
>
>I'm not saying snooker is easy, just that it's different. The emphasis
>for good 9-ball players is not on pocketing balls, but on which *way*
>to pocket a ball (e.g., ball first or rail first) to get great
>position for a runout. Mistakes more than not lead to disaster instead
>of "Oh, I'll just pocket that ball down there instead."
>
>>
>> Tjander <- still can only run 8 ball with the big pockets
>
>Slainte,
>Rob
>who ran 45 and 62, respectively, in the only 2 games of snooker he
>ever played
Rob, was that on an English/Canadian big pocket table
or a standard tighter pocket american table?
Dale
Superseal
"dalecue" <pdg...@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Qlc8c.29178$PY1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Rob, was that on an English/Canadian big pocket table
> or a standard tighter pocket american table?
>
> Dale
>
Would you please refer to it as an "A"merican table. I understand your
spelling problems, but please have some respect for the country. How's
Trigger doing?
Superseal <----big Dale fan..........not really!
pltrgyst
<supe...@optonline.net> wrote:
>.... How's Trigger doing?
Pining away for Buttermilk...
-- Larry
Steve Ellis
Now how many people would have remembered the name of Dale's horse? Not me.
Larry
How about the name of Pat's jeep?
-- Larry
John W. Pierce
>
> How about the name of Pat's jeep?
Nellybelle - or maybe "ib" vice "yb". That's too easy. How about the name of
Sky King's airplane? (Note, that's *name*, not make/model).
-- jwp
JAM
>Sky King's airplane? (Note, that's *name*, not make/model).
>
"Songbird"
Surely you remember the long-running show MASH. What was the name of Colonel
Potter's horse?
JAM
John W. Pierce
> What was the name of Colonel
> Potter's horse?
Sophie (and congrats for "Songbird").
-- jwp
JAM
>
Back atcha on "Sophie."
Do you remember the name of the chef on Bonanza?
I've got a 45 rpm record of Lorne Greene singing "Bonanza." The words of one
of the verses makes me chuckle: "...Hoss and Joe and Adam know every rock and
pine. No one works, fights or eats like those boys of mine...."
On the flip side is a song named "Ringo." Wonder if it is worthy anything?
JAM
WilleeCue
then Lorne Green would record a song named Ringo? Or was it the other way
around .... Anyhow .......
HOPSING.
Willee
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040408161439...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Smorgass Bored
trivia players.
What was Ralph Kramden's home phone number on The Honeymooners ?
bonus points: what was "McGyver's" first name...
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
JAM
>What was Ralph Kramden's home phone number on The Honeymooners ?
You got me on that one. Was it ever mentioned on the show?
I get the bonus points on McGyver's first name, though: Angus. :>)
JAM
ratchet
JAM wrote:
> Do you remember the name of the chef on Bonanza?
>
> Hop Sing I think ???
NimBill
>Back atcha on "Sophie."
>
>Do you remember the name of the chef on Bonanza?
Was it Hop Sing?
Ron Hudson
>Do you remember the name of the chef on Bonanza?
http://ponderosascenery.homestead.com/hopsing.html