What's the optimal....

[the lone wolf]

I think one of the biggest draws for an ex-snooker player or a frustrated developing snooker player is that it is so much easier to get involved in professional pool competition. I mean, the money isn't nearly as good, but there are not many hoops to jump through to participate in major tournaments. I watch the amateur snooker competitions when I have time and I see some of the same names over a long period of time. These are guys who have just been trying to get started for almost a decade. If they gave up, they could compete in the US Open next year and just pay the entry fee. That would be like me dropping $1000 to play in the main draw of the UK Championship.

Agree with you!

[Csmith]

Pool is definitely easier to pick up and compete at a higher level. But that's not to say it's easy to master.
A load of ex / failed snooker players turn to pool as its a way of keeping their cue sport status without having to get a day job.

If pool was more difficult there would probably be more commercial interest with more money in the game. As it is there's more money in snooker and if pool players in general thought they could compete then they would switch for financial reasons. As it stands in general, they can't in general compete.
---
But that doesn't mean that pool is not harder to master as a game.
---
My final point would be -
The experience of having played pool at pro level has made me a better snooker player. This I have no doubt.

I think one of the biggest draws for an ex-snooker player or a frustrated developing snooker player is that it is so much easier to get involved in professional pool competition. I mean, the money isn't nearly as good, but there are not many hoops to jump through to participate in major tournaments. I watch the amateur snooker competitions when I have time and I see some of the same names over a long period of time. These are guys who have just been trying to get started for almost a decade. If they gave up, they could compete in the US Open next year and just pay the entry fee. That would be like me dropping $1000 to play in the main draw of the UK Championship.

[the lone wolf]

oh, nah i didnt read the post in its entirety to be honest haha, i just quickly typed something without giving too much thought because i have so much work to do haha.

thats the thing with forum culture though, anyone can take any spin they want on any given point which is open to wide interpretation. think the main thing is that we can recognise its just that and not take it too seriously.

it is however an interesting debate with snooker and pool. i do recognise there are different games. what would be interesting to find out is, how many pool players are playing pool because they couldnt reach levels in snooker. or the other way round if such a thing exists.

i do believe however that a top snooker player have "x" amount of success on a pool circuit which probably isnt reciprocated for pool players.

Pool is definitely easier to pick up and compete at a higher level. But that's not to say it's easy to master.
A load of ex / failed snooker players turn to pool as its a way of keeping their cue sport status without having to get a day job.

If pool was more difficult there would probably be more commercial interest with more money in the game. As it is there's more money in snooker and if pool players in general thought they could compete then they would switch for financial reasons. As it stands in general, they can't in general compete.
---
But that doesn't mean that pool is not harder to master as a game.
---
My final point would be -
The experience of having played pool at pro level has made me a better snooker player. This I have no doubt.

[thai_son22]

Well 'ol Cliff competed and Corey D will compete again this year in Q School... I think?
---
But any way thai_son - You probably didn't read all my post as I did hint at agreeing with you...
However, I don't think Internet Forum Culture allows for one to have an opinion and then back down and agree with someone else - In case it is misinterpreted as conversational debate?!
LOL

oh, nah i didnt read the post in its entirety to be honest haha, i just quickly typed something without giving too much thought because i have so much work to do haha.

thats the thing with forum culture though, anyone can take any spin they want on any given point which is open to wide interpretation. think the main thing is that we can recognise its just that and not take it too seriously.

it is however an interesting debate with snooker and pool. i do recognise there are different games. what would be interesting to find out is, how many pool players are playing pool because they couldnt reach levels in snooker. or the other way round if such a thing exists.

i do believe however that a top snooker player have "x" amount of success on a pool circuit which probably isnt reciprocated for pool players.

[the lone wolf]

id like to think snooker players can compete with pool players. id also like to think it doesnt happen the other way round lol

Well 'ol Cliff competed and Corey D will compete again this year in Q School... I think?
---
But any way thai_son - You probably didn't read all my post as I did hint at agreeing with you...
However, I don't think Internet Forum Culture allows for one to have an opinion and then back down and agree with someone else - In case it is misinterpreted as conversational debate?!
LOL

[thai_son22]

I think you're looking at the exception to the rule, which happens in all sports.
I'm not suggesting that pool is a harder game I'm saying that it is possibly harder to master - there's a difference.
There are many references towards Hendry not having the best safety game in the world yet possessed possibly more bottle and a higher level of break building skills than any of his peers - but he never 'Mastered' the game.
---
You are probably right. Chris Melling is a very good example of a player with extraordinary skills, but can't cut it on the snooker tour - which IMO I think is a mental thing rather than a physical think... But all alludes to the player not being able to 'Master' the game.
---
So taking WC results from both snooker and pool, it could be suggested that to master the game of pool can be achieved by a player aged 30-35 providing they have a natural ability, skill set and flare to learn?

May be no snooker player has ever mastered the game of snooker?
IF ROS had applied himself and dedicated his life to snooker in the same way Hendry and Davis did, then it could be said that right now he could of possibly been the most complete player ever at the age of 40 something?
But dedication and application are both attributes. You have them or you don't.
---
PS - Hendry was only 21 when he won the WC and Michael White was only 14 when he won the world amateur title.

id like to think snooker players can compete with pool players. id also like to think it doesnt happen the other way round lol

[the lone wolf]

No disrespect, but I don't agree that pool is harder to master than snooker.
You're less likely to win 9ball titles (provided you're good enough) simply due to sheer number of participants (more international) and the fact that tournament matches are quite a bit shorter than at snooker. That's all I could think of.

16 year old boy won World 9ball championships back in 2005.
Chris Melling, who neither fit nor particularly young, not really a proper US pool player, but more of a general cueist, has won a big title in 9ball very recently, hasn't he?

Players of all ages and fitness levels can win in 9ball, provided that they're good enough.
It's the same as with snooker even though the game is not quite as demanding.
You have to start very young to potentially be a top pro.
As we have seen starting out early as snooker or UK 8ball player and then later in life switch to 9ball can work too.

I think you're looking at the exception to the rule, which happens in all sports.
I'm not suggesting that pool is a harder game I'm saying that it is possibly harder to master - there's a difference.
There are many references towards Hendry not having the best safety game in the world yet possessed possibly more bottle and a higher level of break building skills than any of his peers - but he never 'Mastered' the game.
---
You are probably right. Chris Melling is a very good example of a player with extraordinary skills, but can't cut it on the snooker tour - which IMO I think is a mental thing rather than a physical think... But all alludes to the player not being able to 'Master' the game.
---
So taking WC results from both snooker and pool, it could be suggested that to master the game of pool can be achieved by a player aged 30-35 providing they have a natural ability, skill set and flare to learn?

May be no snooker player has ever mastered the game of snooker?
IF ROS had applied himself and dedicated his life to snooker in the same way Hendry and Davis did, then it could be said that right now he could of possibly been the most complete player ever at the age of 40 something?
But dedication and application are both attributes. You have them or you don't.
---
PS - Hendry was only 21 when he won the WC and Michael White was only 14 when he won the world amateur title.

[thai_son22]

No disrespect, but I don't agree that pool is harder to master than snooker.
You're less likely to win 9ball titles (provided you're good enough) simply due to sheer number of participants (more international) and the fact that tournament matches are quite a bit shorter than at snooker. That's all I could think of.

16 year old boy won World 9ball championships back in 2005.
Chris Melling, who neither fit nor particularly young, not really a proper US pool player, but more of a general cueist, has won a big title in 9ball very recently, hasn't he?

Players of all ages and fitness levels can win in 9ball, provided that they're good enough.
It's the same as with snooker even though the game is not quite as demanding.
You have to start very young to potentially be a top pro.
As we have seen starting out early as snooker or UK 8ball player and then later in life switch to 9ball can work too.

+1 to that

[ace man]

I agree. The attributes that make up a great player multiple.
Perhaps American Pool is easier to play but harder to master than snooker?
30-35 is an age that is excepted as mature enough to win WCs in American Pool. Whereas from reading this read it could be said that a snooker player can peak between 25-30.
---
In American Pool a player gets fewer chances per match to win. Perhaps here lies the difference?

No disrespect, but I don't agree that pool is harder to master than snooker.
You're less likely to win 9ball titles (provided you're good enough) simply due to sheer number of participants (more international) and the fact that tournament matches are quite a bit shorter than at snooker. That's all I could think of.

16 year old boy won World 9ball championships back in 2005.
Chris Melling, who neither fit nor particularly young, not really a proper US pool player, but more of a general cueist, has won a big title in 9ball very recently, hasn't he?

Players of all ages and fitness levels can win in 9ball, provided that they're good enough.
It's the same as with snooker even though the game is not quite as demanding.
You have to start very young to potentially be a top pro.
As we have seen starting out early as snooker or UK 8ball player and then later in life switch to 9ball can work too.

[the lone wolf]

First round must be completely different than facing John Higgins. I wouldn't criticize Judd's match play as he came very close to beating John. His safeties are fine...on occasion he even forced safety error from Higgins. That's very hard to do.

There are safety drills and I'm sure many players are practising it. There's no way coaches are letting their players to be one dimensional. They'd be eaten alive on pro circuit. This doesn't mean that they'll necessarily become the best safety players of all times.

Some guys are just freaks when it comes to that tactical part of the game...Higgins, Selby, Davis of old...etc. Not sure how one can be THAT good at it.
Just like Judd is a freak when it comes to cue power and long pots...very few people can match that.

I agree. The attributes that make up a great player multiple.
Perhaps American Pool is easier to play but harder to master than snooker?
30-35 is an age that is excepted as mature enough to win WCs in American Pool. Whereas from reading this read it could be said that a snooker player can peak between 25-30.
---
In American Pool a player gets fewer chances per match to win. Perhaps here lies the difference?

[ace man]

Interesting points ace man.
A misspent childhood is the main reason why individuals go on to become pro at their particular sport. As a youth, there is no fear of the game, no accountability to life so 100% dedication and love of the sport prevails IMO.

So does this mean that the current younger generation are not practicing all aspects of the game? Is this the reason why they can make centuries for fun, but don't know their way around the table like angle McManus?

The likes of Judd are now being schooled in real match play when it comes to the WC. I thought Judd looked the real deal this year after winning his first round match. But his game ultimately lacked all aspects of the game for him to become WC.

If Judd is to become WC one day, will this be in an era of high match play with Selby, Williams, Higgins and ROS still competing at a high level or will it happen after they've long gone? When one could argue that the standard of play is lower...

First round must be completely different than facing John Higgins. I wouldn't criticize Judd's match play as he came very close to beating John. His safeties are fine...on occasion he even forced safety error from Higgins. That's very hard to do.

There are safety drills and I'm sure many players are practising it. There's no way coaches are letting their players to be one dimensional. They'd be eaten alive on pro circuit. This doesn't mean that they'll necessarily become the best safety players of all times.

Some guys are just freaks when it comes to that tactical part of the game...Higgins, Selby, Davis of old...etc. Not sure how one can be THAT good at it.
Just like Judd is a freak when it comes to cue power and long pots...very few people can match that.

[thai_son22]

Interesting points ace man.
A misspent childhood is the main reason why individuals go on to become pro at their particular sport. As a youth, there is no fear of the game, no accountability to life so 100% dedication and love of the sport prevails IMO.

So does this mean that the current younger generation are not practicing all aspects of the game? Is this the reason why they can make centuries for fun, but don't know their way around the table like angle McManus?

The likes of Judd are now being schooled in real match play when it comes to the WC. I thought Judd looked the real deal this year after winning his first round match. But his game ultimately lacked all aspects of the game for him to become WC.

If Judd is to become WC one day, will this be in an era of high match play with Selby, Williams, Higgins and ROS still competing at a high level or will it happen after they've long gone? When one could argue that the standard of play is lower...

the standard of play hasnt reached new heights. what has changed is the level of lower ranked players has increased. Take a hendry, osullivan, williams, and higgins and their peak. theyd still be winning all the tournaments in this era that they did in the 90s and 00s. the only other player id add into that category who would continue to win along side these players at their peak is selby. but these 5 certainly wont be knocking one another off the top spot. all very great in their own right

[the lone wolf]

Depends on player. Some have peaked at 25 (Hendry), while some at 40 or thereabouts (Bingham, Mark Davis...etc). There are no rules.
One thing is certain though. Those champions who continue to win big trophies while being somewhat "old" have all started at a very very young age.

Oldies winning doesn't mean that one can start with snooker at 30 and expect to be competitive at pro tournaments at 50. This has never happened...and it never will. You need to start very young to be a top pro.
Why haven't Hendry and Steve Davis produced top form after 40 then? Maybe they were drained mentally. Who knows, maybe they themselves stared to believe stories that they were old and past their prime.
Makes a lot of difference who you listen too.

What I notice about younger players is that they are slightly behind not only in tactical department, but also in developing of the clusters of reds.
I don't think you will see under 20 guys play delicate cannons as well as Higgins or Williams. Or Selby or Ronnie.
It is also possible that class of 1992. were better at 20 than todays 20 year olds. In fact I'm certain about it. No shame in that though. Some generations are a bit special, that's all.

Interesting points ace man.
A misspent childhood is the main reason why individuals go on to become pro at their particular sport. As a youth, there is no fear of the game, no accountability to life so 100% dedication and love of the sport prevails IMO.

So does this mean that the current younger generation are not practicing all aspects of the game? Is this the reason why they can make centuries for fun, but don't know their way around the table like angle McManus?

The likes of Judd are now being schooled in real match play when it comes to the WC. I thought Judd looked the real deal this year after winning his first round match. But his game ultimately lacked all aspects of the game for him to become WC.

If Judd is to become WC one day, will this be in an era of high match play with Selby, Williams, Higgins and ROS still competing at a high level or will it happen after they've long gone? When one could argue that the standard of play is lower...

[the lone wolf]

I have to imagine that young players are capable of developing to be match players early on. I mean, if you can have 20sumthing chess grandmasters, surely you can have match players developing early on. If I had to guess, I think there might be a culture amongst the juniors to focus on potting and break building at the expense of other areas of the game. It's about getting more and more centuries since many players are likely inspired by Hendry and O'Sullivan (not that Ronnie can't play match snooker) as opposed to John Higgins or now Mark Selby. But it is fast exciting players that often motivate people to play. I still see some people doing their best Alex Higgins impression.

Shots for show,
Points for doe...
In the heat of the battle the player must do all they can to win.
That's providing the player has all strategic moves at hand.

[ace man]

Depends on player. Some have peaked at 25 (Hendry), while some at 40 or thereabouts (Bingham, Mark Davis...etc). There are no rules.
One thing is certain though. Those champions who continue to win big trophies while being somewhat "old" have all started at a very very young age.

Oldies winning doesn't mean that one can start with snooker at 30 and expect to be competitive at pro tournaments at 50. This has never happened...and it never will. You need to start very young to be a top pro.
Why haven't Hendry and Steve Davis produced top form after 40 then? Maybe they were drained mentally. Who knows, maybe they themselves stared to believe stories that they were old and past their prime.
Makes a lot of difference who you listen too.

What I notice about younger players is that they are slightly behind not only in tactical department, but also in developing of the clusters of reds.
I don't think you will see under 20 guys play delicate cannons as well as Higgins or Williams. Or Selby or Ronnie.
It is also possible that class of 1992. were better at 20 than todays 20 year olds. In fact I'm certain about it. No shame in that though. Some generations are a bit special, that's all.