Originally posted by Poison GodmachineSorry for leaving it so long in replying - I've only just stopped laughing! I'm not sure where to start. You said that you have played snooker. What is your highest break? If it is more than 30 I might consider listening to you. Mine is 73. My contention is this. The world champion snooker player, with a bit of practice, could beat the best 9-Ball players. However the 9-Ball player would have no chance at snooker. The point is that you can get away with a poor cue action in pool, due to the size of the pockets (a poor cue action in snooker would mean you would be unable to make a sizeable break). I'm not even going to argue the point about side. Take it from me that professional snooker players are incredibly skillfull in it's use and use it far more than is apparent to your untrained eye.
And you have clearly never played one pocket, or 14.1 Continuous.
Contrary to your erroneous assumption, I have watched a great deal of snooker during my travels in India and England. I have also played the game many times, not only in Europe, Africa, and Asia, but here in my home town of Seattle. I have seen snooker players perform many great ...[text shortened]... ith side spin and generate an executable leave while simultaneously pocketing the target ball.
Does anyone who has played the game wish to back me up on this?
Originally posted by ianpickeringyes i`ll back you up snooker players cue action is everything, perfect example Tony Drago a decent snooker player but no where near the top players like Hendry,Williams ect is currently taking the pool world by storm we rest our case.😉
Sorry for leaving it so long in replying - I've only just stopped laughing! I'm not sure where to start. You said that you have played snooker. What is your highest break? If it is more than 30 I might consider listening to you. Mine is 73. My contention is this. The world champion snooker player, with a bit of practice, could beat the best 9-Ball pla ...[text shortened]... apparent to your untrained eye.
Does anyone who has played the game wish to back me up on this?
4 edits
Originally posted by ianpickeringI will contend that if my score on a break is more than thirty, you still would not correctly read my posts.
Sorry for leaving it so long in replying - I've only just stopped laughing! I'm not sure where to start. You said that you have played snooker. What is your highest break? If it is more than 30 I might consider listening to you. Mine ...[text shortened]... .
Does anyone who has played the game wish to back me up on this?
Let me make my opinions in this thread explicitly clear, since you are clearly unable to comprehend the simplest of contentions (I'll grant that Varg appears to have seen my points...I'm not directing this at him).
The initial question in this thread asked why pool pockets are larger. I posited my reasons for believing so. At one point in my life, I considered myself a formidable amateur player (based on winning money in tournaments), hence my opinion on the subject. At no point did I contend that pool was more difficult than snooker (the top 9-ball players in this country are all Europeans who cut their proverbial teeth on snooker).
I'll put this in all caps so you will be sure to read it: POOL POCKETS ARE LARGER BECAUSE POOL REQUIRES A DIFFERENT SET OF SKILLS THAN DOES SNOOKER.
Crikey, is that clear enough?
I think your opinions on pool are tempered by a love for snooker that precludes you from properly rationalizing about what it takes to be an elite Amercan pool player.
I am NOT arguing that snooker is an easier game. At no point did I say that. I simply offered reasons as to why pool pockets are larger. American pool and snooker are two markedly different games.
ianpickering, you say:
"The amount of throw on a pool table is very easy to judge - I've tried it."
If it's so easy to judge, why are you not a competitive 9-ball player?
The word "easy" implies that someone with less than average skill can be successful the majority of the time. If you've ever played snooker or pool on a regular basis, you'd realize that this is simply not true.
You know what? I'm done arguing about this ludicrous and relatively unimportant subject. If you are so blind as to be unable to properly reconcile my points with your own, there is no point in attempting to reason with you.
I wish you the best of luck on your next trip to Las Vegas to compete in a 9-ball tournament.
QED
EDITS: meh speling = teh suxors
Originally posted by Poison GodmachineOf course he can't read your posts with your avatar distracting him.
I will contend that if my score on a break is more than thirty, you still would not correctly read my posts.
Let me make my opinions in this thread explicitly clear, since you are clearly unable to comprehend the simplest of contentions (I'll grant that Varg appears to have seen my points...I'm not directing this at him).
The initial questi ...[text shortened]... ip to Las Vegas to compete in a 9-ball tournament.
QED
EDITS: meh speling = teh suxors
dear headbanger , i know how difficult pool is i`m a decent pool player myself and i know its much easier to control the white ball on a snooker table because its lighter i myself have had breaks of 60+ at snooker but still find 9 ball difficult , easy to pot but hard to control the white so my answer is the pockets are larger because its better for potting and therefor better for television but also because its harder to keep control of the white which is what the game is all about.😉