9-Ball
Topic: 9 ball equivalent to 147???

On 2007-12-21 11:24 , NighthawkBlack Wrote:

I agree there is luck in 9 ball, but remember the first ever World Champ 147 involved a fluke on the first red by Cliff Thorburn. Also when a snooker player trys to break the pack he must trust to some luck that either a/ he doesn't get hampered or snookered on the next red and b/ he doesn't pot a red by mistake if a plant is on.

I think there is no definitive answer to pools equivalent to a 147. In 9 ball for example to run ten racks you'd have to get ten breaks where the next ball is potable. Whereas in snooker you play one frame. For the record Eddie Charlton is the only player to have made 2 consecutive centuries without his opponent having a shot. He made a century in one frame and then the next frame broke off and potted a ball and made a century. I'm a mind of useless info.

I think that you can possibly compare a 150 in straight pool to say 10 run outs in 9 ball. The only thing to compare with a 147 in my opinion would be a score of 500 or more in billiards. But if you think about it (with the exception of a free ball) a 147 is the maximum break. Once thats done you can't score more as there are no more balls. In 9 ball and billiards and straight pool you can keep going rack after rack.

I have waffled on but it is an interesting question that can not be answered to everyones satisfaction.


-----------------
Multiple winner of the Solihull Wednesday knockout competition.

150 straight pool!! come on guys!!

thorston runs 150 everytime he goes to table nearly!

and cardman am also told by several good sources that earl got around 6-700,000 dollars in the end!

how can hann run 11 racks in world masters when its only race to 8s???lol

I would say around a 350 run at 14.1 is the equivalent of a 147.

I'd say not to bother comparing the two. Two different games. Its just awesome that people can run 400 in straight and that people make maximums in snooker. Good stuff.

On 2007-12-21 16:25 , dynamitedaz Wrote:

He definately ran 11 against him sometime lol. I think it was a tournament where they played it in the shopping mall and the players entered the arena by coming down a lift. Maybe I dreamt it lol.

The only tournament I have seen where players come down a lift in a shopping mall was a trick shot championship. It's on You Tube somewhere.

The World Pool Masters used to be played at the Lakeside Shopping Centre.

That tournament would be the masters from 97 and 98, as well as the trickshot championships from those years. if anyone has this footage, please contact me.

That tournament would be the masters from 97 and 98, as well as the trickshot championships from those years. if anyone has this footage, please contact me.

interesting views

so going back to my original question running 10 racks then is the equilavent!

ill maybe do that in about 20 years time then haha

It was C J Wiley that told me Earl got $200,000. beat that

On 2007-12-21 18:08 , mal_clarke Wrote:

you must have dreamt it pal because its never happened!

he might run 11 balls!

was around 600-700k simon he got!

get some work done

Yeah its around what Daz said.

He, he! Must be sour grapes from C J. I heard there is no love lost between them these days.

Work? I am free.....free I tell you! Till the 4th Jan anyway.

Does anyone think Fatima Whitbread would be a good darts player? - she throws the Javelin but thought it was a fair comparison?

Linford Christie would be the best 1500 meter runner if he kept that pace up - anyone think he could do it?

ok - you can argue that pool and snooker are both cuesports, but this argument is a complete waste of time IMO.

If you can get a century - fair play!, if you run 150 plus balls everytime in Straight pool - fair play! -

end of chat, surely gents.

Ossie........ Talking straight....

Hehe... People have been trying to compare a nine dart finish to a 147 for years now Craig... don't stop our fun

Go on Ossie lol

I agree with you wholeheartedly on your post though, they are both equilivent though in the sense that a 147 and a high run of 150+, are both as difficult to do, but in their respective cuesports and like you say, they cann't really be compared as the equipment used differs from each cuesport

At the same time though, it's kinda fun to have discussions like this

Each and every cuesports as it's difficulties and simplicities, that's what makes them enjoyable to the individual who enjoyes participating and/or observing them

Willie

well it takes some comparing to a 147 - and i dont think that there is a pool equivalent; due to the table size, potting difficulty and level of positional accuracy that is needed..........in shrt, perfection on a pool table is far easier to achieve than on a snooker table

On 2007-12-23 19:26 , Cletus Wrote:

That is an easy misconception to have, yes the table size and object of the game are different, but at the same time, in snooker, you gotta play in a particular sequence, red, colour, red, colour, right up till clearing the colours in sequence, but this is all done within 1 frame.

In straight pool, you can shoot any ball, but you need to be able to run the balls in such a way that you can leave a good key ball, in order to leave yourself on a good break shot for the next rack, and a run of 150 is done over 10+ racks, which requires not only being able to manouver through the different racks, but being able to repeatedly leave a good key ball and a good break ball, in order to have the best chance to keep a run going

It's like I said before, both cuesports have their simplicities and difficulties and there's no-one that can convince me that a 147 is harder to achieve than a 150 and out in straight pool, and the same vice versa because they are completely different cuesports and that's all there is to it

Willie


-----------------
If ya got 'em, smoke 'em