Is snooker harder than golf?

[rksquire]

They're both hard, being average (as an amateur) in either requires a decent degree of ability and skill; being good at either requires a fair bit of practice. They are also really hard to compare - as has been said, golf has a lot of variables (slopes, weather, distance, obstacles, lie, etc.) but snooker if you think about it probably as many..... sometimes the ball is just far enough on the table where you can repeat a cueing action, sometimes it's against the cushion, sometimes you have to stretch, sometimes you have to use a rest, sometimes you have to bridge over another ball; the balls are in a different position every time (apart from breaking of) and not only do you have to accumulate points by potting balls you have to control the ball you've hit with spin, pace and control so that you're in a position to continue scoring.

I'm not very good at snooker, I've one break in the 30s, but I'm still better than all the friends I've played with; I'm also not very good at golf, but I probably play the shots I want with a 75%-80% success rate; my success rate at snooker is nowhere near that.

 

[MarkT]

In the first lockdown a friend replayed the entire 1982 Snooker World Championships. He even bought a Steve Davis wig. This was the highlight of the fortnight at the Crucible (his front room in Saltaire)...

 

[sunshine]

This is a tough question because it is so vague. Let's try and add some specifics.

Total beginner:
How would someone who has never played snooker before fair on a full size championship table?
I expect they will be able to hit the cue ball, hit the object ball (sometimes), maybe even pot a ball, no breaks though, no control of the cue ball.
Imagine they then played for 4 hours a day, how would they do after a few weeks practice? What about after a few months practice?

How would someone who has never played golf before fair on a full size championship course?
I expect they would struggle to hit the ball, let alone play the course.
Imagine they then played for 4 hours a day, how would they do after a few weeks practice (without professional coaching)? Still probably not ready to step on the 1st tee at Royal St Georges. What about after a few months practice?

As a beginner, golf is much much harder than snooker. But we all have different learning curves and then reach a plateau. That plateau will be different for each sport and breaking through the plateau will come at a different time for everyone.

 

[Jimaroid]

What are you talking about? That wouldn't be snooker then would it that would be something else you invented!

OK, what's your proposed method for an objective comparison?

 

[sunshine]

Again, I disagree but for the sake of argument.

Let's make a 200yard long snooker table.

Do my experiment again.

What's harder?

Exactly! You've completely proven the point that golf is harder. Snooker is only 12 foot max, easy peasy. Imagine if you had to pot a ball 500 yards in 5 goes, over an uneven surface from different lies, factoring in wind and weather conditions, maybe including having to hit it over water. Golf is so much harder this isn't even a debate.

Thank you!

 

[Jimaroid]

Exactly! You've completely proven the point that golf is harder. Snooker is only 12 foot max, easy peasy. Imagine if you had to pot a ball 500 yards in 5 goes, over an uneven surface from different lies, factoring in wind and weather conditions, maybe including having to hit it over water. Golf is so much harder this isn't even a debate.

Don't think so, you've changed the constraints again.

If we did what you proposed: potting a ball over 500 yards factoring in all environmental conditions AND the requirement to use two balls "because it's snooker", then Snooker would remain more difficult.

 

[chrisd]

This is a tough question because it is so vague. Let's try and add some specifics.

Total beginner:
How would someone who has never played snooker before fair on a full size championship table?
I expect they will be able to hit the cue ball, hit the object ball (sometimes), maybe even pot a ball, no breaks though, no control of the cue ball.
Imagine they then played for 4 hours a day, how would they do after a few weeks practice? What about after a few months practice?

How would someone who has never played golf before fair on a full size championship course?
I expect they would struggle to hit the ball, let alone play the course.
Imagine they then played for 4 hours a day, how would they do after a few weeks practice (without professional coaching)? Still probably not ready to step on the 1st tee at Royal St Georges. What about after a few months practice?

As a beginner, golf is much much harder than snooker. But we all have different learning curves and then reach a plateau. That plateau will be different for each sport and breaking through the plateau will come at a different time for everyone.

As I said earlier on : 4 hours of snooker is 2 to 4 hours of practice , 4 hours of golf is 10 minutes of hitting.

 

[Dibby]

This thread will continue ad-infinitum, but lets throw a few more variables in the mix.

You can't compare snooker scores and golf scores directly and as percentages, because in snooker your opponent can dictate your score by how they leave the table. Also in snooker, you can pull off amazing shots, but depending what colour they are on they are assigned a different value for the same skill. E.g by comparing score a simple tap in on a black is worth more than a long pot off the cushion at a complicated angle on the red.

How do you define difficulty, just purely on ability to score or how you score? On an easy, wide open short course with a caddy to make them play sensibly, most reasonable golfers could get close to or beat par, even if they only ever hit a mid iron. So if purely on score achievable golf seems easier, but what happens when you lengthen the course and put in forced carries, island greens and all that nonsense?

This is where I have an interesting hypothesis, at snooker to get a high score you also have to be very skilful, you have to be able to hit all the shots. In golf because of the variability, there are different ways to do things, on non-elite set ups, you can shoot par being a deadly accurate short hitter, or being wild with good recovery skills, etc... So we end up with a situation where there can be lots of people who score well, but can't do all of the skills that would make them elite, like bomb the ball 350 yards.

One last thing to mull over - people are trying to compare snooker and golf, so lets put a hypothetical out there. You've been wrongly accused of some misbehaviour, you will be put to death unless you beat the current top ranked player in the world at either golf or snooker at least 1 time in 50 attempts. Which game do you choose?

 

[Orikoru]

OK, what's your proposed method for an objective comparison?

You can only compare them for what they are - changing one game to try and suit the other doesn't make it a valid comparison.

In summary my points of comparison are:
Technique in striking the object ball - golf is technically more difficult.
Distance to target - in golf the target is much further away.
External factors - golf has far more variables such as weather and ground conditions.

Those are the only unquestionable comparison points in my view, everything else comes down to opinions and conjecture, and how much the individual has practised at either game, or has natural flair for it.

 

[Crow]

This thread will continue ad-infinitum, but lets throw a few more variables in the mix.

You can't compare snooker scores and golf scores directly and as percentages, because in snooker your opponent can dictate your score by how they leave the table. Also in snooker, you can pull off amazing shots, but depending what colour they are on they are assigned a different value for the same skill. E.g by comparing score a simple tap in on a black is worth more than a long pot off the cushion at a complicated angle on the red.

How do you define difficulty, just purely on ability to score or how you score? On an easy, wide open short course with a caddy to make them play sensibly, most reasonable golfers could get close to or beat par, even if they only ever hit a mid iron. So if purely on score achievable golf seems easier, but what happens when you lengthen the course and put in forced carries, island greens and all that nonsense?

This is where I have an interesting hypothesis, at snooker to get a high score you also have to be very skilful, you have to be able to hit all the shots. In golf because of the variability, there are different ways to do things, on non-elite set ups, you can shoot par being a deadly accurate short hitter, or being wild with good recovery skills, etc... So we end up with a situation where there can be lots of people who score well, but can't do all of the skills that would make them elite, like bomb the ball 350 yards.

One last thing to mull over - people are trying to compare snooker and golf, so lets put a hypothetical out there. You've been wrongly accused of some misbehaviour, you will be put to death unless you beat the current top ranked player in the world at either golf or snooker at least 1 time in 50 attempts. Which game do you choose?

Simple, snooker.
Get a good break under your belt and you've effectively frozen your opponent out of the game.

 

[Crow]

You can only compare them for what they are - changing one game to try and suit the other doesn't make it a valid comparison.

In summary my points of comparison are:
Technique in striking the object ball - golf is technically more difficult.
Distance to target - in golf the target is much further away.
External factors - golf has far more variables such as weather and ground conditions.

Those are the only unquestionable comparison points in my view, everything else comes down to opinions and conjecture, and how much the individual has practised at either game, or has natural flair for it.

And when did you last see a bunker on a snooker table?

 

[greenone]

As Snooker uses two balls colliding in order to progress the game it will appear more difficult than golf.
However, as the game is played on, literally, a level playing field the only influences on the outcome of the shot are pace and angle of contact.
If you play on the same table you will, quite quickly become comfortable with the pace - much like the speed of greens in golf.
Angle of contact can be learnt in much the same way that reading greens is learnt...the principles are broadly similar.

Except the angle of contact varies with pace much like break when putting. And you've completely ignored how any spin effects the contact.
Also the cloth has a grain which affects the balls especially at slow speed.

 

[JustOne]

You've been wrongly accused of some misbehaviour, you will be put to death unless you beat the current top ranked player in the world at either golf or snooker at least 1 time in 50 attempts. Which game do you choose?

I would choose snooker.

 

[Orikoru]

One last thing to mull over - people are trying to compare snooker and golf, so lets put a hypothetical out there. You've been wrongly accused of some misbehaviour, you will be put to death unless you beat the current top ranked player in the world at either golf or snooker at least 1 time in 50 attempts. Which game do you choose?

I would absolutely choose golf. No chance of winning either, but at least I get 50 more rounds of golf in before I die that way.

 

[Jimaroid]

Technique in striking the object ball - golf is technically more difficult.

Not in all types of shot. Putting and cueing are equivalent with arms, hand and eye coordination.

Distance to target - in golf the target is much further away.

An indisputable fact, most of the time, until we get to the last "few" feet of the green. However, just because something is further away doesn't make it harder to learn. I'd argue that it's easier for someone to learn "hit the ball further" than it is to learn "cue this this white ball, pot that red ball, spin to bounce off these two cushions, leaving the white ball at this small area here so you can pot the black ball with the right angle to leave you this red ball that's hovering over the pocket on the other side of the table"

External factors - golf has far more variables such as weather and ground conditions.

True, but this only affects your one ball, one shot at a time. It's relatively easy to build of model of one ball in flight in your head. In snooker the cascade of many balls with external factors like multiple contacts, spin, knap, cushion bounce as well as an opponent who can literally move you onto an entirely different of problems at any table visit. Imagine your golfing opponent in match play could put you golf ball in a bunker on a different hole instead of advancing their own score forward like they can in snooker.

Anyway, I agree, you can't make direct comparisons. Which is why I think it's interesting to create scenarios where they are close to equivalent and think about which I think is more difficult at their core. I still think it's snooker. More balls is more problems.

 

[evemccc]

The debate has rolled on and on, with some good points on both sides about tuition, weather, repeatability of technique, mastery and tech change. Some less good points from some posters being also made at times too..

Another thing to consider is what sport would you rather be an elite pro at? Objectively, and long, long before I took up golf I decided that the best sport to be a world class elite at golf..

- longer career than almost any other sport (less chance of injuries etc curtailing)
- pleasant outdoors in fresh-air non-contact game
- less idiotic, tribalistic fans - at least outside of Ryder Cups
- rich sport, high prize money and endorsements
- travel in Europe, N. Am, Asia, Aus, Africa

Tennis would be awesome for the grand slams and gladitorial atmosphere of a packed Centre Court, and the 1 on 1 for beating your opponent, and cricket would also be great for the culture and the team atmosphere when winning. But golf would be my no 1

 

[chrisd]

This thread will continue ad-infinitum, but lets throw a few more variables in the mix.

You can't compare snooker scores and golf scores directly and as percentages, because in snooker your opponent can dictate your score by how they leave the table. Also in snooker, you can pull off amazing shots, but depending what colour they are on they are assigned a different value for the same skill. E.g by comparing score a simple tap in on a black is worth more than a long pot off the cushion at a complicated angle on the red.

How do you define difficulty, just purely on ability to score or how you score? On an easy, wide open short course with a caddy to make them play sensibly, most reasonable golfers could get close to or beat par, even if they only ever hit a mid iron. So if purely on score achievable golf seems easier, but what happens when you lengthen the course and put in forced carries, island greens and all that nonsense?

This is where I have an interesting hypothesis, at snooker to get a high score you also have to be very skilful, you have to be able to hit all the shots. In golf because of the variability, there are different ways to do things, on non-elite set ups, you can shoot par being a deadly accurate short hitter, or being wild with good recovery skills, etc... So we end up with a situation where there can be lots of people who score well, but can't do all of the skills that would make them elite, like bomb the ball 350 yards.

One last thing to mull over - people are trying to compare snooker and golf, so lets put a hypothetical out there. You've been wrongly accused of some misbehaviour, you will be put to death unless you beat the current top ranked player in the world at either golf or snooker at least 1 time in 50 attempts. Which game do you choose?

Golf when its snowing

 

[Orikoru]

Not in all types of shot. Putting and cueing are equivalent with arms, hand and eye coordination.



An indisputable fact, most of the time, until we get to the last "few" feet of the green. However, just because something is further away doesn't make it harder to learn. I'd argue that it's easier for someone to learn "hit the ball further" than it is to learn "cue this this white ball, pot that red ball, spin to bounce off these two cushions, leaving the white ball at this small area here so you can pot the black ball with the right angle to leave you this red ball that's hovering over the pocket on the other side of the table"



True, but this only affects your one ball, one shot at a time. It's relatively easy to build of model of one ball in flight in your head. In snooker the cascade of many balls with external factors like multiple contacts, spin, knap, cushion bounce as well as an opponent who can literally move you onto an entirely different of problems at any table visit. Imagine your golfing opponent in match play could put you golf ball in a bunker on a different hole instead of advancing their own score forward like they can in snooker.

Anyway, I agree, you can't make direct comparisons. Which is why I think it's interesting to create scenarios where they are close to equivalent and think about which I think is more difficult at their core. I still think it's snooker. More balls is more problems.

Putting probably is a closer similarity to cueing, but there's so much more to golf than just putting of course. And more balls also gives you more options - one red is snookered, pot a different one. If your golf ball is snookered behind a tree, well that's you stuffed. Admittedly your opponent can't smack your ball over there though!

All good points other than that, I have nothing more to add, as you correctly state, there's no correct answer to arrive at after all.

 

[sunshine]

Don't think so, you've changed the constraints again.

If we did what you proposed: potting a ball over 500 yards factoring in all environmental conditions AND the requirement to use two balls "because it's snooker", then Snooker would remain more difficult.

Exactly! Point proven. Navigating a ball over 500 yards in all environmental conditions is so much harder than 12 feet indoors on a perfectly flat surface.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Golf is way harder.

If you're not very good at snooker you play a few shots and spend most of the game sat on your backside on a comfy chair! If you want to you can even drink a load of pints whilst your opponent cleans up!

If you're rubbish at golf you've got to hit loads of shots, whilst having to walk about 5 miles doing so......and probably sober!! ?