It's true, there is a culture of snooker players moving to pool but rarely the reverse. In some cases, the snooker players who transfer simply can't cut professional grade snooker (Majid, Pagulayan, Hundal). Other times, snooker legends are looking for a new challenge (O'Sullivan, Davis). I remember Ronnie actually said he was going to play left-handed for a whole year and see how he'd do. Other points to consider are the fact that world-class pool tournaments can be and are won by, on average, younger players than snooker tournaments of the same caliber, the exception being that young chinese snooker player that won recently. Coming from both a pool and snooker background, i can say that there is a larger learning curve for snooker, and structurally it can seem like a more difficult game. But as I've pointed out before, 9 and 10-ball pool games are inherently variant in the layout of tables because of the speed of tables, the infinite combinations of break styles and caroms provides a richer experience as a player. It could just be that pool players don't even attempt to switch over because they're perfectly content playing pool. Luck and chance are certainly a factor even in pro pool tournaments, and the variations in the game I would say are less limited than in a game like snooker where break shots are primarily safe breaks, the layout of the different colored balls are fixed, and drills are a little more rigid. Snooker and pool are two different games altogether, and prematurely judging and comparing them in such a general way has let this pool/snooker debate continue for decades. [edit] by the by, I can't stand watching ESPN pool tournaments. the match structure (2 5-game sets wtf?) and the commentary is just awful and uninformed. they can't even say the names of the players sometimes -_-
