Stance: Something you may not have heard before.

[JoeyA]

The following quote by Bob Henning is something I have wanted to put into words for a long time. I believe that playing pool is extremely individualistic. Bob believes that the stance is very much so.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did and that it brings you to thinking more clearly about your game.

Simplicity

“In scientific thought, the simple always overrules the complex. For instance, even though we can make a mathematical explanation that proves the sun revolves around the earth, you won’t get any great minds to agree with you. Why? Because the mathematical explanation of the earth revolving around the sun is about a thousand times less complicated.

This concept of simplicity applies to engineering, invention, and all other fields of knowledge and application. The simplest machine that will do the work is the most efficient—the less moving parts, the better.

How does this apply to the fundamentals of pool? Let’s take a look at your stance as an example. The most efficient stance for you, for any particular shot, is the stance which is the simplest to successfully execute that shot. Your most efficient stance is decided by the make-up of your body. It is determined by your bone structure, cartilage, and musculature.

A simple stance is free of extraneous twists and turns. It is the natural fall of your body when it is lined up on the shot. Your most simple and dependable stance is unique and specific to you, not contrived to answer requirements set by someone else. You are senior to the stance, not the other way around.

In practice, look at your fundamentals from this point of view and start cleaning out the junk that makes them complicated. There is power in simplicity. Simplicity is the key to efficiency.”

If you want to visit Bob Henning's webstore, you can do so by clicking here. Bob has a lot of GREAT products if you want to improve your game.

 

[TheThaiger]

The following quote by Bob Henning is something I have wanted to put into words for a long time. I believe that playing pool is extremely individualistic. Bob believes that the stance is very much so.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did and that it brings you to thinking more clearly about your game.

Simplicity

“In scientific thought, the simple always overrules the complex. For instance, even though we can make a mathematical explanation that proves the sun revolves around the earth, you won’t get any great minds to agree with you. Why? Because the mathematical explanation of the earth revolving around the sun is about a thousand times less complicated.

This concept of simplicity applies to engineering, invention, and all other fields of knowledge and application. The simplest machine that will do the work is the most efficient—the less moving parts, the better.

How does this apply to the fundamentals of pool? Let’s take a look at your stance as an example. The most efficient stance for you, for any particular shot, is the stance which is the simplest to successfully execute that shot. Your most efficient stance is decided by the make-up of your body. It is determined by your bone structure, cartilage, and musculature.

A simple stance is free of extraneous twists and turns. It is the natural fall of your body when it is lined up on the shot. Your most simple and dependable stance is unique and specific to you, not contrived to answer requirements set by someone else. You are senior to the stance, not the other way around.

In practice, look at your fundamentals from this point of view and start cleaning out the junk that makes them complicated. There is power in simplicity. Simplicity is the key to efficiency.”

If you want to visit Bob Henning's webstore, you can do so by clicking here. Bob has a lot of GREAT products if you want to improve your game.

This nonsense is why pool in America is where it is.

 

[BasementDweller]

I'm not sold on this either.

Some things in life aren't so simple. I made changes to my stance that were not very comfortable in the short term, but they worked out much better in the long term. Just choosing a stance based on whether or not you can quickly pocket the shot in front of you is why I see 47 different stances every week on league night.

It has been the norm on AZ to just say use whatever stance you feel most comfortable with. I don't believe all stances are created equal. It may be above my pay grade to explain why that is, but I do know a bad stance when I see one, and I see a lot of them.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hi Joey,

Good post. I agree regarding the stance.

I would take one word out of context to qualify. That word being efficient in all of it's forms.

The term efficient is a relative term and should be qualified especially when associated with simplistic being more efficient.

For example. A field of sugar cane needs to be harvested in time to make a train leaving for the mill. Would one person with a simple cane knife be more efficient than one man driving a very complex tractor driven harvesting machine?

Simplstic does not always mean more efficient or more effective given the intended outcome or goal. IMHO

Best Regards to You &

 

[CJ Wiley]

there are rules to building a strong foundation, it's certainly not "natural".

This nonsense is why pool in America is where it is.

We all don't believe this Thaiger....there are rules to building a strong foundation, it's certainly not "natural".

 

[Alf Taylor]

My two cents.

I believe if you are in your shooting stance and someone can push you off balance any direction with a couple of fingers, you are not down solid.

But, really, how many times has that happened.
Keep it firm. Alfie

 

[Cornerman]

This concept of simplicity applies to engineering, invention, and all other fields of knowledge and application. The simplest machine that will do the work is the most efficient—the less moving parts, the better.

The problem I have with this statement that in general, it's not true.

"Less moving parts" or "less complex" be it engineering or athleticism (biomechanics) normally means greater loss because you're trying to do a motion, action, with something that couldn't possibly be the most effective due to its "less complexity" or "less moving parts" scenario. It's obvious in things like pitching and shot putting as well as catalytic converters and power recovery in cars.

A wheel is more efficient than pushing a block with no wheels, but is more complex. A wheel with proper wheel bearings are more efficient, but much more complex than a wheel with no bearings. A perfectly CNC'd wheel with precision bearings is more efficient and more complex...

Freddie <~~~ thinks "less complex" is a complex topic

 

[ENGLISH!]

The problem I have with this statement that in general, it's not true.

"Less moving parts" or "less complex" be it engineering or athleticism (biomechanics) normally means greater loss because you're trying to do a motion, action, with something that couldn't possibly be the most effective due to its "less complexity" or "less moving parts" scenario. It's obvious in things like pitching and shot putting as well as catalytic converters and power recovery in cars.

A wheel is more efficient than pushing a block with no wheels, but is more complex. A wheel with proper wheel bearings are more efficient, but much more complex than a wheel with no bearings. A perfectly CNC'd wheel with precision bearings is more efficient and more complex...

Freddie <~~~ thinks "less complex" is a complex topic

Mr. Freddie,

You elborated on my point very well. Now other than stance, where might such logic be involved related to pool? Thanks in advance.

Best Regards to You &

 

[bdorman]

Efficiency is achieving the desired outcome with the least amount of effort. Engineers and designers are in a constant struggle to get the best outcome with the least effort.

In sports like pool, golf, baseball, etc. that generally means using the most fluid motion possible (shortest distance from A to B). But while a pitcher could shorten and simplify his wind-up and delivery (throw like a girl)...but will he achieve the same desired outcome? Probably not.

I think the pool stance we are taught is the most efficient for most people. But for those whose bodies aren't "typical", it's only a starting point and needs some modification. That's where a great instructor earns his keep (rather than one who just keeps telling you to do it the standard way without recognizing that the standard way isn't possible for the student).

 

[Tobermory]

Everything Joey A said about the pool stance is exactly correct---if you are 5' 4" tall.

 

[JoeyA]

The following quote by Bob Henning is something I have wanted to put into words for a long time. I believe that playing pool is extremely individualistic. Bob believes that the stance is very much so.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did and that it brings you to thinking more clearly about your game.

Simplicity

“In scientific thought, the simple always overrules the complex. For instance, even though we can make a mathematical explanation that proves the sun revolves around the earth, you won’t get any great minds to agree with you. Why? Because the mathematical explanation of the earth revolving around the sun is about a thousand times less complicated.

This concept of simplicity applies to engineering, invention, and all other fields of knowledge and application. The simplest machine that will do the work is the most efficient—the less moving parts, the better.

How does this apply to the fundamentals of pool? Let’s take a look at your stance as an example. The most efficient stance for you, for any particular shot, is the stance which is the simplest to successfully execute that shot. Your most efficient stance is decided by the make-up of your body. It is determined by your bone structure, cartilage, and musculature.

A simple stance is free of extraneous twists and turns. It is the natural fall of your body when it is lined up on the shot. Your most simple and dependable stance is unique and specific to you, not contrived to answer requirements set by someone else. You are senior to the stance, not the other way around.

In practice, look at your fundamentals from this point of view and start cleaning out the junk that makes them complicated. There is power in simplicity. Simplicity is the key to efficiency.”

If you want to visit Bob Henning's webstore, you can do so by clicking here. Bob has a lot of GREAT products if you want to improve your game.

I don't believe Bob Henning's article is off as much as some of you might charge.

Even the snooker community doesn't agree on what is the one perfect stance.

As Bob notes, our bodies come in different shapes, weights, heights, and even different bone lengths.

Bob doesn't what is the perfect stance. I think he was talking mostly about the different stances which you use for different shots. He did state that in the above article if you re-read it you might see that he was referring to different shots.

Different shots on the table require different feet positions for different players. Some players are so tall and most of the tables make it easy for them to reach shots. I see shorter players change their feet position all of the time when they have to reach for shots.

Taller and sometimes heavier players may have to spread their feet a little wider on certain shots just to keep their balance, just as shorter players may have to stand more erect and not bend as far over as other taller players. I think this is what Bob Henning was talking about.

A stance must be stable so that unnecessary body movements are easily avoided during and after the shot.

For basic shots even the snooker players have two different stances, for right hand players, a boxer's stance or what they call a traditional stance, their left foot is slightly in front of their right foot or their lead leg with their right toes pointing out to the right and the left foot toes pointing slightly toward the left, not toward the shot.

For basic shots the square stance for right handed players requires the two feet to be parallel to one another (not in front of one or the other) and the right toes point straight down the shot line.

I don't think Bob Hennings article argues against either of the two snooker stances above.

Also with that all having been said, American pool shots often requires unique paths for the cue ball to travel after hitting the object ball and different feet positions are often seen being used by players from both sides of the pond. Using a rake/bridge is a great tool and we can all learn to use them better but there are times when it is better to assume a different stance that is best suited for that particular shot. I think most top American players know how far they can stretch without losing their balance and play within those limits and are more reluctant to use the bridge than their pals across the pond.

That being said, there is a TAR match coming up shortly between America's top player and Europe's top player. I wonder if both players will be wanting to bet their dough on themselves. Darren Appleton & Shane Van Boening will be putting on a show and maybe we'll see some different stances being used for different shots.

 

[pt109]

This nonsense is why pool in America is where it is.

Henning says "Form follows function."
...is this nonsense?

I've asked people that are hooked to their stance "What happens when
you're jacked up over a ball with one knee on the table?
Do you pass your turn 'cause you can't use your favorite stance?

Martial arts
If you have a style, you become a prisoner to your style.

pt..<..admires Bob Henning