Chest contact
- Thread starter Mirza
- Start date
Many players feel that they need more "room" for the cue, which usually mean flawed mechanics. Snooker requires much more precision and it's quite essential that the cue is touching the chest. In pool the feel plays much more important role and if you look at the stroke of Bustamante, you cannot have a chest contact with a stroke like that. Many pool players have developed their stroke and stance based on feel, not precision.
Not many pool players get right down. Earl is probably one of the best at getting as far down as possible and I've seen some shots he makes with the cue right up against his cheek. If you don't get down far enough to have the chin touching the cue can rub against the nipple or ribs...very sensitive areas and can be quite uncomfortable so players learn to avoid it. The fact a lot of pool players, especially amateurs stand very side on to the shot doesn't help getting the cue close or touching the chest.
The chest can be a hindrance to a persons cue action. You can set up with the cue on line but as you make the final drop into position you can either bring the cue to the chest which for a right hander makes your cues alignment go to the right, or drop onto the cue with the chest and push the cue outwards which for a right hander causes your cues alignment to go the the left. Then it can also cause a sweeping motion in a players cue action if the chest gets in the way.
I use the chest as an alignment aid. For a regular shot it is always touching the same part of my chest. So I instantly know if my alignment is right by how it feels on my chest. It does help to keep the cue on line when cueing, but it isn't at all necessary. I feel a lot of amateurs could benefit from having contact with the chest, but at the same time it could ruin a lot of amateurs games if its done incorrectly.
The chest can be a hindrance to a persons cue action. You can set up with the cue on line but as you make the final drop into position you can either bring the cue to the chest which for a right hander makes your cues alignment go to the right, or drop onto the cue with the chest and push the cue outwards which for a right hander causes your cues alignment to go the the left. Then it can also cause a sweeping motion in a players cue action if the chest gets in the way.
I use the chest as an alignment aid. For a regular shot it is always touching the same part of my chest. So I instantly know if my alignment is right by how it feels on my chest. It does help to keep the cue on line when cueing, but it isn't at all necessary. I feel a lot of amateurs could benefit from having contact with the chest, but at the same time it could ruin a lot of amateurs games if its done incorrectly.
I like the way Mark Wilson describes it in his book. Pool is a different game than snooker. Rotation games require the cue ball to move around the table much more than snooker and the equipment is different and requires more "stroke". But, I can also see the advantage of having the cue touching the chest as a point of reference for the stroke. Snooker players seem to make the transition to pool much easier than pool players transitioning to snooker other than the break.
I think this question is like asking "Why don't golfers drive with their head over the ball like they do when they putt?"
Different stances have different tradeoffs and benefits. A more snooker-like stance is good for accuracy, sighting the shot, and taller tables. A more open pool player stance is good for power, comfort, and shorter tables.
Snooker requires more long distance accuracy, thus snooker players use a snooker stance. Pool, especially rotation games, requires moving the cue ball around a lot on slower tables with a heavier cue ball, thus pool players tend towards a pool stance.
Different stances have different tradeoffs and benefits. A more snooker-like stance is good for accuracy, sighting the shot, and taller tables. A more open pool player stance is good for power, comfort, and shorter tables.
Snooker requires more long distance accuracy, thus snooker players use a snooker stance. Pool, especially rotation games, requires moving the cue ball around a lot on slower tables with a heavier cue ball, thus pool players tend towards a pool stance.
Good summary, especially about snooker tables being higher than US pool tables, When going from snooker to US pool, the hamstrings can really ache getting the chin and body right against the cue.
Another point is that US table games require more cut shots, where being more upright can help in the perception of the angle. Snooker involves a lot more longer fuller shots... especially in the critical aspect of getting the first good visit, so they must be highly adept at this shot, so it forms the basis of their systematic approach.
Mine too! The reasoning is sound. When a pendulum swing becomes a non-random range of motion (start and finish from the same places), the subconscious brain can train the biceps to accelerate the cue forward at many speed rates. I teach 10 speeds (lag to break) with the same swing. Adding to that, when there is a repeatable range of motion for the swing, where the body stops the cue, the subconscious brain can also train the grip hand not to clench the cuestick on the forward stroke. This opens up a whole new world of cue control for a great many players, who definitely learn to "feel" the cuestick. 
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
The difference in height isn't really an issue for most. Most naturally learn to widen the stance when changing to a pool table. Unless you are really vertically challenged as a snooker player, a foot wider stance on a pool table is more than enough to enable you to get down fully.
I think you are right in that pool has, well not more, but steeper cut shots on the whole. More angle means the cue ball can travel further but that doesn't mean a whole different stance would be adopted.
It comes down to instruction and what you see. Snooker players all have instruction to make it to the top. Pool players don't. Snooker instruction is based purely on fundamentals to start where pool instruction is all over the place if I'm honest. You have instructors that special is in sighting, aiming, kicking, fundamentals, playing the game and so on. Snooker instruction is a lot simpler. If you grow up watching snooker you will try emulate the guys on tv. If you grow up watching pool the same is true.
I'm an ex snooker player that moved over to American pool. My theory is that it is harder (with your chin on the cue) to focus your eyes on pocket/object ball/cue ball & CUE TIP with a LOOP BRIDGE...snooker players nearly always use an open bridge.
Having your head slightly higher makes sense with a loop bridge.
Having your head slightly higher makes sense with a loop bridge.
I don't think enough credit is being paid to how the game evolved in this country. For most of it's history, 14.1 has been the game of choice among the top players. 14.1 was thought to be best played by slowly picking apart the rack, using caroms, combos, short stop shots, mostly into the lower two pockets and a few into the side pockets. It was a short range game that lent itself better to sighting balls from a higher vantage point.
Also, there was no great need for long range precision in the game. Rarely did a player take a chance with a long tester which might leave the table open for the other player to run out the set. You're supposed to play a safety there.
Think about how that game use to be played, look at clips of the old masters, and draw your own conclusions. It was a tight and congested game, especially when the table switched to the smaller 9' size. Hard to see much of what is necessary when you chin is way down on the cue.
This is what I think is the biggest reason, and not some imagined ingrained sloppiness due to our ridiculously easy tables. It's just our game, and I don't think anybody should feel like they are lesser players than the blokes across the pond, any more than a top shotgunner need feel inferior because he can't make a target at 100 meters like a rifle shooter can.
Also, there was no great need for long range precision in the game. Rarely did a player take a chance with a long tester which might leave the table open for the other player to run out the set. You're supposed to play a safety there.
Think about how that game use to be played, look at clips of the old masters, and draw your own conclusions. It was a tight and congested game, especially when the table switched to the smaller 9' size. Hard to see much of what is necessary when you chin is way down on the cue.
This is what I think is the biggest reason, and not some imagined ingrained sloppiness due to our ridiculously easy tables. It's just our game, and I don't think anybody should feel like they are lesser players than the blokes across the pond, any more than a top shotgunner need feel inferior because he can't make a target at 100 meters like a rifle shooter can.
I like to feel like I'm stranding to left of cue and ball. . Right eye over cue, with chest and feet near 45 degree angle. In golf this would be considered a closed stance. Only when I have to stretch will I square up. Be comfortable enough to swing lower arm freely and accurately and not have to throw shoulder into shot.
Well at least we are all lucky to have option of chest contact
Once played a one handed player in a pub. He lost his left arm so he used his left shoulder and chest as bridge when shooting. Other shots he would play one handed or use rail as bridge or use a bridge
The guy was pretty good and stayed at table for some time
Once played a one handed player in a pub. He lost his left arm so he used his left shoulder and chest as bridge when shooting. Other shots he would play one handed or use rail as bridge or use a bridge
The guy was pretty good and stayed at table for some time