Table Size, Space and Other Considerations
There are reasons that stances differ from game to game. Most of them evolved from table size and available room. Snooker players usually play with an arm on the table whenever possible. On a 6x12 table there is room to do that. Break an 8 ball rack on a bar box and there aren’t too many places to lay the arm. But, what was the function of the arm on the table? Ronnie O’Sullivan and Jimmy White talked about 3 important principles needed by players. First was stepping ahead into the shot. Next was straight cueing and lastly staying down. The last one is where this narrative is going, staying down. Thinking about it in reverse gives more insight. How do you get up, to start with? Consider an experiment. Stand facing square to a wall with both arms outstretched, fingernails just touching the surface. Now try to push away from the wall. Since the arms are fully extended there is no available space to extend into in order to push. The point is we are pushing away from the table in order to get up, but fully extended we can’t. Joe Davis, the original snooker great, told us he fully extended his left bridge arm onto the table. Beyond that he said his weight balance was forwards into the shot. He described the arm as anchored. He also called it a immobilized position. He couldn’t get up if he wanted to, when he was about to shoot. The third principle of the British duo is met if the position at the table allows for an anchored position. The thing about principles is that they are true across all contexts. Despite different games and table sizes, the anchoring and immobilization in the stance is the objective. The idea that putting the body in a position that it can’t get up from without shifting things around was the main insight. That means the player essentially stays down because there is no other choice.
I do that in limited space by positioning the bridge, then in most cases dropping my bridge arm shoulder joint as low as possible. Additionally, I shift weight forward and down. I essentially drop anchor. In order to get up, other parts need to move first. I feel fully extended at my shoulder joint. Joe was short and even he had trouble having a fully extended arm using a sideways stance. He often held the cue, at address, ahead of vertical, due to running out of cue. Being near 6 foot, a sideways stance, forced me to bend my arm while still extending fully at the shoulder joint. I now stand square to the shot forcing me to reach across my body, rather than along it, solving the cue length issue. The bridge arm can bend and adjust to various positions more easily. The shoulder joint can’t have room to shove or I can push myself up. The arm can snake through the balls to a hand position but the shoulder needs full extension to complete the anchor. Dropping it fully accomplishes that and provides a good place to shift weight, anchoring.
The remaining variable is the available room for creating a cueing angle. In many cases the rear hand must be raised to avoid the grip colliding with the rail during the shot or to play over obstacles. Rail clearance often creates a downwards plane. Weight shifted backwards may anchor but has issues with a forward, downward sloped cueing plane. Context determines options and shifts priorities when deciding how to play a shot. In simple terms, the situation dictates what to do. Search for principles first, they should be there on every shot. Eliminating unwanted movement is one such concept. Since a pool table can be 3-4" lower than a snooker table, taller players often bend or splay their legs to get to a stable lower position.
One element favoring a more upright stance on smaller tables is the increased number of shots where the cue ball is very close to the object ball. An overhead 3-D view of the balls and where they will contact one another based on the cueing angle, can be beneficial, unless the pocket is lost. Also, on longer shots the two balls, if viewed from above, will no longer both be in the same field of vision. When that happens, a lower visual perspective creates an angle bringing the balls and pocket into a single visual field. Think about how having the pocket out of view on some cutback shots impacts player perception.
Back to the question of weight distribution. The problem is that every answer here has an element of truth. Each perspective comes with its own set of criteria for evaluation when making decisions at the table. Every option is correct for a given perspective. With weight distribution we are not looking at a principle, since it can’t be applied in all situations. It is a chosen adaptation in specific situations. Generalizing it into other contexts fails. The focus of the shooter needs to be elsewhere. The 3 elements pointed out by Ronnie and Jimmy seem a better place to pay attention.