Stance and alignment question

I have studied most popular instruction on stance and am torn between two concepts. I would love to hear everyone's input, both the instructors for their knowledge and players for their personal experience.

The one thing they all agree on is the stick has to be on the shooting line. It is how you get there and the trade off between comfort and clearance with head alignment and eye positioning.

Concept one. There is a proper alignment to get the eyes over the stick facing down the target and create clearance and a natural stroke. Most instructors teach a single way to achieve this by foot position. CJ talks about the perfect aiming position would be square to the ball shooting directly out of the center of your body. He teaches a method of stepping into the shot designed to get the head square to the target so both eyes work together and you are looking straight down the cue with a square front facing look. I like this concept as it seems very logical. I struggle with it in that I get in my own way a lot. I don't ever have the easy clearance and swing I am looking for. No question this can work. I am just not sure it is the best answer for me. All of the other instructors except one also teach a "right way" to develop a stance. Their concepts and methods vary but the result is one way is the only best way. I like the head position this creates but never have the clearance or comfort I would like.

Concept two. Bert Kinister takes a completely different approach. He believes the stance can vary very widely based on individual body configuration. Instead of a fixed method to place the feet and so forth he does it this way. You hold the stick at the balance point in our right hand (for lefties it is the left hand). You let it hang naturally at your side. You approach the table as if you were going to shoot one handed and position your body so the stick is on the shot line and the stick naturally swings back and forth on that line. You set your distances, slide the stick to the two handed position and bend into the shot. This method is much easier for me. It gives me great clearance and total comfort and balance but is a much more "sideways" stance. My eyes are not square to the shot. My left eye is closer to the ball then my right. I am looking straight down the stick but it is a sideways look, not a two eyes square look. I could not turn my head far enough to the left to square up my eyes with my body so sideways to the shot. I think this is where all the discussion about dominant eye comes in. My left eye is dominant and is also the lead eye here but I am losing that synchronized two eye view in favor of clearance and comfort. I have played with a more sideways stance all my life and my eyes "seem" to be able to adapt to the view and aim correctly, however they do it. Learning to use the square eyes front approach was new and difficult to master but I am pretty good at it now. I "think" I can aim well either way but don't want to stay with a setup that will limit me in the future.

At this point comfort and clearance are winning out but I would like to hear your comments. Aren't there some professional players who use a more sideways stance? And what about Niels Fiejen who only has one eye. How important is a square front facing stance vs. the comfort and clearance I get from the more sideways stance?

All comments are always appreciated. Thanks guys (and gals).:smile:

Patrick Johnson said:

I've gone through much the same adjustment. What worked for me was adjusting my shoulder and elbow positions to get my stick under my vision correctly. That consisted of:

- holding my elbow a little farther from my body (for clearance)

- rotating my shoulders so they were more parallel with the stick (bringing my back shoulder more in line with the shot)

- raising my back shoulder to bring the stick closer to my body (more under my head)

This all feels mostly like pointing my front shoulder more toward the shot. Works for me - shots look much straighter than before and my stroke feels much straighter/more natural.

YMMV, of course.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

It seems you favor concept one and the effort needed to get to a best practices type stance.

garczar said:

I'm a C2 all the way. Have always shot more "sideways" than head-on. I tried the Brit snooker stance but that, for me anyway, is not doable. I start hurting within minutes. Try various methods and stick with what works for YOU. You're gonna get a bunch of answers to this. Why worry what others tell you? You've got to experiment and find your own way.

Click to expand...

It seems you favor concept 2 and the effort needed to get to a best practices type stance is not productive.

I went out and shot a few racks to practice just now. On straight in shots my stats improved with the side stance. My confidence improved as well as that is what I have relied on for so many years. My cut shot stats were unchanged.

I recalled something Jerry Briesath says on his training videos. Paraphrased it is something like "Almost everyone's aim is equal if they have been playing for any time at all. You can't win by out aiming someone. It is your ability to deliver the stick straight through the cue ball to the point you are aiming that separates players." This would favor the consistent straight simple stroke and for me that is the sideways stance.

So far I am back to the old sideways comfort stance and feeling better about my game with that but keeping an open mind.

Patrick Johnson said:

Yes, I do, at least up to the point where the discomfort is counterproductive (and takes too long to get accustomed to). I’d rather spend time learning to work with the correct visual/stroke than adapting my perception to something that’s comfortable but out of line.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Thank you for our input.

skipbales said:

Thank you for our input.

Click to expand...

The more I research this the more opinions I find from instructors.

"A side-on stance is the opposite of the snooker stance in the way the body is positioned side-on and centered to the line of shot, instead of square on and off-centered." This is saying the Pool stance is more side-on and the square is more a snooker stance.

Another post said "I took a lesson with a Master PBIA instructor, and he said the stance actually doesn't matter all that much as long as it's comfortable, stable, keeps you on the shot line, and provides clearance for your stroke and grip hand." There was no mention of dominant eye or square headset. There is no explanation of what "keeps you on the shot line" means. Keeps the stroke on the line or our head alignment.

Patrick Johnson said:

This is the essential choice, I think (and what I tried to say above). Having the stroke online but the head offline means you have to learn to see when the stroke's on target while viewing it a little from the side - kinda like shooting a rifle with your eyes not directly behind the sights. It can be done, but I think it's less reliable and versatile in the long run.

Worth it, in my view, to put up with some initial awkwardness to get the stick and the eyes on the same line. At least worth a good try (at least for me).

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

As you know, I appreciate your input. BTW with the side stance my eyes are directly over the stick and online but left eye leads with the right eye trailing. It is more like sighting a rifle and closing one eye. I don't think my right eye is in play much. Left eye directly online right eye perhaps off a little and certainly behind but I "THINK" my brain pretty much disregards the right eye input. When I do the straight on approach the stick splits the eyes, left on left side right on right side and the brain is either using a combination or disregarding the less dominant, not sure. With the straight on they can't both be directly over the cue. They can be with the head turned more to the side it is just that one is in front and the other trailing.

All of this is subjective. It is all what I "think" is happening. Someone testing or more accurately measuring might prove otherwise.

Patrick Johnson said:

Players who face the CB more squarely have the cue somewhere between their eyes, using both to form the "picture" they see, with the dominant eye providing most of the visual info (like we usually see things). But I know that some very good players line up like you do, sighting primarily with one eye (usually the dominant one).


I've discovered once or twice that my stick/eye position wasn't what I thought - it was useful information for my stance development.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I should probably video myself and look at the video.

Patrick Johnson said:

A quick experiment: when you're down on your shot close your right eye. Does your stick seem to move to the side? If so, then your right eye is providing an essential part of the picture that your brain assembles for you.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I was talking about this with a fellow league player - good amateur - and was discussing looking straight down the cue with both eyes and the stick centered between them and his comment was "your eye doesn't see a combination of those images. It sees them both and then decides which to use." From what I have read and the limited testing I have done, as you outline above and several cover one eye to see what shifts type tests, I believe he is correct. So that would mean looking straight down the stick with the stick under my nose and neither eye directly over the cue my brain is using my left, dominant, eye view for all the aiming and that view is slightly off line.

By turning in my stance slightly my left, dominant eye is directly over the cue, the right eye is behind and slightly right of the cue but my brain is disregarding that input anyway.

As to the vision test, covering my right eye doesn't change anything, covering my left makes the image jump. Looking through both I see clearly the left image and a kind of shadow image of the right eye if I try to focus on it. If I don't struggle to see it I don't notice that image at all.

FranCrimi said:

As a professional player and a Master Instructor I will tell you this much about stance: The ill effects of a bad stance don't kick for quite awhile. You may think all is well but it isn't necessarily well. When I was competing on WPBA tour, I worked on my stance for a really long time. First, there's a basic concept, then followed by a tweaking process over time.

I have often posted my opinions about stance, which unfortunately, gets lost in the myriad of posts of bad information meant with good intentions. A good stance should not fight with your anatomy. Beware of being twisted, off-balance or strained. Balance isn't what you may think it is. It doesn't mean weight evenly distributed between both legs.

As someone who has studied stance for over 30 years, I can tell you that most of the information you will get is bad information. Just keep that in mind as you search for the best stance for you.

Click to expand...

Thanks Fran.