Any Problems If Using Snooker Fundamentals To Play Pool??
- Thread starter Calgaryplayer
- Start date
Yeah well, he has to, because the table is in the way. But he still won't use a snooker stroke on that shot.
I couldn't agree more with Andrew.
It's interesting to me that the difference mostly comes from the position of the feet. Let's compare Stephen Hendry's snooker stance to SVB. From the side, they couldn't be more different. From the front, they look similar in that they have the same shoulder turn & bent elbow.
I contend that the compact snooker stance necessitates a low, straight (upper body) alignment (between shoulders, cue, & elbows) where the pool stance allows some wiggle room...hence less consistency. The bent knees of the pool players causes their chest to rise above the hips more (and the characteristic bowed back of pool).
You'll also note that the snooker player's rear foot is generally below their grip hand. Pool players tend to shift the foot backwards. I discovered this tendency in my own game a while back. For whatever reason I shot a particularly tough shot with my rear foot moved forward. I made the shot & I felt MUCH more comfortable over the CB. I've tried to keep it forward ever since.
I contend that the compact snooker stance necessitates a low, straight (upper body) alignment (between shoulders, cue, & elbows) where the pool stance allows some wiggle room...hence less consistency. The bent knees of the pool players causes their chest to rise above the hips more (and the characteristic bowed back of pool).
You'll also note that the snooker player's rear foot is generally below their grip hand. Pool players tend to shift the foot backwards. I discovered this tendency in my own game a while back. For whatever reason I shot a particularly tough shot with my rear foot moved forward. I made the shot & I felt MUCH more comfortable over the CB. I've tried to keep it forward ever since.
Last edited:
Some corrections on what a correct snooker stance is
mosconiac:
While this is a very articulate description of what you think the snooker stance is, unfortunately, it's wrong.
First, the "planted foot" (the foot that's on the same side as the grip hand -- i.e. the right foot if you're a right-handed shooter), is pointed INTO the shot, not 45 degrees away from it. That right foot is pointed 100% into and in-line with the shot, for the purposes of aligning the joints in that leg in-line with the shot. This is to prevent "sway" from creeping in, and lock-in that side of the body to make it a stable shooting platform. When one gets into a PROPER snooker stance, one finds that he/she can *only* deliver the cue in a straight line, like the cue is riding on railroad tracks. The reason is the stance -- it aligns the hips, knee (of the planted leg) and the ankle (again, of the planted leg) into the shot, so even if you bend those joints inadvertently, they are bending in-line with the shot, not away from it.
I know you probably think that when you view certain snooker players, you think you "see" the planted leg's foot at a 45 degree angle to the shot, but I'll bet the camera angle is fooling you. Or perhaps the fact the left leg (the leg on the opposite side of the body as the grip hand) *is* on a 45 degree angle outward from the body, seems to make you "think" the planted leg's foot is angled away from the shot, again, probably due to camera angle. It isn't. Trust me on that one. This is a core component of a proper snooker stance. You can't line-up your planted leg's joints into the shot (snooker principles 101) with a foot angled away 45 degrees. If you do see a snooker player do this, I'll bet it's only for an "easy" shot, and the player just stepped into the shot casually because the shot is a no-brainer. But watch the shot after the opening break -- usually a table length (11-foot or more) and you'll watch that player go through a comprehensive pre-shot routine to get into a proper stance, to get that cue locked in as if riding on railroad tracks.
It is natural for a pool player to say the snooker stance is "unnatural." And you know what? It isn't -- for a reason. The human body is made to move, for mobility reasons. When engaging in a precision sport like the cue sports, or shooting a rifle, one has to do the opposite -- to limit or cancel movement. When shooting a rifle, a prone shooting position (i.e. lying on one's belly) is *always* more accurate than shooting standing up free-style, precisely because it minimizes (or completely obviates) the effects of movements in other joints in the body.
The snooker stance is designed to do the same; by lining up the joints in the legs, hips, and shoulders, it's to prevent a loosey-goosey stance, to prevent sideways action (i.e. "sway").
Pool players' common complaints about the snooker stance -- and mainly because they're not doing it right -- is that the snooker stance is "uncomfortable." *If* (key operative word) the pool player is by chance doing the snooker stance correctly, it's most likely that the pool player is not accustomed to such a regimented stance as the snooker stance. Long ago, when I first started exploring the snooker stance (after watching a pro snooker player whack snooker-table-length shots with power, thwacking the back of the pockets), I found that the snooker style placed a little tension on my planted leg's calf muscle, because of the locked straight leg. I later found out it was because, at the time, I was a little out of shape. After a little stretching and some general purpose "maintenance" (i.e. doing a bit of running and just in general getting back in shape), I found that went away, and the snooker stance started to come naturally. It now feels quite natural to me. When I try to use a pool stance, it feels very foreign and for lack of a better word, "sloppy" to me.
Just wanted to point these things out not for combative purposes, but for clarification of course.
-Sean
mosconiac:
While this is a very articulate description of what you think the snooker stance is, unfortunately, it's wrong.
First, the "planted foot" (the foot that's on the same side as the grip hand -- i.e. the right foot if you're a right-handed shooter), is pointed INTO the shot, not 45 degrees away from it. That right foot is pointed 100% into and in-line with the shot, for the purposes of aligning the joints in that leg in-line with the shot. This is to prevent "sway" from creeping in, and lock-in that side of the body to make it a stable shooting platform. When one gets into a PROPER snooker stance, one finds that he/she can *only* deliver the cue in a straight line, like the cue is riding on railroad tracks. The reason is the stance -- it aligns the hips, knee (of the planted leg) and the ankle (again, of the planted leg) into the shot, so even if you bend those joints inadvertently, they are bending in-line with the shot, not away from it.
I know you probably think that when you view certain snooker players, you think you "see" the planted leg's foot at a 45 degree angle to the shot, but I'll bet the camera angle is fooling you. Or perhaps the fact the left leg (the leg on the opposite side of the body as the grip hand) *is* on a 45 degree angle outward from the body, seems to make you "think" the planted leg's foot is angled away from the shot, again, probably due to camera angle. It isn't. Trust me on that one. This is a core component of a proper snooker stance. You can't line-up your planted leg's joints into the shot (snooker principles 101) with a foot angled away 45 degrees. If you do see a snooker player do this, I'll bet it's only for an "easy" shot, and the player just stepped into the shot casually because the shot is a no-brainer. But watch the shot after the opening break -- usually a table length (11-foot or more) and you'll watch that player go through a comprehensive pre-shot routine to get into a proper stance, to get that cue locked in as if riding on railroad tracks.
It is natural for a pool player to say the snooker stance is "unnatural." And you know what? It isn't -- for a reason. The human body is made to move, for mobility reasons. When engaging in a precision sport like the cue sports, or shooting a rifle, one has to do the opposite -- to limit or cancel movement. When shooting a rifle, a prone shooting position (i.e. lying on one's belly) is *always* more accurate than shooting standing up free-style, precisely because it minimizes (or completely obviates) the effects of movements in other joints in the body.
The snooker stance is designed to do the same; by lining up the joints in the legs, hips, and shoulders, it's to prevent a loosey-goosey stance, to prevent sideways action (i.e. "sway").
Pool players' common complaints about the snooker stance -- and mainly because they're not doing it right -- is that the snooker stance is "uncomfortable." *If* (key operative word) the pool player is by chance doing the snooker stance correctly, it's most likely that the pool player is not accustomed to such a regimented stance as the snooker stance. Long ago, when I first started exploring the snooker stance (after watching a pro snooker player whack snooker-table-length shots with power, thwacking the back of the pockets), I found that the snooker style placed a little tension on my planted leg's calf muscle, because of the locked straight leg. I later found out it was because, at the time, I was a little out of shape. After a little stretching and some general purpose "maintenance" (i.e. doing a bit of running and just in general getting back in shape), I found that went away, and the snooker stance started to come naturally. It now feels quite natural to me. When I try to use a pool stance, it feels very foreign and for lack of a better word, "sloppy" to me.
Just wanted to point these things out not for combative purposes, but for clarification of course.
-Sean
It's interesting to me that the difference mostly comes from the position of the feet. Let's compare Stephen Hendry's snooker stance to SVB. From the side, they couldn't be more different. From the front, they look similar in that they have the same shoulder turn & bent elbow.
I contend that the compact snooker stance necessitates a low, straight (upper body) alignment (between shoulders, cue, & elbows) where the pool stance allows some wiggle room...hence less consistency. The bent knees of the pool players causes their chest to rise above the hips more (and the characteristic bowed back of pool).
You'll also note that the snooker player's rear foot is generally below their grip hand. Pool players tend to shift the foot backwards. I discovered this tendency in my own game a while back. For whatever reason I shot a particularly tough shot with my rear foot moved forward. I made the shot & I felt MUCH more comfortable over the CB. I've tried to keep it forward ever since.
I see two completely different stances and strokes here. Maybe I'm missing something.
I could rarely get a great pool player to play snooker with me. Matlock and Roberts gave it a try. Most just said, "No way!". I used the same cue for playing both games, a 20 oz cue with 13.25mm shafts (snooker players would faint at the size and weight of it) and my stance was whatever felt natural for the shot. 142 has been my high break at snooker with more century breaks than I would care to count - lots of those in the 13X range.
Even though I was something of a demon at snooker, such players as Buddy Dennis and Shannon Daulton weren't totally beyond reach on the pool table even though I never developed a comfort level such as I felt on the larger tables.
Sorry if this all seems a bit of bragging (which it is I suppose), it's more just ancient history and my attempt to show that one game doesn't up the other even though playing skills are different. Show respect for talent when you see it and get rid of the damnable bar tables.
One size doesn't fit all.
Even though I was something of a demon at snooker, such players as Buddy Dennis and Shannon Daulton weren't totally beyond reach on the pool table even though I never developed a comfort level such as I felt on the larger tables.
Sorry if this all seems a bit of bragging (which it is I suppose), it's more just ancient history and my attempt to show that one game doesn't up the other even though playing skills are different. Show respect for talent when you see it and get rid of the damnable bar tables.
One size doesn't fit all.
You don't want to use 100% snooker techniques for pool. The snooker stroke is restrictive and does not lend itself to the power shots that pool sometimes requires.
That said alot of truly great pool players are old snooker players who have modified their strokes to a degree to make them work for pool. John Horsefal is a great example of a snooker player who switched to pool, tweaked his stroke abit, went to a true pool cue when playing pool, and played about as good as anyone for a while.
Truth be told most of the older Canadian champs are former snooker players who have modified their games towards pool and became the dominant players in Canadian pool after switching to it from snooker.
All of that said, Edwin, Tyler, PJ, some of the best younger Canadian players are not former snooker players and instead came up in pool and are now seeming to reach higher levels of skill then the former snooker player converts. IMO if you want to be a great pool player focus on pool.
I don't change a thing in my mechanics when I play 9-ball and I can power the ball bottom or top better than 99% of the pool players round this way, not braggin, just sayin. It's never been an issue.
I agree 100%. Snooker fundamentals are more exacting because the game demands it. That's why snooker players can transition to pool more easily than the other way around.
At the same time, I wonder if the more demanding nature of snooker makes it harder for older players to compete. It seems like snooker players fall off in their 30s, whereas in pool guys like Efren can be 50 and still be at the top of the game.
To those who were saying that the snooker stroke doesn't allow for the power or spin of a pool stroke, here's just one example (Neil Robertson, 2008): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIoPHYHaaDg . Someone who can make that shot on the blue can execute any stroke shot that appears in any pool game.
You might want to watch the actual stroke he uses to do that. It had huge follow through, he drew the cue back far more then normal, and he jumped up when he stroked the ball.
Noone is saying snooker players cannot power stroke a ball, Jimmy White had a ludicrously powerful stroke when he needed it, but it was NOT a traditional snooker stroke he used to make the power shots, he modified the stroke to make the shot. What snooker players do on the rare occasion they need to power a ball is simply what pool players do on a more regular basis and to a greater degree because rotational pool demands more cueball movement.
i understand all the diff for the two types of strokes or stances, but what i like about a snooker style stance or set up is that you can get your body in line with the shot much easier, especially for someone new to pool. It will help them to see the correct angles quicker and more correct, most pool players don't even know how to get the cue in alignment with the shot much less their bodys.
I'm not saying anything about the type of power the two strokes deliver...i think its silly any way, that big of a stroke in either games is not needed all that often. Either will give you plenty of power to do whatever you want on the table. Its the solidity of the snooker style stance its a foundation that is easily repeatable and set up...foundations are the most important things so I'd rather have someone learn the more solid one.
I'm not saying strictly one must abide, but there are key features of that style stance that one should want to have, namely the square vision to the shot, an the stance is a lock in so you don't move on the shot.
Its like a tripod, thats what a snooker stance looks like from overhead, your very stabilized and balanced on the two feet and brigde hand. The more closed stance (the 45deg) used by general pool players the more difficult it is to be steady when shooting, your tripods legs are closer to its center line of gravity giving the body a chance to go left or right.
When using the more open and square w/shot stances your tripod is set up closer to the shape of an equilateral triangle which is going to give you more solidity in your base.
Also being square to the shot will better help your eyes to process the visual data more equal in their seperate respects...b/c we all know how the eyes can play tricks on you depending on the angles you get down on. I want to give my eyes/brain the most equally sided information i can give it. And it all lies in how you address the shot.
I'm not saying anything about the type of power the two strokes deliver...i think its silly any way, that big of a stroke in either games is not needed all that often. Either will give you plenty of power to do whatever you want on the table. Its the solidity of the snooker style stance its a foundation that is easily repeatable and set up...foundations are the most important things so I'd rather have someone learn the more solid one.
I'm not saying strictly one must abide, but there are key features of that style stance that one should want to have, namely the square vision to the shot, an the stance is a lock in so you don't move on the shot.
Its like a tripod, thats what a snooker stance looks like from overhead, your very stabilized and balanced on the two feet and brigde hand. The more closed stance (the 45deg) used by general pool players the more difficult it is to be steady when shooting, your tripods legs are closer to its center line of gravity giving the body a chance to go left or right.
When using the more open and square w/shot stances your tripod is set up closer to the shape of an equilateral triangle which is going to give you more solidity in your base.
Also being square to the shot will better help your eyes to process the visual data more equal in their seperate respects...b/c we all know how the eyes can play tricks on you depending on the angles you get down on. I want to give my eyes/brain the most equally sided information i can give it. And it all lies in how you address the shot.
GG:
Great post! One thing I'd like to add, is an adjunct to your first paragraph (bolded above). In what other pocket-based cue sport do you see regular advertisements for a "Perfect Aim" system that focuses, almost exclusively, on the CORRECT placement of the head and eyes over the cue, as if it's some world-changing "discovery" better than sliced bread? Only in pool. You won't see that in any other pocket-based cue sport -- e.g. snooker, Russian Pyramid -- almost guaranteed. The fact that a market even exists for something like a "Perfect Aim" in pool just goes to show how "in the 'hood" pool fundamentals are. Other pocket-based cue sports place a tremendous emphasis on fundamentals, and explain why something is done the way it is, why it's considered "root" or "core" to the fundamentals. Placement of the head and eyes is definitely one of those "root"/"core" fundamentals in other pocket-based cue sports. The market for a "Perfect Aim" doesn't exist there. That's very telling!
Your description of the advantages of the snooker stance is dead-on. I'm personally teaching my lady how to play the game, and she's a creative type (singer, musician). She's definitely NOT an analytical type. Yet, when I showed her both the pool stance, as well as the snooker stance, the musician "technique" side of her immediately saw the advantages of the snooker stance. The only problem she has, is... well... umm... some "endowment" issues with clearance for the cue. But after watching some videos of Karen Corr, she saw what she had to do, and she now plays that way (not to Karen's level, of course, but she mimicked what Karen was doing specifically to address that "clearance" issue). Bottom line: a complete beginner found the snooker stance to be easier and more stable for a straight stroke. But then again, perhaps that's the advantage of being a complete beginner -- no bad habits to "unteach"? (Rhetorical question, of course.
)Your observation of the "triangle" when viewing a snooker stance overhead is a very lucid one. The snooker stance most closely resembles an equilateral triangle (perfect tripod), or, if the player is tall / has a long thorax, an isosceles right triangle. By way of comparison, the pool stance most closely resembles a scalene triangle -- all sides unequal / unbalanced.
The stability differences between the two stances is fairly well illustrated by renowned snooker coach Del Hill:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSK4w_9S_x0
The one feature of the pool stance that is probably more advantageous than the snooker stance, specifically for opposite-eye dominant players (e.g. Ralf Souquet, Willie Mosconi) is that the pool stance DOES tend to rotate the player's head over the cue such that the opposite eye (e.g. the left eye for a right-handed player) easily finds itself centered over the cue. The pool stance does facilitate placing the opposite-dominant eye close-to, or directly over, the centerline of the cue, by virtue of the 45 degree rotation of the body.
Hope this is helpful,
-Sean
If you watch snooker on TV like the WC, the standard camera angle is very confusing. But sometimes they show the players from a better angle to look at their stance.
I don't know what you mean by 45°. Both of his feet are in line with the shot. But I think you could find other pros who do it differently.
And contrary to popular belief, I find the snooker stance very comfortable. When I set up with a pool stance, it feels like it's hindering my stroke. I don't know how I managed to play like this for years.
I can only encourage every pool player to give it a shot.
searcyD
Banned
just about right. so if you can reach you wouldn't use a sissy bridge. sounds good, sir.
When using the term "juice" I'm talking English and not power. I'm sorry if I've ruffled your feathers. I must admit that my "obsolete" statement about snooker comes from very limited exposure and experience. Only playing, and being ranked 7th on the admittingly small and short of talent Japanese Snooker Tour, attending and translating clinics on snooker hosted by a few well known players, and several examples of what you would call "obsolete" exposure.
I have the highest respect for the game of snooker, and the skill involved in playing the game, but I as a former player, and based on numerous "obsolete" interviews and conversations with snooker players that have also played pool, the one common factor or difference that I heard most from all players is that in snooker, with the exception of straight draw and follow, the amount of right and left English is considerably more conservative than what is used in pool.
dave
If you watch snooker on TV like the WC, the standard camera angle is very confusing. But sometimes they show the players from a better angle to look at their stance.
I don't know what you mean by 45°. Both of his feet are in line with the shot. But I think you could find other pros who do it differently.
And contrary to popular belief, I find the snooker stance very comfortable. When I set up with a pool stance, it feels like it's hindering my stroke. I don't know how I managed to play like this for years.
I can only encourage every pool player to give it a shot.
ThePoliteSniper:
I think you're confusing mosconiac's comments with mine concerning the 45-degree angle of the feet. Mosconiac made that statement, not me. The post of mine that you replied to, was actually a counter to mosconiac with the correction that most (if not the lion's share) of the fundamentally correct snooker players out there have, if not both feet, at least their planted leg's foot in-line with the shot. Sometimes, you'll see the left leg (the bent leg) with the foot turned outward away from the shot, or even turned inwards on rare occasions, but this is the exception, not the rule.
You are correct -- as you find the snooker stance comfortable, so do I. And it's so easy -- you just stand normally, bend over onto the table, and adjust your weight such that the majority of the weight is on the planted leg (i.e. the right leg for righthanders, left leg for lefthanders). You now have those "railroad tracks" that your [straight] stroke can ride confidently on.
I also encourage players to at least give it a try. Give it the ol' boy scout try for an evening. Not just one or two shots, or a rack, but the evening, to give your muscles time to adjust. I guarantee after the evenings over, pool players will find that they can't help but stroke straight. None of this loosey-goosey steering of the cue, etc. After playing this way for a week, one might find when they do go back to a pool stance, it'll feel "sloppy" to them -- like there's no "straightness reference line" to lock into.
Anyway, just food for thought.
-Sean
Bottom line: a complete beginner found the snooker stance to be easier and more stable for a straight stroke. But then again, perhaps that's the advantage of being a complete beginner -- no bad habits to "unteach"? (Rhetorical question, of course.
....
The one feature of the pool stance that is probably more advantageous than the snooker stance, specifically for opposite-eye dominant players (e.g. Ralf Souquet, Willie Mosconi) is that the pool stance DOES tend to rotate the player's head over the cue such that the opposite eye (e.g. the left eye for a right-handed player) easily finds itself centered over the cue. The pool stance does facilitate placing the opposite-dominant eye close-to, or directly over, the centerline of the cue, by virtue of the 45 degree rotation of the body.
Hope this is helpful,
-Sean
Good point. If I could start all over from the beginning, I would want to learn using snooker fundamentals. It's simply a more consistent, more stable way to play with less that can go wrong. That's especially useful if you don't have all day, every day to stay in stroke.
Also, speaking as an opposite-eye dominant pool player, the snooker stance works but you have to be especially careful to make sure you're walking in and sighting with your dominant eye. The stance tends to pull you to a center head position, so it's easy to be a little bit off if you're not careful.
I was watching some snooker on youtube (they get such nice high quality vids on youtube right away)... the fundamentals of these guys is just awesome to behold. There is absolutely no waver or swoop on any of the shots. The stroke looks nice and compact, not long at all, yet they generate plenty of force to move the cue ball around in that short distance.
But most impressive is how low they get on the shot. Higgins literally scrapes his chin throughtout the practice strokes and the final stroke. His chin scrunches forward, it scrunches back... it's amazing he can do the final stroke without smacking it. Skip to 1:27.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDmc1S12zF8
But most impressive is how low they get on the shot. Higgins literally scrapes his chin throughtout the practice strokes and the final stroke. His chin scrunches forward, it scrunches back... it's amazing he can do the final stroke without smacking it. Skip to 1:27.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDmc1S12zF8
searcyD
Banned
sullivan fell asleep.
> I don't see any problems with it,other than I have YET to see a true-bred snooker champion that broke the balls worth a damn except for maybe John Horsfall. All that is just a matter of teaching them the mechanics of the blast break,someone like Johnny or Colin Colenso,even Bert Kinister's Big Bang tape would help them.
I used to tell people all the time though,that if Stephen Hendry had been exposed to pool here in the U.S.,that he would have done the same thing to men's pool that Allison did to the WPBA once she caught on.
And she did all that without much of a break too. Imagine Ronnie O'Sullivan with Shane's break
. Tommy D.
I used to tell people all the time though,that if Stephen Hendry had been exposed to pool here in the U.S.,that he would have done the same thing to men's pool that Allison did to the WPBA once she caught on.
And she did all that without much of a break too. Imagine Ronnie O'Sullivan with Shane's break
. Tommy D.