Stance question

[mosconiac]

Here, I've compiled everything I have posted in this thread. Maybe this will help you with your cyphering.

ps, I tried to help the OP...did you?

Search by my username with "stance" as keyword & you'll find a ton of info (as well as sfleinen's). If done correctly, there is no better stance than a "snooker" stance. They didn't evolve that way for no reason.

Did you review the info I have posted in the past? You sound like you are willing to experiment & I feel very strongly that you are capable of adopting the classic snooker stance with ease. Once you feel the groove that it produces, you will wonder why pool players stand so wonky.

You would be the first to accuse me of faulty logic. Your presumption that (I stated) everyone that adopts a snooker stance will become the next Ronnie O'Sullivan is ridiculous. Will thoughtful experimentation with your stance improve your game, most certainly. Will it single-handedly launch your professional career, no.

To dismiss the snooker stance as snake-oil or favor of the month would be thoughtless. You wouldn't do that.

Wonder why Alison ran over the entire WPBA field.

Wonder why Karen took over the tradition.

Wonder why Rempe & the Miz got run over by lower-tier players when they tried their hand at snooker.

You stick with close-minded negativity & boorish "logic"...I'll stick with those that get results.

 

[mosconiac]

Here's yours...

Looks like 'stance' is the new 'aiming'.

I suggest you do a search somewhere on the term 'faulty logic'.

If someone were to opine that standing like Willie Mosconi is the key to
running hundreds, you would have a cow.

Dale(been there, done that, know better)

You seem to excell at unfounded assumptions and 'half-thinking'.

You might point to where I even hinted the "snooker" stance is flawed.

Snooker pros certainly do pot with impressive ability - it is not SOLELY due
to the angle of their feet...

Remember Steve Davis? As I recall, he won a frame or two.

Dale

Don't think for a minute Willie wasn't a tremendous shot maker.

The late George Rood, a top 9 Ball player of their time, who played both of
them told me the only reason Willie wasn't as good a shot maker as
Lassiter was because he didn't need to be.

Dale

 

[pdcue]

Here, I've compiled everything I have posted in this thread. Maybe this will help you with your cyphering.

ps, I tried to help the OP...did you?

........................................................................

ps, I tried to help the OP...did you?
...........................................................

Absolutely -as always.

In this specific instance, I tried to help him, and you, understand there
is nothing magical, mystical, nor even inheriently superior about a
'squared up' stance. Regardless of how many champions names you choose to recite,
the simple truth is they are great players for many reasons. Most of those
reasons have little or nothing to do with the stance.

So he would be better served to focus more on development. If his new stance
helps him reach his highest level - that would be great. But no
particular stance will do that automatically.

So apparently you don't remember Steve Davis.

Dale

 

[FranCrimi]

........................................................................

ps, I tried to help the OP...did you?
...........................................................

Absolutely -as always.

In this specific instance, I tried to help him, and you, understand there
is nothing magical, mystical, nor even inheriently superior about a
'squared up' stance. Regardless of how many champions names you choose to recite,
the simple truth is they are great players for many reasons. Most of those
reasons have little or nothing to do with the stance.

So he would be better served to focus more on development. If his new stance
helps him reach his highest level - that would be great. But no
particular stance will do that automatically.

So apparently you don't remember Steve Davis.

Dale

I think you're wrong about that. How many champions do you know who have awkward stances?

 

[Matt]

I think that a good stance is about compromise. Pool (and snooker, for that matter) is not an ergonomically designed game. On every shot, we have to bend over, twist our body out of the way, lift our elbow up behind our back, lean over the table, etc. In short, we do our best to conform to the shape of the game, not the other way around. For different body shapes, sizes and degrees of flexibility, that means different things. The possibilities also vary depending on the shot. Even so, everyone should have one particular stance that they consider their normal stance so that it doesn't become a variable on every shot.

That normal stance should aspire to meet the following criteria:

• Repeatable, because that's the whole point of have a "go to" stance.
• Head/dominant eye alignment over cue.
• Shoulder, elbow, wrist and cue all on the same vertical plane.
• Unobstructed stroke path.
• Consistent alignment with shot line.
• Efficient and comfortable.

Unfortunately, some of these goals are at odds with one another.

A classic snooker stance makes it easier for some to sight down the cue, but makes it harder to keep your hip out of the way of the stroke. It is also usually less efficient and comfortable than an orthodox pool stance, especially at a pool table, which is shorter than a snooker table. If you happen to be a tall player, it become particularly difficult. A pool stance does a better job of clearing the stroke path, but makes sighting down the cue more difficult.

 

[mosconiac]

Well said, Matt. IME, pool players settle into "their" stance (whatever combination that may be) out of comfort & to a lesser degree, success. I've noticed that very few pool players think about about their stance, let alone experiment with it.