Switching to a snooker stance has really improved my ball pocketing

[DangerousDave]

You just don't even know a little bit do you?

FWIW - I saw that picture 30 years ago, and read all 3 of Joe's books.

He stands 'angled' for the same reason Mosconi did, and I'm certain,
from your uninformed comments you don't have a clue as to why.

Many players stand more square to the line of the shot - as do many
top pool players - but not all. Likewise, few pool players stand nearly so
angled to the line of the shot as Mosconi did. So what?

There is MUCH more to a stance than the relative position of ones feet.

Dale(who wonders if somebody read the part about I have played both ways)

"Snooker players use their stance because Joe Davis used it."

This is an exact quote of what you said, despite the fact that the vast majority of top players stand nothing like Joe Davis. This makes what you said, as you've written it, demonstrably false. Ronnie O'Sullivan, who won the Masters last night (heard of it?) is, like Davis, right-handed and left-eyed. Despite having this in common, Ronnie stands square on to the shot - like every other player in the game that wins anything.

But obviously there's no benefit to the square on stance they all use. They're just copying Joe Davis...but not really copying Joe Davis. Point well made.

I'm not too concerned with winning you over, as anyone who knows anything about snooker knows that you're full of it.

 

[Mike Porter]

I have said this before, so I will say it again. Snooker players are considered to be the most accurate when it comes to making balls. Why not study what the majority of them do?
When a snooker player starts to struggle, they get back to basics (walking into the shot,stance and cue delivery). It seems that when a pool player starts to struggle, different aiming systems are studied or they look for secrets that the pros know.
Snooker players do not think much about all these different aiming systems because they do not promote better accuracy. I am by no means saying that they do not have systems i.e.: ghost ball, ¼, ½ ball...
The subject of snooker player’s attitude towards 9 ball is often discussed. This is due to how easy it is to make balls on a pool table. I know, there is a lot more to 9 ball than just making balls. The snooker players attitude is often perceived as arrogance and probably rightfully so. Can the same not be said about the pool player? You do not have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to accuracy.
Try a squarer stance with your hips torqued (just a bit) and your shoulder aligned (behind) with your head. Who knows, you just might become a more accurate player.
Mike

 

[kaylaemarx]

In order to take a smooth, accurate shot proper balance is vital and this is something that you will gain from developing your snooker stance.

 

[CreeDo]

Isn't Moroone a type of cookie?

"Yeah lemme get 2 boxes of Maroones... some Samoans... 3 thin mints...
whaddya doing later tonight sweetie?"

 

[SeabrookMiglla]

I have said this before, so I will say it again. Snooker players are considered to be the most accurate when it comes to making balls. Why not study what the majority of them do?
When a snooker player starts to struggle, they get back to basics (walking into the shot,stance and cue delivery). It seems that when a pool player starts to struggle, different aiming systems are studied or they look for secrets that the pros know.
Snooker players do not think much about all these different aiming systems because they do not promote better accuracy. I am by no means saying that they do not have systems i.e.: ghost ball, ¼, ½ ball...
The subject of snooker player’s attitude towards 9 ball is often discussed. This is due to how easy it is to make balls on a pool table. I know, there is a lot more to 9 ball than just making balls. The snooker players attitude is often perceived as arrogance and probably rightfully so. Can the same not be said about the pool player? You do not have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to accuracy.
Try a squarer stance with your hips torqued (just a bit) and your shoulder aligned (behind) with your head. Who knows, you just might become a more accurate player.
Mike

i agree with a lot of what you said. i can across the snobish thing from some people from the snooker world, a lot of players though liked pool though. people who know what they are talking about know its apples and oranges.

as far as the stance, i think kinda like what you were getting at is- mechanics is emphasized greatly in snooker, same with pool.but ive observed though that more snooker players tend to be more mechanical in their approach to the game. i think because the difficulty of the table you have to be more mechanical in shot making, where as in pool more emphasis is on moving the ball rather than pocketing. in pool peoples pocketing ability is not that much different from one another, but moving the cue ball is.

 

[sfleinen]

In case anybody cares - am not in any way lobbying against a squared up
stance. Many great players stand that way.

IMHO - there is no demonstrable advantage to it. It seems more natural
to line up angled to the line of the shot, but either can result in a high
level of skill, if used correctly.

Dale(stance maven)

Yeah, Dale, but at the same time, you come across as a very angry fellow -- it drips in buckets from the "tone" of your writing. Maybe you don't mean it that way, and instead it's supposed to come across "matter-of-factly."

Or, then again, you may indeed be an angry fellow, and anyone that questions "traditional pool knowledge" (such as proper stance or anything having to do with 'deities' like Mosconi) deserves to be verbally incinerated.

<elbow-nudge> <elbow-nudge>

-Sean <-- used both stances as well, and has long since discarded the Lance Perkins-esque pool stance, and standardized on the snooker stance for its alignment superiority. Nyeh!

 

[sfleinen]

Well no, as a matter of fact it isn't. Read Joe's book - he explains some
of his reasons. It is good info if you understand enough about stroke
mechanics. IMHO - he doesn't provide enough detail for a novice to
understand fully why the stroke and stance work so well.
It is mostly presented as a this-is-the-way-I-do-it-so-you-should-also.

Sound familiar?

Dale

Yup, sounds *just like* Mosconi in his books.


-Sean

 

[Mike Porter]

i agree with a lot of what you said. i can across the snobish thing from some people from the snooker world, a lot of players though liked pool though. people who know what they are talking about know its apples and oranges.

as far as the stance, i think kinda like what you were getting at is- mechanics is emphasized greatly in snooker, same with pool.but ive observed though that more snooker players tend to be more mechanical in their approach to the game. i think because the difficulty of the table you have to be more mechanical in shot making, where as in pool more emphasis is on moving the ball rather than pocketing. in pool peoples pocketing ability is not that much different from one another, but moving the cue ball is.

We are in agreement except for the movement of the cue ball. Playing position in snooker is just as important as 9 ball. Most runs in snooker are negated by landing on the wrong side of the ball.

Also, I have heard it stated that when playing snooker you do not have to hit the cue ball as hard as what you do in 9 ball. I disagree with that completely. Yes numerous shots are played delicately but, more are played at a much greater speed. Stun shots are often used. Many of these shots if played with follow through on a pool table would easily travel three lengths of the table. Snooker tables (6 x 12) can be very deceiving when viewed in broadcasts. To stay at the business end of the table, you are still trying to play within an area of at least 6’ x 6’. Technically, it is more like 7’ x 6’ due to using the blue ball. This equates to anywhere from 36 to 42 square feet. A 4 ½ x 9 foot pool table has 40 ½ square feet. As you can see, watching televised snooker can be deceiving when estimating distances the cue ball travels.

Sorry for getting long winded. Now back on track. You are right, having better mechanics is a must, if you want to be more consistent. No matter what cue game you subscribe to, you do not get to shoot again if a ball is not made.
Mike

 

[pdcue]

"Snooker players use their stance because Joe Davis used it."

This is an exact quote of what you said, despite the fact that the vast majority of top players stand nothing like Joe Davis. This makes what you said, as you've written it, demonstrably false. Ronnie O'Sullivan, who won the Masters last night (heard of it?) is, like Davis, right-handed and left-eyed. Despite having this in common, Ronnie stands square on to the shot - like every other player in the game that wins anything.

But obviously there's no benefit to the square on stance they all use. They're just copying Joe Davis...but not really copying Joe Davis. Point well made.

I'm not too concerned with winning you over, as anyone who knows anything about snooker knows that you're full of it.

I don't know how to put it any more clearly. The important elements of
Joe's stance are not the relative position of his feet.

Find a picture of Luther Lasiter - put it next to the one of Joe - then
tell me which one of them O'Sullivan stands more like.

But, if we must discuss feet - a sqaured up stance does, in fact, offer
no advantage in and of itself. I strongly concur with naji. Potting balls
comes down to learning to shove the cue back and forth in a straight line.

If you really believe the best results can only be achieved in that stance,
ther is nothing I can do for you.

Dale

 

[pdcue]

Yeah, Dale, but at the same time, you come across as a very angry fellow -- it drips in buckets from the "tone" of your writing. Maybe you don't mean it that way, and instead it's supposed to come across "matter-of-factly."

Or, then again, you may indeed be an angry fellow, and anyone that questions "traditional pool knowledge" (such as proper stance or anything having to do with 'deities' like Mosconi) deserves to be verbally incinerated.

<elbow-nudge> <elbow-nudge>

-Sean <-- used both stances as well, and has long since discarded the Lance Perkins-esque pool stance, and standardized on the snooker stance for its alignment superiority. Nyeh!

Do you really think Mosconi was not well aligned, nor well balanced?

I changed my stance, after many years of being a sub-standard shot maker,
to an especially rigid adherence to the "modern" snooker style.

My potting ability improved immensely, and immediately. Not because of
the squared stance, but rather more, in spite of it. My problem was one
of eye to cue alignment, which was easier to change and keep changed
with that stance - but the stance itself had little or nothing to do with
my improvement.

For years I assumed that aligning with your dominant eye directly over
the cue shaft was best for everybody because it was best for me. Turns out
many great potters don't align that way after all.

Dale(balanced and aligned)