When did getting low on the cue happen?

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Not hard to do when no American has ever cracked the top 100 in ranking. And, it’s unlikely he played snooker against the best American snooker players.
Jimmy Moore used to lock horns with the NorthAmerican champ, George Chenier....not many would.
There were a lot of snooker tables back then...maybe 5% were 6x12s....and there was plenty of action on them.
...and in Jimmy’s prime, there was no top 100 ranking...I doubt there was not much more than maybe 15...
....and they mostly did exhibitions....no money matches....snooker had no money then.
 

Woodshaft

Cashing in on ignorance since 1984
I stand more upright for closer shots, and when I play on a smaller table. For longer shots I get down more. I feel most decent players do this. Also, those pictures of players in older books are just poses, hence the upright stance. Not much mystery here lol
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I’m curious if pro snooker players got lower on the cue 50+ years ago, before most pro pool players started getting low on the cue?
With the much longer distances it would make sense, I'm also curious about this.

When your CB is close to an OB, it makes sense to stand more upright to get a better shot picture, or in situations where you're shooting over balls for obvious reasons. Perhaps part of the reason was billiards (non pocket kind) used to be THE game. It's easier to see what's going on when you're moving balls a fraction of an inch along a rail for hundreds of points. This is speculation, but I'd imagine if you saw exhibitions in your town, it was the stance used and emulated. Pre-internet information was hard to get and slow to change. The older books were either about billiards, or made by people coming from or used to watching billiards. If the champions of the time played billiards, then people transferred to pocket games, it makes sense they would stay with the old reliable stance.

No one gave much info for free back then, so unless someone playing a low stance player personally put 2 and 2 together they used what they were used to seeing. If the champs stood upright and made a hundred points down the long rail, this was surely the way to stand.

Personally, growing up in the 80s, I never really saw anyone play low on the ball. Everyone just stood upright. There wasn't much of a pool culture other than bars here. It was in the late 90s when I saw someone shooting low, but even then it wasn't something you saw like you do today. Even if you watched things like those old shows with fats vs. lassiter, they stood mostly upright. Being in an isolated area without a pool hall culture, these were the folks you emulated.
 
Last edited:

whiteoak

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm 6'2" with long arms and legs. Getting low has never felt comfortable to me. Not super upright like some of those old-timers, kinda in-between. Getting really low is easier for shorter players no doubt. I remember watching Matlock and almost cringing. Dave is not real tall and was a really good all-'round athlete. He could get down with his upper body almost parallel to the slate, cue buried in chin. Me do that?? Yeah right.
I hear you.If I got that low I might be stuck there for a few hours(or days):)
 

Geosnookery

Well-known member
I stand more upright for closer shots, and when I play on a smaller table. For longer shots I get down more. I feel most decent players do this. Also, those pictures of players in older books are just poses, hence the upright stance. Not much mystery here lol
Snooker players use the same stance if a 2 foot tap in or 12 foot shot. Usually also the same cue action. I’m not studying or looking at the table when down on a shot. I’ve decided how to hit the cue ball and where to hit the object ball beforehand. When down on the shot it’s robotic execution.
 

GaryB

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Snooker fundamentals are the most solid for any game with pockets IMO. Except for the occasional savant our games lack of continuity are generally related to our fundamentals.,

Something that always puzzled me was watching the players at Hard Times play "Golf" on the 6' x 12' Big Bertha. They were always lagging towards their pocket., These were all above average players. But then I would watch guys like Kim Davenport & "Morro" Paez play Liability for $30 a point and they drilled the balls like they were playing on a 9" table. I think maybe the "Golf" players were worried about selling out and the cue ball was so important.

One thing I do know is that Big Bertha being by the entrance/exit doors made me late to either home or my next stop way too many times!
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Snooker fundamentals are the most solid for any game with pockets IMO. Except for the occasional savant our games lack of continuity are generally related to our fundamentals.,

Something that always puzzled me was watching the players at Hard Times play "Golf" on the 6' x 12' Big Bertha. They were always lagging towards their pocket., These were all above average players. But then I would watch guys like Kim Davenport & "Morro" Paez play Liability for $30 a point and they drilled the balls like they were playing on a 9" table. I think maybe the "Golf" players were worried about selling out and the cue ball was so important.

One thing I do know is that Big Bertha being by the entrance/exit doors made me late to either home or my next stop way too many times!
Two very different games Gary. The Golf game had between four and six players most of the time and the Liability game you speak of had only two players. The rules and the payoffs are very different as well.

Interesting factoid about the game between Morro and Kim. This match was no accident that just happened by them being at the same place and time. They set it up in advance and Kim drove down to L.A. for the match and stayed in my home the entire five or six days it went on. On the first day Kim lost all his money (I believe it was 6,000) to Morro. He came back to my house and told me he "knew" he could beat Morro at this game. He had his wife Aida wire down the last 3,000 he had to gamble with. If he lost that he was done. Kim took his "case" money and proceeded to bust Morro and his backers. Kim ended up winning over 10K. I gained a lot of respect for Kim that week.
 

Protractor

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't get down as low as I used to, with cue gazing the chin because I now wear glasses to shoot. Because they are standard frames rather than the goofy looking upside downers the top part of the frame intrudes if I get down too low. Has not seemed to hurt my shooting by standing a little higher.

I was watching Jeff Ignacio playing Jayson Shaw on YT last night at the bar table championship match from about 2015 or so and noted that Ignacio does not get low at all. Sure doesn't hurt his game. Maybe I need to stand up a little more ;)
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
It seems the greats of old stood much more upright over the cue ball. When did this change, with modern players sighting almost like down a rifle? Was there some great that did this and everyone copied it? Does any modern pro stand pretty upright?
YES, some great players got down low, then monkey-see-monkey-do. You can play at a high level standing anywhere from chin over cue to about two feet above the cue stick, but bear in mind that lowering the head tends to move it laterally also, changing your line-of-sight/vision center.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In this photo, Lindrum is the guy holding his cue. That could be his brother shooting.
Here is Joe Davis from his 1929 book, "Billiards Up to Date" and the Lindrums from Horace Lindrum's 1974 book, "Billiards, Snooker and Pool". Fred III was supposed to be the Lindrum champion from that generation, but he developed bad habits on the road and Fred II then put his efforts into developing Walter. It seems to have worked.

Scan20210104_0001.jpg


Scan20210104.jpg
 

Bluewire686

New member
Back in the old days when straight pool was king and most of the game was played 1/2 table it's easier to see angles and the clearance between balls by standing more upright.
The closer the cue ball is to the object ball the more upright I stand.
As the shot gets longer I get lower.
It's just the way I do it.
I grew up playing mostly straight pool in the early '60's.
Yeah I'm that old.
Same here
 

KissedOut

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
3C players tend to be more upright and snooker players tend to be quite low. I think a better question than when is why. What are the advantages and disadvantages of very low vs. more upright that lead to the 3c/snooker difference in stance height? Visual, stroke mechanics, something else?
 

Guy Manges

Registered
How low is low?
How old is old?
I think this rifeing came from England snooker players. There was a saying once that we must square ourselves with the table inorder to play the game. Gareth Potts is a real example of this. This aiming seems to work with a much greater percentage.
 
Top