Bending down with abs or back?

[jonnylovessn8ker]

I seem to be inconsistent in my stance in that I don't know whether to bend down with my abs or with my back. The feeling is entirely different and one result in a wider leg spread than another.

Please advise.

[cazmac1]

what ever you do it should feel natural, avoid any kind of twist as this will pull the cue of the line of aim. let you bridge hand take control and lead you in to your stance with over thinking it. It sounds easy but it's a lot harder to do than you might think

[DandyA]

I seem to be inconsistent in my stance in that I don't know whether to bend down with my abs or with my back. The feeling is entirely different and one result in a wider leg spread than another.

Please advise.

sorry for being dumb, but what is an "abs"? whatever it is, I think the coaches (and physiotherapists) will say you should use your hips to bend over ... for obvious reasons - isn't that what hips are for?

[eaoin11]

Not sure if you can expect a good stance to be comfortable for the first time, it took a while for that to happen for me. Making sure it's comfortable from the outset could lead to compromising the key elements of a good stance. Having a coach with you will help avoid mistakes that could cause problems. Some people can look at a pro then copy that what they do very well, but I wasn't one of those players and needed help for the first couple of years.

Bending from the hips is important, and will probably cause a strain in the hamstring if you are not bending from the waist at all. In that case some players swing the hips around a bit or bend both knees but it's good to try and keep your hip reasonably close to the line of the shot. I actually had to do stretching to get the flexibility needed to fold properly but it was definitely worth it.

[nrage]

I seem to be inconsistent in my stance in that I don't know whether to bend down with my abs or with my back. The feeling is entirely different and one result in a wider leg spread than another.

Interesting.. I would have thought you could achieve the same position regardless of which muscles you use. If I were you I'd get in front of a mirror and get down using each method you have, then decide which is the better stance. i.e. more stable, more comfortable, and more closely resembling the 'ideal' stance (search this forum, use google, or check your favourite book on snooker for this).

When you use your abs are you consciously tightening them as you bend, is that the main difference between that and using your back? I suspect this is the better option, as I suspect it will keep your back straighter and get the hips in the correct position. You want to get as flat a back as possible, and by this I don't mean flat like the table, I mean straight up the center of the spine. Your upper back will have a twist, to get the shoulders in position and this will stop it being level like the table, but the central spine can still be a straight line from hips to shoulders.

[eaoin11]

Yep, agree with nrage. Bending from the hips properly will give you the flat lower back, and you should feel a bit of strain in the hamstring. A lot of people bend from the waist to reduce the strain without thinking and that's when the inconsistency creeps in.

[cazmac1]

I haven't seen my abs since my twenty s.lol

[damienlch]

I haven't seen my abs since my twenty s.lol

My 6 pack had combined forces and morphed into one mass, thereby making it more powerful...

[CoachGavin]

Personally I find it very difficult to bend from the hips at all. I have always bent from the waist and now I have been doing it so long that I actually cant work out how to bend from my hips. Maybe I just have too much fat now for them to bend! Its a bad fault and I would love to correct it.

[stanbunker]

Hi, I am a newbie, and I go along with what these guys are saying. depending on how long your legs are this may result on you having to stick your bum out with a flat back and slightly twisted hips. A lot if the pros get down on the shot by slightly twisting the torso whilst walking into the shot, so that when they bend down you are over the shot, but as with many natural moves the whole body is working in unison, in a fluid movement rather than using one specific set of muscles. The more you practise with one stance that works for you adn enables you to drop down directly over the line of aim, the less you will be concerned, or even notice which muscles you are using, because given time and practise it all becomes muscle memory!

[jonnylovessn8ker]

Interesting.. I would have thought you could achieve the same position regardless of which muscles you use. If I were you I'd get in front of a mirror and get down using each method you have, then decide which is the better stance. i.e. more stable, more comfortable, and more closely resembling the 'ideal' stance (search this forum, use google, or check your favourite book on snooker for this).

When you use your abs are you consciously tightening them as you bend, is that the main difference between that and using your back? I suspect this is the better option, as I suspect it will keep your back straighter and get the hips in the correct position. You want to get as flat a back as possible, and by this I don't mean flat like the table, I mean straight up the center of the spine. Your upper back will have a twist, to get the shoulders in position and this will stop it being level like the table, but the central spine can still be a straight line from hips to shoulders.

noted nrage, will try it out.
over the past few days, i realized that where/how i bend affects the entire stance, all of which are comfortable, but result in the same exact inconsistency!
seems like i can bend down with my back, abs, and hips (lower back). each would result in a different bend to how flat my back is, and depending on that, it seems to affect the width of my stance.
the lower the bend, the wider the leg stance. vice versa.

in terms of cue action, i've kept caz's advice to keep elbow straight, and make sure the cue is directly below the arm and elbow to ensure a straight delivery.

it also has come to a point that i have been thinking how far my cue arm (even though it is straight in every way) is away from my side chest. because i feel that with different levels of bends, i need to adjust to ensure that my arm is below my dominate eye (right) and is aligned with the delivery line.

seems for now that all 3 ways work, but inconsistently in snooker, but works just fine with uk pool or american pool..

[nrage]

seems for now that all 3 ways work, but inconsistently in snooker, but works just fine with uk pool or american pool..

Snooker does require a higher level of accuracy due to pocket/ball ratios and the sheer distance involved.

Caz's advice, and Del's videos are spot on I reckon. Tho, IIRC the videos don't give you a really good side on view of Caz's position, arms, elbows etc and they assume a level of proficiency (that Caz had/has already). If you need/want something which looks at it more in depth there are some good Nic Barrow ones on youtube where he is talking to a group of guys of varying abilities. There are a series on stance, grip etc which start from the very basics of how to walk in and get down etc. Well worth a look I reckon.

Something else to think about/try with your stance is whether you're using a square stance where the front foot is only just ahead, or even in line with the back foot (front to back), or the more side on stance where the front foot is well ahead. The Terry Griffiths video someone posted in another thread implied that a square stance was better for getting the right eye over the cue, and a side on stance better for getting the left eye over the cue (for a right handed player).

It may be that your stance is actually fine and it's something else like body movement or grip/wrist movement which is causing the trouble. Have you filmed your cue action (potting long blues) from front, back and side? If you can, in good lighting, and play it back frame by frame you'll get a good idea if you have any other flaws playing a part.