Square stance and dominant right eye

[Terry Davidson]

After thinking about this for awhile I've come to the conclusion we are using the wrong definitions for square and open and I think you'll all find this makes sense. I checked my Joe Davis book where he shows his idea of the ideal stance, which is the boxer stance and he also explains it is just like a boxer would stand.

In looking at it the left foot is more in line with the back foot instead of out to the side, so I think when we refer to a square stance we are saying the bent leg is out to the side and either parallel with the back foot or else slightly ahead of it by anywhere up to a foot I imagine.

Whereas the boxer or open stance means with the feet less spaced apart and the bent leg foot almost directly in line with the back foot. This stance would give less side-to-side stability and more front-to-back stability whereas the square stance would be the opposite with more side-to-side stability which I think everyone would agree is more important in snooker

Terry

[nrage]

After thinking about this for awhile I've come to the conclusion we are using the wrong definitions for square and open and I think you'll all find this makes sense. I checked my Joe Davis book where he shows his idea of the ideal stance, which is the boxer stance and he also explains it is just like a boxer would stand.

In looking at it the left foot is more in line with the back foot instead of out to the side, so I think when we refer to a square stance we are saying the bent leg is out to the side and either parallel with the back foot or else slightly ahead of it by anywhere up to a foot I imagine.

Whereas the boxer or open stance means with the feet less spaced apart and the bent leg foot almost directly in line with the back foot. This stance would give less side-to-side stability and more front-to-back stability whereas the square stance would be the opposite with more side-to-side stability which I think everyone would agree is more important in snooker

Terry

Yep, in the Del video posted above, the "pool" stance he shows is what I'd call the "boxer" stance. The snooker stance he teaches is the "square" stance. Perhaps me referring to a square stance where the front foot is forward of the back as a 1/2 boxer was wrong

[1986jet]

Surely the perfect stance is one which with cue lands on the line of aim? I had some coaching and we went through some tests to see if my cue was landing on the line of aim. I was using the completely square stance but with the line of aim passing through my heel and it turned out the cue was not landing on the line of aim so I changed it by having my front foot further forward. The problem I have having now is that my chest gets in the way on the follow through, I tried to sort this originally by bending the knee more but I was still finding I was standing up to get the cue to pass the chest on the follow through. I have changed the position of my foot so now the line of aim passes through my back foot entirely with my foot straight forward because I was finding I was too low down on the shot (think Mark Williams) but I am now having the problem even worse with my chest getting in the way and no amount of knee bend is getting the cue to pass the chest. Help would be greatly appreciated.

[Noelcwb]

After thinking about this for awhile I've come to the conclusion we are using the wrong definitions for square and open and I think you'll all find this makes sense. I checked my Joe Davis book where he shows his idea of the ideal stance, which is the boxer stance and he also explains it is just like a boxer would stand.

In looking at it the left foot is more in line with the back foot instead of out to the side, so I think when we refer to a square stance we are saying the bent leg is out to the side and either parallel with the back foot or else slightly ahead of it by anywhere up to a foot I imagine.

Whereas the boxer or open stance means with the feet less spaced apart and the bent leg foot almost directly in line with the back foot. This stance would give less side-to-side stability and more front-to-back stability whereas the square stance would be the opposite with more side-to-side stability which I think everyone would agree is more important in snooker

Terry

And once again... Terry solves the charade... god damn Terry... you are a snooker scientist... =)
Absolute correct about all the comments... the stability differs a lot betwen these two stances... I dont have anything more to say.. LOL

[Terry Davidson]

1986:

I shall quote the great Steve Davis regarding your stance problems. What Steve said is 'you don't hit the ball with your stance' and by this he meant (within certain limits) it doesn't matter how you stand as long as you are comfortable and can deliver the cue straight.

So my recommendation to you would be to play around with your stance with your eyes closed and in the address position and 'feel' what's comfortable for you. If your chest is in the way then you are likely doing a couple of things wrong, i.e. - right shoulder down into the shot too far - it should be as high as you can comfortably get it and also you may not be twisting the hips out of the way properly - there should be at least 2-3in between the grip thumb and the outside of the trousers

Terry

[xetan]

I think most of the pros are using 1/2 squire stance, since nowaday, professional players tends to stand more square to the table than the players in the 70's. If you watch the video, it is different to judge whether they are using square stance or boxer stance because the camera may shoot from an angle which align the left and right legs so it looks similar to a square stance.
The only player I'm sure who is using square stance is Stephen Hendry, Base on an instructional book he published. He also have his right toe point in the same direction to the shot.
I think a good stance is the right leg perpendicular to the floor, where every professional have in common.