Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by J Du » Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
> This is the third or fourth time that someone has said lately that the
snooker
> stance used by Corr and Fisher involves keeping their legs straight.  When
I
> watch them play, I don't see straight legs.  What I see is a fairly square
> stance, with the rear leg (or what would be the rear leg) bent and the
knee
> turned inward.  Line Kjoersvik is another example, although she sometimes
bends
> BOTH knees, not just the rear one.

> The "normal" pool stance is less square, meaning that the front foot is
farther
> ahead of the rear foot, the back leg is straight (although the knee joint
may
> not be locked tight, mine isn't), and the front leg is either straight or
bent
> (usually depending on how tall is the player).

I've wondered why the 'snooker' stance is more square to the table.  I've
been told it is because the table is so large that they are shooting many
more shots from 2-3 feet away from their body, and with that have to get
close to the table.  As such, changing to a square stance is the one they
use most of the time, so using it away from the rail is simply "maintaining
the style".

That said, the key thing I see with the straight stance is that your head is
not***ed to the side during aiming.  By the time I take my typical 45
degree open stance, put my *** eye over the ball and turn my head to
look down the target line, I can pretty much guarantee the world is slightly
skewed.  It seems that with a more open stance that my face and vision would
be straighter down the target line.

As far as the width, locked knees, etc., I gotta believe this is personal.
I watched Karen and Alison last night.  Karen's stance was wide, Alisson's
was 2/3s that of Karen's.  Otto's (whom I had the good fortune of playing
with today) uses a similar stance (and yes Mark, I was looking at it
closely, especially the way you were shooting) is wider than even
Karen's..... the key element is they all seem to get over the stick to the
same level.  Then it becomes execution.

I also wonder if it is easier to have a straight stroke (from the elbow)
when your stroke is not crossing your body plane.

Lots of interesting thoughts.  Now after I get done trying them, Tom is
going to have to come in and do some repair work.

--Jim

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> When I experiment with a square stance, I find that my rear hand brushes
> against my hip, causing problems with a straight stroke.  I think that is
why
> the snooker players bend in their knee, to try to get the hip out of the
way of
> their grip hand.  Maybe my legs are too long or something, but I can't get
my
> hip out of the way comfortably by just bending in my rear knee.  It is
easier
> for me just to rotate my hips around a couple of inches, away from the
stick,
> move my front foot forward a little, and adopt a "normal" pool stance.  Of
> course, it could be an "old dog, new trick" issue with me.

> $.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Dick Schneide » Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:57:59

Quote:
>This is the third or fourth time that someone has said lately that the
>snooker
>stance used by Corr and Fisher involves keeping their legs straight.  When I
>watch them play, I don't see straight legs.  What I see is a fairly square
>stance, with the rear leg (or what would be the rear leg) bent and the knee
>turned inward.  Line Kjoersvik is another example, although she sometimes
>bends
>BOTH knees, not just the rear one.

Since all of these players are women, perhaps this squared up stance has more
to do with ***s and not a snooker background.

Dick (the chauvinist pig) Schneiders

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Ravelom » Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:18:17

I was taught that stance by Rich Sacco the owner of Castle Billiards in East
Rutherford NJ. Rich is a BCA certified instructor and learned Allison's stance
directly from her. Being 6'1' and 250 lbs I modified it a bit to give me
clearance for the cue.

 Stand back from the table square to the line of aim. Line up the outside of
your right foot, and your cue, to the line of aim. Come down onto the shot
flexing the knee of the left foot. You can step your left foot up, perhaps six
inches, if you need to. (Don't if you don't have too.)

For me I modified it by pivoting my right foot slightly inward and stepping my
left leg  up into a more pool-like stance.

I feel that the important thing is establish the alignment of stance and aim.
This means that there should be few if any aimimg adjustments necessary after
you are in position for the shot.

This has improved my consistency dramatically and it can do the same for you.

Jerry

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Patrick Johnso » Thu, 19 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> ... the key thing I see with the straight stance is that your head is
> not***ed to the side during aiming.  By the time I take my typical 45
> degree open stance, put my *** eye over the ball and turn my head to
> look down the target line, I can pretty much guarantee the world is slightly
> skewed.  It seems that with a more open stance that my face and vision would
> be straighter down the target line.

This is true for me, and it's much more comfortable for my neck and
shoulders to not have to turn my head so much to look along the stick
(as you do in a more "closed" stance).  But the open stance has its
drawbacks, too...

Quote:
> I also wonder if it is easier to have a straight stroke (from the elbow)
> when your stroke is not crossing your body plane.

Ah, there's the rub.  I've found that this is one of the most
important pieces of the puzzle, and that having it just right makes a
huge difference in the straightness of my stroke and in the ease with
which I get power.  Unfortunately, for me the open stance works
against this.  The best way for me to get my elbow hinging correctly
is to get it away from my body like with the closed stance so my
forearm can hang straight down and I can still get the stick under my
eye -- but that's too uncomfortable, so I have to compromise.  The
tradeoffs for me are:

CLOSED STANCE
Elbow/forearm works correctly but head turned too far and picture
"skewed".

OPEN STANCE
Head comfortable and picture straight, but forearm tucked under
(shoulder not over stick) and stroke wobbles.

Oy vey.  I've spent the better part of the past several years trying
to fing the right compromise.  Some surprising things that have
helped:

1.  Raising my shooting arm shoulder.  This allows my forearm to hang
straight down and my shoulder, forearm, elbow and stick to be in the
same plane.  Unfortunately, this takes more physical effort.

2.  Raising my hips (straightening my legs).  This gets my chest out
of the way of the stick.  Unfortunately, this takes more physical
effort (I'm tall) and has me looking more "down" on the shot.

Everything's a tradeoff, and some days it seems I'm a quivering,
shifting mound of jello trying to find stability with no points of
reference.  Which way is up again?

(Better every day, though...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Warren Lushi » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Tonight on the WPBA 9 Ball finals (taped at Valley Forge), Robin Dodson was
> commenting on Karen's & Alison's almost straight on stance.  Robin said that
> while most people don't get it (I missed up to this part of her comment),
> "that once Karen taught her a key part of the stance, that it has improved
> Robin's game by 30%".  This was said around the 5-1 or 6-1 point in the
> match.

minor point -- i'm pretty sure it was dawn hopkins who made that statement when
she visited the booth, not robin dodson.

warren..

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by J Du » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00


Quote:


> > Tonight on the WPBA 9 Ball finals (taped at Valley Forge), Robin Dodson
was
> > commenting on Karen's & Alison's almost straight on stance.  Robin said
that
> > while most people don't get it (I missed up to this part of her
comment),
> > "that once Karen taught her a key part of the stance, that it has
improved
> > Robin's game by 30%".  This was said around the 5-1 or 6-1 point in the
> > match.

> minor point -- i'm pretty sure it was dawn hopkins who made that statement
when
> she visited the booth, not robin dodson.

You may be right, I may have got the voices mixed up since the camera was on
the table and they were simply voice-overs.

But I'm also curious, if either Dawn or Robin had a 30% improvement in their
game, shouldn't they be just killing the whole WPBA tour and possibly taking
aim at the men.  Seens 30%, when you are already at that level, is a big,
big statement.  That is why I was so taken with "what is it?".  Is there a
secret out there we are all yearning for and only periodically brush up
against (being in dead stroke) or is this another case of announcer &
marketing hype.... and if so, what are they marketing?

--Jim

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> warren..

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Fred Agni » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>>I studied Carr's stance for the short moment it was on the tape and it
looks
>>like the 'both legs straight' stance as described  in the Fundamental
>>chapter in Phil Capelle's book(bible) 'Play Your Best Pool'.

>This is the third or fourth time that someone has said lately that the
snooker
>stance used by Corr and Fisher involves keeping their legs straight.  When
I
>watch them play, I don't see straight legs

This is yet another of example of people just saying things to say.  You're
right, Ron.  At least one of the legs in their stance is bent.  And on many
shots, both of Allison's legs are bent.   Allison's stance is so far removed
from the standard "snooker stance", that many snooker players consider her
stance a "pool stance."  Contrary to much of this thread's discussion on her
stance, Allison's stance isn't all that square compared to Karen's.  It used
to be, but not anymore.  Karen's stance has also changed from her first
tournaments in the U.S. to today's tournaments.  I suspect that as time goes
on, she'll be less square as well.

Fred

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Ron Shepa » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>But I'm also curious, if either Dawn or Robin had a 30% improvement in their
>game, shouldn't they be just killing the whole WPBA tour and possibly taking
>aim at the men.  Seens 30%, when you are already at that level, is a big,
>big statement. [...]

First, I think you have to take such numbers with a grain of salt.  In this
particular case, I don't know, but in general, when someone says "30%" or "50%"
improvement, it really just means that they think it was a significant
improvement.  If you look at their TPA, it did not mean necessarily that it
went from .600 to .900 (which is one way of quantifying a 30% absolute
improvement).  It could also mean that the number of mistakes was reduced by
30%.  That would correspond to going from a .700 to about a .800 TPA, or a .970
to a .980 TPA.  

This latter measure, which is more of a relative measure than an absolute
measure, is probably what I would use if I made that kind of statement, but I
would make sure that I had a few hours worth of matches, both before and after
the technique change, and that the numbers really were correct, beforehand.  I
doubt that Dawn (or Robin) meant it that literally when they said it.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Smorgass Bor » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00

or is this another case of announcer & marketing hype.... and if so,
what are they marketing?
--Jim

 (*<~  shhhhhhssh, it's the shoes,man,the SHOES.....

                  Doug
 ~>*(((><  Big fish eat Little fish  ><)))*<~

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by tom simpso » Fri, 20 Oct 2000 04:00:00

        < snipped Pat's excellent observations on open vs. closed
stance, as related to shot alignment >

Here's another good thing to try. I've been using this a lot
the past few months. It's slows me down some, so I tend to use
it only on difficult shots.

Approach the shot in your normal fashion. Before you bend down
into your stance, hold the stick up in front of you like
you're lining up the shot two feet up from the table. In other
words, hold the stick out in front of you while you're in
position to bend down and shoot, and sight your shot alignment
from that position (it will get more accurate when you
actually go down).

The trick to this method is to get the stick out in front of
you in a neutral way (meaning twisting up your body parts as
little as possible), and then actually align the stick to the
shot line by MOVING YOUR FEET. Then, when your stick is in
decent alignment AND your body is neutral, bend down into your
stance and make your micro adjustments and shoot.

This is also a good method for FINDING your own "optimal"
stance angle, ie, where do your feet naturally end up when you
arrange  yourself to bend down from neutral?

This has been enlightening for me. I'd sure appreciate hearing
about whether & how it strikes others.

        tom simpson

 
 
 

Robin Dodson's comment on Karen Corr's stance

Post by Otto » Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Tom,

It's one of the first things I fall back on when the balls stop dropping. It
eliminates the 'hurry' and also eliminates approaching the shot from the
side which seems to be my natural tendency and kills what little accuracy I
have.

Otto


Quote:
> Here's another good thing to try. I've been using this a lot
> the past few months. It's slows me down some, so I tend to use
> it only on difficult shots.

> Approach the shot in your normal fashion. Before you bend down
> into your stance, hold the stick up in front of you like
> you're lining up the shot two feet up from the table. In other
> words, hold the stick out in front of you while you're in
> position to bend down and shoot, and sight your shot alignment
> from that position (it will get more accurate when you
> actually go down).

> The trick to this method is to get the stick out in front of
> you in a neutral way (meaning twisting up your body parts as
> little as possible), and then actually align the stick to the
> shot line by MOVING YOUR FEET. Then, when your stick is in
> decent alignment AND your body is neutral, bend down into your
> stance and make your micro adjustments and shoot.

> This is also a good method for FINDING your own "optimal"
> stance angle, ie, where do your feet naturally end up when you
> arrange  yourself to bend down from neutral?

> This has been enlightening for me. I'd sure appreciate hearing
> about whether & how it strikes others.

> tom simpson