Why don't Snooker players use low deflection shafts?

[calcuttaman]

I'm watching the 2021 World Seniors Snooker and I started to wonder about the
shafts they are using. Everyone seems to be using the same type of ash shafts.

A friend suggested that most snooker shafts have a conical taper which by
nature has less deflection could be the reason why.

 

[JusticeNJ]

Aren’t snooker cues already kind of low deflection by virtue of the shaft diameter? Plus, they don’t spin the ball like modern pool players do. On those long pots, for example, spin isn’t happening.

 

[garczar]

I'm watching the 2021 World Seniors Snooker and I started to wonder about the
shafts they are using. Everyone seems to be using the same type of ash shafts.

A friend suggested that most snooker shafts have a conical taper which by
nature has less deflection could be the reason why.

They use conical-taper ash as a rule. Also use a brass ferrule. I don't know what deflection they have but the players just aim and shoot with them. They think us pool players are kinda nuts with all our equipment mania.

 

[Nick B]

Some do. Some play with ultra light titanium ferules.

 

[Geosnookery]

Many Snooker players will give you a blank stare when it comes to deflection. I never heard of it until I joined this site. There’s so many discussions on ‘aiming’ but most snooker players are puzzled how anyone can miss pocketing balls into 4.5 inch pockets on small American style tables after playing a year or so. You can even have wobbling rail balls sink.

I can pick up a house pool cue and sink table length shots on an American table. I suppose there is deflection, throw, etc. but I must instinctively compensate for these.
Snooker players will stick with the same cue for 20 years. Pool players are always discussing cue ‘a’ vs cue ‘b’and seem to know more than 2 or 3 cues. How do they know this? How can they know how a cue plays unless they have used it for 6 months? Anyways, stick with a cue and you will naturally adjust to its idiosyncrasies just as you can catch better with the baseball glove you’ve used for 25 years.

 

[ShootingArts]

I think snooker players were low deflection long before it was cool. I tried a snooker cue on a pool table back in the eighties and discovered low deflection. I suspect they are low deflection even with the smaller snooker balls.

Snooker players use a lot more extreme spin on a regular basis than they once did. I think they will move to CF shafts just at a slower rate than pool players since the snooker players are much slower to fix something that isn't broken. Seems that I talked to a snooker player and coach about CF, they had tried it and weren't impressed. This was months or a year ago so memory is a bit shaky.

Hu

 

[garczar]

I think snooker players were low deflection long before it was cool. I tried a snooker cue on a pool table back in the eighties and discovered low deflection. I suspect they are low deflection even with the smaller snooker balls.

Snooker players use a lot more extreme spin on a regular basis than they once did. I think they will move to CF shafts just at a slower rate than pool players since the snooker players are much slower to fix something that isn't broken. Seems that I talked to a snooker player and coach about CF, they had tried it and weren't impressed. This was months or a year ago so memory is a bit shaky.

Hu

I don't watch it a lot but i agree on the spin thing. These top snooker players use WAY more english than i would have thought. Ronnie O will flat load whitey up on a regular basis. Incredible to me.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Ash is lighter and a less rigid than maple . They tend to buckle a lot more than maple .
Brass is really heavy though .

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Brass is really heavy though .

The brass ferrules I've seen are a fairly thin, hollow cap and quite short. I think they weigh much less than, for example, a 7/8-inch ivory ferrule. In my experience snooker cues have less squirt/deflection than most pool cues. It helps that snooker cues are down around 10 mm diameters.

I have heard the UK commentators refer many times to squirt but they seem to call it "throw" or "throw off" or "push", which can be confusing if you are used to American terms.

 

[Greg M]

Many Snooker players will give you a blank stare when it comes to deflection. I never heard of it until I joined this site. There’s so many discussions on ‘aiming’ but most snooker players are puzzled how anyone can miss pocketing balls into 4.5 inch pockets on small American style tables after playing a year or so. You can even have wobbling rail balls sink.

I can pick up a house pool cue and sink table length shots on an American table. I suppose there is deflection, throw, etc. but I must instinctively compensate for these.
Snooker players will stick with the same cue for 20 years. Pool players are always discussing cue ‘a’ vs cue ‘b’and seem to know more than 2 or 3 cues. How do they know this? How can they know how a cue plays unless they have used it for 6 months? Anyways, stick with a cue and you will naturally adjust to its idiosyncrasies just as you can catch better with the baseball glove you’ve used for 25 years.

I'm the same. The only time I started hearing about deflection or "squirt" was when I had a look on sites such as Reddit or here on AzB with the majority of discussion being centred around American pool. I had no idea what people were on about.

Snooker cues are generally tipped at around 9–10mm, and the majority are made from ash. They're naturally low deflection, so a specific snooker cue shaft centred around it is a non-issue.

If you are looking to reduce the deflection on a snooker cue, however, titanium ferrules are gaining traction. The Century ones look fantastic.

 

[Ratamon]

I'm watching the 2021 World Seniors Snooker and I started to wonder about the
shafts they are using. Everyone seems to be using the same type of ash shafts.

A friend suggested that most snooker shafts have a conical taper which by
nature has less deflection could be the reason why.

Ash shafts with conical taper and brass ferrules has been the way in snooker since 1930’s.

There has been a lot of talk recently about titanium ferrules, which give lower deflection/throw and last longer. Both Jimmy White and John Higgins swear by them but it will take some time I feel before they become mainstream.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think also the 9.5mm tip diameter is smaller in relation to a snooker cue ball than the Z shaft is to a pool cue ball. At least that’s what it feels like to me. So that certainly helps a bit.

 

[TATE]

I think snooker players were low deflection long before it was cool. I tried a snooker cue on a pool table back in the eighties and discovered low deflection. I suspect they are low deflection even with the smaller snooker balls.

Snooker players use a lot more extreme spin on a regular basis than they once did. I think they will move to CF shafts just at a slower rate than pool players since the snooker players are much slower to fix something that isn't broken. Seems that I talked to a snooker player and coach about CF, they had tried it and weren't impressed. This was months or a year ago so memory is a bit shaky.

Hu

Yep, they know deflection well. Around 20 years ago my friend was visiting the UK and met up with Steve Davis to play. My friend tried a few snooker cues but was having a hard time with them not reacting as his personal pool cue did. Steve said "Oh, do you like squirt?" handed him a snooker cue that squirted like a pool cue and he was just fine.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think also the 9.5mm tip diameter is smaller in relation to a snooker cue ball than the Z shaft is to a pool cue ball. At least that’s what it feels like to me. So that certainly helps a bit.

2 1/16" snooker balls have about 22% less volume than 2 1/4" pool balls - that's about the same difference as between 9.5mm and 10.75mm tips - of course, the difference is smaller with smaller pool tips and larger with larger ones (and different shaft materials will change the comparisons some).

pj
chgo

 

[Rocket354]

2" snooker balls have about 30% less volume than 2 1/4" pool balls - that's about the same difference as between 9.5mm and 11.25mm tips - of course, the difference is smaller with smaller pool tips and larger with larger ones (and different shaft materials will change the comparisons some).

View attachment 594214

pj
chgo

Is volume the more relevant comparison than the area of the cross-section? Also, my understanding was that snooker balls are often 2 1/16", not a flat 2".

Doing a similar calculation by cross-sectional area, a 52.4mm snooker ball (2 1/16 in) is about 15% smaller than a 57mm (2 1/4 in) pool ball. Doing it that way I get that a 9.5mm snooker tip is proportional to a 10.3mm pool tip. Which makes sense to me--the few times I've played snooker I remember the tips seemed laughably small, even in comparison to the smaller balls.

 

[Mick]

Is volume the more relevant comparison than the area of the cross-section?

It would be, yeah. Deflection is caused by mass, mass is measured by volume.

 

[Cameron Smith]

Is volume the more relevant comparison than the area of the cross-section? Also, my understanding was that snooker balls are often 2 1/16", not a flat 2".

Doing a similar calculation by cross-sectional area, a 52.4mm snooker ball (2 1/16 in) is about 15% smaller than a 57mm (2 1/4 in) pool ball. Doing it that way I get that a 9.5mm snooker tip is proportional to a 10.3mm pool tip. Which makes sense to me--the few times I've played snooker I remember the tips seemed laughably small, even in comparison to the smaller balls.

2 1/16 in is what I was thinking of too. Though I know that American snooker uses 2 1/8 in balls. Good point about the volume. This isn't my strongest subject, but it brings to mind Chris Henry discussing his product 'the balls'. My understanding is that they are very light snooker balls (he's releasing a pool variation too think) that are weighted differently than proper balls. It exaggerates deflection to the point where even good players struggle to pot the cue ball directly into a far pocket.

 

[Rocket354]

It would be, yeah. Deflection is caused by mass, mass is measured by volume.

Well, in this instance the mass is proportional to the volume, but is not actually measured by volume--volume is measured by volume. But I understand what you are saying and ultimately it's a good point. For these proportions the mass of the respective balls (using the proportion of volume as a stand-in) would be a good comparison...but also, then, to the mass of the front-end of the cues, not to their sizes, correct?

For visual "feel" I think area to area is a good comparison.

 

[maha]

they are less gullible to gimmicks.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I don't know if I can speak for snooker players in general, but since I play both snooker and pool, with more emphasis on snooker in the lastest years, I can give some input.

1. Snooker cues ARE low deflection, especially compared to traditional pool cues. The brass ferrule is very thin and since the tip is a small diameter for most cues, the deflection is allready fairly low. It's not a massive clump of brass on the end, but a very thin and short sleeve, with the tenon going all the way through. My snooker cue is actually on the high side of deflection, since it is 10mm (vs 9.5) with a very slightly longer ferrule, but it still isn't bad.

2. Snooker players like to stick to one cue, and generally dislike switching back and forth between cues. Once you've learned the deflection of the cue, it takes a long time to learn how a new cue plays.

3. Feel. Brass ferrule, ash/maple shafts give a fairly strong feedback. For a while I played with my Z shaft to see if it could be done. Yes it can, but the feel just isn't right. In snooker speed control is EXTREMELY important, since you're often playing the cueball out into open space and have to stop it on a dime. You just can't use the rails as easily as in pool.

4. Diminishing returns. This is rarely spoken about, but the law of diminshing returns is definitely a factor in cue sports. Most snooker players like to let their cues do the talking, and it's hard to really see a difference between "performance" cues, and regular ones. Can you screw back farther? Can you make more balls? I've seen a lot of guys switch to carbon and ld shafts, and frankly I've NEVER, not even once seen the player improve as a result. Not in any visible way, anyway.

5. Tradition. Especially in England, people enjoy tradition, and dislike gimmicks. I have a suspicion you'd get laughed at if you showed up with some hot pink carbon cue.