Pool cue butt width vs. Snooker cue

9Ballr

9Ballr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Does any of the makers on here know why snooker cues generally have thinner butts vs. pool cues?

On Paris Cues (one of the top snooker cue makers) there is this information (I'm adding the inches measurements):

https://www.parriscues.com/faqs/

27mm is very slim (1.06 inches)
28mm to 28.5mm is slim (1.10 to 1.12 inches)
29mm to 30mm is medium (1.14 to 1.18 inches)
31mm is thick (1.22 inches)
32mm is very thick. (1.26 inches)


Most snooker players are in the 29 to 29.5 range.

http://snookerdelight.com/snooker-articles/playing-poorly-is-it-your-snooker-cue/


Just wondering why they're generally thinner. No real reason.

Thanks
 
Again, a lot of history.
While in the beginning all billiards related plays were very similar and used similar equipment (the well-known "shovel") they differenciated with the invention and rise of Snooker in the English world (colonies and motherland).

In the 1870s, billiards was a popular sport played by members of the British Army stationed in India. Snooker gained its own identity in 1884 when officer Sir Neville Chamberlain, while stationed in Jabalpur, devised a set of rules that combined pyramid and life pool.
Click to expand...

The finesse involved in Snooker (historically very defensive play) required different equipment. It is to be argued, but I' conviced that pool still is played with by far less finesse.
Don't forget that until Steven Hendry the long, aggressive pot of the red after the break was just not done! He changed the game that way.

Also the classical stroke mechanics are different, again also due to equipment. The splicing was not done for aesthetic reasons but to get the desired weight and balance via the use of different woods.
Snooker players hold the cue by the end of the butt really, we Poolers at the grip. They get more action by closing the grip hand on impact (that's most probably why the butt is smaller, so they can warp around the hand completely!) to the CB which also requires more timing.
For pool it might also stem from the "road players" where the butt really needs protection via a rubber at the end of the butt.

About the ferrule I have thought long and why pool traditionally and still have a very huge one, despite of all the downsides this has and not other discipline use that.
I think again, from the road players, so they had more material to work with when changing tips or due to high force from the breaks.

Carom players also usually have shorter cues (versus pool) - due to the "American series" (a ball setup to easily gain points) and different stroke and stance mechanics (I trained 1/2 year with Carom players).

I personally play a hybrid with a Snooker shaft and a Pool butt and break with a house cue. I find the lack of a linen wrap strongly disagrees with me and I really dislike natural weight balance through the use of wood - because I cannot change it to my liking.

Cheers,
M
 
Last edited:
Very good answer.
Considering the fact that I personally like to wrap my fingers around the butt of the cue when I stroke, perhaps I should start experimenting with thinner butts.
Right now I don't like anything above 1.25".
I have one cue with 1.23 and it's even better. Maybe 1.15 would be even better.

Unlike you I definitely do not like linen.
Perhaps because of snooker being my first game, we're talking back in the 80's, and after that having played with house cues for years.

Thanks for a great answer. Definitely touched on some of the questions I have about why snooker cues are so different in general.

As you can see in this video, and as you said, they don't use weight bolts either:

https://youtu.be/TbZVui2C4zg
 
Perhaps it could have something to do with the size of the balls? Ever play 3c? Notice how thick the butt of a billiard cue gets and how steep the taper is? The balls are noticeably larger than pool balls, which are noticeably larger than snooker balls. Coincidentally, the larger the ball, the more rigid the cue. Seems practical to me.
 
Interesting discussion.

What I note is that there is a common misnomer that Snooker cues tend to be longer than pool cues. That was only true in the "old days" when pool cues were a little shorter than they are now.

I find people often think Snooker cues are commonly 60 inches or more. I am not sure but this may be a very American misnomer.

I don't remember seeing much discussion about their diameter. Tip diameter yes, not butt diameter.



Nice topic, and nice responses. :thumbup::thumbup:


.
 
9Ballr said:
Thanks for a great answer. Definitely touched on some of the questions I have about why snooker cues are so different in general.

As you can see in this video, and as you said, they don't use weight bolts either:

https://youtu.be/TbZVui2C4zg
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've thought a lot and experimented with my cues. I'm not really anything, because I take from Carom, Snooker and Pool and mix and match. My stance is rather funny, too. Still I mostly play 8/9 ball.

I like Barry, that old slightly grumpy bone :thumbup:
9,7mm - that's very old school of him! Snooker pros have gone to even 8,5mm now.

I also like part 2 where he describes the tip. "Firm, yet holdin'"
And "Varnish - I hate the damn stuff".

Did you know that I searched for Snooker tips and experiences with them for hours? Not much there... :embarrassed2:

Cheers,
M
 
IMO A snooker cue like any other cue, needs to perform/play well.
This is determined by a number of factors: due to the table specs and ball size, an average suitable tip size is in the 9mm-10mm range.
The shaft conical taper giving the correct stiffness is important for playability also.
As a snooker cue is traditionally 57" long, and are made by hand planing them to size, the easiest method that gave the cue the correct stiffness was to have 1 straight taper for end to end.
This naturally gave a butt diameter of around 28mm-30mm.
This size was comfy in the hand.
That's as scientific as it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top