Why are Snooker and Pool cues constructed so differently?

[deraltefritz]

Dear Cuemakers,

this question nags me for quite some time now - is there a reason (other than tradition) why snooker and pool cues are constructed so differently (read after the === below for my attempt of a description of the construction methods)?

If one way would be "superior" to the other way (or even have advantages in some respects with disadvantages in others), then there'd be at least a minority of pool players with cues constructed like a snooker cue, or a minority of snooker players shooting with a stick constructed like a pool cue. But as far as I can tell, these minorities do not exist (except for the odd type of player coming from a snooker background, like Mark Gray) . At least the demand or the availability of such cues does not seem to exist, even though there are huge markets for both snooker and pool . Sure, some people play pool with a snooker cue, and others play snooker with a pool cue and a small tip diameter shaft. But in the end they play with cues not designed for their particular type of game.

And I'm not talking about ferrule material, LD shaft construction, tip diameter, joint material, etc. All that stuff can be modified on both kinds of cues. I'm talking about how the cue is designed and constructed in general, how many different parts make the cue, how it is spliced, etc., from butt to tip.

Why is that, dear cuemakers?


==============
I've tried to sum up how a snooker cue is made, for those not familiar with it:

Snooker cues are basically made by taking a long square piece of ash/maple slightly longer than the desired length of the final cue.
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/electricplane.jpg

Then some other wood (usually ebony) is spliced onto it, in such a way that the "shaft" wood (ash/maple) goes all the way down to the butt end of the stick:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-02.jpg
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-09.jpg
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-11.jpg
(note how the "shaft" wood goes all the way down to the end)

Then the thing is trimmed down into the desired length and butt/tip diameters.
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-13.jpg

Add a ferrule and a tip, put some oil on the cue and add a little leather/brass/wood "bumber" to the butt end, maybe a weight bolt or two for weight/balance preferences, and voila, you have your hand made snooker cue:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-17.jpg

Add some more splices and veneers for personal taste if you want:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/coco-7.jpg

For easier transport, the cue may then be cut at the center or at the 3/4 position and a joint fitted.


I cannot really sum up how pool cues are made. Information how it is done from a) to z) seems difficult to obtain (trade secret only shared among cue builders?). At least pool cues seem to be much more complex in how they are constructed. I actually don't understand the process completely, maybe not even slightly. They usually consist of more individual parts http://www.pool-and-pocket-billiards-resource.com/pool_cue.html.
Some seem to be constructed using a core, and then things are being "stuck" onto that core:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu86/scdiveteam/IMG_3261.jpg
ore otherwise "assembled" together:
http://www.sneakypetemafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cues1.jpg

The design that comes most closely to the looks of a snooker cue are Sneaky Petes. But even those, from what I know at least, are basically two pieces stuck into each other:
http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad69/legoboy_photo/full splice/stage3.jpg
And a nice How-To post from these forums:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=210048

 

[Mase]

I disagree with you premise. If you look at the majority of "sneaky pete" cues they start with full splice one piece or full splice 2 piece cues and that is how the majority of snooker cues are made..

When Dufferin went out of business a few years ago, I bought all their stock of unfinished full splice cues. They numbered in the hundreds. I have sold all of these now and the majority went to cue makers to make into 8-Ball style cues.

On AZ you will find numerous threads about great finds of house cues that are going to be turned in 8-Ball cues. You will also find very expensive full splice butts for sale.

All that being said the need for fancy 8-Ball cues partially drives the construction process, but you still have cue makes trying to get the same hit as the full spice one piece cues.

 

[Canadian cue]

Snooker cues are much closer to how the cue was originally built and hasn't changed much. Snooker also uses different size and weight of balls so naturally the equipment would be different as well. I think the big game changer was the evolution of the two piece cue, doing so allowed new thinking on how to build a cue.. The reason you see so much hand work in snooker cues is because it would be very difficult to turn lengths of wood that long and narrow in a traditional metal lathe. Other than house cues which are built on dedicated production machines pool cues are all two piece. The other factor IMO is that pool cues evolved to be much more of an art form, where emphasis on aesthetics's is just as important as function.

 

[deraltefritz]

I disagree with you premise. If you look at the majority of "sneaky pete" cues they start with full splice one piece or full splice 2 piece cues and that is how the majority of snooker cues are made..

That's how snooker cues look like, but the difference is that the shaft wood goes all the way back to the butt end, the splices being added to the sides. As far as I can tell, have seen from pictures and was shown by a local cue maker, full splice pool cues are made by sticking two solid pieces of wood "into" eachother (think positive and negative or male and female pieces of wood). So I think there is still quite a difference in how they are constructed. Whether that has any influence on how they "feel", I don't know.

Snooker cues are much closer to how the cue was originally built and hasn't changed much.

So that means that pool cues, originally, were also created in that way? If that was the case, why didn't at least some cue makers keep splicing cues that way? Was it simply the convenience of having machines do the job more accurately? Not requiring 60" pieces of wood, but only a 30" piece for the shaft, and smaller pieces for the butt sections? And over time, people just stopped hand splicing altogether and that way of building cues went extinct in the pool world? Really curious about that, can you recommend any literature on how pool cues evolved historically?

Snooker also uses different size and weight of balls so naturally the equipment would be different as well.

You could still build a pool cue using snooker splicing. Accommodation for the larger balls only requires changes to the shaft diameter (and maybe alterations to the taper and ferrule/joint material). And the same holds for building snooker cues with smaller tips and straight taper shafts the pool way (whether it'd be sneaky pete or plain jane or fancy design).

I think the big game changer was the evolution of the two piece cue, doing so allowed new thinking on how to build a cue.. The reason you see so much hand work in snooker cues is because it would be very difficult to turn lengths of wood that long and narrow in a traditional metal lathe.

That sounds reasonable, and explains why all highly regarded snooker cue makers still make their cues almost completely by hand. However, one could still build the butt part of the cue using the snooker splicing method, having the piece of wood that accepts the joint pin go all the way down to the bumper.

Other than house cues which are built on dedicated production machines pool cues are all two piece. The other factor IMO is that pool cues evolved to be much more of an art form, where emphasis on aesthetics's is just as important as function.

I agree, there's more variation in design and artwork to be found in pool cues.

Which is why I started this thread - assuming no method produces cues that are "superior", why aren't any snooker players interested in having pool aesthetics? UK based players might be conservative and traditional (nothing wrong with that!), but Asia is a huge market but relatively "new" to the sport. And why aren't there any pool players wanting to play with a "more traditional" (or "old-school" as the kids say) hand-made snooker-style spliced cue?

Have any of you cue makers experimented with both designs? I know, I know - it's very difficult to compare these things, as there are so many variables that make the "feel" of a cue. No two pieces of the same wood are exactly the same, different wood types vibrate and interact with each other differently. Joints, weight distribution, all these things influence the "feel" of a cue significantly from what I can tell. (all assuming the same shaft with the same tip of course)

But let's say you use the same two types of wood for a Sneaky Pete and a snooker spliced cue. And somehow you would get the weight and balance point of both cues to match. With the same joints and shaft, would there be any noticeable differences in how the cue "feels"?

I really wonder...

 

[pdcue]

Dear Cuemakers,

this question nags me for quite some time now - is there a reason (other than tradition) why snooker and pool cues are constructed so differently (read after the === below for my attempt of a description of the construction methods)?

If one way would be "superior" to the other way (or even have advantages in some respects with disadvantages in others), then there'd be at least a minority of pool players with cues constructed like a snooker cue, or a minority of snooker players shooting with a stick constructed like a pool cue. But as far as I can tell, these minorities do not exist (except for the odd type of player coming from a snooker background, like Mark Gray) . At least the demand or the availability of such cues does not seem to exist, even though there are huge markets for both snooker and pool . Sure, some people play pool with a snooker cue, and others play snooker with a pool cue and a small tip diameter shaft. But in the end they play with cues not designed for their particular type of game.

And I'm not talking about ferrule material, LD shaft construction, tip diameter, joint material, etc. All that stuff can be modified on both kinds of cues. I'm talking about how the cue is designed and constructed in general, how many different parts make the cue, how it is spliced, etc., from butt to tip.

Why is that, dear cuemakers?


==============
I've tried to sum up how a snooker cue is made, for those not familiar with it:

Snooker cues are basically made by taking a long square piece of ash/maple slightly longer than the desired length of the final cue.
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/electricplane.jpg

Then some other wood (usually ebony) is spliced onto it, in such a way that the "shaft" wood (ash/maple) goes all the way down to the butt end of the stick:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-02.jpg
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-09.jpg
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-11.jpg
(note how the "shaft" wood goes all the way down to the end)

Then the thing is trimmed down into the desired length and butt/tip diameters.
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-13.jpg

Add a ferrule and a tip, put some oil on the cue and add a little leather/brass/wood "bumber" to the butt end, maybe a weight bolt or two for weight/balance preferences, and voila, you have your hand made snooker cue:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ebony-17.jpg

Add some more splices and veneers for personal taste if you want:
http://handmadecues.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/coco-7.jpg

For easier transport, the cue may then be cut at the center or at the 3/4 position and a joint fitted.


I cannot really sum up how pool cues are made. Information how it is done from a) to z) seems difficult to obtain (trade secret only shared among cue builders?). At least pool cues seem to be much more complex in how they are constructed. I actually don't understand the process completely, maybe not even slightly. They usually consist of more individual parts http://www.pool-and-pocket-billiards-resource.com/pool_cue.html.
Some seem to be constructed using a core, and then things are being "stuck" onto that core:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu86/scdiveteam/IMG_3261.jpg
ore otherwise "assembled" together:
http://www.sneakypetemafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cues1.jpg

The design that comes most closely to the looks of a snooker cue are Sneaky Petes. But even those, from what I know at least, are basically two pieces stuck into each other:
http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad69/legoboy_photo/full splice/stage3.jpg
And a nice How-To post from these forums:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=210048

WOW...

Blah blah, Blah blah, Blah blah..... thread

You got it in one, it's tradition - 90% - all the rest is static.

Dale

 

[galipeau]

I know for a fact this question has been asked multiple times on the forum (search function is your friend). It's tradition. They used hand planes and laminated hardwood onto ash. Maker one has several apprentices and they go off and do the same thing. It wasn't broke, so they didn't fix it.

Read Spain's cuebuilding book and you will learn a lot about the reasons behind why American cuemakers went to the 4 prong design, and then to using maple handles with an A joint.

We're Americans, we innovate, and we do shit differently.

 

[cueman]

The butt construction on snooker cues is usually just a single full splice butterfly. This is the easiest full splice to do and only requires a bandsaw to do so. Pool cues use higher tech machinery than snooker cues normally do and therefore you see pool cues built in all kinds of different styles. It is not which is best, but which takes the least amount of machinery to build. Snooker style cues can be built with a hand planer, lathe and bandsaw. The Snooker cue full splice butterfly is just about as good of a splice as the Pool Cue full splice with sharp v points, but some like the pool cue looks better. Pool has focused more on the looks of the cues and Snooker has focused on the looks of the game. An example would be Tuxedos and other fancy surroundings at tournaments and such.

 

[pdcue]

The butt construction on snooker cues is usually just a single full splice butterfly. This is the easiest full splice to do and only requires a bandsaw to do so. Pool cues use higher tech machinery than snooker cues normally do and therefore you see pool cues built in all kinds of different styles. It is not which is best, but which takes the least amount of machinery to build. Snooker style cues can be built with a hand planer, lathe and bandsaw. The Snooker cue full splice butterfly is just about as good of a splice as the Pool Cue full splice with sharp v points, but some like the pool cue looks better. Pool has focused more on the looks of the cues and Snooker has focused on the looks of the game. An example would be Tuxedos and other fancy surroundings at tournaments and such.

For the record - Snooker cues are not fullsplice butterfly... they are laminated FLAMES.
Same construction as Diekman and others use.

I know, I know... They call them "hand spliced" but they aren't spliced, and EVERYBODY
calls them butterflys... but they aren't.

Dale

 

[cueman]

For the record - Snooker cues are not fullsplice butterfly... they are laminated FLAMES.
Same construction as Diekman and others use.

I know, I know... They call them "hand spliced" but they aren't spliced, and EVERYBODY
calls them butterflys... but they aren't.

Dale

I have seen the 4 point types you are talking about and they are butterflies, but not full splice. I have seen plenty of snooker cues with the single full splice with two butterfly points. I have also seen two points done the way you speak of. But they are still rounded points and therefore are butterflies.

Please share your definition of butterfly points since round points are not butterflies in your opinion.