Stats -- Living Legends Challenge, Strickland vs. Sigel, February 2018

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some stats from each of the 12 matches played in the 2018 Living Legends Challenge between Earl Strickland and Mike Sigel. It was played February 23-25, 2018 at Sandcastle Billiards in Edison, NJ with pay-per-view streaming by Accu-Stats. The Challenge was a race to 7 matches, and Strickland won it 7-3. The play continued Sunday evening with two more matches (split 1-1) for bonus money.

The conditions for this event included:
- Diamond 9-foot table with Tournament Blue Simonis 860 cloth;
- Aramith TV Tournament balls with the measles cue ball;
- regular triangle rack for 14.1, One-Pocket, and the second 8-Ball match; Accu-Rack template otherwise;
- referee racks with the head ball on the foot spot;
- break from anywhere behind the head string in all disciplines;
- alternate breaks in 8-Ball, One-Pocket, and the second Banks match; winner breaks in 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and the first Banks match;
- in 8-Ball, take the group you make more of on the break (table open if breaker made same number of each group, or fouled, or broke dry);
- no shot clock;
- call shots except in 9-Ball and One-Pocket;
- foul on all balls in 14.1; cue-ball fouls only in other disciplines;
- jump cues not allowed; and
- lag for opening break.

Matches 1-4 were played on Fri. Feb. 23, Matches 5-8 on Sat. Feb. 24, and Matches 9-12 on Sun. Feb. 25. After each of Matches 6, 7, etc., the player trailing in number of matches won had his choice of the discipline for the next match (with no repeats of choices allowed).

••• All information is given first for the match winner and then for the match loser (separated by a comma). •••

Match 1 -- 8-Ball, Strickland defeated Sigel 8-2
  • Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul) -- 3 of 5, 3 of 5, 6 of 10 total
    Games won on own break -- 4 of 5, 1 of 5, 5 of 10 total
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 2 of 5, 1 of 5, 3 of 10 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 2 of 3, 1 of 3, 3 of 6 total
    Missed shots -- 2, 4
    Fouls -- 1, 2
    Games with safeties -- none
    Match length -- 63 min., or 6.3 min. per game

Match 2 -- 10-Ball, Strickland d. Sigel 8-7
  • Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul) -- 2 of 8, 5 of 7, 7 of 15 total
    Games won on own break -- 4 of 8, 3 of 7, 7 of 15 total
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 0 of 8, 1 of 7, 1 of 15 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 0 of 2, 1 of 5, 1 of 7 total
    Missed shots -- 9, 9
    Fouls -- 3, 4
    Games with safeties -- 11
    Match length -- 109 min., or 7.3 min. per game

Match 3 -- 14.1, Strickland d. Sigel 125-7
  • High run -- 40, 6
    Total innings -- 12, 11
    Points per inning -- 10.4, 0.6
    Attempted scoring innings -- 6, 5
    Points per attempted scoring inning -- 20.8, 1.4
    Safeties -- 5, 5
    Intentional fouls -- 2, 1
    Misseds shots -- 4, 4
    Unintentional fouls -- 0, 1
    Match length -- 61 min.
    Points per Minute -- 2.2

Match 4 -- 9-Ball, Strickland d. Sigel 8-3
  • Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul) -- 5 of 8, 2 of 3, 7 of 11 total
    Games won on own break -- 5 of 8, 0 of 3, 5 of 11 total
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 2 of 8, 0 of 3, 2 of 11 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 2 of 5, 0 of 2, 2 of 7 total
    Missed shots -- 2, 6
    Fouls -- 4, 2
    Games with safeties -- 3
    Match length -- 52 min., or 4.7 min. per game

Match 5 -- Banks, Strickland d. Sigel 4-2
  • Games won on own break -- 2 of 3, 1 of 3, 3 of 6 total
    Game scores and (number of innings), Strickland first -- 5-1 (12, 12), 3-5 (4, 4), 1-5 (6, 7), 5-0 (3, 3), 5-1 (7, 6), 5-3 (19, 18)
    Sum of scores for 6 games -- 24 - 15
    Total balls pocketed -- 24, 18
    Fouls -- 0, 3
    Runs by Strickland -- 4 banks (1 time), 3 banks (1), 2 banks (4), and 1 bank (9)
    Runs by Sigel -- 4 banks (1 time), 2 banks (2), and 1 bank (10)
    Match length -- 87 min., for an average of 14.5 min. per game

Match 6 -- One-Pocket, Sigel d. Strickland 3-1
  • All breaks were from breaker's right side of table
    Games won on own break -- 2 of 2, 1 of 2, 3 of 4 total
    Game scores (Sigel first) -- 8-4, 0-8, 8-0, 8-2
    Sum of scores for 4 games -- 24 - 14
    Total balls pocketed -- 24, 14 (none by opponents)
    Fouls -- none
    Runs by Sigel -- 7 balls (1 time), 5 balls (1), 3 balls (3), 2 balls (1), and 1 ball (1)
    Runs by Strickland -- 8 balls (1 time), 3 balls (1), and 1 ball (3)
    Match length -- 46 min., for an average of 11.5 min. per game.

Match 7 -- One-Pocket, Sigel d. Strickland 3-2
  • All breaks were from breaker's right side of table
    Games won on own break -- 2 of 3, 1 of 2, 3 of 5 total
    Game scores (Sigel first) -- 8-0, (-1)-8, 0-8, 8-2, 8-0
    Sum of scores for 5 games -- 23 - 18
    Total balls pocketed -- 25 (none by opponent), 18 (1 by opponent)
    Fouls -- 2, 0
    Runs by Sigel -- 8 balls (1 time), 6 balls (1), 5 balls (1), 3 balls (1), 2 balls (1), and 1 ball (1)
    Runs by Strickland -- 8 balls (2 times) and 1 ball (1)
    Elapsed time -- 77 min., for an average of 15.4 min. per game.

Match 8 -- 14.1, Sigel d. Strickland 125-122
  • High run -- 58, 97
    Total innings -- 7, 6
    Points per inning -- 17.9, 20.3
    Attempted scoring innings -- 6, 5
    Points per attempted scoring inning -- 20.8, 24.4
    Safeties -- 1, 1
    Intentional fouls -- 0, 0
    Missed shots -- 4, 5
    Unintentional fouls -- 1, 0
    Match length -- 121 min.
    Points per minute -- 2.0

Match 9 -- 8-Ball, Strickland d. Sigel 8-1
  • Successful breaks -- 1 of 4, 4 of 5, 5 of 9 total
    Games won on own break -- 3 of 4, 0 of 5, 3 of 9 total
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 0 of 4, 0 of 5, 0 of 9 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 0 of 1, 0 of 4, 0 of 5 total
    Missed shots -- 5, 7
    Fouls -- 0, 2
    Games with safeties -- 3
    Match length -- 70 min., or 7.8 min. per game

Match 10 -- 10-Ball, Strickland d. Sigel 8-6
  • Successful breaks -- 2 of 8, 3 of 6, 5 of 14 total
    Games won on own break -- 2 of 8, 0 of 6, 2 of 14 total (non-breaker won last 10 games in a row)
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 1 of 8, 0 of 6, 1 of 14 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 1 of 2, 0 of 3, 1 of 5 total
    Missed shots -- 3, 6 or 7
    Fouls -- 1, 1
    Games with safeties -- 3 or 4
    Match length -- 89 min., or 6.4 min. per game

Strickland won the Challenge 7 matches to 3.
________________________________________________________________________________

Bonus matches

Match 11 -- 9-Ball, Strickland d. Sigel 8-1
  • Successful breaks -- 7 of 8, 0 of 1, 7 of 9 total
    Games won on own break -- 7 of 8, 0 of 1, 7 of 9 total
    Break-and-run games on all breaks -- 2 of 8, 0 of 1, 2 of 9 total
    Break-and-run games on successful breaks -- 2 of 7, 0 of 0, 2 of 7 total
    Missed shots -- 2, 2
    Fouls -- 1, 3
    Games with safeties -- 5
    Match length -- 49 min., or 5.4 min. per game

Match 12 -- Banks, Sigel d. Strickland 3-2
  • Games won on own break -- 2 of 2, 2 of 3, 4 of 5 total
    Game scores and (number of innings), Sigel first -- 1-5 (8, 9), 5-3 (14, 13), 3-5 (9, 10), 5-1 (4, 3), 5-4 (12, 12)
    Sum of scores for 5 games -- 19 - 18
    Total balls pocketed -- 22, 21
    Fouls -- 3, 3
    Runs by Sigel -- 3 banks (2 times), 2 banks (2), and 1 bank (12)
    Runs by Strickland -- 2 banks (4 times) and 1 bank (13)
    Match length -- 80 min., for an average of 16.0 min. per game

Total score in matches: Strickland 8, Sigel 4.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I don’t want to appear ungrateful, sir....
...but who came out ahead on words per minute?
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don’t want to appear ungrateful, sir....
...but who came out ahead on words per minute?

Yeah, I was asked whether I was keeping stats on the profanity, too.

But I really wish I had counted the number of times Sigel said "unbelievable." But I doubt people would believe the answer.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I watched Friday night....I hated seeing Mike missing open shots.
...but physically, his stroke still looks good.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Combining the 6 matches (2 each) of 8-Ball, 9-Ball, and 10-Ball, we get this:

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
  • Strickland -- 49% (20 of 41)
    Sigel -- 63% (17 of 27)
    Total -- 54% (37 of 68)

Breaker won game:
  • Strickland -- 61% (25 of 41)
    Sigel -- 15% (4 of 27)
    Total -- 43% (29 of 68)

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks:
  • Strickland -- 17% (7 of 41)
    Sigel -- 7% (2 of 27)
    Total -- 13% (9 of 68)

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks:
  • Strickland -- 35% (7 of 20)
    Sigel -- 12% (2 of 17)
    Total -- 24% (9 of 37)
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
I don’t want to appear ungrateful, sir....
...but who came out ahead on words per minute?

Sigel dominated in words per minute, but Earl was ahead in personal insults.

My favorite quote: "You're a weird person," said Strickland to Sigel.
 

Buckzapper

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For those that wonder why pool has no major sponsors, you could listen to Sigel's vulgar mouth and know the answer as to why pool players present a bad image. "Mother-F this and GD that." 60 years of playing pool and Sigel has no idea about how to act like a gentleman.


Thank you Mike Sigel for the vulgar and profane language and for projecting the image of a prison inmate, instead of a Hall of Fame Champion.

Even Mike Dechaine has some growing to do before he gets a head as big as yours.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
For those that wonder why pool has no major sponsors, you could listen to Sigel's vulgar mouth and know the answer as to why pool players present a bad image. "Mother-F this and GD that." 60 years of playing pool and Sigel has no idea about how to act like a gentleman.


Thank you Mike Sigel for the vulgar and profane language and for projecting the image of a prison inmate, instead of a Hall of Fame Champion.

Even Mike Dechaine has some growing to do before he gets a head as big as yours.

I find this interesting because Mike was never this way when he was winning everything. His running dialogue was actually quite funny and never profane. Of course I ran a tournament a little different than this exhibition match. The use of profanity would get you penalized (loss of game and even match forfeiture in extreme cases). Earl was another case entirely. His mental meltdowns were always cause for concern and he needed watching like a hawk to keep him in line.

At the end of the day this was just an exhibition with nothing on the line! If there had been some incentive (prize money!) at stake we might have seen a more interesting match. Instead it might as well have been WWF wrestling with a scripted outcome. There was absolutely zero interest in anyone betting on the outcome of this match. Now let these same two guys play for $1,000 per match in each discipline, then they would have had to concentrate on playing pool and not acting like two fools getting a hand out.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Strickland and Sigel played 90 games of pool.

In the 14.1, they split the two games 1-1 (although Strickland scored 247 points to Sigel's 132).

In the other 88 games of all types, Strickland won 57 (65%) and Sigel won 31 (35%).
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Nine years age difference is a lot when you’re young...the older has a big advantage.
....this edge reverses when both get old.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nine years age difference is a lot when you’re young...the older has a big advantage.
....this edge reverses when both get old.

I like your thinking.

[http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6078529&postcount=44]

Edit -- But I do think Sigel is still capable of doing far better than he did in this match. He seemed to have trouble with quite a few long shots. I wouldn't bet against him to run hundreds rather often in 14.1, though, if he played frequently.
 
Last edited:

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
Strickland and Sigel played 90 games of pool.

In the 14.1, they split the two games 1-1 (although Strickland scored 247 points to Sigel's 132).

In the other 88 games of all types, Strickland won 57 (65%) and Sigel won 31 (35%).

But Sigel won four of the last seven matches, and one-third of the matches overall, after losing the first five. Pretty impressive for a 65-year-old who hasn't faced regular top-level competition in over 25 years.
 

metallicane

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But Sigel won four of the last seven matches, and one-third of the matches overall, after losing the first five. Pretty impressive for a 65-year-old who hasn't faced regular top-level competition in over 25 years.

Couldn’t agree more. If Mike played more, I do think it would have been closer. His stroke looked good. He certainly received a few unfriendly rolls.

My one complaint with his performance is before the 9 ball Sunday night, Earl warmed up for 15 minutes solid. Sigel stepped up to the table and talked to someone in the crowd about some of his unfortunate rolls (which there were plenty), but hit zero balls before they started. He got crushed 8-1. In the bank match later, Mike warmed up for a good 10 minutes and what happened? He won. Maybe a little more practice and a little less talking and who knows.
 

Nick B

This is gonna hurt
Silver Member
But Sigel won four of the last seven matches, and one-third of the matches overall, after losing the first five. Pretty impressive for a 65-year-old who hasn't faced regular top-level competition in over 25 years.

Or....Earl knew he had won and took his foot off the gas. It is an exhibition in the end.
 

westcoast

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I find this interesting because Mike was never this way when he was winning everything. His running dialogue was actually quite funny and never profane. Of course I ran a tournament a little different than this exhibition match. The use of profanity would get you penalized (loss of game and even match forfeiture in extreme cases). Earl was another case entirely. His mental meltdowns were always cause for concern and he needed watching like a hawk to keep him in line.

At the end of the day this was just an exhibition with nothing on the line! If there had been some incentive (prize money!) at stake we might have seen a more interesting match. Instead it might as well have been WWF wrestling with a scripted outcome. There was absolutely zero interest in anyone betting on the outcome of this match. Now let these same two guys play for $1,000 per match in each discipline, then they would have had to concentrate on playing pool and not acting like two fools getting a hand out.
I get what you are saying about $ focusing one’s attention, but when I was watching they both seemed to be giving full effort. Mike just looked outclassed the vast majority of the time. Not surprising considering his time away from competitive pool, his relative unfamiliarity with diamond tables and 9 year age difference
 
Top