Both of them in their prime, if they placed a race to 100 9-ball, who would win, and by how many games? Please explain why, i.e. strengths and weaknesses over one another.
Mike Sigel vs Buddy Hall, Race to 100
- Thread starter cuetechasaurus
- Start date
cuetechasaurus said:
Always an interesting question. I think you'd have to have several races to 100, and then ask who wins the majority. IMO, I'd say Sigel wins 6 to 4 for every 10 matchups. At his prime, he got every roll and he had a better break.
Fred
JCIN said:
Justin
When I spoke to Mike a few days ago, he said that the only players that tested him were Buddy, Earl and F-rumm (lol). I think the Action challenge format is perfect to showcase a player with a personality like Mike Sigel - I'd love to see Mike and Buddy go at it in 9 ball / race to 50 as the undercard.
We are talking to Buddy about getting him in the ring when he is ready. I can't speak for the Action Report as a whole but speaking for myself, I will not work with Mike Sigel or any of the other principles involved in the IPT. I am sure the last thing on his mind is doing anything with us so it should work out fine.Blackjack said:
I'd guess it's Sigel, because he had that incredibly simple and straight stroking motion (his entire body except for his left arm below the elbow and his right middle finger might as well be made of granite while he shoots; nothing moves but the shooting forearm and the finger curled under his bridge), straight-pool consistency, and because I never heard Efren say that Buddy Hall was the best opponent he ever faced.
-Andrew
-Andrew
Buddy Hall for the cash
There was a period of several years during which Buddy was widely considered to be the best 9-ball player in the world, especially for the cash. And during that period, there was a stretch of time, maybe a month or so, when Buddy played so perfectly that observers said it got boring to watch him as he went hours at a time without missing a makeable shot. Now no one had a record in the finals of 9-ball tournaments. His winning percentage in 9-ball finals was over 80% for a considerable stretch of time. So, while Mike in his prime might have the edge in a tournament format, if it were a match for big money, and you had Buddy during that magical month or so when he just stayed in the zone for weeks at a time, go hock everything you own and get down on The Rifleman!
There was a period of several years during which Buddy was widely considered to be the best 9-ball player in the world, especially for the cash. And during that period, there was a stretch of time, maybe a month or so, when Buddy played so perfectly that observers said it got boring to watch him as he went hours at a time without missing a makeable shot. Now no one had a record in the finals of 9-ball tournaments. His winning percentage in 9-ball finals was over 80% for a considerable stretch of time. So, while Mike in his prime might have the edge in a tournament format, if it were a match for big money, and you had Buddy during that magical month or so when he just stayed in the zone for weeks at a time, go hock everything you own and get down on The Rifleman!
BillPorter said:There was a period of several years during which Buddy was widely considered to be the best 9-ball player in the world, especially for the cash. And during that period, there was a stretch of time, maybe a month or so, when Buddy played so perfectly that observers said it got boring to watch him as he went hours at a time without missing a makeable shot. Now no one had a record in the finals of 9-ball tournaments. His winning percentage in 9-ball finals was over 80% for a considerable stretch of time. So, while Mike in his prime might have the edge in a tournament format, if it were a match for big money, and you had Buddy during that magical month or so when he just stayed in the zone for weeks at a time, go hock everything you own and get down on The Rifleman!
Bill,
You must have meant Sigel's record in the Finals of tournaments. He was near unbeatable if he made the finals.
This is one of those fantasy match-ups, because they are both long since past their prime. My opinion is that in both their primes, say late 70's to early 80's, Sigel would not have gambled with Buddy for big money (or small money for that matter). Hubbart would have vetoed that idea quick. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.
If a Challenge Match had been staged back then (where were the TAR guys when we needed them
), that is entirely a different matter. If they were playing with a prize fund secured, say 10K for first and 5K for second, in that format Sigel could well win. I would make a match like that a toss up. Both could play a long time, and neither player was going to miss many balls. Buddy may have been capable of stringing more racks, and with his
slow and easy pace, that may have frustrated Sigel a little.
This match could have been just as interesting as the famous Earl-Efren match. One thing for sure, they would have played hard from beginning to end.
jay helfert said:
Yep, I think that is what I wrote, but if I didn't say it clearly, yes, I meant his record once he reached the finals of a 9-ball tournament. He was deadly at that point.
In Buddy's book, he did not lose a match.abundy said:
No mention of Wade Crane beating him.
Sigel would whine and win this one imo. Better break and he could jump the ball.
JCIN said:
My thoughts exactly. In his prime...Buddy beat everyone for the cash.
hemicudas said:
Where did this happen?