I Want Sigel vs Schmidt 14.1
- Thread starter bud green
- Start date
One thing to keep in mind... Sigel probably won a title or two for every year that John has been on this good earth.
That is not denigrating John's skill at ALL, it just speaks to how horribly strong Mike Sigel was as a tournament player. Mike probably had the best record in finals of any pro player, EVER, outside of Mosconi.
Mike was getting a little over the hill by the time he snapped his cue against John. Once you've reached the heights Mike did, it's a little hard to take when you are not playing nearly as well as you used to.
Mike doesn't have a prayer against John right now, and that's a fact. Mike could practice all he wants, and he still wouldn't have a chance.
Back when Mike was at the top of his game, who knows who would have won? If the matchup was to a long race, I almost think one or the other is gonna NEED to pull out a BIG run to take it off. That's how tough the matchup would be.
Russ
That is not denigrating John's skill at ALL, it just speaks to how horribly strong Mike Sigel was as a tournament player. Mike probably had the best record in finals of any pro player, EVER, outside of Mosconi.
Mike was getting a little over the hill by the time he snapped his cue against John. Once you've reached the heights Mike did, it's a little hard to take when you are not playing nearly as well as you used to.
Mike doesn't have a prayer against John right now, and that's a fact. Mike could practice all he wants, and he still wouldn't have a chance.
Back when Mike was at the top of his game, who knows who would have won? If the matchup was to a long race, I almost think one or the other is gonna NEED to pull out a BIG run to take it off. That's how tough the matchup would be.
Russ
Gerry said:
And all I have to say is look at how many more great players there are now than in the days of Lassiter, Crane, Mosconi, Balsis, Caras. Younger players nowadays have no fear. They are happy for the chance to put a 150 and out on a champion.
Players of that generation had to get through about 25% of the field that had a legitimate chance to beat them. At a 14.1 tournament these days, only about 10% of the field is not a threat to run 100 balls. About 50% of the field will be stone cold champions who dominate hige geographical regions. (In some cases, whole countries...)
Those older players were truly great players, but in my opinion, being a dominant champion 2005-2008 and beyond (a la Archer, Reyes, etc..) is a COMPLETELY different thing than being a dominant champion in an era where you only have to get through 3-4 stone cold champions to win a tournament.
It's as Billy, Grady, and Danny say when commentating Accu-Stats videos... In modern tournaments, if you draw someone you never heard of in the U.S. Open, they are not as likely to fold as in years past. They might run 3 racks right out the gate.
Russ
Im not saying I will bet anything HIGH but if this goes off i will take a sweat bet on Mike.
I understand Mike talks alot of BS most of the time, but the sad thing is he still can play and pretty strong, I know he doesn't play much at all these days and the BS seems to be bigger than what someone would see of his game in todays time.
But like him or hate him he has the records and still shoots pretty damn st8.
I understand Mike talks alot of BS most of the time, but the sad thing is he still can play and pretty strong, I know he doesn't play much at all these days and the BS seems to be bigger than what someone would see of his game in todays time.
But like him or hate him he has the records and still shoots pretty damn st8.
BTW, Yes, I would like to see Sigel vs Schmidt
Gerry,
I'm with you. Nobody has more respect for the old time champions than I do. Lots of people have as MUCH respect for them, but I don't think someone could have MORE. That being said, when I read all the posts so far in this thread, I started wondering.....
How will the generation that follows US view OUR champions, the ones who've won titles in OUR lifetime? Will they be viewed with as much respect as we hold for them?
It will be interesting to see how many World Championships that John Schmidt wins before his career is over. I personally think he is America's top 14.1 specialist. But, for the sake of trying to show how important longevity is, I want to post something I wrote on the "Schmidt vs Crane" thread a week or so back. (This is not tooting my horn or something like that). I just find this easier than trying to re-type such a long winded thought....
QUOTE from a previous post.....
********************************************************
As for John Schmidt, personally, I think now that the 14.1 World Championship tournaments seem to be reviving, the chances are very good that he'll win some more titles before all is said and done. He can't win titles in tournaments that don't exist. I think the major difference between Crane & Schmidt is longevity, which brings a certain amount of knowledge with it.
Here's...some facts on Irving Crane's longevity, something that in all probability, will never be equaled....
Irving Crane won his 1st World 14.1 Championship in 1942! He was runner-up in 1937 & 1941 before he won his 6 World 14.1 Championships (1942-1946-1955-1968-1970-1972)! In other words, Irving Crane won WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in 4 different decades and was competing in World 14.1 Championships in 6 decades (1930's - 1980's). The only other player to have ever won World Championships in pocket billiards over 4 different decades was Alfredo DeOro.
To properly put his greatness into perspective.....John Schmidt won his 14.1 World Championship in 2003. Oliver Ortmann won it in 2007. To have the consistancy and longevity that Irving Crane had, both of them must still be winning World Championships into the 2030's, when John will be in his 60's and Oliver in his 70's!
One more thing...Crane had as his contemporaries Ralph Greenleaf, Frank Taberski, Jimmy Caras, Erwin Rudolph, Willie Mosconi, Joe Balsis, Luther Lassiter, Cicero Murphy, Ed Kelly, Dallas West and Ray Martin, among others. These are only the 14.1 specialists, it doesn't count all the 9 ball greats who also entered some of the later championships.
Today, the 14.1 specialists consist of the elite John Schmidt, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, Thomas Engert, Danny Harriman, Min Wai Chin and Thorsten Hohmann. Most of the others who enter the recently revived 14.1 World Championships are fledgling straight pool players.
My bottom line is that even though guys like Irving Crane are now out of sight, lets not keep them out of mind.
As a final point, I believe John Schmidt would have had more World Championships if there had been more tournaments in his lifetime. Since he's not played in as many as Crane and company, his knowledge and experience has to be behind Crane's. But the more he plays, the more dangerous he'll become. And he's already a "bad man" at 14.1!
********************************************************
Now, here's my question....How will John Schmidt be viewed by succeeding generations of pool fans if he does not win a slew of World Championships? Will they still recognize that he was / is a great 14.1 specialist?
I agree also with Russ. It's getting harder & harder to dominate in pool. Players of elite, championship caliber are honing their skills from countries all over the world now. The USA is not the only powerhouse in pool these days. So, with this added influx of world class players, it's going to be harder & harder to win a World Championship, no matter WHO you are. Repeating will be harder still....
Will players with only a few World Championships still be regarded as great players?
Gerry said:
Gerry,
I'm with you. Nobody has more respect for the old time champions than I do. Lots of people have as MUCH respect for them, but I don't think someone could have MORE. That being said, when I read all the posts so far in this thread, I started wondering.....
How will the generation that follows US view OUR champions, the ones who've won titles in OUR lifetime? Will they be viewed with as much respect as we hold for them?
It will be interesting to see how many World Championships that John Schmidt wins before his career is over. I personally think he is America's top 14.1 specialist. But, for the sake of trying to show how important longevity is, I want to post something I wrote on the "Schmidt vs Crane" thread a week or so back. (This is not tooting my horn or something like that). I just find this easier than trying to re-type such a long winded thought....
QUOTE from a previous post.....
********************************************************
As for John Schmidt, personally, I think now that the 14.1 World Championship tournaments seem to be reviving, the chances are very good that he'll win some more titles before all is said and done. He can't win titles in tournaments that don't exist. I think the major difference between Crane & Schmidt is longevity, which brings a certain amount of knowledge with it.
Here's...some facts on Irving Crane's longevity, something that in all probability, will never be equaled....
Irving Crane won his 1st World 14.1 Championship in 1942! He was runner-up in 1937 & 1941 before he won his 6 World 14.1 Championships (1942-1946-1955-1968-1970-1972)! In other words, Irving Crane won WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in 4 different decades and was competing in World 14.1 Championships in 6 decades (1930's - 1980's). The only other player to have ever won World Championships in pocket billiards over 4 different decades was Alfredo DeOro.
To properly put his greatness into perspective.....John Schmidt won his 14.1 World Championship in 2003. Oliver Ortmann won it in 2007. To have the consistancy and longevity that Irving Crane had, both of them must still be winning World Championships into the 2030's, when John will be in his 60's and Oliver in his 70's!
One more thing...Crane had as his contemporaries Ralph Greenleaf, Frank Taberski, Jimmy Caras, Erwin Rudolph, Willie Mosconi, Joe Balsis, Luther Lassiter, Cicero Murphy, Ed Kelly, Dallas West and Ray Martin, among others. These are only the 14.1 specialists, it doesn't count all the 9 ball greats who also entered some of the later championships.
Today, the 14.1 specialists consist of the elite John Schmidt, Oliver Ortmann, Ralf Souquet, Thomas Engert, Danny Harriman, Min Wai Chin and Thorsten Hohmann. Most of the others who enter the recently revived 14.1 World Championships are fledgling straight pool players.
My bottom line is that even though guys like Irving Crane are now out of sight, lets not keep them out of mind.
As a final point, I believe John Schmidt would have had more World Championships if there had been more tournaments in his lifetime. Since he's not played in as many as Crane and company, his knowledge and experience has to be behind Crane's. But the more he plays, the more dangerous he'll become. And he's already a "bad man" at 14.1!
********************************************************
Now, here's my question....How will John Schmidt be viewed by succeeding generations of pool fans if he does not win a slew of World Championships? Will they still recognize that he was / is a great 14.1 specialist?
I agree also with Russ. It's getting harder & harder to dominate in pool. Players of elite, championship caliber are honing their skills from countries all over the world now. The USA is not the only powerhouse in pool these days. So, with this added influx of world class players, it's going to be harder & harder to win a World Championship, no matter WHO you are. Repeating will be harder still....
Will players with only a few World Championships still be regarded as great players?
Last edited:
TAP TAP TAP...GREAT post!
I honor Mike's career although I don't care at all for his personality...but then Willie was never a candidate for the Nicest Guy in the World Award either.
My only point is that there is no way in the world to compare ANY 14.1 players today against those in the heyday of the game...say from the early 1900s to the 1960s. NO WAY...and to attempt to do so is simply futile.
It is also problematic in the extreme to suggest that today's 14.1 shooters are up against better and deeper competition than was the case back in the day....as your post pointed out far better than I could have.
Regards,
Jim
I honor Mike's career although I don't care at all for his personality...but then Willie was never a candidate for the Nicest Guy in the World Award either.
My only point is that there is no way in the world to compare ANY 14.1 players today against those in the heyday of the game...say from the early 1900s to the 1960s. NO WAY...and to attempt to do so is simply futile.
It is also problematic in the extreme to suggest that today's 14.1 shooters are up against better and deeper competition than was the case back in the day....as your post pointed out far better than I could have.
Regards,
Jim
Terry Ardeno said:
For a guy who doesn't shoot that much, Sigel did respectably in the 2006 14.1 World Championships. He even had the best record in the round-robin stage and posted a 120+ run. To say he has no chance against Schmidt is worthy of a bet. Give me 5:1 if this match ends up happening?
Russ Chewning said:
All I know is that last October I met a friend in Virginia and, after a few words on his new cue he was about to test, I asked him (joking) to beat the highest run I had ever witnessed to (260 and something). He smiled, racked the balls and, talking to me all the time, he ran 403 (at the 3rd attempt). That's enough for me... 
(Hi John, I know you'll be reading this... see you soon!)
(Hi John, I know you'll be reading this... see you soon!)
14.1
If this goes off to be any real challenge it would have to be a race to like 250 or higher to get any real play out of it other wise either one can run a 100 in their sleep. As much as I like John, Seigel was a great Champion in his day. It's just too bad that because of his mouth and better than thou attitude, that if he was on fire I'd be the last person to Pi## on him.
If this goes off to be any real challenge it would have to be a race to like 250 or higher to get any real play out of it other wise either one can run a 100 in their sleep. As much as I like John, Seigel was a great Champion in his day. It's just too bad that because of his mouth and better than thou attitude, that if he was on fire I'd be the last person to Pi## on him.
Last edited:
I would love to see this match. Sigel, in his prime, would dust Schmidt like its fun.
there does seem to be a lot of hate towards mike lately, somewhat unjustly. although he does talk a lot he's always seemed like a top bloke to me. nothing wrong with having an ego.
anyway i am really looking forward to this match if it happens, hopefully it does. I really enjoyed the straight pool match the other night and to anybody who hasn't seen it yet, go to the IPT site and watch it. I really think the slow cloth and tighter pockets lent itself to the game and made it extremely interesting, and definitely putting more emphasis on tight pattern play too. to be honest, the feature match between reyes and murphy was a bit of a borefest after i'd just watched the straight pool!
it will be an 'undercard' match so thats the reason it'll only be to 125, so i really do think it could go either way. But i would give the edge to john though, because he is playing competitively regularly, something sigel hasn't done for a long time. i have no doubt he still has the game of his prime, and he's probably an even better player now! but bringing practice play and what you're capable of to a competitive match is a skill unto itself.
Can't wait to see this match!
anyway i am really looking forward to this match if it happens, hopefully it does. I really enjoyed the straight pool match the other night and to anybody who hasn't seen it yet, go to the IPT site and watch it. I really think the slow cloth and tighter pockets lent itself to the game and made it extremely interesting, and definitely putting more emphasis on tight pattern play too. to be honest, the feature match between reyes and murphy was a bit of a borefest after i'd just watched the straight pool!
it will be an 'undercard' match so thats the reason it'll only be to 125, so i really do think it could go either way. But i would give the edge to john though, because he is playing competitively regularly, something sigel hasn't done for a long time. i have no doubt he still has the game of his prime, and he's probably an even better player now! but bringing practice play and what you're capable of to a competitive match is a skill unto itself.
Can't wait to see this match!
I'll vote for this...
Mike Sigel has always been one of my favorite players to watch. From shot selection to technician, from perfection to flat assed lucky... He was a killer, and didn't think any human could beat him.
John is the only other player in my opinion who has as straight a stroke, and is the best shotmaker I have ever seen.. maybe ever was/is. His patterns have come a long way, and coupled with his shotmaking abilities, he doesn't have to miss.
And Sigel should eat some humble pie.. lol
Jay, Why don't you scan that flyer from the Ceasar's tourney that lists all of Sigel's titles? It's the 82' flyer... it looks like a list of every tournament ever held, except MIke won them all.. lol
Mike Sigel has always been one of my favorite players to watch. From shot selection to technician, from perfection to flat assed lucky... He was a killer, and didn't think any human could beat him.
John is the only other player in my opinion who has as straight a stroke, and is the best shotmaker I have ever seen.. maybe ever was/is. His patterns have come a long way, and coupled with his shotmaking abilities, he doesn't have to miss.
And Sigel should eat some humble pie.. lol
Jay, Why don't you scan that flyer from the Ceasar's tourney that lists all of Sigel's titles? It's the 82' flyer... it looks like a list of every tournament ever held, except MIke won them all.. lol
Sigel Schmidt
Sigel in his prime was the best I ever saw. Even Efren told me Mike was the best ever. I respect his talent and feel privileged to have seen him play. But I believe John Schmidt has the nutz if they play 14.1 today.
Does anyone remember the accu-stats match where they played and Sigel snapped his cue in half? I think it was the US Open in 2000. Schmidt has already proven that he is up to the task against Sigel.
If it is a rematch you seek, it would be interesting....but if you want to know which player is the best in this era, the proof is already out there.
Sigel in his prime was the best I ever saw. Even Efren told me Mike was the best ever. I respect his talent and feel privileged to have seen him play. But I believe John Schmidt has the nutz if they play 14.1 today.
Does anyone remember the accu-stats match where they played and Sigel snapped his cue in half? I think it was the US Open in 2000. Schmidt has already proven that he is up to the task against Sigel.
If it is a rematch you seek, it would be interesting....but if you want to know which player is the best in this era, the proof is already out there.
