It Proves We Still Have Some American Legends Left,,,,,,,,,,,
ipt sigel vs schmidt proved what
- Thread starter wrldpro
- Start date
Elwood said:
This is true, down the back strech Mike is a much better winner than John is, I have seen Jonh lose his composure, an rush shts etc when he gets to the finish line in close matches-sometimes. I never saw Mike do that, i'm positive he has and John has closed out tough close matched for big $$$, i'm only saying that Mike is better at that part of the game,
the cloth tonight favored Mike, until 87 all we had was 21 oz Stevens nappy slow cloth and you need a strong white to go into clusters and break them out, I believe their strokes are about equally powerful, johns perhaps more so-but half of Mikes career was on that cloth, plus hanging out with KT dont worry he has been playing on it more than John has.
Mike came with some huge shots and cought a few rolls tonight.
this match was for recreaion only, I know John wanted to win bad, thats his style and I respect that, he missed the 7 ball he jumped up, could it have been the pressure? thats similar to the 8 or 9 ball he got funny on playing Hairrman the first time that would have put him on the hill on the 10 ball last day, He shot the 8 or 9 a bit fast jumped up like he did before Mike ran out on him. John is a seasoned player but those funny things under pressure concernt me a bit.
yes I would never bet on Mike to beat John, short 125 games for $2500/game I would jst bet on John and let time work its magic because I would have so many barrels that John woudnt have any pressure and that will win the game.
Also I said it the other night I believe the 526 record will be beat within 3 maybe 5 years, abd once that happens there will be alot more of them to Come. John is the man who will set that standard.
Lotta good comments here. To me it proved that a lot of pool enthusiasts still will watch a good Straight Pool match. I'm sure that if one of the naysayers with cash want to back Mike for a considerable amount of money in a longer race it could be arranged. Is there anyone listening who can work out the details of such a match ? JCIN :thumbup: ...Tom
It seems like all Pool commentary has went this way..... it's like they "NEED" one Professor Screwball in the Booth, Mitch Lawrence, Jimmy Wych. What happened to two guys like Grady & Buddy or 'Cardona & Varner..... why do they all of the sudden need one BOZO with a mic? I don't get it!!!Terry Ardeno said:
tpdtom said:
straight pool is unique among pool games... it is the only game where you are allowed to shoot until you miss..
the rest of the games end after one rack
once you reach a certain skill level anyone can run 8,9,10, balls regardless of the spread..
14.1 is the only game where the good players manipulate the spread to run hundreds of consecutive balls..
who is the better player? the guy who can run 10 5 times in a row.. or the guy who can run 50 nonstop? what about the guy who can do 500?
pro pool needs to stop playing parlor games and begin placing the best players in the best matches playing the hardest games..
Joe Banger can run 9 balls
how is Earl Strickland running 9 balls better than Joe Bangers performance???
It's not..
make the best players play the hardest games it is the only way to determine who is the best.
"how is Earl Strickland running 9 balls better than Joe Bangers performance???
It's not.."
Ummmmmm 6 Packs!!! And let's not forget that Earl who doesn't even play Straight Pool has a run of over 400. 9 ball is definatly a test of skill, and anybody who doesn't think so can play Reyes for a thousand a set and find out.
It's not.."
Ummmmmm 6 Packs!!! And let's not forget that Earl who doesn't even play Straight Pool has a run of over 400. 9 ball is definatly a test of skill, and anybody who doesn't think so can play Reyes for a thousand a set and find out.
How about Engert or Hohmann? I know John is "Mr. 400", but from what I recall, I think Engert's high is 491, and Hohmann is in the 400s as well. I may look at one of these guys to break 500 first.Fatboy said:
Earl has a run of over 400 balls? NEWS TO ME.EL'nino said:
What this match proved to me was that a great straight pool player can beat another great straight pool player. I know, it was shocking to me, too. Who knew a former world 14.1 champion could beat another 14.1 champion. Shocking.
I don't believe the purpose of the match was to "prove" anything, except who wins-- just like any other match. This was simply two great straight pool players competing for a few brief moments. The match was way too short to draw any conclusions, although certainly the sub-theme of the contest was youth versus old timer.
In my view the match was very entertaining. To me it was painful to watch a great game played on barbox cloth. I don't know why that cloth continues to be used by the IPT. It serves no function other than of minor historical interest. It did showcase both player's powerful strokes however.
I thought Schmidt produced the tougher shots under pressure, with the single exception of Sigel's fantastic slice on the 13 ball to break open the stack. It was obvious that they both had made decisions to forgo safety play. And the fans were not disappointed!
I suspect Sigel has put in many more hours practicing 14.1 on the slow cloth than has Schmidt. In fact, Schmidt said he'd just run 258 the day before on fast cloth; so the transition to the nappy burlap they played on must have been a challenge.
What amused me was Sigel's classic con ability to engage people as allies-- even his opponent. The tendency is to start agreeing with someone who practices this type of non-stop barrage of commentary/excuses/insights. Eventually people start to unconsciously root for the individual. Grady has in the past described this practice as acquiring "yes men". I've seen Buddy Hall use a variation of this technique: engaging the opponent as an ally. The Brit who won the world championship worked a similar tactic on Bustamante, with excellent results.
At any rate the match was very enjoyable. If Schmidt had not taken his eye off that routine 7 ball, the match might have had a different winner.
Doc
In my view the match was very entertaining. To me it was painful to watch a great game played on barbox cloth. I don't know why that cloth continues to be used by the IPT. It serves no function other than of minor historical interest. It did showcase both player's powerful strokes however.
I thought Schmidt produced the tougher shots under pressure, with the single exception of Sigel's fantastic slice on the 13 ball to break open the stack. It was obvious that they both had made decisions to forgo safety play. And the fans were not disappointed!
I suspect Sigel has put in many more hours practicing 14.1 on the slow cloth than has Schmidt. In fact, Schmidt said he'd just run 258 the day before on fast cloth; so the transition to the nappy burlap they played on must have been a challenge.
What amused me was Sigel's classic con ability to engage people as allies-- even his opponent. The tendency is to start agreeing with someone who practices this type of non-stop barrage of commentary/excuses/insights. Eventually people start to unconsciously root for the individual. Grady has in the past described this practice as acquiring "yes men". I've seen Buddy Hall use a variation of this technique: engaging the opponent as an ally. The Brit who won the world championship worked a similar tactic on Bustamante, with excellent results.
At any rate the match was very enjoyable. If Schmidt had not taken his eye off that routine 7 ball, the match might have had a different winner.
Doc
The way I handicap it is this. Sigel WAS a great player and will occasionally show flashes of his old form. In a controlled setting like this, he has a very good chance to play well. In a tournament, like the upcoming 14.1 championships in August, I don't like his chances that much. He is not tournament tough. If he played in August and did well, I would be very surprised and impressed.
I don't agree with one of your statements. Mike Sigel is STILL a GREAT player. He's just not top 2 or 3 in the world, like he used to be. I wouldn't call him ELITE, but he's still great at what he does. Otherwise, you are saying that John got beat by a player that isn't great, and I think that's a snub to John Schmidt.jay helfert said:
Shawn Armstrong said:
I don't think there was any snub.
Keep in mind, these guys run 100s like a walk in the park.
If you and I play 1 game of 9 ball, and I win, no one
could conclude that I am better than you, or that there
was some weakness in your game.
Dale
What this proved to me is running a lot of balls at home is different than playing someone in a tournament/challenge format. Mike has proven himself to be great and JS has not. I would put a few players ahead of him in tournament play. In a few years... that might change. For me a big win, couple big runs or one good year doesn't make you great.
I think this proved the better player on paper won. Why this was a coin flip to me is they both had something to prove and nerves would be an equalizer. Experience prevailed.
I think this proved the better player on paper won. Why this was a coin flip to me is they both had something to prove and nerves would be an equalizer. Experience prevailed.
cleary said:
Looks like... just those 2 capital letters starting the first two sentences. JS usually doesn't capital anything. Dots and letters only no space or shift keys.
Congrats to Mike Sigel on a great performance.
Anyway we can get him into the World 14.1? that would be a great test.
Anyway we can get him into the World 14.1? that would be a great test.