ipt sigel vs schmidt proved what

[cleary]

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.

Actually, sometimes he does. Either way, I find it funny that wrldpro shares the same patterns of poor word processing and grammar and he didnt come around until this whole Sigel/Schmidt match. His first post ever was:
"i Personallly Would Like To See A Winner Take All If This Match Happens With Sigel Putting Up His Own Money And Alot Of It."

Sounds fishy to me.

 

[Terry Ardeno]

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

Great post Doc!

I agree with your point that Sigel probably practiced on the slow cloth. I also caught when John said his HR the day before was on Simonis.

The part of your post that I really liked was the fresh take on the designated "yes man." Your point in how that was a subtle attempt to sway the crowd is something I never heard of or considered before you mentioned it. I always took it as blowing off nervous tension, as the high strung players like Sigel, Earl, Keith, Jimmy Mataya, etc play to the crowd. But Buddy Hall doesn't fit that mold, so maybe you're on to something!

The only part that I would disagree with was that both players made some very ballsy shots. Schmidt slicing in that 3 ball into the left corner pocket from the stack....Sigel seemingly back cutting the 13 ball. I think they both played some real offensive shots.
John's response to Sigel's intentional foul was a brilliant reply.

I liked this match a lot.

 

[crawfish]

Even in a short race, proves he can play, if there was any doubt. I'm not a big fan, either. Let's face it. He can still hit'em.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

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.

Are you on crack? JS hasn't proven himself to be great? US Open Champion, and a straight pool high run of over 400? I could care less if he ran 400 at my house with nerf balls or whiffle balls. He is in the top echelon of 14.1 players today. Your comment is just plain retarded, and I'm embarassed we come from the same country.

 

[EL'nino]

Are you on crack? JS hasn't proven himself to be great? US Open Champion, and a straight pool high run of over 400? I could care less if he ran 400 at my house with nerf balls or whiffle balls. He is in the top echelon of 14.1 players today. Your comment is just plain retarded, and I'm embarassed we come from the same country.

I hope that You two are Friends and it's OK to talk to Him like that, if not You are way out of line.

 

[3andstop]

I honestly don't even understand the statement.

Spongebob Squarepants cartoons don't prove anything either but lots of people get enjoyment watching them.

I agree that Mike is very much into himself. I recall one statement he made on that broadcast was that he watched himself play on old VHS tapes he had and thought .... "no wonder I don't miss... my stroke is perfect." LOL It may very well be, but geez ...

Anyway, I don't agree Jay that he wouldn't fair well in the upcoming 14.1 tourney. Mike had quite a bit at stake here considering how he feels about himself, how he broke his stick last time they played, and the live broadcast, live audience, and build up to this one specific match rather than the ability to blend in the multiple play of a tournament.

I think Mike came through with some very high pressure shots to keep John from the table and to go on to win. I think he'd fair very well back in tournament play. He also believes he is concentrating well, and as we all know a good frame of mind is a large portion of the mental battle this game demands. I'd love to see him among the players.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

I hope that You two are Friends and it's OK to talk to Him like that, if not You are way out of line.

If you've seen how much Jason has riden John Schmidt on this forum, you wouldn't be making any comments. I think Jason only has ESPN Classic up in Edmonton, so he likes to ride people he probably hasn't seen play.

To say John Schmidt hasn't proven himself is idiotic. He put up $10k TWICE to play Harriman in two all rounds. He's won the US Open 9-ball. He has multiple 400 ball runs. He's beaten the top straight pool players in tournament play - guys like Ortmann, Engert, etc.. He's proven himself in spades. Consider me the first card-carrying member of the John Schmidt fan club.

 

[jay helfert]

I honestly don't even understand the statement.

Spongebob Squarepants cartoons don't prove anything either but lots of people get enjoyment watching them.

I agree that Mike is very much into himself. I recall one statement he made on that broadcast was that he watched himself play on old VHS tapes he had and thought .... "no wonder I don't miss... my stroke is perfect." LOL It may very well be, but geez ...

Anyway, I don't agree Jay that he wouldn't fair well in the upcoming 14.1 tourney. Mike had quite a bit at stake here considering how he feels about himself, how he broke his stick last time they played, and the live broadcast, live audience, and build up to this one specific match rather than the ability to blend in the multiple play of a tournament.

I think Mike came through with some very high pressure shots to keep John from the table and to go on to win. I think he'd fair very well back in tournament play. He also believes he is concentrating well, and as we all know a good frame of mind is a large portion of the mental battle this game demands. I'd love to see him among the players.

Well let him get in there and play! I'd like to see that myself.

 

[enzo]

all the top players have so much talent; i have watched so much pool and i personally think in his heyday, sigel was the best (and i mean the best ever) at being mentally tough and somehow finding a way to pocket the ball he needed to or make the out he needed to. this is what the top level is all about, it's less about talent. and again, i think mike had more of this desire and will to win than anybody, and he harnesses it better than anybody too. i just think his attitude and approach has always been exceptional, beyond even other top pros.

 

[Jason Robichaud]

If you've seen how much Jason has riden John Schmidt on this forum, you wouldn't be making any comments. I think Jason only has ESPN Classic up in Edmonton, so he likes to ride people he probably hasn't seen play.

To say John Schmidt hasn't proven himself is idiotic. He put up $10k TWICE to play Harriman in two all rounds. He's won the US Open 9-ball. He has multiple 400 ball runs. He's beaten the top straight pool players in tournament play - guys like Ortmann, Engert, etc.. He's proven himself in spades. Consider me the first card-carrying member of the John Schmidt fan club.

I haven't been riding anyone here. John Schmidt and I don't agree on some things, but that is no different than most posters/members posting. Posting money doesn't make you great. Hate to pop your little bubble. If it does, then Fatboy is the greatest player. What I said is, on paper Mike was the greater player and won. JS had great runs practicing, but that doesn't mean much when it is tournament time. You can't take that 400 with you. Efren is a great player, he proved it year after year. JS hasn't. Tell me how many years you can find him in the top 20 money list on AZ. You will find some great players there finishing in the top 20 year after year. Thats why they are great.

Would I want to play JS for all my cash, NO. If I had to pick from the following Efren, Alex, Johnny, Earl, Thorsten, Mika, Wu, Shane or JS to gamble with and hope for a chance to win... who would you pick? Give me a list of wins other than the U.S open or a practice 400 to prove my point!!!

Regardless of what I post here, correct or not. Idiot, I have called to no one. Disagree with my post all you like, just be a man about it.

giving me Red rep and in the comments saying I am an idiot isn't being much of a man!

 

[Celtic]

If he played in August and did well, I would be very surprised and impressed.

Seriously? I would be surprised if he played in it, but if he did I would not be at all surprised to see him come in near the top if not winning it all.

 

[Celtic]

IIf I had to pick from the following Efren, Alex, Johnny, Earl, Thorsten, Mika, Wu, Shane or JS to gamble with and hope for a chance to win... who would you pick?

I said pretty much the same thing on the Larry Nevel thread, people have a tough time getting it though.

 

[Roadkill]

giving me Red rep and in the comments saying I am an idiot isn't being much of a man!

And I thought I was the only idiot on AZ.

 

[Craig]

They both played great Mike just made fewer mistakes if Im not mistaken he only missed one ball his second shot beginning of the match John I believe missed 3-4 shots, correct me if Im wrong.

Hate him or like hime Mike can still play great. And some say well the race was to short you could agree to disagree on this, Mike had as much chance of winning this as John did regardless if it was a race to 125 or 1025. If this is the fact and you guys know for a fact that was the case, FOOTBALL starts in August send me nothing but winners since you know for a fact what the outcome is, its not gambling its stealing according to some.


Not to take anything away from John he plays as good as any human alive and no one has to like playing him in any game. I totally respect both of them and their game, I wish they could play everyday it would be very entertaining.

 

[Jason Robichaud]

And I thought I was the only idiot on AZ.

ipt sigel vs schmidt... 06-25-2008 12:57 PM Shawn Armstrong You are an idiot

Two in one day, maybe ban him for not being able to keep up with AZ members expected conduct.


Mr Armstrong, you don't have to agree with me, when you don't I more than welcome comments arguing your side/point. Calling someone an idiot shows something and proves nothing!

 

[jay helfert]

Seriously? I would be surprised if he played in it, but if he did I would not be at all surprised to see him come in near the top if not winning it all.

Didn't he say while he was doing commentary that he is thinking of coming out of retirement? After a more than ten year layoff, that would be quite a feat to even finish high in any tourney. 9-Ball, One Pocket, Eight Ball, Banks or 14.1, makes no difference.

Yes, he did play in the IPT's limited schedule, but that was only for a moment, and he was seeded into the finals. So what did that prove, other than KT liked him.

 

[gulfportdoc]

The part of your post that I really liked was the fresh take on the designated "yes man." Your point in how that was a subtle attempt to sway the crowd is something I never heard of or considered before you mentioned it. I always took it as blowing off nervous tension, as the high strung players like Sigel, Earl, Keith, Jimmy Mataya, etc play to the crowd. But Buddy Hall doesn't fit that mold, so maybe you're on to something!

Cheers, Terry. In my view players that utilize "yes men" --whether as a tactic, or simply as a part of their personality-- are at somewhat of a loss without that capacity. If that type player were to compete in tournament where a "no talking" rule were enforced, then I believe a significant portion of that player's performance would be handicapped. I'd better leave it at that...

Doc

 

[Celtic]

Didn't he say while he was doing commentary that he is thinking of coming out of retirement? After a more than ten year layoff, that would be quite a feat to even finish high in any tourney. 9-Ball, One Pocket, Eight Ball, Banks or 14.1, makes no difference.

Yeah, he only played in and WON this tournament.

http://www.azbilliards.com/thepros/2000showtourney2003.cfm?eventnum=239

Or did you not know that Jay? Gotta love when people make these smug posts without actually knowing half of the facts. There was some competition in that field for sure, alot of those guys shot great still in 2003 and Sigel came in cold and beat them all just like old times.

 

[PetToilet]

that no matter what happens, people will always talk shit about sigel.

 

[poolcuemaster]

How many Barrels ?

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.

I think Mike's backer can sling out the barrels with almost anyone since he's a billionaire, didn't think about that did you.

Leonard