Is Mike Sigel the best ever?
- Thread starter wrldpro
- Start date
Re: Souquet
jimmyg said:
Blackjack said:
You know, I think I ran 400 once but I may have been dreaming.
Terry Ardeno said:
Is that all? I thought the guy was a playa'.
Terry Ardeno said:
Ortmann won the U.S. Open 14.1 Championship back in 1989. He beat Mizerak in the finals. For all practical purposes it was the World Championship of Straight Pool at the time. All the top players were entered.
jay helfert said:
Jay,
On the "Interview" page, Earl tells about his high run. I have other sources as well, but hopefully, this will be good reading.
Scroll down on the 3rd page. I think this should link it though...http://www.azbilliards.com/interviews/earl3.html
Earl is one of my very, very favorite players, but I was surprised his was so high as well. If you watched some of his 14.1 from The Maine Event, you'll see he doesn't play a traditional style of 14.1.
Let's just say that Dallas West would cringe!
jay helfert said:You know, I think I ran 400 once but I may have been dreaming.
Jay,
Don't be mad at me for publishing this, but tell the truth. I have your 14.1 HR as 72.
Now we all know you're more of a banks expert than a 14.1 specialist, so 72 is pretty good. But it IS 72, right?
On the bright side, on any given day, you're liable to run 72 BANKS!
Blackjack said:
Please add my 72 to the list, for high runs by Jews who are under 5'8" and wear a toupee. I deserve recognition for this feat.
jimmyg said:
Mecula is an incorrect spelling. His name was George MIKULA.
And WTF is Min-Wai Chin?
Milo said:
I played him in the U.S. Bar Table Championships in Reno this year.
jay helfert said:
You're right there Jay. Ortmann won the U.S. Open 14.1 Championship in 1989 and again in 1993. But I couldn't use his US Open victory in my analogy because it wasn't officially called a World Championship, although I agree that in the absence of a WC that year, it could be construed as the equiliant.
I call the DCC Banks division the "World Bank Pool Championships" much the same way.
Speaking of the World 14.1 Championships, from 1990 when Bobby hunter won it until 2003, when John Schmidt won it, there was NO "World 14.1 Championships" played. Germany and Europe held 14.1 Championships in all those years.
And as a PS, how about Hunter winning, then his protege' after him the next time it was played! That's neat for Bobby & John.
Blackjack said:I've heard rumors that said that you can't even spell 14.1.
Yes I can! Fourteen, period, one! Thank you.
Terry Ardeno said:Jay,
Don't be mad at me for publishing this, but tell the truth. I have your 14.1 HR as 72.
Now we all know you're more of a banks expert than a 14.1 specialist, so 72 is pretty good. But it IS 72, right?
On the bright side, on any given day, you're liable to run 72 BANKS!
And I did it for the cash too! The lordly sum of $50.
I have banked all nine balls in short rack banks more than once (in practice). I banked eight and out a couple of times in full rack banks for the cash, once against the great Youngblood. He still beat me.
jay helfert said:
I remember George Mikula from Julians on 14th Street in Manhattan back in the mid and late sixties.
Unbelievable player in every discipline. Unfortunalely, he had personal issues that kept him from being a world class champion. Real nice person as well.
Jim
Last edited:
Milo said:
Naaahhh! He knocked me out 5-3 in the Eight Ball. He still plays good.
so to get it back on topic, and to summerize, I think its agreed Sigel was the best 9 ball tournament player in the 80's. After that you would just have to put him on lists and speculate. To me the what about this guy that guy thing, gets really old and annoying really quick. And when we talk about who wouldn't play who, all we are talking about is gambling. And then unless the guy wanted to put up serious cash on a gamble, it would technically probably be the backer too who wouldn't want the match up.
I think that it is misleading saying, oh this guy ducks that guy, or he didn't want any action from me. That maybe true, but that in and of itself does not prove to me that this automatically makes the player refusing to gamble worse of a player. It could mean a whole host of other things. To me gambling is kind of like a highlight reel. As long as you have money you can always "do it again". But with tournament play you get one chance and one shot to win (sometimes two but you get the point) or your out, it doesnt matter how much money you have.
So again I think another error in thinking suggests that playing for cash is somehow superior to tournaments. This may not be said outright, but it is certainly suggested a lot. Saying that a person you could never seem to beat in a tournament won't play you in a cash game doesn't mean to me, "this means im better."
Another problem for gamblers is that a lot of it is just stories. Now there could have been a lot of eye witnesses, but when Mike Sigel won a tournament it was verified and documented, he doesn't really have to tell about that one time back in the eighties he won this tournament, in the same way that a gambler has to tell about a big score.
All that to say being able to win in gambling situations, and having hall of famers not want to play you is not the end all in billiards. This is not a qualifier for "better".
I think that it is misleading saying, oh this guy ducks that guy, or he didn't want any action from me. That maybe true, but that in and of itself does not prove to me that this automatically makes the player refusing to gamble worse of a player. It could mean a whole host of other things. To me gambling is kind of like a highlight reel. As long as you have money you can always "do it again". But with tournament play you get one chance and one shot to win (sometimes two but you get the point) or your out, it doesnt matter how much money you have.
So again I think another error in thinking suggests that playing for cash is somehow superior to tournaments. This may not be said outright, but it is certainly suggested a lot. Saying that a person you could never seem to beat in a tournament won't play you in a cash game doesn't mean to me, "this means im better."
Another problem for gamblers is that a lot of it is just stories. Now there could have been a lot of eye witnesses, but when Mike Sigel won a tournament it was verified and documented, he doesn't really have to tell about that one time back in the eighties he won this tournament, in the same way that a gambler has to tell about a big score.
All that to say being able to win in gambling situations, and having hall of famers not want to play you is not the end all in billiards. This is not a qualifier for "better".
Last edited: