Sigel blows it in IPT commentary!

[Steve Lipsky]

I agree with Ted; “The Mouth” is a moniker used to promote the IPT, and it’s a little sad because it looks like Mike is taking it seriously. At the recent World 14.1 tournament, it took Jimmy Mataya rearranging the layouts with his hands to upstage Sigel’s sharking and unprofessionalism. If it weren’t for Mataya’s circus, Sigel would have been in a class by himself. It’s a shame; he was such a well-respected player, and it looks as if the IPT might be changing his image permanently.

The funniest part of the broadcast last night was Sigel saying Gerda was not in Allison’s/Karen’s class. That must have been a mistake. I’m sure he meant to say she’s not in Loree Jon’s class. Right?

Also, shame on Sigel for not calling Strickland out for sharking the hell out of Gerda – “Well, I guess I’ve lost now.” (lololol… what is he, four years old?)

That said, I kind of like the coverage. I look forward to watching it every week, for whatever that’s worth. Like any tournament of this format, though, I think part of the charm rests with the initial round-robin format. So many players, so many interesting matchups (Allison vs. Bustamante!). Once the players start dropping, and you see the same guys playing match after match towards the end, I think it’s gonna get kind of boring.

Finally, why is Kevin Trudeau doing any commentating? He’s done a great thing for this game, but he should leave those duties to the professionals.

- Steve

 

[rackmsuckr]

You people are getting all worked up over nothing. The interpretation of that rule was changed the 2nd day of the KOH tournament. No longer a foul to touch the cue ball with cue prior to game starting. Read the thread all about this in IPT forum.

I believe it is still a foul to position the cueball with your cue during BIH though and that is unfair to short people. Sometimes the right shot just can't be made because the cueball is unpositionable from reaching distance, requiring many, many, many adjustments by hand placement, walking around to check, walking back around to readjust by a fraction, etc. Many times I need to position the ball, even if I have to use a bridge, because it is the right shot. Heck, it might be the ONLY shot on the table!

I have had to take a longer shot within reaching distance because of this. But what if that path is blocked by an obstructing ball farther back? Then I have to look for another, less favorable route.

I truly hope they adopt the BCA's stance on this - allowing positioning on the top of the ball with your ferrule or shaft only, no tip. It will speed up the game and allow accurate positioning of the CB.

Speaking of unfair to short people, so is the all-ball foul rule. OK, it is a purist rule, but think about it...the men are required to wear long sleeves. Women wear long hair and bracelets and have breasts. Being called for touch fouls that do not move a ball seems very petty.

It takes the focus away from the game and everyone leaning under you to catch a peek if you should, OMG, brush a ball with your hair, or whatever. There is no ball movement, the outcome of the game is not changed. That is totally assinine. Just play pool!

 

[Gregg]

Regarding Mike Segal's 'faux pas'... nobody's perfect. I'm sure that Mike (a pool player and not an AZ post-mortum-ist) meant nothing more than than what he said. Just that. A scratch would have meant loss of game. Not rules-wise, but an inevitable run-out by the oncoming player.

Let's not get too worked up about Mike's commentry. Why not be glad that someone of his knowledge & skill is available to provide experienced comment?

Leave the explanation of the rules to the pre-game hacks. If that doesn't work then what chance have we got? I'm sure it took a few tours for the public at large to understand the rules of golf. No?

C'mon people. Embrace the situation. What imperfection is there with the IPT that you would put right? Think about it.

It's a hard job. Especially dealing with dissillusioned players who've heard it all before.

Wait until July 23rd. Then let's see what happens.

x

BS

<sarcasm>Wrong! Anybody who prides themselves a true AZer would relish the opportunity to bash a top level pro! Quick, now's your chance!</sarcasm>

 

[macguy]

No, he made many shot predictions that didn't pan out.

I am curious though, was there a booth there and were they doing live commentary? Saying something like "Wow I am surprised he took that shot" or something of that nature, could be said for the purpose of sounding spontaneous and live. I remember when Mosconi did some commentary for ABC and it was done afterward. Mosconi really took advantage of the fact he knew what was going to happen with his comments making shot and outcome predictions.

I.E. "He should not go into this cluster he could get tied up" Naturally the guy gets tied and Mosconi says something like, "I told you he should not have done that, that was risky".

 

[worriedbeef]

Speaking of unfair to short people, so is the all-ball foul rule. OK, it is a purist rule, but think about it...the men are required to wear long sleeves. Women wear long hair and bracelets and have breasts. Being called for touch fouls that do not move a ball seems very petty.

It takes the focus away from the game and everyone leaning under you to catch a peek if you should, OMG, brush a ball with your hair, or whatever. There is no ball movement, the outcome of the game is not changed. That is totally assinine. Just play pool!

This reminds me of an argument I was having with someone on a snooker board. Someone was widely being called a cheat for not owning up to a foul where he slightly brushed a ball with his sleeve I think. Now i know this kind of gentlemanly obligation to own up in snooker isn't really prevalent in the same way, but I think it's petty and silly.

If i'm in the middle of a decent break (lol unlikely for me) and one of my arm hairs touches a ball, or my sleeve touches a red by so little I didn't even feel it, I would be pissed to be told I had fouled or cheated, and no way would I own up. I've gained no advantage in any way by this so what's the problem. I hate pettyness!

 

[Williebetmore]

...and that is unfair to short people. Sometimes the right shot just can't be made because the cueball is unpositionable from reaching distance....

And that is why many of us feel it should be mandatory for the female competitors to wear the black boots with 6" stilletto heels. You know, just in the interest of a more fair competition. Perhaps the really tight mini-skirts would also help in stabilizing the stance.

 

[NYC cue dude]

Sigel as commentator

The show last night was better than the first, but imho still has a long way to go. I was a bit put off not only by the way sigel reffered to the woman as girls, but the way he dumbed down the game for the average players. Several times during the broadcast he reffered to a ball by it's color as opposed to the number. It is obvious he knows which ball is which, but because of tv and the bangers watching, he says things like "the blue ball" etc., annoying.

As far as how mike plays, well in his defense, he has been playing pretty sporty. Fot the first IPT challenge event, he hadn't screwed his cue together before that to play competitive pool in a long time. Seems with the allure of IPT payouts, he has been practicing considerably.

During the recent 14.1 world championships in NJ, mike went undefeated in the round robin, including an impressive win over 2000 us open champ Ralf Souquet. He did make it to the final 16, and up until that point had the high run of 125. Ultimately that was eclipsed by engerts 140 and hohmanns 174.

I don't know how he will fare against the eferen's and hohmanns in July, but he IS the favorite against 85% of the field and certainly over all of the women, imho.

rg

 

[Williebetmore]

As far as how mike plays, well in his defense, he has been playing pretty sporty. ....

I don't know how he will fare against the eferen's and hohmanns in July, but he IS the favorite against 85% of the field and certainly over all of the women, imho.

rg

RG,
This reminds me of the famous Lefty O'Doul quote about Ty Cobb (misrepresented in the movie Cobb).

In the late 1960's or early '70's, Lefty O'Doul (a contemporary of Cobb, and a lifetime .300 hitter himself) was asked how the late Ty Cobb would hit "nowadays"; with artificial turf, relief pitchers, night baseball, etc.

O'Doul responded, "well, Ty would probably only hit .320 or .330 nowadays.....but of course, he'd be 85 years old."

I suspect Mike Sigel will ALWAYS be a threat when he screws it together.

 

[Nostroke]

And Gerda beating Earl - BFD. Earl is too freakin stupid to play good 8 ball -

Still he won a World Championship in 8 Ball Im pretty sure.

 

[Billy_Bob]

...Putnam almost scratches on the break, and Sigel comments that if he HAD scratched, he would have lost the game automatically. Now, he MAY have meant that the other player would likely run out (and that's probably true), but the average person watching would not understand that, and would be thinking, "Oh, if you scratch on the break, you lose!"...

I was watching this with a bar player type...

Note that when I play very good players and I make one mistake, I'll say to other people "I just lost!". And the other player may still have all his balls on the table, but I know he will run out on me.

And with some very very good players, if they win the lag for the break, I will say "I lost!". I know the player will break and run out.

I've seen other players do this too. Say they lost if they make one error, because they know the other player will run out.

But my friend I was watching this with has never played around these very good players, so he thought it was a rule thing. Scratch and it is loss of game? So he asked me about this. I told my friend he just was saying the other player would run out if given a chance, so it would pretty much be a guaranteed loss if he had scratched.

And I saw this at the IPT qualifier in Seattle. If they did not make a ball on the break, would scratch, or miss a shot, that was it! The other player would run out guaranteed. FYI there was almost no scratching or missing of shots in Seattle. Mostly they would not make a ball on the break, then that was it. Other player would run out.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Still he won a World Championship in 8 Ball Im pretty sure.

He did the year Busta and Efren did not play due to Asian Games.
Efren won it 2 in a row then Busta and Medina won it.
Medina beat Efren in the final. The last year PBT held it at the Riviera.
Medina's check bounced.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

I just enjoyed that we may have got the quote of the year from Earl during last night's telecast...."Stay in school AND shoot pool."

 

[CaptainHook]

I just enjoyed that we may have got the quote of the year from Earl during last night's telecast...."Stay in school AND shoot pool."

That was pretty funny.

He gets so mad at himself for losing.

 

[ra[g]e]

Several times during the broadcast he reffered to a ball by it's color as opposed to the number. It is obvious he knows which ball is which, but because of tv and the bangers watching, he says things like "the blue ball" etc., annoying.

Basically I think referring to the balls by their numbers will be better for seasoned players, but even for serious social players, reference by color might be better... I for one got pretty confused when I watched my first pool video, I totally did not get which balls the commentators were referring to.

 

[Cuebacca]

Note that when I play very good players and I make one mistake, I'll say to other people "I just lost!".

Would this be considered to be conceding the game in a tournament situation? To me, it is equivalent to saying "good game" or unscrewing your cue before the game is over.

Even though it is not your intention, one could legitimately interpret it to be a shark move, in my opinion.

Of course, for your opponent, there is only one response. Billy Bob: "I just lost!" Opponent: "Yeah, you did. ...Wait, are you really gonna make me run these out?"

 

[hippiepool]

all the pros do it ...or did ....as long as you dont touch the c.b. with the tip .

 

[hippiepool]

i think earl and mike were taking some trips to the men's room .....

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Would this be considered to be conceding the game in a tournament situation? To me, it is equivalent to saying "good game" or unscrewing your cue before the game is over.

Even though it is not your intention, one could legitimately interpret it to be a shark move, in my opinion.

Of course, for your opponent, there is only one response. Billy Bob: "I just lost!" Opponent: "Yeah, you did. ...Wait, are you really gonna make me run these out?"

I agree. Billy, if someone says this while I'm playing and I hear it, I'm gonna tell him it's a concession. My opponent and I might have to sit down and argue this one for an hour... at the very least, I'm going to make him admit that there was absolutely no earthly reason to say such a thing except as an effort to shark me.

This is nothing personal, and it's entirely possible that you meant in your post that you say it only to a spectator. But any good player who says something like this to the opponent knows why he is saying it - it's a last-ditch effort to shark his opponent into not running out.

That's why I made a note in my earlier post of Strickland pathetically saying "I guess I lost" when he was still at the table against Gerda. To hear a champion-caliber player having to resort to such tactics is nothing short of sad.

In my opinion, you miss/scratch/whatever, you should sit down quietly in your chair and let your opponent shoot.

- Steve

 

[jjinfla]

I know that feeling... That's a tough one to deal with. But rules are rules...

If I was creating a set of rules, I can't think why moving the CB with your cue should constitute a foul. It's such a force of habit for players, and, as long as you don't interfere with any other ball, then why should it be a foul?

Opinions please.

BS

Why does everyone want to fight the known posted rules?

These are professionals and agreed to play under very strict rules and tough table conditions. No slop as you all say. Well, moving the CB with your cue sure is sloppy.

Even when you play under CB fouls only and move cue the ball with your cue you are not allowed to let the tip touch the ball. Does that mean the front of the tip only? How about the side of the tip? Or maybe the ferule shouldn't touch the CB? So if you can't touch it at all all those problems are solved.

But they were playing all balls fouls and if anything touched a ball it was a foul.

I suppose when you play golf it is okay to nudge the ball with your club?

As for Sigel's comment it at least shows that you guys were all watching the show. Who knows what the mouth meant by that statement. But I seriously doubt that I will lose any sleep over it. Not a big mistake in my book. But at that level, with that spread of balls, giving BIH is an automatic loss. That's what happened to Earl when he scratched against Gerda.

Jake

 

[Boro Nut]

...but the way he dumbed down the game for the average players. Several times during the broadcast he reffered to a ball by it's color as opposed to the number. It is obvious he knows which ball is which, but because of tv and the bangers watching, he says things like "the blue ball" etc., annoying.

And how did you know which ball was which? Because you could read the number, or because you could see which colour it was? The numbers are meaningless. If I was the TV producer desparate to increase my audience and the commentator only ever referred to the numbers I would sack him. I'd also introduce red and yellow balls like the UK.

Boro Nut