Sigel vs Rempe '81: How Would You Play This?

[sjm]

This “how would you play this” thread is something of an experiment to see if people on the forum like this sort of thing. I’ll show you a position that a top player faced in a match and ask you to try to guess at how they evaluated the situation and what choice they ultimately made. The position shown below occurred during what I believe to have been the 1981 World 14.1 Championships and four and one half inch pockets were in use, and, of course, I was in attendance.

Mike Sigel trailed Jim Rempe 130-22, and each was already on one foul. Now, Sigel’s choices appeared to be: 1) risking the match on the break shot by shooting the seven and breaking the pack immediately, 2) taking some sort of intentional foul, 3) planning to take two more fouls and taking his chances after the balls were re-racked, or 4) some other approach.

Anyone care to analyze this position with respect to what Sigel should have done? At some point, I’ll post what Sigel actually did and why. Now you might say “How would SJM know the why part?” After the match was over, I discussed the position with Sigel and he explained his approach to me, and I’ll be glad to relate it.

 

[Williebetmore]

SJM,
This is an expert level question. He could take a second foul to try to get the cue ball more to the center of the rail, but a third scratch on a shot from the head rail would probably result in loss of game for him (and heck, unless the cue is frozen on the head rail, Rempe may shoot and make it). He could play a kick safety into the back of the rack and hope that all those days with Irving Crane would allow him to win the resulting safety battle (no sure thing against Jim) and gain control of the table.

I think Mike would just shoot the ball. He might be better where he is than frozen to the head rail after another intentional foul. I think he might just mutter to himself, "I'm the greatest shot maker there is or ever was," and just shoot. Depending on the exact position he might even carom the object ball off the side of the pack. Of course he would come up off the shot several times before shooting, and would frown up a storm.

Waiting breathlessly for the correct answer (anyone who second guesses Mike in his prime is foolish). I will be disappointed if Mike didn't shoot from there. He has said on tape that his ability to come with the tough shot under pressure is what separated him from his peers (I think he followed with a modest assessment of himself as the greatest player of all time).

 

[sjm]

If you haven’t read the first post in this thread, stop! Unless you read it first, this post won’t make sense to you.

I must admit, I figured Sigel would just shoot the seven, but he didn’t. What Sigel did was to take a foul by hitting the cue ball just a few inches in the direction of the pack. I asked Mike about that position after the match was over to try to understand why he did what he did. This is how he explained it to me, and obviously I’ll paraphrase since I surely don’t remember his exact words of twenty three years ago:

"My first thought was to just shoot the seven, but I was concerned about the scratch off the rack. I knew it was at least possible that the cueball would carom off the rack for a scratch, and surely Rempe would run 20 and out if that happened. I then realized that if I were to shoot the seven on two fouls, then, make or miss, if I scratched off the rack, I’d still have an extra chance to win as the balls would be re-racked after my third consecutive foul. So I designed to take a foul that I felt Rempe would return. I was tempted to take a foul along the back rail but felt Jimmy would go for the shot, and that I might never see the table again. I felt sure Jimmy wouldn’t shoot the seven from the jaws with such a big lead, so I knew any foul I took had to leave the cueball near the jaws of the corner pocket. If I just touched the cueball with my tip, then I’d have given Jimmy a realistic chance to leave me cushion-hooked, and I didn’t want to do that, so I knocked it a few inches forward, making it near impossible for him to do that. If he could manage to leave me cushion-hooked, I’d take an intentional third foul. I reckoned he’d just knock the cue ball back to the original position, and then I’d go for the seven ball, a shot I was fully prepared to take on.”

So, how did it turn out? As Sigel expected, Rempe simply knocked the ball back to its original position, leaving Sigel the break shot right out of the jaws. Sigel cut the seven in and ran 129 and out. I had a little chat with Mike nineteen years later during the 2000 US Open 14.1 Championship event and mentioned the seven ball he made from the jaws against Rempe in the early eighties and he remembered it well and called it one of the greatest shots of his career.

 

[Williebetmore]

SJM,
Thanks for the education (bill me later). When I get home tomorrow, I'll set this up and let you know what my make percentage is. Did Sigel give any clue as to what he assessed his make percentage as on this shot (I know Mosconi assessed all open shots to full pockets as hangers - no shortage of confidence).

 

[sjm]

sjm,

Captain Hook was my favorite player of all time. I was going to respond but you gave up the answer before I had a chance.

I have a newpaper story cut out on the very match and it reads Siegal runs 129 and out on Rempe from the jaw but it doesn't mention it was off of rampe's foul so I added that to the story.

Hey, I love it but please give more time to respond before you give up the answer.

Cheers,

"Gremlin"

Sorry, Gremlin, I'll give you more time next time. Honestly, though, my intent in this thread was to introduce the idea of a thread dedicated to a famous position or match (though this thread format can be used by anybody about a shot from any pro or amateur match.).

The fact is that, except for the super-geeks of straight pool, the only thing really of note in this position is that Sigel made the seven ball and ran 129 and out, and how the position arose is, in the end, a trivial detail, a logical omission from any written account of the match.

The shot certainly is testament to just how fine a player Sigel really was. Like you, Sigel was always a personal favorite of mine.

 

[Williebetmore]

SJM,
Have the rules changed? Our league says that after 3 consecutive fouls the opponent has the option to keep the table as is, or force the offending player to meet the requirements of the opening break. Did it used to be just an automatic opening break scenario (or is it still that way and we just don't know what we're doing)??

Even though I was anxious to hear the result, maybe 24 hours for everyone to stew about it would be good (given enough rope any of us is capable of a good hanging).

 

[sjm]

SJM,
Thanks for the education (bill me later). When I get home tomorrow, I'll set this up and let you know what my make percentage is. Did Sigel give any clue as to what he assessed his make percentage as on this shot (I know Mosconi assessed all open shots to full pockets as hangers - no shortage of confidence).

No, Willie, but my chat with Mike made it clear he thought the shot was a bit less than fifty/fifty.

I think anyone who can make that shot one out of three on a tight table is a hell of a player. Anyone who can make it and 128 more is, well, just plain incredible.

 

[sjm]

SJM,
Have the rules changed? Our league says that after 3 consecutive fouls the opponent has the option to keep the table as is, or force the offending player to meet the requirements of the opening break. Did it used to be just an automatic opening break scenario (or is it still that way and we just don't know what we're doing)??

Even though I was anxious to hear the result, maybe 24 hours for everyone to stew about it would be good (given enough rope any of us is capable of a good hanging).

Yes, Willie, the BCA rule has changed twice. I believe your league director is correct, though it's a fairly recent change. Before that, at one point, the rule was changed to charge a 32 point penalty (rather than the traditional 16) for the third consecutive foul, but that change was reversed. In each case, the intent was to dissuade players from taking an intentional third consecutive foul.

Still, in both the 1999 National Straight Pool Championships and the 2000 US Open 14.1 event, the traditional rule was in effect, and the balls were always re-racked after a third consecutive foul, with no option to accept the position from which the third foul occurred.

 

[TheOne]

Good start SJM, although I have to admit my understanding of the straight pool foul rules didn't really allow me to offer much of opinion. However I have to admit that I wouldn't have suggested that he shoot from the jaws of the pocket!

Awesome shot!

PS
Some time ago I remember getting in a big bun fight with the one and only fast larry about jacking up the cue for drawing the whit ball. SOmehere in that discussion somebody mentioned a famous draw shot that duel made by jacking up his cue because the white was next to the cushion. Can anybody re-create this position, I would love to see the situation he faced?

Love these posts, great way for everyone to get something out of these forums.

 

[Tommy-D]

Corey's draw shot

> I have to assume you are talking about the draw shot from the Mosconi Cup match that Corey made. I can't remember the specifics of what the layout looked like before,I was flipping thru the channels and saw pool and stopped. Corey had apparently pushed out to the point of the same corner that Mike shot this 14.1 example from,and executed the following shot,in WEI format.



START(
%CP4D3%EU0Y9%Ps0E1%WU3C6%Xr2E4%YQ1D5%ZT6C4%[k2Z8%\s5U5%]j2[7
%^b6V3%_P9D4%`X1J7%as6U2
)END

At first,he looked disgusted,like he couldn't believe where the cue ball stopped,like he meant to push out along the rail but overshot it. Then he gets this gleam in his eye,and he stands over it a few seconds,adjusting and playing with his cue length and grip,jacks up and hits it with a bunch of right,the cue balls took a slight masse,maybe only breaking about 2" over the whole distance,hits rail first,cuts the ball in,then draws back to the end rail and 2 rails out of the corner,leaving him perfect on the 5,but I can't remember the layout of the rest of the balls because I was in a stunned,laughing fit,not believing someone would choose to execute such a phenomenally hard shot under that kind of pressure over something easier. I asked Corey to try and reproduce that shot at Action Billiards in Akron one time,and he said he can make it virtually at will(coming from most pool players,this means slightly more often than not),and would be more than happy to do so after he and another local player had finished their practice set,but I was staying with relatives and had to get back home before long so I didn't see him do it. He did say that this one of his "pet" shots,like I'm assuming most everyone has,shots that never come up in a million years,but we shoot anyway,like those circular draw shots,the Z bank,and others. He said because he had shot this shot enough to feel comfortable shooting it when it counts,and assuming his opponent would think him to be nuts for trying it,he HAD to shoot it to win,like Earl back in the day rolling out to a jump shot he knew you would pass back,not knowing you just gave away the winning shot if he happens to make it with reasonable position. To get enough draw on this shot that close to the rail is amazing. I can MAYBE draw it back to the end rail from about an inch off the rail,but with nowhere close to enough speed to come 2 rails out like he did,there is no point in me attempting to make it from frozen to the point. On a side note,Larry Nevel is said to be able to make this shot from the same place. In this case,the spin is as low as you can hit on the cue ball with that elevation,and extreme left.



START(
%AO7D2%IC4[2%Pr9E6%UG7X4%Vg4C9%WP9D2%Xr7E7%Yg4Z6%ZO8D6%[h0[3
%\r9Q7%]g9D7%^r9Q8%e@9`9
)END


> I'll have to see it,Tommy D.

 

[Celtic]

Sigel is still probably my favorite pro pool player of all time. I would say in his prime he was better then 50% against anyone in the world in any era, the guy just had crazy mad skills and the confidence it takes to be the best. He could also outthink almost anyone. If I could ever take a lesson from any pro it would be Sigel and I would never want to shoot a single shot, it would all be mental and trying to get all the phsychological asspects of the game that made him great that I would be after.

Actually, since the guy is quite the entrepener (sp?) I wonder if he would think about making a video strictly based on the mental area of the game and use archival footage from his many many wins and afew of his losses to use as examples of what was going on in his head during that moment and why he succeeded or failed in the situations. That would be a golden video, I would pay alot for a 2 hour course in the mental game from the Sigel made like that. Just basically Sigel match clips over his lifetime and him doing commentary on what was going on through his head and why he won and how he kept that confidence up.

I will never forget in Vegas when he actually noticed my cue from a distance and came up asking about it specifically. Damn proud I was at that moment as I designed the thing from scratch. Asking him about getting back into pool got him a little annoyed but he has to relize it is only cause so many fans miss watching his magic.

 

[Williebetmore]

SJM,
Sigel's shot also illustrates an important straight pool corollary (espoused extensively on Accu-Stats and in my basement by Danny DiLiberto) - "Don't take a shot that can lose the game, but can't win the game." I was amazed by Danny D's shot choices. He would play safe when confronted with a medium difficulty shot if it could lose the game, but not win the game - he would take a very difficult shot if the safety was also tough, but the shot could win the game.

 

[sjm]

SJM,
Sigel's shot also illustrates an important straight pool corollary (espoused extensively on Accu-Stats and in my basement by Danny DiLiberto) - "Don't take a shot that can lose the game, but can't win the game." I was amazed by Danny D's shot choices. He would play safe when confronted with a medium difficulty shot if it could lose the game, but not win the game - he would take a very difficult shot if the safety was also tough, but the shot could win the game.

Right you are, Willie. And you know what Mike Sigel and Danny DiLiberto had in common? Both lived in upstate New york and both were influenced by and regularly exposed to the greatest straight pool tactician that ever lived -- Irving Crane. In about 1982, I asked Irving who, other than himself, was the greatest straight pool tactician he had ever seen. He didn't say Mike Sigel. His answer: Allen Hopkins.

 

[Williebetmore]

SJM,
Well I just set up the Sigel shot. I missed the first 4 tries, then made 4 of the next 6 (total = 40%, medium pockets). I think with a week of shooting 15 or 30 a day I could get up to 50%. I think the shot is definitely easier from the jaws than from a position frozen on the head rail. I think I will use this shot occasionally. It is a bit easier than it looks (I was guessing I would make 1/10).

 

[sjm]

SJM,
Well I just set up the Sigel shot. I missed the first 4 tries, then made 4 of the next 6 (total = 40%, medium pockets). I think with a week of shooting 15 or 30 a day I could get up to 50%. I think the shot is definitely easier from the jaws than from a position frozen on the head rail. I think I will use this shot occasionally. It is a bit easier than it looks (I was guessing I would make 1/10).

Remember, Willie, Sigel shot it on tight pockets. I've tried it, too, and my success rate was more like three out of ten on medium pockets. It's hard to imagine that I'd ever go for that shot in a serious game. Still, unlike you, I don't plan to practice it, so maybe it will be in your comfort zone one day. Good luck with it.

 

[Williebetmore]

. It's hard to imagine that I'd ever go for that shot in a serious game. .

SJM,
Its a good shot for early in the game against a weak opponent in our league; or a desperation end of game shot against my professional opponents (assuming I get a shot near the end of the game, and I need a lot of balls).