Sigel vs strickland

[cardiac kid]

HEy Cardiac, I was just last week trying to set up a exhibition in Rochester for John Schmidt and Earl. I spoke to one pool room and the manager there saisdthat Mike was there playing at that moment. So I guess he hits balls still, shame I could not get the deal done up there we could have had a great ring game

Hi Mark,

You chose probably the worst time for the new pool room owner to offer him an exhibition match. He is still trying to tie loose ends together. Sadly, Classic is the only pool room in Rochester now.

Mike does play at Classic when he is in town. Generally in the afternoon. Rarely in the evening. Sadly, most of the players in the room playing either full size or bar box have no idea who the guy "talking to himself" is.

Boy, would it be great to have a challenge match between Earl and Mike. Earl won both Joss 9 Ball Tour events he entered at Classic. Remember him beating Keither one year. Don't remember the other finalist. Mike won our Invitational 14.1 event over Nick Varner in 1991. Lost to Jim Rempe in 1990 in the somewhat famous 195 - 5 match. Good luck setting up a match between them or Sigel - Schmidt in 14.1.

Lyn

 

[cardiac kid]

Instead of actually watching the guy play in his prime people simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts and beak off, letting people all know of how little they truly know about what they speak.

Excuse me Celtic. Mike grew up in the pool rooms in Rochester. I've seen him play more than probably anyone on this forum other than Jay Helfert. Again, if the thread was about Mike and Earl in the seventies, eighties and nineties, it would be a close match. Perhaps a pick'em. Unfortunately the thread is about today! Earl has continued to play and win at the highest levels while Mike retired. Mike's return to pool has not been the best it could have been. What ever the excuses rendered by various parties. In this single instance, I think it is you who do not know of which you speak.

Lyn

 

[Falcon Eddie]

No, this is true, people have short memories, and they must not take the time to actually study the video of Sigel that exists of him running 150 and out in the US-Open, drilling Efren and everyone else in rotational pool in the 1980's and winning WAY more then his share of the tournaments.

Instead of actually watching the guy play in his prime people simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts and beak off, letting people all know of how little they truly know about what they speak.

It is common practice in pool circles, in 20 years young people that are atm 5 years old will be 25 and will be beaking off how much of a bum Efren was, Johnny was, Ralf was, ect..., and they will do so without having watched much of anything those guys did.

Mike also ran 150 and out on Mike Zuglan in N.Y. there is a lot of knowledge in his bank . He would have to start playing seriously to win against Earl now.
If the money was right it would pull him back in. One of the reasons he stopped playing.
One thing for sure "the mouth" as Mike has been re-named against Earl "the i'll wear you out by talking you to death" . Would be a match of wits or nits as well.

 

[accustatsfan]

You would be right if the original post was about them playing twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the post was about playing NOW. Mike has no chance. For honor or ten thousand.



No one is forgeting Mike. No one is "dis'ing" him either. It is just a fact. Mike could not beat Earl at nine or ten ball today for any amount of money. Period. Spend a lot of time with him and you'll understand.

Lyn

Agree with all your points I just don't like it when people talk like he never played the game and kicking him when he's down. I wish his EURO tour comeback would have worked out.

Far as Earl v Mike I would like to see Earl against one of the current champions in a extended race. Maybe winning the 8 ball bar table reminded Earl of who he is again. Earl V Shane I would like to see again 1st go around Earl's mind wasn't right (doesn't mean he would have won).

Earl v Mike match is great if Mike earns his way back, but right now nostalgia would be the only reason to want the match.

Willie Mosconi had to be the greatest of all time since you never hear a positive word about him from the old pros during interviews.

People admire the champion, but like to see them come down.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

I think if the two were to play a long TAR style set, something like race to 100 or 120, and Sigel was able to hang in there through the first 30 or 40 games, he'd eventually settle-in, catch a gear, and make it a very close and entertaining match.

 

[Rick S.]

I think 8-Ball would be the only possible game. Rotation it's the Earl show. Earl can't spell straight-pool and would have no business against MS.

Can't spell straight pool? .......... His high run is over 400 in straight pool. (I think Cree Do was right with 408)

"If it's played on a table with balls, I can play it" Quote from Earl himself.

 

[cardiac kid]

Agree with all your points I just don't like it when people talk like he never played the game and kicking him when he's down. I wish his EURO tour comeback would have worked out.

We were happy with his European comback as well. It was quiet in the pool room! Seriously, any current or past player or real pool fan who does not believe Mike was, at the worst, one of the greatest of all time knows nothing about the game of pool. There is nothing wrong with his game. He still runs hundreds in 14.1. In rotation games, he acknowledges the strengths of the new generation of players. If you don't make a ball on the break and park the cue ball, you lose. He works on his break for hours. Just can't make it work like an SVB.

Earl v Mike match is great if Mike earns his way back, but right now nostalgia would be the only reason to want the match.

Agree absolutely. Mike has not shown he can play with the current crop of International professionals. Regional tour guys yes. The real meat, NO!

People admire the champion, but like to see them come down.

Have to agree with that statement as well. There is nothing sadder than weaker players tearing an "old" pro as he (or she) ages. Mike has forgotten more about pool than I will ever know and I've been playing pretty sporty for over fifty years! Just a fact of life I guess.

Lyn

 

[SouthernDraw]

You're right about that everyone forgets he won over God knows how many titles against real chumps Hall, Varner, Strickland and Reyes etc during the heyday of pool.

People are like that they embrace the current "hot" thing and forget the old.

Earl would have to be favored because he competes and Mike probably wouldn't leave home for less than 10,000 guaranteed.

Isn't that what TAR said during a stream they tried to set up a match with Mike Sigel and he would only play for 10,000 guaranteed.

The imperative word here is titles. In the 80's the game was not about titles as much as gambling. If you won every tournament, you would never get action for the big money. Sigel had a sponsorship that kept the "titles" important. But, in the end, Hall and Efren would beat him any time, anywhere then. And Efren would have beaten him in any game he wanted to play. (Just put enough money in it and give him a month to practice at straight pool and would have taken it.) Also, Efren won a ton of "titles" but only if the big bucks were there. "Bet High!"

 

[Celtic]

if the thread was about Mike and Earl in the seventies, eighties and nineties, it would be a close match. Perhaps a pick'em. Unfortunately the thread is about today!

Lyn

And my post specifically said "Mike in his prime" so I don't know what the hell you are on about. I was replying to a person who stated that Mike has been all but forgotten as a champ in this game. So if you are going to flame me for a specific post at least stay on bloody topic.

I never said bugger all about Mike today in that post you responded too and Earl of today is not exactly the Earl of the 1990's either. If you think it is such a landslide of a match we can work out what weight you are giving me if the game goes off when the time comes.

 

[PoolBum]

The imperative word here is titles. In the 80's the game was not about titles as much as gambling. If you won every tournament, you would never get action for the big money. Sigel had a sponsorship that kept the "titles" important. But, in the end, Hall and Efren would beat him any time, anywhere then. And Efren would have beaten him in any game he wanted to play. (Just put enough money in it and give him a month to practice at straight pool and would have taken it.) Also, Efren won a ton of "titles" but only if the big bucks were there. "Bet High!"

Are you suggesting that Efren didn't really try in all those tournaments he was in that Sigel, Earl, and Buddy won starting in the mid-80's?

If he was laying low to get more action he did a pretty poor job of it by winning his very first U.S. tournament, beating the top American pros, and getting his picture on the cover of Accu-Stats magazine.

 

[SouthernDraw]

Are you suggesting that Efren didn't really try in all those tournaments he was in that Sigel, Earl, and Buddy won starting in the mid-80's?

If he was laying low to get more action he did a pretty poor job of it by winning his very first U.S. tournament, beating the top American pros, and getting his picture on the cover of Accu-Stats magazine.

I believe that the answer is twofold. One, the bigger the match, the more pressure he is under, the better he performs. Two, there is a very real difference in being the best player in the game and being unbeatable. And all the biggest money tournaments, he has risen to the top.

And he is still going strong today. He is amazing. Someone said in twenty years from now, they will forget Efren, like the poster felt people had forgotten MS. Efren is only two years younger than MS! People haven't forgotten Mosconi, and people won't forget Efren. These guys are in a different league than anyone else.

 

[accustatsfan]

I realize this is like saying the Pope isn't Catholic (know what they say about opinions), but I must be the only person who remembers that Efren didn't dominate until Sigel, Hall and Varner retired.

One of if not the top 3 best recorded matches I've watched was the "color of money" challenge with Earl and Efren.

Nick Varner is another player that doesn't always get the respect he deserves make a list of what he didn't win it would be far smaller than the win list.

 

[CreeDo]

Can't spell straight pool? .......... His high run is over 400 in straight pool. (I think Cree Do was right with 408)

"If it's played on a table with balls, I can play it" Quote from Earl himself.

haha, I was hoping SOMEONE would figure that one out. Earl's run is the third or fourth highest one ever, depending on whether you count Eufemia's. With that kind of firepower, combined with being more in stroke than sigel... I wouldn't bet the farm on sigel even though I agree sigel in his prime was better at straight than earl.

 

[Mr441]

I realize this is like saying the Pope isn't Catholic (know what they say about opinions), but I must be the only person who remembers that Efren didn't dominate until Sigel, Hall and Varner retired.

One of if not the top 3 best recorded matches I've watched was the "color of money" challenge with Earl and Efren.

Nick Varner is another player that doesn't always get the respect he deserves make a list of what he didn't win it would be far smaller than the win list.

Yes! Thank you! Everyone else seems to have short term memory. Efren was always coming in 2nd 3rd and 4th for the longest time. Then Sigel retires and all of a sudden Efren starts winning big events. In fact if you watch the accu-stats video from the 1994 U.S. open where Efren beats Varner, Johnny Archer is commentating and he says something like "reyes has always been a good player but for some reason he doesn't win big events". At the time Efren was playing in big events for 7 or 8 years.

My memory from the late 80's/early 90's was that Efren had the skill but couldn't close the deal with the likes of Sigel and Hall. I remember everytime he played those guys in a final or semi-final, he'd fall short, he'd miss a shot at a crucial point in the match which was all Sigel needed to win. To me Sigel was the best because he was just so damned hard to beat.

 

[PoolBum]

Yes! Thank you! Everyone else seems to have short term memory. Efren was always coming in 2nd 3rd and 4th for the longest time. Then Sigel retires and all of a sudden Efren starts winning big events. In fact if you watch the accu-stats video from the 1994 U.S. open where Efren beats Varner, Johnny Archer is commentating and he says something like "reyes has always been a good player but for some reason he doesn't win big events". At the time Efren was playing in big events for 7 or 8 years.

My memory from the late 80's/early 90's was that Efren had the skill but couldn't close the deal with the likes of Sigel and Hall. I remember everytime he played those guys in a final or semi-final, he'd fall short, he'd miss a shot at a crucial point in the match which was all Sigel needed to win. To me Sigel was the best because he was just so damned hard to beat.

Efren once said in an interview that Mike Sigel was the toughest player he ever faced because, "he never mees!".