Stats from 1984 Sigel ruled

[sjm]

Stu, could one not be justified in placing Irving shoulder to shoulder with Mosconi? Did he not win significant titles over a longer era in tougher competition? Weren't many of Willie's "world titles" essentially a single match against an annual challenger? Not to discount Willie's accomplishments, but it seems Irving really stood the test of time, and was a true pool diehard, competing and exceeding in multiple disciplines. I've heard him described as almost flawless at running out 9 ball in his prime by Danny D. What slowed him down was his break. I'm biased in these thoughts though, simply because I like his style overall, dress and appearance, great cues (two balabushkas), and the dignified way in which he carried himself. a True legend!

Still - if I have to watch someone play straight pool for an extended period of time it would always be Mike Sigel.

Edited to add: I know an old school guy who hung out at Beanie's and is not the type to be very complimentary of anyone, however, he has referenced when Hubbart brought around Sigel way back in the day. He said the routine was, if Sigel couldn't beat them, then Hubbart would beat them (keep in mind, Sigel was a KID and a champion). He said that Hubbart was very a very intimidating gambler. And this guy is not squeamish about that type of thing.

I don't think the case is easily made, Matt, but I'll tell you something that many might find surprising. Irving considered himself to be on a par with Mosconi on he ten foot tables, while he was quick to admit that Mosconi was a cut above him on the nine footers.

In the first forty years of the straight pool era (approx 1920-60), Irving was no more than the best of the rest, not far above guys like Caras and Lassiter at straight pool, but Mosconi and Greenleaf were a cut above everybody, and were almost unbeatable in the big spots, except by each other. As you note, Irving stood the test of time and was probably a top 10 in the world straight pooler until he was about 68 years old, but he didn't quite run the balls with the consistency of Mosconi or Greenleaf.

Charlie Ursitti, Mosconi's business manager, has taken note that of all those who have ever played straight pool, Mosconi was the most likely to win a game on the first inning. Eerily, though, Charlie added that Greenleaf was statistically more likely than Mosocni to win a match in two innings or less. Yes, their skills were that close, and nobody else could run as many as they did with similar consistency.

As you suggest, Irving was an almost flawless technician at the table and was the Efren Reyes of straight pool, meaning his defensive imagination brought defense to a level previously unseen. Irving could steal a couple of extra good looks at the table with his stellar defensive skills, but if wasn't quite enough to fill the gap between him and the top two.

On a final note, raising the longevity issue between Mosconi and Crane is just a bit unfair. Willie suffered a stroke in 1956, two years before I was born, and some say that, despite a couple of scattered successes afterward, he was never the same player again. Willie's retirement from competition at about 52 years old was, at least in part, a consequence of the 1956 stroke.

It has always been very difficult to compare players across the generations, but my pecking order for the top five straight pool players of all time is 1A Ralph Greenleaf, 1B Willie Mosconi, 3A Mike Sigel, 3B Steve Mizerak, 5 Irving Crane.

Guys like Nick Varner and Thorsten Hohmann can possibly be placed in the top five and they won't look out of place, but, despite being all-time greats, they just barely missed my cut.

Speaking on a personal note, of all the players I've ever met, Irving was the one that most caused me to fall in love with pool. I liked his appearance, his demeanor, and the way he conducted himself. When you chatted with him, you felt as if you were talking to the dean of an Ivy League university. His respect for the game would rub off on you.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I just went down the Accu-Stats rabbit hole in these back issues. What a great resource. Mike averaged .890 over the course of one Sands Regent tournament. One tidbit stood out: "In fact, if [Sigel] made a ball on the break, you were in real trouble, for under these circumstances he ran out 60% of the time. How can anyone fade that?" How does that stack up against the top of the field now? On par, a little better, worse?

However, perhaps the most suffocating domination story lies elsewhere in the Accu-Stats catalog: Jean Balukas. At one point, they mentioned she had racked up 12, I believe consecutive, tournament wins and noted a number of .900TPA performances. Although she did not fare well in the mens division, perhaps this could have changed over time. Putting up a .900 TPA in a few matches is no cakewalk whoever is in the other chair. Unfortunately, we know that Jean's career didn't persist much longer after these catalogs.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I don't think the case is easily made, Matt, but I'll tell you something that many might find surprising. Irving considered himself to be on a par with Mosconi on he ten foot tables, while he was quick to admit that Mosconi was a cut above him on the nine footers.

In the first forty years of the straight pool era (approx 1920-60), Irving was no more than the best of the rest, not far above guys like Caras and Lassiter at straight pool, but Mosconi and Greenleaf were a cut above everybody, and were almost unbeatable in the big spots, except by each other. As you note, Irving stood the test of time and was probably a top 10 in the world straight pooler until he was about 68 years old, but he didn't quite run the balls with the consistency of Mosconi or Greenleaf.

Charlie Ursitti, Mosconi's business manager, has taken note that of all those who have ever played straight pool, Mosconi was the most likely to win a game on the first inning. Eerily, though, Charlie added that Greenleaf was statistically more likely than Mosocni to win a match in two innings or less. Yes, their skills were that close, and nobody else could run as many as they did with similar consistency.

As you suggest, Irving was an almost flawless technician at the table and was the Efren Reyes of straight pool, meaning his defensive imagination brought defense to a level previously unseen. Irving could steal a couple of extra good looks at the table with his stellar defensive skills, but if wasn't quite enough to fill the gap between him and the top two.

On a final note, raising the longevity issue between Mosconi and Crane is just a bit unfair. Willie suffered a stroke in 1956, two years before I was born, and some say that, despite a couple of scattered successes afterward, he was never the same player again. Willie's retirement from competition at about 52 years old was, at least in part, a consequence of the 1956 stroke.

It has always been very difficult to compare players across the generations, but my pecking order for the top five straight pool players of all time is 1A Ralph Greenleaf, 1B Willie Mosconi, 3A Mike Sigel, 3B Steve Mizerak, 5 Irving Crane.

Guys like Nick Varner and Thorsten Hohmann can possibly be placed in the top five and they won't look out of place, but, despite being all-time greats, they just barely missed my cut.

Speaking on a personal note, of all the players I've ever met, Irving was the one that most caused me to fall in love with pool. I liked his appearance, his demeanor, and the way he conducted himself. When you chatted with him, you felt as if you were talking to the dean of an Ivy League university. His respect for the game would rub off on you.

Thank you for sharing this, Stu. It's great to hear these insights and have them preserved for future generations interested in the history of one of pool's great eras. I remember when I first started playing, I combed this website for every tidbit of information possible into the straight pool era.

Out of curiosity, is 3A and 3B a tie, or in that order? Wondering the reason for putting Mike ahead of Miz if so.

 

[Chili Palmer]

Who knew?
This is to me, a quite interesting -- and even amusing -- bit of pool history minutia that I wasn't aware of. Thanks very much for that retrospective info and your insightful deduction about the circumstances, MoN.

Arnaldo

I will add to that - our very own Mike Howerton (owner of AZB for those not in the know) may have had a hand in helping Accustats get started

 

[Matt_24]

I don't think the case is easily made, Matt, but I'll tell you something that many might find surprising. Irving considered himself to be on a par with Mosconi on he ten foot tables, while he was quick to admit that Mosconi was a cut above him on the nine footers.

In the first forty years of the straight pool era (approx 1920-60), Irving was no more than the best of the rest, not far above guys like Caras and Lassiter at straight pool, but Mosconi and Greenleaf were a cut above everybody, and were almost unbeatable in the big spots, except by each other. As you note, Irving stood the test of time and was probably a top 10 in the world straight pooler until he was about 68 years old, but he didn't quite run the balls with the consistency of Mosconi or Greenleaf.

Charlie Ursitti, Mosconi's business manager, has taken note that of all those who have ever played straight pool, Mosconi was the most likely to win a game on the first inning. Eerily, though, Charlie added that Greenleaf was statistically more likely than Mosocni to win a match in two innings or less. Yes, their skills were that close, and nobody else could run as many as they did with similar consistency.

As you suggest, Irving was an almost flawless technician at the table and was the Efren Reyes of straight pool, meaning his defensive imagination brought defense to a level previously unseen. Irving could steal a couple of extra good looks at the table with his stellar defensive skills, but if wasn't quite enough to fill the gap between him and the top two.

On a final note, raising the longevity issue between Mosconi and Crane is just a bit unfair. Willie suffered a stroke in 1956, two years before I was born, and some say that, despite a couple of scattered successes afterward, he was never the same player again. Willie's retirement from competition at about 52 years old was, at least in part, a consequence of the 1956 stroke.

It has always been very difficult to compare players across the generations, but my pecking order for the top five straight pool players of all time is 1A Ralph Greenleaf, 1B Willie Mosconi, 3A Mike Sigel, 3B Steve Mizerak, 5 Irving Crane.

Guys like Nick Varner and Thorsten Hohmann can possibly be placed in the top five and they won't look out of place, but, despite being all-time greats, they just barely missed my cut.

Speaking on a personal note, of all the players I've ever met, Irving was the one that most caused me to fall in love with pool. I liked his appearance, his demeanor, and the way he conducted himself. When you chatted with him, you felt as if you were talking to the dean of an Ivy League university. His respect for the game would rub off on you.

Superb post!

 

[AtLarge]

... One tidbit stood out: "In fact, if [Sigel] made a ball on the break, you were in real trouble, for under these circumstances he ran out 60% of the time. How can anyone fade that?" How does that stack up against the top of the field now? On par, a little better, worse? ...

In the two long 9-Ball matches between Orcollo and Van Boening in the past 9 months, they combined for 55% B&Rs on successful breaks. I imagine they were playing on tougher tables than Sigel faced in most of his tournaments, but I do not know about that Sands event.

 

[JusticeNJ]

In the two long 9-Ball matches between Orcollo and Van Boening in the past 9 months, they combined for 55% B&Rs on successful breaks. I imagine they were playing on tougher tables than Sigel faced in most of his tournaments, but I do not know about that Sands event.

Thanks AtLarge. I'm going to guess the pockets were 4.5" at the tightest, and very possibly 5".

 

[sjm]

Thank you for sharing this, Stu. It's great to hear these insights and have them preserved for future generations interested in the history of one of pool's great eras. I remember when I first started playing, I combed this website for every tidbit of information possible into the straight pool era.

Out of curiosity, is 3A and 3B a tie, or in that order? Wondering the reason for putting Mike ahead of Miz if so.

1a and 1B means too close to call for the top spot. 3A and 3B means it' too tough to call for the third spot. If we compare Mizerak to Sigel, we can say that Mizerak was the better of the two in the 1970's, but Sigel was the better of the two in the 1980s.

 

[sjm]

I just went down the Accu-Stats rabbit hole in these back issues. What a great resource. Mike averaged .890 over the course of one Sands Regent tournament. One tidbit stood out: "In fact, if [Sigel] made a ball on the break, you were in real trouble, for under these circumstances he ran out 60% of the time. How can anyone fade that?" How does that stack up against the top of the field now? On par, a little better, worse?

This is pretty surprising, even though, as At Large suspected, and as I can verify they played on slightly looser equipment back in Mike's best years (meaning the 1980s). It must also be noted that control of the cue ball after the break was far less developed in Sigel's prime than today.

Mike's break cannot logically be considered as even nearly as good as that of SVB. His 60% stat for the length of a marathon tournament like the Sands Regency is a remarkable number. Mike was not considered to have had the best break back then, with Wade Crane and David Howard both considered to be better breakers of the rack. That said, Mike was a stone cold killer back then, and like Jim Rempe and Nick Varner, Sigel seamlessly made the transition from the straight pool era to the nine ball era, a dominant force in both disciplines.

 

[arnaldo]

Talking about Irving Crane's deep knowledge and inventive imagination in 14.1, here's a treat for the AZB newbies and youngsters, -- (younger than me anyway . . . who isn't, wink):

Here's Irv's -- could-watch-all-day beautiful 1966 wrap-around shot that Balsis didn't foresee when he too-quickly and casually played a safety that ended up dooming him. He had to helplessly watch Irv reply with 150-and-out in that year's US Open title match:

https://youtu.be/LYd2eaxSP8g?t=625

Arnaldo ~ To be fair to Balsis, even among that era's top players very few would have -- in the heat of battle -- scouted and spotted that shot possibility. Willie would have, I'm certain. After all, as technical adviser, Willie had set up that nearly-identical shot for Gleason to shoot in reply to the "Fast Eddie" (Newman) very similar safety. Maybe Crane saw and remembered that 1961 "Hustler" movie shot, while Balsis didn't. Love it.

 

[Cornerman]

In the two long 9-Ball matches between Orcollo and Van Boening in the past 9 months, they combined for 55% B&Rs on successful breaks. I imagine they were playing on tougher tables than Sigel faced in most of his tournaments, but I do not know about that Sands event.

Just remember the cloth. If you look at matches where Efren played in the 80’s, you can see how much he struggled compared to the years when today’s equipment were in play. I, like many others, had the privilege to span the 80’s equipment and 2000’s equipment. Night and day difference. Today’s equipment, even with 4 1/2” pockets is often easier than some of the slug cloth we used to play on.

 

[AtLarge]

... Mike's break cannot logically be considered as even nearly as good as that of SVB. His 60% stat for the length of a marathon tournament like the Sands Regency is a remarkable number. Mike was not considered to have had the best break back then, with Wade Crane and David Howard both considered to be better breakers of the rack. That said, Mike was a stone cold killer back then, and like Jim Rempe and Nick Varner, Sigel seamlessly made the transition from the straight pool era to the nine ball era, a dominant force in both disciplines.

Stu -- that 60% figure for Sigel was said to be if he made a ball on the break. In other words, it was not an overall B&R percentage counting all breaks but just on successful breaks. He would have had a lower percentage if all breaks were counted (unless he never had a dry or fouled break). But we do know that Sigel broke well (though maybe not the best), so I'd bet that his % on all breaks was still quite good.

[Sidenote -- that first A-S newsletter shows that Strickland overall did a lot better than Sigel in tournaments that year (1984).]

Edit -- it occurs to me that the Sands Regency event mentioned by JusticeNJ (with Sigel's 60%) may not have been in 1984.

 

[sjm]

Stu -- that 60% figure for Sigel was said to be if he made a ball on the break. In other words, it was not an overall B&R percentage counting all breaks but just on successful breaks. He would have had a lower percentage if all breaks were counted (unless he never had a dry or fouled break). But we do know that Sigel broke well (though maybe not the best), so I'd bet that his % on all breaks was still quite good.

[Sidenote -- that first A-S newsletter shows that Strickland overall did a lot better than Sigel in tournaments that year (1984).]

Edit -- it occurs to me that the Sands Regency event mentioned by JusticeNJ (with Sigel's 60%) may not have been in 1984.

Yes, I understood that, but I still thought 60% to be surprisingly high just because in the earlier days of the nine ball era, very few players were able to control the cue ball when they broke. Early in the nine ball era, Mike usually broke with a draw stroke.

I'm still calling 60% super impressive.

 

[JusticeNJ]

Stu -- that 60% figure for Sigel was said to be if he made a ball on the break. In other words, it was not an overall B&R percentage counting all breaks but just on successful breaks. He would have had a lower percentage if all breaks were counted (unless he never had a dry or fouled break). But we do know that Sigel broke well (though maybe not the best), so I'd bet that his % on all breaks was still quite good.

[Sidenote -- that first A-S newsletter shows that Strickland overall did a lot better than Sigel in tournaments that year (1984).]

Edit -- it occurs to me that the Sands Regency event mentioned by JusticeNJ (with Sigel's 60%) may not have been in 1984.

I was referencing the 1985 Sands: http://www.sfbilliards.com/accustats/V1_N04.pdf

At the 1986 Sands - Sigel averaged .902 for the entire tourney. Truly exceptional, consistent play. http://www.sfbilliards.com/accustats/V2_N06.pdf

 

[AtLarge]

Yes, I understood that, but I still thought 60% to be surprisingly high just because in the earlier days of the nine ball era, very few players were able to control the cue ball when they broke. Early in the nine ball era, Mike usually broke with a draw stroke.

I'm still calling 60% super impressive.

I agree with "super impressive." It's pretty much the same as Van Boening and Woodward achieved last week on the 7-foot table. An event that pretty much matched it on a 9-foot table was Chang's win over Van Boening in 10-Ball in 2019. Together, they were at 59% in total on 66 successful breaks.

 

[sjm]

Talking about Irving Crane's deep knowledge and inventive imagination in 14.1, here's a treat for the AZB newbies and youngsters, -- (younger than me anyway . . . who isn't, wink):

Here's Irv's -- could-watch-all-day beautiful 1966 wrap-around shot that Balsis didn't foresee when he too-quickly and casually played a safety that ended up dooming him. He had to helplessly watch Irv reply with 150-and-out in that year's US Open title match:

https://youtu.be/LYd2eaxSP8g?t=625

Arnaldo ~ To be fair to Balsis, even among that era's top players very few would have -- in the heat of battle -- scouted and spotted that shot possibility. Willie would have, I'm certain. After all, as technical adviser, Willie had set up that nearly-identical shot for Gleason to shoot in reply to the "Fast Eddie" (Newman) very similar safety. Maybe Crane saw and remembered that 1961 "Hustler" movie shot, while Balsis didn't. Love it.

Good stuff. Of course, this is a very famous shot. Another player from the golden age of straight pool that was well known for having an amazing ability to read the rack was Dan DiLiberto.

 

[kkdanamatt]

I seem to remember that Mizerak averaged 11 balls per inning in one of his 14.1 World Tournament victories in the '70's.

 

[arnaldo]

. . . Another player from the golden age of straight pool that was well known for having an amazing ability to read the rack was Dan DiLiberto.

As you'll already know, Stu, much of highest-level 14.1 pack reading has to do with gifted players instantly recognizing -- from a sudden parade of his/her subconscious images -- having seen or performed successful shots from similarly-grouped OBs.

This exact rapid pattern recognition was also Danny's"secret weapon" (besides inhumanely powerful punches) during his many pro boxing victories. He could preternaturally recognize when a poorly coached opponent robotically used exactly the same sequence (pattern) and type of punches over-and-over. This recognition was/is enormously advantageous for waging a deadly counteroffensive campaign -- replying with perfectly aimed, injurious and mentally "discouraging" blows.

And Danny had a sixth sense for the telltale markers of someone about to get seriously physical with him in a pool situation.
He reportedly would calmly look at them and warn: "I'm little . . . but I hit hard."

Arnaldo

 

[sjm]

As you'll already know, Stu, much of highest-level 14.1 pack reading has to do with gifted players instantly recognizing -- from a sudden parade of his/her subconscious images -- having seen or performed successful shots from similarly-grouped OBs.

This exact rapid pattern recognition was also Danny's"secret weapon" (besides inhumanely powerful punches) during his many pro boxing victories. He could preternaturally recognize when a poorly coached opponent repeatedly used exactly the same sequence (pattern) and type of punches over-and-over. This recognition was/is enormously advantageous for waging a deadly counteroffensive campaign -- replying with perfectly aimed, injurious and mentally "discouraging" blows.

And Danny had a sixth sense for the telltale markers of someone about to get seriously physical with him in a pool situation.
He reportedly would calmly look at them and warn: "I'm little . . . but I hit hard."

Arnaldo

Great stuff, Arnaldo. Thanks for a most interesting post.