Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by Milliken » Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Well Mike, I loved your "Run Out" tape.  Very entertaining, instructive
and WOW!:
8 consecutive racks of 8 ball, 9 consecutive racks of 9 ball, and a 100
ball run in straight!

Surely a more impressive feat than Stricklands 10 racks of 9 ball for
which he earned a $million!

But on second viewing I had second thoughts.  You did, after all, make
some (understandable) adjustments to the rules to speed things up:

        1) In 8 ball & 9 ball you get to keep playing when no ball falls
on the break. (That happened on 8 racks)

        2) In 9 ball, if you had no (or only a difficult) shot on the 1
ball, you got the cue ball in hand to start.  As you said, After all,
were trying to learn something here.  (That happened on 5 racks)  I
guess safety play isnt "something" I need to learn.

        3) In straight, you got to start the run with cue ball in hand
shooting at an ideal break shot next to the rack.  (After that each rack
continues as is normal for 14.1, but see below for doubts about this).

According to the rules Earl had to follow, you really only ran 4 racks of
8 ball, and 3 racks of 9 ball.
But why quibble?  You did whats reasonable, what with that camera man
standing around and all, to bring an otherwise impossible number of
CONSECUTIVE racks into the realm of statistical plausibility for a hall of
fame player like yourself.

But wait!  Why did I assume they were CONSECUTIVE racks?  You never
actually said they were consecutive.  But I guess I assumed them to be
consecutive, because those video dissolves between racks labeled them
RACK 1, RACK 2, RACK 3 and so on.  But maybe they were really racks 3,
5 and 9??  And surely in straight, to run 100 balls means to run them on
consecutive racks.  But my doubts began to grow.  So I watched the tape
again.

I found two pieces of evidence to support my doubts:

1)  After sinking a ball on the break in RACK 1 of 9 Ball, you sank none
on the break for RACK 2.  But your next comment was None again!.  But
this was the first time you broke without a ball falling!  Or was there
another rack in between that was edited out of the tape??!

2)  Look carefully at the break shot  left at the end of RACK 3 in the 100
ball run.  From where the camera is positioned, the line from the break
ball through the cue ball extends to the left of the far corner pocket.
But after the dissolve to begin RACK 4, that line extends about half a
diamond to the right of the corner pocket.  Did you move the cue ball to
make a better break shot? Or did you***up on RACK 4 and start it over
again?

Your fans want to know.

Barry Milliken

 
 
 

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by Hustle » Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:00:00

I just read tonight that M. Sigel was the best player of the 80's
(Miz's book; 1990). C'mon Mikey, show yer stuff.

-Hustler

 
 
 

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by Greg4 » Fri, 16 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
b) writes:
>Well Mike, I loved your "Run Out" tape.  Very entertaining, instructive
>and WOW!:
>8 consecutive racks of 8 ball, 9 consecutive racks of 9 ball, and a 100
>ball run in straight!

>Surely a more impressive feat than Stricklands 10 racks of 9 ball for
>which he earned a $million!

>But on second viewing I had second thoughts.  You did, after all, make
>some (understandable) adjustments to the rules to speed things up:

>    1) In 8 ball & 9 ball you get to keep playing when no ball falls
>on the break. (That happened on 8 racks)

>    2) In 9 ball, if you had no (or only a difficult) shot on the 1
>ball, you got the cue ball in hand to start.  As you said, After all,
>were trying to learn something here.  (That happened on 5 racks)  I
>guess safety play isnt "something" I need to learn.

>    3) In straight, you got to start the run with cue ball in hand
>shooting at an ideal break shot next to the rack.  (After that each rack
>continues as is normal for 14.1, but see below for doubts about this).

>According to the rules Earl had to follow, you really only ran 4 racks of
>8 ball, and 3 racks of 9 ball.
>But why quibble?  You did whats reasonable, what with that camera man
>standing around and all, to bring an otherwise impossible number of
>CONSECUTIVE racks into the realm of statistical plausibility for a hall
of
>fame player like yourself.

>But wait!  Why did I assume they were CONSECUTIVE racks?  You never
>actually said they were consecutive.  But I guess I assumed them to be
>consecutive, because those video dissolves between racks labeled them
>RACK 1, RACK 2, RACK 3 and so on.  But maybe they were really racks
3,
>5 and 9??  And surely in straight, to run 100 balls means to run them on
>consecutive racks.  But my doubts began to grow.  So I watched the tape
>again.

>I found two pieces of evidence to support my doubts:

>1)  After sinking a ball on the break in RACK 1 of 9 Ball, you sank none
>on the break for RACK 2.  But your next comment was None again!.  But
>this was the first time you broke without a ball falling!  Or was there
>another rack in between that was edited out of the tape??!

>2)  Look carefully at the break shot  left at the end of RACK 3 in the
100
>ball run.  From where the camera is positioned, the line from the break
>ball through the cue ball extends to the left of the far corner pocket.
>But after the dissolve to begin RACK 4, that line extends about half a
>diamond to the right of the corner pocket.  Did you move the cue ball to
>make a better break shot? Or did you***up on RACK 4 and start it over
>again?

>Your fans want to know.

>Barry Milliken

Why does any of this matter.  This is a practice tape.  Not a tournament
tape.  I personally would not care if he spent 600 racks and took his best
few runs to get his message across.  I think that all Mike Segal tapes
were pretty well done.  It sure beats the Don "the preacher" Feeney tapes
where the tape is spliced and shows a ball that is clearly missing the
pocket ... splice ... go in.  But... regardless... it doesn't matter
either way.  My instuctor does not make every shot that he shows me, but I
don't learn any less nor respect him any less for it.  

Mike Sigal is a legitimate pool superstar.  I have a few tournament tapes
of his running 150 balls in a tournament.  The man can do what he
demonstrates.  

Learn what you can from the instuction.  Be more concerned about your own
pool shooting perfection than the players who actually come pretty close!!

Greg Savoie

 
 
 

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by WCri » Fri, 16 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
>I just read tonight that M. Sigel was the best player of the 80's
>(Miz's book; 1990). C'mon Mikey, show yer stuff.
>-Hustler

I saw a lot of the straight pool tournaments that they used to hold in the
Roosevelt Hotel.  There was a period in either the late 70's or early 80's
that Mike Sigel was unconscious.  I've seen tons of great straight pool,
but nothing like him at that point.  He refused to miss from anywhere.  He
would only get stopped by having no shot off the break.  
 
 
 

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by AKWUS » Sat, 17 Aug 1996 04:00:00


writes:

Quote:
>  There was a period in either the late 70's or early 80's
>that Mike Sigel was unconscious.

You know, a good friend of mine (and a great player in his day) told me
that Sigel won't play his best pool until his late 40's or early 50's!
Kinda scarey!

Anthony

 
 
 

Cheating on Instructional Videos: Not Mike Sigel too!?

Post by Tarl Roger Kudri » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00

: You know, a good friend of mine (and a great player in his day) told me
: that Sigel won't play his best pool until his late 40's or early 50's!
: Kinda scarey!

        We may not get to see it. I talked to Jimmy Reid about a year ago
and he told me Sigel was in retirement. Of course Sigel can change his
mind any time he feels like it...

                                                 --Tarl Roger Kudrick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You get what you settle for."    |
Thelma, in "Thelma and Louise"    |I don't speak for my company. People
                                  |who visit me can speak for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------