What would you say if you went to a tournament and had a chance to compete against the best in your skill level or age bracket, but also know that you might never meet these foes in this venue. Well, such is the Hagerstown Invitational in its 39th iteration held Saturday, September 18, 2010 at Hagerstown, MD YMCA.
Because of the altered round robin format, which takes into account various factors and the elements of the luck of the draw, this tournament experience stands out among the normal and conventional.
As a participant, one is guaranteed no fewer than 3 matches, in this case, 3 games. This is an open tournament played in a round robin format. Points are awarded to the winner of each game based on the margin of victory. After the initial 3 rounds, the eight players with the total highest points will then advance to a single elimination championship round. A handicap system was used for all rounds throughout the tournament to help compensate for age level differences. Because of this somewhat unique system of seeding and scoring, trophies are awarded for first and second place Open (winner and runner up of the final eight), Masters, Diamond, Golden, and Super.
The format calls for three initial rounds where the participants play before the final eight is decided. In the first round, tournament organizers match players based on closeness of age. This means, that the handicapped system of age differential may not necessarily come into play in the first round. So with that in mind, first round play generally encompassed players within a couple or few years of each other. In other words, first round players usually play someone close enough to their age or within the same decade and the handicap system is ignored. However, if your opponent is close to your age, but in a different decade, a 3 point handicap is given to the older player.
In my first round draw, I played Dave Holland, a man approximately my age. This match was considered a toss-up with no one getting a point differential because of age. As mentioned before, the point differential is structured to account for the disparity in ages, that is to say, a 20+ year old playing a 50+ year old would give the 50+ player a handicap of 9 points based on 3 points per decade of age disparity. It is then considered an advantage to start out with a lead and the serve in a match. However, in the case where the younger player is exceptional (Open or A), getting an advantage is a good thing but it might not help you in the end. Generally, an Open or A player is that much superior to everyone else in competition.
In our one game, Dave Holland and I played close the first few points and then it dawned on me that being generous was not the wise approach in this tournament. With a point differential going to the winner’s advantage, the incentive is to resoundingly defeat your opponent. I won 21-5. The gentlemanly or etiquette of handball is almost cast aside in this type of tournament format. Beating an opponent 21-0 or 21-1 is to your advantage because that means you gain 21 or 20 points for the round, laying a base or padding your total to advance to the final eight.
Your opponent in the second round is determined by the luck of the draw. This means, all the winners and losers are separated and lumped together to determine the opponent within the respective category. So, if you won, your next opponent will be among those who won in the first round. Conversely, if you lost, your next opponent would be drawn from those who lost in the first round. In adhering to this format, the age disparity handicap system is employed. Again, the handicap is based on 3 points for each decade in age difference. But to promote fairness and balance in scoring, no matter how great the age difference encountered in a drawn pairing, for this tournament, 9 handicap points was the most awarded. This made sense, since a 70 year old drawing a 20 year old, under the straight 3 points per decade formula, would start out with 15 points and thus reducing the value of the win for the 20 year old (assuming superior skill and agility).
So, individual matches were either blow outs based on skill or age level disparities or close affairs where the two players were so evenly matched that 1-5 points separated the winners.
In each of the first three rounds there were matches or games of note. One individual stood out in my mind as a winner, but just for this format. Tom Howard played 3 matches and gave up 3 handicap points in each round based on age differential for his opponents. Tom is in his late forties and each of his opponent was in their fifties. Tom battled Bob McGuirre and won 21-19, thus based on the point system in place, earned 2 points. Tom’s next opponent in the second round was yours truly. Getting 3 points and the serve to start adds up to a slight advantage. Tom erased that advantage in no time and took a commanding lead. I eventually found my groove and made the game and match close but lost 21-15. So, at this point, Tom had won 2 games but only attained 8 points in the standings to get to the final 8, where 25 or more points is a must to be considered in the that final eight discussion. Tom played another close game against Bob Dyke in round 3 but lost by a few points. And because the format only rewards winners, no matter how close the match, only if you emerge victorious does a player get points. So, the format begs the question: Is it more advantageous to lose a close game in rounds one and two, assuring zero points, but perhaps enhancing your chances in the next round against another losing player whom you might dominate?
I never really answered that question because with exception of the first round win, I lost in the next two rounds. My last round opponent was Bob Bardwell. Giving up 3 points and the serve to Bob because of age differential is tough to start. Bob is a tenacious player and will battle an opponent to the bitter end. It was no surprise that Bob opened a sizable lead after I manage to even the scoring at 3. With his commanding lead, Bob tried to add to the score but I kept chipping away with a steady serve and some good shots. But as it is most often, it is difficult to recover from too big a hole against a fine player and I lost the game at 14. With Bob only gaining 7 points for the victory, it was not enough to add up and advance him to the round of eight.
Throughout the day, the round of eight took shape as the group of younger players dominated their matches. Dave Bardwell chewed up his opponents, including Josh Ho in the first round, his dad, Bob in the second round despite giving dad 9 points to the age handicap system. In Similar fashion, Lee and Eric Anderson also marched forward with superior skills and relatively easy draws.
So on one hand the tournament produces some really great games as skill and age level matches emerge from the random draws of the second and third rounds. But with only pride and the knowledge that you bested your opponent for a game, these close games only serve to entertain while others gain points for advancing. And in the one game per round format, it is sometimes difficult to test the true mettle of the opponent and yourself. In a normal tournament, with many 3-game matches going to a tiebreaker, it is hard to argue against that format. But at the Hagerstown Invitational, time constraints and court availability would seem to limit any other format but the one in use.
With the round of eight became set after Rick Anderson, the points leader after the opening 3 rounds, withdrawing for the fairness of it. That left the finalists as Dave Bardwell, Lee Anderson, Erik Anderson, Earl Savino, Denny Shoemaker, Joe Sadonis, Josh Ho and William Vargas. A drawing was held to determine the quarterfinals pairings. I must admit, I am a little vague on draw except that Erik Anderson, Lee Anderson, Joe Sadonis and Dave Bardwell advanced to the semifinal round. Dave and Eric squared on in the match that I viewed. This was a tight match with intense and long rallies which Dave seemed to win in most instances. And in the end, Dave proved to be in better shape and out lasted Erik. By the final pairing of Lee Anderson and Dave Bardwell, it seemed like a fitting match to close the tournament. Dave wasted no time in piling on the points with bullet serves and incredible gets and kills. The game was not close and was over in what seem like a few minutes with Dave emerging as the Open champion.
Rick Anderson and his entire family are not only participants, but they shepherd the whole affair. From the tournament food to the trophies (more about that later) and this year’s red hoodie tournament souvenir, Rick and his family play gracious hosts. Along with Doug Tusten and others, this highly organized event went off smoothly in the eyes of this first time participant.
With a draw of some 38 players, 13 of which were newcomers, this was reported to be one of the largest turnouts in memory of the tournament. That made for a wonderful time at the traditional banquet held immediately after the tournament. The Hagerstown VFW hall seated everyone comfortably as players, families and friends gathered for a drinking and feasting. With thirsts quenched and appetites whetted, we were entertained by traditional fare of gag awards handed out to deserving recipients. Each award was tailored to highlight some quirk or peccadillo past or present of the receiver. From the laughter and the good natured responses, everyone was pleased and satisfied as the evening of a relatively long day drew to a close.
This felt more like a family reunion more than a tournament. To that end, the trophy presentation of a red gorilla, much easier to behold than to be described, is pasted here as the Champions and Open finalist pose with their prize along with a more detailed shot of the trophy which doubles as a piggy bank.
I had a great time and hope to be back next year, if not for the trophy or the banquet shenanigans, at least I can look forward to the warmth and hospitality of the whole affair.