“Welcome to Camelot.” This is how I was greeted by Ken Greco on my second trip to Toledo, OH for the start of the 61st annual 3- Wall National Handball tournament. Like how Camelot boasted of legends, warriors and romance, so does the site of this 3-wall tournament. There are stories to be told of heroes and legends in existence and in the making. The romance is the sheer love of the game.
In 2010, my first trip to Toledo left me mesmerized and overwhelmed. I was enamored by the sight of so many handball players gathered in one venue that created a self-contained universe where handball ruled supreme on every level. Returning to find that universe intact and thriving filled me with pride and joy beyond belief. For anyone who loves the game, this pilgrimage is a must.
As the caravans and cavalcades converged on the venue known as the Lucas County Recreation Center, the smell of freshly grilled meats wafted through the air as the distinctive sound of balls smacking off concrete surfaces echoed above the buzz of the participants and spectators gathering for this five day feast of handball feats.
The participation of approximately 250 entrants left the organizers with the task of creating brackets and draws to set up the fairest competition possible. It takes a complex design to sort out players by both skill and in many cases, age levels broken down in 5 year increments starting at 35; this is considered the ‘seniors’ division while the ’masters’ divisions begin at 40. For non players who may read this, here is a simplified overview of how players are categorized to compete. In both Singles and Doubles competition, skill levels (men and women) from highest to lesser are Open, A, B, C and Novice (players new to the game or just learning to compete). If you are a winner on the national level in a lesser skill level, for future competitions you are only allowed to enter in a higher level, with the exception of the Open. In the Open, you may return to defend your title or try to win a title as long as you wish or can compete at that level. In the age bracket divisions, as mentioned, within the 5-year increments, a player may play and remain in the senior or any masters division equal to or lower than his current age. That is to say, a player age 57 can apply to play in any division 35+ through 55+, but cannot play in the divisions 60 or above. Further to this, say, if you are age 42, you cannot apply to play in the division designated 45+. To further expand the competition, if participants warrant, there are B divisions formed within the age brackets. Finally, to be thorough, there are also junior divisions, for this tournament starting at 13 and under through 19 and under in two year increments. In the junior divisions there are occasions when boys and girls compete against each other. When your eligibility for the junior division runs out, a player can elevate to a skilled division suited to his or her level. In addition, at the national level, unless a player has signed up to play in more than one bracket (two maximum), he or she only plays one match per day.
As usual, a large contingency of players (along with their families and supporters) who ply and hone their 3-wall skills at the courts in Columbia, MD (collectively Marylander(s)), made the journey to Toledo again this year. Individually and as a whole, the players from Columbia, dare I say, dominated play at this year’s tournament. The dominance was so complete that in more than one event, players from Columbia were pitted against each other in a division final. Singles and doubles medalist by my count totaled 13 with several players winning either double gold or a gold and silver. By all accounts, every player who competed this year in Toledo felt they gave their best and elevated their game, with the ultimate measure being the crowning as a champion. Personally, I left Toledo feeling as pleased for myself as I am for this year’s crop of winners and competitors. I cannot say enough of to express my joy and elation to see great handball being played at all levels and to know that my handball family gave their all to emerge victorious in such a commanding fashion. Bravo men!
For ease of flow, I will list the entire Columbia group here in no significant order except relatives are placed together delineated in a father/son(s) hierarchy: Mort Frank/Alan Frank/Nathaniel Frank; Elihu Zimet/Dan Zimet; Lew Buckingham (in-law)/Rick Anderson/Lee Anderson, Erik Anderson; Bob Bardwell/Dave Bardwell, Will Bardwell; Dan Ho/Josh Ho; Joe Berman; Joe Pleszkoch; Tony Winter; Ray Estevez; Bill Tebenhoff; Murzy Jhabvala; Joe Green; Bob Dyke; Jacob Reinhard; Pat Lowery, Tony Truman.
This tournament marked the introduction of a newly engineered ball for both men and women’s play. In comparison to the most recent ball in use, the new ball appears lighter in feel, easier on the hands at impact, sounds markedly different, duller in color and demonstrates varied properties for the all important elasticity or bounce. The bounce seems lively at first but quickly becomes less after a period of play. The new ball, if left unchanged definitely alters the 3-wall game in that the vaunted ceiling shots that often rocketed from court are now tamed and gives the alert and agile retriever a chance to track it down and return the shot. This ball also presents surprises and allows additional creativity within a variety of shots. It is hard to say how this ball will react to the variety indoor surfaces we often face in pickup games and competition. Needless to say, the new ball was a topic of conversation throughout the tournament. I would say there was a 50/50 spilt on likes and dislikes. But all agreed that the batch presented to us were too fragile at the moment and broke as easily as if they were eggs. And what is that white gooey substance that is present inside after breakage?
As always, I like to focus on the Open division (both singles and doubles) because as a group, this is where the best players often compete. From Columbia, Josh Ho competed in the Open singles; two years removed from being crowned champion in A singles and therefore was required to compete at the next level. Josh’s opening round match pitted him against Raul Retian, a good player who seemed less than tournament ready. Josh handled Raul with ease winning, 21-6 and 21-7. Any elation from this victory for Josh or his supporters would be tempered by the fact that Josh’s next opponent was none other than the number one seed and nationally second ranked David Chapman. At 36, Chapman is still capable of intimidating and dominating on and off the court. He rarely fails to live up to his reputation, good or bad.
At the moment of truth, Josh faced down his opponent and seemed at bit nervous and hurried in his play. The first game was not indicative of how Josh plays and the score would reflect that fact, 21-6 in favor of Chapman. Between games, Josh collected himself and showed a revitalized effort as the second game started. The score was close and Josh forged ahead 15-13 with the crowd clearly in his corner. Chapman seemed a bit flustered by the events unfolding. After a time out, Chapman regained control of the match to close out Josh, 21-15. Although, this was not a recognized victory for Josh, the scoring of points against such a highly regarded skilled payer is significant.
Josh later teamed up with Rick Anderson to compete in the Open doubles draw. In playing against a solid team of Billy O’Donnell and Mike Schneider, they battled valiantly but lost 21-7, 21-15. For O’Donnell and Schneider, this may have been a bit of revenge for their lost in the Eastern Regional’s (Columbia, MD) against Dan Zimet and Alan Frank two weeks earlier.
The Open division showcased young talent, both seasoned and raw. While watching these young men play, comments are often heard from others players, said in jest, but highly complementary that ‘…these guys play an entirely different game than we do.’ In many respects it is true, their speed and agility often confirm superior skills and produce a level of play that generally illicit a crescendo of ahs and sustained applause. Every year the crop of talent in the Open division becomes deeper as games, minds and bodies mature. With seasoned pros like Chapman and Sean Lenning always ready to dominate, young gunners like Tyree Bastidas, Nikolai Nahorniak, Andy Nett, and Luis Moreno are always poised to unseat the reigning champ. Such was the case of Brauilo Ruiz who in an earlier round bested Billy O’Donnell, 21-15, 21-16 and was now ready to face Chapman in the quarterfinals. Most people watching would not have given even the slightest edge to Ruiz. But for the better part on an hour his skills frustrated Chapman and forced him into uncharacteristic errors that Ruiz was more than willing to capitalize on to end any threat of a Chapman rally or to continue his own torrent of point scoring. Having won the first game 21-10, the second game outcome 21-6 in favor of Ruiz was the completion of a classic upset. Perhaps it was the heat of the day or Ruiz was better prepared to face a known quantity and took advantage of every available opening. That was to have been the highlight of Ruiz’s tournament because in the semifinals match against Nahorniak, his efforts seemed diminished as Nahorniak sent him exiting from the singles competition while cementing his own spot in the finals. Before facing Ruiz, Nahorniak squared off against another fine player, Luis Moreno. Their style of play, though similar, Nahorniak tends to show more power in his passing and kill shots. The two young stars battled in the first game that seemed to turn on a referee’s call that went against Moreno. The call rattled Moreno who lost his composure and focus and could not close the deal and lost 21-20. The second game, though close in score, clearly had Nahorniak in control as he went on to win, 21-15.
On the other half of the Open draw, other young men were waging their own battles for supremacy and to earn a way into the finals. Sean Lenning or Tyree Bastidas would more than likely emerge when the smoke cleared. Lenning had earlier dispatched Jurrell Bastidas and Mike Schneider on his path to meet Tyree in a semifinals matchup. It would perhaps have been sweet if one brother could avenge the loss suffered by the other. But handball is not about vengeance so much as it is more about skills and the execution of those skills. In the match of Lenning vs. T. Bastidas, Lenning controlled the match with his disguised quickness and ease of execution. Many points ended on his signature corner kills. The abrupt endings to short-lived rallies took away any scoring chances that Tyree could muster and Lenning advanced easily to the finals, 21-6 and 21-10. It is apparent that Lenning does not use the ceiling shot very much as part of his arsenal, because he does not believe in its effectiveness as part of his game. This is his opinion as I gathered from a conversation with him while watching a match together.
In the past, I have commented about Tyree, not only about his stellar play, but his lousy attitude on and off the court. In fairness to Tyree and his apparent found maturity, I am happy and pleased to see a fine young man on display in Toledo. His polite demeanor on and off the court warms my heart. In his youth, the Tyree we all saw and disliked was more like Tyree the tantrum tyrant. Now he is more like Tyree the tamed tiger. He is still passionate about the game, but does not let his emotions overwhelm or dictate his play.
Court demeanor and behavior on any level is as much part of the game as are well placed kill shots. I know that sometimes in the heat of battle, the fire and desire to win boils over into verbal and physical rage that can perhaps get ugly. We all use ways to exhort our own play, but we must never allow the exhortation to spill and devolve into ugliness. Unfortunately, when seeing this type of behavior demonstrated, it often overshadows fine play or other accomplishments on the court and simply leaves any observer cringing.
The men’s open final pitted a seasoned Sean Lenning against the rising gunner, Nikolai Nahorniak. The match and play was deserving of a final as the warriors dueled for supremacy. Both men displayed that easy quickness and agility that buttress their ambidextrous tenacity from any point on the court. The difference in this match came down to serves, with edge going to Lenning as he was able to hold off a persistent Nahorniak, 21-18, 21-17 to take the championship.
The men’s Open doubles bracket was again dominated by the Chapman and his tireless partner Bill Mehilos. This is a doubles pair that works so well at this level and in 3-wall play because Mehilos has the athleticism and agility of a panther. His deep gets from some 20 feet or more beyond the 40 feet ending of the court is pretty amazing as he skies to power returns to the high front wall, tight to the side wall, often making it difficult for an opponent to follow up with a decent return. Even though other pairings had excellent matches and successful campaigns within this bracket, it was the team of Suhn Lee and Marco Lemus who took down Sean Lenning paired with Luis Moreno and then Tyree and Jurrell Bastidas that earned the right to face off against Chapman and Mehilos. Lee has a fine game that if given the chance will present problems for many a player in the Open division. But in the finals, Lee and Lemus could not withstand the craftiness of Chapman and Mehilos and finished second, 21-10 and 21-10.
From the Open division, we follow with play of participants in the A singles and doubles divisions. In singles, Lee Anderson and Dave Bardwell on opposite sides of the draw successfully worked their way through the bracket, fending off challenges along the way to meet in the finals. Playing out of Columbia Maryland, these two young men are quite familiar with each other’s skills. But as a championship match, it lacked the consistent level of skilled play that we have come to expect from Anderson. Bardwell was steady throughout as Anderson came apart emotionally. As mentioned earlier, demeanor and composure is as important on the court as the shots we take and make. The final score in favor of Bardwell, 21-6, 21-7 reflected as much one player’s skill and the other’s lack of control. Congratulations to Dave who now must seek glory in the Open division if he chooses to compete in the future. For Lee, the A division seems ripe for the taking, but holding it together and letting his skills shine will be the key to his future as a champion.
In the A doubles bracket, Dave Bardwell teamed up his brother Will and Lee Anderson teamed up with his brother Erik. Both teams were unfortunately seeded on the same side of the bracket and met in one of the semifinals match. Again familiarity of these players to each other meant the possibility of an intriguing matchup. The Andersons established control from the start and never looked back. This match took place after the A singles debacle for Lee who kept it together beautifully as he and Erik simply dominated. Throughout the match, bodies often skidded across the concrete floor, with skinned knees and deft gets as bitter sweet rewards. At 21-8, 21-8, the Andersons would play the finals. Mike Dorneker and Ryan Bowler handled their half of the bracket to make the finals. The two teams played the first came evenly and tentatively, like two boxers in a sparring match. The Andersons, through their tentative play, lost the opening game 21-15. By the middle of the second game, the Andersons began showing their dominance and raced to a decisive victory, 21-6 to set up the 11-point tie breaker. As you will note, as I have throughout this retelling of this year’s Toledo tale, there seems to be a trend present; that by losing the first game of a match and then winning the second game a tie breaker, an edge is gained, perhaps psychological, to the most recent winner. Some may argue that momentum is an intangible, but we have seen the shifts in handball games and many sporting events. So the Andersons had the edge going in but Dorneker and Bowler would not lie down. So in a tight game, anything can turn the tide. With the score close or tied, the Andersons served and in a series of timely kills, including the championship point blasted in the right corner by Lee, the Andersons were crowned A doubles champs by winning 11-8 in the tiebreaker.
The 50 B singles division fielded the largest draw, equaling the men’s Open with 19 players each. The 50 Bs is a proving ground of sorts for players hoping to refine their game to reach and remain competitive at the next level (Masters). Each year the winner moves up and the returning players are reseeded according to how they fared the previous year. At present this is the division that suits my experience and skills at this level. As deep as this division is, there were two other players from Maryland entered, Dan Ho and Pat Lowery. In addition, players from last year’s draw were also seeded. My first round match was against Ed Courvette. In the first game, by serving and ending points quickly, I raced out to big lead and never stopped to look back, taking the game 21-1. The second game found Courvette staying close as he closed an early gap to stage a comeback. After regaining my own momentum, I closed out the game and match, 21-14.
Next up for me was a player unknown to me from Cincinnati, OH. Glenn Gartland turned out to be a tough opponent. In addition to battling Gartland, the searing heat and humidity at 2:30 in the afternoon scorched the courts and players alike. We both battled for points, with Gartland prevailing 21-17. Encouraged by the closeness of the first game, I fought hard to keep the next game under control while keeping the elements at bay. With both of us playing under and feeling the intensity of the conditions, every point would be at a premium. The match began to extend as neither Gartland nor I could muster the final charge to the finish. Without giving up, after a few long rallies, I felt the game and the match slipping away. And so it did as Gartland took the second game and the match, 21-17. Again, in the heat of battle, the enemy becomes a friend as respect is gained through a shared experience. Glenn and I would interact for the rest of the tournament as I encouraged him on his way to the finals. To get to the finals, Glenn met and defeated a valiant Dan Ho, another Maryland player whose vocabulary does not contain the word “quit.” Ho took the first game from Gartland, 21-14. But in the second game, Gartland overcame Ho’s mastery and survived, 21-17. Whether it was momentum or better play, Gartland was able to stop Ho in the 11-point tie breaker at 5. Gartland next faced Ernie McGarry from Seattle, Washington who last year showed me an early exit from this bracket, but like Glenn, we remain close. By indication of scores, McGarry had a fairly easy time handling his opponents until he met Gartland. Although somewhat evenly matched, Gartland prevailed, 21-14 and 21-15. In the finals, Gartland met Bob Clair, who lost in last year’s final of this event. As the top seed in the bracket, Clair had an easy time advancing to the finals. In this half of the bracket, Pat Lowery another Marylander also played. Lowery, however, lost in a tough quarterfinal tie breaker against Glenn Paraskevin from Wisconsin. Paraskevin would later lose to Clair in the semifinals. Against Clair, Gartland showed resolve and tenacity as he took the first game 21-16. Having gone down this road before, Clair stormed back and took the second game 21-7. With the 11-point tie breaker looming, each contestant gathered themselves between games and dug deep to find the extra juice and resolve to win the tie breaker. And the trend of second game winners winning tie breaker emerge as Clair was crowned champion, 11-5.
In the 40 B singles, Pat Lowery also competed in a bracket with a smaller draw. Upon reaching the semifinal, Lowery had to withdraw because of injury. Before the injury, Lowery seemed poised to take this division; perhaps next year.
The B singles and doubles divisions, by far is the most diverse bracket in terms of the mix of players of varying age and skills. In singles, first timer Joe Green from Maryland fought valiantly in his openning round match, but eventualyl fell 21-19 and 21-6. My partner Bill Tebenhoff and I were entered in the doubles bracket of this division. Other Marylanders included Mort Frank and his grandson, Nathaniel and Erik Anderson and Will Bardwell were also entered. In addition, there were pairings of a father and son and also college aged young men who made for intriguing matchups. Tebenhoff and I played against a pair of college aged gunners. Our tenacity and experience were not enough to overcome their speed and power as Derrick Contreras and Mathew Anderson showed us the exit from the bracket, 21-14 and 21-15. In the next round, this team was eliminated by one of the teams making the finals. Mort Frank and Nathaniel Frank were also shown and early exit leaving Erik Anderson and Will Bardwell to carry the Maryland torch forward. And carry the torch they did, as this team marched through the bracket to the finals to face Micah Garcia and Chris Giannamore. After taking the first game 21-12, Anderson and Bardwell seemed to let up and allowed Garcia and Giannamore to dominate play and lost the game 21-10. So this brought them to the sudden death 11-point tie breaker. Will the trend of second game winner hold precedence again? Fortunately for Anderson and Bardwell, they regained their first game form and easily dispatched their opponents, 11-4 to win the championship of this division.
Perhaps you may wonder how Erik Anderson a recently crowned A player could still compete in the B division. Well, as the luck of the draw would have it, Erik applied to play in both divisions, which is allowed under the entry rules, so winning both, no matter the order is also allowed under the rules. Of course, next time if Erik chooses to compete, he must do so as an Open player.
The aforementioned Nathaniel Frank and his friend another Marylander, Jacob Reinhard were entered in the Junior 17 and under division. This division was split into two pool play groups and in each group round robin play took place. Frank triumphed in his pool group setting up a finals match with Brittyn Bidegain, the winner from the other pool group. Reinhard played well in the Bidegain pool group but did not fare as well as Frank. But Reinhard would later player in and win the consolation round. In order to face off against Bidegain, Frank had to gut it out against Spencer Straw, a junior with amazing skills and deceptive motions with both hands. Straw shows a developed game that will only get better with maturity and seasoning. Straw seemingly can put the ball anywhere he chooses from anywhere on the court, especially up front. Frank won the first game 21-17 and lost the second 21-20. With his supporters urging him own, Frank was able to hang on by the thinnest of margins as he eked out an 11-10 win in the taut tie breaker. Facing Bidegain, Frank had his work cut out for him. Bidegan’s petite stature belies the tenacity of her game. From the onset, Bidegain dictated play over Frank with either hand and never relented throughout the match. Bidegain exposed Frank’s glaring weakness, his left and exploited it on her way to 21-2, 21-3 championship. Knowing Frank and his lineage, he will improve his left and return to perhaps face Bidegain or Straw in this same division again next year.
The masters divisions feature players who make up the core of our sport. Within each division, there are perennial champions and favorites who face off against each other, year after year for supremacy. With that in mind, it would require an inordinate amount of words to adequately elaborate on the matches for the masters’ brackets of this tournament’s draw. Continuing, my focus remains on the Maryland players and their quest for glory in this year’s championships.
The 40 Men’s singles championship pitted Dan Zimet against Andy Schad. Again, this is a case of two players who spent the entire summer honing their skills against each other at the courts in Columbia, MD. To meet in the finals is bitter sweet in a sense because someone has to come in second. I had the honor and pleasure of refereeing this match which gave me an unprecedented view of the action. This was a match punctuated with tremendous rallies and feats of athleticism that befits Zimet and Schad. As a seasoned champion on this stage, Zimet seemed to have the edge over Schad. But Schad has incredible skills, even though the 3-wall game might not be his strong forte. Those skills were on display as he out played Zimet in their first game, allowing 12 points. Battling the heat as well as each other in the second game, Zimet found his serve that skims low to the short line and often cracks out for aces or service winners. Schad had no answer and as the momentum shifted and Zimet took the second game 21-9. Earning the right to serve first in the tie breaker by virtue of a higher 2-game point total, Zimet continued his serving barrage and raced out to a 9-0 lead. After a few side outs, and Schad managing 3 points, Zimet earned yet another 3-wall title.
The match over, Zimet looked forward to his doubles dominance with long time collaborator, Alan Frank. To this observer and I admit bias, as doubles partners, Zimet and Frank are more than a formidable force. Putting it simply, they elegantly finish each other’s sentences. So in the 40s doubles division, this favored pair held their first two opponents to low single digits in round robin play to face off against Matt Osburn and Jim Karner who also had relatively easy wins in their matches (one by default). As Frank and Zimet enter their playing zone, they become efficient and execute with laser like precision. As one of the opposing players between games of the finals was overheard saying while shaking his head, “You know these guys, they can’t be stopped.” And with that in mind, Frank and Zimet dispatched Osburn and Karner, 21-4, 21-9 to earn yet another 3-wall doubles title.
Frank would later team up with Mark Zamora to defend their title in the 45 doubles division. Bill Tebenhoff teamed up with Pat Boyd from Atlanta to compete in this division, but they were eliminated in the early round. Continuing where they left off from last year, Frank and Zamora showed their mastery over an opponent on their way to the finals by winning 21-1, 21-5. In the finals against Jim Wohl and Steven Dykes, Frank and Zamora played like a well oiled machine. Whether it was Zamora controlling the front with his signature soft or angular kills or Frank retrieving from all sides of the deep court, Wohl and Dykes had no defense against such precision and efficiency. In the first game, the pair managed 7 points but was hard pressed to get 2 in the second game. So with the second consecutive championship for this pairing, Frank and Zamora seem poised to start a dynasty.
It is worth mentioning that Zamora played a memorable finals match in the 50 singles division against Peter Service. The first game was dominated by Zamora leading at one point, 13-0 he won easily, 20-9. As knowing sources commented, Service is a slow starter and would fight back. But as others later reported, Zamora continued to dominate and led 20-8 in the second game and needed just one point for the championship. Unexpectedly, Service came back and won the game 21-20 after being down, but certainly not out. Zamora related after, that he had emptied his tank but did not realize he had nothing left. Service took advantage and easily won the tie breaker 11-1 and thus taking the championship. As handball players, we all know that it sometimes seem harder to get that last one point than it is to get the first 20. But Zamora is champion and a warrior because within the next day or so, after this seemingly crushing defeat, he and Frank teamed up to win as described above.
The Men’s 50s doubles bracket featured two pairs of player from the Maryland group, Joe Berman and Tony Winter and Rick Anderson and Bob Dyke. This is a tough bracket of seasoned players who have won championships together or with other pairings. In their half of the bracket, Dyke and Anderson won comfortably in their first two matches to reach the semifinals. Facing Bret Williams and Matt Osburn, Dyke and Anderson had their hands full against the top seeds and could only muster 3 and 7 points in their games. This strong showing by Anderson and Dyke may hold promise for future collaborations. While on the other side of the draw, Berman (battling injuries) and Winter, worked their way to the semifinals against a fine team of Joe Ivy and Bob Bardeau who were currently the 2010 defending champions of the 55 doubles division. Berman and Winter applied force against the craftiness of Bardeau and Ivy but lost the first game, 21-17. The second game started as a rain storm rolled into the area. With Berman and Winter up 18-13, play was halted as the rain pelted the courts.
During the delay, players stay dry by taking shelter in the front half of the courts which are protected by the concrete portion of the ceiling…
Some practice…
Some catch a few winks…
After the rains cleared, an efficient team of volunteers used brooms, sponge rollers and squeegees to push excess water off the courts which were further dried by using the directed flames fueled by propane tanks. The rain delay seemed to help Berman regain form lost due to his injury as he and Winter quickly closed out Bardeau and Ivy on 3 consecutive serves. The tie breaker seemed a matter of formality as Berman and Winter blanked their opponents 11-0. In the finals, Berman and Winter were over matched as Williams and Osburn maintained control throughout and easily won the championship 21-11, 21-3. Berman and Winter played well together because of their complimentary style, Berman in front, Winter in back. It would not be surprising if this pair remain formidable as contenders or eventual champions.
The Men’s 55 singles featured David Dohman, hall of famer and perennial champion. Also present in this division is the rangy Phil Kirk, also no stranger to championships. Marylander, Ray Estevez earned the distinction of meeting Kirk in a semifinal match. Estevez, though game, could not match Kirk’s long reaching arms and powerful serves. Kirk took the first game 21-11 but Estevez pushed hard in the second but succumbed in the end 21-15 sending Kirk to the finals. Although Dohman was pushed in his semifinal match by John Freidrich, he prevailed 21-16, 21-20 setting up a showdown with Kirk. These two men have played each other at many levels for years and their matches are always great crowd pleasers. Neither player disappointed their fans with Dohman outlasting Kirk, 21-14, 21-19 to earn yet another championship.
In the Men’s 55 doubles division, 3 or 4 of the competing teams were either current or former champions of this or a lower masters division. Defending champions, Bardeau and Ivy after dispatching their quarterfinals opponents with ease, faced the formidable team of Ray Estevez and Scott Rosenthal. This match went to the 11-point tie breaker as Bardeau and Ivy one the first game, 21-13. But in the second game, Estevez and Rosenthal found their groove and curtailed Bardeau and Ivy, 21-5. And inevitable as it seems and reported here, with one or two exceptions so far, second game winners who force a tie breaker seem to triumph. And so it was, with Estevez and Rosenthal besting Bardeau and Ivy 11-7 to reach the finals. On the way to meeting another long time pairing of Dohman and Tim Sterrett in the other semifinals, Jim Corrigan and Phil Kirk stymied Bob Dyke and his partner Frank Lambrechts, 21-2, 21-8. Usually Corrigan and Kirk meet Dohman and Sterrett in the finals of whatever division they both compete in. So perhaps, meeting the semifinals is a letdown for them. By virtue of the score, this was a typical match between these giants of the game. Once again, the two teams spilt games with the first going to Dohman and Sterrett, 21-14. Corrigan and Kirk roared back to win the second game, 21-9. By all accounts and the score, the scintillating tie breaker win goes to Corrigan and Kirk, reaching the finals, 11-10 against Estevez and Rosenthal. In the finals, experience won out over will as Corrigan and Kirk dominated in every phase of the match and winning, 21-9, 21-3. With their long history together combined with numerous successes, these two champions remain at the top of their game.
Toledo is more than about handball, it is about families, friends, food, and traditions. It is nice to be part of this continuing landscape of our game. After spending a couple of days or the whole tournament renewing and building friendships, you walk away knowing you were part of something special. I am happy to report, I met the casual as well as the diehard fan; people who just love to watch handball being played and at any level. I consider myself a diehard fan of the game and get great pleasure from playing, watching the game being played and interacting with the players. In that light, I wish I could watch every game and every match being played. At Toledo, there are usually 8 matches being played simultaneously. If scheduling is favorable, sometimes the desirable matches are being played, all on one side or the other and that makes viewing that much more fun. As player, I know and appreciate how important it is to have fan support. Special thanks to Nan for getting me there, cheering for me, and getting me home safe again. Most groups, especially the Maryland crew, are extremely supportive and encouraging. Whenever I am playing, having anyone or the entire group cheering for me definitely boosts my game. And in the event of a loss (or as Al Green the player says: “You did not lose, you finished second.”), familiar faces there to console, always helps to lessen the sting. And if you win, the hearty congrats lends the warm and fuzzy feeling we all know and love. Let us return to the action as the Marylanders continue this year’s dominance in their respective brackets.
The Men’s 60 doubles draw had two teams made up of one Marylander each. Dan Ho and Ken Greco hoped to cement a 3-wall partnership put on display a few weeks earlier at the Eastern Regional 3-wall event held in Columbia, MD. While Murzy Jhabvala, returning to Toledo after a brief absence, teamed with John (Sean) Conneely. Like any of the 32 divisions or brackets at this year’s event, there may be easy matches, but overall, going forward and winning, you will be tested. Ho and Greco advanced to the quarterfinals only to be bounced by Larry Dohman and Robert Anderson. Jhabvala and Conneely held their own as they comfortably marched to the finals. In the finals, they would face Alan Sherrill and Vance McInnis. McInnis is a perennial champ in singles and teaming up with Sherrill provided a solid doubles tandem as they took the first game, 21-11. Jhabvala and Conneely reversed the tables and took the second game, 21-15. Will the trend of second game winners winning the 11-point tie breaker continue? As if by design, the trend does continue as Jhabvala and Conneely snatched the championship 11-6.
Physical and mental ability often dictate quality of play in handball at any level. This is why on occasion, an older player will choose to ply his skills among a younger set as seen in Toledo, but only briefly alluded to in this tournament summation.
The Men’s 65 singles had two Marylanders in the draw; Joe Pleszkoch and Bob Bardwell. Pleszkoch arrives at the quarterfinals after a 21-14, 21-15 opening round victory. Game one against Robert Braine, was lost, 21-9. Pleszkoch battled back to take the next game, 21-8. Statistically, by my own count, the tie breaker should be won by Pleszkoch. However, stats do not win handball games as Braine prevailed 11-8 in a grueling contest. With Bardwell winning his quarterfinals contest, he next faced Braine. Bardwell is not a big man in stature, but he possesses a big game of relentlessness and tenacity that compliments his fine skills on the handball court. With that in mind, Bardwell barred the door against Braine by dismissing him, 21-4, and 21-6 to reach the final. Bardwell would face Carl Valentino, whose silvery white shock of hair and Michigan State green attire gives him a certain cache of the bon vivant of the handball courts. Valentino and Bardwell would push each other to the limit as the first game turned on Bardwell’s deft use of high arching shots that hug the side wall on their way beyond the confines of the court and often out of reach. The first game may have drained Valentino as an energized Bardwell served and volleyed his way to the title, 21-19 and 21-9.
In the 65 doubles, many of the same players would appear teamed with a respectable partner. Marylander Tony Truman, playing young, teamed with quotable Al Green while Joe Pleszkoch paired with Keith Thode. Truman and Green, played into the quarterfinals, but lost that match, 21-8, 21-14 to the aforementioned Carl Valentino and his partner, Rick Graham. Valentino and Graham would eventually work their way to the finals. Meanwhile, Pleszkoch and Thode had an easy path to the semifinals to face Mike Meltzer and Bob Braine. Pleszkoch and Thode had their hands full facing Meltzer and Braine. As valiantly as they battled, Pleszkoch and Thode would fall, 21-14, 21-8. Meltzer and Braine bested a steady Valentino and Graham to win the championship 21-15, 21-14. Apparently Meltzer also won this title in 2010, but with a different partner.
In the 70 doubles division, Tony Truman, playing his age teamed up with first time Marylander, Elihu Zimet to win their quarterfinal match. In a tough semifinal match, Truman and Zimet won a tight first game, 21-19. Their opponents roared back by taking the second game, 21-3 thus setting up the decisive tie breaker. Ah, the trend, sidetracked briefly as reported above, was back on track as Truman and Zimet’s run to the finals was cut short, 11-2. The winning team eventually lost in the finals to George Miller and Kent Fusselman.
To round out the men’s divisions and the tales of Maryland players, the 75 doubles division had Mort Frank and his partner Mike Jennings reaching the semifinals round but lost to finalist Ralph Weil and Ben Marguglio. On the other side of the bracket, Lew Buckingham and his partner, Dick Sleeper came up against the aforementioned Al Green and his partner for this division, Bob Plater. By eliminating Sleeper and Buckingham, Green and Plater assured their place in the finals where they emerged as champions.
The ladies also competed at Toledo in the Open division in a smaller field than normal. Tracy Davis went up against Megan Mehilos in the singles final. Megan defeated Sandy Ng 21-20, 21-12 to reach the finals; while Tracy’s opponent in her semifinals withdrew because of injury. Mehilos and Davis gave their all in this crowd pleasing duel. Mehilos wins the first game, 21-9. Davis storms back and takes the second game, 21-8. In the tie breaker, trends be damned, Mehilos overpowers Davis to win the game, 11-6 and the championship.
In the doubles round robin, Davis and NG teamed up and dominated less seasoned competition to easily take this championship. In 2010 Ng teamed up with Samantha England to beat Davis teamed with Theresa McCourt. So the old saying is true for Davis… ‘If you can’t beat them, join them!’
In Camelot, this year I felt welcomed to the round table of handball where gallantry and feats of magic where common place. My eyes and soul were sated not only by the pageantry of this tradition but by the scintillating play of the cast of characters who grace our sport.
I must also acknowledge the tournament directors who kept the matches flowing and the courts filled. And the all important volunteer staff who kept the water chilled, the kegs tapped and flowing and the food prepared, ready and delicious, all without whom this event would just be a bunch of people playing handball.
See you next year for the beer!
