As usual some great photos of people and action shots of Toledo by Keith Thode http://keithsphotos.toadworld.net/
Thanks to “Team Cleveland Handball” we have some video of some of our play http://www.teamclehandball.net/main/deploy/index.html
Category: Tournament Results
So much has been written about the 3-Wall National Championships held annually in Toledo, OH and yet there is always more to see and say about this unique event. Something about the blazing sun, concrete courts, surrounding bleachers, benches and swaths of grass that creates this idyllic setting for families, old friends, acquaintances and rivals to congregate on that unofficial last weekend of summer that spans Labor Day. Throw in a beer truck, endless grilled meats and you have the makings of what some would call, paradise. Oh yes, let’s not forget our beloved game that has been called “perfect.” And to have seen the action that unfolded over 5 days for any of this the 65th championship is to know the true sense of that perfection.
The experiences related here are all personal, but I am sure anyone who has ever been or was here in the most recent incarnation of this annual handball event, will nod or smile to a moment of recognition. To chronicle the 5 days of handball bliss in its entirety would be almost impossible because it means that while enjoying a single match or game, there may have been six or seven more in progress at the same time, and unseen. And having written about these championships over the past 6 years, I have always tried to capture and detail the action in just about every bracket of the draw. This incarnation of the Toledo story may somehow unfold differently but in no way detract from the accomplishments of any or all participants.
The 3-wall game, in my opinion, is the most complex and unforgiving of all the handball disciplines. And anyone who has played all three disciplines will probably agree. The dynamics of the game are forced by the somewhat odd configuration of concrete wall space (no back wall and varying distances to cover in the back depending on the venue), a partial combination of concrete and chain link fence ceiling and the natural inconsistency of said poured concrete as worn over time. These elements combined with a lively rubber ball prone to influences induced by the player who is making contact and by these quirky concrete contours, leads to a giddy and sometimes frustrating bundle of joy and pain. The joy may be found in winning a single rally or winning the game and match and ultimately a championship. Pain of course can be found in the emotions of a loss or the physical scarring that results when flesh and concrete fraternize in unkind ways. But like an occasional erratic bounce of thesmall blue ball, these are the rhythms and pulses of our game.
The players from the Mid-Atlantic region who play mainly at the courts at Centennial Park in Columbia, MD, and more recently over the summer, have been extremely fortunate to have an added venue opened in the Stratton Woods Park Complex in Reston, VA. And although more than an hour’s drive apart, the two complexes combined provides for ten total courts in the region. We are fortunate to have these choices and hopefully these added courts will lend to an increased opportunity for more players to hone their skills and join the list of strong competitors and champions who hail from the region.
Collectively, our usually strong contingent of players and supporters are collectively called Marylanders when we play in Toledo. And even though our numbers were reduced somewhat in comparison to previous years (as was the overall tournament attendance), we were still able to produce a fair amount of champions and an overall fine showing of finalists and semifinalist and just about everyone else advancing beyond a first round match. Everyone played well and should be proud of their individual accomplishments even if they fell short of the ultimate goal of capturing the crown.
To begin, congratulations to Dan Zimet and his continued mastery in the 40+ men’s singles small ball division. This is Dan’s 6 consecutive championship in the division as he dominated over Bear Meiring (CO) in a repeat of the 2014 finals. Dan is a stellar player whose record at these and other national handball championships continue a steady growth. In the same category as Dan is his brilliant doubles partner Alan Frank. With the rare exception of the 2014 championships, Alan and Dan create a dynamic duo of dominance at whatever level they compete and returned in 2015 to their rule of the roosts as they steam rolled the round robin field in the 45+ men’s doubles small ball division, allowing an average of less than six points per game over three matches. Frank was not done as he and Mark Zamora (CA) teamed up in the 50+ men’s doubles division to best Marty Clemens (IN) and Jim Wohl (MO), 16 and 3 after they easily handled Marylanders Rick Anderson and Chuck Epstein. Frank is an amazing player as his finely honed instincts and skill find him always in the perfect position to retrieve and return balls opponents may have counted as positives for their cause. His shot selections are accurate and precise and often leave opponents with that look of bewilderment, tinged with frustration. Because Frank mainly plays doubles these days, some may forget he once starred as a singles player and even dominated over the same Marty Clemens in Toledo 11 years ago for the 40+ men’s singles title.
Marylander Josh Ho turned in one of his finest performances at this year’s championships as he out played the round robin field in 35+ men’s singles division that included former repeat champion Kendell Lewis (NC). Ho showed his trademark quickness and relentless tenacity as he fought back from one game down to best Pat Oliver (MI), 13-21, 21-8, and 11-6. This was Ho’s first match of the tournament and he used it as a spring board to best his next two opponents, including the aforementioned Lewis. Ho also teamed with Maryland first timer Mark Ozgar in the men’s 35+ doubles division but were bested by former denizens of the Open division and eventual champs, Bill Mehilos (IL) and his partner Shane Conneely (IL). Perhaps not surprising, this has been Ho’s style ever since he showed grit and determination in staving off defeat after being down 10-5 in the Men’s B singles division championship match tiebreaker back in 2004. As players, we often establish a positive pattern that can be repeated over the course of our campaigns and careers.
As a first timer to these championships, Ozgar also entered in the Men’s B singles division. This division has no age limit and only requirement is that an entrant must not have won a prior national B title, but should be self-policing regarding his own skill level. This is a division that produces a champion that must next compete either at the next skill level or age appropriate bracket. Mark’s march to the championship and his first 3-wall national title meant he had to overcome the largest bracket in the championships. His first match was easy at 3 and 3. In his second match he went up against the fast rising Ivan Burgos (Canada), who at 14 and only entered in his second 3-wall event, showed potential well beyond his years. Along with his brother Alam at 16, we can undoubtedly expect great things from them in the future. The play of the Burgos brothers will be addressed later in this recounting. Mark continued his progress toward the championship and eventually went up against the aforementioned Alam. Burgos, like his younger brother, has raw talent and tenacity but really was no match for a more seasoned veteran like Ozgar who hones his skills regularly against many of the finest Marylanders as often as opportunity arise. That experience was on display in the championship match as Ozgar ended rallies before they began and showed dominance in ending the incredible run of Alam at 9 and 4.
Like so many brothers who have played handball and have risen in the ranks, it will be fun to watch the Burgos duo. At 14 and 16, they seem hungry and out to prove their mettle. With the proper mentoring and encouragement, these two teens should hold sway in the handball world for years to come. Besides being on opposite sides of the draw in the Men’s B singles and meeting defeat at the hands of the more experienced Ozgar, the brothers also teamed up for the Men’s B doubles division. This bracket featured many of the same players forming the singles bracket but this time singles players combined forces to create intriguing pairings and match ups . The Burgos brothers encountered such a match up in the quarterfinals as they went up against the team of Ryan Inman (Mi) and Logan Siegel (MI). The intrigue stemmed from Inman and Siegel being ousted from the men’s B singles bracket, each by one of the Burgos brothers. So their match up had huge implications for players and spectators alike. It was a match that was all out war and quite entertaining for all who watched as the slightly chilling Saturday night air punctuated the glow of late night play brought on by the start-of-the-day rain delay. Inman and Siegel had the first game won but let up and the Burgos boys drew even at 20. Both teams had multiple opportunities to cement the victory but failed as nerves seemed to affect effective play. But finally, the Burgos boys prevailed. Buoyed by their first game escape, the Burgos boys raced ahead only to be caught by Inman and Siegel who eventually prevailed at 18. Given some sage advice before the tiebreaker, the Burgos boys seemed to settle down and played as a team that produced winners as the stronger Alam patrolled the deep court while younger and the more diminutive Ivan plied his burgeoning up front skills to lead the brothers to a most entertaining victory, 11-7 in the tiebreaker; as the response from the sizable group of fans indicated by their appreciative applause.
Unfortunately, the Burgos brothers ran into Filipe Compass (KS) and his partner Marcos Espinoza (KS) who proved more developed and tenacious in holding off the brothers’ unrelenting approach to the match and the game of handball. Compass and Espinoza would meet the much improved Nathaniel Frank and his younger and relatively new to the game of handball partner Michael Gaulton (Canada) in the Men’s B finals. Together this team rolled through their half of the bracket with little or no challenge. Perhaps the ease by which Frank and Gaulton reached the final did not prepare them for Compass and Espinoza. The first game saw Frank and Gaulton with a sizable lead of 16-8. Compass and Espinoza did not panic but steadily attacked as perhaps Gaulton’s inexperience began to show and Frank could not carry the load as many a deep ball escaped his lanky frame. With Compass and Espinoza winning the first game 21-17, Frank and Gaulton only showed flashes of life during the second game and eventually fell, 21-9. As Frank’s game continues to thrive, the entrance of Gaulton on the handball scene, like the Burgos brothers are encouraging developments and bright spots for the future of handball.
Continuing to laud the champions hailing from Maryland, Joe Pleszkoch, in a last minute pick up of a partner Bob Braine of California, after his original partner Keith Thode withdrew because of injury, Pleszkoch and Braine would face off against Carl Valentino (MI) and Rick Graham (MI) in the 70+ men’s doubles finals. Pleszkoch has a positive history against Valentino as he defeated him a few years ago for the 65+ men’s singles title. In the first game, Pleszkoch and Braine could not seem to shake a steady Valentino and Graham but did managed to pull away at 16. The second game was a one sided affair as Pleszkoch’s deep court shots were no match for the other team as Pleszkoch and Braine claimed the championship, 21-6.
Marylanders were well represented in many brackets including the Men’s 50B+ draw. With Bruce Cohen as the number one and Pat Lowery the number two seeds respectively, Chuck Epstein, a new comer to the Maryland area and Toledo, rounded out the contingent. Cohen found a relatively easy path to the finals, while Lowery fell in the quarters to Greg Fite (OH) who later was handled by Epstein to set up an all Maryland finals. Reaching the finals of this division for the second year in a row, Cohen had his hands full against Epstein who dominated, 3 and 8. If Epstein returns to Toledo, as fine a player as he is, it should be interesting to see how he fares in the Masters bracket he chooses as his next seat of competition. I cannot speak for Cohen, but I hope his determination and competitive spirit will bring him back to compete at any level he chooses at the next championships. As for Lowery who succumbed also in the men’s 40B+ singles semifinal to Eric Neff (OH) in a heartbreaking tiebreaker, he is almost certain he will not compete again at the same championship in two singles event .
As Marylanders continued their impressive campaign in other divisions, of note, Dan Ho reached the finals in the 65+ men’s singles division by notching wins in both the quarter and semifinal matches. In the semifinals, Ho faced his fiercest competition and stood tall against Jim Lowe (MI), who many considered the more skilled player. But Ho, known for his tenacity and relentless play, managed to hold off Lowe at 19 and then again at 20 to face the always affable Sean Conneely (IL) who knocked off the number one seeded Ed Campbell (CA) in a bruising tiebreaker, 11-6 on his march to the finals. The expected showdown between, according to Conneely, the “two leprechauns ” (Ho being short in stature and Conneely being the prototypical Irishman) did not materialize as Conneely dominated from the start. He befuddled Ho with his serves and controlled the front court with soft drop kills or well-placed passing shots. The best Ho could do was muster some deep retrieves from the left side but was then rendered vulnerable to Conneely’s reach and deft placement of the ball. In the end, Ho went quietly at 3 and 3.
And in the scheme of things, Conneely was not done with Ho as they would again meet in the 65+ men’s doubles division. Ho and Stan Townsend (AZ) breezed through their first round match only to be curtailed by Conneely and his partner Larry Dohman (IL). In the next round, as the draw would have it, Conneely and Dohman went up against Ed Campbell and Vance McInnis (IL). It was good to see Vance return to the courts (and the winner’s circle) after last year’s absence. Since the ensuing doubles match followed the singles defeat to Conneely, perhaps Campbell sought to make a statement when he and McInnis neutralized Conneely and Dohman at 3 and 1 on their way to face Jim Lowe and Larry Price (MI) whom they bested for the championship, 15 and 7.
The march of Marylanders continued in the 60+ men’s doubles division, as Bob Dyke and Ken Greco (CO), George Fambro and Robert Ozgar (first timer along with aforementioned son Mark Ozgar), and yours truly teamed with Ed Green (MI). This was a tough division stocked with notables of our sport such as Tim Sterrett (IL) paired with Kevin Jarvis (IL) and Glenn Cardin (WA) paired with Gary Eisenbooth (CA), along with Joe Ivey (MI) teaming with Frank Lambrechts (FL) to name a few.
Since play for this division commenced on Saturday, the schedule was skewed by the early morning rain delay. So as the day’s schedule slid further behind, Ed Green and I began or scheduled 7 PM match against Sterrett and Jarvis after 10 PM. Sorry to say, we were no match for Sterrett and Jarvis. Sterret is a smooth and efficient player on the courts and his reputation and past championships at this and other events precede him wherever he goes. And even though Ed and I competed in the early stages of each game, Sterrett’s play seemed to overwhelm us as we were only able to muster 7 and 8 points in our two games. Meanwhile, Dyke and Greco, after winning their first round match would battle Sterrett and Jarvis in one semifinal contest by taking the first game at 18, but losing the second at 20 and the eventual tiebreaker, 11-3. Dyke and Greco are not an easy team to handle, in part because of the devastating serves unleashed on the right by Greco.
On the other half of the 60+ doubles bracket, Fambro and Ozgar lost in their opening round match to a team later dispachted by Ivey and Lambrechts. This set up a potential showdown with Cardin and Eisenbooth, but the showdown never materialized and Ivey and Lambrechts went away relatively quietly at 15 and 7, setting the stage for what would become an exciting finals match. Cardin and Eisenbooth seemed in control in winning the first game although they allowed a small run of points to make it seem close as the score would indicate, 21-16. But perhaps the momentum gained at the end of the first game spilled over into the second as Sterrett and Jarvis took control and cruised to a 21-9 game victory. The tiebreaker was tight with Sterrett and Jarvis prevailing 11-9 to secure the championship.
In the 60+ men’s singles division, Marylanders Bob Dyke, Murzy Jhabvala and first timer and relative newcomer to the 3-wall game Jay Dennis competed. Dennis was pitted against the scrappy Gary Eisenbooth who used his greater 3-wall experience to keep Dennis on the defensive and allowed single digit points in both games. As many of us know, that first time experience at 3-wall nationals can be humbling. Meanwhile, Jhabvala cruised in his first round match up against Wesley Humfreys (FL). Next up, Jhabvala would face off against the formidable number one seeded, John Freidrich (OH) and showed game but not enough and fell, 12 and 7. On the other half of the bracket, Bob Dyke mounted a strong run, dispatching Edwin Stead (FL) and then Bob Bardeau (OH)to meet Freidrich in the finals. Freidrich was nothing less than masterful in his smooth kills and passes and made quick work of Dyke, 6 and 4 in claiming the championship.
Josh Osburn, Adam Zimet and Larry Defauw competed in the men’s A divisions in singles and doubles. Osburn is a talented player who has yet to break through consistently. While playing A singles, Osburn met little resistance in taking his first two opponents including the aforementioned young and talented Michael Gaulton. But while consistently holding his first two opponents to scores of 7 and 2 and 3 and 7, Osburn was next pitted against a sharp shooting Isidro Garcia from California. In this match, Osburn was handed a dose of his own medicine as he lost this semifinal match, 3 and 7 to the eventual champion, who in his 4 matches played for the championship, limited his opponents to an average of 4 points per game, with the 7 scored by Osburn being the most.
Osburn would also team up with Larry Defauw (playing in the Maryland area this summer, but hails from Texas) to play A doubles. Winning their first match with steady and complementary play, the pair could not overcome the next stronger team of Nick Dietch (WI) and Jim Wohl and bowed out at 15 and 16. Dietch and Wohl would lose a tough match to Omar (TX) and Carlos Lemus (IL) who had earlier battled Adam Zimet and his partner Jaimie Simon (IL). After splitting the first two well played games, Zimet showed smoothness and control. One could never say he was slovenly in his play! Unfortunately the tiebreaker never materialized because of injury to Simon…So the Lemus boys escaped and faced off against the aforementioned Isidro Garcia and his partner Carlos Flores (CA). After a strong first game, with Isidro and Flores edging the Lemus boys at 20, the second game fireworks never materialized as Isidro and Flores waltzed to the championship, 20-9.
And now to recount my own on court exploits at these championships, I will give some of the highlights of my play in the 60+ B singles division. My first match was close as my opponent Bob Anderson from Illinois kept the first game even until I pulled away to take it, 21-11. In the second game, Anderson rebounded in a huge way and raced out ahead 17-6. Between a time out and break for ball retrieval, I found my serve and the will to fight back and ran off 11 straight points to draw even. I wanted that 12th consecutive point but it did not come in that run. We battled with side outs with some incredible gets on both sides. With all the action going on the other courts, there was a large contingency of fans to support both of us. But as always, where would we be without the support and the love (Nan) and for that I am thankful. We exchanged points to 20 with each having an opportunity to score, but Anderson made the best of his chance. The tiebreaker was as tight as a board as each player inched closer to the elusive 11th point. Tied at 10, I served and we volleyed only to have Anderson handcuffed along the right wall. A great sigh of relieve and also a great win for my sense of playing. I was proud to fight back in the second game and took many a lesson from that scoring run and the spirit of not giving up.
My next opponent would be Terry Mcguire , also from Illinois. Terry has demonstrated tough play in all the previous years I have seen him compete at these championships in the 50+ Bs, but he was never able to win it all. I wanted ever so much to stop Terry and reach the finals. What happened in the match left me befuddled as I seem to be stuck in second gear knowing full well I am capable of overdrive. The first game was a blur and I was dismissed at 11. The second game saw Terry way out in front, but again I decide to mount a late charge when he was at 17. As hard as I played, I could not sustain the comeback beyond 14 points and bowed out quietly. I have fully analyzed the lost and found solace in my understanding. Terry would next face Ed Green, my doubles partner whose singles play vaulted him to the number seeded position in the bracket after losing in last year’s 60+ Bs finals. Ed and I talked after my loss to Terry, and even though sometimes you want to say you lost to the eventual champion, I wanted Ed to triumph. His match with Terry was tough, taking the first close game at 16 but seemingly faded in the second as Terry won easily at 11. This brought on the tiebreaker, and by Ed’s own account, Terry jumped out to a 6-0 lead. Ed regained serve and found that special gear called determination and slammed the door on Terry, winning the tiebreaker, 11-6 and thus the championship. Ed’s win made me happy for him and helped to salve my earlier lost to Terry.
Such is handball. Beyond the play itself, there has been so much written and said about what it takes to compete and ultimately what it takes to win one game, a match and ultimately a championship. In the years since I began competing at the 3-wall nationals, I have had victories, defeats, emotional loses and some let downs to name a few categories of compartmentalization that we all put ourselves through as competitors. I find these to be coping mechanisms more than excuses and rationalizations. We all analyze why we lost more than why we won because the win generally speaks for itself.
The biggest thing about competing is knowing yourself and knowing that winning and losing does not define who you are. Winning and losing are things we experience while being who we are is a life. In looking at the history of sports and competition, especially individual competitors, the skilled ones generally prevail. And yet there are many skilled players who have never won or who do not win consistently. Of course, there is also the element of luck that sometimes factors in. But as participating in these championships have taught me over the past 6 years: to win you must be physically whole; your mind set must be focused; your emotions must be directed to execution of your skills and not squandered by distractions happening within your competition; you must be able to hold on when there is nothing left in you except the will to hold on; and as Vince Lombardi once said, “The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.” But sometimes it takes the outside observation and verbalization of a situation for it to become clear and make sense…and as a friend and fellow player reminded me, and I paraphrase, ‘one must realize that they are a better player than they think they are!’
One cannot win at this level unless you are completely whole, both physically and mentally…The physical part really affects the mentality as one struggles on the court to fight the mind that is telling you that you know that part of your body that you need is not going to work when you need it to work in a particular way. You can get by with it in just ordinary circumstances, but execution that requires precision and clarity is severely handicapped at the highest level. No regrets or excuses, just stating the fact that even though you try to ‘will’ yourself and overcome that instance of hesitation that comes with some lack of physical wholeness, the outcome remains in doubt.
Marylander’s representation was further bolstered by the Anderson family, Grandfather Lew Buckingham, Dad Rick and his sons Eric and Lee. To begin, Lew was recognized and honored during these championships with the presentation of the Grand Master sweater representing the winning of 10 national titles. This is a wonderful achievement for Lew as he continues to compete, and teamed at these championships with Ben Marguglio (TX), placed second to the team of Mike Driscoll (TX) and Norm Young (MI) in the 75+ men’s doubles division.
Meanwhile, son-in-law Rick Anderson, in addition to teaming with Chuck Epstein in the 50+ doubles bracket also competed in the 55+ doubles with former Marylander Bill Tebbenhoff (FL). In this bracket, Anderson and Tebbenhoff made a respectable showing (12 and 9) against the Canadians Peter Service and Lindsey Hall, who would later out lasted Scott Szatkowski (IL) and Jimmy Devito (IL) for the championship.
Lee Anderson made a promising and consistent debut in the Open singles division as he carved out nine points in each game against reigning collegiate singles champ Daniel Cordoba (Mexico), who later fell to Nikolai Nahorniak (IL). The Open division is generally played on another level as shot making and serves are at the highest form in our sport. Spectators often marvel at how spectacular and seemingly at ease the Open players are when they execute and explode on the court. Nahorniak would later face Tyree Bastidas (NY) in one semifinal match that proved to be exciting in that the first two games were about evenly split with Bastidas winning first at 9 and Nihorniak bouncing back at 6. The tiebreaker made for intense drama as both players went all out in a tight game to eleven. And when the dust settled, Bastidas emerged victorious 11-9 and earning the right to face defending champ Sean Lenning (AZ) who cruised through his half of the bracket with his usual ballet of serves, corner kills and blistering roll outs. The Bastidas/Lenning finals matchup is what everyone has come to expect at these championships over the past few years. In speaking with Bastidas before any of his play begun, he admitted he was “weary” as if to say, he had been playing too much handball for so long a stretch. Armed with this information, as I watched his play throughout, the weariness peeked through on numerous occasions and perhaps answered some of the questions that may have surrounded his telltale lackluster play. It is not for me to say how Bastidas can overcome the funk (although we did discuss this at length), but I am sure, there are numerous avenues available for a talented player as this to revitalize his game so that he can last and continue to contribute to the sport.
The Bastidas/Lenning singles final was as much a one-sided affair as any of their previous matches contested in these finals. Lenning toyed with the disenchanted Bastidas in the first game and closed him out at 10. In the second game, Lenning took delight in handing Bastidas the “doughnut.” We can only hope any future match up with these two greats of the game will produce a more worthy effort from Bastidas.
Continuing with the Open division, but on to the doubles bracket, we find Marylander Lee Anderson joined by his brother Eric to do battle in the opening or play-in round against Canadians, Ryan Bowler and Kevin Kopchuk. The Anderson brothers are known for giving their all, with Eric showing total disregard for his lanky frame as it inevitably will show scrapes, gashes and gouges, the so called road rash from his relentless all out play. This match was evident as the shirtless brothers skidded across the concrete as if it were ice. This all-out effort produced an entertaining match against the Canadians as the Andersons took the first game at 15 only to have the tables turned in the second by the same 15 points. In the tiebreaker, the Andersons assumed control and rolled, 11-2. Next up for the Andersons were the number one seeded Tyree Bastidas and Nikolai Nahorniak. Despite the inevitable outcome, the Andersons had fun as did Bastidas and Nahorniak. There was much smiles and camaraderie as the longstanding pro players dispatched the Andersons, 9 and 12. As a matter of course, during parts of the games, it seems as if it was only Nahorniak against the Andersons as he put away almost every shot up front, and then when in the service box, gave a clinic with his low screeching serves that either cracked out on the right just beyond the short line or danced out the door. And to his game management maturity, Lee remained under control throughout these championships, and for that and his play, I give him kudos.
Bastidas/Nahorniak did run into some fierce competition against another strong Illinois brother duo of Mike and David Munson who are no strangers to this level of competition. The Munsons lost the first game at 16 and took the second at 10, but could not find enough for the tiebreaker and were edged 11-8. Bastidas and Nahorniak reaching the final would now face a reunited team of Sean Lenning and Marcos Chavez (CA).
In 2003 and 2004, the older Chavez teamed with Lenning at these championships and were formidable if not dominant in winning each time, although the win over the pairing of the great David Chapman and legend Dave Dohman was by default. At the time and even years later, Chavez thought that it would have been a great match to have been played. Fast forward to these championships and both men, more mature in their years and games, have reunited to have the chance to face mature players they once faced 11 and 12 years earlier and younger rising stars of the game. In meeting and speaking with the affable Chavez, his enthusiasm for the game shows the giddiness of a kid in a candy store. He speaks in awe of the great Vince Munoz, their relationship on and off the court and what he learned from the master. His one regret is that he and Munoz never played as partners at these doubles championships despite playing as partners elsewhere. Chavez says now with a smile, he did not believe he “was good enough” to partner with Munoz here in Toledo!
Anyone watching Lenning and Chavez on the court can see why they make such a great team as they both display incredible court sense and the ability to end rallies before they begin. So on their march to the finals, they kept all but one of their opponent’s games (11) in the single digits and would continue that trend in neutralizing Bastidas and Nahorniak at 6 and 7 to seal their third 3-wall crown as a team.
The men’s Open singles finals is traditionally the last officially contested match of these championships. But Toledo holds many memories beyond handball play. Let us not forget the organizers and support personnel who help make this a special event. I would be remiss if I did not note in remembrance, the passing earlier this year of Katherine Anderson who provided massage therapy to so many over the years, as she, her husband Charles and their splendid motor home have become fixtures at this event.
So, 3-wall season is over for me even though the weather remains amenable to outdoor play. Until next spring, I will seek and find the missing pieces to repair whatever damage I may have suffered in this campaign. To the winners, finalist, dropdown winners (George Fambro and Nathaniel Frank), semifinalist and all those who competed…hats off to you my friends and see you next time.
Follow the link below to see the brackets and complete results from:
Handball Tournament 9/3/2015 – 9/7/2015
65th USHA National Three-Wall Championships
Lucas County Rec Center – Maumee, OH USA
http://www.r2sports.com/tourney/divisions/listAllDivs.asp?TID=13843&sortBy=defaultOrder
Two weeks after the Maryland event, many of these same participants from the Maryland tournament found themselves headed for competition at the 63rd USHA National 3-Wall Championships-Maumee, Ohio (generally referred to as Toledo), against the best who decided to make the journey. This annual end of summer season tournament is steeped in tradition and ritual going back over 3 decades at this same location. And even though many of us only play in Toledo once a year, there is a familiarity that makes it a home away from home. Each of the few years since I have been attending, I look forward to the people, the camaraderie, the food and some really great handball.
The eight courts that make up this venue rarely stay idle during the last days of August through the first Monday in September. The meeting and greeting of familiar faces, families and friends serve to warm the heart and sends the blood rushing even before competition begins. In the past I have tried to take in as much handball as possible when at tournaments, especially this one because of its vast display of talent. Watching incessantly has proved exhausting because as a handball player, to watch, one is likely to feel the strains of a game as each point is contested. The mind tends to go through the motion of sending the signals necessary for the impending action on many if not all defensive and offensive situations developing on the court. So even if the muscles did not complete the action, the state of readiness invoked by watching tends to tire you out. I finally realize the effect this time around; one of many valuable lessons that I gleaned from the 2013 incarnation of the 3-Wall Nationals.
The matches that I witnessed as a spectator, referee or competitor were extremely satisfying on all levels. Whether watching players with whom I was familiar or just seeing a display of good or great handball, the experience was unequaled. It is impossible see every match from beginning to end or even catch bits and pieces of several matches. In the latter scenario, there really is no sense of play if you only catch a few exchanges of points. Some may disagree, but games and players have a rhythm that is seen over the entire game or match. But it is still thrilling to catch a particular scintillating exchange, even just in passing. In Toledo, from morning until sometimes late into the night, if watching is your pleasure, you will be sated.
The contingency who collectively display their skills in Columbia tend to compete very well in Toledo. This year was no exception as perennial champions Alan Frank and Dan Zimet, together and separately, continue their dominant winning ways. And even though Frank was nursing a nagging ailment that had the potential to derail his hopes of repeating as champion pairing with Zimet in the 40+ Masters and Mark Zamora in the 50+ Masters doubles divisions, Frank would somehow gut it out to compete in both divisions. In the 40+, he and Zimet were not really tested or perhaps it was just their consistency and dominance on display as their victories in the two matches on the way to the championships where routs, with opponents scoring 1 and 5 and 7 and 3 points respectively.
Separately, Zimet continued his annual dominance in the 40+ Masters Singles division. For the third year in a row, as talent would win out, he met up with Andy Schad in the finals. The two previous meetings went to gut wrenching tiebreakers that found Schad taking second each time. Because these men know the intricacies of each other’s game, their competition usually come down to a bounce or a perfect serve to separate them. After falling 21-10 in the first game, for the second game, Schad remained strong and relentless to the very end, but could not overcome an early deficit and fell short, 21-20 in his quest to best his friend and sometimes doubles partner.
After winning with Zimet, Frank later paired with Zamora and blitzed through the 50+ doubles by taking the two matches required to win the championship. As returning champions, Frank and Zamora are rewarded with first round byes as were the finalists from the year before, Matt Osburn and Brett Williams. This led to a finals show down for the third year in a row between Frank and Zamora and Osburn and Williams. At the moment, Osburn and Williams realize that they cannot win over Frank and Zamora, but only hope to make the matches interesting by pushing the level of competition to its highest. As a referee for this match, during a time out in the first game, with Frank and Zamora attaining a sizable lead, Williams surprisingly confided in me that they accepted their fate that they could not win, but would somehow ,“Give it my all by going on a tear.” True to his word, he put on a fine but brief display of serves that narrowed the deficit and forced Frank and Zamora to elevate their play to close out the game, 21-13. Williams later chided me with a playful, “See, I told you I would do it;”shame on me for doubting him. The second game saw no such charge and Osburn and Williams accepted their fate for a third year in a row, 21-7.
Zamora would also compete in the 45+ Masters division with partner Thomas Valenzuela. Zamora is a masterful front court player who is never afraid to unleash his skills as well as his showmanship, coaching and cheerleading. Zamora enjoys himself while punishing his opponents. Also competing in this bracket was Rick Anderson and Joe Berman who easily won their opening round match to next face Kevin Hill and Marty Clemens. Hill and Clemens prevailed in a match marred by its unevenness and call controversies. As such, it took three different referees to complete the match. In the finals, Hill and Clemens awaited the winner of Zamora and Valenzuela v. John Ayers and Mark Murphy. In a closely contested match, Zamora and Valenzuela prevailed to face Hill and Clemens. By the finals, Zamora and Valenzuela were more in sync than their earlier game and dominated the match as Zamora exhorted his sometimes tentative partner by simply reminding him who he is or why they were at the tournament. Another championship for Zamora and similarly a second for Valenzuela who defeated John Ayers, Kevin Hill and runner up John Lescinskas to take the 45+ singles title.
It is quite clear to me, and I am sure others, that winning at this game we love or any other sport is more than talent, it really is about consistency. To compete year after year and repeat as champion takes great dedication, determination and the aforementioned consistency to outshine your opponents who are generally equally talented. I have often wondered why some players seemingly possess great skills but languish in the pack. And although not everyone can be a winner, many have proven they can win a majority of the time. It is a mystery to unravel, but I fear the answers may be elusive and less than definitive. For the moment, we can only marvel at the champions and have a chance to play with or against them and then at some point be entertained by their campaigns to glory.
A great example of consistency and dedication beyond the aforementioned pairings are the yearly battles between perennial Masters Division finalists Jim Corrigan and his partner Phil Kirk v. Dave Dohman and Tim Sterrett. These four men are inexorably linked by age so they cannot escape one another and should forever duel to establish dominance no matter which Masters division they compete in. For the record, this year they competed in the 55+ bracket. In addition to skills, the consistency exhibited over the years by these giants of our game is true testament as to why they always end up in the finals facing each other. It would be a great surprise if it were not so. This year, Dohman and Sterrett out lasted their rivals by taking the tiebreaker, 11-6.
Continuing with the Toledo championships, another great player who in the summer frequents the Columbia courts is Ray Estevez. For the first year of eligibility to compete in the 60+ Masters division, Estevez attacked the singles division with his steady play and an unhurried coolness. As many an opponent learned over the course of the draw, Estevez can be deadly as he executes any of several signature shots. His consistency never flagged. Seeded 4th among a stellar field of players including the number one seed and perennial 60s champ over the past several years, Vance McInnis. Estevez knifed his way through the first round to meet a determined and tenacious Gary Eisenbooth who bested another new entrant to 60s bracket, Glen Gartland. Eisenbooth’s enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness was no serious threat for a sharp and focused Estevez who prevailed 12 and 7. Estevez next faced Frank Lambrechts in one semifinal and continued his consistent play on display so far by dispatching his opponent, 11 and 5. Estevez reaching the final would face off against the aforementioned number one seeded McInnis who did not have an easy trip through his half of the draw with his quarter- and semifinal matches each going to a tiebreaker. With the finals set, Estevez would not only have to overcome his opponent’s skill and mystique, but also his height and vast wing span of a reach. Part of Estevez’ consistency is his ability to find that special gear that allows him to just blow by an opponent at a crucial point in the match. In every instance in the championship run, Estevez would unleash his deadly serves that would either prove unreturnable or leave him with a shot that he readily fist kills with a surgeon’s precision. And so it was as Estevez befuddled McInnis and left him frayed, flustered and vanquished, 12 and 6.
Estevez was not finished with his 60s debut as he teamed up with Tim Murray for a doubles campaign. As can be found within numerous divisions, many of the same players who compete in singles are partners for doubles, either longstanding or new collaborations. This corollary holds true for the 60s doubles which found several illustrious pairs including Bob Dyke and Ken Greco, Joe Ivy and Frank Lambrechts, aforementioned McInnis and Ed Campbell, Sean Conneely and Tom Allen and Eisenbooth and Dan Ho. Seeded number one, Estevez and Murray advanced from the first round by default to face Eisenbooth and Ho, a pairing that doubles the apt description assigned earlier to Eisenbooth. Perhaps it was the feeling out of the new partnership, but Estevez and Murray seemed unsteady at first and Eisenbooth and Ho were able to keep the match interesting although bowing out, 12 and 14. Estevez and Murray would next face a formidable team of Ivy and Lambrechts who earlier bested Conneely and Allen in a close contest, 21-18, and 21-20. The first game of the match was easily won by Estevez and Murray at 6. The second game was more closely contested with Estevez and Murray eking out the win, 21-19. In the finals, Estevez and Murray awaited the other half of the draw where the number two seeded Dyke and Greco were surprised by Eugene D’alessio and Wesley Humphreys who were later tamed by Campbell and McInnis to set up the final showdown. Having faced each other in the singles final some hours earlier, McInnis most likely sought redemption while Estevez thought sweep. As good a singles player as Estevez is, he proves equally valuable as a doubles partner. It was this solid pairing that befuddled perennial partners Campbell and McInnis, and in the end left them runner ups to champion Estevez and Murray.
Although there were other champions and second place finishers hailing from the Columbia courts, it gives me the greatest of pleasure to acknowledge the exploits of Dan Ho as they played out in the 60 Bs singles division. It is well known that Ho has fought long and hard to win a national title, especially at 3-wall, a game he loves and thoroughly enjoys. Ho is often ribbed about his physical height or lack thereof, but no one ever doubts his tenacity. Ho always stands tall on the handball courts. Coming close so often in these competitions have taken its toll over the years and perhaps have motivated Ho to make a greater push this time around. As the number one seed in the bracket, perhaps his path would be smoothed to finally earn the champion’s medal. Ho managed his way to the finals by overcoming two strong opponents along the way. On the other side of the bracket, the number two seeded Ivan Elliot marched through the draw to face Ho in the final. Anyone who has played Ho knows that he may not dominate you, but he will out hustle you or out last you on exhaustive rallies. And so it was with the Elliot match, the survival of the fittest. Ho used his signature lob serves to keep Elliot off balance and simply out hustled him on those long rallies. In the end, posting the score, 21-10 and 21-15, to sustained applause from his many supporters, Dan Ho shouted, “Finally, after 15 years!”
Many times, like father like son is used to show closeness in relations. Josh Ho, Dan’s son has shown well in Toledo since winning the A singles title a few years ago. He has competed courageously in the Open division and has now settled in the Seniors division, reserved for players 35+. In round robin singles, Ho would face off against three other opponents, Kendall Lewis, Raul Jasso and Andy Rousseau. Lewis wins over Rousseau who later withdraws because of injury giving Ho and Jasso each a default victory. In the match between Lewis and Ho, the ever calm and deliberate Lewis was tested and pushed as Ho would not go quietly. In the end, Lewis imposed his will and powerful strokes to out point Ho, 14 and 13. Ho in turn took Jasso at 14 and 14. Lewis faced Jasso and won the match that seemed to last forever as there were numerous side outs and exhaustive rallies. With three match wins, Lewis was the champion while Ho took second place.
In the Seniors doubles, Ho teamed with Jasso and faced Lewis teaming with Adam Szatkowski. Falling 21-9 and 21-17 to the stronger Lewis and Szatkowski pair was a respectable showing and perhaps a small comfort since Lewis and Szatkowski championed over James Komstheoft and Adam Waehner.
Before wrapping up the age group divisions, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of the Veteran campaigners such as Bob Bardwell, Joe Pleszkoch and Dave Hinkleman competing in the 65+ singles and doubles. For their efforts, Bardwell faced Pleszkoch in the singles semifinal, pitting two Columbia court regulars against each other. But to further the intrigue, Pleszkoch is the returning champion while Bardwell was champion two years before. The first two games where split 21-11 and 21-12, with Bardwell winning the first. The tiebreaker was no contest as Bardwell won easily, 11-0. Bardwell would next faced Alan Sherrill in the final. Sherrill’s game does not resemble his personality, but his skills are well known to his peers. Bardwell fought tooth and nail for every point and was serving at 20 when the return of serve was a set up for a corner kill that Bardwell has executed flawlessly on most occasions, but not on this day, he pushed the ball and it bounce “way” short of its intended destination. All could see the light and life leave Bardwell as Sherrill regained serve, pounced and finished the game. It would seem to this observer that the hard loss lingered over Bardwell and his effort in the second game flagged as Sherrill sensing victory never relented and won the game and match and championship, 21-7.
In the doubles division of the 65+ bracket, Bardwell teamed with Dave Hinkleman and Pleszkoch teamed with Rick Graham. Each team won their first round matches to reach the semifinals. Facing the eventual finalists, each team pushed their opponents to a tiebreaker only to come up short in each case. The crafty Allan Sherrill teaming with Jay Cappell were pushed to another tiebreaker but championed over number one seeded Lewie Lambert and Stan Wolpoff.
Further mention should be added for the results of Mort Frank and his partner Michael Driscoll taking second in the 75+ doubles round robin.
The skill level of competition for this tournament consists of the Open, A and B divisions with the B division further divided into 50Bs and the aforementioned 60Bs which produced champion Dan Ho. The B division is a complex division in as far as talent goes. There are established guidelines that put most of the eligibility responsibility with the player, but suffice it to say, if you have won any national B event in singles or doubles in one-,three- or four-wall, you are no longer eligible for any B singles or doubles event. There are guidelines that contain a cascading hierarchy and subject test that seeks to address the eligibility to skill level events. Because there is room for interpretation, you will find players competing in both A and B events at the same tournament as one case will be later illustrated here.
The 50B singles is a fair event because of the additional age limiting factor. Each year, the ranks are thinned by at least one player, the eventual champion. I am quite familiar with this bracket and its many players since I have remained eligible to compete. This year was no exception as last year’s runner up Ernie McGarry, seeded first led the second largest bracket of singles players in the tournament. Seeded second was Scott Szatkowski another returning player who did quite well in last year’s draw. Of note, Columbia practioneers, Pat Lowery, Bill Tebbenhoff, Bruce Cohen and Steve Bossung also helped to swell the ranks. In early round matches, I advanced over Dave Bushen, 2 and 9 while Cohen eliminated Tebbenhoff, 13 and 17 and Bossung kept Lowery from advancing with a gut wrenching tiebreaker victory, 11-10. With eight players left in the draw, competition usually heats up. Szatkowski cruised through his half of the draw and reached the finals without really being challenged or tested. On the other side of the draw, McGarry faced me in a tense battle of players familiar with each other’s game. The first game was close in scoring until McGarry pulled away and won at 12. The second game saw McGarry with a lead of 15-9 when I went on a serving barrage that brought me even. One more point may have broken his spirit, but instead he regained serve and sealed my fate with six quick points. McGarry next faced Cohen in the semifinal. Cohen pushed him deep with well placed serves and high returned volleys. But McGarry used a crafty court sense and placed Cohen at a disadvantage on many exchanges resulting in either side outs or points. These were some of the same tactics used against yours truly so I could sense how Cohen felt. In the end, McGarry reached the final to face Szatkowski, a man he eliminated in last year’s semifinal. Szatkowski is a much improved player over last year’s raw and uncontrolled offerings. This year he has returned with honed weapons and a greater command of his shots. More on this later as Cohen and I would discover in doubles. For now McGarry had his hands full as Szatkowski had an answer for everything thrown or shot his way. And even though the first game was close in terms of score, Szatkowski appeared in control the entire game and won 21-17. In all due respect to McGarry, the second game was just a formality as Szatkowski seemed to get stronger and exerted his will to seal the championship, 21-11.
The B doubles division was thick with players, ranging in age from 15 to at least 59. Some of the pairs such as Will and Chandler Straw were made up of father and son; included in this group as a pairing were Columbia regulars, Bill Tebbenhoff and Josh Osburn. Of note Szatkowski was paired with a relatively unknown named Edgar Duarte. Cohen and I faced off against the Straws and handily defeated them. Young Chandler has raw skills, but the impetuousness of youth easily derailed his best efforts. Cohen and I next faced the strong team of Szatkowski and Duarte in the quarterfinal round. From the opening exchanges, I realized we were over matched. The talent of Duarte was quite evident as he used his unorthodox style to kill or pass on almost every ball he stroked. What he did not touch, his able bodied partner skillfully controlled and out pointed us at almost every turn. It was disheartening to say the least as we barely mustered, 7 and 5 points for our games. Szatkowski and Duarte were barely challenged in the semifinal and reached the finals with relative ease. Their eventual opponents would be Michael Caraballo and Brian Makowski. Caraballo and Makowski encountered Tebbenhoff and Osburn in the quarterfinals and bested them 8 and 18, followed by a dispatching of Tyler Kiewiet and Matt Stamp before facing stout competition from Bill Sidebottom and Pressley Sims III, but managing to prevail, 20 and 17. The finals saw the continued dominance of Szatkowski and Durate as they triumphed 16 and 10.
Duarte was not finished with his campaigning; he also teamed up with Cary Dohman to compete in the A doubles, a group more compatible to his talents. New to this bracket was Joe Mastropierro, last year’s B singles champ, paired with his brother John. Although the Mastropierro brothers did not fare well in their match, they vowed to return next year with a steely resolve. In addition, Columbia regular Adam Zimet paired with Texan Jeff Wall and reached the semifinals by taking down the number one seeds, Ryan Duarte and Pat Oliver in a grueling match that was decided by an 11-5 tiebreaker. Unfortunately the euphoria of that nice win was short lived as Zimet and Wall faced E. Duarte and Dohman next. E. Durate and Dohman wasted no time in dispatching Zimet and Wall to reach the finals. In the finals they would play Jamie Simon and Jimmy Devito who reached by way of default since the team of Matthew Chu and Michael Mehilos had to withdraw because of a nasty calf injury to Mehilos. In the finals, Simon and Devito were overmatched and overwhelmed. Barely scratching out 3 and 6 points, they accepted their fate gracefully. By virtue of his A doubles triumph, E. Duarte is now an Open player or perhaps he is eligible for an age bracket division, regardless, if he keeps up with his game, he will be a force to be reckoned with, especially in doubles play.
B singles, like B doubles is a wide open bracket with top notch players who could easily compete nationally in an A division. Competitors include the aforementioned John Mastropierro, Tyler Kiewiet, Matt Stamp and Josh Osburn along with the number one seed Nicolas Boileau, Hugo Galicia and others. To start play, Osburn and Mastropierro won their opening round matches by identical 6 and 8 scores to meet up in the quarterfinals. In that match, the two lanky players matched wits and skill to split the first two games and force the tiebreaker, a game dominated by Osburn, 11-2. Osburn in the semis faced Matthew Anderson who surprised Boileau by out pointing him in a tiebreaker 11-9. Osburn quickly dispatched Anderson to await the winner from the other half of the bracket. It was Galicia who emerged after being barely tested by Matt Stamp in the quarterfinals. As circumstances would have it, the finals match would not be played. At the appointed check in times and start of the match, Galicia could not be found or contacted. By rule, “If a player is not ready to play on time, the opponent is award one point. The opponent will then be awarded one additional point for each full minute of delay of the game up to 10 minutes. The match shall be then forfeited.” By the time Galicia arrived his fate was sealed; it was more than 20 minutes past the scheduled match start time thus forcing the tournament director to inform the players of the forfeiture. Some would argue for leniency and leeway, but in the rules, it is emphasized that it is the “obligation of the player to be ready” and to be aware of times and schedules. If one is running late, a call to the tournament director would more than likely remedy the situation! But in this case, there was no excuse except Galicia thought the match started a half hour later. Osburn played his way to the championship and even a win by default (WBF) is richly deserved.
The Open division of handball can be considered great theater or opera. One can often witness drama, comedy and even tragedy on the court. There are stars, divas and prima donnas making up the quality field stocked with ranked pros and past champions at this event. It is such a thrill to sit in the packed stands to hear the commentary on the action by other great players or just the collective ahs of appreciation for stellar ability and flawless execution. The drama is often found in the level of play but sometimes it shows up as individual personalities go unchecked and shenanigans and antics disrupt the flow of play. One would think with such skill, players at this level would let their talent be the voice of competition.
Flaws and all, the Open division play can be a thing of beauty, especially singles competition. With such a deep field it was hard to catch all the games, but I did watch one very long match from start to finish and was truly rewarded with the fine play of Sean Lenning v. Emmett Peixoto, returning to this venue after being absent for several years. Lenning is an enigmatic player with phenomenal skills and an easy going manner on and off the court. When he is focused, he is hard to beat. His court sense and easy flow makes the game at times seemingly played at slow motion. His movements on court are described by a close friend as “dancing” to the ball. And if you watch closely he does waltz to be in position to impose his will on the ball. The ball explodes off his hands with purpose and usually finds its mark in one of Lenning’s favorite landing zones, the extremely low front corner pinch shot. Lenning’s seeming nonchalant approach to play belies his intensity and emotions. His dazzlingly quickness and deft hands create and craft some splendid slices of ball and wall collisions. Together he and Peixoto thrilled the onlookers with their individual artistry and athleticism. In contrast of styles and gracefulness, Pexioto at times can display boorish behavior on the court. This is disruptive and distracting to play and perhaps that is his tactic, but it certainly taints his otherwise talented and often times brilliant play. After winning the closely contested first game, 21-18, Lenning was pushed by Peixoto and Peixoto pushed back. With numerous equipment timeouts and call protestations from Peixoto, Lenning seemed distracted and missed seemingly easy chances at putting away the game and the match. In the end Peixoto edged the flustered Lenning, 21-20. For the spectators, it was a chance to witness more of the same great handball between these two highly skilled competitors as the tiebreaker approached. The tiebreaker was a taut affair, but marred by the now familiar and seemingly deliberate distracting antics of Peixoto. With the score tied at 9 and Peixoto serving, inexplicably Lenning appeared to make less than normal attempt at a ball served to his right, resulting a point for Peixoto. And with the game and match point on the line, the next serve to Lenning’s left was approached with a lack of enthusiasm that was not worthy of Lenning’s skills or talent as the ball exited the court giving Peixoto the win. I was disappointed with outcome and I suspect so was the majority of the crowd who responded with polite applause as both players exited the court. This semifinal match landed Peixoto in the finals to await Tyree Bastidas as he battled his way through the bottom half of the bracket. Bastidas first encountered Lee Anderson who managed to grab 4 and 6 points in his match. Bastidas next faced Billy O’Donnell and was pushed to a tiebreaker which he won 11-4. Moving on, Bastidas next faced the ever dangerous Dane Szatkowski, brother to Adam and nephew to Scott. In another closely fought match decided in a tiebreaker, Bastidas who lost the first game at 13, came roaring back and blanked Szatkowski in the second and won the tiebreaker, 11-4.
The showdown championship match had the crowd wondering not who would win but which player would display the most churlish behavior. The first game was a one sided affair as Peixoto took control early as Bastidas came up short on most of his shots. It was a quick game, and at 21-2, had Bastidas grumbling loudly to himself and Peixoto behaving normally for a change. The second game found Bastidas focused and reenergized as he jumped out to an early 13-0 lead. At that point in the match, my attention was needed elsewhere so I cannot say what else transpired as far as court behavior. I do know that Bastidas needed a medical time out to address a badly injured toe. Some may have thought that this was contrived, but it was not. Bastidas was able to continue and finished the game by winning, 21-11. He would out duel Peixoto in the tiebreaker, 11-6 to win the Open championship.
In the Open Doubles completion, Lee Anderson teamed with his dad Rick and faced the strong team of Peixoto and Andy Nett. This was a one sided affair won easily by Peixoto and Nett. But as testament to the greatness of Rick Anderson’s front court game, I overheard Nett and Peixoto offering high praise to the “…incredible older guy up front who gets and puts away everything!” High praise indeed, from seasoned pros. Peixoto and Nett would later fall to Lenning and his quiet partner Daniel Cordova. The Lenning duo next vanquished the Szatkowski brothers 14 and 6 to land in the final where they would meet Tyree Bastidas and his brother Jurrell. The Bastidas brothers often compete well at these championships as last year’s runner up finish proved. On their way to the finals, the Bastidas brothers stopped Nikolai Nahorniak and Bill Mehilos in the semifinals, 19 and 13. In speaking with the Bastidas brothers the day before the semifinals, they mentioned their tentative approach to handling the talented Nahorniak and his partner, the gifted Mehilos. As I listened to their plan I was eager to see it applied. As I watched the match unfold, their plan to keep Nahorniak out of the action as much as possible paid off because as discussed, if he is isolated from touching the ball, when he does get a chance he is prone to making errors. It truly pays to know your opponent at any level of play. After the singles disappointment, Lenning was focused and returned to form as he and his partner handled the Bastidas brothers with relative ease, 12 and 8.
The juniors—19 and under, like the women’s divisions at these championships were sparsely entered. Of note, Nathaniel Frank competed in the 19 and under round robin matches against 4 other entrants. Frank did not fare well in a division dominated and won by Matthew Chu whose game as grown as he matures and been given added coaching from his tenure in college. Frank can take heart as he begins his freshman year in college where he too should benefit from the seasoning offered at the college level.
For the second year in a row, one wall championships in the Open division for singles and doubles were contested here in Toledo on the one wall courts formed on one side of the ends of the three wall courts. The one wall game is a thrill a second and requires quickness and agility at the highest level if one wishes to be successful at this version of the game. It was really enjoyable watching a few contests as some of the previously mentioned players who are highly ranked in this discipline compete. Not surprising, most of the players who competed were from the New York area. Just watching made me smile and took me back to my youth as I played the game, though with a different ball and certainly not at this superior level.
Looking back at the Toledo championships, I am left with great memories from the game of handball. And no less heartening are the memories of fellow competitors, friends and acquaintances. But a lasting memory is a continuing moment I shared with the great champion Dan Zimet; it summarized handball in context of the setting and the game. Although I will not share beyond my grateful acknowledgement, rest assured the poetry of the moment and its description will be forever treasured and resonate in my consciousness.
by Peter Peart
If playing handball serves to enrich our lives, then the 3-wall game played outdoors throughout the warmer months and culminating with the national championships held in Toledo, Ohio, adds to the treasure trove that handball provides.
Before we arrive in Toledo in late August, a talented pool of 3-wallers gather and play at Centennial Park in Columbia, MD. Throughout the summer, on any given day, the courts are always occupied with players hailing from near and far (as much as 2-3 hours drive away). The familiar and distinct sounds of the game impart the pleasures of play and competition. It is more than dedication that brings us all together, it is a love of the game and its unmistakable rhythms. Those rhythms beat and pulsate throughout the summer and find a crescendo usually on the third weekend in August; in the form of the Eastern Regional tournament. This regional tournament is a warm up of sorts to Toledo, approximately two weeks later.
This summer in Columbia saw unseasonably mild temperatures with only a few days of extreme heat. Fortunately, at tournament time the mild weather continued; a welcome gift for the smaller than usual field registered to play. The smaller field forced several of the brackets to be played in a round robin format. In this format, each player or doubles team is given an equal chance against all other participants. This would seem the fairest way to determine a champion. But there are disadvantages to this format, more time is needed to complete all matches and often times there is no showcase final match. Other asymmetries may arise during round robin competitions that could affect the quality of play as when a player or team already eliminated by incurring x-number of losses is required to play a team that still has a chance to earn a medal. Or when one or more team defaults before play is completed, further complicating the process. This last scenario played itself out in one of the divisions at the Eastern Regional as will be highlighted further in this narrative.
Although the always exciting Open singles division consisted of a pared down field compared to previous years, there was no lack of talent as four New Yorkers joined our ranks. Leading this group was Billy O’Donnell (The Bus) and Mike Schneider. Rounding out the quartet was Alvaro Rebaza and Miguel Cano. As fate and talent would dictate, the bracket laid out perfectly to have the New Yorkers pitted against the local Maryland talent led by Dan Zimet against Cano, Mark Ozgar against Schneider, Josh Ho against Rebaza and Josh Osburn against O’Donnell. Zimet handled Cano 21-2, 21-2 to set up a match with Ozgar who for the second year in a row handled the talented Schneider. If this trend keeps up, Schneider may need to get to bed a bit earlier the night before facing Ozgar. The ease with which Ozgar handled Schneider did not carry over to the Zimet match as Zimet out stroked and kept Ozgar off balance in all aspects of the game, allowing 4 and 5 points to reach the final. In the other half of the bracket, Ho battled Rebaza in the extremely long first game. By the time the game ended at 20 with Ho the victor, it seemed as if both players had played two games. In the second game, Ho established early dominance, but Rebaza would not go away. In the end, talent and conditioning won out as Ho took the second game and the match at 13. Meanwhile, Osburn found his game tested against the sure handed O’Donnell. Although extremely gifted as a handball player, Osburn sometimes seems ordinary in some phases of the game. His picture perfect kills and flawless executions are sometimes followed by surprising fall offs in play. Against the likes of O’Donnell, one must be equally talented or flawless in their play to have a fighting chance. Unfortunately, Osburn only showed flashes of brilliance and was handled easily by O’Donnell who would next face Josh Ho. A daunting task ahead, Ho too did not fare well against O’Donnell and was handled 8 and 5. Against Zimet in the final, O’Donnell cruised in the first game 21-6 and forged ahead early in the second game. Showing a champion’s mettle, Zimet fought back and pushed O’Donnell to the brink but could not win the final superb rally that earned O’Donnell the game and championship. Schneider would later outplay Osburn in the Open Consolation round.
Open doubles fielded four teams playing in a round robin format. The aforementioned O’Donnell and Schneider teamed as did Cano and Rebaza; the other two pairs featured Ozgar and Ho and Zimet and Ray Estevez. Zimet was missing his regular hand-in-glove partner, Alan Frank who was hobbled and not up to par to play in the Open division. The top two teams, O’Donnell and Schneider and Zimet and Estevez each won their respective matches over the other two teams and faced off to determine the champion. O’Donnell and Scheidner used power and quickness with some sleight of hand by O’Donnell to cleverly disguise his vast arsenal of shots, to neutralize Zimet and Estevez. To those watching, the outcome was no real surprise as the younger talent handled their more senior equals, 21-12, 21-9.
As great a sport as handball is, its ranks have not swelled over the years. The influx of youth in this country has not been steady. But reports shows hope springs eternal in Ireland as was seen and reported during the 2012 Worlds held in Dublin. Here, only in New York, where the one wall game thrives because there is an abundance of readily accessible courts and eager players young and old. Over time, the game has simply become part of the culture. In contrast, 3-wall courts are few and far in between, while 4-wall versions are usually associated with some costs because they are located in gyms or clubs with restricted access (memberships). And so there is a great divide as only a handful of players succeeds at a high level in all three disciplines of the game. Many young one wall players never transition to the other disciplines so our ranks are not being replenished. And as the demographics stand today, our ranks are stocked with players between 50 and 70 with a median age of all handball players somewhere around 56 years old, plus or minus a year. This is a complex subject that deserves more than a few sentences as I have written. But this is just a way of introducing the Masters (age bracket) divisions as they are laid out for tournament play, that is to say, the Masters divisions are where the majority of players are seeded.
The 50+ singles division showcased eight players featuring Ray Estevez as returning champion and number one seed and Bob Maguire seeded second. The rest of the field had Dave Fleming facing Estevez, Steve Bossung against Pat Lowery, yours truly v. Bill Tebbenhoff, and Roger Casuso v. Maguire. Fleming, a part time 3-waller was overmatched by the more experienced Estevez, 3 and 4. Lowery advanced because Bossung withdrew because of injury. I lost the first game to Tebbenhoff at 20 after holding a sizable lead throughout the game, but failed to finish. The second game saw a listless effort on my part and Tebbenhoff rolled 21-5. Maguire had his hands full with a more than game Casuso who used his one wall skills to keep things interesting. After losing the first game at 8, Casuso battled Maguire hard but eventually came up short 21-18. In the semifinals, Estevez outplayed Lowery, 21-6, 21-8 to set up a showdown with Maguire who staved off a testy and unpredictable Tebbenhoff, 21-16, 21-11. In the finals, the equally talented Estevez and Maguire faced off in a hard fought duel of determination and will. After Estevez edged Maguire in the first game 21-17, Maguire came roaring back and outplayed Estevez, 21-14. The 11-point tiebreaker found Estevez sharp and determined as he neutralized Maguire at 2.
In contrast to the 50+ singles division, the doubles bracket in this division featured only four teams and round robin style of play. The pairings featured Joe Berman and Maguire, Alan Frank and yours truly, Tebbenhoff and Josh Osburn (someone please check his ID) and Bossung and Fleming. After playing and losing to Berman and Maguire, Bossung and Fleming withdrew because of an aggravated injury to Bossung. By virtue of the default, the other two remaining teams were each awarded a win. Frank and I played Tebbenhoff and Osburn and won the first game, 21-14. With Frank moving gingerly and cautiously around the court, I did not pick up the slack and we were handled in the second game 21-5 to force the tiebreaker. In a close and gutsy display of will, Frank tumbled hard to the ground in his effort to retrieve a nasty crack serve that angled sharply and low just beyond his reach and ending the game 11-10 and securing the match for Tebbenhoff and Osburn. With a win and a loss, Frank and I next faced a strong pairing of Berman and Maguire. Frank, having tested his nagging injury in the first match, realized he may be able to push himself a little more after some rest and no signs of worsening. No matter how great a player may be, playing with an injury often severely limits that talent. But Frank is a great champion and has shown remarkable resilience over the years. Whether healthy or not, just being on the same team or court as Frank serves to elevate your game. After the opening match loss, we were determined to rise up to meet Berman and Maguire head on. We controlled the tempo and neutralized their best efforts and rolled in the first game 21-11. Frank and I realized early on in the second game that we could continue our dominance as Berman and Maguire seem to lose focus and desire as the match spiraled away from their control. We never let up and savored the 21-10 win placing us in a favorable position to be outright champions. With two wins and the tiebreaker loss, we needed Berman and Maguire to defeat Tebbenhoff and Osburn, leaving each of the remaining teams with identical 2 wins one loss records. By this scenario Frank and I held the slightest edged, by virtue of the tiebreaker we played more games and had one more victory than the other teams in the tiebreaker loss. There are established rules in round robin play that addresses scenarios such as existed after Berman and Maguire defeated Tebbenhoff and Osburn, 21-15, 21-19. Rules be dammed; in steps Loki, the trickster arbiter of these proceedings, to declare a 3-way tie. What can I say, I only report the results and perhaps a little of the action. But who could have foreseen these results?
Moving along to the other divisions, the 65+ singles bracket featured eight players. Joe Pleszkoch faced off against Charles Parsons and won easily, 4 and 3. Tony Truman faced George Fambro with Fambro advancing, 5 and 2. Dennis Uffer battled Paul Healy to force a tiebreaker eventually won by Uffer 11-9. And to round out the first round, Dante Chinni bent Dan Ho but could not break him, with Ho prevailing 16 and 13. One semifinal match saw Fambro and Pleszkoch engage in feisty exchanges that produced a marathon match with Fambro eventually prevailing, 21-14, 21-19. Meanwhile, Ho and Uffer played a close first game with Ho edging, 21-19. The second game found Uffer spent and Ho pressed the issue for a relatively easy 21-8 victory. The finals saw a tall Fambro up against the altitudinally challenged Ho. The contrasts did not end here as their styles of play also differ considerably. While Ho will sacrifice his body to make gets and win points, Fambro, less mobile, will mainly score off his serves and his opportunistic corner kills. In the first game Fambro seemed tight and Ho took advantage to pass him or outplay him on most points to win 21-10. The second game was a battle as Fambro pushed Ho and at times outplayed him, but it was just not enough as Ho stood tall and won the game 21-18 and the match.
Doubles in the 60s age bracket had enough players to create a 60+ and a 65+ bracket. This only follows true to the very demographics of our players. It would be unwise to think because a player is of a certain age his skills may have diminished. On the contrary, older players often compete against younger players during tournaments and often time prove successful.
The 60+ doubles bracket had four teams competing in a round robin format. Bob Dyke and Ken Greco paired; so did Dave Hinkleman and Bob Bardwell; as well as Dan Ho and Murzy Jhabvala and Bob Woodward (Woody) and Dante Chinni. Although there were anticipated match ups in this division, most of the matches were one sided affairs. When Ho and Jhabvala won in a tiebreaker over Hinkleman and Bardwell, it then set up a showdown with Dyke and Greco who exerted their dominance and was only really tested by Hinkleman and Bardwell on their way to the championship.
The 65+ doubles was another round robin draw that featured a pair of well know doubles team from New York, Al Green and Graham Palmore. In all fairness, the plus sign (+) next to 65 accounted for about half the players in this bracket who are in their 70s. To round out the division, Mort Frank teamed with Charles Parsons, Dennis Huffer teamed with Tony Truman, and Paul Healy teamed with George Fambro. Three teams handled Frank and Parsons, although they gave Uffer and Truman some trouble but eventually succumbing, 21-19, 21-10. That would be the only victory for Uffer and Truman. On the other hand, two teams vied for the championship with Healy and Fambro breezing through their matches until they met up with Green and Palmore who also had a relatively easy time vanquishing common opponents. Head-to-head, Green and Palmore proved too much for Healy and Fambro and by virtue of winning all three of their matches earned the championship.
The A/B division singles and doubles featured a mixture of young and older talented players. The young talent included collegiate bound and past and reigning 17 and under national champions, Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky and also the ever dangerous and eager Ray Persaud Jr. and his younger brother Chris. This quartet was joined by a third Persaud, dad Ray Sr., Joe Green and his dad, Ed Green, Kevin Gibson, William Vargas and Candido Rivera. This group broke out in pairs to compete in doubles. Gibson and Chris Persuad played Vargas and Rivera in an opening round with Vargas and Rivera advancing to face Frank and Worchesky. On the other side of the bracket, Persaud Sr. and Jr. teamed up against another father and son duo, Ed and Joe Green. Separately these individual matches represented the epitome of tournament handball competition. Each respective match had the eventual winner winning the first game only to lose the second game in closely fought battles. The eventual winners of the always exciting 11-point tiebreaker would face off for the championship. Frank and Worchesky held off a charging Vargas and Rivera 11-7 while Persaud Sr. and Jr. had an easier time over the Greens, 11-1.
To accommodate the Persuads who travelled from Pennsylvania to be at our tournament, the doubles final was held at the end of long day of competition and with the approaching setting sun and thus fading daylight. The competitors agreed to play a pro style match that is scored to 25 instead of two games to 21 with the 11-point tiebreaker to decide split games. This was a good battle and a test of wills for both sides. There were no great leads, but there were hotly contested points as three young and powerful players with a poised and smooth older competitor ‘duking’ it out. Ray Sr. has beautiful control from retrieving and hitting the ball on the short hop. His actions ended many a rally, catching Frank and Worchesky off guard. With steady play on all sides, it came down to a trick bounce and a well placed passing shot to finally decide the match, with Ray Sr. and Jr. prevailing 25-23 as darkness made it increasingly difficult for players to spot the ball.
The singles division featured the aforementioned doubles players with the addition of Lucas Bossung, Amanda Blanchard and Bob Woodward. This bracket was filled with the most players. To create an even bracket, there were two play-in games. Chris Persaud handled a game Blanchard and Frank overpowered Woody. Blanchard, when she lived in the area, was a regular at the Columbia courts. Back in the area from her current home in Tennessee, she relished the opportunity to play again.
The remaining matchups had the makings of drama and intrigue as some duals pitted youngsters against older and more experienced players or younger experienced players against other youthful players seeking experience. When Persaud Sr. met up with Bossung, his experience overcame a younger Bossung who lacks the opportunity to play on a consistent basis. Persaud Sr. next met the powerful lefty dealing Worchesky who handled the older Gibson in his opening round match. Persaud Sr. v. Worchesky found Persaud Sr. out playing Worchesky in many rallies as Worchesky’s deep retrieves would allow Persaud Sr. to sweep up and kill a good portion of such returns. Persaud Sr. also served well and befuddled Worchesky at times, especially to his aforementioned strong left hand. It was the vicious hooks on the ball that seemed to give Worchesky the most problems. In the end Persuad Sr. had too many weapons and opportunities to use them for the speedy Worchesky to overcome. In the final, Persaud Sr. awaited the winner of the other half of the bracket.
In my opinion, this half of the bracket contained the combined richness of talent and youth and a promise for the future of our game. Frank and Chris Persaud faced off after winning earlier play-in games. Young Chris is an eager and enthusiastic player who has a genuine love for the game and the emerging skills to match. He however lacks the discipline and patience at the moment to round out his game. His raw power alone will carry him only so far. He needs to develop the finesse that his father, Persaud Sr. displays in phases of his game. And even though Chris may boast beating his dad, he must realize he can still learn from him. With that in mind, young Chris jumped at the chance to square off against a much more developed, disciplined and seasoned Frank. Chris showed great determination and skill in pushing Frank to the brink in the first game, but came up short at 20. Perhaps discouraged by such a close defeat, Chris seemed to lose his fire and desire as Frank showed his experience and cruised to an easy 20-7 game and match win.
Meanwhile, Chris’ older Ray Jr. battled Joe Green in an epic show down of two players with skills and power. The first two games where were split with nearly identical scores, the first game going to Persaud Jr., 21-19 and the second going to Green, 21-20. As close as the split games were, the tiebreaker was a completely lopsided and opposite affair. Green simply dominated and won 11-0. His marathon wins over Persaud Jr., setup a showdown with Frank. Although younger than Green by a few years, Frank has amassed a great tournament resume on the national level. The resume has elevated his game for eventualities of facing players such Green who has had the benefit of college coaching and shows a steady and strong game. With the players exchanging 21-17 wins, this match was extended because both players never gave up and prolonged rallies with incredible show of athleticism and skill. The requisite tiebreaker was a one-sided affair as Frank took charge after an early exchange of points and finished a grueling tournament run by Green, 11-4. In the final, a showdown between youth and experience would have pitted Frank against Persaud Sr. However, due to the constraints of travel and lack of light, the decision was made to play the aforementioned doubles championship and forego the singles match. This left Frank with the championship earned by default. Who is to say what the outcome may have been, but we may never know because the moment is passed and even if played another day in the future, with all due respect to Persaud Sr., my money will rest heavily on youth.
With the Eastern Regional tournament completed, in addition to the participants, appreciation is extended to the organizers and numerous volunteers who made it all possible. Whether food preparation, distribution, registering participants and getting matches started or refereeing, everyone who pitched in should be commended for their individual and collective efforts. It’s now on to Toledo.
By Peter Peart
Currently, our game is seeing a resurgence and prominence as snippets of action in two national beer advertising campaigns. “The most interesting man in the world” played or plays handball and of course when he drinks beer, he drinks Dos Equis. And the people of Miller Brewing show among their activities montage for Miller 64, a couple of guys slapping around a yellow ball (yellow because it is visually eye catching for those brief seconds of “action.” As the saying goes, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” And for the players of handball, it must be a heartwarming moment to see our game represented, albeit shoehorned, if less adorned, in quick cuts. Let us be glad that there is a handball player or fan who is an ad exec and relish the opportunity to elevate our game, at least to “most interesting” status. Those of us who play already enjoy the game; we already know that most interesting feeling.
Beer is often synonymous with summer and outdoor activities. For the warm weather season, collectively, late April until early September, the 3-wall outdoor season beckons. This year we are off to a slow start here in Maryland because the weather has been all over the map with its inconsistencies, especially rain and chill. But somehow on June 1, we were able to officially kickoff the outdoor season with our annual No Frills 3-wall doubles tournament. Before I summarize this event, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the changing of the guard at the Office of Commissioner of Maryland Handball.
For many years, Dan Zimet and his cadre of volunteers have helmed the greater part of our area’s organized handball activities. Like so many volunteer leadership positions, it can be lonely and thankless. But having participated in the countless tournaments during Dan’s tenure, I am taking this moment to praise and thank him for his leadership and tireless efforts over the years. Fortunately, Dan’s leadership will still be on display as he remains dominant in the art of playing handball.
With the Commissioner’s torch being passed to Bob Maguire, I welcome him and hope we all support him going forward. The No Frills doubles tournament launched Bob’s tenure as head of Maryland Handball. Bob and his volunteers showed creativity and boldness in introducing a varied format for this tournament. Because of the relatively small draw, brackets were combined and matches shortened to two 15-point games (except for one division) and an 11-point tie break when necessary. This modified format was suited best in a round robin style of play mapped out for the entire tournament.
With no threat of rain and a hot day (low humidity), matches began at 9 AM and many ended abruptly with point totals to 15 damning the slow starters and averting any inkling of late game comebacks. With so many games scheduled, as a player, it was not an ideal setting for prolonged handball watching. What follows are highlights and quick takes on the day’s activities.
The Open division showcased our area’s finest talent and featured regular and irregular pairings in this doubles events. As has been said and widely known, doubles handball teams are most successful when they play a disciplined and calculated game. With a few exceptions, at the open level, especially locally, there are no secrets as to player capabilities and weaknesses. It is a matter of flawless execution and rarely flagging consistent play that often wins the day. The results of these shortened matches show every indication that there were some hard fought battles. Who is to say what outcome would have prevailed had any of these games gone to 21. But everyone knew going in, the first to 15 wins.
In one half of the preliminary or opening round of this division, Andy Schad and Logan Foley battled a tough duo of Josh Ho and Mark Ozgar; Schad and Foley lost the first game 15-7 but found their bearings in a tight second game 15-10; and managed to prevail in a thrilling 11-8 tie breaker. Ho and Ozgar would later be humbled by Alan Frank and Dan Zimet, the epitome of an ideal handball doubles partnership. Having witnessed their deft execution and magnificent court sense over the years, it was no surprise that this dynamic duo overcame a valiant effort by Schad and Foley, 15-13, 15-10. Meanwhile, in the other preliminary matches, Rick Anderson and his son Lee teamed up once again to demonstrate another example of what the ideal in handball doubles pairing can be all about. Rick is nothing less than steady and quietly plies his mastery of the front court. Lee on the other hand, shows his superb and fiery skills along with his boisterous court personality to complement steady “dad.” What father would not enjoy playing with his son, and at such a high level? The Andersons made quick work of Josh Osburn paired with relatively newcomer to the 3-wall game, William Vargas. Individually, Josh is a fine player with phenomenal skills. One can at times only admire him for his style and grace of execution; although, as a keen observer of the game of handball, Josh lacks one key element in his game to vault him to the next level. And to be fair, I am sure Josh is well aware of this missing element. The Andersons next faced Dave Bardwell and Adam Zimet. Bardwell and Zimet controlled the first game and muscled their way to a 15-13 win. The Andersons roared right back and held off a late charging Bardwell and Zimet at 15-10 to force the 11-point tie break. The Andersons unleashed a force of will over Bardwell and Zimet and slammed the door, 11-0.
The next round featured the teams with two opening round wins versus the teams with one lost. Winners from these matches would face each other to determine the champion. The preliminary round results set up a showdown between Alan Frank and Dan Zimet vs. Dave Bardwell and Adam Zimet. Perhaps it could have been a showdown, but Bardwell and A. Zimet were dispatched quietly 15-5, 15-3. In the match to determine the other finalist for this division, the Andersons faced Schad and Foley. Surprisingly, the always steady and stellar Schad and Foley offered little resistance and faded from the competition, 15-2 and 15-6.
The finals are an all too familiar sight that has played out on these courts at our regular Saturday gatherings and at some of our local tournaments, both indoors and out: Rick and Lee vs. Alan and Dan. Fittingly, this was the last match of the day and it did not disappoint. In the first game, Rick and Lee could do no wrong. Lee was on fire, shooting the ball from the deep court with echoing thunder of any well placed kill shot. And what Lee could not end, Rick was more than happy to finish with his wizardry up front; first game, Andersons, 15-4. Between games, one could observe Frank and Zimet telepathically reengage. The second game, Frank and Zimet regained form and cruised 15-5. The always exciting tiebreaker did not disappoint. The Andersons carved out a 9-4 lead with flawless execution and some great athletic play by Lee. Whether it was nerves showing on the part of the Andersons in wanting to beat Frank and Zimet or was it a show of will that they would not be vanquished, Frank and Zimet erased the 5 point deficit and forced a timeout with the score knotted at 9. The timeout did not matter as Frank and Zimet finished the Andersons at 9 to take the championship. It is a local rivalry that has heated up over the past several renewals and never fails to produce magnificent and stellar play by all 4 highly skilled individuals.
The cobbled together 50+/B division represented a cross section of burgeoning talent and seasoned veterans. Teenage up and comers Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky teamed to wreak havoc among most of the seasoned and older pairs they faced. With Nathaniel’s raw power and Sam’s wicked left hand, 3 of the 4r matches they played went to tiebreakers with Nathaniel and Sam prevailing in two of the three. They started off by handling yours truly and my doubles partner, Bruce Cohen by splitting the first two games. In the tiebreaker, Nathaniel and Sam found themselves down 8-6, but regained serve, with Nathaniel using his power to reel off 5 straight deep and well placed serves to end the match. In Facing Bill Tebbenhoff and Pat Lowery, Nathaniel and Sam again split the first two games, but could not muster any tiebreaker magic and lost 11-2. Against Bob Bardwell and Joe Green, Nathaniel and Sam earned a split of the first two games and simply dominated in the tiebreaker winning easily, 11-0. To finish their campaign within the bracket, Nathaniel and Sam faced Joe Berman and Bob Maguire. There would be no tiebreaker in this match as the experience and skill of Berman and Maguire baffled the teen duo. And as with most all their matches for this bracket, Berman and Maguire were never pushed nor challenged. On the road to the being crowned champions, Berman and Maguire racked up 3 effortless match victories plus a walk over based on injury to Lowery. In the six games played to 15, Berman and Maguire only allowed a total of 23 points. Together Berman and Maguire are dynamic as Maguire is quietly and effortlessly brilliant from anywhere on the court while Berman punishes and kills any ball that is within his deceptive reach and agility up front. Berman has the complete game and can also befuddle an opponent with a right side crack and a deep hook serve to the left side.
In the matches we played, Bruce Cohen and I managed only one victory and that was over Tebbenhoff and Lowery. Bardwell and Green also only managed one win, with Cohen and me being their only victims. Tebbenhoff and Lowery bested Bardwell and Green for a total of two match wins.
In handball, like so many sports, games are played to produce a winner. The victories usually speak for themselves while losses seem to come with questions, reasons and recommendations. There are often a thousand reasons why you lost, but one reason why you won; you were better than your opponent at that moment. Perhaps you will always be better than a given opponent, but a lesson can be learned from every loss and that lesson can be the key to victory next time over an opponent. Talent and skill notwithstanding, determination and will can be counted as part of every point. The extra step or effort often results in surprisingly positive results. There can be only one champion, but ending his reign should become your goal. He may not rest knowing you are gunning for him, but let him worry about that, your job is prepare so that the next time, you are the better one.
Further to this, in sports, some teams seem to always have a particular team’s number no matter how terrible they are in any given season, one opponent, no matter how great always seem to succumb. In handball, age and skill act as great barriers to these fluke dominations. However, within those same two categories, there are rivalries that may have been going on for decades. In competition, we always face the same people since our aging timelines never diverge. So the guy you played at 35 will be the same competitor you will be playing when you are 60 if your skills remain relatively equal. Perhaps a few can even say, “He has never beaten me.” Therein raises the challenge to nullify that statement. But as it has been said, “…unless you are the lead dog, the view never changes.” Your challenge is to become the lead dog and change that view. Mush!
A solid bracket of 60+ players was formed when we welcomed 3 out of area players to join our ranks. Joe Ivy and Glen Paraskevin teamed and Keith Thode completed the visiting trio by teaming with local player Joe Pleszkoch. Within this bracket, the pairing of Dave Hinkleman and Dan Ho rounded out the top seeds. George Fambro and Paul Healy teamed as did Steve Alicandro and new comer to our group, Sam Goodman. Prohibitive favorites Hinkleman and Ho cruised through 3 matches with relative ease only being challenged at a turn by Thode and Pleszkoch. In the same vein, the team of Ivy and Paraskevin waltzed through their matches to set up a show down with Hinkleman and Ho. A battle royal ensued among these gritty warriors. There were long rallies and repeated side outs as the heat of the day and the battle began to take its toll. Hinkleman and Ho grabbed the first game 15-8 but lost 15-14 in the second, forcing a tiebreaker. As tiebreakers go, this was a classic. Hinkleman and Ho raced out and reached 10 while Ivy and Paraskevin hung on for their tournament life. Down by as much as 6 points, they clawed their way back to level the game at 10 as Hinkleman and Ho seemed to wilt from the heat of the day. At a critical point, Ho seemed to cramp in his legs and Ivy and Paraskevin pounced and snatched away the championship on an exciting final point.
The remaining bracket of 65+/C players featured 3 teams of Mort Frank and Elliot Greenwald, Charles Parsons and Rob Gordon and Tim Virostek and Daniel Andrews. Because of the small number of players, the games in this bracket were played to 21. In a word, eventual champs Parsons and Gordon dominated, allowing a mere 9 points total in 4 games played. Frank and Greenwald won easily over the young newcomers, Virostek and Andrews
Thanks to the participants, organizers and volunteers and referees for making this a pleasant and fun event; with added acknowledgement to Keith Thode who graced us with his presence on the court and later chronicled the event with his signature photographs.
Written by Peter Peart
Categories
No Frills Photos
Keith Thode has put his photographs from the No Frills tournament on his web site, http://keithsphotos.toadworld.
Categories
2012 MD State Doubles Results
There is a special feeling when the vehicle one is riding in turns slowly from Eastgate Rd, rising ever so slightly to mount the curb leading to the grassy expanse that parallels one end of the handball courts at the Lucas County Recreation Center. Familiar sights and sounds immediately say welcome to this hallowed handball haven. And so begins, the 62nd USHA National Three-Wall Championship in Maumee, OH (collectively referred to as Toledo).
Like many years past, those familiar with this routine, begin an early regimen of training and playing to gear up for the grueling outdoor 3-wall season finale. As a national championship, there is fair representation from many states and Canada, especially in regions that have accessible 3-wall facilities. The mid-Atlantic region is served well by the Columbia, MD facility located in Centennial Park. So it is no surprise that the delegation of players from Maryland is well represented at these championships, and often does quite well.
In Maryland, we are fortunate to have a cadre of players that are highly skilled and equally competitive. The opportunity to play with and against such a high caliber of talent serves to enrich ones game and skill. So between May and sometimes earlier, depending on mild weather and warm temperature (60s and above), the outdoor courts become the proving ground for the ultimate stage set in Toledo from the last Thursday in August through labor day in September. These are five fun pack days of camaraderie and rivalries renewed and newer ones begun.
In the past, when chronicling this and other tournaments, I have focused on most of the divisions, matches within and the play of specific individuals. And even though I will report results and laud due praise on competitors, my approach to this Toledo story will represent a different take.
When I began writing and disseminating about handball, I often focused on my game and my progress as I sought to compete at a higher level. It was always fascinating to me to see others play the same game I do and do it with such flair and consistency. As I have learned, flair and style is an individual thing and can be emulated, but does not necessarily translate into winning and championships. What does translate is consistency, determination, will and the elements of timing and luck; the last two are wildcards that are beyond the control of all players but contributes to anyone’s success on the court.
Of all the three disciplines of handball, I believe 3-wall is the hardest. Whereas one-wall requires quickness and precision in dealing with just the front wall and floor, 4-wall is a self-contained box so the ball remains within the confines of the room, 3-wall has the added two side walls and in many cases, a multi-surfaced ceiling (concrete in the front half and a chain link fence in the second half) and the expanded dimensions of no back wall. These added elements bring not only quickness and precision into focus but additional dimensions of stamina, serving technique, ball placement, sunlight, shifting shadows, and the often inconsistent surface of poured concrete. One can argue the merits and difficulties of each genre, but having played all three disciplines, 3-wall takes the prize for extended difficulty.
As is often said and heard, success in playing doubles is choosing the right partner. Although said in jest, there is definitely an element of truth to this statement. As a doubles team, both players must be in total harmony on the court. From young to old, the successful doubles teams that play this game ply the same strategy. The strategy, though simple in design requires the discipline and the right combination of players to execute the crucial elements. With two players covering the court, one player remains in the front half while the other ranges the rest of the court. So it is no surprise that the most successful teams carrying out the strategy produce championships year after year.
With all due respect to everyone who plays the 3-wall game, these teams of Dave Dohman and Tim Sterrett, Phil Kirk and Jim Corrigan, Alan Frank and Dan Zimet, and Alan Frank and Mark Zamora have dominated the Toledo courts in their chosen divisions for the few years I have been going and many years before. Their individually combined skill sets are unparalleled in the doubles arena. On each team, the designated front wall player, cuts off shots, kills and directs traffic while his partner cleans up from the back court. And even against equally skilled teams, the ones that can execute most consistently usually wins the gold, as are with the battles between Dohman/Sterrett vs. Corrigan/Kirk. Regardless of the division they collectively choose to play in, throughout the years, these four men usually play against each other for the title. Although the edge goes to Dohman and Sterrett in this rivalry, but not this year, as Corrigan and Kirk outdueled their nemesis, 21-19, (16-21) and finished them off in a tiebreaker, 11-3 to win the 55+ division. Through the years, as many will attest, skill notwithstanding, consistency is the hallmark of these fine players.
Additionally, Marylanders Pat Lowery and Bill Tebenhoff competed in this bracket and won their hotly contested opening round match, only to fall victim next to the eventual champions, Corrigan and Kirk.
Frank and Zimet is another fine pair of disciplined and consistent players. I can never find enough words to describe their chemistry and zeal on the court. It is wonderful to witness their magic as they exchange knowing looks and glances to tighten the strangle hold they form against opponents. It is at once exhilarating to cheer them on, but to also feel a tinge of disheartenment for their victims as you see the will and desire drain from their countenance. This year in Toledo, Frank and Zimet made quick work of Kirk Rhys and Jim Kramer in the finals to take the 40+ championships, 9, 9.
Alan Frank is a beast on the handball courts. Frank has a unique ability to make you play better when you play with or against him. If you play with him, he expects you to play as well or better than him and if you play against him, he will punish you for every mistake you make. As with Zimet, Frank has found the perfect marriage in his other regular handball partner Mark Zamora. Zamora, like Zimet is a front court player who is demanding in his desire to win. Prolonging points does not suit his slash and burn style of play. In one of their 50+ doubles matches leading up to the final, Frank and Zamora played against a team of Rick Anderson and Chris Roberts. Roberts was a replacement for the unfortunately injured Bobby Nicholas. Anderson is the consummate front court player, recognized as “…one of the finest to ever play the front court.” With Anderson and Zamora going toe-to-toe in the front court, there was literally an A to Z in the lexicon of handball fireworks. To this observer, in the scheme of things, those skirmishes, though intense and often brief , the edge goes to Zamora because he and Frank held Anderson and Roberts to 8, and 7 in route to the finals against another longstanding partnership of Matt Osburn and Brett Williams.
It is no secret, since they first teamed up, Frank and Zamora has consistently held their opponents to single digits in all their matches. In the first game of the championship match, Osburn and Williams managed 11 points, an aberration to be sure. The second game was a demonstration of will and determination as Frank and Zamora executed perfect plays of great serves by both, deep volleys from Frank and those Zamora signature knife kills up front. To watch Osburn and Williams slink as their tournament life drained is a stark reminder of no matter how good you are, you still have to get better to beat the best.
Many others from Maryland teamed with each other or non Marylanders to compete in various doubles divisions. Although there were no champions emerging from these pairings, new and old collaborations showed promise in their respected divisions. Of note, the 60+ division featured returning champion Murzy Jhabvala and his Illinois partner Sean Conneely. In their quest to repeat, Jhabvala and Conneely faced Dan Ho and his San Diego collaborator, Gary Eisenbooth and prevailed 13 and 14. Next in the draw, Bob Dyke teamed with Ken Greco from Connecticut and eliminated Jhabvala and Conneely, 14 and 14, but lost in the finals to Tim Murray and Glenn Carden, 12 and 3.
The 65+ division saw Marylanders Dave Hinkleman and Joe Pleszkoch in a new pairing compete against a strong field that included Bob Bardwell teaming with Floridian Greg Raya. In their rain delayed and overnight match against Keith Thode and Thomas Michael, Hinkleman and Pleszkoch rebounded from a first game lost to force a tiebreaker which they lost, 11-6. Bardwell and Raya had a relative easy time in their quarterfinals match at 4 and 4, but fell in the semifinals, 14 and 5 to eventual champions, Lewie Lambert and Stan Wolpoff.
Making his first trek to Toledo, Josh Osburn teamed with fellow Marylander Adam Zimet in the A division and fought valiantly to take the opening round match in a tiebreaker, 17, (12) and 3. Although they battled valiantly, they were out pointed in the quarterfinals match, 15 and 18. Meanwhile, Josh Ho, eligible for the 35+ division for the first time, teamed with Kevin Greco from Chicago. Their first round match victory at 11 and 10 landed them in the semifinals against a formidable team of Adam Szatkowski and Adam Wahner. Szatkowski is one half of the perennial Open doubles team with his brother Dane. Ho and Greco did not let reputation or talent faze them as they battled and kept the games close, but succumbed 18 and 19 in what could be called a heartbreaker for their fans. Szatkowski and Wahner were later handled in the championship match by Kendell Lewis and his partner Casey Mayo, 7 and 10.
Also making his first trip to Toledo, Bruce Cohen and I competed in the regular B doubles division. This division is stocked and stacked with mostly young and talented players who are seeking their first national championship as they hope to climb the skill level ladder. In this division, there are also pairings that feature a wide gap in age range as was the case with Nathaniel Frank teaming with Bill Tebbenhoff. For their efforts, Frank and Tebbenhoff could only muster 6 and 8 points against a stronger team that lost in the finals. But in the same bracket, Cohen and Peart overcame first round jitters and bested Matt Stamp and Tyler Kiewiet, 17 and 9. Next up, Cohen and Peart faced Cary Dohman and Phil Hammond. Although we played a disciplined game, Dohman and Hammond outplayed us in the front court on numerous occasions, with that being the difference in the match. My still developing front court game showed flaws that were exploited by the younger and more athletic team. Cohen for his part shored up the back court and kept us in the match that we eventually lost 12 and 14.
In the oldest division (75+) fielded in these championships, Mort Frank teamed up with Michiganite Bob Plater to compete in round robin play consisting of three teams. Watching the older players compete might not thrill some, but for share craftiness, it is fun to watch. At this level, hand skills dominate play while movement is restricted to a few shuffled steps. If the opponent hits the ball over the outstretched arms, the likelihood of some return is greatly diminished. Scoring often happen in bunches and from serves since rallies are few and far in between. Facing Ben Marguglio and Ralph Weil after each had defeated common opponent Lew Buckingham and Herm Kiewiet, Frank and Plater rebounded from an opening game lost at 12 to even the match with a second game win at 13. In the tiebreaker, Frank and Plater earned the right to serve first, but could not hold serve and bowed out gracefully to the champions, 11-2.
To complete doubles play, I offer a synopsis on the Open division to illustrate intense competition, masterly will and superior execution of skills. Eric and Lee Anderson played one of the only opening round matches in this bracket. Using their hallmark body-to-the-ground, flesh-be-damned style of play, the Andersons fought and clawed their way to a 19 and 16 win over Brant Bidegain and John Audet. Next, facing the top seeded Brauilo (Shorty) Ruiz and his partner, the ever steady Bill Mehilos, the Andersons found that blood and sweat was not enough against these seasoned Open players and managed to scratch out 12 and 10 points for the match. Bloodied, but unbowed, the Andersons look forward to next year.
Kendell Lewis teamed with Sean Lenning and faced Shane Conneeley and Marco Lemus. Lenning is an enigma on and off the court. His unorthodox style of play is well known to opponents and fans alike. That style is as distinct as it is deadly. After dropping the first game of their match at 16 to Conneely and Lemus, Lenning went on a ‘seek and destroy’ mission that that left the opponents stunned and the crowd agape. The only obstacle to Lenning in that game was himself as he made a spectacular between the legs get that evidently nicked his body, a call he made on himself. When the dust settled from the onslaught, Lenning and Lewis had evened the match 21-0. The tiebreaker was competitive at first but then Lenning again imposed his will and finished it at 11-6.
The drama in this division was far from over as Tyree and his brother Jurrell Bastidas held off an energized Ruiz and Mehilos to land in the finals against another set of brothers, Dane and Adam Szatkowski, who surprisingly held off the charging Lenning and Lewis in their semifinal match.
Brothers against brothers are a dream scenario for any match, especially a final. This match did not disappoint. The Bastidas brothers dominated play and took a seemingly insurmountable 20-5 commanding lead. Sometimes one point is as hard to get as 20, especially when the opponent becomes determined and relentless to stop you. The Szatkowski brothers rose to the occasion and slammed the door against the Bastidas and took the game 21-20 in a thrilling comeback that resonated around the courts. Improbable as it may seem, even great players sometimes find it hard to finish. As often is the case, it is hard to recover from such a devastating lost. Fighting hard in the second game, the Bastidas brothers showed resilience, but fell short, 21-16.
Tenacity, heart, force of will, determination, resilience, are all necessary to round out the skills of the champion. And in the doubles game, it takes two people working in tandem to find that little extra to vanquish the opponents who are working equally hard to do the same to you and your partner.
The singles game is a totally different animal from doubles. A player must be able to play as if he has a partner, but rely totally on his or her own abilities. For 3-wall, the court is even bigger in the singles game. A get from the deep court, unless returned with precision and strategic accuracy, a savvy opponent will seize the opportunity to put the shot away up front while you are still scrambling from your deep retrieve.
A fit player with the combined attributes and skills already described will go far in the singles game on the 3-wall court. There were many examples of spectacular singles play throughout the five days. In particular, Joe Mastropierro a Floridian who competed in the B divisions epitomizes the essence of will and determination. This bracket, one of the deepest in terms of participants, which means more games played to reach the championship round. When I encountered Mastropierro playing his semifinal match, he already had won two previous rounds. As referee for this semifinals match, I had a front row seat to what unfolded. Mastropierro’s opponent was Derrick Contreras, a talented player who I have encountered in previous years as a doubles opponent. The first game found Contreras taking a commanding lead, and leaving a seemingly emotionless Mastropierro down trodden. With his slight frame and expressionless demeanor, down 19-7, Mastropierro began an improbable comeback. Whether on serve or defending, Mastropierro never changed his expression, but certainly intensified his will. It was chilling to watch as Contreras began to glaze over as his lead slipped away. At 17-19, scoring gave way to countless one-hit side outs. With both players exhausting all game timeouts and necessary glove changes, Mastropierro edged closer by scoring two quick points off Contreras’ last time out. A few more point-less exchanges ensued before Mastropierro made the 20th point on an odd bounce, that element of luck as it were. This was not a court hinder to be sure. Finally, Contreras yielded the 21st point on a gorgeous re-kill by Mastropierro from inside the short line. In the second game, a stunned and dejected Contreras showed only small flashes of desire as an energized Mastropierro controlled the game and won at 13.
By chance, as I watched another match in an adjacent court, I was able to also view Mastropierro vie for the championship. With no refereeing impartiality to quell my enthusiasm, I openly rooted for Mastropierro as he went up against Matt Paul. To his credit and to that point, Paul had played one more match in reaching the final. The first game, though long and punctuated by long rallies, went to Paul, 21-11. In the second game, Mastropierro, to his credit and determination kept the game close. No player went ahead by more than 3 points. During one of the time outs from the ensuing battle, I offered encouragement to Mastropierro, and in his acknowledgement, his demeanor remained calm and unchanged but I saw the will and determination that I witnessed the day before. As close as the game was, Mastropierro never relented or faded and eventually prevailed 21-19. The tiebreaker proved to be less arduous as an exhausted and somewhat demoralized looking Paul could only muster 3 points thus yielding the championship to Mastropierro.
As great as all the matches I have seen, it was revelatory for me to be able watch a total stranger as he climbed and clawed his way to a championship. Every positive quality of every handball player I have ever known was seen in this champion.
The tough road through the singles brackets yielded two Maryland champions and several runner ups. Of note, winning his first championship, Joe Pleszkoch battled last year’s runner up, Carl Valentino in a thrilling 11-9 tiebreaker after each man easily handled the other in a split of the first two games. Pleszkoch has shown steady improvement over the past couple of years and saw it all come to fruition with this year’s championship in the 65+ division. I applaud Joe and look forward to our “grudge” matches for the next 3-wall season.
The other champion is the ever gracious and giving Dan Zimet who bested a determined and also gracious and giving Andy Schad. This match was a repeat of last year’s final also won by Zimet. Even though the scenario was the same, first game going to Shad, this year’s second game thriller found Schad clawing his way back from being down 19-5 and then 20-7 as Zimet could not close out this determined man. With his cadre of wife and daughters urging him on, Schad kept coming like a runaway train. His signature corner kills punctuated his charge. And to Zimet’s credit, he did not break under the onslaught and was finally able to derail Schad at 19. Unlike last year’s tiebreaker where Zimet imposed his will and his vicious crack serves, this year Schad answered every shot with one of his own and kept the 11-point thriller dead even through 9. The eventual two point win by Zimet was bitter sweet to be sure because it denied his friend another chance at a crown.
Dan Ho, playing in the newly created 60B division, could not quite finish the senior Joseph Mastropierro and fell, 12 and 5.
Ray Estevez, playing in the 55+ singles bracket, defeated last year’s 50+ champion, Peter Service (14), 20 and 5 but fell quietly in the championship match to the great Dave Dohman.
In what has quickly become a heated, but perhaps short-lived rivalry, Nathaniel Frank fell to Brittyn Bidegain, 13, 15. Although losing badly in last year’s final to Bidegain, Frank avenged that lost earlier in the summer by taking the 17 and under title and denying Bidegain by handing her only lost in 2012 USHA National 3-Wall Junior Championships in Cincinnati, OH.
Bidegain is a prime example of tenacity and determination. Despite Frank’s increased power and court savvy, Bidegain shows her skills by making great gets from the deep court and powering the ball to the high front wall. She has developed an efficient kill shot that she used readily against Frank. As age and physical development take over and separate these two, I am afraid we may have seen the last of these battles in competition.
The Open championship again went to Sean Lenning as he defeated a stubborn Tyree Bastidas. Though their playing styles differ, their will and determination was never lacking throughout the match that went to the 11-point tiebreaker. After losing the first game at 12 and sustaining an ankle sprain, Lenning returned the favor to Bastidas. The tiebreaker was a taut contest until Lenning imposed his will and superior skills against Bastidas and closed out the match at 7. A usually stoic Lenning showed a great deal of emotion in savoring this hard fought victory.
Bruce Cohen and I each competed separately in the 50B singles division. This is a division that sees the same players minus the champion in successive years. As it has played out over the past several years, the runner up has succeeded as the following year’s champion. As so it continues as last year’s runner up Glenn Gartland defeated the crafty Ernie McGarry.
Seeded as quarterfinalist, Cohen had the upper hand against Dan Costello by winning the first game 21-8. The second game found Cohen in a steady battle as the score was close. With his deep and strong serves, Cohen forced Costello into making hand errors. But when it was Costello’s turn, he used a deceptive return that deadened the ball and made for fruitless attempts at gets up front. But Cohen had his chances with the score at 20 to close out his opponent, but could not capitalize, and lost the tight game. The tiebreaker was competitive, but the heat of competition took its toll as Cohen fell, 11-7.
To his credit, Cohen later bested me in the 50B consolation round. To note, of the thousands of singles games played against one another, in Toledo, it was the first time we had ever played any full singles games on the 3-wall courts!
My quarterfinal match pitted me against Scott Szatkowski, a first timer to 3-wall championships. I played well in the first game, and with the score tied at 20, I hit what I thought was a winner streaming down the left wall, a tough shot that I had to twist to let by, and that action, earned a screen call from the ref. It was pointless to argue, even if Szatkowski ‘could not hit it with a tennis racquet’ (as observed and related by a fan who knows a thing or two about winning). I lost the next serve after a brief rally and perhaps my concentration and will as Szatkowski served a deep ball that I could not return to the front wall. The next game, Szatkowski zoomed ahead with me showing little or no resistance. By the time I mounted a little spark of life, the game and match was over, 21-11.
After any tournament, one must reflect on what was learned, even if you emerge champion. This was not my year to win, but to continue the growth process and progression. One of the many things I learned was in the form of sage advice, “…in order not to worry about a game being decided on a close call; don’t let the game get that close.” But the thing I learned most of all, was the intangible element of will and determination. The competitive advantage gained from having the will and determination to win played out in thousands of points and the hundreds of games played over the course of this championship. Coming into Toledo, I did not lack these two qualities of will and determination; I just never applied them fully to my brand of handball.
I will leave you with these final thoughts Excerpted from “IF” by Rudyard Kipling
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on"
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on"