Category: Tournament Results

Handball matches have history, and within the community, reputations are built on sometimes one point, a whole game or a match. And to bolster our reputations, our off court exploits are also always considered. We are a small community and word travels fast within as sometimes do caroms off the surfaces on which we play. So, when we lose one of our own to injure or death, it becomes the topic of discussion within the community.  The recent passing of Richard Swope has sent ripples throughout the local and I am sure, greater handball world. I did not know Richard personally and only gather that he was a fine player and fine gentleman. To those who knew him in some capacity, I know his loss is deeply felt. To his family and friends, and acquaintances, I express my sincere condolences.

As I often do when I write for these pages, I try to bring the game to light from my experiences and perspectives and by reporting on the outstanding play of others. In that light, I begin this installment, somewhat belatedly, on the Maryland State Doubles Tournament held in December 2010.

Sometimes on the handball court, we are our greatest foe. Along with anxiety (some say fear) and the opponent, that is a tall order to defeat. Many of us have gone 2 against one when we play cut throat or ‘trips.’ At other times, some of us have even played singly against two opponents to help level the playing field or sharpen our game on many levels. In either case, it is tough to play one against two. So whether playing one-on-one or in any other viable configuration, by adding another opponent of your own spawning, anxiety, you will leave yourself deep in a very large and often inescapable hole.

Fear is a distressing emotion aroused by a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to specific stimuli such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger and flee from it or fight; also known as the ‘Fight or Flight’ response. However, fear should be distinguished from the related emotional state of anxiety which typically occurs without any external threat.

How do we overcome the often debilitating and sometimes crippling effects of anxiety on the handball court? I asked one of the best players I know if he still gets anxious when he plays, and he responded by saying, “Every time.” His candid response surprised me somewhat. But even the greatest of actors admittedly still get stage fright.  Our conversation naturally expanded beyond just the anxiety factors and opened another aspect of the game, the mental attitude.

Much has been written on the subject of mental toughness and the ability to overcome our own anxieties in life, not just in contrived situations such as sport or a less than life and death contest. I can offer nothing new on the subject, but I can say that playing with less anxiety or fear can add a few extra points and give you the edge needed to best an opponent, any opponent. Unchecked emotional anxiety is often draining and paralyzing.  I am sure we have all experienced some form of this emotion on the handball court.

Since anxiety is an integral part of the human countenance, keeping it in balance is part of the key to overcoming its deleterious effects. If you studied before the exam, there is usually less anxiety when the command to begin is given. If you prepare for handball the same way, when the opening score of zero serves zero is called, the level of anxiety should equalize as you settle in to face your opponent on equal terms. After the ball is served and the rally starts, hopefully the only opponent will be the one trying to score against you. 

The Maryland State doubles tournament had a small but intriguing draw that resulted in smaller division pairings. Because of the smaller draws, simultaneous matches left very little viewing opportunities. So I report here on the results and the small glimpses of the matches that I witnessed.

With all due respect to the Open players and their relative youthfulness and noted skill, the most intriguing division for this tournament was the 40/50 Masters division. As often is with state and local tournaments, opponents are often familiar players who we practice against or play with often. Any draw featuring Rick Anderson or Roger Berry as a team promises a formidable hurdle to perspective opponents. Needless to say, my playing partner Bruce Cohen and I were pitted against the Rick and Roger brigade for our opening round match within this division. This was a rematch of sorts from a few months earlier when the 3-wall Eastern Regional draw found us on the losing end of a rout. That outdoor match was quick and surgical as we only managed 4 points in each game.

Our approach to the current meet was to forget about past history and just play hard. And that we did. The opening game was taut. Every point was contested. Rick and I played the front while Bruce and Roger shared duties in the back. My battles with Rick up front, though valiant, almost always ended with Rick winning the rally. Though frustrating in outcome, I thoroughly enjoyed the moments I had hoped to budge Rick from his front court dominance.  It is hard to win at an opponent’s game, especially one he plays so well. In spite of my own hubris in taking on Rick up front, Bruce and I managed to keep the game within reach and winnable. But with the match at 12-14, Rick and Roger found the champions gear and separated themselves from us by delivering “gorgeous” serves and winning all the rallies. We lost the game at 12, but if nothing, made Rick and Roger sweat.

We had hoped to build on the first game’s momentum to race out to an early second game lead. We did edge forward to 4-0, but that lead soon dissipated. Though we stayed close for the next few side outs and points, we were unable to muster much of a rally and lost the game and match 21-7. It was a nice showing, but it takes more than making an opponent sweat to beat them. It also takes winning 21 points from your opponent before he does the same to you.
Rick and Roger next faced the long standing doubles duo of Rick Compton and Bob Humphreys. Though they played hard, Rick and Roger dismissed the dynamic duo 21-8, 21-7.  The win placed Rick and Roger in the final.

On the other side of the bracket, simultaneous matches were being played to determine the other finalist pair. Joe Berman and George Alicea-Ruiz pairing had no trouble handling two younger and somewhat inexperienced Jose Cruz and Joe Gritter from Pennsylvania. At 21-4, 21-6, Berman and Alicea-Ruiz awaited the winner of Keith Neihart and William Vargas taking on Bob Dyke and Bob Maguire. From what little I saw of the second game of this match, it was a furious battle. And by the final tally of the match, 21-19, 21-13, it was also hard fought.

Dyke and Maguire was no match for Berman and Alicea-Ruiz. At 21-4, 21-9, control by Berman and Alicea-Ruiz seems clear.

With Rick and Roger facing off against Berman and Alicea-Ruiz in the finals, smart money, if wagering was held, would more than likely been placed on Rick and Roger. There were beautiful points and the varying styles of the four players provided a numerous opportunities for brilliant shot making in the form of kills and rekills.  Berman’s deceptive quickness is always on display up front while his partner Alicea-Ruiz seems to be everywhere the ball happens to be. And even though the first game was convincingly won by Rick and Roger as I witnessed and by the score, 21-12, there was enough hard fought points to indicate that the match was far from over.

In game two, Berman and Alecia-Ruiz must have completed gelling as a team. They not only reversed the score on Rick on Roger, but it seemed they managed to outplay them on most rallies according to eyewitness accounts. I unfortunately was otherwise occupied and missed this very exciting game for its momentum shifting effect. By winning 21-7, Berman and Alicea-Ruiz would play the always exciting 11-point tie-breaker to determine the championship.
Rick and Roger earned the right to serve first, but did not gain much from the seeming advantage. Throughout the match, Alicea-Ruiz commanded a serve from the middle of the service box that hopped and skipped like a puppet on a string. As the match wore on, the serve became more precise and gave trouble to Rick and Roger. It was this serve that Alicea-Ruiz used to open up the tie breaker, leading 6-2. The points started to follow each crack shot that resulted from the service set up or service winner. And finally, what I consider a thing of beauty, Alicea-Ruiz off a short rally from the back wall, rending the court straight down the middle with an exclamatory rollout to end the game and match at 11-2. This was both unexpected and definitive. It was even called an “upset” by one astute viewer. No matter what, it was great fun to watch great handball.

Admittedly, as mentioned before, I did not have the pleasure of viewing as many matches I would have liked. Watching tournament handball is a great pleasure to me and is always part of the handball mystique. The game looks different and seems easier as a player/spectator.  But as most of us realize, until you step onto the court, what your opponent and the ball does is completely unpredictable.

The pairings of 55/60 bracket made the draw seemingly wide open. Based on reputations and pass performance, top seeding went to the teams of Dave Hinkleman and Dan Ho and Bob Bardwell and Jerry Yee. Of note, in the division, Carl Lady and Richard Swope teamed. This may have been Richard’s last tournament. From the posted results, Lady and Swope played well and lost to Hinkleman and Ho in a semifinal, 21-12, 21-9.  While on the other half of the bracket, Bardwell and Yee eased through their first round opponents 21-8, 21-2 and in their semifinal match bested the team of Oscar Fitzgerald and Steve Metzger, 21-6, 21-7. Again from the posted results, it seems that Fitzgerald and Metzger gave their all in their opening round match as they were pushed to 11-10 tie breaker by Joe Pleszkoch and Bob Woodward.

With finals featuring Hinkleman and Ho versus Bardwell and Yee, it was a match of familiar opponents. These players are known for their long rallies and relentless play. Anyone who witnessed this match was in for a treat and a long handball match. Walk away, take in another match and come back to find the score has hardly changed.  During each game, scoring came in bunches from either team as a server would get on a roll. In the end, for all the action, the stronger pairing of Bardwell and Yee bested Hinkleman and Ho for the championship, 21-13, 21-17. Although it was a team effort, Yee later commented with a grin that he found the victory over Ho sweet after losing in singles to him at the 3-wall nationals in late summer in Toledo, OH.

Of the remaining divisions to report on, the Open division was the smallest and featured only 3 teams. Lee and Eric Anderson paired and faced off against a team of Josh Ho and Logan Foley. The Anderson brothers showed early dominance by taking game one 21-3. Ho and Foley valiantly fought back and kept the second game within reach but failed to convert on a few opportunities and lost the game and the match 21-16.  With the round Robin format in play, to round out the division, the esteemed pairing of Dan Zimet and Alan Frank awaited Ho and Foley. Experience and skill of Zimet and Frank was too much for the younger Ho and Foley. As a result, 21-9, 21-5 win eliminated Ho and Foley and pitted the Andersons against Zimet and Frank for the final.

This is not the first time these pairs have met, whether playing friendly matches or in our local tournament. Their play against each other tends to bring out the best game each has to offer. Personalities and prowess are always on display when these dynamos of the sport clash. Who is to say what goes through the mind when going up against legends of the sports. Calling Zimet and Frank legends in their own time is a right they have individually and collectively earned. As a fan, I love to watch them play and to relate their battles from which they usually emerge victorious. So facing a younger and eager Anderson team perhaps adds to the Zimet/Frank advantage and may have accounted for the relatively easy victory by Zimet and Frank in the first game, 21-10. The second game found the Andersons focused and determined as they dove, lunged, and retrieved at every shot. They worked hard while Zimet and Frank steadily maintained their aura of cool mechanics and a demeanor of never a moments panic. With this team, timeouts are always at the right moment and they always seem to return from said time out with the solutions to whatever might have put them off course. Brilliant and consistent play is their winning strategy. Though the Andersons made the second game exciting and pushed the legends to the brink, they could not force the tie breaker and in the end succumbed, 21-19.

Two other divisions were part of this tournament.  First, the Novice division featured players new to our came. Many of these players traveled a long way to participate and compete. Their efforts are to be commended, encouraged and supported. Having said that, I never seem to have the time at tournaments to catch their matches; but I fully applaud those who do. The champions emerging from the round robin format of this division was the team of Cheyleen Cruz and Herman Cruz.

The C/70+ division featured some pairings of young and old together. It is always intriguing to watch as young and eager meet finesse and guile. The results are sometimes unpredictable, but nonetheless fun as I imagine seeing the games played out that produced the eventual champions Tony Velez and Ray Persaud Jr.

To complete this wrap up, the winner of the 40/50 dropdown found a youthful team of Jose Cruz and Joe Gritter besting Bruce Cohen and yours truly, 21-3, 21-19. What Cruz and Gritter lacked in experience, they made up in tenacity and a healthy dose of emerging skill sets. To be in position to win the bracket, Cruz and Gritter battled Keith Neihart and William Vargas in a marathon match 18-21, 21-16, and 11-6 in the tiebreaker. From all accounts, Cruz and Gritter were noted for their tenacious comeback in one of the games.

The other dropdown bracket, 55/60 produced the champion team of Jack Coughlan and Elliott Greenwald besting Bob Woodward and Joe Pleszkoch, 21-10, 21-18.

Most would agree that the pleasure of handball resides in the playing. Playing the game well adds a certain layer to the pleasure. And to compare one pleasure to another, in my opinion is not entirely balanced. Even though we watch and play the sport, the pleasure derived for each event is entirely unique. When I write about handball, for me this is another pleasure and hopefully, as you read these words, you expand the pleasurable world of handball.  Thanks.

This definitely was a step towards another level in my own development as a player and a competitor.  As you may already know, there is a huge difference in being a player and being a competitor in a tournament setting. The differences can be subtle or overt. But the fact that these differences exist is hard to ignore. In watching Rick compete or playing against him, I already know of his tremendous will to win. He always gives maximum effort. As his partner, my challenge was to attain that same high level of ‘never say die’, ‘never give up’ or ‘never quit.’ Leaving it all on the court; skin, blood and sweat is how Rick plays every point.

Rick and I played several games together by way of tuning up for the championships. Learning to anticipate my partner’s moves took some adjustment. But by our second playing session, I could almost feel and know what it is he would do before he did it. I thought this was crucial heading into the tournament.
Rick and I were entered in the 45+/55+ combined doubles division laced with strong teams from top to bottom. Eyeing the draw, we were set up in the quarterfinals against a team of wily veterans, who I later discovered have been playing together for about 20 years. I am not sure whether knowing more or less about an opponent works for or against you. I know in some cases, there are psychological advantages to having played the same opponent and never losing, while on the other hand, being on the losing end of that equation can translate to the opposite and devastating effect.

In the team of Richie Rose and Tom Doughten, not knowing what to expect, I took cues and leads from my partner Rick as we easily handled Richie and Tom in the first game. The second game however was not as easy as it should have been. My failure to execute our winning strategy from the first game, found us quickly in a deep hole to the tune of being down 14-2. As anyone who has ever played the game knows, such a score is not impossible to overcome, but it takes a certain will and determination to hold your opponent scoreless while you dig and claw your back into the game. Clawed we did, Rick and I, and tied the score at 14-14 after exchanging a few side outs. Momentum can ebb and flow in handball with a few great shots or a lucky bounce, like the one or two per game or match that will happen.

Tied at 14, neither team found a finishing groove. And we labored through side outs and one or two point deficits until we were again tied at 19. In retrospect, earning two points to seal the victory and the match seemed so simple a task to achieve; and yet, I failed to convert on numerous attempts because (you may substitute any or all standard excuses here), suffice it to say, I did not finish when the opportunity presented itself and we were forced into the 11-point deciding tiebreaker after losing the second game at 19.

I shoulder our failure to win the second game outright because I understand that lapses will come as part of my own development process. Every word of encouragement or advice from Rick makes plain sense now as it did then, but I just did not have the competitive experience to realize and then materialize within the framework of the game.

The tiebreaker found us down early, but we quickly tied Richie and Tom at 6 and passed them to take a 10-6 lead. That 10-6 lead soon evaporated and we faced down elimination with the other team serving 10-10. But a quick and efficient side out found us in the service box with Rick serving first. He asked me to position myself differently before he served. And with the greatest of skill and ease, Rick served a nonreturnable ball that hit the crotch just beyond the short line and exploded as a rollout to the middle of the court; game and match.

In my overall match assessment, partially alluded to above, I did not do the little things that could have made the match less drawn out. Playing at any level is one thing, but playing enough to know better comes with time.

The Semifinal match on our side of the draw was now set against the team of Joe Thomas and John Marra, who had in the interim, defeated Keith Neihart and Dennis Shoemaker.

Joe Thomas played a key role in my early development toward being a more skilled handball player. When I first met Joe some 15 years ago, I was in awe of his handball prowess. If I gush now, it is because at that time, I had only heard how skillful players could be. To see this man’s approach to the game, with his fluidity of movement that I instantly called “poured water,” was like heaven to me.  On his numerous trips to the DC area, Joe always arranged a handball session. We never really played true games because my skill level could neither compare nor compete with Joe’s lightness around the ball. Although I remember every little nuance and subtlety that Joe extolled, I am still to this day edging towards mastering a few. So to meet my first mentor in a tournament setting thrilled me as well as gave me pause. In reality, Joe is recognized and known for his game. But for us to come full circle means a great deal to me.
 If I said the mystique of my past admiration for Joe would not have affected my play against him, I would be deceiving myself and anyone else who reads these pages.

I took a deep breath as Rick and I awaited the first serve from Joe.  Playing the left and having Joe also serving from the left, I was stung by the sharpness of the vicious hopping serves that sliced from the hands of this seemingly slightly built opponent. As balls popped off the glass back wall, I was always caught in no man’s land in trying to return.  My inability to adjust to Joe’s serve was crucial and costly in our efforts to advance. With all due respect to John, Joe’s partner, it was Joe who blistered the court with sharp kills and angled returns that slid ever so slightly beyond outstretched arms. Again, to my own weakness and inexperience, I often isolated the court and tried to take Joe on one-on- one whenever the ball came my way. So, pride got in the way as I knew deep down I wanted to show the teacher how far the student had come. And that one solitary moment came as I rolled out a ball against Joe. It felt great for the moment, but hollow for the team effort.   We lost the games 9 and 8 to the eventual champions (by default over the defending champs, Rich Greenburg and Dave Schmelz) in what was a frustrating effort.  I frustrated my partner and myself and for that I feel bad.

Again, I failed my partner Rick. But as the days have passed since we played the tournament, I have analyzed my play and my experience. Playing with Rick Anderson was a great gift that I shall always cherish. Perhaps at another time and venue, we will again be afforded the opportunity to face down any and all opponents and prevail.

True, I take these things personally because handball has been more than a game to me. I am amazed at the nuances and catharsis that I have experienced as I elevate the physical and mental aspects of my play. And as I continue to bare my soul in these pages, in the telling of this experience, I am reminded of a stanza of a song from Joni Mitchell that sums it all for me with a smile (especially after this tournament in Bethlehem):
“Slouching Towards Bethlehem: (Based on a poem by W.B. Yeats)


Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely it's the second coming
And the wrath has finally taken form
For what is this rough beast
Its hour come at last
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born


Enough said about me.  There were plenty of handball games to played and viewed as players from the other divisions battled through their draws.  Although, I always laud the Open players, at this event, I am more inclined to heap my praise on the efforts of David Botero and his Hope in Handball kids. David’s kids made up most of the C/Novice divisions. Their efforts are to be commended. They played with the enthusiasm of youth and growing love for the game. This is the second time I have seen these kids play and they are eager and are like sponges when it comes to handball. From the few slices I glimpsed throughout the tournament day, with continued encouragement and support, I will go out on a limb and say, the likelihood of future champions emerging from this group is great.

The Open division consisted of 6 teams resulting in a round robin format. There were intriguing pairings, two of which were families consisting of father and son, Rick and Lee Anderson and brothers, Will and Dave Bardwell. To round out the division, Eric Smith teamed up with Oscar Diaz, Victor LoPierre paired with Matthew Chu, Mark Ochipinti and C.J. Raymond teamed and Dave Botero and Ray Persuad played together.  Because of the tight scheduling, there was little idle time as matches were backed up on all courts. But I managed to see Rick and Lee overwhelm Victor and Matthew in their opening round games. Although Victor and Matthew played well at times and won a few rallies, the outcome was never in doubt. Eric and his partner Oscar also handled Victor and Matthew, thus eliminating them from the competition.

I did not witness the other matches leading up to the third round semifinals, but one match found Eric and Oscar pitted against Rick and Lee. This was a competitive battle, and though Eric and Oscar may have been game; the experience of Rick and Lee came through in the clutch as Rick dominated the front court with his usual great anticipation and deft hands. A scary moment during the match found Lee doubled over in pain as one of his ankles rolled as he turned to retrieve a slicing hook.  After a medical timeout, Lee returned to the court, visibly hobbled but finishing the match.

The above result placed Lee and Rick in line for the championship against the Bardwell brothers. As the featured match of the day began to play out, the first game saw Rick and Lee race out to a sizable lead. But against fine players no lead is too great or safe. The Bardwells chipped away and evened the score at several points during the game. Lee’s ankle bothered him but there were some rallies that the discomfort clearly took a backseat to the importance of winning a point. To the bitter end these two pairs battled until the Bardwells pulled out the game 21-19. In the second game, father and son found new life and made quick work of the Bardwells despite the closeness of the score. Rallies were quick and often ending in kills from either team. Sharpness and speed of the ball is the earmark of these players and very few shots are taken in any other form; of course, the exception being Rick’s surgical placements. With the Andersons winning 21-15, the finals came down to the 11-point tiebreaker.

Every point was contested and a mini battle ensued within this protracted war.  Neither team relented as the scoring went back and forth and finally tied at 10-10. Having gone through another 10-10 score in a tiebreaker earlier in the day, Rick must have sensed as Yogi Berra would say, “déjà vu all over again.” Unfortunately neither father nor son could produce the magic as the last shot loped off the ceiling and hugged the right wall in a slow lazy arch that sent the ball cascading tightly, vertically dropping inches from the back wall; making a return ever so difficult. The valiant effort to retrieve fell short as the ball trickled away to end the match and seal the victory for the Bardwells. 

In  the 65/70 Division, the long standing team of Al Green and Graham Palmore handled Mike Razz and Bob Norris 21-11 21-20. In the B Division Mike Killion and DJ Healey bested Matthew Chu and Andy Chen 21-14, 21-20. And finally, the C division winners were Frank Tommassini and Matt Bailey over Ray Persuad Jr. and his brother Chris Persaud, 21-13, 21-10.

My kudos to Randy Wolfe and his people for running a smooth tournament. I enjoyed the camaraderie, the food, the fun and the beverages and look forward to the next time.

This was a fun tournament that afforded me the opportunity to meet and play against new players and reconnect with a mentor. But playing with Rick Anderson (Thank you Rick for the boost.) was a delight and pleasure and has so enriched my game.  How so you might say? Well, it’s handball. It’s me. And you will see!

Peter Peart (11/02/2010)

In religion and spirituality, it is said, a pilgrimage is a long journey or search of great moral significance. Sometimes, it is a journey to a shrine of importance to a person's beliefs and faith. From time immemorial, members of many major religions have participated in pilgrimages. A person who makes such a journey is called a pilgrim. For some of us, handball is a religion and that is no disrespect to the traditional and religious among us. Suffice it to say, this one pilgrim’s journey.

The journey to Toledo (Maumee), OH for the 60th USHA National Three- Wall Championships is the pilgrimage of our sport. The caravans arrive from the four directions and all points in between. Tents are pitched, blankets are unfurled and generations gather at this sacred place for a feast of friendships and fabulous handball.

This is a family affair on so many levels. There are the families that have been coming to Toledo for this event for as long as it has existed at this venue. As a result, there are children who have grown up at this event and now have children of their own having made this journey to continue a rich and hopefully lasting tradition.  To take away nothing from the rest, these are the royalties of our sport. As grandfathers, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters from the same families compete in either a skill division or age appropriate bracket, the whole atmosphere is charged with a sense of spirituality and camaraderie among the larger handball family.

It was into this atmosphere I felt welcomed. I was awed and humbled from the first moment of arrival and knew I was about to enter into a special realm.

Early Thursday morning after being on the road for 7 hours (Thank you Nan for taking care of the driving!); getting a few hours of shut eye, I was eager to find the venue and check in for my 11 AM match. Matches had already started, a little later than scheduled because it had rained in the early morning hours and that usually requires the torches to dry the concrete before start of play at this and any outdoor handball venue.  And with the sun and humidity making their presence felt toward late morning, I was ready to embark on what would prove to be both a remarkable journey and a spiritual awakening in the realm of handball.

Seeing familiar faces soon after arrival lifted my spirits and helped calm my nerves. To be honest, I had nary a clue what was to unfold over the next five days. Since it was early in the tournament, I had a choice of courts on which to play. After selecting court seven, I later selected court eight because I thought it looked in better shape. As any handball player knows, no two courts are exactly alike, and on different days, the ball may bounce a little differently. But those are the quirks of the game, and in the end, it is the relative skill of the players that factors in the most.

Entered in the Men’s Singles Golden Master B (50+) single elimination event, my 11 AM opponent, Alan Viets from Michigan kept me waiting because he went to the wrong court. But as he approached, he recognized me as someone he played several years ago in a friendly match we arranged while he had traveled to Washington, D.C. on business. Admittedly, I had not made the connection when I studied the draw and noted the name of my first opponent. Upon seeing the man, I recalled our games. He may have had the advantage at that first meeting, but I know I have made significant progress since then and looked forward to the challenge.

I won the right to serve first and promptly lost it on a passing shot hit as return of serve. I could feel the butterflies as my gut tightened. I remembered to breathe and settled down some as we battled back and forth, neither player truly taking command. At the beginning, a lead of five points was the most held by either one of us. In between, there were numerous side outs, often buttressed by long rallies. Finally after these long duels, Alan forged ahead by a few points as I would battle back to tie the score or go up by a point or two. And so it went until I was able to close out the match by winning 21-18.

The first game was long and I began to feel heaviness in my legs. The five minutes between games helped to revive me. As we began the second game, Alan ran out ahead and I could not counter. All the off court advice was welcomed, but my execution was poor. I only hoped to keep the game in sight by not allowing my opponent to leave me in the dust. Behind by six or seven points and in danger of letting the game and perhaps the match get away from me, I found a gear that leveled my game. I started making the right shots and began scoring points with greater frequency while not allowing any runs on exchange of serves. After one long rally, which I won, I saw my opponent with a look of discouragement in his demeanor and that was a signal to pounce. I started driving the ball deep on serves and returns as my points total edged closer to my goal. And after what was a long and arduous match, I emerged victorious 21-14. I shook my opponent’s hand walked off the court full of pride and emotion because I had just won my very first match! It was now well after 1 PM and I would have to recover significantly to play again in the evening. It must be noted that it is unusual to play twice in one day within the same bracket at a national tournament.  But as unseeded player, such was my lot.

Before heading back to the hotel, I was able to watch Pat Lowery play, a member of the DC/DE/MD/PA/VA/WVA handball family who collectively play in Columbia, MD and are well represented here in Toledo. Pat is a veteran of many campaigns to Toledo. It was fun to watch him compete in this first round match as he always does well in advancing through his chosen bracket. And advance he did, as he dispatched his opponent 21-7, 21-9. Pat would later play a marathon match in the quarterfinals round with the eventual champion Terry Peterson (Des Moines, IA). In that match, Pat pulled out the first game 21-19. In the second game, Pat had trouble finding his shots as he seemed out of position on most returns. The result was a 21-6 loss which led to the 11-point tiebreaker. Whether in tournament play or a so called ‘friendly,’ tiebreakers seem to be Pat’s specialty. From viewing results, over the years he has played in so many. This match against Peterson was a close and tight 11 point game. There were beautiful points and crowd pleasing shots. But in the end, Peterson outlasted Pat and won, 11-8.

It is often said, ‘There is no rest for the wicked or the weary.’ In my case, weariness foiled my attempts at a few hours sleep between my morning and evening match of the first day. I rested, but could not find the solace of deep slumber. Although hours of music calmed and soothed my nerves, it was no substitute for the rest my body truly required.

I arrived for evening match refreshed and relaxed but wishing that I could have slept. As the schedule would have it, it seems my match was the featured match of the evening because it was slated for court six, the center court at Toledo, sight of the Open finals.

As I strode on the court to warm up and meet my opponent, the setting sun cast long shadows on the court floor as the orange fading light dazzled off the front wall. With artificial light already lit, transitioning to night play would be made easier. With one of the largest contingencies of supporters gathered to cheer me on, my handball family made me feel right at home.

Ernie McGarry from Seattle, Washington introduced himself as we warmed up. I realized, he had watched my first round match earlier in the day and would have certainly picked up on my strengths and weaknesses on display in that event. Apparently, he was a quick study. Between his fine play and my molasses like pace, I found myself in a hole from the start and the hole only got deeper. I was enamored by the fact that I was so relaxed and felt little or no anxiety, and it unfortunately showed in my lack of effort. Even with the most familiar of voices shouting encouragement, I was unable to score and darkness fell outside the court as I failed to muster a single point in the first game.

Playing under the lights for the first time presented no problem as long as the ball did not leave the confines of the three walls. On deep shots outside the court, the ball is momentarily lost in the twilight that exists in the court extension. I gathered myself between games and started the second game with crisper serves and shots. I edged out to a 5-0 lead. That soon evaporated as Ernie played smart handball and built a sizable lead. With Ernie being ahead 14-5, I found new handball life and played with passion and zest. I did not quit even though my legs felt like lead. The will to extend the match was strong as I sought to level the score. Ernie too found new handball will and kept me at bay to win 21-15. The score was a small consolation for not scoring in the first game and not quitting after being down in the second.

After one loses in a tournament, there is an obligation to referee the next match scheduled for your court. Dan Ho (Columbia, MD) vs. Jerry Yee (NYC) from the Men's Singles Super Master (60+) Single elimination bracket got off to a fast start as Dan mixed his often effective lofted right side serves that Jerry had trouble returning. Dan also used this as an offensive shot and scored some of his points via this tactic. After several exchanged side outs, Dan seemed to pull away and beat Jerry, 21-8.

The second game found Jerry finishing rallies quickly and efficiently, limiting Dan’s use of his most effective weapon, the loft down the right side. Keeping Dan out of the service box allowed Jerry to mount a sizeable lead of 14-5. After a brief time out, Dan found his magic and scored 11 unanswered points, the last coming on a marathon rally that featured high and low gets from seemingly impossible angles and positions. With the point won by Dan, both players looked exhausted and in a moment of gamesmanship, Jerry looked to Dan to call a timeout, but Dan’s response was a desire to serve. Jerry graciously asked for a needed and deserved time out. After the minute rest allotted for a time out, Dan clearly had the momentum on his side and pressed the issue as Jerry had given his all in the draining rally. And although Jerry served again, Dan, still energized from his winning rally, closed out the match, 21-16.  

Other matches continued, but our day was ended as many of the Columbia, MD three-wall family gathered for what is a standing tradition of a Thursday night meal at a local restaurant. I felt welcomed into one of the many traditions born of this pilgrimage.

Losing to Ernie was hard, but he and I bonded and had many a wonderful conversation for the rest of the tournament. Ernie proved to be a classy player and person. We were still connected because Ernie’s next opponent in the Friday quarterfinals was Steve Bossung (Harpers Ferry, WVA), my doubles partner from another bracket in the tournament.

It is an ironic feeling to root for the one who eliminates you from competition. But my loyalty was to Steve my partner in the Friday match. Again, because of tremendous downpours in the early morning, the match schedule was in disarray for the entire day. The noon start for the Steve and Ernie quarterfinals was pushed back until mid afternoon. Finally underway, Ernie took advantage of Steve’s serve and passed him to the deep left, racking up points at will. Though Steve’s first round match was easily won at 21-4, 21-5, his quarterfinals against Ernie proved tougher and in the end, Ernie prevailed, 21-10, 21-8. Now, rooting for Ernie would be easier since he had eliminated Steve and moved to his semifinal half of the bracket. Ernie’s next opponent on Saturday proved too tough and overpowered Ernie, 21-11, 21-10. The winner played in the finals against eventual champion, Terry Peterson (IA).

Traditionally, Friday is the longest day by virtue of having so many matches played. With a weather delayed late start, it would mean matches lasting well past midnight. And it seems weather wanted to continue playing a part in the action as Friday’s mid afternoon temperatures plummeted and the wind became brisk.

Since my next scheduled match was pushed back from a 7 PM start time until much later, I could conceivably watch many matches. Of course, as a family, we all show support for each other and the Columbia family is no exception. With the tournament getting into full gear, matches are backed up on courts so one can stake out a spot or if the schedule falls right, as it did on Friday, many of the Columbia player’s matches were held on the same side of the 8 court divide.

A featured match pitted Dan Zimet playing out of Columbia, MD against Kirk Rys from Chicago, IL. In the first game, Rys gave Zimet as much as he could handle and kept the match close. Matches that are often close can sometimes turn on close play that breaks the spirit or a missed call by the referee. On one or the other, this game and eventual match turned. Dan was able to hit is precise low right hand side serves that set up textbook kills of weak returns. Rys was never as competitive as the first half of the first game, and Dan closed him out 21-14. The second game was never in doubt as Zimet took control and pressed on to a 21-6 victory and the match.

Zimet’s Saturday opponent was much tougher and by all accounts tested Dan and forced an 11-point tiebreaker which Zimet seem to win easily at 11-2. The win put Zimet in Sunday’s Final against Bob Nicholas of California. In the first game, Dan raced out to 6-0 lead by keeping Nicholas off balance with his serves. After Nicholas made it close for a few points, Zimet pulled away with crisp kills and well timed passing shots that had Nicholas chasing and retrieving only to have his somewhat ineffective returns put away. The start of the second game was the mirror image of the first; as Nicholas raced out to a 6-0 lead. Zimet calmly inched back and tied the match and then passed Nicholas, allowing only 3 points the rest of the way and securing his 11th National Masters title, 21-9.

Friday also saw, Dan Ho go up against Vance McGinnis of Illinois as play continued in the 60+ singles bracket. Vance is a perennial favorite to win this division and presents problems for most players. McGinnis is a tall lanky man that uses his height advantage to cut off or reach back for shots. Shots that would ordinarily force other players to move or run back, McGinnis only takes in stride. Ho had his work cut out for him and turned the event into and entertaining spectacle. At 21-10, 21-7, Ho showed great tenacity in keeping the score respectable. Embracing at center court after the match, the height disparity could not be more evident.

As the Friday evening rolled along, Lee Anderson (Columbia, MD) was pumped for his A Singles match against known rival, Will Bardwell (Columbia, MD). With families watching, there was an atmosphere of great anticipation as to which one of these young lions would win the day. From the very first serve, Anderson was in control. The machine like precisions of his low hopping serves kept Bardwell guessing and missing. The first game was short as Anderson limited Bardwell to 2 points. The second game was more of the same as Bardwell only managed 4 more points than the first game as Anderson executed his will to win 21-6.

In Saturday’s semifinal match, Anderson came up against Daniel Mcnabney from Rochester, NY. With temperature well below normal warmth, this turned into a knock down drag out battle with neither player seeming to flinch. It was a battle to be remembered for its artistry and tenacity shown by both players. After winning the first game 21-10, Anderson fought hard to keep the momentum going and seal a victory in the second game. The fiery display of intensity had the spectators in awed appreciation. The somewhat biased crowd cheering for Anderson buzzed with each point. Coming up short at 21-18, Anderson braced for the 11-point tiebreaker. The game progressed with Anderson in a deep whole, but he clawed his way back to tie the score at 7-7. From this point on, the tension mounted as body language and hearts reacted to every contact of the ball. Both players served at 10-10, but it was Mcnabney who managed to eke out the victory on a miss hit by Anderson. Even though losing at 11-10 in a tiebreaker can be tough on anyone, collectively, the spectators all felt the ache for Anderson in this defeat.

Of note, in the Sunday finals, Mcnabney emerged the A singles champion in a grueling match against Paul Angel from Brooklyn, NY, 21-18, (17-21), 11-6. Paul Angel had come up against Dave Bardwell (Columbia, MD) on the other side of the bracket in the Saturday semifinal round. Despite a fine showing in the bracket, Dave was bested by Paul, 21-16, 21-11.

The late Friday evening into night was just getting warmed up with action as the brisk chilly air nipped at the ill-prepared players and spectators alike. Everyone did their best to stay warm.

As other matches played out, our interest turned to local (Columbia, MD) favorites, Rick Anderson and Tony Winter in their match in the Men's Doubles 50+ Single Elimination division. Rick and Tony efficiently went about their task with precise play as Rick controlled the front court and Tony blanketed the back, at times reaching far beyond the confines of the 3-wall enclosure to hit effective ceiling or high front wall shots. The discipline in this team’s play is to be admired and emulated as it epitomizes winning efforts by a doubles team. Winning 21-2, 21-8 over the team of Jim Tamagni (California) and Joe Havener (Illinois) put Rick and Tony up against Ray Estevez and his partner Scott Rosenthal (Illinois) in a Saturday semifinal. Again, the timbre of the match can only be described as tenacious. Rick played the front like a master, directing shots from high and steering them to sudden death via corner kills. And whenever there were straight out kills, unless rolled out, Rick’s body would be prone and the ball returned to be in play or end the rally. Taking the first game 21-15, Rick and Tony geared for the Estevez rally. Ray is a controlled player with the quickness and skills to match Rick upfront. At 21-18, Ray and Scott squared the match and girded for the 11-point tiebreaker. The excitement of any tiebreaker is always multiplied whenever the score is kept close as this game was. However, Ray and Scott were able to somehow find a way to exploit a few tactical errors and won 11-8. The result put Ray and Scott in the semifinal against Jim Corrigan (Cleveland, OH) and Phil Kirk (Maumee, OH) who have dominated at this level for years. Their collective domination is most often interrupted by the other dominant team in the bracket and this year’s eventual champions, David Dohman (Indiana) and Tim Sterrett (Illinois).  It was the team of Dohman and Sterrett that awaited Joe Berman (Columbia, MD) and Dan Ho after their first round wins over James Kreger and Jeff Grilliot, both of Ohio, 21-7, 21-8.

Although Berman and Ho gave their all, Dohman and Sterrett proved too powerful and advanced, 21-6, 21-11.

Men's Doubles 50+ Single Elimination is the bracket that Steve Bossung and I competed in. Our first obstacle was the team of Joe Ivy and John Early both from Michigan. Being new to the Toledo scene, any player information is helpful. To that end, everyone mentioned Joe Ivy’s name with respect. Well after 9 PM, with the wind howling and the temperature steadily falling, Steve and I took the court against Early and Ivy. With Steve mostly playing up front and me in the back, we sometimes were caught out of position and the more experienced team took advantage and piled up the points. A combination of steady play by Early and Ivy and more erratic play by Steve and I led to our swift dismissal from the tournament to the tune of 21-7, 21-11.

Early and Ivy would later face the aforementioned Corrigan and Kirk and meet a quick defeat at 21-1, 21-8.

Of note, Joe Ivy teamed up with Bob Bardeau (Ohio) and defeated Bob Dyke (Columbia, MD) and Ken Greco (Connecticut) in the semifinals of the Men's Doubles 55+ Single Elimination bracket on their way to a thrilling championship victory over John (Sean) Coneeley (Illinois) and Tim Murray (Florida), 21-13, (7-21), 11-10.

The end of Friday night could not come soon enough, with cold air swirling and the tainted taste of defeat languishing in my mouth. And even though I wanted to stay and cheer on Lee and Eric Anderson in their A doubles match, the combination of elements and weariness forced me to retreat to find food, drink and the warmth of my in room Jacuzzi.

Saturday was cold and clear and forced many participants to local stores to find warm weather gear. In all fairness, the coldness was exacerbated by the fact that everyone dressed for summer. Shorts, sandals and the mindset to be playing outdoors usually do not coincide with cold snaps.

Upon reflection of the previous night’s loss, I felt a great disappointment that I would not be playing in this year’s tournament anymore. It was a sad feeling despite the great handball that I had seen and was sure to follow in the remaining days of the tournament.  

Saturday is the middle day of the tournament and the evening feasting was scheduled. Apparently food and beverage are another tradition of the Toledo experience. With meats being prepared fresh daily and free flowing draft beer, if one only came to eat, drink and watch handball, there would be a great satisfaction to be had.

After hearing so much about Toledo for all these years, it was great to experience it for myself. Getting to meet people and seeing great handball ranks among the fine experiences of life. But this story continues with more Saturday matches on the schedule; and with none of my own to look forward to, I volunteered to referee the Women’s Open semifinal match between Sandy Ng (Brooklyn, NY) and Samantha England (Rochester, NY).

Sandy Ng, at 17 has the distinction of being the youngest women’s National Open Champion, gaining that honor by recently slamming (winning Open Singles and Open Doubles) in the One Wall Nationals held in Brooklyn, NY in August 2010. It was both an honor and a pleasure to referee this semifinals match between a older champion and a rising star in our sport. And even though the women’s divisions play with a lighter, livelier ball, their skills are as accomplished because the courts and conditions are otherwise equal.

Ng and England go at it from the start and push each other with deep shots and terrific kills. The two women battle back and forth with Ng prevailing 21-15 in the first game. The second game found Ng in complete control, hitting passing shots at will and serving a low hopping right side bullet. England had trouble handling that serve as Ng piled up points and was poised to end the match, up 20-16. Serving for the match, at some incident Ng became rattled; and never regained composure and lost the serve. England then followed with five straight points to win the game and level the match. Between games, Ng gathered herself and finished England 11-5 in the tiebreaker.

Of note, being a referee for the women is quite different from the men. The women are generally less argumentative than the men, with one noted exception at this tournament.

Ng would lose in the semifinal to the eventual Women’s Open Champion, Tracy Davis (Arizona). But redemption would be had by teaming up with Samantha England and besting the doubles team of Tracy Davis and Teresa McCourt (Staten Island, NY) in a riveting Monday match, 21-17, (19-21), 11-10; the last point coming off a deep serve to left wall that slid and hooked left as it left the court with Tracy Davis reaching in vain to retrieve the elusive ball.
 
Saturday play continued with many quarter and semifinal matches to sate the viewing pleasure. Among my favorite divisions to watch is the Open. In the Open division, the level of play surpasses and surprises even the wildest imaginings of play in our sport. Speed, precision and ease separate the elite among the Open player. This year’s championships offered a plethora of players in the men’s Open division, headlined by David Chapman (Missouri), Luis Moreno (Arizona), Tyree Bastidas (Brooklyn, NY), David Fink (Pittsburgh, PA), Dane Szatkowski (Illinois), Andy Nett (Minnesota) and a host of others too numerous to mention. One notable absence from this list is Sean Lenning (Seattle, WA) who could not make the trip because of injury.

From this smorgasbord of potential match ups, I settled in and watched the phenomenal talent of Luis Moreno in his quarterfinals match against Andy Nett. To say Moreno overwhelmed Nett would be an understatement. As I watched the match sitting with Nett’s dad, even though he was proud of his son, he could not help but be awed by the skill and ease with which Moreno dispatched his boy. Moreno is an efficient player who seizes every opportunity to put away a shot; using knife like kills with either hand displaying power or soft finesse. After getting 9 points in the first game, Nett was limited to 3 in the second.

Moreno is a nice young man. After being introduced to him, we spoke a few times during the tournament and his on and off the court demeanor are to be commended. I mention this in contrast to the bratty behavior of other Open players on display here and at other tournaments.

For the next round, Moreno went up against Tyree Bastidas. Tyree has skills beyond belief. To see them plied on the court is a thing of beauty. But they are most often overshadowed by Tyree’s penchant for drama and over reaction to the slightest disturbance in the atmosphere. I like Tyree and I love his skills, but his gamesmanship and court conduct is lousy. In fairness to the young man, it has improved, but still has a ways to go. Tyree may be a champion, but he has no idea what it means to be a champion. But I digress. Moreno and Bastidas squared off in beautiful battle that matched skill for skill. As one player/spectator who watched the match commented on a riveting sequence during one game, “Yeah, I can do that, perhaps one in several thousand tries.” And so it went, shot after shot and rally after rally with Bastidas besting Moreno, 21-15 (19-21), 11-4.

Before Bastidas was able to face Moreno, he had to outlast David Fink in terms of skill and on court antics. The spectators anticipated melt downs for which both players are known and they also anticipated spectacular play. They were treated to both. Again, when equally matched players face each other, sometimes a game or match can turn on a single bounce. Bounces and bashes dominated the play with Tyree taking the first game 21-19. Taking his antics to another level, Tyree pounded his hand against the concrete several times and apparently damaged his right hand. The realization and pain must have set in because Fink took advantage and easily won the second game 21-10. The tiebreaker was scintillating as Tyree snatched the win 11-10.

The Monday Open final pitted Tyree against David Chapman who was never tested on his side of the draw. Chapman is legendary in his play. He is always in control, though at times does display diva like dishes. He does play a beautiful game mixed with power and supreme finesse. Seeing him execute the corner kills sends chills up and down the spine. Chapman also rarely makes mental errors. He reduces and expands the court at will and seems to calculate every shot to within a precise micron. As so, an injured Tyree was no match for Chapman who generously allowed 11 points in the first game and became stingy in the second, parting with a mere 5.

Returning to Saturday play, Alan Frank (Columbia, MD) teamed up with Mark Zamora (Fontana, CA) to begin round robin play in the Men's Doubles – 45+ division. What a lethal team these two Grand Masters proved to be. With Frank dealing booming arches from the deep court, Zamora simply sliced and diced his kill shots to all angles in front. In the three matches played on the way to the Monday championship, this team was never challenged beyond a few contested points. No opponent scored more than 9 points in the three matches.

Frank also teamed up with his long time doubles partner Dan Zimet to compete in the Men's Doubles 35+ division. Seeded number one, the path to the Monday finals was made less arduous as they handled their first opponents, 21-7, 21-11. In the finals, Zimet and Frank met with the number two seed, Shane Conneely (Illinois) and J. Komsthoeft (Illinois). This was a tight match controlled by the younger team from Illinois. Frank’s sure-footedness and precision from the back was tested and often bested during the match. While Zimet’s up front game is his bread and butter, the usual consistency was noticeably lacking throughout both games. Though Frank and Zimet threatened, their threats where never fully materialized and at 21-15, 21-14, Conneely and Komsthoeft were crowned champs.

The Frank family dynasty expanded as young Nathaniel played his way through the Junior Singles – Boys Juniors round robin draw. Playing 4 games and winning all, Nathaniel was only truly tested by Dylan Graham (Michigan).  Dylan took Nathaniel to a tiebreaker in their match, a game Nathaniel won 11-2.

Mark Zamora teamed with Bob Nicholas (California) to control the Men’s Doubles 40+ division. Jay Miller (Columbia, MD) and Rick Anderson competed in this bracket which saw them advance to the semifinals in their half of the bracket. Their loss (21-12, 21-7) to Pete Hanover and Patrick Meyers, both from Michigan put Hanover and Myers in the finals against eventual champions, Nicholas and Zamora.

Jay Miller also gamely competed in the Men's Singles Veteran Masters (45+). Jay injured himself in an earlier doubles match that severely limited his play going forward. However, Jay did reach the finals in this division but could only muster 5 and 9 points against Marty Clemens from Tennessee.

Ray Estevez competed and emerged champion in the Men's Singles Veteran Golden (55+) division. The bracket was stocked with the likes of the aforementioned Bob Bardeau (Ohio) and Tim Murray (Florida). But neither Bob nor Tim made the finals. Ray faced John Friedrich (Ohio) and lost the first game 21-7. However, Ray found his stride in the second game and returned the favor, 21-6, thus setting up the match deciding tiebreaker. Although I did not witness the event, the results speak for themselves, 11-5.

In a moving ceremony on Sunday afternoon, the latest players to achieve Grand Master status were honored as matches were stopped and Dan Zimet and Mark Zamora were presented with sweaters to mark the occasion. I cannot say enough to congratulate both men on their remarkable achievements.

To close out this year’s competition and whet my appetite for games, I signed up for the consolation round. Consolation rounds are just that, they serve to console and perhaps give the winner the satisfaction of knowing he may be the best of those who lost in first round play. Well, not everyone signs up and of those who sign up, not everyone shows up to play. The matches, taken seriously by the participants, are sometimes looked upon a little less favorably by those who are still competing within the brackets. This is my own perception, but that is also a general feeling I gathered.

After the consolation draws were posted on Saturday, Sunday play was scheduled. I was excited to play again. My first opponent was Jim London from St. Louis. Jimmy is hard to miss because he well liked and is a fixture at the tournament. He is also mentally challenged. But as I found out Jimmy likes to play and if he can hit the ball, he will make good shots. So I played with Jimmy and let him hit the ball and score points in each game. He is like a little brother who should be encouraged. My next opponent whom I played a couple hours later as courts became available was Rick Jackiw from Ontario, Canada. Rick is limited in his movement and wears removable knee braces. This was a modest victory to put me in the finals against Guy Ingram from Florida. To put it openly, Guy was looking for someone to beat and he blew by me in quick games 21-3, 21-5. I was just happy to play and congratulated Guy on his win.

This was the very first pilgrimage to Toledo and by far, my greatest handball experience to date.  I found the experience fun, enriching, eye-opening, exhausting, warm, and friendly. I learned a lot about myself and I saw our sport being played at spectacular levels. The most fascinating aspect of this trip was to be able to see the players I have read about for years. Beyond our local contingency, I met the elite of three-wall handball and drank in (including the beer) all I could. But from the moment I was eliminated from competition, my thoughts and frame of mind began to focus on the task at hand: How to prepare for the next pilgrimage to Toledo.

One of the many hallmarks of a true champion is grace under pressure. In any of the three versions of our sport currently being played, tournaments are held and champions emerge from all ranks displaying grace among other qualities.

As always, the Open Singles and Doubles divisions represent the best players from top to bottom.  With the presence of the great champion David Chapman, it was almost a foregone conclusion that he would be a finalist in the Open Singles bracket. Enough cannot be said about David and his legendary handball talent. To see his combined skill set on display at any venue is a pleasure and treat if one has ever played the game of handball.  As an observer among other players, the awe and amazement of what David does on the court could never be summed up in just a few words. Suffice it to say, as players, we are extremely fortunate to see David deftly display dexterity as he so efficiently paints and pinches corners with master strokes.

And so it was, David knifed through his half of the bracket, not really being tested nor pushed from game to game.  However, in all fairness to his opponents, to the man, they all showed resolve in the face of certain defeat. To this end, in the two matches leading up to the championship final, David limited his opponents to two game totals of 10 and 9 points respectively, with each competitor scoring 8 points in one of the two games.
On the other side of the draw, another fine champion, and top seed, Dan Zimet battled and bested a young and talented Michael Schneider 21-14, 21-15 on his way to the finals.

As readers of these pages know, I have always lauded Dan for his handball skills and his other fine qualities. So it was no surprise that during a break in the tournament, the local handball community, tournament participants, and spectators showed their collective appreciation in honoring Dan for his fine achievement of recently attaining Grand Master status for winning his 10th national title. As it was mentioned during the ceremony, Dan’s achievement is quite special because his 10 titles were obtained in 1-wall, 3-wall and 4-wall versions of our sport. Dan joins an elite group of players who have ever achieved this feat.

How would Dan fair against David? was the question on everyone’s mind on championship Sunday. With the fair weather gods applying their own brand of mischieve by dousing the courts with intermittent showers and sprinkles, the possibility of not holding the finals loomed large. After a few attempts at using blow torches to dry courts to playable conditions, a lull in the weather pattern allowed the matches to get underway.

As the spectators gathered and the camera rolled, zero serving zero opened the match with David serving.  With a combination of wicked fist shots to the ceiling and well placed hard and soft kills; David made quick work of Dan and ran off several strings of points to end the game at 3.

The second game started out better as Dan collected himself during the break as fine champions are wont to do.  Dan took an early 5-1 lead with his gorgeous serves and by moving David around the court with sharper shots and better angled returns. Early on, Dan limited David’s use of the devastating blasts to the ceiling that rocket and ricochet at a steep angle that either severely limits or eliminates the possibility of a return.  Whenever possible, David ended several volleys with the signature triple thunder of ball meeting fists, to echo off the ceiling and then finally resound on the floor as they gracefully arc to the deep and sometimes unreachable back court. David sensed that he was in a battle as Dan stretched the score to 7-1. Crisp kills were often met with re-kills by both players as the spectators cheered with appreciation.  Soon though, David inched closer with each exchange of serves. After keeping the score close for most of the game, David began pulling away even though Dan showed his greatness by neither giving up nor cracking under the pressure.  In the end, David prevailed 21-14 and the two champions embraced at mid court as the spectators showed their appreciation.   

The Open Doubles featured Alan Frank and Dan Zimet as the number one seeds. The bracket was filled with other notable pairings, David Chapman and Joe Berman, the always dangerous and tenacious Bardwell brothers Will and Dave, father and son Rick and Lee Anderson who have recently become a formidable doubles team, and a pair of unknown (to this writer) New Yorkers William O’Donnell and Michael Schneider.

Although I did not witness the match between the Andersons and the New Yorkers, by the result, 21-13, 21-17, the Andersons met their match on this stage. The result set up a match between the New Yorkers and Alan and Dan.  For years, Alan and Dan have reigned supreme in Maryland and on the national stage as a doubles team in 3 wall play. The first game of the match was swift as the New Yorkers seemed to own Alan and Dan to the tune of 4 points. “Ownership” in the game of handball can be a fleeting thing and this proved to be the case as Alan and Dan returned the favor and held the New Yorkers to 2 points setting up the always thrilling 11 point tiebreaker. At 11-6, Alan and Dan could not overcome the youthful talent of these, no longer heretofore “unknown New Yorkers” who would now await the other finalists in the draw.

After the Bardwell brothers battled the pair of Adam Zimet and Houseman, 21-16, 6-21 and 11-3, they faced off against David Chapman and Joe Berman. The matched started out even and was shaping up to become a classic battle. The Bardwells, Will and Dave, have faced off against Chapman and another doubles partner earlier in the year at the National Masters in Allentown.  That was quite a match even though the Bardwells eventually lost; they pushed that incarnation of the Chapman team to the very brink of elimination, 20 and 19.  Back to the 3 wall contest; early into the first game, Joe Berman fell awkwardly reaching for a shot and injured his right shoulder. The injury changed the match as Joe struggled to serve and winced after most attempts at hitting the ball with his right hand. That left David to cover the court on almost every shot. One could sense the team’s frustration as the Bardwells capitalized on the injury and reversed the outcome of the Allentown lost by besting David and Joe, 21-18, 21-19. I would be remiss if I did not single out Dave Bardwell for his fine play and athletic agility as he leaped and reached several of David Chapman’s previously described thundering blasts to the ceiling.  At times, seemingly, only the back fence kept Dave Bardwell from completely lofting skyward. The win made the Bardwells finalists to face the New Yorkers. However, Will and Dave defaulted leaving us all to wonder what might have been?

As mentioned before, divisions are often combined to accommodate players and set up fair competition. As a result, for this tournament, the 40/50 Doubles division featured some of the finest players in the region. My partner Bruce Cohen and I were entered in this bracket.  To start, we faced the great Roger Berry and his partner Rick Anderson whose game I admire and always praise.  To say we faced an uphill battle would be an understatement. Although we were handily beaten, 21-4, 21-3, it is never fun to be schooled as it were, but there are lessons to be learned from these sessions and I enjoyed being on the court with such fine players and look forward to improving the outcome the next time we meet.

Roger and Rick would later face Ray Estevez and Bob Dyke who subbed for an injured Jay Miller who together with Ray had earlier beaten a strong team of Bob Humphreys and Rick Compton. Dyke, before pairing with Estevez, had his own pairing with Ken Greco before losing in a thrilling tiebreaker, 11-10 to Bob Bardwell and Tony Winter.

In the Roger and Rick, Estevez and Dyke match, the games were long with extended rallies for many points. For respective teams, Roger and Dyke lurked in the back while Estevez and Rick controlled the front court. This made for thrilling volleys and each player brought out the very best in his opposite number. In the end, Roger and Rick prevailed 21-15, 21-19.

The other side of the bracket featured the recent 4 wall National Masters 45+ Doubles champions, Alan Frank and Joe Berman.  They make an excellent doubles team because they are disciplined in their court coverage, with Alan in the back lofting ceiling shot after ceiling shot and Joe systematically putting shots away with slicing kills. So it was no issue for them to breeze through their half of the draw, prior to Joe’s injury, limiting opponents to 2, 9 and 3, 5 points respectively.
With the finals showdown between Rick and Roger and Alan and Joe in the offing, Joe’s shoulder injury would certainly influence the match. But overnight rest seemed to help Joe as he and Alan kept Roger and Rick on their heels for most of the match. As it is with excellent players, rallies can be extended or ended before they begin. This matched showed fine examples of both types of play. Joe wincingly played all out as Alan seemed to overpower Roger and Rick. Even though the final score was 21-14 and 21-9 in favor of Alan and Joe, spectators sensed the outcome long before the final score was set.  But with their warrior heart and spirit, Roger and Rick never showed quit and battled every point to the end.

As the combined 40/50/AB Singles division would indicate, the draw was stocked with an assortment players.  As always, the tournament directors show their mettle in sorting out the pairs on either side of the bracket. Placed in this division, my first match was against David Botero, a described …”handball fanatic,” who mentors at-risk youth in the Harrisburg, PA area by teaching them handball. David is to be commended for his efforts; more on this later. Our first game was a seesaw battle for the first few points. Tied at 9, I found my serve and began pulling away and eventually winning the game 21-10. The second game, David served and volleyed with precision and feasted on my down the middle shots with easy overhand corner kills. Down 17-4, I may have thought of saving my energy for a tiebreaker but I decided that I could still win. As the day became hotter and more humid, conservation would have seemed the right choice. But I showed resolve and fought back on two consecutive service runs to draw to within a point. Carelessness and lost of focus allowed David back to the service line and he added two more points. My next chance to serve produced one point and allowed David the opportunity to finish the game 21-17. My efforts were not in vain as the two game total points afforded me the honor to serve first, an often important element in the tiebreaking game. I took advantage of the previous games momentum and raced out to a 3-0 lead. David came back and tied the score at 3 but could not muster another point as I pulled away on two consecutive service runs.

That victory boosted my confidence going into the semifinal round against George Alicea-Ruiz who had earlier dispatched Randy Wolfe, 21-3, 21-3. I know George’s reputation from playing against him in doubles. George showed his tenacity from the start of our match and never let up. Admittedly, I was just a step short of returning and volleying with George. He capitalized and feasted on my meaty returns to the tune of repeated kills and passing shots. The first game ended quickly at 21-2. I vowed to gather myself and push George in the second game and possible force a tiebreaker. What I thought and what I did were completely opposite. George used a variety of service changes and shots to keep me off balance and unceremoniously eliminated me from the tournament at 21-4.

I wished George well as he would now face Jay miller in finals. Jay’s road to the final was not as easy as George’s seemingly cake-walk victories. Jay’s first round match went 21-18 and 21-17 against a Boston area resident last named Cullen. Speaking with Cullen the next day, he lauded Jay for his precise shot making down the side walls. I nodded in agreement about this refined 3 wall skill possessed by Jay and many other successful players. Jay later faced Steve Bossung who managed 10 points in each game of their match.  Again, what should have been a spirited final never materialized because Jay defaulted and was a no show for the Sunday finals.

The 60+ Singles and Doubles divisions in our local tournaments seem to always pit familiar foes against one another. Having witnessed many a friendly game among the participants, come tournament time, competition is ratcheted up several notches.

In the Singles side, Dennis Uffer and George Fambro went toe-to-toe, splitting the first two games. In the tiebreaker, George edged out Uffer, 11-7. Dan Ho also fought a hard battle against Diminico as the two split the first two games with Ho winning the tiebreaker 11-6. Paul Healy faced ‘bionic’ man Woody and lost, 14, 7. Earl Savino and Joe Pleszkoch faced off with Joe getting the best of Earl, 4, 15. The two semifinal matches pitted Woody against Ho and Fambro against Pleszkoch. Both matches went the marathon route and ended up in tiebreakers with Ho triumphing over Woody, 11-5 and Fambro eking out a victory against Pleszkoch, 11-8.

The final saw Dan Ho rely on his lofting serves down the right wall that gave Fambro a great deal of trouble and resulted in a relatively quick first game at 2. In the second game, Fambro kept rallies short and used his serve to keep the match close. But in the end, Dan Ho had too many weapons in his bag of tricks and he closed out Frambro, 21-13.

The 60+ Doubles bracket combined many of the aforementioned singles combatants.  The top seed for this draw paired longtime local and national standouts Dave Hinkleman and Dan Ho. On the other side of the bracket, Paul Healy and George Fambro also received first round byes. As it often is in a balanced division as the 60+, top seeds usually advance to the finals. This being the case, Hinkleman and Ho held true to form as they executed with business-like efficiency. As with all great doubles teams, Dan and Dave communicate well and remain true to their designated roles. In addition, for this match Dan and Dave each had magnificent service runs of several points each. When an opponent is fighting to stop the points from tallying in these types of run, it is often most demoralizing and puts a strain on your game focus.  In other words, it is hard to recover from such runs unless you are able to muster a similar or greater run in return. This was not the case with Fambro and Healy. Hinkleman and Ho ruled the day, 21-5, 21-3.

The C and Novice divisions, though separate, featured the future of our game. In the C division, with young players such as Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky steadily improving; their dedication is beginning to bear fruit.  Nathaniel was the runner up in the round robin format, sustaining one loss in a tiebreaker to the eventual champion Dave Botero.

The Novice division featured at-risk youngsters from the Harrisburg, PA area. These kids show a great promise and love for the game as their mentor, Dave Botero. It was great to be a small part of their expanded horizons. Unfortunately, in the hub of the tournament atmosphere, I personally did not spend time with them. I hope they did not think us selfish for our singular focus that surrounds tournaments. However, if you missed the opportunity to meet these young people, all is not lost. Use this link to an informative article from Randy Wolfe posted on the Maryland Handball website.

Another successfully run tournament has come to an end. We played, had fun, stayed healthy and enjoyed the experience. To the champions, finalists, and participants, I salute your efforts. It can be said, over the days you played, you the champions played best. And for those of us who played good or better, we should never let it rest until our good is better and our better best.
See you in Toledo; all the best!

The game of handball is truly a universal sport. It could not be clearer than what was on display for the One Wall Nationals held in Brooklyn, New York August 4-8, 2010. This 5 day event is always filled with drama on and off the courts. This being Brooklyn and Coney Island, there are characters and then some. To confess, I am writing this report with bias because I only witnessed the final day and a mere two events. But what events they were.

First, Brooklyn is my birthplace. Although, I grew up playing the one wall game, I never mastered its intricacies as would be required to compete at the National level. But the 3 and 4 wall versions of our game have satiated my lust for handball and have indeed fulfilled some of the glory of the days of my youth when I triumphed in my home court without venturing beyond those fences. Tragically, that wall has been removed and the park modernized to be more all encompassing as an urban space. But I digress.
 
Sunday morning at West 5th Street and Surfside Ave was the place to be on August 8. With the spires of Coney Island's amusement park looming in the close distance and the sand, smell and surf of the Atlantic ocean only a few paces away, an eclectic crowd gathered around court number 1, the venue for the open finals of both men’s and women's divisions.
 
One cannot speak or write of handball at Coney Island without mentioning the spectators in equal voice as the players. It would seem that of the volumes in attendance, young, old, male and female alike, they all shared the same passion for the game. The game is so alive here that even during time outs from ongoing matches, there is a race to get on the court to slap the ball around. The action is constant and the buzz of the crowd is at an equal pace. In addition, if you want to hear stories and histories, this is the place to be. Complete strangers will bend your ear and tell of either own past glories or that of another as they have witnessed on these hallowed courts.
 
As it is so often in sports, the torch is constantly being passed as youth rise to take their place and serve their time at the top.
 
This brings me to the Men's Open Singles final. Knowing that I would only get to see a few hours’ worth of matches, this final was my choice for viewing. If you follow the one wall competition, the familiarity of names and skills at this level would already be known to you. But because it would take volumes to give backgrounds and histories, I will just briefly allude to certain connectors as they relate. At the beginning of the tournament, the reigning champion at this level was Satish Jagnandan. Satish is a great one-waller and has dominated on these courts during nationals for many years. But in this tournament, Satish met a determined William Palanco, a half of the current reigning Open doubles national champions. The match between these two champions must have been a thing of beauty because William eliminated Staish in their half of the quarterfinals 17, 18. On the other side of the draw, the teenage sensation Tyree Bastidas was making his way through the draw against past and future champions at this level. Without citing the details and the drama, Tyree and William met in the finals.
 
Having witnessed Tyree's skills at 3-wall and knowing his established and developing handball reputation, the pre-match buzz and hype was well warranted. Court 1 was ringed by spectators inside and outside the fences. As the combatants warmed up so did the crowd. After some delay, the match was underway. Tyree was at his best and kept his emotions under control. William had few answers for any of his serves or his shots, most of which were of the precise passing variety. William spent most of the first game, after jumping out to a 5-0 lead, defending. And in a series of two consecutive service turns, Tyree scored 15 unanswered points. They later exchanged a few side outs but Tyree added his needed 6 points while allowing William only 3 more for a 21-8 outcome.
 
The second game was different in that William battled and stayed close the first 8 points.  Although there were many scintillating rallies, William could never get on a run of more than 1 or two points at a time. Up 9-8, Tyree pulled away with brilliant shot making and blistering passing shots and never relinquished control. Whenever William was fortunate enough to retrieve a Tyree blast, his often off balance returns became fodder for the cannon that is Tyree's right hand. William only managed 3 more points for the game which ended with Tyree up 18-11, and he proceeded to serve 3 consecutive deep, nasty hooks to William's right that were out right service winners as William failed in successive attempts to make fair returns. The crowd showed its collective appreciation with deserved applause and shouts as the two fine combatants shook hands and warmly embraced as fans and well wishers streamed onto the court.
 
During the above mentioned finals, I spied Dan Zimet along the side lines in pre-match mode. After asking someone to hold my viewing spot, I sprinted over to Dan and discovered his match was in the offing and was the finals in a round robin for the 40 plus Doubles Masters. Dan was also entered in the 40 plus Singles Masters but was unfortunately eliminated in the semifinal 20, 16.
 
I was excited to see Dan's match for obvious reasons. Dan is one of my favorite players to watch. His game has so many facets that one can only aspire and hope to gain insight from watching his on court masterpieces unfold. Seeing Dan play and dominate all these years at 3 and 4 wall, I never realized he was also a 1 wall player.
 
Having missed the previous day’s matches, I overheard a man comment in typical 'Brooklynese,' "This kid Zimet is something else." At the time of hearing that comment, I was not aware that Dan was still in the tournament; nor that the man who made the comment, would be part of the team Dan would face in the finals. After realizing these facts, and before the match, I mentioned the comment to Dan but I did not identify the speaker. Dan of course showed grace and humility hearing his praises being sung by some seemingly random stranger.
 
Dan and his partner Dave Sheldon faced off against the team of Pete Pelligrini and Paul Lonergan. This being a round robin format and only 3 teams competing, wins and losses and total points often figure into the formula to determine a champion. As with most games/matches, win outright and leave no doubt. Dan and Dave seem to understand this going in and took control of the first game. Though close at first, Dave and Dan pulled away with dominant shot making and great front court play. With the final outcome 21-10, there was discussion between games of whether or not Dan and Dave were assured the championship with that victory. After some discussion and no resolution, game two was played. A win by Pelligrini and Lonergan would mean an 11 point tiebreaker. The game started out even and after a few side outs, Pelligrini and Lonergan were up 4-2. After a disputed call and clarifications, Lonergan found his serve and pinned Dan and Dave deep in the court while Pelligrini feasted from lofty returns with his repeated fly kills. And even when Dan and Dave battled in rallies, and hit seeming winners, Lonergan would somehow retrieve and between him and his partner, win the rallies. In all fairness, Dan and Dave hooked quite a number of shots wide thus ending rallies unceremoniously. The second game ended quickly as Lonergan and Peligrini went on extend point runs. Dan and Dave rallied but too little too late as the game ended, 21-8.
The tie breaker saw the continued dominance of Pelligrini and Lonergan. They continued with the style of play that proved successful in the previous game and bested Dan and Dave 11-3.
 
As spectators, we were unaware of how the wins/loses and total points would add up. But when I later walked over to the tournament director’s tent area, I spied Dan with the trophies in hand. I made inquires, and yes, he and Dave are the champions by rule of wins and loses: Dan and Dave was 3-2 and Pelligrini and Lonergan was 3-3.
 
After congratulating Dan and his partner, I took some photos of the winners and their hardware. In corresponding with Dan the next day, I inquired whether this was his 9th or 10th national title. Dan responded that this was his 10th national title.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure I report our newest Grand Master, Dan Zimet. Dan has joined an elite group of players in our sport. Dan has earned his championships as a complete player in that he has won national titles in 1-wall (this being his first), 3-wall (8) and 4-wall (1).
 
Hearty congratulations to Dan for a stellar career and this outstanding achievement. I wish him continued success and many more championships.
 
Though youth may be served and torches passed, it is still a great day for handball when one can witness future champions being crowned and great champions achieve breakthrough milestones. Again, congratulations to Dan for achieving this great milestone!
 

For further info on these one wall championships, check the USHA website or the website for this year’s tournament: http://www.r2sports.com/tourney/home.asp?TID=6945