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