Two weeks after the Maryland event, many of these same participants from the Maryland tournament found themselves headed for competition at the 63rd USHA National 3-Wall Championships-Maumee, Ohio (generally referred to as Toledo), against the best who decided to make the journey. This annual end of summer season tournament is steeped in tradition and ritual going back over 3 decades at this same location. And even though many of us only play in Toledo once a year, there is a familiarity that makes it a home away from home. Each of the few years since I have been attending, I look forward to the people, the camaraderie, the food and some really great handball.
The eight courts that make up this venue rarely stay idle during the last days of August through the first Monday in September. The meeting and greeting of familiar faces, families and friends serve to warm the heart and sends the blood rushing even before competition begins. In the past I have tried to take in as much handball as possible when at tournaments, especially this one because of its vast display of talent. Watching incessantly has proved exhausting because as a handball player, to watch, one is likely to feel the strains of a game as each point is contested. The mind tends to go through the motion of sending the signals necessary for the impending action on many if not all defensive and offensive situations developing on the court. So even if the muscles did not complete the action, the state of readiness invoked by watching tends to tire you out. I finally realize the effect this time around; one of many valuable lessons that I gleaned from the 2013 incarnation of the 3-Wall Nationals.
The matches that I witnessed as a spectator, referee or competitor were extremely satisfying on all levels. Whether watching players with whom I was familiar or just seeing a display of good or great handball, the experience was unequaled. It is impossible see every match from beginning to end or even catch bits and pieces of several matches. In the latter scenario, there really is no sense of play if you only catch a few exchanges of points. Some may disagree, but games and players have a rhythm that is seen over the entire game or match. But it is still thrilling to catch a particular scintillating exchange, even just in passing. In Toledo, from morning until sometimes late into the night, if watching is your pleasure, you will be sated.
The contingency who collectively display their skills in Columbia tend to compete very well in Toledo. This year was no exception as perennial champions Alan Frank and Dan Zimet, together and separately, continue their dominant winning ways. And even though Frank was nursing a nagging ailment that had the potential to derail his hopes of repeating as champion pairing with Zimet in the 40+ Masters and Mark Zamora in the 50+ Masters doubles divisions, Frank would somehow gut it out to compete in both divisions. In the 40+, he and Zimet were not really tested or perhaps it was just their consistency and dominance on display as their victories in the two matches on the way to the championships where routs, with opponents scoring 1 and 5 and 7 and 3 points respectively.
Separately, Zimet continued his annual dominance in the 40+ Masters Singles division. For the third year in a row, as talent would win out, he met up with Andy Schad in the finals. The two previous meetings went to gut wrenching tiebreakers that found Schad taking second each time. Because these men know the intricacies of each other’s game, their competition usually come down to a bounce or a perfect serve to separate them. After falling 21-10 in the first game, for the second game, Schad remained strong and relentless to the very end, but could not overcome an early deficit and fell short, 21-20 in his quest to best his friend and sometimes doubles partner.
After winning with Zimet, Frank later paired with Zamora and blitzed through the 50+ doubles by taking the two matches required to win the championship. As returning champions, Frank and Zamora are rewarded with first round byes as were the finalists from the year before, Matt Osburn and Brett Williams. This led to a finals show down for the third year in a row between Frank and Zamora and Osburn and Williams. At the moment, Osburn and Williams realize that they cannot win over Frank and Zamora, but only hope to make the matches interesting by pushing the level of competition to its highest. As a referee for this match, during a time out in the first game, with Frank and Zamora attaining a sizable lead, Williams surprisingly confided in me that they accepted their fate that they could not win, but would somehow ,“Give it my all by going on a tear.” True to his word, he put on a fine but brief display of serves that narrowed the deficit and forced Frank and Zamora to elevate their play to close out the game, 21-13. Williams later chided me with a playful, “See, I told you I would do it;”shame on me for doubting him. The second game saw no such charge and Osburn and Williams accepted their fate for a third year in a row, 21-7.
Zamora would also compete in the 45+ Masters division with partner Thomas Valenzuela. Zamora is a masterful front court player who is never afraid to unleash his skills as well as his showmanship, coaching and cheerleading. Zamora enjoys himself while punishing his opponents. Also competing in this bracket was Rick Anderson and Joe Berman who easily won their opening round match to next face Kevin Hill and Marty Clemens. Hill and Clemens prevailed in a match marred by its unevenness and call controversies. As such, it took three different referees to complete the match. In the finals, Hill and Clemens awaited the winner of Zamora and Valenzuela v. John Ayers and Mark Murphy. In a closely contested match, Zamora and Valenzuela prevailed to face Hill and Clemens. By the finals, Zamora and Valenzuela were more in sync than their earlier game and dominated the match as Zamora exhorted his sometimes tentative partner by simply reminding him who he is or why they were at the tournament. Another championship for Zamora and similarly a second for Valenzuela who defeated John Ayers, Kevin Hill and runner up John Lescinskas to take the 45+ singles title.
It is quite clear to me, and I am sure others, that winning at this game we love or any other sport is more than talent, it really is about consistency. To compete year after year and repeat as champion takes great dedication, determination and the aforementioned consistency to outshine your opponents who are generally equally talented. I have often wondered why some players seemingly possess great skills but languish in the pack. And although not everyone can be a winner, many have proven they can win a majority of the time. It is a mystery to unravel, but I fear the answers may be elusive and less than definitive. For the moment, we can only marvel at the champions and have a chance to play with or against them and then at some point be entertained by their campaigns to glory.
A great example of consistency and dedication beyond the aforementioned pairings are the yearly battles between perennial Masters Division finalists Jim Corrigan and his partner Phil Kirk v. Dave Dohman and Tim Sterrett. These four men are inexorably linked by age so they cannot escape one another and should forever duel to establish dominance no matter which Masters division they compete in. For the record, this year they competed in the 55+ bracket. In addition to skills, the consistency exhibited over the years by these giants of our game is true testament as to why they always end up in the finals facing each other. It would be a great surprise if it were not so. This year, Dohman and Sterrett out lasted their rivals by taking the tiebreaker, 11-6.
Continuing with the Toledo championships, another great player who in the summer frequents the Columbia courts is Ray Estevez. For the first year of eligibility to compete in the 60+ Masters division, Estevez attacked the singles division with his steady play and an unhurried coolness. As many an opponent learned over the course of the draw, Estevez can be deadly as he executes any of several signature shots. His consistency never flagged. Seeded 4th among a stellar field of players including the number one seed and perennial 60s champ over the past several years, Vance McInnis. Estevez knifed his way through the first round to meet a determined and tenacious Gary Eisenbooth who bested another new entrant to 60s bracket, Glen Gartland. Eisenbooth’s enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness was no serious threat for a sharp and focused Estevez who prevailed 12 and 7. Estevez next faced Frank Lambrechts in one semifinal and continued his consistent play on display so far by dispatching his opponent, 11 and 5. Estevez reaching the final would face off against the aforementioned number one seeded McInnis who did not have an easy trip through his half of the draw with his quarter- and semifinal matches each going to a tiebreaker. With the finals set, Estevez would not only have to overcome his opponent’s skill and mystique, but also his height and vast wing span of a reach. Part of Estevez’ consistency is his ability to find that special gear that allows him to just blow by an opponent at a crucial point in the match. In every instance in the championship run, Estevez would unleash his deadly serves that would either prove unreturnable or leave him with a shot that he readily fist kills with a surgeon’s precision. And so it was as Estevez befuddled McInnis and left him frayed, flustered and vanquished, 12 and 6.
Estevez was not finished with his 60s debut as he teamed up with Tim Murray for a doubles campaign. As can be found within numerous divisions, many of the same players who compete in singles are partners for doubles, either longstanding or new collaborations. This corollary holds true for the 60s doubles which found several illustrious pairs including Bob Dyke and Ken Greco, Joe Ivy and Frank Lambrechts, aforementioned McInnis and Ed Campbell, Sean Conneely and Tom Allen and Eisenbooth and Dan Ho. Seeded number one, Estevez and Murray advanced from the first round by default to face Eisenbooth and Ho, a pairing that doubles the apt description assigned earlier to Eisenbooth. Perhaps it was the feeling out of the new partnership, but Estevez and Murray seemed unsteady at first and Eisenbooth and Ho were able to keep the match interesting although bowing out, 12 and 14. Estevez and Murray would next face a formidable team of Ivy and Lambrechts who earlier bested Conneely and Allen in a close contest, 21-18, and 21-20. The first game of the match was easily won by Estevez and Murray at 6. The second game was more closely contested with Estevez and Murray eking out the win, 21-19. In the finals, Estevez and Murray awaited the other half of the draw where the number two seeded Dyke and Greco were surprised by Eugene D’alessio and Wesley Humphreys who were later tamed by Campbell and McInnis to set up the final showdown. Having faced each other in the singles final some hours earlier, McInnis most likely sought redemption while Estevez thought sweep. As good a singles player as Estevez is, he proves equally valuable as a doubles partner. It was this solid pairing that befuddled perennial partners Campbell and McInnis, and in the end left them runner ups to champion Estevez and Murray.
Although there were other champions and second place finishers hailing from the Columbia courts, it gives me the greatest of pleasure to acknowledge the exploits of Dan Ho as they played out in the 60 Bs singles division. It is well known that Ho has fought long and hard to win a national title, especially at 3-wall, a game he loves and thoroughly enjoys. Ho is often ribbed about his physical height or lack thereof, but no one ever doubts his tenacity. Ho always stands tall on the handball courts. Coming close so often in these competitions have taken its toll over the years and perhaps have motivated Ho to make a greater push this time around. As the number one seed in the bracket, perhaps his path would be smoothed to finally earn the champion’s medal. Ho managed his way to the finals by overcoming two strong opponents along the way. On the other side of the bracket, the number two seeded Ivan Elliot marched through the draw to face Ho in the final. Anyone who has played Ho knows that he may not dominate you, but he will out hustle you or out last you on exhaustive rallies. And so it was with the Elliot match, the survival of the fittest. Ho used his signature lob serves to keep Elliot off balance and simply out hustled him on those long rallies. In the end, posting the score, 21-10 and 21-15, to sustained applause from his many supporters, Dan Ho shouted, “Finally, after 15 years!”
Many times, like father like son is used to show closeness in relations. Josh Ho, Dan’s son has shown well in Toledo since winning the A singles title a few years ago. He has competed courageously in the Open division and has now settled in the Seniors division, reserved for players 35+. In round robin singles, Ho would face off against three other opponents, Kendall Lewis, Raul Jasso and Andy Rousseau. Lewis wins over Rousseau who later withdraws because of injury giving Ho and Jasso each a default victory. In the match between Lewis and Ho, the ever calm and deliberate Lewis was tested and pushed as Ho would not go quietly. In the end, Lewis imposed his will and powerful strokes to out point Ho, 14 and 13. Ho in turn took Jasso at 14 and 14. Lewis faced Jasso and won the match that seemed to last forever as there were numerous side outs and exhaustive rallies. With three match wins, Lewis was the champion while Ho took second place.
In the Seniors doubles, Ho teamed with Jasso and faced Lewis teaming with Adam Szatkowski. Falling 21-9 and 21-17 to the stronger Lewis and Szatkowski pair was a respectable showing and perhaps a small comfort since Lewis and Szatkowski championed over James Komstheoft and Adam Waehner.
Before wrapping up the age group divisions, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of the Veteran campaigners such as Bob Bardwell, Joe Pleszkoch and Dave Hinkleman competing in the 65+ singles and doubles. For their efforts, Bardwell faced Pleszkoch in the singles semifinal, pitting two Columbia court regulars against each other. But to further the intrigue, Pleszkoch is the returning champion while Bardwell was champion two years before. The first two games where split 21-11 and 21-12, with Bardwell winning the first. The tiebreaker was no contest as Bardwell won easily, 11-0. Bardwell would next faced Alan Sherrill in the final. Sherrill’s game does not resemble his personality, but his skills are well known to his peers. Bardwell fought tooth and nail for every point and was serving at 20 when the return of serve was a set up for a corner kill that Bardwell has executed flawlessly on most occasions, but not on this day, he pushed the ball and it bounce “way” short of its intended destination. All could see the light and life leave Bardwell as Sherrill regained serve, pounced and finished the game. It would seem to this observer that the hard loss lingered over Bardwell and his effort in the second game flagged as Sherrill sensing victory never relented and won the game and match and championship, 21-7.
In the doubles division of the 65+ bracket, Bardwell teamed with Dave Hinkleman and Pleszkoch teamed with Rick Graham. Each team won their first round matches to reach the semifinals. Facing the eventual finalists, each team pushed their opponents to a tiebreaker only to come up short in each case. The crafty Allan Sherrill teaming with Jay Cappell were pushed to another tiebreaker but championed over number one seeded Lewie Lambert and Stan Wolpoff.
Further mention should be added for the results of Mort Frank and his partner Michael Driscoll taking second in the 75+ doubles round robin.
The skill level of competition for this tournament consists of the Open, A and B divisions with the B division further divided into 50Bs and the aforementioned 60Bs which produced champion Dan Ho. The B division is a complex division in as far as talent goes. There are established guidelines that put most of the eligibility responsibility with the player, but suffice it to say, if you have won any national B event in singles or doubles in one-,three- or four-wall, you are no longer eligible for any B singles or doubles event. There are guidelines that contain a cascading hierarchy and subject test that seeks to address the eligibility to skill level events. Because there is room for interpretation, you will find players competing in both A and B events at the same tournament as one case will be later illustrated here.
The 50B singles is a fair event because of the additional age limiting factor. Each year, the ranks are thinned by at least one player, the eventual champion. I am quite familiar with this bracket and its many players since I have remained eligible to compete. This year was no exception as last year’s runner up Ernie McGarry, seeded first led the second largest bracket of singles players in the tournament. Seeded second was Scott Szatkowski another returning player who did quite well in last year’s draw. Of note, Columbia practioneers, Pat Lowery, Bill Tebbenhoff, Bruce Cohen and Steve Bossung also helped to swell the ranks. In early round matches, I advanced over Dave Bushen, 2 and 9 while Cohen eliminated Tebbenhoff, 13 and 17 and Bossung kept Lowery from advancing with a gut wrenching tiebreaker victory, 11-10. With eight players left in the draw, competition usually heats up. Szatkowski cruised through his half of the draw and reached the finals without really being challenged or tested. On the other side of the draw, McGarry faced me in a tense battle of players familiar with each other’s game. The first game was close in scoring until McGarry pulled away and won at 12. The second game saw McGarry with a lead of 15-9 when I went on a serving barrage that brought me even. One more point may have broken his spirit, but instead he regained serve and sealed my fate with six quick points. McGarry next faced Cohen in the semifinal. Cohen pushed him deep with well placed serves and high returned volleys. But McGarry used a crafty court sense and placed Cohen at a disadvantage on many exchanges resulting in either side outs or points. These were some of the same tactics used against yours truly so I could sense how Cohen felt. In the end, McGarry reached the final to face Szatkowski, a man he eliminated in last year’s semifinal. Szatkowski is a much improved player over last year’s raw and uncontrolled offerings. This year he has returned with honed weapons and a greater command of his shots. More on this later as Cohen and I would discover in doubles. For now McGarry had his hands full as Szatkowski had an answer for everything thrown or shot his way. And even though the first game was close in terms of score, Szatkowski appeared in control the entire game and won 21-17. In all due respect to McGarry, the second game was just a formality as Szatkowski seemed to get stronger and exerted his will to seal the championship, 21-11.
The B doubles division was thick with players, ranging in age from 15 to at least 59. Some of the pairs such as Will and Chandler Straw were made up of father and son; included in this group as a pairing were Columbia regulars, Bill Tebbenhoff and Josh Osburn. Of note Szatkowski was paired with a relatively unknown named Edgar Duarte. Cohen and I faced off against the Straws and handily defeated them. Young Chandler has raw skills, but the impetuousness of youth easily derailed his best efforts. Cohen and I next faced the strong team of Szatkowski and Duarte in the quarterfinal round. From the opening exchanges, I realized we were over matched. The talent of Duarte was quite evident as he used his unorthodox style to kill or pass on almost every ball he stroked. What he did not touch, his able bodied partner skillfully controlled and out pointed us at almost every turn. It was disheartening to say the least as we barely mustered, 7 and 5 points for our games. Szatkowski and Duarte were barely challenged in the semifinal and reached the finals with relative ease. Their eventual opponents would be Michael Caraballo and Brian Makowski. Caraballo and Makowski encountered Tebbenhoff and Osburn in the quarterfinals and bested them 8 and 18, followed by a dispatching of Tyler Kiewiet and Matt Stamp before facing stout competition from Bill Sidebottom and Pressley Sims III, but managing to prevail, 20 and 17. The finals saw the continued dominance of Szatkowski and Durate as they triumphed 16 and 10.
Duarte was not finished with his campaigning; he also teamed up with Cary Dohman to compete in the A doubles, a group more compatible to his talents. New to this bracket was Joe Mastropierro, last year’s B singles champ, paired with his brother John. Although the Mastropierro brothers did not fare well in their match, they vowed to return next year with a steely resolve. In addition, Columbia regular Adam Zimet paired with Texan Jeff Wall and reached the semifinals by taking down the number one seeds, Ryan Duarte and Pat Oliver in a grueling match that was decided by an 11-5 tiebreaker. Unfortunately the euphoria of that nice win was short lived as Zimet and Wall faced E. Duarte and Dohman next. E. Durate and Dohman wasted no time in dispatching Zimet and Wall to reach the finals. In the finals they would play Jamie Simon and Jimmy Devito who reached by way of default since the team of Matthew Chu and Michael Mehilos had to withdraw because of a nasty calf injury to Mehilos. In the finals, Simon and Devito were overmatched and overwhelmed. Barely scratching out 3 and 6 points, they accepted their fate gracefully. By virtue of his A doubles triumph, E. Duarte is now an Open player or perhaps he is eligible for an age bracket division, regardless, if he keeps up with his game, he will be a force to be reckoned with, especially in doubles play.
B singles, like B doubles is a wide open bracket with top notch players who could easily compete nationally in an A division. Competitors include the aforementioned John Mastropierro, Tyler Kiewiet, Matt Stamp and Josh Osburn along with the number one seed Nicolas Boileau, Hugo Galicia and others. To start play, Osburn and Mastropierro won their opening round matches by identical 6 and 8 scores to meet up in the quarterfinals. In that match, the two lanky players matched wits and skill to split the first two games and force the tiebreaker, a game dominated by Osburn, 11-2. Osburn in the semis faced Matthew Anderson who surprised Boileau by out pointing him in a tiebreaker 11-9. Osburn quickly dispatched Anderson to await the winner from the other half of the bracket. It was Galicia who emerged after being barely tested by Matt Stamp in the quarterfinals. As circumstances would have it, the finals match would not be played. At the appointed check in times and start of the match, Galicia could not be found or contacted. By rule, “If a player is not ready to play on time, the opponent is award one point. The opponent will then be awarded one additional point for each full minute of delay of the game up to 10 minutes. The match shall be then forfeited.” By the time Galicia arrived his fate was sealed; it was more than 20 minutes past the scheduled match start time thus forcing the tournament director to inform the players of the forfeiture. Some would argue for leniency and leeway, but in the rules, it is emphasized that it is the “obligation of the player to be ready” and to be aware of times and schedules. If one is running late, a call to the tournament director would more than likely remedy the situation! But in this case, there was no excuse except Galicia thought the match started a half hour later. Osburn played his way to the championship and even a win by default (WBF) is richly deserved.
The Open division of handball can be considered great theater or opera. One can often witness drama, comedy and even tragedy on the court. There are stars, divas and prima donnas making up the quality field stocked with ranked pros and past champions at this event. It is such a thrill to sit in the packed stands to hear the commentary on the action by other great players or just the collective ahs of appreciation for stellar ability and flawless execution. The drama is often found in the level of play but sometimes it shows up as individual personalities go unchecked and shenanigans and antics disrupt the flow of play. One would think with such skill, players at this level would let their talent be the voice of competition.
Flaws and all, the Open division play can be a thing of beauty, especially singles competition. With such a deep field it was hard to catch all the games, but I did watch one very long match from start to finish and was truly rewarded with the fine play of Sean Lenning v. Emmett Peixoto, returning to this venue after being absent for several years. Lenning is an enigmatic player with phenomenal skills and an easy going manner on and off the court. When he is focused, he is hard to beat. His court sense and easy flow makes the game at times seemingly played at slow motion. His movements on court are described by a close friend as “dancing” to the ball. And if you watch closely he does waltz to be in position to impose his will on the ball. The ball explodes off his hands with purpose and usually finds its mark in one of Lenning’s favorite landing zones, the extremely low front corner pinch shot. Lenning’s seeming nonchalant approach to play belies his intensity and emotions. His dazzlingly quickness and deft hands create and craft some splendid slices of ball and wall collisions. Together he and Peixoto thrilled the onlookers with their individual artistry and athleticism. In contrast of styles and gracefulness, Pexioto at times can display boorish behavior on the court. This is disruptive and distracting to play and perhaps that is his tactic, but it certainly taints his otherwise talented and often times brilliant play. After winning the closely contested first game, 21-18, Lenning was pushed by Peixoto and Peixoto pushed back. With numerous equipment timeouts and call protestations from Peixoto, Lenning seemed distracted and missed seemingly easy chances at putting away the game and the match. In the end Peixoto edged the flustered Lenning, 21-20. For the spectators, it was a chance to witness more of the same great handball between these two highly skilled competitors as the tiebreaker approached. The tiebreaker was a taut affair, but marred by the now familiar and seemingly deliberate distracting antics of Peixoto. With the score tied at 9 and Peixoto serving, inexplicably Lenning appeared to make less than normal attempt at a ball served to his right, resulting a point for Peixoto. And with the game and match point on the line, the next serve to Lenning’s left was approached with a lack of enthusiasm that was not worthy of Lenning’s skills or talent as the ball exited the court giving Peixoto the win. I was disappointed with outcome and I suspect so was the majority of the crowd who responded with polite applause as both players exited the court. This semifinal match landed Peixoto in the finals to await Tyree Bastidas as he battled his way through the bottom half of the bracket. Bastidas first encountered Lee Anderson who managed to grab 4 and 6 points in his match. Bastidas next faced Billy O’Donnell and was pushed to a tiebreaker which he won 11-4. Moving on, Bastidas next faced the ever dangerous Dane Szatkowski, brother to Adam and nephew to Scott. In another closely fought match decided in a tiebreaker, Bastidas who lost the first game at 13, came roaring back and blanked Szatkowski in the second and won the tiebreaker, 11-4.
The showdown championship match had the crowd wondering not who would win but which player would display the most churlish behavior. The first game was a one sided affair as Peixoto took control early as Bastidas came up short on most of his shots. It was a quick game, and at 21-2, had Bastidas grumbling loudly to himself and Peixoto behaving normally for a change. The second game found Bastidas focused and reenergized as he jumped out to an early 13-0 lead. At that point in the match, my attention was needed elsewhere so I cannot say what else transpired as far as court behavior. I do know that Bastidas needed a medical time out to address a badly injured toe. Some may have thought that this was contrived, but it was not. Bastidas was able to continue and finished the game by winning, 21-11. He would out duel Peixoto in the tiebreaker, 11-6 to win the Open championship.
In the Open Doubles completion, Lee Anderson teamed with his dad Rick and faced the strong team of Peixoto and Andy Nett. This was a one sided affair won easily by Peixoto and Nett. But as testament to the greatness of Rick Anderson’s front court game, I overheard Nett and Peixoto offering high praise to the “…incredible older guy up front who gets and puts away everything!” High praise indeed, from seasoned pros. Peixoto and Nett would later fall to Lenning and his quiet partner Daniel Cordova. The Lenning duo next vanquished the Szatkowski brothers 14 and 6 to land in the final where they would meet Tyree Bastidas and his brother Jurrell. The Bastidas brothers often compete well at these championships as last year’s runner up finish proved. On their way to the finals, the Bastidas brothers stopped Nikolai Nahorniak and Bill Mehilos in the semifinals, 19 and 13. In speaking with the Bastidas brothers the day before the semifinals, they mentioned their tentative approach to handling the talented Nahorniak and his partner, the gifted Mehilos. As I listened to their plan I was eager to see it applied. As I watched the match unfold, their plan to keep Nahorniak out of the action as much as possible paid off because as discussed, if he is isolated from touching the ball, when he does get a chance he is prone to making errors. It truly pays to know your opponent at any level of play. After the singles disappointment, Lenning was focused and returned to form as he and his partner handled the Bastidas brothers with relative ease, 12 and 8.
The juniors—19 and under, like the women’s divisions at these championships were sparsely entered. Of note, Nathaniel Frank competed in the 19 and under round robin matches against 4 other entrants. Frank did not fare well in a division dominated and won by Matthew Chu whose game as grown as he matures and been given added coaching from his tenure in college. Frank can take heart as he begins his freshman year in college where he too should benefit from the seasoning offered at the college level.
For the second year in a row, one wall championships in the Open division for singles and doubles were contested here in Toledo on the one wall courts formed on one side of the ends of the three wall courts. The one wall game is a thrill a second and requires quickness and agility at the highest level if one wishes to be successful at this version of the game. It was really enjoyable watching a few contests as some of the previously mentioned players who are highly ranked in this discipline compete. Not surprising, most of the players who competed were from the New York area. Just watching made me smile and took me back to my youth as I played the game, though with a different ball and certainly not at this superior level.
Looking back at the Toledo championships, I am left with great memories from the game of handball. And no less heartening are the memories of fellow competitors, friends and acquaintances. But a lasting memory is a continuing moment I shared with the great champion Dan Zimet; it summarized handball in context of the setting and the game. Although I will not share beyond my grateful acknowledgement, rest assured the poetry of the moment and its description will be forever treasured and resonate in my consciousness.
by Peter Peart