CHAPTER THIRTY
1978: Eric Boggan/Insook Bhushan
Win U.S. Closed.
I’ll start coverage of the Dec. 16-19 U.S. National’s with Roger Sverdlik’s account of the Men’s Championship, then go on to indicate the winners of the satellite events, and conclude with the Women’s Championship. Here’s Roger:
“I,
Caesar, extend to you [with this entry blank]…a personal invitation…to the
third annual U.S. Table Tennis Championships. And by imperial pronouncement, a
complete spectrum of activities has been decreed.”
Ay, Caesar, so you welcomed us to your magnificent palace, with the moving sidewalk leading from the street directly and only…”in” to your lobby, and of course your casino. But what’s that you say…there’s much “action” here at Caesars, further and beyond the bright lights of your casino, back, back at your world famous Sports Pavilion. You’ve heard that trouble is brewing…for the U.S. #1 Danny Seemiller…that he is in danger of losing his U.S. Singles title. Caesar! Your friends—they deceive you. For I know the field. And it would be most unusual. In fact, I would have to see it to believe it.
But see it I did, believe it I had to, for in the finals of the Men’s Singles, Danny Seemiller did exactly what he was not expected to do. He lost. Eric Boggan, in becoming the new U.S. Singles Champion, did to Danny exactly what Danny has done to the rest of the U.S. players for the last five years. He controlled the table and consequently controlled the match. It was this superb table control which led to his rather convincing 21, 16, -21, 16 win.
Through a good part of the first game there were no clues as to the eventual outcome as Danny led 8-3 and then 16-10. At this point, though, Danny, perhaps sensing trouble, played too tight, or, as he would bluntly put it later, “I started choking.” And Eric, with a little luck, and with every point gaining confidence, moved ahead to a 20-18 lead. Whereupon Danny deuced it. And then lost.
The first game was crucial even beyond the fact that it gave Eric a 1-0 lead in the match. For Eric, relentlessly tough when ahead, can at times be demoralized when behind, and had he lost that tough first game, he could have easily gone down 3-0. But he won the first, and then, playing stronger and stronger, led by 3-4 points through most of the second as he coasted to a 21-16 win.
In the third, Danny, playing better, led most of the way and at 20-17 his favor it appeared as though the match would soon be 2-1. But two quick points for Eric made it 20-19, and then, as he’d been doing the whole match, he used the serve to its full advantage, and, getting a “safe” return into his backhand, stepped around and looped hard down Danny’s backhand. Although it was a good aggressive shot, it was also a most dangerous one, for, because of Danny’s grip, and because he’s always hugging the backhand corner of the table, it is most difficult to score with a loop down his backhand. And, yes, with the whole table in front of him, Danny did block it back, but it missed by what he later said was “a millionth of an inch.” So that close point made it 20-all in the third game. And then Eric got an unreturnable net to give him match point.
But “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Whoever said that about a dynamic football team of the ‘60’s could easily have been talking about Eric’s never-say-die opponent. For at his ad, Eric played a point which he surely should have and in most cases would have won. But not here, not now. Danny reached wide to his forehand to just barely block back Eric’s apparent winning loop, and in winning that point he just barely blocked out visions of a three-straight loss. Thereafter, in running out the game, Danny could then go into the five-minute break feeling that perhaps he had stemmed the tide, that perhaps he could then alter the ever-changing flow of momentum.
It was clear that, in order to even the match, Danny would have to stop playing so passively. He would have to serve and follow more effectively, and he would also have to return Eric’s serves more aggressively. In the first three games, he was always pushing the serve back. If he could instead spin the serve, or at least roll it, even if he did it only on 2 out of 5 serves, perhaps Eric would think twice about using those long, heavy spin serves. For it was in the serve and follow game, normally one of Danny’s strong points, that he was being outplayed. Regardless of who was serving, Eric was repeatedly the one getting the opening shot in, whether it was an anti-spin roll or pick hit, or his own ever-improving loop. And it was Eric’s ability to make that first shot (or, perhaps, Danny’s inability to open up aggressively himself) that gave Eric such control of the table. It also gave him the opportunity to get his quick backhand counter-drive into one of Danny’s very few weak areas, the wide forehand.
In the fourth, Danny jumped off to a quick 3-0 lead, but still not seeming to have enough confidence in his own usually potent attack, he missed a couple of easy shots, and once again Eric had the lead. This time, though, it was a lead he would never relinquish, as he maintained a 4-5 point edge throughout the rest of the game for an easy 21-16 win.
In defeating Danny here at Caesars, Eric became the first U.S. player to do so since he upset Danny at the U.S. Team Championships in 1977, 13 months before. In fact, in the two previous U.S. Closed tournaments, and up until the final here, Danny had run through the field without the loss of a single game! In pulling off this rather miraculous feat, Eric had to be at the very top of his game. And he was as he moved the ball from corner to corner, in and out, while rarely making an unforced error! He made the ball skip, hop, dance and, when least expected, simply drop dead. In playing such an exciting match, he earned every bit of this most prestigious US singles title.
Danny Seemiller, for perhaps the first time since he began dominating table tennis in this country 5 years ago, seemed to succumb to the pressure of a big match against an opponent who, in playing Danny, had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Not that Eric’s win should be credited to psychological pressures alone, for he did play a superb match. But Danny seemed to lack the sharp aggressive play that everyone has come to expect of him. Of course he still remains indisputably #1 in the ratings with an almost 200 point lead over his nearest rival. And he did defeat Eric handily (10, 8) three days later in the Team Trials.
But what his loss to Eric here proved was that, by for so long dominating the Game in this country, Danny had forced everyone to play better, to play up to his level. And I’m sure this in turn will force Danny to maintain, indeed improve, his high caliber of play. One last word on the final: Danny Seemiller in his actions on and off the court, during and after the final, proved that he could lose as gracefully as he has so often won.
Danny reached the final with a straight game win over Scott Boggan in the semi-final. The match was abruptly halted in the first game (with Danny leading 16-10) when Scott, in trying to loop a short serve, caught his thumb on the edge of the table, something which he would later discover was a fracture. Nevertheless, after applying ice, Scott tried to finish out the match before retiring in the third game. Although his play was obviously affected by the injury, in judging by the way the match had progressed up until that point, it didn’t appear as though Scott could have done much to pressure Danny. For while his aggressive attacking style is in many ways more developed than Eric’s, he still lacks the consistency needed to stay in there with Danny. True, Scott did play Danny a close four-game match in the final of the Canadian Open [CNE], but Danny apparently feels more comfortable against Scott, perhaps because of his more familiar style, than he does against Eric.
In the quarter-finals, Danny defeated Gil-Joon Park in straight games (10, 13, 11). In this quarter of the draw, however, the eighths’ proved more interesting than the quarter’s.
Former US Team member Dell Sweeris, who the round before was down 2-1 to twice U.S. Open runner-up Jack Howard, played Danny a good match despite a straight game loss. He effectively returned Danny’s serves and also brought his loop back well in playing a close 18-17 third game. It seems as though Dell is gradually returning to the form that gave him the 1974 Eastern Open crown over Danny. And though maybe not quite there yet, Dell, as always, plays smart, strategically. Now, maybe, with less pressure on him in table tennis, he is certainly, as he would prove later in the Team Tryouts, a contender.
Meanwhile, in the other eighth’s in this quarter, in what I consider to be one of the most interesting matches of the tournament, Park defeated defensive specialist Franz Huermann in three straight games (19, 20, 11). The match, which pitted two real ‘class’ competitors, was a beautiful one to watch as Park effortlessly spun ball after ball. After winning a very close first game, Park was down 20-17 in the second, but coming back to 20-19, he rolled, rolled and then beautifully smacked in a winning forehand to deuce it, and went on to win that game and then the third easily.
Poor Franz, for after drawing D-J Lee in an early round at the U.S. Open, he once again got a bad draw here in having to play Park, who is notoriously good against chop.
Had Franz gotten a different draw, say in the Ray Guillen-Ricky Seemiller quarter, he might have done some damage. (Perhaps because he holds the racket unusually low on the handle, he’s better able to quick-wrist flick in winners?)
In the next quarterfinal match, Scott Boggan defeated me in a back and forth five-game match. I won the first two games by successfully keeping the attack and by stopping Scott from using his forehand kill. He was not forcing his backhand pips enough either, and since that’s perhaps his most effective way of setting up his forehand kill, it was really hurting him. He was playing much too tight, being too tentative with his shots, instead of going for winners. When I led match point in the 3rd, I decided to gamble (after all, when in Vegas…). Instead of serving short to the forehand as I had been doing most of the match, I served long to the backhand, hoping to surprise him and force him to push or roll with the backhand. But he anticipated the serve, and in stepping around and spinning it, he caught me off balance, and I blocked the ball off the end. Scott went on to win that game. Then, down 19-13 in the 5th, I came back to 19-18—only to miss an easy shot, and lose my chance for the semi’s.
The big upset (round of 64) in my section of the draw was San Francisco’s Kenneth Lee (2005) over Perry Schwartzberg (2384). Lee, who along with Dean Wong and, from what I’ve heard, a lot of other young players from that area, has good serves, a smooth loop, and good quick movement. Perry, though, has been playing extremely well lately, and, as he would prove later in the Tryouts (he’d finish 5th), his serve and follow and powerful counter-drive and block game can be devastating. In fact, his serve is considered by many to be the best in the country, even better than that of Wuvanich or Chan (both of whom are now back in Thailand). Of course Perry didn’t develop it out of nowhere. He must toss it to the heavens in Pittsburgh, say, two to three thousand times a week! Nevertheless, after winning the first two games handily, Perry could not win another, and Kenneth went on to the sixteenth’s where he lost in straight games to Portland’s Dean Doyle.
Doyle, with a spin here, a backhand pick there, and some deceptive serves, made it to the eighth’s where he lost to me. Dean also played well in the Tryouts (he beat Sweeris and Sakai, and lost close to Mike Bush and Ricky Seemiller). I got to the eighth’s, despite losing two games from 20-18 up, via a five-game win over California’s Jimmy Lane.
Scott Boggan defeated Class A runner-up Sakai in the eighth’s, 3-0. David has been playing exceptionally well lately and in the round of 32 he pulled out an exhilarating 5-game upset over Paul Raphel. Dave won the all-important 3rd game from 19-16 down, and, despite losing the 4th, won the 5th easily. Paul, though looping well and displaying his usual superb touch, doesn’t seem to explode with the forehand kill the way he used to. Scott had made it to the eighth’s with a four-game win over Craig Manoogian. Although I’ve heard that Craig rarely practices, he seems to excel in big tournaments.
On the opposite side of the draw, the other Boggan, Eric, matched his brother’s advance to the semi’s—with a win over Ray Guillen (17, 7, -22, 16). It would seem that Ray, with a good defense, and a strong, point-winning loop, could give Eric plenty of trouble—but their match was really not very close. Ray played too much topspin and, as with almost anyone playing that way against Eric, Ray would certainly have to play more up to the table, and would have to mix the game up a little with a push or chop, or at least not play the both sides topspin game, which, while effective against most other players, is most ineffective against Eric.
Guillen had made it to the semi’s with a three-game win over Ricky Seemiller in the quarter’s. In a match that always seems to offer the unpredictable, Ray won the first at 19, the second at 9. Then he was leading19-8 in the third when Ricky all of a sudden got 11 out of the next 12 points. If Ricky had deuced it, Ray would have been pressured, but Ricky missed his last loop and the match was over.
Ricky had a relatively easy path to the quarter’s with 3-0 wins over Jeff Stewart and David Philip. Dave got there with a five-game win over Apichart Sears, who, with Tackiness on both sides, is now playing a steady counter-drive game as opposed to his previously more aggressive loop and hit game. Against Ricky, Dave just could not return serves effectively, and so went down 3-0. Ricky would go on to team with Danny to take their third straight Closed Men’s Doubles title—this time over Doyle/Bui, 13, 12, 19.
Meanwhile, Ray was defeating George Brathwaite in straight games—the key game being the second which George, despite having two ads, could not win. The round before, George had defeated Charles Butler in a close four games, and Ray had beaten Lim Ming Chui, 3-0. Chui, I might add, played great to win the Hard Rubber event (he beat Marty Reisman, Houshang Bozorgzadeh, and Franz Huermann), but then, having switched from sponge to hard rubber and back again to sponge, didn’t even qualify for the Team Trials.
In the last quarterfinal, Eric Boggan defeated Dal-Joon Lee (18, -19, 20, 15). After losing a close first game and winning a close second, D-J led 20-16 in the third. Whereupon he was faulted on a serve, and then unaccountably lost five in a row. Eric, becoming more confident, then won the fourth rather easily. Whenever Eric got past the first two or three rallies, he would eventually, through deft blocks and placements, force the ball into D-J’s deep backhand, so that, despite many fine defensive retrieves, D-J could win only a small percentage of those points.
Eric made the quarter’s with straight-game wins over Jerry Thrasher and Bill Sharpe. Against Sharpe, Eric won a 24-22 second game, and after that, Bill, who’s beaten Eric twice in the last year (including a match just the week before in Westfield, N.J.), couldn’t stay in there in the third.
In the round of 64, however, Eric had (-22, 15, 19, 17) trouble with Ohio’s John Spencer (2034). Spencer played a smart push and pick-hit game, a style which is well suited to playing Eric, for it not only forces him to make the winning shots, but eliminates perhaps his two best shots, the block and counter-drive. Had Eric, down 17-16 in the fourth, lost that game, he could have been in danger of being eliminated.
In the eighth’s, D-J defeated Mike Bush (14, 14, -19, 15). Bush had fractured his toe 12 days before the tournament, and in wanting to preserve himself, and give the injury more time to heal before the Tryouts, had given up his forehand spin game and adopted a rather unusual, stationary-up-at-the-table blocking style. He played remarkably well though, defeating in earlier rounds John Soderberg in four games and up-and-coming Quang Bui in three. Moreover, in winning a game from D-J and being 15-all with him in the fourth, he continued to control the table well—though he couldn’t win the match.
Someone who could have beaten D-J was Mike Lardon. Mike, in winning the A’s over a strong field, often played brilliantly. After winning the first at deuce, and losing the second badly, Mike led D-J 19-14 in the third. But at 19-16, he launched his deceptive high-toss serve perhaps once too often and gave Lee the attack and consequently a 23-21 win. Then, by winning a very close 21-19 fourth game, D-J pulled out a match he was on the verge of losing. Lardon, who plays spinners especially well, had some consolation—he would go on to the Team Trials where he would beat not only Brathwaite (15, 12) but, sweet revenge, D-J (12, 14).
And so, Caesar, another of your tournaments has come and gone. The Men’s Singles provided many interesting matches. But while this was going on, there were other battles between other gladiators….”
Rating/Age Events
Women’s Consolation: Thomasina (“Tommie”) Burke over Karin Thompson, 23-21 in the 4th. Women’s A’s: Nancy Newgarden over Donna Newell, -17, 18, -21, 10, 12. Under 2000: Brandon Olson over Takako Trenholme, 12, 19, 20. Under 1900: Dana Jeffries over Bowie Martin, Jr. Under 1800: Paul Williams over Yihlin Chan in 5. Under 1700: Rich Livingston over Julian Ong. Under 1600: Jose Garcia over Harlan Jamison, then over Robert Compton. Under 1500: Jordan Michelson over Dale Francis. Unrated: Kenneth Siu over Chris Faye. Men’s Consolation: Scott Butler over Sean O’Neill who’d eliminated Paul Groenig, 19 in the 3rd. Veteran’s: C.H. McCallister over Oliver Nicholas. Esquire’s: Bernie Bukiet over Russ Thompson. Esquire Doubles: Michael Scott/Thompson over Carmen Ricevuto/Gene Wilson. Senior’s: Bill Sharpe 19, 20 over Houshang Bozorgzadeh, then 12, -18, -11, 21, 7 over Bohdan Dawidowicz who’d advanced over Jack Howard, -20, 11, 23. Senior A’s: Mac Horn over Hugh Lax in 5. Senior Doubles: Bozorgzadeh/Howie Grossman over Sharpe/Tim Boggan in 5.
Boys U-17: Eric Boggan over Dean Wong. Best matches: Wong 22, 16, -20, 22 over Ron Rigo, then 26, 10, 19 over Brian Masters who’d eliminated Jimmy Lane, 26, -16, -9, 19, 16. Boys U-17 Doubles: Lane/Todd Petersen over Bui/John Stillions, 19, -20, 17, 18. Junior Consolation’s: John Allen over Lee Bahlman. Girls U-17: Kasia Dawidowicz over Cheryl Dadian who’d gotten by Kathy Thompson in 5. Boys U-15: Eric Boggan over Masters. Boys U-15 Doubles: Masters/Stillions over Dan Wiig/Olson who’d squeaked by Bernie and Peter Braun, 19, -20, 20. Girls U-15: Dadian over Pam Simon who’d escaped Marilyn Johnston, 21, 18. Boys U-13: Olson over Butler. Boys U-13 Doubles: Butler/O’Neill over Olson/Khoa Nguyen (from down 2-0). Girls U-13: Karin Thompson over Lisa Gee. Girls U-13 Doubles: Marilyn Johnston/Karin Thompson over Dadian/Caroline Schweinert. U-11: Butler over O’Neill, -19, 22, 19, -19, 16.
Women’s Championship
Insook Bhushan successfully defended her U.S. Women’s Singles Championship by defeating U.S. Junior Champion Kasia Dawidowicz in 5 in the semi’s, and 1976 U.S. Champion He-ja Lee in 4 in the final
Kasia, 17, who’d been training in Japan before this tournament and who might be going there again in the near future to play in a professional women’s league, had everybody in Caesars Sports Pavilion running to her table when word spread that she had Bhushan down 2-0.
Bhushan’s ball had been coming back higher than usual, and Dawidowicz had been exciting the growing crowd by fearlessly smacking in winners. But then towards the middle of the 3rd game, Insook began getting the ball lower, began more deceptively to change her spin, and when Kasia, becoming over-anxious, started slapping the ball instead of smoothly, gracefully stroking it as she’d been doing earlier, the match turned and Kasia could never get it going right again.
Actually,
Dawidowicz was somewhat lucky to be in such a challenging position. In the 8th’s
she herself was down 2-0 to Guyana’s (sometimes too impatient?) Carol Davidson,
now working and going to school in New York. For a long moment there it looked
as if Kasia couldn’t figure out what to do with Carol’s mix-‘em-up Phantom.
Then, in the semi’s. Kasia was
down 2-1 to Judy Bochenski who’s just come back from the Far East herself,
where somebody told me they’d been trying to make a looper out of her. What
exactly Judy was doing against Kasia’s slow loop was surely not much of a counter-loop,
or a block, but a hit—a sometimes mindless hit, if I may say so, since Judy’s
never “played the ball, never been careful about reading spin, but, rather like
her former teammate, Angelita Rosal Sistrunk, has always preferred
instinctively to swing.
Anyway, it looked to be all very effective, for Judy beat Kasia 8 and 12 in the 1st and 3rd games and was heading home in the 4th when suddenly she got into an argument with a spectator or two, blew her concentration, and lost the game 21-19. In the 5th, she madly got 6 points.
Insook advanced to the semi’s and her comeback there against Kasia with a straight-game quarter’s win over Olga Soltesz who, by serving deep and flat-out following, just got by Minnesota’s Sheila O’Dougherty, 19 in the 5th.
On the other side of the draw, Sistrunk won an 18, -9, 19, 21 thriller from Alice Green. In the beginning, Angie was just returning the ball—but when Alice took her shots, as she was supposed to do, she began missing, lost confidence in her pick, and then stopped. Stopped hitting the ball—and started pushing. Whereupon Angie, becoming more aggressive, earned just enough points to make the difference. “I was so tight,” said Alice after she’d dried away the tears. “So tight—I don’t know why.” Three-time U.S. World Team member Angie, on the other hand, wasn’t holding anything back. She wasn’t going to play in the Team Tryouts, she said, because she was fed up with “the politics” of U.S. Team play abroad. “I just want to play, she said. “A World Team member has too many extraneous duties—like being nice to people she doesn’t want to be nice to.”
Taking my cue from Angie’s being fed up enough not to continue playing, and not wanting to be nice to people whom she didn’t see as being nice, I’m going to delay completing my coverage of the Women’s Championship to bring in Yvonne Kronlage who’ll tell us a story about Nancy Hill (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1979, 14; 20)—a sad story:
“Nancy Hill was deeply hurt at the Closed [no, not by losing to Kronlage in the Women’s after being up 2-0, but hurt] by some very inconsiderate people. It was wonderful having Pancho Gonzales there to present awards. I very much admire this man for what he has accomplished in tennis, his field of sport. BUT not everyone knows him, recognizes him in person on sight.
Moreover, in the analogy I’m starting to make here, if an official had come up to Gonzalez and asked him if he would lend his racquet to a total stranger to hit some balls with, do you think he would do it? I very much doubt it. Now if he’d been introduced to the person who wanted to use his racquet and knew that he or she was a very responsible person who knew how to take care of good equipment, then he might have loaned his racquet without question.”
Nancy Hill, one of our top women players [U.S. #9 in the Nov.-Dec. ratings], was asked by a tournament official to loan her paddle to someone who wanted to hit with it—in this case, Pancho Gonzalez, who was an unrecognized total stranger to her. She refused. [Of course she didn’t know that the official, Paul Therrio, had been the Chief Engineer in charge of building Caesars Pavilion and that Gonzalez was showcased at Caesars as one of their Sports Personalities, their “Director of Tennis.”] If the tournament official [who was outraged by her “snub”] had had the decency to introduce Pancho to her or to explain who he was and why he wanted to use her paddle, then she would have obliged him. BUT instead of doing this [he assumed Nancy knew who Pancho was?], the official [after Nancy’s refusal] told her, ‘That’s why table tennis will never get out of the basement—because of people like you.’
This was uncalled for, and I feel it was he who was hurting table tennis as he had no thoughtfulness or tact. Also, when a friend of the condemned party told him that she [Nancy] was leaving the tournament, his reply was, ‘Do the USTTA a favor and don’t come back.’ Who is he to tell one of our top players not to come back? Nancy is a person who has represented the United States in international matches and is the sweetest and kindest person you would very want to meet. She is a credit to table tennis and I am very proud to have been associated with her.
Then one of our umpires came to her and told her, ‘That was the worst possible thing you could have done.’ Then after what had happened was explained to one of our top players, he said to her, ‘I understand, but really you have hurt table tennis.’ I am sure Gonzalez would understand Nancy’s reluctance [if he were privy to her thinking. But it doubtless was a surprise and a slight to him that she didn’t recognize him, or, worse, that he thought she did. How did he react when she didn’t give him the racket?]….
I believe that the three who spoke to Nancy owe her an apology. Through this misadventure we have lost one of our tournament players. [Apparently Nancy’s response to “Don’t come back was “I won’t.”] I want to see her back as I’m sure many others do….Nancy Hill, I apologize for the inconsiderate way you’ve been treated….I beg you to reconsider and return to tournament play.” [Will she?]*
Having gotten Insook to the final, I now have to get He-ja there as well. In her quarter’s match she took care of former U.S. Open Champion Connie Sweeris, 3-0. After a four-year lay-off, Connie, since her return in September, has had to try to adjust to a faster game, and though she herself fast-angles the ball, she has yet to make the adjustment. (I’m reminded of her rehearsed polite line back in the spring of ’71. When asked in Peking if she liked “Chinese” food, she smiled and said, “I haven’t acquired a taste for it yet.”) But it certainly seems she’s adjusted to those kids of hers—and now wants to get out of house and home to where she can swing free and, well, maybe not so easy.
He-ja’s match with Angie in the semi’s was 17, 17, -19, 17 decent. Lee has a good lead-off flat kill, but Sistrunk, executing some angle shots, often hit very well herself. In the end, she just made more mistakes than He-ja who after all is being paid thousands of German marks per year (more this year than last) not to make them.
In the expected final between Bhushan and Lee, Insook stayed steady, was generally in control. Not bad, considering her only practice partner at Bong Mo Lee’s new Columbus Club is her husband Shekar. Insook of course also won the Mixed Doubles with Danny Seemiller.
During his wife’s play [perhaps even when she won the Women’s Doubles with Sistrunk in 5 over Bhushan/Dawidowicz?], D-J could be seen taking notes, drawing diagrams, making little hand motions, offering advice. But, said one longtime knowledgeable spectator watching, herself a former international star, “I don’t believe in all that. After a while you just know things without having to draw Ogimura diagrams.
Oh, oh—Yvonne’s back, and has reason to be upset again. Why? Here she is to tell you:
“Insook was the winner and was presented with her award in front of the television cameras and was given the glory that she so deserved. BUT what about He-ja who also played extremely well? She was not treated like the runner-up of the Men’s Singles and the runner-up of the Boys Under 11 who were interviewed and presented with their awards in front of the spectators and television cameras. After her match was over, she wandered off to the corner of the arena where she sat relaxing after her strenuous battle. Finally when all the hubbub had ended, a tournament official walked over and gave her her award without the presentation which she so richly deserved. What a disgrace…If we want this sport to become professionally recognized, then let’s start thinking professionally.”
SELECTED NOTES.
*I didn’t see this incident, but Mal Anderson did, and in a Feb. 16, 2009 e-mail to me, he said, “Nancy was walking off court when Pancho asked to borrow her racket. She said, No. He had an all-out temper tantrum! Yelling at her!”
Several years later, in an article in my magazine (Timmy’s, Apr., 1984, 12), as an aside, Nancy (now Nancy Persaud) referred to what had happened with Gonzalez. “I’m just an ex-player,” she said, “who quit after going from a 1200 to a 1900 player in 4 years and who was asked to get out by Mike Bush, Paul Therrio, and the ever loveable Pat Collins who all said I’d hurt table tennis terribly.”
Nancy quit playing, but, as if she had something stuck in the craw of her unconscious, she submitted the following article, “Freak Choking Called Accident” (Little Rock Gazette, Apr., 1979; reprinted TTT, May-June, 1979, 19):
“BURNABY, British Columbia (UPI)—Authorities say no inquest will be made into the death of Adolf Daxboeck, 23, who choked on a Ping-Pong ball.
District Coroner Doug Jack said Friday the police were satisfied the death was accidental.
The police said Daxbroeck was competing with his girlfriend to see how far they could blow a table tennis ball. He put a ball in his mouth and apparently inhaled to gather his strength.
‘The man accidentally swallowed it, and it became lodged in his throat,’ a police spokesman said. ‘All attempts to free it failed and he choked to death.’
Daxboeck was rushed to a hospital, but was pronounced dead on arrival.”