CHAPTER THREE

 

            1979: Ending Winter Tournaments. 1979: Mariann Domonkos/Danny Seemiller Win Eastern’s.

 

            Jim Scott (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1979, 21) clues us in on the new Portland Paddle Palace. “Instead of a business run by Lou Bochenski, it’s now a Club which leases the new Main Street location during week nights and for tournaments from Lou.” The site is a converted skating rink [roller-skating rink?] with “floor space for up to 24 tables. The floor surface is excellent. Lighting is brand new and quite adequate. Bill Preston has devoted his life for the last few weeks to installing 54 fixtures and rewiring everything. There is a nice snack bar and a very comfortable lounge area. The place also features foosball and pinball.” There was a Grand Opening on Feb. 27, and the Club’s “chief membership promoters,” Don Nash and Jim Scott, put on what to them was an “outrageously exciting” match, won by Scott 25-23 in the 3^rd.

            In lieu of an owner, the Club functions well with “each of its four officers in charge of a league night. President Bob Ho (phantom backhand) is an orthopedic doctor. V.P. Bill Mason (phantom backhand) is a project manager for Oregon’s largest employer, Tektonix. Secretary Jim Scott (phantom hair) is an insurance executive for Alexander & Alexander. Treasurer Don Nash wants nothing to do with phantoms and is a law firm partner. All hope for the best, including Lou who’s now concentrating on his Paddle Palace Table Tennis Company that sells all kinds of blades, rubber, clothing, and accessories

            Results of the first Paddle Palace Closed at the new Main Street Club: Open Singles: Apichart Sears over Ron Carver. Women’s: Rosemary Ryan over Charlotte Breit. Open Doubles: Sears/Bryan Wright over 1979 National Intercollegiate Mixed Doubles Champions Judy Bochenski/Jay Crystal, 17, 22. A’s: Kevin Young over Bill Preston. B’s: H. Wong over U. Kahn. B Doubles: Charlie McLarty/Ng over M. Hall/George Kawamoto. C’s: Hall over J. Long. D’s: Kawamoto over Hall. E’s: G. Farland over J. Elicker, Jr. F’s: Elicker, Jr. over Ryan. Senior’s: Ho over Khan. 

            Winners at the Mar. 17 Grand Rapids Western Michigan Open: Open Singles: Larry Wood over Jim Doney in 5. Open Doubles: Doney/Jeff Freeman over Peters/Tom McEvoy, 27-25 in the 3^rd. A’s: Doney over Scott Butler. B’s: Bill Hornyak over Lee Erickson. C’s: John Missad over Denis Sakoski. C Doubles: Shenk/George Brewer over Doney/Freeman, who win the Open Doubles but lose the C Doubles! D’s: John Helmuth over Joe Hollemans. Novice: Brian Sydnot over Hollemans. Beginner’s: Freeman over Jeff Ryan. Handicap: Brewer over Max Salisbury. Senior’s: Gunter Pawlowski over Bill Hornyak. U-17: Butler over Downey.         

            Results of Mar. 3 Dayton, Ohio Open: Open Singles:1. Insook Bhushan. 3-0 (d. Butler in 4; d. Schwartzberg, 21-2 in the 5^th; d. Malek in 5). 2. Attila Malek, 2-1 (d. Schwartzberg, 18 in the 5^th; d. Butler in 5). 3.-4. Perry Schartzberg and Charles Butler, 0-2. Open Doubles: Schwartzberg/Randy Seemiller over Butler/Malek. A’s: Se Kwan-Oh over John Spencer. B’s: Eddie Runyon over Bill Walk. Doubles II: Bill/Mike Walk over Abbott/Brown. Senior’s: Spencer over John Dichiaro.

             Duke Stogner’s North Little Rock Club staged a Mar. 10th D & R Open (D stands for? R stands for?). In Championship play, the final eight (four with combination rackets) played a complete round robin. Going into the final round, Sammy Peters, 5-1, had lost only to Arkansas’s #1-rated player, Andy Bloxom, who was later not in contention for the title. Peters’ final opponent was William Hall, undefeated at 6-0, so this match would decide the winner. Peters, an offensive blocker/pusher who rotates his racket, prevailed 25-23 in the third, but the 6-1 tie was not broken by the usual head-to-head results. Instead, Hall was declared the event winner because his overall 6-1 (13-4) record was slightly better than Peter’s 6-1 (12-5).

            Other results: A’s: Mike Dunman over Mike Finnigan. B’s: Ken Bruton over Tommy Prince. Class C: Phyllis Bruton over Steve Shank. D’s: Ricky Cranford over Darrell Oliver.

            Winners in the Capital Open, played Mar 3-4 at Bowie, MD: Open Singles: 1. Dan Seemiller, 3-0 (d. Eric Boggan; d. Robert Earle; d. George Brathwaite, 21, 24, 16, 19). 2. Earle, 2-1 (d. Boggan in 5; d. Brathwaite, def.). 3. Boggan, 1-2 (d. Brathwaite, def.). 4. Brathwaite, 0-3. Women’s: Carol Davidson over Barbara Kaminsky. Men’s A’s: Nikakhtar over Lem Kuusk, 21, 20, then over Peter Stephens (his arm no longer bothering him) who’d eliminated Igor “Gary” Fraiman. Women’s A’s: Ai-Wen Wu over Pam Simon. B’s: Nikakhtar over Mike Shapiro. C’s: G. Akinsette over Davidson. D’s: B. Rahimian over James Rautis. E’s: Ernie Byles over H. Guerreiro. F’s: Byles over H. Yi. G’s: Yi over J. Clark. H’s: Byles over R. Harding. Novice: C. Straker over B. Hefler who’d squeaked by K. Miller, deuce in the 3^rd. Consolation: P. Chang over Joe Griffis.

            Senior’s: Kuusk over Don Marston, after Don had survived Bob Kaminsky, 20, 23. U-21: E. Boggan over Brian Masters. Boys U-17: Straker over John Wetzler. Girls U-17: Ai-Wen Wu over Ai-Ju Wu. Boys U-15: Yi over Straker. Girls U-15: Simon over Ai-Wen Wu, def. Boys U-13: Marius Vincent over Marty Klein. Girls U-13: Ai-Ju Wu over Esperanza Vincent, -13, 19, 20. Jr. Consolation: Greg Cox over Klein, def. Girls Consolation: Alexandra Kaminsky over Yvette Kronlage.

            Results of Mar. 10^th Westfield Open: Open Singles: Mike Bush over Dave Sakai, after Dave had taken out Horace Roberts, deuce in the 4^th, and over Mats Backstrom in 5. (Jonathan Katz defeated Mike Stern, 22, -12, 15, 21.) A’s: Andy Diaz over Faan Yeen Liu. B’s: Ernie Byles over Gregg Robertshaw. C’s: E. Byles over Mark Schnorr. D’s: Tony Gegelys over Dave Caravella. E’s: Y. Shih over A. Cordero, deuce in the 3^rd, then over Straker. F’s: Roberto Byles over Richard Spear. G’s: R. Byles over Shih who’d advanced over Straker, deuce in the 3^rd. H’s: V. Lojko over Ron Pecore. Senior’s: Roberts over Lenny Klein. U-17’s: John Markson over Brian Eisner.

            The Quebec Sports Championships in Montreal, Mar. 3-4, hosted 22 sports, and Roger Sverdlik was there (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1979, 28; 16) to cover the table tennis play for us. “In the past,” says Roger, “these Championships were limited to the province of Quebec, but this year, in an effort to raise the standards of these sports in Quebec, the organizers brought in players from outside the province.”

            Montreal’s Guy Germain—of course they didn’t have to go outside to bring him in. “He was there—playing his usual heads-up game…moving well…taking only good shots…controlling the face-off. Hold it! Face-off. What? There aren’t face-offs in table tennis….Oh! Guy wasn’t playing table tennis. No. Broomball was his sport. In broomball, which is similar to hockey, Guy is a member of the National Team, and he was needed to help it defend its most prestigious title.”

            After the first day’s round robin play in the Men’s, both Ricky Seemiller and Roger, after losing to Scott Boggan but beating Canada’s Alex Polisois and Pierre Normandin, were 5-1, while Scott and Errol Caetano, the Canadian #1, were 6-0. In Women’s play, both Mariann Domonkos and England’s Carole Knight were undefeated, though Mariann “narrowly escaped with a three-game win over Gloria Hsu.” Carole, who for some reason is not on the English Team to the World’s, “has one of the best loops of any woman I’ve ever seen. She’s been springing it on all the others in the German league, where she says the women’s matches draw between 500-1000 spectators per Knight—er, I mean night.”

            In the second day of Men’s play, Roger defeated Caetano, and so with just three rounds of play “there were a multitude of possibilities.” However, “with Polisois having lost to Canadian Team members Joe Ng and Rene Lewandowski, he was out of the running. And when I lost to Ricky, and he in turn lost to Errol, our chances for a first-place finish were gone. Meanwhile, Errol defeated both Scott and Alex in close three-game matches, putting him and Scott in a tie with one loss apiece. And, since two-way ties were broken head to head, first place went to Errol.

            In the Women’s, Carole, match-point down to Gloria Hsu, got away with a win, and took the title by defeating Mariann in straight games. “Mariann seemed a bit too hesitant, was perhaps too concerned with not letting Carole get in a big loop. The big loop, of course, is a shot that, in playing Canadian and American women, Mariann rarely sees.”

            Roger had nothing but praise for the Quebec Federation and its Technical Director Jean Duquette. Play was on “12 Cor Du Buy tables with umpires and scoring machines at each and the players reported directly to predetermined tables. The matches were played one per hour, leaving enough time for rest and warm-up.”

            In speaking with Director Duquette, Roger was surprised to learn that the Quebec Federation “spent over $25,000 on developing and sending their junior players to tournaments. Here in these Championships, aside from having a separate round robin for juniors, they picked the top four to play in the Men’s round robin as well. Of course they’re able to do all this through the help of government-funded organizations such as the “Institute of Sports, Quebec,” a group devoted to looking after Quebec athletes. And despite a trend toward private enterprise, it is specifically these programs and the government’s hiring of full-time people like Mr. Duquette that are helping sports like table tennis thrive in Quebec.”

           

Eastern’s Women’s Open

            With regard to the Eastern Open, played at Rutgers University, Mar. 16-18, I’m going to begin with Shazzi Felstein’s report on the Women’s play (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1979, 2) before I eventually move on to the Men’s. As we’ve seen, Shazzi enjoys going to tournaments and writing them up. Jairie Resek points out that Shazz’s #1 fan, Mike Senkiewicz, was at Rutgers watching but generally he’s busy winning at backgammon, keeping Shazzi in traveling money.”

            Might as well start off by saying that, aside from Shazzi’s 17, 20, -18, 19 upset of Takako Trenholme, all the other seeds made the quarter’s. After which through to the final there were only straight-game wins—most notably when 6^th seed Carol Davidson knocked out #4 seed Faan Yeen Liu. “After winning the first game at deuce, Carol had a fairly easy time of it. When Faan Yeen chopped with her Phantom, Carol soft-hit the ball; however, off her Tackiness side Carol could kill it, and did. Faan Yeen couldn’t bring enough balls back, and her own hitting was off.”

            In the one semi’s, Alice Green could fare no better than Shazzi against Mariann Domonkos’s attack. “Mariann was on top of her game, taking the offense with her excellent loop, and Alice, losing badly, just couldn’t seem to get going.” In the other semi’s, Carol, down 2-0 and 20-17 to Insook, was defiant to the end—“she hit in two tremendous forehand winners before bowing out.”

            “In their last encounter, in Detroit in November, Mariann had been on the verge of beating Insook, but didn’t.” In their first game here, which Insook won at 18, “Mariann seemed tentative—would gently loop one ball, then push the next one.” However, after that, Mariann’s attack “just kept getting better and better. She kept looping ball after ball, reading Insook’s spin very well, changing her own spin, and hitting the right ball.” In winning the last three games, Domonkos gave Bhushan “her first defeat by a home-grown American or Canadian woman.”

            Mariann said she’d been working hard to get ready for the World’s, and that extra effort had given her more confidence. “She also thought Insook hadn’t played too well. Usually Insook can hit in her own shots better, and usually she played better on the big points, when it really counted, but this time she didn’t.”

            “The prize money for the Women was particularly bad”—Mariann won $125, Insook $70, Alice and Carol $30. “Only $255 for Women’s Singles, nothing for Women’s Doubles (resulting in a very weak field), and there wasn’t even any Women’s A Singles, let alone prize money. The purse for Men’s Singles was $1,250, plus there was money in the A’s, B’s, Youth, and Men’s Doubles. Much too big a disparity.”

 

Eastern’s Event Winners

            Open Doubles R.R.: 1. Danny/Ricky Seemiller, 3-0 (d. Scott Boggan/Roger Sverdlik, deuce in the 4^th; d. Eric Boggan/Mike Bush; d. Robert Earle/Dave Philip). 2. Scott/Roger 2-1 (d. Eric/Mike; d. Robert/Dave, in 5). 3. Robert/Dave (d. Eric/Mike, 18 in the 5^th). 4. Eric/Mike, 0-3. Women’s Doubles: Domonkos/Christine Forgo over Gloria Nesukaitis/Colleen Johnson. Mixed Doubles: D. Seemiller/Bhushan over S. Boggan/Faan Yeen Liu who barely got by Guy Germain/Domonkos, deuce in the 3^rd. Over 70: John Kauderer over Paul Safrin. Over 60: Mitch Silbert over Sid Jacobs. Esquire’s: Marcy Monasterial over Ed Gutman who’d advanced by Irv Levine, 19, 22. Senior’s: George Brathwaite over Houshang Bozorgzadeh. Senior Doubles: Brathwaite/Horace Roberts over Levine/Haig Raky. Hard Rubber: Sam Steiner over Carl Weinbaum, def. Wheelchair: Ty Kaus over Al Nirenstein.

         A’s: Charles Butler over Rene Lewandowski, -22, 19, 20, then over Randy Seemiller, 17 in the 5^th, after Randy had won a precarious -14, 21, 11 match from Germain. B’s: Horace Roberts over John McGraw, 18 in the 3^rd. U-2000: Sean O’Neill over Ralph Bockoven. U-1875: Francisco Hall over Ernie Byles. U-1750: E. Byles over Mark Schnorr, 18 in the 5^th. U-1625: Dave DeMay over A. Polselli. U-1500: John Andrade over Brian Bartes. Unrated: Irwin Miller over Ed Bautista. Open Consolation: Richard Chin over Harry Hawk, 19 in the 3^rd.

         U-21: Eric Boggan over Perry Schwartzberg, -18, 19, 7, then over Ricky Seemiller. Boys U-17: Dean Wong over Quang Bui in 5. Girls U-17: Dana Gvildys over Colleen Johnson. Semi’s: Gvildys over Julia Johnson, 19 in the 4^th; Johnson over Ai-Wen Wu, -19, 24, 17, 13. Boys U-15: Joe Ng over Florida’s Ron Rigo. Ron was the house guest of former National Junior Champion, now Trenton Board of Education Guidance Counselor, Mitch Sealtiel and his schoolteacher wife Joyce. Girls U-15: Julia Johnson over Pam Simon, 19 in the 3^rd, then over Becky McKnight, 19 in the 5^th. Boys U-13: Sean O’Neill over Brian Bartes. Girls U-13: Ai-Wen Wu over Esperanza Vincent who snuck by Rama Gvildys, -18, 22, 19. U-11’s: O’Neill over Marty Klein. Junior Consolation’s: G. Dutta-Chaudbury over Ai-Ju Wu. Junior Doubles: Ng/Wong over Brian Masters/Mike Shapiro.

 

Reflections of a Has Been

         I will get to my write-up of the Men’s, and afterwards to a critique of it, but first I’m going to present (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1979, 2) this “Reflections” article by New Yorker Alan Bell who’s not now the active player he was:

 

         “Prologue. I want to preface this article by thanking the Eastern Open Tournament Committee for their extensive, intensive efforts. I know they completed a thankless job for little or no compensation—and probably their satisfactions didn’t outweigh the abuse they were subjected to. The following article is a composite of a series of dialogues overheard at the control desk and, in the interests of truth, a few additions from my own imagination.

                     Dialogue #1

         Entrant: I paid $4 for umpire fees and I haven’t had a single umpire for any of my matches.

         Desk: Did you request one?

         Entrant: You have every event I’m in time-scheduled to the minute and I paid for the umpires three weeks ago. Why should I have to request one?

         Desk. Very well, you can have one of our cadre of 12-year-olds for an umpire. Adults just won’t umpire for a buck.                

         Entrant: But a kid can’t withstand the pressure that goes with disputes over lets—and there’s a let every other point.

         Desk: You can get your buck back if you say you umpired your own match.

         Entrant: You didn’t announce that.

         Desk: Do you think we want to go broke?

                     Dialogue #2

         Entrant: I can’t play on table #38—it’s dark there.

         Desk: Somebody has to play there.

         Entrant: Can’t additional lights be strung?

         Desk: We are all volunteers. You want to volunteer to string them?

         Entrant: No, but I paid $35 in entry fees expecting better conditions than I have in my basement.

         Desk: You shouldn’t complain. This tournament will keep your N.J.T.T.C. dues down next year.

         Entrant: Couldn’t all the matches be played in the main hall? And keep the annex for practice?

         Desk: It would take six days!

         Entrant: Wouldn’t it be better to have fewer events, and thus have fewer, umpired, 3-out-of-5 matches in the main hall? After all, this is the second largest U.S. tournament of the year.

         Desk: People like lots of events. (The facial expression says, ‘We make more money this way.’)

                     Dialogue #3

         Entrant: Can’t each table be separated by at least cardboard barricades?

         Desk: We ran out of cardboard.

         Entrant: There are constant lets.

         Desk: Call them.

                     Dialogue #4

         Entrant: How about at least running all of the Open matches in the main hall?

         Desk: We try to run the important matches in the main hall.

         Entrant: My Open match was in the annex.

         Desk: So?

         Entrant: My match was important to me.

         Desk: That’s a majority of one.

                     Dialogue #5

         Entrant: How about running just an Open, A (Under 2200), B (Under 2000), C (Under 1800), D (Under 1600), the Women’s, Senior’s, Junior’s, Doubles—whatever—and play all matches in the main hall?

         Desk: people don’t mind the annex much.

         Entrant: That’s like the parachute-maker saying that he never had a dissatisfied customer to come back to complain about a defective chute.

         Desk: What are you? A wise guy? Go into the darkness and chop.

                     Dialogue #6

         Entrant: Why not assign a few events to the annex entirely and announce that fact in the program?

         Desk: You want the program for the Eastern Open to say that half the events are going to be played in the dark?

         Entrant: Aren’t they?

         Desk: This was the best facility we could get. Why don’t you volunteer for next year’s Tournament Committee?

         Entrant: My mother told me never to volunteer for anything.

 

Eastern’s Men’s Open

         The legendary St. Patrick, they say—they wanted, needed, to say—drove all the snakes out of Ireland, at least for an Edenic while. But Colin Mallows, a far more recent tender of the flocks, is after all but a mere dedicated mortal of an Eastern Tournament Director. Hence, despite a committee, a staff, that would have done justice to a bishop, and despite the March 17^th party hat—a modern-day lucky charm of a derby all green and good cheer which with a conscientious little frown he wore, if not to the $6 a plate players’ party, to his all-day and far into the night Director’s table—he did not succeed, either with measurement or magic, in driving away all the snakes from his tournament.

 There were just too many of them.

         Nor could Fox’s sometimes innovative computer show the kind of discrimination we long ago began to expect from such a machine. It still says to ex-National Tournament Director Fox or anyone else who’ll listen, “You’ve got to make up your mind what you want. Is this a prestigious tournament—for 1500 players, with a nod to the leading money winners? Or is it meant to be just the reverse? Or some mix-up of the two?

         And so—poor misguided (?), unguided (?) thing—how did it schedule the important 8^th’s Open Singles matches? No, not in the “Dark Room” (that had somehow photographed itself clearly in its brain) but the “Light Room,” though in some cases in the dark corners where there were no “courts” and where the 8-match symmetry of it all was no symmetry at all, because the players were so diffused, lost somewhere out there in that serpentine maze of 20-table play. (And why, maddeningly to the spectators, play such presumably contested matches all at once anyway?) What particularly disturbed me was to watch my son, Eric Boggan, the National Champion, come out of the “Dark Room” to play the season’s 6^th-leading money winner, Attila Malek, deuce, deuce…while next to them in close-together family fashion was a match that would be featureless even to 1500 players.

         True, the more than expected last-minute entries did trap the patient, cooperative Mallows and Company into running a sometimes unwieldy tournament, which under the circumstances they handled very well, and, true, Mel Eisner and his Organizing Committee, in a gesture of some much needed goodwill, did add $280 to the Open Singles prize money—but to me, and I’m sure to many others, it was much the same old story.

         I really believe that unless the top players get together and demand to have better conditions, begin to have elite tournaments, they will continue to go largely unrecognized. The devilish argument against them is that few will pay money to see them play, at least until the Sport is properly promoted, so if they want prize money they can’t be too insistent, can’t take themselves too seriously. But this is a snake with a tale in its mouth and must be exorcised. The argument ought to be: if the top players don’t begin to take themselves seriously no one else will—certainly no numbers-minded organizational or computer man.

 

Sixteenth’s

         The Draw in the Open Singles was not of course to everyone’s liking—though almost every player who was supposed to get through to the round of 32 did. In the 16^th’s, two young members of the Canadian Team to the Pyongyang World’s played well despite losing. Through four games Rene Lewandowski held off Mike Bush’s relentless, unchanging attack before being knocked for a loop in the 5^th; and 15-year-old Joe Ng—whose quick-gliding way of stretching to retrieve a loose ball shows he’s been learning something from practicing back in Toronto with Canadian #1 Caetano—almost extended Sweden’s Mats Backstrom into a just-as-soon-not-play-it fifth.

         Meanwhile, another Canadian National Team member, the veteran Guy Germain, dropped a 17, -17, -21, -21 tough one to Table Tennis Enterprises Dave Philip who’ll be running a TTE Summer Coaching Program with Roger Sverdlik. For the reputation Guy’s deservingly got as a battler, why is it he undeservingly never seems to win his proportionate number of close ones? Some players are luckier than others? The only Canadian to advance to the 8th’s was Quebec’s Alex Polisois who, down 10-3 in the 5^th, rallied to win an intense counter-driving match against a steady and at the end even more steadily surprised Dave Sakai.

         Also advancing were: Mike Lardon over Mike Stern; Insook Bhushan, whose full-time business is now college, over $150 Class A winner Charles Butler; and Attila Malek over spin-serve specialist, the U-17 winner Dean Wong of San Francisco. Dean, I’m told, practices 3-4 hours a day, 7 days a week, runs, jumps rope, does push-ups, sit-ups…in short, pursues the Sport with all the dedication of a Burmese monk.

         Quang Bui, U-17 runner-up to Wong, pulled off the early shocker of the tournament by defeating Senior Champ George Brathwaite three straight. This was the more surprising since only two weeks ago in Maryland “The Chief” had played a sensational four-game match against Danny Seemiller. Both Bui and Wong, who have few tournaments to play in out west, were given a chance to show their point-winning abilities thanks to sponsor Bowie Martin who’s recently been doing more than anybody else in the country  to develop top players.

         One other three-straight surprise was U.S. Team Captain Houshang Bozorgzadeh’s clever win over Perry Schwartzberg who, earlier in the difficult-to-concentrate semi’s of the U-21, was just two points and an aisleway of ever-passing spectators away from downing U.S. Champ Eric Boggan.

         So all the other top seeds advanced easily? Scott Boggan, Roger Sverdlik, Dell Sweeris, Robert Earle, Danny, Ricky…

         …What! Ricky’s in the 5^th with 37-year-old Errol Resek! But Errol’s not played in a big tournament since…when? He’s just been hitting a few at the Hungarian Club with Dr. Gal. Some practice that Dr. Gal must have with Errol whose regular visits have kept him in such good shape. Turns out that Errol has just been keeping the ball in play against Ricky. Hasn’t tried to do one thing to win a point until Ricky, too often rushing, tries to force a shot—then Errol gives him a little sidespin junk twister which Ricky impatiently can’t seem to lift.

         Up 16-14 in the 5^th, Seemiller, who later complains how one-sided dark it is out there on table #8, plays five of the worst points you’d ever want not to see—and though Resek has missed eight serves this game, he still manages  to win it, and the match.

         Perhaps this is no big surprise to Ricky who, unable to make a living at the Sport, has been really down on U.S. table tennis for some time (“I don’t much care if I get beat,” he said at a particularly weak moment. “What does it matter?”). But for Errol it was 1971 and he’d made the U.S. Team again. He promptly called Santo Domingo to tell all his friends and relatives that he’d beaten the #2 player in the States. There were youngsters down there in the Dominican Republic who said he couldn’t play any more. This would show them. “It’s just amazing how well I can play without playing,” he said.

        

Eighth’s

         In the Eighth’s, Resek continued his winning ways by getting past Philip, 19, 15, 19. “What do you think of this tournament?”—Philip’s question to me, my modified answer to him, month after month, year after year, was always the same.

         Also winning in straight games were: Bush over an over-powered Bozorgzadeh; Sweeris (who’s training harder now than he ever did) over Lardon (who, his days in Japan excepted, is not training any harder now than he ever did}; and Danny (“Isn’t it depressing,” he said later, “to look up in the stands and recognize every single spectator?”) over Earle. Robert, who two weeks earlier had beaten Eric Boggan in the Capital Open, was particularly unhappy about having to play Danny in the Eighth’s—he thought his showing at the last two tournaments, 2^nd in Maryland and 3^rd at the Lehigh Valley Open in Pennsylvania a month earlier, ought to entitle him to a better draw, but neither tournament had been processed for the Eastern’s. So Robert will have to wait four more months for the next big money tournament in the area—the July U.S. Open. Keep practicing, Robert.

         Eric Boggan, back on Table 8, played well against Attila Malek’s ceaseless forcing topspin—and it was well for him that he did, for the transplanted Hungarian—he too is offering a summer camp—seemed at his freshest and was a little unlucky to lose both the first two games at deuce, especially when, down 19-13 in the 2^nd, he caught Eric.

         Scott Boggan lost an unexpected -19, 21, -14, 18, 13 match to Polisois whom he’d beaten easily in Montreal two weeks earlier. Losing the 2^nd game from 20-18 turned a three-straight win into a five-game loss. Someone said that Scott, who later looked sharp in the Men’s and Mixed Doubles, seemed more interested in making the theoretically correct shot than in winning the match.

         Also losing in 5 was U.S. Team member Roger Sverdlik. Mats Backstrom, who talks now about moving to the States and trying out for the next U.S. Team (he says he had a year of residency here when he was 3), suddenly stopped Roger from spinning and, though the Swede was down 2-0, he began finding just the right touch over the table, and, besting Roger on the exchanges, went on to gain control of the match.

         The most surprising 5-game upset, though, was Quang Bui over Insook Bhushan. Quang, like Dean Wong, practices 3 hours a day, 7 days a week—but his regular sparring partner, Bob Mandel, is only a 1900 player. Maybe the fact that they practice in a church has something to do with Quang’s answered prayers in this match?

         Of course Quang knows more than a little about what he’s doing. When he was in Japan last summer Hasegawa and Itoh told him, as he readies himself for a loop, to let the ball come close to his body. “Know what I mean?” he says to me. Then he draws me a little box of a diagram—a tart pie, cut into 8 tabular parts. “You slow loop here and here,” he says pointing, “but not here and here. That’s what I did against Insook the first two games. I moved the ball and looked for the best shot to kill. When you angle-loop the ball, you don’t have to hit it fast. In the last game I went back to watching the ball very carefully and slowed down and waited for the right shot. That’s why I won.”

 

Quarter’s

         The quarter’s matches were time-scheduled for 9:30 p.m. at about the same time that the official tournament party was supposedly getting started at the Ramada Inn half an hour’s ride away. Many, though, hadn’t the choice of watching or leaving—not if they wanted to play their own matches, some of which were scheduled to go off at 10:30. The losers of these Open quarter’s matches would get $50. The winners the opportunity to play in tomorrow’s round robin final for the top prizes of $500, $250, and $150 for 3^rd and 4^th.

         Danny of course had absolutely no problem with Backstrom who averaged like 11 points a game. The 33-year-old Sweeris, coming out of retirement to rate among the Top 10, said he’d been sitting in Grand Rapids up until the last moment undecided whether he could afford to come to this most prestigious tournament.. He had to work to get by Resek in 4 after being down 20-18 in the 3^rd. “I just gave him two wrong serves,” said Errol—“and let him spin the ball first.”

          Actually Dell didn’t seem to be getting enough spin to his loops on these slow tables and Errol would often block them back and then move into a position to flat hit in a winner. Though Sweeris won the match, he complained about how difficult it had been for him to play every point and so in this his 8^th match of the day had suffered an occasional mental lapse.

         Polisois was not picked for this year’s Canadian Team to the World’s (before  the first Tryouts he’d cut a tendon and had his left hand in a cast, and before the second Tryouts he’d been taking night courses and wasn’t into playing much). The key 19 second game he took from Bui advanced him into the final round robin.

         Which left Doubles partners Eric and Mike to fight it out for the remaining spot. And fight they did. I’ve never seen Mike (who earlier had beaten an opponent 21-1, 21-0) play Eric better. Furthermore, Eric, for some reason, failed to return as many as 7 serves in both the 3^rd and 4^th games, and since he’s down 2-1 and 17-12 in the 4^th it looks very much as though he won’t survive. But he rallies to bring the game close. And now from Bush’s point of view there comes a controversial point.

         Eric has just made contact with the ball when a split second later another ball comes into the court and the umpire calls “Let!” The ball Eric has struck continues its flight and goes off the table. Mike asks Eric if he saw the other ball come into the court. Eric doesn’t say anything—merely acknowledges that the umpire has called a let. From Eric’s point of view, he has had no chance to win the point, so how could he lose it? That is, if the ball had hit the edge on Bush’s side and Mike had failed to return it, would the point have been rightfully Eric’s? Bush infers that it would have been, infers that he, Mike, would have given the point to Eric even if he, Mike, thought the let had caused him to lose concentration and not move for the ball, infers that Eric could then in good faith have accepted the point despite the distraction to Mike. But since it didn’t hit any part of the table and Eric wasn’t bothered by the ball from the adjacent court (“was he? was he?”…”no” comes the answer later), Boggan should have ethically given Bush the point. But there was an umpire, and he did make a call, and did stand by it (would the situation have been the same if there were no umpire, no “Let!” called, and Mike had asked Eric if the ball had bothered him?). So the call and the game went to Eric. In the 5^th, Boggan is up 12-7. Bush has softened up, and the match appears to be over. But then surprisingly Eric loses focus, doesn’t watch the ball, and it’s 14-all. And then unaccountably it’s 21-14 Eric.

 

Round Robin Final

         In the round robin final, which I thought was a very good idea by the Tournament Committee, Eric and Dell are first up. Earlier Sweeris had apologized to a passing acquaintance, had said, “I’m sorry I can’t talk with you now, but I’ve got to go up and lie down for half an hour and think about how I’m going to play this next match.” Against Eric, Dell’s down 2-0 and 16-12 in the 3^rd—at which point Eric misses a hanger and Sweeris ekes out the game 21-19. But that’s the best he can do. Matched up with Seemiller, Polisois can score only 31 points total.

         In the 2^nd round, Danny, who, helped by Ricky and Perry, will be giving three clinics this summer, has no trouble with Dell who some still remember beating his protégé in an Eastern’s not too many years ago.

         Eric, however, is having more than a little difficulty with Polisois. The Canadian’s soft-spin game has Boggan 8-1 down in the first—and yet Eric wins it, 22-20. In the 2^nd, Eric’s down 19-14, deuces it—but loses 24-22. They again trade off games 3 and 4 with Alex continuing to play great off topspin and flat-killing Eric’s too high drops at the net. In the 5^th, though, Eric jumps off to a lead with some sharp placements, repeatedly attacks Polisois with deep spinny serves and follows, and wins the game and the match.

         In the 3^rd and last round, after Dell downs Alex in a hard-fought but rather meaningless five games in which each wins the same amount of prize money, only one match remains—the natural final between Danny and Eric.

         Two weeks ago upon returning from Japan, Seemiller had beaten Boggan in the Maryland tournament in four. Now he opens inauspiciously by serving off, is soon down 6-4. Then up 16-7! First game to Danny. In the 2^nd, it’s 19-all…in the 3^rd, 18-19—but Eric cannot win either. Loses three straight.

         So the younger Boggan wins $365 for the weekend, while the oldest Seemiller, the hat trick winner in Singles and Doubles, takes home $625. Which leaves how much for the others? On how many weekends?

 

         On Apr. 18^th, a month after the Eastern’s, I received the following letter from N.J.’s Dennis Pedicini, which still offends me. I don’t like his tone, don’t like his decision to explain to me in a hurtful manner rather than to the readers of Topics the problems the organizers of the Eastern’s faced and which I apparently didn’t know about, else I would more than likely have mentioned them in my write-up. He really doesn’t own up to the shortcomings of the tournament and cops out by blaming me for the honest write-up I presented. It gives him an excuse to leave the Sport (which is something he’d thought about before?). But, o.k., the reader can follow from the available articles the various points of view, especially the differences of opinion between Dennis and me, for I often comment in brackets on what Dennis has written. Here’s his letter:

 

         “Tim,

            From the top, let me set one thing very clear. I am not setting out in this letter to offend anyone [well, if you don’t think I’d be offended you’re delusional]. I sincerely apologize if I do. [Apology accepted.]

         The April issue of Topics has opened my eyes today and I thank you for it. Your article on the Eastern’s hit me very hard. It does not take much to read through the half-hearted compliments. [My compliments were sincere. It’s clear, for example, I thought Mallows was conscientious.] The issue dramatically brought home the facts of life to me.

         They are, simply stated, that if you are in fact the self-appointed voice of the top players, then I am interested in the wrong sport. Through your constant dwelling on the shortcomings [I think I talked a lot about the various matches, but, as player after player pointed out, the shortcomings sure were constant] and by printing downright lies by Mike Bush and Shazzi Felstein you have really cut to the quick. Right there on page one Mike Bush tells all that the Eastern’s offered $500 for 1^st, $200 for 2^nd, $75 for 3^rd, $30 for 4^th, and zero for 5^th thru 8^th. THAT is a downright LIE. It’s inexcusable to read that weeks after the tournament is history.

         [In the following May-June, 1979 issue of Topics I explained this error in Mike Bush’s Lehigh Valley write-up: “I, as Editor striving for a parallel structure that I thought would make one of Mike’s points clearer and stronger, inadvertently wrote that the Eastern’s offered no prize money at all for 5^th through 8^th place in Open Singles. This was an untrue statement—and  I wish to make it clear that (1) it was my error not Mike’s, and (2) that I’m sorry for any understandable feeling of injustice those connected with the tournament may have felt on reading the line.” In my own write-up of the Eastern’s, however, I’d given the correct prize money apportionment as $500 for 1^st, $250 for 2^nd, $150 for 3^rd and 4^th, and $50 for 5^th through 8^th. In Mike’s write-up, the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th prize money distribution was also incorrect, though I’d not noted that as I should have, perhaps had not made the connection.]  

         Turning to page two, Shazzi cries that the women only got $255, while the men got $1250, plus money in the A’s, B’s, etc. The truth on the other hand is that the women were eligible for all the money in the A’s, B’s, etc. plus the Open, not “Men’s” Singles, plus the $255 additional money that no male player had a chance at!!! [You gotta be kidding me, Dennis!!! That’s an absurd argument—made worse by calling Shazzi a liar. One woman—the Canadian Champion, winner of the Women’s here, Mariann Domonkos—made the last 16 in the A’s and there got eliminated. No woman got to the quarter’s of the B’s. And you’ll have to forgive me for mistakenly calling the Open the Men’s because among the last 32 players there was only one woman standing—our world-class player Insook—and she didn’t make the quarter’s. Some opportunity the women had for prize money in those events. Ridiculous.]

          Your more subtle, snide remarks [slyly disparaging, were they? (well, alright, hard not to slip in one or two); but on the whole, my remarks were almost exclusively not snide, but very straightforward] mention nothing of the fact that Colin and myself were shown the darker room only weeks before the Eastern’s and were powerless to change it. I cite Colin and myself only because we are the visible people usually, and the visible people take the brunt of all criticism. You mention nothing of the fact that in spite of Colin breaking his butt to get the entries to Neal early, Neal brought us the playing schedule hours before the start, telling us for the first time that play would conflict with the party. You mention nothing of the fact that the barriers never did reach us. I personally borrowed a truck, went to the Consolidated Freight yard and loaded the over 800 pounds myself. You mention nothing of the fact that the barrier feet never came at all! Bob Barns went to a local lumber yard Thurs. night and led an improvised assembly line at the 11^th hour. Those are only a few of the mechanical problems that you and your comrades did not have to worry yourselves over.

         [I agree that your pre-tournament experience was quite a bummer. I wouldn’t think you and your comrades would ever want to go through that again. I sympathize, but presumably I’m hearing all this for the first time, and the membership is never hearing it. However, with regard to the shortcomings the players were exposed to, the buck sure doesn’t stop with me. Shazzi, Alan Bell, and I told what we saw and felt at the tournament. Extenuating circumstances there were, I believe you, but you don’t seem to take responsibility for how the tournament turned out.]

         I, in addition to many hours of pre-tournament work, gave up four days of my life for the players’ benefit. I can easily make $25/hr at my profession. Add my time to that of Colin, Mel, Bob, Dan, Ron and others and your ‘professionals’ pale in a simple dollar/cents comparison. [How about in a work ethic—longtime effort at, longtime success in, what one sets out to do? How’s the comparison there?] As I told Mike Bush recently, the table tennis ‘professional’ players are indeed looking in the wrong direction. They are hiding behind that title, putting themselves above the working class as some sort of elite bunch. [It’s just amazing, as I’ve shown in earlier volumes, how many amateur-minded people don’t get it—the top players are an elite bunch, they work at being elite. These same people grasp what a professional is in other sports, would be honored to have an autograph from one of them, but the concept of a table tennis player as a professional making three figures a year eludes them. And that’s what the player is judged on. How much money he makes?]

         That [elitism] is bullshit as far as I’m concerned. They are great players, true [be careful how you use “great,” Dennis—I don’t think you’ve much experience with “great” table tennis players], but compared to [those in] other amateur sports in America they are freeloading, and bitching about it to boot. [Freeloading? The professional players are not assuming responsibility? Not true—they work at being a professional player. How could they be more responsible? You’d have them give up practicing, playing tournament after tournament—to do what?] Right here in N.J., for example, Steve Mizerak is a four-time U.S. Open pool champion. He has no doubt earned as much or more from his sport than Danny has. [Which wasn’t, isn’t, very much? And that’s why…] He is a full-time educator in Perth Amboy. [Did anybody ever tell him to give up being a professional? And if they did, he sure didn’t listen. You can imagine how much work he put in to pay his dues before he became a Champion. And then of course, as I showed in Vol. VIII, p. 342, Mizerak isn’t an amateur; he and other top pool players quit their Billiard Association to form the new Professional Pool Players Association.] Mr. Frank Chapot, an acquaintance of mine, has been a WORLD CLASS equestrian champion for nearly 20 years, yet is quite gainfully employed. [Being a professional table tennis player is not being gainfully employed? If you don’t make a certain amount of money you’re not a professional? You’re a freeloader? What makes a professional is the money he earns? His “gain” has to be in money? Some people called Bernie Bukiet a “bum” because all he did was play table tennis. Not much money there. Aficionados called him not a freeloader but a professional and held him in high esteem.]

         The U.S. curling champions are also from N.J. They too are WORLD CLASS yet do not look to tournament volunteers for a living. [Who’s making tournament-running volunteers volunteer? Certainly not the players whom the tournament organizers depend on for a prestigious tournament. The volunteers see value in responsibly taking on work and doing it well—and when they don’t do it well they’ve got to responsibly take the heat.]

         As good as the top players are, they simply don’t bring anything to the Sport that warrants the title ‘professional.’ [That’s just not true. Given, for example, Danny Seemiller’s work ethic for the last six years, his clinics, exhibitions, his circuit play and WORLD CLASS ranking, his acknowledged professionalism by both the USTTA and ITTF, you want to call him an amateur?] Never have I seen a 2300 player offer constructive pre-tournament assistance or have the balls to actively join a tournament committee. [How about post-tournament criticism? The players are always offering that, and offering it again and again. Does that mean anything? Are their criticisms acted upon? It’s the same old argument I covered again and again in Vol. VIII—the amateur-minded have a block against acknowledging professional play in table tennis.]

         Danny and Eric do conduct themselves in a professional manner [Danny, yes; Eric not always], as do a few of the others, but in general the ‘Pro’s’ are a whimpering, self-pitying group. I know that sounds strong [it sure does, coming from you who, as you conclude this letter, seem to be a whimpering, self-pitying malcontent yourself], but can you disagree, if the N.J.T.T.C. runs a 2100 and Under tournament with $200 or more for the winner that it will be just as profitable as if they ran an Open? [Just as profitable for who? The top players, the professionals? The spectators who want to see the best players? The host Club who rather than take an imaginative risk wants to make sure they don’t lose money?]

         Do you disagree that if they routinely did that, someone like John [sic: for Jonathan] Katz or Mike Stern, both gentlemen throughout, would soon be the leading money winner in the U.S. Would they then be the Pro’s? [Of course I disagree, as I do with almost everything you say. If the N.J. Club were to run nine tournaments a year, and either Stern or Katz would hypothetically win six of them and pocket $1200-$1500, how would that compare with Danny’s 1978-79 winnings of $5,007.50 or Eric’s $4,032.00? You keep denigrating the best players because you feel they don’t appreciate volunteer workers like yourself. That’s the bottom line: you’re emotionally hurt and so try to find “reasons” to attack, but your “reasons” won’t hold up.] Just because a young person decides to drop out and devote his life to a game does not obligate me to lose money supporting his habit. [Wow! You are better off away from this Game—for that’s what it is to you and most amateurs. Seemiller (and each of the other 28 announced U.S. professionals) has “dropped out.” Dropped out of what? Life? And you’re not gonna support his—and this is some choice of words—“habit.”]

         I’m trying to say something here [you certainly are], and I don’t know if I’ll ever make it clear [you have, you have], but I for one am leaving the T.T. organization and the criticism it evokes to others from now on. I just can’t figure out why I should put heart and soul into a two-day or four-day effort and be continually subject to your sometimes vulgar, sometimes false, sometimes after the fact, sometimes rude, but always constant bitching and moaning. Wise up, Goddamit! [You wise-up. You got maybe not what you deserve but what you have to take responsibility for—player after player dissatisfied with the tournament and saying so.] Encourage Colin to continue and get better at what he does. Encourage Bob and Dan and the others. Where would you be without them??? Don’t waste your time with me [ah, but I haven’t], your April Topics has convinced me to be a spectator from now on. Table Tennis has lost a friend and a worker.

                                                                  Sincerely,

                                                            Dennis Pedicini

         [In explaining why you’re dropping out of Table Tennis, Dennis, you’ve done a good thing—that is, you’ve allowed History to better understand your amateur point of view and the great gulf there is between that and my own. Seldom do we have such a spokesperson as you.]”