Six pitchers were back from the 2005 championship class:  2004 & 2005 defending champion Darrell Sherrard from Henryville; 20 times state champion Mark Seibold out of Huntington; 2006 season’s top ranked pitcher by percentage points at 70%, Russell Baker from Lagrange; last year’s 4th place finisher Glen Hitner from New Albany; 5th ranked in the state Ralph Guffey from New Castle and 6th ranked and 2006 pitcher of the year award winner Pat Laffoon from Bristol.

The four new pitchers, who were not in last year’s championship tournament were 2006 season 8th ranked Dale Moles from Pennville; 9th ranked and winner of the 2005 40’ Class A Fred Gross from Kokomo; Dennis Shepherd from Hanover, who finished 2nd place in the 2005 40’ Class A and 10th ranked in the state and Danny Rader from Connersville who was 11th ranked in the state.  Other than 7th ranked Bill Holland, all the other top 10 pitchers in the state were entered in the championship tourney.  The 2006 40’ Class A pitchers were probably happy to see that Danny Rader made the championship class coming in with his 52% average.


Round 1:
Sherrard pitched a nice 71% game to hand Rader (50%) his first loss 43-9.  Gross only pitched 43% to lose his first game to Baker 25-40.  Seibold squeaked by Shepherd in a long 70 shoes game by a score of 42-39.  Laffoon edged out Hitner in a hot game by the score of 41-38.  Guffey handed Moles a 40-37 loss in what turned out to be Dale’s weakest game of the tournament at 53%.

Round 2:
Sherrard took Gross 44-26.  Baker pitched a solid 73% against Shepherd to win over him 41-14.  Rader pitched under 40% against Seibold and lasted 42 shoes before taking a 10-42 loss.  Moles beat Hitner 41-28.  Laffoon out-pitched Guffey by a score of 41-32.  After round 2, the four pitchers without a loss were Sherrard, Baker, Seibold and Laffoon.  Guffey and Moles had one loss.

Round 3:
Shepherd ran into a buzz saw when Sherrard threw his 86.67% game and won the contest 42-9, but Dennis kept his cool and managed to throw a 50% game.  Baker registered a back to back 73% game to hand Rader a 40-12 defeat.  Seibold beat Gross 42-22, while Hitner got his first win against Guffey 40-18.  Pat Laffoon pitched his average, but Moles showed Laffoon his 76% groove and took the game 40-17 to hand Pat his first loss.  After round 3, only Sherrard, Seibold and Baker were undefeated.  Moles and Laffoon had only one loss.  Guffey and Hitner had 2 losses and Shepherd, Gross and Rader were three in the hole.

Round 4:
Sherrard only out-pitched Laffoon by 62% to 59%, but Darrell won the game 42-32 after Laffoon took him 72 shoes.  Baker and Moles went 62 shoes until Moles crossed the finish line and won 41-38 to deal Baker his first loss.  Seibold out lasted Guffey in 60 shoes 40-30.  Gross managed to throw only 52% against Hitner, but Glen couldn’t solve his problems with his game and pitched only 38% to lose a 42-14 contest.  Shepherd got his first win against Rader with a score of 40-29.  After 4 rounds, only Sherrard and Seibold were unblemished.  Baker and Moles (on a 3 games winning streak) were sitting with only one loss.  Laffoon had 2 losses, but still in the running in an tight tourney.  With three losses were Gross, Guffey, Hitner, and Shepherd.  Rader was still looking for his first win.

Round 5:
Moles met Sherrard for a long 70 shoes game.  Sherrard pitched an average 67% game (for him), but Moles saw his shoes go on the stake 71% of the time and saw his winning streak continued to 4 games with a 40-34 final tally.  This left only Seibold with no losses.  Baker bounced back from his round 4 loss to best Guffey 41-28.  Seibold was lined up to face Laffoon, but the competitive Pat didn’t show up.  Laffoon only pitched 43% ringers and Mark won his 5th straight game by the score of 45-16 in 46 shoes and now led the pack with a 5-0 record.  Hitner managed to get his ringers back up to 50% (still short of the 60% he had been pitching in the 2006 season), but Rader pitched a fine 62% game to take Hitner 40-26 for his first win.  Gross pitched a fine 65% game to handle Shepherd by the final score of 43-29.  With round 5 over, only Mark Seibold was undefeated.  A three-way tie for 2nd place was heating up with Sherrard, Baker and Moles at only one loss apiece.  Gross and Laffoon were sitting with 3 losses each.  Hitner, Guffey, Shepherd and Rader were all holding a 1-4 record.

Round 6:
Moles and Seibold were scheduled for a showdown.  Dale on a 4 games winning streak and Mark not yet knowing the feeling of a sad final throw of the shoes.  The game went 64 shoes and Seibold pitched 57%, but Moles threw the shoes on 59% and with 38 ringers to Seibold’s 37 ringers, scored three more points on ringers and got the rest in pennies to beat the leader 41-34.  Sherrard and Baker were now again in a tight race with Seibold for the exclusive first place slot.  After his 5th round loss to Moles, Sherrard handled Guffey 40-19.  Baker faced Laffoon and out gunned him 68% to 56% to take the game 41-25.  Hitner and Shepherd dueled it out in a long 60 shoes game with Hitner beating him by one ringer and a handful of points for his second win at 41-34.  Gross threw his average game against Rader, but Danny failed again to pitch 40% and lost to Gross in a 19-40 final score.  At the end of Round 6, four men were sitting on first place with only one loss apiece.  Seibold, Sherrard, Baker and Moles.  Gross with a 3 games winning streak was now at 3 losses.  Laffoon and Hitner had 4 losses apiece and with 5 losses were Guffey, Shepherd and Rader.

Round 7:
The hot Moles would face the recovering Gross, Sherrard would face a struggling Hitner and Baker would get to pitch against Seibold.  Mark Seibold pitched his worse game of the tourney at 54%, while Russell Baker pushed his game up to 76%.  The final score was 42-18 with Mark dropping out of the first place four-way tie with his second loss.  Sherrard only pitched 60% against Glen Hitner, but on this day that was enough.  Glen threw another game below 50% coming in at 46%.  The fourth place finisher of last year’s tourney lost to the defending champ with a 23-41 score.  Dale Moles and Fred Gross met and pitched together for 60 shoes.  Out gunning him by only 1 ringer at 60% to 58%, Fred Gross won the game and stopped the 5 games winning streak that Moles was cruising on.  Gross was now on a 4 games winning streak with two games remaining.  Guffey pitched only 41% against Rader, but Danny pitched his lowest game of the tourney at 33% and lost 21-42.  Pat Laffoon faced Dennis Shepherd and burned the stakes by showing the competitive Pat.  Pat pitched a sizzling 73% against a nice 58% game by Shepherd to take the contest 40-17.  After 7 complete rounds of play, Russell Baker and Darrell Sherrard had one loss each, Mark Seibold and Dale Moles were sitting on only two losses each, Fred Gross was having a nice tournament with only three losses, Pat Laffoon was in with four losses, Hitner and Guffey had five apiece and Shepherd and Rader were sitting on six losses each.

Round 8:
This round would match up last year’s champion Sherrard with the 2005 second place finisher Seibold.  Baker would have to meet Hitner and Moles would stand against Shepherd.  Moles out-pitched Shepherd 60% to 50% for a 44-31 victory.  Shepherd throws a beautiful 1-3/4 turn and it’s a nice thing to watch in the championship class.  Russell Baker pitched the worst game of all his games to this point with 46% of his shoes not going on the stake.  Glen Hitner threw below 50% with only 46% of his shoes going on the stake and once again pitched well below his potential.  The final score was in Baker’s favor 40-29.  Glen is a fierce competitor and he will be back.  Ralph Guffey pitched 61% against Fred Gross, but Gross pitched short of what he needed in this game with 53% and Guffey took him 40-29.  Rader pitched his second best game against Laffoon (it seemed like everyone was pitching their best games against Pat), but Pat went 58 shoes pitching 62% and beat Rader 44-28.  Sherrard and Seibold were into a 62 shoes game with Mark throwing 64%, but Darrell Sherrard pulled out a 72% game and won the meeting 41-24.  The standings before the final round showed Sherrard and Baker with only one loss with a meeting between the two in round 9 for first place, Moles in third had two losses, Seibold was sitting on three losses, Gross and Laffoon had four losses apiece and scheduled to meet in the ninth round, Guffey had five losses, Hitner had six losses, and Shepherd and Rader were tied for ninth and tenth with seven losses each.

Round 9 (the final round):
Fred Gross pitched the second best game of the whole tournament with 78% against none other than Pat Laffoon.  Gross took Laffoon 41-12 in 50 shoes.  With a two games winning streak going for him, Ralph Guffey pitched two more ringers than did Dennis Shepherd and won the contest 41-30 (53% to 50%).  Hitner took Seibold to 64 shoes, but Seibold finished it with a 42-28 win (62% to 54%).  Dale Moles needed a win against Danny Rader to clinch a third place position and he came through with a 63% game against a 50% game for a final victory score of 40-16.  All the marbles were on the line in the showdown between back to back defending champion Darrell Sherrard and last year’s third place finisher Russell Baker.  The game went 54 shoes, with Sherrard throwing 61% and hitting 33 ringers.  But Russell Baker pitched a clutch 70% game with 38 ringers to become the 26th state champion in the Indiana Mens Championship.

Final comments:  I hope this round by round coverage of the 2006 Indiana Mens Championship reveals the excitement and entertainment that comes with watching horseshoe pitching at the championship level in the state of Indiana.  I have come to know most of the pitchers in the Indiana championship class.  I have never known a finer group of men.  I have a great respect for the pitching abilities of all the pitchers at this caliber.  It was nice to see four new faces in the tourney from last year’s pack.  Any of the pitchers could have pitched their best rhythms and performed better than they did and then again, all of us have days when things don't work the way we know they have worked for us in the season or in practice.  I think Russ Baker summed it up before the tourney when I heard him say he doesn’t know whether the 70% or the 50% Russ Baker is going to show up.  The one closer to 70% showed up on this day.  It was a fine tournament and I look forward to seeing who shows up next year to defend the title, win the title again or win their first title and become the 27th Indiana state champion.

The Women’s Championship Class had five returning contestants.  Last year’s Womens champion Mary Lee Claise from Tell City came in with a 70% NATSTATS average.  Mary Lee had won the 2005 title in a playoff with Carolyn Coyle.  Nancy Yaros from Hobart had won the title in 2004 and four other times (1999-02).  Carolyn S Coyle from Pierceton had won the title in the previous year of 2003 after first winning the Womens state title in 1971 and was a Junior Girls champion in 1968.  Jenny D Morris out of Lafontaine was back from a 4th place finish in 2005.  Sharon Chiddister from Goshen had finished 6th in 2005 and had averaged 34% in the state tourney.  In this tournament she was coming in with a much improved NATSTATS average of 56%.  And Vickie Roach from Nineveh rounded out the field as a new addition over last year’s line-up.

Round 1:
Roach threw a nice 54% game against her first opponent Claise.  But Claise zeroed in on the stake to hit 33 ringers out of 44 shoes for a tournament high 75% game win of 41-15.  Yaros met Morris and pitched nearly 30% below her average coming in to lose the game to Morris 27-43.  Coyle and Chiddister battled for 82 shoes before Coyle crossed the finish line with a 41-31 win with 2 more ringers than Chiddister and a 65% game.

Round 2:
Claise out-pointed Morris when she cooled down to 56% from her previous game high.  With 2 more ringers and several close points, Claise took the game 41-28.  Yaros and Chiddister matched ringers in a 62 shoes game with 34 each.  But Nancy picked up more close shoes and won the game 42-36.  Roach pitched 52% against Coyle, but it was not enough with Carolyn topping her with 64% and winning the contest 43-26.  After 2 full rounds, only Claise and Coyle were undefeated and scheduled to meet in round 3.  Yaros and Morris had a loss each and Chiddister and Roach were both looking for their first win.

Round 3:
Yaros pitched well against Roach, throwing 67% ringers against a nice 56% game from Roach.  Yaros made it a 40-27 victory after 46 shoes.  Morris pitched an average game for her with 54%, but Chiddister was nailing the stakes at a 68% clip and took Morris 41-17 in 48 shoes.  Claise and Coyle went at it for only 38 shoes.  Claise had gone from a 75% game, to a 56% game and now posted a 47% game against Coyle.  Carolyn reached into the 70s for a 71% game that left the present state champion Mary Lee Claise on the short end of a 42-13 score.  After round 3, only Coyle had an untarnished record at 3-0.  Former champions Claise and Yaros were sitting on a loss each.  Chiddister and Morris had two losses each and Roach was at 3 losses.

Round 4:
Morris faced Roach in a game that saw Morris throwing another consistent 52% game (after posting previous games of 51%, 52%, and 54%).  Vickie dropped off her own game to pitch only 41%, after having pitched previous games of 54%, 52%, and 56%.  The final score was in the favor of Morris 40-24.  Chiddister, having improved over 20% points since their last encounter in last year’s state was pretty much on her game against Mary Lee Claise with a 57% game.  But Claise kept herself in the tourney if Coyle should falter by reaching back up for a 67% effort and taking Chiddister 43-26 in 52 shoes.  Coyle was now facing the pitcher who took her 2003 title away from her in 2004.  Nancy Yaros with only one loss on her record pitched the worst game of her tournament at 40%.  Coyle after having pitched Claise at a 71% clip, showed Yaros a 70% game and walked away with a 40-13 win and only one pitcher left between her and a perfect 5-0 state title.  After 4 rounds, Claise with only one loss was right behind Coyle, Yaros and Morris had 2 losses each, Chiddister had 3 losses and the pitcher Chiddister was about to face with 4 losses was Vickie Roach.

Round 5 (final round):
Roach after three excellent opening games, for her, continued where she left off in her fourth game by pitching only 38% against Chiddister’s 59% to give Sharon Chiddister her second win at 43-17.  Last year’s champ Mary Lee Claise needed a win against Nancy Yaros to keep her hopes alive for another playoff against Coyle in the scenario that Coyle should drop her guard with Morris.  Claise only pitched a 52% game, but Yaros could only muster 47% for a final score of 40-35 and Claise was still in the running with a tourney record of 4-1, while Yaros lost 3 tourney games pitching below 50%.  Yaros came in with 73% NATSTATS and would have to wait till next year to show that championship form that got her five past titles.  Against Coyle, Morris broke her own consistency and dropped below 50% to cling onto the stakes only 44% of the time.   Coyle pitched her weakest game of the tourney at 61%, but it was more than enough to win the game at 41-19 and become the 2006 Womens State Champion.

Final comments:  I can’t wait to see these women lock horns again next year!  I look for Mary Lee Claise and Nancy Yaros to bounce back with a vengeance.  Vickie Roach sustained good form through her first three games and seems ready to break into her next level of pitching.  Sharon Chiddister is going to be a strong contender in the near future, if she manages to keep what she has gained and continues to find areas to build on and improve her game as she has already done recently.  Jenny Morris showed the pitching consistency that Chiddister and Coyle displayed in this tournament, which makes her a continuous threat.  Carolyn Coyle pitched a nice tournament with a 66% average and managed to keep three pitchers below 20 points against her and only allowed one pitcher to score in the 30s (31).  When it was all over, I believe good skill combined with a strong will together seemed to decide this tournament.  . . . TO BE CONTINUED NEXT YEAR!

With only three junior boys contending for the title, this class needs some more contenders in the future.  Three times Indiana Jr. Boys Champion Lee Seibold from Huntington would take on two challengers to his title.  Jaron Simpson from Marion and Douglas Rader from Connersville would face Lee and each other.  Seibold has finished sixth, fifth and fourth in his last three appearances in the World Jr. Boys Championship class, improving his finish by one place each year.  Pitching at 70% and 62% in the last two appearances and with the strong world class pitching experiences, he makes a tough opponent to face in a state championship.  Coming in with good NATSTATS averages of 34% and 33% respectively, Simpson and Rader have to applauded for providing Seibold opposition to gaining his fourth title.  It turns out that one of them did pitch a nice 69% game in this tourney along with a 43% game, while the other had a good 45% game.  Originally scheduled to be a double round robin tourney, the pitchers agreed to make it a triple round robin.


Round 1:
Rader started the tourney out hot with 18 ringers out of 26 shoes, for a 69% game, to beat Simpson 42-6.  Seibold got the BYE.

Round 2:
Seibold pitched a 71% game and Rader answered with a solid 37% game to hand Seibold the victory at 42-3.  Simpson got the BYE.

Round 3:
Simpson threw his average against Seibold and Lee slowed his pitching down to a 56% game for a 41-20 win.  Rader got the BYE.

Round 4:
Simpson and Rader went at it for the second time out of three scheduled encounters between the two.  Simpson topped Rader 20 ringers to 18 to even the slate with the two at one game each.  The final score was 43-33.  Siebold got the BYE.

Round 5:
Rader pitched a nice 43% game against Seibold.  Lee Seibold burned the stakes up with a 78.13% game and won the contest 42-6.  Simpson was sitting on the BYE.

Round 6:
Simpson faced Seibold for the second time and threw a 34% game.  Seibold dropped down to a 60% game and won it 42-8.  Rader had the BYE.

Round 7:
Seibold had a BYE in this round.  Simpson and Rader met for the third time for what would be the game to decide second place.  Rader was coming off of games of 69%, 37%, 32%, and 43%; while Simpson was presently at 26%, 34%, 35% and 34%.  The game lasted 42 shoes with Rader hitting 14 ringers at 33%.  Simpson turned in his finest game with 19 ringers and 45% to go on to win this important game by a score of 40-20.  With Seibold at 4-0 (or 7-0 with the BYE wins), Simpson was 2-3 and Rader was 1-4.

Round 8:
Seibold threw another 60% game and Rader slipped to 17% with his only game below 30%.  Lee won this encounter 45-3.  Simpson had the BYE.

Round 9:
With Rader taking the BYE and finising with a record of 1-5 (or 4-5 with the BYE wins), Simpson would get one more chance to pitch against the three times state champion.  Simpson fired 36% ringers and Seibold finished with 66% ringers for a final score of 40-4.

Final comments:  All three pitchers pitched a good tournament over their own NATSTATS averages coming in.  Lee Seibold has a good state and world pitching foundation to carry in with him when he begins pitching in the mens 40’ class.  This will certainly be exciting to watch.  Simpson and Rader are both improving their games and should add to what I hope to be a strong group of men pitchers in the coming years for the state of Indiana.  I don’t know the actual ages of these three pitchers, but they will all be good contenders for titles and tournaments in their futures.

Four of the elders were back from last year’s state tourney.  The 2005 & 2004 state champion Carl Sizemore from Connersville.  Last year’s second place finisher E. Dale Kirtley from Economy was joined by 2005 state fourth place finisher Robert Sheppard from Rushville, along with the INHPA President and 2005 fifth place finisher Joe Graber from Goshen.  Harry Palmateer from Hammond joined the other four along with 1998, 2000 and 2002 World Elders Champion and 1998, 1999 and 2001 Indiana State Elders Champion Bob Logan from Kouts.  Last year’s third place and 1997 & 2000 INHPA state Elders Champion Curly Seibold was not on the courts.  Nor was Sanley Loy from Pierceton.  Logan was coming into the tourney with a 79% NATSTATS average.  Sizemore was sitting at 72% and Sheppard was in at 64%.  The rest of the field was in the high 50s.

Round 1:
Sizemore pitched a modest 65% game against Palmateer, but at 50%, Palmateer lost to Sizemore 20-45.  Logan started off against Kirtley with an 82% game.  With Kirtley at only 50%, the game score was 40-7.  Graber pitched his first game against Sheppard letting the field know that NATSTATS do not determine the outcome of games.  Graber’s 74% effort landed him a 40-20 opening win.

Round 2:
Sizemore jumped on Kirtley by out pitching him 76% to 54% for a 41-10 win.  Logan faced Graber in a long 68 shoes match that ended with Logan hitting only 3 more ringers than Graber and winning the game against Graber’s 72% by a final score of 40-34.  Sheppard came back with a 72% game against Palmateer and took him 41-15.  After 2 rounds, only Sizemore and Logan were undefeated.  Graber and Sheppard had a loss apiece and Kirtley and Palmateer were sitting on two opening losses each.

Round 3:
Sizemore faced Sheppard and threw another 76% game.  With his shakiest game of the tourney at 59%, Sheppard lost the game 18-43.  Logan took Palmateer 42-16 and Graber dropped his game to 60% against Kirtley, but Dale could only muster 35% and Graber won the contest 40-16.  Sizemore and Logan were still without a loss and Graber had only one loss and was scheduled to face Carl Sizemore in round 4.  Kirtley and Palmateer were both without wins, but would face each other in the next round.

Round 4:
Palmateer pitched his strongest game of the tourney against Kirtley with a nice 58% effort.  Kirtley only managed 43% and dropped the game to Palmateer 16-41.  Sizemore met Graber for the longest game of the tourney with each pitcher pitching 88 shoes.  Graber threw 73% of his shoes on the stake and would win most games with this kind of an effort, but Carl Sizemore threw 2 more ringers than Joe and with his 76% effort took this great game 42-34.  Logan was on another court with Sheppard for what ended up being a 78 shoes game.  Logan pitched the ringers on at a 71% clip with 56 total ringers, but Robert Sheppard also had 56 ringers and out pointed Logan by the final score of 42-38.  At the end of round 4, Sizemore was undefeated, but slated to meet Logan, who only had the one loss from his last game in round 5.  With 2 losses each, Sheppard and Graber were tied for 3rd.  Palmateer had 3 losses and Kirtley was still looking for his first win.

Round 5 (the final round)
Sheppard beat a struggling Dale Kirtley by a score of 40-15.  Dale did not have a good tourney and was well below his 58% average that he came in with.  It seemed that Joe Graber picked up the percentage points that Kirtley had lost in the tourney.  Graber pitched his fourth 70% plus game of the tourney by jumping on Palmateer by a score of 43-14 and registering a 72% effort.  Palmateer was pitching pretty consistently until he dropped to a 44% game in his last round.  Sizemore and Logan were pitching on the court that would decide who the 2006 state champ would be.  With no losses, Sizemore would have to lose twice to Logan to lose the title, once in round 5 and then again in a playoff with both men tied at 4-1.  In a round 5 game that went 74 shoes, sizemore pitched a solid 72% against the 3 times World and 3 times State Champion.  But Logan threw one of those games like he threw last month in Huntington against World Champion Alan Francis, where Bob Logan took Alan 152 shoes, matching his 85% and winning the game against the World Champ.  Logan pitched 82.78% against Sizemore and won the big game 40-18 to send the 2006 INHPA Elders State Championship into a playoff with the biggest game of this tournament.

Championship Pitch Off:
Carl Sizemore had pitched four straight games in the 70s after opening the tourney with a 67% effort.  But in this playoff game, he managed only 67% and Bob Logan did not let up from his round 5 rhythm to register an 81% game.  With a final score of 40-14, Bob Logan regained the title to become the 2006 Indiana State Elders Champion.

Final Comments:  As I said with the womens 2006 state finish, I look forward to seeing these pitchers meet again in 2007.  With Joe Graber showing what he is capable of pitching for a tourney with his 71% average effort and Sheppard showing that, as surprised as he was, “Bob Sheppard could beat Bob Logan”.  Not to mention the ability Carl Sizemore has to string together three 76% games in a row; Bob Logan has a strong group of men to keep him sharp for more chances at the World title.  And as good as Logan is, and he is a great pitcher, he will have to work when he comes to the Indiana Championship Tournament.  And being the competitor that he is, I’m sure he loves facing good title contenders and having to put in a good day’s work.