Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
05-16-16 02:57AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
quote: Originally posted by Gerry
Two parts to it. The TopGun fabric was not widely used before this season and the reasons it's become an issue is realizing how good it is brand new. Once these heads are broken in, they don't seem to be an issue.
Uh... has anyone noticed that the sweeping techniques this past season were very, very different than the sweeping techniques over the past 3 decades or so?
Anyone?
And hair brushes were never a "Top Gun fabric", Gerry - and were never considered a problem (for decades) before this past season.
Maybe - just maybe - the problem has a lot to do with how the brushes are used.
I don't know how much more obvious it can be. And yet everyone at a level of authority/influence seems to be very deliberately turning a blind eye to it - while trying desperately to convince everyone that the problem is only in the materials - some of which have been used in curling for 30 years with no problems!
quote: Originally posted by Gerry
Any rules need to minimize the advantages of regularly changing brush pads or switching brushes to take advantage of fresh heads.
So they'll only ruin the ice in the first 2 or 3 ends, then?
Great 'solution'...
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-16-16 10:31AM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
quote: Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
Two sweepers might cancel out the effect of directional sweeping but would not decrease the amount of damage that one sweeper would make. Damage on top of damage would make the ice less playable.
Not necessarily...it depends on the nature of the "damage"
Consider, if the effect of a single sweeper on one side of the stone is to microscratch the surface in such a way that increases the tendency of the stone to break to the left, and a sweeper on the other side to microscratch it in a way that increases the tendency to break to the right, a combination of both sweepers would cancel out the effects, and leave the result net unchanged (or at least lessened).
And "damage" to the pebble is not inherently a bad thing...it's *why you sweep*...pebble has gottten worn through the game ever since it was first applied and hit with a corn broom, it's part of the game. What needs to be avoided (if it can, and I'm not 100% convinced of that) is techniques or tools that excessively destroy the surface in such a way as to make certain shots unplayable.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-16-16 02:23PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote: Originally posted by AlanMacNeill
What needs to be avoided (if it can, and I'm not 100% convinced of that) is techniques or tools that excessively destroy the surface in such a way as to make certain shots unplayable.
I would agree, but I think that with the current moratorium-approved materials this is less of an issue. The main issue is now not what shots you can't make that you should, but rather what shots you can make that you shouldn't.
More simply, I believe the major concern right now is that there is still too much control of the curl of hack weight shots with existing equipment and technique, a level of control that diminishes the role of guards in the game. This single factor potentially greatly reduces offense and scoring.
I also believe that the first attempt at resolving this will be investigating the use of less effective sweeping fabrics and regulating brush construction. (Based on the moratorium results, there is some hope that this approach can diminish directional sweeping effects.) If equipment regulation does not in and of itself provide sufficient relief, then some attention to technique will be next, but this is currently regarded a much less desirable and practical approach.
No matter the protestations from every quarter, there WILL have to be some regulation of sweeping materials and construction, because we already have ample evidence that materials and construction have a dramatic impact on effectiveness, regardless of technique.
FYI, for those of you that think that sweeping at 90 degree to the path of the rock does not produce scratches that will potentially produce directional effects, do consider that the thrown rock is not stationary! During a sweeping stroke, the rock will be moving down the ice, which means sweeping at 90 degrees relative to the path rock is not depositing scratches 90 degrees relative to the path of the rock. For half-meter strokes (6/second) of a rock moving 1 m/s, the path-relative scratching angle is about 70 degrees. For a rock moving at 2 m/s, its closer to 55 degrees. (I'm pretty sure I did my trig right.) For many players, a very natural sweeping motion from either a closed or open stance is close to 45 degrees, and this is more than sufficient to see directional sweeping effects with single sweepers.
Sweeping restrictions will be very difficult to objectively enforce--even mandating two sweepers at all times won't help, because then you have to judge whether the sweepers are using the same frequency and pressure. I just see this as a rat-hole of subjectivity. If a 90 degree angle is mandated, how far off do you have to be to be violated? (Human muscle activation reproducibility is not sufficient to maintain perfect compliance.) Is 80 degrees OK? How about 70? or 60? How will this be measured? I'm not sure curling wants to go there if it can be avoided.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-18-16 12:54PM |
|
Hardline
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Nov 2015
Location:
Posts: 15 |
Earlier on this thread, there was a science project by Duncan Silversides that was posted, which showed change in ice.
We would like to commend Duncan on the initiative he took. Although the original report is incomplete, we were able to obtain the full report, as well as an updated report. Maybe we are wearing our Hardline goggles, but there seems to be more changes in the ice with just a rock passing over it than the icePad or EQ, which look very similar, in terms of changes in ice. Hair just looks like it is changing the ice much more. Barely any changes after 10 sweeps for the EQ and the IcePad from our point of view, but we will let you decide. It would have been great if the Norway was included in the report as well.
Also, if Rock Doc is able to explain what all the technical data means, in plain English, we would appreciate it. If he could also explain why the data is much different between the original report and the updated report, and what can influence these discrepancies.
Original report: http://www.curlbc.ca/wp-content/upl...on-Sweeping.pdf
Report with all pictures: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v0iefjos...20data.pdf?dl=0
Updated report: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zvvj5sfw...pauLTg50_a?dl=0 (follow up sweeping report)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-18-16 02:44PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
The most significant aspect of this report is that is it shows that it is relatively simple to qualitatively observe that sweeping deposits scratches in the ice.
As a rigorous and quantitative study, there are some significant issues that limit its utility. The most important of these is that details of the image analysis are not described in sufficient detail (step 7 in Procedures): it is just not possible to determine from the report what was measured and how it was measured. In lay terms, a thorough scientific report describes methodology in enough detail that someone else could, if they wished, replicate the study. This level of detail allows peer reviewers to conduct a critical analysis of the methodology to ensure that it is free of artifacts or unexpected biases. The lack of procedural details makes it impossible to assess the graphs and statistics, or make an informed assessment of how this might correlate to performance.
So, as a student research project, the study is an interesting preliminary study, but is not yet a polished, peer-reviewed product. If I were a peer reviewer--and I do this for a living as a practicing scientist, undergraduate research supervisor, and educator--I would have many questions that would require clarification. Peer review is a normal part of science, and is designed to strengthen scientific studies and enhance their veracity. (Contrary to what conspiracy theorists think about the peer review process.)
Given the intense interest in this topic, I would expect very thorough, professional, peer-reviewed studies will be conducted to better understand what we are seeing in competition. It's great to see a student try to get the jump on the field, though!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|