|
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.
| 03-25-16 12:34PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Curlky; in light of the constant rule changes being made and the history of all the events this past season, do you not honestly believe that Hardline has a justified right to be suspicious?
Less than a year ago no one was taking issue with the product. Until Hardline teams started winning and several teams switched equipment sponsors. Take a look at footage from last year. Sure looks like a lot of teams snowplowing and cornering. There's just no one taking notice.
Look at the equipment rules that have descended upon us. Unproven allegations against supposedly 'directional' fabric resulting in banning the fabric. Inserts in synthetic heads banned and then, shockingly, the ludicrous banning of hair brushes-the material of which is relatively unchanged from decades ago.
All done without any laboratory or scientifically acquired independent data to verify or disprove the allegations. Yet there continues to be reasonably accurate (but unscientific ) proof that it is technique causing this whole non-issue. And what continues to be brushed (pun intended) aside and ignored is the changing of a rule which allowed this technique to be used again.
There is no doubt in my mind that something is going on. The question does remain is whether this is just continuous blundering on the WCF's part or something nefarious.
Either way, Hardline has, IMO, every right to their suspicions.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 03-25-16 at 12:49PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 02:18PM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Curlky; in light of the constant rule changes being made and the history of all the events this past season, do you not honestly believe that Hardline has a justified right to be suspicious?
Less than a year ago no one was taking issue with the product. Until Hardline teams started winning and several teams switched equipment sponsors. Take a look at footage from last year. Sure looks like a lot of teams snowplowing and cornering. There's just no one taking notice.
Look at the equipment rules that have descended upon us. Unproven allegations against supposedly 'directional' fabric resulting in banning the fabric. Inserts in synthetic heads banned and then, shockingly, the ludicrous banning of hair brushes-the material of which is relatively unchanged from decades ago.
All done without any laboratory or scientifically acquired independent data to verify or disprove the allegations. Yet there continues to be reasonably accurate (but unscientific ) proof that it is technique causing this whole non-issue. And what continues to be brushed (pun intended) aside and ignored is the changing of a rule which allowed this technique to be used again.
There is no doubt in my mind that something is going on. The question does remain is whether this is just continuous blundering on the WCF's part or something nefarious.
Either way, Hardline has, IMO, every right to their suspicions.
How can you cite the banning of hair brushes as a reason for Hardline to be suspicious? If anything that decision went in their favour.
__________________
Not Pete Steski
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 03:28PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Curlky; in light of the constant rule changes being made and the history of all the events this past season, do you not honestly believe that Hardline has a justified right to be suspicious?
No I do not think that they do. We can disagree, but that is my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Less than a year ago no one was taking issue with the product.
That could not be further from the truth. Complaints have been out for a while from players to the powers that be, it was just that until this year, none of the powers that be responded. Also, it wasn't until this year that there was enough widespread knowledge of the situation to get enough teams and players to talk about it. In years prior, its was just 1 or 2 here or there.
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
the ludicrous banning of hair brushes-the material of which is relatively unchanged from decades ago.
I don't understand this element of time that people sight with hair and with the Icepad. Just because it took a while for people how to take advantage of full capabilities, it does not mean that it used to be OK. All it means is that curlers did not have the knowledge set to know how to take advantage of things that were available to them. Sometimes that knowledge set can be developed overnight. Other times it might take years to develop it.
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
All done without any laboratory or scientifically acquired independent data to verify or disprove the allegations. Yet there continues to be reasonably accurate (but unscientific ) proof that it is technique causing this whole non-issue. And what continues to be brushed (pun intended) aside and ignored is the changing of a rule which allowed this technique to be used again.
Are you factually aware that there is no lab or scientific data, or is that purely speculation on your part. And just because you or HL dont have it, or that the powers that be havent released it, does nto mean it does not exist. Of course, doesnt mean it does, but you seem very positive it does not, and I would like to know why.
Clearly there is something to be said about the sweeping technique. This does NOT mean that equipment cannot play a role as well. In my opinion, I feel the powers that be have just dealt with the easy stuff during the season (ie materials) and will address the technique in the off season. Again, in my opinion, this is because materials can be easily enforced, and the materials being used or not used should practically not effect anyone ability to play, or hurt any training that they have done. (To argue otherwise is to admit that the material does make a difference and therefore you hurt your own argument). I think the enforcement of sweeping technique is a big deal. Exactly what constitutes directional sweeping? Ask a dozen pros, get a dozen answers. Is it 45 degrees? Is it 46 degrees? It is position of the feet? This off season will be the time to tackle enforcement of directional or snow plow sweeping, adn allow proper notice to curlers so they can train properly.
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
There is no doubt in my mind that something is going on. The question does remain is whether this is just continuous blundering on the WCF's part or something nefarious.
Either way, Hardline has, IMO, every right to their suspicions.
HL (and you for that matter) certainly have a right to be suspicious. But doesn't mean there is a valid basis for concern. Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are out to get you. Of course it doesn't mean they aren't. I think that it comes down to decisions that have been made for the better of the game, not decisions that are good for HL.
I would like to ask you for PROOF that something was blundered or nefarious and not simply a decision that you disagree with.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 03:38PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
Departing from paranoia and conspiracy theories for a moment... The sweeping material restrictions represent the best effort of the players and curling associations to get control of the game and provide for a more level playing field, in a very limited time frame. Since the moratorium went into effect, the magnitude of directional sweeping effects have been diminished, but maybe not yet enough.
Case in point: there was NO possibility (I mean NONE) of burying a stone behind a single guard at the Brier. More than 4-5 feet behind, and a hack-weight stone deftly swept could easily get it out and keep the shooter. Closer than that, you were safe from the hack-weight come-around, but the runback was too easy at this level. Didn't used to be that way.
I have boxes and boxes of broom-heads in my office which I have put under the microscope. There are real differences in these heads in terms of materials, surface topography, and construction. As we understand the theory of why directional sweeping works (thanks to Nyberg et al. and the microscratch theory, now well established) there is no doubt that materials with significant texture and hard coatings have a significant performance advantage in terms of directional sweeping, and it is easy to understand why from direct observation of the materials. The current moratoria have been developed based on performance expectations of materials that have unusually textured surfaces and are similar to materials already known in practice to have excessive directional sweeping effects, or have been observed on the ice to have excessive effects despite thoughts otherwise (e.g., hair). The brushes not subject to the moratorium are not identical, and some may yet (or surely do) have a slight advantage over others.
Personally, I think the most practical way to deal with the directional sweeping issue is to put limits on the brushing materials used that further minimize the effects of directional sweeping to a manageable level. (That is, how much control should you have over a hack weight shot, for example. Some control is good, even fun, too much makes the game less interesting.) Then you don't have to worry about enforcing highly subjective rules on sweeping angle. I want to see good curling, not the referees.
Curling is never going to be the same after the discovery of effective directional sweeping technique, even at the club level. But we should be able to manage it in a way to prevent destroying the magic of the game.
Cheers.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 03:40PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
quote:
Originally posted by peteski
How can you cite the banning of hair brushes as a reason for Hardline to be suspicious? If anything that decision went in their favour.
Fair question and perhaps my statement could have been explained in more depth. Although I would have stated what you just did-the banning of the hair brush adds more credibility to the technique versus technology argument. Ergo, it's not Hard line's product that's the issue.
Yet we continue to see equipment banned instead of demanding a technique change. And if that doesn't ring an alarm bell in your mind, nothing will.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 03:54PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Rockdoc; I agree partially with your last post in terms that equipment does need to be tested, regulated and controlled-no differently than other sports do. However I have yet to see any impact in lessening directional sweeping through the banning of equipment.
And, contrary to many posts, directional sweeping can be controlled and reduced simply by changing the rules back to what they were 5 years ago. Enforcing a 60-90 degree sweeping angle with a stroke that MUST cross the entire running surface of the stone is not unrealistic or unreasonable.
Yes, even with a rule change it will not stop the one sweeper phenomenon. But a non-snowplowing and non-cornering rule will definitely reduce the impact of directional control we currently see. Because we still have no true idea which is more effective, subjective evidence (videos made by teams) lends a lot more weight to technique over technology. So this avenue should have been explored well before equipment was banned.
And yet, no one in power has stepped forward to even suggest this option followed by a summer of proper, independent and scientific testing to establish proper equipment guidelines-a far more sensible path than the one chosen this year. And this is not hindsight talking either. Myself and other posters were calling for this back when this started.
You and others call for a dial back in rhetoric. What good will that do? History has proven that silence does nothing except allow those in power to tighten their grip. If anything it's past the time when curlers should be standing up and demanding answers that make sense.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 03-25-16 at 04:09PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 04:14PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Enforcing a 60-90 degree sweeping angle with a stroke that MUST cross the entire running surface of the stone is not unrealistic or unreasonable.
I am genuinely not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing, but 60-90 degree sweeping will be very hard to enforce. It is easy to see a few angles.
90-ish
0 or 180 (in line with the travel of the rock)
45-ish
But to know whether an angle is 60, or 55, or 65, that is hard to do. Plus, now you are asking to come up with more science that says what angle limit is OK.
And now you are putting the burden on the players of a non offending team to deal with a bad situation.
For people who watched the Women World, USA vs Canada game, look how awkward the situation got when Amy Nixon had hog line monitor issues and Erika was wondering what was going on. It just is an ugly on ice situation that make for uncomfortable situations. I feel like Erika came off looking bad, but in reality, the umpire seemed to tell her something that the umpire did not tell to Carey's team. That why the umpire apologize to Erika at the end
Couple that with the fact that players know the closer to 45 they get, the more effect they have, so they will be trying to be right at 60 degrees every time, just asking to be in violation.
If you genuinely think about it, you will probably agree with me. So how do you make a rule to stop directional sweeping. Once you come up with something, then think about how someone nefarious might try to find a loop hole to exploit it.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 04:22PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Curlky,
You make fair points. However, if there is testing taking place why keep it secret? Why repeatedly turn down Hardlines requests for data without an explanation?
If the powers in charge are trying to be transparent on this they're doing a pretty poor job of it.
And taking the easy route of banning equipment without clear data isn't the answer-unless the goal was to clearly prove it's technique that's the issue and all the equipment bans are to be removed at the end of this season.
If the governing bodies want us to think all is squeaky clean then they need to step up and be clear and detailed. Which, to date, they have not been.
Until they do, all that will continue is more people becoming suspicious of their actions.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 05:05PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Curlky,
However, if there is testing taking place why keep it secret? Why repeatedly turn down Hardlines requests for data without an explanation?
The simple answer is because scientifically speaking, an incomplete data set is more propaganda than it is data. Let me explain with a HYPOTHETICAL.
Lets say they have done 10 tests so far, out of a planned 20 (though that number could grow). Out of those 10 tests, lets say that HL was less effective in 8 of those test. The HL was more effective in 1 test. And in 1 test, it is close to interpret, but jut appears that the HL had a slightly magical steering power.
What good would releasing that data set be? You say transparency. I say adding fuel to the fire.
BP might start advertising, out broom is tested to be better. HL might say 9 test were run and show we have done nothing wrong. Does this preliminary release fo data do any good for anyone?
Or hypothetical 2. 20 test planned, 19 complete, all 19 show that HL is equal to BP, and nothing more. HL coudl then start saying, see its ntohing. What if the last test takes a long time to run, and does not complete for 2 months, and that 1 shows HL is doing something bad. At that point, public opinion would have locked onto the first 19 tests, and forgotten that tests were still ongoing.
The whole point is that allowing people to watch the tests, or releasing preliminary data accomplished little. Once the testing is done, releasing data is still not likely to come. What will be released is a testing protocol, and a series of guidelines. Anyone can then run the tests on their own and see how things perform. Anything else is more than ever get releases in almost anything.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 05:14PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
And taking the easy route of banning equipment without clear data isn't the answer-unless the goal was to clearly prove it's technique that's the issue and all the equipment bans are to be removed at the end of this season.
One of 2 things is going to happen. The tests will show that equipment makes a differences, or it will not. But lets look at the options for what would be less harmful to the GAME, (not HL, but the game).
You banned some equipment for a year, find out that the equipment does little, and the next year reinstate the equipment. In this case, were any players or teams or competitions truly harmed? No they were not (You may argue that HL was harmed, but quite frankly this is about curling, not a independent company.)
You didn't ban anything and later find out that some equipment has magical powers (could be from any supplier nto just HL). In that case, were any players or teams or competitions truly harmed? In this case, potentially. For example, perhaps some tech was restricted to certain teams. Or 1 sponsors tech gave their teams an unfair edge. In this case, now you have accumulated olympic points for nations, as well as lots of prize money and team OOM points in a tainted era. You cannot unring that bell.
I feel that the wcf picked the best of 2 bad options. You may disagree, and that is OK, we can agree to disagree. But we need to make this a macro argument abotu what is best for the game of curling, and not make it a micro arguemnt about what do we think of HL.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 05:42PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
two problems with the argument;
You banned some equipment for a year, find out that the equipment does little, and the next year reinstate the equipment. In this case, were any players or teams or competitions truly harmed? No they were not (You may argue that HL was harmed, but quite frankly this is about curling, not a independent company.)
yes there is harm to a company and restricted sales could be the difference in a company surviving or going under. Take away the sales of a product for a year from your place of business and see where you are working next year. And the broom moratorium is about companies, not curling.
secondly;
You didn't ban anything and later find out that some equipment has magical powers (could be from any supplier not just HL). In that case, were any players or teams or competitions truly harmed? In this case, potentially. For example, perhaps some tech was restricted to certain teams. Or 1 sponsors tech gave their teams an unfair edge.
All teams make the final decision on whose product they use and therefore are the ones that determine their own fate. Hardline's brooms and technology are available ( as I assume sponsorship should they choose to use Hardline products) to all players, just pony up the cost of the broom and it is yours to use. I have yet to see a release from Archie banning any player from using the Icepad. Archie was at the Brier and did not stop Team Howard or Team Koe from using his products even though they are sponsored by a less effective sweeping device company. Seeing Muirhead ( a Goldline supported team) at the Worlds using the Icepad seals the deal and makes your argument moot. Teams are choosing of their own free will the product they feel gives them the best chance of winning.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 07:04PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
yes there is harm to a company and restricted sales could be the difference in a company surviving or going under. Take away the sales of a product for a year from your place of business and see where you are working next year. And the broom moratorium is about companies, not curling.
I will be fully honest that I could care less if HL survives. I will say I feel teh same about any other supplier as well. I care about curling. But do you honestly feel that 100% of the moratorium is about companies and has 0% to do with curling and the good of the game?
quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
All teams make the final decision on whose product they use and therefore are the ones that determine their own fate. Hardline's brooms and technology are available ( as I assume sponsorship should they choose to use Hardline products) to all players, just pony up the cost of the broom and it is yours to use. I have yet to see a release from Archie banning any player from using the Icepad. Archie was at the Brier and did not stop Team Howard or Team Koe from using his products even though they are sponsored by a less effective sweeping device company. Seeing Muirhead ( a Goldline supported team) at the Worlds using the Icepad seals the deal and makes your argument moot. Teams are choosing of their own free will the product they feel gives them the best chance of winning.
Here is where you missed something that I said. Whats to say that special products would be available to everyone. Lets take the BP blackheads earlier this year. Those were not for sale, BP gave them only to whom they wanted. So no matter how much money I have, and what choice I wanted to make, I was unable to get that product.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 07:50PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlky
...You banned some equipment for a year, find out that the equipment does little, and the next year reinstate the equipment...In this case, now you have accumulated olympic points for nations, as well as lots of prize money and team OOM points in a tainted era. You cannot unring that bell.
I feel that the wcf picked the best of 2 bad options. You may disagree, and that is OK, we can agree to disagree. But we need to make this a macro argument abotu what is best for the game of curling, and not make it a micro arguemnt about what do we think of HL. [/B]
Curlky, of course you can 'undo' that bell. Athletes found to have cheated, for example, have titles removed,receive suspensions (or lifetime bans) and get fines imposed on them by governing bodies. Sadly, this seems to be occurring almost weekly and in almost every sport. Corruption in sports at all levels is rampant these days.
Now in other situations where deliberate cheating was not an issue or equipment rules change then the sport simply carries forward under the new rules. Example? You ask. Look no farther than the belly putter in golf.
Golf's governing bodies handled the issue properly. They allowed athletes to continue using it while they tested, studied and considered the equipment and the issues it raised. Only after due process did they ban the putter from play. No one cheated, no one lost titles, rankings, got suspended or fined. The game carried on with little disturbance because the governing bodies did the right thing.
You say the WCF had only two bad choices and took what they feel was the lesser of the two evils. This is false. They had the same opportunity to follow golf's example and should have.
The real question to be answered is why? There was no need to panic. So what if a season went by with everyone snowplowing with Blackheads? The rules would be the same for all. What price is one season to do, as you say, what's right for the sport?
And if you truly want to argue about macro vs micro then reread my posts. I always take a macro view.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 03-25-16 at 08:08PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 11:02PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
jamcam, I cant be happier that you brought up golf and the belly putter. People only remember that they gave players 3 years of notice. They forget the rest of the controversy, and how it threatened to ruin professional golf as we know it.
A quick history lesson. The belly putter was developed in 1961. In the late 80's it created huge controversy in the sport if it should be allowed or not. Specifically in the middle of the 1989 season, after months of heated debate DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE SEASON, the powers that be allowed their use to be continued on the grounds "'Putting is a very individualized art form. To inhibit a golfer's individual style would take some of the fun out of the game.'" (As a personal interjection here, I speculate that this had something to do with golf slumping in ratings and revenue with the end of Jack & Arnold eras).
The first belly putter win in a PGA eventcame in 1991, but really started to get noticed when Azinger won in 2000. BY 2003 25% of PGA events were won with belly putters. A major was first won with a belly putter in 2011. 2012 started to turn the tide agasint belly putters when Tiger finally spoke out about them.
In late 2012 the power4s that be proposed a ban, but teh PGA players union strongly opposed this. In 2013 after a threat to split the PGA from the USGA and the R&A, an agreement was finally reached, and players were given 2.5 years to get used to not using them.
Why do I give all these details. Its all about the element of time. Golf allowed the belly putter to go on for a long long time, and it threatened to almost ruin the tour by creating a rift. Since it was there so long, they finally needed almost 3 years to get rid of it.
I hope that curling can be proactive, and deal with things much quicker and prevent such strife and difficulty.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-25-16 11:27PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
golf also continued to enforce the other rules in their rulebook, didn't give the lame excuse that they were to hard to enforce or didn't have the officials available. The solution is easy and clear. Enforce sweeping rules in the book and the thing fixes itself.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-16 12:07AM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
The solution is not easy and clear, and it is not found in the rule book. This is all the rule book says abotu directional sweeping:
"The sweeping motion is in a side-to-side direction (it need not coverthe entire width of the stone), deposits no debris in front of a moving stone, and finishes to either side of the stone."
SO the legal interpretation of this, as long you are not sweeping 100% in direct line with the stone, you are compliant. 1 degree off of straight legally constitutes a side, and therefore even snow plowing is legal.
So you say, lets make a rule, well, please detail exactly how you enforce no directional sweeping. Read up in this thread, adn I describe the issue with just saying an angle. Whatever you say abotu foot placement, I am farily sure I have soem ideas on how to exploit footwork in any position to still allow directional sweeping.
The best you may come up with is that the sweeping motion must completely cross the width of the stone, but you can still directional sweep even with that limitation. So I challenge you, please in this thread, propose a rule, and I will tell you how it will be exploited more than likley. Maybe you will come up with a new idea that I have not thought about how to get around, adn I think that is great if you do.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-16 12:41AM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
-the broom handle at no times may be directly above the curling rock when the broom is in contact with the ice. this is defined by a cylinder of space extending above the rock from the ice surface to infinity)
- the players feet can not be in the path of the rock while the broom is in contact with the ice, the path of the stone includes the area directly behind the rock. The path of the rock is defined by the area behind the rock equal to the width of the rock and extends back behind the rock infinitely.
-the final brushing stroke must finish completely outside the path of the rock.
just to state a few.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-16 03:18AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
Archie was at the Brier and did not stop Team Howard or Team Koe from using his products even though they are sponsored by a less effective sweeping device company. Seeing Muirhead ( a Goldline supported team) at the Worlds using the Icepad seals the deal and makes your argument moot. Teams are choosing of their own free will the product they feel gives them the best chance of winning.
As I've mentioned many times, the fact that the Jacobs team ran through the round robin portion of the Brier as the only undefeated team (no-one else was close to them), and did so without ever using an IcePad, certainly seems to indicate that the current version of the IcePad is not any more effective than other brush pads.
I believe the Jacobs team is sponsored by Goldline, and were using EQ pads (and possibly other pads, but NO IcePads). Their round robin record was better than all other teams, including teams using the IcePad exclusively, and teams who suddenly attached IcePads to their Balance Plus shafts.
So that Howard, Koe, Muirhead, etc. have chosen to use IcePads even though they are sponsored by a different broom company, is moot. All it shows is that they bought into the hype that the IcePad (even the newer version, without the 'hardening insert) is 'better' than all of the other pads. The record of Jacobs' Northern Ontario team at the Brier certainly proves otherwise; it certainly seems to show that it's the brushing technique which is the most significant element in the 'steering' of rocks - regardless of the brush pad used.
In summary, the Brier, with Blance Plus teams suddenly using IcePads, and with the Jacobs team going undefeated through the round robin without using any IcePads, showed us that this brush pad issue has been grossly over-analyzed. (Japan is doing quite well at the Women's Worlds this week without IcePads, as well...) Whatever brush pad is being used does not give a team an advantage or a disadvantage. It's a draw.
The teams which win are the teams which play (throwing, sweeping, and strategy) better than their opposition.
That said, I still would like to see a crackdown on the snowplowing and corner sweeping, because watching players make 98% of their shots is not much fun when too significant a portion of that success rate comes because of the ability to ridiculously 'steer' rocks with sweeping as we've seen this season.
__________________
"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
Last edited by On The Nose on 03-26-16 at 03:39AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-16 09:12PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
I gave curlky some examples of rules for sweeping and he said he would rebuke them. nothing so far.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-16 10:04PM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
Brad Jacobs team was using the Moen Pad, similar to the Norway pad but covered with the same Top Gun material that the Hardline Tour Elite uses.
Several teams at Worlds were using red BalancePlus pads which I was told was also made out of that same material. For whatever reason, it wasn't available for the Brier yet but now the teams at Worlds have it.
__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!
Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-16 04:00AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
Brad Jacobs team was using the Moen Pad, similar to the Norway pad but covered with the same Top Gun material that the Hardline Tour Elite uses.
That may well be the case, Gerry... but I distinctly saw the Jacobs team using EQ pads at the Brier, as well.
Who makes (or markets) this Moen pad?
__________________
"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
|
|
| 03-27-16 04:28AM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
quote:
Originally posted by On The Nose
That may well be the case, Gerry... but I distinctly saw the Jacobs team using EQ pads at the Brier, as well.
Who makes (or markets) this Moen pad?
Hal Moen. Inventor of the Norway Pad, but also markets and sells some of his own stuff too.
__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!
Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-16 06:30AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
Hal Moen. Inventor of the Norway Pad, but also markets and sells some of his own stuff too.
Thanks.
Interesting...
__________________
"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
|
|
| 03-27-16 08:57AM |
|
Itsjustagame
Hitting Paint
Registered: Aug 2014
Location:
Posts: 106 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlky
I will be fully honest that I could care less if HL survives. I will say I feel teh same about any other supplier as well. I care about curling. But do you honestly feel that 100% of the moratorium is about companies and has 0% to do with curling and the good of the game?
Nobody, even me the one you call the conspirator, will say that the moratorium was 100% about companies and 0% about what is good for the game.
Don't you think that even if it was only 10% about the companies that it is 10% too much and that we need to get rid of whoever was that 10%?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-16 12:33PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
-the broom handle at no times may be directly above the curling rock when the broom is in contact with the ice. this is defined by a cylinder of space extending above the rock from the ice surface to infinity)
- the players feet can not be in the path of the rock while the broom is in contact with the ice, the path of the stone includes the area directly behind the rock. The path of the rock is defined by the area behind the rock equal to the width of the rock and extends back behind the rock infinitely.
-the final brushing stroke must finish completely outside the path of the rock.
just to state a few.
Sorry for teh delay. Not forgotten, just busy with non curling stuff. Here are my comments about your 3 ideas.
1.) Broom handle over the rock cylinder. - In teis case, even with traditional 90 degree sweeping, the person closest to teh rock many times would have their forst or last stroke over the cylinder. How do you handle this very subjective interpretation. FUrthermove, I am only making this angle measurement up, but I woudl suspect that even staying outside of teh rock cylinder area, you can still sweep at an angle almost straigth snow plow. If you say that a direct staight snow plow is 0 degrees, I think that you can still sweep at a 10 degree angle and not be over the cylinder. Are you OK with almost snow plowing?
2.) Feet not in teh bath behidn the rock. 2 counters to this, if you stand in a closed stance, you could still sweep almost a direct snow plow stance and have yrou feet outside. All this rule does is eliminate open stance snow plowing. FUrthermore, if a sweeper were to stand way in front of the rock, like 3 feet in front of the rock they could then sweep at the rock, rather than the traditional away frmo teh rock. So you coudl get the same angles, and same relative distances form the tock, but have yoru feet no where near behind teh stone
3.) FInal brush stroke cannot end in the path of the rock - What is teh point of this one. You basically say you can snow plow all the way down the ice, and only teh last stroke must move outside. What have you really gained. FUrthermore, if you make yoru last stroke a clean style, with almost no down force, you can still leave debris on the ice even with an outside the path release.
Your turn to refute my thoughts
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > WCF broom summit!
1 2 )
In the run up to Christmas Day, 1893, the Aberdeen Peoples's Journal offered a prize of one guinea for the best letter about curling! That's the invitation... (read more)
A quick break for the Memorial Day holiday and we're back with our guest and new USA Curling Womenâs National Team & Juniors Director Jessica Schultz.... (read more)
I am in week 3 of isolation/quarantine/home schooling and getting a little squirrel-y. Personal hygiene has become optional. The kids have watched the entire... (read more)
On today's World Curling Report...we recap Day 1 of the 2019 Canada Cup. (read more)