Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: New Holland Canadian Junior Championships
Fort McMurray, AB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 11 -- Wed, Mar 27 -- 7:00pm MT
NL (Tipple) Final
BC (Fenton) (10)
NB (Stewart) 11  Final
QC (Bedard) (8)
MB (McDonald) Final
NS (Mosher) (8)
ON (MacTavish) Final
SK (Derksen) (10)
NO (Deschene) Final
MB (Freeman) (9)
NS (MacIsaac) Final
PEI (MacFayden) (9)
NO (Rajala) Final
ON (Mulima) (9)
BC (Duncan-Wu) Final
AB (Wipf) 10  (8)
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church  
Rose    Watch Live Curling!
Brenden  
Guentzel    Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald  
Hebert    Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye  
Cenzalli  
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

CurlingZone : Powered by vBulletin>
<smallfont><b><a href=CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Continuing evidence for the Five Rock Rule

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.
Page 2 of 3 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
12-14-14 12:44PM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

quote:
Originally posted by doubletakeout
I love curling, but gee whiz can curling fans be annoying.
....
Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of reading the same arguments against progress and positive change over and over in every single thread. I'll see myself out.



Not sure we are still on topic here but it wouldn't be the first time....

doubletakeout. All valid points and appreciate your thoughts.

However, half the fun of curling is the whining and complaining about everything. You have a sport where the players are rarely controversial and don't end up on TMZ. There are no salary caps or trades to discuss. We need to find something interesting to dispute between actual games. Agreed, sometimes I also get tired of it, but realize we are fortunate to have these many ridiculous arguments amongst a few dozen people that care too much.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 12:58PM
peteski is offline Click Here to See the Profile for peteski Click here to Send peteski a Private Message Find more posts by peteski Add peteski to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
peteski
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

quote:
Originally posted by curler2014
I like the idea of blanking means losing the hammer. I would prefer that rule change before making it the 5 rock rule. Five rock rule has caused some huge scores posted for teams who are trailing which is almost unfair if you get a lead and are trying to keep it. In my eyes, if you get down 5-0, you have no business winning the game.



My argument would be if you can't hold a 5-0 lead, five rock rule or not, you have no business winning the game.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 04:20PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

[QUOTE]Originally posted by milobloom
[B]

Love the long response and details to support your position, which I think is: you can't justify the 5 rock rule because teams struggle to come back. You may be right, we don't have all the data yet. We only have large data pools for 4 rock.

[QUOTE]

You have tons or historical data to back this up. No FGZ, 3-Rock FGZ linescore data is readily available for Briers and STOH on the CCA website.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 04:26PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

quote:
Originally posted by doubletakeout
I love curling, but gee whiz can curling fans be annoying.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick of reading the same arguments against progress and positive change over and over in every single thread. I'll see myself out.



Blah, blah, blah. Typical. When faced by intelligent questions or points that are contrary to your viewpoint, simply attack the person(s) who post them instead of considering or intelligently replying to those questions or points.

Oldest political dodge in the book. Also the most transparent.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-14-14 04:31PM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

quote:


You have tons or historical data to back this up. No FGZ, 3-Rock FGZ linescore data is readily available for Briers and STOH on the CCA website. [/B]


Sorry, I meant limited stats for 5 rock rock FGZ.

I'm not realy interested in looking at no FGZ or 3 rock, that seems like so long ago and I'm unsure why those numbers would matter. As discussed, the game (skill and conditions) was very different back then.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 05:03PM
Jimbobogie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jimbobogie Click here to Send Jimbobogie a Private Message Find more posts by Jimbobogie Add Jimbobogie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

If my opponent has shot rock partially buried and I have the hammer and I'm down by one, am I supposed to "toss" my last rock and give up a point in order to keep the hammer rather than attempt a takeout where my rock could roll out?

Curling appears to be changing its rules every five minutes in order to prevent blanks-why not simply outlaw all takeouts?

Sound silly? Of course it is, but if we eventually end up with a "Seven Rock Rule" five years down the road, then guess what?

The days of Pat Ryan playing a 9 end blank game and winning "1-nil" are over-that's the reason that the FGZ came into existence. Seriously-how many really low scoring games are we seeing on the circuit? (Does anybody complain when the Leafs win 1-0? (as if...))

Not every 10-end game is going to end up with a score of 40-39, as much as many would like to see it. We have excellent teams that have high percentages playing in excellent conditions...the pro players were the ones who invented the FGZ rule-let's give them a chance to work with things for a while-we're seeing more curling on TV than ever before, so they must be doing something right.

How often do your club games have 5 blank ends? I didn't think so.

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 05:45PM
doubletakeout is offline Click Here to See the Profile for doubletakeout Click here to Send doubletakeout a Private Message Find more posts by doubletakeout Add doubletakeout to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
doubletakeout
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 480

Fresca, I'll take that bet right now. McEwen destroys any of them.

You're remembering them as better than they are. Go watch the Ferbey Brier finals on curlingtv - they were unquestionably great, but the game's at a higher level even now, one decade later.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 08:43PM
Jimbobogie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jimbobogie Click here to Send Jimbobogie a Private Message Find more posts by Jimbobogie Add Jimbobogie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

Fresca-he may not be shooting for an Olympic berth, but do you think that Jeff would like to be referred to as an "Old-Timer" and put in the same category as Doogie? (although they're great curlers, don't get me wrong!)

Merry Christmas to all and to all...

HURRY HARD!!!!!

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 10:20PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

quote:
Originally posted by milobloom


Sorry, I meant limited stats for 5 rock rock FGZ.

I'm not realy interested in looking at no FGZ or 3 rock, that seems like so long ago and I'm unsure why those numbers would matter. As discussed, the game (skill and conditions) was very different back then.



Using linescore data from 1980 forward (when brushes became the dominant sweeping tool) will show that an early score of three usually results in a win-regardless of the rule in place.

This will, effectively, show a trend which nulls any claim that the 5 rock rule will result in more teams overcoming that early deficit and winning.

The trend? Give up 3 early and youre likely to lose. The solution? Call the game smarter.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 10:45PM
Jimbobogie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jimbobogie Click here to Send Jimbobogie a Private Message Find more posts by Jimbobogie Add Jimbobogie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan


Using linescore data from 1980 forward (when brushes became the dominant sweeping tool) will show that an early score of three usually results in a win-regardless of the rule in place.

This will, effectively, show a trend which nulls any claim that the 5 rock rule will result in more teams overcoming that early deficit and winning.

The trend? Give up 3 early and youre likely to lose. The solution? Call the game smarter.



That sound you hear is thousands of televisions changing channels after a 3-ender in the first end.

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-15-14 11:28PM
Jimbobogie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jimbobogie Click here to Send Jimbobogie a Private Message Find more posts by Jimbobogie Add Jimbobogie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

Fresca-I certainly agree that, aside from the Brier Patch (or unless I'm following a personal favourite rink), there's really not much reason to attend curling events that are covered far better on television.

...even if some of you are annoyed with Vic...

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 01:46AM
peteski is offline Click Here to See the Profile for peteski Click here to Send peteski a Private Message Find more posts by peteski Add peteski to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
peteski
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

quote:
Originally posted by fresca
My memory is awesome.... Thanks for the Hun ... Easiest pickings since we won the cash spiels.

So you go all the way back to Ferbey . Like til 2005 . What are you 25 ? Most of the good curlers had retired by the time you were born !

Next time you are in Canada I will give you a chance to win your $100 back ... Can you draw the pot ? I seldom miss .. But always in the 4 foot. Btw - no sweeping ..

If your in the army, be careful over there.

Merry Christmas



Go watch the 85 final then with Pat Ryan and Al Hackner if you insist on going back further. The 1981 and 1988 Brier finals were won by scoring three in the tenth when down two, with no free guard zone!! What chance would there be of any men's team playing the Canadian Open, giving up a three in the last end, when up two and no free guard zone? One in a thousand? If anything, that's generous.

It's not a slight on them. Like every sport, the best players get better than the players before them. It's a natural evolution.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 01:48AM
peteski is offline Click Here to See the Profile for peteski Click here to Send peteski a Private Message Find more posts by peteski Add peteski to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
peteski
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan


Using linescore data from 1980 forward (when brushes became the dominant sweeping tool) will show that an early score of three usually results in a win-regardless of the rule in place.

This will, effectively, show a trend which nulls any claim that the 5 rock rule will result in more teams overcoming that early deficit and winning.

The trend? Give up 3 early and youre likely to lose. The solution? Call the game smarter.



I don't understand the argument then. If it makes no difference which rule is in place to the final result, why not have the five rock rule in place to at least make the journey as interesting as possible?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 02:04AM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

quote:
Originally posted by peteski


I don't understand the argument then. If it makes no difference which rule is in place to the final result, why not have the five rock rule in place to at least make the journey as interesting as possible?



Touche!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 04:40PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

quote:
Originally posted by peteski


I don't understand the argument then. If it makes no difference which rule is in place to the final result, why not have the five rock rule in place to at least make the journey as interesting as possible?



I'm surprised a point so obvious seems not to be for so many. Curling is the only sport where we make the game easier at top levels with fast, easy to read ice and rocks so lively you can peel with a near nose hit.

Given those conditions, of course double or triple peels are easy. Lots of people could make them. So why do we do the opposite of other sports? Does the PGA make their grand slam courses easy or difficult?

Keep the four rock rule, standardize striking bands so they're not like billiard balls. Make shots, for so-called elites, more difficult to better showcase their skill. Now that's entertaining.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 05:14PM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan


Keep the four rock rule, standardize striking bands so they're not like billiard balls. Make shots, for so-called elites, more difficult to better showcase their skill. Now that's entertaining.



Even the US Open with heavy rough and fast greens is only played once per year.

I don't disagree that would be interesting for one Grand Slam (put them on club ice!) but this is the view of a very small minority, and does not include the players.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 07:48PM
peteski is offline Click Here to See the Profile for peteski Click here to Send peteski a Private Message Find more posts by peteski Add peteski to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
peteski
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan


I'm surprised a point so obvious seems not to be for so many. Curling is the only sport where we make the game easier at top levels with fast, easy to read ice and rocks so lively you can peel with a near nose hit.

Given those conditions, of course double or triple peels are easy. Lots of people could make them. So why do we do the opposite of other sports? Does the PGA make their grand slam courses easy or difficult?

Keep the four rock rule, standardize striking bands so they're not like billiard balls. Make shots, for so-called elites, more difficult to better showcase their skill. Now that's entertaining.



What does any of this have to do with what I said? What does the five rock rule have to do with making the game easier?

The curling/golf analogy doesn't really work anyway. You don't see golfers forced to use persimmon drivers or really old style golf balls. They still want golfers to be able to make shots. But at the majors they make the golf courses difficult to put up a stern test. Which makes sense because in golf, while you have opponents, they're not specific to your objectives. In golf, the course is the opponent. In curling your opponents are your opponents. They are there to put up the stern test, not the ice.

A more accurate analogy is tennis. They don't try to make the courts extra difficult. They aren't slanted slightly in one corner or they don't let the grass grow long. The courts aren't meant to provide the stern test, the opponent does that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 08:17PM
JB42 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for JB42 Click here to Send JB42 a Private Message Find more posts by JB42 Add JB42 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
JB42
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 621

I disagree with Jamcan's premise.

He equates the rough in golf with worn out striking bands on curling rocks and inconsistent ice. There is no correlation. In golf there is the fairway, the rough, the woods. There are also hazards be they water or sand. Curling has no equivalence. The curling sheet is uniform on purpose, and the more uniform it is the better the icemaker is considered to have done his job. This is as true at the club level as it is at the elite level. There are also no hazards in curling unless you include picks. Again there is no equivalence to be drawn as there is unanimous agreement that everything we can do to eliminate picks is good for the game.

Curling ice like a snooker table or lawn bowling greens or the greens at the golf majors are expected to be fast, and without irregularities. To prepare the surface in any other way is to introduce randomness into equation.

As any curler can tell you if you are playing a team that is a lot better than you what you want is bad ice. Cause it means they are going to miss shots too and if they happen at the right time you might score enough to beat them for a change.

This is antithetical to the intent not just of those in charge of the rules and conditions in curling it is antithetical to the intent of those in charge of every game I can think of. If there is an exception I'd be interested in hearing it.

We want to reward skill, as does every other game.

As to the shots that Jamcan believes could be made by club curlers. To make the kinds of runbacks that these guys are routinely making you need two things. A) You need to be able to throw the rock hog to hog in 7 seconds or less. And B) You need to be able to hit the rock to within a quarter of an inch of where is needed. If you can do that then yup you too can make these shots regularly. Just by way of comparison. I curl out of a club of 650 and the number of folks that can throw it that hard are less than 10. The number that can throw it that hard and that accurately on more than 50% of their shots is precisely zero.

Last edited by JB42 on 12-16-14 at 08:21PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 09:00PM
alex is offline Click Here to See the Profile for alex Click here to Send alex a Private Message Find more posts by alex Add alex to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
alex
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Quesnel
Posts: 420

It's too bad the speed of the rocks doesn't show up better on TV. It looks a lot like those guys are throwing regular weight rather than extremely fast which is only clear when you see an event live or time the rocks.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-16-14 09:43PM
JB42 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for JB42 Click here to Send JB42 a Private Message Find more posts by JB42 Add JB42 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
JB42
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 621

I have never been able to figure out why they don't talk about the speed of the rocks. I'd love to hear what players are throwing it fastest. Who has the best combination of speed and accuracy. We could rank the players in terms of the speed of their made runbacks. As with long drives in golf we could rank the players. You better believe the players pride and competitive fires would be stoked by such a ranking system. We could even sweeten the pot and the player with the best numbers at the end of the year could get part of the prize money from the Slams.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-17-14 10:03AM
FollowingAlong is offline Click Here to See the Profile for FollowingAlong Click here to Send FollowingAlong a Private Message Find more posts by FollowingAlong Add FollowingAlong to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459

It's been alluded to earlier in this thread - I'm all for the 5 rock FGZ rule and it has nothing to do with whether or not elite teams might be more effective in comeback attempts in games where they get behind early. It has everything to do with having an equitable number of usable free guards regardless whether I'm the team that has the hammer in an end or not. Obviously, the 5-FGZ rule only has an impact when a team that is behind in a game also has the hammer, but at least in that scenario, that team gets two free guards which is comparable to what a team without the hammer currently has.

In watching games, I don't see a problem with rocks not being in play - the elite teams do put lots of rocks in play, 4-FGZ or 5-FGZ. The thing is that these teams are so good (yes, the rocks and ice conditions help) at moving lots of rocks around with one shot. I see many games a year (on TV) where there can be anywhere from 4-6 rocks in the house and the skip and the third of the team getting ready to shoot, with maybe only 4 or 5 rocks left in the end are saying, "We can do this, but that's just going to lead to a blank.", and that would require a triple and a couple of doubles, but the teams/players are that good that they know they can make that happen.

Can the powers that be really start "banning" other shots as in, "no tick shots allowed"? How would they do that? What's the difference in calling a come-around draw that ticks a front guard? Was the call a come-around or did the team have a secret signal that indicated to the lead to throw it tight and tick the guard? I just can't see how you reasonably enforce that rule. The FGZ rule is easy to enforce - an opponents rock in the FGZ cannot be removed from play, it's simple. Banning the tick shot? Not sure how you'd enforce that.

In an earlier post, there were some statistical numbers from baseball that indicated that baseball's comeback numbers weren't too dissimilar to curling's comeback numbers when a team gave up an early, multi-point count. It actually surprised me just a bit, but I do find any baseball vs. curling analogy somewhat moot. First off, in baseball, both teams have an opportunity to score points every inning. In curling, only one team could score in any given end. Second, in baseball, there is no limit to the number of runs I could score in any single inning - a team down 9 heading into the bottom of the 9th will still bat because they know that it is still possible to win or tie the game. In a curling game, large deficits are hard to come back from because my scoring possibilities are limited by a) the number of rocks you have to use each end and b) when you score, you lose the hammer the next end. In baseball, my team could score 2 in the second inning, 3 in the third, 2 more in the fourth and even if we gave up three runs in the first inning and one run in each of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th innings, we're still ahead in the game.

The good teams will always adjust to the rules. I don't know where the rule changes end. Minimally, just for the pure equitable nature of it, I'd like to see a change to the 5-FGZ rule giving both teams two possible free guards. Other than that, where does it stop? Do they ban the peel? Do they ban double takeouts? Do they say no to triples? Do they say no to any shot that removes rocks of both colours? Way back when, we heard that the freeze was the toughest shot in curling and then when the FGZ was introduced, the toughest shot in curling became the tick. Now we're hearing that the rules makers want to ban the tick shot because it has become too easy!

The players at the elite level are good! Let's let them be good and not worry about the occasional game that gets lopsided. True curling fans will watch regardless and even marginal ones will watch for various different reasons. There are many 10's of NFL games a season that are blowouts - people still watch. Yes, they do change rules - don't touch the quarterback, leave the wide receivers alone, don't tackle at the shoulders or higher, don't tackle below the knees, heck, don't hit anyone.... Give good players near-perfect conditions, the best equipment, fitness levels never before seen in the game, rocks that I'd love to play with, you will see amazing shots. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-17-14 04:30PM
milobloom is offline Click Here to See the Profile for milobloom Click here to Send milobloom a Private Message Visit milobloom's homepage! Find more posts by milobloom Add milobloom to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
milobloom
Administrator

 

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839

Wonderful post and great perspectives FollowingAlong. Nice to see someone with some thought into their comments.

Two areas I will add my thoughts:

With Baseball, I was simply using the situation to look at interest as it relates to odds of winning. Close games (in general) are more entertaining at the end. It was interesting to me that odds were the same early in a game but in curling they become more favorable to the team that's ahead. I don't disagree that a direct comparison to baseball is moot, but I'm also sure we can compare many other sports and determine the chance of a comeback based on probable scores. I look at things simply, if I know one team can't come back, I'm ready to change the channel.

Interesting that in curling, as teams become so proficient at the tick shot, I might change the channel in the last end of a tied game! Teams are almost at the stage where two ticks become a routine shot and the team without hammer is losing the large marjority (maybe over 95%) of the time. I can't think of another sport where a tied game at the late stages doesn't present any drama.

This isn't a discussion on lopsided games, we all know that is part of any sport. But if it becomes that every situation except for 1 down with hamemr in the final end is pre-determined based on skill, then we may have to consider if it needs to be dealt with.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-17-14 05:44PM
doubletakeout is offline Click Here to See the Profile for doubletakeout Click here to Send doubletakeout a Private Message Find more posts by doubletakeout Add doubletakeout to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
doubletakeout
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 480

milobloom: I agree that if two tick shots are made (which on an elite team will happen more often than not), tied last ends can be a little dull - however, it seems to me (though this might be confirmation bias) that there is a higher percentage of missed peels in this situation than usual. i'd love to see some stats about when missed peels are most likely to happen... Gerry, can your incredible stats machine handle this oddly specific request?' But, as Following Along says, let the good teams be good teams. Good teams will find a way to manage the scoreboard to have the huge advantage of hammer in that last end - Cheryl Bernard was a master of this during her trials and Olympic run.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-18-14 11:09AM
FollowingAlong is offline Click Here to See the Profile for FollowingAlong Click here to Send FollowingAlong a Private Message Find more posts by FollowingAlong Add FollowingAlong to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
FollowingAlong
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 459

quote:
Originally posted by milobloom
This isn't a discussion on lopsided games, we all know that is part of any sport. But if it becomes that every situation except for 1 down with hammer in the final end is pre-determined based on skill, then we may have to consider if it needs to be dealt with.


milobloom, I appreciate the clarification (or at least indicating my mis-interpretation) of your position on a tied, last end scenario.

Can't say that I would disagree with your assessment that in a tied game where two tick shots are made by the team with the hammer, that there's a very good chance that the team with the hammer will win the game, or at least have a reasonably simple last shot to do so. I guess it's just the nature of the beast. I would agree that in most other sports, a tied game late in the contest always presents some drama and maybe that's less so in curling at the elite level.

The top players are very good and invest a tremendous amount of time into the game. At the elite level, curling has, at least in more current times, been about managing the scoreboard and trying to maintain control of the hammer in the last end of a game. This was the case pre-FGZ where good teams would often try to blank every end to maintain the hammer in a 0-0 game coming home (rarely happened, but often was the goal) to this very day where teams still try to have the hammer coming home tied up. The skill of the players has advanced along with the rule changes as the teams have developed strategies to allow them to control the situation. Even now, if a team with the hammer does happen to miss a tick, they are so good at the angle raise run-throughs and the near-nose double peel and roll that they can still successfully defend a missed tick shot.

The only defense to this might be to keep increasing the FGZ number, I don't know.

What I do know is that if I already have 2.5 hours invested in watching a curling game the chances of me changing the channel in the last end of a tie game when the team with the hammer makes its first two tick shots is virtually zero, as there's still a chance that some other shot somewhere down the line could be executed sub-optimally and there could still be some drama in the end

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-23-14 03:59PM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

A few points I'd like to clear up, since there seems to be some misinterpretation.

First, the narrow striking bands at slam-and some national-events. IMO its the equivalent of the juiced ball or corked bat. Of course you can make more shots with a livelier stone. You can also hit more home runs with a juiced ball or corked bat.

But what happens then? Well, the exceptional shot-or home run-becomes more frequent, less rare. And it becomes thus mundane and boring-lowering its entertainment value. Basketball, for example, is constant amazing plays. But they're constant. There's no drama, no build up, less chance of failure, which in turn makes the rare shot so much more exciting and satisfying to watch when it does happen.

I'm more likely to turn off the last end of a slam event when a team is trailing by two because I know that a player can throw a peel poorly, hit 7/8 of a stone and watch that stone roll out when it has no right to do so-thus rewarding a player for poor execution. Now THAT'S boring.

It's also a reason why there are so many double and triple peels being made. Those shots aren't harder, rarer, to come by. They're easier, and now more frequent-thus mundane.

Second, PGA majors, the events the Slams aspire to emulate, do not create favorable conditions-as some posters here claim-they make the fairways narrower, rough thicker and greens faster (which accentuates the undulation)-all to make the golfers (the best in the game) work harder. The PGA doesn't give its competitors juiced balls to use, or drivers that can hit a ball straighter or further just because they're pros.

However, I will condede this: if the size of the striking band was standardized so every rock at every club was the same then I'm all for it. Can this be done? Can a set of club rocks be ground down economically and without damaging or drastically altering the weight of a stone? if it could then at least we have a much more level playing field for all curlers.

Do that, standardize the stones across the country and then lets see if we still need a five rock rule. Otherwise, we have two sets of rules/equipment existing in our sport. One for the few, another for the many.

And as any fool can tell you, that kind of double standard, is wrong.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Last edited by jamcan on 12-23-14 at 04:35PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 2 of 3 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to thisThread

Forum Jump:
Rate This Thread:

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
 

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church  
Rose    Watch Live Curling!
Brenden  
Guentzel    Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald  
Hebert    Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye  
Cenzalli  
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

Recent News

Recent
Homan Brings Home Gold

Homan Brings Home Gold

Sydney, Canada - In front of a full house with over 4,000 spectators, Canada (photo: Stephen Fisher, World Curling) beat Switzerland by 7-5 to take gold at the BKT Tires World Women's Curling Championship 2024.

Curling Photos

Recent

Curling Blogs

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

To top ↑