We are very early into the curling season – and we already
have our first controversy to talk about!
And I did not see this one coming – it is magic brooms!
There was a player meeting this weekend at a big tournament in
Toronto – with some players suggesting that the new brooms should be banned (!), as
they are removing all the skill out of the game.
(My apologies to the non-curlers who read my blog - this one is for the hard-core curling fans)
A number of curlers are now suggesting that Hardline and the new Balance Plus brooms used on tour are “too effective” and are allowing sweepers to effectively manipulate the path
of the rock significantly – taking the skill out of the game. Big guys like Hebert,
Kennedy and the Harndens are saying that the new brooms are eliminating the
advantage they have by being big and strong.
The controversy emerged after the first Grand Slam- where
Brad Gushue really pushed the envelope on this – by using some unconventional sweeping
techniques on his way to successful results.
So what do these magic brooms allegedly do? The big impact
seems to be on soft weight takeouts. If you throw a hack weight hit – they are
suggesting that the new brooms can hold the rock absolutely straight (or even
make it fall) by sweeping against the curl – in other words by having the
sweeper on the “low” side sweep in the opposite direction that the rock is
curling in.
Gushue believed in this so much that he does not even let
the other guy (the guy on the “high” side) sweep – as he harbours the belief
that sweeping the other way will make it curl. So only one sweeper is sweeping
hard, while the other guy just stands there looking goofy.
Gushue has also taken it to different level by changing pads
between shots. Their belief is that a new pad is more effective on hits, but an
older pad is more effective on sweeping a draw further. So his guys carry
multiple pads in their pockets, and switch based on the shot they are playing.
Not sure if anyone else is doing this.
So what do I think of this?
Full disclosure – I am a user and am a promoter of the
brooms in question – my team has been with Hardline for a couple of years now –
and we are very happy customers.You will notice their ad in the banner of my blog.
Having said that – I call
BULLSHIT on this.
I have played against Gushue this year. I have talked to
Mike McEwen (who also uses the Hardline brooms) this summer. I have played with
the brooms for years.
The Hardlines that I play with are not joysticks that
control the rocks – they do not have magical powers.
I definitely think both McEwen and Gushue are very effective
at keeping rocks straight – thus making hit and rolls and runbacks easier. (Unfotunately,
my team has not been able to use the brooms to win $100,000 yet, but we are
still working on it).
Gushue and Caruthers and McEwen make a lot of hit and rolls.
I agree with the notion that new brooms are FAR more effective at keeping hits
straight but they might be LESS effective at dragging a draw further (they just
seem to get too wet) and they perform better after a few games.
When we played Gushue in Cornwall, I thought he had some
effective sweeping – but it did not seem to be doing RIDICULOUS things to the
rocks. He had pretty effective sweeping last year too – and it certainly helps
that his sweepers look like the “after” pictures in a Bowflex commercial. But I
would not have said his rocks did anything crazy. I read an article quoting
Wayne Middaugh saying that he could make a rock back up four feet. I have never
seen this with the Hardlines – and I am assuming that this is a misprint and he
meant 4 inches. But they are claiming that the new Balance Plus brooms can do
magic like that. If that is the case – then maybe we should look at banning
these.
But here is the thing – broom technology is not new. This has
been happening for years. The EQ pads – developed in partnership with the CCA
to give Canadian teams an edge at the last Olympics – used a piece of foil in the
heads to heat up the pads –making them more effective at destroying the ice! The
Norway pads use a coarse, ribbed material. I think when either of these pads
are new – they could likely have been used to have similar effects as what we
are seeing now at holding a takeout straight by sweeping against the curl.
What has changed however is the ability to change pads
between shots. While players used to change pads within a game – it was usually
only once per game – and was only to put a new head on - because new heads are
more effective. They did not change heads based on the type of shot played. Now
teams can change pads in seconds depending on shot selection by snapping on a
new head.
***
The other problem is sweeping rules have been pretty relaxed
over the years. The rules used to be specific about a “back and forth, sweeping
across the face” movement – now that has been stretched to the limit.
Ben Hebert got called out for “dumping” in front of a rock
(which is scatological way of saying he lifted his broom and dropped debris in
front of the rock to slow it down) by Richard Hart in a Slam final a few years
back - So the rules have pretty much been – “as long as you are not damaging
the ice – significantly – then anything goes”.
***
So do we need to ban these?
My answer is No.
I think this debate sounds a lot like the same debate that
happens every time a new piece of golf technology comes out.
So we need to ban Titleist Pro-V’s? How about big-head
drivers? Or belly putters?
I think some rules might need to come into effect that restrict
a players ability to change heads within a game – much the same way you can’t
use a Pinnacle to hit your drive further and then switch to a soft ball when
you are approaching the green. Switching heads from one shot to another just seems
wrong – and seems to be an awkward advancement for the game. I am old enough to
remember playing against teams that would sweep hits with a brush, and then draws
with a corn broom (damn I am old). Switching brooms or heads based on the type
of shot played seems wrong. It did not make sense back then…and rules were
changed to prevent this.
But I do not think you can go backwards and ban the brooms. I
have played with Hardlines for a few years – and have not seen anything crazy
to suggest that I have an unfair advantage. Admittedly we do not have the team
budget to play with new heads every game…but my rocks do not do magic tricks. I
wish they did.
Furthermore, I am not sure how a ban can work. We would have
to ban types of synthetic heads? Or only certain materials? Would we have to
play with brooms that only have a limited coarseness? Do we all have to back to
hair brooms? Would it only be banned in
competition? Only on tour?
Apparently my spies tell me that the players meeting did not
settle anything, and seemed more about posturing than problem-solving.
I am not sure where this issue is going – and I get the
impression that the debate is being driven as much by competitive marketing
then it is by facts or science.
They banished 2 hands putter at golf :P
ReplyDeleteAnd like you said... you do not have the same heafs as those Gushue/McEwen teams
ReplyDeleteI do have the same heads - we just do not change them as often. We found that the new heads are not as effective for sweeping draws - better when they are are in a bit.
ReplyDeleteHow can you be that sure you have the same heads?
DeleteGood point. I am e-mailing Archie right now!!!
DeleteAll our teams, club or elite, have the exact same heads! Hardline sells only one heads. What the pros play is what everyone plays!
DeletePeople forget that back in the "old days", there was a lot of uproar when the European style brushes began to appear in the corn broom game. These players could sweep half a rock and get into places where corn could never go. Sweeping calls often included the words, "High side only!" How soon the world forgets. My point is that we are simply looking at another evolutionary step in the game and not a game-breaking means of cheating. I wonder how the CCA would react (or an iceman for that matter) if I was to walk out on the ice with an old kitchen broom as used in the 1800's. I think they're legal, but the other team wouldn't appreciate the rubbish I would leave behind.
ReplyDeleteLet the game evolve and let all the players take advantage of whatever minor improvements come from the lighter, faster equipment. If rules about declaring a broom and not switching heads are required, then I'm all for that too.
We are a relatively new HL customer. We heard aw things in the rumor mill last year about using one HL one standard broom or one newer HL and one that had some play on it. What I can tell you after some very specific testing is that without a doubt you can take a brand new HL head and back a rock up. We threw a normal weight TO multiple times without sweeping on a spot that had roughly 6" of curl. Then threw the exact same shot on the same line and swept hard out of the hand with a brand new HL... the rock backed up (fell) 10 to 12 inches. This was a consistent result in every test we ran. But it had to be a new or relatively new HL head. It seems that once they are used a bit the effect goes away or is much smaller. The thing that is most problematic though I'd the fact that when it happened, it lasted for more than one shot on the same line.... a rock thrown in the same path of one that was swept and fell, also fell back with no sweeping. Eventually the path would normalize but only after 3 or 4 stones.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that the BP brooms, with an even more aggressive fabric, would have a greater and longer lasting effect.
I would suggest that you try the same tests for yourself as I really didn't believe it myself until I actually saw it with my own eyes over and over again.
As an FYI our team is ready and willing to comply with whatever decision is made as we think it is in the best interest of the game.
We are a relatively new HL customer. We heard aw things in the rumor mill last year about using one HL one standard broom or one newer HL and one that had some play on it. What I can tell you after some very specific testing is that without a doubt you can take a brand new HL head and back a rock up. We threw a normal weight TO multiple times without sweeping on a spot that had roughly 6" of curl. Then threw the exact same shot on the same line and swept hard out of the hand with a brand new HL... the rock backed up (fell) 10 to 12 inches. This was a consistent result in every test we ran. But it had to be a new or relatively new HL head. It seems that once they are used a bit the effect goes away or is much smaller. The thing that is most problematic though I'd the fact that when it happened, it lasted for more than one shot on the same line.... a rock thrown in the same path of one that was swept and fell, also fell back with no sweeping. Eventually the path would normalize but only after 3 or 4 stones.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that the BP brooms, with an even more aggressive fabric, would have a greater and longer lasting effect.
I would suggest that you try the same tests for yourself as I really didn't believe it myself until I actually saw it with my own eyes over and over again.
As an FYI our team is ready and willing to comply with whatever decision is made as we think it is in the best interest of the game.
This article really did hit the nail on the head for me. Hardlines are not some magic broom that can create a "rock on a rope" effect and there is no evidence that these "destroy" or alter the ice in any way. I would be very disappointed if there was some type of judgement against them without also looking at the other big players in the game.
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence is also BANG on... the only ones to be truly speaking out and are vehemently against these heads and their material are elite players with 10k+ sponsorship from the opposing broom companies.
Since you brought up other sports equipment, let me correct you and make some additions.
ReplyDeleteGolf did ban the belly putter
Golf did limit the size of big head drivers
Golf eliminated square head grooves on clubs because they made it too easy to get spin on the ball
And a couple that fit curling’s broom situation very well
Swimming banned the Speedo “shark suits”, after they had been used for a few years, including a World Championship and Olympic championship cycle. They deemed that the suits were unfair and against the spirit of the rules
Baseball and softball (not MLB but youth and amateur organizations) set a standard on bats when it became too easy to hit home runs, and too dangerous for pitchers and third basemen because the balls were moving so fast that it was physically impossible for them to move fast enough to protect themselves. These organizations then came up with a standard that tested the reflectivity of the bat. In other words, when the ball hits the bat, how much of a trampoline does the bat act like to amplify the movement of the ball. Bats that were to reflective were considered “Too Hot” and were then banned from any further use.
The important thing is that one argument that I think stands out in this debate is that people are saying we’ve been using a product for a few years, and we should be able to keep it. Well, that is an argument that doesn’t really hold any weight to whether the product creates effects on the rock that are not natural to the game. And I referenced 2 sports where they decided to ban products that had been used for a few years.
And the next apart of this argument might come across as mean, and that is not my goal, but I am trying to be blunt and clear to make a point. People keep saying that they have used this HL for a couple of years, and they don’t see the joystick results. Well, maybe you are not good enough, or knowledgeable enough to know how to take full advantage of its powers. (and FYI I am not saying that I am good enough to do this because I am not). But to go back to the bat example above. For 90% of the hitters, these bats that were deemed too hot and dangerous, didn’t turn them into Babe Ruth, but it did allow them to hit the ball harder. They may have been too bad of a hitter to be too dangerous. But for the 10% of the batters who could crush the ball with a regular bat, this made them dangerous. The same goes to these brooms. If you have not seen the effects, it does not mean they do not exists. It does not mean that some players aren’t manipulating the rock in ways unnatural to the sport of curling.
But aside any personal bias based upon what broom you use, any sponsorship, etc. If someone told you that sweeping a hit should be done with 1 sweeper rather than 2, you would say that they were crazy. It goes against the fundamental logic and teaching of the game. That in and of itself should be enough to address the issue. The blog post referenced the EQ pad. Well it did not change the game. It did not make it so that people swept differently, or changed the rules of sweepers. What exactly did the EQ pad do. It used a type of fabric that was a bit more waterproof, and used a piece of aluminum foil tape to keep water from getting into the foam part of the pad, and to make sure that heat did not get absorbed by any part of the broom, and was reflected into the ice.
Lots of good points here - and of course I am biased!
DeleteI don't think you are correcting me by pointing out that there are restrictions on technology in other sports. I get that.
But my golf clubs still look very different then they did twenty years ago - and restrictions usually happened after years of deliberations.
But most rule changes happened after long deliberations, lots of testing and discussion that involved the parties involved - including the manufacturers. This change feels a little knee-jerk, and is aimed at one manufacturer.
And I definitely concede that we never did the work of testing the brooms in various states (new vs. old) or with different techniques. We had observed some of what we talked about (ability to keep a hit straight) but we never had new heads for long enough for it to be that much of a factor. The new heads might be awesome for sweeping hits, but on draws they get brutally wet and feel ineffective.
We never conceived changing heads based on type of shot. Maybe we should have!
I like to think that I am good enough to notice a difference - but agree Gushue seems to have taken it to another level that only a handful of teams would be willing to try.
My goal in all of this, as a little unknown not very skilled curler, is to help move people past the fact that people just keeping saying the same things, and very little of it has any scientific merit, just very lose, unscientific (possibly biased or agenda created) observations. Until this pointless discussion gets into the past, then coming up with a solution and testing protocol will never even get started.
DeleteA few notes about your comments
-As a 5 year curler, I don't know the exact timing, but related to your golf clubs and 20 years, brooms have gone from corn, to rink rats, to brownies, to fixed head modern brooms, to pivoting modern brooms in about the same timeline as your clubs I think. I might go so far as to say that brooms have changed more than clubs.
-This change seems to be aimed at 2 manufacturers, BP and HL.
And since this brings up curling rules, I am going to bring up something that many will not like. The curling rule book is a bit of a joke to some extent and really needs to be looked. There are so many things really left undetermined by the rules. For example, there is no official size of a curling sheet. Some things are given. But look at the width. The max is 5m or 16.5 feet. What it the minimum? Nowhere to be specified. Stones have a variance of 6 pounds. Maybe three needs to be something that says that can be the range, but a matched set must be within 1 pound of each other. Read Rule 7a, “The sweeping motion is in a side-to-side direction (it need not cover the entire width of the stone)” what exactly does Side to side mean. As I read this, corner sweeping would be illegal unles it crossed over the mid-point of the rock? Read Rule 10c. This rule makes the electronic hog line monitor illegal since nowhere does it specifically call out an exception for the hog line monitor. Read Rule 10a “No player shall cause damage to the ice surface by means of equipment, hand prints, or body prints.” What exactly is damage. Walking on the ice damages the pebble, so cannot we not walk on the ice. Sweeping in any form with any head damages the ice, so can we not sweep. And before you call me out, ever heard anyone say the pebble wears out during the game where the rocks have been frequently played.
Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to bring out the fact that lots of regulation changes need to be addressed, not just the magic broom debate
Shawn..golf did not ban the belly putter. The ban is just they cannot anchor to the body. They can still use the putter.
Delete2nd...the PGA players received THREE YEARS notice the ban was coming. Why is Hardline only being given less than a week?
3rd...this is PLAYER driven, and not a directive from Curling Canada or WCF. What sport lets their players impose their own rules without any proper testing, and just anecdotal inferences?
The truth will come out as to what is happening here.
If you want to get petty, any putter, regardless of length that does not touch the belly is not a belly putter
DeleteAnd quite frankly, stop whining about it. If you feel that you are doing nothing wrong, get at the forefront of this. Become the testing leader and help teh WCF come up with a testing protocol for new broom technology. Organize a joint testing mission between your company, BP, etc and determine the future of brooms. Dont try to pick a petty battle with me about a word choice that you were not even right about
Not sure where you get "petty" from? You said "Golf did ban the belly putter." in your earlier comment. We were correcting you saying the golf did not ban the belly putter, but the anchoring to the body.
DeleteAs for testing, we call for INDEPENDENT testing so that there is no bias.
I was told by someone who is definitely "in the know" that most of the teams using hardline brushes were using them improperly to achieve the results that McEwen, Gushue and Carrthers were getting. For example, sweeping with 2 of them counteracts the effect. Another example is the players need to be aware which direction the fabric is running in order to score the ice in the direction you want the rock to run and that is not evident at all with the Hardline brushes. With the right knowledge and technique implemented the hardlines allow for far too much influence on the rock after it is released.
ReplyDeleteBalance Plus went way too far with their new fabric, seemingly just to make a point, keeping it a secret and not making it available to all teams. Their pad does do damage to the ice and is not in the spirit of the game.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the IcePad Pro material is superior to the EQ or Norway heads, but not as aggressive as the new BP material. The IcePad seems to be the most aggressive brand new, the sponsored teams that have the ability to switch out the heads between shots benefit the most, while the rest of us cannot afford multiple heads per game for each brusher. A rule that would require a team to declare 4 sweeping brooms and not allow switching to new heads during the game would level the playing field.
Furthermore, why did the teams wait until now to decide the Hardline brooms provide an unfair advantage? Is it that other teams are catching on and they fear that the competitive advantage they had prior is now being lost?
If a rule change does occur, for one I hope the Hardline brooms are left out of it, but there cannot be a change made prior to the 2018 Olympics. Otherwise, are the CTRS points that were won using the Hardline brooms now suspect? Will these teams forfeit the points earned as they were ill-gotten?
I'd love to know why this has to be resolved during a season with almost zero notice given to players. Hardline brooms have been around for a few years now with zero controversy. The suggestion to "turn directional brush pads inside out" is laughable as it only affects Hardline.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most significant in all this controversy is the fact that there are at least 4 HL teams that have signed onto the agreement released yesterday to stop using the so called directional fabric. Why they agreed may never be known, at least to your average club curler, but the fact remains that they have done it. It will be very interesting to see which brooms are being used at the next event.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is another issue that is being overlooked and that is a team's loyalty to it's sponsors. Have some decency, teams taking sponsorship become ambassadors for the company that sponsor's them, especially a curling equipment line (ie Hardline), teams should be promoting their equipment line not signing petitions not to use it. What does that say about the team...we'll take your money but could care less about you, have some respect.
ReplyDelete