
Top curling teams say they won't use high-tech brooms - mhb
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/top-curling-teams-say-they-won-t-use-high-tech-brooms-1.3274903
======
jccalhoun
There are a couple things going on with this story:

One is the role of technology in sports which is really interesting. In other
sports there is a lot of debate over what technology is allowed and what
isn't. I would be really interested to see some things like how far someone
could hit a golf ball if there were no restrictions on the club or ball or how
fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the swimsuits.

The second thing, however, is that the text of the story and the video have
different focuses. The text focuses on telling the story of how this is a
grassroots movement by some athletes. The video, however, seems to have a more
pronounced undercurrent that this might really be about one company,
BalancePlus, trying to put pressure against an upstart competitor, icePad, who
is eating into their market share. I think it is really interesting that the
text doesn't emphasize this as much as the video does.

~~~
Someone
_" or how fast a person could swim if there were no restrictions on the
swimsuits."_

Define _swim_. If you don't, people will end up wearing a boat (the suits
banned a few years ago started looking like them by providing floatation and
being somewhat rigid) and having gloves on their legs and arms that resemble
fins or paddles.

~~~
rtkwe
For me it'd be to move through water mostly submerged under muscle power
without significantly altering the length/leverage of any limb (trying to
avoid tiny boats with oars or something here). Things like diving/'mermaid'
fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not significantly amplifying the
swimmers power just making it easier to apply it.

It's a fuzzy line for sure if we're trying to define where it starts being
more of a boat than a person moving through the water.

~~~
irishcoffee
> Things like diving/'mermaid' fins I'd be willing to allow since they're not
> significantly amplifying the swimmers power just making it easier to apply
> it.

I disagree with this point. As an avid swimmer of 20+ years, fins/flippers
make a _substantial_ difference in speed. Its actually very enjoyable to swim
for a bit without flippers/fins, and then slap some on and feel like you're
flying through the water.

~~~
rtkwe
They definitely do make moving through water much easier. What I was trying to
get at was that things like fins mostly just allow swimmers to get their
natural muscle power into the water better without really providing mechanical
advantage where things like oars provide a clear advantage and increase
because they're basically levers.

------
pnut
If it's allowed in the regulations, and they want to win, they will use it,
end of story.

~~~
OldSchoolJohnny
You clearly didn't read the story then.

------
brudgers
This seems a bit like wooden tennis rackets a few decades ago, though with a
less mainstream sport the rules body may have more pull than manufacturers.
But the bottom line is that sports change over time or die. Changes simply
mean that a different set of skills come to the fore and others become less
valuable.

~~~
Retra
> sports change over time or die

Why do you believe this?

~~~
Sanddancer
I can see where the OP is coming from, given that pretty much every sport has
had rule changes like this. Baseball's changed the rules of the playing field,
and rules of player behavior over time -- they've lowered the pitchers mound
fairly steadily over the years as the average pitcher gets better, they set up
rules for switch pitchers due to the first one hitting the bigs, etc. Soccer,
they've changed offsides rules several time due to things like the offsides
trap. Basketball, they added the three point shot, the shot clock, and changed
the size of the key to get the game moving and keep it from turning into a
slam dunk contest. Cricket has probably changed the least over the years, but
even there, the types of matches that are played most often are a lot
different than the kinds played nowadays.

~~~
brudgers
Even cricket uses video replay extensively for officiating...at least at
higher levels. The reason it is accepted is that it is consistent with the
game's higher order values. What changes is mostly just an implementation
detail that exists for historical reasons.

------
amelius
> We don't want the teams with the best technology and whoever sponsors who to
> win

I applaud this, but I guess ultimately, either directly or indirectly, the
sponsors still decide who is on a team. Or in other words, teams with more
money will still be better teams.

~~~
TheCapn
Curling is typically different in that regard I think. Every team I've known
personally to go to national or world tournaments were lifelong friends. They
grew as a team and there were no "trades" to suit a roster.

~~~
colomon
Would the 2006 Gushue Olympic team be an exception to that? I'm sure Gushue
knew Howard before Howard joined up, but they were from different generations
and different provinces. (Not that, to the best of my knowledge, a sponsor had
anything to do with that.)

~~~
thefifthsetpin
That's going to be a hard question to answer unless Gushue or Howard weigh in
personally. I can say as a curler that the curling world is very small. If you
want to curl against high-level players often, you need to travel regularly to
high-level bonspiels where you meet a lot of the same curlers over and over
again. It seems perfectly plausible to me that through curling they'd have
gotten to know each other reasonably well.

~~~
datapolitical
Entertainingly, I ended up at this match after watching the trials during a
trip to Canada. Chatted with the team after the win.

Had to look it up ([http://www.amazon.com/Hurry-Hard-Russ-Howard-
Story/dp/047083...](http://www.amazon.com/Hurry-Hard-Russ-Howard-
Story/dp/0470839554)) but in here Russ mentions how he got pulled in by the
guys to help advise on shots.

It was an unusual arrangement to say the least. They went through their
lawyer, made a list of the top guys in Canada who could help, and Russ was at
the top. The lawyer called, and he accepted.

------
FatalLogic
This can be seen as the incumbents uniting to keep out a disruptive technology
that threatens to devalue their huge investment in skills.

------
stevenheidel
For those of you in the bay area who'd like to try out curling, we actually
have a number of different leagues: bayareacurling.com

~~~
willhsiung
Or anywhere in the US, check [http://www.teamusa.org/usa-curling/clubs/find-a-
club](http://www.teamusa.org/usa-curling/clubs/find-a-club) to find the
nearest club to try the sport.

------
rpledge
So they're going to go back to corn husk brooms? Where do they draw the line?

~~~
TheCraiggers
>Where do they draw the line?

I'd say they just did. They're sticking with what they have now, and not using
the newer, better technology.

In most sports, there is an intersection of skill and technology. In order to
keep things interesting, you typically want to increase the amount of skill
required, and lower the amount of technology. However, there are times when
that may sway one direction or the other- safety is an obvious exception to
the above.

There is no reason to insert fallacies; this is normal and has been going on
as long as sports have existed. The only interesting thing here is that the
top teams are taking a stand _before_ the ruling body makes a declaration.
That will still need to happen, but this will likely sway the decision made.

~~~
igrekel
There is that plus the fact that they say it seriously affects the ice for
subsequent shots. Curlers are a bit obsessive about the ice, but then again it
plays a big role.

~~~
makomk
If I'm reading the article correctly, they say that a version of the
technology produced as a demo by a competing curling broom manufacturer that
doesn't want it in the sport seriously affected the ice for subsequent shots.
I don't think anyone's had that problem with the icePad version, which is the
one that's actually for sale.

