Great video, and a perfect accompaniment to Destin's video, (Smarter every Day). Could I be so bold as to suggest that the reason for the IcePad ban is actually to stop curling becoming a battleground for materials science - going against the ethos of the sport. I'm not a curler, but the very same thing has happened in nearly all sports, where a new technological innovation is immediately banned, although on the face of it, there's no advantage to anyone if everyone is using the same new technology. However, it becomes a very real issue when someone takes the new technology and develops it further & further, ultimately offering advantages to those who can afford to keep up with the new technology, leaving others (who may not be able to afford such advantages) behind. Just a thought.
I think CCA should be the ones doing the testing, not Brad. It was them that banned the new IcePad. Good for you Brad for doing something inovative. If it works, why are we banning it. Let's look to the future, not back at the past.
Here is another thought. If are throwing the rock down the same path, wouldn't the ice surface also be affected thus altering the path of the rock throughout the throws... There are so many variables that it's hard to determine any results. There has to be better controlled testing in gather the correct results as to broom head types and their effects on curl and ice affects.
+James Lev Considering rocks 2 & 4 held the same path - with the same brushing technique, and rocks 3 & 5 followed the same path - with their own brushing technique, that should eliminate the ice conditions. I could see if all the straight rocks or all the curled rocks were thrown in sequence that this would create ice concerns, but since they are "staggered" throws, that should take potential ice changing conditions out of the equation.
You're never going to get a perfect experiment that's perfectly controls every possible variable and answers exactly the question you want. Exactly how similar is the directional effect for the Icepad and Hair broom, or do different brooms give similar effects, this experiment doesn't answer that. But are the Original Icepad w/ insert and a Hair broom both able to significantly affect the path of the rock with directional sweeping? This experiment gives pretty convincing evidence of yes. I don't think they need to do any more testing to answer that question.
They need to make a ramp to launch the stone. At the top of ramp its has an edge the stone rest against. This ramp would eliminate human error. Also they need to use a different place on the ice each time they do this to eliminate defects on ice from previous stones.
A ramp wouldn't work. But someone has built a curling stone delivery machine. And shooting down different lines on the ice doesn't solve the problem, either, since they are all pebbled slightly differently and could be at SLIGHTLY different temperatures.
I think the ultimate point that everybody is missing throughout this whole process is how any of these brushes, whether hair or any brand of fabric, break the rules of curling. The alleged infraction at the start of this whole process is that certain brooms "damage the ice" (WCF Rule R10-a, Curling Canada Rule 15.1 and 15.2). Sweeping has always been intended to control a rock - whether to make it travel further, straighter, or (as corner sweeping can do) curl more. None of this ever has been in violation of any rule. Sweeping has also been known to affect ice conditions - which is why ice changes as the pebble breaks down. I guess that means sweeping has always damaged the ice if you applied the purest definition of the rule, so perhaps we need to ban sweeping entirely because no matter what device we use, we're obviously damaging the ice. How ludicrous is this whole debate becoming, and when did we lose our focus on the rules of curling?
It would allow guys like me to not have to worry about not skipping a rink. While I'm a fairly good strategist, if my life depended on it, I can't sweep, so I have always been the skip for my rinks. it would also, in part, eliminate the need for some S&C for guys like me who believes the S of S&C is damaging to the body, thus I shun Brock U's implementation of S&C for 2016-17.
the issue is when the brushes change the game from a thrower's game to a sweeper's game. with these brooms it is possible to hit a perfectly buried stone on the nose and to carve a takeout that's a foot wide to hit nose on straight ice. I don't think that should be possible in our sport. to propose that we ban sweeping entirely when solutions like a standardized less abrasive fabric exist is ludicrous
While I have immense respect for Brad's ability, it would have been nice to have seen his releases to make sure no other aspects could be explained - in part - by that.
Plenty of room for ideomotor and bias to influence the results and obviously they don't have time and equipment to do a proper double blinded experiment. That's not really the point. It's more of a proof of concept and a good case for this to be examined more. Also, make more videos guys! This is the only video I've seen that's shown the possible outcomes of sweeping. Learning the physics of the game as a spectator can get confusing.
This is a great initial test but there are some basic flaws in the procedures. In this experiment there is no way to guarantee exact same handle or weight thrown. Maybe the experimenters found exactly what they were looking for based on some bit of unintentional bias. Also, what broom was used for the "control rock"? Were they performing a light cleaning with an icepad or just a basic synthetic head?
Here is one problem, with everything supposedly consistent you forgot one thing. You are going down the same path with sweeping so you are changing the pebble every time you throw and every shot following that will be affected by it. This does not matter anymore since there are now approved materials you have to use in competitions. Still interesting to see tho.
I'd like to see them ban the directional sweeping techniques. Wouldn't this be negated by mandating sweeping to be done perpendicular to the center line? Return the game to a point where the thrower is critical for aim, and the sweepers for weight.
Or maybe, Scott, we should take sweepers out of the game entirely. How does that sound for a solution. After all, whether it's controlling the direction *or* the distance, they must be damaging the ice. What's the difference between making a rock travel 5' further with good sweepers, versus making it curl 6" more or 6" less. Sheesh, this whole issue is a mess and it's all been caused by a company that was losing market share over its broom heads. Worst of all, nobody has any test results whatsoever to prove anything.
I agree with the other posts. If you really wanted to prove your point. Re-test with a traditional broom as well using directional sweeping. It will show how much difference is actually imposed. This test / demonstration is utterly useless.
this is fucking stupid. sweeping is just as much of the game as is throwing. curling SHOULD have had these improvements LONG ago. and yes I say improvement as the ability to curl the rock more open more possibilities for shot, strategies and play styles. its more exciting, which is what curling desperately needs..
And this is why competitive curling will be the ruination of this sport....because of controversies created by things like this. And this is the opinion of somebody who has curled competitively, who comes from a six generation curling family.
My dad says your test is full of shit. You cannot prove that sweeping with or against the curl with one person, regardless of their choice of brush affects the curl or lack there of in the manner illustrated in the video without showing the manner in which the stone was released. The person throwing could potentially be releasing either slightly with or against the turn thereby affecting the curl of the stone more so than any sweeping would affect. And two sweepers are generally used in most games to sweep each stone. So the affect of one versus the other balance out.
False. With these new pads(before the new regulations this september), you would only use 1 sweeper. Using 2, was actually less effective. I play high level curling as well(From Denmark), and we used only 1 sweeper with these pads, and so did every other team on the tour as well. Your dad, is not right. He is false.
They tested this for a damn long time so any inconsistency would have been observed in the long run. Also I'm going to trust the elite curling players to figure this out rather than a random ass dad..sorry I hope you understand.
Great video, and a perfect accompaniment to Destin's video, (Smarter every Day).
Could I be so bold as to suggest that the reason for the IcePad ban is actually to stop curling becoming a battleground for materials science - going against the ethos of the sport.
I'm not a curler, but the very same thing has happened in nearly all sports, where a new technological innovation is immediately banned, although on the face of it, there's no advantage to anyone if everyone is using the same new technology.
However, it becomes a very real issue when someone takes the new technology and develops it further & further, ultimately offering advantages to those who can afford to keep up with the new technology, leaving others (who may not be able to afford such advantages) behind.
Just a thought.
Could we see this test with the other heads available on the market?
Great test. What is missing though is the exact same test with a "normal" broom head e.g. the EQ.
I think CCA should be the ones doing the testing, not Brad. It was them that banned the new IcePad. Good for you Brad for doing something inovative. If it works, why are we banning it. Let's look to the future, not back at the past.
Here is another thought. If are throwing the rock down the same path, wouldn't the ice surface also be affected thus altering the path of the rock throughout the throws... There are so many variables that it's hard to determine any results. There has to be better controlled testing in gather the correct results as to broom head types and their effects on curl and ice affects.
+James Lev Considering rocks 2 & 4 held the same path - with the same brushing technique, and rocks 3 & 5 followed the same path - with their own brushing technique, that should eliminate the ice conditions. I could see if all the straight rocks or all the curled rocks were thrown in sequence that this would create ice concerns, but since they are "staggered" throws, that should take potential ice changing conditions out of the equation.
You're never going to get a perfect experiment that's perfectly controls every possible variable and answers exactly the question you want.
Exactly how similar is the directional effect for the Icepad and Hair broom, or do different brooms give similar effects, this experiment doesn't answer that.
But are the Original Icepad w/ insert and a Hair broom both able to significantly affect the path of the rock with directional sweeping? This experiment gives pretty convincing evidence of yes.
I don't think they need to do any more testing to answer that question.
Are tests like this ever done with machine-perfect mechanical delivery equipment?
+Mark Nichols coming to the players championship, very excited to watch you guys play
They need to make a ramp to launch the stone. At the top of ramp its has an edge the stone rest against. This ramp would eliminate human error. Also they need to use a different place on the ice each time they do this to eliminate defects on ice from previous stones.
A ramp wouldn't work. But someone has built a curling stone delivery machine.
And shooting down different lines on the ice doesn't solve the problem, either, since they are all pebbled slightly differently and could be at SLIGHTLY different temperatures.
can curler use the powered broom like grinder? is it violation to use such automatic sweeping tools?
I think the ultimate point that everybody is missing throughout this whole process is how any of these brushes, whether hair or any brand of fabric, break the rules of curling. The alleged infraction at the start of this whole process is that certain brooms "damage the ice" (WCF Rule R10-a, Curling Canada Rule 15.1 and 15.2). Sweeping has always been intended to control a rock - whether to make it travel further, straighter, or (as corner sweeping can do) curl more. None of this ever has been in violation of any rule. Sweeping has also been known to affect ice conditions - which is why ice changes as the pebble breaks down. I guess that means sweeping has always damaged the ice if you applied the purest definition of the rule, so perhaps we need to ban sweeping entirely because no matter what device we use, we're obviously damaging the ice. How ludicrous is this whole debate becoming, and when did we lose our focus on the rules of curling?
It would allow guys like me to not have to worry about not skipping a rink. While I'm a fairly good strategist, if my life depended on it, I can't sweep, so I have always been the skip for my rinks. it would also, in part, eliminate the need for some S&C for guys like me who believes the S of S&C is damaging to the body, thus I shun Brock U's implementation of S&C for 2016-17.
the issue is when the brushes change the game from a thrower's game to a sweeper's game. with these brooms it is possible to hit a perfectly buried stone on the nose and to carve a takeout that's a foot wide to hit nose on straight ice. I don't think that should be possible in our sport. to propose that we ban sweeping entirely when solutions like a standardized less abrasive fabric exist is ludicrous
While I have immense respect for Brad's ability, it would have been nice to have seen his releases to make sure no other aspects could be explained - in part - by that.
you can see his release in the video
Plenty of room for ideomotor and bias to influence the results and obviously they don't have time and equipment to do a proper double blinded experiment. That's not really the point. It's more of a proof of concept and a good case for this to be examined more.
Also, make more videos guys! This is the only video I've seen that's shown the possible outcomes of sweeping. Learning the physics of the game as a spectator can get confusing.
This is a great initial test but there are some basic flaws in the procedures. In this experiment there is no way to guarantee exact same handle or weight thrown. Maybe the experimenters found exactly what they were looking for based on some bit of unintentional bias. Also, what broom was used for the "control rock"? Were they performing a light cleaning with an icepad or just a basic synthetic head?
Best solution is allow all brush heads and ban directional sweeping. brush at a 90 degree angle and the results here are totally different guaranteed.
Here is one problem, with everything supposedly consistent you forgot one thing. You are going down the same path with sweeping so you are changing the pebble every time you throw and every shot following that will be affected by it.
This does not matter anymore since there are now approved materials you have to use in competitions.
Still interesting to see tho.
So all this money on technology and 40 year old tech kicks it's ass
I'd like to see them ban the directional sweeping techniques. Wouldn't this be negated by mandating sweeping to be done perpendicular to the center line? Return the game to a point where the thrower is critical for aim, and the sweepers for weight.
Or maybe, Scott, we should take sweepers out of the game entirely. How does that sound for a solution. After all, whether it's controlling the direction *or* the distance, they must be damaging the ice. What's the difference between making a rock travel 5' further with good sweepers, versus making it curl 6" more or 6" less. Sheesh, this whole issue is a mess and it's all been caused by a company that was losing market share over its broom heads. Worst of all, nobody has any test results whatsoever to prove anything.
I agree with the other posts. If you really wanted to prove your point. Re-test with a traditional broom as well using directional sweeping. It will show how much difference is actually imposed. This test / demonstration is utterly useless.
It's scientifically ridiculous.
this is fucking stupid. sweeping is just as much of the game as is throwing. curling SHOULD have had these improvements LONG ago. and yes I say improvement as the ability to curl the rock more open more possibilities for shot, strategies and play styles. its more exciting, which is what curling desperately needs..
And this is why competitive curling will be the ruination of this sport....because of controversies created by things like this. And this is the opinion of somebody who has curled competitively, who comes from a six generation curling family.
My dad says your test is full of shit. You cannot prove that sweeping with or against the curl with one person, regardless of their choice of brush affects the curl or lack there of in the manner illustrated in the video without showing the manner in which the stone was released. The person throwing could potentially be releasing either slightly with or against the turn thereby affecting the curl of the stone more so than any sweeping would affect. And two sweepers are generally used in most games to sweep each stone. So the affect of one versus the other balance out.
False.
With these new pads(before the new regulations this september), you would only use 1 sweeper. Using 2, was actually less effective.
I play high level curling as well(From Denmark), and we used only 1 sweeper with these pads, and so did every other team on the tour as well.
Your dad, is not right. He is false.
Nate Hess your dad is the be all and end all of what's right and what wrong?
They tested this for a damn long time so any inconsistency would have been observed in the long run.
Also I'm going to trust the elite curling players to figure this out rather than a random ass dad..sorry I hope you understand.