Talk:Curling

Template:0.7 set nom

TEAMS

Not enough on team play, positions, e.g. skip. Trying to follow winter olympics. This article is not very helpful, due to this omission. This seriously needs to be rectified.

Verb

I teach English and I have always wanted to know what verb should be used with curling. We 'play' football (generally 'play' with team sports or ball sports), we 'do' judo (generally 'do' with exercises and martial arts) and we 'go' skiing (generally 'go' with 'ing' sports). Do people ever say that they 'play curling' or would you say that you 'do curling'?--Xania ^talk 02:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a curler, but none of those options really "feel" right - certainly not "do", possibly play, "go" would be the least bad. I note that www.englishcurling.org.uk and several clubs in Scotland use "play curling", but "go curling" is quite common as well.

Generally the verbage that is used is that one just "curls". Curling is used as a verb as well as the name of the sport. One doesn't "baseball" one "plays baseball" but in Curling a person can "curl" instead of "playing Curling" which is not grammatically correct. As in "I go to the curling club to curl on wednesdays" or "I curl regulairly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.243.83 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) b

Lists

This article is looking quite tidy but two things leap out - it desperately needs more references to verify the facts from reliable sources, and it would probably be best to split out the lists of clubs etc into a separate article. In the long term those subjective lists aren't good for the stability of the article, which is something you need to get to good article status. But the lack of refs mean that it fails current interpretations of B status I'm afraid. FlagSteward (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Function of the broom?

What is the function of the broom? I always thought it was just to clear debris and remove blemishes from the ice. Whatever the truth the two sentences below conflict and need a fix.

Aggressive sweeping momentarily melts the ice and reduces friction, this keeps the stone moving and on a straight trajectory. Studies have just been completed that show that instead of melting the ice completely, sweeping momentarily raises the temperature of the ice by one degree to two degrees, but no ice melting occurs.

So, does it or does it not melt the ice (seems highly unlikely from physics point of view) and if it only raises the temperature what is the significance of this, if any? The old traditional switch brooms would never have achieved anything other than to remove debris, do modern brooms add something that wasn't there before? Either remove both sentences or replace with: Aggressive sweeping was once thought to momentarily melt the ice and reduce friction but studies have subsequenly shown that it may raise the temperature by one or two degrees but it does not melt the ice. Reference needed!

Raising the temperature is either a red herring or it may be relevant if the low friction of the stone depends on the local compression-melting of the ice underneath the edges of the convex base, made convex to concentrate the weight. Ice skates float on compression-melting although this too has been questioned. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Semipro

I've semi-protected the article until the end of the Olympics; the amount of vandalism has gotten too annoying. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Game" or "Sport"

The article calls curling a "sport." A "sport" implies athleticism. It's more accurate to describe it as a "game," since you really don't have to be an athlete to play curling. I've been watching this junk on the Olympics--and after seeing some of the broads who play, I can pretty much say with authority that you don't gotta be no athlete to play this silly game.

If Serena Williams were around, she could curl heads and shoulders around these dames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're an idiot. It has been proven that curling is more of a workout than volleyball. Why dont you try it and see for yourself. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets get real. Curlers ain't involved in anything remotely athletic. Just take a look at they clothes! The dudes dress like they be Assistant Manager at Denny's. They shoes are some leather crap hoofs that you would wear to the prom! No sneakers--no sport! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Try ski jumping in sneakers, I dare ya. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Fail. You can curl in sneakers anyways, if you wanted to. Anyways, just look at John Morris and tell me he's not an athlete. He could be a runningback. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will give the Danish women team some credit. They have great style and I love they skirts. They are not as hot as a women's volleyball player like Misty May-Treanor, but pretty good, nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it's an official Olympic sport, like clay pigeon shooting, pistols and bowls, so the discussion is a bit moot. I suppose you could discuss how athletic a sport it is, but seems a bit futile. This sport is more about skills than grunts. It's actually incredibly difficult, you should try it. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No Explaination of when a Blank End occurs

It does not explicitly state when a blank end occurs. At least not with the term "blank end" because i just read most of the article, and then searched for that term and i see no description. I'd imagine something at the end of the first paragraph under Scoring saying: "If either team has no stones in the house, a bland end occurs." or "Scoring requires both teams to have at least one stone in the house, otherwise it is a blank end." Actually it seems I saw that incorrectly the first time, it seems they would score a points if only one team's stones are in the house. So a blank end only occurs if there are no stones in the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.150.85 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's because nobody has any idea what's happening in a curling match. The whole enterprise is like some sisyphean nightmare. I am going to nominate that this entry gets deleted so we can start to forget that curling ever existed and clear this whole enterprise from the collective consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you lack the mental capability of understanding a simple game such as curling. It's certainly no reason to delete this article. Maybe your ignorance of the subject is a good reason why you have no basis as to critiquing the sport in anyway. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, don't feed the trolls; curling-bashing does seem to be a particular pleasure among the vaguely informed. The article is somewhat confusing regarding the definition of a blank end -- the first time the expression comes up is in the context of the team with the hammer going for a blank end rather than just one point. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed; Too Confusing for People New to Curling

The structure of the article doesn't make sense to me. The article does not explain how something as fundamental as scoring works until the 2nd half of the article. I don't need to know the intricate details about what materials are used in brooms or how the ice is prepared until much later in the article. Before going into such detail the article should make it much more clear exactly how the game works and how it is scored. These things are probably obvious to the people that edit the article, but don't forget that many people reading the article may have never even seen a game or are in the midst of watching for the first time while trying to figure out what's going on. I think the whole thing needs to be restructured to proceed in a more logical ordering. Mickeyg13 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Lot 49a^talk 06:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also concur. There needs to be a simple concise explanation of the rules of the game and score towards the top of the article. There's currently waaaaay too much specialized detail cluttering up the article, and concealing the essential aspects of the game. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Broom (brush) or Mop?

The article says that the things the crullers scrape the ice with is a "broom" (or brush). But they look more like a mop. They look nothing like brooms, so I am thinking we should change the article to be more reflective of the actual equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The term is "broom"; doesn't matter what you think it looks like. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some information about the development of the equipment. Were earlier curling brooms, typical household items? Or were they designed specifically for the game? When was the switch to the "mop" style (although, it looks more like a floor duster to me)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.157.207 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the players one one of the women's teams yesterday was using an old straw broom as a balance. The article does say they were similar to household brooms originally. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Play clock

So, the article says each team has 73 minutes to play. What happens when a team's clock run out before the last end? Is it like chess, where the expired clock means forfeited match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.167.71 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Must the stone be "curled"?

Thanks to the Olympic commentators and this article, I now have a decent understanding of the rules and strategies involved with curling. However, I do have some questions that have not been covered by either source. One, it appears the stone is always released close to the center line and never near the edges of the sheet, which would increase one's odds of "sneaking" a stone into tight areas. Is it because one HAS to launch from the hack, and that limits the angle? Two, is it MANDATORY to "curl" the stone? If not, why is a straight release never used? Further on that, what happens if MORE curl is put into the delivery? It seems that the same amount of rotation is always used, but why is not clear.

Thanks very much. I'm not sure why some people don't like curling's inclusion in the Olympics. I second the notion that it's more athletic than it appears, and besides, do bobsled, luge or ski jumping involve sheer athleticism?Mike in NJ (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll answer some of your questions here. It's released close to the centre line, because when one delivers, they follow an imaginary line between the hack and where the skip holds the broom. This means that they will always be close to the centre line, even if the broom is held at the side of the sheet. There are no rules stating this has to happen, it's just a matter of angles. One could theoretically "sneak" a rock, by sliding out to the side and then sort of turning it in, but that would be very difficult to manouvre, and would require a lot of practice for something that would be rarely used in a game. So yes, the rock needs to be launched from the hack, and that does limit the angle. As for curling the stone, this is just common sense. If you release without a handle, the rock will end up picking its own turn along the way, and so it's unpredictable. If a curler wants the rock to stay as straight as possible, they will give more of a spin to it. Oddly enough, the more spin the rock has, the less curl it will take. Changing the spin though is rarely used, as it again requires more practise. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Earl, thanks for taking the time to explain everything, especially the dynamics of the spin. The only point I might argue is that of it being common sense; unless one plays (as I believe you do), I'm not sure I'd classify this as being intuitive (but that's nitpicking). Otherwise, I duly appreciate your clarifying these points. Thank you! Mike in NJ (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. Thanks for the insight, it's good to see people interested in the sport :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone who understands wikipedia should fix this

The stat's for Sweden's wins on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women's_tournament Are wrong. But it's uneditable - or I don't understand how to. It says 4-1. Well they started the day at 5-1, and just lost, so they should be 5-2. Even ignoring the game they just lost against Canada, the score has still been wrong all day. Though I'm not sure why we'd ignore that game, because apparently Canada's win from the game has already been recorded just above on that same page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.80.165 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 

Scoring: Proposed New Language

I recommend scoring be described more clearly, like this:

After both teams have delivered eight stones, the team with the stone closest to the button wins the end. The position of the losing team's one stone closest to the button is used to determine the winning team's score. The winning team is awarded one point for each of its own stones, that is closer than the opponent's one closest stone. The positions of all other opponent's stones makes no difference in scoring.

gary84 —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Curling stone

"The top and bottom of a curling stone are convex. The surface in contact with the ice, known as the running surface, is a narrow circle 0.25 to 0.50 inches (6.3 to 13 mm) wide."

This is wrong. The top and bottom are CONCAVE, not convex. It's not a circle. It is a ring approximately 1/4" wide and a diameter of approximately 5". The phrasing used in the article is extremely misleading.

--Roofred (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Curling in Culture

The 1999 film My Life So Far starring Colin Firth memorably features curling, and does a pretty great job of bringing the sport to life. I would think to include a list of cultural and artistic works that feature curling might be helpful to people interested in developing their understanding and appreciation of the sport. --TBliss (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. I know that The Simpsons recently featured Curling promanently in an episode. Jonathan Coulton also has a song titled Curl that is all about Curling. Curling has also had several video game releases as of late both on the Wii and Xbox 360. Curling seems to becoming more of a part of popular culture than in the past. --docdude316 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction of citation

Citation number 20 'Fans at Olympic curling are far from stone silent' is pointing to the wrong article on the Washington Post site, although this is likely an error on their part surely a more reliable link should be used? Alternatives are:
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100221/SPORTS/100229927/-1/rss
http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/article/Fans-at-Olympic-curling-are-far-from-stone-silent-374548.php
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/sports/article/Fans-at-Olympic-curling-are-far-from-stone-silent-374548.php
These are all the same article, written by Noah Trister, AP Sports Writer
86.155.84.14 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Somewhat of a'

Used in Good Sportsmanship section, this is bad English. 'Something of a' should be used instead. Xylophile (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected reference

Note #20 hyperlink needs corrected. Should be to here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022100733.html

Thanks! 199.20.2.1 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)