// TALES FROM SHEET NINE


Format debates date back to stone age


By David Garber, Emeritus Editor, dj.garber@tds.net


debated, including the Olympic Winter Games’ impact on U.S. curling. Te purpose of this column is to offer opinion as food for thought, not solutions (that’s for contemporary HP staff, coaches and athletes to offer). I’ve looked at the men’s side only, since I was a decades-long participant in men’s com- petitive curling and, like every other guy, am thus qualified as a critic and expert. As far as I could tell, from 1957 until curling was a demonstration sport


F


at Calgary in 1988, the Olympic Games (or prospect thereof) had no im- pact on competitive curlers’ inclination to play down: there was no fund- ing, high performance program or world ranking to fret over. During most of this period, through at least 1981, the USA was a power in men’s world curling, champions in 1965, 1974, 1976 and 1978, and silver medalists in 1981, with but one losing effort (same as Canada!). Since that time, the men won several bronze medals, most importantly at the 2006 Olympic Winter games, but no silver or gold, and have had some poor showings. What happened to our consistency? Did changes in format or participa-


tion levels have an impact? No one knows for sure. Playdown participation levels


“Hell, I beat Bud (or Bobby, or Bruce) in the Tursday night league two


years ago (by three!), and he’s the world champ. I could be world champ. I’ll play down.” Or, “Hell, I beat (name) in the Acme Men’s Bonspiel Tird Event semi-final and he’s the world champ. His second can’t throw draws. My second can. I can be world champion. I’ll play down.” Tus spake Zara- thustra, and capable male curlers from Wisconsin, Minnesota and at clubs everywhere in the 1960s through the early '80s. In those days, playdown numbers were much greater than today. USCA records show 216 men’s playdown teams in 1974 (52 in Wisconsin


alone), and 243 teams by 1977. In the early eighties, several clubs had eight or more playdown teams; many had four (a club could send two teams to the next level if they had four or more play down). From time to time, national champions were beaten, if not eliminated, at club level (“Hell, I did beat ‘em!”). Of course, for much of this time, there were only 10-12 active curl- ing nations. Still, we were consistent winners, and that also included rinks from Seattle (world silver), Detroit, several superb North Dakota teams, and Massachusetts’ “Whiz Kids.” At the end of the era, newer rinks from Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin played well at worlds. Tese younger men’s rinks were world class, but were not able to win silver or gold. Why? Ten, the playdown participation bubble burst, or at least sprung a leak,


even as the number of club curlers steadied and eventually rose, while U.S. men’s results at worlds gradually declined. By the early 1990s, Wisconsin men’s playdown teams numbered only in the high 20s, down from a peak of


26 usacurl.org ))


or those who wish to see consistently higher finishes for U.S. curl- ing teams at international competitions, the subjects of format and team participation numbers, among other issues, are hotly


60. Why? Not the loss of the club identity for teams, which persisted through the 1980s. Can’t blame the Olympic Games. Tere was no “elite team funding” until the mid-1990s, and no worry about Olympic qualification until aſter 2000. I “blame” societal change between the 1960s and 1990. More men took a larg- er role in daily family activities, thus fewer men could spend several nights a week in the club until midnight, plus many weekends at men’s ‘spiels. Te trend has continued, with only 35 men’s teams competing towards= a


national championship in 2012 (and 82 more for the Club Nationals, which were created for men who could not make the commitment needed for mod- ern elite curling). How much do participation levels matter under the tradi- tional team selection system? Plenty. But in today’s world and Olympic competitive climate, standards are


much higher, and few teams can make the commitment to reach world stan- dards. It’s no sin and no fault when a curling athlete says, I have to raise a family and can’t make that big a commitment. But it is unrealistic when an athlete aspires to be an Olympic medalist knowing they cannot commit the necessary time and other resources. In the 1970s, the top teams curled at about 70 percent. Today, make it 85 percent or better. Part of the increase in shot making skill is more consistent, faster ice. But part is due to practice, practice, practice, and much better junior level coaching and instruction. Te great team theory


During the period of greatest men’s success, the USA produced arguably


its greatest three men’s teams ever, skipped by Bud Somerville, Bruce Rob- erts and Bobby Nichols. Each team was usually at his best under pressure, the higher level the better, which reinforced confidence. Tese teams regu- larly beat the great Canadian teams of the day. Te February 1975 Curling News reported that the Somerville team, competing in the Canadian Broad- casting System Curling Classic in 1974, beat Brier champs Orest Meleschuk, Harvey Mazinke and Hector Gervais. Nichols once related a humorous story from the Vernon Carspiel (that’s right, winners got cars), when his last rock in the final was swept all the way from out of his hand to … two inches past the tee, allowing a steal, and the loss. Point is, we don’t see many U.S. men’s teams in the finals of modern slam events. What produced these “great” teams, and how can we produce more like them to win more world championships? Recent changes in high performance programs and nation- al team selection processes are a rational attempt to try something new and not trust fate. Yes, the jury is out, but lack of a world men’s championship for 35 years indicates change is needed. From 1959 through 1986, only one losing record (tied with Canada!). Tat’s consistency at a high level. Championship format


During most of the period of great men’s success at worlds, the nation-


als format was pure round robin, winner goes to worlds, playoff only if top teams were tied. Yet, in 1982, curling wonks decided, “Hey, we should have the same playoff format as the Brier, get our winner used to sudden death semi’s and finals, maybe we will win more!” What happened? Not a U.S.


Continued on next page *


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40