Talk:Curling/Archive 1

Sectioning

I hope that everyone likes the sectioning that I have done. It seemed to be getting a bit unwieldy. Also, a clarification on the four rock rule: it applies if the rock is removed, not moved. Timc 17:43, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the sectioning and I like all the changes that have been made. I spemt some time on this article serveal months ago and it has been greatly improved since then. And thanks for correcting my error (I think it was mine) about the four-rock rule. Trontonian 01:53, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Clarify?

Hi, I'm unfamiliar with this sport and I was thinking it might be beneficial if someone who is familiar could clarify what kind of "stick" is used to push the stone? You might want to consider adding an "equipment" section and folding the "curling stone" section into it. Also you may want to put the description of the game before the description of the rink/ice surface. Just a few thoughts. Rethcir 18:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

No stick is used. It is pushed by hand, sort of like the walk-up release used in bowling. The only sticks are the brooms used by the players sweeping in front of the rock to help control speed and direction and the broom that the player uses for partial support when throwing the rock. Rmhermen 19:04, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

If you are handicaped, you can use a stick to push the rock Earl Andrew 23:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess they don't broadcast that on TV. Is handicapped curling an organized sport (like Paralympic ones) or just an adaptation? Rmhermen 13:50, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

There are different kinds of curling for handicapped persons, such as wheelchair curling, or blind curling. The stick allows people who have trouble crouching down into position to push the rock. The official rules of curling do not specify how the rock is delivered, just where it is to be delivered, however I believe there may be rules for the higher levels of curling about this. I coach special olympics curling, and some of the athletes have to use sticks, but most don't. Earl Andrew 15:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added some text on the "delivery stick" to the Curling stone section. The Rules of Curling says that they are indeed allowed. --Timc 18:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This statement under Origins and History is just a purely speculative statement and should be remove as it is unreferenced and adds nothing. "though this is now very seldom in condition for curling because of warmer winters.[citation needed]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.112.167 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ice surface

"The curling arena is a sheet of ice ... carefully prepared to be absolutely level ..."

Is the ice really prepared to be absolutely level? I thought that ideal ice was actually very slightly bevelled, to make it a bit more swingy than level ice. --timc | Talk 19:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the ice is supposed to be absolutely level. Efforts are made to ensure that the temperature is even when the ice is flooded, so that the ice freezes perfectly level. Over time imperfections develop though, so its re-flooded once in a while. Generic Player 01:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I sat and watched the olympic games this evening and the commentator and her "expert", or whatever it is called in english, (the expert was Elisabeth Gustafsson, she has won the world championship several times). Well, anyway, they said that the ice is supposed to be a bit (a very little bit) like a bath tube, if you know what I mean. Slighly pipe formed. --Zoeds 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely completely level. The swing comes from the pebble applied to the ice surface, not any kind of slope or bevel. In fact, we're re-flooding the ice at our club this Monday as Generic Player describes above. --Neil 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If the ice was "bath tube" shaped, it would not be possible to make an in or out turn to either side of the ice, since you would not be able to throw a rock uphill. The ice is absolutely level with a "pebble" put over the entire surface as evenly as possibly by sprinkling water droplets, and then clipping the points off any excessively large "pebbles". Making the ice is as much an art as a science. I would honestly have to ask, though, how exactly is it that you would make ice freeze in any way EXCEPT level? That kind of engineering could take an awful lot of time, a lot more than they have between draws. Zoeds, I am sorry to say, I think you have either misunderstood or the broadcasters didn't understand. I can't imagine Elisabeth Gustafsson making a statement like that unless she was having a little fun with the commentator.--CokeBear 16:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible I misunderstood what they said. Good point about how hard it would be to make turn "uphill"... I surrender ;)

No need to surrender. At the 2006 Olympics, the ice was indeed shaped slightly like a bath-tub...ever so slightly. At the beginning of the tournament, they were having a terrible time getting any sort of swing at all, so the ice makers built up the edges to allow more outside-in curl. Of course, this meant that there was very little inside-out curl! It is typically desired, hoewever, that ice be flat.

I'm positive that the consensus of the top 10 icemakers in the world would be that the surface of a sheet of curling ice should be "as close to level as is practically possible" (before pebbling) not "absolutely level". There is no such thing as absolutely level. To what infinitesimal incriment is "absolutely level"? Of the blades that are used to scrape the ice, the best are completely straight to less than .001 of an inch over a 5 foot span. Yes, at big events some icemakers will put a 'dish' into the ice to encourage curl in a certain direction. ICE DOES NOT FREEZE COMPLETELY LEVEL! This is a common misconseption. If you have a blade as precise as described above and you scrape the ice after a flood, you will see glaring differences in relative freeze height

Three Rock Rule?

Would it be useful to talk about variations on the Free Guard zone? When I occasionally watch televised curling from Canada, they seem to use a Three Rock rule for the Free Guard zone rather than the Four Rock rule used in international play. Jim Huggins 01:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Canada now uses the four rock rule. - Earl Andrew 02:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even number of ends?

Games I've seen on TV don't always go to an even number of ends. Sometimes they stop after the ninth end, but I am not sure how this is decided. Is it just when one team is down so many points that they give up and don't bother playing the last end? As an example from today, Canada was up 6-4 over Denmark starting the 9th end. Canada scored 3 points that end, and that was the end of the game. How come? Generic Player 06:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a team will "give up" if you will, if they are are too far behind. This is what happened. It is incredably difficult to score 5 points in one end (what Denmark would have to have done) especially against a team like Randy Ferbey. Denmark chose to "shake hands" after 9 instead of wasting time by starting a 10th end. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slightly expanding on that idea - in order to win the game, they would have had to score 6 points, which would be virtually impossible against a strong team. If they miraculously scored 5 to tie, Ferbey's team would then have the advantage of last rock in the extraend to score a single point. Being down by 5 points even with 2 ends left to play is a huge obstacle to overcome and is normally reason enough to concede. To score so many points you are counting on your opponent to make many mistakes, something high-calibre teams don't normally do. --CokeBear 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Button

"The button" is not really explained, should it appear in the sentence about the "pin or tee"? I've never heard of anyone drawing the tee... --130.91.50.231 19:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering this myself, the term just kind of pops up into the article without having been explained, I assume the button is just another name for the center of the house and belongs in the mentioned sentence, if so including it along with pin, tee, or spit would help clarify, especially as it seems to be the term of choice for the article (though I don't want to make the edit myself not being positive of the term's meaning). Gheorghe Zamfir 17:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The button is the circle in the middle. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Could you please make the intro more explanitive? I dont understand what Curling is, and as it is formated right now, I have had to read the whole artical to get a basic idea of what the rules are, and how one would go about playing a game of curling. I believe that this is a major problemand would apprecate if someonecould fix it. I am Broken 10:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Sure, just let me know what explanitive means and I'll get right on that. 171.161.224.10 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a description entitled Basics of the Game to the intro part. I also reordered the intro so the history appears together. Hope this helps. 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Dsenese 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

lennyzileg- >>== Huh? == Could you please make the intro more explanitive? I dont understand what Curling is, and as it is formated right now, I have had to read the whole artical to get a basic idea of what the rules are, and how one would go about playing a game of curling. I believe that this is a major problemand would apprecate if someonecould fix it.<<

exacly why i clicked on this discussion page. the page provides a lot of info but doesn't clearly explain what the heck is going during a game in terms an ignorant person can understand.

this one of the most fustrating wiki pages i've come across.

Equipment

It would be nice to have a little more detail on the brooms - specifically some mention of so-called "corn brooms." The photograph implies that there is really only one style of broom. I may do this myself, but what do others think? Fishhead64 00:19, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

There are many different kinds and different brands. I'm not an expert on all of them, as I just have my Brownie (the one in the photo) and it works just fine for me. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The top and bottom surfaces of a curling stone are convex, not concave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeevo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting clean-up

I just did some general formatting clean-up of this page and put the sections in order of oldest first (by date of first comment or question in the section). Please add new sections to the bottom.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 14, 2006, 00:09 (UTC)

A major reformatting might include - directing the terms to the already existing Wiki glossary of curling terms. Also, the end sections - championships, clubs etc. could be broken out into their own pages (I don't know how to do this). this would reduce the size and make it more likely to featured. I would like to help do this but don't know how. Dsenese 16:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, curling history and culture could be its own page - this would take the curling culture section and much of hte intro out and allow for more in-depth coverage of these. Dsenese 16:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Strategy

Although the article describes the scoring, more on strategy would be nice, perhaps with a graphic or too. Thanks Jimaginator 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A Little Confusing

I'm having difficulty understanding the following sentence in the article: "The two remaining players follow the rock and assist in guiding its trajectory by sweeping the ice before the rock, causing the rock to decrease the rate at which it curves in its trajectory, or curl, usually under direction from the skip or thrower and their own instincts for the weight of the rock, as well as stopwatch split timing." What is meant by the "weight of the rock"? Does this refer to the actual weight of a rock in pounds or kilos, or is this a slang term? Additionally I'm not sure what "as well as stopwatch split timing" means or refers to in the sentence (what exactly is it in addition to?). I'd much appreciate some clarification here, if not in the article itself. - 64.81.198.176 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to add a section on curling terms sometime this evening. Check back in a couple hours and see if that helps. For now, weight in curling refers to the momentum imparted to the stone by the thrower. A physics person (which I'm not) could explain the difference between momentum and speed. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 15, 2006, 01:15 (UTC)

• • I added a section "By the Numbers" which attempts to explain the timings used in curling (stopwatch split timings), mostly in reference to the numbers you hear on the TV coverage. A reference could be added to this section. This section could most certainly be cleaned up as well, because although I'm not new to curling, I've never played and so I might misunderstand these numbers. Bollinger 17:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)bollinger

Major Rewrite

In the hopes af gaining featured article status while the Olympics are on, I rewrote several sections of this article. I added some more detail to several areas. I removed a lot of repetition and redundancy, cleaned up grammar and sentance structure, and probably introduced some new problems.  ;-) Please everyone who watches this, add to (or subtract from if needed) what I've done so maybe we can make the front page.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 15, 2006, 04:18 (UTC)

Well, I was planning a rewrite myself, being a keen curler myself, although I wont have time during the Olympics because I am working on Olympic articles, mainly Curling at the 2006 Winter Olympics. One thing I wanted to do was have an illustration of how to deliver a rock perhaps with photos. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing that really needs to be done is to re-record the spoken word version. If anyone wants to give it a go. I might have a chance to try it, but I've got a steep learning curve here, having never done it. Also, I have an artist friend who could give us a good illustration, but a photo would be best. I'll see what I can find.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 15, 2006, 15:02 (UTC)

Photos are what I meant. Also, I like the idea mentioned above regarding a section on strategy :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it will take a curler to write that. I only curl in my dreams. ;-) — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 16, 2006, 03:31 (UTC)

This article is really looking good. One improvement I'd like to see, to make it better still, would be some labeling on the graphic depiction of the sheet. Thanks to this article, I've learned some terms like "hogline" and "button," but it would've been easier if they'd been added, as labels, to the picture. If it doesn't clutter up the picture too much, perhaps the "tee line" and "house" could be labeled, as well.

By the way: is "hogline" one word or two? It's represented both ways in the text.--RattBoy 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The google test states "hog line" and "curling" having more hits, but "hogline" is also common. Since you are forcing the issue so soon, I can have a look at the article on Saturday. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply below under Updeting the audio file. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 16, 2006, 06:29 (UTC)

In all fairness, someone needs to take some time and mention the levity. Interest in curling is often attributed to the amusement of a sport involving sweeping with brooms... I know that my first exposure was a tongue-in-cheek protest in High School about Olympic recognition. PhatJew 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating the audio file.

I would like to read this updated article for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia. I have a background in broadcasting (ok, it was 20 years ago in college, but it's like riding a bike), and I think I have a pretty good voice. I'd like to make the recording this Sunday (2/19/06). If you have any more changes to the text you've been thinking about making (like a section on strategy) please try to make them by Saturday night. I'll take the text as it appears first thing Sunday morning to develop a script to read from and have the recording posted by Sunday evening. Unless, of course, anyone objects to the plan.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 16, 2006, 04:13 (UTC)

• Earl Andrew — Sorry, I don't mean to "force the issue so soon." What I said is "I'd like to" do it this weekend, and I was planning to follow that schedule. If that's not good for any contributors, then I'm happy to wait. If you can get what you want added by Sunday, that's cool. But if you can't and you want me to wait, I'll do that too. One point to consider, since Strategy is a completely new section, it would be simple to just record it later and drop it into the recording. In terms of audio editing it's pretty simple. So if you (or someone else) can't write the new section by Sunday, then I can still make the recording and add the new section later. Much more important would be for anyone who plans major changes to the existing sections to get them done before a new recording is made. I'm working towards dialogue and consensus here, I'm not editing by fiat or deadline. Sorry if it seemed I was.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 16, 2006, 06:31 (UTC)

Throw order

• Someone recently changed the order of the paragraphs describing the players. The former order was:

1. Skip
2. Third
3. Second
4. Lead

This seemed to make sense because the Skip should be listed first as team leader, then the remainder of the players in the order they throw. If I understand correctly that gives us this:

1. Skip - throws last
2. Third - throws third
3. Second - throws second
4. Lead - throws first.

The new section order gives us this:

1. Skip - throws last
2. Second - throws second
3. Third - throws third
4. Lead - throws first.

I was just going to revert the edit, but I thought maybe I was missing something. What should we do here?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 16, 2006, 21:01 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, the skip doesn't necessarily throw last rocks. Some teams have him throwing third rocks. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Skip/Third/Second/Lead or Skip/Lead/Second/Third or Lead/Second/Third/Skip are defensible using different criteria. The current order makes no particular sense at all. Best might be a mention of the Skip as the leader of the team in the opening paragraph, and then listing the players in normal shot order Lead/Second/Third/Skip. unfutz 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try that and see if there are any objections.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 17, 2006, 05:11 (UTC)

Introducing Concepts

Several game specific terms are used before they are introduced and explained. Consider this example: "Strategically, the lead usually has similar shots from end to end, usually throwing guards or draws. The lead usually sweeps for the second, third and skip." This example uses the terms 'end', 'guard', 'draw', and 'sweep'. These terms have not been explained to this point in the article, and are not explained for some time, yet. Perhaps the article could be restructured so basic game play is covered first, where 'end' and 'sweep' are mentioned. Then in this passage, care can be given to introducing 'guard' and 'draw' while waiting to fully expalin them.

Women vs. Men

Is there any difference in rules/weight of stone for women's curling vs. men's curling?

Nope -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are differences in play but not in the rules. Due to the simple difference in physical strength, men will generally play a riskier strategy knowing that they can throw enough weight to get out of a bad situation with multiple takeouts or be able to carry a stone further by stronger sweeping, whereas women will play stronger positionally and must use more precise weight, more of a "thinking" game...--CokeBear 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Curr as the root for curling

I can't find a reference for what is stated in the article. The article says that an "old verb" curr means "to rumble" and that the sound of the rocks travelling led to the word curling. The Oxford English Dictionary supports the idea that the word 'curling' came into being before the verb "curl" came to have its modern meaning. But the only reference to 'curr" I can find says it's a Latin verb that means "to run" (English words like 'current' and 'occur' come from it as does the Spanish 'correr'). So, my question is in what language does/did curr mean to rumble and what's the reference to suggest that this is etymology of 'curling'. Ideas? I've notice the article is well-reference on-line so we should be more explicit about this. Dsenese 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the cur or curr is from Scottish Gaelic, but I believe it may have been an old Gaelic dialect. I am trying to find a reference to help with this.--CokeBear 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

cur c.1225, curre, earlier kurdogge, probably from O.N. kurra or M.L.G. korren both echoic, both meaning "to growl." Etymology Online Lookup--CokeBear 23:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is some further supporting information, in the M-W dictionary definition of cur: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cur

Main Entry: cur

Pronunciation: 'k&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, short for curdogge, from (assumed) Middle English curren to growl (perhaps from Old Norse kurra to grumble) + Middle English dogge dog

1 : a mongrel or inferior dog

2 : a surly or cowardly fellow

--CokeBear 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to McBain's http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb12.html#cur 'cur' means "a placing" from the infintive 'cuir' meaning to put. This seems equally plausible as the etymology - curling being "placing stones" There must be a dissertation somewhere on this!! LOL Dsenese 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason that you guys seem to be getting so confused is that you are looking at dictionaries for the wrong languages!! Curr is not an English language verb, nor a Scottish Gaelic language verb. It is a Scots language verb (both the Scots language and the English language evolved from Middle English). If you refer to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, which is handily available online:

• [1]

then you will find the references you seek. I did link to the relevant entry in the article, but for some reason that links to a page without the surrounding dsl frame.

Out of interest, also have a look at the entries for Spiel and Bonspiel.--Mais oui! 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree the word "curr" is the root of curling why do you choose the definition of the word to be "A soft, murmuring sound." rather than "A slight touch used to move something". Both seem likely to me given that curling is about moving and the stones do make a noise! So can anyone point to a source that says which it is? Otherwise it seems like original research to me. OoberMick 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor clean-up

I removed many "(See ________ below)" from the "Basics of the Game" section, as they really broke up sentence flow and made it harder to read, without contributing much to the section. I also incorporated much of the information in the parentheses into each sentence to increase readability.

04:21, 25 February 2006 Daler

Pro Curling?

The article says there is no pro curling. But that's not true: http://www.worldcurlingtour.com/—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.72.130.88 (talk • contribs) .

I think you will find that most of the participants in the WCT are NOT curlers full-time. They usually have jobs outside of curling (or sometimes relating to curling, like sporting goods stores). There are very few curlers (or more likely none) who make a living from curling and curling alone, and I am quite certain that is what was meant in the article. No one is PAID to curl the way a professional baseball player or hockey player is paid. They win cash prizes by curling. --CokeBear 07:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Then there are people like Sherry Middaugh whose only earnings come from curling because she is a "full time mom". There have been years where she has won more money than her husband. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Going with the same analogy on prizes - does this mean there are no pro golfers because they only earn money through prizes? The only reason there are no 'pro' curlers is that the money isn't 'big' enough to support a full time curling team. The other thing going against curling is that there are 4 (or 5) curlers on a team whereas there is only one golfer, ie. no need to spilt prize money in golf. Atrian 16:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the players in the "Players" section

Hello all. As you all may know, the skip does not necessarily plays last. Thus the last player who is not the skip is known as "Fourth". Thus perhaps we can modify this section to better reflect this?

Stones and Rocks

Isn't using both terms interchangeably a wee bit confusing? Perhaps (while keeping a statement that both terms are used) we should use just one. Personally, I'd go for "stones" as it seems to be more of an official term, and is used internationally while "rocks" is North American. At the moment, we have one term being used in one sentence, and another being used in the next, which looks wrong to me. Anyone have any opinions on this? Lurker 11:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion at all, and using the same term over and over again would be annoying, especially when there's a perfectly good synonym available. unfutz 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially since both terms are pretty much used interchangeably. When watching a curling broadcast they use both terms regularly in Canada... I think it would be more confusing to favour one over the other because they are so frequently interchanged.--CokeBear 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there is no references section. Also I think the lead should be longer and summarise more of the article content. Worldtraveller 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead a bit. unfutz 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead does coin toss?

I was reading through the revamped article and noticed that the discussion on the lead says she's responsible for the coin toss. In our club that responsibility falls to the third. Is our club odd-ball, or is there a mistake in the article?

--Neil 06:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it may well vary from club to club, but in every club I've been at, the coin toss has been the responsibility of the vice. Mgriffin 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it varies by region. I was hoping someone would fix that, as I was unsure which player did it in other areas. I am just familiar with the lead flipping the coin, which is done here in Ottawa. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The official rules on the CCA site just say a coin flip starts the game, but says nothing about who is responsible. However, I found an article at the site (http://www.curling.ca/fan_central/features/from_the_ntc/article.asp?id=47) that never mentions leads doing the toss at all. How about we move the responsibility to the third, and just chalk Ottawa up to being oddball? :)--Neil 03:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be NPOV. I suggest mentioning both. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean non-NPOV :) How about we just remove all of this from the individual position descriptions and move it to the "Last rock" section. Then we can say something like "The coin toss is usually conducted by the thirds, although this may vary by club."

The coin toss is usually conducted by the thirds, or by the leads, depending on the club" :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Player's stats

A section on this would be beneficial. For example, where is the accuracy rating come from when not every throw is neccessary aimed at the button. --Kvasir 08:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Grafitti

The 01:02, 25 May 2006 24.89.250.251 (→Brooms (or brushes)) edit seems to be grafitti/defacement. --HunterZ 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There should be a section on the criticism of curling. After all, it is highly disputed whether or not curling is a game or a sport. Alot of people say that a sport where you can drink beer and play the sport at the same time is NOT a sport.

Um, you can pretty much do that with any sport, like softball or bowling. Doesnt mean the professionals do it, and therefore doesnt make it any less of a sport. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Skip and players

There is an article of Skip (curling) out there in Wikipedia. It is also found in this article. I suggest moving both to a Players of curling article, in an interest to make things simpler and shorten the Curling Article. I can't take the charge, but someone should. Minnesota1 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same thing, but I think it should be its own article. It should deffinately be expanded though. A picture of a skip in action would be nice. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Playing surface

I have added that the temperture is -6 °C, could someone more knowledgable expand on this (is it below, around, is it maintained thoughout the game, etc.). Rich Farmbrough, 10:51 22 September 2006 (GMT).

I have changed the temp. to -5C or 23F as this is a generally accepted surface temperature... also that is it maintained near, not at this temperature. Changes to the surface temperature are moderated by brine temperature, so the surface temperature isn't actually directly controllable. Different icemakers will keep the surface at different temperatures to their liking.

"Notable" curling clubs

This section is getting out of hand -- it seems to be getting used for link spamming. For example, I personally have curled at the Crestwood in Edmonton, and I don't think it's really notable within Alberta, let alone the world. If no one objects, I'd like to clear out all clubs from this list that don't have their own Wikipedia article. Indefatigable 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At some point, I'd like them to be listed in their own articles. Eg. List of curling clubs in Ontario -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put forward a motion to either have the "notable" clubs in their own article, or have the list significantly trimmed. I'd like to see all clubs, without a blurb beside them telling why they're notable, removed. I'll suggest a tentative date of 1 March 2007, by which time this will happen unless someone objects or significant discussion is raised. H8jd5 12:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the notable curling clubs section is still there. I agree with H8jd5. If it can't be explained in a few words why the club is notable, then it should be removed. Sure, people like to promote their curling clubs, but this is not the place. Also, I'd like to see consistency with the dashes in this section. I'm not fixing it right now because I'm not sure which way it should be, just that it should be consistent. SongMonk 11:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Extensive" Knowledge of classical mechanics?

The "Additional Information" section begins thusly: " The means of preparation one must take to be competitive in the sport of curling go beyond physical fitness and above-average agility. The competitor must not only be able to have an extensive understanding of classical mechanics with an emphasis on friction, but must be able to apply this knowledge to the playing field. This is a commonly overlooked fact. Curling is an excellent example of the adage "easy to learn, but difficult to master". "

Am I the only one that finds this to be hyperbole at best? I've never seen anyone claim that a billiards player requires "extensive knowledge of classical mechanics," yet friction, inertia, and similar are all important ways of describing what is happening in billiards from a classical mechanics perspective. It seems to me that this same thing is true of curling: I doubt that the ability to work mathematical equations involving movement and friction would significantly help a curler, or that curlers as a group have a better than average knowledge of classical mechanics. I will, however, retract my complaints if someone presents a credible reference source that claims otherwise. Charlie 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: Broomball

Who put in the line about broomball dying out because they no longer get old brooms from curling. That is utter nonsense! I played broomball 20 years ago and we were using the hard plastic/rubber brooms that are shown in the broomball entry. That entry also mentions that broomball is strong in North America and growing globally.

Does all the trivia come from the same source and does it need to be verified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ydgrunite (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

No mention of WCT

There is no mention of the World Curling Tour, the boycott to get it started or the event as it currently exists. I think there should be at least a mention of it, if not a heading devoted to this. Thoughts? H8jd5 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was deffinately thinking of creating an article on it. If you can help me gather some info on the controversy, I can start one up. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created an article on the Grand Slam. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

minor vandalism

I tried to remove the last line of the current intro: "Curling is the most worthless sport ever." but that line doesn't appear in the text when I click to "edit this page." Alloy 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hans Wuthrich

I think the Hans Wuthrich link refers to a different person from what the context intends. The article is about a 1930s soccer player whereas the reference is to the modern day ice marker. 66.130.14.118 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)gpaciga, 24 February 2007

I have created a new page for Hans Wuthrich (icemaker), feel free to expand on it. --Bdoserror 06:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now all we need is an article on Dave Merklinger. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is getting overly long

It's great that everyone puts their bit of info in, but in general the article needs to be more concise. The noteable clubs section is rediculously long and the triva section is getting overly fluffed up. Really, is: "Ben Mayhew, son of Alan Mayhew, is competing for Nova Scotia under Team Dexter in the 2007 Canada Games." a piece of noteable curling triva? Could every team at every competition be justifiably listed as trivia? The length of the article makes it a difficult and frustrating read, start to finish. This article should be made much more brief.

History

What, nothing on the history and development of curling? Bit of a major omission, don't you think? 86.134.13.111 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. A vandal had removed the history section a few weeks ago, and no one realized it. I re-added the content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Earl, the content you added, I believe is the vandal's edit. There are some inappropriate words in the history section... do you have or know where the edit previous to this one is? H8jd5 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it, sorry about that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

2/16/2010 1:30 CST - Apparently another vandal has been at the history: Dead squirrels indeed. -timdarklighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.79.10 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Many things in this article are hinted about but never actually explained. For example, is it legal to hit another team's rocks with your own rock? What happens if you leave a rock in your own house? Two players may use brooms to sweep a path for the stone up until the tee line--but there are two tee lines on the ice! Which one--the one farthest or nearest to the thrower? Why should it make a difference who has the last shot? How exactly does a guard stone work? Can a team knock out its opponents' rocks that haven't even been played yet? What happenes if an opponent is attempting to sweep the other team's rock (behind the tee line, where it's legal to do so) and they hit the rock with the broom? If a rock must cross the far hogline to count, how in the world does it get anywhere near the center of the house? (Or is it not supposed to?)

Needless to say, this article leaves a lot of things unanswered. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All of these questions are rather obvious. It's like asking, "are monkeys allowed to play hockey?" But, I'll try to answer your questions here.

• is it legal to hit another team's rocks with your own rock? Yes. I can see this might be necessary to put in the article. Maybe.
• What happens if you leave a rock in your own house? Not too sure I understand this question.
• Two players may use brooms to sweep a path for the stone up until the tee line--but there are two tee lines on the ice! Which one--the one farthest or nearest to the thrower? Well, considering most players release the rock well after the near tee-line... But, perhaps noting wear they normally release is something to note. I've been meaning to put in a section about delivery. Plus, all players may sweep the rock, it doesn't have to be just two.
• Why should it make a difference who has the last shot? This question is actually valid. Obviously though, you want to be able to throw the last rock.
• How exactly does a guard stone work? You mean strategically? We do need a section on strategy, yes.
• Can a team knock out its opponents' rocks that haven't even been played yet? See my example on monkeys.
• What happenes if an opponent is attempting to sweep the other team's rock (behind the tee line, where it's legal to do so) and they hit the rock with the broom? A section on "Burning" the rock would definitely be useful.
• If a rock must cross the far hogline to count, how in the world does it get anywhere near the center of the house? (Or is it not supposed to?) Not sure I understand this question. The house is PAST the hog line. Perhaps you're confusing it with the back line? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on the part of the original questioner, it may come down to a simple clarification that both teams are shooting from the same end, that they switch ends of the sheet after each, er, end, and that they're competing in the same 'house' for points. At that point, a lot of those questions become more obvious. --Bdoserror 05:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OH. So they both shoot from the same side of the ice? Oh... now that makes sense. Oh, wow, that makes sense now. I think that may need to be included in the article.

Actually, I think a key to go along with the picture may be a huge help. It seemed to me from reading the description that the blue lines were the tee lines, the lines at the back of each house were the hog lines, and the lines in the middle of each house were for decoration or something. Now I see that the line behind the house is a "back line", the line in the middle seems to be the tee line, and the blue line is the hog line. Am I right? In fact, let me see if this is how the entire process of delivery works: I grab a rock, step on the hack, start to run from the hack forward (this whole running part I assume is what happens, I sure couldn't find it in the article) with the stone in my hand, I run across the house that's painted on my end, past the tee line, and then throw the stone before I get to the hog line. If I cross the hog line, that's a penalty and the rock doesn't count.

So now that that's clear (it really needs to be in the article, but that can wait till everything's clear, and then I'll put it in there myself)... what happens if I do happen to cross the hog line before I throw it? Obviously we can't go back in time and "unthrow it"... what happens if it goes all the way across and hits a rock on the other end? Is that okay? What if I let go of the rock before the line, but keep on sliding and pass the line (without the stone)?

If you cross the hogline without releasing the stone, it should be removed from play immediately. At the club level, it's on the honor system like most other things. In higher levels of play, there is an electronic sensor in the stone to let game officials know when a violation occurs, so letting the rock go all the way down the ice would rarely happen, if ever. If a club player waited until his stone went all the way down the ice before deciding to call a hogline foul on himself, you'd probably question is motives ("That didn't do what I wanted...ummmm...Hey guys! Hogline Foul! Can we reset them?")!

It's OK to slide past the near hogline (and all the way across the ice if you wish), as long as you have clearly released the stone prior to the stone's touching the hogline. Many players slide well past the hogline when they throw. Jzerocsk 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you Bdoserror for AGF'ing. As for Mr. Andrew, thank you also for your help. You helped answer many of my questions. Okay, so now I see that both sides share the same house, got it. I think I've got the tee line, also. I see now why the last stone is important, what the four-guard rule is, and the use of guard stones, but again that stuff is only hinted at in the article and never actually explained. I was very confused about "takeout" throws, I understand that more now...

The only other thing is that as you said, we need more clarification on burning, but really we need more clarification on penalties in general. Okay, I'm willing to bet even the dumbest reader figures out that touching the opponent's rock is probably illegal... but what happens because of it? Same thing as, oh, what if someone's trying to sweep and accidentally hits a rock that's in play. What happens then? What if an illegally thrown rock hits another rock before anyone can stop it? (Or do people never try to stop illegally thrown rocks?) I'm still not sure on these things, and greatly appreciate your help. With any luck, I'll be able to edit and help keep others from misunderstanding these things in the same way. Thank you both very much. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some good questions raised. It's interesting to observe how parts of the game that are obvious once you've played or watched a little bit of curling are completely unclear if you haven't.

I added a brief section about touching/burning stones, because the article did not previously give much detail at all on this. --Jzerocsk 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're starting to figure it out. BTW, you don't run with the rock, you slide out with it. That part is definitely in the article, look for "delivery". There is a very detailed section on how to deliver the rock. I can look through the article and attempt to deal with the issue of illegally thrown rocks and burnt (touched rocks). -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both so very much, I guess I get it now. It sounds like a very fun game, I may have to watch it come 2010. I think I can start editing this page while actually having a fairly decent idea of what the article's talking about. (I guess my eyes must have glazed over some when I looked at "delivery" the first or second time, now that I re-read it, it becomes definitely a little more clear.) Thanks again. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wait until 2010? There are World Championships every year, and tons of other events too. You can also search for curling on youtube to see some shots. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Touched Stones

I noticed a discrepancy between a brief paragraph under Sweeping regarding touched stones and the dedicated section I put up recently (my section said that a burnt stone between the hoglines should be called immediately, while the other bit said that all stones must come to rest before the violation is called). After doing some research, I realized that it was due to differences between CCA and WCF rulebooks (CCA specifies waiting until all stones come to rest). I moved the other bit into the dedicated section and then attempted to expand the whole thing taking into account both rulebooks. I was quite surprised at the subtle differences between the two. Using the brushes to sweep in front of the rock is used to slow it down in order to control the location where it lands. Hopefully I got everything right.

I also noticed that the USCA rulebook has and additional nuance - if a moving stone is touched by its own team, it is removed immediately no matter where the infraction occurs, then the opposing skip can decide whether to leave the stone out of play, place it where he thinks it would have landed, or if the violation occurs inside the hogline setting the touched stone and any potentially impacted stones where he believes they would have stopped.

I'm not sure if it's worth trying to write up every little rule variance between different governing bodies, but I think the differences between the CCA and WCF rules are significant enough to mention. Jzerocsk 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B Class, due to its level of detail and organization, although it desperately needs proper citation. I have assessed this as mid importance as the sport plays a strong, but not vital, role in Canada. Cheers, CP 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Olympics

It seems that a curling exhibition was also part of the 1932 Winter Olympics at lake placid. Canada beat the US 12 games to 4...

See:

• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0616FA3C54157A93CAA91788D85F458385F9&scp=170

• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C13FB3A5A16738DDDAA0894DA405B828FF1D3&scp=3&sq=Winter+Olympics+Curling&st=p

• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20910F8355B13738DDDAF0894DA405B828FF1D3&scp=4&sq=Winter+Olympics+Curling&st=p

Does anyone know a good source for the complete history of Curling at the Olympics? Dspark76 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be an overhaul of this page. I want to learn how the play and scoring works. In my opinion, there needs to be a simple explanation at the top of this page. Currently, it's very detailed, in several sections and buried in the last third of the document after origin, history, equipment and other stuff not germane to understanding how the game is played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.253 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Metric units on sheet measures

5 inches is not 5.00 meters (that's crazy, a sheet about 15 feet deep)!!! 5 inches equals 12.7 cm. (or 0,127 m.). I changed it on the wiki but administrator decided it was not a good contribution. Please, take a look again and change it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.213.253 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Skips

Under the skip heading it talks about skips who don't throw last and mentions Russ Howard. This is probably not a good example for a couple reasons. Except for the 2006 Olympics, Howard always threw the last rock. And also, his team and most Canadians didn't consider him to be the skip. Brad Gushue is generally considered to be the skip of that team, even though he didn't call the shots in the house. The IOC however has a rule that made Howard the skip officially. This is all trusting my memory, which has failed me before, so I don't want to make the edit myself. Priester (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Verb

I teach English and I have always wanted to know what verb should be used with curling. We 'playl' 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)

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)

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)

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?[ [User:Mike in NJ|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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The 2002 Canadian film "Men With Brooms" starring and directed by Paul Gross, Centres on the sport of curling. The offbeat comedy tells the story of a reunited curling team from a small Canadian town as they work through their respective life issues and struggle to win the championship for the sake of their late coach. It ended up grossing over $4.2 million, all of it in Canada, making it the top-grossing Canadian English film subsidized by Telefilm Canada between 1997 and 2002.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_With_Brooms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.12.234 (talk) 21:11, 27 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)

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammer / the hammer

I see several instances of both "a team has hammer" and "a team has the hammer". Are both correct, or should one set be changed? —WWoods (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strategy Section uses "language" that hasn't yet been explained

The strategy section uses several phrases and "language" that has not been explained\defined yet, such as "hammer" and "guard" stones. Before the strategy section there is nothing explaining what the "hammer" is. The "Strategy" section would make sense and fit the flow of the article if it were located after the "Hammer" section and before the "Conceding a game" section. Also, if someone knowledge about curling could add a sentence describing a "corner guard" and a "center line guard" that would be very helpful. Thanks 67.187.76.129 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar fix

In the Curling stone section, "The handle is attached by bolt running vertically through a hole in the centre of the stone." should read "The handle is attached by a bolt running vertically through a hole in the centre of the stone.". An "a" is missing before "bolt". Thanks 99.224.31.250 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 28 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)

Can anyone explain to me why the team with the hammer doesnt just keep blanking ends with the hammer until the 10th end, then score 1 to win??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewesaba (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the situation being described (and prevented by) Curling#Free guard zone. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

how do

How do the sweepers avoid stepping on the stones when its common that some are in the way? Also there back is bent heavely how do they avoid hitting it with there leg? If they do hit it with there leg what happens by the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

They just avoid them. And if they hit a stationary rock, they're just put back. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the skip of the opposing team had the option of either putting them back or having them removed? I also got the impression that the spirit of curling sportsmanship called for the skip to put them back unless he or she was certain that they had been hit deliberately -- in other words, taking the option to remove them was a slap in the face at the other team. (While watching curling in the Olympics, I amused myself by speculating on what other sports would be like if they operated in the same collegial way.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.71.70 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction starts off clearly and mentions four team members; It then mentions what "the curler" does, and mentions what "sweepers" do. Next, it discusses the strategy of the curlers. That's not clear. If "the curler" means the thrower, for example, then it should say "The stone is tossed by [the] curler who.... Or ... [a] curler who ... depending on whether they are all called curlers or the term applies only to the tosser (apologies to those in the UK). A reader would have no way of knowing. "The sweepers" can be inferred from context, but the rest is unclear. Readers need to know if there's a thrower, a tosser, a bowler, etc, or merely a curler who sets the stone on its way. Hagrinas (talk) 15:57, 20 April 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)

There are two points to consider here. First, this area is to discuss the page, not launch personal attacks. Second, the rules for articles say that they are supposed to be based on fact, not opinion. The dictionary defines the term sport. Whether or not I like the definition is a matter of opinion. But it's a fact that words have established definitions that are consistent with everyday usage.

Curling is referred to as a sport in everyday language by those familiar with the sport. Golf is a sport. Chess players lose more weight during a tournament than many you would consider athletes, and concert violinists expend more energy than javelin throwers. I personally don't consider ballroom dancing a sport, nor do I feel that way about ice dancing. Curling requires a great deal of physical skill and strategy. Shooting foul shots in basketball requires no strategy. But nothing in this paragraph beyond the first sentence has any relevance because it's not up to me to define sport or athlete or anything else. It's not up to me to debate the dictionary or Wikipedia's policies nor is it up to you.

Hagrinas (talk) 16:56, 20 April 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)

The article does not make it clear whether there are regulations dictating what's legal for a brush. A reader cannot tell if a brush could be made with a squeegee, with razor blades, with a heating element, or a three feet wide brush head with the ends having curly motorized flapping wings that spit out shaving cream. I presume there are rules, and these examples would be absurd, but all the article says is that things changed over time to make things more beneficial. It could be that the current equipment is in use simply because it was found to be optimal, or it could be because it's within the parameters of the rules. Either way, the article should say why the current brushes are used and how it relates to the rules.

Hagrinas (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scoring: Proposed New Language

I recommend scoring be described more clearly, like this:

After each team has 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).

The section should be concise and comprehensive. It says that up to eight points could be scored in an end. The article mentions eight [or ten] ends. The section says traditional scoring has a middle row with a column for all possible points. It shows a maximum of 15 points. There's nothing in the section that clarifies the obvious mathematical contradictions. If 15 is the maximum possible points, then more than 15 points is obviously impossible. If eight points is maximum number of points scored in an end, then it's seemingly possible to score more than 15 points. It seems unlikely, but certainly not impossible. But nothing is the section explains why 15 is the maximum number of possible points. Hagrinas (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

15 is not the maximum number of points a team can score. Clubs can make scoreboards going up to any score they want, really. The one at the Ottawa Curling Club, where the photo was taken goes up to 15, but I've seen other numbers as well. The reason being, it is rare to have scores that high. It is even rarer for eight points to be scored in one end as well. Games are usually conceded before the score become that lopsided. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

broken reference and questionable statement

"Making and maintaining perfect ice conditions is as much art as science." Is this statement adequate? Also, the source is broken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling#cite_note-8 -> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/topstory/story/4136247p-4728348c.html Gloomofdom (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What it is is a cliche; perhaps it should simply vanish. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that source is indeed borken, and try as I might on the paper's website, I couldn't find the article. I agree that re-wording would be best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just excising the sentence seems the best thing to do, so I've done that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Throughout the article there are many words that appear in italics. The words tend to be curling terms, but I'm not sure having them in italics adds to the article; it might actually detract somewhat from what is overall a well-written article. Should the italics be removed? --Robthepiper (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)(talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Stones

1. Could someone familiar with the topic please update the information about who made the Olympic stones? Article currently mentions the stones for the '98, '02 and '06 games, but not the 2010 games. Note that the ref used does not mention the 2010 Games either.
2. This section should probably also mention the use of the Blue Hone granite for just the running edge to extend the supply of this material. Meters (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

artificial ice

Presumably all competitive games are on artificial ice, but when did this start, and when was 'pebbling' of the ice introduced? Hakluyt bean (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I have yet to have heard of any competitive game being played on "artificial ice". Not sure when pebbling the ice first came into practise but I assume it's around the time that the game became more organized and national competitions started to form.--Firewire87 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be confused by the term "artificial ice"--it means water frozen by a refrigeration plant instead of by the weather. So curling on natural ice is extremely rare compared to artificial ice. I assume artificial ice became the norm in the late 19th century or early 20th century. Indefatigable (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this blogpost, the ice pebble developed in Canada, presumably when the curling rinks were moved inside. It seems as if the author of the post is saying that the pebble replaces the natural frost which covers curling ponds. "Artificial" ice probably became commonplace as curlers began to play in covered rinks, to protect curling ice from the influence of weather, possibly around the end of the 19th century. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I started curling in the early seventies in rural Alberta, and what we referred to as "natural ice" was still relatively commonplace then in the smaller covered rinks that did not have budget to afford an ice plant. Natural ice was also pebbled; the reason for the pebble is so the rock would slide more easily to the other end. Without pebble the average curler would have great difficulty getting the rock over the far hog line. I do not assume anything but I would expect a bit of research would determine that the technique of pebbling has been around a lot longer than we have had artificial ice in large, indoor, controlled ice surfaces. Garth of the Forest (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport vs game

Just to head off any issues with an editor who seems to be on a one man crusade to change curling from a sport to a game, it is clearly stated that curling is a game(edited out my mistake) sport on the websites of the official governing bodies in the UK, Canada, England, Scotland, New Zealand, and the USA. It is also clearly stated by the World Curling Federation. The only English-speaking federation that uses the words sport and game interchangeably is Ireland. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it you mean the reverse, that these sites refer to it as a sport? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DOH! Yes, of course I mean sport. Thanks for pointing out my numptiness. I made a small edit to my original post. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Official governing bodies" LOL okay, I mean official governing bodies for competitive eating call eating a sport. A neutral source is not a governing body. Whatever though I stopped caring anyway. This site is usually okay until you run into an admin or someone who's given more power than the average user, then it's up to them what goes on the page.

And by the way it's not a "one man crusade", I go on a forum and these threads about curling come up everyday, it's almost become an Internet meme now, everyone else laughs but doesn't care about changing Wikipedia, I did until every edit just got reverted every time.

It may not be a "one man crusade", but it is certainly a minority opinion. In Canada, the word "sport" is usually used as a "subset" of the word "game"; so, for example, we might refer to the sport of football as the game of football. We would not likely refer to the "sport" of chess. Most people use the word "sport" to refer to something that requires some degree of physical fitness, and, during play, a level of physical exertion, and usually refers to a game that may be, but is not always, played at a competitive, or professional level. I believe curling more than amply meets these criteria and I have referred to the game of curling interchangeably as the sport and/or the game of curling for my entire life. I believe those who wish to banish the use of the word "sport" in reference to curling are pushing a point of view that is not accepted by the majority of people interested in curling, either as participant or spectator, i.e. that curling is a game for old men and other people who aren't fit enough to play "real sports". That is complete hogwash. Yes, like golf, curling is a sport that can be played (even competitively) later in life - unlike, say, professional football or professional boxing. I compare this attitude to that of an extreme hockey fan thinking of hockey as a "real man's sport" but soccer (what the rest of the world refers to as football) is just a game, played by kids. I think the rest of the world where soccer (er, I mean football) is a bigger sport than hockey would find this attitude at least as offensive as competitive curlers like myself who know the degree of physical fitness and skill that is required to compete at a national or international level, find your comments. Are you also crusading to have shot put removed from the category of "sport"? What about fishing? Hunting? Get my drift? Your troll forums are not considered RS for encyclopedic purposes. Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an Olympic sport that requires a great deal of athletic skill as well as a great deal of training. Olympic curlers work out for around 4 hours a day. It is easy for those who don't curl, or who have only tried it once or twice to dismiss it, but that's plain ignorance. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How the sticks work?

I see it says that the sticks change the ice to move the 'puck', but HOW does it change it? I have always wanted to know. Thanks- Meap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meapyeah (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism to the page

Looks like there is some vandalism to the page but when I went to edit it, it didn't show up on the editing page, so I don't know how to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.82.17 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted, however it appears there's a glitch on Wikipedia that is preventing it from showing up (I still see it, but when I click to edit, it's not there). -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Proposed addition:

In the 1969 film, On Her's Majesty's Secret Service, there is a scene at Piz Gloria that includes curling.

Crollo23 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem to be of great significance, but then neither is the instance in "Help!". To pass as popular culture it really needs contribute something of significance that speaks to how we live or think or reflects our history. Some of these instances in movies are just background. Ex nihil ^(talk) 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

When to concede in Olympic curling?

The article says "In the Winter Olympics, a team may concede after finishing any end during a round-robin game," but after the 7-point end in the UK vs US 2014 round-robin women's game commentator Pete Fenson said a team couldn't concede until after the 6th end during the round robin. Pete's a bronze medal winner; did he misspeak, or is the article wrong? Jere7my (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's possible the rule has changed, as this is an instance of a rule that changes frequently. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is usually a minimum number of ends that needs to be played in these top-level competitions, which I think is usually six ends. I remember it was like this for one of the Briers where a team was outscored greatly and had to pay a fine for conceding earlier than the sixth end. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Detroit Club

I don't understand the need to single out when the sport started in the US. they are not very relevant to the sport. I propose to remove the paragraph regarding the Detroit curling club. 161.43.253.77 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC) mikitukka

Agree that this para should go but not because it is US-centric but because there is no reference cited and a bit of research following the links in it would indicate that the key points are not actually true. Ex nihil ^(talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree that the US info is inappropriate as they are not a world curling power, and had considered changing it myself. One could make an argument to exchange US info for Canadian info, which would be very relevant - but in the interests of neutrality, perhaps replacement with info on the sport's arrival in North America would be best.Ian mckenzie (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed; no apparent interest expressed in retaining it. If replaced please ensure that it is i). True ii). Significant iii). Matches related pages iv). Has adequate citations. Ex nihil ^(talk) 05:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

History

This section could be expanded to include the very important movement from outdoor to indoor ice, from natural to artificial ice, and the origins of pebbling. Ian mckenzie (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How Many Rings?

The introduction says: a target area which is segmented into four concentric rings.

The "Equipment" section says: A target, the house, is marked at each end of the sheet. The house consists of three concentric rings.

Which is it?

Four - There is a 12-foot, 8-foot, 4-foot and one-foot ring which is commonly referred to as the button. --Coppercanuck (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Old People Sport

Under "curling culture/amateur sport" the article states that: "because accuracy, strategy, skill, and experience are more valuable in curling than traditional sports virtues of speed, stamina, and strength, most competitive curlers are older than their counterparts in other sports." Like a number of sections in the article, this statement lacks citations, and would also seem to be demonstrably false. From what I've seen, the world's top curlers are getting increasingly younger. Also, what "traditional" sports are being used as a benchmark for age? Some of the top skiers are in the 30s, and a few are still competing in their 40s. 142.132.10.229 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like any sport, younger people are going to have the advantage of youth, but there are plenty of old curlers are still active and very good, like Glenn Howard, Jeff Stoughton and Sherry Anderson just to name a few. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Curling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415082409/http://www.anchoragecurling.com/evolution.htm to http://www.anchoragecurling.com/evolution.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015113707/http://cbc.ca:80/documentaries/curlingrichardsons.html to http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/curlingrichardsons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)