Brushing
Brushing video analysis with OnForm
While an instrumented brush is ideal for capturing the force profile of an athlete, video analysis is equally essential so that the athlete can get visual feedback on their technique, and know if they have made the correct and desirable adjustments to their technique on subsequent bouts. In this article, I’m going to use Celeste Gauthier, of Team Émilie Lovitt and Toronto Metropolitan University, as a model to describe some useful tips in video analysis of brushing. What is OnForm? OnForm (formerly Hudl Technique) is a coaching application that supports recording and playback of video along with the ability to annotate video with diagramming or audio overlay to provide coach feedback. Videos are stored in the cloud (instead of on your device) and can be shared with athletes (or other coaches) on a coach license. In addition, OnForm now supports multi-camera inputs so one can capture simultaneous video from different camera angles, similar to other apps such as Switcher Studio.
Ten reasons why an interval time might be inaccurate
This article is joint work with John Newhook of Dalhousie University in Halifax. Using interval, or “split” times, can benefit the delivering team because an interval time provides a proxy measurement for the velocity of the stone at release. With an interval time, the two brushers can utilize the time to assist with their weight judgement, and the delivering player can use a split time to assist their delivery with respect to weight control. However, relying on splits – either back-line to near hog line or, less commonly, tee-line to near hog line – can be complicated. One complication is that, to be more effective, the team must map split times into other timing systems, such as hog-to-hog times or hog-to-far tee-line times if they are to utilize the throws of the opposition team to help judge the speed of the ice. But the mapping of split times is by far not the only complication in their use. In this
Does handedness matter in brushing?
Functional laterality – that is, handedness, footedness, and ocular dominance, are important physical characteristics in many team sports, such as ice hockey and baseball, or in racquet sports such as tennis, squash, and badminton. Handedness is often less of an issue in other sports, particularly individual sports, such as darts, or golf. Handedness, in particular, has been studied extensively [1,2]. Handedness refers to an individual’s preferential use of one hand over the other due to strength, quickness, or dexterity. The preferential hand is commonly referred to as the dominant hand. About 10% of the human population is left-handed, though this proportion does vary slightly by gender (males 10.5%, females 8.7%) [1,2], with 1% of the population being ambidextrous, having an equal ability with both hands. Taylor Stremick of Team Ashley Thevenot of Saskatoon being tested on a CurlSmart instrumented brush at the Sutherland Curling Club. To a significant degree, in many sports the advantage for a left-handed athlete is simply
Instrumented Curling Brushes and the CurlSmart brush
I frequently receive questions about the instrumented brush that I use when testing athletes. An instrumented brush is a “game-changer” in the coaching of the sport of curling, because the effectiveness of an athlete cannot be determined statically (for example, by using a bathroom scale). Rather, brushing involves movement, and an instrumented brush is able to measure various characteristics of an athlete’s brushing profile to give essential guidance to a coach to help improve their technique. The instrumented brush that I use is a prototype developed by Dr. John Newhook of Dalhousie University, and is described in some detail in the article shown at right. In a nutshell, the brush captures (via a strain gauge) the vertical force generated through the handle at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. The force data from the brush is transmitted to a laptop Windows computer running proprietary software that (a) converts the values from the brush into “forces” in kilograms, for better understanding
Curling brushes – Try before you buy – Part Deux
On April 13th I’ll be one of the coaches at the Ontario Curling Council U18 Academy camp at the Dundas Valley Golf and Curling Club in Dundas, ON. In the first part of this article I mentioned that one of things I like to do when coaching at a camp is to bring along a large broom bag with an assortment of brushes from my collection, so that the athletes have an opportunity to try out various brushes that are different from the one they use regularly. It is unsurprising to me how frequently an athlete will profess a liking for a particular brush in my collection that is different from the one they have. Most often that difference relates to the handle, and not the brush pad. While debate over the utility of the various brush pads from the different manufacturers continues, what is frequently overlooked are the handles, and the characteristics of a given handle does impact the
Can I use a bathroom scale to test brushing performance?
Recently I was asked if one could use an ordinary bathroom scale to test an athlete’s brushing performance. Obviously doing so would constitute a static test, so its usefulness is limited since brushing is an activity of movement; so much of brushing performance is dependent on one’s body position and footwork when one is moving with the stone down the sheet. Moreover, we also know that brushing performance (typically both stroke rate and vertical force) tails off with stones thrown at higher velocities. And, finally, we also know from mechanics that, formally, there is no generation of power without movement. In a static test with the brush on the scale, no movement is produced. Nonetheless, a static test using a bathroom scale can give an athlete an idea of the vertical force they can generate down the handle of the brush in a stationary position. It is extremely unlikely that this force will be duplicated on an ice surface, but