I would guess that maximizing the number would not always provide optimal results. I don't curl but if you ever watch curling you can see that they aren't always trying to provide full force all of the time. I'm sure that having a quantifiable number that gives an indication of how hard they're sweeping at any given point could be useful.
Yeah, it's all about fine tuning the speed of the rock so it lands exactly where you want it to go. Curling is basically shuffleboard but you can adjust the slipperiness of the track while the rock is in motion. If the rock is already slowing down at the right rate (or not enough!) you definitely don't want to be sweeping.
I do wonder where the sport originated. Ice shuffleboard is straightforward enough, but who was the genius that figured out you could sweep the ice to control the rock better. Why were there no killjoys yelling that it was cheating? How can this be an Olympic sport but dart throwing isn't?
> I would guess that maximizing the number would not always provide optimal results. I don't curl but if you ever watch curling you can see that they aren't always trying to provide full force all of the time.
Sure, absolutely.
> I'm sure that having a quantifiable number that gives an indication of how hard they're sweeping at any given point could be useful.
This was the part I was debating. How they're weighing frequency against force to reach a unified metric.
When and how much they apply that within a game is a separate issue.
