Letters April/May 2009

Not Up For PAR

I am writing to voice my displeasure with the new PAR scoring. I far prefer the English style of scoring points only on one’s serve. PAR may be fine for the professionals, but for the amateurs, especially ones at the lower end of the skill levels, it will be awful. I am 62, a 3.5-3.75 player, and my most frequent opponent is 57 and a 3.75-4.0 player. Probably two-thirds of our rallies are 4-5 shots or less (that’s total shots, not each) and a long rally is 12-14 shots total. In order to ratchet up the intensity and make every rally count, we play for $20 per match. Sometimes when we both are playing well, a 4-5 game match will last 45-50 minutes, and other times, we can play two matches in an hour or so. Almost every match has one of us getting a 7-1 or 8-2 lead and the other one coming back to tie and force overtime. What is lost in PAR scoring is getting your opponent stuck on a point for several [exchanges of serve] as you creep back into the game, point by point.

With PAR scoring, our matches would last 20-25 minutes, and of course we can play 2-3 matches. However, in tournaments it will discourage many lower level players from traveling and pay the entry fee for matches that will be lucky to last 30 minutes at best. With lower level players, it is unlikely that one will come from 5-6 points behind, eliminating much of the drama that can occur when you score on only your own serve.

Jeff Kindl
Metairie, LA

I would like to add my 2 cents to the discussion on PAR-11. I’ve been playing squash for many years now and I love this game, including its unique HIHO-9 scoring system. I believe that the scoring system is fundamental to the sport, and the psychology of the HIHO-9 system is very different to PAR-11.

We all know that HIHO-9 rewards the patient strategy, the attritional game, promotes fitness through long rallies and gives the opportunity for the incredible last minute comeback. There’s a deliberate and beautiful asymmetry to HIHO-9 scoring which is lacking in PAR-11.

I have tried PAR-11 and it does have its own merits I’m sure, but I see no reason to change a system that has worked well for squash over many years. None of the arguments that I have heard for introducing PAR-11 are very convincing.

It’s supposed to be better for tournaments because it makes the games shorter and more predictable. Well, that may be, but why does this benefit me as a player? I pay ever increasing tournament fees and get less playing time? It rationalizes the scoring system. True—but why pick the scoring system used by a handful of professional players over the one that is entrenched and used by all club players? How does that make sense? It will help squash get into the Olympics. I don’t buy that—I’m sure this is a minor issue in the discussion, and a disruptive and contentious change in scoring systems cannot be a plus factor in that decision.

My major concern about adopting PAR-11 is that it will ruin the game for the beginner, make squash much less attractive and eventually contribute to the demise of this sport. I don’t have a problem with using PAR-11 for the professionals to make the game more attractive for TV, those guys play a different game to me anyhow! But please don’t dumb it down for the rest of us.

Steve Jamieson
via email

Walking the Line

I just read [Will Carlin’s] article (A Little Relish With That, Mar. ’09) on Rafa (Rafael Nadal) and think it’s one of the most insightful articles I’ve read by anyone in a long time. Most of us (particularly the aging ones) are constantly walking a fine line between being competitive and maintaining perspective. I think you are right in pointing out that a relentless focus on winning can undermine both. Of course these attitudes aren’t static—the Rafa of present is quite reminiscent of the Fed (Roger Federer) of yesteryear (recall his 2001 Wimbledon 4th round!). So it’s up to us to walk the line.

John Fasullo
via email

Resurfacing Hips

I am writing to you regarding the article in the most recent Squash Magazine about “Hip resurfacing” by Dr. Friedman/Richard Millman.

I applaud Mr. Millman’s tenacity and drive to achieve continued success in squash, and as an avid, long time squash player myself, I can certainly appreciate his choice to undergo the surgical procedure in order to continue playing at the high level at which he is accustomed to playing.

I do not think, however, this magazine is the appropriate place to publish what amounts to a blatant, free advertisement. This procedure is not designed for every “young active” patient. And although the results may be impressive for a select few, there are many patients with whom resurfaced hips have not fared well. I am a practicing Orthopedic Surgeon (for over 30 years), and know that this particular procedure, as well as its predecessor, The Wagner Hip Resurfacing procedure (which was abandoned due to unseen complications), is under some scrutiny and review at present. The jury is far from in regarding longevity and complications. Therefore the glowing review regarding “The Birmingham Hip” thus far may be premature!

I have appreciated Mr. Millman’s many helpful articles in the past, alas, not this time.

Squash Magazine should stick to squash, and if you are to publish medical/surgical issues, perhaps you should have an internal medical board or editors within your organization to review such articles before throwing them out for public consumption. Thanks for your attention.

Joseph C Wu MD
Dept. of Orthopedic Surgery
Yale University, New Haven, CT

Editor’s Note:
While we appreciate the perspective put forth by Dr. Wu, the article on Hip Resurfacing never said the procedure was “designed for every young active patient.” The article also acknowledged that long-term results of hip resurfacing are not yet known. Finally, a squash publication is a perfect place for articles like this simply because the incidence of hip injuries is so high for squash players.