Indiscretion
Sorry Will, but you are WRONG! In your last Will’s World column (Lacking Discretion, Oct. 2009), you left squash and entered the world of tennis, where, according to you, foot faults are (in reality) discretionary calls and are not called very often in professional tennis.
As an ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) and ITF (International Tennis Federation) Referee at top professional events for many years, I can assure you that professional tennis officials DO NOT ignore foot faults. If you are seeing foot faults that are not called at the US Open, you are at the wong site or you have been playing squash again without protective eyewear!
Finally, to suggest that Serena Williams’ complete meltdown and default in her match with Kim Clijsters was in any way excused or justified by the linesperson’s foot fault call is to in some way condone her unacceptable behavior. Serena was wrong. The penalty was correct. The fact that Serena took two days to apologize for her behavior was as shameful as her words and actions on court at the time. End of story!
Sean Sloane
Haverford College Tennis Coach (retired as squash coach 7/1/09)
Will Carlin’s take on the rules of squash is, as always, provocative. Unfortunately he has it exactly backwards. The surest way for a referee to insert him/herself into a match is to choose which rules to enforce and which not to.
Jim Coddington
Eastchester, NY
Teeing Off on PAR
As I read your article on the HiHo/PAR debate (Teeing Off on Par, Nov. 2009), I was reminded of a doubles tournament that I played many years ago at a private club. A player hit the ball back to himself while he was well in front of the service line…a clear “let point” (”stroke” in singles parlance). The player, a member of the club in question, announced “we don’t play that rule here” and insisted that we play a “let.”
Those who know me will tell you that I’m a real stickler for rules, and I couldn’t help wondering what other rules were optional. Could we play double bounces? Serve three times?
There are many variations on squash that one can play. Those of us approaching 50 often play “long ball” or “half court,” and when there are more than two of us and only one court we play “three-quarter court.” Those variations are fun ways to practice…but in league and tournament play, we play PAR squash.
There will be rules in every sport with which some will disagree. The current rules of squash call for a racquet, a ball, eye protection…and PAR scoring. Where’s the debate? Play squash!
Stephen Ban
via Email
Why should anyone have to defend a sport or a scoring system that has worked so well for so long? Why should any of us have to adapt to something new if it isn’t an obvious improvement?
At [my coach’s] request I joined many other members of the Seattle community and tried PAR scoring at one tournament this fall in order to give it the benefit of the doubt.
If there was an advantage or improvement it certainly eluded me. There was confusion in scoring and the “flow” of the game was unnecessarily interrupted. Some matches were ridiculously short.
I fully support our League Czar in his enlightened decision to allow us to keep traditional scoring and respect democratic principles—one would hope that higher authorities would follow his example.
Tor Jernudd
Seattle, WA
At the age of 52, I have now been playing squash avidly for over 40 years! I owe SO MUCH to this game. The game of squash has introduced me to my best friends, built my character, built my career, and allowed me to relate to some of the great influencers in my life like Al Molloy, Sharif Khan and my father, Henry Foster. I have played with the old hardball, the 70+ ball, the softball, 15 point PAR scoring, 9 point HiHo scoring and now 11 point PAR scoring. Throughout the past 40+ years, squash has been one of the constants in my life, and my love of the game has never waivered…until now.
Eleven point PAR scoring has ruined our game. The “epic” nature of softball squash, the cat-and-mouse characteristics, the alternative strategies of “hand-in” vs. “hand out” play, even the advantage of the serve, have all gone out the window. For example, if I am victorious in the spin for serve, I now elect to RECEIVE. There is a clear advantage to receiving serve and a clear disadvantage to the act of serving with the current system. This disparity did not exist in hardball, as the serve itself was truly an offensive weapon. With the current system, the receiver is no longer subject to the mathematical disadvantage of a risky, aggressive return.
The game is now a sprint to the finish, rewarding aggressive shotmaking, minimizing the penalty for errors, and deemphasizing the importance of conditioning. For example, I no longer worry about maintaining a level of fitness before engaging in challenging play. I can now compete with 5.0-5.5 players after several weeks of inactivity without the slightest worry about getting winded. The points and the games are just too damn short. Heaven forbid one gets down by five points; the game is over. At the LA Athletic Club, we are blessed with a dozen players playing above a 5.0 level. Games have always been rigorous and hotly contested. Prior to the change in scoring, it was seldom that I would finish five games in an hour. Today, five games can be often completed in under 40 minutes. I can only imagine how short the games are at the 3.0 level!
I believe 11 point PAR scoring is also doing irreparable damage to the image of our game. We can no longer boast that squash maybe the world’s toughest sport…it is more like a game of ping pong for all of us other than at the elite level. I can only imagine the effect on grass roots tournament promoters, who are always twisting the arms of average players to compete. How can we justify charging them $100 to enter a tournament to play two 15 minute matches? Where’s the value proposition? How do you get them to come back?
In conclusion, if I want a workout these days, a get better exercise from walking 18 holes of golf than a 5.5 level squash match. This is a sad state of affairs. Our rule-making bodies have ruined our great game. You don’t run a sport for the PROS, you run it for the AMATEURS. Let’s go back to wonderful 9 point HiHo scoring before we lose even more participants.
As for me right now…anyone for a nice game of golf?
Jon Foster
by email
Regarding the squash scoring debate, I come at this from two perspectives—one as an avid, mid-40’s, 4.5 level club player, and the other as the dad of a very high level junior player. The issue that you highlight of the shorter match duration mostly impacts the junior game, and I think does a serious disservice to the development of the youngest players. Matches in the U11 and U13 divisions simply become too short. Momentum matters much more at that age, as players are mentally less equipped to stem a growing adverse tide, and once they are down by 5 or 6 points, the game is lost. Quick matches also fail to teach the importance of the endurance and fitness aspect of the game, which they will find matters greatly by the U15’s—regardless of the scoring system used—due to the length and intensity of the points. Also, with a typical junior player competing in maybe 3-5 tournaments per season, there are limited opportunities to experience the unique atmosphere of competitive squash at a serious venue, with a gallery and a referee. Fifteen minute matches negate much of this benefit. A solution at the youngest levels would be to play PAR 15 or 17 or maybe 4 out of 7 games at PAR 11, to keep them on the court longer. But on balance, I think HiHo would be preferable.
From my personal playing perspective, I hate that the sliver of hope that exists in HiHo when down 8-2 or 8-3 is now gone when you are facing a 10-5 or 10-6 deficit. The odds of winning 5 points in a row are simply too low. But chipping away at a lead in HiHo was always within reason, and the satisfaction of staging a comeback from a deep hole was always long-lasting. The tenacity aspect of the game has been diminished, and to me, that has always been one of our game’s best attributes. These days I play PAR 70% of the time, and after a year and a half of it, I am more than ready to move back to HiHo.
Also, the circumstances behind the scoring change—to rationalize the amateur and pro game’s scoring to cosmetically buttress the chances of a doomed Olympic bid—seems to me an inadequate reason to now stay with an inferior scoring system.
David Brail
by email
My best argument in favor of HiHo? PAR leads me to play less squash. I am a 3.5 player and like to play tournaments. At my stage of life (3 young children, working wife, active career myself), clearing a weekend for tournament play is a significant undertaking. I have played PAR tourneys in which over three days I have been on the court less than 30 minutes total. While the camaraderie, beer, etc., always makes tournaments fun, I am there to play squash. PAR to 11 at 3.5 can last less than 10 minutes. Combined with all the work I have to do to get to a tournament, too-short matches make tournaments much less appealing. My 2c.
Jonathan McMury
Marietta, GA
