SquashSite Let's Talk

AN OPEN LETTER TO Susie Simcock, Emeritus President, World Squash Federation

Dear Susie

I use the form of an open letter here due to the lack of time on this pressing matter.

The WSF motion, to be put at the federation’s AGM (18 th October) to compel a completely unsuspecting sport to move to universal PAR 11 scoring will do nothing to enhance the sport or help it to take its rightful place in the Olympics as the most athletic of racket sports. In my opinion, it will strip the game of a vital dimension.

It seems like a small group of officials have lost contact with their base in the sport and instead of defending the fundamental principles of the game are in the process of dumbing it down.

If we look at the evidence put before us to justify this move, it looks embarrassing. The motion states: ‘This motion is based on the main recommendation of the Working Group, this is, that the entire sport merges to Point-a-Rally scoring to 11 points.

I have looked into the research of the Working Group, discussed the methodology with the group's leader and looked at the results. I’d like to make these observations:

1. The leader was very disappointed with the take-up.

2. Of the 2,000 or so responses they had no idea, I quote, ‘whether this was 200 (self selected people) doing this 10 times each or not’.

3. The group does not think this is in any way a representative sample of the sport as a whole.

4. The group wanted to present what they had done and let it stand by itself. They were pushed to make a recommendation and stated: ‘we should not have been asked for it.’

5. A recommendation was made that in no way is based on the research.

6. When asked if there was a desire from those tested to abolish traditional scoring, the answer was “No, not at all”.

The research was very limited and in no way appropriate to the task of providing evidence for such and important decision that will affect the very nature of squash. The results do not say what is claimed for them. In essence, it is a sham.

The Working Group seems to have come under political pressure to make a recommendation that they know the evidence does not support. This is a scandal!

There is no need whatsoever to abolish traditional scoring and there is no ground-swell from the base of our sport. On the contrary, many highly experienced people at the base are, rightly, shocked at the move. But many are not even aware of the move. Even the working group found that 47% would choose traditional if forced to opt for unified scoring. This is not playing with a scoring system, this is playing with the fundamental nature of our game.

This needs immediate attention. The motion is based on a house of cards and should be withdrawn before it falls down pulling our Olympic dreams down with it.

Yours most sincerely

Chris Hadden
Squash Academy Switzerland
Creator ASB Rainbow Court
squash.academy@hispeed.ch

Certainly there has not been enoughtime for the grassroots, rank and file players that make up the majority of players around the world to trail or test the par 11 scoring.

In Sydney Australia we have been trialling the par 15 scoring system for some time and most of out competition players are now used to this.

There does need to be more time and consultation about this major move

Carin Clonda
CEO
NSW squash

It is unlikely that this decision will affect grass roots squash. I for one will play squash using traditional scoring whenever I please and the WSF can pee up a rope if they do not approve. If they try to force individual federations to adopt PAR scoring they will risk fracturing the world of squash which will cast a very negative shadow over our sport. I will be hosting my own tournament next spring and I will use traditional scoring as I have done in the past, if my local squash authority does not like that then they too can pee up a rope.
If grass roots does not follow the WSF then this initiative will fail eventually. Bottom line here is: people will use whatever scoring method that suits them regardless of what ANYBODY says.

Co-sign!

PAR-11 will significantly reduce the fitness requirements of the game, and in so doing, remove the badge of honour that so many amateur squash players feel they've earned by participating in one of the most grueling sports in the world.

If we need to consolidate on PAR, let us at least make it PAR-15, which much more often reflects the length of a traditional scoring match. If the pros still need shorter games, then they can hold on to PAR-11 while the rest of us use either PAR-15, or even better, traditional scoring.

This is a terrible rush to judgement, and consolidation of the scoring system in no way impacts the real challenges that squash faces in getting the Olympic and commercial recognition that it deserves. I can appreciate that the powers that be in squash are struggling to figure out what it will take to get our wonderful sport the respect it deserves, but trading the approval of elite governing bodies and media owners for the enthusiasm of millions of squash players throughout the world is a recipe for decline, not growth.

Please reconsider this radical decision, which will fundamentally change the nature of squash for so many millions of people that love playing this beautiful game more than any other.

I prefer par to 11.

Ian B.

Squash players have the reputation of being some of the greatest athletes on earth and I believe that reputation will be very hard to maintain if we adopt par to 11. It makes the physical requirements of the sport far too easy and erodes the very base of the game which is fitness. Squash is about pushing the physical limits of the human body and mind and PAR 11 makes this practically impossible because the games/matches are far too short. As someone else said, this is "dumbing down" of our game. We should NEVER erode the foundation of our game in the name of marketing or TV revenue. Squash should always prioritize fitness and if that makes it more confusing or boring for the average Joe to watch, so be it. BTW, didn't our sport enjoy its greatest heyday in the 70's and 80's (Barrington, Hunt, Jahangir) with traditional scoring?

I think PAR 11 is a very good scoring format - and I believe it should be recognised as the 'main' method of scoring for competitive squash. However traditional to 9 also has its merits and should definitely be at least retained as a valid alternative...

In my alternative universe, the scoring trend would go the opposite way: pros would adopt traditional 9-point scoring, which would be the standard for all of squash. But -- lets would be eliminated. Referees would have only two options: stroke or no stroke.

I know refs have a hard job, but the truth is that most lets are cop-outs on their part -- they're a way to avoid making tough calls when a player is fishing and should in fact lose the rally, or when it's simply difficult to say whether the interference qualifies as a stroke. If lets didn't exist as a safety net for close or dubious calls, you'd see many, many few stoppages of play --- players would simply work through minimal interference. The primary reason PAR 11 currently works for the pros is that the game is so rife with lets, it ends up feeling much like a traditional 9-point game, with many rallies ending with no point awarded.

Lets are the greatest shortcoming in squash, and PAR 11 exists as a way to accommodate the shortcoming, rather than fixing the problem.

The scoring does affect the grass roots level. We in the North West Counties Div 1 are having to use it this season. No doubt it will filter down the levels soon. I can see the attraction in PAR to 11, it makes the game more attacking. However, it without a doubt takes away the attritional aspect to a large degree. That in my opinion is a shame. If it were PAR to 15 there would be both attacking and attritional squash. The problem with PAR 11 at a level slightly lower than professional, is that players tend to have more runs of points - it is very very common for the average non-professional to lose 5 points quite quickly - and with PAR 11 that makes it extremely hard to win the game. PAR 15 or English to 9 gives much more of a chance of the player staying in the game, which makes the game longer (and consequently better for your health) and more interesting.

I don't think you can have more than one type of scoring for squash as a whole and so I would be in favour of a return to either English 9 or PAR 15. It seems to me that Squash didnt need to be made shorter - part of the attraction of tennis is that it goes on for so long. With squash matches over in the blink of an eye, it's difficult to get into a match.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Don't change anything. I cannot overestimate how important it is for you to not change the existing structure. Do not change it. If you play you know... if you do not play... please don't mess it up...


Adrian19

To All,

Do Not Change a Thing,

Squash's problem is not the scoring... If you adopt the PAR system you are creating problems...

Squash is known for its fitness etc. Add the PAR system and you kill that. Then squash will just be another game like darts. PAR is death to squash.

I just don't believe that the WSF can reasonably expect everyone to adopt PAR as the only scoring method.
If they want to find out just how much of an impact they have over the world of squash then they will be sorely dissapointed and embarrased.
THIS INITIATIVE WILL FAIL. A fact that I'm sure the IOC will take notice of, further hampering Squash's inclusion to the Olympic games.
Aside from all of that, I will reiterate my intention to play the game using the scoring method of MY choice.

Pedro wrote:I just don't believe that the WSF can reasonably expect everyone to adopt PAR as the only scoring method.
If they want to find out just how much of an impact they have over the world of squash then they will be sorely dissapointed and embarrased.
THIS INITIATIVE WILL FAIL. A fact that I'm sure the IOC will take notice of, further hampering Squash's inclusion to the Olympic games.
Aside from all of that, I will reiterate my intention to play the game using the scoring method of MY choice.

Pedro, I appreciate your point of view, and applaud your willingness to fight this switch, but if the WSF were to settle on this scoring format as the new unified scoring system, I think the pressure that people would eventually feel to adopt it would be significant. First order of business would be to convert all world championships they preside over (Senior and Junior Men's and Women's Individuals and Teams) to this scoring format. This change would put a lot of pressure on national squash bodies like Squash Canada to adopt this scoring format for all of its national championships, as it makes most sense to give your country's elite athletes experience playing with the format they will encounter on the world stage. In so doing, they will apply pressure to provincial bodies to adopt the same system in their provincial championships and other national team qualifying events for the same reason. I think before long, they might even take the decision that if a tournament is to count for ranking purposes, then it must adhere to this scoring system. I could still see city interclub leagues getting away with sticking with traditional scoring, but I think many tournaments that continued to use traditional scoring would suffer tremendously in terms of participation at the A-level if the provincial/national bodies took a hard stance in favour of aligning with the WSF decision by only sanctioning those events that adopted the new scoring system.

I think it would take a highly organized push-back, not only at the national level, but internationally as well, if the WSF makes this scoring system the new standard. Without such an organized resistance, I think the momentum generated in the manner I described will be very difficult to overcome.

Is the event you're running next spring a sanctioned event? Would it have the same interest in your squash community if it had no bearing on rankings? I also share your view that this decision could produce a great deal of acrimony within the squash community, which will in turn hurt our chances for Olympic inclusion, but I worry that in the end, we might end up with an inferior scoring system and no Olympic recognition. And all that we will have gained from the WSF's ham-handedness is a watered-down sport.

If you intend to fight this decision after it's made, then surely it makes sense to fight it now, doesn't it?

if this new par 11 is forced on everyone involved in squash, what will happen is that club players will just ignore it and play the way they always play. I remember when i started playing squash first, in an hour of playing we might play 8 or 9 games hand in/out to 9. if we had played a par 11 match we would probably be only playing for 10 or 15 mins!!!
what will eventually happen is we will have club players playing a whole host of different formats ie par 11, par 15, hand in/out 9. meanwhile pros will be par 11 and national comps will revert to either par 15 or hand in/out 9. the "reason" given for this new par 11 format was to get rid of the confusion with squash scoring. what will actually happen is that it will make it even more confusion, not just for people viewing squash for the first time but it will also be confusion for the players at club level, leading to arguements over what scoring method to adopt for a match etc.
squash is a highly respected sport for its skill level but ultimately its respected for the level of fitness required to play at a decent level. ask anyone who does not play squash and they will probably be able to tell you that its a sport of ultimate fitness and stamina. this is what makes squash appealing to people. par 11 scoring will take this well earned respect away from squash. when the respect has been taken away, squash will be left with very little appeal for anyone to take up or continue playing the sport we love. par 11 will kill the game. squash suffers enough already.
in the meantime, olympic officials will take one look at all this mess and walk away. our olympic dream shattered again.

I'm probably in a minority on this issue, but I feel that blame is wrongly being placed on the scoring system rather than on the players. The 2006 World open final, and the recent BO final [both, coincientally involving Palmer], were real monsters of matches, each involving more than 90mins of actual play. The length of a match is not directly related to watchability or play quality. For instance, the 2008 Bear Stearns Finlas between Ramy and Willstrop lasted barely 40 min, but much more athleticism and skill were packed into that short time than many 'marathon' matches. Both players were gulping huge amount of air in between rallies just because they were playing at such a furious pace.
The death knell should not be rung on the PAR-to-11 system on the basis that matches are short. As player fitness and shot-accuracy improve, the length of matches will also increase to 'normal' levels.

why would you want to blame the players??? let the pros have par 11 no problem, there was no arguement about that. leave the club and national players be. makes sense....

Manus is correct when he states that people will ignore the PAR scoring format regardless of who applies pressure to use it, National or local authority. I also appreciate the stand taken by Canuck but my point is this: offer ranking points all you want but when people stop playing in sanctioned events because the scoring format creates too many blowouts then what is the point of holding an event that is not friendly to all? Is it fair to expect players to travel long distance to play sanctioned events like Nationals or Provincials if they may only get an hour or less of total court time? The end result will be "in my opinion" event entries declining sharply over a period of a couple of years which could in turn affect the percieved popularity of the sport. This is why my event (not sanctioned) will stay with traditional scoring so as to cater to all of the players who pay there money and expect a fair amount of court time. If our A division would like to play PAR to 11 then as long as they all agree to it then fine by me, I'm open to all possibilities for scoring as long as it is okay with the players and not forced upon them.

I understand the desire to move to a more consistent scoring system. Squash to the unititated is confusing. Lets, Strokes, and No Lets are difficult to understand. (sometimes even for the "club player" let alone the unititiated) Having two different scoring systems in place just adds to the confusion. I am a huge supporter of "Squash in the Olympics" and if a move to a more consistent scoring system will help in that goal then I would support the change. However, from everything I have read and observed it seems that matches at the "club level" and within the Junior ranks will be significantly shorter under the PAR 11 scoring format. As has been previously stated, one of the important elements in playing squash is the fitness, stamina and endurance required to play the game. If a move to PAR 11 shortens the game and runs the risk of fundamentally changing the way squash is played then I would not be in favour of the change. There has been some mention of using PAR15 for the "club" player. I would be interested in hearing from people who have played under this scoring format. Are matches using the PAR 15 format of similar length to those scored using the HiHo 9 method? Ultimately, if we can achieve the goal of a more consistent scoring format without "dumbing" the game down then the game as a whole will benefit.

Regards,
Dave Leman
Chair, Junior Development Committee
Squash British Columbia

If the main objection to PAR-to-11 is short matches, a simple solution is to have matches as a best-of-seven games. This way, players will still have to be fit to win matches, while at the same time they will be mentally focussed on the tactics and strategies necessary to win in this format.

Another problem with PAR 11 is that it changes the WAY the game is played. Its not just the scoring system that changes, its the entire game as a whole and the way points are constructed because of it. I don't know about you but I think the sport was fine just the way it was. PAR has turned our sport into a shooting gallery which is more reminiscent of racket ball. When you change the scoring system this dramatically, you change the sport as a whole, not just how its recorded.

No matter what scoring format is used, squash will always be fascinating for those who play it. Squash can never be a shooting-gallery except for short bursts, because only a slow tight drop, or a nick, is finally going to win you the point, or set up your winning shot. Good players at all levels will figure out the right balance between attack and defence, depending on the state of the game and the opponent's style of play.

pedro has a good point there in his last post. if i am going to play in a weekend national tournament that requires hours of driving, paying for accomodation etc. i expect to get some good hard games and some good court time. if i am not comletely exausted and in pain by sunday evening i feel i have got nothing out of the weekend. hiho 9 will guarantee me a good weekend of squash. i could not be bothered going to a tournament with par 11 because at my average level, i know for a fact that court time will be significantly reduced and so will the quality of my weekend of squash.
there was a team event that i played in for years about an hour drive from me. the organisers decided to play hiho 9 but best of 3 games. the idea was to speed up games. loads of players dropped out because they were not interested in travelling for short games. that tournament after 24 years running is now finished indefinetely.
beware, par 11 will mess everything up. leave it to the pros.

In France, we (the guys) changed to PAR 11 scoring 2 years ago. At that time, almost all the players were against it, with the same (good) reasons as we can read in this forum. We thought that the game will not be the same.
Now, I think, almost all club players appreciate it. In fact, the difference is not that much to traditional 9 scoring. The duration of games are shorter in average (true) but not much.

This year, girls are switching to PAR 11. We are hearing the same story about the duration of matches and so on. And today, most of the female players are complaining.

For me, that is not a matter : whatever scoring we are using, the squash remains the same game, with the same interest and the same fitness required. The rest is purely in your mind !

Mike Courchevel wrote:For me, that is not a matter : whatever scoring we are using, the squash remains the same game, with the same interest and the same fitness required. The rest is purely in your mind !

If matches are taking on average 33% shorter than a traditionally scored match (see Martin Pearse article), I'm not sure how the difference in fitness can only be in your mind. The level of fitness required to play 33% longer at a high level is like night and day. Like I said previously, major changes in the scoring system will not only change the scoresheet but the WAY the game is played and the level of fitness required and therein lies the major issue with PAR to 11 in my view.

All the people saying that there isn't much difference in the length of the games - what are you talking about?? In the North West Counties Div1 we are now playing PAR 11. There is a manifest difference in the length of matches, and indeed the night as a whole (which isn't a bad thing actually..). A 3-1 match, which would have lasted 40+ mins previously, is now lasting less than 30. There is without a doubt a difference in the fitness levels required, and the attritional aspect of the game has gone to a large extent. How can getting rid of that aspect be a good thing? The stamina which used to be needed was something to be marvelled at. The Salma Shabana article seems to be concerned more with the fact that the new scoring is easier to understand and is less monotonous - that would be the same with PAR to 15, but would add backthe attritional factor. Why isn't this scoring brought back?