Good luck in Melbourne Keith.  I love to talk with enthusiastic players. Well, for the moment, I guess you just have to change tactics to suit the scoring as necessary.

Back to top

this will be my last comment on this subject for the time being as I have to save at least a little of my energy for doing what I love best.i.e.playing tournament squash for the next two weeks in Melbourne.From the feedback I have received,I suspect the preference for PAR or what I call traditional scoring(I refuse to call it hiho) is largely along generational lines.I have yet to meet a player over 45 who likes PAR.As far as watching is concerned,and I prefer playing over watching any day,one of the best matches I ever saw was Peter Nicol versus David Palmer at the Commonwealth Games 2006.The format?You've guessed it.Nicol won after a long gruelling match(as it should be)with lots of handouts of course.PAR is here to stay,it would seem,but I still lament the change,which I cannot get away from whenever I play Open or non-Masters tournaments.Now for Melbourne(not PAR of course).

Back to top

Personally, I think there is a place for both methods of scoring, depending on the standard of the players, the length of the rallies, the time constraints, the number of matches scheduled.  PARS definitely will shorten the time on court and that may not always be in the interests of the competition or players. 

On the Masters note, it sounds as though the Masters need to form an arm on the WSF to get better representation of all Masters players in all Nations. It could be that the O/35's play PARS and the O/60's play HiHo.  Until all Masters players are affiliated to the WSF they will not be eligible for a vote, so there it goes again.  Unaffiliated players are not supposed to be allowed to play in sanctioned tournaments.....ohhhh squash will always be broke and struggling while money drops out of the bucket. It is from the "bucket" that all this admin is afforded.

Back to top

Keith, you make quite a few sweeping statements. How can you say the only people who find PAR more exciting are people who dont play? I play and I prefer to watch PAR. I watched HiHo at the commonwealth games in 2006 and one game within a match went on forever with all the hand outs. Give me PAR for the pros anytime

I have also played hiho 9, par 15 and par 11. I prefer PAR. Why should you only get a point serve? PAR 15 is a good compromise if you feel  the duration of the matches are too short, however, I find the first 5 or so points are a bit dead in PAR 15. PAR 11 makes you focus from the start. Having said all that I currently play PAR 15 in comp and I am happy with that.

I get your point about consultation, but how realistic is it to consult everyone? It would take too long. And that doesn't stop you playing hiho 9 at your own club/league as long as everyone else is in favour.

Back to top

Squashgame had a big debate on this topic.  Just  reflecting on this, there is one thing to comment as a spectator, and another to reflect as a player, another as a Tournament Organiser, and so on.  Surely the PARS system only needs to be adhered to for major titles, and that can be decided by vote anyway. What suits the majority of players is what matters, and, as for the spectators and TV coverage and sponsors, wouldn't that be a dream if that was all the concerns were!

Back to top

Keith I know exactly what you are saying, yeah. . Your point is:

• The matches are too short using PARS especially if a match is lost in three games
• There is no time to pick up a shot lost due to error or winner hit.
• Fit players want longer matches to allow their fitness to shine.
• The time on court is reduced by as much as one third especially if the rallies are short.

Back to the question.  Decisions in squash are made through the affiliated Clubs, State and National Associations, and by counting votes. Firstly, it has to be an agenda item. Providing your Club agrees, your Tournament Committee agrees, your State body agrees, your National bodies agrees, and passes the vote onto the International Committee controlling the Event, the conditions of play can be whatever the majority want. It is a matter of the voting system. Wellll, from my experience, it is pretty hard to get everyone to agree on many things, and I guess Masters would be the same.  Those who like to run and stay on court and have long rallies want longer matches, those who are not fit want shorter matches, and so the old argument goes on.

Further more, I guess, if the Masters Tournaments are leadup tournaments to National/International Events that will ultimately be played, using PARS, that is how the flow-on goes.  No use practising with PARS if the ultimate event is to be Handin/hand out and so on. The same thng applies to the Ball used.  The serious players want to replicate the criteria for the event.they are training for as much as is practicable. 

If Masters players want to lobby for Handin/handout Scoring there is nothing to stop them providing they go through the official channels of communication right through to the International Masters Association.  Australia must have a representative on that Committee?

I hope that makes sense...that is my understanding of how the system works.

Sure, It is a bummer when competitors travel for hours to an event and then get knocked out in the first round and only spend half-hour on court; hence the sense behind having knock-out plate events to keep the players involved throughout the whole series.

Good luck with it.

Back to top

Rita, you are missing at least part of my point.When,if ever were the grassroots of squash i.e.masters and club level players ever consulted about the change to P:A:R:11 We can fix things within Australia by opting for traditional scoring,at,for example AMSA and state Masters titles,but the idea of travelling round the world for a tournament where you are only guaranteed three matches at PAR11 leaves me cold,and I just know that Cologne next year will do it.Also,looking at the other aspect,it is all too easy for tournament organisers to opt for PAR11 even when there are no time constraints,thus consigning lower level players to no more than a heartbeat on court.The only people who find PAR more exciting,and obviously not much,are people who do not play,and  in theory tv executives.Last but not least,it is club level players who keep squash clubs open not professionals.That is,people who play for love of the game at their level, and not to emulate professional athletes as in majority sports.It is a sad fact that the biggest demographic in our sport is being ridden over roughshod  in order to attempt to promote something that was only thought up for tv in the first place.

Back to top

Keith tournaments and competition can play with whatever scoring system they choose.  It is just part of the Conditions of Entry in a Tournament.  The reason it was adopted for the pros was to make it more exciting and not so long winded for spectators.  PSA took the lead and did the trial, and WISPA reluctantly followed.  

Scoring systems are adapted to suit the time frame of the tournament.  If you have a lot of entries and only a short time to get through it, without killing the players with too many matches in one day, the eleven system will get a result a bit quicker.  If the handin/handout scording is adopted it might need to be timed, or reduced to best of three games, or play into the night. 

Scoring is very optional and usually set down by the organisers and stated clearly on the Tournament Entry Form/Conditions of Play.

It is up to the Masters Committee as I see it.  You cannot please everyone all the time!!

The same applies with the Ball.  Whatever ball gives the best game for the grade, eg double yellow, single yellow, etc. The brand of ball, so long as it is approved by the WSF, is also a decision of the Organising Committee.  From my experience the Brand that is donated gets the prize.

Back to top