[Official] Solves from US Nationals Finals (Rowe & Mitchell)

Just a comment from a fellow competitor... we solved two at a time in the finals, but the "races" became staggered over time. So when I came up, Rowe was starting each solve about five seconds before me, and the audience enthusiastically applauded for him during my solves (you can see this in the second video.) As you can imagine, there's a lot of applause during an 11.64 average, and it is incredibly distracting. That's why I (and Rowe, with whom I chatted as the first few finalists competed) really disliked the idea of competing two at a time. I'm not claiming that this actually affected my ranking (since Rowe and Mitchell both beat me pretty convincingly) but I think that's one thing to adjust in future competitions.
 
Ravi said:
That's why I (and Rowe, with whom I chatted as the first few finalists competed) really disliked the idea of competing two at a time.
Click to expand...

Tell Tyson. I wanted to do it one-at-a-time like last year, but no one took my suggestion seriously. I think the main argument I got was that competitors would not stay warmed up between solves. But with 2 on stage at a time instead of 6 (it was 6 last year, right?), I think it would have worked fine...
 
Ravi said:
Just a comment from a fellow competitor... we solved two at a time in the finals, but the "races" became staggered over time. So when I came up, Rowe was starting each solve about five seconds before me, and the audience enthusiastically applauded for him during my solves (you can see this in the second video.) As you can imagine, there's a lot of applause during an 11.64 average, and it is incredibly distracting. That's why I (and Rowe, with whom I chatted as the first few finalists competed) really disliked the idea of competing two at a time. I'm not claiming that this actually affected my ranking (since Rowe and Mitchell both beat me pretty convincingly) but I think that's one thing to adjust in future competitions.
Click to expand...

This is really your own fault. You could have asked the judge to wait until Rowe was done with his solve before beginning yours. And then if you had an issue, you should have talked to me about it.

In the blindfold finals at WC 2007, I definitely waited a good 60 to 90 seconds before beginning my solves. I didn't want to feel like I was racing people.

I don't see why you complain about it now instead of doing something about it during.
 
what's been bothering me with competitions is when people expect or ask spectators or others to 'be quiet' while someone is solving (mostly bld but the idea applies to this thread). if you're a top level cuber then you need to work through the distraction. its inconsistent to ask people to be quiet during solves or not applause because its not possible to make the noise level consistent for everyone at/during/after every solve, so it just shouldn't be done. obviously any intentional distractions should be dealt with, but for the most part, i say let the crowd go, and whoever is the best cuber will still win.
 
Yeah, I agree here too. Applause and general background noise is something that people should be able to deal with. Of course, it doesn't mean you should have a loud obnoxious conversation during the bld round, but competitors should be able to deal with background noise.
 
rxdeath said:
what's been bothering me with competitions is when people expect or ask spectators or others to 'be quiet' while someone is solving (mostly bld but the idea applies to this thread). if you're a top level cuber then you need to work through the distraction.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it's the organizer's responsibility (even see 7e) to try to keep things even. Something like the finals at US Nationals is significant enough to warrant some attention to that.

However, I agree that it's the competitor's responsibility to try to get the silence they want if they really care for it, e.g. by telling the organizers if they feel unfairly distracted. Retroactive complaints can only be taken as suggestions for future events. And that's what Ravi is doing, anyhow.

And of course, the competitor should make sure to start when they're comfortable with it. Myself, even though I felt a pressure to start my solve and not delay the competition, but I decided to take my time to relax before every solve, and did well in the finals.
 
Last edited:
Lucas Garron said:
Ravi said:
That's why I (and Rowe, with whom I chatted as the first few finalists competed) really disliked the idea of competing two at a time.
Click to expand...

Tell Tyson. I wanted to do it one-at-a-time like last year, but no one took my suggestion seriously. I think the main argument I got was that competitors would not stay warmed up between solves. But with 2 on stage at a time instead of 6 (it was 6 last year, right?), I think it would have worked fine...
Click to expand...

Right, those who are intelligent enough to take their time will have the advantage of being able to steer the atmosphere towards something they prefer.

One-at-a-time was not done so as not to drag out the finals forever, but in retrospect, we could have done it very quickly.

Right, so when I say something like, "competitors would not stay warmed up between solves," instead of going away, you should propose a solution. In 2007, the competitors went around in groups of 6, and yes... getting one solve every 6 tries is kind of annoying. But we could have had one competitor up on stage, quickly scrambled the cube, and have a turn-around time of maybe 15 seconds for the next solve. That would have been doable, and it would have been one-at-a-time, but instead of the 2007 format, competitors would be in groups of one.
 
Lucas Garron said:
rxdeath said:
what's been bothering me with competitions is when people expect or ask spectators or others to 'be quiet' while someone is solving (mostly bld but the idea applies to this thread). if you're a top level cuber then you need to work through the distraction.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it's the organizer's responsibility (even see 7e) to try to keep things even. Something like the finals at US Nationals is significant enough to warrant some attention to that.

However, I agree that it's the competitor's responsibility to try to get the silence they want if they really care for it, e.g. by telling the organizers if they feel unfairly distracted. Retroactive complaints can only be taken as suggestions for future events. And that's what Ravi is doing, anyhow.

And of course, the competitor should make sure to start when they're comfortable with it. Myself, even though I felt a pressure to start my solve and not delay the competition, but I decided to take my time to relax before every solve, and did well in the finals.
Click to expand...

But what is a "reasonable" noise level? It is reasonable to expect people to be talking during the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crazycubemom
[Official] Solves at Dutch Nationals 2009 Finals
Replies
2
Views
1,390
Lt-UnReaL
L
BinomDreher
[Official] Solves from German Nationals 2008 3x3x3 Finals
Replies
7
Views
3,273
KJiptner
KJiptner
S
  • Poll Poll
Speed-solving show or competition at the Strong National Museum of Play Anyone?
Replies
2
Views
858
Burrito
Burrito
Noahaha
[Official] 3x3 Blindfolded US National Champion Solve: 30.34 (Noah Arthurs)
Replies
5
Views
1,423
Jezuz
Jezuz
Aussie
[Official] 5:53.81 6x6 Solve @ the US Nationals 2014!
Replies
9
Views
2,089
Aussie
Aussie
Back
Top