Sajwo
Member
Except that there are no reasons from him
pretty sure his reasons are similar to everyone's else
Except that there are no reasons from him
Since he hasn’t clarified, though, it would be foolish to presume that. He might have similar reasons to everyone else, or he might have a new argument that even I would find convincing. Or he could be under the mistaken impression that feet actually operate like a vacuum cleaner, creating a localized area of low pressure and thereby drawing in detritus.pretty sure his reasons are similar to everyone's else
Well you probably have 2 (and I too), so I think you should have got used to itFeet sucks
I would suggest that three things come out of this discussion.
1. What are the criteria for an event.
2. In addition to 1. - what are the criteria for introducing a new event
3. In respect of 1. - what are the criteria for removing events
Having said that - my main argument against feet is the credibility one - Whenever I discuss the WCA and mention feet as an event, the response is "are you serious"?
Disagree. Removing and adding should be seen as different processes. The WCA also shouldn't be forced to add events, or forced to remove just to do the otherIf they are going to remove event, then they'll need to add a event.
It's always been legal. You just need to make sure you're not violating A1c, which would be pretty difficult for anyone with at least one functioning arm.so now its gonna be legal to use your feet for the standard 3x3 event?
I hope they willIf the WCA is as open to adding new events as they are removing feet then I think we are making progress.
I'd highly doubt it. Adding and removing are opposite of each other, so I don't think the WCA would want to do both.If the WCA is as open to adding new events as they are removing feet then I think we are making progress.
The Olympic Games's sports have changed over the years, but removing a sport from the Olympics doesn't mean deleting its organization or stopping its records.I would suggest that three things come out of this discussion.
1. What are the criteria for an event.
2. In addition to 1. - what are the criteria for introducing a new event
3. In respect of 1. - what are the criteria for removing events
The Olympic movement has over the years added and removed many events. I dont believe the WCA should be static.
Having said that - my main argument against feet is the credibility one - Whenever I discuss the WCA and mention feet as an event, the response is "are you serious"?
I definitely don't support this. I would like to see it open to a bigger community vote (or at least a delegate vote).
Unlike Magic and Master Magic, Feet doesn't have any inherent flaws that prevent it from being held accurately. I understand that it's objectively unpopular, but some events will naturally be more popular than others, and its popularity has only been increasing in recent years. I also think the fact that it's such a spectator-friendly event is a big deal that shouldn't be overlooked. I really want to see cubing grow as a spectator sport, and weird/interesting events like Feet only make that more doable. I don't know many people (cubers or non-cubers) who would want to watch even the fastest of 7x7 solves, but a world class Feet solve is just plain fun to watch.
I recognize my bias as a Feet solver, but we also need to recognize the inherent bias in many of those arguing for this event to be removed. "I think it's stupid" and "I think it's good" are not valid reasons to keep or remove an event. Feet isn't hurting anyone by staying in the WCA (as far as I'm aware; feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you have it). However, a non-negligible percentage of cubers are disappointed at its removal.