Qualifying Competitions (US Nationals)

[obelisk477]

Of course slower people can compete if there is enough room left in these competitions but

A few people have said something similar to this, and my whole point was that slower people *do* get a chance to compete - everyone does. These qualifying regional competitions should be seen as an extension of nationals, not separate from it. Everyone gets a chance for nationals in their own respective areas of the country, and if you don't make it to real nats, then tough luck; you've had your shot.

 

[Kev43]

Yeah I think we might have a Europe/America separation on this one

We used to have time limits to compete in the European Championship (ex: your best 4x4x4 average had to be sub1'30 in order to compete at Euro 2012). Anyone could compete at 2x2, 3x3 and pyraminx though.

I personally think that this is a good idea. I have no problem being unable to compete in events I'm slow at, because it's the European Championship and it's not a good time to spend 10 minutes solving a 7x7. I can do that in smaller competitions

When it comes to Euro/Asian Champs or US Nats or Worlds and you have too many people who want to compete, then it makes sense to take the fastest, that's what makes the championship interesting.

I can't challenge Usain Bolt at the next Olympic Games because I can't run fast enough to qualify. The qualification is based on skill and not the time of registration.

That's just my European point of view

 

[Kian]

This discussion is about more than what "should" be. It is about what is possible. Nationals is getting really huge without providing us with much more staff (due to, in part, the ages of most new competitors) and we are going to have to respond in whatever ways make sense. This is a realistic scenario for the future and I'm certainly open to considering it. I'm not sure regional competitions make more sense than simply requiring a certain qualifying time at a WCA competition, as we have done in the past, but it's a plausible step.

I can't imagine supporting a qualification time for 3x3. I am amenable to ones in different events, though. A national championship for many different sorts of things requires a certain level of established competence in its discipline and I don't think that's unreasonable. I can't simply sign up for the Olympics (obviously this is an exaggerated example) and I don't deserve to compete in them simply because I want to and I can physically run 100m.

The important thing is that we provide people with a means to qualify. I think the closest example I can think of is the National Spelling Bee. Anyone of the appropriate age can sign up and win the National Spelling Bee, but you aren't automatically entered into the final in DC because that would be prohibitively huge. Instead, competitors work their way through local and regional qualifying competitions to get there. This is a model that works for quite a few organizations, many of which are comparable to ours in certain respects.

I want to be as inclusive as we can be, but we have very limited resources. Money is one, but human capital is another. It is worth noting that if a select 3-4 people just stopped organizing nationals, it would not happen. There is a lot to do and very few people to do it. I don't think it's really appreciated in this thread how much goes into this when it is entirely volunteer.

 

[AlexMaass]

I was on staff this year and I had a few thoughts about the actual staff process & the competition:

- Perhaps create a full time & part time set up. I talked to a few people who used to staff Nationals but then stopped because the workload was so high. Perhaps these people could be coaxed into coming back if they only worked 4-5 hour days in return for free food, instead of 8-10 hour days for free food & hotel. Heck, I would work a 4-5 hour shift for nothing in return, just to help out the community, but the current Nats shift didn't leave me a lot of time to eat (I have to make my own food). I'm sure others feel this way and it would increase the overall number of staff members.

I have to agree with this, I am thinking about staffing the next nationals to save on costs, but I'm not sure if I could handle that workload : P.

This discussion is about more than what "should" be. It is about what is possible. Nationals is getting really huge without providing us with much more staff (due to, in part, the ages of most new competitors) and we are going to have to respond in whatever ways make sense. This is a realistic scenario for the future and I'm certainly open to considering it. I'm not sure regional competitions make more sense than simply requiring a certain qualifying time at a WCA competition, as we have done in the past, but it's a plausible step.

I want to be as inclusive as we can be, but we have very limited resources. Money is one, but human capital is another. It is worth noting that if a select 3-4 people just stopped organizing nationals, it would not happen. There is a lot to do and very few people to do it. I don't think it's really appreciated in this thread how much goes into this when it is entirely volunteer.

Agreed, we need more competitors to step up and help more and hopefully work up their way to becoming organizers and delegates (I'm kinda trying to do so right now).

 

[henrysavich]

I think limiting competitors at nationals will be necessary soon enough, but it is a necessary evil, and we should try not to forget that. 400 people is about the limit I imagine.

Qualification should definitely be based upon seed times rather than an actual qualification competition. I strongly dislike the idea of a single competition having such high stakes as the chance to participate in Nationals. In fact, in the short term future, I think a restriction as loose as having competed before would be sufficient (also because a competition with no first-timers can be expected to run smoother than the alternative).

Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions

 

[tseitsei]

Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions

I disagree with this.

The only real difference is that Olympics is obviously a much bigger event. But all sports are meant to be fun AND competitive (cubing also)...

If we are talking about big comps awarding big titles (continental championships/ world championships) it definitely is VERY MUCH competitive (also fun obviously or we wouldn't do it) Obviously world championships are held to determine who is the best in the world no matter what sport/event is in question.


But if you are not good enough to compete in Olympics (or US nationals or Worlds or whatever) there are always smaller local and regional comps that you can compete in That's just how things work in competitive environment

 

[Kian]

I think limiting competitors at nationals will be necessary soon enough, but it is a necessary evil, and we should try not to forget that. 400 people is about the limit I imagine.

Qualification should definitely be based upon seed times rather than an actual qualification competition. I strongly dislike the idea of a single competition having such high stakes as the chance to participate in Nationals. In fact, in the short term future, I think a restriction as loose as having competed before would be sufficient (also because a competition with no first-timers can be expected to run smoother than the alternative).

Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions

I am not misinterpreting the purpose of cubing competitions. I am offering my opinion, just as you are.

I believe, speaking as an organizer of the event, that our purposes are certainly both for fun and to crown national champions. Nobody is advocating strict restrictions for regular tournaments. This would be a necessary evil, yes, though I think that wording is harsh. We haven't done it yet, but it's becoming more and more necessary.

People can offer their thoughts on it, but we (the organizers) are the ones that actually need to make this work. We will certainly take into account the feelings of the community, but we have a responsibility to run the competition competently and so will make our own judgments.

 

[henrysavich]

I disagree with this.

The only real difference is that Olympics is obviously a much bigger event. But all sports are meant to be fun AND competitive (cubing also)...

. If we are talking about big comps awarding big titles (continental championships/ world championships) it definitely is VERY MUCH competitive (also fun obviously or we wouldn't do it) Obviously world championships are held to determine who is the best in the world no matter what sport/event is in question.


But if you are not good enough to compete in Olympics (or US nationals or Worlds or whatever) there are always smaller local and regional comps that you can compete in That's just how things work in competitive environment

A central principle in the governing and organization of competitions, that I see reflected in the WCA regulations and the community as a whole, as well as one that I support, is that cubing competitions should be just as much for new competitors as multi-WR holders, and be open, easily accessible and friendly to as many people as possible. It is hard to say cubing is competitive when compared to other sports. If Feliks reached an equivalent level of proficiency in chess as he has in cubing, it is unlikely he would even be a grandmaster, and that fact is wonderful.

Because of this central principle, there are very huge differences between other sports and cubing. There are no "career cubers", you can start cubing after age 7 and still be able to become world class, and no heavy incentive to encourage people to cheat . These are awesome things about cubing "competitive scene". As we move into the future, we will have to adapt rules to manage a large cubing population, and I think it is hugely important we are aware of this slippery slope in order to preserve why I, and many others, love cubing.

I am not misinterpreting the purpose of cubing competitions. I am offering my opinion, just as you are.

I believe, speaking as an organizer of the event, that our purposes are certainly both for fun and to crown national champions. Nobody is advocating strict restrictions for regular tournaments. This would be a necessary evil, yes, though I think that wording is harsh. We haven't done it yet, but it's becoming more and more necessary.

People can offer their thoughts on it, but we (the organizers) are the ones that actually need to make this work. We will certainly take into account the feelings of the community, but we have a responsibility to run the competition competently and so will make our own judgments.

I apologize if you misconstrue my opinions as in opposition to yours, and I certainly defer to the relevant organizers and delegates in making these kind of decisions.

I agree with your central arguments completely, I'm just saying that I think using other sports as models is an invalid reason to support participation regulations. The Olympics uses qualifiers to get the most competitive pool of athletes possible (more competitive = more viewers = more money). If (more likely when) the WCA decides to allow merit-based restrictions on competitions, it will not be to create the most competitive competition possible, but simply to manage competition size in a more fair way than first come first serve.

 

[cubizh]

If (more likely when) the WCA decides to allow merit-based restrictions on competitions, it will not be to create the most competitive competition possible, but simply to manage competition size in a more fair way than first come first serve.

Just a note to point out that the WCA regulations already allows the selection of competitors who directly qualify for certain rounds of certain events based on the results of specific previous competitions and/or based upon qualification times or rankings in the WCA world rankings of a previously announced calendar date.
It's more of a decision by the organizers if it's acceptable or not.

 

[AlexMaass]

It's more of a decision by the organizers if it's acceptable or not.

And the WCA board too.

 

[cubizh]

That's to ensure it is reasonable. But nothing would need to change regulation wise.

 

[tseitsei]

A central principle in the governing and organization of competitions, that I see reflected in the WCA regulations and the community as a whole, as well as one that I support, is that cubing competitions should be just as much for new competitors as multi-WR holders, and be open, easily accessible and friendly to as many people as possible.

I agree. BUT so is football and any other sport. It's just that we can't let any team to play in the major league of their country that wants to. We need to have a qualifying system. The equality and fairness comes from the fact that ANYONE can enter this qualifying stage and if they are good enough they can become national champions.

We already let faster people solve more rounds than slower ones. This is really just the same concept in bigger scale.

It is hard to say cubing is competitive when compared to other sports. If Feliks reached an equivalent level of proficiency in chess as he has in cubing, it is unlikely he would even be a grandmaster, and that fact is wonderful.

I think we have different definitions of competitive here. Of course it's harder to become world class in chess or football than it is in cubing. Simply because there are much more competitors in the previous two sports mentioned.
BUT you can still play football or chess competitively even if you are nowhere near world class or even your own national top level. Or then you can just play chess and football for fun without competing that seriously.
Similarly you can practise cubing just for fun of it OR you can do it to achieve best possible times and get high in rankings and win big titles, so in other words practise it competitively.

Because of this central principle, there are very huge differences between other sports and cubing. There are no "career cubers", you can start cubing after age 7 and still be able to become world class, and no heavy incentive to encourage people to cheat . These are awesome things about cubing "competitive scene". As we move into the future, we will have to adapt rules to manage a large cubing population, and I think it is hugely important we are aware of this slippery slope in order to preserve why I, and many others, love cubing.

The fact that you can still be world class relatively easily in cubing is because of 1 thing mainly:
Cubing is a new and small sport so there is not much money involved --> there are no professional cubers who practise like professionals

Also just the fact that we have small amount of people who really practise seriously means that we have much smaller "pool of talent" to make good competitors than bigger sports.

Also what slippery slope are you talking about? What are you afraid of will happen if we start using qualifying comps or qualifying with previous WCA results? As long as everyone willing has a chance to qualify IF they are just fast enough then it's completely fair and equal...

 

[ToastyKen]

Ah, I found the qualification requirements for Euro 2012:
http://www.speedcubing.com/events/euro2012/events.html

Europeans, I'm curious how this was received, and how well it worked in terms of saving time?
It looks like these requirements were removed fro Euro 2014. Why? Did it not work? Was it just not necessary?

 

[guysensei1]

Why not implement stricter hard cutoffs?

 

[CubixWizard]

Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?

 

[Bindedsa]

Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?

There are none, you can compete at any comp. Though you may be DNFed if you do no reach the cut offs.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?

Although qualifying competitions have been proposed, they haven't been implemented and probably won't be, at least for a few more years. Currently, all competitions are open to all competitors. You can find upcoming and past competitions on the World Cube Association page here, and you can narrow down your search by region (for instance, the competition list for US competitions).

 

[cubizh]

There are none, you can compete at any comp. Though you may be DNFed if you do no reach the cut offs.

This is not true. There is a misconception between the term "cutoff" and "time limit". Only when you go over the time limit is the solve to be DNFed.
The regulations state that the cutoff time is the time you need to achieve in the first phase of the attempts of a combined round to proceed to the second phase of attempts. But the times you achieve that are below the cutoff are not eliminated, if they are faster than the time limit for the round.
All events and rounds have a time limit. Only combined rounds have cutoff times.

 

[Bindedsa]

This is not true. There is a misconception between the term "cutoff" and "time limit". Only when you go over the time limit is the solve to be DNFed.
The regulations state that the cutoff time is the time you need to achieve in the first phase of the attempts of a combined round to proceed to the second phase of attempts. But the times you achieve that are below the cutoff are not eliminated, if they are faster than the time limit for the round.
All events and rounds have a time limit. Only combined rounds have cutoff times.

By time limits you mean hard cut offs? I'd have to read the regulations, but it sounds like semantics.

 

[cubizh]

It's more of a bad habit that can lead to confusion that anything else really
I always prefer to refer to the proper terms as they are defined in the regulations.