New 3x3x3 avg WR

[Bryan]

How about this system (which was unofficially used by me, Dan Cohen, and Timothy Sun at US Nationals '08 to decide who had the 'most' trophies): 1 point for 3rd place, 2 points for 2nd place, 3 points for 1st place (in any event); and maybe for 3x3 you could give something like 1 through 8 points for the top 8 since it's such a big event. So that way you'd only get points for doing events that you think you could place in, and we wouldn't get people doing extra events just to do better in the competition, unless they were actually good at them.

Not enough granularity. Under these rules, you could get 10.00 on 3x3x3 and I get a 2nd place 25.00 on 3x3x3. Then on 2x2x2, I get a 6.15 and you get a 6.16. Under your system, we would both have 5 points, although it's obvious you're better. That's why having the points based on a percentage of the winning time is useful. Not just winning, but really beating the competition, helps you out.

To avoid people just entering an event in hopes of gaining points, you could only provide points for the top X competitions (maybe based on the number of entrants?, or stop after a certain threshold of the winning time?). But what's a good "penalty" for people who are over the threshold? Maybe not based on being 9th, but based on having a really realy slow time? If you give them 0, then you don't have any discouragement from them just entering, with just the hope that they might get really lucky.

 

[Lofty]

Aren't people encouraged to enter just to get their times in the WCA database? I mean unless you are charging per event like nationals I think most people compete i all events they know how to do. If you want to discourage people from competing or at least give them less solves just do what I have seen at most all competitions, if you don't get below X in your first 2 solves you can't finish the average.
I don't think it really needs to be that complicated something like qqwerf suggested seems good to me.
idk, there will always be someone at a disadvantage I think... like I can set a OH record and that will be the only points I get all comp because I am not good at any other event.
Edit:
Go Tomasz!
Go Poland!

 

[shelley]

Is it necessary to declare a winner of the tournament at all? In a track meet with multiple events, they don't choose one event and declare that winner the winner of the whole track meet.

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

 

[Dene]

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.

 

[Mike Hughey]

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.

I hate to be the me-too type, but me too. I actually started to type up a response like this last night, but decided it was way too long-winded and didn't post it. But now that other people are already saying it, I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon.

I think of the winner of 3x3x3 much the same as the winner of 100 meters for track and field, for instance. In track and field, there are lots of events with the fastest runners, but the "fastest person in the world" title always goes to the 100 meter winner. To perhaps take the analogy too far, I'm happy to be a contender in the walking race.

 

[TobiasDaneels]

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.

3x3x3 is still the main event because it's the most known by non-cubers.
I think it's logic the winner of the 3x3x3 competition is the winner of the tournement in a whole.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

@qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??

Didn't that happen to Yu Nakajima?
He got two 8.xx in the same competition, when that was the WR at the time.

EDIT - I realise this is unrelated after reading over it...

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

He got 8.72 twice...in the second and final round. One full step was one OLL skip.

 

[shelley]

@qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??

No need to consider "what if", by the way. Check out qqwref's (Michael Gottlieb) 3x3 ranking in the first and second rounds at this competition.

The idea is that someone who is consistently fast would have more chances to prove himself, but someone who simply had a bad round won't be penalized as badly if a good average in the first round still gets him a decent ranking.

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.

3x3x3 is still the main event because it's the most known by non-cubers.
I think it's logic the winner of the 3x3x3 competition is the winner of the tournement in a whole.

"Won the main event" doesn't have to be the same as "won the tournament." Especially if 3x3 is only one of 19 other events that also took place.

 

[Dene]

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.

I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.

3x3x3 is still the main event because it's the most known by non-cubers.
I think it's logic the winner of the 3x3x3 competition is the winner of the tournement in a whole.

In addition to Shelley's kind words, I may as well ask you this: What happens when there is no 3x3 at a competition? Does no one win?

 

[shelley]

Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.

 

[Bryan]

Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.

Nah, Takao would still show up.

 

[DavidWoner]

Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.

Nah, Takao would still show up.

I think the implication is that without 3x3 there would be no winner.

 

[Bryan]

Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.

Nah, Takao would still show up.

I think the implication is that without 3x3 there would be no winner.

You're right. I was thinking it was more of an implication that no one would show up to a competition that didn't have 3x3x3. Like that Pyraminx one they had a few years ago (that wasn't no one, but just not enough)

 

[Dene]

LOL a pyraminx comp?
Anyway, I promise that if I ever host a comp in an area where I am guaranteed to get competitors, such as California, the east coast, or Europe, I will host a bigcube+sq1 comp, with NO 3x3x3.

 

[Faz]

Maybe we could have special competitons for a decathlon or something?
Points would be tallied up, and the winner would be the all rounder.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

LOL a pyraminx comp?
Anyway, I promise that if I ever host a comp in an area where I am guaranteed to get competitors, such as California, the east coast, or Europe, I will host a bigcube+sq1 comp, with NO 3x3x3.

Nakaji would have a lot of fun at that since he likes big cubes so much now

 

[abr71310]

Maybe we could have special competitons for a decathlon or something?
Points would be tallied up, and the winner would be the all rounder.

I would think that either Dan Cohen, or Michal Halczuk would epically dominate that... xD (especially with the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 practice), and MAYBE Nakajima, with his awesome 3x3x3 and 4x4x4.

 

[Dene]

LOL a pyraminx comp?
Anyway, I promise that if I ever host a comp in an area where I am guaranteed to get competitors, such as California, the east coast, or Europe, I will host a bigcube+sq1 comp, with NO 3x3x3.

Nakaji would have a lot of fun at that since he likes big cubes so much now

So Mr. Herrmann, I can't help but notice everything is about Nakajima for you; it turns out other people enjoy bigcubes a lot too, even if they aren't fast. For example, myself...

 

[TMOY]

I agree. I will definitely attend a bigcubes-sq1 competition if it happens close enough to where I live, a 3^3 event is definitely not mandatory for me to have fun at a competition.