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

[Lucas Garron]

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.

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.

But what is a "reasonable" noise level? It is reasonable to expect people to be talking during the competition.

Talking is certainly fine near the main stage. But I think sudden things should be avoided. This includes flash, yelling, and undue applause.

For example, I think there should be practically no applause during BLD, except maybe the unlikely circumstance of a single solver. Something like a 51 might merit a few curteous claps, but c'mon, the whole audience managed to keep silent after Krueger's WR. We should be able to enforce it every time.

And at the finals at, say, US Nationals, I think it's reasonable to avoid any applause occurring during someone's solve. Especially since the crowd insists on applauding at EVERY SINGLE solve (almost).

For most other events' however, regular crowd behavior tends to be about fine. I don't think it's bad if crowd goes wild during a WR. I'm more concerned about fairness in high-profile rounds.
(I might have placed on the podium for Megaminx if Andy hadn't done his 39.36 4x4x4 solve next to me during my first solve. But I'm not complaining.)

It's kinda like media coverage (reporters/journalists are like interested spectators that know even less about rules). It's fine to have it, but I think it's mainly the organizer's responsibility to handle them right, rather than the competitors' to avoid being distracted.


Anyhow, I think we're doing it mostly fine in the US. Next, year, I'll make sure to clearly propose "2-at-a-time" single-station for Nats finals, though.

 

[Pedro]

Anyhow, I think we're doing it mostly fine in the US. Next, year, I'll make sure to clearly propose "2-at-a-time" single-station for Nats finals, though.

how exactly does that work? I'm a bit confused

 

[Tim Reynolds]

(correct me if I'm mistaken)
Call two people up. They do all of their solves, alternating on a single timer. Repeat.

 

[rowehessler]

i liked last years format int he finals the most. we had 8 finalists i think, or 10. 5 got called up first, and we all went one at a time till we all did our five solves. then the next 5 went up and did the same thing. even though it was more nerveracking it didnt cause any distraction because only one person was cubing at once. it also was more dramatic and cool

 

[Pedro]

(correct me if I'm mistaken)
Call two people up. They do all of their solves, alternating on a single timer. Repeat.

i liked last years format int he finals the most. we had 8 finalists i think, or 10. 5 got called up first, and we all went one at a time till we all did our five solves. then the next 5 went up and did the same thing. even though it was more nerveracking it didnt cause any distraction because only one person was cubing at once. it also was more dramatic and cool

but each group gets different scrambles?

 

[*LukeMayn*]

I don't mind the crowd clapping and stuff It just inspire me to solve quicker. I also don't wind the constant talking of the crowd as it is like white noise and white noise is very much like silence.
On topic: MAN!!! look at his fingers go in the first vid

 

[Erik]

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.

Hey Tyson, I'm wondering. If you encourage everyone to take their time and wait a bit before the other guy is finished (which is what I do if we are with 2 at a time), the effect is that you almost have 1-at-a-time again because everyone will wait until the person before him or her is done. Then the whole idea of 2-at-a-time is a bit lost don't you think?
Personally I don't like 2 at a time because I get the feeling like I'm racing the other person, which is not what I want because I want to just think about my own cube and not about someone else.

I'd say either divide the finals in 2 groups as was done at for example the European Championships, or to just get a smaller group of finalists. 1 at a time with many people just doesn't work. I calculated at Madrid open and I think the waiting time between solves was no less than 14 minutes...

 

[Tyson]

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.

Hey Tyson, I'm wondering. If you encourage everyone to take their time and wait a bit before the other guy is finished (which is what I do if we are with 2 at a time), the effect is that you almost have 1-at-a-time again because everyone will wait until the person before him or her is done. Then the whole idea of 2-at-a-time is a bit lost don't you think?
Personally I don't like 2 at a time because I get the feeling like I'm racing the other person, which is not what I want because I want to just think about my own cube and not about someone else.

I'd say either divide the finals in 2 groups as was done at for example the European Championships, or to just get a smaller group of finalists. 1 at a time with many people just doesn't work. I calculated at Madrid open and I think the waiting time between solves was no less than 14 minutes...

Kind of, but you neglect the non-negligible time it takes someone to walk to the timer, for their cube to get to the timer, and for them to begin their solve. You easily save 5 to 10 seconds there per person.

 

[Ravi]

So all sub-13s were also sub-12? Nice.

No, there were several other sub-13s, including several more sub-12s. He just posted three of the videos as samples. The rest are at http://www.youtube.com/user/cuBerBruce#play/uploads.

 

[Ravi]

I'm mainly speaking from my own experience, but I know Rowe and I disapproved of the two-at-a-time system, and I think Andy and others were negatively affected by it as well. I can appreciate the comments that have been made about time, a competitor's option to delay starting, etc., but I think that the conditions at competitions, especially in the final round, should be those which are most conducive to good speedcubing by good speedcubers. If a majority of top speedcubers are against two-at-a-time competing in the finals, it should be abandoned.

Incidentally, I think three- or four-at-a-time competing in the finals wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The entire audience could still watch all competitors simultaneously, but there would be far less pressure on the competitors, and the finals could proceed even more quickly than with two-at-a-time competing. Feel free to discuss this.

On a lighter note, I'm going to take this opportunity to mention one of my few successes in the final round. While watching the other competitors, I was bothered by the fact that the audience clapped for what seemed like every single solve under 13-14 seconds, and hence actually a majority of the solves among the top several competitors. So when I got my 12.08, I shook my head with mild distaste - partly because I knew it wasn't enough to salvage a good average, but also for effect. The audience quieted down instantly. I couldn't help laughing to myself a little.