that kinda applies to all events, except clockyou must use more efficient f2l and a bunch more ll algs are required to be world class. I think that this makes the event unique.
That's a sad thing to hear from you I consider NxNs to be most valuable events.I'd certainly be in favour of removing 7x7, and perhaps even 6x6.
You may be right here, but regardless of the reason the fact that there is significant divergence between the lists is an important and good thing. Taking nothing away from the incredible accomplishments that you, Max, Kevin, and others have achieved, by holding multiple records at the same time, for the organization as a whole it is a good thing for a wide variety of people to hold records and otherwise be "elite" members of the community. The more concentrated achievement is the greater the danger of the organization turning into a personality cult, and the more diversity there is in achievement the greater the apparent possibility of new people to enter the ranks of "elite" cubers.The reason there is little overlap between OH and feet rankings is certainly not because of the marginally different solving skills required (ie, solving with slightly more efficiency and slightly less TPS).
Honestly the reasons I have heard argued for eliminating feet boil down to "it doesn't add anything" (to which objection I have addressed my arguments) and "ewww," to which I can only respond with the fact that a) feet are probably actually more sanitary than hands, and b) grow up, and if somebody really has stinky feet have them go into the bathroom and wash their feet in the sink.I don't think it's irrelevant, I think it's a reasonable thought experiment when event removal is considered. The presumption should be to keep things the same, unless there are reasons otherwise - for feet there are indeed many reasons otherwise.
This is a surprising and disappointing sentiment. I would note that big cubes differ from smaller cubes in the percentage of the solve that is intuitive (and therefore really a puzzle) versus the amount that is algorithmic.FWIW, 7x7 (and 6x6 to a lesser extent) doesn't add very much in terms of solving skillset (although, I'd suggest still more than feet). I'd certainly be in favour of removing 7x7, and perhaps even 6x6.
I am not arguing that trivial events ought to be eliminated, just that if events are going to be eliminated that those ought to be eliminated before more substantial events like Feet.I apologize if this is a bit of a tangent from the original purpose of this thread –
Many people here are saying that trivial events (clock, skewb, pyraminx, and 2x2) should be removed, and I don't think they should. Sure, records and PB's are very luck-dependent for these events, but they're still super fun and do take skill and lots of work and practice to get really good at. And isn't fun the whole reason for cubing in the first place? I relatively recently have started getting into clock and it's some of the most fun I've had in cubing in years.
So far in 2008 (neglecting December):Yes, there are 29% more 3x3 WF results now, compared with the end of 2017. Over the same time period, the number of WCA competitors has increased by at least 25% (can someone provide the exact number? - my browser doesn't like it when I query all results on the rankings page). Adjusted for WCA population growth, the popularity has barely increased.
How are you defining growth here? I'm guessing number of people who competed in feet in the distinct calendar year 2018 vs 2017, and the same for 3x3? My guess is that this stat might be similar for other events as: many of the WCA competitors are one-time 3x3 competitors, and competitors who return from previous years will also naturally begin to compete in more events.So far in 2008 (neglecting December):
- Growth of WCA competitors: 10.7%
- Growth of Feet competitors: 25.9%
WCA growth has slowed down a lot this year in many regions and in many countries the number of competitors has decreased considerably. On the other hand it is exploding in Russia and neighboring countries.
Yes, I defined growth as you said, because If I use cumulative competitors over the years, then I am factoring in the whole WCA history and not assessing current growth only.How are you defining growth here? I'm guessing number of people who competed in feet in the distinct calendar year 2018 vs 2017, and the same for 3x3? My guess is that this stat might be similar for other events as: many of the WCA competitors are one-time 3x3 competitors, and competitors who return from previous years will also naturally begin to compete in more events.
3x3WF competitors now - 2518
3x3WF competitors Jan 1 - 1947
WCA competitors now - 114888
WCA competitors Jan 1 - 90745
so you can as well look for his reasons on github and speedsolving foruma.) I disagree, the WCA is pushing for change. I stated my reasons here and on github anyway.
b.) I was more referring to the unconstructiveness of that reply. It didnt help the conversation in any way.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|[WR] Daniel Rose-Levine - 21.51 3x3 With Feet average||General Speedcubing Discussion||1|
|[ER] Henri Gerber 26.52 average, 3x3 with feet||WR/CR/NR solves||3|
|Megaminx, Sq1, Clock, 3x3 oh and 3x3 Feet Solve of the Day!||Forum Competitions||132|
|[WR] Daniel Rose-Levine 16.96 3x3 With Feet Single||General Speedcubing Discussion||15|
|3x3 with Feet in Mini Guildfords...||General Speedcubing Discussion||4|