I couldn't either spare the time to go to nationals or make pretty much any of these cutoffs (except 2 and 3), but this is the way it should be done. With one exception: can cubingusa mandate that cutoffs for cubingusa authorized events be not more strict than these limits? I can imagine it would be incredibly frustrating to someone who averages 1:20 on 4x4 but all their local comps have a 1:10 or a 1:15 cutoff, for example.
I couldn't either spare the time to go to nationals or make pretty much any of these cutoffs (except 2 and 3), but this is the way it should be done. With one exception: can cubingusa mandate that cutoffs for cubingusa authorized events be not more strict than these limits? I can imagine it would be incredibly frustrating to someone who averages 1:20 on 4x4 but all their local comps have a 1:10 or a 1:15 cutoff, for example.
Averages are a better indicator because of the possibility of a lucky single. And ultimately that's what they're looking for: an indicator of how fast somebody actually is.
It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.
These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule.
That being said, some of the less held events (like big bld) I don't think should have qualification times. Even then, I can see why you would though. I think this is a big step in the right direction for the WCA. I'm strongly opposed to making local comps hyper competitive, but bigger comps should be more competitive.
Eventually, I'd love to see cubing get to the point where you have to attend a regional comp before you go to nationals. We're not close to that though.
Averages are a better indicator because of the possibility of a lucky single. And ultimately that's what they're looking for: an indicator of how fast somebody actually is.
its less luck on bigger puzzles, and you would likely have it quite lower than the average, for example 2:30 megaminx avg, sub 2:05 single would be enough imo
I don't think this is the best way to do it. I'm not planning on going, but if I were, I would not be able to compete in a lot of the events that I'm good at purely because I haven't competed in them in comp, even though I'm easily twice as fast at home. A lot of these events, like MBLD, is something that a lot of people only get a chance to do at really big comps like Nats, since small comps don't hold them a lot.
I think we should just put strict cut-offs during the comp, like if your first solve isn't sub-x, you can't finish your average. This way a lot of beginners they're trying to filter out will be out after the first solve but people who have improved from their last comp of people who haven't competed but are fast can still compete.
Note that this is the percentage that would be able to compete as of now, not the percentage that would be eliminated. Also, the reason for inconsistent decimal places is that I used significant figures.
It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.
These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule.
That being said, some of the less held events (like big bld) I don't think should have qualification times. Even then, I can see why you would though. I think this is a big step in the right direction for the WCA. I'm strongly opposed to making local comps hyper competitive, but bigger comps should be more competitive.
Eventually, I'd love to see cubing get to the point where you have to attend a regional comp before you go to nationals. We're not close to that though.
Note that this is the percentage that would be able to compete as of now, not the percentage that would be eliminated. Also, the reason for inconsistent decimal places is that I used significant figures.
Perfect, thank you. I was right in thinking Multi was much more restrictive than other events. Surprised at how high 6x6 and 7x7 are. I would have thought they would have been around 40%, guess I need to stop sucking at big cubes.
Note that this is the percentage that would be able to compete as of now, not the percentage that would be eliminated. Also, the reason for inconsistent decimal places is that I used significant figures.
It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.
These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule.
That being said, some of the less held events (like big bld) I don't think should have qualification times. Even then, I can see why you would though. I think this is a big step in the right direction for the WCA. I'm strongly opposed to making local comps hyper competitive, but bigger comps should be more competitive.
Eventually, I'd love to see cubing get to the point where you have to attend a regional comp before you go to nationals. We're not close to that though.
What is logistically nightmarish about holding Feet? I have yet to hold a comp, but when I do, I will have Feet. What else is there too it besides putting the timers and mats on the ground? At Michigan 2016, I didn't notice any logistical nightmares when they held it.
Besides, if so few people care about Feet, which isn't a viable reason at all [because less people have a single in 4BLD and 5BLD combined than a Feet mean 641<993], then the only competitors would be the "fast" (~sub 2:30) people, right? So you could literally just buy four extra timers and use those for feet as there would be less than 30 people [based off the 21 sub-2:30 ao5s from nats 2015] who could pull off a sub 2:30 average.
Here is a little time distribution/average time chart that I made based of nats 201[5].
Like on cstimer,
120-150s : 5
90-120s : 7
60-90s : 5
28-60s : 4
Even if all the competitors got the worst average according to their time rank, with 4 timer stations it would only take ~28 minutes of pure solve time, and with ~15 minutes of scramble/judge writing/running time, it would only take 45m.
And this is if everyone's times where rounded up to a 30 second bracket.
I don't see how Feet can be a logistical nightmare anymore than BigBLD.
You also said "It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet". Looking at the time schedule from Nats 2015, Feet was only given 30m on the side stage. Doesn't quite sound like they are draining lots of their funds into Feet.
Again, most of this data is based off US Nationals 2015, and of course, I may be mistaken in some areas.
Please point out any errors that I may have made.
Perfect, thank you. I was right in thinking Multi was much more restrictive than other events. Surprised at how high 6x6 and 7x7 are. I would have thought they would have been around 40%, guess I need to stop sucking at big cubes.
It probably has something to do with the strict cutoffs employed for big cubes. cutoffs of around 4:00-4:30 for 6x6 and 5:30 for 7x7 aren't uncommon. I don't think I'm all that unusual, and I run about 35s on 3x3, 1:55 on 4x4, 3:45 on 5x5, and 7:00+ on 6x6. I don't have a 7x7. It might be more realistic to run those numbers with single times to get the people who can make a hard cut but not a soft cut.
What is logistically nightmarish about holding Feet? I have yet to hold a comp, but when I do, I will have Feet. What else is there too it besides putting the timers and mats on the ground? At Michigan 2016, I didn't notice any logistical nightmares when they held it.
Besides, if so few people care about Feet, which isn't a viable reason at all [because less people have a single in 4BLD and 5BLD combined than a Feet mean 641<993], then the only competitors would be the "fast" (~sub 2:30) people, right? So you could literally just buy four extra timers and use those for feet as there would be less than 30 people [based off the 21 sub-2:30 ao5s from nats 2015] who could pull off a sub 2:30 average.
Here is a little time distribution/average time chart that I made based of nats 201[5].
Like on cstimer,
120-150s : 5
90-120s : 7
60-90s : 5
28-60s : 4
Even if all the competitors got the worst average according to their time rank, with 4 timer stations it would only take ~28 minutes of pure solve time, and with ~15 minutes of scramble/judge writing/running time, it would only take 45m.
And this is if everyone's times where rounded up to a 30 second bracket.
I don't see how Feet can be a logistical nightmare anymore than BigBLD.
You also said "It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet". Looking at the time schedule from Nats 2015, Feet was only given 30m on the side stage. Doesn't quite sound like they are draining lots of their funds into Feet.
Again, most of this data is based off US Nationals 2015, and of course, I may be mistaken in some areas.
Please point out any errors that I may have made.
You forget that there's setup and take down time for feet. You have to take away the tables, pack up the stack mats and set up more stackmats (which you had to buy specifically for feet, and can't be used for anything else). Don't forget that this is going to take a few staff members, which just a few can slow down everything a good deal (think not having enough judges.) Lets assume 1:15 to run feet (which is very conservative in my estimate.) Plus 2:30 is fairly strict qualifying time, which seems to not be what they're going with. That's the equivalent of 1 round of clock, over 1 attempt of FMC, 3x3 round 2 +7x7 finals, etc. For the amount of people that care about it, it's just not worth it. That's not even all the problems with feet.
Not really, with all the weird stuff people can have on their feet, and the sweat, i know I wouldn't be happy using the timers that someone else just had their feet on
