• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

CubingUSA Nationals 2017 - Fort Wayne, Indiana (July 7-9)

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,883
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
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.
 

AlexMaass

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
1,546
Location
America, New York, Long Island
WCA
2011MAAS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
or they could just include singles as well as averages to meet cutoff
 

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,811
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Feet is a WCA event right?
Then why is it not at US Nationals?
It has been at Nats from 2010-2015.
I am confused.

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.
 
Last edited:

AlexMaass

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
1,546
Location
America, New York, Long Island
WCA
2011MAAS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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
 

ender9994

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
610
Location
Hopewell NJ
WCA
2008GROM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what percentage of people who have ever attempted multi blind get eliminated due to the 5 point cuttoff?

Edit: I would actually like to see this data for every event. it would help show how competitive the chosen cuttoffs really are
 
Last edited:

turtwig

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
656
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.

Can't wait for the venue to come out in December. This year put feet in the unofficial events!:D

Why would they do that? If they were to hold it at all, it might as well be official.
 

DGCubes

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
1,823
Location
Over there
WCA
2013GOOD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what percentage of people who have ever attempted multi blind get eliminated due to the 5 point cuttoff?

Edit: I would actually like to see this data for every event. it would help show how competitive the chosen cuttoffs really are

Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
4x4 Cube: 64.19%
5x5 Cube: 53.12%
2x2 Cube: 70.235%
3x3 blindfolded: 98.53%
3x3 one-handed: 74.229%
3x3 fewest moves: 27.2% single, 72.1% mean
Megaminx: 61.87%
Pyraminx: 60.911%
Square-1: 56.06%
Rubik's Clock: 47.76%
Skewb: 52.97%
6x6 Cube: 63.11%
7x7 Cube: 69.03%
4x4 blindfolded: 85.8%
5x5 blindfolded: 76.0%
3x3 multi blind: 28.0%

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. :p
 

aybuck37

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
437
WCA
2015BUCK03
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.
perfectly said
 

ender9994

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
610
Location
Hopewell NJ
WCA
2008GROM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
4x4 Cube: 64.19%
5x5 Cube: 53.12%
2x2 Cube: 70.235%
3x3 blindfolded: 98.53%
3x3 one-handed: 74.229%
3x3 fewest moves: 27.2% single, 72.1% mean
Megaminx: 61.87%
Pyraminx: 60.911%
Square-1: 56.06%
Rubik's Clock: 47.76%
Skewb: 52.97%
6x6 Cube: 63.11%
7x7 Cube: 69.03%
4x4 blindfolded: 85.8%
5x5 blindfolded: 76.0%
3x3 multi blind: 28.0%

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. :p


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.
 

AlexMaass

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
1,546
Location
America, New York, Long Island
WCA
2011MAAS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
4x4 Cube: 64.19%
5x5 Cube: 53.12%
2x2 Cube: 70.235%
3x3 blindfolded: 98.53%
3x3 one-handed: 74.229%
3x3 fewest moves: 27.2% single, 72.1% mean
Megaminx: 61.87%
Pyraminx: 60.911%
Square-1: 56.06%
Rubik's Clock: 47.76%
Skewb: 52.97%
6x6 Cube: 63.11%
7x7 Cube: 69.03%
4x4 blindfolded: 85.8%
5x5 blindfolded: 76.0%
3x3 multi blind: 28.0%

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. :p
do something with last year's nats results, pretending that this system was in place that year?
 

GenTheSnail

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,249
Location
Illinois, USA
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 
Last edited:

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,883
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
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.
 

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,811
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 
Top