WACWCA
Veteran
GJ Keaton
[Official] Keaton Ellis - 5.09 3x3 single (not WR but fastest in competition at the time)
- Thread starter Ninja Storm
- Start date
Yes We Can!
Veteran
Extremely pro. Awesome job! I did the same solution when I tried the scramble, but I doubt I would have been able to do it this smooth in competition.
Also a slighty off-topic suggestion: Maybe organisers/delegates should think about reinforcing the concept of a competitors' area and a spectators' area more strictly. The commotion after the solve looks extremely chaotic and I'm sure ruined many of the solves that were happening at that time.
Also a slighty off-topic suggestion: Maybe organisers/delegates should think about reinforcing the concept of a competitors' area and a spectators' area more strictly. The commotion after the solve looks extremely chaotic and I'm sure ruined many of the solves that were happening at that time.
supercavitation
Veteran
They actually did a great job of that, for the most part. For the most part, it was just the world records that destroyed that.
biscuit
Veteran
JustinTimeCuber
Legend
lol you called it
Godmil
Premium Member
Awesome solve. Well done!
coinman
Veteran
Should not Ketons 5.09 counts as a WR?
What I thought I heard, but I can remember it wrong, is that if a WR is set in a round and then the time is betaten by another competitor in the same round it does not count as a WR.
5.09 was taken in one round, 4.90 in another, so shold not Ketons time be counted as WR, if ever so briefly?
What I thought I heard, but I can remember it wrong, is that if a WR is set in a round and then the time is betaten by another competitor in the same round it does not count as a WR.
5.09 was taken in one round, 4.90 in another, so shold not Ketons time be counted as WR, if ever so briefly?
AlexMaass
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,547
- Location
- America, New York, Long Island
- WCA ID
- 2011MAAS01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
The regulations changed, https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#9i2.
biscuit
Veteran
It's now on the same day, so no.
Tony Fisher
Veteran
Wow, what a crazy rule. How is it any different to the 100m WR going in an Olympic semi-final and then again in the final later the same day? I think the only time it should apply is if two competitors complete their sub world record solves so close to each other it's uncertain which finished first.
DanpHan
Veteran
^agreed, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind that regulation.
JustinTimeCuber
Legend
if two people break the WR at different competitions, it would be next to impossible to tell which one happened first. Especially so for a computer, because I'm pretty sure competition schedules are not in the database.
supercavitation
Veteran
So make an exception for when it can be confirmed which happened when by necessity (i.e., round 3 at one comp can't happen before round 2 at the same comp).
DanpHan
Veteran
Fair point, but in that case it should be a temporary regulation as they come up with a proper solution to make records more clear.
Phinagin
Regular
To add to the two WR happening in same day issue:
I have been thinking about this for a little while. When there is a WR, NR, or CR it should be the competitor's responsibility to inform the delegate and at the moment when the delegate is informed, he (/she?) makes a note of the current time in a specific time zone(doesn't matter which one as long as it is clear which one). And if it does happen that the same record gets broken twice on same day, both records get officially credited, based on the time the delegate noted.
Obviously where there are big crowds such as in WR like these the competitors may forget to inform the delegate, so if he realizes there is a WR, then he can take note of time.
The process of taking down the time could be ironed out some more, but I thought I would throw that idea out there and see what you think.
I have been thinking about this for a little while. When there is a WR, NR, or CR it should be the competitor's responsibility to inform the delegate and at the moment when the delegate is informed, he (/she?) makes a note of the current time in a specific time zone(doesn't matter which one as long as it is clear which one). And if it does happen that the same record gets broken twice on same day, both records get officially credited, based on the time the delegate noted.
Obviously where there are big crowds such as in WR like these the competitors may forget to inform the delegate, so if he realizes there is a WR, then he can take note of time.
The process of taking down the time could be ironed out some more, but I thought I would throw that idea out there and see what you think.
not_kevin
Veteran
Disclaimer: I'm only a delegate, and I wasn't involved with the discussion on the WR/CR/NR rules. But hopefully I can provide some perspective, even if it's only from my point of view.
The issue, as I saw it, was that it's very hard to come up with an easy-to-understand, easy-to-implement ruleset that guarantees "fairness" based on time of solve. More fundamentally, it's very hard to find out when a solve actually happens. We could go by a schedule of some sort, but that only provides ~hourly precision, and even then, what if the schedule runs early or late, or there's no accessible schedule due to unforeseen circumstances? This is also made somewhat more/less contentious with heats - what if Keaton got a WR in round 2 heat A, and then Lucas got one in round 2 heat C? It's largely luck that put them in those heats in the first place, so it's hard to say which one should be "counted" first. What if both of them got their results on the fourth solve in a "head-to-head" situation, with Keaton simply starting first?
Also, try to think about if the situations were reversed - what if Lucas had gotten a 4.90, then Keaton got his 5.09. Does anything change? Consider this reversal for each of the scenarios I posed above, as well.
As an additional thorn, how would averages work? If Keaton had gotten a 6.53 average at 10:30, and then Lucas got a 6.52 at 10:35, but Lucas had done his first four solves before Keaton had even done a single solve, who gets WRs?
Then, how do we take into account time zones? For example, if Kaijun Lin finally gets an official sub-20 BLD solve in the finals in China at 5PM there, but then Noah Arthurs also gets a sub-20 in the first round at Stanford, at 10AM, which one should count "first"? Do both of them get credit? (Again consider both if Kaijun's is faster, and if Noah's is faster.)
And then there's the issue that sometimes people simply don't know what the WR/CR/NR for an event is - can definitely happen because of luck (case in point - for my first ever official FMC solve back in 2009, I got a NAR without realizing it until someone was excitedly saying that they had gotten NAR with the same solution as me outside). So how do we handle these cases, where we simply don't know if a WR/CR/NR was broken until afterwards? (Fortunately for us, Cubecomps is pretty good at telling us this info, but there _are_ still some competitions where Wi-Fi isn't guaranteed, so Cubecomps isn't used.)
Hopefully these edge cases give an idea as to why it's hard to come up with an uncontroversial rule for this. My guess (again, reiterating that I didn't make the decision, this is only my opinion) is that because of this inherent impossibility to "satisfy" all possible edge cases, we decided to define a comp by the day(s) it was held (since this is pretty set in stone, and very trackable), and only tally up WRs at the end of the day across timezones (so, only one of Kaijun/Noah will get a WR in BLD, for example, no matter the order). This is unambiguous and easy to implement. As a counter-argument to "but why don't we just say that any result on a day that beats the previous day's WR listing gets recognition", consider when a new country enters, with 15 people. Should the 15th place person be recognized with an NR because he competed on the first day that anyone from his country competed? Similarly, if there's just a really really easy scramble on 3x3 (like, nothing but a U perm level easy), and pretty much everyone at a particular competition breaks the WR single, do we recognize all of them, or just the fastest? I would argue that it wouldn't make sense that a person getting a 4.85 U perm should get WR recognition if there was someone else who got a 0.85 at the same comp.
TL;DR: there are a lot of edge cases, so I think this rule exists as it does because it's unambiguous, easy to implement, handles most edge cases well, and is fairly consistent with how we recognized records in the past.
Tony Fisher
Veteran
Thanks not_kevin, I can see it is more complicated than first thought especially when NRs are considered. Answering a few of the problems though I would say time zones are not relevant and GMT should be used for all solve times. Time does not vary from country to country, only the way we label it. I can also see how averages could cause an issue though surely it must be when the last of the series is completed (GMT) by the solver? If there were two decathlon competitions (sorry but athletics is my thing) going on at the same time then I'm pretty sure the WR would be broken when the breaker completes the final event regardless of other athletes competing in different groups, competitions or even if the record was passed during an earlier event.
I personally think it should come down to a ruling based on information available. So if date and time of solve are recorded and seconded (GMT could be worked out later) and it is clear who finished first then the record should stand (for however many minutes or hours). If however there is insufficient evidence then the 24 hour rule should apply. I can see that it would create extra work for something that I assume happens very rarely and could be rejected for that reason alone. I just feel desperately sorry for Keaton.
Sorry if I have diverted this thread into a subject more suited to a different sub forum.
I personally think it should come down to a ruling based on information available. So if date and time of solve are recorded and seconded (GMT could be worked out later) and it is clear who finished first then the record should stand (for however many minutes or hours). If however there is insufficient evidence then the 24 hour rule should apply. I can see that it would create extra work for something that I assume happens very rarely and could be rejected for that reason alone. I just feel desperately sorry for Keaton.
Sorry if I have diverted this thread into a subject more suited to a different sub forum.
tseitsei
Veteran
I have to say that I agree with this post :tu
WRs are such rare events that delegates (and everyone else in the competition) will surely notice when/if one is broken. Then they simply write down the local time at the moment. And as Tony said, time doesnt change so afterwards we can change times to GMT if needed and compare those.
Also I dont see any problem with averages either since (IMO) the record is only broken when the last solve of the average is finished...
biscuit
Veteran
Last edited by a moderator:
not_kevin
Veteran
Oh hey, I remember one of the things people talked about against GMT - this means that Australia and Asia have a huge advantage in setting WRs over the Americas, and the east coast of the US similarly has an advantage over the west coast, simply because their GMT times happen first. Again, consider the case where Kaijun gets an 18 3BLD single at 4pm Beijing time (GMT +8), then Noah gets a 19 at 9am Pacific time (GMT -8), both on Saturday - should Noah's achievement be ignored, then?
Last edited:
