Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico

[Michael45764]

This is not Martín Telésforo solution, is just a proposal by Dominate done some posts ago in this same thread, the F' D D' F is just to try to adapt to what Martín said (he began with White cross and then switched to Yellow), it obviously isn't the right scramble as I Guess dominate jusst wanted to show us how could it be if the scramble was prepared or just missscrambled

Just to try and clarify, he didn't exactly say he did moves before switching cross. To my interpretation he says 'at the end' he made a mistake 'when it came time to execute'. I think don't he means that he started to execute the solve and then switched, just that he switched once it came time to execute (because he saw 2 f2l's solved or something).

 

[Mirco]

I thought about doing that a few days ago, but there might be people who would can provide good information about this situation (e.g. people who were at the competition), that aren't experienced enough to be in the Private Forum.

And of course people want to talk about the issue. If the posts are productive or not does not really matter, especially with everything being said².

 

[mark49152]

And of course people want to talk about the issue. If the posts are productive or not does not really matter, especially with everything being said².

Exactly. That is what a forum is for. Spending time "cleaning" threads to remove 100s of posts of discussion is a strange way to run a forum, IMO. If the WCA are likely to be interested in content here, wouldn't it be better to compile the useful findings into a report and forward it to them? This thread is never going to be a useful way to present the information, however much you "clean" it. Besides, it appears to be nothing more than an assumption that the WCA would be interested in the content here.

 

[kp]

I think this actually could be a source of information for the WCA, as a lot of cubers from around the world have given their inputs. There is a compilation post (although I'm not sure whether anyone has forwarded it), here, and also edited in the very first post of the thread. IMO this could be very useful as, if not main, supportive information to the whole issue.

As for cleaning up threads, I think it was just to stop this thread from turning into "4.41 is impossibru!" and stuff; to keep the useful posts from disappearing in the crowd. It may not be 100% efficient, but why not do it anyway?

 

[coldsun0630]

Avg 15 => Under 4 TPS
4.41 SEC * 4 TPS = Under 18 Moves

I Don't Believe That '4.41' Is Real.

 

[aashritspidey]

Well accordin to me- -we shud wait for the WCA to make a decision. What if it was actually correct. Frankly. When i was averaging like 1 min during my first competition, I got a 30 second solve. Wehere my pb was around 36 seconds. I had a lucky x-cross. So u can never say. And this is just my opinion #peace

 

[MatejMuzatko]

It's very very unprobable, but:
Where is confirmation that he got the right scramble? He could have gotten easy misscramble randomly solved to J perm...

But this guy is stupid, if I averaged around 18 seconds and got a 4.41 (if it's true) I'd rather say: DNF it, whole community would hate me for this.. It would be fair play

 

[qqwref]

When i was averaging like 1 min during my first competition, I got a 30 second solve. [...] So u can never say.

It's worlds apart. You got a lucky solve that was half of your average; I've done that too. This guy's solve is just over a quarter of his average (assuming he averages 17ish). It would be like you getting a 15 second solve at the time, on a scramble with no obvious easy solution.

 

[toruu]

It's worlds apart. You got a lucky solve that was half of your average; I've done that too. This guy's solve is just over a quarter of his average (assuming he averages 17ish). It would be like you getting a 15 second solve at the time, on a scramble with no obvious easy solution.

Not to mention that there is a BIG difference between 1 min-30 secs and 18-4. Like Faz or Kevin said. Getting a four is far more difficult than getting a six.

 

[jayefbe]

IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.

Does anyone else find it strange that speculation from people with minimal direct evidence of the solve, with no ability to correctly discern rumor from accurate reports, and no ability to try to gain more information are going to have an impact on the final decision?

Other than searching the scramble for outrageously simple solves that match the description, there's very little productive discussion in this thread that should inform any official decision. Even that has issues, because any solve can be remembered incorrectly, which I'm sure would be Martin's first line of defense.

Plus, is forcing people to reconstruct their solves now going to be necessary for all solves? It seems like a dangerous double standard is being considered because we all consider this the product of cheating.

 

[Sa967St]

Exactly. That is what a forum is for. Spending time "cleaning" threads to remove 100s of posts of discussion is a strange way to run a forum, IMO. If the WCA are likely to be interested in content here, wouldn't it be better to compile the useful findings into a report and forward it to them? This thread is never going to be a useful way to present the information, however much you "clean" it.

The problem is that there are some informative posts that might not get read because they would get buried. This is an important issue and we don't want important information to get missed. The first post helps, but there's more that should be read. It's not normal at all to clean up threads this much. This is just an exception. I was planning to restore the deleted posts after the WCA has made a decision, anyway.

Besides, it appears to be nothing more than an assumption that the WCA would be interested in the content here.

I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.

Reading. Oh, so much reading.

 

[Konsta]

Plus, is forcing people to reconstruct their solves now going to be necessary for all solves? It seems like a dangerous double standard is being considered because we all consider this the product of cheating.

I don't see why it should be so that all solves have to be reconstructed. It is a bit different case to ask that in WR solve, especially if there is anything weird going on.
And past WR solves have been reconstructed anyway, just because people like to see how they are done, not because they don't believe it happened.
If Martin can't provide any sensible reconstruction about the solve with that scramble, there is no way it can be considered as a WR in my eyes.
And because the solution should be very short, it should also be much easier to remember/reconstruct. The longer it takes, the more suspicious it looks.

 

[chris410]

Not to mention that there is a BIG difference between 1 min-30 secs and 18-4. Like Faz or Kevin said. Getting a four is far more difficult than getting a six.

100% agree and exactly why I do not think the solve is valid, most people could execute a 30 second solve where a 4.41 second solve would require far more skill especially that of a 17 second average cuber. Furthermore, the signed slip eliminates all of his solves period since the judge signed all the slots, that allows anyone to write down any time they want without the judge present. There should be no argument with the slip alone that the attempt is not going to be counted as an official world record. With all the obvious evidence, I suspect the card itself speaks to the video/reactions/etc...as all of this being a prank.

 

[Ron]

His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.

 

[Kirjava]

His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.

what, officially?

 

[moralsh]

His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.

That's a 16.63 average, so he improved his official average but not by much.

 

[A Leman]

His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.

Is this just information to the public about his later solves on the scorecard or is this your statement of the 4.41's authenticity?

 

[Ollie]

No announcement on WCA.

 

[qqwref]

Much thanks for relaying this information, Ron. So our arguments based on him having a ~17 second average were correct after all.

 

[Zoé]

I think Ron was just informing us of what Martín's other times were for the competition (since everyone keeps arguing he could have improved over a year, but we couldn't know for sure with only 2 times to go with), not stating that anything has been officialized