How could there be any truly objective arguments for removing or keeping an event?
No, I'm serious. What's the criterion for whether something's an event? Why solving with feet and not solving with elbows? Why 4BLD and not 4OH? Why Rubik's Clock and not Rubik's Fifteen? The truth is, there's no objective standard. There is nothing you can prove about an event (with statistics or mathematics) that will give the WCA no choice but to add or remove the event. We have added and removed events over the years by more or less following the community's feelings, and the set of events we have now is certainly somewhat arbitrary. It's certainly not the most interesting or mathematically pure or difficult puzzles, and it's probably not even the most popular either, if you discount the huge popularity boost that an event gets just by being official. So if you want to add or remove an event, you can't argue that it does or does not match the requirements an event needs to have, because there is no such concept.
I think the argument cubizh gives is a good, objective, measure of the relative popularity of an event as viewed by the community. If an event was hosted less and less frequently over time, I think that could be used as an objective argument for its removal.If the number of competitions with an event steadily decline over the course of over a year up to the point where no one actually competes or wants to organize a competition with that event anymore, seems somewhat an objective argument to remove an event.
I think there has been a truly objective argument for removing events: Magic and Master Magic. In those cases, the objective argument was that the events were too challenging to judge properly - it was probably possible to judge them properly, but it was too challenging to enforce at all our competitions. For that reason, the events were removed.How could there be any truly objective arguments for removing or keeping an event?
I agree entirely with this. People practice the event. It is held from time to time. Why take it away? We're all thought of as nerds anyway, it isn't like the Cubing image in the press makes us seem all badass.I think there has been a truly objective argument for removing events: Magic and Master Magic. In those cases, the objective argument was that the events were too challenging to judge properly - it was probably possible to judge them properly, but it was too challenging to enforce at all our competitions. For that reason, the events were removed.
That to me is an objective argument for removing an event.
And as for my subjective opinion, I would prefer that we never remove an event unless we have an objective reason to remove the event, so I would prefer that we not remove any of the current events. But I admit that is purely my subjective opinion.
Yeah the H perm is a somewhat special case. Perhaps feetsolving isn't significantly different from OH, but at least it's different from 2H in the same way OH is. I'm not sure what the "new ideas and techniques" are in OH, but I feel like most changes that are useful for OH would also be useful for feetsolving because of 2-gen/4-gen. With regards to RULD, a feetsolver can execute L and D without rotations. For F2L, it means that I can less awkwardly do "D" turns for stuff like keyhole. Then again, I'm not sure how much time world-class OH solvers lose on rotations like that.But H perm is a special case, isn't it? There are a lot of pretty good algs for H with different move sets. In your list, I have seen people use the third one for OH (albeit executed differently) and I myself use it for sim.
As you mentioned, the difference between RFLB and RULD is just a rotation. So I would be surprised to hear that for feetsolvers most of OLL/PLL had to be replaced with new algs, or that F2L was done totally differently than in OH. The biggest difference is that turns have to be done even more slowly than in OH, which certainly does affect what turns a good solver would want to do, but it doesn't seem like a big enough change to have people develop entirely new ideas and techniques, like we have seen for OH.
After reading through this thread, I realise that the media arguments are pretty moot. This said, I feel there's a huge disparity between how non-cubers view speedsolving and what cubers know is speedsolving, primarily rooted from the disparity in the view on the cube itself.What is the image of cubing?
Seeing as you've gone and bumped this dead thread, you asked for it...Even though a lot of people don't like it, a lot of people do like it. How will competitions be improved if it is removed?
His underlying reasoning is sound, he just omitted certain salient parts from his expression of it. Allow me to rephrase it into a clearer expression of what I believe he meant: "Even though a lot of people don't like it, MORE people DO like it, as evinced by the current poll results." At the time of this writing, 42.52% voted to retain the event, whereas only 37.54% voted to eliminate it. You've lost the election, Dene.Seeing as you've gone and bumped this dead thread, you asked for it...
Your reasoning is horrible. Therefore any conclusions you come to based on your reasoning are unjustified.
That makes perfect sense. If we remove it I do not think competitions would be "better." whether you take is seriously think it's absolutely silly either way it's a positive in my book.Even though a lot of people don't like it, a lot of people do like it. How will competitions be improved if it is removed?
This really bugs me. How can you say feet doesn't require skill? You saying Gabriel Pereira Campanha broke WR without skill and technique?Short competitions are certainly easier to organize and run (and help out in) without feet. You don't have to move the timers and tables and stuff around, clean and deodorize things so people who don't love feet aren't disgusted, etc. while still keeping to the fixed number of hours you have the venue for.
Of course, bigBLD/multiBLD/FMC also make competitions harder to run, but at least (IMO) those have a lot of additional technique and skill above and beyond normal speedsolving, whereas feet doesn't.
He's just stating his oppinion. Other people may argue that bigBLD is basically regular BLD with a lot more memorization, there's not a lot of technique involved.This really bugs me. How can you say feet doesn't require skill? You saying Gabriel Pereira Campanha broke WR without skill and technique?
by that logic we should also remove OH since its so similar to normal speed solving.Of course, bigBLD/multiBLD/FMC also make competitions harder to run, but at least (IMO) those have a lot of additional technique and skill above and beyond normal speedsolving, whereas feet doesn't.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|The 'What should I work on?' thread||General Speedcubing Discussion||9|
|What should be fair cutoffs for competitions.||General Speedcubing Discussion||80|
|The Easiest 2x2 Anti-CLL Cases You Should Know||Puzzle Video Gallery||0|
|J||What are the top 5 3x3x3 cubes any decent speedcuber should have in his inventory?||Hardware Area||42|
|What 3x3x3 cube should I buy?||Cubing Help & Questions||27|