Should feet, magic and master magic be reintroduced?

[One Wheel]

I think we need a clear process for adding and removing events:

- A non-binding poll (don't announce the results publicly, only to delegates and staff) of as many active WCA members as will respond to get a clear picture of the sense of the community rather than just a sense of the vocal segments of the community.
- A 2/3 vote of delegates
- A 2/3 vote of the WRC.

This would provide a clear organizational bias toward keeping the event list the same. As it is the delegate poll for removing Feet was only 56 keep 58 remove: if 2 people changed their minds the result would be opposite. Requiring a 2/3 majority means that 1 or 2 people changing their minds would not change the overall sense of the body.

The current (mostly) pause on competitions would provide an excellent opportunity to introduce this system, and to put it to the test by treating ALL current and former WCA events as though proposed for removal. My guess is that all current events would stay, since it would take a 2/3 vote of both delegates and the WRC to remove them. Feet would likely be very close to 50/50 and would therefore be added back. Other events like Magic, Master Magic, and Siamese Cube would probably remain off the list.

 

[Nir1213]

For higher-level 2x2 solvers, they 1-look the scramble. Meaning they plan out every move they need in inspection. Meaning that, while they are looking at the during solves, they don't need to.

Rami Sbahi actually made a video of this:

where he did a 2x2 Ao5, but he put a blindfold on before he started the timer. And...it was pretty mych how he'd normally solve. Just layer, then EG alg. It's functionally the same as a regular solve with inspection, and for good 2x2 solvers, 2x2 Blindfolded would literally add nothing new.

oh ok so its useless.

 

[abunickabhi]

I really want magic and master magic to be reintroduced. I want to compete in them and get good times, U' L S L' S2 L' S L U .

 

[Silky]

SO I'm going to give my 2 cents on the matter. To preface, I complete understand the arguments why people would like to bring back the events being that they have a long history in the WCA and people felling nostalgia for the events. That being said, I think the WCA's decision to remove these event was 1000% justified.

Magic and Master Magic:
The history of these events go back to the heavy influence of Rubik's on the creation of the WCA. Almost all Rubik's puzzles were included: Siamese, UFO, and Magic/Master Magic. UFO and Siamese were removed and I don't think anyone misses them. Likewise, Magic/Master Magic don't really make sense to keep in the WCA. (1) It wasn't really a popular event, (2) it isn't a a puzzle ( the solution is always the same so it's really just a showcase of technical skill that isn't really that interesting. It's kinda like if we included 1x1, it's just seeing how fast to can do an arbitrary task ), and (3) the hardware wasn't good ( they literally would fall apart and you'd have to restring it with fish lines ) nor was it very accessible ( I don't think it was really being mass produced ). The WCA has clearly outgrown their ties with Rubik's so keeping this event has very few grounds.

Feet:
Feet is a bit of a different argument. It has a lot more value than Magic/Master Magic since it's non-arbitrary puzzle solving and isn't just a technical showcase. However, like magic, it wasn't a very popular event. Many people didn't do the event because they felt it was gross so I'm not going to include that since it's pretty subjective. The bigger justification for expulsion is that it adds no more value than other nxn events. Currently, 12/17 events are all nxn events which is kind of ridiculous. There is a complete over saturation of nxn events and many are both unpopular and don't really add any novelty that other events don't already provide. IMO 7x7, 4BLD, and 5BLD should be removed based on the former arguments. 7x7 adds nothing more than what 6x6 already provides, plus it's unpopular. The only really valid argument is that the hardware is better but 6x6 hardware is improving which makes it kind of moot. Likewise, 4/5BLD fall into a similar category.. unpopular and don't add value that 3BLD or MultiBLD don't already meet. The biggest thing though is that all of these events are clogging up the competitive events. I don't mind adding nxn events like team BLD since it maintains a lot of novelty but realistically if we want to add more nxn events we really need to remove redundant/unpopular ones. To add, keeping these events really prevents newer events from being held that would add variety, would attract more people, and become more popular.

 

[ender9994]

I never really got the sense that magic was unpopular. Taking a look at an example competition (US nationals 2010), nearly 50% of competitors participated in magic (though far less in master magic), which was higher than many other events. Judging difficulties seemed like the main issue with it. It also didn't help that it was often the first event of the day, so things were still being organized, and that people were anxious to start 3x3.

 

[Kit Clement]

Magic and Master Magic:
The history of these events go back to the heavy influence of Rubik's on the creation of the WCA. Almost all Rubik's puzzles were included: Siamese, UFO, and Magic/Master Magic. UFO and Siamese were removed and I don't think anyone misses them. Likewise, Magic/Master Magic don't really make sense to keep in the WCA. (1) It wasn't really a popular event, (2) it isn't a a puzzle ( the solution is always the same so it's really just a showcase of technical skill that isn't really that interesting. It's kinda like if we included 1x1, it's just seeing how fast to can do an arbitrary task ), and (3) the hardware wasn't good ( they literally would fall apart and you'd have to restring it with fish lines ) nor was it very accessible ( I don't think it was really being mass produced ). The WCA has clearly outgrown their ties with Rubik's so keeping this event has very few grounds.

This interpretation of magic/master magic's removal is grossly incorrect.

1. The WCA was formed in 2004 for the purpose of having independently run competitions, not necessarily tied to Rubik's. There were many irregularities in the 2003 World's that was run by Rubik's (time formats, how scrambles were generated, allowed puzzles, etc.) that the core community wanted to establish autonomy and run more local events in a fairer and more organized way. While many of the "Rubik's" branded puzzles did persist because they were at that 2003 event, WCA was not completely friendly with Rubik's, and fought for puzzle autonomy when Rubik's wanted only their brand to be used at the world championships in 2005 and 2007. By no means did Rubik's have any influence on the creation of the WCA.
2. Magic was at the time a very popular event in terms of participation. By the time it was removed in 2012, 4928 competitors had a result in the event. For comparison, Pyraminx, a very popular event today, had 4390 competitors with a result by the end of 2012. Whether those competitors were actually enthused or excited for that event is another question (and overall, they probably weren't).
3. Rubik's Magic was being mass produced by Rubik's and still is today. (https://www.rubiks.com/en-us/rubik-s-magic.html)
4. While the triviality of the puzzle was one of the two main reasons it was removed, the far more important one that led to its removal is the incredible difficulty in judging legal timer starts and stops for such a fast event. The other two reasons you gave are just not relevant to the removal of Magic. (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/archive/forum_topics/1013)

A couple other things that I'm not 100% sure are true, but:

1. Siamese cube has no ties to Rubik's, outside of a puzzle that was mass produced in the 1980s. The old WC 2003 results page doesn't tag the event with "Rubik's" in any way like it does for clock and magic. (http://www.speedcubing.com/events/wc2003/wc2003_results.html)
2. I'm not sure of any older WCA events that had UFO, nor was the event ever recognized by the WCA at any point (see old unofficial results database here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130613075233/http://www.speedcubing.com/results/)

IMO 7x7, 4BLD, and 5BLD should be removed based on the former arguments. 7x7 adds nothing more than what 6x6 already provides, plus it's unpopular. The only really valid argument is that the hardware is better but 6x6 hardware is improving which makes it kind of moot. Likewise, 4/5BLD fall into a similar category.. unpopular and don't add value that 3BLD or MultiBLD don't already meet.

You really like to throw around the word "unpopular" without backing that up with any evidence. 7x7x7 is by no means unpopular. 4/5BLD have less participation for sure, but also have significant barriers to competing in the events. I get the argument that both 4/5BLD may be redundant, but the types of memory and execution used in those two events are significantly different then 3BLD or MBLD.

 

[qwr]

You can chalk up so many people doing magic because it is so easy and involves no thinking. You learn one algorithm and you don't even need to inspect because it's always the same.

Feet has novelty in that it emphasizes fewer move solutions due to the low TPS. So it may be that a feet solver could use Petrus due to its low movecount. Yes it's a nxnxn event but it is totally unique. I think we should factor in spectator-friendliness and feet is really cool to see.

 

[Silky]

This interpretation of magic/master magic's removal is grossly incorrect.

1. The WCA was formed in 2004 for the purpose of having independently run competitions, not necessarily tied to Rubik's. There were many irregularities in the 2003 World's that was run by Rubik's (time formats, how scrambles were generated, allowed puzzles, etc.) that the core community wanted to establish autonomy and run more local events in a fairer and more organized way. While many of the "Rubik's" branded puzzles did persist because they were at that 2003 event, WCA was not completely friendly with Rubik's, and fought for puzzle autonomy when Rubik's wanted only their brand to be used at the world championships in 2005 and 2007. By no means did Rubik's have any influence on the creation of the WCA.
2. Magic was at the time a very popular event in terms of participation. By the time it was removed in 2012, 4928 competitors had a result in the event. For comparison, Pyraminx, a very popular event today, had 4390 competitors with a result by the end of 2012. Whether those competitors were actually enthused or excited for that event is another question (and overall, they probably weren't).
3. Rubik's Magic was being mass produced by Rubik's and still is today. (https://www.rubiks.com/en-us/rubik-s-magic.html)
4. While the triviality of the puzzle was one of the two main reasons it was removed, the far more important one that led to its removal is the incredible difficulty in judging legal timer starts and stops for such a fast event. The other two reasons you gave are just not relevant to the removal of Magic. (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/archive/forum_topics/1013)

A couple other things that I'm not 100% sure are true, but:

1. Siamese cube has no ties to Rubik's, outside of a puzzle that was mass produced in the 1980s. The old WC 2003 results page doesn't tag the event with "Rubik's" in any way like it does for clock and magic. (http://www.speedcubing.com/events/wc2003/wc2003_results.html)
2. I'm not sure of any older WCA events that had UFO, nor was the event ever recognized by the WCA at any point (see old unofficial results database here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130613075233/http://www.speedcubing.com/results/)

You really like to throw around the word "unpopular" without backing that up with any evidence. 7x7x7 is by no means unpopular. 4/5BLD have less participation for sure, but also have significant barriers to competing in the events. I get the argument that both 4/5BLD may be redundant, but the types of memory and execution used in those two events are significantly different then 3BLD or MBLD.

I learned today.

incredible difficulty in judging legal timer starts and stops for such a fast event

Totally forgot about this point.

To clarify about popularity I'm drawing from WCA stats on most competitors ( https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php ). It's isn't strictly about how popular something is ( FMC isn't super popular for example ) but the combination of popularity and redundancy ( However, FMC is very novel/unique ). 7x7 is clearly less popular than 2x2-5x5 ( not sure about 6x6 due to hardware stuff ) AND it is redundant. It's not overall popularity but relative popularity. Yes 7x7 is not the least popular event but it is ( One of. Again not sure about 6x6 ) the least popular of the nxn events + it's the most redundant. Same with 4/5BLD. I can understand 4BLD but 5BLD doesn't really make sense to me.

By no means did Rubik's have any influence on the creation of the WCA.

I'd partially disagree. Yes, rubik's in no way have direct influence in the WCA, but the WCA was built out of solving Rubik's puzzles competitively. The only non-Rubik's events were Square-1, Megaminx, and Pyraminx.

 

[BenChristman1]

The only non-Rubik's events were Square-1, Megaminx, and Pyraminx.

I might be wrong, but didn’t Rubik’s manufacture all 3 of those puzzles back in the ‘80s?

 

[VIBE_ZT]

IMO 7x7, 4BLD, and 5BLD should be removed based on the former arguments. 7x7 adds nothing more than what 6x6 already provides, plus it's unpopular. The only really valid argument is that the hardware is better but 6x6 hardware is improving which makes it kind of moot. Likewise, 4/5BLD fall into a similar category.. unpopular and don't add value that 3BLD or MultiBLD don't already meet.

As someone that does every blind event (not well, I'll be honest, but still), 3x3 Blindfolded and 4x4 Blindfolded are... Very different. The bigBLD events are really an event of mental gymnastics and spatial awareness that 3x3BLD barely scratches the surface of. I feel that most people who do these events seek some more mental stimulation and investment in their solves than a quick event like (insert side event here) could ever offer.

I'm honest surprised you didn't discount MBLD from your count as well, given the parameters with which you counted out the other events.

In my opinion, they have their place. Sure, they not be extremely spectator friendly, or have a high participation, but they aren't exactly hated, or an extreme burden on competitions. At many comps, the BigBLD events run alongside other events so that there isn't a huge chunk of time taken out of the comp for an unpopular event. Now, I won't claim to have knowledge on running comps, but I'm just saying. They have their place.

 

[Tabe]

I might be wrong, but didn’t Rubik’s manufacture all 3 of those puzzles back in the ‘80s?

No. Tomy manufactured the megaminx and pyraminx. I think they did the squan, too, but am not certain.

 

[Silky]

As someone that does every blind event (not well, I'll be honest, but still), 3x3 Blindfolded and 4x4 Blindfolded are... Very different. The bigBLD events are really an event of mental gymnastics and spatial awareness that 3x3BLD barely scratches the surface of. I feel that most people who do these events seek some more mental stimulation and investment in their solves than a quick event like (insert side event here) could ever offer.

I'm honest surprised you didn't discount MBLD from your count as well, given the parameters with which you counted out the other events.

In my opinion, they have their place. Sure, they not be extremely spectator friendly, or have a high participation, but they aren't exactly hated, or an extreme burden on competitions. At many comps, the BigBLD events run alongside other events so that there isn't a huge chunk of time taken out of the comp for an unpopular event. Now, I won't claim to have knowledge on running comps, but I'm just saying. They have their place.

On the fence about 4BLD tbh. I just felt that MBLD achieves the 'mental gymnastics and spatial awareness of BigBLD' while being more unique than BigBLD. And tbh it isn't that I want to remove these events it's more the problem that the only way to include new events is to take out old ones due to logistic problems. I'd rather them all be included but it isn't considered realistic, unfortunately.

 

[Sub1Hour]

On the fence about 4BLD tbh. I just felt that MBLD achieves the 'mental gymnastics and spatial awareness of BigBLD' while being more unique than BigBLD. And tbh it isn't that I want to remove these events it's more the problem that the only way to include new events is to take out old ones due to logistic problems. I'd rather them all be included but it isn't considered realistic, unfortunately.

BigBLD has its place in the WCA. On MBLD attempts, you can make a few mistakes and still pull out a win. However, BigBLD has to be 100% prefect 100% of the time on every single part of the solve. I think that 5bld and 4bld should also coexist together, since 5BLD adds just enough pieces for it to be different, but not absolute chaos like 6bld+. It's a good equilibrium point that should be respected and kept in the WCA.

 

[Deleted member 55877]

I strongly believe that none of the current events should not be removed from the WCA. Every one of the current events are good in their own way.

 

[Silky]

BigBLD has its place in the WCA. On MBLD attempts, you can make a few mistakes and still pull out a win. However, BigBLD has to be 100% prefect 100% of the time on every single part of the solve. I think that 5bld and 4bld should also coexist together, since 5BLD adds just enough pieces for it to be different, but not absolute chaos like 6bld+. It's a good equilibrium point that should be respected and kept in the WCA.

I mean no disrespect. I think I've done a pretty poor job presenting my opinion here. But let's say that we added a few new events, FTO and Team BLD for example, which events do you think should be removed considering that every time adding events comes up the biggest logistical issue is that there isn't enough room to have more events.

I think we need a clear process for adding and removing events:

I totally agree with this. I don't really know anything about the process of adding/removing events but I think more direct community input is never a bad thing.

On a final note:
I'm much more for adding events than for removing events but under the current structure adding events is dependent on removing ones. I think one solution to this problem is to stop trying to hold every event at a (major) competition which is always the arguments against adding more. I think holding world/national comps in a subgroup of events could work wonders. To be more specific take FMC 2019 for example where you're having a world comp for a specific event. Expand this idea to an only BLD competition or a non-nxn competition This would mean that you could include a lot more events but with less logistical strain.