• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

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

Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked? (Read the first post)

Do you support adding a "Mean of 3" ranking to the WCA website for BLD?


  • Total voters
    135

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
I think that singles should still be what win competitions, but I think that in 3BLD there should also be rankings for means of 3.

Here are my reasons:
1. The WR single has basically gotten to the point that anyone who wants to beat it would need a fairly lucky scramble (Marcell included).
2. It is often very disappointing for people who put a lot of effort into 3BLD to have everything depend on the single. If you don't get lucky on a nice scramble, you won't ever get a good time, and if you do, you lose hope of beating that time. A mo3 ranking will better represent how good you are at BLD, and not just how good you are at a particular scramble.
3. A good mean of 3 is a significantly bigger accomplishment than a good single, just like in every other event.
4. Marcell's 29.63 official mo3 deserves huge recognition.
5. Most importantly, less BLDers would quit (I know I would be less likely to).

Tell me what you think.

UPDATE (December 10, 2013)

Here is a more complete argument for the proposed change to the regulations:

I would like to propose adding an official ranking for 3BLD means of 3.

I am not asking that competitions be determined any differently (they would still be determined by single), but only that there be official rankings for 3x3 blindfolded averages, just as there are rankings for singles in other events where averages determine who wins a competition.

Here are my arguments:

1. The world record single is at the point where even one of the fastest solvers would need a fairly lucky scramble in order to beat it. I know that this is true of many events (pyraminx, 2x2, 3x3 etc.), but in those events the WR average is generally considered to be more important. 3x3 Blindfolded does not have an average to fall back on, so the only record/ranking is quite based on luck.

2. Because of the luck element described above, competing in 3x3 blindfolded is often extremely frustrating for serious competitors. I go into every competition knowing that my ability to set a personal record has a lot to do with how easy the scrambles are for the event. Adding rankings for means would allow blindfolded solvers to have something to hope for other than a lucky scramble.

3. A mean of 3 is a better reflection of how fast a solver is than a good single. Although most of the 3x3 blindfolded single rankings are well deserved, there are plenty of examples of slower people overtaking faster people due to a lucky scramble. Again, this is not a problem in events that also have ranked averages, and would not be as much of a problem if 3x3 blindfolded averages were ranked.

4. It would add strategy and excitement to the 3x3 blindfolded event without removing any that is already there. Solvers would still be encouraged to go for fast times in order to win competitions, but they would also be encouraged get successes on scrambles that they can't get their best time on. I have had plenty of times where I have given up on a scramble or gone way faster than I should have because I knew that it didn't matter unless I beat the time that preceded it. For someone who has a PB single that they can't possibly beat due to a lucky scramble, ranked means would give them something new to go for.

5. In this, a few people argued that a reason for not ranking means is because not enough people have completed one successfully. I think most people can agree that this is not a valid argument to begin with, but I bring it up in order to point out one thing: one reason why not many people have gotten means is because of the lack of ranking for means. The current system encourages people to go for fast singles rather than averages, and so often times even fast people do not complete all three solves.


Honestly I cannot think of any reason why not to rank 3BLD means, and although it would be the only "best of" event to have ranked means, I don't think it would fundamentally change anything about competitions or the WCA. I find the luck-based elements of 3x3 blindfolded extremely frustrating, and I know that I am not the only blindsolver to feel this. I think that making this decision would make many people very happy, and would not have a negative effect on anyone.
 
Last edited:

Ollie

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,851
Location
London, UK
WCA
2012FROS01
YouTube
OliverFrostBLD
I don't see a problem with it, besides maybe that too few people would actually get all 3 solves.
Which would make having a Mo3 3BLD score on your rankings even more prestigious!

A Mo3 could still be heavily affected by a lucky scramble (or two - it can happen.) But I can't think of any way around this (average of 5, hmmm.) Also being able to perform under the pressure of being gifted with a good scramble is part of being a good BLD solver I guess.

Other than that I agree :)
 
Last edited:

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
Not many people rank in 5BLD, and that's ok. The way I feel and probably many other BLDers feel right now is the same kind of frustration that someone very into 5x5 would feel if only their best single counted.
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,378
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
RowanKinneavy
Not sure if the 'DNFs are common' argument is relevant since the nature of the event changes when ranking is also based on mo3. Would bring into question which system we use to rank in competition, I don't like the idea of 39.99 beating 40.00*3, but then again, the inability to rank at all if you get one DNF seems somewhat unfair. It would also lead to people solving a lot slower and taking up more time in competition in order to qualify for a mean. I don't mean to sound elitist but the time taken for the event (which is already a decent chunk) would increase, and thus decrease the number of competitions that can afford to run it...
 

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
Not sure if the 'DNFs are common' argument is relevant since the nature of the event changes when ranking is also based on mo3. Would bring into question which system we use to rank in competition, I don't like the idea of 39.99 beating 40.00*3, but then again, the inability to rank at all if you get one DNF seems somewhat unfair. It would also lead to people solving a lot slower and taking up more time in competition in order to qualify for a mean. I don't mean to sound elitist but the time taken for the event (which is already a decent chunk) would increase, and thus decrease the number of competitions that can afford to run it...
I really don't want anything to change other than the WCA website. Competitions should still base things on singles, I just think people should get recognition for means of three. In response to the time problem, competitions could just cut people off from finishing their average just like in any other event.
 

Mikel

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Iowa, USA
WCA
2011MIKE01
YouTube
rayquazapwn88
I think its a good idea. We are ranked in 3x3 single, but you have to have the best average to win a competition. This would be the same thing just flip-flopped.
 

Petro Leum

Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
794
Location
Germany
WCA
2012KALH01
what i am definately against are "best of x" formats. i would welcome a Mo3/Average of 5-Format for BLD. what is the point in being fast in blindsolving, when you get 1 success in 10 solves anyway? :p "i can solve the cube blind in 1 Minute! ...sometimes :/"
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
what i am definately against are "best of x" formats. i would welcome a Mo3/Average of 5-Format for BLD. what is the point in being fast in blindsolving, when you get 1 success in 10 solves anyway? :p "i can solve the cube blind in 1 Minute! ...sometimes :/"
No fast blindsolver has a success rate like that.
 

kinch2002

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,504
Location
Guildford! UK!
WCA
2009SHEP01
YouTube
kinch2002
No fast blindsolver has a success rate like that.
Indeed. Marcell has an extremely good success rate. He also has the best single and mean of 3. Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?

Joey would have UK NR with his only mean of 3 ever :)
 

ThomasJE

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
1,792
Location
England
YouTube
ThomasJECubing
Indeed. Marcell has an extremely good success rate. He also has the best single and mean of 3. Can someone provide evidence where somebody has shot up the world rankings 'unfairly' because of a lucky scramble?

Joey would have UK NR with his only mean of 3 ever :)
Christian Kaserer 2x2 single? #1 for single, #229 for average.

Which brings me to an unrelated question: what is the worst average ranking for a WR single holder (in the same event)?
 

Dacuba

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
342
Location
Germany
Christian Kaserer 2x2 single? #1 for single, #229 for average.

Which brings me to an unrelated question: what is the worst average ranking for a WR single holder (in the same event)?
It's indeed 2x2. No crazy coding but general knowledge and a look at some rankings :p
Now please /OT stuff I wanna follow the 3bld discussion. Thanks :)
 
Top