Should we remove at least one of the 3 big BLD events? (4x4, 5x5, multi BLD)

[Jimmy Liu]

I think 4bld and 5bld could be keep only under the circumstances that we add 4OH,4FT,4FMC and 5OH,5FT,5FMC, because 4bld and 5bld are just the side event of 3bld.

 

[Renslay]

I am not enjoying writing this post. My mind is torn. It seems to weird to speak against events that I held such a different opinion on before. When I stopped competing in these bld events, this also coincided with my growing involvement on the organisation side of things. That has no doubt contributed to my change of opinion.

Believe me when I say this: As an organiser and delegate, one of my biggest wishes, if not the biggest, is that 5bld and Multibld were not official events.

My opinion is remove 5bld and Multi. Keep 4bld

(...)

Now for the explicit reasons: (...)

Completely agree.

 

[DGCubes]

I only do 3BLD, but I don't see why we need to remove any events. If anything, I think the WCA should be expanding itself to more cubes *cough* 3x3x5 *cough*. Many people do really like 4BLD and 5BLD, and personally I love watching videos of good Multiblinders.

 

[suushiemaniac]

I reject the idea of removing certain events from the WCA, simply because everyone has got his/her own personal preferences.
Although most of the arguments for the removal I've read so far in this thread are absolutely reasonable, they don't really provide the overall necessity of removing an event.
Kicking an event out of the WCA should not happen based on someone's ideas, but rather should only be thought about if there is a major or severe issue about organizing competitons or structuring the WCA caused by that event.

In this particular case, hosting 4BLD, 5BLD and 3Multi worked well for years, so I don't see why we should suddenly remove them. Whoever says they're not popular enough: Please define "popularity" clearly by setting a limit to determine whether something is popular or not. SPOILER: This is impossible. Popularity is no objective term, I could even declare anything but 3x3 unpopular, so why not remove all the other NxNxNs?

The point I'm trying to get is: "Hey, there will be new regulations!" is not equal to "Hey, let's overthrow an entire section of the WCA competiton concept!" Blindfolded solving always has, and probably always will be an important part of cubing competitons. There might be only few people participating, but that doesn't lower it's popularity, nor is any competition organizer forced to offer any event with the three magic letter "B", "L" and "D" during his/her competition. And if he/she really is so much into bigBLD, he/she will probably be willing to renounce any of the other events.
So in my opinion, before wanting to remove an event, one should think about the actual *need* to remove it.

 

[cmhardw]

I think all 3 events should stay.

1) I don't agree with the sentiment that all events run at a cubing tournament should be closely tied to an inspect+solve quickly format (which is how I define "speedcubing").

2) I like the idea of having Mt. Everest style events like 5x5BLD and multiBLD. People run marathons because for a lot of people they are very difficult. I like multi and bigBLD because they are difficult.

3) I have organized 4BLD and 5BLD at events before and it is more difficult to organize than other events, but in my opinion that's what you sign up for when you choose to be an organizer.

In my opinion, if we got rid of some of the big cube BLD events then cubing tournaments would be more about inspect+solve quickly format events. I think that would detract from the quality of speedcubing tournaments.

4) My understanding is that you are saying that having three BLD events beyond regular 3BLD is us having too many variations on 3BLD (which is itself a variation on 3x3 speedsolving). I personally view it as we have 18 events, only 4 of which are blind-solving style events. To remove 1 or 2 of these events makes me think that out of 16-17 events only 2 or 3 would be blindfold format events. In my opinion that's terrible, it means nearly all events are the inspect+solve quickly format (and to reiterate: I don't agree that speedcubing means as many events as possible should be of this format).

Final thoughts:
In your opinion Erik, what is a good way for supporters of these big cube events to have a good discussion with those who want them removed? I think one issue of these discussions is that I, and maybe some others like me, don't share your view that a speedcubing tournament should be mostly about speedcubing events (which to me means events that are of the inspect+solve quickly format)

To me, speedcubing refers to the fact that you are trying to solve a puzzle as quickly as possible under the circumstances agreed upon for that event, while timing yourself. By this definition, every BLD event involves speedcubing.

 

[CyanSandwich]

If multi was removed I would be pretty heartbroken

Largely personal reasons, but I enjoy it, and it's the only event I have a chance of ranking highly at.

It's no different to 3BLD in terms of puzzle solving, but it tests endurance, speed and accuracy.

I don't see the need to remove any events at all. But if one BLD event had to be removed I would choose 5BLD, since it's pretty similar to 4BLD.
I really wouldn't want any of them gone though.

 

[antoineccantin]

I personally like all of the BLD events because they add something new and different to cubing and competitions. Also, I don't think removing them would do any good. If you think they're too much of a hassle to organize, don't hold these events at the competitions you organize!

As for the argument that they're too similar, 4BLD and 5BLD have a lot in common, yes. The level of difficulty is however quite different. Multi BLD though, is quite different, as you can choose your own skill level!

 

[EMI]

I think all three should stay, simply because you don't have to compete in them, and you don't have to offer them at your own competition either (except for championships). IMO events shouldn't be removed just because most people don't do them.
FMC has much less to do with speedsolving, still we do it in competitons. Why? Because it would be stupid to have a second WCA just doing FMC competitions, you can't do only FMC for one whole weekend. Same goes for BLD.
Again, I have absolutely no problem with competitions that only offer a few events, but more rounds.
In fact, 4bld and 5bld are often offered during other events, so it doesn't really affect the schedule anyway.

 

[Ollie]

Compromise - replace 5BLD with an official 4BLD Mo3 WR?

 

[kinch2002]

In fact, 4bld and 5bld are often offered during other events, so it doesn't really affect the schedule anyway.

Not sure how you manage to not let it affect the schedule, but when we've done this, it got so annoying at times that I'm only happy with having them scheduled in their own slot now.
Example conversation when people are doing big bld at random times:
"We need more scramblers and judges. Where is Person A?"
"Oh, he's doing 5bld"
"What about person B?"
"He's judging the 5bld"
"What about person C?"
"He's filming the 5bld"

 

[Erik]

I think all 3 events should stay.

1) I don't agree with the sentiment that all events run at a cubing tournament should be closely tied to an inspect+solve quickly format (which is how I define "speedcubing").

2) I like the idea of having Mt. Everest style events like 5x5BLD and multiBLD. People run marathons because for a lot of people they are very difficult. I like multi and bigBLD because they are difficult.

3) I have organized 4BLD and 5BLD at events before and it is more difficult to organize than other events, but in my opinion that's what you sign up for when you choose to be an organizer.

In my opinion, if we got rid of some of the big cube BLD events then cubing tournaments would be more about inspect+solve quickly format events. I think that would detract from the quality of speedcubing tournaments.

4) My understanding is that you are saying that having three BLD events beyond regular 3BLD is us having too many variations on 3BLD (which is itself a variation on 3x3 speedsolving). I personally view it as we have 18 events, only 4 of which are blind-solving style events. To remove 1 or 2 of these events makes me think that out of 16-17 events only 2 or 3 would be blindfold format events. In my opinion that's terrible, it means nearly all events are the inspect+solve quickly format (and to reiterate: I don't agree that speedcubing means as many events as possible should be of this format).

Final thoughts:
In your opinion Erik, what is a good way for supporters of these big cube events to have a good discussion with those who want them removed? I think one issue of these discussions is that I, and maybe some others like me, don't share your view that a speedcubing tournament should be mostly about speedcubing events (which to me means events that are of the inspect+solve quickly format)

To me, speedcubing refers to the fact that you are trying to solve a puzzle as quickly as possible under the circumstances agreed upon for that event, while timing yourself. By this definition, every BLD event involves speedcubing.

1) What do you exactly mean with the inspect+solve format? Besides FMC and BLD everything is inspecting and solving a cube, it's the logical core of speedcubing. However, I'd love to see more variants than just these to be honest though I can't think of any at the moment besides mosaic building. Not entirely sure how this relates to the issue though. We don't FMC other puzzles either.
2) I agree, a bit of a challenge is not that bad, but do we really need 3 of those events though?
3) It does prevent some people from organizing those events though, I think the investment/gain ration is kinda bad for it (in this case time+stress/happy few competitors)
4) Yes this depends on how you view the event-organisation and the criteria you have for other events. That's why I included the graph on how I think the events are build up. Like I said before, I also think 7x7 does not add much and wouldn't be sad at all if it got removed.

Sure, you can call multi or 5BLD speedcubing as well. I'd rather say especially multi-BLD is more of a memory sport though. On the other hand you can call many other things speedcubing as well which we don't do either, when following your definition.

I think by only asking to remove one of the events I am already being quite considerate. My question to you is also: why 3? What does multi-BLD add to speedcubing, that 5BLD doesn't offer? And also: besides that it would be one event less, which set of skills are no longer demanded if we removed multi for example? Are there ways to improve the other events if we agree to remove one of them, or save time or something?

Btw. some other issue came to my mind: it happens a lot that you can just do big BLD all day long. Now I know we all trust each other, but it is sometimes possible that competitor A does a WR on the first solve, which is filmed and put up on the internet and person B can still do the same scramble the next day, or at the end of the day. This does not seem very desirable... Yes you can organize it within a smaller time range, but then the burden on the organization grows again.

 

[Gordon]

1) What do you exactly mean with the inspect+solve format? Besides FMC and BLD everything is inspecting and solving a cube, it's the logical core of speedcubing. However, I'd love to see more variants than just these to be honest though I can't think of any at the moment besides mosaic building.
[...]

At the Sébra Open 2014 (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=SebraOpen2014) there will be a 'Super Solve' event, where the competitors have time to study a solution for a public scramble and then have one attempt to solve it.
It doesn't matter if they just solve it as usual or just apply the reverse scramble.

I think this is a nice idea and I would like to see it more often.

 

[cmhardw]

1) What do you exactly mean with the inspect+solve format?

I mean events that follow Article A, specifically this portion:

Spoiler

Inspection:
A3a) The competitor may inspect the puzzle at the beginning of each attempt.
A3a1) The competitor is allotted a maximum of 15 seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve.
A3b) The judge prepares the timer by turning it on and resetting if necessary. Separately, the judge also prepares a stopwatch for timing inspection.
A3b1) When the judge believes the competitor is ready, he asks "READY?". The competitor must be ready to start the attempt within one minute of being called, else he forfeits his attempt (DNS), at the discretion of the judge.
A3b2) The competitor begins the attempt by confirming his readiness, and the judge uncovers the puzzle and begins timing the inspection.
A3c) The competitor may pick up the puzzle during inspection.
A3c1) The competitor must not apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
A3c2) If the parts of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor may align the faces, as long as misalignments stay within the limits of Regulation 10f.
A3c3) The competitor may reset the timer before he starts the solve.
A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor places the puzzle on the mat, in any orientation.
A3d1) The puzzle must not rest on the timer. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A3d2) When 8 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "8 SECONDS".
A3d3) When 12 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "12 SECONDS".

A4) Starting the solve:
A4b) The competitor places his hands on the elevated sensor unit of the timer. His fingers must be touching the sensors with palms down. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A4b1) The competitor must have no physical contact with the puzzle between the inspection period and the beginning of the solve. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A4d) If a Stackmat timer is in use, the competitor starts the solve by confirming that the timer light is green and then removing his hands from the timer (thus starting the timer).
A4d1) The competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A4d2) The competitor must start the solve within 17 seconds of the beginning of the inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
A4d3) If a stopwatch is in use, the judge starts the stopwatch as soon as the competitor starts the solve.
A4e) Time penalties for starting the solve are cumulative.
A5) During the solve:
A5a) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not communicate with anyone other than the judge. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not receive assistance from anyone or any object other than the surface (also see Regulation 2i). Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

A6) Stopping the solve:
A6a) The competitor stops the solve by releasing the puzzle and then stopping the timer. If a stopwatch is in use, the judge stops the stopwatch as soon as the competitor does this.
A6a1) When using a stopwatch as the only timer, the competitor ends the solve by releasing the puzzle and notifying the judge that he has stopped the solve. The judge stops the stopwatch as soon as the competitor does this.
A6a2) When using a stopwatch as the only timer, the competitor's default notification signal consists of releasing the puzzle(s) in his hand and placing his hands on the surface, with palms down. The competitor and the judge may agree on another appropriate notification before the beginning of the attempt.
A6b) The competitor is responsible for stopping the Stackmat timer correctly.
A6b1) If the timer stops before the end of the solve and the timer shows a time strictly below 0.06 seconds, then the attempt is replaced by an extra attempt. A competitor forfeits his right to the additional attempt if the WCA Delegate determines that the timer was stopped deliberately.
A6b2) If the timer stops before the end of the solve and displays a time of 0.06 seconds or higher, then the attempt is disqualified (DNF). Exception: if the competitor can demonstrate that the timer malfunctioned, he may receive an extra attempt, at the WCA Delegate's discretion.
A6c) The competitor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the solve. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A6d) The competitor must stop the timer using both hands, placed flat on the sensors with palms down. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).
A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). Exception: If no moves have been applied, a time penalty (+2 seconds) may be assigned instead, at the discretion of the judge.
A6f) The competitor must not reset the timer until the judge has recorded the result on the score sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF), at the discretion of the judge.
A6g) The judge determines whether the puzzle is solved. He must not make moves or align faces when examining the puzzle.
A6h) In case of a dispute, moves or alignments must not be applied to the puzzle before the dispute is resolved.
A6i) Time penalties for stopping the solve are cumulative.

2) I agree, a bit of a challenge is not that bad, but do we really need 3 of those events though?

For those of us who like BLD, we would say that we only have 3 events if we want variety beyond regular 3x3x3BLD.

Let me try to phrase it the other way around:
"We have 13 speedsolving events (see the above spoiler). Do we really need 13 events of essentially the same format? Surely one of them can go?"

You are an all-rounder, and are really famous for that. You have 13 different speedsolve events to pick from (plus BLD ones that you like, if any, and FMC). I am a BLD solver, I have 4 events that I really like from which to choose (plus FMC and 3x3 speedsolve). Removal of a speedcubing event is removing about 7% of the events you really enjoy competing in (1/13). Removing a BLD event is removing 25% of the events I really like to compete in (1/4). Obviously I will interpret your "let's remove a BLD" event differently than you will.

I don't speak for the community as a whole, but when you ask me specifically that quesiton, then this is how I respond.

3) It does prevent some people from organizing those events though, I think the investment/gain ration is kinda bad for it (in this case time+stress/happy few competitors)

If the investment/gain ratio is poor for holding one of those events, then the organizer can choose not to hold it. I don't see anything wrong with a competition that holds 15 events (all of the events, minus 4x4x4BLD, 5x5x5BLD, and multiBLD). That's the organizer's choice. If competitors in those events are upset by this, then they can organize a smaller tournament that includes those events, as well as some speedsolve events to get enough people interested to hold a tournament.

4) Yes this depends on how you view the event-organisation and the criteria you have for other events. That's why I included the graph on how I think the events are build up. Like I said before, I also think 7x7 does not add much and wouldn't be sad at all if it got removed.

Your graph doesn't load for me (Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator). I understand the idea that by categorizing the events a certain way that you view 7x7x7 as less necessary than 3x3x3, just as 5x5x5BLD is less necessary than 3x3x3BLD. Still, getting rid of 7x7x7 is removing 1/13 of the speedsolve events, while removing 5x5x5BLD is removing 1/4 of the blindfold events. The relative weight of each change is not the same.

Sure, you can call multi or 5BLD speedcubing as well. I'd rather say especially multi-BLD is more of a memory sport though. On the other hand you can call many other things speedcubing as well which we don't do either, when following your definition.

I think by only asking to remove one of the events I am already being quite considerate. My question to you is also: why 3? What does multi-BLD add to speedcubing, that 5BLD doesn't offer? And also: besides that it would be one event less, which set of skills are no longer demanded if we removed multi for example? Are there ways to improve the other events if we agree to remove one of them, or save time or something?

MultiBLD adds another event to compete in. At large tournaments I usually only compete in 6 events (3x3x3, FMC, 3x3x3BLD, 4x4x4BLD, 5x5x5BLD, MultiBLD). These are the events I like doing. My day is already relatively short, as this is only 1/3 of the events offered at a large tournament. If you remove one of them, then that's one fewer event to compete in.

If you don't care to compete in the big BLD events, then why do you care that people like me compete in it?

Let me ask another way: How does it affect you to have people like me compete in one fewer event, an event that you don't care to compete in anyway? My day becomes one event shorter, but I doubt you would notice the difference on the day you compete. If you like to organize events, and are tired of organizing the harder events (which is a legitimate concern, since you are the organizer) then organize a 15 event competition with none of those larger BLD events.

Btw. some other issue came to my mind: it happens a lot that you can just do big BLD all day long. Now I know we all trust each other, but it is sometimes possible that competitor A does a WR on the first solve, which is filmed and put up on the internet and person B can still do the same scramble the next day, or at the end of the day. This does not seem very desirable... Yes you can organize it within a smaller time range, but then the burden on the organization grows again.

I've not heard of the "all day" rule. In the US and at Worlds you have a maximum of 3 hours to do all of your attempts in either 4x4x4BLD or 5x5x5 BLD. If some competitions allow an "all day" time limit, or even a 2 day time limit, then I would certainly be in favor of at a minimum reducing that to 3 hours.

We have this same issue in 3x3x3BLD by the way (a world record solve video could be placed on the internet before others have done that solve). I treat that as a separate issue inherent to BLD events in general, and not just the bigger cubes BLD.

----------------

Erik, does it not strike you as odd that you and I are again having this same debate about big cube BLD on speedsolving.com? I think the first time was in either 2007 or early 2008. Is there a better venue for us to have our opinions voiced than on speedsolving.com?

Incidentally, this same idea goes for those who start the "remove 3x3x3 with feet" threads, which have popped up nearly every year for a few years now.

 

[goodatthis]

Honestly I think all events should stay for a couple of big reasons:

1. They are arguably the toughest events out there, and take tons of practice, dedication, skill, and mental capacity to do. Anyone who holds a record, let alone gets a success, at any of them (well Multi is a bit different but same concept) is usually well respected throughout the cubing community. To strip them of their hard earned successes or records would be painful.

2. You could easily have 4x4 OH, but there really isn't any challenge in that. It is a side event of a side event, but anyone could do it. Not anyone could do 4/5/Multi, that's why only a handful of people have only gotten a success in 4/5bld. The reason why they have so much appeal is because they are the most difficult events to succeed at, just mentioning 4 or 5bld is like mentioning some sort of feared mythical creature.

3. If you could ask every WCA competitor what their least favorite event is, most would probably say feet, or clock. Just a simple observation, but generally, 4/5/Multi is somewhat well liked and respected. Although I don't think feet should be removed, those threads are more generally supported than these ones.

So you are saying 5x5 is more impressive than 4x4 BLD? I agree on that as well why would we still need 4x4 BLD then?

Doing a Rubik's cube with one hand is more impressive than two, then why have 2 handed solving? Or if doing a 7x7 is more impressive than a 6x6, why have 6x6? Or if 6 and 7 are more impressive than other cubic puzzles, how about we keep everything and scratch 5x5? Or if 5BLD is more impressive than any other event, why hold them? Why not just have the W5BLDA? In the end, you need some sort of intermediary challenge. That's why most beginning cubers buy a 4x4 after 3x3, and a 5x5 after that.


Also, one more thing, I think that blindfolded cubing is a specialty category of events. Just like how some cubers are just good at the small puzzles (2,3, Pyra, Skewb) and others are good at bigger ones (5, 6, 7), others are good at minxes (Pyra, mega). The same goes for blindfolded events. Blindfolded cubing needs it's Rami Sbahis, Kevin Hays', and Oscar Roth Andersens.

 

[porkynator]

Compromise: reduce time limit for MultiBLD to 20 minutes?

 

[Amress]

I think that all of the events should stay, but if one event NEEDED to be removed, I would say multi-blind. It adds the least to the event. I do see the difficulty of the event. I am just saying that in COMPARISON to 4/5 BLD, multi-blind is least important.

 

[AJ Blair]

Compromise: reduce time limit for MultiBLD to 20 minutes?

I don't see why you would reduce the overall time allowed. If you were to do anything, you could reduce the time limit to 5 minutes per cube instead of 10. That seems like a more reasonable compromise.

What I have to say on the speedcubing versus memory sport discussion is that most people I know refer to themselves as a "cuber" first and foremost, not a "speedcuber". It's all about the community, and I know there are people who set their focus on certain subsets of cubing, including BLD. We would be alienating all of them by removing the events that tie them to the cubing community. It's not appealing to some people to due the "speed" based events and they prefer to focus on the memory side of things.

Also, speedcubing involves massive amounts of memory too, even if it is just muscle memory.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

stuff

I very much agree with you. I'll try to give my opinion below without repeating points which have already been made too much.

I like cubes/dodecs/whatever, am relatively good at BLD events compared to other events, and have little interest in going to the memory sport community. I've never memorised a deck of cards or anything like that. I'd be disappointed to lose one of the few BLD events available.

However, I'm happy to let organisers go with whatever they want to go with, and am grateful when they do decide to include at least one of 4/5/MBLD. While I like to have all BLD available, if a competition, for example, only has 3BLD (such as Edinburgh Open last year), I'm still grateful to have a competition organised and will accept the events which are scheduled. I didn't hassle anyone to add the other BLD events, I just waited until the next comp where the others are held. So long as they are held at least occasionally, with no pressure on organisers, I'm happy, and will happily give up time from my lunch to compete. Strict time limits can be imposed if 4/5/MBLD are held, At Guildford Summer '13 I wasn't fast enough at 5BLD to get all 3 attempts, but that's my problem, not the organiser's.

I have mixed feelings about the idea of reducing time for multi. Part of me thinks it loses some of its stamina difficulty, part of me thinks it will make it easier to run/scramble, require fewer cubes to be brought to competition and make me less tired for other events (including other BLD).

 

[kcl]

If you all don't see it, Erik is clearly outlining how stupid it is to remove an event that is distinctly unique. Obviously big BLD will not be removed, nor will Multi. The reaction to that terrible, much like if we removed feet.

No event is causing real issues, so why do we give a crap about removing events?

 

[EMI]

Not sure how you manage to not let it affect the schedule, but when we've done this, it got so annoying at times that I'm only happy with having them scheduled in their own slot now.
Example conversation when people are doing big bld at random times:
"We need more scramblers and judges. Where is Person A?"
"Oh, he's doing 5bld"
"What about person B?"
"He's judging the 5bld"
"What about person C?"
"He's filming the 5bld"

The last competition I've been at, there were maybe 5 persons doing 4BLD or 5BLD (which seems normal to me, except for the very big comps). I personally just solved during breaks.
Theoretically, you are only allowed to do 4bld and 5bld during events you don't compete in (because you should judge the other groups). I think most people don't compete in all events so if they have their attempts during their missing events, I think it doesn't cause a problem. There definitely hasn't been a problem at the mentioned competition.
Of course it's a different story about 5BLD in the UK ^^