# WC2009 2x2 round



## rowehessler (Oct 3, 2009)

yeah....I noticed that theres only one round of 2x2, like the most popular and easiest event to organize, and its on the first day. Not only this, but theres two rounds of FEET. isnt that a little weird? im sure everyone agrees that 2x2 deserves another round just as much as FEET does...for other competitors attending WC please tell your opinion, maybe Ron can squeeze in a 10 person final or something for 2x2.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 3, 2009)

Ok, I respect everyone that dedicates a lot of their time towards the WC, but this is ridiculous. Two rounds of feet, an event more hated than MAGIC, and only one round of 2x2, an event people actually practice and care about. There's no practical reason for this to happen at all.


----------



## Faz (Oct 3, 2009)

I'm not going, but I think it's pretty silly to only have one round of 2x2, seeing as CO had 3, and most competitions have 2 rounds. Yeah, feet has 2 rounds, and 2x2 1? That is silly, as there are waay less WCA results for feet, than for 2x2. A 10 person final would only take 10 minutes.

It seems ridiculous that there is only 1 round for a reasonably popular event.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 3, 2009)

I'm not attending Worlds, but yeah, this is ridiculous. 2x2 is an important event with over 2500 competitors, one which people learn hundreds of dedicated algs for, and I can't understand not having more than one round of it at a world competition. On the other hand feet is an event that only a handful of people in the world take seriously (and it's not popular either, only 52 people have recorded averages at all), and since it's a 3x3 variation no new algs need to be learned to do it. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot more people care about 2x2 than 3feet, and people have put a lot more effort into it, so having more rounds of 3feet than 2x2 at a competition that is meant to decide the world's best cubers is unacceptable to me.


----------



## Kian (Oct 3, 2009)

There are 2398 people with a 2x2 average in competition. There are 52 with a feet average. Nobody would argue that 2x2 isn't more popular. 

Either way, I think it's silly to have one round of 2x2. If this is a result of what the people paying big bucks want and they won't budge, I understand, but if not I think it would be nice to let there be a final of a few people. Even a 10 person final could be done in less than 10 minutes. I know a lot of planning has been done already, and it's unfortunate that this is being raised so close to the competition, but I do believe it's a legitimate concern. I see no reason why an unpopular event that takes a relatively prohibitive amount of time should have two rounds while a quick event that is extremely popular is left with only one round.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 3, 2009)

Thank you!

I've discussed this with so many people (including Rowe) and everyone thinks it's just stupid to only have one round. Even small competitions usually have two rounds just because it's such a fast event to run. 

Plus, it's one of the first events of the WC. If so some really stupid reason we could only have one round, at least reschedule it for Sunday.

Hopefully we can get this changed. 
(I really need time to warm up with Rowe's 2x2 or I'm going to suck lol)

Edit: 2x2 is also the FASTEST REAL event. (Seriously, Magic doesn't count.)


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 3, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> Two rounds of feet, an event more hated than MAGIC.



Whenever an event is more hated than magic, that event doesn't deserve another round. 

I'd like to see the top 8 or top 10, battle it out.


----------



## IamWEB (Oct 3, 2009)

WOW!

Why did this even happen? No offense to those who put together this schedule, but why is there only 1 round? There's no reason to limit it to 1 round, especially when feet gets 2. I believe this was an error gone unnoticed. Either way, I say there's no reason to keep it like it is now, and there are many reasons to change it!


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 3, 2009)

First off I do agree with Rowe and others here that, if possible, it would be nice to have two 2x2 rounds at Worlds. I know Ron and the organizers are busy, and much work has gone into this competition, but it would be nice to add if this is not an unreasonable request. If this is an unreasonable request for this competition, perhaps at WC2011 2x2x2 can have two rounds?

Second of all, I strongly implore people to stop saying that feet is a hated event. Just because not a lot of people practice it doesn't mean that there aren't people who do take it seriously. Imagine if everyone told you that your favorite event sucked balls and was hated by all. Think on it.

Chris


----------



## 04mucklowd (Oct 3, 2009)

This has probably come a little too late for the WC 2009


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 3, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> Imagine if everyone told you that your favorite event sucked balls and was hated by all. Think on it.



:/


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Oct 3, 2009)

1. I agree with Chris that some people are being quite harsh about it. I mean you have to look at it from other peoples perspective as well. How would you feel if you were a person who practiced very hard for one certain event, and it meant a lot more to you than anything and everyone said it was stupid/didn't matter and you never really got a chance at it etc.

2. Although I do agree 2x2 DEFINITELY needs another round. I mean it is one of the main events and although i can't comment as im not running the competition, but i don't think it would be TOO much trouble to have a final round for 2x2.


----------



## Raffael (Oct 3, 2009)

First of all, in my opinion there should really be two rounds of 2x2.

But actually, I was wondering why there's just 1 attempt for Rubik's 360.
(I didn't want to make an extra thread about it.)
Even if it's unofficial, there should really be at least two attempts with an option for an average.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 3, 2009)

It's not that people go "oh man, feet solvers are all evil people and I hate them", it's just that feetsolving is an annoying event to deal with.

From the organizational/practice standpoint feetsolving is annoying because many people consider it unsanitary and thus it is hard to get judges/scramblers to help out. For instance people won't want to touch a cube or stackmat that has been used for feetsolving or will want to wash their hands afterwards. It's also a relatively long event to hold because even people who are bad at it (like 3+ minutes, and yes that IS bad if the WR is 47.xx avg) want the rare chance to compete. In the US it is almost never held (only 3 competitions have ever had it) and even in Europe it is not all that common, and I think the reason is just that it is somewhat impractical and annoying to deal with.

Derrick: right, but 3x3 with feet IS a side event. You usually don't expect more than one round of side events, no matter how much you care about it, and even the one round is dependent on timing issues. It's not that side events are dumb, but rather that main events (such as... 2x2) are more important and popular, and in that sense much more deserving of having extra rounds (or rounds at all, if time is short). I mean, I've practiced 7x7 a lot and only ever had one attempt at it, but I understand that it's a side event so I'm not going to go around complaining that organizers aren't giving me two rounds everywhere I go.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 3, 2009)

Just to put this a bit more in perspective:

2696 people have competed in 2x2.
115 people have competed in feet.

269 people are doing 2x2 at WC.
52 people are doing feet at WC.

Only 3x3 has more people registered than 2x2.
4BLD and 5BLD are the only events with less registered competitors than feet, including 360.

2x2 also has the largest waiting list, probably because there is only one round.


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 3, 2009)

I'm sub 10 average! (with 2x2) I'm sub 4 minute average (with feet solving)

This just shows the practicality of 2x2. It is the second most popular event. Why do we even have foot solving? Replace it with 2x2 BLD. I think there would be more competitors.
In the latest weekly competition, about 6 people did 2x2 bld, but only one person did foot solving.


----------



## Faz (Oct 3, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> I'm sub 10 average! (with 2x2) I'm sub 4 minute average (with feet solving)
> 
> This just shows the practicality of 2x2. It is the second most popular event. Why do we even have foot solving? Replace it with 2x2 BLD. I think there would be more competitors.
> In the latest weekly competition, about 6 people did 2x2 bld, but only one person did foot solving.




No way there will be 2x2 bld, ever. 2x2 bld is just a fun unofficial event, but just like 2x2 2h, if an easy scramble came up, then the WR would be set.

I don't think feetsolving should be removed, as some people have practised very hard at it. I just think it's stupid to have 2 rounds of feet, and only 2 round of 2x2 at WC, and not even a final.


----------



## Oliver Wolff (Oct 3, 2009)

I don´t care much about feetsolving anymore but if I remember the EC and WC since 2004 it has always been VERY popular for the media and the audience while 2x2 is mostly interesting for competitors.
In my opinion 2x2 is almost as boring as magic.


----------



## Muesli (Oct 3, 2009)

Raffael said:


> First of all, in my opinion there should really be two rounds of 2x2.
> 
> But actually, I was wondering why there's just 1 attempt for Rubik's 360.
> (I didn't want to make an extra thread about it.)
> Even if it's unofficial, there should really be at least two attempts with an option for an average.




Yeeeaah! 360 FTW!


----------



## Doudou (Oct 3, 2009)

I agree with Rowe that 2x2 deserves more than one little round on the friday evening. I already told Ron before the EC (it was the same situation).

But I also think it is now too late to change the schedule.


----------



## Spitfire97 (Oct 3, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine if everyone told you that your favorite event sucked balls and was hated by all. Think on it.
> ...



Im sure you know how that feels.
*cough*magic*cough*


----------



## pjk (Oct 3, 2009)

I also agree that 2x2 should have more than 1 round. I'm surprised this wasn't brought up much earlier when the schedule was initially released.

Regardless to what other events have more than one round, 2x2 should have more than one round - for the reasons described by David below:


DavidWoner said:


> Just to put this a bit more in perspective:
> 
> 2696 people have competed in 2x2.
> 115 people have competed in feet.
> ...


----------



## Doudou (Oct 3, 2009)

Look at the schedule. That has been changed.

Sunday final !


----------



## clement (Oct 3, 2009)

Just to put a side note on this, I don't think we can see the number of competitors as an index of the popularity of the event.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 4, 2009)

Doudou said:


> Look at the schedule. That has been changed.
> 
> Sunday final !



Yay. 

Thanks, Ron. Hmm.. 16 people. I need to practice. xD


----------



## Spitfire97 (Oct 4, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Doudou said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the schedule. That has been changed.
> ...



practice with what?
isn't your 2x2 broke??


----------



## Anthony (Oct 4, 2009)

Spitfire97 said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > Doudou said:
> ...



My good 2x2 is broken. I have a crappy one I can at least mess with lol. I'll use one of Rowe's at the competition.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Oct 4, 2009)

Wow, really nice, that we have 2 rounds now, even though I won't reach the final  But I'd love to do so.


----------



## brunson (Oct 4, 2009)

clement said:


> Just to put a side note on this, I don't think we can see the number of competitors as an index of the popularity of the event.


I think that might actually be the definition of popularity in this case.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2009)

clement said:


> Just to put a side note on this, I don't think we can see the number of competitors as an index of the popularity of the event.



Uh... what else do you propose then?

How about the number of people who are at least as fast as 1.5 times the WR average? That would give a good index of how many people care enough about the event to get reasonably fast at it.

2x2: 49 people
feet: 5 people


----------

