# WC2009 finals



## elcarc (Oct 12, 2009)

nakaji just uploaded this

EDIT: nevermind, erik just put this in his thread


----------



## phases (Oct 12, 2009)

These vids are fun to watch.. it amazes me how fast everyone is, especially in a competition setting. Thanks for the post!


----------



## Joël (Oct 12, 2009)

I loved watching the finals; it was very exiting.

Maybe this is also a good place to discuss how the final was organised. I think it's pretty cruel that the 16 finalists were split up into groups. I am not against that, but it was a bit cruel for the last group to know what time they had to beat. It would have been very hard for them to stay ignorant about the times of their opponent, since the host explicitly said stuff like: "Ok, the last 5, they have to beat 10.76 to become world champion!". I think they should not do stuff like that in the future. It was a disadvantage for the last group, I think.

On the other hand this also happens in many other sports, and I can't say Breandon had a huge advantage because of this; the pressure is still very high, and not knowing what time to beat while the fastest of the previous round are still waiting their turn can also get to your nerves...

Any thoughts about this subject?


----------



## Erik (Oct 12, 2009)

Yeah I agree Joël. Personally I don't want to know at all what other people to since it can only make you more nervous if you know what the others did, I tried to not listen to the moderator too for that reason...


----------



## Rama (Oct 12, 2009)

I, Rama Temmink, made it into the finals and I practised 3x3x3 speedsolving on saturday morning AFTER the first round of the OH event.

I PWN.


----------



## KJiptner (Oct 12, 2009)

Rama said:


> I PWN.



You DO.


----------



## Erik (Oct 12, 2009)

Rama said:


> I, Rama Temmink, made it into the finals and I practised 3x3x3 speedsolving on saturday morning AFTER the first round of the OH event.
> 
> I PWN.



And you switched sides to the Polish guys! POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA!


----------



## elcarc (Oct 12, 2009)

Joël said:


> I loved watching the finals; it was very exiting.
> 
> Maybe this is also a good place to discuss how the final was organised. I think it's pretty cruel that the 16 finalists were split up into groups. I am not against that, but it was a bit cruel for the last group to know what time they had to beat. It would have been very hard for them to stay ignorant about the times of their opponent, since the host explicitly said stuff like: "Ok, the last 5, they have to beat 10.76 to become world champion!". I think they should not do stuff like that in the future. It was a disadvantage for the last group, I think.
> 
> ...



Then again, it also lets you know what you have to do to make it to the top. i dont think its a bad idea, but it could be organized better.


----------



## Crazycubemom (Oct 12, 2009)

POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA POLSKA!! Viva la Polska


----------



## Ton (Oct 12, 2009)

Joël said:


> I loved watching the finals; it was very exiting.
> 
> Maybe this is also a good place to discuss how the final was organised. I think it's pretty cruel that the 16 finalists were split up into groups. I am not against that, but it was a bit cruel for the last group to know what time they had to beat. It would have been very hard for them to stay ignorant about the times of their opponent, since the host explicitly said stuff like: "Ok, the last 5, they have to beat 10.76 to become world champion!". I think they should not do stuff like that in the future. It was a disadvantage for the last group, I think.
> 
> ...



Well , we wanted to do 1 by 1 and since it takes 30 seconds per solve -including sitdown/wait for ready sing/inspection- solves it means, a competitor has to wait at least 8 min before his next solve. The 6 5 5 was our best alternative to speed up the time per solve a competitor starts


----------



## Tyson (Oct 13, 2009)

I realize the asymmetry of information between competitors in such a grouping will occur, but in terms of controlling nerves, it is an inherent part of competition and there will always be an asymmetry of information. It is impractical to maintain perfect control of atmosphere.

It could have been done as one large group of 16. But how would you feel about 10 to 15 minutes in between each solve? If this is something that everyone would prefer, then it is fine. But I felt that the competitors would appreciate less time in between each solve, and hence I proposed the grouping that was used.


----------



## Pedro (Oct 15, 2009)

I think 4 timers would be just fine for 16 (really fast) people

did people in different groups get different scrambles?


----------

