# Qualifying Competitions (US Nationals)



## obelisk477 (Aug 5, 2015)

Hi guys,

I just attended US Nationals, and was amazed at the number of people that attended this one event. It seems that the numbers are growing year by year (the actual numbers are about the same for the last few years, but I think that has something to do with location), and if this trend continues it might make sense to have smaller qualifying regional competitions that you have to place well enough in to get to the national competition. I just wanted to put this idea out there to have a place to discuss it.

Some Pros:
- Adds an element of legitimacy to the nationals. There are many other competitive sports/events that have this structure in place, where the best are at nationals each year.
- Helps reduce dealing with the logistics of a large tournament, allowing for a somewhat smaller staff. If you took 32 people from each 'region' then you would never have above a certain number of people to deal with. It would also help to weed out noobs/ poor times (although this has it's complementary con/ see below)

Some Cons:
- Not in the spirit of the 'anyone can compete' rule. The WCA has said anyone gets at least a chance to compete in every competition (not sure about the specific regs on this), so being more restrictive could have some negative effects/seem 'elitist'.
- More competitions might actually be more logistically difficult and stretch out the resources of an already stretched completely volunteer staff.

TL;DR - It might be that qualifying competitions for national competitions become necessary if the number of people attending gets just too large.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Aug 5, 2015)

The size of a competition can be limited by the venue size. If a venue can only hold, say, 500 people, then you limit that competition's registration appropriately. This is a far more likely way the size of a large national or continental championship will be restricted. Anyone fast enough to qualify in a regional championships would almost certainly be aware of the opening time for registration for this competition, and so would be able to get a place. It also doesn't disallow local competitors, or those who are less competitive, but see large competitions as a place to see friends from across the world.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 5, 2015)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> Anyone fast enough to qualify in a regional championships would almost certainly be aware of the opening time for registration for this competition, and so would be able to get a place. It also doesn't disallow local competitors, or those who are less competitive, but see large competitions as a place to see friends from across the world.



I strongly disagree with this part of your statement. Many notable/fast cubers have missed the registration deadline for US Nationals in the past, and a competitor limit will only further complicate this matter.


----------



## Aussie (Aug 5, 2015)

I really like the idea of this, but would you be able to qualify through events like 6x6 and 7x7 or would it only be 3x3?


----------



## YouCubing (Aug 5, 2015)

Ugh, no. I'd never be able to go to Nats again. I'm too much of a nub.


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 5, 2015)

No. Everyone should have a chance. The cutoffs prevent those who are too slow from taking up too much time. There are many more cons you are not considering.

What if a good cuber has to travel far to get to any regional competition? A national competition justifies travel expenses, but now they'll have to cover expenses for their qualification, and they'll be barred from Nationals if they don't perform to their expectations.

Local casuals are more willing to sign up for a National competition than a regular event. Why would we want to make this hobby less inviting?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 6, 2015)

XTowncuber said:


> To be honest I think this is not a great idea. One of the fun parts of these events is the inclusiveness, and the non-competitive atmosphere. I think this could be a serious note to that. Until 20000 people want to come to nats this is fine.



theres no one better than the 2015 champ to give imput on this! yes, I also agree. what I find so awesome about US nationals is how many people go. it looks like the ultimate cubing experience. 3 days with 500+ awesome people who just want to have fun. now why would you want to mess that up?


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 6, 2015)

To be honest though, Nationals is getting to the point where it's not going to be feasible to hold. We nearly matched last year's total in a far more remote part of the country -- had we done it in the NY area or some other large city, I think the competitor count would have approached 700 this year. Some form of qualification system will need to be in place soon, because those kinds of totals really make the way we run a competition now incredibly taxing/near impossible. I don't think we should force qualifications for the more popular, fast events (2x2, 3x3, Pyra, Skewb, etc.) but there are some events (4x4-7x7, FMC, Mega, BLD) that are just really a time suck and could allow for more competitors to compete in more popular events.

(edit) Clarification: FMC is not really a time suck, but it's an organizational nightmare as we can't easily get a breakout room that can actually fit everyone.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 6, 2015)

Rnewms said:


> No. Everyone *should *have a chance.


It doesn't matter if everyone should have a chance, because in this circumstance, not everyone will. The OP is describing a hypothetical scenario where cubers definitely will be kept out of Nats, and the only question is whether they'll be kept out because they didn't register in time, or because they didn't qualify. This isn't about *choosing* to deny cubers anything. I have no idea how close Nats is to becoming too big (and I'm sure other people in this thread will know) but this is definitely worth a discussion, and I'm glad the discussion is happening before Nats potentially has to turn cubers away, not during or after.


Rnewms said:


> Local casuals are more willing to sign up for a National competition than a regular event. Why would we want to make this hobby less inviting?


If we know for sure that cubers will be turned away, I'd rather have local casuals miss Nats than fast cubers who could qualify through regionals. I think dedicating the time and energy to cubing that's necessary to become fast does make fast cubers a bit more deserving of a spot at Nats than local casual solvers. Yes, ideally they'd both be able to go, but this specifically deals with a situation where not everyone can go. This is a competition to see who the best cubers in the US are. If someone has to not go, it should be the casual solvers who are nowhere close to the best in the US. 

I think limiting competitors at Nats should only be done if necessary, and I'd rather see everyone be able to go, of course. 

Regional competitions completely independent of Nats have also been discussed before, and they're a nice idea.

EDIT:


PenguinsDontFly said:


> theres no one better than the 2015 champ to give imput on this!


Yes there is--the organizers. Kit just said it's getting impossible. He knows. The top competitors don't necessarily.


----------



## henrysavich (Aug 6, 2015)

Suggestion: move US nationals to more and more remote locations each year to get the same amount of people, just more devoted each year.

Venue suggestions

2016: Phoenix (remember that nats is held in the middle of the summer)
2017: Hawaii
2018: American Samoa
2019: Arctic Canada (American enough)
2020: Detroit Slums
2021: Dan Cohen's Backyard
2022: An abandoned coal mine in the middle of the Appalachians, only accessible by 3-day hike
2030: The Moon


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 6, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> EDIT:
> Yes there is--the organizers. Kit just said it's getting impossible. He knows. The top competitors don't necessarily.



well oops I meant drew's post made it clear that nats is an awesome, inclusive environment. he probably has the best imput on the fun aspect of this topic (srry failed to specify that). obviously organizers know better about how hard it is to manage hundreds of people.


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 6, 2015)

henrysavich said:


> Suggestion: move US nationals to more and more remote locations each year to get the same amount of people, just more devoted each year.
> 
> Venue suggestions
> 
> 2021: Dan Cohen's Backyard



LOLOL, it was a surprisingly workable venue. 
The grass and lawn was really nice.


----------



## kcl (Aug 6, 2015)

If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.


----------



## biscuit (Aug 6, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.



This. I think that there should be something like "top 50 in the last year for each event" or something like that (50 may still be high though.)


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 6, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.



I think what happens with this though is that you miss out on people who would otherwise be good at something either because they have never done it before or because they have improved greatly. If someone came along who had a 7:00 5BLD success in the past but had DNFed all the 4BLD attempts, then probably they would be considered worthy of competing in 4BLD at nationals, but they just either haven't competed in that category or have improved alot.


----------



## kcl (Aug 6, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> I think what happens with this though is that you miss out on people who would otherwise be good at something either because they have never done it before or because they have improved greatly. If someone came along who had a 7:00 5BLD success in the past but had DNFed all the 4BLD attempts, then probably they would be considered worthy of competing in 4BLD at nationals, but they just either haven't competed in that category or have improved alot.



I don't mean to imply that a certain person could not compete at nationals. I think a reasonable way to thin down early rounds would be seeding top competitors into later rounds. If a certain competitor did not have a good official average, they could still qualify for later rounds at nationals based on their times in the first round.


----------



## shelley (Aug 6, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> It doesn't matter if everyone should have a chance, because in this circumstance, not everyone will. The OP is describing a hypothetical scenario where cubers definitely will be kept out of Nats, and the only question is whether they'll be kept out because they didn't register in time, or because they didn't qualify. This isn't about *choosing* to deny cubers anything. I have no idea how close Nats is to becoming too big (and I'm sure other people in this thread will know) but this is definitely worth a discussion, and I'm glad the discussion is happening before Nats potentially has to turn cubers away, not during or after.



Worth mentioning, this isn't just hypothetical - cubers have already been kept out of Nats. In 2014 and 2015 we had to close registration and not allow late or walk-in registrations. In 2014 in particular we were way over capacity for what our venue could handle.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Aug 6, 2015)

RjFx2 said:


> All I think about Nats should change is the location. Since the comp was held on the Far East coast, most people from the west coast wouldn't come. And vice versa. There haven't been Nats in the Midwest much before, where it is optimal for people from all over the nation to come. This may be biased coming from a Midwest cuber, but there are big cities and venues where Nats could be held. And, it would only take a day of driving to go to MO, CO, KS, etc. Of course, the wca probably has a map of where every competitor in the US is, and where the exact optimal location would be.


COMP IN THE SOUTH PLS








My thoughts:

As long as we are keeping a steady amount of competitors at Nationals, we should be fine. But as we approach a higher amount of competitors, we should start enforcing some form of cutoff for the more popular events. Or, not allow new competitors (or have a new competitors competition before Nationals to officially allow them?) Something like that maybe, it is 3 AM so I can't really concentrate on anything.


----------



## rowan (Aug 6, 2015)

I was on staff this year and I had a few thoughts about the actual staff process & the competition:

- Perhaps create a full time & part time set up. I talked to a few people who used to staff Nationals but then stopped because the workload was so high. Perhaps these people could be coaxed into coming back if they only worked 4-5 hour days in return for free food, instead of 8-10 hour days for free food & hotel. Heck, I would work a 4-5 hour shift for nothing in return, just to help out the community, but the current Nats shift didn't leave me a lot of time to eat (I have to make my own food). I'm sure others feel this way and it would increase the overall number of staff members.

- If we're concerned about actual size of venue, perhaps we should consider limiting the amount of spectators first. Competitors don't need 7 members of their family viewing, especially now when a good portion of competitors record their own solves with a tripod and are there to hang out with their friends or meet new people. I think this is a much more friendly consideration. Competitors could each be given a certain number of passes for the event and families could be encouraged to enjoy the venue's surroundings.

- We shouldn't value a fast person missing out over a slower person missing out. I do not personally care if this makes the WCA look less unofficial. If someone misses a deadline, it is their fault. We don't need to ensure that all of the fastest cubers are there for the event to be successful. 

- When I first joined the community, everyone insisted this was not competitive as much against each other as with themselves (aiming for PBs rather than records). A move like this would clearly ruin that atmosphere. I would enjoy competitions less knowing that if I didn't make times I would be barred from certain competitions.

Just some initial thoughts. I really think the community as a whole needs to stop making changes because they want to help faster cubers. There have been enough calls that shouldn't have been made just because someone was fast.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 6, 2015)

rowan said:


> - We shouldn't value a fast person missing out over a slower person missing out. I do not personally care if this makes the WCA look less unofficial. If someone misses a deadline, it is their fault. We don't need to ensure that all of the fastest cubers are there for the event to be successful.



I'm American but I'll say my opinion anyway 

IMO with "normal" competitions this is how things should be. Everyone should be allowed to compete.

BUT when we are talking about European championships, Worlds, or US nationals I think fast cubers should have the right to compete in these competitions even if that means that someone slower cannot compete because of that. In these big competitions where we award big titles (world champion etc.) we should (IMO) try to get as many of the really fast cubers there as we can.

Of course slower people can compete if there is enough room left in these competitions but I really think that we should try to get the Worlds best to compete in World championships and the USA's best to compete in US nationals.

Maybe that's elitist but that's how most of the sports do stuff.


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 6, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Of course slower people can compete if there is enough room left in these competitions but



A few people have said something similar to this, and my whole point was that slower people *do* get a chance to compete - everyone does. These qualifying regional competitions should be seen as an extension of nationals, not separate from it. Everyone gets a chance for nationals in their own respective areas of the country, and if you don't make it to real nats, then tough luck; you've had your shot.


----------



## Kev43 (Aug 6, 2015)

Yeah I think we might have a Europe/America separation on this one 

We used to have time limits to compete in the European Championship (ex: your best 4x4x4 average had to be sub1'30 in order to compete at Euro 2012). Anyone could compete at 2x2, 3x3 and pyraminx though.

I personally think that this is a good idea. I have no problem being unable to compete in events I'm slow at, because it's the European Championship and it's not a good time to spend 10 minutes solving a 7x7. I can do that in smaller competitions 

When it comes to Euro/Asian Champs or US Nats or Worlds and you have too many people who want to compete, then it makes sense to take the fastest, that's what makes the championship interesting.

I can't challenge Usain Bolt at the next Olympic Games because I can't run fast enough to qualify. The qualification is based on skill and not the time of registration.

That's just my European point of view


----------



## Kian (Aug 6, 2015)

This discussion is about more than what "should" be. It is about what is possible. Nationals is getting really huge without providing us with much more staff (due to, in part, the ages of most new competitors) and we are going to have to respond in whatever ways make sense. This is a realistic scenario for the future and I'm certainly open to considering it. I'm not sure regional competitions make more sense than simply requiring a certain qualifying time at a WCA competition, as we have done in the past, but it's a plausible step.

I can't imagine supporting a qualification time for 3x3. I am amenable to ones in different events, though. A national championship for many different sorts of things requires a certain level of established competence in its discipline and I don't think that's unreasonable. I can't simply sign up for the Olympics (obviously this is an exaggerated example) and I don't deserve to compete in them simply because I want to and I can physically run 100m. 

The important thing is that we provide people with a means to qualify. I think the closest example I can think of is the National Spelling Bee. Anyone of the appropriate age can sign up and win the National Spelling Bee, but you aren't automatically entered into the final in DC because that would be prohibitively huge. Instead, competitors work their way through local and regional qualifying competitions to get there. This is a model that works for quite a few organizations, many of which are comparable to ours in certain respects.

I want to be as inclusive as we can be, but we have very limited resources. Money is one, but human capital is another. It is worth noting that if a select 3-4 people just stopped organizing nationals, *it would not happen*. There is a lot to do and very few people to do it. I don't think it's really appreciated in this thread how much goes into this when it is entirely volunteer.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 6, 2015)

rowan said:


> I was on staff this year and I had a few thoughts about the actual staff process & the competition:
> 
> - Perhaps create a full time & part time set up. I talked to a few people who used to staff Nationals but then stopped because the workload was so high. Perhaps these people could be coaxed into coming back if they only worked 4-5 hour days in return for free food, instead of 8-10 hour days for free food & hotel. Heck, I would work a 4-5 hour shift for nothing in return, just to help out the community, but the current Nats shift didn't leave me a lot of time to eat (I have to make my own food). I'm sure others feel this way and it would increase the overall number of staff members.



I have to agree with this, I am thinking about staffing the next nationals to save on costs, but I'm not sure if I could handle that workload : P.


Kian said:


> This discussion is about more than what "should" be. It is about what is possible. Nationals is getting really huge without providing us with much more staff (due to, in part, the ages of most new competitors) and we are going to have to respond in whatever ways make sense. This is a realistic scenario for the future and I'm certainly open to considering it. I'm not sure regional competitions make more sense than simply requiring a certain qualifying time at a WCA competition, as we have done in the past, but it's a plausible step.
> 
> I want to be as inclusive as we can be, but we have very limited resources. Money is one, but human capital is another. It is worth noting that if a select 3-4 people just stopped organizing nationals, *it would not happen*. There is a lot to do and very few people to do it. I don't think it's really appreciated in this thread how much goes into this when it is entirely volunteer.


Agreed, we need more competitors to step up and help more and hopefully work up their way to becoming organizers and delegates (I'm kinda trying to do so right now).


----------



## henrysavich (Aug 6, 2015)

I think limiting competitors at nationals will be necessary soon enough, but it is a necessary evil, and we should try not to forget that. 400 people is about the limit I imagine.

Qualification should definitely be based upon seed times rather than an actual qualification competition. I strongly dislike the idea of a single competition having such high stakes as the chance to participate in Nationals. In fact, in the short term future, I think a restriction as loose as having competed before would be sufficient (also because a competition with no first-timers can be expected to run smoother than the alternative).

Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 6, 2015)

henrysavich said:


> Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). *There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun*, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions



I disagree with this.

The only real difference is that Olympics is obviously a much bigger event. But all sports are meant to be fun AND competitive (cubing also)...

If we are talking about big comps awarding big titles (continental championships/ world championships) it definitely is VERY MUCH competitive (also fun obviously or we wouldn't do it) Obviously world championships are held to determine who is the best in the world no matter what sport/event is in question.


But if you are not good enough to compete in Olympics (or US nationals or Worlds or whatever) there are always smaller local and regional comps that you can compete in  That's just how things work in competitive environment


----------



## Kian (Aug 6, 2015)

henrysavich said:


> I think limiting competitors at nationals will be necessary soon enough, but it is a necessary evil, and we should try not to forget that. 400 people is about the limit I imagine.
> 
> Qualification should definitely be based upon seed times rather than an actual qualification competition. I strongly dislike the idea of a single competition having such high stakes as the chance to participate in Nationals. In fact, in the short term future, I think a restriction as loose as having competed before would be sufficient (also because a competition with no first-timers can be expected to run smoother than the alternative).
> 
> Also be careful about comparing cubing to other sports tournaments and events (such as the Olympics). There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the Olympics, for example, is held to determine the best in the world, and is for the benefit of the spectator. The goal of cubing competitions is simply tobe fun, and is oriented toward the competitor rather than the spectator. Saying that you can eliminate people who have no chance of ranking highly with no adverse effects means your misinterpreting the primary purpose of cubing competitions



I am not misinterpreting the purpose of cubing competitions. I am offering my opinion, just as you are.

I believe, speaking as an organizer of the event, that our purposes are certainly both for fun *and* to crown national champions. Nobody is advocating strict restrictions for regular tournaments. This would be a necessary evil, yes, though I think that wording is harsh. We haven't done it yet, but it's becoming more and more necessary.

People can offer their thoughts on it, but we (the organizers) are the ones that actually need to make this work. We will certainly take into account the feelings of the community, but we have a responsibility to run the competition competently and so will make our own judgments.


----------



## henrysavich (Aug 6, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I disagree with this.
> 
> The only real difference is that Olympics is obviously a much bigger event. But all sports are meant to be fun AND competitive (cubing also)...
> 
> ...




A central principle in the governing and organization of competitions, that I see reflected in the WCA regulations and the community as a whole, as well as one that I support, is that cubing competitions should be just as much for new competitors as multi-WR holders, and be open, easily accessible and friendly to as many people as possible. It is hard to say cubing is competitive when compared to other sports. If Feliks reached an equivalent level of proficiency in chess as he has in cubing, it is unlikely he would even be a grandmaster, and that fact is wonderful. 

Because of this central principle, there are very huge differences between other sports and cubing. There are no "career cubers", you can start cubing after age 7 and still be able to become world class, and no heavy incentive to encourage people to cheat . These are awesome things about cubing "competitive scene". As we move into the future, we will have to adapt rules to manage a large cubing population, and I think it is hugely important we are aware of this slippery slope in order to preserve why I, and many others, love cubing.







Kian said:


> I am not misinterpreting the purpose of cubing competitions. I am offering my opinion, just as you are.
> 
> I believe, speaking as an organizer of the event, that our purposes are certainly both for fun *and* to crown national champions. Nobody is advocating strict restrictions for regular tournaments. This would be a necessary evil, yes, though I think that wording is harsh. We haven't done it yet, but it's becoming more and more necessary.
> 
> People can offer their thoughts on it, but we (the organizers) are the ones that actually need to make this work. We will certainly take into account the feelings of the community, but we have a responsibility to run the competition competently and so will make our own judgments.



I apologize if you misconstrue my opinions as in opposition to yours, and I certainly defer to the relevant organizers and delegates in making these kind of decisions.

I agree with your central arguments completely, I'm just saying that I think using other sports as models is an invalid reason to support participation regulations. The Olympics uses qualifiers to get the most competitive pool of athletes possible (more competitive = more viewers = more money). If (more likely when) the WCA decides to allow merit-based restrictions on competitions, it will not be to create the most competitive competition possible, but simply to manage competition size in a more fair way than first come first serve.


----------



## cubizh (Aug 7, 2015)

henrysavich said:


> If (more likely when) the WCA decides to allow merit-based restrictions on competitions, it will not be to create the most competitive competition possible, but simply to manage competition size in a more fair way than first come first serve.


Just a note to point out that the WCA regulations already allows the selection of competitors who directly qualify for certain rounds of certain events based on the results of specific previous competitions and/or  based upon qualification times or rankings in the WCA world rankings of a previously announced calendar date.
It's more of a decision by the organizers if it's acceptable or not.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 7, 2015)

cubizh said:


> It's more of a decision by the organizers if it's acceptable or not.


And the WCA board too.


----------



## cubizh (Aug 7, 2015)

That's to ensure it is reasonable. But nothing would need to change regulation wise.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 7, 2015)

henrysavich said:


> A central principle in the governing and organization of competitions, that I see reflected in the WCA regulations and the community as a whole, as well as one that I support, is that cubing competitions should be just as much for new competitors as multi-WR holders, and be open, easily accessible and friendly to as many people as possible.



I agree. BUT so is football and any other sport. It's just that we can't let any team to play in the major league of their country that wants to. We need to have a qualifying system. The equality and fairness comes from the fact that ANYONE can enter this qualifying stage and if they are good enough they can become national champions. 

We already let faster people solve more rounds than slower ones. This is really just the same concept in bigger scale.



> It is hard to say cubing is competitive when compared to other sports. If Feliks reached an equivalent level of proficiency in chess as he has in cubing, it is unlikely he would even be a grandmaster, and that fact is wonderful.



I think we have different definitions of competitive here. Of course it's harder to become world class in chess or football than it is in cubing. Simply because there are much more *competitors* in the previous two sports mentioned. 
BUT you can still play football or chess *competitively* even if you are nowhere near world class or even your own national top level. Or then you can just play chess and football for fun without competing that seriously.
Similarly you can practise cubing just for fun of it OR you can do it to achieve best possible times and get high in rankings and win big titles, so in other words practise it *competitively*.



> Because of this central principle, there are very huge differences between other sports and cubing. There are no "career cubers", you can start cubing after age 7 and still be able to become world class, and no heavy incentive to encourage people to cheat . These are awesome things about cubing "competitive scene". As we move into the future, we will have to adapt rules to manage a large cubing population, and I think it is hugely important we are aware of this slippery slope in order to preserve why I, and many others, love cubing.



The fact that you can still be world class relatively easily in cubing is because of 1 thing mainly:
Cubing is a new and small sport so there is not much money involved --> there are no professional cubers who practise like professionals

Also just the fact that we have small amount of people who really practise seriously means that we have much smaller "pool of talent" to make good competitors than bigger sports.

Also what slippery slope are you talking about? What are you afraid of will happen if we start using qualifying comps or qualifying with previous WCA results? As long as everyone willing has a chance to qualify IF they are just fast enough then it's completely fair and equal...


----------



## ToastyKen (Aug 7, 2015)

Ah, I found the qualification requirements for Euro 2012:
http://www.speedcubing.com/events/euro2012/events.html

Europeans, I'm curious how this was received, and how well it worked in terms of saving time?
It looks like these requirements were removed fro Euro 2014. Why? Did it not work? Was it just not necessary?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 7, 2015)

Why not implement stricter hard cutoffs?


----------



## CubixWizard (Dec 23, 2015)

Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 23, 2015)

CubixWizard said:


> Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?



There are none, you can compete at any comp. Though you may be DNFed if you do no reach the cut offs.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 23, 2015)

CubixWizard said:


> Hey i'm new to the competition aspect of cubing and i was wondering where is the best place to search for competition qualifiers in my area?



Although qualifying competitions have been proposed, they haven't been implemented and probably won't be, at least for a few more years. Currently, all competitions are open to all competitors. You can find upcoming and past competitions on the World Cube Association page here, and you can narrow down your search by region (for instance, the competition list for US competitions).


----------



## cubizh (Dec 23, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> There are none, you can compete at any comp. Though you may be DNFed if you do no reach the cut offs.


This is not true. There is a misconception between the term "cutoff" and "time limit". Only when you go over the time limit is the solve to be DNFed.
The regulations state that the cutoff time is the time you need to achieve in the first phase of the attempts of a combined round to proceed to the second phase of attempts. But the times you achieve that are below the cutoff are not eliminated, if they are faster than the time limit for the round. 
All events and rounds have a time limit. Only combined rounds have cutoff times.


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 23, 2015)

cubizh said:


> This is not true. There is a misconception between the term "cutoff" and "time limit". Only when you go over the time limit is the solve to be DNFed.
> The regulations state that the cutoff time is the time you need to achieve in the first phase of the attempts of a combined round to proceed to the second phase of attempts. But the times you achieve that are below the cutoff are not eliminated, if they are faster than the time limit for the round.
> All events and rounds have a time limit. Only combined rounds have cutoff times.


By time limits you mean hard cut offs? I'd have to read the regulations, but it sounds like semantics.


----------



## cubizh (Dec 25, 2015)

It's more of a bad habit that can lead to confusion that anything else really 
I always prefer to refer to the proper terms as they are defined in the regulations.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 25, 2015)

cubizh said:


> It's more of a bad habit that can lead to confusion that anything else really
> I always prefer to refer to the proper terms as they are defined in the regulations.



I'm curious as to when they started, myself. I'm fairly sure it started somewhere in the US based on the widespread use here compared to anywhere else, but I'm not sure. Everyone said cutoff/time limit in the US back until my hiatus at the end of 2009, and then it was all hard/soft when I came back in early 2013.


----------



## 1w3playZ (Dec 25, 2015)

I really hope this "qualification" does not go into effect in the next couple of years, or until Cubing grows to a certain extent. Because I hope these qualification rules are not going to be pulled right out of the Sportstacking rules book, which none of us want. Literally. (Except for that rule if you don't wait for the green light and go, you get an extra attempt. *wink *wink)
Since sport stacking is quite popular, they have qualifying competitions. First goes Junior Olympics. If you qualify and do good in that then there's Nationals (I think). And if you do good at nationals, you might qualify for a "Team USA" deal, which lets not get into. Then, SpeedStacks themselves might sponsor you to go to the World Championships. 
Yet, they have wayyyyyyy less competitions than us per year, too. Mostly because its quite a hell of a ride to organize one.
So overall, I would not be too happy to see a qualification section added to the regs, in say 2017. Also, say if there will at sometime be qualifying comps, that's two more nationals for the WCA to host. Yet, at the rate that cubing has been growing, we might just need to think of something.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 25, 2015)

Thing is, qualifying competitions would only really work in the US. Nowhere else really has enough cubers or comps (as far as I'm aware)


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 25, 2015)

1w3playZ said:


> (Except for that rule if you don't wait for the green light and go, you get an extra attempt. *wink *wink)



Cupstacking is the exact same every time. Cubes have scrambles, and this would allow for an easy way to game yourself out of a scramble, which is beyond a terrible idea.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to think that qualifying competitions have to be like the are done in cupstacking, and that's anything but the case.


----------



## 1w3playZ (Dec 25, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> As for the rest of your post, you seem to think that qualifying competitions have to be like the are done in cupstacking, and that's anything but the case.



I'm not saying they have to be like they are in cup stacking, but it can be relate able. I was just trying to give an example of some kind of leveling up tournament system, because it seems to work out for pretty well for them.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 25, 2015)

If we have to add qualifying competitions, then it should just be that you have to get a certain average before you go to nats. Organizing lots of competitions to qualify people would be pretty hard to do, and if someone isn't available when the one nearest to them happens, they wouldn't get to go to nats even if they were sub 12 or something.


----------



## biscuit (Dec 25, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If we have to add qualifying competitions, then it should just be that you have to get a certain average before you go to nats. Organizing lots of competitions to qualify people would be pretty hard to do, and if someone isn't available when the one nearest to them happens, they wouldn't get to go to nats even if they were sub 12 or something.



I'd like to point our that under the current regs this is already possible.

Z4) The organisation team may limit the number of competitors per event, on either a "first come first serve" basis or based upon qualification times or rankings in the WCA world rankings of a previously announced calendar date.


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 26, 2015)

biscuit said:


> I'd like to point our that under the current regs this is already possible.
> 
> Z4) The organisation team may limit the number of competitors per event, on either a "first come first serve" basis or based upon qualification times or rankings in the WCA world rankings of a previously announced calendar date.



Now I kind of want to organize a comp where you need an official 5BLD mo3 to compete
muahahahaaaa


----------



## biscuit (Dec 26, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Now I kind of want to organize a comp where you need an official 5BLD mo3 to compete
> muahahahaaaa



Lololol


----------



## Cale S (Dec 26, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Now I kind of want to organize a comp where you need an official 5BLD mo3 to compete
> muahahahaaaa



I would go to that


----------



## ToastyKen (Nov 4, 2016)

*IT'S HAPPENING!*

There will be qualification times (from any WCA comp) required to register for CubingUSA Nationals 2017.
Thread here:

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/qualifying-times-for-cubingusa-nationals-2017.62880/


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 4, 2016)

i completely disagree with this...

imo speedcubing is a different sport when you go to comps there is absolutely no competitive atmosphere and this helps new cubers into the environment national comps are a great way to meet people and to have fun

if you make it exclusive to fazt people you have a few problems
1. noone will come
2. noone will care
3. its not in our "spirit"

these big comps will have the wrong atmosphere if this happens maybe as a side comp but nats should stay like nats the big cool comp its always been


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 4, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> i completely disagree with this...
> 
> imo speedcubing is a different sport when you go to comps there is absolutely no competitive atmosphere and this helps new cubers into the environment national comps are a great way to meet people and to have fun
> 
> ...


1. 40 seconds for 3x3 is not fast at all, and only 50 out of the 520 competitors from last year did not get sub 40
2. What do you mean nobody will care?
3. Its also not in our spirit to have to tell 300 people that they are on a wait list, while some people only are competing in pyraminx and averaging 1 minute. Also earlier nationals had qualifications rounds , when FAR less people came.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 4, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> imo speedcubing is a different sport when you go to comps there is absolutely no competitive atmosphere and this helps new cubers into the environment national comps are a great way to meet people and to have fun



This is how local competitions are, but I don't think you can say Nationals isn't competitive when they're giving out thousands of dollars total in prize money and you have 500+ competitors 



genericcuber666 said:


> if you make it exclusive to fazt people you have a few problems



40 seconds for 3x3 isn't exactly fast, anyone can get there within a month or two if they actually care enough to go to Nationals


----------



## YouCubing (Nov 4, 2016)

Most of these cutoffs aren't bad at all, one problem I have is Multi because low cube attempts have a cutoff of 10 minutes per cube anyway, so a 2 cube attempt is 3 times as fast as say, a 20 cube attempt


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 5, 2016)

YouCubing said:


> Most of these cutoffs aren't bad at all, one problem I have is Multi because low cube attempts have a cutoff of 10 minutes per cube anyway, so a 2 cube attempt is 3 times as fast as say, a 20 cube attempt



Agree. I would think 3 points is a little more reasonable.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 5, 2016)

YouCubing said:


> Most of these cutoffs aren't bad at all, one problem I have is Multi because low cube attempts have a cutoff of 10 minutes per cube anyway, so a 2 cube attempt is 3 times as fast as say, a 20 cube attempt



On the other hand, if somebody has gotten 5 points you know that at the very least they have gotten 5/5. In the rare case where that is someone's pb and all they want to do is tie it they will have 50 minutes and everyone else will have an even hour, which is simpler to schedule.


----------

