# Sec. 9m (maximum number of rounds) should be changed



## JustinTimeCuber (May 31, 2017)

I think that with competitions seeing nearly a thousand people, we're getting to the point where 5 rounds isn't crazy. I think the tipping point is when a semifinal has 100 people, which we could see at a major competition in the next few years. Having only one subsequent round after a round with 100 people is starting to get silly, so I propose this modification.

9m) Events must have at most four *five *rounds.

*9m1) Rounds with 999 or fewer competitors must have at most three subsequent rounds.*
9m1*2*) Rounds with 99 or fewer competitors must have at most two subsequent rounds.

9m2*3*) Rounds with 15 or fewer competitors must have at most one subsequent round.
9m3*4*) Rounds with 7 or fewer competitors must not have subsequent rounds.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 31, 2017)

On one hand I kind of agree. I'd even say it makes sense for comps with 600+ competitors.

On the other hand, this kind of caters only to the elite. If you have time in the schedule for a 5th round then you also could instead use the time available to put a few more people through in earlier rounds, which would benefit more people. Imagine if you took the maximum number of people through to each round. 1000 people in round 1, 750 in round 2, 550 in round 3, and 400 in the final?


----------



## tx789 (May 31, 2017)

Final should remain small. I think 5 rounds makes seem to some degree for worlds this year. But it is a lot of rounds.


----------



## Sajwo (May 31, 2017)

I like the idea. I think WCA should consider changing the rules for the next Worlds (2019). It shouldn't be a big problem by then


----------



## Ronxu (Jun 1, 2017)

What's the point in adding another round of 3x3 when a comp that lasts for 4 days still doesn't have enough time for more than 2 rounds of big cubes, megaminx and clock?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 1, 2017)

Ronxu said:


> What's the point in adding another round of 3x3 when a comp that lasts for 4 days still doesn't have enough time for more than 2 rounds of big cubes, megaminx and clock?


Most people actually care more about 3x3 than clock. Someone who put as much into clock as a lot of people put into 3x3 would have no trouble making finals.

Also, this thread isn't about any specific competition. It's just about getting the WCA to allow 5 round events.


----------



## Calode (Jun 1, 2017)

4 actually feels like enough. Time spent doing a 5th round could easily be replaced with letting more people in for 2nd and semis. The motto of the WCA is more people, not more rounds. 4 rounds seems good for an 1000 person comp. A comp with a 1000 people is already going to have most of all the other events and it'd make sense also spending time doing extra rounds for those.

No reason to go beyond 5 almost ever.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 1, 2017)

My biggest problem with making competitions with, say, 1500 people only have 4 rounds is that you're eliminating people so fast that you need to be sub-12 to even make the second round. That discourages some people because they know it will take them several years to get to that speed, and by then the goalposts will have moved.


----------



## Malkom (Jun 1, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> My biggest problem with making competitions with, say, 1500 people only have 4 rounds is that you're eliminating people so fast that you need to be sub-12 to even make the second round. That discourages some people because they know it will take them several years to get to that speed, and by then the goalposts will have moved.


"Years for sub 12" lol


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jun 1, 2017)

Malkom said:


> "Years for sub 12" lol


Reads this, start doubting my life...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 1, 2017)

Malkom said:


> "Years for sub 12" lol


come back in a few months with a sub-12 global average and then we'll talk k? 

I mean, someone who isn't sub-12 shouldn't be implying that sub-12 is easy and can be done in like 18 months.


----------



## Malkom (Jun 1, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> come back in a few months with a sub-12 global average and then we'll talk k?
> 
> I mean, someone who isn't sub-12 shouldn't be implying that sub-12 is easy and can be done in like 18 months.


I'll come back in a week or two then.
Just FYI I haven't really practiced 3x3 in the past months, I think I was almost sub12 for a week or something and then got tired of it and went back to mega.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 1, 2017)

Malkom said:


> I'll come back in a week or two then.
> Just FYI I haven't really practiced 3x3 in the past months, I think I was almost sub12 for a week or something and then got tired of it and went back to mega.


I guess we'll see. I'd say though that most cubers take at least 2-3 years to get to 12 seconds.

At least at the competitions I go to.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 1, 2017)

4 rounds is plenty for any event, any more would seem to be unfairly taking up schedule time from other events. Yeah, you need to be really good to progress far at a big comp, so what? If you go to the World Championships and compete in an event like 3x3 that is insanely popular with loads of fast people, you need to be world class to progress far, and I don't see that as a problem.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 1, 2017)

Having more than 2 rounds in reality doesn't really give you a better idea of finding the winner/podium of that event, which is the main purpose of holding these competitions. Of course, a second round allows you to take the best from the first round and give them all the same scrambles to determine the podium, so this round has clear utility for our goal. Having just two rounds may leave out some people who deserved to be in a final round, maybe because they got unlucky with scrambles, so 3 rounds may help competitors on the fringe of qualifying for a small final round, but even then, there are typically multiple groups with multiple scramble sets that can still have this problem. Thus, this is just barely better than 2 rounds for that purpose. A fourth round is even more insignificant in helping determine this, but may have a tangible, yet small effect for competitions like Worlds. 

In reality, multiple rounds just allows for the best competitors to have more chances at records, either personal, regional or world. 5 rounds is excessive and unnecessary, and you could argue that even 4 rounds is excessive.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 2, 2017)

Kit Clement said:


> Having more than 2 rounds in reality doesn't really give you a better idea of finding the winner/podium of that event, which is the main purpose of holding these competitions. Of course, a second round allows you to take the best from the first round and give them all the same scrambles to determine the podium, so this round has clear utility for our goal. Having just two rounds may leave out some people who deserved to be in a final round, maybe because they got unlucky with scrambles, so 3 rounds may help competitors on the fringe of qualifying for a small final round, but even then, there are typically multiple groups with multiple scramble sets that can still have this problem. Thus, this is just barely better than 2 rounds for that purpose. A fourth round is even more insignificant in helping determine this, but may have a tangible, yet small effect for competitions like Worlds.
> 
> In reality, multiple rounds just allows for the best competitors to have more chances at records, either personal, regional or world. 5 rounds is excessive and unnecessary, and you could argue that even 4 rounds is excessive.


This is definitely an interesting perspective.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jun 2, 2017)

I very strongly agree that a 5th round should be added to bigger comps. Worlds this year is going to be 1100 people, and only four rounds. Nationals is going to be 800. And there are also going to be other huge comps this year (like Euros and Asian Championships), so overall, I think that a 5th round would be very helpful, and maybe for comps with over 1100 people, maybe even a 6th (but that seems a little excessive). I also think that a 5th would help expand the WCA a little bit, because more people can advance, so more people will want to compete just _so_ they can advance beyond round 1. But overall in my opinion, I think that a 5th round would greatly benefit competitions around the world.


----------



## One Wheel (Jun 2, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> This is definitely an interesting perspective.


Actually it's probably entirely correct. More rounds might be nice for people who are fast, but for someone like me who realistically has little or no chance of ever even getting to significantly sub-20 on 3x3 (after 2 years cubing I'm still over 30, and just timed a T-perm Ao5 of 2.49) I would rather see a policy that discourages extra rounds and instead encourages more events.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 2, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Actually it's probably entirely correct. More rounds might be nice for people who are fast, but for someone like me who realistically has little or no chance of ever even getting to significantly sub-20 on 3x3 (after 2 years cubing I'm still over 30, and just timed a T-perm Ao5 of 2.49) I would rather see a policy that discourages extra rounds and instead encourages more events.


I think it should be organizers making that decision though. In a few years, comps will probably be more widespread, so at that point, people will have a choice to go to a comp with lots of 3x3 rounds or with more events.

Even though 2x2 is my 2nd main event, I don't just not go to comps that don't have it (although someone whose name starts with Aussi and ends with reene can't say the same)


----------



## One Wheel (Jun 2, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I think it should be organizers making that decision though. In a few years, comps will probably be more widespread, so at that point, people will have a choice to go to a comp with lots of 3x3 rounds or with more events.
> 
> Even though 2x2 is my 2nd main event, I don't just not go to comps that don't have it (although someone whose name starts with Aussi and ends with reene can't say the same)



Maybe in a few years comps will be more widespread, but they're not now, and I doubt that they will ever be common enough that people like me, who live in rural areas, will have those choices.

As far as skipping comps: priorities, man! 6x6 is the best event, after all. Life is short, why bother with silly stuff? 

How would you feel about a rule limiting number of rounds on the basis of number of events offered? For example:
No more than 2 rounds of any one event may be offered at any competition unless at least one round of every other WCA event is offered at the same competition. Exception: competitions with 2 or fewer official events offered may offer additional rounds subject to the limitations on number of competitors.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 2, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Maybe in a few years comps will be more widespread, but they're not now, and I doubt that they will ever be common enough that people like me, who live in rural areas, will have those choices.
> 
> As far as skipping comps: priorities, man! 6x6 is the best event, after all. Life is short, why bother with silly stuff?
> 
> ...


Can you clarify what the exception is supposed to mean?


----------



## One Wheel (Jun 2, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Can you clarify what the exception is supposed to mean?


It just allows for specialized competitions, like with just 2x2 and 3x3.


----------



## Malkom (Jun 2, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Maybe in a few years comps will be more widespread, but they're not now, and I doubt that they will ever be common enough that people like me, who live in rural areas, will have those choices.
> 
> As far as skipping comps: priorities, man! 6x6 is the best event, after all. Life is short, why bother with silly stuff?
> 
> ...


That doesn't really makes sense to me, for example there's an annual Swedish comp who's sole purpose is to offer multiple rounds of a "few" selected events. I think the regulations shouldn't be too limiting, an organizer who wants 3 rounds of OH shouldn't have to organize a huge comp with every WCA event.


----------



## Ronxu (Jun 2, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> I very strongly agree that a 5th round should be added to bigger comps. Worlds this year is going to be 1100 people, and only four rounds. Nationals is going to be 800. And there are also going to be other huge comps this year (like Euros and Asian Championships), so overall, I think that a 5th round would be very helpful, and maybe for comps with over 1100 people, maybe even a 6th (but that seems a little excessive). I also think that a 5th would help expand the WCA a little bit, because more people can advance, so more people will want to compete just _so_ they can advance beyond round 1. But overall in my opinion, I think that a 5th round would greatly benefit competitions around the world.


Doesn't that mean that fewer people get to advance because you have to make time for the extra round? You keep saying that more rounds = good, but you don't have anything to back up your claims.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jun 2, 2017)

Ronxu said:


> Doesn't that mean that fewer people get to advance because you have to make time for the extra round? You keep saying that more rounds = good, but you don't have anything to back up your claims.


Why does everyone say that "no, no, we are good"? I really don't get it. Wouldn't more rounds attract more people to the WCA?


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 2, 2017)

As Kit said, more rounds doesn't help select better winners. The only purpose would be to give more people more solves (more fun, as the WCA mission says). A more inclusive solution to that would be to have bigger rounds, not more rounds.

If you have both bigger and more rounds, that will be time consuming and obviously will come at the expense of other events. With 5 rounds of maximum size, the 4th round would still be 42% the size of the first round. Personally I think 4 rounds is enough, even at Worlds.

Having said that, I'm not sure why the regulations should limit it rather than leave it to the discretion of the organisers.


----------



## Ronxu (Jun 2, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Why does everyone say that "no, no, we are good"? I really don't get it. Wouldn't more rounds attract more people to the WCA?


No. Why would it? The current system is fine because competitions have limited amount of time and we should encourage organizers to hold more events instead of 10 rounds of 3x3. That way everyone gets to compete more instead of just the top 3x3 solvers.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jun 2, 2017)

Ronxu said:


> No. Why would it? The current system is fine because competitions have limited amount of time and we should encourage organizers to hold more events instead of 10 rounds of 3x3. That way everyone gets to compete more instead of just the top 3x3 solvers.


Because more people can do more solves because of other rounds?


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jun 2, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Because more people can do more solves because of other rounds?


U don't understand...
More rounds mean more time. More time means less competitors each round


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jun 2, 2017)

Rcuber123 said:


> U don't understand...
> More rounds mean more time. More time means less competitors each round


True. You are probably right.


----------



## One Wheel (Jun 2, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Because more people can do more solves because of other rounds?


For slow people like me the number of rounds is irrelevant except inasmuch as they take time from other events. I can do solves for events that I am fast enough for the hard cut, and averages for events that I'm fast enough for the soft cut. I don't get to compete in further rounds because I'm simply not good enough, and probably never will be unless I start to take feet more seriously and I go to a comp with multiple rounds of feet. More rounds accentuates the problem (perhaps not as much of a problem as in other organizations, but still a problem) that there is an "in" crowd and an "out" crowd.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jun 2, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> For slow people like me the number of rounds is irrelevant except inasmuch as they take time from other events. I can do solves for events that I am fast enough for the hard cut, and averages for events that I'm fast enough for the soft cut. I don't get to compete in further rounds because I'm simply not good enough, and probably never will be unless I start to take feet more seriously and I go to a comp with multiple rounds of feet. More rounds accentuates the problem (perhaps not as much of a problem as in other organizations, but still a problem) that there is an "in" crowd and an "out" crowd.


Like I just said, you guys are probably right. However, I still think that 5 rounds would be better.


----------

