# WCA rankings



## LostGent (Oct 25, 2013)

I was wondering what people thought about the current WCA ranking system. At the moment whoever has the fastest time is ranked highest. Given the amount of WCA sanctioned events, would it not be better to assess rank on the basis of competitions won rather than fastest time. For all we know Mats could maintain the highest ranking for years, and even though he doubtless deserves it currently, if he was to retire from cubing today, he would still be ranked as the best in the world.

Thoughts?


----------



## Username (Oct 25, 2013)

No. There are small comps in countries where speedcubing isn't popular. In those countries the comps are probably smaller, and the winning average is usually a bit slower = easier to win and become "best in the world" even though he/she might average 10 seconds slower than the fastest people. 

My opinion is that the hobby is called "*Speed*cubing" for a reason, we are going for speed.


----------



## LostGent (Oct 25, 2013)

I get what you're saying. I was thinking about having ranked tournaments, so obviously the bigger the event the more points go towards your ranking

I agree with you completely on the point of Speed but if a person has slowed down or retired, do they still deserve a high ranking?


----------



## Username (Oct 25, 2013)

LostGent said:


> if a person has slowed down or retired, do they still deserve a high ranking?



Yes. Otherwise it would be like taking away all the medals of the people who won the olympics over 50 years ago. They have all probably retired


----------



## scylla (Oct 25, 2013)

that is something different


----------



## LostGent (Oct 25, 2013)

Records and rankings should be separate in my opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by taking away from people who won the Olympics, I'm not sure that's a useful comparison. Consider Maurice Greene who ran a 9.79 100m sprint in 1999, that would give him a ranking of 5th. But that's all time rather than current, you wouldn't consider him as a contender in the next Olympics. Would it not be more useful to separate the ranking from records so as to give a more accurate picture of current people's positions?


----------



## Benyó (Oct 25, 2013)

the next idea is gonna be: instead of time, tps should count


----------



## XTowncuber (Oct 25, 2013)

The purpose of the ranking is to see who has the fastest time, not to see who is currently the fastest. An unofficial ranking using this method would be cool, but the official one should stay.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 25, 2013)

LostGent said:


> would it not be better to assess rank on the basis of competitions won rather than fastest time.



Here you go.



LostGent said:


> Records and rankings should be separate in my opinion.



Look at our menu bar and you'll see they are.

Records
Rankings


----------



## LostGent (Oct 25, 2013)

That's not quite what I meant but sure I was only trying to get some opinions that's all


----------



## Torch (Oct 25, 2013)

I think the idea here is similar to the distinction between world record and world leading in athletics. World record is the best time ever achieved, and world leading is the best time achieved in the current year. So Giovanni Contardi has the world record for OH single, and Gabriel Dechichi Barbar is the world leader. Since cubing records are broken so frequently, though, the world record and world leading are usually the same.


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 25, 2013)

scylla said:


> that is something different



please elaborate.


I think the ranking system is as good as it can be. of course, single times are kinda lucky and at some point become hard to break / skill has lower relevance,
but thats exactly what average rankings are for.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Oct 25, 2013)

You can also view results by year on the WCA database


----------



## LucidCuber (Oct 25, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> You can also view results by year on the WCA database



Indeed, but where it says "until 2007" for example I think there should be a 'since 2007' also.

The general idea of 'recent rankings' had cross my mind before, but then again, if someone is ranked say 10, but 5 of the others are no longer active then when they attend competitions they are likely to come 5th giving an accurate reflection of where they rank currently.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 25, 2013)

LucidCuber said:


> Indeed, but where it says "until 2007" for example I think there should be a 'since 2007' also.



There's the "only <year>" option:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...ears=only+2006&show=100+Results&single=Single

(good old times)


----------



## cubizh (Oct 25, 2013)

Stefan said:


> There's the "only <year>" option:
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...ears=only+2006&show=100+Results&single=Single
> 
> (good old times)


Speaking of historic, please don't forget the "best ranking ever" for competitors idea


----------



## LucidCuber (Oct 25, 2013)

Stefan said:


> There's the "only <year>" option:
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...ears=only+2006&show=100+Results&single=Single
> 
> (good old times)



Indeed good times, I just realised I'm on that list at #70


----------



## Stefan (Oct 25, 2013)

cubizh said:


> Speaking of historic, please don't forget the "best ranking ever" for competitors idea



I haven't, I just want to do something else first.



LucidCuber said:


> Indeed good times, I just realised I'm on that list at #70



If you choose "100 Persons", you're even #14 (for me, "100 Results" was better).


----------



## LucidCuber (Oct 25, 2013)

Stefan said:


> I haven't, I just want to do something else first.
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose "100 Persons", you're even #14 (for me, "100 Results" was better).



Very good times indeed compared to today's #1250 ranking


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Oct 25, 2013)

LostGent said:


> Would it not be more useful to separate the ranking from records so as to give a more accurate picture of current people's positions?



Your idea seems interesting, but if we were to do this, how would you define if someone is an active cuber or not? There is definitely no clear cut boundary and is a lot of variability in length of time between inactive competitors.


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 25, 2013)

The problem is that some competitions are MUCH easier to win than others. For example, the tenth best cuber at a New England comp might place in the top 3 at a comp in Washington. Also, not everyone has the same opportunities to compete. The current system seems the most fair, since you're competing against everyone, not just the people near you, and also you don't have to compete all the time in order to have a good ranking.

I don't see how inactive cubers skew the rankings at all. They still deserve the ranking, even if it was achieved a while ago. If you really want to see who the best "current" cubers are, just select this year on the rankings page.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 25, 2013)

Torch said:


> I think the idea here is similar to the distinction between world record and world leading in athletics. World record is the best time ever achieved, and world leading is the best time achieved in the current year. So Giovanni Contardi has the world record for OH single, and Gabriel Dechichi Barbar is the world leader. Since cubing records are broken so frequently, though, the world record and world leading are usually the same.



And why should Gabriel Dechichi Barbar be considered world leader? Because he has a faster average than the world record holder? Michal Pleskowicz has *6* averages better than Gabriel's best. Heck, even I have *2* averages faster than Gabriel's best. Should that make me second in the world?


----------



## Torch (Oct 25, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> And why should Gabriel Dechichi Barbar be considered world leader? Because he has a faster average than the world record holder? Michal Pleskowicz has *6* averages better than Gabriel's best. Heck, even I have *2* averages faster than Gabriel's best. Should that make me second in the world?



I never said I agreed with this idea, and I specifically said OH *single*. Michal Pleskowicz has the fastest average this year, so yes, he would be the average leader, and you would be second. I don't think this should be an official measure; it's just an interesting statistic.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 25, 2013)

Torch said:


> I never said I agreed with this idea, and I specifically said OH *single*. Michal Pleskowicz has the fastest average this year, so yes, he would be the average leader, and you would be second. I don't think this should be an official measure; it's just an interesting statistic.



I was just pointing out that there is no reason to say that Dechichi is the world leader and that Contardi is the world record holder. Gabriel might have a faster average but slightly slower single than Giovanni, but that still isn't a valid reason since Michal also has a faster average and an almost as fast single.


----------



## Torch (Oct 25, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I was just pointing out that there is no reason to say that Dechichi is the world leader and that Contardi is the world record holder. Gabriel might have a faster average but slightly slower single than Giovanni, but that still isn't a valid reason since Michal also has a faster average and an almost as fast single.



What does the average have to do with anything? I was discussing the single. I'm not saying Gabriel is the best in the world at OH, only that he happens to have the fastest single so far this year.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 25, 2013)

Torch said:


> What does the average have to do with anything? I was discussing the single. I'm not saying Gabriel is the best in the world at OH, only that he happens to have the fastest single so far this year.



Ahhhhh, sorry I didn't see that part.


----------



## UnsolvedCypher (Oct 25, 2013)

Maybe a ranking could be determined by averaging the last few averages together? Or perhaps ranking them a little lower if they haven't competed in over a year? I think this would give a pretty accurate representation of who is the fastest right now.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 26, 2013)

There have been proposals to have a separate ranking system for cubing, just like chess has rankings that determine, say, grandmasters. This is not inherently a bad idea, but here are some thoughts on it:

A lot of these other sports cannot be measured objectively. Chess players can only be compared one game at a time. Certain sports are judged subjectively (gymnastics, dance, etc.). In cubing, we have a simple objective measure. Perhaps the single solve is not that important.

LostGent mentioned Maurice Greene as an example of someone with a good result who should perhaps not be ranked as competitive. But does Track and Field even have such a ranking?

I don't think we need to introduce a mechanism to encourage "active" cubing. As mentioned, this can be unfair for competitors in isolated regions. We want cubing to remain a cooperative sport where cubers try to get the best times they can, not to beat as many others as possible.

We don't really need it, and it's not clear how we would go about designing a fair system.


----------



## Dene (Oct 26, 2013)

LostGent said:


> I get what you're saying. I was thinking about having ranked tournaments, so obviously the bigger the event the more points go towards your ranking



So Feliks would miss out because everyone else in Australia sucks?


----------



## LostGent (Oct 26, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> LostGent mentioned Maurice Greene as an example of someone with a good result who should perhaps not be ranked as competitive. But does Track and Field even have such a ranking?
> 
> I don't think we need to introduce a mechanism to encourage "active" cubing. As mentioned, this can be unfair for competitors in isolated regions. We want cubing to remain a cooperative sport where cubers try to get the best times they can, not to beat as many others as possible.
> 
> We don't really need it, and it's not clear how we would go about designing a fair system.



I live in Ireland, we've only had one competition here so I can completely understand where you're coming from. I just thought it might have been more interesting to see the rankings work in a manner similar to golf or tennis but then this is an amateur hobby so it's very different. As for Maurice Greene, it was just to indicate how if we applied WCA rankings to Track and Field it would lead to skewed results. Our community is very small and can be isolated so perhaps it's not the best idea.

Thanks for all your feedback everyone


----------



## Stefan (Oct 26, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> In cubing, we have a simple objective measure.



Programming competitions like TopCoder or CodeForces have a fairly simple fairly objective measure as well, and they're doing nice ratings. You can see mine on the bottom here:
http://community.topcoder.com/tc?module=MemberProfile&cr=263379

Works something like this:

 Take the ratings of a round's participants before the competition.
 Calculate which position they're expected to end up.
 Somehow adjust ratings according to how much better/worse than expected they actually end up.
Of course, they have the advantage of frequent global competitions.



LostGent said:


> I live in Ireland, *we've only had one competition* here *so I can completely understand where you're coming from.*



Really? He's from California. They've had about 97 competitions.



LostGent said:


> I just thought it might have been more interesting to see the rankings work in a manner similar to golf or tennis but then this is an amateur hobby so it's very different.



I don't know how golf/tennis rankings work, but if they're interesting, we could maybe add some semi-/unofficially in the misc section.



LostGent said:


> As for Maurice Greene, it was just to indicate how if we applied WCA rankings to Track and Field it would lead to skewed results.



They would not be skewed. They would be absolutely correct all-time rankings.


----------



## scylla (Oct 26, 2013)

Its a good idea as an extra, not instead off.

Let's look at this example

Cuber A did 6 averages at 2 Competitions: 5 of them where between 11 and 12 sec, but one in the first round was 9 sec.
Cuber B did at the Same competitions 6 averages of 10 sec and has besten A in 5 of THE 6 rounds including both finals.

Who is THE beter cuber? I think its B. Current rankingsysteem says A is better


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 26, 2013)

scylla said:


> Its a good idea as an extra, not instead off.
> 
> Let's look at this example
> 
> ...



It really depends. Perhaps cuber A is just extremely nervous in competition, and got less pressure in the first round so achieved a normal average, but failed badly due to pressure in the other rounds. Also, maybe cuber B does well under pressure and got good averages in every round. He also got more pressure in both finals, so achieved better times.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 26, 2013)

scylla said:


> Current rankingsysteem says A is better



No it doesn't. It says A has a better record.


----------



## scylla (Oct 27, 2013)

Stefan said:


> No it doesn't. It says A has a better record.



That's correct, so I think this idea is an interesting option to find a ranking which put THE best cuber at the top.

When there isnt one, people will percept the current rankings like A is better than B



antoineccantin said:


> It really depends. Perhaps cuber A is just extremely nervous in competition, and got less pressure in the first round so achieved a normal average, but failed badly due to pressure in the other rounds. Also, maybe cuber B does well under pressure and got good averages in every round. He also got more pressure in both finals, so achieved better times.



Haha, are you serious?


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 27, 2013)

scylla said:


> Haha, are you serious?



Yes...


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Oct 27, 2013)

scylla said:


> Haha, are you serious?



That's actually a very common scenario. Pressure to do well in competition is real, and some people deal with it better than others. If you go to my official competition history, you'll see that I always do worse in the second round of competitions because of the pressure.


----------



## scylla (Oct 27, 2013)

I know pressure has impact and the impact is not the same for everyone. However, its part of the game. It makes no sense to try to filter the impact of pressure out of results.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 27, 2013)

It also makes no sense to try to filter people's best times out of results. Cubing is about getting the objectively best time, not about beating people. Note that even final rounds of big competitions are not done in a "head to head" fashion, but instead, each person does their solves individually and the times are compared later.


----------



## KongShou (Oct 28, 2013)

qqwref said:


> It also makes no sense to try to filter people's best times out of results. Cubing is about getting the objectively best time, not about beating people. Note that even final rounds of big competitions are not done in a "head to head" fashion, but instead, each person does their solves individually and the times are compared later.



Maybe we should start doing knock outs for big competitions. Would be fun to watch.


----------

