# How to progress the WCA for everyone's benefit



## GodCubing (Jul 19, 2021)

Before we decide how to improve the WCA, we need to define what our ideal WCA would look like. Some small details might look different from person to person. However, I believe we all want to a WCA that is spectator friendly (to advance the sport), has diverse events (so events that are very similar should be removed, and events that are unique should be added), and is easy to organize (some events are not mandatory).

Spectator friendly events should be quick, but not instant (so no 1x1). By quick I mean for final rounds most solvers are under 1 minute. Also, the spectator should be able to visually see the puzzle getting solved (so clock and 15 puzzle are probably not good for spectators). Diverse events should be different meaning being good at one does not make you good at the other; if you can improve at an event by practicing a different event then 1 of them should be removed. Events that have the same approach to solving it are not diverse. Also, unique and different events should be added, for instance, FTO is a very different puzzle to any currently in the WCA, Redi Cube is another great example. Adding all these events will make things stressful for organizers so that means less competitions which is something no one wants. Therefore, we need to make things easier for organizers by making some events not mandatory (the tiered events idea). Events that are difficult for organizers might be difficult to scramble or take a long time per round. These events that are difficult to organize should not be mandatory events. Each competition can chose for itself how many not mandatory events to have, however major competitions such as nationals and worlds, should include all mandatory events. This change to the WCA means that Cubing will gain popularity through spectators and be more enjoyable for competitors and organizers alike.

Just making a post on a speedsolving forum is not enough to bring this to fruition. What needs to happen is for organizers to a lot time for non-WCA events (we know the WCA already wants to remove the hard to organize events, and the not spectator friendly events). I would recommend making a poll before the competition of events you would be willing to organize. Organizers should probably consult the delegate for regulation ideas on the events proposed before they give the poll. So organizers are deciding what events are on the poll before the competion starts, and they have regulations in place for each of the events on the poll. At the beginning of the competition take a poll (google form). Let the competitors vote for 3 events (more or less than 3 depending on how long your list is) that they would like to be held, and also ask them which events they can compete in (e.g. which puzzles they have). Towards the end of the competition announce which events won the poll, and how many or which ones will be held. The data received from the poll should aid the organizer(s) in deciding what other events to hold, but it should not dictate it. If one event gets the most votes for people wanting it to be held, but there are not many people who can compete in it, probably don’t hold that event. It is up to the organizers discretion. In summary, Organizers should: set aside time for non-WCA events at the end of the competition, create a poll of events and their regulations with help from the delegate, take a poll of which events solvers would like to see and which they can compete in, decide which to hold, and hold them.

I understand that this makes a lot more work, but I don’t think lobbying the WCA is going to help. This solution should bring about change in the community and eventually improve the WCA for everyone.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 20, 2021)

This website is a good start toward recognizing unofficial events at official competitions: https://extraevents.org/


----------



## MattP98 (Jul 20, 2021)

Maybe cross-post this on the WCA forum? I think this sort of discussion belongs there.



GodCubing said:


> I believe we all want to a WCA that is spectator friendly


This would be ideal, but I disagree that it should be a main focus of the WCA. We have Red Bull for spectator events, and ultimately most people will only actually be interested in seeing the fastest solvers for any event. Spectator-friendliness should be a happy by-product rather than an end in itself.

Personally I think people place too much emphasis on the spectator value of cubing; cubing in general is not a spectator sport.



GodCubing said:


> has diverse events (so events that are very similar should be removed, and events that are unique should be added)





GodCubing said:


> Diverse events should be different meaning being good at one does not make you good at the other


I agree wholeheartedly with this, and if any future events are added I would hope they're distinct from anything we currently have. I don't think any more events should be removed without compelling reason. There are some discussions about this on the WCA forum if you're interested/haven't seen. 



GodCubing said:


> These events that are difficult to organize should not be mandatory events. Each competition can chose for itself how many not mandatory events to have, however major competitions such as nationals and worlds, should include all mandatory events.


I'm not sure what you're saying here? For normal competitions it's already not mandatory to hold every event. The principle behind tiering to my understanding is so that major championships don't have to hold every event to make them easier to organise - but then you explicitly say that major championships should hold every event?



GodCubing said:


> we know the WCA already wants to remove the hard to organize events, and the not spectator friendly events


No, we don't know this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the WCA has been burnt a bit by the handling of the removal of feet and so any future event removals will be done after a lot more community discussion. There is no evidence that the WCA is intending to remove any more events.



GodCubing said:


> Organizers should: set aside time for non-WCA events at the end of the competition, create a poll of events and their regulations with help from the delegate, take a poll of which events solvers would like to see and which they can compete in, decide which to hold, and hold them.


I like the idea of more focus being on unofficial events at competitions, and something like this could be a step towards making that happen. I don't think it should be mandatory, if that's what you're suggesting.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 20, 2021)

I just don't like the term tiered events I think there is a better way of describing that concept. I was just trying to say major competitions aren't required to hold tier 2 events. I agree with everything you said except I will respectfully disagree about spectator friendliness, but I understand where you are coming from.


----------



## LBr (Jul 20, 2021)

Removing the hard to organise and time consuming events would mean removing all the blind events except 3BLD. Also, the approach that hard to organise events shoud be removed is lazy, and events that take longer to organise show that the event must be better as the more work you put in, the better the outcome


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 21, 2021)

LBr said:


> Removing the hard to organise and time consuming events would mean removing all the blind events except 3BLD. Also, the approach that hard to organise events shoud be removed is lazy, and events that take longer to organise show that the event must be better as the more work you put in, the better the outcome


I think 4bld is unique, however 5bld is a bit repetitve


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I think 4bld is unique, however 5bld is a bit repetitve


Just curious, have you done either event?


----------



## Waffles (Jul 21, 2021)

You also need to think about how some people would react to things changing. I know for example there was a thread w while asking if 15-puzzle should be brought into the wca, while it’s obvious nothing would happen, the poll was still about 75-3. Most of the negative responses said “people don’t want the wca too add any events and it would cause some unrest. 15-puzzle may not be a good example, but it was the only one that I’ve seen so far.

Say, for example, they removed 7x7. People who did big cubes as a main event would stop competing, or create petitions to bring it back. Same thing with events like clock and skewb. The people that main them as an event wouldn’t like it if the wca suddenly removed them. If anyone did feet as a main event, they’d probably have quit the wca last year.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I think 4bld is unique, however 5bld is a bit repetitve


I highly disagree with your statement that 5BLD is repetitive. 

I got my first 5BLD success in 2014, and first official success in 2015. There are just too many optimizations I am working on for this event, and the depth that this event has shown is immense. There are a lot of creative solutions that I come up with like getting more solved centers, or cool wing parity setups, doing block commutators etc, which are not possible in the 3BLD or 4BLD events because of low depth.

Even on the SS Forums, I regularly post cool 5BLD solutions, in the 5x5 Example Solves Game. 5BLD is one of the events which make me highly motivated to continue speedcubing, as it is already my 14th year in, and smaller events like 2x2, skewb and pyra do not have that much creative value to me (highly subjective though, these events can still be creative sometimes).


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 21, 2021)

I've never done 4bld or 5 bld, so I'll shut up about removing events.



Kit Clement said:


> Just curious, have you done either event?


No, and I understand people don't want their events removed. And that the wca regrets removing feet is an event which I enjoy. Thank you for keeping me in check


----------



## zhongtiao1 (Jul 30, 2021)

I posted this in a other thread a while back, but I think it fits here too. 

In my opinion, there should be a secondary competition separate from WCA worlds. The WCA world championship is sort of lime the Olympics. Lots of events, but it still leaves out major ones. The World Games picks up where the Olympics fall short, giving not necessarily less popular, but major non-olympic events a place to shine.

We need something similar for the WCA. Just like the World Games and Olympics, when an event would be added to the WCA world championship, it would be removed from the WCA "alternate" games. It could also be possible for the reverse to be true.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 31, 2021)

zhongtiao1 said:


> I posted this in a other thread a while back, but I think it fits here too.
> 
> In my opinion, there should be a secondary competition separate from WCA worlds. The WCA world championship is sort of lime the Olympics. Lots of events, but it still leaves out major ones. The World Games picks up where the Olympics fall short, giving not necessarily less popular, but major non-olympic events a place to shine.
> 
> We need something similar for the WCA. Just like the World Games and Olympics, when an event would be added to the WCA world championship, it would be removed from the WCA "alternate" games. It could also be possible for the reverse to be true.


Agreed, I have been thinking along the same lines recently because of watching the Olympics


----------



## povlhp (Jul 31, 2021)

Don’t remove the bigger cubes. If anything then make 2x2-7x7 relay an event. 2x2 should be considered instant with so many sub-1s. 
But great with new puzzles. Love the sq-1 myself.


----------



## EvanCuber (Jul 31, 2021)

povlhp said:


> If anything then make 2x2-7x7 relay an event.


If they made that an event, there would be no time to do means or averages, so you would just have to do it once for a competition


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jul 31, 2021)

Just don’t remove clock and I will be happy


----------



## Waffles (Aug 1, 2021)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Just don’t remove clock and I will be happy


Same. Clock is superior to 3x3


----------



## qwr (Aug 1, 2021)

Feet was unique and prioritized move count where nowadays you can use lots of moves in normal3x3 if you turn fast


----------



## Jam88 (Aug 1, 2021)

Interesting propositions. It would be intriguing to see how the WCA would potentially implement changes

(I sounded so grown up then lol)


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 2, 2021)

Jam88 said:


> (I sounded so grown up then lol)


Lol same. I wrote this "essay" (if you can call it that) in word before pasting it to the forum


----------



## EvanCuber (Aug 2, 2021)

I think the Rubik's snake would be an interesting addition to the WCA. I think the scrambles should be different every time though, rather than have it be a straight line, have it be a new Twisty shape every scramble.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 2, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I think the Rubik's snake would be an interesting addition to the WCA. I think the scrambles should be different every time though, rather than have it be a straight line, have it be a new Twisty shape every scramble.


Snake would definitely need some work as far as scrambling is concerned, but it is a cool puzzle


----------



## Sub1Hour (Aug 2, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Before we decide how to improve the WCA, we need to define what our ideal WCA would look like. Some small details might look different from person to person. However, I believe we all want to a WCA that is spectator friendly (to advance the sport), has diverse events (so events that are very similar should be removed, and events that are unique should be added), and is easy to organize (some events are not mandatory).


I'd hate to see events removed again. Magic wasn't that heartbreaking since if you wanted a similar experience you should just go to a speed stacks event. But feet was one that I didn't like. Imagine putting years and years into an event and having it removed. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Especially with people wanting Clock and 7x7 gone, I'd hate to see either of them go, especially clock since it's by far the most unique event.

Also with the whole spectator friendly thing, I would think that all of us would agree that the WCA was made by cubers, *for cubers.* It's nice to have stuff like OH and 3bld that are very spectator friendly, but other events like big blind, megaminx, and big cube are still extremely enjoyable in their own light, regardless if it's a little less amusing than watching a 3x3 or squan average. We already have around 8 events that are very spectator friendly, and removing events won't make them any less fun to watch.


GodCubing said:


> Spectator friendly events should be quick, but not instant (so no 1x1). By quick I mean for final rounds most solvers are under 1 minute. Also, the spectator should be able to visually see the puzzle getting solved (so clock and 15 puzzle are probably not good for spectators).


Spectator friendliness seems like a pretty arbitrary metric when considering adding an event. Instead of making an event official because some people in the crowd think it's neat, it should be based on its popularity within the community as well as an event bringing something new to the table, such as redi cube being a corner turning cube, or an edge turning copter/clover puzzle.


GodCubing said:


> Diverse events should be different meaning being good at one does not make you good at the other; if you can improve at an event by practicing a different event then 1 of them should be removed. Events that have the same approach to solving it are not diverse.


Association between events shouldn't be ground for removal. For example, in the most recent mega survey there was a strong correlation between megaminx and 7x7. Both of these events are certainly unique from one another, even a non cuber can look at both puzzles and tell you that. And technically, if you want to remove events that have a similar approach, then say goodbye to Megaminx, 3x3, 2x2, Pyraminx, and Square-1 since those puzzles have methods that solve the puzzle with a layer by layer approach. This is quite a stretch but I'm trying to point out how just because some events solve in a similar way don't mean they aren't unique. Everyone always talks about removing 7x7 since its just 6x6 but longer, but I can tell you firsthand that you can approach the centers on a 6x6 in ways a 7x7 doesn't allow for, and vice versa. The true centers also bring in some variation on what you can/have to do with center blocks that don't correlate with the color scheme.


GodCubing said:


> Therefore, we need to make things easier for organizers by making some events not mandatory (the tiered events idea). Events that are difficult for organizers might be difficult to scramble or take a long time per round. These events that are difficult to organize should not be mandatory events. Each competition can chose for itself how many not mandatory events to have, however major competitions such as nationals and worlds, should include all mandatory events. This change to the WCA means that Cubing will gain popularity through spectators and be more enjoyable for competitors and organizers alike.


What do you mean by mandatory events? I've spent some time organizing comps (unfortunately covid got in the way of actually being to hold a comp) and the delegates I worked with didn't explicitly say that X event must be held or we won't let this comp happen. With Championships I get that some if not all events need to be held but for local comps, there is no such restriction. If tiers were a thing and forced organizers to hold certain events at every single competition it would definitely make me not want to hold comps as much, especially since events popular in one area may be unpopular in others. Let's say that I make a list right here of the most popular events in my state and also make a list of events that would be considered "Mandatory" if a tiered system came out. The popular events in my area are 5x5, 6x6, 4Bld, FMC, Square-1, Clock, and Megaminx. Now here is a list of the most popular events on average. 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, OH, Pyraminx, and Skewb. None of these have an overlap.

Also as an organizer, I hate the idea of a tiered system. It just makes everything way too complicated. When I organized my first comp, I just held some staples like 2x2 and 3x3, and held events that haven't been held for a few months like pyraminx. Tiers would have just made me not want to hold "lower tier" events and only hold the most widely liked events, even though the event taste in my area is unique and we prefer the less liked events.


GodCubing said:


> Just making a post on a speedsolving forum is not enough to bring this to fruition. What needs to happen is for organizers to a lot time for non-WCA events (we know the WCA already wants to remove the hard to organize events, and the not spectator friendly events). I would recommend making a poll before the competition of events you would be willing to organize. Organizers should probably consult the delegate for regulation ideas on the events proposed before they give the poll. So organizers are deciding what events are on the poll before the competion starts, and they have regulations in place for each of the events on the poll. At the beginning of the competition take a poll (google form). Let the competitors vote for 3 events (more or less than 3 depending on how long your list is) that they would like to be held, and also ask them which events they can compete in (e.g. which puzzles they have). Towards the end of the competition announce which events won the poll, and how many or which ones will be held. The data received from the poll should aid the organizer(s) in deciding what other events to hold, but it should not dictate it. If one event gets the most votes for people wanting it to be held, but there are not many people who can compete in it, probably don’t hold that event. It is up to the organizers discretion. In summary, Organizers should: set aside time for non-WCA events at the end of the competition, create a poll of events and their regulations with help from the delegate, take a poll of which events solvers would like to see and which they can compete in, decide which to hold, and hold them.



This also sounds like way more of a hassle than it needs to be. Instead of making this tentative on what unofficial events to hold, just pick one and hold it at that comp, and pick a different one for the next comp with an extra event. After a few comps you would definitely be able to tell which events are more liked by both attendance and people just talking about the extra events.



I like the direction you're going in, but there are a few things that I just don't get.


----------

