# Changing Ao5 format?



## One Wheel (Mar 9, 2017)

This is just an idea that I'd be curious to hear feedback on: what would people think of changing some of the small, fast events like pyraminx, skewb, and 2x2 to official Ao12 format? Or maybe going partway and doing, say, an Ao9? It has been argued, probably correctly, that there is too much chance in these puzzles to leave choosing a winner of a competition to a single round. The idea with increasing the number of solves in an average would be to allow a single round to be sufficient, thus allowing more time for puzzles with a lower degree of chance. I realize the chance of getting this adopted is slim at best, but what do you think? Would it be an improvement or just silly?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Mar 9, 2017)

median of 11 for foot solving finals


----------



## CornerCutter (Mar 9, 2017)

It sounds like a good idea, but I think it would take too long. You can't have 30+ people doing an average of 12. Maybe for the final round this would be good though.


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 9, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> It sounds like a good idea, but I think it would take too long. You can't have 30+ people doing an average of 12. Maybe for the final round this would be good though.


I think you're probably right. There are 3 ways I can see this working:
A. A final round
B. A competition with qualifying times (functionally the same as A)
C. A cumulative time limit system, so slower people may be able to finish an Ao5 but not qualify to complete an Ao12.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Mar 9, 2017)

How do you propose keeping records if this were to be implemented? Are old records with the ao5 to be archived, and events affected be started anew? How would scheduling be affected by it? Do people care enough to stay around for 12 solves? What happens if there just so happens to be more than, say, 3 really stupid scrambles in an average of 12? Wouldn't the argument of luck then have to be applied to an ao12 format? Regardless of how much luck an event has, they still require skill. If someone gets good at an event and is world class, you wouldn't attribute it to luck. Lucas Etter, for example, is incredibly good at 2x2, that cannot be argued. He didn't get lucky to have such amazing averages.

How often do we see insanely fast averages from some random person due to *lucky scrambles*? While I think the argument is true for singles, 2x2, pyra, and skewb single are already disregarded by many as silly and simply a byproduct of staying consistent with how records are kept. Averages, however, are already ensured have a reduction of luck by throwing out the best and worst times, effectively the outliers of the average. Yes, you do need nice scrambles to get a good average, but the same can be argued for 3x3, OH, Square-1, Clock, BLD, and FMC. So if you are going to argue that events come down too much to chance, you're going to have to figure out to what degree of "chance" you want to extend too. I would agree with your proposal if there was any evidence that luck has drastically affected the playing field for 2x2, Pyraminx, and Skewb, but the top 100 averages are all pretty well kept together. The only notable exception is Drew Brads's WR average for Pyraminx, which is mustered to easy scrambles, but he is easily a world class Pyraminxer and has the skill required to take advantage of that luck. Hell, the top 5 averages for 2x2 are *0.10 seconds apart*, and the Skewb WR average is *tied*.

Also, don't most competitions use the same set of scrambles for the final (winning round) anyway? So wouldn't any chance of stupid luck is then distributed to everyone? If someone does better than someone on a stupid scramble, they simply executed that solution better than the other. Luck can't be blamed for someone's better performance, because *everyone was given the same amount of luck*.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Mar 9, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> It has been argued, probably correctly, that there is too much chance in these puzzles to leave choosing a winner of a competition to a single round.


That's why if it is a combined final, the organizer who makes heats should put all the fast people in the same heat so they all get the same scrambles. If there's more than 1 round, the final round should be one heat for the same reason.


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 9, 2017)

cuberkid10 said:


> That's why if it is a combined final, the organizer who makes heats should put all the fast people in the same heat so they all get the same scrambles. If there's more than 1 round, the final round should be one heat for the same reason.



I think the point may be that a good scramble for one person is not necessarily a good scramble for another person, and when the difference between a WR time and missing the podium at a local comp is the time it takes for a cube to fall to the floor, to say nothing of picking it up, it is only fair to allow people more than a mere 5 solves to prove their skill.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Mar 9, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I think the point may be that a good scramble for one person is not necessarily a good scramble for another person, and when the difference between a WR time and missing the podium at a local comp is the time it takes for a cube to fall to the floor, to say nothing of picking it up, it is only fair to allow people more than a mere 5 solves to prove their skill.



Well if scrambles are perceived differently among different people, that doesn't support your statement:



One Wheel said:


> It has been argued, probably correctly, that there is too much chance in these puzzles to leave choosing a winner of a competition to a single round.



Here you are saying chance *in these puzzles*, as in chance separate from human error. If there is a good scramble to one person, but not to another, that says nothing about the chance/luck of a puzzle, just the skill or methodology of the solver. If someone gets a bad solve, then it leans to the fault (not in a negative connotation) of the solver more than the inherent chance of the scramble.



One Wheel said:


> when the difference between a WR time and missing the podium at a local comp is the time it takes for a cube to fall to the floor, to say nothing of picking it up, it is only fair to allow people more than a mere 5 solves to prove their skill.



No. It's only fair that they do the rest of their solves well to make up for the fact that they screwed up by dropping it on the floor. They can prove their skill by simply doing well throughout the whole average, and if they mess up, prove that their skill will allow that bad solve to be excluded from the average. If someone were to DQ in, say, the long jump or the high jump due to some small error, would you think it be reasonable for people to come out and say that we should add more tries simply because it gives people more of a chance to "prove their skill"? No, because it's extraneous and unnecessary. The whole purpose of having a limited number of solves/attempts is so that *you can prove that you are able to perform to the best of your ability within pressured situations. *Also, wouldn't people be prone to more DNF's if there were to be more solves? What if you drop the cube on multiple occasions in an ao12, something that may not have happened if it were just 5 solves? There aren't just more chances to prove your skill, but also more chances to screw up. Wouldn't there be *even more pressure* to not screw up and get another DNF and ruin the whole average if there were more solves? And if that's the case, wouldn't that completely ruin the whole purpose of implementing an ao12?

I'm not saying that 2x2, Pyraminx, or Skewb are not inherently luck-based, I completely agree with that statement, but it's no use creating regulations that try to combat this, as it only creates more problems than it solves. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 9, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> Here you are saying chance *in these puzzles*, as in chance separate from human error. If there is a good scramble to one person, but not to another, that says nothing about the chance/luck of a puzzle, just the skill or methodology of the solver. If someone gets a bad solve, then it leans to the fault (not in a negative connotation) of the solver more than the inherent chance of the scramble.



To use an example that is not applicable to skewb, pyraminx, or 2x2: if one person always uses a green cross CFOP on 3x3, and another person always uses a white cross CFOP, and one or two scrambles in an average have a 2-move green x-cross, that is an advantage to the person who uses the green cross. There is nothing inherently better about always doing green cross vs. always doing white cross, but different scrambles are better for different people. The best will still be the best, and a mediocre cuber will still (almost always) be mediocre, but dividing between the best and the best of the best is a much finer test.



uyneb2000 said:


> No. It's only fair that they do the rest of their solves well to make up for the fact that they screwed up by dropping it on the floor. They can prove their skill by simply doing well throughout the whole average, and if they mess up, prove that their skill will allow that bad solve to be excluded from the average. If someone were to DQ in, say, the long jump or the high jump due to some small error, would you think it be reasonable for people to come out and say that we should add more tries simply because it gives people more of a chance to "prove their skill"? No, because it's extraneous and unnecessary. The whole purpose of having a limited number of solves/attempts is so that *you can prove that you are able to perform to the best of your ability within pressured situations. *Also, wouldn't people be prone to more DNF's if there were to be more solves? What if you drop the cube on multiple occasions in an ao12, something that may not have happened if it were just 5 solves? There aren't just more chances to prove your skill, but also more chances to screw up. Wouldn't there be *even more pressure* to not screw up and get another DNF and ruin the whole average if there were more solves? And if that's the case, wouldn't that completely ruin the whole purpose of implementing an ao12?



If you drop the cube twice in an Ao5 it is almost certain that one of those drops will count as 1/3 of your average. If you drop the cube twice in an Ao12 one will count as 1/10 of your average. It's also almost as likely that a person will get a lucky slip as a bad one. The more solves there are in an average the more important it is to perform consistently to get a good result.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Mar 9, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> The best will still be the best, and a mediocre cuber will still (almost always) be mediocre, but dividing between the best and the best of the best is a much finer test.



There are other methods to answer this question aside from looking at times. We analyze solves to see why people solve better than others very often. And is that kind of test really necessary? The point of competition, yes, is to prove your skill, but it is important to make the distinction between absolute skill and competitive skill. Absolute skill, I believe, is what you truly average, say, at home. This would require hundreds, if not thousands of solves to determine, so an average of 12, statistically wouldn't suffice. Yes, we want the best to win a competition, but the best should win based on *competitive skill*, which combines both their absolute skill and their mental capacity to bring out that absolute skill under situations such as a competition. If we were to really go by the way you said, finding "the best and the best of the best", we might as well just let the no. 1 ranking have more and more go's until they have a decent result, or until we're convinced that they are just inherently worse than their opponent, and a new no. 1 is crowned. The best of the best should be able to perform well not just under the absolute category, but also under the competitive category. This shouldn't require more times as affirmation for who can do better.



One Wheel said:


> If you drop the cube twice in an Ao5 it is almost certain that one of those drops will count as 1/3 of your average. If you drop the cube twice in an Ao12 one will count as 1/10 of your average. It's also almost as likely that a person will get a lucky slip as a bad one. The more solves there are in an average the more important it is to perform consistently to get a good result.



First, if you drop the cube twice in an average, you really need to work on technique, either that or your nerves are awful, and chances are you're never going to get the results you wish at a competition. Also, what do you mean by "lucky slip"? You didn't define it, so I have no clue what it means. And do you have any numbers to back that statement up? In addition, can't you make the same argument in your last statement for an average of 5? Because there are less solves in this format, it is more important that you perform consistently well to get a good result. To me, both are valid statements. But, using an ao12 is a logistical nightmare for organizers, so out of sheer practicality the ao5 format would be favored.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 9, 2017)

All the arguments so far consider only the best cubers. What about the slowest? In a competition with a lot of very young kids, it's not that unusual to have several who take around a minute to solve a 2x2 (including inspection time). Consider this in a new area with no experienced cubers, where turn around on scrambling is over a minute, and it will take over 30 minutes per group, even for really small groups. An average of 12 format would take a significantchunk out of your day.

You could say just use a stricter time limit or cutoff, but that's how you kill off cubing in brand new areas.


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 9, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> median of 11 for foot solving finals



Mode of 5 for 4BLD.
If no mode, DNF.

Consistency is key.

But actually, I'm not for this idea. One of the nice things about these events is how short they are, which makes them easy to fit into a tight schedule. I feel like organizers would be less likely to include this type of event because of how long they would take. In the end, all this would do is decrease the popularity of these events at competitions.

I get that luck is a concern, but like mentioned above, luck has only shown to be the contributing factor to world record singles, and very rarely averages. I think an average of 5 already accounts for 99% of lucky situations by eliminating the fastest time.


----------



## Sajwo (Mar 9, 2017)

That would be extremaly unfair to people who aim to get a WR/CR/NR or even PB time. Basically after changing the format it's fair to say that it would be almost impossible to break a World Record.. or it would take at least a few years until we see an ao12 as good as current ao5s. WCA should revoke all results up to date in such a case, which could even kill the speedcubing. Also all the events ought to be kept in the same format to keep it as simple as possible (maybe except 3BLD, 4BLD and 5BLD, because it's so easy to DNF). Feet should be either removed as an event or changed to ao5 as the rest of the events, but WCA seems to not care enough about it.

Average of 5 is perfect format because it's fast, it allows to run competitions smoothly and it's perfectly balanced in terms of showing people' skills. Of course you can get lucky by getting more than one lucky solve and boosting your average, but don't forget that you can get also unlucky by getting a bad scramble. And bad scrambles are way more frequent that easy ones. Changing the format would also require the change of regulations for penalties, because +2 is really really harsh punishment, especially for events you talk about. Majority of competitors can not perform in comps as good as in home and a bigger amount of solves in average could really demotivate them.. imagine more than one +2 or more than one DNF. The timing equipment is still not perfect and accidents happen very often. And how do you even imagine running competitions if there is ao9 (how the hell did you come up with such a format anyway?) or ao12? Speedcubing is getting more and more popular and the number of people competing is growing really fast. In a few years we will probably see competitions with >500 or even >1000 competititors. Nobody wants to sit in the venue for the whole week from 8 am till the evening.


----------



## YouCubing (Mar 9, 2017)

also the scorecards would be hilariously long


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Apr 30, 2017)

Maybe for finals at Nats/Worlds.


----------



## AwesomeARC (May 1, 2017)

As many people have already mentioned here, the idea will only work if it is a final round where only the topmost cubers are competing. The system won't work if there are too many competitors or if most of them aren't very experienced solvers.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (May 1, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Mode of 5 for 4BLD. *+1*
> If no mode, DNF.
> 
> Consistency is key.


LOL


----------

