# Guinness world records are wrong.



## Dylan (Jan 24, 2011)

I was watching the tv program about guinness world record and they didnt count observation on a blind solve and apparently the world record is 46.8 seconds- im preaty sure this is wrong what do you think?


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 24, 2011)

They're unrelated to WCA stats.

It's been discussed on this forum in the past.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jan 24, 2011)

In the GWR 2011 book, the BLD WR is 30.90 by Haiyan, although Haiyan's WR was 30.94, and Alejandro's is 30.90...dotdotdot


----------



## FoxWolf (Jan 24, 2011)

Details

The record for the fastest time to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded is 30.94 seconds (including memorizing time) and was achieved by Haiyan Zhuang (China) at the Xi'an Spring 2010, held in Xi'an, China , on 4 April 2010. 

^ from GWR website.


----------



## Dylan (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh right and i searched but did not find that thread.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jan 24, 2011)

GWR has been kind of a touchy subject here in the past.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 24, 2011)

Guiness book is lol


----------



## Dene (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh crap man I think you should definitely tell them. It seems like they have their information wrong.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 24, 2011)

Dene said:


> Oh crap man I think you should definitely tell them. It seems like they have their information wrong.


 
I 5 minuted of LOL
Yeah Last time I checked (not recently) the 3x3 record was 9.XX in their book.


----------



## tx789 (Jan 24, 2011)

The 3x3 world record says 9.77 or 9.55 in 2010. But the feet world record in 2011 seems to be right


----------



## Dene (Jan 24, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> I 5 minuted of LOL
> Yeah Last time I checked (not recently) the 3x3 record was 9.XX in their book.


 
Ah man they are so out of date lol!


----------



## qqwref (Jan 24, 2011)

GWR doesn't care about or understand cubing, so it's not surprising that they wouldn't be up to date on the records. They often make up their own rules too - until pretty recently they only accepted BLD solves that were done on a cube straight out of the box (and unlubed).


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Jan 24, 2011)

qqwref said:


> GWR doesn't care about or understand cubing, so it's not surprising that they wouldn't be up to date on the records. They often make up their own rules too - until pretty recently they only accepted BLD solves that were done on a cube straight out of the box (and unlubed).


 
And you had to scramble two cubes 50 turns each and randomly choose one of them, right?


----------



## wontolla (Jan 24, 2011)

> The record for the fastest time to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded is 30.94 seconds (including memorizing time) and was achieved by Haiyan Zhuang (China) at the Xi'an Spring 2010, held in Xi'an, China , on 4 April 2010.



Actually, that record was broken by Alejandro on Dicember 2010 with 30.90 seconds. WCA


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 24, 2011)

wontolla said:


> Actually, that record was broken by Alejandro on Dicember 2010 with 30.90 seconds. WCA


 
:fp

it said in his post that that was from the Guinness World Record website...he does not actually believe it..


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 25, 2011)

If you want to get really accurate the world record is set by Haiyan. 30.47 at a CCA comp.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 25, 2011)

CCA comps aren't considered official. That's an unofficial world record (well, actually no it isn't, the UWR is way faster).


----------



## tx789 (Jan 25, 2011)

wontolla said:


> Actually, that record was broken by Alejandro on Dicember 2010 with 30.90 seconds. WCA


 
The reacord is too latein the year the to be in the 2011 book it comes out in September 2010 or something near it the 100m meter record was out of date in 09 and 10. Those records were set in August so there's no way the bld in Dec in 2010 will be 2011


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jan 25, 2011)

Old news, yet worthy to be mad about.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 25, 2011)

From GWRs point of view an adjudicated comp would satisfy their requirements.

Question - what makes WCA comps official and CCA comps unofficial?
I bet the CCA competitors see the comps as official.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 25, 2011)

cube-o-holic said:


> Question - what makes WCA comps official and CCA comps unofficial?
> I bet the CCA competitors see the comps as official.


Simple - our cubing community follows the WCA. WCA comps go by the WCA rules and thus are official, whereas CCA ones don't and thus are unofficial.

It's somewhat of a good question, though: why should we follow the WCA? To me it's because they have built up trust over the years, and I know they're not going to be very biased or unfair, or to add weird rules without listening to the community at all. They hold competitions around the world, which CCA doesn't, and I don't trust the CCA yet anyway. Anyone could start up a cubing organization and organize a few competitions, but people won't follow just anyone because it takes time and skill to build up a rapport with the community.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 25, 2011)

So from the WCA POV the CCA competitions are unofficial.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the CCA doesn't take off because I think a world wide singular cubing association gives more credit to cubing.


----------



## shelley (Jan 25, 2011)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Old news, *not* worthy to be mad about.


 
FTFY


----------



## Matt (Jan 25, 2011)

Who cares, WCA > GWR. I'm sure this isn't the first time GWR has been wrong


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm pretty sure Alex broke the WR after they printed the book.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 25, 2011)

Just wondering did Haiyan make the CCA? there where some jokes about that... would be ironic.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jan 25, 2011)

cube-o-holic said:


> From GWRs point of view an adjudicated comp would satisfy their requirements.
> 
> Question - what makes WCA comps official and CCA comps unofficial?
> I bet the CCA competitors see the comps as official.


 I see it as more of a "We're in the WCA, and we won't take anything outside of the WCA as official."
Felik's WCA record is the WR for the WCA. Maybe this means that the CCA doesn't see it as official. Or maybe they do, but if someone in the CCA beats it, they'll see that one as the official WR, while those in the WCA, won't.

People tend to only accept what's official, if it's within their Cubing Association. 
If the Guiness book had someone with 5 secs WR, then the WCA would probably not see it as official, because it wasn't set with WCA standards, such as having a WCA delegate present.

To make it simpler, imagine that there are 3 cubing associations: WCA, Guiness, and CCA. 
And none of them will accept the other as official. (don't know CCA's stand, I'm just making an example.)
We sit here and say theirs is a UWR, while they sit their, and say ours is an UWR.

The main reason, though, that people don't accept CCA competition times, is because it is exclusive to China. This makes it much more biased, and untrustworthy. And the only thing that gives an association power, is how much the people believe in it and participate in it.
If it's only in China, and hasn't been around enough to be trusted, it's hard to accept their times. This is my reason for not trusting them.


----------



## goatseforever (Jan 25, 2011)

You guys keep pestering them about this maybe they'll remove cubing related records entirely.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 25, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> To make it simpler, imagine that there are 3 cubing associations: WCA, Guiness, and CCA.
> And none of them will accept the other as official. (don't know CCA's stand, I'm just making an example.)
> We sit here and say theirs is a UWR, while they sit their, and say ours is an UWR.


Right, and that would suck. Which is why I think the whole community should stick behind WCA, unless we have a reason not to (and "another organization exists" is not a reason). Having another organization might make a few people happy for now, but in the long run it will split the cubing community and lead to distrust.



ElectricDoodie said:


> The main reason, though, that people don't accept CCA competition times, is because it is exclusive to China. This makes it much more biased, and untrustworthy. And the only thing that gives an association power, is how much the people believe in it and participate in it.
> If it's only in China, and hasn't been around enough to be trusted, it's hard to accept their times. This is my reason for not trusting them.


About something being exclusive to China, how do we actually know that they wouldn't cheat in some systematic way, to make the country look good to the rest of the world? We respect a lot of Chinese cubers for their speed and such, but realistically, without people in our community having positions in the CCA and knowing the details what goes on at CCA competitions, we couldn't tell if there was any dishonesty going on. I can believe a 30.xx BLD from Haiyan because I know he is clearly fast enough to do that, but what if someone posts a 10.xx sq1 avg5? Or a low 6.xx 3x3 single? Without someone going by our rules with a trusted person overseeing it, how can we even be sure that a really good time is valid?



goatseforever said:


> You guys keep pestering them about this maybe they'll remove cubing related records entirely.


I wouldn't mind. It's not like they're doing a good job of covering them, or explaining how our records are set up.


----------

