# 2x2 single WR at Trentin Open 2011



## Faz (Nov 13, 2011)

[19:58] == marcobelotti [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.87.9.80.168] has joined #rubik
[19:58] <marcobelotti> 2x2 new wr...
[19:58] <Faz> single?
[19:58] <marcobelotti> yay
[19:58] <marcobelotti> 0.69
[19:58] <Faz> lolol wut
[19:58] <Faz> who
[19:58] <+aronpm_> cool story bro
[19:59] <marcobelotti> Kaserer
[19:59] <marcobelotti> U' F' R' U
[19:59] <Faz> ,wca Kaserer
[19:59] <marcobelotti> at trentino open 2011
[19:59] <+aronpm_> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2009KASE02
[19:59] <Faz> any other sub .96?
[19:59] <+aronpm_> lol he so pro @ 2x2
[20:00] <Zane_C> hahahaha
[20:00] <marcobelotti> i don't know at the moment..
[20:00] <marcobelotti> i'm home


----------



## ottozing (Nov 13, 2011)

Was it on video?


----------



## JasonK (Nov 13, 2011)

[20:12] <marcobelotti> other 2 sub 0.96 times
[20:13] <marcobelotti> filippo brancaleoni 0.72 and matteo provasi 0.83


----------



## CRO (Nov 13, 2011)

It was only matter of time...


----------



## Ickenicke (Nov 13, 2011)

WTF2L? said:


> [20:12] <marcobelotti> other 2 sub 0.96 times
> [20:13] <marcobelotti> filippo brancaleoni 0.72 and matteo provasi 0.83



Same scramble?


----------



## CRO (Nov 13, 2011)

Ickenicke said:


> Same scramble?


 
Obviously.


----------



## Carrot (Nov 13, 2011)

Yay!!! Now my pyra avg will be on the list for oldest standing WRs ^.^ I've always wanted to be on that list


----------



## Forte (Nov 13, 2011)

loooooool


----------



## TMOY (Nov 13, 2011)

0.69, really ? There must be an error, the judge has probably swapped the digits


----------



## zbyxzh (Nov 13, 2011)

Finally somebody breaks the 1100-day-standing 0.96……
Same as the magic WR single LOL


----------



## Mal (Nov 13, 2011)

Lol


----------



## wavelet (Nov 13, 2011)

circusee the decision


----------



## Dene (Nov 13, 2011)

what a joke


----------



## RCTACameron (Nov 13, 2011)

0.96 went from equal first to 4th in one competition. Wow. Congratulations to the new top 3.


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 13, 2011)

Well this deserves some credit. It's quite good to do 4 moves in 0.69 with stackmat, under competition pressure..so congrats!


----------



## x-colo-x (Nov 13, 2011)

Also:
Lorenzo Vigani Poli 1.00
Nicola Giordani 1.13
Davide Macri 2.72+
Nicolò Simone 4.91


----------



## TMOY (Nov 13, 2011)

amostay2004 said:


> Well this deserves some credit. It's quite good to do 4 moves in 0.69 with stackmat, under competition pressure..so congrats!


 
Yep, you have to be goot at 2^3 to get a sub-1 single. It's sub-1 average which requires no skill at all.

Seriously, the 2^3 event is not supposed to be a third Magic event.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 13, 2011)

Lets Have a POWOOW


----------



## FairyTale (Nov 13, 2011)

Video Video~,come soon please~


----------



## Thunderbolt (Nov 13, 2011)

lol 0.69 now noone will break single WR


----------



## cityzach (Nov 13, 2011)

this makes me angry. that scramble was way to easy.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 13, 2011)

I find this really funny.


----------



## Benyó (Nov 13, 2011)

cityzach said:


> this makes me angry. that scramble was way to easy.


 
don't worry, you live in america, there are 4move 2x2 scrambles in every weekend on comp


----------



## cuberkid10 (Nov 13, 2011)

69% of people find something sexual in everything.

2x2 single Record... .69


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Nov 13, 2011)

Benyó said:


> don't worry, you live in america, there are 4move 2x2 scrambles in every weekend on comp


 
Easy fewest move too 








_________________________________________
cube return popularity challenger

GG


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 13, 2011)

Benyó said:


> don't worry, you live in america, there are 4move 2x2 scrambles in every weekend on comp


 
It's funny you say that, because there was a 4 move scramble last weekend at LSCO (and he was also at that).


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 13, 2011)

Ironically enough, I had a dream about breaking the single WR last night. This makes me sad.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 13, 2011)

Don't you just love 69?


----------



## realcube (Nov 13, 2011)

congrats, of course. But on the other had I'm not good at 2x2 and I made a 0.79 on that scramble at the first attempt. The World Ranking on that event (2x2 Single) will be misleading and meaningless from now on...


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 13, 2011)

2x2 single has always been misleading.


----------



## Carrot (Nov 13, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> 2x2 single has always been misleading.


 
Same goes with pyraminx single and magic single


----------



## qqwref (Nov 13, 2011)

realcube said:


> The World Ranking on that event (2x2 Single) will be misleading and meaningless from now on...


Don't worry, it's been meaningless for many years  Nice luck.


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 13, 2011)

Now waiting for: 
New 2x2 Single: 0.00

(Scramble: R U2 R' U2 F' U' F R U R' U' F' U' F U2 )

Something like that.


----------



## Bob (Nov 13, 2011)

Benyó said:


> don't worry, you live in america, there are 4move 2x2 scrambles in every weekend on comp


 
Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.


----------



## verdito (Nov 13, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> Ironically enough, I had a dream about breaking the single WR last night. This makes me sad.


 
me too!!  btw i was going to break NR yesterday but i couldn't go to the competition


----------



## Johan444 (Nov 13, 2011)

Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...petitive-Speedsolving-(a-discussion)&p=637073:



Mike Hughey said:


> To my knowledge, the only time a delegate has stepped in and removed a scramble was done several years ago, and I think it was Ron who did it (I'm not sure about this - I can't remember, but I know it was a 2x2x2 scramble). As far as I can tell, there are no provisions in the rules allowing a delegate to do this now, so it really should not be allowed under the current rules. Am I wrong?


 


Pedro said:


> You're right, Mike.
> 
> Delegates are not allowed to do that. Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"
> 
> ...



Bob: What makes a scramble unfair?


----------



## Evan Liu (Nov 13, 2011)

So lucky...


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 13, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> It's funny you say that, because there was a 4 move scramble last weekend at LSCO (and he was also at that).


 
I can recall 3. The 4 mover at Vincent's, Lucas Garron's and LSCO.



Odder said:


> Same goes with pyraminx single and magic single


 
Somehow Pyraminx WR has always stayed amongst the top few in the world. 2x2 is popular enough that you'll always have someone who can turn fast, and predict the solution. I know when there was a 7 move solution at one of my comps, nobody saw it. I got 3.36 with non-optimal, and the 2 people I watched do optimal did it slowly 
There was also a 3 move + tips scramble at some competition, but I guess noone fast was there.

I agree with what has been said by Pedro.

Edit: And magic single? That's the main part of the event! I hate magic, but it certainly isn't just luck.


----------



## Carrot (Nov 13, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> There was also a 3 move + tips scramble at some competition, but I guess noone fast was there.


 2 move + tips at Norwegian comp


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 13, 2011)

this is retarded.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 13, 2011)

Odder said:


> 2 move + tips at Norwegian comp


 
That supports what I was saying, pyra comp single is usually held by top 5.


----------



## Fabian Auroux (Nov 13, 2011)




----------



## Rpotts (Nov 13, 2011)

Lol it's so unremarkable to him.


----------



## Branca (Nov 13, 2011)

Here's my solve


----------



## timelonade (Nov 13, 2011)

Time to change your 2x2 single time in your sig ..


----------



## Escher (Nov 13, 2011)

OMG IM SO ANGRY WHAT A DUMB TIME


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 13, 2011)

This was announced at UK open. I lol'd.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 13, 2011)

Escher said:


> OMG IM SO ANGRY WHAT A DUMB TIME


 
You now have 2698 posts, clearly that means _"*2*x2x2 in 0.*69*, alr*8*!"_. Or the 8 refers to the number of pieces, not sure.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 13, 2011)

Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.


 
Rowe wouldn't be the only one to have a high chance of WR. I doubt he would be the fastest out of everyone


----------



## thackernerd (Nov 13, 2011)

I wish I didn't suck at 2x2 now...


----------



## r_517 (Nov 13, 2011)

On UK Open yesterday there was a very easy scramble on clock final. Daniel decided to change it because it was way too lucky. (I got 4.17 on that scramble at home without any warm-up). 
What I'm trying to say is, whether the delegate decided to change it or not, people should stop complaining others getting luck. Yes this 4-move scramble was indeed nice, but still there were only 3 people managed to solve it under 0.96s. There's no point in saying "That's easy so that shouldn't count. " Nobody can accurately define what scramble is "easy".


----------



## lobster (Nov 14, 2011)

wow... its so crazy.....wondering if anyone else can break it....


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Nov 14, 2011)

lobster said:


> wow... its so crazy.....wondering if anyone else can break it....


 
nobody can its 2 gud


----------



## Branca (Nov 14, 2011)

Usually we print a lot of scramble papers an then, when comes to scamble, pick up one randomly and use it for that round/group so there is no way to know which scramble sheet will be in final, semi, etc. 
BUT, even if a delegate would choose scramble for each group there won't be way to know if you are getting a lucky scramble from that solves. The delegate should have to scramble all the cubes, even the one he's suppose to compete with, and then decide. Of course THIS is unfair.
Even from 20 moves 2x2 scramble you can get 4 moves solve. 
The program by WCA was made to make random scrambles. So we click on the "Scramble" button, print them, then randomly pick them up when comes to scramble. The scramble are read in the moment all the competitors are already in the waiting area, waiting for the cubes. Probably even the delegate. What should the scramble guy do? Go ask to the delegate to check the scramble, of his group, cuz they're too easy? No way. 
Lucky scrambles are the part of the game, the computer generates them. I don't see why a delegate should CHECK the scrambles, the computer already checked them when generated.
If the computer generated scrambles are the problem, invent a generator with no lucky scrambles.


----------



## ardi4nto (Nov 14, 2011)

How to decide it's lucky or not?
The delegate must try all scrambles one by one? No way.
And, "lucky" or not is depend on the competitors.

I agree that if we don't want to get a lucky/easy solve, invent a scramble generator without "easy" one.


----------



## Louie (Nov 14, 2011)

This is why the average solve is the main event. You can't say a scramble is unfair - A generator that eliminated lucky scrambles wouldn't be a scramble generator at all - it would be a challenge generator and would render all previous records null and void. Congrats to the winners!


----------



## coinman (Nov 14, 2011)

Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.





r_517 said:


> On UK Open yesterday there was a very easy scramble on clock final. Daniel decided to change it because it was way too lucky. (I got 4.17 on that scramble at home without any warm-up). .



Is this really allowed?

Quite seriously, I think it is highly doubtful that a delegate or organizer sort out scrambles even when considering that they are easy. While they may not do like that in a different competition, such as the one in Italy, you will trick the competitors in the competion of the chance to beat the world record. Likewise, in such cases to sort out those scrambles that are difficult or purposely sort in those that are easy or difficult. 
Such behavior again raises the question of how to increase security around the scrambles in competitions. The only safe way according to me is that you have a computer in place at the competiton that randomly selected the scrambles just before use, and no sorting will be done away!
Another option, if you absolutely do not want to short solutions in puzzles like 2x2 and Clock is that someone writes a scramble program that removes such scrambles, and that all then have to use this program.


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 14, 2011)

Lol, I just got a 0.71 single, and I average ~5.5-6.

2x2 single means next to nothing.

But I am disappointed that I can't say I have a sub-WR single xD


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 14, 2011)

Branca said:


> What should the scramble guy do? Go ask to the delegate to check the scramble, of his group, cuz they're too easy? No way.


 
This is a fair point.
In the hypothetical situation that TimMc and Dene were in the same group at 2x2 (very hypothetical as Dene doesn't do 2x2), what would I do if I found a 4 move scramble whilst scrambling. Bring Tim/Dene over, only for Tim/Dene to say it's fine, but then they can't do it. The delegate doesn't scramble his own solves.

Edit:


Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.


 
What if you're competing? (assuming you're the only delegate)


----------



## Dene (Nov 14, 2011)

The delegate could always just get the inverse scramble.


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> The delegate could always just get the inverse scramble.


 
That would do nothing if the scramble is L U L'


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Nov 14, 2011)

r_517 said:


> Nobody can accurately define what scramble is "easy".


 
Sure you can. Maybe not for MOST scrambles but there are "scrambles" that are uncontroversially easy.

If you get a cube state like that of R U' or just R for example, these would be considered easy, regardless of which method or whatever you use. The question is where is that line?


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 14, 2011)

R' U R U' is faster (unless they're LH), why'd they both do left handed


----------



## tx789 (Nov 14, 2011)

It's a big jump .96 to .69. Which is .27. Which looking at .96 is pettry crazy


----------



## Dene (Nov 14, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> That would do nothing if the scramble is L U L'


 
But that scramble would be scrapped because it's too easy, duh.


----------



## LarsN (Nov 14, 2011)

fazrulz said:


> [19:59] <Faz> ,wca Kaserer


 
Lol, this is danish for "wca throws out" (the scramble)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 14, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> I can recall 3. The 4 mover at Vincent's, Lucas Garron's and LSCO.


Note: My 1.06 was actually 5 moves.


----------



## Branca (Nov 14, 2011)

Here's the 0.83, almost +2


----------



## amostay2004 (Nov 14, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> R' U R U' is faster (unless they're LH), why'd they both do left handed


 
If you're talking about the solution to the WR, it's R' U R U, in which case I'd prefer myself to do y2 L' U L U because the AUF flows better


----------



## CRO (Nov 14, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Sure you can. Maybe not for MOST scrambles but there are "scrambles" that are uncontroversially easy.
> 
> If you get a cube state like that of R U' or just R for example, these would be considered easy, regardless of which method or whatever you use. The question is where is that line?


 
Just an R is not a proper scramble, because the cube is already solved


----------



## AustinReed (Nov 14, 2011)

Dene said:


> But that scramble would be scrapped because it's too easy, duh.


 
Well, wasn't the scramble for this solve pretty easy? (R' U' F R' I think...)
That's pretty easy to know inversely.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 14, 2011)

Cool.

I hope another 3 or 4 move scramble crops up soon so we can have sub 0.5 single.


----------



## pjk (Nov 14, 2011)

Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.


What is decided as an "unfair" scramble? That is grossly vague, especially when it looks like some obviously "unfair" scrambles aren't thrown out at other WCA competitions since "unfair" is so grey.


----------



## antros (Nov 14, 2011)

Bob said:


> Not true at all. We throw out unfair scrambles. Otherwise, Rowe would have the WR with a 0.5 or something when U2 F2 showed up on the scramble sheet.





WCA Regulations said:


> 4b) Puzzles must be scrambled using a computer-generated random scramble sequence or scrambled position, that must be kept secret for all but the scramblers.



if no one sees srambles before scramblers, how anyone can reject


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> It's funny you say that, because there was a 4 move scramble last weekend at LSCO (and he was also at that).


 
Liar.

R U2 F2 U' R = 5 moves


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2011)

coinman said:


> Is this really allowed?
> 
> Quite seriously, I think it is highly doubtful that a delegate or organizer sort out scrambles even when considering that they are easy. While they may not do like that in a different competition, such as the one in Italy, you will trick the competitors in the competion of the chance to beat the world record. Likewise, in such cases to sort out those scrambles that are difficult or purposely sort in those that are easy or difficult.
> Such behavior again raises the question of how to increase security around the scrambles in competitions. The only safe way according to me is that you have a computer in place at the competiton that randomly selected the scrambles just before use, and no sorting will be done away!
> Another option, if you absolutely do not want to short solutions in puzzles like 2x2 and Clock is that someone writes a scramble program that removes such scrambles, and that all then have to use this program.


 
To clarify:

U2 F2 stood out quite clearly as a scramble among four other scrambles at like 7 or 8 moves each. As a result, I emailed the scramble page to the WCA board and asked whether or not I should keep them. I was told to throw them out, so I threw them out. The delegate wasn't making the decision here--the board did.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Nov 15, 2011)

Bob said:


> To clarify:
> 
> U2 F2 stood out quite clearly as a scramble among four other scrambles at like 7 or 8 moves each. As a result, I emailed the scramble page to the WCA board and asked whether or not I should keep them. I was told to throw them out, so I threw them out. The delegate wasn't making the decision here--the board did.


 
But not every delegate would email the board--for example, I don't even really look at the scrambles after I generate them so that I don't risk cheating. In my opinion the decision of what is a fair scramble should be done by the scramble program.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 15, 2011)

Bob said:


> Liar.
> 
> R U2 F2 U' R = 5 moves


 
Could have sworn Tim told me 4. I am a liar D:.


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 31, 2011)

There's a video with all 3 of the WR breaking solves.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 31, 2011)

The world record was only beaten once, because the 0.69 was the first solve


----------



## BlueDevil (Dec 31, 2011)

How did the WCA delegate let a 4 move scramble slide?

If I saw that scramble, I would scratch it and generate a new one...


----------



## qqwref (Jan 1, 2012)

There have been many 4-move scrambles in competition before. Also, delegates are specifically NOT supposed to throw out easy scrambles.


----------



## hcfong (Jan 1, 2012)

BlueDevil said:


> How did the WCA delegate let a 4 move scramble slide?
> 
> If I saw that scramble, I would scratch it and generate a new one...



I don't think it was a 4 move scramble, but a scramble with a 4 move solution. As it is a random state, albeit an easy one, it's perfectly legal so the WCA delegate shouldn't discard it. And besides, it would be difficult because the determine whether a scramble is too easy, the delegate has to go through all the scrambles, with the consequence that he can't compete because he has seen the scrambles before.


----------



## Kian (Jan 1, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Also, delegates are specifically NOT supposed to throw out easy scrambles.


 
I would be interested to know what part of the regulations you interpret as saying this.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 1, 2012)

hcfong said:


> I don't think it was a 4 move scramble, but a scramble with a 4 move solution. As it is a random state, albeit an easy one, it's perfectly legal so the WCA delegate shouldn't discard it. And besides, it would be difficult because the determine whether a scramble is too easy, the delegate has to go through all the scrambles, with the consequence that he can't compete because he has seen the scrambles before.


 


ThomasJE said:


> There's a video with all 3 of the WR breaking solves.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



It says at the end of the video the scramble and the solution.
It was a 4 move scramble, and a 4 move solution that wasn't an inverse.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 1, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> It was a 4 move scramble, and a 4 move solution that wasn't an inverse.


Yes it was inverse actually. 2x2 can deceive you like that


----------



## hcfong (Jan 1, 2012)

I admit I was wrong. I should have watched the video before commenting


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 1, 2012)

This is where we need an optimal state scrambler. I think Prisma Puzzle Timer has one for the 2x2 cube, so that could be used in the future.


----------



## samehsameh (Jan 1, 2012)

I got my first usable 2x2 3 days ago ive done 1 average of 100 @ 13.xx with best 6.39 i just did this scramble in 1.35 If qqtimer gave me this i would LOL and rescramble. WR's should be impressive this isnt to me. If i can do it that fast then with these current averages and bests its too easy.


----------



## Bob (Jan 1, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> This is where we need an optimal state scrambler. I think Prisma Puzzle Timer has one for the 2x2 cube, so that could be used in the future.


 
I'm pretty sure the WCA scrambler is also optimum for 2x2.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> I'm pretty sure the WCA scrambler is also optimum for 2x2.


 
Every 2x2 scramble needs 11 moves maximum to solve. If there was a 4 move scramble, it can't be optimum.


----------



## aronpm (Jan 6, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Every 2x2 scramble needs 11 moves maximum to solve. If there was a 4 move scramble, it can't be optimum.


 
That's not how it works. There is a distribution of optimal lengths. There are some cases which require a _minimum_ of 11 moves to solve, and there are some that only require 2 moves.

Here's a scramble: R U

Last time I checked, the optimal solution to that position wasn't 11 moves. The 2 move scramble was optimal.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 6, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Every 2x2 scramble needs 11 moves maximum to solve. If there was a 4 move scramble, it can't be optimum.



What? Optimum means the shortest scramble to get to a particular random state.

edit - Ninja'd


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 7, 2012)

aronpm said:


> That's not how it works. There is a distribution of optimal lengths. There are some cases which require a _minimum_ of 11 moves to solve, and there are some that only require 2 moves.
> 
> Here's a scramble: R U
> 
> Last time I checked, the optimal solution to that position wasn't 11 moves. The 2 move scramble was optimal.


 
I must have got confused. What I meant was that here is where we need a scramble generator that generates scrambles that need 11 moves *minimum* to solve (optimal state). Then, the times would be more based on method and TPS.


----------



## aronpm (Jan 7, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> I must have got confused. What I meant was that here is where we need a scramble generator that generates scrambles that need 11 moves *minimum* to solve (optimal state). Then, the times would be more based on method and TPS.


 
Do you even realize how few positions that is? It's a terrible idea. Speedcubing is _not_ about solving random positions at the diameter of the cube group, it is about solving _random_ positions.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 7, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> we need a scramble generator that generates scrambles that need 11 moves *minimum* to solve


 
It should require the maximum number of quarter turns as well (14 quarter turns) to ensure it's really hard. Then everybody just needs to learn 108 algorithms to play God (probably fewer, thanks to symmetries).


----------



## qqwref (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey, that actually sounds like a pretty fun unofficial event.


----------



## GlowingSausage (Jan 7, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> The world record was only beaten once, because the 0.69 was the first solve


 
but the time ( 0.96 ) was beaten 3 times


----------



## Jaycee (Jan 7, 2012)

GlowingSausage said:


> but the time ( 0.96 ) was beaten 3 times


 
That's not how WRs work


----------



## cubersmith (Jan 7, 2012)

GlowingSausage said:


> but the time ( 0.96 ) was beaten 3 times


 
lets just count how many times the WR was beaten, since you seem to not understand.

0.96 -> 0.69 = 1

There we go, it was beaten once.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 7, 2012)

cubersmith said:


> lets just count how many times the WR was beaten, since you seem to not understand.
> 
> 0.96 -> 0.69 = 1
> 
> There we go, it was beaten once.



Dude, the world record was beaten three times. There was a WR, and three people beat it in one round, even if one of them beat the others. So the WR was only *set* once.
Or some pedantic variation thereupon.

The Regulations used to have a rule that clarified that records are recognized at the end on a round, although I think it was taken out because the wording was unclear.

Please refrain from insulting each other over such things.


----------

