# New 3x3x3 avg WR



## Matthew (Apr 4, 2009)

T. Zolnowski broke 3x3 avg record with the avg 10.63

times: 3x10.xx, 1x9.xx and 1xDNF...

POLAND!!


----------



## antros (Apr 4, 2009)

10.88; 10.19; 10.81; 9.43; DNF

CONGRAT Żaba!


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 4, 2009)

Wow, that was quick.

Congratulations!


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 4, 2009)

Cross on left...ftw?


----------



## Ton (Apr 4, 2009)

Matthew said:


> POLAND!!



Some things tells me you are from Poland

Great result Poland!


----------



## mcciff2112 (Apr 4, 2009)

Is there a video?


----------



## Neroflux (Apr 4, 2009)

i'd thought the first sub 11 avg would last some time........ wow


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 4, 2009)

Whoa. That's pretty insane.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 4, 2009)

new WR again?? wow


----------



## ManuK (Apr 4, 2009)

Amazing, and I thought the current WR(now previous WR)would stand for at least a couple of months.

Hope, someone uploads the video soon.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 4, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> Cross on left...ftw?



YES IT IS!

GO ZABA I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT!


----------



## PeterNewton (Apr 4, 2009)

holy... now nakaji is not even in top 3 for 3x3 avg. but his 11.28 is 11 months old, so i bet he's been training and will reclaim his no.1 spot in his next comp.
congrats to zolnowski, ill be trying out this cross on the left thing.


----------



## MTGjumper (Apr 4, 2009)

Ruddy hell...

Why the DNF?


----------



## suhas2112 (Apr 4, 2009)

Move over Yumu!!! Congrats ZABA!!!


----------



## Wojto (Apr 4, 2009)

MTGjumper said:


> Why the DNF?



He had got mistake at PLL in 12 second


----------



## Anthony (Apr 4, 2009)

Wtf? Are you serious. 3 10's and a sub 10. Woah..  It seems like after Erik broke the World Record guys realized that it wasn't impossible to break. Do I sense a sub 10.5 average next weekend?  Think about the World Championship; if there is a "normal" final of 16 people, theoretically that could mean that all 16 competitors in the final had posted sub 12 averages in competition. World Championships is going to end up being ridiculously hardcore.


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 4, 2009)

Dude, that is amazing.
I feel either Jason Baum or Yu Nakajima breaking this one soon for some reason.


----------



## Crazycubemom (Apr 4, 2009)

Dobra POLSKA !!! Gratrzy Tom Tom "ZABA"


----------



## Kian (Apr 4, 2009)

Wow! It's amazing how such a saturated event is getting its wr broken so often, congrats!


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 4, 2009)

Woohoo for Zaba! Sucks for Yumu, but he had his glory...week? I can't believe he got this even with a DNF haha

P.S. - many different WR breakers instead of the ones that you would think would break it


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 4, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Many different WR breakers instead of the ones that you would think would break it



That is what makes speedcubing so fun. You never know when something like this is going to be thrown out there.


----------



## Cerberus (Apr 5, 2009)

Awesome job, the record improves so fast right now...
A little fact: 
48	Leyan Lo	10.63	USA	San Diego 2007
So just 48 people could have done this average so far..


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 5, 2009)

Cerberus said:


> Awesome job, the record improves so fast right now...
> A little fact:
> 48	Leyan Lo	10.63	USA	San Diego 2007
> So just 48 people could have done this average so far..



In official competitions, yes. Perhaps there have been other sub-11 averages outside of comps.

EDIT: Wait, what?


----------



## ManuK (Apr 5, 2009)

He meant only 48 people have got (less than or equal to) 10.63 single in competition.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 5, 2009)

Wow, I reckon the record will be broken again within the next month.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 5, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> P.S. - many different WR breakers instead of the ones that you would think would break it



Okay I can understand people not thinking Yumu might break the record, but Tomasz had 2 sub-11.50 averages before this, including an 11.32 average that was only .04 away from the WR at the time. He also held the ER before Erik broke the WR, and won the European Championships. Or were you living in a cave for all of that? You can't look at this and honestly tell me Tomasz was not a top contender.


----------



## abr71310 (Apr 5, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. - many different WR breakers instead of the ones that you would think would break it
> ...



He was talking about Yumu...
48	Yumu Tabuchi	12.10	Japan (100 results, avg, 3x3x3)

12.10 --> 10.83? Pretty amazing if you ask me, instant WR in one round.

I'm pretty sure it'll be broken soon, seeing as now speedcubers have the motivation with two broken in just two weeks.

I just would've expected Harris or Nakajima to have done it sooner... xD (joking)
Edit: Man, again? Yumu didn't even get 15 minutes of glory!!! T_T

At least he has a video on YouTube for now...


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 5, 2009)

abr71310 said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > EmersonHerrmann said:
> ...



Yumu Tabuchi is one person, not "many."

Also I adress Yumu when I say:



> Okay I can understand people not thinking Yumu might break the record


----------



## Dene (Apr 5, 2009)

Well done, this is amazing!!!!


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 5, 2009)

So cool, how the very best averages used to be so close together (11.28 11.32 11.36 etc.) and now in about one month, there just came three new best averages, very far apart. 11.11, then 10.83, and then 10.63.

Seems that WR's almost never get broken by a small amount of time. Look at 5x5 single, 4x4 single, 3x3 single (of course), 3x3 average, megaminx single etc.

EDIT: uuh... 5x5 single does get broken with 0.06 seconds...

Exception?


----------



## rahulkadukar (Apr 5, 2009)

Guys when did this happen. I checked at speedcubing.com and there was nothing there


----------



## rahulkadukar (Apr 5, 2009)

Anyway I agree that records are broken like bad I mean see the 4x4x4 BLD by Chris Hardwick he slashed almost a minute and a half. That is insane


----------



## tim (Apr 5, 2009)

Matthew said:


> POLAND!!



It was Tomasz who got the WR, not Poland. Just a small mistake though.


----------



## Ellis (Apr 5, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> Guys when did this happen. I checked at speedcubing.com and there was nothing there



Today, well... yesterday now. Probably not too long before this thread was made. Neither WCA nor speedcubing.com ever has instant updates, even when there are live results they wont officially be posted right away. But both WCA and speedcubing.com have the record posted now.


----------



## amostay2004 (Apr 5, 2009)

Is there any video of the average up yet?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 5, 2009)

tim said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > POLAND!!
> ...



Well on the competition page is says that the organizer is "Tomasz Zolnowski(Polish Speedcubing Association)" which leads me to believe that Tomasz _is_ Polish Speedcubing.


----------



## Paris (Apr 5, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



that's good point Vault 

and Tim please dont make me to argue with you 

Tomasz is from


Matthew said:


> POLAND!!


 so Matthew could say in the way what he did. And you pointng out that not Poland did the world record really offense me.

Back to the topic Tomasz is really good cuber and he deserves this record after third 10.xx everyone ware so excited and when he did 9.43 everyone were so happy that the world record is in Poland


----------



## tim (Apr 5, 2009)

Paris said:


> And you pointng out that not Poland did the world record really offense me.


I guess you have another understanding of the word "offense" than i have, otherwise that sentence doesn't make any sense. Maybe you meant "annoy"?



Paris said:


> Back to the topic Tomasz is really good cuber and he deserves this record after third 10.xx everyone ware so excited and when he did 9.43 everyone were so happy that the world record is *in* Poland



What?

Anyway, congrats to Tomasz .


----------



## abr71310 (Apr 5, 2009)

Before I start ranting, again, Good job to TOMASZ for the WR average.



tim said:


> I guess you have another understanding of the word "offense" than i have, otherwise that sentence doesn't make any sense. Maybe you meant "annoy"?


Maybe he meant "offend", but I have no idea.



tim said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > POLAND!!
> ...



Exactly, if this was, like, the Davis cup of speedcubing (tennis, for those that don't know / care), then yes, POLAND!!! would be appropriate. The cuber is not the country though.



Paris said:


> and Tim please dont make me to argue with you



... What the heck? Nobody can *make* you do anything, you choose to argue. In this case, it seems to be for no apparent reason.

Tim, you're still my multi-BLD hero!!!


----------



## shelley (Apr 5, 2009)

Tim is right. The record took place in Poland, but otherwise Poland has nothing to do with it. Poland did not set the record, and you can't congratulate the country for being the best at cubing just because one of their citizens had a good result. Give credit where credit is due. Congratulations Tomasz!


----------



## Hadley4000 (Apr 5, 2009)

shelley said:


> Tim is right. The record took place in Poland, but otherwise Poland has nothing to do with it. Poland did not set the record, and you can't congratulate the country for being the best at cubing just because one of their citizens had a good result. Give credit where credit is due. Congratulations Tomasz!





By that theory, wouldn't the Olympics have no national meaning?


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. - many different WR breakers instead of the ones that you would think would break it
> ...




Well I know Tomasz is a top contender, but there are all those people out there thinking "Oh Harris, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, or Nakajima will get it". There are those kinda people out there who are close-minded about WRs because they see all these Youtube videos of Nakaji and Harris and whatnot, so they don't really recognize other potential WR holders (this includes myself as Dan states two comments below heheh).


----------



## shelley (Apr 5, 2009)

Hadley4000 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Tim is right. The record took place in Poland, but otherwise Poland has nothing to do with it. Poland did not set the record, and you can't congratulate the country for being the best at cubing just because one of their citizens had a good result. Give credit where credit is due. Congratulations Tomasz!
> ...



Comparing the Olympics with a little niche sport like speedcubing is apples to oranges. With many Olympic sports, a champion is the result of training facilities, programs, and sponsorships available from their country. Some national governments actively try to produce medalists. While it's still a little silly for some guy sitting on the couch watching at home to have some sort of pride because somebody else trained their butt off for a medal, an Olympic champion is quite different from a cuber who just solves a cube over and over in their room and maybe gets a lucky solve or two in competition (not saying Tomasz's solves were necessarily lucky, but a very fast cuber who got some lucky solves could very well be a WR contender).

In the cubing world, we only represent different countries because we happen to be citizens of different countries. With very few exceptions, nobody is training or sponsoring us as a representative of our respective home countries.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 5, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Well I know Tomasz is a top contender, but there are all those people out there thinking "Oh Harris, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, or Nakajima will get it". There are those kinda people out there who are close-minded about WRs because they see all these Youtube videos of Nakaji and Harris and whatnot, so they don't really recognize other potential WR holders. I realize that Tomasz is very fast, I actually thought he would get the WR sometime or another, and he did



From what I remember, YOU are one of the top people who say that harris/ nakaji will get the WR. Then, when some other person does something, you jump on the WR bandwagon and say that you thought they would get the record. Just make up your mind...


----------



## Kian (Apr 5, 2009)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being happy a fellow countrymen set a wr. No, obviously Poland didn't set it but as long as your not a jingoist maniac I see no problem in enjoying the fact that it was set in your home country by someone from your country. I agree with the Olympic metaphor, its the same idea. I don't know most of the people I root for in the Olympics, I just know I root for the USA because I live here, just like others do the same. There is nothing wrong with some casually happiness for this.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > Well I know Tomasz is a top contender, but there are all those people out there thinking "Oh Harris, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, or Nakajima will get it". There are those kinda people out there who are close-minded about WRs because they see all these Youtube videos of Nakaji and Harris and whatnot, so they don't really recognize other potential WR holders. I realize that Tomasz is very fast, I actually thought he would get the WR sometime or another, and he did
> ...



Bah, whatever.  I guess you are right, though, I apologize :\


----------



## pjk (Apr 5, 2009)

Congrats on the WR, Tomasz.


----------



## dChan (Apr 5, 2009)

Wow, only 7 days. The world record is really getting crazy. Great job Tomasz!!!


----------



## Paris (Apr 5, 2009)

getting back to my argue i have to say that i was very sad when i was reading what tim wrote 

and of course i meant the word "offend" 

and Matthew wrote that Tomasz set the world record not Poland

and I am also from Poland so I can also say Poland!! whenever i want 

and in Poland we are not rude and we are not loutish and the climate during competiton is rather polite and friendly ( am I right Mrs Oey?  ) 

I dont want to say anything about Germany coz i really respect Dennis so I think that's all


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Apr 5, 2009)

that didn't take long.

wow, and with a DNF.

Beast.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 5, 2009)

About the Olympics and Davis Cup and so on: in those scenarios it is understood that the athlete is _representing_ their country. You would have to be one of the best in your country to get on the national team, and since that team represents the country it makes sense that the country would feel honored if their athlete does well or dishonored if their athlete does poorly. And when an athlete represents their country it's also understood that the country has helped them out - since the country has put some resources into making the athlete as skilled as they are, congratulating the country is a natural thing to do (although you should still congratulate the athlete of course!).

But for speedcubing, shellie's right on the dot: your country really does not affect your cubing potential or training, and furthermore you do not represent your country. It's not like each country chooses its best cubers to send to a given competition - there's no "Polish team" that trains together, just a bunch of really fast cubers who happen to be from Poland. Poland itself didn't do anything to help them along, and I agree that it's silly to cheer for the country when it put no effort or resources into making Tomasz a better cuber. I think if you do that you are just taking credit away from Tomasz for his amazing accomplishment.

So, congratulations Tomasz!


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

That would be pretty sick if there were teams...but then again, it would have to be states for the U.s., making it easier for them to gather.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 5, 2009)

Look's like sub 11 is the new "elite" now... 
I think this opens a lot of people's eyes who thought the WR was a 2 way contest between Akkersdyk and Nakajima (sorry about the names)...
10.63, wow. With a DNF... wow...

Nakajima had a WR for 11 months, and then 3 new WRs in the past 6 weeks. 
Start practicing again Yu 

Quote from the WCA website homepage -

"Tomasz Zolnowski wins Warsaw Open 2009
April 5, 2009 - 00:50 — Ron van Bruchem

Tomasz Zolnowski won the Warsaw Open 2009 with an *average of 11.85 seconds*. Adam Polkowski finished second (12.93) and Piotr Kózka finished third (13.26).
World records: Tomasz Zolnowski 3x3 *10.63* (average)."

Huh?


----------



## Crazycubemom (Apr 5, 2009)

Paris , you are right ( not left ), thats the reason that POLSKA is my ( and my family ) favorite team beside the A- Team.

I think because of antosiastic way, Matthew said "Poland" !! , Poland cubers they don't talk too much but their way of cubing is: Silent is GOLD :, unfortunately I don't have 24 carats gold other wise my gold goes to POLSKA.

The winner for 3x3x3 at European Championship 2008 is Tomasz so no surprise if he is now WR holder for 3x3x3. The winner takes it ALL trala la .

By the way Tom Tom "ZABA" is the same as Andrew Kang ( silent cubers )


----------



## Harris Chan (Apr 5, 2009)

Congratulations, Tomasz! Should I switch to F2L on L face now?



Lord Voldemort said:


> Tomasz Zolnowski won the Warsaw Open 2009 with an *average of 11.85 seconds*. Adam Polkowski finished second (12.93) and Piotr Kózka finished third (13.26).
> World records: Tomasz Zolnowski 3x3 *10.63* (average)."
> 
> Huh?



The final round average is 11.85, but the WR average was set in the second round.

By the time I get to compete again, the WR may very well be sub 10


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Look's like sub 11 is the new "elite" now...
> I think this opens a lot of people's eyes who thought the WR was a 2 way contest between Akkersdyk and Nakajima (sorry about the names)...
> 10.63, wow. With a DNF... wow...
> 
> ...


10.63 = 2nd round
11.85 = final round


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 5, 2009)

That's dumb...
Say he got a world record in the one round but messed up badly on the last...
He would get a World Record, but not even win the competition. They should compare everyone's best score from the competition.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Akkersdyk and Nakajima (sorry about the names)...



Just to tell ya', it's Akkersdijk.


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> That's dumb...
> Say he got a world record in the one round but messed up badly on the last...
> He would get a World Record, but not even win the competition. They should compare everyone's best score from the competition.



Another thing about competitions that bothers me is that your success is based solely on your perfomance in 3x3x3 speedsolve. That's the only even the WCA uses to determine "winners" and second and and third place holders at competitions.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 5, 2009)

That's closer than I expected.
Only missing one letter


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> Lord Voldemort said:
> 
> 
> > That's dumb...
> ...



What are you talking about? At Berkeley my friend won third place for 5x5...and you say it's only 3x3? I don't get it....


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 5, 2009)

On the main website homepage.
Look back on my quote of the summary of the competition. 
No mention at all of winners for any other event.
(Except in case of WR/CR/NR)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> That's dumb...
> Say he got a world record in the one round but messed up badly on the last...
> He would get a World Record, but not even win the competition. They should compare everyone's best score from the competition.



I've been saying this for a while but nobody agrees: I think the final rank should be based on the BEST average (or best single or whatever) you got during the competition.

That way:
1) People who didn't make it to the final still get an overall competition rank.
2) Assuming they can make it to the final round, people who do better in the afternoon do not have an advantage over people who do better in the morning (that's me at 3x3), instead they are equal, and everyone is compared at their peak.
3) People who are fast enough to make the final guaranteed still have a reason to try in the first rounds.
4) People who do very badly in the final round (for whatever reason) or miss the final round are ranked based on their performance rather than on that one bad round, so it is more fair to people who are unlucky.
5) It is impossible to set a WR average (or single in the case of BLD events) which still stands after the competition, and not win.
I think all these things are advantages, but nobody else seems willing to use this system. In my opinion the person who gets the best average should win the event, regardless of when they got the average, because they had the best performance in the competition.


And yeah, 3x3 is the Most Important Event. It's annoying for me since I suck too much to ever place in 3x3 but I can win some other events... and yet I would never get on the homepage unless I can get a NAR. I do think it's weird that 3rd place in 3x3 is considered better than first place in OH or 4x4. I'm not sure if speedcubing.com would want to put the winner of every event on the homepage, though. Personally I always look at the winners for every event when a competition's results have been posted.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 5, 2009)

Perhaps we should start a lobby...
Any supporters of the status quo willing to come out and tell us why this is beneficial? Since I don't see anything.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 5, 2009)

Question: You know who I think deserves to get the next WR 3x3x3 avg?

Answer: Harris Chan

Reason: Ever since he got his first sub-12 avg, he has not stopped getting them. In fact, he has gotten 8 in a row so far! I think it's about time that Harris broke the WR avg


----------



## Bryan (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> That's dumb...
> Say he got a world record in the one round but messed up badly on the last...
> He would get a World Record, but not even win the competition. They should compare everyone's best score from the competition.



I would think that any competition that has multiple rounds would have this same "issue".



qqwref said:


> And yeah, 3x3 is the Most Important Event. It's annoying for me since I suck too much to ever place in 3x3 but I can win some other events... and yet I would never get on the homepage unless I can get a NAR.



I think there should be some formula to determine the overall winner. I think about the MN Open 2007 where Ravi "won" the competition, but Phil Thomas ended up taking first in all events besides the 3x3x3. I once suggested the following:

For each event, give the first place person 100 points and then give the others (up to some limit), a fraction of 100 based on their time in comparision with the first place person. So if 1st place is 10 seconds, and 2nd place is 15, and 3rd is 20, they would get 100, 67, and 50 points each for that event. Do that for all events and then just sum the point totals. I've seen people suggesting something like this before, but they always do it by the last place person, which leads to problems, because if the last place person has a very high time, then small differences won't matter much (image a Magic with 1s, 2s, and 10minutes).

anyway, it would be nice to have some common way of ranking competitors for the whole competition. For a small competition, it's easier to purchase medals for 1st through 8th, rather than 1st through 3rd for all events.

Of course, you'd still have to work out some issues with this, like trying to discourage people from entering all events just because they might be able to pick up an extra point or two. Perhaps it could even be done to discourage some people from entering an event they're really bad at if they want to avoid being ranked lower.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 5, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Perhaps we should start a lobby...
> Any supporters of the status quo willing to come out and tell us why this is beneficial? Since I don't see anything.



well, a person could break any WR... any one.. other than the 3x3 average, and it wouldn't mean that they won the competiton. Dan Cohen broke the 5x5 world record average at UPenn yet only got recognition during the competition as the winner.. and this was because he had the best average. It's unfair to people who specialize in big cubes (aka mike gottlieb or dan cohen)


----------



## amostay2004 (Apr 6, 2009)

Bryan said:


> I think there should be some formula to determine the overall winner. I think about the MN Open 2007 where Ravi "won" the competition, but Phil Thomas ended up taking first in all events besides the 3x3x3. I once suggested the following:
> 
> For each event, give the first place person 100 points and then give the others (up to some limit), a fraction of 100 based on their time in comparision with the first place person. So if 1st place is 10 seconds, and 2nd place is 15, and 3rd is 20, they would get 100, 67, and 50 points each for that event. Do that for all events and then just sum the point totals. I've seen people suggesting something like this before, but they always do it by the last place person, which leads to problems, because if the last place person has a very high time, then small differences won't matter much (image a Magic with 1s, 2s, and 10minutes).
> 
> ...



That's too much of a hassle simply to decide whose name will be on the front page isn't it? Unless there's a trophy for the competition's overall winner.

It would be much easier to not put 'xxx wins xxx Open' as the title but to list down the winners of each category. If it takes up too much space, might as well don't list any names at all.


----------



## Swoncen (Apr 6, 2009)

Congratulations Tomasz!

EUROPE!!! =)


----------



## abr71310 (Apr 6, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Question: You know who I think deserves to get the next WR 3x3x3 avg?
> 
> Answer: Harris Chan
> 
> Reason: Ever since he got his first sub-12 avg, he has not stopped getting them. In fact, he has gotten 8 in a row so far! I think it's about time that Harris broke the WR avg



I agree; some people are just amazingly talented, and others just have one good day and dominate.

the WR average should be based on an average of 12, or 100!! 

Then it'd be ridiculous, if somebody got a sub-10 avg. of 100, everyone would be like "Praise!!!" -- simply because it'd be the mean of 98 solves (obviously top / bottom taken out).

@qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??

It happened at TOW 2009, sort of -- Yalow had a 28.97 average first round, 26th place (didn't "technically make it", but Dave let him go anyway because Sarah didn't come back yet), and all of a sudden he flew up to 17th in the second round with an average of about 23.?? (my Edison is too godly ^^).

What would've happened there if it was, say HARRIS CHAN (LOL DOUBTFUL) who got that kind of average (or went from like 26th to FIRST)??


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 6, 2009)

An average of 100 would take too much time. It would be cool, but still cannot be used in a competition.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 6, 2009)

Maybe they could do avgs of 10 in huge events like the WC...


----------



## abr71310 (Apr 6, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> An average of 100 would take too much time. It would be cool, but still cannot be used in a competition.



Not really... for the top speedcubers it'd be maybe an hour (LOL not even) per person; if you held a competition over two days you could easily get through a lot of people (10 tables at once).



Robert-Y said:


> Maybe they could do avgs of 10 in huge events like the WC...



I think that that'd be the best way. Average of 12, take off best and worst, take average, be done with it.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 6, 2009)

amostay2004 said:


> That's too much of a hassle simply to decide whose name will be on the front page isn't it? Unless there's a trophy for the competition's overall winner.



Well, everything is in a computer already, so it's not really a hassle. Besides, another advantage for smaller competitions is that I can buy less prizes (since I have less entry fees, etc). Let's say I have a competition where three people just dominate. If I had prizes for every event, 3 people would leave with stuff. Well, that's nice for those three people, but it does kind of suck for everyone else. Now, if I could rank all the competitors, then I could simply get 8 prizes, and more people have a chance to get something.

Of course, if I have to get prizes for all the events, they're usually going to be very small prizes (like just certificates), but if I just need to get 8 prizes, they can be a bit better.


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 6, 2009)

abr71310 said:


> Chuberchuckee said:
> 
> 
> > An average of 100 would take too much time. It would be cool, but still cannot be used in a competition.
> ...



Still, who has the patience to sit down and do 100 solves?


----------



## Ganesh1995 (Apr 6, 2009)

wow 
I thought that record wouldn't be broken for a while 
And two sub-10s in a competition


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 6, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> abr71310 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuberchuckee said:
> ...



Any cuber with enough determination and dedication


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 6, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Chuberchuckee said:
> 
> 
> > abr71310 said:
> ...


I meant in a competition.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 6, 2009)

Chuberchuckee said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > Chuberchuckee said:
> ...



Erm... I'm sticking with my answer


----------



## qqwref (Apr 6, 2009)

Bryan said:


> For each event, give the first place person 100 points and then give the others (up to some limit), a fraction of 100 based on their time in comparision with the first place person. So if 1st place is 10 seconds, and 2nd place is 15, and 3rd is 20, they would get 100, 67, and 50 points each for that event. Do that for all events and then just sum the point totals. I've seen people suggesting something like this before, but they always do it by the last place person, which leads to problems, because if the last place person has a very high time, then small differences won't matter much (image a Magic with 1s, 2s, and 10minutes).
> 
> anyway, it would be nice to have some common way of ranking competitors for the whole competition. For a small competition, it's easier to purchase medals for 1st through 8th, rather than 1st through 3rd for all events.
> 
> Of course, you'd still have to work out some issues with this, like trying to discourage people from entering all events just because they might be able to pick up an extra point or two. Perhaps it could even be done to discourage some people from entering an event they're really bad at if they want to avoid being ranked lower.



Yeah, we don't want people entering every event just so they can get a high overall rank. The weekly contest ranks people something like that and a lot of people really do just do every event they can, but for a real competition that would waste time.

How about this system (which was unofficially used by me, Dan Cohen, and Timothy Sun at US Nationals '08 to decide who had the 'most' trophies): 1 point for 3rd place, 2 points for 2nd place, 3 points for 1st place (in any event); and maybe for 3x3 you could give something like 1 through 8 points for the top 8 since it's such a big event. So that way you'd only get points for doing events that you think you could place in, and we wouldn't get people doing extra events just to do better in the competition, unless they were actually good at them.




abr71310 said:


> @qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??



Sorry but I don't believe in hypothetical averages - for all intents and purposes, you are not capable of a sub-whatever average in competition until you pull it off. It's just as likely that they would have gotten an amazing average as that they would have gotten a terrible one, and just because someone is theoretically capable of a really good average does not mean you should go out of your way to give them extra attempts in case they actually do as well as you thought they could. Anyway the way rounds would work with this system is that new rounds are basically extra attempts. If you don't do well enough to get an extra attempt, that sucks, but you DID get an average already and you'll still be ranked.

And you can't set two WRs in the same round (not counting single solve records for events where people are ranked by their average)... but if you could, if someone at the competition comes out of it with an average WR, they got the best result and they should have won the event.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 6, 2009)

qqwref said:


> How about this system (which was unofficially used by me, Dan Cohen, and Timothy Sun at US Nationals '08 to decide who had the 'most' trophies): 1 point for 3rd place, 2 points for 2nd place, 3 points for 1st place (in any event); and maybe for 3x3 you could give something like 1 through 8 points for the top 8 since it's such a big event. So that way you'd only get points for doing events that you think you could place in, and we wouldn't get people doing extra events just to do better in the competition, unless they were actually good at them.



Not enough granularity. Under these rules, you could get 10.00 on 3x3x3 and I get a 2nd place 25.00 on 3x3x3. Then on 2x2x2, I get a 6.15 and you get a 6.16. Under your system, we would both have 5 points, although it's obvious you're better. That's why having the points based on a percentage of the winning time is useful. Not just winning, but really beating the competition, helps you out.

To avoid people just entering an event in hopes of gaining points, you could only provide points for the top X competitions (maybe based on the number of entrants?, or stop after a certain threshold of the winning time?). But what's a good "penalty" for people who are over the threshold? Maybe not based on being 9th, but based on having a really realy slow time? If you give them 0, then you don't have any discouragement from them just entering, with just the hope that they might get really lucky.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 6, 2009)

Aren't people encouraged to enter just to get their times in the WCA database? I mean unless you are charging per event like nationals I think most people compete i all events they know how to do. If you want to discourage people from competing or at least give them less solves just do what I have seen at most all competitions, if you don't get below X in your first 2 solves you can't finish the average. 
I don't think it really needs to be that complicated something like qqwerf suggested seems good to me.
idk, there will always be someone at a disadvantage I think... like I can set a OH record and that will be the only points I get all comp because I am not good at any other event.
Edit: 
Go Tomasz!
Go Poland!


----------



## shelley (Apr 6, 2009)

Is it necessary to declare a winner of the tournament at all? In a track meet with multiple events, they don't choose one event and declare that winner the winner of the whole track meet.

In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.


----------



## Dene (Apr 6, 2009)

shelley said:


> In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.



I got bored of the other discussions in the thread so I haven't read a lot of posts, but this is something that I agree with completely. The winner of 3x3 shouldn't be declared the winner of the competition when other events are held.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 6, 2009)

Dene said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.
> ...



I hate to be the me-too type, but me too. I actually started to type up a response like this last night, but decided it was way too long-winded and didn't post it. But now that other people are already saying it, I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon.

I think of the winner of 3x3x3 much the same as the winner of 100 meters for track and field, for instance. In track and field, there are lots of events with the fastest runners, but the "fastest person in the world" title always goes to the 100 meter winner. To perhaps take the analogy too far, I'm happy to be a contender in the walking race.


----------



## TobiasDaneels (Apr 6, 2009)

Dene said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > In the past speedcubing competitions were basically 3x3 competitions, with a couple of side events thrown in for fun. But since then side events have grown in popularity and significance, with a lot of people specializing. 3x3 is still the main event with the biggest prizes and most recognition, but the practice of saying the 3x3 winner won the whole tournament is getting a bit outdated.
> ...



3x3x3 is still the main event because it's the most known by non-cubers.
I think it's logic the winner of the 3x3x3 competition is the winner of the tournement in a whole.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 6, 2009)

abr71310 said:


> @qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??




Didn't that happen to Yu Nakajima?
He got two 8.xx in the same competition, when that was the WR at the time.

EDIT - I realise this is unrelated after reading over it...


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 6, 2009)

He got 8.72 twice...in the second and final round. One full step was one OLL skip.


----------



## shelley (Apr 6, 2009)

abr71310 said:


> @qqwref: Well, what if two WRs were set in the same round, or what if a top contender in the first round actually had a bad average of 5 and didn't make it to the final, where he WOULD HAVE (let's say, for argument's sake, hypothetically) set a WR average??



No need to consider "what if", by the way. Check out qqwref's (Michael Gottlieb) 3x3 ranking in the first and second rounds at this competition.

The idea is that someone who is consistently fast would have more chances to prove himself, but someone who simply had a bad round won't be penalized as badly if a good average in the first round still gets him a decent ranking.



TobiasDaneels said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



"Won the main event" doesn't have to be the same as "won the tournament." Especially if 3x3 is only one of 19 other events that also took place.


----------



## Dene (Apr 6, 2009)

TobiasDaneels said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



In addition to Shelley's kind words, I may as well ask you this: What happens when there is no 3x3 at a competition? Does no one win?


----------



## shelley (Apr 6, 2009)

Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 6, 2009)

shelley said:


> Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.



Nah, Takao would still show up.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 6, 2009)

Bryan said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, imagine that entry on the front page of speedcubing: Nobody won the Square-1 Open with an average of DNS.
> ...



I think the implication is that without 3x3 there would be no winner.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 6, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



You're right. I was thinking it was more of an implication that no one would show up to a competition that didn't have 3x3x3. Like that Pyraminx one they had a few years ago (that wasn't no one, but just not enough)


----------



## Dene (Apr 6, 2009)

LOL a pyraminx comp?
Anyway, I promise that if I ever host a comp in an area where I am guaranteed to get competitors, such as California, the east coast, or Europe, I will host a bigcube+sq1 comp, with NO 3x3x3.


----------



## Faz (Apr 6, 2009)

Maybe we could have special competitons for a decathlon or something?
Points would be tallied up, and the winner would be the all rounder.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 7, 2009)

Dene said:


> LOL a pyraminx comp?
> Anyway, I promise that if I ever host a comp in an area where I am guaranteed to get competitors, such as California, the east coast, or Europe, I will host a bigcube+sq1 comp, with NO 3x3x3.



Nakaji would have a lot of fun at that since he likes big cubes so much now


----------



## abr71310 (Apr 7, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> Maybe we could have special competitons for a decathlon or something?
> Points would be tallied up, and the winner would be the all rounder.



I would think that either Dan Cohen, or Michal Halczuk would epically dominate that... xD (especially with the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 practice), and MAYBE Nakajima, with his awesome 3x3x3 and 4x4x4.


----------



## Dene (Apr 7, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > LOL a pyraminx comp?
> ...



So Mr. Herrmann, I can't help but notice everything is about Nakajima for you; it turns out other people enjoy bigcubes a lot too, even if they aren't fast. For example, myself...


----------



## TMOY (Apr 7, 2009)

I agree. I will definitely attend a bigcubes-sq1 competition if it happens close enough to where I live, a 3^3 event is definitely not mandatory for me to have fun at a competition.


----------



## jcuber (Apr 7, 2009)

I would host a competition with every event except 3x3 + 2x2 (I don't like 2x2) and I am sure very few people would object to these events being withheld, especially with every other event to compete in. Perhaps when I'm a bit older (and have all of those other puzzles) I will host this. I can see it now- "Side Event Championships" won by no-one with no average"!


I'm dead serious, just as I am with my 7x7 average of 100, which I will do over the summer (or tomorrow, during spring break).


----------



## Dene (Apr 7, 2009)

Firstly, as long as you can get the numbers I highly doubt anyone that matters would object. Secondly, an average of 100 on 7x7 is not a "crazy" idea or anything... I could easily fit it into a day.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 7, 2009)

jcuber said:


> I would host a competition with every event except 3x3 + 2x2 (I don't like 2x2) and I am sure very few people would object to these events being withheld, especially with every other event to compete in. Perhaps when I'm a bit older (and have all of those other puzzles) I will host this. I can see it now- "Side Event Championships" won by no-one with no average"!
> 
> 
> I'm dead serious, just as I am with my 7x7 average of 100, which I will do over the summer (or tomorrow, during spring break).


I don't think the WCA would stand behind a tournament without 3x3x3. I also see no reason why a tournament should go out of it's way to avoid 3x3x3. If it hadn't been for 3x3x3 in the eighties, we wouldn't be having these tournaments now, would we?

And I completely agree with Shelley/Mike about the "3x3x3 winner is total winner is outdated"

I also agreed with qqref's idea about "best average in competition determines ranking, not best average in final". Then I thought about other sports and how qualification/finals work and now I don't know which system I prefer.


----------



## TMOY (Apr 7, 2009)

The problem with "best average in competition determines ranking" is that if someone gets a really great average in the 1st or 2nd round, then he can DNF or not even show up in the final and still win the competition, and all other competitors are then fighting only for 2nd place, which makes the final lose part of its interest...


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> About the Olympics and Davis Cup and so on: in those scenarios it is understood that the athlete is _representing_ their country. You would have to be one of the best in your country to get on the national team, and since that team represents the country it makes sense that the country would feel honored if their athlete does well or dishonored if their athlete does poorly. And when an athlete represents their country it's also understood that the country has helped them out - since the country has put some resources into making the athlete as skilled as they are, congratulating the country is a natural thing to do (although you should still congratulate the athlete of course!).
> 
> But for speedcubing, shellie's right on the dot: your country really does not affect your cubing potential or training, and furthermore you do not represent your country. It's not like each country chooses its best cubers to send to a given competition - there's no "Polish team" that trains together, just a bunch of really fast cubers who happen to be from Poland. Poland itself didn't do anything to help them along, and I agree that it's silly to cheer for the country when it put no effort or resources into making Tomasz a better cuber. I think if you do that you are just taking credit away from Tomasz for his amazing accomplishment.
> 
> So, congratulations Tomasz!



That would actually be pretty cool to have countries competing like that


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

TMOY said:


> The problem with "best average in competition determines ranking" is that if someone gets a really great average in the 1st or 2nd round, then he can DNF or not even show up in the final and still win the competition, and all other competitors are then fighting only for 2nd place, which makes the final lose part of its interest...



Well, maybe a rule if you don't show up to all rounds you forfeit placing?
But with the DNF thing, if a really amazing average is obtained, they'd deserve to win, having already obtained a really good average.

Quoting Bryan 
"For each event, give the first place person 100 points and then give the others (up to some limit), a fraction of 100 based on their time in comparision with the first place person. So if 1st place is 10 seconds, and 2nd place is 15, and 3rd is 20, they would get 100, 67, and 50 points each for that event. Do that for all events and then just sum the point totals. I've seen people suggesting something like this before, but they always do it by the last place person, which leads to problems, because if the last place person has a very high time, then small differences won't matter much (image a Magic with 1s, 2s, and 10minutes)."

This actually seems like a really good idea.
However, I think adjusting the amount of points awarded to first place based on number of competitors is in order. I can think of my getting 2nd at Twin Cities Cubing Classic out of a field of I think 5 people... vs getting 2nd place in the main 3x3x3 event.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2009)

TMOY said:


> The problem with "best average in competition determines ranking" is that if someone gets a really great average in the 1st or 2nd round, then he can DNF or not even show up in the final and still win the competition, and all other competitors are then fighting only for 2nd place, which makes the final lose part of its interest...



But if they can get such a good average, don't they deserve to win anyway? The same situation can happen in a normal final (Erik or whoever goes up first, gets 11.xx avg, then the rest of people are fighting for 2nd place) but nobody complains about that. I think if someone gets an average you can't beat then they deserve to rank ahead of you.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 11, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> I don't think the WCA would stand behind a tournament without 3x3x3. I also see no reason why a tournament should go out of it's way to avoid 3x3x3.



Because it is an incredibly time-consuming event, and the organizers want to be able to have time for multiple rounds of other puzzles.



qqwref said:


> But if they can get such a good average, don't they deserve to win anyway? The same situation can happen in a normal final (Erik or whoever goes up first, gets 11.xx avg, then the rest of people are fighting for 2nd place) but nobody complains about that. I think if someone gets an average you can't beat then they deserve to rank ahead of you.



I think that's like saying the WR holder should automatically win the World Championships. I think that if you can't be the best when it counts, then you don't deserve it.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 11, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> Because it is an incredibly time-consuming event, and the organizers want to be able to have time for multiple rounds of other puzzles.


As someone who's organized a competition I totally agree with this. You would think that 3x3 wouldn't take too much time because it is short, but in America there are so many people who want to show up just to do their 3x3 solves that the first round ends up taking well over an hour. The sheer number of people is also a problem for judging, scrambling, and organization itself... I wouldn't be surprised if we could hold two or three additional events or rounds by eliminating 3x3.



Vault312 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > But if they can get such a good average, don't they deserve to win anyway? The same situation can happen in a normal final (Erik or whoever goes up first, gets 11.xx avg, then the rest of people are fighting for 2nd place) but nobody complains about that. I think if someone gets an average you can't beat then they deserve to rank ahead of you.
> ...



Well, if you can set the WR at WC, I think you SHOULD be the world champion. Anyway, cubing really has a lot of luck involved in it, and it's a given that different people will get their best averages on different rounds. So why should we compare people on the final round when we know for a fact that some people will be disadvantaged, either by bad luck or by simply being tired after spending the entire day cubing [that's me], when we COULD rank them by their best performance? In most other sports the final is a direct head-to-head race, whereas in cubing it's an individual event, so I don't feel like ranking people based on their performance in the final is the only way to go.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 11, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is an incredibly time-consuming event, and the organizers want to be able to have time for multiple rounds of other puzzles.
> ...



Oh my God....remember the SF Open?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 11, 2009)

yes D:

We would've had a lot less people without 3x3, but we probably could have done a lot more events. It was crazy... we had like three separate teams of judges/scramblers and timers.


----------



## TobiasDaneels (Apr 11, 2009)

I think that it wouldn't be right to call the best average of the tournement the winner of the event.
In almost every competition I went to, premilary rounds are done in seperate groups, with other scrambles for each group. Therefore, someone could do a great average ebing a bit lucky with the scrambles while his/her main rival is in a group with harder scrambles.


----------



## Pedro (Apr 11, 2009)

TobiasDaneels said:


> I think that it wouldn't be right to call the best average of the tournement the winner of the event.
> In almost every competition I went to, premilary rounds are done in seperate groups, with other scrambles for each group. Therefore, someone could do a great average ebing a bit lucky with the scrambles while his/her main rival is in a group with harder scrambles.



agreed

most sports are playing against someone, while cubing is not

it's kinda like sprinting or racing (with cars)

they have qualification rounds, and the winner is the winner of the final


I agree that 3x3 winner =/= competition winner, though


----------



## Bryan (Apr 11, 2009)

TobiasDaneels said:


> I think that it wouldn't be right to call the best average of the tournement the winner of the event.
> In almost every competition I went to, premilary rounds are done in seperate groups, with other scrambles for each group. Therefore, someone could do a great average ebing a bit lucky with the scrambles while his/her main rival is in a group with harder scrambles.



There's nothing that says finals can't have different groups. I believe Ron even stated that in Worlds, finals had multiple groups.


----------



## firefox109 (Apr 11, 2009)

sorry to ask but whats a WR?


----------



## byu (Apr 11, 2009)

WR = world record
CR = continental record
NR = national record


----------



## Bryan (Apr 12, 2009)

byu said:


> WR = world record
> CR = continental record
> NR = national record



And also, CR is usually broken down to the specific continent, so most people won't talk about Dan Cohen regaining the CR, but they'll talk about him regaining the NAR (North American Record).

Other ones:

SAR - South America
ER - Europe
AfR - Africa
AsR - Asia
AuR - Austrailian


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 12, 2009)

Sorry if someone has already suggested this and/or if this is a stupid idea but, what if the winner was the person with the best overall 3x3x3 avg, calculated by taking into account every solve of each round (removing best and worst)?


----------



## Pedro (Apr 12, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Sorry if someone has already suggested this and/or if this is a stupid idea but, what if the winner was the person with the best overall 3x3x3 avg, calculated by taking into account every solve of each round (removing best and worst)?



how would you deal with people who do only 1 or 2 averages, of 5 while other do 3 averages?


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 12, 2009)

Pedro said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if someone has already suggested this and/or if this is a stupid idea but, what if the winner was the person with the best overall 3x3x3 avg, calculated by taking into account every solve of each round (removing best and worst)?
> ...



The people who didn't make it to the final round can't win?


----------



## Bryan (Apr 12, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Pedro said:
> 
> 
> > Robert-Y said:
> ...



Or they pre-qualified and didn't do the qualification round....


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 12, 2009)

Erm....get rid of pre-qualifications?


----------

