Hi, Please look at http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... ts=1#pyram 2 rounds: - Round #1: 16 competitors - Round #2: 15 competitors Round #1 is purely artificial. It doesn't help selecting the top competitors. I know people like to go to competitions where multiple rounds are proposed, in order to have more chances of breaking their personal records. But that should not be the point in a competition. It's not a record attempt party. In my opinion, multiple rounds should exist in 2 cases: - Progressive elimination of slow competitors in major competitions. - Selection of top competitors for the finals in major competitions. Different stress conditions, and it's good for the media/audience. Why not the new following article 9p? [quote:24r80a9n]9p) For each round of an event, at least 50% of competitors must not proceed to the next round.[/quote:24r80a9n] By the way, if there's a need of letting slow competitors do more rounds, why did we kill "B finals"? Gilles.

[quote="Gilles":ntn764mv] Round #1 is purely artificial. It doesn't help selecting the top competitors. [/quote:ntn764mv] By this logic, we should only ever have two rounds. First round with everyone, and then the top 10 move on to the final. Really, has anyone finished above top ten ever really gone on to win? If someone gets over 1 minute on 3x3x3 in the first solve, would it be safe to just eliminate them then? [quote="Gilles":ntn764mv] In my opinion, multiple rounds should exist in 2 cases: - Progressive elimination of slow competitors in major competitions. - Selection of top competitors for the finals in major competitions. Different stress conditions, and it's good for the media/audience. [/quote:ntn764mv] In both of your examples, you used "major competitions". There's no good way to describe that. But the fact that you think some competitions shouldn't have multiple rounds make me think your logic is flawed. [quote="Gilles":ntn764mv] By the way, if there's a need of letting slow competitors do more rounds, why did we kill "B finals"? [/quote:ntn764mv] Because it makes no sense to put them in a different round, since their slower performance doesn't affect others.

Some cubers want to win competitions. But some others are really only competing against themselves. Getting 23rd in 3x3 isn't very inspiring, but every cuber wants to improve his personal bests. And besides, these days, even the high-level competition is more at the world level than the competition level.

[quote="BryanLogan":2k5zfu44]By this logic, we should only ever have two rounds.[/quote:2k5zfu44] Yes. Plus another qualification round in some large competitions. [quote:2k5zfu44]In both of your examples, you used "major competitions". There's no good way to describe that. But the fact that you think some competitions shouldn't have multiple rounds make me think your logic is flawed.[/quote:2k5zfu44] I'm telling the reasons why we may need multiple rounds (large competitions). I consider there's a flaw in giving rounds for free, for no reason. Do you think all competitions should have multiple rounds? [quote="BryanLogan":2k5zfu44]Some cubers want to win competitions. But some others are really only competing against themselves. Getting 23rd in 3x3 isn't very inspiring, but every cuber wants to improve his personal bests.[/quote:2k5zfu44] Yes, breaking personal records. Read above.

[quote="Gilles":zzrh6pv3]I'm telling the reasons why we may need multiple rounds (large competitions). I consider there's a flaw in giving rounds for free, for no reason. Do you think all competitions should have multiple rounds? [/quote:zzrh6pv3] So you don't think we need multiple rounds for small competitions? I think we do. Most competitions can't hold every single event. Is there really a difference between letting people have multiple rounds of 3x3x3 or letting people compete in one round each of 3x3x3, 3x3x3 OH, and 4x4x4? If you want to talk about "record attempt parties", then why not focus on closed competitions, where the majority of competitions aren't even allowed to participate in one round?

[quote="Gilles":19akxi44] [quote:19akxi44]Some cubers want to win competitions. But some others are really only competing against themselves. Getting 23rd in 3x3 isn't very inspiring, but every cuber wants to improve his personal bests.[/quote:19akxi44] Yes, breaking personal records. Read above.[/quote:19akxi44] I did read above, but I think it's up for debate. If the only purpose of a competition is do decide a winner, then there's really no reason for 90% of cubers to attend at all, since they'll never have a chance of winning. From the WCA site: [quote:19akxi44]The spirit of the World Cube Association is that people from all over the world have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike.[/quote:19akxi44] I think that focusing on improving your own PBs is more in keeping with this statement then a direct competition. If the only point of a competition is for cubers to beat other cubers, helping each other becomes a detriment. More competitions in more countries with more people and [b:19akxi44]more fun[/b:19akxi44], under fair conditions.

[quote="blade740":375nyivi]If the only purpose of a competition is do decide a winner, then there's really no reason for 90% of cubers to attend at all, since they'll never have a chance of winning.[/quote:375nyivi] I have no chance of winning, but I'll go to competitions again, for [b:375nyivi]fun[/b:375nyivi]. See others, share, learn from others' skills, have a few tries and let champions win. [quote:375nyivi]If the only point of a competition is for cubers to beat other cubers, helping each other becomes a detriment.[/quote:375nyivi] By definition, [i:375nyivi]beating others[/i:375nyivi] is your goal in a [i:375nyivi]competition[/i:375nyivi]. Maybe you'd prefer a different kind of cube meetings, where all participants would be given 10 official averages. Why not...

On this subject, I'd like to ask about the enforcement at Quezon Megaminx Competition. The regulations state: 9m2) Events with 15 or fewer competitors must have at most two rounds. Quezon had 15 megaminx competitors, yet 3 rounds. Regardless of whether this rule is one which we like as a community, it should be enforced. It is a rule which, when broken, is very apparent on the results list.

According to the wca website, at quezon there were only 2 rounds of megaminx... so i don't know what are you talking about.

No, there are 3 rounds listed, which is against the rules

Hi all, There were special conditions in Quezon Megaminx Open 2009 which made WCA Board decide to accept all three rounds of Megaminx. Typhoon Parma was crossing Philippines last week and many people were killed or had to evacuate their houses. Organisation team had asked WCA Board to move the competition to another weekend. WCA Board agreed, under specific conditions. Later the organisation team decided to still hold the competition because many competitors were still willing to come to the competition. The Megaminx event should have had many more than the required 15 competitors, but because of the typhoon in the end not everyone was able to attend. All the best to the people in Philippines, Ron

[quote="Pedro_S":2nrz5hpt]No, there are 3 rounds listed, which is against the rules[/quote:2nrz5hpt] Ok now i see the 3 of them, but when i first checked, i only saw the first round and the final listed. Either way, now that it's been clarified it's not really relevant.