Hi, I also support rewarding no extra solve for a Pop in a 5-solve, average-of-middle-3 competition. With our old rule it's possible to Pop twice without seriously affecting your average. Just call the first one a Pop to get another solve, and the second one will be your slowest solve and won't be counted in the average. (Of course, I realize that this may make a slower solve count in the average, but that's not a big problem if your solves are fairly consistent.) Out of the six solves, this means you can solve just 4 and still have an average where the three solves that count don't have Pops. Is that really stiff? I feel that 66.6% non-Pop rate deserves a heavier penalty than that.
(This is a relatively light penalty compared to 2-second penalty, in my opinion. I'm still a bit bummed out about my 16.47+ in the second round in Florida. Of all the permutations, I had to get the worse one of the N perms, and messed up the finish. And U-face was off by a lot less than 45 degrees. Of course, I really deserved it because I managed to get another penalty on the fourth solve, this time without any good excuse.) So let's all try not to Pop more than 20% of the time from now on! Plus, it won't affect your average if the Pop happens on your slowest solve. I really hope no one has to sacrifice his speed so much just to achieve an 80% non-Pop rate...and really there's no excuse when you can buy a good cube at Target for $10. Ok, so everyone has bad luck from time to time, and it's possible that you Pop twice in an average. But the same can be said about almost every aspect of speedcubing (like my N perm). That's why we're changing to 5 solves for both 4x4x4 and 5x5x5. And just because I find this so amusing, here's a minilien to the original post: http://minilien.com/?edGvG1HFLG Happy holidays, Macky > > --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Per, > > > > Everyone adopts their own cubing style, so when we write rules, we > > cannot consider the style at all. Obviously, this rule would > affect > > people who are prone to popping differently than people who never > pop, > > and so instead, we go and consider what ultimately cubing is > about. In > > my mind, and people may disagree, cubing is the art of solving the > cube > > by turning the faces and realigning the puzzle. I feel that > > misalignment and forcibly turning the puzzle is not a part of the > > puzzle solution, and so the pops the result from it are not > condoned. > > > > If pops really aren't the fault of the cuber, then those people > who > > feel this way should have been spending time previously to get a > rule > > of 'infinite pops' added to the regulations. It would work the > same > > way, since we can agree that basically no one pops on purpose, > > therefore if pops are not the fault of the cuber, you should get > an > > extra solve. If you pop five times, you keep solving until you > have > > five solves where you are happy, and then there's your average. > Why > > wasn't this advocated in the past? Based on the logic that no pop > is > > the fault of the competitor, I see it as the only fair way to run > a > > competition. > > > > Instead, we allowed one. We recognized, and everyone recognized > by not > > complaining, that the fault is somewhat the fault of the > competitor. > > How much, it remains to be debated. The argument for pops being > > rewarded extra solves in a competition must address the following > > issue: why is popping fundamentally unavoidable while solving a > cube? > > > > Speed is definitely want, but not at the expense of accuracy. We > want > > to solve the cube as fast as possible, but it doesn't give us the > > liberty to be sloppy about it. In Sport Stacking (Cup Stacking), > if > > you go faster, you fumble. If you fumble and not over the cups, > you > > have to fix it. They don't give you an extra attempt. You have > to > > choose what combination of speed and caution you want to use while > > solving the cube, and it has always been this way. You could go > too > > fast and put in an F2L pair of the wrong color, but that doesn't > award > > you an extra solve. > > > > Can you explain why popping is not the fault of the cuber? I > haven't > > seen that question answered yet, and I really need it to be > answered. > > What is it about solving the cube that popping is unavoidable? > Why is > > exercising more caution during the solve against the principles of > > solving a cube as fast as possible? How come accuracy is > something > > that should be left up to chance, instead of being mandated by the > > competitor solving the cube? > > > > Tyson Mao > > MSC #631 > > California Institute of Technology > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
