I think that has something to do with the nature of our sport. In most
competitive sports where timing is involved, i.e. track and field or
swimming or any type of race, the athlete exerts maximum effort
(generally) in each run. There isn't as big of an element of
randomness or luck. Okay, weather, temperature, track surface,
psychological things all play a part, but the sport itself does not
have inherent randomness.
Cubing however has randomness. Without defining what random or
favorable or unfavorable is, we can all agree that favorable and
unfavorable conditions come up with each solve and are beyond the
control of anyone. I guess that's why I feel truncating the times in
an average is slightly more appropriate. I'm not justifying it
completely, but it makes some sense.
Tyson Mao
MSC #631
California Institute of Technology
On Dec 27, 2005, at 2:05 AM, Lars Petrus wrote:
> I was imagining some future competition with more attempts, maybe 10 or
> 20, and every solve counting. I'm not arguing against the proposed rule
> changes, but against a (perhaps imagined) opinion that there should be
> no allowances for mistakes and accidents at all.
>
> I think the origin of the somewhat odd custom of not counting the best
> and worst time is to measure a representative average ("average
> average") without having extreme cases affect the result, but in
> practice it does serve to make it OK to have a few mistakes. And I
> think that's good, even though I would agree that those mistakes are
> the fault of the solver. Though at the other end, it *is* pretty weird
> that the fastest solves don't even count. I can't think of another
> sport that does that.
>
> If there were really no pops at all in the latest final, that does show
> it's not much to worry about, at least for people in that level.
>
> /Lars
>
> On Dec 26, 2005, at 16:38, Stefan Pochmann wrote:
>
>> --- In [email protected], Lars Petrus <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would not want a future where many competitors in a WC final end
>> up
>>> with DNF results, since they had to choose between going full speed
>> and
>>> being sure not to pop.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and... more importantly... how come you're talking about DNFs?
>>
>> You'll only get DNF if you *finish* with a pop, i.e. you pop and stop
>> the timer with the pop not fixed. And you'd have to do that *twice* to
>> affect your average. How likely is that?
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Stefan
>>
>>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it's open."
> --- Frank Zappa
>
> Lars Petrus - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lar5.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ 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/
