• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

What matters more, Rubik's cube average or single?

lex

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
23
Thoughts? points? Lead me in the most sensible direction ^^
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,796
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
You can still get respect if you're a respectable person on the community. Look at Mike Hughey, he doesn't have a sub20 average (officially) yet he's quite the awesome guy :D
 

lex

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
23
haha this makes sense. kinda sad but i can it to be true

@cubingawsumness
 

retep

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
131
Location
Waterloo, Ontario, canada
Don't know if it is necessary but I guess I will re-iterate what has been said already. Averages are better indicator of skill and I mean people don't really get singles beyond like 10 seconds below their average. I honestly wouldn't believe if some one who averages say 1 min said they got a time of 20 seconds with a legit scramble (not prepared solve or like a LL only scramble) but i wouldn't be surprised if some one who averages like 13 seconds got a sub 10 time. The only time a single is really more impressive is if it is a world record or some kind of recognized feat. For example, if you really did get a 20 second single and you average 1 min, no one would really care, but if you break the world record single, people don't care much about what your average is. Of course, like I mentioned before, the best singles generally also belong to the people with the best averages, so they are rather closely related, but ya in general average is more "important".
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The shorter the puzzle, and the more luck, the more the average matters. I guess the extreme example might be 2x2, where single is basically completely irrelevant, and even averages of 5 or 12 have a lot of luck in them. The 3x3 is still very much a puzzle where the average matters more. When you have a really long puzzle like 8x8x8 or Gigaminx, though, the average is not really very important, because a single good solve gives enough information about how fast someone is. On a puzzle with so many individual things to do, you really can't get very lucky.
 

aznanimedude

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
666
averages are more meaningful i feel
because you can get really lucky skips, but averages are harder to have lower times in, because it's based on multiple trials. i.e. you can have outliers, but the box says more than the whiskers
 

SweetSolver

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
356
Location
Australia
WCA
2014SWEE01
A good average basically shows that you're not just some random cuber who got a lucky scramble. It will just show people that you're purely skilled :D
 

hcfong

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
454
WCA
2011FONG02
Yes, in competitions it's the average that counts, but I think it's the single times that people, including cubers will be looking at. I mean, if you would be asked what the single 3x3 WR is, you would probably without hesitation say: Feliks Zemdegs, 5.66. But do you know what the average WR is, without looking it up? Chances are you don't. Or, do you know the winning average time of Michal Pleskowicz at the Worlds, without looking it up? I don't.

That's because we can see single times happening when they happen. We have videos on youtube we can watch and hear people cheer at competitions. With an average, you have to calculate it first before you know it. For example, at the Zonhoven Open, Marcell Endrey got a 3BLD WR and everybody was aware of that. Mats Valk got a very good 4x4 average but it wasn't until later that we realised it was an average WR, at least according to the information we had available at that time (we weren't aware of what had happened in Australia)

To make a long story short: In competitions it's the average that matters but popularly, I think it's single times that matter most because they give you instant results.
 

applemobile

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
858
Location
exeter uk
It depends what you were intending to do. I.e I I am doing a adv. of 12, I will go slow and look ahead, but if I am goin for a good single I will absolutely Kane through F2L hoping that I will spot my pieces. The latter gives me worse Averege but throws out the best singles.
 

mchedlo213

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
86
Location
Tbilisi,Georgia
Don't know if it is necessary but I guess I will re-iterate what has been said already. Averages are better indicator of skill and I mean people don't really get singles beyond like 10 seconds below their average. I honestly wouldn't believe if some one who averages say 1 min said they got a time of 20 seconds with a legit scramble (not prepared solve or like a LL only scramble) but i wouldn't be surprised if some one who averages like 13 seconds got a sub 10 time. The only time a single is really more impressive is if it is a world record or some kind of recognized feat. For example, if you really did get a 20 second single and you average 1 min, no one would really care, but if you break the world record single, people don't care much about what your average is. Of course, like I mentioned before, the best singles generally also belong to the people with the best averages, so they are rather closely related, but ya in general average is more "important".
well said.
 
Top