Cubing Benchmarks?

[Seanliu]

Hey, I've been starting a lot of new events recently (5x5~7x7) lately, and I've been trying to measure my progress, and I'd like to know where I'm at currently.

So, I've been considering this question:
What are the benchmark times for each event, relative to 3x3? For example, sub-20 on 2x2 is probably equal to sub-6 on 2x2 or sub-90 on 4x4. So, what is it for 5x5~7x7, Skewb, SQ1, and clock?

Another question that arose was how to calculate my progress. This is one of the methods that I've came up with so far.

WR:20 for 3x3 is roughly 1:4 (4.9:20)
so if you took the WR for 5x5 (47.2), and took the assumed barrier and named it x, you'd get an equation:

1:4=47.2:x

Which gives

x ＝ 188.8 = 3min 8 sec

So using this method, sub-20 on 3x3 is equal to 3min on 5x5. That's not very right, however, as I'd place the barrier at 2:30 or 2:00.

Onto the second question: How do I measure my 5x5 (and other puzzles) progress in terms of 3x3
? Again, I've been using the ratio method. Let's say that I got a 150 second solve.

47.2/150 roughly equals 3, and then I multiply that by the 4.9 WR, which gives 15 seconds. According to this method, a 2:30 solve would equal to 15 seconds on the 3x3, which is even more ridiculous, in my opinion.

So, any better way to work this out?

--Sean

 

[mark49152]

Try this: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/posts/974413/

 

[Isaac Lai]

I don't think it is possible to use a concrete formula. I also don't think that every event is comparable to 3x3. 3x3 is a lot more competitive than othet events, and the amount of practice needed to get to a certain level in 3x3 could probably get you a lot further in some other events (e.g. clock, maybe feet).

 

[mjm]

I've been wondering about the exact same things lately. I think a less systematic approach might be the answer, and it might be better to figure it out on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with what you said about 5x5, but I don't know about sub-20 being similar to sub-90 on 4x4. I think that sub-60 is a lot better, because I practice 4x4 a ridiculous amount less than I do 3x3, and average around 1:10-1:15. Maybe I'll try to work something out, because I don't have much else to do right now (besides sleep, but that can wait). I've got no idea what to call sub-20 on 2x2, but 6 sounds fair enough. I might lean a little closer to 5, but I'm curious as to what other people think!

Of course, every event is different, but it boils down to how much practice is needed to reach a certain milestone and then comparing it to 3x3. We also have to ask: what's sub-30? Sub-10?

 

[Seanliu]

I've been wondering about the exact same things lately. I think a less systematic approach might be the answer, and it might be better to figure it out on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with what you said about 5x5, but I don't know about sub-20 being similar to sub-90 on 4x4. I think that sub-60 is a lot better, because I practice 4x4 a ridiculous amount less than I do 3x3, and average around 1:10-1:15. Maybe I'll try to work something out, because I don't have much else to do right now (besides sleep, but that can wait). I've got no idea what to call sub-20 on 2x2, but 6 sounds fair enough. I might lean a little closer to 5, but I'm curious as to what other people think!

Of course, every event is different, but it boils down to how much practice is needed to reach a certain milestone and then comparing it to 3x3. We also have to ask: what's sub-30? Sub-10?

Good idea! Hopefully we'd be able to work this out.

 

[mjm]

Good idea! Hopefully we'd be able to work this out.

Totally! I'll PM you with a sheets doc to collaborate on if you want to.

Also,

Try this: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/posts/974413/

looks like it could help a lot, and whoever posted it used a lot of the same ideas I was thinking about using.

 

[Seanliu]

That'd be great! Though, I have to warn you, I'm no good at math, nor do I have a lot of time, due to study. I'm more than happy to help though, and will contribute all the free time and energy I have!

 

[Seanliu]

I've taken a look at the linked post, and I think the idea is good, but flawed.

My 3x3 time is roughly 16 seconds, and my 4x4 time is about 1:00 (I never practice). That would place me in the top 5%, which isn't right, as my 4x4 is terrible.

My 6x6 time is even worse (I just started actually dusting it off and practicing last week) at 5~6 minutes. My 5x5 time is 2 minutes, which a ratio of 3:1, which is off the charts. But have I broken any WRs? Far from it.

Perhaps it's my interpretation of the graph that is incorrect; feel free to correct me!

 

[mark49152]

Sample size of one is unreliable. Graph is based on thousands of samples. Maybe you're an outlier.