What is the easiest WCA event to get world class at?

[Exotic Butters]

I want to know what the easiest WCA event to get world class at is. This is in terms of the amount of time you need to put in to become good, number of algs you need, etc.

leave your suggestions below and explain why you believe that the certain event is the easiest.

 

[WoowyBaby]

Clock

Not many people do it

 

[CurlyFries]

Clock

Not many people do it

I second this. It’s not hard, and basically all you need is to do some solves.

I think megaminx would be easy as I’ve heard basically all you need is to grind solves, but there are a large number of algorithms.

2x2 is easy, you have to learn a number of algorithms, but then your already there.

Really all you need is to practice and motivation, it’s just a matter of time.

 

[xyzzy]

(Disclaimer: 99% speculation, possibly nonsense.)

All the n×ns (including megaminx and OH, not including 222) rely very heavily on looking ahead and maintaining a near-constant high TPS at world-class speeds. Algs are useful, but beyond the fundamentals (e.g. full OLL), are not the determining factor.

Square-1 might have been a reasonable answer a few years ago, but these days all the top people use CSP and a whole bunch of weird tricks.

222 and skewb are largely determined by raw turning speed, and to a lesser extent willingness to learn loads of algs. Pyraminx and clock mainly require "only" raw turning speed. Raw turning speed is something you either have or don't, and if you don't there's nothing you can do about it.

3BLD has gotten to the point where you need to be really good at memo and have really high turning speed. 4BLD/5BLD/MBLD might be easier for now; especially for multi, it seems like if someone really good at memory sports comes in and trains 3-style solving for a while, they could have a decent shot at becoming world-class.

Pretty sure that just leaves FMC, and lately I've been seeing a lot of crazy-good FMC results from people who haven't even been doing it for a year. So that's my answer.

 

[Parke187]

Either 2x2 or clock.

2x2 is literally just turning fast, looking ahead, and learning algs.
Clock is planning more of your solve in inspection, and turning faster.

Either one has reasonable answers to why they are the easiest event to get good at.

 

[Nmile7300]

If top 1000 is world class enough for you, then Pyraminx is easy

 

[GenTheSnail]

Depending on what you mean by world class, I would definitely say Feet.
If world class just means top 100 (~40), then for sure Feet. If world class means a barrier, for example, sub 30, then I'm not sure, but probably still Feet.

I can't be bothered to look for them now, but in a Feet-race-to-sub-x thread, I have some posts talking about my progress and goals. Sub 2 only took something like 150 solves. Sub 1 took a little bit more effort, but that wasn't too difficult either iirc (sub1 officially was an entirely different story).

Honestly, I think 1000 solves could be enough to get sub 1, but that would assume a good grasp on 3x3 in general, probably if you already average ~15 (I think that's about where I was). A lot of consistency and another couple thousand should be enough for sub 40.

 

[tx789]

5BLD

 

[David ep]

Square 1

 

[One Wheel]

@GenTheThief is absolutely right: feet. I think I’ve done maybe 5-600 timed solves and average around 1:35-1:40, my 2-hand 3x3 average is only around 27 seconds, but with another 500-1000 solves I believe I could get my feet times down under 1:00.

 

[One Wheel]

What are the characteristics of a good foot puzzle? Is most of the work done by the toes or is it mostly foot?

Mostly toes. Personally I use a Big Sail that I restickered with a high-contrast scheme and magnetized with very strong magnets. I don’t have one, but in my observation the GTS3M should be an excellent stock cube for Feet. I believe that the ideal foot cube would be about 60mm, and have ridges and very strong magnets. Stability is far more important than speed.

 

[One Wheel]

Big feet, big cube? I have a HeShu 9cm that might work.

I have larger than average feet, and I feel like my 68mm Big Sail is on the large side of optimal. When you’re first learning to turn with your feet bigger cubes offer a little more flexibility, but as you get better I feel like all sizes of feet will likely converge with an optimal size in the 56-60mm range.

 

[alexiscubing]

Honestly I would say Pyra, 2x2, or Skewb. With minimal practice you can get your times very fast, and the difference between world class and average is 1-2 seconds

 

[One Wheel]

the difference between world class and average is 1-2 seconds

This is why it’s really hard to get world class on these puzzles. There’s also the issue that most people who are world class or anywhere close on these puzzles are using close to the optimal solution the majority of the time, meaning that TPS is much more important than for more complex puzzles. TPS can be trained, but there is also an age/genetic limit. I will never be a world-class pyraminx solver, not will I ever be a world-class marathoner, although I will doubtless work on both. I just don’t physically have the capability to be really good. Something like Feet or Megaminx results are much more closely tied to how much work you put in and physical capability has very little impact on your personal performance ceiling.

 

[Dylan Swarts]

I recently look into my ranks and where my BLD PB's lie in the world ranks. It was interesting to see that for Multi-BLD, my PB put me ~73 and recently I've been averaging around 90th place. For 3bld the 100th best result (iirc) is 26 seconds and my PB is 47.25.. I must say I've done almost more multibld attempts than 3bld (not really but close tbh) but yet since more people do 3bld, my pb puts me at a very lower rank.
Similarly, for 5bld (which I don't practice that much anymore but will after my comp this weekend) my pb puts me around 110th place or so in the world, and I do not practice much. Probably done <40 solves. But for 4bld, which I practice a little bit more, I rank much lower once again with my pb of 5:00.
So basically this means that in less popular events, it is easier. Although these events are much harder sometimes eg. 5bld, 15+ cubes multibld and is thus why they are less popular or competed in.
So, in my eyes multi-blind actually seems like the easiest one, but hey, I've done almost 200 attempts over ~280 days (aka this year) which is a lot, trust me. So maybe because I am so focused on the event, it makes the goal seem easier and more reachable. Perhaps all this practice is the cause why I say multi-blind is the easist to get world class. To get top100 you need 16 points. Which, with lots of dedication, you could probably reach in a year. I mean lots and lots of dedication.
Cheers!

 

[Underwatercuber]

Clock is mostly just practice and getting good hardware, you could probably get WR within a year of first learning how to solve it.

 

[sqAree]

Pretty sure that FMC is the objective and only answer?
You can get to a decent level (means being able to win any local competition, and with some luck also major comps) by just reading the tutorial and do a few solves. This takes nowhere near as much time as any speedsolving event. Of course in the end it depends on how you define world class.

EDIT:
To back this up a bit, my best world rank ever was FMC single (#28 or something like that, can't remember exactly), with a 22. Considering my global at home (~sub30) this is not an unreasonable result to get (means it sure required some luck, but was bound to happen eventually).
I think FMC might be literally the event I put the least effort in. I just read the tutorial and did like 20 solves at home. I also barely learned any algs (5 algs max I'd say, because most of the cycles are intuitive).

EDIT2:
I'm not saying I'm world class, but you get the idea, it's just super easy and fast to become decent, get a good world rank etc.

 

[Lapse.]

just git gud dude.

Real answer, according to WCA statistics, theoretically megaminx and clock would be the easiest event to get world class in. I solve mega in about 2:20, and i rank about 200 in my country, which places me about 170 in my country, and 8000th in the world. For clock i place 100th in my country and 7000th in the world, and my only result for clock was 1:30(fail solve lol my clock got jammed and the other solves did not make cutoff or got DNFed). This is just a statistic, however, so it might not be actually easy to be world class in it.

But what do you mean by world class anyway? The definition might be very different to some people...

 

[One Wheel]

Predict what puzzle the WCA will choose to adopt after they kick feet to the curb and start practicing that. My money is on either 'interpretive snake' or 'watch', which is the 2x2 version of 'clock'...

I’m not a bookie, but if I was I would put the chance of WCA going through with eliminating feet at about 35%. All the arguments for keeping it are sound logical reasons, and the arguments for eliminating it boil down to “I don’t like it.”

 

[Cuberstache]

All the n×ns (including megaminx and OH, not including 222) rely very heavily on looking ahead and maintaining a near-constant high TPS at world-class speeds. Algs are useful, but beyond the fundamentals (e.g. full OLL), are not the determining factor.

I know you said this is just speculation but as a world-class megaminx solver I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on this. Megaminx doesn't require turning as quickly as people think. I think I average somewhere in the range of 3-4 TPS. That's a 15 average on 3x3, which I think most people would agree is mediocre. Also, learning alg sets is pretty important. On average, a one-look PLL is about two seconds faster than a two-look. That might not sound like a lot but the difference between a 35 and a 37 is pretty big. Phillip Lewicki is probably the best example of this. He's sub-40 with almost no PLLs and if you ask him he'll say he could be quite a bit faster if he knew PLL. I just recorded some solves with a headcam to reconstruct them and find out what my actual TPS is, so I'll get back to you on that.

Looking ahead is incredibly important though