Sub-10 averages of 5

[Hadley4000]

There are a few cubers who have attained the every elusive sub-10, if you were to count their 5 best times.

Erik Akkersdijk:
[7.08]
9.77
8.90
9.93
[9.94]

9.53


Edouard Chambon
[8.66]
9.18
9.66
9.90
[10.18]

9.58


Harris Chan
[9.44]
9.80
9.96
9.97
[10.03]


9.91

Yu Nakajima

[8.72]
8.72
9.84
10.16
[10.21]


9.57



Milán Baticz

[8.86]
9.28
9.93
10.68
[10.71]

9.96



So we all know they CAN hit sub-10. But, we don't know if all of them can get enough to sub-10 in 1 average.

Including them, and other who were not listed, who do you think is able to get a sub-10 average?

 

[Kian]

There are a few cubers who have attained the every elusive sub-10, if you were to count their 5 best times.

Erik Akkersdijk:
[7.08]
9.77
8.80
9.93
[9.94]

9.50


Edouard Chambon
[8.66]
9.18
9.66
9.90
[10.18]

9.58


Harris Chan
[9.44]
9.80
9.96
9.97
[10.03]


9.91

Yu Nakajima

[8.72]
8.72
9.84
10.16
[10.21]


9.57



Milán Baticz

[8.86]
9.28
9.93
10.68
[10.71]

9.96



So we all know they CAN hit sub-10. But, we don't know if all of them can get enough to sub-10 in 1 average.

Including them, and other who were not listed, who do you think is able to get a sub-10 average?

jason baum had a sub 10 average of 12, so he's definitely capable, in addition to those 5. and there are certainly others.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

Uuh... when did Erik have a 8.80? I think you meant 8.90...

 

[Hadley4000]

Uuh... when did Erik have a 8.80? I think you meant 8.90...

My bad. Fixed now.

I shouldn't be allowed to post when I first wake up.

 

[Escher]

breandan vallance could do it, his PB is sub 10 of 12, and he has a 10.70 of 12 on vid (which i think has an RA of 5 of sub 10). its just that his comp times suck in comparison... he needs to go to more comps

 

[amostay2004]

Harris's 10.55 average of 12 had a sub-10 average of 5 as well so it's definitely possible..but it remains elusive in competitions..
But let's not push the standards too high first..not at least until there's a sub-11 average of 5..hehe

 

[Lt-UnReaL]

These statistics may be slightly skewed because it really depends on how many competitions they have been to.

 

[AlanAlanine]

keep in mind that a lot of sub-10s are from PLL skips, which is unlikely to happen many times in a row.

 

[joey]

keep in mind that a lot of sub-10s are from PLL skips, which is unlikely to happen many times in a row.

Yes, but those people with sub-10 averages of 12 don't have 12 in a row

 

[rahulkadukar]

Well getting say 3 PLL skips and two good solves can definitely get a sub - 10. But yes we need to wait for the first sub -11.

 

[blah]

keep in mind that a lot of sub-10s are from PLL skips, which is unlikely to happen many times in a row.

It's as likely to happen many times in a row as it is *not* in a row.

 

[yurivish]

keep in mind that a lot of sub-10s are from PLL skips, which is unlikely to happen many times in a row.

It's as likely to happen many times in a row as it is *not* in a row.

The point he's trying to make is that it's a lot more unlikely to have, say, 3 PLL skips out of 5 total solves than it is having 3 total PLL skips out of, say, 50. I think that by "in a row" he meant "in quick succession"., i.e. during an actual average of 5 in a row.

By counting the best times you're plucking the best solves (at least some of which are lucky) and using them to construct a theoretical average.

 

[Tyson]

But by this logic, you could say that someone could average their best solve. Which is theoretical as well.

 

[Lotsofsloths]

Jason can get sub 10.

 

[AlanAlanine]

Yes. The OP basically went to WCA and picked the best times of the cubers posted, which doesn't reflect a valid average.

Granted, not all of the sub-10 solves were PLL skips. But if you look for videos of those solves, a significant amount are PLL skips.

Nakajima:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GnxKGicyg

Akkersdijk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGjbjUPVUo&feature=PlayList&p=9DE4E701CE264C36&index=0&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFFXs0RAnI&feature=PlayList&p=9DE4E701CE264C36&index=4

Chambon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLOT1Z_c1Dc&feature=related

etc. etc. I'm too lazy to look for the rest. My point was that the OP's method for obtaining a sub-10 average from these cubers is pretty obviously skewed.

keep in mind that a lot of sub-10s are from PLL skips, which is unlikely to happen many times in a row.

It's as likely to happen many times in a row as it is *not* in a row.

The point he's trying to make is that it's a lot more unlikely to have, say, 3 PLL skips out of 5 total solves than it is having 3 total PLL skips out of, say, 50. I think that by "in a row" he meant "in quick succession"., i.e. during an actual average of 5 in a row.

By counting the best times you're plucking the best solves (at least some of which are lucky) and using them to construct a theoretical average.

 

[Kian]

I think we're honestly quite a ways away from a sub-10 average. I cannot recall a time when any cuber even counted a sub-10 in an average of 5 in competition. An average of sub-10 seems a ways away. Remember that the world record average is now more than 9 months old, too.

 

[MTGjumper]

I think we're honestly quite a ways away from a sub-10 average. I cannot recall a time when any cuber even counted a sub-10 in an average of 5 in competition. An average of sub-10 seems a ways away. Remember that the world record average is now more than 9 months old, too.

Eduoard Chambon did it when he set the WR average.

But yeah, sub-10 averages seem a way away yet. Sub-11, however, seems inevitable in the near future.

 

[qqwref]

Well, we know Erik has beaten the WR average in competition, or would've if he hadn't gotten some +2's. We've also seen several top cubers get sub-10 averages (of 12) out of competition (the ones I can think of are Harris Chan, Yu Nakajima, Jason Baum, and Breandan Vallance, there may be a few others), and I think Harris even did a 9.1ish avg12 where he took long breaks to relax between solves. So it's definitely possible to get a sub-10 average, just nobody has been in the right frame of mind and gotten good enough solves and so on yet.

As for a counting sub-10: I looked at the top 40 averages ever, here are the five best second-best times in those averages. Sub-10 has been done... once

[Format is: Name, average time, best counting single in the average]
1) Edouard Chambon, 11.48, 9.66
2) Harris Chan, 11.52, 10.08
3) Yu Nakajima, 11.28, 10.65
4) Erik Akkersdijk, 11.64, 10.66
5) Erik Akkersdijk, 11.50, 10.69

 

[Kian]

I think we may be approaching a point of diminishing return. The WR will be beaten and I would bet it will be beaten more than once this year. But I doubt it will be beaten by much each time. I assume the WR average will be sub-11 by the end of the year but I think sub-10 is either a long way off or a really lucky way off.