Cubing Hot Takes, Opinions, and more!

Multi Blind top 100 is harder than 3x3 top 100. I think people might agree with me on this, but for those who don't, I believe this because Multi Blind is based on a different set of skills that are less common for people to have. This makes it more difficult for any old Joe (nothing against people named Joe) to get a top 100 result.
I don't know of a reality where anyone would disagree.
Even though it takes a lot of work to make top 100 in 3x3, MBLD makes it even harder on you, the time commitment alone for MBLD almost seems more significant than that of regular solves
 
I don't know of a reality where anyone would disagree.
Even though it takes a lot of work to make top 100 in 3x3, MBLD makes it even harder on you, the time commitment alone for MBLD almost seems more significant than that of regular solves
Yeah, you're probably correct. I guess it means I have good opinions :D
 
Multi Blind top 100 is harder than 3x3 top 100. I think people might agree with me on this, but for those who don't, I believe this because Multi Blind is based on a different set of skills that are less common for people to have. This makes it more difficult for any old Joe (nothing against people named Joe) to get a top 100 result.
Lol definitely not. In fact, your argument is actually an argument against your statement. Since fewer people possess the skill set necessary, you have to beat way fewer people to get top 100 in MBLD.
See it like this: imagine if one person in the world was a speedcuber, and everybody in the world played chess competitively. With your reasoning, it would be harder to beat the speedcuber at speedcubing than to beat everybody else in the world at chess, because the skill set for speedcubing would be much less common. However, that is quite unlikely to be the case, because if you have only 1 speedcuber in the world, that person is probably not sub 5 or something, whereas if everyone plays chess, there are probably some absurdly good people in there.

Another fun comparison:
The person with MBLD WR100 has a MBLD kinch of 37.38, and the person with 3x3 average WR100 has a 3x3 kinch of 70.00, almost twice as high.
 
Lol definitely not. In fact, your argument is actually an argument against your statement. Since fewer people possess the skill set necessary, you have to beat way fewer people to get top 100 in MBLD.
See it like this: imagine if one person in the world was a speedcuber, and everybody in the world played chess competitively. With your reasoning, it would be harder to beat the speedcuber at speedcubing than to beat everybody else in the world at chess, because the skill set for speedcubing would be much less common. However, that is quite unlikely to be the case, because if you have only 1 speedcuber in the world, that person is probably not sub 5 or something, whereas if everyone plays chess, there are probably some absurdly good people in there.

Another fun comparison:
The person with MBLD WR100 has a MBLD kinch of 37.38, and the person with 3x3 average WR100 has a 3x3 kinch of 70.00, almost twice as high.
Hmm. I think that's fair. I guess that makes more sense. My thinking was that there was less chance that each person could get the top 100 in MBLD, but I think you have a good opinion. I'm still a bit unsure, because you also are a person who is amazing at blindfolded, and I would also like to hear your viewpoint for someone who isn't as good at blindfolded, and maybe they have different reasons. Thanks for the viewpoint!
 
Also, a real quick opinion I wanted to post: With enough dedication and starting from a good age, basically anyone can become sub-10 (global average). I believe this because I, someone who doesn't have much talent in anything else, was able to achieve sub-10 in 1.5 years. Because I am only using evidence from myself, I am aware I am kind of one-sided on this. Would love to hear other opinions!
 
Also, a real quick opinion I wanted to post: With enough dedication and starting from a good age, basically anyone can become sub-10 (global average). I believe this because I, someone who doesn't have much talent in anything else, was able to achieve sub-10 in 1.5 years. Because I am only using evidence from myself, I am aware I am kind of one-sided on this. Would love to hear other opinions!
Yeah I’m prob getting sub 10 by that time too
 
Back
Top