What's with newbie cubers lately?

[pcharles93]

I was in a chat room with another cuber a few days ago and he asked how many algs I knew and what my average was. I knew ~35 and averaged around 25. He knew almost 90 algs and averaged 45 but was still getting minute solves. It turns out, he jumped straight into Fridrich and learned most of the algs. It isn't making me mad but it makes me wonder. Why do beginners learn the most advanced method from the get-go? I averaged 35-40 before I even tried F2L. Most newbie cubers who know Fridrich I've met don't know that the best cubers are the best because they practice. Some other guy from another chat session bought 3 DIY's, 3 sets of tiles, and had 2cans of CRC. I challenged him to a race and slaughtered him. His time was pretty embarassing. He didn't seem to know how to get one side on his own. If someone learns and uses Petrus, it isn't as annoying as a newbie running around abusing Fridrich. Block building is intuitive. Nowadays, so many people CAN solve a cube. Barely anyone KNOWS how it works besides for algorithms. It just shows how cubing has developed in the past few years. It's not enough just to solve it, you have to be fast to garner respect.

 

[hait2]

it's always better to learn the more advanced method first if you're motivated. chances are, if he practices as much as you, and went straight into fridrich while you started with beginner method, he'd slaughter you easy. like, it wouldn't even be close.

that's to answer the only question in your post, the rest just seems your opinion which mine differs from but i won't go into detail

 

[Johannes91]

You think Fridrich is the most advanced method? What do you mean by "advanced"? It's just a slightly improved version of a basic LBL; nothing more, nothing less.

Barely anyone KNOWS how it works besides for algorithms.

Yes, most people see Rubik's Cube as a dexterity toy, not as an interesting puzzle. But a lot of websites certainly give the impression that speed is the only thing that matters and mostly consist of lists of algorithms for Fridrich, so I don't blame the newbies.

 

[joey]

I don't have a problem with people learning Fridrich straight away. They can do whatever they want! They may be slow at the start, but if they are going to learn Fridrich in the end, I don't think it makes much difference when they learn it.
I encourage people to have a go at the 3 main methods (Frid,petrus, and roux), and have a good understanding of them all. I may not be fast at Petrus and Roux, or particularly efficient in the execution, but I try understand the methodology behind them.

I would say I have a relatively good understanding of the cube, and I am proud of not just being an algorithm machine.

 

[Radical Seal]

You think Fridrich is the most advanced method? What do you mean by "advanced"? It's just a slightly improved version of a basic LBL; nothing more, nothing less.

Yup, many people think that a method is considered more "advanced" because of the greater number of algs.

 

[Crzyazn]

psh

when there's a newbie with full ZBF2L...then complain

and if you are already faster, take solace in the fact that your overall mastery of what you know is superior

 

[Dene]

I started learning full Fridrich when I was still averaging well over one minute. I wasn't cramming algorithms or anything, but "intuitive" F2L came to me as extremely obvious and "LBL" seemed so primitive.

 

[Feanaro]

Loads of people at my school ask me to teach them, but they just don't appreciate the complexity of the cube. I try and teach them some moves, and I tell them that it takes lots of practice to get a good time. But when they relize they can't get it in 5 minutes they give up. Throughout my middle and high school carreer, only two people that I have tought have actually stuck with it.

 

[Ruggles]

Maybe they thought that if they learned a lot of algorithms initially, they wouldn't have to learn anymore for a long time.

 

[Hadley4000]

I see no problem with that. I wish I had started with Fridrich. I spent way too much time on LBL.

 

[Harris Chan]

What I have a problem with is that people start to not think for themselves sometimes. They expect everything to be give/shown/taught to. And they just don't like the answer "practice".

Practice means a lot of things--learning new algos, executing your current algo until it's faster, learning how to recognize it faster, developing rhythm in the solve, looking ahead, etc. These things need some time, and it sounds as if they want to be able to master it in a week (I guess it's possible though), as if they can't do that then they'll die or something. Sure there's a goal that you want to reach, but don't need to set such a strict time line for it. If you're a fast learner, great. If not, just continue, there's no deadline for cubing (your homework and assignments do though!).

A year or two ago, there weren't as much informations, not as much websites, so people were really working on the cube on their own based from a few "main sites" like speedcubing.com, macky's site, etc. And people still managed to get pretty fast. With so much sites these days, there should be no excuse of not being able to find things.

Cubing should be something that gets your head thinking, playing around with the cube, trying to find better ways of solving the same thing. A faster way to execute the algorithm. All these are up to the person to do; no matter how much tutorial videos or videos of how to do each algorithms, you still need to practice it on your own to master it. It's just like any other things in life...

I'm not trying to sound harsh xD I got a lot of help from people when I was a beginner too.

 

[Cerberus]

Well said Harris....
I started to get the cube done on my own, done it, then practised that and searched for better ways, and went over from LBL to Fridrich, first f2l (great improve) and then the rest (not OLL yet =( ), but afterall, every person I hear of, that is telling me, that he/she is learning f2l algorithms, I tell to get intuitive f2l first, that's a bit harder, but practises a lot, give you the chance to develop algos on your own, find those which are practical for you, you can look for hard cases later on, but you play a lot with the cube, you get the feeling of searching for ways of solving and so you also can track pieces on the cube to improve look ahead, what f2l is all about I think, even with very slow and consistent turning (continued in OLL and PLL too) I get times in the low 30s or below.

 

[watermelon]

I agree that speedcubing is becoming more about the speed and less about the cubing. As Harris said, it's understandable that so many people have started cubing recently; cubing really started to make a comeback after the invention of the internet allowed people to share algorithms, techniques, etc. I think that with so many fast Fridrich-using cubers these days, new cubers are getting the impression that the only way to get fast is to learn Fridrich, but they don't realize the amount of practice needed to get WR times.

Unfortunately, Fridrich has dominated the speedcubing community for too long at this point for any significant changes in the most popular method to happen. It seems inevitable that most novice cubers will choose Fridrich given the large amount of resources available, and will most likely disregard the others as they are not as widely-used. Unless any breakthroughs are made in the next few years, I think the logical, puzzle-solving aspect of speedcubing will continue to dwindle until it is no longer existent. Cubing will become a solely dexterity and speed based activity, and the original intent of the Rubik's Cube will have been lost .

I guess my question is: How can we reverse this trend before it's too late?

 

[ThePizzaGuy92]

I averaged a minute when i learned f2l, and I didn't know f2l was a real thing, i thought I made it up. haha

 

[Lofty]

I see no problem with that. I wish I had started with Fridrich. I spent way too much time on LBL.

I wish I started with Petrus. I spent way to much time one Fridrich.
My only problem with anything, and I have stated in many threads, is the dominance of Fridrich. If the question is asked how to get faster the answer is one of two things: practice or learn Fridrich.
There aren't as many sites for Roux and Petrus as there are fore Fridrich but there are sites containing everything you need to know... Roux has very well defined steps and algs needed which seems to be something good for popularity but for Petrus there isn't one set thing, learn this for LL making it harder to compile things for it. For an "advanced" you have like 95687123465 options to go to can so many really good choices its hard to call something Petrus LL... off the top of my head i can think of: MGLS, OCLL+PLL, MGLS, step 5+step 6+7, step 5+6+step7, Winter Variation+PLL.
I suppose some of those can work with Fridrich too but just fit better with Petrus.
We need to have some really fast people show tat Petus and Roux are fast methods. Seeing like sub12 average with both methods will greatly gain in their popularity.
And I don't know how speedcubing can become solely a dexterity sport as Harris said so much practice has to be done for F2L figuring things out in order to be that fast. And I don't know how they could just learn algs for all those hundreds of cases without understanding anything...

 

[Jai]

What I have a problem with is that people start to not think for themselves sometimes. They expect everything to be give/shown/taught to. And they just don't like the answer "practice".

Practice means a lot of things--learning new algos, executing your current algo until it's faster, learning how to recognize it faster, developing rhythm in the solve, looking ahead, etc. These things need some time, and it sounds as if they want to be able to master it in a week (I guess it's possible though), as if they can't do that then they'll die or something. Sure there's a goal that you want to reach, but don't need to set such a strict time line for it. If you're a fast learner, great. If not, just continue, there's no deadline for cubing (your homework and assignments do though!).

A year or two ago, there weren't as much informations, not as much websites, so people were really working on the cube on their own based from a few "main sites" like speedcubing.com, macky's site, etc. And people still managed to get pretty fast. With so much sites these days, there should be no excuse of not being able to find things.

Cubing should be something that gets your head thinking, playing around with the cube, trying to find better ways of solving the same thing. A faster way to execute the algorithm. All these are up to the person to do; no matter how much tutorial videos or videos of how to do each algorithms, you still need to practice it on your own to master it. It's just like any other things in life...

I'm not trying to sound harsh xD I got a lot of help from people when I was a beginner too.

Yeah, I can't believe how people will just learn algorithms , and expect it to get them somewhere. But I guess we have to sorta blame it on ourselves; there are pretty much only 2 types of sites: sites with a beginner solution that's geared towards people who just want to get the cube solved, and then there's sites that have lists of algorithms, and tips on how to get fast at them, and the person's execution speed. Once a beginner's learned a beginner solution, and got bored, not realizing the beginner method's potential, the next logical step is to learn all those algorithms they've seen. There's barely any sites(I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just saying there aren't enough) with a huge emphasis on getting faster by working with that you currently have (their current beginner solutions) (Arnaud should be shown as a role model "beginner" ).

When I started cubing, what I did was learn off Jason Thong's old beginner method, which had around 20 algorithms (more F2L cases, all 7 "beginner" OLL cases, and all the edge permutation cases contributed to the large amount of algorithms in his solution), and was perfect for turning into transitioning into Fridrich. I used his method for a while, and as I got faster and practised, I found a lot of OLL and PLL algos myself (discovered them), and worked on intuitive F2L, and that way, I finished most of Fridrich. I occasionally learned algorithms for certain "elusive" cases which I wasn't able to find an algorithm for, but most of my algos are my own. (I have, of course, started to touch up on my OLL and PLL and learn some better algos, though)

 

[typhoonbay2]

so im pretty sure im still a nub but i want to no wat yyou guys are classifieing as a newb

 

[pcharles93]

I see a newb as someone who cubes on their own as opposed to consulting other cubers for advice or keeping up with the news. They're still new to the cubing world.

 

[Lofty]

That is not how I would define a noob at all...
Somone cubing on their own will have to figure things out thus adding understanding to the cube but people consulting us could just do more blind memorizing.

 

[typhoonbay2]

do you think you would call someone a noob to the times tht they get?