What times make you good?

[moralsh]

It depends on the context, I'm an expert to my workmates because I can give them good advices and I'm not even good by most of the definitions on this thread, like the chinese proverb "there's always someone who knows more"

 

[yoshinator]

40+ Noob
40-20 Beginner
20-12 Intermediate
12-10 advanced
10- Expert

Is what I think is the best representation if you are defining expert as "the best" versus somebody who knows a lot of stuff. I mean, how much you know (IMO) is pretty loosely correlated to how fast you are. It's possible to get sub-12 with 4LLL.

 

[elrog]

I am a beginner according to your post, but I'd argue that I understand just as much about the cube as you. You said "if you are defining expert as the best". Does being faster necessarily make you "the best"? I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own and got an 18 second solve with it using complete intuition. I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.

 

[qqwref]

I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own

Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it). I'd debate Heise being called a very good method, because although it has low movecount, it's not really suitable for speed.

I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.

At least one other person has. I don't remember his name... might have been someone from the US named Andy, but I'm not sure.

 

[kunparekh18]

Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it).

Gilles Roux, for example.

 

[elrog]

There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it. Heise was different from any other method in the way that it used pairs. Also, Heise is a very good method because it is the best way to solve and actually understand every single move you make.

 

[insane569]

There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it. Heise was different from any other method in the way that it used pairs. Also, Heise is a very good method because it is the best way to solve and actually understand every single move you make.

Yea there were many methods made by people but in the end many were just a blend of the same. Although Heise is different, its not an over all speed method. Great way to solve but not the most efficient for time and reaction time.

OT: I don't think people who are fast are experts so much as they display a high amount of skill. An expert would be some one who could explain the cube and its advanced properties(the math behind it, methods, theories and the good stuff) and have the skills to put this knowledge into effect on the cube. A good example would be kirjava, he has a vast knowledge of cube methods and can utilizes all of them if he needs to. Some one who is fast but only knows 1 method is just a casual solver who took the time to learn 1 method. He would be good but not an expert, that is not an expert in an overall sense.(obviously hes an expert in his method or he wouldn't be good with it)

 

[yoshinator]

I am a beginner according to your post, but I'd argue that I understand just as much about the cube as you. You said "if you are defining expert as the best". Does being faster necessarily make you "the best"? I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own and got an 18 second solve with it using complete intuition. I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.

I was talking about purely speedsolving in my post, which I think is fair considering we're on *speedsolving.com*

My rankings thingy doesn't take into account how you learnt your method, if you looked it up etc. all I care about is speed. And so, if you average 30 seconds, you definitely aren't as good at *speed* cubing as someone who averages 10 seconds. That's what I meant in my post. Hope I am being clear.

Edit: also, by "expert" I didn't mean the actual definition of the word, I was just using it as a way to classify people who are world-class, which I now realize is a much better word.

Also, here are the equivalent splits for 4x4 (again in my opinion)

1:30+ noob
1:30-60 beginner
60-45 intermediate
45-40 expert
40- world-class (instead of expert)

Again, this is in regards to speed, ignoring how you learnt and stuff.

 

[DuffyEdge]

Not sure I agree with those 4x4 times.. I think it's a lot easier to sub-20 with 3x3 than sub-60 with 4x4

 

[Pyjam]

Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it). I'd debate Heise being called a very good method, because although it has low movecount, it's not really suitable for speed.

You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.

Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.

Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?

 

[cxinlee]

You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.

Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.

Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?

I consider speed to be more important than number of moves. Yes, both are important and I would choose a method which has very little move count ( Like 30 HTM )but slightly slower speed over CPOF. But no such method exists yet. Tomoaki Okayama is only an expert at FMC and he still has lots to learn for the other categories.

 

[applemobile]

You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.

Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?

>comparing two different discaplines.

Speed is the only important factor in SPEEDcubing.


I can walk a marathon in quarter of the time of </insert name here/> but I burn far less calories. I am far more energy efficient than them. Does that make me an expert marathon runner?

 

[TheNextFeliks]

You're great if you avg sub-WR.

 

[applemobile]

So if you avg WR then you are not a great cuber?

 

[mDiPalma]

If you can solve a Rubik's cube at all, you are an expert.

 

[ben1996123]

Insane: sub 7
Fast: 7-8
Oh yeah not bad: 8-9
Good: 9-10
Meh: 10-13
Slow: >13

 

[Escher]

Insane: sub 7 (???)
Fast: 7-8 (1.5k+)
Oh yeah not bad: 8-9 (1-1.5k)
Good: 9-10 (800-1.5k)
Meh: 10-13 (600-800)
Slow: >13 (200-700)

Yeah this is probs about right, when you consider how many hours of deliberate practise it should take to get to each of these steps. I edited your post with 'educated guesses' of how long it should take a new cuber to get to these, assuming you aren't Alex Lau or some other hyper talented/try-hard individual
These are just stabs in the dark, so do comment if this sounds wrong

 

[kunparekh18]

Insane: sub 7
Fast: 7-8
Oh yeah not bad: 8-9
Good: 9-10
Meh: 10-13
Slow: >13

Let me change the values a bit:

Insane - sub-10
Fast - 10-20
Good - 20-30
Meh - 30-40
Slow - >40

 

[qqwref]

There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it.

Excuse me, what?

You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.

Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.

I'm responding to elrog saying Heise is one of the "best solvers" for getting 18s with his own method. Also, this *is* a site called speedsolving.com, and this *is* a topic asking what times make you good. And to be fair, CFOP is designed for speed alone, not as an FMC method.

Yeah this is probs about right, when you consider how many hours of deliberate practise it should take to get to each of these steps.

I'd just like to point out here that I don't think we all have the physical or mental ability to get to, say, sub8 - it's not just about how many hours of deliberate practice you've put into the cube. I've always been a relatively slow (but relatively consistent) turner and I think if I really totally perfected my solves I could *maybe* get into the mid or high 9s, but not much farther than that, just due to the turnspeed difference between me going at full tilt and an actual top 3x3er.

 

[iKingSteal]

being sub-20 for me is fast enough for me