"sub30 is easy"

[Dene]

Colour and pattern recognition doesn't come easy to many people...

If they can recognise the letter "T", then they can recognise a T perm. Essentially it's the same thing, it's just about doing it over and over so it's automatic, just like when that person learnt to read and write.

Yes everyone is different, and different people will achieve different things in different times...

Yes everyone is different, but basic skills like tying shoes can be taught to anyone, just like cubing. Sub30 only requires basic skill, to be honest. Also I don't see how the musical example is of any relevance; cubing doesn't generally involve rhythm. Regardless, if there actually are cases of people not being able to maintain a steady beat on a drum kit those would be extreme cases of people with a severe disability (which, you might notice, is a group excluded from my statements about sub30 being easy).

Are you aware of the concept of terminal velocity?

I might have heard of it. Why do you bring it up? I hope you don't plan on pushing me off a building and seeing how fast I go XD

@Dene: You're completely missing the point. "Easy" is subjective. When you tell somebody that something they are struggling to achieve is easy or that they simply aren't practising enough, that is usually perceived as condescending, dismissive, arrogant and annoying, as the OP said - regardless of how you define easy or how much they practise or whether they go on to actually find it easy.

If "easy" is relative/subjective then this entire thread is completely pointless in the first place, because "sub30 is easy" means nothing.

Besides which, the "it's easy" input is completely worthless and only serves to make one person irritated and the other look like a jerk, so why bother? If the intention is to offer encouragement, there are better ways to do it. There are some great resources on SS to help cubers get sub-30 and give them encouragement (like the race thread) so better to just point them at those than announce your judgement on their failure or laziness.

So what you're saying is the OP is allowed to complain, but I'm not? That's fair...

You people shouldn't speak about how long it takes to get sub-30, or how easy it is, especially you, Dene.

Just because you could get sub-30 quickly doesn't mean everybody could. Each and everyone has a different learning pace.

Why especially not me? Who said I achieved sub30 quickly?

Yes I do the same thing.. every day whenever I get a chance I work on it. Since you say there's no excuse not to be sub30 in a few months, there must be something wrong with me?

A good hour or two a day of concentrated practise? (i.e. not while watching tv or something >.< ).

Some people actually have a life. People work and can't cube 24/7 like others.

Deary me, you seriously need to read threads before you post things. I clearly said that sub30 is easy with dedicated time and practise. If you're excuse is "I have a life so I can't dedicate time to cubing", how would you know sub30 isn't easy? You simply can't complain in the first place.

 

[JHB]

I was really looking forward to Melbourne Autumn comp this year because it's normally the only chance I actually get talk to other cubers. But I didn't realise you guys viewed people like me as lazy when we're just doing the best we can with what we have. To say I'm disheartened would be an understatement. I mean, I really thought I would be able to post some sub 50 times this comp and that'd be a really big deal for me.
I can remember just about any AFL (Australian Football League) statistic instantly or play most guitar songs just by hearing them once- I find that easy. Cubing skills take me longer even when I sit down and focus on something like a T perm. That permutation was my sole focus of late and it took me over a week to finally recall it in a solve when I had to. I'm trying as much as I can to fit cubing in my life.

 

[Dene]

I was really looking forward to Melbourne Autumn comp this year because it's normally the only chance I actually get talk to other cubers. But I didn't realise you guys viewed people like me as lazy when we're just doing the best we can with what we have. To say I'm disheartened would be an understatement. I mean, I really thought I would be able to post some sub 50 times this comp and that'd be a really big deal for me.

I don't think anyone's calling you lazy. My opinion is that someone who thinks sub30 is difficult, but also doesn't put in the time and effort required to meet such a target, is naive. Everyone understands if you have other priorities in life, and if so that's fine. The problem is people like the OP ranting when there as yet appears to be no justification for such ranting. See what I mean?

EDIT: For example, at the moment my cubing isn't getting any better, in fact it's getting worse. But the obvious reason is because the only practise I do is a couple of hours each weekend on the weekly comp. If I kept up those 2 hours a week for the rest of the year it would be naive of me to think I'm going to improve, because that simply isn't good enough to achieve targets that I would hypothetically aim for if I wanted to improve (e.g. sub12 3x3).

 

[JHB]

Thanks mate. I know sub 30 is there for the taking and take it I shall.........Eventually! I got posted on the facebook page of my footy club doing a 37 second solve after quite a few "lemonades" the other night so I guess anything is possible (like I said, I've always got a cube in my pocket). Becoming world-class at anything though takes sacrifices and less "lemonades."

 

[mark49152]

If "easy" is relative/subjective then this entire thread is completely pointless in the first place, because "sub30 is easy" means nothing.

Its meaning depends entirely on its context. The context as stated in the OP is when someone genuinely struggling to get sub-30 is told "sub-30 is easy, just practice" by someone faster. In that context, it's flippant and annoying.

A lot of the debate in this thread is about whether sub-30 is absolutely "easy" or "hard". I really think that's irrelevant, as OP's point is about manners not difficulty. Most of us here find simply solving the cube easy (ignoring time), but when talking to someone struggling to do their first solve, it's generally better manners to agree with them that it's hard and congratulate them on their achievement when done!

 

[JohanAR]

I don't think anyone's calling you lazy. My opinion is that someone who thinks sub30 is difficult, but also doesn't put in the time and effort required to meet such a target, is naive.

So OP is annoyed with people who say, or imply, things like "I got sub-30 within XX weeks, therefore anyone should be able to do it in the same amount of time". Dene, on the other hand, is annoyed with people who expect to get to sub-30 without a fair amount of practice. Perhaps there's some things we could all agree upon?

How about:
- Most people can get to sub-30 eventually.
- You will need to practice.
- The time it takes will be individual, even with the same amount of practice.

I think if the goal was "benchpress your own weight" it would be very obvious that no two individuals would learn it in the same time. Factors such as age, genetics and starting fitness would play an important role, even with access to lifting technique videos on youtube. Similarly, I think most people agree that learning non-physical stuff, such as a language or maths, is much easier when you're young. To me it only seems logical that it's the same for getting fast in speedcubing.

 

[Dacuba]

Clearly those terms "easy" and "hard" are being used with wildly different definitions! My first 3x3 method I learned in a weekend. Some years later and sub-30 is still a personal goal.

But you will archieve sub30, assuming you won't give up.
It wasn't that sure if you will manage to solve it in the first place.

Using words like "easy" and "hard" aren't really a good choice, yeah.

 

[Ranzha]

I like how people say "practise is all you need" and never elaborate on what that entails.

I'm sticking by the idea that certain methods come more easily to some people than others. Practice is certainly required to get faster or more acquainted with speedsolving the puzzle, but certain methods of practice may not suit a cuber. They may even make the cuber slower. This would be bad practice, but what is bad practice for someone (e.g. repetitive solving) may be another's godsend. Mike Hughey, by doing thousands of solves, puts the method of repetitive solving to the test not to generalise this method for everyone (as many posters have suggested), but to see if such a method improves himself.

Thus, in theory, bad practice can hinder a cuber from accomplishing a speed-related goal. Only after testing the waters of practice methods can a cuber discern what works most fittingly for him/herself. It's like personal preference for cube selection. If cubers argue to choose the cube that best suits the individual cuber, why should that stop with practice?

Some practice methods: watching videos of people finger-tricking algorithms and trying them, learning 3x3 subsets, slow solving to aid recognition, solving with a metronome, solving while turning as fast as possible, not timing solves, doing "blind sessions" in which times are hidden until the end of a session, substep practice, algorithm drilling.

The list goes on.

Pick something, see how well it works, and if you don't think it's for you, try something else. But don't be afraid to come back later to test how well something works again; it might benefit you.

/mytwocents

 

[~Adam~]

In order to achieve sub 30 I learnt all OLLs and PLLs then literally just had to solve cubes. I did no specialised practice what so ever. That took me down to about 18 seconds. That was over 2 years ago and now I'm about 17 seconds. I guess I should look into different types of practice now since I'm no longer improving.

 

[MalusDB]

If you learn CFOP it literally will just happen with enough practice, and by practice I mean solving. Eventually you will become familiar with how you solve each case and the delay between each case being recognized will drop. Even with inefficient move counts the TPS required is nothing ridiculous. Also drilling your LL algs (and learning them, obviously..)!

I think your speed to achieve sub 30/20/15/12/10 is all just vaguely indicative of how much potential you have of going further really, exceptions applying.
I know I could have sub 30'd quicker had I learn't to solve more practically than just solving over and over, and learning maybe an alg a month, but it isn't something to strongly fixate on.. believe me you will soon set eyes further afield after hitting it, it won't be enough

 

[kcl]

how fast is your f2L?

Usually no more than 12 seconds, mostly 9 to 10. It's the point where I can tell my LL wastes a lot of time. I know full PLL minus G (abc), and a bit of OLL. Mostly 2 LOLL though.

 

[Dene]

Its meaning depends entirely on its context. The context as stated in the OP is when someone genuinely struggling to get sub-30 is told "sub-30 is easy, just practice" by someone faster. In that context, it's flippant and annoying.

Alright but then this stresses my point exactly, because I can say "sub30 is easy" and in the context of my knowledge of what it takes to be sub30 I am right. So if the OP is right, and I'm right, and we're saying contradictory things, then what we're saying is obviously nonsensical.

A lot of the debate in this thread is about whether sub-30 is absolutely "easy" or "hard". I really think that's irrelevant, as OP's point is about manners not difficulty. Most of us here find simply solving the cube easy (ignoring time), but when talking to someone struggling to do their first solve, it's generally better manners to agree with them that it's hard and congratulate them on their achievement when done!

If it's just about manners, I think it's rude to come on here complaining about it...

 

[yockee]

I was stuck at 30 for a good part of a year, although, it wasn't nearly as hard as breaking sub 20. I wanted to kill myself around 22. Now, I'm having almost as hard of a time breaking sub 15, although, it seems easier because I know more and know what to work on. I have a much easier time getting 13's now than I did getting 18's.

 

[brian724080]

I barely cube all that much, but I fell like achieving sub 30 is relatively easy...sorry for those who are still on the way.
But the real problem is you get stuck there, and you really have to drill it from there to achieve sub 20.
After that, you really have to improve, and practice all the time, obviously.

 

[MichaelErskine]

If it's just about manners, I think it's rude to come on here complaining about it...

It's about a subtle aspect of manners that allows a person to acknowledge another's situation: empathy. It is a lack of empathy is what annoys the OP. Denial of a person's situation: that is pretty much guaranteed to annoy those in that situation. As you might imagine it can be quite exasperating.

To summarise the thread from my own POV: I don't really need negative messages telling me I'm basically stupid and lazy -- those messages are coming through loud and clear in my own head while I'm trying to solve!

 

[Isaac Paurus]

it wasn't super hard for me, i got m first sub 30 PB single, then i started averaging 30 (previously i averaged 39-43) then after a little while, my averaged dropped down to an inconsisten variation between 27-30. i never really practiced anything specific, i learned the rest of the PLLs, but that's about it. that's how all my barriers have been broken so far. currently i average 24-26.

 

[Mike Hughey]

How about throwing another controversial statement on the flame?

Based on my experience of serious practice for 3x3x3 speedsolve and 3x3x3 BLD, I would say that averaging sub-20 speedsolve is approximately equal difficulty to averaging sub-1:30 with about 75% accuracy BLD.

I'm pretty confident I've put approximately equal effort into 3x3x3 speedsolving now as I put into 3x3x3 BLD by the time I was averaging sub-1:30 (with about 80% accuracy). I'm on the verge of averaging sub-20, and I'm very hopeful of getting there sometime in the next few weeks. I suppose the one difference is that I put that time into speedsolving over a period of about 2 years more than I did BLD (about 4 years for BLD, about 6 years for speedsolving). So my effort was a bit more concentrated (but not outlandishly much so) for BLD than it was for speedsolving.

And I don't see any difference in accessibility between BLD and speedsolving - they both just require practice. If anything, BLD is even more accessible than speedsolving, since people who have physical limitations keeping them from turning fast can still manage a time like 1:30 average BLD.

 

[Dene]

I'd have to agree with you somewhat there Mr. Hughey. It is a bit "out there" to just throw out some numbers like "sub20" and "sub1:30", but in saying that they do seem reasonably comparable.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'd have to agree with you somewhat there Mr. Hughey. It is a bit "out there" to just throw out some numbers like "sub20" and "sub1:30", but in saying that they do seem reasonably comparable.

Yeah, I guess my point is this: if you're right about sub-30 (and with some reservations, I agree with you), I think that it means there are about 4000 people (because there are over 4000 people with competition averages sub-20) out there who have competed in WCA competitions who, with equal work, could probably have managed sub-1:30 or so BLD.

One of my reservations is this: I'm starting to think it's really important to have long practice SESSIONS to get faster quickly just simply from practice. (And that may apply to BLD as well as speed - I've often done long sessions practicing BLD.) I've put in a lot of time on 3x3x3 speedsolving, but mostly in smaller sessions. I've had big bursts of improvement only when I've put in long sessions - several hours per day for several weeks at a time. Otherwise, I just simply don't improve.

I just got a 12.95 single! Outrageously lucky (like, fewest-moves lucky - 35 moves!), but it used to be that I couldn't rehearse an easy scramble and get that low. So I'm definitely getting better.

 

[MichaelErskine]

One of my reservations is this: I'm starting to think it's really important to have long practice SESSIONS to get faster quickly just simply from practice. (And that may apply to BLD as well as speed - I've often done long sessions practicing BLD.) I've put in a lot of time on 3x3x3 speedsolving, but mostly in smaller sessions. I've had big bursts of improvement only when I've put in long sessions - several hours per day for several weeks at a time.

I think that long practice sessions might be a way I can get out of this rut and it happens to be what I'm currently trying (so far this week 3hrs Sun, 2.5hrs Mon, 2hrs Tues, 2hrs planned for tonight). I'm doing solves in groups of 12 (now using gqtimer to chart results) and at my pace I can do about 100 solves in an hour with the occasional review of solves, trying OLL algs, etc. I don't know how long my family will put up with it but we'll see!