How do you compare to other cubers your age?

[rowehessler]

lol, according to these graphs I'm about twice as fast as the avg for my age

 

[kcl]

lol, according to these graphs I'm about twice as fast as the avg for my age

How old were you when you hit your current average?

 

[TheCubeWizard]

Age: 14
GLOBAL Average: 17
Method: CFOP almost full OLL
Gender: Male

 

[Logiqx]

Keep the responses coming... no need to feel shy about your times.

Respondents: 116

Mean age of respondents: 22yrs
Median age of respondents: 18yrs
Mean speed: 20.2
IQM speed: 16.8

CFOPers: 100
Rouxists: 8
ZZophiles: 4
Others: 4

Male: 109
Female: 7

 

[JoSpies]

Age:50
Global Average: 28.5
Method: CFOP with 2-look OLL
Gender: Male

 

[EMI]

CFOPers:
Rouxists:
ZZophiles:

Age: 17
Global Average: 11.5
Method: CFOP
Gender: Male

 

[pipkiksass]

Here's a sexy graph - a scatter chart of all times thus far (as of 0100 GMT 01/04/2014) with a polynomial trend line (order 4):

How do you compare to other cubers your age? Simple - are you above or below the line?

Results are slightly skewed by the single 11 year old and 56 year old at either end; however the general trend is quite interesting, and seems to indicate:

1. From 11 to 20, people get steadily faster
2. The prime age for cubers is 20-21
3. From 21 to 30, there is a steady rise in times
4. From 30 onwards, times level off and seem to plateau

Which I guess confirms many of my suspicions re: the relationship between free time and cubing ability.

The most interesting part (IMHO) is the 30+ plateau. I'd argue that this contradicts the common 'old hands' argument about why older cubers can't keep up with younger ones. I don't think I'll ever be sub-10, perhaps because I started a little too late, but I think sub 15/14/13/12 is definitely doable at almost any age.

 

[Bossman]

AGe:15
Global Average: 20
Method: CFOP
Gender: Male

 

[newtonbase]

Only 3rd slowest! Woo hoo.

 

[Stefan]

Nice graph.
I can see myself
And also that one guy both older and faster than me

 

[sneaklyfox]

Nice graph.
I can see myself
And also that one guy both older and faster than me

I can see you too, and you and that other guy both older and faster than me.

 

[BoBoGuy]

Age: 12
Global avg. - low 11
Method: CFOP
Gender: Male i think

 

[mark49152]

Here's a sexy graph - a scatter chart of all times thus far (as of 0100 GMT 01/04/2014) with a polynomial trend line (order 4):

Yeah this is really interesting. I'd be curious to see it with the sup-60 outliers removed and the vertical axis expanded, and with a quadratic trend line, or possibly just exponential. Order 4 doesn't really make sense as a trend, and just allows the 56-yo outlier to dominate the line. With a simpler trend line I suspect we will see a gradual slow down with age rather than a plateau...

 

[rowehessler]

How old were you when you hit your current average?

probably around 20-21

 

[Logiqx]

Yeah this is really interesting. I'd be curious to see it with the sup-60 outliers removed and the vertical axis expanded, and with a quadratic trend line, or possibly just exponential. Order 4 doesn't really make sense as a trend, and just allows the 56-yo outlier to dominate the line. With a simpler trend line I suspect we will see a gradual slow down with age rather than a plateau...

I'd second the above comments. Firstly it is definitely interesting!

It would also be good to see an alternative trend line perhaps with sup-40 outliers removed (~4% of the data).

This study should be repeated every 5 or 10 years to see how the current teenagers fair in later life.

 

[CriticalCubing]

Improved my time
Age:15
AVg: 18.23 sec
Method: CFOP with 2look OLL and 17 Plls (Need to learn rest pll)
Gender: Male

 

[pipkiksass]

I'd be curious to see it with the sup-60 outliers removed and the vertical axis expanded, and with a quadratic trend line, or possibly just exponential.

Ask, and ye shall receive...

Sup-60s removed. Axes expanded. Order 2 (quadratic) trendline added, along with exponent.

I like the idea of working from IQM, to eliminate the top and bottom 25% of results. I added the IQM line to the graph, and experimented with using trendlines which look at global average, and trendlines which look at IQM. For obvious reasons, IQM gave clearer results.

With a simpler trend line I suspect we will see a gradual slow down with age rather than a plateau...

Both new trend lines show this, although the quadratic line seems to still rise artificially towards the end. In that sense, I think the exponential gives a better 'fit'.

I might revise the IQM data to remove entries for years where there are <4 respondents, allowing a smoother line and, potentially, more telling trends. Any thoughts??

It would also be good to see an alternative trend line perhaps with sup-40 outliers removed (~4% of the data).

This study should be repeated every 5 or 10 years to see how the current teenagers fair in later life.

I can do this if you wish.

I'd assume the average age of respondents will increase slightly, and the demographic will shift, because there has been a surge of interest in cubing in the past few years. This is clear from the number of respondents by age. It will be interesting to see if more new cubers step in to replace the current crop of 11-15 year olds, or if they just get older, and we have the same chart with all the X axis values shifted up by 5!!! (and hopefully the Y values slightly lower, for some of us?!)

AVg: 18.23 sec

Please read the original post - this thread isn't looking for a PB average, but your GLOBAL average.

 

[Logiqx]

New chart

Very nice! The additional detail in the Y axis makes it a lot easier to read and the new trend lines are cool. It's also helpful to see the IQM data.

although the quadratic line seems to still rise artificially towards the end. In that sense, I think the exponential gives a better 'fit'.

I'm slightly torn but I think the quadratic might be more representative. If we were to find younger and older cubers (under 10, over 70), I'd expect to see a curve at both ends. I guess the quadratic looks closest to what I'd draw by hand if I were to draw a smooth line through the IQM. It also seems to tie in with my original charts where times improved towards 20 years old then started to get slower.

I might revise the IQM data to remove entries for years where there are <4 respondents, allowing a smoother line and, potentially, more telling trends. Any thoughts??

Perhaps you can calculate the IQM for age bands (similar to my experiments) and use those as data points (plotting the data points mid-way in the age band)? The bands I used contain 10 to 15 responses and the curve should be pretty smooth. If the trend lines are similar to the ones in your second graph then it may help to back up any conclusions.

I can do this if you wish.

Looking at the new graph, I think restricting it to sub-40 will be beneficial... more detail in the Y-axis. The sup-40 times don't seem to affect any of the trends.

Edit: I notice there is a bit of a spike for the 41 year olds. I think the IQM should be 33.5 and the mean 38.0. This seems to be causing a lot of the artificial final rise on the quadratic.

 

[pipkiksass]

I'm slightly torn but I think the quadratic might be more representative.

Agreed - however see what happens (below) to the quadratic when making the other suggested changes...

Perhaps you can calculate the IQM for age bands (similar to my experiments) and use those as data points (plotting the data points mid-way in the age band)?

done...

Looking at the new graph, I think restricting it to sub-40 will be beneficial... more detail in the Y-axis. The sup-40 times don't seem to affect any of the trends.

...and done!

Added a cubic as well, just for fun, and because I thought there might be two separate trends developing.

Interestingly, the IQM data points fit nicely onto a cubic trend line.

I notice there is a bit of a spike for the 41 year olds. I think the IQM should be 33.5 and the mean 38.0. This seems to be causing a lot of the artificial final rise on the quadratic.

Will check my formulae and let you know...

 

[Logiqx]

Cool... it's coming together. Have you plotted the IQM for 30-39 year olds at the wrong place on the x-axis (~24 years)?

Once that's corrected the trend may well sort itself out.