Neglected Events (3x3's boasting)

[TP]

I, like many here, think the 3x3 is the perfect puzzle. It's simple, yet still challenging. It's a sprint, but it's not so fast that it just comes down to reaction times. As puzzles go beyond the 3x3, very little in terms of increased difficulty or complexity is actually added. It's just more of the same in many ways. The 3x3 captures everything we love about puzzles in a small and easily manipulated package. It lends itself so well to different methods and experimentation. It can be solved OH, feet, or blindfolded. It's perfect. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could ever get bored of the 3x3. I love solving my other puzzles, but I would be happy with just a 3x3. The other puzzles are just a garnish in my speedcubing dinner, 3x3 is the meat and potatoes.

I do think the 4x4 has a lot to add in comparison with a 3x3. Making centers and edge pairs, parity and of course it has everything the 3x3 have since you usually end the solve with a 3x3 stage. Only bad thing is I can´t find a cube I´m content with.

I´m a bit bored by the 3x3, I have no lust practicing it anymore. Solving something well over 5000 times can make anything a bit dull. I still think it´s a wonderful puzzle, but luckily there are a lot off diversity to be had in other puzzles.

 

[MorrisKid101]

I think you all raise some really good points and yes, 3x3 is the most popular because it was around first. Does that mean that if, say, 7x7 was around before all the others then would IT be the most popular?

The Rubik's cube is the reason that speed cubing exists in the first place. The other puzzles are there to keep us from getting bored. Don't get me wrong- I love the other events, but I have no complaints about forcing the others to bow down to the king of all puzzles.

I understand your frustration with a lack of resources pertaining to some events. However, the volume of 3x3 help you find only reflects the level of interest there is in it.

This is what I've been trying to get across. The amount of tutorial vids for 3x3 is extortionate, yet there are hardly any for most other puzzles. For me, getting sub-30 solves on 3x3 seemed as easy as pie. But it makes me wonder: if I get sub-20, what next? Sub-20 will put me at probably something-thousanth in the world. It appears that if you want to learn 3x3, you're wrapped in cotton wool, metaphorically speaking of course, but if you want to IMPROVE (there are enough resources to teach you how to solve these strange intricate puzzles) then it's as if you pushed into the wild, left to fend for yourself. And yes, most of the time it is just practice, but I'm not gonna get sub-1 with a megaminx if the star takes me 15 seconds. My main problem with megaminx is that the recognition of pieces is/can be extremely difficult, and waste valuable time. If someone had a tut. vid. on how to improve recognition, then I'd be happy. But there isn't.

 

[MorrisKid101]

mega:
42.28 - Simon Westlund (then Balint, me and Yu)
47.82 - Balint Bodor (then Simon, Yu and me)

3x3x3:
5.55 - Mats Valk (then Feliks... ehh japanese guy is fast too and american guy?)
7.53 - Feliks Zemdegs (Then Mats? ohhh yeah 5bld! and then this is embarassing, I'm passing on this one, I'm not going to humiliate myself by saying something random)

I think it's just you that was brainwashed.
am I close? xD

But is megaminx one of your favourites? Judging by the fact that you are one of the best at megaminx, showing you have completely missed my point. Take a puzzle that you do t practice/Dont own and without cheating tell me what the WR Single/Average is and I'll be happy.

 

[jayefbe]

More pieces to solve, just more fun. 3x3 is just solving like 20 pieces (not including centres) compared to 50 or something.

So more pieces = more fun.

I do think the 4x4 has a lot to add in comparison with a 3x3. Making centers and edge pairs, parity and of course it has everything the 3x3 have since you usually end the solve with a 3x3 stage. Only bad thing is I can´t find a cube I´m content with.

I´m a bit bored by the 3x3, I have no lust practicing it anymore. Solving something well over 5000 times can make anything a bit dull. I still think it´s a wonderful puzzle, but luckily there are a lot off diversity to be had in other puzzles.

I do agree that 4x4 does add some interesting complexity to the puzzle.

I have no idea how many solves I've done, but it's certainly much more than 5000 at this point. I imagine your primary motivation may determine how much enjoyment you get out of any one puzzle. I primarily cube for speed, and at the however many thousands of solves I've done now, I'm still nowhere near my maximum potential when it comes to speed. When I do want to add a little more variety, I get a lot of enjoyment out of learning and practicing new methods. Which is just another reason why I love the 3x3 so much. I've been practicing Roux a lot lately. When I'm tired and just can't do timed solves anymore, I might spend another 30 minutes playing around with roux. One day I'll get around to learning Petrus, and eventually I'll finally start practicing eoline... If you're primarily motivated by novelty and learning to solve a new puzzle, I could see getting bored with 3x3 pretty quickly. But there are so many ways to solve it, that I think the 3x3 has a lot to offer, even if cubing for speed isn't the primary motivating factor.

And yes, most of the time it is just practice, but I'm not gonna get sub-1 with a megaminx if the star takes me 15 seconds. My main problem with megaminx is that the recognition of pieces is/can be extremely difficult, and waste valuable time. If someone had a tut. vid. on how to improve recognition, then I'd be happy. But there isn't.

There are plenty of tutorials for megaminx. Not as many as 3x3, but more than enough for someone to become fast at megaminx. I imagine that all sub-1 megaminxers got there without any need of a youtube tutorial. Your recognition problems aren't due to a lack of tutorials, it's because recognition and look ahead on the megaminx is hard. Tutorials, even the best of them, are not a shortcut for hard work. Sub-30 on the 3x3 may have been easy as pie, but sub-1 on the megaminx is probably more comparable to sub-10 on the 3x3 (probably faster, although I'm nowhere near fast enough on either puzzle to judge).

 

[YddEd]

So more pieces = more fun.

Exactly, I can't wait to get a 11x11.

 

[ottozing]

So more pieces = more fun.

For me, sort of. I find events like 2x2 and pyra boring because they're so damn easy to solve. Events like 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 are ideal for me because the solving aspect of each of those events is interesting. However, events like 7x7 take too long and are too exhausting for me to find interesting. For me to find an event fun, I guess it has to have the "right" amount of pieces.

Not even gonna bother responding to OP because this topic is pretty stupid.

 

[Carrot]

But is megaminx one of your favourites? Judging by the fact that you are one of the best at megaminx, showing you have completely missed my point. Take a puzzle that you do t practice/Dont own and without cheating tell me what the WR Single/Average is and I'll be happy.

Like 3x3x3? but if you want to go to the extreme: 6x6x6 only WCA puzzle I have never solved. Kevin Hays, Feliks top 2 I don't even know how long time a 6x6x6 is supposed to take...