OH equivalent to sub 10

[Weston]

What about piti?

 

[aronpm]

I think sub-15 OH is about the same as sub-8 2H. So sub-16 is sub-9, and sub-17 is sub-10.

 

[Joker]

Lol, you can't just add 1 sec to OH and 2H like that...

 

[aronpm]

Lol, you can't just add 1 sec to OH and 2H like that...

Says who?

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

I don't think you can base the equivalent on "in-competition" data. Because given that, there are only a handful of official sub-10 avgs but at-home there's like, over 100 people with sub-10 avgs of 12. Also, 3x3 > OH in terms of popularity amongst people and in competitions.

Maybe a better comparison would be to take the number of people who claim to have a sub-10 avg of 12, and find the same number of people who have achieved a certain OH avg time. Like how many people do you think have achieved a sub-17 avg at home? Sub-18? What about sub-20? Would that be anywhere close to the amount of people who claim sub-10 avg?

 

[Joker]

Says who?

Using that logic, someone that averages 8:10 2H is equivalent to 8:17 OH. You need to use something like percentages, not just add seconds like that.

 

[Weston]

Are there really more than 100 people with sub 10 averages of 12?
I thought it was just a little over 50.

 

[aronpm]

Using that logic, someone that averages 8:10 2H is equivalent to 8:17 OH. You need to use something like percentages, not just add seconds like that.

If you're turning that slow for 2H you probably could turn that speed in OH too.

 

[Joker]

If you're turning that slow for 2H you probably could turn that speed in OH too.

LOL
Comeback win

 

[a small kitten]

If you're turning that slow for 2H you probably could turn that speed in OH too.

This is me.

 

[StachuK1992]

Says who?

okay. 0s 2H solves = 7s OH solve. Totally.

 

[JeffDelucia]

When this happens he will be wrong.

 

[aronpm]

okay. 0s 2H solves = 7s OH solve. Totally.

Now you're just extrapolating to absurd limits :rolleyes:

 

[AnsonL]

i think 'sub 10 in OH' is easier much than sub 10 in 3x3

 

[MichaelP.]

Now you're just extrapolating to absurd limits :rolleyes:

But isn't the point that whatever system your using to calculate equivalents should work for all numbers, even extremes?

EDIT: sorry, just realized how long ago that post was.

 

[TheMachanga]

i think 'sub 10 in OH' is easier much than sub 10 in 3x3

:confused:

 

[aronpm]

But isn't the point that whatever system your using to calculate equivalents should work for all numbers, even extremes?

EDIT: sorry, just realized how long ago that post was.

Says who?

 

[MichaelP.]

Says who?

You want a consistant system because an inconsistent system would be inaccurate (2H 0 seconds = OH 7 seconds).

Now debate my point, because the answer "says who?" doesn't work as I've explained my logic.

 

[aronpm]

Why does an approximate model (which was only specified for a few values) need to apply for ALL values?

I suppose meteorologists should get new models because their predictive models don't work very well on long-range forecasts.

 

[MichaelP.]

Why does an approximate model (which was only specified for a few values) need to apply for ALL values?

So in your original post, you aren't saying that the pattern continues. You think there is some barrier between OH 17 and OH 18 that doesn't exist between 2H 10 and 2H 11, so the pattern would stop. Is that correct?