Rune
Premium Member
I think sup20.How shall I vote?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think sup20.How shall I vote?
Let me explain the problem with this:"...if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task"
You need to understand that if you do physical effort, your body takes time to recover. If you go down the gym and lift weights, you will ache for a couple of days, during which time you won't be able to train, or it will be ineffective, so you rest, and then return to the gym. This puts a limit on how quickly you can build up your muscles - you can't just go down the gym 3 times a day and build up muscles 6 times faster than someone who goes once every 2 days. This applies to 'speed-training' for cube solving. If you do a load of intensive fast solving, you need time to recover, during that time, you will be slower, your arms/fingers will be tired. This problem gets worse the older you get. You tire earlier, you take longer to recover, so you can't re-train again. This factor puts a limit on what training can achieve.
If a 60-year-old man did the same training regime as Usain Bolt, he wouldn't be as fast as Usain, he wouldn't even be able to get out of bed the next day, and would probably still be limping 3 weeks later.
And then the mental slowness issue: it's not 'unavoidable', but the harsh reality is that brains change as you age, and apparent slowness is one of those changes.
But when I say "anyone" in the concept of this thread I mean anyone who is not too young (I doubt a 5-year old could be sub-10) or too old (I also doubt that 90+ year old could be sub-10) or mentally or physically somehow handicapped.
Let me explain the problem with this:"...if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task"
You need to understand that if you do physical effort, your body takes time to recover. If you go down the gym and lift weights, you will ache for a couple of days, during which time you won't be able to train, or it will be ineffective, so you rest, and then return to the gym. This puts a limit on how quickly you can build up your muscles - you can't just go down the gym 3 times a day and build up muscles 6 times faster than someone who goes once every 2 days. This applies to 'speed-training' for cube solving. If you do a load of intensive fast solving, you need time to recover, during that time, you will be slower, your arms/fingers will be tired. This problem gets worse the older you get. You tire earlier, you take longer to recover, so you can't re-train again. This factor puts a limit on what training can achieve.
If a 60-year-old man did the same training regime as Usain Bolt, he wouldn't be as fast as Usain, he wouldn't even be able to get out of bed the next day, and would probably still be limping 3 weeks later.
And then the mental slowness issue: it's not 'unavoidable', but the harsh reality is that brains change as you age, and apparent slowness is one of those changes.
I can read.
I think your question is just too vague. "Not too old" is meaningless. And specifically eliminating 90+ year olds isn't enough. Try limiting your age range to "12 - 26 year old" and you might get support for your sub-10 idea.
You youngsters just don't get it. You have NO idea about tiredness, warming up, and aging. Listen to an old guy. I read that post and laughed, it's so clear you're probably still a teenager. Stuff like "fine after a 15 minute break". Try changing that to "fine after 12 hours". Sure, back in 1981, I could (and often did) do 5 hours solving in a day, and do it again the next day. Now, a couple of hours leaves me aching. And trust me, "moving your fingers around very quickly for a long time" will absolutely cause "muscle soreness", that's just biology.
I said sub-15, you don't need super great tps, great alg sets, or great cubes, i.e. it was possible on Rubik's brands in ~2005 when there was pretty much nothing but Fridrich, Petrus, and Roux. I think getting faster than that takes a certain neuroplasticity and free time, things that will have significantly diminished after you're 30 and ~24 respectively.
Shouldn't there be some statistical way to at least partially answer this using the WCA database?
As a keen cyclist, I do read some stuff on the interweb about training methods, recovery techniques, that kind of thing. And doing lots of repetitions at a low-ish intensity is a significant contributor to muscle fatigue. It's a lot to do with waste product accumulation in the muscle, rather than lack of 'fuel' to power the muscle. And there is the phenomenon of nerve fatigue, too, they wear out, and lose ability to trigger muscles in a controlled manner.
A good 'training' technique is to mix up your training, do a bit of strength, a bit of speed, a bit of agility, some skill practice etc, so there's time for recovery, and thus improvements from that training. So for speedsolving, you could have a 'spam the TPS' session, an extended session of steadier pace solves, a slow and thoughtful session analysing technique improvement, and a pure mind session learning new algorithms/moves.
One 'recovery' technique that is considered worthwhile is post-exercise massage. No doubt Chris Froome has no trouble getting a full body massage after a cycle through the French mountains. But for us amateurs and our hobby, a self-administered forearms/hands massage might actually be practical.
I realise it might seem a bit overboard applying 'elite sportsman' methods to solving a plastic puzzle, but the principle is the same, and I see no reason why it shouldn't also work for young solvers as well as old 'uns.
So I've been thinking about this again for the last few days and the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that the majority of cubers have the potential to be sub-10. There's around 240 people with an official sub-10 average. Now, assuming most people that are sub-10 go to comps and that most of them would be able to get a sub-10 average in at least one comp, I'd estimate that there's around 400-500 cubers in total that have achieved sub-10. It could be more, but definitely not more than 1000.
Yet, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of cubers who take 3x3 very seriously and aim to constantly improve their times. Nobody can really know what the average cuber's potential is, but so far it doesn't look like it'd be sub-10, let alone sub-8 which 24% percent of people have voted on in the poll.
Ask yourself this how many of those "serious" 3x3 solvers have put in the hours that the people who are sub 10 have? Faz isnt the best by mistake that guy has put more time into this than anyone if people are willing to put in the time they can achieve sub 10
Ask yourself this how many of those "serious" 3x3 solvers have put in the hours that the people who are sub 10 have? Faz isnt the best by mistake that guy has put more time into this than anyone if people are willing to put in the time they can achieve sub 10
So I've been thinking about this again for the last few days and the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that the majority of cubers have the potential to be sub-10. There's around 240 people with an official sub-10 average. Now, assuming most people that are sub-10 go to comps and that most of them would be able to get a sub-10 average in at least one comp, I'd estimate that there's around 400-500 cubers in total that have achieved sub-10. It could be more, but definitely not more than 1000.
Yet, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of cubers who take 3x3 very seriously and aim to constantly improve their times. Nobody can really know what the average cuber's potential is, but so far it doesn't look like it'd be sub-10, let alone sub-8 which 24% percent of people have voted on in the poll.