• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Poll] Can anyone be sub-10?

What is the average cuber capable of achieving in his lifetime?

  • Sub-8

    Votes: 33 21.4%
  • Sub-9

    Votes: 9 5.8%
  • Sub-10

    Votes: 30 19.5%
  • Sub-11

    Votes: 7 4.5%
  • Sub-12

    Votes: 18 11.7%
  • Sub-13

    Votes: 9 5.8%
  • Sub-14

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Sub-15

    Votes: 28 18.2%
  • Sub-17

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Sub-20

    Votes: 16 10.4%

  • Total voters
    154
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.

Please read my previous post again. I said:
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.

So anyone who is not too young not too old and healthy both physically and mentally can (IMO) practise solving rubiks cube enough to be sub-10
 
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.
 
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.

There are some problems with your analogy. Yes, there is a certain optimal amount of exercise you will need to do in order to develop your muscles as fast as possible. If you do a lot less than that your progress is going to be slower, if you do more, you're overtraining and it will be detrimental to muscle gain. But speedcubing revolves mostly around developing a skill and has very little to do with muscles and muscle recovery. If I go and practice my OLL and PLL algs for 10 hours at maximum tps, I might be worn out the next day and my tps will probably be a little slower the next day. So I'd say this could apply to extremes, but not to most people. There's also a chance that might not even be the case since 8 hours of sleep is plenty of time for my fingers to recover but we're talking about extremes here so there's no point in discussing this.

Muscle soreness only occurs with very hard strenuous exercise. Moving your fingers around very quickly for a long time doesn't really fall into that category. Now, it is true that after a couple hours of cubing your fingers will get tired (not sore) but they'll probably be fine after just a 15-30 minute break. If I aimed to practice, let's say, 4 hours a day I could split it into eight 30 minute sessions and I probably wouldn't have any problems with tiredness at all. And it definitely wouldn't have any effect on my solves the next day. My final point is that, a person that practices 3-4 hours a day will almost always make better progress than a person that practices less than an hour day, since recovery is not really an issue with practicing speedcubing. I know Feliks rarely practices more than an hour a day, but how much practice is actually neccessary for optimal results is another topic.
 
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 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.

Well discussing literally anyone is also just stupid. Because obviously a guy who has 1 month to live and who has never solved a cube before can't become sub-10. So obviously we need some limits to "anyone"...

So let's say that anyone who is under 40 (or maybe 35 or something. I dunno) who is mentally and physically healthy can become sub-10 if he/she is willing to put enough effort to it.
 
"under 40 , or maybe 35 or something. I dunno."
Now you're getting a bit nearer, my figure of 26 years old was perhaps a little cautious, but I don't think more than 30 y.o as an upper limit is unrealistic. The sad truth is age-related decline does start early, and it's especially noticeable for activities involving great speed, dexterity, sharp reactions.
I can't use my own cubing experiences as an example, because finger-tricks basically didn't exist in the 1980's/90's, so the idea of turning at 8,10 12 TPS that you would need for these 10 sec solves, was ridiculous. I could do 5 TPS on some easier move sequences, I remember.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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'm still not convinced that cubing can cause actual muscle soreness. Your fingers are controlled by muscles from your forearm and the reason I said moving your fingers around very quickly doesn't fall into the the category of strenuous exercise is because your forearms are capable of performing much harder tasks than cubing, so a more accurate description of your "muscle soreness" would probably be tendon and joint pain/tiredness. A similar comparison with your calf muscles would be running a marathon vs. doing some sort of heavy resistance training for your calves.

But, I definitely agree that age does catch up with you eventually, especially if you've been doing a certain activity for a really long time. My poll question was referring to the average cuber and most cubers usually fall into the 10-30 age demographic. Now, if we're discussing whether anyone can be sub-10, of course there will be people with certain limitations stopping them from achieveing sub-10.
 
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?

Oh hay, Thrawst! :)
I guess my real question was: What can the average cuber (that usually fits into the young demographic) achieve provided he has all the hardware (good cubes) and "software" (i.e. knowledge of good algs, finger-trick execution, proper lookahead and other techniques that are needed to achieve their desired times) and the actual dedication to get as fast as possible?
 
I very much doubt I could ever get sub 10 no matter how much practice time I get. Sub 15 maybe. As it is I struggle to get sub 30s as have almost no dedicated practice time.
 
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.
 
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.

Ayyyyy, I'm also a pretty serious cyclist too!

I don't think it's overboard at all, I routinely use cycling training ideas with cubing.
There's TONS of overlap and concepts and stuff.

I think there's a lot of credence in training cubing like athletic sports.
 
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.
 
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

Do you know all of that for a fact? There is such a thing as talent in pretty much all activities. Do you think Usain Bolt has just spent more time running than everyone else and we could all run 100 mts in < 10 sec?
 
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

Yes, I doubt many people do this much daily practice. Also, he is already in university, imagine how much he would have practiced before.
 
I have not practiced seriously in many years, I'm far too old for this sport, I haven't learned an alg in several years, and I have no natural talent for cubing whatsoever. I can still, at home, get a sub 13 average of 12 sometimes. I don't know what the limit is, but it's lower than that, for sure.
 
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.

How many of those thousands of cubers do you think have practised 3x3 speedsolve for 10000 hours or more?

That is your answer. Only a small fraction of cubers has the passion to put in enough work and practise hours to get sub-10
 
Back
Top