sorted table with time length of singles and averages of official events

[Deleted member 36445]

2023.03.27

​	SINGLE​	​	​	AVG5​	​
​	event​	single​	​	event​	avg5​
1​	2x2​	0.47​	1​	2x2​	1.01​
2​	pyra​	0.75​	2​	skewb​	1.56​
3​	skewb​	0.81​	3​	pyra​	1.66​
4​	clock​	2.77​	4​	clock​	3.56​
5​	3x3​	3.47​	5​	3x3​	4.69​
6​	square1​	3.87​	6​	square1​	5.02​
7​	oh​	6.2​	7​	oh​	8.65​
8​	3bld​	12.78​	8​	3bld​	15.24​
9​	4x4​	16.79​	9​	4x4​	19.38​
10​	mega​	24.92​	10​	mega​	28.56​
11​	5x5​	33.02​	11​	5x5​	37​
12​	4bld​	51.96​	12​	4bld​	01:08.36​
13​	6x6​	59.74​	13​	6x6​	01:08.56​
14​	7x7​	01:35.68​	14​	7x7​	01:42.12​
15​	5bld​	02:21.62​	15​	5bld​	02:27.63​

(for single, pyra comes before skewb. for avg skewb comes before pyra)

these are the other two events, that take 1 hour max to complete each to reach high level

multi​	57:47​	​
fmc​	16​	21​

 

[Running for cube]

I don't think that's an insult, I think that this is acknowledging how good @abunickabhi is at cubing. Also this is not a measure of hardness or easiness, that is relative to your own opinion, this is the complexity and length of events.

 

[ProStar]

I appreciate the reference, but I don't think speed of puzzle determines how difficult it is. I'd argue Square-1 is far more difficult to learn than 4x4, especially for someone who already knows how to solve a 3x3. And 6x6 is certainly easier than 4BLD. There is probably a general rule of thumb that the longer it takes, the more difficult it is, but applying it broadly gives pretty inaccurate results imo. It may be better to compare the average first result in an event for someone, as then something like 4 or 5 BLD would likely take far longer than 6x6 or 7x7. I still imagine that would be pretty inaccurate though

 

[Deleted member 36445]

I appreciate the reference, but I don't think speed of puzzle determines how difficult it is. I'd argue Square-1 is far more difficult to learn than 4x4, especially for someone who already knows how to solve a 3x3. And 6x6 is certainly easier than 4BLD. There is probably a general rule of thumb that the longer it takes, the more difficult it is, but applying it broadly gives pretty inaccurate results imo. It may be better to compare the average first result in an event for someone, as then something like 4 or 5 BLD would likely take far longer than 6x6 or 7x7. I still imagine that would be pretty inaccurate though

I think you're right.
I let the table there for reference tho and edited the original post