Too fast too soon?

[JL58]

I think the discrepancy of time to reach sub 20 is really driven by ethics.

What happens is that some people just try to hide their game before going to competition. Everyone can reach sub 20 in a few (2 at most 3) months. I also think that some people here are the worse hypocritical I've met. Look at Carson. If you listen to him his "claimed" times are even slower than mine. I thought I was the most skilled manipulator by claiming averages in the 30s after 2.5 years of effort, but this wicked character manages to fool everyone with his 40s after years of training. Give me a break... And he is not the worst one. I find this extremely deceiving and dishonest. I don't think people should be allowed to be more dishonest than me.
:fp

 

[Neutrals01]

I nvr really played 3x3 much..it took me around 5 months to reach sub 25...and I am not sub 20 yet till now...it is already one and a half year of cubing from the day I started...I nvr care to learn anything new for 3x3..but my times still improved even without practicing..I wonder why..

I know it is possible to break into the sub 20 barrier if I just put a little effort in learning new things on 3x3...but well..I already lost interest in it =P

 

[jms_gears1]

honestly ive been practicing like crazy the past couple of months, and especially after my first comp. i still after.... lets say 8 months cant get sub 30 consistently, i dont know why, however i do get a crap load of sub-30 solves i sometimes find a way to work by way back to like 34 seconds....

 

[Rikane]

^ Me too, but that's because we're awesome.
Two years, two methods, neither of them sub-20.

 

[riffz]

For example, if you have no god-given skill at all, but you practice 3+ hours a day and you've been cubing for, say, a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you average ~30. But if you do have skill, you practice for less than 45 minutes a day, and you have been cubing for a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you're even better than the guy who practices 3 hours a day.

I would disagree. I don't believe in the notion that people have "natural" skill at things. If someone if good at something, it's because he put in hard work and practice, not because he has some god-given talent.

Of course, we all have different bodies. Some of us are naturally bigger and stronger than others, while others of us are naturally smaller and weaker. Likewise, some people are more intelligent than others, or might be a bit more adept at certain mental tasks. Maybe someone is born with a body thats great for playing football, but that guy is still going to suck at football unless he practices hard. In the same way, if someone wants to become a world class musician, they are probably working at it for hours upon hours for most of their life.

I'm not a great cuber, but I don't make any excuses for myself. I know that the reason I'm not good is because I don't put in the amount of practice that it takes to become good.

How can you not believe that people have natural talents? Its what makes certain individuals better at tasks than others when the same amount of effort and coaching is applied. I passed grade 12 Calculus with a 90% and never did a single homework question, while my friend did tons of homework and pulled a 70%. So, not meaning to brag, but I am NATURALLY better at Calculus than he is.

 

[cmhardw]

How can you not believe that people have natural talents? Its what makes certain individuals better at tasks than others when the same amount of effort and coaching is applied. I passed grade 12 Calculus with a 90% and never did a single homework question, while my friend did tons of homework and pulled a 70%. So, not meaning to brag, but I am NATURALLY better at Calculus than he is.

False. Perhaps you have a propensity to learn things more quickly than your friend. Or perhaps you have a stronger math foundation, allowing you to learn new topics more thoroughly than he does. There are so many factors that come into play for something so specific such as learning calculus, in a classroom environment, during the short span of one semester, given the somewhat different mathematical backgrounds and foundations you both would have, that it makes almost no sense at all to say you have a natural ability in calculus and that your friend has a lack of this ability.

Also, just because the same effort and coaching is applied doesn't mean the two people start at the same point, with the same backgrounds. Hard work, dedication, and passion, can more than overtake the "ability" of someone with natural talent if the person of natural talent does not have the same level of motivation.

I don't think cubing is anywhere near the point where true natural ability is the determining factor over all forms of effort and training. I don't even think we'll come close to even starting to approach this point until a large number of people cube as their career, and are paid to do nothing other than train their skills for competition.

It's not that I don't believe that people have natural talents for certain things, they do. I just don't think "natural ability" matters in cubing to any reasonably measurable extent. Perhaps in the Olympics for the 100m dash it matters much more so. However, for cubing we haven't begun to even get close to this level of skill being required to be at the very top levels of world class skill. The people who are world class are world class because they work hard to be at that level.

Chris

 

[miniGOINGS]

^ Me too, but that's because we're awesome.
Two years, two methods, neither of them sub-20.

That's what happens to us Roux's...