what's a good way to check how your times on each cube are relative to each other?

[aerocube]

so i know there's already a thread about this,but that thread is old so i was figuring i could do a simpler but less accurate system
with my system,you just divide WR averages by each other,so if you wanted to calculate your ideal 3x3 time you would just multiply your 2x2 time by 4.7
so for me,my ideal 3x3 PB would be 14.805 which probably shows i need to practice 3x3 more,but my 3x3 averages are better than my 2x2 averages so i need to do 2x2 averages more
i didn't do it with singles because some cubes are far more luck based (e.g 2x2,3x3,pyraminx) than others which take longer (e.g 7x7)
any non-BLD time converted to BLD would be pretty unachievable so someone would need to come up with a better way to do that,but this system functions ok and you can check it quickly
if someone has a better idea please share it in the thread,i would like it if there was a very accurate way in which you could convert your times

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

this might work for 3-5, 5-7 and 3-oh for average but singles are random and other events don't really correspond

 

[fex]

There are many factors that are responsible for your solving times. This is to simple to say "multiply 2x2 by 4,7 and you get your ideal 3x3 time".
Just look at 2x2 how different are singles/averages times, sometimes this factor is like 1/3.

 

[kubnintadni]

I would compare the percentage of cubers in that event which you are faster than. So if you're in the 50th percentile in 3x3, but the 75th percentile in 4x4, you are better at 4x4. You could compare singles, ao12s, ao100 or whatever as long as you figure the percentiles from the same stat for everyone involved in the calculation.

Not sure where you would get this data, this would be much more practical for comparing a rating on online-go.com to one on lichess.org, but I can't think of a better method for comparing skill in fundamentally different endeavors. (Though just because I can't think of a better method doesn't mean one doesn't exist, of course.)

 

[Zagros]

I actually did this for myself a few days ago based on my percentile according to the WCA website, like kubnintadni said, my 3x3 average is around 16 so I should have 2x2 ~4.8, 4x4 ~1:03, 5x5 ~1:55, however this method is SKEWED because of the fact that any event besides 3x3, people are less likely to compete in until they are more skilled. So the average skill of a 7x7x7 competitor is higher than that of a 3x3x3 competitor. The difference in skill is much larger if you extend to BLD events. For example, the 50th percentile in 5BLD is mostly people Sub-15 or even Sub-13 on 3x3x3 simply because newer cubers are so much less likely to compete.

 

[aerocube]

I actually did this for myself a few days ago based on my percentile according to the WCA website, like kubnintadni said, my 3x3 average is around 16 so I should have 2x2 ~4.8, 4x4 ~1:03, 5x5 ~1:55, however this method is SKEWED because of the fact that any event besides 3x3, people are less likely to compete in until they are more skilled. So the average skill of a 7x7x7 competitor is higher than that of a 3x3x3 competitor. The difference in skill is much larger if you extend to BLD events. For example, the 50th percentile in 5BLD is mostly people Sub-15 or even Sub-13 on 3x3x3 simply because newer cubers are so much less likely to compete.

yeah there doesn't seem to be one perfect method,basically every method has a problem with it
i suppose the best way is to use a variety of methods and apply it to your time

 

[Thom S.]

I don't knoe if you already are aware, but there is a Website that does this (Maybe edit the link in)
Fun Fact about it. When you put in Maskow back then with his 41/41 WR, he had a negative 3BLD time

 

[pglewis]

Previous art on the subject: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/relative-solve-times-for-2x2x2-7x7x7.47405/

(Maybe worth linking even though you're aware of it)