Talk:List of Unofficial World Records
Tymon Kolasinski's 4x4 time
The general consensus seems to be that Tymon Kolasinski accidentally executed a 3bld scramble on a 4x4. "L2 R2 D2 U' B2 D2 L2 F2 L2 F2 D R2 L' B' U' B' L2 U2 F2 L2 R2 Rw2 Uw'" is not a scramble that cstimer.net would ever give out for 4x4. Please do not add Tymon's 10.86 as a 4x4 UWR. If you wish to discuss this, please do so here and not in the article. Dancing jules (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
LMFAO who said he used a 3bld scramble, he said he checked it and it was legit. Don't say "the general consensus seems to be", when its just your opinion, im gonna add this time back until you stop.
Have you seen the facebook discussion? It's impossible. He may be lying, he may be in denial, but it IS IMPOSSIBLE! Dancing jules (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I have seen the discussion. Again, he literally checked it. It isn't impossible.
Although the creator of cstimer did say it is technically possible tomgive out the scramble, I think removing the column was the best course of action, just like 3x3 single years ago. Galaxy
Can we stop accepting UWRs that have no video footage attached?
I think it's fine if the person is trusted, like Max Park for example. But when it's a random person who claims an UWR, for all we know, they could've just made up their time. Of course, we could just trust the person, but I do not believe trusting is enough. There must be verification and some form of evidence (preferably by video) in order for these solves to have validity. Sure, it's not like there are any WCA regulations or guidelines in place for UWRs, but isn't the most important and obvious thing about claiming timed solves is proof that it actually happened? Imagine if you had the power to submit times solves to your WCA profile without proof. This is comparable to what the UWR page is here.
I think a solution to this issue would be to try an approach similar to what cubers.io has been doing for a while. Where moderators (or even community members!) ask someone who wishes to claim an UWR for verification/evidence of their result. Should the person not have any video of the result, they can be asked to record a solve that would be considered as 'close enough' to their UWR to gain their trust. For instance, if a person claims to have a 30 second 4x4 PB single but did not film it, they could just record a 40 second average of 5, for example, and it would be enough for anyone to believe that their 30 second single is legit. This approach can easily be implemented, by making a thread on the forums and allowing only moderators to have permission to edit this page. Only when the UWR is validated it may be added to the page.
Thanks for reading, and I hope someone considers my idea
- Nice idea, but I think it would kinda be a hassle to implement, I'm not a mod so take what I said with a grain of salt. - Just a cuber
- I agree, it's a great idea, but we would need people who are willing to moderate the page all the time, which is definitely a lot of work. If anyone really wants to do this, you could PM pjk about it on the forums (since I think that's he's most active on there) and ask him for permission (mainly admin rights for protecting the page) to do this. - RedstoneTim (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I could not agree more, it's a terrible method of adding UWR's to the leaderboard. - AnonJon (talk) 11:19:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
3x3 UWR Single
- Saw that the UWR single was removed despite it being by a reputable cuber, Fahmi Aulia Rachman. Timing is pretty convenient too since he just lowered it again with a 2.36. Is UWR single not going to be tracked completely anymore or is the 2.36 and Fahmi's previous results suspicious to some. -SciKE
3x3 single was removed in the past and I didn't realise it was added back until I saw your update. I don't know Fahmi so I can't comment on the legitimacy of his times. He only has an official 8 second average but that was in 2019. There are a few reasons why we don't track 3x3 single but the major reason is that it's both completely unverifiable and highly valuable. There is a large incentive for any random cuber to make claims of "the luckiest solve in my life", where they miraculously skipped half the solve and broke the single record. So unless we have undeniable video evidence or the time comes from a *very short* list of trusted names, I don't think 3x3 single should be listed on this Wiki page. There is a spreadsheet of all sub-3 singles, including the most dubious claims, floating around somewhere if you're into reading fake times.
Billabob (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
2x2x4 UWR
Earlier today, my 2x2x4 UWR of 4.27 has been broken by someone else with a 3.76. Props to the guy who broke it but i cant seem o find any footage so if anyone can show any "proof" that person broke it, I would be really happy. I ain't saying L don't believe it, I would just believe it more if I found any footage of it. I also need to know if that person used a bandaged 4x4 because I used an actual Rubik's Brand for my UWR. Anyways this is all I need so please find an answer if you can. - [LukasCubs]
- After clearing up your vandalism (I hope you didn't do it on purpose, please don't repeat that), I've reverted the current 2x2x4 UWR back to yours as you've supplied video evidence. Usually, I wouldn't do this since I don't actively moderate this page and a video isn't required, but considering that User:Ccubing's account doesn't have any at all and the new record only contains name and time, I've changed it back. This doesn't mean that I don't believe User:Ccubing's record is real, I just want to ensure it's not someone who created an account, added a record and then never replies back, especially because we can't tell if the correct puzzle was used. So in case you read this, User:Ccubing, just answer User:LukasCubes' question here and I'll add your record back. In the meantime, User:LukasCubes' record will be the one displayed on the page. - RedstoneTim (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Yo it's LukasCubes. I changed it back becaue I already told like 50 people my record has been broken so ims try to break it again on camera. I did getlike a 4.22 and a 4.09 off cam but that isnt a 3.76. Anyways if you are this, im gonna try to break it again. In the meantime, ima keep it to Zach Nyarko's WR.
Hey it is LukasCubes again. I got my WR back so this topic is pretty much over until somebody breaks it again (probably Zach Nyarko). Even though I was live on facebook and the is linked, PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT!
Guess what, I (LukasCubes) am back for this topic. For the few hours Zach Nyarko had it, he beat my UWR so I would just like to congradulate him. I will let him keep the Ao5 and Ao12 but im taking the single. Again congrats on breaking it AGAIN its nice to have some compitition with stupidly lucky scrambles we both seem to get (mstly me) but Zach if you are reading this, CONGRATS!
Lego Cube
The "Lego Cube" is just the same as 3x3 but with lego tiles, right? In that case there shouldn't be a category for it, but i don't know if I'm missing something about the puzzle
I'm the one who put it there, so I'm biased. But it's under the "Variations of 3x3" section, which has different sized cubes and other challenges. I would say it's definitely more different to solve than a smaller 3x3.
Edit: I'm Frozen Cuber, the most recent WB holder for this event and yes, I do agree with the previous WB holder that the puzzle is indeed a lot harder to speedsolve in comparison to a regular 3x3, since the extended and bumpy times of the Lego Cube would make it significantly harder to turn fast, also owing to the fact that that its corner-cutting is almost non-existent due to the presence of the tiles, making solving times approximately 1.5x slower than on a regular 3x3.
2x2-9x9 Relay
Hey, so I deleted the time from Michał Halczuk for the 2x2-9x9 relay. I did some searching and can't find any posts or videos of it, and it seems weird that he would have gotten the exact same time as Max Park down to the hundredth of a second. Ganc says Michal got it first. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to put it back, but I can only find Max's relay, which seems to be the record.
Is Rubik's Magic and Mini Rubik's Magic BLD UWR necessary?
Well yeah does Rubik's Magic, and Mini Rubik's Magic Blindfolded UWR necessary?
Since Rubik's Magic solve always the same and it just from memorization which mean even though you solve it blindfolded it just the same
---
I agree they're fundamentally the same solve. We're going to be revamping the UWR page and rolling out new notability rules because of the spam issue so give it a few days.
Cheers Billabob (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Does Jim Steenvoorden 0.04 2x2 UWR legit?
There is no video, recontruction and scramble to really prove it, and if he get 0.04 with 4 move solution he will need 100 TPS
- User:Reirto-RRNF (Talk)
---
Also the 0.51 2x2 OH UWR from the same guy
- User:Reirto-RRNF (Talk)
Yeah it's obviously fake. This page doesn't include 2x2 single either way, so I'll remove it. The OH could be real but I'll revert it since there's no proof and judging by the 0.04 this person can't be trusted. He's also removed every average bigger than Ao12 which is vandalism. Thanks Over the Board for fixing it
I'll leave the ghost cube records as I can't really comment on them, they seem reasonable but should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. It's a bit weird that his single was also in the Ao5, implying he didn't do many solves but still beat the record
Cheers Billabob (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey guys. It's a while since I visited this page and just realiced that my ghost cube world record single as well as ao5 were broken by someone I never heard of. Since this guy seems to fake times on this page I'd say the ghost cube entrys are fake as well. To break this record you probably have to practice a couple of months as well as designing your own speedcube version of a ghost cube. With standard puzzles it's pretty much impossible.
Greetings TheSeppomania / Sebastian Häfner
YTUWR
Is it a bad idea to add a new "YTUWR" (Youtube unofficial world records tab/place/anything to the unofficial page? I think we could reach the links for videos of the best singles and averages in each official events more easily (2-7, megaminx, etc).
What categories should not be maintained and upheld?
I understand that for very prestigious categories, keeping track and filtering out good from bad is hard to maintain and is often not upheld. But what other categories should be excluded? And for what reason(s)? A concrete guideline or set of guidelines would help distinguish what should be included as a category and what should not. My apologies if there already is a defined ruleset that exists, as I am currently not aware of it.
Also, should we have a 2x2 virtual single category, why or why not?
-Gömba
About the 3x3 stackmat & keyboard
I don't really like the concept of separating the 3x3 WBs into different rows, why was it separated into "3x3 (stackmat)" and "3x3 (keyboard & others)" and it doesn't make much sense to me because other WCA puzzles' WB aren't separated into stackmat vs keyboard rows. Also it doesn't matter whether you did in on stackmat timer or phone timer or keyboard or whatever you used to timed on, if it's the fastest time in the world (unofficially) then it counts as WB. My request is that I wanna remove the difference between stackmat & keyboard timing WBs because it's pretty much useless. - AxelEvaCuber
Don't remove them. Years ago keyboard times were the only ones tracked here because as you said it's always going to be the fastest option. However it is very valuable to track the best times achieved at home *under competition conditions*, to allow for fairer and more realistic comparison. Using keyboard and starting with the puzzle already in your hands gives a huge advantage.
As for why this is only the case for 3x3: it's the only puzzle where people care enough about the difference, besides maybe 2x2.
As an aside please sign your comments on Talk pages, you can do this with four tildes (~).
Billabob (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Matty Hiroto Inaba's 2x2-4x4 Relay
This morning matty got a uwr for 2-4 relay, but it used a transparent 2x2 and 3x3. Do normal WCA puzzle rules apply here? W9T (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Guildford Challenges should change
Due to the changes of the WCA in the official list of events, I consider that New Guildford events must be added. The time needed for doing an FTO is not close to the one needed for a clock.
Mi proposal would be to just add New Guildford Challenge changing clock with FTO, and in July 2027 (when clock will be finally removed) rename de events:
Guildford → Old Guildford
New Guildford → Guildford
During this period, if the WCA decides not to remove clock (which I hope), to remove other events or to add new ones, New Guildford Challenges would be updated to fit those, removing the records of the "Transition Guildford Challenges".
Helllo, can you not disturb the Guildford challenges? I hate the idea of old and new Guildford challenges because when feet was removed there's no such thing as old and new Guildford challenges people just started doing it but without feet and get WB so they get added here. Plus it's still early we still don't know whether the WCA will actually remove clock as an event.
I see your point. Removing what I have called the "Old Guildford Challenges" could be better than having lots of different variations of the same event.
However, I think that, for the moment, having both is the better option. People will start doing Guildford Challenges without Clock and with FTO, and they will add them here regardless of what we decide. If we remove them now, someone else will probably come back in a week and add them again. (I've noticed that I wasn't the first person to make this change.) We are currently in a transition period, so both formats will probably be practiced. Having two separate sections for them would therefore be less messy.
Regarding your other point, I don't think this situation is comparable to the removal of Feet. If it were simply a matter of removing an event, the solution would be to keep the relay without that category, and the times would naturally improve. However, in this case, one category is being replaced by a slower one, so beating the existing times would be much more difficult.
I would say that the best option we have is to keep both variations for now. Then, once the WCA makes a final decision, the "Old Guildford Challenges" can be removed. If, in the meantime, the WCA decides to remove another event, add more events, or not remove Clock (which I hope), we can update it accordingly. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the WCA will be making any decisions about this in the near future.
To sum up, my new proposal is to keep both versions for now during this transition period, and once the final decision has been made, remove the "Old Guildford Challenges".
Would you (and other readers) agree with something like this? I think that this is a better solution than just having one Guldford Challenge, and making people battle about the categories involved in it.
@TaxMax yes, I agree this is probably the best way to handle this for now :). It's just important to wait until clock gets officially removed (if it does) before removing the old Guildford Challenges.
Paul Ducruet, 2 July 2026
MO3 in fast events
Currently there are many MO3 in what we could consider fast events (ex: Mirror 2x2, with a time of 2.28).
This doesn't add anything to the page, I consider it is just spamming WB.
For this reason I consider that any category with a WB under 30 seconds shouldn't have a MO3.
TaxMas 12:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea! I also think that the ao25s and ao50s are just “spamming WB” as well. There is no way that someone could have an insanely good ao50 but a bad ao100, since there is almost no luck involved in ao50s. The only reasonable explanation for an ao50 in my eyes is when you don't have enough solves for an ao100. Personally, I think they should be removed. Still, keeping singles, ao5, ao12 and ao100 or even ao1000 is fine.
Paul Ducruet, 1 July 2026
So, would everyone agree in something like this (if not, just say it here):
•Events where single < 30seg: single, ao5, ao12, ao100 and ao1000
•Events where single > 30seg: single, mo3, ao5, ao12, ao100 and ao1000
•If the event single is very near to that barrier, it is let to moderators discretion.
•If there isn't any ao100, an ao50 could be put instead.
TaxMas 14:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
One of my friends, who has some mo3 in short events and ao50 WB, disagrees. He does not want other people to remove his records. He thinks it should be a moderator decision. So as long as there is no written rule that says there should be no mo3 for short events and ao50 UWR, he will add them back if they get removed.
I would like to know if there are moderators for this page, and if so, what they think about this.
If there is no moderator answering, maybe a viable solution would be to remove the mo3 (short events) and ao50 UWR, and then let people who care a lot about their UWR add them back themselves. Just not insisting on the fact that they should be banned completely.
Paul Ducruet, 2 July 2026
As a recommendation to your friend, I would suggest that he read this conversation and share his opinion here. That way, he would be able to defend his point more effectively.
Going back to the issue, there may be cases where MO3 or AO50 could be interesting or beneficial, even for fast events. In that sense, clarifying which events he actually practices could make the decision easier. However, speaking in general, having multiple averages for the same puzzle does not add much to the page; it only makes it longer with redundant records. It also makes the page look like a record-farming page.
For example, are these records really necessary?
- 4x4 Clock MO3 is 23.07, while the AO5 is 23.95.
- 2x2 Mirror MO3 is 2.28.
- Pyramorphix MO3 is 0.88, while the AO5 is 0.89. (I don't know how he managed to beat the 2x2 WR on Pyramorphix.)
- Every AO50 that Liam Kay Yi has accumulated in Shape Mods.
To me, this just looks like, "I want as many records as possible across as many events as possible," without considering whether those records actually add any value to the page. If they were at least from competitive events, that would be a different story, but they aren't.
Regarding what your friend said, if we, as a community, decide to remove these records and establish a rule stating that fast events should not have MO3, then it doesn't seem fair for your friend to add them back simply because he wants to. I removed one of my own UWRs because I agreed that MO3 didn't make sense for Floppy Cube, and I was willing to make that small sacrifice to help make the page cleaner and more consistent.
Furthermore, if he can add an MO3 to an event and claim another record, what is stopping me from doing the same with MO5, AO25, or AO60? Eventually, this page will become nothing more than a collection of every possible average that can be calculated from the same event.
I think we should all be asking ourselves whether the record we are about to add actually contributes something meaningful to the community. If it doesn't, then perhaps it's better to simply keep that record to yourself.
TaxMas 2 July 2026
I was able to speak with my friend about this, and he told me that he does not want to spend a lot of time arguing about this since "it's only unofficial events anyways". I think in general, there is not much communication on this page, and I would like more people to share their opinions and talk about their plans before taking important modifications to this page.
For example, personally, I liked the way TaxMas organized this page, and a lot of people I spoke with on Discord agreed and were thankful to him. Surely, there were some mistakes, and it's great to rectify those. But I don't like that people removed all the work he put in because they dislike it. I would have preferred if at least they had asked what other people think about it, or at least said it a few days before that they were going to do it.
Hopefully, you understand what I mean.
Paul Ducruet, 7 July 2026
Removing closed issues
I'm wondering if we should remove closed/solved issues from this page. Examples: 2x2x4 WR, Mini Magic and Magic BLD, ...
Currently they don't serve a porpouse.
Also, making a sum-up for other issues, like if video evidence is necessary, would make this page look more clean and well-maintained.
If a moderator gives me de OK I would do it whenever I have time. (I don't know if there are official moderators, pls clarify that)
TaxMas (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Reorganaising this page
I am currently reorganaising this page. Previously, it was a nightmare to find the puzzle you wanted. For example, master pyraminx was in "Others" and not in "Minxes", mirror cubes didn't have their own part, similar cubes (dino, redi, mosaic) where sepparated... There wasn't any order, cubes where being put randomly.
I have been working on this page for hours (and I haven't finished yet). I have put similar cubes together (like redi and dino), and separate different cubes in different classifications.
There could be many dissagrees about the decisions I have made. So please, before undoing any changes, please, let me know here and we will try to come up with a solution.
