# Dan Dares



## Ron (Jun 8, 2009)

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...S__Reporter_speaks_of_Rubik_s_Cube_challenge/


----------



## qqwref (Jun 8, 2009)

Interesting article, Ron. I am surprised that he couldn't find a better tutorial... I think the good ones on Youtube can easily teach someone to solve the Cube within a few days.

I also think it is somewhat funny that they think Jordan Burns is an expert just because he can solve the 5x5. He still uses LBL


----------



## Rama (Jun 8, 2009)

''Rubik's geeks appear to have for using sexual innuendoes when describing their cubes''.

LOL


----------



## 04mucklowd (Jun 8, 2009)

Akkers..****


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 8, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Interesting article, Ron. I am surprised that he couldn't find a better tutorial... I think the good ones on Youtube can easily teach someone to solve the Cube within a few days.
> 
> I also think it is somewhat funny that they think Jordan Burns is an expert just because he can solve the 5x5. He still uses LBL


Almost all "non-cubers" would consider someone that can solve a 5x5x5 as an expert on solving the cube. I don't think that is funny. I think that is realistic, but also sad.

We don't have real standards for considering someone an expert. Some people would consider me an expert because I can solve the cube with many different methods, including blind, and because of my FMC skills. Others would consider me a beginner because I don't even know PLL.

This Dan simply failed because of a bad teacher or lack of will from himself.

After reading the topic title I was hoping for Dares (challenges) from either Dan Brown or Dan Harris or Dan Cohen


----------



## qqwref (Jun 8, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Almost all "non-cubers" would consider someone that can solve a 5x5x5 as an expert on solving the cube. I don't think that is funny. I think that is realistic, but also sad.
> 
> We don't have real standards for considering someone an expert. Some people would consider me an expert because I can solve the cube with many different methods, including blind, and because of my FMC skills. Others would consider me a beginner because I don't even know PLL.



Just knowing how to solve a 5x5 might make you leaps and bounds above a non-cuber, but for a cuber to know how to solve a 5x5 is about as impressive as for a runner to be able to run two or three miles. Maybe that is impressive to people like me who don't run and are not at all in shape, but those people shouldn't be counted because their perception is biased by having no clue about the subject. So while being able to solve a 5x5 might make someone more impressive than the average 3x3-only solver, it wasn't much help given that they wanted a teacher. It's possible that Dan didn't have the determination to learn to cube in a few days, but I wouldn't really be surprised if it was the 'expert''s fault for being bad at explaining, given that he still uses pure LBL.

Anyway, you may not be the best at speedsolving, but I think you are clearly an expert when it comes to understanding. That's really my criterion for being an expert - someone who is very knowledgeable. Being able to apply the concepts to be fast doesn't factor into it all that much (because at some point it is more about practice and turnspeed than anything else), just like a coach in a sport does not need to still be competitive at it.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree with everything you say Michael. However there are lots of people in the world (I wiould guess billions) that have succesfully run for 2 or 3 miles. Nobody would call someone who did that an expert.
Cubing (especially 5x5x5) is such a rare thing (I would guess thousands) that you will be considered an expert just because you can do it.

The reason I find that sad is because it means that cubing is still extremely unknown.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Jun 8, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> I agree with everything you say Michael. However there are lots of people in the world (I wiould guess billions) that have succesfully run for 2 or 3 miles. Nobody would call someone who did that an expert.
> Cubing (especially 5x5x5) is such a rare thing (I would guess thousands) that you will be considered an expert just because you can do it.
> 
> The reason I find that sad is because it means that cubing is still extremely unknown.



It is growing 
and over time people will will realize that the speed is the key thing


----------



## shelley (Jun 8, 2009)

04mucklowd said:


> and over time people will will realize that the speed is the key thing



Why do you hate FMC?


----------



## Rama (Jun 8, 2009)

shelley said:


> 04mucklowd said:
> 
> 
> > and over time people will will realize that the speed is the key thing
> ...


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 9, 2009)

I practice my 5x5 on the bus and people's reactions have always been the same regardless of how fast I did it..
When I first took like 5minutes, they'd still find it amazing.. Even now when I take about 3 minutes, the only difference they notice is "Woah he's solved it like 4 times!!" It's not really how fast.. People that don't cube tend to think that every scramble is like a different puzzle and you have to be a genius to figure it out - They don't know there's a reduction method and steps etc..

So yes, to normal people.. being able to solve a 5x5 definitely makes you look like an expert, considering most people couldn't solve a 3x3 without taking off the stickers or taking it apart.. Most people tell me "I can't even solve one side of that thing!".. So solving a 5x5 compared to that could be deemed an expertise 

Also -- This Dan guy really fails -- He had weeks to learn it, I'm sure a lot of people here learned how to solve a 3x3 in less than 2-3 weeks, and 3minutes is plenty of time to solve it when you barely know what to do. >_>


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jun 9, 2009)

I wonder if he knows that cubers around the world are laughing at his misunderstanding of a plastic toy


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 9, 2009)

aznmortalx said:


> I wonder if he knows that cubers around the world are laughing at his misunderstanding of a plastic toy



He did seem quite embarrassed .. I'm sure he knows a lot of people think he's not quite smart right now.. While many more others are just saying "I can't solve it either so meh" or something like "I *used* to be able to solve one.." like my mom says rofl.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 9, 2009)

"latest quest - to solve a Rubik's cube within three minutes of the world record."
I loled at that.
He might as well say within 3 minutes, cause he gets a whole 7.08 seconds extra


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 9, 2009)

I thought it was one of our Dan's......
and I loled.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 9, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Others would consider me a beginner because I don't even know PLL.



They would be wrong.



AvGalen said:


> However there are lots of people in the world (I wiould guess billions) that have succesfully run for 2 or 3 miles. Nobody would call someone who did that an expert.



Perhaps 10 miles would be a better analogy? I do not know of any non-runners who have run this far, and I know very few runners who haven't.

This Jordan Burns is clearly not a good teacher. It has never taken me more than a few hours total to teach even the worst learners. Honestly if you can't learn in a day or _at most_ two, then you either are not trying, or you are using a crap tutorial/tutor.


----------



## enigmahack (Jun 9, 2009)

Agreed. 

If you're able to get the basics down, someone SHOULD be able to solve the cube with a little memorization in around 2-3 days (Not super fast, but should be able to solve it... This is for completely non-cubers who haven't ever really figured it out on their own)

I remember when I started, I only knew Sune for OLL (After making the cross on top, which I did intuitively), and basically an A perm, and the Edges only perm (The name escapes me) and it took like 2:30 seconds on average to solve it.

But with basically 3 or 4 algs, I was able to do it in under what this dude's goal was. *shrugs*

I don't see why they weren't able to do it, but I agree - just because you can solve a cube doesn't mean you're an expert at it. 

That's like saying "I can play 2 songs on the piano"; It doesn't mean you're an expert at it.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 9, 2009)

Vault312: Yes, a couple of miles is 1 face, 5 miles is F2L, 10 miles is a full solve, marathon = expert 
enigmahack: Dan could only get the cross. He couldn't get the corners in. All that is needed to get the corners in is the sexy move. Apparantly Dan isn't sexy!



> After a couple of lessons, and a tonne of encouragement, I was capable of completing the cross - but no matter how hard I tried I could not match the corners.


----------



## enigmahack (Jun 9, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> enigmahack: Dan could only get the cross. He couldn't get the corners in. All that is needed to get the corners in is the sexy move. Apparantly Dan isn't sexy!



Ahhh - I didn't realize that he didn't even get THAT far... Wow. 

That's... 
That's special. 

Not sexy at all LOL


----------



## Erik (Jun 15, 2009)

Sorry to bumb this thread but there is a little update.
He PM-ed me on youtube since they plan actively on doing a follow up story on it and this time I'll make sure he goes to the right place to actually be able to solve it. (and to let my name doesn't sound like a certain male organ)


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jun 15, 2009)

Erik said:


> Sorry to bumb this thread but there is a little update.
> He PM-ed me on youtube since they plan actively on doing a follow up story on it and this time I'll make sure he goes to the right place to actually be able to solve it. (and to let my name doesn't sound like a certain male organ)



Ahah... It took me a few minutes, but then I viewed the page again =D Didn't notice that the first time


----------



## beingforitself (Jun 15, 2009)

qqwref said:


> It's possible that Dan didn't have the determination to learn to cube in a few days, but I wouldn't really be surprised if it was the 'expert''s fault for being bad at explaining, given that he still uses pure LBL.



Given that I have successfully taught Arnaud's 3x3x3 beginner's solution to elementary school children with learning disabilities, I would consider it overwhelmingly likely that Dan had an incompetent teacher.


----------

