# What times make you good?



## DavidWoner (Jul 11, 2008)

okay so i know that being sub-30 on 3x3 makes you decent, sub 20 makes you good, sub-15 makes you great, and sub-13 makes you awesome(for official results). but what are these cut-off times for other cubes like 2x2, 4x4, and 5x5? i crunched a few numbers and here is what i came up with:
all data is from http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/ 

let me know if you guys agree with these times

3x3x3:
*44.02%* (1075/2442) of people have an average below *30 sec*, making them *decent*

*16.42%* (402/2442) of people have an average below *20 sec*, making them *good*

*3.357%* (82/2442) of people have an average below *15 sec*, making them *great*

and only *.8600%* (21/2442) of people have an average below *13 sec*, making these select few *awesome*


now if we take those same percentages and translate them to other cubes we get these results:

2x2x2:
*44.02%* (385/964) are below 11.08, so roughly *11 sec* makes you *decent*

*16.42%* (158/964) are below 7.67, so about *sub 8 sec* makes you *good*

*3.357%* (32/964) are below 5.71, so roughly *sub 6 sec* makes you *great*

and *.8600%* (8/964) are below 4.47, so *sub 4.5 sec* makes you *awesome*

the calculations for 4x4 and 5x5 become less accurate due to a smaller number of competitors and the complications created by combined finals. 
but i think the generally agreed upon times for 4x4 are about 
decent: 1:30-2:00
good: 1:15-1:30
great: 1:00-1:15
awesome: sub-1

and for 5x5:
decent: 3:00-4:00
good: 2:15-3:00
great: 1:50-2:15
awesome: sub-1:50

agreed? or not?


----------



## isaacthecuber (Jul 11, 2008)

What I find interesting about these numbers is that the times that make you "Good", are the same qualifying times(excluding the 3x3 by 2 seconds) for the U.S. Open.


----------



## Leviticus (Jul 11, 2008)

Yes i agree. Heres my ratings from 2x2-5x5. Decent, great, good, great. As you can see my 2x2 and 4x4 times need improvement. I need to learn ortega, and actually do an average on 4x4, ahaha  I will be aiming for great on both of those BTW


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 11, 2008)

isaacthecuber said:


> What I find interesting about these numbers is that the times that make you "Good", are the same qualifying times(excluding the 3x3 by 2 seconds) for the U.S. Open.



i noticed that too. the qualifying times for 3x3 are probably faster because there are more entrants.



Leviticus said:


> Yes i agree. Heres my ratings from 2x2-5x5. Decent, great, good, great. As you can see my 2x2 and 4x4 times need improvement. I need to learn ortega, and actually do an average on 4x4, ahaha  I will be aiming for great on both of those BTW



lol, 2-5 i am great, decent, decent/good(low 1:30s), and decent. you should definitely learn ortega. it has the same algs has fridrich, plus 3 more(one of which is R2 F2 R2), and it usually has 2/3 the move count of fridrich. i learned from this site. however I perform the L D' L F2 L' D L' alg as L D' R U2 R' D R'. it is much nicer. ortega is awesome because you can usually predict your OLL and at least half of your PBL. my breakdown is usually 1 sec FL, (sometimes .5 sec recognition), 1-2 OLL, and 2-3.5 second PBL (including rec. and AUFs)

also from your vids I see you switched to 2 at a time edge pairing which I think works best for 4x4. your 1:00.50 solve looked pretty good, if you focused on 4x4 for like a week im sure you could get a great average.


----------



## aznblur (Jul 11, 2008)

Heh, 2-5, I'm awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome. For PBs. 

For average is good, good, great, great.


----------



## Leviticus (Jul 11, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> isaacthecuber said:
> 
> 
> > What I find interesting about these numbers is that the times that make you "Good", are the same qualifying times(excluding the 3x3 by 2 seconds) for the U.S. Open.
> ...




Thanks im glad people enjoy my videos  I shall learn ortega soon  I just need to improve on my 4x4 times too


----------



## Faz (Jul 11, 2008)

levi, don't learn ortega!!!

It is the only thing i am beating you in!!!

Btw, i have a 6.83 average of 12!

This is all related to the 2x2.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm pretty much right on the borderline in most categories.
2x2: decent-good
3x3: decent-good
4x4: sucky-decent
5x5: Not yet


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 11, 2008)

fazrulz said:


> This is all related to the 2x2.



well like i said, the calculations for 4x4 and 5x5 were weird because of less competitors, combined finals etc. so i had to fudge the numbers a little for those.
also, 2x2 was the reason i created this thread/did those calculations, but i figured i should also see what i could find for 4 and 5 as well.



aznblur said:


> Heh, 2-5, I'm awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome. For PBs.
> 
> For average is good, good, great, great.



lol my pb's would go awesome, great, good, decent. i guess i just get worse as the cubes get bigger.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 11, 2008)

Leviticus said:


> Thanks im glad people enjoy my videos  I shall learn ortega soon  I just need to improve on my 4x4 times too



Yeah, don't learn Ortega, learn SS.


----------



## philkt731 (Jul 11, 2008)

Officially (for avgs), I'm aweomse, great, great, decent
Unofficially (for avgs), I'm awesome, great, great, great
yeah, can't wait to do 5x5 at the US Open


----------



## JBCM627 (Jul 11, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> 2x2x2:
> *44.02%* (385/964) are below 11.08, so roughly *11 sec* makes you *decent*
> 
> *16.42%* (158/964) are below 7.67, so about *sub 8 sec* makes you *good*
> ...



Careful with the stats, though... 385/964 = 39.94%. 44.02% would come out to be most nearly 424/964. 158/964 = 16.39%, 32/964 = 3.320%, and 8/964 = .8299%.

Why not just use evenly spaced %ages, and say you are in the top 10% of competitors if you are better than person #96/964? (time of 6.83)?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 11, 2008)

Officially: crap (4.85), really crap (15.40), crap (1:04), really crap (2:43). (absolutely incongruent with my unofficial)
Unofficial: awesome (3.15avg), decent (12.44), awesome (53.46avg), crap (1:56avg)

^those are my PB non-lucky averages. For all but 3x3, those are also my PB averages in general. :|


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 12, 2008)

JBCM627 said:


> Careful with the stats, though... 385/964 = 39.94%. 44.02% would come out to be most nearly 424/964. 158/964 = 16.39%, 32/964 = 3.320%, and 8/964 = .8299%.
> 
> Why not just use evenly spaced %ages, and say you are in the top 10% of competitors if you are better than person #96/964? (time of 6.83)?



whoops i think i may have typed .4002 instead of .4402 when i was calculating. it would still be about 11.7. for the rest, i just rounded down to the nearest person.



Swordsman Kirby said:


> Officially: crap (4.85), really crap (15.40), crap (1:04), really crap (2:43).



that does not match up with anything i wrote. shame on you.


----------



## Dene (Jul 12, 2008)

I agree with you SK. For me (all unofficial, of course): really crap, crap, not-so-crap, crap


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 12, 2008)

In that case I'm awesome, great, awesome, great. >_>


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jul 12, 2008)

For me, unofficially(using my averages)

Decent
Decent
Decent
FAIL.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 12, 2008)

FAIL across the board...>.>
I'm closest at 2x2 though, 14.6s is my PB average.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 13, 2008)

maybe i should have said that any times over "decent" are classified as "beginner", not FAIL


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 14, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> maybe i should have said that any times over "decent" are classified as "beginner", not FAIL



Sorry - I think FAIL has already gained traction. 

In competition, I'm:
2x2x2 FAIL
3x3x3 Barely decent (as tight as you can cut it)
4x4x4 Decent
5x5x5 Decent

At home, I'm:
2x2x2 Decent
3x3x3 Decent
4x4x4 Decent
5x5x5 Barely good

But I suspect the times will need to adjust on 5x5x5; I think people have gotten a lot better recently (and I haven't). So I'm probably just decent on that as well (even at home).


----------



## MistArts (Jul 14, 2008)

Good
Decent
Decent
FAILURE!


----------



## FU (Jul 27, 2008)

2-5: good, great, good, decent


----------



## Faz (Jul 27, 2008)

i havent competed.

My unnoficial times:

2x2: great
3x3: good
4x4: decent (soon to be good)

I get worse the bigger the cube is, lol.


----------



## Tim_Likes_Cubing (Jul 27, 2008)

It depends on what you mean by decent. At my school, the best (until I got better ) was someone with 59s PB, so with my best of 33s I'm relatively awesome, whereas on this website/WCA results I suck majorly.

Also, there's over 3000 3x3x3 entrants, and even with that not 44% of ALL people can get sub-30, lol. Should probably say "cubers" instead


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jul 28, 2008)

good, decent, decent, good.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 28, 2008)

With new competition results, I SHOULD be "awesome awesome awesome great", but my 4x4 died, so I remain "great".


----------



## not_kevin (Jul 29, 2008)

barely good (not official, 'tho; never done 2x2 in a tournament yet), barely good, decent on a 4x4 that isn't partially broken, decent


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Sep 7, 2008)

*Definition of "Beginner", "Advanced", etc.*

Can anybody put time ranges for all of the puzzles in these ranks:

Complete beginner:
Beginner:
Intermediate:
Advanced:
Very Advanced:

Example:
Puzzle:3x3x3
Complete beginner: 2:00+
Beginner: 1:00-2:00
Intermediate: 30-60 sec
Advanced: 15-30 sec
Very Advanced: Under 15 seconds


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 7, 2008)

been done already. here:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5078&highlight=what+times+make+you+good


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Sep 7, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> been done already. here:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5078&highlight=what+times+make+you+good



Oh, I think I should use less basic key words when searching. But, I think I still want to know the ranks to the Megaminx.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 7, 2008)

yeah its understandable that you didnt find it. i was the one who made it so it was easy for me to find it.

ok heres megaminx:

5:00+:beginner
3:30-5:decent
2:30-3:30: good
1:45-2:30:great
1:15-1:45:awesome
sub1:15: Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## Vulosity (Sep 7, 2008)

lol
The Erik A. one was funny.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Sep 7, 2008)

lolz sub 1:15: Erik Akerrsdijk
You did a great job on that rating thread, David.


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 7, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> yeah its understandable that you didnt find it. i was the one who made it so it was easy for me to find it.
> 
> ok heres megaminx:
> 
> ...




sub1:00: Chris Brownlee


----------



## MistArts (Sep 7, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> yeah its understandable that you didnt find it. i was the one who made it so it was easy for me to find it.
> 
> ok heres megaminx:
> 
> ...



You forgot Stefan.


----------



## Carlos (Sep 7, 2008)

and Tomy  who will show his nice skills at the next competition


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 8, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > yeah its understandable that you didnt find it. i was the one who made it so it was easy for me to find it.
> ...



well i was talking averages. but did chris really sub-1? thats crazy!



MistArts said:


> You forgot Stefan.



stefan is amazing, but i still think erik is best.


----------



## blah (Sep 8, 2008)

Stefan pwned at Megaminx for so long before Erik appeared. So Stefan is still the best, though not the fastest (officially). (Just like how I still think Macky is the best in speedcubing and BLD - he started it all  And of course there's Chris for OH, big cubes and big cubes BLD )


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Sep 22, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> yeah its understandable that you didnt find it. i was the one who made it so it was easy for me to find it.
> 
> ok heres megaminx:
> 
> ...



Cool! I guess I am decent. 

I was bored once and I was looking at chris hardwicks WCA profile. His best megaminx solve was 9 min! I felt good about my times.


----------



## Laetitia (Sep 25, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> ok heres megaminx:
> 
> 5:00+:beginner
> 3:30-5:decent
> ...



If I look at my best times at home, I am Erik Akkersdijk...
And if I look at my times at 3x3x3, 4x4x4, 5x5x5 and everything which is not megaminx, I am not Erik...


----------



## Ton (Sep 25, 2008)

I would use:

Puzzle:3x3x3
Complete beginner: 2:00+
Beginner: 1:00-2:00
Intermediate: 30-60 sec
Advanced: 20-30 sec
Expert:15-20 sec
Master:12 -15 seconds
Grand Master:Under 12 seconds


----------



## daniel0731ex (Jul 11, 2009)

magic:

2+: beginner
1.9:fine
1.8:decent
1.7:good
1.6:nice
1.5:great
1.4:awsome
1.3:fantastic
1.2:excellent
1.1:fantastic
1.0-:freak


----------



## stuvalt309 (Jul 11, 2009)

Wait, Ryan. That's like saying that we're advanced speedcubers and we've only been speedcubing for a bit over a year. I say sub 15 or sub 16 is advanced. We're intermediate.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Jul 11, 2009)

LOL, I've been speedcubing for half a year and according to Ton I'm advanced... lol...
and nice Magic times...

I think that on OH
Beginner:3min+ (e.g. my brother)
Moderate:2~3min
Intermediate:1~2min
Advanced:30s~1min
Expert:20s~30s
Freak of nature: 15s~20s
Frank Morris: Sub 0


----------



## moogra (Jul 11, 2009)

@thieflordz5
30s-1min is a big difference. I did 1 min without ever practicing OH and i finally get 30 s average (average of average, so not best average) after practicing a bunch.

Puzzle: 3x3x3
Complete beginner: 2:00.00 + sec
Beginner: 0:45.00+ sec
Intermediate: 30.00+ sec
Advanced: 20+ sec
Very Advanced: 15+ sec
Pro: Under 15 sec


----------



## qqwref (Jul 11, 2009)

daniel0731ex said:


> magic:
> 
> 2+: beginner
> 1.9:fine
> ...



My scale of magic:
2+: beginner
<2: acceptable
<1.5: decent
<1.2: good
<1.1: great
<1.0: awesome
<.9: really fast
<.8: ridiculous
<.7: omgwtf


----------



## soccerking813 (Jul 15, 2009)

moogra said:


> @thieflordz5
> 30s-1min is a big difference. I did 1 min without ever practicing OH and i finally get 30 s average (average of average, so not best average) after practicing a bunch.
> 
> Puzzle: 3x3x3
> ...



I like this one, because it makes me very advanced, along with everyone else who is not a pro.


----------



## tommstokoe (Jul 26, 2009)

Fail
Double Fail 
Triple Fail
QUADRUPLE FAIL !
hahah im terrible


----------



## Faz (Jul 26, 2009)

officially.

awesome awesome awesome awesome now 

Argh, not so awesome - this needs to be updated


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 26, 2009)

Unofficial:

so-so, great, great, almost great


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 26, 2009)

Official: Great, Great, Great, Great.


But that was last year it definitely changed.


----------



## kuzelnet (Jul 27, 2009)

im a decent - good 3x3x3 but, Not even Decent in 2x2x2 xD I get like 13~16. They're so hard.. I am Practicing Ortega one (1 side ,OLL,XLL(PLL))


----------



## Joker (Oct 24, 2010)

*3x3x3: How fast do you consider beginner / intermediate / advanced / expert etc?*

Hey guys. I consider them this for 3x3 (time in seconds)
Beginner: 35+ 
Medium: 24 - 34
Intermediate: 18 - 23
Advanced: 14 - 17
Expert: 10 - 13
Insane: <10
How fast do you consider skill level?

Btw that puts me in intermediate.


----------



## Faz (Oct 24, 2010)

Insane: Sub 8.
Fast: Sub 9
Oh yeah not bad: Sub 10
Good: 12-10
Meh: 12-15
Slow: >15


----------



## Sa967St (Oct 24, 2010)

lolfaz


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 24, 2010)

lolben - sub-1
nub - sub8
nub - sub9
nub - sub 10
nub - sub 11
nub - anything else.


----------



## buelercuber (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner: 40+ 
Medium: 22 - 39
*Intermediate: 17 - 21
Advanced: 14 - 17*
Expert: 10 - 13
Insane: <3

puts me in the middle of advanced and intermediate.


----------



## Logan (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner: 40+
Medium: 29 - 39
Intermediate: 20 - 28
Advanced: 15 - 19
Expert: 10 - 14
Insane: <9


----------



## buelercuber (Oct 24, 2010)

Logan said:


> Beginner: 40
> Medium: 29 - 39
> Intermediate: 20 - 28
> Advanced: 15 - 19
> ...


 
i like yurs better, i agree with you more than my considerations.


----------



## Dene (Oct 24, 2010)

Lol noobs making scales to feel good about themselves

Also, what am I seeing as my best average is in the 13s?


I DON'T EXIST :O:O:O


----------



## ThePuzzler96 (Oct 24, 2010)

I is an expert? OMG!
In all seriousness:
Beginner: 40+
Medium: 25-40
Intermediate: 20-25
Advanced: 15-20
Expert: 10-14
Insane: 8-10
FAZ: <7


----------



## oprah62 (Oct 24, 2010)




----------



## MichaelP. (Oct 24, 2010)

Search Function


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 24, 2010)

I really like what DavidWoner came up with. I think it should be updated and wiki'd


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Oct 24, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> lolfaz


 


waffle=ijm said:


> lolben - sub-1
> nub - sub8
> nub - sub9
> nub - sub 10
> ...


 
Made my night. (No sexual joke intended)
Beginner: x< One minute
Intermediete: sub 30
Sex: Sub 11


----------



## teller (Oct 24, 2010)

The World Champion in 2003 would be considered "intermediate" by most today. Fascinating.


----------



## avgdi (Oct 24, 2010)

Logan said:


> Beginner: 40+
> Medium: 29 - 39
> Intermediate: 20 - 28
> Advanced: 15 - 19
> ...



This about sums it up.


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 24, 2010)

Insane: Sub UWR.
Fast: Sub 9
Oh yeah not bad: Sub 12
Good: 0-13
Meh: 13-15
Slow: >15

Thanks for template Faz 
Good seems like a better ranking than "Oh yeah, not bad" to me


----------



## Zane_C (Oct 24, 2010)

Insane: < 10
Very fast: < 12
Fast: < 13
Good: < 14
Meh: < 15
Slow: > 15


----------



## DemotioN (Oct 24, 2010)

sigh begginer.


----------



## RCTACameron (Oct 24, 2010)

According to David Woner's (click MichaelP's link and then the link there) I'm awesome at 2x2. 

If you look at the full WCA rankings list, about halfway down is 27 seconds. So here is mine:

1:00+ - Very Beginner
35-1:00 - Beginner
25-35 - Okay
20-25 - Moderate
16-20 - Fairly Good
14-16 - Advanced
12-14 - Very Fast
10-12 - Super Fast
8.5-10 - INSANE
Sub 8.5 - Fake.


----------



## LewisJ (Oct 24, 2010)

Noob > 50
Beginner < 50
Beginner-with-progress <35
Medium < 27
Intermediate < 19
Advanced < 14
Expert < 11.5
Insane < 9.5

Eh, doesnt matter anyway. We all have an intuitive feeling of what fast is.


----------



## jiggy (Oct 24, 2010)

Dene said:


> Lol noobs making scales to feel good about themselves


I actually think it's a bit of the opposite. IMO expertise isn't just about speedsolving, it's also about how familiar with your method you are, your understanding of the cube in general and probably many other small things.

Take Mike Hughey (sorry Mike) for example. He seems to average around 21 seconds, but look at how many competitions he's attended, his multi-blind, big-blind, FMC and Sq-1 results. However, Mike would fit in as an 'intermediate' cuber by most of your scales.

I don't think that speed is the only factor in this. I would much much rather have a conversation about cubing with Mike than some 'expert' who has just spent hours drilling the steps of their speedsolving method into their head and hands until they're sub-13, but doesn't know anything else.


----------



## KboyForeverB (Oct 24, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> According to David Woner's (click MichaelP's link and then the link there) I'm awesome at 2x2.
> 
> If you look at the full WCA rankings list, about halfway down is 27 seconds. So here is mine:
> 
> ...


 with that. I'm advanced - fairly good


----------



## Carrot (Oct 24, 2010)

Extremely slow: >20 
Meh: 17-20
Still slow: 15-17
Intermediate: 12-15
Not so bad, but still not good: 10-12
Fast: 9-10
Very fast: 8.53-9
Faz or fake: <= 8.52


----------



## Hypertext Eye (Oct 24, 2010)

I don't agree with the label "beginner" for the slowest times. "Beginner" means a person hasn't been doing something for very long. Some people have been cubing for years and are just slow, but some of you would still call them beginners.
Like me. I've been cubing 2-3 years. I'm sub 50. Many people who are actual beginners are much faster than me.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Oct 24, 2010)

ThePuzzler96 said:


> I is an expert? OMG!
> In all seriousness:
> Beginner: 40+
> Medium: 25-40
> ...



I agree w/ every single time range in here ^

I hate how some people don't start labeling fast until like 10 seconds. You don't have to be one of the best in the world to be considered fast. Considering how long it takes most people to get a sub-20 average. I would consider that pretty fast.


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 24, 2010)

OMG, i'm an expert 

15+ nub
8-15 speedcuber
8- faz


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 24, 2010)

If you base your rankings on times the names of the ranks should be related to speed, not "skill".

I am a 45s average cuber but I can solve a cube with LBL, Keyhole, CFOP, ZZ, CF, Petrus, Old Pochmann
Does that make me a slow cuber or a beginner?


----------



## cyoubx (Oct 24, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> If you base your rankings on times the names of the ranks should be related to speed, not "skill".
> 
> I am a 45s average cuber but I can solve a cube with LBL, Keyhole, CFOP, ZZ, CF, Petrus, Old Pochmann
> Does that make me a slow cuber or a beginner?


 
I partially agree. Although knowing methods is "skillful", turn speed/recognition/etc are also important. So although you know many methods, maybe you aren't as skilled at turning.


----------



## Joker (Oct 24, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> Search Function


Thats bout 2 years old...people have got better...


mati rubik said:


> OMG, i'm an expert
> 
> 15+ nub
> *8-15 speedcuber*
> 8- faz


 
You don't know the definition of speedcuber, do you?


----------



## Owen (Oct 24, 2010)

New: < 2.00

Early Beginner: 50 - 2.00

Beginner: 40 -50

Late beginner: 30 - 40

Okay: 20 - 30

Good: 17 - 20

Great: 15 - 17

Really great!: 12 - 15

Amazing!: 10 - 12

Really amazing!: 9-10

Mind explode: <9


----------



## RyanReese09 (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner:40-1 minute
nub: 25-40
meh: 18-25
intermediate: 15-18
advanced: 13-15
expert: 10-12
mind blown: sub10
faz: sub8


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 24, 2010)

*Beginner *- someone who is just beginning speedcubing
Common Traits: Most beginners have very slow recognition/recall and spend up to half of their solve time looking for pieces/recognizing cases. They rarely use inspection time well, maybe just find the first piece or two of cross/2x2x2/1x2x3. They make mistakes almost every solve and sometimes are forced to go back to an earlier step in their solve and start over.

*Intermediate* - someone who is getting better and faster, but still needs a lot of work and could easily improve in most every facet of their solve
Common Traits: Many intermediate cubers have moved on past their original beginners method to a faster method that often times means more algs. If they are a CFOP user they have probably moved on to basic, intuitive f2l and some variation of 3/4 Look LL. Intermediate cubers are better at using inspection, and can maybe plan out most of their first step, but not always. There is still a lot of time being wasted simply looking for pieces, but not as much as when they were beginners. Mistakes are made, but relatively infrequently.

*Advanced* - someone who is very good and very fast, and can only shave a second or two (mebe 3) off of any given step in there method
Common Traits: Advanced cubers almost always know a full speedcubing method and can recognize/recall all of their algs quickly. Most of their solves will have no long pauses, few cube rotations and almost no major mistakes. They can use inspection time to completely plan their first step, and sometimes more (track first f2l pair, xcross, 2x2x3). Many advanced cubers know additional sets of algs that can make them even faster when the situation arises (COLL/VHF2L/OLLCP/NEOPLL(lol))

*Expert* - someone who has nearly pushed their method to it's limits and has almost no where left to go in order to improve.
Common Traits: everything that advanced cubers do but better. Almost no recognition time, near-perfect lookahead. No pauses, almost no rotations, just perfect, fluid solves with very high, consistent TPS. Many algs are known, duplicate algs are known and experts know when to use which alg to get the best next step, i.e. an expert knows when using a certain OLL alg will force a PLL skip, or when to use a certain f2l alg to force OLL skip. There are no cases that slow them down, an expert CFOP user will know tons of advanced f2l tricks such as multislotting, using open slots, wrong slot algs etc.


----------



## Igora (Oct 24, 2010)

Well, according to friends:

Fast= >1 min
OMGSUPAFAST= <1 min


----------



## cyoubx (Oct 24, 2010)

Igora said:


> Well, according to friends:
> 
> Fast= >1 min
> OMGSUPAFAST= <1 min



You have fast friends. Mine are:
Fast = You have one and never scrambled it so it looks like you can solve it.
SUPPAFAST = you can solve one side


----------



## cincyaviation (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner: 30+
Medium: 20-30
Intermediate: 15-20
Advanced: 12-15
Expert: 9-12
Insane: 7-9


----------



## cuberkid10 (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner: <1:00
Semi- Intermedite: <45
Intermedite: <25
Purrrty Gud: <19
Advanced: <15
Expert: <10
Amazing: <9
FAZ: <1


----------



## MrTimCube (Oct 24, 2010)

I like Rpotts listings, because it isn't based on time.
and according to your post i'm an intermediate


----------



## bluedasher (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner - !:00 +
Okay - 40-50 
Medium - 30-40
Intermediate - 25-30
Advanced - 17-20
Expert - Sub 15
Insane - Sub 10
FAZtastic - sub 8


----------



## freshcuber (Oct 24, 2010)

Beginner:50+
Good:40-49
Better:30-39
Intermediate: 20-29
Advanced:15-19
Expert:Sub-15


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 24, 2010)

Joker said:


> Thats bout 2 years old...people have got better...
> 
> 
> You don't know the definition of speedcuber, do you?


 
you don't know the definition of joke, do you?


----------



## Joker (Oct 24, 2010)

mati rubik said:


> you don't know the definition of joke, do you?


 
You didn't know that sarcasm usually fails over the net unless USING CAPS, did you?


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 24, 2010)

Joker said:


> You didn't know that sarcasm usually fails over the net unless USING CAPS, did you?


 
no, I didn't


----------



## Joker (Oct 24, 2010)

Well now you do.


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 24, 2010)

Joker said:


> Well now you do.


 
ok, thanks


----------



## jiggy (Oct 24, 2010)

@ Rpotts: Finally, an intelligent, qualitative ranking!

@Cubenovice: We seem to agree on just about everything these days. I suggest a long overdue Hi5! XD


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Oct 24, 2010)

Nub - Sub 10
Nubber - Sub 12
Nubbest - Sub 15
Nubestest - >15


----------



## Riley0143 (Nov 14, 2010)

Beginner - >1:00 
Intermediate - 30-1:00
Advanced - 20-10
Yu Nakajima - 7-10
Feliks - <7


----------



## Zeat (Nov 15, 2010)

Beginner: 50+
Okay: 30-50
Intermediate: 20-30
Advanced: 15-20
Expert: 10-15
Insane: Sub 10
Faz: sub 8
Me: sub 5

im in me, obviously lol


----------



## Daniel Wu (Nov 15, 2010)

Beginner: 30+
Intermediate: 15-30
Advanced: 10-15
Expert: <10


----------



## userman (Nov 15, 2010)

YAY! I am Advanced! Finally someone says I am "Good"


----------



## 4EverCuber (May 19, 2011)

@Rpotts very nicely articulated.


----------



## jerry533482 (May 19, 2011)

I figure this:

50s+ - beginner
late 20s-late 40s - intermediate
~15~-mid 20s - advanced
<15 - expert
<10 - world class

That puts me at advanced (sub 20s-early 20s).


----------



## uberCuber (May 19, 2011)

jerry533482 said:


> That puts me at advanced (sub 20s-early 20s).


 
My reaction to your post is:



Dene said:


> Lol noobs making scales to feel good about themselves


----------



## collinbxyz (May 19, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> My reaction to your post is:


 
win.


----------



## Rpotts (May 20, 2011)

yea sub15 is definitely not expert. Thanks though.


----------



## BC1997 (May 20, 2011)

50+ = beginner
25-49 = intermidiate
15-25 = advanced
sub-15 = expert
sub-10 = world class
sub-8 = Feliks


----------



## uberCuber (May 20, 2011)

BC1997 said:


> 50+ = beginner
> 25-49 = intermidiate
> 15-25 = advanced
> sub-15 = expert
> ...


 


Rpotts said:


> yea sub15 is definitely not expert. Thanks though.



Ya.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 20, 2011)

beginoober: >30
intermediate: 20 - 30
somewhat fast: 15 - 19
fast: 12 - 14
expert: 10 - 11
super expert: 8 - 9
very super expert: sub 8


----------



## collinbxyz (May 20, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> beginoober: >30
> intermediate: 20 - 30
> somewhat fast: 15 - 19
> fast: 12 - 14
> ...


 
This about sums it up for me. Meh, I'm somewhat fast.


----------



## tozies24 (May 20, 2011)

So I have been reading this and some of your scales are kind of ridiculous. 
First, here is an analogy to another thing where skill is measured by score or percentage: Guitar Hero. I used to play it a lot and got quite good. I've beating every song on Guitar Hero 3, 5, World Tour, Metallica, on Expert and have 100%'d a bunch of songs on these games too. Compared to your normal person, I would be considered one of the best players ever. But in comparison to the people who are ridiculous and devote hours on end to the game who can 100% every song on any game, I wouldn't be considered that good. 

Anyway, back to cubing, I know Full OLL and Full PLL and average between 20 and 25 seconds on any given solve. Again, compared to the majority of people I am fast. I know that I am not fast though compared to people who are ridiculous. But when people put up scales like >10 insane, >12 expert, >15 advanced, >20 intermediate, >30 nub, it just doesn't really make sense to me because I know every case for CFOP but yet my lookahead is lacking and my tps could improve. Obviously I don't want to be considered an expert; that isn't the point of the post, but I'm just saying that some of your scales don't make sense when you apply it to every cuber since the vast majority is not sub-20 or even sub-15 for that matter.

Purposed scale (Using the Guitar Hero difficulties) 
Beginner: 1:30 and up
Easy: :50 to 1:30
Medium: :30 to :50
Hard: :20 to :30
Expert: :12 to :20
Expert +: :12 and down


----------



## ElectricDoodie (May 20, 2011)

I want to use your Guitar Hero difficulty style. 
And by the way, to me your scale seems to be not realistic enough. It's all opinions in the end, though.

Here's mine:
Beginner: 1:00+
Easy: 30-60 secs
Medium: 20-29 secs
Hard: 15-19 secs
Expert: 14-10 secs
Expert+(Whatever that means): 9 and under.


----------



## tozies24 (May 20, 2011)

In the newer games there is an expert plus for drumming, I didn't really know what to call it though. it is all opinions


----------



## uberCuber (May 21, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> I want to use your Guitar Hero difficulty style.
> And by the way, to me your scale seems to be not realistic enough. It's all opinions in the end, though.
> 
> Here's mine:
> ...


 
going, of course, by the fact that Guitar Hero Hard is easy


----------



## nerd (May 21, 2011)

im intermediate on basically all of them


----------



## Georgeanderre (May 24, 2011)

Beginner - Sub minute
Intermediate - Sub 30
Advanced - Sub 20~
Expert - Sub 15
Master - Sub 10 ... or Faz
Faz - just Faz 

Makes me intermediate with most methods


----------



## Erik (May 24, 2011)

Wuts a rubix cube? - anything under 10 min
How can you guys do it so fast? - slower than a minute
Oh there's actually advanced methods - 40-60 sec
ZOMGZ Fridrich!!! - 25-40
Oh the correct name is CFOP.... - 20-25
Look at me I'm so fast / I'm stuck, please help me - 17-20
So you actually have to learn all OLL's? - 15-17
Cool, I might make it into finals of comps! - 13-15
 just can't make it into the top - 12 - 13
Damn those fast guys keep stealing my podium place - 11
Maybe I should change some PLL algs... world class - 10
YESS Sub-10 I matter now top 25 - in the world - 9
Gah n00bs should stop asking what cube I use... - 8 and faster


----------



## Godmil (May 24, 2011)

Erik said:


> ZOMGZ Fridrich!!! - 25-40
> Oh the correct name is CFOP.... - 20-25


 
Hmm, guess I still need to knock off a second before I realise I'm using the wrong name.


----------



## Georgeanderre (May 24, 2011)

Erik said:


> Wuts a rubix cube? - anything under 10 min
> How can you guys do it so fast? - slower than a minute
> Oh there's actually advanced methods - 40-60 sec
> ZOMGZ Fridrich!!! - 25-40
> ...


 
very well thought out =P


----------



## Dacuba (May 24, 2011)

I only know: >15 is noob

I'm at high16 -.-


----------



## uberCuber (May 24, 2011)

Erik said:


> Wuts a rubix cube? - anything under 10 min
> How can you guys do it so fast? - slower than a minute
> Oh there's actually advanced methods - 40-60 sec
> ZOMGZ Fridrich!!! - 25-40
> ...


 
hahahaha I lol'd


----------



## Zbox95 (May 24, 2011)

I don't really see the point with this thread, from a non-cubers point of view (friends to a cuber maybe) they would consider a time sub-1min to be incredibly fast! And from a speedcuber a time like that would be a snail compared to other cubers. 

And everyone keeps forgetting this: Cubing is about having fun, to have an unusual hobby that you just do because you like it.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 24, 2011)

Zbox95 said:


> I don't really see the point with this thread, from a non-cubers point of view (friends to a cuber maybe) they would consider a time sub-1min to be incredibly fast! And from a speedcuber a time like that would be a snail compared to other cubers.
> 
> And everyone keeps forgetting this: Cubing is about having fun, to have an unusual hobby that you just do because you like it.


 
I think that all you need to do to see the point of this thread is to look at the title. It's simply asking for opinions. So, from NC's view, of course we're all geniuses. However, we're not asking the NCs. We're asking cubers.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (May 24, 2011)

Zbox95 said:


> I don't really see the point with this thread, from a non-cubers point of view (friends to a cuber maybe) they would consider a time sub-1min to be incredibly fast! And from a speedcuber a time like that would be a snail compared to other cubers.
> 
> And everyone keeps forgetting this: Cubing is about having fun, to have an unusual hobby that you just do because you like it.



Well, you're completely missing the point. Look at the title: " 3x3x3: How fast do *you* consider beginner / intermediate / advanced / expert etc?"

Keyword there. It's just all opinions for the fun of it, and it's not a standardized system. And do you actually think this is going out to NonCubers or something?!

I think you're taking this way too seriously.



Edit: Ninja'd by JonnyWhoopes.


----------



## Georgeanderre (May 25, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Well, you're completely missing the point. Look at the title: " 3x3x3: How fast do *you* consider beginner / intermediate / advanced / expert etc?"
> 
> Keyword there. It's just all opinions for the fun of it, and it's not a standardized system. And do you actually think this is going out to NonCubers or something?!
> 
> ...


 
What they said, next time try and read the description before posting ...?


----------



## Florian (May 25, 2011)

Like Cameron

1:00+ - Very Beginner
35-1:00 - Beginner
25-35 - Okay
20-25 - Moderate
17-20 - Fairly Good
14-17 - Advanced
12-14 - Very Fast
10-12 - Super Fast
8-10 - INSANE
Sub 8 - Faz

Puts me in general to Veryfast of 5 to super fast and single to faz


----------



## maggot (May 25, 2011)

2:00+ beginner
sub 12 accomplished

everything in between is personal preference. for all the "slow" speedcubers out there, sup 30 is definately not "slow". there is however, a considerable difference in the knowledge and ability of a sub 10 solver, but it is not slow. dont be discouraged by this thread!


----------



## Jungleterrain (May 26, 2011)

If you use the beginner's method and average a little less than 20 seconds (I assume it's very possible with high tps and good beginner's method lookahead [if there is such a thing]), then are you considered intermediate or advanced based on people's time charts? Maybe it would make more sense if mastery of the cube was based on the understanding of the workings of the cubes, algorithms, commutators, methods, etc. in combination with time measurements.


----------



## Jilvin (Jun 1, 2011)

Beginner: >1 minute
Intermediate: >30 sec, <1 minute
Advanced: >15 sec, <30 sec
Expert:<15 sec
Ultralord: Zemdegs, Hessler, Akkersdijk... etc....


----------



## michaelfivez (Jun 1, 2011)

Erik said:


> ZOMGZ Fridrich!!! - 25-40
> Oh the correct name is CFOP.... - 20-25


 
Ah you made me realise what CFOP is too early, I still only average 27 seconds


----------



## 5BLD (Jun 1, 2011)

In my opinion:
Supa beginner: 1 minute and above
Beginner: sub-50
You need to work on your blocks young man: sub-40
Not bad: sub-30
Pretty good: sub-25
Kind of expert: sub-20
Expert: sub-15
Awesome!: sub-10


----------



## iEnjoyCubing (Jun 1, 2011)

Beginner: 50 seconds or higher
Intermediate: 30-50 seconds
Advanced: 20-30 seconds
Expert: 15-20 seconds
OMFGWTFBBQ?: Sub 15


----------



## xabu1 (Jun 1, 2011)

beginner: 30+
medium: 25-29
intermediate:20-24
advanced:15-19
expert:10-14
faz: >1


----------



## emolover (Jun 1, 2011)

iEnjoyCubing said:


> Beginner: 50 seconds or higher
> Intermediate: 30-50 seconds
> Advanced: 20-30 seconds
> Expert: 15-20 seconds
> OMFGWTFBBQ?: Sub 15


 
Wrong! Your silly!

Noob: 1 minute+
Beginner: 30 seconds-minute
Intermediate: 20-30
Advanced: 12-20
Expert: 8-12
Faz: 6.5-7.5
Your not from this planet: Sub 6


----------



## Clayy9 (Jun 1, 2011)

xabu1 said:


> faz: >1



I'm faz? You're faz? Everyone's faz?


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 1, 2011)

iEnjoyCubing said:


> Beginner: 50 seconds or higher
> Intermediate: 30-50 seconds
> Advanced: 20-30 seconds
> Expert: 15-20 seconds
> OMFGWTFBBQ?: Sub 15



lol silly I am not OMFGWTFBBQ good


----------



## xabu1 (Jun 2, 2011)

Clayy9 said:


> I'm faz? You're faz? Everyone's faz?


 
that was seconds, as all of them were...

I meant intermediate was 20-24minutes, right


----------



## xdaragon (Jun 2, 2011)

Beginner: 45-1:00+ 
Intermediate: 25-45 
Advanced: 15-25
Expert: 10-15 
Crazy: <10 
Faz: <7


----------



## Clayy9 (Jun 2, 2011)

xabu1 said:


> that was seconds, as all of them were...
> 
> I meant intermediate was 20-24minutes, right


 
If faz is everyone > 1 sec, and I'm > 1 sec, then I = faz.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 2, 2011)

xabu1 said:


> that was seconds, as all of them were...
> 
> I meant intermediate was 20-24minutes, right


 
its funny because > means greater not less


----------



## iEnjoyCubing (Jun 4, 2011)

iEnjoyCubing said:


> Beginner: 50 seconds or higher
> Intermediate: 30-50 seconds
> Advanced: 20-30 seconds
> Expert: 15-20 seconds
> OMFGWTFBBQ?: Sub 15



I was comparing to the general public. If you went out and asked some random person this is probably what they would say. Now comparing to other cubers, then the scale gets changed a bit.


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 5, 2011)

uhh according to the general public 2 minutes is genius fast, why scale it compared to completely uninformed people?


----------



## TMOY (Jun 5, 2011)

According to the general public:

< infinite = "omg how can you do it so fast ? It's really impossible, you must be a genius !"
infinite = "Yes I used to be able to solve it when I was young, but now I have forgotten how to peel off the stickers..."


----------



## Owen (Jun 5, 2011)

Anyone above 15s is a noob. Sorry.


----------



## michaelfivez (Aug 31, 2011)

*I think this:
*
sub 8 -> WR stuff
sub 9 -> Wow your in the top 10
sub 11 -> Decent, your in the top 100
12-14 ->Congartulations you are average
15< Noob

In the noob department:
sub 20: You've put some effort in this thing
20-30: you can imagine people learning all OLL's and PLL's
30-40: You've hold on longer then most people do
sub 1 minute: You've solved this thing more then once but still consider people who learn all OLL's and PLL's crazy
sub 2 minute: wow you can solve this...
2 minutes +: Your probably going to forget how to solve this thing by next month

In sport your also not going to consider someone who has practiced for only 1 year a master

(this is about your average time btw)


----------



## JonWhite (Aug 31, 2011)

Owen said:


> Anyone above 15s is a noob. Sorry.


 
either you're being sarcastic, or you are a noob with a 20.81 s comp single.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 31, 2011)

Wow. I'm actually surprised how many people consider sub-20 to be noobish. I consider it to be decent. 

Anyway, "beginner" is a category I generally associate with the amount of time cubing, so I'll rather use the word "noob." 
Noob: 35+
Intermediate: 20-35 
Advanced: 10-20
Expert: Sub-10

Granted, those are only four categories, and I'd break them up into more, as 10-20 or 20-35 are quite some large gaps.


----------



## Ltsurge (Aug 31, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> Wow. I'm actually surprised how many people consider sub-20 to be noobish. I consider it to be decent.
> 
> Granted, those are only four categories, and I'd break them up into more, as 10-20 or 20-35 are quite some large gaps.


 
Definitely... I hate it where people averaging 15s start their ranking at their times and announcing that everyone else is a crappy nub. As Rpotts said its more about your solving characteristics and how long you have been cubing for


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 31, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> Wow. I'm actually surprised how many people consider sub-20 to be noobish.


 
People are considering WR to be noobish?


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 31, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> People are considering WR to be noobish?


 
15-20 then. 

You know what I mean. >.>


----------



## Cubetastic (Aug 31, 2011)

well, ive been cubing for less than a month and i can 95% of the time get under 50 seconds so imo im doing good.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 31, 2011)

Sub <10:advanced
Sub 10:fast
Sub 12:decent
Sub 15:slow

Thats what I think.


----------



## Ltsurge (Aug 31, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Sub <10:advanced
> Sub 10:fast
> Sub 12:decent
> Sub 15:slow
> ...



Wow... I just said that I hated people like you... 
And besides you just called yourself slow


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 31, 2011)

ltsurge said:


> Wow... I just said that I hated people like you...
> And besides you just called yourself slow


 
Admitting you have a long way to improve is the first step toward actually improving.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 31, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Admitting you have a long way to improve is the first step toward actually improving.


 
Precisely. I average around 30-32 seconds (depends on the day), but I think I am easily capable of more, and am mad at myself for not finishing learning PLL and starting OLL (I have 1 PLL alg left)


----------



## Cheese11 (Aug 31, 2011)

Beginner: 45sec and up Intermediate: 30-45sec Advanced: 15-30sec Expert: Sub 15

The thing is, you also have to account for the knowledge of the person. Someone could be sub 10 and only know how to solve the cube one way, and only know one set of algorithems.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 31, 2011)

OMG LIKE I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMPLETELY BIASED AND USELESS SCALE THAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!11!!!11!!!

Sub-30: Lol you suck

Sub 20: Not fast at all, lol

Sub 15: Still slow

Sub 12: You're okay

Sub 11: OMG FASTS (not because I average this or anything)

Sub 10: Faster!

Sub 8: FAZ IS TEH BEST


----------



## BC1997 (Aug 31, 2011)

Noob= 1:00 +
Beginner= 40-1:00
Getting the hang of it= 30-40
Intermediate= 20-30
Advanced= 15-20
Expert=12-15
Classy= 8-12
Feliks= Feliks


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Aug 31, 2011)

Fortunately, the cube provides greater than the perfomance of a fast cuber but Feliks=Feliks yessssssss


----------



## cubernya (Aug 31, 2011)

Why does everyone think that Feliks is sub 8? He is sub 9 consistently, but not sub 8

anyway:
Sup-45 - Beginner
Sub-45 - I know something!
Sub-35 - I use Fridrich
Sub-25 - Oh wait it's CFOP
Sub-20 - I learned PLL
Sub-15 - I learned OLL
Sub-10 - Damn your fast
Sub-9 - You beat the youtube ads
Sub-8 - What?
Sub-6 - No way
Sub-5 - Must be Faz
Sub-4 - Faz or fake


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 31, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Why does everyone think that Feliks is sub 8? He is sub 9 consistently, but not sub 8


 
How do you explain three sub 8 official averages then?


----------



## Escher (Aug 31, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> How do you explain three sub 8 official averages then?


 
Sub 8 in comp 3 times =/= sub 8 at home consistently. There are people with sub 10 averages in comp more than once who are not consistently sub 10 at home. 

Though tbf I wouldn't be surprised if he was avging about 7.9-8 in general.


----------



## Winston Yang (Aug 31, 2011)

Your wrong!


----------



## cubernya (Aug 31, 2011)

Really? At the Aussie Nationals all his averages were sup-8, so he's obviously not sub-8


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 31, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> OMG LIKE I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMPLETELY BIASED AND USELESS SCALE THAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!11!!!11!!!
> 
> Sub-30: Lol you suck
> 
> ...


 
Made me smile.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 31, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Really? At the Aussie Nationals all his averages were sup-8, so he's obviously not sub-8


 
At the one comp I went to:
I got a 1:59 average in 5x5, but I averaged about 1:50 at home.
I got a 38 average in OH, but I averaged sup-40 at home.

Official times don't say everything about at-home averages.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 31, 2011)

Regardless, he's not sub 8

/off topic


----------



## That70sShowDude (Aug 31, 2011)

RCTACameron said:


> According to David Woner's (click MichaelP's link and then the link there) I'm awesome at 2x2.
> 
> If you look at the full WCA rankings list, about halfway down is 27 seconds. So here is mine:
> 
> ...


 
I think I've posted in here before, but pretty much this. So you're awesome at 2x2 you say?


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 31, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Regardless, he's not sub 8
> 
> /off topic


 
What makes you say that? Do you know him personally?
I average sub-15 consistently at home (around 14), yet my last comp I got 16.48... (rage...)

PS: I don't think we should be be ranking these things relatively, but that's just me.


----------



## Thompson (Aug 31, 2011)

Beginner: 18+
Medium: 16-17
Intermediate: 13-15
Advanced: 11 - 12
Expert: 9-10
Insane: <9


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 31, 2011)

Thompson said:


> Beginner: 18+


 






I think that might be setting the bar high for someone just starting out.


----------



## gundamslicer (Aug 31, 2011)

I decide what's a noob and not a noob by if they use finger tricks and what method they are using


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 1, 2011)

gundamslicer said:


> I decide what's a noob and not a noob by if they use finger tricks and *what method they are using*


 
I rate by method too!


Roux: Nub

ZZ: Nub

Petrus: Nub

Waterman: Nub

FBF: Pro

CFOP: Super advanced expert pro!!!11!!


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 1, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I rate by method too!


 
I know you're being sarcastic, but I think he means as in beyond beginner's, and if you do FMC, Heise, etc. (just in case you thought he was trolling...)



> FBF: Pro



Lol. That is all.


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Sep 1, 2011)

Beginner: 35+
Medium: 26-35
Intermediate: 20-25 (occasional sub-20)
Decent: 16-19
Good: 12-15
Great: 10-12
Amazing: 8-10
Holy Crap: 8 and below


----------



## Jaycee (Sep 1, 2011)

blackzabbathfan said:


> Beginner: 35+
> Medium: 26-35
> Intermediate: 20-25 (occasional sub-20)
> Decent: 16-19
> ...


 
This probably is the most accurate ranking in this whole thread. It's just a matter of opinion, though~


----------



## Ltsurge (Sep 1, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Admitting you have a long way to improve is the first step toward actually improving.


 
I know I'm slow just that Jorghi isn't that much faster anyway...so... he derserves a :fp


----------



## emolover (Sep 1, 2011)

Noob: 1:00+
Beginner: 35-59
Intermediate: 20-34
Advanced: 15-19
Expert: 10-14
World Class: 8-10
Faz Fast: Sub 8


----------



## Nestor (Sep 1, 2011)

blackzabbathfan said:


> Beginner: 35+
> Medium: 26-35
> Intermediate: 20-25 (occasional sub-20)
> Decent: 16-19
> ...


 
Diz


----------



## RaresB (Sep 1, 2011)

Beginner 20 +
intermediate 15-20
Advanced 12-15
Expert 9.5-12
Good sub 9.5


----------



## Rpotts (Sep 1, 2011)

apparently "Good" is better than "Expert"


----------



## Ltsurge (Sep 1, 2011)

I find it interesting that I am only either a complete Nub or a*n* Intermediate. Nothing in between, nothing faster or slower... 

EDIT 
I fail at spelling


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 1, 2011)

I seem to always fall under 'good' or 'advanced'

... or 'nub,' according to theanonymouscuber. 

But, yeah, there categories we have a pretty broad, especially the slower ones.


----------



## Cheese11 (Sep 3, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I rate by method too!
> 
> 
> Roux: Nub
> ...


 
Whoa Whoa Whoa, I solve Roux


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 3, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Whoa Whoa Whoa, I solve Roux


 
Then you're a nub.


----------



## iEnjoyCubing (Sep 3, 2011)

Hmm, I did rankings a long time ago, but I'll redo them.

Beginner: 35+
Intermediate: 25-35
Good: 20-25
Advanced: 15-20
Amazing: 12-15
Expert: 10-12
Wtf: Sub-10


----------



## 5BLD (Sep 3, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Then you're a nub.


 

How about PRSCM?

Oh yeah, I consider these as the stages:

>1:00 beginner/ regular guy who 'can solve a cube'
50.00 someone who is quite interested
45.00 just getting into it 
30.00 pretty dedicated
25.00 pretty fast
20.00 experienced
17.00 advanced ish
15.00 advanced
12.00 expert
8.00 expert (world class as well)

I would only consider someone an expert of they have a broad cubing knowledge too though.


----------



## nickcolley (Sep 3, 2011)

Beginner: >60
Intermediate: 30 - 60
Advanced: 15 - 30
Expert: <15


----------



## Jungleterrain (Sep 3, 2011)

nickcolley said:


> Beginner: >60
> Intermediate: 30 - 60
> Advanced: 15 - 30
> Expert: <15


 
OH YEAH I'm advanced


----------



## tx789 (Sep 4, 2011)

2 min + starting to get into it beginneer
1min-2min More into cubig
40-50 sec starting to get fast intermedite
25-40 starting to get a lot faster advanded
15> expert avg
10> world class can win most comps
9> Top 10
8> top 2


----------



## cubersmith (Sep 4, 2011)

nickcolley said:


> Beginner: >60
> Intermediate: 30 - 60
> Advanced: 15 - 30
> Expert: <15



Lol way off


----------



## Jorghi (Sep 4, 2011)

5BLD said:


> How about PRSCM?
> 
> Oh yeah, I consider these as the stages:
> 
> ...


 
Haha I'm experienced.


----------



## MisterQueb (Sep 4, 2011)

> >1:00 beginner/ regular guy who 'can solve a cube'
> 50.00 someone who is quite interested
> 45.00 just getting into it
> 30.00 pretty dedicated
> ...



This one makes the most sense.


----------



## DaveyCow (Sep 4, 2011)

emolover said:


> Noob: 1:00+
> Beginner: 35-59
> Intermediate: 20-34
> Advanced: 15-19
> ...



this seems more accurate to me than the other suggestions. It seems to me that, for example, sub 45 isnt beginner anymore but a "medium" (between beginner and intermediate). It seems it takes a lot of practice and some knowledge to make sub 45 (could someone get sub 45 average after solving only 10 times, say?)


----------



## DaveyCow (Sep 4, 2011)

nickcolley said:


> Beginner: >60
> Intermediate: 30 - 60
> Advanced: 15 - 30
> Expert: <15



This is reasonable too imho


----------



## Mudkip (Sep 16, 2011)

Casual cuber: > 1:00
Inexpierienced: 40-59
Medium: 30-39
Intermidiate: 20-29
Advanced: 10-19
Inspirational: < 10


----------



## cubernya (Sep 16, 2011)

Mudkip said:


> Casual cuber: > 1:00
> Inexpierienced: 40-59
> Medium: 30-39
> Intermidiate: 20-29
> ...



I think this is one of the most accurate ones on the whole thread


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 16, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> I think this is one of the most accurate ones on the whole thread


 
I don't think you can judge accuracy for something that is completely based on opinion/perspective....


----------



## wavelet (Sep 16, 2011)

two categories

beginner:infinity-8
not beginner:sub8


----------



## SpeedSolve (Sep 16, 2011)

wavelet said:


> two categories
> 
> beginner:infinity-8
> not beginner:sub8


 
You win.


----------



## Sillas (Sep 16, 2011)

Noob: 1:00+
Beginner: 45-59
Intermediate: 35-45
Good: 25-35
Applied: 18-25
Advanced: 13-18
Expert: 9-13
World Class: 7-9
Top 10 of Word: 6-7
Faz/E.T. or a PLL skipper: sub-6


----------



## Artic (Mar 26, 2013)

*When is someone considered an expert cuber?...*

I was wondering when a person is considered an expert cuber, in particular with respect to the 3x3. Notice I did not say "master" cuber, since I don't think it's possible to ever master the 3x3 as there will always be new techniques, algos, methods...and you can always get faster.

Imo, I would say anyone who averages sub 15 would be considered an expert cuber. That seems to be a natural cutoff separating the decently fast from the extremely fast.

any thoughts?


----------



## Akash Rupela (Mar 26, 2013)

When he knows full ZBLL. 
For example, Michal pleskovicz knows half ZBLL. so he is half expert


----------



## CubeRoots (Mar 26, 2013)

sub 10


----------



## 5BLD (Mar 26, 2013)

Sub-9 is pretty fast


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 26, 2013)

5BLD said:


> Sub-9 is pretty fast



not really csch you always get depressed when you get sup 8 averages


----------



## ducttapecuber (Mar 26, 2013)

I think you can be an expert cuber even if you aren't "sub-10". Expertise is based on knowledge not just skill. Usually that knowledge does eventually transfer into great skill' but it doesn't always. Like I don't think that Faz is an expert cuber, although many would argue against that based on his speed/WR's. I am not saying he is not a knowledgeable cuber in anyway. I just don't consider him an "expert"


----------



## googlebleh (Mar 26, 2013)

It would be cool if we could redo Woner's calculations (while maintaining similar percentages) and rectify the numbers to today's times.


----------



## cxinlee (Mar 27, 2013)

I think that sub-15 is fast for me, and sub-10 is considered "expert". sub 9 I would call " Level 2 expert" and so on.


----------



## Iggy (Mar 27, 2013)

Sub 10.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Mar 27, 2013)

ducttapecuber said:


> I think you can be an expert cuber even if you aren't "sub-10". Expertise is based on knowledge not just skill. Usually that knowledge does eventually transfer into great skill' but it doesn't always. Like I don't think that Faz is an expert cuber, although many would argue against that based on his speed/WR's. I am not saying he is not a knowledgeable cuber in anyway. I just don't consider him an "expert"



Why doesn't Feliks meet your personal definition of "expert" then? Are you saying he's knowledgeable, just not knowledgeable enough? Just curious.


----------



## redbeat0222 (Mar 27, 2013)

Akash Rupela said:


> When he knows full ZBLL.
> For example, Michal pleskovicz knows half ZBLL. so he is half expert



More like world class.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 27, 2013)

In corporate world, you're an expert if you've already solved the cube... twice.


----------



## 5BLD (Mar 27, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> not really csch you always get depressed when you get sup 8 averages



I get depressed anyway
Also for me sup-8 is slow, oh i so arrogant rye

Also wuts this about only being expert if you know zbll? Thats siwwy. You sorta can tell if someone's an expert I guess. But what's expert, tis just a name really.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Mar 27, 2013)

Expert = famous in the cubing world



Spoiler



Also, expert = Maskow



Sent from my A75 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JasonK (Mar 27, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Expert = famous in the cubing world



Michael Womack is famous in the cubing world.


----------



## ottozing (Mar 27, 2013)

I'd consider him infamous honestly  But yeah, that's not the definition of an expert at all. Like 5BLD said, you can tell when someone is an expert.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 27, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Expert = famous in the cubing world
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are countless people who are top ten in events but who are not active on the forums and so they are not "famous" by your definition. I'd certainly call anyone with a top 10 an expert.


----------



## AlexByard (Mar 27, 2013)

In my opinion, an expert is someone who can no longer be taught about a certain subject, they can only advance by working thing out themselfs.


----------



## moralsh (Mar 27, 2013)

It depends on the context, I'm an expert to my workmates because I can give them good advices and I'm not even good by most of the definitions on this thread, like the chinese proverb "there's always someone who knows more"


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 27, 2013)

40+ Noob
40-20 Beginner
20-12 Intermediate 
12-10 advanced
10- Expert

Is what I think is the best representation if you are defining expert as "the best" versus somebody who knows a lot of stuff. I mean, how much you know (IMO) is pretty loosely correlated to how fast you are. It's possible to get sub-12 with 4LLL.


----------



## elrog (Mar 28, 2013)

I am a beginner according to your post, but I'd argue that I understand just as much about the cube as you. You said "if you are defining expert as *the best*". Does being faster necessarily make you "the best"? I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own and got an 18 second solve with it using complete intuition. I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own


Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it). I'd debate Heise being called a very good method, because although it has low movecount, it's not really suitable for speed.



elrog said:


> I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.


At least one other person has. I don't remember his name... might have been someone from the US named Andy, but I'm not sure.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Mar 28, 2013)

qqwref said:


> *Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it)*.



Gilles Roux, for example.


----------



## elrog (Mar 28, 2013)

There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it. Heise was different from any other method in the way that it used pairs. Also, Heise is a very good method because it is the best way to solve and actually understand every single move you make.


----------



## insane569 (Mar 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it. Heise was different from any other method in the way that it used pairs. Also, Heise is a very good method because it is the best way to solve and actually understand every single move you make.



Yea there were many methods made by people but in the end many were just a blend of the same. Although Heise is different, its not an over all speed method. Great way to solve but not the most efficient for time and reaction time. 

OT: I don't think people who are fast are experts so much as they display a high amount of skill. An expert would be some one who could explain the cube and its advanced properties(the math behind it, methods, theories and the good stuff) and have the skills to put this knowledge into effect on the cube. A good example would be kirjava, he has a vast knowledge of cube methods and can utilizes all of them if he needs to. Some one who is fast but only knows 1 method is just a casual solver who took the time to learn 1 method. He would be good but not an expert, that is not an expert in an overall sense.(obviously hes an expert in his method or he wouldn't be good with it)


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> I am a beginner according to your post, but I'd argue that I understand just as much about the cube as you. You said "if you are defining expert as *the best*". Does being faster necessarily make you "the best"? I actually consider Heise one of the best solvers out there because he came up with a very good method on his own and got an 18 second solve with it using complete intuition. I'd like to see anyone else get 18 with Heise.



I was talking about purely speedsolving in my post, which I think is fair considering we're on *speedsolving.com*

My rankings thingy doesn't take into account how you learnt your method, if you looked it up etc. all I care about is speed. And so, if you average 30 seconds, you definitely aren't as good at *speed* cubing as someone who averages 10 seconds. That's what I meant in my post. Hope I am being clear.

Edit: also, by "expert" I didn't mean the actual definition of the word, I was just using it as a way to classify people who are world-class, which I now realize is a much better word.

Also, here are the equivalent splits for 4x4 (again in my opinion)

1:30+ noob
1:30-60 beginner
60-45 intermediate
45-40 expert
40- world-class (instead of expert)

Again, this is in regards to speed, ignoring how you learnt and stuff.


----------



## DuffyEdge (Mar 28, 2013)

Not sure I agree with those 4x4 times.. I think it's a lot easier to sub-20 with 3x3 than sub-60 with 4x4


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Several other people have done something similar (came up with a good method on their own, and then got fast times with it). I'd debate Heise being called a very good method, because although it has low movecount, it's not really suitable for speed.


You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.

Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.

Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?


----------



## cxinlee (Mar 28, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.
> 
> Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.
> 
> Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?


I consider speed to be more important than number of moves. Yes, both are important and I would choose a method which has very little move count ( Like 30 HTM )but slightly slower speed over CPOF. But no such method exists yet. Tomoaki Okayama is only an expert at FMC and he still has lots to learn for the other categories.


----------



## applemobile (Mar 28, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.
> 
> Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?



>comparing two different discaplines.

Speed is the only important factor in SPEEDcubing.


I can walk a marathon in quarter of the time of </insert name here/> but I burn far less calories. I am far more energy efficient than them. Does that make me an expert marathon runner?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 28, 2013)

You're great if you avg sub-WR.


----------



## applemobile (Mar 28, 2013)

So if you avg WR then you are not a great cuber?


----------



## mDiPalma (Mar 28, 2013)

If you can solve a Rubik's cube at all, you are an expert.


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 28, 2013)

Insane: sub 7
Fast: 7-8
Oh yeah not bad: 8-9
Good: 9-10
Meh: 10-13
Slow: >13


----------



## Escher (Mar 28, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> Insane: sub 7 (???)
> Fast: 7-8 (1.5k+)
> Oh yeah not bad: 8-9 (1-1.5k)
> Good: 9-10 (800-1.5k)
> ...



Yeah this is probs about right, when you consider how many hours of deliberate practise it should take to get to each of these steps. I edited your post with 'educated guesses' of how long it should take a new cuber to get to these, assuming you aren't Alex Lau or some other hyper talented/try-hard individual 
These are just stabs in the dark, so do comment if this sounds wrong


----------



## kunparekh18 (Mar 28, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> Insane: sub 7
> Fast: 7-8
> Oh yeah not bad: 8-9
> Good: 9-10
> ...



Let me change the values a bit:

Insane - sub-10
Fast - 10-20
Good - 20-30
Meh - 30-40
Slow - >40


----------



## qqwref (Mar 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> There were already many people who used methods similar to Roux before he ever made it.


Excuse me, what?



Pyjam said:


> You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.
> 
> Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.


I'm responding to elrog saying Heise is one of the "best solvers" for getting 18s with his own method. Also, this *is* a site called speedsolving.com, and this *is* a topic asking what times make you good. And to be fair, CFOP is designed for speed alone, not as an FMC method.



Escher said:


> Yeah this is probs about right, when you consider how many hours of deliberate practise it should take to get to each of these steps.


I'd just like to point out here that I don't think we all have the physical or mental ability to get to, say, sub8 - it's not just about how many hours of deliberate practice you've put into the cube. I've always been a relatively slow (but relatively consistent) turner and I think if I really totally perfected my solves I could *maybe* get into the mid or high 9s, but not much farther than that, just due to the turnspeed difference between me going at full tilt and an actual top 3x3er.


----------



## iKingSteal (Mar 28, 2013)

being sub-20 for me is fast enough for me


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 28, 2013)

applemobile said:


> So if you avg WR then you are not a great cuber?



Then you are good. I am mediocre at best. (I avg 27)


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 28, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> You're making the assumption that only the speed is important.
> 
> Another valid point of view is that speed methods are crap methods to solve a cube. 55 HTM to solve a cube with CFOP is very inefficient.
> 
> Who can argue that Tomoaki Okayama isn't an expert ?



Um... yeah, that's because we're on SPEEDSOLVING.COM! We are talking exclusively about speed here, I mean, the title of the thread is what *times* make you good? You can argue all you want that efficiency is the most important thing in the world, but we are talking about speed here. When qqwref and I say "expert" we are not referring to an overall expert at the cube, we are talking about speed, because that is what this website is for, that is what the thread is about.



DuffyEdge said:


> Not sure I agree with those 4x4 times.. I think it's a lot easier to sub-20 with 3x3 than sub-60 with 4x4



I think that's because you're not taking into account that bigger cubes are just harder to improve at than 3x3, because solves take less time. I you did an equivalent number of solves in 3x3 and 4x4 (instead of an equivalent amount of time) I think you wouldn't find it so. 

Also, your 4x4 probably sucks.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2013)

Ridiculous. No time makes you an expert. Only knowledge can. 

And I can tell you because... I'm an expert !


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 28, 2013)

There are two sides to this debate. People that think speed should not constitute whether someone is a cubing expert or not, and those who realize that's true, but this thread (and this whole forum to a large degree) is dedicated only to speed so that is the only aspect that they are taking into consideration. 

This thread is concerned with a single topic. If you want to argue that learning Heise over CFOP makes you more "expert", then that's another thread. For the purposes of this thread, the only thing taken into consideration is speed. So from that aspect alone, it is clearly not true. While what constitutes a cubing expert in general is difficult to define, a speed cubing expert is very easy to define. That is one reason, I believe, that cubing for speed is so popular compared to many other aspects of cubing. It is one of the only objective ways to accurately rank someone's abilities (FMC also works, but there seems to be much higher variance in scores from any person, which makes it harder to accurately judge a person's abilities).


----------



## insane569 (Mar 28, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> For the purposes of this thread, the only thing taken into consideration is speed.



I think this is causing the most problems. If we're going for over all speed, Faz would no doubt be an expert since he ranks pretty high in all puzzles. 

I think we should narrow down this thread, are we talking about 3x3 only? And if we are talking 3x3 do we take into consideration all the current rankings. It seems like people here are just spitting random numbers that they think are good. 

Side note, the entire forum is for puzzle solving, not just speed. A bunch of elite cubers nowadays huh? Stop paying so much attention to the name of the website.


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 28, 2013)

2x2:

Fast: sub 2
Oh yeah not bad: 2-2.5
Good: 2.5-3
Meh: 3-3.5
Slow: >3.5


----------



## Maskow (Mar 28, 2013)

MBLD:
<20 noob
20-40 apprentice
40-48 expert
48+ master
: F


----------



## aznanimedude (Mar 28, 2013)

Maskow == God Status


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 28, 2013)

majic:

good: sub 1
slow: sup 1


----------



## PeelingStickers (Mar 28, 2013)

105x105x105

Noob: DNF

Good: Solved


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2013)

If you consider Kirjava, he's not officially sub-10, he's not in the top 100, but he can sub-20 in 20 methods.
Who can seriously argue he's not an expert in speedcubing because he's not officially sub-10 ?


----------



## Smiles (Mar 28, 2013)

according to this i'm awesome at the 3x3 even though sometimes i get so frustrated and i cant stop finding things i need to improve on and there's just too much so i can never do it.
jesus.



Pyjam said:


> If you consider Kirjava, he's not officially sub-10, he's not in the top 100, but he can sub-20 in 20 methods.
> Who can seriously argue he's not an expert in speedcubing because he's not officially sub-10 ?



well seeing as the purpose of speedcubing is to solve the cube really fast (not with a variety of methods), it just depends on your definition of expert. 
based on only his official times you could say there are a lot of people better, but knowledge-wise he's definitely one of the best.


----------



## guythatlikesOH (Mar 28, 2013)

AlexByard said:


> In my opinion, an expert is someone who can no longer be taught about a certain subject, they can only advance by working thing out themselfs.



That makes perfect sense, because no one is going to try to teach Feliks F2L.


----------



## Escher (Mar 29, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'd just like to point out here that I don't think we all have the physical or mental ability to get to, say, sub8 - it's not just about how many hours of deliberate practice you've put into the cube. I've always been a relatively slow (but relatively consistent) turner and I think if I really totally perfected my solves I could *maybe* get into the mid or high 9s, but not much farther than that, just due to the turnspeed difference between me going at full tilt and an actual top 3x3er.



Yeah, I think that's right. I wouldn't claim to know whether one can be trained out of this or if there really is a physical barrier. My point of course assumes that those times are reachable for the individual in the first place.


----------



## KongShou (Mar 29, 2013)

Akash Rupela said:


> When he knows full ZBLL.
> For example, Michal pleskovicz knows half ZBLL. so he is half expert



is this true? where did you get this info from?


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 29, 2013)

5bld 3x3

7.07, (7.73), 6.53, 6.42, 5.87, 6.32, 6.58, 7.04, 7.62, 6.28, (5.47), 6.70 = 6.643 = tied UWR Lol !.

but whomqaars


----------



## RaresB (Mar 29, 2013)

Using today's statistics: 

About 24% (4645/19231) average below 20 seconds, making them decent

About 9% (1699/19231) average below 15 seconds, making them good

About 2% (421/19231) average below 12 seconds, making them great

About 0.4% (76/19231) average below 10 seconds, making them amazing

About 0.015 percent (3/19231) average below 8 seconds, making them the best


----------



## KongShou (Mar 29, 2013)

pwnAge said:


> Using today's statistics:
> 
> About 24% (4645/19231) average below 20 seconds, making them decent
> 
> ...



da spy!!!!!
damn im only classed as good.


----------



## Skullush (Mar 29, 2013)

Your opinion of "expert" and "beginner" and such will be highly dependent on how fast/good you are. It's all relative


Maskow said:


> MBLD:
> <20 noob
> 20-40 apprentice
> 40-48 expert
> ...


Case in point 

But in my opinion
1:00+ - Noob
30-1:00 - Beginner
15-30 - Intermediate
10-15 - Advanced
<10 - Expert


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 29, 2013)

Sup-2:00 = beginner
Sub-2:00 = advanced beginner
Sub-1:00 = intermediate
Sub-50 = advanced intermediate
Sub-40 = crap
Sub-30 = amazing


----------



## Smiles (Mar 30, 2013)

1:10+: beginner
sub-1:10: worthy
sub-1:00: advanced beginner
sub-50: expert beginner
sub-40: intermediate
sub-30: very good
sub-20: very very very good
sub-15: advanced
sub-10: pro


----------



## Bestsimple (Mar 30, 2013)

well i've always considered sub 10 to be world class.


----------



## AHornbaker (May 20, 2013)

I remember learning something about normal distribution and z-scores in math. if anyone remembers this, it could probably be applied to the WCA rankings to give you a more accurate idea of how good you are


----------



## yamacrane (Jun 11, 2013)

Just found this thread, here's my rankings by method


Everything but old Pochmann: Nub
old pochmann: SUPER AMAZING AWESOME CUBER


----------



## Spaxxy (Jun 21, 2013)

I only have officially recorded times for 3x3 and 4x4 so far, but I'm decent in all of them, from 2x2-5x5


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 21, 2013)

Spaxxy said:


> I only have officially recorded times for 3x3 and 4x4 so far, but I'm decent in all of them, from 2x2-5x5



So for 3x3 and 4x4 you're officially decent. For 2x2 and 5x5 you're unofficially decent.


----------



## IamWEB (Jun 21, 2013)

I remember this thread!

The times that make you good are the times you are happy to get.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 21, 2013)

IamWEB said:


> I remember this thread!
> 
> The times that make you good are the times you are happy to get.



If that's so I guess I will never be good.


----------



## YddEd (Jun 21, 2013)

IamWEB said:


> I remember this thread!
> 
> The times that make you good are the times you are happy to get.


Well then I guess my 3x3 and megaminx times make me sad!


----------



## windhero (Jun 22, 2013)

Depends on how ambitious you are I suppose. I feel like a decent solver with 3x3 and 4x4 even though according to the ranking I'm very close if not already "great". I will not rest until I average under 15 with the 3x3 easily and sub 1 or maybe sub 50 with 4x4. Might take a while ,_,


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 22, 2013)

>20: noob
15-20: ok
12-15: notbad
10-12: good
9-10: abit better than good
8-9: quite fast
7-8: fast
sub 7: weryfast


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 22, 2013)

Sub-1 Beginner
Sub-50 slightly advanced beginner 
Sub-40 advanced beginner
Sub-30 getting faster 
Sub-20 pretty fast
Sub-15 fast
Sub-10 very fast
Sub-7 Alex, Mats and Feliks


----------



## TDM (Jun 22, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Sub-7 Alex and Feliks


Mats has more official sub-8 averages than 5BLD...


----------



## Renslay (Jun 22, 2013)

TDM said:


> Mats has more official sub-8 averages than 5BLD...



Mats was in more competitions.


----------



## Johnny (Jun 23, 2013)

I think I'd classify it like this

1+- Beginner
60-40- Novice
40-30- Advanced
30-20- Expert
20- Master

This scale is generally more accurate because speedcubers are biased to believe that only borderline world record times are good


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 23, 2013)

Johnny said:


> I think I'd classify it like this
> 
> 1+- Beginner
> 60-40- Novice
> ...



So I'm a master in 5 months of cubing? I don't think so.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 23, 2013)

Johnny said:


> I think I'd classify it like this
> 
> 1+- Beginner
> 60-40- Novice
> ...


Have you ever considered that the reverse might be true? That your scale is biased because it was made by someone who is not particularly fast? (no offense intended) Having been there and gotten faster, wouldn't fast people be better at judging the ability level of people at different times? The idea of calling someone who is sub 20 a master just seems wrong to me 
I would say like:
60+: hasn't practiced a lot yet
40-60: meh, improving anyway
25-40: at least they have drive to get faster
18-25: getting pretty fast.
14-18: not really fast, but speeding up
10-14: quite fast, but not stunning 
8-10: very good
sub 8: master


----------



## Dacuba (Jun 24, 2013)

Noob: Everyone who is slower than me

Ever


----------



## TDM (Jun 24, 2013)

Johnny said:


> I think I'd classify it like this
> 
> 1+- Beginner
> 60-40- Novice
> ...



20-30- Speedcuber
10-20- Expert
10- Master


----------



## KongShou (Jun 24, 2013)

7+ - noob
Sub 7 - master


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 24, 2013)

Bld:
Can't - Fail
6+ Noob please
4-6 Beginner
2:30-4 Medium Beginner
1:30-2:30 advanced beginner 
1-1:30 Getting Faster
45-1 Not Bad 
35-45 Really fast
30-35 Amazing
25-30 Expert
Sub-25 master.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 24, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> So I'm a master in 5 months of cubing? I don't think so.



I was going to say exactly this. Why have I been working to improve so much at cubing for the last couple years if I was already a master after the first 5 months?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 25, 2013)

"Master" should mean you have mastered the cube - you understand pretty much everything about it (well, everything you need to know to be fast) and you will not improve just by putting time in. Of course, the problem is that different people can master the cube and end up at different times. Feliks will end up sub-7, I might end up just sub-10, an older cuber might end up sup-15 or even sup-20. So it's probably not a good way to describe a time interval.


----------



## Zamulacz (Jan 12, 2014)

So there is a hope for me, today I've made first time ever more than 5 solves 4x4 in row and I got 1:40s avg  I didn't even made more than 50 solves on 4x4. So about times:
3x3: 
sub1 - total beginner
sub45- something
sub30 - put some work on that, but nothing special
sub20 - decent
sub15 - good
sub12 - really good
sub10 - became to world class
sub8 - master of the cube.


----------



## armoni2020 (Jan 16, 2014)

This is my first post on this forum, so please be gentle. I've been cubing for 20+ years... longer than most of the top-ranked competitors have been alive. My personal best time is 15.86, and it is still fairly uncommon (maybe 1 out of 5) to get sub 20. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable with cubing in general, even coming up with my own method which is relatively slow but fun. But I don't consider myself an "expert" speed solver.

Interestingly enough, when I first broke 30 sec, the official world record at the time was 22.95 ... think about that for a moment... I've seen many posts here that consider that a noob time.

Physical limitations were brought up at one point, and I'd like to touch on that... In the interest of finding my own limitations, and also to practice turning speed, I decided to memorize a complete solve start to finish. With 42 turns, and no pauses to even look at what I'm doing, I've managed to get times around 10.5 seconds on average. No world-record runs for me 

I think that a good scale might need to be based on the individual. Consider yourself "good" if you are better today than you were yesterday... not just in this hobby... but in all parts of your life.

Happy twisting


----------

