# All Rounders vs Specialists



## Pryge (Jul 6, 2015)

Which one are YOU?

If you don't know what I mean -
All Rounders: Practice most or all WCA events seriously
Specialists: Only practice one or a few events seriously

This has little to nothing to do with speed

Also, what do you think are the benefits of each side?


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 6, 2015)

I practice most events, but not seriously. There are many events that take a long time that I am not good at eg. 6x6, megaminx. But the only events that I am quite fast at are the ones that I practice the most eg skewb, pyraminx, 2x2. So I would consider myself a specialist.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 6, 2015)

BLD specialist


----------



## Username (Jul 6, 2015)

I don't know, I'm not fast enough at all events to consider myself an all-rounder but I don't do one or two events only. I'm somewhere in between though.


----------



## Cale S (Jul 6, 2015)

I can do all events and enjoy doing most of them (all but OH, 6x6, and 7x7), but I'd say that I specialize in BLD and skewb.


----------



## not_kevin (Jul 6, 2015)

Ugh, I'm super torn with this question liek every time I evaluate my cubing progress  I definitely have very clear specialties (namely, FMC and Square-1), but I've been working on being stronger all around - sum of ranks/KinchRanks have really motivated me to get better at other events. I have clear weaknesses, 'tho - feet and the BLD events are things I haven't spent much time on, and I can't seem to get the hang of Pyraminx, no matter how much I try.


----------



## Iggy (Jul 6, 2015)

I think I'm an all rounder. I'm not that great at big cubes though, but I'm working on it

Edit: Oh yeah I'm not that great at FMC either, but don't feel like practising it at all


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 6, 2015)

I just fly around random events that I feel like doing. One day it could be 6x6, the next day it could be multiBLD


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 6, 2015)

I am fairly good at pyra and skewb, ok at 2x2 and 3x3 (maybe idk). I suck at 4x4, Mega and OH. I guess I am a specialist.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 6, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> I just fly around random events that I feel like doing. One day it could be 6x6, the next day it could be multiBLD



I'm pretty much the same, except I don't do some events at all like FMC.

I do specialise in 5x5 and feet though.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jul 6, 2015)

Definitely a clock specialist.

I think specialists tend to be faster at their particular events in general, but I respect all rounders more (especially the fastest ones like John Brechon) because being fast all around is so much harder.


----------



## TDM (Jul 6, 2015)

I used to specialise in 3x3 though I've recently started practising other events and haven't been doing 3x3 much at all.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 6, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> BLD specialist


Non BLD specialist 

Advantage: More pbs to break 
Disadvantage: You're not "world class" in anything particularly (at least in my case ) Obviously this isn't true for Feliks


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 6, 2015)

I'm definitely a specialist (pretty obvious what I specialize in). I only started seriously practising other events this week .


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 6, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> I just fly around random events that I feel like doing. One day it could be 6x6, the next day it could be multiBLD



I agree with this completely, although my favorite events (Pyra, 3x3, in that order, and 4x4, Skewb, and Mega, in no order) are more likely to show up, although I have a PB in everything but 4BLD and 5BLD. Although I call those earlier ones my favorite events, lately I have been practicing things like Square-1, 6x6, and BLD more than Mega and Skewb. Those 5 are just the ones that I generally consider my best and most enjoyable. So I guess I'm an All Rounder.


----------



## DuffyEdge (Jul 6, 2015)

I try to be an All Rounder, but most of the events I still suck at.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 6, 2015)

I specialize in 3x3, a lot. You can tell if I give you a brief list of some of my global averages:
2x2: 5 seconds
4x4: 70 to 80 seconds
5x5: 140 to 160 seconds
From that, you might guess that I average around 20 seconds. I actually average sub-14.


----------



## Chree (Jul 6, 2015)

All I really practice is 2-7, OH, Mega... and sometimes I a scant amount of BLD.

Question: Would you consider someone a specialist if they only really worry about the cubic puzzles?


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 6, 2015)

I literally only practice 3x3 now.


----------



## BrianJ (Jul 6, 2015)

I don't know. I do have obvious special events (2x2, SQ-1, and maybe Pyra), but I don't practice them as often, and I find myself wanting to do other events a bit more.


----------



## JamesDanko (Jul 6, 2015)

I practice 2x2 and 3x3 the most, but I also do others, like mega and pyra. But I wouldn't consider myself a specialist because I am not good in any particular event. I rank about the same in all of them, so I would say I'm an all rounder.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 6, 2015)

OrangeCuber said:


> I practice 2x2 and 3x3 the most, but I also do others, like mega and pyra. But I wouldn't consider myself a specialist because I am not good in any particular event. I rank about the same in all of them, so I would say I'm an all rounder.



But I thought you specialized in writing 100 questions in Q&A videos!


----------



## AlexMaass (Jul 6, 2015)

lol the only event that I'm world class in is pyraminx, and I'm somewhat good at skewb, despite using bad method lol, somehow got an official 5.06 avg and a 2.65 single, I literally just practiced quite a bit.

and I'm pretty much a nub at 3x3 ;-;

I'm trying to get decent at more events like big cubes and megaminx etc, but I'm too lazy to practice them 

I guess I'm a specialist at pyraminx  I used to practice pyraminx a lot xD


----------



## JamesDanko (Jul 6, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> But I thought you specialized in writing 100 questions in Q&A videos!



If that counts, then I am definitely a specialist.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 6, 2015)

just 3x3 and sometimes do OH.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jul 6, 2015)

2-7, OH, Skewb. FMC is fun too.

That's exactly half of the WCA events. I'd consider myself a specialist, I guess.


----------



## Aussie (Jul 6, 2015)

I try to practice 3x3 at least 10 minutes a day, but I spend hours daily practicing the 6x6 so I guess I specialize in 6x6!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 6, 2015)

I specialize in being bad at generalizing.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jul 6, 2015)

Aussie said:


> I try to practice 3x3 at least 10 minutes a day, but I spend hours daily practicing the 6x6 so I guess I specialize in 6x6!


dude try being good at 5x5 and 7x7


----------



## josh42732 (Jul 6, 2015)

I try not to specialize in 3x3 and BLD, but they are the easiest for me to practice. What would you say that Feliks is?


----------



## SirWaffle (Jul 6, 2015)

I guess I am an all rounder I do practice pretty much every event I have ones I prefer over others but I still do them all.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jul 6, 2015)

I am somewhere in between, I am specialist for 2x2,3x3 and 4x4 but I am top 60 for sum of ranks avg so I consider myself an all rounder as well.


----------



## Aussie (Jul 6, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> dude try being good at 5x5 and 7x7



Sometimes I practice 7x7 and I think I am pretty good at it. Not as good as me on the 6x6, though. And for 5x5... The only 5x5 I have is a Luminous Green YJ 5x5 and it pops more then my 6x6. Once an AoChuang or HuaChuang comes out in pink or something other then black, white and stickerless with it still being competition legal, I'll certainly consider buying one and practicing for 5x5.


----------



## Scruggsy13 (Jul 6, 2015)

I don't do all events (for example: sq-1, fmc, 4/5bld) but I'm definitely not a specialist. I generally practice all of the other events, although I devote time to improving my world ranking in certain events (5x5 and 3bld).


----------



## cuberkid10 (Jul 6, 2015)

I specialize in 2x2, 3x3, and 4x4. Big cubes are like the plague to me.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 6, 2015)

I'm closer to being an all-rounder, I dabble in most events and I've only not competed in clock and feet, and last I checked I was top-100 KinchRanks (but I'm not a good all-rounder and might get knocked out the top-100 soon). I tend to be interested in a handful of events at a time: currently BLD and sq-1, but I've previously had a bigcube phase and a megaminx phase, for example.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jul 6, 2015)

Aussie said:


> Sometimes I practice 7x7 and I think I am pretty good at it. Not as good as me on the 6x6, though. And for 5x5... The only 5x5 I have is a Luminous Green YJ 5x5 and it pops more then my 6x6. Once an AoChuang or HuaChuang comes out in pink or something other then black, white and stickerless with it still being competition legal, I'll certainly consider buying one and practicing for 5x5.



just get one in white or something  just practice 5x5-7x7 a lot


----------



## willtri4 (Jul 6, 2015)

Square-1 is definitely my main event. I practice 2x2 and skewb often, and 3x3, 4x4, OH, and BLD sometimes. I'd do pyra more if I had a decent one.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 6, 2015)

I'm not by any means amazing at big cubes, but I would say I'm a big cube specialist. I've worked a lot on 5x5 and 7x7 and will do the same for 6x6 when I get a cube that doesn't pop every solve.


----------



## tx789 (Jul 6, 2015)

I consider myself a slow all rounder. My best even would be 2x2, pyraminx and skewb since I have spent some time focusing on those.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 6, 2015)

Probably a 2x2-4x4, pyra, and FMC Specialist


----------



## Joey VOV (Jul 7, 2015)

I try to be a somewhat all-rounder, but my progress is quite slow, especially since I haven't been practicing much lately. However I do obviously have my best event which is skewb, so I say I am a specialist in that. I practice pretty much everything except Feet, FMC, Pyra, Mega, and OH, and 2x2. Most of those events are pretty significant quantitatively and qualitatively so because of that I cannot say I am an all-rounder, though I'd like to be.


----------



## natezach728 (Jul 7, 2015)

I specialize in skewb and 4x4, but I'm an all rounder in every other event (except BLDs and FMC and feet )


----------



## LucidCuber (Jul 7, 2015)

I've specialised so many different things that I've ended up as an all rounder. Also I care mostly about my kinchranks so look to improves average of my worst events to roudn it up anyway.


----------



## the super cuber (Jul 7, 2015)

I would consider myself as an all rounder, I'm 75th in the world in kinchranks and 98th for sum of ranks. I could say I specialise in multiblind but I think I'm decent at Pyraminx too and not too bad at the others, and my worst world rank for any event is 1278 for Megaminx


----------



## NewCuber000 (Jul 7, 2015)

I think I'm on the road to being an all rounder. Haven't been cubing long enough to be a good one . The only reason I'm not practicing 6x6 and 7x7 yet is because I don't have them yet. I'm working on getting decent with skewb, megaminx, 5x5, megaminx, 3BLD and fewest moves, and once I get ok with all of those I'll be going to more events.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 7, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> ...



You and GuRoux are tied for 2x2 average if you ever were curious


----------



## Berd (Jul 9, 2015)

I'm an all rounder in every event - equally bad haha.


----------



## blade740 (Jul 9, 2015)

I like to think I'm an all-rounder. I like all events, and practice them all equally (none).

But look at my results, and I'm clearly the very definition of a specialist.


----------



## molarmanful (Jul 9, 2015)

I'm sort of in between, but I'd say I'm more on the specialist side. I practice 3x3, 2x2, Pyraminx, Skewb, 3x3 OH (but I can solve Megaminx). I don't do big cubes (too long to solve), clock (too hardware-based), Square-1 (I HATE THE ALGS!!!), feet (can't turn), and BLD (I just can't memorize pieces). I haven't tried FMC officially, but I think I would be pretty good at it (and I get in the 30's - low 40's when practicing at home).


----------



## Carbon (Jul 9, 2015)

The only events i dont do are the ones i dont know how to (sq1, bld events) so all rounder for me =P


----------



## ottozing (Jul 9, 2015)

blade740 said:


> I like to think I'm an all-rounder. I like all events, and practice them all equally (none).
> 
> But look at my results, and I'm clearly the very definition of a specialist.



I have the opposite going for me. I don't seriously practice more than like half of the wca events, if that, and although there are events I stand out in, I'm most people's definition of an all rounder.


----------



## Hari (Jul 9, 2015)

Easy call for me. BLD specialist


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Jul 9, 2015)

I totally only specialize in Skewb.

No other event is worth my time.


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 14, 2015)

I'm an all rounder, but I'm terrible at big cubes and don't do them much. The only events that I'm at least half good at are Pyra, 2x2, and maybe Clock.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 14, 2015)

I suck at everything but 3x3 but I'm sub-14 on that


----------



## XTowncuber (Jul 14, 2015)

Definitely a specialist for 3x3 and Pyra. I do practice most other events some, but mostly those two.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 14, 2015)

blade740 said:


> I like to think I'm an all-rounder. I like all events, and practice them all equally (none).
> 
> But look at my results, and I'm clearly the very definition of a specialist.



You know you're a specialist when your square-1 results are better than your 3x3.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 14, 2015)

I decided to do a test to see how much of an all rounder I really am.
I used the current WR averages to see what times I should be capable of achieving on other puzzles based on my 3x3 PB Average of 5

I figured out that -
3x3 x 0.237 = Equivalent 2x2 Average
3x3 x 3.980 = Equivalent 4x4 Average
3x3 x 7.940 = Equivalent 5x5 Average
3x3 x 16.452 = Equivalent 6x6 Average
3x3 x 24.900 = Equivalent 7x7 Average

3x3 x 3.891 = Equivalent 3BLD Mean (this will most likely be incorrect because of how beast Maskow is)
3x3 x 23.381 = Equivalent 4BLD Single (I used the 5.25 single instead of the average to account for no 4BLD means)
3x3 x 63.970 = Equivalent 5BLD Single (see above)

3x3 x 1.662 = Equivalent OH Average
3x3 x 4.575 = Equivalent Feet Mean
3x3 x 3.823 = Equivalent FMC Mean

3x3 x 6.558 = Equivalent Megaminx Average (This one is quite off for me and probably will be for most people)
3x3 x 0.391 = Equivalent Pyraminx Average
3x3 x 1.561 = Equivalent Square-1 Average (Also way off for most due to Biangling's skill)
3x3 x 0.908 = Equivalent Clock Average
3x3 x 0.474 = Equivalent Skewb Average

I know somebody made a program similar to this, and I know this is by no means accurate, but it is what statistics say you could achieve at each event if you practice all events equally. 
If you don't actually practice an event then don't do the calculation for that event, because it obviously won't be correct.

Here are the averages I could achieve according to my 3x3 PB Ao5 (12.35)- (Key = Event: Predicted (Actual))
2x2: 2.93 (low 4)
4x4: 49.15 (50.20)
5x5: 1:38.06 (1:41.18)
6x6: 3:23.18 (3:34.35)
7x7: 5:07.52 (low 6, don't practice 7x7 much)
3BLD: 48.05 (low 3:00 lol)
4BLD: 4:48.76 (N/A for now)
5BLD: 13:10.03 (N/A for now)
3OH: 20.53 (36.19)
Feet: 56.50 (1:02.xx)
FMC: 47.21 moves (never properly attempted it but it sounds about right)
Mega: 1:20.99 (high 2)
Pyra: 4.83 (8.47)
Sq-1: 19.28 (N/A)
Clock: 11.21 (15.xx)
Skewb: 5.85 (lolskoob 15 or something idk)

Although a lot of my times are incorrectly predicted, this shows my practice distribution well. For example, I practice 4x4 and 5x5 a lot, which is why it is only natural that they would be close to the equivalent of my 3x3 Average, where as I don't practice Skewb or Pyraminx much at all which is why my predicted averages are much faster than my actual ones.

Feel free to toy around with this. It isn't limited to Ao5's, although the scale factors are calculates using the Ao5/Mo3 World Records so your results may not be as expected.

Thanks to Matty for helping figure out the scale factors


----------



## TMarshall (Jul 14, 2015)

I consider myself an all-rounder, but Mitch lane thinks I'm a specialist. I'm very good at skewb, decent at 3x3, oh, clock, square 1, and pyra, but i'm bad at 4x4 and big cubes.


----------



## jjone fiffier (Jul 14, 2015)

According to Myachiis' scale I should average mid-7 for Skewb (I average mid-15 for 3x3) but my actual average is 3.9-4.0. So I am definitely a specialist.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 14, 2015)

jjone fiffier said:


> According to Myachiis' scale I should average mid-7 for Skewb (I average mid-15 for 3x3) but my actual average is 3.9-4.0. So I am definitely a specialist.



Let's see how fast that is:
3x3 x 0.474 = Skewb, which for you is ~3.95.
3.95 / 0.474 = 8.33 recurring.

This means that the practice and time you have put into Skewb to get that fast could have gotten you a sub-8.5 3x3 average.
Now you can use this estimate 3x3 average to calculate your equivalent times for other events. For example - 

Let's say you want to find out how fast your 4x4 times would be if they were equivalent to your Skewb times.
You can go Skewb -> 3x3 -> 4x4.
We've already calculated your 3x3 potential average (8.3333...), so lets use that.
8.333 x 3.980 = 33.17.
This means that if you were as fast at 4x4 as you are at Skewb (compared to other cubers in the World), your 4x4 average of 5 PB would be ~33.17.

I think this is quite a useful tool and gives some interesting results.


----------



## jjone fiffier (Jul 14, 2015)

But I think that my Skewb practice applied on 3x3 wouldn't get me that fast, because top 3x3ers have had multiple years to reach that speed, but top skewbers only about 1.5 years.



Does that make any sense at all?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 14, 2015)

jjone fiffier said:


> But I think that my Skewb practice applied on 3x3 wouldn't get me that fast, because top 3x3ers have had multiple years to reach that speed, but top skewbers only about 1.5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that make any sense at all?



Actually people like Kennan and PDF have gotten pretty fast in 3x3 in that time. But during that period they almost exclusively practised 3x3 (I think).


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 14, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Actually people like Kennan and PDF have gotten pretty fast in 3x3 in that time. But during that period they almost exclusively practised 3x3 (I think).



 yeah pretty much. I only started seriously practising other events like 2x2, 4x4, OH, and 3BLD about 3 weeks ago lol.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 14, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Actually people like Kennan and PDF have gotten pretty fast in 3x3 in that time. But during that period they almost exclusively practised 3x3 (I think).



That's what I mean. Most people who are World Class in just 1 or 2 events practice them almost exclusively. If you practiced 3x3 and nothing else for a solid 1.5 years, you'd probably be around the equivalent speed for if you practiced 4x4 and nothing else for 1.5 years.

Of course there are different algorithm sets for different events that require different amount of times to learn and get fast at, but across all events I believe that World Class specialists in events like 3x3 know approximately the same number of algs as people who are World Class at events like Skewb.

Another thing I found quite interesting from this is that 4x4 is almost exactly half of 5x5 in many aspects. It's quite weird. Despite being an all rounder, I do have a slight bias towards 4x4 and 5x5, and I would say I'm about the same skill in both and I practice them about the same amount. The scary thing is, it seems for every 1 second I improve on 4x4, I improve 2 seconds on 5x5. When I was averaging 2 minutes on 5x5, I was averaging 1 minute on 4x4. Now, my PB Ao5 for 5x5 is 1:41, and my PB Ao5 for 4x4 is 50.20. Subtract those from my previous times and you get an improvement ratio of 9.80 : 18.92, or 1 : 1.93.

Has anyone else noticed this and/or have their own stats to strengthen this suggestion?


----------



## cashis (Jul 14, 2015)

using myachii's thing / predicted (actual)
222= 2.32 (~5)
444= 39.04 (1:00 looool)
555= 1:17 (2:30 lol)
666= 2:41 (don't have 6x6 lol)
777= 4:00 (15 min lol)

lol bld

333OH= 16.30 (21 )
lol feet
333FMC= 37 (nope)

Mega= 1:04 (3 min lol)
Pyra= 3.83 (6)
SQ1= 15 (lol pls)
lol clock lol skoob

none of these match up, so I guess i'm a specialist in 3x3.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 14, 2015)

Myachii said:


> That's what I mean. Most people who are World Class in just 1 or 2 events practice them almost exclusively. If you practiced 3x3 and nothing else for a solid 1.5 years, you'd probably be around the equivalent speed for if you practiced 4x4 and nothing else for 1.5 years.
> 
> Of course there are different algorithm sets for different events that require different amount of times to learn and get fast at, but across all events I believe that World Class specialists in events like 3x3 know approximately the same number of algs as people who are World Class at events like Skewb.



There are so many more people practising 3x3 "seriously" than people practising skewb "seriously". That's why it is much easier to be "world class" at skewb (or some other less practised event) than in 3x3... Similarly it's much easier to be world class at some sport that isn't so popular (for example skeet shooting or smthing like that) compared to football for example...


----------



## Myachii (Jul 14, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> There are so many more people practising 3x3 "seriously" than people practising skewb "seriously". That's why it is much easier to be "world class" at skewb (or some other less practised event) than in 3x3... Similarly it's much easier to be world class at some sport that isn't so popular (for example skeet shooting or smthing like that) compared to football for example...



I know. But the stats I have used say that the same amount of practice is required to get a PB Ao5 of 3.9 on Skewb as it does to get a PB Ao5 of 8.33 on 3x3. The 'World Class' title is only a comparison of how fast you are compared to other people in the World. You can't control what other people do. In a parallel universe, Skewb could be the most popular event. But the skill required to get down to a certain speed is always the same, whether or not it is deemed 'World Class' or not.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Jul 14, 2015)

I would consider myself as a allrounder, since I don't really have a favorite event  Some of my WCA results still suck tho. atm , I really just practise 3x3 and Megaminx, with a bit of 5x5  E: i also like BLD; even tho accuracy is bad, but I like the feeling when it's a success


----------



## Renslay (Jul 14, 2015)

Specialist: mainly 3x3 and 3x3 BLD.
Sometimes 4x4 and 5x5. Occasionally 4x4 BLD.


----------



## BboyArchon (Jul 14, 2015)

Myachii said:


> I know somebody made a program similar to this, and I know this is by no means accurate, but it is what statistics say you could achieve at each event if you practice all events equally.



http://www.terabo.net/cubjectives/ Maybe?


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 14, 2015)

Myachii said:


> I know. But the stats I have used say that the same amount of practice is required to get a PB Ao5 of 3.9 on Skewb as it does to get a PB Ao5 of 8.33 on 3x3. The 'World Class' title is only a comparison of how fast you are compared to other people in the World. You can't control what other people do. In a parallel universe, Skewb could be the most popular event. But the skill required to get down to a certain speed is always the same, whether or not it is deemed 'World Class' or not.



No. I don't think that's what the stats say.

Because as you said yourself earlier:


> *I used the current WR averages* to see what times I should be capable of achieving on other puzzles based on my 3x3 PB Average of 5



So you actually compared yourself to the current WR. And of course WR in some popular event (3x3) is "better" than some other not so popular event (skewb).

So taking you "parallel universe" example where skewb is suddenly the most popular event of all:
That would obviously mean that because more people practise it seriously skewb WR would be better and 3x3 WR would be slower because less people would practise it seriously...

I think it's quite impossible to compare "absolute skills" needed for some speed between different events...


----------



## Myachii (Jul 14, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> No. I don't think that's what the stats say.
> 
> Because as you said yourself earlier:
> 
> ...



I think that using the World Record averages is a lot more accurate than using the results from all WCA speedcubers.
I tried to see if this would work using the median time for all events, and the results I got were much less accurate.

Of course it is impossible to precisely calculate an average that works for all people, but we can at least try and find one that suits most people, and seen as though the World Record holders are pushing each event closer to their absolute limits, we can use their best official efforts (the WR's themselves) to get a fairly accurate scale factor for each event. My times alone prove that this works for at least some people, as my predicted 4x4 and 5x5 averages were very close to my actual averages.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 14, 2015)

Has anyone tried using KinchRanks to look at this? Lower standard deviation of KinchRanks = more of an all-rounder (in theory). I get 19.5 over all events, 13.8 when I exclude events I haven't competed in. I may post this in the stats or KinchRanks thread if it doesn't get much attention here.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 15, 2015)

Myachii said:


> I think that using the World Record averages is a lot more accurate than using the results from all WCA speedcubers.
> I tried to see if this would work using the median time for all events, and the results I got were much less accurate.
> 
> Of course it is impossible to precisely calculate an average that works for all people, but we can at least try and find one that suits most people, and seen as though the World Record holders are pushing each event closer to their absolute limits, we can use their best official efforts (the WR's themselves) to get a fairly accurate scale factor for each event. My times alone prove that this works for at least some people, as my predicted 4x4 and 5x5 averages were very close to my actual averages.



Using WRs might be better than using mean of all solves but it's still not good.

Getting sub-50 fmc mo3 is as hard as getting sub-4:04 4bld? I don't think so...


----------



## Petro Leum (Jul 15, 2015)

i really only practice cubic events, and i specialize on 3x3 onehanded and 3x3 twohanded.

I sometimes feel like progress would feel easier if i was practicing all events, because alot of the skill transfers and you just get more PBs per time which is motivating.

on the other hand side, specializing in one event definately makes you improve faster in that one event and is better if you have big goals for that event.


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 15, 2015)

BboyArchon said:


> http://www.terabo.net/cubjectives/ Maybe?



Wow, this is not very accurate. I average sub every thing minus MBLD, 4BLD and 5BLD.

I would stick to Myachii's system.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 15, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Using WRs might be better than using mean of all solves but it's still not good.
> 
> Getting sub-50 fmc mo3 is as hard as getting sub-4:04 4bld? I don't think so...



If you have any idea how this can be made more accurate let me know so I can try to implement it.


----------



## parkpeter963 (Jul 15, 2015)

I primarily do Skewb, 3x3, square-1, and megaminx (order of importance respectively) but I'm beginning to specialize in skewb

Sent from my LG-H443 using Tapatalk


----------



## Forcefulness (Jul 15, 2015)

I pretty much do everything, though I have been slacking off with skewb recently because by times have been pretty stagnant for a few months now and it's kinda demotivating.


----------



## not_kevin (Jul 15, 2015)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Has anyone tried using KinchRanks to look at this? Lower standard deviation of KinchRanks = more of an all-rounder (in theory). I get 19.5 over all events, 13.8 when I exclude events I haven't competed in. I may post this in the stats or KinchRanks thread if it doesn't get much attention here.



When I saw Myachii's idea, I immediately thought of using KinchRanks as a possibly more uniform metric (if not necessarily as illuminating) - seeing what fraction you are to the world record makes it easy to compare all events against each other, although it removes the hard numbers that Myachii gets.

Using this, I found that my standard deviation was 25.36, and 21.48 excluding the two events that are 0 for me (feet and 5bld). However, I know one of my big weaknesses is BLD, due to lack of motivation - excluding those, my standard deviation drops to 11.94 

So overall, I'm fairly well-rounded other than BLD and feet, with clear focuses in FMC and Square-1. So I still don't know what camp I fall under XD


----------

