# [Poll] Can anyone be sub-10?



## rubikmaster (Jul 20, 2015)

So I think this could spark up some discussion. Four or five years ago, almost everyone would have answered this question with "No freakin way!". But I feel that in 2015, posing such a question doesn't sound so unrealistic. 

The question is whether it is possible for every cuber to achieve sub-10 times. Provided they have all the knowledge they require (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.) and a great cube that suits them, would any cuber eventually be able to improve their F2L lookahead, OLL/PLL recognitition and overall TPS to the point of being able to achieve sub 10 times? For some people that may only be achievable by practicing 4 hours/day for 5 years, for some it may be a matter of months. But, does the average person possess the mental and physical ability to be sub-10 at one point, with enough dedication and practice?

Yes, I do realise I've only talked about CFOP, so if you think another method might be superior, feel free to share your opinion.

Now to make this discussion more interesting I've decided to create a poll of what you think the average person is capable of achieving. Newbie cubers might have an inaccuarate perspective on this so please try to look at this objectively and arrive at a logical conclusion. Please vote, I think the results will be very interesting.


----------



## Forcefulness (Jul 20, 2015)

I feel anyone can be sub-8 with enough practice, that said it may take weilonger for some than for others.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 20, 2015)

If a cuber is willing to learn the basic alg sets like OLL and PLL, you can get sub-8 with enough practice. It sure will take a while, but as you said they have a lifetime so of course it's possible.


----------



## ViliusRibinskas (Jul 20, 2015)

I think anyone can sub-10, just learn a lot of good algs and be fast enough  You need to learn 2LLL and full F2L and you can be sub-10 with practise


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 20, 2015)

Myachii said:


> If a cuber is willing to learn the basic alg sets like OLL and PLL, you can get sub-8 with enough practice. It sure will take a while, but as you said they have a lifetime so of course it's possible.



Interesting, but I still think there's a certain percentage of cubers which might never be able to reach that level of skill. I also believe genetics could play a part in finger dexterity and mental ability when it comes to speedcubing.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 20, 2015)

There's not much chance of us older cubers achieving it. Slower fingers, slower reactions, less time for practice, etc.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jul 20, 2015)

As an idealist, i like to believe anyone could be the WR holder with enough practice. unfortunately, there are alot of things that indicate otherwise, and it makes me sad every time i have to doubt it....


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 20, 2015)

I think it is possible. You just have to spam practice, drill algs and be as efficient as you can possibly be. Just look at Chan Hong Lik.


----------



## LucidCuber (Jul 20, 2015)

I'd say anyone can be sub-20 and 90% can be sub-15. I don't think everyone can be sub-10 though.


----------



## RicardoRix (Jul 20, 2015)

The groups: 
'Can anyone', 'average cuber', 'Provided they have all the knowledge they require (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.)'.
are not necessarily the same hypothetical person.

At one extreme ('Can anyone') you're including my granddad who has rheumatism, is half-blind, and has difficulty understanding and remembering the rules to noughts and crosses.
At the other extreme you have the hypothetical person who has the talent to naturally already have fulfilled 'Provided they have all the knowledge they require (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.)'.

Who exactly are you talking about?


----------



## Forcefulness (Jul 20, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> The groups:
> 'Can anyone', 'average cuber', 'Provided they have all the knowledge they require (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.)'.
> are not necessarily the same hypothetical person.
> 
> ...



Does the average person have the ability to learn and develop the necessary skills to be sub-10


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 20, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> The groups:
> 'Can anyone', 'average cuber', 'Provided they have all the knowledge they require (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.)'.
> are not necessarily the same hypothetical person.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I guess I should've cleared that up. Implying that this average person already has all the knowledge required to achieve sub-10 times, would most people be able to achieve sub-10 one day?


----------



## RicardoRix (Jul 20, 2015)

Well that's far from the average person, or possibly even the average speed cuber's knowledge (like X-Cross, Advanced F2L Techniques, OLL, PLL, CLL, VHLS, some ZBLL, etc.)
..and the inclination to try and achieve sub-10 (I'm guessing that part is implied).

So you're asking if a person can move their fingers fast enough and apply the knowledge sufficiently without pauses.

A question that I ask myself, is that if I already know the solution and practice it, can I be sub-10?
The answer is no, my fingers just don't move fast enough.
Sub-15 perhaps - on a good day.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 20, 2015)

By average person, he or she must have:

-interest
-practice time
-the will to practice
-the will to learn algorithms

Tps is gained over time. Obviously, new cubers and older-aged people won't be able to turn as fast as experienced cubers. But my point is that everyone starts out as an average cuber. It's just that most people get discouraged somewhere along the way and give up.


----------



## dboeren (Jul 20, 2015)

It's an interesting question, but it assumes that you got a large amount of memorization for free and have plenty of practice time. I'm more interesting in knowing how fast you can be if you have limited time per day to study/practice and maybe a couple years to do it in. That to me would be a more practical scenario


----------



## Smiles (Jul 20, 2015)

I'm sub-12 without really trying, I've just been cubing a long time.
And it's no plateau, I'm still improving.
I don't even set my tensions properly or use lube anymore lol.

So I voted for sub-13 which is a generous vote. Most people can definitely get lower than that if they really tried.


----------



## thelunarbros (Jul 20, 2015)

I really wanted to start going faster when I was at sub 20. I personally think that was about the time where most of us start to push ourselves to go further.

A cuber who puts in about 1 hour a day can definitely make it to sub 10, because they constantly practise. If its less than around 20 minutes a day they could be losing interest in cubing, and at some point stop. So it really depends on how much you care about cubing. Sub-15 is where I'm willing to vote for.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 20, 2015)

Yeah. Anyone (with normally functioning brain and hands) can get to sub-10 if they want it enough. Obviously it's much easier for some individuals than for others but I think it's possible for everyone.

If you use CFOP the TPS needed for sub-10 is around 6. That is quite easily achievable. Real problem is look-ahead and having 0 pauses. That is what takes those countless of hours of practise to develop.

And if you REALLY can't achieve 6 TPS then you could always use Roux. Then you would only need ~5TPS for sub-10.


Note that while it is possible (IMO) for everyone it would take insane amounts of practise for some. But think about it. If someone practises 2 hours a day every single day for 10 years that makes 10*365*2 = awesomely many hours of practise.


----------



## RicardoRix (Jul 20, 2015)

4 T-Perms in 10 seconds = 5.6 TPS. Can't see it myself.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 20, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> 4 T-Perms in 10 seconds = 5.6 TPS. Can't see it myself.



Get faster at T perms. I did 7 in 10.947 = 8.95 TPS. TPS comes with practice. Am I the king of TPS? No. However, the more you practice, the higher your TPS, generally.


----------



## tx789 (Jul 21, 2015)

It not who can get sub 10. It's more who can put the work in to get it.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jul 21, 2015)

tx789 said:


> It not who can get sub 10. It's more who can put the work in to get it.


Eggzactly

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk


----------



## MM99 (Jul 21, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> 4 T-Perms in 10 seconds = 5.6 TPS. Can't see it myself.



I did 10 T perms in 10.34 seconds so thats 10+ tps but as you can see I only average around the 14 second mark Look ahead and 0 pauses are much more important than tps


----------



## Smiles (Jul 21, 2015)

MM99 said:


> I did 10 T perms in 10.34 seconds so thats 10+ tps but as you can see I only average around the 14 second mark Look ahead and 0 pauses are much more important than tps



yeah and i cant even sub-1 a T perm if you gave me 10 tries to do it, so i'd take like 15 seconds when you account for hands getting tired, messing up, and transitioning from 1 T perm to the next.

i just don't really pause during my solves


----------



## RicardoRix (Jul 21, 2015)

MM99 said:


> I did 10 T perms in 10.34 seconds so thats 10+ tps but as you can see I only average around the 14 second mark Look ahead and 0 pauses are much more important than tps



Exactly, but trying to quantify what the *average person*'s likely time spent with pauses and look ahead is difficult. You definitely can say it is atleast 0.
I've taken the T-Perms as a base line. In an actual solve the moves are going to be harder to execute than a T-Perm.
I'm just bringing to light that some people don't have an ever improving TPS, and a real persons maximum TPS can be as low as 5.6 TPS.

Take that into account with the addition of pauses and look-ahead can be equally as bad, and sub-10 looks even more unlikely.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 21, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> Exactly, but trying to quantify what the *average person*'s likely time spent with pauses and look ahead is difficult. You definitely can say it is atleast 0.
> I've taken the T-Perms as a base line. In an actual solve the moves are going to be harder to execute than a T-Perm.
> I'm just bringing to light that some people don't have an ever improving TPS, and a real persons maximum TPS can be as low as 5.6 TPS.
> 
> Take that into account with the addition of pauses and look-ahead can be equally as bad, and sub-10 looks even more unlikely.



5.6 may be your CURRENT max TPS, but I REALLY REALLY doubt that it is the fastest TPS your hands could ever be capable of...
Or do you honestly think that if you practised for 2 hours every single day for 10 years your TPS would not improve? I think it would improve quite significantly...


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 21, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> 5.6 may be your CURRENT max TPS, but I REALLY REALLY doubt that it is the fastest TPS your hands could ever be capable of...
> Or do you honestly think that if you practised for 2 hours every single day for 10 years your TPS would not improve? I think it would improve quite significantly...



Yes. You definitely gain tps just from spamming algs. If you were to learn even just full OLL and PLL by muscle memory and with proper fingertricks, your tps can't be that bad.


----------



## Myachii (Jul 21, 2015)

I think most of you are missing the point of the question. What is the average cuber capable of achieving in his *lifetime?*
This is why I think with an entire lifetime of practice, anyone can be sub-8. For some it may take only a few years, for others, it may take 20. But with so much available time, anyone could be sub-8. In 20 years time, a sub-8 average may not even be that impressive anymore. Any cuber can get to sub 8, but it's down to the skill and improvement of others as to whether or not they can become World Class.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 21, 2015)

Myachii said:


> I think most of you are missing the point of the question. What is the average cuber capable of achieving in his *lifetime?*
> This is why I think with an entire lifetime of practice, anyone can be sub-8. For some it may take only a few years, for others, it may take 20. But with so much available time, anyone could be sub-8. In 20 years time, a sub-8 average may not even be that impressive anymore. Any cuber can get to sub 8, but it's down to the skill and improvement of others as to whether or not they can become World Class.



Given that speedcubing is relatively new, it'd be interesting to see what people like Feliks and Mats average when they get older. As of now, they are still improving somewhat, but at what age will they peak at and start to decline in speed?


----------



## Mr Cubism (Jul 21, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Given that speedcubing is relatively new, it'd be interesting to see what people like Feliks and Mats average when they get older. As of now, they are still improving somewhat, but at what age will they peak at and start to decline in speed?



Interesting question. Maybe when they are more or less 25 years old?!


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 21, 2015)

Yeah! Well... anybody but OP at least.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 21, 2015)

Mr Cubism said:


> Interesting question. Maybe when they are more or less 25 years old?!



I'd say age wouldn't be a limiting factor until they're at least in their mid 30s but it is likely that they will have already reached their limit much sooner than that or they will have simply lost interest in cubing.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 21, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> I'd say age wouldn't be a limiting factor until they're at least in their mid 30s but it is likely that they will have already reached their limit much sooner than that or they will have simply lost interest in cubing.



It may not be lost of interest. It could just be other committments like family and work that every adult has to cope with.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 21, 2015)

I think you'll find speed peaks in late teens to early 20's, after that, it's a slow downhill, but you can still be a pretty swift solver into your 50's.
Some background reading, the "choice-reaction" times are the ones to look at:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/reaction.htm


----------



## hkpnkp (Jul 21, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> I think you'll find speed peaks in late teens to early 20's, after that, it's a slow downhill, but you can still be a pretty swift solver into your 50's.
> Some background reading, the "choice-reaction" times are the ones to look at:
> http://www.brianmac.co.uk/reaction.htm



but with age comes wisdom


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2015)

What about those top cubers who held the world records 5-10 years ago? Shouldn't they be around 8 secs by now?
They stopped cubing because private life, working, family and lack of time, or because they couldn't improve any more?


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 21, 2015)

Smiles said:


> yeah and i cant even sub-1 a T perm if you gave me 10 tries to do it, so i'd take like 15 seconds when you account for hands getting tired, messing up, and transitioning from 1 T perm to the next.
> 
> i just don't really pause during my solves



truth is i can't sub 1 a t perm if you gave me a whole day trying (of course i don't use cfop and don't do t perm in actual solves, but still); lookahead is everything for me.


----------



## RicardoRix (Jul 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> 5.6 may be your CURRENT max TPS, but I REALLY REALLY doubt that it is the fastest TPS your hands could ever be capable of...
> Or do you honestly think that if you practised for 2 hours every single day for 10 years your TPS would not improve? I think it would improve quite significantly...



Can you explain this: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008BERG04
Active for 8 years, not sub-30.

I think the problem is, that the 'average person', everyone sees as themselves but with limitless time.
No doubt I would get a little bit faster, but it's not just TPS there are a whole lot of other factors, many of which seem to stutter even worse than TPS. Not only do my fingers not move that fast, my brain doesn't process that fast as well as my recognition and have some ham-fisted awkwardness which means I drop the puzzle, take a second to do a rotation, get constant lock-ups. 
With the 'average person' argument. The average person does not cube, does not practice logic solving puzzles. The average person is more likely to be more like me (or probably even worse) and not like you.

As an analogy, it's the same with fitness, if I go and do a 5km running race. I come 150th out of 200, and even so I'm probably faster than the 'average person', because it's only the people interested in fitness that bother to turn up and run, there are probably 1000 other people that don't participate because they are not very good at it and therefore don't do it. So you have to make all these 1000 people run, and the chances are only 100 of those 1000 will be better than me. Really I'm 250th out of 1200.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 23, 2015)

RicardoRix said:


> Can you explain this: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008BERG04
> Active for 8 years, not sub-30.



Yes I can explain this quite easily.

He doesn't put in enough work, practise hours and effort to improve.
I'm quite sure that he hasn't practised 2 hours a day every day to improve his times as I said in my previous post.

I'm also quite sure that if he had done that he would have significantly better times.
Also in this specific case we have to take account to his age which might be starting to slow him down (not necessarily but might ;D ). Also note that Mats Bergsten is more of a BLD solver so he probably practises those events over sighted events. And he is actually decently good at those events 

But when I say "anyone" in the concept of this thread I mean anyone who is not too young (I doubt a 5-year old could be sub-10) or too old (I also doubt that 90+ year old could be sub-10) or mentally or physically somehow handicapped.

But with these above limitations in mind I'm quite confident to say that"ANYONE" can be sub-10 if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task. Please note that this doesn't mean that everyone who cubes for 10+ years will automatically be sub-10. If they haven't practised seriously enough they probably won't. But if you REALLY want it and practise enough "anyone" can achieve it.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 23, 2015)

Let me explain the problem with this:"...if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task"
You need to understand that if you do physical effort, your body takes time to recover. If you go down the gym and lift weights, you will ache for a couple of days, during which time you won't be able to train, or it will be ineffective, so you rest, and then return to the gym. This puts a limit on how quickly you can build up your muscles - you can't just go down the gym 3 times a day and build up muscles 6 times faster than someone who goes once every 2 days. This applies to 'speed-training' for cube solving. If you do a load of intensive fast solving, you need time to recover, during that time, you will be slower, your arms/fingers will be tired. This problem gets worse the older you get. You tire earlier, you take longer to recover, so you can't re-train again. This factor puts a limit on what training can achieve.
If a 60-year-old man did the same training regime as Usain Bolt, he wouldn't be as fast as Usain, he wouldn't even be able to get out of bed the next day, and would probably still be limping 3 weeks later.

And then the mental slowness issue: it's not 'unavoidable', but the harsh reality is that brains change as you age, and apparent slowness is one of those changes.


----------



## Rune (Jul 23, 2015)

I think sup20.How shall I vote?


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 23, 2015)

Rune said:


> I think sup20.How shall I vote?



Unfortunately, I can't edit the poll. Can one of the mods please remove the sub-17 option (since nobody has voted on it anyway) and add the sup-20 option?


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 23, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> Let me explain the problem with this:"...if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task"
> You need to understand that if you do physical effort, your body takes time to recover. If you go down the gym and lift weights, you will ache for a couple of days, during which time you won't be able to train, or it will be ineffective, so you rest, and then return to the gym. This puts a limit on how quickly you can build up your muscles - you can't just go down the gym 3 times a day and build up muscles 6 times faster than someone who goes once every 2 days. This applies to 'speed-training' for cube solving. If you do a load of intensive fast solving, you need time to recover, during that time, you will be slower, your arms/fingers will be tired. This problem gets worse the older you get. You tire earlier, you take longer to recover, so you can't re-train again. This factor puts a limit on what training can achieve.
> If a 60-year-old man did the same training regime as Usain Bolt, he wouldn't be as fast as Usain, he wouldn't even be able to get out of bed the next day, and would probably still be limping 3 weeks later.
> 
> And then the mental slowness issue: it's not 'unavoidable', but the harsh reality is that brains change as you age, and apparent slowness is one of those changes.



Please read my previous post again. I said:


> But when I say "anyone" in the concept of this thread I mean anyone who is not too young (I doubt a 5-year old could be sub-10) or too old (I also doubt that 90+ year old could be sub-10) or mentally or physically somehow handicapped.



So anyone who is not too young not too old and healthy both physically and mentally can (IMO) practise solving rubiks cube enough to be sub-10


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 23, 2015)

I can read.
I think your question is just too vague. "Not too old" is meaningless. And specifically eliminating 90+ year olds isn't enough. Try limiting your age range to "12 - 26 year old" and you might get support for your sub-10 idea.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 23, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> Let me explain the problem with this:"...if they are willing to put enough effort in to that task"
> You need to understand that if you do physical effort, your body takes time to recover. If you go down the gym and lift weights, you will ache for a couple of days, during which time you won't be able to train, or it will be ineffective, so you rest, and then return to the gym. This puts a limit on how quickly you can build up your muscles - you can't just go down the gym 3 times a day and build up muscles 6 times faster than someone who goes once every 2 days. This applies to 'speed-training' for cube solving. If you do a load of intensive fast solving, you need time to recover, during that time, you will be slower, your arms/fingers will be tired. This problem gets worse the older you get. You tire earlier, you take longer to recover, so you can't re-train again. This factor puts a limit on what training can achieve.
> If a 60-year-old man did the same training regime as Usain Bolt, he wouldn't be as fast as Usain, he wouldn't even be able to get out of bed the next day, and would probably still be limping 3 weeks later.
> 
> And then the mental slowness issue: it's not 'unavoidable', but the harsh reality is that brains change as you age, and apparent slowness is one of those changes.



There are some problems with your analogy. Yes, there is a certain optimal amount of exercise you will need to do in order to develop your muscles as fast as possible. If you do a lot less than that your progress is going to be slower, if you do more, you're overtraining and it will be detrimental to muscle gain. But speedcubing revolves mostly around developing a skill and has very little to do with muscles and muscle recovery. If I go and practice my OLL and PLL algs for 10 hours at maximum tps, I might be worn out the next day and my tps will probably be a little slower the next day. So I'd say this could apply to extremes, but not to most people. There's also a chance that might not even be the case since 8 hours of sleep is plenty of time for my fingers to recover but we're talking about extremes here so there's no point in discussing this. 

Muscle soreness only occurs with very hard strenuous exercise. Moving your fingers around very quickly for a long time doesn't really fall into that category. Now, it is true that after a couple hours of cubing your fingers will get tired (not sore) but they'll probably be fine after just a 15-30 minute break. If I aimed to practice, let's say, 4 hours a day I could split it into eight 30 minute sessions and I probably wouldn't have any problems with tiredness at all. And it definitely wouldn't have any effect on my solves the next day. My final point is that, a person that practices 3-4 hours a day will almost always make better progress than a person that practices less than an hour day, since recovery is not really an issue with practicing speedcubing. I know Feliks rarely practices more than an hour a day, but how much practice is actually neccessary for optimal results is another topic.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 23, 2015)

You youngsters just don't get it. You have NO idea about tiredness, warming up, and aging. Listen to an old guy. I read that post and laughed, it's so clear you're probably still a teenager. Stuff like "fine after a 15 minute break". Try changing that to "fine after 12 hours". Sure, back in 1981, I could (and often did) do 5 hours solving in a day, and do it again the next day. Now, a couple of hours leaves me aching. And trust me, "moving your fingers around very quickly for a long time" will absolutely cause "muscle soreness", that's just biology.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 23, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> I can read.
> I think your question is just too vague. "Not too old" is meaningless. And specifically eliminating 90+ year olds isn't enough. Try limiting your age range to "12 - 26 year old" and you might get support for your sub-10 idea.



Well discussing literally anyone is also just stupid. Because obviously a guy who has 1 month to live and who has never solved a cube before can't become sub-10. So obviously we need some limits to "anyone"...

So let's say that anyone who is under 40 (or maybe 35 or something. I dunno) who is mentally and physically healthy can become sub-10 if he/she is willing to put enough effort to it.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 23, 2015)

"under 40 , or maybe 35 or something. I dunno."
Now you're getting a bit nearer, my figure of 26 years old was perhaps a little cautious, but I don't think more than 30 y.o as an upper limit is unrealistic. The sad truth is age-related decline does start early, and it's especially noticeable for activities involving great speed, dexterity, sharp reactions.
I can't use my own cubing experiences as an example, because finger-tricks basically didn't exist in the 1980's/90's, so the idea of turning at 8,10 12 TPS that you would need for these 10 sec solves, was ridiculous. I could do 5 TPS on some easier move sequences, I remember.


----------



## Me (Jul 23, 2015)

I said sub-15, you don't need super great tps, great alg sets, or great cubes, i.e. it was possible on Rubik's brands in ~2005 when there was pretty much nothing but Fridrich, Petrus, and Roux. I think getting faster than that takes a certain neuroplasticity and free time, things that will have significantly diminished after you're 30 and ~24 respectively.

Shouldn't there be some statistical way to at least partially answer this using the WCA database?


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 23, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> You youngsters just don't get it. You have NO idea about tiredness, warming up, and aging. Listen to an old guy. I read that post and laughed, it's so clear you're probably still a teenager. Stuff like "fine after a 15 minute break". Try changing that to "fine after 12 hours". Sure, back in 1981, I could (and often did) do 5 hours solving in a day, and do it again the next day. Now, a couple of hours leaves me aching. And trust me, "moving your fingers around very quickly for a long time" will absolutely cause "muscle soreness", that's just biology.



I'm still not convinced that cubing can cause actual muscle soreness. Your fingers are controlled by muscles from your forearm and the reason I said moving your fingers around very quickly doesn't fall into the the category of strenuous exercise is because your forearms are capable of performing much harder tasks than cubing, so a more accurate description of your "muscle soreness" would probably be tendon and joint pain/tiredness. A similar comparison with your calf muscles would be running a marathon vs. doing some sort of heavy resistance training for your calves.

But, I definitely agree that age does catch up with you eventually, especially if you've been doing a certain activity for a really long time. My poll question was referring to the average cuber and most cubers usually fall into the 10-30 age demographic. Now, if we're discussing whether anyone can be sub-10, of course there will be people with certain limitations stopping them from achieveing sub-10.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 23, 2015)

Me said:


> I said sub-15, you don't need super great tps, great alg sets, or great cubes, i.e. it was possible on Rubik's brands in ~2005 when there was pretty much nothing but Fridrich, Petrus, and Roux. I think getting faster than that takes a certain neuroplasticity and free time, things that will have significantly diminished after you're 30 and ~24 respectively.
> 
> Shouldn't there be some statistical way to at least partially answer this using the WCA database?



Oh hay, Thrawst! 
I guess my real question was: What can the average cuber (that usually fits into the young demographic) achieve provided he has all the hardware (good cubes) and "software" (i.e. knowledge of good algs, finger-trick execution, proper lookahead and other techniques that are needed to achieve their desired times) and the actual dedication to get as fast as possible?


----------



## newtonbase (Jul 23, 2015)

I very much doubt I could ever get sub 10 no matter how much practice time I get. Sub 15 maybe. As it is I struggle to get sub 30s as have almost no dedicated practice time.


----------



## SenorJuan (Jul 23, 2015)

As a keen cyclist, I do read some stuff on the interweb about training methods, recovery techniques, that kind of thing. And doing lots of repetitions at a low-ish intensity is a significant contributor to muscle fatigue. It's a lot to do with waste product accumulation in the muscle, rather than lack of 'fuel' to power the muscle. And there is the phenomenon of nerve fatigue, too, they wear out, and lose ability to trigger muscles in a controlled manner. 
A good 'training' technique is to mix up your training, do a bit of strength, a bit of speed, a bit of agility, some skill practice etc, so there's time for recovery, and thus improvements from that training. So for speedsolving, you could have a 'spam the TPS' session, an extended session of steadier pace solves, a slow and thoughtful session analysing technique improvement, and a pure mind session learning new algorithms/moves.

One 'recovery' technique that is considered worthwhile is post-exercise massage. No doubt Chris Froome has no trouble getting a full body massage after a cycle through the French mountains. But for us amateurs and our hobby, a self-administered forearms/hands massage might actually be practical. 

I realise it might seem a bit overboard applying 'elite sportsman' methods to solving a plastic puzzle, but the principle is the same, and I see no reason why it shouldn't also work for young solvers as well as old 'uns.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 23, 2015)

SenorJuan said:


> As a keen cyclist, I do read some stuff on the interweb about training methods, recovery techniques, that kind of thing. And doing lots of repetitions at a low-ish intensity is a significant contributor to muscle fatigue. It's a lot to do with waste product accumulation in the muscle, rather than lack of 'fuel' to power the muscle. And there is the phenomenon of nerve fatigue, too, they wear out, and lose ability to trigger muscles in a controlled manner.
> A good 'training' technique is to mix up your training, do a bit of strength, a bit of speed, a bit of agility, some skill practice etc, so there's time for recovery, and thus improvements from that training. So for speedsolving, you could have a 'spam the TPS' session, an extended session of steadier pace solves, a slow and thoughtful session analysing technique improvement, and a pure mind session learning new algorithms/moves.
> 
> One 'recovery' technique that is considered worthwhile is post-exercise massage. No doubt Chris Froome has no trouble getting a full body massage after a cycle through the French mountains. But for us amateurs and our hobby, a self-administered forearms/hands massage might actually be practical.
> ...



Ayyyyy, I'm also a pretty serious cyclist too!

I don't think it's overboard at all, I routinely use cycling training ideas with cubing.
There's TONS of overlap and concepts and stuff.

I think there's a lot of credence in training cubing like athletic sports.


----------



## rubikmaster (Aug 15, 2015)

So I've been thinking about this again for the last few days and the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that the majority of cubers have the potential to be sub-10. There's around 240 people with an official sub-10 average. Now, assuming most people that are sub-10 go to comps and that most of them would be able to get a sub-10 average in at least one comp, I'd estimate that there's around 400-500 cubers in total that have achieved sub-10. It could be more, but definitely not more than 1000. 

Yet, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of cubers who take 3x3 very seriously and aim to constantly improve their times. Nobody can really know what the average cuber's potential is, but so far it doesn't look like it'd be sub-10, let alone sub-8 which 24% percent of people have voted on in the poll.


----------



## MM99 (Aug 16, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> So I've been thinking about this again for the last few days and the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that the majority of cubers have the potential to be sub-10. There's around 240 people with an official sub-10 average. Now, assuming most people that are sub-10 go to comps and that most of them would be able to get a sub-10 average in at least one comp, I'd estimate that there's around 400-500 cubers in total that have achieved sub-10. It could be more, but definitely not more than 1000.
> 
> Yet, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of cubers who take 3x3 very seriously and aim to constantly improve their times. Nobody can really know what the average cuber's potential is, but so far it doesn't look like it'd be sub-10, let alone sub-8 which 24% percent of people have voted on in the poll.



Ask yourself this how many of those "serious" 3x3 solvers have put in the hours that the people who are sub 10 have? Faz isnt the best by mistake that guy has put more time into this than anyone if people are willing to put in the time they can achieve sub 10


----------



## adimare (Aug 16, 2015)

MM99 said:


> Ask yourself this how many of those "serious" 3x3 solvers have put in the hours that the people who are sub 10 have? Faz isnt the best by mistake that guy has put more time into this than anyone if people are willing to put in the time they can achieve sub 10



Do you know all of that for a fact? There is such a thing as talent in pretty much all activities. Do you think Usain Bolt has just spent more time running than everyone else and we could all run 100 mts in < 10 sec?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Aug 16, 2015)

MM99 said:


> Ask yourself this how many of those "serious" 3x3 solvers have put in the hours that the people who are sub 10 have? Faz isnt the best by mistake that guy has put more time into this than anyone if people are willing to put in the time they can achieve sub 10



Yes, I doubt many people do this much daily practice. Also, he is already in university, imagine how much he would have practiced before.


----------



## Kian (Aug 16, 2015)

I have not practiced seriously in many years, I'm far too old for this sport, I haven't learned an alg in several years, and I have no natural talent for cubing whatsoever. I can still, at home, get a sub 13 average of 12 sometimes. I don't know what the limit is, but it's lower than that, for sure.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 16, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> So I've been thinking about this again for the last few days and the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to believe that the majority of cubers have the potential to be sub-10. There's around 240 people with an official sub-10 average. Now, assuming most people that are sub-10 go to comps and that most of them would be able to get a sub-10 average in at least one comp, I'd estimate that there's around 400-500 cubers in total that have achieved sub-10. It could be more, but definitely not more than 1000.
> 
> Yet, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of cubers who take 3x3 very seriously and aim to constantly improve their times. Nobody can really know what the average cuber's potential is, but so far it doesn't look like it'd be sub-10, let alone sub-8 which 24% percent of people have voted on in the poll.



How many of those thousands of cubers do you think have practised 3x3 speedsolve for 10000 hours or more?

That is your answer. Only a small fraction of cubers has the passion to put in enough work and practise hours to get sub-10


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Aug 16, 2015)

I originally voted sub 8 but now that i think about it sub 17 is probably something anyone could achieve


----------



## adimare (Aug 16, 2015)

It's naive to think that talent plays such a small role in cubing. Faz was already sub 20 when he started learning full OLL [citation needed], while I achieved sub 20 after months of having learned full 2 look LL. I'm quite sure that the current top 5 cubers were much faster than me when they had put in the same amount of hours I've put into cubing.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 16, 2015)

adimare said:


> It's naive to think that talent plays such a small role in cubing. Faz was already sub 20 when he started learning full OLL [citation needed], while I achieved sub 20 after months of having learned full 2 look LL. I'm quite sure that the current top 5 cubers were much faster than me when they had put in the same amount of hours I've put into cubing.



Yes that is of course true. Some people can achieve sub-10 with MUCH less practise and effort than others. BUT the point is that with enough practise and dedication I believe (almost) anyone can become sub-10...


----------



## TDM (Aug 16, 2015)

adimare said:


> Faz was already sub 20 when he started learning full OLL *[citation needed]*


You could ask him!


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Aug 16, 2015)

i think sub 9 is possible for pretty much anyone. However if you are quite old when you start i dont think you can get the tps for it..


----------



## Xtremecubing (Aug 16, 2015)

If TPS is an issue, people could switch to a more move efficient method, and if they really worked with it I think basically anyone could become sub 10, even if TPS was a problem.


----------



## adimare (Aug 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> You could ask him!


He said it already in this forum somewhere, I just didn't search it out of laziness.


----------



## Reprobate (Aug 16, 2015)

I am pretty surprised with the responses. I voted for sub-20, and I think only a small minority of people can or will put in the time to get there. I am currently nowhere near sub-20 even with full PLL, and find it hard to believe I will get much faster than that. I did start at age 30, for what it's worth.


----------



## TraciAG (Aug 16, 2015)

I think anyone can be sub-20, the first recorded 3x3 WR was 22.95 sec, and just based off of new cube technology alone anyone can achieve this time. A lot can be sub-15 if they learn full OLL. I also think it's possible for a large amount to become sub-10, or at least get a sub-10 single in their lifetime. There are now over 1200 entries in WCA under 3x3 for PB singles before a sub-10 shows up (1221 to be exact). Right now there are 241 people with an official sub-10 average, and 9290 with an official sub-20 average. That's amazing!


----------

