# Too fast too soon?



## JackJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Since I started cubing in September 2008, I found it weird how some cubers take about 3 months to get sub 20 (Feliks Zemdegs) and some cubers take around a year or longer to get sub 20. (Chris Hardwick) Is it the work ethic or the individual to reach such great times in such a small amount of time. What do you think the reason for people to become so fast so soon?


----------



## skarian (Dec 10, 2009)

hmm im curious of the same thing


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 10, 2009)

I think with your specific examples; Faz does mainly speedsolving, while Chris does more FMC and puzzle theory. Also keep in mind the age difference, work load difference, thus time spent on cubing difference. It also relies on talent of course. Talent is what makes person A do better than person B while both put in equal effort.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 10, 2009)

Faz hasn't got a job.


----------



## josmil1 (Dec 10, 2009)

the reason is practice....24/7...you answered your own question about work ehtic and the individual. Not everyone has the same amount of time to practice cubing.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 10, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Faz hasn't got a job.



Don't be an ass


----------



## Gurplex2 (Dec 10, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Faz hasn't got a job.



yo, hes only like 13.

but i just realized. like just now.
on facebook he said "i finally figured out how to complete the square!"

he is 13 and in grade 10? (i learned that in grade 10)
did he skip grades?
he must be a really awesome thinker, as expected from someone so amazing


----------



## Faz (Dec 10, 2009)

Err, no I'm still in year 8. Although I do advanced maths.

Muesli: Very true.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 10, 2009)

Gurplex2 said:


> he is 13 and in grade 10? (i learned that in grade 10)



Darn, he just 1-upped me, when I'm 13 I'll be grade 9 (12th grade math though).


----------



## deadalnix (Dec 10, 2009)

Also, the advices you get makes differences.

When I was 30 avg, I was some kind of blocked. It was a time where you couldn't find so many ressources about cubing as you find now.

I had at this time not many cuber in my friends, and so, I had to figure out by myself what to do to progress.

I have met Edouard Chambon, and with his advices, I won 5s in 1 afternoon and get sub20 really fast. I was blocked to 30s before.

I think chris is very talented, but remember when he start cubing. Nothing to do with now.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 10, 2009)

Wow, when I red this title I remembered Act II, Scene VI, lines 9 - 15 from Romeo and Juliet;

"These violent delights have violent ends 
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder, 
Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey 
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness 
And in the taste confounds the appetite: 
Therefore love moderately; long love doth so; 
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."

anyway...


----------



## tkcube1 (Dec 10, 2009)

I don't get how you can be born with like a talent for being good at rubiks cubes. Like is it your intelligence level or like, idk I don't think its the same, like how some people are just amazing at some sports or something. if this made any sense at all.


----------



## SkateTracker (Dec 10, 2009)

I've been cubing for 2-3 years and I'm still not consistently sub-20. Though, I did have to take a few, several month long breaks due to school and life being evil, haha.

Also, I've been using the beginner LL (what Dan Brown teaches, haha, ugh...) until about a month ago I switched over to 4LLL.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 10, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Faz hasn't got a job.
> ...



He was just stating a fact!


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 10, 2009)

nlCuber22 said:


> For example, if you have no god-given skill at all, but you practice 3+ hours a day and you've been cubing for, say, a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you average ~30. But if you do have skill, you practice for less than 45 minutes a day, and you have been cubing for a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you're even better than the guy who practices 3 hours a day.



I would disagree. I don't believe in the notion that people have "natural" skill at things. If someone if good at something, it's because he put in hard work and practice, not because he has some god-given talent.

Of course, we all have different bodies. Some of us are naturally bigger and stronger than others, while others of us are naturally smaller and weaker. Likewise, some people are more intelligent than others, or might be a bit more adept at certain mental tasks. Maybe someone is born with a body thats great for playing football, but that guy is still going to suck at football unless he practices hard. In the same way, if someone wants to become a world class musician, they are probably working at it for hours upon hours for most of their life.

I'm not a great cuber, but I don't make any excuses for myself. I know that the reason I'm not good is because I don't put in the amount of practice that it takes to become good.


----------



## chris410 (Dec 10, 2009)

Hard work combined with an ability to recognize patterns in addition to strong spatial skills which lead to easily recognizing the various positions and states faster than most people. I think the people who are able to solve VERY quickly have an ability beyond most. 

In the end, I do feel to a certain degree that it is a combination of the talents above combined with hard work.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 10, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Faz hasn't got a job.
> ...


????


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Dec 10, 2009)

Everyone is different, I've been cubing for 4 months, the same timespan as my friends, and we all average different times. I'm 16-17, one's sub 40, another is still at 1 minute.
But with enough practice we all end up like Faz


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 11, 2009)

I am very interested in this same topic. I started cubing the summer before high school started, so I also did not have a job when I began. This meant that I had lots of free time, and I was very active and cubed on a daily basis when I first started.

I know a little bit of why it took me so long to get sub-20 (almost 5 years). I wrote a post about it here describing what I did to finally break the 20 second barrier on average. I think the biggest difference as to why some people get fast quickly and others more slowly is in *how* you practice, not *how much* you practice.

Chris


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 11, 2009)

I would definitely agree with Chris on the how you practice concept. I had a coach that said "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." I don't care if I practice 15 hours a day, unless I intentionally slow down to learn F2L I will never get any sub10 solves, and most likely won't break sub20. I didn't get below 25 until I slowed down enough and my F2L dropped crazily, much quicker F2L then when I 'try'. 

I'd also say that there is definitely a talent for some people who get incredibly fast. People are all born with such variety, you could never compare two individuals at birth. They both might only cry and not be able to communicate very effectively, but right then they are two completely different individuals. Let's also not forget how they are raised from birth will make quite an impact on this. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that somebody like Erik Akkersdijk was playing with puzzles since he was in diapers.

I'd also say that the amount of time it takes somebody to get sub20 will depend on what method they use. I've been cubing since 2004, yet only started learning Fridrich F2L since this past Aug/Sep and I don't practice nearly what I should, or used to.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 11, 2009)

In my opinion I don't think it really matters how long you've been cubing, but rather three other factors. First of all, when you started. There were *far* less resources 6 or more years ago than there are now. Second, the amount of time you spend practicing. Some people cube 20 minutes a day, while others cube for hours on end. Lastly, I really think there is some natural talent involved. Some people just have that competitive edge.

Some people are going to get fast very quickly and some very slowly, but with enough practice and determination almost anyone could get pretty fast.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 11, 2009)

It took me about 15 months after I started cubing to get my first sub20 average, even though I practiced for a few hours each day. I think the reason it took me so long was because I learned a lot of things on my own (how to recognize cases, finding the 'best algs', trying fingertricks) rather than searching the forums for answers or watching lots of tutorials on youtube. I also used a crappy storebought until I averaged 17 or so. I used a lot of wierd and slow OLL algs and I learned F2L last because I was a nub and didn't know doing it LBL style was a lot slower and that F2L is the 'most important' part of a solve until after I learned full OLL and PLL.


----------



## Parity (Dec 11, 2009)

i got to 30 seconds in maybe 2 months.
And then stayed at that time for 3 months and then 2 months later I am at 25 seconds average.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 11, 2009)

I rarely practice. took me about 1 1/2 years to get sub-20.


----------



## SuperNerd (Dec 11, 2009)

I feel like a loser. It took me a year and a half to get sub-20, because I never bothered to learn anything, I just tried my own methods, then like, 5 months ago I picked up CFOP LL, and got sub 20


----------



## tkcube1 (Dec 11, 2009)

It took me 10 months to get my first sub 20 average. Took me 11 (last month) to consistently get sub 20 averages.


----------



## Carson (Dec 11, 2009)

I have been cubing for about 4 years now. I have taken a couple of extended breaks during that time however. After four years, I have just finally learned 3LLL. My typical average is around 40 seconds, and I do have a couple pb singles of slightly under 25 seconds, although nothing even remotely close to that in competition.

When I first began "speedcubing," I had never met a speedcuber in person. All I knew was from the few online videos of the time. There were very very few truly informative sites for beginners. For those intermediate cubers, there were some sites to follow along with, but for the rest of us, we were pretty much on our own. My two best resources at the time were the yahoo group and Bob Burton's website. I recall many people on the yahoo group attempting to explain how intuitive f2l worked to me, and with a quick search, you can still see many of those conversations archived. At the time though, I had no one to explain it in person, and there simply were no tutorial videos.

"New cubers" are very fortunate these days. Between THIS amazing site, the vast amount of youtube tutorials (especially badmephisto's) and the general willingness of the general cubing community to share resources and tips with all those interested... there is never a lack of information to be had. There simply is no more guess work.

Every person is born differently. As has been stated, some people are geared more to coordination, some to strength, some to intelligence... etc, etc, etc. We are not simply "tied down" to these simple predisposed abilities however. We can still feed our abilities through our life experiences and develop new skills, although you will frequently find that some skills are much more difficult to develop for some than for others.

I believe that one day I will be a sub 20 second cuber, and perhaps with enough work I will make it to the sub 15 realm. Will it come easy, certainly not. Could I have already reached that goal if I had worked both smarter and harder? Most likely so, but I'm not sure that I would still be as interested in cubing if I were to have taken things "that" seriously.

^^Just some of my random thoughts.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 11, 2009)

Let's not forget that Chris started in the "Dark Ages" of cubing. The amount and availability of knowledge we have today far outstrips what Chris had to work with when he first started. Also cubing technology has come a long way, even in the just over two years since I started cubing. Notice once Chris finally switched from "good old As" he started smashing PBs?


----------



## blah (Dec 11, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I think with your specific examples; Faz does mainly speedsolving, while *Chris does more FMC* and puzzle theory. Also keep in mind the age difference, work load difference, thus time spent on cubing difference. It also relies on talent of course. Talent is what makes person A do better than person B while both put in equal effort.


:confused:


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 11, 2009)

To be fair, the cubing "Dark Ages" (the 90's) were not *that* bad. There were a number of people who went sub-20 relatively quickly who started about the same time as me. Dan Knights, obviously Ron had already been cubing for some time but he went sub-20 quickly. Andy Camann was a prodigy of the time. Most of the WC2003 top stars had been sub-20 for a while before the competition. Most of the 1982 people had clocked sub-20 averages. David Waterman was 17 seconds back in the 80's (total madness for the time). David Allen was already sub-20 since the 80's, as was Tony Snyder. Of course there was Fridrich and Petrus also.

I think my problem was just that I did not practice very well, I only practiced doing solves but not learning anything new for a very long time.

Chris


----------



## dbax0999 (Dec 11, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> I am very interested in this same topic. I started cubing the summer before high school started, so I also did not have a job when I began. This meant that I had lots of free time, and I was very active and cubed on a daily basis when I first started.
> 
> I know a little bit of why it took me so long to get sub-20 (almost 5 years). I wrote a post about it here describing what I did to finally break the 20 second barrier on average. I think the biggest difference as to why some people get fast quickly and others more slowly is in *how* you practice, not *how much* you practice.
> 
> Chris



This advice is the reason I got sub-20  It truly inspired me. Thank you Chris!

Btw, you also inspired me to learn big cube BLD, but I'm having trouble sticking with that.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 11, 2009)

dbax0999 said:


> This advice is the reason I got sub-20  It truly inspired me. Thank you Chris!
> 
> Btw, you also inspired me to learn big cube BLD, but I'm having trouble sticking with that.



Glad that it helped! Remember that the ability to be sub-20 was always there for you, it was only your mind creating the barrier. This is one thing that I have learned over time that has helped me, and still helps me, break barriers. They are only barriers because we make them barriers in our mind.

As for big cube BLD, it's not something you have to learn in a hurry. I did my first ever 4x4x4 BLD solve fall of 2003, but it wasn't until WC 2005 that Dror Vomberg really inspired me to give big cube BLD a shot. If you have fun practicing big cube BLD great! If you don't have fun with it then let it rest for a bit and then try and pick it up again.

I will tell you, though, that the addiction factor for big cube BLD is *way* more intense than for 3x3x3 BLD (for me at least). 

Chris


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 11, 2009)

It took me 6 months for sub-20, but I practice a lot (an hour a day).


----------



## Zubon (Dec 11, 2009)

I have been cubing for one and a half years. During the first year I was preoccupied with all different types of twisty puzzles and finding solutions to them. It was only until 6 months ago that I got sub30 averages and now I usually get at least sub 25 averages. It is only in the last 6 months that I have been concentrating on 3x3.

I know that I practice a lot but I am not improving so fast. I really need to go over my solves once again and improve the fundamentals. I will get sub 20, it just might take a while.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 11, 2009)

What are the "good old A's"?


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Dec 11, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> What are the "good old A's"?



Old type A from cube4you.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 11, 2009)

i learned the dan brown beginner method around may and then about half way through august i started to learn fridrich and i average about 30 seconds now after about 4 months of acually cubing and trying to get fast


----------



## Yes We Can! (Dec 11, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Faz hasn't got a job.



Yeah, he's jobless.


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Dec 11, 2009)

I say it is time put into cubing, and what you focus on. For example, I got into bigcubes very quickly, which I now regret. I am not doing close to ONLY 3x3 to make up for time lost.


----------



## TEGTaylor (Dec 11, 2009)

I pracrice constantly and It took me about 6 months to get sub 20.


----------



## JL58 (Dec 11, 2009)

I think the discrepancy of time to reach sub 20 is really driven by ethics. 

What happens is that some people just try to hide their game before going to competition. Everyone can reach sub 20 in a few (2 at most 3) months. I also think that some people here are the worse hypocritical I've met. Look at Carson. If you listen to him his "claimed" times are even slower than mine. I thought I was the most skilled manipulator by claiming averages in the 30s after 2.5 years of effort, but this wicked character manages to fool everyone with his 40s after years of training. Give me a break... And he is not the worst one. I find this extremely deceiving and dishonest. I don't think people should be allowed to be more dishonest than me.
:fp


----------



## Neutrals01 (Dec 11, 2009)

I nvr really played 3x3 much..it took me around 5 months to reach sub 25...and I am not sub 20 yet till now...it is already one and a half year of cubing from the day I started...I nvr care to learn anything new for 3x3..but my times still improved even without practicing..I wonder why..

I know it is possible to break into the sub 20 barrier if I just put a little effort in learning new things on 3x3...but well..I already lost interest in it =P


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 11, 2009)

honestly ive been practicing like crazy the past couple of months, and especially after my first comp. i still after.... lets say 8 months cant get sub 30 consistently, i dont know why, however i do get a crap load of sub-30 solves i sometimes find a way to work by way back to like 34 seconds....


----------



## Rikane (Dec 12, 2009)

^ Me too, but that's because we're awesome.
Two years, two methods, neither of them sub-20.


----------



## riffz (Dec 12, 2009)

Zarxrax said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > For example, if you have no god-given skill at all, but you practice 3+ hours a day and you've been cubing for, say, a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you average ~30. But if you do have skill, you practice for less than 45 minutes a day, and you have been cubing for a month, I wouldn't be surprised if you're even better than the guy who practices 3 hours a day.
> ...




How can you not believe that people have natural talents? Its what makes certain individuals better at tasks than others when the same amount of effort and coaching is applied. I passed grade 12 Calculus with a 90% and never did a single homework question, while my friend did tons of homework and pulled a 70%. So, not meaning to brag, but I am NATURALLY better at Calculus than he is.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 12, 2009)

riffz said:


> How can you not believe that people have natural talents? Its what makes certain individuals better at tasks than others when the same amount of effort and coaching is applied. I passed grade 12 Calculus with a 90% and never did a single homework question, while my friend did tons of homework and pulled a 70%. So, not meaning to brag, but *I am NATURALLY better at Calculus than he is*.



False. Perhaps you have a propensity to learn things more quickly than your friend. Or perhaps you have a stronger math foundation, allowing you to learn new topics more thoroughly than he does. There are so many factors that come into play for something so specific such as learning calculus, in a classroom environment, during the short span of one semester, given the somewhat different mathematical backgrounds and foundations you both would have, that it makes almost no sense at all to say you have a natural ability in calculus and that your friend has a lack of this ability.

Also, just because the same effort and coaching is applied doesn't mean the two people start at the same point, with the same backgrounds. Hard work, dedication, and passion, can more than overtake the "ability" of someone with natural talent if the person of natural talent does not have the same level of motivation.

I don't think cubing is anywhere near the point where true natural ability is the determining factor over all forms of effort and training. I don't even think we'll come close to even starting to approach this point until a large number of people cube *as their career*, and are paid to do nothing other than train their skills for competition.

It's not that I don't believe that people have natural talents for certain things, they do. I just don't think "natural ability" matters in cubing to any reasonably measurable extent. Perhaps in the Olympics for the 100m dash it matters much more so. However, for cubing we haven't begun to even get close to this level of skill being required to be at the very top levels of world class skill. The people who are world class are world class because they work hard to be at that level.

Chris


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 12, 2009)

Rikane said:


> ^ Me too, but that's because we're awesome.
> Two years, two methods, neither of them sub-20.



That's what happens to us Roux's...


----------

