# What would you consider decent, fast, world class, etc. on 3x3?



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 6, 2015)

It's a google form thing.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Lr5xk-YHZOzm2tzKe1No-o0uK05641vE4eqJz3_uhDU/viewform?usp=send_form
Answer seriously. Why do I even have to say this?

All results data
*Results since 17:55 CDT 9-7-2015 (Median)*

*Decent:*
24 seconds
*Sort of fast:*
17 seconds 
*Fast:*
12 seconds
*Really fast:*
10 seconds
*World class:*
8 seconds


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 6, 2015)

Took the survey. Will you post the results at some point?


----------



## TDM (Sep 6, 2015)

Wasn't really sure, went with 60/30/20/15/10.

A lot of these things really depend on how you're defining them, so there could be quite a range of results, especially further up.


----------



## Hssandwich (Sep 6, 2015)

I went with 20/16/12/10/8 lol.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 6, 2015)

Interesting survey. I went with 30/20/13/10/8, although I feel like there should've been one for "Respectable" between fast and sort of fast. I average 14-15, which I wouldn't quite consider fast, but I'd consider respectable.


----------



## Wilhelm (Sep 6, 2015)

Hmm I might be a bit harsh... 15/12/10/9/8 xD


----------



## DanpHan (Sep 6, 2015)

I put 15/12/10/8/7


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 6, 2015)

Wilhelm said:


> Hmm I might be a bit harsh... 15/12/10/9/8 xD



OMG this is EXACTLY what I did. Except I put 10.2 instead of 10 for some reason


----------



## Mollerz (Sep 6, 2015)

20/15/10/8/7

I'm ~11 and I don't consider myself really fast.


----------



## Myachii (Sep 6, 2015)

17/15/13/10/8


----------



## NevinsCPH (Sep 6, 2015)

15/12/10/8/6


----------



## Stewy (Sep 6, 2015)

20/12/10/9/8


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 6, 2015)

30-20-15-10-8


----------



## AlexMaass (Sep 6, 2015)

oops accidentally hit enter when nothing was filled in fml


----------



## Phinagin (Sep 6, 2015)

20/15/12/10/8


----------



## DanpHan (Sep 6, 2015)

NevinsCPH said:


> 15/12/10/8/*6*



That's a bit of a stretch...


----------



## NevinsCPH (Sep 6, 2015)

Well...world class is world thing lel


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Wilhelm said:


> Hmm I might be a bit harsh... 15/12/10/9/8 xD





DanpHan said:


> I put 15/12/10/8/7





Mollerz said:


> 20/15/10/8/7
> 
> I'm ~11 and I don't consider myself really fast.



gosh some of you guys are harsh lol
You have to be sub-10 in order to be fast? (Or sub-10.2 Rami lol)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> oops accidentally hit enter when nothing was filled in fml



lol so that was you


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 7, 2015)

NevinsCPH said:


> 15/12/10/8/6


I guess nobody is world class, then? Even Feliks doesn't consistenly average sub 7. Either way, there's one person with an official 6 average. ONE. You seem to be confused about the difference between "world class" and "best in the world." 

20/14/10/9/8. Probably should've done 12/10/8 instead for the last three.

What would you all put in those 5 categories for 2x2-7x7?


----------



## NevinsCPH (Sep 7, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I guess nobody is world class, then? Even Feliks doesn't consistenly average sub 7.
> 
> 20/14/10/9/8. Probably should've done 12/10/8 instead for the last three.



I put 6 because top 100 singles is close to sub7, and many people actually has 6.xx of pb ao5 at home(even though not consistent). I think it will slowly go towards 6.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

*Results*


----------



## OLLiver (Sep 7, 2015)

19/14/9/8/7


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 7, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> 20/15/10/8/7
> 
> I'm ~11 and I don't consider myself really fast.



So like 1 person is world class?


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 7, 2015)

if i say 10, does that mean sub 10, sup 10, or 10.00?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> if i say 10, does that mean sub 10, sup 10, or 10.00?



it means ≤10


----------



## Dong (Sep 7, 2015)

20/15/12/9/8 
lol


----------



## DanpHan (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> it means ≤10



Well I guess what I put for world class should be 8 instead of 7 XD


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

DanpHan said:


> Well I guess what I put for world class should be 8 instead of 7 XD



well I guess it's close


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 7, 2015)

20/17/13/10/8


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 7, 2015)

15/11/9.5/8.5/8


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 7, 2015)

15/12/10/9/8


----------



## xchippy (Sep 7, 2015)

19/14/12/10/8


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 7, 2015)

25, 15, 12, 10, 8.5


----------



## nalralz (Sep 7, 2015)

17/14/11/9/8


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

XTowncuber said:


> 15/11/9.5/8.5/8



that's kinda harsh tbh... 11 is "Sort of fast"?

Well someone will probably come and put in 9 as decent eventually so...



Isaac Lai said:


> 15/12/10/9/8



and also you but not that much


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 7, 2015)

Wow, I am also surprised by these numbers being much lower than I would expect.

Mine:
59/29/19/12/7


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, I am also surprised by these numbers being much lower than I would expect.
> 
> Mine:
> 59/29/19/12/7



ehh people are just biased because they are themselves fast


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> ehh people are just biased because they are themselves fast



I don't consider myself really fast, it's all subjective.


----------



## OkinawaSolver (Sep 7, 2015)

You guys are harsh… 

I'd say 45/25/15/10/8

I myself am around 25 so to you guys I'm slow


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> that's kinda harsh tbh... 11 is "Sort of fast"?
> 
> Well someone will probably come and put in 9 as decent eventually so...
> 
> ...



Well 15 is where I really started to feel "fast" relative to other people, and 12 is the next big barrier after 15. Next is 10. 9 (sub-10) is like the top 250 (?) in the world and the top 100 in the world are almost all sub-9.


----------



## FailCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Decent : 20
Sort of fast : 16
Fast : 14
Really fast : 11
World class : 9


----------



## TMOY (Sep 7, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, I am also surprised by these numbers being much lower than I would expect.



Maybe it'is because you started much earlier than them, when a 1 minute time was still considered good.

Mine:
Sup-18.72: noob
=18.72: super-duper-hyper-fast
Sub-18-72: cheater


(SCNR)


----------



## BboyArchon (Sep 7, 2015)

30/20/16/12/9


----------



## MoyuFTW (Sep 7, 2015)

Wow I'm harsh
18/15/12/10/8


----------



## MoyuFTW (Sep 7, 2015)

And I only solve 16 second averages...


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 7, 2015)

I hear that people that are inexperienced at something tend to think there better than they actually are. However, people that are Highly experienced with that same something tend to think they're not as good as they actually are. Its some psychological effect or something.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I hear that people that are inexperienced at something tend to think there better than they actually are. However, people that are Highly experienced with that same something tend to think they're not as good as they actually are. Its some psychological effect or something.



I agree with this


----------



## Username (Sep 7, 2015)

20/15/12/10/8


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 7, 2015)

just for fun here is what i think about other events

4x4
1:15, 1:00, 50, 35, 30
5x5
2:15, 1:45, 1:30, 1:15, 1:00
mega
2:00, 1:30, 1:10, 1:00, 50
6x6 
4:00, 3:20, 2:50, 2:15, 2:00
7x7
6:00, 4:30, 3:50, 3:15, 2:55


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

who the heck put 900 for all of them?
I'm deleting that entry because, let's be honest, no one (except maybe someone who has never heard of cubing) would think that 15 minutes is world class.


----------



## YouCubing (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> who the heck put 900 for all of them?
> I'm deleting that entry because, let's be honest, no one (except maybe someone who has never heard of cubing) would think that 15 minutes is world class.



Someone probs mis-typed 9000, as in the Over 9000 meme, which is annoying. I posted a global averages Google form where someone put all their results as 6.25. :/ Anyway, I went way too specific, but it was around 28/21/17/11/8.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Someone probs mis-typed 9000, as in the Over 9000 meme, which is annoying. I posted a global averages Google form where someone put all their results as 6.25. :/ Anyway, I went way too specific, but it was around 28/21/17/11/8.



haha I thought yours was like something coming from the WCA data, like for instance top 15000/10000/5000/1000/100 or something.


----------



## Praetorian (Sep 7, 2015)

20/16/12/9/7


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 7, 2015)

I think you should do median instead of mean for the 'averages' in the OP


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> who the heck put 900 for all of them?
> I'm deleting that entry because, let's be honest, no one (except maybe someone who has never heard of cubing) would think that 15 minutes is world class.



you just ruined your statistic by arbitrarily discounting a valid submission.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> you just ruined your statistic by arbitrarily discounting a valid submission.



lol so if I asked people how fast they can run 100 meters and someone says 0.3 seconds, I should count that?


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> lol so if I asked people how fast they can run 100 meters and they say 0.3 seconds, I should count that?



if you wanted sprinting statistics, you would time people.

here, you are polling opinion. every submission is a valid opinion, even if it's not numeric.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> if you wanted sprinting statistics, you would time people.
> 
> here, you are polling opinion. every submission is a valid opinion, even if it's not numeric.



however in this case it is obviously either a mistake or someone just being an idiot. Leaving it would ruin the statistic. What if I posted 1000000000000000000000000000000 for all of them, and it completely overwhelmed everything else? There's got to be a point where you just don't count them.

Edit: I'm looking for honest opinions. Find me a cuber who legitimately thinks that 15 minutes is world class, and who also thinks that world class and decent are synonyms.


----------



## Phinagin (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> you just ruined your statistic by arbitrarily discounting a valid submission.


How is putting 900 seconds, for decent, sort of fast, fast, really fast, and world class valid? You ask someone to give you 5 separate answers to create different divisions or classes and they give you the same answer for them all. How is that supposed to be valid? The fact that the 900 seconds was his answer in irrelevant, the fact that he used the same answer is the point.


----------



## Mollerz (Sep 7, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> So like 1 person is world class?



When I say 7, I mean 7.xx.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Phinagin said:


> How is putting 900 seconds, for decent, sort of fast, fast, really fast, and world class valid? You ask someone to give you 5 separate answers to create different divisions or classes and they give you the same answer for them all. How is that supposed to be valid? The fact that the 900 seconds was his answer in irrelevant, the fact that he used the same answer is the point.



Even if they had put 900 as world class I still probably wouldn't have counted it because it is pretty obvious that no cuber would legitimately think that that is fast.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Sep 7, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, I am also surprised by these numbers being much lower than I would expect.
> 
> Mine:
> 59/29/19/12/7



I'd put mine roughly similar to yours. Maybe a bit lower. I've never liked the mentality where everyone's bad who isn't world class.


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> however in this case it is obviously either a mistake or someone just being an idiot. Leaving it would ruin the statistic. What if I posted 1000000000000000000000000000000 for all of them, and it completely overwhelmed everything else? There's got to be a point where you just don't count them.
> 
> Edit: I'm looking for honest opinions. Find me a cuber who legitimately thinks that 15 minutes is world class, and who also thinks that world class and decent are synonyms.



what you do when you don't like a particular result: 1) make it an outlier, but note it, 2) change your measure (of center) or 3) redo your study. you don't delete data.

i agree that 900 seconds is a dumb answer. still, don't delete it.



Phinagin said:


> How is putting 900 seconds, for decent, sort of fast, fast, really fast, and world class valid? You ask someone to give you 5 separate answers to create different divisions or classes and they give you the same answer for them all. How is that supposed to be valid? The fact that the 900 seconds was his answer in irrelevant, the fact that he used the same answer is the point.





Spoiler



What if there is a commune of 5 people that share a speedsolving account, but live in a remote area and have not seen other speedcubing records or videos because their Adobe flash player is out of date?

Their names are Blake, Isaac, Ronald, G-unit, and Mary Sue.

Blake can solve a Rubik's cube in 10 minutes. To him, a 15 minute solve is "meh decent" (that's a direct quote).

Ronald's PB is 12 min 13.55 sec. He usually averages around 15 minutes. Because he is the second fastest solver in the isolated commune, he considers it "sort of fast."

Mary Sue is actually the best one there, but she doesn't want to make the others feel bad, so she purposely doubles her solve times when she tells other people. That puts her average at around 18 minutes. She pretends that 15 minutes is "fast" for some strange reason. idk tho.

G-unit spends most of his free time beatboxing so he doesn't really watch the other cubers. The last time he saw Blake solve, it was 16 minutes. So he thinks 15 minutes is really fast.

Isaac can only get 5 sides, so any time at all is "world class" in his opinion. 

Living on this isolated commune, the 5 members must do obscure chores (including making beef stew, cleaning ostrich feathers for headdresses, and making sandcastles facing Northwest). As a result, their individual Internet time is limited to around 4 seconds per day. In the order above, they respond to as many questions in the Google form as possible. However, they unfortunately only manage to answer a single question each. After Isaac typed "900" he noticed that the poll was finished, and pressed enter, just before the gong rang, indicating that his most recent sandcastle was actually facing more North-Northwest than Northwest. But that was only because the moat was slightly misoriented.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> what you do when you don't like a particular result: 1) make it an outlier, but note it, 2) change your measure (of center) or 3) redo your study. you don't delete data.
> 
> i agree that 900 seconds is a dumb answer. still, don't delete it.



Absolutely agree with this. I guess there's a first for everything 

Also, I'm not convinced that an average is necessarily the best measure to report here, as I imagine that this data is incredibly right-skewed. Maybe post some histograms/density curves of the data?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> what you do when you don't like a particular result: 1) make it an outlier, but note it, 2) change your measure (of center) or 3) redo your study. you don't delete data.
> 
> i agree that 900 seconds is a dumb answer. still, don't delete it.
> 
> ...



Well what would I do if someone put in 10000000000000000000000 or whatever? Keep it? That would be ridiculous.
And with the story about G-unit and the other people is just silly. Yeah, it is a good point, but who has an internet connection but only gets to use it for 4 seconds every day? Also what about the fact that they use up 15 minutes solving Rubik's Cubes? My point is, no cuber who has an account on speedsolving would think 900 seconds is world class.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Absolutely agree with this. I guess there's a first for everything
> 
> Also, I'm not convinced that an average is necessarily the best measure to report here, as I imagine that this data is incredibly right-skewed. Maybe post some histograms/density curves of the data?



I am not really looking for a fancy statistical analysis of this. imo averages are good enough. However, when people put in 900 seconds it messes up the averages.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I am not really looking for a fancy statistical analysis of this. imo averages are good enough. However, when people put in 900 seconds it messes up the averages.



The choice of median vs mean is not "fancy" analysis. Neither is making a histogram.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> The choice of median vs mean is not "fancy" analysis. Neither is making a histogram.



Well I guess I could do median.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Sep 7, 2015)

20-15-12-10-8


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 7, 2015)

15/12/10/8.5/7

Anyone who says anything sup15 is fast is wrong.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> 15/12/10/8.5/7
> 
> Anyone who says anything sup15 is fast is wrong.



lol you wouldn't even say 20 is decent


----------



## SpiderFingers (Sep 7, 2015)

5/4/3/2/1


----------



## josh42732 (Sep 7, 2015)

30/18/14/10/8


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Once you get fast, you realize how slow you were. That accounts for the "harshness"


----------



## cubernya (Sep 7, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I am not really looking for a fancy statistical analysis of this. imo averages are good enough. However, when people put in 900 seconds it messes up the averages.



You could also just post the data (or share the file that the data is dumped into)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 7, 2015)

Data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15RQ055kh2uSL1DjsOh-DBdhbWnKEP809VGenvFmRBSM/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 8, 2015)

XTowncuber said:


> Once you get fast, you realize how slow you were. That accounts for the "harshness"



Yeah, this is true. If you asked sub15 me what I'd consider fast was, it'd probably be much more lenient. I definitely would've considered myself fast at that point.


----------



## kcl (Sep 8, 2015)

I said 15, 12, 9, 8, 7. Call me harsh, but it's my current perspective.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 8, 2015)

Accurate with data as of 2015-09-08T19:39:08


DecentSort of fastFastReally fastWorld classMean26.1417.7912.909.767.83Mode202012108Median241712108Standard Deviation11.585.102.601.330.70
Interesting that the standard deviation approximately halves each time.


CorrelationsDecentSort of fastFastReally fastWorld classDecent1.000.891.634.463.172Sort of fast.8911.000.781.528.219Fast.634.7811.000.770.422Really fast.463.528.7701.000.686World class.172.219.422.6861.000


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 8, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> just for fun here is what i think about other events
> 
> 4x4
> 1:15, 1:00, 50, 35, 30
> ...



Umm... 3 people in the world have a sub-1 5x5 average. That is way too strict for world class IMO


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 8, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Umm... 3 people in the world have a sub-1 5x5 average. That is way too strict for world class IMO



sub 1:05 then??


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 8, 2015)

XTowncuber said:


> Once you get fast, you realize how slow you were. That accounts for the "harshness"




I don't think I would have answered much differently if I was sub-8, maybe i'd say sub 20 is decent rather than sub 25.
Im sure that less than 10% of cubers reach sub 15. (albeit almost anyone could achieve it imo)
I generally think this though
beginner: sup 30
intermediate 15-30
advanced 9-15
elite sub 9


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 8, 2015)

theZcuber said:


> https://i.imgur.com/gPTGE1F.png



Boo uneven bar widths

Your correlations are really interesting though. Kind of wish that this survey asked for their PB on 3x3 -- that would be a really interesting variable to correlate this with.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, these kind of have to be correlated by nature since the responses all have to be decreasing, so this really doesn't say anything interesting. Again, would be interesting to see correlations with 3x3 average -- would expect that as the average improves, the times people specify for each class would be lower as well.


----------



## DavidCip86 (Sep 8, 2015)

20/17/14/11/8


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 8, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> Anyone who says anything sup15 is fast is wrong.



Haha! When you say that I hear:

"This is about Rubik's cube... *mad face* It's soooper serious..." 



Lighten up. Slower than you - yes, by a lot. Slow compared to the general cubing population or especially compared to non-cubers - no.


----------



## Coolster01 (Sep 8, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> Yeah, this is true. If you asked sub15 me what I'd consider fast was, it'd probably be much more lenient. I definitely would've considered myself fast at that point.



Well, you're still sub15...


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 8, 2015)

i put 20/15/12/10/8.

some people here need to check their estimations.... google "Dunning-Kruger effect".

With my numbers, although 20 seconds is enourmously fast relative to the average human, i went with practice time needed, where you just get sub20 by brainlessly cubing for some months or in 1-2 months with focused practice. for 12/10/8 seconds you have to put in a HUGE amount of practice time, exponentionally increasing.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 8, 2015)

Coolster01 said:


> Well, you're still sub15...



lol I'm still sub-30 
but seriously this is a good point, if you improve you don't stop being sub x.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 8, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> i put 20/15/12/10/8.
> 
> some people here need to check their estimations.... google "Dunning-Kruger effect".
> 
> With my numbers, although 20 seconds is enourmously fast relative to the average human, i went with practice time needed, where you just get sub20 by brainlessly cubing for some months or in 1-2 months with focused practice. for 12/10/8 seconds you have to put in a HUGE amount of practice time, exponentionally increasing.



Are cubes and methods so good now that this is all it takes to be sub-20? Or do all the people you know get sub-20 quickly and you're extrapolating that out to the whole cubing community? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really asking.


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 8, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Are cubes and methods so good now that this is all it takes to be sub-20? Or do all the people you know get sub-20 quickly and you're extrapolating that out to the whole cubing community? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really asking.



Cubes and methods are good enough. I'd say if you manage to put in 1-2 hours of focused practice daily, you will manage to be sub20 within two months , no matter your age, intelligence or dexterity.

I could be extrapolating, especially since I only know cubers of a very limited age group, but I wouldn't know it and I doubt it.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 8, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Boo uneven bar widths
> 
> Your correlations are really interesting though. Kind of wish that this survey asked for their PB on 3x3 -- that would be a really interesting variable to correlate this with.
> 
> EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, these kind of have to be correlated by nature since the responses all have to be decreasing, so this really doesn't say anything interesting. Again, would be interesting to see correlations with 3x3 average -- would expect that as the average improves, the times people specify for each class would be lower as well.



The bar widths to me just made logical sense. I did think about them being unequal (just didn't care).

As for the correlations, logically they would be: I posted them because some of them were remarkable low.


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 8, 2015)

theZcuber said:


> The bar widths to me just made logical sense. I did think about them being unequal (just didn't care).
> 
> As for the correlations, logically they would be: I posted them because some of them were remarkable low.



Hard to say they are remarkably low without some sort of test or baseline -- what would you expect the correlations to be, and what circumstance led you to think that? The ones that are low are likely that way just because they are farthest apart on the decreasing scale, and thus don't have as strong of a relationship. It also doesn't help that the standard deviations are vastly different -- the small range of world class values can make it difficult to detect a relationship.

And yeah, a bit nitpicky on the "density curve" -- I just was hoping to have a good way to view the skewness, and uneven bar widths prevent me from visually seeing that. It's also just something that's generally frowned upon as it is an indication that something is intentionally being hidden, although I definitely believe that you were not doing that.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 8, 2015)

I just realized I missed my chance for putting sub Mitch as one of my answers.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 8, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> Cubes and methods are good enough. I'd say if you manage to put in 1-2 hours of focused practice daily, you will manage to be sub20 within two months , no matter your age, intelligence or dexterity.
> 
> I could be extrapolating, especially since I only know cubers of a very limited age group, but I wouldn't know it and I doubt it.



Wow, that is unreal. So the percentage of people who spend 60-120 hours learning modern methods, practicing with a good speedcube, and who are not sub-20 is quite small, then?

Why do you think there are people nowadays who have cubed for years and are not yet consistently sub-20? If it's so easy, then why do such people exist? What could they be doing that is SO wrong that they haven't achieved this seemingly beginner level of skill yet?


----------



## Phinagin (Sep 8, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> Cubes and methods are good enough. I'd say if you manage to put in 1-2 hours of focused practice daily, you will manage to be sub20 within two months , no matter your age, intelligence or dexterity.
> 
> I could be extrapolating, especially since I only know cubers of a very limited age group, but I wouldn't know it and I doubt it.



I think that you are over exaggerating how easy it is to get sub 20. 1-2 months is not enough to be sub 20, unless you practice for many hours a day(way more than 1-2). Most people take 6+ months to get to be sub-20. People who are sub-20 in 1-2 months are usually commended for their extraordinary improvement.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 8, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Hard to say they are remarkably low without some sort of test or baseline -- what would you expect the correlations to be, and what circumstance led you to think that? The ones that are low are likely that way just because they are farthest apart on the decreasing scale, and thus don't have as strong of a relationship. It also doesn't help that the standard deviations are vastly different -- the small range of world class values can make it difficult to detect a relationship.
> 
> And yeah, a bit nitpicky on the "density curve" -- I just was hoping to have a good way to view the skewness, and uneven bar widths prevent me from visually seeing that. It's also just something that's generally frowned upon as it is an indication that something is intentionally being hidden, although I definitely believe that you were not doing that.



With the most recent data (I just updated it a minute ago), the correlation between decent and world class is only .172. Using this, you can adjust the slider. A correlation of .172 is little more than a blob. Even between fast and world class is .422, which is where it gets closer to what I would expect. With what would seem like it should be the closest, really fast and world class, there's a definitive trend, but not as close as I would expect.

As for the curve, I completely understand that it's an easy way to obscure data. Obviously there's nothing to hide, I've updated it with a wider, 4 second increment.


----------



## NeilH (Sep 8, 2015)

Phinagin said:


> I think that you are over exaggerating how easy it is to get sub 20. 1-2 months is not enough to be sub 20, unless you practice for many hours a day(way more than 1-2). Most people take 6+ months to get to be sub-20. People who are sub-20 in 1-2 months are usually commended for their extraordinary improvement.



yup, only people I know of are pdf and feliks. it took me 8 months


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 8, 2015)

theZcuber said:


> With the most recent data (I just updated it a minute ago), the correlation between decent and world class is only .172. Using this, you can adjust the slider. A correlation of .172 is little more than a blob. Even between fast and world class is .422, which is where it gets closer to what I would expect. With what would seem like it should be the closest, really fast and world class, there's a definitive trend, but not as close as I would expect.
> 
> As for the curve, I completely understand that it's an easy way to obscure data. Obviously there's nothing to hide, I've updated it with a wider, 4 second increment.



Yes, I understand what correlation is, I did my Master's in stats.  The purpose of that question was not to ask you what you would expect it to look like, but what value would you actually expect, and why you would expect it based on your assumptions.

It would indeed be surprising if the data did look like that generic blob, but our data isn't necessarily that generic (unless you skew the axes). Here, it's just because the range of world class times is so low (4) that the covariance cannot detect these differences well, and then dividing this by the high standard deviation of the lower class times results in a very low correlation. See this scatterplot:







Note that every value is between 6 and 10, and most responses are integer values -- thus, all of those 8s are within a couple tenths from the mean, hence resulting in a large portion of the points contributing next to nothing to the covariance. 

You also can see that due to these two variables being so far apart within the monotonic structure of the variables, that the "decent" level has about 5 very high responses, with some lower responses near 20-30 as well. If you consider that those 5 people had a completely different idea of what "decent" means than the rest of those surveyed and consider them outliers, the correlation would actually increase quite a bit -- good empirical evidence of how Pearson correlation is incredibly sensitive to outliers.

EDIT: I also noticed that one of the points was clearly a joke time, with "decent" being 69 and "world class" being 6.25 -- removing that point alone brings up the correlation to 0.263.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 8, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Yes, I understand what correlation is, I did my Master's in stats.  The purpose of that question was not to ask you what you would expect it to look like, but what value would you actually expect, and why you would expect it based on your assumptions.
> 
> It would indeed be surprising if the data did look like that generic blob, but our data isn't necessarily that generic (unless you skew the axes). Here, it's just because the range of world class times is so low (4) that the covariance cannot detect these differences well, and then dividing this by the high standard deviation of the lower class times results in a very low correlation. See this scatterplot:
> 
> ...



Hmm...didn't consider the low range (and relatively high step) along the various data points. That definitely makes a difference.

I did consider removing the row with 69, 42, 13.37 due to the obvious references. I'll definitely do that, and see how things turn out if I remove (not really remove, but remove from the stat) any person that put "decent" as >50. That'll come later though, as I'm leaving in a couple minutes.


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 9, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, that is unreal. So the percentage of people who spend 60-120 hours learning modern methods, practicing with a good speedcube, and who are not sub-20 is quite small, then?
> 
> Why do you think there are people nowadays who have cubed for years and are not yet consistently sub-20? If it's so easy, then why do such people exist? What could they be doing that is SO wrong that they haven't achieved this seemingly beginner level of skill yet?



my girlfriend has just hit sub20 after around 4 years of cubing, and i can tell you why. she was never really practicing, analyzing her solves, focusing on her weak aspects, she kept learning new methods and algorithms, making her start over many times on different aspects of the cube and she spent way less than an hour daily on cubing. since i got to know her half a year ago, her practice time hasnt increased much, but i told her what to focus on and she started practicing seriously, and she got sub20 pretty quickly.

i think most people who complain about not improving either A) overestimate their practice time. an hour a day is NOT alot, and people dont seem to get that, or B) they just mindlessly solve cubes over and over again without really practicing (check out Escher's "How to practice"-thread, old, but gold.).


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 9, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> my girlfriend has just hit sub20 after around 4 years of cubing, and i can tell you why. she was never really practicing, analyzing her solves, focusing on her weak aspects, she kept learning new methods and algorithms, making her start over many times on different aspects of the cube and she spent way less than an hour daily on cubing. since i got to know her half a year ago, her practice time hasnt increased much, but i told her what to focus on and she started practicing seriously, and she got sub20 pretty quickly.
> 
> i think most people who complain about not improving either A) overestimate their practice time. an hour a day is NOT alot, and people dont seem to get that, or B) they just mindlessly solve cubes over and over again without really practicing (check out Escher's "How to practice"-thread, old, but gold.).



PS: i never said the percentage of cubers who spend 60-120 hours and arent yet sub20 is very low, it is probably way higher than it should be, considering how EASY it is to achieve in that timeframe. Also note that this only takes into account 3x3, if you spend 2 hours on cubing daily IN GENERAL, skills from other events may transition partly to 3x3, but it's not as much as if you only practice 3x3.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 9, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> i think most people who complain about not improving either A) overestimate their practice time. an hour a day is NOT alot, and people dont seem to get that, or B) they just mindlessly solve cubes over and over again without really practicing (check out Escher's "How to practice"-thread, old, but gold.).



I think what you're saying makes sense, but I do think your timeframe is overly ambitious for most. IF someone had a coach or knew how to practice well from the very beginning, then I think your timeframe may be reasonable.



Petro Leum said:


> PS: i never said the percentage of cubers who spend 60-120 hours and arent yet sub20 is very low, it is probably way higher than it should be, considering how EASY it is to achieve in that timeframe. Also note that this only takes into account 3x3, if you spend 2 hours on cubing daily IN GENERAL, skills from other events may transition partly to 3x3, but it's not as much as if you only practice 3x3.



Makes sense, with the same caveat as my above comment.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 9, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Haha! When you say that I hear:
> 
> "This is about Rubik's cube... *mad face* It's soooper serious..."
> 
> ...



Maybe it came out too harsh. I think the definition of fast really depends on who you're comparing it to. I don't think that anyone sup15 is incredibly slow, but I just wouldn't call them fast.


----------



## EvilGnome6 (Sep 9, 2015)

I've been cubing for over a year. I do timed practice on average 1.5 hours a day. I spend another 2-3 hours doing casual solves while working, watching TV, etc. I know F2L, full OLL and full PLL. I also know CLL and several alternate OLL and PLL algorithms for big cubes and OH. In other words, I have put considerable effort into improving my skills. 

My average is around 27 seconds with a PB single of 18.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 9, 2015)

EvilGnome6 said:


> I've been cubing for over a year. I do timed practice on average 1.5 hours a day. I spend another 2-3 hours doing casual solves while working, watching TV, etc. I know F2L, full OLL and full PLL. I also know CLL and several alternate OLL and PLL algorithms for big cubes and OH. In other words, I have put considerable effort into improving my skills.
> 
> My average is around 27 seconds with a PB single of 18.



In my opinion your experience is not atypical.


----------



## Phinagin (Sep 9, 2015)

EvilGnome6 said:


> I've been cubing for over a year. I do timed practice on average 1.5 hours a day. I spend another 2-3 hours doing casual solves while working, watching TV, etc. I know F2L, full OLL and full PLL. I also know CLL and several alternate OLL and PLL algorithms for big cubes and OH. In other words, I have put considerable effort into improving my skills.
> 
> My average is around 27 seconds with a PB single of 18.






cmhardw said:


> In my opinion your experience is not atypical.



IMO I would say that he improved a little slower than most people, but definitely not by much.


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 10, 2015)

You're right, I might be extrapolating, can't guarantee I'm not! 

Going back to the main discussion however, it doesn't really matter much, as even if you have to put in a year on average instead of 1-2 months, by the time spent you would still not be considered decent. Compare to other sports where with 1-3 years of professional dedicated practice you're still a bloody noob


----------



## AlphaSheep (Sep 10, 2015)

EvilGnome6 said:


> I've been cubing for over a year. I do timed practice on average 1.5 hours a day. I spend another 2-3 hours doing casual solves while working, watching TV, etc. I know F2L, full OLL and full PLL. I also know CLL and several alternate OLL and PLL algorithms for big cubes and OH. In other words, I have put considerable effort into improving my skills.
> 
> My average is around 27 seconds with a PB single of 18.



My experience was more or less the same. After around a year, I was stuck at about 25 seconds, having put in considerable effort to improve. However, I'd also spent a lot of my cubing time practising big cubes, OH, pyraminx and skewb. I'd also spent time exploring several method. So while I had been putting in 1-2 hours a day of dedicated practice and countless casual solves in between, it was spread between multiple puzzles, which I think is why my progress has been slower compared to cubers that spend all of their time on 3x3.

I've been cubing almost 18 months now, and I still consider myself fairly new to it. I've been putting a lot more effort into 3x3 over the past 4 months and have managed to get my global average down to just over 22 seconds. I consider this as typical, even slightly slow for the time and effort I've put in. I certainly wouldn't call it decent. I'm fairly certain that in a year or two, I'll be able to get to get consistent 15-18 second averages, and I think I'd consider that decent.


I do also think age and experience plays a factor in what I consider fast. So if a 15 year old who's been cubing 5 years is averaging 15 seconds, that's not that fast, but a 40 year old who's been cubing for 1 year who averages 18 seconds, I would consider fast.


----------



## Reprobate (Sep 10, 2015)

I'd be curious to hear any experiences of older cubers (as in out of school, working full time) who have managed a sub-20 average in just a few months.


----------



## EvilGnome6 (Sep 10, 2015)

AlphaSheep said:


> I do also think age and experience plays a factor in what I consider fast. So if a 15 year old who's been cubing 5 years is averaging 15 seconds, that's not that fast, but a 40 year old who's been cubing for 1 year who averages 18 seconds, I would consider fast.



Yep. I'm 42 now so I don't think my progress is atypical for my age, especially since it's divided between other cubes. I just wanted to post a counterpoint to the ignorant statement that anybody can get sub 20 with 2 months of practice.


----------



## bgcatfan (Sep 11, 2015)

I've found this discussion to be very interesting and would like to add my perspective. I consider myself an intermediate level speedcuber. I use F2L with a 2-look OLL and PLL method. My current average fluctuates between 30-32s. I have chosen not to invest myself to fully learn OLL and PLL and chase 20s solves. Currently, I don't have the time to put 1 hour a day into cubing. For my answer, I put 60/35/20/15/10. I almost put 30 seconds for kind of fast, but I think I am kind of fast. I don't think I am fast. But I do not think that means I am slower than decent.

I think the parameters for the question have been left open, causing the large discrepancies among answers. I think a lot of answers have been from the perspective of advanced speedcubing only. But personally I have the perspective that the question would include speedcubing in general. More specifically, once a cuber learns how to solve a cube consistently and begins to pursue speed, regular solving of the cube under 1 minute is decent. It's a good accomplishment and should be considered decent, imo. To advance a level, a cuber needs to learn more advanced methods (such as F2L, OLL, PLL, etc.) that will drop them under 35 seconds. That's kind of fast. To be fast, one needs to practice consistently and correctly (making sure they are improving their week areas, etc.). I think as such, under 20 seconds is fast, and is a good benchmark in my mind for being a truly advanced speedcuber. Just think about how sub 20s solves were thought of only 15 years ago! Beyond fast, of course, there are really fast and world class. I am not fully informed to know how many people can actually solve sub 10, but is it so large a number that world class needs to be a lower time?

Just my thoughts. Perhaps I have a similar perspective as Chris, since our answers are similar (and my name is Chris, too)?

Anywho, just for fun I asked 5 of my coworkers at work this question, none of which are able to solve a Rubik's Cube (although one said she solved it once as a kid, saying it took her "forever") and not very familiar with speedcubing. Their answers were:
-just-solving-it/2hrs/2min/30s/15s
-1hr/30min/60s/40s/20s
-75s/45s/30s/22s/15s
-5min/3min/60s/50s/30s
-40min/35min/30min/15min/20s


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 11, 2015)

bgcatfan said:


> Anywho, just for fun I asked 5 of my coworkers at work this question, none of which are able to solve a Rubik's Cube (although one said she solved it once as a kid, saying it took her "forever") and not very familiar with speedcubing. Their answers were:
> -just-solving-it/2hrs/2min/30s/15s
> -1hr/30min/60s/40s/20s
> -75s/45s/30s/22s/15s
> ...



I think that this is very interesting. I find some of these responses weird. The first one says 2 hours is sort of fast, which I can kind of see but if 2 minutes is fast then that's a pretty big gap. The second one is alright, but again note the large gap between sort of fast and fast. The third one is easily the best by almost* any cuber's standards. The fourth one is also pretty reasonable. The fifth one has a huge gap between really fast and world class, which seems backwards to me because I think that the largest gap should be between decent and sort of fast.
*Included only so that mDiPalma doesn't make some weird hypothetical situation that would falsify my claim.


----------



## bgcatfan (Sep 11, 2015)

I agree that some of the responses are weird, but these answers are coming off the top of the head of people who don't know much about cubing. I just thought it would be interesting to ask.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 11, 2015)

bgcatfan said:


> I think the parameters for the question have been left open, causing the large discrepancies among answers. I think a lot of answers have been from the perspective of advanced speedcubing only. But personally I have the perspective that the question would include speedcubing in general. More specifically, once a cuber learns how to solve a cube consistently and begins to pursue speed, regular solving of the cube under 1 minute is decent. It's a good accomplishment and should be considered decent, imo. To advance a level, a cuber needs to learn more advanced methods (such as F2L, OLL, PLL, etc.) that will drop them under 35 seconds. That's kind of fast. To be fast, one needs to practice consistently and correctly (making sure they are improving their week areas, etc.). I think as such, under 20 seconds is fast, and is a good benchmark in my mind for being a truly advanced speedcuber. Just think about how sub 20s solves were thought of only 15 years ago! Beyond fast, of course, there are really fast and world class. I am not fully informed to know how many people can actually solve sub 10, but is it so large a number that world class needs to be a lower time?
> 
> Just my thoughts. Perhaps I have a similar perspective as Chris, since our answers are similar (and my name is Chris, too)?



You write your thoughts very clearly, and you have clarified this discussion for me. I did want to include everyone from just beyond total beginner skill level to world class in my rankings, as you guessed.



bgcatfan said:


> Anywho, just for fun I asked 5 of my coworkers at work this question, none of which are able to solve a Rubik's Cube (although one said she solved it once as a kid, saying it took her "forever") and not very familiar with speedcubing. Their answers were:
> -just-solving-it/2hrs/2min/30s/15s
> -1hr/30min/60s/40s/20s
> -75s/45s/30s/22s/15s
> ...



That is neat! I notice that their non-cuber perspective overestimates world class by a large percentage difference. I have noticed that in my experience too. Non-cubers that I've met often think the world record is around 10 seconds and are amazed to learn that it is closer to half that.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 11, 2015)

I should make a thread asking people what they think decent/sort of fast/etc. is in world rank, instead of actual time.
I would say maybe...
15000/10000/5000/1000/150


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 11, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I should make a thread asking people what they think decent/sort of fast/etc. is in world rank, instead of actual time.
> I would say maybe...
> 15000/10000/5000/1000/150



I think world class is definitely around top 100.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 11, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> I think world class is definitely around top 100.



no it's like 103


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 11, 2015)

I don't know if I count as "old" solver but I was older than most when I started I think. I was 22 years when I started and got to sub 20 in few months. Maybe 3-4 months IIRC


----------



## BananaSlayer64 (Sep 11, 2015)

Took the survey, I went with 35/25/15/10/8, so I consider myself "sort of fast"(I avg 24-25 secs)


----------



## Logiqx (Sep 11, 2015)

I've put down 25/20/15/12/10 from the perspective of sub-x global average


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 11, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> And with the story about G-unit and the other people is just silly.



o rly?


----------



## YouCubing (Sep 13, 2015)

So according to all of you, I'm not even decent? ;-;


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 13, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> So according to all of you, I'm not even decent? ;-;



TL;DR How people perceive your speed depends on their personal skill level.

The issue was brought up earlier in the thread that some people are answering from the viewpoint of the absolute best, world class cubers. Some people are answering from the viewpoint of all cubers, or even the general public including non-cubers.

Your competition pb average is nearly sub-30, which leads me to believe that you are likely sub-30 at home. 

From the viewpoint of the absolute best, world class cubers you are still on your path to becoming what they would consider decent.

From the viewpoint of cubers in general, you will have a variety of ranks, anywhere from decent to sort of fast or even fast depending on how different people view sub-30.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 13, 2015)

Yeah sub 30 is decent, you more than likely know all the basics of your speed solving method at that speed.


----------



## YouCubing (Sep 14, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Your competition pb average is nearly sub-30, *which leads me to believe that you are likely sub-30 at home.*



How did you know? :O
Also, I now have an official 25.50 ao5, so yay


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> How did you know? :O
> Also, I now have an official 25.50 ao5, so yay



Competition personal bests are always greater than or equal to overall personal bests  The odds were in favor of my guess.

Congrats on your convincingly sub-30 competition pb! Nicely done!


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 14, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> So according to all of you, I'm not even decent? ;-;



I think it depends. My personal definition is not my be-all end-all definition. If someone says that sub20 is decent, I'd agree with them. If someone said sub30 was decent, I'd also agree with them.

For the most part, I can understand why people think differently on this issue. Decent is also a vague word, and it can be used to encompass a huge number of cubers.

To all others I may have offended earlier, including Mr. Hardwick, sorry. I didn't really think about this thoroughly, and after having a discussion with someone about it, think a little differently on the issue.

EDIT: also gj on the avg at Music City


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> To all others I may have offended earlier, including Mr. Hardwick, sorry. I didn't really think about this thoroughly, and after having a discussion with someone about it, think a little differently on the issue.



No worries! I was really blown away by the graph of the data that I am a major outlier in my opinion, so much so that my result may be one of the ones ignored in order to discover the trend in the overwhelming majority of the data (?). That was really eye-opening for me.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Sep 15, 2015)

15/12/9/8/7

That's my view so far. To me someone doesn't really seem "decent" (especially not fast/really fast) if they can't even make a second round/final round at comps.
When I think world class I think the best of the best. I'm thinking like the top 10 fastest people in that event. 

This isn't to say that I think anyone slower than 15 "sucks" I just wouldn't consider it very competitive.


----------



## mark49152 (Sep 15, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> This isn't to say that I think anyone slower than 15 "sucks" I just wouldn't consider it very competitive.


Ninja Storm is right, the problem is the word. "Fast" is somewhat subjective but "decent" doesn't even attempt to say anything about time/speed and is totally subjective. To some people it means "fast enough to get past the first round", to others it means "done enough practice to be competent".

Anyway, who actually cares whether 21.34 falls within the consensus of "decent" or not? Even the guy who averages 21.34 shouldn't care. Sorry, but this whole thread is pointless.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 15, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Ninja Storm is right, the problem is the word. "Fast" is somewhat subjective but "decent" doesn't even attempt to say anything about time/speed and is totally subjective. To some people it means "fast enough to get past the first round", to others it means "done enough practice to be competent".
> 
> Anyway, who actually cares whether 21.34 falls within the consensus of "decent" or not? Even the guy who averages 21.34 shouldn't care. Sorry, but this whole thread is pointless.



well imo it isn't completely pointless... it gets a general idea of what the community thinks that these words mean.
With 160 results, it is pretty much not moving from 24/17/12/10/8 as median. 26.03/17.83/12.91/9.81/7.84 for mean.
Edit: These words being subjective is *what makes this interesting.*


----------



## mark49152 (Sep 15, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> well imo it isn't completely pointless... it gets a general idea of what the community thinks that these words mean.


Yes you're right, the thread does have a point. What I meant was the point has no value. We now know that on average the community think that once you pass 24 seconds average you can call yourself a "decent" speedcuber. Great! Maybe that is interesting to some people, I guess.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 15, 2015)

So according to the data, I'm sorta fast. Thats quite motivating.

[500th comment!]


----------



## EvilGnome6 (Sep 15, 2015)

According to the data I'm indecent.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Dec 30, 2015)

due to the discussion of ability vs practice i am bumping this thread


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 30, 2015)

And I still hold the opinion that people were being way too harsh after 3+ months.


----------



## newtonbase (Dec 30, 2015)

Although you will never reach a definite conclusion I think the question is interesting enough to be valid. I would love to get regular 20s solves but most people here would think that's pretty slow. However I've just impressed people at a party with a dreadful 44s solve. My average is around 35s which makes me faster than anyone I know outside competitions. It's all about perspective but ultimately it doesn't really matter what anyone other than yourself thinks.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 30, 2015)

newtonbase said:


> Although you will never reach a definite conclusion I think the question is interesting enough to be valid. I would love to get regular 20s solves but most people here would think that's pretty slow. However I've just impressed people at a party with a dreadful 44s solve. My average is around 35s which makes me faster than anyone I know outside competitions. It's all about perspective but ultimately it doesn't really matter what anyone other than yourself thinks.



I completely agree. You'll notice that I created this thread, and I did so wondering what the speedsolving community thought about the topic. I got a wide variety of answers, but after a few hundred responses I got some definite trends.


----------



## kcl (Dec 30, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> And I still hold the opinion that people were being way too harsh after 3+ months.



I'm pretty sure perceived harshness correlates directly with what you average. 

There's no real answer for this, why are we still trying? A non cuber will say anything below minute is impressive, a world class cuber will likely say sub 8 or 9. It's all a matter of perspective. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 30, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> I'm pretty sure perceived harshness correlates directly with what you average.
> 
> There's no real answer for this, why are we still trying? A non cuber will say anything below minute is impressive, a world class cuber will likely say sub 8 or 9. It's all a matter of perspective.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but it's just my opinion. I think that sub 30 is decent, sub 20 is sort of fast, sub 15 is fast, sub 12 really fast, sub 9 world class. That's just my perspective.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 30, 2015)

I consider sub8 official average as a world class level


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 30, 2015)

Can I change my response?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 30, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> Can I change my response?



I have absolutely no idea what your response was... xD


----------



## FakeMMAP (Feb 15, 2016)

is there going to be one for other events?


----------

