Although I’m pretty sure your comment was tongue-in-cheek, I have to admit that was my first thought too, since it looks like the kid sitting across from him starts the clock manually. But he must be timing something else (maybe the inspection time).
The timing device used (called a StackMat Pro) is started and stopped when the competitor’s hands leave and return to the touchpad, so I think we can consider this performance as FAT.
https://www.speedstacks.com/store/re...-stackmat-pro/
Researching the timing device led me to a sport I never knew existed--Sport Stacking-- which has its own international governing body, tournaments and equipment.
http://www.thewssa.com/rules/equipment/
And of course, records!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJR1mrUzv4
Thread: Speed nerds unite!
Results 21 to 30 of 44
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 2,008
11-28-2015 05:44 PM
-
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
- Posts
- 1,635
12-17-2015 01:52 AM
I see no one answered this. Without trying to sound pedantic the answer is fairly obvious. If there was a set starting position the only way to get there would be a set series of moves that would be public. Therefore the fastest solution would just be the reverse of all those moves. Thus the answer is no.
By the way to say these guys 'solve' the cube is misleading. To really solve the Rubic cube is to come up without a repeatable solution on your own. These guys are really doing nothing original.
-
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- on task
- Posts
- 12,075
12-17-2015 02:05 AMBut they're showing great resolve. In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. I'm guessing that ALL of us could get pretty danged good if we spent the time they do at 'cubing'. Everyone has their obsessions . . .;-)
-
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Everybody knows this is nowhere
- Posts
- 6,278
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Madison, WI
- Posts
- 23,475
12-17-2015 06:42 AMYes, that is especially true for high jumping, where it took 10,000 hours for that guy to win a couple global championships -- oops, it was not even close to 10,000 hours between when he first high jumped and when he won global titles. [Of course,"hops" might be the most natural ability out there, but the theory is a bit thin on why people decline as they get still more practice, which is especially a problem for those that have not hit that "magic" 10,000 hour level]
Last edited by 26mi235; 12-17-2015 at 03:31 PM.
-
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- on task
- Posts
- 12,075
12-17-2015 03:09 PMHe had not 'mastered' high jumping; he was just that much more talented than the others.
And 'mastery' is not synonymous with 'the best'. Just cuz you've mastered something does not mean you are better than others, just that you are fully competent at it and gotten as good as you're gonna get.
After 25 years, I've mastered this thing called 'teaching' but am currently ranked #23,704th on the yearly list!Last edited by Atticus; 12-17-2015 at 03:14 PM.
-
12-17-2015 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by Atticus
"A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
by Thomas Henry Huxley
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Indian Territory
- Posts
- 13,821
12-17-2015 05:02 PMYes, but #23,704 out of how many? 23,704 or 23,704,000?
-
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- on task
- Posts
- 12,075
12-17-2015 06:57 PM
-
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Indian Territory
- Posts
- 13,821
12-17-2015 07:19 PM
There. Doesn't that make you feel better?