4 averages of 5 comparing 4 different LL techniques

[Jbacboy]

A video I made proving full OLL and PLL isn't really needed.

I use full OLL and PLL and edge control to force good olls, but for beginners the most consistent choice is full PLL and 2 look OLL.
EDIT:Times:
4LLL: (11.24) 18.52 17.21 15.17 (19.88 pop)

2 look OLL, Full PLL:14.42 16.03 (10.40) 16.30 (16.94)

Full OLL, 2 Look PLL:13.70 (18.20) 14.25 (12.86) 16.66

2LLL:11.84 14.59 (10.74 PLL skip) 12.39 (14.96)

 

[Bindedsa]

5 solves is a terrible basis for a test.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

full PLL is really actually truly needed for being fast. OLL is also pretty needed for being really fast.

 

[CubeWizard23]

full PLL is really actually truly needed for being fast. OLL is also pretty needed for being really fast.

False. Collin is sub 13 with 4LL cuz his F2L is amazing

 

[GuRoux]

should have done last layer scrambles and do average of 12 for the 3 types of LL.

 

[NeilH]

should have done last layer scrambles and do average of 12 for the 3 types of LL.

+1 .

 

[mark49152]

False. Collin is sub 13 with 4LL cuz his F2L is amazing

Oh no, it's yet another "you don't need full OLL to be sub-X" fallacy thread. Fact: full OLL saves you moves and a look, and will make you faster. Same goes for PLL. Don't be lazy.

It's the same kind of argument as "you don't need to study to get a good job, look at X, s/he's successful." Go on then, drop out, and good luck!

 

[United Thought]

Oh. I was expecting comparison of things like:

COLL + EPLL
CLL + ELL
OLL + PLL
EO + ZBLL
CPEOL + 2GLL
etc.

That would actually be an informative and interesting test. I mean, using full solves is a really bad way to test these 'techniques', there is just far too much variation in the rest of the solve for you to be given any meaningful data. You should at least have used LL scrambles. If you don't know how to do this, go to qqTimer, select 3x3 subsets in the first menu and last layer in the second.

 

[Jbacboy]

I will be doing a LL avg of 12 as requested, however I won't do a video on it because reasons.

 

[collppllzbf2lll]

False. Collin is sub 13 with 4LL cuz his F2L is amazing

and he's sub9 with 2LLL, the difference is more than just 4 seconds.
someone who averages 30 seconds with 4LLL could be down to a 22 second average with 2LLL, because Collin has much better fingertricks than slow people.

 

[Jbacboy]

Results:
4LLL: 5.64, 6.66, (8.16), 5.83, (3.77), 5.84, 7.22, 3.82, 7.65, 6.92, 8.59, 5.58 Average of 12: 6.33 Very inconsistent, as expected. Also pretty bad average.
2 look OLL, full PLL: 4.53, 6.02, (4.12), 4.26, (6.21), 4.75, 5.37, 4.75, 4.78, 5.79, 6.16, 5.52 Average of 12: 5.19 Much more consistent.
Full OLL, 2 look PLL: 6.11, (3.92), 6.66, (7.47), 7.19, 7.13, 5.34, 4.36, 7.18, 4.43, 6.62, 5.71 Average of 12: 6.07 Not much to say.
Full OLL, Full PLL: 5.23, 3.17, (6.40), (1.56), 3.77, 4.26, 5.03, 5.10, 5.23, 4.40, 3.60, 4.31 Average of 12: 4.41 Meh

 

[Jason Green]

I tend to agree that it's best for beginners. For example me, I'm really slow and don't get much practice time, an hour or two if I'm lucky. Some days none.

I learned the full PLL but I'm still at like 46 seconds. I've been taking a couple seconds off each day lately. I think if I spent time learning OLL now it would be discouraging because I would not have any time to improve for a while because I would use most of my practice time on that. Instead I feel I should greatly improve my F2L first.

I am thinking maybe when I get sub 30 I will start learning the OLLs, maybe sub 20... If I ever do.

I am open to being persuaded otherwise.