Convincing someone NOT to learn an alg set

[vm70]

My friend has an ao100 of about 45 seconds, and is insistent on learning some parts of OLL, which he calls "Full Dot" (no edges oriented), "Full Line" (2 opposite edges), "Full L" (2 adjacent edges), and the overlapping set of "Full Corners" (all corners oriented).

I have an ao100 of 18.9 seconds, and the only OLL's I know are parts of the Y-Perm and experiments from Roux. I think that I'll start learning OLL once my ao100 drops to about 15 seconds. I am trying to convince him to work on his F2L, lookahead, and cross instead. He already knows 3LLL (2Look OLL + 1Look PLL), and has been convincing other cubers we know to jump directly from beginner's method to advanced methods with large algorithm sets. How do I stop him from spending months going crazy about algorithms he doesn't need to know until later?

Unfortunately, I don't know his split times. I'll ask him some time soon, or suggest doing it. I think that getting the first two layers takes him about 35 seconds.

TL;DR: I suck at teaching people what to do, give me arguments against learning full OLL or any algorithm set with large numbers.

 

[sqAree]

This is not what you want to hear but learning OLL is a good thing.
I'd like to add that it doesn't really matter how fast he is yet, but I'd be lying; I'm convinced it's a good thing to start learning algs that early.
It depends on the person of course. Some people enjoy learning algs and are good at it. For some people it's not the case and they can still get fast.
You said he is spending months learning those algs but think about it: If he needs months to learn some OLL algs better start soon!

 

[Torch]

You should learn anything as soon as you feel like it. No sooner, no later. I knew full PLL when I averaged 40 and almost all OLLs before I was sub-20, and that didn't have any unfortunate effects on me.

 

[obelisk477]

My friend has an ao100 of about 45 seconds, and is insistent on learning some parts of OLL, which he calls "Full Dot" (no edges oriented), "Full Line" (2 opposite edges), "Full L" (2 adjacent edges), and the overlapping set of "Full Corners" (all corners oriented).

I have an ao100 of 18.9 seconds, and the only OLL's I know are parts of the Y-Perm and experiments from Roux. I think that I'll start learning OLL once my ao100 drops to about 15 seconds. I am trying to convince him to work on his F2L, lookahead, and cross instead. He already knows 3LLL (2Look OLL + 1Look PLL), and has been convincing other cubers we know to jump directly from beginner's method to advanced methods with large algorithm sets. How do I stop him from spending months going crazy about algorithms he doesn't need to know until later?

Unfortunately, I don't know his split times. I'll ask him some time soon, or suggest doing it. I think that getting the first two layers takes him about 35 seconds.

TL;DR: I suck at teaching people what to do, give me arguments against learning full OLL or any algorithm set with large numbers.

Why do you care? Just be faster than him. That's as fine of an argument as you need

 

[Hazel]

I think it's perfectly fine to start learning full OLL that early, maybe just make sure he understands it won't lower his times super drastically and that him learning OLL shouldn't take time away from working on F2L look-ahead and efficiency.

 

[lucarubik]

why the hell would you try someone not to learn anything, unless he is a sicko and what he is trying to learn is evil

 

[pglewis]

How do I stop him from spending months going crazy about algorithms he doesn't need to know until later?

If he's comfortable with the algs he has learned, why would he stop learning more algs just because "he's not sub-X yet"? Learning more algs does not preclude you from continuing to drill F2L cases and lookahead at the same time.

With OLL especially, it can take a while after learning an alg for you to get the full benefit due to recognition and recall. If you don't learn anything except EOLL until you're at 15 seconds, what's going to happen? You're going to start digesting full OLL and you're nearly guaranteed to slow yourself down for months even after learning them all before the recognition is good enough to approach being automatic. If you had started learning a few OLLs here and there when you were averaging in the 30s you might already be reaping those benefits now.

 

[DTCuber]

My friend has an ao100 of about 45 seconds, and is insistent on learning some parts of OLL, which he calls "Full Dot" (no edges oriented), "Full Line" (2 opposite edges), "Full L" (2 adjacent edges), and the overlapping set of "Full Corners" (all corners oriented).

I have an ao100 of 18.9 seconds, and the only OLL's I know are parts of the Y-Perm and experiments from Roux. I think that I'll start learning OLL once my ao100 drops to about 15 seconds. I am trying to convince him to work on his F2L, lookahead, and cross instead. He already knows 3LLL (2Look OLL + 1Look PLL), and has been convincing other cubers we know to jump directly from beginner's method to advanced methods with large algorithm sets. How do I stop him from spending months going crazy about algorithms he doesn't need to know until later?

Unfortunately, I don't know his split times. I'll ask him some time soon, or suggest doing it. I think that getting the first two layers takes him about 35 seconds.

TL;DR: I suck at teaching people what to do, give me arguments against learning full OLL or any algorithm set with large numbers.

not everybody takes the same route. imo, learning oll earlier rather than later is an advantage.

 

[mark49152]

Maybe he's learning it because he wants to. It's just a hobby. Let him have fun doing whatever he wants.

 

[Chree]

Not only do I think your friend should learn full OLL, I think YOU should learn full OLL.

 

[AlphaSheep]

I learned full PLL when I averaged 50 seconds and knew full COLL when I averaged 35 seconds. I average 18 seconds now and don't regret it. Honestly, if I'd just been practicing the same thing over and over just to get faster, I probably would have become bored of cubing a long time ago. Learning algs kept cubing interesting for me.

 

[vm70]

@sqAree @Torch @obelisk477 @Aerma @lucarubik @pglewis @DTCuber @mark49152 @Chree @AlphaSheep
Holy crap, I was not expecting this many replies! Thank you all for your suggestions!
I guess I am being a bit too hard on my friend for learning OLL now. I shouldn't be bothering him and harping on what he should or shouldn't do.
I guess I should be memorizing OLL myself, too. I already know a couple of algorithms myself, so that's about 50 algorithms to memorize. I already know full algorithmic F2L, so I guess I can learn another 50 algorithms too.