Is this UWR? Sub-8 with Waterman

[LukasCubes]

I got you
x2 // inspection
F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
U' S U2 S' // Solve an Edge
z M2 U2 R U' M' U R' U' // 2 More Edges
M' U M' U M U M' U M U'// Last Edge cancel into Direct L5E Alg
x' U2 M U2 M' // Permute MIdges

2 More Edges was actually just 1 edge because I messed up the alg and did the wrong one

 

[LukasCubes]

believe me now? I got another sub-8

 

[Spacey10]

believe me now? I got another sub-8

why is it a premeire

 

[LukasCubes]

why is a premeire

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm probably so more people can see it at once, the vid is just 43 seconds tho

 

[cuberswoop]

I can't wait 6 minutes I'm too impatient

 

[LukasCubes]

I can't wait 6 minutes I'm too impatient

premiering now

 

[voidrx]

believe me now? I got another sub-8

i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.

 

[LukasCubes]

i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.

You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?

 

[PiKeeper]

i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're getting a bit too riled up over this. There definitely is the possibility that they just got lucky, and there's not enough evidence to definitively say whether the solves were faked or not. And this really isn't a thing you should be fighting over, it's not like they're claiming a sub-6 solve or anything.

You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?

You don't need to main waterman to know that the lookahead isn't good.

 

[voidrx]

You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?

after corners, you have 9 edges unsolved, and 2 of those edges are in blindspots.

 

[the dnf master]

You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?

You can't accuse anyone of not maining waterman and also make assumptions that by not maining the method, the person automatically knows nothing about the method. Second of all, the skepticism of your two sub 8 solves come from a straightforward reason. Who knows, maybe the solves weren't faked and the sub 8s are legit? I won't make assumptions here, but your response post is a completely unviable defense.

 

[LukasCubes]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're getting a bit too riled up over this. There definitely is the possibility that they just got lucky, and there's not enough evidence to definitively say whether the solves were faked or not. And this really isn't a thing you should be fighting over, it's not like they're claiming a sub-6 solve or anything.

You don't need to main waterman to know that the lookahead isn't good.

A sub-6 solve i would have faked. One time when I was still new to cubing I faked a 29 second solve back when my PB was still like 50 seconds lol. Waterman lookahead to me isnt that bad. Also I did just get lucky with those 2 solves.

after corners, you have 9 edges unsolved, and 2 of those edges are in blindspots.

1 edge is a blind spot. and you only need to look at like 5 edges after corners and solve 2-4 of them. Unless you solve all 5 on accident.

You can't accuse anyone of not maining waterman and also make assumptions that by not maining the method, the person automatically knows nothing about the method. Second of all, the skepticism of your two sub 8 solves come from a straightforward reason. Who knows, maybe the solves weren't faked and the sub 8s are legit? I won't make assumptions here, but your response post is a completely unviable defense.

I never accused anyone of anything. Im just saying I just know more about the method than him and to me, lookahead of Waterman isnt that bad. And you see on the 2nd solve there are over 250 solves in a session (thanks to my progression thread). The sub-8s WERE legit.

 

[Sosimomonon]

A sub-6 solve i would have faked. One time when I was still new to cubing I faked a 29 second solve back when my PB was still like 50 seconds lol. Waterman lookahead to me isnt that bad. Also I did just get lucky with those 2 solves.

1 edge is a blind spot. and you only need to look at like 5 edges after corners and solve 2-4 of them. Unless you solve all 5 on accident.

I never accused anyone of anything. Im just saying I just know more about the method than him and to me, lookahead of Waterman isnt that bad. And you see on the 2nd solve there are over 250 solves in a session (thanks to my progression thread). The sub-8s WERE legit.

So you want us to believe you because you wouldn't fake a PB twice as fast as your average, you'd fake one more than twice as fast as your average? Also, saying you've faked solves in the past doesn't exactly make you more trustworthy.

 

[abunickabhi]

believe me now? I got another sub-8

Solid solve, seems like the fastest solve yo.

 

[BenChristman1]

I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.

 

[LukasCubes]

I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.

i have the scramble and recon in a later video for the 1st solve. Also the only reason there are over 250 solves in the session of 2nd solve was because of my progression thread I made a couple days ago

Solid solve, seems like the fastest solve yo.

7.84 was fastest solve but these idiots believe waterman isnt capable of sub-8 solves at all

So you want us to believe you because you wouldn't fake a PB twice as fast as your average, you'd fake one more than twice as fast as your average? Also, saying you've faked solves in the past doesn't exactly make you more trustworthy.

exactly... I know it will be a long time until I get a sub-6 so my averages would HAVE to be faster to get a real sub-6 lol

I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.

@BenChristman1 No cramble? No Recon?
L2 D' F2 L2 F2 D2 B2 R2 D2 L B F R2 U L2 R B U F' R' // Scramble
x2 // inspection
F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
U' S U2 S' // Solve an Edge
z M2 U2 R U' M' U R' U' // Edge alg messed up (supposed to do an M not an M2)
M' U M' U M U M' U M U'// Last Edge cancel into Direct L5E Alg x' U2 M U2 M'
// Permute MIdges
Moves: 37 STM
Time: 7.844
TPS: Almost 4.7

I would DM you about this but SS wont let me

 

[the dnf master]

7.84 was fastest solve but these idiots believe waterman isnt capable of sub-8 solves at all

You just said that you aren't making any accusations and then you call people who are a little bit skeptical(at least I am) idiots?
I never said waterman isn't capable of sub 8 and I never said directly that your solves are faked. You have no right to control anyone else's beliefs, and being toxic about it is the worst way to convince that the sub 8s are legit.

 

[GodCubing]

I believe you, Lukas, but you should calm down. It is for the best.

 

[LukasCubes]

You just said that you aren't making any accusations and then you call people who are a little bit skeptical(at least I am) idiots?
I never said waterman isn't capable of sub 8 and I never said directly that your solves are faked. You have no right to control anyone else's beliefs, and being toxic about it is the worst way to convince that the sub 8s are legit.

well i wasnt talking about you. Calling people idiots isnt accusing them of anything.

I believe you, Lukas, but you should calm down. It is for the best.

Meh, ok probably later tho im in the middle of something here

 

[BenChristman1]

@BenChristman1 No cramble? No Recon?
L2 D' F2 L2 F2 D2 B2 R2 D2 L B F R2 U L2 R B U F' R' // Scramble
x2 // inspection
F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
U' S U2 S' // Solve an Edge
z M2 U2 R U' M' U R' U' // Edge alg messed up (supposed to do an M not an M2)
M' U M' U M U M' U M U'// Last Edge cancel into Direct L5E Alg x' U2 M U2 M'
// Permute MIdges
Moves: 37 STM
Time: 7.844
TPS: Almost 4.7

I would DM you about this but SS wont let me

the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i remember, I do remember the whole solution. I feel like you think the solve is faked. I dont blame you but the solve was real. I just got lucky with it lol.

i know its a bad reasoning but i remember the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i know

In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.

https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_//_inspection F2_L2-_U_L_//_Waterman_1st_Layer y-_R_U-_L-_U_R-_U-_L_//_Niklas_CLL U-_S_U2_S-_//_Solve_an_Edge z_M2_U2_R_U-_M-_U_R-_U-_//_Edge_&#2b;_setup_(i_actually_messed_up_and_meant_to_do_an_M_move_but_I_did_an_M2_instead._I_did_realize_instantly_and_what_I_did_was_finish_with_U-_to_insert_the_last_edge_before_going_into_the_direct_L5E_alg) M-_U_M-_U_M_U_M-_U_M_U-//_Last_Edge_cancel_into_Direct_L5E_Alg x-_U2_M_U2_M-_//_Permute_MIdges&type=reconstruction&setup=L2_D-_F2_L2_F2_D2_B2_R2_D2_L_B_F_R2_U_L2_R_B_U_F-_R-the scramble

Also, it’s not very smart or tactful of you to call the people who doubt the method idiots. The fact of the matter is that it is not a great method, and there are many methods that are much better. But, if you’re going to debate with somebody about anything, calling them names and being rude isn’t going to get them to change their mind or respect your opinion.

Another way to make people respect and believe you is to put more effort into your posts to make sure that they look like they weren’t thrown together in 10 seconds, along with making sure that you’re not offending anybody in the process, because like I said, that’s not going to help you at all.