First post and OLL/PLL Question

[Ellis]

^ So you think he sat down and learned all 21 PLLs before ever finishing a last layer? I don't buy it unless his brain is so big he has a kick stand for it that opens out onto his shoulder to support it's enormous mass.

Brian.

I did it exactly the same. I knew a beginners last layer, but I did it in the this order EO - EP - CP - CO. So when I went to start learning 2-look OLL and PLL, they didn't go with my current method, so for a time, I couldn't solve the last layer in a normal solve. I also totally skipped 2-look PLL. So yea, I learned 30 algorithms, and while I was learning them I couldn't fully solve the last layer every time unless I wanted to revert back to my full beginners last layer, which I never did. It didn't take that much time to learn all of it and it wasn't such a heavy load.

Edit- and they never said that they had NEVER solved the LL before. They only said "when learning fridrich". And c'mon, even if they did start out with fridrich as their very first method, and 2-look OLL and PLL as their very first last layer, you don't need to know all the algorithms to solve it at least one time... you just solve and end up with one case that you already know, and do it. Not that freakin hard, you're just pulling crap out of no where.

 

[Deleted member 2864]

PLL - Just for redundancy and repetition

im not a fridrich user and never hope to be,, but i heard that most PLLs are just 2 OLLs after another,, is that true?

A few algs like T and y i think are olls in a series, but things like the E are absolutely not Olls.

 

[Gparker]

PLL - Just for redundancy and repetition

im not a fridrich user and never hope to be,, but i heard that most PLLs are just 2 OLLs after another,, is that true?

A few algs like T and y i think are olls in a series, but things like the E are absolutely not Olls.

there is an E perm thats 2 olls, search it

 

[miniGOINGS]

PLL - Just for redundancy and repetition

im not a fridrich user and never hope to be,, but i heard that most PLLs are just 2 OLLs after another,, is that true?

A few algs like T and y i think are olls in a series, but things like the E are absolutely not Olls.

ok,, thanks for all of the responses

 

[blgentry]

^ So you think he sat down and learned all 21 PLLs before ever finishing a last layer?

I did it exactly the same. I knew a beginners last layer, but I did it in the this order EO - EP - CP - CO. So when I went to start learning 2-look OLL and PLL, they didn't go with my current method, so for a time, I couldn't solve the last layer in a normal solve. I also totally skipped 2-look PLL. So yea, I learned 30 algorithms, and while I was learning them I couldn't fully solve the last layer every time unless I wanted to revert back to my full beginners last layer, which I never did. It didn't take that much time to learn all of it and it wasn't such a heavy load.

I have no reason to doubt you, but learning 31 algs before you can solve the LL reliably just seems like a crazy amount of work. The younger guys here (under 25 or 30) seem to memorize faster than us older guys, so maybe it's easier for you. It took me around 2 months to learn all of PLL and two step OLL.

Edit- and they never said that they had NEVER solved the LL before. They only said "when learning fridrich". And c'mon, even if they did start out with fridrich as their very first method, and 2-look OLL and PLL as their very first last layer, you don't need to know all the algorithms to solve it at least one time... you just solve and end up with one case that you already know, and do it. Not that freakin hard, you're just pulling crap out of no where.

Don't get so testy. I'm giving my opinion that learning all of PLL before reliably solving the LL seems like a lot of work. So it's easier for you than me. ...and apparently easier for the original poster, though he's be silent on the subject.

Learning an 8 look last layer first, then adding algs to get to a 7, 6, 5, and eventually 4 look Last Layer seems a lot more logical and progressive to me. Then you can add the other 14 PLLs to finally have a 3LLL. But I would think that because that's the approach I took.

Brian.

 

[brunson]

One of the guys that competes up here in the Denver area is a third grade teacher and taught a bunch of his students to solve the cube. About half a dozen turned out at the comp last weekend to compete and cheer Jesse on.

The beginner's method I learned, and I'm pretty sure Brian did, too, used a 2 look PLL. If you're doing EP and CP, in any order, you're doing a 2 look PLL. The method Jesse used to teach his third graders is very much like the last part of 8355, so if you're using that as your definition of "beginner's method", then you could solve LL without ever knowing a 2L PLL.

Maybe that's the confusion in this discussion. Some of us didn't start with a method that didn't involve A and U perms, so "beginner's method" can be a bit ambiguous.

 

[spdcbr]

I'm learning PLL from Erik's site .