X-Cross, Multislotting, Full OLL/PLL, cubemodding neccesary to get sub-20?

[Tim Major]

On-topic, ^^^ that's easy for you because you are way under sub 20 without this. To get consistently sub 20, is what he wants. Sure you could with simple lbl, and so can a few others, but it's easier to get sub 20 if he learns full PLL. or you could just use petrus....., nah full pll is neccessary.

I'm actually not. I don't even know PLL. Using F2L slows me down.

Well...Well... don't you use roux?

 

[Kirjava]

So?

 

[Parity]

I average 21-24 seconds with 2 look oll and 2 look pll.

 

[blade740]

Nothing is necessary except practice.

You see people talking about these other things on the forums because practice isn't something you learn.

 

[ElderKingpin]

no. you dont. you can get sub 20 PB but not average (my PB is 19.77 non lucky). Im using 4Look and ive basically been focusing on F2L. PLL can shave a lot of time off your times though

 

[mati rubik]

I just got a sub 20 avg with lbl and 4LLL

 

[moogra]

I've heard of people averaging sub-20 with LBL (see unofficial records or something). I personally only know full PLL. My OLL is like 4x/54. My cube is negatively modded, meaning it fails REALLY REALLY hard -- gets stuck many times per solve, and I can still get sub-20.

 

[Akuma]

I think turning speed and look ahead is what determines sub 20. With full pll and 2 look oll i can only get 30-35 second averages. I am currently learning full oll, only 5 left .

This is were I disagree.
I only use 2/look OLL 2-look PLL, I know HALF the F2L cases and I average around 30-35 seconds

If you are using full PLL and averaging 30 seconds then you seriously need to look into your F2L look-ahead.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

You need none of those. You can use LBL with a 4-look LL, and still sub-20. You might not be able to average that, but it's possible. There are also people who don't do any of those things at all because they use entirely different methods.

 

[4Chan]

Since everyone else is bragging, I can sub-20 with 1LLL.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Since everyone else is bragging, I can sub-20 with 1LLL.

hardeeharhar (we're all really happy you finished that, though)

Let's not confuse the poor guy. People CAN get sub-20 times with the beginner's method. Full PLL does not take much time off your solve, as recognition is incredibly fast for it. Full OLL is probably more important, but again not a huge leap. Fast F2L is really the key.

 

[That70sShowDude]

No, none of that is necessary, but it sure does help.

I've never used multi-slotting or x-cross and my avg of 5 is 15.64

Erik - Using beginners method:

Does Feliks use multi-slotting or x-cross ever?

 

[Mike Hughey]

Since everyone else is bragging, I can sub-20 with 1LLL.

hardeeharhar (we're all really happy you finished that, though)

Let's not confuse the poor guy. People CAN get sub-20 times with the beginner's method. Full PLL does not take much time off your solve, as recognition is incredibly fast for it. Full OLL is probably more important, but again not a huge leap. Fast F2L is really the key.

Was this a typo? 1-look PLL certainly is a bigger benefit for the effort than 1 look-OLL; most people would certainly say that full PLL is probably more important than full OLL.

 

[Ranzha]

It really depends on what style and approach you have to solving a cube--these techniques can help, but aren't necessary. I will say, however, 2LOLL and full PLL do help your times over an LBL, for the most part.
Most of all, practise turning speed AND accuracy AND look-ahead. These factors can slow down even a PB-worthy solve.

 

[RyanO]

Sure it's possible to get sub 20 without any of these things, but 2 look OLL and full PLL will help your time a lot and they really aren't very hard at all to learn. You are just being lazy if you don't learn them.

 

[rubiknewbie]

Get a fast cube when you are awesome sub 20 with your storebought.

I agree to stick with your cube untill you get faster, but if you want, of course you can buy a new cube anytime, it's totally up to you. Just try not to blame the cube for the bad times.

Imagine what Feliks (or basically any top 3x3x3 cuber) would average with that crappy cube!

He got an 8 at competition (unofficial) with a storebought.

His fingers are speeding bullets. He is so fast with his fingers he might overshoot if he doesn't use storebought.

 

[qqwref]

His fingers are speeding bullets. He is so fast with his fingers he might overshoot if he doesn't use storebought.

Except not.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Was this a typo? 1-look PLL certainly is a bigger benefit for the effort than 1 look-OLL; most people would certainly say that full PLL is probably more important than full OLL.

This was not a typo. 2 look PLL is very fast. There was a large discussion on this about 6 months ago or so. Most people were arguing that learning full PLL made you much faster than getting better with a 2 look system, but the only intelligent posts made it clear that the difference would be rather minimal. All the 2 look PLLs are some of the fastest PLLs (except the E-style cases). Recognition is much faster than full PLL (though at a certain point that stops mattering). On the other hand, 2 look OLL is MUCH slower than full OLL, mostly because the OLLs are really fast almost all the time. My times dropped much more because of full OLL (30-27) than full PLL (44-42), and I know several people who have also experienced this. I learned them in approximately the same amount of time (1 week), though by OLL I knew how to learn algs better.

About the video: Erik is one fast mother.

 

[RyanO]

Was this a typo? 1-look PLL certainly is a bigger benefit for the effort than 1 look-OLL; most people would certainly say that full PLL is probably more important than full OLL.

This was not a typo. 2 look PLL is very fast. There was a large discussion on this about 6 months ago or so. Most people were arguing that learning full PLL made you much faster than getting better with a 2 look system, but the only intelligent posts made it clear that the difference would be rather minimal. All the 2 look PLLs are some of the fastest PLLs (except the E-style cases). Recognition is much faster than full PLL (though at a certain point that stops mattering). On the other hand, 2 look OLL is MUCH slower than full OLL, mostly because the OLLs are really fast almost all the time. My times dropped much more because of full OLL (30-27) than full PLL (44-42), and I know several people who have also experienced this. I learned them in approximately the same amount of time (1 week), though by OLL I knew how to learn algs better.

About the video: Erik is one fast mother.

I'm going out on a limb and guessing the time reductions you saw were more from F2L improvements seeing that your times are certainly in the range where F2L is by far the biggest factor. Almost everyone will agree that full PLL is far more important than full OLL.

 

[Anthony]

I agree completely that a good lookahead is indeed neccesary to get sub-20, heck you need it to even get sub-30.

lol. Not at all.