2LOLL to OLL?

[BluSune]

My average is about 48 seconds and I use 2 look OLL and 2 look PLL and I was wondering how much faster I would get by switching from 2LOLL to OLL, and also which was harder to learn,all your orientations or all your permutations?

 

[Clarkeeyyy]

Trust me, practice more. Full PLL first definitely, learn when you want, I learned at 30-40 seconds I think. OLL should wait till solid sub 20.

 

[ben1996123]

learn full pll first.

 

[ncube]

As everyone has been saying, full pll. Full OLL doesn't make a difference until you're sub-20. But, it's never too early to learn and it will benefit you later on. What you should be focusing on is f2l flow and efficiency, not turning speed.

 

[BluSune]

Ok Thanks, I was going to learn Full OLL first because to me it looks easier.

 

[ryanj92]

OLL is more than twice as many algs to learn and cases to recognise, so I'd consider that to be harder than PLL...
As for time you'd save, obviously each one at this stage will save you however long it takes you to do one of the two-look algs, minus any extra recog time depends on how good your turning speed is, I guess.

 

[Rubiksfreak]

I'd learn full OLL and PLL. Alot of people say wait till youre sub 20 to learn full OLL, to me it doesnt really matter. You're going to have to learn it eventually depending on how fast you want to be, so why not now?

 

[qqwref]

Learn full PLL as soon as possible and full OLL when you are comfortable with PLL. The time saved depends a lot on your turning speed and how good you are with the 2-look versions, but they're both worth it if you intend to use Fridrich.

 

[jayefbe]

I'd learn full OLL and PLL. Alot of people say wait till youre sub 20 to learn full OLL, to me it doesnt really matter. You're going to have to learn it eventually depending on how fast you want to be, so why not now?

Because it's time that would more efficiently be spent getting better at F2L, which is much more important for getting faster.

 

[rishidoshi]

how much time would you save with full OLL?? depends how fast can you do a FRUR'U'F' what is that? 0.5/1/3 seconds?? that's all. for some cases 2 look would be faster that 1 look at this point of time for you.

 

[Rubiksfreak]

Because it's time that would more efficiently be spent getting better at F2L, which is much more important for getting faster.

I was probably averaging 30 seconds when I started learning OLL and PLL. As I was still learning the PLL and OLL, I was also still improving on my F2L. I was also practicing alot at that time too, I guess it all depends. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing.

 

[immortalchaos29]

how much time would you save with full OLL?? depends how fast can you do a FRUR'U'F' what is that? 0.5/1/3 seconds?? that's all. for some cases 2 look would be faster that 1 look at this point of time for you.

You can go ahead and also subtract the time for the OCLL execution since they are almost always faster than other OLL algs.

Honestly even after sub 20 full OLL makes so little difference. But you're right about one thing. Even though there are over twice the algs, they are generally much easier to learn than PLL's. But so many algs takes time. Time much better spent practicing bld crosses, fluid f2l, reducing rotations, etc.

 

[mark49152]

I'm at about the same average as you and also felt the urge to do something about my OLL rather than just accept 2-look. So I learned the dot cases, on the basis that they avoid the longer 11-move EO case and give the best time-saving benefit overall. There are only 8 of them and I learned them in a couple of days. I average 3.6s for OCLL and 4.7s for dot OLLs, so when they do come up, it makes a difference of probably around 3 seconds, although they come up quite infrequently so it wasn't a massive boost to my average. Psychologically it is satisfying to have 1-look solutions to what would otherwise be worst cases.

I also explored using partial edge control to avoid dot cases entirely, but I tend not to use it in order to keep F2L as simple as possible. Just the occasional sledgehammer to finish when it's an obvious no-brainer. F2L is my weakness and I'm spending lots of time practising lookahead and flow, so anything that complicates it isn't welcome.

Also I learned the very short and easy OLL cases, the ones that it would be silly not to, like the T cases. My criteria is that it must be near-zero effort to learn and a worthwhile time saving over 2-look, otherwise use 2-look and get faster at that. I'll probably learn more OLLs whenever I get bored and want to learn more algs, although I agree with the argument that full OLL isn't worthwhile in terms of time savings until sub-20.

Hope this helps.

 

[Smiles]

I found full PLL to be a lot easier than full OLL. The finger tricks become really fun to do over and over, but some stuff that is annoying to do/memorize like N perms and G perms become quite a pain. But it's better to learn these first, since they generally need more practice than OLLs.

And just to put the 2 in comparison, I learned OLL at 6 cases per day and PLL at 1 or 2 cases per day, depending on if i was lazy that day. So you could say they took about the same amount of time to learn.

Some people are saying you don't have to learn OLL until you're around sub 20, and while I agree with that, I encourage you to learn it as early as possible. Why?
Finding good algs can take a lot of time. I learned OLL at about 18 - 23 seconds averages, and at sub-14 I have finally realized what algs I don't like and am changing. So a few days ago, I had like 5/57 algs that were really really slow 'cause I just changed them.
These were algs that I thought were pretty good upon starting with them, but now I can't even stand getting those cases.

Looking back, I've probably changed about 1/3 of all my OLL algs at some point.

 

[RV]

If you learn FULL OLL AND FULL PLL (like me) You will average something like..... 23 seconds?
And also learn other methods, it helps knowing lots of algs

 

[BluSune]

also would xcross improve my time?

 

[mark49152]

also would xcross improve my time?

Well I'm no faster than you, so offer this advice based only on recent learning and experience: focus on the basics. There's all sorts of opinions out there, but the general consensus for people at our level (if you're doing CFOP) seems to be to work on F2L, learn 2-look OLL, full PLL when you feel ready, and practise practise practise. Stuff like xcross and full OLL is advanced technique and not likely to give as good a payback as practising the basics.

 

[Smiles]

X-cross is good to know, but it's advanced. It's one of those things (like edge control, multi slotting, OLLCP subsets) that you don't need at all to be very fast. If I were you I wouldn't worry about that. The more experienced you are with the cube, the easier it'd be to learn X cross so right now it might just be a waste of time.

Also, if you were to experiment with other methods like Petrus or Roux, you'll naturally learn how to make x-crosses.

And just to clarify: x-cross is not a method or substep. Therefore, you shouldn't be using x-cross in every solve or trying to force one. I only do it about 1/10 solves or so, if it's easy to do it.

 

[Phan man97]

OLL bạn nên học 7 công trước đi rồi sau đó học cho hết PLL
rồi thực hành thành thạo nó đi bạn