Done with edges?

[Chapuunka]

If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.

 

[ThatGuy]

If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.

exactly. this is true of most things. For example, running: perfect form first, then work on speed. Or, tennis, same thing. Strokes first, gameplay and power after. It doesn't matter how fast you are at first if you aren't as good because the best people will always be better than you if you don't master the "fundamentals".

 

[Mike Hughey]

If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.

exactly. this is true of most things. For example, running: perfect form first, then work on speed. Or, tennis, same thing. Strokes first, gameplay and power after. It doesn't matter how fast you are at first if you aren't as good because the best people will always be better than you if you don't master the "fundamentals".

I've always gone for "reasonable accuracy", not trying to go too fast, but trying to go as fast as I can while having a reasonable likelihood of success. I hate DNFs, so I can't stand it if I start failing most of my solves. I've always averaged about 70% accuracy on 3x3x3 BLD, starting back when I averaged over 5 minutes per solve, and continuing until today.

Right now, my CCT for 3x3x3 BLD shows 308/417, with an average time of 1:51.25, which is almost 74% accuracy. So I guess that's my current accuracy when using CCT for solves (which is probably about half of my attempts these days).

Unfortunately, I don't do as well in official competitions - my accuracy there is 24/49, so less than 50%. I guess I get nervous.

 

[Sakarie]

But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?

 

[Chapuunka]

But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?

I'm not Mike, but I know I'd rather take a little while longer (20 seconds in this case) and be 45% more likely to succeed, if for no other reason than I hate messing up when showing off.

 

[Sakarie]

But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?

I'm not Mike, but I know I'd rather take a little while longer (20 seconds in this case) and be 45% more likely to succeed, if for no other reason than I hate messing up when showing off.

Yes, that's totally understandable, and I would probably do the same thing I if were doing it as a show. But were not talking showing off or competition, but training.

 

[JeffDelucia]

To the original poster: I tap out my edges so i just count them as i tap.

 

[Mike Hughey]

But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?

I'm not Mike, but I know I'd rather take a little while longer (20 seconds in this case) and be 45% more likely to succeed, if for no other reason than I hate messing up when showing off.

Yes, that's totally understandable, and I would probably do the same thing I if were doing it as a show. But were not talking showing off or competition, but training.

I don't know what would be best. I've been slow improving, so maybe my approach isn't the best one. But I have continued improving, so it has still worked. And I rarely DNF the whole set of solves in competition, so I guess it has served me fairly well there. But it's also true that I've never won a 3x3x3 BLD event; maybe that's because I care too much about accuracy. (But mainly I think it's because I'm almost always at competitions where someone else is really awesome at 3x3x3 BLD.)