How much did your average drop after learning whole OLL and PLL?

I have been cubing for 3 months this week. I have known full PLL and OLL for almost a month. I have average 4-5 seconds on my LL. Sub 3 on all PLLs and all my OLL are even faster.
(Except these B**tards http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in...e=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=OLL&cid=56 and http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in...e=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=OLL&cid=45)
Only reason I am not sub 20 is because my F2L still takes 10-20 average sec and my cross jumps around from like 2 - 8 seconds
PB is 19.87 atm.
 
Last edited:
brian724080 said:
How did learning all 57 OLLs drop your time by 3 seconds? [F : [R, U]] and [F : [R, U]'] barely takes one second to execute. Plus, there's a factor of recognizing the OLL cases, which is a bit more difficult than recognizing OCLL.
Click to expand...

I see you don't know full OLL. It's a matter of efficiency. FRURUF doesn't take a second to execute, but why do it when it leaves a crappy OCLL? Full OLL is almost a must when you want to reach sub 10 and beyond.
 
I was 1:15 with beginner's method

I learned Fridrich last month and 2 look PLL and OLL
and I was around 45-50 sec

In the past month, I've learned full PLL and alll but 5 of the OLLs
And I'm now sub 30

So definitely learn full PLL and OLL
and if you don't want to learn full OLL at least learn the easy cases
The more algs you memorize the easier it becomes to memorize new ones
 
This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L.

Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.

Just saying.
 
pipkiksass said:
This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L.

Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

I learned full pll without improving my f2l since i learned it in a couple day while practicing roux. It made me go from about 24 - 21 seconds.
 
pipkiksass said:
This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L.

Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Who said you can't improve F2L while learning LL algs. I personally practice all steps all the time. I know full OLL and full PLL. But I didn't just practice algs all day. I did full solves. During Inspection I'd look for best cross and think about best ways to make it. During F2L I keep telling myself "Look ahead... look ahead... look ahead.." and only think about what is the optimal way to insert the pairs. Then comes LL. It is super fun to try and execute the appropriate OLL and PLL alg for the cases instead of 2LOLL.
 
When i first started to learn full pll and 2 look oll my times increased from sub 30 to around 45 avg, now i can execute them easily and i average 23 sec.
 
kclejeune said:
I see you don't know full OLL. It's a matter of efficiency. FRURUF doesn't take a second to execute, but why do it when it leaves a crappy OCLL? Full OLL is almost a must when you want to reach sub 10 and beyond.
Click to expand...

Not if you have a 5-6 second F2L like Feliks, and when I do use an OLL algorithm, it's only about a second or two faster at most compared to 2-look OLL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
How much did you improve since your first competition?
2
Replies
26
Views
1,988
viviannguyen380
V
ilikecubing
  • Poll Poll
How much time did it take you to master F2L
2
Replies
31
Views
5,716
frogmanson
F
S
  • Poll Poll
How much did you figure out?
2
Replies
31
Views
4,491
Andrew Ricci
Andrew Ricci
G
How much would it actually cost to run a small comp?
Replies
5
Views
357
Ordway Persyn
Ordway Persyn
shubhsquare-1
Dunno how much my main 3x3 exsists 💀
Replies
6
Views
640
shubhsquare-1
shubhsquare-1
Back
Top