# Is 3 sec avg per PLL bad?

#### Ranzha

##### Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
If you want to get faster overall, then it is wise to minimise the amount of time required for to complete the cube at each phase of solving.
For algorithms like PLLs, it is generally advised to get these as fast as possible. I would recommend finding videos of cubers who do the PLL algorithms you use faster than you do, and consider what they do in order to solve that PLL faster. Perhaps it's turning speed. Perhaps it's a different finger trick or turning style. Perhaps it's the compatibility of that cuber with their cube as compared to you and your cube. Sometimes, you might want to consider new algorithms to replace some of the ones you use. I have been solving for more than six years, and I still change some of my algorithms, finger tricks, and cubes to suit my cubing style at a given time.

Depending what you average, 3 seconds for a single PLL algorithm could either be good or bad, but the more important part is that there is very likely room for improvement.

#### waffle=ijm

##### Waffo

I'm gonna say
yes, it's bad, you are wrong (1).
I don't even do PLL and I average 10 (2).
Just like don't bother learning anymore tricks, just mindlessly do all of them until you get better that's what good cubers do (3).
Just like turn stupid fast and get better algs, trust me I'm good (source I average 12) (4).
Just practice (5).

Am I doing it right?

OT - You're doing fabulously keep up the good work. Your times with PLL with get better the more you do them.

#### Myachii

##### Member
Wow.. You know for most PLL's I average 2.5 seconds. Yet I average solving around 15 seconds. Is THAT bad?

Plus I also get regular 13 second solves with occasional 11's and 12's.

Last edited:

#### JustinTimeCuber

##### Member
Wow.. You know for most PLL's I average 2.5 seconds. Yet I average solving around 15 seconds. Is THAT bad?

Plus I also get regular 13 second solves with occasional 11's and 12's.
I have sub-2 PLL and sub-15 average. Can't say.

#### G2013

##### Member
I have an average of "a-bit-more-than-2" and I'm sub-15 (or maybe sub-14)

It depends... on everything.

In my opinion it is a bit slow (I'm telling myself slow in terms of PLLs, yep)

Self-criticism helps

Last edited:

#### MM99

##### Member
I also have sub 2 PLL but only average 15s (I can sub 1 some) but yea 3s PLL is fine man you don't even need tps to be sub 20 just eliminate pauses and PRACTICE

#### cashis

##### Member
If youre over 20 seconds, youre fine.

#### Mollerz

##### Swag Overlord
A good general rule for CFOP is LL should take about 1/3 of your solving time or so. If LL is about 50% of your solve, I'd start drilling algs and stuff.

#### QQW

##### Member
If youre over 20 seconds, youre fine.
come on!

I average 17.5 and my PLL is around 3sec

#### QQW

##### Member
A good general rule for CFOP is LL should take about 1/3 of your solving time or so. If LL is about 50% of your solve, I'd start drilling algs and stuff.
exactly

Me: 55%LL, average 17.5

#### cashis

##### Member
come on!

I average 17.5 and my PLL is around 3sec
Probably still fine

#### Petro Leum

##### Member
Yes, it is bad. i bet everyone could easily get sub2 PLLs by just getting proper algs, getting the fingertricks down, and then doing every alg as fast as they can one hundred times. which takes at most an afternoon to do.

#### GuRoux

##### Member
come on!

I average 17.5 and my PLL is around 3sec
i think his 3 seconds are execution alone, i'm assuming yours include auf and recognition?

#### NeilH

##### Member
I average about 23 and use beginner's method PLL which takes me 6 seconds ahhh

#### 2180161

##### Member
I would say it isnt bad, but It definitley could use improvement. I would say get them all to sub 2 before trying to be sub-20 Just spam the algs, until they come easier to you. Then, practice recogniton. At least that is what I would do...

#### theROUXbiksCube

##### Member
If it's 3 to execute yes it's bad it's just algs and just drill them, if it's 3 execution and recognition, it's pretty mediocre.