Last Layer Competition

[AustinReed]

2H 4.79, 3.65, 3.48, 4.36, 5.29, 4.39, 6.35, 2.42, 5.33, 3.71, 3.61, 4.75 = 4.34

 

[GlowingSausage]

2H: 6.12
( 3.17 ) , 4.53 , 6.65 , 7.79 , 7.11 , 6.10 , 7.77 , 3.87 , 7.21 , 3.74 , 6.45 , ( 8.06 )
EDIT: I know, i suck at LL........

 

[Robocopter87]

Hey! Listen here! You guys do NOT suck at LL. Stop saying you do, stop these stupid antics. Listen, we all go at different speeds and some of us are more experienced and some of us have faster fingers and some of us have good recognition, and that's just the way it is. Stop saying you suck at LL. Because that attitude doesn't help it any.

You wanna see my LL?

1. 12.72
2. 13.44
3. 17.75
4. 8.01
5. 11.49
6. 9.78
7. 9.68
8. 10.58
9. 8.64
10. 6.75
11. 8.72
12. 11.59

best time: 6.75
worst time: 17.75

current avg5: 9.31 (σ = 1.10)
best avg5: 9.01 (σ = 0.58)

current avg12: 10.47 (σ = 1.82)
best avg12: 10.47 (σ = 1.82)

I am unashamed of these times (Besides the 17. That was just cruel.), and I know that my LL will improve with time.

So please. Do yourself a favor and everyone else a favor by just not saying you suck at LL.

Anywho, very supportive of this idea. Along with the F2L comp, focusing on individual steps is quite important for improvement. In favor of keeping one thread instead of multiple threads.

 

[Jaycee]

^ I think that we're saying we suck at LL compared to our average. Like, I average 18 seconds and I have 9-12 second F2L on average.

 

[Robocopter87]

^ I think that we're saying we suck at LL compared to our average. Like, I average 18 seconds and I have 9-12 second F2L on average.

I understand that. But the point of this thread is to practice/compete in LL. We all are trying to get faster. Regardless of our averages, we are working on our LLs. Thats the point. However, not every single person needs to point out how they "suck" at LL. Because they don't. They simply need to work at it.

I wouldn't be saying anything if this was it, but every single person always says that they suck. Its just pessimistic.

 

[emolover]

I wouldn't be saying anything if this was it, but every single person always says that they suck. Its just pessimistic.

It is kind of natural to be humble.

 

[Jaycee]

I wouldn't be saying anything if this was it, but every single person always says that they suck. Its just pessimistic.

Which would you rather have : What people are saying now or people saying "OMG LOOK HOW AMAZING I AM AT MY LL GUYS. YOU CAN'T DO BETTER THAN ME BECAUSE I'M THE BEST"?

 

[Robocopter87]

It is kind of natural to be humble.

I don't see olympic athletes run a race and then say "Man I suck at that." I don't see football players get a touchdown and say, "Man I suck at catching."

Why bother solving if you just say, "Oh I suck so much at this." Thats not an attitude that grants improvement. For my solves I could clearly see what my problems were, I understood what holds me back in a solve. And I'm striving to fix it. Thus getting faster. Thus not doing so bad. And since theres no 100% perfect. Everyone is constantly striving towards that goal.

I just ask that everyone stop having a pity party just because they aren't as fast as feliks. (Obviously not everyone is doing this. I'm just generalizing, sorry.) Is this too much to ask?

EDIT: @Jaycee's Ninja: Obviously you are blowing this out of proportion and creating a scenario that doesn't have to be. Thats not the only two options. And you know this. No. I'm not asking people to be cocky. I'm asking for people to not be self-pitying.

 

[Jaycee]

Oh, I know those aren't the only two options. I was simply asking a question.

Why bother solving if you just say, "Oh I suck so much at this." Thats not an attitude that grants improvement.

What if it works for some people? If these people work to get better at something when they tell themselves they're bad at it, who's to say it's a bad attitude?

I just ask that everyone stop having a pity party just because they aren't as fast as feliks. (Obviously not everyone is doing this. I'm just generalizing, sorry.) Is this too much to ask?

See above. Don't apologize for generalizing (and blowing it out of proportion). I did the same and I'm not sorry for it. And most of the people who have mentioned that they think they're bad at LL aren't noobs and Feliks fanboys. Just sayin'.

Oh, and I'm not trolling BTW. I'm just actually having discussions on the forum tonight. >__>

 

[Robocopter87]

Ok, I see your side of the argument. But this attitude obviously doesn't work for everybody. And like I said, I wouldn't say anything if I didn't see it in almost every post.

I didn't really mean specifically Felik's. I see people like Kir getting 4 second averages and I also think my LL sucks. But I don't say it in thread, I understand that Kir has obviously done more cubing, that kir is obviously faster at recognizing and performing algs. But I don't say it in thread that I suck in comparison. (Even though I just did)

So yeah. I really am not asking much. I'm just trying to put an end to the nonsensical comments about sucking.

Now, I understand that it works for some people, and if thats the case, then by all means they may. I respect that. Thats fine with me.

Now Jaycee, we ought stop clogging this thread with this discussion.

 

[aronpm]

2H: 3.22, 3.43, 3.52, 3.81, 4.42, 4.41, 4.72, (1.89), (5.10), 3.19, 4.14, 4.60 = 3.95
sux

OH: 13.26, 8.38, 8.25, 13.70, 23.53, 4.99, 8.59, 9.66, 10.28, 7.53, 11.49, 8.35 = 9.95
lol 6th scramble was nice

BLD: 10.93, 13.20, 10.83, (DNF(15.66)), 16.57, 12.50, (10.83), 20.79, 12.86, 18.09, 15.44, 19.91 = 15.11
would be easier if my edge buffer were on the U layer. I was solving corners with comms and then edges with ell or eo/ep. Last scramble, I did it "pseudo" and solved it off by U' and fixed that at the end. interesting event.

 

[szatan]

2H: 5.12
4.44 ; 3.81 ; 6.28 ; 5.83 ; 6.44 ; 5.59 ; 6.58 ; 2.02 ; 5.71 ; 3.02 ; 4.91 ; 5.15

OH: 9.57
15.00 ; 12.88 ; 8.13 ; 7.13 ; 10.80 ; 8.05 ; 11.16 ; 6.65 ; 12.59 ; 8.06 ; 8.69 ; 8.16

BLD: 1:36.48
42.71 ; 46.50 ; 46.03 ; 51.19 ; DNF ; 25.84 ; 55.21 ; 56.13 ; 32.65 ; 46.91 ; 29.38 ; 2:19.63

 

[cubernya]

Still no answer to my question, what if I use partial edge control (so always 2+ edges oriented)

 

[That70sShowDude]

Still no answer to my question, what if I use partial edge control (so always 2+ edges oriented)

That obviously doesn't matter. You solve the cube from the scrambled state, who cares how you solve.

 

[Andreaillest]

2H: 8.54, 6.68, (9.40), 7.03, 7.49, 7.00, 6.92, 6.88, 7.10, (4.96), 8.62, 5.53= 7.18
Ugh. Really shows how bad my LL is. Need to start learning full OLL and better PLL recognition.

P.S. Agreed with keeping this all on one thread. Too many threads will flood the forum. Check the "Racing to sub x" topics for an idea on how to keep it all in one thread.

 

[Jai]

OH: (7.21), 6.78, 6.51, 4.49, 7.13, (3.89), 6.18, 4.44, 5.04, 4.52, 5.94, 5.41 = 5.64
Should've warmed up a bit more, but whatever.

EDIT:
2H: 3.66, 3.00, 3.94, 4.50, 3.44, 4.16, (4.68), 2.51, 4.11, (2.31), 4.35, 3.53 = 3.72

 

[AnsonL]

we are allowed inspection ？

2H:3.01
2.85, 2.44, 2.30, 3.24, 5.92, 3.39, 3.76, 1.77, 2.97, 2.17, 3.45, 3.56

 

[Jaycee]

we are allowed inspection ？

3. A 15 second inspection time may be used for 2H and OH.

Read thread please

 

[chris w]

2H: 4.20, 3.82, 3.31, 5.01, 6.14, 4.49, 5.25, (1.53), 3.12, (7.37), 4.35, 6.90 = 4.66
OH: 12.27, 12.40, 12.49, (14.10), 10.94, 6.80, 10.40, 6.99, 8.90, 8.47, 10.27, (6.72) = 9.99
first time touching a cube today, so no warm-up = epic bad

 

[ThomasJE]

By the way : I use partial edge control, so I always have some edges oriented. However, just from the first scramble, I had to 2-look it since I didn't know the case. So what if we use partial edge control? Too bad?

The objective is just to solve the last layer. So I'm afraid it's too bad.

Still no answer to my question, what if I use partial edge control (so always 2+ edges oriented)

Sorry, wasn't online.

Also, most people wanted the competition in one thread, so I will PM a moderator to get the name changed soon.

EDIT: The name has now been changed.