LBL -> Int F2L -> 1LookOLL = Wishful Thinking?

[Cuber1974]

Just a quick question here peeps, I've recently graduated from LBL to Int F2L with LBL to finish the last layer.

Has anyone gotten to my point in the learning process and gone straight for 1 look OLL instead of 2?

I know it's a case of throwing yourself into 57 algorithms at this stage which will be enough to have people gasping for air, but I am wondering if it's possible / or manageable without going for the quicker 9 algorithms 2 look OLL.

Very interested to see if anyone has actually gone for it and been successful, or if I should just go with 2Look OLL algs and just count my lucky stars

Incidently, does the 9 Alg set for 2 look OLL appear in 1 look at all, or is it going to be another case of 'relearning' algs to go full Fridrich?

Cheers

 

[Poke]

Know 2-Look PLL yet? If not, learn that first. And you should also know 1-look PLL before going into 1-look OLL.

Do NOT got straight into one look. You already know the edge first algos. If are really determined for 1 look, learn your corners only OLLs(because those are the ones that appear in 2 look.) and then move further.

 

[OOOH]

You should start with 2 look OLL and 2 look PLL
next to learn is 1 look PLL
Last of all is 1 look OLL

the OLL's you learn for 2 look OLL are also part of the 1 look OLL's. so no relearning

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

Yeah, I'll echo what's been said. Going straight into 1-look is silly. Learn the 2-look OLLs first, as well as all the PLLs, and then don't learn anything else. Use that set of algs to get yourself somewhere between 20-30 seconds avg at LEAST, before learning the rest of the OLLs.

 

[EE-Cuber]

Just a quick question here peeps, I've recently graduated from LBL to Int F2L with LBL to finish the last layer.

Has anyone gotten to my point in the learning process and gone straight for 1 look OLL instead of 2?

I know it's a case of throwing yourself into 57 algorithms at this stage which will be enough to have people gasping for air, but I am wondering if it's possible / or manageable without going for the quicker 9 algorithms 2 look OLL.

Very interested to see if anyone has actually gone for it and been successful, or if I should just go with 2Look OLL algs and just count my lucky stars

Incidently, does the 9 Alg set for 2 look OLL appear in 1 look at all, or is it going to be another case of 'relearning' algs to go full Fridrich?

Cheers

GO for 2 Look OLL & 2 Look PLL first. You wont have to relearn anything after that point becuase all the 2 look ags (both OLL & PLL) can still be used when you go for 1 look.

I currently, do a 2 Look OLL & PLL and won't bother learning more until my F2L times get comparable to my LL times. My F2L stands to improve alot so that's what I am focused on at the moment. I can avg 35 seconds and most of that time is my F2L. Just something to consider.

 

[Cuber1974]

Excellent - that's what I was hoping to hear.

Many thanks guys... time to go practise!

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

GO for 2 Look OLL & 2 Look PLL first.

2 look PLL isn't necessary IMO. Just go ahead and learn all the PLLs.

 

[JL58]

I would agree with DAE_JA_VOO. You can go directly from LBL LL to 1 look PLL. You will need all the PLL's of you want to beat your LBL LL times.

Good luck!

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

Yeah, and don't get lazy either. I studied all the PLLs about 8 months ago, and a couple of months later, I had "forgotten" my N perms, because I hated them so much. I still don't know N perms now. Hahahaha. I focus too much on F2L to care about N perms. I think I can still remember the one, but it's not a nice alg.

 

[Neutrals01]

I straight go to cross,f2l,2 look oll and 1 look pll....why not straight to 1 look pll?I nvr learn cross and 2 look pll before...my previous method was corners>1st layer>2nd layer>fish method.. and yet able to go straight to 1 look pll...it saves time...

 

[Ellis]

Yea, who does 2 look PLL? It's not necessary unless you're lazy or have a hard time retaining algs. Skip it.

I guess you could do all of OLL in one go. It isn't impossible. Once I really told myself to sit down and learn the OLLs, I had them finished in a week. But slow recognition times often forced me to revert to 2-look and I forgot a fair amount of algs. Soon after that I went back and spent 2 or 3 days drilling all the algs and had them down. So in total, I spent around 10 days learning the extra 48 1-look OLLs. I don't see any reason to drown yourself in all those algs right now though, it's probably better just to concentrate on the PLLs and then once you have them down, decide whether or not you want to do the rest of OLL in one go. It should be a lot easier then.

 

[rahulkadukar]

Learn the 21 PLL's they will also help you in BLD

 

[Cride5]

Just a quick question here peeps, I've recently graduated from LBL to Int F2L with LBL to finish the last layer.

Has anyone gotten to my point in the learning process and gone straight for 1 look OLL instead of 2?

I know it's a case of throwing yourself into 57 algorithms at this stage which will be enough to have people gasping for air, but I am wondering if it's possible / or manageable without going for the quicker 9 algorithms 2 look OLL.

If you really don't like learning algs, you could always give ZZ a go. Using the OLL/PLL varient you only need 20 algs total for a 2-look last layer: 6 OLLs and 14 PLLs. If you then discover that you quite like learning algs, you can graduate onto ZZ with ZBLL. You'll need 177 algs, minus the 20 you've already learned for OLL/PLL so 157 new algs. You'll then be able to do the last layer in 1 look and about 8 fewer moves

 

[ThatGuy]

You should learn Roux and do CxLL since you're willing to learn all the OLLs. It skips the PLLs you need to learn and M slice is awesome.

 

[Ellis]

You should learn Roux and do CxLL since you're willing to learn all the OLLs.

Where's the logic behind that? You're willing to learn all the OLLs, so completely switch methods to something you've never tried before and learn a whole set of different algs. Okay...

 

[ThatGuy]

You're willing to learn the 57 OLLs, so you should switch to Roux and CxLL algs-less algorithms than full Friedrich-and Roux is more fun.

 

[Ellis]

You're willing to learn the 57 OLLs, so you should switch to Roux and CxLL algs-less algorithms than full Friedrich-and Roux is more fun.

More fun? Not for me at least. You can't just go out at say Roux is more fun and leave it at that. Maybe "I think it's more fun"... okay thats fine.

And besides, he's willing to learn 57+21 algs, so why not do the 57+21 algs that he's willing to learn? I love this whole new group of people that are fleeing to Roux because there are less algs. People like that don't deserve to get good times. I'm not saying Roux isn't a good method, but switching to something based only on the fact the it requires less algs is such a bad idea. There is nothing hard about OLL and PLL.

 

[ThatGuy]

I haven't switched yet but I don't intend to learn any CxLL algorithms or any more OLL PLL algs. The advantages I see in Roux are the during inspection you can basically plan an equivalent of a double x cross and that the M slice agrees with me more. There is also more of a chance to look ahead in LL because the moves are intuitive

 

[Cuber1974]

Wow a lot of conflicted and heated discussion here. I didn't want to start a debate on the subject, just find my way into the next step.

Only reason why I brought this subject up in the first place was because going from LBL to F2L basically involved 'relearning' algs (something I really don't like having to do).

In other words, it's not the size of the mountain that's been putting me off tackling it, but rather the prospect of climbing the wrong mountain to begin with

Cheers again and thanks for your assistance everyone!

 

[soccerking813]

Start with the 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL, and then if you still feel like learning algs, keep learning more.

@Ellis

People don't switch to Roux because it has fewer algs. People switch to it because they consider it to be more fun. Last I checked one of the good things for fridrich was that it could get very fast, with a low alg count. Roux is just the same.