OLL question?

[zanemartin96]

Is it really beneficial to learn full OLL over 2-look OLL? Does it really help your time?

 

[Systemdertoten]

Yep.

 

[freshcuber]

Think about what you just asked logically. I'll put it in simple terms.

I can swim from New York to London. It takes me a while but I can do it(hypothetical). That's really cheap for me. OR I could invest in a plane ticket which costs more but gets me there faster.

See my metaphor?

 

[emolover]

Is it really beneficial to learn full OLL over 2-look OLL? Does it really help your time?

Only if you know full PLL and know what your doing during F2L.

 

[Zane_C]

Ey, I'm the only Zane around here.

No, it makes not much difference at all. It does help though.

 

[zanemartin96]

Ey, I'm the only Zane around here.

No, it makes not much difference at all. It does help though.

Hey awesome. Ive never met another Zane.

 

[Zarxrax]

Think about what you just asked logically. I'll put it in simple terms.

I can swim from New York to London. It takes me a while but I can do it(hypothetical). That's really cheap for me. OR I could invest in a plane ticket which costs more but gets me there faster.

See my metaphor?

That's a pretty lame metaphor.

The answer to the question here is obvious without a metaphor: it is clearly faster to do 1 OLL than to do 2 OLLs.

 

[freshcuber]

That's a pretty lame metaphor.

The answer to the question here is obvious without a metaphor: it is clearly faster to do 1 OLL than to do 2 OLLs.

Eh I was working on the fly. The first part of my post should've answered his post anyway.

 

[Juju]

To be fair though, it takes a lot of recognition work and practice for your 1LOLL to be noticably faster than a good 2LOLL. I know full OLL, but for some OLLs, the 2 look is still potentially faster for me, recognition wise and also execution wise.

Take OLL 38 for example, it's often easier and faster for me to just perform F (R U R' U' ) F' then anti-sune than aligning it correctly and performing the 1 look alg.

Anyway, my point is, with 2-look OLL it's actually not that hard to get really fast and consistent. 2 Look PLL on the other hand is rubbish, and should be upgraded to 1 look as fast as possible.

 

[rock1313]

It's kind of obvious. Two look OLL is when you do two algorithms and take twice as long. If you do OLL it takes only one algorithm.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Or what you could do is look into F2L techniques that orient edges/corners while placing the last slot, so that you only need the COLL Algs.

 

[Magix]

I don't see 1 look OLL saving you more than a second if you can do F R U R' U' F' at a decent speed, so you shouldn't be worried about that until you know full PLL and are good at F2L and every second counts.

 

[Godmil]

I find full OLL much more fun to solve than doing the same 9 2-look ones over and over. I'd recommend jumping staight into them, cause if you're going to learn them eventually then the sooner you start the sooner you'll be really good at them.

 

[Selkie]

/signed

As you will see from my times, I am not yet at a stage where I am going to see great benefit and in some cases I am slower using a 1 look OLL than I would a 2. I have only been speed cubing since last month but I have now learned 42 of the 57. Since I do not want to do more than 1 a day (2 if its a mirror) then the sooner I know them the quicker I get onto the path of getting faster. I have seen a few posters comment on leaving them until they are say sub 15 and then it hurts to start learning them

If you have your 1L PLL done and are good at learning algs, I would get learning and I am certainly happy I have done so.

 

[Rob2109]

If you're as serious about speedcubing to learn all you PLLs get going with the OLLs, yes 2 look can be faster for someone who has been doing it a long time but in the long-term full OLL is obviously better. Good luck.

 

[Vinny]

I use 2 look, but I'm pretty sure 1 look would help. After all, 1 look PLL is faster than 2 look PLL once you get your recognition down.

Just try learning about 2 or 3 a day. the more gradually you learn them, the easier recognition should be compared to learning 5 a day. I would suggest learning the dot OLLs first because if you use 2 look for the dot OLLs, you're basically using 3 algorithms.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

Or what you could do is look into F2L techniques that orient edges/corners while placing the last slot, so that you only need the COLL Algs.

Or, if you're lazy, OCLL.

 

[uberCuber]

Two look OLL is when you do two algorithms and take twice as long.

>implying that the two-look algorithms are the same length as all the rest of the OLLs

 

[Cool Frog]

>implying that the two-look algorithms are the same length as all the rest of the OLLs

Some oll's are 2 looks but just combined.

 

[uberCuber]

Some oll's are 2 looks but just combined.

I meant the alg for each individual look, not the 2 looks combined. (like just FRUR'U'F' by itself, or just sune by itself)
He said "you do two algorithms and take twice as long"
to take twice as long by doing two algs instead of one, that means each individual one of the two-look algs would have to be as long as a regular one-look OLL, making the two two-look algs put together twice as long as a normal OLL, which is not the case with most OLLs

Hopefully that cleared up what I meant?