Super Duper Ultra Mega Uber Fridrich Training Outline

[windhero]

On the subject above: I really can't help myself but throw in this quote from Dr.House. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people". Not directed at rj.

This method is great and all, but isnt this just the same old "Practice. A lot." with a bit more detail? Not to be discouraging but I suppose anyone aiming for sub 10 (not to talk about sub 8 or 7) should know their weaknesses and what to do to fix them. Drill Cross/F2L/OLL+PLL/Transitions isnt anything new afaik in the field of "how to get faster" guides

 

[slinky773]

This method is great and all, but isnt this just the same old "Practice. A lot." with a bit more detail? Not to be discouraging but I suppose anyone aiming for sub 10 (not to talk about sub 8 or 7) should know their weaknesses and what to do to fix them. Drill Cross/F2L/OLL+PLL/Transitions isnt anything new afaik in the field of "how to get faster" guides

Yes, you are correct. However, I kind of find that if I'm just freestyle practicing, I never get much done. I just do a little bit. I find that a guide like this helps me to focus on really doing drills every day. I suppose you don't have to drill, for example, PLLs one month, you could just do certain drills every day until they get better.

 

[uyneb2000]

Am I crazy for wanting to try this out?

 

[78BFE]

I'll do this starting September, then I'll tell you how it went on New Years.

 

[rj]

How is cubing an unhealthy hobby? Not everyone has to be the football team quarterback,

I know!

 

[Akash Rupela]

I really appreciate how you have compiled a remarkable training routine indeed. But it is flawed for a couple of reasons. Saying sub2/sub1 oll/pll is just being lazy. Different cases are different. for example, if you are getting to the point of sub1 Y perm, you must get other fast ones to 0.7-0.8 or sorts. Putting all algorithms equal is 1 thing I find really misleads us a lot. sub1ing slowest is okay on paper, but different standards for different ones should be the case IMO?
Also, how do you define sub1ing an alg? Doing it sub1 everytime it appears? Having a sub1 ao100? sub1 ao12? sub1 ao5? sub1 single? Even the last bit ensures you have practiced enough to be able to do it. But i m not sure how much one needs to do to be able to put that fast algs in solves .
Also as someone else suggested, transitions are another thing. One does not simply get good at them by repeated solving. One improves, but its hindering your potential and over practicing bad habits. I have decent official times but i have developed very bad habits due to rigorous practice thing that most people recommend . Its not right at all.

 

[immortalchaos29]

I really appreciate how you have compiled a remarkable training routine indeed. But it is flawed for a couple of reasons. Saying sub2/sub1 oll/pll is just being lazy. Different cases are different. for example, if you are getting to the point of sub1 Y perm, you must get other fast ones to 0.7-0.8 or sorts. Putting all algorithms equal is 1 thing I find really misleads us a lot. sub1ing slowest is okay on paper, but different standards for different ones should be the case IMO?
Also, how do you define sub1ing an alg? Doing it sub1 everytime it appears? Having a sub1 ao100? sub1 ao12? sub1 ao5? sub1 single? Even the last bit ensures you have practiced enough to be able to do it. But i m not sure how much one needs to do to be able to put that fast algs in solves .
Also as someone else suggested, transitions are another thing. One does not simply get good at them by repeated solving. One improves, but its hindering your potential and over practicing bad habits. I have decent official times but i have developed very bad habits due to rigorous practice thing that most people recommend . Its not right at all.

I thought about this as well. At first I thought I could just drill and look for some arbitrary improvement. But now that I'm rethinking that having a goal to work for would be more effective. Deciding what these goals should be is tricky. It is possible to consider what the fastest cubers' times are and scale them down to a reasonable goal for each person, but this is a lot of work to get a proper sample size. It would be easier to get many fast people to post averages of 50 for all their PLLs and use those numbers, but that depends on willing participation.

 

[sub20cuber]

ahhhhhhh intense much

 

[speedpicker]

How about simply this. Figure out your individual PLL times. Practice the worst until reduced by 10%. Repeat.

Also, consider timing PLLs with various AUF combinations before and after. If you cant execute a U2 after the PLL without an awkward regrip, your time for that combo will stall, and your fingertricks/specific alg may need rethinking.

Progressive, achievable, systematic reductions in all elements quickly add up to impressive gains.

 

[slinky773]

Thanks for the unnecessary bump. That was great. All things like what you said, speedpicker, has already been addressed in the thread. (I think. excuse me if it hasn't.)