Sub1Hour
Veteran
Well, I could certainly stir something up if you would like...
Full OLL isn't as good as you think it is.
-
Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!
You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.
Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.
Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.
Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
The cubing argument thread
- Thread starter MJS Cubing
- Start date
Full OLL isn't as good as you think it is.
Mo_A2244
Veteran
Haven't actually learned FULL OLL yet but don't worry, I say I am going to learn it soon.. and will also probably say that next year as well, and the next year..
Sub1Hour
Veteran
I never have learned full OLL and probably never will simply because I do not care
Jam88
Veteran
Best form EVER!
Hmmm, I guess having more than one option is good
DNF_Cuber
Veteran
eh, I use it and it is faster than 2 look so it is worth learning. 48ish algs isn't much trouble i ( you already know cross OLLs, F R U R' U', and inverse at the least.)
Last edited:
Jam88
Veteran
I 100% agree. If you use the best method (Mehta obvs) then you don't need it.
MJS Cubing
Veteran
New Argument: Cubes bigger than 5x5 aren't great.
1. Hardware is bad - You may argue that the MGC line is great, but that's compared to other existing cubes, not how good they actually are.
2. every cube bigger than a 5x5 is the same thing just bigger, and parity on even layered cubes - Just center build, edge pair, and solve like a 3x3
3. Events are too long - A lot of people (Myself included) are way to slow at big cubes to make it worth it, I average like 3:45 on 5x5, and it would be so bad that it's not even worth it on 6x6 and 7x7.
1. Hardware is bad - You may argue that the MGC line is great, but that's compared to other existing cubes, not how good they actually are.
2. every cube bigger than a 5x5 is the same thing just bigger, and parity on even layered cubes - Just center build, edge pair, and solve like a 3x3
3. Events are too long - A lot of people (Myself included) are way to slow at big cubes to make it worth it, I average like 3:45 on 5x5, and it would be so bad that it's not even worth it on 6x6 and 7x7.
DNF_Cuber
Veteran
you being bad isn't a valid argument.
SH03L4C3
Veteran
6-7 hardware is really bad
D
Deleted member 55877
Guest
You don't even know full OLL, so you shouldn't be making assumptions about it. Full OLL improved my global times by a solid 1 second, which for me is a considerable improvement
MJS Cubing
Veteran
It wasn't an argument, it was an example. Big cubes are long events, which is a negative imo
SH03L4C3
Veteran
I critique if u wanna get faster
call me
Sub1Hour
Veteran
A 1 second improvement doesn't mean anything on 5-7. Especially when there are easier ways to save a second during a big cube solve and even a 3x3 solve. I'd guarantee that an improvement in F2L would be better than learning a whole bunch of algorithms. Learning an alg set is infinitely more efficient on puzzles like 2x2 and square-1 since there isn't much outside of first layer/side and some EO cases that's easily improvable without algorithms. Application of edge control is a far easier way to save a similar amount of time during last layer. It's much easier to just keep track of 4 edges orientation during the last 1-2 pairs than to learn a big 57 alg set that is only slightly more beneficial for edge control. Especially for someone like me who couldn't care less about 3x3 and only does it out of boredom.
Learning better F2L tricks is a much better use of your time than full OLL.
So you aren't willing to put in more than a minute and a half into a solve?
D
Deleted member 55877
Guest
It is still beneficial especially in the long run. If you learn full OLL early on then by the time you average sub 10 you will have complete familiarity with OLL rather than struggling to learn it because you put it off for so long. And personally I don't care about big cubes too much, but that's just me.
Sub1Hour
Veteran
What do you mean struggle to learn it? Why would cubing for longer make it harder to learn algs? If anything its the opposite because the fundamental understanding of what each alg does to the pieces would be much greater for someone with more experiance
And personally, I don't care about alg sets that have a replacement that's easier to learn and is almost as good if not better in some cases, but that's just me
The hardware isn't bad, you are bad.
There are budget cubes that are literally 15 dollars that a professional could use and get similar times. With puzzles like the MGC's and the Xman cubes, bad hardware isn't really an excuse anymore since they don't pop if you look at them the wrong way, unlike the cubes in the days of old like the Shengshou puzzles and Aofu.
DNF_Cuber
Veteran
Well, how much trouble is 48 or less algs to learn? It has a pretty direct benefit, and I found it easy to learn 1 OLL a day and improve my F2L when I was learning.
D
Deleted member 55877
Guest
Psychological reluctance. Over time you start to convince yourself that full OLL isn't necessary and you will be less and less motivated to learn it.
Sub1Hour
Veteran
Well is it necessary?
48 algs isn’t awful, but learning 48 OLL algs is a waste of my time compared to learning 48 EP algs or 48 CSP cases. 3x3 is overrated anyway so putting time in it doesn’t make sense when I’m already getting close to the top 100 in square-1
BenChristman1
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2019
- Messages
- 3,601
- Location
- in my room doing math
- WCA
- 2019CHRI11
I think that this is a good point. Your main event is obviously squan, so it makes sense that you would want to spend your time learning algs for your main event.
DNF_Cuber
Veteran
It's kinda pointless arguing with you if you have a mindset that 3x3 is less important than other events (not that you're wrong)
Similar threads
