Akuma
Member
I am not the one to judge people here, but a lot of people here seem to put great emphesis on using techniques that are in my opinion completely unneccesary.
Take me for instance, I've been cubing for a little bit more than half a year. I am still using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL, my F2L is amaturish at best and yet I am slowly getting closer to sub-30.
I know very few F2L cases, 20/41 at best.
I use no extended cross, no multislotting, no full OLL/PLL and the cube I use is a basic Rubiks Original that cannot cut any corners at all yet I am getting closer and closer to sub-20. I'm getting better and better at F2l each day and now that I started to stop doing cube rotations during F2L I am noticing significant time gaining.
I have little understanding for people who unsubstantiated claim that these extended methods are a requirement for getting fast solving speeds yet I've seen threads where people say that they can easily get sub-20 with a good lookahead AND using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.
Are X-cross, multislotting and full OLL/PLL really that significant for getting good times?
Take me for instance, I've been cubing for a little bit more than half a year. I am still using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL, my F2L is amaturish at best and yet I am slowly getting closer to sub-30.
I know very few F2L cases, 20/41 at best.
I use no extended cross, no multislotting, no full OLL/PLL and the cube I use is a basic Rubiks Original that cannot cut any corners at all yet I am getting closer and closer to sub-20. I'm getting better and better at F2l each day and now that I started to stop doing cube rotations during F2L I am noticing significant time gaining.
I have little understanding for people who unsubstantiated claim that these extended methods are a requirement for getting fast solving speeds yet I've seen threads where people say that they can easily get sub-20 with a good lookahead AND using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.
Are X-cross, multislotting and full OLL/PLL really that significant for getting good times?