# Getting Faster 1H Drops Down 2H Times?



## dChan (Apr 15, 2008)

I remember Rama, I think, saying something like when he started going below 30 seconds one-handed his two-handed times suddenly dropped below 20 seconds. This was very interesting to me because it made a lot of sense. If you become much faster solving with one-hand, why would your two-handed times not gett faster as well? It is only logical after all. But I was wondering when does it start to happen? I'm stuck at a solid 22 second average with two-hands but my one-handed average just keeps decreasing. 7 out of 12 of my solves yesterday were in the mid to high 30s with only two of them being 39s. I still got a 40.53 sec average but it was simply because I made a mistake on one of my solves which resulted in a 53 sec time(therefore by using the RA formula a couple of my high forty times factored into the average). Basically, I am saying that I probably average somewhere in the upper 30 second range. So when would my two-handed times drop, though? In my opinion I think once you are within 15 seconds of your 2 handed average the 2 handed average will probably begin to drop but I am not a great one-handed solver so I really do not know when this should happen? Does anyone who averages in the 20s care to give some insight about this? I would greatly appreciate it.

-dChan


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 15, 2008)

When you're a beginner, your OH times depend mostly on how quickly you can turn the cube and how often you lock up. So at that point, practising OH mostly consist of practising manipulating the cube, which shouldn't make a big difference in your 2H times.

But when your turning speed increases, your times start to depend more and more on the actual solving; that is, how many moves you use, how well you can look ahead and go from one step to another without pauses, etc. And this is also crucial in 2H solving, so practising either event should decrease your times in both.

At least, that's my reasoning/experience.


----------



## dChan (Apr 15, 2008)

Yeah, thatmakes sense as well. My OH times will probably continue to get faster and faster because it is easier to look ahead when you do OH but my 2H times will probably require me to really sit down and force myself to look ahead if I want to get any faster. But is there any relation at all between your 1H and 2H times? Like If I average 30 seconds 1H should it automatically mean I am averaging 15 seconds 2H?


----------



## RobinBloehm (Apr 15, 2008)

I am not very fast in OH, but in my opinion, OH forces you to search for the optimal F2L pair, so to not use the very first pair you see. Maybe with a lot of practice I can adapt that to my 2H solves, though it might at first increase the times a bit.


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 15, 2008)

I actually have worse look ahead on OH. It seems like much of my concentration goes into simply trying to turn faster.


----------



## Pedro (Apr 15, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> so practising either event should decrease your times in both.



well, depends on your current speed...OH turning is different from 2H...to get like sub-25 you need some more hand skill, so practicing 2H won't really drop your times



dChan said:


> Like If I average 30 seconds 1H should it automatically mean I am averaging 15 seconds 2H?



nah, there's no such a thing...people have different OH/2H ratios...mine is about 1.68 (24.5 / 14.5), but some have close to 1.5, others have close to 2.0...


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 15, 2008)

Pedro said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > so practising either event should decrease your times in both.
> ...


That's why I said "when your turning speed increases...".


----------



## dChan (Apr 15, 2008)

I don't know why it is different for others but I have the complete ability to look ahead for optimal pairs during F2L. It seems to me that at the rate anyone is turning during OH(that is for anyone over 25 seconds) you should be able to see ahead very easily. You'll know if you are looking ahead properly if your theoretical OH average is the same as your real average(which mine is). And if it is the same then that means you need to look ahead better, turn faster, and use more optimal solutions to certain cases in order to get faster [in my opinion]. 

Even if the ratio is different for everybody doesn't that still mean that your 2H times will go down with your 1H times?


----------



## Lofty (Apr 15, 2008)

idk if there is much correlation. If practicing OH brought 2H times down I think I would be faster at 2H. I know I'm the exception to most rules about 2H but my best 2H average is 17.5 with my best OH 19.97... 1.14 ratio lol
I thin it works more the other way around. If you are good at 2H it will be easier for you to be good at OH. I mean If you can look ahead perfectly in a 6s F2L all it takes is for your hands to learn how to turn faster...


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 15, 2008)

I agree with Lofty.
My ratio is about 2.


----------



## dChan (Apr 15, 2008)

Ah, I guess that makes much more sense especially coming from you Lofty. Those numbers really put my thoughts into perspective. I can't believe you average only 17.5 2H! I thought you might be like sub-15 by now. I guess it really is just the practice that makes the difference.


----------



## Dene (Apr 15, 2008)

The problem with Lofty is that he never practices 2H though, I bet if he did he would be sub15 in no time. I do think there is somewhat of a correlation between dropping OH and 2H times. Obviously, if you're solving 2H in one minute your OH times are not going to be faster.

One thing to remember is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your OH times to be faster than 2H times, because in 2H you don't have to use both hands, so if you're "faster" OH, just do 2H as OH as well.

Definitely, the faster you are in 2H, the easier it will be to get your OH times down.

I think working hard on OH would have an effect on 2H as well, although I don't think it would take place until the times got within 10 seconds of each other, and even then it would be minimal.


----------



## dChan (Apr 16, 2008)

Well, right now I am definitely not seeing much correlation or effect between my 2H times and my 1H times. My 1H times just keep going down and down but my 2H times are still pretty much the same albeit there are a few more sub-20s than usual. You are probably right about the effect of 1H on 2H probably doesn't really happen till your 1H times are withing 10 seconds of your 2H times. 1H is something you really have to practice to get your times down because if you look at someone like Tyson Mao who just won a competition - he sucks at 1H. I don't know if he is always slow but of the few times I have seen him do 1H in person they are always over a minute. So you can have great times 2H but that doesn't mean your 1H is going to be great as well. But it seems if you have great times 1H your 2H times will be pretty good too. Am I right about this?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 16, 2008)

dChan said:


> But it seems if you have great times 1H your 2H times will be pretty good too. Am I right about this?



that is kind of obvious because your OH times can never be better than your 2H times.


----------



## Karthik (Apr 16, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> that is kind of obvious because your OH times can never be better than your 2H times.


You sure?


----------



## dChan (Apr 16, 2008)

Wow, nice find Karthikputhraya! That is a really interesting set of times. 29 seconds 2H and 32 seconds 1H? Maybe he was just super nervous when he did 2H? By the time it got to the 1H event he was relaxed?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Apr 16, 2008)

This is why I want WCA data...
I'd like to see the OH/speed ratio correlation of the top N speed/OH solvers, and so much more...
But I'll wait for _his Excellency, the esteemed, illustrious former World Record Holder, Master Doctor Stefan "Cool" van de Pochmann_, to dedicate a negligible portion of his schedule to making this available.
( Think that'll work?  )

Anyhow, I find that my OH times still depend on PLL much more than anything else, so I never paid attention to my dropping times...


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 16, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > that is kind of obvious because your OH times can never be better than your 2H times.
> ...



woah! that is weird! Do you know this person? Perhaps the scrambles are easier for OH round? The person broke his/her fingers of one hand that day? :confused:

well, that is not typical.


----------



## Pedro (Apr 16, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> This is why I want WCA data...
> I'd like to see the OH/speed ratio correlation of the top N speed/OH solvers, and so much more...
> But I'll wait for _his Excellency, the esteemed, illustrious former World Record Holder, Master Doctor Stefan "Cool" van de Pochmann_, to dedicate a negligible portion of his schedule to making this available.
> ( Think that'll work?  )
> ...


----------



## Lofty (Apr 16, 2008)

My OH PB is faster than my 2H one... not official tho we'll have to wait till Saturday for that... maybe I'll purposefully make my OH times faster.


----------



## dChan (Apr 16, 2008)

@Pedro: Very nice. Now I have regained my hope that by gaining a sub-35 average OH will lower my 2H times and then my ratio will slowly lower and lower!

@Lofty: Please do that! lol Do you still get above 20 sec times 2H?


----------



## Lofty (Apr 16, 2008)

I only get sup-20 when I have not warmed up at all...
I was thinking I could solve my normal speedsolve rounds OH to warm-up comp style lol. But I will most likely just do my best in all events


----------



## Dene (Apr 17, 2008)

Don't do that Lofty! Try your hardest at 2H!! You should really start practising it, and get a proper 2H cube! 



karthikputhraya said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > that is kind of obvious because your OH times can never be better than your 2H times.
> ...



This is just bogus. His times were obviously dependant on the scrambles. His OH solving isn't faster. If it "technically" was, he could just do 2H as OH. It is logically impossible for OH to be faster than 2H _in theory_ (as in, dependant on average and scrambles etc).


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Apr 17, 2008)

the opposite happened to me, My OH times were terrible and always have been until i got around 17 seconds 2H, then my OH followed with 28-32 averages


----------



## Karthik (Apr 17, 2008)

Dene said:


> karthikputhraya said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...


You took it a little too seriously.It is clear from the rest of his solves, that he is definitely slower at one handed and that particular solve must have been a lucky one.I just showed a rare exception.You missed the smiley 
BTW, I don't know the person.I just dug it out of the WCA database.


----------



## Gunnar (Apr 17, 2008)

I remember at Benelux Open I was doing OH racing with Rama, and aftar a quite huge ammount of solves I started solving 2H, and it was surprising how easily I got 12-13s solves.

I think that my look ahead during F2L is quite much improved by solving one-handed.


EDIT: I just got a new non-lucky personal best of 17.23!! :-D
EDIT2: And now I got a new average record of 22.23.


----------



## dChan (Apr 17, 2008)

lol, wow, nice Gunnar. 

I think that when you are conscientiously thinking about find the optimal solution while solving [for example, during one-handed solving] you tend to get into that mindset so that even when you are solving 2H you bring in that mentality of solving optimally and therefore get better times. I mean, if you can get a 35 second average OH then that means you are solving optimally and have some hand skill right? So if you can do a solve in 52 moves OH in 35 seconds just imagine if you had both hands then you would theoretically cut the time in half. Maybe this is why it seems some people's progress in OH affects their 2H.


----------



## Dene (Apr 18, 2008)

karthikputhraya said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > karthikputhraya said:
> ...



Oh no, sorry my post did sound a little harsh, I dind't mean for it to sound like that. Maybe I should have used smilies too


----------



## martijn_cube (Apr 26, 2008)

Lofty said:


> My OH PB is faster than my 2H one... not official tho we'll have to wait till Saturday for that... maybe I'll purposefully make my OH times faster.



what happens if you solve the F2L with one hand and the LL with two? i mean i think that you can solve the LL algs faster with two hands, right? or doesn't it make that much of a difference?


----------



## Rokusz (May 5, 2008)

*Ratio 1.25*



Pedro said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > so practising either event should decrease your times in both.
> ...



It's very interesting, because my two average is almost the same (25 / 20)
so the ratio for me is 1.25.


----------

