# All oll/pll learned, still i average "only" 30 sec



## Meisen (Aug 9, 2009)

I wonder if i went about becoming a speedcuber the wrong way, because i see a good deal of cubers doing sub 20 solves while still not having learned all oll/pll algorithms.

Maybe it would be better to stay with 2 look until you average around 20 sec, and then go about learning 1 look slowly? That way you'll get really comfortable with all the algorithms and your time wouldnt suffer.

My times suffered a bit (and maybe still do), cause i tried to learn all the algorithms as fast as my brain/hands was able to remember them, but i never took the time to make every single algorithm "second nature". I know each case, i just dont preform them very fast :/

That being said, the biggest time drain in my solves are ofc F2L, not LL, i usually have cross + 4 * F2L pairs done in a tiny bit over 20 sec.

Oh, incase it's not clear for everyone, i'm using the Fridrich system 

Anyway, what i wanted to ask was if any of you guys had any opinions on whether my way of "becoming a speedcuber" is inefficient if my goal is to get consistent sub 20 averages as fast as possible...?


----------



## ErikJ (Aug 9, 2009)

your a speed cuber when you try to solve the cube faster and faster. it doesn't matter how fast you are. keep practicing.


----------



## wrbcube4 (Aug 9, 2009)

How is look-ahead on F2L?
And Recognition on OLL and PLL?
If all are good maybe switch method to Roux or use Petrus like Erik above me?


----------



## skarian (Aug 9, 2009)

i average 25 secs but i only know two look. ignore my sig. how long does each step take you, most likely it is your f2l that is the problem


----------



## lotsofsocks (Aug 9, 2009)

wow...i dont know all the olls but i know full pll and I average 18-21 seconds...
just pratice...


----------



## enigmahack (Aug 9, 2009)

Well, for the most part, if you get the F2L in 20 seconds, you will need to make your OLL and PLL second nature... That comes with time. 

Funny enough, I'm a sub-20 cuber, but I've just started learning COLL... I have the same issues you're experiencing now. *My F2L is done in around 12-14 seconds usually* but because I haven't put all the algs into my hands (muscle memory) so I get between 25-28 second solves (sometimes longer if I'm trying to put the alg with the specific case I have)

It really comes down to practice. Your F2L should put you around 26-28 seconds once you get better at recognizing your cases... 

It really just takes time and practice, that's all. If you know all the algs, it'll take time to make it second nature. Just time...


----------



## mark3 (Aug 9, 2009)

I still need to learn 6 PLL's and I techincally don't even know 2 look OLL (never have got around to learning that headlights alg) and I avergae between 20 and 22. F2l is crucial.


----------



## Meisen (Aug 9, 2009)

I guess i'd break down my solve to:

Cross: 3 seconds
F2L: 15-25 seconds
OLL: 5 seconds
PLL: 5 seconds

When i'm planning my cross i almost always plan 3 edges, sometimes 4, but i never look ahead for the first f2l pair. It feels to complicated.

Look ahead in F2L is almost non-existant, i feel much more comfortable with executing the first f2l case i see as fast as i can, and when that one's done, i look for the next, and so on and so on.

I've tried to go slow and look ahead, but i find it really hard, and not fun 

My best time ever is 19.92, full step, but unintentional x-cross, and my best (rolling) average of 12 is just above 25 sec. Still, whenever i sit down to do an average, i often end up around 28. And my times range from maybe 22 sec to high 30's 

I guess that can be explained with my lack of look ahead; if all 4 f2l pairs are easy and i spot them at once: low 20's, if they are all "hidden" and require lots of cube rotations and such: high 30's.

I would love to be more consistent....


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Aug 9, 2009)

Hmmm...your splits are really good. The only thing to work on is F2L...

One way to improve F2L could be to get a very crappy cube. Still use fingertricks, but the cube will force you to slow down. While you're executing, just try to be efficient and look ahead for anything that would help for the next pair(s).


----------



## John Lee (Aug 9, 2009)

By looking at your break down, I would say that your f2l can improve a lot, and don't disregard look ahead because that's what makes it much faster. One thing you can do to improve the look ahead is the do solves with really slow turns so that there are no pauses. After getting better at that you can gradually speed it up until you feel really comfortable with it. You said that your OLL and PLL both take 5 seconds which is really long for just one algorithm. If that includes recognition, that just comes with more practice. If its just the execution speed, you could try practicing those individually or finding algorithms that are more suitable for your style. I have about 18 second averages with 2 look oll and full pll, and f2l imo is the most important part of the solve.


----------



## mati rubik (Aug 9, 2009)

well, I know all PLL and 20 +- OLL, but my best avg is like 15 seg

F2L is the key


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 9, 2009)

wow. I don't know F2L, OLL or PLL and I avg 16-17 

work on look ahead and recognition. IF you look ahead you can see the next pair in F2L, see the OLL while finishing up F2L and you'll know PLL as soon as you finish OLL. Practice.


----------



## piemaster (Aug 9, 2009)

I was sub 20 before I changed to roux and I still had 2-look. Maybe you could change to roux, another roux solver would be nice. But I'm sure it would be hard to convince you with all the OLL's you know, . 

edit: Take a look at this is you havent: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11506


----------



## Meisen (Aug 9, 2009)

John Lee said:


> By looking at your break down, I would say that your f2l can improve a lot, and don't disregard look ahead because that's what makes it much faster. One thing you can do to improve the look ahead is the do solves with really slow turns so that there are no pauses. After getting better at that you can gradually speed it up until you feel really comfortable with it. You said that your OLL and PLL both take 5 seconds which is really long for just one algorithm. If that includes recognition, that just comes with more practice. If its just the execution speed, you could try practicing those individually or finding algorithms that are more suitable for your style. I have about 18 second averages with 2 look oll and full pll, and f2l imo is the most important part of the solve.



It's counting recognition, yes, but 5 sec i just pulled from the air, cause my execution times varies enourmeously depending on the cases. I truly suck at some of the pll's and a few oll's, others i do in sub 2 sec.

There is no doubt that f2l is where i have the most to gain (look ahead), but i've kindof hit a wall there. It feels like i'm not improving. Oh well, i guess we all struggle sometimes, and i guess more practice will break down that wall for me


----------



## Meisen (Aug 9, 2009)

piemaster said:


> I was sub 20 before I changed to roux and I still had 2-look. Maybe you could change to roux, another roux solver would be nice. But I'm sure it would be hard to convince you with all the OLL's you know, .
> 
> edit: Take a look at this is you havent: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11506



I actually looked at the first two videos earlier today 
However, i think i'll push my fridrich down below 20 sec average before i start looking at other methods. It's a goal i've made, and i'm gonna get there!!


----------



## piemaster (Aug 9, 2009)

Meisen said:


> piemaster said:
> 
> 
> > I was sub 20 before I changed to roux and I still had 2-look. Maybe you could change to roux, another roux solver would be nice. But I'm sure it would be hard to convince you with all the OLL's you know, .
> ...



I like cubers like you.  you make me smile. Go as an alternative path if it get hard on you! I sucked at f2l and couldn't get any faster than 19 seconds for a whole year, so yeah, it worked for me.


----------



## mark3 (Aug 9, 2009)

[youtube]watch?v=mK_dg4wAiMs&feature=channel_page[/youtube]

This video should inspire you to slow down. It's what finally got me to do it and I went from 26-27 to 20-22.


----------



## soccerking813 (Aug 9, 2009)

Can you post a link, because the video isn't coming up for me.


----------



## andrewunz1 (Aug 9, 2009)

my advice comes from one of Desie37 videos is to practice doing your cross blindfolded. That way you can look for your 1st F2L pair while doing your cross. This improves your look ahead by alot


----------



## soccerking813 (Aug 9, 2009)

Here is the video that mark tried to post.


----------



## teller (Aug 9, 2009)

You sound normal for someone who ate the full OLL early (I did too). While other people were speedsolving, we were memorizing 57 algs. It makes us late bloomers where F2L is concerned.

People preach "look-ahead" all the time around here, but it's not useful advice until your existing one-at-a-time corner-edge pair insertion is fully automatized. You have to be able to let go of the current insertion in order to look ahead, and you can't rush this ability. We're talking months.

There was a time when I would typically only preplan 2 or 3 pieces of my cross. In time, that process became automated and my consciousness was freed up to look ahead to the 4th piece. Now I plan all 4 and if it's an easy cross I'll use the extra time to poke around to see what F2L pieces are nearby. Not quite x-cross, but still good. You can't swallow it whole or rush it.


----------



## JTW2007 (Aug 9, 2009)

It's all in F2L.


----------



## calekewbs (Aug 9, 2009)

I have to agree with Teller. I don't know all the OLLs but I know all the Plls, and I'm about where you are. I'm not gonna harp about look ahead or slow down or anything like that, but practice is key. set a certain amount of time each day to practice.

And try to get to the point where you can find an edge pair, and then do it without looking (blindfolded or just eyes closed that way you don't get confused with the other peices) once you get good at this, then try to do it without the blindfold and while doing your pair look for maybe a corner of an F2L pair or an edge, that way you only have to look for one peice instead of two, then work on finding the whole pair, then try to plan it out. It's all about practice. don't sweat it, you'll get it!


----------



## tanapak1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Try And Pratice Some Finger Tricks.

It will Help You!


----------



## Weston (Aug 9, 2009)

if you can do a PLL time attack under 60 seconds, then your PLL tps is fine.
try to have a sub 7 LL

my breakdown for my solve is about

cross 2 second
f2l 8-9 seconds
oll 2 seconds
PLL 2 seconds

something like that.

just work on f2l a lot


----------



## JTW2007 (Aug 9, 2009)

Yeah, F2L. I have maybe 19 OLLs and 21 PLLs, but I can normally knock out F2L in 10 or less seconds. Occasionally, my LL actually takes longer than my F2L. Try some metronome solving.


----------



## Meisen (Aug 9, 2009)

Thanks guys (and maybe a girl or two, who knows), loads of good advice! Nothing new i guess, but it's always nice to feel i have personal tutors 

You do inspire me to go and practice the right way... Usually i just time my solves again and again. It's rewarding when i get the occasional low 20 and mind numbing frustrating when i get the occasional 40 something. I swear i've been on the edge of eating my cube do to cube-rage some sessions...

Kindof takes the fun out of it, but i'm not a very patient dude, so i'm having a hard time practicing the way i know i should (without the stress of a timer).

Anyway, as stated above: you do inspire me to do it the right way, so thanks to everyone with constructive input


----------



## Kolraz (Aug 9, 2009)

Meisen said:


> I swear i've been on the edge of eating my cube do to cube-rage some sessions...



Haha I know how you feel. I often find myself getting frustrated at times, but you have to remember to have fun =)

I can only agree with what many others have already said though, F2l is key. I have been about 19 seconds avg for a while, and I'm only just learning OLL. I don't think it will do you any long term damage though other than initial recognition problems. By the time you reach a 10 second F2L your OLLs will be perfected


----------



## calekewbs (Aug 9, 2009)

Kolraz said:


> Meisen said:
> 
> 
> > I swear i've been on the edge of eating my cube do to cube-rage some sessions...
> ...



that is a good point. the fact that he can work on one thing while allowing one thing to improve is useful.


----------



## Novriil (Aug 9, 2009)

Weston said:


> if you can do a PLL time attack under 60 seconds, then your PLL tps is fine.
> try to have a sub 7 LL
> 
> my breakdown for my solve is about
> ...



damn.. my tps is bad 
1:11 is the best PLL time attack:fp


----------



## turtlecutches (Aug 10, 2009)

*F2l tips*



Meisen said:


> I wonder if i went about becoming a speedcuber the wrong way, because i see a good deal of cubers doing sub 20 solves while still not having learned all oll/pll algorithms.
> 
> Maybe it would be better to stay with 2 look until you average around 20 sec, and then go about learning 1 look slowly? That way you'll get really comfortable with all the algorithms and your time wouldnt suffer.
> 
> ...



It can always be that your F2l is slow. I would suggest trying to solve the cube at a solid pace without much delay during the algorithms. Try increasing the pace once this is done. Also if your making your cross with white ignore all edges and corners which have yellow. This goes by opposites. So if your cross is green then ignore all blue edges and corners with blue stickers.


----------



## pentrixter (Aug 10, 2009)

Look at how cool Lars is when he does a 14s solve. He makes it looks so easy. A lot of sub-20 people I've seen look so frantic when they're solving a cube.


----------



## Radu (Aug 10, 2009)

pentrixter said:


> Look at how cool Lars is when he does a 14s solve. He makes it looks so easy. A lot of sub-20 people I've seen look so frantic when they're solving a cube.



haha...that's really amazing


----------



## nitrocan (Aug 10, 2009)

EFFFFF TOOOOOO ELLLLLLL!
then
REE COOG nition.


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Aug 10, 2009)

I think aslong as you practise you'll keep getting better.


----------



## pappas (Aug 10, 2009)

i think you just need to practise too. i practice lots and use 2 step oll and pll. new av. 23.78


----------

