# BLD: Should i start with 2x2?



## JeffDelucia (Feb 6, 2010)

I am very interested in learning 3x3 bld. Should i learn 2x2 before 3x3?


----------



## ianini (Feb 6, 2010)

Don't start these threads!


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Feb 6, 2010)

Any practice helps. Sure, practice the corners of a 3x3 separately from the edges. When you are ready, practice both the edges and corners combined. Personally, I didn't use a 2x2 for practice. I wanted to be able to tell people I can solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded.


----------



## cincyaviation (Feb 6, 2010)

ianini said:


> Don't start these threads!


none of those thing outline this specific type of thread...
and to answer the question, probably not, becasue 2x2 blind is fairly unrealated to 3x3 blind, unless you use a slower method.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 6, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> ianini said:
> 
> 
> > Don't start these threads!
> ...



- I just started learning BLD, what do I do? 
- Direct most of your more simple questions here.

1. Please do your research before you post.
2. 2x2 BLD could very well help you with 3x3 BLD corners.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Feb 6, 2010)

Yes Highly Recommend LDK's tutorial of 2x2 BLD


----------



## shelley (Feb 6, 2010)

2x2 BLD could help with 3x3 corners, but it's not complete. You never have to deal with corner/edge parity, and with a 2x2 you can choose any starting orientation you want, so you could make orientation or permutation easier for yourself. IMO it's best to start with 3x3. Get used to having to recognize and start with the same orientation every time and having to resolve parity. Also, if you learn 3x3 BLD you learn 2x2 BLD at the same time anyway, as opposed to having to learn almost two separate things.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 7, 2010)

shelley said:


> Also, if you learn 3x3 BLD you learn 2x2 BLD at the same time anyway, as opposed to having to learn almost two separate things.



Also, if you learn 5x5 BLD you learn 2x2 and 3x3 BLD at the same time anyway, as opposed to having to learn almost three separate things.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 7, 2010)

Maby not, when your starting off with BLD you can just break the steps into groups such as corners and edges, then practice though's.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 7, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> though's.


HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE


Anyway I suggest just learning 3BLD straight off. It's not as hard as you think it is. Learn the method, then start with some sighted solves (BLD method, but looking at the cube), then write stuff down and solve the cube under the table, and finally do it by actually memorizing the stuff. Feel free to skip steps in that if you think you can do it, of course.


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Zane_C said:
> 
> 
> > though's.
> ...



What did I do wrong? was it something I said? I bet it's something really obvious that I didn't pick up on.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 7, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Zane_C said:
> ...



THOSE =/= THOUGH'S. Though's isn't even a damn word.

But yeah, just start with 3BLD.


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Feb 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I suggest just learning 3BLD straight off.



+1. go straight to 3x3 BLD. 2x2 can be done extremely easily with old pochmann corners once you are consistant with 3BLD.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Feb 7, 2010)

Whilst 2BLD can appear to be relatively easy, I don't consider it to be a logical step on the road to 3BLD. Of course YMMV.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Feb 7, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> Maby not, when your starting off with BLD you can just break the steps into groups such as corners and edges, then practice though's.



Maybe*
You're*
Those*


----------



## r_517 (Feb 7, 2010)

many people thought they should learn 2*2speedsolving first other than 3*3. but most people realised they were wrong. 
same on BLD


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 7, 2010)

I learned 2x2 BLD first <_<

I found it helped me grasp the concept and style of solving much better, and then I just had to apply the same concept I was quite familiar with to edges. I definitely feel that practicing 2x2 BLD helped my 3x3 times start off much faster, as I have never spent more than 3 minutes on a 3x3 BLD solve in my life. Doing 2x2 BLD seems much more manageable for starting off than an entire 3x3, because the memorization is so much less. In my opinion, this acts as a stepping stone to memorizing more information, just like most people do 4x4 BLD before doing 5x5 BLD.


----------



## ManasijV (Feb 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Zane_C said:
> 
> 
> > though's.
> ...



ROFL


----------



## Litz (Feb 7, 2010)

I just started BLD 2 days ago for the first time and I started with 2x2. What I did was solve 2x2 several times (around 20). Then I started solving only edge orientation/permutation on 3x3 and re-scrambling. When I felt I was ready I tried the whole thing. Maybe starting with 3x3 is better for other people but I was motivated to learn 3x3 after solving 2x2.


----------



## Escher (Feb 7, 2010)

I'd start by just doing corners and edges alone using a 3x3. I never time bld so I don't even know how fast I am, but I found it much easier to learn memo and the methods required for each by doing them individually.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 8, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> I learned 2x2 BLD first <_<



Same here. If you're using Old Pochmann the concept transfers to 3x3 fairly easily. I chose to start with 2x2 because I have a crap memory. As the master says, 2x2 memorisation is *much* easier!


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 9, 2010)

2x2 BLD is pointless because it can be speedBLD'd faster.


----------

