# The Big Cube OH UWR Thread



## SirWaffle (Aug 13, 2013)

Hey guys! So this is a thread all about big cube OH. You can discuss big cube OH in general (like what parity algs are best, best way to turn the cube, etc) share videos, and post your times! I am hoping to gather all of the UWRs of big cube OH and storing them here so they are easy to find! 


So for the record portion of this I feel there should be two categories, With table abuse and without table abuse. For short with TA, and no TA. (just as a quick way to write it at times) I think it should be this way because there is a huge difference in the two times. 

Records:

*(As of right now I know very few of the records so I need your guy's help to gather more!)*

Table Abuse:

Puzzle, time, person, video, other info (if needed)

4x4: unknown
5x5: unknown
6x6: unknown
7x7: 7:44.63, Florian Harrer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdBod0kAz5I,

non Table abuse.:

4x4: 1:03.58, Antoine Cantin, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQdB31bkDVM
5x5: 2:25.37, qqwref2,
6x6: 6:46.54, qqwref2, 
7x7: 11:44.51, qqwref2,
8x8: 23:44.11, qqwref2 


This is it so far, if anyone knows the times of more records please let me know!


Thank you guys for reading this and I hope a lot of people start to get interested in big cube OHing!


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you should slightly change your criteria for the categories: 

The Table Abuse would be like the 7x7 OH one, in which he really abuses the table, with the cube touching the table more than half the solve. The non Table Abuse would be like mine, where the table isn't used for turns themselves (so for re-aligning the layers), or at least not many turns, like mine.


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 13, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I think you should slightly change your criteria for the categories:
> 
> The Table Abuse would be like the 7x7 OH one, in which he really abuses the table, with the cube touching the table more than half the solve. The non Table Abuse would be like mine, where the table isn't used for turns themselves (so for re-aligning the layers), or at least not many turns, like mine.




Okay, I changed the titles but we can still use With TA and no TA as a short way of writing it. I think if you say drop the cube by mistake that should not be considered table abuse. But if you are using it to align layers it really does save time even if it is just on a alg or 2.

edit: so if we are to change it to allow a small amount of table abuse where exactly should the line be drawn? Should it be the amount of time the cube spends on the table? How many times you hit the table? or what? I want to know your thoughts


----------



## CHJ (Aug 13, 2013)

is this just for cubic puzzles or will mega be added?


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Aug 14, 2013)

If you don't know the UWR times put your own times in until they are disproven:3


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 14, 2013)

CHJ said:


> is this just for cubic puzzles or will mega be added?



I am not sure. Maybe I can add it.



MaikeruKonare said:


> If you don't know the UWR times put your own times in until they are disproven:3



Lol, it wouldn't be very fair to do that. But I am going to be adding my 7x7 solve with No TA and counting that as UWR but I wont for the other events.


----------



## blokpoi (Aug 14, 2013)

pretty sure qqwref has some in the air oh solves im not sure if they are uwr or not


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 14, 2013)

blokpoi said:


> pretty sure qqwref has some in the air oh solves im not sure if they are uwr or not



Thanks! I think he has the 6x6 OH UWR now. If you think of anyone else let me know!


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 14, 2013)

I remember qqwref having a 12:xx.xx 7x7 no TA.

PS: Could you move my 4x4 OH to no TA please?


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 14, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I remember qqwref having a 12:xx.xx 7x7 no TA.
> 
> PS: Could you move my 4x4 OH to no TA please?



Okay, if you find a vid of it I will count it.

Fine, since you used the table for such a small amount I will move it. But we NEED to come up with an exact criteria that has to be met

Edit: I also think all records have to be filmed to be counted. Do you all agree with this?


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 14, 2013)

SirWaffle said:


> Okay, if you find a vid of it I will count it.
> 
> Fine, since you used the table for such a small amount I will move it. But we NEED to come up with an exact criteria that has to be met
> 
> Edit: I also think all record have to be filmed to be counted. Do you all agree with this?



I personally don't think they would have to be filmed. If they would, might as well change the thread title to "The Big Cube OH *youtube* UWR Thread".


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 14, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;d9-uTl1sJtk]http://youtu.be/d9-uTl1sJtk[/video]




antoineccantin said:


> I personally don't think they would have to be filmed. If they would, might as well change the thread title to "The Big Cube OH *youtube* UWR Thread".



Okay, fine. But for old ones not on video please at least find a legit post or something. And for others to claim to have beaten a record we will have to ensure they are legit some how.


----------



## A Leman (Aug 14, 2013)

This should fill some of these.

From Michael Gottlieb's (qqwref) website

http://www.mzrg.com/rubik/prs.shtml#real_1h


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 14, 2013)

A Leman said:


> This should fill some of these.
> 
> From Michael Gottlieb's (qqwref) website
> 
> http://www.mzrg.com/rubik/prs.shtml#real_1h



Thank you! I will begin adding these to the records!


----------



## aashritspidey (Aug 29, 2013)

*9x9x9 OH UWR?*

OK so i recently did a 9X9X9 OH solve and successfully completed it in 1:13:03.99(One hour 13 minutes three seconds and 99 centi seconds)


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 29, 2013)

aashritspidey said:


> OK so i recently did a 9X9X9 OH solve and successfully completed it in 1:13:03.99(One hour 13 minutes three seconds and *99000000* nano seconds)



fixed.


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 29, 2013)

aashritspidey said:


> OK so i recently did a 9X9X9 OH solve and successfully completed it in 1:13:03.99(One hour 13 minutes three seconds and 99 nano seconds)



Video or didn't happen


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> fixed.



99000000? Shouldn't there be one more zero?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2013)

Was it done in the air, or did you get a lot of help from the surface?


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 29, 2013)

I did 7x7 OH (much table abuse) in a pizzaria in Ireland during the NI Open 2013


----------



## aashritspidey (Aug 29, 2013)

I dont have a video sadly. but i have people who saw me do it  and well the cube wasnt in the air even for like 1 10th of a second in the solve  fully on the table 

aand about the zeroes thing.. I dint do it i just put 99 nad it should be centi seconds  my bad


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 29, 2013)

Stefan said:


> 99000000? Shouldn't there be one more zero?



Go ahead and fix it. 



aashritspidey said:


> aand about the zeroes thing.. I dint do it i just put 99 nad it should be centi seconds  my bad



Yes.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 29, 2013)

You're lucky qqwref doesn't have a 9x9 yet.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> You're lucky qqwref doesn't have a 9x9 yet.



Also...


----------



## EMI (Aug 29, 2013)

21:14.10 first try  with table abuse tho.


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Aug 29, 2013)

There's already a thread for all big OH UWRs.


----------



## notfeliks (Aug 29, 2013)

I did 5x5 OH once, without table abuse. It took me an hour and a half. Still regretting it.


----------



## Frubix (Aug 29, 2013)

notfeliks said:


> I did 5x5 OH once, without table abuse. It took me an hour and a half. Still regretting it.



I once did 5x5 OH in 8:43


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 29, 2013)

lol at people saying table abuse as if it's not the correct way to do it.


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 29, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> lol at people saying table abuse as if it's not the correct way to do it.



0 Table abuse = Real man's OH


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 29, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> 0 Table abuse = Real man's OH


Seems like a random equation. But intuitively it feels correct. The closest I can simplify is

0 abuse = Real man
Table = 's OH


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> You're lucky qqwref doesn't have a 9x9 yet.


Of course I have a 9x9. Unfortunately it's not in the same state as me anymore :|

Anyway, I tried a proper 9x9 OH (as in, OHITA) a while back but gave up because it was taking way too long. I do have a 23:xx 8x8OH time if anyone wants to guess what my 9x9 time would be, though.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 29, 2013)

qqwref said:


> proper 9x9 OH



"OH with arbitrary restrictions"


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2013)

"Traditional rules OH"


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 30, 2013)

Frubix said:


> I once did 5x5 OH in 8:43



Considering 2 months ago you took a minute and a half to do 3x3 OH and 3+ minutes to do 5x5 2H I find that unlikely.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2013)

Why is it unlikely ? I've already gotten sub-5 5^3 OH singlesAnd I'm fast neither at 5^3 nor at OH. Considering Francisco's times in these events, a 8:43 OH 5^3 single seems pretty normal to me.


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 30, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Why is it unlikely ? I've already gotten sub-5 5^3 OH singlesAnd I'm fast neither at 5^3 nor at OH. Considering Francisco's times in these events, a 8:43 OH 5^3 single seems pretty normal to me.



I suppose, but generally 1:30 OH solvers are doing less than one turn per second which makes me think he'd be slower at 5x5 OH.

At one point I averaged about 21 on OH and 1:55 on 5x5 I just based his solve as being unlikely based off my expectations.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> I suppose, but generally 1:30 OH solvers are doing less than one turn per second which makes me think he'd be slower at 5x5 OH.


8:43 is 523 seconds, and solving a 5^3 requires much less than 523 moves.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Aug 30, 2013)

Frubix said:


> I once did 5x5 OH in 8:43



I did 6.05
EDIT got 5.13 with1.10 centers


----------



## tx789 (Aug 30, 2013)

5x5 OH I got 9:23.47 with the only table abuse being in F2L it really doesn't help. That was with my v-cube. I'm going to try with my qj now.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

IMO if you use the table even for short amounts of time it should count as table abuse.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 30, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> I suppose, but generally 1:30 OH solvers are doing less than one turn per second which makes me think he'd be slower at 5x5 OH.
> 
> At one point I averaged about 21 on OH and 1:55 on 5x5 I just based his solve as being unlikely based off my expectations.



Turning a 3x3 OH and turning a 5x5 OH is completely different.


----------



## tx789 (Aug 30, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> IMO if you use the table even for short amounts of time it should count as table abuse.



even to align the layers once


----------



## qqwref (Aug 30, 2013)

IMO using the table just to occasionally align layers is table use, not table abuse.


----------



## Konsta (Aug 30, 2013)

But there should be also 0 table use list too. I tried that for the first time ever with 5x5, got 8min 56sec. Wasn't half as fun as I was expecting.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2013)

qqwref said:


> IMO using the table just to occasionally align layers is table use, not table abuse.



Using the table to intentionally make turns is table use.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

tx789 said:


> even to align the layers once



Yes, even to align the layers once.

You are allowed to use the table in one handed so it isn't abuse, it's just use.
If you used the table it should not count as a solve without the use of the table.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2013)

qqwref said:


> IMO using the table just to occasionally align layers is table use, not table abuse.



That is a DNF with traditional rules.

All your OH no table results are DNF.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

Anyone pro occasional table use in a no TA solve care to draw the line between use and abuse?

Perhaps arbitrarily say 1 use of table per solve per layer?

Or would it make more sense to not be allowed to use the table at all?


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 30, 2013)

Lets look at it this way, during a blind solve are you allowed to peek to refresh your memo and it still be a true blind solve? No, you're not so why should you be allowed to use the table at all during an OH solve and still say you didn't "really" use the table THAT much so it is not table abuse.. So yeah any use of the table should still be considered TA since how much of a difference it can make, in my opinion that is


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

^Good analogy. I hope other people can see it that way.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2013)

lol... anybody with a clue about BLD can instantaneously tell that this analogy is just crap, sorry. Peeking under your blindfold at BLD really changes the event completely, because you don't have to memo anymore, and to go faster, you can even use a "BLD method" which is normally not usable by humans who do BLD honestly (that's what Kuti did). Realigning the layers with the table at OH doesn't give such a huge advantage, by far.


----------



## SirWaffle (Aug 30, 2013)

TMOY said:


> lol... anybody with a clue about BLD can instantaneously tell that this analogy is just crap, sorry. Peeking under your blindfold at BLD really changes the event completely, because you don't have to memo anymore, and to go faster, you can even use a "BLD method" which is normally not usable by humans who do BLD honestly (that's what Kuti did). Realigning the layers with the table at OH doesn't give such a huge advantage, by far.



I know all about bld and if you were allowed to look mid execution i am quite sure there would not be anywhere near the same amount of dnf's or people would simply get faster times because they would have a faster recollection speed. And the same goes for big cube OH, if you use the table even once if can save a ton of time!


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2013)

SirWaffle said:


> And the same goes for big cube OH, if you use the table even once if can save a ton of time!


Really ? I want to see a vid of someone hittilng the table once during a big cube OH solve and all of a sudden getting much faster


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

Unfortunately you would need to see videos of 2 completely separate realities.
Once you have aligned the layers you can't know for sure how long it would've taken.

I realise there is an average but it can take a while to align multiple layers. I don't think several seconds per table use is out of the question.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2013)

Both of you are completely missing my point. Whether you use the table or not, solving a big cube OH is still solving a big cube OH, using the table can make it faster but not intrinsically easier. On the other hand, solving a big cube BLD by peeking under the blindfold to memo a couple of pieces, then solving them, then peeking again, and so on, and thus not only having to memo a much smaller amount of info but also being able to make sure that execution mistakes always get corrected, is a trivial challenge which really has nothing to do with a true big BLD solve.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 30, 2013)

From what I understand, Table Abuse is when you use the table to *make turns*. Simply aligning layers a few degrees is *not* making turns.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Both of you are completely missing my point.



I get your point, I just think I'm looking at it differently.

I'm thinking along the lines of 'I know the memo but am not recalling it very quickly, I can sit here for a few more seconds and it will come to me or I can peek and know right now'.

OH is OH IMO. You can use and 'abuse' the table as much as you want but if you want a different category then stop using the damn table!


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> From what I understand, Table Abuse is when you use the table to *make turns*. Simply aligning layers a few degrees is *not* making turns.



You cannot abuse the table as using it is permitted. 

Both of the above constitute use of the table.


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 30, 2013)

It's called OHITA = One-handed-in-the-air. I thought it was fairly well-known. OH implies you use one hand and no other bodily assist.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Aug 30, 2013)

In the air unless you need to use the table a little bit to speed up your solve but not enough to constitute table abuse.

Or OHITAUYNTUTTALBTSUYSBNETCTA.

I think it's catchy.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 30, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> That is a DNF with traditional rules.
> 
> All your OH no table results are DNF.


As I recall, the original intent of the new rules was to let people align the cube. The WCA did not expect that people would base their entire solving technique around using the table to hold pieces in place, and indeed, I don't remember anyone seriously practicing that technique before the rule change. However, although I'm not one of those people who regularly aligns layers using the table, I don't really see a problem with other people doing it occasionally. Specifically, I wouldn't want to DNF them for it.



TMOY said:


> Whether you use the table or not, solving a big cube OH is still solving a big cube OH, using the table can make it faster but not intrinsically easier.


Wrong. One of the biggest difficulties of OH, especially big cube OH, is using the same hand to hold the puzzle and make turns. If you constantly use the table, you are essentially removing one of those requirements - you no longer have to use that hand to hold the cube. So one table's just doing turns, and then the only difference between that and a non-ambidextrous 2h solver is that the 2h solver can move parts of the cube-holding device out of the way of the turning layers.



Kirjava said:


> You cannot abuse the table as using it is permitted.


You might as well say that someone in power can't abuse their authority because they are already allowed to use that authority.



Rnewms said:


> It's called OHITA = One-handed-in-the-air. I thought it was fairly well-known. OH implies you use one hand and no other bodily assist.


It didn't used to be that way, back when a lot of OH big cube limits were being broken. Having to specify that OH cube solves are done in the air is a recent development and one which I oppose.


Incidentally my personal at-home OH rules are pretty much "do all turns/alignments with that one hand in the air", that is, I'll use the table or even another body part (such as legs) to break the cube's fall. Part of the reason for the leniency is that I don't want to have to risk a big, expensive, and possibly delicate cube fall onto the floor every time I drop it  And dropping does happen, unfortunately.


----------



## Konsta (Aug 30, 2013)

Rnewms said:


> It's called OHITA = One-handed-in-the-air. I thought it was fairly well-known. OH implies you use one hand and no other bodily assist.



I bet finnish cubers will like that one.


I would put it like this:
1. not touching table at all
2. only correct misaligments, no turning while it touches the table
3. table abuse

ps. has anyone ever solved a cube with feet so it stays in the air? on video?


----------



## Username (Aug 31, 2013)

Konsta said:


> I bet finnish cubers will like that one.



I'm thinking the same thing


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 31, 2013)

qqwref said:


> However, although I'm not one of those people who regularly aligns layers using the table, I don't really see a problem with other people doing it occasionally. Specifically, I wouldn't want to DNF them for it.



It's a DNF with the old rules. You said you were using the old rules.



qqwref said:


> You might as well say that someone in power can't abuse their authority because they are already allowed to use that authority.



Bad comparison - no amount of table use can have negative consequences.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 31, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Bad comparison - no amount of table use can have negative consequences.


Irrelevant. The point is that you can abuse something that you are allowed to use.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 31, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Irrelevant. The point is that you can abuse something that you are allowed to use.



Abuse implies improper use.


----------



## Frubix (Aug 31, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Why is it unlikely ? I've already gotten sub-5 5^3 OH singlesAnd I'm fast neither at 5^3 nor at OH. Considering Francisco's times in these events, a 8:43 OH 5^3 single seems pretty normal to me.





Tim Major said:


> Considering 2 months ago you took a minute and a half to do 3x3 OH and 3+ minutes to do 5x5 2H I find that unlikely.



Now I'm averaging about 40 sec OH and 2:55 on 5x5(TH)


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 2, 2013)

7:39.79 megaminx oh. Who's gonna beat it?
21.89 pyraminx oh.


----------



## kcl (Sep 4, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> 7:39.79 megaminx oh. Who's gonna beat it?
> 21.89 pyraminx oh.



Well.. I don't have a mega ATM. But I got a 13.09 on any easy pyra scramble just now


----------



## rj (Sep 4, 2013)

Konsta said:


> I bet finnish cubers will like that one.
> 
> 
> I would put it like this:
> ...



Not that I know of.


----------

