# PLL Time Attack



## byu (Jan 28, 2009)

How fast are you at a PLL time attack for all 21 algs?


----------



## mazei (Jan 28, 2009)

Haha, I'm the first to vote 31-60 seconds.


----------



## Kian (Jan 28, 2009)

just tried it for the first time in a long while. got a 1:09.34. could definitely be better (no chance i can sub 1 it right now, though)

btw, i'd be interested to see who would claim they could do it in under 30 seconds. i'm pretty certain nobody has done that as of yet.

edit: tried again 1:07.xx. on second thought i think i could do sub 1. still not very good. and definitely shouldn't be in the same category as the people who do it in the 40s or high 30s.


----------



## byu (Jan 28, 2009)

Kian said:


> just tried it for the first time in a long while. got a 1:09.34. could definitely be better (no chance i can sub 1 it right now, though)
> 
> btw, i'd be interested to see who would claim they could do it in under 30 seconds. i'm pretty certain nobody has done that as of yet.



True, and I only put it there so if someone did claim they could, I could question them


----------



## mazei (Jan 28, 2009)

Now that you guys say it, that person might not vote that.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 28, 2009)

31-60 is way too broad. the difference between Harris Chan's time attack and my time attack is soooo great, yet we both fall in that category.

52.51 is my best by the way.


----------



## kaixax555 (Jan 28, 2009)

Lol my fastest PTA is 1 minute 5 seconds. And I have a feeling I will sub-minute soon.


----------



## Fobo911 (Jan 28, 2009)

Gah! My fastest recorded PLL Time Attack is 61.01 seconds! Darn that category.


----------



## blah (Jan 28, 2009)

To me, there's a very huge difference among sub-39, sub-40 and sub-41. I've gotten at least 10 sub-41's, only 1 sub-40, and no sub-39's. You really need to remake that poll.


----------



## cookingfat (Jan 28, 2009)

this poll won't get very accurate results as the ranges are way too broad. 

my PB is 54.XX but I normally get between 60 and 65 seconds. I've only been doing PLL time attacks for about a week though.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jan 28, 2009)

Maybe remake it like this, or something similar:
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-1:00
1:00+


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 28, 2009)

total of best singles: 32.21
total of best averages: 36.51
total of normal averages: 43.80
Actual best time attack: I forgot, probably around 58
average time attack: around 1:05


----------



## MTGjumper (Jan 28, 2009)

My best is ~45, and I average sub-50.


----------



## blah (Jan 28, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> total of best singles: 32.21
> total of best averages: 36.51
> total of normal averages: 43.80
> Actual best time attack: I forgot, probably around 58
> average time attack: around 1:05



32.21 : 1:05 ~= 1 : 2

WTFness


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 28, 2009)

blah said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > total of best singles: 32.21
> ...



I bet Tim Sun gets something crazier like 25s:60s


----------



## MistArts (Jan 28, 2009)

I suck at LL. My PLL attack is about 1:14.


----------



## Zeroknight (Jan 29, 2009)

I don't even know all of them.


----------



## pcharles93 (Jan 29, 2009)

I feel special. My PLL time attack isn't even sub-1 yet. Any other consistently sub-20 cubers that don't have sub-1 PLL time attacks?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jan 29, 2009)

I know some sub-38 guys at PLL time attack that aren't even sub-18. D:


----------



## Samlambert (Jan 29, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> I know some sub-38 guys at PLL time attack that aren't even sub-18. D:



Someone called? 

Oh and the 38.00 was at the time I was avering 18.5ish, Im around 17 now, 16.5 when Im doing good.


----------



## blgentry (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't like PLL time attacks. They don't test recognition at all, and in fact, mess with your recognition if you watch the cube while doing them.

To me, they're impressive, but they're really just a huge memorized sequence, of going from one PLL to the next. I'd rather drill PLLs with my program instead. Then again, I'm not nearly as fast as most hard core cubers here...

Brian.


----------



## gasmus (Feb 1, 2009)

timeattacks are not supposed to test recognition. They are a test of speed and consistency of algorithms and are a good way of practicing plls


----------



## Inusagi (Feb 1, 2009)

For me it's 43 sec. But who in the world voted sub 30?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Feb 1, 2009)

I actually just heard that someone that goes by 'cubersjang' got 33.04 before...


----------



## gasmus (Feb 1, 2009)

Thats Eugene Chang i think, he has a 38.xx video somewhere. But he holds he cube before starting the timer so i dont know if it counts


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 1, 2009)

I voted 0-30 just because I thought the ranges were ridiculous.


----------



## shelley (Feb 1, 2009)

This poll doesn't tell you anything. There's a huge difference between a 32 second and a 59 second PLL attack and yet they're lumped in the same category.

PLL attacks aren't supposed to test recognition, just execution. Though the same purpose could be served by doing each PLL over and over again.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Feb 1, 2009)

pcharles93 said:


> I feel special. My PLL time attack isn't even sub-1 yet. Any other consistently sub-20 cubers that don't have sub-1 PLL time attacks?



Me  Although I just haven't done it in a long time.


----------

