# How much did your average drop after learning whole OLL and PLL?



## AlexCube (Feb 4, 2014)

I just want to know how much your average dropped after learning the full OLL and PLL from when you only knew a few basic algs such as sune and U perm?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 4, 2014)

I dropped from low 50s and high 40s down to consistent sub-30 when I learned full OLL/PLL


----------



## kunparekh18 (Feb 4, 2014)

Learning full PLL I went from 33 to 29. Learning full OLL I went from 22 to 19.


----------



## PianoCube (Feb 4, 2014)

Difficult to say. I improved from ~30 to ~20 from before and after learning full OLL. It's worth to mention that it took me a year though, so most of my improvements came from other stuff.


----------



## rj (Feb 4, 2014)

From 50 or so to 32 or so. I learned way better F2L in that time too, though.


----------



## kcl (Feb 4, 2014)

Learning full PLL got me from 25 to 21. I didn't learn full OLL until I was sub 14.


----------



## AlexCube (Feb 4, 2014)

I have learned 12 PLL algs now. If I'm 28s average now, what average I would be after learning the full PLL? My guess is sub 25


----------



## kcl (Feb 4, 2014)

AlexCube said:


> I have learned 12 PLL algs now. If I'm 28s average now, what average I would be after learning the full PLL? My guess is sub 25



Uhhh it won't drop you quite that much. I think your issue is probably recognition of cases.


----------



## AlexCube (Feb 4, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Uhhh it won't drop you quite that much. I think your issue is probably recognition of cases.


I was thinking the same


----------



## Ninja Storm (Feb 4, 2014)

I was sub17 before learning full OLL. It depends on the person.


----------



## kcl (Feb 4, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> I was sub17 before learning full OLL. It depends on the person.



Yeah. The reality is that you don't need it before then. 

It's funny to think I used to be like "Oh I'm not going to learn full OLL. It only drops two seconds or so"
If only I could drop two seconds or so now


----------



## aboeglin (Feb 4, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Yeah. The reality is that you don't need it before then.
> 
> It's funny to think I used to be like "Oh I'm not going to learn full OLL. It only drops two seconds or so"
> If only I could drop two seconds or so now



I don't fully agree with this. Even though until sub20 F2L is being the hardest part to improve and should be the biggest focus, I think that learning OLL as soon as possible can only help later. All the solves you do when your learned full OLL will be using full OLL for the LL, which in turn helps a lot with performing the algs. Even after having performed an alg 1000 times you still improve at them even if it's a small amount, and to perform 1000 times an OLL alg you might do in average 57,000 solves since there are 57 of them ( assuming each as the same probability to show up even though it's not true ). Also, learning full OLL earlier will also drop one's average 2-3sec. You can't tell someone, no, keep at 26, you got to get sub25 by improving your F2L, learning full OLL at your average is cheating.

I average low 30s, I'm really close to get sub30, I still want to get my F2L a little more consistent so I don't have much time to work on learning algs, but I'll definitely get started with learning full OLL as soon as I'm sub30. By the time I handle the 50 algs to go full OLL properly I'll most likely have a beginning of look ahead working out which might lead me to about sub25, at least that's how I see it.

To conclude I'd say that, when to learn full OLL is everyone's decision, if you feel you can take another bunch of algs and you feel it can improve your average there's no point waiting. It's not because some people could go sub20 or sub15 without it that you need too.


----------



## Bossman (Feb 4, 2014)

Beginners method i averaged 45 then after learning 2look OLL and full PLL as well as F2L i now average about 24


----------



## TheDubDubJr (Feb 4, 2014)

I probably averaged about 40 before starting to learn full PLL then went down to about 28-25. Then I went to about 17 after finishing full OLL.


----------



## ianliu64 (Feb 4, 2014)

To me, full OLL is unnessary cuz i only use full PLL and i average like 15-16


----------



## aboeglin (Feb 4, 2014)

ianliu64 said:


> To me, full OLL is unnessary cuz i only use full PLL and i average like 15-16



So why is it unnecessary ? I miss the point. It's like I tell you, I don't need a car, I can go to work in 1h by foot.


----------



## TDM (Feb 4, 2014)

aboeglin said:


> So why is it unnecessary ? I miss the point. It's like I tell you, I don't need a car, I can go to work in 1h by foot.


It's unnecessary to me because I use ZZ


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 5, 2014)

Before when I used CFOP, I learned full PLL and I became sub-25, as of now I know about 30 random OLLs, and I'm still sub-20 with that even though I use ZZ.


----------



## Ultimate Cuber (Feb 5, 2014)

After learning full OLL my average went from around 25 seconds to sub 20. Over half of that was from speeding up my F2L though. Full OLL knocked off about 3 seconds, the rest was F2L.


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 6, 2014)

Ultimate Cuber said:


> After learning full OLL my average went from around 25 seconds to sub 20. Over half of that was from speeding up my F2L though. Full OLL knocked off about 3 seconds, the rest was F2L.



How did learning all 57 OLLs drop your time by 3 seconds? [F : [R, U]] and [F : [R, U]'] barely takes one second to execute. Plus, there's a factor of recognizing the OLL cases, which is a bit more difficult than recognizing OCLL.


----------



## the super cuber (Feb 6, 2014)

i was sub 20 with 4look ll then after full pll i am sub 15 and i use 2 look oll


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Feb 6, 2014)

I have been cubing for 3 months this week. I have known full PLL and OLL for almost a month. *I have average 4-5 seconds on my LL*. Sub 3 on all PLLs and all my OLL are even faster. 
(Except these B**tards http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in...e=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=OLL&cid=56 and http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in...e=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=OLL&cid=45)
Only reason I am not sub 20 is because my F2L still takes 10-20 average sec and my cross jumps around from like 2 - 8 seconds
PB is 19.87 atm.


----------



## kcl (Feb 6, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> How did learning all 57 OLLs drop your time by 3 seconds? [F : [R, U]] and [F : [R, U]'] barely takes one second to execute. Plus, there's a factor of recognizing the OLL cases, which is a bit more difficult than recognizing OCLL.



I see you don't know full OLL. It's a matter of efficiency. FRURUF doesn't take a second to execute, but why do it when it leaves a crappy OCLL? Full OLL is almost a must when you want to reach sub 10 and beyond.


----------



## Carrot (Feb 6, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> I was sub17 before learning full OLL. It depends on the person.



Who needs full OLL? I have official 10 averages and I see no reason to learn full OLL  (just avoid the cases you don't like, can't be that hard to do)


----------



## NooberCuber (Feb 6, 2014)

I was 1:15 with beginner's method

I learned Fridrich last month and 2 look PLL and OLL 
and I was around 45-50 sec

In the past month, I've learned full PLL and alll but 5 of the OLLs
And I'm now sub 30

So definitely learn full PLL and OLL
and if you don't want to learn full OLL at least learn the easy cases
The more algs you memorize the easier it becomes to memorize new ones


----------



## TDM (Feb 6, 2014)

Lazy Einstein said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in...e=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=OLL&cid=45


Don't know if you already know about these, but:
[y'] r U R' U R U2 r2 U' R U' R' U2 r
[y] r' U' R U' R' U2 r2 U R' U R U2 r'


----------



## NooberCuber (Feb 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> Don't know if you already know about these, but:
> [y'] r U R' U R U2 r2 U' R U' R' U2 r
> [y] r' U' R U' R' U2 r2 U R' U R U2 r'



For that case I use
y [F (R U R' U) F'] y' U2 (R' F R F')


----------



## kcl (Feb 6, 2014)

Carrot said:


> Who needs full OLL? I have official 10 averages and I see no reason to learn full OLL  (just avoid the cases you don't like, can't be that hard to do)



+1 for this, I technically KNOW full OLL, but I definitely don't use it all. I usually force good cases.


----------



## Renslay (Feb 6, 2014)

NooberCuber said:


> For that case I use
> y [F (R U R' U) F'] y' U2 (R' F R F')



That is an entirely different OLL.


----------



## TDM (Feb 6, 2014)

Renslay said:


> That is an entirely different OLL.


No it isn't...


----------



## Carrot (Feb 6, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> +1 for this, I technically KNOW full OLL, but I definitely don't use it all. I usually force good cases.



waste of time!  I don't know full OLL, and I have no intentions in learning it.


----------



## kcl (Feb 6, 2014)

Carrot said:


> waste of time!  I don't know full OLL, and I have no intentions in learning it.



I learned it before I knew how to skip the crappy ones. Same deal with h perms on skewb lol


----------



## pipkiksass (Feb 7, 2014)

This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L. 

Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.

Just saying.


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 7, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L.
> 
> Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.
> 
> Just saying.



I learned full pll without improving my f2l since i learned it in a couple day while practicing roux. It made me go from about 24 - 21 seconds.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Feb 7, 2014)

pipkiksass said:


> This thread is a total waste of time. Who learns full PLL without improving their F2L at all? Who learns full OLL without improving their F2L at all? Unless there's someone who used 4LLL, then stopped doing full solves completely and concentrated only on learning 2LLL, completely neglecting F2L, then there's no way whatsoever of saying what portion of the improvement in your averages was down to LL rather than F2L.
> 
> Personally, I feel that I'm held up by 2 look OLL for maybe a second or two every few solves. So learning full OLL might save me 2/3 of a second on my average. At best. But by the time I've learnt full OLL (if I ever bother), I'd expect my F2L to have improved by a few seconds. Therefore, my response to the question would be 3 2/3 seconds. Which is utterly meaningless because it's an experiment with no control, and so no conclusions can be drawn from the results whatsoever.
> 
> Just saying.



Who said you can't improve F2L while learning LL algs. I personally practice all steps all the time. I know full OLL and full PLL. But I didn't just practice algs all day. I did full solves. During Inspection I'd look for best cross and think about best ways to make it. During F2L I keep telling myself "Look ahead... look ahead... look ahead.." and only think about what is the optimal way to insert the pairs. Then comes LL. It is super fun to try and execute the appropriate OLL and PLL alg for the cases instead of 2LOLL.


----------



## Cody (Feb 7, 2014)

When i first started to learn full pll and 2 look oll my times increased from sub 30 to around 45 avg, now i can execute them easily and i average 23 sec.


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 7, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I see you don't know full OLL. It's a matter of efficiency. FRURUF doesn't take a second to execute, but why do it when it leaves a crappy OCLL? Full OLL is almost a must when you want to reach sub 10 and beyond.



Not if you have a 5-6 second F2L like Feliks, and when I do use an OLL algorithm, it's only about a second or two faster at most compared to 2-look OLL.


----------



## Immaperson (Feb 7, 2014)

haven't learned full oll but I went from around 33 to about 28 when I leanred intuitive f2l and some basic PLLs


----------



## Renslay (Feb 7, 2014)

Renslay said:


> That is an entirely different OLL.





TDM said:


> No it isn't...



Sorry, my mistake. You're right.


----------



## carbon131 (Feb 8, 2014)

kunparekh18 said:


> Learning full PLL I went from 33 to 29. Learning full OLL I went from 22 to 19.



I wish I can learn it just findin time to do it I learn full pll so im at about 22 my f2l takes about 14 or less so I got to improve about 4 sec


----------



## kcl (Feb 8, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> Not if you have a 5-6 second F2L like Feliks, and when I do use an OLL algorithm, it's only about a second or two faster at most compared to 2-look OLL.



*facepalm* when you're sub 10, or even like my speed, 1 second is significant.


----------



## Ultimate Cuber (Feb 8, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> How did learning all 57 OLLs drop your time by 3 seconds? [F : [R, U]] and [F : [R, U]'] barely takes one second to execute. Plus, there's a factor of recognizing the OLL cases, which is a bit more difficult than recognizing OCLL.



Maybe more like 2 seconds. The difference in the recognition time for all the different OLLs is about the same for me. Recognition + possible cube rotation + execution + possible no edges case which results in a having to perform the T-orientation twice = 1-3 seconds of extra time.


----------

