Rubik's Magic: One-handed
11.97 secondsPatrick Jamesonhaha yeah! Finally broke the 2 second barrier! :D20081206
22.01 secondsMing Gao2.01 seconds!!
Practise practise. And then break world record!^_^
32.06 secondsMilán BaticzSub-2 in progress.
Practise, practise, practise. :)
42.22 secondsDerrick EideWatch out Patrick! :)20081231
52.27 secondsMichael GottliebIt's still possible to go faster.20070111
62.33 secondsJonathan MunAchieved while at the Rubik's World Championship 2005, but never posted. Video of my slower 2.49 second solve.20060712
72.34 secondsRoy Mok1. 2.34
2. 2.68
3. 2.36
4. 2.65
5. 2.44
single &avg PB
82.35 secondsJohannes LaireBest average is 2.76.20060424
92.78 secondsErik JohanssonJust did this a few times for fun.20070810
102.79 secondsKenneth GustavssonPart of my best average of 3.68. Times was: 3.08 2.85 3.13 (DNF) (2.79) 3.12 3.06 5.03 6.62 3.46 3.31 3.1520070128
112.89 secondsMatthew McConahaI've been practicing this quite a bit. Maybe I should get some practice for official events :) Used a method that I made up.20081021
122.97 secondsBob BurtonI really believe sub-2 seconds is possible on a perfect execution, though I am very far away. I can average under 4 like this, though.20050828
133.19 secondsFrederick Choovideo is found here
143.76 secondsAlexei GousevUsing my own method, one that closely resembles my normal speed-solve method. The first transform only works on a soft surface, so I did this on my bed. Timed using a Stackmat.20061122
154.61 secondsLinus Langsmowooohoo20051225
164.95 secondsStefan PochmannOn a stackmat. I got 5.68 quite early but then it took a looong time to beat 5 seconds. I probably did around 100 attempts or so.20040505
175.51 secondsAndrew RoleyDone on a hard surface, so no cheating like some guys. My magic was already quite loose from 20 mins. of practicing, so when I almost broke it I decided to quit.20070403
186.54 secondsJon MorrisI think 5.5-6 seconds is possible.20040514
196.92 secondsDaniel Borrajo GutiérrezNot as difficult as I thought, I was just practising20080422
207.50 secondsDavid SkolnikI really dont get how you can do it in 2 seconds!! I use the booklet way to do it one handed because it seems impossible to speedsolve it.any suggestions?20060118
219.14 secondsMichael AtkinsonNot nearly as hard as I expected it to be. I can probably get this time down to five or six seconds, eventually. Hey, that rhymed.