@jskyler91 Is it faster than fridrich?
@jskyler91 Is it faster than fridrich?
Hi all!
anything is very fast :P, i can sub 30 with beginner method (layer by layer) so yea...
Fridrich is the main speedcubing method being used currently, and roux does have alot of potential,
but me personally because I first learnt fridrich I prefer it over Roux,
Though if you want to give it a try go for it!
Hope ive helped you a bit :P
pkvk9122
@pkvk9122 Ok..will try it out later currently memorizing olls and plls. After I sub 30-40 i may try roux just for fun..If i find it good i will go ahead with it!
Welcome! Oh yes, Roux has a lot of potential.
WHAT!? When I started, it took me +5 minutes to solve it.Originally Posted by arvind1999
I started cubing 2 weeks ago and have an average of around 1:30.(Not so good)
It took me a good month to get to your time.
Have fun!
I use Roux, sub 18s.
If you want a method where you have to think more and you can have your own 'style' , use Roux.
If you want one where you execute a whole bunch of algs, use CFOP(Fridrich).
I use Roux because it is a lot of fun.
Last edited by Brest; 03-13-2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason: post merge
Do that!
I wish I also had did that when I were at those times.
Welcome!
At what point does a method stop having potential and start to be regarded as good?
At the point where the people who use it stop having a smug sense of superiority over CFOP users by virtue of using it, and realize it doesn't really matter.
Because the only purpose of saying that Roux (or anything else really) has potential is to deliberately sound pretentious as ****.
Not really. When people say it has potential they mean that they think it can be fast. The problem is that it /can/ be fast.
Yerp. Roux just needs a few more official sub 10 averages *cough cough* before people will stop discussing it in the optative sense...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks