Reading this thread was quite funny. It started off with someone saying that the fastest rouxer at home isn't the fastest officially, then it turned into a Roux v CFOP debate with the CFOPers/anti-Rouxers giving no good argument, and the Rouxers not really giving any proper argument, just pointing out that the CFOP argument was flawed. I just think that now's the time for everyone to realise that ZZ-A is the future. But seriously, CFOP and Roux are both really good methods, as is ZZ, it's just that people haven't listened to the arguments for and against each method. Trust me, I've had a lot of discussions on ZZvsCFOPvsRoux(vsPetrus a little bit) and the conclusion that I've come to is ZZ≈Roux>CFOP but other people have come to many different conclusions. The hard part of the whole debate is that it's impossible to prove with evidence of 'this person is the fastest, therfore their method is the best.' The easiest counter example is corners first in the 80s. Instead, the best way, imo, is to look at the concrete evidence in movecount and to look at the not-too-super-hypothetical ergonomics. For example, you could point out to different U perms. At the end of it all, you weigh out the evidence and choose the method that you think is the best. I have come to the conclusion of ZZ or Roux, and as I already mained ZZ, I chose ZZ. Some people would rather Roux, some would rather another, less well known method such as LEOR. It all depends on the person. In conclusion, use good evidence.