What would your method be if you had to switch now.

I would use Roux. I think it’s very interesting and also it’s proven to be a good method to reach about the same times as CFOP. Also there are good Roux tutorials and other recourses out there. ZZ, Petrus and other methods aren’t as interesting for me.
 
ProStar said:
Prove that CFOP is better. And not good results, because that's like saying CF is better than CFOP
Click to expand...
So, you say I can't prove that CFOP is good because of good results with it? How am I supposed to prove it then? that is the only reasonable way you can prove a method is better. every Roux user will say that Roux is better because of Sean Villanueva's results. I am going to prove to everyone why CFOP is better. LOOK AT THE BEST MEDAL COLLECTION!!!!! https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php How many use Roux? I think NONE. Look at the top 100 people, how many use Roux? Sean does, maybe one other person. Sean is also only 34th in the world on single and 3rd in average which means that CFOP is a better method if you want a good single time.
Also, CFOP is SO MUCH faster on 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, Megaminx. Enough proving. Not possible to prove why a method for doing something is better except through the results of people using it compared to other methods.

How do I know this is going to get a truckload of :( :mad::rolleyes: reactions.

EDIT: My brother gave me heart eyes??!?? maybe pigs can fly now!
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with using results to justify a method, but all results must be statistically adjusted to the number of users of that method. For example, I do not believe girls are any slower than guys when using CFOP; but because there are FAR FEWER girls that cube, there are therefore far fewer girls that use CFOP than guys. Hence, you have 4.44 as the fastest women's single and 3.47 for men; it is completely possible that this difference is only caused by the smaller number of female CFOP users. With Roux, if you want to use Sean's results, you need to statistically adjust them to account for the different number of Roux users vs. CFOP. If this is at all confusing, then imagine a hypothetical method called 'Clabby'. Imagine in the whole world there were only 10 users of Clabby. Imagine then that all of them had 3x3 averages of 5.60 (+0.07 over the CFOP record) and singles of 3.60 (+0.13 over CFOP). By 'dumb' results you conclude that CFOP is faster, because it has better results; but with only 10 people using the Clabby method and almost matching the CFOP results, it is not hard to imagine how unbelievably good results would be achieved using the Clabby method if 50,000 people were using it.

An even simpler analogy would be a coin tossing competition; who can get the most number of consecutive 'heads' during 1000 consecutive coin tosses. Suppose there were two competing methods of coin tossing. Now, it is fairly obvious that no method of coin tossing would probably produce more heads than others, but imagine that the participants believed their methods were different or better. If two groups compete, one group has 5000 members and the other 'method' group has 100 members, who will get the record for the most consecutive number of 'heads' during coin tossing? Of course the group with 5000 members will have a way better record and average, because they have more users hence more chances at luck.

It is hard to actually make the statistical adjustment for Roux vs. CFOP or any other method. One starting point would be this:
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all female cubers (since most use CFOP, this is pretty much a CFOP average)
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all male cubers (since most use CFOP, this is also pretty much a CFOP average)
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all Roux known Roux cubers

Now, this is not a perfect method, since one could argue that Roux method users are generally more serious than CFOPers and might practice more, etc..., but it is a start.
 
Owen Morrison said:
So, you say I can't prove that CFOP is good because of good results with it? How am I supposed to prove it then? that is the only reasonable way you can prove a method is better. every Roux user will say that Roux is better because of Sean Villanueva's results. I am going to prove to everyone why CFOP is better. LOOK AT THE BEST MEDAL COLLECTION!!!!! https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php How many use Roux? I think NONE. Look at the top 100 people, how many use Roux? Sean does, maybe one other person. Sean is also only 34th in the world on single and 3rd in average which means that CFOP is a better method if you want a good single time.
Also, CFOP is SO MUCH faster on 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, Megaminx. Enough proving. Not possible to prove why a method for doing something is better except through the results of people using it compared to other methods.

How do I know this is going to get a truckload of :( :mad::rolleyes: reactions.
Click to expand...
Kian Mansour himself has already stated that Roux is good for averages, not for singles and so consistency is one of the strengths of Roux.
CFOP is without doubt the best method to solve big cubes (as of now). Meyer for 4x4 might be good, but currently Yau seems better.

Not really sure what you mean with CFOP on megaminx. Basically everyone solves megaminx the same way (except for some special stuff like ZZ-Spike) and to my knowledge, there is no Roux variant for megaminx that anyone actually uses.

Medal collection isn't a great way to show how good a method is. It basically shows you how often someone has podiumed at any competition in all the time they've been cubing which does not show a cuber's skill like an average does. E.g. there's an enormous difference between podiuming at a small local comp and podiuming at a huge event like Worlds.
Time is also a factor here: The longer you've been cubing, the more likely it is for you to have collected more medals. Let's compare Leo Borromeo and Rowe Hessler here. Even though Leo is better at both single and average than Rowe, he still has less medals because he's only been going to competitions for five years, compared to Rowe who's been doing the same for thirteen years. If you now consider that Roux has been around for 17 years and really been made popular by Alexander Lau who had his first competition 9 years ago, you can see that someone like Feliks Zemdegs (registered in the WCA for 11 years) has had two years to collect medals before the first good Rouxers even came around. Therefore, I believe that just comparing the medal collection is a bad argument.

You also totally forgot one event where Roux is certainly one of the best: OH
If you take a look at the top 10 for OH average (average because like I said before, Roux is not good for singles but for averages), you will see that three of them use Roux. And I'm sure that less than 30% of (serious) cubers use Roux, so Roux seems to be the best method for OH averages.

Going back to 2H, I'm honestly not sure whether Roux is better than, equal to or worse than CFOP because it's not as obvious as it is for big cubes and OH. As effatah said, we can't really tell at this point since the number of CFOP users is way higher than the number of Roux users, so until we really know their numbers and averages, we can't conclude anything. Here's also a comparison of Roux and CFOP by Kian Mansour, but I'm not really sure if that can be seen as real evidence.

TL;DR: medal collection is not a good way to measure someone's skill, CFOP is good for singles and big cubes, Roux is good for averages and OH, not certain whether CFOP is better than Roux for 2H because of unequal distribution of users
 
efattah said:
There's nothing wrong with using results to justify a method, but all results must be statistically adjusted to the number of users of that method. For example, I do not believe girls are any slower than guys when using CFOP; but because there are FAR FEWER girls that cube, there are therefore far fewer girls that use CFOP than guys. Hence, you have 4.44 as the fastest women's single and 3.47 for men; it is completely possible that this difference is only caused by the smaller number of female CFOP users. With Roux, if you want to use Sean's results, you need to statistically adjust them to account for the different number of Roux users vs. CFOP. If this is at all confusing, then imagine a hypothetical method called 'Clabby'. Imagine in the whole world there were only 10 users of Clabby. Imagine then that all of them had 3x3 averages of 5.60 (+0.07 over the CFOP record) and singles of 3.60 (+0.13 over CFOP). By 'dumb' results you conclude that CFOP is faster, because it has better results; but with only 10 people using the Clabby method and almost matching the CFOP results, it is not hard to imagine how unbelievably good results would be achieved using the Clabby method if 50,000 people were using it.

An even simpler analogy would be a coin tossing competition; who can get the most number of consecutive 'heads' during 1000 consecutive coin tosses. Suppose there were two competing methods of coin tossing. Now, it is fairly obvious that no method of coin tossing would probably produce more heads than others, but imagine that the participants believed their methods were different or better. If two groups compete, one group has 5000 members and the other 'method' group has 100 members, who will get the record for the most consecutive number of 'heads' during coin tossing? Of course the group with 5000 members will have a way better record and average, because they have more users hence more chances at luck.

It is hard to actually make the statistical adjustment for Roux vs. CFOP or any other method. One starting point would be this:
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all female cubers (since most use CFOP, this is pretty much a CFOP average)
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all male cubers (since most use CFOP, this is also pretty much a CFOP average)
- Find the average Ao5 3x3 for all Roux known Roux cubers

Now, this is not a perfect method, since one could argue that Roux method users are generally more serious than CFOPers and might practice more, etc..., but it is a start.
Click to expand...
I see your point. which is why I think arguing over these two methods is pointless. I only tried to prove because @ProStar wanted me to.

I think CFOP is better because it is better for cubes bigger than 3x3 and for Megaminx( which I guess doesn't really use CFOP but being good at CFOP would definitely help)

I switched to Roux at one point and got it down to about 15 seconds. I only quit trying to use it because I like 4x4 too much.
 
RedstoneTim said:
Kian Mansour himself has already stated that Roux is good for averages, not for singles and so consistency is one of the strengths of Roux.
CFOP is without doubt the best method to solve big cubes (as of now). Meyer for 4x4 might be good, but currently Yau seems better.

Not really sure what you mean with CFOP on megaminx. Basically everyone solves megaminx the same way (except for some special stuff like ZZ-Spike) and to my knowledge, there is no Roux variant for megaminx that anyone actually uses.

Medal collection isn't a great way to show how good a method is. It basically shows you how often someone has podiumed at any competition in all the time they've been cubing which does not show a cuber's skill like an average does. E.g. there's an enormous difference between podiuming at a small local comp and podiuming at a huge event like Worlds.
Time is also a factor here: The longer you've been cubing, the more likely it is for you to have collected more medals. Let's compare Leo Borromeo and Rowe Hessler here. Even though Leo is better at both single and average than Rowe, he still has less medals because he's only been going to competitions for five years, compared to Rowe who's been doing the same for thirteen years. If you now consider that Roux has been around for 17 years and really been made popular by Alexander Lau who had his first competition 9 years ago, you can see that someone like Feliks Zemdegs (registered in the WCA for 11 years) has had two years to collect medals before the first good Rouxers even came around. Therefore, I believe that just comparing the medal collection is a bad argument.

You also totally forgot one event where Roux is certainly one of the best: OH
If you take a look at the top 10 for OH average (average because like I said before, Roux is not good for singles but for averages), you will see that three of them use Roux. And I'm sure that less than 30% of (serious) cubers use Roux, so Roux seems to be the best method for OH averages.

Going back to 2H, I'm honestly not sure whether Roux is better than, equal to or worse than CFOP because it's not as obvious as it is for big cubes and OH. As effatah said, we can't really tell at this point since the number of CFOP users is way higher than the number of Roux users, so until we really know their numbers and averages, we can't conclude anything. Here's also a comparison of Roux and CFOP by Kian Mansour, but I'm not really sure if that can be seen as real evidence.

TL;DR: medal collection is not a good way to measure someone's skill, CFOP is good for singles and big cubes, Roux is good for averages and OH, not certain whether CFOP is better than Roux for 2H because of unequal distribution of users
Click to expand...
I think my argument was stupid. I think @Etotheipi's argument was also stupid. I was asked by @ProStar to prove that CFOP was better. There is not a way to do that, but there is more evidence to prove that CFOP is better than Roux simply because of better results. I know that there are better results because more people use CFOP, but you can't say Roux is better if it does not have as good results and claim it is because of less users.

At least the method I use for Mega I seem to use F2L skills quite a bit.
 
Some methods may be better than others. The extent of that difference is the key factor. And we don’t have the data to calculate if Method A is better than Method B. Fast times can be set with any method, cubing has a long way to go before we hit the barrier of WRs and start arguing about how this method isn’t good enough for this and things like that.
My opinion.
 
You could easily have made a similar argument when people were all using reduction for 4x4, and Yau was used only by a small number of people. For quite a long time after Yau was invented, reduction was used to break most of the records and win most of the awards, especially as Feliks stuck with reduction longer than many other top cubers did. 3OP vs 3style for BLD is a similar case.
 
RedstoneTim said:
Kian Mansour himself has already stated that Roux is good for averages, not for singles and so consistency is one of the strengths of Roux.
CFOP is without doubt the best method to solve big cubes (as of now). Meyer for 4x4 might be good, but currently Yau seems better.

Not really sure what you mean with CFOP on megaminx. Basically everyone solves megaminx the same way (except for some special stuff like ZZ-Spike) and to my knowledge, there is no Roux variant for megaminx that anyone actually uses.

Medal collection isn't a great way to show how good a method is. It basically shows you how often someone has podiumed at any competition in all the time they've been cubing which does not show a cuber's skill like an average does. E.g. there's an enormous difference between podiuming at a small local comp and podiuming at a huge event like Worlds.
Time is also a factor here: The longer you've been cubing, the more likely it is for you to have collected more medals. Let's compare Leo Borromeo and Rowe Hessler here. Even though Leo is better at both single and average than Rowe, he still has less medals because he's only been going to competitions for five years, compared to Rowe who's been doing the same for thirteen years. If you now consider that Roux has been around for 17 years and really been made popular by Alexander Lau who had his first competition 9 years ago, you can see that someone like Feliks Zemdegs (registered in the WCA for 11 years) has had two years to collect medals before the first good Rouxers even came around. Therefore, I believe that just comparing the medal collection is a bad argument.

You also totally forgot one event where Roux is certainly one of the best: OH
If you take a look at the top 10 for OH average (average because like I said before, Roux is not good for singles but for averages), you will see that three of them use Roux. And I'm sure that less than 30% of (serious) cubers use Roux, so Roux seems to be the best method for OH averages.

Going back to 2H, I'm honestly not sure whether Roux is better than, equal to or worse than CFOP because it's not as obvious as it is for big cubes and OH. As effatah said, we can't really tell at this point since the number of CFOP users is way higher than the number of Roux users, so until we really know their numbers and averages, we can't conclude anything. Here's also a comparison of Roux and CFOP by Kian Mansour, but I'm not really sure if that can be seen as real evidence.

TL;DR: medal collection is not a good way to measure someone's skill, CFOP is good for singles and big cubes, Roux is good for averages and OH, not certain whether CFOP is better than Roux for 2H because of unequal distribution of users
Click to expand...
:eek:Kian said he'd have quit cubing by now.
 
ProStar said:
Star = Cross
F2L = F2L
S2L = F2L
LL = LL

Soo....?
Click to expand...
If you look at how the top mega solvers solve the puzzle, part of why they are fast is they don’t do the steps before LL so algorithmically. They take advantage of block building cases. Because the shape of mega limits the turn speed a bit, the extra efficiency they squeeze out from block building is what makes the difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

An Animating Cuber
  • Poll Poll
Speedsolving 3x3 Method Switch-Up 2023
2
Replies
31
Views
2,937
An Animating Cuber
An Animating Cuber
E
Should I switch back from ZZ to Roux?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5,267
Abram Grimsley
Abram Grimsley
u Cube
Switching to CFOP (Week 3)
Replies
10
Views
2,204
CubeRed
CubeRed
D
Should I switch to Roux?
2
Replies
28
Views
5,068
Deleted member 54663
D
ProStar
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
My Journey in Switching 3x3 Methods
2 3
Replies
56
Views
8,225
RedstoneTim
RedstoneTim
Back
Top