ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method
It still wouldn’t be very good, and M2 U2 M2 to fix parity is really fast.
 
ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method

makes more sense to just orient corners while doing belt so that you only have edge parity which can be dealt with easily
 
Method Neutrality might be a thing 10-20 years down in the future of cubing. We need to take the best from each method.
im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
(i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)
 
im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
(i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)
Wow nice good to hear. I am talking here about elite level method neutrality here. Sub-8 with 2 or 3 methods.
 
Screenshot 2020-11-07 at 18.43.27.png

I'm Justin is bad.
He also only really solves with ZB.

Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.
 
Back
Top