Is it a good idea to become method neutral?

[Thumbprint]

Naturally, as most people here are, I want to become as fast as I possible can on the 3x3 rubik's cube. But learning new methods is a bit more interesting to me than trying to become fast with one method. I know how to do cfop, roux, zz, petrus, pcms, and a method that I made myself (its really bad and not meant for speedsolving). I mainly use cfop, but I was wondering if it would be a good decision to try and become fast at all of them, rather than just becoming fast at 1

 

[PiKeeper]

If your only goal is to lower your times as fast as possible, it's best to stick to one method. However, I would recommend sticking to what you enjoy. If you like using different methods, go ahead! It'll only improve your times and help you avoid burnout. Personally I mained cfop, then mehta, then roux, and now zz.

 

[PetrusQuber]

Naturally, as most people here are, I want to become as fast as I possible can on the 3x3 rubik's cube. But learning new methods is a bit more interesting to me than trying to become fast with one method. I know how to do cfop, roux, zz, petrus, pcms, and a method that I made myself (its really bad and not meant for speedsolving). I mainly use cfop, but I was wondering if it would be a good decision to try and become fast at all of them, rather than just becoming fast at 1

If you feel like you’d enjoy it, go for it! Practicing lots of methods can be fun. However, if you want to get fast with individual solves, and decide on methods for efficiency, yes, it will be an advantage, but will obviously take a lot more effort.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

as said before, not ideal to become fast.
but if you want to be a myth, a legend, the very bees knees of spedcubing, learn as many methods you can and become Tao Yu

 

[Thumbprint]

as said before, not ideal to become fast.
but if you want to be a myth, a legend, the very bees knees of spedcubing, learn as many methods you can and become Tao Yu

Tao Yu was actually my main inspiration to try and become fast at multiple methods. I got interested in learning other methods besides cfop from a youtuber called Blobinati Cuber, but after watching Tao Yu's "sub 10 with 10 methods" and his sub-10 ao12 with petrus, I decided that I wanted to become fast with as many methods as I could. Although I don't think I can learn as many methods and be as fast as him, I still plan on being sub-10 with cfop, roux, zz, and perhaps mehta or lmcf if I decide to learn them too. As you said, though, learning this many methods isn't exactly ideal for being fast, but I fully plan on doing it.

 

[EvanCuber]

I personally don't like learning more methods, because new methods mean more algorithms, which I could be using to learn ZBLL, and not a new method.

 

[tsmosher]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

I think the only way to feasibly do this for speed solving would be to use a collection of methods that all (could) end with the same set of steps (e.g., COLL/L5EP). Then, "method neutrality" would mean that you could start your solve different ways (i.e., with different methods) based on the scramble.

Not quite the same as full method neutrality, but it was the best idea i could come up with.

 

[GodCubing]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

I think the only way to feasibly do this for speed solving would be to use a collection of methods that all (could) end with the same set of steps (e.g., COLL/L5EP). Then, "method neutrality" would mean that you could start your solve different ways (i.e., with different methods) based on the scramble.

Not quite the same as full method neutrality, but it was the best idea i could come up with.

So OS

 

[tsmosher]

So OS

In a sense, but i think most people think of Mehta as starting the same way every time (i.e., FB 3QB EOLE), though it doesn't necessarily have to (i.e., triplet belt EOdM).

This seems like the reverse of Mehta-OS to me. Where all of the options converge into a single set of steps towards the end. (vs. EOledge spidering out into many variations as in Mehta).

 

[Hazel]

If you would have more fun with cubing being method neutral, go for it. If you want to be as fast as you can, stick to one method.
I barely cube anymore but I want to be color neutral so I've been practicing—makes my times worse in the short-term and probably only barely better in the long-term, but I really don't care about speed anymore and it's fun so I figure why not.

 

[TipsterTrickster]

I’m method neutral with both roux and CFOP, and have an official 8.89 average (2 roux 3 CFOP), so you can get decently fast being method neutral. I started out with CFOP and switch to roux a bit later. For a while I used just roux for 3x3. However I used roux for oh and CFOP for big cube 3x3 stage, so because I already used both methods in other events I was equally fast with them so I started using both methods for 3x3. It does take learning more algorithms and more practice if you only do 3x3, but if you’re already learning those algs for other events and doing that practice for other events it isn’t that bad. Method neutrality doesn’t give much of an advantage tbh, but it’s fun, so If you want to be method neutral go for it, but I will say it’s much easier to get faster if you’re only using one method.

 

[The Cubing Fanatic]

I’m method neutral with both roux and CFOP, and have an official 8.89 average (2 roux 3 CFOP), so you can get decently fast being method neutral. I started out with CFOP and switch to roux a bit later. For a while I used just roux for 3x3. However I used roux for oh and CFOP for big cube 3x3 stage, so because I already used both methods in other events I was equally fast with them so I started using both methods for 3x3. It does take learning more algorithms and more practice if you only do 3x3, but if you’re already learning those algs for other events and doing that practice for other events it isn’t that bad. Method neutrality doesn’t give much of an advantage tbh, but it’s fun, so If you want to be method neutral go for it, but I will say it’s much easier to get faster if you’re only using one method.

How much can you typically see in inspection for each respective method?

 

[TipsterTrickster]

How much can you typically see in inspection for each respective method?

For roux I usually see FB + DR and for cfop I see cross and like 50% of the time my first pair.

 

[CornerTwisted]

Naturally, as most people here are, I want to become as fast as I possible can on the 3x3 rubik's cube. But learning new methods is a bit more interesting to me than trying to become fast with one method. I know how to do cfop, roux, zz, petrus, pcms, and a method that I made myself (its really bad and not meant for speedsolving). I mainly use cfop, but I was wondering if it would be a good decision to try and become fast at all of them, rather than just becoming fast at 1

Well, It's best to have a main method if so, because I know a ton of methods(CFOP,CFCE,CFEC,Roux,FreeFOP,RouxOP,ZZ,VHLS,BECOP,LBL,Tripod,Mehta,HexagonalFransisco,TriangularFransisco,Petrus,CFOPP,FFOPP, and Cage methods) In which with most I average 25-30, but with the CF methods I generally can average sub-20.

 

[Fire Cubing]

Naturally, as most people here are, I want to become as fast as I possible can on the 3x3 rubik's cube. But learning new methods is a bit more interesting to me than trying to become fast with one method. I know how to do cfop, roux, zz, petrus, pcms, and a method that I made myself (its really bad and not meant for speedsolving). I mainly use cfop, but I was wondering if it would be a good decision to try and become fast at all of them, rather than just becoming fast at 1

Method neutrality will not make you faster, it is just a cool thing to have

 

[abunickabhi]

Naturally, as most people here are, I want to become as fast as I possible can on the 3x3 rubik's cube. But learning new methods is a bit more interesting to me than trying to become fast with one method. I know how to do cfop, roux, zz, petrus, pcms, and a method that I made myself (its really bad and not meant for speedsolving). I mainly use cfop, but I was wondering if it would be a good decision to try and become fast at all of them, rather than just becoming fast at 1

Method neutrality is cool. I have been using it since 2018 with small success.
All I can say is that it requires lot of hardwork to maintain 2+ methods and make good use of all the methods you are familiar. Also 15 seconds of inspection is too less for judging 2+ methods reliably without messing up.

 

[abunickabhi]

Tao Yu was actually my main inspiration to try and become fast at multiple methods. I got interested in learning other methods besides cfop from a youtuber called Blobinati Cuber, but after watching Tao Yu's "sub 10 with 10 methods" and his sub-10 ao12 with petrus, I decided that I wanted to become fast with as many methods as I could. Although I don't think I can learn as many methods and be as fast as him, I still plan on being sub-10 with cfop, roux, zz, and perhaps mehta or lmcf if I decide to learn them too. As you said, though, learning this many methods isn't exactly ideal for being fast, but I fully plan on doing it.

Tao Yu is amazing, he is my inspiration as well. I took up method neutrality seriously in 2018 and decided to stick with it, and make it work.

Overall I am global 10 with CFOP and global 10 with Roux. I am quite slow with sighted 3-style/5-style though, ~12 seconds.

 

[Sajwo]

Method neutrality is a must on top level. If you check out reconstruction of Tymon solves you will quickly realize that it cannot be simply desribed as CFOP. He uses a fine mix of ZB/CFOP/CFCE/FreeFOP. Obviously during inspection he's not like "hmn nice scramble I will use ZB for this one".

I would argue though if it make sense to be Roux/CFOP neutral like Abhijeet

 

[ruffleduck]

Method neutrality is a must on top level. If you check out reconstruction of Tymon solves you will quickly realize that it cannot be simply desribed as CFOP. He uses a fine mix of ZB/CFOP/CFCE/FreeFOP.

I do not consider ZB/CFOP/CFCE/FreeFop to be unique methods from each other. They all are just different approaches to sub-steps, i.e. variants of the same overarching method. https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-cubing-argument-thread.79162/page-49#post-1464218

 

[GodCubing]

Being able to OS between OLL, PLL: EO, ZBLL: and CLL, ELL is super helpful for LL I'm sure. I'd love to see someone make a docent with what choices to make for each OLL case (probably include CP too, for the bar ones).