Should I switch back from ZZ to Roux?

Somehow, after 4 days of going "method neutral" with Roux my ZZ blocks got faster. I only now realized how much I relied on EO already being solved when looking ahead...
I used to use ZZ and Roux seriously just because I wanted to, and I play around with CFOP and even Petrus. I have since dropped ZZ because Roux is just better in every way IMO, and focusing on one method is helping me get faster. But knowing and casually using them all has definitely made me much better in general!

Plus it’s super fun!
 
Last edited:
ZBLL has a swathe of problems itself. Namely, bad ergonomics for a lot of the cases, long recognition pauses, and just bad recognition in general
you're just bad
The amount of re-grips, and switching from Left to Right hand turning you have to do
The regrips are almost entirely eliminated except for cases where it is faster to regrip in both cfop or zz by just using eocross. which we have been doing. for half a decade now. left/right switches are overblown and you're probably only doing 2-3 tops anyway.
EOLine is very difficult
you're just bad.
EOCross is like 6s per eocross but you can check eo for 2 axis much faster and then you still have 13s which means you can probably plan almost 2 eocrosses (yolo the end to one) and then pick the best.

Roux is better, just don't spread false reasons for why it's better. Even with ZBLL, Roux is more efficient. It's incredible simple and it's easier to predict what's next. CMLL LSE is ridiculously good.
 
you're just bad

see my other reply where I expand on my comments about ZBLL. Has nothing to do with being bad. If you have a solution with better movecount, or better ergonomics, or easier recognition, the same amount of practice will get you faster times, that’s just the truth.

The regrips are almost entirely eliminated except for cases where it is faster to regrip in both cfop or zz by just using eocross. which we have been doing. for half a decade now. left/right switches are overblown and you're probably only doing 2-3 tops anyway.
See my other reply to another person where I talked about EO cross. I also didn’t say that the regrips and L R switching was the end of the world, so I don’t believe I was over blowing it. It’s just that comparing it with Roux, where it’s basically a non-issue, it is a notable advantage to not have to deal with them as much
you're just bad.
EOCross is like 6s per eocross but you can check eo for 2 axis much faster and then you still have 13s which means you can probably plan almost 2 eocrosses (yolo the end to one) and then pick the best.

I’m not saying EOcross, or EOline is too difficult to do or anything, I’m just saying that EOline or EOcross + f2l will always be worse for inspection compared to F2B and cross + f2l because there’s simply just more variables to look at to solve the same amount of pieces. It has nothing to do with being bad or good. Of course you can get good at both. If you don’t wanna engage with my points then just don’t. No need to be strange.

I don’t know why people are acting like my opinion on ZZ is uncommon. Watch any of Jayden McNeils videos on ZZ or ZBLL. He makes many similar arguments.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I use ZZ (and that specific obscure variant of it I do) just because it seems cool to me in the order you do everything (line, 2 blocks w/ RUL, 1LLL). I know my way of doing ZZ is very slow (using EOline and phasing), but EOcross cases become a knee-jerk reaction when solving if you "map" the position of where each pair on the cube need to go, so they just aren't as fun imho.

Something similar happens also happens with EOline (pairs getting into your muscle memory, which can be a good thing depending on how you look at it), but in EOline F2L the awkward (sometimes one-mover or two-mover) pairing up process and having to open or close slots/setting up multiblocks or even solving an entire block with two 1x1x3 blocks feel a bit more challenging, like you're "actually doing something" when building F2L. It can also give nice movecounts, 30% of the time even with COLL and EPLL.
Roux's F2B to me feels a lot like EOline F2L (which I really enjoy solving), but amped up to 100. It's very nice. The only problems for it are planning and lookahead (remember, we're talking "30 seconds average"-level here. At this level, half the solve is just pausing. Even the beginner method can yield similar times).

That doesn't mean I don't want to be fast, because I do. I want to not sit 30 seconds just planning 2 edges and then another 5 seconds looking for my first pair. It's just that I don't go to comps, so speed *almost* takes a backseat. My goal is to get respectable times with a method that's not boring to solve with.
 
Last edited:
Use whatever method you find the most fun. If you have more fun, not only will you get better faster, because you will feel more motivated to practice, you will obviously just enjoy the hobby more!


However, if you really want an answer for which method is better then Roux is better, it’s not really even a contest. (Brace yourself, I’m about to walk of text)

ZZ’s widely accepted benefits are mainly that it has a relatively low move count and is very ergonomic.

when it comes to the move count argument, ZZ only comes close to matching Roux’s move count if you know full ZBLL, and ZBLL has a swathe of problems itself. Namely, bad ergonomics for a lot of the cases, long recognition pauses, and just bad recognition in general. In many cases it’s honestly just faster to use OLL and PLL, but then why would you use ZZ in the first place?

in terms of ergonomics I actually think the argument for ZZ is also rather weak. It’s rotation less but that’s about it. The amount of re-grips, and switching from Left to Right hand turning you have to do, due to pieces for one side block existing on the other side, honestly counter acts any other ergonomic advantages IMO. Not to mention ZBLL doesn’t have the best ergonomics (which again has to be used to make the method viable in terms of movecount)

On the other hand Roux doesn’t really have either of these problems. Roux has a comparable move count, but CMLL and LSE don’t have the problems ZBLL does. CMLL is a small, very well refined set of algs that have great recognition, move count, and ergonomics, and LSE has easy look ahead and is 2 gen.

Comparing F2B and ZZF2L again there’s no contest. The ergonomics are ACTUALLY good, requiring little to no L R switching as you just plan one block in inspection, then the rest is R r U gen.

and as much as we say F and B moves are bad when talking about these methods, there is a time and a place where they’re just simply faster to use. If using them is the difference between a 2 move pair and a 5 move pair then the hit to the ergonomics might just be worth it, or not, the point is is that with Roux you have the option to choose which one is optimal for you at the time. You could never use them, or use them all the time, or only when it’s optimal. With CFOP you’re forced to use them or a Rotation, in ZZ you are forced NOT to used them, with Roux you have the choice.

but then finally, there is one thing that I haven’t mentioned yet, but I believe to be the main reason why Roux is better then ZZ, and that’s the inspection. During inspection you want to look ahead as far as possible to try to maintain smooth turning and high tps, with few pauses throughout the solve while staying efficient. Top roux solvers can plan most of not all of F2B in inspection, but with ZZ that’s much harder. EOLine is very difficult and is a much less significant portion of a solve in terms of movecount and time, it will take up far more of your inspection time that you could instead be using to look further into your solve.

Roux is just better. Not to mention it’s got a MUCH better moveset for OH if you care about that.
I read all of this. Zbll is amazing. If you think inspecting eoline is hard. Most of us do eo cross-eo 223- eocross plus 1 - eo xcross. The good thing about zz is the f2l is crazy fast. It's made for spamming tips at full speed when done right. Eoline has been obsolete for years. Also with cross even if you only plan cross you know your edges are oriented so you only need to see the corners orientation and find the edge. You don't have to look at multiple orientations at the same time. It's very very fast. Not saying it's better then roux, just tired of people misinterpreting zz for something it's not.
 
I read all of this. Zbll is amazing. If you think inspecting eoline is hard. Most of us do eo cross-eo 223- eocross plus 1 - eo xcross. The good thing about zz is the f2l is crazy fast. It's made for spamming tips at full speed when done right. Eoline has been obsolete for years. Also with cross even if you only plan cross you know your edges are oriented so you only need to see the corners orientation and find the edge. You don't have to look at multiple orientations at the same time. It's very very fast. Not saying it's better than roux, just tired of people misinterpreting zz for something it's not.


ZBLL is good when used correctly, I explain more in another post, it just doesn’t compare to CMLL and LSE which are simply just better for the reasons I explained. I never said it was bad, I just said it has problems, which it does, and said CMLL and LSE just don’t have those same problems. My original post was comparing Roux and ZZ. Every comment I made was in comparison with Roux cause that was what the original post was about. Please quit misrepresenting what I’m saying.

I used to use ZZ and Roux seriously up until very recently I’m aware of the current EO cross meta. I wasn’t saying EOline is just too hard, I’m saying that inspection for EOline and EOcross + ZZF2L
will always be worse then F2B because you have more variables to look at to solve the same amount of pieces. Of course you can get good at both, I got good at EOLine but I have always, and will always be able to look ahead further into F2B. No matter what, if you’ve got a solution that’s easier to find, has better move count, or better ergonomics, the same amount of practice will just get you better times, that’s just the truth.

I explain more why I don’t see a point in EOcross in another reply. When it comes to EO223, if someone could find a consistent way to plan an EO223 then it would hands down be the best method no contest lol. But no one has been able to come up with a viable way that I know of. Cross your fingers though.

And also when the edges are not oriented people aren’t looking at orientation and position of each piece they are just doing color recognition and then spamming using muscle memory, the only thing the edges being pre oriented does is make the solve rotationless
 
ZBLL is good when used correctly, I explain more in another post, it just doesn’t compare to CMLL and LSE which are simply just better for the reasons I explained. I never said it was bad, I just said it has problems, which it does, and said CMLL and LSE just don’t have those same problems. My original post was comparing Roux and ZZ. Every comment I made was in comparison with Roux cause that was what the original post was about. Please quit misrepresenting what I’m saying.

I used to use ZZ and Roux seriously up until very recently I’m aware of the current EO cross meta. I wasn’t saying EOline is just too hard, I’m saying that inspection for EOline and EOcross + ZZF2L
will always be worse then F2B because you have more variables to look at to solve the same amount of pieces. Of course you can get good at both, I got good at EOLine but I have always, and will always be able to look ahead further into F2B. No matter what, if you’ve got a solution that’s easier to find, has better move count, or better ergonomics, the same amount of practice will just get you better times, that’s just the truth.

I explain more why I don’t see a point in EOcross in another reply. When it comes to EO223, if someone could find a consistent way to plan an EO223 then it would hands down be the best method no contest lol. But no one has been able to come up with a viable way that I know of. Cross your fingers though.

And also when the edges are not oriented people aren’t looking at orientation and position of each piece they are just doing color recognition and then spamming using muscle memory, the only thing the edges being pre oriented does is make the solve rotationless
You have no clue about zz at all lol
 
You have no clue about zz at all lol
I have been using Roux and ZZ both going on about 7 years. People keep telling me that I’m wrong, but can’t come up with any satisfactory reasons for why.

If I have no clue about ZZ please explain why, because I don’t think YOU have any idea about ZZ lol.
 
I have been using Roux and ZZ both going on about 7 years. People keep telling me that I’m wrong, but can’t come up with any satisfactory reasons for why.

If I have no clue about ZZ please explain why, because I don’t think YOU have any idea about ZZ lol.
"the only thing the edges being pre oriented does is make the solve rotationless"

If that's all you think of ZZ as, you probably haven't checked on what is going on development wise.
EO enables:

Easy 1LLL (ZBLL), Better pseudoslotting recog, learnable OLS, multislotting last 2 pairs (FR + BR genned), etc.
 
"the only thing the edges being pre oriented does is make the solve rotationless"

If that's all you think of ZZ as, you probably haven't checked on what is going on development wise.
EO enables:

Easy 1LLL (ZBLL), Better pseudoslotting recog, learnable OLS, multislotting last 2 pairs (FR + BR genned), etc.
I meant to add and allows for zbll and better ergonomics. I literally just forgot cause I was on my way to my car from work lmao. My point was that it people don’t look at position and orientation of pieces separately and they just do color recognition so saying that inspection is easier is silly.
 
"Dear cubing gods,
Please help the ZZ community in the fight to control the all knowing, big brained people from spreading misunderstood information, taught by misinformed people, taught by haters, taught by petrus users.
Sincerely yours
~ An actual ZZ advocate "
 
All the reasons that "Roux is better than ZZ" invite debates, except:
"Roux is better because that's what I use."

"ZZ is better on..."
"But I use Roux"
"But Roux is worse when..."
"But I use Roux"
"How do you explain when ZZ is...."
"But I use Roux"
 
This may seem like a cop out, but honestly, the best method is probably just to solve the cube in the way that is most fun for you. If you care about being fast, any of the big 3 do the job. You still need to put in a lot of work if you want to be fast regardless of the method, so don't expect the method to carry you.

Now me being utopian...

Break out of the "method" paradigm, except maybe in this sense (then check this too). Learn algs, learn how to turn well, learn how to be efficient. That's about all. I think that the "optimal" way to solve would be to do either F2L blocks (plus some EO stuff, either at the start or end of F2L) and a lot of algs, or BCE (such as Roux) but as advanced as possible (42 is horribly under utilised imo). ZZ, Petrus and CFOP are all heavily related and if you take the best bits (and practice a lot a lot) you will basically win. Similarly with Roux/42.
 
Back
Top