Sub-20 with Less common methods

[miniGOINGS]

Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes and megaminx.
Also, you can't compare people. Erik is way better at FMC.

I'm learning Stadler 4x4. It can be pretty fast.

Yes, but nothing prevents you from learning a Fridrich-like method that you will use only on the megaminx. That's what I'm doing (I'm using corners first on 3^3, not Roux, but the problem is the same).

How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.

 

[watermelon]

How will you manage to do so many M's on a 7x7?

Ok. Prove it. Do a fridrich solve on a 5x5 and then do a roux solve. If you want blockbuilding on a big cube then I'm sure that petrus would easily be the fastest.

You obviously don't understand my point. Doing 3^3 solves on a 5^3 will prove absolutely nothing, whatever the result is.

Reduction ends with a 3x3 solve.. M' and M turns are so slow on big cubes. Maybe you don't understand our point. Doing a 3x3 solve on a 5x5 cube with the roux method will show that the roux methd is very slow for big cubes.

If you use the Roux method for a 3x3, why would you use reduction for big cubes? Methods like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llhAX09mjIk or K4 are surely more suitable...

 

[TMOY]

Reduction ends with a 3x3 solve.. M' and M turns are so slow on big cubes. Maybe you don't understand our point. Doing a 3x3 solve on a 5x5 cube with the roux method will show that the roux methd is very slow for big cubes.

You still don't get my point.

How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.

My best average so far is 25.xx with CF. I also average on the low 40s with Fridrich (2-look OLL and 1-look PLL). With Roux, I don't know, maybe 1 minute or so, mainly because I don't practice blockbuilding.

 

[miniGOINGS]

How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.

My best average so far is 25.xx with CF. I also average on the low 40s with Fridrich (2-look OLL and 1-look PLL). With Roux, I don't know, maybe 1 minute or so, mainly because I don't practice blockbuilding.

Nice, My fastest CF was a 37, but I havn't tried in a while (2 months?) so I think I'll do that now, work on CF and see how it effects my Roux.

 

[fanwuq]

My point was that Roux users end up learning a new method for big cubes (cage variant) rather than Reduction-Roux. I love reduction, it's just the most perfect way of building blocks and the most efficient way to solve 4x4 and 5x5 for humans. I will change my mind when you average sub-80 moves for 4x4 FMC using some other method. I've heard people say cage is better for really big cubes, but I've yet to try it myself. Stadler is not that great. K4 is nothing like Roux; it is much more like Guus's 3x3 method (at least the way I learned it from Fallofshadows on Youtube). I actually learned K4 before reduction because it thought it was kind of like Fridrich F2L and easier to do without messing up the rest of the cube. After I understood reduction, I was just amazed by its elegance and quit using K4 and Stadler immediately (yes, I did use these before I settled with reduction). Non-reduction users really are missing the funnest part of solving big cubes--edge pairing. I find it funny how some K4/Stadler users claim that they are using the blockbuilding alternative to reduction, which they compare to Fridrich when reduction is the essence of blockbuilding.
So I predict that in the future, cubists will specialize in individual events. Top 3x3 competitors might exclusively use Roux and suck at big cubes, while big cube solves use Fridrich, Petrus, or ZZ and are not as good at 3x3 in comparison and OH cubers might end up using either ZZ or Fridrich with tricks like multislotting and MGLS.

 

[TMOY]

Which new method ? When I started big cubes, I ended up using a cage variant, simply because it was a perfectly natural way for me to solve them. It was not really a new method but rather an extension to big cubes of my CF 3^3 method. Later, I tried a few reduction solves, and I found that method totally stuupid and counterintuitive. That's why I'm still using (an improved version of) my cage variant and I will definitely never switch to reduction.
And FYI, it involves some edge pairing too. And the funniest part is IMHO the last centers because of the many possibilities and little tricks you can find for them, especially on bigger cubes (I like 6^3 very much for that reason).