[Help Thread] What method should I use?

[Gacki]

Sorry nlCuber22, the basic one I know is the one that Dan Brown has on Youtube, solving one layer at a time, using 7 algorithms.

Also should have noted that when I do the F2L, it's all intuitive, I dont use any algorithms, is that bad for speed?

 

[iSpinz]

What does it matter what basic method he uses anyway?

 

[iSpinz]

Sorry nlCuber22, the basic one I know is the one that Dan Brown has on Youtube, solving one layer at a time, using 7 algorithms.

Also should have noted that when I do the F2L, it's all intuitive, I dont use any algorithms, is that bad for speed?

That's very good. I reccomend you check out this link.

 

[4Chan]

Because some methods are inherently easier/faster than other methods.

 

[RyanO]

Fridrich is probably the best method if you want to be fast. Not that other methods aren't equally powerful, but the vast majority of fast cubers use fridrich so there are tons of resources available to learn from.

 

[Hiero]

Realize that many people on here are very gifted cubers. From my experience and some of my students it takes about an hour or two of practice every day for a month to really get f2l down where it's second nature. After about a month with f2l then start learning 4-look last layer. Getting 4-look last layer mastered will probably take another month. After that your times will start dropping. There is not much that will drop you to 30-40 seconds within a few weeks.

 

[gamemeister27]

3 options are Fridrich, Petrus, and Roux. Honestly, I recommend trying all 3 (as you can tell by my sig, I decided to practice all 3 as well) and getting used to the block building steps in Petrus and Roux. Fridrich is the most common choice for most cubers, but both Petrus and Roux are capable of equal times.

 

[RyanO]

Fridrich is the most common choice for most cubers, but both Petrus and Roux are capable of equal times.

This is a pretty bold claim seeing as you have to go a ways down the rankings before you find any cubers that use petrus or roux. I'm not saying that petrus and roux are incapable of the times of the top fridrich cubers, just that there isn't really a lot of data to back up your claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Anthony]

Fridrich is the most common choice for most cubers, but both Petrus and Roux are capable of equal times.

This is a pretty bold claim seeing as you have to go a ways down the rankings before you find any cubers that use petrus or roux. I'm not saying that petrus and roux are incapable of the times of the top fridrich cubers, just that there isn't really a lot of data to back up your claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, based on the times Austin Moore and Erik Johnson get using Roux and Petrus, they are capable of fast times, but it's much harder to get that fast (sub 13) with those methods.

 

[LewisJ]

Fridrich is the most common choice for most cubers, but both Petrus and Roux are capable of equal times.

This is a pretty bold claim seeing as you have to go a ways down the rankings before you find any cubers that use petrus or roux. I'm not saying that petrus and roux are incapable of the times of the top fridrich cubers, just that there isn't really a lot of data to back up your claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Big Green did a 10.xx avg5 with roux. Petrus you're probably right though.

 

[Gacki]

Like I said before, I do the F2L intuitively, and it takes me usually a couple minutes. Should I learn the algorithms for it, or just keep practicing without em?

And thanks for the links, ill get right on the OLL and PLLs.

 

[gamemeister27]

Fridrich is the most common choice for most cubers, but both Petrus and Roux are capable of equal times.

This is a pretty bold claim seeing as you have to go a ways down the rankings before you find any cubers that use petrus or roux. I'm not saying that petrus and roux are incapable of the times of the top fridrich cubers, just that there isn't really a lot of data to back up your claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Petrus I'm not actually so sure of, but Erik Johnson is averaging about 13 seconds right now. Roux is used by even less cubers, but Big Green has a sub-11 average of 5, and I believe a sub-12 average of 12. http://www.youtube.com/user/LuigiStl#p/u/37/ySuAySCyytA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YahvDdYrUBc

 

[Anthony]

Like I said before, I do the F2L intuitively, and it takes me usually a couple minutes. Should I learn the algorithms for it, or just keep practicing without em?

Compare how you would intuitively solve each F2L pair with the "algorithm" for each case. If the way you would solve the pair is not quite as efficient then try to understand what the "algorithm" does and switch to it.

By the way...

Big Green did a 10.xx avg5 with roux. Petrus you're probably right though.

Petrus I'm not actually so sure of, but Erik Johnson is averaging about 13 seconds right now. Roux is used by even less cubers, but Big Green has a sub-11 average of 5, and I believe a sub-12 average of 12. http://www.youtube.com/user/LuigiStl#p/u/37/ySuAySCyytA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YahvDdYrUBc

You both were ninja'd.

 

[Hiero]

I recommend putting the stopwatch away while you are learning f2l for a while. Stick with it. Give it 3-4 weeks and you will see results. Don't use the algorithms.

 

[ZamHalen]

It depends also on the time you're willing to spend learning algorithms.For example Petrus would require learning about 28 algorithms.Full OLL and PLL would need 78 algorithms(or 31 with 2 look OLL and 1 look PLL).While Roux would need around 40 actual algorithms(I'm not sure, Roux is my least favored method).
You should also base your choice on your strengths and weaknesses.(i.e.better at block building =Petrus/Roux)

 

[gamemeister27]

Like I said before, I do the F2L intuitively, and it takes me usually a couple minutes. Should I learn the algorithms for it, or just keep practicing without em?

And thanks for the links, ill get right on the OLL and PLLs.

Here are a couple good tutorials for intuitive f2l, definitely do it intuitive though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtBLFPwwjG0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajQYMpc_L0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/frk17#p/search/1/HbKvOXE__CM

These are the tuts that finally made me get it (it took me a while).

 

[Gacki]

Alright, so should I master F2L before moving on to OLL and PLL?

 

[gamemeister27]

Alright, so should I master F2L before moving on to OLL and PLL?

Get good with it, and when you reach about 40 seconds (this is a rough estimate) Learns a Two look Oll, and a Two look pll. This entails roughly 13 algorithms.

 

[RyanO]

Alright, so should I master F2L before moving on to OLL and PLL?

Well, you won't have it mastered to it's full potential for a long time, but I would wait until you at least start to see some improvement in your times before going after 2 Look OLL and PLL.

 

[Anthony]

It depends also on the time you're willing to spend learning algorithms.For example Petrus would require learning about 28 algorithms.Full OLL and PLL would need 78 algorithms(or 31 with 2 look OLL and 1 look PLL).While Roux would need around 40 actual algorithms(I'm not sure, Roux is my least favored method).
You should also base your choice on your strengths and weaknesses.(i.e.better at block building =Petrus/Roux)

The number of algorithms "required" to learn for each method is much lower than those numbers. However, the number of useful algorithms you could learn for each method is much greater.

Also, beginners don't know what their "strengths and weaknesses" are. Chances are they'll find blockbuilding to be much harder than solving F2L Fridrich style. Getting good/fast is just about choosing a method and sticking to it.