waffle=ijm
Waffo
YES
Multi Methodist
- Thread starter Jukuren
- Start date
YES
irontwig
Veteran
I'm not really a multi methodist, but I sometimes begin my CFOP solves with a 2x2x2 (or 2x2x3 or X-cross, if I can see it), it makes things less boring.
rubiknewbie
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 593
Look no further, choose ZB.
rachmaninovian
Veteran
use sammich :3 plz
Johan444
Regular
Learn CFOP if you want to get fast times for the least amount of effort. [/controversial opinion]
Jukuren
Regular
CFOP is just too boring for me. I like for my solves to have at least a little thought involved. with CFOP i feel like im just... doing... not solving...
Rpotts
Veteran
I don't feel like CFOP is any less of a solve than other methods, unless you count direct solving. Some methods are more intuitive some are more alg based but most use a combination of the two and allow for the user to mold the method to their liking. If you like CFOP but want edges oriented like in petrus just use partial/full edge control. Or you can just make the 2x2x3 f2l style, then orient edges, then continue on CFOP. Or you can use ZZ and orient edges first, and expand upon it, learning CLS/Winter variation or something and skip OLL all together.
Heise is an awesome method though it can be difficult and is not all too applicable for speedsolving.
FreeFOP? ZB? RouxZZ?
Heise is an awesome method though it can be difficult and is not all too applicable for speedsolving.
FreeFOP? ZB? RouxZZ?
Kirjava
Colourful
I never really considered RouxZZ as a serious speedcubing method, it was only really useful for concept contemplation and development.
I can't see anyone using FreeFOP as their main method. There are a lot of different techniques to familiarise yourself with for a start, and after so many solves a certain technique will have been used more often than others - you'll start to specialise with it and find you do it much more often than other techniques. This problem already exists if you try to switch to FreeFOP with another method from the B2L 'group'. The method eventually turns 'pure' into either another method that exists or a standard set of steps that are a mish-mash from other methods because you can reliably solve faster with that configuration of steps as opposed to picking the best technique each time. Then again, it's not impossible to force yourself to freestyle B2L and LL and stick with it.
If you're looking to do something new/unique/special; I can point you in much more interesting directions if you like.
I can't see anyone using FreeFOP as their main method. There are a lot of different techniques to familiarise yourself with for a start, and after so many solves a certain technique will have been used more often than others - you'll start to specialise with it and find you do it much more often than other techniques. This problem already exists if you try to switch to FreeFOP with another method from the B2L 'group'. The method eventually turns 'pure' into either another method that exists or a standard set of steps that are a mish-mash from other methods because you can reliably solve faster with that configuration of steps as opposed to picking the best technique each time. Then again, it's not impossible to force yourself to freestyle B2L and LL and stick with it.
If you're looking to do something new/unique/special; I can point you in much more interesting directions if you like.
Last edited:
somerandomkidmike
Veteran
+1
You should really try out sandwich. Although I don't do the exact same sandwich as rachmaninovian, I've been pretty successful. My method is either some form of corners first, or Waterman with a blockbuilding first layer. It depends on the situation.
a small kitten
Veteran
Use the Triangular Fransisco Method. According to the wiki it has sub 20 potential. Otherwise I would recommend ZZ.
