[Member Intro] A quick introduction

[DeeDubb]

yeah pretty much. This is the second time this happened. Last time it was me vs tdm. but he started it... zz.... pff.

Honestly though, you need to stop telling people Roux is better than CFOP. You can talk about why YOU like it, but you are damaging all of our reputations by spreading false information and presenting opinions as facts. The lower movecount/rotations is a tradeoff. CFOP has a lot more high TPS algorithm possibilities than Roux which balances things out. To me, they are pretty much equal, and there's no way to show one is superior or inferior to the other with the information we currently have available. Plus you are creating hostility in these welcome forums (rather than fostering a positive environment of encouragement for new people). Roux isn't right for everyone. It's great that it's working for you (and me), but people should do research and pick a method on their own.

 

[MrMan]

Roux does not suck, and there are quite a few sub 15 and 10, and improvement is a lot faster than with cfop. I started cubing june first 2014. It has been 7 months, and I am sub 14. I think thats pretty fast improvement.

That depends on you and nothing else...

 

[TDM]

improvement is a lot faster than with cfop.

Do you have any proof of this?

I started cubing june first 2014. It has been 7 months, and I am sub 14. I think thats pretty fast improvement.

People improve quickly with other methods too. Look at how quickly people like Bindedsa and kclejeune have improved. There have been other people who have improved very quickly with CFOP too.

I'm not saying he shouldn't switch to Roux, I'm saying you need to stop saying things that aren't true about it, and let people decide for themselves.

yeah pretty much. This is the second time this happened. Last time it was me vs tdm. but he started it... zz.... pff.

:fp

 

[Randomno]

:fp

Without thinking about it, I still can't recognise that that's a facepalm.

 

[JasonDL13]

Sooo, is this a thing here ? Every method mentioned in a thread turns into a war where people defend their favorite method ?

I don't care what method he uses. All I care about is that the Roux solvers care about what method the new user chooses. All that people say is "Switch to Roux" and don't back anything up.

 

[Berd]

I don't care what method he uses. All I care about is that the Roux solvers care about what method the new user chooses. All that people say is "Switch to Roux" and don't back anything up.

Just switch to roux already[emoji111]

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

I don't care what method he uses. All I care about is that the Roux solvers care about what method the new user chooses. All that people say is "Switch to Roux" and don't back anything up.

Its true that Penguins, kind of, say tried to forcefully shove Roux down the new guy's throat, but perhaps it was to check if he wanted to switch maybe he meant it differently, some people don't open themselves up to other methods, which is horrible especially if you hate the method you currently use.
I believe PenguinsDontFly is trying to say to open yourself to other methods, ZZ is cool, Roux is cool, CFOP is popular, and kinda cool, Petrus is cool, and etc.
it just came out wrong.

+Just because CFOP is more popular doesn't mean it is faster, of course if there are more CFOP users in general, if you look at it statistically then of course "its faster" than say Roux which has correct me if I'm wrong <100 users, (we still have a higher percentage sub-10) its gonna look like our method is inferior.

 

[Randomno]

+Just because CFOP is more popular doesn't mean it is faster, of course if there are more CFOP users in general, if you look at it statistically then of course "its faster" than say Roux which has correct me if I'm wrong <100 users, (we still have a higher percentage sub-10) its gonna look like our method is inferior.

There are likely hundreds of Roux users. I'm guessing most don't try and spread it around so much.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

I was just joking... method switching is hard, and if you have no reason to then you shouldnt. Do whatever you feel like doing. That could involve getting sub 20 with cfop, zz and roux, and then choosing which one is better, but that is still hard. Stick with cfop and you'll be fine. any method that is reasonably easy to understand and can be sub 70 stm is viable for sub 10.

 

[Artic]

Nothing against Roux solvers, but a lot of them(not all) act like a cult around these forums. Anytime a new member shows up, all you hear is "Switch to Roux", "Roux is better". They're always trying to shove Roux down everyone's throat. It's really getting irritating. When a new member shows up and introduces himself, we're supposed to welcome him and move on. Not try to ram a particular method over and over again.

 

[TDM]

Nothing against Roux solvers, but a lot of them(not all) act like a cult around these forums. Anytime a new member shows up, all you hear is "Switch to Roux", "Roux is better". They're always trying to shove Roux down everyone's throat. It's really getting irritating. When a new member shows up and introduces himself, we're supposed to welcome him and move on. Not try to ram a particular method over and over again.

Try making a list of who it is that says it. It isn't many of us, it's just a couple. I do try to welcome people and move on, as do most people.

 

[Tao Yu]

Why do I rarely see big cubes mentioned in these arguments? I really think it's an important consideration. Ask anyone whose main event is big cubes and I'm sure they'll tell you that they're glad they chose CFOP. I don't like the way people blindly recommend Roux without mentioning big cubes.

Personally I'd give the following advice:

• Learn CFOP if you want to be fast at everything. If you want to be fast with big cubes, definitely learn CFOP.
• Learn Roux if you're especially interested in 3x3, and you like the idea of intuitive solving.
• Learn ZZ if you're not interested in big cubes, and you like the idea of rotationless solves (especially good for OH).
• Play around with all methods. At very least learn the steps of the big four (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, Petrus).

 

[Randomno]

Why do I rarely see big cubes mentioned in these arguments? I really think it's an important consideration. Ask anyone whose main event is big cubes and I'm sure they'll tell you that they're glad they chose CFOP. I don't like the way people blindly recommend Roux without mentioning big cubes.

Personally I'd give the following advice:

• Learn CFOP if you want to be fast at everything. If you want to be fast with big cubes, definitely learn CFOP.
• Learn Roux if you're especially interested in 3x3, and you like the idea of intuitive solving.
• Learn ZZ if you're not interested in big cubes, and you like the idea of rotationless solves (especially good for OH).
• Play around with all methods. At very least learn the steps of the big four (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, Petrus).

Has anyone ever tested out Petrus on big cubes?

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

Has anyone ever tested out Petrus on big cubes?

I guess it would be effective because of its efficiency.

 

[GuRoux]

I guess it would be effective because of its efficiency.

how efficient is petrus in a speedsolve? what is the average movecount for the best petrus users in a speedsolve?

 

[Tao Yu]

Has anyone ever tested out Petrus on big cubes?

Actually, come to think of it, OBLBL is a bit like petrus optimised for big cubes, and it does have potential. I think Justin Thomas got to ~45s with it on 4x4. He switched to yau afterwards though.

I guess it is a viable option, but somebody still needs to step up and prove its potential (just like Petrus). Right now, I don't think we have any reason to believe that OBLBL is better than reduction for big cubes

 

[Ranzha]

As someone who uses FreeFOP with a lot of Petrus blockbuilding techniques, having an unrestricted F2L is really nice when you're able to look ahead.
I'm horrible at big cubes, and my 3x3 stage suffers a lot because I can't foresee what block I'm going to start with, so usually I just go with a more CFOP-style approach.