CFOP vs ROUX

Which is the best method?(3x3)

  • CFOP

    Votes: 25 55.6%

  • ROUX

    Votes: 13 28.9%

  • ZZ

    Votes: 5 11.1%

  • Belt Method

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
CFOP is more developed and far more popular and therefore “better”. Theoretically Roux is likely slightly better, primarily because of the lower movecount. Realistically they’re the same and you certainly won’t be hindered by either. Use whatever method you’d like.

Methods like ZZ and Petrus are worse than CFOP and Roux, but still quite viable, even far beyond sub-10. They’re also less developed than CFOP and even Roux, but some resources do exist.

Belt sucks
 
SunnyCubes said:
Hi everyone, I'm SunnyCubes, and I quit cubing for a year now, but I decided to come back. I currently use advanced CFOP, but my brother uses ROUX. We both have 9 second average. I'm wondering which is better. I also added some other methods in the poll.
Click to expand...
all depends on how you break down the cubes pieces.
I prefer CFOP (have a 7.299 single and a 9.xx Ao5) because I like the idea of the centers not really moving too much, but
I do see the appeal for roux (12 second single with 17 average) because of the whole M slice being very intuitive
but it all comes down to preference, and like Prostar said, CFOP is further developed.
I do know other methods but they aren't close to CFOP, Roux, petrus or ZZ.
happy cubing :3
 
As the other replies said, CFOP is much more developed, and one heck of a lot more resources available for it, because so many more people use it. But that's not to say that you can't be just as good with Roux. It'll just take you more work to do so.

Just look at some of the stats of the top Rouxers in the world.
2 3x3 singles in the top 100 in the world, 2 3x3 avgs in the top 100 in the world.
OH is a different story, tho: 13 OH singles in the top 100 in the world, and 20 OH avgs in the top 100 in the world, 5 of those OH avgs in the top 10 in the world, all by Rouxers.
So, Roux is definitely feasible, even more so for OH, it'll just take more work to get there without the same amount of resources or near as many other people who use it to help.

All that said, I still vote for CFOP.
 
Last edited:
Personally I've experimented with most of them but eventually settled on CFOP as I was also interested in getting better at big cubes like 4x4 (not to say Roux can't be used for big cubes, CFOP is just considered better). I also really like ZZ and occasionally I will switch to it as it's pretty similar to CFOP (with my limited understanding of ZZ-specific techniques) and it's just a nice to have a little break ever so often (IMO). Belt is certainly a tier below the other methods mentioned but still feel free to experiment with it if you feel so inclined.

Ultimately I would say CFOP and Roux are pretty equal and it just comes down to which one you prefer (try experimenting with both like I did maybe). Roux can be a little difficult to progress at (it was for me at least) but it's very rewarding and as mentioned above, great for OH. Try ZZ if you want but if your aim is to become the best cuber possible, stick to either Roux or CFOP.

Also JPerm has a great video comparing the big 3, its very informative so I would recommend checking that out if you want a more detailed summary of the pros and cons of each method.
 
What if I'm masochist and enjoy using waterman? Does that make It that the best method?

What if I solve cfop in 19 seconds and waterman in 1min?
 
bldcuber314 said:
I feel like being off by an M-slice should be considered a +2. Making it a DNF gives an automatic disadvantage to Roux solvers, even though being off by a U move and M move is the same mistake. It would be more interesting as well as there is more encouragement to try different methods.
Click to expand...

The main issue with switching away from OBTM is not that people don’t want M to be a +2, it’s that by introducing slice moves as moves, judging misalignments becomes extremely difficult.
 
bldcuber314 said:
I feel like being off by an M-slice should be considered a +2. Making it a DNF gives an automatic disadvantage to Roux solvers, even though being off by a U move and M move is the same mistake. It would be more interesting as well as there is more encouragement to try different methods.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is that for my G perm alg, if I missed the D move at the end, and the U move, instead of getting a DNF for missing two moves, I might only get a +2 for messing up two moves if the AUF is lucky enough.

Also, “this thing clearly benefits this other method” arguments don’t make sense. Table abuse makes Roux much more viable and puts CFOP at some disadvantage, we don’t care about that. My thinking is that the regs should influence what methods are viable, not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
[Free App] Cube Trainer — CFOP + Roux algorithm trainer with timer
Replies
0
Views
151
cellonty
C
T
New method idea: Using Pinkie Pie roux variant with CFOP instead
Replies
4
Views
426
theail03
T
B
Is have something skills make ROUX method can compete with CFOP+ZBLL
2
Replies
22
Views
4,294
BLUE JIANGUO
B
Farisu Fazz
New 3x3 Farz Method: Mehta style, but more applicable to roux and CFOP users
Replies
11
Views
2,393
ruffleduck
ruffleduck
NebraskanSpeedsolver
Combining CFOP and Roux?
2
Replies
30
Views
3,031
ruffleduck
ruffleduck
Back
Top