DuckubingCuber347's POGression thread. | Progression threads should be banned || It is finished

[Noob's Cubes]

Why are you using Roux?

 

[Garf]

Why are you using Roux?

He likes Roux. It isn't that bad of a 3x3 speedsolving method. I would use it if I didn't like CFOP so much.

 

[Noob's Cubes]

I thought he was better with CFOP.

 

[Garf]

I thought he was better with CFOP.

He is. He is just trying to get faster at Roux so that it is faster than CFOP.

 

[Noob's Cubes]

Good luck with that. Also, why?

 

[Garf]

Good luck with that. Also, why?

I average around sub-20 with Roux now. I need to get better at S/AS recognition/recall and work on my SP solutions. I'll probably stick with Roux as my main method as I find it fun.

Does this make sense?

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

I'm better with CFOP because I've been using it since I started cubing.

I think CFOP is boring.

Roux, on the other hand, is fun, offers a lower movecount, allows for cooler block building, has no rotations, has cool ergonomics, has an awesome finish, has a low base alg count, has potential for very interesting alg set (ACMLL), gives a fresh new challenge to a stale cubing life, and is all around a more interesting method.

Just because one is better at one thing doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't try something else. That's a noob mindset.

 

[Garf]

I'm better with CFOP because I've been using it since I started cubing.

I think CFOP is boring.

Roux, on the other hand, is fun, offers a lower movecount, allows for cooler block building, has no rotations, has cool ergonomics, has an awesome finish, has a low base alg count, has potential for very interesting alg set (ACMLL), gives a fresh new challenge to a stale cubing life, and is all around a more interesting method.

Just because one is better at one thing doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't try something else. That's a noob mindset.

I sometimes solve with Roux. I'm not fast at it (because of the lack of practice), but it is fun to solve with. I'm going to keep prioritizing CFOP, but I admire Roux a lot.

 

[Noob's Cubes]

I'm better with CFOP because I've been using it since I started cubing.

I think CFOP is boring.

Roux, on the other hand, is fun, offers a lower movecount, allows for cooler block building, has no rotations, has cool ergonomics, has an awesome finish, has a low base alg count, has potential for very interesting alg set (ACMLL), gives a fresh new challenge to a stale cubing life, and is all around a more interesting method.

Just because one is better at one thing doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't try something else. That's a noob mindset.

Well, the whole point of cubing is to have fun, so if you don't enjoy solving with CFOP, in my opinion, you shouldn't use CFOP, unless you prioritize speed.

Does this make sense?

Lol I didn't see that.

 

[Garf]

Well, the whole point of cubing is to have fun, so if you don't enjoy solving with CFOP, in my opinion, you shouldn't use CFOP, unless you prioritize speed.

Lol I didn't see that.

I could go into how society is so screwed up these days where you have to be the best in what you do and you could be judged for doing things in a slow/bad fashion. But this is a progression thread, so no in-depth concepts about that.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

you shouldn't use CFOP, unless you prioritize speed.

Roux is objectively better for OH and equal, if not better than CFOP for 2H.

But this is a progression thread, so no in-depth concepts about that.

This is also my progression thread, not cuber.hello.com's. Feel free to write a short novel in my thread if you want.

 

[Garf]

This is also my progression thread, not cuber.hello.com's. Feel free to write a short novel in my thread if you want.

Spoiler: Bet.

In my advisory class today, my teacher talked about what I said, but in more in-depth. Basically, it started off with a quote about how an archaeologist was enrolled in a school and was taking classes they weren't good at. Their instructor said that they shouldn't worry about not being good at things, they should just have fun instead. Following this mindset, that student/archaeologist became the best in their classes and went on to be successful in life.
After that, my teacher started talking about how we should be grateful for what we do. For example, I'm grateful for cubing and running.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Surpassed my former global before personal issues. I now average 10.3-10.4 with CFOP. With Roux it's around 17-18.

I also learn alg that I don't use in solves. Hopefully I can get better with 2GLL so it's actually useful to me.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

I have a competition on the 13th of May.

Goals:
2x2:
Main: XMD Flair
Goal: Sub-3.9 average, PR single?, Beat Zayn

3x3:
Main: XMD Tornado V3 (Flagship)
Goal: Sub-10.5 average, sub-9.5 single, Beat Patrick

3x3 OH:
Main: Probably Valk Elite m
Goal: PR average and single, Beat Patrick ()

Pyraminx:
Main: Steven's YLM
Goal: Sub-7.5 average, sub-5 single, Beat DG

3x3 Blindfolded:
Main: YLM m
Goal: Get a valid result


Training:
2x2: Relearn CLL for the tenth time (most likely literally the tenth time) and get decent with it. Don't be cringy and get a 7 second average

3x3: Learn ELL, EO Tripod, and TULPi 2GLL. I relearned ELL yesterday and I'm doing surprisingly well with it. I'll be practicing with it until recall is fast. The main reason for this is because I occasionally do CFCE when it's better, but sometimes I get an ELL I don't know, thereby being slower. 2-look > 3-look. I would like to relearn EO Tripod for obvious reasons... And maybe actually be decent at doing it and not forget it like every other time. As for 2GLL, I've known Pi 2GLL for a while but I would like to get to the point where it actually makes sense to use it in solves. I would also like to learn TUL 2GLL for similar reasons.

3x3 OH: Nothing really specific here. I didn't practice last time and still got a sub-20 average so maybe if I do practice I can get an even better result. Also figure out which cube I'll main

Pyraminx: Practice (lol) enough that I can meet my goals.

3x3 Blindfolded: Learn M2 and get to the point where I can get consistent successes in under 5 minutes, that way I have at least two attempts to get a 3BLD result.

 

[Running for cube]

Whenever I attempt roux I end up with an oll or pll case and then its just cfop.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Whenever I attempt roux I end up with an oll or pll case and then its just cfop.

I'm actually pretty decent with Roux despite not practicing much. My goal for Roux was sub-20, I can get around 18ish without warm up. it would be nice if I was more consistent. Most of my solves with Roux are in the 15-16 range but an occasional 21 ruins it. (That's slightly offset with the 12's though)

 

[Running for cube]

Yeah, I should learn it, it seems like a fun method.

 

[abunickabhi]

I'm actually pretty decent with Roux despite not practicing much. My goal for Roux was sub-20, I can get around 18ish without warm up. it would be nice if I was more consistent. Most of my solves with Roux are in the 15-16 range but an occasional 21 ruins it. (That's slightly offset with the 12's though)

Good luck with becoming method neutral.

I use both CFOP and Roux. I am global 9s in CFOP and global 11s in Roux. I also use 3-style exec sometimes if a lot of corners/edges are solved.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

I've been spamming sighted solves with M2/OP (no memo) and can do it around ~55 seconds consistently with a best of 34 seconds. I'll try to works on corner memo and execution now. Sub-40 seems like a good goal for a beginner.

One question I do have about M2 is, why is there parity? I don't understand how it happens or why it's called "parity". In all of my sighted solves/slow solves I have never had this "parity" issue. I know it has something to do with an uneven amount of letters, but how does that affect the solve?

I've never seen a good explanation. I watched a Dylan Wang video around a year ago about M2 and I didn't get much out of it. Despite his reputation he's actually really bad at explaining concepts. When teaching about swapping I/S and C/W (I use a slightly different letter scheme so for me it would be E/O and C/W) when the M slice is rotated 180* instead of explaining how it works he just says, from what I remember, "Trust me on this", or something along those lines. I'm not even sure if he attempted to explain parity. A written explanation or a video explanation would be greatly appreciated.

 

[OtterCuber]

I've been spamming sighted solves with M2/OP (no memo) and can do it around ~55 seconds consistently with a best of 34 seconds. I'll try to works on corner memo and execution now. Sub-40 seems like a good goal for a beginner.

One question I do have about M2 is, why is there parity? I don't understand how it happens or why it's called "parity". In all of my sighted solves/slow solves I have never had this "parity" issue. I know it has something to do with an uneven amount of letters, but how does that affect the solve?

I've never seen a good explanation. I watched a Dylan Wang video around a year ago about M2 and I didn't get much out of it. Despite his reputation he's actually really bad at explaining concepts. When teaching about swapping I/S and C/W (I use a slightly different letter scheme so for me it would be E/O and C/W) when the M slice is rotated 180* instead of explaining how it works he just says, from what I remember, "Trust me on this", or something along those lines. I'm not even sure if he attempted to explain parity. A written explanation or a video explanation would be greatly appreciated.

I don't fully understand it myself. But this is what I was taught: If you execute the modified Y perm (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) that is used in OP an odd number of times, you'll notice that the UL and UB edges are swapped. If you execute it an even number of times, the edges are fixed. Thus, whenever you execute the modified Y perm an odd number of times in your solve, you'll need the [D' r2 U : M2] parity alg to un-swap those edges.