Help! Roux or Fridrich?

[SkouriSkaze]

Why? That's a really dumb choice. Why Fridrich? Is it because you use Fridrich? lul no offence.

I already know Fridrich pretty well, so that's probably why.

 

[SkouriSkaze]

Why? That's a really dumb choice. Why Fridrich? Is it because you use Fridrich? lul no offence.

I already know Fridrich pretty well, so that's probably why.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

The layer by layer method is the fastest in the world. Razoux Guus Schultz does'nt begin with the cross (2nd WC 1982) a small difference that made to the benefit of Fridrich. Mirek Goljan is a specialist of the cube and early return of the cube in 2003, he noted that Gilles Roux's method could not be as fast. His new method was influenced by Waterman. Roux could not solve a cube in less than a minute before the advent of the web. The TRUTH is sometimes shocking, but is better to say. If your goal was the world record with Roux, you took the wrong path.

 

[OMGitsSolved]

I already know Fridrich pretty well, so that's probably why.

Double post. Double post.
Technically you don't know Fridrich at all until you learn full OLL and PLL. And I guess F2L.

 

[waffle=ijm]

I love you Gaétan even if I don't agree with you.

 

[Akuma]

You could easily reach sub-30 with Fridrich with little effort - even if using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.

Roux is only good for people who are able to build blocks intuitively and people who are really good with M and M' slices.
I for one am terrribly bad at M-slices so I embrace other methods.

My point is that judging by your post, CFOP is the way to go.
Oh and getting a brand hsiney new cube helps.

 

[ben1996123]

The layer by layer method is the fastest in the world.

I lol'd.

 

[a small kitten]

If you're interested in other events that relate to 3x3, CFOP may be more viable. So far it's better for OH and it looks like it's better for big cubes too. Just something to consider on the side.

 

[uberCuber]

I already know Fridrich pretty well, so that's probably why.

No you don't.

 

[SkouriSkaze]

No you don't.

Well, what I meant by "pretty well" means "better than my Roux"...

 

[Athefre]

Roux could not solve a cube in less than a minute before the advent of the web. The TRUTH is sometimes shocking, but is better to say. If your goal was the world record with Roux, you took the wrong path.

Someone's jealous.

 

[Cool Frog]

There is no right answer to this question.

Do whatever you find is fun.

Yerr
I used to use CFOP A long while ago, just experimented with Roux. only doing 10-20 solves a day with it just casually, found it really fun and just decided to time myself solving it. Never really was a conversion with me just me not solving with CFOP as much and my times surpassing those I was getting CFOP.

My times with both methods improved

Sub 30 times are achievable with both methods (As you probably know)

Roux is only good for people who are able to build blocks intuitively and people who are really good with M and M' slices.
I for one am terrribly bad at M-slices so I embrace other methods.

Practice makes you better at things. You where slow at solving rubik's cubes then you practiced

 

[uberCuber]

Well, what I meant by "pretty well" means "better than my Roux"...

what I meant was that you don't know Fridrich, period.

Sub 10 times are achievable with both methods (As you probably know)

Fix'd

 

[JLarsen]

I would advise against Roux purely because it sort of confines you to just doing 3x3 for the rest of your life. It's not too great for one hand and it's terrible on big cubes. I mean you can still solve 3x3 stage on big cubes with M moves it's just a pain in the ass. The same goes for one hand. However* I think Roux is a much funner and more interesting method than CFOP for 3x3. Just my 2 cents.

 

[waffle=ijm]

o silly panda. I love big cubes and Roux hasn't stopped me from solving them. I love minx puzzles too. and just because I use Roux doesn't mean I can't get good at them after some practice.

 

[Systemdertoten]

Check out both. They're extremely satisfying.

 

[Phlippieskezer]

I personally prefer Roux 100 folds, but try both. I started with Fridrich, but never got even close of mastering it (not even sub-30), then within a week of learning Roux, I'm around 26-ish seconds... Not a master, but better than my CFOP times...

P.S. Neither is better. It's just preference.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I would advise against Roux purely because it sort of confines you to just doing 3x3 for the rest of your life. It's not too great for one hand and it's terrible on big cubes. I mean you can still solve 3x3 stage on big cubes with M moves it's just a pain in the ass. The same goes for one hand. However* I think Roux is a much funner and more interesting method than CFOP for 3x3. Just my 2 cents.

For 2x2 Roux > Fridrich. Without learning any additional algs for 2x2, Roux is CLL and Fridrich is just LBL.

Thom made K4, which starts out like Roux.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I would advise against Roux purely because it sort of confines you to just doing 3x3 for the rest of your life. It's not too great for one hand and it's terrible on big cubes. I mean you can still solve 3x3 stage on big cubes with M moves it's just a pain in the ass. The same goes for one hand. However* I think Roux is a much funner and more interesting method than CFOP for 3x3. Just my 2 cents.

I think you just need to practice a lot more with Roux on bigcubes, and OH before you say it can't be done. =D

 

[Cool Frog]

I think you just need to practice a lot more with Roux on bigcubes, and OH before you say it can't be done. =D

OH Roux so...