OH Method Debate

[HaHaHaHeeHeeHee]

I love this thread its only been like a week and theres already 11 pages lmao
method debates are fun (although they do get quite heated at times)

 

[mukerflap]

Ohhh LEOR.

FB definitely isn't OH optimized, but the rest is rRUM.

Yes it is B moves are not bad in OH, you just dont know how to do them. RUrMFB is good

 

[mukerflap]

It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL

You underestimate how bad eoDFDB is

 

[Username: Username:]

YruRu users be like :
"Hey Roux!"
"your chair in the big three is dusty here let me take it" sneakily

Roux users be like :
"Why use YruRu?"
next day :
Roux users :
"I'm changing my mind, you succ Briggs" not acknowledging the method and both users arguing

Petrus users be like :
"you all ok? you want me to call mental hospital?"

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

so i have just read through this thread and so many of you are wrong But first I need to ask WTF is loer.
ok so f2l is Algs if they weren’t algs you would have to think about each move and how it works. The only difference between oll and pll algs and f2l algs are that most people are too stupid to come up with oll and pll algs.
Secondly coll epll is far better than ocll pll for oh ask any good one handed solver and they will agree.
and finally zz is much better than cfop for oh it has lower movecount is more ergonomic and has no rotation.

 

[Cubingcubecuber]

How is CFOP a BAD method when it has all the world records for NXNs?

It doesn’t have the 2x2 Wr so E.G. is better than CFOP lol

 

[Owen Morrison]

also, stuff like multislotting (again, disclaimer, I do not implement this into my solves, and I never did, since I use Roux lol) I'm pretty sure is algorithmic

multislotting is definitely not algorithmic, it is very intuitive.

Also, why are you guys being very harsh to @maticuber? He is correct, you do use algorithms to solve F2L, but you intuitively come up with those algs.

 

[Etotheipi]

It doesn’t have the 2x2 Wr so E.G. is better than CFOP lol

Getting a 4-mover is a better method than CFOP since it has the 2x2 WR.

 

[ep2]

Yeah, the only difference between intuitive and algorithms is semantics. Intuitive, to me, just means you can easily work out an algorithm on the fly(but eventually they become muscle memory like algs). The only difference is number of moves and ability to see that number of moves ahead. Encouraging people to do things intuitively, helps people have a better understand the way the cubes work, and helps you fix mistakes and learn new algs.

 

[brododragon]

do you think that Max or Felix intuitively solve F2L in competitions? they must have a really big brain.

Yeah, they have 400 IQ. I tried doing intuitive once, but couldn't manage. I just ended using algorithmic because I'm too small brain.

Cons: Uses RUL which is pretty bad for OH, EO line takes longer and is less ergonomic than cross.

You do FB, then do a z, then finish off F2L, then do a z'.

@maticuber You're either an idiot, trolling, or had a very sorry understanding of CFOP. COLL isn't as good as OCLL->PLL for ZZ, F2L isn't algs, table abuse is allowed so reliance on it doesn't make Roux bad, you only need 2LLL to be really good at CFOP, you have no proof that Roux is easier to be sub-10 OH so your argument that few CFOPers have achieved it is moot, just because you can do F2L cases quickly doesn't mean you learned algs for them, Max, "Felix" Matts, Patrick, and any other CFOPer you want to bring up doesn't know many algs for F2L but simply have their intuitive solutions into their muscle memory from doing them thousands of times, And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements



ZB-Roux is different from LEOR

ZB-Roux - F2B, EOStripe, ZBLL
LEOR - FB, EOStripe, SB, ZBLL

Please don't pull out the stupid card yet. Also, @NevEr_QeyX ZZ-Roux and LEOR are the same, just not ZB-Roux.

ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL.

A lot of people thing that ZZ is worse for OH than it is, but in truth, they're just not doing it right.

I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.

There's the correct way, then the incorrect way. Algorithms are things you memorize, while you do intuitive on the spot.

Yes it is B moves are not bad in OH, you just dont know how to do them. RUrMFB is good

Yes, everyone knows that RUrMFB is better than just RUru.



Alright, gonna go drill those intuitive EOStripe algs.

 

[Micah Morrison]

Even if you're like me and started out with algorithmic f2l, it wasn't anything like learning 41 algs, because they all intuitively made sense. There are some more advanced algs that are less intuitive but almost all f2l "algs" are 8 moves or less and the "algs" that are more than 8 moves are setups to shorter cases

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Why does this thread exist? You can get really, really fast with both methods. If one method is better than another, it is not by very much. At the most, you might be half a second faster with one method over another.

 

[cringeycuber101]

This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.

 

[Owen Morrison]

Why does this thread exist? You can get really, really fast with both methods. If one method is better than another, it is not by very much. At the most, you might be half a second faster with one method over another.

Have you looked at my Quest for sub 20 OH thread? it had like 5 pages of arguing in 1 hour, so someone made this thread so people would stop clogging my quest thread.

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.

that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Have you looked at my Quest for sub 20 OH thread? it had like 5 pages of arguing in 1 hour, so someone made this thread so people would stop clogging my quest thread.

lol I forgot about that

 

[Micah Morrison]

This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.

I think Roux might have more potential for OH, and people who advocate for Roux say that Kian has an 8.72 ao1000 but CFOP is certainly viable and one could definitely be world-class with it

 

[Owen Morrison]

that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.

Corners first was the fastest at that time, just like CFOP is the fastest in this time.

 

[cringeycuber101]

that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.

In 1982, no one knew what they were doing. We are talking about modern cubers.

 

[cringeycuber101]

that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.

Also what method do you think is best?