[Help Thread] Should I switch to Roux?

[BigGreen]

Roux does have potential to be a sub 10 average right?

No. It's impossible.

Lies

Slanderous lies

 

[miniGOINGS]

Lies

Slanderous lies

Roux users also develope a keen sense for detecting sarcasm.

 

[riffz]

Personally I wouldn't because Fridrich has been demonstrated again and again to have a LOT of potential and is the leading method. Plus, you'll be taking a big step backward learning block building and different LL algorithms.

But as others have said, you may find it more fun to solve with.

... if the majority opinion means they are right there would be no more jews.

Its not a matter of majority opinion. Fridrich has been shown to be very good and the only official sub-10 average in competition was done using it. I am aware of the fact that more commonly used methods get more attention and as a result they develop more quickly and have higher odds of setting records, etc, but this is not a reason on its own to switch to Roux.

 

[ben1996123]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

 

[waffle=ijm]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

lolben.

 

[jms_gears1]

Personally I wouldn't because Fridrich has been demonstrated again and again to have a LOT of potential and is the leading method. Plus, you'll be taking a big step backward learning block building and different LL algorithms.

But as others have said, you may find it more fun to solve with.

... if the majority opinion means they are right there would be no more jews.

Its not a matter of majority opinion. Fridrich has been shown to be very good and the only official sub-10 average in competition was done using it. I am aware of the fact that more commonly used methods get more attention and as a result they develop more quickly and have higher odds of setting records, etc, but this is not a reason on its own to switch to Roux.

LOLOMGWTF!!!!
are you intentionally dense?

Your going to tell me that there being less people that use roux is no good reason to switch to it, but that because there are a whole hell of a lot more using fridrich he should not switch?

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

Ben please shut up.

 

[Innocence]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

Ben please shut up.

I don't get it. Everyone else says stupid satirical things, e.g. jiggy, and then Ben says 1 sentence to the same tune, and everyone flames him.

He seriously has not done anything stupid since he faked those times that time a long time ago.

 

[jms_gears1]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

Ben please shut up.

I don't get it. Everyone else says stupid satirical things, e.g. jiggy, and then Ben says 1 sentence to the same tune, and everyone flames him.

He seriously has not done anything stupid since he faked those times that time a long time ago.

hey i was nice..

Ben was being retarded Jiggy's was in jest.

jiggy statement != bens statment

 

[riffz]

Personally I wouldn't because Fridrich has been demonstrated again and again to have a LOT of potential and is the leading method. Plus, you'll be taking a big step backward learning block building and different LL algorithms.

But as others have said, you may find it more fun to solve with.

... if the majority opinion means they are right there would be no more jews.

Its not a matter of majority opinion. Fridrich has been shown to be very good and the only official sub-10 average in competition was done using it. I am aware of the fact that more commonly used methods get more attention and as a result they develop more quickly and have higher odds of setting records, etc, but this is not a reason on its own to switch to Roux.

LOLOMGWTF!!!!
are you intentionally dense?

Your going to tell me that there being less people that use roux is no good reason to switch to it, but that because there are a whole hell of a lot more using fridrich he should not switch?

Do you intentionally not read?

My point was that Fridrich's potential has been demonstrated more than any other method, being the method that was used for the world record average and many right behind it. I'm saying that pointing out that Roux doesn't get enough attention and may not have developed to its full potential is not a reason to switch to it on its own.

 

[Thomas09]

no. use lbl

 

[oprah62]

Depends how you feel about it

 

[Innocence]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

Ben please shut up.

I don't get it. Everyone else says stupid satirical things, e.g. jiggy, and then Ben says 1 sentence to the same tune, and everyone flames him.

He seriously has not done anything stupid since he faked those times that time a long time ago.

hey i was nice..

Ben was being retarded Jiggy's was in jest.

jiggy statement != bens statment

Well obviously jiggy's != Ben's, but if I didn't read it wrong, Ben's was in jest too.

 

[Inf3rn0]

No, just keep practising fridrich. I hate roux and find it completely not fun at all...

Ben please shut up.

I don't get it. Everyone else says stupid satirical things, e.g. jiggy, and then Ben says 1 sentence to the same tune, and everyone flames him.

He seriously has not done anything stupid since he faked those times that time a long time ago.

hey i was nice..

Ben was being retarded Jiggy's was in jest.

jiggy statement != bens statment

Well obviously jiggy's != Ben's, but if I didn't read it wrong, Ben's was in jest too.

To me Bens comment sounded serious.

 

[Kirjava]

ITT; Oversensitive roux users, clueless idiots.

Good job, guys.

 

[jms_gears1]

Do you intentionally not read?

My point was that Fridrich's potential has been demonstrated more than any other method, being the method that was used for the world record average and many right behind it. I'm saying that pointing out that Roux doesn't get enough attention and may not have developed to its full potential is not a reason to switch to it on its own.

No one ever said that was the reason. You did, however state that many people use fridrich and its proven to get fast times and what not and so thats a reason to continue using it.

Your using the same logic that you say is invalid...

 

[Pembo]

My point was that Fridrich's potential has been demonstrated more than any other method, being the method that was used for the world record average and many right behind it. I'm saying that pointing out that Roux doesn't get enough attention and may not have developed to its full potential is not a reason to switch to it on its own.

LERN2FOSBURYFLOP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

 

[riffz]

Do you intentionally not read?

My point was that Fridrich's potential has been demonstrated more than any other method, being the method that was used for the world record average and many right behind it. I'm saying that pointing out that Roux doesn't get enough attention and may not have developed to its full potential is not a reason to switch to it on its own.

No one ever said that was the reason. You did, however state that many people use fridrich and its proven to get fast times and what not and so thats a reason to continue using it.

Your using the same logic that you say is invalid...

Obviously the fact that Fridrich has been PROVEN to be fast is a good enough reason to use it. But saying that because Roux doesn't get enough attention and has not had an opportunity to be as fast as it could is not proof by itself that it has the same potential as Fridrich. I'm not invalidating my own logic.

Its the equivalent to saying that keyhole F2L is just as good as Fridrich but hasn't had enough attention or enough people using it to have a chance at being fastest. That MAY be true, but until it has actually been shown to be fast, that point is useless and doesn't prove anything. I really don't understand what you're problem is with what I'm saying...

 

[qqwref]

All you can know about a method is how fast it's been proven to be. Fridrich has been proven to be able to achieve higher times than any other method, but that doesn't mean it's faster than others (although it may very well be). The important thing is that you shouldn't switch to a method because of how fast OTHER people are with it - only because of how fast YOU are with it. If you are faster with Roux, or feel like you have more potential with Roux, use it; otherwise don't. People aren't all the same and you won't reach your full potential if you don't tailor your method and style to yourself.

 

[Joël]

Well Roux is block building so personally I would say get sub 25 at fridrich before attempting it...

but that's just me.

I don't see the logic in this.

I'd say, if you make the switch, do it before you reach sub-25... Or, just a soon as possible.. Because for me, my mind is raped by CFOP so much that I am just too far gone to make such a switch now... Unless I had the motivation of a n00b .

 

[riffz]

All you can know about a method is how fast it's been proven to be. Fridrich has been proven to be able to achieve higher times than any other method, but that doesn't mean it's faster than others (although it may very well be).

Thank you.