Why do you use the method you use?

[somerandomkidmike]

I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.

heh, we use a similar method for 4x4 (hehe, centers last), but...my middle edges are more algorithm heavy..and i think faster perhaps? I was sub 1:20 most of the time before my 4x4 died....and 1:14 single. I believe that it's possible for me to get a sub 1 single IF my stupid 4x4 didn't die.

and yes, sub 50s solves without reduction is possible...per, where are you? He got a 47.xx single I think. check the UWR..haha

I have gotten sub 2 solves for 5x5 using something similar to my 4x4 method. (the only difference is that it is not corners first) and I believe that I can get much faster if my tps is higher and i have less lag. considering my 3x3...my average is barely sub 25...only with practice can i go down to 22-23s average.

yes, direct solving can be fast, only if more people explore it.

Using a similar version of cage I got 1:32.xx (I average around 1:45), and I am far from fast. I am using a horrible quality rubik's brand 4x4 (I mean I had another one that was 3 times better, until i broke it). I believe Cage has sub-50second average potential, and you don't necisarily need a freak to accomplish this.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

2x2 LBL (first 4 corners, then CLL) I use CLL for 3x3, and I think my recognition is better than Ortega and Guimond

3x3 CF (similar to waterman) I found this to be my fasted method... simple as that (I currently average 23 seconds, and know only 1/4 of the case or less)

4x4 CF cage- I made a recent switch from K4 because I was experimenting with it, and ended up getting a time just over my old record. I later took an average, and was doing way better than with K4. I guess it's very similar to my 3x3 method in ways, so I'm not surprised

5x5 CF Cage- I think it's fun to do larger cubes (5x5 and over) with cage. I just like how it flows. The last part if people are watching... it's cool because that is the fastest stage in Cage for me.

Magic- Do without regripping because it is faster

Megaminx- Blockbuilding F2L style with intuitive last layer- Because I wanted to do it completely intuitively, and never switched, because I only had a weekend to play with it.

3x3 one handed- Petrus- It uses few moves, and I can't do fast M slices with one hand

3x3 chopsticks (yes this is a regular event for me)- Petrus (see 3x3 one handed)

3x3 bld- Pochmann style beginner method- Haven't really got into bld that much yet... i will work on it though.

FMC- Heise- I like the fact that it doesn't use very many turns, and that it requires you to use your brain. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[ThePizzaGuy92]

i use the method i use because it was easier to learn full cfop than other methods due to the fact that I started with LBL.

 

[FU]

2x2 Ortega - easy to learn and there are only a few algs
3x3 CFOP - started with LBL, seemed more logical to continue with Fridrich. and i never believed that it is worth it to take up something like Petrus or Roux just to prove non-Fridrich methods could get you fast times as well. i don't really care whether i'm using up more moves than Petrus solvers (just as an example), or it doesn't have the 'cool factor' of say blockbuilding methods, it's the time taken to solve that matters. why should i give up Fridrich just because everyone uses it and i'm just another one out of millions?
4x4 - 5x5 Reduction/CFOP. reduction is intuitive, and like why i use Fridrich, i don't give a s*** that i'm using the same method as most ppl. reduction is proven to be fast, easy to learn, intuitive, so it's cool

i don't FMC btw so the movecount factor isn't considered.

 

[d4m4s74]

I use intuitive f2l, trying to learn friedrich
2 look pll, basic beginners oll (learning 2 look)
I'll learn

 

[GaroMaster1337]

I started out with LBL. (duh)
After a while, I started using Petrus, but after a several weeks, I was still over a minute. The lookahead just seemed to be too difficult, so i decided to try Fridrich. My times increased for a while but after some practice they started dropping quickly. I'm currently working on OLL's.
Bottom line: I use Fridrich because it has the easiest lookahead (for me) out of the three main speedcubing methods.

 

[JohnnyA]

I like Fridrich because it has easy learning with amazing potential, and leads into the (or so I think) ultimate method, ZZ.

 

[Ryanrex116]

I am using:

Dan brown F2L w/ 4LLL

 

[JTW2007]

Fridrich 'cause it's fast and popular, so you don't have trouble finding info.

 

[Liquiddi]

For 3x3x3 I have just started using Roux method.

4x4x4 the normal method, centers first, edges and 3x3x3.

5x5x5 same.

 

[VirKill]

2x2x2: Ortega
Reason : I will learn more advance when I have 2x2x2 eastsheen

2x2x2 BLD: Classic Pochmman
Reason : I suck at 3cycle

3x3x3 : Friddrich (2look OLL+ full PLL)
Reason : Easy to learn, fast eanough....why not?

3x3x3 OH : Friddrich (2look OLL + 2look PLL)
Reason : In progress..soon I'll learn maybe all OH PLL

3x3x3 BLD: M2/Pochmman
Reason : Quite fast and easy (compare to freestyle, for me)

4x4x4: Normal Method, center first, edge, 3x3x3
Reason : I hate this puzzle (Stiff Rubik's brand) so I'll use the easiest method

5x5x5: same
Reason: soon, I will get fast with this (Eastsheen)

 

[Odin]

1x1
(i cant solve it can any one give me a method :rolleyes

2x2
Intuitively

3x3
Im using Dan brown F2L with 4LLL (I use this method becuse well, im kinda a noob.)

4x4
Intuitively

5x5
Intuitively

 

[toast]

2x2: Ortega
Easy, and Guimond or CLL takes time and I don't plan on putting much time on 2x2.

3x3: Fridrich w/ x-cross.
Fast. But if I ever want to have some intuitiveness in my solve, I'll just do a Roux/Petrus solve.

3x3 OH: Petrus
Easier than doing weird cross moves.

4x4: Redux
I never understood K4 or Cage so yeah.

5x5: Redux
Same

6x6: Centers, 4x4 edges, 5x5 edges, 3x3.
Yup.

7x7: Centers, 5x5 edges x2, 3x3.
Yeah.

 

[daniel0731ex]

LBL+incomplete 2s oll

i use this method because it's the method that im using now

 

[Abolish]

For 3x3 I'm using Roux, liked it from the first time I saw it, a plus is that it's fast and original

 

[GaroMaster1337]

^ ive never actually tried roux but it looks sorta fun, i still sove with petrus sometimes because its more fun than fridrich (in my opinion), even though im still pretty slow with it

 

[h5n1]

Back in December when I first started cubing I only knew of two methods; Petrus an Fridrich both of which I discovered through youtube. I had problems with both methods though. Petrus first step seemed really difficult, and the Fridrich method had far to many algs to be memorized. So I ended up doing a hybrid, with Fridrich F2L and "Petrus algs" for the final layer. This way I only had to learn 11 algs and got an easy way to start the solve.

 

[a small kitten]

I mainly 3x3 and I use ZZ for that. Still learning algs but it's very comfortable and fun.

 

[d4m4s74]

I use a combination of multiple LBL methods, beginner OLL (well, got a few algs) and 2look PLL

why?
it's easy to go to Fridrich from there, why fridrich?
lots of useful info everywhere

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

2x2x2: Ortega
Reason: It's fast and can be done from many angles

3x3x3 : Fridrich (Full)/ Some ZB cases for OLL skip
Reason: Fast, simple. I will maybe learn MGLS, winter variation, and some more ZBF2L algs when I get the chance

3x3x3 OH : Fridrich (Full)
Reason: Least rotations

3x3x3 BLD: Cycle/Pochmann
Reason: it's simple, fast, and efficient

4x4x4: Centers, Syuhei's edges, 3x3
Reason: Syuhei's method just because he is awesome...and I don't know many that use his method

5x5x5: Frank's method
Reason: Very fun