# the sub-20 secret



## jms_gears1 (Jul 28, 2009)

*warning this is not for the skeptical(sp)*

I have been conducting a study and i have found the secret, method if you will, to getting sub 20 averages, and now i have decided is the time to unveil what i believe to be the one and only true way to get sub 20 times.

The first thing you have to is buy 300 rubiks cube preferablly DIY glow in the dark cubes. Next buy cubesmith tiles enough for all of your DIY cubes.

now you must build an elaborate sacrificial shrine in honor of Erik and Yu.

Next pick a cat, a male who is perfect in everyway.

place the cat on the alter and set a DIY next to it.

now dance around it in such a manner that it will please the masters of the cube who will bestow upon you the ultimate knowledge, the one thing that will bring your times down steadily over time.

They will tell you to... *Practice*

i was bored and was messing with some of the tags to...


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> i have found the secret, method if you will, to getting sub 20 averages



Fridrich?

petrus, roux, heise, waterman, triangular francisco, zz, mgls, zb, and lbl are also fine


----------



## Siraj A. (Jul 28, 2009)

Or you can just use Petrus.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 28, 2009)

Or you can just use Salvia


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 28, 2009)

qqwref said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > i have found the secret, method if you will, to getting sub 20 averages
> ...



I was thinking about this today, are there many people that use it and is it worth learning all of the algs?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2009)

No and maybe. Depends what you value in cubing.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 28, 2009)

qqwref said:


> No and maybe. Depends what you value in cubing.



I guess, but I think it would be interesting to have as a second method.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 28, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > No and maybe. Depends what you value in cubing.
> ...



NO! You use Roux. You don't switch from Roux to Fridrich, only from Fridrich to Roux.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 28, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



The question was about waterman, not Fridrich.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 28, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> NO! You use Roux. You don't switch from Roux to Fridrich, only from Fridrich to Roux.



Who said I was switching to Fridrich?


----------



## bwatkins (Jul 28, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> *warning this is not for the skeptical(sp)*
> 
> I have been conducting a study and i have found the secret, method if you will, to getting sub 20 averages, and now i have decided is the time to unveil what i believe to be the one and only true way to get sub 20 times.
> 
> ...



HA HA HA. We should all try this!!


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 28, 2009)

Oh haha, you must have read "are there many people that use it and is it worth learning all of the algs?" as "there are many people that use it and is it worth learning all of the algs?". It was 2 questions, not 1.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 28, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Oh haha, you must have read "are there many people that use it and is it worth learning all of the algs?" as "there are many people that use it and is it worth learning all of the algs?". It was 2 questions, not 1.



And he gave you two answers, not one.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 28, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> And he gave you two answers, not one.



I was talking about JTW2007, he thought that the first was a statement, and the second was a question.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 28, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > And he gave you two answers, not one.
> ...



My bad. When I hit the thread it brought me to the second page so I just assumed that I'd read everything on the first page, so I thought you were referring to qq.


----------



## TheMatureOne (Jul 28, 2009)

No! You are all wrong! ZZ>Fridrich>Petrus>Roux>Everything else except for beginner's>beginner's


----------



## Musturd (Jul 28, 2009)

TheMatureOne said:


> No! You are all wrong! ZZ>Fridrich>Petrus>Roux>Everything else except for beginner's>beginner's



I agree that ZZ should be first.
Otherwise, I disagree.


----------



## Dene (Jul 28, 2009)

I would have enjoyed that post if the poster had used better grammar; particularly capitalisations.


----------



## IamWEB (Jul 28, 2009)

But jms, tell them about the trick though.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 28, 2009)

No, it goes Roux > everything.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 28, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> No, it goes Roux > everything.



agreed
98% of Roux solvers agree


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2009)

You guys are silly, it is approximately like so:
Roux = Fridrich > ZZ = Petrus > TFM = LBL/beginners


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 28, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it goes Roux > everything.
> ...



This can mean one of two things:

1) There are 50 people that solve with Roux
2) Someone has a split personality


----------



## blah (Jul 28, 2009)

Actually, I think full-blown TFM > LBL/beginners


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 28, 2009)

qqwref said:


> You guys are silly, it is approximately like so:
> Roux = Fridrich > ZZ = Petrus > TFM = LBL/beginners



But you do big cubes!
Reduction-Fridrich>reduction-other>sandwich>k4>others.

For 3x3 (speed, HTM FMC, OH combined), its more like Petrus>ZZ>Fridrich>others


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 28, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Reduction-Fridrich>reduction-other>sandwich>k4>others.



Stadler > everything.


----------



## mark3 (Jul 28, 2009)

Dene said:


> I would have enjoyed that post if the poster had used better grammar; particularly *capitalisations*.



I would have enjoyed your post more if you could check your spelling.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 28, 2009)

mark3 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I would have enjoyed that post if the poster had used better grammar; particularly *capitalisations*.
> ...



That spelling is also acceptable.


----------



## Kyle™ (Jul 28, 2009)

Maybe in a third world country where people switch completely different letters around because they sound the same.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 28, 2009)

I lolled and then I realised... I used a dog and only got to 20.30 

Also, since nobody mentions keyhole in there lists that must mean that it either comes first...or last


----------



## Dene (Jul 28, 2009)

mark3 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I would have enjoyed that post if the poster had used better grammar; particularly *capitalisations*.
> ...



I would flame you but I'm already sick of flaming ignorant Americans for having no idea how the english language works.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 28, 2009)

Dene said:


> mark3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


I lol'ed at Dene yeah us crazy American*'s* lol. But it isn't all Americans he is clearly a moron. But I know that in countries other than the USA write colour and not color. But if I were to write colour on an English paper (I'm in the USA it would be incorrect). Maybe he is just a kid younger than 12, not knowing how to be near intelligent? 

P.S: Spell check option doesn't pick up google as a word, or colour but it does find capatilisation.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 28, 2009)

Dene said:


> I would flame you but I'm already sick of flaming ignorant Americans for having no idea how the english language works.



Not to mention our use of the US Customary System, when clearly the Metric system is far superior.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 28, 2009)

Paul Wagner said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > mark3 said:
> ...


Please, stop nitpicking on people's grammar, especially when it is about minor issues like this. As long as the content of the message is clear, there should be no reason to make remarks like this.

Personnaly I have no idea when to use color/colour, capitalise/capitalize, pants/trousers or any other petty UK/US differences. I already struggle enough with of/off, than/then and many other things (helpful, fulfil with a single "l" while full and fill both have 2???)


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jul 28, 2009)

Siraj A. said:


> Or you can just use Petrus.


Or you can just use Petrus.


----------



## IamWEB (Jul 28, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Personnaly I have no idea when to use color/colour, capitalise/capitalize, pants/trousers or any other petty UK/US differences.



There is no time to us one or the other, just use whatever. They both work. They're the same language coming from different places, so just use what you want.



AvGalen said:


> I already struggle enough with of/off, than/then and many other things



"I can think of a time..." "He's so full of hate..." "Fill the bottle with lots of water..."

"Turn those lights off." "Turn the game off and do your chores!" "He's gonna 'blow if his top off' if you don't do what he tell you to!"

"I'd rather shoot myself than punch Dene B." "Micheal Jordan is better than you...." "More often than not, people...."

"First, turn on the lights. Then you won't bump into all of the knives."
"Then, as he opened the door..." "First, then, afterwards..."

Than is usually with a comparison, then is usually dealing with time and order.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 29, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Reduction-Fridrich>reduction-other>sandwich>k4>others.
> ...



Niiiice, I've been wanting to get started on Stadler for my Revenge.



Paul Wagner said:


> But I know that in countries other than the USA write colour and not color. But if I were to write colour on an English paper (I'm in the USA it would be incorrect).



Colo*u*r is awesome, while we are here, is it gr*e*y, or gr*a*y?


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...



No. A long time ago, I liked it and used it a bit, but really it sucks.
If you even use a cage variant, you might as well as do sandwich or K4. But reduction is just so amazing. Waffle uses reduction and is better when the 3x3x3 stage is solved with LBL. 
For 4x4x4, I usually do opposite centers-adjacent- adjacent-6-2-2-2; other types of pairing make little difference.
For 5x5x5, 6x6x6, and 7x7x7, I would say freeslice>AVG>others.

Do try Stadler, but I suspect that you will switch to K4 or reduction or just not do big cubes much.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Jul 29, 2009)

Musturd said:


> TheMatureOne said:
> 
> 
> > No! You are all wrong! ZZ>Fridrich>Petrus>Roux>Everything else except for beginner's>beginner's
> ...



I agree with your disagreeing, Of course,it would be FULL ZZ>Fredrich=Petrus=Roux, depending on preference, and Beginner's can be fast-ish too =)


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 29, 2009)

No you're all wrong it's:

Graham Parker method > every other method


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 29, 2009)

I would just like to say i personally hate the english language. Its stupid and has to many ambiguities in it, such as the word 'up'. I think that my post was easy enough to read and it gets the point across.

as far as methods go i prefer Petrus to other methods. I use fridrich because im not the best with bad edges or step 4 yet but i am working on it. So heres what im going to say.

Graham Parker method>Petrus=Roux=zz>fridrich>LBL


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm not going to argue the positive traits of my method of choice. Poop on you.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I'm not going to argue the positive traits of my method of choice. Poop on you.



was this at me or someone else?


----------



## spdcbr (Jul 29, 2009)

What's the fun in doing the ritual if you tell us what the gods say to you? We need to try it ourselves!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 29, 2009)

hmm good point... How do use the spoiler tags i didnt see them


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 30, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> No. A long time ago, I liked it and used it a bit, but really it sucks.
> If you even use a cage variant, you might as well as do sandwich or K4. But reduction is just so amazing. Waffle uses reduction and is better when the 3x3x3 stage is solved with LBL.
> For 4x4x4, I usually do opposite centers-adjacent- adjacent-6-2-2-2; other types of pairing make little difference.
> For 5x5x5, 6x6x6, and 7x7x7, I would say freeslice>AVG>others.
> ...



Currently I solve it by pairing the edges _as_ I insert them for the cross/F2L. But as soon as I get to the last layer I have to use one of my algs to cycle 3 edges untill its solved, are there ELL algorithms for the 4x4?


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 30, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > No. A long time ago, I liked it and used it a bit, but really it sucks.
> ...



I think the former WR holder Yuki Hayashi had a few ELL algs but I recently checked his site and now there's barely anything.... 
Other than that, I don't know any other sites which have/had ELL algs for the 4x4x4.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 30, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> I think the former WR holder Yuki Hayashi had a few ELL algs but I recently checked his site and now there's barely anything....



Hmm, cause getting to the LL edges on my Rubik's brand 4x4 usually takes me 2 minutes or less, and I don't practice at all.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 30, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > I think the former WR holder Yuki Hayashi had a few ELL algs but I recently checked his site and now there's barely anything....
> ...



Search for K4. 
http://rxdeath.com/k4/step7.html


----------

