# Is this UWR? Sub-8 with Waterman



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

is it UWR?


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

Very impressive


Spoiler: But:



the fact that you don't have the scramble makes it sus. I just realized that I don't have my pb scramble either. Mines a pb by like .2 of a second though so no biggie. Finally, Eric fattah might have some solves or even waterman himself who was sub 17; ask around


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Very impressive
> 
> 
> Spoiler: But:
> ...


the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i remember, I do remember the whole solution. I feel like you think the solve is faked. I dont blame you but the solve was real. I just got lucky with it lol.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

I trust you, but people probably won't recognize this as the uwr without a scramble


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 21, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i remember, I do remember the whole solution. I feel like you think the solve is faked. I dont blame you but the solve was real. I just got lucky with it lol.


You can click the time on the session which will give you an option to view and copy the scramble.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I trust you, but people probably won't recognize this as the uwr without a scramble


i know, thats why im trying to get the scramble by watching the video in slow mothion even tho quality sucks


TheCubingCuber347 said:


> You can click the time on the session which will give you an option to view and copy the scramble.


what if i already accidentally deleted it?


----------



## voidrx (Aug 21, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> is it UWR?


there is only one time on the time list. Was this your first solve of the session? If so, thats really lucky to get on the first solve


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 21, 2021)

It does seem a little fishy…

As others have mentioned, the lack of a scramble, as well as that being the first solve in the session makes it look a little suspicious. (Not to speak for other people, but) even though a lot of people don’t want to say it, I can guess that some of them are thinking that because of your history on the forums (being banned countless times, making a lot of stupid posts, etc.) you would be likely to fake a solve. Another thing that I would like to add is that you didn’t really react that much. If it truly was a UWR, then I think that you would react more.

On a lighter note, though, I like the accent.


----------



## voidrx (Aug 21, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> It does seem a little fishy…
> 
> As others have mentioned, the lack of a scramble, as well as that being the first solve in the session makes it look a little suspicious. (Not to speak for other people, but) even though a lot of people don’t want to say it, I can guess that some of them are thinking that because of your history on the forums (being banned countless times, making a lot of stupid posts, etc.) you would be likely to fake a solve. Another thing that I would like to add is that you didn’t really react that much. If it truly was a UWR, then I think that you would react more.
> 
> On a lighter note, though, I like the accent.


i agree with everything here except the amount of reaction. That can't be really used because everyone's type of reaction is different. I've seen videos Max Park get World Records at a competition and he just does a hand pump and shows the time to his gopro. Others jump around hugging people and yelling "World Record!" This piece of reasoning just cant be used against lukascubes as it isn't a consistent thing among people that there would be a huge reaction. I hold the UWR single for Nautilus. I probably would have jumped up running around, I couldn't, as I was in a van on the way home from a mission trip to colorado.



LukasCubes said:


> i know, thats why im trying to get the scramble by watching the video in slow mothion even tho quality sucks
> 
> what if i already accidentally deleted it?


How do you accidentally delete the session? You literally have to click on the session "x" button, which you should know means delete, then a window pops up asking you if you really want to delete it. Then you click delete. You were given a chance to say "hey, this scramble is important to keep so that I have proof that I actually got that 7 legit, maybe I shouldn't delete it."


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

Rouxvolutionist said:


> there is only one time on the time list. Was this your first solve of the session? If so, thats really lucky to get on the first solve


no it wasnt the first solve, i kept deleting previous times lol. I even deleted the sub-8 right after filming.


Rouxvolutionist said:


> i agree with everything here except the amount of reaction. That can't be really used because everyone's type of reaction is different. I've seen videos Max Park get World Records at a competition and he just does a hand pump and shows the time to his gopro. Others jump around hugging people and yelling "World Record!" This piece of reasoning just cant be used against lukascubes as it isn't a consistent thing among people that there would be a huge reaction. I hold the UWR single for Nautilus. I probably would have jumped up running around, I couldn't, as I was in a van on the way home from a mission trip to colorado.


a previous PB (which at the time was 29.36) was actually in my moms car on the way home from school so I couldnt be like "MOM I GOT A PB!" I wouldnt have anyway so theres that.


BenChristman1 said:


> It does seem a little fishy…
> 
> As others have mentioned, the lack of a scramble, as well as that being the first solve in the session makes it look a little suspicious. (Not to speak for other people, but) even though a lot of people don’t want to say it, I can guess that some of them are thinking that because of your history on the forums (being banned countless times, making a lot of stupid posts, etc.) you would be likely to fake a solve. Another thing that I would like to add is that you didn’t really react that much. If it truly was a UWR, then I think that you would react more.
> 
> On a lighter note, though, I like the accent.


thanks for the accent thing but I dont react to things that often. Nobody where I live does.



GodCubing said:


> I trust you, but people probably won't recognize this as the uwr without a scramble


how are other times recognized without a scramble?


----------



## Sosimomonon (Aug 21, 2021)

They usually aren't and your reasoning for why you don't have the scramble is super sus.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

Sosimomonon said:


> They usually aren't and your reasoning for why you don't have the scramble is super sus.


i know its a bad reasoning but i remember the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i know


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

Actually, not having the scrble makes it less sus because of you faked it then you would have the scramble and you can make any set scramble look legit so you would spread it every where. Either way I believe that you got this solve legit so congrats.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

@GodCubing @Sosimomonon @Rouxvolutionist @BenChristman1 @TheCubingCuber347 here i got solution still trying to find scramble









alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 21, 2021)

Can't you just reverse the solution, use a cube solver to draw the scrambled state, and then reverse the optimal solution?


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Can't you just reverse the solution, use a cube solver to draw the scrambled state, and then reverse the optimal solution?


no im going to rubiks-cube-solver.com and find the solution and write the reverse of it here


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

Exciting


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_//_i...2_F2_D2_B2_R2_D2_L_B_F_R2_U_L2_R_B_U_F-_R-the scramble


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 21, 2021)

Could somebody post the solution and scramble here? I can't visit to alg.cubing.net due to firewall. : (


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 21, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Could somebody post the solution and scramble here? I can't visit to alg.cubing.net due to firewall. : (


I got you
x2 // inspection
F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
U' S U2 S' // Solve an Edge
z M2 U2 R U' M' U R' U' // 2 More Edges
M' U M' U M U M' U M U'// Last Edge cancel into Direct L5E Alg
x' U2 M U2 M' // Permute MIdges


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 21, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I got you
> x2 // inspection
> F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
> y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
> ...


2 More Edges was actually just 1 edge because I messed up the alg and did the wrong one


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 4, 2021)

believe me now? I got another sub-8


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 4, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> believe me now? I got another sub-8


why is it a premeire


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 4, 2021)

Spacey10 said:


> why is a premeire


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm probably so more people can see it at once, the vid is just 43 seconds tho


----------



## cuberswoop (Sep 4, 2021)

I can't wait 6 minutes I'm too impatient


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 4, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> I can't wait 6 minutes I'm too impatient


premiering now


----------



## voidrx (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> believe me now? I got another sub-8


i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 5, 2021)

Rouxvolutionist said:


> i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.


You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?


----------



## PiKeeper (Sep 5, 2021)

Rouxvolutionist said:


> i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.


I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're getting a bit too riled up over this. There definitely is the possibility that they just got lucky, and there's not enough evidence to definitively say whether the solves were faked or not. And this really isn't a thing you should be fighting over, it's not like they're claiming a sub-6 solve or anything.


LukasCubes said:


> You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?


You don't need to main waterman to know that the lookahead isn't good.


----------



## voidrx (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?


after corners, you have 9 edges unsolved, and 2 of those edges are in blindspots.


----------



## the dnf master (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> You dont main Waterman so who are you to tell me Waterman lookahead isnt good and my solves were faked?


You can't accuse anyone of not maining waterman and also make assumptions that by not maining the method, the person automatically knows nothing about the method. Second of all, the skepticism of your two sub 8 solves come from a straightforward reason. Who knows, maybe the solves weren't faked and the sub 8s are legit? I won't make assumptions here, but your response post is a completely unviable defense.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 5, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're getting a bit too riled up over this. There definitely is the possibility that they just got lucky, and there's not enough evidence to definitively say whether the solves were faked or not. And this really isn't a thing you should be fighting over, it's not like they're claiming a sub-6 solve or anything.
> 
> You don't need to main waterman to know that the lookahead isn't good.


A sub-6 solve i would have faked. One time when I was still new to cubing I faked a 29 second solve back when my PB was still like 50 seconds lol. Waterman lookahead to me isnt that bad. Also I did just get lucky with those 2 solves.


Rouxvolutionist said:


> after corners, you have 9 edges unsolved, and 2 of those edges are in blindspots.


1 edge is a blind spot. and you only need to look at like 5 edges after corners and solve 2-4 of them. Unless you solve all 5 on accident.


the dnf master said:


> You can't accuse anyone of not maining waterman and also make assumptions that by not maining the method, the person automatically knows nothing about the method. Second of all, the skepticism of your two sub 8 solves come from a straightforward reason. Who knows, maybe the solves weren't faked and the sub 8s are legit? I won't make assumptions here, but your response post is a completely unviable defense.


I never accused anyone of anything. Im just saying I just know more about the method than him and to me, lookahead of Waterman isnt that bad. And you see on the 2nd solve there are over 250 solves in a session (thanks to my progression thread). The sub-8s *WERE* legit.


----------



## Sosimomonon (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> A sub-6 solve i would have faked. One time when I was still new to cubing I faked a 29 second solve back when my PB was still like 50 seconds lol. Waterman lookahead to me isnt that bad. Also I did just get lucky with those 2 solves.
> 
> 1 edge is a blind spot. and you only need to look at like 5 edges after corners and solve 2-4 of them. Unless you solve all 5 on accident.
> 
> I never accused anyone of anything. Im just saying I just know more about the method than him and to me, lookahead of Waterman isnt that bad. And you see on the 2nd solve there are over 250 solves in a session (thanks to my progression thread). The sub-8s *WERE* legit.


So you want us to believe you because you wouldn't fake a PB twice as fast as your average, you'd fake one more than twice as fast as your average? Also, saying you've faked solves in the past doesn't exactly make you more trustworthy.


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> believe me now? I got another sub-8


Solid solve, seems like the fastest solve yo.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 5, 2021)

I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 5, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.


i have the scramble and recon in a later video for the 1st solve. Also the only reason there are over 250 solves in the session of 2nd solve was because of my progression thread I made a couple days ago


abunickabhi said:


> Solid solve, seems like the fastest solve yo.


7.84 was fastest solve but these idiots believe waterman isnt capable of sub-8 solves at all


Sosimomonon said:


> So you want us to believe you because you wouldn't fake a PB twice as fast as your average, you'd fake one more than twice as fast as your average? Also, saying you've faked solves in the past doesn't exactly make you more trustworthy.


exactly... I know it will be a long time until I get a sub-6 so my averages would HAVE to be faster to get a real sub-6 lol



BenChristman1 said:


> I think that the first solve (supposed YTUWR) was almost for sure faked due to the lack of a scramble and the fact that it was the first solve in the session. This second one is much more legit, because it has a scramble, reconstruction, and that it was after multiple solves that you got it. I really hope that we can trust you on this one, and you’re not just fixing all the things that you did wrong in your last fake solve.


@BenChristman1 No cramble? No Recon?
L2 D' F2 L2 F2 D2 B2 R2 D2 L B F R2 U L2 R B U F' R' // Scramble
x2 // inspection
F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
y' R U' L' U R' U' L // Niklas CLL
U' S U2 S' // Solve an Edge
z M2 U2 R U' M' U R' U' // Edge alg messed up (supposed to do an M not an M2)
M' U M' U M U M' U M U'// Last Edge cancel into Direct L5E Alg x' U2 M U2 M'
// Permute MIdges
Moves: 37 STM
Time: 7.844
TPS: Almost 4.7

I would DM you about this but SS wont let me


----------



## the dnf master (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> 7.84 was fastest solve but these idiots believe waterman isnt capable of sub-8 solves at all


You just said that you aren't making any accusations and then you call people who are a little bit skeptical(at least I am) idiots?
I never said waterman isn't capable of sub 8 and I never said directly that your solves are faked. You have no right to control anyone else's beliefs, and being toxic about it is the worst way to convince that the sub 8s are legit.


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 5, 2021)

I believe you, Lukas, but you should calm down. It is for the best.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 5, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> You just said that you aren't making any accusations and then you call people who are a little bit skeptical(at least I am) idiots?
> I never said waterman isn't capable of sub 8 and I never said directly that your solves are faked. You have no right to control anyone else's beliefs, and being toxic about it is the worst way to convince that the sub 8s are legit.


well i wasnt talking about you. Calling people idiots isnt accusing them of anything.



GodCubing said:


> I believe you, Lukas, but you should calm down. It is for the best.


Meh, ok probably later tho im in the middle of something here


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 5, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> @BenChristman1 No cramble? No Recon?
> L2 D' F2 L2 F2 D2 B2 R2 D2 L B F R2 U L2 R B U F' R' // Scramble
> x2 // inspection
> F2 L2' U L // Waterman 1st Layer
> ...






LukasCubes said:


> the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i remember, I do remember the whole solution. I feel like you think the solve is faked. I dont blame you but the solve was real. I just got lucky with it lol.





LukasCubes said:


> i know its a bad reasoning but i remember the scramble starts with D R' L' thats all i know


In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.



LukasCubes said:


> https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_//_inspection F2_L2-_U_L_//_Waterman_1st_Layer y-_R_U-_L-_U_R-_U-_L_//_Niklas_CLL U-_S_U2_S-_//_Solve_an_Edge z_M2_U2_R_U-_M-_U_R-_U-_//_Edge_&#2b;_setup_(i_actually_messed_up_and_meant_to_do_an_M_move_but_I_did_an_M2_instead._I_did_realize_instantly_and_what_I_did_was_finish_with_U-_to_insert_the_last_edge_before_going_into_the_direct_L5E_alg) M-_U_M-_U_M_U_M-_U_M_U-//_Last_Edge_cancel_into_Direct_L5E_Alg x-_U2_M_U2_M-_//_Permute_MIdges&type=reconstruction&setup=L2_D-_F2_L2_F2_D2_B2_R2_D2_L_B_F_R2_U_L2_R_B_U_F-_R-the scramble




Also, it’s not very smart or tactful of you to call the people who doubt the method idiots. The fact of the matter is that it is not a great method, and there are many methods that are much better. But, if you’re going to debate with somebody about anything, calling them names and being rude isn’t going to get them to change their mind or respect your opinion.

Another way to make people respect and believe you is to put more effort into your posts to make sure that they look like they weren’t thrown together in 10 seconds, along with making sure that you’re not offending anybody in the process, because like I said, that’s not going to help you at all.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 5, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.


I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 5, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.


No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 5, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.


Oops... I do remember that recon though + the three move S U2 S'. Very suspicious. (I also think Lukas has made more posts than even hellocubers did in one week. What's sad is that they're all just damaging him and contradicting truth/himself.


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 6, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> The fact of the matter is that it is not a great method, and there are many methods that are much better.


How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 6, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds


Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)

1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet. 
3. I don’t need to be an expert on Waterman to say that it’s not as good as other methods. The movecount is worse than Roux, the ergonomics are worse than CFOP, Roux, and ZZ, and corners-first methods have been proven to be worse than the methods that most speedsolvers use today.
4. At least be grammatically correct if you’re going to try to sway my opinion.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 6, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i lost the scramble and i went to rubiks-cube-solver.com to give the solution to the scramble and I write the reverse of that (I remember the entire solution). I'm not trying to offend anyone tho. Sorry if I am.


TheCubingCuber347 said:


> I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.


That recon was the 1st scramble. The 2nd scramble isnt at alg.cubing.net yet but it will be later.


BenChristman1 said:


> No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.


correct


TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Oops... I do remember that recon though + the three move S U2 S'. Very suspicious. (I also think Lukas has made more posts than even hellocubers did in one week. What's sad is that they're all just damaging him and contradicting truth/himself.





GodCubing said:


> How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds


1 word: Fingertricks


BenChristman1 said:


> Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)
> 
> 1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
> 2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
> ...


Although I have a VERY different opinion, I cannot stop you from from changing opinions


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 6, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)
> 
> 1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
> 2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
> ...


There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.


----------



## kubesolver (Sep 6, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)
> 
> 1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
> 2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
> ...


I am confused
2. But that's exactly what's needed to prove the method is good. The inverse implication is not true. 
3. But Roux is corners first method.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 6, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.


Before telling people to do more research make sure you do yours first. There are solves even before the World Championships that were faster than the first "official" world record. If you read blogs about the first world championships you see that the competitors were given absolutely trash cubes that affected there times. Not many top solvers were to impressed with it. http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cubewrld.html (Were you can read it). While Ben didn't make the best argument but it's kind of hard to deny that Waterman has bad ergonomics. It's not the worst out there but that doesn't mean that it is good.
You don't need to main a method to know it's not good. That's one of the reasons so few people main Waterman.


----------



## the dnf master (Sep 6, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.


i have absolutely no idea why people are having an argument about waterman being competitively viable as a speedsolving method. the wiki itself states that little attention has been paid to waterman, and not many people use it. You say that the first world record was set using a corners first method. That's great, but the method discussion is about now, not the past. Right now, waterman is simply worse than the other popular methods.
It's a good method, but relative to CFOP, Roux, ZZ etc, it's is worse


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 6, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.


1. Even though the WCA recognizes it, it doesn’t mean that they should. The WCA Regulations were not followed, therefore it should not be a result in the WCA database.
2. No, just no.
3. The Wiki says that Roux has an average movecount of 48. It doesn’t specify which metric, but I am going to assume that it is HTM, because it is very easy to get lower than that using STM. Waterman has an average movecount of 50+ HTM, which means that Roux does have a better movecount.

As far as the ergonomics go, Roux is RrUM gen for the entire solve after FB (which is only about 8 moves from my experience, although the Wiki doesn’t say). How is a method that has random cube rotations in the middle of it better than a method that has no rotations and only has moves along 2 axes?




kubesolver said:


> I am confused
> 2. But that's exactly what's needed to prove the method is good. The inverse implication is not true.
> 3. But Roux is corners first method.


I think that just because one person is good with a method, that doesn’t mean that everyone is or can be.

You could call CFCE a corners-first method if that’s your definition. Approximately the same number of pieces are solved before solving the corners.

(After all the arguing I’m doing for Roux, maybe I should switch…)


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 6, 2021)

im just glad im not in this argument lol


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 6, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> im just glad im not in this argument lol


Yeah but I think you need to hire a better lawyer to defend Waterman.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 6, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Yeah but I think you need to hire a better lawyer to defend Waterman.


I probably do lol


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 6, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> 3. The Wiki says that Roux has an average movecount of 48. It doesn’t specify which metric, but I am going to assume that it is HTM, because it is very easy to get lower than that using STM. Waterman has an average movecount of 50+ HTM, which means that Roux does have a better movecount.


Say what you want about the past world record, and your argument is circular for the second point. the 3rd point is where you are dead wrong. You assumed that 48 is HTM. It is not. Roux averages 48 moves STM and Waterman averages 40-45 moves. Some rouxers do believe that roux's movecount could be lowered to 46 for advanced solvers, but either way Waterman is less moves. Ergo-wise, you might be right, but I actually enjoy waterman ergo.
As for why your argument is circular on point 2... You said that just because one person is fast with a method does not make it good. Then how do you justify a new method ermerging. I think that every method has to start somewhere, and I also think it only takes one person to prove it is viable. If only one person is fast with it then it isn't a good method and no one should use it, so therefore no one uses it and it is a bad method because no one uses it and it never gets fast so it must be a bad method because no one gave it a chance.

Also, I'm not sure who said this, but someone said getting a PB 1/2 your average is unlikely, but I disagree. I know someone who averages 12-13 and has a 6 as a pb. There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.



LukasCubes said:


> I probably do lol


you definitely do. I suck at this


----------



## CubeRed (Sep 7, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.


Not to be a part of the argument, but I have a PB single of 11 and average 19.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 7, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Also, I'm not sure who said this, but someone said getting a PB 1/2 your average is unlikely, but I disagree. I know someone who averages 12-13 and has a 6 as a pb. There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.





Rouxvolutionist said:


> i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.


Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 dont he average like 6-7?

Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 do not he average like 6-7?
> 
> Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.


He averages low-6 high-5 at home (Max Park on the other hand is sub-6 global. I'm not sure about Tymon/Matty/Ruihang). I think the whole PB single thing is a pretty weak argument. Yusheng Du got a 3.47 when he averaged 7 seconds and he got a 9 second average that round. The current skewb single holder averaged 6 second when he got the WR.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 7, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> He averages low-6 high-5 at home (Max Park on the other hand is sub-6 global. I'm not sure about Tymon/Matty/Ruihang). I think the whole PB single thing is a pretty weak argument. Yusheng Du got a 3.47 when he averaged 7 seconds and he got a 9 second average that round. The current skewb single holder averaged 6 second when he got the WR.


theres my point, I got lucky, no fu- i mean fakes


----------



## voidrx (Sep 7, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 dont he average like 6-7?
> 
> Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.


He avgs 5-6. At that level tho it kind of matters less how fast u are and matters more on whether u can have good pickup, good lookahead and good tps (which xu has plenty of that lol)


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2021)

Rouxvolutionist said:


> He avgs 5-6. At that level tho it kind of matters less how fast u are and matters more on whether u can have good pickup, good lookahead and good tps (which xu has plenty of that lol)


But... you have to be fast to be at that level... and... those three things help you to become fast... (You left out efficiency)


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 7, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> . I'm not sure about Tymon


Tymon has gotten a sub-6 average in every comp that he has gone to for like the past ten competitions. You can most definitely say Tymon is sub-6


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 7, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Say what you want about the past world record, and your argument is circular for the second point. the 3rd point is where you are dead wrong. You assumed that 48 is HTM. It is not. Roux averages 48 moves STM and Waterman averages 40-45 moves. Some rouxers do believe that roux's movecount could be lowered to 46 for advanced solvers, but either way Waterman is less moves. Ergo-wise, you might be right, but I actually enjoy waterman ergo.
> As for why your argument is circular on point 2... You said that just because one person is fast with a method does not make it good. Then how do you justify a new method ermerging. I think that every method has to start somewhere, and I also think it only takes one person to prove it is viable. If only one person is fast with it then it isn't a good method and no one should use it, so therefore no one uses it and it is a bad method because no one uses it and it never gets fast so it must be a bad method because no one gave it a chance.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure who said this, but someone said getting a PB 1/2 your average is unlikely, but I disagree. I know someone who averages 12-13 and has a 6 as a pb. There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.


Honestly, your arguments just don’t make sense. I have a reason to assume that Roux averages 48 STM and not 48 HTM, but you are assuming that it’s HTM just because that’s what helps your argument. You have no evidence to back up your argument, but even though I have very little, it is still better given the lack of specificity there is.

I don’t think that a method is viable until multiple people are good at it. (At least 25+) A new method becomes popular if people get good at it. Right now, Mehta, for example, is in a phase where it has a ton of potential, but it still needs more people and better times to back it up. I may switch to it in the future, but as of now, it hasn’t been proven yet. A new method has to have people who are willing to jump in to develop and improve it. For me, Mehta is a really fun method to casually solve with, but it’s not quite to the point where I think that it is developed enough to switch to.



MJbaka said:


> Tymon has gotten a sub-6 average in every comp that he has gone to for like the past ten five competitions. You can most definitely say Tymon is sub-6


But yeah, Tymon is probably globally sub-6.


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 7, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Honestly, your arguments just don’t make sense. I have a reason to assume that Roux averages 48 STM and not 48 HTM, but you are assuming that it’s HTM just because that’s what helps your argument. You have no evidence to back up your argument, but even though I have very little, it is still better given the lack of specificity there is.


Roux averages 48 STM I use and main the method. Ask literally anyone who uses roux they will tell you that the 48 is STM. Also, since waterman uses slice moves there is no point in using the HTM average movecount since that isn't the ETM (ergonomic movecount) or the true movecount in a speedsolve.


----------

