# Which method needs the most support now?



## StachuK1992 (May 3, 2009)

I was thinking about creating a video series about solving the cube, sort of an intro to cubing, and was wondering what to go with.

If the series was only for beginners, I would probably decide between Roux and ZZ.

Also, I've been thinking for a long time about making a Heise tutorial, as there is none as far as I know, and was wondering what the thoughts of others would be.

So, what intro-to-cubing series should I make, and do you think that a Heise tutorial is a good idea?


----------



## byu (May 3, 2009)

Definitely Roux or ZZ.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 3, 2009)

That much is decided, but which?

...and EO is gonna be fun (not) to explain to beginners...


----------



## byu (May 3, 2009)

EO is pretty easy to explain to beginners. Just watch some 3OP tutorials, and you'll get the hang of it.


----------



## soccerking813 (May 3, 2009)

I would say make a ZZ video, because I have not stumbled across one in my limited browsing of youtube and the forums. And there are already a couple of Roux videos.


----------



## Gparker (May 3, 2009)

corners first method. and soccerking,ive seen plenty of ZZ videos, mostly on the EO line


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 3, 2009)

ZZ is difficult to explain to beginners...
Explaining the cross is hard enough, but EOLine... *shudders*
Corners first is pretty intuitive, once you know how to do the corners.
But a tutorial would be nice for that all the same. If I were you, I would do a ZZ tutorial. There are already a few CF tutorials.

EDIT: There aren't, actually. Go corners first.


----------



## Escher (May 3, 2009)

I'm going to sound hypocritical, big-headed, and gung-ho in my attitude... 

But CF ineffably sucks. 
Just sit and think about most methods, how they usually encourage quite free movement, particularly of easy sides to solve, such as R and U. They mostly discourage setting big limits on moves you can do, at least reasonably, and if they don't, that is to your advantage (i.e ZZ)
Then sit and think about what you do with CF methods.

... got it?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 4, 2009)

Yes, but all the same...
It would be nice to see some representation.
I mean, I'm not going to switch to CF after watching the tutorial, but I'll certainly play around with it a bit.

And you don't sound "hypocritical, big-headed, and gung-ho", in my opinion, except for the part where you say CF ineffably sucks.


----------



## Escher (May 4, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Yes, but all the same...
> It would be nice to see some representation.
> I mean, I'm not going to switch to CF after watching the tutorial, but I'll certainly play around with it a bit.



Maybe I am being rather dogmatic. 
If stachuk is actually considering a series of beginner videos, I'd imagine a full blown Roux tutorial, plus a couple of extra videos outlining other methods and where to find information on them might be a good idea. At least, I'd watch it.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 4, 2009)

Escher said:


> Just sit and think about most methods, how they usually encourage quite free movement, particularly of easy sides to solve, such as R and U.
> 
> Then sit and think about what you do with CF methods.


First you solve the corners, leaving all slices free. Then you solve the edges using a lot of slice moves. Is your point that slices are not "easy sides to solve"?


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 4, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Also, I've been thinking for a long time about making a Heise tutorial, as there is none as far as I know, and was wondering what the thoughts of others would be.


The first vide result when you Google for "Heise Tutorial"

Anyhow, I think MGLS needs some support, because it only seems to be misunderstood... but I'm just slightly biased. :-/


----------



## Escher (May 4, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > Just sit and think about most methods, how they usually encourage quite free movement, particularly of easy sides to solve, such as R and U.
> ...



Sorry I'll retract that statement - 'easy sides to solve' is the wrong way of putting it. 
Afaik, there are a lot more slice moves in solving the 'second half' of CF methods than are used in other methods.

I am slow at M, E or S turns, and I regard these to be restricting. I am a lot faster at executing turns like R, U, L and F which are involved more in other methods, so I regard these moves to be less restrictive.

So to me, solving corners first creates an 'unnecessary' restriction reasonably early on in the solve, whereas in other methods you are 'restricted' differently, to turns that I am faster at executing. 
Perhaps thats a little bit clearer, its very late here, so if there are any replies wanted they won't be given for a while.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 4, 2009)

Lucas...not that one; the other Heise method.
i.e.- http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html

Oh; and I'm not doing CF.
Ever. I completely agree with Escher with his ORIGINAL post, before he wussied out and tried to defend himself.


----------



## Escher (May 4, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Lucas...not that one; the other Heise method.
> i.e.- http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html
> 
> Oh; and I'm not doing CF.
> Ever. I completely agree with Escher with his ORIGINAL post, before he wussied out and tried to defend himself.



Lol, the fear of getting pwned by johannes is too great for me to ever say anything securely when confronted by him.
And i just thought about it - during corners first, surely every move you make after solving the corners is just a process of continually destroying and then adding to what you have just made, using lots of slice turns? Sounds like Heise's worst nightmare.


----------



## shoot1510 (May 4, 2009)

How about waterman method? I bet you don't remember how waterman method start.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 4, 2009)

Escher said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > Lucas...not that one; the other Heise method.
> ...



So, when someone supports you, you bring your morals back? Haha. I like to, and therefore tend to, stick to my opinions unless others actually explain how my opinions are false.


----------



## Haste_cube (May 4, 2009)

Definitely Heise method.


----------



## abr71310 (May 4, 2009)

Intuitive Thistlethwaite (the Heise method edition!) or some Extended Cross / Advanced F2L method tricks (empty slots, mismatched pairs, fun stuff with Fridrich not normally found on the internet or YouTube since there's so many examples and so few are covered...)


----------



## irontwig (May 4, 2009)

shoot1510 said:


> How about waterman method? I bet you don't remember how waterman method start.



Yeah, it's quite crazy that a method that starts with a layer can be that fast (Waterman avg about 16s, iirc).


----------



## JTW2007 (May 4, 2009)

Perhaps EJF2L + Fridrich PLL?

If not that, then definitely Roux.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (May 4, 2009)

You're gonna get a lot of answers, I just say Roux for the hell of it.


----------



## TMOY (May 4, 2009)

Escher said:


> I am slow at M, E or S turns, and I regard these to be restricting. I am a lot faster at executing turns like R, U, L and F which are involved more in other methods, so I regard these moves to be less restrictive.
> So to me, solving corners first creates an 'unnecessary' restriction reasonably early on in the solve, whereas in other methods you are 'restricted' differently, to turns that I am faster at executing.


In other words, you claim CF sucks only because *you* suck at CF ?
M and E turns can be fast if you work on them. (S is more difficult but you can avoid S moves.)
"No freedom of movement" is probably the most clueless comment I've ever read about CF (it even beats the "lots of moves" thing I'm sick of hearing). The point of the method is precisely to let you have much freedom to solve as many edges as possible intuitively after finishing the corners.


----------



## Faz (May 4, 2009)

Fridrich - Derr.


----------



## Escher (May 4, 2009)

TMOY said:


> In other words, you claim CF sucks only because *you* suck at CF ?
> M and E turns can be fast if you work on them. (S is more difficult but you can avoid S moves.)
> "No freedom of movement" is probably the most clueless comment I've ever read about CF (it even beats the "lots of moves" thing I'm sick of hearing). The point of the method is precisely to let you have much freedom to solve as many edges as possible intuitively after finishing the corners.



Well, after 2 drafts, I've regressed to a simple explanation of my opinion because its really quite futile to try and argue conclusively for and against a method, seeing as its mostly based on individual differences and opinion:


CF sucks because nobody has ever shown me that it doesn't suck.


----------



## irontwig (May 4, 2009)

Escher said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you claim CF sucks only because *you* suck at CF ?
> ...



That depends what you with "CF", if you mean pure CF, ie solving all corners before solving any edges, then I agree. If you mean one of the more popular method back in day, if I'm not mistaken of starting with one face with a edge missing then I don't really I agree with you.


----------



## Escher (May 4, 2009)

irontwig said:


> That depends what you with "CF", if you mean pure CF, ie solving all corners before solving any edges, then I agree. If you mean one of the more popular method back in day, if I'm not mistaken of starting with one face with a edge missing then I don't really I agree with you.



I mean pure CF, in that case. Does that method mean that you solve a layer minus an edge however you want, then solve the opposite corners, then solve the rest of the edges?


----------



## irontwig (May 4, 2009)

Escher said:


> irontwig said:
> 
> 
> > That depends what you with "CF", if you mean pure CF, ie solving all corners before solving any edges, then I agree. If you mean one of the more popular method back in day, if I'm not mistaken of starting with one face with a edge missing then I don't really I agree with you.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## TMOY (May 5, 2009)

Of course if you compare beginner/intermediate versions of CF with the most advanced methods you will find it inefficient. But that's not a fair comparison.
People have no clue about CF, period. This is not the first time I notice that, and it's aprticularly obvious when they refer to it at "the CF method", which is absurd, there are lots of different CFs. And that's precisely the reason why they really need support.


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 5, 2009)

somerandomkidmike has a 16s average I think? for waterman.


----------



## cmhardw (May 5, 2009)

[facetious]You young whipper snappers probably don't remember David Allen or Gene Means, but they were pretty good with the slice turns.[/facetious]

Seriously though, they are probably arguably some of the fastest CF solvers around, or at least they were in 2003. Also I don't like the statement that CF must suck because no one has proven it to be awesome. How about this statement:

"Grenades don't kill people because I have never seen any grenade go off and kill a person."

Just because you haven't seen someone fast at using CF doesn't mean that others of us have never seen fast CF solvers. Be careful with your blanket statements grasshopper.

Chris

-- edit --
Consider that David Allen placed 6th at the 2003 World Championships. And even that was with him choking. He placed 3rd in the first round and 2nd in the second round. Also, notice that the winning Fridrich average was only 91.2% of his time. What I mean to say is that back then CF was very close to Fridrich speed in competition. Now I don't know if David is still practicing, he was pretty secretive even at the time. But you get the idea, I don't think CF is a method that can be written off. What if instead of a massive Fridrich revolution where everyone studied how to better that method, if everyone studied CF instead. CF could **easily** be sub-15 if someone worked just as hard at it as people currently work in their methods. I have no doubt of that. Sure it might be using some slight variation of CF that either has been invented in secret, or maybe not yet invented. But I have no doubt that had CF been the method of choice for the masses, that it would be getting sub-15 averages by now. Easily.


----------



## Lofty (May 5, 2009)

I have seen sub-20 CF done by Jeff Goetz but he hasn't competed in awhile. 
Personally I don't think CF can be as fast as other methods but I'd like to proven wrong with a sub-15 or so CF average.


----------



## rachmaninovian (May 5, 2009)

i'm actually willing to switch to CF...
but I have to find the right CF method for myself =P


----------



## Neroflux (May 5, 2009)

r4 needs the most support now.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 5, 2009)

Roux is just a haxed form of CF. You just manipulate it so "a lot of slice turns" becomes "a lot of M turns."


----------



## blah (May 5, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> Roux is just a haxed form of CF. You just manipulate it so "a lot of slice turns" becomes "a lot of M turns."



Exactly what I wanted to say.


----------



## Kian (May 5, 2009)

I will never be able to see the acronym "CF" and think of corners first. And if you don't know what I'm referring to, you're likely too young for me to tell you.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 5, 2009)

Kian said:


> I will never be able to see the acronym "CF" and think of corners first. And if you don't know what I'm referring to, you're likely too young for me to tell you.



Cubic foot? Californium? Cystic Fibrosis? Call forwarding? Compact flash? Cash flow? Center fielder? Calgary Flames?


----------



## guusrs (May 6, 2009)

irontwig said:


> shoot1510 said:
> 
> 
> > How about waterman method? I bet you don't remember how waterman method start.
> ...


It is not a first layer method, The secret is one missing edge: the hole!
Gus


----------



## hippofluff (May 6, 2009)

Roux needs the most support


----------



## irontwig (May 6, 2009)

guusrs said:


> irontwig said:
> 
> 
> > shoot1510 said:
> ...



Well, you should know, since you know (or used to know) each outer, but Josef Jelinek claims that you the Waterman method starts with one layer: 
http://rubikscube.info/waterman/stage1.php 
The one completed layer is something I always found both strange, since it impedes freedom and something that set it apart from other CF methods (e.g, Mihn Thai's).


----------

