# Sub-20 with Less common methods



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm looking in to both Roux and Petrus for the 3x3, because Fridrich is getting a little boring, and to still keep interest in the 3x3, I'm looking in to these two block building methods, but the problem is, I'm looking to get back to the speed I am with Fridrich as soon as possible. I've heard Petrus is slower than Fridrich getting sub-20, but is Roux slower than Petrus?


----------



## joey (Jul 16, 2009)

Don't listen to that.


----------



## soccerking813 (Jul 16, 2009)

Nobody is really sure, because Fridrich is the only method that has been really ripped apart and made as good as possible with algs and different add-ons and stuff.


----------



## Edmund (Jul 16, 2009)

Do Petrus. It's really cool and then you get use some MGLS algs, to make EJF2L. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yn1wLkC1eI I use Fridrich but I wanna switch to Petrus.


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

Tried some Petrus solves, 30-45 seconds, not too bad.


----------



## Ian (Jul 16, 2009)

Use petrus for F2L. Fridrich for LL


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

Ian said:


> Use petrus for F2L. Fridrich for LL



I was thinking about CxLL then EPLL, but, since I know all the PLLs and the seven corner-only OLLs, I guess I will be doing that.


----------



## blah (Jul 16, 2009)

I use*d* Petrus and I want*ed* to switch to Fridrich.

And I switched.

Seriously, does it matter what others do? Find what you like best. I have my pseudo-scientific reasons to believe that Fridrich is the best method for speedcubing. Just because it's getting boring doesn't mean you should switch. Instead, consider practicing other methods in which you're interested to, say, sub-25, and still maintain your Fridrich speed. It's not that hard and you don't really have anything to lose.

I can consistently sub-30 Petrus and Roux, and almost consistently sub-20 ZZ and CN Fridrich, not as I fast as I'd like to be, but it's incredibly fun! In fact, from my experience, learning all these other methods actually sped up my Fridrich. I got stuck at sub-17 for a looong time, started to mess around with all kinds of funny methods for a while, and I'm sub-14 now (in case you wanted some credibility).


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

Okay, well since i was bored, here is my method of combining all the steps together. 

Note: This isn't serious

1) Build a 2x2x2 Block
2) Build a 1x2x3 block
3) Insert Edge
4) ZBF2L (Mix of Bad Edges and last slot)
5 OLL
6)PLL

Surprisingly, I got sub-miniute

Edit: More suprisingly, I just got 36.67 XD


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jul 16, 2009)

Roux is faster than Petrus (but this is only shown by a comparison between Austin Moore [sub-11] and Erik Johnson [sub-13? {I am unsure of what is the best he has reached}].)


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

I think I'm going to go with Petrus, but I will follow Blah's advice until I'm Sub-25 with Petrus too, which appears to be about 3-4 weeks away. (I'm Averaging 31 with Petrus right now.)


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 16, 2009)

Excuse me...I'm a sub-17 Roux user. So don't say it's bad. I'm also a sub-25 petrus user so don't say I don't know anything about petrus.  If you can (R,U) faster than you can (M,U) then go petrus but if can (M,U) faster than (R,U) like me then go Roux


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

M2 U2 M2 U2*4 = 5.49

R2 U2 R2 U2*4 = 5.80

Hmmm....

Petrus Solve: 35.07

Roux Solve 43.67


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Roux is faster than Petrus (but this is only shown by a comparison between Austin Moore [sub-11] and Erik Johnson [sub-13? {I am unsure of what is the best he has reached}].)



Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes and megaminx.
Also, you can't compare people. Erik is way better at FMC.

RampageCuber,

(R2U2)*x just suck. Why don't you compare (MUM'U')*x and (RUR'U')*x?
How is sub-20 just 3-4 weeks away from you when you are at 31s?
I was stuck at 28 for almost 1/2 year using Fridrich practicing everyday. I've being stuck at sub-25s Petrus for another 1/2 year now (but without much practice).

Waffle has a good point. Do RU and MU in general, not specific algs. 


Blah, 
If it is humanly can see a ~10 move 2x2x3 block from inspection every time, I think Petrus would be by far the fastest method.
2s 2x2x3, 0-1.5s EO, 2-3s S4, 1-3s ZBLL seems possible if you spend a whole life time just cubing. I can see sub-5s nonlucky.


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

Ok Fanwuq, here it is

RUR'U'*6 = 2.64

M'U'MU*6 = 5.78

Well, that makes the choice quite clear.

Also, I was thinking Sub-25 but typed Sub-20


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 16, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes and megaminx.



oh the joys of roux.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm a sub-20 Fridrich user, a sub-19 Petrus user, and a sub-16 Waterman variation user.

I like The idea of people using Roux because it is similar to Corners First.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 16, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Roux is faster than Petrus (but this is only shown by a comparison between Austin Moore [sub-11] and Erik Johnson [sub-13? {I am unsure of what is the best he has reached}].)



I do agree I have seen generally faster times with Roux *on 3x3* but as far as big cubes and one hand it is terrible. That's my main reason for using Petrus out of those 3 most common methods. My one hand times are around 27 (I hardly practice) and my 3x3 speed is around 16/17.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2009)

somerandomkidmike said:


> I'm a sub-20 Fridrich user, a sub-19 Petrus user, and a sub-16 Waterman variation user.
> 
> I like The idea of people using Roux because it is similar to Corners First.


wow...congratz on the sub16 waterman...I honestly have not heard of people getting such times with it.


----------



## PlutoCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

Well, petrus can be faster than fridrich if you really work on it. If you want to get sub 20 as soon as possible, use fridrich. If you want to get faster than petrus, use roux but it will take longer to get faster.


----------



## cheiney (Jul 16, 2009)

I use Petrus and I personally feel it's easier to track pieces for a 2x2x3 while making the 2x2x2 block than tracking F2L pairs while making the cross. This allows me to start out with a much better advantage. I use OLL/PLL, however, with my Petrus. That way I only need to know like 6 or so algorithms for OLL. I'm not too fond of Roux method because although the M' move is easy for me, the M move just feels a little too awkward.


----------



## emu (Jul 17, 2009)

I think that most people used to Petrus or Fridrich are slow at M moves and fast at R moves. But I think the gap can be closed by practice.

In theory, I believe Roux is superior to Petrus. The goal of both methods is to first reduce the cube to a state where two sides (or slices) can be turned. In Petrus, it is the 2x2x3 block, and Roux has the two opposite 1x2x3 blocks. In Petrus, there are *4* center pieces solved, *5* edge pieces solved, and *2* corner pieces solved. But in Roux, there are *2* center pieces solved, *6* edge pieces solved, and *4* corner pieces solved. What does that tell us? After the first two steps, Roux has three more pieces solved total. Petrus has two more center pieces solved, but center pieces are the easiest to solve since they need not be oriented, but only permuted. Corner pieces are much more difficult to solve.

So in conclusion, I just think that Roux is the better block-building method. There are probably a lot more people using Petrus than Roux. Even so, Roux users have managed to achieve sub-15s, even in competition (including Roux himself).


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2009)

Emu, 
You make some nice points, but Roux (1*2*3)*2 is not equivalent to Petrus (2*2*3). Petrus 2*2*3 takes less time and moves.
Roux (1*2*3)*2 is probably more like Fridrich without the last slot.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 17, 2009)

Wow Emu those are some nice points. Honestly I think Petrus takes the most thought, and therefore inhibits ones ability to look ahead. This is why a Petrus solve starts off really slow. I need to go slow during 2x2x2 and try my best to follow the pieces for 2x2x3. It really is tough to see a sub 6 2x2x2 with no rotation, and track all 3 pieces for 2x2x3, and put them all in without pausing. I mean really tough to do that. I personally agree when you look at time potentials Roux is as fast if not faster than Fridrich. Also the 1x2x3 blocks are easier and more ergonomic than the completely free style petrus type block building. 

So in order of difficulty I firmly believe it goes

Petrus Toughest

Roux

Fridrich Easiest

However there is the fun argument that we can go into....but I'll spare it.


----------



## spdcbr (Jul 17, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> Excuse me...I'm a sub-17 Roux user. So don't say it's bad. I'm also a sub-25 petrus user so don't say I don't know anything about petrus.  If you can (R,U) faster than you can (M,U) then go petrus but if can (M,U) faster than (R,U) like me then go Roux



What? Doing M,U faster than R,U is impossible. Maybe M',U would make more sense?


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 17, 2009)

spdcbr said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me...I'm a sub-17 Roux user. So don't say it's bad. I'm also a sub-25 petrus user so don't say I don't know anything about petrus.  If you can (R,U) faster than you can (M,U) then go petrus but if can (M,U) faster than (R,U) like me then go Roux
> ...


Regardless once you move away from classic 3x3 speed, MU is slower no matter what.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 17, 2009)

That's an absolute lie.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> That's an absolute lie.



False until you find some one who can do H-perm faster than Sune.

Pandaman,
You suck at block building.  Try to do 2x2x3 in one look and that can probably reduce 3 seconds. 
(Don't worry, I'm worse.)

Edit:


Stachuk1992 said:


> yes, but there are regrips in a 'normal 3x3 solve.
> There's like no regrips in a MU 'solve'


Good point. It depends on one's fingertrick style. Sometimes regripping can be an advantage and can allow for really creative fingertricks. For me, RU is about 1.3 times faster than MU.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 17, 2009)

yes, but there are regrips in a 'normal 3x3 solve.
There's like no regrips in a MU 'solve'


----------



## ChaosWZ (Jul 17, 2009)

theres no real faster or slower method, if you start with petrus, thatll most likely be your best method same if you start with roux, or fridrich, or some other method like zz


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 17, 2009)

Off topic: Nick, we have to talk about the competitions in that high school in your town. 

On topic: I don't know fridrich and petrus have better time's in things other than 3x3. But Roux is fast but I don't think you can use two methods.


----------



## blah (Jul 17, 2009)

Paul Wagner said:


> On topic: I don't know fridrich and petrus have better time's in things other than 3x3. But Roux is fast but I don't think you can use two methods.



*cough* Commas! *cough*

Took me a while to understand that


----------



## a small kitten (Jul 17, 2009)

ZZ is easily sub 20


----------



## Ando (Jul 18, 2009)

learn fridrich f2l more 
I found it excited.
When you sub10 on f2l, even with 4LLL you can reach sub20 average


----------



## TMOY (Jul 22, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes


No.


fanwuq said:


> and megaminx.


Yes, but nothing prevents you from learning a Fridrich-like method that you will use only on the megaminx. That's what I'm doing (I'm using corners first on 3^3, not Roux, but the problem is the same).


----------



## nitrocan (Jul 22, 2009)

TMOY said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes
> ...



How will you manage to do so many M's on a 7x7?


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 22, 2009)

TMOY said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes
> ...



Ok. Prove it. Do a fridrich solve on a 5x5 and then do a roux solve. If you want blockbuilding on a big cube then I'm sure that petrus would easily be the fastest.


----------



## mazei (Jul 22, 2009)

I can average 15s with a kind of Petrus(After 2x2x3 block I skip EO and go on in a Fridrich way) and can still average sub-25 Roux after all these months of using Fridrich. Perhaps I'll change to Roux again slowly because I miss it.

Oh, and I was a Roux user from 31s up to 20s. That's where blah came in.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 22, 2009)

nitrocan said:


> How will you manage to do so many M's on a 7x7?





puzzlemaster said:


> Ok. Prove it. Do a fridrich solve on a 5x5 and then do a roux solve. If you want blockbuilding on a big cube then I'm sure that petrus would easily be the fastest.



You obviously don't understand my point. Doing 3^3 solves on a 5^3 will prove absolutely nothing, whatever the result is.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 22, 2009)

TMOY said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > How will you manage to do so many M's on a 7x7?
> ...



Reduction ends with a 3x3 solve.. M' and M turns are so slow on big cubes. Maybe you don't understand our point. Doing a 3x3 solve on a 5x5 cube with the roux method will show that the roux methd is very slow for big cubes.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 22, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> *Weakness of Roux: You are screwed for big cubes* and megaminx.
> Also, you can't compare people. Erik is way better at FMC.



I'm learning Stadler 4x4. It can be pretty fast.



TMOY said:


> Yes, but nothing prevents you from learning a Fridrich-like method that you will use only on the megaminx. That's what I'm doing (*I'm using corners first on 3^3*, not Roux, but the problem is the same).



How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.


----------



## watermelon (Jul 22, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



If you use the Roux method for a 3x3, why would you use reduction for big cubes? Methods like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llhAX09mjIk or K4 are surely more suitable...


----------



## TMOY (Jul 22, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> Reduction ends with a 3x3 solve.. M' and M turns are so slow on big cubes. Maybe you don't understand our point. Doing a 3x3 solve on a 5x5 cube with the roux method will show that the roux methd is very slow for big cubes.


You still don't get my point.



miniGOINGS said:


> How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.


My best average so far is 25.xx with CF. I also average on the low 40s with Fridrich (2-look OLL and 1-look PLL). With Roux, I don't know, maybe 1 minute or so, mainly because I don't practice blockbuilding.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 22, 2009)

TMOY said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > How fast are you with CF? I got to sub-50 with CF before switching to Roux, and now I'm almost sub 30 with Roux.
> ...



Nice, My fastest CF was a 37, but I havn't tried in a while (2 months?) so I think I'll do that now, work on CF and see how it effects my Roux.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 23, 2009)

My point was that Roux users end up learning a new method for big cubes (cage variant) rather than Reduction-Roux. I love reduction, it's just the most perfect way of building blocks and the most efficient way to solve 4x4 and 5x5 for humans. I will change my mind when you average sub-80 moves for 4x4 FMC using some other method. I've heard people say cage is better for really big cubes, but I've yet to try it myself. Stadler is not that great. K4 is nothing like Roux; it is much more like Guus's 3x3 method (at least the way I learned it from Fallofshadows on Youtube). I actually learned K4 before reduction because it thought it was kind of like Fridrich F2L and easier to do without messing up the rest of the cube. After I understood reduction, I was just amazed by its elegance and quit using K4 and Stadler immediately (yes, I did use these before I settled with reduction). Non-reduction users really are missing the funnest part of solving big cubes--edge pairing. I find it funny how some K4/Stadler users claim that they are using the blockbuilding alternative to reduction, which they compare to Fridrich when reduction is the essence of blockbuilding.
So I predict that in the future, cubists will specialize in individual events. Top 3x3 competitors might exclusively use Roux and suck at big cubes, while big cube solves use Fridrich, Petrus, or ZZ and are not as good at 3x3 in comparison and OH cubers might end up using either ZZ or Fridrich with tricks like multislotting and MGLS.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 23, 2009)

Which new method ? When I started big cubes, I ended up using a cage variant, simply because it was a perfectly natural way for me to solve them. It was not really a new method but rather an extension to big cubes of my CF 3^3 method. Later, I tried a few reduction solves, and I found that method totally stuupid and counterintuitive. That's why I'm still using (an improved version of) my cage variant and I will definitely never switch to reduction.
And FYI, it involves some edge pairing too. And the funniest part is IMHO the last centers because of the many possibilities and little tricks you can find for them, especially on bigger cubes (I like 6^3 very much for that reason).


----------

