# [Canadian NR] Kian Mansour - 6.86 3x3 average



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 15, 2017)

http://wc2017.f2l.org/live.php?cid=2349&cat=1&rnd=1

Nice! 7th in the world. Very proud moment for Roux users.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 15, 2017)

And still only round one


----------



## Micah Walker (Jul 15, 2017)

until 5 minutes ago I had never heard of this guy!


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 15, 2017)

Micah Walker said:


> until 5 minutes ago I had never heard of this guy!


Wait really? He's pretty well known in the community as a whole (at least the english speaking one). He's also known as PDF or @PenguinsDontFly.


----------



## Jlvs2run (Jul 15, 2017)

The fastest average in first round, and third in one hand first round (16th all time).
http://wc2017.f2l.org/live.php?cid=2349&cat=13&rnd=1


----------



## alisterprofitt (Jul 15, 2017)

Haha, this has been coming for SOOOOO long.


----------



## efattah (Jul 15, 2017)

Kian is pretty famous in the community of 'renegade method cubers'.

This is a great victory for him, for all Roux users, and for non-CFOP methods. It also shows that some unknown guy with a youtube channel who has essentially never been to any competitions can show up and beat the 1,000 best cubers in the world.

Interestingly, if you look at the other results, in fact Keaton Ellis had/has the best chance of beating Kian at least based on round 1. Keaton had three solves in the 6.30 range and two screw ups (9-10 seconds).

Congrats to Kian Mansour and I hope he wins the finals!

I would also add how appropriate it is for this historic moment (for the Roux method) to happen in France, where the method originates from, and to have Gilles Roux himself competing in the same competition (he got a 15.34 Ao5 in Round 1).

Hopefully Kian gets to meet Roux, and they can congratulate each other on their accomplishment.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 15, 2017)

LOL I had to dig sooo far back to find this but I knew I had said it at some point (about 1.5 years ago apparently):


joshsailscga said:


> I'll call it right now, PDF beats Alex Lau officially by 2018.



That's awesome, man.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 15, 2017)

whoa gj gj gj kian , mr portable document format lolol rofl


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 16, 2017)

Roux best method for Worlds round 1 confirmed


----------



## Aaron Lau (Jul 16, 2017)

WOAH how have i never heard of this guy???!!!


----------



## qwertycuber (Jul 16, 2017)

Wow Kian didn't even make semi-finals.
http://wc2017.f2l.org/live.php?cid=2349&cat=1&rnd=2


----------



## alisterprofitt (Jul 16, 2017)

qwertycuber said:


> Wow Kian didn't even make semi-finals.
> http://wc2017.f2l.org/live.php?cid=2349&cat=1&rnd=2


Ummm, what?!?


----------



## asacuber (Jul 16, 2017)

i feel sorry for kian


----------



## efattah (Jul 16, 2017)

asacuber said:


> i feel sorry for kian



Well he's an amazing cuber, but known to have issues with pressure. No pressure in the 1st round... then after the 1st round everyone expects him to win the whole competition. Talk about a change in pressure....


----------



## Jlvs2run (Jul 16, 2017)

For his first competition outside of Canada, ranking 7th in the world 3x3 and 17th for one hand is quite good.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 18, 2017)

Thanks for all the kind messages guys! I'm very happy with the average, and will be uploading it tomorrow morning. I messed up basically everything on Sunday (except 2x2 for some reason), but I don't really mind because I did so well on saturday. Worlds was an excellent experience, and I had the chance to meet so many cool people and got to compete on a bigger stage. I can't wait to go compete again at smaller local comps, and then will most likely attend world championships 2019 (maybe nats/euros 2018 too).


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 18, 2017)




----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 13, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> http://wc2017.f2l.org/live.php?cid=2349&cat=1&rnd=1
> 
> Nice! 7th in the world. Very proud moment for Roux users.


And very sad moment for Bill Wang. Now he doesn't have either record for his main event.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 13, 2017)

MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> And very sad moment for Bill Wang. Now he doesn't have either record for his main event.


I know this is off topic, but any reason your username is Moyu Dayan Lover and your profile pic is a Qiyi Valk 3?


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 13, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> I know this is off topic, but any reason your username is Moyu Dayan Lover and your profile pic is a Qiyi Valk 3?


There was a reason that doesn't exist anymore, I should probably change the picture to a Valk M, and my name to something like MoyuQiyiLover or BillWang/FeliksZemdegsFanBoy.


----------



## ECSCubed (Aug 13, 2017)

Micah Walker said:


> until 5 minutes ago I had never heard of this guy!


Are you a CFOP user? Haha


----------



## Rahul Tirkey (Aug 13, 2017)

I fell bery sorry for kian, I thought he would get podium on 3×3


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 21, 2017)

He needs a sub-5 single. (He has a sub-7 average, a sub-5 single would earn total respect to himself and much more respect to roux)


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 21, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> He needs a sub-5 single. (He has a sub-7 average, a sub-5 single would earn total respect to himself and much more respect to roux)



I think averages are more respected than singles in general? Also, it's pretty unlikely as CFOP tends to get fast singles more often than Roux


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 21, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> I think averages are more respected than singles in general? Also, it's pretty unlikely as CFOP tends to get fast singles more often than Roux


At least sub-5.3 or so. @PenguinsDontFly? Good luck.


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 21, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> At least sub-5.3 or so. @PenguinsDontFly? Good luck.



Let's be honest though, the only single that'll actually get recognition by impressionable/new cubers would be a WR. Experienced cubers already know that Roux is a viable method because of this average (and many others), not because of a theoretical lucky single.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 22, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> At least sub-5.3 or so. @PenguinsDontFly? Good luck.


NR Single would be coool  Thanks, I'll see what I can do


DGCubes said:


> Let's be honest though, the only single that'll actually get recognition by impressionable/new cubers would be a WR. Experienced cubers already know that Roux is a viable method because of this average (and many others), not because of a theoretical lucky single.


Yeah I see what you mean. So many people are getting sub 6 and now even sub 5 singles that a random roux one wouldn't really make a difference unless it's WR. Obviously I would be happy with a nice single, but nobody else would care haha


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 22, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Let's be honest though, the only single that'll actually get recognition by impressionable/new cubers would be a WR. Experienced cubers already know that Roux is a viable method because of this average (and many others), not because of a theoretical lucky single.


You might be right. While I do use CFOP, I think methods like roux and ZZ can be equally as fast, and deserve more credit. Sub-7 average and sub-5 single basically prove that a method and the people that use that method can be equally as fast as people like Zemdegs, Valk, Park, Etter, etc.


----------



## EmperorZant (Aug 22, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> sub-5 average


You mean Sub-5 single, right?


----------



## Malkom (Aug 22, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> You might be right. While I do use CFOP, I think methods like roux and ZZ can be equally as fast, and deserve more credit. Sub-7 average and sub-5 average basically prove that a method and the people that use that method can be equally as fast as people like Zemdegs, Valk, Park, Etter, etc.


It doesn't...


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 22, 2017)

EmperorZant said:


> You mean Sub-5 single, right?


Yeah, fixed.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 23, 2017)

Malkom said:


> It doesn't...


Agreed


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 23, 2017)

Malkom said:


> It doesn't...





Underwatercuber said:


> Agreed


What do you mean it doesn't? You literally just said sub 7 average and sub 5 single don't mean that you're as fast as this list of people, and that's what most of them have, if even that! People need to get out of the mindset that CFOP is the only viable method for speed, while in reality it is arguably worse (Then again, so are Roux and ZZ). I personally think it's fine, but I don't use it.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 23, 2017)

"You might be right. While I do use CFOP, I think methods like roux and ZZ can be equally as fast, and deserve more credit. Sub-7 average and sub-5 average basically prove that a method and the people that use that method can be equally as fast as people like Zemdegs, Valk, Park, Etter, etc."

Just because they get a sub 7 average and sub 5 single doesn't mean that the method can be equally fast. Feliks has an official average almost a full second faster and even has much faster averages at home most (I think I can even say all?) roux users at home averages. Yes it does prove the method can be fast but it hasn't been proven yet (and it might not be proven ever) that it is EQUALLY as fast. I am hoping Kian can get some nice averages and singles soon though


----------



## efattah (Aug 23, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> "You might be right. While I do use CFOP, I think methods like roux and ZZ can be equally as fast, and deserve more credit. Sub-7 average and sub-5 average basically prove that a method and the people that use that method can be equally as fast as people like Zemdegs, Valk, Park, Etter, etc."
> 
> Just because they get a sub 7 average and sub 5 single doesn't mean that the method can be equally fast. Feliks has an official average almost a full second faster and even has much faster averages at home most (I think I can even say all?) roux users at home averages. Yes it does prove the method can be fast but it hasn't been proven yet (and it might not be proven ever) that it is EQUALLY as fast. I am hoping Kian can get some nice averages and singles soon though



This might not be fully correct. If you really want to be 'anal' in terms of statistics, you need to compare Roux averages to CFOP averages adjusting for the number of people who are using each method. You can 'weed down' the CFOP crowd by taking a random sampling, say randomly pick 1 in every 1000 CFOP users from the database. Then use their averages to compare to Roux solvers. For the comparison to be valid you need to comparing equal sample sizes. Since luck plays a role in fast singles, if you have 1000 times more people using one method, then obviously that group will also have the luckiest solves as well.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 23, 2017)

efattah said:


> This might not be fully correct. If you really want to be 'anal' in terms of statistics, you need to compare Roux averages to CFOP averages adjusting for the number of people who are using each method. You can 'weed down' the CFOP crowd by taking a random sampling, say randomly pick 1 in every 1000 CFOP users from the database. Then use their averages to compare to Roux solvers. For the comparison to be valid you need to comparing equal sample sizes. Since luck plays a role in fast singles, if you have 1000 times more people using one method, then obviously that group will also have the luckiest solves as well.


I'm not comparing which is faster I am comparing to what @Competition Cuber said earlier about sub 7 average and sub 5 single proves roux users can be as fast as the mentioned people. Feliks has a sub 6 average so getting a sub 7 doesn't prove that it is just as fast fast in that case and literally every single person mentioned has an official average faster than Kian. Yes roux can be used to set records even if it is "less lucky" but for the time being it doesn't really prove it can be "as fast"


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 23, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> I'm not comparing which is faster I am comparing to what @Competition Cuber said earlier about sub 7 average and sub 5 single proves roux users can be as fast as the mentioned people. Feliks has a sub 6 average so getting a sub 7 doesn't prove that it is just as fast fast in that case and literally every single person mentioned has an official average faster than Kian. Yes roux can be used to set records even if it is "less lucky" but for the time being it doesn't really prove it can be "as fast"


But Kian at home proves it. 6.6 global average.


----------



## Malkom (Aug 23, 2017)

MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> But Kian at home proves it. 6.6 global average.


One person being fast doesn't prove that the method he uses (and another completely different and unrelated method) is exactly equal in terms of speed.


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 24, 2017)

Malkom said:


> One person being fast doesn't prove that the method he uses (and another completely different and unrelated method) is exactly equal in terms of speed.


Then how come Alex was faster than Feliks? And how come Feliks himself stated that Roux and CFOP have very similar potential (on his Cube Skills blog)?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 24, 2017)

MoyuDayanLover3 said:


> Then how come Alex was faster than Feliks? And how come Feliks himself stated that Roux and CFOP have very similar potential (on his Cube Skills blog)?


1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks 
2. Similar does not mean equal


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> 1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks
> 2. Similar does not mean equal


1)Was is completely fine as he didn't fall behind because he wasn't as good; just that he doesn't practise anymore.
2) How do you know which way he meant it? Perhaps he thinks Roux is actually better.

I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 25, 2017)

This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 25, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason



what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 25, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.


He's saying that you're fast too. Just take the compliment


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 25, 2017)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> He's saying that you're fast too. Just take the compliment


k.


----------



## asacuber (Aug 25, 2017)

use what is best for you. done


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.


Cuz U OH gud


----------



## MoyuDayanLover3 (Aug 25, 2017)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.


Exactly.


----------



## SolemnAttic (Aug 29, 2017)

The cuber picks the method fastest to him. It is equally possible for a Roux user to set the world record as a CFOP user. What you need is the speed, efficiency and luck that every world record has.


Kian, get the world record. Please.


----------



## Malkom (Aug 29, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> The cuber picks the method fastest to him. It is equally possible for a Roux user to set the world record as a CFOP user. What you need is the speed, efficiency and luck that every world record has.
> 
> 
> Kian, get the world record. Please.


That's just stupid


----------



## EmperorZant (Aug 29, 2017)

Malkom said:


> That's just stupid


I also don't fully agree, but I don't fully disagree; he definitely has something figured out when pointing out that people have their preferences. In moderation, though, methods are definitely not equal, which is why conversations about them are so interesting.


----------



## SolemnAttic (Aug 31, 2017)

Malkom said:


> That's just stupid




Why?!?


----------



## Malkom (Aug 31, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> Why?!?


can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.


----------



## SolemnAttic (Aug 31, 2017)

Malkom said:


> can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.



Isnt Kian proof enough? I did not imply that you can get sub 7 with LBL. Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps. LBL would be out of the question.

With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.

/endrant


----------



## Malkom (Aug 31, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> Isnt Kian proof enough?


There's a woman at my local chinese resturant with 3 thumbs, isn't that proof enough humans is a 3 thumbed spieces?!



SolemnAttic said:


> With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.
> 
> /endrant


SIMILAR DOES NOT EQUAL EQUAL
123,676,097,753,168,584 =/= 123,676,097,753,168,585
they're very very close but not *E Q U A L*.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 31, 2017)

CFOP, ROUX, AND ZZ CAN BE EQUAL SO USE WHATEVER YOU WANT!!

And probably some other methods too.


----------



## Malkom (Aug 31, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> CFOP, ROUX, AND ZZ CAN BE EQUAL SO USE WHATEVER YOU WANT!!
> 
> And probably some other methods too.


how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 31, 2017)

Malkom said:


> how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


This (the next quote):


SolemnAttic said:


> Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps.


Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?

To be honest, if I was over 19-20 seconds or so, I would probably switch to Roux. I just dont want to switch because Ive been using CFOp for over a year and a half.


Malkom said:


> Dunning-Kruger effect.


I dont even know what that is.

Also, I think I might get off this thread now.


----------



## turtwig (Aug 31, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?



But it has less TPS. The fact that it's more efficient means means that you have to think harder when you solve, so TPS is sacrificed.


----------



## Malkom (Aug 31, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> This (the next quote):
> 
> Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?
> 
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
"Uuuh Roux is like more effecient or something and speed = moves/tps so its faster" is a pretty lame and uneducted statement.
You should at least factor in some more and rather basic things like: ergonomics and how they affect tps (shocker, RUF and MURr doesn't necessarily have the exact same tps timit), how much can be planned in inspection, how easy lookahead is, awkard cases, how lucky you can get, how many things can be improved upon, algsets etc.


----------



## SolemnAttic (Sep 1, 2017)

Malkom said:


> how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.



I can be sure. I am method neutral and i turn significantly slower with roux.



turtwig said:


> But it has less TPS. The fact that it's more efficient means means that you have to think harder when you solve, so TPS is sacrificed.



You dont have to think harder, just have a good muscle memory for cases and the lookahead to go with it. F2L with more freedom.



Malkom said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> "Uuuh Roux is like more effecient or something and speed = moves/tps so its faster" is a pretty lame and uneducted statement.
> You should at least factor in some more and rather basic things like: ergonomics and how they affect tps (shocker, RUF and MURr doesn't necessarily have the exact same tps timit), how much can be planned in inspection, how easy lookahead is, awkard cases, how lucky you can get, how many things can be improved upon, algsets etc.




I have no idea about tps ceiling, but roux wins over CFOP in inspection. You can plan the first block and partial second block in 15 seconds. Lookahead? Same as F2L. Just track what pieces go into BD if your unsure. The only awkward case is a six flip. A lot can be improve on, im sure. And 42 algs is no big deal.


Think what you want. I am tired of this.


----------



## turtwig (Sep 1, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> You dont have to think harder, just have a good muscle memory for cases and the lookahead to go with it. F2L with more freedom.



I didn't mean that in the most literal way. Of course Roux solvers don't think noticeably harder when solving, but in general, if there are more possibilities at some point in a solve (in this case blockbuilding vs F2L), you're either gonna have to process more information during the solve or learn more cases beforehand. More freedom=more possibilities=more cases and information to process, so naturally lookahead and TPS will suffer.


----------



## Malkom (Sep 1, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> I can be sure. I am method neutral and i turn significantly slower with roux.


That's not evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 1, 2017)

I think what @Malkom is trying to say is that it would be completely incorrect to make the assumption that Roux CFOP and ZZ are EXACTLY equal. I agree, we can't just assume that their absolute limits are all the exact same. One has to be better than the rest by a slight margin. At this point in speedcubing, I don't really think it matters which method has the lower limit. I don't think that will matter until we have people averaging mid/low 5. That's probably when the differences will really start to matter.


----------



## Sajwo (Sep 1, 2017)

Hi

Heise method has ~40 moves on average, so with >10tps you should easily get sub4 averages. Therefore it is the best method

Also Sergey Ryabko has sub9 average with cross on left. Isn't it enough to say that he is almost as fast as Feliks? With more practice and less stress he could easily beat him at his next comp.

And also all methods are equally fast. With enough practice you can be sub6 with all of them. CFOP, Roux, ZZ-CT, Petrus, Snyder. Just use whatever you like!


----------

